find this name here again; and the ancients unhesitatingly assume that
emigrants from Peloponnesus had come to these parts, for which there
is no authority at all. A thoughtful ethnographer is content with the
observation that people of the same name lived in both countries, and
that accordingly they were of the same origin, but he refrains from the
attempt to explain the particular manner in which they were connected.
Achaia formed a state under Thessalian supremacy, and it may have been
somewhat more or less important than Brescia, Verona, or Padua under the
supremacy of Venice. Brescia, _e.g._, was governed by a senate of forty
persons, consisting of its own nobility; but the town was obliged to pay
a certain tribute to Venice. The territory of Brescia again consisted of
smaller states under the supremacy of Brescia. The government of Brescia
in regard to the administration of justice, was subject to Venice, to
which an appeal was open in criminal cases, and which, when appealed
to, sent commissioners (_proveditore_) to re-examine the case. These
gradations of dependence are quite obscure to us, and we cannot see our
way clearly in them. We are apt to think only of a government from above,
which makes the laws, but such was not the case in antiquity nor in the
middle ages. Thus previously to the year 1798 there existed within the
papal dominions several places, which stood indeed under the protection
of the popes, but had their own laws, and even carried into execution
sentences of death without the sanction of the sovereign. A person making
himself familiar with the variety of the Swiss constitutions is going
through an excellent course of preparation for a profound knowledge of
ancient history.
The case of Achaia was precisely the same: it had the administration of
its internal affairs, but no political independence; it was not allowed
to carry on war on its own account, but was obliged to serve in the
armies of Thessaly, and to pay a certain tribute according to the terms
of its capitulation, and in extraordinary cases even more.
THEBE, the only important town of Phthiotis, was one of the strongest
fortresses of Greece, being well fortified both by nature and by art.
For a time it belonged, like the rest of Phthiotis, to the Aetolians,
but was taken from them by Philip, and was one of the places out of
which the Aetolians wanted to cheat the Romans, although the latter had
well-founded claims to it. Hence their exasperation was natural enough,
but the manner in which they gave vent to their rage and fury was
senseless.
The MELIANS, a little people, dwelt on the Sperchius in the corner of
the gulf called Μαλιακός or Πυλιακὸς κόλπος. It is strange to find a
distinction made there between the Malians and Melians, though the
difference appears to be only one of dialect. They are in reality
but one people, and that too a very small one; the doubts cannot be
satisfactorily solved. TRACHIS, the capital of the Melians, plays
a prominent part in poetry for being the seat of Ceyx, and in the
Heracleiae it was a place of great importance. In the time of the
Peloponnesian war, the Lacedaemonians established there the colony
of Heraclea; it was a Doric place and had Doric νόμιμα, although its
population was a mass of people driven together from all quarters, but
it had Spartan oecistae, that is, commanders who made the laws and
established the constitution. This town of Heraclea maintained itself
down to the latest times; during the Macedonico-Aetolian period, it
belonged to Aetolia, and was called Ἡρακλεία ἡ ἐπὶ Τραχῖνι, but often
simply Ἡρακλεία. It was taken by the Romans after the defeat of Antiochus.
The OETAEANS, likewise a very small people, lived in mount Oeta; they are
generally overlooked in our geographical books and maps. But although
they were a small people, they enjoyed perfect political independence,
just like Jersey, with its 1,800 inhabitants previously to the
revolution. They occur as an independent people even in Herodotus and
Thucydides; but we know nothing further about them, for afterwards they
disappear.
The AENIANIANS, a somewhat more important people, dwelt above the
Melians and Oetaeans, but more to the west; they are called Αἰνιᾶνες
in Thucydides, Xenophon and others, but Herodotus calls them Ἐνιῆνες.
This is the most ancient instance of the Attic αι being expressed in
another dialect by ε, which is the modern Greek pronunciation of αι.
The termination αν is Pelasgic, and also appears in Italy as _ans_ or
_as_. The Aenianians, like the Melians, do not seem to have been among
the subjects of Thessaly; for Aristotle, in speaking of the internal
commotions among the Thessalian subjects does not mention them. Their
small capital, HYPATA, occurs in the wars of the Romans and Aetolians,
and is also interesting, from the circumstance of its being the scene
of the romance of Apuleius, who considers it as belonging to Thessaly.
The Thessalian women were believed to be skilled in witchcraft; but this
belief referred more particularly to the women of Hypata, and in this
respect they are spoken of by Apuleius.
THE DOLOPIANS.
There remains one people, the Dolopians, who in the earliest history
of Greece are scarcely mentioned at all. They must have occupied a
very extensive country, but it was of an Alpine character, and embraced
the part where mount Pindus turns round towards the Aetolian frontier:
there they must have lived in the valleys in scattered villages. They
are mentioned in the Iliad as by no means foreign to the Greeks, any
more than Dodona in the Catalogue; but still the poet of the Iliad can
scarcely have regarded them as real Hellenes: their name is one of those
by which a branch of the multiform and undefinable race of the Pelasgians
was designated. The passage in which Thucydides says (i. 2), that in
the Iliad Hellenes and barbarians were not distinguished, and which
refers to such nations as the Dolopians, must be understood to mean,
that Homer mentioned as Hellenic, nations which Thucydides in a strict
sense included among the barbarians, for the Homeric geography is based
more upon geographical masses than upon the identity of nationality, the
latter of which is more carefully attended to by Thucydides. Such also
is the meaning of Strabo. Scyros is called Dolopian, and the inhabitants
of Euboea and the neighbouring Cyclades are called Dryopians, who in
point of origin are the same nation as the Dolopians. Here again we need
not have recourse to a migration, which would have had to traverse the
mountains and the territories of so many nations: the Dolopians on the
Achelous and the Dryopians in the Aegean are names of the same nation, in
the same manner in which we find Thessalians in Italy and in Greece.
The Dolopians are not mentioned in history except in a passage of
Thucydides, where he says that the Achelous flows from mount Pindus
through the country of the Dolopians, and in Xenophon’s Hellenica, where
we find that they were governed by Jason of Pherae. Afterwards they
appear alternately under the supremacy of Macedonia and the Aetolians,
until in the end Philip, in his war against the Aetolians and Antiochus,
again subdued them. In this condition they are found in the war of
Perseus, afterwards they disappear in the general catastrophe of Greece.
We have now passed through Greece from the southernmost point of
Peloponnesus as far as mount Olympus, the Thessalian mountains and
Tempe.[68] In casting our eyes back upon Greece, it is surprising to
find how few of those nations share in the great renown of the Greeks
in literature and the arts. In the earliest times poetry was the
common property of all rather than of individuals: epic poetry was
chiefly cultivated among the Ionians in Asia Minor; lyric poetry among
the Aeolians, in Lesbos, Boeotia, Sicily, and Magna Graecia (Himera,
Rhegium), and afterwards also among the Dorians; dramatic poetry
was in reality confined to Athens. After Pindar, no part of Greece,
except Athens, produced poets, prose writers, and orators, until the
latest times again wrought a change; for then, after the real life and
flourishing period of the arts had already disappeared, there came
forward Polybius, a most respectable author indeed, though not beyond
the point which we ourselves may attain. The renown in the plastic arts
was shared by Corinth and Sicyon, at an earlier period also by Boeotia
and Aegina, and in a less degree by Argos. Thessaly is a perfectly rude
country, in which genius has created nothing.
I shall now pass on to the Greek islands, first to Euboea, next to the
islands in the Aegean, and then to Tenedos and Lesbos, whose whole
character is Asiatic, the Cyclades, Crete, and the Sporades. I shall
then discuss the Ionic, Doric, and Aeolic settlements in Asia Minor, the
colonies on the coast of Thrace, on the Euxine, and on the southern coast
of Asia Minor. Of most of the islands very little can be said.
EUBOEA.
Euboea, the largest island in the Aegean, is situated close to the
continent of Greece. This island is often mentioned, especially by later
poets, Callimachus, Apollonius Rhodius (with his scholiast), and others
under antiquated names. Such names, however, are not to be overlooked,
for they are not fictitious or arbitrary designations, but must be dealt
with cautiously, and neither too much nor too little importance ought
to be attributed to them. But we must above all things be on our guard
against drawing too hasty conclusions from them, as is done by a certain
school of philologers, who from names and a few facts draw inferences
which are repulsive to a strict philologer, especially when he considers
that there is so much that is clear and true, if they would but take the
trouble to search for it. Thus, e.g., it is not an unimportant statement,
that Euboea was formerly called Macris, which contains an allusion to
the Pelasgian Macrians on the Propontis, who are mentioned by Apollonius
Rhodius; Corcyra also is said to have been called Macris. Such things
must be known to us, as they were known to the Alexandrian grammarians.
Dionysius Thrax[69] mentions emendation and the interpretation of the
writings of antiquity as the objects of a grammarian and philologer: a
noble object, which you, too, must set before yourselves. Whoever wants
to be a grammarian, sets before himself a high aim, which requires a
knowledge of antiquity, of mythology, legends and traditions; in short,
he must know everything that was known to Apollonius, Eratosthenes, and
the grammarians of the second Alexandrian school. A philologer must
strive to become master of all the legends and traditions to such a
degree as to be able, after a moment’s thought, to give an account of
what he finds in a poet. This knowledge also comprises that which is
found in isolated notices of the scholiasts.
In the Homeric Catalogue, Euboea belongs to the group of Argive states,
but Abantes also dwell in the island. Respecting the origin of these
Abantes nothing can be ascertained. Afterwards we find the island
divided into five states, three of which are called Ionic and regarded
as Ionic colonies; the fourth is Dryopian, and the fifth, Hestiaean,
both evidently of the same race as the ancient inhabitants of Thessaly
about mount Pindus, that is, Pelasgian. CHALCIS and ERETRIA are said to
have been founded by Ionians from Athens; the former was situated on the
Euripus, the latter, to the south-east of it. In the early history of
Greece, between Olymp. 20 and 40, a period which is so much neglected,
both places were of great importance. It is perfectly clear that, though
we cannot explain how, they possessed a power far superior to that
of Athens at the same time; the great power of the Colophonians also
belongs to that period of which the history is lost to us. We only know
accidentally, that those two states carried on a long, protracted, and
fierce war against each other, in which nearly all the states of Greece
joined either the one or the other of them. This shows but too plainly
how little the history of Greece is known.
Both cities founded an endless number of colonies, and Chalcis more
particularly on the Thracian coast (the Chalcidian towns in Epithrace),
in Sicily and Italy (Cumae, Himera, Zancle, Catana, Naxos, Rhegium, and
others). It cannot be supposed, that these numerous colonies contained
an efflux of population commensurate with the size of the place, but
only oecistae went out with a fleet under the protection of Chalcis, and
a multitude of people then assembled from all parts of Greece, who were
in want of a home; the Chalcidians however were the leaders, and the
colony, out of gratitude, formed the noblest phyle from the Chalcidian
oecistae, who made the laws. These colonies are another great proof of
the deficiency of our knowledge of that stirring period, and show how
much we should know, if we possessed Ephorus or only the portion of
the work of Diodorus from the sixth to the tenth book. Our information
is principally derived from Strabo and Heraclides Ponticus. The last
occurrence in which Chalcis appears as a great state, is related by
Herodotus, and belongs to the period subsequent to the expulsion of the
Pisistratids. The Chalcidians, in conjunction with the Boeotians, carried
on war against Athens, but were defeated. The numbers mentioned by
Herodotus on that occasion show to what extent precision is lost and how
delusive accounts become, even within the space of a century. But certain
it is, that Chalcis was conquered by Athens, and that cleruchi were sent
to it, of whom, however, subsequently not a trace appears, whence it must
be supposed that they had been expelled. The Eretrians are mentioned as
being in alliance with Athens; hence we may perhaps assume, that this
alliance had existed even in the early times, when Chalcis and Eretria
were at war with each other. During the Persian war, Chalcis was not a
place of much consequence, and afterwards still less so.
Eretria sent out colonies to Corcyra even before the Corinthians,
also to Ischia near Naples, and had its share in the colonisation
of Naples itself. It maintained its power longer than Chalcis, and
during the insurrection of Aristagoras, it had spirit enough to carry
out the expedition against Sardes; but in the campaigns of Datis it
was completely (ἄρδην) destroyed, and its inhabitants carried away as
slaves into Persia; there the king of the barbarians assigned to them
habitations in the distant interior of Bactria. The new Eretria, built
under the protection of Athens, remained unimportant.
CARYSTOS, the third town, is renowned for the beautiful striped marble
found in its neighbourhood; it is white, with greenish veins, and occurs
in large strata. The Italians, from its resemblance to the layers of
an onion, call it _cipollino_. Mineralogy, metallurgy, and technology
are studies which no philologer ought to neglect; they are extremely
instructive to him.
STYRA was quite insignificant; it is called Dryopian, that is, the
ancient inhabitants remained there. It was situated on the southern
extremity of the island.
HISTIAEA, on the north-eastern point of Euboea, had a Pelasgian
population. In the time of Pericles, it was subdued by the Athenians;
all Euboea had then renounced the connection with Athens, but was
re-conquered; the Histiaeans were overpowered, and an Athenian colony
was established among them. Athenian colonists are otherwise rarely
mentioned, and wherever they occur, the expression is generally not to
be taken in its proper sense, Ionian colonists alone being mostly meant
by it. The new colony was called OREOS, and was founded for the purpose
of keeping Euboea in obedience, and of preventing it from keeping up a
connection with the northern part of the sea. These colonists, as well as
the Attic inhabitants of Lemnos and Scyros, appear to have been expelled
after the Peloponnesian war; whether they returned, is not known, but
Oreos continued to exist as a town. In the maritime war of the Romans and
Macedonians, it was ravaged and completely destroyed, so that it never
recovered again.
The most interesting physical phenomenon connected with Euboea is the
EURIPUS, the channel between Boeotia and Euboea; the sea there had its
tides every day, but in a very irregular manner. This was a great puzzle
to the natural philosophers among the Greeks, and would be so still, were
it not that that part of Europe is so much withdrawn from the observation
of the inquirer. The south-east of Euboea presents a rocky and dangerous
coast; it may be said in general, that Euboea has no harbours, and the
greater part of its coast is _infamis duris naufragiis_; the Capharean
rocks deserve to be noticed in particular, for, according to tradition,
the Greek fleet, on its return from Troy, was dashed against them,
and Ajax, the son of Oileus, perished there. The northern part of this
harbourless coast is called the κοῖλα of Euboea.
CHALCIS, about whose ancient greatness I have already spoken, was
situated to the north of the neck of land (στενά), which separates the
northern from the southern portion of the island. It was for the most
part deserted as early as the time of Dicaearchus; its walls enclosed
a space of upwards of five miles in circumference, but the place was
comparatively desolate. The Macedonian rulers soon made themselves
masters of it for the purpose of keeping Greece in subjection. In
the newly-discovered fragments of his work, Polybius speaks of an
insurrection of Chalcis against Macedonia, of which the consequence was,
that a Macedonian garrison was placed in the town. I have not yet been
able to find out in which war this occurrence took place, though it was
probably in the Lamian war, or perhaps at a later time, under Demetrius
Poliorcetes. From the time of this Demetrius, the island was in the
hands of the Macedonians, though not always as a part of the Macedonian
empire. Under Antigonus Gonatas, his brother Craterus, and, after him,
his son Alexander, were princes of Euboea. At a later period it was
again dependent on Macedonia. In the war of Philip, Chalcis suffered
severely during a predatory expedition of the Romans, for it was taken
by surprise, plundered, and reduced to ashes. After this it rose again,
for it was always easy for those Greek towns to be restored, if their
public buildings were not destroyed, because the private dwellings were
of a very humble nature and could easily be rebuilt. The city then became
the head quarters of Antiochus. Such things were not forgotten by the
Romans, for their hatred was implacable; they did indeed restore Chalcis
to independence, because they had not yet gained as firm a footing in
those parts as afterwards; but when Corinth had been taken, Chalcis was
one of the towns which, according to the decision of the _decem legati_,
were destroyed. It was not till several centuries later that it was
partially restored; and its situation is so favourable, that, in the
course of time, when the earlier circumstances had been forgotten, a new
town again rose there under the name of Egribos, from which the modern
name Negroponte has been formed.
The four or five towns of Euboea, which had formerly been separate
states, had each quite a distinct history of its own; but afterwards
when the Greek nations united in larger masses, they, too, like the
Phocians, are mentioned as a κοινόν, and that, too, as early as the time
of Flamininus; they brought about their own ruin by taking part in the
unfortunate Achaean war.
Let us now pass on to the northern islands. The nearest to the Thessalian
coast, to the north of Oreos, are SCIATHOS and SCOPELOS, which were no
doubt Dolopian islands; but nothing particular can be said about them.
SCYROS is interesting on account of the legends about the youth of
Achilles, about Lycomedes and Deïdameia. Theseus, too, is said to have
been buried there, and his remains were brought thence to Athens by
Cimon. The island remained in the possession of the Pelasgian Dolopians,
its ancient inhabitants, until the time when Cimon established an
Athenian cleruchia there, that is, a number of Athenian citizens obtained
each a certain amount of land, as it were by a lottery. They accordingly
became landed proprietors there, but might dwell in Scyros or remain
at Athens, if they pleased; in the former case, they did not form an
independent state, but only a community under the laws of Athens. Such
was the case at Aegina, Naxos, Samos, Melos, Lesbos, and elsewhere.
This was the system adopted during the period of the supremacy and
tyrannical sway of Athens, and was one of the means of enriching the
multitude. Sycros, Lemnos and Imbros in particular became in this manner
so completely Athenian, that those who dwelt there, though they had an
independent administration, yet did not form a state, but were members
of the Attic phylae, and belonged to the number of Athenian citizens.
In the Peloponnesian war, the Lacedaemonians expelled the Athenian
cleruchi from Scyros and other places, but after the battle of Naxos
they were restored. After the peace with Philip, these islands, and
especially Scyros, remained under the protection of Athens, at least they
were restored to it; even when Rome decided the fate of Greece, Scyros
preserved its connection with Athens, and continued to do so until the
time of Augustus, and probably even much longer.
The small island of PEPARETHOS, not far from Scyros, was celebrated for
its wine.
HALONNESOS owes all its importance to the fact, that it was the occasion
of the beautiful speech of Demosthenes. It had been taken by the tyrant
of Pherae, and the dispute was as to the terms on which it was to be
restored to Athens. Otherwise both these small islands shared the fate of
Scyros.
LEMNOS and IMBROS have both the same political history as Scyros. Lemnos,
however, is much more interesting to us, on account of its volcanic
nature, whence it was sacred to Hephaestus. It is essentially a volcanic
island, and the ancients speak of a volcanic mountain having existed
there down to the commencement of the historical period, which, however,
has now been extinct for upwards of 2000 years. Volcanic productions,
as terra sigillata and meerschaum, and several volcanic springs, are of
frequent occurrence there. The beautiful fragments of the Philoctetes of
Attius, which Hermann has collected and emended, refer to that island. It
contained two towns, _Hephaestia_ and _Myrina_. According to tradition,
it was inhabited by Pelasgians, who are also called Tyrrhenians; they
are said to have first migrated to Athens, and thence to Lemnos. There
is probably no more foundation for the belief that Tyrrhenians migrated
to Lemnos, than that they went to the Asiatic coast of Aeolia. Lemnos
was taken by the Athenians at the time when they founded their colony
in Chersonesus; it was taken from them by Antipater, but after being
restored to them, they lost it again. Respecting Imbros, nothing
particular need be said.
SAMOTHRACE is celebrated in the ancient legends for the worship and
the mysteries of the Cabiri, whence it has been much discussed by the
moderns: the unfortunate passion to solve all difficulties which cannot
be solved, has also extended to Samothrace. Whether and when it received
a Greek colony, is not stated by any Greek author. The remark, that
it was a Samian colony, seems to have been made merely on account of
its name; but it appears to have been a hellenised Pelasgo-Tyrrhenian
settlement. The Samothracians had traditions going as far back as the
time when the Hellespont and the Bosporus had not yet burst their
chains, and when the Aegean was not yet a sea, which it became when the
Pontus broke through its barriers. But these are mere speculations. The
island was important as a connecting link among ancient nations, and I
am convinced that it was the focus from which a great number of ancient
traditions proceeded. It seems to have been a resort of pilgrims, like
Mecca, or at least a place where the Pelasgians from the most different
parts of the world met, and which they regarded as the real centre of
their religion. It would be very interesting to know more particulars
about the history of the island, but this does not justify the attempts
to build castles in the air out of insufficient data.