Page images

say, he is not capable of falling into such gross absurdities as the other freq ly ts, nor of * --------1 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. 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 Pagasae. 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 supposes that the plan of o: was aimed against the Spartan navy at Gythium; an enterprise which would have been o, infamous and utterly useless to the Athenians. The one scheme might possibly have entered into the mind of Themistocles; the other could never have suggested itself to him, or to any man of common sense. It is also due to Plutarch to observe, that he mentions the pro§: without the slightest mark of approbation, though he was been ignorantly accused by Rollin, and by a later historian, who echoes the Frenchman's blunder, of this breach of morality, which would have deserved a different name from that of thoughtlessness. Diodorus also gives an account of a project formed by Themistocles, 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 Diodorus may not be better entitled to credit than Plutarch. According to Diodorus, the plan of Themistocles, instead of being both iniquitous o!' impolitic, and hence stufled 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 be 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. Themistocles, it appears, having experienced the jealousy 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 er as was likely to result from this new undertaking. o 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. or. that what he advised was practicable, expedient, roast important to the commonwealth. Now, however, after such an assurance from his political adversaries, the popular jealousy was roused to a much greater height than before: e was suspected of aiming at the tyranny, and was called upon to reveal his plan. He again assured the people that their interest required it to be kept secret. This assurance, however, did not satisfy them; no doubt because they imagined that, if they gave their consent, the plan would be executed 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 acquesced; but public curiosity was raised to the highest 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, beson, it became known to those who might possibly endeavour to thwart it. Such had been the course which Themstocles

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

was too simple to be now repeated. In its stead he chose the directly opposite method, and invented a stratagen, 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 iven full notice to the jealous rival from whom he appref. 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.

# it had been the object of Themistocles first to excite alarm and jealousy at Sparta by the rumour of an extraordinary design, which, after the scenes, said to have taken place in the Athenian assembly, could not fail soon to be heard there, and next to afford the Spartans the utmost facility for stopping the work which he had meditated, the course which Diodorus attributes to him was no doubt judiciously chosen. But, on the opposite supposition, his conduct sets all the calculations of human prudence at defiance, and would be, indeed, perplexing, if the satuity of Diodorus did not afford an easy solution of the mystery.

It may seem that a modern historian who is capable of adopting this prodigious tissue of absurdities, and of calling it 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. §: the force of prejudice may often reduce a #. understanding to a level with the most imbecile. The incoherence 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 ...; 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 democracy, 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

rty. pa ethink it must be evident to everyone, on a moderately attentive perusal, that the story told by Diodorus is utterly i - with the t 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 Piraeus 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 .. liable to dispute; and it has beengo supposed (as by Boeckh, Staatsh., ii., 10, i., p. 215, where the name of #. is

probably written by mistake for Themistocles) that the plan of Themistocles was never completely executed. The reasons which induce us to refer ArtMath, to the same time as troporo, are that no cause is assigned, nor does any appear, why the design of Themistocles should not have been completed; that the words frctat—rá. Morro...olkočously seem most naturally to imply that it was carried into effect to its full extent; and that, since the dyprudrarot mentioned by Thucydides, i., 93, are no other than the rptootrarot and voorurot, i., 13, the end which Themistocles had in view appears to have been really accomplished. r. 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, Siebells) as to the dedication of 3. Hermes, which was erected by the nine archons who had begun to build the walls of Piraeus. and bore the inscription 'Aposurvo reorov ruxson otö’ dwéonkaw Book raidsuou odynaar ru%arrot. According to Philochorus in fo is Hermesdølopura Kęptoos dpkavros, where Boeckh—in a dissertation De Archontibus tlicus pseudeponymis, first published in the Berlin Transactions, 1827–proposes to read"YopMićov. Hybrilides was archon 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 suc

|cessor Diognetus, and it was not begun before the archon

ship of Hybrilides, at the end of which the statue was dedirated.

[ocr errors]

Some readers may, perhaps, be surprised to find no mention made here of a prerogative which they may have seen elsewhere attributed to the Are s, 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 testimon nor of reasoning, but simply to the placid assurance o 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 anyonethinks this a sufficient proof of the general assertion, we could only § by the old Greek jest, of the simpleton who carried a bric

ut as a sample of a house, or by the Roman story of the youth who, finding a f ent 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 (Pluto, Them., 10) gave a different account of the matter—raises the strongest B.o. 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 (i., 2, p. 83) should have adopted the opinion, and, without offering any argument in support of it, have stated it as a motorious fact. Wachsmuth more judiciously contents himself with remarking its improbability and groundlessness in a note (ii., I, p. o

Ix. ox some or THE changes unought Against PERIc-e-.

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 text. But some of the charges which have been brought against him, and which deeply affect his personal reputation, 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 Boockh 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 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 ulation, 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, suspá, rivas doopuds Hyomudrav Ma66, res), 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, xpmudrow opticawy), but have spoken of him as a person_notoriously most incorruptible (ii.,65, Xpmuárww loavos dowpérard;). Nobody 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 maybe inferred from the silence of Thucydides, Plutarch, and Diodorus—it was probably not very easy to collect. But it may be objected by some readers that Plato, who, as they have been informed, was himself so warm an admirer of Pericles as to assign to him the praise of supereminence in what was wise, great, and becoming, would not, upon a light surmise, have stated a fact so injurious to the reputation of this wise, great, and honourable man. The objection would be natural enough; for there are some blunders so gross that they seem incredible until they are pointed out. Any one who happens to have read the long declamation, in which the rhetorician Aristides labours to vindicate the character of Pericles from Plato's attacks, must be to: to find Plato called up to vouch for the character of the man whom in the Gorgias he assailed with an almost

bitter severity. And even if we had not such ample evidence of Plato's opinion on the subject, no of samplicity is requisite to enable any one to allege the Philoso*:::: ironical language in the Menn filopota otro-arraorporos wood, dopa) as a serious eulogy, and on the moral character of Pericles. That character has been more edangered by the manner in which it has been defended to by the arguments with which it has been attack-i- onPericles might well have-spared the good-ord of an advocate, who exalts him in order to depress Athens, and permuts him even to share the praises of Poistrato, for the o of insinuating that the glory of Athenian art of iterature belongs less to the people than to the tyrant as: 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 spite of her freedom. The only ground which Boeckh opposes to the testoratory of Thucydides in favour of the integrity of Pencies is, that the report about his pecuniary embarrassment, from which he was said to have relieved himself by Mandling the Peloponnesian war, was too prevalent not to have had some foundation. (St. d. Ath., ii., c. 8) But if this argumen: is allowed to have any weight, it would lead us to an inference which Boeckh seems not sufficiently to have cou-deed. There was another report equally prevalent, and repeated in a variety of forms, which tharged Peracles -oth indulging a very expensive vice, by the ministry, sometimes of Phidias, sometimes of Pyrilampes, sometunes of Aspasa (Pluto, Per., 13, 32); and it seems clear that the two ch must stand or fall together. The habits of Perirles ordinary frugality and strict economy—are sufficiently altested to convince us that, unless his private incomedrained by this kind of expenditure, he could scarcely have had any temptation to embezzle the public money. we 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 terofute this charge, exults in it, as an illustration of the zoo, lar licentiousness, which Pericles, whose power rested on the :*: which he professed of democracy, was obliged to allo his, to be sure, is a mode of begging the question. which must injure the cause of the party defended to the judgment of every impartial and intelligent reader. Bor we think it not unt ble to that, notwith -ing the rumour on which Boeckh lays so tauch stress, the integrity of Pericles is as firmly established by the most asthentic testimony as any fact in history of a like kind can be ; and from this fact we would infer that the other charge was equally unfounded. It seems strange that Boecon should be at a loss to conceive how the charge of peculation should become current at Athens, like many other runneurs, without any solid ground, and we have endeavoured in the text to point out how the other scandal might have arsen out of very innocent occasions. We would rather leave the question on this footing than resort to any vague declamstion about the supereminence of Pericles in what was oriae, 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 of the two charges are once admitted to be so connected as we suppose them to be, few will hesitate in rejecting toothThe assemblies in the house of Aspasia were oncommon enough to attract much attention, and to give rise to talumnious reports; but, on the other hand, they indinate how much exaggeration has been admitted into the prevailing opinion about the strict seclusion in which the Athen as ladies were kept. Jacobs, in an interesting essay on the Greek women (Vermischte Schriftem, iii.). has shown how much this opinion requires to be modified. But our anndemocratical historian has assumed it in its utmost extent. for the purpose of making it the ground of an hypothesis, 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 else may have been the seclusion of the Athenian women in the most turbulent state of the democracy, it cannot have bees. more rigid than that in which the Portuguese ladies, for instance, were kept under the stillness of an absolute troarchy. But, from whatever side the fiction is examused.* absurdity is as glaring as the temerity with which it is alvanced as unquestionable matter of history. The subject of this Appendix has drawn from wesome olemical remarks which we would willingly have aro, though some readers may have expected and desired that they should occur more frequently. It may, indeed, beneful, and need not be disagreeable. to point out mustakears a history which can claim the praise of candour and soplicity, so justly bestowed on Thucydides by the rhetories Aristides in the declamation already alluded to trip row rerr., ii., p. 163, Dindors., at ouvruvia; oran aios, où" ti; dovo, Ypriar, obo el; or 5 rpora ora osipwy, o Avieropla kai &moat, raw of 4-Mos rap-oovg. But where that praise is illustrated by a room unt thesis; where a historyisailpolemical; where the

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 on attox against Alcibrapes artitiou’red to annocines.

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 Lystacle, c. vi.), and Ruhnken (IIistoria Critica Oratorum Græcorum, p, liii., fol.) are at variance. Our object is chiefly to show that, though Ruhnken has suc**. disposed of many of Taylor's arguments, his own are by no means conclusive. Taylor contends that the uration belongs, not to Andocides, but to Phaeax. His main arent is, that it appears from the oration itself, that on occasion to which it relates three persons were threatened with ostracism; that Phirax is known to have been one of the three, and Nicuas and Alcibiades the two others, while the name of Andocides is nowhere mentioned among them; Pharax, 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 Pharax 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 Phoax 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 each other to avoid the ostracism. But there are two possible cases, either of which would meet this objection: Plutarch might not himself have seen the oration of Phoeak, but have quoted it at second hand. Thus, 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 Pharax was one of the persons in danger of ostracism, but only whether it was he who caballed with Alcibiades to cause the ostracism to fall on Hyberbolus. His words, Alcib., 13, are.os 3' otol party, mp3; Notav, d\\ompo bataxa toxois, sai roy Ixotroy opaqMatov traptay, loace row "Yrlpooxor. By the trut he triot-fix Theophrastus, as appears from the other passage, Nico. 11: Qūx dyo5 or Bopagros Roarpaxlo'oval Woo, row "Tripoo.Wow, bataxos, Nuklov. mp3s 'AAxiētaony optcavros. A comparison of these passages leads us to conclude that Theophrastus attributed the machinations by which Hyberbalus was ostracized to Alcibiades and Phrax. 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 Nicuas was one of the parties in danger. It did not follow that Nicas conspired with Alcibiades against Hyperbolus, though this was generally suspected; and Plutarch, adopting the common statement, takes little notice of Phaeax, but may have been aware that he was one of the persons concerned. But Ruhuken objects that Phaeax, 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 hus, would not prove the contrary, for it might not have been delivered or published till a later period. The argument which it suggests ast the opinion of Theophrastus might not occur o , though he had read it as the work of Pheax when he was writing his life of Nicas: 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 Phaeax as to the abuse of the sacred vessels, and the account given of the same transaction in our oration. On the side of Taylor's o there still replains the weighty testimony of Theophrastus to the fact that Pharax 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 testinomy. 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 Phoeak or of Andocides, it must have appeared equally to contradict his opinion. Among Taylor's secondary arguments, one is derived from the embassy mentioned towards the end of our oration, which he thinks may have been the same with that of Pharax, related by Thucydides, v-, 4. But Ruhnken objects that our orator was sent to Thessaly, Macedonia, Molossia, Thesprotia, Italy, and Sicily, whereas Phoeak was ambassador only to the last two countries. On the other hand, Lysias mentions the travels of Andocides in Sicily, Italy, Peloponus, Thessaly, the Hellespont, Ionia, and Cyprus. But lor thiaks that these rannot be the same which are alto in our oration, tevanse Lysias treats them, not as an enabassy, but as a private journey (droomuła). To this Ruhmken replies, that the language of Lysias is that of an enemy. “Tardus sit qu wan o: Lysiam, ut accusato

rem, quam rpgatetav dicere debebat, invidiose draûmutav dicere.” But here it is Ruhnken himself who has committed a most extraordinary oversight; for nothing can be clearer from the context of Lysias (Andocid., p. 103) than that 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 o of Pheax, unless we should suppose that, after having ended his negotiations in Sicily and Italy, he received orders which induced him to cross over to Macedonia, through Epirus, and to return by the way of Thessaly to Athens, where Thucydides observes he arrived xpovo tarpov, v., 5. But the embassy to Epirus, Macedonia, and Thessaly might also have been undertaken on some other occasion.

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 attributed to Andocides so early as it appears to have been from the quotations of the grammarians, is not so much an objection as a point on which we must confess our ignorance.

Neither Taylor nor Ruhnken has noticed a passage in the oration, which seems to raise at least a strong presumption that it was not delivered in its present form on the occasion to which it refers. The contest which was terminated by the ostracism of Hyperbolus of course preceded the appointment of Nucias and Alcibiades to the command of the Sicilian expedition. This appointment took place early in 415 (äua opt, 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 reproached in the oration with having had a son by a Melian woman, whom he bought from among the captives condemned to slavery by his own decree (repl rôv MnXtwo y vapov droon, duevos Ravéparodistoffat, opusurvo, Yvvaixa row alona Morwy boy to airis teroinrui). These words could scarcely have been written before Alcibiades was on his voyage to Sicily.

XI. A comparisox of the accounts given by thucyloides and annocides or certain points coxnected with the prosecution or 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 safely relied on; the account of Andocides must indeed be received with great caution; but still, none of the facts which he states ought to be rejected, unless they should appear to be clearly inconsistent with Thucydides. There is, however, as every one knows who has examined the subject, great difficulty in inserting the details of Andocides, even where they are least liable to suspicion, in the outline of Thucydides. The chief difficulties arise about the beginning 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 makes the contradiction appear greater than it is. According to him (Alc., 19), the information alluded to by Thucydides, vi., 28 (unvätra, dràueroixonoré revor Kal droMotowy), were those collected by Androcles (800Xous rivá; Kal acrosskov; mpossyaya, 'Awāpools); and it was by these witnesses that A o: 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 supposed either that these afrotrot and droMovoo were witnesses of Pythonicus, not of Androcles, though Andocides has only mentioned Andromachus as the most important, or else that they include the witnesses both of Pythonicus and of Androcles, but that those of Androcles did not implicate Alcibiades, though he afterward procured such testimony that he was able to accuse Alcibiades publicly before his departure; for it is probably Androcles that Thucydides principally alludes to, vi., 28, among of AusAtara ro, "AXotousion dxtMarvov lorov or copies on abrois row #: Be6aios mpocorrival. We have not ventured in the text to decide between these two suppositions. But it seems clear from the contest mentioned by Andocides between Pythonscus and Androcles about the reward of the informers, that Teucer was one of the witnesses of Androcles, whom, however, he did not produce before the departure of Alcibiades.

There is another apparent contradiction between Thucydides and Andocides as to the movements of the enemy, which, by the alarm they caused at Athens, contributed to the passing of the decree for the recall of Alcibiades. Ac


•ording to Thucydides. after the agitation excited by the af.
fair of the Hermes busts had been allayed by the informa-
tion of Andocides, the apprehensions of the people were
more than ever roused with respect to the mysteries, and
were so much heightened by the news that a Lacedæmonian
force had arrived at the Isthmus to act in some way or other
in concert with the Boeotians, that one night a body of the
citizens kept watch under arms on the Theseum. Andocides
does not mention this movement of the Lacedæmonians, but
relates that, when the public anxiety was carried to its
greatest height by the information of Dioclides, orders were
given for arming all the citizens, and posting them at vari-
ous points of the city, among others, at the Theseum, for
the night; adding, apparently as the motive for this meas-
ure, that the Borutians, having learned the state of affairs in
athens, had marched to the frontier. It seems unavoidable
to infer that there is an error in one of these accounts; and
it is easter to suppose that the measure of precaution which
Thucydides believed to have been adopted only on the occa-
soon of the march of the Lacedæmonian army had been taken
once before, when the Borotians first came to the frontier,
or else that he was mistaken as to the time to which it be-
longed, than that Andocides transferred all the curcumstan-
ces which he so munutely describes in reference to the march
of the Bootlans from a later to an earlier period, though
undoubtedly he had an interest in exaggerating the conster-
nation that prevailed before his o But still,
that the alarm at that time was really great, is confirmed
by Thucydides, though he is silent as to the movement of
the Boeotians, at least before the unformation of Andocides.
This is the ground on which we have given the
in the text, in which, however, we have not ventured to de-
cide whether the night-watch in the Theseum took place
twice or only once during the panic. Wachsmuth, in his
narrative, omits the march of the Boeotians mentioned by
Andocides, and leaves it uncertain whether on the first oc-
casion the citizens passed the night at the Theseum ; yet
this seems clear from the context of Andocides.

XII. on THE DEVELopMENT or The span tax coxstirurian.

Since the publication of the first part of this History, in which (Appendix I.) several works relating to the Spartan Constitution were mentioned, another has appeared in Germany which may be classed with the most valuable on the subject. Its title is, Die Spartanische :*:::::::"; in threr Entwickel und ihrem Verfalle von Dr. Karl Heinrich Lachmann, Breslau, 1836. hough it was published early in the year, it came into my hands too late to be noticed in the preceding pages. But several readers may be interested in an account of the author's views on some of the more difficult and important questions which have been already discussed in the course of this work.

The soundation of his theory is laid in an introduction on the origin of the Greek religions, and on the early history of the Ionians, whom he conceives to have been closely allied to the Minyans, and of the Achaeans, including an inquiry into the legends of the Pelopids, and of the Trojan war. (With respect to the historical substance of the latter legend, he adopts an hypothesis proposed by Voelcker in a German periodical, which seems not to differvery widely in its leading features from the view taken of the same subject in this history.) The main object of these preliminary investigations is to ascertain the state of Laconia before the Dorian invasion; and the result to which he conducts the readeris, that the population was at that time composed of Pelasgians (Leleges), Minyans, and Achaeans. Rejecting the story of the Minyan colony from Lemnos as a fiction invented to connect two independent facts, he considers the Minyans as the people which preceded the Achaeans in the possession of Laconia, where they had reduced the aboriginal Pelasgians to bondage. The Achaeans, on the other hand, he conceives to have been settled there but a few generations before the arrival of the Dorians, and in comparatively small numbers. They were never masters of the whole land, in the same sense as the Dorians became so, but only exercised a kind of hegemony over the Minyan cities. Their seat of government was Amycle, which at an earlier epoch had sent out a Minyan colony to Sparta. This state of things rendered it easy for the Dorians, notwithstanding their numerical weakness, to dislodge the Achaeans, who were almost entirely expelled. The conquerors occupied Sparta (the pots properly so called, in contradistinction to the four kotai), and were supported by the tribute which they received from the Helots, the cultivators of the oxos, or level tract on the banks of the Eurotas from Sparta down to the sea, who for some time were permitted to enjoy their personal freedom, and the possession and property of their lands subject to this charge, and may, therefore, becompared with the Attic roopo, before Solon. With regard to the other Laconian cities, the Dorians merely stepped into the place | which had been previously occupied by i. Achaeans.

Dr. Lachmann's view of the development of the Spartan Constitution mainly depends on his conception of the man

ner in which the Spartan tribes were formed, and gradual-
ly united together. The original Dorian nation, arrording
to him, consisted only of the Hylleans. These, in their
wanderings north of Olympus, associated themselve- with
a portion of the Macedonian or Macednian people, who forme-
*T. second tribe, the Dymanes. The third tribe, the
Pamphylians, was composed of the adventurers who arrom-
pamed the conquerors on their expedition into Pelos.
The Dorian and the Attic Tetrapolus are both considered as
vestiges of the period when there were but two tribes, a
the Asiatic Hexapolis is supposed to have represented the
three : but these tribes were at first very imperfectly united
to each other, and were distinguished by a great dispari
of political rights. The two elder tribes were governed ea
by its own king and senate, and it was only after the co-
quest that the King of the Dymanes was admitted to a co-

lete equality of rank and power with the King of the Hyko, and that the legend arose which represented both the royal houses as springing from the Heracleid Aristodemus. But the prytants of the third tribe strove in vain to raise himself to a level with the other two; its unsuccessful efforts are indicated by the story of the regent. Theras, the head of the AEgends (who belonged to this tribe), and of the Muyans who were banished from Laconia because ther aspired to the royal digm: The distance by which it was separated from the Hylleans and the Dymanes is by the tradition reported by Isocrates, that the Spartan Pruanes amounted to no more than 2000 (1000 families for earh tribe). Like the others, however, it had its ger-roo, which deliberated apart on its particular interests.

the - of the i o dered it necessary, rery soon after their settlement at Sparta, to confer a footo franchise on a communalty composed of the natives, who were gathered round them in the four boroughs or suburos. Potana, Mesoa, Cynosura, and Limna, to which L. courrives the name of mon was properly applied. The name of Spartans belonged originally and properly to the Doraof the old Town (the Guotos); but they were included to the appellation of Lacedæmonians, which was the official description of the whole people. With the aid of this canmonasty the Spartans reduced the rest of the Helots to ser: vitude, and deprived them of their property in the land which they tilled, and established their dominim on the rest of Laconia. But the newly enfranchised commemorro (rroëanorus) were not all immediately provided with landed property, and therefore could not, for a long time, erercise their political rights, which required that their subsisence should be independent of all industrious occupations. Their wants were supplied by the conquest of Messenza, and were the real motive of the Messenian wars. But, in the mean while, they took an active part in the contests of the Spartan tribes, and thus contributed to aggravate the disorders of that period of discord and anarchy which was at length terminated by the legislation of Lycurgus. The oject of his institutions was to unite the two orders—the

acedæmonian commonalty and the Spartan peers—more closely together, and to abolish the distinctions by which the peers of the three tribes were separated from one oother. For this purpose he formed one common senate of of the three bodies, which had before deliberated apart— though the tradition preserved by Hermippus in Plutares, Lyc., 5, that Lycurgus communicated his plans to teesty persons, leads i. the conclusion that the senates of the two elder tribes had previously been assembled together for public consultations—and made the kings, who before had presided each over the senate of his own tribe, members of the common one. The origin of the ephoralty, which was peculiar to Sparta and her colonies, belongs to the period before Lycurgus. The name ephor is connected, not with the verbopáo, but with opia, which is explained in Bet ker's Anecd., p.204, as equivalent to dyspá, } crévosoko-o-o: rolsópotsylvorovn row dorvyturávow of olòuapo, buo ovov re; repl roy Kouoy &ov\roovro, as in Rome the forum of between the two most ancient settlements on the Palatins and the Capitol. In Sparta there were five such loosa, which were the places where civil justice was administered. This was one of the royal functions; but when the kings ceased to be considered merely as chiefs each of a troe, and belonged equally to the whole Lacedæmonian people, they appointed five magistrates—hence called ephors—as their substitutes in this part of their office. only perhaps reserving the more important causes and appeals in all coes for their own cognizance. Lycurgus unuted the stors in one college, transferred the right of appointment to the people, and made all the electors eligible, while the state remained open only to the peers. L. it tally rejects ** story of the partition of land made by Lyrurgus, who e supposes arose from that which took place after the coquest of Messenia.

This conquest, as it afforded the means of assigoro piece of land for every freeman, raised the numter of the active citizens the oroets) who shared the Spartan edgcation, and had a place at the public tables, too families, so that the commoners, who were equally distributed among the three tribes, forming twenty houses out of the thirty in

each obe, doubled the number of the nobles. To guard inst the effects of this preponderance in the numbers of *"... order, the nobles introduced a measure which so homited the powers of the popular assembly as to reduce its deliberative capacity to a mere shadow. It was only permitted to listen and assent to the proposals of the senate, which was not even bound to obtain this sanction for its decrees. These proceedings having thus sunk into an empty form, must be supposed soon to have fallen into disuse; and the election of magistrates became the only kind of business for which the assembly met. That the nobles were able to carry such a measure, and, as it seems, without a struggle, is to be ascribed partly to their own hereditary ascendency, artly to the influence of the victorious and popular king olydorus, to whom so many citizens were indebted for the estates which enabled them to exercise their dormant franchise, and partly to the compensation which the lower order received in the growing power of the ephors, who began to be considered as its representatives. From these premises our author deduces a new and important proposition: that the longia of Sparta, mentioned by Thucydides and 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 o Tittmann) he interprets Xenophon's to reacapáxovra, Hell., iii., 3, 5, not as the whole sum, but as the remaining part, and considers this enumeration as the description of an oxx\mala, which was the same body as the lak\nrol, the room—spx2yres, or dpxas, who are sometimes named in its stead. The suspa tromata 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 exercused in o: 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,

This short abstract is of course not designed to put the reader in complete possession of the author's views, much less to give any notion of his proofs and illustrations, which must be sought for in the work itself. His investigation is conducted throughout in a spirit of sober and sagacious criticism, which renders it highly instructive and interesting, even where it may fail to convince. The reader, howover, may expect to be informed how far this new view of the subject has modified that which has been taken in this history, and the following observations are chiefly intended to gratify this curiosity. achmann's account of the institutions of Lycurgus, though in itself o 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 o the Spartan lawgiver. The traces to which he refers, 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 in 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 1-raised but a little higher. Whatever were the means which enabled them to overpower the Achaeans 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 ori". against Peloponneous, into a distinct tribe, should have prevented i. from admitting the Lacedæmonians into any of the three. But it is especially improbable that these new citizens should

have been equ o distributed among tribes so jeal of each other, and differing so widely in rank. And, again, if with respect to the lomonian 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 - of M

enabled them to exercise then privileges, should have been immediately incorporated with the noble tribes precisely in the same way as the rest...The peers, according to Lach: mann's view, were not an oligarchical, but an aristocratical o The account which has been given in this volume of Conadon's plot rests upon the other hypothesis. Lachmann is obliged to suppose that no real change had taken pact 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, democraucal—revolutionary party, which the sight of Athenian liberty had made discontented with its inferior position. This is a con

jecture, which, under the circumstances in which Sparta and Athen had been standing towards each other, ol. less probable than the explanation proposed in this volume. The intercourse with Athens, such as it was, to which L. attributes these great effects, was confined to Spartans of the highest rank. On the other hand, we do not think the passages which he cites from Isocrates and Plato sufficient ground for rejecting the tradition that the legislation of Lycurgus was connected with some changes in the distribution of landed property. Both (Panath., p. 287, and Leg., iii., p. 684) may be very well interpreted as relating to the period after Lycurgus. As to that of Isocrates, little is gained for Lachmann's argument if this be denied. For the eulogist of Sparta in the Panathenaicus not only asserts that no one could produce an instance of a yūsāvaoaguos at Sparta, but claims for it an exemption from the civil discord (corsals) which had afflicted all other Greek cities; and this assertion, if referred to the period before Lycurgus, so *. contradicts the concurrent testimony of antiquity whic Lachmann himself adopts, that it would deprive the others of all title to credit. Still less can we be satisfied with his view of the Spartan taxAnnia. He observes that the name given to the assembly of the people in the rhatra of Lycurgus is driMAa, that Herodotus calls it 4Ata, which was the ordinary Dorian term, and that at Syracuse a select meeting of the principal men was called lax\nros (bar\mrés, # roy #. ww.auvatpotals, or oupakotaats. esych.). But this does not seem quite sufficient to render it probable that the term frongia should have been applied at Sparta to the assembly of the magistrates, still less that it should have been used in this sense by Thucydides and Xenophon, without any qualification to apprize their readers of the wide difference between it and the oxx\mata with which they were familiar. Lachmann produces a number of instances from these historians in which the Spartan ixx:Amasa is represented as deliberating and discussing various questions of state policy; a of: expressly taken away from it by the rhetra of Polydorus. He, however, seems to admit that all these descriptions may be referred to the rên đpxovrts, who, according to the common notion, were, in fact, the only speakers in every assembly; but he conceives that this supposition is in itself too improbable to be admitted. He thinks that the commonalty could not have been so often present at such consultations without ually enlarging its pretensions, and that such a state of things would have been inconsistent with the rise and the peculiar character of the ephors. Even the Athenian council, he observes, did not deliberate in the presence of the people. 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 marketlace constituted an oxxxnata, the case would seem to have {. the same at Sparta; for there were 4000 persons of inferior rank present there at the same time. One strong objection to his No. 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. ('Exx\ndia; perixoval Fávrts' rupia & otötvö; larly, d\\'o guytronoigai &avra rols yipovo kai Tois réauvoo, Pol., ii, 7, 4.) It seems clear from this that Aristotle knew of no oxx\mata either in Crete or at Sparta, except an assembly of all the citizens; and if it could be doubted whether he considered the Spartan tx-Anata 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 *...a 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 tronola at Sparta *::: a privy ouncil of about seven

typ Again, the term optvav, which Thucydides uses (i., 87) in speaking of the i. Jonata ("pivova, yap Boo, kal of w), as inapplicable to the popu . but he overlooks what appears to us a much more forcible objection, arising from this passage, to his own opinion; the extreme improbability that the il of ates should have expressed their determinations in this noisy way rather than by a silent vote. The language of Xeno in the passage where he mentions the purpa lox\nasa, 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 lxxxnata. The ephors, he says, were alarmed: saloo row purpov waxovovny longsay to Māort;, d\\} {vyArooroo row yogaruv d'AMo; d.M.Mober, Mascarro. Hell.. ui-, 3, 8. We hardly see how this can mean anything else than that, although the senate was privately assembled by the ephors,

« PreviousContinue »