Page images
PDF
EPUB

APPENDIX

TO THE FIRST VOLUME.

cribed to Xenophon, De Republica Lacedæmoniorum, the Politics, a few remarks in the sixth book of Polybius (c.8), ninth and tenth chapters of the second book of Aristotle's Plutarch's Lives of Lycurgus, Lysander, Agesilaus, Agis, and Cleomenes, and his Apophthegmata Laconica, contain the bulk of it.

The modern literature on the subject is the more copious on this account, because its object has been to supply, as far as possible, the numberless blanks which the ancients have left. In our own literature two or three valuable coninteresting branch of Greek antiquity within the last few tributions have been made to the study of this obscure and years. Essay ii., in Dr. Arnold's Appendix to Thucydides, vol. i., Mr. Lewis's remarks on it in the Philological Mu seum, No. iv., and the section on Laconia of the chapter on Mr. Clinton's Fasti Hellenici, will introduce the reader to the Population of ancient Greece in the second volume of some of the most difficult questions connected with the sub

to be known to most readers who take an interest in these Of the foreign authors who have treated it, we do not pretend to give a list: the most valuable may be presumed researches; but as those who are most familiar with them will be least inclined to despise even the smallest additional help, we will take this opportunity of mentioning a few works which have not acquired so much celebrity. The ly interesting, as they show the immense progress which philology has since made, and the same remark may apply, old compilations of Cragius and Meursius are perhaps chiefthough not with equal force, to the works of Barthelemy (Anacharsis, c. 41-51) and Pastoret (Histoire de la Legislation, vol. v.), who is less critical, as well as less amusing than Pauw (Recherches sur les Grecs), and free from his ridiculous presumption. Mueller's great work (History of than Barthelemy, though certainly much more instructive Manso's Sparta may still be read with profit, though his prolixity and frequent want of critical tact presents a conthe Dorians) will long be the best book on the subject. But ing, though not altogether infallible sagacity. Schlosser trast to Mueller's condensed exuberance and never-failall subjects, instructive; but has, perhaps, been a little (Universal Historische Uebersicht, vol. i.) is on this, as on Next to Mueller, the works of Wachsmuth (Hellenische biased on some points by his prejudice against Mueller. Alterthumskunde) and C. F. Hermann (Lehrbuch der Griechof Tittmann (Darstellung der Griechischen Staatsverfasischen Staatsalterthuemer) are the most important. Those sungen), Heeren (Ideen), and Plass (Geschichte Griechenlands, vol. 11.), may be consulted with more or less advantage. And on account of the intimate connexion between the Cretan and Spartan institutions, Hoeck's elaborate work on Crete (Kreta) deserves particular notice here.

I. ON THE NUMBER OF THE SPARTAN TRIBES. THAT before the conquest of Peloponnesus, the Dorians were divided into three tribes, which were supposed to have derived their names from Hyllus, the son of Hercules, and from Dymas and Pamphylus, sons of the Dorian king Egimius, seems sufficiently certain (Steph. Byz., Avμav). This, of itself, without any direct testimony, raises a presumption that the same division prevailed in all the Dorian states, where the contrary cannot be distinctly proved. Besides this, there appears to be scarcely any valid ground for assigning the same number to the Spartan tribes. Pindar's allusion to the forefathers of the Dorian race (Pyth., 1, 61), seems not to deserve the stress which is laid upon it by Mueller (Dor., iii., 5, 1), whose argument does not need it. It gains little from the remark of the scholiast, who introduces Dorus among the sons of Egimius. The main question is, whether there is any reason for preferring a different number for the Spartan tribes. Several authors, over-ject. looking the Dorian tribes altogether, have confined their attention to passages in which the local divisions of Sparta, or its immediate neighbourhood, are described as tribes, and especially to a passage of Pausanias, where he speaks of the inhabitants of these four divisions as if they comprehended the whole body of the Spartans (iii., 16, 9, O Λιμνᾶται Σπαρτιατῶν καὶ Κυνοσουρεῖς καὶ ἐκ Μεσόας τε καὶ Irávns). To these four some add a fifth, the Ægeids, on the authority of Herodotus (iv., 149, Alycidaι Quλň pɛyan iv Enápry). And Barthelemy (Anacharsis, note to c. 41), acutely perceiving the necessity for a local division corresponding to this fifth tribe, places the chapel, or, as he calls it, the tomb of Egeus, mentioned by Paus., iii., 15, 8, in an imaginary hameau des Egides. Other authors, without making any such supposition, add the Heracleids as a sixth tribe. So Cragius, De Rep. Lac., 1, 6, who is followed by Manso (Sparta 1, Beylage 8). But as Barthelemy urges the number of the Ephors in confirmation of his hypothesis, so Manso insists on the ancient division of Sparta into six regions as an argument for the six tribes, but does not point out any connexion between these two divisions. He seems to have found no difficulty in associating two purely genealogical tribes, such as the Egeids and the Heracleids, if they were tribes at all, must have been, with others, attached to certain localities. So Meursius (Misc. Lac., 1,7) enriches the same list with the tribes Avuavis and Пaupvλis, without troubling himself about the quarter which they inhabited. On much slighter grounds, Goettling (Excursus 1, ad Aristot., Polit.), who strangely misconceives the force of Mueller's arguments, contends for ten tribes. He does not pretend to assign their names; but he thinks that this number is proved by that of the Cretan Cosmi, which he supposes to have been likewise that of the Spartan Ephors, before the reign of Theopompus. This supposition he grounds on a passage in the Lexicon of Timaus, which speaks of ten Ephors, five superior, and five inferior ("Epopor. EVTE priSous, Kai Rivre arrows). It is clear, however, that this passage, whatever may be its authority, will admit of a very different explanation, and can only prove that there were two sets of officers, differing in dignity, both bearing the title of Ephors. Nothing can be more arbitrary than to suppose that the number of the Ephors was reduced from ten to five by Theopompus. It would be a much more probable conjecture that the number was increased in his time from five to ten, as might have happened, if the original functions of the Ephors, or a part of them, were then transferred to other magistrates called by the same name. a statement so insulated as this of Timaus affords no foundBut ation for any hypothesis. Still less can Aristotle's remark, that the Spartans were said to have amounted at one time (Tort, which Goettling translates ab initio) to ten thousand, warrant any inference as to the original number of the tribes. On the whole, as there is no difficulty in supposing that both the Heracleids and the geids were included in the three tribes, and as this number is perfectly consistent with a different one for the local division of the capital, it seems preferable to every other that has been proposed.

All the information which the ancients have left us, exclusive of scattered facts and allusions on the Spartan institations, lies within a very narrow compass. A few chapters of Herodotus (1. 65, vi., 51-60), the little treatise as

require to be used with great caution, as they frequently A third class might be formed of works and essays which combine very ingenious and original views with extremely rash and ill-founded conjectures and assertions. Among the authors of this class we feel obliged to number Huellfange der Griechischen Geschichte, and Staatstrecht des Alterthums) contain a great store of interesting combinamann, though many of his writings (particularly his Antions. Goettling's Excursus on the Politics. We have had occasion more than once to refer to which he has committed there are corrected in the Additions Some of the mistakes to Mueller's Prolegomena. His views on the Spartan Concritical merits and failings. We might, perhaps, not have stitution may be found more fully unfolded in an article in the Hermes, vol. xxv., which affords a fair specimen of his placed Kortuem in this list, if we had only formed a judg Staatsverfassungen. ment of him from his work, Zur Geschichte Hellenischer Schicksal der Dorisch-Lakonischen Ackergesetzgebung in Schlosser's Archiv., amply deserves mention here, though But an essay entitled Wesen und less for its ingenuity than for its astonishing temerity. Fi nally, a remarkable example of extensive learning devoted to the service of a political fanaticism, which can only be appeared, may be found in Stuhr's Untergang der Naturexplained from the temper of the period in which the work name of Feodor Eggo. (The part relating to Sparta will staaten, which he published in 1812, under the assumed be found in p. 103-138.)

carelessness, since he says there are not four, but six lochi at Lacedæmon; and he gives the names of five, ano which, according to a probable conjecture of Mueller's, one is Mccoárns. All the rest are so completely disfigured as to be utterly unintelligible without the aid of better mangscripts.

II. ON THE ORGANIZATION OF THE SPARTAN ARMY. XENOPHON (De. Rep. Lac., c. x1.) has given a general scheme of a Spartan army, and Thucydides (v., 68) has described how one was constituted in a particular case. There seems to be no reason for suspecting the integrity of the text in either passage, but there is some difficulty in This name reminds us of the λόχος Πιτανάκης σε Πιταρ reconciling them. According to Xenophon, Lycurgus in- ar, on which the authority of Thucydides is opposed to stituted six main divisions of the Spartan military force, that of Herodotus, and it is possible that Пras 28 both for the cavalry and the infantry, which were called the sixth name, which was dropped out of the Schmast's πιοτα (μέραι οι μοίραι). As to the cavalry, it seems un- list. If it was certain that Aristophanes had Sparta to view, certain whether these are the squadrons (olλapoi) of fifty, he would seem to have alluded to the four loch, winch, acmentioned by Plutarch, Lyc., 23. The mora of infantry was cording to Xenophon, composed the mora, while the sec ad subdivided into four locht, the lochus into two pentecostyes, Scholiast must have been thinking of Xenophon's six MOVIE and the pentecostys into two enomotie; the mora was com But it would remain doubtful whether the names which be manded by a polemarch; lochagus, pentecoster, and enomo- mentioned belonged to the greater or the smaller division. tarch, were the tities of the inferior officers. The name In a subject so obscure, we may be permitted to hazard a pentecostys (a fifty) seems to prove that 25, 50, 100, 400, conjecture, which the words of the Scholiast have suggested were the original normal numbers of the several divisions, to us. It is clear that the number six cannot have been perhaps in an ordinary levy; for the strength of a Spartan arbitrarily chosen for the greater division, though its origin army vaned according to the ages from which it was drawn, is not ascertained. It coincides with that of the districts as whether from the men below thirty-five or forty (oi atv into which Lacoma is said to have been divided immediateTEKαičika, tĺkoot, åp' ïßng), &c., down to the age of sixty.ly after the conquest (described by Mueller. Dor., i., 5, 13). This was determined by a proclamation issued before each Those authors who hold that there were six Spartan tribes, expedition, and in the field the several ages were so dis- find in it a confirmation of their opinion. But we co£CEIV@ tinguished, that the men of one period could be instantly that this opinion is not necessary to account for the number. detached from the rest. Xenophon speaks only of Spartans, It may have been grounded on the fiction that one mura as appears from the epithet ToλTIKWV. was assigned for the protection of each district. If s. and Thucydides, describing a battle fought in the fourteenth if each was composed of four lochi, the four which belongyear of the Peloponnesian war, mentions the enomotia, theed to the district of Sparta itself may, on the same princpentecostys, and the lochus, as divisions of a Spartan army, ple, have been distributed among the four quarters, or borbut not the mora. He, however, mentions not only the oughs (x@pai) of Limne, Cynosura, Meson, and Pitana, and titles enomotarch, pentecoster, and lochagus, but that of have taken their names from them. Herodotus, as Schweigpolemarch, and thus shows that a division superior to the hauser observes, may have been more correctly informed lochus then existed in the Spartan army. Yet on this oc- about the Xoxos Heravárns than Thucydides, in whose une casion he says, that after a sixth of the Spartan force (the the name may have been no longer in use. It would n men at the two extremes of the military age) had been sent be improbable that the commanders of these four locha were home for the protection of Laconia, there remained seven distinguished above all the rest, though nominally of the lochi, and that in each lochus there were four pentecostyes; same rank, and that they were usually intrusted with a in each pentecostys four enomotie. He also mentions that greater force in the field, whence, perhaps, the importance in this battle the strength of the enomotia was 32, so that of Amompharetus. (Herod., ix, 53.) each lochus was 512 strong. Hence we see that the division which he here calls a lochus was the same as Xenophon's mora, containing, like that, 16 enomotie, or four times the common lochus; and, accordingly, he gives the title of polemarch to the commanders of two such divisions. But as on this occasion the pentecostys contained four instead of two enomotive, and as four pentecostyes were thrown together into one division, he may have been led to call this division a lochus, as being next above the pentecostys, though it was, in fact, a mora, commanded by a polemarch ; and it would seem to be of the polemarchs that he is speak-ovcoiria). Mueller (i., 5, 6) compares the Spartan with ing when he says that each lochagus had the power of varying the depth of his division at his pleasure; for this can scarcely have been left to the discretion of any inferior officer. The reader should, however, compare Dr. Arnold's view of this question in his note on Thucydides, v., 68, where it seems to be through an oversight that the learned editor says, that at Mantinea the strength of the lochus was doub led (it was quadrupled) by being made to consist of four pentecostyes and eight enomotie (it contained sixteen enomotiæ). On another point, the difference between Thucydides and Xenophon is perhaps only apparent. Thucydides, as Dr. Arnold conjectures, reckons one lochus among the seven, which was composed of the Brasidean soldiers, and the neodamodes, or enfranchised Helots, a force which Xenophon, of course, does not take into the account any more than the Scirites-inhabitants of the district on the confines of Arcadia (see Dr. Arnold's Note on Thuc., v., 67)—who always occupied the extreme left of the line of battle, and were employed by the Spartans in the most dangerous kind of service (Xen., Cyrop., iv., 2, 1), from which passage it has been sometimes hastily inferred that they were a body of cavalry.

Meursius long ago contended (Lect. Att., i., 16) that lochus and mora were only different names for the same thing; and this opinion has been revived by Dr. Arnold, who, however, has placed it in a new, and certainly a much more probable light. He thinks that lochus was the proper and original name of the division, which, after the Peloponnesian war, was called mora. But it seems difficult to reconcile this conjecture with the language of Thucydides, unless it be supposed that the name lochus was given at the same time to two entirely different divisions of the same army, to that commanded by the polemarch, as well as to that commanded by the lochagus. On the other hand, Dr. Arnold's opinion may seem to be confirmed by the Scholiasts on Aristophanes, Lys., 453. Both Scholiasts agree that the words, γνώσεσθ' ἄρα Οτι καὶ παρ' ἡμῖν εἰσὶ τέτταρες λόχοι Μαχίμων γυναικῶν ἔνδον ἐξωπλισμένων, refer to a Spartan institution. But the one merely observes, that among the Lacedæmonians there were four lochi, which the king employed-apparently the remark of a person who knew nothing about the matter but what he collected from the poet himself-while the other censures his author for

Aristotle seems to have followed Thucydides both as to the number and the name of the greater divisions, for which he used the terms lochus and mora, as it appears, indiscrim inately. Compare fragments v. and vi. of his Ac oxircia, in Neumann, p. 130, with Photius (Aoxo), where the number five must refer to the 'Apy star REYTE XOX-S wropaopivois of Thuc., v., 72.

The

But Herodotus (i., 65) observes that Lycurgus settled the military institutions of Sparta, the enomotie, triacades, ami syssitia (τὰ ἐς πόλεμον ἔχοντα, ενωμοτίας, καὶ τριηκάδας, καὶ the Athenian triacas, and conjectures that it was equivalent to a yivos, and contained thirty families. The systia he conceives to be not the single banqueting companies, but the larger divisions of which Plutarch speaks (Agis, 8), when he says that the 4500 Spartans were distributed into fifteen piiria. Hence he concludes (ii., 12, 4) that this is another name for oba, and that the army was arranged according to tribes, phratries, and houses (Geschlechtern, yivn use of the word families in the English translation here, and at p. 84, vol. ii., entirely destroys the sense, since, according to Mueller (i., 5, 6), the Geschlecht contained thirty families). But, ingenious as this explanation is, it is much to be wished that the author had been more explicit in stating his views of the supposed arrangement. As it is, there are several points left in great obscurity. It does not appear in what relation the triacades, according to Mueller's view of them, stand to the enomotie. The triacas, containing thirty families, would be represented in the army by thirty men; and this is very nearly the number of an enumotia, which varies, as we have seen, between twenty-five and thirtytwo. Again, it does not appear what military division is represented by the greater syssition, which, according to Mueller, would consist of 300. Now this, indeed, is the number of knights who formed the king's guard (of whinn, perhaps, 100 attended him, according to Herod., v., 56, an ordinary occasions). But we do not hear of any other mailitary body of the same number, which would be equal to three ordinary lochi. Still more difficult is it to conceive what division of a Spartan army mentioned by any of the ancients corresponded to a tribe, which, in the time of Agy would have sent 1500, and, when the population was largest. 3000 men into the field. We are unable to solve these difficulties; but the passage of Herodotus deserves more attention than it has yet met with, and Mueller's explanation may be a prelude to some happier attempt at recunciling with the statements of Thucydides and Xenophon.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

text.

APPENDIX.

readers may like to learn the opinions of other learned men
on this subject, and on some other points connected with it,
to which allusions have here and there been made in the
Niebuhr, in the first edition of his Roman History (i., p.
226), considered the names of the four tribes abolished by
Cleisthenes as significant of so many castes. In the second
edition he retains the same opinion with regard to the ori-
gin of the names, but on account of the order in which they
stand, doubts whether they ever had any such meaning in
Attica (l., n. 707). And in the third edition, he appears to
have been induced, by Hermann's arguments in the Pref.
ace to the lon of Euripides, to abandon his former opinion
on this question altogether. But this is of less importance
than his view of what the Attic tribes were down to the
time of Solon. He conceived them to have included only a
part of the population of Attica-the Ionian conquerors blend-
ed, perhaps, with a portion of the ancient inhabitants (see
ed. 2, i., p. 307)--and to have stood in a relation to the rest
similar to that between the Patricians and Plebeians at
Rome. Solon, according to Niebuhr, was so far from abol-
ishing this distinction, and throwing open the tribes, and,
consequently, the magistracy and the Council, that the ob-
ject of his new classification was to exclude a part of the
privileged body itself from the offices to which they had
before been admitted. (Vol. ii., p. 305, transl.) He even
doubts whether Cleisthenes abolished the four tribes, and
thinks it more probable that his ten tribes were distinct
from them, and only included the demus. So that the last
step, by which "the two orders united in one body, and the
ten tribes became a division including the whole nation,"
must have taken place in a later period: but the name of
its author, and the circumstances attending it, have been
lost. He conceives it to be "exceedingly improbable that
an order which had been kept so much in the back-ground
should have gained the highest franchise at one stride with-
out a struggle;" and that the same inference may be drawn
from the number of the original demes in the tribes of Cle-
isthenes. "The additional seventy-four must have been
cantons, which had previously been left in a state of de-
pendance; but by far the chief part were houses (ykvn), the
names of which occur in great numbers among the demes
of the ten tribes, mixed up with the rest like bodies of the
same kind."

It is to be regretted that Niebuhr's views on this subject,
having been introduced only incidentally, to illustrate the
history of the Roman institutions, have not in all points
been unfolded with sufficient distinctness to enable us to
form a decided opinion on them. In particular, we should
have been glad to know whether he considered the privile-
ged Ionians as constituting so large a part of the whole pop-
ulation of Attica as is implied in the common account of the
subdivisions of the four tribes into phratries and genea, nc-
cording to which they amounted to upward of 10,000 fam-
ilies, which must, of course, have included persons of all
conditions. In this case, such a change as those ascribed to
Solon and Cleisthenes can hardly be looked upon as very
abrupt. But even if the revolution effected by either of
them had been represented as much more violent than it is
commonly supposed to have been, it would not, on that ac-
count, deserve to be rejected as incredible. For the proba-
bility of such an occurrence in Attica cannot be properly
measured by a standard borrowed from Roman history.
When a spirit of political excitement and reflection had
been awakened so generally as we have seen in the other
states of Greece, and more especially when such revolutions
as have been already described had taken place in the im-
mediate neighbourhood of Athens, at Megara, it would not
be surprising if an order which had been long depressed in
Attica had really risen at once to the enjoyment of the high-
est franchise-which, however, it did not attain, even in the

ordinary view, before the time of Aristides.

Platner (Beitraege, p. 48) believes that the Ionian tribes, which are commonly referred to a very early period in the history of Attica, arose after the migration of the Ionians from Peloponnesus into Attica, in the reign of Melanthus, and that, instead of including the three orders said to have been founded by Theseus as their subdivisions, they, for the most part, coincided with them, so as to be, in fact, the same arrangement under different names. The Eupatrids, to whom the highest political privileges were confined, were, he supposes, all contained in one tribe-that of the Hopletes. Cleisthenes, he thinks, must have abolished the old phratries as well as the tribes, because otherwise the old tribes would still have subsisted in the phratries (an argument not quite intelligible), and probably divided his new tribes each into three phratries.

Plass (ii., p. 240) gives a very singular account of the matter, which he delivers with as little show either of argument or authority as if it was familiar to every one, and with as much apparent confidence as if it had been drawn from an unpublished memorandum of Solon's. The four old Ionian tribes were castes: the Hopletes the nobles or citizens who enjoyed the fall or highest franchise. This single tribe had, before Solon, been divided into four, the names of which

have, it seems, been lost, each containing three phratries,
which again contained each thirty yévn. (This appears,
ly expressed.) Solon wished to admit the three inferior
from the context, to be his meaning, though it is not clear-
castes to share the privileges of the nobles, and for this pur-
pose he distributed them into the four tribes, which had
hitherto belonged exclusively to the Hopletes, and hence-
Wachsmuth conceives the Eupatrids to have been distrib-
forward each yévos consisted of thirty families.
uted among all the four tribes, but he infers from a passage
in Suidas-γεννῆται καὶ γεννῆται οἱ ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ
πρώτου γένους των τριάκοντα γενῶν· οὓς καὶ πρότερόν φησι
Poxopos buoɣáλaктas Kaλciola-that there was one Eu-
patrid or patrician yévos among the thirty in each phratry,
and in earlier times buoyaλaкTES: so that there would be in
and that its members alone were properly called yεvvirat,
all three hundred and sixty noble families. This might have
been sufficient to suggest a conjecture similar to Mr. Mal-
den's (History of Rome, p. 144), though the result of a dif-
ferent hypothesis, as to the number of the council before
Solon. But the interpretation of pórov, first in rank, seems
very doubtful. Platner's, p. 68, who supposes it to mean
original, agrees better with Harpocration's explanation of
With respect to the demes which composed the tribes of
οἱ ἐξαρχῆς εἰς τὰ καλούμενα γένη κατανεμηθέντες.
Cleisthenes, on which Niebuhr founds an argument in fa-
vour of his hypothesis, the reader may not be displeased to
see a short extract from Mueller's article Attika, in Ersch
and Gruber's Encyclopædia, which, as the work is too bulky
conversant with German literature. He observes at p. 227,
for most private libraries, may be new even to many persons
Cleisthenes had divided the country and the population of
Attica into ten tribes, among which the demes, then about
a hundred in number, were distributed. The number of the
demes kept on increasing considerably, even to the time of
the orators, and subsequently two new tribes were formed
out of a portion of them-the Antigonis and the Demetrias,
which were afterward named Ptolemais and Attalis. Places
were here and there detached from the old districts, and
with the addition of some which had not before been inclu-
ded in the tribes, served to compose a new canton. In this
manner, at a still later period, a tribe called the Hadrianis
Now, since the tribes of Cleisthenes were local, as those
was formed chiefly from the small islands round Attica.
of Elis (Paus., v., 9), Ephesus (Stept., Bévva), and Laconia
(Orchomenus, p. 314), the demes of each tribe must have
been grouped together as places in the same canton. And
case. Marathon, Enoe, Tricorythus, Rhamnus, Psophida,
such we find to have been, in many instances, really the
Phegea, lie close together, and at no great distance from
them, Aphidna, Perrhide, Titacide, all again in the same
neighbourhood: these are places belonging to the tribe
Eantis, which, therefore, comprehends a definite range
from the Boeotian frontier and Parnes to the plain of Mar-
athon. In the same manner, Myrrhinus, Prasie, and Stiria
lie together, and all belong to the Pandionis, and like cases
frequently occur. But the original rule seems to have been
lost in a crowd of irregular exceptions; and when new
places were annexed in one quarter, while in another, to
keep the balance even, old ones were detached, the simple
order was neglected and forgotten. Several demes are
described as belonging to two or three tribes, as Phaleron
to the Egeis and the Eantis, Phege to the Egais, antis,
and Adrianis, &c., and this is probably not the consequence
of a mere oversight. And thus it happens that Sunium be-
longs to the same tribe-the Leontis-as Scambonida near
Eleusis; Eleusis itself, and Azenie, near Sunium, to the Hip-
pothoontis; and so on. So that it is perhaps no longer pos-
sible to trace the local boundaries of the Attic cantons.

SCYTHIAN CAMPAIGN OF DARIUS.

IV. ON THE CONDUCT ASCRIBED TO MILTIADES IN THE

THE story that Miltiades advised the Ionians to break up the bridge on the Danube, and expose Darius to destruction, has been repeated, we believe, without any suspicion, by every writer who has had occasion to mention it since Herodotus. Whether the story be true or false, is in itself a question of very little importance; but since it affects the connexion of events in the history of Miltiades, it may be worth while to point out some of the difficulties which the story involves.

It is remarkable that Nepos (Milt., iii., 6) represents Miltiades as quitting the Chersonesus, immediately after his return from the Danube, through fear of Darius. And this really made himself so obnoxious to the great king as the is just what we should have expected him to do, if he had story supposes. But we know from Herodotus that he remained for many years in quiet possession of his principality, neither molested by the Persians, nor apparently dreading any attack from them. This forbearance on their part was not the effect either of weakness or want of opportunity. We find the Persian general Otanes actively engaged in military operations on the same coast. (Herod., v., 26.) But he seems to treat Miltiades as a faithful vassal of his

[graphic]

master, and makes no attempt to disturb him. As little would it appear that, when the Scythians invaded the Chersonesus, Miltiades was conscious of having endeavoured to render them a most important service. He flies before them, though he had been so secure while the Persian arms were in his neighbourhood. We think that this would have been sufficient to raise a strong suspicion against the truth of the story, if it had not seemed to be confirmed by the hasty flight of Miltiades on the approach of the Phoenicians, for which no other motive is assigned than the enmity of Darius, which he had incurred by his conduct on the Danube. It might, perhaps, be a sufficient objection to this argument to observe, that Miltiades should naturally have feit much stronger fears of Otanes, while the act which had

rendered him an especial object of hostility to every loyal

Persian was still recent, and, therefore, that his final abandonment of the Chersonesus must have arisen from some other cause which might have escaped notice. But we think it not impossible to point out a change in the relations of Miltiades to the court of Persia, which took place after his return from the Danube, and which seems sufficiently to account for the apprehension of Persian vengeance which at last induced him to take refuge in Attica. His conquest of Lemnos had dislodged the Pelasgians after they had become Persian subjects (Herod., v., 26); he had very probably, at the same time, expelled a Persian governor (Herod., v., 27); and at all events, by annexing the island to his own dominions, had been guilty of a formal act of rebellion, which was as likely to provoke the indignation of Darius as the treasonable proposal attributed to him on the Danube. Thus, then, there is an authentic fact, which may be quite as probably combined with his flight to Athens as the story which we have such strong reason to doubt.

The domestic danger to which Miltiades found himself exposed on his return to Athens, presented, as we have observed in the text, a sufficient inducciment for fabricating the story; and we might even suppose that it had been suggested to him as an artifice for soothing the Scythians, while they were in possession of the Chersonesus. But, it may be asked, are we not making too free with the memory of a great man, when, upon anything short of absolute necessity, we impute such a falsehood to him? This would, indeed, be a grave objection, if we knew of any high qualities in the character of Miltiades besides his military talents. But the story itself, if true, does not imply a very fine sense of honour, though the perfidy of the proposal may be a little extenuated by the Greek notions of patriotism: the pretext on which he invaded the Pelasgians gives a more favourable idea of his ingenuity than of his love of truth; and if he was the mover of the decree for murdering the Persian heralds, we need not scruple to think him capable of inventing a falsehood for the purpose of saving his own life.

We may here observe, that the fact of his dying in prison, which has been disputed because it is not mentioned by Herodotus (who had no occasion whatever for noticing it), depends simply on the question whether he had the means of raising the sum of fifty talents; and there is no reason to doubt that he could not immediately command one of this amount, and was therefore thrown into prison. The sagacious skepticism with which this has been denied is worthily supported by the notable discovery that το βάραθρον was the Athenian name for a dungeon.

or the first prytania, ending on the 5th or 6th day of Metageitnion (Plut., Qu. Symp., i., 10). It is very improbable that the battle should have been postponed from this time to the 6th of Boedromion, and that the Spartans should have resisted the urgent solicitations of Athens, and have withheld their succours for a whole month. But if the bat tle took place in Metageitnion soon after the full moon, the interval will be of a probable length. And a Plato (De Leg., ., p. 698, E.) says that the Spartans arrived at Marathon the day after the battle, supposing them to have reached the field on the fourth day after the full moon, which would fall on the 13th or 14th, we should have the 16th or 17th Metageitnion for the date of the battle.

VI. ON THE FORCES OF THE PERSIANS AND THE GREEKS

AT SALAMIS. \

THE numbers of the Persian fleet at Salamis are ambigu ously stated by Eschylus in the Persæ, 347.

Ξέρξη δὲ (καὶ γὰρ οἶδα) χιλιὰς μὲν ἦν
Νέῶν τὸ πλῆθος· αἱ δ' ὑπερκοποι τάχει
Ἑκατὸν δὲς ἦσαν ἑπτά θ' ὧδ' έχει λόγος.

This may express that the whole amount was 1000, which included 207 fast sailing vessels; or that the bok was 1 thousand (where rò Año, would be opposed to at bripeitsi Taxe in a similar sense as when it is used for the coCADalty in opposition to of diyor, as in Thue, vill, 91, and that there were, besides, 207 of extraordinary speed. The latter meaning, which certainly does not strain the words, as has been ignorantly asserted, seems to be established by the 230currence of Herodotus, vit., 184, who raises the whole to 1207. This number is adopted, with slight mrvations by Isocrates (who in three passages, Paneg., 105, 111, 130, gives 1200, but in Panath, 53, 1300), and by Nepos, Their, 2, who has 1200. Plato, Leg, int, 14, perhaps signifies the smaller number by xXiwy kai iri mdecover, as Clestas, 20, by his brip Tus xixías.

As it is clear that Eschylus aimed at ngid historical er actness in his account of the Persian forces, we may cmclude that he did not designedly understate those of the Greeks. Yet he makes the Greek fleet amount to no more than 300 or 310, whereas Herodotus shows that it was composed of 380 galleys, of which 180 were Athenian. But it is still more remarkable that, according to the comm reading, Thucydides, i., 74, agrees neither with Eschyins nor Herodotus, having ναῖς ἐς τὰς τετρακοσίας ὀλίγῳ ἐλάσε covs dúo popov. Dr. Arnold considers this as a rhetorical exaggeration, designed by the historian as characteristic of the person in whose mouth it is put. But we canus help thinking that this little dramatic touch would be exceed ingly misplaced; and we believe that Thucydides meant to state the true numbers, in which, if we read rpiaxocias fat rcrp., he would have followed Eschylus instead of Herodotus, whom, indeed, it is possible he had not read. So Nepos assigns 300 to the whole, and 200 to the Athenians. It is difficult to determine how far the enormous variation in Ctesias, who gives 700 for the whole, and 110 for the Atheniaus, is owing to an error in the text.

The number of ¿zibarai on board the Athenian galleys at Salamis seems to have been very small, not only when com pared with that of the Persians, who took 30 of the best troops on board each vessel in addition to the ordinary com plement of 200, but in comparison with the usual force of a Greek ship of war. At Lade the Chians had 40 ¿zibaru 10 each crew. At Salamis the Athenians, according to Plu

V. ON THE DATE OF THE BATTLE OF MARATHON. As Boeckh's Academical Prolusions, a select number of which were reprinted in Seebode's Neues Archiv fuer Philo-tarch, Them., 14, had only 18 in all, of whom 4 were archlogie und Paedagogik, vol. iii., are not often to be met with in England, it may be useful to give a short extract from one published in 1816 (which seems not to have fallen in Mr. Clinton's way before he brought out the first published volume of his "Fasti," see note e, p. 336), containing a new and ingenious argument in favour of the opinion of Freret and Larcher, that the battle of Marathon was fought in the month Carnius or Metageitnion, and that the Spartan usage of waiting for the full moon before they began an expedition, which Herodotus represents as applying to all months in the year, related, in fact, only to the Carnea, and, perhaps, some other festivals which ended with the full moon, as the Hyacinthia.

It is certain that the tribe Eantis occupied the right wing in the battle. This was the tribe of the polemarch Callimachus, who commanded the right wing by virtue of his of fice. But there is no reason to suppose that it was on this account the antis was so placed, since it was an honour of which the other tribes were undoubtedly jealous. This station must have belonged to it in the order of the tribes. But in their regular order the antis stood ninth, and, therefore, could not have occupied the extreme right. The order followed, therefore, must have been that which was fixed every year by lot. Hence Herodotus (vi., 111) uses the imperfect tense, ὡς ἀριθμέοντο αἱ φυλαί, as they were numbered in that year, not uptorral, which would have signified the regular order. But the decree for marching to Marathon was carried under the presidency of the Eantis,

ers. On the ground of this fact, modern readers have been informed that Themistocles was the author of an improved system of naval tactics. If so, it is singular that no ancient writer should have mentioned this improvement, and sul more that it should have been so totally neglected by the Athenians themselves, that Thucydides, i., 49, speaks of the ancient usage as subsisting down to the Peloponnes an war, apparently as if he did not know that it had ever been interrupted After all, it is possible that the 18 men meir tioned by Plutarch, instead of being the full complement of soldiers on the deck, were an extraordinary addition to the usual number.

[blocks in formation]

Ir is generally admitted that Plutarch is not a sure guide ou matters of fact, when he does not mention the kan? from which his statements are drawn, and when they are net supported by other testimony. Yet even in this case he is always entitled to attention, as well on account of his extensive reading as because he was not destitute of natural acuteness. His great failing is that he makes the truth of history subordinate to its moral uses, just as a histors w sometimes written for the purpose of inculcating cerma political tenets. But, with all his defects, he is a safer gusie, under similar circumstances, than Diodorns; more saracious, more thoughtful, and careful, or perlings we shoul

« PreviousContinue »