Audiobook: The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race, Vol. 2 of 2 by Müller, Karl Otfried

The Project Gutenberg EBook of The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race, Vol. 2 of 2 by Karl Otfried Müller

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at http://www.gutenberg.org/license

Title: The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race, Vol. 2 of 2

Author: Karl Otfried Müller

Release Date: September 28, 2010 [Ebook #34010]

Language: English

Character set encoding: UTF‐8

***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY AND ANTIQUITIES OF THE DORIC RACE, VOL. 2 OF 2***

The History and Antiquities

Of The

Doric Race

by Karl Otfried Müller

Professor in the University of Göttingen

Translated From the German by

Henry Tufnell, Esq.

And

George Cornewall Lewis, Esq., A.M.

Student of Christ Church.

Second Edition, Revised.

Vol. II

London:

John Murray, Albemarle Street.

1839.

CONTENTS

Book III. Political Institutions Of The Dorians. Chapter I. Chapter II. Chapter III. Chapter IV. Chapter V. Chapter VI. Chapter VII. Chapter VIII. Chapter IX. Chapter X. Chapter XI. Chapter XII. Book IV. Domestic Institutions, Arts, And Literature Of The Dorians. Chapter I. Chapter II. Chapter III. Chapter IV. Chapter V. Chapter VI. Chapter VII. Chapter VIII. Chapter IX. Appendices. Appendix V. On the Doric Dialect. Appendix VI. Chronological Tables. Index. Footnotes

BOOK III. POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS OF THE DORIANS.

Chapter I.

§ 1. End of a state according to the Doric notions. § 2. Difference between the political institutions of the Dorians and Ionians. § 3. Successive changes in the constitutions of the Greek states; 1st, royal aristocracy of the heroic ages. § 4. 2nd, Timocracy, or aristocracy of wealth. § 5. 3rd, Tyranny. § 6. 4th, Democracy. § 7. Form of government characteristic of the Doric race. § 8. Supposed legislation of Lycurgus. § 9. Derivation of Spartan laws from the Delphic oracle. § 10. Characteristics of the Doric form of government.

1. Before we speak of the form of government which prevailed in the Doric states, it will be necessary to set aside all modern ideas respecting the origin, essence, and object of a state; namely, that it is an institution for protecting the persons and property of the individuals contained in it. We shall approach nearer to the ancient notion, if we consider the essence of a state to be, that by a recognition of the same opinions and principles, and the direction of actions to the same ends, the whole body become, as it were, one moral agent. Such an unity of opinions and actions can only be produced by the ties of some natural affinity, such as of a nation, a tribe, or a part of one: although in process of time the meaning of the terms state and nation became more distinct. The more complete the unity of feelings and principles is, the more vigorous will be the common exertions, and the more comprehensive the notion of the state. As this was in general carried to a wider extent among the Greeks than by modern nations, so it was perhaps nowhere so strongly marked as in the Dorian states, whose national views with regard to political institutions were most strongly manifested in the government of Sparta. Here the plurality of the persons composing the state was most completely reduced to unity; and hence the life of a Spartan citizen was chiefly concerned in public affairs. The greatest freedom of the Spartan, as well as of the Greeks in general, was only to be a living member of the body of the state; whereas that which in modern times commonly receives the name of liberty, consists in having the fewest possible claims from the community; or in other words, in dissolving the social union to the greatest degree possible, as far as the individual is concerned. What the Dorians endeavoured to obtain in a state was good order, or κόσμος, the regular combination of different elements. The expression of king Archidamus in Thucydides,(1) that “it is most honourable, and at the same time most secure, for many persons to show themselves obedient to the same order (κόσμος),” was a fundamental principle of this race. And hence the Spartans honoured Lycurgus so greatly, as having instituted the existing order of things (κόσμος):(2) and called his son by the laudatory title of Eucosmus.(3) For the same reason the supreme magistrate among the Cretans was called Cosmus; among the Epizephyrian Locrians, Cosmopolis. Thus this significant word expresses the spirit of the Dorian government, as well as of the Dorian music and philosophy.(4) With this desire to obtain a complete uniformity, an attempt after stability is necessarily connected. For an unity of this kind having been once established, the next object is to remove whatever has a tendency to destroy it, and to repress all causes which may lead to a change: yet an attempt to exclude all alteration is never completely successful: partly on account of the internal changes which take place in the national character, and partly because causes operating from without necessarily produce some modifications. These states, however, endeavour to retain unchanged a state of things once established and approved; while others, in which from the beginning the opinions of individuals have out-weighed the authority of the whole, admit, in the progress of time, of greater variety, and more innovations, readily take up whatever is offered to them by accident of time and place, or even eagerly seek for opportunities of change. States of this description must soon lose all firmness and character, and fall to pieces from their own weakness; while those which never admit of innovation will at last, after having long stood as ruins in a foreign neighbourhood, yield to the general tide of human affairs, and their destruction is commonly preceded by the most complete anarchy.

2. This description expresses, though perhaps too forcibly, the difference between the Doric and Ionic races. The former had, of all the Grecians, the greatest veneration for antiquity; and not to degenerate from his ancestors was the strongest exhortation which a Spartan could hear:(5) the latter, on the other hand, were in everything fond of novelty, and delighted in foreign communication; whence their cities were always built on the sea, whereas the Dorians generally preferred an inland situation. The anxiety of the Dorians, and the Spartans in particular, to keep up the pure Doric character and the customs of their ancestors, is strongly shown by the prohibition to travel,(6) and the exclusion of foreigners, an institution common both to the Spartans and Cretans, and which has been much misrepresented by ancient authors.(7) It is very possible, as Plutarch thinks, that the severity of these measures was increased by the decline of all morals and discipline, which had arisen among the Ionians from the contrary practice; that race having in the earliest times fallen into a state of the greatest effeminacy and inactivity, from their connexion with their Asiatic neighbours. For how early was the period when the ancient constitution of the Grecian family degenerated among the Ionians into the slavery of the wife! how weak, effeminate, and luxurious do their ancient poets Callinus(8) and Asius(9) represent them! and if the legend describes even the daughters of Neleus, the founder of the colony, as completely destitute of morality,(10) what must have been the condition of this people, when the wives of the Ionians had mixed with Lydian women! The warning voice of such examples might well stimulate the ancient lawgivers to draw in with greater closeness the iron bond of custom.

3. But with all this difference in the races of which the Grecian nation consisted, there was, in the development of the constitutions of the Greek states, a common progress, which extended a certain influence even to such as retained their earlier impressions with a firm adherence to antiquity. As it is our present object to give a general view of this advance, we will begin with the constitution of the heroic age, so clearly described in Homer. This can scarcely be called by any other name than that of aristocracy, as its most important feature is the accurate division between the nobles(11) and the people. The former composed the deliberative councils, and the courts of justice;(12) and although both were commonly combined with a public assembly (ἀγορὰ), the nobles were the only persons who proposed measures, deliberated and voted; the people was only present in order to hear the debate, and to express its feelings as a body; which expressions might then be noticed by princes of a mild disposition.(13) The chief ruler himself was properly of equal rank with the other nobles, and was only raised above them by the authority intrusted to him as president in the council, and commander in the field. This form of government continued to exist for a considerable time in the Ionian, Achæan, and Æolian states; but the power of the chief ruler gradually declined, and was at last wholly abolished. With the Dorians, however, the case was very different; they were peculiar in possessing a very limited nobility, for the Heraclidæ had nearly an exclusive right to that appellation: while, on the other hand, a whole nation occupied by means of conquest, a station analogous to that of an aristocracy, uniting military pursuits with independence obtained by the possession of the land.

4. About the 30th Olympiad (660 B.C.), however, on account of the increased trade and intercourse with foreign nations, and consequently of the greater demand for luxuries, the value of wealth rose in comparison with the honour of noble descent. The land, indeed, still remained for the most part in the hands of the aristocracy; but as it had at this time become more easy to dissipate an inherited estate, and to obtain consideration by the profits of trade, property was more exposed to sudden changes. It is probable that the Geomori of the Ionic Samos, as well as the Hippobotæ of Chalcis (which, as well as Samos, had once belonged to Ionians), whose distinction was derived from the possession of land, also carried on the extensive commerce of these two states; otherwise the wealth of the merchant would soon have exceeded that of the landowner. In the Doric states also, which were much engaged in trade, such as Corinth, Ægina, &c., it was attempted to unite the government of hereditary aristocracy and of wealth.(14) The new importance attached to wealth, even at the time of the Seven Sages, gave rise to the saying of Aristodemus the Argive, “Money makes the man;”(15) and at a later period Theognis the Megarean complains that the pursuit of riches confounds all distinction of rank, and that estimation was derived from it.(16) The ancient legislators of Greece considered the power of money, or moveable property (which is as changeable as property in land is durable), most prejudicial to the safety of states; and they endeavoured by oppressing the commercial classes, as well as by rendering the land inalienable, to palliate a danger which they were unable wholly to remove. Sparta alone, from the unchangeableness of her institutions, remained free from these revolutions. Solon, on the other hand, endeavoured to arrest and perpetuate a state of things which was merely fleeting and transitory. He left some remnants of the aristocracy, particularly the political union of the γένεα, or houses, untouched; while he made his government in principle a timocracy, the amount of property determining the share in the governing power; and at the same time showed a democratic tendency in the low rate at which he fixed the valuation. In his poetry also Solon considers the middle ranks as most valuable to the state; and therefore he endeavoured to give them political importance.(17) But the temperature which he chose was too artificial to be lasting; and the constitution of Solon, in its chief points, only remained in force for a few years. In other Ionic states also similar reconciliations were attempted, but without obtaining any stability.(18) The spirit of the age was manifestly turned towards democracy; and though at Athens Solon, as being the friend of the people, succeeded perhaps in effecting a more gradual transition; in other places the parties were more directly opposed, as is clearly shown by the contest between the parties Πλοῦτις and Χειρομάχα at Miletus.(19)

5. At Athens however, and generally throughout Greece, the first result of these democratic movements was the establishment of tyranny or despotism; which may be considered as a violent revulsion, destined to precede a complete subversion of all the existing institutions. It has been already shown that the tyrants of Corinth, Sicyon, Megara, and Epidaurus, were originally leaders of the popular party against the Doric nobility, or demagogues, according to the expression of Aristotle; and for this reason Sparta, as being the protector of aristocracy, overthrew them, wherever her power extended.(20) In Ionia and Sicily the tyrants found an oligarchical timocracy, which was commonly opposed by a democratical party;(21) and in some instances, as in that of Gelon, the tyrant acted against the popular faction. At the time of the Persian war democracy had struck deep root among the Ionians; and Mardonius the Persian, after the expulsion of the tyrants, restored it in their cities as the desired form of government.(22) In Athens Cleisthenes had deprived the union of the houses (the last support of the aristocracy) of its political importance; and Aristides was at length compelled by circumstances to change the timocracy into a democracy. For in the Persian invasion the lower orders had discovered, while serving as rowers and sailors in the fleet, how much the safety of the state depended upon their exertions, and would no longer submit to be excluded from a share in the highest offices.(23) The democracy flourished so long as great men understood how to guide it by the imposing superiority of their individual characters, and educated persons (οἱ βελτίονες) dared to take a share in public affairs; it fell when the greedy and indolent people, allured by the prospect of rewards pernicious to the state, filled the public assemblies and courts of justice. We will not carry on any further our picture of the ochlocracy, in which all social union was entirely dissolved, and the state was surrendered to the arbitrary will of a turbulent populace.

6. The last of these changes, produced by what is called the spirit of the times, we have illustrated by the history of Athens, although the same course may be shown to have taken place in other, even originally Doric states. Thus in Ambracia, about the same time as at Athens, the timocracy gradually passed into a democracy,(24) and at Argos also the democracy rose at the same period. At the time of Polybius, the people had in the Doric states of Crete so unlimited an authority, that this writer himself wonders that his description of them should be so entirely opposed to all former accounts.(25) But since, in general, these alterations threw down the Doric families from their high station, and put an end to the Doric customs, they have not so strong a claim upon our attention, as the peculiar system of the Doric form of government, which was most strongly expressed in the ancient Cretan and Lacedæmonian constitutions: the latter of which, although in many points it yielded and adapted itself to the progress of civilization, existed in its essential parts for five centuries;(26) and by its durability preserved Sparta alone among all the states of Greece from revolutions and revolutionary excesses.(27)

7. But, it may be asked, what right have we to speak of a Doric constitution in general; and why should we select Sparta in preference to any other state of the Doric race, as a model of that system? May not Lycurgus have formed his legislation from reflection upon the condition and wants of his own nation, or have conceived it from arbitrary principles of his own, and have thus impressed upon Sparta the character which it ever after retained, as an essential element of its system?(28) Against this opinion, not unfrequently advanced, instead of bringing forward any general arguments, we prefer adducing the words of Pindar,(29) who, beyond a doubt, was far better acquainted with the basis and origin of ancient constitutions, than either Ephorus or Plutarch. Pindar mentions that Hieron, the Syracusan, wished to establish the new city of Ætna (which was inhabited by 5000 Syracusans, and the same number of Peloponnesians) upon the genuine Doric principles; as in later times Dion wished to establish in Syracuse itself a Lacedæmonian or Cretan constitution.(30) He founded it “with heaven-built freedom, according to the laws of the Hylean model;” i.e., after the example of the Spartan constitution. “For the descendants of Pamphylus, and of the Heraclidæ, who dwell under the brow of Taygetus, wish always to retain the Doric institutions of Ægimius.” Now in the first place, this passage proves that the laws of Sparta were considered the true Doric institutions; and, secondly, that their origin was held to be identical with that of the people. It proves that the Spartan laws (νόμοι) were the true Doric institutions (νόμιμα), and indeed, in no other nation was the distinction between usage and positive law less marked; from which circumstance alone it is evident how little opportunity the legislator had for fresh enactments, since custom can never be the work of one person. From this view of the subject we can also explain why Hellanicus, the most ancient writer on the constitution of Sparta,(31) made no mention of Lycurgus (for which he is ignorantly censured by Ephorus),(32) and attributed what are called the institutions of Lycurgus to the first kings, Procles and Eurysthenes. It also follows, that when Herodotus describes the Spartans before the time of Lycurgus, as being in a state of the greatest anarchy,(33) he can only mean that the original constitution (the τεθμοὶ Αἰγιμίου) had been overthrown and perverted by external circumstances, until it was restored and renewed by Lycurgus. Lycurgus, of whose real or imaginary existence we have already spoken,(34) must at the time of Herodotus have been considered a mythical personage, as he had a temple, annual sacrifices, and, in fact, a regular worship.(35) Now it is the tendency of mythological narration to represent accordant actions of many minds at different times under the name of one person: consequently, the mere name of an institution of Lycurgus says very little respecting its real origin and author.

8. The legislation of Lycurgus was, however, according to ancient traditions, aided by the support of Crete and Delphi, and the connexion between the religious usages of these states thus influenced their political condition. The form of government which was prevalent throughout the whole of Crete, originated, according to the concurrent testimony of the ancients, in the time of Minos; and it has been already shown that the Dorians at that time extended their dominion to this island, which thus received their language and customs.(36) In Crete therefore, the constitution founded on the principles of the Doric race, was first moulded into a firm and consistent shape, but even in a more simple and antiquated manner than in Sparta at a subsequent period.(37) Thus Lycurgus was enabled, without forcing any foreign usages upon Sparta, to take for a model the Cretan institutions which had been more fully developed at an earlier period; so that the constitutions of Crete and Sparta had from that time, as it were, a family resemblance.(38) When therefore we are told that a pæan singer and expiatory priest of Crete, by name Thaletas of Elyrus,(39) sent by the command of the Pythian oracle, composed the troubles and dissensions of Sparta by the power of his music, and that he was the instructor of Lycurgus;(40) it is easy to perceive that the latter part of this account is an addition, made without any attention to chronology; but the operation of Cretan music upon the regulation of political affairs, is strictly in the spirit of an age, and of a race, in which religion, arts, and laws conduced far more than among any other people to attain the same end, and had their basis in the same notions.

9. On the other hand, it was the pride of the Spartans, that their laws had proceeded from the oracle of the Pythian god:(41) and Tyrtæus says, in some verses of his Eunomia, that the fundamental principles of the Spartan constitution had been laid down by Apollo.(42) It is probable that these laws were really composed in the form of injunctions to Lycurgus, or to the people.(43) The oracle, however, continued to possess a superintending power over the constitution, chiefly through the intervention of the Pythians,(44) four persons appointed by the kings as messengers to the temple of Pytho, who delivered the oracles truly and honestly to the kings,(45) and were equally acquainted with their purport. On account of the importance of these oracles, the Pythians were the assessors of the kings and the gerusia,(46) and were always the messmates, both at home and in the field, of the kings. It is probable that the three “Pythian interpreters” at Athens, who, besides explaining the oracles, performed public and domestic expiatory sacrifices,(47) once possessed a similar dignity, although they lost these powers at a very early period. The theori of Ægina, Mantinea, Messenia, Trœzen, and Thasos, who composed separate colleges, ate together, and who were regular magistrates, not being like the theori of Athens, chosen for a single theoria, may be compared with the Pythians.(48)

10. This comparison again leads us back to our former position, that in the genuine Doric form of government there were certain predominant ideas, which were peculiar to that race, and were also expressed in the worship of Apollo, viz., those of harmony and order (τὸ εὔκοσμον); of self-control and moderation (σωφροσύνη), and of manly virtue (ἀρετή).(49) Accordingly, the constitution was formed for the education as well of the old as of the young, and in a Doric state education was upon the whole a subject of greater importance than government. And for this reason all attempts to explain the legislation of Lycurgus, from partial views and considerations, have necessarily failed. That external happiness and enjoyment were not the aim of these institutions was soon perceived. But it was thought, with Aristotle,(50) that every thing could be traced to a desire of making the Spartans courageous warriors, and Sparta a dominant and conquering state; whereas the fact is, that Sparta was hardly ever known to seek occasion for a war, or to follow up a victory; and during the whole of her flourishing period (that is, from about the 50th Olympiad to the battle of Leuctra) did not make a single conquest by which her territory was enlarged. In conclusion we may say, that the Doric state was a body of men, acknowledging one strict principle of order, and one unalterable rule of manners; and so subjecting themselves to this system, that scarcely anything was unfettered by it, but every action was influenced and regulated by the recognised principles. Before however we come to the consideration of this system, it will be necessary to explain the condition of an order of persons, upon which it was in a certain measure founded, namely, the subject classes in the several Doric states.

Chapter II.

§ 1. Origin and distribution of the Periœci of Laconia. § 2. Their political condition and civil rights. § 3. Their service in war, and their occupation in manufactures, trade, and art. § 4. Noble families in Sparta not of Doric origin. Trades and crafts hereditary in Sparta.

1. The clearest notion of the subjection enforced by the dominant race of Dorians may be collected from the speech of Brasidas to the Peloponnesians, in Thucydides.(51) “You are not come,” he says, “from states in which the many rule over the few, but the few over the many, having obtained their sovereignty in no other manner than by victory in the field.” The only right indeed which they possessed was the right of conquerors; the Dorians had by the sword driven out the Achæans, and these again could not rest their claim to Peloponnesus on any better title. It seemed also like a continuation of the heroic age, the existence of which was founded on the rule exercised by the military over the agricultural classes. The relative rights of the Dorians and Achæans appear, however, to have been determined by mutual compact, since the Dorians, obtaining the superiority only by slow degrees, were doubtless glad to purchase the accession of each town on moderate conditions; and this was perhaps especially the case in Messenia.(52) The native inhabitants of the towns, thus reduced to a state of dependence, were called Περίοικοι.(53) The difference of races was strictly preserved; and was not (as elsewhere) obliterated by an union in the same city and political community. The Periœci were always considered as Achæans, that people having in early times composed the larger mass of the people thus subdued. So, for example, the inhabitants of the maritime town of Asopus were called by the title of Ἀχαιοὶ οἱ παρακοπαρίσσιοι.(54) At a later date, when the power of Sparta had been long broken, and her freedom annihilated by the tyrant Nabis, Titus Quinctius detached the hamlets (once called πόλεις, then κῶμαι, vici) from all connexion with Sparta, and placed them under the protection of the Achæan league.(55) Augustus confirmed the independence of twenty-four Laconian towns under the name of Eleutherolacones; these, like the former, being entirely released from the power of Sparta, were governed by their own laws,(56) and formed a small distinct confederation. Hence it is evident that these Periœci had previously maintained a certain degree of independence, and composed separate communities. Of these twenty-four towns eighteen are mentioned—viz., Gerenia, Alagonia, Thalamæ, Leuctra, Œtylus, Cænepolis, Pyrrhichus, Las, Teuthrone, Gythium, Asopus, Acriæ, Bœæ, Zarax, Epidaurus, Limera, Prasiæ, Geronthræ, and Marius;(57) a small part only of the coast near Cardamyle remained at that time under the power of Sparta.(58) The towns, however, belonging to the Periœci did not lie merely on the coast, but also more inland; for example, Thuria and Æthæa, which were in what had formerly been Messenia.(59) This Æthæa is reckoned among the hundred cities of Laconia,(60) which Androtion had enumerated at full length in his Atthis, and perhaps also Stephanus of Byzantium, on the authority of Androtion;(61) the epitome of whose work which we now possess only mentions Æthæa, Amyclæ, Croceæ, Epidaurus, Limera, Dyrrachium, Tenos, Aulon, and Anthana. Now since two of these towns are known from other authorities to have belonged to Periœci, we may perhaps infer the same of the whole hundred. The round number of a hundred cannot however have been fixed before the time when the whole of Messenia, as far as the river Neda (on which Aulon was situated), as well as Cynuria (to which Anthana, or Athene, belonged), came finally under the dominion of Sparta, that is to say, after Olymp. 58. 548 B.C.(62) It must therefore have been subsequent to this epoch that Sparta fixed the exact number of the towns inhabited by her Periœci, and somewhat arbitrarily set them at a hundred; as Cleisthenes at Athens, though by what means is indeed unknown, contrived likewise to raise the number of demi in Attica to a hundred.

We have already(63) taken notice of another division of Laconia besides that into towns, and shown that the Periœci of this country had formerly dwelt in five districts, of which the chief towns were Amyclæ, Las, Epidaurus Limera (or else Gytheium), Ægys, and Pharis; as also Messenia, in addition to the territory round the city inhabited by Dorians, contained four provinces—viz., Pylos, Rhium, Mesola, and Hyamia. For what length of time these districts were retained, and what relation they bore to the division into a hundred towns or hamlets, cannot now be determined.

2. It will next be necessary to ascertain what were the political rights and condition of the Periœci. The main circumstances are without doubt correctly given by Ephorus. “They were,” he says, “tributary to Sparta, and had not equal rights of citizenship.” If these words are taken in their literal sense, it is plain that the Periœci had not a share in the great legislative assembly of the citizens. And in truth the passages adduced by modern writers to show that they had a vote in this assembly are not by any means satisfactory.(64) Perhaps the following considerations are sufficient to convince us of the impossibility of such general assemblies. Had the Spartan constitution permitted the whole people to hold large assemblies with the right of deciding on all public questions, it would have been in principle completely democratic, and would have had a perpetual tendency to become more so, in the necessary course of events. But, in addition to this objection, let us only picture to ourselves the absurdity of the Periœci, in the neighbourhood of Sparta, all flocking together between the brook Babyca and the bridge Cnacion! Where again were those, who took several days to arrive at Sparta from Cyphanta, Pylos, or Tænarus, to find houseroom and food? How could any of them be ready to leave their homes and trades at such a summons? It was esteemed a difficult matter even to collect an armed force of Periœci at a short notice. A city-community was doubtless everywhere requisite for a popular assembly; and hence in the Athenian, and every similar democracy, each citizen was in some way settled in the town, and had the right of there possessing an house (ἔγκτησις οἰκίας), which a Periœcus most assuredly had not.(65)

3. Now, if it is acknowledged that the distant situation and state of the Periœci presented almost insuperable objections to their possessing a share in the general government, their political inferiority to the Spartans will not appear very oppressive. They were admitted equally with the Spartans to the honourable occupation of war, and indeed sometimes served as heavy-armed soldiers, or as troops of the line.(66) There were at Platæa 5000 Dorian hoplitæ, and the same number of Periœci; at Sphacteria 292 prisoners were taken, of whom only 120 were Spartans.(67) How, if the Periœci had been an oppressed people, could Sparta have ventured to collect so large a number into her armies; and for what reason should the Periœci have taken part in the heroic devotion of that small band, if they had not the victory and honour of Sparta as much at heart as their own? “Sparta,” said the Spartan king Demaratus, to Xerxes,(68) “contains 8000 Spartans, all of equal bravery; the other Lacedæmonians, in many surrounding cities, are indeed inferior to them, but yet not deficient in courage.” Nor do we hear of any insurrection of Periœci (if we except the revolt of two Messenian towns in Olymp. 78. 468 B.C.) until the downfall of the constitution.(69) Again, would it be possible, on the assumption of an oppressive subjection, to explain how the Asinæans and Nauplians, when deprived of their independence by Argos, fled to Laconia, that they might occupy the maritime towns of Mothone and Asine, manifestly as Periœci? Nor is it consistent with a general contempt of the Periœci that καλοὶ καγαθοὶ—“gentlemen”—are mentioned in their number.(70) All trade and commerce, of indispensable need to Laconia, were in the hands of the maritime towns. Merchants from Libya and Egypt brought their cargoes to the Periœci of Cythera,(71) who, among other branches of trade, followed the lucrative employment of the purple fishery.(72) All manual labour in Sparta, not performed by slaves, was in the hands of this class, since no Spartan, before the introduction of the Achæan constitution, was allowed to follow any trade.(73) The low estimation in which trade was held was founded on the ancient Grecian customs and opinions, in departing from which the Corinthians were nearly singular among the Doric states, the productiveness of trade having taught them to set a higher value upon it.(74) And yet in their colony of Epidamnus public slaves were the only manual labourers;(75) Diophantus wished to introduce the converse of this system at Athens, and to make all the manual labourers slaves. The Spartans, moreover, appear to have admitted those alone of the Periœci who were engaged in agriculture to serve among the heavy-armed, while artisans were admitted only to the light-armed infantry.(76) This had been once the case at Athens, where the Thetes (to which class the artificers belonged) served only in that inferior rank. According to this, then, the 5000 Periœci, who at the battle of Platæa were allotted as light-armed to the same number of heavy-armed soldiers, were in part perhaps artificers. The industrious pursuit of trade did not, however, suffer so much as might be supposed, from the low estimation in which it was held; for not only were many raw commodities obtained in a high degree of perfection in Laconia, but many Lacedæmonian manufactures were also used and sought after in the rest of Greece. The Laconian cothon, a drinking vessel used in camps and marches,(77) the bowl,(78) the goblet,(79) tables, seats, elbow chairs,(80) doors,(81) and cars,(82) the Laconian steel,(83) keys,(84) swords, helmets, axes, and other iron fabrics,(85) the shoes of Amyclæ,(86) the Laconian mantles,(87) and woollen garments dyed with native purple, which adorned alike the warriors setting out to battle and the bloody corpses of the slain; all these bespeak an active pursuit of trade, and at the same time a peculiar sense of propriety and comfort, which brought several of these goods and implements into general use. Many men were probably employed in the iron mines and forges;(88) stone quarries of Tænarus had also been worked from early times;(89) and that their industry was not confined to the mere drudgery of manufactures is shown by the schools of Lacedæmonian embossers and brass-founders (probably a branch of that in Crete), to which Chartas, Syadras, Dontas, Dorycleidas and Medon, Theocles, Gitiadas, and Cratinus belonged,(90) all of whom were probably Periœci, although Pausanias, neglecting the distinction, calls them Spartans. Upon the whole we may venture to affirm that the Doric dominion did not discourage or stifle the intellectual growth of her dependent subjects, but allowed it full room for a vigorous development. Myson, by many reckoned one of the seven sages, was, according to some, and perhaps the most credible accounts, a husbandman of the Laconian town of Etia, and resided at a place called Chen in the same country.(91) Even the highest honour among the Greeks, the victory at the Olympic games, was not denied to the Lacedæmonians; an inhabitant of Acriæ was found in the list of the conquerors at Olympia:(92) from which circumstance it is evident that the Periœci of Sparta were in all other parts of Greece considered as free citizens. They must also without doubt have possessed civil rights, but only in those communities to which they immediately belonged, and which would never have been called cities (πόλεις) unless they had to a certain point been independent bodies. Isocrates,(93) indeed, states that they possessed less freedom and power than the demi of Attica; but no general comparison can be drawn between the δῆμοι of Attica and πόλεις of Laconia. Perhaps they had the power of electing their own municipal magistrates, though we find that a Spartan was sent as governor to the island of Cythera.(94) The same was the case in war. We find the command at sea intrusted to one of the class of Periœci,(95) doubtless because the Spartans did not hold the naval service in much estimation, and because the inhabitants of the maritime towns were more practised in naval affairs than the Dorians of the interior. Concerning the tribute of the towns belonging to the Periœci no accurate account has been preserved.

4. Though for the most part the early inhabitants were driven into the country by the Doric conquerors, there still remained some families which inhabited the city conjointly with the Spartans, and were held in equal consideration with them; as at Athens, for example, many families of the original inhabitants appear to have had the rank of Eupatridæ. Of this the Talthybiadæ are an instance. The office of herald was at Sparta (as in the fabulous times) hereditary, and not, as in other parts of Greece, obtained by competition.(96) The privilege of performing all foreign embassies,(97) and a share in the sacred missions,(98) were assigned to the pretended descendants of the Mycenean herald Talthybius, who also enjoyed especial honours amongst the Achæans at Ægium;(99) and there is doubtless reason to suppose that this family belonged to the Achæan race, without entering into the question of the correctness of their pedigree. The dignity attached to their office was very great, especially if, as was the case in the heroic ages, it was the custom for the heralds to address the princes as “beloved sons.” As to property and effects, they ranked with the first Spartans,(100) if, as it appears, Sperthias and Bulis, who offered themselves to the Persian king as an atonement for the murder of his ambassadors,(101) were of the family of the Talthybiadæ.

Indeed almost all the other trades and occupations, besides that of herald, were hereditary at Sparta, as, for example, those of cooking, baking, mixing wine, flute-playing, &c.(102) The trade of cooks had its particular heroes, viz., Dæton, Matton, and Ceraon, whose statue stood in the Hyacinthian street.(103) It is easy to see how this hereditary transmission of employments favoured the maintenance of ancient customs. In fact, Sparta would not have so long remained contented with her black broth, either if her cooks had not learnt the art of dressing it from their youth upwards, and continued to exercise their craft after the manner of their fathers, or if this office could have been assigned at will to those who were able by their art to gratify the palate. It is not probable that any of these families of artisans were of Doric origin, and they doubtless belonged to the class of Periœci; nor is it to be supposed that, like the Talthybiadæ, they possessed the Spartan rights of citizenship.(104)

Chapter III.

§ 1. Helots of Sparta. Their political condition. § 2. Their service in war. § 3. Treatment of the helots. § 4. The crypteia. § 5. Various degrees of helotism. § 6. Number of the helots. § 7. The phylæ of Pitana, Limnæ, Mesoa, and Cynosura.

1. The condition of the Periœci and that of the Helots must be carefully distinguished from each other; the latter state may be termed “villenage,” or “bondage,” to which that of the Periœci had not the slightest resemblance.(105) The common account of the origin of this class is, that the inhabitants of the maritime town Helos were reduced by Sparta to this state of degradation, after an insurrection against the Dorians already established in power.(106) This explanation, however, rests merely on an etymology, and that by no means a probable one; since such a Gentile name as Εἵλως (which seems to be the more ancient form) cannot by any method of formation have been derived from Ἕλος. The word Εἵλως is probably a derivative from Ἕλω; in a passive sense, and consequently means the prisoners.(107) Perhaps it signifies those who were taken after having resisted to the uttermost, whereas the Periœci had surrendered upon conditions; at least Theopompus(108) calls them Achæans as well as the others. It appears, however, more probable that they were an aboriginal race, which was subdued at a very early period, and which immediately passed over as slaves to the Doric conquerors.(109)

In speaking of the condition of the Helots, we will consider their political rights and their personal treatment under separate heads, though in fact the two subjects are very nearly connected. The first were doubtless exactly defined by law and custom, though the expressions made use of by ancient authors are frequently vague and ambiguous. “They were,” says Ephorus,(110) “in a certain point of view public slaves. Their possessor could neither liberate them, nor sell them beyond the borders.” From this it is evident that they were considered as belonging properly to the state, which to a certain degree permitted them to be possessed, and apportioned them out to individuals, reserving to itself the power of enfranchising them. But to sell them out of the country was not in the power even of the state; and, to the best of our knowledge, such an event never occurred. It is, upon the whole, most probable that individuals had no power to sell them at all; since they were, for the most part, attached to the land, which was inalienable. On these lands they had certain fixed dwellings of their own, and particular services and payments were prescribed to them.(111) They paid as rent a fixed measure of corn; not, however, like the Periœci, to the state, but to their masters. As this quantity had been definitively settled at a very early period (to raise the amount being forbidden under heavy imprecations),(112) the Helots were the persons who profited by a good, and lost by a bad harvest; which must have been to them an encouragement to industry and good husbandry; a motive which would have been wanting, if the profit and loss had merely affected the landlords. And thus (as is proved by the accounts respecting the Spartan agriculture),(113) a careful management of the cultivation of the soil was kept up. By means of the rich produce of the land, and in part by plunder obtained in war,(114) they collected a considerable property,(115) to the attainment of which almost every access was closed to the Spartans. Now the annual rent paid for each lot was eighty-two medimni of barley, and a proportionate quantity of oil and wine.(116) It may therefore be asked how much remained to the Helots themselves, after paying this amount of corn from each lot. Tyrtæus appears to give some information, where he describes the Messenian bondmen(117) “as groaning like asses under heavy burdens, and compelled by force to pay to their masters a half of the entire produce of the land.”(118)

According to this account, the families of the Helots (of which many resided on one lot) would have retained only eighty-two medimni on an average, and the whole amount would have been one hundred and sixty-four. But this cannot be the institution of which Plutarch speaks; and Tyrtæus doubtless describes some oppression much aggravated by particular circumstances. For, assuming that the property of the Spartans amounted to two-thirds of the whole Laconian territory, which may be rated at three thousand eight hundred and forty square miles English, and three-fourths being deducted for hill, wood, pasture-land, vineyards, and plantations, we have two thousand eight hundred and eighty square miles for the nine thousand lots of the Spartans; each of which accordingly amounted to 72/225 of a square mile, or one hundred and ninety-two plethra; a space amply sufficient to have produced four hundred medimni,(119) which, after the deduction of the eighty-two medimni, would have supplied twenty-one men with double the common daily allowance, viz., one chœnix of bread. It is at least manifest that each lot would have been quite sufficient to maintain six or seven families of Helots. It must not, however, be supposed that the rent was precisely the same for all the lots of the Spartan territory. The different quality of the land made such a strict equalization impossible; not to mention that it would have entirely destroyed all interest in the possession. We even know that many Spartans were possessed of herds and flocks, from which they provided young animals for the public meals.(120) The proprietors, besides their share of the harvest, received from their lands, at particular periods, the fruits of the season.(121)

There could not, on the whole, have been much intercourse and connexion between the Spartans, as possessors of the land, and the bondsmen upon their estates. For how little interest would the Spartan, who seldom left the town, and then only for a few days,(122) have felt for Helots, who dwelt perhaps at Mothone! Nevertheless, the cultivation of the land was not the only duty of the Helots; they also attended upon their masters at the public meal,(123) who, according to the Lacedæmonian principle of a community of goods, mutually lent them to one another.(124) A large number of them was also doubtless employed by the state in public works.

2. In the field the Helots never served as Hoplitæ, except in extraordinary cases; and then it was the general practice afterwards to give them their liberty.(125) On other occasions they attended the regular army as light-armed troops; and that their numbers were very considerable may be seen from the battle of Platæa, in which 5000 Spartans were attended by 35,000 Helots.(126) Although they did not share the honour of the heavy-armed soldiers, they were in return exposed to a less degree of danger. For while the former in close rank received the onset of the enemy with spear and shield, the Helots, armed only with the sling and light javelin, were in a moment either before or behind the ranks, as Tyrtæus accurately describes the relative duties of the light-armed soldier (γύμνης), and the Hoplite. Sparta, in her better time, is never recorded to have unnecessarily sacrificed the lives of her Helots. A certain number of them was allotted to each Spartan;(127) at the battle of Platæa this number was seven. Those who were assigned to a single master were probably called ἀμπίτταρες.(128) Of these, however, one in particular was the servant (θεράπων) of his master, as in the story of the blind Spartan, who was conducted by his Helot into the thickest of the battle of Thermopylæ, and, while the latter fled, fell with the other heroes.(129) Θεράπων, or servant, is the appropriate, and indeed honourable, appellation which the Dorians, particularly in Crete, gave to the armed slaves;(130) these in Sparta were probably called ἐρυκτῆρες, in allusion to their duty of drawing (ἐρύκειν) the wounded from the ranks.(131) It appears that the Helots were in the field placed more immediately under the command of the king than the rest of the army.(132) In the fleet, they composed the large mass of the sailors,(133) in which service at Athens the inferior citizens and slaves were employed; when serving in this manner they were, it appears, called by the name of δεσποσιοναῦται.

These accounts are sufficient to give a tolerably correct notion of the relation of the Helots to the Doric citizens of Sparta. Although it does not fall within the scope of the present work to enter upon a moral or political examination of the condition of Helotism, I may be allowed to subjoin a few observations. The Grecian states then either contained a class of bondsmen, which can be traced in nearly all the Doric states, or they had slaves, who had been brought either by plunder or commerce from barbarous countries; or a class of slaves was altogether wanting. The last was the case among the Phoceans, Locrians, and other Greeks.(134) But these nations, through the scantiness of their resources, never attained to such power as Sparta and Athens. Slavery was the basis of the prosperity of all commercial states, and was intimately connected with foreign trade; but (besides being a continued violation of justice) it was upon the whole of little advantage to the public, especially in time of war; and, according to the doctrine of the ancient politicians, it was both fraught with danger, and prejudicial to morality and good order. It must also be remembered, that nearly all the ties of family were broken among the slaves of Athens, with which the institution of bondage did not at all interfere;(135) and that in the latter the condition of the bondmen was rather determined by general custom; in the former, by the arbitrary will of individuals. Sparta had, indeed, some foreign slaves, but their number was very inconsiderable. Thus Alcman, the slave of Agesidas,(136) was the son of a slave from Sardis,(137) who had perhaps been brought by Cretan traders to the coast of Laconia.

3. It is a matter of much greater difficulty to form a clear notion of the treatment of the Helots, and of their manner of life; for the rhetorical spirit with which later historians have embellished their philanthropic views, joined to our own ignorance, has been productive of much confusion and misconception. Myron of Priene, in his romance on the Messenian war, drew a very dark picture of Sparta, and endeavoured at the end to rouse the feelings of his readers by a description of the fate which the conquered underwent. “The Helots,” says he,(138) “perform for the Spartans every ignominious service. They are compelled to wear a cap of dog’s skin and a covering of sheep’s skin, and they are severely beaten every year without having committed any fault, in order that they may never forget that they are slaves. In addition to this, those amongst them who, either by their stature or their beauty, raise themselves above the condition of a slave, are condemned to death; and the masters who do not destroy the most manly of them are liable to punishment.” The partiality and ignorance of this writer is evident from his very first statement. The Helots wore the leathern cap with a broad band, and the covering of sheep’s skin, simply because it was the original dress of the natives; which moreover the Arcadians had retained from ancient usage;(139) Laertes the father of Ulysses, when he assumed the character of a peasant, is also represented as wearing a cap of goat’s skin.(140) The truth is, that the ancients made a distinction between town and country costume. Hence, when the tyrants of Sicyon wished to accustom the unemployed people, whose numbers they dreaded, to a country life, they forced them to wear the κατωνάκη, which had underneath a lining of fur.(141) The Pisistratidæ made use of the very same measure.(142) Thus also Theognis describes the countrymen of Megara (whose admission to the rights of citizenship he deplores) as clothed with dressed skins, and dwelling around the town like frightened deer.(143) The dipthera of the Helots therefore signified nothing more humiliating and degrading than their employment in agricultural labour. Myron is doubtless right in stating that the Helots could not lay aside this dress at pleasure; indeed, a young Spartan could not assume the dress of an older man. Whilst in Athens the influence of democracy had produced an uniformity of dress, and even (according to Xenophon)(144) of bodily form, in citizens, resident aliens, and slaves; in Sparta the several orders were characterised by external differences. Now since Myron thus manifestly misinterpreted this circumstance, it is very probable that his other objections are founded in error; nor can misrepresentations of this political state, which was unknown to the later Greeks, and particularly to the class of writers, have been uncommon. Plutarch,(145) for example, relates that the Helots were compelled to intoxicate themselves, and perform indecent dances, as a warning to the Spartan youth; but common sense is opposed to so absurd a method of education. Is it possible that the Spartans should have so degraded the men whom they appointed as tutors over their young children? Female Helots also discharged the office of nurse in the royal palaces,(146) and doubtless obtained all the affection with which the attendants of early youth were honoured in ancient times. It is, however, certain that the Doric laws did not bind servants to strict temperance;(147) and hence examples of drunkenness among them might have served as a means of recommending sobriety. It was also an established regulation, that the national songs and dances of Sparta were forbidden to the Helots,(148) who, on the other hand, had some extravagant and lascivious dances peculiar to themselves, which may have given rise to the above report.(149) We must, moreover, bear in mind, that most of the strangers who visited Sparta, and gave an account of its institutions, seized upon particular cases which they had imperfectly observed, and, without knowing their real nature, described them in the light suggested by their own false prepossessions.

4. But are we not labouring in vain to soften the bad impression of Myron’s account, since the fearful word crypteia is of itself sufficient to show the unhappy fate of the Helots, and the cruelty of their masters? By this word is generally understood, a chase of the Helots, annually undertaken at a fixed time by the youth of Sparta, who either assassinated them by night, or massacred them formally in open day, in order to lessen their numbers, and weaken their power.(150) Isocrates speaks of this institution in a very confused manner, and from mere report.(151) Aristotle however, as well as Heraclides of Pontus,(152) attribute it to Lycurgus, and represent it as a war which the Ephors themselves, on entering upon their yearly office, proclaimed against the Helots. Thus it was a regularly legalised massacre, and the more barbarous, as its periodical arrival could be foreseen by the unhappy victims. And yet were not these Helots, who in many districts lived entirely alone, united by despair for the sake of common protection, and did they not every year kindle a most bloody and determined war throughout the whole of Laconia? Such are the inextricable difficulties in which we are involved by giving credit to the received accounts: the solution of which is, in my opinion, to be found in the speech of Megillus the Spartan, in the Laws of Plato,(153) who is there celebrating the manner of inuring his countrymen to hardships. “There is also amongst us,” he says, “what is called the crypteia, the pain of undergoing which is scarcely credible. It consists in going barefoot in storms, in enduring the privations of the camp, performing menial offices without a servant, and wandering night and day through the whole country.” The same is more clearly expressed in another passage,(154) where the philosopher settles, that in his state sixty agronomi or phylarchs, should each choose twelve young men from the age of twenty-five to thirty, and send them as guards in succession through the several districts, in order to inspect the fortresses, roads, and public buildings in the country; for which purpose they should have power to make free use of the slaves. During this time they were to live sparingly, to minister to their own wants, and range through the whole country in arms without intermission, both in winter and summer. These persons were to be called κρυπτοὶ, or ἀγορανόμοι. Can it be supposed that Plato would have here used the name of crypteia, if it signified an assassination of the Helots, or rather, if there was not an exact agreement in essentials between the institution which he proposed, and that in existence at Sparta, although the latter was perhaps one of greater hardship and severity? The youth of Sparta were also sent out, under certain officers,(155) partly for the purpose of training them to hardships, partly of inspecting the territory of Sparta, which was of considerable extent. These emissaries may probably have kept a strict watch upon the Helots, who, living by themselves, and entirely separated from their masters, must have been for that reason the more formidable to Sparta. We must allow that oppression and severity were not sufficiently provided against; only the aim of the custom was wholly different; though perhaps it is reckoned by Thucydides(156) among those institutions which, as he says, were established for the purpose of keeping a watch over the Helots.

It is hardly necessary to remark that this established institution of the crypteia was in no way connected with those extraordinary measures to which Sparta thought herself compelled in hazardous circumstances to resort. Thucydides leaves us to guess the fate of the 2000 Helots who, after having been destined for the field, suddenly disappeared. It was the curse of this bondage (of which Plato says that it produced the greatest doubt and difficulty)(157) that the slaves abandoned their masters when they stood in greatest need of their assistance; and hence the Spartans were even compelled to stipulate in treaties for aid against their own subjects.(158)

5. A more favourable side of the Spartan system of bondage is, that a legal way to liberty and citizenship stood open to the Helots.(159) The many intermediate steps seem to prove the existence of a regular mode of transition from the one rank to the other. The Helots, who were esteemed worthy of an especial confidence, were called ἀργεῖοι;(160) the ἐρυκτῆρες enjoyed the same in war: the ἀφέται were probably released from all service. The δεσποσιοναῦται, who served in the fleet, resembled probably the freed-men of Attica, who were called the out-dwellers (ἱ χωρὶς οἰκοῦντες).(161) When they received their liberty, they also obtained permission “to dwell where they wished,”(162) and probably at the same time a portion of land was granted to them without the lot of their former masters. After they had been in possession of liberty for some time, they appear to have been called Neodamodes,(163) the number of whom soon came near to that of the citizens.(164) The Mothones, or Mothaces, also, were not Periœci (of whose elevation to the rank of Spartans we know nothing), but Helots, who, being brought up together with the young Spartans (like Eumæus in the house of Ulysses), obtained freedom without the rights of citizenship.(165) For μόθων means a domestic slave, verna; and Periœci could never have been called by this name, not being dependent upon individual Spartans.(166) The descendants of the Mothaces must also have sometimes received the rights of citizenship, since Callicratidas, Lysander, and Gylippus were of Mothacic origin.(167) Those citizens who, in obedience to the ancient law of inheritance, married a widow of a deceased person, were (if we may judge from the etymology of the word) called Epeunacti: that slaves were once employed for this purpose is testified by Theopompus.(168)

6. The number of the Helots may be determined with sufficient accuracy from the account of the army at Platæa. We find that there were present in this battle 5000 Spartans, 35,000 Helots, and 10,000 Periœci.(169) The whole number of Spartans that bore arms, amounted on another occasion to 8000, which, according to the same proportion, would give 56,000 for the number of Helots capable of bearing arms, and for the whole population about 224,000. If then the state of Sparta possessed 9000 lots there were twenty male Helots to each (although, as we saw above, a single lot could probably maintain a larger number), and there remained 44,000 for the service of the state and of individuals. The account of Thucydides, that the Chians had the greatest number of slaves of any one state after the Lacedæmonians,(170) does not compel us to set the amount higher, because the great number of slaves in Ægina disappeared when that island lost its freedom, and Athens during the Peloponnesian war certainly did not possess 200,000 slaves. The number of Periœci able to bear arms would, according to the above proportion, only amount to 16,000; but we must suppose that a larger portion of them remained behind in Peloponnesus: for since the Periœci were possessed of 30,000 lots (though of less extent), there must have been about the same number of families, and we thus get at least 120,000 men; and upon the whole, for the 3800 square miles of Laconia, a suitable population of 380,000 souls.

From this calculation it also results, that, according to the population to be maintained, the estates of the Spartans (πολιτικὴ χώρα)(171) must have amounted to two-thirds of all the tillage-land in the country. This arrangement could not have been attended with any difficulty after the conquest of the fertile territory of Messenia, when the number of lots was doubled,(172) and the area of each was perhaps increased in a still greater proportion. For when the Spartans had (as it appears) dislodged the Doric Messenians, and conquered their country, a few maritime and inland towns (Asine, Mothone, Thuria, and Æthæa) were indeed suffered to remain in the possession of Periœci; but the best part of a country so rich in tillage-land, plantations, and pastures,(173) passed into the hands of Spartan proprietors, and the husbandmen who remained behind became Helots.(174) It was these last in particular who, during the great earthquake in 465 B.C., took possession of the towns of Thuria and Æthæa, fortified the strong hold of Ithome, and afterwards partially emigrated.(175) If however this insurrection had been common to all the Helots, as Diodorus relates, how could the Spartans have afterwards allowed the insurgents to withdraw from the country, without entirely depriving the land of its cultivators? After the battle of Leuctra also, it was not the Laconian, but the Messenian Helots who revolted,(176) and were without doubt the chief promoters of the re-establishment of Messenia, where they exercised the rights of citizenship in the newly-founded democracy.(177)

7. In Laconia itself, according to the Rhetra of Agis (which in all probability merely confirmed existing institutions), the territory belonging to Sparta consisted of the inland tract, which was bounded by part of mount Taygetus to the west, by the river Pellene, and by Sellasia to the north, and extended eastward towards Malea,(178) and this was therefore at that time cultivated by Helots. Here it may be asked, who were the inhabitants of the towns situated in this district, for example Amyclæ, Therapne, and Pharis? Certainly not Helots alone, for there were a considerable number of Hoplitæ from Amyclæ in the Lacedæmonian army,(179) who must therefore have been either Spartans or Periœci. But whether the Periœci inhabited small districts in the midst of the territory immediately occupied by the Spartans, or whether some Spartans lived out of the city in country-towns, cannot be completely determined. The former is, however, the more probable, since some Periœci lived in the vicinity of the city,(180) and Amyclæ is reckoned among the towns of Laconia;(181) the Spartans also are mentioned to have had dwellings in the country,(182) but never to have possessed houses in any other town except Sparta, and a few villages in the neighbourhood.

This induces us to attempt the solution of the difficult problem, of what is the proper signification of the Phylæ (as the grammarians sometimes call them),(183) of Pitana, Limnæ or Limnæum, Mesoa and Cynosura, which Pausanias also mentions together as divisions of the people.(184) Now Pausanias calls them divisions of the Spartans, and it appears that we must follow his statement. For in an Amyclæan inscription,(185) Damatrius, an overseer of the foreigners at Amyclæ, is called a Mesoatan; and in another inscription, a Gymnasiarch of the Roman time is designated as belonging to the Phyle of the Cynosurans;(186) and we cannot suppose these persons to have been Periœci.(187) And if Alcman, according to a credible account, was a Mesoatan,(188) we may understand by this term a citizen of Sparta (although of an inferior grade), without contradicting the authority of Herodotus, who only denies that any stranger besides Tisamenus and Hegias was ever made a Spartan.(189) Further, it is clear from ancient writers that Pitana, Limnæ, Mesoa, and Cynosura, were names of places. We are best informed with respect to Pitana, an ancient town, and without doubt anterior to the Dorians,(190) which was of sufficient importance to have its own gymnastic contests,(191) and to furnish a battalion of its own, called Pitanates.(192) Herodotus, who was there himself, calls it a demus;(193) and we know that it was near the temple and stronghold of Issorium,(194) which, according to Pausanias’ topography of Sparta, must have been situated at the western extremity of the town.(195) This author also mentions, in the same district of the city, the porch of the Crotanes, who were a division of the Pitanatæ. We therefore know that Pitana lay to the west of Sparta, outside the town according to Herodotus,(196) inside (as it appears) according to Pausanias. So Limnæ likewise, as we learn from Strabo, was a suburb of Sparta,(197) and at the same time a part of the town, as also was Mesoa,(198) whither however Pausanias relates that Preugenes the Achæan brought the statue of Artemis, rescued from the Dorians at Sparta.(199) It follows from these apparently contradictory accounts, some including these places in Sparta, and some not, that they were nothing else than the hamlets (κῶμαι), of which, according to Thucydides,(200) the town of Sparta consisted, and which lay on all sides around the city (πόλις) properly so called, but were divided from one another by intervals, until at a late period (probably when Sparta, during the time of the Macedonian power, was enclosed with walls) they were united and incorporated together.

Chapter IV.

§ 1. Subject classes in Crete. § 2. In Argos and Epidaurus. § 3. In Corinth and Sicyon. § 4. In Syracuse. § 5. In Byzantium, Heraclea on the Pontus, and Cyrene. § 6. The bond-slaves of Thessaly. § 7. Cities and villages of Arcadia. § 8. The political opposition of city and country.

1. After having thus separately considered the two dependent classes in Sparta, the pattern state of the Dorians, we will now point out the traces of the analogous ranks in several other states of Doric origin.

The Doric customs were first established in CRETE, whose fortunate circumstances had given to that race a fertile country, and an undisturbed dominion. Accordingly, the relative rights of the Dorians and natives must at an early period have been fixed on a settled basis in this island; and we may suppose that this settlement was made on equitable terms, since Aristotle was not aware of any insurrection of the slaves in Crete against their masters.(201) The Doric customs required here, as elsewhere, exemption from all agricultural or commercial industry; which is expressed in a lively manner in the song of Hybrias the Cretan, that “with lance and sword and shield he reaped and dressed his vines, and hence was called lord of the Mnoia.”(202) In this island, however, different classes of dependents must have existed. Sosicrates and Dosiadas, both credible authors on the affairs of Crete, speak of three classes, the public bondsmen (κοινὴ δουλεία), called by the Cretans μνοΐα, the slaves of individual citizens, ἀφαμιῶται, and the Periœci, ὑπήκοοι. Now we know that the Aphamiotæ received their name from the cultivation of the lands of private individuals (in Cretan ἀφαμίαι) and accordingly they were agricultural bondsmen.(203) These latter are identical with the Clarotæ, who, for this reason, were not separately mentioned by the writers just quoted: for although they are generally supposed to have taken their name from the lot cast for prisoners of war, the more natural derivation doubtless is from the lots or lands of the citizens, which were called κλῆροι. But whichever explanation we adopt, they were bondsmen belonging to the individual citizens. Both the Clarotæ and Aphamiotæ have therefore been correctly compared with the Helots;(204) and as the latter were entirely distinct from the Laconian Periœci, so were the former from the Cretan, although Aristotle neglects the distinction accurately observed by the Cretan writers.(205) In the second place, the μνοία (or μνῴα) was by more precise historians distinguished as well from the condition of Periœci as from that of private bondage, and it was explained to mean a state of public villenage; whence we may infer that every state in Crete was possessed of public lands, which the Mnotæ cultivated in the same relative situation to the community in which the Aphamiotæ, who cultivated the allotted estates, stood to the several proprietors. This name, however, is sometimes extended to all forced labourers, as in the song of Hybrias noticed above.(206) Finally, the Periœci formed in Crete, as in Laconia, dependent and tributary communities: their tribute was, like the produce of the national lands, partly applied to the public banquets;(207) to which also, according to Dosiadas,(208) every slave in Lyctus contributed in addition one Æginetan stater. Now in this passage we cannot suppose that the Periœci are meant, because the exact author would not have called them slaves: nor yet the slaves purchased in foreign parts (called ἀργυρώνητοι in Crete), since it would have been impossible to reckon with any certainty that persons in this situation possessed anything of their own; nor, lastly, can the Mnotæ be meant, since these were public slaves, having no connexion with individuals, nor consequently with their eating clubs.(209) It remains, therefore, that it was the Clarotæ (or Aphamiotæ), who, in addition to the tax in kind, were also liable to this payment in money, with which utensils for the use of the public table were probably purchased. It may be, moreover, observed that we have no reason to suppose that the bondsmen were admitted to the daily banquets.(210)

Perhaps, however, there was no Grecian state in which the dependent classes were so little oppressed as in Crete. In general, every employment and profession, with the exception of the gymnasia and military service, was permitted to them.(211) Hence also the Periœci held so firmly to the ancient legislation of Minos, that they even then observed it, when it had been neglected by the Dorians of the town of Lyctus;(212) and thus, as was frequently the case elsewhere, in the decline of public manners the ancient customs were retained among the lower classes of society longer than amongst the higher. Upon the whole, Crete was the most fortunate of all the Doric states in this circumstance, that it could follow up its own institutions with energy and in quiet, without any powerful obstacle; although its very tranquillity and far-extended commerce at length occasioned a gradual decline of ancient customs. The reverse took place at Argos, whose Doric inhabitants, pressed on all sides, were at length compelled to renounce the institutions of their race, and adopt those of the natives. In the early history of this state, therefore, the two classes of dependents and bondsmen should be distinguished: this division was, however, very early laid aside, and an entirely different arrangement introduced.

2. There was at ARGOS a class of bond-slaves, who are compared with the Helots, and were called Gymnesii.(213) The name alone sufficiently proves the correctness of the comparison; these slaves having evidently been the light-armed attendants on their masters (γύμνητες). Hence also the same class of slaves were in Sicyon called κορυνηφύροι; because they only carried a club or staff, and not, like the heavy-armed Dorians, a sword and lance. It is to these Gymnesii that the account of Herodotus refers,(214) that 6000 of the citizens of Argos having been slain in battle by Cleomenes king of Sparta,(215) the slaves got the government into their own hands, and retained possession of it until the sons of those who had fallen were grown to manhood. From this narrative it is plain that the number of Dorians at Argos was nearly exhausted by the death of 6000 of their body; and that none but bondsmen dwelt in the immediate neighbourhood of the city, since otherwise the sovereign power would not have fallen into their hands. It would be absurd to suppose that slaves bought in foreign countries can be here intended, since these could have had no more notion of governing a Grecian state than the bear in the fable of managing the ship.(216) Afterwards, when the young citizens had grown up, the slaves were compelled by them to withdraw to Tiryns; and then, after a long war, as it appears, were either driven from the territory, or again subdued.(217)

The Argives, however, also had Periœci,(218) who were known by the name of Orneatæ. This appellation was properly applied to the inhabitants of Orneæ, a town on the frontiers towards Mantinea, which, having been long independent, was at last, about the year 580 B.C.,(219) reduced by the Argives; and afterwards the whole class of Periœci was so called from that place. These Orneatæ, or Periœci, therefore, like those of Laconia, formed separate communities of their own, which indeed was the case so late as the Persian war. For (as we have shown above) the Argives about this time incorporated the surrounding towns belonging to the Periœci,(220) for the purpose of replenishing and increasing their own numbers, and gave them the rights of citizens. With this period an entirely new era in the history of the constitution of Argos commences, although this state of things has from its greater notoriety often been improperly applied also to earlier times. Thus Isocrates(221) says that the Dorians of Argos, like those of Messene, admitted the native inhabitants into the city (as σύνοικοι), and gave them equal rights of citizenship, with the exception of offices of honour; contrasting with it the conduct of the Spartans, in a manner which every one now perceives to have been entirely groundless. The change in the constitution of Argos then introduced was no less than if the whole body of Periœci in Laconia had declared themselves the sovereign community. For the newly-adopted citizens appear to have soon demanded and obtained the full rights of the old; and hence, ever after the above epoch, democracy seems to have had the upper hand in Argos. And this could never be the case without the disappearance of the Doric character, which showed itself in the diminution of their military skill. For this reason the Argives in after-times were reduced to form a standing army of a thousand citizens, of noble extraction, under the command of generals who possessed great civil power.(222) This body of men, however, immediately endeavoured to set up an oppressive oligarchy, until they at length yielded to the preponderating power of the democracy. But of this more hereafter.(223)

It is not known for what length of time the EPIDAURIANS preserved the distinction between townsmen and countrymen. The name κονίποδες, i.e., dusty-feet, which was applied to the lower classes, is a proof of their agricultural habits,(224) and is probably not merely a term of reproach. That this class, however, as at Argos, furnished citizens who were not originally Dorians, is shown by the occurrence of a fourth tribe, besides the three Doric.(225)

3. Neither in CORINTH nor in SICYON does there appear to have been any complete distinction between the Doric and other races. The inhabitants, especially those of the former state, must have lived on an equality with the aboriginal possessors, and were probably only admitted by a fresh division (ἐπ᾽ ἀναδασμῷ) to a joint possession of the lands. Hence it was that in Corinth there were not only the three Doric tribes (of which we shall speak hereafter), but eight, all of which dwelt in the city.(226) Nor were even the Cypselidæ Dorians; though, before they obtained the tyranny, they had long been distinguished citizens. We may discover a class of Corinthian Helots in the Cynophali,(227) whose name was, as in a former instance, derived from the dog-skin cap of the native Peloponnesians. But regular slavery, as was natural in a commercial state, soon prevailed at Corinth, and probably under very nearly the same form as at Athens.(228) In Sicyon there were bondsmen, of whom the names Corynephori(229) and Catonacophori have been preserved.(230) The first marks them as light-armed attendants in war, the second as a class always inhabiting the country. The citizens of this state were divided into four tribes, of which three were purely Doric, viz., the Hylleans, Dymanes, and Pamphylians; while the fourth tribe, the Ægialeans, derived their name from the country which they had inhabited before the Doric invasion.(231) It is also certain that this fourth tribe possessed not merely some civil privileges, but the complete rights of citizenship; since the family of Cleisthenes raised itself from it to the royal dignity, which could scarcely have taken place had their tribe stood in the same relation to the citizens as the Periœci or Helots did to the Spartans. This Cleisthenes, with the arrogance of a tyrant, gave to his own tribe the name of Archelai, or rulers; while he called the three Doric tribes after the sow, the swine, and the ass (ὑᾶται, ὀνεᾶται, χοιρεᾶται.) We can hardly, however, credit the assertion of Herodotus (who too often seeks for the causes of events in the passions and wishes of individuals, to the disregard of political circumstances) that these were merely terms of abuse;(232) it is more probable that Cleisthenes wished to compel the Dorians to retire into the country, and employ themselves in the care of cattle and in agriculture, thus bidding an entire defiance to all their principles. But so arbitrary a subversion of all ancient customs and habits could not endure for any length of time; and, after the downfall of that tyrannical dynasty, the former constitution was restored in its most essential parts.

4. In the colonies of the Dorians the condition of the conquered peasants and bondsmen was often more oppressed and degraded than in the parent states; since the ruling class were there placed in contact, not with Greeks, but with barbarians. In their settlements the following ranks were generally formed at successive periods of time. A Doric state founded the colony; and its citizens constituted the sole nobility in the new city; these parted amongst themselves the conquered land into lots,(233) and formed the body of citizens, the πολίτευμα strictly so called.(234) These colonists, however, soon endeavoured to strengthen themselves by fresh numbers, and opened their harbours to all exiled or discontented persons. The motley population(235) thus formed, called by the name of Demus, was generally excluded from the body politic (or the πολίτευμα), until it obtained admittance by force; and at the same time constantly pressed for a new division of the territory (ἀναδασμὸς).(236) Besides these, a third rank was formed by the native inhabitants, who were compelled by the new-comers to serve either as bondsmen or public slaves. Thus, for example, the distinction at SYRACUSE was—first, the Gamori, viz., the old Corinthian colonists, who had taken possession of the large lots, and divided the land;(237) secondly, a Demus; and, thirdly, slaves on the estates of the nobles, whose number became proverbial. These were, without doubt, native Siculians, as is shown by the various forms of their name (Κυλλύριοι, Κιλλικύριοι, Καλλικύριοι,) which cannot be explained from the Greek.(238) The political condition of Syracuse was formed in a manner essentially different from that of the Peloponnesian states, chiefly from the circumstance that the Demus (an unpleasant fellow-lodger, according to the expression of Gelon) was immediately received into the city. Hence also the prodigious size of the Sicilian and Italian towns in comparison with those of Peloponnesus. The Gamori, together with their Cyllyrians, stood in nearly the same relation to the Demus as the patricians with their clients did to the plebeians at Rome. The changes in the constitution also had nearly the same course as at Rome; for the two classes first sought to compromise their pretensions in a moderate timocracy (the πολιτεία of Aristotle), which subsequently passed (as we shall see hereafter) into a complete democracy.

5. In the Megarian colony of BYZANTIUM the native inhabitants, the Bithynians, were in precisely the same condition as the Helots.(239) The same was likewise the fate of the nation of Mariandynians in HERACLEA ON THE PONTUS, which city also was founded by the Megarians conjointly with the Bœotians. They submitted under the stipulation that no Mariandynian should be sold beyond the borders,(240) which was a fundamental rule of the ancient system of bondage; and that they should pay a tribute to be settled once for all, this being called by the mild name of presents (δῶρα(241)). The great number of these native slaves, who never suffered the country to want for sailors, was very favourable to the commerce and naval power of Heraclea.(242)

At CYRENE also the several classes were formed in a similar manner. In Thera, the mother-country of Cyrene, the families of the original colony from Laconia had once alone possessed the full rights of citizenship, and held the offices of state.(243) Thus also at Cyrene the families from Thera at first were sole possessors of the governing power, and did not admit the after-comers to a full participation of it. It was the natural course of events, that they who first caused the Grecian name to be respected amongst the savages of Libya should be supposed to have a greater claim to honour and property than those who had flocked together to a town already established and securely defended. But the Cyrenæans having in the reign of Battus the Second proclaimed throughout Greece a new division of their lands(244) (which, however, they had first to gain from the Libyans), and many fresh citizens having collected together, a new constitution became in time necessary: and this, Demonax of Mantinea established for them on democratic principles. He abolished the old tribes, and created in their place three new ones, in which the entire Grecian population of Cyrene was comprehended. The division of the people was into three parts, viz., one consisting of the Theræans and Periœci, the second of Peloponnesians and Cretans, and the third of all the islanders.(245) From this it is evident that the original colonists still continued to keep Periœci under their power, while the other citizens did not enjoy this right; and that the former were a kind of privileged class, who probably were in a great measure relieved from any personal attendance to agriculture: in this manner the wise Demonax respected the institutions of antiquity. Of the origin and condition of these Periœci, not only have we no direct account, but not even an indirect trace.

6. We have now finished our comparison of the different subject classes in the Doric states. It has been clearly proved that a class of Periœci, and also of Helots, was the basis of the Doric form of government, insomuch that the abolition of servitude generally occasioned a subversion of the Doric institutions. Hence the Dorians generally, and above all the Spartans, were distinguished for the obstinacy with which they retained it. But this species of servitude may be said to have existed in ancient times, wherever a warlike nation had obtained a settlement by conquest; for example, in Thessaly, Bœotia, and even among the Ionians of Athens. Now as the distinction of subjects and bond-slaves was kept up for a longer time in Thessaly than in any other state, those of the Dorians alone being excepted, we will include that country in the present inquiry. The following classes may be there distinguished: First, a number of small nations were under the dominion of the Thessalians, to whom they paid a fixed tribute, and were also probably bound to assist in war; but they nevertheless still retained their national divisions, and a certain degree of independence. This must have been the state of the Perrhæbians to the north of Larissa, the Magnesians to the east of mount Pelion, and the Phthiotan Achæans to the south of mount Othrys and the Enipeus. For all these were indeed subject to the Thessalians,(246) but had not ceased to be distinct, nay, even Amphictyonic nations.(247) Their tribute had been accurately fixed by Scopas, prince of Pharsalus. They were also called Periœci.(248) Excluding then this tract of country, we retain for Thessaly Proper the region between the Perrhæbians towards the north, and the Achæans towards the south, in which direction the Enipeus forms the boundary,(249) comprehending the valley of the Peneus (the ancient Pelasgic Argos), and a district towards the Pagasæan bay, called by Herodotus Æolis.(250) The Thessalians, therefore, held this territory under their immediate government, and had the towns of Larissa, Crannon, Pharsalus, Iolcus, and others, in their own possession; the land being cultivated by the Penestæ, who were the early Pelasgico-Æolian inhabitants.(251) For, according to Archemachus,(252) the Æolian Bœotians had in part emigrated from their country, leaving some of their numbers behind, who submitted conditionally, as Penestæ: amongst these Theopompus(253) also includes the Magnesians and Perrhæbians; but this statement can only hold good of a part of these two races, since they were (as has been already shown) dependent, but not entirely subject.(254) The fundamental laws of the ancient Greek bondage applied also to the Penestæ. They could neither be put to death without trial, nor be sold out of the country.(255) Thus they stood in an intermediate position between freemen and purchased slaves,(256) like the Mariandynians of Heraclea, the Clarotæ of Crete, and the Helots of Laconia, with whom they are generally compared.(257) For, like these, they were reduced to servitude by conquest, although they cannot properly be called slaves taken in war.(258) Further, they were not subject to the whole community, but belonged to particular houses and families:(259) hence also they were called Θεσσαλοικέται.(260) They were particularly numerous in the great families of the Aleuadæ and Scopadæ.(261) Their principal employment was agriculture,(262) from the produce of which they paid a rent to the proprietors of the soil.(263) At the same time this did not prevent them from gaining property of their own, and they were frequently richer than their masters.(264) In war they attended their lords, protecting and fighting before them, like knights and their squires; generally, however, contrary to the custom of other Greeks, on horseback.(265) All these accounts respecting the Penestæ agree sufficiently well with one another, and refer to one and the same class; although it is certain that the attempts to obtain civil liberty had much increased amongst the Penestæ at the time of the Peloponnesian war, and were now and then, though not constantly, supported by Athens.(266) The other internal affairs of the Thessalians do not lie within the range of our inquiry. They had little adapted themselves to a quiet course of events, nor indeed did the turbulent and haughty disposition of their race allow of a life of inactivity. In each town of Thessaly we find a constant struggle between the commons and a number of oligarchical families; from these arise several princely races, such as the Aleuadæ, Scopadæ,(267) &c. The states themselves were generally at war with one another: thus their political constitution, as well as the want of steadiness and forbearance in the national character, must be regarded as the chief reasons why Thessaly was of so little importance in Greece. The external means which a wide territory and military power afforded them were here doubtless present in a greater degree than in any other country; the Thessalians were also distinguished for their bravery, and the ancient fame of the country would have supported claims in themselves well founded; how came it then that the history of Thessaly was a blank in the annals of Greece, while Sparta was so long its very soul? The only answer is, that the national character of the Thessalians was altogether different; for wisdom they had only cunning; for rational valour only a restless love of war; for strict self-command only unrestrained passions.

7. It appears, therefore, that foreign conquest universally in Greece gave birth to that political condition, which may be compared with the villenage or serfage of the Germanic nations; and indeed it does not seem that such a state of society could have any other origin. There would accordingly be matter for surprise if we found a class of bondsmen among the Arcadians, a nation which neither gained its territory by conquest,(268) nor was ever conquered itself: and, accordingly, it can scarcely be doubted that the nation described by Theopompus as possessing 300,000 Prospelatæ, whom he compares with the Helots, is not the Arcadians, but the Illyrian Ardiæans.(269) The distinction of ranks, which we find existing in the Arcadian towns, may be satisfactorily explained by the opposition between the city, properly so called (πόλις), and the country villages (δῆμοι, κῶμαι), which in later times most of the Arcadian cities, for example, Mantinea, Tegea, and Heræa, incorporated with themselves. For although it is asserted that these and other towns were made up of separate villages, it must not be supposed that they had no previous existence as cities. The account is to be understood in the same manner as that of the congregating of the people of Attica to Athens, which is stated to have taken place in the time of Theseus. Nearly all the towns of Arcadia possessed citadels of extreme antiquity, in and near which many princely, sacerdotal, and military families had dwelt from an early period. These formed a nobility, with reference to the agricultural classes in the country, which, however, included by far the greater portion of the Arcadians. If then one large town was formed of several villages, the constitution at the same time necessarily became more democratical, which was the result at Argos of the incorporation of the Periœci,(270) and at Megara also of the same measure.(271) For so long as the people inhabited a particular village, they interested themselves in its affairs alone, and the persons in the chief city managed the concerns of the whole community. But from the moment that they began to live together, every person considered himself entitled to a share in the public councils. Hence it was the interest of the head of the Peloponnesian confederacy again to separate the inhabitants of the towns (διοικίζειν); of the Athenians, to keep them together. The Argives first effected the union of the boroughs at Mantinea, doubtless not until they had seen other instances of the same proceeding, that is, after the Persian war. They united four hamlets with the ancient city,(272) which made the fifth; the Lacedæmonians after some time restored the ancient villages, and with them the aristocracy. The territory of Tegea was also divided into eight hamlets, which were afterwards united to make the city, viz., the Gareatæ, Phylaceans, Caryatæ,(273) Corytheans, Botachidæ, Manthyreans, Echeneteans, and Apheidantes: to these were added, as the ninth, the Tegeatans of the ancient town,(274) who had previously been the citizens properly so called, while the former had been the inhabitants of the open country; a distinction, which, upon their union, must either instantly or very soon have disappeared.

8. Since it has been ascertained in the course of these inquiries that the distinction between πόλις and δῆμος, that is, town and country, was of great political importance in the ancient states, we will conclude this chapter with some remarks upon those terms.

The word δῆμος originally signified the ground and soil on which the people lived,(275) and afterwards the whole number of persons inhabiting it. Πόλις, on the contrary, means the city, which in the time of Homer was probably always fortified. Now with the city everything that concerned the government of a state was connected, and those exempt from all personal share in the labours of the field, namely, the military families and the nobles,(276) dwelt in it; hence it is viewed in Homer as a disgrace or a misfortune, for a noble to live among the bondsmen in the country.(277) This is the state of things described by the most ancient poet; and particular accounts of an historical nature present the same picture. When the Achæans settled on the coast of Ægialea, they fortified themselves in the towns and strongholds, and kept entirely aloof from the natives; at least we know this to have been the case at Patræ;(278) so that the same race here inhabited the principal city as conquerors, who in Laconia were scattered about in the country-towns as a conquered people. Hence also the town of Dyme was originally called Stratos;(279) that is, the station of the army, the abode of the male population who had the means and the privilege of bearing arms. It was not till a later period that the Achæan towns, Patræ, Dyme, and Ægium, incorporated their villages.(280) At Athens the Eupatridæ are stated to have had possession of the city;(281) an account which is strikingly confirmed by the circumstance that Cydathenæum, one of the Attic demi, was situated within the city,(282) and it had evidently taken its name from Cydathenæus, i.e., a noble and illustrious Athenian.(283) Hence is explained the distinction between the terms “Athenian,” and “inhabitant of Attica (Ἀττικὸς),” which was still preserved in common language after it had been in fact abolished by the democracy. Thus Plato uses the former, as a more honourable appellation than the latter;(284) and when Dicæarchus, describing the manners of Greece, contrasts the inhabitants of Attica as loquacious, sycophantic, and fickle, with the noble-minded, simple, and honest Athenians, by the latter he means the ancient families, and by the former the Demus, which, since the time of Cleisthenes, had been compounded of the most heterogeneous elements. Thus the πόλις and δῆμος became identical in Athens, and the latter word was used by preference to signify the whole community. But in other states, the πόλις was opposed to the δῆμος, as the ruling aristocratical power.(285) Thus Theognis the Megarian says of his native town, with aristocratical feelings—

Πατρίδα κοσμήσω, λιπαρὴν ΠΟΛΙΝ, οὔτ᾽ ἐπὶ ΔΗΜΟΝ τρέψας οὔτ᾽ ἀδίκοις ἀνδράσι πειθόμενος.(286)

Hence, also, states not under a democratical government used the word πόλις in their public documents, to signify the sovereign power; for instance, the Cretan towns, so late as the second century after Christ.(287) The Spartan community, however, deviating from this usage of the word, calls itself δᾶμος in ancient laws;(288) because it never thought of opposing itself as a body to the Periœci.

Democracies then were frequently formed by collecting the inhabitants of the country into the city (when the δῆμος and πόλις coincided), by the union of single villages, and by the admission of the Periœci to the rights of citizenship. At Athens, in order to give the democracy the highest possible antiquity, this change was dated as far back as the mythical age of Theseus. In Peloponnesus, the first movements tending to it had perhaps begun before the time of the tyrants; these very persons, however, though they had in most cases risen from demagogues, still, for the purpose of securing a more tranquil dominion, sought again to remove the common people from the city, and to bind them down to the country. Instead of the town-costume, they forced them to resume their former dress of sheep’s skins, as has been remarked above of the tyrants of Sicyon;(289) for this purpose likewise they very prudently encouraged agriculture in all its branches.(290) Trade and commerce, by collecting men together in large towns, promoted the principles of democracy. It was in the wealthy and populous cities of the Greeks in the Ionian territory that a popular government was first established. Where, on the other hand, the courts of justice were at a distance, and there was no other inducement to mechanical industry and internal commerce, the ancient habits of life continued much longer in existence; as for example, among the shepherds of Mænalia and Parrhasia: these, as late as the founding of Megalopolis, lived in villages, amongst which particular boroughs (as Basilis) were distinguished as the abodes of sovereign families; such a state was altogether suited to the interests of the aristocracy or oligarchy. In oligarchical states, as in Elis, the people in later times remained almost constantly in the country; and it frequently happened that grandfathers and grandchildren had never seen the town: there were also country courts of justice, and other regulations, intended to make up for the advantages of a city life.(291) But even in the democratic states, as at Athens, there was among the people a constant struggle of feeling between the turbulent working of the democracy, and the peaceful inclination to their ancient country life.

Chapter V.

§ 1. Three tribes of citizens in the Doric states. § 2. Additional tribes, of inferior rank, in some Doric states. § 3. Each tribe in Sparta was divided into ten obæ. § 4. Political importance of the Spartan obæ. § 5. Πάτραι, in other Doric states, corresponding to the Spartan obæ. § 6. Number of Spartan γένη. § 7. Distinction between Equals and Inferiors in Sparta. § 8. Powers of the assembly of citizens at Sparta. § 9. Names of the assembly of the citizens in the Doric states. § 10. Proceedings of the Spartan assembly. § 11. Public assembly of Crete.

1. Having considered the subject classes in the several Doric states, we come to the free citizens properly so called, who, according to an old Grecian principle,(292) which was actually put in practice in Sparta, were entirely exempted from all care for providing themselves with the necessaries of life. The exact distinction between these ranks, and the advantageous position of the latter class, increased the value of the rights of citizenship; hence Sparta showed peculiar reluctance to admitting foreigners to share in them.(293) Before, then, we consider the body politic of free citizens in its active dealings, it will be proper first to direct our attention to its component members, to its division into smaller societies, such as tribes, phratriæ, houses, &c.

In every Doric state there were three tribes, Hylleis, Dymanes (or Dymanatæ), and Pamphyli. This threefold division belonged so peculiarly to the nation that even Homer called it “the thrice-divided” τριχάϊκες, which ancient epithet is correctly explained in a verse of Hesiod, as implying the division of the territory among the people.(294) Hence in the ancient fable which this poet has expressed in an epic poem, three sons of the ancient Doric king Ægimius were mentioned, namely, Dyman, Pamphylus, and the adopted Hyllus; and the same is confirmed by the direct testimony of Herodotus, who states that the Doric nation was divided into these three tribes.(295) Hence also Pindar comprehends the whole Doric nation under the name of the sons of Ægimius and Hyllus.(296) Thus we should be warranted in putting forth the proposition stated above in these general terms, even if in the several Doric states there had been no particular mention of all these tribes. The fact, however, is, that there are sufficient accounts of them. Pindar(297) bears testimony to their existence in Sparta; and from an expression of a grammarian, it may be conjectured that they were also divisions of the city.(298) Herodotus states that these tribes existed at Sicyon and Argos.(299) In Argos, the city was doubtless divided according to them; and Παμφυλιακὸν is mentioned as a district of the town.(300) The Doric tribes were transmitted from Argos to Epidaurus and Ægina.(301) Hylleis occur also in the Æginetan colony of Cydonia.(302) The same name is found in an inscription of Corcyra:(303) consequently they also existed in the mother-country, Corinth. It occurs likewise in another inscription of Agrigentum;(304) they must therefore have also been in existence at Rhodes, as indeed is declared by Homer.(305) The Pamphylians occur at Megara as late as at the time of Hadrian.(306) These tribes existed also at Trœzen;(307) but the Trœzenian colony Halicarnassus seems to have been almost exclusively founded by Dymanes.(308) On the whole it appears that wherever there were Dorians there were also Hylleans, Pamphylians, and Dymanes.

2. Wherever the Dorians alone had the full rights of citizenship, no other tribes of the highest ranks could exist; but if other persons were admitted in any considerable number to a share in the government, there were necessarily either one or more tribes in addition to these three. Thus a fourth, named Hyrnathia,(309) is known to us in the states of Argos and Epidaurus; in Ægina also an additional tribe of this kind must have existed, for in this island there were distinguished families not of Doric origin.(310) In Sicyon the fourth tribe was called the Ægialean. In Corinth also it appears that there were altogether eight tribes.(311) But in Sparta, the city of pure Doric customs, we cannot suppose the existence of any other than the three genuine Doric tribes. At first sight, indeed, it might appear that the great and distinguished house of the Ægidæ, of Cadmean descent, was without the pale of these tribes; but it must have been adopted into one of the three at its admission to the rights of citizenship.(312) For the number of the Spartan obæ, the gerontes, the knights, the landed estates, viz., 30, 300, 9000, &c., manifestly allow of division by the number 3, while they have no reference to the number 4.

3. The tribes of Sparta were again divided into obæ, which are also called phratriæ.(313) The term phratria (φρατριὰ) signified among the Greeks an union of houses, whether founded upon the ties of actual relationship, or formed for political purposes, and according to some fixed rule, for the convenience of public regulations. Thus the word oba comprehends houses (γένη, gentes), which were either really founded on descent from the same stock, or had united themselves in ancient times for civil and religious purposes, and afterwards continued to exist as political bodies under certain regulations.(314) The Spartan obæ appear to have likewise been local divisions, since the name ὠβὰ, i.e., οἴα, signifies single hamlets or districts of a town; although in the case of Sparta it is not evident what relation they bore to the five divisions of the city, of which we have spoken above.(315) It should be, moreover, observed, that this does not prevent us from supposing that, as in the parallel case of the phratriæ, the obæ contained the houses; since we may be allowed to infer with great probability, from the simple and coherent regularity of the Spartan institutions, that the tribes had taken possession of particular districts of the town, and that these were again divided into smaller partitions, according to the obæ; a conjecture which, perhaps, will be confirmed by the statement, that a place in Sparta was called Agiadæ:(316) now this was the name of one of the royal families, which, as being an oba, appears to have given its name to one district of the town.

The obæ were thirty in number;(317) that is, there were ten of the Hyllean, ten of the Dymanatan, ten of the Pamphylian tribe. Of the Hyllean, two must have belonged to the royal families of the Heraclidæ. For since the councillors, together with the kings, amounted to thirty, and as this number doubtless depended upon and proceeded from that of the obæ, it follows that the two royal families, although springing from one stock, must nevertheless have been separated into two different obæ, of which they were in a manner the representatives. And if we proceed to conclude in this manner, we shall be obliged, since there were Heraclidæ, exclusive of the kings, in the gerusia,(318) to suppose that there were, besides these, other Heraclide obæ in Sparta; although I am not of opinion that all the Hyllean houses derived themselves from Hercules, and were considered as Heraclidæ.

4. With respect to the influence and importance of the obæ in a political view, it was equal to, or even greater than, that of the phratriæ in ancient Athens. For, in the first place, the assembly of the people, in obedience to a rhetra of Lycurgus, was held according to tribes and obæ; afterwards the high council was constituted, and probably the 300 knights were chosen, upon the same principle. At the same time, all public situations and offices were not filled in this manner, but only where distinguished dignity and honour were required: this mode of election, as will be shown below, had always an aristocratic tendency. Magistrates, on the contrary, of a more democratical character, particularly the ephors, were nominated without regard to the division of tribes, as their number alone shows: it is probable that this had some relation to the number of the divisions of the city, of which, as was shown above, there were five. A striking analogy, with regard to this numerary regulation, is afforded by Athens, while yet under an aristocratic government. The tribe of the nobles and knights was in this state divided into three phratriæ, which may be compared with the three tribes of the Doric Spartans. Now, when the nobility (like a chamber of peers) constituted a court of justice over the Alcmæonidæ, 300 eupatridæse, 100 out of each phratria, composed the court.(319) And when Cleisthenes the Alcmæonid had been expelled by the aristocratic party, and the democratic senate (βουλὴ) overthrown, Isagoras established a high council of 300.(320) Whereas the senate, to which Cleisthenes gave existence and stability, consisted of 500 citizens, and was chosen, without any regard to the ancient division into phratriæ, according to the new local tribes.

5. No Doric state, with the exception of Sparta, appears to have given the name of oba to a division of the people. But neither can the name phratria, so common in other places, be proved to have been used by any Doric people. On the other hand, phratriæ occur at Athens, in the Asiatic colonies,(321) and in the Chalcidean colony of Neapolis, that is, chiefly in Ionic states; and Neapolis affords a solitary instance of their being distinguished by certain proper names, such as Eumelidæ, Eunostidæ, Cymæans, Aristæans, &c.(322) Pindar however mentions patræ (πάτραι) in the Doric states of Corinth and Ægina; an expression which, according to the precise definition of Dicæarchus, is equivalent to houses or γένη, signifying persons descended from the same ancestor (πατήρ). It was indeed, although not at Athens, in use among the Ionians of Asia Minor and the islands, who appear however to have also employed the terms πάτρα or πατρία for the more extensive word phratria.(323) In Ægina and Corinth it will be safest to consider the patræ as houses, since they are always denoted by patronymic names, going back to fabulous progenitors; and by Pindar himself they are also called “houses.” Since however, as being not only a natural, but also a political division, the patræ may sometimes have comprised several houses, and as there was probably in these states no intermediate division (like the phratria at Athens and the oba at Sparta) between them and the tribes, the ancient commentators have neglected their more restricted and original sense, and have compared and identified them with phratriæ.(324)

6. The name which the houses or γένεα bore at Sparta, and the number of them which was contained in an oba, may be perhaps ascertained from a passage of Herodotus,(325) in which he mentions the Enomoties, Triacades, and Syssitia, as military institutions established by Lycurgus. Other inferences from this passage we shall not anticipate, remarking only that the Syssitia appear to have answered to the obæ, from which it is probable that the Triacades were contained in these latter divisions. Now in Attica, at an early period, a triacas was the thirtieth part of a phratria, and contained thirty men, the same number as a γένος.(326) Following then the argument from analogy (by which we are so often surprised and guided in our inquiries into the early political institutions), triacas was in Sparta also the name of a house, which was so called, either as being the thirtieth part of an oba, or, as appears to me more probable, because it contained thirty houses. The relation of the triacas to the enomoty,—a small division of warriors, which originally contained twenty-four men,—is quite uncertain. The basis of the whole calculation, and in this case a sufficiently fixed standard, was found in Sparta in the families (οἶκοι) connected with the landed estates; indifferently whether these contained several citizens, or whether they had become extinct and been united with other families.(327)

7. We now proceed to mention another division of the citizens of Sparta, which concerns the difference of rank. In a certain sense indeed all Dorians were equal in rights and dignity; but there were yet manifold gradations, which, when once formed, were retained by the aristocratic feelings of the people. In the first place, there was the dignity of the Heraclide families, which had a precedence throughout the whole nation;(328) and, connected with this, a certain pre-eminence of the Hyllean tribe; which is also expressed in Pindar. Then again, in the times of the Peloponnesian war, “men of the first rank” are often mentioned in Sparta, who, without being magistrates, had a considerable influence upon the government.(329)

Here also the difference between the Equals (ὅμοιοι) and Inferiors (ὑπομείονες) must be taken into consideration; which, if we judge only from the terms, would not appear to have been considerable, yet, though it is never mentioned in connexion with the constitution of Lycurgus, it had in later times a certain degree of influence upon the government. According to Demosthenes,(330) the prize of virtue in Sparta was to become a master of the state, together with the Equals. Whoever neglected a civil duty, lost, according to Xenophon,(331) his rank among the Equals. Cinadon wished to overthrow the government, because, although of a powerful and enterprising mind, he did not belong to the Equals.(332) About the king’s person in the field there were always three of the Equals, who provided for all his wants.(333) It also appears that there were many peculiarities in the education of an Equal.(334) Whoever, during his boyhood and youth, omitted to make the exertions and endure the fatigues of the Spartan discipline, lost his rank of an Equal.(335) In like manner, exclusion from the public tables was followed by a sort of diminutio capitis, or civil degradation.(336) This exclusion was either adjudged by the other members of the table, or it was the consequence of inability to defray the due share of the common expense. To them the Inferiors are most naturally opposed; and if the latter were distinct from the Spartans, by the Spartans, in a more limited sense of the word, Equals are sometimes probably understood.(337) From these scanty accounts the unprejudiced reader can only infer that a distinction of rank is implied, which depended not upon any charge or office, but continued through life, without however excluding the possibility of passing from one rank into the other, any Equal being liable to be degraded for improper conduct, and an Inferior, under certain circumstances, being enabled to procure promotion by bravery and submission to the authorities; but if this degradation did not take place, the rank then remained in the family, and was transmitted to the children, as otherwise it could not have had any effect upon education.(338)

8. After these preliminary inquiries concerning the divisions and classes of the citizens, we have now to examine the manner in which the political power was distributed and held in Sparta and the other Doric states.

As the foundation of these inquiries, we may premise a rhetra of Lycurgus, which, given in the form of an oracle of the Pythian Apollo,(339) contains the main features of the whole constitution of Sparta.(340) “Build a temple to Zeus Hellanius and Athene Hellania; divide the tribes, and institute thirty obas; appoint a council, with its princes; convene the assembly between Babyca and Cnacion; propose this, and then depart; and let there be a right of decision and power to the people.” Here then there is an unlimited authority given to the people to approve or to reject what the kings proposed. This full power was, however, more nearly defined and limited by a subsequent clause, the addition of which was ascribed to kings Theopompus and Polydorus: “but if the people should follow a crooked opinion, the elders and the princes shall dissent.”(341) Plutarch interprets these words thus; “That in case the people does not either approve or reject the measure in toto, but alters or vitiates it in any manner, the kings and councillors should dissolve the assembly, and declare the decree to be invalid.” According to this construction, indeed, the public assembly had so far the supreme power, that nothing could become a law without its consent. But it probably could not originate any legislative measure; inasmuch as such a power would have directly contravened the aristocratical spirit of the constitution, which feared nothing so much as the passionate and turbulent haste of the populace in decreeing and deciding. The sense of the rhetra of Lycurgus is also given in some verses from the Eunomia of Tyrtæus, which, on account of their antiquity and importance, we will quote in their original language:—

Φοίβου ἀκούσαντες, Πυθωνόθεν οἴκαδ᾽ ἔνεικαν μαντείας τε θεοῦ καὶ τελέεντ᾽ ἔπεα. ἄρχειν μὲν βουλῆς θεοτιμήτους βασιλῆας, οἷσι μέλει Σπάρτης ἱμερόεσσα πόλις, πρεσβυγενεῖς δὲ γέροντας, ἔπειτα δὲ δημότας ἄνδρας εὐθείαις ῥήτραις ἀνταπαμειβομένους.(342) δήμου τε πλήθει νίκην καὶ κάρτος ἕπεσθαι.(343)

By the sixth line Tyrtæus means to say that the popular assembly could give a direct answer to a law proposed by the authorities, but not depart from or alter it.

9. The usual name of a public assembly in the Doric states was ἁλία. This is the name by which the Spartan assembly is called in Herodotus;(344) and it is used also in official documents for those of Byzantium,(345) of Gela, Agrigentum,(346) Corcyra,(347) and Heraclea;(348) ἁλιαῖα was the term employed by the Tarentines(349) and Epidamnians;(350) the place of assembly among the Sicilian Dorians was called ἁλιακτήρ.(351) In Crete it was known by the ancient Homeric expression of ἀγορά.(352) In Sparta the ancient name of an assembly of the people was ἀπέλλα, whence the word ἀπελλάζειν in the rhetra quoted above. In later times the names ἐκκλησία and οἱ ἔκκλητοι appear to have been chiefly in use, which do not, more than at Athens, signify a select body, or a committee of the citizens;(353) although in other Doric states select assemblies sometimes occur under similar names.(354) There was also an assembly of this last kind at Sparta, but it is expressly called the small ecclesia;(355) and, according to a passage in which it was mentioned, was chiefly occupied concerning the state of the constitution, and perhaps consisted only of Equals; for it can hardly be supposed that an assembly was convened of magistrates alone.(356) To the regular assembly, however, all citizens above the age of thirty were doubtless admitted, who had not been deprived of their rights by law.(357) The place of meeting was in Sparta, between the brook Cnacion(358) and the bridge Babyca, where afterwards was a place called Œnus, near to Pitana, and therefore situated to the west of the city;(359) but, whatever might have been the precise spot, it was in the open air.(360) The time for the regular assembly was each full moon;(361) yet, for business of emergency, extraordinary meetings were held, often succeeding one another at short intervals.(362)

Our chief object now is to ascertain what were the subjects which, according to the customs of Sparta, required the immediate decision of the people. In the first place, with regard to the external relations of the state, we know that the whole people alone could proclaim war, conclude a peace, enter into an armistice for any length of time, &c.;(363) and that all negociations with foreign states, although conducted by the kings and ephors, could alone be ratified by the same authority. With regard to internal affairs, the highest offices, particularly the councillors, were filled by the votes of the people;(364) a disputed succession to the throne was decided by the same tribunal;(365) changes in the constitution were proposed and explained, and all new laws (as often as this rare event took place), after previous examination in the council, were confirmed in the assembly.(366) Legally also it required the authority of the assembled people to liberate any considerable number of Helots, as being their collective owner.(367) In short, the popular assembly possessed the supreme legislative authority; but it was so hampered and restrained by the spirit of the constitution, that it could only exert its authority within certain prescribed limits.

10. This circumstance was shown in an especial manner in the method of its proceedings. None but public magistrates, chiefly the ephors and kings, together with the sons of the latter,(368) addressed the people without being called upon, and put the question to the vote;(369) foreign ambassadors also being permitted to enter and speak concerning war and peace;(370) but that citizens ever came forward upon their own impulse to speak on public affairs, is neither probable, nor do any examples of such a practice occur. A privilege of this kind could, according to Spartan principles, only be obtained by holding a public office.(371) As therefore the magistrates alone, (τέλη, ἀρχαὶ) were the leaders and speakers of the assembly, so we often find that stated as a decree of the authorities (especially in foreign affairs),(372) which had been discussed before the whole community, and approved by it.(373) The occasional speeches were short, and spoken extempore; Lysander first delivered before the people a prepared speech, which he procured from Cleon of Halicarnassus.(374) The method of voting by acclamation has indeed something rude and barbarous; but it has the advantage of expressing not only the number of approving and negative voices, but also the eagerness of the voters, accurately enough, according to the ancient simplicity of manners.

11. The public assembly of CRETE was, if we may judge from some imperfect accounts, similar to the Lacedæmonian. It included all the citizens, strictly so called; and likewise had only power to answer the decree of the chief officers (cosmi or gerontes) in the negative or affirmative.(375) In the other Doric states the influence of the assembly is too closely connected with the historical epoch to allow the collection of the scattered accounts in this place to form an uniform whole. There were everywhere popular assemblies, as long as they were not suppressed by tyrants; nor indeed did every tyrant suppress them; in every state also they represented the supreme power and sovereignty of the people; its will was the only law. That this will, however, should be properly directed, and that the supreme decision should not be intrusted to the blind impulse of an ignorant or excited populace, was the problem which the founders of the Doric governments undertook to solve.

Chapter VI.

§ 1. The Gerusia of Sparta, a council of elders. § 2. The Spartan Gerontes were irresponsible. § 3. Functions of the Spartan Gerusia. § 4. Gerusia of Crete and of Elis. § 5. Character of the Spartan royalty. § 6. Honours paid to the Spartan kings, and the mode of their succession. § 7. Powers of the Spartan kings in domestic; § 8. and in foreign affairs. 9. Revenues of the Spartan kings. § 10. Heraclide princes in Doric states other than Sparta.

1. This result was chiefly brought about by the aristocratical counterpoise to the popular assembly, the gerusia, which was never wanting in a genuine Doric state, the “council of elders,” as the name signifies.(376) In this respect it is opposed to the senate (βουλὴ), which represented the people; although the latter name, as being the more general term, is sometimes used for the council, but never the converse. Thus in the Persian war a senate assembled at Argos, which had full powers to decide concerning peace and war;(377) this was therefore of an aristocratic character, since the government of Argos had not then become democratical. The Homeric assembly, which was of a purely aristocratical form, is called βουλὴ γερόντων or γερουσία;(378) it consisted of the older men of the ruling families, and decided both public business and judicial causes conjointly with the kings, properly so called,(379) frequently, however, in connexion with an ἀγορά. In this assembly lay, but as yet undeveloped, the political elements of the Doric gerusia. At Sparta the name was taken in the strictest sense, as the national opinion laid the greatest importance upon age in the management of public affairs; the young men were appointed for war;(380) and accordingly none but men of sixty or more years of age had admission to this council.(381) The office of a councillor was, however, according to the expression both of Aristotle and Demosthenes,(382) the prize of virtue, and attended with general honour;(383) none but men of distinguished families, blameless lives, and eminent station, could occupy it.(384) Being an office which was held for life,(385) it never could happen that more than one individual was elected at a time, and the eyes of the whole state were directed towards the choice of this one person. Distinguished men, therefore, bordering upon old age, probably always from the oba to which the person whose place was vacated had belonged,(386) offered themselves upon their own judgment(387) before the tribunal of the public voice. Their advanced age enabled the electors to consider and examine a long public life, and ensured to the state the greatest prudence and experience in the elected. To provide against the weakness of age, which Aristotle considers as a defect attendant on this mode of election, was unnecessary for a time and a state whose inhabitants enjoyed the highest bodily health. The aristocratic tendency of the office required that the candidates should be nominated by vote, not by lot, but yet by the whole people;(388) and that they themselves should meet with the good-will of every person; which was particularly required for this dignity.

2. When they had passed through this ordeal they were for ever relieved from all further scrutiny, and were trusted to their own conscience.(389) They were subject to no responsibility, since it was thought that the near prospect of death would give them more moderation,(390) than the fear of incurring at the cessation of their office the displeasure of the community; to whom in other states the power of calling the highest officers to account was intrusted. The spirit of this aristocratic institution was, that the councillors were morally perfect, and hence it gave them a complete exemption from all fear as to the consequences of their actions. To later politicians it appeared still more dangerous that the councillors of Sparta acted upon their own judgment, and not according to written laws; but only because they did not take into account the power of custom and of ancient habit (the ἄγραφα νόμιμα, πάτριοι νόμοι),(391) which have an absolute sway, so long as the internal unity of a people is not separated and destroyed. Upon unwritten laws, which were fixed in the hearts of the citizens, and were there implanted by education, the whole public and legal transactions of the Spartans depended; and these were doubtless most correctly delivered through the mouths of the experienced old men, whom the community had voluntarily selected as its best citizens. Thousands of written laws always leave open a door for the entrance of arbitrary decision, if they have not by their mutual connexion a complete power of supplying what is deficient; this power is, however, alone possessed by the law, connate with the people, which, in the ancient simple times, when national habits are preserved in perfect purity, is better maintained by custom fixed under the inspection of the best men, than by any writing.

To me, therefore, the gerusia appears to be a splendid monument of early Grecian customs: and, by its noble openness, simple greatness, and pure confidence, shows that it was safe to build upon the moral excellence and paternal wisdom of those who had experienced a long life, and to whom in this instance the people intrusted its safety and welfare.

3. The functions of the gerusia were double, it having at the same time an administrative and a judicial authority. In the first capacity it debated with the kings upon all important affairs, preparing them for the decision of the public assembly, and passed a decree in its first stage by a majority of voices,(392) the influence of which was doubtless far greater than at Athens: in the latter capacity it had the supreme decision in all criminal cases, and could punish with infamy and death.(393) Since, however, in both these directions the power of the council gradually came in conflict with that of the ephors, we must first enter into an investigation concerning these officers, before it will be possible to speak of the extent of the functions of the council at different periods. Another circumstance also, which renders a separate inquiry into the nature of the ephoralty requisite, is the inspection which it exercised over the manners of the citizens,(394) in which it manifests a great similarity with the ancient Athenian court of the Areopagus. As every old man had the right of severely censuring the habits of any youth, so every citizen was a youth in comparison with these aged fathers of the state. Hence the awe and veneration with which they were commonly regarded at Sparta. That, however, to an Athenian orator of the democratic times, the gerusia should appear possessed of despotic authority, is not surprising; for it is so far true, that this institution, if transplanted to Athens, would necessarily have caused a tyrannical dominion. In Sparta, however, so little was known of any despotic measure of the gerontes, that, on the contrary, the constitution was impaired when their antagonist office, the ephors, gained the ascendency in influence and power. The institution of the gerusia was in fact, in its main features, once established at Athens, when Lysander nominated the Thirty, who were to be a legislative body, and at the same time the supreme court of justice; with how little success is well known; so true is it, that every institution can only flourish in the soil in which it is first planted.(395)

4. In early times every Doric state must have had a gerusia; but CRETE is the only place of whose council accounts have been preserved, and these represent it in precisely the same light as that of Sparta. It was, we are informed, armed with large political and legislative powers, and laid its decrees in a matured state before the general assembly, for its approval or rejection.(396) It decided, without appeal to written laws, upon its own judgment, and was responsible to no one.(397) The members were chosen from those persons who had before filled the supreme magistracy (the cosmi), not, however, until after a fresh examination of their fitness.(398) The office lasted for life, as at Sparta.(399) The princeps senatus was styled βουλῆς πρείγιστος.(400)

In ELIS, also, whose government resembled that of Sparta, a gerusia was a very important part of the constitution. It consisted of ninety members, who were chosen for their lifetime from oligarchical families;(401) but in other respects the election was the same as at Sparta, and therefore they were chosen by the whole people. Yet there was also a larger council of 600,(402) which may have been an aristocratical committee selected from the popular assembly. Thus much at least is clear, that the power of the people was very limited; and that, as Aristotle says, there was one oligarchy within another.(403)

5. To the consideration of the gerusia may be joined the inquiry concerning the kingly office in Sparta and other Doric states, as being a cognate element of the constitution. The Doric royalty was a continuation of the heroic or Homeric; and neither in the one nor in the other are we to look for that despotic power, with which the Greeks were not acquainted until they had seen it in foreign countries. In those early times the king, together with his council, was supreme ruler and judge, but not without it; he was also chief commander in war, and as such possessed a large executive authority, as circumstances required. On the whole, however, his station with regard to the nobles was that of an equal; and his office, although for the most part hereditary, could yet be transferred to another family of the aristocracy. He ruled over the common people either in an arbitrary manner, as the suitors in Ithaca, or as a mild father, like Ulysses.(404) His office on the whole bore an analogy to the power of Zeus; and it received a religious confirmation from the circumstance of his presiding at and performing the great public sacrifices with the assistance of soothsayers.

6. These are the principal features of the kingly office at Sparta, where, according to Aristotle, as well as among the Molossi in Epirus, it acquired firmness by the limitation of its power; it also derived an additional strength from the mythical notion that the conquest of the country had originated from the royal family.(405) The main support of the dignity of the kings was doubtless the honour paid to the Heraclidæ, which extended throughout the whole of Greece, and was the theme of many fables; even the claim of the Spartans to the command of the allied Grecian armies was in part founded upon it. These princes, deriving their origin from the first of the heroes of Greece, were in many respects themselves considered as heroes,(406) and enjoyed a certain religious respect. Hence also we may account for their funeral ceremonies, so splendid, when compared with the simplicity of Doric customs; for the general mourning of ten days,(407) to which a fixed number of Spartans, Periœci and Helots came, together with their wives, from all parts of the country into the city, where they covered their heads with dust or ashes with great lamentation, and on each occasion praised the dead king as the best of all princes;(408) as well as for the exposure of those kings who had fallen in battle, whose images were laid upon a state-couch:(409) usages which approximate very closely to the worship of an hero (τιμαὶ ἡρωϊκαί). The royal dignity was also guarded by the sanction of the sacerdotal office: for the kings were priests of Zeus Uranius and Zeus Lacedæmon, and offered public sacrifices to Apollo on every new moon and seventh day (Νεομήνιος and Ἑβδομαγέτας);(410) they also received the skins of all sacrificed animals as a part of their income. From this circumstance, added to the fact that in war they had a right to the back of every victim, and had liberty to sacrifice as much as they wished,(411) it follows that they presided over the entire worship of the army, being both priests and princes, like the Agamemnon of Homer.(412) Their power, however, most directly required that they should maintain a constant intercourse between the state and the Delphian oracle; hence they nominated the Pythians, and, together with these officers, read and preserved the oracles.(413) As then it appears from these facts that the dignity of the kings was founded on a religious notion, so it was also limited by religion; although the account we have is rather of an ancient custom, which was retained when its meaning had been lost, than an institution of real influence. Once in every eight years (δι᾽ ἐτῶν ἐννέα) the ephors chose a calm and moonless night, and placed themselves in the most profound silence to observe the heavens: if there was any appearance of a shooting star, it was believed that the kings had in some manner offended the Deity, and they were suspended until an oracle from Delphi, or the priests at Olympia, absolved them from the guilt.(414) If this custom (doubtless of great antiquity) is compared with the frequent occurrence of this period of nine years in early times, and especially with the tradition preserved in a verse of Homer, “of Minos, who reigned for periods of nine years, holding intercourse with Zeus,”(415) it is easy to perceive that the dominion of the ancient Doric princes determined, as it were, at the period of every eight years, and required a fresh religious ratification. So intimate in early times was the connexion between civil government and religion.

It is clear, from what has been said, that the Dorians considered the kingly office as proceeding from the Deity, and not as originating from the people; which would, I believe, have seemed to them in no-wise more natural, than that the liberty of the people should be dependent on the king. But they were well aware that the elements of the constitution had not been formed by a people consisting, like the American colonists after their defection from the mother-country, of individuals possessed of equal rights: but they had existed at the beginning, and grown with the growth of the nation. For this reason the people were not empowered to nominate the king (from which disputes concerning the rightful succession to the throne should be carefully distinguished;)(416) but the royal dignity passed in a regular succession to the eldest son, with this exception, that the sons born during the reign of the father had the precedence of their elder brothers: if the eldest son died, the throne passed to his next male descendant; and on failure of his line, to the younger brothers in succession; if there was no male issue of the king, the office went to his brother(417) (who also, during the minority of the son of the late king, was his natural guardian),(418) and his heirs; or, lastly, if the whole line was extinct, to the next of kin.(419) The anxiety of the Spartans for the legitimacy of their kings, also serves to prove the high importance which was attached to the genuineness of their birth. Notwithstanding these large privileges, the people believed its liberty to be secured by the oath which was taken every month by the kings, that they would reign according to the laws; a custom also in force among the Molossi;(420) in return for which, the state engaged through the ephors to preserve the dominion of the kings unshaken (ἀστυφέλικτος), if they adhered to their oath.(421)

7. The constitutional powers of the kings of Sparta were inconsiderable, as compared with their dignity and honours. In the first place, the two kings were members of the gerusia, and their presence was requisite to make a full council; but as such they only had single votes,(422) which in their absence were held by the councillor who was most nearly related to them, and therefore a Heraclide.(423) If they were present, they presided at the council, and accordingly, in the ancient rhetra above mentioned, they are styled princes (ἀρχαγέται) in reference to the council; it was also their especial office to speak and to propose measures in the public assembly. When the council sat as a court of justice, the kings of course presided in it; besides which, they had a distinct tribunal of their own,(424) for in Sparta all magistrates had a jurisdiction in cases which belonged to the branch of the administration with which they were intrusted: the only remnant of which custom, spared by the democracy at Athens, was, that the public officers always introduced such suits into the courts. This coincidence of administrative and judicial authority also existed at Sparta in the person of their kings. They held a court in cases concerning the repair and security of the public roads, probably in their capacity of generals, and as superintendents of the intercourse with foreign nations. It is remarkable that they gave judgment in all cases of heiresses, and that all adoptions were made in their presence.(425) Both these duties regarded the maintenance of families, the basis of the ancient Greek states, the care for which was therefore intrusted to the kings. Thus in Athens also, the same duty had been transferred from the ancient kings to the archon eponymus, who accordingly had the superintendence, and a species of guardianship over all heiresses and orphans.(426)

8. The greater part of the king’s prerogative was his power in foreign affairs. The kings of Sparta were the commanders of the Peloponnesian confederacy. They also went out as ambassadors; although at times of mistrust companions were assigned, who were known to be disinclined and hostile to them.(427) By the same power the kings also nominated citizens as proxeni, who entertained ambassadors and citizens of foreign states in their houses,(428) and otherwise provided for them; it appears that the kings themselves were in fact the proxeni for foreign countries, and that those persons whom they nominated are only to be considered as their deputies.

As soon as the king had assumed the command of the army, and had crossed the boundaries, he became, according to ancient custom, general with unlimited power (στρατηγὸς αὐτοκράτωρ).(429) He had authority to despatch and assemble armies, to collect money in foreign countries, and to lead and encamp the army according to his own judgment. Any person who dared to impede him, or to resist his authority, was outlawed.(430) He had power of life and death, and could execute without trial (ἐν χειρὸς νόμῳ); although, from the well-known subordination of the Spartans, such cases were probably of rare occurrence. But it is manifest that the king, upon his return, was always responsible and liable to punishment, as well for an imprudent, as for a tyrannical use of his powers. His political was separated with sufficient accuracy from his military authority, and the king was not permitted to conclude treaties, or to decide the fate of cities, without communication with and permission from the state.(431) His military power was, however, thought dangerous and excessive, and was from time to time curtailed. This limitation was not indeed effected by the arrangement which originated from the dissension between Demaratus and Cleomenes, viz., that only one king should be with the army at the same time(432) (for this regulation rather increased the power of the one king who was sent out); but chiefly by the law, that the king should not go into the field without ten councillors (a rule which owed its origin to the over-hasty armistice of Agis),(433) and by the compulsory attendance of the ephors.(434)

9. The investigation concerning the revenue of the kings is not in itself so important as it is rendered interesting by the parallel with the same office in the Homeric age. In Homer the kings are represented as having three sorts of revenues; first, the produce of their lands (τεμένη),(435) which often contained tillage ground, pastures, and plantations; secondly, the fees for judicial decisions (δῶρα); and, thirdly, the public banquets, which were provided at the expense of the community.(436) To these were added extraordinary gifts, shares of the booty, and other honorary presents. The case was nearly the same at Sparta, except that they received no fees for judicial decisions. But in the first place, the king in this country had his landed property, which was situated in the territory of several cities belonging to the Periœci,(437) and the royal tribute (βασιλικὸς φόρος) was probably derived from the same source.(438) This was the foundation of the private wealth of the kings, which frequently amounted to a considerable sum; otherwise, how could it have been proposed to fine king Agis a hundred thousand drachmas,(439) that is, doubtless, Æginetan drachmas, and therefore about 5800l. of our money? Also the younger Agis, the son of Eudamidas, was possessed of six hundred talents in coin;(440) and in a dialogue attributed to Plato, the king of Sparta is declared to be richer than any private individual at Athens.(441) But besides these revenues, the king received a large sum from the public property; a double portion at the public banquets,(442) an animal without blemish for sacrifice, a medimnus of wheat, and a Lacedæmonian quart of wine on the first and seventh days of each month;(443) the share in the sacrifices above mentioned, &c. It was, moreover, customary for private individuals who gave entertainments, to invite the kings, as was the practice in the Homeric times;(444) on these occasions a double portion was set before them, and when a public sacrifice took place, the kings had the same rights and preferences.(445) In war, also, the king received a large portion of the plunder; thus the share of Pausanias, after the battle of Platæa, was ten women, horses, camels, and talents:(446) in later times it appears that a third of the booty fell to the lot of the king.(447) Lastly, it is proper to mention the official residence of the two kings of Sparta, built, according to tradition, by Aristodemus the ancestor of the two royal families.(448) In addition to this dwelling, they had frequently private houses of their own,(449) and a tent was always built for them without the city, at the public expense.(450)

In taking a review of all these statements, it appears to me that the political sagacity was almost past belief, with which the ancient constitution of Sparta protected the power, the dignity, and welfare of the office of king, yet without suffering it to grow into a despotism, or without placing the king in any one point either above or without the law. Without endangering the liberty of the state, a royal race was maintained, which, blending the pride of their own family with the national feelings, produced, for a long succession of years, princes of a noble and patriotic disposition. Thus it was in fact with the two Heraclide families, to which Theopompus, Leonidas, Archidamus II., Agesilaus, Cleomenes III., and Agis III. belonged; and the greater number of the later kings retained, up to the last period, a genuine Spartan disposition, which we find expressed in many nervous and pithy apophthegms.

10. It may be inferred that it was the case in all, as we know it to have been in many Dorian states, with the exception of later colonies, that they were governed by princes of the Heraclide family. In Argos, the descendants of Temenus reigned until after the time of Phidon, and the kingly office did not expire till after the Persian war;(451) in Corinth, the successors of Aletes, and afterwards of Bacchis, reigned until about the 8th Olympiad. How long the Ctesippidæ reigned in Epidaurus and Cleonæ,(452) we are not informed. In Megara we find the name, but the name only, of a king at a very late period.(453) In Messenia the Æpytidæ ruled as kings until the subjugation of the country; and when Aristomenes was compelled to quit it, he took refuge with Damagetus, the king of Ialysus, in the island of Rhodes, of the Heraclide family of the Eratidæ.(454) Also the Hippotadæ at Cnidos and Lipara,(455) the Bacchiadæ at Syracuse and Corcyra,(456) the Phalantidæ at Tarentum,(457) probably had in early times ruled as sovereign princes, as well as the Heraclidæ at Cos, who derived their origin from Phidippus and Antiphus.(458) In Crete we find but little mention of the Heraclidæ, the only exceptions being Althæmenes of Argos, and Phæstus of Sicyon.(459) In this island the family of Teutamas had reigned from a remote period: with regard to the time during which kings existed in this country, it can only be conjectured from the circumstance that a king named Etearchus reigned at Oaxus not long before the building of Cyrene.(460) Cyrene, as has been already shown, was under the dominion of a Minyean, its mother-city Thera, under that of an Ægide family.(461) Delphi was also at an early period under the rule of kings.(462) Of the aristocratic offices, which were substituted in the place of the royal authority, we shall presently speak, when treating of the power of the cosmi.

Chapter VII.

§ 1. Origin of the office of Ephor in the Spartan state. § 2. Period of its creation. § 3. Civil jurisdiction of the Ephors. § 4. Increase in the powers of the Ephors. § 5. Their transaction of business with the assembly of citizens, and with foreign powers. § 6. The power of the Ephors, owing to their ascendency over the assembly of citizens. § 7. Miscellaneous facts concerning the office of Ephor. § 8. Titles and duties of other magistrates at Sparta.

1. Before we treat of the powers of the cosmi, it will be necessary to inquire into an office, which is of the greatest importance in the history of the Lacedæmonian constitution; for while the king, the council, and the people, preserved upon the whole the same political power and the same executive authority, the office of the ephors was the moving principle by which, in process of time, this most perfect constitution was assailed, and gradually overthrown. From this remark three questions arise: first, what was the original nature of the office of ephor? secondly, what changes did it experience in the lapse of time? and, thirdly, from what causes did these changes originate?

There is an account frequently repeated by ancient writers, that Theopompus, the grandson of Charilaus the Proclid, founded this office in order to limit the authority of the Kings. “He handed down the royal power to his descendants more durable, because he had diminished it.”(463) If, however, the ephoralty was an institution of Theopompus, it is difficult to account for the existence of the same office in other Doric states. In Cyrene the ephors punished litigious people and impostors with infamy:(464) the same office existed in the mother-city Thera,(465) which island had been colonised from Laconia long before the time of Theopompus. The Messenians also would hardly, upon the re-establishment of their state, have received the ephoralty into their government,(466) if they had thought it only an institution of some Spartan king. The ephors of the Tarentine colony Heraclea may be more easily derived from Sparta and the time of Theopompus.(467) It is however plain that Herodotus(468) and Xenophon(469) placed the ephoralty among the institutions of Lycurgus, with as much reason as other writers attributed it to Theopompus; and it will probably be sufficient to state that the ephors were ancient Doric magistrates.

The ephoralty, however, considered as an office opposed to the kings and to the council, is not for this reason an institution less peculiar to the Spartans; and in no Doric, nor even in any Grecian state, is there any thing which exactly corresponds with it. It is evident, therefore, that it must have gradually obtained this peculiar character by causes which operated upon the Lacedæmonian state alone. Hence it appears, that the supposed expression of Theopompus referred rather to the powers of the ephors in later times, than to their original condition. At least Cleomenes the Third was ignorant of this account of them; since, after the abolition of these magistrates, he proposed, in a speech to the people, that the ephors should again be what they were originally (when they were elected in the first Messenian war), viz., the deputies and assistants of the king. In this proposal indeed a very partial view is displayed; for every magistrate must necessarily choose his own deputy; whereas the democratic election of the ephors was, as we shall presently see, an essential part of their office. From the accounts just adduced, we do not however wish to infer any thing further, than how variable were the opinions, and how little historical the statements, concerning the original object of the ephoralty.

2. In the constitution of Lycurgus, as it has been hitherto developed, the ephoralty of later times would not only have been a superfluous, but a destructive addition. For in this the king, the council, and the people constituted the chief authorities; and to suppose that any part would require either check or assistance, would have been inconsistent with the plans of the legislator. A counter-authority, such as the ephoralty, in which the mistrust of the people was expressed in a tyrannical manner, was far removed from the innocence and simplicity of the original constitution, and could not have been introduced, until the connexion and firmness arising from the first laws had been loosened and enfeebled. The Roman office of tribune had, doubtless, a certain similarity in its first origin with the ephoralty;(470) yet the former was more imperatively required, as by it an entire people, the plebs Romana, obtained a necessary and fair representation; whereas in Sparta the gerusia, although chosen from the most distinguished citizens, belonged nevertheless to the whole Spartan people, and the democratic influence of the popular assembly served as the basis of the whole constitution.(471)

If then the extended political power of the ephors did not belong to the constitution of Lycurgus, neither can we suppose that it originated in the time of Theopompus. For the statement is worthy of credit, that Theopompus and Polydorus added the following words to the rhetra above quoted: “If however the people should follow a crooked opinion, the councillors and princes shall dissent.” Now in the first place, the ephors are here wholly omitted, although in the Peloponnesian war they put the vote to the people, and frequently made proposals in the assembly; and, secondly, the tendency of this clause is manifestly to diminish the power of the people; whereas it will be more clearly shown below, that the authority of the ephors rested upon democratical principles.

It is evident that these supposed historical traditions, instead of affording any clear explanation, lead to contradictions; and in order to obtain any distinct knowledge of the history of the ephoralty, we must proceed rather upon the evidence furnished by the nature of the office itself, and the analogy of similar offices in other states.

3. For this reason we will first consider the judicial authority of the ephors, a power which we know to have belonged also to the ephors of Cyrene. Now Aristotle(472) describes their judicial powers by saying, that they decided causes relating to contracts, while the council decided causes of homicide.(473) The latter was therefore a supreme criminal court, with power of life and death; the former a civil court, which gave judgment concerning contracts and property. Its influence upon the Spartans would appear to have been inconsiderable, from the opinions entertained by them on the division of property and exchange of money, perhaps less than it really was; but however this may be, the Periœci and Helots, when they were in Sparta, were under its jurisdiction. Now we have already shown, that it was a principle of the Lacedæmonian government so to divide the jurisdiction amongst the different magistrates, that the administration and jurisdiction belonged to the same officers.(474) Hence a superintendence over sales and over the market must have been the original duty of the ephors, forming the basis of their judicial authority.(475) The market, as being the central point of exchange, was no unimportant object of care:(476) every Spartan here brought a part of the corn produced by his estate, in order to exchange it for other commodities: it was in a certain manner disgraceful not to have the power of buying and selling;(477) a privilege which was also interdicted to youths: moreover, in the days of mourning for the king, the market was shut up and scattered with chaff.(478) The day upon which Cinadon, according to the description of Xenophon,(479) secretly endeavoured to inflame the minds of the lower classes, was evidently a market-day, and also, in my opinion, a great day of justice. A king, the ephors, the councillors, and about forty Spartans (ὅμοιοι), were in the market-place, all probably in a judicial capacity: besides whom, there were about four thousand men, chiefly occupied in buying and selling, as is seen from the fact that in one part of the market a large quantity of iron fabrics was heaped up. The ephors were therefore ἔφοροι (inspectors) over the market, and for this reason they met regularly in this place,(480) where was also situated their office.

The number of the college of ephors (five),(481) which it had in common with some other magistrates of Sparta,(482) appears, as I conjectured above,(483) to imply a democratic election—a fact which is also stated by the ancients. We know from Aristotle, that persons from the people, without property or distinction, could fill this office:(484) in what manner, indeed, is not quite manifest. Properly indeed, no magistrate in Sparta was chosen by lot;(485) but it appears that election by choice and by lot were combined.(486) In this case we see displayed a principle of the ancient Greek states, which administered the criminal jurisdiction on aristocratic principles, while civil causes were decided by the whole community, or its representatives. At Athens, Solon gave the popular courts a jurisdiction only in civil suits; all criminal cases were decided by the timocratic Areopagus, and the aristocratic Ephetæ. In Heraclea on the Pontus, the chief officers were chosen from a small number of the citizens, the courts of justice from the rest of the people.(487) And in Sparta also the civil judges were the deputies of the assembly—the ἁλίαια,(488) which in Athens itself acted as a court of justice under the name of ἡλίαια.

4. From the view of this office now taken, the continued extension of the powers of the ephors may be more easily accounted for. It was the regular course of events in the Grecian states, that the civil courts enlarged their influence, while the power of the criminal courts was continually on the decline. As in Athens, the Helæeea rose, as compared with the Areopagus, so in Sparta the power of the ephors increased in comparison with that of the gerusia.

In the first place, the jurisdiction of the ephors was extended(489) chiefly by their privilege of instituting scrutinies (εὔθυναι) into the official conduct of all magistrates, with the exception of the councillors.(490) By this indeed we are not to understand, that all magistrates, after the cessation of their office, rendered an account of their proceedings, but only that the ephors could compel them to undergo a trial, if there had been any thing suspicious in their administration; a right, however, as it extended over the ephors of the preceding year,(491) which restrained the power that it bestowed. But the ephors were not compelled to wait for the natural expiration of an office, they could suspend or deprive the officer by their judicial powers.(492) Now in this respect the king was in the very same situation with the remaining magistrates, and could, as well as the others, be brought before the tribunal of the ephors. Even before the Persian war, Cleomenes was tried before them for bribery.(493) The king was always bound to obey their summons:(494) but the fact of his not being compelled to yield till the third time, was used by Cleomenes III. as an argument to prove that the power of the ephors was originally an usurpation.(495) At the same time, their power extended in practice so far, that they could accuse the king, as well as the other magistrates, in extreme cases, without consulting the assembly, and could bring him to trial for life and death.(496) This larger court consisted of all the councillors, of the ephors, who thus came before it as accusers, besides having the right of sitting as judges, of the other king, and probably of several magistrates, who had all equal votes.(497) From this court there was no appeal; it had power to condemn the king to death;(498) although, until later times, it was prevented by a religious scruple from executing this sentence.(499) That its proceedings were commonly carried on with great propriety and composure, is stated upon the occasion of an instance to the contrary.(500) This great court of magistrates we frequently find deciding concerning public crimes with supreme authority,(501) and the ephors acting in it as accusers:(502) but that the ephors had power of themselves to punish with death, I deny most decidedly:(503) whether they had authority to banish, I even doubt.(504) The inaccuracy of later writers has confounded the steps preparatory to the sentence, with the sentence itself; a power of life and death in the hands of the ephors would have been worse than tyranny. The ephors, when they judged for themselves, were only able to impose fines, and to compel an instantaneous payment.(505) Their power of punishing the kings in this manner, or by a reprimand, was doubtless very extensive, and appears to have been subject to no limitation. Agesilaus was fined by them for endeavouring to make himself popular,(506) and Archidamus was censured for having married too small a wife,(507) which implies the opinion, that the community had a right to require their kings to keep up a robust family.(508) The kings, however, were compelled to submit to this treatment, in a state in which every magistrate exercised the full powers of his office with a certain degree of severity. We find, however, that the ephors had also jurisdiction in cases which were neither civil actions nor the scrutinies of public officers; for example, they punished a man for having brought money into the state;(509) another for indolence;(510) a third from the singular reason that he was generally injured and insulted:(511) and their share in the superintendence of public education,(512) as well as over the celebration of the public games,(513) gave them a jurisdiction in causes relating to these points. In cases of this kind, however, we are ignorant how far they acted as a separate board, and how far in connexion with other magistrates, for example, as assessors of the kings.(514) They judged according to unwritten laws, as Sparta knew no others. Aristotle calls this, deciding according to their will and pleasure.(515)

5. Another more important circumstance, as affecting the extension of the power of the ephors, was, that these officers (from what time we are not informed) placed themselves in connexion with the popular assembly, so that they had a right to transact business with it in preference to all other magistrates. They had power to convene the people,(516) and put the vote to them.(517) They must in early times have had the privilege of proposing laws(518) (but doubtless not till after they had passed through the gerusia), if the ephor Chilon is correctly called a legislator.(519) They also possessed great authority in transactions with foreign nations. They admitted ambassadors, and had also power to dismiss them from the boundary,(520) likewise to expel suspected foreigners from the state,(521) and therefore they were probably the chief managers of the Xenelasia. They frequently carried on the negotiations with foreign ambassadors, with full powers of treating;(522) and had great influence, especially of a preparatory nature,(523) upon declarations of war, as well as armistices and treaties of peace,(524) which the ephors, and particularly the first among them, swore to and subscribed in presence of other persons.(525) To them also was intrusted the right of dismissing ambassadors.(526) In time of war they were empowered to send out troops (φρουρὰν φαίνειν(527)) on whatever day seemed to them expedient;(528) and they even appear to have had authority to determine the number of men.(529) The army they then intrusted to the king, or some other general,(530) who received from them instructions how to act;(531) sent back to the ephors for fresh instructions;(532) were restrained by them through the attendance of extraordinary plenipotentiaries;(533) were recalled by means of the scytale;(534) summoned before a judicial tribunal;(535) and their first duty after their return was to visit the office of the ephors.(536) These officers also sent commands, with respect to discipline, to standing armies abroad,(537) Now in these cases the ephors must have acted, not upon their own authority, but as the agents of the public assembly;(538) it was their duty to execute the decrees of the people, the mode being left in some degree to their discretion. For this reason the assembly is frequently mentioned, together with the ephors, in the same cases in which on other occasions the ephors alone are represented as acting. The ephors were often manifestly mediators between the generals and the assembly. In the field the king was followed by two ephors, who belonged to the council of war;(539) it is probable that they had the chief care of the maintenance of the army, as well as the division of the plunder:(540) those ephors who remained behind in Sparta received the booty in charge, and paid it in to the public treasury.(541) We also find the ephors deciding with regard to conquered cities, whether they should be dependent or independent;(542) they suppressed the ten governors appointed by Lysander, nominated harmosts,(543) &c.; all evidently in the name and authority of that power, which it would have been against all principles of a free constitution to intrust to the college of ephors.

6. Although we are prevented from obtaining an entirely clear view of this subject, and particularly from pointing out all the collisions between the authority of the ephors and other magistrates, by the secret nature of the Spartan constitution,(544) it is yet evident that the powers of the ephors were essentially founded upon the supreme authority of the popular assembly, whose agents and plenipotentiaries they were. Every popular assembly is necessarily an unskilful body, and little able to act both with energy and moderation; least of all was the Spartan assembly capable of transacting and executing any complicated business. For this reason it intrusted to the ephors, who were chosen upon democratic principles from among the people, a power similar to that which the public leaders or demagogues of Athens exercised in so pernicious a manner. Plato and Aristotle compare their authority with a tyranny:(545) and it is to be remembered that in Greece tyrants continually rose from demagogues. Accordingly the ephors reached the summit of their power when they began to lead the public assembly: it is probable that this was first done by the ephor Asteropus, who is one of the first persons to whom the extension of the powers of that office is ascribed,(546) and who probably lived not long before the time of Chilon. The extensive political influence of Lacedæmon also contributed to give a greater importance to the ephoralty. Chasms arose in the constitution of Lycurgus, which had been intended for a simpler state of things, and were filled up by the ambition of these magistrates. The transactions with foreign states required a small number of skilful and clever men; the gerusia was too helpless, simple, and antiquated for this purpose; and accordingly the sphere of its operations appears to have been confined to domestic affairs. And lastly, as the finances of Sparta became continually an object of greater and greater importance, the influence of the officers necessarily increased, who had, as it appears, at all times the management of the treasury.

7. There are some other facts which may be added respecting the official proceedings of the ephors. They commenced their annual office with the autumnal equinox, the beginning of the Lacedæmonian year.(547) The first of them gave his name to the year, which was called after him in all public transactions. They commenced their official duties with a species of edict, by which the secret officers (κρυπτοὶ) were sent out: it appears from this that they also exercised a superintendence over the discipline of the Helots and Periœci.(548) In the same edict it was ordered “to shave the beard,” “and obey the laws,”(549) the former being a metaphorical, and indeed rather a singular expression for subjection and obedience. They held their daily meetings in the ephors’ office, in which they also ate together.(550) In this house foreigners and ambassadors were introduced, and hospitably entertained.(551) Next to the Ephoreum stood a temple of Fear, which the dictatorial power of these magistrates doubtless inspired in the citizens.(552) Lastly, these officers also required a religious foundation for their dignity. The ephors at certain periods saw dreams in the temple of Pasiphaa at Thalamæ, and their visions were politically interpreted: we know that a dream of this kind stimulated the Spartans to return to their ancient equality.(553) Of their periodical inspection of the heavens we have already spoken, when treating of the kingly office:(554) and it is remarkable that this custom, which was doubtless of great antiquity, occurs first in very late times, and was used in support of the tyranny of the ephors over the kings. It is these later times in particular which confirm the assertion made in the beginning of the chapter, that the ephoralty was the moving element, the principle of change, in the Spartan constitution, and, in the end, the cause of its final dissolution; for the ephors, being brought by means of their jurisdiction and their political duties into extensive intercourse with foreign nations, were the first to give up the severe customs of ancient Sparta, and to admit a greater luxury of manners. Even Aristotle censures their relaxed mode of life.(555) It is still more to our purpose that the decrees which undermined the constitution of Sparta originated from these magistrates: it was the ephor Epitadeus who first carried through the law permitting the free inheritance of property. For this reason it was necessary for the royal heroes Agis and Cleomenes, when, in a fruitless but glorious struggle with the degenerate age, they undertook to restore the constitution of Lycurgus, to begin with the overthrow of the ephors.(556)

8. The undefined and vague nature of the authority of the ephors(557) is strongly opposed to the accurate designation of the duties of the other annual officers. Although there were many officers of this description at Sparta, we seldom find any mention of them, as they rarely overstepped the legal bounds of their authority. Yet it is possible that the name τέλη,(558) which is so frequently used for the presidents of the assembly, and the high court for state offences, and which to a foreigner rather concealed than explained the internal affairs of Sparta, comprehended other magistrates, according to the circumstances of the case, besides the kings, councillors, and ephors. The nomophylaces and bidiæi,(559) as well as the ephors, had their offices in the market-place. The duties of the former officers are declared by their name, of their number we know nothing; of the latter there were five, and their business was to inspect the gymnastic exercises.(560) The harmosyni were appointed to superintend the manners of the women;(561) the buagi regulated a part of the education; to the empelori belonged the market-police.(562)

The polemarchs also, in addition to their military functions, had a civil, together with a certain judicial power. In some Laconian inscriptions, belonging to the Roman time, many names of nomophylaces, buagi, and σύσσιτοι of the magistrates are recorded; the meaning of the latter distinction is obscure. The election of regular nomophylaces was an occurrence somewhat unusual.(563) With regard to later times we may further observe, that the ephoralty, which was abolished by Cleomenes, was re-established under the Roman dominion;(564) and that the same king instituted a college of πατρονόμοι in the place of the gerusia,(565) although Pausanias again mentions gerontes; unless it is possible that the two councils coexisted. An inscription of the second century of the Christian era(566) mentions a σύνδικος at Sparta, a public advocate, and δαμοσιομάστης, a public inquisitor, and interpreter of the laws of Lycurgus, concerning whom, as well as others of the magistrates here mentioned, we will say more hereafter.(567)

Chapter VIII.

§ 1. The Cosmi of Crete. § 2. Changes in their powers. § 3. The Prytanes of Corinth and Rhodes. § 4. The Prytanes of ancient Athens. § 5. The Artynæ of Argos; the Demiurgi in several states of Peloponnesus.

1. The cosmi of Crete are compared by Aristotle, Ephorus and Cicero, with the ephors of Lacedæmon.(568) We are first led to suspect the correctness of this comparison by the fact, that the larger part of the extensive power of the ephoralty did not exist in the ancient constitution of Sparta, and consequently there could not have been any thing corresponding with it in the sister constitution of Crete. This conjecture is still further confirmed when we remember that the cosmi were chosen from particular families, rather according to their rank than their personal merits.(569) For to take away from the office of ephors their election from among the people would be to give up its most essential characteristic. If then we abandon this comparison, it will be necessary, on account of the great similarity between the two constitutions, to find some other analogous office, and it will then appear that the parallel magistrates to the cosmi in the Spartan government were the kings; whom indeed the cosmi appear to have succeeded, like the prytanes, artynæ, &c., in other states, the expiring monarchical dignity having been replaced by an aristocratical magistrate.

This assertion is confirmed by whatever knowledge we have of the powers of the cosmi, which indeed chiefly regards their influence in foreign affairs. They were commanders in war, like the kings of Sparta.(570) They conducted the negotiations with foreign ambassadors (although these last sometimes spoke before the public assembly); and they affixed their official name to the treaties, as well as to all decrees of the state.(571) They provided for the ambassadors during their residence,(572) and prepared for them the necessary documents.(573) They appear to have themselves gone as ambassadors to neighbouring and friendly states.(574) For the internal government and administration of the state they shared the power of the senate, with which body they consulted on important affairs.(575) The decrees passed in this council were then laid before the public assembly for its decision, according to the manner above stated.(576) On an occasion of the connexion of two Cretan cities by ἱσοπολιτεία, the cosmi of the one state, who were resident in the other city, went together into the house of meeting of the cosmi and of the senate (as it appears) and sat among them in the public assembly.(577)

The common routine of business they appear to have conducted with a large executive power;(578) they must, for example, have had a compulsive authority, in order to force a person who had kidnapped citizens of a foreign state, against the right of asylum, to restore them.(579) In judicial matters they performed, in the times at least subsequent to Alexander, certain duties which had a resemblance to the introduction of the lawsuits by the Athenian magistrates.(580) They themselves, however, were not only subject to certain punishments for omission of their duties, but they could also be impeached, apparently during the continuance of their office.(581) Upon the whole, without having equal dignity, they had more power and more extensive duties than the Spartan kings; yet both were limited by the large number of the college of cosmi, for it contained ten members. The college had power to degrade individuals, although the office was limited to a year, each individual being also permitted to tender his resignation within that period.(582) The first of them gave his name to the year; he was called protocosmus,(583) although he had probably no distinct privileges. The senate was chosen from persons who had filled the office of cosmus; it was not, however, so arranged that each cosmus, on the cessation of his office, became a senator (as at Athens, after the time of Solon, every archon, if no complaint was made against him, became a member of the Areopagus), but the senators were selected from among the former cosmi, after a fresh examination. For the number of the senators was, doubtless, limited, and was not sufficiently great to comprehend all the cosmi.

2. In the time of Aristotle the power of the cosmi had acquired a despotic character. The number of the families from which they were chosen had become less numerous; individual families had acquired an immediate influence upon the government, and their disputes had created parties, in which the whole nation took a share. The constitution had been thus converted into a narrow oligarchy; the democratic element, the public assembly, being too feeble to put an end to these dissensions. To this was added, at a time when men had ceased to venerate ancient customs, a want of written laws. When powerful families feared for the issue of a lawsuit, they prevented the election of the cosmi, and an ἀκοσμία, as it was called, arose,(584) in which the chief families and their dependents were opposed to one another as enemies. This state of things had at that time been introduced in several of the chief cities of Crete: at the time, however, when the alliance between the Priansii and Hierapytnii (which is still extant) was agreed to, the government appears to have been better regulated, and the powers of the aristocracy to have been considerably diminished. But before the time of Polybius a complete revolution had taken place, by which the power of the aristocracy was abolished, and the election of all magistrates founded on democratic principles;(585) a revolution which gradually overthrew all the ancient institutions; so that the writer just mentioned cannot discover the least resemblance between the Spartan and Cretan governments, the original similarity of which cannot be doubted. It is worthy of remark that cosmi, as far as we know, were the chief magistrates in all the cities of Crete; and their constitutions were in all essential points the same: a proof that these cities, although originally founded by different tribes, were in their political institutions determined by the governing, that is, the Doric race.(586) In the time of Plato, Cnosus was still, as in the time of Minos, considered the chief seat of ancient Cretan institutions; Ephorus, on the other hand, observes that they had been less preserved in this town than among the Lyctians, Gortynians, and other small cities.(587)

3. With the Cretan cosmi may be compared the magistrates named prytanes, who in Corinth, as well as in other states, succeeded in the place of the kings. The numerous house of the Bacchiadæ were not content that certain individuals of their number should exercise the government as an hereditary right for life, but wished to obtain a larger share in it, and to give the enjoyment of the supreme power to a greater number. The only difference, however, which existed between a prytanis and a king was, that the former was elected, and only held his office for a year, by which he was compelled to administer it according to the will of his house, into the body of which he was soon to return. In this state, doubtless, there was also a gerusia, but perhaps only consisting of Bacchiadæ. As the Bacchiadæ only intermarried with persons of their own house, they formed an aristocratic caste, whose government, which lasted for ninety years, must have been exceedingly oppressive.(588) As Corcyra was founded from Corinth before the commencement of the tyranny of the Cypselidæ, we find that in the latter state annual prytanes, chosen apparently from among the aristocracy, remained the supreme magistrates even in a democratic age.(589)

The power of the prytanis, as has been already mentioned, came next in order in that of king, and hence the ancient Charon of Lampsacus called the Spartan kings prytanes;(590) which was also the proper name of one of them. The early kings of Delphi were also, at least about 360 B.C., called prytanes;(591) in which state there was for a long time an aristocratic government, similar to that which prevailed in the Homeric age.(592) The number of the prytanes was in general only one or two.(593) At Rhodes there were two in a year, each of whom had the precedence for six months;(594) so that sometimes one, sometimes two prytanes are mentioned: they managed the public affairs with great power in the Prytaneum, in which building the archives of the city were preserved, and foreign ambassadors received.(595) Yet their powers cannot have been excessive in the free constitution, which Rhodes, at its most flourishing period, enjoyed. For the senate, which was chosen on purely democratic principles, as we shall see below, shared the management of all public affairs with the prytanes; the people, however, exercised the supreme power in the general assembly, voted by cheirotonia,(596) and does not appear to have been even led in its deliberations by the magistrates alone.(597) Yet the government of Rhodes was never, up to the time of the Roman dominion, a complete democracy;(598) perhaps it approximated at the period of the greatest power of these islanders to the politeia of Aristotle.(599) But the power of the prytanes, who were also the chief magistrates in Ionian, and especially Æolian(600) states, was not everywhere so wisely restrained; in Miletus their authority was nearly despotic.(601) In all places the prytanes inherited from the kings the celebration of public sacrifices, which they generally performed in particular buildings in the market-place, on the common hearth of the state. So the prytanis of Tenedos, to whom Pindar has composed an ode for the sacrifice upon entrance into his office (εἰσιτήριον). In Cos a divination from fire was probably connected with the sacrifices of the prytanis.(602) These sacrifices, the public banquets, together with the reception of foreign ambassadors, belonged at Athens to the fifty prytanes, as was the case at Rhodes and Cos. But the political signification of the name had, under the democratic government of Athens, become entirely different from that which it bore in other more aristocratic constitutions.

4. The striking dissimilarity in the duties of the prytanes in the Athenian and in the early constitutions of Greece, and a conviction that the democracy of Athens, although relatively modern, had so completely brought into oblivion the former institutions, that they can be only recognised in insulated traces and names which had lost their ancient meaning, encourage me to offer some conjectures on the original nature of the office held by the prytanes of Athens. There was at Athens a court of justice in the prytaneum (ἐπὶ πρυτανείῳ), which, in the times of which we have an historical account, only possessed the remnants of a formerly extensive criminal jurisdiction.(603) Now that this had once been the chief court in Athens is proved by the name prytanea, which were fees deposited by the parties before each lawsuit, according to the amount of value in question, and which served for the maintenance of the judges.(604) The name proves that these monies had at one time been the pay of the prytanes, in their judicial capacity, like the gifts in Homer and Hesiod. Furthermore we know that the ancient financial office of the colacretæ at one time, as their name testifies, collected their share of the animals sacrificed (which exactly resembles the perquisites of the kings at Sparta), and that they always continued to manage the banquets in the Prytaneum, and at a later time collected the justice-fees, for example, these very prytanea.(605) From the connexion between these functions, which has not been entirely obliterated, it is manifest that the ancient judicial prytanes formed a company or syssition, dined in public, were fed at the public expense, and, with regard to their revenues, had stept into the rights of the kings, whose share in the sacrifices and justice-fees had formerly been collected by the colacretæ.

Although there appears to be nothing inconsistent in this account, it is nevertheless singular that a whole court of justice bore the name of prytanes, whereas in other states the number of these magistrates was always very small; and hence we are led to conjecture that the prytanes, as in other places, were merely the leaders and presidents of this supreme court. It is, however, certain that in later times the phylobasileis presided in the Prytaneum, four eupatridæ, who were at the head of the four ancient tribes; and doubtless performed other duties than the sacred functions which are ascribed to them;(606) like the phylarchs of Epidamnus, whose extensive duties were in later times transferred to a senate.(607) We must therefore suppose that these phylobasileis, who, in consequence of political changes, had at an early period fallen into oblivion, were once, under the name of prytanes, one of the highest offices of the state. Now these four prytanes, or phylobasileis, were assisted in their court by the ephetæ, who, as I have already remarked,(608) were before the time of Solon identical with the court of the Areopagus, when they had the management of the criminal jurisdiction, and a superintendence over the manners of the citizens in an extended sense of the word. Both these were also duties of the Doric gerusia, to which the kings stood in nearly the same relation as the prytanes of Athens to the areopagites or ephetæ. Their number was fifty-one, which probably includes the basileus: there could not, however, have been fifty previously to the new division of the tribes by Cleisthenes, before which change their number was forty-eight, according to the four tribes, either with or without the phylobasileis.

If this view of the subject is correct, there is a remarkable correspondence, both in their respective numbers and constitutions, between the criminal court and the first administrative office in the ancient state of Athens. These latter were the naucrari. The naucrari, who were also anciently forty-eight in number, and fifty after the new division of the tribes, in early times managed the public revenue, and therefore fitted out armies and fleets.(609) Now Herodotus also mentions prytanes of the naucrari, who in early times directed the government of Athens.(610) Unless we suppose the existence of two kinds of prytanes (which does not appear suitable to the simplicity of ancient institutions), the same persons must have presided over both colleges, and have had an equal share in the jurisdiction and government. The regularity of these institutions would appear surprising, if we were not certain that the same order existed in all the ancient political establishments; at the same time we must leave the relative powers of many officers, such, for example, as those of the archons and prytanes, without any attempt at elucidation.

5. More obscure even than the condition of the cosmi and prytanes are the origin and powers of the ARTYNÆ at Argos.(611) They cannot have arisen at a late period, for example, after the abolition of the royalty, since the same office existed in their ancient colony, Epidaurus, whose constitution resembled that of Argos only in the more ancient period. Since it did not originate from the downfall of the royalty, its origin may, perhaps, have been owing to a division of the regal authority, perhaps of the civil and military functions. In Epidaurus the artynæ were presidents of a large council of one hundred and eighty members:(612) in Argos they are mentioned in connexion with a body of eighty persons, and a (democratic) senate, of whose respective powers we are entirely ignorant.(613)

The present is a convenient occasion for mentioning the DEMIURGI, as several grammarians state that they were in particular a Doric magistracy,(614) perhaps, however, only judging from the form δαμιουργός. These magistrates were, it is true, not uncommon in Peloponnesus,(615) but they do not occur often in the Doric states. They existed among the Eleans and Mantineans,(616) the Hermioneans,(617) in the Achæan league,(618) at Argos also,(619) as well as in Thessaly;(620) officers named epidemiurgi were sent by the Corinthians to manage the government of their colony Potidæa.(621) The statements and interpretations of the grammarians afford little instruction: among the Achæans at least, their chief duty was to transact business with the people; which renders it probable, that at Argos they were identical with the leaders of the people;(622) of whom, as well as of some other public officers, whose functions admit of further explanation, we will speak in the following chapter.

Chapter IX.

§ 1. Constitutions of Argos. § 2. Epidaurus, Ægina, Cos. § 3. Rhodes. § 4. Corinth. § 5. Corcyra. § 6. Ambracia, Leucadia, Epidamnus, Apollonia. § 7. Syracuse. § 8. Gela, Agrigentum. § 9. Sicyon, Phlius. § 10. Megara. § 11. Byzantium, Chalcedon, Heraclea Pontica. § 12. Cnidos, Melos, Thera. § 13. Cyrene. § 14. Tarentum. § 15. Heraclea Sciritis. § 16. Croton. § 17. And Delphi. § 18. Aristocratic character of the constitution of Sparta.

1. It is my intention in the present chapter to collect and arrange the various accounts respecting the alterations in the constitution of those Doric states, which deviated more from their original condition than Crete and Sparta: having been more affected by the general revolutions of the Greek governments, and drawn with greater violence into the strong current of political change.

And first, with regard to ARGOS, I will extract the following particulars from former parts of this work. There were in this state three classes of persons; the inhabitants of the city, who were for the most part Dorians, distributed into four tribes; a class of Periœci, and also a class of bondslaves, named gymnesii.(623) The kings, who were at first of the Heraclide family, and afterwards of another dynasty, reigned until the time of the Persian war;(624) there were also officers named artynæ, and a senate possessing extensive powers. All these are traces which seem to prove a considerable resemblance between the constitutions of Argos and Sparta, at least they show that there was no essential difference. But this similarity was put an end to by the destruction of a large portion of the citizens, in the battle with Cleomenes, and the consequent admission of many Periœci to the rights of citizenship.(625) Soon after this period, we find Argos flourishing in population, industry, and wealth;(626) and in the enjoyment of a democratic constitution.(627) The latter, however, was ill adapted to acquire the ascendency in Peloponnesus, which Argos endeavoured to obtain after the peace of Nicias. Hence the people appointed a board of twelve men, with full powers to conclude treaties with any Greek state that was willing to join their party; but in case of Sparta or Athens proposing any such alliance, the question was to be first referred to the whole people.(628) The state also, in order to form the nucleus of an army, levied a body of well-armed men,(629) who were selected from the higher ranks.(630) It was natural that these should endanger the democracy; and after the battle of Mantinea (B.C. 418.) they overthrew it, in concert with the Lacedæmonians, after having put the demagogues to death.(631) Their dominion, however, only lasted for eight months, as an insurrection and battle within the city deprived them of their power, and reinstated the democracy.(632) Alcibiades the Athenian completed this change by the expulsion of many oligarchs, who were still remaining in the city;(633) afterwards he wished to overthrow the democracy by means of his friends,(634) in consequence of which they were all killed. Two parties, however, must have still continued to exist in this state. Æneas the Tactician relates, that the rich purposing to attack the people for the second time, and on a certain night having introduced many soldiers into the city, the leaders of the people hastily summoned an assembly, and ordered that every armed man should that night pass muster in his tribe,(635) by which means the rich were prevented from uniting themselves in a body. The leaders of the people (δήμου προστάται(636)) are here manifestly democratic magistrates, who rose to power during the contests between the opposite factions, and differed chiefly from the demagogues of Athens, in that their authority was official, without which they would not have been able to convene an assembly of the people. For although the appellation of δήμου προστάτης in the Doric states, as well as at Athens, sometimes denotes merely a person who by his character and eloquence had placed himself at the head of the people; we shall produce hereafter certain proofs, when we speak of Gela and Calymna, that it was also the title of a public officer.(637)

When, during the peace of Artaxerxes, the Lacedæmonians had ceased to possess any extensive share in the direction of public affairs in Peloponnesus, a spirit of ungovernable licentiousness and ochlocracy arose in those cities which had hitherto been under an oligarchical rule; everywhere there were vexatious accusations, banishments, and confiscations of property, especially of the property of such persons as had filled public offices under the guidance of Sparta, though, even during that period, (B.C. 374.) Argos had been a place of refuge for banished democrats.(638) But after the battle of Leuctra, when the power of Lacedæmon was completely broken, and Peloponnesus had for a certain time lost its leader, the greatest anarchy began to prevail in Argos. Demagogues stirred up the people so violently against all privileged or distinguished persons, that the latter thought themselves driven to plot the overthrow of the democracy.(639) The scheme was discovered, and the people raged with the greatest ferocity against the real or supposed conspirators. On this occasion, more than 1200 of the chief persons (many upon mere suspicion) were put to death;(640) and at length the demagogues, fearing to carry through the measures which themselves had originated, suffered the same fate. This state of things was called by the name of σκυταλισμὸς, or club-law; it appears to have been a time when the strongest man was the most powerful. When the Athenians heard of these transactions, they purified their market-place, thinking that the whole of Greece was polluted by such atrocities:(641) it was probably at the same time that the Argives themselves offered an expiatory sacrifice to the mild Zeus (Ζεὺς Μειλίχιος), for the free blood which had been shed.(642) Notwithstanding these proceedings, the rich and distinguished continued to be persecuted at Argos with the greatest violence;(643) for which the ostracism, a custom introduced from Athens,(644) together with other democratic institutions,(645) was the chief instrument. In times such as these, the chief and most noble features of the Doric character necessarily disappeared; the unfortunate termination of nearly all military undertakings(646) proves the decline of bravery. In so unsettled a state of public affairs, sycophancy and violence became prevalent:(647) notwithstanding which, their eagerness and attention to public speaking produced no orator, whose fame was sufficient to descend to posterity.(648)

2. In EPIDAURUS, on the other hand, the aristocracy continued in force, and accordingly this city was as much attached to the Spartans, as Argos was disinclined to them. Of the artynæ in this state, and of the senate of 180, as well as of the class of cultivators, and of the tribes, we have spoken in former parts of this work.(649)

As long as ÆGINA remained an independent state, the government was held by the hereditary aristocracy, whose titular dignity was probably increased by the power derived from the possession of great wealth. The insurrection of a democratic party remained fruitless. Ægina and Corinth are decisive proofs, that under an aristocratical government an active and enterprising spirit of commerce may arise and flourish.

The Epidaurian colony, Cos, without doubt, originally adopted the constitution of its mother-state. Before the 75th (probably about the 73rd or 74th) Olympiad, we find a tyrant appointed by the king of Persia reigning in this island, Cadmus, the son of Scythes of Zancle;(650) after some time, however, he quitted Cos, having established a senate, and given back the state its freedom; yet the island appears to have immediately afterwards fallen under the dominion of Artemisia.(651) At a later period, the influence of Athens opened the way to democracy, but it was overthrown by violent demagogues, who compelled the chief persons in self-defence to combine against it.(652) The senate (βουλὴ or γερουσία) of the Coans, as well as their prytanes, have been mentioned above;(653) the nominal magistrates under the Roman dominion need not be here treated of.

3. In the Argive colony of RHODES, it may be supposed that an ancient Doric constitution existed; for there were kings of the Heraclide family, and probably also a council with the same powers as the Spartan gerusia. The royalty expired after the 30th Olympiad (660 B.C.); but the ancient family of the Eratidæ at Ialysus, retained a considerable share in the government; probably exercising nearly the powers of a prytanis. Pindar shows that the frame of justice belonged to this once royal family,(654) when he says, “Give, O father Zeus, to Diagoras favour both with citizens and with strangers, since he walks constantly in the way opposed to violence, knowing well what the just minds of noble ancestors have inspired in him. Destroy not the common progeny of Callianax. At the solemnities for the victory of the Eratidæ, the whole city rejoices in banquets. Yet in a moment of time many winds meet from many quarters.” Pindar thus early (464 B.C.) predicts the dangers that then awaited the ancient family, to which Rhodes owed so much, from the growing influence of Athens;(655) throughout the whole ode he cautions the citizens against precipitate innovation, and prays for the continuance of the ancient firmly-seated constitution.(656) Both prophecies were fulfilled. The sons of Diagoras were condemned to death, and banished by the Athenians, as heads of the aristocracy; but the hero Dorieus returned to his country from Thurii, with Thurian ships, and fought with them against the enemies of his family, as a faithful partisan of the Spartans. He was taken by the Athenians in the year 405 B.C., who, when about to condemn him, were moved by the appearance of the noble son of Diagoras (whose boldness of spirit corresponded with the size and beauty peculiar to his family), to release him from imprisonment and death.(657) The ancient fortune of the Rhodians, which was owing to their strict adherence to the Doric customs, and to their great commercial activity, was interrupted by the troubles of the Peloponnesian war, in which the alternation of the Athenian and Lacedæmonian influence by turns introduced democracy and aristocracy. At the time of the Sicilian expedition, Rhodes was under the power of Athens;(658) but the Spartans having in 412 B.C. obtained the superiority in this island,(659) and Dorieus having been recalled by them (413 B.C.) in order to suppress internal dissensions, the governing power again reverted to the nobles: these latter having been compelled to unite against the people by the demagogues, who, while they distributed the public money among the people in the shape of salaries, had not repaid the sums due to the trierarchs, and at the same time vexed them by continual lawsuits.(660) Soon after this period (408 B.C.),(661) the large city of Rhodes was founded, by collecting to one spot the inhabitants of the three small cities of the island, Lindus, Ialysus, and Camirus. But in 396 B.C. Rhodes was again recovered by Conon to Athens, and became democratical;(662) yet in five years (391 B.C.) the Spartan party was again victorious;(663) and the Social War finally put an end to the influence of the Athenians. From this time the interference of the Carian rulers, Mausolus and Artemisia, commenced, by which the oligarchy was greatly raised, and the democratical party driven out; to restore which, and to regard rather the cause of popular freedom in Greece, than the injuries received from the Rhodians, was the advice of Demosthenes to the Athenians.(664) At that time a Carian garrison was in the Acropolis of Rhodes. Out of these troubles and dissensions a constitution arose, in which, as far as we are able to ascertain, democracy prevailed, although the small number and extensive powers of the prytanes prove that it was not unmixed with aristocratical elements. According to the description which Cicero puts in the mouth of the younger Scipio, at this time all the members of the senate belonged (in the same year) to the public assembly, and sat in alternate months (probably periods of six months, like the prytanes) in the senate and among the people; in both capacities they received pay (conventicium): the same persons also sometimes sat as judges among the people in the theatre, sometimes in the senate in criminal and other cases.(665) These statements cannot be easily reconciled with Strabo’s view of the constitution, and yet there can be no doubt that he, as well as Cicero, speaks of the time preceding Cassius’ conquest of Rhodes. “The Rhodians,” he says, “though not under a democratic government, took great care of the people; in order to support the number of poor in the state, they provided them with corn, and the rich maintained the poor according to an ancient custom; there were also liturgies, by which the people were furnished with meat, &c.”(666) Notwithstanding the democratic institution of the senate, many offices, those perhaps in particular which were connected with the administration, such for example as the superintendence of the marine, were managed on oligarchical principles; the internal quiet of Rhodes at this period is also a proof against the existence of an unmixed democracy. Accordingly, the true Doric characteristics were here retained for a longer time than in most other Doric states; viz., courage, constancy, patriotism, with a haughty sternness of manners, and a certain temperance, which was indeed in some manner contrasted with their magnificence in meals, buildings, and all arts.(667)

4. CORINTH, delivered by Sparta from its tyrants, had again reverted to its former constitution, which however was not so oligarchical as the hereditary aristocracy of the Bacchiadæ. Some noble families, as the Oligæthidæ,(668) had a priority, probably the gerusia was composed of them; and the public assembly was restricted in a manner similar to that of Sparta. But at the same time Pindar celebrates Corinth as “the city in which Eunomia (or good government) dwells, and her sisters, the firm supports of cities, Justice and Peace, the bestowers of riches, who know how to keep off Violence, the bold mother of Arrogance.” From these words it may also be conjectured, that the aristocratical party was compelled to resist the endeavours made by the people to extend their power: it remained, however, unshaken up to the date of the Peloponnesian war, and Corinth, with the exception of a short time, continued the faithful ally of Sparta, and foe of Athens.(669) At a later period, a democratic party, which relied upon Argos, rose in Corinth, by the assistance of Persian money: this at first obtained the supreme power, and afterwards attacked the Lacedæmonian party, consisting of the noble families, at the festival of the Euclea; and at last proceeded so far, as to wish to abolish the independence of Corinth, and to incorporate it completely with Argos (B.C. 395 and 394.)(670) The banished aristocrats, supported by some Lacedæmonians who were quartered at Sicyon, continued nevertheless to keep up a contest, and maintained themselves at Lechæum;(671) after this they must have returned and restored the ancient constitution: for we find Corinth again true to the Lacedæmonian alliance.(672) In the time of Dion (356 B.C.) Corinth was under a government nearly oligarchical, little business being transacted in the popular assembly:(673) and although this body sent Timoleon as general of the state to Sicily (B.C. 345.), there was then in existence a gerusia (a name completely aristocratic), which not only treated with foreign ambassadors, but also, which is very remarkable, exercised a criminal jurisdiction.(674) The tyranny of Timophanes, who was slain by Timoleon, was, according to Aristotle, a short interruption of the oligarchy.(675)

5. From the moderate and well-balanced constitution, which Corinth had upon the whole the good fortune to possess, its colony CORCYRA had at an early period departed. Founded under the guidance of Chersicrates, a Bacchiad, it was for a time governed by the Corinthian families, which had first taken possession of the colony. At the same time, however, a popular party was formed, which obtained a greater power by the violent disruption of Corcyra from its mother-country, and the hostile relation in which the two states were thus placed. In addition to these differences, the connexion between Corcyra and the Peloponnesian league had been relaxed, and was replaced by a closer intimacy with Athens; so that while the aristocratic party had lost its hold, the democratic influence had taken a deep root. The people also strengthened themselves by the union of a numerous class of slaves.(676) By means of this combined force, the aristocratical party was overthrown, whose expulsion was attended with such scenes of blood and atrocity, as were hardly known in any other state of Greece.(677) But even before these occurrences the constitution had been democratical.(678) The popular assembly had the supreme power; and although the senate had perhaps a greater authority than at Athens,(679) it was manifestly only a part of the demus:(680) leaders of the people appear to have been in this, as well as in other states, a regular office.(681) From this time the most unbounded freedom prevailed at Corcyra, of which the Greek proverb says coarsely indeed, but expressively, Ἑλευθέρα Κόρκυρα, χέζ᾽ ὅπου θέλεις.(682) The Corcyreans were active, industrious, and enterprising, good sailors, and active merchants; but they had entirely lost the stability and noble features of the Doric character. In absence of all modesty they even exceeded the Athenians, among whom the very dogs, as a certain philosopher said, were more impudent than in any other place: fabulous reports were circulated in Greece, respecting the excessive luxury of the successors of the Phæacians.(683) Yet even in this state an antidemocratic party, inclined to the Lacedæmonians, was never entirely expelled; and it frequently rose against the people without success,(684) but in the time of Chares with a fortunate result,(685) The four or five(686) prytanes, who were at a later period the chief magistrates of Corcyra, seem not to have been entirely democratic magistrates, although the government was democratical; besides these officers, there occur in an important monument,(687) πρόδικοι βουλᾶς, who appear as accusers in a lawsuit which has reference to the administration; also πρόβουλοι(688) with a προστάτης, who brings a lawsuit of the same description before the courts; besides which we learn, that from time to time revisions (διορθώσεις) of the laws took place, for which certain persons named διορθωτῆρες were appointed; and that a ταμίας and a διοικητὴς were among the financial authorities.

6. Another colony of Corinth, AMBRACIA, had been ruled by a tyrant of the family of the Cypselidæ, named Gorgus (Gorgias), who was succeeded by Periander, evidently a member of the same house:(689) this latter tyrant, having insulted one of the subjects of his illicit pleasures, was put to death by the relations of the latter.(690) The people had taken a share in the insurrection, and obtained the supreme power:(691) the first change having, however, been into a government founded on property, which insensibly passed into a democracy, on account of the low rate of property which qualified a person for public offices.(692)

In the Corinthian colony of LEUCADIA, the large estates were originally inalienable, and in the possession of the nobles: when the inalienability was abolished, a certain amount of property was no longer required for the holding of public offices, by which the government became democratic.(693)

EPIDAMNUS was founded by Corinthians and Corcyæeans, and a Heraclide, Phalias, from the mother-country, was leader of the colony. It cannot be doubted that the founders took possession of the best lands, and assumed the powers of government, only admitting persons of the same race to a share. A single magistrate, similar to the cosmopolis at Opus, was at the head of the administration;(694) the phylarchs composed a species of council. But in the second period of the constitution, the phylarchs were replaced by a senate (βουλὴ), chosen on democratic principles: a remnant, however, of the early constitution was preserved, in the regulation that all magistrates, who were chosen from the ancient citizens (the proper πολίτευμα), were compelled to be present in the public assembly, if a magistrate required it;(695) the highest archon also alone remained.(696) The Peloponnesian war was occasioned by a contest between the popular party at Epidamnus, and the nobles, in which the Corinthians, from jealousy against Corcyra, unmindful of their true interests, supported the former: of the issue of this contest we are not informed. The number of resident and industrious foreigners was very great:(697) besides this class of persons, none but public slaves were employed in mechanical labour, and never any citizen.(698)

Of all the Corinthian settlements, APOLLONIA kept the nearest to the original colonial constitution,(699) upon which its fame for justice is probably founded.(700) The government remained almost exclusively in the hands of the noble families and descendants of the first colonists, to whom the large estates doubtless belonged.(701) Perhaps Apollonia was indebted for the stability of its government to the Xenelasia;(702) an institution which was of the first importance for the preservation of ancient Greek customs, to a state closely bordering on barbarous nations.

7. That we may not disturb the order of the Corinthian colonies, we will immediately proceed to consider the state of SYRACUSE. In the Syracusan constitution the following were the chief epochs. In the first, the government was in the hands of the gamori,(703) originally together with a king,(704) whose office was afterwards abolished. These we have already stated(705) to have been the original colonists, who took possession of the large estates cultivated by native bondslaves, and exercised the chief governing power. It is probable that the magistrates, and the members of the council,(706) who were leaders of the people in the assembly (ἁλία), were chosen from this body; in the same manner as the geomori of Samos formed a council, which after the subversion of the royalty governed the state.(707) Against these authorities, the people, having gradually become more pressing in their demands, at length rebelled, and expelled them, by combining with their slaves the Cyllyrii (before B.C. 492.(708)); but the democracy which succeeded was so irregular and lawless, that it was of very short duration;(709) the people therefore voluntarily opened the gates to Gelon, when he came to restore the gamori, and gave themselves entirely into his power,(710) in 485 B.C. The rule of Gelon, and of his successor, was, although monarchical, yet not oppressive, and upon the whole beneficial to the state: as the former allowed an extraordinary assembly of the people to decide concerning his public administration,(711) it may be perhaps supposed that he wished to be considered an Æsymnetes, to whom the city, overcome by difficulties, intrusted the unlimited disposal of its welfare. With the overthrow of this dynasty, the second period begins, during which there was upon the whole a moderate constitution, called by most writers democracy,(712) and by Aristotle distinguished from democracy as a politeia, in his peculiar sense of the word.(713) Immediately after the downfall of Thrasybulus an assembly was convened, in which it was debated concerning the constitution. The public offices were only to be filled by the ancient citizens; while those who had been admitted by Gelon from other cities, together with the naturalized mercenaries,(714) were not to enjoy the complete rights of citizenship:(715) measures which occasioned a war within the walls of Syracuse. Lastly, in this, as well as in the other states of Sicily, peace was re-established by the restoration of the ancient citizens, a separation of the foreigners, who found a settlement at Messana, and a new allotment of the lands,(716) in which the estates of the nobles were probably divided anew. At the same time, by the violence of these proceedings, the states of Sicily were reduced to a feeble condition, which occasioned numerous attempts to set up a tyranny. As a security against this danger, the people (in 454 B.C.) established the institution called petalism, in imitation of the ostracism of Athens; but they had sufficient discernment soon to abolish this new form of tyranny, as all distinguished and well educated men(717) were deterred by it from taking a part in public affairs. Syracuse suffered at that time, as well as Athens, by the intrigues of demagogues and cabals of sycophants.(718) In this city, at an early period, a talent for the subtleties of oratory had begun to develope itself; which owed its origin to Corax, a man employed by Hieron as a secret spy and confidant, and celebrated among the people as a powerful orator and sagacious councillor.(719) The naturally refined, acute, and lively temperament of the Sicilian Greeks(720) had already turned towards cunning and deceit; and in particular the young, eager after all novelty, ran counter to the temperance and severity of the ancient customs and mode of life.(721) As to the constitution at the time of the Sicilian war, we know that all public affairs of importance were decided in the popular assembly,(722) and the management of them was in great part confided to the leaders of the people (δήμου προστάται), who seem to have been regular public officers.(723) In what manner the people was led, is shown by the instance of Athenagoras, who represents the expedition of the Athenians, when already approaching the shores of Sicily, as a story invented by the oligarchs to terrify the people. To what extent a complete freedom of speaking before the people existed, is not altogether clear.(724) That persons of an aristocratic disposition still continued to possess political power, is evident from the speech of Athenagoras;(725) and it is probable from Aristotle, that they had an exclusive right to certain offices. The third period begins with the victory over the Athenian armament. As this was decided by the fleet of the Syracusans, the men of inferior rank, who served as sailors, obtained a large increase of importance in their own sight, and were loud in their demands for admission to the highest offices; in the very same manner as at Athens, after the battle of Salamis. In 412 B.C., upon the proposal of Diocles the demagogue,(726) a commission was appointed for the arrangement of a new constitution, in which the original contriver of the plan had himself the first place. The government was thus converted into a complete democracy, of which the first principle was, that the public offices should be filled not by election, but by lot.(727) There was formed at the same time a collection of written laws, which were very precise and explicit in the determination of punishments, and were doubtless intended, by their severity, to keep off those troubles, which the new constitution could not fail to produce. This code, which was also adopted by other Sicilian states, was written in an ancient native dialect, which seventy years afterwards (in the time of Timoleon) required an interpreter.(728) Notwithstanding these precautions, we find the democracy an Olympiad and a half later fallen into such contempt,(729) that the people, utterly incapable of protecting the city in the dangers of the time, appointed a general with unlimited power: which measure, though always attended with bad success, they repeatedly had recourse to. Dionysius, a man powerful as well from his talents, as from the means which his situation as demagogue afforded him of keeping the people in continual dread of the nobles,(730) soon became tyrant;(731) but he still allowed an appearance of freedom to remain in public assemblies, which he summoned, conducted, and dismissed.(732) Dion restored the democracy for a short time, and only partially;(733) for it was his real intention to introduce a Doric aristocracy upon the model of those in Sparta and Crete.(734) Timoleon with more decision abolished the democracy, and restored the former constitution,(735) as may be supposed, not without sycophants and demagogues, who were not slow to turn their arms against the founder of the new liberty.(736) A mixture of aristocracy is discernible in the office of amphipolus of the Olympian Zeus, which lasted three centuries from 343 B.C. and probably combined political influence with the highest dignity; the person who filled it gave his name to the year. Three candidates were chosen for this office from three families by vote, and one of the three was selected by lot.(737)

It may be observed, that Timoleon caused a revision of the laws to be made by Cephalus, a Corinthian, who, however, was only called an interpreter of the code of Diocles, although, as it appears, he entirely remodelled the civil law.(738) We must pass hastily over the later times, remarking in general, that a feeble democracy continued to exist, frequently contending with clubs of oligarchs,(739) and afterwards falling into the hand of tyrants who had risen from demagogues; such, for instance, as Agathocles, who undertook to bring about a redivision of the lands, and an abolition of all claims of debt.(740) Hiero II. did not suppress the council of the city, which Hieronymus never consulted; but as it again returned into existence immediately after the death of the latter prince, it appears that it could not have been a body chosen annually, but a board appointed for a considerable period.(741) The generals had at all times very large powers, especially in the popular assembly, in which, however, persons of the lowest condition had liberty to speak.(742) Another military office also, that of the hipparchs, exercised a superintendence over the internal affairs of the state, in order to guard against disturbances.(743)

8. After this account of the constitution of Syracuse, we may proceed to notice those of GELA, and its colony AGRIGENTUM; as these cities, though deriving their origin from Rhodes, perhaps took Syracuse for their model in the formation of their government. In both states the noble and wealthy first held the ruling power; which was afterwards for a long time possessed by tyrants.(744) Agrigentum, after the overthrow of Thrasydæus in 473 B.C., received a democratic constitution:(745) we know, however, that at that time an assembly of a thousand, appointed for three years, governed the state. This assembly was suppressed by Empedocles the philosopher;(746) who obtained so large a share of popular favour that he was even offered the office of king.(747) The assembly of a thousand also occurs in Rhegium and Croton, in speaking of which city we will again mention this subject. Further than this all information fails us. Scipio established anew the senate of Agrigentum, and ordered that the number of the new colonists of Manlius should never exceed that of the ancient citizens.(748) The same senate, in an inscription of the Roman time,(749) is called σύγκλητος, συνέδριον, and βουλὴ, and appears to have consisted of 110 members; the day of meeting is stated: it appears that the senate then alternated every two months;(750) the decree of the senate is referred to the popular assembly (ἁλία); over which a προάγορος presided(751) (which was also the name of the supreme magistrate at Catana in the time of Cicero);(752) the Hyllean tribe has the precedency on the day of this assembly. A hierothytes gives his name to the year, corresponding to the amphipolus at Syracuse; in whose place a hierapolus(753) is mentioned in a similar decree of Gela,(754) together with whom a κατενιαύσιος, an annual magistrate (perhaps archon), is mentioned. In this state the senate (βουλὴ) appears to have been changed every half year,(755) their decrees being also confirmed by the assembly (ἁλία);(756) the assembly is led by a προστάτης, the same magistrate whom we have already met with in nearly all the democratic states of the Dorians, in Argos, Corcyra, and Syracuse.(757)

9. We now return to Peloponnesus. In SICYON the tyrants had, as in other states, been the leaders of a democratic party;(758) but their dominion put an end to the times of disturbance and irregularity, which had occasioned the Pythian priestess to say, that “Sicyon needed a disciplinarian.”(759) After their overthrow an early constitution was restored, which remained unshaken during the Peloponnesian war. We are only informed that in 418 B.C. the Lacedæmonians made the constitution more oligarchical;(760) that it had not previously been entirely democratical, is shown by the fidelity with which Sicyon adhered to the head of the Peloponnesian league. After the battle of Leuctra we find that Sicyon possessed an Achæan constitution, i.e., one founded on property, in which the rich were supreme;(761) Euphron, in 369 B.C., undertook to change this into a democracy, and thus obtained the tyranny, until the party of the nobles, whom he persecuted, overthrew him.(762) Plutarch states most clearly the changes in this constitution; “after the unmixed and Doric aristocracy(763) had been destroyed, Sicyon fell from one sedition, from one tyranny into another;” until, at the time of Aratus, it adopted the almost purely democratical institutions of the Achæans.

As PHLIUS during the whole Peloponnesian war remained faithful to the interest of Sparta and hostile to Argos, it is evident that the state was under an aristocratic government.(764) In a revolution which took place before 383 B.C. the Lacedæmonian party had been expelled, but were in the same year again received by the people; the government, however, did not become democratical, until Agesilaus, introduced by the former party, conquered the city, and remodelled the constitution(765) (379 B.C.). Before this period the democratic assembly consisted of more than 5000 members, those who were inclined to the Lacedæmonians furnished above 1000 heavy-armed soldiers. A very regular system of government is proved to have existed, by the patience and heroism with which the Phliasians, in 372-376 B.C., defended their city and country against the attacks of the Argives, Arcadians, Eleans, and Thebans, until, without breaking their fidelity to Sparta, they concluded a peace with Thebes and Argos (366 B.C.).

10. In MEGARA the tyranny of Theagenes, to which he rose from a demagogue, was overthrown by Sparta, and the early constitution restored, which for a time was administered with moderation,(766) but even during the Persian war it had already been rendered more democratical by the admission of Periœci.(767) The elegiac poet Theognis shows himself about this time the zealous friend of aristocracy;(768) he dreads in particular men who stir up the populace to evil, and, as leaders of parties, cause disorder and dissension in the peaceful city; he laments the disappearance of the pride of nobility, the general eagerness for riches, and the increase of a crafty and deceitful disposition.(769) These struggles after popular liberty, promoted by demagogues, soon produced the greatest disturbance; the people no longer paid the interest of their debts, and even required a cession of that which had been already paid (παλιντοκία); the houses of the rich, and the very temples, were plundered; many persons were banished for the purpose of confiscating their property.(770) It was perhaps at this time that the Megarians adopted the democratic institution of ostracism.(771) The nobles, however, soon returned, conquered the people in a battle, and restored an oligarchy, which was the more oppressive, as the public offices were for a time exclusively filled by persons who had fought against the people.(772) It is probable that the consequence of this return was the revolt of Megara from Athens, in 446 B.C.;(773) in the beginning of the Peloponnesian war the Lacedæmonian party was predominant. But in the eighth year of the war the aristocratic party of Megara was in banishment at Pegæ; and when they were about to be recalled, and restored to their city, the leaders of the people preferred to have the Athenians in the town rather than the citizens whom they had driven from their walls. By the influence of Brasidas, however, they returned, upon a promise of amnesty, which they did not long observe. For having first obtained the supreme offices (to which they must therefore have had a particular claim), they brought a hundred of their chief enemies before the people, and forced them to pass sentence upon the accused with open votes. The people, terrified by this measure, condemned them to death. At the same time the dominant party established a close and strict oligarchy,(774) which remained in existence for a very long period.(775) In 375 B.C., we again find that democracy was the established constitution, and that the attempts of the oligarchs to change it were defeated.(776) Demosthenes(777) mentions a court of three hundred in this state, sitting in judgment on public offences; and at this time nobility and wealth were frequently united in the same persons. Of the Megarian magistrates we have already mentioned a king,(778) to which may now be added the hieromnamon, an office always held by the priest of Poseidon,(779) and probably having the same duties and privileges as the amphipolus, hierapolus, and hierothytes in the Sicilian states. The antiquity of this office is evident from its occurrence in the colonies of Megara, Byzantium and Chalcedon. In the former a hieromnamon is mentioned in a decree quoted by Demosthenes,(780) who gives his name to the year; in the latter, a decree now extant(781) mentions first a king, then a hieromnamon, then a prophet, together with three nomophylaces, all administering the public affairs (αἰσυμνῶντες) for the appointed term of a month. The two first we have already seen united in the very same manner at Megara; the third refers to the worship of Apollo, of the transfer of which from the mother-state to Chalcedon we have already spoken, and pointed out an oracle of Apollo which was delivered there;(782) the nomophylaces also occur at Sparta. The hieromnamon was probably priest also of Poseidon in the colonies, the worship of which god, deriving its origin from the Isthmus of Corinth, was at least more prevalent than any other.(783)

11. The constitution of BYZANTIUM was at first royal,(784) afterwards aristocratical,(785) and the oligarchy, which soon succeeded, was, in 390 B.C., changed by Thrasybulus the Athenian into democracy.(786) Equal privileges were at the same time probably granted to the new citizens, who, on account of their demands, had been driven from the city by the ancient colonists.(787) After this, the democracy appears to have continued for a long time;(788) but on account of the duration of this form of government, and the habit of passing their time in the market-place and the harbour, which the people had contracted from the situation of the town, a great dissoluteness of manners existed; and this was also transferred to the neighbouring city of Chalcedon, which had adopted the Byzantine democracy, and, together with its ancient constitution, had lost the temperance and regularity for which it had been distinguished. In these times the Byzantians were frequently in great financial difficulties, from which they often endeavoured to extricate themselves by violent measures.(789) In the document quoted by Demosthenes, the senate (βωλὰ) transfers a decree in its first stage, called ῥήτρα,(790) to an individual, in order to bring it before the people in the assembly (ἁλία), nearly in the same manner as was customary at Athens; the existing constitution is called in this document ἁ πάτριος πολιτεία. The office of archon was perhaps introduced together with the democracy;(791) the civil authority of the generals existed in many states in later times. The hundreds (ἑκατοστῦς) occur apparently as a subdivision of the tribes,(792) and therefore as a species of phratriæ;(793) they were probably common to all the colonies of Megara, since we find them in Heraclea on the Pontus. In this city we know to a certainty that the hundreds were divisions of the tribes, of which there were three;(794) the rich (i.e., the possessors of the original lots) were all in the same hundred; but the demagogues, intending to destroy the aristocracy, divided the people into sixty new hundreds, independent of the tribes, in which rich and poor were entered without distinction: nearly the same measure as that by which Cleisthenes had so greatly raised the democracy at Athens.

This HERACLEA PONTICA, a settlement in part of Bœotians, but chiefly from Megara,(795) had doubtless originally possessed the same constitution as other Doric colonies; and the different classes were, first, the possessors of the original lots; secondly, a demus, or popular party, who had settled either at the same time or subsequently; and, thirdly, the bondslaves, the Mariandynians.(796) Although we are not able to give any detailed account of the changes in the government of this state, it may be observed, that for a time the citizens alone had political power (the πολίτευμα); but that the people had the privilege of judging (that is, probably in civil cases), which occasioned a change in the constitution.(797) Before 364 B.C. the popular party demanded with violence an abolition of debts, and a new division of the territory; the senate, which at that time was not a body selected from the people, but from the aristocracy,(798) at length, being unable to act for itself, knew no other means than to call in the assistance of Clearchus, an exile, who immediately marched with a body of soldiers into the city. But, instead of protecting the dignity of those who had called him in, he became a leader of the people, and, what in fact he is already, who sets the blind fury and physical force of the multitude in action against justice and good order—a tyrant.(799) Clearchus put to death sixty of the members of the senate, whom he had seized,(800) liberated their slaves, i.e., the Mariandynians; and compelled their wives and daughters to marry these bondsmen, unquestionably the best means of extirpating an hereditary aristocracy; but the pride of noble descent was so strong in the breasts of these women, that the greater number freed themselves from the disgrace by suicide. It must be supposed, that a tyranny administered in so violent a spirit, and continued through several generations, destroyed every vestige of the ancient constitution.(801)

12. In the Spartan colony of CNIDOS the government was a close aristocracy. At the head of the state was a council of sixty members, who were chosen from among the nobles. Its powers were precisely the same as those of the Spartan gerusia, from which its number is also copied. It debated concerning all public affairs, previously to their being laid before the assembly of the people, and had the superintendence of manners. The office lasted for life, and was subject to no responsibility.(802) The members were styled ἀμνήμονες, and the president was called ἀφεστὴρ, who inquired the opinion of each councillor. Only one person from each family was eligible to the council and public offices, younger brothers being excluded. This occasioned dissensions between members of the same family; those who were not admitted joined the popular party, and the oligarchy was overthrown.(803) This event probably took place a short time before the life of Aristotle. Eudoxus the philosopher, and Archias, a person of whom little is known, are mentioned as legislators of the Cnidians.(804)

In the Spartan island of MELOS we find nothing remarkable, except that the power of the magistrates was at least greater than at Athens,(805) Of the ancient constitution of THERA, and of its ephors, we have already spoken.(806)

13. The changes in the government of CYRENE we pointed out when speaking of the Periœci. Originally the constitution was perhaps nearly similar to that of Sparta. Afterwards the ancient rights of the colonists came into collision with the claims of the later settlers, and at the same time the kings obtained an unconstitutional and nearly tyrannical power. It appears that they were stimulated by their connexion, both by friendship and marriage, with the sovereigns of Egypt, to change the ancient royalty into an oriental despotism. Hence, in the reign of Battus III., Demonax the Mantinean, who was called in to frame a constitution for this city, restored the supremacy of the community; he likewise gave to the new colonists equal rights of citizenship with the ancient citizens, although the latter doubtless still retained many privileges. The power of the kings was limited within the narrowest bounds; and they were only permitted to enjoy the revenues flowing from the sacerdotal office and their own lands,(807) whereas they had before claimed possession of the whole property of the state;(808) they had, like the Spartan kings, a seat and vote in the council, and probably presided over it, which duties were performed by Pheretime, the mother of Arcesilaus III., during the absence of her son.(809) These restrictions were, however, violently opposed by the princes just mentioned, as well as by their successors, who thus drew upon themselves their own ruin. Arcesilaus also, to whom Pindar addressed an ode, the fourth of the name, ruled with harshness, and protected his power by foreign mercenaries:(810) and the poet doubtless advised him with good reason, although without success, “not to destroy with sharp axe the branches of the great oak (the nobles of the state), and disfigure its beautiful form; for that, even when deprived of its vigour, it gives proof of its power, when the destructive fire of winter (of insurrection) snatches it; or, having left its own place desolate, serves a wretched servitude, supporting with the other columns the roof of the royal palace” (i.e., if the people in despair throws itself under the dominion of a foreign king).(811) But the soothing hand with which the poet advises that the wounds of the state should be treated was not that of Arcesilaus, celebrated only for his boldness and valour. For these reasons he was the last in the line of the princes of Cyrene (after 457 B.C.), and a democratical government succeeded. His son Battus took refuge in the islands of the Hesperides, where he died; and the head of his corpse was thrown by these republicans into the sea.(812) The new form of government obtained stability and duration by an entire change; the number of the tribes and phratrias was increased, the political union of the houses destroyed, the family rites were incorporated in the public worship,(813) &c. Some element of disturbance and revolution must, however, have been still left in the constitution,(814) if the Cyrenæans requested Plato to contrive for them a temperate and well-ordered government, which the philosopher is said to have declined, on the ground that they seemed too prosperous to themselves. At a later period, Lucullus the Roman is said to have restored the city to tranquillity, after many wars and tyrannies.(815)

14. In the constitution of the Lacedæmonian colony of TARENTUM there were two chief periods. In the first we must infer, from the analogy of the other Doric colonies, that there was the same division of ranks, viz., noble citizens, governing the state under a king;(816) the people, to whom few and limited powers were allowed; and aboriginal bondsmen, chiefly residing upon the lands of the highest class.(817) This constitution must, however, have been gradually relaxed; for Aristotle calls it a politeia in the limited sense, which, as he informs us, lasted over the Persian war, and did not pass into a democracy until a large part of the nobles had been slain in a bloody battle against the Iapygians (474 B.C.)(818) The transition was introduced without any violent revolution, by some measures, in which the aristocracy submitted to the claims of the people. First of all, according to Aristotle,(819) they divided the public property among the poorer classes; but only gave them the use of it; i.e., apparently the public lands were apportioned out to them; but at the payment of a small rent, in token that they had not the absolute property in the soil. Besides this popular measure, the number of all the public offices was doubled; and one half was filled by election, the other by lot; in order, by the latter mode of nomination, to open a way to their attainment by the lower orders. This democracy at first promoted to a great degree the prosperity and power of the state,(820) while persons of character and dignity were at the head of the government; for example, one of the first men of the time, Archytas the Pythagorean, a man of singular vigour and wisdom, who, as well as all adherents of the Pythagorean league (of which he could not then have been a member), was of an aristocratical disposition.(821) He was general seven times, although it was prohibited by law that the same person should hold this office more than once,(822) and never suffered a defeat:(823) the people with a noble confidence entrusted to him for a considerable time the entire management of public affairs.(824) At a subsequent period, however, as there were no longer any men of this stamp to carry on the government, and the corruption of manners, caused by the natural fruitfulness of the country, and restrained by no strict laws, was continually on the increase, the state of Tarentum was so entirely changed, that every trace of the ancient Doric character, and particularly of the mother-country, disappeared; hence, although externally powerful and wealthy, it was from its real internal debility, in the end, necessarily overthrown, particularly when the insolent violence of the people became a fresh source of weakness.(825)

15. On the constitution of the Tarentine colony HERACLEA (433 B.C.) the monuments extant, although important in other respects, afford little information. In the well-known inscription of this city, an ephor gives his name to the year, five chosen surveyors (ὁρισταὶ) are to value the sacred lands of Bacchus, and to measure it according to the rules of Etruscan agrimensores, upon the decree of the public assembly,(826) in order to ascertain what had been lost in the course of time, and to secure the remainder. After this, the state, two polianomi, and the horistæ, let the sacred land according to a decree of the Heracleans, and state the conditions; in which certain officers named σιταγερταὶ are mentioned as inspectors of the public corn-magazine. The annual polianomi are bound to take care that the contracts of lease shall be observed; they carry on inquiries upon this subject jointly with ten sworn colleagues, elected by the people, in case of any breach of contract, collect the appointed fines, and refer, in cases of singular importance, to the public assembly, they themselves being subject to the responsibility.

16. To these we may add CROTON, since this city, founded under the authority of Sparta by a Heraclide, and therefore revering Hercules himself as its founder,(827) must be considered as belonging to the Doric race, although at a later period the more numerous Achæan portion of the population appears to have preponderated. Croton was the soil upon which Pythagoras endeavoured to realise his notions of a true aristocracy, an endeavour in which he succeeded. This, however, we cannot comprehend, unless we consider his ideal state as no airy project or phantom of the brain, but rather as founded upon national feelings, and as being even the foundation of the governments of Sparta, Crete, and the cities of Lower Italy, in which Pythagoras first appeared: and for this reason he is described as in part merely to have restored and renewed; for example, to have destroyed tyrannies, quieted the claims of the people, and re-established ancient rights,(828) &c. Croton, however, he selected as the centre of his operations, as being under the protection of Apollo, his household god;(829) and, secondly, as being the “city of the healthy,” an advantage which it owed to its climate, to gymnastic exercises, and to purer morals than were prevalent at least in the neighbouring cities of Tarentum and Sybaris. The government of this city was, when the philosopher came forward, in the hands of the senate of a thousand,(830) which formed a synedrion; the Crotoniats are reported to have offered to Pythagoras the presidency of this senate,(831) probably as prytanis.(832) A similar senate of a thousand existed at Agrigentum in the time of Empedocles; the same number of persons, elected according to their property, were sole governors at Rhegium.(833) This council of a thousand members also existed at Locri.(834) From this we may infer that the thousand of Croton were the most wealthy citizens: who in states of which the power is derived from the possession of land are, before the government is disturbed by revolutions, generally identical with the noble families. At Croton they had power to decide in most affairs without the ratification of the popular assembly,(835) and also possessed a judicial authority.(836) Now the council instituted by Pythagoras (which appears not to have been formed of members elected according to property, but to have been chosen on purely aristocratical principles) only contained three hundred members,(837) a number which frequently occurs under similar circumstances;(838) at the head of this council was Pythagoras himself. One of the most remarkable phenomena in the political history of the Greeks is, that the philosophy of order, of unison, of κόσμος, expressing, and consequently enlisting on its side, the combined endeavours of the better part of the people, obtained the management of public affairs, and held possession of it for a considerable time; so that the nature and destination of the political elements in existence being understood, and each having assigned to it its proper place, those who were qualified both by their rank and talents were placed at the head of the state; a strict self-education having in the first place been made one of their chief obligations (as it was of the φύλακες of Plato), in order by this means to prepare the way for the education of the other members of the community. At present it is generally acknowledged that the Pythagorean league was in great part of a political nature, that its object was to obtain a formal share in the administration of states, and that its influence upon them was of the most beneficial kind, which continued for many generations in Magna Græcia after the dissolution of the league itself.(839) This dissolution was caused by the natural opposers of an aristocracy of this description, the popular party and its leaders; for in this character alone could Cylon have been the author of the catastrophe which he occasioned; it is recorded, that the opposition of this order to an agrarian law, which referred to the division of the territory of the conquered Sybaris among the people, served to inflame their minds.(840) The opposite party demanded that the whole people should have admittance to the public assemblies and to public offices, that all magistrates at the expiration of their offices should render an account to a tribunal composed of members elected by lot,(841) that all existing debts should be cancelled, and that the lands should be newly divided:(842) from which we must infer, that the highest officers of the Pythagoreans were, according to the Spartan and Cretan principle, irresponsible, and that they considered election by vote as necessary for all such situations. How fatal to the quiet of Lower Italy were the convulsions which followed the destruction of this league (about 500 B.C.), is proved by the large share which the whole of Greece took in their pacification. This was at length effected by the Italian cities entirely giving up the Doric customs, and adopting an Achæan government and institutions;(843) which they were afterwards, first by the power of Dionysius of Syracuse, and then of the neighbouring Barbarians, compelled to surrender. Now the Achæan constitution, according to Polybius,(844) had become a democracy immediately after the overthrow of the last king Ogyges; and retained the same general character, though some subordinate parts experienced very great alterations: we also know that it was very unlike the Spartan government.(845) I cannot, however, refrain from doubting whether it could properly be termed democracy at so early a period, since Xenophon states, that in Sicyon, in 368-365 B.C., timocracy was the prevailing form of government, “according to the laws of the Achæans,”(846) which words cannot be referred to a mere transitory condition of that race. There also was always among the Achæans an equestrian order (ἱππεῖς), of greater consideration and influence on the government than can be reconciled with complete democracy.(847) So also at Croton, in the year of the city 637 (117 B.C.), there was a complete democracy; but (as in all the cities of the Italian Greeks at this period) a senate of nobles existed, which was frequently at open war with the people.(848)

17. Lastly, it is proper to mention the constitution of DELPHI, if our supposition is admitted to be correct, that the most distinguished Delphian families were of Doric origin.(849) It was also shown that these families composed at an early period a close aristocracy; the priests were chosen from among the nobles, to whom the management of the oracle belonged; from their body was taken the Pythian court of justice (which may be compared with the Spartan gerusia, and the Athenian court of the ephetæ), as well as the chief magistrates, among whom in early times a king,(850) and afterwards a prytanis, was supreme.(851) At a later period we find mention of archons who gave their name to the year.(852) At the same time a popular party was formed (perhaps from the subjects of the temple), which in a later age at least exercised its authority in a public assembly.(853) The senate (βουλὴ) of Delphi was at this period, as in Gela and Rhodes (according to the hypothesis before advanced), renewed every half year; but it appears to have consisted of very few members, for only one senator (βουλεύων), or at most a few, in addition to the archon, are named in the donatory decrees of Delphi.(854) Many particulars which belong to a later date we pass over, as our only object is to point out the characteristic points of the ancient constitution.

18. From these various accounts it follows, that although there was no one form of government common to the Doric race in historic times, yet in many of these states we find a constitution of nearly the same character, which preceded and caused the subsequent changes and developments; and was of unequal duration in different states. This constitution, which we, with Pindar, consider as most strongly marked in the Spartan form of government, was of a strictly aristocratic character;(855) hence Sparta was the basis and corner-stone of the Greek aristocracies, and in this country alone the nobility ever retained their original dignity and power. Hence also Sparta, during the flourishing period of her history, never had a large number of exiles on political grounds, while in the other Grecian states the constant revolutions to which they were subject generally kept one party or other of the citizens in banishment; nor did she ever experience any violent disturbances or changes in her constitution,(856) until the number of the genuine Spartans had nearly become extinct, and the conditions necessary for the permanence of the ancient government had in part been removed. Now I call the Spartan constitution an aristocracy, without the least hesitation, on account of its continued and predominant tendency towards governing the community by a few, who were presumed to be the best, and as it inculcated in the citizens far less independent confidence than obedience and fear of those persons whose worth was guaranteed by their family, their education, and the public voice which had called them to the offices of state. The ancients,(857) however, remark, that it might also be called a democracy, since the supreme power was always considered as residing in the people, and an entire equality of manners prevailed; that it might be called a monarchy on account of the kings;(858) and that in the power of the ephors there was even an appearance of tyranny: so that in this one constitution all forms of government were united.(859) But the animating soul of all these forms was the Doric spirit of fear and respect for ancient and established laws, and the judgment of older men, the spirit of implicit obedience towards the state and the constituted authorities (πειθαρχία);(860) and, lastly, the conviction that strict discipline and a wise restriction of actions are surer guides to safety, than a superabundance of strength and activity directed to no certain end.

The relation which, according to these Doric principles, existed between an inferior and a superior, between the private citizen and the magistrate, also extended to the Spartans and other states, as the former were for a long time considered as aristocrats when compared with the other Greeks. This superiority was not caused by external preponderance and compulsion, but by the internal acknowledgment that strict laws and a well-ordered discipline belonged to them above all. It is often curious to remark how great was the power of a Lacedæmonian cloak and stick (σκυτάλη καὶ τρίβων, as Plutarch says) among the other races of the Greeks:(861) how, as it were by magic, the single Gylippus, although by no means the best of his nation, brings union and stability into the people at Syracuse, and first gives all their undertakings force and effect; on more than one occasion a single Spartan was enough to unite squadrons of Æolians and Ionians of Asia, and make them act in common; and even at the times of the dissolution of the Grecian name, we see Spartans acting as the generals of mercenaries bound by no other law than the firm and decided will of their leaders.

Many of the noblest and best of the Athenians always considered the Spartan state nearly as an ideal theory realised in practice; and, like Cimon and Xenophon (whose decided preference for Sparta, though perhaps sometimes prejudicial to his own country, must not be called folly), joined themselves to this state with zeal and eagerness, even to the prejudice of their own interests. The preference of all the followers of Socrates for Sparta is well known;(862) and Lycurgus, the most just of financiers, united to an aristocratical disposition an admiration for the laws of Lacedæmon.(863) It is singular that men of such eminence, both in a practical and theoretical view, should express their admiration of a state,(864) which modern writers(865) have often represented to us as a horde of half savages. Nor must the judgment of the persons above mentioned, who were without doubt sufficiently acquainted with the object of it, be attributed to a morbid craving after a state of nature which the Athenians had for ever lost.

We moderns, on the other hand, on account of our preconceived notions with respect to the advancement of civilization, do not read without partiality the lessons which history affords us; we refuse to recognise the most profound political wisdom in an age which we believe to have been occupied in rude attempts after the formation of a settled form of government. Far otherwise the political speculators of antiquity, such as the Pythagoreans and Plato, who considered the Spartan and Cretan form of government, i.e., the ancient Dorian, as a general model of all governments; and, in fact, the ideal constitution which was realized in Sparta approaches most nearly to that which Pythagoras attempted to establish in Lower Italy, and which Plato brought forward as capable of being put in practice, viz., a close communion, nearly similar to that of a family, having for its object mutual instruction. For the regulations of Pythagoras have many things besides their aristocratic spirit in common with the Spartan form of government, such as the public tables, and in general the perpetual living in public, with the number of laws for the maintenance of public morality (disciplina morum); and the community of goods, which existed among the Pythagoreans, is nearly allied to the Doric system of equalizing the landed estates. And Plato, although he at times criticises the Spartan and Cretan constitution in a somewhat unfair manner, has evidently derived his political notions, mediately or immediately, from the consideration of that form of government:(866) for it is hardly possible that any person should speculate upon government, without proceeding upon some chosen historical basis, however he may endeavour to conceal it. But the Athenian and Ionic democracy he altogether despises, because that appeared on his principles to be an annihilation of government rather than a government, in which every person, striving to act as much as possible for himself, destroyed that unison and harmony in which each individual exists only as a part of the whole.

It would be interesting to know what were the opinions and judgments of Spartans of the better time concerning these relaxed forms of government. We may well suppose that they did not view them in a favourable light. The people of Athens must indeed have appeared to them in general, as a Lacedæmonian in Aristophanes(867) expresses himself, as a lawless and turbulent rabble. For this reason they refused in the Peloponnesian war to negociate with the whole community; and would only treat with a few selected individuals.(868) Upon the whole, the state of Sparta, being, in comparison with the general mutability of the Greeks after the Persian war, like the magnet, which always pointed to the pole of ancient national customs, became dissimilar, both in political and domestic usages, to the rest of Greece;(869) and for this reason the Spartans who were sent into foreign parts either gave affront by their strangeness and peculiarity, or, by their want of consistency and firmness, forfeited that confidence with which they were everywhere met.

Chapter X.

§ 1. Tenure of land in Laconia. § 2. Partition of the land into lots, and their inalienability. § 3. Law of inalienability of land repealed by Epitadeus. § 4. Lacedæmonian law respecting marriage portions and heiresses. § 5. Similar regulations respecting landed property in other states. § 6. The syssitia of Crete and the phiditia of Sparta. § 7. Contributions to the public tables in Crete and Sparta. § 8. Domestic economy of Sparta. § 9. Money of Sparta. § 10. Regulations respecting the use of money in Sparta. § 11. Changes in these regulations. Taxation of the Spartans. § 12. Trade of Peloponnesus. Monetary system of the Dorians of Italy and Sicily.

1. Having now considered the individuals composing the state in reference to the supreme governing power, we will next view them in reference to property, and investigate the subject of the public economy. It is evident that this latter must have been of great simplicity in the Doric states, as it was the object of their constitution to remove everything accidental and arbitrary; and by preventing property from being an object of free choice and individual exertion, to make it a matter of indifference to persons who were to be trained only in moral excellence; hence the dominant class, the genuine Spartans, were almost entirely interdicted from the labour of trade or agriculture, and excluded both from the cares and pleasures of such occupations.(870) Since then upon this principle it was the object to allow as little freedom as possible to individuals in the use of property, while the state gained what these had lost, it is manifest that under a government of this kind there could not have been any accurate distinction between public and private economy; and therefore no attempt will be made to separate them in the following discussion.

All land in Laconia was either in the immediate possession of the state, or freehold property of the Spartans, or held by the Periœci upon the payment of a tribute. That there were flocks and lands belonging to the state of Sparta, is evident from facts which have been already stated;(871) although perhaps they were not so considerable as in Crete:(872) the large forest, in which every Spartan had a right of hunting, must also have belonged to the community. There can be no doubt that this property of the state was different from the royal lands,(873) which were situated in the territory of the Periœci: it is probable that these (as well as the rest of that district) were cultivated by the Periœci, who only paid a tribute to the king. The rest of the territory of the Periœci was divided into numerous but small portions, of which, as has been already remarked, there were 30,000;(874) a number which was probably arranged at the same time with that of the hundred towns.(875) In each lot (κλῆρος) only one family resided, the members of which subsisted upon its produce, and cultivated it, to the best of our knowledge, without the assistance of Helots. For this reason the 9000 lots of the Spartans, which supported twice as many men as the lots of the Periœci,(876) must upon the whole have been twice as extensive; each lot must therefore have been seven times greater. Now the property of the Spartans was, according to the united testimony of all writers, set out in equal lots; probably according to some general valuation of the produce;(877) for the area could not have been taken as a standard in a country where the land was of such different degrees of goodness. Yet even this method of allotment might not have precluded all inequality: which, on account of the natural changes of the soil, must in the course of time have been much augmented; and to this result the variable number of the slaves, which were strictly connected with the land, necessarily contributed. Nevertheless this fact proves that there existed a principle of equality in the contrivers of the regulation: for, as we remarked above, this division was in strictness only a lower degree of a community of goods, which the Pythagoreans endeavoured to put in practice, on the principle of the possessions of friends being common;(878) and which actually existed among the Spartans in the free use of dogs, horses, servants, and even the furniture of other persons.(879) The whole institution of the public tables in Sparta and Crete was, indeed, only a means of producing an equal distribution of property among the members of them.(880)

2. Although similar partitions of land had perhaps been made from the time of the first occupation of Laconia by the Dorians, the later division into 9000 lots cannot have taken place before the end of the first Messenian war.(881) There is something very remarkable in the historical account, that Tyrtæus by means of his poem of Eunomia repressed the desire of many citizens for a redivision of the lands.(882) It may be explained by supposing that the Spartans, who before that time had possessed allotments in Messenia, from which they then obtained no returns, wished that new estates in Laconia should be assigned to them.(883) At the time, however, of that division Sparta must in fact have had about 9000 fathers of families (or, according to the ancient expression, so many οἶκοι), of which each received a lot; for families and lots were necessarily connected.(884) If then we suppose that every family of a Spartan was provided with a lot, the chief object was to keep them together for the future by proper institutions: and to ascertain the means which were employed to attain this end (for they were upon the whole successful) is a problem which has never yet been satisfactorily solved.(885) The first part was the preservation of families, in which the legislator was in ancient times assisted by the sanction of religion. Nothing was more dreaded by the early Greeks than the extinction of the family, and the destruction of the house;(886) by which the dead lost their religious honour, the household gods their sacrifices, the hearth its flame, and the ancestors their name among the living. This was in Sparta provided against by regulations concerning heiresses, adoptions, introductions of mothaces, and other means which will presently be mentioned: those persons also who had not as yet any children were sometimes spared in war.(887) The second means was the prohibition to alienate or divide the family allotment,(888) which necessarily required the existence of only one heir,(889) who probably was always the eldest son.(890) The extent of his rights, however, was perhaps no further than that he was considered master of the house and property; while the other members of the family had an equal right to a share in the enjoyment of it. The head of the family was styled in Doric ἑστιοπάμων, the lord of the hearth;(891) the collective members of the family were called by Epimenides the Cretan ὁμοκάποι, that is, literally, eating from the same crib;(892) and by Charondas ὁμοσίπυοι, or “living upon the same stock;”(893) and by the Spartans perhaps παῶται.(894) The master of the family was therefore obliged to contribute for all these to the syssitia, without which contribution no one was admitted;(895) we shall see presently that he was able to provide this contribution for three men and women besides himself; the other expenses were inconsiderable.(896) If, however, the family contained more than three men, which must frequently have been the case, the means adopted for relieving the excessive number were either to marry them with heiresses, or to send them out as colonists; or the state had recourse to some other means of preventing absolute want. This would have been effected with the greater ease, if it were true, as Plutarch relates, that immediately after the birth of every Spartan boy, the eldest of the tribe, sitting together in a lesche, gave him one of the 9000 lots.(897) For this, however, it must be assumed that the state or the tribes had possession of some lots, of those perhaps in which the families had become extinct; but we know that these lots went in a regular succession to other families,(898) by which means many became exceedingly rich. These elders of the tribe, mentioned by Plutarch, were therefore probably only the eldest of the house or γένος, who might take care that, if several sons and at the same time several lots had fallen together in one family, the younger sons should, as far as was possible, be in the possession of land, without however violating the indivisible unity of an allotment.

In this manner at Sparta the family, together with the estate, formed an undivided whole, under the control of one head, who was privileged by his birth. But if the number of persons to be fed was too great, as compared with the means of feeding them, the natural consequence was, that the privileged eldest brother could afford to marry, while the younger brothers remained without wives or children. This natural inference from the above account is strikingly confirmed by a most singular statement of Polybius,(899) which has lately been brought to light, viz., that “in Sparta several brothers had often one wife, and that the children were brought up in common.” If we may here infer a misrepresentation, to which the Spartan institutions were particularly liable, it is seen how the custom just described might cause several men to dwell in one house, upon the same estate, of whom one only had a wife. But it must be confessed that the Spartan institution was very likely to lead to the terrible abuse which Polybius mentions, particularly as the Spartan laws, as we shall see presently,(900) did not absolutely prohibit the husband from allowing the procreation of children from his wife by strangers. It is therefore possible that the Hebrew institution of the Levirate-marriage (viz., that if a man died without leaving children, his widow became the wife of her former husband’s brother, who was to raise up seed to his brother)(901) was extended in Sparta to the lifetime of the childless elder brother.

3. This whole system was entirely broken up by the law of the ephor Epitadeus, which permitted any person to give away his house and lot during his lifetime, and also to leave it as he chose by will.(902) Whence, as might have been expected, the practice of legacy-hunting rose to a great height, in which the rich had always the advantage over the poor. This law, which was directly opposed to the spirit of the Spartan constitution, was passed after the time of Lysander, but a considerable period before Aristotle; since this writer, manifestly confounding the state of things as it existed in his time with the ancient legislation,(903) reckons it as an inconsistency in the constitution of Sparta, that buying and selling of property was attended with dishonour,(904) but that it was permitted to give it away, and bequeath it by will.(905) From that time we find that the number of the Spartans, and particularly of the landed proprietors, continually decreased. The first fact is very remarkable, and can hardly be accounted for by the wars,(906) in which moreover the Spartans lost but few of their number; it was perhaps rather owing to the late marriages, which also frequently took place between members of the same family. After all, it must be confessed that the constitution of Sparta too much restrained the natural inclination of the citizens; and by making every thing too subservient to public ends, checked the free growth of the people, and, like a plant trimmed by an unsparing hand, destroyed its means both of actual strength and future increase. At the time of Aristotle they endeavoured to increase the population by exempting the father of three sons from serving in war, and the father of four sons from all taxes.(907) But even Herodotus only reckons 8000 Spartans in the 9000 families; in the middle of the Peloponnesian war Sparta did not send quite 6000 heavy-armed soldiers into the field.(908) Aristotle states that in his time the whole of Laconia could hardly furnish 1000 heavy-armed men;(909) and at the time of Agis the Third there were only 700 genuine Spartans.(910) Even in 399 B.C. the Spartans who were in possession of lots(911) did not compose a large number in comparison with the people; for the numerous Neodamodes must not be included among them, who it appears could not obtain lots in any other manner than by adoption into a Spartan family, before which time they were provided for by the state. We are entirely uninformed in what manner the loss of Messenia was borne by Sparta; it cannot be supposed that whole families completely lost their landed property; for they would have perished by famine. No writer has, however, preserved a trace of the mode in which these difficulties were met by the state. At the time of Agis the Third we know that of the 700 Spartans, about 100 only were in possession of the district of the city.(912)

4. From this view of the times, which succeeded the innovation of Epitadeus, we will now turn to the original system, which indeed we are scarcely able to ascertain, from the feeble and obscure indications now extant. In the first place, we know with certainty that daughters had originally no dowry (in Doric δωτίνη),(913) and were married with a gift of clothes, &c.;(914) afterwards, however, they were at least provided with money and other moveable property.(915) At the time of Aristotle, after the ephoralty of Epitadeus, they were also endowed with land.(916) This was the regulation in case of the existence of a son; if there was none, the daughter, and if there were several daughters, probably the eldest, became heiress (ἐπίκληρος, in Doric ἐπιπαματίς);(917) that is to say, the possession of her was necessarily connected with that of the inheritance. Regulations concerning heiresses were an object of chief importance in the ancient legislations, on account of their anxiety for the maintenance of families, as in that of Androdamas of Rhegium for the Thracian Chalcideans,(918) and in the code of Solon,(919) with which the Chalcidean laws of Charondas appear to have agreed in all essential points.(920) We will mention the most important of these regulations. The heiress, together with her inheritance, belonged to the kinsmen of the family (ἀγχιστεῖς); so that in early times(921) the father could not dispose of his daughter as he liked without their assent. But, according to the later Athenian law, the father had power either during his life or by will to give his daughter, with her inheritance, in marriage to whomever he wished. If, however, this power was not exercised, the kinsmen had a right of claiming the daughter by a judicial process; and the right to marry her went round in a regular succession.(922) But the unmarried man, to whom of all her kinsmen she was allotted, was not only privileged, but also compelled to marry her.(923) The laws also exercised a further superintendence over him, and enjoined that he should beget children from his wife,(924) which then did not pass into his family, but into that of his wife, and became the successors of their maternal grandfather. Now there is no doubt that in Sparta the family was continued by means of the heiresses; but it is probable that they always chose for their husbands persons who had no lots of their own, such as the descendants of younger brothers, and, first, persons of the same family,(925) if there were any, then persons connected by relationship, and so on. If the father himself had made no disposition concerning his daughters, (in which respect, however, his choice was limited,) it was to be decided by the king’s court who among the privileged persons should marry the heiress.(926) It was not until after the time of Epitadeus that the father could betroth his daughter to whom he pleased; and if he had not declared his intention, his heir had equal right to decide concerning her.(927)

If, however, the family was without female issue, and the succession had not been secured during the father’s lifetime by adoption in the presence of the king, it is probable that the heads of houses related to the surviving daughter married her to a son of their own, who was then considered as successor of the family into which he was introduced—a means employed at Athens,(928) and probably therefore at Sparta also, for preventing the extinction of families. But there were two customs peculiar to the Lacedæmonians; in the first place, a husband, if he considered that the unfruitfulness of the marriage was owing to himself (for if he considered his wife as barren he had power immediately to put her away),(929) gave his matrimonial rights to a younger and more powerful man, whose child then belonged to the family of the husband, although it was also publicly considered as related to the family of the real father.(930) The second institution was, that to the wives of men, who, for example, had fallen in war before they had begotten any children, other men (probably slaves) were assigned, in order to produce heirs and successors, not to themselves, but to the deceased husband.(931) Both these customs, which appear to us so singular (though similar regulations existed in the constitution of Solon), originated from the superstitious dread of the destruction of a family. When this motive lost its power upon the mind, these ancient institutions were probably also lost, and the population and number of families were continually diminished.

5. In Sparta, however, the principle of community of goods was carried to a further extent than in any other nation, although it was the principle on which the legislation of many other Grecian states was founded. Phaleas the Chalcedonian had made it the basis of his laws.(932) The prohibition of Solon, that no citizen should possess more than a certain quantity of land, appears to have been a remnant of a former equality in the lots of the nobles.(933) In cases, however, in which the restoration or introduction of equality was not possible, the legislators endeavoured to make the landed estates inalienable. For this reason the mortgaging of land was prohibited in Elis;(934) and among the Locrians land could not be alienated without proof of absolute necessity.(935) We have already spoken of the inalienability of the lots at Leucas.(936) The ancient Corinthian lawgiver, Phidon, made no alteration in the unequal size of landed estates, but he wished to restrict their extent, as well as the number of the landed proprietors, who were all citizens.(937) Philolaus the Corinthian, who gave laws to Thebes in the 13th Olympiad, went still further;(938) since he not only endeavoured to retain the same number of lots, by laws concerning the procreation and adoption of children,(939) but endeavoured to restore the original equality from time to time, perhaps in a manner similar to the jubilee-year of the Hebrews:(940) this was in fact most simply effected by the Illyrian Dalmatians, who made a new division of the tillage-land every seven years.(941) If the Doric legislation of Crete had originally a tendency of this kind, its adoption in practice had evidently been hindered by peculiar circumstances. For Polybius(942) at least knew of no Cretan laws which laid any restriction upon the purchase of land, nor indeed upon gain in general:(943) the landed estates were divided among the brothers, the sisters receiving half a brother’s share.(944) In this manner, in the narration of Ulysses,(945) the sons of Castor, the son of Hylacus, made a division of their patrimony; the illegitimate son receiving only a small share (νοθεῖα). But the poor frequently, by marriage with wealthy wives, attained to riches, together with personal distinction. In addition to this, privateering expeditions, sometimes as far as Egypt, for which individual adventurers frequently equipped whole flotillas, gave an opportunity for a more rapid acquisition of wealth. This habit of living in ships, and at the same time the variable condition of the different states, necessarily produced a frequent change of property, and soon put an end to all firmness and equality wherever they existed.

6. But the Cretan institution of the syssitia was, at least according to the judgment of Aristotle, founded more upon the principle of community of goods than the same establishment in Sparta, since in the former country the expenses of it were defrayed by the state, and not by the contributions of the citizens.(946) This institution of the ancient Dorians, or rather of the ancient Greeks in general, we will consider in a subsequent part of this work, with reference to manners and taste; here it must be viewed as affecting the public economy. In Sparta every member of the phiditia contributed to them, as has been already stated, from his own stock;(947) the amount required was about one Attic medimnus and a half of barley-meal, eleven or twelve choëis of wine,(948) five minas of cheese, with half the same quantity of figs, together with dates,(949) and ten Æginetan oboli for meat.(950) The approximate statement of one Attic medimnus and a half is probably meant as an equivalent to one Æginetan medimnus;(951) the ten oboli are equal to a Corinthian stater, or a Syracusan decalitre; the whole is doubtless the monthly contribution of an individual,(952) and is amply sufficient for the consumption of one person. For the daily allowance being elsewhere reckoned at two chœnices, and one cotyla of wine (although the latter is an extremely small quantity),(953) this contribution would give rather more than two chœnices, and five cotylas for each day. There appears to have been only a small allowance for meat, but the want of it was partly supplied by the frequent sacrifices, and partly by the excellent institution of the ἐπάϊκλα, which were additions to the regular meal or αἶκλον. The poorer members of the syssition furnished these from the proceeds of the chase, while wealthier persons supplied wheaten bread (the common provision being barley cakes, μᾶζαι), with young cattle from their flocks, birds prepared as ματτύα, and the fruits of the season from their lands.(954) Voluntary gifts of this kind were probably seldom wanting, so long as the spirit of community influenced their minds; it was also natural that they should contribute largely, in order to give variety and grace to their otherwise uniform banquet.

7. In the Cretan institution, however, the state provided for all the citizens and their wives.(955) The revenues received by the community from the public lands, and from the tributes of the Periœci, were divided according to the months of the year into twelve parts;(956) and also into two according to the purpose to which it was appropriated; so that one half defrayed the sacrifices and the expenses of the government, the other went to the public banquets.(957) Now this latter half was divided among the different families, and each gave his share into the company of syssitia (ἑταιρία) to which he belonged.(958) It may be asked why the state did not allot these sums directly among the syssitia, instead of making the payment indirectly through the members: it is, however, probable that these companies were formed at will by the several messmates. The division of the public revenue is in some measure similar to the proceeding of the Athenians with respect to the Laurian silver-mines.(959) In addition to this, every citizen furnished a tenth of the produce of his lands, and every Clarotes an Æginetan stater for his master.(960)

Although the meaning and object of this institution is quite intelligible, it is not easy to obtain a clear notion of the Lacedæmonian system. The produce of a lot amounted for the Spartans, according to a passage above quoted, to 82 medimni. If we suppose these to be Attic medimni, as was there assumed upon a mere approximate calculation, each lot would have enabled three men to contribute to the syssitia (54 medimni), and would also have furnished a scanty subsistence at home to three women. But this would leave a surplus, in addition to whatever money was required as a subscription to the syssitia, for all other household expenses. Now it is true that among the poorer citizens these could not have been considerable, since the younger children went with their fathers to the public tables, and the elder were educated and maintained by the state; to which might be added the produce of the chase, and the charity of other persons. But after making all allowance for these causes, the expenses for dwellings, clothing, furniture, and partly for food not provided by the syssitia, still remain undefrayed. It is, however, evident that there would have been sufficient income to meet these demands, if we suppose that the 82 medimni were not Attic, but Æginetan, which were considerably larger.(961) But even upon this supposition one lot could not have maintained more than six persons, unless the rent of the Helots is assumed higher: and it might also be the case (which however, according to Aristotle, appears to have been of rare occurrence), that they were not able to pay their contributions.

8. Of the domestic economy of Lacedæmon we have little knowledge; although Aristotle, or rather Theophrastus (who is now known to be the author of the first book of the Economics), gives it a separate place in treating of this subject. Every master of a family, if he received his share of the produce of the soil, laid by a portion sufficient for the year’s consumption, and sold the rest in the market of Sparta:(962) the exchange being probably effected by barter, and not by the intervention of money.(963) It should be observed, that the system of keeping the fruits in store had something peculiar,(964) and the regularity was celebrated, by which every thing could be easily found and made use of.(965) We are also informed that the Spartans had granaries (ταμιεῖα) upon their estates, which, according to ancient custom, they kept under a seal; it was however permitted to any poor person, who for example had remained too long in the chase, to open the granary, take out what he wanted, and then put his own seal, his iron ring, upon the door.(966)

9. In the market of Sparta, money was employed more often as a medium of comparison than of exchange; small coins were chiefly used, and no value was attributed to the possession of large quantities.(967) This usage Lycurgus had established, by permitting only the use of iron coin, which had been made useless for common purposes, by cooling in vinegar, or by some other process.(968) In early times iron spits or bars had been really used as money,(969) which after the time of Phidon the Argive were replaced by coined metal. The chief coin was called from its shape, and perhaps also from its size, πέλανορ, the cake used in sacrifices; its value was equal to four chalcûs, that is, to a half obolus, or the twelfth of a drachma(970) (manifestly of the Æginetan standard, as the Spartan coinage must necessarily have been adapted to this measure), and weighed an Æginetan mina.(971) Now as a mina of silver contained 1200 half oboli, the price of silver must have been to that of iron as 1200 to one; an excessive cheapness of the latter metal, which can only be explained by the large quantity of iron found in Laconia, and the high price of silver in early times. Ten Æginetan minas of money were, according to this calculation, equal in weight to 1200 minas, and it is easy to see that it would have required large carriages for transport, and an extensive space when kept in store.(972)

10. That, however, the possession of gold and silver money was expressly interdicted to the citizens of Sparta, is abundantly proved by the prohibition renewed at the time of Lysander by Sciraphidas or Phlogidas:(973) and how strong was the hold of this ancient custom is seen from the punishment of death which was threatened to those who secretly transgressed it. The possession of wrought precious metals does not appear to have been illegal. This decree, however, expressly permitted to the state the possession of gold and silver:(974) which enactment was also doubtless a restoration of ancient custom. Without the possession of a coin of general currency, Sparta would have been unable to send ambassadors to foreign states, to maintain troops in another country, or to take foreign, for instance Cretan, mercenaries into pay. We also know that the Lacedæmonians sent sacred offerings to Delphi, as for example, the golden stars of the Dioscuri dedicated by Lysander;(975) and Lacedæmonian artists made for the state statues of gold and ivory.(976) This took place about the time of the Persian war. A century indeed earlier, Sparta had not enough gold to gild the face of the statue of Apollo at Thornax, and endeavoured to buy it in Lydia, probably in exchange for silver.(977) It follows from this, that in Sparta the state was sole possessor of the precious metals, at least in the shape of coin (though it did not coin any money of its own before the time of Alexander),(978) which it used in the intercourse with foreign nations. The individual citizens however, who were without the pale of this intercourse, only required and possessed iron coin;(979) in a manner precisely similar to that proposed by Plato in the Laws, viz., that the money generally current should be at the disposal of the state, and should be given out by the magistrates for the purposes of war and foreign travel, and that within the country should be circulated a coinage in itself worthless, deriving its value from public ordinance.(980)

Still however, some difficult questions remain to be considered. In the first place, it is evident that whatever commerce was carried on by Laconia,(981) could not have existed without a coinage of universal currency. Now it is impossible that this trade could have been carried on by the state, since it would have required a proportionate number of public officers; consequently it was in the hands of the Periœci. We must therefore suppose that the possession of silver coin was allowed to this class of persons; in general, indeed the Spartan customs did not without exception extend to the Periœci. Nor could this have had much influence upon the Spartans, since they had not any personal connexion with the Periœci, the latter being only tributary to the state. In the market of Sparta in which the Spartans and Helots sold their corn and the products of native industry were exposed, all foreigners being entirely excluded,(982) doubtless none but the iron coin was used; and so also in the whole of Laconia it was current at its fixed value; but those Lacedæmonians who were not of Doric origin must have possessed a currency of their own, probably under certain restrictions. And the tributes of these persons were doubtless the chief source from which the state derived its silver and gold coins. Besides this, the kings must also have been privileged to possess silver and gold. If some permission of this kind had not existed, Pausanias (who was in strictness only guardian of the king) would not have been able to receive among other spoils ten talents from the plunder of Platæa;(983) and Pleistonax and Agis the First could not have been fined in the sums of fifteen talents, and 100,000 drachmas:(984) at a later time also, as has been already remarked, Agis the Third was possessed of six hundred talents.(985) The estates of the kings were also situated in the territory of the Periœci, in which silver money was in circulation, and it is at least possible that the payments may have been made to them in this coinage. Herodotus states that every king at the beginning of his reign remitted all the debts of the citizens both to the state and to the kings:(986) they therefore cancelled all certificates of debt, which in Sparta were called κλάρια, or mortgages, probably because the land (and in early times the produce of the land only) was assigned as security.(987) This was a wise institution, by which those persons in particular were relieved who had, for a particular object, received from the kings or the state, gold or silver, which on account of the small value of the iron coinage they were seldom able to repay. Now gold and silver were, for example, necessary to all persons who had to undertake a journey out of Laconia, and these they could not obtain otherwise than from the magistrates or the king,(988) a measure which must have placed great obstacles in the way of foreign travel.

11. It is, however, well known that in this respect the ancient severity of custom was gradually relaxed. Even in the third generation before the Persian war, the just Glaucus was tempted to defraud a Milesian of a sum of money deposited with him. The Persian war only increased the public wealth, and the Persian subsidies were confined to the payment of national expenses. When at length Lysander brought vast sums of money into Sparta, and made this state the most wealthy in Greece,(989) the citizens are reported still to have maintained the same proud indigence. But was it possible for individuals to despise what the state esteemed so highly, and would they not naturally endeavour to found their fame upon that on which the power of the nation depended? Even Lysander, who, with all the artfulness and versatility of his manners, had a considerable severity of character, was still unwilling to enrich himself;(990) a credible witness(991) indeed relates, that he had deposited a talent and fifty-two minas of silver, together with eleven staters, probably in case he should have occasion for them when out of the country; but how small is this sum when compared with the acquisitions of others in similar situations!

It appears, however, to have been at that time customary to deposit money without the boundaries, especially in Arcadia, and this was the first means adopted for evading the law.(992) Lysander, however, was far exceeded by Gylippus in love for money, in whose family avarice appears to have been hereditary; for his father Cleandridas had been condemned for taking bribes.(993) Lastly, after the death of Lysander, the possession of precious metals must have been allowed to private individuals, under certain conditions with which we are unacquainted. At least some supposition of this kind must be adopted, to enable us to account for the fact, that Phœbidas was fined 100,000 drachmas for the taking of the Cadmea, and Lysanoridas an equally large sum for his weak defence of the same citadel.(994)

No regular taxation of the citizens of Sparta existed in any shape.(995) Extraordinary contributions and taxes were, however, raised for the purposes of war, which, on account of their unusual and irregular occurrence, were collected with difficulty.(996) This will serve to explain the exemption from duties (ἀτέλεια) that is sometimes mentioned.(997) When in the time of Agis the Third the ephor Agesilaus extended the annual period of his office for a month, in order to increase his receipts,(998) it is probable that he reckoned upon large fines;(999) of which he, as it seems, would receive a part. There was no public treasure at Sparta up to the time of the Peloponnesian war;(1000) the revenue and expenditure were therefore nearly equal; and the Spartans were honest enough to require from the allies only the sums which were necessary,(1001) The altered state of these circumstances in later times lies without the sphere of our inquiries.

12. I shall equally abstain from collecting the various accounts respecting the finance and trade of other Doric states; since the inland countries, in which many peculiarities may perhaps have existed, are little known; and the commercial cities, such as Ægina, Corinth, Rhodes, and Cyrene, gave up their national customs for the sake of trade. In Peloponnesus, however, the cities on the coast of Argolis were adapted by nature for exchanging the products of the agricultural nations of the interior for foreign commodities;(1002) and thus they established a connexion and intercourse between Laconia and Arcadia, and other countries.(1003) In these cities also there were many commercial establishments, which did not manufacture only for the interior.(1004) In Corinth, the duties from the harbour and market had in the time of Periander become so considerable, that the tyrant limited his receipts to that one branch of revenue;(1005) although, according to a fabulous tradition, the golden colossus of Cypselus at Olympia was consecrated from a tax of a tenth upon all property continued for ten years.(1006)

The strongest proof of the ancient commerce of Peloponnesus, and of its great extent, is the Æginetan money; the standard of which was in early times prevalent in Peloponnesus, in Crete, in Italy,(1007) and even in the north of Greece, since the early Bœotian, Thessalian, and Macedonian coins were before the time of Philip adapted to it.(1008) In Italy the monetary system was arranged in a peculiar manner, for the convenience of intercourse with the natives; and as this subject is of much importance in a historical point of view, we will now examine it briefly, without attempting a complete investigation. If we consider the names of the coins in use among the Dorians of Italy and Sicily, for example, at Syracuse and Tarentum (as they had been collected by Aristotle in his Constitution of the Himeræans from Doric Poets),(1009) viz., λίτρα for an obolus, ἠμίλιτρον for six, πεντόγκίον for five, τετρᾶς for four, τριᾶς for three,(1010) ἑξᾶς for two, ὀγχία for a twelfth; it is at once evident that these Greeks had adopted the Italian and Roman duodenary system, in which the libra, the pound of brass, was the unit;(1011) a system which was originally unknown to the Greeks, and accordingly the word λίτρα has no root in their language. Now, together with these coins in the Greek states, the νόμος,(1012) among the Latins numus, occurs; manifestly, as Varro says, a word belonging to the former people, and signifying a coin current by law; whence it is evident that the Italians, in the regulations of their monetary system, did not merely give to the Greeks of Italy, but that they also received something in return, and that one standard was compounded, partaking in some measure of both methods of computation. If we, then, consider the form and value of these coins, it is plain that the Greek colonies retained the system of money which they brought with them from Peloponnesus; and that they did not till subsequently adapt their coinage to the native standard. They then made the litra equal to the obolus, i.e., to the Æginetan, which was also the Corinthian;(1013) so that a Corinthian stater of ten oboli was called in Syracuse a δεχάλιτρον, or piece of ten litras. At the time, therefore, when this system was formed, the lb. of copper must have really been equal in value to a silver obolus. Now since the former weighed 6048,(1014) the latter nearly 23 French grains,(1015) the ratio of silver to copper must at the time of this arrangement have been as 1 to 263; the commerce of these regions having in early times determined this proportion. But as more silver was gradually introduced by the trade with the west of Europe, and probably at the same time some native copper-mines were exhausted, copper, which was the circulating medium of Italy, rose in comparison with silver, the circulating medium of Greece; and this was the principal cause of the constant diminution in the weight of the as in Etruria and Rome. But a detailed examination of this subject, so important in the history of the commerce of Greece and Italy, does not fall within the plan of the present work.(1016)

What was the value of the νόμος of the Sicilian Greeks we are not informed by any decisive testimony: the name, however, proves that it was a current coin, and not of very inconsiderable value. For this reason I cannot assume that it was equal to a litra;(1017) Aristotle(1018) also states that the impression of the Tarentine coins was Taras sitting upon the dolphin; now, in the first place, this device does not occur on any litras or oboli of Tarentum; and, secondly, the coin would not be of sufficient size to contain it: for which reason the Greeks, whenever they stamped so small a coin of silver, always made use of the simplest devices. If, however, the Tarentine numus had the same ratio to the litra as the Roman numus sestertius to the as,(1019) the former would have been a large coin; and we are also on the same supposition enabled to explain how it came that in Sicily an amount of 24, and afterwards of 12 numi, was called a talent;(1020) for in that case 24 numi would be equal to 60 lbs. of copper, which was the same number of minas that the Æginetan talent of silver contained. It is also confirmed by the fact mentioned by Festus, that this talent in Neapolis amounted to six, and in Syracuse to three denarii, by which he means decalitra.(1021) And therefore, although other circumstances tend to shake the certainty of this supposition,(1022) it will be better to acquiesce in these arguments, on account of the harmony of the different statements.

Chapter XI.

§ 1. Simplicity of the Law of Sparta. § 2. Spartan System of Judicature. § 3. Penal system of Sparta: fine, infamy, § 4. exile, and death. § 5. Origin of the laws respecting the penalty of death in the Doric states. § 6. Connexion of Locri with the Doric race. § 7. Laws of Zaleucus.

1. The law, as well as the economy, of the Dorians, seems to bear a character of very great antiquity, as far as our scanty means of information permit us to judge. It exhibits strong marks of the early time at which it originated, and it is impossible not to recognise in it a certain loftiness and severity of character. For this reason it was ill suited to the circumstances of the more unrestrained and active manners of later times, and only owed its continuance to the isolated situation in which Sparta succeeded in keeping herself. Thus the civil law was less definite and settled here than in any other part of Greece in early times, as property was, according to the Spartan notions, to be looked upon as a matter of indifference; in the decrees and institutions attributed to Lycurgus, no mention was made of this point, and the ephors were permitted to judge according to their own notions of equity. The ancient legislators had an evident repugnance to any strict regulations on this subject; thus Zaleucus, who, however, first made particular enactments concerning the right of property,(1023) expressly interdicted certificates of debt.(1024) The laws of that early period had a much more personal tendency, and rather regulated the actions of every individual by means of the national customs. It was nearly indifferent whether those actions immediately concerned other persons or not; the whole state was considered as injured and attacked when any individual did not comply with the general principles. Hence the ancient courts of justice exercised a superintendence over the manners of the citizens, as, for instance, the Areopagus at Athens, and the Gerusia at Sparta: hence the extensive interference of the law with the most private relations, such, for example, as marriage. But the history of nations is a history of the progress of individual liberty; among the Greeks of later times the laws necessarily lost this binding force, and obtained a negative character, by which they only so far restrained the actions of each individual, as was necessary for the co-existence of other members of the state. In Sparta, however, law and custom retained nearly equal power; it will therefore be impossible to treat of them separately, and we must be satisfied with some observations upon the judicial system in Sparta and other Doric states.

2. The courts of justice in Sparta have already been spoken of in several places.(1025) The Gerusia decided all criminal causes, together with most others which affected the conduct of the citizens; the other jurisdiction was divided among the magistrates according to the branches of their administration.(1026) The ephors decided all disputes concerning money and property, as well as in accusations against responsible officers, provided they were not of a criminal nature; the kings decided in causes of heiresses and adoptions, and the bidiæi in disputes arising at the gymnasia. Public offences, particularly of the kings and other authorities, were decided by a supreme court of judicature.(1027) The popular assembly had probably no judicial functions; disputes concerning the succession to the throne were referred to it only after ineffectual attempts to settle them, and it then passed a decree.(1028) The assembly took the case of those who fled from their ranks at the battle of Leuctra out of the hands of the regular court, by nominating an extraordinary nomothetes for the occasion, and afterwards confirming his proposal.(1029) It does not appear that the practice of ostracism was known in the Doric states before the destruction of the early constitution.(1030) Arbitrators were also employed at Sparta for the decision of private cases, as in the Homeric time;(1031) but whether they were publicly appointed, as in Athens, is not known.

At Sparta, as well as at Athens, the parties interested were, of course, entitled to accuse in private causes; and in criminal cases the next of kin; it cannot however be supposed that in Sparta, as in Athens, every citizen of the state was empowered to institute a public action; as a regulation of this kind appears too inseparably connected with democracy. Private individuals were therefore only permitted to lay an information before a magistrate, which was also allowed to the Helots;(1032) the action being conducted, as we find to have been so frequently the case with the ephors, by some public officer. In the judicial procedure of Sparta, it is probable that much of the ancient Grecian simplicity remained, which Aristotle for example remarks in the criminal proceedings of the Æolic Cume, where in trials for murder witnesses from the family of the murdered person were sufficient to prove the offence.(1033) In the ancient laws of Rhadamanthus, disputes were generally decided in a very summary manner by oath,(1034) and the legislation of Charondas for the Chalcidean colonies was the first that instituted inquiries concerning false testimony.(1035)

The laws by which the decisions were regulated were supposed to live in the breasts of the magistrates themselves; nor was there any written law during the flourishing times of Sparta. The interpreters of the laws of Lycurgus, who occur at a late period,(1036) appear to imply the existence of a written code, if they are compared with the Syracusan interpreters of the code of Diocles;(1037) yet it is possible that they may have merely given answers from an innate knowledge of the traditional law, like the ἐξηγηταὶ τῶν πατρίων at Athens.(1038) Thus also it was allowed to the judges to impose punishments according to their own pleasure; the laws of Sparta contained no special enactments on this point, which were first added by Zaleucus to his code.(1039)

3. Among the various punishments which occur, fines levied on property would appear ridiculous in any other state than Sparta on account of their extreme lowness. Perseus in his treatise on the Lacedæmonian government, says, that “the judge immediately condemns the rich man to the loss of a dessert (ἐπάïκλον); the poor he orders to bring a reed, or a rush, or laurel-leaves for the public banquet.” Nicocles the Lacedæmonian says, upon the same subject, “when the ephor has heard all the witnesses, he either acquits the defendant or condemns him: and the successful plaintiff slightly fines him in a cake, or some laurel-leaves,” which were used to give a relish to the cakes.(1040) From this it is evident that actions were heard before the ephors, and probably in private cases, in which the plaintiff assessed the fine (ἀγῶνες τιμητοὶ). Large fines of money in early times only occur as being paid by the kings, but afterwards by generals, harmosts, &c.(1041) The defendant was frequently condemned to leave the country.(1042) It is hardly possible that a complete confiscation of property, extending to land, could have been permitted in Sparta,(1043) although it is mentioned in Argos and Phlius. Imprisonment was never employed in Sparta as a penalty for a free citizen, but only as a means of preventing the escape of an accused person. Corporal punishment preceded, as in the case of Cinadon, the infliction of death; but was not a separate penalty.(1044) On the other hand, infamy (ἀτιμία) was the more frequently used as a punishment, from the deep impression which it made on the mind of a Spartan.(1045) The highest degree of this infamy, as it appears, fell upon the coward, who either left the ranks and fled from battle, or returned without the rest of the army, as Aristodemus from Thermopylæ.(1046) A person thus excommunicated could fill no public office; had the lowest place in the choruses; in the game of ball neither party would have him on their side; he could find no competitor in the gymnasia, no companion of his tent in the field. The flame of his hearth was extinguished, as he was unable to obtain fire from any person. He was compelled to maintain his daughters at home, or, if unmarried, to live in an empty house, since no one would contract any alliance with him. In the street he yielded to every one the way, and gave up his seat to an inferior in age; his lost honour was at first sight evident to every one from his ragged cloak, and his half slavery, from his half-shorn head. Hence many persons have asked, what merit it was in a Spartan if he preferred death to flight, since a punishment far worse than death awaited the coward? It is indeed true, that the merit of each individual Spartan was less if he preferred dying at his post to saving himself by flight, than if public opinion had not affixed so severe a penalty to the offence of the cowardly soldier. But this argument would be equally good against all public laws and ordinances, and even against the expression of national feelings and opinion. For the looser the bond of social union, and the more anarchical the condition of any state, the greater is the individual merit of any citizen who nevertheless observes the rules of morality and justice, and the praise of virtue is more considered as his particular due. Whereas, when each citizen listens to the voice of public opinion, and feels himself, as it were, bound to support the national power, a large part of the merit of individual excellence is taken away from the individual, and bestowed on the public institutions.

A less severe description of infamy was the lot of prisoners taken in war, who were not subject to the imputation of cowardice, as, for instance, the captives at Sphacteria. They were not allowed to fill any public office, and were deprived of the privilege of buying and selling. The other degrading restrictions were not, however, enforced, and the time of the punishment was limited.(1047)

Among this class of punishments may be included the penalty of the unmarried, who were deprived of the customary honours of old age. Young men were also punished for various offences, by being compelled to sing defamatory songs against themselves, a custom corresponding with the inclination of the Doric race to mirth and merriment, under which a very serious character was frequently concealed. In the code of Charondas, public ridicule was also assigned as the penalty of the adulterer and busybody (πολυπράγμων),(1048) and that for sycophants and cowards was of a similar character.(1049)

4. Banishment was probably never a regular punishment in Sparta, for the law could hardly have compelled a person to do that which, if he had done it voluntarily, would have been punished with death.(1050) Murderers, particularly if their crime was unpremeditated, were sometimes forced to fly the country;(1051) but this cannot be considered as a case in point, for the flight only took place for the purpose of avoiding the revenge of relations. On the other hand, banishment exempted a person from the most severe punishments,(1052) and, according to the principles of the Greeks, preserved him from every persecution; so that even a person who was declared an outlaw by the Amphictyons was thought secure when out of the country.(1053) There is no instance in the history of Sparta of any individual being banished for political reasons, so long as the ancient constitution continued.

The punishment of death was inflicted either by strangulation in a room of the public prison called Δεξὰς,(1054) or by throwing the criminal into the Cæadas, a ceremony which was always performed by night.(1055) It was also in ancient times the law of Athens, that no execution should take place in the day-time.(1056) So also the senate of the Æolic Cume (whose antiquated institutions have been already mentioned) decided criminal cases during the night, and voted with covered balls,(1057) nearly in the same manner as the kings of the people of Atlantis, in the Critias of Plato.(1058) These must not be considered as oligarchical contrivances for the undisturbed execution of severe sentences, but are to be attributed to the dread of pronouncing and putting into execution the sentence of death, and to an unwillingness to bring the terrors of that penalty before the eye of day. A similar repugnance is expressed in the practice of the Spartan Gerusia, which never passed sentence of death without several days’ deliberation, nor ever without the most conclusive testimony; the person who was acquitted could however be always subjected to a fresh examination.(1059) Notwithstanding this horror of shedding blood, the punishments in the early Greek states were more severe than under the Athenian republic. The orator Lycurgus(1060) ascribes to the ancient legislators in general the principle of the laws of Draco, to punish all actions with the same severity, whether the evil which they caused was great or small. This severity partly owed its origin to a supposition that the public rights were injured, and not the property or the peace of an individual. Thus the ancient law of Tenedos (which, together with the worship of Apollo there established, appears to have been derived from Crete) punished adulterers by decapitation with an axe;(1061) the same offence was punished, according to the code of Zaleucus, by the loss of an eye,(1062) and in Sparta it was guarded against by laws of extreme severity.(1063)

5. The laws respecting the penalty of death, which prevailed in the Grecian, and especially in the Doric states, were derived from Delphi. They were entirely founded upon the ancient rite of expiation, by which a limit was first set to the fury of revenge, and a fixed mode of procedure in such cases established.(1064) Any person killing another without premeditation in the gymnastic contests and public battles was, according to the law which (as Plato states)(1065) came from Delphi, immediately released from all guilt, when he had been purified: it is however probable, that much of what the philosopher recommends in other cases was derived from the institutions of Draco, as well as from the Delphian laws, which were actually administered in the latter state by the Pythian court of justice.(1066) To what extent reconciliation with kinsmen by the payment of a fine was permitted, and in what cases the punishment of death was made compulsory, cannot be ascertained. The Delphian court having unjustly condemned Æsop to death, sentenced itself to the payment of a fine, and discovered some descendants or kinsmen of their victim, to whom the money was paid.(1067) The Delphian institutions were doubtless connected with those of Crete, where Rhadamanthus was reported by ancient tradition to have first established courts of justice, and a system of law,(1068) the larger and more important part of which, in early times, is always the criminal law. Now as Rhadamanthus is said to have made exact retaliation the fundamental principle of his code,(1069) it cannot be doubted, after what has been said in the second book on the connexion of the worship of Apollo and its expiatory rites with Crete, that in this island the harshness of that principle was early softened by religious ceremonies, in which victims and libations took the place of the punishment which should have fallen on the head of the offender himself.

6. In the present chapter we have frequently had occasion to mention the laws of Zaleucus (the earliest written code which existed in Greece),(1070) actuated by a belief that they were of Doric origin. The Epizephyrian Locrians, amongst whom these laws were in force, were indeed for the most part descendants of the Ozolian and Opuntian Locrians.(1071) Aristotle describes them as a collected rabble, in the true spirit of a mythologist, carrying to the extreme the opposition between recent regularity and early anarchy. These Locrians, however, at the very first establishment of their city, received the Doric customs, Syracusans from Corinth having contributed largely to its foundation,(1072) besides which the Spartans are said to have colonized Locri during the first Messenian war. Although the time may be doubtful, it is an additional confirmation of the fact, that in an ancient war with the inhabitants of Croton, the Locrians applied for assistance to the Spartans, who promised them the assistance of their gods of war, the Tyndaridæ. Locri was therefore considered a Doric state, a character which was likewise preserved in its dialect. The constitution was also an oligarchy,(1073) in the hands apparently of a number of Doric and Locrian families. We find in this state, as well as in its mother-city Opus, the hundred families who, by virtue of their nobility, enjoyed a large share in the government.(1074) But that the aristocracy was united with a timocracy appears to me to be proved by the senate of a thousand; which, under the presidency of the cosmopolis, constituted a supreme court of justice,(1075) and appears to have been formed in the manner stated, if we may judge from the analogy of the senates of Rhegium and Agrigentum: which argument seems to have the greater weight, as such numerous councils of an aristocratic character do not appear to have existed in Greece, and they were evidently not democratic.

7. Now with regard to the laws themselves which Zaleucus gave to this state about the 29th Olympiad,(1076) the testimony of Ephorus deserves particular attention, that they were founded upon the institutions of Crete, Sparta, and the Areopagus, and upon those of the latter in criminal law.(1077) For this reason Zaleucus is brought into connexion with Thaletas, the expiatory priest of Crete, and the spirit of his laws suited the Pythagoreans (who proceeded upon the same Doric usages and maxims), and in later days Pindar(1078) and Plato.(1079) The prohibition to all citizens to leave their country, and to dwell in foreign states,(1080) is of genuine Doric, and therefore Spartan character;(1081) an institution which forms the other side of the Xenelasia. Of the same nature also is the firmness with which the legislation was maintained, and every change guarded against;(1082) they laboured to resist in every manner the Ionic spirit of innovation; and if understood with a slight allowance, it may be true that every person arriving at Locri was punished, who inquired after novelties.(1083) In the same spirit are the measures adopted for securing as far as possible the inalienability of landed property.(1084) The same character is shown in the strict sumptuary laws,(1085) and the superintendence of public morals exercised by the nomophylaces, who were, for example, empowered to admonish and to punish slanderers.(1086) A certain progress is, however, shown in the rude attempts at a law of property, and a more accurate assignment of punishments.(1087) It is remarkable that both Zaleucus and Charondas annexed a sort of recommendation to particular laws:(1088) whereas nothing can be a greater proof of the total failure of a system of laws, than when an endeavour is made to demonstrate the expediency of arrangements, the truth and necessity of which should be self-evident. This statement must not, however, be thus understood: the meaning is, that all the laws were by a short introduction referred to some general principle; such, for example, as “In order not to offend the gods of the families.” “In order that the state may be well administered, and according to the laws of our fathers.” “Trusting that it will be salutary to the people,” (λώιον καὶ ἄμεινον, as the Delphic oracle says on some occasion(1089)), &c.; which seem to me to be rather ancient formulas, suited to the simplicity of the time, and inserted from a vague religious feeling, than intended logically to establish, to the satisfaction of the people, the wisdom and expediency of the new laws.

Chapter XII.

§ 1. Study of the military profession at Sparta. Period of service. § 2. Arrangement of the army. Numbers of the military divisions. § 3. Arrangement of the enomoty and military evolutions. § 4. Arrangement of the Mora. § 5. Organization of the Spartan army. Its officers. § 6. Cavalry in the other Doric states. The Sciritæ in the Lacedæmonian army. Light-armed soldiers. § 7. Arms of the heavy infantry of Sparta. § 8. Spartan tactics. § 9. Steady courage of the Spartans. § 10. War considered as an art by the Spartans. Life of the Spartans in camp.

1. The military system of the Dorians, which we are now about to consider, was evidently brought to the greatest perfection in Sparta. In this state the military profession, as was hardly the case in any other part of Greece, was followed as an art, as the study of a life;(1090) so that when Agesilaus (as is related) separated the shoemakers, carpenters, potters, &c., from the assembled allied army, the Spartans alone remained, as being the warriors by profession (as τεχνῖται τῶν πολεμικῶν(1091)). But the principles of their military tactics were evidently common to the whole race; and, according to a conjecture advanced in a former part of this work,(1092) it was chiefly the method of attack, in closed lines, with extended lances, by which the Dorians conquered the Achæans of Peloponnesus, and which was adopted from them by many other states of Greece.

Every Spartan was, if he had sufficient strength, bound to defend his country in expeditions without the boundaries during the years that were designated by the name ἡλικία.(1093) This period lasted to the fortieth year from manhood (ἀφ᾽ ἥβης), that is to say, to the sixtieth year from birth:(1094) until that time a man was called ἔμφρουρος (from φρουρὰ), and could not go out of the country without permission from the authorities.(1095) Of these, the younger men were sometimes sent abroad; but those of fifty-five and upwards, not till the state was in difficulty.(1096) The ephors stated in the name of the public assembly the years, until which the obligation to service in an individual case extended.(1097) Upon the whole, the armies of Sparta must have contained many aged triarii: while in Athens the liability to foreign service generally terminated with the twenty-third year of manhood; which was computed from the eighteenth year.(1098) But Sparta reckoned upon a healthy and strong old age; the time for deliberative sagacity does not begin till the age for fighting has ended. The allied army of the Argives, Arcadians, and Athenians was, in 418 B.C., met by an army composed of all the Spartans(1099) (that is, all the ἔμφρουροι(1100)); but they dismissed from the boundaries a sixth part of the army, consisting of the younger and the older, in order to protect the capital.(1101)

2. In marching and in battle the Spartans endeavoured to conceal their strength from the enemy; for this reason the levies were hastily made by the ephors, and the army sometimes marched during the night;(1102) the depth of the ranks in the army was also very various, and the enemy could not be certain of its strength. In the battle of Mantinea there were seven lochi, each containing four pentecostyes, the pentecostys four enomoties, and the front row of the enomoty containing four men: the pentecostys had therefore 16 in front, the lochus 64, the whole army 448. According to Thucydides the Spartans generally stood eight men deep; therefore the whole number of the hoplitæ was 3584. To these however were added the 300 picked men about the king, about 400 cavalry in both wings,(1103) and also the old men, posted as a body of reserve with the baggage, together with the Lacedæmonians, appointed to cover the right wing of the allies, in number perhaps about 500.(1104) The whole number of men was 4784. A sixth part of the army had been sent back; which gives for the entire army 5740 men. This was at that time the number of heavy-armed soldiers, which, after severe losses in the field, the city of Sparta was able of itself to furnish:(1105) nor indeed is it so considerable as the report of its strength would lead one to suppose; but it increased, in the manner of an avalanche, into a numerous and powerful army,(1106) when there was time to collect troops from the allies.

Although we have given the account of this battle in the first instance, we cannot derive from it any information with regard to the original regulation of the army, since Agis had increased the lochi to four times their usual strength, as we shall presently see, in order to deceive the enemy by false accounts. For, if we compare the statements of the well informed Xenophon,(1107) we obtain the following explanation of the names: two enomoties compose a pentecostys, two pentecostyes a lochus,(1108) four lochi a mora; now if an enomoty, as must have been originally the case, contained twenty-four,(1109) or, with the enomotarch, twenty-five men,(1110) the mora would have contained 400; and, including the superior officers, pentecosters, and lochagi, 412. In the time of Xenophon, however, the enomoty consisted of thirty-six men(1111); and accordingly, the mora of 600, as was the case on an occasion mentioned by the same historian(1112); the other numbers, which vary between 500(1113) and 900,(1114) must also have resulted from the greater or less increase in the strength of the enomoty.

3. Now the enomoty, the most simple body of this military arrangement, was, as the word shows, a file of men closely united, and bound by a common oath,(1115) which stood in the deep phalanx each one behind the other,(1116) the enomotarch being in front (πρωτοστάτης) of the whole file. Thus also the Thebans stood in files twenty-five men deep,(1117) which they sometimes strengthened to double that number(1118); in the Lacedæmonian army, however, the file was generally broken, and the enomoty, according to the order given before the battle, stood three and sometimes six men broad(1119); in the former case, if its number was not increased, eight; in the latter, four deep: the Lacedæmonians are also reported to have once beaten the Arcadians with a line only one shield deep.(1120) If, however, the whole enomoty stood in one file, it was called λόχος ὄρθιος; and in this disposition they attacked high places, when the files were placed at some distance from each other.(1121) The deployments (παραγωγαὶ), by which the phalanx was made more or less deep, were ordered by the enomotarch. This person was the strongest man or the best soldier of the whole enomoty; hence it was his continual care that on whatever point the attack was made he should always stand at the head of his file: the uragi, however, the last men of the file, were experienced soldiers, especially when the army was expected to be threatened in the rear. If then the lochi moved one behind the other (ἐπὶ κέρως), the enomotarchs advanced before the long files. If the enemy approached in front, the files, either whole or broken, moved forward, each placing itself on the left side of the preceding file (παρ᾽ ἀσπίδα(1122)). If the enomoty was broken, the enomotarch then occupied in the square formed by his enomoty the front angle to the right hand, and the first enomotarch of the army was always the last man of the right wing; this movement was called παραγωγὴ εἰς μέτωπον, or ἐπὶ φάλαγγος.(1123) But if the enemy came on in the rear, each file wheeled round, so that the leaders again came in front.(1124) If the enemy appeared on the right, the whole number of lochi, moving one behind the other, turned, like triremes, towards the enemy, and the man who was last upon the march was last in the line of battle to the right (παρὰ δόρυ). And, lastly, if they advanced from the left, the same movement took place, only the last lochus then occupied the left wing (παρ᾽ ἀσπίδα(1125)).

4. Lochi also occur among the Argives and Thebans, and in the Asiatic armies; under the command of Sparta there were lochi of mercenaries and bowmen,(1126) &c.; whereas the mora was a division peculiar to the Spartans. The formation of this body was as follows. The whole number of citizens (τὸ πολιτικὸν) was divided into six moras(1127); so that every person of military age (ἔμφρουρος), even while he lived at Sparta, belonged to one of them. The strength of the mora in the field depended on the maximum fixed by the ephors for the age of those employed; thus, for example, they were able to send out a mora composed of persons less than thirty-five years from manhood (ἀφ᾽ ἥβης) and keep back those of greater age,(1128) &c. So that in this sense the numbers of the division depended upon circumstances. To each mora of heavy-armed infantry there belonged, without being in close connexion with it, a body of cavalry bearing the same name,(1129) consisting at the most of 100 men, and commanded by the hipparmost.(1130) In the mora of the infantry, however, the men of different ages must have been in some manner separated, so that, for example, those between thirty and thirty-five years of age could be easily detached for pursuit.(1131) In this division no respect was had to kindred; soldiers of one mora had brothers, sons, fathers, in another,(1132) although in early times it appears to have been an object of the greatest care to bring relations and friends together. According to Herodotus(1133) Lycurgus instituted the enomoties, triacades, and syssitia for war; evidently as military divisions; and the Lacedæmonians ate and fought in the same company; from which we may explain why the polemarchs had also a superintendence over the public tables.(1134) By these the larger divisions, and not the single banqueting companies, are intended; when Sparta, in the reign of king Agis, again contained 4500 families, there were fifteen of these divisions(1135); and in earlier times, when the number of families was 9000, there were probably thirty; it is therefore doubtless another name for oba, which rarely occurs; and the army was arranged according to tribes, phratrias, and houses. In early times also the single hamlets of Sparta furnished lochi of their own; as were the Pitanatæ(1136) in the Persian war, and the Mesoatæ.(1137)

5. Of the two principles upon which the regulation of the Lacedæmonian army was founded, one (as has been already pointed out) belonged more peculiarly to early times, and at a late period nearly disappeared: I mean the complete union and amalgamation of the army in all its parts. This is expressed by the name enomoty; and we are led to the same result by many other remarkable vestiges, such as the proximity of the lovers to the loved (which in certain situations must have produced a strong effect upon the feelings), and the sacrifices to Love, which, according both to the Spartan and Cretan usage, the most beautiful men performed before the battle. The second principle was of longer duration; the duty of implicit obedience to every person in authority (πειθαρχία). Now in the artificial organization of the army almost all Spartans were in a certain respect commanders(1138); for not only the front men of the files, even when the enomoties were broken (πρωτοστάται), but the first men of every line (ζευγῖται) were officers(1139); nay, every two persons throughout the whole enomoty were connected with each other as fore-man and rear-man (πρωτοστάτης and ἐπιστάτης.(1140)) The commands (παραγγέλσεις) passed rapidly through the polemarchs, lochagi, &c, to the enomotarchs, who gave them out, like heralds, in a loud voice(1141); but that the command alone of the immediate superior held good, is proved by the circumstance that the disobedience of a polemarch or lochagus entailed the disobedience of the whole lochus.(1142) The polemarchs, lochagi, pentecosters, and also the xenagi (leaders of mercenaries(1143)), took part in the council of war, which was preceded by solemn sacrifices(1144); the first mentioned officers commanded independently single moras and whole armies,(1145) or composed the immediate council of the kings; they were supported or represented, as it appears, by the συμφορεῖς.(1146) The king, in an instance mentioned by Herodotus, himself appointed an inferior general,(1147) which seems to be a consequence of his extensive power in military affairs. The escort of the king was called by the name of damosia,(1148) and consisted of his tent comrades, to which the polemarchs,(1149) the Pythians,(1150) and three Equals also belonged(1151); of the diviners, surgeons, flute-players, and volunteers in the army,(1152) to which must be added the two ephors, who attended the kings on expeditions(1153); the laphyropolæ, who together with the ephors, took possession of the booty; the hellanodicæ, who decided disputes in the army (in this case, as well as at Olympia, the Peloponnesians were called Hellenes by pre-eminence(1154)); the symbuli, sent out, after the time of Agis, as assistants to the king(1155); the pyrphorus, a priest of Ares, who took fire from the sacrifice, which the king performed at home to Zeus Agetor,(1156) and on the boundary to Zeus and Athene, and preserved it during the whole campaign (in battle the unarmed were protected by a religious awe(1157)); and, lastly, those who had conquered in crowned contests were in the king’s train(1158); a train indeed of sufficient importance, and fit in so simple a state of society to surround the descendant of Hercules with an appearance of dignity. The Thirty about the king’s person are not identical with the damosia; for these were always Spartans, which we cannot say of flute-players, &c.; they were assigned to the king, even when the rest of the army (as was frequently the case in expeditions in Asia) consisted exclusively of neodamodes,(1159) and were probably at the same time the body-guard and council of the king. They may therefore be considered as the 300 contracted into a small body, which accompanied the king only on expeditions to a small distance from home. These 300 were the picked regiment of Sparta, the flower of the youth, as the gerontes were of the old men, and also chosen on aristocratic principles. For the ephors appointed three hippagretæ, each of whom chose one hundred young men, with a statement of the grounds of his selection; from the number of those discharged from this body the five agathoergi were taken, who for the space of a year served the state in missions.(1160)

6. A similar body in the Cretan states really consisted of horsemen; the Spartans were called horsemen, and were in fact heavy-armed infantry(1161); the cause of which was, the low estimation of the cavalry-service among the Lacedæmonians. The country was fitted rather for the production of men than of horses; and although the citizens furnished both the horse and accoutrements, they were ridden only by weak and inferior persons.(1162) Thus the horsemen of Sparta, the number of whom in the Peloponnesian war was at first 400, and afterwards rose to 600,(1163) effected nothing against the better mounted and practised cavalry of Bœotia, which as the light-armed riders sometimes mounted behind, sometimes vaulted off rapidly, was doubly formidable to the enemy.(1164) Among the other Doric states, Tarentum in particular had a numerous(1165) and very excellent light cavalry.(1166) The preference for a force of this description is a proof, according to the principles of antiquity, of an unstable and effeminate character, exactly the reverse of that exhibited by the heavy-armed soldiery of the Lacedæmonians.

In the Lacedæmonian army the Sciritæ formed a separate body,(1167) of whom there were 600 in the Peloponnesian war.(1168) In marches they went in front, in the camp they occupied the extreme place,(1169) and in the battle they formed the left wing.(1170) Although we have no express statement of their mode of arms, we can hardly suppose that they were heavy-armed troops, since they were particularly employed when a rapid change of position, or a vigorous attack, such as storming of heights, &c., was required(1171); they were often at the post of greatest danger.(1172) Originally, doubtless, they were, as they were called, inhabitants of the district Sciritis, on the confines of Laconia, towards Parrhasia(1173); their rights and duties appear to have been defined by agreement; their mode of fighting was also perhaps Arcadian. The other Periœci appear only to have taken part in large expeditions, and such as were prepared for a considerable time beforehand; and they probably served for the most part as hoplitæ(1174); the ratio of their number, as well as that of the neodamodes and others, to the citizens of Sparta, was not governed by any fixed rule.(1175)

It is not by any means clear in what manner the Peloponnesian armies were accompanied by such numerous bodies of light-armed soldiers, more particularly of Helots.(1176) It must at the same time be borne in mind that the Persian war was the only time, that is, on a general summons of the nation, when so many as seven attended upon every Spartan(1177); on this occasion, when the numbers of the enemy were so excessive, they might have served to protect the rear of the long line of battle, and to resist the pressure; in addition to which they also annoyed the enemy from behind with slings, javelins, and stones. A large part of them, in the capacity of attendants (θεράποντες, ἐρυκτῆρες, ὑπασπισταὶ), were also destined exclusively for the service of the hoplitæ, and to rescue them in danger(1178); another portion was probably detached to convoy and cover the baggage (στρατὸς σκευοφορικός). The Peloponnesians in early times never attempted to form separate divisions of light-armed soldiers, such as the peltasts were, who, in addition to the javelin, bore the small shield of the Thracians and Illyrians.(1179) The perfection of this species of troops, especially after the improvement of Chabrias and Iphicrates, was the cause of severe injury to the heavy-armed tactics of the Spartans; and the Peloponnesians dreaded them for a long time, according to the Laconian expression, as children fear a bugbear.(1180)

7. The attention of Sparta was almost exclusively directed to the heavy infantry; and it can scarcely be denied that this was carried by them to the highest pitch of perfection. The arms(1181) consisted of a long spear,(1182) a short sword only used in the closest single combat,(1183) a brazen shield,(1184) which covered the body from the shoulders to the knees,(1185) and was in other respects also more similar to the shield of the heroic age than that of the other Greeks. For while the Greeks in general had adopted the Carian handle (ὀχάνη) in order to direct the motion of the shield, of which the size had been considerably reduced, the Spartan buckler was probably suspended upon a thong (τελαμὼν) laid round the neck, and was only managed by a ring (πόρπαξ) fastened to the concave side, which in time of peace could be taken out.(1186) Cleomenes the Third first introduced the handles of shields in Lacedæmon, and in general a less heavy armour.(1187)

8. The principles of the Lacedæmonian tactics may be deduced from what has been already said on the subject of the enomoty, and of its movements; the deployment of the enomoty (the ἐξελιγμὸς) was the chief means of opposing the best soldiers to the enemy,(1188) and it was from this movement in particular that victory was expected. A particular kind of this manœuvre was called the Laconian; it began from the enomotarchs, who faced about to the right, and passed in an oblique direction between their own and the next file; the whole file, following its leader, placed itself in front of the uragus, who merely faced to the right about. So that the whole phalanx, by this means, turning their faces towards the enemy who appeared in the rear, advanced at the same time in that direction by the depth of the order of battle. The Macedonian mode was different from this; for in that the movement began from the uragus, and therefore the phalanx lost, instead of gained, the same space of ground as it covered; and the Cretan (called also Choreus) differed from both, as the enomotarch and uragus both moved, until they changed places, and consequently, according to this method, the phalanx remained on the same ground.(1189) In a charge it was the duty of the general to take care that the army constantly inclined somewhat further to the right than the exact line of its intended direction, since each man naturally endeavoured to bring his unprotected side under the shield of his neighbour, and the last man on the right wing to turn away that side from the danger, and therefore to outflank the left of the enemy:(1190) this was also the cause of the weakness of the right wing, which they endeavoured to remedy by putting in it the best troops, and by protecting it with cavalry. Before Epaminondas discovered the art of concentrating the battle in the spot in which he was strongest, and of keeping the rest of the enemy’s troops unengaged, the general had to attend to two points. In the first place, that the chief charge of his own men should be made upon that part where it appeared most easy and advantageous to break the line; and that at the same time his own line should withstand the charge of the enemy: and, secondly, he might endeavour to obtain the victory by extending his front so as to outflank the enemy; a manœuvre which the Spartans seldom indeed attempted, being content to hinder the enemy from effecting it. The chief point was to keep the whole body of men in compact order, both in rapid advance and in pretended flight:(1191) no bravery could excuse a man for quitting his post.

9. The chief characteristic of the warriors of Sparta was great composure and a subdued strength; the violence (λύσσα) of Aristodemus(1192) and Isadas(1193) being considered as deserving rather of blame than praise; and these qualities in general distinguished the Greeks from the northern Barbarians, whose boldness always consisted in noise and tumult.(1194) The conduct of the Spartans in battle denotes a high and noble disposition, which rejected all the extremes of brutal rage; the pursuit of the enemy ceased when the victory was completed;(1195) and, after the signal for retreat had been given, all hostilities ceased.(1196) The spoiling of arms, at least during the battle, was also interdicted;(1197) and the consecration of the spoils of slain enemies to the gods,(1198) as in general all rejoicings for victory were considered as ill-omened;(1199) ancient principles of Greek humanity which we cannot but admire. War was as much as possible confined to a measure of strength; and battle, as Mardonius in Herodotus describes that of the Greeks in general,(1200) was a kind of duel upon the principles of honour. In Peloponnesus, as well as in Eubœa,(1201) the use of the different species of arms had perhaps been regulated by the appointment of general councils; Sparta also retained with a religious veneration the ancient institutions of sacred truces; as, for instance, the Olympic armistice: it wished not only to celebrate its native festivals in quiet,(1202) but even respected foreign solemnities; thus, at so late a period as 391 B.C., that state allowed itself to be delayed and deceived by an appeal of the Argives to “the sacred months.”(1203) If then the state, so long as it remained true to these principles, did not slaughter its enemies without aim or object, so much the more sparing was it of its own soldiers, every moderate loss being severely felt; but even in the engagements of the hoplitæ few of the victorious party were lost. Every one knows of the tearless battle between the Spartans and Arcadians, in which the state had no dead to mourn.(1204) Nothing therefore can be less laid to the charge of Sparta than a violent passion for war, a foolhardy and reckless desire of conquest. The latter was also guarded against by the maxim of Lycurgus,(1205) “not to go often against the same enemy,” the non-observance of which was a charge brought against Agesilaus. With what unwillingness the Lacedæmonians engaged in great wars is generally known. And yet in every action in the open field, up to the battle of Leuctra, Sparta had nearly a certainty of success,(1206) since the consciousness of skill in the use of arms was added to the national feeling of the Doric race, that victory over the Ionians was not a matter of doubt.(1207) With what timidity did the Athenians attack the hard-pressed and exhausted Spartans in Sphacteria! Their feeling towards the captives was nearly the same as that of the Achæans in Homer to the corpse of Hector.

These opinions necessarily experienced innumerable modifications when Sparta engaged in foreign warfare, and moved out of her own orbit into an unknown region; this was particularly the case in maritime war, which, although followed in early times by Corinth, Ægina, and Corcyra, never agreed with the nature of the Doric tribe. For this reason Sparta, although after many unsuccessful attempts she gave birth to men who had considerable talents for this service, as Callicratidas and Lysander, and for a time her fleet was very numerous, and the commander of it a second king,(1208) never showed any particular inclination for it. A disinclination equally strong, and formed upon the same grounds, was shown by the Spartans to the storming of walled places (πυργομαχεῖν(1209)) for which reason they never in early times constructed any defences of this kind; and despised the use of machines, by which Archidamus, the son of Agesilaus, thought that “man’s strength was annihilated.”

10. We conclude with the assertion with which we prefaced this chapter, though in a different point of view, that no nation ever considered war as an art in the same sense and to the same degree as the Doric Spartans. Indeed every nation, of a military disposition, and addicted to warlike pursuits, considers war not merely as a means of repelling the attacks of enemies, or of gaining plunder or territory by being itself the invader. The mere act of fighting, the common and disciplined movement of thousands directed to the same end, the “pomp, pride, and circumstance of glorious war,” arouse the feelings, and inspire the mind with the noblest and most elevated thoughts; and there is a certain affinity between the art of war and the more regular and peaceful arts; thus a military body resembled, in its movements and array, a large choral dance. These feelings and views were among all nations most natural to the Greeks, and, of the Greek races, familiar to the Dorians in particular.

The agreement which some moderns(1210) have found between the Greek chorus and the lochus is not a mere creation of the fancy; the large chorus was a pentecostys in number, which was divided into enomoties (hemichoria); it advanced in certain divisions, like an army, and had corresponding evolutions.(1211) Both the dance and the battle were the object of the Pyrrhic, which was particularly practised in Sparta and Crete.(1212) In early times it was a preparation for battle, an use of it which was neglected in a later age; in the soldier heavy-armed for the battle was also seen the practised dancer of the Pyrrhic. The same connexion is alluded to by Homer, where Æneas hopes to overthrow Meriones of Crete, however good a dancer he may be:(1213) thus also the Thessalians called the soldiers of the front ranks “principal dancers;” and said of a good fighter, that “he had danced well.”(1214) For the same reason Homer calls hoplitæ by the name πρυλέες(1215) the war-dance having been called πρύλις by the Cretans.(1216) Now this latter expression is used by Homer in the passages in which both Greeks and Trojans give up the usual method of fighting, and the heroes descend from their chariots and form themselves into a body on foot; and therefore of that very mode of battle which became prevalent in Greece through the influence of the Dorians. For the same reason the Spartans sacrificed to the Muses before an action,(1217) these goddesses being expected to produce regularity and order in battle; as they sacrificed on the same occasion in Crete to the god of love, as the confirmer of mutual esteem and shame.(1218)

The whole existence of the Spartans in the camp appears to have been easy and tranquil; and therefore resembled the mode of living in Sparta, as that city was to a certain degree always a camp.(1219) The bodily exercises were regularly continued, and repeated twice in each day;(1220) but with less severity than at home;(1221) and the discipline in general was less strict. The Persian spy found the Spartans in the evening before the battle of Thermopylæ employed, some in gymnastic exercises, and some in arranging their hair,(1222) which they always wore long after their entrance into manhood. Every man put on a crown(1223) when the band of flute-players gave the signal for attack; all the shields of the line glittered with their high polish,(1224) and mingled their splendour with the dark red of the purple mantles,(1225) which were meant both to adorn the combatant, and to conceal the blood of the wounded; to fall well and decorously being an incentive the more to the most heroic valour.

BOOK IV. DOMESTIC INSTITUTIONS, ARTS, AND LITERATURE OF THE DORIANS.

§ 1. Subjects of the present book. § 2. Simplicity of the dwellings of the Dorians. § 3. Achæan style of buildings. § 4. Character of the Doric architecture.

1. Having examined the political institutions of the Doric states, we next proceed to consider their private life and domestic economy; which two subjects were so intimately connected in the habits of this race, that we shall not attempt to separate them by any exact line of distinction. Our observations will be confined to those matters which appear most to exhibit the peculiar character of the Dorians. For which purpose, having first considered their domestic conveniences, such as dwellings, &c., we will proceed to their domestic relations, their arts, and literature.

2. The dwellings of the Dorians were plain and simple. By a law of Lycurgus the doors of every house were to be fashioned only with the saw, and the ceiling with the axe;(1226) not that the legislator intended to abolish altogether the science of architecture, but merely to restrain it to its proper objects, viz., temples and public buildings, and to prevent it from purveying to private luxury. The kings of Greece in Homer’s time lived not only in spacious, but also richly ornamented houses, the walls of which glittered with brass, silver, gold, amber, and ivory; but no such splendour was seen in the dwellings of the Heraclide princes. The palace of the two kings of Sparta was said to have been built by Aristodemus at the taking of the town; here Agesilaus lived after the manner of his ancestors; the doors even in his time being, according to Xenophon’s somewhat exaggerated expression, those of the original building.(1227) Hence Leotychidas the elder (490 B.C.) asked his host at Corinth (which city had early risen to riches and luxury), on seeing the ceiling ornamented with sunken panels (φατνώματα), “whether the trees in Corinth were naturally four-cornered.”(1228) The houses at Sparta, however, notwithstanding their rude structure, were probably spacious and commodious; in front there was generally a court-yard, separated by a wall from the street,(1229) and containing a large portico. The towns of Peloponnesus were for the most part irregularly built, whereas the Ionians had early learnt to lay out their streets in straight lines,(1230) a custom which Hippodamus of Miletus succeeded in spreading over the rest of Greece. It was probably this architect who in the year 445 B.C. laid out the plan of Thurii(1231) in exact squares, with streets at right angles;(1232) and the same who in his old age built the city of Rhodes (407 B.C.), the plan of which was designed with such perfect symmetry, that, according to the expression of the astonished ancients, it seemed like one house.(1233)

3. The principles of Lycurgus, however, we repeat did not in the least degree retard the progress of real architecture. Indeed we know that in the embellishment of their sacred edifices the Dorians employed a style of building which they themselves invented, from the strict principles of which they never deviated, and which at the same time they took the utmost care to bring to perfection. That they were in strictness the original inventors of this style of architecture has been first satisfactorily proved by the remarkable discoveries of modern times, which have laid open to us the monuments of the unknown ages of Greece in all their strange peculiarities. The treasury of Atreus is indeed the only example now extant of a class of buildings doubtless once very numerous;(1234) but its paraboloidal construction distinguishes it as well from the later Grecian as the oriental style of architecture. Near this structure some fragments of columns have been discovered by modern travellers,(1235) remarkable both for the variety of their forms and the richness of their ornaments; still the spot on which they were found, as well as their singular shape, leave no doubt that they belong to the same unknown period. They consist, first, of the base of a fluted column, with a plinth, and also a torus of elliptical outline, decorated with an alternation of projecting and receding compartments, the former of which have in some cases an ornament of spiral lines; secondly, a fragment of the shaft of a column of bronze-coloured marble, similarly ornamented with compartments; thirdly, a very small fragment of a capital; and, lastly, a tablet of white marble, with a species of ornament in imitation of shells. There are in the British Museum two tablets of light green and dark red marble, both taken from the treasury of Atreus, which have the spiral lines above mentioned, and are worked very elaborately, though without mathematical precision.(1236) We have given this description of a style of architecture, not strictly belonging to our subject, in order to direct the reader’s attention to these most remarkable remains of Grecian sculpture, which are quite sufficient to convince us that the building to which they belong, thus adorned with party-coloured stones, and probably covered in the interior with plates of bronze, may be reckoned as the monument of a time when a semi-barbarous style of architecture prevailed throughout Greece.

4. In direct contrast with the above is the simple unornamented character and unobtrusive grandeur of the style unanimously called by the ancients the Doric.(1237) It appears certain that the first hints of this order were borrowed from buildings constructed of wood, a fact which I cannot reconcile with the supposition of a foreign origin. For we should thus lose sight altogether of the gradual and regular progress by which it advanced to maturity, and suppose that the improvements of foreign artificers, with their peculiar principles, and those of native architects, looking only to the original structure of wood, were blended, or rather violently confused together. Could anything be more natural than that the long surface of the principal beams should be imitated in stone, that the cross-beams with the Doric triglyph should be laid over these, the intervals or metopes being by degrees covered with marble, whilst the cornice, in imitation of carpenters’ work, was allowed to project in bold relief? The roof perhaps was for some time allowed to end in a slope on each side; Corinth was the first place where the front and hind part were finished off with a pediment; the tympanum being adorned with statues of ancient clay-work.(1238) Such was the origin of the Doric temple, of which early models have been preserved in the Doric towns of Corinth and Pæstum, in Ægina, and the Doric colonies of Sicily.

We cannot however suppose it to have been the opinion of the historian of ancient architecture,(1239) that the artistical character of the Doric architecture may be satisfactorily derived from wooden buildings. It is the essence of this art to connect, by the varieties of form and proportion, a peculiar association of ideas with works intended merely for purposes of necessity. The Doric character, in short, created the Doric architecture. In the temples of this order the weight to be supported is intentionally increased, and the architrave, frieze, and cornice, of unusual depth; but the columns are proportionably strong, and placed very close to each other; so that, in contemplating the structure, our astonishment at the weight supported is mingled with pleasure at the security imparted by the strength of the columns underneath. This impression of firmness and solidity is increased by the rapid tapering of the column, its conical shape giving it an appearance of strength; while the diminution beginning immediately at the base, and the straight line not being, as in other orders, softened by the interposition of the swelling, gives a severity of character to the order.

With this rapid diminution is also connected the bold projection of the echinus (or quarter-round) of the capital; which likewise creates a striking impression, particularly if its outline is nearly rectilineal. The alternation of long unornamented surfaces with smaller rows of decorated work awakens a feeling of simple grandeur, without appearing either monotonous or fatiguing. The harmony spread over the whole becomes more conspicuous when contrasted with the dark shadows occasioned by the projecting drip of the cornice; above, the magnificent pediment crowns the whole. Thus in this creation of art we find expressed the peculiar bias of the Doric race to strict rule, simple proportion, and pure harmony.

§ 1. General character of the Doric dress. § 2. Different dresses of married and unmarried women among the Dorians. § 3. Dress of the Spartan women. § 4. Dress of the Spartan men. § 5. Simplicity of the Doric dress. § 6. Doric and Ionic fashions of wearing the hair. Change of costume in many Doric states. Baths.

1. The next point which we have to consider is the mode of clothing in use among the Dorians; in which a peculiar taste was displayed; an ancient decorum and simplicity, equally removed from the splendour of Asiatics and the uncleanliness of barbarians. At the same time, however, they paid considerable attention to their personal appearance, although their manners did not require the body to be studiously and completely covered. A Dorian was the first who in the lists of Olympia threw off the heavy girdle, which the wrestlers of Homer had worn in common with those of barbarous countries, and ran naked to the goal;(1240) in fact a display of the naked form, when all covering was useless, and indeed inconvenient, was altogether in harmony with the Doric character. This reminds us of the nakedness of the Spartan young women, even in the time of Athenian civilization, which custom gave rise to the joke, that “the Spartans showed foreigners their virgins naked.”(1241) On this subject, however, it is necessary that we should enter into greater detail.

2. In the first place these words direct our attention to the different modes of life of the married and unmarried women among the Dorians. Modern manners, derived from the age of chivalry, carefully withdraw young women from all impressions calculated to inflame the passions; while married women are more exposed to intercourse with men. But, according to the colder notions of the Greeks, which are seen most clearly among the Dorians, the unmarried lived more in public than the married women; who attended more to the care of their family; and hence the former alone practised music and athletic exercises; the latter being occupied only with their household affairs.(1242) This explains why at Sparta unmarried women appeared with their faces uncovered, while the married only went out in veils;(1243) and it was common to see the former walking in the streets with young men,(1244) which was certainly not permitted to the others; and so also at Sparta,(1245) in Crete,(1246) and at Olympia, virgins were permitted to be spectators of the gymnastic contests, and married women only were excluded;(1247) the reverse of which was the case in Ionia, where the unmarried women were usually shut up in the interior of the houses.(1248)

This different position in society was also marked by the dress, which was lighter and less strict among the unmarried women; for it is these alone who are charged with exposure of their persons. This charge of the Athenians was, however, caused by a strange forgetfulness of ancient custom; for after the mode of treatment of their women had become precisely similar to that of the eastern nations, the ancient Greek usage appeared to them unnatural;(1249) and the dress of the Doric women caused in their minds the same notions as the German dress in those of the Romans; of which Tacitus says, “the German women wear the arms naked up to the shoulders, and even the next part of the breast is uncovered; notwithstanding which they never break the marriage vow.”

3. On the dress of the Spartans I need only, after the labours of former writers,(1250) make the following remarks. The chief, or indeed the only garment of the Doric virgin is by ancient writers sometimes called himation,(1251) sometimes chiton: the former more correctly, as appears from works of art; and the latter word was used metaphorically, from the resemblance of the himation to the linen chiton of the Ionians. This garment of woollen stuff was without sleeves, and fastened over both shoulders by clasps (πόρπαι, περόναι), which were often of considerable size;(1252) while the Ionic women wore sleeves of greater or less length.(1253) This chiton was only joined together on one side, while on the other it was left partly open or slit up (σχιστὸς χίτων(1254)); probably it could be fastened with clasps, or opened wider, so as to admit a freer motion of the limbs, so that the two skirts (πτέρυγες) flew open; whence Ibycus called the Spartan women φαινομηρίδες.(1255) This garment was also worn without a girdle; when it hung down to the calves of the legs.(1256)

This is generally the dress with which the goddesses Victory and Iris are represented in works of art, the latter particularly among the statues from the pediment of the Parthenon, in which rapid motion is indicated by the chiton being thrown from the feet and ancles on the left side; and in the same chiton, though with more ample folds, is the dress of Athene in many statues of the more finished and perfect style of the art: and Artemis, the huntress, in the Doric chiton, girt up for the purpose of rapid motion.

In one of these different fashions, according to her object and business, the virgin of Sparta, generally without the himation,(1257) wore a single garment, and appeared even in the company of men without any further covering. Thus Periander the Corinthian(1258) was seized with love for the beautiful Melissa at Epidaurus, when he saw her dressed, after the Peloponnesian manner, in her chiton, without any upper garment, as she was giving out wine to the labourers.(1259) In this costume the Doric virgins might be seen dancing at their places of exercise and in the chorus.(1260) The married women, however, never appeared without an upper garment; which probably was not essentially different from the himation of the men: thus, for example, the wife of Phocion, who lived in the Doric manner, according to the account of Plutarch, often went out in the himation of her husband.

4. This leads us to consider the costume of the men, the chief parts of which we will describe generally, before we speak of them in detail. These then are, first, the chiton, a woollen shirt without sleeves, worn by all the Greeks and Italians, the only dress of boys;(1261) since it was not till after the increase of luxury in Athens that they began to dress young boys in the himation.(1262) Secondly, the himation, called in Homer χλαῖνα.(1263) a square piece of cloth, sometimes rounded off at the corners, which was commonly thrown over the left, and behind under the right arm, and the end was again brought back over the left shoulder.(1264) Thirdly, the chlamys (Θετταλικὰ πτέρα), of Macedonian and Thessalian origin,(1265) an oblong piece of cloth, of which the two lower ends came forward, and were fastened with a clasp upon the right shoulder; so that it left that arm free. This latter dress is never mentioned in the poems of Homer. Sappho was the first among the Greek poets who spoke of it.(1266) It was not therefore till after her time that its use was extended over Greece Proper, first as the dress of horsemen, and young men in general, and then as a military cloak; under which character it was introduced into Sparta.(1267) The earliest painted vases, however, always represent the warriors in the himation, which is commonly without folds, and drawn close to the body.(1268)

Thucydides(1269) says of the Lacedæmonians, that “they were the first to adopt a simpler mode of dress:” a statement which is founded on a peculiar notion of this historian, that the loose linen garments, which were still worn by old-fashioned people at Athens in the time of Aristophanes, were the original Greek dress; whereas we know with tolerable certainty that this dress was brought over to Athens by the Ionians of Asia.(1270) The Athenians again laid this aside at the time of the Peloponnesian war, and returned to the thin clothing of the ancient Greeks; with the exception of the women, who had formerly at Athens worn the Doric costume, but now retained the Ionic dress with long sleeves, wide folds, and trailing hem, which was generally of linen. Thucydides, however, is so far right, that the Lacedæmonians were distinguished among all the Greeks for their scanty and simple clothing: thus the Lacedæmonian habit,(1271) the τρίβων,(1272) was of thick cloth and small size,(1273) which the youths(1274) of Sparta were bound by custom to wear the whole year through without any other clothes;(1275) and to which older men (for example, those Athenians who aped the Lacedæmonian manners) sometimes voluntarily submitted.

5. As at Athens the style of dress indicated the rank and station of the wearer, so also the Doric manners were clearly expressed in the arrangement of the clothes. Thus, for example, it was generally recognised in Greece that holding the arms within the cloak was a sign of modesty;(1276) and hence the Spartan youths, like the Roman in the first year of their manhood, appeared always in the street with both hands under their cloak and their eyes cast down, “resembling statues,” says Xenophon,(1277) “in their silence, and in the immoveability of their eyes, and more modest than virgins in the bridal chamber.” In the same manner the youths of lower Italy, in which there were many Doric cities, are frequently represented on vases, with the arms folded under the cloak, which is indicated by the large fold across the breast.(1278)

In other respects equality(1279) and simplicity were the prevailing rule. Manufacturers of ointment were excluded from Sparta, as being corrupters of oil: dyers, because they deprived the wool of its beautiful white colour.(1280) “Deceitful are ointments, and deceitful are dyes,” is the Spartan expression for this idea.(1281) Even in the cities which had early departed from the Doric customs, there were frequent and strict prohibitions against expensiveness of female attire, prostitutes alone being wisely excepted.(1282) As in Sparta the beard was considered as the ornament of a man,(1283) and as a sign of freedom (to which the symbolical edict of the ephors to shave the beard refers),(1284) so also at Byzantium and Rhodes shaving was prohibited by ancient, but constantly neglected, laws.(1285) The custom of carrying sticks (in Doric σκυτάλαι) was common to the Spartans,(1286) with the Dorians of lower Italy.(1287)

6. The Doric customs were not, however, hostile to the beauty of personal appearance; but the beauty at which they aimed was of a severe kind, and remote from all feminine tenderness. The Spartan from his youth upwards(1288) preserved, in order to distinguish him from slaves and mechanics,(1289) according to ancient usage,(1290) the hair of his head uncut,(1291) which indeed, if not properly arranged, might frequently give him a squalid appearance. It seems that both men and women tied the hair in a knot over the crown of the head;(1292) while, according to the Ionic custom, which in this respect resembled that of the barbarians, it was divided into locks, and connected over the forehead with golden clasps in the shape of grasshoppers.(1293) On their heads the Lacedæmonians wore hats with broad brims, which were sometimes also used in war, though probably only by the light-armed soldiers.(1294) The manner in which they arranged and adorned their hair for battle was remarked above.(1295)

That most of the Doric states, and particularly the colonies, degenerated from this noble and beautiful simplicity, does not require to be proved. The splendour of Rhodes was proverbial, nor was any dress more effeminate than the transparent and loose robe of Tarentum;(1296) and the Sicilian garments, which Lysander or Archidamus received as a present from Dionysius, he rejected as unfit for his daughters.(1297)

Among the accompaniments of the toilette may be mentioned the baths; with respect to which it may be remarked, that the Lacedæmonian custom only admitted of two kinds; viz., the cold daily baths in the Eurotas (which also formed a part of the regimen of king Agesilaus(1298)), and from time to time a dry sudorific bath.(1299) But the weakening of the body by warm or tepid baths was strictly prohibited.(1300)

§ 1. Syssitia of the Dorians and other Greek races. § 2. Simple fare of Sparta. § 3. Public tables of Sparta and Crete. § 4. Abandonment of the simple fare in some Doric colonies.

1. With respect to the food and meals of the Dorians, we will only mention those points which are connected with some historical or moral fact, since we have already considered this subject in connexion with the economy of the state.

In the first place, the adherence of the Dorians to ancient Greek usages is visible in their custom of eating together, or of the syssitia. For these public tables were not only in use among the Dorians (with whom, besides in Crete and Sparta, they also existed at Megara in the time of Theognis,(1301) and at Corinth in the time of Periander),(1302) but they had also once been a national custom among the Œnotrians(1303) and their kinsmen the Arcadians, particularly at Phigalia;(1304) and among the Greeks of Homer the princes at least eat together, and at the cost of the community; a custom which was retained by the Prytanes at Athens, Rhodes, and elsewhere. In particular, the public tables of Sparta have in many points a great resemblance to the Homeric banquets (δαῖτες)(1305); only that all the Spartans were in a certain manner considered as princes. The Spartans, however, so far departed from the ancient custom, that at the time of Alcman they lay(1306) at table; while the Dorians of Crete always sat,(1307) like the heroes of Homer and the early Romans, according to the ancient European usage, which was entirely supplanted among the early Greeks by the oriental custom introduced by the Ionians.

2. With regard to the food, it is probable that in Sparta much had been retained from ancient usage, and that the rest had been from its first origin peculiar to the nation. The profession of cook at Sparta was, as we have already remarked, hereditary,(1308) and consequently they had no inducement to vie with one another in the delicacy and luxury of their dishes: they cooked the black broth, as their ancestors had done before them. It was likewise more difficult to make dishes of various ingredients, on account of the division of the different departments of cookery; for instance, some cooks were only allowed to dress flesh, others to make broth,(1309) &c. The bakers, whose trade also was hereditary, generally baked nothing but barley-bread (ἄλφιτα);(1310) wheaten bread was only eaten at the dessert of the public tables, when presented by liberal individuals.(1311) The latter kind of bread was originally scarce in Greece, whither it was introduced chiefly from Sicily;(1312) in which country they had also a particular kind of Doric wheaten bread, of coarser meal than was common elsewhere.(1313) The chief dish of meat at the public tables was the black broth (μέλας ζωμὸς);(1314) also pork,(1315) the meat being subjected to stricter regulations than any other kind of food.(1316) Poultry and game were generally eaten after dinner: beef, pork, and kid, were chiefly supplied by the sacrifices, which upon the whole were an exception to the Phiditia.(1317) Their mode of drinking was also that of the ancient Greeks; which, as far as I am aware, is only mentioned in Homer. Before each person was placed a cup, which was filled by the cup-bearer with mixed wine, when it had been emptied; the wine was however never passed round, and no person drank to another; which were Lydian customs introduced by the Ionians.(1318) Both in Sparta and Crete it was forbidden by law to drink to intoxication;(1319) and no persons were lighted home except old men of sixty.(1320)

3. But a still more beautiful feature in the Doric character is the friendly community of their public tables, founded upon the close union of the company of the tables (ἑταιρία in Crete);(1321) into which fresh members were admitted by unanimous election (by ballot).(1322) Whether a preference was shown to kinsmen is uncertain; the syssitia indeed, as divisions of the state, were founded upon a supposed relationship, that is, the connexion of houses;(1323) but here we are speaking of smaller societies, consisting of about fifteen men. A company of this kind was a small state in itself,(1324) arranged upon aristocratical principles,(1325) although the equality was not interrupted by the privileges of any individuals. The ties of this friendly union were however drawn still closer by the constant intercourse of giving and taking, which enriched the scanty meal with the more palatable after-meal (ἐπάϊκλον) or dessert, which no one was permitted to purchase:(1326) from which the κοπὶς should be distinguished, a sacrificial feast, which individuals furnished on stated occasions, and invited to it any friends whom they wished, and particularly the kings.(1327) The phiditia were not, however, considered a scanty and disagreeable meal, until thrown in the shade by the refinements of modern luxury; for they had originally been intended to increase the comforts of the partakers. The conversation, indeed, turned chiefly upon public affairs:(1328) but laughter and jocularity were not prohibited.(1329) Every person was encouraged to speak by the general confidence, and there were frequent songs, as Alcman says that “at the banquets and drinking entertainments of the men, it was fit for the guests to sing the pæan.”(1330) Nor was the appellation φειδίτια, that is, the spare, or scanty meals, of any antiquity, and the Spartans received it from abroad:(1331) by whom, as well as in Crete, they were once called ἀνδρεῖα, or the meals of men.(1332) For the men alone were admitted to them: the youths and boys ate in their own divisions, whilst the small children were allowed to eat at the public tables, and both in Crete and Sparta they sat on low stools near their fathers’ chairs, and received a half share without any vegetables (ἀβαμβάκευστα).(1333) The women were never admitted to the syssitia of the men: both at Sparta and in Crete the rule was, that they ate at home;(1334) in the latter state, however, a woman had the care of the tables of the men.(1335) The Cretans were distinguished by their great hospitality: for every two tables of the citizens there was always one for foreigners; and when two cities were in close alliance with one another, their citizens mutually enjoyed the right of frequenting the public tables of the other state.(1336)

4. This temperance and simplicity, which was longest preserved in Crete and Sparta, were considered by the ancients as characterizing generally the whole Doric race, and a simple mode of cookery was called Doric;(1337) although many cities of that race, such as Tarentum, Syracuse,(1338) and Agrigentum,(1339) entirely abandoned the severe and sober habits of their race; and having once broken through the bonds of ancient custom, gave themselves up with the less restraint to every kind of luxury and indulgence.(1340)

§ 1. Freedom of intercourse between unmarried persons at Sparta. § 2. Marriage ceremonies. § 3. Age of marriage. § 4. Relations of husband and wife. § 5. Different treatment of women among the Ionians. § 6. Παιδεραστία of Sparta. § 7. And of Crete. § 8. Origin of this custom.

1. We now proceed to describe the different relations in the domestic life of the Dorians; and first, that between man and wife. Here it will be necessary to contradict the idea, that the duties of private life were but little esteemed by the Doric race, particularly at Sparta, and were sacrificed to the duty owed to the community. The Lacedæmonian maxim was in direct opposition to this doctrine; viz., that the door of his court(1341) was the boundary of every man’s freedom:(1342) without, all owned the authority of the state; within, the master of the house ruled as lord on his own ground;(1343) and the rights of domestic life, notwithstanding their frequent collision with the public institutions, were more respected than at Athens. At the same time, however, a peculiar national custom, which pervaded the whole system of legislation, prevailed throughout these relations with a force and energy, which we, taking the accounts of the ancients as our guide, will endeavour now to examine. It has been above remarked how, in accordance with the manners of the east, but in direct opposition to the later habits of the Greeks,(1344) a free intercourse in public was permitted by the Dorians to the youth of both sexes, who were brought into contact particularly at festivals and choruses.(1345) Hence Homer represents the Cretan chorus as composed of young men and women, who dance hand in hand.(1346) At Sparta in particular the young men lived in the presence of the unmarried women, and as their derision was an object of dread, so to be the theme of their praise was the highest reward for noble actions.(1347) Hence it was very possible at Sparta, that affection and love, although not of a romantic nature, should take possession of the heart: but at Athens, as far as my recollection goes, we have not a single instance of a man having loved a free-born woman, and marrying her from any strong affection, whilst a single narrative of Herodotus(1348) contains two love stories at Sparta. How many opportunities may have been given by the festivals, as for instance the Hyacinthia, at which the Spartan damsels were seen going about in κάναθρα (ornamented cars peculiar to the country, which were also used in the procession to the temple of Helen at Therapne), and racing in chariots in the midst of assembled multitudes.(1349) Accordingly, the beauty of her women, the most beautiful in all Greece,(1350) was at Sparta more than any other town, an object of general admiration, in a nation where beauty of form was particularly felt and esteemed.(1351)

2. Two things were, however, requisite as an introduction and preparation to marriage at Sparta, first, betrothing on the part of the father;(1352) secondly, the seizure of the bride. The latter was clearly an ancient national custom, founded on the idea that the young woman could not surrender her freedom and virgin purity unless compelled by the violence of the stronger sex. They married, says Plutarch, by ravishing. The bridegroom brought the young virgin, having carried her off from the chorus of maidens or elsewhere, to the bride’s maid, who cut short her hair, and left her lying in a man’s dress and shoes, without a light, on a bed of rushes, until the bridegroom returned from the public banquet, carried the bride to the nuptial couch, and loosened her girdle.(1353) And this intercourse was for some time carried on clandestinely, till the man brought his wife, and frequently her mother, into his house. That this usage was retained to the last days of Sparta may be inferred from the fact, that the young wife of Panteus was still in the house of her parents, and remained there, when he went with Cleomenes to Egypt.(1354) A similar custom must have prevailed in Crete, where we find, that the young persons who were dismissed at the same time from the agele, were immediately married, but did not till some time after introduce their wives into their own house.(1355) The children born before this took place were probably called παρθενίαι;(1356) they were in general considered in all respects equal to those born at home; but in the first Messenian war particular circumstances seem to have made it impossible to provide them with lots of land;(1357) and hence they became the founders of Tarentum.(1358)

3. The age of marriage was fixed by the ancient Greeks and western nations much later than at a subsequent period by those of the east. Following the former, the laws of Sparta did not allow women of too tender an age to be disposed of in marriage. The women were generally those at the highest pitch of youthful vigour(1359) (called in Rhodes ἀνθεστηριάδες),(1360) and for the men, about the age of thirty was esteemed the most proper, as we find in Hesiod,(1361) Plato,(1362) and even Aristotle. Public actions might however be brought against those who married too late (γραφὴ ὀψιγαμίου), to which those also were liable who had entered into unsuitable marriages (γραφὴ κακογαμίου), and those who remained unmarried (γραφὴ ἀγαμίου).(1363) It is well known that these laws have been blamed as a violation of the rights of individuals, and even a profanation of the rite of marriage: but these censors should have remembered that they were judging those institutions by principles which the founders of them would not have recognised. For the Spartans considered marriage, not as a private relation, about which the state had little or no interest, but as a public institution, in order to rear up a strong and healthy progeny to the nation. In Solon’s legislation, marriage was also placed under the inspection of the state, and an action for not marrying (γραφὴ ἀγαμίου(1364)), though merely as a relic of antiquity, existed at Athens. It is nevertheless true that marriage, especially in Sparta, was, to a certain degree, viewed with a primitive simplicity, which shocks the feelings of more refined ages, as the peculiar object of matrimony was never kept out of sight. Leonidas, when despatched to Thermopylæ, is said to have left as a legacy to his wife Gorgo the maxim, Marry nobly, and produce a noble offspring;(1365) and when Acrotatus had fought bravely in the war against Pyrrhus, the women followed him through the town, and some of the older ones shouted after him, “Go, Acrotatus, enjoy yourself with Chelidonis, and beget valiant sons for Sparta.”(1366) Hence we may perceive the reason why in various cases(1367) (such as are known to us have been mentioned above(1368)) Lycurgus not only allowed, but enjoined the marriage duties to be transferred to another; always, however, providing that the sanctity of the marriage union should be for a certain time sacrificed to that which the Doric race considered as of higher importance, viz., the maintenance of the family. That these cases were so defined by custom, as to leave but little room for the effects of caprice or passion, is evident from the infrequency of adultery at Sparta:(1369) but the above aim justified even king Anaxandridas, when, contrary to all national customs, he cohabited with two wives,(1370) who lived without doubt in separate houses. To marry foreign women was certainly forbidden to all Spartans, and to the Heraclidæ by a separate rhetra;(1371) contrary to the custom in other Grecian towns, especially Athens, whose princes in early times, as Megacles, Miltiades, &c., frequently contracted marriages with foreigners.

4. The domestic relation of the wife to her husband among the Dorians was in general the same as that of the ancient western nations, described by Homer as universal among the Greeks, and which existed at Rome till a late period; the only difference being, that the peculiarities of the custom were preserved by the Dorians more strictly than elsewhere. It formed a striking contrast with the habits of the Ionic Athenians, with whom the ancient custom of Greece was almost entirely supplanted by that of the east.(1372) Amongst the Ionians of Asia, the wife (as we are informed by Herodotus(1373)) shared indeed the bed, but not the table of her husband; she dared not call him by his name, but addressed him with the title of lord, and lived secluded in the interior of the house: on this model the most important relations between man and wife were regulated at Athens. But amongst the Dorians of Sparta, the wife(1374) was honoured by her husband with the title of mistress (δέσποινα),(1375) (a gallantry belonging to the north of Greece, and also practised by the Thessalians(1376)), which was used neither ironically nor unmeaningly. Nay, so strange did the importance which the Lacedæmonian women enjoyed, and the influence which they exercised as the managers of their household, and mothers of families, appear to the Greeks, at a time when the prevalence of Athenian manners prevented a due consideration for national customs, that Aristotle(1377) supposed Lycurgus to have attempted, but without success, to regulate the life of women as he had that of the men; and the Spartans were frequently censured for submitting to the yoke of their wives.(1378) Nevertheless Alcman, generally a great admirer of the beauty of Lacedæmonian women, could say, “It becomes a man to say much, and a woman to rejoice at all she hears.”(1379) In accusing the women of Sparta, however, for not essentially assisting their country in times of necessity, Aristotle has in the first place required of them a duty which even in Sparta lay out of their sphere, and in the second place, his assertion has been sufficiently contradicted by the events of a subsequent period, in the last days of Sparta, which acquired a surprising lustre from female valour.(1380) On the whole, however, little as the Athenians esteemed their own women, they involuntarily revered the heroines of Sparta, such as Gorgo the wife of Leonidas, Lampito the daughter of Leotychidas, the wife of Archidamus and mother of Agis;(1381) and this feeling is sometimes apparent even in the coarse jests of Aristophanes.

5. How this indulgent treatment of the women among the Dorians produced a state of opinion entirely different from that prevalent at Athens, has been intimated above, and will be further explained hereafter. In general it may be remarked, that while among the Ionians women were merely considered in an inferior and sensual light, and though the Æolians allowed their feelings a more exalted tone, as is proved by the amatory poetesses of Lesbos;(1382) the Dorians, as well at Sparta as in the south of Italy, were almost the only nation who esteemed the higher attributes of the female mind as capable of cultivation.

It is hardly necessary to remark, that in considering the rights and duties of the wife, as represented in the above pages, to apply to the whole Doric race, allowance must be made for the alterations introduced into different towns, particularly by foreign intercourse and luxury. At Corinth, for instance, the institution of the sacred slaves (ἱερόδουλοι) in the temple of Aphrodite, probably introduced from Asia Minor, produced a most prejudicial effect on the morals of that city, and made it the ancient and great resort of courtesans.(1383)

6. Having now considered the personal relations between the sexes, we next come to those depending on difference of age; which from the Doric principle of the elders instructing the younger, are intimately connected with education.(1384) But before we enter on that subject, it will be necessary to speak of a connexion (termed by the Greeks παιδεραστία), which, so long as it was regulated by the ancient Doric principles, to be recognised both in the Cretan laws and those of Lycurgus, had great influence on the instruction of youth. We will first state the exact circumstances of this relation, and then make some general remarks on it; but without examining it in a moral point of view, which does not fall within the scope of this work.

At Sparta the party loving was called εἰσπνήλας,(1385) and his affection was termed a breathing in, or inspiring (εἰσπνεῖν(1386)); which expresses the pure and mental connexion between the two persons, and corresponds with the name of the other, viz., ἀΐτας,(1387) i.e., listener or hearer. Now it appears to have been the practice for every youth of good character to have his lover;(1388) and, on the other hand, every well-educated man was bound by custom to be the lover of some youth.(1389) Instances of this connexion are furnished by several of the royal family of Sparta; thus Agesilaus, while he still belonged to the herd of youths, was the hearer of Lysander,(1390) and himself had in his turn also a hearer;(1391) his son Archidamus was the lover of the son of Sphodrias, the noble Cleonymus;(1392) Cleomenes the Third was, when a young man, the hearer of Xenares,(1393) and later in life the lover of the brave Panteus.(1394) The connexion usually originated from the proposal of the lover; yet it was necessary that the listener should accept him from real affection, as a regard to the riches of the proposer was considered very disgraceful:(1395) sometimes however it happened that the proposal originated from the other party.(1396) The connexion appears to have been very intimate and faithful, and was recognised by the state. If his kinsmen were absent, the youth might be represented in the public assembly by his lover:(1397) in battle too they stood near one another, where their fidelity and affection were often shown till death;(1398) while at home the youth was constantly under the eyes of his lover, who was to him as it were a model and pattern of life;(1399) which explains why, for many faults, particularly for want of ambition, the lover could be punished instead of the listener.(1400)

7. This ancient national custom prevailed with still greater force in Crete; which island was hence by many persons considered as the original seat of the connexion in question.(1401) Here too it was disgraceful for a well-educated youth to be without a lover;(1402) and hence the party loved was termed κλεινὸς,(1403) the praised; the lover being simply called φιλήτωρ. It appears that the youth was always carried away by force,(1404) the intention of the ravisher being previously communicated to the relations, who however took no measures of precaution, and only made a feigned resistance; except when the ravisher appeared, either in family or talent, unworthy of the youth. The lover then led him away to his apartment (ἀνδρεῖον), and afterwards, with any chance companions, either to the mountains or to his estate. Here they remained two months (the period prescribed by custom), which were passed chiefly in hunting together. After this time had expired, the lover dismissed the youth, and at his departure gave him, according to custom, an ox, a military dress, and brazen cup, with other things; and frequently these gifts were increased by the friends of the ravisher.(1405) The youth then sacrificed the ox to Zeus, with which he gave a feast to his companions: at this he stated how he had been pleased with his lover; and he had complete liberty by law to punish any insult or disgraceful treatment. It depended now on the choice of the youth whether the connexion should be broken off or not. If it was kept up, the companion in arms (παραστάτης), as the youth was then called, wore the military dress which had been given him; and fought in battle next his lover, inspired with double valour by the gods of war and love, according to the notion of the Cretans;(1406) and even in man’s age he was distinguished by the first place and rank in the course, and certain insignia worn about the body.

Institutions, so systematic and regular as these, did not indeed exist in any Doric state except Crete and Sparta; but the feelings on which they were founded seem to have been common to all the Dorians. The love of Philolaus, a Corinthian of the family of the Bacchiadæ, and the lawgiver of Thebes, and of Diocles the Olympic conqueror, lasted until death; and even their graves were turned towards one another, in token of their affection:(1407) and another person of the same name was honoured in Megara, as a noble instance of self-devotion for the object of his love.(1408)

8. It is indeed clear that a custom of such general prevalence cannot have originated from any accidental impression or train of reasoning; but must have been founded on feelings natural to the whole Doric race. Now that the affection of the lover was not entirely mental, and that a pleasure in beholding the beauty and vigour, the manly activity and exercises(1409) of the youth was also present, is certain. But it is a very different question, whether this custom, universally prevalent both in Crete and Sparta, followed by the noblest men, by the legislators encouraged with all care, and having so powerful an influence on education, was identical with the vice to which in its name and outward form it is so nearly allied.

The subject should be carefully considered, before, with Aristotle, we answer this question in the affirmative, who not only takes the fact as certain, but even accounts for it by supposing that the custom was instituted by the legislator of Crete as a check to population.(1410) Is it, I ask, likely that so disgraceful a vice, not practised in secret, but publicly acknowledged and countenanced by the state, not confined to a few individuals, but common for centuries to the whole people, should really have existed, and this in the race of all the Greeks, the most distinguished for its healthy, temperate, and even ascetic habits? These difficulties must be solved before the testimony of Aristotle can be received.

I will now offer what appears to me the most probable view of this question. The Dorians seem in early times to have considered an intimate friendship and connexion between males as necessary for their proper education. But the objection which would have presented itself in a later age, viz. the liability to abuse of such a habit, had then no existence, as has been already remarked by a learned writer.(1411) And hence they saw no disadvantage to counterbalance the advantages which they promised themselves in the unrestrained intercourse which would be the natural consequence of the new institution. It is also true that the manners of simple and primitive nations generally have and need less restraint than those whom a more general intercourse and the greater facility of concealment have forced to enact prohibitory laws. This view is in fact confirmed by the declaration of Cicero, that the Lacedæmonians brought the lover into the closest relation with the object of his love, and that every sign of affection was permitted præter stuprum;(1412) for although in the times of the corruption of manners this proximity would have been attended with the most dangerous consequences, in early times it never would have been permitted, if any pollution had been apprehended from it. And we know from another source that this stuprum was punished by the Lacedæmonians most severely, viz. with banishment or death.(1413) It may be moreover added, that this pure connexion was encouraged by the Doric principle of taking the education from the hands of parents, and introducing boys in early youth to a wider society than their home could afford.(1414)

§ 1. Education of the youth at Sparta. Its early stages. § 2. Its continuation after the twelfth year. § 3. Education of the youth in Crete. § 4. Nature of the education: gymnastic and music. § 5. Influence of the Dorians upon the national games. § 6. The Spartan youth trained to hardships. § 7. Military games at Crete and Sparta. § 8. Athletic exercises of the women.

1. The education of the youth (νεολαία)(1415) in the ancient Doric states of Sparta and Crete, was conducted, as might be supposed, on a very artificial system: indeed, the great number of classes into which the boys and youths were distributed, would itself lead us to this conclusion. For since this separation could not have been made without some aim, each class, we may conjecture, was treated in some way different from the rest, the whole forming a complete scale of mental or bodily acquirements.

Whether a new-born infant should be preserved or not, was decided in Lacedæmon by the state, i.e. a council composed of the elders of the house.(1416) This custom was not by any means more barbarous than that of the ancient world in general, which, in earlier times at least, gave the father full power over the lives of his children. Here we may perceive the great influence of the community over the education of its members, which should not, however, lead us to suppose that all connexion between parents and children was dissolved, or the dearest ties of nature torn asunder. Even Spartan mothers preserved a power over their sons when arrived at manhood, of which we find no trace in the rest of Greece. Agesilaus riding before his children on a stick(1417) presents a true picture of the education,(1418) which was entrusted entirely to the parents(1419) till the age of seven; at which period the public and regular education (ἀγωγὴ)(1420) commenced. This was in strictness enjoyed only by the sons of Spartans (πολιτικοὶ παῖδες),(1421) and the mothaces (slaves brought up in the family) selected to share their education: sometimes also Spartans of half-blood were admitted.(1422) This education was one chief requisite for a free citizen;(1423) whoever refused to submit to it,(1424) suffered a partial loss of his rights; the immediate heir to the throne was the only person excepted,(1425) whilst the younger sons of the kings were brought up in the herd (ἀγέλη). Leonidas and Agesilaus, two of the noblest princes of Sparta, submitted when boys to the correction of their masters.

2. From the twelfth year(1426) upwards, the education of boys was much more strict. About the age of sixteen or seventeen they were called σιδεῦναι.(1427) At the expiration of his eighteenth year, the youth emerged from childhood, the first years of this new rank being distinguished by separate terms.(1428) During the progress from the condition of an ephebus to manhood, the young Spartans were called Sphæreis,(1429) probably because their chief exercise was foot-ball, which game was carried on with great emulation, and indeed resembled a battle rather than a diversion.(1430) In their nineteenth year they were sent out on the crypteia,(1431) at twenty they served in the ranks, their duties resembling those of the περίπολοι at Athens. Still the youths, although they were now admitted to the public banquets,(1432) remained in the divisions, which were called ἀγέλαι, or in the Spartan dialect βοῦαι,(1433) and distributed into smaller troops (called ἴλαι).(1434) The last name was also applied to a troop of horse,(1435) and is one amongst several other proofs,(1436) that, in early times at least, the exercise of riding was one of the principal occupations of the youths of Sparta. In these divisions all distinction of age was lost, the leaders of them were taken from among the Irenes,(1437) and exercised great powers over the younger members; for the use of which they were in their turn responsible to every citizen of a more advanced age,(1438) and particularly to the paidonomus, a magistrate of very extensive authority.(1439) His assistants were the floggers, or mastigophori, who were selected from the young men,(1440) the buagi or managers of the buæ;(1441) besides which, there were certain officers appointed to manage the boys, called ampaides.(1442) A similar arrangement was adopted in the societies of the girls and young women.(1443) Theocritus, in his Epithalamium of Helen, represents 240 young women of the same age, as joining in the daily exercises and games.(1444) And whilst Doric customs prevailed at Croton, the daughter of Pythagoras (according to Timæus)(1445) was several times appointed leader of the young women and matrons.

3. In Crete the boys, as long as they remained in the house of their father, were said to dwell in darkness.(1446) At this period they were admitted into the syssitia of their respective fathers, where they sat together on the ground; after the syssitia they formed themselves into societies under separate paidonomi.(1447) It was not till their seventeenth year that they were enrolled in the agelæ,(1448) so that the education was here entrusted to the family for a longer period than at Sparta. They remained in the agelæ till married, and consequently even after they had attained the age of manhood; hence in the extant treaty between the Latians and Olontians, it is required that the agelæ also should take the oath.(1449) From the circumstance, however, that these troops of young men were brought together by one of the most wealthy and illustrious in their body, whose father held the office of commander (ἀγελάτης), led them to the chase and the games, and exercised the right of punishment over them;(1450) we perceive that a far greater influence, as well over the government(1451) as the education, was permitted to particular families in Crete than at Sparta, whilst the system itself was less strict and impartial. The age of manhood was in Crete dated from the time of admittance into the male gymnasia (there called δρόμοι;)(1452) hence a person who had exercised ten years among the men was called δεκάδρομος;(1453) the youth who had not as yet wrestled or run in them ἀπόδρομος.(1454) We have no account respecting other Doric towns, and merely know that the classes of the ephebi at Cyrene were called from the number of each, the “three hundred.”(1455)

4. Thus far respecting the arrangements for training the youths. The education itself was partly bodily, partly mental; although the division must not be drawn too strictly, since each exercise of the body includes at the same time that of the mind, at least of its hardihood, patience, and vigour. The Greeks, however, used the general terms of gymnastic for the former, and music for the latter of these branches. It is well known that the Dorians paid more attention than any other Greeks to gymnastic exercises;(1456) and it has been above remarked, that these exercises in their proper sense first originated among the Cretans and Spartans; the latter in particular have often been censured for practising them in an immoderate degree.(1457) This want of moderation, however, though it occurred in later times, is never perceivable in the maxims and ideas of the Dorians, who in this, as in several other cases, knew how to set bounds to youthful ardour, and check its pernicious effects. Aristotle himself(1458) remarks concerning the Spartan education, that it did not tend to form athletes, who considered gymnastic exercises as the chief business of life; and that the exercises tending to the beauty and elasticity of the frame were accurately separated from those of an opposite character, is shown by the absolute prohibition of the rougher exercises of boxing and the pancration;(1459) the latter being a mixture of wrestling and boxing, in which the fall of either party did not decide the victory, but the most violent contest often took place when the combatants were struggling on the ground. The reason of this is said to be, that in these alone an express confession of the defeated party by the raising of the hand, served to put an end to the contest; and that Lycurgus would not permit such an avowal to his Spartans. But the real reason is probably that stated above. On the other hand, gladiators (ὁπλόμαχοι) who publicly exhibited their skill in the use of arms, were not tolerated in Laconia,(1460) probably because the use of arms was thought too serious for mere sport and display. Nevertheless the colony of Cyrene adopted this custom from Mantinea in Arcadia,(1461) under their legislator Demonax.(1462)

5. The Doric race, to whom the elevation of gymnastic contests into great national festivals was principally owing, were probably likewise the first who introduced crowns in lieu of other prizes of victory. The gymnastic combatants in Homer are excited by real rewards; but from the advanced state of civilization on which the Dorians stood in other respects, it is probable that they also purified the exhibition of bodily activity from all other motives than the love of honour. The first crown was bestowed at Olympia, and was gained in the seventh Olympiad by Daicles a Dorian of Messenia.(1463) How much gymnastic exercises were practised in the different Doric states, may be collected from the extant catalogues of the conquerors at the Olympian, and Pythian games: some conclusions may even be drawn from an examination of Corsini’s Catalogue. This shows that the Spartans never practised either boxing or the pancration,(1464) and their principles were so generally recognized at the Olympian games, over which they possessed great influence, that boys were not till a very late period permitted to contend in the pancration.(1465) On the other hand, many conquerors in the race came from Sparta, particularly between the 20th and 50th Olympiads: besides numerous pentathli and wrestlers: amongst the former Philombrotus (Olymp. 26-28.), amongst the latter Hipposthenes (Olymp. 37-43.) and his son Hetœmocles are distinguished by the number of crowns gained at Olympia; the first victors in both contests were also Lacedæmonians. Before the 9th Olympiad, the Elean catalogues mention Messenians in particular as victors in the race: from the 49th Olympiad, the natives of Croton are conspicuous as victors in the stadium; of these, Tisicrates and Astylus occupy the whole period between the 71st and 75th Olympiads. At the same time the swift-footed Phallys was thrice victorious at the Pythian games: this champion was likewise the wonder of his age in the pentathlon (a contest requiring extraordinary activity), but particularly in the exercise of leaping,(1466) being also a warrior and athlete. The gymnastic training of the young Crotoniats at that time attained the height of the development of the body in equal beauty and strength; Croton was celebrated for its beautiful boys and youths.(1467)

During this period there existed at Croton a school of wrestlers, the chief of whom was Milo, who from the 62nd Olympiad was victorious in almost every one of the four principal games, more frequently than any other Greek. It was however whilst the philosophy of Pythagoras directed the public institutions of Croton, and influenced its manners, that this city outshone the rest of Greece by its warriors and athletes.(1468) Milo himself, the fabulous champion of posterity, was at the same time a sage and hero. But the conquest of Sybaris, the destruction of the Pythagorean league, and the adoption of the Achæan constitution, soon put an end to this system, and Croton, without suffering any external change, lost at the end of the 75th Olympiad the whole of her internal vigour. As the athletes of this town followed in their choice of exercises the fundamental principles of Spartan discipline, the case was reversed amongst the Rhodians, particularly whilst the family of Diagoras flourished, which produced more than six boxers, the first of their day, and men of gigantic bodily strength.(1469) The Æginetans were famed for their dexterity in the contests, and from the 45th Olympiad till the dissolution of their state, bore off numerous victories in the race, wrestling, and pancration, and were particularly distinguished as boys.(1470) The distant colonies in Sicily and Libya took little interest in gymnastic contests: the latter expected more glory from their renowned horses and chariots,(1471) the former from their breed of mules.(1472) The Cretans, although particularly distinguished in running, fought (according to Pindar, whose statement is confirmed by these catalogues) “like gamecocks in the arena of their own court.”(1473) It is not possible to detail the peculiarities of the Doric states in their management of the various exercises, till the customs observed at their contests, particularly in wrestling, have been more accurately examined.(1474)

6. But all the exercises in the gymnasium of Sparta were esteemed of perhaps less importance to the education of the body, than another class, the object of which was to harden the frame by labour and fatigue. The body was obliged to undergo heat and cold (the extremes of which were felt in an immoderate degree throughout the narrow valley of Sparta),(1475) likewise hunger, thirst and privations of every description. To this they were trained by frequent hunting on the mountains, in which manner the youths of Crete were also exercised,(1476) as also in the agelæ, under the agelates.(1477) Next came the laborious service in the most distant parts of the Laconian territory, amidst which the young men of Sparta grew up from youth to manhood, obliged to administer to their own wants without the assistance of a servant.(1478) The boys were also inured to hardships, by being forced to obtain their daily nourishment by stealing; for this custom was also limited to a particular period in the education of the sons of the Equals.(1479) We should certainly afford at the best but a very partial representation of these peculiar customs, if we were to single out some striking peculiarity from a connected system, and attempt to examine in detail a subject which should be criticised generally, or not at all. According to the scattered fragments of our information, the state of the case was as follows:(1480) the boys at a certain period were generally banished from the town, and all communion with men, and were obliged to lead a wandering life in the fields and forests. When thus excluded, they were forced to obtain, by force or cunning the means of subsistence from the houses and court-yards, all access to which was at this time forbidden them; frequently obliged to keep watch for whole nights, and always exposed to the danger of being beaten, if detected. To judge this custom with fairness, it should only be regarded in the connexion which we have explained above. The possession of property was made to furnish a means of sharpening the intellect, and strengthening the courage of the citizens, by forcing the one party to hold and the other to obtain it by a sort of war. The loss of property which was thus occasioned, appeared of little importance to a state where personal rights were so little regarded; and the mischievous consequences were in some measure avoided by an exact definition of the goods permitted to be stolen,(1481) which were in fact those, that any Spartan who required them for the chase, might take from the stock of another. Such was the idea upon which this usage was kept up; it might possibly however have originated in the ancient mountain-life of the Dorians, when they inhabited mounts Œta and Olympus, cooped up within narrow boundaries, and engaged in perpetual contests with the more fortunate inhabitants of the plains: as a relic and memorial of those habits, it remained, contrasted with the independent and secure mode of life of the Spartans at a later period. Respecting the triumph of Spartan hardihood, viz. the scourging at the altar of Artemis Orthia, it has been above remarked in what manner, by a change made in the genuine Grecian spirit, the gloomy rites of a sanguinary religion had been turned to a different and useful purpose.(1482)

7. The gymnastic war-games, which were peculiar to the Cretans and Spartans, still remained to be noticed as a characteristic feature of the Doric education. At the celebration of these, the ephebi, after a sacrifice to Ares in a temple at Therapne, went through a regular battle unarmed, in an island formed by ditches, near the garden called Platanistas, and exerted every means in their power to obtain the victory.(1483) In Crete the boys belonging to one syssition frequently engaged in battle against those of another, the youths of one agele against those of another, and these contests bore a still nearer resemblance to a real engagement. They marched to the sound of flutes and lyres, and besides fists, weapons of wood and iron were employed.(1484) Yet although at Sparta gymnastic exercises were certainly brought to a nearer resemblance with war than in the rest of Greece, it would be erroneous on that account to conclude, that the aim of all bodily education among the Dorians was to obtain superiority in war. Enough has been alleged to prove satisfactorily to any unprejudiced reader, that the chief object of Spartan discipline was to invigorate the bodies of the youth, without rendering their minds at the same time either brutal or ferocious. And that this endeavour to attain, as it were, an ideal beauty and strength of limb, was not altogether unsuccessful, may be seen from the fact, that the Spartans, as well as the Crotoniats, were about the 60th Olympiad (540 B.C.) the most healthy of the Greeks,(1485) and that the most beautiful men as well as women were found amongst them.(1486)

8. The female sex underwent in this respect the same education as the male, though (as has been above remarked) only the virgins. They had their own gymnasia,(1487) and exercised themselves, either naked or lightly clad, in running, wrestling, or throwing the quoit and spear.(1488) It is highly improbable that youths or men were allowed to look on, since in the gymnasia of Lacedæmon no idle bystanders were permitted; every person was obliged either to join the rest, or withdraw.(1489) Like the Elean girls in the temples of Here, so at Sparta the eleven Bacchanalian virgins exhibited their skill in the race at a contest in honour of their god.

The whole system of gymnastic exercise was placed at Sparta under the superintendence of magistrates of the highest dignity, the bidiæi; and the ephors every ten days inspected the condition of the boys, to ascertain whether they were of a good habit of body, if so general a meaning can be attached to the testimony of Agatharchides.(1490)

The whole of this book from the first chapter has been employed in considering the manners and physical existence of the Dorians (the δίαιτα Δωρικὴ). We now come to the second great division of education, viz. music; in which term the whole mental education of the Doric race was included, if we except writing, which was never generally taught at Sparta.(1491) Nor indeed was it essential in a nation, where, as in Crete, laws, hymns, and the praises of illustrious men, that is the jurisprudence and history of such a people, were taught in the schools of music.(1492)

§ 1. Origin of the Doric musical mode. § 2. Character of the Doric mode. § 3. Progress of music in Sparta. § 4. Public musical performances. § 5. Progress of music in other Doric states. § 6. Connexion of dancing and music. Military music of Sparta. § 7. Military dances. § 8. Connexion of gymnastic exercises and dancing. § 9. Imitative dances. § 10. Dances of the Helots. Origin of bucolic poetry among the subject classes. § 11. Comedy connected with the county festivals of Bacchus.

1. We are now about to speak of the history of music in the different Doric states; and before we notice particular facts and circumstances, we must direct our attention to the more general one, namely, that one of the musical modes or ἁρμονίαι (by which term the ancient Greeks denoted the arrangement of intervals, the length of which was fixed by the different kinds of harmony, γένη, according to the strings of the tetrachord, together with the higher or lower scale of the whole system), was anciently called the Doric,(1493) and that this measure, together with the Phrygian and Lydian, was long the only one in use among the musicians of Greece, and consequently the only one which in these early times derived its name from a Greek nation; a sufficient warrant for us to consider it as the genuine Greek mode, in contradistinction to any other introduced at a later period.(1494) A question next arises, wherefore this ancient and genuine Greek strain was called the Doric.(1495) The only explanation that can be given is, that it was brought to perfection in Doric countries, viz. in the ancient nurseries of music, Crete, Sparta, Sicyon, and Delphi. There cannot therefore have been any school or succession of musicians among the other Greek nations, of greater celebrity than the Doric, before the time we allude to. Had this been the fact, they must either have adopted the same mode, or had an original one of their own; in the first case, it would have been named rather after them, in preference to the Dorians; in the second, there would have been two Greek musical modes, not merely the Doric. It follows then, that the establishment of the Doric music must have been of greater antiquity than the renowned musicians of Lesbos, who themselves were prior to Archilochus,(1496) and should not be considered as commencing with Terpander(1497) (who flourished from Olymp. 26. till 33. 676-646 B.C.), since at his time they had already arrived at a high degree of eminence. In fact, the Lesbian musicians were at that time the most distinguished in Greece: they far surpassed the native musicians of Peloponnesus, nay, even of Lacedæmon itself; so that if the above style had not at that time been common in the Peninsula, it would not have been called the Doric. Notwithstanding which, the opposition of the Doric to the Phrygian and Lydian modes on the one side, and the definite and systematic relation between the three on the other, can neither have been the result of mere popular and unscientific attempts, nor have originated in the mother-country of Greece, where there was no opportunity of becoming acquainted with the styles of music peculiar to those Asiatic nations,(1498) or of comparing them with their own, so as to mould them into one. The Doric mode, however, could only have been so named originally, from the contrast which it exhibited with these other kinds of music, and this must have been first observed in foreign countries, and not among the Dorians or Peloponnesians themselves, who were only acquainted with one style. The natural supposition then is, that the Lesbian musicians, being in constant communication both with Peloponnesus and Asia Minor, first established the distinction and names of the three modes, by adapting to the particular species of tetrachord in use throughout Peloponnesus, the accompaniments of singing and dancing practised in Asia Minor, and moulding the whole into a regular system.

2. Allowing then the truth of these premises, it follows that the Dorians of Peloponnesus, the genuine Greeks, cultivated music to a greater degree than any other of the Grecian tribes, before the time when this far-famed school of Asia flourished. We are warranted in assuming that it was not merely the external influence of the Doric race which gave their name to this mode, from the close affinity it bears to the character of the nation. The ancients, who were infinitely quicker in discovering the moral character of music than can be the case in modern times, attributed to it something solemn, firm, and manly, calculated to inspire fortitude in supporting misfortunes and hardships, and to strengthen the mind against the attacks of passion. They discovered in it a calm sublimity, and a simple grandeur which bordered upon severity, equally opposed to inconstancy and enthusiasm;(1499) and this is precisely the character we find so strongly impressed on the religion, arts, and manners of the Dorians. The severity and rudeness of this music (which appeared gloomy and harsh to the later ages, and would be still more so to our ears, accustomed to a softer style) was strikingly contrasted with the mild and pleasing character which had then long pervaded the Epic poetry. It teaches us undoubtedly to distinguish between the Asiatic Greeks, and those sprung from the mountains in the north of Greece, who, proud of their natural loftiness of character and vigour of mind, had acquired but little refinement from any contact with strangers.

3. In the study of music, as well as every thing else, the Dorians were uniformly the friends of antiquity; and in this also Sparta was considered the model of Doric customs.(1500) Not that Sparta opposed herself altogether to every attempt at improvement; her object was, that every novelty should be first acknowledged to be an improvement, before it passed into common use, and formed a part of the national education. Hence it unavoidably followed, that the music publicly practised in Sparta proceeded by rapid and single advances to a state of perfection; which opinion is perfectly consistent with the account given by an ancient author of the different regulations respecting the exercise of this art.(1501) When Terpander, the son of Derdenes, an inhabitant of Antissa in Lesbos, four times carried off the prize in the Pythian games, and also in the Carnean festival at Sparta (where the musicians of his school were long distinguished),(1502) and had tranquillized the tumults and disorders of the city by the solemn and healing tones of his songs,(1503) the acknowledged admiration of this master became so general in Sparta, that he procured the sanction of the law to his new inventions, particularly the seven-stringed cithara. It appears that by these means(1504) the music of earlier times became entirely antiquated, so that with the exception of the ancient Pythian minstrels, Chrysothemis and Philammon, not one name of the Doric musicians, before the time of Terpander, has come down to us. For those who, like Thaletas, have been sometimes considered more ancient, belong, according to undoubted testimony, to a later period.(1505) Plutarch dates the second epoch of Spartan music from Thaletas the Elyrian (whose skill was undoubtedly derived from the ancient sacred minstrels of the neighbouring town of Tarrha),(1506) and from Xenodamus of Cythera, and Xenocritus the Locrian,(1507) (whose chief compositions were pæans and hyporchemes), from Polymnestus of Colophon, and Sacadas the Argive, the latter of whom distinguished himself in elegies and other compositions adapted to the flute, the former in the orthian and dithyrambic styles, and also as an epic and elegiac poet. Sacadas flourished and conquered at the Pythian games in Olymp. 48. 3. 586 B.C.; the other musicians, according to Plutarch, must also have lived about the same period. Thaletas was however earlier than Polymnestus(1508) and Xenocritus,(1509) although later than Terpander and Archilochus, and therefore lived before the 40th Olympiad, or 620 B.C. To these musicians Plutarch entirely ascribes the introduction of songs at the gymnopædia of Lacedæmon,(1510) the endymatia at Argos, and some public spectacles in Arcadia. The regulations established at this period appear to have continued in force as long as the Spartan customs were kept up, and were the chief means by which the changes attempted to be introduced during the several epochs of Melanippides, Cinesias, Phrynis, and Timotheus the Milesian were prevented from being carried into effect. Thus Ecprepes the ephor, on observing that the cithara of Phrynis had two strings more than the allowed number, immediately cut them out; and the(1511) same thing is said to have happened to Timotheus at the Carnean festival.(1512) The account is, however, contradicted by an improbable story, that the accused minstrel justified himself by referring to a statue of Apollo at Sparta, which had a lyre containing the same number of strings.(1513) At least Pausanias(1514) saw in the hall of music at Sparta(1515) (σκιὰς), the eleven-stringed cithara which was taken from Timotheus, and there hung up.

It is well known that a Spartan decree is supposed to exist,(1516) on this real or fabulous transaction respecting the eleven-stringed cithara of Timotheus. It recites, that “whereas Timotheus of Miletus, despising the harmony of the seven-stringed cithara, poisoned the ears of the young men by increasing the number of strings, and introducing a new and effeminate species of melody; and that having been invited to perform at the festival of the Eleusian Ceres, he exhibited an indecent representation of the holy rites, and most improperly instructed the young men in the mystery of the labour-pains of Semele; it is decreed that the kings and ephors should reprimand Timotheus, and compel him to reduce the number of strings on his cithara to seven; in order that every person in future, being conscious of the dignity of the state, might beware of introducing improper customs into Sparta, and the fame of the contests be preserved unsullied.”(1517) But the authenticity of the inscription is so doubtful, to say no more, that we dare not deduce any historical inferences from it. For in the first place, the style of the document appears to have been formed upon the model of a common Athenian honorary decree, only that censure is inserted instead of praise with a sort of mock gravity. There is nothing in it characteristic of Spartan manners, but much that is foreign and almost strange; for example, it is not even stated who proposed and approved the decree. Secondly, a decree upon such a subject is not consistent with the general spirit of the government of Sparta, which was distinguished by its summary method of proceeding. Every ephor, as inspector of the games, had the same powers individually as are here attributed to the whole college, and the kings; who had (it is true) a place of honour at the public games, but no share in the direction of them. The Eleusinia, in the form of a theatrical festival, were at least celebrated in Sparta at a late date.(1518) That Timotheus should have ventured to produce his “Birth of Bacchus” at those games is very surprising; but still more so is the account of his having taught it to the Spartan youths, which can only mean that he contrived to have it represented by the young men of the town. Now the Ὠδὶν of Timotheus was a dithyrambic ode of the mimic species, which was a late invention performed by regular actors, not by a public chorus. How then is it possible that the latter should have been the case at Sparta? The learned distinction between different styles of music in the decree, clearly savours less of Laconian brevity than of the self-complacency of some grammarian.(1519) Most of the expressions used may be traced to the comic poets of Athens, and contain no Spartan peculiarities, and yet an accurate explanation of them might lead us into many difficulties. Lastly, the dialect appears to me to be the composition of some one who had accidentally become acquainted with peculiar Spartan inflections. The letter Ρ is most suspiciously used throughout; the author had evidently an erroneous notion that Θ is not Laconian, and should be changed into Τ, instead of Σ.(1520) The editors have endeavoured to make considerable alterations in the orthography;(1521) but by this means all possibility of criticism is made hopeless. It is therefore probable that some grammarian has taken the trouble to draw up a Laconian decree from one of the stories respecting Timotheus, the interest of which should consist in the austerity of the sentiments, and the roughness of the dialect. That the inventor really intended it for a public monument, is evident from the ancient style of writing, which was abolished at Athens at the archonship of Euclid, and in Sparta perhaps later.(1522)

In Crete the national music was once formed on the same principles as in Lacedæmon,(1523) but became relaxed in course of time. In a Cnosian(1524) decree made at the beginning of the second century before Christ, an ambassador is commended for having often played on the cithara the melodies of Timotheus, Polyidus,(1525) and the ancient Cretan poets. In Argos, too, the first person who used a cithara with more than seven strings was punished;(1526) and in Sicyon, also, there were laws appointed to regulate musical contests.(1527)

4. The chief reason why the state constantly interfered in the regulation of music was, that it was considered much more as expressing the general tone of the feeling and morals of the people, than as an art which might be left to its own capabilities of improvement. Historical examples confirm the truth of this close connexion, and in particular, it is alleged respecting the Dorians of Sicily, that by introducing a soft effeminate music, they destroyed the purity of their morals;(1528) while the strict domestic discipline at Sparta would hardly have been preserved without the assistance of the ancient style of music which was there cultivated. In order to explain this, it is necessary to observe, that in those times music formed a much more universal branch of education, and was practised to a far greater extent by the people at large, than it has ever been since.(1529) We may trace the progress of music, as it from time to time fell more into the hands of individual artists, whilst the populace, which in the infancy of the art took a part in the exhibition, gradually became mere spectators. The command of an ancient Delphic oracle,(1530) that public thanksgivings should be offered to Bromius by the whole people for a fruitful year, by singing choruses in the streets, was also followed at Sparta, at least in the Gymnopædia. At this festival large choruses of men and boys appeared,(1531) in which many of the inhabitants of the city doubtless took part. From this circumstance either the whole or part of the market was called chorus;(1532) and it is probable that the spacious (εὐρύχοροι) cities of Homer were merely furnished with open squares large enough to contain such numerous choruses. It was at these great city choruses that those of blemished reputation always occupied the hindermost rows:(1533) sometimes, nevertheless, men of consideration, when placed there by the arranger of the chorus, boasted that they did honour to the places, the places did not dishonour them.(1534)

Those placed at the back of the chorus were called (like the soldiers arrayed behind the line of battle) ψιλεῖς;(1535) the choregus, however, did not merely defray the expenses of the chorus, but he also led it in person; and indeed a choregos once performed the duties of flute-player at Lacedæmon.(1536) If then every citizen took some part in these choruses, it follows that they must have been trained to them, and have practised them from childhood; as we know on the other hand that the whole musical instruction of Crete and Sparta was intended as a preparation for them.(1537) Accordingly, the musical school was called chorus among the Dorians;(1538) in musical training there was a constant reference to the public choral dances. Hence we perceive that, at least in early times, a certain cultivation of music within the limits prescribed by the national manners was common to all Spartans; and the saying of the poet Socrates,(1539) “that the bravest of the Greeks also made the finest choruses,” was peculiarly applicable to them; also Pratinas the scenic poet speaks of “the Lacedæmonian cicada,(1540) as ready for the chorus.”(1541) In later times, indeed, the numbers of the citizens in Sparta so greatly diminished, and war occupied so much of the public attention, that the favourable side of Spartan discipline was cast into the shade, and Aristotle ascribes with truth to the Spartans of his time a just discrimination and taste for music, but no scientific knowledge of it.(1542)

The cultivation of music, however, was the more general among the Dorians and kindred race of Arcadians, from the circumstance that women took a part in it, and sang and danced in public both with men and by themselves.(1543) On the nature of the parthenia, or the choruses performed by girls, the character and education of Doric virgins enable us to decide with confidence, when we are told, that the parthenia were accompanied by Dorian music, and there was something in them exceedingly grave and solemn.(1544) It appears likewise, that aged persons, who at Athens would have been ridiculed for dancing at religious ceremonies, at Sparta often took a part in the great choruses, as is proved by the accounts of the three great choirs of boys, men, and old men, which seem to have danced at several great festivals.(1545)

5. Having now in the foregoing remarks considered the peculiarities of the Doric race, as well in general as with respect to Sparta in particular, we shall next give some account of the progress of music among the several states of that race.

That the religious music and poetry of the Dorians originated in Crete, has been shown above:(1546) and perhaps the loud and irregular music of the early Phrygian inhabitants first awakened a taste for that art among the Dorians. The nome, the pæan, and the hyporcheme,(1547) had been known in Crete from an early period, though the more polished form of the two last was introduced by Thaletas. The dances in a ring were often connected with the nome and hyporcheme, according to an ancient custom in Crete and the neighbouring regions; and they were danced by both men and women.(1548) At Sparta there were the same dancers, known by the name of ῥμοι, or ornaments.(1549) The youth danced first some movements suited to his age, and of a military nature; the maiden followed in measured steps, and with feminine gestures. The Spartan music was in general derived from the Cretan, nor did it attempt to disown its origin; indeed many favourite dances, with their tunes, and certain pæans, ordered by law to be sung at appointed times, together with many other kinds of music, were called Cretan.(1550) But it cannot be denied that, although their origin may have been similar, their progress and development were very different. The Cretan music appears to have been almost entirely warlike and religious, while the Spartan, from the time of Alcman, was adapted to more various purposes. Peculiar kinds of Lacedæmonian dances were in existence at the time of Cleisthenes of Sicyon;(1551) they consisted both of motions of the hands and feet, as Aristoxenus states of several ancient national dances.(1552) The early zeal for music in these regions is shown by the contests in the temple of Zeus at Ithome in Messenia, in which Eumelus engaged before the first war with Lacedæmon:(1553) the contests of the Muses connected with the Carnean festival began in the 26th Olympiad (676 B.C.). In the time of Polycrates, Argos possessed the most celebrated musicians in Greece,(1554) particularly flute-players; about the 48th Olympiad (588 B.C.) Sacadas wrote poetry, composed music, and played lyric songs and elegies to the flute:(1555) a particular kind of flute was called the Argive.(1556) Sicyon also appears to have had a share in these improvements: for after Sacadas had thrice gained the prize, Pythocritus of Sicyon was victorious in six following contests;(1557) and the dithyrambic chorus to the flute was performed there with great skill and effect.(1558) That at Sicyon, Corinth, and Phlius, the worship of Bacchus gave a peculiar turn to music and poetry, has been remarked above,(1559) and will be explained at greater length hereafter. In Sicily the worship of Demeter prevailed, which was always attended with a degree of licentiousness; the Syracusan choruses of iambists(1560) were, without doubt, connected with this worship.(1561) The circumstance that the effeminate dances of the Ionians were celebrated there in honour of Artemis,(1562) was probably occasioned by music having degenerated in that island.(1563)

6. We do not intend to consider the subject of dancing independently of music; as this combination appears to be most convenient for our purpose of ascertaining its importance as connected with manners and public education. Dancing, when it did not merely accompany the time of the music, inclined either to gymnastic display or to mimicry; that is, it either represented bodily activity, or it was meant to express certain ideas and feelings. The gymnastic dancing was no where so much practised as at Sparta, where the ancient connexion between the musical school and the palæstra, and of both with the military exercises,(1564) was more strictly maintained than in any other state. Indeed the march of the Spartans and Cretans had, on account of its musical accompaniment, some resemblance to a dance. For, whereas the other Greeks either marched to battle without any music, in the manner of the ancient Achæans, or, like the Argives, made use of Tyrrhenian trumpets,(1565) the Cretans advanced to battle to the sound of the lyre,(1566) the Spartans to that of the flute.(1567) This last seems, however, to have been an innovation; for Alcman the Laconian mentions the cithara;(1568) and the Cretans also introduced the flute in their army.(1569) However, be this as it may, the flute had become the common instrument at Sparta; probably because the cithara was not fitted for uniting large bodies of men, its sound being too low to produce any effect, even during a complete stillness. The sound of flutes was doubtless more piercing, and particularly when a great number of pipers (who in Sparta formed several native families)(1570) played the tune for attack. Thucydides remarks that this was not for any religious purpose, but that the troops might march in time, and not as large armies are apt to do, fall into disorder.(1571) The general term for a tune of this kind was embaterion.(1572) One kind of nome was called castoreum, which, like the others, was played on the flute, when the army marched in line to meet the enemy.(1573) This had the same rhythm(1574) as the other embateria,(1575) viz. an anapæstic; both in its measure and melody there was something very enlivening and animated,(1576) so that Alexander of Macedon always felt himself inspired with fresh bravery when Timotheus the Theban played the castoreum to him. There can be no doubt that it was originally set in the Doric mode, and bore the character of Spartan simplicity, notwithstanding the many variations which were afterwards added.(1577) Pindar is reminded by its name of Castor the horseman and charioteer;(1578) but I do not perceive what relation the most ancient use of this nome, as a march for the Spartans, could have to this point: but it clearly took its name from the Tyndaridæ, who were considered as the leaders of the Spartan army.(1579) That of the poems of Tyrtæus the anapæstic verses only were sung as marches, and that they were embateria, is now generally admitted.(1580) The elegies were sung in campaigns, at meals, and after the pæan, not in chorus, but singly, and for a prize. The polemarch decided,(1581) and the victor was rewarded with a chosen piece of meat.(1582) The Cretans had also embateria, named after Ibycus, a musician.(1583)

7. That war among these ancient nations had something of an imitative nature, and that it was by imperceptible transitions connected with the pure imitations of art, I have already attempted to show;(1584) and the same may be inferred from what has been just said. A transition of this kind was formed by the Pyrrhic dance, the dancers of which bore the same name as the practised, armed and expert combatant (πρύλις).(1585) The Pyrrhic dance was undoubtedly a production of the Doric nation in Crete and Sparta,(1586) although in the former state it was fabulously connected with the Curetes and the rites of the ancient Idæan Zeus,(1587) and at Sparta with the Dioscuri. It was danced to the flute,(1588) and its time was very quick and light, as is shown by the name of the Pyrrhic foot. Hence in Crete Thaletas was able to add hyporchematic or mimic variations to it,(1589) which had likewise quick measures. From this account it may be also inferred that the war-dance of Crete was of an imitative kind; and indeed Plato says of the Pyrrhic dance in general that it imitated all the attitudes of defence, by avoiding a thrust or a cast, retreating, springing up, and crouching, as also the opposite movements of attack with arrows and lances, and also of every kind of thrust.(1590) So strong was the attachment to this dance at Sparta, that, long after it had in the other Greek states degenerated into a Bacchanalian revel, it was still danced by the Spartans as a warlike exercise, and boys of fifteen were instructed in it.(1591)

8. But we must return to the subject whence we digressed, the connexion between gymnastic exercises and dancing. These two arts were connected by the pentathlon, a pattern of adroitness, activity, strength and measured motions, which was accompanied by the music of the flute.(1592) In later times any tunes were used for this exhibition; but earlier certain fixed measures were played, one of which had been composed by Hierax, a disciple of Olympus:(1593) nor at that time did distinguished artists disdain to appear as actors in these sports, as, for example, Pythocritus of Sicyon. At Argos, at the Sthenia, the combatants wrestled to the sound of the flute;(1594) and a melody of this same Hierax was played(1595) when the women carried flowers (at a festival) to the temple of Here. At Sparta the chief object of the Gymnopædia was to represent gymnastic exercises and dancing in intimate union, and indeed the latter only as the accomplishment and end of the former. One of the principal games at this festival resembled the anapale, or wrestling-dance; the boys danced in regular time with graceful motions of the hands, in which the methods of the wrestling-school and the pancration were shown; at the same time, however, this dance had some mixture of the Bacchanalian kind.(1596) Thus also the youths (ephebi) of Sparta, when they were skilled in their exercises, danced in rows behind each other, to the music of the flute, first military, then choral dances, and at the same time repeated two verses, of which one was an invitation to Aphrodite and Eros to join them, the other an exhortation to one another.(1597) There was also a dance with a ball at Sparta and Sicyon.(1598) The Bibasis, a dance of men and women, was of the gymnastic kind;(1599) all the dancers struck their feet behind, a feat, of which a Spartan woman in Aristophanes prides herself.(1600) Prizes were given to the most skilful; and we are told by a verse which has been preserved that a Laconian girl had danced the Bibasis a thousand times more than any other had done.(1601) Besides the Bibasis the Dipodia is mentioned;(1602) but so little is known about it, that the origin of its name even is not clear.(1603) In a comedy of Aristophanes a chorus of Lacedæmonians danced a Dipodia to the flute, and sing, chiefly in trochaic metre, of the battles of Thermopylæ and Artemisium, and the friendship of Sparta and Athens; after which follows another song, which was probably danced in the same manner. In this the chorus implores the Laconian Muse to come from mount Taygetus, and to celebrate the tutelar deities of Sparta; and urges itself to the dance in words which give a very good idea of its character: “Come hither with a light motion to sing of Sparta. Where there are choruses in honour of the gods, and the noise of dancing, when, like young horses, the maidens on the banks of the Eurotas rapidly move their feet; while their hair floats, like revelling Bacchanals; and the daughter of Leda directs them, the sacred leader of the chorus. Now bind up the hair, and leap like fawns; now strike the measured tune which gladdens the chorus.”(1604) Many points in this description remind us of the dances of the Laconian maidens at the worship of Artemis of Caryæ, which were animated and vehement.(1605)

9. We now come to the dances whose object was to express and represent some peculiar meaning. This was either some feeling (to which class almost all the religious as well as the theatrical dances belong) or some outward object; to which we may refer the mimic dances. To the latter, the Pyrrhic and the Gymnopædian dances belong, and to the religious, the Hyporcheme, which we treated of in connexion with the worship of Apollo.(1606) Of this description was perhaps the Bryallicha,(1607) a dance in honour of Artemis and Apollo, danced by women, or, as some assert, by men in hideous women’s masks, who at the same time sang hymns to the two deities.(1608) The name signifies a violent leap; and from what we can gather elsewhere respecting the character of this dance, it appears to have been irregular and licentious. How it agrees with the worship of Apollo, one does not exactly perceive, unless it is supposed that some fable in the history of that god was represented in a mimic style, which admitted of such irregularity. The worship of Artemis, however, had other forms which produced these licentious dances, as in Laconia itself the Calabis.(1609)

A few particulars respecting several Laconian dances have been preserved by a grammarian,(1610) whose account we will insert at full, adding only some remarks of our own. “The Deimalea was danced by Sileni and Satyrs waltzing in a circle,” its name being perhaps derived from the cowardice (δεῖμα) of these “useless and worthless fellows,” as Hesiod calls them.(1611) “The Ithymbi was danced to Bacchus, the dance of the Caryatides to Artemis; the Bryallicha was so called after its inventor Bryallichus; it was danced by women to Apollo and Artemis.” The following dances also, as appears from the conclusion, were Laconian. The Hypogypones imitated old men with sticks. The Gypones danced on wooden stilts, and wearing transparent Tarentine dresses. The Menes was danced by Charini,(1612) and took its name from the flute-player who invented it. There was a Bacchanalian dance called “Tyrbasia,” probably resembling the Argive Tyrbè, and deriving its name from its intricate mazes. “A dance in which they mimicked those who were caught stealing the remains of meals was called Mimelic. But the Gymnopœdia, danced with jests and merriment, was more splendid.” The merry spirit, and the love for comic exhibition, which produced all these mimic dances, is shown in these imperfect notices, the deficiencies of which we can only supply in one instance, viz. in the account of the Deicelictæ (or Mimeli). There was at Sparta an ancient play, but it was probably acted only by the common people, and quite extempore, nor ever by regular players.(1613) From the account of Nepos it may be also conjectured that it was performed by unmarried women. The name Deicelictæ (or Mimeli) merely means “imitators;”(1614) but it came to signify only comic imitators.(1615) In this play there was not (according to Sosibius)(1616) any great art; for Sparta in all things loved simplicity. It represented in plain and common language either a foreign physician or stealers of fruit (probably boys), who were caught with their stolen goods;(1617) that is, it was an imitation of common life, probably alternating with comic dances.

10. In Laconia it was chiefly the lower orders who had any decided love for comedy and buffoonery; for with the Dorians we only now and then discover a ray of levity or mirth piercing the gravity of their nature. I have already mentioned,(1618) that from the Helots, who dwelt in the houses of the Spartans, and were called Mothones, or Mothaces, a kind of riotous dance took its name, in which drunken persons were probably represented; whence perhaps was derived the story that the Spartans intoxicated their slaves as a warning to their children. Other dances may perhaps have been common among the peasants, and particularly among the shepherds of remote regions.

It is an interesting question, and one allied to the present inquiry, to ascertain the origin of the bucolic poetry of the ancients. No one can doubt that its mingled character of simplicity, nature, and buffoonery, was copied from real life. Now the manners which it represented could neither have been those of slaves, for the condition of slavery does not admit of any regular society; nor yet of free citizens, for the rustic scenes of this poetry wholly disagree with a city life. It remains therefore that it imitated the life of subjects, of bondmen, such as existed as a separate class in the Doric states, and accordingly bucolic poems are commonly in the Doric dialect. It is related, that when Xerxes had overrun Greece, and the Spartan women could not perform the customary rites of Artemis Caryatis, the shepherds came from the mountains, and sang pastoral hymns to the goddess.(1619) From this confused account we may collect that in the north of Laconia there had been some rude essays of pastoral poetry. In this respect, however, the shepherds of Italy and Sicily have become far more celebrated; Epicharmus mentions their bucolics (βουκολιασμοὶ), as a kind of dance and song;(1620) and even before his time Stesichorus had formed them into a species of lyric poetry.(1621) Nevertheless their origin appears not to have been independent of one another, for both in Laconia and Sicily the name of Tityrus was used for the leading goat or ram of the flock.(1622) That the same name should equally distinguish the human and animal leader of the flock, is a trait of the simplicity of those men, who passed their days among valleys and pastures, harmlessly tending their flocks, and taking no more notice of other modes of life than sending from time to time the produce of their industry to the city. Now in Sicily these shepherds were not of Greek extraction, but were undoubtedly of the aboriginal Siculian population, the ancient worshippers of the goddess Pales;(1623) and it is not improbable that the bucolic poetry owed its origin to native talent. Even the ancient legend of Daphnis, who lost his eyes through his love for a nymph,(1624) appears to me rather of a Siculian than Grecian cast; although how far the character of the Greeks and of the native inhabitants were opposed, is a very obscure subject of inquiry.(1625)

11. To conclude; as in Attica, so among the Dorians, comedy connected itself with the country festivals of Bacchus; and, as Aristotle says,(1626) originated from the extemporaneous songs of those who led the Phallic processions, which were still customary in many Greek cities at the time of that philosopher. Of this, Sicyon furnishes an example. There was there a dance called Ἀλητὴρ,(1627) which was probably of a Phallic nature; and also a comic entertainment, called the Phallophori,(1628) in which the actors, with their heads and faces adorned with flowers, but unmasked, came into the theatre, in stately garments, some at the common entrance, some at the scene-doors; the Phallophorus, his face smeared with soot, walked first from among them, and, after giving notice that they came with a new song in honour of Bacchus, they began to ridicule any person they chose to select. Thus too the Phlyaces of Tarentum were probably connected with the worship of Bacchus, whose festivals were accompanied with similar rejoicings in Sicily.(1629)

Yet the rites of Demeter sometimes gave rise among the Dorians to lascivious entertainments of this kind, as we learn from the description in Herodotus of the Æginetan choruses of women at the festival of Artemis and Auxesia, which provoked others of their sex by riotous and insulting language.(1630) These mockeries were, however, only the humour of the moment, and were merely accessaries to certain dances and songs; but among the Megarians, comedy, we know not by what means, obtained a more artificial character, and a more independent form.

§ 1. Origin of comedy at Megara. § 2. Life and drama of Epicharmus. § 3. Traces of theatrical representations on painted vases. § 4. Political and philosophical tendency of the drama of Epicharmus. § 5. Mimes of Sophron. § 6. Plays of Rhinthon. § 7. Origin of tragedy at the city festivals of Bacchus. § 8. Early history of the Doric tragedy. § 9. Character of the Doric lyric poetry. § 10. Doric lyric poets. § 11. Origin of the Doric lyric poetry. § 12. Character of the Doric style of sculpture.

1. At Athens, a coarse and ill-mannered jest was termed a Megarian joke;(1631) which may be considered as a certain proof of the decided propensity of that people to humour. This is confirmed by the claims of the Megarians, who disputed the invention of comedy with the Athenians,(1632) and perhaps not without justice, if indeed the term invention be at all applicable to the rise of the several branches of poetry, which sprung so gradually, and at such different times, from the particular feelings excited by the ancient festival rites, that it is difficult, and perhaps impossible, to fix upon the period at which the species of composition to which each gave rise was sufficiently advanced to be called a particular kind of poetry. Yet it is in the highest degree probable that the Athenians were indebted for the earliest form of their comic poetry to the Megarians. The Megarian comedy is ridiculed by Ecphantides, one of the early comic poets of Athens, as rude and unpolished, which circumstance alone makes its higher antiquity probable.(1633) Ecphantides, whom Aristophanes, Cratinus, and others, ridicule as rough and unpolished,(1634) looks down in his turn on those who had introduced comedy from Megara, and claims the merit of first seasoning the uncouth Megarian productions with Attic salt. But one of the earliest introducers of comedy was, according to the most credible and authentic accounts, Susarion, a native of Tripodiscus, an ancient village in the Megarian territory;(1635) in Attica he made his first appearance in the village of Icaria,(1636) situated on the borders of Megaris and Bœotia;(1637) where it is known from mythological fables, that the rural festival of Bacchus had been celebrated from an early period. The argument for its Doric origin, derived from the name κωμῳδία, “the village-song” (the Peloponnesians calling their villages κῶμαι, and the Athenians δῆμοι), is by no means conclusive, as the derivation of that name from the word κῶμος, a tumultuous festival procession, is far more probable. The early time at which comedy must have flourished may be seen from the fact, that it passed over to Athens in the 50th Olympiad;(1638) but of its character we should form a very partial judgment, if we trusted implicitly to the accounts of the Athenian neighbours; and yet we have no other means of information.

The ancient comedy of Susarion, and of the Megarians, was (as is clear from the passage of Ecphantides) founded on a dramatic principle; although a species of lyric poetry, also called comedy, had existed from an early period among the Dorians and Æolians;(1639) nor can I admit the opinion of Aristotle, that Epicharmus and Phormis were the first who wrote a comedy with a plot or story; previously to those poets, only some extempore and abusive speeches (ἰαμβίζειν) were, according to his view of the subject, introduced between the songs of the chorus; but if this had been the case, the Megarian comedy would not have differed materially from the Sicyonian sports of the Phallophori, nor have attracted so much attention as it actually did. A Megarian actor, named Mæson, is often mentioned by the ancients as the inventor of masks of certain characters of low comedy, as cooks, scullions, sailors, and the like.(1640) Hence it may be inferred that these Megarian farces, with their established or frequently recurring characters, had some resemblance to the Oscan Atellane plays.

2. It is indeed very probable that the Megarian furnished the first germ and elements of the Sicilian comedy, as perfected by Epicharmus. For the Megarians in Sicily, as well as those near Athens, laid claim, according to Aristotle,(1641) to the invention of comedy, and there is no doubt that a communication was kept up between those two states. Now it is possible that comedy was brought from Megara to Syracuse, when Gelon (484 or 483 B.C.)(1642) transplanted the inhabitants from the former to the latter city; and thus the elements of comedy which existed in the choruses and iambic speeches, were, by their subsequent combination with a more improved species of poetry, brought to maturity. This supposition, however, rests upon mere conjecture. Epicharmus, the son of Helothales,(1643) must have gone to Syracuse at this emigration, having formerly resided at Megara; but he cannot be considered as the person who really introduced comedy at Syracuse, as he had lived only a short time at Megara; he was, as we are credibly informed, a native of Cos,(1644) and went to Sicily with Cadmus, that is, about, or soon after, 480 B.C.,(1645) and he must at this time have been at least a youth, in order to have acquired a name and influence in the reign of Hieron (between 478 and 467 B.C.)(1646) In confirmation of the statement that he was a native of Cos, it may be remarked, that he was likewise a physician, which was the regular profession of his brother, his family being probably connected with that of the Asclepiadæ. Phormis, or Phormus, who by Aristotle and others is often mentioned with Epicharmus, appears to have been earlier than that poet by some Olympiads, having been the friend of Gelon, and tutor to his children;(1647) but his fame was so completely eclipsed by that of his successor, that there is scarcely anything remaining of his plays, except a few titles,(1648) which however show that he parodied mythological subjects.

But Epicharmus is much less known and esteemed than his peculiar style of writing and dramatic skill deserve; and those authors greatly err, who fix upon the period when his peculiar kind of poetry had arrived at perfection, as the commencement of the Athenian comedy, and attribute the clumsy and rustic simplicity from which the latter emerged, to the Sicilian style, which had enjoyed all the advantages which the life of a city and court could afford.(1649) Before, therefore, we enter into details respecting the dramas, of Epicharmus, we will say a few words on the nature of his subjects, and his mode of handling them.

The subjects of the plays of Epicharmus were chiefly mythological, that is, parodies or travesties of mythology, nearly in the style of the satyric drama of Athens. Thus in the comedy of Busiris, Hercules was represented in the most ludicrous light, as a voracious glutton, and he was again exhibited in the same character (with a mixture perhaps of satirical remarks on the luxury of the times) in “the Marriage of Hebe,” in which an astonishing number of dishes was mentioned.(1650) We can however form a better notion of the drama called “Hephæstus, or the Revellers,” chiefly by the help of some ancient works of art, which have come down to us. The play began we are told, with Hephæstus chaining his mother Here by magical charms to a seat, from which he only released her after long entreaties.(1651) Now on a vase discovered at Bari in the kingdom of Naples, and now preserved in the British Museum,(1652) Here, with the superscription ᾽ΗΡΑ,(1653) is seen seated on a throne; on her right is a clown fantastically dressed, whom his pointed cap marks as a servant of Hephæstus, and his name, Dædalus, is written over his head;(1654) on her left is Mars, dressed, with the exception of his helmet, in the same fashion (with the superscription ΕΝΕΥΑΛΙΟΣ); both these figures are armed, and endeavouring, the one to dissolve, the other to strengthen the charm by which Here is held. The whole scene is evidently supposed to take place on a stage, leading to which there are some steps; and as there were no other Sicilian or Italian comedies on the same subject, it may without hesitation be considered as a representation of the first part of the Hephæstus of Epicharmus.

The legend went on to say, that Hephæstus, having in consequence of this act been ill-treated by his parents, entirely deserted Olympus, until Bacchus, having contrived to make him drunk, placed him on an ass, and thus brought him in jolly merriment back to Olympus; to which transaction the other title of the piece, “the Revellers,” evidently alludes. Now this scene also has been transmitted to us in some ancient paintings, which although they do not exhibit the theatrical dress and the place of performance so clearly as that just mentioned, are evidently taken from comedies. There is on a Coghill vase(1655) a procession in which the names of the several individuals composing it are superscribed; first Marsyas as a flute-player; then Comedy, in a state of violent motion; next Bacchus, in the ancient festival costume; and lastly, Hephæstus, who in other compositions of the same subject is drawn riding on an ass.

3. From these data, I will leave it to the judgment and taste of the reader to draw his own conclusions on the character of the drama of Epicharmus. But I may take this opportunity of remarking, that the painted vases of lower Italy often enable us to gain a complete and vivid idea of the theatrical representations of that country. From this source I have above traced a farce, in which Hercules delivers the Cercopes to Eurystheus, or some other king,(1656) and perhaps also the picture of Hercules in the form of a pigmy, and fighting with the cranes, was derived from a similar source.(1657) We may likewise mention the picture of Zeus and Hermes, the latter with a lantern, and the former with a ladder, both dressed in the most ridiculous and fantastical costume, in the act of ascending to a fair female, who is expecting them at her window.(1658) It seems also probable, that the buffoon represented on a vase, as sitting on a fish, and making ridiculous grimaces,(1659) is a caricature of the Tarentine fable of Taras on the dolphin. The costume, which reminds us of the Italian Policinello and Arlecchino,(1660) proves that it was taken from a dramatic representation, which however is still more conspicuous on the painted vase of Asteas,(1661) on which, among a number of clowns, one is seen stretched on a couch, evidently the bed of Procrustes. But it is remarkable, that in this case the performers do not bear the names of the heroes whom they travesty, but those of their masks. The one on the bed is called ΧΑΡΙΝΟΣ, or Gracioso (which name was likewise in use at Sparta);(1662) the others are named ΔΙΑΣΥΡΟΣ “the jester:” ΚΑΓΧΑΣ “the laugher;”(1663) and ΓΥΜΝΑΣΟΣ, if the letters are read correctly: these are evidently names of standing characters of a dramatic fable, resembling the Attelane farces of Campania. The vase was moreover discovered in Campania.(1664)

4. But to return to Epicharmus; the comedy of this poet was by no means confined to parodies of mythological stories, as he also, like Aristophanes, handled political subjects, and invented comic characters like the later Athenian poets; and indeed the extent of his subjects was very wide. The piece called Ἁρπαγαὶ, or “the Plunderings,” which described the devastation of Sicily in his time, had, according to Hemsterhuis,(1665) a political meaning; and this was perhaps also the case with the Νᾶσοι, or “the Islands:” at least it was mentioned in this play, that Hieron had prevented Anaxilas from destroying Locri (477 B.C.);(1666) in his “Persians” also there were allusions to the history of the times. The play called the “Countryman” (Ἀγρωστῖνος, i.e. ἀγροῖκος), was an instance of the drama, which illustrated the character of a certain class of society. Epicharmus also introduced, and almost perfected characters, which were very common in the drama of later times;(1667) and if the plot of the Menæchmi of Plautus was, as the poet seems to state in the prologue, taken from a comedy of Epicharmus, it must be granted that the ingenious construction of plots was not beyond the powers of that poet.(1668) The style of his plays was not less various than his subjects, as he passed from the extreme of rude and comic buffoonery to a more serious and instructive vein, introducing maxims and moral sentences(1669) with precepts of the Pythagorean philosophy, in which he is said to have been initiated with Archytas and Philolaus the son of Arcesas, the successor of Pythagoras;(1670) and we know from Diogenes Laertius that he introduced long discourses of a speculative and philosophical nature, though it is not easy to see how they were connected with the rest of the piece. In the Ulysses (as I conjecture from the speech to Eumæus) he made incidentally some philosophical remarks on the instinct of animals;(1671) other pieces, such as “the Pyrrha and Prometheus,” and “the Land and Sea,” were by their subjects still more closely connected with philosophy; he also wrote some poems on questions of natural and moral philosophy, which, if we may judge from the imitation of Ennius, were composed in a theatrical and very lively metre, the trochaic tetrameter.(1672) That the dramatic style of Epicharmus was perfect in its kind, is proved by the great admiration it was held in by the ancients, particularly by Plato; and if the Attic comedy excelled in cutting satire and ridicule, the Sicilian poet had a higher and more general aim. The Athenian poets, if we may judge from Aristophanes, confined themselves wholly to the affairs of their own state, and it was their object to point out what they considered beneficial to the people. But Epicharmus had a different and higher object; for if the elements of his drama, which we have discovered singly, were in his plays combined, he must have set out with an elevated and philosophical view, which enabled him to satirize mankind, without disturbing the calmness and tranquillity of his thoughts; while at the same time his scenes of common life were marked with the acute and penetrating genius which characterized the Sicilians.(1673)

5. Notwithstanding this excellence, the comedy of Epicharmus was only an insulated and passing phenomenon, as we are not informed of any successors of that great poet, except Deinolochus(1674) his son, or rather his disciple. But about half a century after Epicharmus,(1675) Sophron, the mimographer, made his appearance, who was the author of a new species of comedy, though in many respects resembling that of his predecessor. Still this variety of the drama differed so much, not only from that of Sicily, but from any other which existed in Greece, that its origin must, after all our attempts at explanation, remain involved in great obscurity. The mimes of Sophron had no accompaniment of music or dancing, and they were written, not in verse, but in prose, though perhaps in certain rhythmical divisions.(1676) This latter circumstance seems quite singular, and without example in the Greek literature which has been transmitted to us. But that it was in reality so, seems improbable, when we remember that there would naturally be an intermediate rhythm, formed at the transition from the metrical to the prosaic style;(1677) and with the Dorians this would have taken the form of concise and disjointed sentences, a periodical style being more suited to the Athenians. We are led to this notion by the consideration of some remains of Lacedæmonian composition, in which no one can fail to see the rhythmical form and symmetry of the sentences. Thus in the famous letter of Hippocrates,(1678)

ἔρρει τὰ καλά. Μίνδαρος γ᾽ ἀπεσσούα; πεινῶντι τὤνδρες; ἀπορέομες τι χρὴ δρᾶν.

and also in that of the Lacedæmonian women, preserved by Plutarch,(1679)

κακὰ τεῦ φάμα κακκέχυται; ταύταν ἀπωθεῦ, ἢ μὴ ἔσο,

where the rhythm passes insensibly into verse; which is less strikingly the case in other instances.(1680)

Whether the mimes of Sophron were publicly represented or not, is a question not easily answered. It would however be singular, if a poetical work had been intended only for reading, in an age when everything was written, not for the public eye, but for the public ear. It is certainly more probable that these mimes were originally part of the amusements of certain festivals, as was the case with the Spartan deicelictæ, which they resembled more than any other variety of the drama.(1681) Indeed it can be easily conceived, that farces of this description, acted by persons who had a quick perception of the eccentricities and peculiarities of mankind, and a talent for mimicry, should have existed among the Dorians of Sicily, as well as of Laconia, particularly as the former were celebrated for their imitative skill.(1682) Even Agathocles the tyrant excited the laughter, not merely of his guests and companions, but of whole assemblies of the people, by ridiculing certain known characters, in the manner of an ethologus, or merry andrew.(1683) Accordingly the mimes of Sophron, by which these rude attempts were improved, and raised to a regular species of the drama, were distinguished by their faithful imitation of manners, even of the vulgar, and the solecisms and rude dialect of the common people were copied with great exactness;(1684) whence the numerous sayings and proverbs which were introduced.(1685) On the other hand, he was most skilful in seizing the more delicate shades and turns of feeling, and in preserving the unity and consistency of his characters, without which he would never have been so much admired by Plato, or the study of his works have been so serviceable in the composition of the Socratic dialogues, as we know on good authority to have been the case;(1686) and hence we should compare the scenery of Plato’s dialogues with the poems of Theocritus, which we know to be imitated from the female mimes of Sophron, in order to obtain a proper idea of those master-pieces. His talent for description must however have been supported and directed by moral considerations; which probably preponderated rather in the serious (μῖμοι σπουδαῖοι), and were less prominent in the common mimes (μῖμοι γέλοιοι). The tribe of Aretalogi and Ethologi, who originally spoke much of virtue and morality, but gradually sank into mere buffoons, appears to have come from Sicily, and was, perhaps through several intermediate links, connected with Sophron.(1687)

In considering these philosophical sports, which mingled in the same breath the grave and solemn lessons of philosophy and the most ludicrous mimicry and buffoonery, we may perhaps find a reason why Persius, a youth educated in the Stoic sect, should have thought of making Sophron the model of his Satires. This statement is given by a late, but in this instance a credible writer,(1688) and is confirmed by the dramatic character of the Satires of Persius, and the constant use of mimicry in them, particularly the first four; so much so indeed, that a study of Persius is the best method of forming an accurate and lively idea of the mimes of Sophron.

6. The Dorians in general had evidently less poetical skill and feeling than the Athenians, and did not cultivate those rude attempts of wit and mirth which the festivals called forth, and of which the Athenians knew so well how to take advantage. This incapacity or negligence of the early times enables us to explain why several kinds of Doric poetry were not received into the literature of civilized Greece until the Alexandrian age, of which we may particularly specify the bucolic poetry, and the phlyaces of Tarentum. These carnival sports had doubtless been represented for ages, before they acquired, in the time of Ptolemy the First, notoriety in other places by the poems of Rhinthon, which were named after them. These plays are also called Ἱλαροτραγῳδία,(1689) or tragi-comedy; and both these and the titles of some pieces(1690) and fragments handed down to us show that they were burlesques of tragical subjects.(1691) It may, however, be easily supposed that Rhinthon did not lose sight of the Athenian tragedy, and it is possible that his two Iphigenias in particular, at Aulis and Tauris, contained many parodies of the two plays of Euripides. I should conceive, however, that he adhered generally to the form of the ancient phlyaces; thus for example, he faithfully imitated the dialect of Tarentum;(1692) we may also be assured that he polished the native farces, so as to fit them for theatrical representation. These pieces were generally written in trimeter iambics, which Rhinthon, however, framed somewhat carelessly, as may be seen from a fragment of his transmitted to us, where addressing himself to his verses, he declares “that he did not give himself much trouble about them;”(1693) it is also possible that he mixed the iambic with other metres, as parodies, for the sake of contrast; thus, for instance, he appears to have employed the solemn hexameter in some very ludicrous passages.(1694) Rhinthon was succeeded in this species of parody by Sopatrus, Sciras,(1695) and Blæsus; the last-named poet, a native of Capreæ in Campania, wrote (as may be inferred from the title of his “Saturn”) after the Roman manners and religion had gained the ascendency; but he used only the ancient dialect, and he too, being called a serio-comic poet (σπουδογελοίων ποιητὴς), seems to have adopted the same mixture of tragedy and comedy.(1696)

7. We have now dwelt at some length on the comic poetry of the Dorians, on account of the interesting nature of the subject, and the light which it throws on the general character of a people, among whom the strictest gravity was found closely united with the most unrestrained jocularity and mirth; for as every real jest requires for a foundation a firm, solid, and grave disposition of mind, so moral indifference, and a frivolous temperament, not only destroy the contrast between gravity and jest, but annihilate the spirit of both. Our inquiries on the early state of the tragic drama among the Dorians will be more concise. And we may first observe, that the great difference between tragedy and comedy did not exist originally but was only formed gradually in their development. Their only distinction at first was, that while comedy was more a sport and a merriment of the country festivals, tragedy was from its commencement connected with the public rejoicings and ceremonies of Bacchus in cities, and was performed by the great cyclic or dithyrambic choruses. Thence it came that the former expressed the boisterous mirth and joviality of clowns and peasants; whereas the latter was formed upon the particular ideas and feelings suggested by the worship of Bacchus, and by the part which he bore in mythology. It principally turned on the sufferings of Bacchus (Διονύσου πάθη), a point alluded to in some verses in the Iliad, though there is no doubt that it had been attempted at a much earlier period.(1697)

8. We shall now show how this applies to the tragedy of the Dorians. According to the account of Herodotus(1698) there were at Sicyon, an ancient seat of the worship of Bacchus, tragic choruses which sung of Bacchus, and undoubtedly of his sufferings. These choruses however had even before the age of Cleisthenes (Olymp. 45.) been transferred to Adrastus, the hero of that city, but they were by that tyrant restored to their former subject. The date of their restoration is therefore known; the time of their extension to Adrastus, and consequently of their foundation, must have been much more remote; this shows the comparatively late date of the Attic tragedy, which began with Thespis. Now we are also informed that Epigenes, a very ancient tragedian of Sicyon, was the sixteenth before Thespis;(1699) thus it appears that the ancients were in possession of a stock of information, which has been lost to us, that enabled them to draw up a regular succession of all the intermediate tragic poets. To this if we add that some of the Peloponnesians, as we are told by Aristotle,(1700) disputed with the Athenians the invention of tragedy,(1701) we shall not be inclined to deny the claims of the former, on the mere ground that their song, being drowned by the louder notes of the Athenians, was thus early silenced.

But it remains to be decided, whether this Sicyonian tragedy belonged to the regular drama, or whether it was merely a species of dithyrambic lyric poetry, the existence of which was first proved some few years ago by a learned writer of this country.(1702) Of these hypotheses the latter seems most probable, as the accounts of the Athenians respecting the origin and progress of their own tragedy can only then be justified, and because it is distinctly stated that the early tragedy consisted exclusively of choruses.(1703) But I should conceive that these Bacchanalian songs were always accompanied by some mimicry; which indeed the nature of that worship would seem to require; the liveliness of the feelings which it inspired calling for a personified representation of them; and thus Arion, who is styled the inventor of the tragic style (τραγικὸς πρόπος), is said to have introduced satyrs into his choruses.(1704) Arion, although by birth a Methymnæan, and probably a disciple of Terpander, chiefly lived and wrote (like his predecessors, mentioned above) in Peloponnesus and among Dorian nations. It was at Corinth, in the reign of Periander,(1705) that he first practised a cyclic chorus(1706) in the performance of a dithyramb,(1707) where he probably took advantage of some local accidents and rude beginnings, which alone could justify Pindar in considering Corinth as the native city of the dithyramb.(1708)

Thus the district of Corinth and Sicyon is of considerable importance in the early history of the drama. Phlius also, where the satirical drama probably first became a separate variety of the ancient tragedy, was situate in that part: whence being introduced into Athens, it was brought into a regular dramatical shape. For Pratinas the Phliasian is truly called the inventor of this species of the drama;(1709) and although he contended for the prize with Æschylus at Athens, he nevertheless must have remained a native of Phlius, as his son and successor Aristeas was a citizen of that city, and was buried there.(1710) I have nothing to remark respecting the satyric drama, except that it must have abounded in mimicry and pantomimic dances, such as were used under the name of hyporchemes in the temples of Apollo.(1711)

9. Having now examined the two species of the drama, comedy and tragedy, under different heads, we will next consider them under the general name of orchestic poetry, or poetry accompanied with dancing. For while all poetry which was necessarily attended with music was called lyric, that which was sung to accompany dances, frequently of large choruses, has been called the Doric lyric poetry;(1712) to which appellation it appears to be justly entitled, as in its various forms it always partakes more or less of the Doric dialect. Hence the terms Doric and Choral poetry may be used as synonymous, as songs for choral dances were usually composed in the Doric dialect; and whenever the Doric dialect occurred in regular lyric odes, these were generally for choral dances.(1713) Thus, for instance, Pindar, the master of the Dorian lyric poetry, composed scolia; which, unlike the poems sung at feasts, were accompanied with dances and contained more of the Doric dialect.(1714) Thus the dithyramb, so long as it belonged to the Dorian lyric poetry, was always antistrophic, that is, in a choral form, or one adapted to dancing; but after being new-modelled by Crexus, Phrynis, and others, it ceased to be acted by cyclic choruses, and its dialect at the same time underwent a total change. Choruses were sung in the Doric dialect in the midst of the Attic drama; so peculiarly did the choral dances seem to belong to the Dorians.(1715)

These facts afford two criterions for ascertaining the character of the lyric poetry of the Dorians. In the first place, it always bore the stamp of publicity; as in the formation of choruses the public was in some manner taken into consideration: secondly, it had some religious reference; as choruses ever formed part of religious worship. The feeling therefore expressed by this kind of lyric poetry, though it might more powerfully affect individuals, should nevertheless be of such a nature as to interest a whole people; and the subject, even if suggested by other circumstances, should have a reference to religious notions, and admit of a mythological treatment.

10. Thus much concerning the character of lyric poetry among the Dorians. But if we proceed to inquire what gave to this species of poetry the characteristic mark of the people, the circumstances which first strike the attention will rather surprise than enlighten us. For, in the first place, it is plain that no Greek city was wholly without choral poetry; and that prosodia, pæans, and dithyrambs, as soon as they obtained a separate existence, spread in a short time over the whole of Greece. Secondly, among the chief founders and masters of the Dorian lyric poetry, the smaller number only were Dorians, the others being either of Æolian or Ionian descent. Thus Terpander, the ancient pæan-singer, Arion, the inventor of the dithyramb, and Pindar, were Æolians; Ibycus of Rhegium, Bacchylides, and Simonides of Ceos, were Ionians; and of the more celebrated poets the only Dorians were Stesichorus of Himera, and Alcman, by birth a Laconian, though descended from a Lydian family. This last fact however may be reconciled with the view taken above, by the supposition that a certain national style had from an early period been established in the native country of this choral poetry, to which the poets of the several cities generally conformed; while in other places, being more thrown on their own resources, they were led to cultivate their talent with greater freedom. Thus the choral poetry flourished in no part of Greece so much as at Sparta,(1716) as is proved by the best authorities, viz. Terpander(1717) and Pindar.(1718) But besides the foreign, though almost naturalized poets, such as Terpander, Thaletas, Nymphæeus of Cydonia,(1719) and Simonides,(1720) there were also more native lyric poets at Sparta than in any other place;(1721) of whom we know by name, Spendon,(1722) Dionysodotus,(1723) Xenodamus,(1724) and Gitiadas, who sung the praises of the same deity to whom he built the brazen house.(1725) Notwithstanding which, there has not been preserved a single fragment of Spartan lyric poetry, with the exception of Alcman’s; because, as we showed above, there was a certain uniformity and monotony in their productions, such as is perceivable in the early works of art, which prevented any single part from being prominent or distinguished. Something must also be attributed to the effects of a censorship, either of manners or of literary works; as the Spartans are said to have banished Archilochus from their city either on account of his cowardice, or of the licentiousness of his poems;(1726) while, on the other hand, Tyrtæus was held in the greatest honour, as animating and encouraging their youth.(1727) The generality of the use of the lyre at Sparta is proved by the fondness of the female sex for it.(1728) And besides several instances of lyric poetesses at Sparta,(1729) we know the names of some at Argos(1730) and Phlius.(1731) At the Isthmus of Corinth women were even allowed to strive in the musical contests.(1732) Of the number of lyric poets known only to their own age and country, we may form some notion from the circumstance that Pindar, celebrating a native of Ægina, incidentally mentions two minstrels of the same family, Timocritus and Euphanes the Theandridæ.(1733) Besides those already named, the following Doric poets are known to us: Lasus of Hermione, a poet and musician, who had improved the dithyramb after Arion, and the Æolian style of music before Pindar; Ariphron of Sicyon, a composer of pæans; Cleobulus of Rhodes, who was both a philosopher and a lyric poet; and the peculiar genius of Timocreon, who tuned the Doric lyre against Simonides and Themistocles, having been roused against the latter by the unjust conduct of Athens towards the islands.(1734) Later poets we shall pass over.

11. The above statements merely go to establish the fact, that the choral lyric poetry, chiefly and originally belonged to the Dorians. In what manner this fact is to be accounted for, what were the causes of this phenomenon, can only be explained in a general history of the lyric poetry of the Greeks, a subject at once the most attractive and most difficult which remains for the industry of the present age. In the absence of such an investigation, I may be permitted to offer on that question a few remarks, which the occasion prevents me from supporting with a detailed body of evidence.

In the first place then it will, I believe, be safe to give up the notion that the lyric was regularly and gradually developed from epic poetry. The epic poetry, beginning at a period when the Achæans were yet in possession of Peloponnesus,(1735) retaining till the latest times a peculiar dialect, and continued under its ancient form by Greeks of all races,(1736) does not show any tendency to produce an offspring so unlike itself; and what could be more different than the recitation of a single bard and the religious songs of a chorus? From the time that there were Greeks and a Greek language there were doubtless songs at processions, both at festivals and to the temples, as well as during the sacrifice; and these varying according to the mode of worship and attributes of the god. And in none were they so early reduced to rule as in the worship of Apollo; to which, as has been already shown,(1737) the ancient nomes, the pæans, and hyporchemes, and other varieties of lyric poetry, either in part or wholly, owed their origin. Now since this worship was originally Doric, and its chief temples were always in Doric countries, we can see a reason why in the ceremonial, that is the choral, poetry, the Doric dialect should have preponderated. Its form was, on the whole, originally a Doric variety of the epic hexameter; which was the rhythm of the ancient nomes composed by the minstrels Philammon, Olen, and Chrysothemis.(1738) Their ancient strains, which were sung and danced to, must have been very different from the delivery of the Homeric rhapsodists, a sort of chaunting recitation; for Terpander is said to have first set them, as well as the laws of Lycurgus,(1739) to a regular tune; whereas these ancient religious hymns had such tunes from the beginning; while the mode to which they were set can hardly have been any other than the Doric. The attempt to vary the rhythm probably began by breaking the dactylic hexameters into shorter portions, in order to produce new combinations of less uniform verses, and thus gave rise to the antistrophic form of metre.(1740) A different origin must, however, as is natural, be assigned to the anapæstic military songs; nor can we suppose that pæans and hyporchemes ever followed the laws of hexameters; the pæonian variety must have been earlier than Alcman, who made use of Cretic hexameters. Generally indeed Alcman, however early his age, made use of a great variety of metres; the reason of which probably is, that before his time Terpander had mixed the Greek and Asiatic music; besides which, Alcman had doubtless, from his Lydian origin, an inclination to the eastern style of music; for in this a large portion of his songs, in which the logaœdic metre prevailed, were evidently composed:(1741) he was also acquainted with Phrygian melodies.(1742) But the diversity of his metres was only to express the variety of his muse, which sometimes adored the gods in solemn choruses (in which, when he danced himself, he implored the sweetly-singing virgins to be the supports of his age(1743)), now wrote bridal-hymns and drinking-songs; a sufficient refutation of the notion that life at Sparta was one unvaried scene of gloominess and melancholy; in which town these songs continued nevertheless to be popular until the time of Epaminondas.(1744)

12. If the essence of art consists in investing an idea of the mind with a sensible and bodily form, and this in a corresponding and satisfactory manner, we must certainly ascribe great skill in art to the Dorians, for (as we have before remarked) they delighted more in imitation than in creation or action. This remark applies to the Greeks in general, and particularly to the Dorians, as distinguished from later times; hence the attention of that race to the beauty of form; “Give us what is good and what is beautiful” was the Spartan prayer.(1745) Whoever had enjoyed the benefits of the public education, participated in all that was beautiful in the city,(1746) their whole existence was influenced by a sense of beauty, which was expressed in the most ancient production of the people—in their religion.

We may here be permitted to annex a few remarks on the art of sculpture; and we will curtail them the more, as it does not bear so much upon national manners as music, which formed a part of the education of the people, while the former art was consigned to the care of a few. Although from what we have observed elsewhere, it would be difficult to describe all in the ancient sculpture that was peculiar to the Doric nation, and that originated from them, we may still draw some conclusions from what has been already stated. There was in the Doric character a certain healthy sensibility, and a delight in the unadorned and unveiled forms of nature. That this very much favoured and assisted the progress of the above art is obvious; and that the human form was accurately studied and understood in the Doric schools of art is shown in those specimens of their works which have been preserved. The physical beauty of this race, ennobled and exposed to view by gymnastic(1747) and warlike exercises, gave a right direction to the study of sculpture; and the prevailing religion, the worship of Apollo, by the energy of the figure and variety of the attributes of that god, shows not only the original talent of this people for sculpture, but it was fitted to lead them by a succession of compositions to the highest excellence. On the other hand, we may infer from some of the above remarks, that the Dorians considered the beauty of art to consist more in proportion, harmony, and regularity, than in a superabundance of glitter and ornament; and this is exemplified by the character of Doric architecture. Lastly, hence arises the composure and evenness of mind which so greatly distinguished the Dorians, who anxiously preserved the usages of their fathers as much in the art of sculpture as in music.

Although historical tradition does not extend so far as to prove and verify this view of the subject, still it agrees with all that is characteristic of the Dorians. In the first place then, we know that sculpture was diligently cultivated at an early time in several Doric cities; first perhaps in Crete, the most ancient abode of Doric civilisation;(1748) then in Ægina,(1749) Sicyon, Corinth, Argos,(1750) and Sparta; for that the latter city, particularly at the time of the Persian war, was distinguished by its active pursuit of the arts, has been sufficiently proved in a former part of this work.(1751) Sicyon produced the Apollo of Canachus, of which we have elsewhere endeavoured to give an idea;(1752) and about the same time the Æginetan artists appear to have produced those groups of heroes, the fragments of which are the only sure records which we possess of the peculiarities of that school. For the information which we receive from Pausanias and others goes no further than that in Ægina many statues of the most ancient kind were sculptured, and that a certain hardness of style was preserved there longer than in Attica. The fragments, however, which remain, attest a liveliness of conception, and a truth of imitation, which in many points may be called perfect, and which excite our admiration, and even astonishment. On the other hand, we may remark in the countenances of the heroes, who evidently bear a Greek national physiognomy, though rudely and unpleasingly conceived, that respect for ancient customs which was a fundamental principle of the early times. That this happened at a time when Athens had already cast off every shackle, is a strong characteristic trait of the Dorians. These works, however, possess many other singularities, which cannot be referred to any peculiar disposition of that race.

§ 1. History and rhetoric little cultivated by the Dorians. § 2. Apophthegmatic style of expression used by the Dorians. § 3. Apophthegms of the Seven Sages. § 4. Griphus invented by the Dorians. § 5. Symbolical language of the Pythagorean philosophy.

1. It has been shown in the preceding chapter that the national and original poetry of the Doric race was not the epic, but the lyric; which is occupied rather in expressing inward feelings, than in describing outward objects. If this predilection may be considered as natural to the whole race, it will enable us to explain why history neither originated among, nor was cultivated by the Dorians. For both its progress and invention we are indebted to the Ionians, who were also the first to introduce prose-composition in general.(1753) The Dorians, however, did not always retain this incapacity; for we are told that the Spartans gladly listened to the sophist Hippias of Elis, speaking of the families of heroes and men, the settlements by which the cities had in ancient times been founded, and of ancient events in general.(1754) This naturally suggests the remark, that the Dorians paid more attention to the events of the past than of the present time; in which they are greatly opposed to the Ionians, who from their governments and geographical position were more thrown into society, and interested themselves more in the passing affairs of the day. Hence some of the early writers on mythical history were Dorians, as Acusilaus for example; but the contemporary historians were almost exclusively Ionians and Athenians;(1755) for Herodotus, who in his early years had lived for some time at Samos, and after his various travels wrote his History at Thurii, can hardly be considered as a genuine Dorian.(1756) Nor would it be difficult to account for the entire ignorance of the arts of rhetoric and logic in the Doric states (for the schools of rhetoricians and sophists in Sicily are evidently to be traced to the peculiar character of those islanders),(1757) or to see why the perfection of these, both in theory and practice, as well as that of the regular drama, was left to the Athenians.

2. But instead of the pointed and logical reasoning, and the fervid declamation of the Athenians, the Doric race had a peculiar manner of expressing itself, viz. by apophthegms, and sententious and concise sayings. The object appears to have been, to convey as much meaning in as few words as possible, and to allude to, rather than express, the thoughts of the speaker. A habit of mind which might fit its possessor for such a mode of speaking, would best be generated by long and unbroken silence; which was enjoined to his scholars by Pythagoras, and by Sparta enforced on all youths during their education:(1758) it being intended that their thoughts should gain force and intensity by compression.(1759) Hence the great brevity of speech,(1760) which was the characteristic of all the genuine Dorians, especially of the Spartans,(1761) Cretans,(1762) and Argives,(1763) forming a remarkable contrast with the copious and headlong torrent of eloquence which distinguished the Athenians. The antiquity of this characteristic of the Spartans is proved by the fact of Homer’s attributing it to Menelaus,

When Atreus’ son harangued the list’ning train, Just was his sense, and his expression plain, His words succinct, yet full, without a fault; He spoke no more than just the thing he ought.(1764)

In which lines the poet evidently transfers the peculiarity of the Doric Laconians to the earlier inhabitants of that country.(1765) In adopting this mode of expression, the Dorians may be conceived, in the first place, to have wished to avoid all ornament of speech, and to have contented themselves with the simplest manner of conveying their thoughts; as Stesimbrotus the Thasian opposes to the adroit and eloquent Athenian the openness and simplicity of the Peloponnesian, who was plain and unadorned, but of an honest and guileless disposition.(1766) Or, secondly, it was intended to have double force by the contrast of the richness of the thought, with the slight expense of words. Probably, however, both these motives had their weight; though the latter perhaps predominated. In a dialogue of Plato,(1767) Socrates says, half in joke and half in earnest, that “of all the philosophical systems in Greece, that established in Crete and Lacedæmon was the most ancient and copious, and there the sophists were most numerous; but they concealed their skill, and pretended to be ignorant. And hence, on conversing with the meanest Lacedæmonian, at first indeed he would appear awkward in his language, but when he perceived the drift of the conversation, he would throw in, like a dexterous lancer, some short and nervous remark, so as to make the other look no better than a child. Nor in these cities is such a manner of speaking confined to the men, but it extends also to women.”

That in this concise manner of speaking there was a kind of wit and epigrammatic point, may be easily seen from various examples; but it cannot be traced to the principles which we have just laid down. Sometimes it arises from the simplicity of the Doric manners, as contrasted with the more polished customs of other nations; of which kind is the answer of the Spartan, who, taking a fish to be cooked, and being asked where the cheese, oil, and vinegar were, replied, “If I had all these things, I should not have bought a fish.”(1768) Or it is a moral elevation, viewed from which, things appear in a different light; thus the saying of Dieneces, that “if the Persians darkened the air with their arrows, they should fight in the shade.” Sometimes it is an ironical expression of bitterness and censure, which gains force by being concealed under a semblance of praise; as in the judgment of the Laconian on Athens, where every kind of trade and industry was tolerated, “Everything is beautiful there.”(1769) Or it is the combination of various ridiculous ideas into one expression, as in the witty saying of a husband who found his wife, whom he detested, in the arms of an adulterer; “Unhappy man, who forced you to do this?”(1770)

At Sparta, however, an energetic, striking, and figurative mode of speaking must have been generally in use; which may be perceived in the style of all the Spartans who are mentioned by Herodotus.(1771) And this, I have no doubt, was one of the most ancient customs of the Doric race. In Crete it had been retained, according to the testimony of Sosicrates, a Cretan author, in the town of Phæstus, in which place the boys were early practised in joking; and the apophthegms of Phæstus were celebrated over the whole island.(1772) In Sparta too this peculiar mode of expression was implanted in boys; the youths (ἔφηβοι) proposing them questions, to which they were to give ready and pointed answers;(1773) and they were taught to impart a peculiar sharpness and also brilliancy to their sayings.(1774) Later in life this tendency was fostered and confirmed by the many occasions on which the public manners prescribed ridicule as a means of improvement:(1775) at the festival of the Gymnopædia in particular, full vent seems to have been allowed to wit and merriment.(1776) In common life, laughter and ridicule were not unfrequent at the public tables;(1777) to be able to endure ridicule was considered the mark of a Lacedæmonian spirit; yet any person who took it ill might ask his antagonist to desist, who was then forced to comply.(1778) In early times, similar customs existed in other places besides Sparta; thus the suitors of Agariste, in the house of Cleisthenes the tyrant of Sicyon, contended after the meal in musical skill and conversation,(1779) with which we might perhaps compare the passage in the Hymn to Mercury, where it is said that youths at table attack one another in mutual jests,(1780) and the practice among the ancient Germans, of jesting with freedom at table, alluded to in a verse of the Niebelungen Lied.(1781) But this primitive custom having been retained longer in Sparta than elsewhere, it struck all foreigners as a peculiarity, of which the antique polish was sometimes rather offensive. Still, if we justly estimate the manners of that city, they do not deserve the name of needless austerity and strictness; it was the only Greek state in which a statue was erected to Laughter:(1782) in late times even Agesilaus(1783) and Cleomenes III.(1784) amidst all the changes of their life, cheered their companions with wit and playfulness.

3. This national mode of expression had likewise a considerable effect on the progress of literature in Greece. Plato properly calls the Seven Sages, imitators and scholars of the Lacedæmonian system, and points out the resemblance between their sayings and the Laconian method of expression.(1785) Of these, three, or, if we reckon both Myson and Periander, four, were of Doric descent, and Cheilon was a Spartan;(1786) there were also perhaps at the same time others of the same character, as Aristodemus the Argive.(1787) The sayings attributed to these sages were not so much the discoveries of particular individuals, as the indications of the general opinion of their contemporaries. And hence the Pythian Apollo, directed by the national ideas of the Dorians, particularly countenanced their philosophers, to whose sententious mode of expression his own oracles bore a certain resemblance.(1788) It appears also that the Amphictyons caused some of their apophthegms to be inscribed on the temple of Delphi;(1789) and the story of the enumeration of the Seven Sages by the oracle, although fabulously embellished, is founded on a real fact.(1790)

4. Since in this apophthegmatic and concise style of speaking the object was not to express the meaning in a clear and intelligible manner, it was only one step further altogether to conceal it. Hence the griphus or riddle was invented by the Dorians, and, as well as the epigram, was much improved by Cleobulus the Rhodian,(1791) and his daughter Cleobulina.(1792) It was also a favourite amusement with the Spartans,(1793) and in the ancient times of Greece was generally a common pastime.(1794)

5. This leads us to speak of the symbolical maxims of the Pythagoreans, which might be called riddles, if they had been proposed as such, and not put in that form merely to make them more striking and impressive. So attached indeed do these philosophers appear to have been to the symbolical method of expression, that not only their language, but even their actions acquired a symbolical character.(1795) The system of Pythagoras has by modern writers been correctly considered as the Doric philosophy: yet it is singular that it should have originated with a native of the Ionic Samos. It should, however, be remembered, that the family of Pythagoras, which seems to have lived with other Samians in the island of Samothrace, among the Tyrrhenians,(1796) originally came from Phlius in Peloponnesus,(1797) and always kept up a certain degree of communication with that city;(1798) and again, that although Pythagoras doubtless brought with him to Croton the form of his philosophy, its subsequent expansion and growth were in great part owing to the character of the Dorians and Doric Achæans, among whom he lived. Its connexion with the chief branch of the Doric religion, the worship of Apollo,(1799) and his temple at Delphi,(1800) has been already pointed out; and it has been shown that the political institution of his league was founded on Doric principles.(1801) Other points of resemblance are the universal education of the female followers of Pythagoras, such as Theano, Phintys, and Arignote,(1802) the employment of music to appease passion, the public tables, the use of silence as a means of education, &c. It appears also, that the philosophers of this school always found a welcome reception at Sparta, as well as those whose character was somewhat similar, as the enthusiastic and religious sages, Abaris,(1803) Epimenides,(1804) and Pherecydes;(1805) Anaximander(1806) likewise and Anaximenes(1807) lived for some time in that city, and lastly, in the lists of the Pythagorean philosophers (which are not entirely devoid of credit), there are, besides Italian Greeks, generally Lacedæmonians, Argives, Sicyonians, Phliasians, and sometimes women of Sparta, Argos, and Phlius.(1808) And this is a fresh confirmation of the position, which we have frequently maintained, that up to the time of the Persian war all mental excellence, so far from being banished from Sparta, flourished there in the utmost perfection.

§ 1. Difference between the life of the Dorians and Ionians. Domestic habits of the Spartans. § 2. Opinions of the Dorians respecting a future life. § 3. General character of the Dorians. § 4. Its varieties. § 5. Character of the Spartans. § 6. Character of the Cretans, Argives, Rhodians, Corinthians, Corcyræans, Syracusans, Sicyonians, Phliasians, Megarians, Byzantians, Æginetans, Cyrenæans, Crotoniats, Tarentines, Messenians, and Delphians.

1. After Anacharsis the Scythian had visited the different states of Greece, and lived among them all, he is reported to have said, that “all wanted leisure and tranquillity for wisdom, except the Lacedæmonians, for that these were the only persons with whom it was possible to hold a rational conversation.”(1809) The life of all the other Greeks had doubtless appeared to him as a restless and unquiet existence, as a constant struggle and effort without any object. In addition to the love of ease, which belonged to the original constitution of the Dorians, there was a further cause for this mode of life, viz. the entire exemption from necessary labour which the Spartans enjoyed, their wants being supplied by the dependent and industrious classes.(1810) Several writers have dwelt on the tedium and listlessness of such an existence; but the Spartans considered an immunity from labour an immunity from pain, and as constituting entire liberty.(1811) But, it may be asked, what was there to occupy the Spartan men from morning to night?(1812) In the first place, the gymnastic, military, and musical exercises; then the chase, which with men advanced in life was a substitute for other exercises;(1813) besides which, there was the management of public affairs, in which they might take an active part, together with the religious ceremonies, sacrifices, and choruses; and much time was also consumed in the places of public resort, or λέσχαι. Every small community had its lesche;(1814) and here the old men sat together in winter round the blazing fire, while the respect for old age gave an agreeable turn to the conversation. At Athens, too, these small societies or clubs were once in great vogue; but a democracy likes a large mass, and hates all divisions; and accordingly in later times the public porticoes and open market were generally attended, where every Athenian appeared once in the day. At Sparta, the youths were forbidden to enter the market-place;(1815) as well as the pylæa,(1816) which was in other Doric towns besides Delphi(1817) a place for buying and selling.(1818)

2. Having now so fully investigated the manners and daily occupations of the Dorians, it would be interesting to know what were their opinions on death, or on the existence of a future state; but on these points there is no information to be gleaned from ancient writers. Nor can much more be said on their funeral ceremonies, if indeed they had any rites peculiar and universally belonging to the whole race. At Tarentum, the dead were, according to an ancient oracle, called the majority (οἱ πλείονες);(1819) they were buried within the walls, each family having in their house tombstones, with the names of the deceased, where funeral sacrifices were performed;(1820) at Sparta, it was doubtless the ancient custom to bury the dead in the city, and in the neighbourhood of the temples.(1821) Monuments, with the names of the dead, were only erected to those who had fallen in battle,(1822) and many other honours were also paid them.(1823) The sacrifice to Demeter, on the twelfth day after death, evidently denotes the reception of the soul in the infernal regions; the Argives likewise sacrificed on the 30th day to Hermes, as conductor of the souls of the dead;(1824) in the same manner that the Athenians called the dead Δημητριακοὶ, i.e. returned to their mother earth. There was however a considerable difference between the Athenian and Doric modes of burying; for the former laid the body with the head to the west, the latter, at least the Megarians, to the east.(1825)

3. It now remains for us to collect into one point of view all that has been said in different parts of this work on the character of the Doric race, so as to furnish a complete and accurate idea of their nature and peculiarities. That this cannot be done in a few words is evident; but that it can be done at all, I consider equally clear; and by no means agree with those who deny that a whole nation, like an individual, can have one character; an error which is perhaps best refuted by consideration of the different tribes of Greece. And thus the word Dorian conveyed to the ancient Greeks a clear and definite, though indeed a complex idea.(1826)

The first feature in the character of the Dorians which we shall notice is one that has been pointed out in several places,(1827) viz. their endeavour to produce uniformity and unity in a numerous body. Every individual was to remain within those limits which were prescribed by the regulation of the whole body.(1828) Thus in the Doric form of government no individual was allowed to strive after personal independence, nor any class or order to move from its appointed place. The privileges of the aristocracy, and the subjection of the inferior orders, were maintained with greater strictness than in other tribes,(1829) and greater importance was attached to obedience, in whatever form, than to the assertion of individual freedom. The government, the army, and the public education, were managed on a most complicated, but most regular succession and alternation of commanding and obeying.(1830) Every one was to obey in his own place. All the smaller associations were also regulated on the same principle: always we find gradation of power, and never independent equality.(1831) But it was not sufficient that this system should be complete and perfect within; it was to be fortified without. The Dorians had little inclination to admit the customs of others, and a strong desire to disconnect themselves with foreigners.(1832) Hence in later times the blunt and harsh deportment of those Dorians who most scrupulously adhered to their national habits.(1833) This independence and seclusion would however sometimes be turned into hostility; and hence the military turn of the Dorians, which may also be traced in the development of the worship of Apollo.(1834) A calm and steady courage was the natural quality of the Dorian.(1835) As they were not ready to receive, neither were they to communicate outward impressions; and this, neither as individuals, nor as a body. Hence both in their poetry and prose, the narrative is often concealed by expressions of the feeling, and tinged with the colour of the mind.(1836) They endeavoured always to condense and concentrate their thoughts, which was the cause of the great brevity and obscurity of their language.(1837) Their desire of disconnecting themselves with the things and persons around them, naturally produced a love for past times; and hence their great attachment to the usages and manners of their ancestors, and to ancient institutions.(1838) The attention of the Doric race was turned to the past rather than to the future.(1839) And thus it came to pass that the Dorians preserved most rigidly, and represented most truly, the customs of the ancient Greeks.(1840) Their advances were constant, not sudden; and all their changes imperceptible. With the desire to attain uniformity, their love for measure and proportion was also combined. Their works of art are distinguished by this attention to singleness of effect, and everything discordant or useless was pruned off with an unsparing hand.(1841) Their moral system also prescribed the observance of the proper mean; and it was in this that the temperance (σωφροσύνη) which so distinguished them consisted.(1842) One great object of the worship of Apollo was to maintain the even balance of the mind, and to remove everything that might disquiet the thoughts, rouse the mind to passion, or dim its purity and brightness.(1843) The Doric nature required an equal and regular harmony, and preserving that character in all its parts.(1844) Dissonances, even if they combined into harmony, were not suited to the taste of that nation. The national tunes were doubtless not of a soft or pleasing melody; the general accent of the language had the character of command or dictation, not of question or entreaty. The Dorians were contented with themselves, with the powers to whom they owed their existence and happiness; and therefore they never complained. They looked not to future, but to present existence. To preserve this, and to preserve it in enjoyment, was their highest object. Everything beyond this boundary was mist and darkness, and everything dark they supposed the Deity to hate.(1845) They lived in themselves, and for themselves.(1846) Hence man was the chief and almost only object which attracted their attention. The same feelings may also be perceived in their religion, which was always unconnected with the worship of any natural object, and originated from their own reflection and conceptions.(1847) And to the same source may perhaps be traced their aversion to mechanical and agricultural labour.(1848) In short, the whole race bears generally the stamp and character of the male sex; the desire of assistance and connexion, of novelty and of curiosity, the characteristics of the female sex, being directly opposed to the nature of the Dorians, which bears the mark of independence and subdued strength.

4. This description of the Doric character, to which many other features might be added, is sufficient for our present purpose; and will serve to prove that the worship of Apollo, the ancient constitution of Crete and that of Lycurgus, the manners, arts, and literature of the Dorians, were the productions of one and the same national individual. To what extent this character was influenced by external circumstances cannot be ascertained; but though its features were impressed by nature, they might not in all places have been developed, and would have been lost without the fostering assistance of an inland and mountainous region. The country is to a nation what the body is to the soul: it may influence it partially, and assist its growth and increase; but it cannot give strength and impulse, or imprint that original mark of the Deity which is set upon our minds.

But outward circumstances, such as locality, form of government, geographical position, and foreign intercourse, had in the several states a different effect on the Doric character, unequally developing its various features, by confirming some, repressing others, and some wholly obliterating. We shall thus be enabled to separate the particular character of each state from the ideal character of the whole race, and also to explain their deviations, particularly in a political and practical point of view.

5. The Dorians of SPARTA were influenced by their geographical position, which, with the exception of that of the Arcadians, was more inland than that of any people in Peloponnesus; as well as by their supremacy, which they at first asserted with ease and dignity, and afterwards maintained by the devotion of all their forces to that one object. The independence and seclusion so desired by the Dorians were at Sparta most conspicuous, and thus the original spirit of the Doric race, and its ancient customs, were most rigidly, and sometimes even in trifles,(1849) there preserved; though it was the mummy rather than the living body of the ancient institutions. This deterioration, however, did not manifest itself till later times; for (as we have more than once remarked) at an early period the mode of life at Sparta was diversified, cheerful, and by no means unattractive. At that time Sparta was the centre and metropolis of Greece. This love of seclusion took a singular turn in the reserve, and in the short and sententious mode of expression, practised by the Laconians. Indeed their silence was carried to a pitch which exceeded the bounds of intentional concealment. Even the artfulness of the Spartans is after the Persian war often mentioned with blame; and it is said to have been impossible to guess their intention.(1850) Sometimes indeed the deception was founded on patriotic principles, as in the answer of the ambassador, who being asked in whose name he came, replied, “In the name of the state, if we succeed; if we fail, in our own.” Demostratus the son of Phæax said with great truth that the Spartans were better as members of a state, the Athenians as members of private society;(1851) the latter indeed were more left to their individual care and exertions, whilst the former were guided by national custom. Hence when they once deserted this guide, they deviated not partially, but wholly and widely from the right path.

Yet the history of the Peloponnesian war and of the period immediately following, being that part of the history of Greece which is clearest to our view, presents several distinguished and genuine Lacedæmonians, who may be divided into two distinct classes. Of these the first is marked by a cunning and artful disposition, combined with great vigour of mind, and a patriotism sometimes attended with contempt of other Greeks. Such was Lysander,(1852) a powerful revolutionist; who, concentrating in his own person the efforts of numerous oligarchical clubs and factions, by the strict consistency of his principles, and by his art in carrying them into effect, for some time swayed the destinies of Greece; until Agesilaus, whom he had himself improvidently raised to the throne, restored in place of his usurped power the legitimate authority of the Heraclide dynasty; this doubtless suggested to Lysander the idea of overthrowing the royal authority, and helped to bring on that deep melancholy which preyed upon his strong mind during his latter years.(1853) Similar in character to Lysander was Dercylidas, a man of extraordinary practical talent; who by his artfulness (which, however, was accompanied by uprightness of mind) obtained the nickname of Sisyphus.(1854) But Sparta had at the same time men of a contrary disposition, in whom, as Plutarch says of Callicratidas, the simple and genuine Doric manners of ancient times were alive and in vigour.(1855) This Callicratidas had at the very beginning of his career to contend with his partisans of Lysander, and resolutely resisted his club or association,(1856) being also directly opposed to them in disposition. He deplored the necessity which compelled him to beg for subsidies from the Persians; dealt uprightly and honestly with the allies; disdained all power and authority which did not emanate from the state; refused to do anything by private connexions or influence, and showed himself everywhere humane, magnanimous, and heroic; in short, he was a faultless hero, unless perhaps we should blame him for his too hasty self-immolation at the battle of Arginusæ.(1857) We can easily understand how the Greeks of Asia should have admired the virtues and greatness of the youthful hero, like the beauty of an heroic statue,(1858) but were at the same time more pleased with the proceedings of Lysander, as being better suited to the times. In Brasidas we admire chiefly the manner in which the same elevation of mind was combined with a particular skill in controlling and availing itself of the circumstances of the times; but we must hurry on to Pedaritus the son of Teleutia, who is an instance that all the harmosts of Sparta did not yield to the many temptations of their situation.(1859) But a more singular character was Lichas, the son of Arcesilaus, of whom we will give a slight sketch. He was chiefly distinguished by his liberality: whence by means of great banquets at the Gymnopædia,(1860) and by his victories in the chariot race at Olympia,(1861) he increased the fame of his city; by his boldness, which was even shown in his conduct at Olympia, at a time when the Spartans were excluded from the contests;(1862) but which was still more conspicuous in his truly Spartan declaration to the satrap Tissaphernes;(1863) and, lastly, by his policy in endeavouring to prevent the premature aggression of the Ionians against the Persians.(1864)

6. The flourishing age of CRETE, in manners as well as in power, is anterior to the historical period; and the early corruption of her ancient institutions was accompanied with universal barbarism and degeneracy. Of her maritime sovereignty of the mythical age nothing but piracy remained; the different states were not combined under the supremacy of a single city; and, even in the reign of Alcamenes, Sparta attempted to settle the mutual dissensions of those very cities(1865) which it had a century before taken for the models of its own constitution. The Cretans did not, however, confine their quarrelsome disposition to domestic feuds; but they began in early times to hire themselves as mercenaries to foreign states, which was certainly one cause of the internal corruption that made this once illustrious island act so ignoble a part in the history of Greece. If the verse of Epimenides (cited by St. Paul(1866)) is genuine, that prophet so early as about 600 B.C. accused his countrymen of being habitual liars, evil beasts, and indolent gluttons. Yet some particular cities (among which we may especially mention the Spartan town of Lyctus) retained with their ancient institutions the noble and pure customs of better times.(1867)

We have already more than once had occasion to explain how about the time of the Persian war ARGOS, by the changes in its constitution, and the direction of its policy, succeeded in obliterating almost every trace of the Doric character:(1868) but one revolution only led to another, and none produced a stable and healthy state of affairs. Argos indeed only adopted the worst part of the republican institutions of Athens; for their better parts could not be naturalized in a people of a race and nature totally different.(1869)

But that RHODES preserved to the latest period of Grecian independence many features of the Doric character we have already remarked.(1870) Still this island had, particularly in the time of Artemisia the Second, adopted many Asiatic customs; which, when mixed with those of a Greek origin, formed a peculiar compound; of which the Rhodian oratory, painting,(1871) and sculpture, should be considered as the products. The latter art had flourished there from ancient times; but later it took a particular turn towards the colossal, the imposing, and the grand style. The Laocoon and the Toro Farnese are in the number of its finest productions.(1872) Its manners are described by the saying that Rhodes was the town of wooers. There was also another proverb, that the Rhodians were “white Cyrenæans;” their luxury forming the point of resemblance, and their colour the difference.(1873)

The character of CORINTH likewise, in the time of the Peloponnesian war, was made up of rather discordant elements; for while there were still considerable remains of the Doric disposition, and its political conduct was some time guided by the principles of that race, there was also, the consequence of its situation and trade,(1874) a great bias to splendour and magnificence, which showed itself in the Corinthian order; but which, when abandoned by the graces and refinements of luxury, soon degenerated into debauchery and vice.(1875)

The character of CORCYRA we have attempted to delineate above.(1876)

SYRACUSE, though highly distinguished for its loyalty and affection to its mother-state, necessarily deviated widely from the character of Corinth. For while in the narrow and rocky territory of Corinth the crops were with difficulty extorted from the soil,(1877) in the colony, a large and fertile district, which was either held by the Syracusans, or was tributary to them, furnished to an over-peopled city a plentiful supply of provisions without foreign importation.(1878) In addition to this abundance, the early preponderance of democracy, and still more the levity, cunning, and address which were natural to the people of Sicily, tended to modify, or partly to destroy, the original Doric character. The Syracusans were, according to Thucydides, among all the adversaries of the Athenians in the Peloponnesian war, most like them in their customs and disposition.(1879) It is ever to be lamented that such remarkable talents, as showed themselves among the Syracusans between the 70th and 90th Olympiads, should have been without a regulating and guiding judgment: their most frequent error both in the state and army being a want of order(1880); and their knowledge of this defect was the reason why they so frequently threw themselves blindly into the arms of single individuals.(1881)

The vicinity of Corinth had undoubtedly a great influence on SICYON; yet that city, though it had a navy, was nevertheless without any considerable foreign trade or colonies. The restraints and monotony of life were undoubtedly less than at Sparta,(1882) but there was greater severity of manners than at Corinth. Sicyon was one of the earliest cradles of the arts and literature of the Dorians,(1883) and enjoyed a high distinction among the cities of Peloponnesus.(1884)

PHLIUS, having no communication with the sea, was destitute of all resources except its fertile valley; but this sufficed to give it considerable importance and power.(1885) The loyalty and bravery of its inhabitants(1886) deserved the partiality with which Xenophon has written the most distinguished period of its history.(1887)

MEGARA was unfortunately hemmed in between powerful neighbours; and on account of the scanty produce of its stony and mountainous, though well cultivated(1888) land, and the consequent deficiency of provisions, it was wholly dependent on the Athenian market, whither the Megarians were accustomed to carry their manufactures(1889) and some few raw materials. The weakness of this state had early an influence on the manners and morals of the people; the tears and mirth of the Megarians were turned into ridicule by their Athenian neighbours,(1890) who (according to the saying) would “rather be the ram than the son of a Megarian.” And at last the oracle itself declared them an insignificant and worthless people.

Nor could the mother-city have derived much assistance from BYZANTIUM, had there even been a closer connexion between them than was actually the case; as this important colony was, for the most part, in distressed circumstances, and after the introduction of democracy involved in domestic confusion. We have reasons to consider the account of the mode of life at Byzantium above quoted from Theopompus(1891) as correct; though that historian is accused of too great a fondness for censure. Damon likewise relates, that the Byzantians were so addicted to the pleasures of the table, that the citizens took up their regular abode in the numerous public houses of the city, and let their houses with their wives to strangers. The sound of the flute put them immediately into a merry movement; but they fled from that of a trumpet: and a general had no other means of keeping them on the ramparts during a close siege, than by causing the public houses and cook-shops to be removed thither.(1892) Byzantium was full of foreign and native merchants, seamen, and fishermen,(1893) whom the excellent wine of that city, supplied by Maronea and other regions, seldom permitted to return sober to their ships.(1894) The state of the government may be judged from the reply of a Byzantine demagogue, who being asked what the law enjoined, replied, “Whatever I please.”(1895)

ÆGINA, on the other hand, lost its fame only with its political existence. Its situation near the great commercial road, which had taken this course chiefly in consequence of the danger of doubling the promontory of Malea, the renown of its mythical history, and the peculiar vigour of the inhabitants, had carried their activity to such a height, as to give their island an importance in the history of Greece which will ever be remarkable.

Though at Rhodes the amalgamation of the different nations produced an uniform and consistent whole, this does not seem to have been the case at CYRENE, which was corrupted by Ægyptian and Libyan influence. We have only to notice the character of Pheretime, who from a Doric lady became an eastern sultana. It is remarkable that another Doric female, viz. Artemisia (whose father was of Halicarnassus, her mother of Crete(1896)), obtained a similar situation. In the mother-country, however, there is after the fabulous times hardly any instance of women being at the head either of Doric or other cities.(1897)

We have already spoken as much as our object required of the Doric town of CROTON(1898) in Italy; and several times touched on the decay of the Doric discipline and manners at TARENTUM. Their climate, which was very different from that of Greece,(1899) and the manners of the native tribes, must have had a very considerable share in changing the characters of these two cities; as the Tarentines did not subjugate only and slaughter the inhabitants (like the Carbinates), but received them within the limits of their large city, and gave them the rights of citizenship, by which means those words which we call Roman, but which were probably common to all the Siculians,(1900) were introduced into the Tarentine dialect.

In the MESSENIAN state, as restored by Epaminondas, the ancient national manners were (according to Pausanias(1901)) still retained; and the dialect remained up to the time of that author the purest Doric that was spoken in Peloponnesus. The reason of this either was, that the Helots who remained in the country, and doubtless formed the larger part of the new nation, had obtained the Doric character, or that the exiles had during their long banishment really preserved their ancient language, as we know to have been the case with the Naupactians in more ancient times.(1902) This the Messenians, who dwelt among the Euesperitæ of Libya, might have done, as they resided among Dorians; but it was less easy for the Messenians of Sicily,(1903) and wholly impossible for those of Rhegium. In the people of Rhegium in general there appears to have been little of the Doric character;(1904) nor probably in real truth among the later Messenians, however they might have endeavoured to bring back the ancient times.

Since we have frequently considered DELPHI as belonging to the number of the Doric cities, on a supposition that it was the seat of an ancient Doric nobility (although the people was chiefly formed of naturalized slaves of the temple), we have finally to observe on the character of the Delphians, that their early degeneracy (which even Æsop is said to have strongly reproved) is a phenomenon which has frequently taken place among the people residing in the immediate neighbourhood of national sanctuaries. The number and variety of strangers flocking together; the continual fumes of the altars, from which the natives were fed without labour or expense;(1905) the crowds of the market, in which jugglers and impostors of all kinds earned their subsistence,(1906) and the large donatives which Crœsus, with other monarchs and wealthy men, had distributed among the Delphians, necessarily produced a lazy, ignorant, superstitious, and sensual people; and cast a shade over the few traces of a nobler character, which can be discovered in the events of earlier times.

APPENDICES.

Appendix V. On the Doric Dialect.

1. The ancient grammarians divided the Greek language into four distinct branches—the Doric, Ionic, Attic, and Æolic; the latter including all dialects not comprised under the other three heads, because only one branch of it, the Lesbian, was the written language of one species of poetry: and yet this latter division must unquestionably have contained different species less connected with each other than with some branches of the other three dialects. It is, however, pretty well agreed that the several Æolic dialects together contained more remains of the primitive Grecian or (if we will so call it) Pelasgic language, than either the Doric, Ionic, or Attic; and that at the same time many forms of the latter were preserved with great fidelity in the Latin tongue; partly because the life of the Italian husbandmen bore a nearer resemblance to that of the ancient Greeks than that of the later Greeks themselves, and because neither their literature, nor any fastidious sense of euphony and rhythm, induced them to soften and refine their language. But of the more polished dialects, that of Homer, though differing in many points, yet in others doubtless closely resembled the original language, which must once have been spoken from Thessaly to Peloponnesus, and was variously metamorphosed in the Doric, Ionic, and Attic dialects. Thus, for example, the genitive case of the second declension, in the ancient form, was ΟΙΟ, which was preserved in the Thessalian dialect,(1907) perhaps also in the Bœotian,(1908) and in Latin I or EI is also perceivable; whilst in the Doric Ω and the Attic ΟΥ this vowel was entirely lost. The nominative of masculines of the first declension in Α belongs to the Latin, Homeric, Dryopian, Thessalian, Bœotian, Macedonian, and Elean dialects. In the Doric it was probably of rare occurrence, and more accidental.(1909) The Æolic dialect, which was spoken in Bœotia, likewise contains remarkable traces of an ancient Pelasgic language, and has striking coincidences with the Latin: thus in the ancient Bœotian inscriptions the dative of the first declension ends in ΑΕ. Gradually, however, it departed from this language, as the diphthongs ΑΙ and ΟΙ, which anciently were written ΑΕ and ΟΕ, were changed into Η and Υ: and thus almost all the vowels and diphthongs received a new form. On the other hand, we must be cautious of supposing the Latin to be the ancient form, in cases where a transmutation of letters has already taken place. The following is a remarkable example to this effect. ΟΠΩ, from whence “the eye,” ὄππα in the Æolic dialect,(1910) ὄφθος in the Elean,(1911) ὄπτιλος in the Spartan. In other dialect, ὄκκος, hence ὄκταλλος in the Bœotian, in the Latin oculus, where Π and Κ bear the same relation to each other as in the words πέτυρες (Æolic) quatuor, πέμπτος, quintus, ποῖ, quo, πόθι, alicubi. Moreover the Latin has a very large number of words derived from the Campanian and Doric Greeks, which must be distinguished from the primitive Greek dialect.

2. These remarks are merely premised in order to point out the authorities upon which all investigations into the form of the most ancient language of the Greeks should be founded. We have already intimated our dissent from those who, in opposition to Pausanias,(1912) suppose the Doric to have been the native dialect of Peloponnesus, not only disallowing the claim of the Dorians to its introduction, but even denying that they were the first to adopt it. This supposition would leave us without any means of explaining how the dialect of the Dorians of Peloponnesus agreed in so many peculiar idioms with that of their fellow-countrymen in Crete, the close and general connexion between the two being of an earlier date than the Doric invasion of Peloponnesus. The ancient Peloponnesian dialect was certainly that language which may be recognized in the Latin and in Homer, many of the peculiarities of which occur indeed, but many of the most essential are not found, in the Doric dialect. This latter dialect was, however, very widely diffused over that peninsula by the preponderance of the Dorians, being not merely adopted by the Helots (who even at Naupactus spoke Doric), the Orneatæ,(1913) the Laconian Periœci, and the Attic inhabitants of Colonides;(1914) but even by the independent Arcadians, who, according to Strabo, used indeed the Æolic dialect, but were generally supposed to adopt the Doric (δωρίζειν), as also did Philopœmen.(1915) Unfortunately we have little information respecting the dialect of the Arcadians, our chief guide being the names of their towns, in which several Dorisms occur; as, for instance, Καφυαὶ (from Κηφεὺς), Νᾶσοι, Ἀνεμῶσα (ἀνεμόεσσα), and some anomalous forms, such as Λαδοκέα for Λαοδικέα, Θελποῦσα for Τιλφοῦσσα, Dor. Τιλφῶσσα, Κραρεῶτις, a tribe of Tegea, for Κλαρεῶτις.(1916) The Eleans, on the other hand, spoke nearly pure Doric; which is shown indeed by their use of the digamma,(1917) by their broad accent, and the Ω in the genitive case; but chiefly by the frequent use of Ρ, which, besides the ΤΟΙΡ, ΤΙΡ in the well-known treaty of the Eleans,(1918) is also proved by the Elean forms δίκαρ (for δίκας or δικαστὴς), οὗτορ, ἵππορ and similar forms, whence the Eleans were called βαρβαρόφωνοι.(1919) Moreover, the Apollo Θέρμιος of the Eleans was the same as Apollo Θέσμιος, in Attic Greek.(1920) Eretria was founded by Eleans in conjunction with other Greeks, whence the frequent use of the Ρ in that town;(1921) and from this city the neighbouring Chalcideans also adopted it;(1922) whilst among the Carystians another peculiarity of the Spartan Elean dialect prevailed, in the change of Θ into Σ.(1923) The Eretrians, however, received from the Eleans another peculiarity of the pure Doric, viz. the use of the aspirate in the place of Σ; and imparted it to the Oropians, their neighbours, and sometimes their subjects, on the other side of the strait.(1924) Thus it is evident that the dialect of the Eleans was very similar, nay, almost akin, to the Spartan. Now it is very improbable that this strict observance of the Doric dialect should have been learnt by mere intercourse, since on no side were they in immediate contact with Dorians. It is much more probable that the Ætolians, who conquered Elis, used, from their vicinity to the Dorians, the same dialect: that they spoke Doric in later times, is proved by the testimony of ancient authors and monuments extant;(1925) and the same was also the language of the inhabitants of the ancient Epirus Proper.(1926) It seems, therefore, that this dialect was formed in the northern and mountainous districts of Greece, particularly in the vicinity of mount Pindus, from whence the Dorians brought it in their migration to the more southern parts of the country, where they were in consequence commonly regarded as the race with whom it first originated.

3. To determine with any degree of precision how much climate and the nature of the soil contributed to the formation of this dialect, would be a matter of extreme difficulty; although the comparison of the corresponding dialects of different languages with the various localities in which each was formed may lead to several interesting observations. There can be no doubt that a mountain life is favourable to the formation of the pure, broad, and long vowels, such as Α and Ω; as also that a residence in the lowlands and on the coast produces rather modifications of the long vowels(1927) and short syllables. It should, however, be borne in mind, that the influence of these causes upon language was in full operation at one period only, when the organs generally evinced greater pliancy in adapting themselves to the various peculiarities of situation. In later times, Doric was spoken in maritime towns, as low German is now in mountains and highlands. We must likewise remember, that not only the country, but also the people, bore a distinct national character, the influence of which upon their language must have been full as great as of the former. The hypothesis that the ancient dialects were determined more by internal than external influence, more by the nature of the men than the influence of place, is confirmed by a remarkable passage of Jamblichus,(1928) who had probably derived this sentiment from the schools of the early Pythagoreans: he pronounces the Doric dialect to be the most ancient and best, comparing it, on account of the sounding vowels with which it abounded, to the enharmonic style of music, as he does the Ionic and Æolic dialects to the chromatic style. The only meaning of this remark can be, that the long vowels Α and Ω were pronounced in as clear and marked a manner (particularly when, as was often the case, they were circumflexed) as a bar separated by a double bar in the tetrachord strung to the enharmonic pitch, so much used for music of the Doric style.(1929) Otherwise a manly character is always attributed to the Doric dialect:(1930) its fitness for solemn occasions and simple expression is shown by the literary remains which have come down to us.

4. It cannot be expected that we should here enter into a minute examination of all the peculiarities of the Doric dialect: the following brief remarks will, it is hoped, be received as an attempt rather to set forth the most remarkable features of the spoken language, than to explain the niceties of the polished style used in writing and poetry. The frequent use of Α prevailed indeed partially in the ancient dialect, and in most cases the use of Η originated in the Ionic, which in this respect bore nearly the same relation to the ancient Greek as the English language does to the German.(1931) The broad pronunciation (πλατειασμὸς) of the Dorians frequently, however, exceeded that of the ancient language, as may be seen from the Latin. Thus φαγὸς, fagus—φάμα, fama—μᾶλον, malum—ἀρχᾶς, terras (genit.) κᾶρυξ, (caduceus), and the like, are clearly the genuine ancient forms. On the other hand, the change from Α to Η in the temporal augment existed in the most ancient Greek, as is evident from ago, ēgi, ἦγον, capio, cēpi, &c. The Doric dialect, however, here also used Α in the place of Η. I am not aware whether another change very nearly coinciding with the latter has ever been noticed, viz. the frequent use of the short Α for Η, especially in the enclitics, as κᾶ (which however is long) for κε or ἂν, a form common to all the Dorians, and in the same manner γα for γε,(1932) κα for the correlative τε in τόκα, πόκα, ὅκα in Sophron, Theocritus, and others, to which corresponds θα in πρόσθα, ἐξύπισθα (Alcman), ἔμπροσθα, ἄνωθα.(1933) The same change is also observable in ἅτερος for ἕτερος, τράφω for τρέπω,(1934) Αρταμις(1935) for Αρτεμις, τάως, παραιτέρω, in the Cretan dialect,(1936) τάμνω in the Heraclean Tables and elsewhere, σκιαρὸς, φρασὶν, in Pindar; and innumerable examples of a similar kind. Η, either as a contraction of ΕΕ, or a lengthening of Ε, occurs in many instances in the place of ΕΙ in the other dialects (the reverse took place among the Bœotians), as in ποίη, πλήων, μήων,(1937) ὄρηος, Λύκηος (Alcman), κοσμῆν, κατοικῆν (Theocritus, and the Byzantine Decree in Demosthenes(1938)), δήρας for δείρας in the treaty of the Latians in Crete,(1939) χῆρες in Cretan, and also used by Alcman, κῆνος or τῆνος in Alcman and others; πεπόνθης, ἀπολώλη Theocritus and the Heraclean tables: and thus in contractions from ΑΕΙ, Η has frequently preponderated over Α, as in the pure Doric form ὁρῆν,(1940) ἡ καρδία παδῆ Sophron;(1941) although it must also be allowed that the diphthong ΑΕ was contracted into Η, as in ὅρη, &c. ἦραι for ἆραι,(1942) and ἐνίκη for ἐνίκαε in a Laconian inscription in Leake’s Morea, vol. III. Inscript. n. 71.:(1943) to which instances we should probably add the following cases of crasis, κἠν, κἠπὶ, κἠκ. The reverse of this, which we find in the words πει in Sophron,(1944) and ὅπει in a Corcyrean inscription(1945) for πῆ and ὄπη, is a remarkable variety. The Dorians, consistently with their love for the pure and long Α, were equally partial to the Ω. This letter frequently forms the original sound, as in the accusative case Ἀργείως, Argivos; and hence the abbreviated form θεὸς for θεὼς in Cretan and Coan(1946) inscriptions, and in Theocritus, was probably formed by an elision of the characteristic vowel, as δεσποτᾶς in the first declension. We frequently also find use made of the vowel Ω as a prolongation of Ο, instead of the common form ΟΥ, produced by the elision of consonants: thus in the form of the participle feminine in ωσα, used in Crete and Peloponnesus, and also in the Heraclean Tables, whilst the softer form in οισα, where οι was also derived from οντ (as in the third person plural ναίοισιν, and in the masculine participle τύψαις), was perhaps peculiar to Sicily. Ο also, when followed by Ε, overpowers the latter letter, and is changed into Ω, as for instance in Κοιλῶσσα (a mountain near Phlius), λωτρὸν, ὑπνῶν for ὑπνόεν, Laconian forms in Aristophanes, παμῶχος, and similar words in the Heraclean Tables; though whether this is the case when the Ε precedes the Ο is doubtful, for in εὐορκῶσι and similar forms in Cretan inscriptions, it is ΕΩ, not ΕΟ, which is contracted into Ω. In this case ΕΟ is generally contracted into ΕΥ, or it is changed into ΙΟ, as ΕΩ into ΙΩ; thus μογίομες, λυχνοφορίοντες in the Lysistrata of Aristophanes (according to the old reading), ἐπαινιῶ, ὀμιώμεθα ib., ανιοχιων for ἡνιοχέων in the Laconian inscription in Leake, No. 71. with which compare ἐμμενιῶ in the oath of the Latians, πραξίομεν in the decree of the Istionians, and παμωχιῶ in the Heraclean Tables.(1947) In the above cases there is no reason for assuming any other changes, than from ΕΟ into ΙΟ and ΕΩ into ΙΩ, as the Dorians appear to have been very unwilling to tolerate Ε with Ο; the short Ι, however, before the lengthened Ο must have been particularly suited to their ears. The long Α in Ἀλκμὰν, Ἀτρείδα, Ἀγησίλας, πρᾶτος was without doubt a thick sound between Α and Ο, for which there was no distinct character. The Spartan dialect frequently has ΟΥ for Υ (which change regularly occurs in the Bœotian dialect), as δίφουρα for γέφυρα (Hesychius in v.), φούἱξ for φυσίγξ (Valck. ad Adoniaz, p. 276.), μουσίδδω for μυθίζω (ibid. p. 279.), φούαξιρ (vol. I. p. 384. note f.), μοῦκορ for μυχὸς (Koen p. 343.), καμπούληρ, a species of olive-tree (in Hesychius), derived, I believe, from κάμπτων ὕλην, κάρουα for κάρυα (Hesych. in v.); οὐδραίνει, περικαθαίρει according to Hesych. for ὑδραίνει, τούνη for σὺ (Hesych.), ἀπεσσούα for ἀπεσύν in the letter of Hippocrates (compare Coray ad Plut. Alcib. 28.). ΟΙ for Υ is only found in Ποίθιοι, according to Photius.

5. The consonants in the Doric dialect were in some cases so brought together as to give the words a roughness which was avoided in other dialects, and consequently it possessed more of that ancient fulness of consonants which was preserved with greater fidelity in the Latin language than in the Greek; partly from the neglect of that law, which was so constantly observed by all the dialects of the Greek, that every word should end either with a vowel or semi-vowel. The Doric has at least the ancient form of the participle τιθὲνς (Lat. ns, in ancient Gothic ants), which is quoted as a Cretan and Argive form;(1948) and the preposition ἐνς for in with the accusative (into), which in other dialects was changed into εἰς; but in the Doric it became, by the omission of the final Σ, ἐν in the sense of into, as in Crete and in Pindar,(1949) although Cretan inscriptions of considerable antiquity have εἰς, which appears to have been the usual Laconian form. Thus also the Cretans and Argives formed the future in σπένσω, merely throwing out δ, as a τ is properly omitted in τιθένς.(1950) The Rhegians adopted the same usage from the Messenians.(1951) It is clear that the organs of the ancient Doric race were better fitted for this rough pronunciation than the more delicate ones of the other Greeks, who even changed the Roman Hortensius into Ὁρτήσιος. The same remark may be applied to the word μάκαρς in Alcman (fragm. 66.), and some similar forms.

Another more striking characteristic of the Doric dialect is the aversion to Σ, the σὰν κίβδαλον; hence the Doric lyric poets, Lasus and others, wrote poems without that letter; a practice in direct contradiction with the partiality shown by the Ionians for that sound. To this principle may be traced various other peculiarities: first, the interchange of Σ and Τ, which, however, is on the whole merely a relic of the original dialect, as in the adjectives ἐνιαύτιος and πλούτιος,(1952) in τὺ or τοὺ, tu, in τέσσαρες, quatuor, in the third persons δίδωτι, φατὶ, which still retain this form in Sanscrit (while in the Latin and German languages T is always the last letter of this third person). Also in the name of Neptune the Doric was doubtless the original form, having the same root as πόντος, ποταμός; the original form was Ποτίδας (in Epicharmus and Sophron(1953)), and the Megarian in Aristophanes says Ποτείδας; so also the Corinthians; and hence their colony Ποτειδαία,(1954) Ποτειδᾶν (from Ποτειδάων) was the Spartan and the Rhodian form.(1955) It is singular that in some cases the Dorians also used Σ for Τ, as σᾶτες for τῆτες,(1956) corresponding to which we find σάμερον in Pindar, Theocritus, and the Tarentine dialect (a word, according to Hesychius, synonymous with νῦν); the σὰ for τὰ of the Megarians, and this latter for τίνα is the same change.(1957) It was this aversion to Σ, noticed above, which led the Spartans in the double consonants ΣΤ, ΣΚ, ΣΠ, to reject the Σ and double the other consonant; hence the Laconian forms κτίτταρ for κτίστης, ἐττὰν for ἐς τὰν, ἀμπίτταρ for ἀμφιστὰς,(1958) ἀκκὸρ for ἀσκὸς.(1959) Valckenær lays down the following rule: “literam Σ Lacones in sequentem consonantem non liquidam mutant;” and of this change he finds traces in the Tarentine dialect, to which we may add, that Hecate, according to Hesychius, was there called ἄφραττος, i.e. ἄφραστος. The most interesting example of this change in the Spartan dialect is the form ἄττασι for ἀνάστηθι (derived from ΑΝΤΤΑΣΙ), in which word more than three Laconisms are discernible. With this point is immediately connected the change of Ζ, i.e. ΣΔ into ΔΔ, for instance in verbs in ζω, Laconice—δδω, many instances of which occur in the Lysistrata and Acharneans of Aristophanes. There is no evidence of the same change occurring in verbs whose characteristic is Γ; although the Dorians were induced by analogy and a partiality to the letter Ξ to introduce the termination ξω, where the characteristic letter was not Γ but Δ, which is evident by the formation of the substantive καθίππαξις (as should be read in Hesychius for καθίπταξις), δεικηλίκτας, &c.(1960) Even in the Laconian dialect, however, the soft sound of ΣΔ is used instead of ΔΔ, as ἀγίσδεο, μελισδόμενος, τράπεσδα in Alcman, and in the pretended apophthegm of Lycurgus, ἂν πτωχοὶ μένητε καὶ μὴ μέσδω (i.e. μείζω) ἅτερος θατέρω ἐράῃ κτῆμεν.(1961) It would however be erroneous to suppose, with regard to the mode in which this transition was effected, that the sound of Ζ, when already formed, passed into ΔΔ or ΣΔ. The ancient dialect appears to have had a separate Δ, pronounced with a peculiar compression of the mouth; the Dorians in several cases, agreeing with the Ionians, added the Σ, and formed either Ζ, where the sounds were more combined, or ΣΔ. In other cases the Dorians merely gave additional force to the Δ. With the Æolians there was scarce any distinction between the harsh and the common Δ, as in Δεὺς for Ζεὺς, δυγὸς for ζυγὸς &c.; in the same manner Ζεὺς in the Latin became Deus, ῥίζα radix, ὄζω odor,(1962) and hence the long Ζ was wanting in that language; but the peculiarity of the original sounds of this consonant is evident from the circumstance that the Latins substituted for it I; for example in jugum from ζυγὸς, major from μείζων, &c.; in like manner the Æolic dialect interchanged δια and ζα, καρζὰ, καρδία.(1963) The change of the last letters of verbs ending in -σσω into -ζω in the Tarentine dialect, instead of ττω like the other Dorians, as ἀνάζω for ἀνάσσω, is quite peculiar to that town.(1964)

6. Another mode of avoiding the sound of Σ was to omit it altogether. This suppression was made at an early date in the third person plural, which consequently retained a nearer resemblance to the original form in the Doric than in the Ionico-Attic dialect, in which the preservation of Σ soon caused the ΝΤ to be dropped. Examples of this, as πεινῶντι, ἀποδίδωντι, κεχάναντι, αἰνέοντι (bhavanti, in Sanscrit, corresponding to the ancient high German ant; the Bœotians wrote -ωνθι, -ανθι) are found in all the Doric inscriptions; yet Alcman uses the termination -ουσι as well as the ancient form. Sometimes this elision of σ lengthened the preceding vowel, as in Πηρεφονεία Lacon. for Περσεφονεία, according to Hesychius, with which we may compare πῆριξ for πέρδιξ in the Cretan dialect (ibid.); also πρειγεύτας, πρείγιστος, πρειγηία in Cretan inscriptions for πρεσβεύτης, &c.; the Argives also used Γ for Β in πέργεις. (See Hesychius.) Concerning the omission of Σ before Φ, e.g., φὶν for σφὶν, in the Laconic dialect, see Koen p. 254.; the Syracusans changed the place of the Σ, and converted ΣΦΙΝ into ΦΣΙΝ, i.e. ψίν. This aversion to Σ also appeared in the substitution of the aspirate for this consonant, in which change the pure Doric dialect is directly at variance with the Latin, in which the aspirate was often replaced by Σ, for example, ἅλς, sal, ἡμι, semi, ὕλϜη, sylva,(1965) &c. The Laconians, on the other hand, used μῶἁ, instead of μῶσα, and on the same principle μωἱκὰ, music, as also in the participles κλεῶἁ, ἐκλιπῶἁ, &c, to which we may add ὅρμαὁν for ὅρμησον, as in Aristophanes; also ποιῆἁς, πᾶἁ, βίὡρ for ἵσως,(1966) βουὅα for βουσόα;(1967) the same usage also prevailed among the Argives, as we learn from Dercyllus, among the Eretrians, who borrowed it from the Eleans, and also among the Pamphylians; with whom several Argive and Rhodian peculiarities of dialect appear to have been preserved.(1968) Lastly, with this aversion to Σ is connected the rhotacismus, which we have already observed in the Spartan and Elean dialect, and of which the interpreters of the decree against Timotheus,(1969) particularly Casaubon, have collected many examples. Of these I will only cite ἐπιγελαστὴρ, the mocker; καλλίαρ, an ape (Hesych. in vv. comp. Boeckh Exp. Pind. Pyth. II. p. 251); κιλλακτὴρ, an ass-driver (Pollux VII. 13. 56.); σάριρ, a palm-branch (Hesych.); τίρ, τίς, (ib. and in the Elean Rhetra), παλαιὸρ (Aristoph. Lys. 988.), σιὸρ θεὸς, πὸρ ποῦς, νέκυρ νέκυς, βόμβυρ a kind of flute (Hesych. in vv.). Whether in the oblique cases Σ could always be changed into Ρ is uncertain, since, besides the Elean Rhetra, no genuine monument, and only a few and obscure glosses, afford any information on the point. However, ἀμ᾽ ἀρκᾶρ for ἀπ᾽ ἀρχᾶς (according to Koen’s conjecture ad Gregor. p. 283.) is an instance, as also the Cretan τέορ for σοῦ (Hesych.), where the pronoun is declined, as ἐμοῦς, ἐμέος, ἐμεῦς in Epicharmus.(1970) We may observe that generally the Latin is in this respect very different from the pure Doric; though it resembles it in some words. Thus the Laconian ἀκτὴρ is the Latin actor, and in gubernator we see the Doric form κυβερνατὴρ, and so in other instances.(1971)

7. Notwithstanding this fuga sibili—this aversion to the Σ—to which almost all the changes mentioned in the last two sections may be traced—yet the Doric dialects always retained in the first person plural the final Σ from the ancient language (as is proved by the Latin -mus);(1972) and Laconians, Megarians, and Doric Sicilians said ἥκομες, ἀπορέομες, &c. It does not appear that in the Doric dialect any original consonant passed into Σ, except Θ; and this change probably arose from a desire to soften the harsh sound of the aspirate. Instances of this Laconism in Alcman (Ἀσᾶναι, ἔσηκε, σάλλεν, σαλασσομέδοισαν), in the Lysistrata (ἤνσε, ἔλση, σιγεῖν, μουσίδδειν, &c.), and the grammarians (e.g. σὶνκασεύδει, κασαίρηὁν, for καθαίρησον, according to Koen, κασαρεύειν, according to Valckenær) are well known, and particularly σεῖος ἀνήρ; comp. Valckenær, p. 277, sqq. who has treated this point with great ability. Also in Hesychius, συμβουαδεῖ, ὑπερμαχεῖ (for συμβοηθεῖ) we should probably write συμβουασεῖ (otherwise Hemsterhuis), and κασελατίσαι, καθίσαι, ibid. is from ἕλλα, ἕλα, κάθεδρα, sella; whence ἑλατίζειν, καθελατίζειν, sedere facio. In this respect the colonists of Sparta at Tarentum did not follow the idiom of their mother city; as they said θυλακίζειν, not συλακίζειν, to beg:(1973) the Rhodians also retained the original Θ in ἐρυθίβη (Strabo XIII. p. 613. Eustath. ad Il. α. 34.): in Cretan this change only occurs in σεῖναι for θεῖναι in Hesychius, and in σίος in the treaty of the Olontians: for Corinth may be cited Σίσυφος for Θεόσοφος, according to Phavorinus, p. 403. Dindorf; for Sicyon perhaps σειρὸν, θέριστρον, Hesych. and also στίαι for θριαὶ, Schol. Apoll. R.h. II. 1172. That the Eleans were acquainted with this variety has been shown above.

8. In general the Dorians had less inclination to aspirated consonants than the other tribes of Greece, and therefore in many respects their dialect remained nearer to the primitive language. Thus the Lacedæmonians and Cretans said ἀμπὶ for ἀμφὶ (Koen ad Greg. p. 344), the latter in the derivative ἀμπέτιξ, the former in ἀμπέσαι, (above, p. 332, note f. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “orthography,” starting “For instance, ΜΟΥΣΩ.”]) in ἀμπίτταρ (p. 35, note a. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “ἀμπίτταρες,” starting “I. q. ἀμφιστάντες.”]) ἀμπίθυρον in Hesychius; ἀμφαρμένη, δίκελλα, Hesych. utrinque aptata, makes an exception. So also the Thessalians called the river Ἀμφίρρυσος, Ἀμβίρρυσος (Schol. Apoll. Rh. I. 51); and the same, according to the general rule (vol. I. p. 3, note g.), must be Macedonian and Latin. Some instances of Κ for Χ in the Cretan, Laconian, and Sicilian dialect, see in Koen p. 340, sqq.; Pindar’s δέκεσθαι is probably also Doric, as well as in the Heraclean Tables. According to Hesychius in εὔπλουτον, the Dorians called the baskets in which the οὐλοχύται were carried ὀλβακήια, where ὀλβὰ is οὐλὴ, and the termination -κήια is probably formed from χέω, unless (as is probable) we should correct -χήια here and in the word ὀλβάχιον, where Deinolochus (the Sicilian) is quoted as authority. (Compare Suidas in δερβιστήρ.) The aspirate by itself is absent from the words ἀγέομαι,(1974) ἀγησίχορος and the names Ἆγις, Ἀγήσανδρος, Ἀγησίπολις, and Ἀγησίλαος (Ion. Ἡγησίλεως); originally perhaps all these names had the digamma, as Βαγὸς, a general Lacon. in Hesychius. The aspirate was also neglected by the Lacedæmonians in the pronoun ἀμὲς, ἀμῶν;(1975) as well as by the Cretans, as is evident from the words ΠΟΡΤΑΜΕ, i.e. πορτὶ ἀμὲ, in an inscription (Chishull, p. 115. 10.), and by the Dorians. In the word ἰάλλω likewise the lene breathing is Doric, as is shown by ἀπιάλλειν in Thucyd. V. 77: and the Syracusan name Ἐπιάλης (Demetrius περὶ Ἑρμηνείας, § 157. Eustath. ad Il. ε᾽. p. 571. Rom.). On the other hand the digamma was retained nearly as much among the Lacedæmonians and other Dorians, as by most of the Æolians; among the Dorians, however, it generally assumed the form of Β. See Etymol. M. p. 308. 26. Gudian. p. 104. 12. I will only cite a few examples. The Laconian word for “splendour” was βέλα, Ϝέλα (Hesychius), i.e. ἕλη, whence by the prefix α, signifying an union or number, the word ἀβελιος (ΑϜΕΛΙΟΣ) was formed, literally “a collection or mass of brightness;” the Cretan and Pamphylian name for the sun (Hesychius; compare Hemsterhuis ad Hesych. in θάβακον).(1976) The Greek or Æolic word for the “ear” was αὖας, in Latin auris, in Doric ὦϜας (like καππώτας for καταπαύτης), whence the Laconian word ἐξωβάδια (i.e. ἐξωϜάτια) ἐνώτια, in Hesychius. In ὠατωθήσω, ἀκούσομαι, Doric according to Photius, the digamma is lost, as well as in the Tarentine contraction ἆτα, Hesychius. From the root ΔΑΙϜΩ, to burn, are derived the Laconian forms δάβει, καύεται (vulg. κάθηται, otherwise Hemsterhuis), ἐκδάβη, ἐκαύθε; δάβελος, δαλὸς in Hesychius; also τῦρ δάϜιον in Alcman, fragm. 76. ed. Welcker. In Crete also we find the forms ἀβηδὼν for ἀηδὼν, βαλικιώτης for ἡλικιώτης, βαίκα for αἴκα or ἐὰν (Hesychius and Koen ad Greg. p. 251.); according to the same grammarian the Cretans called their shields λαῖβαι, i.e. LÆVÆ, the left; thus by a reverse analogy the Greeks said παρ᾽ ἀσπίδα for “to the left.” The Laconian word for “the dawn,” was ΑϜΩΣ (also retained in μιργάβωρ, λυκόφως, Hesych. i.e. μισγ-άϜως), among the other Greeks ΗΩΣ: and as from the latter form the name of the east-wind εὖρος was derived (answering to ζέφυρος, ὃς ἐκ ζόφου πνεῖ), so from the Doric ἄϜως came the word αὖρα, which had in this dialect the peculiar sense of “morning;” hence ἐναύρω πρωῒ, Κρῆτες, and ἀβὼ, Λάκωνες, Hesychius. At Argos the digamma occurs in ὤβεα for ᾠὰ (ova) Hesych.; at Hermione a double digamma in βεῦδος for ἕδος, ἄγαλμα, Etymol. M. p. 195. 52.; at Syracuse in ἔβασον for ἔασον, which was also a Laconian form, ib. p. 308. 26. Hesych.

9. If we except the changes of the vowels, semivowels, and aspirates, there are not many others peculiar to the Doric dialect, since the mediæ and tenues were seldom inverted, and not often letters which are not cognate. It is worthy of remark that the Dorians frequently changed both Β and Γ into Δ, the former in δέλτον, good, compared with βέλτιον, and ὀδελὸς for ὀβελός;(1977) the latter in δᾶ for γᾶ, δένος for γένος, δίφουρα for γέφυρα in Laconian, δεῦκος for γλυκὺς in Ætolian, which likewise was preserved in the Latin dulcis.(1978) I should also remark that πέδα for μετὰ is pure Doric, as is proved by Alcman ap. Athen. X. p. 416 A. the Laconian word πέδευρα, ὕτερον, in Hesychius, πεδάϜοικοι for μέτοικοι in an Argive inscription (Boeckh. No. 14.), and the Corcyræan inscription in Mustoxidi, tom. II. p. 70. (as it appears.)

The Doric dialect is also marked by a strong tendency to the omission of letters both in composition and flexion. In composition the prepositions κατὰ, ἀνὰ, ποτὶ become monosyllables by the suppression of the last vowel: and even with the first syllable short in καβαίνων, Alcman. fragm. 34. κάπετον, Pindar. Olymp. VIII. 48. compare Hesychius in κάβλημα and κάβασι. The Venus ἀμβολογήρα of Sparta (Pausan. III. 18. 1.) has been already explained from ἀναβάλλειν τὸ γῆρας, as also Ζεὺς καππώτας (ib. III. 22. 1.) as Ζεὺς καταπαύτης. Κάκκη, κάθευδε, Laconice in Hesychius, shortened by apocope from κάκκησι, i.e. κατάκειθι, as ἔμβη for ἔμβησι in Aristoph. Lys. 1303. In conjugation the Dorians frequently shortened the ancient longer forms by apocope, and not, like the other cases, by contraction; as in the infinitives δόμεν for δόμεμαι, εἶμεν or ἦμεν for ἤμμενκι, &c. the uncontracted form being seldom used, as ἤμεναι Aristoph. Ach. 775., ἀλεξέμεναι, Thucyd. V. 77., or the contracted, as σκιρωθῆναι in Sophron. ap. Etym. M. p. 717, ext. and in Alcman. fragm. 23, Welcker is probably right in changing χαρῆθαι into χαρῆναι. Also the shortened third persons of the aorists, διέγνον in the Heraclean Tables, ἔδον (Corp. Inscript. No. 1511.), ἀνέθεν (ib. No. 29.), διελέγεν in the decree of the Oaxians, διελέγην in that of the Istronians; as well as the infinitives in εν and the second persons in ες, for ειν and εις, and many other similar changes. The forms εἴμειν, γεγόνειν are not merely Agrigentine; the former also occurs in an inscription (probably of Rhodes) in Chandler, p. 14. No. 38: the Sicilian adverbs τῶ, τουτῶ (τουτῶ θάμεθα Sophron. fragm. 34. Mus. Crit. vol. II. p. 347.) for πόθεν, τουτόθεν, also come under this head. Ammonius adds πῦς for πόσε and ποῖ for πόθε.

10. With regard to the differences of syntax, we may remark that the article was much used by the Dorians; as is evident from several passages in the Spartan choruses in the Lysistrata of Aristophanes.(1979) It may be also observed that the article occurs very frequently in all the early monuments of Doric nations;(1980) and that in the Doric poetry, particularly of Alcman, it was first introduced into the literature of Greece: the earlier language having been quite destitute of it. Hence perhaps it may be inferred that it was the Dorians who introduced the general use of the article; which would afford some idea of the changes which the Greek language experienced in consequence of the revolution caused by the Doric invasion.

Every dialect has peculiar words; but it is remarkable when these are radical forms, expressing very common ideas, and when they are quite foreign to the other dialects of the same language. This at least is true of the Laconian word χάος, χάϊος, ἀχαῖος, “good” (Aristoph. Lys. 90, 1157. Hesychius in ἀχαία, where Heinsius would without reason omit the α, Theocrit. VII. 4.), of κόος, “large” (Etymol. M. p. 396. 29.), which words stand quite isolated in the common language: also λῆν, “to wish” (Koen. p. 252. Maittaire p. 278.), and μάω, “I think,” “I seek,” are pure Doric forms; the latter a Laconian and Sicilian word, see Toup Emend, in Suid. vol. I. p. 462. Meineke Euphorion. p. 162.(1981)

11. As yet we have considered the Doric dialect in general, as spoken by the whole race, only marking out the Laconian as its purest variety; we will now annex a brief list of those shades of difference which can be perceived in the language of the several states. The broad peculiarities of the Doric dialect of Laconia are partly known from the remains of Alcman (who however avoided in his poetry such harsh forms as μῶἁ for μῶσα, λιπῶἁ for λιπῶσα or λιποῖσα, and never uses Σ for Ρ, &c.); and more fully from the Spartans in the Lysistrata. On comparing these with the Spartan and Argive treaty in Thucydides V. 77., there is indeed a general agreement; yet in this document the contractions ἀναιροῦντας, πεντηκονταέτη, δοκῇ, πόλει (but πολίεσι and αὐτοπόλιες), also ἐρίζοι and δικάζεσθαι, together with ως in the accusative of the substantives, but ους of the adjectives, can hardly be considered as pure Doric; nor is there any instance of the change of Σ into the aspirate, and Σ for Θ only in the word σιῶ. With regard to the indiscriminate use of Ω and ΟΥ our copies of Thucydides are not much authority: for these two sounds were not distinguished in the writing of the time, being both expressed by Ο; and it is probable that some forms have been modified either by Thucydides or his copyists, or both. On the whole, however, it is probable that the popular dialect of Peloponnesus, which is preserved in all its harshness in the famous treaty of the Eleans, was about the time of the Peloponnesian war softened down in public documents and treaties. Thus in a Lacedæmonian inscription of later date, we still find the ancient forms στατερας, αιγιναιος, αργυριο, Ϝικατι, δαρικος οκτακατιος, from a restoration, but also χιλιους δαρ[ικους], Corp. Inscript. No. 1511. In the Spartan decree preserved by Plutarch in his Life of Lysander c. 14., we should probably write, ταῦτα ΚΑ δρῶντες τὰν εἰράναν ἔχοιτε, ἃ χρὴ ΔΟΝΤΕΣ καὶ τὼς φυγάδας ἀνέντες. περὶ τᾶν ναῶν τῶ πλήθεος ὁκοῖόν τι ΚΑΤΗΝΕΙ δοκέοι, ταῦτα ποιέετε, as has been partly emended by Haitinger Act. Monac. vol. III. p. 311. In the time of Pyrrhus much of the ancient peculiarity of the dialect was still in existence, although in the following saying all the forms are not those of the ancient Laconian language, αἂ μὲν ἔσσι τύ γε θεὸς, οὐδὲν μὴ πάθωμεν, οὐ γὰρ, ἀδικεῦμεν; αἂ δ᾽ ἄνθρωπος, ἔσεται καὶ τεῦ κάρρων ἄλλος, Plutarch. Pyrrh. 26. The remains of it in the decrees of the Eleutherolacones and Spartans in the time of the emperors are less considerable. That the Messenians retained the ancient idiom, from ancient recollections, or perhaps from affectation, was remarked above, p. 414, note c. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “Messenians of Sicily,” starting “The coins.”] The Argive dialect has been more than once observed to agree with the Cretan, a correspondence which may be even traced in unimportant particulars; thus the name of the Argive βαλλαχράδαι (above, p. 355. note n [Transcriber’s Note: There is no such footnote on that page.]), was derived from ἀχρὰς, which Hermonax ap. Schol. Nicand. Ther. 512. calls a Cretan, and Hesychius a Laconian word. The grammarians likewise particularly remark that in the Argive dialect Ι was frequently changed into Ν, as in μέντον for μέντοι (Argive and Cretan, Maittaire p. 255), αἰὲν, ἔννατος (Etymol. M. p. 402, 2.) φαεννὸς (see Boeckh Not. crit. ad Pind. Olymp. I. 6.); the Sicilians in many cases made the contrary change—the Rhegini, however, the same as the Argives (Etymol. M. p. 135, 45. Gud. 73, 44.); which peculiarity they had evidently borrowed from the Messenians. Dercyllus wrote in the ancient Argive dialect; see Etymol. M. p. 391, 20. above, p. 385, note c. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “Ionians and Athenians,” starting “This is only true.”] The Cretan has a singularity which does not appear to have been observed in any other dialect of Greece, viz. of changing λ before a consonant and after ε or α into υ (analogous to the French forms aumóne, haubergeon, &c. from the German Almosen, Halsberge, &c.); thus αὖσος for ἄλσος, αὖμα for ἅλμα, likewise αὐκυόνα, αὔκαν; θεύγεσθαι and εὐθεῖν for θέλγεσθαι and ἐλθεῖν, according to Hesychius, Koen. p. 354. The Ætolian word δεῦκος also shows the same formation, as it comes from the ancient root δέλκυς, dulcis. There is an analogous change in the Cretan forms Πραῖσος from Πρῖανσος, and γεροίταν, πάππον (Hesych.) i.e. for γέροντας from γέρων, and directly the reverse of that observed above in the termination of the participles τιθὲνς, &c. where the Cretans retained the ancient form τιθὲνς, which other Greeks softened into τιθεὶς, &c. The Cretan βέντιον for βέλτιον is paralleled by the Sicilian forms ἦνθον and φίντατος. The words peculiar to the Cretan town Polyrrhenia, such as σέρτης “a crane,” ἅμαλλα “a partridge,” κόμβα “a crow,” (see also Hesychius in κάρα and λάττα) are probably remains of an ancient Cydonian language, having no affinity with the Greek. See Hoeck’s Kreta, vol. I. p. 146, note b. In the Cretan inscriptions of the beginning of the second century before Christ, the ancient dialect is still preserved in some words, but not regularly and constantly; peculiarities such as αὖσος no longer appear: and if they were found in a writer named Cypselas, he must have been of a much earlier date (Joann. Gramm. ad calc. H. Steph. Thes. Gr. p. 13.). Some peculiarities of the Doric dialect of Corinth and Sicyon have been noticed above; in general, however, we know little of these dialects; but of the Megarian we are better informed by means of the Acharneans of Aristophanes, and this probably gives a tolerably correct notion of the Doric of Peloponnesus, except Sparta. The Dryopians of Hermione also spoke Doric; at least an Hermionean inscription contains such Dorisms as ἐπιδαμῶντι, ποττὰν πόλιν, τοὺς δὲ λαΐναν δόμεν στάλαν, Boeckh No. 1193. and see others cited vol. I. p. 399, note y. The Rhodians still spoke Doric in the time of Tiberius (Sueton. Tiber. 56.), and indeed, as Aristides de Conc. boasts, in great purity (see Meurs. Rhod. II. 3.). Inscriptions of Cos (in Spon), Calymna (Chandler. Inscript. p. 21. No. 58.), Astypalæa, and Anaphæ (in Villoison’s papers) are written in a Doric style, common in such monuments. The same was also adopted by the Æginetans after their re-establishment; see the inscription in Æginetica, p. 136, and the remarks on it in p. 160. Among the inscriptions of Corcyra, collected by Mustoxidi, a series might be arranged according to the greater and less traces of the Doric dialect; the large one in Boeckh’s Staatshaushaltung, vol. II. p. 400. contains several peculiarities, as, e.g. the imperative δόντω. In a Theræan inscription, containing the will of a certain Epicteta (Boeckh, No. 2448.), several pure Dorisms occur, as e.g. the accusative plural in ος, the infinitives ἀγαγὲν, θύεν, (Eustathius ad Od. τ᾽. p. 706. 49. quotes λέγες for λέγεις as Theræan); at the same time several peculiar forms, such as ἐστάκεια, συναγαγόχεια; and upon the whole there is little archaic in the language. But the Byzantine dialect was in the time of Philip, as we know from the decree in Demosthenes, rich in Dorisms: not so many occur in the more recent inscription in Chandler Inscript. App. p. 95. No. 10. How much of the language of the surrounding nations had been introduced into the Cyrenæan dialect cannot be determined: according to Hesychius βρίκος was the Cyrenæan word for “ass;” which resembles the Spanish word borrico; both probably were derived from Africans. All that we know of the Tarentine dialect appears to have been taken from the Phlyaces of Rhinthon, who lived in the time of Ptolemy the First; although very different from the ancient Laconian dialect, it has many peculiarities:(1982) but besides the vulgar language of Tarentum there was also spoken a polished (Attic) dialect, which was alone used in public transactions. See Dionys. Hal. Exc. p. 2239. ed. Reiske. With regard to the exchange of words with the neighbouring Italian nations (above, p. 413, note z [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “the Siculians,” starting “E.g. besides.”]), it is sometimes doubtful which party borrowed from the other. Thus Alcman uses πόλτος for puls; are we to suppose that this word was so early brought over from Italy? Κάρκαρον is used for “prison” by Sophron, for “stall” by Rhinthon: it is the same word as the Latin carcer; but possibly both are derived from the Laconian word γέργυρα in Alcman. That the Italian Heracleans should have preserved the ancient language and writing to the fifth century after the building of Rome so faithfully as the famous Heraclean Tables show us, is very remarkable. At Syracuse the dialect was nearly the same as that in which Epicharmus and Sophron wrote: the laws of Diocles too were probably drawn up in this dialect, but the circumstance of their requiring an interpreter in the time of Timoleon is a proof of the rapid preponderance of the Attic language in this city (B. III. ch. 9. § 7.). The language of Sophron is also nearer to the common dialect, and less strictly Doric than that spoken in Peloponnesus in his time; e.g., he always says τοὺς and not τώς. On the spreading of the Doric dialect in Sicily see Castelli Proleg. p. 25. We have not as yet touched on the Delphic dialect, the strong Doric character of which is proved by an inscription (Boeckh No. 1690.) in which ὀδελοὶ and τέτορες occur, and still more, as I believe, by a monument of Olymp. 100. 1, which has futures such as ὀρκεξέω &c., the infinitives ἀπογράψεν, φέρεν, and θύεν, αἴκα for ἐὰν, πάντεσσι, ἱερομναμόνεσσι, διακάτιοι, ἐπικοσμήσωντι, ἐν for ἐς adverbialiter, καττὰν, ἐνιαύτιος, πέμπωντι, ποττὸν (Boeckh No. 1688.). Besides this, all the prose oracles given at Delphi were doubtless written in Doric; as e.g. that in Demosth. in Mid. p. 531, and in Macart. p. 1072, that in Thuc. V. 16. (—ἀργυρέᾳ εὐλάκᾳ εὐλάξειν, is, according to the scholiast, a Laconian expression), and the oracle quoted in vol. I. p. 199. note p, ποῖ τὺ λαβὼν καὶ ποῖ τὺ καθίξων καὶ ποῖ τὺ οἴκησιν (here the sense requires ἀσφαλέως ἕξεις, ἐρωτᾷς, κελεύω...) ἁλιέα τε κεκλῆσθαι, which, however, was probably written in hexameters, since the epic oracles sometimes show traces of Dorisms (Herod. IV. 155, 157; compare that given to the Lacedæmonians, ἁ φιλοχρηματία &c.). Plutarch (Pyth. Orac. 24. p. 289.) quotes from ancient oracles the expression πυρίκαοι (i.e. πυρκέοι, as the Delphians themselves were called, vol. I. p. 254. note b), ὀρεάνας for ἄνδρας,(1983) ὀρεμπότας for ποτάμους; likewise κραταίπους (Schol. Pind. Olymp. XIII. 114.) is probably from an oracle: from the Dorisms of the vulgar dialect we have Γυγάδας for the treasure of Gyges, Herod. I. 14, a half-adjective form in -ας, which occurs frequently in Doric, and ἅρμα for ἀρμὴ, “love,” Plutarch Amator, 23. The name of the month Βύσιος (ap. Plutarch Quæst. Gr. 9. and in Delphian inscriptions) was derived by some from Φύσιος, as being a spring-month; it is, however, far more probable that this sacred oracular month received its name from Pytho, as Πύθιος. In that case the change of θ into σ corresponds with the Laconian dialect; but that of π into β is peculiar to the Delphians, among whom, according to Plutarch, it also occurred in βικρὸς for πικρὸς, and other words. A newly discovered honorary decree of Delphi (Ross, Inscript. Græc. ined. Fasc. I. No. 57.) points to a closer affinity of the Delphian and Ætolian dialects. We find in it the datives ἀγώνοις, ἐντυγχανόντοις, and therefore the same metaplasm of declination as among the Ætolians, to whom the grammarians attribute such forms as γερόντοις, παθημάτοις. The Phoceans appear from the inscriptions to have spoken an Æolic dialect, nearly akin to the Doric. A remarkable peculiarity, which occurs in inscriptions both of Steiris and Daulis, in the territory of the Phoceans, is that the radical vowel of τίθημι and ἵημι remains unlengthened in the active and passive perfect; as in ἀνατεθέκαντι, ἀνατεθεμένους, ἀφεμένα for ἀνατεθείνασι, ἀνατεθειμένους, ἀφειμένη.

Appendix VI. Chronological Tables.

1. An attempt to ascertain the precise date of mythical events would at the present time be considered unreasonable, nor would it be better to arrange them according to generations. It must however be allowed that the mutual dependence of events recorded by mythology can be proved, and by this means, to a certain degree, their succession may be satisfactorily traced. We shall give a specimen from the work before us.

The Dorians in Hestiæotis. Worship of Apollo at Tempe b. I. ch. 1. b. II. ch. 1.

The Dorians at war with the Lapithæ. Taking of Œchalia, b. I. ch. 1. § 7. b. II. ch. 2. § 1.

The Dorians in Crete. Worship of Apollo at Cnosus, b. I. ch. 1. § 9. b. II. ch. 1. § 5.

Teucrian Pelagones (Encheleans) in the north of Thessaly, b. I. ch. 1. § 10.

Dorians at the foot of Œta and Parnassus. Worship of Apollo at Lycorea and Pytho, b. I. ch. 2. b. II. ch. 1. § 8.

The Dorians in alliance with the Trachinians and Ætolians, b. I. ch. 2. § 5.

Taking of Ephyra in Thesprotia. Origin of the Geryonia, b. II. ch. 2. § 3.

War with the Dryopians and transportation of this nation to Pytho, b. I. ch. 2. § 4. b. II. ch. 3. § 3.

Cretan sovereignty of the sea; Cretans in Crisa, Lycia and the Troad, b. II. ch. 1. § 6. ch. 2. § 2, 3.

Worship of Apollo in Bœotia; origin of the Theban traditions respecting Hercules, b. II. ch. 3. § 2. ch. 2. § 7.

Introduction of the mythology of Hercules into Attica by the Ionians. Institution of the Pythian Theoriæ, b. II. ch. 3. § 14.

Cretans in Megara and Attica. Connection of the religious worship of Athens with that of Crete, Delos, and Naxos, ibid.

Cretan fortress of Miletus in Caria; temples at Didymi and Claros, ibid. § 6.

Union of the Dorians and Ætolians, b. I. ch. 3. § 9.

Thessalians and Thesprotians in Pelasgic Argos, Orchomenos, p. 476.

The expelled Magnetes become subjects of the Pythian Apollo, b. II. ch. 3. § 4.

The Bœotians found a new Arne in Bœotia, Orchomenos, ubi sup.

Cadmean Ephyræans and Ægidæ in Athens and Amyclæ, ibid.

Partial emigration of the Dorians from the Tetrapolis, b. I. ch. 3.

Emigration of the Ænianes from the Inachus to the district of Œeta, b. I. ch. 2. § 6.

2. In reckoning from the migration of the Heraclidæ downwards, we follow the Alexandrine chronology, of which it should be observed, that our materials only enable us to restore it to its original state, not to examine its correctness. That it was chiefly founded upon original records and monuments preserved in Peloponnesus, which gave even the years of the kings, has been shown above, b. I. ch. 7. § 3. The dates which Syncellus has preserved from Eusebius, Eusebius from Diodorus, and Diodorus from Apollodorus, could not have been calculated merely by generations; and Larcher’s criticism and rejection of the Alexandrine Chronologists may perhaps be found as groundless as they are presumptuous.

[Transcriber’s Note: Entries beginning with a number are the year in B.C..]

1104. Migration of the Dorians into Peloponnesus, 80 years after the fall of Troy,(1984) 328 years before the first Olympiad.(1985)

Temenus in Argos, Aristodemus in Sparta, Cresphontes in Messenia, Oxylus the Ætolian in Elis, Cypselus at Basilis. Resistance of the Achæans in Amyclæ. The Nelidæ go from Pylos to Athens.

Birth of Eurysthenes and Procles, and death of Aristodemus king of Sparta. Theras protector of the twin-brothers.(1986)

1074. 30. Eurysthenes and Procles governors of Sparta. Aletes reduces Corinth.(1987) Ceisus the son of Temenus reigns at Argos, Phalces at Sicyon, Agæus at Trœzen (b. I. ch. 5. § 4.), Deiphontes at Epidaurus, Triacon in Ægina, Thersander at Cleonæ (b. I. ch. 5. § 4. b. III. ch. 6. § 10.), Laias the Cypselid, in Arcadia. Pityreus the Ionian goes from Epidaurus to Athens.

1072. 32. Theras colonises Thera with Minyæ and Ægidæ from the district of Amyclæ.

Corinthian Dorians conquer Megara.

Æpytus, son of Cresphontes, re-established in Messenia.

1051. 53. The Thessalian Magnetes found Magnesia in Asia Minor.(1988)

Advance of the Dorians in the direction of Attica.

Medon, son of Ceisus, at Argos, b. III. ch. 6. § 10. Althæmenes, son of Ceisus, goes to Crete. Amyclæan Laconians settle in Melos and Gortyna. Migration of the Argives and Epidaurians to Rhodes and Cos, of the Trœzenians to Halicarnassus.

1040. 60. Migration of the Ionians to Asia. Procles, son of Pityreus of Epidaurus, goes to Samos with carvers in wood from Ægina.(1989) The Phliasians, driven out by Rhegnidas the son of Phalces, withdraw to Samos and Clazomenæ, b. I. ch. 5. § 3.

1038. 68. Ixion king of Corinth.

1033. 71. Soüs, the Proclid, at Sparta.(1990)

1032. 72. Agis the Eurysthenid.(1991)

Achæans from Laconia colonise Patræ.

1031. 73. Echestratus the Agid.

1006. 100*.(1992) Eurypon the Proclid. Echestratus and Eurypon subdue Cynuria, b. I. ch. 7. § 15.

1000. 106. Agelas at Corinth.

996. 108. Labotas the Agid.

978. 126. Prytanis the Eurypontid.

963. 143. Prumnis at Corinth.

959. 145. Doryssus the Agid.

929. 175. Polydectes (Eunomus) the Eurypontid.

* Megara separates itself from Corinth, b. I. ch. 5. § 10.

930. 174. Agesilaus the Agid.

926. 178. Bacchis at Corinth.

924. 180*. Pompus the Cypselid in Arcadia supports the commerce of the Æginetans.

917. 187. Rhodes enjoys the sovereignty of the sea (Eusebius).

891. 213. Agelas at Corinth.

886. 218. Archelaus the Agid.

884. 220. Polydectes dies. Birth of Charilaus. Lycurgus regent.

Lycurgus, in conjunction with Iphitus the Elean and Cleosthenes, the son of Cleonicus of Pisa, arranges the Olympic games.(1993)

Lycurgus gives laws to Sparta.

861. 243. Eudemus at Corinth.

854. 250. Charilaus, the Eurypontid, king of Sparta. In this office he with Archelaus conquers Ægys (b. I. ch. 5. § 18.), lays waste the territory of Argos (ib. ch. 7. § 14.), and is defeated by the Tegeates (ib. § 12.). Polymestor, the Cypselid, in Arcadia.

836. 268. Aristomedes at Corinth.(1994)

826. 278. Teleclus the Agid. He conquers Amyclæ, Pharis, and Geronthræ, b. I. ch. 5. § 13, and destroys Nedon, ib. ch. 7. § 10.

824. 280. [Nicander the Eurypontid, according to Eusebius.]

810. 294. Nicander the Eurypontid (according to Sosibius(1995)). He ravages the territory of Argos, in alliance with Asine, ib. § 14.

801. 303. Agemon the Bacchiad.

786. 318. Alcamenes the Agid. He conquers Helos(1996) and defeats the Argives. Charmides, the son of Euthys, is sent to quiet the troubles of Crete. [Theopompus the Eurysthenid, according to Eusebius.]

785. 319. Alexander at Corinth.

776. 328. Corœbus obtains the prize at the Olympic games at the full moon (according to the original institution), on the 13th or 14th day of the first Olympic month (Apollonius), if the Ennaëteris began with this Olympiad; of the second month (Parthenius), if the Olympiad fell in the middle of the period. The month began with the new moon after the summer solstice, on the 8th of July (according to De Lalande, see l’Art de vérifier les Dates, tom. III. p. 170.) 776. B.C. the distribution of the prizes therefore took place the 21st or 22nd of July.

3. Reckoning according to Olympiads.

[Transcriber’s Note: Entries begining with two numbers are, first, the year in B.C., then the Olympiad.]

776. 1. Corœbus of Elis.

774. 3. Metapontum founded by Achæans and Crissæans according to Eusebius, book II. ch. 3. § 7.

* Eratus, king of Argos, expels the Asinæans from their town, b. I. ch. 7, § 14. above, p. 112. note g. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “Persian war,” starting “Herod. VII. 149.”]

772. 2. Antimachus of Elis.

1. Theopompus the Eurypontid according to Sosibius.

768. 3. Androcles of Messenia.

Cinæthon the epic poet of Laconia flourishes, according to Eusebius.

* Pheidon, prince of Argos, attempts to conquer Corinth.

764. 4. Polychares of Messenia.

4. Telestas at Corinth.

760. 5. Æschines of Elis.

2. The Chalcidians erect an altar to Apollo Archegetas in Sicily (b. II. ch. 3. § 7.) and, together with some Naxians, found Naxos.

3. Archias at Corinth founds Syracuse,(1997) Chersicrates Corcyra (b. I. ch. 6. § 8.). Eumelus, also a Bacchiad, who composed an ode (προσόδιον) for the Messenians, to be sung at the procession to Delos, and had contended at the Ithomæa, lives with Archias at Syracuse. Phintas the Æpytid reigns in Messenia.

4. Ephors in Sparta (Euseb.).

Croton founded by Myscellus (the Heraclid) and some Achæans, and Locri shortly after (according to Strabo, with whom Pausanias nearly agrees with respect to time).

756. 6. Œbotas of Dyme.

4. The Chalcidians found Leontini. Lamis the Megarian lands and founds Trotilus.

752. 7. Daicles the Messenian, the first conqueror in the ἀγὼν στεφανίτης, b. IV. ch. 5. § 5.

3. Death of Alcamenes,(1998) succeeded by Polydorus the Agid. Polydorus and Theopompus limit the power of the popular assembly, b. III. ch. 5. § 8.

4. Automenes at Corinth.

748. 8. Anticles the Messenian. Pheidon the Argive president of the games with the Pisatans. Metal wares and silver coins at Ægina.

1. Yearly Prytanes at Corinth.

744. 9. Xenocles the Messenian.

1. The Androclidæ, banished from Messenia, fly to Sparta. Euphaes, son of Antiochus, the Æpytid, king of Messenia.

2. Beginning of the first Messenian war, according to Pausanias and Eusebius.

740. 10. Dotadas the Messenian.

1. [Death of Theopompus the Eurypontid,(1999) according to Eusebius.]

736. 11. Leochares the Messenian.

732. 12. Oxythemis of Coronea.

728. 13. Diocles of Corinth, the favourite of Philolaus the Bacchiad, legislator of Thebes.

1. Hyblean Megara founded, vol. I. p. 135. note r.

724. 14. Dasmon of Corinth. Hypenus of Pisa the first conqueror in the δίαυλος.

1. The Spartans reduce Ithome, and finish the first Messenian war. The Dryopes build a new Asine, the Androclidæ receive Hyamia from Sparta. Messenians at Rhegium, b. I. ch. 7. § 11.

720. 15. Orsippus of Megara is the first who runs naked in the stadium, and Acanthus the Lacedæmonian in the δίαυλος, see above, p. 272. note a. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “naked to the goal,” starting “According to Plato.”]

War of Megara against Corinth, b. I. ch. 5. § 10.

The war between the Spartans and Argives respecting the possession of Cynuria breaks out afresh, b. I. ch. 7. § 16.

716. 16. Pythagoras the Laconian.

4. Gela founded by Rhodians and Cretans.(2000)

* Theopompus dies (Euseb.), succeeded by Zeuxidamus the Eurypontid.

712. 17. Polus of Epidaurus.

1. Megara founded by Astacus (according to Memnon; Olymp. 17. 3. according to Hieron. Scal.; Olymp. 18. 2. Cod. Arm.), b. I. ch. 6. § 9.

3. Croton founded according to Dion. Halicar. and Eusebius, Cod. Arm. (Olymp. 18. 1. according to Euseb. Cod. Arm. Olymp. 19. 2. according to Scaliger.)

* Polydorus killed by Polemarchus;(2001) succeeded by Eurycrates the Agid.

708. 18. Tellis of Sicyon. Eurybatus, the Laconian, first conqueror in the wrestling match: Lampis the Laconian in the Pentathlon.

1. The Partheniæ at Tarentum, Eusebius.

4. * Ameinocles, the Corinthian, builds the Samian triremes (Thucyd.).

704. 19. Menon of Megara.

700. 20. Atheradas of Laconia.

696. 21. Pantacles of Athens.

692. 22. Pantacles a second time.

688. 23. Icarius of Hyperesia. Onomastus of Smyrna the first conqueror in the pugilistic contest.

1. Acræ and Enna founded from Syracuse.(2002)

4. [Commencement of the second Messenian war, according to Pausanias; but, according to Corsini, Fast. Att. II. 1. p. 37. this date should be altered to Olymp. 24. 4.]

Anaxander the Agid, Anaxidamus the Eurypontid, kings of Sparta.

684. 24. Cleoptolemus the Laconian.

2. Locri founded, according to Eusebius (Ol. 26. 4. Cod. Arm.) above, b. I. ch. 6. § 12.

680. 25. Thalpis the Laconian. Pagondas of Thebes the first conqueror in the chariot race.

676. 26. Callisthenes the Laconian.

The Pisatans render themselves independent of Elis (Strabo).

2. Megara founds Chalcedon, b. I. ch. 6. § 9.

The musical contests at the Carnea are first introduced (Africanus and Sosibius, above, p. 324. note e [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “commencing with Terpander,” starting “According to the important.”]), and Terpander is victorious as a harp-player. The same musician is four times victorious in the musical contests at Pytho, at that time still celebrated every nine years; from about Olymp. 27. to Olymp. 33. Doric, Phrygian, and Lydian styles of music.

Orthagoras, tyrant of Sicyon.(2003)

672. 27. Eurybates of Athens.

4. Victory of the Argives over the Spartans at Hysiæ, b. I. ch. 7. § 16.

* Megalostrata, b. IV. ch. 7. § 10.

668. 28. Chionis the Laconian (Corsini Fast. Hell. II. 1. pag. 44.). The Pisatans preside at the games, whilst Elis is at war with Dyme (Euseb.).

1. Syracuse founds Casmenæ.

End of the second Messenian war, according to Pausanias. Aristomenes goes to Damagetus the Eratid, prince of Ialysus; the Lacedæmonians give Mothone to the expelled Nauplians. Damocratidas king of Argos (above, p. 112. note g [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “Persian war,” starting “Herod. VII. 149.”]).

4. Gymnopædia at Sparta (Euseb.).

* Sea-fight between the Corinthians and Corcyræans.(2004)

664. 29. Chionis for the second time.

660. 30. Chionis for the third time. [The Pisatans, according to Eusebius, celebrate this and the twenty-two following Olympiads.]

1. Zaleucus legislator of Locri (Euseb.).

2. Phigalia captured by Sparta, b. I. ch. 7. § 12.

3. Byzantium founded from Megara, b. I. ch. 6. § 9.

Cypselus expels the Bacchiadæ from Corinth,(2005) and becomes king.

* Second Messenian war (b. I. ch. 7. § 10.). Pantaleon, tyrant of Pisa, Aristocrates of Trapezus, king of Orchomenus (vol. I. p. 185 note t). Tyrtæus of Aphidna at Sparta.

656. 31. Chionis for the fourth time.

652. 32. Cratinus the Megarian, (above, p. 272. note a [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “naked to the goal,” starting “According to Plato.”]).

4. Himera founded by Chalcidians and Syracusans (Diod. XIII. 62.).

* Eurycratidas (Eurycrates II.) the Agid, Archidamus the Eurypontid.

648. 33. Gyges the Laconian. Lygdamis of Syracuse is the first conqueror in the Pancratium, Crauxidas the Crannonian victorious κέλητι. Myron, son of Andreas, tyrant of Sicyon, in the quadriga, b. I. ch. 8. § 2.

4. Terpander’s musical legislation at Sparta.

644. 34. Stomas of Athens. Pantaleon, son of Omphalion, tyrant of Pisa, president of the games, b. I. ch. 7. § 11.

640. 35. Sphærus the Laconian. Cylon of Athens victorious in the δίαυλος.

3. Beginning of the second Messenian war according to Diodorus and Eusebius. Compare Justin, cited vol. I. p. 161. note o.

The Theræans found the first settlement in Libya on the island of Platea. Orchomenos, p. 344. Chionis, the conqueror at Olympia, among the adventurers.

* Procles tyrant of Epidaurus, Aristodemus king of Orchomenus, vol. I. p. 185. note s.

636. 36. Phrynon of Athens.

632. 37. Eurycleidas the Laconian. Hipposthenes the Laconian first conqueror in the boys’ wrestling match, Polyneites of Elis in the stadium as a boy.

Founding of Cyrene. Reign of Battus I. Peisander, the epic poet of Rhodes.

628. 38. Olynthus the Laconian. Eutelidas the Laconian victorious in the boys’ pentathlon.

1. Pammilus of Megara on the Isthmus, with some Sicilian Megarians, founds Selinus, b. I. ch. 6. § 10. (Olymp. 32. 2. according to Diodorus.)

Periander, tyrant of Corinth, vol. I. p. 185. note s.

2. Corinthians and Corcyræans found Epidamnus, b. I. ch. 6. § 8.

* Gorgus, son of Cypselus, tyrant of Ambracia, ibid. b. III. ch. 9. § 6.

* Thaletas, the Elyrian musician, in Sparta, b. IV. ch. 6. § 3.

624. 79. Rhipsolcus the Laconian.

2. Camarina founded by the Syracusans.(2006)

620. 40. Olyntheus the Laconian, for the second time.

* Theagenes, tyrant of Megara, b. I. ch. 8. § 4. Arion of Methymna, in Peloponnesus.

616. 41. Cleondas of Thebes. Philotas of Sybaris, first conqueror in the boxing match of the boys.

612. 42. Lycotas the Laconian.

1. Cylon, son-in-law of Theagenes, aims at the tyranny of Athens, Corsini Fast. Att. II. 1. p. 64.

Alcman, lyric poet at Sparta, above, p. 328. note q. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “earlier than Polymnestus,” starting “Polymnestus wrote.”]

608. 43. Cleon of Epidaurus.

2. Phrynon of Athens, the conqueror at Olympia, and Pittacus of Mytilene, contend for the possession of Sigeum. (Euseb.)

* Periander decides the subject of dispute, vol. I. p. 191. note s.

4. The inhabitants of Gela found Agrigentum.(2007)

604. 44. Gelon the Laconian.

* Agasicles, the Eurypontid, at Sparta.

Solon conquers Salamis from the Megarians.

600. 45. Anticrates of Epidaurus.

* Cleisthenes, tyrant of Sicyon, at war with Argos, vol. I. p. 179. note k.

Pheidon II. king of Argos, above, p. 112. note g. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “Persian war,” starting “Herod. VII. 149.”]

596. 46. Chrysamaxus the Laconian.

The Megarians reconquer Salamis and Nisæa, b. I. ch. 8. § 8.

Epimenides in Athens, according to Diogenes Laertius.

* Leon the Agid at Sparta unsuccessful in a war against Tegea.

592. 47. Eurycles the Laconian.

3. The Amphictyons under Eurylochus the Aleuad, and Cleisthenes of Sicyon, conquer Cirrha, and institute prizes for the gymnastic contest at Pytho. Gylidas Archon (Prytanis) at Delphi, b. I. ch. 8. § 2.

Nebrus and Chrysus the Asclepiadæ of Cos.

Sacadas, the Argive flute-player, victorious in this and the two following Pythian games. Hierax, also an Argive flute-player, probably his contemporary, b. IV. ch. 6. § 8. Second epoch of music at Sparta, b. IV. ch. 6. § 3.

Arcesilaus I. king of Cyrene.

588. 48. Glaucias of Croton.

4. Death of Periander, b. I. ch. 8. § 3.

Damophon, son of Pantaleon, tyrant of Pisa, makes war upon Elis.

584. 49. Lycinus of Croton. Cleisthenes of Sicyon victorious in the chariot race; he invites the suitors of his daughter Agariste.(2008)

2. Megacles, son of Alcmæon, marries Agariste.

3. Second Pythian games, first ἀγὼν στεφανίτης. Diodorus Archon (Prytanis) at Delphi. Cleisthenes victorious with the quadriga.(2009)

The Cypselidæ expelled from Corinth, b. I. ch. 8. § 3.

Restoration of the Isthmian games, according to Solinus.

* Lacedes king of Argos, b. III. ch. 6. § 10.

580. 50. Epitelidas the Laconian.

Lipara peopled from Cnidos, b. I. ch. 6.

* Periander, tyrant of Ambracia, banished, b. III. ch. 9. § 6.

Conquest of Orneæ by Argos, b. I. ch. 7. ad fin.

Pyrrhus, son of Pantaleon, tyrant of Pisa, at war with Elis. The victorious Eleans destroy Pisa, Scillus, Macistus, Dyspontium, and extend their dominion towards Triphylia.(2010)

Dipœnus and Scyllis the Cretan descendants of Dædalus, in Peloponnesus.

Cleobulus, son of Evagoras, a Heraclide, governor of Lindus, a lyric poet and seer.(2011) Riddles of Cleobulina, b. IV. ch. 8. § 4.

576. 51. Eratosthenes of Croton.

3. Pythocritus of Sicyon victorious in flute-playing at this and the five following Pythiads, b. IV. ch. 6. § 5.

The family of the tyrants banished from Sicyon, b. I. ch. 8. § 2.

Battus II. king of Cyrene. Enlargement of the Cyrenæan territory.

* Susarion of Tripodiscus, a comic poet in the Attic Icaria. (Marm. Par.)

572. 52. Agis of Elis.

568. 53. Agnon of Peparethus.

2. Argos conquers Nemea, and celebrates the first winter festival of the Nemean games noticed by chronologists.

3. Eugammon, the epic poet, in Cyrene. (Euseb.)

4. Phalaris of Astypalæa, tyrant of Agrigentum, (Euseb. Hieron; Olymp. 52. 3. Cod. Arm.) b. III. ch. 9. § 8.

4. Stesichorus, the lyric poet of Himera flourishes.

564. 54. Hippostratus of Croton.

Æsop of Cotyæ, pursuant to the sentence of the court of the temple at Delphi, is precipitated from the Phædriadian rocks of Hyampeia. (Suidas.)

* Anaxandridas the Agid.

560. 55. Hippostratus for the second time.

2. Death of Stesichorus, Euseb. according to Suidas, Olymp. 56.

* Meltas, son of Lacedes, king of Argos, deposed. The family of the Heraclides expires,(2012) and Ægon, of another family, obtains the royal dignity, b. III. ch. 6. § 7.

556. 56. Phœdrus of Pharsalus.

1. Cheilon Ephor at Lacedæmon, (above, p. 115. note g. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “and Xenophon,” starting “De Rep. Lac. 8. 3.”])

3. Camarina destroyed by the Syracusans.

552. 57. Ladromus the Laconian.

3. Phalaris overthrown by Telemachus the Emmenide. Orchomenos, p. 338.

Alcmanes becomes king of Agrigentum.

* Ariston the Eurypontid.

548. 58. Diognetus of Croton.

1. The temple at Pytho burnt, (Pausan. Euseb.) The Amphictyons appoint the Alcmæonidæ to rebuild it: Spintharus the Corinthian is the architect.

The Spartans find the bones of Orestes, (Solinus I. 90.) and defeat the Tegeates, b. I. ch. 7. § 12.

* Battle of the 300 at Thyrea.(2013)

544. 59. Archilochus of Corcyra. Praxidamas of Ægina conquers in the boxing match, and dedicates the first statue of a wrestler at Olympia. The Æginetan school of brass-founders begins to flourish (Callon); contemporary we find the Spartan artists Dorycleidas, Dontas, Chartas, Syadras, Gitiadas, &c.

540. 60. Apellæus of Elis.

* Victory of the Megarians and Argives over Corinth.(2014) vol. I. p. 98, note h.

Pythagoras at Croton. Aristocleia, Pythian priestess. Leo tyrant of Phlius.

536. 61. Agatharchus of Corcyra.

532. 62. Eryxias of Chalcis. Milo of Croton victorious in wrestling, perhaps the first of his six victories.

528. 63. Parmenides of Camarina. (This town was however at this time in ruins.)

* Naval expedition of the Peloponnesians against Polycrates of Samos, b. I. ch. 8. § 5.

524. 64. Evander the Thessalian.

Cleomenes the Agid. Dorieus goes to Libya. The great victory of Cleomenes over Argos, (according to Pausanias, see b. I. ch. 8. § 6; but comp. b. III. ch. 4. § 2.)

520. 65. Acochas (read Anochus) of Tarentum. Demaretus of Heræa the first conqueror as a heavy-armed runner (Hoplitodromeus); Eutelidas and Chrysothemis the Argives make statues of him and his son Theopompus.

1. Cleomenes refers the Platæans to Athens, (vol. I. p. 190, note b, B. I. ch. 9. § 5.)

2. The Æginetans colonize Cydonia.

Dorieus goes to Sicily, and founds Heraclea, but falls in a battle against the Carthaginians and Egestæans. Euryleon of Sparta succeeds Peithagoras on the throne of Selinus.(2015)

* The ancient constitution of Sicyon restored, b. I. ch. 8. § 5.

516. 66. Ischyrus of Himera. Cleosthenes of Epidamnus conquers in the chariot race. Ageladas of Argos makes a statue of the latter and Anochus, victorious in Olymp. 65.

Aristophylidas tyrant of Tarentum, b. I. ch. 8. § 15.

512. 67. Phanas of Pellene.

1. Pretended maritime sovereignty of the Lacedæmonians. Eusebius.

3. Cleomenes expels the Peisistratidæ from Athens. (Thuc. VI. 59.)

Lygdamis of Naxos is deposed at the same time, b. I. ch. 8. § 5.(2016)

The Crotoniats under Milo defeat the Sybarites, and destroy Sybaris.

Dissension at Croton respecting the division of the territory.

* Demaratus the Eurypontid.

508. 68. Ischomachus of Croton.

1. Cleomenes expels Cleisthenes and supports the aristocracy of Athens; Isagoras archon. Insurrection at Athens, and recall of Cleisthenes.

3. Third expedition of Cleomenes against Athens; dispute with Demaratus.

4. Cleandrus tyrant at Gela, b. III. ch. 9. § 8.

League of Ægina and Thebes against Athens.

504. 69. Ischomachus for the second time.

1. Ionia revolts.

Overthrow of the Pythagorean league, b. III. ch. 9. § 15.

Cleinias tyrant of Croton. Dion. Hal. Exc. p. 2358. ed. Reiske.

500. 70. Nicias of Opus. Thersias the Thessalian the first conqueror with the ἀπήνη.

1. Pratinas of Phlius, a satyric poet at Athens.

2. Death of Pythagoras, according to Eusebius. Cod. Arm.

3. Conquest of Miletus (according to Petavius, Olymp. 71. 2.; according to Corsini), compare Thucyd. IV. 102. with Herod. V. 126.

Hippocrates tyrant of Gela, b. III. ch. 9. § 8.

4. The Samians, at the invitation of Anaxilaus, tyrant of Rhegium, conquer Zancle. Sythes of Zancle goes to Persia, and receives the sovereignty of Cos from the king, vol. I. p. 187. note a. b. III. ch. 9. § 2.

The Byzantians found Mesambria.(2017)

Lasus of Hermione flourishes as a lyric poet.

496. 71. Tisicrates of Croton. Patæcus of Dyme first conquers in the κάλπη; the elder Empedocles, son of Exænetus of Agrigentum, κέλητι.

4. The Æginetans give earth and water to Darius.

* The Geomori expelled from Syracuse, b. III. ch. 9. § 7.

Anaxilaus, tyrant of Rhegium, subdues Zancle, and changes its name to Messana.(2018)

492. 72. Tisicrates of Croton for the second time.

1. * Hippocrates of Gela defeats the Syracusans on the river Helorus, and restores Camarina.

Cleomenes, king of Sparta, at Ægina.

Leotychidas king in the room of Demaratus; Cleomenes with him in Ægina a second time.

2. Gelon, tyrant of Gela.

Cleomenes banished from Sparta; returns, and dies raving mad; succeeded by Leonidas.

Demaratus goes, after the Gymnopædia, in the beginning of summer, to Persia.

War between Ægina and Athens.

3. Battle of Marathon.

The Spartans arrive at Athens on the 19th of Metageitnion (Carneius), immediately after the battle.

4. Panyasis of Rhodes, the epic poet. (Euseb.)(2019)

488. 73. Astylus of Croton. Gelon victorious in the chariot race: Hieron κέλητι.

1. Theron tyrant of Agrigentum.

4. Gelon takes Syracuse, b. III. ch. 9. § 7.(2020)

* Cadmus, son of Sythes, tyrant of Cos, returns to Messana, accompanied by Epicharmus.

Artemisia, daughter of Lygdamis, takes Cos, and reigns at Halicarnassus, Nisyrus, and Calydna.(2021)

Canachus, brass-founder of Sicyon, flourishes.

484. 74. Astylus as a Syracusan.

1. Herodotus born, according to Pamphila.

Gelon destroys Camarina, Herod. VII. 156. Schol. Pind. Ol. V. 19.

2. Gelon conquers Megara, (vol. I. p. 135 note r.) and strengthens Syracuse with the population of the ruined cities. On this occasion Epicharmus, who had formerly lived at Megara, appears to have come to Syracuse.

Theognis, the elegiac poet, still composes at an advanced age.

4. From the beginning of the year to summer, Xerxes’ march from Sardis to Thermopylæ. Formation of a Grecian confederacy. Embassy of the Greeks to Gelon. (See Appendix IV.)

480. 75. Astylus as a Syracusan for the second time.

1. Battle of Thermopylæ at the same time with the Olympic festival.

Pleistarchus the Agid, Cleombrotus his πρόδικος.

After the Carnean festival, the Spartans, with the rest of the Peloponnesians, encamp at the Isthmus.

Battle of Salamis on the 20th of Boëdromion.

Gelon and Theron defeat the Carthaginians on the Himeras.

Cleombrotus leads the army back from the Isthmus after the eclipse of the sun (2d Octob.), and dies not long after, Herod. IX. 10.

Pausanias succeeds as regent, and with Euryanax(2022) the Agid advances to meet Mardonius in the month Thargelion or Scirophorion.

2. Battles of Platæa and Mycale (in Metageitnion(2023)). Pausanias’s Greek confederacy. Surrender of Thebes.

Chrysis priestess of Juno at Argos.

3. Hieron at Syracuse.

* Pausanias in the north of Greece.

4. Hieron defends Locri against Anaxilaus, b. IV. ch. 7. § 4.

Pausanias, on his return, brings the bones of Leonidas to Sparta.(2024)

Timocreon of Rhodes a lyric and comic poet.

476. 76. Scamander of Mytilene. Theron victorious in the chariot race.

1. Death of Anaxilaus. Pausanias commander of the Greeks in Cyprus.

3. Great victory of the Iapygians over Tarentum, b. III. ch. 9. § 15.

Victory of Hieron over the Etruscans at Cuma, and at the Pythian games in the chariot race.

* Pausanias takes Byzantium.

4. Death of Theron. Thrasydæus expelled from Syracuse, b. III. ch. 9. § 8.

472. 77. Dates of Argos. Hieron victorious κέλητι.

2. The population of Elis collected into one town. Diodor. XI. 54. Strabo VIII. 336. B. III. ch. 4. § 8.

The allies in Asia refuse to follow Pausanias, according to Dodwell’s Ann. Thucyd.

3. Expedition of Leotychidas against the Aleuadæ. Dorcis commander of the Spartans in Asia. Assessment of Aristides.

4. Leotychidas goes into exile at Tegea, vol. I, p. 189. note i. p. 207. note l. Archidamus the Eurypontid.(2025)

The Spartans determine to send no more commanders into Asia. Pausanias goes in his own trireme to Byzantium, and there meditates treason.

War in Peloponnesus between Sparta and the Arcadians.

Epicharmus the comic poet flourishes.

468. 78. Parmenides of Poseidonia. Hieron victorious in the chariot race.

* Pausanias dies in the temple of Minerva Chalciœcus.

Death of Hieron.

* Arcesilaus IV. of Cyrene conquers in the chariot race of Pytho.

Thrasybulus expelled from Syracuse. Democracy established there, b. III. ch. 9. § 7.

* The ἄγος Ταινάριον.(2026)

4. Earthquake at Sparta; revolt of the Messenian helots.

* Lygdamis, son of Pisindelis, uncle of Artemisia, tyrant of Halicarnassus, kills Panyasis. Herodotus leaves his native town.

Onatas, the head of the Æginetan school of sculpture, flourishes.

464. 79. Xenophon of Corinth. Diagoras of Rhodes in the boxing match.

1. Battle of Ithome, and siege of the fortress, to which the Spartans summon the allies.

The Argives destroy Mycenæ, and other adjacent places, b. I. ch. 8. § 7.

Re-establishment of the ancient government in the towns of Sicily, b. III. ch. 9. § 7.

3. After the termination of the Thasian war (Thuc. I. 101. Plutarch Cimon. 14.) Cimon leads Athenian auxiliaries to Sparta; which however are soon dismissed; on which Athens dissolves the alliance with Sparta, and forms one with Argos.

4. The Geloans restore Camarina. (Diodorus.)

* Megara withdraws from the Peloponnesian alliance, and joins that of Athens.

Pleistarchus dies about this time. Pleistoanax the Agid; Nicomedes his προδικος.(2027)

460. 80. Torymbas the Thessalian. Arcesilaus of Cyrene in the chariot race.

3. Sparta undertakes an expedition against Phocis in behalf of the Doric Tetrapolis.

In the spring, war of Athens with the maritime powers of Peloponnesus. Battles at Haliæ and Cecryphalea.

In Munychion. The Pythian games. Aristomenes of Ægina victorious.

Pindar’s eighth Pythian ode may be referred to this time.

The Æginetans are defeated by the Athenians, and Ægina besieged.

The Peloponnesians attempt to relieve the island, and encounter the Athenians in the Megarid.

4. League of the Spartans on their return with Thebes.

Victory of the Spartans and Thebans over the Athenians and Argives at Tanagra.

Four months’ truce between Sparta and Athens.

Expedition of Myronides (sixty days after the battle of Tanagra) and victory at Coronea.

Ægina surrenders in the spring, after a siege of nine months.

The race of the princes of Cyrene becomes extinct after the 80th Olympiad, b. III. ch. 9. § 13.

456. 81. Polymnastus of Cyrene.

1. Expedition of Tolmides against the coasts of Peloponnesus.

2. Ithome surrenders; treaty between Sparta and the Arcadians; Messenians at Naupactus.

Proceedings of Pericles in the Crisæan gulph.

* 3. Petalismus established at Syracuse, b. III. ch. 9. § 7.

552. 82. Lycus the Thessalian.

Thirty years’ truce between Sparta and Argos (Thuc. V. 14.); five years’ truce with Athens.(2028)

4. The Lacedæmonians restore the independence of Delphi; the Athenians again reduce it under the yoke of the Phocians.

448. 83. Crison of Himera.

3. The Megarians throw off their dependence upon Athens, and defeat the Athenians at Nisæa, b. III. ch. 9. § 10.(2029) Pleistonax invades Attica, but retreats without any reason.

The elder Andocides and nine other ambassadors from Athens at Sparta.

Thirty years’ truce between Athens and Sparta in the winter of this year. Colony of the allied Greeks at Thurii.

4. Pleistonax leaves Sparta. He is succeeded by his son Pausanias, still an infant, and Cleomenes is appointed regent.

444. 84. Crison for the second time.

* The younger Empedocles, grandson of the elder, and son of Meton, presides over the state of Agrigentum, b. III. ch. 9. § 8.

Lygdamis, tyrant of Halicarnassus, overthrown by Herodotus and the Samians, Suidas.

440. 85. Crison for the third time.

436. 86. Theopompus the Thessalian.

1. Epidamnus applies to Corinth for assistance against its banished citizens.

2. The Corinthians defeated by the Corcyræans.

2/3 and 3/4 Preparations of Corinth. Defensive league of Corcyra with Athens.

4. Cleandridas exiled from Sparta, founds Heraclea with Tarentines, b. III. ch. 10. § 11.

Second sea-fight between Corinth and Corcyra.

Defection of Potidæa from the alliance of Athens.

432. 87. Sophron of Ambracia. Dorieus, son of Diagoras, victorious in the Pancration.

1. Ænesias Ephor Eponymus at Sparta, Sthenelaidas one of the others.

Lacedæmon with its confederates determines upon war with Athens.

In the beginning of the spring the Thebans attempt to surprise Platæa.

The Peloponnesians before Œnoë.

Brasidas Ephor. The Peloponnesians (in the middle of June) invade the territory of Eleusis and the Thriasian plain.

INDEX.

When the Roman numeral is omitted the first volume is meant.

Abdera, 244

Abia, nurse of Glenus, 58

Acanthus of Lacedæmon, ii. 272

Achæans, 12. retire to the coast of the Peloponnese and Attica, 71

Achæan Phratria at Sparta, 52

Achaia described, 80

Acosmia, ii. 136

Acrisius, 397

Acte, 90

Acyphas, 40. 43

Admetus, 224. 327

Adonis, 406

Æacidæ, 20

Ægidæ, 102. 362

Ægys, 104

Ægimius of Hesiod, 31. ii. 12

Ægina, constitution, ii. 150 money, ii. 222 character, ii. 412

Æginetan drachma, ii. 109

Ægoneia, 42

Æneas, 242. founder of Rome, 243

Ænianes, 48. 278

Æolis, ii. 65

Æpytus, 110, 111

Æpytidæ, ib.

Æsculapius, 297. 328. 407 worship of, 114

Ætolians, 234. connected with the Eleans, 68

Agæus, 90

Agrigentum, constitution of, ii. 168

ἀΐτης, 5. ii. 301

Alcæeus, 285

Alcestis, 414

Alcman, date of, ii. 328. ii. 380

Aletes, 94

ἀληθεία, 343

Aletiadæ, 96

Aleuadæ, 121

ἁλία, ii. 88

Almopia, 458. 469

Alpenus, 42

Alpheus, 74. 379

Althamenes, 98

Altis, 271

Amazons, 390

Ambracia, constitution of, ii. 158

Ambracian bay, 7

Ametor, ii. 381

Amnisus, 227

Amphanæa, 42

Amphicæa, 38

Amphictyonic league, 279

Amphilochus, 125

Amphipolus, 394. ii. 166

ἀμπίτταρες, ii. 35

Amyclæ, 101

Anactorium, 130

Anaphe, 116

Anaxilas, 164

Andania, religious ceremonies of, restored by Epaminondas, 111

Angites, 453

Antæus, 442

Anthes, 118

Antiphemus, 122

Antiphus, 419

Apaturia, festival of, 91

ἀπενιαυτισμὸς, 341

Aphamiotæ, ii. 51

Aphidnæ, 167. 431

Ἀπέλλων, 312

Aphrodite, 322. 405

Apollo, etymology of the name, 311 ἀγυιεὺς, 310. 363 ἀκήσιος, 307 ἀλεξίκακος, 307 ἀποτροπαῖος, 308 of Belvidere, 368 of Calamis, 366 of Canachus, ibid. ii. 383 of Citharœdus, 368 γενέτωρ, 302 δεκατηφόρος, 247 Delphinius, 227. 245 ἐλελεὺς, 309 ἐπικούριος, 307 ἐρέσιος, 248 Erythibius, 238. 299 Gryneus, 247 ἰατρὸς, 308 Καρνεῖος, 360 Κισσεὺς, 361 καταιβάσιος, 307 λεσχηνόριος, 263 λεπιτύμνιος, 248 λοίμιος, 308 of the Lycæum, 368 Lycius, 240. 313 Malloeis, 248 ναπαῖος, ibid. νεομήνιος, 299 Nomius, 295 of Onatas, 366 πασπάριος, 240 πατρῷος, 257. 263 Philesius, 245 προστάτης, 308 προστατήριος, ibid. Pythaëus, 93. 267 Σμίνθειος, 240. 298 Thyrxeus, 238

Apollonia, 131. in Crete, 227. 283 constitution of, ii. 160

Apophthegms, ii. 386

Arcadia, 75

Arcadians, 197

Architecture, Doric, style of, ii. 269

Areopagus, 340

Ares, 406

Arethusa, 380

Argos, colonies, 112 constitution, ii. 145 courts of justice, ii. 229 history, 169. 172. 175. 190. 197 kings, ii. 111 slaves, ii. 54 tribes, ii. 76 character, ii. 407 dialect, ii. 435, 436

Ἀργεῖοι, a name of the Helots, ii. 43

Argolis described, 78

Argura, 26

Arion, ii. 372. ii. 375

Ariphron, ii. 378

Aristæus, 295

Aristeas, 290

Aristocrates, 165

Aristodemus, 99. ii. 443

Aristomachus, 65

Aristomenes, 157. 165. 168

Artemis, 374 Ætolian, 374 Arcadian, 376 Attic, 383 Doric, 372 Ephesian, 389 Leucophrynè, 392 Orthia, 383 ποταμία, 380 Pergæan, 393 of Sipylus, 392

Asine, 46

Asopus, 89

Aspendus, 124

Astæus, 133

Asteria, 321

Astypalæa, 116. ii. 177

Athamanes, 7

Athenè ὀπτιλέτις, 397 ὀξυδέρκης, ibid. ἀκρία, ibid.

Atintanes, 457

Atrax, 26. 29

Attica, 256

Axius, 451

Azorum, 23. 25. 30

Babyca, ii. 90

Bacchiadæ, ii. 138. ii. 451

Βαλλὴν, 10

Barnus, 453

Baths of Lacedæmon, ii. 283

Bermius, 453.

Bessi, 10

Bibasis, ii. 345

Bidiæi, ii. 131. ii. 228

Bisaltia, 454

Black broth of Sparta, ii. 285

Blæsus, ii. 369

Bœotia, 262

Bœum, 39. 44

Bottiais, 455

Βοῦαι, ii. 310

Branchidæ. 246

Brasidas, 218. ii. 406

Brass, pound of, unit of the Italian money system, ii. 224

Bryallicha, ii. 346

Brygians, 8. 481

Buagi, ii. 131

Bucolic poetry, ii. 350

Busiris, 442

Bulis, 49

Byzantium, 133. 250 slaves, ii. 62 constitution, ii. 174 character, ii. 411 dialect, ii. 437

Cadmus, 255 of Cos, 187

Cænidæ, 97

Callicratidas, ii. 405

Callisto, 377

Calydna, 114. 116

Camarina, 129

κάναθρα, ii. 292

Carmanor, 228. 234. 350

Carnean games, list of conquerors at, 144

Carnus, 66

Carpathus, 116. 120

Carphæa, 44

Caryatides, ii. 348

Carystus, 47

Casmene, 129

καστόριον, ii. 341

Casus, 120

Ceadas, 157

Celts, 2

Centaurs, 417

Cephalus, 251

Cephisus, 38

Cercopes, 422. 447

Ceronia, 139

Ceyx, 59. 416

Chalcedon, 133. 250

Chalcidians, 278

Chalcis in Ætolia, 130

Chaonians, 6

Charadra, 39

Charinus, ii. 361

Charites, 407

Charondas, laws of, ii. 230. 234. 241

Χιτὼν, ii. 274. ii. 277

Χλαῖνα, ii. 277

Chlamys, 478

Chones, 6

Choral poetry, ii. 374

Χωρίτης, ii. 22

Chorus, ii. 262. 334

Chronology and history, early materials for, 142

Chryse, 386

Chrysothemis, 228. 350. 355. ii. 379

Cimon, treaty of, 205

Cinadon, ii. 232

Cinæthon, 156

Cirrha, 272. 276

Claros, 246

κλεινὸς, ii. 302

Cleisthenes of Sicyon, 178

Cleobulus, ii. 378

Cleodæus, 65

Cleonæ, 79. 90

Cleosthenes, 153. ii. 445

κλῆρος, ii. 32

Clytiadæ, 272

Cnacion, ii. 90

Cnidos, 137 constitution of, ii. 177

Cnosus, 493. ii. 137

Comedy, ii. 354 introduction of at Athens, ii. 355 Sicilian, ii. 356

Community of property in Sparta, ii. 197 of husbands, ii. 201

Congress of the Greeks, 203

Conquest of the Peloponnese, 85

Contoporia, 79

Corcyra, 130

Corcyra, Black, 138

Corybas, 229

Corinth, history, 94, 95. 181 colonies, 127 slaves, ii. 58 kings, ii. 112 courtesans, ii. 300 character, ii. 408 prytanes, ii. 138 constitution, ii. 150. ii. 155

Cos, 114. 120

Cosmus, ii. 2

Craugallidæ, 47. 276

Cresphontes, 70

Crestonica, 454

Crete, character, ii. 406 Cosmi, ii. 134 Doric migration to, 34 later migrations, 36 education, ii. 311 gerusia, ii. 98 laws, ii. 237 music, ii. 333 princes, ii. 113 public assembly, ii. 92 slaves, ii. 50 dialect, ii. 436

Crissa, or Cirrha, 230. 281

Crissæans, 47

Crœsus, 347

Crotona, 140. 281. 286. 439 constitution, ii. 184 character, ii. 413

Cryassa, 116

Cultivation, proofs of in the Peloponnese, 81 carried on by the conquered races, 83

Curetes, 229

Curium, 124

Cyclopian hall, 87

Cycnus, 225. 414

Cynosura, ii. 48

Cynuria, 171. 174. 190

Cyphus, 28. 31

Cypselus, 97. 181

Cyrene, 136. 283 constitution, ii. 178 ephors, ii. 114 tribes, 62 character, 412 dialect, 438

Cytinium, 40. 44

Damastes, 291

Δαμοσία, ii. 251

Daphne, 302

Daphnephorus, 223

Decelea, 431

Deianira, 68. 416

Δεικηλίκται, ii. 348

Deimalea, ii. 348

Deipnias, 224

Deiphontes, 90. 119

Delians, 207

Delos, 229. 287. 320. 343

Delphi, temple of, 225. 231 constitution, ii. 274. 372. 188 kings, ii. 114. ii. 138 laws, ii. 237 character, ii. 414 dialect, ii. 439

Delphine, 324

Delphinia, 262

Demeter, 398 Cabirian worship of at Andania, 111 Syracusan, 401 Triopian, 115 Χθονία, 402 worship of, ii. 339

Demiurgi, ii. 144

Democracy, ii. 9

Δῆμος, ii. 8

Dercylidas, ii. 405

Deucalion, 20

Deuriopus, 459

Dexamenus, 417

Diagoridæ, 119

Dionysus, 403

Dioscuri, tombs of, 103. 408

Dipæa, battle of, 207

Dipodia, ii. 345

Dirges, 354

Dithyramb, 405

Dium, 24

Doberus, 460

Dodona, 6. 28

δόκανα, 408

Doliche, 23. 25

Dorians, migration of to different parts of the north of Greece, 36 to the Peloponnese, 58 to Crete, 34. 493 probable number at the invasion, 84 jocularity of, ii. 370

Doric constitution, ii. 11 epic poets, ii. 378 dialect, 417

Doridas, 96

Dorieus, 141. ii. 151

Doris, or Doric Tetrapolis, 38. 43

Dorium, 43

Dorus, 43. 490

Dowry of Spartan women, ii. 204

Drymea, 38

Dryope, 44

Dryopians, 45. 93

Dymanes, ii. 76

Ἑβδομαὶ, 338

Echemus, 63

Edessa, 479

Edonians, 465

Εἴλως, derivation of, ii. 30

Eilythyia, 262

Eion, 46

εἰσπνήλας, ii. 300

ἔκκλητοι, 201

Eleusinia, 402

Eleutherolacones, ii. 19

Elis, hollow, 80. 202 periœci of, ii. 57. ii. 74 gerusia of, ii. 99

Ἐλωὸς, 319

Elymea, 457

Elyrus, 228

Emathia, 473. 479

Ἐμβατήριον, ii. 342

Empelori, ii. 131

ἔμφρουρος, ii. 243

Encheleans, 7. 37

ἐνιαυτὸς, 329. 341. 429

ἐνναετηρὶς, 261. 337. 429. ii. 103

Enomoty, ii. 245

Ἠοῖαι of Hesiod, 58. 491

Eordians, 459. 468. 482

ἐπευνακταὶ, ii. 44

Ephetæ, 340

Ephors, ii. 114

Ephyra, when changed to Corinth, 96 in Thesprotia, 96. 121. 317. 419

Epicharmus, ii. 356. ii. 358. 360-363

Epidamnus, 131. ii. 217 constitution of, ii. 159

Epidaurus, 79. 91 constitution of, ii. 149 kings of, ii. 113 slaves of, ii. 57

Epidemiurgi of Corinth, ii. 144

Epigenes of Sicyon, ii. 371

Epimenides, 355. ii. 394

Epirus, 6. 477.

Epitadeus, law of, ii. 202

Equals, ὅμοιοι, ii. 84

Eratidæ, 113

Erigon, 451

Erineus, 40. 43

Eros, 407

ἐρυκτὴρ, ii. 35. 43

Erysichthon, 400

Erytheia, 420

ἑστιοπάμων, ii. 199

Euæchme, 58

Eumelus, 129. 156

Eurotas, 76. 81 plain of, 76

Euryanax, ii. 461

Eurysthenes and Procles, 100. 107. 144

Eurystheus, 59 tomb of, 61

Eurytus, 411.

Expiations, 332. 342

Families, preservation of, in Sparta, ii. 198

Fate, 330. 345

Flute, 351

Gagæ, 122

Gargettus, 60

Gela, 122. ii. 168

Geography of the Peloponnese, 73

Geomori of Samos, ii. 7

Γέρανος, 358

Gergis, 242

Gerusia in Doric states, ii. 93. ii. 156. ii. 228

Geryoneus, 420

Glaucus, 111

Goat, a symbol of Alollo, 325

Gomphi, 27

Gonnocondylum, 22

Gonnus, 22, 23

Gortyna, 136. 227

Government, ancient notion of, ii. 1

Gryneum, 280

Gylippus, 218

Gymnastic exercises, ii. 313

Gymnesii, 191. ii. 54

Hair, Spartan mode of wearing the, ii. 281

Haliacmon, 452

Halicarnassus, 115 by whom colonized, 115. 118

Harma, 259

Harmosyni, ii. 131

Hecatæus of Abdera, 293

Hecatus, 268

Heiresses, Athenian and Spartan laws respecting, ii. 205

Helice, 71

Hellen, 20. 490

Hellenes, 11. 20. 471

Helos, 100

Helots, ii. 29 dress of, ii. 37 indecent dances of, ii. 39 military service of, ii. 34 number of, ii. 44 rent of, ii. 31 treatment of, ii. 43

Hephæstus, 406

Heraclea on the Pontus, 49. 140 constitution, ii. 116 public offices, ii. 120 slaves, ii. 62

Heraclea Sciritis, constitution, ii. 183 ephors, ii. 115 dialect, ii. 438

Heraclidæ, whether Dorians or not, 54 defeated at Tegea, 63 their final expedition, 65. ii. 443

Hercules, account of in Homer, 51 ἀλεξίκακος, 445 costume, 434 ἱποκτόνος, 445 κορνοπίων, ibid. labours, 433 fabulous right to the Peloponnese, 51. 275. 410 purification of, 436 Sandon, 440 servitude of, 414. 429 subdues the Dryopians, 46

Here, 395

Hermes, 307. 311

Hermione, 46. 193 dialect, ii. 437

Herodotus, ii. 385

Heroic age, constitution of, ii. 6

Hexapolis, Doric, 115

Hieromnamon, ii. 173

Hierapytna, 398

ἱλαροτραγῳδία, ii. 368

ἱμάτιον, ii. 274

Himera, 129

Hippodamus of Miletus, ii. 266

Hippotes, 66. 94

Historians, Doric, ii. 385

Homer, dialect of, ii. 378

ὁμόκαποι, ii. 199

ὁμοσίπυοι, ibid.

Horæo-castro, 22

Horus, 300

Hyacinthus, worship of, 139. 360

Hyamia, 163

Hybla, 135

Hydra of Lerna, 434

Hylas, 361. 441

Hylleans, 13. 53. ii. 76

Hyllus, 53. 59 at Thebes, 62 slain by Echemus, 63. 413

Hyperboreans, 230. 262. 271. 284. 298. 323. 329. 337. 373

Hyporchema, 357. ii. 337

Iambists, choruses of, ii. 339

Iamidæ, 128. 272. 380

Iasians, 118

Ichnæ, 455

Ἴλη, ii. 310

Illyrian Athamanes, 48

Illyrians, 471

Inachus, 79

Inalienability of land, ii. 208

Inferiors, ὑπομείονες, ii. 84

Iolaus, 57

Ion, 258. 264 of Euripides, 265

Ione, 124

Ionians, 256 degeneracy of, ii. 5

Iphigenia, 383

Iphitus, 153. 155. 270. 413 quoit of, 143

Ἴρην, ii. 309

Ismenium, 254

Isthmius, 111

Ithome, siege of, 209

καυσία, 4. 479

κατωνάκη, ii. 38

κηληδόνες, 350. 365

κιθάρα, 349

Κοίλη Λακεδαίμων, explained, 76. 104

κονίποδες, ii. 57

κορυθάλεια, 343

κορυνηφόροι, ii. 54

κρεμβαλιαστὺς, 358

κρυπτεία, ii. 240

κυθηροδίκης, ii. 27

Κυλλύριοι, ii. 61. 161

κυνέη, 478

Lacius, 125

Lacmon, 452

Laconia, 75 divided into six provinces, 106 domestic economy, ii. 213 money, ii. 214 dialect, ii. 434

Laomedon, 241

Lapathus, 24. 139

Lapithæ, 29

Larissa, 22. 25 Phriconis, 42

Lasus, ii. 378

Latin language, 17

Laurel, 343

Λεχέρνα, 396

Leogoras, 275

Lepreum, 202

Lesche, ii. 396

Letters, considered as Phœnician symbols, 143

Leucadia, constitution, ii. 159

Leucatas, 251

Lichas, ii. 406

Lilæa, 39. 44

Limnæ, ii. 48

Linus, 353. 427

Lipara, 137

Lochus, ii. 246

Locri, 140. ii. 238

Logographi, 56

Λόμβαι, 382

Long walls, 215

Leucæ, 247

Lycia, 236

Lycorea, 49. 233

Lyctus,227

Lycurgus, 146. 152. 270. ii. 12

Lydia, kings of, 441

Lydias or Ludias, 451

Lyncestis, 458

Lyre, ii. 377

Lysander, ii. 219. 404

Macaria, 60 valley of, 78

Macedon, 172

Macedonians, 2 their dialect, 3. 485 not Dorians, 37 but Illyrians, 479 their customs, 482 religion, 483

Macedonis, 455

Maceta, 474

Magnesians, 276

Malians, 47

Mallus, 124. 126

Mantinea, battle of, ii. 244

Manufactures of Lacoma, ii. 25

Marsyas, 351

Medea, 396

Megara, 97 one of five hamlets, 99 colonies, 132 comedy, ii. 354 comic poets, ibid constitution, ii. 171 history, 186. 194. 212. 249 kings, ii. 113 dialect, ii. 437

Melampodidæ, 272

Melcart, 443

Melia, 79

Melos, 136 constitution of, ii. 178

Mesambria, 134

Mesoa, ii. 48

Messenia divided into six provinces, 106 history, 108 kings, ii. 113 character, ii. 413 dialect, ii. 435

Messenian wars, 156 third war, 208

Messenians, 209

Metapontum, 281. 286

Meteora, 26

Miletus, 244

Military games, ii. 313 at Crete, ii. 320

Minos, 35

Minyans, 12

Μνοία, ii. 51

Molycreium, 127

Mora, ii. 248

Mopsium, 25

Mopsuestia, 124. 126

Mopsuerene, 124. 126

Mopsus, 125

μοθάκες, ii. 43

Music, Doric, ii. 323

Musical contests, ii. 338

Mycenæ, 79

Myceneans, 192

Mygdonia, 454

Mygdonians, 8

Mylasa, 116

Myndus, ibid

Myron, 154. 178

Myscellus, 140

Myson, ii. 26

Narcissus, 353

Naupactia, 156

Naupactus, 65

Nemea, 79. 433 lion, ibid

νεοδαμώδεις, ii. 43

νεολαία, ii. 307

Nisyrus, 120

Nome, ii. 337

Nomophylaces, ii. 131

Nomus, 355

Νόμος, numus, ii. 224

Noricum, 117. 138

Oba, ii. 78. 249

Œchalia, 28 taking of, 411 situation, 412

Œnöe, 258

Œnophyta, battle of, 211

Œta, mount, 41

Œtæans, 48

Olen, ii. 379

Olympic games, list of victors at, 143. 270. 436. ii. 315

ὦπις, 373

Orestæ, 458

Orneatæ, 92. 176. ii. 55

ὅροι, 150

Orsippus of Megara, ii. 272

Oxylus, 68. 71

Pæan, the god, 308 the song, 309. 325. 370

Pæonia, 459

Pæonians, 471, 472

Pagasæ, 224

παιδεραστία, ii. 300 of Crete, ii. 302 of Sparta, ii. 300

παιδόνομος, ii. 310

Palm tree of Delos, 303. 322

Pamphyli, ii. 76

Pantaleon, 165

Panthus, 241

Parauæa, 457

Παρθενίαι, ii. 294

Paroria, 457

Patara, 237

Patronomi, ii. 132

Pausanias, 204. 489

Pedaritus, ii. 406

Pelagonia, 460

Pelagonian Tripolis, 25

Pelasgi, 6. 7. 15. 36. 220

Pelinna, 26, 27

Pella, 452. 455

Peloponnese, division of, 70

Peloponnesian league, 196

Peloria, festival of, 27

Perinthus, 135

Penestæ, ii. 65

Penthelidæ, 72

Perdiccas, 463

Periatider, 182. ii. 158. ii. 222. ii. 276

Periœci of Laconia, ii. 18

περφέρεες, 288

Persian war, 497

Petalism, ii. 163

πέτασος, 478

Petra, 24

Phaëthon, 301

Phæstus, 89. 227

Phalanna, 25

Phalanthus, 139

Phalces, 89

Phallophori, 404. ii. 352

Pharcedon, 26

Pharis, 104

Phaselis, 122

φειδίτια, ii. 288

Pheidon, 172. 464

Phidippus, 120. 419

Philammon, 356. ii. 377

Phlegyans, 234

Phlegyas, 234. 297

Phlius, 79. 89 constitution of, ii. 170 its satiric drama, ii. 373 character, ii. 410

Phocis, plain of, 38

Phœbus, 312

φοιβάζειν, ibid

Phormis, ii. 357

φούαξιρ, 384. ii. 326. 491

Phricium, 422

Phrygians, 8. 480 their language, 9

Phthiotis, 20. 490

Πίτανα, ii. 48

Plautus, ii. 362

πόλις, ii. 71

Polybœa, 361

Polycaon son of Butes, 58

Polycrates, 189

Polydorus, ii. 449

πόρπαξ, ii. 256

Poseidon, 258. 402

Potidæa, 132

Pratinas of Phlius, ii. 373

Praxilla, 405

Priestesses of Here at Argos, catalogue of, 144

πρόβουλοι, 206

Procles, 186

Procris, 251

προστάτης τοῦ δήμον, ii. 147

Prytanes of Lacedæmon, 145 of Athens, ii. 140

Psammetichus, 185

Purification, 264. 370

Pydna, 456

Pylæa, ii. 396

Pylos, Nelean, 104 Nestorian, 82. 435 Triphylian, 81

Pyrrhic dance, ii. 342

Pythagoras, league of, ii. 182. ii. 316. ii. 393 philosophy of, ii. 186 government of, ii. 184. 193

Pythiad, ii. 454

Pythian strain, 325

Pythians, ii. 15

Pythium, 24. 258

Registers, public, of Lacedæmon, 144

Rents of the Helots, ii. 31

Rhacius, 247

Rhadamanthus, 427

Rhegium, 164. 278

Rhetoric of Sparta, ii. 386

Rhetra, 148 of Agis, ii. 47 of Lycurgus, ii. 86 of Theopompus and Polydorus, ii. 87. 118

Rhianus, 158

Rhinthon, ii. 368

Rhipæan mountains, 291

Rhodes, colonies, 122 constitution, ii. 151 Prytanes of, ii. 139 character, ii. 408 dialect, ii. 437

Rhodia, 126

Rhoduntia, 42

Riddles, ii. 392

Sacadas of Argos, ii. 328. 338

Sacred road of Apollo, 223

Sacred slaves, 274. 392. 405

Sagalassus, 139

Salamis, 194

Sarpedon, 237

Sciras, ii. 369

Sciritæ, ii. 253

Sculpture, Doric, ii. 382

Scythians, 288

Selge, 138

Selinus, 136. 406

Selymbria, 134

Sibyls, ii. 346

Sicyon, constitution, ii. 169 history, 177 music, ii. 330 tribes, ii. 58 slaves, ii. 583 character, ii. 410

σιδεῦναι, ii. 309

σκυταλισμὸς, ii. 149

Slavery, kinds of, ii. 36

Socrates the poet, ii. 335

Soli, 122. 125

Solium, 130

Solygius, hill of, 95

Sopatrus, ii. 369

Sophron, mimes of, ii. 364-7

Soüs, 108. 147

Sovereignty, Doric, ii. 100

Sparta, once an inconsiderable town, 102 colonies, 136 courts of justice, ii. 228 education, ii. 307 ephors, ii. 114 gerusia, ii. 94. ii. 236 infantry, ii. 253 kings, ii.100 succession, ii. 105 king’s house, ii. 266 military system, ii. 242 marriage, ii. 292 public assembly, ii. 88 stealing, ii. 319 taxes, ii. 221

Spartans number of, ii. 203 character of, ii. 402

Spartan brevity of speech, ii. 387

σφαιρεῖς, ii. 309

Στεμματιαῖα, festival of, 66

Stenyclarus, battle of, 208

Stesichorus, ii. 375

Strymon, 453

Stymphæa, 457

Styra, 47

Subject classes, dress of, ii. 73

Syme, 137

Synedrion, during the Persian war, 498

Synnada, 117

Syracuse, 128. 380 character, ii. 409 constitution, ii. 161 slaves, ii. 61 date of foundation, ii. 447

Syssitia of Sparta, ii. 210. ii. 283 of Crete, ii. 211. ii. 286

Tænarum, 248

Taleclus, 101

Talthybiadæ, ii. 28

Tarentum, 139. 164. 439 constitution, ii. 181 princes, ii. 113 character, ii, 413 dialect, ii. 438

Tarrha, 228

Tarsus, 124

Tauria, 386

Taygetus, mount, 77

Tegea, 207. 269

Tegyra, 254

Teichius, 42

Telesilla, 381. ii. 377

Telliadæ, 272

Temenus, 88

Temenidæ, 463

Tempe, 21. 30. 222. 290

Tenea, 239

Tenedos, ibid

Tenure of land in Laconia, ii. 196

Terpander, ii. 376

Tetrapolis, why spared by the Spartans, 61. 430

Teucrians, 11

Teutamus, 35

Thaletas, 350. 359. ii. 14. ii. 328

Thapsus, 136

Theagenes, 92

Θεαροδοκία, 280

Thebes, 254

Themistocles, 206

Theoclus, 157

Theopompus, 162. ii. 448

Thera, 136 ephors, ii. 115

Therapne, 103

Θεράπων, ii. 35

Theseus, 229. 257. 262. 263

Thessalians, 4. ii. 64

Thirty tyrants of Athens, u. 98

Thoricus, 250

Thrace, 244

Thracians, 10. 470. 484

Tilphossa, 253

Timocracy, ii. 8

Timotheus, Spartan decree concerning, ii. 330

Tiresias, 255. 343

Tiryns, 192

Tisamenus, 69

Titacidæ, 431

Tityrus, ii. 351

Tityus, 254. 329

Tlepolemus, 119, 120

Tolmides, 212

Trachis, 42

Tragedy, 404. ii. 371

Treasury of Atreus, ii. 267

Triacon, 91

Tricca, 26

τριχάϊκες, 33, 34

τριόφθαλμος, oracle respecting, 68

Triopian promontory, 115

Triopium, 279

Tripod, robbery of by Hercules, 426

Tripolis and Tetrapolis, Doric, 43

Trœzen, 91. 118. 248

Trogilus, 136

τύρβη, 404

Tyndaridæ, 431

Typhaon, 320

Tyrtæus, 156. 160. 164. 166. ii. 15. 198

Vases, illustrating ancient comedies, ii. 359-361

Vejovis, 307

Ver sacrum, 276

War, how carried on by the Dorians in the conquest of the Peloponnese, 85

Wise men of Greece, ii. 39

Wolf, symbol of Apollo, 264. 314

Writing, art of, when introduced into Greece, 143

Xanthus, 237. 313

Xenelasia, ii. 4

Xenodamus, 359

Xerxes, 300

Xuthus, 258

Zaleucus, laws of, ii. 227. ii. 231. ii. 236. ii. 239

Zeus, of the Dorians, 318. 394

ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS.

Vol. I.

P. 19. l. 18. In the explanation of Melia, the ash has been confounded with the alder. It seems that the ash, which probably reached a greater height than any other tree in Greece, is used in this genealogy, as in Hesiod Theog. 187, for the force of vegetation generally.

P. 80. l. 11. It may be objected that the countries in which commerce and manufactures have flourished most, have not possessed mines of the precious metals. This remark is true of modern Europe; but in Greece the copper of Chalcis appears to be connected with the Chalcidean trade and colonies, and the gold of Thasos with the maritime pursuits of the Thasians and their large navy before the time of Cimon. The silver of Laurion likewise contributed to the industry and foreign commerce of Attica. The prosperity of the maritime cities of Asia Minor was at least assisted by the gold mines in Lydia; as may be seen in the very ancient golden staters (partly made of electron, which according to Soph. Ant. 1025 came from Sardis) of Phocæa, Lampsacus, Clazomenæ, &c.

P. 82. l. 2. It now appears to me that Leake, Morea, vol. III. ch. 30. is right in considering the Contoporia as a footpath over the hills, which required the use of long sticks or poles. The road in the valley between the rocks bore the name of Tretos.

P. 127. l. 25. for all its colonies read all its early colonies.

P. 209. notes, col. 2. l. 10. for Platæon read Platæan.

P. 212. notes, col. 2. l. 10. for εἰρένης, read εἰρήνης.

P. 252 note t add—The emendation of Dobree, Adv. vol. I. p. 599. of ἐρασταὶ for ἱερεῖς is not needed, since it is proved that the leap from the Leucadian rock was originally a religious rite.

P. 384. note c add—The identification of Artemis with the moon is earlier than that of Apollo with the sun (B. II. ch. 5. § 5.) The former occurs not only in Æschyl. Xant. fr. 158. ed. Dindorf, but is also manifest in the worship of the Munychian and Brauronian Artemis. The name Αἰθοπία designates her shining countenance or orb; and a cake surrounded with lights, called for that reason ἀμφιφῶν or ἀμφιφῶς, was offered to the goddess on the 16th of Munychion, because the moon was full on that day. See Callim. fr. 417. ed. Bentl. Eratosth. ap. Steph. Byz. in Αἰθοπία, Hesych. in Αἰθιοπαῖδα, Apollod. fr. p. 402. Heyne.

P. 390. note r add—I cannot approve of Lobeck’s emendation of Ἑρμῆς for Ἡρακλῆς in Etymol. Mag. et Gud. in κηρυκεῖον (Aglaoph. vol. II. p. 1166); since the mythical system there alluded to is very different from that of the ordinary Greek mythology.

P. 475. note o. In the passage of Constantinus, read καὶ τὴν Ὀρέστειαν δὲ. Ὀρέστεια is used by Appian, quoted in the following note.

Vol. II.

P. 5. notes col. 1. l. 8. after the parenthesis add: with Cimon (Plut. Cim. 14.)

P. 8. note p for Zeeob read Zenob.

P. 131. l. 15. It does not appear that the Spartan nomophylaces were guardians of written laws. The Athenian and Olympian nomophylaces were not obviously connected with the written legislation. By nomophylaces in Greece were generally understood guardians of manners. See p. 240. note s.

P. 132. l. 7. for nomophylaces read nomothetæ.

[Transcriber’s Note: The following images are sections of the large map attached to the binding of the book. To allow it to be represented in this e-book, it has been divided into 16 sections. They are laid out in this manner:]

A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 C4 D1 D2 D3 D4

[Map section A1.]

Map section A1.

[Map section A2.]

Map section A2.

[Map section A3.]

Map section A3.

[Map section A4.]

Map section A4.

[Map section B1.]

Map section B1.

[Map section B2.]

Map section B2.

[Map section B3.]

Map section B3.

[Map section B4.]

Map section B4.

[Map section C1.]

Map section C1.

[Map section C2.]

Map section C2.

[Map section C3.]

Map section C3.

[Map section C4.]

Map section C4.

[Map section D1.]

Map section D1.

[Map section D2.]

Map section D2.

[Map section D3.]

Map section D3.

[Map section D4.]

Map section D4.

FOOTNOTES

1 II. 11.

2 Herod. I. 65. Concerning the expression κόσμος, with regard to the constitution of Sparta, see also Clearchus ap. Athen. XV. p. 681 C.

3 Pausan. III. 16. 5. See above, vol. I. p. 69, note g.

4 That is, of the Pythagorean philosophy. See below, ch. 9. § 16.

5 Thucyd. II. 11. cf. I. 70. 71. Athen. XIV. p. 624 C. &c.

6 Plat. Protag. p. 342 C. Xenoph. Rep. Lac. 14, 4. Plutarch. Inst. Lac. p. 252. and particularly Isocrat. Busir. p. 225 A. The Spartans were ἐνδημότατοι, according to Thucyd. I. 70. See below, ch. 11. § 7.

7 From Thucyd. I. 144. compared with Plutarch’s Life of Agis, it may be seen that the ξενηλασία was only practised against tribes of different usages, particularly Athenians and Ionians. See Valer. Max. II. 6. ext. 1. Yet at the Gymnopædia (Plut. Ages. 29. cf. Cimon. 10. Xenoph. Mem. Socrat. I. 2. 61.) and other festivals, Sparta was full of foreigners, Cragius de Rep. Lac. III. p. 213. Poets, such as Thaletas, Terpander, Nymphæus of Cydonia, Theognis (who celebrates his hospitable reception in the ἀγλαὸν ἄστυ, v. 785.); philosophers, such as Pherecydes and Anaximander and Anacharsis the Scythian, were willingly admitted; other classes of persons were excluded. Thus there were regulations concerning persons, and the time of admitting foreigners: and hence the earlier writers, such as Thucydides, Xenophon, and Aristotle, always speak of ξενηλασίαι in the plural number. (Compare Plut. Inst. Lac. 20.) See also Plut. Lyc. 27. who refers to Thuc. II. 24. Aristoph. Av. 1013. and the Scholiast (from Theopompus), and Schol. Pac. 622. Suid. in διειρωνόξενοι and ξενηλατεῖν, who, as usual, has copied from the Scholiast to Aristophanes, that the Xenelasia was introduced ποτὲ ΣΠΟΔΙΑΣ γενομένης, for which we should clearly write ΣΙΤΟΔΕΙΑΣ. Theophil. Instit. I. tit. 2. Comp. de la Nauze Mem. de l’Acad. des Inscript. tom. XII. p. 159. It may be added that the numerous ξενίαι and προξενίαι, the hospitable connexions of states and individuals, served to alleviate the harshness of the institution. Thus the Lacedæmonians were connected with the Pisistratidæ (vol. I. p. 188, note c), and with the family of Callias (Xen. Symp. 8. 39); Endius with Clinias, the father of Alcibiades (Thuc. VIII. 6); king Archidamus with Pericles (ib. II. 13); Xenias the Elean with king Agis, the son of Archidamus, and the state of Sparta. (Paus. III. 8. 2.) See B. III. ch. 6. § 7, and vol. I. p. 209, n. z. The exchange of names, occasioned by προξενίαι, might be made the subject of a distinct investigation. See the note last cited, and Paus. III. 6. 41. Moreover the Spartans sometimes gave freedom from custom duties, and the privilege of occupying a seat of honour at the games at Sparta, to strangers, even of Athenian race; for example, to the Deceleans, according to Herod. IX. 73.

8 p. 100. ed. Frank.

9 See Naeke’s Chœrilus, p. 74.

10 Archiloch. p. 226. Liebel. Lycoph. 1385. and Tzetzes, Etym. in ἀσελγαίνειν and Ἐλεγηΐς. Concerning the effeminacy of the Codridæ, see Heraclid. Pont. I.

11 ἄριστοι, ἀριστεῖς, ἄνακτες, βασιλεῖς, ἐπικρατέοντες, κοιρανέοντες.

12 On the Gerontes, see below, ch. 6. § 1-4.

13 We should particularly observe the assembly in the second book of the Odyssey, in which, however, Mentor (v. 239.) wishes to bring about a declaration of the people not strictly constitutional. But that the Homeric Ἀγορὰ independently exercised the rights of government, I cannot allow to Platner, De Notione Juris apud Homerum, p. 108. and Tittmann Griechischen Staatsverfassungen, p. 63. It was a species of Wittenagemote, in which none but the thanes had the right of voting, as among the Saxons in England. The people composed a concio, but no comitia. My opinion more nearly coincides with that of Wachsmuth, Jus Gentium apud Græcos, p. 18, sq.

14 Æginetica, p. 133.

15 Χρήματα χρήματ᾽ ἀνὴρ, Pindar. Isth. II. 11. See Dissen Explic. p. 493. Alcæus ap. Schol. et Zeeob. Prov.

16 V. 190.

17 Ap. Aristot. Pol. IV. 8. 7, 10.

18 See Hüllmann, Staatsrecht, p. 103.

19 Plutarch. Qu. Gr. 32. The emendation Πλοῦτις is confirmed by the comparison of Athenæus XII. p. 524 A.B.

20 See book I. ch. 8.

21 See Aristot. Pol. V. 10. 4. Panætius of Leontini was a demagogue in a previously oligarchical state, of which the constitution was similar to that of the Hippobotæ. See Polyænus V. 47.

22 Herod. VI. 43.—Pindar (Pyth. II. 87.) supposes three constitutions, Tyranny, Dominion of the unrestrained Multitude, and Government of the Wise.

23 Aristot. Pol. V. 4.

24 Aristot. Pol. V. 2. 9. V. 3. 6. with Schneider’s notes.

25 VI. 46.

26 Plut. Comp. Lycurg. 4. According to Livy XXXVIII. 34. 700 years up to 190 B.C. Cicero pro Flacco 26. also reckons 700 years, but to a different period.

27 Isocrat. Panath. p. 285 C.

28 Thus Schiller severely censures this lawgiver, for having so selfishly for ever destined his people to that course, which appeared to his own narrow and prejudiced mind to be the best.

29 Θεοδμάτῳ σὺν ἐλευθερίᾳ Ὕλλίδος στάθμας Ἱέρων ἐν νόμοις ἔκτισσ᾽; ἐθέλοντι δὲ Παμφύλου καὶ μὰν Ἡρακλειδᾶν ἔκγονοι ὄχθαις ὕπο Ταυγέτου ναίοντες αἰεὶ μένειν τεθμοῖσιν ἐν Αἰγιμίου Δωρίοις. Pyth. I. 61. see Boeckh’s Explic.

30 Plutarch. Comp. Timol. 2. Dion. 53. Λακωνικὸν σχῆμα—κοσμεῖν. He was himself a citizen of Sparta, Plut. Dion. 17. 49.

31 Yet Herodotus cannot have been acquainted with his work, since he considered himself as the first writer on the subject, Herod. VI. 55.

32 Strabo VIII. p. 366. On the other hand, Ephorus is probably alluded to by Heraclides Ponticus 2. when he says τὴν Λακεδαιμονίων πολίτειαν ΤΙΝΕΣ Λυκούργῳ προσάπτουσι πᾶσαν.

33 I. 65. Aristotle Pol. V. 10. 3. also calls the kings of Sparta before Lycurgus tyrants. On the other hand, Strabo VIII. p. 365. states, that “the conquerors of Laconia were from the beginning a nation subject to legal and moral restraints; but when they had intrusted the regulation of their government to Lycurgus, they so far excelled all others, that alone among the Greeks they ruled by land and sea.” That this is the meaning of the passage, is proved by the word καὶ in the clause καὶ κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς μὲν ἐσωφρόνουν. Isocrates de Pace, p. 178 C. also contradicts indirectly the supposed anarchy of the Spartans. But in Panath. p. 270 A. he follows Thucydides I. 18. στασιάσαι φασὶν αὐτοὺς οἱ τὰ ἐκείνων ἀκριβοῦντες ὡς οὐδένας ἄλλους τῶν Ἑλλήνων.

34 B. I. ch. 7 § 3, 5.

35 Herod. I. 65 Ephorus ap. Strab. VIII. p. 366. Plut. Lycurg. 31. Nicol. Damasc. p. 449.

36 B. I. ch. 1. § 9. Comp. b. II. ch. 2. § 2.

37 According to Aristot. Pol. II. 7. 1. The meaning of this writer appears to be, that the Dorians had received these laws from the early inhabitants, as the Periœci had retained them most truly; but from the account given in the text, we must reject that idea.

38 Plat. Leg. III. p. 685.

39 This statement appears more correct than of Gortyna or Cnosus. Comp. Meursius, Creta, IV. 12.

40 See Aristot. Pol. II. 8. 5. Ælian. V. H. XII. 50. Diog. Laërt. I. 38. Plut. Lyc. 3. Philos. cum princ. 4. p. 88. Pausan. I. 14. 3. Philod. de Mus. Col. 18, 19. Boeth. de Mus. I. 1. p. 174. Sext. Empir. adv. Math. p. 68 B. Suid. vol. II. p. 163. Compare b. II. ch. 8. § 11.

41 Xenoph. Rep. Laced. 8. 5. According to whom Lycurgus asked the god, εἰ λῷον καὶ ἄμεινον εἴη τῇ Σπάρτῃ—doubtless a regular formula. This coincides with the dictum of the Pythian priestess in Plut. Quæst. Rom. 28. p. 329.

42 See below, ch. 5. § 8.

43 B. II. ch. 7. § 4. Later historians, from a mistaken explanation, suppose that the whole correspondence was a delusion, or a fraud of Lycurgus, Polyæn. I. 16. 1. Justin. III. 3.

44 Called in the Lacedæmonian dialect Ποίθιοι, Photius in v.

45 That this could not always be said of the θεοπρόποι, may be seen from Theognis, v. 783.

46 This, I infer, nearly agreeing with Cragius, from Cicero de Div. I. 13. Conf. Herod. VI. 57. Xenoph. Rep. Lac. 15.

47 See particularly Timæus Lex. Plat. in v. ἐξηγηταὶ Πυθόχρηστοι.

48 See Æginetica, p. 135. Compare Dissen Expl. Pind. Nem. III. p. 376. In the Thearion at Trœzen there were expiatory sacrifices, book II. ch. 2. § 8. In Thasos they were called Θεῦροι, Inscript. ap. Choiseul. Gouff. Voyage pittoresque, I. 2. p. 156. Here also they were in connexion with the temple of the Pythian Apollo.

49 See Thuc. I. 84. Plat. Alcib. I. c. 38.

50 VII. 2. 5. Engel de Rep. mil. Spart., a Göttingen prize Essay for 1790., where Cossacks, Spartans, and Cretans are classed together. Compare Heyne de Spartan. Rep. Comment. Götting. tom. IX. p. 8. It appears, indeed, from Aristotle Pol. VII. 14 (13) to have been the opinion of the writers who treated of the constitution of Sparta during the predominance of that state, that “the Lacedæmonians owed their external dominion to their constitution, according to which they had been trained to dangers and exertions from their youth (ὅτι διὰ τὸ γεγυμνάσθαι πρὸς τοῦς κινδύνους πολλῶν ἦρχον.)” But the intended effect of these institutions cannot be safely inferred from their actual consequences.

51 IV. 126.

52 Pausan. IV. 3. 3. συγχωροῦσιν ἈΝΑΔΑΣΑΣΘΑΙ πρὸς τοὺς Δωριέας τὴν γῆν. Pausanias, however, very frequently makes use of this expression, and often perhaps without any historical ground.

53 Why I take no further notice of the account of Ephorus is explained in book I. ch 5. § 13.

54 Pausan. III. 22. 7.

55 Polyb. XX. 12. 2. with Schweighæuser’s note, Liv. XXXIV. 29. XXXVIII. 30.

56 αὐτόνομοι, Pausan. III. 21. 6.

57 III. 21. 6. cf. 26. 6. The other six were at the time of Pausanias either again comprised in Messenia, as Pharæ, which Augustus had annexed to Laconia, Paus. IV. 30. 2. after it had at an earlier period been separated with Thuria and Abea from Messenia, Polyb. XXV, 1. 1, or they had fallen to decay, and were then uninhabited, as Pephnos, Helos, Cyphanta, and Leucæ. Whether Abea was included by Augustus in Laconia is doubtful, but it is probable from the situation of the place. This, with the other five mentioned above, would therefore make the number twenty-four complete. As proofs of the late independence of these towns we may mention decrees of Abea, Geronthræ, Gytheium, Œtylus, and Tænarus (Boeckh Corp. Inscript. Nos. 1307, 1334, 1325, 1336, 1391, 1392, 1323, 1321, 1322, 1393, 1394). There are also inscriptions of the Eleutherolacones jointly, τὸ κοινὸν τῶν Ἑλευθερολακώνων (ib. 1389). Likewise, according to Eckhel, there are genuine coins, belonging to this and the Roman period, of Asine, Asopus, Bœæ, Gytheium, and Las; those of Taletum and Cythera are doubtful.

58 Pausan. III. 26. 5. Sparta must, however, have retained some outlet to the sea. The Lacedæmonian coast is also called the territory of the Periœci in Thucyd. III. 16.

59 Thucyd. I. 101. The Θουριᾶται of Thuria, near Calamæ. Welcker (Alcmanis Fragment, p. 87.) proposes Αἰθαίῳ for Ληθαίῳ in Theognis v. 1216. Bekker.

60 Androtion ap. Steph. Byz. in v.

61 See also in Αἰτωλία. They are also mentioned by Strabo, VIII. p. 362. (Eustath. ad Il. B. p. 293, 19. ad Dion. Perieg. 418). They had not however any connexion with the Hecatombæa; for Argos had the same festival.

62 See book I. ch. 7. § 16. Lysias ap. Harpocrat. also calls Anthana a Lacedæmonian city. See Æginetica, p. 46, note q, p. 185. note v. Siebelis ad Pausan. II. 38. 6.

63 Book I. ch. 5. § 10.

64 See Manso, Sparta, vol. I. p. 93. Tittmann, vol. I. p. 89. That even the Lacedæmonian πλῆθος did not comprise the Periœci, is shown, e.g., by Polybius IV. 34. 7, where it rejects the alliance of the Ætolians, chiefly on account of the fear that they would ἐξανδραποδίζεσθαι τοὺς Περιοίκους. The name Λακεδαιμόνιοι, which signifies all, Periœci and Spartans, and frequently the former, as the early inhabitants, in opposition to the latter, is no more a proof of political equality than the appellation Θεσσαλοὶ of the freedom of the Penestæ.

65 Χωρίτης, as the Lacedæmonians are often called, is probably identical with περίοικος, Ælian. V. H. IX. 27. Compare χωριτίδες Βάκχαι, in Hesychius. Οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς χώρας in Athen. XV. p. 674 A. from Sosibius are opposed τοῖς ἐκ τῆς ἀγωγῆς παισὶν (those educated in Sparta), and see Casaubon’s note. The education of the Periœci was therefore entirely different from that of the Spartans.

66 Isocrates Panath. p. 271 A. speaking of the Lacedæmonians having compelled the Periœci κατ᾽ ἄνδρα συμπαρατάττεσθαι σφίσιν αὐτοῖς, confounds the Periœci with the Helots, as also in what follows.

67 In later times very different proportions occur, e.g., a very small number of Spartans in the army, when the city stood in need of its own citizens, and could not send them to a distance, or from other causes.

68 Herod. VII. 234.

69 No disobedience of the Periœci can be inferred from Thucyd. IV. 8. Some Periœci deserted to Epaminondas, Xenoph. Hell. VI. 5. 25. 23. Xenophon expresses himself more strongly, Hellen. VII. 2. 2.

70 Xenoph. Hell. V. 3. 9.

71 Thuc. IV. 53. cf. VII. 57.

72 See Plin. H. N. IX. 36, 60. 21, 8. 36, 5. Comp. Meurs. Misc. Lac. II. 19. Mitscherlisch ad Hor. Carm. II. 18. 7.

73 Plutarch, Lyc. 4. Ælian, V. H. VI. 6. Nicolaus Damascenus, and others.

74 Herod. II. 167. cf. Cic. de Rep. II. 4. Corinthum pervertit aliquando—hic error ac dissipatio civium, quod mercandi cupiditate et navigandi, et agrorum et armorum cultum reliquerant. Compare Hüllmann Staatsrecht, p. 128.

75 Aristot. Pol. II. 4. 13.

76 This follows from Xenoph. Rep. Lac. II. 2. καὶ ἱππεῦσι καὶ ὁπλίταις, ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ τοῖς χειροτέχναις.

77 Critias Λακεδ. πολιτ. ap. Athen. XI. p. 483 B. and Plutarch, Lycurg. 9. Pollux, VI. 46, 97. Hesych. Suid. Xenoph. Cyrop. I. 2. 8.

78 Athen. V. 198 D. 199 E.

79 κύλιξ Λάκαινα, Hesych. in χῖον.

80 Plut. Lyc. ubi sup.

81 Meurs. II. 17.

82 Theoph. Hist. Plant. III. 17. 3.

83 Daimachus ap. Steph. Byz. in Λακεδ. and from him Eustath. II. p. 294, 5. Rom.

84 Salmas. Exer. Plin. p. 653 B. Moser in Creuzer’s Init. Philos. vol. II. p. 152. Compare also Liban. Or. p. 87. e cod. August. ed. Reiske.

85 Xenoph. Hell. III. 3. 7. Plin. H. N. VII. 56. ξυήλη Λακωνικὴ Pollux, I. 10, 137. concerning which see Phot. and Suid. in v., who refer to Xen. Anab. IV. 8. 25. ἐγχειρίδιον, I. 10, 149. ferrei annuli, Plin. XXXIII. 4. μάστιγες, Steph. Eust. ubi sup.

86 Theocrit. X. 35. et Schol. Athen. XI. p. 483 B. V. p. 215 C. Steph. ubi sup. Hesych. in ἀμυκλαΐδες λακωνικὰ ὑποδήματα, cf. in ἐννήυσκλοι. Compare the shoes of the Amyclæan priestesses upon the monument of Amyclæ in Walpole’s Memoirs, p. 454. Lacedæmonian men’s shoes (ἁπλαῖ) are often mentioned elsewhere, Aristoph. Thesm. and Wasps. Schol. and Suidas, Critias ubi sup. Pollux, VII. 22, 80. cf. Meurs. I. 18.

87 Λάκωνες ἐΰπεπλοι Epig. ap. Suid. in Λακωνικαί. Athen. V. 198. XI. 483 C. Compare book IV. ch. 2. § 3.

88 These mines are not indeed anywhere expressly mentioned, but we must infer their existence from the number of iron fabrics, and the cheapness of iron. See below, ch. 10. § 9. and book I. ch. 4. § 3.

89 The stone quarries upon mount Taygetus were, however, according to Strabo VIII. p. 367, first opened by the Romans. Compare Xenoph. ubi sup. Pollux, VII. 23, 100. Interp. Juven. XI. 173. Meurs. II. 18. Pliny also mentions Lacedæmonian cotes and smaragdi.

90 Compare Thiersch, Ueber die Kunstepochen, Abhandlung II. p. 51.

91 My opinion is, that in the oracle (Diog. Laërt. I. 106. Comp. Casaubon and Menage) Ἠτεῖος was the correct reading, for which Οἰταῖος was long ago substituted from ignorance.—The point was doubted at an early period in antiquity; even Plato, Protag. p. 343, appears not to consider Myson as a Lacedæmonian. See also Diod. de Virt. et Vit. p. 551. Paus. X. 24. 1. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 299. Sylb. Steph. Byz. in Χὴν and Ἠτία. There is a story in Plutarch, Quæst. Rom. 84, of Myson making in winter a fork for tossing the corn, and, when Chilon wondered at it, of his justifying himself by an apposite answer; where Myson is opposed, as a Periœcian farmer, to the noble Spartan.

92 Paus. III. 22. 4.

93 In a very rhetorical passage, Panathen. p. 270 D.

94 Thuc. IV. 53. 54. Hesych. in Κυθηροδίκης.

95 Thuc. VIII. 22. Manso, Sparta, vol. II. p. 516. It does not indeed follow that this Periœcus had authority over Lacedæmonians; but Sparta must have sent him out as a commander to the Chians.

96 Herod. VI. 60. οὐ κατὰ λαμπροφωνίην (in the ἀγῶνες κηρύκων, comp. Faber Agonist. II. 15. Boeckh, Staatshaushaltung, vol. II. p. 359.) ἐπιτιθέμενοι ἄλλοι σφέας παρακληίουσιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὰ πάτρια ἐπιτελέουσι.

97 Herod. VII. 134. τοῖσιν αἱ κηρυκηίαι αἱ ἐκ Σπάρτης πᾶσαι γέρας δίδονται.

98 Θεοκήρυκες γένος τὸ ἀπὸ Ταλθυβίου παρὰ ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΙΟΙΣ. Hesych. Perhaps Ἐλευθερολάκωσι. Hemsterhuis supposes that Eleutherna in Crete is alluded to. The common name of the herald in Sparta was Μούσαξ. See Valck. ad Adoniaz. p. 379.

99 Pausan. III. 12. 6, 7. III. 23. 7.

100 Herod. ubi sup.

101 Herod. VII. 137.

102 VI. 60. Concerning the ὀψοποιοὶ see Agatharch. ap. Athen. XII. p. 550 C. Perizonius ad Ælian. V. H. XIV. 7.

103 Compare Athen. II. 39 C. with IV. 173 F.

104 The Periœci also took part in the colonies of Sparta, e.g., of Heraclea Trachinia, where they probably belonged to the πολλοί; Thuc. III. 92, 93.

105 Concerning the condition of the Helots, see, besides the more well-known books, Caperonnier, Mém. de l’Acad. des Inscript. tom. XXIII. p. 271. Schlaeger, Dissert. Helmst. 1730.

106 Ephorus ap. Strab. VIII. p. 365, according to Valckenær’s emendation, Theopompus ap. Athen. VI. p. 272. Even Hellanicus in Harpocration uses the word εἱλωτεύειν p. 15. Fragm. 54. ed. Sturz.; it is, however, uncertain whether the etymology there given is from Hellanicus. Cf. Steph. Byz.

107 This derivation was known in ancient times, e.g., Schol. Plat. Alcib. I. p. 78. Apostol. VII. 62. Εἵλωτες οἱ ἐξ αἰχμαλωτῶν δοῦλοι. So also Δμῶς comes from δαμάω (ΔΕΜΩ). For the δμῶες, of whom there were large numbers (μάλα μύριοι, Od. XVII. 422. XIX. 78.) in the house of every prince (I. 397. VII. 225. Il. XIX. 333.), and who chiefly cultivated the land, cannot have been bought slaves (for the single examples to the contrary are rather exceptions), as this would suppose a very extensive traffic in slaves; nor could they have been persons taken accidentally in expeditions of plunder and war, as in that case there could not have been so large a number in every house; but they are probably persons who were taken at the original conquest of the soil. The passage, Od. I. 298. οὔς μοι ληίσσατο may be variously applied.—Concerning the etymology of Εἵλως, compare Lennep, Etymol. p. 257.

108 Ap. Athen. VI. p. 265.

109 See book I. ch. 4. § 7.

110 Ap. Strab. VIII. p. 365. So also Pausanias III. 20. 6. calls the Helots δοῦλοι τοῦ κοινοῦ. Comp. Herod. VI. 70. where the θεράποντες are Helots.

111 Ephorus ubi sup. Ilotæ sunt jam inde antiquitus castellani, agreste genus. Liv. XXXIV. 27.

112 Plut. Instit. Lac. p. 255. where μισθῶσαι is an inaccurate expression.

113 See book I. ch. 4. § 3. comp. particularly Polyb. V. 19.—Hesiod the poet of the Helots, according to the saying of the Spartan.

114 Herod. IX. 80.

115 Plutarch, Cleomen. 23. Manso, vol. I. p. 134.

116 Plut. Lyc. 8. seventy for the master, twelve for the mistress of the house: compare ib. 24.

117 ὡσπερ ὄνοι μεγάλοις ἄχθεσι τειρόμενοι, δεσποσύνοισι φέροντες ἀναγκαίης ὑπὸ λυγρῆς ἥμισυ πᾶν, ὅσσον καρπὸν ἄρουρα φέρει.

Fragm. 6. Gaisford. The passage is given in prose by Ælian V. II. VI. 1.

118 Of the two lines of Tyrtæus afterwards cited by Pausanias, δεσπότας οἰμώζοντες, ὁμῶς ἄλοχοί τε καὶ αὐτοὶ, εὖτέ τιν᾽ οὐλομένη μοῖρα κίχοι θανάτου, it may be observed, that this duty of lamenting the king is attributed to the Periœci as well as the Helots in Herod. VI. 58.

119 See Boeckh’s Public Economy of Athens, vol. I. p. 109. eighty-two is about the fifth of four hundred. In Athens the θῆτες, πελάται, paid a sixth of the produce to the Eupatridæ. (This is without a doubt the corrupt supposition.) See Plutarch, Solon. 13. comp. Hemsterh. ad Hesych. in ἐπίμορτος.

120 Athen. IV. 141 D. from Molpis on the Lacedæmonian state.

121 Sphærus, ibid. p. 141 C. Compare also Myron ap. Athen. XIV. p. 657. παραδόντες αὐτοῖς τὴν χῶραν ἔταξαν ΜΟΙΡΑΝ ἣν αὐτοῖς ἀνοίσουσιν ἀεὶ, and Hesychius, γαβεργὸς (i.e. ΓΑϜΡΓΟΣ, γεωργὸς) ἔργου μισθωτὸς (which must be understood as in the passage quoted above, p. 32, note h. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “very early period,” starting “Plut. Instit. Lac.”]) Λάκωνες.

122 In the time of Xenophon, however, Spartans resided upon the κλῆροι; see Hell. III. 3. 5. In the time of Aristotle (Polit. II. 2. 11.) individuals had already begun to attend to agriculture; Maxim. Tyr. Diss. XIII. p. 139, calls the Spartans and Cretans in general γεωργοί.

123 Plutarch, Comp. Num. 2. Nepos, Paus. 3.

124 Xen. Rep. Lac. 6. 3. Arist. Pol. II. 2. 5. Plut. Inst. Lac. p. 252.

125 Compare Thuc. VII. 19. with IV. 80. and V. 34.

126 Herod. IX. 10. 28.

127 Herod. IX. 28. Thuc. III. 8.

128 I. q. ἀμφιστάντες Hesych. in v. cf. Voss. Valcken. Adoniaz, p. 289.

129 Herod. VII. 229. compare the passages quoted by Sturz. Lex. Xenoph. in Θεράπων.

130 Θεραπων δοῦλον ὁπλοφόρον δηλοῖ κατὰ τὴν Κρητῶν γλῶτταν. Eustath. ad Il. p. 1240, 32. Bas. ad Dion. Perieg. 533. Eustathius frequently mentions this peculiarity of the Cretan idiom, and the names of slaves in general; also the Glossary in Iriarte, Reg. Bibl. Matritensis cod. Gr. p. I. p. 146, states that the expression θεράπων for δοῦλος is Cretan.

131 Athen. p. 271 F, from Myron. These are the persons of whom Xenophon says (Hell. IV. 5. 14.) τούτους ἐκέλευον τοὺς ὑπασπιστὰς ἀραμένους ἀποφέρειν.

132 Herod. VI. 80, 81. cf. 75.

133 Xenoph. Hell. VII. 1. 12.

134 Timæus ap. Polyb. XII. 6. 7. frag. 17. p. 224. ed. Goetter. Theopompus ap. Athen. VI. p. 265. compare Orchomenos, p. 242.

135 The wives and children of Helots are often mentioned, e.g. in Thucyd. I. 103. At Athens the marriage of slaves was an uncommon event, and is usually found among the χωρὶς οἰκοῦντες. It was cheaper to purchase than to bring up slaves. (See Hume on the Populousness of Ancient Nations, Works, vol. III. p. 431-440. See p. 438, on the marriages of the Helots.)

136 See Heraclides Ponticus.

137 Welcker Alcman, Fragm. p. 6.

138 Ap. Athen. XIV. p. 657 D. The κυνῆ is also probably signified as belonging to the dress of the Helots, in the account of the signal for conspiracy given by Antiochus of Phalanthus (Strab. VI. p. 278), although other writers (Æneas Poliorc. II.) mention a πῖλος in its stead.

139 Κυνῆ Ἀρκὰς, Sophocl. Inachus ap. Schol. Aristoph. Av. 1203. Valcken. ad Theocrit. Adoniaz. p. 345. the same as the πῖλος Ἀρκὰς in Polyæn. IV. 14. galerus Arcadicus, Stat. Theb. IV. 299. VII. 39. Κυνῆ Βοιωτία as the country-dress, Hesychius. The Arcadians went into the fields in goats’ and sheep-skins, Pausan. IV. 11. 1.

140 Od. XXIV. 230.

141 Pollux, VII. 4. 68. Compare Hesychius, Moeris, and Suidas in κατωνάκη. Theopompus and Menæchmus ἐν τοῖς Σικυωνιακοῖς ap. Athen. VI. p. 271 D. (cf. Schweigh.) call the Κατωνακοφόροι Sicyonian bondsmen. Comp. Ruhnken. ad Tim. p. 212.

142 Aristoph. Lysistr. 1157. cf. Palmer. Exercit. p. 506.

143 V. 53. Bekker.

144 De rep. Ath. I. 10.

145 Lycurg. 28. and elsewhere.

146 Duris ap. Plutarch. Ages. 3.

147 Theopomp. ap. Athen. XIV, p. 657 C.

148 Plutarch, ubi sup.

149 μόθων φορτικὸν ὄρχημα, Pollux, IV. 14. 101.

150 Plutarch. c. 28. Comp. Num. I. Concerning the Crypteia, see Manso, vol. I. part 2. p. 141. Heyne, Comment. Gotting. vol. IX. p. 30.

151 Panathen. p. 271 A. See above, p. 22. note q. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “troops of the line,” starting “Isocrates Panath. p. 271 A.”]

152 Ap. Plutarch. Lyc. 28. Heraclid. Pont. 2.

153 I. p. 633 C. Justin says of the same thing, III. 3. pueros puberes non in forum, sed in agrum deduci præcepit, ut primos annos non in luxuria, sed in opere et laboribus agerent,—neque prius in urbem redire quam viri facti essent. The same, with a few deviations, is stated in Schol. Plat. Leg. I. p. 225. Ruhn.

154 VI. p. 763 B. Compare Barthélemy, Anacharsis, tom. IV. p. 461.

155 Damoteles a Spartan, ἐπὶ τῆς κρυπτείας τεταγμένος, Plut. Cleomen. 28.

156 IV. 80.

157 Leg. VI. p. 776. cited by Athen. VI. p. 264. Comp. Plutarch, Lycurg. 28. See Philological Museum, vol. II. p. 68. note 40. Critias the Athenian also said, with more wit than truth, that in Sparta the free were most free (cf. Diogen. Prov. IV. 87. Apostol. VIII. 12.); and that the slaves were most slaves, ap. Liban. Or. XXIV. vol. II. p. 85. Reisk.

158 Thuc. I. 118. V. 14, 23. Cf. Aristot. Pol. II. 6. 2.

159 Although it is denied by Dio Chrys. Or. XXXVI. p. 448 B. Compare Manso I. 2. p. 153. and I. 1. p. 234.

160 Hesych. in v.

161 Boeckh’s Economy of Athens, vol. I. p. 349. transl.

162 Thuc. V. 34. cf. IV. 80.

163 VII. 58. δύναται δὲ τὸ νεοδαμώδες ἐλεύθερον ἤδη εἶναι. The opposite is δαμώσεις (Steph. ΔΑΜΩΔΕΙΣ) δημόται ἢ οἱ ἐντελεῖς παρὰ Λακεδαιμονίους, Hesychius.

164 Cf. Plut. Ages. 6.

165 Athen. VI. 271 E. Schol. Aristoph. Plut. 279. Harpocration, Hesychius. The derivation from the town Mothone is like that of the name of the Helots from Helos. The Τρόφιμοι became Spartans from aliens by education, Xenoph. Hell. V. 3. 9. To these the confused account in Plut. Lacon. Inst. p. 252. probably refers.

166 In Athenæus they are called free, in reference to their future, not their past condition. See Hemsterhuis ap Lennep. Etymol. vol. I. p. 575.

167 Athen. ubi sup. Ælian, V. H. XII. 43. Two σύντροφοι or μόθακες of Cleomenes III. in Plut. Cleom. 8. These were, like Lysander, Heraclide Mothaces.

168 Ap. Athen. VI. p. 271 D. where the comparison with the κατωνακοφόροι does not appear to have sufficient ground. See Casaub. ad Athen. VI. 20. Interp. Hesych. in v. ἐνευνακταί. Diodorus, Exc. Vat. VII.—X. n. 12., calls the Parthenians who had been sent under Phalanthus to Tarentum, sometimes Epeunacti, sometimes Parthenians. Since they are considered as young men (for Phalanthus has an ἐραστὴς named Agathiadas), they appear to have been, not Helots who had begotten children with Spartan women, but the male offspring of such unions. As the term is used by Theopompus, these would be called the sons of Epeunacti. Hesychius likewise makes the ἐπεύνακτοι equivalent to the παρθενίαι.

169 According to the epitaph in Herod. VII. 228. 4000 men were buried at Thermopylæ, i.e., 300 Spartans, 700 Thespian Hoplitæ, and 3000 Ψιλοὶ, of whom 2100 were perhaps Helots. See below, ch. 12. § 6.

170 VIII. 40.

171 Polyb. VI. 45.

172 According to the most probable statement in Plut. Lyc. 8, viz., that Lycurgus made 4500 lots, and Polydorus the same number.

173 Plut. Alcib. I. p. 122 D. Tyrtæus ap. Schol. p. 78. Ruhnk. and ad Leg. I. p. 220. See book I. ch. 4. § 3. The valley of the Pamisus in many places gives a return of thirty times the seed, and is sown twice in the year. Sibthorp in Walpole’s Memoirs, p. 60.

174 Pausan. IV. 24. 2. τὴν μὲν ἄλλην πλὴν τῆς Ἀσιναίων αὐτοὶ διελάγχανον. Cf. III. 20. 6. Zenob. III. 39. Apostol. VII. 33. δουλότερος Μεσσηνίων: cf. Etymol. in Εἵλωτες. Etym. Gudian. p. 167, 32.

175 Thuc. I. 100. πλεῖστοι δὲ τῶν Εἵλώτων ἐγένοντο οἱ τῶν παλαιῶν Μεσσηνίων τότε δουλωθέντων ἀπόγονοι. Plutarch, Cimon, 16. Lyc. 28, and Diodorus XI. 53, sqq. incorrectly distinguish the Helots from the Messenians. Compare book I. ch. 9. § 10.

176 Compare Xen. Hell. VII. 2. 2. with VI. 5. 27.

177 Polyb. VII. 10. 1. cf. IV. 32. 1, and Manso’s Excursus on the restoration of Messenia, vol. III. part 2. p. 80.

178 Plut. Agis. 8. The word Μαλέαν is perhaps corrupt.

179 Xen. Hell. IV. 5. 11.

180 Thuc. IV. 8. οἱ ἐγγύτατα τῶν περιοίκων.

181 See above ch. 2. § 1.

182 ἐπ᾽ ἀγρῷ, ἐν τοῖς χωρίοις. Compare above, p. 34. note s. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “a few days,” starting “In the time of Xenophon.”]

183 Steph. Byz. Μεσόα τόπος Λακωνικῆς. Φυλὴ Λακωνική. Hesychius, Κυνόσουρα φυλὴ Λακωνική. Herodian περί μον λέξεως p. 13. 23. Dindorf. τὸ Κυνόσουρα ἐπὶ τῇ Λακωνικῇ φυλῇ. Cf. Schol. Callim. Dian. 94. Hesych. ἡ Πιτάνη φυλὴ.

184 III. 16. 6.

185 Boeckh, Corp. Inscript. No. 1338.

186 Boeckh, ibid. No. 1347, where it is written ΑΠΟ ΦΥΛΗΣ ΚΥΝΟΣΟΥΡΕΩΝ. Concerning which see Boeckh, p. 609. In Inscript. 1241. a διαβετης Λιμναιων (perhaps διοικητὴς Λιμνατῶν) occurs. See Boeckh, ib. p. 611.

187 Thrasybulus also (Epigr. Plut. Apophth, Lac. p. 242. Anthol. Palat. VII. 229.) was evidently a Spartan, brought back to Pitana, and so also is Archias, the Pitanatan, in Herod. III. 55. See Strabo, V. p. 250.

188 Suid. Fragm. 2. Welcker.

189 IX. 35. At the same time, Heraclides Ponticus says of Alcman merely, ἠλευθερώθη.

190 Pindar. Olymp. VI. 28. Eurip. Troad. 1116. Μενέλαος Πιτανάτης in Hesychius.

191 Hesych. in Πιτανάτης.

192 Herod. IX. 53. Thuc. I. 20. does not admit its existence. But Caracalla, in imitation of antiquity, composed a λόχος Πιτανάτης of Spartans, Herodian. IV. 8. The Tarentines (who retained the memory of the mother-city more in their names of places than in their customs) had a division of their army which was called Pitanates; the περίπολοι Πιτανᾶται are mentioned upon a coin of Tarentum: Millingen’s Ancient Coins, pl. 1. n. 19.

193 III. 55.

194 Polyæn. II. 1. 14. cf. Plut. Ages. 32.

195 Pausan. III. 14. 2.—Œnus was situated in the vicinity according to Athen. I. p. 31 C. and this also was near the city, Plut. Lyc. 6. See the map of Peloponnesus.

196 Also according to Plut. de Exil. 6.

197 VIII. p. 363 A. Doubtless the marshy grounds upon the Eurotas, which in this part frequently overflowed its banks. Compare book I. ch. 4. § 6.

198 P. 364 A. comp. Tzschucke, p. 184.

199 VII. 20. 4.

200 I. 10. Pitana is called a κώμη in Schol. Thucyd. I. 20. and Limnæ is called the Λιμναῖον χωρίον in Pausan. III. 16. 6.

201 II. 6. 3. Concerning the slaves of Crete, see Manso, Sparta, vol. I. part 2. p. 105. Ste Croix, Sur la Législation de Crète, p. 373. has confused the whole subject.

202 Similarly the Lacedæmonians, according to Cicero de Rep. III. 9. (cf. Plut. Lac. Apophth. p. 179, 201.) said proverbially, suos omnes agros, quos spiculo possent attingere.

203 Athen. VI. p. 263 E. Hesychius, Eustath. ad Il. XV. p. 1024 Rom. Ruhnken ad Tim. p. 283. Concerning ἀφαμία or ἀφημία, see Schneider’s Lexicon in ἀφαμιῶται. Hoeck’s Kreta, vol. III. p. 36.

204 Strabo XV. p. 701. Etym. Magn. in πενέσται, Photius in κλαρῶται and πενέσται. Lex. seguer. I. p. 292. emended by Meineke Euphor. p. 142.

205 Polit. II. 7. 3. cf. II. 2. 13.

206 So also in Strab. XII. p. 542 C. it is said that the slaves of the Heracleotes served upon the same conditions as ἡ Μνῴα σύνοδος ἐθήτευεν. Comp. Hermon ap. Athen. VI. p. 267 B. where Eustathius ad II. XV. p. 1024. Rom. μνῷται οἱ ἐλλενεῖς οἰκέται (those born in the country as opposed to purchased slaves) appears to have preserved the right reading. cf. ad II. XIII. p. 954. Hesych. vol. II. p. 611. Pollux III. 8. 23. κλαρῶται καὶ μνωΐται. Steph. Byz. (from the same source as Pollux) οὗτοι δὲ πρῶτοι ἐχρήσαντο θεράπουσιν ὡς Λακεδαιμόνιοι τοῖς εἵλωσι καὶ Ἀργεῖοι τοῖς γυμνησίοις καὶ Σικυώνιοι τοῖς κορυνηφόροις καὶ Ἰταλιῶται τοῖς Πελασγοῖς, καὶ Κρῆτες δμωΐταις. Write μνωΐταις in the more extensive signification of the word. In the same manner Eustath. ad Dionys. Perieg. 533, who has been already corrected by Meineke ubi sup.

207 Aristot, Polit. II. 7. 3. ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν γιγνομένων καρπῶν τε καὶ βοσκημάτων ἐκ τῶν δημοσίων καὶ φόρων οὓς φέρουσιν οἱ περίοικοι, τέτακται μέρος, i.e. “Of all the products of the soil and all the cattle which come from the public lands, a part is appointed.” The arrangement of the words is not more careless than in other passages.

208 Ap. Athen. IV. p. 143 A.

209 See below, ch. 10. § 7.

210 At the Hermæa, however, the slaves feasted in public, and they were waited on by their masters, as at Trœzen in the month Geræstion; Carystius ap. Athen. XIV. p. 639 B. cf. VI. p. 263 F. In Sparta, during the Hyacinthia, the masters invited the slaves to be their guests, Polycrates ap. Athen. IV. p. 139 B.

211 Aristot. Pol. II. 2. 1.

212 Polit. II. 8. 5.

213 Hesychius, Pollux and Stephanus as before.

214 VI. 83.

215 VII. 148. In this passage the battle, contrary to the calculation before given (book I. ch. 8. § 6.) upon the authority of Pausanias, is brought down to the time immediately preceding the Persian war, as is evident not only from the word νεωστὶ, but also from the circumstance that the Argives desired a thirty years’ peace, to enable the children of the persons who had been slain to arrive at manhood. From this, then, it follows that the Gymnesii, expelled from Argos, did not obtain possession of Tiryns till after the Persian war (for that they were not there during this war may be inferred from Herod. IX. 28.), and the final victory over them would then coincide with the conquest of Tiryns (book I. ch. 8. § 7). If the oracle in Herod. VI. 19. had been accurately (και ΤΟΤΕ) fulfilled, the battle must fall in Olymp. 70. 3. 498 B.C., but no calculation can be founded on this datum.

216 The same argument applies here as in the case of the slaves who made themselves masters of Volsinii. See Niebuhr’s Roman History, vol. I. p. 101. sq. ed. 2. English Transl.

217 The liberation of Argive slaves is alluded to in a passage of Hesychius in ἐλεύθερον ὕδωρ: ἐν Ἄργει ἀπὸ τῆς Συναγείας (perhaps ΦΥΣΑΔΕΙΑΣ, cf. Callim. Lav. Pall. 47. Euphorion Fragm. 19. Meineke) πίνουσι κρήνης ἐλευθερούμενοι τῶν οἰκετῶν.

218 Aristot. Pol. V. 2. 8.

219 Book I. ch. 7. § 16.

220 Not the Gymnesii. See vol. I. p. 191, note p.

221 Panathen. p. 270 A. B. cf. 286 A. I am also of opinion that Pausanias was in error when (II. 19.) he states that the Argives had from an early period been distinguished for their love of equality and freedom.

222 See Thuc. V. 67, 72. Diod. XII. 80. Plutarch, Alcib. 15. Pausan. II. 20. 1. where the leader of the 1000 λογάδες is called Bryas, and particularly Aristot. Pol. V. 4. Comp. Manso, vol. II. p. 432. with the remarks of Tittmann, p. 602.

223 The Elean Περιοικὶς may serve for a comparison. This was the name of all the territory which the Eleans had conquered in addition to their original land, the Κοίλη Ἦλις. (Thuc. II. 25. Xen. Hell. III. 2. 23.) It was, however, divided into tribes, which increased or diminished with the loss or accession of territory. The number of the Hellanodicæ was arranged according to that of the tribes. The ancient territory of the Eleans, Κοίλη Ἦλις, included four tribes; Pisatis was divided into an equal number; and if the whole of Triphylia obeyed the Eleans, four more were added. (See Paus. V. 9. 5.) Compare Aristodemus of Elis in Harpocration in v. Ἑλλανοδίκης, Etym. Mag. p. 331, 20. For further details see a paper by the author in Welcker’s and Naeke’s Rheinisches Museum, vol. II. p. 167.

224 Plutarch, Quæst. Græc. I. Hesychius.

225 Below, ch. 5. § 2.

226 Πάντα ὀκτὼ, Photius in v. Suidas (in Schott’s Prov. XI. 64.) Apostol. XV. 67.

227 Hesychius. According to Isaac Vossius Κυνόφυλοι. The Corinthian κυνῆ, Herod. IV. 180. was perhaps at an early period the peculiar dress of this class. See above, ch. 3. § 3.

228 Thus the harbour Lechæum was a place of refuge for maltreated slaves as well as Munychia, Hesych. in Λέχαιον.

229 Steph. Byz. in Χίος, Pollux ubi sup. Etym. Gud. p. 165. 53. where θῆτες, γυμνῆτες (for γυμνήσιοι), πενέσται, πελάται (erroneously for κλαρῶται), κορυνηφόροι, and καλλικύριοι are classed together.

230 See above, p. 38, note o. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “lining of fur,” starting “Pollux, VII. 4. 68.”]

231 Herod. V. 68. where, however, it is difficult to believe that this fourth tribe was not established until after the time of Cleisthenes. The tribe which in Sicyon was called Λιγιαλεῖς was perhaps in Phlius known by the title of Χθονοφυλὴ, the mythical name of the daughter of Sicyon, and the mother or wife of Phlias, Pausan. II. 63. 12. 6. Schol. Apoll. Rhod. I. 45.

232 The able historian Thirlwall thinks it more probable that Cleisthenes united the three Doric tribes in a single tribe, and that the Hyatæ, Oneatæ, and Chœreatæ, were the three country tribes, tribus rusticæ, which Cleisthenes had admitted into the dominant community. But a measure of this kind appears to be unexampled in the history of the Greek constitutions, and could hardly have been confounded by Herodotus with a mere change of names. It may be here mentioned that the temple of Zeus the Enumerator, in Sicyon, was referred to the establishment of the tribes, Bekker’s Anecd. Gr. vol. II. p. 790. Σικυώνιοι κατὰ φυλὰς ἑαυτοὺς τάξαντες καὶ ἀριθμήσαντες Διὸς Στοιχέως ἱερὸν ἱδρύσαντο.

233 See, e.g., concerning the κληροδοσία of Cnidos, Diodor. V. 53. That the lots were even apportioned in the mother-country may be seen from what occurred at the founding of Syracuse, book I. ch. 6. § 7. Compare the account of the colonization of Epidamnus, Thucyd. I. 27.

234 This, e.g., was the case in the Corinthian Apollonia, Herod. IX. 93. Aristot. Pol. IV. 3. 8. So also in Thera, Orchomenos, p. 337.

235 Thucyd. VI. 17. of the cities of Sicily, ὄχλοις τε γὰρ ξυμμίκτοις πολυανδροῦσιν, &c.

236 The clearest instance, although not of a Doric city, is in Thucyd. V. 4. The Leontini had created a large number of new citizens, who, partly forming the popular party, pressed for a redivision of the lands (ἀναδασμός). Upon this, the nobles entirely expelled the commons. See below, ch. 9. § 15.

237 Herod. VII. 155. Aristot. Polit. Syrac. ap. Phot. in v. Dionys. Hal. VI. 62. p. 388. 35. Marmor. Par. l. 52. Hesychius γάμοροι—ἢ οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐγγείων τιμημάτων (à censu agrorum) τὰ κοινὰ διέποντες. Ἐγγείων κτημάτων, the correction of Ruhnken ad Tim. Lex. in v. γεωμόροι, is not needed. The expression ἀπὸ τιμημάτων ἄρχειν, διοικεῖν, &c., occurs. See Wesseling ad Diod. XVIII. 18.

238 Hesychius (cf. Interp. vol. II. p 260.), Photius, Suidas, and Phavorinus in Καλλικύριοι, Etym. Gud. p. 165. Zenob. IV. 54. Καλλικίριοι ἐν Συρακούσαις ἐκλήθησαν οἱ ὑπεισελθόντες ΓΕΩΜΟΡΟΙΣ, as it should be written (see below, ch. 9. § 7.), Plut. Prov. Alex. 10. p. 588. Eustathius ad Il. p. 295. Rom. Κιλλικύριοι δὲ ἐν Κρήτη, Μαριανδυνοὶ δὲ ἐν Ἡρακλείᾳ τῇ Ποντικῇ καὶ Ἀροτται ἐν Συρακούσαις should be written Κιλλικύριοι δὲ ἐν Συρακούσαις—ΚΛΑΡΟΤΑΙΔΕ ἐν Κρήτῃ. Dionysius ubi sup. calls them πελάται. Καλλικύριοι seems to be a mere corruption of foreigners, who tried to make a Greek word of it.

239 Phylarch, ap. Athen. VI. p. 271 C. The μισθωτοὶ were called προύνικοι in Byzantium, according to Pollux VII. 29. 132.

240 Strab. XII. p. 542 C.

241 Euphorion (Fragm. 73. Mein.) and Callistratus ὁ Ἀριστοφάνειος ap. Athen. VI. p. 263 D. E. Hesychius in δωροφόροι. The masters are called by Euphorion ἄνακτες, according to the Homeric idiom.

242 Aristot. Pol. VII. 5. 7. where the Periœci of Heraclea, who served in the fleet, are probably the Mariandyni. In this passage Heraclea Pontica is meant, whereas in V. 4. 2. (μετὰ τὸν ἀποικισμὸν εὐθὺς) Heraclea Trachinia is evidently intended—compare Schlosser; and the same town is probably signified in the other passages.

243 See above, p. 60, note l. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “strictly so called,” starting “This, e.g., was the case.”]

244 The oracle in Herod. IV. 159.

ὅς δὲ κεν ἐς Λιβύαν πολυήρατον ὕστερον ἔλθῃ γᾶς ἀναδαιομένας, μετὰ οἳ ποκά φαμι μελήσειν.

Compare ὑστερεῖν τῆς κληροδοσίας, Diod. V. 53.

245 Herod. IV. 161. The most probable explanation of this passage seems to be that given in the text, viz., that Demonax left to the first conquerors the possession of their subjects, and did not divide them equally among the new colonists; and this is approved by Thrige, Res Cyrenensium, p. 148. Niebuhr, however, History of Rome, vol. I. note 708. ed. 2, understands it to mean that the Periœci were the original subjects of the Theræans in their island, who in the colony stood on an equal footing with their former masters: an equality which is not necessarily implied by an union in the same tribe.

246 Concerning the Achæans, Thuc. VIII. 3. cf. Liv. XXXIII. 34. Of the Magnetes and others, Thuc. II. 101. Demosth. Philipp. II. p. 71. Olynth. II. p. 20. Concerning the Perrhæbi, Thuc. IV. 78. Strab. IX. p. 440.—Compare Orchomenos, p. 252.

247 Tittmann. Amphictyonen bund, p. 35. see particularly Herod. VII. 132.

248 Xen. Hell. VI. 1. 7. where the περίοικοι must not be confounded with the Penestæ; see Schneider ad Aristot. Pol. V. 5. 9.

249 According to Thucyd. IV. 78.

250 VII. 176.

251 There were also Penestæ among the Macedonians, according to Eustathius ad Dionys. Perieg. 533. But with those mentioned in Livy XLIII. 20. sqq. we have here no concern.

252 Euboica ap. Athen. VI. p. 264 B. cf. Eustath. Il. XIII. p. 954, 38. Rom. Phot. Lex. in v. πενέσται, where read, ἀπὸ τῶν ὑπὸ Αἵμονος ἐν ἈΡΝΗΙ νικηθέντων Βοιωτῶν (see Orchomenos, p. 378.) as in Suidas.

253 Athen. VI. p. 265 C.

254 According to Aristot. Pol. II. 6. 3. the Penestæ revolted from the Thessalians when the latter were waging war with the Achæans, Perrhæbians, and Magnetes.

255 Archem. ubi sup. Strab. XII. p. 542 C. Eustath. p. 954. Photius, ἐπὶ τῷ μήτε παθεῖν τι ἐργαζόμενοι, μήτε ἐκβληθῆναι.

256 Pollux III. 83.

257 Theopompus ap. Schol. Theocrit. XVI. 35. Aristot. Pol. II. 2. 13. Staphylus περὶ θετταλῶν ap. Harpocrat. Ammonius, Photius, Hesychius, Etym. in v.

258 Heraclid. Pont. 2. In Eustathius ad Il. II. p. 295, Photius (ubi sup.), and Hesychius, they are called οἱ μὴ γόνῳ δοῦλοι, a very obscure expression. The explanation of another writer, ἐλεύθεροι μίσθῳ δουλεύοντες, is entirely false.

259 Euripid. Phrix. ap. Athen. p. 264 C. Λάτρις πενέστης (hence Hesychius πενέσται λάτρεις) ἀμὸς ἀρχαίων δόμων.

260 In the Θεσσαλικὰ of Philocrates (εἰ γνήσια) ap. Athen. p. 264 A. Staphylus ubi sup. Photius, in πενέσται.

261 Theocrit. XVI. 35. (see Meineke Comment. Miscell. I. p. 53.) But when Theocritus says that “they received provision for a month measured out,” he evidently confounds them with common slaves.—Menon brought 200 Penestæ of his own to the Athenians, Pseudo-Demosth, περί συντάξ. p. 113. 6. or 300, according to the speech in Aristocrat, p. 687. 2.

262 Athen. p. 264 B. Hesych. in πενέστης.

263 Timæus in V. πενεστικὸν, Eustath. Il. XIII. p. 954, &c.

264 Archemachus and Eustathius as above—although the name is evidently derived from πένης.

265 Demosth. in Aristocrat, p. 687. 1.

266 Aristoph. Vesp. 1263.

267 All three together in Aristot. Pol. V. 5. 9. cf. Thuc. IV. 78. At the time of Alexander of Pheræ it is probable that there were tyrants in Thessaly who had risen from demagogues, and were therefore hostile to the Aleuadæ, Diodor. XVI. 1.

268 The statement of Aristotle ap. Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 397. concerning an ancient expulsion of the Barbarians from Arcadia, was merely made for the purpose of explaining the name Προσέληνοι.

269 In Athen. VI. p. 271 D. and X. p. 443 B. Casaubon reads Ἀρδιαίους and Ἀρδιαῖοι for Ἀρκαδίους and Ἀριαῖοι. See Clinton Fast. Hellen. vol. II. p. 420. note p. ed. 2. Wachsmuth, Hellenische Alterthumskunde, vol. I. p. 323. Boeckh Corp. Inscript. vol. I. p. ult. The Greek name for the Arcadians is not Ἀρκάδιοι but Ἄρκαδες.

270 See above, § 2.

271 See above, ch. 3. § 3. What connexion there was between this measure and the union of Megara with four hamlets (book I. ch. 5. § 10.) I have not been able to satisfy myself.

272 This enables us to reconcile Xen. Hell. V. 2. 7. (cf. VI. 4. 18. ἐκ τῶν κωμῶν—ἀριστοκρατούμενοι, and VI. 5. 3.) with Ephorus ap. Strab, VIII. p. 337. Harpocration in v. Μαντινέων διοικισμὸς, and Isocrat. περὶ εἰρήνης in Harpocration. Cf. Diod. XV. 5. 12. Polyb. IV. 27. 6. Pausan. VIII. 8.

273 Therefore before Caryæ fell under the power of Lacedæmon; for it is evident that the Arcadian Caryæ, close to Laconia, and belonging to the territory of Tegea, and the Lacedæmonian Caryæ, are the same place. Photius in v. τὰς Καρύας Ἀρκάδων οὔσας ἀπετέμνοντο Λακεδαιμόνιοι. Compare Meineke Euphorion, p. 96. That this had taken place before the second Messenian war, I can hardly believe from the narrative in Pausan. IV. 16. 5.

274 See Pausan. VIII. 45. 1. Comp. Strabo VIII. p. 337. and Aristot. Pol. II. 1. 5.

275 Hence Homer calls it the “fertile demus,” πίονα δῆμον.

276 Od. XXIV. 414. κατὰ πτόλιν.

277 Od. XI. 187.

278 Pausan. VII. 18. 3.

279 According to Steph. Byz. in v. the district was originally called Δύμη, and the city Στράτος.

280 Strab. ubi sup. cf. VIII. p. 386. οἱ μὲν οὖν Ἴωνες κωμηδὸν ᾤκουν (the cities were unwalled, Thuc. III. 33.), οἱ δ᾽ Ἀχαιοὶ πόλεις ἔκτισαν. Concerning the συνοικισμὸς of Patræ, Dyme and Ægium. See Strabo VIII. p. 337.

281 Εὐπατρίδαι οἱ αὐτὸ τὸ ἄστυ οἰκοῦντες, Bekk. Anecd. p. 257. Etym. M. in v.

282 Κυδαθήναιον δῆμοσ ἐν ἄστει Hesychius. Schol. Plat. Symp. p. 43. Ruhnken.

283 Κυδαθηναῖος ἔνδοξος Ἀθηναῖος, Hesychius.

284 Leg. I. p. 626 C.

285 In Homer there is no trace of a δῆμος as a political power opposed to another. The passage in Il. II. 546., in which the δῆμος of Athens is mentioned, is as late at least as the age of Solon.

286 V. 948. Thus Æschyl. Suppl. 375. concerning the monarch, σύ τοι πόλις, σὺ δὲ τὸ δήμιον, πρύτανις ἄκϝιτος ὤν.

287 See particularly such passages as that in Chishull’s Ant. Asiat. p. 113. Συβριτιων ἁ πολις και οἱ κοσμοι Τηιων τᾳ βουλᾳ και τῳ δαμῳ χαιρειν, p. 137. Αλλαριωταν οἱ κοσμοι και ἁ πολις Παριων τᾳ πολει και τῳ δαμῳ. Sometimes, however, especially in inscriptions of late date, δῆμος also occurs, as in Pococke IV. 2. p. 43. n. 2. which should be restored nearly as follows: αγαθᾳ τυχᾳ. εδοξε τᾳ βουλᾳ και τῳ δαμῳ Κλεισθενεα.... Σινωπεα. Αντιοχον και Αγαθοκλην Σωσιγενεος Ἱεροπολιτας προξενος ημεν αυτος και εγγονα, ὑπαρχεν δε αυτοις και ισοπολιτειαν και γας και οικιας εγκτησιν και ατελειαν, &c.

288 See the Rhetra cited below, ch. 5. § 8. The citizens of Sparta were called δαμώδεις (above, p. 43, note n [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “Neodamodes,” starting “VIII. 58.”]); νεοδαμώδεις, i.e., “new Spartans,” answers to the Syracusan νεοπολῖται, Diod. XIV. 7. δαμοσία, the train of the king in war; below, ch. 12. § 5. A measure ratified by the community was called δαμώσικτος; below, ch. 5. § 11.

289 Ch. 3. § 3. On Periander, see Diog. Laërt. I. 98. from Ephorus and Aristotle, Nicolaus Damascenus, Heracl. Pont. 5. on the Pisistratidæ, above p. 38, note p. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “very same measure,” starting “Aristoph. Lysistr. 1157.”] Meurs. Pisistrat. 7. cf. Maxim. Tyr. XIII. 140. Dav. Concerning Gelo, Plutarch. Apophth. Reg. p. 89. the Thirty, Xenoph. Hell. II. 4. 1. a Cephallenian tyrant, Heraclid. Pont. 31. See in general Aristot. Pol. V. 8. 7. and the excellent note of Meier de bonis damnat. p. 185.

290 See also Diod. XIV. 10.

291 Polyb. IV. 73. 6. οἱ πολιτευόμενοι—οἱ ἐπὶ τῆς χώρας κατοικοῦντες. Oxylus also, according to Pausan. V. 4. 1. incorporated a number of hamlets with the city.

292 Aristot. Pol. III. 3, where the πολίτου ἀρετὴ is restricted to those ὅσοι τῶν ἔργων εἰσὶν ἀφειμένοι τῶν ἀνανκαίων.

293 The instances of admission of foreigners to the rights of Spartan citizens (of which some are very uncertain), collected by Tittmann, p. 641. prove nothing against Herodotus, IX. 35. Ephorus ap. Strab. VIII. p. 364. speaks of the reception of aliens as Periœci. Concerning the strictness of the Megarians as to this point, see Plutarch, de Monarchia 2. p. 204.

294 Book I. ch. 1. § 8. Andron (ap. Strab. X. p. 475.) explains it from the Tripolis near mount Parnassus.

295 V. 68. cf. Steph. Byz. in Ὕλλεῖς, Δυμᾶν. Hemsterh. ad Aristoph. Plut. 385.

296 Pyth. I. 61. V. 71. and in the fragment of the Ἰσθμιονῖκαι, Ὕλλου τε καὶ Αἰγιμίου Δωριεὺς στρατός.

297 Ubi sup. cf. Schol. Pyth. I. 121.

298 Hesychius Δύμη ἐν Σπάρτῃ φυλὴ καὶ τόπος, which is not indeed a decisive testimony.

299 V. 68. All the three tribes occur in Argive inscriptions of late date; see Boeckh ad Inscript. 1123. the Πάμφυλοι however are introduced on conjecture. Ὕλλις ἀπὸ Ἀργείας μιᾶς τῶν νυμφῶν, Callimachus ap. Steph. in Ὕλλεῖς, unless it should be written Αἰγαίας, or some such word. See Introduction, § 9.

300 Plutarch. Mul. Virt. 5. p. 269.

301 Pindar, ubi sup.

302 Hesych. in Ὕλλέες. Compare Æginetica, p. 140.

303 Boeckh, Staatshaushaltung, vol. II. p. 404.

304 Gruter p. 401. Castelli Inscript. Sic. p. 79.

305 Il. II. 668. book I. ch. 6. § 3.

306 Boeckh Corp. Inscript. No. 1073. and see his Explic. ad Pind. Pyth. I. p. 234.

307 Charaxap. Steph. in Ὕλλεῖς.

308 Book I. ch. 6. § 1.

309 Æginetica, pp. 40. and 140. note x. Steph. Byz. Δυμᾶν, φῦλον Δωριέων, ἦσαν δὲ τρεῖς, Ὕλλεῖς καὶ Πάμφυλοι καὶ Δυμᾶνες, ἐξ Ἡρακλέους, καὶ προσετέθη ἡ Ὑρνηθία, ὡς Ἔφορος ά: which passage should be understood thus: “There were originally three tribes, Hylleans, Pamphylians, and Dymanes, which go back to the time of Hercules; and to these the Hyrnathian tribe was afterwards added,” viz., at Argos, where it occurs in inscriptions, Boeckh Corp. Inscript. No. 1130, 1131. The name is obscure, and particularly its connexion with the heroine Hyrnetho, the daughter of Temenus. See Paus. II. 26. Steph. Byz. in Ὕρνίθιον.

310 Ibid. p. 140.

311 See above, p. 58, note c. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “dwelt in the city,” starting “Πάντα ὀκτὼ.”]

312 See Orchomenos, p. 329. Tribes with patronymic terminations occur, however, elsewhere, as in the great Tenian inscription in the British Museum the tribes of the Heraclidæ, the Thestiadæ, and these, together with several others also, as divisions of the country. The name of the Heraclidæ in the Ionian island of Tenos is not easily accounted for; on the presence of Hercules there, see, however, Schol. Apoll. Rhod. I. 1304. from the Τηνιακὰ of Ænesidemus.

313 Athen. IV. p. 141 F. from Demetrius Scepsius, comp. Orchomenos, p. 328. Hesychius incorrectly interprets ὠβάτης as φυλέτης. The name ὠβὰ was retained till the Roman time, Boeckh Inscript. No. 1272, 1273, 1274.

314 The γένη of the mechanics and peasants in Athens often had a patronymic name from their occupations. Compare Buttmann on the meaning of the word phratria, in the Berlin Transactions for 1818 19. p. 12.

315 The five divisions of the city are the four κῶμαι, Pitana, Mesoa, Cynosura, and Limnæ (see above, ch. 3. § 7); and, fifthly, the πόλις itself, the hill on which the temple of Athene Chalciœcus stood.

316 Hesychius and Etym. in Ἀγιάδαι, where, however, Laconia is put for Sparta. Probably in Pitana. See Pausanias III. 14. 2. where ἐν Ἀγιαδῶν has been correctly edited by Bekker, after Heeringa and Porson.

317 Below, § 8.

318 Diod. XI. 50. See also Plut. Lys. 24.

319 Plut. Solon. 12.

320 Herod. V. 72.

321 See the Sigean inscription in Clarke’s Travels, vol. II. sect. 1. p. 162. Compare Walpole’s Memoirs, p. 103. Epigr. Hom. 14. In Byzantium also there were patrias, probably the same as phratrias, as Pseud-Aristot. Œcon. II. 2. 3. mentions πατριωτικὰ χρήματα in that town.

322 See Ignarra de Phratriis. Comp. Buttmann, p. 36.

323 Ælius Dionysius ap. Eustath. Il. II. p. 363. Orus ap. Etym. Mag. Buttmann indeed denies the truth of this remark, but it must not be given up hastily. For, in the first place, the Ionic festival Ἀπατούρια is manifestly an union of the πάτραι, yet it is always represented as a festival of the phratrias; and secondly, in the Thasian decree in Choiseul Gouffier I. 2. p. 156. it is permitted to newly-created citizens to be admitted into a πάτρη; but we never find that new citizens were elected into ancient γένη. It is also confirmed by the words in the Tenian Inscription from Choiseul’s collection (in the Louvre, No. 566.), καὶ [εἰς] φυλὴν καὶ φρατρίαν προσγρά [ψασθ] αι [ἣν ἂν βούλωνται], and the same in the inscription quoted in p. 81. note g. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “Asiatic colonies,” starting “See the Sigean inscription.”]

324 The names of the larger division or tribe were the same at Sparta and Athens, viz., φυλὴ; but the Spartan ὠβὰ corresponded with the Athenian φρατρία, the Doric πάτρα with the Athenian γένος. See Schneider’s Lexicon in v. πάτρα, Boeckh Not. Crit. ad Pind. Nem. IV. 77. and Dissen Expl. Nem. VIII. p. 450. Æginetica, p. 139.

325 I. 65.

326 Pollux VIII. 111. Hesych. in ἀτριάκαστοι. But in Boeckh Corp. Inscript. No. 101. τριακὰς is a division of a borough. See Boeckh, vol. I. p. 900.—Whether the τριακάδες of Epicharmus (Hesych. in Σκωρνυφίων) are families, is uncertain.

327 Perhaps the persons ἀπὸ γένους, whom Leonidas wished to send back from Thermopylæ (Plut. Herod. Mal. 52.), were the only surviving members of their families.

328 Yet they had not any essential privilege in Sparta, Plut. Lys. 24.

329 οἱ πρῶτοι ἄνδρες Thucyd. IV. 108. V. 15. ἄριστοι Plut. Lys. 30. The καλοὶ κἀγαθοὶ in Aristot. Poll. II. 9. are in general persons of distinction; there may undoubtedly have been persons of this description among the Periœci (Xen. Hell. V. 3. 9.), but in this passage of Aristotle these do not come into consideration.

330 In Leptin. p. 489. cf. Wolf.

331 Rep. Laced. 10. 7.

332 Xen. Hell. III. 3. 5. cf. Aristot. Pol. V. 7. From this it is probable, that in Xenophon Σπαρτιᾶται is used in a limited sense for Ὅμοιοι. cf. Schneider. ad loc. et ad V. 3. 9.

333 Rep. Laced. 13. 1.

334 Anab. IV. 6. 14. Xenophon, who imitates the Lacedæmonian spirit in so many different manners in the Cyropædia, here also mentions ὅμοιοι and ὁμότιμοι, I. 5. 5. II. 1, 2.

335 Xen. Rep. Lac. 10. 7. cf. 33. and see B. IV. ch. 5. § 1.

336 Aristot. Pol. II. 6. 21. according to the reading μὴ μετέχειν αὐτῆς, i.e., τῆς πολιτείας. See B. IV. ch. 3. § 3. Concerning the grounds of the distinction of the Equals, see C. F. Hermann De Conditione atque Origine eorum qui Homoei apud Laced. appellati sunt. 1832.

337 See above, note u. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “education of an Equal,” starting “Anab. IV. 6. 14.”]

338 Aristotle says, probably without any reference to the more definite expression, that the Parthenians were ἐκ τῶν ὁμοίων, Polit. V. 6. 1. See also Manso, vol. I. part 1. p. 231, 238. vol. III. part 1. p. 217.

339 See book I. ch. 7. § 4. above, ch. 1. § 9.

340 Ap. Plutarch. Lycurg. 6. Διὸς Ἑλλανίου καὶ Ἀθηνᾶς Ἑλλανίας ἱερὸν ἱδρυσάμενον, φυλὰς φυλάξαντα καὶ ὠβὰς ὠβάξαντα τριάκοντα, γερουσίαν σὺν ἀρχαγέταις καταστήσαντα, ὤρας ἐξ ὤρας ἀπελλάζειν μεταξὺ Βαβύκας τε καὶ Κνακίωνος, οὒτως εἰσφέρειν τε καὶ ἀφίστασθαι. δάμῳ δὲ κυρίαν ἦμεν καὶ κράτος. Ἀπελλάζειν means “to summon the people to an assembly,” “in concionem vocare.” See Hesychius in v. Valcken. ad Theocrit. Adon. p. 209. Lennep Etymol. vol. I. p. 152. Plutarch evidently derives the word from Ἀπέλλων, Apollo. The words ὤρας ἐξ ὤρας are nearly inexplicable, and Mazochi’s alteration, Tab. Herac. vol. I. p. 149, ὠβὰς (or ὠβὰν) does not much diminish the difficulty. The best explanation of ὤρας ἐξ ὤρας seems to be, “one month after another,” i.e. monthly. Towards the end, κυρίαν ἦμεν seems to be the best reading; one MS. has γυριανήμην. Valckenaer, ib. p. 291. proposes δάμῳ δ᾽ ἀνωγὰν ἦμεν.

341 Ib. αἰ δὲ σκολιὰν ὁ δᾶμος ἕλοιτο, τοὺς πρεσβυγενέας καὶ ἀρχαγέτας ἀποστατῆρασ ἦμεν. Compare Plutarch. An Seni sit ger. Resp. 10.

342 For εὐθείαις ῥήτραις, which is read both in Plutarch and Diodorus, Frank, p. 173. 199, corrects εὐθείαις γνώμαις, and explains it to mean the proposal made to the people. But both the context and syntax require, not that to which they answer, but that which they answer; i.e., they simply approve or reject the proposed law. Both νόμος and ῥήτρα are used for a decree in its imperfect stage (below, ch. 9. § 11. Plutarch Agis 8.); nor is ῥήτρα applied only to the laws of Lycurgus.

343 Ap. Plutarch. Lycurg. 6. Diod. Vat. Excerpt. VII—X. 3. p. 3. Mai. Instead of the two first verses Diodorus has Δὴ γὰρ ἀργυρότοξος ἄναξ ἑκάεργος Ἀπόλλων χρυσοκόμης ἔχρη πίονος ἐξ ἀδύτου, but these do not connect with what follows so well as those in Plutarch. In the fifth line Plutarch has πρεσβύτας, Diodorus πρεσβυγενεῖς: which is the word in the law cited in the last note but one. The last verse, which agrees with the final sentence of the original rhetra, is preserved in Diodorus, who has three more.

344 VII. 134.

345 Demosth. de Corona, p. 255.

346 Castelli Inscript. Sic. p. 79, 84. Gruter, p. 401.

347 Dodwell’s Travels, vol. II. p. 503. Boeckh, Staatshaushaltung, vol. II. p. 403. sqq.

348 Ἁλία κατάκλητος (compare Schoemann de Comitiis, p. 291.) Tab. Heracl. p. 154, 260. ed. Mazoc. cf. Iud. p. 281.

349 Hesychius.

350 Aristot. Pol. V. 1. 6.

351 Hesychius. The Athenian ἡλιαία is the same word. Compare below, ch. 11. § 2. and, in general, Dorville ad Charit. p. 70. Taylor ad Demosth. p. 227. Reisk. In Aristoph. Lysist. 93. συναλιάζω is the word used by the Lacedæm. woman for to convene, to assemble.

352 Bekker Anecd. p. 210. Ἐκκλησία is however the word always used in the Inscriptions published by Chishull.

353 The εἰωθὼς ξύλλογος in Thucyd. I. 67. transacts business with the ξυμμάχοι, as the ἐκκλησία or ἔκκληχοι in Xen. Hell. V. 2. Il. VI. 3. 3. Compare Cragius de Rep. Lac. IV. 17. Morus Ind. Xenoph. and Sturz. Lex. Xen. in v. ἐκκλησία.

354 Ἔσκλητος in Syracuse occurs in Hesychius. The same grammarian has, ἀνεκκλητειν ἐξαίρεσιν ποιεῖσθαι παρὰ Ῥοδίοις.

355 Xen. Hell. III. 3. 8.

356 As Tittmann, p. 100. supposes, who also states that by ἔκκλητοι and ἐκκλησία (which are evidently synonyms) the small assembly is often (but query when?) meant, as τέλη are mentioned instead, Xen. Hell. II. 2. 23.—Thus in an ἐκκλησία in Thuc. VI. 88. the ephors and τέλη are alone mentioned as deliberating. Thus in Xen. Hell. VI. 4. 2. Cleombrotus sends from the army to ask the τέλη in Sparta, and the ἐκκλησία answers. The peace after the battle of Ægospotamos was concluded by the ἐκκλησία and the confederate assembly at Sparta, Xen. Hell. II. 2. 19. sqq.; and yet in the document in Plut. Lys. 14. the τέλη alone are named. In innumerable instances the τέλη do what on other occasions the whole πόλις performs, Xen. V. 3. 23, 25. see below, ch. 7. § 5, 8. The simple solution of this difficulty is, according to my view, given in § 10.

357 Plut. Lyc. 25. cf. Liban. Or. Archid. vol. IV. p. 420. ἡβωντες also were prohibited from filling any public situation out of the country, Thucyd. IV. 132. The Parthenians, according to Justin. III. 4. quit their country at the age of thirty, because their civic rights begin at that time. See also Clinton F. II. vol. II. p. 386.

358 Cf. Plut. Pelop. 17. Schol. Lycoph. 550. The strict meaning is the “Saffron river.”

359 See above, ch. 3. § 7.

360 Not till late times in the Scias. Paus. III. 12. 8.

361 Schol. Thucyd. I. 67. where it should be observed that εἰωθότα does not refer to time.

362 Herod. VII. 134.

363 Herod. VII 149. οἱ πλεῦνες. Thucyd. I. 67, 72. ξύλλογος εἰωθὼς or τὸ πλῆθος V. 77. δοκεῖ τᾷ ἐκκλησίᾳ; cf. VI. 88. Xen. Hell. IV. 6. 3. ἔδοξε τοῖς ἐφόροις καὶ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ; cf. VI. 88. Xen. Hell. IV. 6. 3. ἔδοξε τοῖς ἐφόροις καὶ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ανανκαῖον ειναι στρατευεσθαι

364 Plut. Lyc. 26. Justin. III. 3, &c.

365 A litigation generally preceded (Herod. VI. 65. Plut. Agid. 11.), and after its termination the people passed their decree, Plut. cf. Xen. Hell. III. 3. 3. also Polyb. IV. 35. 9.

366 Plut. Ag. 9. (compare Tittmann, p. 94. note 25.) Lye. 29.

367 Thucyd. V. 34.

368 Libanius ubi sup.

369 Thucyd. I. 80. Xen. Hell, III. 3. 8. Plut. Ag. 9, &c.

370 Thuc. I. 67. and frequently.

371 The story in Æschin. in Timarch. p. 25, 33. Plutarch Lac. Apophth. p. 239. præc. Reip. 4. p. 144. and Gellius N. A. XVIII. 3. that the people once wishing to accede to the opinion of an immoral person, a councillor proposed that if it was brought forward by a man of blameless character it should then pass, proves nothing, as the account is entirely unconnected, and we do not know by what right the original proposer had spoken. The same story is alluded to by Isiodorus Pelus. Epist. III. 232. Lysandir (Plutarch. 25.) probably spoke in a public capacity.

372 See above, p. 89. note t. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “magistrates alone,” starting “As Tittman.”]

373 δαμώσικτον, δεδοκιμασμένον, Hesychius.

374 Plutarch Lys. 25. Ages. 20.

375 Aristot. Pol. II. 7. 4. Κυρία δ᾽ οὐδενός ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ συνεπιψηφίσαι τὰ δόξαντα τοῖς γέρουσι καὶ τοῖς κόσμοις, which must be taken cum grano salis. Aristotle II. 8. says that the ἕτεραι πολιτεῖαι, i.e., Crete and Sparta, differed from Carthage in this respect, that in them only the magistrates spoke, while in the latter state any person could come forward and oppose the public officers; but he makes no difference between Sparta and Crete. See above, § 8.

376 The Lacedæmonians and Cretans used, according to Hesychius, the form γερωνία (the same grammarian has, however, γερώα also), where Valckenaer appears rightly to read γερωἵα (Epist. ad Roever. p. 323. ad Adoniaz. p. 271. Küster ad Hesych. p. 822.), which by a more guttural sound of the aspirate is called γερωχία in Aristoph. Lys. 980, probably the correct form. Γεροντία is the office of a geron, in Xen. Rep. Lac. 10. 1, 3. See Nicolaus Damascenus.

377 Herod. VII. 148. In the Cretan states, γερουσία was the common form (see also the inscription in Montfaucon Diar. Ital. p. 74.) as well as βουλὴ (βωλὰ Koen ad Gregor. p. 639.) according to Arist. Pol. II. 7. 3. and late inscriptions; the members of which are called γέροντες by Aristotle and Strabo X. p. 484. In Cos βουλὰ occurs in the time of the emperors, Villoison Mém. de l’Acad. des Inscript. tom. XLVII. p. 325. Spon., Misc. Erud. Ant. X. 51. as well as γερουσία, Spon., n. 57, 58.

378 This appellation may be perceived in the γερούσιος ὅρκος, Il. XXII. 119, γέροντες βουλευταὶ, Il. VI. 113.

379 Who were also of the number of the gerontes, Od. XXI. 21. see above, ch. 1. § 3.

380 Which is beautifully expressed by Pindar ap. Plutarch. Lyc. 21. An seni sit ger. Resp. 10. ἔνθα βουλαὶ γερόντων, καὶ νέων ἀνδρῶν ἀριστεύοντιν αἰχμαὶ, καὶ χοροὶ καὶ μοῦσα καὶ ἀγλαΐα. (Fragm. p. 663. Boeckh).

381 Plut. Lyc. 26. cf. Xenoph. de Rep. Lac. 10. 1.

382 Pol. II. 6. 15. In Leptin. p. 489. cf. Xenoph. ubi sup.

383 Which was also testified by the presents made by the king, Plut. Ages. 4. the double portion at the syssitia, Plut. Lyc. 26. Concerning the public repasts of Homeric gerontes, see Il. IV. 344. IX. 70.

384 Ὅμοιοι, καλοὶ καγαθοὶ, see above, ch. 5. § 7.

385 Aristot. ubi sup. Plutarch. Lyc. 26. Ages. IV. Polyb. VI. 45. 5. Some late inscriptions indeed mention persons who had three and four times filled the office of geron (Boeckh Corp. Inscript. Nos. 1261. and 1320.); but in that age the whole institution had been changed.

386 See above, ch. 5. § 3.

387 Aristot. Pol. II. 6. 18.

388 IV. 5. 11.

389 For what follows compare Aristot. Pol. II. 6. 17. II. 7. 6. Plut. Lyc. ubi sup.

390 Plato Leg. III. p. 692 A. calls it τὴν κατὰ γῆρας σώφρονα δύναμιν.

391 Plato has perhaps treated this question better than any other ancient writer, ibid. VII. p. 793.

392 Plutarch. Agid. 11. τοὺς γέροντας, οἷς τὸ κράτος ἦν ἐν τῷ προβουλεύειν. Comp. Demosth. in Leptin. p. 489. 20. δεσπότης ἐστὶ τῶν πολλῶν. Æschin. in Timarch. p. 25. 35. Dion. Hal. Archæol. II. 14. ἡ γερουσία πᾶν εἶχε τῶν κοινῶν τὸ κράτος. Paus. III. 11. 2. Cic. de Senect. 6. amplissimus magistratus.

393 Xen. Rep. Lac. 10. 2. Aristot. Pol. III. 1. 4, 9. Plut. Lyc. 26. Lac. Apophth. p. 197. see below, ch. 7. § 11. [Transcriber’s Note: There is no such section number in that chapter.]

394 Arbitri et magistri disciplinæ publicæ, Gell. N. A. XVIII. 3. Æschin. ubi sup. Hence σωφροσύνη was in particular required of them.

395 That the parallel between the Thirty at Athens and the Spartan gerusia fails in many points, has been justly remarked in the Philological Museum, vol. II. p. 54; yet the gerusia must have served as a model for the establishment of this body, since there is nothing similar in the Athenian institutions. The oligarchical faction in Athens, after the battle of Ægospotamos, and before the surrender of the city to Lysander, had also procured the election of five ephors. See Lysias cout. Eratosth. § 43.

396 Ephorus ap. Strab. X. p. 484. (p. 171. Marx.); above, ch. 5. § 11.

397 Aristot. Pol. II. 7. 5. It acted also without doubt in a judicial capacity.

398 Strabo, οἱ τῆς τῶν κόσμων ἀρχῆς ἠξιωμένοι καὶ τὰ ἄλλα δόκιμοι κρινόμενοι. Cf. Aristot. Pol. II. 7. 5.

399 Aristot. ubi sup.

400 See above, p. 94, note b. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “peace and war,” starting “Herod. VII. 148.”]

401 Aristot. Pol. V. 5. 8. These remains of the ancient oligarchy at Elis were deprived by Phormio of a part of their power, as Ephialtes weakened the Areopagus at Athens, according to Plutarch Reip. gerend. Præcept. 10. vol. XII. p 155.

402 Thuc. V. 47. Compare Plutarch Præc. Reip. 10.

403 The ἱεραὶ γερουσίαι, for example, of Eleusis in later times, we have here no concern with; yet we may notice the following monument, as belonging to the Peloponnesus (Boeckh Inscript. No. 1395). ἡ ἱερὰ ουπησια (Boeckh conjectures γερωσία) Γ. Ἰούλιον Ἐπαφρόδειτον ἀγρετεύσαντα (difficult of explanation) τὸ ΡqΔ ἔτος (according to Visconti Mus. Pio-Clem. II. p. 66. from the liberation of Greece by Flamininus) καὶ δόντα ἑκάστῳ γέροντι νομῆς δηνάρια δέκα, &c. Perhaps this ἱερὰ γερωσία is the Ὀλυμπιακὴ βουλὴ of the Eleans. See Pausan. V. 6. 4. VI. 3. 3. Perizon. ad Æl. V. H. X. 1. See b. I. ch. 7. § 7.

404 See above, ch. 1. § 3. Platner de Notione Juris, p. 90.

405 Aristot. Pol. V. 8. 5. V. 9. 1. Dionys. Rom. Archæol. V. 74. says that the Spartan monarchy was ἐπὶ ῥητοῖς τισὶν διοικούμενον, as Thucydides calls the Homeric, I. 13.

406 Xen. de Rep. Laced. 15. cf. Hell. III. 3. 1. σεμνοτέρα ἢ κατ᾽ ἄνθρωπον ταφή.

407 According to Herod. VI. 50. for ten days after the king’s death there was no assembly of the people or officers of state (ἀγορὰ or ἀρχαιρεσίη); and the nomination of the new king did not take place until this period had expired; the regularity of which public mourning may be inferred from the expression αἱ ἡμέραι in Xenoph. Hell. III. 3. 1. [where L. Dindorf ingeniously reads ἐπεὶ δὲ ὡσιώθησαν αἱ ἡμέραι καὶ ἔδει βασιλέα καθίστασθαι for ὡσ εἰώθεσαν αἱ ἡμ. παρῆλθον, comparing Photius and Suidas ὁσιωθῆναι ἡμέρας λέγουσιν ἐπὶ θανάτῳ τινὸς, οἷον μὴ ἱερὰς ἀλλ᾽ ὁσίας νομιοθῆναι.] Heraclides Ponticus, has, however, only three days.

408 Herod. VI. 58. ἐκ πάσης δεῖ Λακεδαίμονος (i.e., Λακωνικῆς, as in VII. 220, &c.) χωρὶς Σπαρτιητέων (in addition to the Spartans) ἀριθμῷ τῶν περιοίκων (a fixed number of Periœci; the dative depending on δεῖ; otherwise Werfer Act. Monac. vol. II. p. 241.) ἀναγκαστοὺς ἐς τὸ κῆδος ἰέναι. τούτων ὦν καὶ τῶν εἰλώτων (see above, p. 32, note o. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “entire produce of the land,” starting “Of the two lines of Tyrtæus.”]) καὶ αὐτῶν Σπαρτιητέων, &c. Compare the oracle in VII. 220. πενθήσει βασιλῆ φθίμενον Λακεδαίμονος οὖρος, “the furthest boundaries of Lacedæmon.” The μιαίνεσθαι was the more imposing, as it was strictly interdicted in private mourning, Plut. Inst. Lac. p. 252. The generality of this mourning for princes of the Heraclidæ in early times is rendered probable by the fact noticed in vol. I. p. 98, note g.

409 The εἴδωλα were probably preserved; for they could not have been meant merely to represent the corpse, since the body of the king was almost always brought home even from a great distance, as in the case of Agesilaus. Perhaps it was to the εἴδωλον that the prohibition of Agesilaus referred, μήτε πλαστὰν μήτε μιμηλὰν τινα ποιήσασθαι αὑτοῦ εἰκόνα. Plutarch Ages. 2. Reg. Apophth. p. 129. Lac. Apophth. p. 191.

410 Concerning the public sacrifices of the king, see Xen. Hell. III. 3. 4.

411 Herod. VI. 46.

412 A sacrifice to Zeus Agetor at the first departure (Xenoph. Rep. Lac. 13. 2. see below, ch. 12. § 5.); then on the boundary διαβατήρια to Zeus and Athene. (ibid. cf. Polyæn. I. 10.); also διαβατήρια on other occasions, Plutarch. Ages. 6, where the parallel with Agamemnon is remarkably striking.

413 See above, ch. 1. § 9.

414 Plut. Agis 11.

415 Which point is more fully discussed by Hoeck, Kreta, vol. I. p. 245.

416 It is a δίκη Plut. Agis 11. νεῖκος Herod. VI. 66. with the preceding κατωμοσία of the accuser VI. 65. which is followed by a decree in the name of the whole community (πόλις Xen. Hell. III. 3. 3. οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι Herod. V. 42.) See above, ch. 5. § 9. Cleonymus also was not declared to have a worse claim than Areus, by a free selection, founded on comparative merit (as it appears from Plutarch. Pyrrh. 26.) but the gerusia merely declared at the ἀμφισβήτησις, that he, as the younger son, came after the heir of the elder son, Pausan. III. 6. 2.

417 See, e.g., Herod. V. 42. VI. 52. VII. 3. Xen. Hell. III. 3. 2. Nepos Ages. I. 3.

418 As Lycurgus of Charilaus, Nicomedes of Pleistoanax.

419 As Demaratus was succeeded by Leutychides, whose right to the throne went back to the eighth ancestor of Theopompus, if with Palmerius we correct Herod. VIII. 131. according to Pausanias’ genealogy of the Kings.

420 Plutarch. Pyrrh. 5.

421 Xen. Rep. Lac. 15. 7. from whom Nicolaus Damascenus Λακεδ. See an allusion to the oath of the Ephors in Julian. Or. I. p. 14 D.

422 Thucyd. I. 20. who contradicts the statement of other historians; but probably refers to Hellanicus (see above, ch. 1. § 7.) rather than Herodotus, whose work he could scarcely have read. Herodotus (VI. 57.) however appears to me to have followed the opinion generally received in Greece, of the two votes of each king, although the expression is not quite clear. The notion of the Scholiast to Thucydides, adopted by Larcher, that each king had only one vote, though it had the force of two, is ridiculous. The γερουσία was ἰσόψηφος τὰ μέγιστα with the kings, according to Plat. Leg. III. p. 692. Herodotus is followed by Lucian Harm. 3.

423 See above, ch. 5. § 3.

424 Herod, ubi sup. δικάζειν δὲ μούνους τοὺς βασιλῆας τοσάδε μοῦνα. cf. Plut. Lac. Apophth. Agesil. p. 187.

425 Herod. VI. 57.

426 Lysias in Evand. p. 176. 22. Pollux. VIII. 89.

427 Aristot. Pol. II. 6. 20.—An example in Xen. Hell. VI. 5. 4. Agesil. 2. 25.

428 Herod. VI. 57. καὶ προξείνους ἀποδεικνύναι τούτοισι προσκεῖσθαι τοὺς ἂν ἐθέλωσι τῶν αστῶν. In other places the proxeni were appointed by the states whose proxeni they were: for example, a Theban was proxenus of the Athenians at Thebes: but in Sparta, as the connexion with foreign nations was more restricted, a state, which wished to have a proxenus there, was forced to apply to the king to nominate one. This appears to be the meaning of the above passage of Herodotus.

429 Aristot. Pol. III, 9. 2. cf. III. 9. 8. Isocrat. Nicocl. p. 31 D.

430 Herod. VI. 56. who must not be understood to refer to the declaration of war, Xen. Rep. Laced. 13. 10. A case occurs in Thucyd. VIII. 5. ὁ γὰρ Ἄγις ... ἔχων τὴν μεθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ δύναμιν, κύριος ἦν καὶ ἀποστέλλειν εἴ ποί τινα ἐβούλετο στρατιὰν, καὶ ξυναγείρειν, καὶ χρήματα πράσσειν. cf. V. 60. διὰ τόν νόμον.

431 Xen. Hell. II. 2. 12. V. 3. 24. cf. Thuc. V. 60. It was however permitted to the king to send ambassadors, e.g., to mediate, according to Xen. Rep. Lac. 13. 10. where I do not perceive the necessity of changing αὖ into οὐ; μέντοι marks the opposition to the preceding purely military duties of the king.

432 Herod. V. 75. Both kings were rarely out of Sparta, Xen. Hell. V. 3. 10.

433 Thuc. V. 63, where the words ἐν παρόντι do not prove that they passed the law for only one campaign. See Manso, Sparta, vol. I. part 2. p. 231. vol. II. p. 378. note k. Concerning the Thirty about the king’s person, see below, ch. 12. § 5.

434 See below, ch. 7. § 5.

435 Od. XI. 184. Il. XII. 312. cf. IX. 578. Pind. Olymp. XIII. 60. βαθὺς κλᾶρος.

436 This is called δήμια πίνειν in Il. XVII. 250. (cf. σιτεόμενοι τὰ δημόσια Herod. VI. 57.) In Crete foreigners were fed δημόθεν, Od. XIX. 197. cf. Æschyl. Suppl. 964. and Platner, ubi sup. p. 100. The passage in Od. XI. 184. should be thus rendered. “Telemachus enjoys in quiet the royal lands, and feasts on the banquets, which it is proper that a man of judicial dignity should eat, for all invite him.” Concerning the last words, see p. 110.

437 Xen. Rep. Laced. 15. 2.

438 Plat. Alcib. I. 39. p. 123 A. οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι is equivalent to περίοικοι.

439 Thucydid. V. 63. [An Æginetan drachma contains on an average ninety-five English grains of pure silver (see Knight Proleg. Hom. § 56.), according to which its value would be about fourteen pence in our money.]

440 Plutarch. Ag. 9.

441 Alc. I. 38. p. 122 E.

442 Compare Herod. VI. 57. (where the word δεῖπνον also refers to the συσσίτια) with Xen. Rep. Lac. 15. 4. quoted by Schol. Od. IV. 65. In Crete the cosmus on duty (ὁ ἄρχων) had four portions, Heracl. Pont. 3.

443 Herod. ubi sup. According to Xen. Hell. IV. 3. 14. and Plut. Ages. 17. the king sent to whom he pleased a share of his sacrifices. According to Xenoph. Rep. Lac. 15. 5. he also had a little pig out of every brood for sacrificing.

444 See p. 109. note p. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “expense of the community,” starting “This is called δήμια πίνειν.”]

445 Herod. VI. 57. ἢν θυσίην τις (not a private individual, but a person appointed by the public) δημοτελῆ ποιέηται.

446 Herod. IX. 81.

447 According to Phylarchus in Polyb. II. 62. 1. These are the μέγισται λήψεις in Plat. Alcib. I. 39. p. 123 A.

448 Xen. Ages. 8. Plutarch Ages. 19. (see vol. I. p. 100. note o.) Hell. V. 3. 20. comp. Nepos. Ages. 7. The βοώνητα in Pausanias III. 12. 3. are of a different nature.

449 As Manso shows, vol. III. 2. p. 330.

450 De Rep. Lac. 15. 6. According to the same writer (15. 2.) three ὅμοιοι provided in war for all the necessities of the king, who are considered by Raoul-Rochette, Deux Lettres sur l’authenticité des Inscriptions de Fourmont, 1819. p. 136. as a part of the six ἐμπασάντες in a (spurious) inscription of Fourmont’s (ἐμπασέντες in Hesychius), Boeckh Corp. Inscript. No. 68. The point is by no means clear.

451 Herod. VII. 149. Aristot. Pol. V. 8, 4. See Æginetica, p. 52. Plutarch Lycurg. 7. (comp. Plato Leg. III. p. 692.) states generally that the power of the kings at Argos and Messene had been at first too extensive, and that by the violence of the governors, and disobedience of the governed, it was at last destroyed, without mentioning any time. The words of Diodorus (Fragm. 5, p. 635.) ἡ βασιλεία ἤτοι τοπαρχία τῆς Ἀργείας ἔτη φμθ. (comp. Eusebius, Malelas and Cedrenus), cannot be referred to this: he reckons this number of years from Inachus to Pelops (160-705 Euseb.).—I may be permitted in this note to subjoin the best arrangement of the Argive kings which the scanty accounts of antiquity seem to furnish. 1. Heraclidæ. Temenus, the father of Ceisus, the father of Medon (What Pausanias II. 19. 2. says of the limitations imposed upon this king, must be judged of from what has been seen above, p. 56. note x [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “Thus Isocrates,” starting “Panathen. p. 270.”]; according to the Pseudo-Platonic Epistle VIII. p. 485 Bekk. the kings of Argos and Messene were about the time of Lycurgus tyrants). Then about four kings are wanting after the δέκατος ἀπὸ Τημένου of Ephorus, Æginet. p. 60. After the beginning of the Olympiads Eratus (Paus. II. 36. 5. IV. 8. 1.) who was probably succeeded immediately by Phidon, the son of Aristodamidas (according to Satyrus and Diodorus, Æginetica, p. 61.), before and about the 8th Olympiad. At a later period Damocratidas, about the 30th Olympiad (Pausan. IV. 35. 2. cf. 24. 2. This date is too low, according to Clinton F. H. vol. I. p. 190; but not according to my date for the Messenian wars, nor according to that of Pausanias.) Phido II. confounded by Herod. VI. 127. with the earlier king of the same name (Æginetica, p. 60.) father of Λακήδης (in Ionic Λεωκήδης, as in Herodotus,) who wooed the daughter of Cleisthenes (about Olymp. 45. 600 B. C), and when king made himself despised by his effeminacy (Plutarch, de cap. ex hoste util. p. 278. where Λακύδης should be corrected.) His son Meltas (Μέλταν τὸν Λακηδέω, as should be written) was deposed by the people, according to Pausan. II. 19. 2.; but according to Plutarch. Alex. M. virt. 8. p. 269. the family of the Heraclidæ expired. He was succeeded, according to Plutarch, (ubi sup.) and Pyth. Orac. 5. p. 254. II. by Ægon, of another family, about Olymp. 55. 560 B.C. and it was probably the descendants of this king, who still reigned in Argos at the time of the Persian war. According to Schol. Pind. Olymp. VI. 152. Archinus was a king of Argos; but he was a tyrant, Polyæn. III. 8. 1.

452 See vol. I. p. 90. note n.

453 Ἐπὶ βασιλέος Πασγάδα, or Πασιάδα, according to Boeckh, Corp. Inscript. No. 1052. of about the time of Alexander.

454 See b. I. ch. 6. § 1. and ch. 7. § 11. [Transcriber’s Note: There is no such section number in that chapter.]

455 B. I. ch. 6. § 10.

456 Ib. § 7, 8. According to several writers, Pollis was one of the kings of Syracuse, who by others is called an Argive, from whom the Πόλιος οἶνος is derived, Athen. I. p. 31 B. Pollux VI. 2. 16. from Aristotle, Ælian, V. H. XII. 31. In the Etymologist, the correct reading is probably ὑπὸ Πόλλιδος τοῦ ΣΥΡΑΚΟΣΙΟΥ τυράννου: compare Mazocchi Tab. Heracl. p. 202.

457 B. I. ch. 7. § 11. A king named Aristophilidas in Herod. III. 136.

458 Ib. c. 7. § 3. and the passage of Aristides quoted there in § 1. In Halicarnassus an Antheus is mentioned as of a royal family (Parthen. 14.), probably one of the Antheadæ; see ib. § 3.

459 B. I. ch. 5. § 2.

460 Herod. IV. 154.

461 See b. I. ch. 6. § 11.

462 Plutarch. Quæst. Græc. 12. p. 383.

463 Aristot. Pol. V. 9. I. Cic. de Leg. III. 7. de Rep. II. 33. Plutarch. Lyc. 7, 29. ad princ. I. p. 90. Euseb. ad Olymp. IV. 4. Val. Max. IV. 1. Compare Manso, vol. I. p. 243.

464 Heraclid. Pont. 4.

465 They are ἐπώνυμοι in the Theræan Testamentum Epictetæ; ἐπὶ ἐφόρων τῶν σὺν φοιβοτέλει. Boeckh. Corp. Inscript. Gr. No. 2448.

466 Polyb. IV. 4. 2. 31. In the cities of the Eleutherolacones, there were also ephors, as at Geronthræ in the decree in Boeckh. Inscript. 1334. and at Tænarum, ib. No. 1321, 1322; and in the time of Gordian, ἡ πόλις τῶν Βειτυλέων i.e., Œtylus, the Βίτυλα of Ptolemy, now Vitulo, ib. 1323. For Cyriacus (ap. Reines. p. 335.) is probably incorrect in stating that the inscription was found in Pylo Messeniaca.

467 In which city an ephor is as ἐπώνυμος of the πόλις in the Heraclean Tables.

468 I. 65.

469 De Rep. Lac. 8. 3. So also Plutarch. Agesil. 5. Pseudo-Plat. Epist. 8. p. 354 B. Suidas in Λυκοῦργος, also Satyrus ap. Diog. Laërt. I. 3. 1. According to others, it was introduced by Cheilon, who, according to Pamphila and Sosicrates, was ephorus ἐπώνυμος in Olymp. 56. 1. 556 B.C. (according to Eusebius Olymp. 55. 4. 557 B.C.) Compare Manso, vol. III. 2. p. 332. The passage of Diog. Laërt. I. 3. 1. (68) creates no difficulty according to the reading of Casaubon; γέγονε δὲ ἔφορος κατὰ τὴν πεντηκοστὴν πέμπτην Ὀλυμπιάδα. Παμφίλη δέ φησι κατὰ τὴν ἕκτην. καὶ πρῶτον ἔφορον γενέσθαι ἐπὶ Εὐθυδήμου (Olymp. 56. 1.), ὥς φησι Σωσικράτης. καὶ πρῶτος εἰσηγήσατο ἐφόρους τοῖς βασιλεῦσι παραζευγνύμαι; Σάτυρος δὲ Λυκοῦργον. The first πρῶτον refers to the office of the ephor eponymus; and hence appears to have originated the mistake which is contained in the words καὶ πρῶτος εἰσηγήσατο, &c., viz., that Chilon first introduced the practice of associating ephors with the kings. Manso, ubi sup., has taken the same view of the passage.

470 Cic. de Leg. and de Rep. ubi sup. Valer. Max. IV. 1.

471 Compare Niebuhr’s Roman History, vol. I. p. 436. ed. 1. Engl. Transl. with whose opinions on the ephors, as well as on the government of Sparta in general, the views taken in this work generally disagree.

472 Polit. III. 1. 7. according to which passage the ephors allotted themselves to different branches of the δίκαι τῶν συμβολαίων.

473 Compare Plutarch. Lac. Apophth. p. 196. Anaxandridas. ἐρωτῶντος δὲ τινος αὐτὸν, διὰ τί τὰς περὶ τοῦ θανάτου δίκας πλείοσιν ἡμέραις οἱ γέροντες κρίνουσι, and p. 207. Eurycratidas—πυθομένου τινὸς, διὰ τί περὶ τὰ τῶν συμβολαίων δίκαια ἑκάστης ἡμέρας κρίνουσιν οἱ ἔφοροι. Here, however, δίκαι ἀπὸ συμβόλων appear to be meant, as the answer shows; which is doubtless a mistake.

474 Aristot. Pol. II. 8. 4. III. 1. 7. says, as it appears to me, most clearly, that while in Carthage a certain board or court of public officers decided all law-suits, in Sparta the public officers indeed alone acted as judges, but decided only those cases which belonged to their respective departments. Cf. Justin. III. 3.

475 According to the Etymol. Gudian. ἔφοροι are οἱ τὰ τῶν πόλεων ὤνια ἐπισκεπτόμενοι.

476 Cf. Herod. I. 153.

477 Thucyd. V. 34.

478 See above, p. 101. note i. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “ten days,” starting “According to Herod. VI. 50.”]

479 Hell. III. 3. 5.

480 Ælian. V. H. II. 15.

481 See Tittmann, p. 107, n. 4. where some contradictory statements are also noticed.

482 Sparta also frequently appointed five judges for extraordinary cases, as for example, concerning the possession of Salamis, the fate of the Platæans, Thucyd. III. 52. The same number were also appointed by the Iasians to decide the lawsuits of the Calymnians, Chandl. Inscript. p. 21. LVIII.

483 Ch. 5. § 4.

484 Polit. II. 3. 10. II. 6. 14, 15. II. 8. 2. IV. 7. 4.

485 μηδεμίαν κληρωτήν, Aristot. Pol. IV. 7. 5.

486 Plat. Leg. III. p. 692. calls the power of the ephors ἐγγὺς τῆς κληρωτῆς. Without an election, however, Chilon could not have attained the ephoralty, nor his brother have been able to complain that he was postponed. Diog. Laërt. ubi sup. The nomination by the kings (Plutarch. Lac. Apophth. p. 197.) is an error.

487 Aristot. Pol. V. 5. 6.

488 See above, ch. 5. § 9.

489 Κρίσεων μεγάλων κύριοι, Aristot. Pol. II. 6. 16.

490 Ib. II. 6. 17.

491 Plutarch. Agis 12. Compare Aristot. Ret. III. 18. 6.

492 Xen. Rep. Lac. 8. 4.

493 Herod. VI. 82.

494 Xen. Ages. I. 36. Plutarch. Ages. 4. Cleom. 10. An Seni sit ger. Resp. 27. Præc. Reip. ger. 21.

495 Plutarch. Cleom. 10.

496 Xen. Rep. Lac. 8. 4. ἄρχοντα κύριοι εἷρξαὶ τε καὶ περὶ τῆς ψυχῆς εἰς ἀγῶνα καταστῆσαι. cf. Plut. Lys. 30. The same in reference to the king, Thucyd. I. 131. Nepos (Paus. 3. 5.) probably adds the words “cuivis ephoro” ex suo. Libanius Orat. I. p. 86. Reisk. is incorrect in stating that the ephors had power to imprison the king, and put him to death (δῆσαι καὶ κτανεῖν). Thus the ephors only seized and detained Pausanias; the sentence was passed by the Spartans (οἱ Σπαρτιᾶται), i.e., the court of justice, concerning which see the next note.

497 Δικαστήριον συναγαγόντες, Herod. VI. 85. See particularly Pausan. III. 5. 3. and Plutarch Agis 19. Less accurately, Apophth. p. 195.

498 Xen. Hell. III. 5. 25.

499 Plutarch. Ag. 19.

500 Thucyd. V. 63.

501 Xen. Anab. II. 6. 4. ἐθανατώθη ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν τῇ Σπάρτῃ τελῶν ὡς ἀπειθῶν, where τὰ τέλη must signify this supreme court.

502 Ὕπῆγον θανάτου, Xen. Hell. V. 4. 24. The ephors did not seize Cinadon till after a secret conference with the gerusia; his punishment was probably fixed by the supreme court;—see Xen. Hell. III. 3. 5. Polyæan. II. 14. 1.

503 This is apparently affirmed (in addition to Libanius quoted in p. 122. n. l. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “life or death,” starting “Xen. Rep. Lac. 8. 4.”]) by Plutarch. Periol. 22. Lysand. 19. and Lac. Apophth. p. 209; but it can be only inaccuracy of expression.

504 Plutarch. Erot. 5. p. 77. where a very fabulous story is related of an event, which is reported to have taken place before the earthquake in the 78th Olympiad. In Polybius V. 91. 2. the ephors are represented as recalling banished persons. Concerning the punishment of exile at Sparta, see below, ch. 11. § 4.

505 Xen. Rep. Lac. 8. 4. cf. Polyæn. II. 26. 1.

506 Plutarch. Ages. 2. 5. cf. de Am. Frat. 9. p. 46.

507 Theophrast. ap. Plutarch. Ages. 2. de Educ. Puer. 2. Otherwise Heraclides Lembus ap. Athen. XIII. p. 566 A.

508 For this reason the ephors compelled Anaxandridas to marry two wives, Herod. V. 39-41., and watched the wives of the kings, Plat. Alcib. I. 36. p. 121 B. See above, ch. 6. § 6.

509 Plutarch. Lys. 19. They decided in the case of Gylippus, according to Posidonius ap. Athen. VI. p. 234 A. as ταμίαι of the state, as they appear to have been from notes i and k, p. 127. [Transcriber’s Note: Footnote “i” is the footnote to “the plunder,” starting “Xerod. IX. 76.”, and footnote “k” is the footnote to “public treasury,” starting “Plutarch. Lys. 16.”]

510 At least according to Schol. Thucyd. I. 84.

511 Plutarch. Inst. Lac. p. 254.

512 Xen. Rep. Lac. 4. 3. 6. Ælian. V. H. III. 10. XIV. 7.

513 Xen. Hell. VI. 4. 16. Plut. Ages. 29. the history of Timotheus.

514 Herod. VI. 63.

515 Pol. II. 6. 16.

516 Plutarch. Ag. 9.

517 Thucyd. I. 87.

518 Plutarch. Ag. 5. ῥήτραν ἔγραψε.

519 Ælian. V. H. III. 17.

520 Xen. Hell. II. 2. 13, 19.

521 Herod. III. 148. Plut. Lac. Apophth. p. 214.

522 See, for example, Herod. IX. 8. Xen. Hell. II. 2. 17. III. 1. 1. Polyb. IV. 34. 5. Thuc. I. 90. ἀρχαὶ and τέλη are generally mentioned.

523 Xen. Hell. II. 2. 19.

524 See particularly Thuc. V. 36. Cf. Xen. Hell. V. 2. 9. That in these cases they always recurred to the public assembly is evident, Xen. Hell. III. 2. 23. IV. 6. 3.

525 Thuc. V. 19. 24.

526 Thuc. VI. 88.

527 Xen. Hell. II. 4. 29. Παυσανίας πείσας τῶν ἐφόρων τρεῖς ἐξάγει φρουράν. cf. III. 2. 25. IV. 2. 9. V. 4. 19. Plut. Lys. 20. Thuc. VIII. 12. See also Anab. II. 6. 2. Hell. V. 1. 1. where they grant permission to privateer.

528 Herod. IX. 7. 10. Plut. Arist. 10.

529 Προκηρύττουσι τὰ ἔτη, Xen. Rep. Lac. 11. 2. φρουρὰν ἔφαινον μεχρὶ τῶν τετταράκοντα ἀφ᾽ ἥβης, Hell. VI. 4. 17.

530 That is, authorized by the state, as Xen. Hell. VI. 4. 3. shows.

531 Xen. Hell. III. 1. 8. III. 2. 6.

532 Xen. Hell. VI. 4. 3. πέμψας πρὸς τοὺς ἐφόρους ἠρώτα τί χρὴ ποιεῖν. Hence they were especially οἱ οἴκοι, τὰ οἴκοι τέλη, Sturz Lex. Xenoph. vol. III. p. 254. Compare Plutarch. Lys. 14. Cleom. 8. and the spurious letters of Brasidas and Lysander in Lac. Apophth. pp. 203, 227.

534 Thuc. I. 131. Plut. Lys. 19. Agesilaus was recalled, according to Xenophon Hell. IV. 2, 3. by “the state,” Ages. 1. 36. by τὰ οἴκοι τέλη, according to Plutarch Ages. 15. by the ephors.

535 Xen. Hell. V. 4. 24.

536 Plut. Lys. 20. Xen. Ages. 1. 26.

537 Μὴ περιπατεῖτε, the command to the army at Decelea, Ælian. V. H. II. 5.

538 This is seen most clearly from Thucyd. VI. 88, where the ephors and τέλη send ambassadors, i.e., wish to persuade the public assembly to do this, and from Xen. Hell. II. 2. 17-19. VI. 4. 2. 3. Compare p. 89. note t. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “magistrates alone,” starting “As Tittman.”]

539 Herod. IX. 76. Xen. Rep. Lac. 13. 5. Hell. II. 4. 35, 36. cf. Thuc. IV. 15.

533 Xen. Hell. III. 2. 6. Plut. Pericl. 22.

540 Herod. IX. 76.

542 Xen. Hell. III. 4. 2. ἔφοροι τὰς πατρίους πολιτείας παρήνγειλαν. Thus the τέλη guarantee their independence to whatever allies Brasidas could gain over, Thuc. IV. 86, 88.

541 Plutarch. Lys. 16. Diod. XIII. 106.

543 Xen. Hell. IV. 8. 32.

544 τῆς πολιτείας τὸ κρυπτόν, Thucyd. V. 68.

545 Leg. IV. p. 712 D. Polit. II. 6. 14.

546 Plutarch. Cleom. 10.

547 Dodwell de Cyc. Diss. VIII. 5. p. 320. Manso, vol. II. p. 379.

548 Which also explains the affair with the Aulonitæ in Xen. Hell. III. 3. 8.

549 Aristot. ap. Plutarch. Cleom. 9. de sera Num. Vind. 4. p. 222. Κείρεσθαι τὸν μύστακα καὶ προσέχειν τοῖς νόμοις. Concerning the Laconian word μύσταξ, see Hesychius and Valcken. ad Adoniaz. p. 288.

550 Pausan. III. 11. 2. Plutarch. Cleom. 8. Ag. 16.

551 See Plutarch Lac. Apophth. p. 237. Comp. Ælian. V. H. II. 15. This building therefore corresponds to the Prytaneum at Athens, in which the civil laws (ἄξονες) were kept, and ambassadors entertained, together with certain distinguished citizens: indeed the prytanes of Athens themselves, as being presidents of the public assembly, have some similarity to the ephors. See also Proclus ad Hesiod. Op. et Di. 722.

552 Plutarch Cleom. 8, 9.

553 Plut. Ag. 9. Cic. de Div. I. 43, 96. Compare Manso, vol. III. 1. p. 261. Siebelis ad Pausan. III. 26. 1.

554 Above, ch. 6. § 6.—The ephors also had certain duties to perform at the sacrifices of Athene Chalciœcus, Polyb. IV. 35. 2.

555 Ἁνειμένη δίαιτα, II. 6. 16.

556 Which Pausanias had once wished to effect, Aristot. Pol. V. 1. 5.

557 See the comparison of Philo de Provid. 2. p. 80. Aucher.

558 Compare also the Scholiast, and Ducker ad Thucyd. I. 58. Sturz Lex. Xen. IV. p. 276. Αἱ ἁρχαὶ, τὰ ἁρχεῖα is the same, Plut. Lac. Apophth. p. 800. In the army οἱ ἐν τέλει are the officers down to the Pentecoster, Xen. Hell. III. 5. 22, 23.

559 Pausan. III. 11. 2.

561 Hesych. in v.

560 A πρέσβυς νομοφυλάκων in recent inscriptions, Boeckh Corp. Inscript. Nos. 1363, 1364. So also a πρέσβυς βιδέων in No. 1364. (hence βίδεοι περὶ τὸν in inscriptions of late date), and there were six bidei inclusively of this one, as the inscription last quoted, and another of Fourmont’s, prove. See above, p. 94. note b. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “peace and war,” starting “Herod. VII. 148.”] Why I pass over Fourmont’s pretended ancient inscriptions it is needless to say.

562 Hesych. in v. In later times also ἁγοράνομοι, in the inscription No. 1364. Hesychius’s translation δήμαρχοι does not even explain the name of the γερόακται.

563 Plut. Ages. 30. Lac. Apophth. p. 189.

564 Meurs. Misc. Lac. II. 4.

565 Corsini Not. Græc. Diss. V. p. 95.

566 Boeckh No. 1364; compare Boeckh p. 611.

567 Since the first appearance of this work, Boeckh, in his Corp. Inscript. vol. I. p. 605, has shown that the πατρόνομοι obtained indeed the power of the gerusia; but that the latter body still possessed an honorary dignity, comp. ib. p. 610. He further proves, p. 606, that the first patronomus was the ἐπώνομος of the state; and that the expression ἐπὶ τοῦ δείνα, in the lists of magistrates, refers to him. The regular number of the nomophylaces, according to Boeckh’s references to Fourmont’s Inscriptions, p. 609, was also five. There was however sometimes a sixth. The bidiæi are called in the inscriptions βίδεοι, or βίδυοι; this, according to Boeckh’s ingenious explanation, is the Laconian form of ἴδυοι, ϝίδυοι, and signifies witnesses and judges among the youth. Compare the ἴστωρ Hom. II. XVIII. 801. XXIII. 486. and concerning the ἴδυοι in ancient laws, see Ælius Dionysius quoted by Enstathius on the first passage.

568 Polit. II. 7. 3.—ap. Strab. X. p. 482 A—de Rep. II. 33. Van Dale de Ephoris et Cosmis in his Dissert. Antiquar.

569 Aristot. Pol. II. 7. 5.

570 Aristot. Pol. II. 7. 3.

571 ἔδοξε τοῖς κόσμοις καὶ τᾷ πόλει.

572 Treaty between the Hierapytnii and Priansii in Chishull’s Ant. Asiat. pag. 130. πρειγηία (πρειγεία, legatio) δὲ ὧ κὰ χρείαν ἔχη πορηίω, παρεχόντων οἱ κόσμοι.

573 Cnosian decree, ibid. p. 121. τὸς δὲ κόσμος δόμεν ἀντίγραφον τῶδε τῶ ψαφίσματος σφραγίσαντας τᾷ δαμοσίᾳ σφραγῖδι ἀποκομίσαι Ἡροδότῳ καὶ Μενεκλεῖ.

574 As it appears from the treaty of the Hierapytnians, p. 130.

575 Ephorus ap. Strab. p. 484 B.

576 Aristot. Pol. II. 7. 4.

577 Treaty of the Hierapytnians, p. 130. A different regulation in that of the Latians and Olontians, p. 134.

578 Vid. ibid. p. 130.

579 Decree of the Istronians and Sybritians, p. 113, 114. οἱ κόσμοι—ἐπαναγκαζόντων ἀποδιδόμεν τοὺς ἔχοντας.

580 Ibid. p. 131. The Hierapytnians and Priansians had for a time had no commercium juris dandi repetendique (κοινοδίκιον); in this treaty it is agreed that the cosmi of the year shall bring before a court appointed by both cities those lawsuits which had been interrupted by the want of a common tribunal; that they shall carry them through during the term of their office, and give sureties for this in a month after the conclusion of the treaty. Then follow similar stipulations for the future.

581 In the treaty of the Hierapytnians, p. 131, it is permitted that a γραφὴ τιμητὴ, according to the Athenian custom, should be instituted against the cosmus; in the decree of the Sybritians (p. 114.), however, the cosmi are guaranteed for a particular exercise of their power, to be ἁζάμιοι καὶ ἀνυπόδικοι πάσας ζαμίας.

582 Aristot. Pol. II. 7. 7.

583 Lyctian Inscript. Gruter. p. 194. 15. Οἱ σύν τινι κόσμοι frequently occurs. Cf. Polyb. XXIII. 15. 1.

584 This sense is required by the context in Aristot. Pol. II. 7. 7; so that after the words τῶν δυνατῶν, τινὲς should be restored, and the passage be written thus: πάντων δὲ φαυλότατον τὸ τῆς ἀκοσμίας, ἣν συνιστᾶσι πολλάκις, ὅταν μὴ δίκας βούλωνται δοῦναι, τῶν δυνατῶν τινές.

585 VI. 46. 4. From the context it is plain that the senate was at that time chosen annually in Crete.

586 Similarly Tittmann, p. 413.

587 Strabo, p. 481 B.

588 See Herod. V. 92. Pausan. II. 4. See book I. ch. 8. § 3.

589 See the great inscription, earlier than the Roman times, in Boeckh’s Staatshaushaltung, vol. II. p. 403, in which Aristomenes the prytanis, the son of Aristolaidas, a Hyllean, is mentioned, whose head occurs on a coin in connexion with the head of Hercules. Another inscription in the same book also mentions four prytanes together. At that time, however, the government was democratic, since the ἁλία was also a court of justice, p. 406.

590 Suidas: Χάρων πρυτάνεις ἢ ἄρχοντες Λακεδαιμονίων. It is also used for king by Pindar and Æschylus.

591 Ἡρακλείδου πρυτανεύοντος, Paus. X. 2. 2.

592 See b. II. ch. 1. § 8. Compare the history in Aristot. Pol. V. 3. 3. Plut. Præc. Rep. ger. 52. p. 200. sq.

593 See Dissen’s Commentary and my note to Pindar Nem. XI. 4. where now I agree with Boeckh, that the ἑταῖροι compose the βουλὴ, over which the πρύτανις presides.

594 This I infer from Polyb. XXVII. 6. 2. Στρατοκλέους πρυτανεύοντος τὴν δευτέραν ἕκμηνον. Comp. Paulsen de Rhodo, p. 56.

595 See particularly Polyb. XV. 23. 3. XVI. 15. 8. XXIII. 3. 10. XXIX. 4. 4. XXIX. 5. 6. ἀρχὴ μάλιστα αὐτοκράτωρ, Appian. Bell. Civ. IV. 66. Comp. Plut. Præc. Rep. ger. 17. p. 173. Liv. XLII. 45. Poseidonius the historian was prytanis at Rhodes, Strabo VII. p. 316.

596 Polyb. XXIX. 4. 1.

598 Strabo XIV. p. 652. See below, ch. 9. § 3.

597 Polybius and Appius ubi sup. mention δημαγωγοὶ; the former writer had also explained the τρέπος τῆς δημηγορίας, but the passage is lost.

599 See Ubbo Emmius de Rep. Rhod.

600 Ad Pind. ubi sup.

601 Aristot. Pol. V. 4. 3.—The prytanes of Cyzicus were on the other hand democratic.

603 See particularly Andoc. de Myst. p. 37.

602 Hesychius κέρκος—ἐχρῆτο δὲ αὐτῇ μᾶλλον ὁ ἐν Κῳ πρύτανις. Compare with this the sacrifice in the Peace of Aristophanes. The prytanis in the city of Crotona, sacred to Apollo, went every seventh day about the altars, Athen, XII. p. 522 C. Concerning the care of the prytanes for the κοινὴ ἑστία, see Aristot. Pol. VI. 5.

604 Boeckh’s Economy of Athens, vol. II. p. 64.

605 Ibid. vol. I. p. 232. where the nature of this office was first explained. The Areopagites also probably received their κρέας through these officers. Comp. Hesych. and Photius in κρέας.

606 Hence Solon ap. Plut. 19. ἐκ πρυτανείου καταδικασθέντες ὑπὸ τῶν βασιλέων.—They also sat together in the royal porch, probably also as a court of justice. Pollux VIII. 111, 120. Hesych. in Φυλοβασιλεῖς.

607 Aristot. Pol. V. 1. 6.

608 Book II. ch. 8. § 6.

609 Boeckh in several places, Schoemann de Comitiis, p. 364.

611 Olymp. 90. 1. 420 B.C. mentioned by Thuc. V. 47. Cf. Æginetica, p. 134.

612 Plut. Quæst. Græc. I.

613 A very numerous synedrion in the Prytaneum at the time of Cassander, Diod. XIX. 63.

614 Æl. Dionys. ap. Eustath. ad Od. XVII. p. 1285. Rom. Hesych. in v.

610 V. 71. Compare Schoemann de Comitiis, p. 12.

615 Hence Philip (ap. Demosth. de Corona, p. 280.) writes to the demiurgi and synedri of the Peloponnesians.

616 Thuc. ubi sup.

617 Boeckh Corp. Inscript. No. 1193. and see Boeckh, pp. 11. and 594.

618 Polyb. XXIV. 5. 16. Liv. XXXII. 22. XXXVIII. 30. and Drakenborch’s note, Plut. Arat. 43. ΔΑΜΙΟΡΓΟΙ in a Dymæan inscription, ib. 1543.

619 Etym. Mag. p. 265, 45. Zonaras in v.

620 Ibid. Aristot. Pol. III. 1.

621 Thuc. I. 56. with the Scholia. Compare Suidas in δημιουργός. Ἐπιδημίουργοι are upper demiurgi, as the ἐπιστρατηγοὶ in Egypt, in the time of the Ptolemies, were upper or superior στρατηγοί.

622 As in Mantinea, Xen. Hell. V. 2. 3. 6. They were different from the regular τέλη, Thuc. V. 47. In early times the δαμιουργίαι were of considerable duration, Aristot. Pol. V. 8. 3. Compare Æginetica, p. 134.

623 See above ch. 4. § 2.

624 See ch. 6. § 10. The notions of the ancients, on the subject of the Argive kings, seem very vague and doubtful.

625 Book I. ch. 8. § 7.

626 Diod. XII. 75.

627 See particularly Thucyd. V. 29. 41. 44.—τὸ πλῆθος ἐψηφίσατο (404 B.C.). Demosth. de Rhod. Libert, p. 197.

628 Thuc. V. 27, 28.

629 See the passages quoted above, p. 56. note y. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “great civil power,” starting “See Thuc. V. 67.”]

630 Aristotle Pol. II. 3. 5. calls them τοὺς γνωρίμους.

631 Aristot. ubi sup. Diod. XII. 80. Thuc. V. 81. τὸν ἐν Ἄργει δῆμον κατέλυσαν, καὶ ὀλιγαρχία κατέστη. Cf. 76.

632 In July of 417 B.C. Thuc. V. 82. Diod. XII. 80.

633 Thuc. V. 84. Diod. XII. 81.

634 Thuc. VI. 61. Diod. XIII. 5.

635 C. 11.—πάντας, ὄντας ἑκατὸν, the emendation of Casaubon, who wishes to introduce the word ἑκατοστὺς; does not agree with what follows. Perhaps there were at that time ten tribes at Argos, as in Athens, and the χίλιοι λογάδες are here meant: but even then it would be difficult to fix the time of this event.

636 Compare Plut. Alcib. 14. Nicostratus, who according to Theopompus ap. Athen. VI. p. 252 A. was προστάτης τῆς πόλεως at the time of Artaxerxes Ochus, was probably an officer of this description. Compare what was said on the demiurgi, ch. 8. § 5.

637 Below, § 8.

638 Diod. XV. 40.

639 Diod. XV. 57, 58.

640 Plutarch (Præc. Reip. ger. 17. p. 175.) reckons 1500 in all. He is followed by Helladius Chrestom. p. 979. in Gronov. Thesaur. Gr. vol. X.

641 Plut. ubi sup. compare also Dionys. Hal. Archæol. Rom. VII. 66.

642 Pausan. II. 20. 1.

643 Isocrat. ad Philipp. p. 92 C. D. Even however after this time principes occur, Liv. XXXII. 38.

644 Aristot. Pol. V. 2. 5. Schol. Aristoph. Eq. 851. Phavorinus in ὀστρακίνδα. Compare Paradys de Ostracismo in the Classical Journal, vol. XIX. p. 348.

645 See Aristid. II. p. 388.

646 Isocrat. ubi sup.

647 Ἀργεία φορὰ ap. Diogenian. II. 79. Apostol. IV. 28. Eustath. ad Il. β᾽. p. 286 Rom.

648 Cicero Brut. 13.

649 Ch. 5. § 1. ch. 8. § 5.

650 See vol. I. p. 187 note a.

652 Aristot. Pol. V. 4. 2.

651 Herod. VII. 99.

653 P. 94. note b. and p. 140. note m. [Transcriber’s Note: These are the footnotes to “peace and war,” starting “Herod. VII. 148.,” and to “sacrifices of the prytanis,” starting “Hesychius κέρκος.”]

654 Olymp. VII. 87. Callianax was one of the ancestors of Diagoras of the γένος Ἐρατιδῶν.

655 Compare what Timocreon the Rhodian said in Olymp. 75. 4. 477 B.C. concerning the proceedings of Themistocles in this and in other islands, Plut. Them. 21.

656 See Boeckh’s masterly explanation of this ode at the end.

657 See Thucyd. VIII. 35, 84. Xen. Hell. I. 1, 2. I. 5. 19. Diod. XIII. 38, 43. Pausan. VI. 7. 2. The correctness of what Androtion relates in this passage is very doubtful.

658 Thuc. VII. 57.

659 Thuc. VIII. 44.

660 Aristot. Pol. V. 2. 5, 6. V. 5. 4. These three passages apparently refer to the same event; which (if this is the case) must have taken place at the time to which I have in the text referred it; for in the middle one the popular party is said to have been defeated by the nobles, πρὸ τῆς ἐπαναστάσεως, which cannot signify “before the revolution,” a meaning which neither the words nor the context will admit; but “before the congregation of the inhabitants of the three small towns to the city of Rhodes,” the ἀνάστασις ἐπὶ μίαν Ῥόδον. Goettling indeed (ad. l.) is of opinion, that the two first passages cannot refer to the same event, since in the first the constitution of Rhodes is stated to have perished through φόβος, in the latter through καταφρόνησις. But the same example might have been strictly applicable to both; the γνώριμοι dreaded the disturbances of the demagogues, and at the same time despised the irregular proceedings of the people, and therefore overthrew the democracy.

661 Diod. XIII. 75. See also Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens, vol. II. p. 155.

662 Diod. XIV. 79.

663 Xen. Hell. IV. 8. 20-22. Diod. XIV. 97.

664 In the speech concerning the freedom of the Rhodians, cf. περὶ Συντάξεως, p. 194. The oligarchy of Hegesilochus (Theopompus ap. Athen. X. p. 444.) perhaps belongs to this period.

665 If I correctly understand de Repub. III. 35. cf. I. 31. and the traces of the later constitution in Aristid. Rhod. Conc. II. p. 385. and Dio Chrysost. Orat. 31. passim.—With the passage in Cicero compare particularly Sallust. de Rep. Ord. 2., who states, that in Rhodes rich and poor sat together in judgment on both important and unimportant affairs. Tacitus also in Dial, de Cl. Orat. 40. represents the Rhodian constitution as democratic.

666 Strab. XIV. p. 653 A.

667 Meurs. Rhod. c. 20.—The supposed letter of Cleobulus to Solon, in which he says that Lindus δαμοκρατεῖ (Diog, Laërt. I. 93. Suidas in Κλεόβουλος) evidently cannot be used for the constitutional history of Rhodes.

668 Pind. Olymp. XIII. 2. οἶκος ἄμερος ἀστοῖς.

669 In early times a close friendship existed between Corinth and Athens, Herod. V. 75. 95. Thuc. I. 40, 41.

670 See Xen. Hell. IV. 4. 3. sqq.

671 IV. 4. 6. sqq.

672 See particularly VII. 4. 6. The refugees from Corinth to Argos in Olymp. 101. 2. 375 B.C. (mentioned by Diodorus XV. 40.) were therefore democrats.

673 Plut. Dion. 53. No conclusion can be drawn from the word δημοκρατία in Plutarch. Timol. 50. for it is there used only to signify the contrary of τυραννίς.

674 Diod. XVI. 65, 66.

675 Polit. V. 5. 9.

676 Thuc. III. 73.

677 See Dionys. Halic. Archæol. Rom. VII. 66. Diod. XIII. 48.

678 Thuc. III. 81.

679 For a βουλευτὴς could hope, by virtue of his office, to persuade the people to an alliance with Athens, Thuc. III. 70.

680 Thuc. III. 70.

681 Thuc. III. 70. IV. 46. Æneas Poliorc. 11. Diodorus XII. 57. however says only, τοὺς δημαγωγεῖν εἰωθότας καὶ μάλιστα τοῦ πλήθους προίστασθαι.

682 Strabo lib. VII. Excerpt. 2. Proverb. Metric. p. 569. Schott.

683 Concerning the ἐλεφαντίναι κώπαι of the Corcyræan whips, see Aristoph. ap. Hesych. in Κερκυραία μάστιξ, Schol. Aristoph. Av. 1463. Zenob. IV. 49.

684 In Olymp. 92. 3. 410 B.C. Diod. XIII. 48. and in Olymp. 101. 3. 374 B.C. Diod. XV. 46.

685 Æneas Poliorc. 11.

686 See p. 138. note y. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “democratic age,” starting “See the great inscription.”] Perhaps five prytanes in the inscription in Mustoxidi, Illustr. Corciresi, tom. II. p. 87. [Δαμ]οξενος Μολωτα πρυτανευσας και οἱ συναρχοι [Δαμ]ων Μολωτα Ικεταιδας ... Κ[λεα]ρχος Λεοντος ... ρ..ρου θεοις.

687 The inscription quoted above, p. 138. note y.

688 Πρόδικοι and πρόβουλοι also occur in another inscription, not written in the Doric dialect, in Mustoxidi, tom. II. p. 92. n. 43., in which an ἀμφίπολος (as in Syracuse) is also mentioned.

689 If Periander was the son of Gorgus, and the latter (according to Anton. Lib.) the brother of Cypselus, Neanthes of Cyzicus (ap. Diog. Laërt. I. 98.) was correct in stating that the two Perianders were ἀνεψιοί. Yet the hypothesis adopted in b. I. ch. 6. § 8. has its reasons. According to that, the genealogy would be

[Transcriber’s Note: The graph shows Cypselus the father of one Periander, and Gorgue (Gorgias) the father of another Periander.]

and then also Psammetichus might be considered as son of the same Gorgias (Gordias), without supposing the oracle in Herodotus V. 92 to be false.

690 Aristot. Pol. V. 8. 9. Plut. Erot. 23. p. 60.

691 Aristot. Pol. V. 3. 6. The Spartans also assisted in overthrowing the tyranny, b. I. ch. 9. § 5.

692 Aristot. Pol. V. 2. 9. According to Anton. Liber. 4. a tyrant Phalæcus also reigned at Ambracia, against whom an insurrection was caused by an oracle of Apollo, whom the Ambraciots considered as the author of their εὐνομία. This Phalæcus (as is evident from the passage quoted) is called Phayilus by Ælian. de Nat. Animal XII. 40. Compare the MSS. of Ovid’s Ibis, 502.

693 Aristot. Pol. II. 4. 4.

694 Ibid. III. 11. 1. V. 1. 6.

695 This I conceive to be the meaning of Aristot. Pol. V. 1. 6. according to the reading of Victorius, Ἡλιαία is only a different form of ἁλιαία. See above, p. 88. note n. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “the Epidamnians,” starting “Aristot. Pol. V. 1. 6.”] The occasion of the revolution is perhaps related in V. 3. 4.

696 In the clause ἄρχων ὁ εἷς ἦν ἐν (V. 1. 6.), it appears to me, that the word ἐστὶν, in III. 11. 1. and the context, require the omission of ἦν. [This conjecture has since been confirmed by the best manuscript of the Politics. See Goettling’s edition, p. 391.]

697 Ælian. V. H. XIII. 5.

698 Aristot. Pol. II. 4. 13.

699 See above, ch. 4. § 4.

700 Strabo VII. p. 316 C.

701 Aristot. Pol. IV. 3. 8. cf. Herod. IX. 93.

702 Ælian. ubi sup.

703 Ἐν Συρακούσαις τῶν Γεωμόρων κατεχόντων τὴν ἀρχὴν are the words of the Parian Marble, Ep. 37. ad Olymp. 41.

704 See above, p. 113. note m. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “Syracuse and Corcyra,” starting “Ib. § 7, 8.”]

705 Ch. 4. § 4.

706 See also Plutarch. Præc. Reip. 32. p. 201. In the account of the confiscation of Agathocles’ property (Diod. Exc. 8. p. 549 Wess.) the geomori appear as the supreme court of justice.

707 Plutarch. Qu. Gr. 57.

708 Herod. VII. 155. Dion. Hal. VI. 62. Compare Zenobius, quoted above, p. 61. note p. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “from the Greek,” starting “Hesychius.”]

709 This is stated by Aristot. Pol. V. 2. 6. The story in Aristot. Pol. V. 3. 1. Plut. Præc. Reip. ubi sup. refers to the dissolution of the ancient hereditary aristocracy, which Plutarch calls ἀρίστην πολιτείαν.

710 Herod, ubi sup.

711 Diod. XI. 26. Ælian. V. H. XIII. 36.

712 Thuc. VII. 55. Demosth. Leptin. p. 506, &c.

713 Pol. V. 3. 6. Compare, however, V. 10. 3.

714 Herod. VII. 156. Diod. XI. 25. The reason why there was so great a number of foreign mercenaries in Sicily, is, that the native Sicilians would not serve as hired troops (Hesychius and Apostolius in Σικελὸς στρατ. Toup in Suid. vol. II. p. 614); the tyrants were therefore compelled to hire Condottieri, as for instance Phormis the Mænalian.

715 Diod. XI. 72, 73.

716 Diod. XI. 76. cf. Aristot. Pol. V. 2. 11. This is the πολιτογραφία and the ἀναδασμὸς, Diod. XI. 86. Compare Goeller de Situ Syracusarum, 3. p. 9.

717 Οἱ χαριέστατοι Diod. XI. 87. Compare the χαρίεντες in Plutarch Phocion. 29. Dion. 28. Aristot. Eth. Nic. I. 4. 2. I. 5. 4. IV. 8. 10. Concerning the Petalismus, see, besides Diodorus, Hesychius in v. Rivinus in Schlaeger’s Dissert. 1774. vol. I. p. 107.

718 What sycophants were in a democracy, were the ὠτακουσταί and ποταγωγίδες in the tyranny of Hieron. (Aristot. Pol. V. 9. 3. comp. the vetus interpres ap. Schneider.), and of the Dionysii (Plut. Dion, de Curios. 16. p. 147. who supposed that the latter were men). Compare vol. I. p. 183. note n.

719 See the mutilated Scholia to Hermogenes in Reiske’s Orators, vol. VIII. p. 196. together with Aristotle ap. Cic. Brut. XII. 46.

720 Siculi acuti, Cic. Verrin. III. 8. acuta gens et controversa natura, Brut. XII. 46. dicaces, Verr. IV. 43. faceti, Orat. II. 54.

721 Diod. XI. 82. probably from Philistus.

722 Thuc. VI. 32 sqq. 72 sq. Diod. XV. 19. 95.

723 Thuc. VI. 35.

724 Thuc. VI. 32, 41. Diod. XIII. 19.

725 Hermocrates, of an aristocratic disposition, filled a public office.—The νεώτεροι in Thucyd. VI. 38. cannot, from the context, be generally the young men of the city; they must be a party of youthful aristocrats, who were peculiarly hostile to the people, and, according to the statement of Athenagoras, wished to take advantage of the fear of a war and the blockade of Syracuse, for the purpose of regaining their lost privileges. In this sense οἱ τε δυνάμενοι καὶ οἱ νέοι are combined in VI. 39. [See Arnold’s History of Rome, vol. I. p. 332, note 29.]

726 Diodorus XIII. 19, 55. calls him a demagogue.

727 Aristot. Pol. V. 3. 6. Diod. XIII. 35. The δημηγοροῦντες cast lots merely for the succession in which they were to address the people, Plut. Reg. Apophth. p. 89, 90. The generals were still chosen from among the δυνατώτατοι, Diod. XIII. 91.

728 Diod. XIII. 33, 35.

729 Plut. ubi sup. p. 92.

730 Aristot. Pol. V. 4. 5. V. 8. 4. Diod. XIII. 96.

731 Diod. XIII. 94. cf. Polyæn. V. 2. 2.

732 Diod. XIV. 45, 64, 70. See several passages in Pseud-Aristot. Œcon. II. 2. 20. The assemblies summoned by Dion, for example, against Dionysius the Second (Diod. XVI. 10, 17, 20. Plut. Dion. 33, 38.), must not be considered as in any way connected with the tyranny. Cicero de Rep. III. 31. denies that Syracuse in the reign of Dionysius was a Respublica at all.

733 Plutarch. Dion. 28.

734 Ibid. 53. σχῆμα—ἀριστοκρατίαν ἔχον τὴν ἐπιστατοῦσαν καὶ βραβεύουσαν τὰ μέγιστα. See above, ch. 1. § 7.

735 Diod. XVI. 70.

736 Plutarch. Timol. 37.

737 Diod. XVI. 81. with Wesseling’s note, Cic. in Verr. I. 2. 51.

738 Diod. XIII. 35. XVI. 70.

739 Diod. XIX. 3-5. After a democracy of this kind, and before the time of Agathocles, the state was legally governed by a synedrion of 600 of the most distinguished persons (χαριέστατοι), XIX. 6.

740 Diod. XIX. 4. 6-9. He also sometimes convened public assemblies, when it pleased him to play the δημοτικός. Diod. XX. 63, 79.

741 Otherwise it must have been newly appointed by election or lot at the death of Hieronymus, of which Livy XXIV. 22 says not a word. The seniores (c. 24.) are probably members of this senate; a γερουσία also probably existed at that time, which occurs in a late inscription in Castelli Inscript. Sic. V. 5. p. 44.

742 Liv. XXIV. 27.

743 See Hesychius, Suidas, and Zenobius in ἱππάρχου πίναξ; on this tablet were entered τὰ τῶν ἀτακτούντων ὀνόματα. In Diod. XIV. 64. ἱππεῖς appears to be the name of the class of knights.

744 At Gela Cleander was tyrant, after a period of oligarchy (Aristot. Pol. V. 10. 4.), from 505 to 498 B.C. (Herod. VII. 157. Dion. Hal. VII. 1. Pausan. VI. 9.); then his brother Hippocrates 498-491 B.C. Gelon in 491 B.C. At Agrigentum there was a timocracy (Arist. Pol. V. 8. 4.), then Phalaris 555-548 B.C. according to Eusebius and Bentley, then Alcmanes and Alcander (Heracl. Pont. 36.), Theron 488-473 B.C. according to Boeckh, and Thrasydæus, who was expelled in the same year.

745 Diod. XI. 53. κομισάμενοι τὴν δημοκρατίαν.

746 See Diogen. Laërt. VIII. 66. Timæus Fragm. 2. ed. Goeller. Sturz Empedocles, p. 108.

747 Aristot. ap. Diog. VIII. 63. The words, ὥστε οὐ μόνον ἦν τῶν πλουσίων ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν τὰ δημοτικὰ φρονούντων, do not present any difficulty.

748 Cic. Verr. I. 2. 50.

749 Gruter, p. 401. Castelli, p. 79, &c.

750 Ἁλιασμα ἑκτας διμηνον Καρνειον ἑξηκοντος ΠΕΜΠΤΑΙ. See above concerning Rhodes, § 3.

751 The Hierothytes was the παραπροστάτας of the βουλὴ (ΠΑΡΑΠΡΟΣΤΑΤΑ ΤΑΣ should be written).

752 Verr. I. 4. 23, 39.

753 Concerning the ἱεράπολοι see Boissonade in the Classical Journal, vol. XVII. p. 396.

754 Maffei Mus. Veron. p. 329. Muratori, p. 642, 1. Castello, p. 84. cf. ibid. p. 25.

755 Βουλας ἁλιασμα (vulg. ἁλιασματα) δευτερας ἑξαμηνου Καρνειου τριακαδι.

756 Εδοξε τᾳ ἁλιᾳ καθα και τᾳ βουλᾳ, as the sense requires us to read with Castello.

757 See also the Calymnian decree (Chandler, p. 21. n. 85.) εδοξε τᾳ βουλᾳ και τῳ δαμῳ γνωμα προσταταν.

758 B. I. ch. 8. § 2.

759 Plutarch, de sera Num. Vind. 7. p. 231.

760 Thucyd. V. 81.

761 Xen. Hell. VII. 1. 44.

762 VII. 1. 45. VII. 3. 4.

763 Ἄκρατος καὶ Δωρικὴ ἀριστοκρατία, Plutarch. Arat. 2.

764 Some members of the oligarchical party of Argos also fled to Phlius, Thucyd. V. 83.

765 Xen. Hell. V. 2. 8. sqq. V. 3. 10. sqq. V. 3. 21. sqq. Fifty persons of each party made a plan for a new constitution. Hell. V. 3. 25. The refugees residing at Argos, in 375 B.C. were manifestly democrats, the same as in Xen. Hell. VII. 2. 5. in 369 B.C.

766 Plutarch. Qu. Gr. 18. Μεγαρεῖς Θεαγένη—ἐκβαλόντες, ὀλίγον χρόνον ἐσωφρόνησαν κατὰ τὴν πολιτείαν.

767 See above, ch. 3. § 3. It appears to me nearly certain that the passage refers to Megara near Corinth.

768 See above, ch. 1. § 4. ch. 4. § 8.

769 V. 43, 66, 847. ed. Bekker. [See generally on the aristocratical tendency of the poetry of Theognis, and the constitution of Megara, Welcker, Prolegomena ad Theognin, pp. x-xli.]

770 Aristot. Pol. V. 2. 6. V. 4. 3. Plut. ubi sup. I suspect that Theognis (v. 677.) speaks of this period, χρήματα δ᾽ ἁρπάζουσι βίᾳ, κόσμος δ᾽ ἀπόλωλεν, and in the whole political allegory of the passage. This was the time of the violence done to the Peloponnesian theori, Plutarch ubi sup. p. 59.

771 Schol. Aristoph. Eq. 851. Phavorinus in ὀστρακίνδα.

772 Aristot. Pol. V. 4. 3. IV. 12. 10.

773 Thuc. I. 114. cf. 103.

774 Thuc. IV. 66, 74.

775 Thuc. ubi sup. et V. 31. In this aristocratic period the πρόβουλοι were magistrates of high authority in Megara, Aristoph. Acharn. 755.

776 Diod. XV. 40.

777 περὶ παραπρεσβείας, pp. 435, 436.

778 Above, p. 113, note i. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “very late period,” starting “Ἐπὶ βασιλέος Πασγάδα.”]

779 Plutarch. Symp. VIII. 8. 4. p. 319, where indeed the expression is very indefinite.

780 De Corona, p. 255. and in another decree in Polyb. IV. 52. 4. They also occur in coins.

781 In Caylus, Recueil, II. pl. 55. in the king’s library at Paris. It is the same which Corsini F. A. I. 2. p. 469. considered as Delphian. It decrees a crown to a Ἁγεμὼν βουλὰς, and the eight persons whose names are subscribed are probably senators.

782 Vol. I. p. 250, note l.

783 See, besides other writers, Boettiger, Amalthea, vol. II. p. 304.—Of the hieromnemons Letronne has treated at full length, Mém. de l’Acad. des Inscriptions, tom. VI. p. 221, but without remarking that, besides Delphi, they are peculiar to Megara and its colonies,

784 At least if Dineus (Dinæus) was king, see book I. ch. 6. § 9; this Dineus is, however, called by Hesychius Milesius, § 20, only general of the Byzantians, and τοπάρχης of Chalcedon. He appears, nevertheless, to be an historical personage. Concerning the bondslaves, see above, ch. 4, § 5.

785 According to Hesychius Milesius, Λέων τις τῶν Βυζαντίων ἀριστοκρατίαν ἐδέξατο.

786 Xen. Hell. IV. 8. 27. What the Thirty in Diodorus XIV. 12. are, whom Clearchus put to death after the magistrates, we are entirely ignorant, since the right explanation or emendation of the word Βοιωτοὺς is still a desideratum.

787 Aristot. Pol. V. 2. 10.

788 Theopompus ap. Athen. XII. p. 526 E. cf. Memnon. 23. ap. Phot. Biblioth. p. 724.

789 Pseud-Aristot. Œcon. II. 2. 3. The transit duties levied at the Bosporus are well known, Boeckh’s Economy of Athens, vol. II. p. 40.

790 A decree of the senate before it had received the sanction of the people was also called ῥήτρα in Sparta; see above, ch. 5. § 8.

791 It occurs on coins. See Heyne Comment. rec. Gotting. vol. I. p. 8.

792 Pseud-Aristot. ubi sup.

793 Chandler. Inscript. App. 12. p. 94.

794 Æneas Poliorcet. 11. (ad calc. Polyb.) οὐσῶν αὐτοῖς τριῶν φυλῶν καὶ τεττάρων ἑκατοστύων. There must evidently have been more than four hundreds to three tribes, as Casaubon remarks. Perhaps we should read τεττάρων καὶ εἴκοσι ἑκατοστύων, or with Goettling (Hermes, vol. XXV. p. 155.) τεττάρων ἐν ἑκάστῃ ἑκατοστύων. Casaubon’s emendation of τεττάρακοντα for τεττάρων is not admissible, as forty is not divisible by three without a remainder. The event probably took place before the 104th Olympiad, 364 B.C.

795 See book I. ch. 6. § 10.

796 See above, ch. 4. § 5.

797 Aristot. Pol. V. 5. 6.

798 This is evident from the context of the passage in Justin. XVI. 4.

799 Compare with Justin Æneas Poliorc. 12.

800 According to Polyænus II. 30. 2. Clearchus caused the whole senate of 300 to be put to death, which is here represented as a standing body.

801 Of the Megarian colony Astypalæa have inscriptions in tolerable preservation, but not until the last times of independence, when the constitution became similar to that of Athens. An inscription, already quoted in vol. I. p. 116, note y, begins εδοξε τᾳ βουλᾳ και τῳ δαμῳ φιλ ... ενευς επεστατει γνωμα πρυ[τανιων επει]δὴ Αρκεσιλας Μοιραγενευς αἱ[ρεθεις] αγορανομος επεμεληθη του δαμου μετα πασας φιλοτιμιας, &c. Another contains συνθῆκαι between the δῆμος τῶν Ἀστυπαλαιέων and the δῆμος τῶν Ῥωμαίων; in this also we read, εδοξε τω δημω Ευχωνιδας Ευκλευς επεστατει πρυτανιων [γνωμα]. See Boeckh Corp. Inscript. Gr. Nos. 2483, 2485.

802 All this is stated in Plutarch. Qu. Gr. 4.

803 Aristot. Pol. V. 5. 3, 11.

804 The former by Hermippus ap. Diog. Laërt. VIII. 88. and Plutarch, in Colot. 32. p. 194. The latter by Theodoretus Græc. Aff. IX. 16.

805 Thucyd. V. 84.

806 Above, ch. 6, § 10, and ch. 7, § 1.

807 Τεμένεα in the Homeric sense, Herod. IV. 161. Cf. Diod. Exc. 8. vol. II. p. 551. Wesseling. Τὰ τῶν προγόνων γέρεα in Herodotus, IV. 162. which Arcesilaus wished to regain, refers to the revenues, as well as to the privileges of which the kings had been deprived. Compare Thrige, Res Cyrenensium, p. 154. note.

808 Diod. vol. II. p. 550. Wess.

809 Herod. IV. 165.

810 Boeckh Explic. ad Pind. Pyth. IV. p. 266.

811 Pyth. IV. 263. according to Boeckh’s explanation.

812 Heracl. Pont. 4.

813 Aristotle Pol. V. 2. 11. says, that the founders of the democracy at Cyrene established other and more tribes; which statement must be referred to this time; for that by the τὸν δῆμον καθιστάντες Demonax is not meant, is evident from the circumstance that this person only instituted three tribes, and therefore could hardly have increased their number. See Thrige, Res Cyrenensium, pp. 103-192.

814 See also concerning the contest between a democratic and aristocratic party in Olymp. 95. I. 400 B.C. Diod. XIV. 34.

815 Plut. Lucull. 2.—Concerning the ephors of Cyrene see above, ch. 7. § 1.

816 Ch. 6. § 10.

817 Concerning these see above, page 52. note f. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “noticed above,” starting “So also ib Strab.”] From these Pelasgian bondsmen, bands of robbers, called περίδινοι, proceeded, according to Plato Leg. VI. p. 777. Cf. Athen. VI. p. 267.

818 Polit. V. 2. 8. See Heyne Opusc. Acad. vol. II. p. 221.

819 Aristot. Pol. VI. 3. 5. οἱ Ταραντῖνοι, κοινὰ ποιοῦντες τὰ κτήματα τοῖς ἀπόροις ἐπὶ τὴν χρῆσιν, εὔνουν παρασκευάζουσι τὸ πλῆθος. ἔτι δὲ τὰς ἀρχὰς πάσας ἐποίησαν διττὰς, τὰς μὲν αἱρετὰς, τὰς δὲ κληρωτάς; τὰς μὲν κληρωτὰς, ὅπως ὁ δῆμος αυτῶν μετέχῃ, τὰς δ᾽ αἱρετὰς, ἵνα πολιτεύωνται βέλτιον. These institutions can only be referred to this period, for the present tense παρασκευάζουσι shows their existence when the author was writing; ἐποίησαν refers only to the time of the institution, and the words ἵνα μετέχῃ again prove their actual existence.—As to the interpretation of the words κοινὰ ποιοῦντες τὰ κτήματα ἐπὶ τὴν χρῆσιν, it is known that at Rome, when the ager publicus was divided among the plebeians, it was either given them by assignation as absolute property (mancipium, dominium), in which case it ceased to be publicus; or it was held by possessiones, in early times by the patricians, who only occupied it with an usufructuary right, while the land remained publicus, was not marked out with limits, and could be at any time reclaimed by the state (See Niebuhr’s Roman History, vol. II. p. 363. sqq. ed. 1. Eng. Transl. compare vol. I. note 443. ed. 2.). The occupation of the public lands of Tarentum was probably allowed to the poor on similar conditions. As to the δίττας ποιεῖν τὰς ἀρχὰς, Aristotle seems to mean, that if, for example, there had been two agoranomi, four strategi, &c. they then made four agoranomi, eight strategi, &c.: of whom two and four were chosen by lot, two and four by election.

820 Strabo VI. p. 280.

821 Which would also be proved by the Fragment of Archytas concerning the Spartan constitution (Stobæus Serm. 41. Orelli Opusc. Moral. vol. II. p. 254.), if it were genuine.

822 Diog. Laërt. VIII. 79. six times, according to Ælian. V. H. VII. 14. cf. III. 17.

823 Aristoxenus ap. Diog. L. VIII. 82. See Jamblich. Pythag. § 197. Hesych. Miles. in Vit. Archyt.

824 Strab. p. 280. Demosth. Ἐρωτ. p. 1415. Plut. de Educ. lib 10. p. 28. Præc. ger. Reip. 28. p. 191. Cf. Fabric. Bibl. Gr. ed. Harles. vol. II. p. 30.

825 Concerning the ἀσέλγεια and ὕβρις of the Tarentines, see particularly Dionys. Hal. ed. Mai. XVII. 5, 7.—A βουλὴ at Tarentum, whose προβούλευμα was necessary for a declaration of war, in Livy VIII. 27. A public assembly deciding concerning peace and war, Diod. XIX. 70. Plut. Pyrrh. 13. Cheirotonia of this assembly, Plut., Qu. Gr. 42. from Theophrastus.

826 See above, p. 88. note l. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “and Heraclea,” starting “Ἁλία κατάκλητος.”]

827 See b. I. ch. 6. § 12. and b. II. ch. 12. § 5.

828 Jambl. Pythag. 7. p. 33. 15. p. 255, 257. Cf. Porph. Pythag. 21. 22.

829 B. II. ch. 3 § 7.

830 Jambl. Pythag. 9. p. 45. and Dicæarchus ap. Porphyr. 18. who calls the members γέροντες. Perhaps the σύγκλητος in Diod. XII. 9. is the same.

831 Valer. Max. VIII. 15. ext. 1.

832 See above, p. 140, note m. [Transcriber’s Note: These is the footnote to “sacrifices of the prytanis,” starting “Hesychius κέρκος.”]

833 Heraclid. Pont. 25.

834 See below, ch. 11. § 6.

835 Jamblich. 35. p. 260.

836 See b. I. ch. 6. § 12.

837 Diog. Laërt. VIII. 3. See Apollon. ap. Jamblich. 35. p. 254, 261. Justin. XX. 4.

838 See above, ch. 5. § 4.

839 The elucidation of this fact is without doubt the work of Meiners, Geschichte der Wissenschaften, vol. III. ch. 3. The reason why Plato, de Rep. X. p. 600, represents Pythagoras as one who had been a master of education not in a public but a private capacity, is, that the Pythagorean discipline and mode of living, the βίος ἐπὶ στάθμῃ, was only kept up as a private institution, while the public regulations of Pythagoras had long fallen into oblivion.

840 Apollonius ap. Jamblich. 35. p. 255.

841 Ibid. p. 257. cf. 260.

842 Jambl. 35. p. 262.

843 Polyb. II. 39. Jambl. 35. p. 263. See Heyne Opuscul. Acad. II. p. 178.

844 II. 41. 5. and passim. Pausan. V. 7. 1.

845 Thucyd. V. 80.

846 Hell. VII. 1. 44.

847 See, for example, Plutarch. Philopœmen. 7, 18.

848 Liv. XXIV. 2, 3.

849 B. II. ch. 1. § 8. Above, ch. 8. § 3.

850 Above, ch. 6. § 10. From the passage quoted it is seen that even in Plutarch’s time a βασιλεὺς, in name at least, existed.

851 Above, ch. 8. § 8. [Transcriber’s Note: There is no such section number in that chapter.]

852 Boeckh Corp. Inscript. Nos. 1688, 1689, 1694, 1705. The Delphian archons Gylidas and Diodorus in Olymp. 47. 3. 590 B.C. and 49. 3. 582 B.C. (Argument. Schol. Pind. Pyth.) were, however, perhaps, prytanes.

853 Ibid. No. 1693.

854 Ibid. Nos. 1702. sqq.

855 Αὐστηρὰ καὶ ἀριστοκρατικὴ πολιτεία, Plutarch. Comp. Lycurg. et Num. 2. According to Plutarch de Monarchia 2. p. 205. the government of Sparta was an ἀριστοκρατικὴ ὀλιγαρχία καὶ αὐθέκαστος. Isocrates Nicod. p. 31. D. says of the Lacedæmonians, οἴκοι μὲν ὀλιγαρχούμενοι, περὶ δὲ τὸν πόλεμον βασιλευόμενοι. Comp. Cragius I. 4.

856 Isocrat. Panath. p. 287 A. Crete also was free from tyranny, according to Plato Leg. IV. p. 711.

857 Isocrates Areopag. p. 152 A. says that the Lacedæmonians were κάλλιστα πολιτευόμενοι, because they were μάλιστα δημοκρατούμενοι. Plat. Leg. IV. p. 712 D. Aristot. Pol. II. 3. 10. IV. 5. 11. IV. 6. 4, 5. and compare Cicero de Rep. II. 23. who states that the respublica Lacedæmoniorum was mixta, but not temperata; and on the other side the pretended Archytas in Stob. Serm. 41.

858 The king in the Doric constitution was said to honour the people, δᾶμον γεραίρειν, Pind. Pyth. I. 61.

859 The Cretan constitution also, according to Plato (ubi sup.), united every form of government.

860 To this, and not to conquests, the expression of Simonides, δαμασίμβροτος Σπάρτα, refers, according to Plutarch Agesil. 1. Compare Polyb. IV. 22. 2. Plut. Lycurg. 30. Præc. Ger. Reip. 20, 21. p. 181, 182. Lac. Apophth. p. 246. the verses of Ion the tragic poet in Sextus Empiricus adv. Mathem p. 69 A. and a Spartan inscription of late date, Boeckh Corp. Inscript. No. 1350. ἡ πόλις M. Aur. Ἀφροδείσιον—τῆς ἐν τοῖς πατρίοις Λυκουργείοις ἔθεσιν εὐψυχίας καὶ πειθαρχίας χάριν.

861 See Plutarch. Lycurg. 29, 30.

862 Compare the Platonic Socrates, Criton. 14. Protag. p. 342 C. Repub. VIII. p. 544 C. with the Socrates of Xenophon, Mem. III. 5. 15. and what Antisthenes says in Plut. Lyc. 30.

863 In Leocr. p. 166. 5. The words of Æschines, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ Λακεδαιμόνιοι (in Timarch. 25. 32.), are merely a ridiculous imitation of Cimon.

864 Polybius IV. 81. 12. also calls the Spartan constitution καλλίστη πολιτεία.

865 As, for example, the ignorant de Pauw, who was preceded among the ancients in an attempt to decry Sparta by Polycrates (probably the orator), Heyne de Spart. Rep. Comment. Gotting. vol. IX. p. 2.

866 Concerning the similarity of Plato’s state, and the Lacedæmonian government, see Morgenstern de Platon. Rep. p. 305.

867 ῥυάχετος, Lysistrat. 170. Compare the λάβρος στράτος of Pindar quoted above, p. 9. note y. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “form of government,” starting “Herod. VI. 43.”]

868 Thuc. IV. 22. Compare the excuses of Alcibiades VI. 89.

869 Thuc. I. 77.

870 Above, ch. 2. § 3.

871 Herod. VI. 51. Compare above, ch. 6. § 9.

872 See ch. 4. § 1. concerning the μνοία. Compare the τεμένη δημόσια of Byzantium in Pseud-Aristot. Œcon. II. 2. 3.

873 As also in Cyrene. See ch. 9. § 13.

874 Ch. 3. § 6.

875 Ch. 2. § 1.

876 Ch. 3. § 6.

877 Compare the supposed apophthegm of Lycurgus concerning the equal ricks of corn, Plut. Lyc. 8.

878 See, among others, Timæus ap. Schol. Plat. Phæd. p. 68. Ruhnk. and ap. Diog. Laërt. VIII. 10. Meiners, Geschichte der Wissenschaft, III. 3 Cicero de Rep. IV. (p. 281. Mai.) ap. Non. in v. proprium, p. 689. Gothofr. compares Plato’s Communitas bonorum. with the institution of Lycurgus.

879 Xen. Rep. Lac. 6. 3, 4. Aristot. Pol. II. 2. 5. Plut. Lac. Inst. p. 252.

880 Aristot. Pol. II. 2. 10.

881 The apophthegm of Polydorus ap. Plutarch, p. 223. shows that this king set on foot a κλήρωσις of Messenia.

882 Aristot. Pol. V. 6. 1.

883 This agrees completely with a fact mentioned by Pausan. IV. 18. 2. that Tyrtæus appeased the internal troubles, which arose from Messenia having been left uncultivated, on account of the incursions of the Messenians from Eira.—It was doubtless on this occasion that the Spartans, who had lots in Messenia, called for a fresh division of the Spartan territory; and to quiet these complaints Tyrtæus composed his Eunomia.

884 Plut. Agis 5. καὶ τῶν οἴκων ὃν ὁ Λυκοῦργος ὥρισε φυλαττόντων ἀριθμὸν ἐν ταῖς διαδοχαῖς, καὶ πατρὸς παιδὶ τὸν κλῆρον ἀπολιπόντος. See Heyne ut sup. p. 15.

885 The difficulties have been well perceived by Friederich von Raumer, Vorlesungen über alte Geschichte, vol. I. p. 236.

886 Thus Herodotus VI. 86. says of Glaucus the Spartan, οὔτε τι ἀπόγονον, οὔτ᾽ ἱστίη οὐδεμία νομιζομίων εἶναι Γλαύκον.

887 Herod. VII. 205. Compare Diod. XV. 64. also Thucyd. V. 64.

888 Heraclid. Pont. 2. πωλεῖν δὲ γῆν Λακεδαιμονίοις αἰσχρὸν νενόμισται (cf. Arist. Pol. II. 6. 10), τῆς ἀρχαίας μοίρας ἀνανέμεσθαι οὐδὲν ἔξεστι. Cf. Plut. Inst. Lac. p. 252.

889 This is quoted as a Laconian law by Proclus ad Hes. Op. 374. p. 198. Gaisford.

890 Younger brothers, however, inherited immediately, if the elder died without lawful issue, Plutarch. Ages. 4.

891 Pollux I. 8. 75. X. 3. 20. with Hemsterhuis’ note. Concerning the words derived from πάω, see Valckenær. ad Ammon. 3, 7.

892 The members of a family might be said to eat together, to be ὁμόκαποι, notwithstanding the institution of the syssitia, for the public tables did not furnish all the food. Ὁμόκαπνοι (the reading of the best MS.) comes to the same thing; as the fire of the hearth was used by the Greeks more for cooking than for warmth; and in the summer for the former exclusively.

893 Aristot. Pol. I. 1. 6.

894 Hesychius, παῶται: συγγενεῖς, οἰκεῖοι.

895 Aristot. Pol. II. 6. 21.

896 The μικρὰ ἔχοντες in Xenoph. Rep. Lac. 7. 4. must be those who possess no κλῆρος of their own, like the μικρὰν οὐσίαν κεκτημένοι in Aristot. Pol. II. 6. 10.

897 Lycurg. 16.

898 When a family was entirely extinct, probably they passed to that next in order in the τριακάς.

899 Mai Nov. Collect. Vet. Scriptor. vol. II. p. 384.

900 Below, § 4. near the end.

901 See Deuteron. xxv. 5-10. Michaëlis on the Laws of Moses, vol. II. p. 21-33. Engl. translation.

902 Plutarch Agis 5.

903 This circumstance is otherwise understood by Manso, vol. I. 2. p. 133. Tittmann, p. 660. Göttling ad Arist. Pol. p. 467. endeavours to exculpate Aristotle from this charge by supposing that under the word νομοθέτης he also comprises the later innovators of the constitution; but the author nowhere shows that he had any knowledge of these changes: otherwise he could not have stated that the destructive law of Epitadeus (for such in fact it was, which διδόναι καὶ καταλείπειν ἐξουσίαν ἔδωκε τοῖς βουλομένοις) was a part of the original constitution, as well as the corresponding laws respecting sacrifices.

904 This also occurs in later times, Plut. Agis 13. Ætian. V. H. XIV. 44.

905 II. 6. 10. To give away χρήματα or κειμήλια, was also permitted in early time, Herod. VI. 62. Plut. Ages. 4.

906 See Clinton, F. H. vol. II. p. 383. ed. 2.

907 Ἀτελῆ πάντων, e.g., of the contribution to the syssitia, Aristot. Pol. II. 6. 13. Ælian (V. II. VI. 6.) mentions five instead of four. Manso (I. 1. p. 128.) remarks that the law can hardly have proceeded from Lycurgus.

908 See below, ch. 12. § 2.

909 Pol. II. 6. 11.

910 Plut. Ag. 5. According to Macrobius (Sat. I. 11.) at the time of Cleomenes there were only mille et quingenti Lacedæmonii, qui arma ferre possent.

911 These only are called by Xenophon (Hell. III. 3. 5.) Σπαρτιᾶται, as is plain from the words; ὅσοι ἐν τοῖς χωρίοις Σπαρτιατῶν τύχοιεν ὄντες, ἔνα μὲν πολέμιον τὸν δεσπότην.

912 Plut. Agis 5.

913 Dionys. Byz. de Bosp. Thrac. p. 17. Hudson. Also Varro de Ling. Lat. V. (IV.) 36. p. 48. Bipont. says that the Sicilian Greeks (who were chiefly Dorians) used δωτίνη for dowry.

914 Plut. Lac. Apophth. p. 223. Ælian. V. H. VI. 6. Justin. III. 3. Compare the corrupt gloss of Hesychius in ἀγρετήματα.

915 Plut. Lysand. 30. Apophth. p. 229. Ælian. V. H. VI. 4. With regard to the story of Lysander’s daughters, it should be remarked, that the suitors could not have been deceived as to whether they possessed landed property or not; but they thought that the father had large personal property, and that this would be divided among them.—Lysander also left male issue, as appears from Paus. III. 6. 41. of whom one was named Libys, in memory of the proxenia of Lysander with the Ammonians. The name could hardly have been transmitted through Lysander’s daughters, since it is certain that they were not heiresses.

916 See Polit. II. 6. 10. In Plutarch (Agid. 6.) a very rich sister of a poor and distressed brother occurs. See also Plutarch Cleomen. I. concerning the wealth of the women in Sparta. But the rich wife of Archidamus II. (Athen. XIII. p. 566 D.), Eupolia, the daughter of Melesippidas, must have been an heiress.

917 Compare Bunsen De Jure Hered. Attico I. 1. p. 18.

918 Aristot. Pol. II. 8. 9.

919 See, besides Bunsen, Platner, Beiträge, p. 117. sqq. Sluiter Lect. Andoc. 5. p. 80. sqq.

920 Diod. XII. 18. Heyne Opusc. Acad. II. p. 119.

921 This is evident from the Supplices of Æschylus, particularly v. 382.

εἴ τοι κρατοῦσι παῖδες Αἰγύπτου σέθεν, νόμῳ πόλεως φάσκοντες ἐγγύτατα γένους εἶναι, τίς ἄν τοῖσδ᾽ ἀντιωθῆναι θέλοι;

922 Isæus de Pyrrhi Hered. p. 54.—The Jewish law was strikingly similar. See Numbers xxvii. 1-11. The daughters had the inheritance of their father, but they were not permitted to marry out of the family; the nearest relation had the first claim, to her, if he relinquished it, the next followed, and so on, Ruth iv.

923 See the law in Demosth. in Steph. p. 1134. 15. which I interpret thus: “Whatever woman is betrothed by her father, her brother by the same father, or her paternal grandfather, is a legitimate wife: if neither of these is living, and the woman is an heiress, she shall marry the nearest relation, the κύριος; but if she is not an heiress (e.g., if there are grandsons of the deceased alive), that relation shall give her in marriage to whom he pleases”—besides which it is his duty to portion her according to his valuation. The laws of Charondas also compelled the relation to marry the heiress, and to endow her if poor, Diod. XII. 18.

924 Plutarch Solon 20.

925 Thus Leonidas married Gorgo, the heiress of Cleomenes, as being her nearest relation (ἀγχιστεύς). It was however a common practice in Sparta to marry in the οἶκος. Thus Archidamus married his aunt Lampito, Herod. VI. 71; thus Anaxandridas married his sister’s daughter, V. 39. Thus the wife of Cleomenes (Plut. Pyrrh. 26.) was of the same family as her husband; and so with regard to the wife of Archidamus V. Polyb. IV. 35. 15. Plut. Ag. 6.

926 Herod. VI. 57.

927 Aristot. Pol. II. 6. 11. Compare Manso I. 2. p. 131.

928 See Demosth. in Macart. p. 1077. Compare Platner, Beiträge, p. 139.

929 Herod. V. 39. VI. 61.

930 Xen. Rap. Lac. I. 7-9. From Xenophon Plut. Lyc. 15. Comp. Num. 3.

931 The ἐπεύνακτοι mentioned above in ch. 3. § 5.

932 Aristot. Pol. II. 4. 1. In this passage it appears to me that the context requires πρῶτον, not πρῶτος. “By some the division of property has been considered a point of first importance in legislation; for which reason the first laws which Phaleas promulgated were on this subject.”

933 Aristot. Pol. II. 4. 4.

934 Aristot. Pol. VI. 2. 5.

935 Aristot. Pol. II. 4. 4.

936 Ch. 9. § 6.

937 Aristot. Pol. II. 3. 7.

938 Orchomenos, p. 407, 408. where, however, Aristot. Rhet. II. 23. is incorrectly applied (the passage refers to Epaminondas).

939 Aristot. Pol. II. 9. 7. With regard to the νόμοι θετικοὶ of Philolaus, I also remark, that the οὐχ ὑπὲρ τὴν οὐσίαν ποιεῖσθαι τοὺς παῖδας is often recommended among the Greeks. See Plato de Rep. II. p. 372. with Hesiod Op. et Di. 374. This is the “liberorum numerum finire” of Tacitus, German. 19.

940 Aristot. Pol. II. 9. 8. where ἀνομάλωσις appears to signify a fresh equalization, as ἀναδασμὸς signifies a fresh division. Göttling writes Φαλέου for Φιλολάου: concerning which it is difficult to decide, as the passage is evidently much mutilated.

941 Strab. VII. p. 315.

942 VI. 46. 1.

943 This, however, does not disagree with the accurate separation of the rulers and the countrymen, which still existed in the time of Aristotle, Pol. VII. 9. 1.

944 Strabo X. p. 482.

945 Od. XIV. 206.

946 Pol. II. 6. 21. II. 7. 4.

947 Κατὰ κεφαλὴν, Aristot. Pol. II. 7. 4.

948 Eight chöeis, according to Plutarch. Lyc. 12.

949 According to Schol. Plat. Leg. I. p. 223. Ruhnk.

950 Dicæarchus ap. Athen. IV. p. 141 B.

951 See Æginetica, p. 90. For this reason Plutarch ubi sup. mentions one medimnus.

952 See the Scholia quoted in note l. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “dates,” starting “According to Schol.”]

953 Herod. VI. 57.

954 See Sphærus (the Borysthenite and Stoic, who had seen Sparta before the time of Cleomenes, Plutarch. Cleomen. 2.) Λακ. πολ. ap. Athen. IV. p. 141 B. Molpis, p. 141 D. cf. XIV. p. 664 E. Nicocles the Laconian, IV. p. 140 E. Perseus Λακ. πολ. ibid. Xen. Rep. Lac. 5. 3.

955 Aristot. Pol. II. 7. 4. ἐκ κοινοῦ (i.e. from the public revenue) τρέφεσθαι πάντας καὶ γυναῖκας καὶ παῖδας καὶ ἄνδρας.

956 According to the Κρητικὸς νομος in Plat. Leg. VIII. p. 847.

957 Aristot. Pol. II. 7. 4.

958 Dosiadas ap. Athen. IV. p. 143 B. ἕκαστος τῶν γενομένων καρπῶν ἀναφέρει τὴν δεκάτην εἰς τὴν ἑταιρίαν. Every one (ἕκαστος) was therefore a member of an ἑταιρία, a company of persons who always ate together, which consisted of citizens; consequently he is speaking of citizens, and not of the Periœci, and therefore agrees with the passage just quoted from Aristotle. The διανέμειν εἰς τοὺς ἑκάστων οἴκους must have preceded the ἀναφέρειν, and the οἶκοι are manifestly the citizens’ families included in the companies.

959 See Boeckh’s Public Economy of Athens, vol. II. p 462. Engl. transl.

960 See above, ch 4. § 1.

961 In that case, Plutarch in the 12th, as well as in the 8th chapter of the Life of Lycurgus, means Æginetan medimni; and both passages were probably taken from some Lacedæmonian writer, such as Nicocles, Hippasus, Sosibius, or Aristocrates.

962 See above, ch. 7. § 3.

963 Polyb. VI. 49. 8. ἡ τῶν ἐπετείων καρπῶν ἀλλαγὴ πρὸς τὰ λείποντα τῆς χρείας—κατὰ τὴν Λυκούργου νομοθεσίαν. The case was probably the same among the Locrians of Italy. Heracl. Pont. 29. καπηλεῖον οὐκ ἔστι μεταβολικὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ γεωργὸς πωλεῖ τὰ ἴδια.

964 Pseud-Aristot. Œcon. I. 6.

965 Ibid. ad fin. Compare Schneider ad Anon. Œcon. Præf. p. 16.

966 See the passages quoted above, p. 201. note q. [Transcriber’s Note: There is no such footnote on that page.]

967 The leathern money is probably a mere fable; Nicolaus Damascenus, Senec. de Benef. V. 14. Boeckh’s Economy of Athens, vol. II. p. 389. Engl. transl. Concerning the money of Sparta, see Oudinet in the Mémoires de l’Académie des Belles Lettres. tom. I. p. 227.

968 Plut. Lyc. 9. Lysand. 17. Comp. Arist. et Cat. 3. Pollux IX. 6. 79. Pseud-Æschin. Eryx. 100. and see Fischer ad c. 24.

969 Plut. Lys. 17. Compare Pollux VII. 105.

970 Hesych. in πέλανορ. The Scholia ad Nicand. Alexipharm. 488. incorrectly explain πελάνου βάρος to be the weight of an obolus.

971 Plutarch. Lac. Apophth. p. 220. τὸ σιδηροῦν ὅ ἐστι μνᾶ ὁλκῇ Αἰγιναία, δυνάμει δὲ χαλκοὶ τέτταρες.

972 Xenoph. de Rep. Lac. 7. 5. Plut. Lyc. 9.

973 Ephoras and Theopompus ap. Plut. Lys. 17. Xenoph. de Rep. Lac. 7. 6. χρυσίον γε μὴν καὶ ἀργύριον ἐρευνᾶται καὶ ἤν τί που φανῇ, ὁ ἔχων ζημιοῦται. Comp. Nicolaus Damascenus, and Ælian. V. II. XIV. 29.

974 Δημοσίᾳ μὲν ἔδοξεν εἰσάγεσθαι νόμισμα τοιοῦτον, ἢν δέ τισ ἁλῷ κεκτημένος ἰδίᾳ, ζημίαν ὤρισαν θανάτου. Cf. Polyb. VI. 49. 8.

975 Plutarch. Lys. 18. Comp. Herod. I. 51. Posidonius ap. Athen. VI. p. 235 F. I do not mention the Thesaurus of Brasidas (Plut. Lys. 18.), because this general dedicated it, together with the inhabitants of Acanthus in Thrace, and moreover from Athenian plunder (Olymp. 89. 1.). See Plutarch. Pyth. Or. 14. p. 269. 15. p. 271. Lysand. I.

976 Above ch. 2. § 3.

977 Herod. I. 69. See book II. ch. 3. § 1. ch. 8. § 17. The story in Herodotus III. 56. we will not make use of, since Herodotus himself rejects it.

978 King Areus appears to have been the first who coined silver money, and he imitated without exception the method employed by the kings of Macedon, Eckhel. D. N. 1. 2. p. 278. 281.

979 Thus far Boeckh has carried the investigation, Public Economy of Athens, vol. II. p. 385 sq. Engl. transl. Compare vol. I. p. 43. Heeren, Ideen, vol. III. part 1. p. 294. ed. 2.

980 The latter however accords better with the Byzantine σιδάρεοι, which were tokens, than with the Lacadæmonian coins, which were really worth what they passed for.

981 See above, ch. 2. § 3. and concerning the corn trade down to Corinth, b. I. ch. 4. § 7.

982 The Epidamnians also, who retained much of ancient customs, paid great attention to the intercourse with foreigners. They held once in each year, under the superintendence of a πωλητὴς, a great public market with the neighbouring Illyrians, Plutarch. Qu. Græc. 29. p. 393.

983 Herod. IX. 81.

984 See above ch. 6. § 9. and Plut. Pericl. 22. Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 855. from Ephorus.

985 Proofs of wealth, if not of the possession of money, are the ἱπποτροφία, and the maintenance of race-horses for the Olympic games. King Demaratus had conquered in the chariot-race (ἅρματι), and allowed Sparta to be proclaimed conqueror. Herod. VI. 70. The horses of Euagoras had won three times at the Olympic games. Herod. VI. 103. before the 66th Olympiad, according to Pausan. VI. 10. 2. According to Pausanias VI. 2. 1. the Lacedæmonians incurred great expenses for horses after the Persian war; he mentions Xenarges, Lycinus, Arcesilaus, and his son Lichas, as conquerors, and cap. 1. Anaxander and Polycles. Concerning the female victors, see b. IV. ch. 2. § 2.

986 V. 59.

987 Plut. Agis 13.

988 Herod. VI. 70. καὶ ἐπόδια λαβὼν ἐπορεύετο ἐς Ἦλιν.

989 Which Plato Alcib. I. (cf. Hipp. Maj. p. 283 D.) says of earlier times. Compare Bitaubé sur les Richesses de Sparte, Mémoires de Berlin, tom. XII. p. 559. Manso, Sparta, II. p. 372. Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens, vol. I. p. 43. Engl. tr.

990 See above, p. 204. note z. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “moveable property,” starting “Plut. Lysand. 30.”]

991 Anaxandridas (περὶ τῶν ἐν Δελφοῖς συληθέντων χρημάτων) ap. Plut. Lys. 18.

992 Posidonius ap. Athen. VI. p. 233 F.

993 He had been bribed by Pericles as being the adviser of Pleistonax. See Plut. Pericl. 22. Nic. 28. de Educ. Puer. 14. Timæus ap. Plut. Compar. Timol. 2. Ephorus ap. Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 855. Diodorus XIII. 106. calls him Clearchus. He was afterwards banished, and went to Thurii (Thuc. VI. 104. see Wesseling ad Diod. XII. 23.), fought with the inhabitants of that town, against the Tarentines, but afterwards had a share in the foundation of their colony Heraclea. See B. I. ch. 6. § 12. Polyænus II. 10. 1. 2. 4. 5. relates several martial exploits of this Cleandridas, in the wars which he waged with the Thurians against Terina and the Lucanians. Niebuhr, in the 3rd vol. of his Roman history, considers the Cleandridas, who took a part in the foundation of Heraclea, as the same person as Leandrias the Spartan, who, according to Diod. XV. 54, fought at Leuctra on the side of the Thebans. This supposition, however, cannot be reconciled with the chronological succession of the events; since the battle of Leuctra was 75 years later than the colony of Thurii. The political contrivances, which Cleandridas, according to Polyæn. II. 10. 3, practised against Tegea, must fall in the war between Sparta and Arcadia, which ended in Olymp. 81.

994 Plut. Pelop. 6. 13, &c.

995 Plut. Lac. Apophth. p. 197. πυνθανομένου τινὸς διὰ τί χοήματα οὐ συνάγουσιν εἰς τὸ δημόσιον.

996 Aristot. Pol. II. 6. 23. εἰσφέρουσι κακῶς. The most opulent were bound to provide horses for military service (Xen. Hell. VI. 4. 11.), which burden was in Corinth, according to an ancient usage, imposed upon the families of orphans and heiresses (Cic. de Rep. II. 20. and compare Niebuhr’s Roman History, vol. I. p. 408. ed. 2.); not so unfairly as at first sight it appears, since these did not furnish any armed man, and would therefore have an advantage, if their concerns were honestly managed.

997 See above, p. 203. note p [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “from all taxes,” starting “Ἀτελῆ πάντων.”] and concerning the family of Anticrates, Plut. Ages. 35.

998 Plut. Ag. 16.

999 Above, ch. 10. § 3.

1000 Thucyd. I. 80. χρήματα οὔτε ἐν κοινῷ ἔχομεν οὔτε ἑτοίμως ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων φέρομεν. Aristot. ubi sup.

1001 B. I. ch. 9. § 2.

1002 Thucyd. I. 120.

1003 The Arcadian commerce of Ægina (Æginetica, p. 74.) was the basis of its other trade.

1004 Concerning Ægina, see Æginetica, p. 79. Megara manufactured ἐξώμιδες in particular, Xenoph. Mem. Socrat. III. 7. 6. Compare Aristoph. Acharn. 519.

1005 Heraclid. Pont. 5. Concerning the trade of Corinth, see above, p. 24. note a. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “value upon it,” starting “Plutarch, Lyc. 4.”]

1006 Pseud-Aristot. Œcon. II. 2. Suidas in Κυψ. ἀνάθημα. See also vol. I. p. 184. note p. and Schneider Epimetr. ad Xen. Anab. p. 473. The tithe paid by the Syracusans for the building of temples was something extraordinary. Prov. Vatic. IV. 20. from Demon.

1007 Æginetica, p. 89. According to Lucian περὶ πένθους 10. the Æginetan obolus was in his time still in circulation, as also among the Achæans, according to Hesychius in παχείᾳ (Æginetica, p. 90.); nevertheless, ever after the foundation of Megalopolis and Messene in Peloponnesus, the Athenian standard seems to have prevailed.

1008 I am unwilling to make use of Romé de l’Isle’s valuations of Greek coins, as in his Métrologie he shows such a complete want of historical talent and knowledge. It is at once evident that his 14 different kinds of drachmas are a mere absurdity; the very first of 60 grains, which he calls drachme d’Ægium ou du Péloponnèse, is nothing more than a half Æginetan drachma, which should properly, according to the ratio to the Attic drachma (of 82 grains), contain 137 grains, but they are generally much rubbed on account of their great antiquity. To these belong the ancient χελῶναι, the coins with the Bœotian shield in the early style, the Corinthian coins with the Coppa and Pegasus, also the early Thessalian coins, more especially those found in Thrace, and generally marked Lete; together with those of the Macedonian kings prior to Philip. To the drachme d’Egine he only assigns three coins.

1009 Followed by Pollux IV. 24. 173. IX. 6. 80. The names frequently occurred in Sophron and Epicharmus as coins and weights, as may be seen from Pollux; cf. Phot, in λίτρα et ὀγκία.

1010 I am of opinion, in opposition to Bentley Phalarid. p. 419, that the testimony of Pollux must be followed. In Hesychius also in v. τριᾶντος πόρνη, a τριᾶς is reckoned equal to 20 λεπτά; now the ὀγκία is generally made equal to the χαλκοῦς Ἀττικὸς (Aristot. ap. Poll.), and a τριᾶς is in that case equal to 21 λεπτὰ, which Hesychius gives in round numbers. Diodorus’ estimate of the πεντηκοντάλιτρον at 10 drachmas, which is otherwise very inexact, is explained by Boeckh, Economy of Athens, vol. I. p. 37. from the different prices of gold in Attica and Sicily.

1011 Since copper was the basis of all coins in Italy, Epicharmus (but not an Athenian or Peloponnesian) could say χαλκὸν ὀφείλειν, æs alienum habere, Pollux IX. 6. 92.

1012 That νόμος, not νοῦμμος, is the proper Greek form, is shown by Blomfield ad Sophronis Fragm. Classical Journal vol. V. p. 384. (See also Knight, Proleg. Homer, p. 29. note 4.)

1013 Aristot. in Acragant. Polit. ap. Poll. IX. 6. 80. Æginetica, p. 9. Bentley, from not taking this statement as his foundation, has given a false direction to his inquiries.

1014 According to Romé de l’Isle, p. 40.

1015 According to Romé de l’Isle, 23-1/3; but see p. 223. note a. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “adapted to it,” starting “I am unwilling.”]

1016 See the author’s Etrusker, vol. I. p. 309-329.

1017 Which is Boeckh’s opinion, Public Economy of Athens, vol. I. p. 21. Engl. tr.

1018 Ap. Poll. IX. 6. 80.

1019 As Bentley supposes, ibid. p. 410.

1020 See Aristot. ap. Poll. IX. 6. 87. Apollodorus ἐν τοῖς περὶ Σώφρονος ap. Schol. Min. et Venet. ad Il. V. 516. and Schol. Gregor. Nazianz. in Montfauc. Diar. Ital. p. 214. according to the correction of ΝΟΜΩΝ for ΜΝΩΝ, also Suidas in τάλαντον according to Scaliger, likewise Bentley p. 409. The Venetian Scholia on Il. XXIII. 269. mention several other talents, but without specifying the places where they were current.

1021 Aristotle, as well as Apollodorus, states in the passages just quoted, that the νόμος was equal to τρία ἡμιωβόλια, which, according to the probable supposition of Salmasius and Gronovius, is a mistake for τρίτον ἡμιωβόλιον.

1022 These reasons are, 1st, that the coins with the figure of Taras generally weigh 72 and 140-155 grains, and therefore they are manifestly not sesterces, but rather quinarii and denarii, as determined by the depreciated litra; which would therefore have been about equal to an Attic obolus. 2dly, that the great Inscription of Tauromenium in D’Orville and Castello without exception contains talents of 120 litras (according to which the νόμος would have been again equal to 5 or 10 litras), as may be seen at once from an item in the account: “ἔσοδος 56,404 talents, 88 litras, ἔξοδος 30,452 talents, 42 litras, λοιπόν 4935 talents, 112 litras, and χρήματα δανειζόμενα 20,016 talents, 54 litras (χίλια should be supplied),” therefore 56,404 talents 88 litras, are equal to 56,403 talents 208 litras, i.e., 1 talent, 88 litras. The well-known Epigram of Simonides, on the tripod of Gelon, also contains talents of more than 100 litras (fragm. 42. Gaisford.).

1023 Strab. VI. p. 398.

1024 Zenob. Prov. V. 4.

1025 Above, ch. 6. § 3, 7. ch. 7. § 3, 4.

1026 As is also proposed by Plato Leg. VI. p. 767.

1027 According to Plutarch de Socrat. Dæm. 33. p. 365. the gerontes fined Lysanoridas (see above, ch. 10. § 11.), but it was probably the supreme court of public magistrates.

1028 See above, ch. 5. § 8. p. 104. note s. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “carefully distinguished,” starting “It is a δίκη.”]

1029 Plut. Ages. 30.

1030 See above, ch. 9. § 1. 7. 10. But in Crete, and perhaps in Ægina (Æginetica, p. 133.), there were similar oligarchical institutions.

1031 Plutarch. Lac. Apophth. p. 200.—Of the courts of justice at Argos, we only know of that upon the Pron (Dinias ap. Schol. Eurip. Orest. 869, from which Scholia it is also seen, that the place of the public assembly, ἁλιδίας, whence ἡλιαία, was in the neighbourhood; see above, ch. 5. § 9.), which was perhaps similar to the Aeropagus of Athens, together with the court ἐν Χαράδρῳ without the city, before which generals after their return were arraigned (Thuc. V. 60.).

1032 Thuc. I. 132.

1033 Aristot. Pol. II. 5. 12. This may be compared with the Cumæan law, that the neighbours of a person who had been robbed should replace the stolen property (Heraclid. Pont. II. comp. Hesiod. Op. et Di. 348. and see strabo. XIII. p. 622.). Yet Ephorus (ap. Steph. in βοιωτία) praises the νόμων εὐταξία of his countrymen.

1034 Plat. Leg. XII. p. 948.

1035 Aristot. Pol. II. 9. 8.

1036 Ἐξηγητὴς τῶν Λυκουργείων, in a late inscription, Boeckh No. 1364.

1037 See above, ch. 9. § 7. and Ruhnken ad Tim. p. 111.

1038 Meier de bonis damnatis, præf. p. 7.

1039 Strabo VI. p. 260 A. comp. Heyne Opuscula II. p. 37.

1040 Ap. Athen. IV. p. 140 E. 141 A.

1041 Above, ch. 10. § 11. See Meier p. 198.

1042 For example Thimbron, as appears from Xen. Hell. III. 1. 8.

1043 Concerning the account in Plutarch. Amator. 5. see above, p. 123. note t [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “I even doubt,” starting “Plutarch. Erot. 5.”] comp. Meier p. 199.

1044 According to Polyænus II. 21. defendants were heard in chains at Sparta, a statement which is not true in a general sense.

1045 Isocrat. Archidam. p. 134 B sqq.

1046 Concerning the ἀτιμία of this person, see Herod. VII. 231. Plut. Ages. 30. Xenoph. Rep. Lac. 9. 4, 5., who by the κακὸς chiefly means the τρέσας. According to Tzetzes Chil. XII. 386. ῥιψάσπιδες were put to death. The assertion of Lycurgus in Leocrat. p. 166. 13. that in Sparta all persons μὴ θέλοντες ὑπὲρ τῆς πατρίδος κινδυνεύειν might be executed, is ambiguous, since the law to which he refers is lost.

1047 Thuc. V. 34.

1048 Plut. de Curios. 8. p. 139; Heyne, Opuscula, vol. II. p. 94.

1049 Diod. XII. 12.

1050 Plut. Ag. II. The meaning of Ælian V. H. III. 12. probably is, that a person convicted of the offence in question would be punished with death, if he did not voluntarily quit the country. (See B. IV. ch. 4. § 8.) Aristotle, Pol. IV. 8., indeed says, that the Spartan constitution was oligarchical, because a few persons had, as judges, the power of inflicting death or banishment; yet in this passage also banishment may be considered as a means of escaping from the penalty of death before the final passing of the sentence; for Aristotle’s only purpose is to show that the decision of a few persons could deprive a citizen of life, or force him to quit the country. Concerning the power of the ephors to banish, see above, ch. 7. § 4.

1051 For example, the boy in Xen. Anab. IV. 8. 25.

1052 The polemarchs, who, according to Thucyd. V. 72, fled on account of disobedience in battle, and cowardice (δόξαντες μαλακισθῆναι), probably saved themselves from death: comp. Plut. Pericl. 22. Moreover, Clearchus, the leader of the mercenaries under Cyrus the Younger, was only an exile in this manner. He had been disobedient to the ephors at a military post, and on that account condemned to death. See Xenoph. Anab. I. 1. 9. II. 6. 4.

1053 Herod. VII. 213.

1054 Plut. Ag. 19. At Corinth the name of the public prison was Κῶς, Steph. Byz.

1055 Herod. IV. 146. Valer. Max. VI. 6.

1056 Plat. Phæd. 116. Olympiodorus ad loc.

1057 Plut. Qu. Gr. 2. The prohibition at Rhodes, that the δημόσιος should not enter the city, rests on a similar principle, Dio Chrysost. Or. 31. p. 632 Reisk. See Wessel. ad. Diod. I. p. 624. Aristid. II. 44. 5.

1058 P. 120 (171 Bekker.).

1059 Plut. Lac. Apophth. p. 197. See Thuc. I. 132.

1060 In Leocrat. p. 156. (§ 65. ed. Bekker.)

1061 Heracl. Pont. 7. Miscell. Lips. Nova. T. X. 3. p. 392. de Tenedia securi. Compare Meineke ad Menand. p. 70. See also the story in Nicolaus Damascenus, p. 442. ed. Vales. (Comp. book II. ch. 2. § 3.) and the account of the punishment of the μοιχὸς at Gortyna in Ælian. V. H. XII. 12. Also the strange account of a Cretan festival in Plutarch de Defect. Orac. 13. proves that rape was in that island once punished by decapitation. The very strict sumptuary and disciplinarian laws of Ceos were, in my opinion, of Cretan origin, and certainly not of Ionic. See Æginetica, p. 132., and Jacobs ad Meleag. Anthol. Palat. I. p. 449. Meineke ad Menand. Fragm. 135. p. 237. The existence of Cretan institutions in the islands of the Ægæan is made probable by the report that Rhadamanthus was legislator of the islanders, Apollod. III. 1, 2.

1062 Ælian. V. H. XIII. 24. Valer. Max. V. 5. 3.

1063 See Book IV. ch. 4. § 3. and compare the degrading punishments for adultery at Cume, Plut. Qu. Gr. 2. p. 378. and at Lepreum, Heracl. Pont. 14. The account of the punishment for adultery at Tenedos may indeed be a mere fiction, in order to explain the symbol on the Tenedian coins (see Thirlwall in the Philological Museum, vol. I. p. 118); yet the parallel cases in the text give it a certain degree of credibility. The axe in the hands of the Apollo of Tenedos (B. II. ch. 8. § 17) appears likewise to be not so much a weapon as an instrument of punishment.

1064 See book II. ch. 8. § 5.

1065 Leg. IX. p. 865. The Scholiast also quotes an oracle (p. 235 Ruhnk. p. 454 Bekk.), which however Plato cannot allude to in particular.

1066 Book II. ch. 1. § 8.

1067 Herod. II. 134. Plut. de sera Num. Vind. 12. p. 244.

1068 τὰ περὶ τὰς δίκας, Plato de Leg. I. p. 625.

1069 See Aristot. Eth. Nic. V. 5. 3.

1070 Strabo VI. p. 397 D. Scymnus v. 313. Both follow Ephorus.

1071 Heyne Opusc. Acad. vol. II. p. 46. The descent from the latter is also confirmed by the tradition concerning the expiatory virgins for the crime of Ajax the son of Oileus. See Heyne, p. 53. Orchomenos, p. 167.

1072 From these was derived the Minerva, together with Pegasus (this goddess is also said to have given the laws to Zaleucus, see particularly Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 352 A.), and the Proserpine upon their coins; see Liv. XXIX. 18. The Corcyræan colony is very doubtful; see Heyne, p. 52.

1073 Aristot. Pol. V. 6, 7.

1074 See Polyb. XII. 5. 7. et sup. Heyne p. 53. Boeckh. ad Pind. Olymp. IX. 15. That the family of Ajax was one of them may be seen by comparing Servius ad Æn. I. 41. with Polybius.

1075 Polyb. XII. 16. Concerning the courts of justice, see Diod. XII. 20. Stobæus Serm. 42. p. 240.

1076 According to Eusebius. Comp. Bentley’s Phalaris, p. 340.

1077 Ap. Strab. VI. p. 260. Ephor. frag. n. 47. p. 150. ed Marx.

1078 Olymp. X. 17.

1079 Timæus, p. 20.

1080 Ap. Stob. Serm. 47. p. 280.

1081 See above, §. 4. The same law (pœnaque mors posita est patriam mutare volenti) is mentioned by Ovid Metam. XV. 29. in the story of the founding of Croton; the place appears from v. 19. to be Argos, but perhaps only by a misunderstanding; originally I believe it was Sparta.

1082 Heyne p. 30.

1083 Plut. de Curios. 8. p. 138. Diod. excerpt. Vat. VII.—X. 14. 2.

1084 Above, ch. 10. § 5.

1085 For example, the prohibition to drink pure wine, Ælian. V. H. II. 37. See book II. ch. 12. § 5.

1086 Stobæus ubi sup. See above, ch. 7. § 8. 11. Cic. de Leg. III. 20. Græci hoc diligentius (quam Romani), apud quos Nomophylaces creantur, neque hi solum litteras—sed etiam facta hominum observabant ad legesque revocabant. The same is stated by Columella de Re Rust. XII. 3.

1087 See above, § 1, 3.

1088 This is the only way in which Cic. de Leg. II. 6. can be understood.

1089 See above, p. 15. note s. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “Pythian god,” starting “Xenoph. Rep. Laced.”]

1090 Xen. Rep. Lac. 13. 5. Plut. Pelop. 23.

1091 See, besides, Plutarch, Polyæn. II. 1. 7.

1092 B. I. ch. 4. § 9.

1093 Οἱ ὲν ταῖς ἡλικίαις, Polyb. IV. 22. 8.

1094 Agesilaus, when sixty-two years old, according to Xenophon’s computation, was no longer ἔμφρουρος, Hell. V. 4. 13. Plut. Ages. 24.

1095 Isocrat. Busir. p. 225 A. (quoted by Harpocration in v. καὶ γὰρ τὸ), where μάχιμος is evidently put for ἔμφρουρος. Comp. Xen. Rep. Lac. 5. 7.

1096 Xen. Hell. VI. 4. 17.

1097 Xen. Rep. Lac. 11. 2. See above, p. 126. note x. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “number of men,” starting “Προκηρύττουσι τὰ ἔτη.”]

1098 On this point see Petit. Leg. Att. VIII. 1. p. 548; but the subject has been treated far better by Boeckh in a programm of the Berlin university for 1819.

1099 It was probably impossible to assemble the Periœci on a sudden summons of the army.

1100 βοηθία τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων γίγνεται αυτῶν τε καὶ τῶν εἱλώτων πανδημεὶ, Thuc. V. 64.

1101 Thuc. V. 68.

1102 Herod. IX. 10.

1103 Thuc. IV. 55.

1104 The Brasideans (emancipated Helots) and Neodamodes (see c. 67.) appear to have not been included in the seven λόχοι; and in c. 68 they are understood together with the Sciritæ. In Schol. Aristoph. Lys. 454. writes, ὁ δὲ Θουκυδίδης ζ᾽ φησὶ χωρὶς τῶν ΣΚΙΡΙΤΩΝ.

1105 Τὸ πολιτικὸν, Xen. Hell. V. 3. 25.

1106 Ibid. IV. 2. 12.

1107 Rep. Lac. 11. 4.

1108 Enomotia quarta decuriæ (λόχου) pars, Ælian. Tact. 5.

1109 Suidas, Timæus, Etym. Magn.

1110 This was also the case with the rearguard of the 10,000.

1111 Three times twelve, according to Xen. Hell. VI. 4. 12.

1112 Hell. IV. 5. 11, 12.

1113 See Plutarch. Pelop. 16. from Ephorus, Diod. XV. 32.

1114 See the passages quoted by Cragius IV. 4. and add Etym. M. p. 590. 33. (where Martini Prol. de Spartiat. Mora. Ratisbonæ 1771. corrects 900 for 30), Biblioth. Coisl. p. 505. and Bekk Anecd. I. p. 209. Comp. Sturz Lex. Xen. in v. μόρα.

1115 τάξις τις διὰ σφαγίων ἐνώμοτος, Hesychius.

1116 Like one στίχος or versus, Ælian. Tact. 5.

1117 Thuc. IV. 93.

1118 Xen. Hell. VI. 4. 12.

1119 Xen. Rep. Lac. 11. 4. διὰ παρεγγυήσεως καθίστανται τοτὲ μὲν εἰς ἐνωμοτίας, τοτὲ δὲ εἰς τρεῖς, τοτὲ δὲ εἰς ἓξ, i.e. the enomoty was sometimes one, sometimes three, sometimes six men in width, as is evident from Hell. VI. 4. 12. In Hell. III. 2. 16. the enomoty is eight men wide, contrary to the usual custom. The single division of a lochus, in the common acceptation of the word, was also called λόχος, which, according to Schol. Arist. Acharn. 1073. Ælian. Tact. 4. Suidas, Tzetz. Chil. XII. 523, contained eight, or twelve, or sixteen men, that is, if the enomoty formed two, three, or four στίχοι. The τάξις, according to Ælian 9, contained eight lochi, or 128 men; in that case the enomoty had four στίχοι. Compare Sturz Lex. Xen. in λόχος, Perizon. ad Ælian. V. H. II. 44. D’Orville ad Chariton. p. 455.

1120 Isocrat. Archid. p. 136. C. Comp. B. 1. ch. 9. § 9.

1121 Xen. Anab. IV. 2. 11. IV. 3. 17. IV. 8. 10. Comp. Ælian, Suidas in ὀρθία, Sturz in ὄρθιος, in whose opinion the whole lochus formed one file.

1122 Xen. de Rep. Lac. 11. 8. cf. Anab. IV. 3. 26.

1123 See Hell. VII. 5. 22.

1124 Rep. Lac. ubi sup.

1125 Rep. Lac. 11. 10.

1126 Hell. IV. 2. 5.

1127 Rep. Lac. 11. 4. cf. Hieron. 9. 5. διήρηνται γὰρ ἅπασαι αἱ πόλεις αἱ μὲν κατὰ φυλὰς, αἱ δὲ κατὰ μόρας, αἱ δὲ κατὰ λόχους. That the number was six appears also from Xen. Hell. VI. I. 1. VI. 4. 17. and from Aristotle ap. Harpocrat. in μόρα (where Bekker’s edition has the correct reading six instead of five). Diodorus XV. 32. proves nothing against the number six. The νεοδαμώδεις belonged to no mora, Hell. IV. 3. 15.

1128 Xen. Hell. VI. 4. 17.

1129 Xen. de Rep. Lac. 11. 4.

1130 Hell. IV. 4. 10. IV. 5. 12. A square of fifty was called οὐλαμὸς, Plut. Lye. 23.

1131 Xen. Hell. IV. 5. 15, 16. cf. IV. 4. 16.

1132 Ib. IV. 5. 10.

1133 See above, ch. 5. §. 6.

1134 Plut. Lyc. 12. Lac. Apophth. p. 221.

1135 Plut. Ag. 8.

1136 See above, ch. 3. § 7.

1137 According to Schol. Aristoph. Lysist. 454. there were six lochi at Sparta, five are named, ἔδωλος, σίνις, ἀρίμας, πλοὰς, μεσοάγης. The last is evidently ΜΕΣΟΑΤΗΣ; of the others I have nothing to say, except that the ἔδωλος λόχος is also mentioned by Hesychius. Neither can the four lochi of the king be easily explained (cf. Schol. Acharn. 1087); perhaps it is only another expression for the mora of the king (Xen. Rep. Lac. 13. 6.). There were five (or six) lochi in Sparta, according to Aristotle, Photius in λόχοι, Hesychius, and his commentators. Xenophon Hell. VII. 5. 10. speaks of ten lochi; of twelve in VII. 4. 20. Dindorf, however, writes twelve in VII. 5. 10. with two manuscripts; by which the two passages are reconciled.

1138 Thuc. V. 66.

1139 Plut. Pelop. 23.

1140 Ælian. Tact. 5.

1141 Xen. Rep. Lac. 11. 6.

1142 See the instances of Amompharetus, Herod. IX. 53, and of Hipponoidas and Aristotle, Thuc. V. 71.

1143 This was probably the real character of the ξεναγοὶ (Anecd. Bekk. vol. I. p. 284. cf. Xen. Ages. 2. 10.); and there having the command of σύμμαχοι in sieges, as in Thuc. II. 75. appears to be an exception.

1144 Xen. Rep. Lac. 13. 4. Hell. III. 5. 22. IV. 5. 7. See Sturz in v. λοχαγός.

1145 Herod. VII. 173.

1146 Xen. Hell. VI. 4. 14.

1147 Herod. IX. 10. In this instance Pausanias fixed upon Euryanax, the son of Dorieus, of the same family; yet Dorieus cannot have been the son of Anaxandridas (Manso, vol. III. 2. p. 315.), as in that case he would have been king before Leonidas.

1148 That is, δαμοσία σκηνὴ or τράπεζα.

1149 Xen. Hell. VI. 4. 14. Rep. Lac. 13. 1, 7.

1150 See above, ch. 1. § 9.

1151 See above, p. 111, note f. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “public expense,” starting “De Rep. Lac.”]

1152 Xen. Rep. Lac. 13. 7. Nicol. Dam. The κρεωδαίτης also probably belonged to the same suite, Plut. Ages. 8.

1153 Manso, vol. II. p. 377. III. 1. p. 214.

1154 Xen. Rep. Lac. 13. 11.

1155 See above, p. 108, note m. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “armistice of Agis,” starting “Thuc. V. 63.”] Comp. Thuc. VIII. 39. Βουλιαῖοι occur in inscriptions of Fourmont’s which Raoul-Rochette considers the same as the σύμβουλοι.

1156 See above, p. 103, note o. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “Agamemnon of Homer,” starting “A sacrifice to Zeus Agetor.”] See also Theopompus ap. Schol. Theocrit. V. 83. Eudocia, p. 251. concerning Ζεὺς Ἡγήτωρ, who was also worshipped at Argos as the god who had led the Heraclidæ into the country, a belief referred to by Tyrtæus in the verses quoted in vol. I. p. 52. note d.

1157 Xen. Rep. Lac. 13. 2. Comp. Zenob. Prov. V. 34. Schol. Eurip. Phœn. 1415.

1158 Plut. Lyc. 22. Qu. Symp. II. 5. p. 88.

1159 Xen. Hell. III. 4. 2. IV. 1. 5, 30, 34. V. 3. 8. Plut. Ages. 6. 7. Lysand. 23.

1160 Manso, vol. I. 1. p. 153. See also Herod. VIII. 124. Xen. Hell. 5. 3. 9. Plut. Reg. Apophth. p. 130. Lac. Apophth. p. 232. Dionys. Hal. Arch. II. 13. according to whom they were both horsemen and hoplitæ. The three hundred with Leonidas, although Herodotus VII. 205. calls them οἱ ΚΑΤΕΣΤΕΩΤΕΣ τριηκόσιοι, were not however ἱππεῖς; most of them were doubtless men of an advanced age; whereas the horsemen, as the false Archytas in Stob. Serm. 41. calls them, were κόροι.

1161 Strab. X. p. 481.

1162 Xen. Hell. VI. 4. 11.

1163 Thuc. IV. 55. Xen. Hell. IV. 2. 16.

1164 The ἅμιπποι (πρόδρομοι in Philochorus), Thuc. V. 57. Xen. Hell. VII. 5. 24. Harpocration and Hesychius in v.

1165 30,000 cavalry and 30,000 infantry, Strab. VI. p. 280.

1166 Ælian. Tact. 2., Steph. Byzant. in Τάρας, &c.

1167 Also called λόχος, Diod. XV. 32. Hesychius and Etymol. M. in σκιρτὴς λόχος, Bekk. Anecd. I. p. 305. Schol. Thucyd. V. 67.

1168 Thucyd. V. 67.

1169 Xen. Rep. Lac. 12. 3. 13. 6.

1170 Thuc. ubi sup. Diodorus represents them as standing round the king’s person; he evidently confounds them with the knights.

1171 Xen. Hell. V. 4. 52, 53. Diod. ubi sup.

1172 This is also what Xenophon Cyrop. IV. 2. 1. says. Comp. Hesychius and other grammarians, Manso, vol. I. 2. p. 228.

1173 Ἦν δὲ Ἀρκαδικὸς, Hesychius.

1174 Λογάδες τῶν περιοίκων, Herod. IX. 11.

1175 At the battle of Leuctra there were only 700 Spartans present, according to Xenoph. Hell. VI. 4. 15; but he must use the word in a very limited sense; for there were four moras (μόραι πολιτικαὶ) of men less than thirty-five years (ἀφ᾽ ἥβης), which could not have contained less than 2000 men. The whole army was however much more numerous; at Corinth it had contained 6000 hoplitæ, IV. 2. 16. See also above, ch. 2. § 3.

1176 That at a latter time there were still many ψιλοὶ in the Peloponnesian army may be seen from Polyænus IV. 14.

1177 See above, ch. 3. § 2. and p. 45. note t, [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “Periœci,” starting “According to the epitaph.”] where however it should be observed, that the epitaph must not be taken with the passage in VIII. 25; it refers to the battle before the surrounding of the army. The statement of some writers (Hegemon in the Palatine Anthology VII. 436. Isocrat. Archid. p. 136 D.) that 1000 Spartans were present at Thermopylæ is evidently erroneous.

1178 Above, ch. 3. § 2. cf. Xen. Hell. IV. 8. 39.

1179 Aristoph. Lysist. 563. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 307.

1180 Xen. Hell. IV. 4. 17. see however IV. 15. 11. sqq. V. 4. 14.

1181 Probably the Δωρικὴ ὅπλισις of Hesychius.

1182 Herod. VII. 211.

1183 Plut. Lyc. 19. Reg. Apophth. p. 130. Lac. Apophth. p. 194, 261. Dion. 18. The Δωρικὴ μάχαιρα only occurs as a sacrificing-knife, Eurip. Electr. 819, 836.

1184 Xen. Rep. Lac. 11. 3. The ancient circular shields of Argos (see Spanheim ad Calim. Pall. Lav. 35.) are probably nearly the same which were really manufactured in that city, Pind. Hyporch. 3. p. 599. Boeckh; and see vol. I. p. 83. note r.

1185 Tyrtæus Fragm. 2. v. 23. Gaisford.

1186 See Critias (son of Callæschrus) ap. Liban. Or. XXIV. p. 86. Reisk. Plut. Cleom. 11. Hence Aristophanes Lysist. 107. uses the word πορπακισάμενος of a Spartan. See also Aristoph. Eq. 848. from which passage it is evident that the πόρπαξ was all that was most essential for managing the shield, and that the τελαμὼν or thong could be easily procured, so that it was considered as an appendage of the πόρπαξ. Compare Schneider’s Lexicon in ὀχάνη.

1187 Concerning the emblems on the Lacedæmonian shields, see Pausan. IV. 28. 3; besides which there were distinct ἐπίσημα, Plut. Lac. Apophth. p. 240. The Cretans, according to the Scolion of Hybrias, also had λαισήια; the λαισήια πτερόεντα of Homer were probably similar to the shields furnished with leathern fringes, or wings, represented on vases, e.g., Tischbein IV. 51.

1188 See Xen. Hell. III. 4. 18.

1189 Ælian. Tact. 26, 27. Comp. Hesychius, Λάκων εἶδος παρὰ Τακτικοῖς.

1190 Thuc. V. 71.

1191 The latter was done by the Spartans at Thermopylæ, Herod. VII. 211; and according to Plato Lach. p. 191. at Platææ.

1192 Herod. IX. 71.

1193 Plut. Ages. 34. where however the fine of 1000 drachmas is very questionable.

1194 Thuc. IV. 126.

1195 See Herod. IX. 77. Thuc. V. 73. Plut. Lyc. 22. de cohibend. Ira. 10. p. 438. Lac.

1196 Plut. Lac. Apophth. p. 246.

1197 Ibid. Ælian. V. H. VI. 6.

1198 Plut. ibid. p. 214. with the note of Manso, vol. I. 2. p. 236.

1199 Plut. Ages. 33.

1200 VII. 9. 6.

1201 See Strabo X. p. 448. with which comp. Il. II. 544. Archilochus, p. 144. ed. Liebel.

1202 As, e.g., at the Hyacinthia and Carnea. That the passage in Herodotus VI. 106. refers only to the latter, and that in the Carneus alone the Spartans did not set out before the full moon, is shown by Böckh Index Lect. Æstiv. Berol. 1816. Yet Plutarch is not the only writer who has misunderstood this passage (see Diogen. Prov. VI. 20. Jo. Tzetz. Jamb. 161.); and Herodotus himself is not quite correct.

1203 Xen. Hell. IV. 7. 2.

1204 Thus also Brasidas only lost seven men in the action with Cleon, Thuc. V. 11.; and the Lacedæmonians, in the great battle of Corinth, only eight, Xen. Hell. IV. 3. 1.

1205 Plut. Lyc. 13. Ages. 26. Lac. Apophth. p. 188. 222. Polyæn. I. 16. 2.

1206 Compare what Archidamus in Isocrates says of the campaigns of the kings of his family: also Panathen. p. 286 E.

1207 Thuc. I. 121. Herod. VII. 102. Comp. Hegemon in the Palatine Anthology VII. 436. Δώριος ἁ μέλετα.

1208 Aristot. Pol. II. 6. 22. When the fleet was commanded by a king, as, e.g., Leotychidas, it was an exception; see Plut. Ages. 10.

1209 In several apophthegms they are called women’s apartments.

1210 See Thiersch’s Preface to Pindar.

1211 For this reason the Cretan ἐξελιγμὸς was also called χόρειος; above, § 8. In Sparta the last in the chorus were called ψιλεῖς, Alcman Fragm. 108. Welcker. from Suidas and Hesychius.

1212 See book IV. ch. 6. § 7.

1213 Il. XVI. 617. quoted by Athen. V. p. 181. XIV. p. 630 B. Lucian de Salt. 7. Dio Chrysost. Orat. II. 31. 28. Heyne’s interpretation, de motu declinantis et a telo sibi caventis, is unquestionably not to be preferred to that of the ancients.

1214 Lucian ubi sup.

1215 Il. XI. 49. XII. 77. with the Scholia, and Eustathius. That the expression for it was also Laconian follows from Hesychius in προυλέσι, according to Salmasius.

1216 Among the Gortynians, according to Schol. Hom. Il. XI. 49: with whom πρύλις also signified a heavy-armed foot-soldier, Eustath. ad Il. κ᾽ p. 893. 35. Phavorinus, p. 390. ed. Dindorf. Likewise among the Cyprians (i.e., among the Greeks in Cyprus). Aristot. ap. Schol. Pind. II. 125. Callimachus Hymn. Jov. 52. also calls the dance of the Guretes by this name, this having been at a very early period identified with the Cretan war-dance.

1217 Plut. Lyc. 21. Lac. Apophth. p. 207. de cohibend. Ira, ubi sup. The χίμαιρα was not however sacrificed to the Muses (Manso, vol. I. 2. p. 234.), but, as after the battle of Marathon, to Artemis Agrotera. See Xen. Rep. Lac. 13. 8. Plut. Lyc. 23. Xen. Hell. IV. 2. 20.

1218 Sosistrates ap. Athen. XIII. p. 561 E. Ælian. V. II. III. 9.

1219 As Dionysius of Halicarnassus says.

1220 Xen. de Rep. Lac. 12. 6. 7.

1221 Plut. Lyc. 22.

1222 Herod. VII. 208. Xen. de Rep. Lac. 13. 9. Plut. Lyc. 22.

1223 The appropriate expression for this was ξανθίζεσθαι, Bekker. Anecd. I. p. 284.

1224 Xen. de Rep. Lac. 11. 3. 13. 8. Plut. ubi sup.

1225 Concerning these, see, besides Xenophon and Plutarch, Ælian. VI. 6. Etymol. M. p. 385. 25. Suidas in καταξαίνειν, Aristot. Rep. Lac. ap. Moerin in φοινικίς, also Hesychius in πυτά. Comp. Meursius Miscell. Lac. I. 15. The ambassadors also wore a dress of this kind, Aristoph. Lysist. 1139. Plutarch. Cimon. 16. Lesbonax Protr. p. 24, 27. Reisk. The Cretan mantles were similar, only they were coloured with fucus, Meursius Creta III. 12.—As arms were considered the greatest ornament, the youths prayed in arms to the gods also armed. Plut. Lac. Apophth. p. 235. cf. Inst. Lac. p. 253.

1226 Plutarch Lycurg. 13. de Esu Carn. II. 2. Reg. Apophth. p. 125. Lac. Apophth. p. 222. Quæst. Rom. 87. p. 363. Proclus ad Hesiod. Op. et Di. 421.

1227 Above, p. 110. note d. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “two royal families,” starting “Xen. Ages. 8.”]

1228 Plutarch Lycurg. 13. Compare Lac. Apophth. pp. 179, 222.

1229 Towards the street were the θύραι αὔλειοι (Herod. VI. 69.); in the house the ἐγγύτερω πύλη, Plutarch Lac. Apophthegm of Leotychides (ὁ Ἀρίστωνος is an error), p. 215. It was the custom at Sparta not to knock, but to call, at the outer gate, Plutarch Instit. Lac. p. 253. The same was also the custom among the Æolians, according to Alcæus, among the poems of Theocritus, XXIX. 39.

1230 As it appears from Pausan. VI. 24. 2. Compare Strabo XIV. p. 646. concerning the ῥυμοτομία ἐπ᾽ εὐθειῶν in Smyrna.

1231 Photius and Hesychius in Ἱπποδάμον νέμησις—οὗτος ἦν καὶ ὁ μετοικήσας εἰς Θουρίους Μιλήσιος ὤν. It was probably not long before this time that he built the Piræeus.

1232 As Diodorus XII. 10. states.

1233 Meursius Rhod. I. 10.

1234 The following buildings of this archaic style are known to us from ancient writers and modern travellers. 1. The remains of three other treasuries near that described in the text. 2. One discovered by Gropius, on the Eurotas, not far from Amyclæ. 3. A ruin discovered by Dodwell near Pharsalus. 4. The treasuries of Minyas. 5. Of Hyrieus and Augeas. 6. The brazen vessels of the Aloidæ and of Eurystheus (Il. V. 387. Apollod. II. 5. 1.) 7. The brazen θαλαμὸς or chamber of Danaë, Alcmene, &c. 8. The subterraneous Cyclopian temple at Delphi, and several others.

1235 Sir William Gell’s Argolis, plate 7. Dodwell’s Classical Tour, vol. II. pp. 229, 240. I have also made great use of some drawings of Lusieri (in the print-room of the British Museum), who has also ingeniously endeavoured to restore the whole.

1236 Synopsis of the British Museum (19th edit.), Room 13. Nos. 220, 221.

1237 See particularly Vitruvius IV. 1. whose account is not indeed historically accurate. At Athens the triglyphs were always called Δωρικαὶ τρίγλυφοι, Eurip. Orest. 1378; in which passage the original ones of wood are clearly marked by the apposition of κεδρωτὰ τέρεμνα. Also the Δωρικὸν κυμάτιον, i.e. the “hollow,” received its name from its use in this style of building, e.g. under the cornice; and the Λέσβιον κυμάτιον, the “ogee,” was borrowed from it by the Æolians, among whom the Lesbian style of architecture (Λεσβία οἰκοδομὴ) was native, which required a very moveable plumbline or κανὼν, Aristot. Eth. Nic. V. 10. 7. and Michael Ephesius ad loc.

1238 Boeckh Explic. ad Pindar. Olymp. XIII. pp. 213. sq.

1239 Hirt, Baukunst nach den Grundsätzen der Alten, 1809; and Geschichte der Baukunst bei den Alten, 1821.

1240 According to Plato de Rep. V. p. 452 C. the Cretans were the first who wrestled naked (but their isolated situation prevented the extension of the custom), and the Lacedæmonians, who were the first, according to Thucydides I. 6. See also Hippasus ap. Athen. p. 14 D. The abandonment of all covering in the Olympic games is said to have originated with Acanthus the Lacedæmonian, and Orsippus the Megarian. The former, according to Dionys. Hal. VII. 72; and he, as we learn from Pausan. V. 8. 3, and Africanus, was victorious in the Diaulus, or Dolichus, in the 15th Olympiad (720 B.C.). The latter, according to Pausan. I. 44. 1. Eustath. ad Il. p. 1324. ed. Rom. Cf. Hesych. in ζώσατο, with the confused statements in the Venetian Scholia to Il. ψ᾽. 683. and Isidorus Orig. XVIII. 17. Pausanias’ authority is a Megarian inscription, of which a restoration has been preserved to our days, and is now in the Cabinet des Médailies of the Bibliothèque du Roi at Paris, see Boeckh Corp. Inscript. No. 1050; where Orsippus is stated to have regained a part of the Megarian territory which had been lost in war, and to have first run in the stadium at Olympia without a girdle. Now Orsippus, according to the certain testimony of Julius Africanus, was victorious in the stadium at Olympia in the 15th Olympiad; and this statement is confirmed by Eustathius and Hesychius ubi sup.; whereas the Etymologicum M. and the Scholia vulg. ad Il. ψ᾽. 683. place the victory of Orsippus at Olymp. 32. (652 B.C.); in which, according to Africanus, Cratinus of Megara was the conqueror. All these apparently contradictory statements have been reconciled by Boeckh ib. p. 554 sq. as follows. Orsippus, either accidentally, or at least to appearance accidentally, lost his girdle when running in the stadium; in training afterwards, Acanthus the Lacedæmonian laid aside his girdle altogether; and thenceforth it became the established practice at the games. In other contests, e.g., wrestling and boxing, the use of the διάζωμα was kept up till a later period; and was not altogether given up till a short time before Thucydides wrote (καὶ οὐ πολλὰ ἔτη ἐπειδὴ πέπαυται, I. 6).

1241 See particularly Athenæus XIII. p. 566 E. Eustathius ad Il. p. 975. 41. ed. Rom.

1242 Plato de Leg. VII. p. 805. 6.

1243 Plutarch. Lac. Apophth. p. 235. Apostolius XVIII. 19.

1244 Eurip. Androm. 598. (quoted by Plutarch. Comp. Num. iii.) αἱ ξὺν νέοισιν ἐξερημοῦσαι δόμους. Hence Propertius III. 12. 21. Lex igitur Spartana vetat secedere amantes; Et licet in triviis ad latus esse suæ.

1245 To be inferred from Plutarch Lycurg. 14.

1246 Plutarch Thes. 19.

1247 Pausan. V. 6. 5. (concerning the history of Pherenice, see Boeckh Explic. Pindar. p. 166.) VI. 20. 6. Hence at Olympia unmarried women could contend for the prize, though only in the chariot-race; as, e.g., Cynisea, Pausan. III. 81. V. 12. 3. V. 6. 1. Xenoph. Ages. 9. 6. Plutarch Ages. 20. Lac. Apophth. p. 184; and Euryleonis, Pausan. III. 17. 6. In Cyrene, according to Pindar Pyth. IX. 102. (ἣ υἱὸν) married women were also admitted, see Boeckh Explic. p. 328; and they also, as we learn from an inscription in Della Cella, presided over gymnastic contests in that town.

1248 κατάκλειστοι, Sappho Fragm. 15. ed. Wolf. Pseudo-Phocylid. v. 203.

1249 Ἐπεὶ ἥ γε Ἑλληνικὴ ἐσθὴς πᾶσα ἡ ἀρχαίη τῶν γυναικῶν ἡ αὐτὴ ἦν, τὴν νῦν Δωρίδα καλέομεν, Herod. V. 88. Compare Eustath. ad Il. V. 567. Æginetica, p. 72.

1250 Manso, Sparta, vol. I. part II. p. 162. Boettiger, Raub der Cassandra, p. 60.

1251 Thus Herodotus V. 87. mentions the ἱμάτια of Doric women as corresponding to the Ionic χιτῶνες: and the different Scholiasts to Eurip. Hec. 933. call the Doric virgins sometimes μονοχίτωνες, sometimes ἀχίτωνες (the Fragment of Anacreon, p. 404. ed. Fischer. ἐκδῦσα χιτῶνα δωριάζειν is too mutilated to prove any thing). See also Horus ap. Etymol. Mag. p. 293. 44. who, besides Ælius Dionysius (who likewise states that the use of the χίτων was peculiar to the Dorians), follows Eustathius ad Il. XIV. 975. Compare also Hesychius in δωριάζειν, and the Sophista Anonymus in Orelli’s Op. Mor. II. p. 214. Euripides (Androm. 599. and Hec. ubi sup.) calls the Doric dress inaccurately πέπλος, compare Hedylus in the Palatine Anthology VI. 292. Plutarch Cleomen. 38.

1252 Herod. and Schol. Eurip. ubi sup. where ἐπιπορπὶς appears to be the tongue of the clasp.

1253 Περόναι, or clasps, were also used in the Ionic female dress, in order to close the slit-up sleeve. Ælian V. H. I. 18.

1254 Wolf. Fragm. mul. pros. pp. 241, 242.

1255 Pollux, Plutarch. Comp. Lycurg. 3. and Sophocles there quoted: καὶ τὰν νέορτον, ἇς ἔτ᾽ ἄστολος χιτὼν θυραῖον ἀμφὶ μηρὸν πτύσσεται, Ἑρμιόναν. Eurip. Androm. 599. γυμνοῖσι μηροῖς καὶ πέπλοις ἀνειμένοις. Compare Duris in Schol. Eurip. Hec. αἱ δὲ γυναῖκες ἐβρυαζὸν ταῖς Δωρίαις στολαῖς. This writer also entertains the erroneous notion that the Athenian women wore short hair and the Doric dress, at the same time that the men wore long hair and the Ionic dress.

1256 See Schol. Eurip. ubi sup. Callimachus (Fragm. 225. ed. Bentl.) says of a Lacedæmonian virgin, ἔσκεν ὅτ᾽ ἄζωστος χἀτερόπορπος ἔτι. Ἄζωστοι καὶ ἀχίτωνες, according to Schol. Eurip. and Eustathius p. 975. 38; without girdles also according to Pausanias ibid. p. 975. 40. and Suidas in δωριάζειν.

1257 Μονόπεπλος, Δωρὶς ὡς κόρα, Eurip. Hec. 928. Doris nullo culia palliolo, Juvenal III. 94. It is to this that the charge of nakedness, mentioned p. 273, in note b, [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “virgins naked,” starting “See particularly.”] and p. 277, in note x, [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “and in the chorus,” starting “Plutarch. Lycurg. 14.”] refers. Also in Plutarch. Pyrrh. 17. the Spartan virgins are distinguished, as being ονοχίτωνες, from the married women in ἱμάτια.

1258 That the Corinthian costume was at that time different from the original Doric dress, I have already remarked (Æginetica, p. 64, note b.) from this fact, and from Herod. V. 87. The Syracusan ἐμπερόναμα had perhaps originated from the clasped χίτων of the Dorians, Theocrit. Idyll. XV. 34. compare Spohn Lect. Theocrit. I. p. 36, but it was drawn over the χιτώνιον. There was also a Corinthian female dress called παράπηχυ, Athen. XIII. p. 582.

1259 Pythænetus ap. Athen. XIII. p. 589. Compare Theognis v. 1002, where the Λάκαινα κόρη brings crowns for the guests. So also the Doric Greeks of Sicily substituted a πάρθενος φιαληφόρος in the place of the παῖς, Polyb. XII. 5. 7.

1260 Plutarch. Lycurg. 14. τὰς κόρας γυμνάς τε πομπεύειν καὶ πρὸς ἱεροῖς τισὶν ὀρχεῖσθαι καὶ ᾄδειν. Compare Lac. Apophthegm, p. 223. and Hesychius in δωριάζειν.

1261 Plutarch. Lycurg. 16; and concerning the custom of Phigaleia, see Athen. IV. p. 248. sq.

1262 Aristoph. Nub. 986. The same is in Xenoph. de Rep. Lac. 2. 1.

1263 Aristoph. Av. 493. 49. where χλαῖνα and ἱμάτιον are used as synonymous. But that the χλαῖνα and τρίβων were different kinds of the ἱμάτιον is shown by the same poet, Vesp. 1132; λαῖνα ἱμάτιον τετράγωνον, according to Didymus.

1264 In Iliad X. 133. the χλαῖνα is however laid double, and fastened with a clasp (over the shoulder).

1265 Pollux VII. 13. 46. X. 27. 124; and compare Hemsterhuis’s note, Diogenianus Prov. V. 21. Vatic. Prov. II. 14. Lexicograph.

1266 According to Pollux and Ammonius. Fragm. 68, 69. pp. 82, 83. ed. Wolf.

1267 See Aristoph. Lysist. 988. where it is the dress of the envoys, as the φοινικὶς in the last note of the third book; and Juvenal Sat. VIII. 101.

1268 See Tischbein I. 29. and Vases de Coghill I. planche 36.

1269 I. 6. Compare Dionys. Halic. in Thucyd. 9.

1270 Minervæ Poliadis Ædes, p. 41.

1271 Also called δαμοφανὴς by the Lacedæmonians, because it was worn in public.

1272 See Meursius Miscell. Lacon. I. 15. Manso, Sparta, vol. I. part II. p. 197. The τρίβων could (as well as the χλαῖνα, p. 277, note b, [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “left shoulder,” starting “In Iliad X. 133.”]) be worn double, and be fastened with. a clasp, Polyæn. IV. 4. This more becoming variety of the ἱμάτιον, the χλαῖνα, was also worn at Sparta; see Theopompus the comic poet in Pollux X. 27. 124. Ἐξωμίδες φαῦλαι of the Lacedæmonians in Ælian V. H. IX. 34.

1273 Plat. Protag. 342. Aristot. Eth. Nic. IV. 7. 15. with Aspasius and the Paris Scholiast, p. 156. ed. Zell. Compare the Κρητικὸν ἱματίδιον in Hesychius.

1274 From the 12th year upwards, Plutarch Lycurg. 16.

1275 Lac. Instit. p. 247. Lac. Apophth. p. 178. Xenoph. Rep. Lac. 2. 4. Justin III. 3. Likewise in Crete, Heraclid. Pont. 3. Ephorus ap. Strab. X. p. 483.

1276 Hence the Attic orators, in early times at least, never showed their left hand, Taylor ad Æschin. in Timarch. p. 59.

1277 De Rep. Lac. 3. 5. quoted by Longinus περὶ ὕψους IV. i. p. 114.

1278 See Boettiger’s opinions on this subject, Raub der Cassandra, pp. 74: sqq. Archäologie der Mahlerei I. p. 211. Vasengemälde I. 2. p. 37. and Uhden’s Letter, II. p. 65.

1279 Ἰσοδὶαιτοι, Thucyd. I. 6. Justin. III. 3.

1280 Athen. XV. pp. 686 sq. Plutarch. Lac. Apophth. p. 224. Seneca Quæst. Nat. IV. 13. This ancient notion may also be traced in the use of the words φθείρειν, μιαίνειν, to corrupt, for to dye or to colour.

1281 Δολερὰ μὲν τὰ ἕιματα, δολερὰ δὲ τὰ χρίματα, Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 294 Sylburg. Herodotus indeed (III. 22.) quotes the same saying of an Ethiopian king, comp. Plutarch. Quæst. Rom. 26. p. 327. Sympos. III. I, 2. p. 109. de Herod. Malign. 28. p. 312.; but the expression has a genuine Spartan character.

1282 A law of Diocles, according to Phylarchus ap. Athen. XII. p. 521 B. for Zaleucus see Heyne Opusc. Acad. vol. II. p. 33. for Sparta, Heraclid. Pont. Clem. Alex. Protrept. II. 10. p. 119. Sylburg. cf. Ælian. V. H. XIV. 7.

1283 Plato Comicus ap. Aspas ad Aristot. Eth. Nic. IV. 7. 15. (see Porson’s Tracts, p. 232). χαίροις, οἶμαι, μεταπεττεύσας αὐτὸν διακλιμακίσας τε, τὸν ὑπηνόβιον, σπαρτιοχαίτην, ῥυποκόνδυλον, ἑλκετρίβωνα. ἕλκοντες ὑπήνας. Aristoph. Lys. 1072. Compare the statue of Lysander in Plut. Lys. I.

1284 See above, p. 129, note s. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “obey the laws,” starting “Aristot. ap. Plutarch.”] Wyttenbach ad Plutarch. de Sera Num. Vind. p. 25. thinks that the Lacedæmonians also shaved their upper lip; but his, as well as Ruhnken’s emendation of Antiphanes ap. Athen. IV. p. 143 A. is very violent.

1285 Athen. XII. p. 565 C.

1286 Aristoph. Av. 1283. Eccles. 74. Their use was only prohibited in the public assembly, Plutarch Lycurg. II.

1287 Herod. III. 137. Aristot. in Ἰθακ. πολιτ. ap. Phot. in σκυτάλη. See the paintings on vases.

1288 Xen. Rep. Lac. II. 3. Plutarch. Lycurg. 22. Previously they were accustomed ἐν χρῷ κείρεοσθαι, cap. 16. which is sometimes also described as the general Spartan usage. Plutarch. Alcib. 23. de Discrim. Adul. et Am. 10. p 170.

1289 Antiochus ap. Strab. VI. p. 278. Aristot. Ret. I. 9. 26.

1290 The manner in which Herodotus (I. 82.) accounts for this, is rendered doubtful by Plutarch. Lysand. I. cf. Lycurg. 22. reg. Apophth. p. 124, 125. Lac. Apophth. p. 226, 230. Æginetica, p. 32, note o. In Crete the cosmi at least wore long hair, according to ancient custom, Seneca Controv. IV. 27. On the short hair of the Argives, see Herodotus and Plato Phædon. p. 89. J. Tzetzes Jamb. 161.

1291 See Σπαρτιοχαίτης in the verses cited above, p. 280, note x. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “ornament of a man,” starting “Plato Comicus Ap. Aspas.”]

1292 Compare Aristoph. Lys. 1113. παραπυκίδδειν with Horace Od. II. II. incomptam Lacænæ More comam religata nodo, i.e., as Diana is generally represented in works of art. That the women were not allowed to wear long hair (κομᾶν, Heraclid. Pont. 2.), is a statement which must not be construed strictly. A lock of hair dedicated to the gods was called ἱέρωμα, according to the correction of Hemsterhuis in Hesychius: but Toup is probably correct in defending the common reading ἱερόβατον, Emend. in Suid. vol. II. p. 607. Spartans were distinguished not merely by their mode of wearing the hair, but also by the shoes, Paus. VII. 14. 2. Shoes for state occasion were the ἀμυκλαΐδες, and for common wear the ἁπλαῖ Λακωνικαὶ, above, p. 25, note n. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “shoes of Amyclæ,” starting “Theocrit. X. 35.”] Argive, Rhodian (Pollux VII. 22. 88.) and Sicyonian ἔμβαδες likewise occur (Lucian. Ret. Præc. 15. Lucretius IV. 1121. Eustath. ad Hom. p. 1302. 22. ed. Rom.).

1293 See the passages collected by Thiersch, Act. Mon. vol. III. p. 273 sqq. Also Phocylides ἔρματα λοξὰ κορύμβων and Nicol. Dam. p. 51 Orelli, of a Smyrnæan κόμην τρέφων χρυσῷ στρόφῳ κεκορυμβωμένην.

1294 Thuc. IV. 34. Comp. Pollux. I. 149. Erotian. Lex. Hippocrat. Meursius Miscell. Lac. I. 17.

1295 B. III. ch. 12. § 10.

1296 Bentley Phalarid. p. 347. Lips. Bergler. ad Alciphr. I. 36. 12.

1297 Plutarch. Lysand. 2. reg. Apophth. p. 127. Lac. Apophth. p. 200, where Archidamus the son of Agesilaus is meant, and afterwards too he is often confounded with the son of Zeuxidamus, Apostol. X. 48. In later times, however, διαφανῆ Λακωνικὰ are mentioned as a luxurious dress, Dio Chrysost. ad Es. vol. VI. p. 45 A. ad Matth. Hom. vol. VII. p. 796. B. ed. Montfaucon. On the Argive dresses τήβεννος and κλεοβίνικος see Pollux VII. 13. 61. and his commentators. The ἀφάβρωμα was an old-fashioned gown of the Megarian women, Plutarch Qu. Gr. 16. p. 383.

1298 Xen. Hell. V. 4. 28. Plutarch Alcib. 23.

1299 See particularly Martial Epigr. VI. 42. Casaubon ad Strab. III. p. 231. p. 663. ed. Friedemann.

1300 This explains away the contradiction which Manso finds, vol. I. 2. p. 199.

1301 V. 305. which passage would also apply to the syssitia of Sparta.

1302 Who abolished them as an institution favourable to aristocracy, Aristot. Polit. V. 9. 2. They were still in existence in the time of Archias, see vol. I. p. 129 note f. The σύσσιτος, of Æthiops, in the passage of Athenæus, is evidently his regular messmate. We may also mention the δημοσιαι θοῖναι of the Argives, at which the ancient clay vessels (Herod. V. 88.) were still used. Polemon ap. Athen. XI. p. 483 C. cf. p. 479 C. IV. p. 148 F.

1303 Aristot. Pol. VII. 9. 2, 3.

1304 Harmodius on the laws of Phigaleia ap. Athen. IV. p. 148 F. comp. in general Plutarch Quæst. Sympos. II. 10. 2. Thirlwall, Hist. of Greece, vol. I. p. 287, has rightly remarked that the description of Harmodius refers only to the maintenance of two choruses in Phigalia.

1305 Book III. ch. 6. § 9.

1306 But upon hard benches without cushions, in robore. Cicero pro Muræna 35. Athen. XII. p. 518 F. cf. IV. p. 142 A. Plutarch Lycurg. 18. Suidas in φιλίτια et Λυκοῦργος, Isidorus Orig. XX. 11. It was not till the reign of Areus and Acrotatus, that soft and expensive cushions were used at the public tables. Phylarchus ap. Athen. IV. p. 142 A.

1307 Heraclid. Pont. 3. Pyrgion ap. Athen. IV. p. 143 F. Varro ap. Serv. ad Æn. VII. 176.

1308 B. III. ch. 2. § 4. Foreign cooks were not tolerated at Sparta, as is particularly stated of Mithæcus by Maximus Tyrius VII. 22. ed. Davies.

1309 Ælian. V. H. XIV. 7. There was a separate broth-maker (ζωμοποιὸς) for the king, Plutarch. Lac. Apophth. p. 214.

1310 Heraclid. Pont. 2. who perhaps says too generally, πέττει σῖτον οὐδείς (πέττειν is said of ἄρτος made of ἄλευρα as μάττειν of μᾶζα made ἄλφιτα). Comp. Dicæarchus ap. Athen. IV. p. 141 A. Plutarch Alcib. 23.

1311 Book III. ch. 10. § 6. Varieties of ἄρτος were also eaten at the κοπὶς, Molpis ap. Athen. IV. p. 140 A. cf. p. 139 A. B. Hesychius in κοπὶς, βέσκεροι ἄρτοι, and πητεῖται πιτυρίαι ἄρτου. There was a Lacedæmonian kind of barley, Theophrast. Hist. Plant. VIII. 4. Siligo Lacedæm. Plin. H. N. XVIII. 20. IV. 4.

1312 B. II. ch. 10. § 4.

1313 Theocrit. Id. XXIV. 136. Schol. Apoll. Rhod. I. 1077.

1314 Plutarch Lycurg. 12. comp. Meurs. Miscell. Lac. I. 8.

1315 Ælian V. H. III. 31.

1316 Dicæarchus ubi sup. A little pig was called by the Lacedæmonians ὀρθαγορίσκος, Athen. p. 140 B. see Hesychius in βορθαγορίσκος et ἡμιτύγια above p. 110. note y. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “days of each month,” starting “Herod. ubi sup.”]

1317 Ἀφέδιτοι ἡμέραι, according to Hesychius. cf. in διαφοίγιμόρ.

1318 See Critias the Athenian in Athen. X. p. 432 D sq. comp. XI. p. 463 C. Xen. Rep. Lac. 5. 4, 5. Plutarch Lac. Apophth. p. 172. In Crete however the whole table drank from one large goblet, Dosiadas ap. Athen. IV. p. 143. Eustath. ad Od. p. 1860. 45.

1319 Pseudo-Plat. Min. p. 320. comp. Leg. I. p. 637 A. from which passage it also follows that all the inhabitants of Laconia were prohibited from attending drinking entertainments (συμπόσια). The Dionysia at Sparta were also more serious than elsewhere, Plut. ubi sup. Athen. IV. p. 155 D.

1320 Xen. Rep. Lac. 5. 7. Plutarch Lycurg. 12.

1321 B. III. ch. 10. § 7. In Sparta the guests, as in the time of Homer, were called δαιτύμονες, Alcman ap. Strap. X. p. 482. fragm. 37. ed. Welcker. Herod. VI. 57. and a κρεοδαίτης presided at the meal (above, p. 251, note r. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “volunteers in the army,” starting “Xen. Rep. Lac. 13. 7.”] comp. Plutarch Quæst. Sympos. II. 10. 2. p. 102. Pollux VI. 7. 34.), as a δαιτρὸς in ancient times; each guest in Sparta having a certain portion or mess allotted to him.

1322 See Plutarch Lycurg. 12. Schol. Plat. Leg. I. p. 229. ed. Ruhnken. p. 449. ed. Bekker.

1323 B. III. ch. 12. § 4. It is to this that Dionysius Hal. refers, when he says that the Phiditia made men ashamed to leave their comrades in the field of battle, with whom they had sacrificed and made libations, Ant. Rom. II. 23. p. 283. ed. Reisk.

1324 Persæus ap. Athen. IV. p. 140 F. and see below, p. 288, note k. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “vegetables (ἀβαμβάκευστα),” starting “Pyrgion ap. Athen.”]

1325 Plutarch Quæst. Sympos. VII. 9. p. 332. calls them in a certain sense βουλευτήρια ἀπόῤῥητα καὶ συνέδρια ἀριστοκρατικά, and compares them with the Prytaneum and Thesmothesium of Athens.

1326 B. III. ch. 10. § 6. The only ἐπάϊκλον eaten by boys was some dough of barley-meal baked in laurel leaves (καμματίδες), and kneaded in oil (Hesychius in ἁμφιμάντορα, ἀμφίτοροι); a cake of this kind was called κάμμα, and from its use παλλιχιὰρ, Meursius Misc. Lac. I. 12.

1327 Athen. IV. p. 138 B. comp. Herod. VI. 57. Perhaps Alcman describes a κοπὶς in the following verses, Κλίναι μὲν ἑπτὰ καὶ τόσαι τράπεσδαι Μακωνίδων ἄρτων ἐπιστεφοῖσαι Λίνω τε σασάμω τε κἠν πελίχναις Παίδεσσι χρυσοκόλλα, fragm. 17. ed. Welcker.

1328 Xen. Rep. Lac. 5, 6. and above, p. 287, note b. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “aristocratical principles,” starting “Plutarch Quæst. Sympos.”] Concerning Crete, see Dosiadas ubi sup.

1329 Critias ubi sup. Plutarch Lycurg. 12.

1330 Φοίναις δὲ καὶ ἐν θιάσοισιν ἀνδρείων παρὰ δαιτυμόνεσσι πρέπει παιᾶνα κατάρχειν, fragm. 31. ed. Welcker.

1331 It is very probable that this φειδίτια was a ludicrous distortion of an ancient Spartan name φιλίτια, i.e., “love-feasts.”

1332 Alcman ubi sup. Ephorus ap. Strab. X. p. 482. Aristot. Polit. II. 7. 3. The word αἷκλα is also used by Epicharmus for δεῖπνα.

1333 Pyrgion ap. Athen. 143. E. and Casaubon’s note. Ephoras ap. Strab. X. p. 483 A. For Sparta, see Alcman quoted in p. 288 note d. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “particularly the kings,” starting “Athen. IV.”] Plutarch Lycurg. 12. Quæst. Græc. 33. p. 332. Concerning the Phigalean custom, see Athen. IV. p. 148 F. From the passage quoted in p. 287 note a, [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “state in itself,” starting “Persæus ap. Athen.”] it also follows that guests of inferior rank sat ἐπὶ τοῦ σκιμποδίου, as was also the custom among the Macedonians, according to Athen. I. p. 18 A. Wyttenbach. Miscell. Doctr. v. 3. ad Plat. Phæd. Addit. p. 234.

1334 This follows from Plat. Leg. VI. p. 780 D, p. 781 A. comp. Plutarch Lycurg. 12. Lac. Apophth. p. 221. παρὰ τῇ γυναικὶ (i.e., at home) δειπνεῖν. See also Lycurg. 26. Sosibius περὶ Ἀλκμᾶνος ap. Athen. XIV. p. 646 A. speaks of banquets of the women at Sparta, at which certain cakes (κριβάναι) were carried, when they were about to sing the praise of the virgin, probably at marriages. Aristotle Polit. II. 7. 4. says that in Creta the women also were fed at the public cost, not that they ate in public.

1335 Dosiadas ap. Athen. p. 143 B. with the assistance of some men τῶν δημοτικῶν. Does he mean Periœci or Mnotæ? Young women were used as cup-bearers among the Dorians, above, p. 276 note u. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “wine to the labourers,” starting “Pythænetus ap. Athen.”]

1336 Dosiadas and Pyrgion ubi sup. Heraclid. Pont, and see the decree of the Olontians in Chishull’s Antiq. Asiat. p. 137. cf. p. 131, 134.

1337 Damasc. ap. Phot. Biblioth. p. 1037. Suidas in ἄθρυπτος et Δωριοσ. Δωριοσ οικονεμια in Diog. Laërt. IV. 3. 19. for a plain rough mode of living.

1338 Συρακοσίων et Σικελῶν τράπεζα, Athen. XII. p. 518 B. p. 527 C. Zenob. Prov. V. 94. Suidas Erasm. Adag. II. 2. Σικελικὸς κότταβος Anacreon ap. Athen. X. p. 427. fragm. p. 374. ed. Fischer. The Σικελικὸς βίος is opposed to the Δωριστὶ ζῆν in the 7th (spurious) Platonic Epistle, p. 336.

1339 See, among others, Timæus fragm. 76. p. 271, ed. Goeller. The Argives and Tirynthians were reproached for their debauchery, Ælian. V. H. III. 15. Athen. N. p. 442. D.

1340 See Æginetica p. 188.

1341 See above, p. 266 note d. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “from the street,” starting “Towards the street.”] In Crete it was called βοωνία, Hesych. in v.

1342 Dionys. Halic. XX. 2. ed. Mai.

1343 According to the supposed saying of Lycurgus, “first make a democracy in thine own house.” Plutarch Lycurg. 19. reg. Apophth. p. 124. Lac. Apophth. p. 225.

1344 See particularly Eurip. Androm. 596.

1345 Κόροις καὶ κόραις κοινὰ τὰ ἱερά. Plutarch Inst. Lac. p. 254. above ch. 2. § 2.

1346 Eustath. ad Od. p. 1166. So also the Arcadians had, according to Polybius IV. 21. 3. (though not for the reason which he assigns) συνόδους κοινὰς καὶ θυσίας πλείστας ὁμοίως ἀνδράσι καὶ γυναιξὶ, ἔτι δὲ χοροὺς παρθένων ὁμοῦ καὶ παίδων. The unrestrained manners, and the public games and dances of the virgins of Ceos (Plutarch Mul. Virt. p. 277. Antonin. Liber. met. 1.), probably were derived from a Cretan custom (see above, p. 236. note q. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “with an axe,” starting “Heracl. Pont. 7.”]), and certainly one prior to the Ionic migration.

1347 Plutarch Lycurg. 14. comp. Welcker ad Alcman. frag. p. 10.

1348 VI. 61, 65.

1349 Polycrates ap. Athen. IV. p. 139 F. Xenoph. Ages. 8. 7. with Casaubon’s restoration from Plutarch. Ages. 19. Hesychius in κάνναθρα, Eustathius ad Il. XXIV. p. 1344. 44. Schol. ad Aristoph. Vesp. 413. The temple of Helen, mentioned by Hesychius in κάνναθρα, is that at Therapne, above the Phœbæum, of which Herodotus speaks, VII. 61.

1350 Λακεδαιμονίην τε γυναῖκα in the oracle; and how, in the Lysistrata of Aristophanes, the Athenian women admire the lusty and vigorous beauty of Lampito. comp. Athen. XII. p. 609 B.

1351 Heracl. Lembus ap. Athen. XIII. p. 566 A.

1352 If the father and grandfather died, the right, even in Doric states, e.g., in Cyrene, passed to the brothers, Plutarch Mul. Virt. p. 303. Polyæn. VIII. 41.

1353 Plutarch Lycurg. 15. Lac. Apophth. p. 224. Xen. de Rep. Lac. I. 5. The account of Hermippus in Athenæus XIII. p. 555 C. is absurdly disfigured. The same is true of Hagnon, ibid. XIII. p. 602 E. This explains the statement of Herodotus VI., 65. that Demaratus obtained possession of Percalus the daughter of Chilon, who was betrothed to Leotychides, by previously carrying her away by force, φθάσας ἁρπάσας. In later times, whoever ravished a virgin at Sparta (as also at Delphi, Heliodorus IV. p. 269.) was punished with death, Xenoph. Ephes. V. 1; and compare Marcellinus on Hermogenes, although this account does not belong to the age of which we treat.

1354 Plutarch. Cleom. 38.

1355 Strabo X. p. 482 D. from Ephorus.

1356 According to Hesychius. Homer. Il. XVI. 180. calls Eudoxus a παρθένιος, τὸν ἔτικτε χορῷ καλὴ Πολυμήλη, which I explain thus: she produced him “in the chorus,” i.e., while she yet belonged to the ἀγελὴ of the virgins. The passage is quoted by Dio Chrysost. Or. VII. p. 273., who also speaks of the Lacedæmonian παρθενίαι.

1357 Justin. III. 4. Nulli pater existebat cujus in patrimonium successio speraretur.

1358 Book I. ch. 6. § 12. The common narrative of Ephorus is repeated by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and is evidently invented to account for the name Παρθενίαι, which Antiochus declines to explain.

1359 Xen. Rep. Lac. I. 6. Plutarch Lyc. 15. Comp. Num. 4. Lac. Apophth. p. 224.

1360 Hesychius in v.

1361 Op. et Di. 695.

1362 Leg VIII. p. 785. Aristotle indeed (Polit. VII. 16.) gives 37 years as the most fitting time for marriage in a man; which number Larcher (Chronologie d’Herodote) has no reason to suppose borrowed from the laws of Laconia. The Trœzenians were forbidden by the oracle from making early marriages, Aristot. Pol. VII. 14. 4.

1363 See Plutarch Lyc. 15. Lysand. 13. de Amore prol. 2. Lac. Apophth. p. 223. Clearchus ap. Athen. XIII. p. 555 C. Pollux III. 48. VIII. 40. Stobæus Serm. 65. Clem. Alexand. Strom. II. p. 182. compare Schläger’s Præfat. ad Dissertat. Helmst. 1744. p. 10. It is most singular that the cowards (τρεσάντες) to whom every man denied his daughter, were punished for not marrying, Xen. Rep. Lac. 9. 5.

1364 Pollux VIII. 40.

1365 Plutarch de Herod. Malign. 32. p. 321. Lac. Apophth. p. 216. fragm. p. 355.

1366 Plutarch Pyrrh. 28. See B. III. ch. 10. § 3. concerning the ius trium liberorum in Sparta.

1367 Καὶ πολλὰ μὲν τοιαῦτα συνελώρει, Xen. Rep. Lac. I. 9. Later writers often give fabulous accounts of this point, particularly Theodoretus Græc. Affinit. 9.

1368 B. III. ch. 10. § 4.

1369 See the saying of Geradates in Plutarch Lyc. 15. Lac. Apophth. p. 225. comp. Justin. III. 3. The νόθοι in Xen. Hell. V. 3. 9., who were a separate class, but shared in the education of the Spartans, probably were composed of a mixture of different ranks, and certainly were not the offspring of a regular stuprum. At Rhodes, according to Schol. Eurip. Alcest. 992, the νόθοι were called μαστρόξενοι, i.e. those who at a public scrutiny (called at Athens διαψήφισις) were rejected from the lists of citizens. The investigation was perhaps conducted by the μάστροι, Hesych. in v. comp. Harpocrat. μαστῆρες.

1370 Herod. V. 39, 40.

1371 Plutarch Agid. 11.

1372 The history of women in the heroic age has been better treated by Lenz, than by Meiners in his Geschichte des Weiblichen Geschlechts; although even he has many prejudices, e.g., that women are always improved by education, the reverse of which was the case in Greece. Lenz (p. 64.) correctly remarks, that in Homer the manners of unmarried are represented as less restrained than those of married women; although their intercourse with men was more free than among the Dorians. Comp. p. 143.

1373 I. 146.

1374 Though she lived in the interior of the house, as is proved by the Doric term for a wife, μεσόδομα: see Hesych. in οἰκέτις, Theocrit. Id. XVIII. 28. and compare the sayings of Aregeus in Plutarch Lac. Apophth. p. 198. of Euboidas, p. 205. and of the Lacedæmonian woman, p. 262. who being asked what she understood, answered, εὖ οἰκεῖν οἶκον.

1375 Plutarch. Lyc. 14.

1376 Vol. I. p.

1377 Polit. II. 6. 8. and in Plutarch Lyc. 14. At that time moreover the manners of the Spartan women had really degenerated, and a considerable licence (ἄνεσις) prevailed, Aristot. Polit. II. 6. 5. Plat. Leg. I. p. 637. Dion. Hal. Hist. Rom. II. 24.

1378 Plutarch Lyc. 14. Comp. Num. 3. Aristotle also (Polit. II. 6, 7.) speaks of their influence on the government in the time of the ascendency of Sparta; it increased still more, when a large part of the landed property fell into the hands of women. The singular assertion of Ælian V. H. XII. 34. that Pausanias loved his wife, has been correctly interpreted by Kühn to mean a too great, or uxorious affection; and so likewise Menelaus appears to have been represented, see, e.g., Aristoph. Lysist. 155.

1379 Πολλὰ λέγειν ὄνυμ᾽ ἀνδρὶ, γυναικὶ δὲ πᾶσι χαρῆναι, fragm. 13. ed. Welcker. comp. Franck’s Tyrtæus p. 173 and 203.

1380 See, e.g., Plutarch Cleom. 38.

1381 Plato Alcib. I. p. 41. Plin. H. N. VII. 41. Compare the saying of Gorgo in Plutarch Lac. Apophth. p. 258.

1382 The Bœotian poetesses, however, Corinna and Myrto, and Diotima the Arcadian (concerning whom see Frederick Schlegel, Griechen und Roemer, vol. I. p. 275.), were on the rank of Doric women; although in Bœotia the female sex was very much restricted, and placed under the superintendence of γυναικονόμοι (as under the ἁρμόσυνοι at Sparta, ch. 7. § 8.), Plutarch Solon. 21.

1383 See b. II. ch. 10. § 7. Aristoph. Lys. 90. Plut. 149. et Schol. Suidas in ἑταῖραι Κορινθ and χοῖρος. Pollux IX. 6. 75. Κορινθιάζεσθαι τὸ μαστροπεύειν η ἑταῖρειν (see b. I. ch. 8. § 3.) Eustath. ad II. p. 290. 23. ed. Rom. and Anacreon XXXII. 10. whose poems are of the Achæan or Roman time. Compare also the Κορινθία κόρη in Plato de Rep. p. 404 D. Κορίνθια παῖς, Eurip. Sciron. ap. Poll. X. 7. 25. cf. IX. 6. 75. and Hemsterhuis, and the proverb in Suidas (XIV. 81. Schott.) Plutarch Prov. Al. 92. ἀκροκορίνθι ἔοικας χοιροπολήσειν. Compare Jacobs in the Attisches Museum, vol. II. part III. p. 137. Schiebel zur Kentniss der Alten Welt, vol. I. p. 177.—The women of Sicyon were, according to the βὶος Ἕλλαδος of Dicæarchus, exceedingly graceful in their carriage.

1384 Plutarch Lycurg. 17. Dionys. Hal. XX. 2. ed. Mai. Old men could punish persons conducting themselves improperly (ἀκοσμοῦντες) by striking them with their sticks.

1385 Εἰσπνήλας is probably the genuine form; see Callim. Fragm. 169. ed. Bentl. Etymol. Mag. p. 43. 34. p. 306. 24. Gudian. p. 23. 2. Orion, p. 617. 49. Εἴσπνηλος is used by Theocritus Id. XII. 13.

1386 Ælian V. H. III. 12. Ἐμπνεῖσθαι is the word used by Plutarch Cleom. 3.

1387 Vol. I. p. 5. Compare Etymol. Magn. p. 43. 31. Gudian. ubi sup. Ἀείτης was used by Aristophanes; see Bekker’s Anecd. p. 348. Tzetzes ad Lycophr. 459, and ἀΐτιας by Alcæus ap. Athen. p. 430 D. Alcman also called lovely young women ἀΐτας κόρας; see Schneider’s Lexicon in v. and Etymol. Gudian. p. 23. 3; also the Lexicon vocum peregrinarum in Valpy’s edition of Stephens’s Thesaurus, part XII. p. 492.

1388 Servius ad Æn. X. 325. adeo ut Cicero dicat in libris de re publica (p. 280. Mai.) opprobrio fuisse adulescentibus si amatores non haberent.

1389 Ælian III. 10.

1390 Plutarch Ages. 2. Lysand. 22.

1391 Plutarch Ages. 13. Reg. Apophth. p. 128. Lac. Apophth. p. 177.

1392 Xenoph. Hell. V. 4. 25.

1393 Plutarch Cleom. 3.

1394 Ib. c. 37.—The youth of Argilus, loved by Pausanias, cannot be mentioned among these, Thuc. I. 132. Nepos Pausan. 4.

1395 Ælian V. H. III. 10.

1396 Id. III. 12.

1397 Plutarch Lyc. 25.

1398 Xen. Hell. IV. 8. 39. Plutarch Reg. Apophth. quoted in note e, p. 301. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “also a hearer,” starting “Plutarch Ages. 13.”]

1399 See Plutarch Lac. Apophth. p. 209. In Bœotia also ἀνὴρ καὶ παῖς συζυγέντες ὁμιλοῦσιν, Xenoph. Rep. Lac. 2. 12.

1400 Plutarch Lycurg. 18. Ælian V. H. III. 10.

1401 Athen. XIII. p. 601 E. p. 602 F. from Timæus, Heraclid. Pont. 3. Heyne ad Apollod. III. 1. 2. Κρῆτες ἐρωτικώτατοι, together with the Lacedæmonians and Bœotians, Plutarch Amator. 17. p. 37.

1402 Athen. XV. p. 782 E.

1403 Ephorus ap. Strab. X. p. 483. Hesychius in φιλήτωρ.

1404 Ephorus ubi sup. Compare Plutarch de Educ. 14.

1405 Ephorus and Heraclides Ponticus. Arms were in Crete, according to Nicolaus Damascenus, the most honourable present that could be made. Concerning the cup, see Hermonax ap. Athen. XI. p. 502 B.

1406 Ælian V. H. III. 9. comp. N. A. IV. 1.

1407 Aristot. Polit. II. 9. 6, 7.

1408 Aristoph. Acharn. 774. Theocrit. Id. XII. 28. and Schol.

1409 According to Plato and Cicero (Leg. I. p. 636 B. Tusc. Quæst. IV. 34. comp. Boeckh ad Leg. p. 106.) This practice originated from the gymnastic exercises; a supposition probably not true in this general sense.

1410 Polit. II. 7. 5.—It is however true of Athens only, and not of the Dorians, that the love of the male supplied the place of that of the female sex.

1411 Welcker, Sappho von einem herrschenden vorurtheill befreit, p. 41. Confederates in arms are called Ἀχίλλήιοι φίλοι in the beautiful Fragment of Æolian lyric poetry, attributed to Theocritus, XXVIII. 34. Comp. Arrian. Peripl. Pont. p. 23.

1412 Cicero de Rep. IV. 4. Lacedæmonii ipsi cum omnia concedunt in amore juvenum præter stuprum, ienui sane muro dissæpiunt id quod excipiunt: complexus enim concubitusque permittunt.

1413 Ælian V. H. III. 12. On account of this provision the Lacedæmonian law is called ποίκιλος by Plato Sympos. p. 182. The purity of the Lacedæmonian custom is also attested by Xenophon, the best authority on Doric manners. Εἴ τις παιδὸς σώματος ὀρεγόμενος φανείη, αἴσχιστον τοῦτο θεὶς (ὁ Λυκοῦργος) ἐποίησεν ἐν Δακεδαίμονι μηδὲν ἧττον ἐραστὰς παιδικῶν ἀπέχεσθαι ἢ γονεῖς παίδων ἢ καὶ ἀδελφοὶ ἀδελφῶν εἰς ἀφροδίσια ἀπέχονται, de Rep. Lac. 2. 13; and see Schneider’s note. Plato however has a different opinion of it, Leg. I. p. 638. VIII. p. 836. The Cretan fell into worse repute than the Lacedæmonian custom, Plutarch de Educ. 14. Both however are praised as equally innocent by Maximus Tyrius, Diss. X. p. 113. The suspicions thrown upon it are perhaps to be entirely traced to the Attic comic poets; thus Eupolis ap. Athen. I. p. 17 D. Hesych. et al. Lexicog. in Κυσολάκων and λακωνίζειν. Comp. Suidas and Apostolius, XI. 73. Λακωνικὸν τρόπον περαίνειν.

1414 On the subject of this last part generally, see Meiners’ Miscellaneous Philosophical Writings, vol. I. p. 61, and History of the Female Sex, vol. I. p. 321. Herder’s Thoughts on the Philosophy of History, Works, vol. V. p. 173. Since the first publication of this work, the view of the above question taken in the text has been approved by Jacobs, Miscellaneous Works, III. Leben und Kunst der Alten, II. (1829) pp. 212, sqq.

1415 Lucian. Anach. 38. θῆλυς νεολαία Theocr. Idyl. XVIII. 24. Comp. D’Orville ad Charit. p. 22. Alberti ad Hesych. in v.

1416 Plutarch, Lycurg. 16. I have written house instead of tribe, as above, b. III. ch. 10. § 2.

1417 The philosopher Archytas is mentioned as the inventor of a child’s rattle, πλατάγη, Aristot. Polit. VIII. 6. 1. Apostol. XVI. 21.

1418 μίτυλλα, ἐσχατονήπια Hesychius.

1419 Plutarch, ubi sup.

1420 Concerning this expression see Plutarch, Ages. 1. Cleom. II. 37. Λακωνικὴ ἀγωγὴ Polyb. I. 32, also Zonaras and Suidas. The Λυκούργειος ἀγωγὴ was in later times supplanted by the Ἀχαϊκὴ παιδεία, the object of which was utility, Plutarch, Philop. 16. comp. Pausan. VII. 8. 3.

1421 According to the correct reading in Athen. VI. p. 271 E. These are the same as οἱ ἐκ τῆς ἀγωγῆς παῖδες: see above, p. 22. note p. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “assuredly had not,” starting “Χωρίτης.”] From the expression ὡς ἂν καὶ τὰ ἴδια ἐκποιῶσιν, we may infer that the fathers paid the expenses of education, which was observed in b. III. ch. 10, § 7.

1422 Xenoph. Hellen. V. 3. 9. τῶν ἐν τῆ πόλει καλῶν οὐκ ἄπειροι. The δημοτικὴ ἀγωγὴ in Polyb. XXV. 8. 1. is an inferior degree.

1423 See in particular Plutarch, Lac. Apophthegm. p. 243.

1424 Any one who when a boy would not undergo hard labour, according to Xen. Rep. Lac. 3. 3. had no longer any share τῶν καλῶν; i.e. the remaining education (τὰ καλὰ in Sparta; comp. Xenoph. Hellen. V. 4. 32, and above, note h [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “half-blood were admitted,” starting “Xenoph. Hellen.”]), and became ἀδοκιμος in the town, not ὅμοιος. Plutarch, Inst. Lac. p. 252, says too generally, that “any one who did not go through the education lost the right of citizenship; which conversely might be obtained by a stranger who submitted to it.”

1425 Plutarch, Ages. i.

1426 Plutarch, Lycurg. 16: comp. above, ch. 2. § 5.

1427 Photius in συνέφηβος, where for ἑξῆς δέκα read ἑκκαίδεκα. Schneider Lexicon in σκύθραξ proposes συνεύνας; but all these were in the Agelæ. More general names are derived from κόρος, e.g. κωραλίσκοι: see Hesych. in v. From thence the piece of Epilycus, the scene of which was laid in Sparta, had its title: see above, p. 288, note d, [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “particularly the kings,” starting “Athen. IV.”] κυρσανίον, Aristoph. Lysistr. 983. Schol. also Suidas, Photius in κυρσάνια, Hesych. in v. also in κύρσιον, σκύρθακες, σκυρθάκια: comp. Hesych. in σκύθραξ et σκυρθαλίας. Phot. in σκυρθάνια.

1428 In the second year after this period he was called Eiren, before it Melleiren, Plutarch, Lycurg. 17. Etym. Mag. and Gloss. Herodot. in εἴρην, Hesych. in ἰρίνες, ἴρανες, μελλίρην. Hesychius explains ἴρανες by ἄρχοντες, διώκοντες; and εἰρηνάζει to mean κρατεῖ, and this appears to be the original meaning of the word. Amompharetus, Callicrates, &c., the ἰρένες in Herod. IX. 85. were certainly not youths, but commanders, particularly Amompharetus, was lochagus of the Pitanatan lochus. After that same period he was called Proteires, Phot. p. 105. κατὰ πρωτεῖρας, Hesych. κατὰ πρωτῆρας. It appears that in this composition εἴρης is the same word as εἴρην.

1429 Pausan. III. 14. 6, and see Boeckh Inscript.

1430 Siebelis ad Pausan. ubi sup. and b. III. ch. 11. § 3.

1431 Above, b. III. ch. 3. § 4.

1432 Xen. Rep. Lac. 3. 5.

1433 Hesych. and Etym. Mag. in βουόα, where for ἀγλεῖ τις, read ἀγέλη τις, Valcken. ad Adon. p. 274.

1434 Xen. Rep. Lac. 2. 11. Plutarch, Lycurg. 16, 17. Inst. Lac. p. 248.

1435 At Tarentum, the commander of the ile was called βειλαρμόστας, the digamma being prefixed; see Hesych.

1436 See Hesych. in ἵππαρχος ἡνιοχαράτης, and according to Eustath. ad Il. θ᾽. p. 727. 22. not merely the 300 were called cavalry, but all the ἱππεῖς of the elders.

1437 Xen. Plutarch, ubi sup. uses the word agele instead of ile.

1438 Plutarch Lyc. 18.

1439 Xenoph. 2. 2. Plutarch. Hesych. According to Xen. 4. 6 the ἱππεῖς were still under the superintendence of the παιδονόμος.

1440 Xenoph. ubi sup.

1441 Hesych. where the βουάγορ is erroneously called παῖς. See b. III. ch. 7. § 8.

1442 Hesychius in ἄμπαιδες.

1443 Who were called κῶραι, πῶπαι, πάλλακες. For the first expression see Maittaire, p. 156. κόρα amongst the Pythagoreans. Jambl. Pyth. XI. 56. For the second, see Hesychius in v. where read κόραι. For the third see Etym. Mag. p. 649. 57.

1444 Theocrit. Idyll. XVIII. 23. comp. Pind. Fragm. Hyporch. 8. Boeckh, Callim. Lav. Pall. 33.

1445 In Porphyr. Pyth. VIII. 61. p. 263. Goeller: comp. Jambl. Pyth. 30.

1446 σκότιοι: see Schol. in Eurip. Alcest. 989. This also was the time in which the boys were taken away from home; see above, ch. 4. § 7; and from the circumstance of their belonging to no agele, they were called ἀπάγελοι, Hesych. in v.

1447 Ephorus ap. Strab. p. 483.

1448 Hesych. Ephorus ubi sup. and Nicol. Dam. mention indeed only a παίδων ἀγέλη, but use παῖς in an extensive sense.

1449 Chishull, p. 134.

1450 Ephor. ubi sup. Heracl. Pont. 3. From this circumstance, according to Hesychius, the ephebi in the agele were called ἀγελαστοὶ, for which Meursius reads ἀγελαῖοι from ἀγελάζω, without any authority.

1451 See book III. ch. 8. § 2.

1452 Suidas.

1453 οἱ δέκα ἔτη ἐν τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἠσκηκότες, according to the correction of Valcken. ad Ammon. I. 12.

1454 Eustath. ad II. θ᾽. p. 727. 18. ad Odyss. θ᾽. 1592, 57. Rom. Ammonius in gerôn.

1455 τριακάτιοι. Eustath. and Ammon. ubi sup. Hesych. in v. οἱ ἔφηβοι καὶ τὸ σύστημα αὐτῶν. comp. Intpp. vol. II. 1412. The observations of Mazocchi, Tab. Heracl. p. 258. 87. are very absurd.

1456 Hence a particular oil vessel used in the gymnasia was called Δωρὶς ὄλπα, Theocr. Idyll. II. 156. it was probably a very simple utensil, since the Spartans, instead of the στλεγγὶς, used a bundle of reeds, Schol. ad Plat. Charm. p. 90. Ruhnken. Plutarch. Inst. Lac. p. 253. Lobeck ad Phrynich. p. 430. remarks ingeniously that several vocabula musica, palæstrica et mititaria, even in the common Grecian dialect, had a Doric character, being particularly in use amongst the Dorians.

1457 Dion. Chrysost. Orat. 37. 33. Φιλογυμναστοῦσι Λάκωνες. The same is said in Plato Protag. p. 342. of the imitators of the Spartans, who also (contrary to the customs of their original) were addicted to the contest with the cæstus. Aristot. Polit. VIII. 3. 3. merely says, that the discipline to which the Spartan youth were subjected made them too brutal, θηριώδεις.

1458 Comp. what the Spartan in Plutarch. Lac. Apophthegm, p. 246. says concerning the distinction between κρείσσων and καββαλικώτερος, a better wrestler.

1459 Plutarch Lycurg. 19. reg. Apophthegm. p 125. Lac. Ap. p. 225. Seneca de Benef. V. 3. Xenophon’s remarks in Rep. Lac. 4. 6. on the boxing of the ἡβῶντες, do not apply to the gymnastic exercises.

1460 Plato, Laches, p. 183.

1461 Where it was without doubt connected with the military service, and a display of valour in the practice of war.

1462 Athen. IX. p. 154 D. The Mantinean ὁπλομαχία will account for a Mantinean being reported to have invented the ἐνόπλιος ὄρχησις, Plutarch. Num. 13. There was also a peculiar Μαντινικὴ ὅπλισις.

1463 Corsini, Diss. Agon. p. 127.

1464 Thus, as is his usual practice, Hermippus gives a fictitious account of the victory gained by the son of Chilon in the contest with the cestus at Olympia. Diog. Laert. I. 3. 5.

1465 Pausan. V. 8. 3. It is however surprising that the πένταθλον παίδων existed only in one Olympiad, viz. the 38th, when a Lacedæmonian obtained the victory.

1466 See the Grammarians in the proverb ὑπὲρ τὰ ἐσκαμμένα πηδᾷ.

1467 The Olympic conqueror, Philip of Croton, the friend of Dorieus the Spartan, was considered the most beautiful of the Greeks, Herod. V. 47. Cicero de Invent. II. 1. says of the Crotoniats as follows: “Quodam tempore Crotoniatæ multum omnibus corporis viribus et dignitatibus antesteterunt, atque honestissimas ex gymnico certamine victorias domum cum maxima laude retulerunt. Quum puerorum igitur formas et corpora magno hic (Zeuxis) opere miraretur: horum, inquiunt illi, sorores sunt apud nos virgines.” This is doubtless a correct description of the flourishing period of the youth of Croton: but it falls much before the time of Zeuxis.

1468 Strab. VI. p. 262. comp. Meiners, Geschichte der Wissenshaft, book III. ch. 2.

1469 Diagoras, his sons Damagetus, Acesilaus, Dorieus, and grandsons Eucles and Peisirrhodus; perhaps also Hyllus, see Boeckh Expl. Pind. Olymp. VII. p. 165.

1470 Æginetica, p. 141. see also Menand. de Encom. III. 1. p. 97. ed. Heeren.

1471 Boeckh Expl. Pind. Pyth. IV. p. 268. Pyth. V. p. 287. to which add Hesych. in ἐλαία.

1472 Boeckh Expl. Pind. Olymp. IV. p. 143.

1473 Olymp. XII. 20. comp. Boeckh Expl. p. 210.

1474 The Spartans were particularly fond of the mode of wrestling called κλιμακίζειν: see the verses of Plato the comic poet quoted above, p. 280, note x. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “ornament of a man,” starting “Plato Comicus Ap. Aspas.”] comp. Plut. Lac. Apophthegm. p. 241. The ἀπὸ τραχήλον γυμνάζεσθαι, Xen. Rep. Lac. 5. 9. appears to have required particular strength of neck. The Argives were dexterous ἑδροστρόφοι (throwers of crossbuttocks), Theocr. Idyll. XXV. 109.

1475 See b. I. ch. 4. § 3.

1476 Above, ch. 4. § 7.

1477 Above, § 3.

1478 See b. III. ch. 3. § 4.

1479 Xenoph. Anab. IV. 6. 14.

1480 Heracl. Pont. 2. Xen. Rep. Lac. 2, 6. Justin. III. 3. 6. 7 comp. Cicero apud Nonium in clepere. Gellius N.A. XI. 18. &c. Plutarch Lycurg. 17. does not state the reason accurately, comp. Inst. Lac. p. 249. Lac. Apophthegm, p. 239. The Schol. Plat. Leg. I. p. 225. ed. Ruhnken. 450. ed. Bekker. confound the cryptia with this institution.

1481 ὅσα μὴ κωλύει νόμος. Xenoph. Anab. ubi. sup. comp. De Rep. Lac. 2. 6. Cicero’s assertion de Rep. III. 9. Cretes latrocinari honestum putant should also be taken in a limited sense; comp. however Polyb. VI. 46. 1.

1482 B. II. ch. 9. § 6. Concerning the διαμαστίγωσις, comp. Plutarch Lycurg. 18. Inst. Lac. p. 254. Athen. VIII. p. 350 C. Lucian. Icarom. 16. Musonius apud Stob. Serm. 92. p. 307. Schol. ad Plat. Leg. I. p. 224. Ruhnken. p. 450. Bekker. Cic. Quæst. Tusc. V. 27. Seneca de prov. IV. To this add the passages in Manso I. 2. p. 183. Creuzer Init. Philos. Plat. II. p. 166. A βωμονίκης occurs in a Lacedæmonian inscription, Boeckh, No. 1364. I am not yet convinced of the truth of Thiersch’s conjecture, that the bronze statute of the youth at Berlin is of this character. I should rather take it to represent a conqueror in the pancration τῶν παίδων, in the attitude of returning thanks to Jupiter for his victory.

1483 Pausan. III. 14. 8. comp. II. 2. Plat. Leg. I. p. 633. Cic. Quæst. Tusc. 5-27. Lucian. Anach. 38. Plutarch Lac. Apophthegm. p. 239. Lacæn. p. 258. what Plato terms γυμνοπαιδιὰς, are in general exercises of naked boys in the heat of summer, comp. Schol. ad loc. and Suidas in Λυκοῦργος. The ἡβῶντες according to Xen. Rep. Lac. 4. 4. also fought with the selected three hundred wherever they encountered them.

1484 Ephor. apud Strab. X. p. 483. Heracl. Pont. 3.

1485 Xen. Rep. Lac. 5. 9. The Lacedæmonian ἀγωγὴ was in later times considered as a gymnastic education. Thus Phocion had his son brought up in the Lacedæmonian manner, and Alcibiades was at least nursed by Amycla, Plutarch Lycurg. 16. Schol. Plat. I. p. 77. Ruhnken.

1486 Herod. IX. 72. A Lacedæmonian strikingly resembled Hector, i.e. the ideal of heroic excellence, according to Plutarch Arat. 3.

1487 Nicol. Damasc.

1488 Plutarch Lycurg. 14. Lac. Apophthegm. p. 223. comp. Manso I. 2. p. 162. Respecting the exercise of running ἐνδριώνας, Welcker ad Alcm. p. 10 sq. The exercises, besides the gymnasia, are mentioned by a poet in Cic. Quæst. Tusc. II. 15. and referred to also in Aristoph. Lys. 117.

1489 Plato Theæt. p 162, 169. Plutarch Lycurg. 14. only says, that they witnessed the procession and dances of the young men.

1490 In Athen. XII. p. 550 D. comp. Ælian. V. H. XIV. 7.

1491 According to Isocr. Panath. p. 544. comp. Perizonius ad Ælian. V. H. XII. 50. That they learnt to read, is asserted by Plutarch Lycurg. 16. Inst. Lac. p. 247. but contradicted by a Soph. anon. in Orelli Opp. Mor. II. p. 214. The ancient simplicity of their manners is evident from the custom of cutting a staff (σκυτάλη) in pieces, and dividing the fragments, to be preserved as memorials of a contract entered into, Photius in σκυτάλη, and Schol. Aristoph. Av. 1284. from Dioscorides περὶ νομιμων. Concerning the schools of learning in Crete, see Heracl. Pont. 3. Ephor. apud Strab. X. p. 482. The most ancient Grecian letters appear also to have been called Doric, Suidas in Κόριννος.

1492 Ælian. V. H. II. 39. The same practice was enjoined by the laws of Lycurgus, see book I. ch. 7. § 3.

1493 Hence also δωρίζειν, to sing in the Doric style, Hesychius. A cithara strung so as to suit that measure was called a Δωρία φόρμιγξ. Pindar Olymp. I. 17. who also calls the rhythm which suited the Doric mode, Δώριον πέδιλον, Olymp. III. 5. and the whole together Δωρία κέλευθος ὕμνων, Fragm. Incert. 98.

1494 Plat. Lach. p. 188 D.

1495 Some endeavoured to explain this name by supposing that Thamyris was the inventor, who had contended with the Muses at Dorium, Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 307. comp. Fabric. Bibl. Græc. vol. I. p. 301.

1496 Vol. I. p. 351. note g. It was on this that Glaucus ap. Plutarch Music. 4. probably grounded his proof of the date of Terpander.

1497 According to the important testimony of Sosibius the Laconian, the musical contests at the Carnea were first instituted in Olymp. 26., and according to the catalogue of Hellanicus, Terpander was the first who gained the prize, Athen. XIV. p. 635. The Parian Marble ep. 35, places his new regulation of music at Sparta in Olymp. 33. 4. The other statements on the time of Terpander are far inferior to these in authority.

1498 Thus Pindar (ap. Athen. p. 635 D. fragm. Scol. 5. Boeckh.) says, that Terpander first heard at Lydian banquets the strings of the lyre sound in opposition to the high πηκτίς.

1499 For the whole of this, see Boeckh de Metric. Pindar. p. 238. and particularly Heraclid. Pont. ap. Athen. XIV. p. 624 D.

1500 See Athenæus, p. 632. from Heraclides Ponticus.

1501 The supposed Plutarch, in the learned and excellent Essay on music, c. 9.

1502 See Aristotle and Ælius Dionysius in Eustathius p. 741. 15. Heraclid. Pont. 2. Plutarch de Sera Num. Vind. 13. Hesychius in μετὰ Λέσβιον ᾠδὸν, Apostolius XII. 70. &c. According to Plutarch Mus. 6, the last of that school who appeared at the Carnea was Pericleitus, who lived before Hipponax. If so, Ælius Dionysius is wrong in mentioning Euænitides and Aristocleides, the latter of whom was certainly of a later date. Phrynis is altogether out of the question.

1503 Diod. fragm. II. p. 639. Plutarch Music. 42. Schol. Od. γ᾽. 267. ed. Buttman. Tzetzes Chil. I. 16. Marm. Par. ep. 35.

1504 Although he is said to have been first fined by the ephors on account of the number of the strings, Plutarch. Inst. Lac. p. 251. but the account is very confused. Yet Athenæus XIV. p. 628 D., when he says that the Spartans saved music three times, seems to allude to it.

1505 For the statements of Schol. Od. γ᾽. 267. and Eustathius ad 1. concerning an ancient Lacedæmonian named Demodocus, of Sipias a Dorian, of Abaris a Lacedæmonian, and of Probolus a Spartan, at the time of the migration of the Heraclidæ, are hardly worthy of the name of mythical.

1506 B. II. ch. 1. § 5.

1507 Concerning whom see Boeckh Expl. Pind. Ol. X. p. 197.

1508 Polymnestus wrote a poem to Thaletas for the Lacedæmonians (Paus. I. 14. 3.), probably after his death, and therefore he is unquestionably of a later date than Thaletas; he is called the contemporary of Sacadas, who flourished about the 48th Olympiad (588 B.C.), but was probably somewhat earlier. According to Plutarch Mus. 5. he was mentioned by Alcman, which does not agree, if this poet lived in Olymp. 27 (672 B.C.) where he is generally placed: but the other date of the ancient chronologists for Alcman, viz. Olymp. 42 (612 B.C.), is doubtless more correct.

1509 Glaucus ap. Plutarch. Mus. 10.

1510 Sosibius ap. Athen. XV. p. 678 B. also mentions songs of Thaletas at this festival, comp. Suidas in Θαλήτας. It seems however probable that the introduction here mentioned did not take place before the battle of Thyræa, about Olymp. 58. or 546 B.C., since much of the musical solemnities of the gymnopædia referred to this action, Athen. ubi sup. comp. Etymol. Mag. in γυμνοπαιδία, if we should there read with Manso, Sparta, vol. I. part 2. p. 211. Θυραίαν for Πύλαιαν, on which however there is some doubt. See vol. I. p. 309, note m.

1511 Plutarch Agis 10. Lac. Apophth. p. 205.

1512 According to Plutarch Agis 10. Inst. Lac. p. 251, and Cicero de Leg. II. 15. compare Dio Chrys. Or. XXXII. p. 382 B. ed. Reisk.

1513 Artemon ap. Athen. XIV. p. 636 E.

1514 III. 12. 8.

1515 Etymol. Mag. in σκιάς.

1516 Ap. Boeth. de Musica ad calc. Arati. Oxon. p. 66. Also in Casaubon on Athen. VIII. p. 613. (vol. IV. p. 611. Schweigh.), Scaliger on Manilius, Bulliald on Theon, Leopardus in his Observationes Criticæ, Gronovius Præf. ad Thes, Ant. Græc. vol. V. from a Cambridge MS., Chishull Ant. Asiat. p. 128, and with a collation of several Oxford manuscripts (Cleaver’s) Decretum Lacedæmoniorum contra Timotheum Milesium, Oxonii 1777; lastly, Payne Knight, Essay on the Greek Alphabet, sect. 7. and Porson, Tracts, p. 145. Mus. Crit. vol. I. p. 506.

1517 The following recension of the decree is made after the manuscripts, without any arbitrary introduction of laconisms; while the short vowels are every where retained, and even the singular Ι for Υ. Επειδε ὁ Τιμοθεορ ὁ Μιλησιορ παργινομενορ εν ταν ἁμετεραν πολιν ταν παλαιαν μοαν ατιμασδε, και ταν δια ταν ἑπτα χορδαν κιταριτιν αποστρεφομενορ πολιφονιαν εισαγον λιμαινεται ταρ ακοαρ τον νεον δια τε ταρ πολιχορδιαρ και ταρ καινοτατορ το μελεορ, αγεννε και ποικιλαν αντι ἁπλοαρ και τεταμεναρ αμφιεννιται ταν μοαν, επι χροματορ σινισταμενορ ταν το μελεορ διασκειαν αντι ταρ εναρμονιο ποτταν αντιστροφον αμοιβαν; παρακλετεις δε και εττον αγονα ταρ Ελεισινιαρ Δαματρορ απρεπε διεσκειασατο ταν τω μιτω διασκειαν ταν γαρ Σεμελαρ οδινα ουκ ενὀικα τορ νεορ διδακκε δεδοκται αρ περι τουτοιν τορ βασιλεαρ και τορ εφορορ μεμψατται Τιμοθεον, επαναγκαται δε και ταν ἑνδεκα χορδαν εκταμεν ταρ περιτταρ ὑπολιπομενον ταρ ἑπτα; ὁπορ ἑκαστορ το ταρ πολιορ βαρορ ὁρον ευλαβεται ετταν Σπαρταν επιφερεν τι τον με καλον ετον με ποτε ταραττιται κλεορ αγονον (according to Porson, ἢ τῶν μὴ ποτὶ τᾶρ ἀρετᾶρ κλέορ ἀγόντων.).

1518 B. II. ch. 10. § 4.

1519 In common Greek, ἐπὶ χρώματος συνιστάμενος τὴν τοῦ μέλεος διασκευὴν ἀντὶ τῆς ἐναρμονίου πρὸς τὴν ἀντίστροφον ἀμοιβήν.

1520 Thus, for example, we have ετων from ἔθος, the Laconian form of which was ΒΕΣΟΡ, Valcken. ad Theocrit. p. 282.

1521 For instance, ΜΟΥΣΩ has been written for μιτω (see Valckenær. p. 379.), without a shadow of probability; for κιταριτιν ΚΙΣΑΡΙΞΙΝ, for αμφιεννιται ΑΜΠΕΝΝΥΤΑΙ (from ἀμπέσαι, ἀμφιέσαι Hesychius), or ΑΜΠΙΓΕΝΝΥΤΑΙ (from βέστον, Etym. M. p. 193. 45. for ἔσθος Aristoph. Lys. 1090.); for ἐπαναγκάται ΕΠΑΝΑΓΚΑΑΙ from ποιηἁι, &c. &c.

1522 That it was a common practice to forge Spartan inscriptions is remarked by Valekenær. p. 257. The genuineness of this decree was first questioned by Villebrun ad. Athen. VIII. p. 352. and Heinrich Epimenides, p. 175.

1523 Plat. Leg. II. p. 660. cf. III. p. 680.

1524 Chishull Ant. Asiat. p. 121.

1525 A contemporary of Timotheus, Plutarch Mus. 21. Athen. VIII. p. 352 B.

1526 Plutarch Mus. 37.

1527 Boeckh Inscript. No. 1108. Plutarch Mus. 32. ascribes a moral judgment of music particularly to the Lacedæmonians, Mantineans, and Pelleneans.

1528 Max. Tyr. 4. p. 46. 21. p. 216. ed. Davis. cf. Cic. de Leg. II. 15.

1529 As was always the case in Arcadia, according to Polybius IV. 20. 7.

1530 Ap. Demosth. in Mid. p. 15. compare Buttmann’s Commentary, p. 35.

1531 Sosibius ap. Athen. p. 678 B.

1532 Pausan. III. 11. 7.

1533 Xen. Rep. Lac. IX. 5. ἐν χοροῖς εἰς τὰς ἐπονειδίστους χώρας ἀπελαύνεται.

1534 See the apophthegm of Damonides, Plutarch Reg. Apophth. p. 130. Lac. Apophth. p. 203. where however χοραγὸς is put instead of χοροποιὸς, which magistrate had the regulation of the choruses in general (Xen. Ages. 2. 17. Plutarch ubi sup. p. 173. but in Herodotus VI. 67. there is no reason to introduce him on conjecture); and the saying of Agesilaus, Plutarch Lac. Apophth. p. 173 (where however it is erroneously stated that Agesilaus was appointed king when a boy). The author of the Agesilaus attributed to Xenophon states, that Agesilaus, before the capture of Peiræum, returned home, though lame, in order to be conducted to his place by the choropœus at the pæan of the Hyacinthia; but he clearly confounds him with the Amycleans.

1535 Above, page 262, note g, [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “corresponding evolutions,” starting “For this reason.”] where I preferred the explanation of Hesychius to that of Suidas.

1536 Aristot. Polit. VIII. 6. 6.

1537 Plato Leg. II. p. 666.

1538 Pollux IX. 5. 41.

1539 Ap. Athen. XIV. p. 628 F. Schweighæuser asks who this poet Socrates was? I believe the passage is from the Προοίμιον, or Hymn to Apollo, which the philosopher composed when in prison.

1540 The cicada was considered as a musical animal, and sacred to Apollo.

1541 Ib. XIV. p. 633 A.

1542 Aristot. Polit. VIII. 5. and on the other hand see Chamæleon ap. Athen. IV. p. 184 D.

1543 Above, ch. 2. § 3. ch. 4. § 1. Hesychius φουλίδερ, παρθένων χορὸς, Δωριεῖς.

1544 Boeckh ad Pindar. fragm. p. 598.

1545 Plutarch Lycurg. 21. de amore sui 15. Lac. Inst. p. 251. Schol. Plat. Leg. I. p. 223. Ruhnken. p. 449. Bekker Zenobius, Apostolius, &c. They are said to have been instituted by Tyrtæus (Pollux IV. 15. 106), to whom Lycurgus in Leocrat. p. 162. 21. ascribes generally a large share in the education of youth at Sparta. It is from these of the Spartans that Plato copies his great choruses. Leg. II. p. 664 sqq.

1546 B. II. ch. 8. § 11, 13.

1547 Concerning these songs, see Athenæus IV. p. 181 B. where it is stated that tumbling (κυβιστᾶν) was a national custom in Crete, and in general Aristoxenus ap. Athen. XIV. p. 630 B.

1548 Above, ch. 4. § 1. Eustathius ubi sup. relates that Theseus danced thus with the seven youths and maidens to Cnosus. Compare Lobeck ad Soph. Aj. 698. Κνώσια ὀρχήματα.

1549 Lucian de Saltat. 12. See Meursius Orchestra, tom. V. p. 237.

1550 Ephorus ap. Strab. N. p. 481 D.

1551 Herod. VI. 129. compare Wesseling’s note.

1552 Athenæus I. p. 22 D.

1553 Pausan. IV. 33. 3.

1554 Herod. III. 131.

1555 Boeckh ad Pindar, fragm. inc. 88. Concerning Hierax, see below § 7. Ariston is also mentioned as an ancient flute-player of Argos, in an epigram of Simonides or Bacchylides, Brunck’s Analect. vol. I. p. 141. Gaisford’s Poet. Min. vol. I. p. 383. Neue Bacchyl. fragm. 61.

1556 Pausan. IV. 27. 4.

1557 Pausan. VI. 14. 5.

1558 See the ancient Epigram in Athenæus XIV. p. 629.

1559 B. II. ch. 10. § 6.

1560 Athen. V. p. 181 C.

1561 The ἰαμβίζειν is also elsewhere connected with this worship; compare Max. Tyr. Diss. XXI. p. 216. Davis, and the general expression σικελίζειν for ὀρχεῖσθαι, Theophrast. ap. Athen. I. p. 22 C. And Archilochus perhaps belonged to the colony in which the priestess Cleobœa brought the mystical rites of Demeter from Paros to Thasos.

1562 Particularly of Artemis Χιτωνέα, as appears from Athenæus p. 629 E. who was also originally Ionic, b. II. ch. 9. § 5.

1563 Athen. IV. p. 103.

1564 On which see Athen. p. 624 B.

1565 Pausan. II. 21. 3. Comp. Schol. Soph. Aj. 14. Eurip. Phœn. 1386. Athene was evidently the patron of the trumpeters, under the name Σάλπιγξ, at Argos (an allusion to which see in Æsch. Eum. 556. Soph. Aj. 17.), because she was tutelar deity of the flute-players; and this was also the case at Sparta. For it is plain from Polyænus I. 10. that the διαβατήρια were offered to Athene on the boundaries (b. III. ch. 12. § 5.) only because she presided over the flutes, by which the army was conducted.

1566 Athen. XII. p. 517 A. de XIV. p. 627 D. Plutarch Mus. 26.

1567 Polyb. IV. 20. 6. Athen. XIV. 626. Plutarch ubi sup. Lucian de Saltat. 10. Dio Chrysost. Or. XXXII. p. 380. Reisk. Gell. N. A. I. 11. Eustath. ad Il. ψ᾽. p. 1320. 3. ed. Rom.

1568 Fragm. 14. ed. Welcker. Pausanias III. 17. 5. mentions flute, lyre, and cithara together. The fabulous narration of Polyænus appears to me to be historically refuted by Alcman, as also by that remarked in b. II. ch. 8. § 11.

1569 Polyb. IV. 20. 6. Compare Strabo X. p. 483 B.

1570 B. III. ch. 2. § 4. ch. 12. § 5, 10.

1571 V. 70. See Lucian de Saltat. 10.

1572 The Ἀδώνιον was one kind of the ἐπιβατήρια, according to Hesyehius, whose gloss ὅπερ ὕστερον παρὰ Λεσβίοις ὠνομάσθη, as well as the name itself, is by no means clear. Ἐνόπλια μέλη ἐμβατήρια in Athenæus XIV. p. 630 F. Valckenaer ad Theocrit. Adon. p. 283. is also of opinion that the σαρσίτειος χορὸς to the flute was an ἐμβατήριον (from θαρρεῖν); but an ἐμβατήριον was not a chorus.

1573 Plutarch de Mus. 26. Lycurg. 22. where however the Καστόρειον μέλος of the flute-players is distinguished from the ἐμβατήριος παιᾶν, in which the king joined (on the other hand Polyænus I. 10. ἐμβατήριον ἐνδίδωσιν αὐλὸς); Καστόρειον generally being used for the music of instruments, and ἐμβατήριον the song itself.

1574 Pollux IV. 10. 78.

1575 Messeniacum metrum seu embaterium, Victorinus, p. 2522. ed. Putsch. Comp. Hephæst. pag. 25. 46, 1. ed. Gaisford. Schol. Eurip. Hec. 59. and Demetrius Triclinius ad Soph. Aj. 134. Cic. Quæst. Tusc. II. 16.

1576 Plutarch Inst. Lac. p. 251. Valer. Maxim. II. 6. 2.

1577 Pindar. Pyth. II. 69. Hermann de Dial. Pind. p. 19, 20. Boeckh de Metr. Pind. p. 276. Expl. Pyth. II. p. 249.

1578 Isthm. I. 16.

1579 B. II. ch. 10. § 8. A third supposition is that of the Scholiast to Pindar, Pyth. II. 127, that the νόμος took its name from the Dioscuri, as being the inventors of the Pyrrhic dance (comp. Plat. Leg. VII. p. 795. Lucian de Saltat. 10.) But in the Μῶσαι of Epicharmus (ap. Schol. Pind. et Athen. p. 184 F.) it was only stated that Minerva played the flute for the Dioscuri to the ἐνόπλιος νόμος (i.e. the Pyrrhic), and hence that the flute was used as a military instrument at Sparta; but not a word of the Καστόρειος νόμος.

1580 As, for instance, ἄγετ᾽ ὦ Σπάρτας εὐάνδρου in Dion Chrysost. Orat. II. p. 31 A. ed. Reisk.; although, according to Hephæstion, the laconicum metrum was a tetrameter catalecticus in syllabam, with a spondaic ending; and according to M. Victorinus ubi sup. a trimeter catalecticus in syllabam.

1581 B. III. ch. 12. § 4.

1582 This very precise and credible account is given by Philochorus ap. Athen. p. 630. Lycurgus in Leocrat. p. 212. ed. Reisk. states, that it was sung at the king’s tent before the battle. Compare Manso’s Sparta, vol. I. part II. p. 171. Conrad Schneider in the Studien, vol. IV. p. 18. Franck’s Tyrtæus, p. 133.

1583 Hesych. in ἰβυκτήρ. Write ἰβυκτήρ. ἦν παρὰ Κρησὶν Ἴβυκος ἐμβατήριον ποιησάμενος, ὅπερ ὁ ἄδων οὕτω ἐκαλεῖτο.

1584 Book III. ch. 12. § 10.

1585 Ib. notes.

1586 Plato Leg. VII. p. 795. Aristoxenus ap. Athen. p. 630 E. Strab. X. p. 467. Nicol. Damasc. Κρῆτες. Lucian de Saltat. 8. Schol. Pindar. Pyth. II. 127. Hesychius in πυῤῥιχίζειν. Pollux IV. 14. 99. derives two ἔνοπλοι ὀρχήσεις from Crete, the Pyrrhic and the Telesias, comp. Athen. p. 630 A; and from Athen. p. 629 C. it appears that there were there also the similar dances of ὀρσίτης and ἐπικρηνίδιος.

1587 See Hoeck’s Kreta, vol. I. p. 212.

1588 Above, p. 342. note r. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “Spartan army,” starting “B. II. ch. 10.”]

1589 Schol. Pind. ubi sup.

1590 Leg. VII. p. 815.

1591 Athen. p. 631 A. Comp. Meursius Orchestra Op. vol. V. p. 242. Manso, Sparta, vol. I. part II. p. 175.

1592 As is frequently seen on vases.

1593 Plutarch. Music. 26. Comp. Pollux IV. 10. 79.

1594 Plutarch ubi sup.

1595 That is, if the emendation of Salmasius, ἱεράκιον for θεράκιον, in Pollux IV. 10. 78, is adopted.

1596 Athen. p. 678 B. and compare p. 631 B. p. 632 C. Concerning the gymnopædia in general, see Meurs. Orchest. p. 202. and the passages cited by Creuzer Comment. Herod. vol. I, p. 230.

1597 πόῤῥω παῖδες πόδα μετάβατε, καὶ κωμάξατε βέλτιον, Lucian de Salt. 10. 11.

1598 Athen. p. 14 D. from Dicæarchus and Hippasus. At Argos the choruses of boys were called Βαλλαχράδαι. Plutarch Quæst. Græc. 51. p. 405.

1599 Pollux IV. 14. 102.

1600 Lysist. 82. The ἀναλακτίζειν of the Spartan women when dancing is mentioned in Oribasius Med. p. 121. ed. Mosq.; the ἐκλακτίσματα, as a woman’s dance in general is mentioned by Pollux ubi sup.

1601 Cited by Pollux, χίλιά ποκα βιβάντι (rather βιβάτι) πλεῖστα δὴ τῶν πή ποκα, which becomes a trimeter iambic by the omission of the first ποκα.

1602 Pollux IV. 4. 101. Hesychius in v. See Meurs. Orchest. under διποδία, διαποδισμὸς ποδίκρα.

1603 Perhaps it was connected with the trochaic dipodia, which appears to have been the common metre in these choral songs, though mixed with cretics, spondees, dactylic, and logaœdic verses.

1604 Aristoph. Lysist. ad fin.

1605 Some rites of Bacchus were mixed with the worship of the Caryatan Artemis, as may be seen from Servius ad Virg. Eclog. VIII. 30; hence the dances of this goddess were of a wild and violent character. Accordingly, Praxiteles (Pliny, H. N. XXXVI. 4.) made a joint composition of Caryatides and Thyades; and Pratinas (Athen. X. p. 392.) wrote a play called Δύμαιναι ἢ Καρυάτιδες, the former of whom, also called Δύσμαιναι, occur as Bacchantes. The form Δύσμαιναι is defended against Toup and Meineke (Euphorion. fragm. 42. p. 93.) by Philargyr. ad Virg. Georg. II. 487. who translates the name by furiosæ Bacchæ. The Caryatides, who danced with uplifted hands, (Lynceus ap. Athen. VI. p. 241 D.) may be recognised in many reliefs as young women with their garments girt up and lightly clad.

1606 B. II. ch. 8. § 14.

1607 Pollux IV. 14. 104. where for βαρύλλικα write with Schneider (in v.) βρυάλλιχα.

1608 Hesychius has βύλλιχαι χοροὶ τινες ὀρχηστῶν παρὰ Λάκωσιν; then βρυαλίκται ὀρχησταὶ from Ibycus and Stesichorus; next βρυδάλιχα (but the order of the letters requires ΒΡΥΑΛΛΙΧΑ), in the sense of frightful female masks, from Rhinthon; and βρυδαλίχας (ΒΡΥΑΛΛΙΧΑΣ) τὰς μαχλάδας, Λάκωνες; and, lastly, βρυλλοχισταὶ, persons who sang hymns in hideous female masks. The original forms appear to have been βρυάλλιχα for the dance, βρυαλλίχα for the mask, and βρυαλλίκτης (like δεικηλίκτης) for the dancer.

1609 Vol. I. p. 377, note s.

1610 Pollux IV. 14. 104. ἦν δὲ τινα καὶ Λακωνικὰ ὀρχήματα. δειμαλέα: Σειληνοὶ δ᾽ ἦσαν καὶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς Σάτυροι ὑπότροχα ὀρχούμενοι. καὶ ἴθυμβοι ἐπὶ Διονύσῳ. καὶ καρυατίδες ἐπὶ Ἀρτέμιδι. καὶ βρυάλλιχα τὸ μὲν εὕρημα Βρυαλλίχον. προσωρχοῦντο δὲ γυναῖκες Ἀπόλλωνι καὶ Ἀρτέμιδι. οἱ δὲ ὑπογύπωνες γερόντων ὑπὸ βακτηρίοις τὴν μίμησιν εἶχον. οἱ δὲ γύπωνες ξυλίνων κώλων ἐπιβαίνοντες ὠρχοῦντο, διαφανῆ ταραντινίδια ἀμπεχόμενοι. καὶ μῆνες Χαρίνων μὲν ὄρχημα, ἐπώνυμον δ᾽ ἦν τοῦ εὑρόντος αὐλητοῦ. τυρβασία δὲ ἐκαλεῖτο τὸ ὄρχημα τὸ διθυραμβικόν. μιμηλικὴν δἐ ἐκάλουν δι᾽ ἧς ἐμιμοῦντο τοὺς ἐπὶ τῇ κλοπῇ τῶν ἑώλων μερῶν ἁλισκομένους. λαμπροτέρα δὲ ἦν ἣν ὠρχοῦντο γυμνοὶ σὺν αἰσχρολογίᾳ. In this passage there is nothing altered except βρυάλλιχα and Βρυαλλίχου for βαρύλλιχα and Βαρυλλίχου, λαμπροτέρα δὲ ἦν ἣν for λαμπροτέραν δὲ ἣν; and μιμηλικὴν for μιμητικὴν, as a friend of the author’s has proposed (G. A. Schoell, de origine Græci dramatis, p. 97.), which gives the same sense δεικηλιστικὴν, which I had formerly proposed, as μιμηλοὶ and δεικηλισταὶ were synonyms, according to Suidas in Σωσίβιος.

1611 γένος οὐτιδανῶν Σατύρων καὶ ἀμηχανοεργῶν, Hesiod. ap. Strab. X. p. 471. The reading δειμαλέα is not however at all certain; and still less the word μῆνες, a little lower.

1612 On the Charinus or Gracioso, see below, ch. 7. § 3; and on the Argolian τύρβη, b. II. ch. 10. § 6.

1613 Although the Spartans also called regular actors δεικηλίκται, Plutarch Agesil. 21. Lac. Apophth. p. 185. Apostolius XV. 39. Schol. Il. χ᾽. 391.

1614 δίκηλον according to Hesychius ἀνδρίας, ζῴδιον παρὰ Λάκωσιν perhaps refers to the fact mentioned in vol. I. p. 66, note q.

1615 δεικηλισταὶ σκευοποιοὶ καὶ μιμηταὶ, Sosibius ap. Athen. XIV. p. 621 D. Hesychius in δεικηλισταὶ. cf. interprett. They were μιμολόγοι according to Hesychius in δίκηλον, κωμικοὶ according to Eustathius p. 884. 23, σκωπτικοὶ according to Schol. Apoll. Rh. I. 746. The Laconic form is δεικηλίκτας.

1616 Ap. Athen. Eustath. ubi sup. Suidas and Phavorinus in δικηλιστῶν, and Suidas in Σωσίβιος. On the Lacedæmonian mimicry see also Boettiger Quat. ætat. reiscenicæ, p. 8.

1617 See Plutarch Lycurg. I. καὶ φέρουσι κλέπτοντες, οἱ μὲν ἐπὶ τοὺς κήπους βαδίζοντες (robbers of gardens), οἱ δ᾽ εἰς τὰ τῶν ἀνδρῶν συσσίτια παρεισρέοντες (the thieves of the ἐωλομερῆ of Pollux cited in p. 347, note b.) [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “grammarian,” starting “Pollux IV.”]

1618 B. III. ch. 3. § 3; and see Schol. Aristoph. Plut. 279. Eq. 632.

1619 Diomed. 3. p. 483. ed Putsch. Servius ad Virg. Ecl. I. Donatus Vit. Virg. p. 84. sq. Diomedes also connects the Sicilian bucoliasms with rites of Ἄρτεμις Λύη.

1620 Ἐν Ἁλκυόνι καὶ ἐν Ὀδυσσεῖ ναυαγῷ, Athen. XIV. p. 619 A. Comp. Hesych. et Etym. M. in v.

1621 Ælian. V.H. X. 18.

1622 Tityrus, according to Servius ad Ecl. I. i. was aries major, qui gregem anteire consueverit, lingua Laconia; a goat, according to Schol. Theocrit. III. 2. Photius in v. Τίτυρος is the Doric form of σίσυρος, which also originally meant a goat; whence σισύρνα (i.e. σισυρίνα), or σισύρα, a goat-skin: but τίτυρος is not allied to σάτυρος (as the Schol. Theocrit. III. 2. VII. 72. Eustath. ad II. τ᾽. p. 1157. 39. ed. Rom. suppose; comp. Creuzer, Symbolik, vol. III. p. 197). The flute called τιτύρινος by the Italian Dorians (Artemidorus ap. Athen. IV. p. 182 D. Eustath. p. 1157. 38), was so named from a shepherd.

1623 Of the θεοὶ Παλικοὶ, near mount Ætna, which evidently were originally identical with the goddess Pales of the Romans; and consequently her worship belongs to the Siculian branch of the Roman religion.

1624 Schol. Theoc. et Virg. Ælian ubi sup.

1625 The poems of Theocritus unluckily give little information on these points, as the bucolics are those which show the most artifice and novelty.

1626 Poet. IV. 14.

1627 Athen. XIV. p. 631 D. At Athens too the country Phallic festival was called ἑορτὴ ἁλῆτις.

1628 Semus Delius ap. Athen. p. 621 F. p. 622 C. and Suidas in Σῆμος. Compare b. II. ch. 10. § 6.

1629 It seems probable that the proverb μωρότερος Μορύχου originally referred to the rude mirth at the vintage-festivals, at which it was common in Sicily (and probably elsewhere also) to smear the face with the juice of the grape. In Italy there were also at the festival of Artemis Corythallia clowns, with wooden masks (κύριθρα), called κυριττοὶ, Hesych. in v.

1630 Æginetica, p. 170. sq.

1631 Aristoph. Vesp. 57. γέλωτα Μεγαρόθεν κεκλεμμένον. Eupolis ap. Schol. Vesp. 57. et Aspas. ad Aristot. Eth. Nic. IV. 2. 20. fol. 53 B. τὸ σκῶμμ᾽ ἀσελγὲς καὶ Μεγαρικὸν καὶ σφόδρα ψυχρὸν γελῶσιν, ὡς ὁρᾷς, τὰ παιδία (as emended by Dobree in Porson’s Tracts, p. 384.). See also on the γέλως Μεγαρικὸς Diogenian. Prov. IV. 88. App. Vatic. I. 46. Apostol. VI. 2. What Aristotle ubi sup. relates, refers merely to the silly and unnecessary display of a Megarian choregus for comedy, in the embellishment of the theatre.

1632 Aristot. Poet. 3. Aspasius ubi sup.

1633 Ecphantides ap. Aspas. ubi sup. says, Μεγαρικῆς κωμῳδίας ἆσμ᾽ οὐ δίειμ᾽: ᾐσχυνόμην τὸ δρᾶμα Μεγαρικὸν ποιεῖν, as Meineke ad Menand. p. 382. and Quæst. Seen. I. p. 6. has correctly written, i.e. “the song which I sing is not that of a Megarian comedy; I was ashamed to make my play Megarian.”

1634 Concerning Ecphantides, see Schneider ad Aristot. Pol. VIII. 8. Gaisford ad Hephæst. p. 97. and particularly Næke’s Chœrilus, p. 51 sq. and Meineke Quæst. Scen. I. p. 12. who correctly places him between Magnes and Chionides on the one side, and Cratinus and Teleclides on the other, about Olymp. 80. 460 B.C. [See also Clinton, F. H. vol. II. Introduction, p. xxxvii.]

1635 Aspasius ubi sup. Schol. Dionys. Thrac. in Bekker’s Anecdota Gr. p. 748. compare Bentley Phalarid. p. 261.

1636 Marm. Par. ep. 34. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 308.

1637 As may be inferred from Statius Theb. XII. 619.

1638 According to Aristot. Poet. 3. it originated during the existence of democracy at Megara; but the period of popular rule in this town (b. III. ch. 9. § 10.) was too late for this to be strictly true, though its rise was probably connected with a democratic principle, which was alive at Megara before the time of Theagenes, and after his downfall was continually on the increase.

1639 Boeckh, Staatshaushaltung, vol. II. p. 362 sqq. and Thiersch, Einleitung zu Pindar, p. 117. with the opposite remark on the τὰ ἐπινίκια κωμῳδός, Goettingen Review, 1821. part 106. p. 1050. I also conceive that the comedies of Antheas the Lindian, the relation (συγγενὴς) of Cleobulus, were lyric; who passed his whole life in leading processions to Bacchus, and also practised the obscure ποίησις διὰ συνθέτων ὀνομάτων, Athen. X. p. 445 A. In this instance the comedies are evidently only procession-songs from κῶμος. The same is likewise true of the slanderous comedies of Timocreon, also a Rhodian, Suidas in v.

1640 Aristoph. Byz. ap. Ath. XIV. p. 659 A. Hesych. in Μαίσων, τεττιξ. Festus in Maeson. cf. Zenob. Prov. II. 11.

1641 Poet. III. 5.

1642 B. I. ch. 6. § 10.

1643 That the names “Chimarus” and “Tityrus” were taken from the occupation of the shepherd and goatherd, is remarked by Welcker on Schwenck’s Mythologische Andeutungen, p. 331.

1644 Diog. Laert. and τινὲς ap. Suid. cf. Diomed. 3. p. 486. ed. Putsch.

1645 See vol. I. p. 187. note a.

1646 This statement is indeed inconsistent with the account in Diog. Laert. VIII. 78. that Epicharmus, when a child of three months, was brought from Cos to Megara; but this is not a sufficient authority to set aside the other accounts. The statements of the writer περὶ κωμῳδίας in Kuster’s Aristophanes, p. xii. γέγονε κατὰ τὴν ογ ὀλυμπιάδα, and of Suidas, ἦν δὲ πρὸ τῶν Περσικῶν ἔτη ἓξ, διδάσκων ἐν Συρακούσαις, perhaps refer to the arrival of Epicharmus in Sicily.

1647 Suidas. His first covering the stage with purple skins reminds us of the Megarian choregus, who used real purple. Aristot. Eth. Nic. IV. 2. 20. Bentley Phalarid. p. 260. considers him as identical with Phormis the Mænalian, who served Gelon and Hieron with great honour; to me it seems that the ideas of an Arcadian condottiere and a comic poet are quite irreconcileable.

1648 Fabric. Biblioth. vol. II. p. 315. Harles.

1649 There is no reason for supposing that there were never more than two interlocutors in the plays of Epicharmus. Three, viz. Amycus, Pollux, and Castor, are evidently engaged in the dialogue of which a fragment is preserved in Schol. Soph. Aj. 722. Ἄμυκε μὴ κύδαζέ μοι τὸν πρεσβύτερον ἀδελφέον; and there must have been several in the Ἅφαιστος.

1650 See Casaubon ad Athen. III 13. p. 176. Harless ibid. p. 45.

1651 Photius in Ἥρας δεσμοὺς, and Suidas in Ἥρας δὲ δεσμούς.

1652 Figured in Mazocchi Tab. Heracl. ad p 138. Hancarville, vol. III. pl. 105. Millin, Galérie Mythologique, XIII. 48.

1653 This form of the H or aspirate, which seems to have been peculiar to the Italian Greeks, is found, besides the Heraclean Tables and this vase, on the Pæstum vase, which Lanzi and others have edited (Illustrazione di due vast fittili, Roma 1809).

1654 Why I do not (with Visconti Mus. Pio Clement, vol. IV. p. 20. and Welcker ap. Dissen. ad Pind. Nem. IV. p. 386.) suppose that Dædalus means Hephæstus himself, is sufficiently explained in the text.

1655 Millingen Vases de Coghill. pl. 6. and in Millin vol. I. pl. 9. The scene in Millin vol. II. pl. 66. Tischbein III. 9. IV. 38. is evidently the same, and Millingen’s opinion, p. 10. seems to me untenable.

1656 B. II. ch. 12. § 10.

1657 Millin I. pl. 63. 72. comp. Tischbein II. 7. 18.

1658 Winckelmann Monum. ined. No. 190. p. 285. Hancarville, vol. IV. pl. 160.

1659 Tischbein IV. 57. The figure looks like the Κάγχας in the vase described below.

1660 See A. W. Schlegel, Ueber dramatische Kunst. vol. II. p. 8.

1661 Millingen, Peintures de Collections diverses, 46, Compare the explanation, p. 69. From this name charinos for jester probably comes the Latin carinari, in Festus. The Glossaries of Labbæus render it by χαριεντίζεσθαι.

1662 Above, ch. 6. § 9.

1663 The best translation for κάγχας is “cachinno” in Persius Sat. I.

1664 That the above painting was taken from the Σκίρων of Epicharmus, I could hardly maintain, from the grounds stated in the text; although the bed of Procrustes probably occurred in that play, as well as in the Σκίρων of Euripides. On the latter see Hemsterhuis ad Poll. X. 7. 35. Boettiger, Vasengemälde I. 2. p. 147.

1665 Ad Poll. IX. 4. 26.

1666 Schol. Pind. Pyth. I. 99. see Boeckh Explic. Pyth. II. p. 240.

1667 Athen. VI. p. 235. 236 A. X. p. 429 A.

1668 Menæchm. Prol. 12. Indeed the expression can only mean, that the characters of this play of Plautus were Sicilian Greeks. Plautus has sometimes Doric names for his characters; thus a parasite in the Stichus I. 3. 89. is called Miccotrogos, from μικκὸς Doric for μικρὸς. Such names as this were probably borrowed from Epicharmus. Notwithstanding the line of Horace, “Plautus ad exemplar Siculi properare Epicharmi,” his chief model was the Attic comedy.

1669 Epicharmus was γνωμικὸς, according to the writer περὶ κωμῳδίας, p. xii. Kuster.

1670 Jambl. Pyth. 36. p. 219. whose statement seems probable to Boeckh, Philolaos, p. 13. This person’s name is uncertain; Jamblichus calls him Ἀρήσας, Ἄρκεσος Plutarch de de Gen. Socrat. 13.

1671 Diog. Laert. III. 16.

1672 Diog. Laert. VIII. 18. Eudocia ap. Villois. Anecd. vol. I. p. 193. compare the Ἐπιχάρμειος λόγος in Suidas, and the fragm. Ennii, p. 110. ed. Hessel. It is however possible that this Ἐπιχάρμειος λόγος was merely an extract from his comedies.

1673 Cicero Tusc. I. 8. ad Att. I. 19. calls him acutus and vafer, as being a Sicilian.

1674 Bentley Phalar. p. 413.

1675 As may be inferred from Photius in Ῥηγίνους, where Sophron’s son Xenarchus (also a mimographer, Hermann ad Aristot. Poet. I. 3. p. 94.) is mentioned as a contemporary of Dionysius (the elder). Suidas and Eudocia p. 389. place Sophron in the time of Xerxes and of Euripides; several moderns have followed the former statement.

1676 Which appear to have partially corresponded with one another, as is evident from some fragments extant, and from a comparison of the Schol. in Gregor. Naz. in Montfaucon’s Biblioth. Coislin. p. 120. with the poem to which it refers, in Tollius’ Itin. Ital. pag. 96 sq. See Hermann ibid. p. 93.

1677 Hence in early inscriptions fragments of hexameters often occur.

1678 Xen. Hell. I. 23. Plutarch Alcib. 28. Eustathius ad Hom. II. p. 63. 1. Apostol. IX. 2. Compare Valckenær ad Adoniaz. p. 264. But to suppose that Hippocrates intentionally wrote two scazons, would be very absurd.

1679 Plutarch Lacæn. Apophth. p. 260. τεῦ and ἀπωθεῦ, according to Valckenær. p. 260. who collects some letters, which say the same thing a little differently.

1680 Compare, e.g., the fragment of Sophron in Athen. p. 86 E. (Blomfield No. 12. Mus. Crit. vol. II. p. 342.)

τίνες δ ἐντί ποκα, φίλα, ταῖδε τοι μακραὶ κόγχαι; Β. σωλῆνες, τουτί γα γλυκύκρεων κογχύλιον χηρᾶν γυναικῶν λίχνευμα.

1681 The actual representation of the mimes of Sophron is also proved by the words of Solinus 5., that in Sicily “cavillatio mimica in scena stetit.” Compare Salmas. Lect. Plin. p. 76 B.C.

1682 Σικελίζειν, τὸ ἀτηρεύεσθαι παρὰ Ἐπιχάρμῳ, οἱ δὲ τὸ πονηρεύεσθαι, Photius &c. in v.

1683 Diod. XX. 63.

1684 See particularly on this point, Valckenær. ad Adoniaz. p. 200 sq.

1685 Demetrius de Elocut. 156. cf. 127. 162. Ulpian. ad Demosth. Olynth. p. 36. comp. Apolladorus ἐντοῖς περὶ Σώφρονος fragm. p. 438 sq. Heyne.

1686 Duris ap. Athen. XI. p. 504 B. Diog. Laert. III. 18. Olympiodorus Vit. Plat. &c.

1687 On Sophron see the references of Fabricius Bibl. Gr. vol. II. p. 493 sq. Harl. and Blomfield in the Classical Journal, vol. IV. p. 380. Museum Criticum, vol. IV. p. 340-358. 559-569.

1688 J. Laurent. Lydus de Magistratibus Rom. p. 70. ed. Fuss.

1689 Identical with φλυακογραφία, Suidas in Ῥίνθων, &c.

1690 The Amphitryon, Hercules, Orestes, Telephus, the Iphigenias, and the slave Meleager in Athenæus, Pollux, Hephæstion, and Herodian.

1691 This is the explanation given by several writers of the word φλύακες, Steph. Byz. in Τάρας, Eustath. ad Dionys. Perieg. 976. φλύακες τραγικοὶ Nossis Epigr. ap. Brunck. Analect. vol. I. p. 196. See Reuven’s Collect. Litter. p. 71.

1692 Apollonius Dysc. de Pronom. p. 364 C. ed. Bekker. comp. Valckenær. ad Adoniaz. p. 294.

1693 In Hephæstion p. 10. Gaisford. Rhinthon says to a choliambic line, in the last thesis of which there is a syllable lengthened by a violent metrical licence, ἴθ᾽ Ἱππώνακτος τὸ μέτρον; οὐδέν μοι μέλει. Trimeter iambics of Rhinthon often occur; e.g. two properly constructed in Herodian περὶ μονήρους λέξεως p. 19. 27. 30. ed. Dindorf.

1694 At least it appears that there is an hexameter extant of Sopater, another writer of φλύακες, in Athen. XIV. p. 656 F. if Osann. Anal. Rei Scenicæ p. 73. corrects rightly; the other verses of the same poet are however all iambic. But the ἱλαροτραγῳδία of Rhinthon could not by any means be generally called ἑξαμετρικὴ, and I agree with Reuvens on Lydus I. 41. who considers that the statement ὃς ἑξαμέτροις ἔγραψε κωμῳδίαν as a mistake of that writer, and Lange in I. 40. seems properly to defend ἑξωτική.

1695 Valckenær ad Adoniaz. p. 294 classes Sclerias (whom he considers as identical with Sciras in Athen. IX. p. 402 B.), Blæsus, and Rhinthon together; and there is no doubt that in Lydus Reuvens p. 69 has rightly corrected Ῥίνθωνα καὶ Σκίραν καὶ Βλαῖσον: as also φλυακογράφων for πυθαγόρων, and Lange κωμικῶν for οὐ μικρῶν. In Hesychius in ἄσεκτος, for παρὰ Ῥίνθωνι Ταραντίνῳ φιλοσόφῳ may be corrected either φλυαοκογράφῳ or Τηλέφῳ.

1696 Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. II. p. 426. Harl. Reuvens Coll. Litt. p. 79.

1697 II. VI. 132.

1698 V. 67; for an explanation of which passage see vol. I. p. 404. note c. Perhaps μεγαρίζειν for “to lament” (Aristoph. Ach. 822. Suidas and the Parœmiographers in Μεγαρέων δάκρυα, comp. Tyrrwhit ad Aristot. Poet, p. 174.) refers to tragedy, as Μεγαρικὸς γέλως to comedy.

1699 Suidas in Θέσπις. Photius, Apostolius, and Suidas in οὐδὲν πρὸς τὸν Διόνυσον, the former of whom says, Ἐπιγένους τοῦ Σικυωνίου τραγῳδίαν εἰς αὐτὸν (in Suidas εἰς Διόνυσον, but perhaps it is an old error for εἰς Ἄδραστον) ποιήσαντος ἐπεφώνησάν τινες τοῦτο; ὅθεν ἡ παροιμία.

1700 Poet. 3. and Hermann ad I. p. 104.

1701 Themistius Or. XIX. p. 487. says directly that the Sicyonians were the inventors of tragedy.

1702 Boeckh, Staatshaushaltung, vol. II. p. 362.

1703 Particularly by Aristocles ap. Athen. XIV. p. 630 C.

1704 Suidas in Ἀρίων.

1705 Arion’s age is stated in Suidas after the beginning of Periander’s reign, Olymp. 38, or, according to Eusebius, Olymp. 40. (628 or 620 B.C.)

1706 Hence also his father is called Cycleus, according to the analogy remarked above, p. 357. note n. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “Helothales,” starting “That the names.”]

1707 Herod. I. 23. cf. Hellanic. ap. Schol. Aristoph. Av. 1403. p. 87. ed. Sturz. Aristot. ap. Procl. Chrestom. p. 382. Gaisford.

1708 Olymp. XIII. 18. cf. Schol. ad 1.

1709 Suidas in Πρατίνας. Acron ad Horat. A. P. 216. and compare the Φλιάσιοι Σάτυροι in Dioscorides. Anthol. vol. I. p. 252. Jacob. See Casaubon de Sat. Poësi I. 5. p. 120. Toup Emend. in Suid. vol. II. p. 479.

1710 Paus. II. 13.

1711 As may be inferred from the fact that Pratinas also composed Doric hyporchemes, Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. II. p. 135, and from the title of one of his plays, Δύμαιναι ἢ Καρυατίδες, above, p. 346, note n. [Transcriber’s Note: There is no such footnote on that page.]

1712 F. Schlegel, Geschichte der Poësie der Griechen und Römer, I. 1. p. 226. sqq. Schneider, Geschichte der Elegie, Studien, vol. I. p. 2.

1713 The choral poetry of Corinna in the Bœotian dialect is however an exception.

1714 Boeckh ad Pind. Fragm. p. 607.

1715 In the Prytaneum at Elis also Doric songs were sung in the time of Pausanias (V. 15. 8.) and the ἔπη used at the Lernæa were in the same dialect (ib. II. 37. 3.).

1716 See above, ch. 6. § 4. and the τετραγώνοι χοροὶ of the Laconists, Ath. IV. pag. 181 C. from Timæus.

1717 Ap. Plutarch. Lycurg. 21.

1718 Ib. Fragm. incert. 110. Boeckh; above, p. 94, note e. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “appointed for war,” starting “Which is beautifully expressed.”]

1719 Ælian V. H. XII. 50.

1720 Ælian V. H. IX. 41.

1721 According to Athenæus XIV. p. 632 F.

1722 Plutarch Lycurg. 28.

1723 Sosibius ap. Athen. XV. p. 687 B.

1724 Above, ch. 6. § 3. I will not add Philoxenus of Cythera in the time of Dionysius to the names in the text.

1725 Pausan III. 17. 3. Chilon likewise, according to Diog. Laert. I. 3. 68, wrote ἐλεγεῖα to the number of about 200 verses. Likewise Areus the Laconian (Anton. Liber. 12.) was a lyric poet, and different from the epic poet Ἄρειος in Paus. III. 13. 5. if such a person ever existed. Also the μελοποιὸς Eurytus, who, according to J. Lydus de Ostent. p. 283. Hase, wrote an ode, beginning “Ἀγαλμοειδὲς Ἔρως,” and Zarex, according to the conjecture of Paus. I. 38. 4, both Lacedæmonians.

1726 Valer. Max. V. 3. Archiloch. Fragm. p. 147. Liebel.

1727 Plutarch Cleom. 2. de Solert. Anim. I. Apophth. Lac. p. 244.

1728 Alcman ap. Apollon. Dys. de Pron. p. 381. Bekker. Fragm. 73. Welcker.

1729 Alcman ap. Athen. XIII. p. 600 F. Fragm. 27. Schol. Aristoph. Lys. 1239. Suidas in Κλειταγόρα Olcarus ap. Wolf. Fragm. Mul. 2. p. 62, 145. Fabric. Biblioth. Gr. vol. II. p. 11, 157. vol. I. p. 883.

1730 In denying the truth of the report that Telesilla routed Cleomenes (vol. I. pag. 191, note n.) I did not mean to disparage the beautiful and genuine Doric character of that poetess and heroine.

1731 Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. II. p. 135.

1732 Plutarch Sympos. V. 2. p. 206.

1733 Æginetica, p. 143. cf. Dissen. Expl. p. 381.

1734 See above, p. 151. note k, [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “influence of Athens,” starting “Compare what Timocreon.”] and Fabricius.

1735 The assertion in the text makes it necessary for me to remark, that I do not consider either Homer or his language as originally Ionic; and the Ionisms of his dialect appear to me to have been introduced by the prevailing schools of rhapsodists. To offer any proofs of these positions would be improper in this place.

1736 The following epic poets were Dorians: Eumelus of Corinth, Cinæthon of Lacedæmon, Augeas of Trœzen, Pisander of Rhodes, Panyasis of Halicarnassus; and Empedocles of Agrigentum was the author of a philosophical didactic poem.

1737 See b. II. ch. 8. §. 13.

1738 Ibid.

1739 B. I. ch. 7. §. 4. The laws of Lycurgus were doubtless reduced into epic or elegiac verse, possibly by Terpander himself, who was likewise an epic poet, and composed προοίμια as introductions to the Homeric poems. He also wrote scolia, probably of the Doric kind, Plutarch. Mus. 8. and spondaics in the Doric measure, as the splendid one in Clemens Alex. VI. p. 658. Ζεῦ πάντων ἀρχὰ, πάντων ἡγῆτορ Ζεῦ, Σοὶ πέμπω ταύτων ὕμνων ἀρχάν. His epic poems too, in part at least, were written in the Doric dialect, in which the earlier Orphic hymns were composed, according to Jamblichus, and many Delphic oracles, concerning which see Appendix VIII. ad fin.

1740 Although several broken dactylics of this kind were named after Alcman, he was doubtless not the first person who introduced them. It is to this that the expression “numeros minuit in carmine” (Welcker, p. 11.) refers.

1741 See the beautiful fragment, No. 10, in Welcker.

1742 Fragm. 63.

1743 See the beautiful lines of Alcman, fragm. 12.

Οὔ μ᾽ ἔτι, παρθενικαὶ μελιγάρυες ἱερόφωνοι, γυῖα φέρειν δύναται. βάλε δὴ, βάλε, κηρύλος εἴην, ὅστ᾽ ἐπὶ κύματος ἄνθος ἅμ᾽ ἀλκυόνεσσι ποτᾶται, νηδεὲς ἦτορ ἔχων, ἁλιπόρφυρος εἴαρος ὄρνις.

1744 An ancient erotic poet was Ametor of Eleutherna in Crete, Athen. XIV. p. 638 B. from whom a family or clan of Citharistæ was there called Ἀμητορίδαι, Hesych. in v. whence correct Athenæus and Etymol. M. p. 83, 15. The author of the Εἵλωτες laments in Athenæus XIV. p. 638. E. that “it had become oldfashioned to sing the songs of Stesichorus, Alcman, and Simonides: but every one listened to Gnesippus, who had taught lovers how to serenade their mistresses with harps and guitars.” This fragment, which is written in logaœdic metre, has little of the Doric dialect. The Εἵλωτες was a satyric drama, and its complete title was οἱ Εἵλωτες οἱ ἐπὶ Ταινάρῳ, Eustath. ad Il. p. 297. ἐκ τῶν τοῦ Ἡρωδιανοῦ. Perhaps in allusion to the ἄγος Ταινάριον. See vol. I. p. 208. note q. Concerning the origin of this singular drama, see some remarks in Niebuhr’s Rhein. Museum, vol. III. p. 488.

1745 B. II. ch. 10. §. 9.

1746 Above, p. 308 notes h and i. [Transcriber’s Note: These are the footnotes to “were admitted” and “free citizen,” starting “Xenoph. Hellen. V.” and “See in particular.”]

1747 Above, ch. 4. § 1. ch. 5. § 7.

1748 B. II. ch. 8. § 18.

1749 Æginetica, p. 96. sq.

1750 Thiersch, Epochen der Kunst, vol. II. p. 27.

1751 B. III. ch. 2. § 3.

1752 B. II. ch. 8. § 18.

1753 It is only by this general proposition that we can explain why the physicians of Cos wrote in the Ionic dialect.

1754 Plato Hipp. Maj. p. 285 C. Philostr. Vit. Soph. I. 11. p. 495. Olear. comp. Plutarch Lycurg. 23. So also the Πολιτεία Σπαρτιατῶν of Dicæarchus was annually read in the ephors’ office at Sparta (Suidas in Δικαίαρχος) and in early times Hecatæus of Miletus found there a favourable reception. Plutarch Lac. Apophth. p. 199.

1755 This is only true of the more early times; for later we find many historians among the Dorians. Of the Lacedæmonians, Nicocles and Hippasus are mentioned by Athenæus (see Schweighäuser ad Athen. Ind. p. 129.), Aristocrates by Plutarch and others, Pausanias by Suidas, Diophantus by Fulgentius, and Sosibius is frequently quoted. See Heeren de Font. Plutarchi p. 24. and Meursius Miscell. Lacon. IV. 17. Λαοκράτης, ὁ Σπαρτιάτης, in Plutarch de Malign. Herod. 35, is doubtful. I also mention Dercyllus the Argive, because he wrote in the dialect of his native city; see Valckenær ad Adoniaz. p. 274. et ad Eurip. Phœn. Schol. p. 7. and see Schol. Vrat. Pind. Olymp. VII. 49. This Dercylus or Dercyllus is connected in a singular manner with another historian, the very same quotations being sometimes made from both. See Athen. III. p. 86 F. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. p. 39. Sylb. Schol. Vat. in Eurip. Tro. 14. Since in all these passages Agias and Dercylus are connected, we ought, in Schol. Vrat. Pind. Ol. VI. 4 g. p. 167. Boeckh., where the manuscript has οἱ περὶ ΔΕΡΑ (with a mark of abbreviation) καὶ Δέρκυλον, to write: οἱ περὶ Ἀγίαν (not Δεινίαν). Probably a single work had been composed upon Argolic antiquities, with a mixture of various Argolic expressions, by Agias and Dercylus.

1756 Unless his religious turn, and a certain infantine simplicity, which seems the more singular, when it is remembered that he wrote nearly at the same time as Thucydides, are considered as traces of a Doric character. He does not however appear to have the idea of government, which belonged to that race.

1757 See b. III. ch. 9. § 7. besides which we may mention Gorgias of Leontini, and the great sums gained by Hippias even in small towns of Sicily, as, e.g., Inycus.—Sparta, on the other hand, together with Argos (b. III. ch. 9. § 1. extr.), and Crete, had no orators (Cicero Brut. 13. Tacitus de Orat. 40.), and rhetoric, as being an art favouring untruth (τέχνη ἄνευ ἀληθείας, Plutarch et Apostol. XIII. 72.), was prohibited, Athen. XIII. p. 611 A. Cephisophon the good speaker (ὁ ἀγαθὸς μυθήτας) was banished (Plutarch Inst. Lac. p. 254. Apostol. XIX. 89.), and the ephors punished any person who introduced a foreign method of speaking; in the same manner as at Crete, those who made speeches of false display were driven from the island (οἱ ἐν λόγοις ἀλαζονευόμενοι, Sextus Empiricus adv. Mathemat. p. 68 B.). Nor is there any better criticism of sophistical panegyrics, than the Lacedæmonian remark, τίς αὑτὸν ψέγει?

1758 Above, ch. 2. § 5.

1759 Plutarch de Garrul. 17.

1760 Ἡ βραχυλογία ἐγγὺς τῷ σιγᾶν, a saying of Lycurgus, according to Apostolius IX. 69.

1761 See particularly Demetrius de Elocut. VIII. p. 241 sqq.

1762 Crete, according to Plat. Leg. I. p. 641. aimed more at πολύνοια than πολυλογία. Σύντομος ἦν ὁ ξεῖνος is said of a Cretan, Anthol. Palat. VII. 447.

1763 Æsch. Suppl. 198. 270. Pindar Isthm. V. 55. Sophocl. ap. Schol. Isthm. VI. 87. See also Sophocles in Stobæus Florileg. 74. p. 325.

1764 Pope’s translation of Iliad III. 213. This passage is referred by the Venetian Scholiast, Eustathius p. 406. ed. Rom. and Tzetzes Chil. V. 317. to the βραχυλογία of the Lacedæmonians.

1765 Above, p. 298 note p. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “yoke of their wives,” starting “Plutarch Lyc. 14.”]

1766 Ap. Plutarch. Cimon. 4.

1767 Protag. p. 342. Plutarch Lycurg. 20 extr. refers to this passage. When Thucydides IV. 84. says of Brasidas, that he was not, for a Lacedæmonian, unable to speak (ἀδύνατος λέγειν), he probably does not mean literally that the Lacedæmonians were unable to speak, but only points to their peculiar mode of speaking.

1768 Plutarch Lac. Apophth. p. 242. Similarly the saying αὐτᾶς ἄκουσα τήνας in Plutarch Lycurg. 20. cf. Reg. Apophth. p. 129.

1769 Herod. VII. 226. Lac. Apophth. p. 245.

1770 P. 244. Compare the apophthegm in Plutarch de Frat. Amor. 8. p. 44.

1771 This figurative turn may be particularly remarked in Cleomenes’ address to Crius, in the speech of Bulis and Sperthis to Hydarnes, in which they say, “Would you then advise us to fight for freedom, not with lances, but with axes?” and the action of Amompharetus, who laid a block of stone at the feet of Pausanias, as if it were a pebble for voting.

1772 Athen. VI. p. 261 C.

1773 Plutarch et Heracl. Pont. 2.

1774 Plutarch Lycurg. 17. 19.

1775 B. III. ch. 11. § 3.

1776 This I infer from the passage of Pollux quoted above, p. 347. note b, [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “grammarian,” starting “Pollux IV.”] compared with the joke (χλεύασμα) of Leotychides at the gymnopædia in Herod. VI. 67.

1777 Xenoph. Rep. Lac. 3. 5. and above, p. 288. note f. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “not prohibited,” starting “Critias ubi sup.”]

1778 Plutarch Lycurg. 12. comp. Macrob. Sat. VII. 3.

1779 Τῷ λεγομένῳ εἰς τὸ μέσον, Herod. VI. 129.

1780 Θεὸς δ᾽ ὑπὸ καλὸν ἄειδεν Ἐξ αὐτοσχεδίης πειρώμενος, ἠύτε κοῦροι Ἡβηταὶ θαλίησι παραιβόλα κερτομέουσιν, v. 54.

1781 Gämelicher Sprüche wart do niht verdeit, i.e. non abstinebatur a sermonibus ludicris. Niebelungen Lied. v. 6707. p. 345. ed. 1820.

1782 Sosibius ap. Plutarch. Lycurg. 25. It is worthy of remark, that the worship of abstract ideas, as of Death, of Fear (b. III. ch. 7. § 7.), of Fortune (Plutarch Inst. Lac. p. 253.), existed among the Spartans, as among the Romans; see Plutarch Cleom. 9.

1783 Plutarch Ages. 2.

1784 Plutarch Cleom. 13.

1785 Protag. p. 342. see also Plutarch de Garrul. 17.

1786 Hence this mode of expression was called the Chilonian, Diog. Laert. I. 72.

1787 Or Spartan, see the passages quoted above, p. 8. note p. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “Money makes the man,” starting “Χρήματα χρήματ᾽ ἀνὴρ.”] comp. Diog. Laert. I. 41. Others are mentioned by Hermippus, ibid. 42.

1788 Thus, for example, Apollo is said to have given the same answer to Gyges, as Solon to Crœsus, Valer. Maxim. VII. 1, 2.

1789 Plutarch ubi sup.

1790 The chief passage on this point is Demetr. Phaler. ap. Diog. Laert. I. 22. who places the event in the archonship of Damasias (Olymp. 49. 3.), the same year in which, according to the Parian Marble, which probably follows the same authority, the second Pythian ἀγὼν γυμνικὸς, the first ἀγὼν στεφανίτης, fell. Also Branchus, the ancient prophet of Miletus, is mentioned as βραχυλόγος, Diog. Laert. I. 72.

1791 Diog. Laert. I. 89. comp. Jacobs Comment. Anthol. tom. I. p. 194.

1792 Athen. X. p. 448 B. Aristot. Rhet. III. 2. Plutarch Sept. Sap. Conviv. III. 10. Menage Hist. Mulier. Philos. 4. Hence the Κλεοβουλῖναι of Cratinus, concerning which see Schweighæuser ad Ind. Ath. p. 82.

1793 Athen. X. p. 452 A.

1794 Epicharmus called it λόγον ἐν λόγῳ, Eustathius ad Od. IX. p. 1634. 15. ed. Rom. Many ancient griphi are in the Doric dialect; though this is not always the case.

1795 Thus for example, if they said, “Admit no swallows into your house,” they not only avoided the company of talkative persons (Porphyrius, Vit. Pythag. 42.), but actually prevented swallows from building under their roofs. On this subject see the ancient writers quoted by Fabricius Bibl. Græc. vol. I. p. 788 sq. comp. Creuzer’s Symbolik, vol. I. p. 104.

1796 Orchomenos, p. 438. note 2.

1797 B. I. ch. 5. § 3.

1798 There is an account of a dialogue between Pythagoras and Leon the tyrant of Phlius, Cicero Tusc. Quæst. V. 3. Diog. Laert. VIII. 8. According to Diogenes Laert. VII. 1. Pythagoras was the fourth from Cleonymus, who had fled from Phlius; and therefore he would be a Dorian.

1799 B. II. ch. 8. § 20.

1800 See vol. I. p. 370. note m.

1801 B. III. ch. 9. § 16.

1802 Their silence is also worthy of remark, Timæus ap. Diog. Laert. VIII. 17. Gale Opusc. Mythol. vol. I. p. 739. On the use of music see b. II. ch. 8. § 20. A work of Philochorus is cited: περὶ ἡρωΐδων ἤτοι Πυθαγορείων γυναικῶν. See Siebel. Fragm. p. 9.

1803 Pausan. III. 13. 2. See vol. I. p. 76. note l.

1804 Sosibius ap. Diog. Laert. I. 10, 12. Pausan. II. 21. 4. III. II. 8. III. 12. 9. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 399. ed. Potter. Heinrich’s Epimenides, p. 128. Epimenides is said to have informed the Spartans of a defeat at Orchomenos, Diog. Laert. I. 117., of which nothing else is known.

1805 Plutarch Agid. 10. Diog. Laert. I. 117. from Theopompus, Creuzer Init. Philos. Platon. vol. II. p. 164.

1806 Vol. I. p. 208. note p.

1807 He erected the first sun-dial at Sparta, Plin. H. N. II. 66.

1808 See, e.g., Jamblich. Vit. Pythag. 36.

1809 Herod. IV. 77.

1810 Ἀφθονία σχολῆς, Plutarch Lycurg. 24. Inst. Lac. p. 255.

1811 Id. Lycurg. 24. Lac. Apophth. p. 207.

1812 Manso, vol. I. 2, p. 201.

1813 Xen. Rep. Lac. 4. 7. Hence the excellence of the Lacedæmonian hounds, Pind. Hyporch. fragm. 3. p. 599. Boeckh. Simonides ap. Plutarch Symp. IX. 15. 2. Meursius Misc. Lac. III. 1. The love of the Cretans for the chase is well known, see above, ch. 4. § 7.

1814 B. III. ch. 10. § 2. cf. Plutarch Lycurg. 25. Also in Cleomen. 30. I prefer ταῖς λέσχαις to the other reading, ταῖς σχολαῖς.

1815 Plutarch Lycurg. 25.

1816 Id. Inst. Lacon. p. 254. τὸν ἐκ τοῦ γυμνασίου νεανίσκον ἐπετίμων ὅτι τὴν εἰς πυλαίαν ὁδὸν ἠπιστατο.

1817 At Delphi it was a regular fair (Dio Chrys. Orat. 77. p. 414. Reisk.), and also a slave-market, as I infer from Plutarch Prov. Alex. p. 105. By means of it a considerable suburb, or new-town, called Pylæa, was formed at Delphi, Plutarch de Pyth. Orac. 29. p. 296. Perhaps this was the locality of the Πυλαία of Cratinus.

1818 At Rhodes liars were called πυλαιασταὶ, Hesychius and Schol. ad Plutarch. Artaxerx. I. p. 387. ed. Hutten. compare Suidas in v. In Plutarch de Fac. Lunæ 8. jugglers of the Pylæa, in the Life of Pyrrhus, 29. πυλαικὴ ὀχλαγωγία, are mentioned. But these expressions do not refer to the Pylæa cf Delphi.

1819 Polyb. VIII. 30.

1820 See Athen. XII. p. 522 F.

1821 Plutarch Lycurg. 27. Inst. Lac. p. 251. The Laconian word for “to bury” was τιθήμεναι, Schol. Cantabr. II. ψ᾽. 83. On the burial of the king, see b. III. ch. 6. § 6.

1822 Plutarch Lycurg. 27. Thus Pausanias III. 14, 1. saw at Sparta the names of the 300 who died at Thermopylæ, and the same monument is, as it appears, referred to by Herodotus VII. 224.

1823 What Ælian. V.H. VI. 6. says only of persons who had fallen in battle, Plutarch states of all who died.

1824 B. II. ch. 6, § 2. At Argos the mourning was white, Plut. Quæst. Rom. 26.

1825 Plutarch Solon. 9, 10. comp. Ælian. V. H. V. 14. and Minervæ Poliadis Sacra, p. 27.

1826 It is remarkable, that among all the names for the races of the Greek nation, Δωριεὺς alone is by itself a laudatory term (as in several passages of Pindar, Boeckh ad Pyth. VIII. 21. Dissen ad Nem. III. 3. and frequently in Plutarch. See likewise the epigram in Athen. V. p. 209 E. and Damagetus in the Palatine Anthology, VII. 231.), and expresses a national pride respected by the other Greeks, Thuc. VI. 77. Valckenær ad Adoniaz. p. 385 C.

1827 B. II. ch. 8. § 20. B. III. ch. 1. § 1. 10.

1828 B. III. ch. 9. § 18.

1829 Ib. ch. 4. § 6.

1830 Ib. ch. 9. § 18. ch. 12. § 5. Above, ch. 5. § 2.

1831 See, e.g., above, ch. 3. § 3.

1832 See above, p. 4. note g. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “ancient authors,” starting “From Thucyd. I.”]

1833 B. III. ch. 9. ad fin.

1834 B. II. ch. 6. § 2.

1835 B. III. ch. 12. § 9.

1836 Above, ch. 8. § 1.

1837 Ib. § 2.

1838 With which the ἄτολμον of the Spartans was connected.

1839 B. III. ch. 1. § 1.

1840 Above, ch. 2. § 1. ch. 3. § 1. ch. 6. § 1.

1841 Above, ch. 7. § 12.

1842 B. III. ch. 1. § 10.

1843 B. II. ch. 8. § 2. 11. 20.

1844 Ib. § 10. Above, ch. 6. § 2.

1845 B. II. ch. 6. § 7. ch. 8. § 7.

1846 Above, ch. 8. § 17. [Transcriber’s Note: There is no such section number in that chapter.]

1847 B. II. ch. 5. § 7. ch. 8. § 12. ch. 10. § 9.

1848 B. III. ch. 4. § 1.

1849 According to Demetrius de Elocut. § 122. the ephors caused a person to be scourged who had made some innovation in the game of ball; a subject on which Timocrates, a Spartan, had written a treatise.

1850 Herod. IX. 54. Λακεδαιμονίων ἄλλα φρονεόντων καὶ ἄλλα λεγόντων. So also Eurip. Androm. 452. In this poet’s attacks upon Sparta the date should always be attended to (Markland ad Suppl. 187. Wüstemann Præf. ad Alcest. p. xv.) He calls the Spartans δόλια βουλευτήρια, ψευδῶν ἄνακτας in the Andromache, when the Athenians accused them of a breach of treaty, Olymp. 90. 2, according to Petit and Boeckh Trag. Princip. p. 190. In the Orestes (Olymp. 92. 4.) in reference to the proposals of the Spartans for peace after the disasters of Mindarus, which the Athenians had declined, Philochorus ap. Schol. Aristoph. Vesp. 371. (cf. ad 772, 903), who states that these were made in Olymp. 92, 2. Diodorus XIII. 52, however, in Olymp. 92. 3. Aristophanes Lys. 1269. calls them αἱμύλας ἀλώπεκας (comp. the false Bacis Pac. 1068. Lycophr. 1124), in Olymp. 92. 1. at the time when the proverb arose, οἴκοι λέοντες, ἐν Ἐφέσῳ δ᾽ ἀλώπεκες, Meursius Misc. Lac. III. 2. However, similar charges of perfidy and treachery are made against them in the Acharneans v. 308, οἶσιν οὔτε βωμὸς οὔτε πίστις οὔθ᾽ ὅρκος μένει, in Olymp. 88. 3.

1851 In Plutarch. Ages. 15, 37. it is said that the benefit of his country was the aim of a Spartan’s actions. The Athenians say in Thuc. V. 105, that the Lacedæmonians, as far as respects themselves and their native institutions, are virtuous and well-principled; but that in their dealings with foreign states their own interest was their only standard.

1852 B. III. ch. 11. § 11. [Transcriber’s Note: There is no such section number in that chapter.]

1853 Plutarch. Lysand. 1.

1854 Xen. Hell. III. 1. 8. Ephorus ap. Athen. XI. p. 500 C. says of Dercylidas, ἦν γὰρ οὐδὲν ἐν τῷ τρόπῳ Λακωνικὸν οὐδ᾽ ἁπλοῦ νἔχων.

1855 Lysand. 5.

1856 Besides Xenophon, see Plutarch Lac. Apophth. p. 210. Diod. XIII. 76, 97. and Manso, vol. II. 327. sqq.

1857 Plutarch Pelopid. 2.

1858 Plutarch Lysand. 5.

1859 Pedaritus has been sufficiently defended by Valckenær ad Adoniaz. pag. 261. against the charge of the exiles at Chios.

1860 See Xenophon cited above, p. 4. note g. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “ancient authors,” starting “From Thucyd. I.”]

1861 Above, p. 218, note a. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “six hundred talents,” starting “Proofs of wealth.”]

1862 Thuc. V. 50. Paus. VI. 2. 1.

1863 Thuc. VIII. 43.

1864 Thuc. VIII. 84.

1865 Paus. III. 2. 8.

1866 Tit. I. 12.

1867 B. III. ch. 8. § 2. Hence Polybius IV. 54. 6. calls the Lyctians the best men in Crete. They are also said to have driven the Epicureans from their city, Suidas, vol. I, p. 815. who mentions a νόμος τῇ ἐπιχωρίᾳ φωνῇ, probably a forgery, like the decree against Timotheus, above, ch. 6. § 3.

1868 B. I. ch. 8. § 7. b. III. ch. 9. § 1.

1869 See also on the Ἀργεῖοι φῶρες Suidas in v. Prov. Vat. II. 49.

1870 B. III. ch. 9. § 3.

1871 The school of the ancient Coreggio, Protogenes. See also the Anacreontic Ode XXVIII. 3. of the Alexandrine or Roman age.

1872 Meyer’s Geschichte der Kunst, vol. I. p. 208, 218.

1873 Meurs. Rhod. I. 20. cf. Anacreont. Od. XXXII. 16.

1874 The hospitality of Corinth is confirmed by the proverb ἀεί τις ἐν Κύδωνος, Zenob. II. 42. Prov. Vat. IV. 19. Diogenian. VIII. 42. Suidas I. 86. ed. Schott. Plutarch Prov. Al. 129. Apostolius VIII. 66.

1875 Corinthian ἄσωτοι occur so early as the 5th Olympiad (vol. I. p. 134), and were restrained by ancient laws, ib. p. 189. and Lydus de Magistr. Rom. I. 42. According to Alciphron Ep. 60. Corinth itself was beautiful and full of luxuries, but the inhabitants were ἀχάριστοι and ἀνεπαφρόδιτοι.

1876 B. III. ch. 9. § 5.

1877 In Corinth the husbandman was obliged ἐκλιθοβολεῖν, but not in Syracuse. Theophrast. de Caus. pluv. III. 20. But ἀμᾶν Κορινθικὸν (Suidas in Κορινθ.) probably refers to τὰ μεταξὺ Κορίνθου καὶ Σικύωνος.

1878 Thuc. VI. 20.

1879 VIII. 96.

1880 VI. 73.

1881 Ib. above, B. III. ch. 9. § 7.

1882 See B. I. ch. 8. § 2.

1883 Above, page 300, note u. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “courtesans,” starting “See b. II. ch. 10.”] b. IV. ch. 7. § 8, 12.

1884 Thuc. I. 28.

1885 B. III. ch. 9. § 9.

1886 Ib. and vol. I. pag. 197, note d.

1887 Hell. VI. 5. 45.

1888 Theophrast. ubi sup. Strabo IX. p. 393. Isocrat. de Pace, p. 183. A. in whose time however Megara had rich families.

1889 Above, p. 222, note u. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “the interior,” starting “Concerning Ægina.”]

1890 Above, p. 371, note z. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “before Thespis,” starting “Suidas in Θέσπις.”]

1891 Above, p. 174, note e. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “a long time,” starting “Theopompus ap. Athen.”]

1892 Περὶ Βυζαντίων ap. Athen. X. p. 442 C. Ælian. V. H. III. 14.

1893 See Aristot. Pol. III. 4. 1.

1894 Menander ap. Ælian. ubi sup. Athen. X. p. 442. Nicetas Acominatus Hist. p. 251. ed. Fabric.

1895 Sextus Empiricus adv. Rhetor. § 37.

1896 Herod. VII. 99.

1897 I say hardly, on account of an exception which a fragment of the Argolica of Dinias (ap. Herodian. περὶ μον. λέξεως, p. 8. 14. emended by Dindorf) establishes, viz. that “Perimeda, queen of Tegea, generally called Χοίρα, compelled the captured Lacedæmonians to cut a channel for the river Lachas across the plain.”

1898 B. III. ch. 9. § 15. above, ch. 5. § 5.

1899 Of this we have probably a trace in Hesychius, μαιριῆν, κακῶς ἔχειν, in Tarentine; which probably refers to the Sirocco in the dog-days.

1900 E.g. besides the names of coins, πᾶνα, panem, among the Messapians and Tarentines, Athen. III. p. 111 C. σάννορος, sannio, in Tarentum, Hesychius.

1901 IV. 27. 5.

1902 Vol. I. p. 210, note c.

1903 The coins which Eckhel ascribes to the time of Anaxilaus have both MESSANION and MESSENION; but it is not improbable that the first was merely affectation, as the city appeared more illustrious if its origin was Doric: it cannot be doubted that the language of the Samian-Chalcidian population preponderated in common life.

1904 Both Xenarchus (ap. Phot. in Ῥηγ. Apostol. XVII. 15. cf. XI. 72.) and Nymphodorus (ap. Athen. I. p. 19 F.) reproach them with effeminacy.

1905 See Athen. IV. p. 173.

1906 Above, § 1.

1907 Eustath. ad Il. α᾽. p. 96. Rom. Etymol. M. and Gud. in many places. Phavorin. Ecl. p. 296. 305. Dindorf.

1908 Πινδάροιο occurs in the fragments of Corinna the Bœotian poetess, p. 51. Wolf.

1909 Maittaire p. 173. ed. Sturz.

1910 Gregor. Corinth, p. 580. Schæfer.

1911 Hesychius in πεμφθοί.

1912 II. 37. 3.

1913 Herod. VIII. 73.

1914 Pausan. IV. 34, 5. The Eleutherolacones likewise use many Dorisms in their decrees.

1915 Strabo VIII. p. 333. Plutarch Philopœmen. 2.

1916 Corp. Inscript. No. 1513.

1917 ϜΑΛΙΣ, ϜΕΤΕΑ, ϜΕΠΟΣ, ϜΑΡΓΟΝ, ϜΕΤΑΣ, βαδὺ for ϝηδὺ.

1918 Boeckh. Corp. Inscript. No. 11.

1919 Hesych. in δίκαρ and βαρβαρόφωνος. Phavorinus p. 429. 21.

1920 Vol. I. p. 271. note z.

1921 Plat. Cratyl. p. 434. Strab. X. p. 448. Hesychius in Ἐρετρίεων ρῶ, Diogenian. IV. 57. Apostol. IX. 6.

1922 Suidas in χαλκιδίζειν.

1923 Koen ad Gregov. Cor. p. 300.

1924 Etymol. M. p. 391. 13.

1925 Stephanus of Byzantium in Ἰωνία reckons the Ætolians generally as Dorians. Chishull Ant. As. p. 104.

1926 Grammaticus Meermannianus ap. Gregor. Corinth. p. 642.

1927 Such as ä, ö, and ü, which are not diphthongs, but (as it were) middle tones among the vowels.

1928 Vit. Pythagor. 34.

1929 As is particularly stated by Clem. Alex. VI. p. 658. Compare book IV. c. 6. § 3.

1930 Aristides Quintil. de Musica, vol. II. p. 93.

1931 That is, the Α, which is pronounced broad by the Germans (as in father), has in English generally the sound of their E.

1932 See Welcker ad Alcman. fragm. 65. ἐμίνγα Sophron. ἴγωνγα, the Megarian in Aristoph. Acharn. 736. 764. 775.

1933 Tab. Heracl. Comp. Apollon. de Adverb. p. 563.

1934 Aristoph. Ach. 787.

1935 Vol. I. p. 375. note f.

1936 Hesychius in v. Inscript. and see Koen ad Greg. C. p. 305.

1937 Aristoph. Lysist. 1174, 1320. and Phavorinus Ecl. p. 156. Dindorf.

1938 De Corona p. 255.

1939 Chishull Ant. Asiat. p. 134.

1940 Koen ad Greg. C. p. 229.

1941 Ap. Apollon. de Pronom. p. 343. C. Mus. Crit. vol. II. p. 563. Compare Maittaire p. 227.

1942 Etymol. M. p. 434, 51. Koen ubi sup. p. 185.

1943 Ἐνίκη for ἐνίκαε also occurs in a poetical inscription, which was contained in Boeckh’s Corp. Inscript. No. 17, but can now be safely amended from a better copy in Ross Inscript. Grec. Ined. fascie. 1. n. 55. It runs as follows, with a few supplements.

...ΟΟΝΑΝΕΘΗΚΕ τε]ΝΤΕΑΙΣΧΥΛΛΟ[σ ΘΙΟΠΟΣΤΟΙΣΔΑΜ ΟΣΙΟΙΣΕΝΑΕΘΛΟ ΙΣ: ΤΕΤΡΑΚΙΤΕ[σ ΠΑΔΙΟΝΝΙΚΕΚΑΙ ΔΙΣΤΟΝΟΠΛΙΤΑ[ν

It should be read as follows:

... θων ἀνέθηκε τἤντεα. Ἴσχυλλος Θίοπος τοῖς δαμοσίοις ἐν ἀέθλοις, Τετράκι τε σπάδιον νίκη καὶ δὶς τὸν ὁπλίταν.

“So and so (probably Ischylus himself) has offered up the arms. Ischylus, the son of Theops, was conqueror in the public games (of Argos), four times in the stadion, and twice in the hoplite race.” Θίοψ is Doric for Θέοψ; and σπάδιον for στάδιον is cited as Doric, as well as Æolic.

1944 Ap. Ammon. p. 122. Mus. Crit. vol. II. p. 566.

1945 Dodwell’s Travels vol. II. p. 503. Mustoxidi pp. 188. 193-7.

1946 An inscription of the island of Cos in the Mém. de l’Acad. des Inscriptions tom. XLVII. p. 325. has τὸς θεός. τὸς ἀνθρώπως, τὸς ἄλλως, Epicharmus as corrected by Hermann, ap. Diog. Laert. III. 11, 17.

1947 Chishull Aut. As. Compare Koen ad Greg. C. p. 220.

1948 Herodianus in the Hortus Adon. p. 209.

1949 Phavorinus p. 283. Dindorf. Eustath. ad Il θ᾽. p. 722. 60. Gregorius p. 355. Koen ad 1. Maittaire p. 330.

1950 Herodian et Eustath. ubi sup. Etym. M. p. 302. 2 where for σπένδω and σπείδω the sense everywhere requires σπένσω and σπείσω.

1951 Etymol. M. p. 135. 45. Etymol. Gud. p. 73. 44. where the same correction should be made.

1952 Etym. M. p. 156. 17.

1953 Herodian. p. 10. ed. Dindorf.

1954 See Thiersch Act. Monac. II. 3. p. 393. In the town of Ποσειδωνία ΠΑΙΣΤΟΝ, Achæans of Sybaris joined the Trœzenians, and hence the common form of the name.

1955 Xenoph. Hell. III. 3. 2. Aristid. Or. Rhod. vol. II. p. 346.

1956 Maittaire p. 349; and compare the inscription of Gela in Castelli p. 84.

1957 Etymol. M. p. 157. 48. p. 167. 37.

1958 Vol. II. p. 35, note a.

1959 Valckenær ad Adoniaz. p. 287. cf. ad Eurip. Phœn. 1671.

1960 Above, p. 349. note e. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “regular players,” starting “Although the Spartans.”] Compare Buttmann Gr. Gr. vol. I. p. 382.

1961 Ap. Plutarch. Lyc. 19. less correctly in Apophth. Lucon. p. 226. For the common reading ἐρατέημεν Valckenær ad Adoniaz. p. 258. conjectures κρατέῃ, Haitinger in Act. Monac. vol. III. 3. pag. 311. μέσδων—ἐρᾶτε ἦμεν.

1962 See Schneider’s Latin Grammar, vol. I. p. 385.

1963 On the other hand the High German dialect changed the Greek sound of Δ into Z; e.g. δέκα, zehen, δύω, zwo, δάκτυλος, zühe, δάκρυ, zähre, δεικνύναι zeigen, dis—zer—&c. See Grimm’s Deutsche Grammatik, vol. I. p. 586.

1964 Etym. M. p. 605. 43. Heraclides ap. Eustath. ad Od. κ᾽. p. 1654. Phavorinus p. 444. Dindorf. Koen ad Greg. p. 613.

1965 The same tendency may be traced in the German, as in Salz, Süss, Sitz for ἅλς, ἡδὺ, ἕδος.

1966 Valckenær ad Adon. p. 277.

1967 Vol. II. p. 310, note t. This explains the Κυνοουρέων φυλὴ in recent Laconian inscriptions (Corp. Inscript. vol. I. p. 609.); it stands for Κυνοὁυρέων, i.e. Κυνοσουρέων. For the same reason Hesych. in Εὐτρηΐους calls this form Doric for Εὐτρησίους; the word was pronounced Εὐτρηἱοι.

1968 Etymol. M. pag. 391. 13. Eustath. ad Il. λ᾽. pag. 844. 7. Maittaire p. 199.

1969 Book IV. ch. 6. § 3.

1970 Apollon. de Pronom. pag. 355. A. Buttmann Gr. Gr. vol. I. p. 294.

1971 In High German Rhotacism is very prevalent, although, according to Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, vol. I. pp. 802, 825, it succeeded in the place of the S; and the German article der clearly corresponds with that which must have been the original Doric article, viz. τόρ.

1972 The ancient High German likewise always has—mês in the same person.

1973 θαυλακίζειν, Blomfield, Classical Journal, vol. IV. p. 387.

1974 ἀγῆται is the best reading in Aristoph. Lysist. 1314.

1975 See Reisig. Synt. Critic. p. 14.

1976 I feel now considerable doubt whether ἀϜέλιος, ἀβέλιος really comes from ἕλη, Ϝέλα. The original form was, without doubt, ΣΑϜΕΛΙΟΣ, whence Sol in Latin, Sòl in Icelandish, Saule in Lithuanian (a language which has a remarkable resemblance to the Greek). Hence in Greek Ἁ ϜΕΛΙΟΣ, in Homer softened into ἡέλιος, afterwards among the Dorians ἅλιος, in Attic ἥλιος. Now it seems doubtful whether this ἁ, or ΣΑ can be considered as the α conjunctionis, as in ἀδελφεὸς, or whether ΣΑ ϜΕΑΙΟΣ should not rather be considered as a separate root.

1977 Ptolem. Hephæst. ap. Phot. Biblioth. p. 486.; comp. Toup, ad Hesych. vol. IV. pag. 165. Gregor. Corinth, p. 235.; the Megarian in Aristoph. Ach. 796.; the Delphian Inscription in Boeckh No. 1690.; Epicharmus ap. Athen. VIII. p. 362 B.C. ὀδολκαὶ a Cretan form according to Hesychius.

1978 Schol. Æschyl. Theb. 367. Schol. Nicand. Ther. 625.

1979 See Reisig. Synt. Critic, p. 16.

1980 For instance, ἁ Ϝράτρα τοῖς Ϝαλείοις, Τἀργεῖοι ἀνέθεν τῷ Δὶ, &c.: among the treaties in Thucydides the Doric documents always τοὶ Ἀργεῖοι, the Athenian Ἀργεῖοι, &c.—also the form ἁ Σπάρτα which so frequently occurs (οὐ γὰρ πάτριον τᾷ Σπάρτᾳ, Tyrtæus; ἀξίως τῆς Σπάρτης, Thuc. I. 86. &c.), belongs to the same class.

1981 I may incidentally remark that the consideration of the word μάω, and its derivatives, shows how little ground there is for the notion that the Muses were originally Ionic deities: does not the word μοῦσα, incorrectly formed from μῶσα, the feminine participle of μάω, distinctly prove that the word, and also the idea, were transferred from a different branch of the Greek language and nation?

1982 A remarkable agreement of Tarentine, Lacedæmonian, and Cretan words is ἀματὶς ἅπαξ Tarent., ἀμακίον Lacon., ἄμακις Cret. in Hesychius.

1983 See Lobeck, Aglaoph. vol. 11. p. 846.

1984 This date must have been fixed by the logographers.

1985 According to Apollodorus, vol. I. p. 145, note q, from whom Tzetzes, Chil. XII. 193, gives the same statement (with the exception of what he says on the age of Homer, which must be a misunderstanding). Apollodorus is followed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Solinus: see Larcher, Chronologie d’Hérodote, p. 373. The calculation of Timæus only differed by nine years, vol. I. p. 131. note t, who is nearly followed by Velleius Paterculus. The date of Apollodorus can now be completely restored from the Armenian Eusebius p. 166; from which we see that, according to Apollodorus, the first Olympiad coincided with the 10th year of Alcamenes. The Canons of Eusebius place the first Olympiad at the 37th and last year of Alcamenes; an error which appears to have arisen from Eusebius having taken the first year of Eurysthenes as identical with the epoch of the return of the Heraclidæ. Apollodorus however appears to have allowed thirty years for the minority of the brothers, see vol. II. p. 90. note u. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “rights by law,” starting “Plut. Lyc. 25.”] And he seems not to have reckoned the time from the entrance of the Heraclidæ into Sparta until the birth of the brothers, which Herod. VII. 52. calls χρόνον οὐ πολλόν. Now the canons have 324 years from the return of the Heraclidæ to Olymp. 1. (916 to 1240); if from this we deduct 26 years for Alcamenes, in whose 37th year the first Olympiad falls, according to the calculation of the canons, and add 30 years for the minority, we obtain 328, the number of Apollodorus. Apollodorus apparently took the 10 years of Alcamenes before Olymp. 1. as complete; whereas Eratosthenes probably placed Olymp. 1. at the beginning of this 10th year; hence the difference of 327 and 328 years. See however Clinton F. H. vol. I. p. 124. 330.

1986 If the years of the minority are included in those of the reign, (as the Spartans used to do in reckoning the reigns of their kings,) the 30 years of the guardianship of Theras must be given to Eurysthenes and Procles. But since this guardianship for the heads of both the royal houses was something peculiar, it is possible that the Spartan lists, and the Alexandrine chronologists who followed them, reckoned these 30 years separately.—For a defence of the opinion that the Spartan ἀναγραφαὶ contained chronological statements, and for an explanation of their character in reference to the remarks of Mr. Lewis (Philol. Museum, vol. II. p. 46.) and Mr. Clinton (F. H. vol. I. p. 332), see the Gottingen Gel. Anz. 1837. p. 893.

1987 Vol. I. p. 147. note b. The line of the Corinthian princes is arranged after Diodorus, who evidently followed the Alexandrine chronologists; but committed an error similar to that just pointed out in Eusebius. It has been corrected by Wesseling from Didymus.

1988 According to Eusebius. Compare b. II. ch. 3. § 4.

1989 Æginetica, p. 98.

1990 The Armenian Eusebius p. 166. in the extract from Diodorus, assigns 51 years to Procles, for which I correct 41; see b. I. ch. 5. § 14. But the list of the Proclidæ in that extract is very imperfect; and therefore only gives certain dates before Soüs and after Charilaus.

1991 Larcher will not allow that Agis only reigned one year, as in that case he could not have been so famous. But (to reason in his own manner) may he not have obtained his renown when regent, and may not the regret for the king, whom the nation so soon lost, have even increased the fame of his reign?

1992 This date and others followed by an asterisk are merely approximations to the truth.

1993 On this epoch see vol. I. p. 145. note q. Eratosthenes, who fixed the first Olympiad 407 years after the fall of Troy, placed Lycurgus 219 years after the return of the Heraclidæ; so also Porphyrius ap. Euseb. Armen. p. 139 Scalig. p. 27. Apollodorus and Eratosthenes both reckoned twenty-seven Olympiads from Iphitus to Corœbus, which number is testified by Aristodemus of Elis and Polybius, ap. Euseb. Armen. p. 141. Scalig. p. 39. Callimachus, however, only reckons thirteen Olympiads between these two eras. Perhaps this is to be explained by supposing that the Olympiad of Corœbus was the first of four years, whereas the former Olympiads had contained eight years (book II. ch. 3. § 2.); in which case we have 13 × 8 + 4 = 108. On this Cleosthenes, see Phlegon Trallianus apud Meurs. Op. vol. VII. p. 128. et Schol. Plat. Rep. V. p. 246. 7.

1994 Aristomedes reigned thirty-five years, according to the Armenian Eusebius, and Syncellus, in the list in p. 165; and not thirty years, as is stated in Syncellus, ib. p. 164.

1995 Sosibius ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 327. gives sixty-four years for the reign of Charilaus and thirty-nine for that of Nicander, and places the first Olympiad in the thirty-fourth year of Nicander; and this appears also to be the computation of Pausanias, who therefore carries the reign of Theopompus six Olympiads lower than Eusebius. In Pausanias likewise the successor of Polymestor, the contemporary of Charilaus, is the contemporary of the first Messenian war.

1996 Vol. I. p. 104, note g.

1997 Those who with Eusebius place the foundation of Syracuse in Olymp. 11. 4. and that of Leontini in Olymp. 13. 1. must assume that Lamis the Megarian founded Trotilus and Thapsus in the same year, and went from Thapsus to Megara. Why then, it must be asked, does not Thucydides (VI. 4.) say that Lamis went to the Chalcideans at Leontini ὀλίγῳ ὕστερον that he had founded Trotilus, as he states that he remained ὀλίγον χρόνον at Leontini, if Thucydides meant that all these events should be understood to follow in so very rapid a succession? At the same time the author acknowledges that though the arguments of Clinton, Fast. Hell. vol. II p. 265. ed. 2, for the founding of Syracuse in Olymp. 11. 4. have not convinced him, they have shaken his former conviction: and he adds the following remark in favour of that opposite opinion. If Syracuse was founded in Olymp. 5. 3., the founding of Camarina must be placed in Olymp. 39. 2. (Thuc. VI. 5.) Camarina, according to Scymnus v. 293, was destroyed forty-six years afterwards, i.e. in Olymp. 50. 4. Now it appears from the authentic catalogues of the conquerors at the Olympic games, that Parmenides of Camarina was victorious in the stadium in Olymp. 63. Camarina had not at that time been rebuilt; he could therefore only have been so called from his native place; which would (according to the assumed dates) have been then destroyed forty-nine years. It must, however, have been uncommon for men of fifty to be victorious in running. If, however, we place the foundation of Camarina in Olymp. 45. 1, and the destruction in Olymp. 56 (with the Schol. Pind. Ol. V. 16.), the whole receives a greater degree of probability. This argument, however, is not conclusive.

1998 This is the date of Eusebius. Pausanias, however, makes Alcamenes live till the 10th Olympiad, but without much authority, as the date is given in the romantic narrative of Myron.

1999 Euseb. Armen. p. 167. Pausanias represents Theopompus as still alive in the 15th Olympiad; as he follows Tyrtæus, who calls this prince the conqueror of Messenia, b. I. ch. 7. § 10. Yet it is not absolutely impossible that Tyrtæus might have used this expression as meaning that Theopompus contributed largely to the final result, without having actually completed the subjugation. The chronologists followed by Eusebius appear to have adopted the Messenian tradition, that Theopompus was killed during the war (according to Myron in the last year but one), vol. I. p. 159, note h, at the sacrifice of a ἑκατομφόνιον, according to Clemens of Alexandria (Protr. p. 36. Sylburg. Euseb. Præp. Evang. IV. p. 126 C.), who, however, has a very confused notion of this sacrifice; from which, and from the testimony of Sosibius the Lacedæmonian mentioned above, in p. 446, note l, [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “according to Sosibius,” starting “Sosibius ap. Clem.”] I infer that the authorities of Eusebius in this part of the history no longer followed the public register of Sparta.

2000 According to Thucydides, with reference to the date Olymp. 5. 3.

2001 Polydorus was honoured as a hero by posterity, as his τιμαὶ (Pausan. III. 3. 2.), the use of his portrait as the state seal ib. (11. 8.), and his house being bought by the state (ib. 12. 2.) sufficiently prove.

2002 B. I. ch. 6. § 7.

2003 B. I. ch. 8. § 2. Plutarch, de sera Num. vind. 7. p. 231, errs greatly in placing the victory of Teletias the Cleonæan ἐν παισὶν at the Pythia (after Olymp. 47.) before the reign of Orthagoras.

2004 B. I. ch. 6. § 8.

2005 Who also took refuge in Sparta, the protectress of aristocracy, Plutarch Lysand. 1. Some Heraclidæ, however, still remained in Corinth, b. I. ch. 6. § 8. With regard to the epoch, the dates from Diodorus of the kings and ninety prytanes of Corinth, agree completely with the best testimony as to the time of the Cypselidæ. Strabo’s 200 prytanes have arisen from a confusion with the number of males in the clan of the Bacchiadæ. See vol. I. p. 181, note u.

2006 Thuc. VI. 5. Compare the date of Syracuse, Olymp. 5. 3. The Scholiast to Pindar. Olymp. V. 16, who places the foundation in Olymp. 45. and Eusebius, reckon from Olymp. 11. 4.

2007 According to Thucydides, with the date Olymp. 16. 4.

2008 This victory cannot well be placed earlier, because Megacles, who was a party leader at Athens, from about the 54th to the 60th Olympiad, could have hardly come forward as a suitor before this time, (the other Athenian suitor, Hippoclides, was archon in Olymp. 53. 3.); nor later, because the Cypselidæ were not then in power, as is evident from Herod. VI. 128.

2009 On the computation of the Pythiads, see Boeckh. Expl. Pindar. Olymp. XII. p. 206. It does not however seem probable, as Boeckh supposes, that the ἀγὼν χρηματίσης took place in Olymp. 48. 3.: but I suspect that Pausanias, knowing practically that the Pythiads were to be counted from Ol. 48. 3, placed the first Pythiad in this year; not perceiving that the first Pythiad was an ἐνναετηρὶς, or octennial period, as is evident from the Parian marble; whence in the argument to the Pythians, for μετὰ χρόνον ἑξαέτη, I would correct ἐνναέτη; although the fault, if it be a fault, is of old standing.

2010 Orchomenos, p. 374, where for 60 write 50. As some misapprehensions have arisen on the passages relating to this event, I may be permitted to make the following remarks. I. The three passages of Pausanias, V. 63. V. 10. 2. VI. 22. 2. on the ἀνάστασις of the Pisans, evidently refer to the same event; and consequently the second of them should be interpreted thus: “the statue of Jupiter is made from the plunder gained at the time when the Eleans overcame Pisa.” This is the explanation of Dodwell, Annal. Thuc. p. 137. otherwise Voelckel, Ueber den Tempel des Olympischen Jupiters, p. 6. Krueger de Xenoph. Vita. II. In Strabo VIII. p. 355, C. the ἱσχάτη κατάλυσις τῶν Μεσσηνίων cannot be the war of Olymp. 81; since the Pisans could neither have had the management of the games at that time, nor any Nestoridæ been in existence at Pylos. But he must mean the subjugation of Messenia after the 30th Olympiad, after which time the Lacedæmonians perhaps assisted the Eleans in gradually weakening Pisa, until in the 50th Olympiad it became completely subject. A more precise date for the distinction of Pisa may be gathered from the strange statement of the catalogue of the Olympiad in Eusebius according to Africanus, that the Pisans celebrated the 30th and the 22 following Olympiads (vid. ad Ol. 30); if we understand it to mean that the Pisans had a share in the celebration of the Olympiads until their destruction. According to this, Pisa was destroyed in Olymp. 52.

2011 Diog. Laert. I. 98.

2012 In later times, however, a certain T. Statilius Lamprias, the son of Timocrates Memmianus derives his origin from Perseus (through Hercules) and the Dioscuri, Boeckh, Corp. Inscript. No. 1124; as also a M. Aurelius Aristocrates, the son of Damænetus, hereditary priest of Hercules and the Dioscuri at Sparta, declares that he is descended from Hercules in the 48th, and from the Dioscuri in the 44th generation, ibid. No. 1353. and see Boeckh on No. 1340.

2013 That Pausanias (III. 7. 5.) errs greatly in assigning this battle to the reign of Theopompus (about Olymp. 2-16.) is proved by his own statement that Perilaus, the son of the Argive warrior Alcenor, was a conqueror at the Nemean games (b. I. ch. 7. § 16); for no conquerors at those games are mentioned before Olymp. 53. Plutarch Lac. Apophth. p. 233, states that the battle took place in the reign of Polydorus (about Olymp. 7-17.), Solinus VII. 9. in Olymp. 10, 4. 737 B.C.

2014 To this war, which must be placed about Olymp. 60, should probably be referred the inscription on the helmet found at Olympia, which formed part of a trophy, Corp. Inscript. 20. 29. cf. Addend. p. 885.

ΤΑΡΓ[ει]ΟΙ ΑΝΕΘΕΝ ΤΟΙ ΔΙϜΙ ΤΟΝ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΟΘΕΝ.

2015 Herod. V. 46. cf. Plutarch. Lycurg. 20. That Dorieus did not fight against Sybaris may also be proved chronologically.

2016 Lacedæmonian envoys to this tyrant are mentioned by Plutarch, Lac. Apophth. p. 245.

2017 According to Herod. VI. 33. See b. I. ch. 6. § 9.

2018 Perhaps in Olymp. 71. 3. in which case Diodorus XI. 48. has confounded Anaxilas’ government of Messana with his government of Rhegium.

2019 The oration of the supposed Thessalus, in Epist. Hippocrat. p. 1294. ed. Foës. states, that “the king of Persia demanded earth and water (493 B.C.), which the Coans refused (contrary to Herod. VI. 49.); that upon this he gave the island of Cos to Artemisia to be wasted. Artemisia was shipwrecked, but afterwards conquered the island. During the first war (490 B.C.), Cadmus and Hippolochus governed the city; which the former quitted when Artemisia took the island.”

2020 The fall of this town was preceded by a great plague, according to Diomedes, p. 484. ed. Putsch, who mentions Hiero instead of Gelo. It is to this time that Corsini, Fast. Att. II. 1. p. 110, refers the elegy of Theognis to those who had escaped the siege of the Syracusans, mentioned in Suidas in Θέογνις. It appears probable that in the words εἰς τοὺς σωθέντας τῶν Συρακουσίων ἐν τῇ πολιορκίᾳ, a slight transposition should be made, (viz. ἐν τῇ τῶν Συρακουσίων πολιορκίᾳ,) as at this time Syracuse was only the besieging and never the besieged party.

2021 B. IV. ch. 7. § 2.

2022 Euryanax was the son of Dorieus, according to Herod. IX. 10. But why was he not king before Leonidas, if Dorieus was the eldest son of Anaxandridas? Perhaps because a Heraclide who left his native country lost his right to the throne. Plut. Agesil. 11.

2023 On the unfortunate skirmish of the Megarians and Phliasians with the Theban cavalry (Herod. IX. 69.), see the splendid eulogium contained in the Megarian epigram. Boeckh. Corp. Inscript. No. 1050. Mus. Crit. Cant. vol. II. p. 616.

2024 In Pausan. III. 14. I. I correct τέσσαρσιν for τεσσαράκοντα, which I cannot reconcile with the time.

2025 The statements of Diodorus XI. 48. on the length of both these princes’ reigns are quite correct; but are inserted in a wrong place. According to Plutarch, Cimon. c. 6. the earthquake was in the 4th year of Archidamus (Olymp. 78. 3. 466 B.C.). Pausanias, IV. 24. 2. places it, pretty accurately, in the 79th Olympiad. Diodorus incorrectly in Olymp. 77. 4. the first year of Archidamus.

2026 Vol. I. p. 208, note q.

2027 Pleistarchus, according to Paus. III 5. 1., died a short time after he had become king, and therefore not much above the age of 30. His mother Gorgo, the wife of Leonidas, was a girl of 8 or 9 years, when Aristagoras attempted to induce Sparta to join the Ionic revolt. Herod. V. 51.

2028 According to the calculation of Thucydides. See Corsini Fast. Att. II. 1. p. 207.

2029 It is to this that the offerings of the Megarians are referred, mentioned in vol. I. p. 195, note k.

***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY AND ANTIQUITIES OF THE DORIC RACE, VOL. 2 OF 2***

CREDITS

September 28, 2010

Project Gutenberg TEI edition 1 Produced by Ted Garvin, David King, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at <http://www.pgdp.net/>.

A WORD FROM PROJECT GUTENBERG

This file should be named 34010‐0.txt or 34010‐0.zip.

This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/3/4/0/1/34010/

Updated editions will replace the previous one — the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the Project Gutenberg™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given away — you may do practically anything with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

Please read this before you distribute or use this work.

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License (available with this file or online at http://www.gutenberg.org/license).

Section 1.

General Terms of Use & Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A.

By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B.

“Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C.

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D.

The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United States.

1.E.

Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1.

The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at http://www.gutenberg.org

1.E.2.

If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3.

If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4.

Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5.

Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6.

You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ web site (http://www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7.

Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8.

You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that

- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9.

If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1.

Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2.

LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES — Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3.

LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND — If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4.

Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ’AS-IS,’ WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5.

Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6.

INDEMNITY — You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2.

Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.

Section 3.

Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/pglaf. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email [email protected]. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s web site and official page at http://www.pglaf.org

For additional contact information:

Dr. Gregory B. Newby Chief Executive and Director [email protected]

Section 4.

Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without wide spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate

Section 5.

General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works.

Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Each eBook is in a subdirectory of the same number as the eBook’s eBook number, often in several formats including plain vanilla ASCII, compressed (zipped), HTML and others.

Corrected editions of our eBooks replace the old file and take over the old filename and etext number. The replaced older file is renamed. Versions based on separate sources are treated as new eBooks receiving new filenames and etext numbers.

Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:

http://www.gutenberg.org

This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

***FINIS***