CHAP. B.C. 1184. CHAPTER VI. THE GOVERNMENT, MANNERS, RELIGION, KNOWLEDGE, 1. Distinction of Classes in the Heroic Age - Slaves Freemen - Nobles - Kings. - Prerogatives of the Heroic Kings. Limitations of their authority. Their Domains and Revenues. Royalty how far hereditary. Institutions for preserving the public peace. - Punishments. - Dealings between independent States. Approach toward national unity. II. · Mutual relations of the Sexes. — Female character. Friendship. - Hospitality. Amusements. Kindness to inferiors. Usages of War. III. Earliest form of Natural Religion. — Religion of the Pelasgians. Origin of the Greek Mythology. Influence of the Poets on Religion. Hesiod's Theogony. Greek Mythology, how far derived from the East. How far formed by the Poets. - Traces of Monotheism in the Greek Mythology. Character of Zeus. - Fatalism of the Greeks. Connection between Religion and Morality.- Homeric view of a future state. - Condition of the soul after death. — Worship and Sacrifices.- Human sacrifices. — Temples and Holy Grounds. -- Priests - How far a separate class.Oracles. Omens and Divination. Hero-worship. Dæmons. IV. Exaggerated notions entertained by the Greeks of Homer's I. THE political institutions of the heroic period VI. B.C. 1184. 1. Distinc tion of classes in Age. grew spontaneously out of natural causes. They ap- CHAP. pear to have exhibited in every part of Greece a certain resemblance in their general outlines, but the circumstances out of which they arose were probably not everywhere the same, and hence a notion of them, founded on the supposition of their complete uni- the Heroic formity, would probably be narrow and erroneous. The few scanty hints afforded to us on the transition from the obscure period which we may call the Pelasgian, to that with which Homer has made us comparatively familiar, do not enable us to draw any general conclusion as to the mode in which it was effected. We can just discern a warlike and adventurous race starting up, and gradually overspreading the land; but in what relation they stood to the former inhabitants, what changes they introduced in the ancient order of things, can only be conjectured from the social institutions which we find subsisting in the later period. These do not generally present traces of violent revolutions, and subjugating conquests, like those of which the subsequent history of Greece furnishes so many examples; yet it is natural to imagine that they took place occasionally, and here and there we meet with facts, or allusions, which confirm this suspicion. The distinction between slaves and freemen seems to have obtained generally, though not perhaps universally1: but there is no 1 The purchase and use of slaves indeed is repeatedly mentioned by Homer: the household of Ulysses is served by slaves, over whom their master exercises the power of life and death. Geppert however (Ueber den Ursprung der Homerischen Gesänge, i. p. 382.), considers this as an indication of a different state of society from that described in the Iliad: apparently not sufficiently allowing for the difference between the subjects and scenes of the two poems. But the use of such domestics was perhaps nowhere very common, except in the houses of the great, and in several parts of Greece was not introduced till a later period. This is asserted in Herodotus (vi. 137.), of the Greeks in general, and of the Athenians in particular. The assertion is repeated by Timæus (Athen. vi. 86.), with particu. lar reference to the Locrians and Phocians. But when it is said that the Chians were the first Greeks who used purchased slaves (Theopompus in Athen. vi. 88.), this must be understood of a regular traffic, as on the other hand Pliny's servitium invenere Lacedæmonii (N. H. vii. 56.), applies only to the Helots. Though from Steph. Byz. Xios, compared with Eustath. ad Dionys. p. 538., it would seem that CHAP. Slaves. distinct trace that it anywhere owed its origin to an invasion which deprived the natives of their liberty. B.C. 1184. As soon as war and piracy became frequent, captives, taken or bought, were employed in servile labours 1: chiefly, it would seem, those of the house; in those of husbandry the poor freemen did not disdain to serve the wealthier for hire.2 But a class of serfs, reduced to cultivate the land which they had once owned for the benefit of a foreign conqueror, and either bound to it, or liable to be expelled at his pleasure, if it existed anywhere, must have been an exception to the general rule. On the other hand a broad distinction is drawn between the common freemen and the chiefs, who form two separate classes. The latter are described by various titles, denoting their superior dignity, as the best, the foremost, princes, and elders; for this last epithet seems already to have been bestowed with relation rather to the functions of counsellors and judges than to their age. The essential quality of persons belonging Freemen. Nobles. the Chian Sepáπovтes were really serfs, like the Helots. But possibly the later authors misunderstood Theopompus. · Δμώες, δμῶαι δρηστήρες, δρηστεῖραι· οἰκῆες· ἀμφίπολοι. Il. vii. 475. was rejected by Aristophanes and Zenodotus, because ἀνδράποδον was νεωτερική λέξις. See Eustathius. Oерáпоvтes was only used of free retainers. · Θητες. See the Scholiast on Od. iv. 644. 3 Yet in the Odyssey (iv. 176.), Menelaus expresses his willingness to give a settlement to Ulysses and his followers, by ejecting his own subjects from one of the towns in his dominions, and planting the Ithacans in their room. This passage indeed has been condemned as spurious, because such despotic power seemed inconsistent with the ordinary relation between king and people in the heroic ages; and undoubtedly it would imply a kind of subjection very different from that in which the warriors who fought at Troy seemed to have stood to their princes: yet, as the result of peculiar circumstances, it may not be incredible; and the less, since Agamemnon, when he offers to transfer to Achilles seven towns inhabited by wealthy husbandmen, who would enrich their lord by presents and tribute, seems likewise to assume rather a property in them, than an authority over them. Il. ix. 149. And the same thing may be intimated when it is said that Peleus bestowed a great people, the Dolopes of Phthia, on Phoenix. Il. ix. 483. 4 ̓́Αριστοι, ἀριστῆες, ἔξοχοι· βασιλεῖς, (used also as an adjective βασιλεύτερος, βασιλEÚTATOS,) ČVAKтes (applied also to the relation of master and servant, Od. xiv. 60. ef. Od. xiii. 223.) μέδοντες, ἡγήτορες, βουληφοροὶ, δικασπόλοι γέροντες. 5 The transition from the primary to the secondary meaning, in yéрwv πрeσBúrepos, Sheikh, Seigneur, Ancien, Alderman, &c. is well explained and illustrated by Selden, De Synedr, i. c. 14. To his examples may be added Major (Suicer. p. 826. Ducange, Gloss. Majores Natu), the Polish Starosta, and probably many others. VI. to this higher order was noble birth, which implied CHAP. nothing less than a connection with the gods themselves, to whom every princely house seems to have B.C. 1184. traced its origin.1 But though this illustrious parentage constituted one claim of the great to popular veneration, it would soon have been forgotten or neglected, unless accompanied by some visible tokens, which were not sought in pedigrees or records, but in personal advantages and merits. The legitimate chief was distinguished from the vulgar herd, of merely mortal origin, by his robust frame, his lofty stature, his majestic presence, his piercing eye, and sonorous voice, but still more by the virtues which these bodily endowments promised, by skill in warlike exercises, patience under hardship, contempt of danger, and love of glorious enterprises. Prudence in council, readiness in invention, and fluency of speech, though highly valued, were not equally requisite to preserve general respect. But though the influence of the nobles depended on the degree in which they were thus gifted and accomplished, it also needed the support of superior wealth. It was this which furnished them with the means of undertaking the numerous adventures in which they proved their valour, while their martial achievements commonly increased both their fame and their riches, by the booty which rewarded a successful expedition. If the arm of a single chief could often turn the fortune of a battle, and put to flight a host of common men, this was undoubtedly owing not solely to his extraordinary prowess, but to the strength of his armour, the temper of his weapons, the fleetness of the steeds, which transported his chariot from one part of the field to another, and secured for him the foremost place, whether in the flight or the pursuit. 1 Klausen (Rhein. Mus. iii. 3. p. 467.) observes, "before democracy had levelled all distinctions, every considerable person in Greece derived his descent from those heroes, and gloried in the blood of the gods. Pindar. Nem. iii. 65." CHAP. VI. B.C. 1184. Kings. The kingly form of government appears to have been the only one known in the heroic age. Its origin is ascribed by Aristotle to the free choice of the people, which first conferred the royal dignity on the man who had rendered some important service to the public, by the introduction of new arts, or by martial achievements, or who had collected a body of settlers, and assigned to them portions of his own or of conquered lands. The latter supposition, unless it carries us back to the very beginning of civil society, is only applicable to the case of a migration or invasion, which implies the previous acknowledgement of a prince or chief. But that the kingly office was originally bestowed by popular election, as the reward of personal merit, seems to be a conjecture which wants historical foundation. Nor do we find among the ancient Greeks any trace of such a distinction as is said to have existed among the ancient Germans, between kings chosen for their illustrious birth, and commanders chosen for their valour; both qualities were expected to meet in the same person; in both, the king was conspicuous among the nobles, as the latter were above the multitude. It is however highly probable, that the monarchical form of government arose from the patriarchal, with and out of the warlike and adventurous character of the heroic age. Where the people was almost always in arms, the office of leader naturally became permanent. The royal houses may sometimes have been founded by wealthy and powerful strangers, but it is quite as easy to conceive that they often grew by insensible degrees into reputation and authority. Homer mentions certain divisions of the nation, in a way implying that they were elements which entered into the composition of every Greek community. Nestor advises Agamemnon to marshal his army according to the larger or smaller bodies in which families were collected, in order that each |