CHAP. X. Phocis. Delphi. Eubœa. were some which boasted of their descent from its ancient kings. Equally scanty is our information as to the general condition of the Phocians. Their land, though neither extensive nor fertile, was divided among between twenty and thirty little commonwealths, which were united like the Achæans and the Baotians, and sent deputies at stated times to a congress which was held in a large building, called the Phocicum, on the road between Daulis and Delphi.' But Delphi, though lying in Phocis, disclaimed all connection with the rest of the nation.2 Its government, as was to be expected under its peculiar circumstances, was strictly aristocratical, and was in the hands of the same families which had the management of the temple, on which the prosperity of the city and the subsistence of a great part of the inhabitants depended. In early times the chief magistrate bore the title of king, afterwards that of prytanis. But a council of five, who were dignified with a title marking their sanctity3, and were chosen from families which traced their origin — possibly through Dorus - to Deucalion, and held their offices for life, conducted the affairs of the oracle. In Eubœa an aristocracy or oligarchy of wealthy landowners, who, from the cavalry which they maintained, were called Hippobota, long prevaile in the two principal cities, Chalcis and Eretria. The great number of colonies which Chalcis sent out, and which attests its early importance, was probably the result of an oligarchical policy. Its constitution appears to the legend about Protogeneia in Pindar, Ol. ix. Whether the limitation of the war CHAP. X. Chalcis and have been, in proper terms, a timocracy: a certain amount of property was requisite for a share in the government.1 Eretria, once similarly governed, seems not to have been at all inferior in strength. She was mistress of several islands, among the rest of Andros, Tenos, and Ceos; and, in the days of her prosperity, could exhibit 600 horsemen, 3000 heavy-armed infantry, and 60 chariots, in a sacred procession.2 Chalcis Ancient and Eretria were long rivals, and a tract called the between Lelantian plain, which contained valuable copper retria. mines, afforded constant occasion for hostilities. These hostilities were distinguished from the ordinary wars between neighbouring cities by two peculiar features, the singular mode in which they were conducted, and the general interest which they excited throughout Greece. They were regulated, at least in early times, by a compact between the belligerents, which was recorded by a monument in a temple, to abstain from the use of missile weapons. But, while this agreement suggests the idea of a feud like those which we have seen carried on, in an equally mild spirit, between the Megarian townships, we learn with surprise from Thucydides that the war between Eretria and Chalcis divided the whole nation, and that all the Greek states took part with one or the other of the rivals. It has been suspected that the cause which drew this universal attention to an object apparently of very slight moment was, that the quarrel turned upon political principles; that the oligarchy at Eretria had very early given way to democracy, while that of Chalcis, threatened by this new danger, engaged many states to espouse its cause. We are informed indeed that the Eretrian oligarchy was over The Hippobotæ are described by Strabo, x. p. 447. as and т¡μпμάтwv aρισтокρατικῶς ἄρχοντες, 3 i. 15. 2 Strab. x. p. 448. This hypothesis is very ably maintained by C. F. Hermann in the Rh. Mus. 1832. CHAP. X. Political division of Thessaly. thrown by a person named Diagoras, of whom we also hear that he died at Corinth while on his way to Sparta, and that he was honoured with a statue by his countrymen.1 It is also certain that the oligarchy at Chalcis, though more than once interrupted by a tyranny, was standing till within a few years of the Persian wars. But we do not know when Diagoras lived, and, without stronger evidence, it is difficult to believe that the revolution which he effected took place before the fall of the Athenian aristocracy, an epoch which appears to be too late for the war mentioned by Thucydides. Thessaly seems, for some time after the conquest, to have been governed by kings of the race of Hercules, who however may have been only chiefs invested with a permanent military command, which ceased when it was no longer required by the state of the country. Under one of these princes, named Aleuas, it was divided into the four districts, Thessaliotis, Pelasgiotis, Phthiotis, and Hestiæotis. And as this division was retained to the latest period of its political existence, we may conclude that it was not a merely nominal one, but that each district was united in itself, as well as distinct from the rest. As the four Boeotian councils seem to imply that a like division existed in Boeotia, so we may reasonably conjecture that each of the Thessalian districts regulated its internal affairs by some kind of provincial council. But all that we know with certainty is, that the principal cities exercised a dominion over several smaller towns, and that they were themselves the seat of noble families, sprung from the line of the ancient kings, which were generally able to draw the government of the whole nation into their hands. Thus Larissa was subject to the great house of the Aleuada, who were considered as descendants of the ancient Aleuas; Crannon and Pharsalus to the Scopada and the Cre 1 Heracl. P. xii. X. onda, who were branches of the same stock.1 The CHAP. vast estates of these nobles were cultivated, and their countless flocks and herds fed, by their serfs, the Penests, who at their call were ready to follow them into the field on foot or on horseback.2 They maintained a princely state, drew poets and artists to their courts, and shone in the public games of Greece by their wealth and liberality. We are not informed whether there were any institutions which provided for the union of the four districts, and afforded regular opportunities for consultation on their common interests. But, as often as an occasion appeared to office of require it, the great families were able to bring about Tagus. the election of a chief magistrate, always of course taken from their own body, whose proper title was that of tagus, but who is sometimes called a king. We know little of the nature of his authority, except that it was probably rather military than civil; nor of its constitutional extent, which perhaps was never precisely ascertained, and depended on the personal character and the circumstances of the individual. Distinction among the of classes Thessa lians. The population of Thessaly, beside the Penests, whose condition was nearly that of the Laconian helots, included a large class of free subjects, in the districts not immediately occupied by the Thessalian invaders, who paid a certain tribute for their lands, but, though not admitted to the rights of citizens, preserved their personal liberty unmolested. But above this class stood a third, of the common Thessalians, who, though they could not boast, like the Aleuade and the Scopada, of a heroic descent, and had therefore received a much smaller portion of the conquered land, still, as the partners of their conquest, might think themselves entitled to some share in the administration of public affairs. Contests seem early Factions of Theocr. xvi. 34. f. Buttman on the Aleuada Mythol. 11. xxii. 2 Dem. De Contr. p. 173. Larissa. CHAP. X. to have arisen between this commonalty and the ruling families, and at Larissa the aristocracy of the Aleuada was tempered by some institutions of a popular tendency. We do not know indeed to what period Aristotle refers, when he speaks of certain magistrates at Larissa who bore the title of guardians of the freemen1, and exercised a superintendence over the admission of citizens, but were themselves elected by the whole body of the people, out of the privileged order, and hence were led to pay their court to the multitude in a manner which proved dangerous to the interests of the oligarchy. It seems not improbable that the election of a tagus, like that of a dictator at Rome, was sometimes used as an expedient for keeping the commonalty under. But the power of the oligarchs was also shaken by intestine feuds; and, under the government of the Aleuads, such was the state of parties at Larissa, that, by common agreement, the city was committed to the care of an officer, who was chosen, perhaps from the commonalty, to mediate between the opposite factions; but, being entrusted with a body of troops, made himself master of both. This event took place two generations before the Persian war 3; but the usurpation appears to have been transitory, and not to have left any durable traces, while the factions of Larissa continue to appear from time to time throughout the whole course of Grecian history. We must here conclude this survey; for the western states of Greece are, during this period, shrouded in so complete obscurity, that we cannot pretend to 1 TOλITOPÚλAKES, Pol. v. 6. It is not clear whether their office differed from that of the dnuoupyol, mentioned Pol. iii. 1. Ar. Pol. v. 6. The context seems to require this interpretation, since the distrust of the oligarchs toward one another is here manifestly contrasted with their distrust of the commonalty just before mentioned. Yet Kortuem (Hellenische Staatsverfassungen, p. 79.) supposes that Aristotle is speaking of a struggle between the oligarchical and democratical parties. 3 Buttm. p. 252. 279. |