say, he is not capable of falling into such gross absurdities as the other frequently commits, nor of misunderstanding and confounding the sense of the authors whom he has read in an equal degree. It is not thoughtlessness or carelessness that prevents Diodorus from being a good historian, but his utter want of judgment, which is constantly apparent, and is only rendered the more glaring and offensive by the flimsy veil of his frivolous rhetoric.

was too simple to be now repeated. In its stead he chose the directly opposite method, and invented a stratagem, as Diodorus calls it, of an entirely new kind. While he kept his fellow-citizens in ignorance and suspense about his intentions, he sent an embassy to disclose them to the Spartans, and at the same time to represent that the common interests of Greece required that Athens should possess a harbour such as he proposed to form. After having thus given full notice to the jealous rival from whom he apprehended hostile interference, he set about the work itself, which, as it could not be begun without the co-operation of the Athenians, was probably not kept secret at Athens very long after it had been published at Sparta.

Plutarch has related an apocryphal story of a project formed by Themistocles to fire the united fleet of the Greek states in alliance with Athens while it lay at Pagase. The truth of this story has been justly questioned; but he would have been much more chargeable with credulity if he had adopted the version given by Cicero (De Off., iii., 11), who If it had been the object of Themistocles first to excite supposes that the plan of Themistocles was aimed against alarm and jealousy at Sparta by the rumour of an extraordithe Spartan navy at Gythium; an enterprise which would nary design, which, after the scenes said to have taken have been equally infamous and utterly useless to the Athe-place in the Athenian assembly, could not fail soon to be nians. The one scheme might possibly have entered into heard there, and next to afford the Spartans the utmost the mind of Themistocles; the other could never have sug-facility for stopping the work which he had meditated, the gested itself to him, or to any man of common sense. It is course which Diodorus attributes to him was no doubt jualso due to Plutarch to observe, that he mentions the pro- diciously chosen. But, on the opposite supposition, his conject without the slightest mark of approbation, though he duct sets all the calculations of human prudence at defiance, has been ignorantly accused by Rollin, and by a later his- and would be, indeed, perplexing, if the fatuity of Diodorus torian, who echoes the Frenchman's blunder, of this breach did not afford an easy solution of the mystery. of morality, which would have deserved a different name from that of thoughtlessness.

It may seem that a modern historian who is capable of adopting this prodigious tissue of absurdities, and of calling a simple and probable narrative, has forfeited all pretensions to soundness of judgment, and deserves no higher place in the scale of critical sagacity than Diodorus himself. But the force of prejudice may often reduce a good underrence of the story could not, indeed, have escaped the notice of a man of ordinary penetration who was not blinded by passion, nor could such a person have failed to observe that, though it is very improbable that Diodorus should have invented such a story, he might easily have found materials which only needed to be put together by a hand so skilful as his to assume this simple and probable form. But his narrative, when a little coloured and disguised, promised to make an excellent piece of satire on the Athenian democ racy, and this was a temptation not to be resisted by a mind of such a stamp, as to find nothing more valuable in Greek history than an instrument for serving the ends of a political party.

Diodorus also gives an account of a project formed by The-it mistocles, which for some time he kept wrapped in mystery, just as that related by Plutarch. The two stories are so similar in this respect, that it seems evident they arose out of the same tradition; and the question is, whether Diodo-standing to a level with the most imbecile. The incohe rus may not be better entitled to credit than Plutarch. According to Diodorus, the plan of Themistocles, instead of being both iniquitous and impolitic, and hence stifled in embryo, was perfectly consistent with wisdom and justice, and was carried into execution, for it was no other than that of improving and fortifying Piræus, a work, it must be remembered, which had been already begun. So far Diodorus has the concurrent testimony of all the ancient authors on his side. But the part of the story peculiar to himself is the account he gives of the manner in which Themistocles for a time concealed his project; and in this it may not be too much to say, that he has outdone even himself in the extravagance of his absurdity.

We think it must be evident to every one, on a moderately attentive perusal, that the story told by Diodorus is utterly inconsistent with the account of Thucydides, i., 93, and we do not believe that Diodorus himself, uncritical as he was, could have told such a story, if he had known or remembered that the buildings at Pireus had been already begun. He manifestly supposes that the project was first conceived by Themistocles after the retreat of the Persians; otherwise the absurdity of the tale would have been too glaring even for him. And this is equally clear, whatever may be thought as to the degree of forwardness to which Thucydides represents the works to have been carried in the archonship of Themistocles. The interpretation given in the text of the words of Thucydides is undoubtedly liable to dispute; and it has been generally supposed (as by Boeckh, Staatsh., 11., 10, i., p. 215, where the name of Pericles is probably written by mistake for Themistocles) that the plan of Themistocles was never completely executed. The reasons which induce us to refer reλion to the same time as

Themistocles, it appears, having experienced the jealonsy of Sparta on the occasion of building the walls of Athens, was afraid lest she might again interfere to prevent such an accession to her rival's naval power as was likely to result from this new undertaking. His object, therefore, was to keep it as long as possible concealed from the Spartans, and the more effectually to ensure secrecy, he would not for a time disclose it to the Athenians themselves. But, as some preparations were to be made which rendered their consent necessary, he announced to the assembly that he had formed a plan, which he deemed highly advantageous to the state, but which could not safely be made public, and he therefore desired them to select two persons in whom they could confide, to judge of the proposed measure, and to make a report of its character. The people selected Aristides and Xanthippus, not only as men of unimpeachable probity, but as rivals of Themistocles, who would therefore be sure to examine his project with jealous vigilance. They reported that what he advised was practicable, expedient, and most important to the commonwealth. Now, however, after such pro, are that no cause is assigned, nor does any appear, an assurance from his political adversaries, the popular why the design of Themistocles should not have been comjealousy was roused to a much greater height than before: pleted; that the words not-rá λoimù... olkodoμɛiv seem he was suspected of aiming at the tyranny, and was called most naturally to imply that it was carried into effect to its upon to reveal his plan. He again assured the people that full extent; and that, since the dxpuórarot mentioned by their interest required it to be kept secret. This assurance, Thucydides, i., 93, are no other than the proburarot and however, did not satisfy them; no doubt because they ima-vtúraro, 11., 13, the end which Themistocles had in view gined that, if they gave their consent, the plan would be ex- appears to have been really accomplished. ecuted before they knew what it was, and when it would be too late to revoke their sanction. Themistocles, it seems, never thought of quieting their fears by informing them that they would and must be fully apprized of the nature of his plan before the execution could be begun. Instead of mentioning this fact, which one would have thought would have been sufficient to remove all objections, he adopted an expedient which was suggested in the assembly, of laying his scheme before the council of Five Hundred, and abiding by their decision. The council made a report no less favourable than that of Aristides and Xanthippus, and the people now acquiesced; but public curiosity was raised to the high-actions, 1827-proposes to read 'Y6pičov. Hybrilides was est pitch.

So far, then, we do not find any very striking display of that extraordinary dexterity and ingenuity for which Themistocles was so renowned. But what follows in the description of Diodorus is a master stroke of policy. A vulgar mind, which had conceived such a design, would probably have thought that the best mode of ensuring its success was to communicate it to those who were to execute it, before it became known to those who might possibly endeavour to thwart it. Such had been the course which Themistocles Limself had adopted on a former similar occasion. But this VOL. I-4 E

Mr. Clinton, Fasti, ii., p. xvi., assigns the archonship of Themistocles and the beginning of the work to B.C. 481. He takes no notice of the argument for an earlier date resulting from the testimony of Philochorus (p. 48, 49, Siebelis) as to the dedication of the Hermes, which was erected by the nine archons who had begun to build the walls of Piræus. and bore the inscription 'Αρξάμενοι πρῶτον τειχίζειν οἶδ' ἀνέθηκαν Βουλῆς καὶ δήμου δόγμασε πειθόμενοι. According to Philochorus in Hesychius, this Hermes àpicpuro Kébpicos aptavros, where Boeckh-in a dissertation De Archontibus Atticis pseudeponymis, first published in the Berlin Transarchon B.C. 491. It is a question of less importance whether Themistocles was, as Mueller supposes in a note, p. 452, to Reinaecker's German translation of Leake's Topography of Athens, one of the nine archons who dedicated the statue, but not the eponymus; or whether, according to Boeckh's view, in his archonship the work was only proposed and approved by the people, preparations made for it under his successor Diognetus, and it was not begun before the archonship of Hybrilides, at the end of which the statue was dedirated.

VIII. NOTE TO PAGE 300 ON A PRETENDED POWER OF

THE AREOPAGUS.

SOME readers may, perhaps, be surprised to find no mention made here of a prerogative which they may have seen elsewhere attributed to the Areopagus, and which it is said to have retained even to the time of the change effected by Pericles and Ephialtes. Till that time, we have been informed by a modern historian, the Areopagus directed all issues from the public treasury. The assertion is one of those-very numerous in the work where it occurs-which have owed their success neither to the force of testimony nor of reasoning, but simply to the placid assurance with which they are advanced. We have seen, indeed (p. 263, 264), an extraordinary case, in which the Areopagus seems to have assumed such a power. But if any one thinks this a sufficient proof of the general assertion, we could only reply by the old Greek jest, of the simpleton who carried a brick about as a sample of a house, or by the Roman story of the youth who, finding a fragment of a boat on the beach, was seized with the desire of building a ship. It is one of those statements which can hardly be refuted until some attempt has been made to prove them. But we may observe that the very fact of Aristotle's mentioning the report on this subject, for which Plutarch cites his authority-and after all, it was no more than a report, and Clidemus (Plut., Them., 10) gave a different account of the matter-raises the strongest presumption that, if true, it was an extraordinary case. But even if there was any reason for supposing that such a power was exerted by the Areopagus, as one of its ordinary prerogatives, at the time of the Persian war, it would still be utterly incredible that it should have subsisted down to the time of Pericles. We are only surprised that Schlosser (1., 2, p. 83) should have adopted the opinion, and, without offering any argument in support of it, have stated it as a notorious fact. Wachsmuth more judiciously contents himself with remarking its improbability and groundlessness in a note (i., 1, p. 147).

IX. ON SOME OF THE CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST PER-
ICLES.

text.

bitter severity. And even if we had not suen ample evidence of Plato's opinion on the subject, no ord-nary de gree of sm• plicity is requisite to enable any one to allege the phikopher's ironical language in the Meno (para of the post opens copór an pa) as a serious eulogy, and on the metal character of Pericles. That character has been more e dangered by the manner in which it has been defended them by the arguments with which it has been attacked; m Pericles might well have spared the good word of an såve cate, who exalts him in order to depress Athens, and permits him even to share the praises of Pisistratus, for the purpose of insinuating that the glory of Athenian art and literature belongs less to the people than to the tyrant and the demagogue, and thus of suggesting an explanation of the wonderful and singular phenomenon, that the intellectual greatness of Athens could subsist and even increase in spate of her freedom.

The only ground which Boeckh opposes to the testimony of Thucydides in favour of the integrity of Pericles is, that the report about his pecuniary embarrassment, from which he was said to have relieved himself by kandling the Peloponnesian war, was too prevalent not to have had some foundation. (St. d. Ath., ., c. 8.) But if this argument is allowed to have any weight, it would lead us to an aference which Boeckh seems not sufficiently to have comoder ed. There was another report equally prevalent, and repeated in a variety of forms, which charged Pericles with indulging a very expensive vice, by the ministry, sometimes of Phidias, sometimes of Pyrilampes, sometimes of Aspasa (Plut, Per., 13, 32); and it seems clear that the two charges must stand or fall together. The habits of Pericles-s ordinary frugality and strict economy-are sufficiently attested to convince us that, unless his private income was drained by this kind of expenditure, he could scarcely have had any temptation to embezzle the public money. should be curious to know whether Boeckh himself would degrade Pericles to a level with Louis XV. On the other hand, our antijacobin historian, instead of attempting to refute this charge, exults in it, as an illustration of the poralar licentiousness, which Pericles, whose power rested on the patronage which he professed of democracy, was chùng to allow. This, to be sure, is a mode of begging the question which must injure the cause of the party defended in the judgment of every impartial and intelligent reader. But we think it not unreasonable to contend that, notwithstand

We

THE character of Pericles has been viewed as diversely in our day as by his contemporaries. His political conduct has been considered, sufficiently for our purpose, in the But some of the charges which have been brought against him, and which deeply affect his personal reputa-ing the rumour on which Boeckh lays so much stress, the tion, deserve a somewhat more minute discussion than could properly be bestowed on them in the body of this work. We have first to notice that which concerns his integrity in the disposal of the public money. This charge has become much more formidable, since Boeckh has expressed his deliberate assent to it. We shall presently consider Boeckh's argument on this subject, in order to place it in a light in which it is possible the learned author himself may not have viewed it. But we must first say a few words on the passage of Plato, which we have touched on at the end of chap. xviii. To show how ill Pericles had succeeded in managing his countrymen, Socrates is there made to observe that, towards the end of his life, they convicted him of peculation, and were near condemning him to death. It would, of course, be impossible to collect Plato's own opinion as to the foundation of the charge from such an allusion; but we think we are warranted in rejecting the fact itself which he assumes, and in believing that he has misrepresented the nature of the charge on which Pericles was condemned. We do not rely on the silence of Plutarch (Per., 35), or on the language of Diodorus (xii., 45, μικράς τινας ἀφορμὰς ἐγκλημάτων λαbóvres), but would merely ask whether Thucydides, if he had known that Pericles was convicted of peculation, could not only have put words into his mouth which imply that his integrity was above suspicion (ii., 60, xprμárov Kptioowy), but have spoken of him as a person notoriously most incorruptible (ii., 65, χρημάτων ἐμφανῶς ἀδωρότατος), Νο body who is acquainted with the ordinary value of Plato's historical allusions can think that in the Gorgias deserving even of the name of a testimony in opposition to such authority. But as Pericles had on former occasions been charged with peculation, it was natural enough that Plato should treat this as the ground of his last impeachment, the precise nature of which-as may be inferred from the silence of Thucydides, Plutarch, and Diodorus-it was probably not very easy to collect.

integrity of Pericles is as firmly established by the most aathentic testimony as any fact in history of a like kind cas be; and from this fact we would infer that the other churge was equally unfounded. It seems strange that Boecka should be at a loss to conceive how the charge of peculation should become current at Athens, like many other rumours, without any solid ground, and we have endeavoured in the text to point out how the other scandal might have arisen out of very innocent occasions. We would rather leave the question on this footing than resort to any vague declamation about the supereminence of Pericles in what was wise, great, and becoming. Yet we may add, that every well-attested fact in his life strengthens our intimate conviction of the general purity of his character; and we think, that if the two charges are once admitted to be so cranected as we suppose them to be, few will hesitate in rejecting both. The assemblies in the house of Aspasia were uncommon enough to attract much attention, and to give rise to calumnious reports; but, on the other hand, they indicate how much exaggeration has been admitted into the prevailing opinion about the strict seclusion in which the Athens ladies were kept. Jacobs, in an interesting essay on the Greek women (Vermischte Schriften, ii), has shown how much this opinion requires to be modified. But our anndemocratical historian has assumed it in its utmost erisul, for the purpose of making it the ground of an hypotheus, on the influence of the Athenian Constitution on the codition and character of the women. To refute that hypothesis, it would be sufficient to observe, that, however close may have been the seclusion of the Atheman women in the most turbulent state of the democracy, it cannot have been. more rigid than that in which the Portuguese ladies, ier instance, were kept under the stillness of an absolute mon archy. But, from whatever side the fiction is examaed, s absurdity is as glaring as the temerity with which it is advanced as unquestionable matter of history.

But it may be objected by some readers that Plato, who, The subject of this Appendix has drawn from us soon por as they have been informed, was himself so warm an ad- lemical remarks which we would willingly have arintel mirer of Pericles as to assign to him the praise of superem- though some readers may have expected and desired that inence in what was wise, great, and becoming, would not, upon they should occur more frequently. It may, indeed, be Ea light surmise, have stated a fact so injurious to the repu- ful, and need not be disagreeable. to point out mustakes in tation of this wise, great, and honourable man. The ob- a history which can claim the praise of candour and sm jection would be natural enough; for there are some blun- plicity, so justly bestowed on Thucydides by the raetoricisa ders so gross that they seem incredible until they are point-Aristides in the declamation already alluded to rip Tàr ed out. Any one who happens to have read the long decla- TETT., ., p. 163, Dindorf., of dikovcicias scary sedistöss mation, in which the rhetorician Aristides labours to vindi- οὐδ' εἰς ἀγῶνος χρείαν, οὐδ' εἰς ἐν ὁ προσθετα πάντα ἀμε cate the character of Pericles from Plato's attacks, must be φέρων, ἀλλ' ἐν ἱστορία καὶ διηγήσει παλιλὲς ἄπλώς παρατ surprised to find Plato called up to vouch for the character dous. But where that praise is illustrated by a complete of the man whom in the Gorgias he assailed with an almost antithesis; where a history is all polemica); where the lacts

APPENDIX.

are constantly distorted for the sake of accommodating them to the one end which the writer has proposed to himself, so that the whole is thoroughly ingrained with falsehood, those who are best able to estimate its character will be most reluctant to descend to an exposure of its particular errors.

X. ON THE AUTHOR OF THE ORATION AGAINST ALCIB-
IADES ATTRIBUTED TO ANDOCIDES.

dicere." But here it is Ruhnken himself who has commit-
rem, quam peabɛiav dicere debebat, invidiose drodnpiar
er from the context of Lysias (Andocid., p. 103) than that
tod a most extraordinary oversight; for nothing can be clear-
he is speaking of the travels of Andocides during his absence
from Athens after the affair of the mysteries, whereas the
embassy mentioned in our oration must have preceded that
affair. Still it does not appear to agree with that of Pheax,
unless we should suppose that, after having ended his ne-
gotiations in Sicily and Italy, he received orders which in-
duced him to cross over to Macedonia, through Epirus, and
to return by the way of Thessaly to Athens, where Thucyd-
ides observes he arrived xpóvų vсTEрov, v., 5. But the em-
been undertaken on some other occasion.
bassy to Epirus, Macedonia, and Thessaly might also have

On the whole, we are inclined to think that the weight
of external evidence preponderates on Taylor's side; and
high as Ruhnken's authority is with regard to the style,
which he pronounces to be clearly Andocidean, we cannot
rely upon this kind of proof. That the oration was attribu-
ted to Andocides so early as it appears to have been from
the quotations of the grammarians, is not so much an ob-
Neither Taylor nor Ruhnken has noticed a passage in the
jection as a point on which we must confess our ignorance.
oration, which seems to raise at least a strong presumption
to which it refers. The contest which was terminated by
that it was not delivered in its present form on the occasion
the ostracism of Hyperbolus of course preceded the appoint-
ment of Nicias and Alcibiades to the command of the Sicil-
ian expedition. This appointment took place early in 415
(apa pt, Thuc., vi., 8). Melos had been reduced in the
preceding winter; at the utmost, we should suppose, not
above three or four months before. Yet Alcibiades is re-
woman, whom he bought from among the captives condemn-
proached in the oration with having had a son by a Melian
ed to slavery by his own decree (περὶ τῶν Μηλίων γνώμην
ἀποφηνάμενος ἐξανδραποδίζεσθαι, πριάμενος γυναῖκα τῶν
aixpadúrov vidv et avrns neroinrat). These words could
scarcely have been written before Alcibiades was on his

As we have had occasion frequently to refer to this oration, we are tempted to make a few remarks on the disputed question as to its author, on which, it is well known, Taylor (Lectiones Lystiaca, c. vi.) and Ruhnken (Ilistoria Critica Oratorum Græcorum, p. liii., fol.) are at variance. Our object is chiefly to show that, though Ruhnken has successfully disposed of many of Taylor's arguments, his own are by no means conclusive. Taylor contends that the oration belongs, not to Andocides, but to Phæax. His main argument is, that it appears from the oration itself, that on the occasion to which it relates three persons were threatened with ostracism; that Phwax is known to have been one of the three, and Nicias and Alcibiades the two others, while the name of Andocides is nowhere mentioned among them; Phax, therefore, must have been the author of this oration; and this conclusion is, he conceives, decisively confirmed by Plutarch, who (Alcib., 13) quotes an oration of Phaax against Alcibiades for a fact (the abuse of the sacred vessels of the state) which is likewise mentioned in ours. To this Ruhnken replies that the oration of Pheax which Plutarch read cannot have been the same as ours, because, if it had, Plutarch could not have felt the doubt which he expresses (Nic., 11) as to the parties who contended with But there are two poseach other to avoid the ostracism. sible cases, either of which would meet this objection: Plutarch might not himself have seen the oration of Pheax, but have quoted it at second hand. This, however, is certainly not very probable. The other case is, that Plutarch may not have meant, either in Alcib., 13, or in Nic., 11, to express a doubt whether Phanx was one of the persons in danger of ostracism, but only whether it was he who caball-voyage to Sicily. ed with Alcibiades to cause the ostracism to fall on Hyberbolus. His words, Alcib., 13, are, ús d' čvoi paci, où pòs XI. A COMPARISON OF THE ACCOUNTS GIVEN BY THUΝικίαν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς Φαίακα διαλεχθεῖς, καὶ τὴν ἐκείνου προστ λαβὼν ἐταιρίαν, ἐξήλασε τὸν Ὑπέρβολον. By the ἔνιοι he means Theophrastus, as appears from the other passage, Νιε., 11: Οὐκ ἀγνοῶ ὅτι Θεόφραστος ἐξοστρακισθήναί φησι τὸν Ὑπέρβολον, Φαίακος, οὐ Νικίου, πρὸς 'Αλκιβιάδην ἐρίcavros. A comparison of these passages leads us to conclude that Theophrastus attributed the machinations by which Hyberbolus was ostracized to Alcibiades and Phax. But we can hardly believe that Theophrastus denied a fact which seems to be so well attested, and from the circumstances of the case so clear, as that Nicias was one of the parties in danger. It did not follow that Nicias conspired with Alcibades against Hyperbolus, though this was generally suspected; and Plutarch, adopting the common statement. takes little notice of Phanx, but may have been aware that he was one of the persons concerned. But Ruhnken objects that Pheux, if he was the author of this bitter attack on Alcibiades, cannot have conspired with him against Hyperbolus. And we do not know that he did; but the oration itself, if we suppose it to be his, would not prove the contrary, for it might not have been delivered or published till a later period. The argument which it suggests against the opinion of Theophrastus might not occur to Plutarch, though he had read it as the work of Phaax when he was writing his life of Nicias: and certainly he is not so accurate in his quotations that we should lay any stress on the slight variance between the statement which he quotes from Phrax as to the abuse of the sacred vessels, and the account given On the side of Tay: of the same transaction in our oration. lor's opinion there still remains the weighty testimony of Theophrastus to the fact that Phrax was one of the persons threatened with ostracism on the same occasion with Alcibiades, and it is easier to suppose Plutarch thoughtless or forgetful, almost to any degree, than to reject this testimony. Whether Theophrastus had read our oration is another matter, which, however, does not concern the present question; for it must be remembered that, whether he read it as the work of Pheax or of Andocides, it must have appeared equally to contradict his opinion.

CYDIDES AND ANDOCIDES OF CERTAIN POINTS CONNECTED WITH THE PROSECUTION OF ALCIBIADES. THUCYDIDES has given a general outline of the occurrences connected with the prosecution of Alcibiades, but without names or particulars. Andocides, in an oration composed in his own defence, and after a considerable interval of time, professes to relate all the most important details of the transaction. The outline of Thucydides may be received with great caution; but still, none of the facts safely relied on; the account of Andocides must indeed be appear to be clearly inconsistent with Thucydides. There which he states ought to be rejected, unless they should is, however, as every one knows who has examined the subject, great difficulty in inserting the details of Andocides, line of Thucydides. The chief difficulties arise about the even where they are least liable to suspicion, in the outbeginning and the concluding scenes of the affair. Wachsmuth, in an appendix (i., 2, p. 444), has arranged the successive informations in their chronological order; and he has noticed the apparent contradiction between Thucydides and Andocides as to Androcles and Pythonicus, but he has not shown quite satisfactorily how it is to be cleared up. It must, however, be observed, that it is Plutarch who ing to him (Alc., 19), the information alluded to by Thucydmakes the contradiction appear greater than it is. Accordwere those collected by Androcles (δούλους τινὰς καὶ μετοί ides, vi., 28 (μηνύεται ἀπὸ μετοίκων τέ τινων καὶ ἀκολούθων), τους προήγαγεν 'Ανδροκλής); and it was by these witnesses that Alcibiades was first charged with the profanation of the mysteries. This would directly contradict Andocides, according to whom it was Pythonicus who brought forward the first evidence against Alcibiades. It must therefore be nesses of Pythonicus, not of Androcles, though Andocides supposed either that these péтOLKOI and ȧkóλov0ot were withas only mentioned Andromachus as the most important, or else that they include the witnesses both of Pythonicus and Alcibiades, though he afterward procured such testimony of Androcles, but that those of Androcles did not implicate Among Taylor's secondary arguments, one is derived from that he was able to accuse Alcibiades publicly before his the embassy mentioned towards the end of our oration, which departure; for it is probably Androcles that Thucydides We have not ventured in the text to dehe thinks may have been the same with that of Phrax, re- principally alludes to, vi., 28, among of pádiora Tÿ 'AλkibLate1 by Thucydides, r., 4. But Ruhnken obnects that our τάξη ἀχθόμενοι ἐμποιῶν ὄντι σφίσι μὴ αὐτοῖς του Δήμου βε orater was sent to Thessaly, Macedonia, Molossia, Thes- 6aiws пpocorával. protta, Italy, and Sicily, whereas Phæax was ambassador cide between these two suppositions. But it seems clear On the other hand, Lysias from the contest mentioned by Andocides between Pythononly to the last two countries. mentions the travels of Andocides in Sicily, Italy, Peloponicus and Androcles about the reward of the informers, that Besus, Thessaly, the Hellespont, Ioma, and Cyprus. But Teucer was one of the witnesses of Androcles, whom, howThere is another apparent contradiction between ThuTaylor thinks that these cannot be the same which are al- ever, he did not produce before the departure of Alcibiades. luded to in our oration, beanse Lysias treats them, not as which, by the alarm they caused at Athens, contributed to an embassy, but as a private journey (áročnpia). To this cydides and Andocides as to the movements of the enemy, Ruhnken replies, that the language of Lysias is that of an едешу. "Tantus sit qui non videat Lysiam, ut accusato-the passing of the decree for the recall of Alcibiades. Ac

APPENDIX.

each obe, doubled the number of the nobles. To guard | jecture, which, under the circumstances in which Sparta against the effects of this preponderance in the numbers of and Athens had been standing towards each other, appears the inferior order, the nobles introduced a measure which less probable than the explanation proposed in this volume. so limited the powers of the popular assembly as to reduce The intercourse with Athens, such as it was, to which L. its deliberative capacity to a mere shadow. It was only attributes these great effects, was confined to Spartans of permitted to listen and assent to the proposals of the senate, the highest rank. On the other hand, we do not think the which was not even bound to obtain this sanction for its de- passages which he cites from Isocrates and Plato sufficient crees. These proceedings having thus sunk into an empty ground for rejecting the tradition that the legislation of Lyform, must be supposed soon to have fallen into disuse; and curgus was connected with some changes in the distributhe election of magistrates became the only kind of business tion of landed property. Both (Panath., p. 287, and Leg., iil., for which the assembly met. That the nobles were able to p. 684) may be very well interpreted as relating to the period carry such a measure, and, as it seems, without a struggle, after Lycurgus. As to that of Isocrates, little is gained for is to be ascribed partly to their own hereditary ascendency, Lachmann's argument if this be denied. For the eulogist partly to the influence of the victorious and popular king of Sparta in the Panathenaicus not only asserts that no one Polydorus, to whom so many citizens were indebted for the could produce an instance of a yis avadacuos at Sparta, but estates which enabled them to exercise their dormant fran- claims for it an exemption from the civil discord (oráois) chise, and partly to the compensation which the lower or- which had afflicted all other Greek cities; and this asserder received in the growing power of the ephors, who began tion, if referred to the period before Lycurgus, so directly to be considered as its representatives. From these prem- contradicts the concurrent testimony of antiquity which ises our author deduces a new and important proposition: Lachmann himself adopts, that it would deprive the others that the ikincia of Sparta, mentioned by Thucydides and of all title to credit. other historians, is not the assembly of the people, but only that of the magistrates, the senate, the ephors, and others, who, he supposes, may have amounted in all to about seventy persons; for (with Tittmann) he interprets Xenophon's s Teacapáкovra, Hell., iii., 3, 5, not as the whole sum, but as the remaining part, and considers this enumeration as the description of an EKKλneia, which was the same body as the ἐκκλητοί, the τέλη άρχοντες, οι αρχαί, who are some times named in its stead. The xpà EKKλnoia mentioned by Xenophon, Hell., iii., 3, 8, was composed of the senate and ephors only. As the power of the ephors depended upon this aristocratical assembly, it was constantly exercised in support of the aristocratical interests, even when a majority of the college was taken from the lower order. Thus the ephoralty, notwithstanding its democratical origin, became the firmest pillar of the aristocratical institutions.

Lachmann's account of the institutions of Lycurgus, though in itself highly probable, and consistent with historical analogy, especially with that of Roman history, which apparently suggested it, seems to assume too many propositions which rest on very slight or ambiguous evidence, and to reject too much of the opinion commonly received among the ancients as to the nature of the changes effected by the Spartan lawgiver. The traces to which he refers, of those conflicts which he supposes to have taken place among the three tribes, are too faint to satisfy us of their existence; and the testimony of Isocrates as to the number of the Dorian invaders is the less to be relied on, as it omits the third tribe. Yet this is the main foundation of the hypothesis about the rise of the Lacedæmonian commonalty, which would be unnecessary if the force of the original settlers is raised but a little higher. Whatever were the means which enabled them to overpower the Achæans on their first arrival, might have sufficed for the gradual subjugation of the whole country, without any communication of the franchise. The mode of this communication also raises some difficulties for which we find no explanation provided. It would seem as if the same principle which led the Dorians to form, first their Macedonian allies, and then the adventurers who joined them in their expedition against Peloponnesus, into a distinct tribe, should have prevented them from admitting the Lacedaemonians into any of the three. But it is especially improbable that these new citizens should have been equally distributed among tribes so jealous of each other, and differing so widely in rank. And, again, if with respect to the Lacedamonian commonalty the three tribes were considered as all on one level, then we should not have expected that the unendowed, and, therefore, imperfectly enfranchised citizens, who could have had no prospect of such a provision as after the conquest of Messenia enabled them to exercise their privileges, should have been immediately incorporated with the noble tribes precisely in the same way as the rest. The peers, according to Lachmann's view, were not an oligarchical, but an aristocratical body. The account which has been given in this volume of Cinadon's plot rests upon the other hypothesis. Lachmann is obliged to suppose that no real change had taken place in the relations of the Spartans to the lower orders, with whom they were the object of such violent hatred, but only that there was at Sparta a secret, democratical-revoJutionary party, which the sight of Athenian liberty had made discontented with its inferior position. This is a con

Beginning with this last remark, we would observe, on the other side, that the deliberations of the Athenian council were public; and, if Lachmann's conjecture be right, that the Spartans pointed out by Cinadon in the marketplace constituted an EKKλncia, the case would seem to have been the same at Sparta; for there were 4000 persons of inferior rank present there at the same time. One strong objection to his hypothesis arises out of the very passages of Aristotle which he cites to prove the narrow limits within which the powers of the Spartan assembly were confined. Aristotle mentions as one of the points in which the constitutions of Crete and of Sparta resembled each other, that in Crete all the citizens were admitted to the assembly, but it had no power except that of ratifying the previous resolutions of the senate and the cosmi. ('EKKAnoias perexovOL πάντες· κυρία δ ̓ οὐδενός ἐστιν, ἀλλ ̓ ἢ συνεπιψηφίσαι τὰ seems clear from this that Aristotle knew of no IKKλnoia dolavra Tois yipovai Kal Tois Koeuois, Pol., ii., 7, 4.) It citizens; and if it could be doubted whether he considered either in Crete or at Sparta, except an assembly of all the the Spartan ikkλnoia as similar to the Cretan, this doubt would be removed by the comparison which he draws in the next chapter between them both and that of Carthage, which differed from them in the larger powers exercised by the people. It seems impossible that Aristotle could have expressed himself in this manner if he had known that ikkλncia at Sparta signified a privy council of about seventy persons. Again, Lachmann considers the term xpivev, which Thucydides uses (i., 87) in speaking of the Spartan ἐκκλησία (κρίνουσι γὰρ βοὴ, καὶ οὐ ψήφο), as inapplicable to the popular assembly; but he overlooks what appears to us a much more forcible objection, arising from this pas sage, to his own opinion; the extreme improbability that the council of magistrates should have expressed their determinations in this noisy way rather than by a silent vote. The language of Xenophon in the passage where he mentions the pupa ikkλnola, instead of implying, as Lachmann thinks, that it consisted of the ephors and the senate, seems to prove that it included a greater number of persons, and therefore, most probably, at least all those whom he supposes to have been members of the regular ikkAnoia. The ephors, he says, were alarmed: kal ovde rijv piкpav kaλovμένην ἐκκλησίαν ξυλλέξαντες, ἀλλὰ ξυλλεγόμενοι τῶν γερόν Tuy Aλos Ao0ev, 6ovecavro. Hell., iii., 3, 8. We hardly see how this can mean anything else than that, although the senate was privately assembled by the ephors,