« PreviousContinue »
mate, he was by no means virtuous or innocent. The fatal excess of his mother's passions did not teach him to moderate his own. In a fit of anger orjealousy he killed his beautiful wife, Lysis, or Melissa, the daughter of Procles, whom he loved with passionate sondness; took a horrible revenge on the persons who had instigated him to the deed, and sought refuge from his remorse in the darkest rites of a barbarous superstition. The latter part of his life was imbittered by the implacable aversion of a favourite son, to whom Procles had revealed the secret of his mother's fate. He punished Procles, as we have seen, but lost the child of his hopes, to whom he was on the point of resigning his power, through the hatred or dread with which his own character had impressed the people of Corcyra, who are said to have destroyed the son in order to avoid the presence of the father. It would therefore seem, that if Periander merited the title of Wise, it can only have been by his political prudence; but whether this was the instrument of an odious tyranny, or of a gentle and beneficent rule, would still remain a question. Perhaps we shall not be far wrong if we suppose that, as he had not the same claims with his father on the gratitude of the commonalty, so he was less disposed by nature to depend upon their good will, and that he early showed a resolution of reigning by force, and not, as Cypselus had done, by popular favour. He secured his person by a guard of mercenaries, and strengthened his state by alliance or friendship with foreign tyrants, and even with barbarian kings; and he must have maintained a force which enabled him, by other expeditions besides that which we have mentioned against Epidaurus, to earn the praises bestowed by Aristotle on his military skill. The new position in which he stood towards the commonalty is indicated by his regulations for preventing the influx of new inhabitants into the city, or for compelling some of the poorer sort to quit it." If, however, he lost the affections of the people, he had the more cause to apprehend the enmity of the noble families, and was thus, perhaps, driven to the acts described by Aristotle, without needing the counsels of Thrasybulus, of whom, indeed, it was not known whether he had sent or received the famous warning which one of these tyrants was believed to have given the other, f by striking down the tallest ears in a corn-field. It has been supposed, apparently without sufficient ground, that it was Periander's object to abolish the Dorian institutions at Corinth. We can only collect from Aristotle that he kept an eye of watchful jealousy on all eminent individuals and all aristocratical combinations which might threaten his safety. But it is easier to see how, by the measures which he may have taken to avert such dangers, he might incur the charge of injustice and cruelty, than to decide how far he deserved it. Aristotle intimates
that it was a part of his policy to drain the opulent of their wealth for works consecrated to the gods,” which at the same time surnished employment to the poor; and this may not be inconsistent with the statement of Heraclides, that he contented himself with the revenue derived from the customs of the port and the duties of the market. But, according to Aristotle's view, it is difficult to understand with what motive he could have instituted a court to prevent any of his subjects from indulging in expenses beyond their income. Yet it seems clear that he established some sumptuary regulations, which may have had a financial as well as a moral object; and this was, perhaps, the foundation of the story so variously related, that he stripped the Corinthian women of the ornaments with which they appeared at some sacred festival. His reign lasted upward of forty years, and yet is said to have been shortened either by violence or by his grief for the loss of his son. He was succeeded by a nephew or a cousin, Psammetichus, the son of Gordias, names which apparently indicate the relations maintained by the Cypselids with princes of Phrygia and Egypt. With his reign, which only lasted three years, the dynasty ended, about 582 B.C., overpowered by Sparta, which, nearly at the same time, dislodged another branch of the family from Ambracia. This revolution was not followed by the restoration of the Bacchiads, but apparently by the establishment of a more comprehensive oligarchy, the exact constitution of which is unknown, but which long kept Corinth in close alliance with Sparta. The period of Corinth's highest prosperity closed with the government of the Cypselids; and the loss of Corcyra, which had been kept in subjection by Periander, but revolted soon after his death, proved a blow to her power from which she never recovered. The history of Sicyon presents a series of revolutions, in many points resembling those of Corinth. At what time, or in whose person, royalty was there extinguished, and what form of government succeeded it, we are not expressly informed; but as we know that there was a class of bondsmen at Sicyon answering to the Helots, and distinguished by peculiar names, derived from their rustic dress or occupation,f there can be little doubt that other parts of the Dorian system were also introduced there, and subsisted until a fortunate adventurer, named Orthagoras, or Andreas,t overthrew the old aristocracy, and founded a dynasty which lasted a century: the longest period, Aristotle observes, of a Greek tyranny. Orthagoras is said to have risen from a very low station—that of a cook,” and was, therefore, probably indebted for his elevation to the commonalty. The long duration of his dynasty is ascribed by Aristotle to the mildness and moderation with which he and his descendants exercised their power, submitting to the laws, and taking pains to secure the good-will of the people. His successor, Myron, having gained a victory in the Olympic chariot-race in the thirty-third Olympiad, erected a treasury at Olympia, which was remarkable for its material, brass of Tartessus, which had not long been introduced into Greece; for its architecture, in which the Doric and Ionic orders were combined; and for its inscription, in which the name of Myron was coupled with that of the people of Sicyon. # It may be collected, from an expression of Aristotle's, that, though Myron was succeeded, either immediately, or after a short interval, by his grandson Cleisthenes, son of Aristonymus, this transmission of the tyranny did not take place without interruption or impediment;f and, if this arose from the Dorian nobles, it would explain some points in which the government of Cleisthenes differed from that of his predecessors. He seems to have been the most able and enterprising prince of his house, and to have conducted many wars, besides that in which we have seen him engaged on the side of the Amphictyons, with skill and success; he was of a munificent temper, and displayed his love of splendour and of the arts both in the national games and in his native city, where, out of the spoils of Crissa, he built a colonnade, which long retained the name of the Cleisthenean. The magnificence with which he entertained the suiters who came from all parts of Greece, and even from foreign lands, to vie with one another, after the ancient fashion, in manly exercises, for his daughter's hand, was long so celebrated, that Herodotus gives a list of the competitors. It proves how much his alliance was coveted by the most distinguished families; and it is particularly remarkable, that one of the suiters was a son of Pheidon, king of Argos, whom Herodotus seems to have confounded with the more ancient ty. rant of the same name. Still Cleisthenes appears not to have departed from the maxims by which his predecessors had regulated their goverment with regard to the commonalty, but, in the midst of his royal state, to have carefully preserved the appearance, at least, of equity and respect for the laws. On the other hand, towards his Dorian subjects he displayed a spirit of hostility which seems to have been peculiar to himself, and to have been excited by some personal provocation. It was probably con periority over the hamlets of her territory, which had once been her rivals; and she must have made rapid progress in population and in power, as is proved by her flourishing colonies in the east and west, and by the wars which she carried on in defence of them. One of her most illustrious citizens, Orsippus, who, in the fifteenth Olympiad, set the example of dropping all encumbrances of dress in the Olympic footrace, also conducted her arms with brilliant success against her neighbours—probably the Corinthians—and enlarged her territory to the utmost extent of her claims." But the government still remained in the hands of the great Dorian landowners, who, when freed from the dominion of Corinth, became sovereigns at home; and they appear not to have administered it mildly or wisely; for they were not only deprived of their power by an insurrection of the commonalty, as at Corinth and Sicyon, but were evidently the objects of a bitter enmity, which cannot have been wholly unprovoked. Theagenes, a bold and ambitious man, who put himself at the head of the popular cause, is said to have won the confidence of the people by an attack on the property of the wealthy citizens, whose cattle he destroyed in their pastures.t The animosity provoked by sueh an outrage, which was probably not a solitary one, rendered it necessary to invest the demagogue with supreme authority. Theagenes, who assumed the tyranny about 620 B.C., followed the example of the other usurpers of his time. He adorned his city with splendid and useful buildings,t and, no doubt, in other ways cherished industry and the arts, while he made them contribute to the lustre of his reign. He allied himself, as we shall see, to one of the most eminent families of Athens, and aided his son-inlaw, Cylon, in his enterprise, which, if it had succeeded, would have lent increased stability to his own power. The victories which deprived the Athenians of Salamis, and made them at last despair of recovering it, were probably gained by Theagenes. Yet he was at length expelled from Megara; whether through the discontent of the commonalty, or by the efforts of the aristocratical party, which may have been encouraged by the failure of Cylon's plot, we are not distinctly informed. Only it is said that, after his overthrow, a more moderate and peaceful spirit prevailed for a short time, until some turbulent leaders, who apparently wished to tread in his steps, but wanted his ability or his fortune, instigated the populace to new outrages against the wealthy, who were forced to throw open their houses, and to set luxurious entertainments before the rabble, or were exposed to personal insult and violence. But a much harder blow was aimed at their property by a measure called the palintocia—which carried the principles of Solon's seisachtheia to an iniquitous excess—by which creditors were required to resund the interest which they had received from their debtors. This transaction, at the same time, discloses one, at least, of the
* Diog. Laert, Periand., 98, obo tha Av dore jv roos Bovkontrov; ; from Ephorus and Aristotle.
* Aristotle, in two passages of the Politics, makes PeriAnder the adviser of Thrasybulus.
+ This has been inferred by Mueller (Dor., i., 8, 3) and other- from the mention of the syssitia in Aristot., Pol, v., 11; but the passage no more warrants such a conclusion than the story of Æthrops in Athenaeus, iv., p. 167, which Mueller elsewore advances for the same purpose.
* According to Ephorus, in Diog. Laert. (Periander), it was he who dedicated a golden statue at Olympia, for which he seized the women's ornaments; and this seems to agree better with the story in Paus. (v., 2) about the inscription.
+ They were called either Catonacophori, from the Catonaca, a dress bordered at bottom with sheepskin; or Coryne
phori, club-bearers, which Mueller (Dori, iii.4; 3) suppo-
badge of their pastoral occupation. If it was considered as
* Libanus, 111, p.251, Reiske, and Diodorus, who relates that Andreas had in this capacity attended a company of Sicyonians, who were sent to consult the Delphic oracle, and that he had also served the magistrates, either as police officer or executioner (paariyodopov). If, however, as Mueller seems to think, the term cook was only a nickname applied to him by the nobles (of which Libanius affords no hint), it would not even prove that he was not of an ancient family, and could only be understood as an allusion to his political measures, like some of those which Aristophanes makes to the craft of his hero in the Knights.
f Paus., vi., 19.
+ Pol., v., 12. He says that one t exchanged for another, as at Sicyon t of Cleisthenes.
nny is sometimes at of Myron for that * Paus., ii., 9, 6.
nected with a war in which he was engaged with Argos, and it impelled him to various political and religious innovations, the real nature of which can now be but very impersectly understood. One of the most celebrated was the change which he made in the names of the Dorian tribes, for which he substituted others, derived from the lowest kinds of domestic animals;” while a fourth tribe, to which he himself belonged, was distinguished by the majestic title of the Archelai (the princely). Herodotus supposes that he only meant to insult the Dorians; and we could sooner adopt this opinion than believe, with a modern author, that he took so strange a method of directing their attention to rural pursuits.t. But Herodotus adds, that the new names were retained for sixty years after the death of Cleisthenes and the fall of his dynasty, when those of the Dorian tribes were restored, and, in the room of the fourth, a new one was created, called, from a son of the Argive hero Adrastus, the Ægialeans. This account leads us to suspect that the changes made by Cleisthenes were not confined to the names of the tribes, but that he made an entirely new distribution of them, perhaps collecting the Dorians in one, and assigning the three rustic tribes to the commonalty, which, by this means, might seem to acquire a legitimate preponderance. Afterward, perhaps, this proportion was inverted; and when the Dorians resumed their old division, the commonalty was thrown into the single tribe (called, not from the hero, but from the land), the AEgialeans. We do not know how this dynasty ended, and can only pronounce it probable that it was overthrown at about the same time with that of the Cypselids (B.C. 580), by the intervention of Sparta, which must have been more alarmed and provoked by the innovations of Cleisthenes than by the tyranny of Periander. It would seem, from the history of the tribes, that the Dorians recovered their predominance, but gradually, and not so completely as to deprive the commonalty of all share in political rights. On the other side of the Isthmus, the little state of Megara passed through vicissitudes similar to those of Corinth and Sicyon, but attended with more violent struggles. Before the Dorian conquest, royalty is said to have been abolished there after the last king, Hyperion, son of Agamemnon, had fallen by the hand of an enemy, whom he had provoked by insolence and wrong; and a Megarian legend seems to indicate that the elective magistrates, who took the place of kings, bore the title of asymmetes.t The Dorians of Corinth kept those of Megara, for a time, in the same kind of subjection to which Ægina was reduced by Epidaurus; and the Megarian peasantry were compelled to solemnize the obsequies of every Bacchiad with marks of respect, such as were exacted from the subjects of Sparta on the death of the king.; This yoke, however, was cast off at an early period, and Argos assisted the Megarians in recovering their independence.|| Henceforth it is probable, Megara assumed a more decided su
causes which had exasperated the commonalty against the nobles, who probably had exacted their debts no less harshly than the Athenian Eupatrids. But, in this period of anarchy, neither justice nor religion was held sacred: even temples were plundered; and a company of pilgrims, passing through the territory of Megara, on their way to Delphi, was grossly insulted; many lives even were lost, and the Amphictyonic council was compelled to interpose, to procure the punishment of the ringleaders.” It is unquestionably of this period that Aristotle speaks, when he says that the Megarian demagogues procured the banishment of many of the notable citizens, f for the sake of confiscating their estates; and he adds, that these outrages and disorders ruined the democracy, for the exiles became so strong a body that they were able to reinstate themselves by force, and to establish a very narrow oligarchy, including those only who had taken an active part in the revolution. Unfortunately, we have no means of ascertaining the dates of these events, though the last-mentioned reaction cannot have taken place very long after 600 B.C.: During the following century, our information on the state of Megara is chiefly collected from the writings of the Megarian poet, Theognis, which, however, are interesting not so much for the historical facts contained in them, as for the light they throw on the character and feelings of the parties which divided his native city and so many others. Theognis appears to have been born about Ol. 55, not long before the death of Solon, and to have lived down to the beginning of the Persian wars.) He left some poems, of which considerable fragments remain, filled with moral and political maxims and reflections. We gather from them, that the oligarchy, which followed the period of anarchy, had been unable to keep its ground; and that a new revolution had taken place, by which the poet, with others of the aristocratical party, had been stripped of his fortune and driven into exile. He appears to have been a man of rank, and speaks of the warm reception he had met with at Sparta, and in other foreign lands into which he had wandered, which, however, could not soothe his impatient longing to return to his country, and be revenged on his political adversaries, whose blood he wishes to drink. Yet his keen sense of his personal sufferings is almost absorbed in the vehement grief and indignation with which he contemplates the state of Megara, the triumph of the bad (his usual term for the commonalty) and the degradation of the good (the members of the old aristocracy). Sometimes he speaks as one divided between the hope and the fear that some new tyrant may make himself master of the city; and then, as if such a usurper had already appeared, charges him to trample on the senseless people, to strike it with the sharp goad, and to plant the hard yoke on its neck." #: his complaints betray a fact which throws some doubt on the purity of his patriotism, and abates our sympathy for his mis
* See the inscription (1050) in Boeckh, Corpus Inscr. Gr., which Boeckh supposes to have been written by Simonides. + Aristot, Pol., v. 5, Mr. Malden (Hist. of Rome, p. 1531 supposes that these pastures were public lands, and that this 7". from Aristotle. It may have been the ca-, but we cannot find any hunt to that effect in Aristotle. - Paus. i., 40, 1, and 41, 2. * Plut., Qu. Gr., 18.
* Weicker, p. xvi.
| row tin #. aloa ruv(v.,785, Welcker). Tv.,717.
fortunes. It is not merely the license and insolence of the bad that provoke his invectives, but the growing corruption and degeneracy of the good; many of whom, it appears, had so far relaxed the rigour of their aristocratical principles as to mingle their blood with that of wealthy upstarts. Hence he complains, such confusion had arisen that it was difficult to distinguish the good from the bad : the people in Megara was no longer the same; for the class which, in the good old times, had worn the goatskin as the badge of its condition, and had kept aloof from the city, as a stag from the haunts of men, was now admitted into assemblies and courts, to take a part in the business of making and administering the laws.” Hence it would seem that the party to which the poet bolonged did not comprehend all, nor, perhaps, even the greater part of those who by birth and station had the same title to political privileges with himself; and that, while he insisted on maintaining the ancient barrier of law or custom, which separated the families of the noble caste from those of the lower order, there were others who had sacrificed their prejudices on this head, not, it may be, to any sordid motives, but to their conviction that, without this concession, there could be no prospect of union or peace. If his exile was caused or prolonged by his resistance to such salutary innovations, however we may respect his firmness, we cannot think highly of his wisdom. e peculiar circumstances under which Boeotia was conquered by a people who had quitted their native land to avoid slavery or subjection, would be sufficient to account for the fact that royalty was very early abolished there. It may, indeed, be doubted whether the chief named Xanthus, who is called king, sometimes of the Boeotians, sometimes of the Thebans, and who was slain by the Attic king Melanthus, was anything more than a temporary leader. The most sacred functions of the Theban kings seem to have been transferred to a magistrate, who bore the title of archon, and, like the archon-king at Athens, was invested rather with a priestly than a civil character. From the death of Xanthus down to about 500 B.C., the Constitution of Thebes continued rigidly aristocratical, having probably been guarded from innovation as well by the inland position of the city as by the jealousy of the rulers; and the first change of which we have any account was one which threw the government into still fewer hands. But, about the thirteenth Olympiad, it seems as if discontent had arisen among the members of the ruling caste itself, from the inequality in the division of property, which had, perhaps, been increased by lapse of time until some of them were reduced to indigence. Not long after that Olympiad, Philolaus, one of the Corinthian Bacchiads, having been led by a private occurrence to take up his residence at Thebes, was invited to frame a new code of laws; and one of the main objects of his institutions was to prevent the accumulation of estates, and to fix forever the number of those into which the Theban territory, or, at least, the part of it occupied by the nobles, was divided. This object was intimately connected with another, which is not, indeed, distinctly
described, but seems to be indicated by the pe— culiar title of his laws.” It may be collected that he aimed, on the one hand, at preserving the number of families by some provision for the adoption of children, and, on the other, at limiting the number of individuals in each family by establishing a legal mode of relieving indigent parents from the support of their offspring.t. He too was, perhaps, the author of the law which excluded every Theban from public offices who had exercised any trade within the space of ten years.f. It is probable enough that his code also embraced regulations for the education of the higher class of citizens; and it may have been he who, with the view, as Plutarch supposes, of softening the harshness of the Boeotian character, or to counterbalance an excessive fondness for gymnastic exercises, to which the Thebans were prone, made music an essential part of the instruction of youth.' We hear of another Theban law, which imposed certain restrictions on painters and sculptors in the design or execution of their works;ll but is this was in any way connected with the legislation of Philolaus, its real meaning appears to be lost." Our information on the other Boeotian towns is still scantier as to their internal condition; but we may safely presume that it did not differ very widely from that of Thebes, especially as we happen to know that at Thespiae every kind of industrious occupation was deemed degrading to a freeman:** an indication of aristocratical rigour which undoubtedly belongs to this period, and may be taken as a sample of the spirit prevailing in Boeotia. The Boeotian states were united in a confederacy which was represented by a congress of deputies, who met at the festival of the Pambaotia, in the temple of the Itonian Athené, near Coronea, more, perhaps, for religious than for political purposes. There were also other national councils, which deliberated on peace and war, and were, perhaps, of nearly equal antiquity, though they were first mentioned at a later period, when there were four of them.tt It does not appear how they were constituted, or whether with reference to as many divisions of the country, of which we have no other trace. The chief magistrates of the league, called Barotarchs, presided in these councils, and commanded the national forces. They were, in later times at least, elected annually, and rigidly restricted to their term of office. The ancient festival of the Daedala, in which, at the end of a cycle of 60 years, fourteen wooden images were carried up to the top of Cithaeron at the expense of the Boeotian cities, it seems to indicate that this was the original number of the confederate states, and that of the Boeotarchs was, perhaps, once the same. It was afterward reduced, and underwent many variations. Thebes appears early to have had the privilege of appointing two, one of whom was superior in authority to the rest, and probably acted as president of the board.* As to the institutions of the Locrian tribes in Greece very little is known, and they never took a prominent part in Greek history. Down to a late period the use of slaves was almost wholly unknown among them, as well as among the Phocians. This fact, which indicates a people of simple habits, strangers to luxury and commerce, and attached to ancient usages, may lead us to the farther conclusion that their institutions were mostly aristocratical ; and this conclusion is confirmed by all that we hear of them. Opus is celebrated, in the fifth century B.C., as a seat of law and order by Pindar;t from whom we also learn that, among its noble families, of which a hundred seem to have been distinguished from the rest, perhaps by political privileges,t there were some which boasted of their descent from its ancient kings. Equally scanty is our information as to the general condition of the Phocians. Their land, though neither extensive nor fertile, was divided among between twenty and thirty little commonwealths, which were united like the Achaians and the Boeotians, and sent deputies, at stated times, to a congress which was held in a large building called the Phocicum, on the road between Daulis and Delphi." But Delphi, though lying in Phocis, disclaimed all connexion with the rest of the nation. Its government, as was to be expected under its peculiar circumstances, was strictly aristocratical, and was in the hands of the same families which had the management of the temple, on which the prosperity of the city and the subsistence of a great part of the inhabitants depended. In early times the chief magistrate bore the title of king, afterward that of prytanis. But a council of five, who were dignified with a title marking their sanctity," and were chosen from families which traced their origin—possibly through Dorus—to Deucalion, and held their offices for life, conducted the affairs of the oracle. In Euboea an aristocracy or oligarchy of wealthy landowners, who, from the cavalry which they maintained, were called Hippobotae,” long prevailed in the two principal cities, Chalcis and Eretria. The great number of colonies which Chalcis sent out, and which attests its early importance, was probably the result of an oligarchical policy. Its Constitution appears to have been, in proper terms, a timocracy: a certain amount of property was requisite for a share in the government.ft Eretria, once similarly governed, seems not to have been at all inferior in strength. She was mistress of
* v., 19.
* Nöuot Strukot. Aristot., Pol., ii., 12. t AElian, ii., 7. The subject of this law, which is probably not accurately described by Ælian, seems to afford sufficient ground for ascribing it to Philolaus. f Aristot., Pol, iii., 5. * Plut., Pelop., 19. | AElian, ov., 4. * Mueller, who (Orchom., p. 408) refers it to Philolaus, seems to have been too much swayed by a saying of Alcidamas, quoted by Aristotle (Rhet, ii., 23), that Thebes flourished when philosophers were its leading men (rportsrau). But it is much more probable that this was an allusion to Epaminondas than to Philolaus. If the law was meant to interdict enricatures, such as Bupalus made of Hipponax, the age of Philolaus seems too early for it. ** Heracl. Pont., 42. ++. Thuc., v., 38. # Paus., ix., 3.
several islands, among the rest of Andros, Tenos, and Ceos; and, in the days of her prosperity, could exhibit 600 horsemen, 3000 heavyarmed infantry, and 60 chariots in a sacred procession." Chalcis and Eretria were long rivals, and a tract called the Lelantian plain, which contained valuable copper mines, afforded constant occasion for hostilities. These hostilities were distinguished from the ordinary wars between neighbouring cities by two peculiar features—the singular mode in which they were conducted, and the general interest which they excited throughout Greece. They were regulated, at least in early times, by a compact between the belligerants, which was recorded by a monument in a temple, to abstain from the use of missile weapons. But, while this agreement suggests the idea of a feud like those which we have seen carried on, in an equally mild spirit, between the Megarian townships, we learn with surprise from Thucydides that the war between Eretria and Chalcis divided the whole nation, and that all the Greek states took part with one or the other of the rivals.t It has been suspected that the cause which drew this universal attention to an object apparently of very slight moment was, that the quarrel turned upon political principles; that the oligarchy at Eretria had very early given way to democracy, while that of Chalcis, threatened by this new danger, engaged many states to espouse its cause.t. We are informed, indeed, that the Eretrian oligarchy was overthrown by a person named Diagoras, of whom we also hear that he died at Corinth while on his way to Sparta, and that he was honoured with a statue by his countrymen.' It is also certain that the oligarchy at Chalcis, though more than once interrupted by a tyranny, was standing till within a few years of the Persian wars. But we do not know, when Diagoras lived, and, without stronger evidence, it is difficult to believe that the revolution which he effected took place before the fall of the Athenian aristocracy, an epoch which appears to be too late for the war mentioned by Thucydides. Thessaly seems, for some time after the conquest, to have been governed by kings of the race of Hercules, who, however, may have been only chiefs invested with a permanent military command, which ceased when it was no longer required by the state of the country. Under one of these princes, named Aleuas, it was divided into the four districts, Thessaliotis, Pelasgiotis, Phthiotis, and Hestiaotis. And, as this division was retained to the latest period of its political existence, we may conclude that it was not a merely nominal one, but that each district was united in itself, as well as distinct from the rest. As the four Boeotian councils seem to imply that a like division existed in Boeotia, so we may reasonably conjecture that each of the Thessalian districts regulated its internal affairs by some kind of provincial council But all that we know with certainty is, that the principal cities exercised a dominion over several smaller towns, and that they were themselves the seat of noble families, sprung from the line of the ancient kings, which were
* Strabo, x., p. 448. , t i-, 15. : This hypothesis is very ably maintained by C. F. Hermann in the Rh. Mus., 1832. * Heracl. P., xii