Page images
PDF
EPUB

ished. The term democracy is used by Aristotle sometimes in a larger sense, so as to include several forms of government, which, notwithstanding their common character, were distinguished from each other by peculiar features; at other times in a narrower, to denote a form essentially vicious, which stands in the same relation to the happy temperament to which he gives the name of polity, as oligarchy to aristocracy, or tyranny to royalty. We shall not confine ourselves to the technical language of his system, but will endeavour to define the notion of democracy, as the word was commonly used by the Greeks, so as to separate the essence of the thing from the various accidents which have sometimes been confounded with it by

which his father had acquired, even if he was tution most in conformity to her own. But not inferior to him in ability, seldom imitated the example of Athens will show that she was his prudence; and, even when he began with sometimes instrumental in promoting the trigood intentions, he might be precipitated by one umph of principles more adverse to her views false step into a career of crime where he could than those of the tyranny itself. When, hownever stop. If even he was not the slave of his ever, the struggle which had been interrupted passions, and was not conscious of incurring by the temporary usurpation was revived, the general contempt or hatred by the manner in parties were no longer in exactly the same poswhich he indulged them, he might be alarmed ture as at its outset. In general, the commonby some attempt to shake off his yoke, and alty was found to have gained in strength and might be rendered remorseless and cruel by his in spirit even more than the oligarchy had lost, fears. Thenceforth the whole aspect of the and the prevalent leaning of the ensuing period government was changed. The new tyrant was on the side of democracy. Indeed, the deplaced his sole reliance on foreign troops, and cisive step was that by which the oligarchy of on the means he possessed of weakening, divi- wealth was substituted for the oligarchy of birth. ding, and overawing his subjects. He endeav-This opened the door for all the subsequent inoured to level all that was eminent in birth, novations by which the scale of the timocracy wealth, or merit, by death, banishment, and con-was gradually lowered, until it was wholly abolfinement; lent an ear to flatterers and informers, sent his spies into every social circle, and rewarded the treachery of faithless slaves or unnatural relatives. These features may perhaps belong more generally to the tyranny of later times than to that of the period which we are now considering-the century or two preceding the Persian wars; yet, in a greater or less degree, they appear to have been common to both. But, even where the tyrant did not make himself universally odious, or provoke the vengeance of individuals by his wantonness or cruelty, he was constantly threatened by dangers both from within and from without, which it required the utmost vigour and prudence to avert. The party which his usurpation had supplanted, though depressed, was still power-writers who have treated Greek history as a ful, more exasperated than humbled by its de- vehicle for conveying their views on questions feat, and ever ready to take advantage of any of modern politics, which never arose in the opportunity of overthrowing him, either by pri- Greek republics. It must not be forgotten, that vate conspiracy, or by affecting to make com- the body to which the terms oligarchy and demon cause with the lower classes, or by call-mocracy refer formed a comparatively small ing in foreign aid. And in Greece itself such part of the population in most Greek states, aid was always at hand: the tyrants, indeed, since it does not include either slaves or resiwere partially leagued together for mutual sup-dent free foreigners. The sovereign power report. But Sparta threw all her might into the opposite scale. She not only dreaded the contagion of an example which might endanger her own institutions, but was glad to extend her influence by taking an active part in revolutions which would cause the states restored by her intervention to their old government to look up to her with gratitude and dependance as their natural protectress. And, accordingly, Thucydides ascribes the overthrow of most of the tyrannies which flourished in Greece before the Persian war to the exertions of Sparta; though neither he, nor any other ancient author, has left an account of the manner in which it was effected, and only a few instances of her interference are mentioned by Plutarch in a casual allusion.* Her co-operation to this end was undoubtedly very important to her own interests, and may have laid the immediate foundation of her subsequent greatness; but it probably only hastened the natural course of events, which, nearly at the same time, without her aid, led to a similar general revolution in many of the western colonies.

sided wholly in the native freemen, and whether it was exercised by a part or by all of them, was the question which determined the nature of the government. When the barrier had been thrown down by which all political rights were made the inheritance of certain families-since every freeman, even when actually excluded from them by the want of sufficient property, was by law capable of acquiring them-deinocracy might be said to have begun. It was advancing as the legal condition of their enjoyment was brought within the reach of a more numerous class, but it could not be considered as complete so long as any freeman was debarred from them by poverty. Since, however, the sovereignty included several attributes which might be separated, the character of the Constitution depended on the way in which these were distributed. It was considered as partaking more of democracy than of oligarchy when the most important of them were shared by all freemen without distinction, though a part was still appropriated to a number limited either by birth or fortune. Thus, where the legislative, or, as it was anciently termed, the delib

The immediate effect produced by the fall of the tyrants depended on the hands by which iterative branch of the sovereignty was lodged in was accomplished. Where it was the work of Sparta, she would aim at introducing a Consti* De Her. Mal., 21.

an assembly open to every freeman, and where no other qualification than free birth was required for judicial functions and for the elec

tion of magistrates, there the government was of exercising his franchise; and as the sum called democratical, though the highest offices which could be afforded for this service was neof the state might be reserved to a privileged cessarily small, it attracted precisely the persons class. But a finished democracy, that which whose presence was least desirable. A farther fully satisfied the Greek notion, was one in application of the same principle was, as much which every attribute of sovereignty might be as possible, to increase the number, and abridge shared, without respect to rank or property, by the duration and authority of public offices, every freeman. and to transfer their power to the people in a mass. On the same ground, chance was substituted for election in the creation of all magistrates whose duty did not actually demand either the security of a large fortune, or peculiar abilities and experience. In proportion as the popular assembly, or large portions detached from it for the exercise of judicial functions, drew all the branches of the sovereignty more and more into their sphere, the character of their proceedings became more and more subject to the influence of the lower class of the citizens, which constituted a permanent majority. And thus the democracy, instead of the equality which was its supposed basis, in fact established the ascendency of a faction, which, although greatly preponderant in numbers, no more represented the whole state than the oligarchy itself; and which, though not equally liable to fall into the mechanism of a vicious system, was more prone to yield to the impulse of the moment, more easily misled by blind or treacherous guides, and might thus as frequently, though not so deliberately and methodically, trample not only on law and custom, but on justice and humanity. This disease of a deochlocracy, or the dominion of the rabble.

More than this was not implied in democracy; and little less than this was required, according to the views of the philosophers, to constitute the character of a citizen, which, in the opinion of Aristotle, could not exist without a voice in the legislative assembly, and such a share in the administration of justice as was necessary to secure the responsibility of the magistrates. But this equality of rights left room for a great diversity in the modes of exercising them, which determined the real nature of a democratical constitution. There were, indeed, certain rights, those which Aristotle considers as essential to a citizen, which, according to the received Greek notions, could in a democracy only be exercised in person. The thought of delegating them to accountable representatives seems never to have occurred either to practical or speculative statesmen, except in the formation of confederacies, which rendered such an expedient necessary. Where all the powers of the state were lodged in a certain number of citizens, though they were elected by the whole body of the people, the government was looked upon as an oligarchy; and, in fact, it seems that in all such cases the func-mocracy was sometimes designated by the term tions so assigned were held for life, and without any responsibility. But still, even in the purest form of democracy, it was not necessary that all the citizens should take an equally active part in the transaction of public business; and the unavoidable inequality in the advantages of fortune and of personal qualities fixed a natural limit to the exercise of most political rights. The class which was raised by its station above the need of daily labour seemed to be pointed out by nature for the discharge of all offices and duties which required leisure and freedom of thought. It could only be on extraordinary occasions that the poor man could be willing to leave his field or his workshop to take his place in the legislative assembly or the court of justice; and the control which his right, however rarely it might be called into action, gave him over the public officers, who were the men of his choice, was a sufficient safeguard against every ordinary danger to be apprehended from them.

But the principle of legal equality, which was the basis of democracy, was gradually construed in a manner which inverted the wholesome order of nature, and led to a long train of pernicious consequences. The administration of the commonwealth came to be regarded, not as a service in which all were interested, but for which some might be qualified better than others, but as a property, in which each was entitled to an equal share. The practical application of this view was the introduction of an expedient for levelling, as far as possible, the inequality of nature, by enabling the poorest to devote his time, without loss, or even with profit, to public affairs. This was done by giving him wages for his attendance on all occasions VOL. I.-X

A democracy thus corrupted exhibited many features of a tyranny. It was jealous of all who were eminently distinguished by birth, fortune, or reputation; it encouraged flatterers and sycophants; was insatiable in its demands on the property of the rich, and readily listened to charges which exposed them to death or confiscation. The class which suffered such oppression, commonly ill satisfied with the principle of the Constitution itself, was inflamed with the most furious animosity by the mode in which it was applied, and regarded the great mass of its fellow-citizens as its mortal enemies. But the long series of calamities which flowed from this source, both to particular states and to the whole nation, more properly belongs to a later period; and we have even gone a few steps beyond the limits of this part of our history in pointing out their origin, which, however, could not be omitted here without leaving this sketch of the subject imperfect and obscure.

Aristotle's survey of the Greek forms of government, which we have taken as our guide in the foregoing sketch, was founded on a vast store of information which he had collected on the history and constitution of more than a hundred and fifty states, in the mother-country and the colonies, and which he had consigned to a great work now unfortunately lost. Our knowledge of the internal condition and vicissitudes of almost all these states is very scanty and fragmentary; but some of the main facts concerning them, which have been saved from oblivion, will serve to throw light both on the picture just given and on several parts of the ensuing history.

row oligarchy described by Aristotle ;* who observes, that the whole number of citizens exercising any political functions was small-confined, perhaps, to the six hundred mentioned by Thucydides ;† and that the senate, originally composed of ninety members, who held their office for life, and filled up vacancies at their pleasure, had been gradually reduced to a very few. Elis, the capital, remained in a condition like that of the above-mentioned Arcadian towns until the Persian war, when the inhabprecincts. This was probably attended by other changes of a democratical nature- perhaps by the limitation which one Phormis is said to have effected in the power of the senate§-and henceforth the number of the Hellanodicæ corresponded to that of the tribes or regions into which the Elean territory was divided; so that, whenever any of these regions was lost by the chance of war, the number of the Hellanodica was proportionately reduced.|| So, too, the matrons who presided at the games in honour of Heré, in which the Elean virgins contended at Olympia, were chosen in equal number from each of the tribes.¶

We have scarcely anything to say, during ed to two Elean officers by lot, a proof that roythis period, of the state of parties, or even the alty was then extinct. The Constitution by forms of government, in Arcadia, Elis, and which it was replaced seems to have been rigidAchaia. If Arcadia was ever subject to a sin-ly aristocratical, perhaps no other than the nargle king, which seems to be intimated by some accounts of its early history, it was probably only, as in Thessaly, by an occasional election or a temporary usurpation. The title of king, however, appears not to have been everywhere abolished down to a much later time, as we find a hint that it was retained at Orchomenus even in the fifth century before our era.* That the republican Constitutions were long aristocratical can scarcely be doubted, as the two principal Arcadian cities, Tegea and Mantinea, were at first only the chief among several smallitants of many villages were collected in its hamlets, which were at length united in one capital. This, whenever it happened, was a step towards the subversion of aristocratical privileges; and it was no doubt with this view that the five Mantinean villages were incorporated by the Argives, as Strabo mentions without assigning the date of the event. But it is not probable that Argos thus interfered before her own institutions had undergone a like change, which, as we shall see, did not take place before a later period than our history has yet reached. Whether the union of the nine villages, which included Tegea as their chief, was effected earlier or later, does not appear. But, after she had once acknowledged the su- In Achaia, the royal dignity was transmitted premacy of Sparta, Tegea was sheltered by in the line of Tisamenus down to Ogyges, whose Spartan influence from popular innovations, and sons, affecting despotic power, were deposed, was always the less inclined to adopt them and the government was changed to a democwhen they prevailed at Mantinea; for as the racy,** which is said to have possessed a high position of the two Arcadian neighbours tended reputation.†† From Pausanias, it would rather to connect the one with Sparta and the other seem as if the title of king had been held by a with Argos, so it supplied occasion for intermi- number of petty chiefs at once ‡‡ If so, the nable feuds between them, especially as the revolution must have had its origin in causes contiguous plains, which formed the main part more general than those assigned to it by Poof their territories, were liable to be much dam-lybius. It was probably accelerated by the aged by the waters that descended from their number of Achæan emigrants who sought refmountains, which might easily be diverted to-uge in Achaia from other parts of Peloponnewards either side. At a much later period a like incorporation took place, through Spartan intervention, at Herea, which had also been the chief of nine hamlets. It was probably after this event that the Constitution of Heræa underwent the changes mentioned by Aristotle, and produced by the extraordinary heat of competition for public offices, which rendered it necessary to fill them up by lot, instead of the ancient mode of election. But, in general, the history of the western states of Arcadia is wrapped in deep obscurity, which was only broken, in the fourth century B.C., by the foundation of a new Arcadian capital.

In Elis the monarchical form of government continued for some generations in the line of Oxylus, but appears to have ceased there earlier than at Pisa, which, at the time when it was conquered and destroyed by the Eleans, was ruled by chiefs, who were probably legitimate kings. Immediately after the conquest, in the fiftieth Olympiad, the dignity of Hellanodices, which had been held by the kings of Elis, or shared by them with those of Pisa, was assign

Plut., Paral.. 32. The story of the murder of Romulus transferred to Arcadia. The whole being so palpable a fiction, I should hardly have thought it a sufficient ground even for the remark in the text, if it had not been cited with confidence by Mueller, Dor., i., 7, 10, n. 6. † Thuc., v,, 65. Strabo, viii., p. 337.

Pol., V.,

3.

sus, and who soon crowded the country, till it was relieved by its Italian colonies. What Polybius and Strabo term a democracy, may, however, have been a polity, or a very liberal and well-tempered form of oligarchy. Of its details we know nothing; nor are we informed in what relation the twelve principal Achaian townsa division adopted from the Ionians-stood to

* Pol., v., 6. In the comparison with the Spartan Gerusia, a negative seems to have dropped out of the text. t v., 47. Strabo, vin., p. 337.

Plutarch, Reip. Ger. Præc., c. 10. Paus., v., 9. The text of Pausanias manifestly requires some correction in the date assigned to the appointment of nine Hellanodice, in the room of the two who are said to have filled that office for a very long time (ini #Acioror) afought to be substituted for that which is found in the manter the 50th Olympiad. But it is doubtful what number uscripts-Ol. 25. Mueller, in an interesting essay on the subject, in the new Rheinisches Museum, ii., 2, p. 168, proposes 01. 75 as the epoch mentioned by Pausanias. He has there rendered it highly probable, that of the twelve regions which composed the Elean territory in its greatest extent, four belonged to the proper, or hollow Elis, four to Pisa, and four to the Triphylian states. It was this last portion that often changed masters in the wars between Elis and her neighbours, and thus occasioned the variation in the number of the Hellanodica. Yet it is remarkable, that the nine, who were appointed when the number was first enlarged, had not all one office, but presided. three over the chariot race, three over the pentathlon, and three over the other contests. (Paus., v., 9, 5.) Paus., v., 16, 5.

+ Strabo, v., iiii., 384.

** Polybius, ii., 41. ‡‡ vi, 6, 2.

the hamlets, of which each had seven or eight | but certainly expressive of contempt. Towards in its territory, like those of Tegea and Manti- the end of the seventh century B.C., and the nea. As little are we able to describe the beginning of the next, Epidaurus was subject constitution of the Confederacy in which the to a ruler named Procles, who is styled a tytwelve states were now united. rant, and was allied with Periander, the tyrant of Corinth. But nothing is known as to the origin and nature of his usurpation. He incurred the resentment of his son-in-law Periander, who made himself master of Procles and of Epidaurus. It was, perhaps, this event which afforded Ægina an opportunity of shaking off the Epidaurian yoke. But, had it been otherwise, the old relation between the two states could not have subsisted much longer. Egina was rapidly outgrowing the mother-country, was engaged in a flourishing commerce, strong in an enterprising and industrious population, enriched and adorned by the arts of peace, and

soon after took place was imbittered by mutual resentment, and the Eginetans, whose navy soon became the most powerful in Greece, retaliated on Epidaurus for the degradation they had suffered by a series of insults. But the same causes to which they owed their national independence seem to have deprived the class which had been hitherto predominant in Ægina of its political privileges. The island was torn by the opposite claims and interests arising out of the old and the new order of things, and became, as we shall see, the scene of a bloody struggle.

More light has been thrown by ancient authors on the history of the states in the northeast quarter of Peloponnesus, those of Argolis in the largest sense of the word. At Argos itself, regal government subsisted down to the Persian wars, although the line of the Heracleid princes appears to have become extinct towards the middle of the preceding century. Pausanias remarks that, from a very early period, the Argives were led by their peculiarly independent spuit to limit the prerogatives of their kings so narrowly as to leave them little more than the name. We cannot, however, place much reliance on such a general reflection of a late wri-skilled in those of war. The separation which ter. But we have seen that Pheidon, who, about the year 750 B.C., extended the power of Argos farther than any of his predecessors, also stretched the royal authority so much beyond its legitimate bounds that he is sometimes called a tyrant, though he was rightful heir of Temenus. After his death, as his conquests appear to have been speedily lost, so it is probable that his successors were unable to maintain the ascendency which he had gained over his Dorian subjects, and the royal dignity may henceforth have been, as Pausanias describes it, little more than a title. Hence, too, on the failure of the ancient line, about B.C. 560, Egon, though of a different family, may have met with the less opposition in mounting the throne. The substance of power rested with the Dorian freemen; in what manner it was distributed among them we can only conjecture from analogy. Their lands were cultivated by a class of serfs, corresponding to the Spartan Helots, who served in war as lightarmed troops, whence they derived their peculiar name, gymnesians. They were also sovereigns of a few towns, the inhabitants of which, like the Laconians subject to Sparta, though personally free, were excluded from all share in their political privileges. The events which put an end to this state of things, and produced an entire change in the form of government at Argos, will be hereafter related.

At Corinth, the descendants of Aletes retained the power and the title of royalty for five generations, after which, according to Pausanias, the sceptre passed into another family, called the Bacchiads, from Bacchis, the first king of their race, and was transmitted in this line for five generations more, when Telestes, the last of these princes, having been murdered, the kingly office was abolished, and in its place, yearly magistrates, with the title of prytanes, were elected, exclusively, however, from the house of Bacchis. This account, indeed, cannot be reconciled with Strabo's, that the Bacchiads, as a body, ruled 200 years, which, if added to the ten generations of Pausanias, would bring down the termination of the Bacchiad dynasty more than a century too low. But we do not know the grounds of Strabo's calculation, Among the states of the Argolic acte, Epidau- and it seems not improbable that his 200 years rus deserves notice, not so much for the few may include a period during which the Bacfacts which are known of its internal history, chiads permitted members of their house to exas on account of its relation to Ægina. This ercise an authority which may have been gradisland, destined to take no inconsiderable part ually limited, as at Athens. The Bacchiads in the affairs of Greece, was long subject to must not be considered as a single family, but Epidaurus, which was so jealous of her sov- probably comprehended many, which, though ereignty as to compel the Eginetans to resort bearing a common name, were but distantly to her tribunals for the trial of their causes. It connected by blood. On the other hand, they seems to have been as a dependency of Epidau- undoubtedly included only a small part of the rus that Egina fell under the dominion of the Dorian freemen, and they appear to have esArgive Pheidon. After recovering her own in-tranged themselves as much from the great dependence, Epidaurus still continued mistress of the island. Whether she had any subjects on the main land standing on the same footing, we are not expressly informed. But here, likewise, the ruling class was supported by the services of a population of bondmen, distinguished by a peculiar name (Conipodes, the dusty-footed), designating, indeed, their rural occupations, Strabo, viii., p. 386, who remarks, of uèv loves wundo ώκουν, οἱ δ' 'Αχαιοὶ πόλεις ἔκτισαν.

body of their countrymen as from the conquered Eolians; for they not only engrossed all political power, but intermarried exclusively with one another. It seems natural to suppose that the effect of this exclusion would be to efface the distinctions which before separated the other classes in the state, and to leave only two orders, conscious of different views and interests, the dominant caste and their subjects. The situation of Corinth inviting the commerce

of the east, and stimulating its people to ex- having banished many citizens, and with havtend it towards the west, the influx of stran-ing deprived many of their property, and still gers, augmented from time to time by the na- more of their lives; and a later author asserts tional games celebrated on the Isthmus, and that, in the course of ten years, he took away the consequences hence arising to the numbers, the whole amount of the property of the Cothe condition, and habits of the industrious rinthians in taxes,* and, in pursuance of a vow, class, must have contributed to the same result.dedicated it to Jupiter; and a statue of pure With the wealth of Asia, Corinth seems very gold at Olympia, which was celebrated as his early to have admitted Asiatic vices and luxu- offering, though it was not in his lifetime inry, which flourished under the shelter of an ex- scribed with his name, and the costly work, otic superstition.* The ruling class itself was with which he adorned other Grecian temples. not exempt from this contagion. The great must have seemed to confirm a part of these wealth attributed to the Bacchiad Demaratus, accusations. The fact may have been, that in the Roman story, indicates that the Corin- Cypselus did not spare the oligarchs whom he thian nobles did not disdain to enrich themselves had overthrown, but that he maintained himby commerce. Aristotle, indeed, speaks of a self by the confidence and affection of the peovery ancient Corinthian legislator, named Phei-ple, which continued to regard him as its dedon, who had endeavoured so to regulate and liverer and protector to the end of his life. limit the acquisition of property and the num- He was succeeded by his son Periander, a bers of the citizens as to preserve either the very celebrated person, but the subject of so same amount or the same proportions. But many contradictory accounts that it is extremethese institutions, which probably related only ly difficult to discover his real character. He to the nobles, if they were ever adopted, seem was famed for his wisdom, and was even frenot to have been durable. quently numbered among the seven most eminent sages of his age: he was a lover of poetry, and himself made it a vehicle of moral or political instruction; his administration is praised by Plato's scholar, Heraclides, as prudent, just, mild, and even paternal, for he is said to have shown a tender solicitude, not merely for the prosperity, but for the moral well-being of his subjects. On the other hand, he is described as a man incapable of self-command, who made himself and others miserable by the indulgence of his passions; and, in his public capacity, as a rapacious, oppressive, and cruel despot. It is, however, added, by those who treat his character most unfavourably, that it underwent an unhappy change in the course of his reign, and was good and amiable before it was corrupted. According to one view, which Herodotus found prevalent, this change was produced by the evil counsels of a contemporary tyrant, Thrasybulus of Miletus; according to another view, it was the effect of a dreadful domestic calamity. But Aristotle, without seeming to know of any such change, observes that Periander was reputed to be the first of the Greek tyrants who had reduced the policy of despotic government to a system, and that the acts by which he provided for the stability of his power, and which had been of old familiar to the courts of the East, consisted in devices for depressing and destroying the most eminent and aspiring of his subjects, for inpoverishing the wealthy and trampling on the low, for scattering the seeds of general discord and distrust among different orders, and severing all the ties by which the noblest spirits were united, and in which they might find the means of resistance. It is impossible perfectly to reconcile all these accounts, and the utmost we can attempt is to trace some of the more prominent We ought features in Periander's character. not to receive without distrust the tragical story of his private life, which has probably passed through the hands of a hostile party; but still it seems clear that, if he was unfortu

It would have been scarcely possible that so narrow an oligarchy could have kept its ground long under such circumstances, even if it had used its power with the utmost moderation and wisdom. But the Bacchiads seem not to have been sufficiently careful to preserve the respect of their subjects, though they were, probably, by no means negligent of precautions for securing the stability of their government, among which may be numbered the colonies, by which they discharged a part of their growing population on the coasts of the western seas. The revolution by which they were overthrown, about the year 660 B.C., though it only served for a time to raise another dynasty in their room, was undoubtedly the work of the commonalty, which had grown weary of their usurpation. Cypselus, the author of this revolution, was a man of an opulent and very ancient family, though of Æolian, not Dorian nobility; for he traced his descent to Cæneus, a king of the Lapiths, and one of his nearer ancestors had been an associate of Aletes in the conquest of Corinth. The legend which explained, and, perhaps, grew out of his name, represents him as sprung from a daughter of the Bacchiads, and as, from his birth, an object of their jealousy. For thirty years he ruled Corinth, and, in the language of a later generation, is termed sometimes a king, sometimes a tyrant. But Aristotle calls him a demagogue, and assigns, as a proof of his real character, that he never employed guards about his person; yet a Corinthian orator in Herodotus charges him with * Strabo, viil, p. 378. Kreuser, in a little work called Der Hellenen Priesterstaat, p. 71, labours hard to destroy the credit of Strabo's assertion as to the Corinthian Hierodules, but has not observed how strongly it is confirmed by the passage of Athenæus, containing the fragments of Pindar's Scolion, xii., c. 33. See Boeckh on Pindar, iii., p.

611.

See the story of Archias in Fr., Diodor., 1. viii.; and in M. Tyrius, 241; and that of Diocles and Alcyone, Aristot., Pol., ., 9; and Elian, V. H., i., 19.

Paus.. ti., 4; v., 18, 2.

From the coffer (kuiŋ) in which he had been concealed by his mother, which was said to be preserved at Olympia. The one dedicated by his family as a relic and a monument of his deliverance was of cedar-wood, inlaid with gold and ivory, and adorned with many groups of figures. Pol. v., 9.

In the oracle in Herod., v., 92.

*Pseudo-Aristot., Econ., 2.

+ Paus., v., 2, 3
As that of Delphi. Plut., Sep. Sap. Conv., c. 21.
Parthenius, 17. Diog. Laert., Periand., 94.
Pol., v., 11.

« PreviousContinue »