improperly; it had been stirred up by the Thessalians and Boeotians
to the misfortune of the Phocians, who were driven to despair and an
infuriated defence, just like the Hussites in the 15th century; and the
Phocians ravaged all the countries around, as the Hussites from Bohemia
spread devastation far and wide in Bavaria, Franconia, and Saxony. They
were completely outlawed, so that no quarter was given to any one; the
dead were treated as accursed, and the wounded were run through with
spears or nailed on crosses: the rage was quite savage and unpardonable.
The Phocians were driven to such extremities, as to seize upon the
sacred treasures of the Delphic temple, which enabled them to carry
on the war for eight years, until Philip came forward as the champion
of the Amphictyons, and, after the withdrawal of the Athenian troops
from Thermopylae, advanced with irresistible force. The commanders of
the Phocians were unskilful and faithless men, and the nation, losing
courage, laid down its arms. Their fate was terrible, though it was
called mercy: Philip granted to the troops a free departure; all the
towns were destroyed, and their walls demolished; all arms and horses
were taken; the inhabitants dispersed in villages, and, in a condition
of servitude, placed under the supremacy of the temple of Delphi, which
itself stood under the supremacy of Macedonia. They were obliged to
pay an annual tribute to the temple, to refund the treasures; but
they seem to have neglected this duty, or the money was pocketed by
the Macedonians, for Brennus found no gold at Delphi, but only works
in bronze. This is again a remarkable instance of the uncertainty of
history, even at so late a period: some say that Brennus did not enter
Delphi at all, while other historians state that he was at Delphi and
plundered it, but that he found little to take. However, the Phocians
showed great valour; they withdrew into the highest mountains, and thence
made great havoc among the formidable host of Gauls, especially during
their retreat. For this reason it was resolved to make amends for what
had been done: they were again admitted into the Amphictyony, and allowed
to restore their towns; but, like the Locrians, Chalcis, and Corinth,
they remained under the supremacy of Macedonia, and when the Romans
appeared, they did not belong to Greece, but were Macedonian subjects.
Afterwards, they also shared the last two calamities of Greece: the
flight of Critolaus from Thermopylae led the Romans through Phocis, and
on that occasion the country was ravaged by the conquerors, and Elatea
had to suffer severely; lastly, the campaign of Archelaus, who had his
head-quarters at Chaeronea, also extended to Phocis, which for this
reason was then completely devastated by Sulla.
DORIS.
Doris was that district where the highest parts of Parnassus extend
towards Pindus. Its towns formed the Doric tetrapolis, or rather
tripolis, for the names of only three places are certain, viz., BOION,
CYTINION, and ERINEOS, and they are described by the Greeks themselves
as very small places (πολίχνια). The general Greek tradition is, that
the Dorians who conquered Peloponnesus came from these three towns;
but this is impossible. It is true no traveller has yet visited that
district, but we are able to determine at least its extent, which is not
as large as that of the Swiss canton of Uri; and as the latter has about
12,000 inhabitants, we may be sure that Doris had not by far as many,
for the country in those parts of Parnassus is extremely mountainous,
and contains only few valleys that are inhabitable to Alpine shepherds.
The Dorians must at one time have occupied a far more extensive country:
the little district of Doris stands in the same relation to the former
seats of the Dorians, as the present district of Angeln in the duchy of
Schleswig stands to the extensive countries once occupied by the ancient
Angli. We should be forming a very erroneous estimate, if we were to
calculate the number of Angli who invaded Britain from the district at
present bearing their name. After the emigration of the great body of
the Dorians, the little country of Doris retained their name, while the
earlier Doris may perhaps have embraced all Phocis and other neighbouring
countries. According to the express testimony of Herodotus,[60] they
had formerly dwelt on mount Pindus, and had migrated from north to
south. The little tribe maintained itself in the impassable mountains,
but we do not know how; it may have been by alliances. They boasted
of their pure Doric origin, and regarded themselves as the μητρόπολις
of the Peloponnesians, though the latter were mixed with the earlier
inhabitants of the peninsula. The Peloponnesians, however, showed them
the respect and attachment which everywhere in Greece colonists used to
show to their mother country. The Dorians were often involved in wars
with the Phocians, and even before the Peloponnesian war they had once
been subdued by them, but a Spartan army quickly coming to their rescue,
chastised the Phocians, and restored the Dorians to freedom.
It is quite uncertain what afterwards became of the little people. During
the period when the administration of Greece was in the hands of the
Romans, the Dorians are not mentioned at all; so that they must have been
united either with the Phocians, or, which is not improbable, with the
Aetolians. If that part of Greece should ever become accessible, much may
be discovered that is of importance for ancient history and geography;
with the exception of the coasts, scarcely anything is accurately known;
the upper countries of Parnassus have scarcely been visited at all, and
our maps are arbitrary. It will hardly be possible ever to ascertain the
sites of the towns from the want of inscriptions. Beyond the mountains of
Doris there is a grand Alpine country.
AETOLIA.
In the later history of Greece, the Aetolians are a people of the highest
importance, and so they are in the earliest traditions, but during the
best period of the Greeks, they sink completely into the background.
Their peculiarity is very perplexing to the inquiring historian. We
find them mentioned in the Homeric Catalogue, and in the legends of
Calydon and Pleuron, and there can be no doubt as to their being a Greek
people, for the Curetes as well as the Aetolians themselves are called
Greeks. Thucydides too[61] considers them in this light, though only
conditionally; he calls them Ἠπειρωτικὸν ἔθνος, and where he mentions
their separate tribes, they appear as different from all the other
Greeks; he speaks of their language being unintelligible (ἀγνωστότατοι
γλῶσσαν), which is a strong expression with Athenians who, like all
Greeks, were very tolerant in regard to dialects. The Laconian dialect
was quite as different from the Attic, as the Swiss German is from the
Low German, and the Athenians scarcely understood one third of it. The
Aetolian dialect, accordingly, seems to have already become so barbarous,
as to require great attention to guess the meaning when it was spoken.
In these circumstances, therefore, the Aetolians appear as non-Greeks,
and still more so in Polybius, who says that most of the Aetolians
were barbarians. In one passage, Thucydides also classes them with the
barbarians, when he states that they, like the Acarnanians, went about in
time of peace armed with knives (σιδηροφορεῖν); he also asserts that they
were ὠμόφαγοι. Such statements appear to us extremely strange, and seem
to suggest a degree of barbarism similar to that of the Abyssinians; but
a French traveller has given an excellent explanation of the matter. The
inhabitants of those countries are to this day shepherds, for agriculture
is scarcely possible there. They kill their cattle, and sometimes cook
the meat, but they also smoke it for the purpose of keeping it, and such
smoked meat they eat raw, which is not done in the other parts of Greece.
Sometimes also they act like the savages in America: they cut the meat
into very thin slices, dry it in the air, and then eat it.
As far back as we can trace history, we always find the AETOLIANS and
CURETES as two nations dwelling by the side of each other in the south of
Aetolia: such is the case in the Iliad. Afterwards the Curetes disappear,
and all the country is occupied by the Aetolians alone. But that country
is only a very small portion of what is subsequently called Aetolia, for
it embraced only the district of Pleuron and Calydon, about the Evenus.
These two towns play as prominent a part in the legends as Mycenae and
Tiryns, and Oeneus and Meleager are as familiar to you as Agamemnon and
Menelaus. This was Aetolia proper, and a truly Hellenic country: from
it proceeded the emigration of Oxylus, which must not be viewed as if
Oxylus had served the Heracleids as a guide and joined them; but the
Aetolian migration to which Elis owed its origin, was an occurrence
quite distinct from the migration of the Dorians into the other parts
of Peloponnesus. The Aetolians farther inland were subsequently joined
by other Pelasgian tribes of Epirus. As early as the Peloponnesian war,
Aetolia was a country of considerable extent, and Thucydides mentions the
Bomians, Ophians (Ophionians), and Eurytanians, as its greatest tribes;
but these names are uncertain, at least the first two. Within these
limits the Aetolians were united during the Peloponnesian war. Their
union may be conceived as a relation of isopolity, in which each nation
formed an independent community, but on certain emergencies they united
and acted as one state. They seem to have met in common sanctuaries, and
to have mutually had the perfect right of isopolity, a connection which
was however extremely loose, and did not oblige the several members to
join one another in offensive operations. In the Peloponnesian war, the
Aetolians resisted the Athenians; they were hostile to Naupactus and
allied with Ampracia[62]; but beyond their own territory they were weak,
and the expedition of the Athenians into Aetolia did the country much
harm. The Aetolians showed themselves equally independent towards the
Spartans, for when the latter, after the battle of Leuctra, wanted to
interfere in their affairs, they were repulsed by the Aetolians. They did
not, however, rise to any importance till after the death of Alexander.
During the latter part of his life, they took Oeniadae, expelled its
inhabitants, and colonised the place anew. Alexander, whose fate was
that of all other conquerors, did not know in the end whither to turn;
he conceived the unfortunate idea of interfering, from Babylon, in the
affairs of Greece, and of coming forward as mediator. Whether it was
that he actually wished to restore peace, or whether he had any other
motives, in short he issued a proclamation ordering the Greeks to restore
all φυγάδες in the widest sense of the term; and the order was even
made retrospective, so as to embrace the φυγάδες who had been in exile
for many years, and in many cases, as in that of Oeniadae, the φυγάδες
consisted of the entire population of a town. This measure, perhaps
adopted with a good intention, threw the firebrand of war into Greece.
All were in consternation, because it was expected that the exiles would
return with their old pretensions, and that the tranquillity which had
only just been restored, would be disturbed again. The Athenians were
exasperated because the amnesty was in favour of many who had been exiled
as traitors and partisans of Macedonia, and whose banishment they had
effected with great determination, and under circumstances which rendered
the recall scarcely possible. The Aetolians were called upon to evacuate
Oeniadae, and this led them to ally themselves with the Athenians in
the Lamian war, and to display the greatest perseverance. When the
allied army in Thessaly was broken and the Athenians were disabled, the
Aetolians alone held out, resisting the great power of the Macedonians, a
perseverance which ever after remained the great object of their national
pride. All the Macedonian forces under Polysperchon and Antipater now
turned against them: with moveable columns they entered the country,
and carried on a very cruel war, devastating the country in the same
fearful manner as the barbarians did in Peloponnesus, and as the French
have frequently done in modern times: they advanced gradually chasing
the whole population before them, and all who fell into their hands were
either murdered or sold as slaves; all the cultivation of the country
was destroyed, towns were reduced to ashes, and all trees rooted out. In
this manner, they drove the inhabitants from one valley into another, and
into the highest mountains, where they maintained themselves. But here
they would have perished from cold, hunger and snow, had not a change of
circumstances produced a diversion in their favour: the feuds among the
Macedonian generals in Asia saved them. Antipater, who envied Perdiccas
for his power, thought it advisable for the present to conclude a truce
with the Aetolians, with the intention of completing the devastation of
their country afterwards. But God disposed things differently. Amid the
perplexities in Asia, Antipater forgot the Aetolians, and the war was
not resumed. They now returned from their mountains, and this forms the
commencement of a new era in their history.
Several of the nations of Greece had, even as early as that time, begun
to feel an instinctive want of uniting with each other for the purpose
of increasing their strength. Such had been the case in Arcadia and
Thessaly (where Jason of Pherae fostered the feeling) before, and it
was now awakened among several other nations. From this time forward
two political terms acquired importance in history; the relations they
designate were not indeed new, but their import in an extended sense
was. At an earlier period, I mean at the time of the Peloponnesian war,
this tendency to unite had shown itself at Olynthus on the coast of
Thrace, where the Chalcidian and Bottian towns, which until then had
stood isolated, united with that city which had become great; and thus
they became καθάπερ δῆμος. This is the relation called by later writers
ἰσοπολιτεία[63], which two towns established between each other, as
was the case in Switzerland and in the league of the Swabian towns; in
former times it had been called πολιτεία. A citizen of such a place was
entitled to take up his abode in the other, without becoming a mere
resident alien; the ancient Italian law was of the same kind. There can
be no doubt that in earlier times the Aetolian tribes were united only by
the relation of a common πολιτεία; but they did not form one state, the
establishment of which, with one common strategus and one common council
(ἀπόκλητοι), belongs to a much later period; it was probably not till
after the war with Antipater that the Aetolian state was constituted; but
we do not know much about its origin.
The relation of συμπολιτεία was different; it is very necessary to
distinguish the two, and great attention is required not to confound
them. Sympolity was the relation subsisting between Rome and its
_municipia_, it was the connection of one place with another on a footing
of inequality; the citizens of the subordinate state had not the same
rights with those of the chief state, their advantage consisting in
the close alliance with a powerful head, but they had no share in the
election of magistrates (_civitas sine suffragio_), and the relation was
altogether one-sided. Isopolite states, on the other hand, generally
stood to each other in a relation of perfect equality, and were quite
independent in their transactions with foreign countries; it is only in
a very few instances that in later times we find them in a subordinate
relation to a chief state. Sympolite states could not, on their own
responsibility, enter into negociations with foreign countries, as had
been the case of isopolite states only in earlier times. It may perhaps
be assumed that all sympolite places were at one time in the relation of
isopolity, and that their citizens were entitled to the general franchise
in every one of the allied states. Isopolity, therefore, may have existed
with several states, which among themselves had no isopolity, as, for
example, the Hernicans were in a relation of isopolity with the Romans
and also with the Samnites.
At that time the Aetolians increased their connections in both ways, and
many distant towns joined them and became Aetolians. Of this we have
evident proofs in inscriptions, in which the Aetolians grant to the
inhabitants of such places letters of safety against robbery, as for
example to the inhabitants of Crete, Carthaea in the island of Ceos,
and others, ὡς ὄντων Αἰτωλῶν. Others, seeking the direct protection of
the Aetolians, entered the relation of sympolity; but this must not be
understood, as if they had taken upon themselves duties as subjects
towards the Aetolians; the towns were too distant; but if they did, the
great distance at least prevented the relation from becoming oppressive.
In the case of isopolity a town could not claim to be protected by the
more powerful one. Aetolia thus extended chiefly through the relation of
sympolity, and Cephallenia, _e.g._, joined it. In the earlier times, and
down to the sixth century of Rome, Olymp. 135, we can trace the extension
only with difficulty; we cannot indeed doubt that the Aetolians extended
beyond their own frontiers, but we are unable to say how or how far. The
newly added part was called Αἰτωλία ἐπίκτητος, but it is wrongly marked
in our maps, for the part beyond the Aetolian mountains, on the coast of
Locris, belongs to ancient Aetolia.
The first accession gained by the Aetolians consisted in the alliance
with Alexander of Epirus, the son of Pyrrhus (not to be confounded
with Alexander the Molottian, the brother of Olympias), against the
Acarnanians. On his unfortunate death, Pyrrhus had left to his son
a still splendid empire. The two allies divided Acarnania between
themselves, and from this time a large portion of that country belongs
to Aetolia, especially Stratos, a very important town, the ruins of
which still attest its former greatness. I cannot say, whether the
acquisition of Naupactus and perhaps the whole country of the Ozolian
Locrians belongs to this or to a later period; but Naupactus certainly
was united with Aetolia, for about Olymp. 140, a strategus is mentioned
who was a native of that town. During the decay of the Macedonian empire,
that is, in the latter years of Antigonus Gonatas, the Aetolians greatly
extended their empire; a part of Phocis appears to have been in their
hands, and in alliance with the Achaeans they carried on a successful war
against his son Demetrius, the father of the last Philip; they conquered
Phthiotis and a part of Thessaly proper which then became united with
them partly by isopolity, and partly by sympolity. The nations on this
side of Thermopylae, the Trachinians and Aenianians, became so completely
incorporated with them, that Heraclea even was one of their chief cities.
At the same time they extended their power in Epirus, after the Epirots
had murdered the last member of the royal family of the Aeacidae; they
did not, however, confine themselves to that country, but also took
possession of Cephallenia, Zacynthus and probably Ithaca also, nay,
they even crossed over into Peloponnesus. Elis stood in the relation of
isopolity, and several places in western Arcadia, as Phigalea, Heraea,
Psophis and others, were connected with them by sympolity. Many towns
also stood to them in the relation of isopolity, even the Athenians did
so for a time. Aetolia reached the highest point of its power about
Olymp. 140, where Polybius commences his history: that was the time of
the outbreak of the social war, which the last Philip, in conjunction
with the Achaeans, carried on against the Aetolians, who then lost their
possessions in Thessaly and Phthiotis. But they were still very powerful,
ruling over the country as far as the Spercheus, over the greater part of
Acarnania, and Cephallenia, besides being on terms of isopolity with many
places. Afterwards, in the second Philippic war, they lost still more,
but we know nothing definite about it. In the third war of the Romans
against Philip, which ended in the battle of Cynoscephalae, they again
recovered many places, but the Romans, contrary to the compact entered
into, deprived them of some which belonged to them. The claims they then
made led to the war with Antiochus, in which they lost Cephallenia,
Heraclea, and other places. They now lived in a state of nominal
independence, for they did not, like the Achaeans, form a Roman province;
but in point of fact they were dependent upon the Romans, though they
did not lose their autonomy, that is their own political constitution
and jurisdiction. Their frontiers were very much narrowed, though their
territory was still greater than it had ever been during the best period
of Greek history. Such is a brief sketch of the various vicissitudes of
that remarkable people.
It is difficult to say how we should judge of the character of the
Aetolians; it is not easy to arrive at a clear and precise result. But
it is a point beyond all dispute that at the period during which we know
them, they show a great resemblance in character to the Greek Clephths:
they never were a regularly organised people with a civil constitution;
their state was only of a military character, and their whole government
was military; in the interior, there must necessarily have been great
anarchy. Alexander is the only Aetolian whose name occurs in the whole
range of Greek literature, and he lived at Alexandria; but he deserves
no more to be despised than Callimachus. It is a well-founded charge
that the Aetolians were faithless, so that treaties concluded with them
were not safe,—hence the disgraceful attack upon the Pamboeotians,—that
they disregarded the public law established among the Greeks, which
ordained that in the midst of war a truce should be observed during the
celebration of the national games. In war they indulged in devastation
and robbery, the latter always being the principal motive of their
undertakings. It must also be said, to their disgrace, that in regular
and open battles they were good for nothing. Their cavalry was excellent,
which, considering the nature of their country, is rather surprising; but
they never formed a regular phalanx, and their peltasts were no better
than the most ordinary ones; if these latter had been well trained, they
might have become very efficient, but they never went beyond the first
steps of military training.
In geography we treat of Aetolia within its ancient boundaries, and
without regard to its later acquisitions. Aetolia has the largest river
in Greece within Mount Oeta and Thermopylae: I allude to the ACHELOUS,
which for Greece is a very considerable river, though in other countries
it would not be so. Its sources are in Mount Pindus, and it is properly
a χειμάῤῥους, for although it has always water, yet in winter, during
the rainy season, and in spring, after the melting of the snow in the
mountains, it is much larger. During these latter seasons of πλήμμυρα it
is a mighty river, whereas in summer it may be forded in several places
without danger. Where it comes forth from the Dolopian mountains, its
bed is very broad and covered with gravel, over which it flows in many
arms; at Stratos it is divided, at the season of high water, into seven
arms, and in summer perhaps into three or four, which flow between high
islands. Its modern name is Aspropotamo, the white river, perhaps from
the white mud which during the rainy season it carries with it, and not
from its clear water as is commonly supposed. In summer its water is
clear, but in spring it is θολερός or muddy, whence it formed a Delta
which was constantly increasing. The ECHINADES were islands at the mouth
of the river, but owing to the continual deposits they are now parts of
the main land; in like manner Ravenna, in the time of the Roman emperors,
was surrounded by the sea, whereas at present it is a few miles distant
from it. Such alluvial land as that formed by the Achelous is in modern
Greek called βάλτος. A little to the side of the mouth of the river,
we have the town of Oeniadae, whose position was as strong as that of
Missolunghi, which is situated in the same lagoons, but somewhat more
towards the cape and the river Evenus.
In the ancient Greek legends, the Achelous is celebrated on account of
the contest with Heracles, in which the river-god metamorphosed himself
into a bull, and Heracles broke one of his horns. Some very silly
allegorical explanations of this mythus have been proposed.
EVENUS, the second river of Aetolia, is much smaller, and flows from the
north; it discharges its waters at the point where the Achelous formed
its deposits. It is in itself not of much consequence, but the country
about its mouth, that is, the district of CALYDON and PLEURON, is the
ancient and original Aetolia, which is called Aeolis by Thucydides, and
perhaps also by Herodotus. This certainly is an ancient and remarkable
name, though for our history it is a matter of indifference. Calydon and
Pleuron are among the most ancient towns in Greek history, but in later
times they were decayed and insignificant, and in the days of Strabo they
were completely destroyed. Modern travellers assure us that they have
discovered the Cyclopian walls of both towns, but I cannot say whether
they are right: their site is indicated with tolerable precision by the
ancients; it was not very far inland.
Respecting DULICHION, which occurs in the Odyssey, nothing can be
ascertained. The opinion of modern geographers, that it was an ancient
Delta, and afterwards disappeared in consequence of further deposits,
is erroneous. The modern Greeks are probably no less mistaken in their
belief that it was swallowed up by the earth; the sand-banks are in a
different place. It is possible that Dulichion may have been the coast of
Acarnania, which the Homeric poet, who was not altogether well informed
about the western countries, erroneously called an island.