Lysander over the allies. In the war with Perseus it was destroyed by the
Romans, and as the Athenians had been unable to obtain its preservation,
they made the unbecoming request that the Romans should give them the
territory. The Romans with a Machiavellistic policy sometimes gave away
such districts for the purpose of fostering divisions and animosities.
CORONEA, CHAERONEA, and LEBADEA formed a triangle on the frontier. The
last of these was an important place under the Byzantine empire, but less
so in earlier times. It belonged to Haliartus. Coronea is remarkable in
the war of Agesilaus against the allies, and Chaeronea on account of
the battle of Philip, which decided the fate of Greece; 250 years later
Sulla gained a battle there against the general of Mithridates, who had
foolishly established himself in Greece.
ORCHOMENOS, of which I have already spoken, was situated on the very
borders of Boeotia; in the historical ages it was an insignificant place,
called in Aeolic Erchomenos, as we find in inscriptions and coins.
Coins bearing the inscription ΕΡΧ belong to this place; in former times
antiquaries were greatly puzzled by them. In its neighbourhood was also
found the Orchomenian inscription, first published by Melitios, which is
the largest and purest of all the Aeolian monuments.
COPAE is remarkable only as the place from which lake Copais derives its
name.
ANTHEDON is celebrated for its excellent muscat wine. MYCALESSUS, which
was destroyed in the Peloponnesian war, was situated in its vicinity.
TANAGRA was situated on the Asopus, near Oropus; it is known through the
defeat of the Athenians under Tolmidas before the fourteen years’ truce,
which preceded the Peloponnesian war.
DELION, situated on the Euripus, must be noticed, on account of the
battle which the Athenians lost against the Boeotians during the
Peloponnesian war. The place is also mentioned in mythical history: for
the 1,000 ships of the Achaeans, destined to sail against Troy, were
detained there by a calm, until the sacrifice of Iphigenia.
THE LOCRIAN TRIBES.
Proceeding from the Boeotian frontier towards Thessaly, we arrive among
the Locrian tribes—the Epicnemidian and Opuntian Locrians in the east,
and the Ozolian in the south-west. They are very puzzling, as, in
general, there is no lack of mysterious points in the history of the
Greek nations. The ancient tradition is that they were Leleges, who are
described as a branch of the Carians: this is a point which must leave
as we find it. It is surprising to meet with them on both seas, the
Euboean and the Crissaean, the coast of the latter being occupied by the
Ozolae, the larger tribe. Between the two we have the Phocians, and among
the heights of Oeta and at the foot of mount Parnassus, the Dorians. My
directing your attention to this probably leads you to guess my opinion,
which is this: the manifest fact of these tribes being torn asunder,
as is clear from a mere glance at the map, is probably the result of
immigration. As, according to tradition, the Boeotians immigrated from
abroad, and as the empire of the Minyans fell, so it happens in all
migrations of nations: one people pushes another onward—the Goths are
expelled by the Huns, the Huns again by other nations, and so we are
led back to the interior of Asia. Hence I regard the Locrians as the
ancient inhabitants of the whole country from one sea to the other, and
as severed and torn asunder by the immigration of the Boeotians, while
the latter may have been pushed on by the Phocians, these again by the
Dorians, and the Dorians, lastly, by the Thessalians. Respecting these
migrations we can only form conjectures; but the more we consider
them in connection with one another, the more we become convinced, how
little we know about the ancient history of Greece: we are much better
acquainted with the settlements on the coast of Asia.
We shall unite the three Locrian tribes, the Ozolae, Epicnemidii,
and Opuntii; the country of the Ozolian Locrians was by far the most
extensive. Their principal town, situated at the foot of the Aetolian
mountains, in the west of Phocis, was AMPHISSA, not far from Delphi; it
was a regular town, while the other places along the shore were, like
those of Aetolia, only κῶμαι. The Ozolian Locrians formed together an
ἔθνος, in which Amphissa possessed the supremacy, though in several
circumstances it stood by itself. At the time of the Peloponnesian war,
there were, besides Amphissa, many Ozolian tribes, extending from that
town to cape Rhion, at the entrance of the Crissaean gulf. The only
notice of them occurs in Thucydides, when he describes the campaign
of Demosthenes in those parts. The places are insignificant, and not
worth mentioning; the ἔθνος appears in a state of complete dissolution.
NAUPACTUS, the modern Lepanto,[55] is the only place worthy of note.
It is prominent in the Greek mythus as the place where the Heracleids
built the ships, with which they sailed over to Peloponnesus, whence
its name was traced to that event. During the period of the great
activity of Athens after the Persian war, under Cimon and Pericles,
it was taken by the Athenians, probably by accident, as Gibraltar was
taken by the English, who did not see its importance till afterwards.
Thus Naupactus, with its excellent harbour, became an important point to
command the Crissaean gulf. There they received the insurgent perioeci
and helots, who, after the earthquake in Olymp. 79. 2, at the time of
king Archidamus, endeavoured to separate Messene from Laconia, and,
when failing in this, capitulated for a free departure. After the
Peloponnesian war, the Spartans again expelled them from Naupactus, for
they were implacable, and never laid aside their hatred; Naupactus was
restored to the Locrians. At a later period, when the Aetolians rose,
the town belonged to them; in the Macedonian times, the whole coast of
the Locrians, perhaps Amphissa itself included, was united with Aetolia;
there is even an inscription, according to which the Aetolians had the
superintendence of the Delphic oracle. The Locrians of Opus and Cnemis
were at that time governed by Macedonia.
The Ozolian Locrians, according to Thucydides, completely resembled, in
their rude manners, the Acarnanians, Aetolians, and Epirots; even in
times of peace they were always armed with a sword, which, however, must
not be conceived as a long sword for war, but as an Albanese knife. This
σιδηροφορεῖν had fallen into disuse with the other Greeks, as soon as
they had attained a certain degree of civilisation.
The Locrians on the Euripus formed two states, that of OPUS and that
of CNEMIS. In the east of Epicnemidian Locris is mount (the town of?)
NARYX, whence the Locrians are called _Narycii_. Virgil has been much
censured by the ancients for calling the Locrians in Italy _Narycii_,
but it appears that he regarded all the Locrians, and consequently
those in Italy also, as belonging to one and the same race. Opus was,
comparatively speaking, an important town, though it was small. During
the first war which the Romans, allied with the Aetolians, carried on
against Philip, the son of Demetrius, Opus was taken and laid waste by
the Roman fleet and king Attalus.
PHOCIS.
Phocis in our maps embraces Delphi, but as far as we can trace history
backwards, Delphi is separate from Phocis. I will not venture any
conjectures as to whether the Delphians were a different people, but
politically they did not belong to the Phocians. The history of Phocis
begins at the time of the Persian wars; and thenceforth until the
Peloponnesian war, the Phocians are constantly seen endeavouring to
unite Delphi with their country, in which at times they succeeded;
the Spartans, however, took it from them, and left Delphi in a state
of independence. Afterwards the two states were again united, but our
authorities on this subject are very scanty. Herodotus contains tolerably
certain indications, that the Delphians formed an independent state by
themselves; wherever Thucydides takes notice of the rest of Greece, his
information is very trustworthy;[56] besides him we have only Xenophon
and Diodorus Siculus; even these two do not enable us to fix the time
of the union; but it is very probable that it did not take place before
the Sacred war, for the chastisement was inflicted upon the Phocians
alone, the Delphians being on the side of the allies. It is impossible to
follow the traces any farther. Delphi stood to the Phocians in a relation
similar to that in which Thebes stood to the Boeotians, Alba to the
other Latin towns, and afterwards Rome to all the Latins, only with this
difference, that in this division there existed not only no unity, but
no connection at all. If there ever existed an alliance between Delphi
and the Phocians, it certainly ceased at an early period, and was never
permanently renewed.
It is possible that Delphi may have been a remnant of the ancient
mysterious state of Cirrha, which was foreign to the Phocians. Many
moderns relate a great many things about that state—the forms CIRRHA and
CRISSA are only dialectic differences of the same name—as, for example,
about its connection with Crete and the like. I confess that I know
nothing of all this; the existence of the town alone is beyond doubt.
Cirrha was a great commercial place on the Corinthian gulf, and against
it a general religious war of the united Greeks was carried on in the
early historical times, apparently about Olymp. 40 and 50. In that war
the town was taken and destroyed. These events alone are historical, all
the rest is mythical. The observation of these and similar circumstances
is of importance, to prove how late our history of Greece commences.
There is no necessity for pushing everything mysterious back beyond the
commencement of the Olympiads, for even great events belonging to the
period between that era and the Persian wars are buried in obscurity.
We need not, therefore, push the great changes of early history back
into remote antiquity as is commonly done; it is a mere delusion to
believe that the space for changes in antiquity must be so very large. To
mention an example, the time from the commencement of the Olympiads to
the legislation of Solon is a period of 200 years, and the period from
the Persian wars until the age of Pyrrhus is of the same length; and
what immense changes did Greece experience during this latter period!
An expedient equally illogical is the readiness with which certain
critics distinguish, when they have to deal with different traditions
about a person or a thing, and assume two persons or things of the same
name. The late Professor Heyne, whose merits I readily acknowledge, was
labouring under this delusion, for he invented, e.g., a double Minos,
an idea which never occurred to any ancient writer. Minos is not an
historical personage, the years of whose reign can be stated. Another
bad expedient is to divide different accounts of the same subject, which
do not agree with each other, so as to treat them as separate events.
The Doric tradition and several ancient authors, and among them even
Timaeus, stated that Lycurgus founded the Olympic games; now as Lycurgus,
according to the calculation of generations, belongs to a period far
beyond the time of the Olympiads, it was assumed that the Olympic games
were instituted at two different times, first by Lycurgus, and when
afterwards they fell into oblivion, they were restored by Coroebus. But
Lycurgus is probably no historical person at all, as was believed even at
the time after Alexander; it is impossible to assign him to any period:
the intention was to fill up the period subsequent to the migration of
the Heracleids, but in attempting this the ancients went too far back,
by making three generations amount to a century; in order to remove the
incorrectness, one account was then changed into two. Whoever tries to
harmonise these statements falls into inextricable difficulties.
DELPHI, previously called Pytho (Πυθοῖ ἐν ἠγαθέῃ, as Homer has it), was
situated at the foot of _biceps Parnassus_. This mount Parnassus extends
from the mountains which separate Thessaly from Phocis (they are likewise
called Parnassus, and reaching a considerable height, join Pindus on
the one side and Oeta on the other), as far as the Gulf of Cirrha. Its
highest peak is near Delphi; it then turns to the south-east, and becomes
less and less wild where it passes into Helicon. The situation of Delphi
cannot be mistaken, notwithstanding the scanty accounts we have of it:
above it there rose a twofold rock, which during the greater part of the
year was covered with snow; it rises in two peaks, between which there is
a considerable chasm; towards the sea it turns in the form of a theatre,
within which Delphi was situated. It was built high up on the slope of
the mountain, like many towns of the ancient Latins, so that the upper
streets were higher than the roofs of the houses below, and a man might
from an upper street step upon the roof of a house below. Delphi was not
fortified and had no walls, but it was nevertheless difficult of access,
foot-paths only leading up, which it was easy to defend; no real acra
is mentioned. About the size of the town nothing can be said; the ruins
are too unimportant; it is scarcely possible to recognise the temple of
Apollo, and I do not believe that the statements of travellers on this
point are altogether trustworthy. Delphi was in all its relations a
mysterious place; the question as to the nature of the προμαντεία, and a
number of others cannot easily be answered. The well Castalia may still
be recognised by its icy coldness. The chasms in the rock of which the
ancients speak, and from which the intoxicating vapours rose, have never
been discovered; it is possible, however, that by careful examinations
they may yet be found, though it is not unlikely that they may have been
closed by earthquakes, as they owed their origin to them. I readily
believe that vapours may have risen from the earth, which produced
a certain intoxication or inspiration; I also consider it possible
that there may have been a time when the Pythia believed that she was
inspired, and when even those consulting the oracle were convinced that
they consulted the god himself; but subsequently, and during the greater
part of the period of which we know anything, neither the people nor the
priests believed in it, and the Pythia was a mere improvisatrice. Such
things, however, rarely begin as impositions; and how it can have been
that originally there was no imposition, no one is able to say on mere
reflection.
Delphi was under the protection of the Amphictyons, who once in every
year assembled there, and a second time at Thermopylae. It seems to have
stood as directly under the protection of the senate of the Amphictyons,
as Washington, in a very anomalous manner, stands under the municipal
administration of the congress of the United States of North America.
I have here mentioned the Amphictyony, for the purpose of noticing
some results at which I have arrived respecting its misunderstood
constitution. In former times it was generally regarded as a federative
government, and this opinion is still prevalent in France, where it is
said, that the seven United States of Holland and the United States of
North America are Amphictyonies; but an Amphictyony and a federative
government are by no means identical, for a confederation forms a
political whole with one head directing its foreign relations. An
Amphictyony is indeed a union of nations, but of quite a peculiar kind,
to which nothing corresponding is found either in the middle ages or
in modern times. Under this name twelve nations were united, who sent
deputies twice every year, in the spring to Delphi, and in the autumn to
Thermopylae. These meetings were attended by deputies from every people,
each of which had one vote.[57] But not only deputies went thither: the
citizens of all the peoples also might appear if they chose, and they
too formed an Ἀμφικτυονικόν; those who thus came of their own accord,
voted in a body, each people having only one vote, so that all the
Dorians, and all the Ionians respectively voted together. In all the
transactions among Greeks a βουλή and an ἐκκλησία were necessary; the
former consisted at these gatherings of the deputies, and the latter of
the αὐταγγελτοί. This constitution points to something very different
from what we know about the later condition of Greece: the division was
made simply according to nations, and without any regard to political
importance; all had the same right, nay tribes which were subject to the
Thessalians voted on an equality with the Thessalians themselves. The
connection with the temple of Delphi is undeniable; the nations were
united together, all standing for one and one for all, for the purpose of
protecting the integrity of the sanctuary; nearly all the most ancient
instances of their activity have this for their object, as in the war of
Cirrha and down to the one occurring in Olymp. 125, which is mentioned
by Justin.[58] Another statement, which probably refers to very ancient
times, seems surprising to us. There the legislations of the various
states were confirmed, just as at Rome the auspices seemed to express
the will of the gods; but the Delphic oracle appears, above all things,
to have had the power of watching over the exercise of humanity in the
wars among the Greeks. And this is the point where the character of the
Greeks shows itself most nobly. The Amphictyons did not by any means
prevent war, but they made laws regulating the manner in which it should
be conducted; there were laws, which no one was allowed to violate in
any war; and it is possible that the expression ὁ κοινὸς τῶν Ἑλλήνων
νόμος refers to them. It was ordained, _e.g._, that the Greeks should not
carry on among themselves any internecine war, that the inhabitants of
a Greek town should not be sold as slaves, that fruit-trees should not
be cut down,[59] and that the supply of water should not be cut off from
any town. All these laws originated in the Delphic Amphictyony, and were
maintained without being written. We must carefully bear in mind, that
they could not possibly prevent every outrage; but their express object
was that war should be carried in a humane manner. The fact that England
insists upon abolishing the slave trade, leads to smuggling those unhappy
creatures, who are, in consequence of this, treated with all imaginable
cruelty. In like manner an interdict forbidding war in Greece would have
been of no avail, and hence it was better to inflict heavy penalties
upon acts of inhumanity. These rules were not indeed always observed,
the nature of man does not admit of it; but even if they were violated
as often as they were observed, we still must own that they were in the
highest degree salutary.
The Phocians are unimportant in Greek history, and are mentioned only
in connection with their misfortunes, first in the wars which they had
to wage against the Thessalians,—for the Thessalians, after completing
the conquest of Haemonia, also endeavoured to subdue Phocis, and its
inhabitants had great difficulty in warding them off,—and afterwards in
the Sacred War. The twenty-two Phocian towns, which were destroyed by
Philip, were probably for the most part insignificant places. We are
perfectly ignorant as to the relations subsisting among them, but they
did not form a political community, with a common magistracy, a common
commander in war, and the like; not a trace of such institutions is to
be found. It is, in general, one of the most puzzling problems to state
what were the bonds which kept an ἔθνος together: to acquire the name of
an ἔθνος, no political band was needed; a co-operation for common objects
is generally produced spontaneously through the power of circumstances.
There are, however, traces to show, that in early times the Phocians
formed a closer union among themselves. The case of their leaders in the
Sacred War was of a different kind: they are generally called στρατηγοί,
but sometimes also τύραννοι; Philomelus and Onomarchus were, in fact, not
lawful magistrates; the circumstance that being elected in a lawful form,
they were at the head of a numerous army of mercenaries, gave them a
power which was limited by no laws, and was, therefore, formidable indeed.
The only important place in Phocis was ELATEA, which was either spared
in an inconceivable manner by Philip, or was soon afterwards restored
on account of its excellent situation, and attained a high degree of
prosperity; for during the Macedonian period it is mentioned as a
considerable place, notwithstanding the general decay of the Greek
towns; and in the same light it appears in Livy’s account of the Roman
wars. It was situated in the rich valley of the Cephisus, which widens
towards Boeotia, and this may have contributed to its prosperity. The
valley formed a pass; and an enemy even after forcing his way through
Thermopylae had difficulties at Elatea, which was the key to Boeotia;
hence when Philip occupied Elatea by a garrison, this act created at
Athens the consternation which is so graphically described by Demosthenes.
ANTICYRA, also, had a kind of importance; and after the destruction of
Cirrha, it was the real port of Phocis, whence a small trade was kept
up with the gulf of Corinth. In the first war of the Romans against
Philip, Anticyra was destroyed by the fleet which, under the command of
Sulpicius, cruised along the coasts of Greece, and laid waste so many
thinly-peopled places.