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 5800_l._ 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.




Chapter I.


    § 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.




Chapter II.


    § 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)




Chapter III.


    § 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)




Chapter IV.


    § 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)




Chapter V.


    § 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)




Chapter VI.


    § 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.




Chapter VII.


    § 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.




Chapter VIII.


    § 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.




Chapter IX.


    § 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.

  533 Xen. Hell. III. 2. 6. Plut. Pericl. 22.

  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.

  540 Herod. IX. 76.

  541 Plutarch. Lys. 16. Diod. XIII. 106.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  561 Hesych. in v.

  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.

  597 Polybius and Appius ubi sup. mention δημαγωγοὶ; the former writer
      had also explained the τρέπος τῆς δημηγορίας, but the passage is
      lost.

  598 Strabo XIV. p. 652. See below, ch. 9. § 3.

  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.

  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.

  603 See particularly Andoc. de Myst. p. 37.

  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.

  610 V. 71. Compare Schoemann de Comitiis, p. 12.

  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.

  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.

  651 Herod. VII. 99.

  652 Aristot. Pol. V. 4. 2.

  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.