them had had one common constitution (πολιτεία Κρητῶν). Every Cretan
town, even the subject places, seems according to the constitution to
have been equal to the largest; all had a close aristocracy and ruling
houses (a patriciate), and this proves that the country had at one time
been conquered. Their highest magistrates, eligible only from among the
_gentes_, were called κόσμοι; they were five in number, and possessed
despotic power; they seem to have been elected annually. Insurrection
was lawful in Crete, as in Poland, for when the oppression became too
severe, the nobles refused obedience to the magistrates, and elected
new ones. The greatest anarchy was thus legalised, and this was the
consequence of a constitution, which had in itself no organic protection:
a proof of the barbarous character of the people. The Cretans were the
worst of all the Greek nations; they were an object of detestation and
indignation. You remember the expression of St. Paul, in the Epistle
to Titus; their character gave rise to the verb κρητίζειν. Polybius
confirms this judgment with an undisguised hatred of the Cretans,
a hatred which is even stronger than that of the Aetolians. In his
time they were completely devoid of all sense of honour; treason and
faithlessness towards their superiors being no disgrace among them. Thus
they treacherously delivered up the unfortunate Achaeus who had revolted
against Antiochus; they shewed, in fact, all the degeneracy which we now
find among the unhappy Greeks in their enslavement. The Cretans, however,
had no foreign tyranny as a palliation, for no part of Greece remained
so free from foreign oppression, and they never were under the supremacy
of Macedonia, except in the reign of the last Philip, who was chosen
by them as arbitrator; he had, however, no garrison in the island, but
exercised only his personal influence. Crete then remained independent,
and the Romans were altogether indifferent about it. But the pirates of
the Asiatic coasts established themselves among them, and the Cretans
even took part in the trade, whence in A.U.C., 685 they were conquered by
the Romans. In the earlier times they sold their services as mercenaries,
serving as light-armed troops and forming a peculiar kind of infantry.
At their conquest by the Romans, they were chastised, and many of their
towns were destroyed. After this they are no longer mentioned in Roman
history, so that we cannot even say to what province they belonged. It is
only occasionally, when disturbances broke out, that a praetor was sent
to them.
CARPATHOS is situated in the north-east of Crete, towards Rhodes; in the
same direction we have ASTYPALAEA and NISYROS. All three were Dorian
settlements; Carpathos in the end came under the supremacy of Rhodes.
RHODES.
Rhodes was a state of which the Greeks, in the last period of their
history had reason to be proud; its peculiarity was its freedom from all
that for which otherwise the Greeks are justly censured. Its character
is honesty, conscientiousness, and thoughtful prudence, like that of the
Dutch republics, the Swiss cantons, and the free cities of the German
empire in their best times; nor was literary and intellectual culture
foreign to the Rhodians. Their greatest prosperity belongs to the time
when the sun of Greek intellect had already set; but they still had,
comparatively speaking, a happy period.
Rhodes was an ancient Dorian settlement, but it is foolish to suppose
that it existed even before the time of the Trojan war, as is stated in
the Homeric Catalogue in the account about Tlepolemus, for at that time
the Dorians did not inhabit any country from which they could have sent
a colony to Rhodes. The reason of the interpolation is apparent.[72]
The true tradition probably is that the Dorians went thither after the
conquest of Peloponnesus; but this too is very obscure, for the period
subsequent to the Doric migration is not clearer to us than that which
preceded it.
Rhodes had three towns which formed the three tribes in the island; this
is expressed in a passage of the Catalogue: τριχθὰ δὲ ᾤκηθεν καταφυλαδόν;
these towns were LINDOS, IALYSOS, and CAMIROS. The soil of the island
is excellent, and the country being equally adapted for agriculture
and navigation, we find both from early times. Hence its power had a
much more secure basis than, e.g., that of the Aeginetans, who had no
agriculture at all, for agriculture is the only foundation of permanent
happiness. Until the time of the Peloponnesian war those three towns
remained in the same condition; they formed together one state, which,
however, was without a common centre. During the war, the Rhodians
distinguished themselves by their prudence, remaining faithful to Athens,
and not allowing themselves, like the Naxians and others, to be drawn
into unfortunate insurrections; but when Athens abused her power and the
Lacedaemonians were gaining the upper hand, the Rhodians, accommodating
themselves to the change of circumstances, joined the latter, and that
the more readily because they were Dorians. Henceforth a consciousness
was awakened in them, that they might raise themselves to a higher
position, and they determined to remove from their small towns into one
great city. They accordingly founded the city of RHODES on the splendid
harbour which the first settlers had overlooked. This place now became
the centre of the country, and the other towns καθάπερ δῆμοι, but were
not destroyed, and even at this day we hear of villages called Lindo
and Camiro. The earliest inhabitants were undoubtedly Carians, who, on
receiving a Dorian aristocracy, became at first serfs, but afterwards
rose to the rank of free communities; the productive commerce rendered
it impossible for the aristocracy to maintain itself for any great
length of time. There then followed a period of internal discord, of
which only obscure accounts have come down to us. After the war, which
was occasioned by the expedition of Cyrus the younger, and in which they
joined the Lacedaemonians, they fell, in consequence of their internal
divisions, into the hands of the Carian dynasty of Mausolus. The younger
Artemisia, the wife of Mausolus, who resided at Halicarnassus, was
enabled, by the factions in the island, to take possession of it. One of
the first youthful productions of Demosthenes refers to this event. In
this manner, Rhodes was for a time connected, through Halicarnassus, with
the Persian empire; according to the peace of Antalcidas, this ought not
to have been, but that peace was observed only where it was advantageous
to the Persians. Before Rhodes came under the rule of Artemisia, it
had, in conjunction with Chios and Byzantium, taken part in the Social
war against Athens, from which we see that the Rhodians were anxious
to throw off the dominion of the Athenians and to establish a maritime
power of their own. There now rose among them the family of Mentor and
Memnon, which acquired unprecedented influence at the court of Persia;
they governed Rhodes nominally as satraps, but in point of fact, as
sovereigns, as in the fifteenth century the Medici governed Florence.
But they fell with the Persian empire. Both were Greeks, but barbarised
in their sentiments and possessing all the passions of barbarians; they
had, however, the advantage of Greek intelligence and culture. Memnon,
especially, was a distinguished man, and his death alone rendered the
success of Alexander’s undertaking possible, and but for this event, it
would appear in history as foolhardiness: that which now appears as great
and is considered as great, would be looked upon as foolish; Memnon would
have cut off Alexander’s return from Persia, and his fate would have been
like that of Charles XII. in the Ukraine; nay Memnon would have attacked
him in Macedonia and overthrown his power in Greece. I will not decide
as to whether this would have been better for the Greeks. After Memnon’s
death, Rhodes also submitted to the Macedonians, and it would seem that
a republican party there was anxious to bring about this connection with
Macedonia. Rhodes now openly showed itself to be what it really was,
viz., the connecting link between Europe and Asia, for Tyre was destroyed
and Alexandria had not yet risen to greatness. The commerce between
the two continents was thus established at Rhodes, which became great
soon after Alexander’s death, twenty-eight years after that of Memnon
(Olymp. 119). Its siege by Demetrius Poliorcetes is the grandest thing in
ancient history: it is as bold as it is distressing and elevating. The
inhabitants of a single little island, or rather a small city, had the
courage not to allow themselves to be intimidated by the ruler of Asia
Minor and Syria, who poured his fleets and his armies upon them, and what
is still more, employed against them all the strength of his talent;
they resisted him so boldly and so gloriously, that he was obliged to
grant them an honourable peace. Rhodes, however, suffered severely on
that occasion, and the whole island was fearfully ravaged; but it soon
recovered; and, owing to the great confidence which it inspired, and to
the obligation which the Egyptian king Ptolemy incurred towards it, the
island rose so much in the esteem and respect of all, that, comparatively
speaking, it stood as high as Athens did after the Persian wars. From
this time, Rhodes, notwithstanding the general confusion, became powerful
and respected, not through good fortune, but through the industry and
exertions of its inhabitants. It was they who destroyed the Etruscan
pirates, and their squadrons sailed as far as the Aegean, securing the
freedom of navigation for the good of all Greece. As commerce increased
more and more at Alexandria, and as Egypt was not a country fit for
shipbuilding, the Rhodians became the freighters for the greater part
of the ancient world. Such nations are universal benefactors, and all
are concerned in the preservation of their navigation. This accounts
for the fact, that at the time when Rhodes suffered from inundations
and earthquakes, nations and princes vied with one another in helping
and benefitting them. For the good luck which favoured Rhodes did not
remain unmixed, for it had to sustain many serious calamities. The city
was built in the form of a theatre, but in such a manner that towards
the harbour it was protected by a lofty and strong wall. Once during the
Macedonian period, when a heavy fall of rain had inundated nearly the
whole city, the swollen streams poured down upon it, without finding
an outlet into the sea, until in the end they fortunately threw down
the mighty wall, and thus ran off. This is one of the most fearful
events in Greek history, and was the consequence of an earthquake. The
earthquakes by which Rhodes has been visited have been terrible. About
the end of Olymp. 138, or at the beginning of Olymp. 139, in the reign
of Euergetes, it was almost wholly destroyed by an earthquake, during
which the Colossus was overthrown, which was never set up again. In the
time of Antoninus Pius, the city was visited by the earthquake, which
reduced nearly all the towns on the Asiatic coast to heaps of ruins, and
in which Rhodes lost its last splendour, its whole fleet, its arsenals,
its trophies and monuments: on that occasion it was thoroughly destroyed.
It was then, of course, not restored to what it had been; its navigation
henceforth was insignificant, and agriculture formed the principal
occupation of its inhabitants.
Rhodes preserved not only its political independence, but also its great
importance throughout the Macedonian period. At the time when all the
other Greek states were quite servile, and got on only by manoeuvring,
the Rhodians stood forth as a princely people, whose friendship was
courted by kings, and whose enmity was dreaded. While their state was in
this illustrious position, they formed connections with the Romans; they
seem to have entered into friendly relations with them as early as the
fifth century, not long after Alexander’s death, probably on the occasion
of their proceedings against the Etruscan pirates, because both nations
aimed at the same objects, but the Rhodians—and this is a proof of their
great prudence—never concluded a formal treaty with the Romans; their
fleet co-operated with that of Rome, but they undertook no obligations.
Their assistance in the war against Antiochus was liberally rewarded
by the Romans who gave them Caria and Lycia. But the Romans afterwards
harboured ill-feelings towards them, because in their relations with Rome
they shewed a spirit of independence and no servility; hence in the war
against Perseus the Romans tried to interpret every step taken by them
as hostile towards themselves. The Rhodians, it is true, did not wish
for the downfall of Perseus, they no doubt wanted to have an equipoise
in those parts against the Romans, and some men of influence may have
secretly espoused the cause of Perseus; the Romans, moreover, had even
before that time taken back a part of the presents they had made to
them; they had hurt their feelings and so much offended them, that the
Rhodians believed the Romans to be hostile towards them; but they never
really did anything that could be laid to their charge. After the fall of
Perseus, many Romans were impatient to destroy Rhodes; but Cato, though
otherwise not favourably disposed towards the Greeks, was actuated by
such respect for their conduct, that he exerted his whole influence with
the senate to save them. They retained their independence, but became
allies of Rome and lost their subjects; still, however, they shewed
prudence, they were free, and had no Roman commander over them. Eighty
years later, the Mithridatic war afforded the Romans an opportunity of
congratulating themselves for having followed the advice of Cato; for
the Rhodians held out faithfully and heroically against Mithridates,
and did not allow themselves to be prevailed upon by the Thessalians to
enter into an alliance with the king. For this the Romans again rewarded
them with territories. After the murder of Caesar, Cassius who was
unworthy to be the associate of Brutus, took possession of the town of
Rhodes, and treated it very harshly and cruelly. The Rhodians, however,
continued to enjoy their freedom and the esteem of the nations until the
time of Antoninus Pius. At this period we find, from a speech of Aelius
Aristides, that they possessed autonomy, and criminal jurisdiction,
and the neighbouring islands as well as the Caunians on the continent
recognised as subjects their supremacy. Aristides, in order to cheer them
after the terrible earthquake, reminds them of the beautiful story of a
Rhodian sailor whose ship perished in a storm, but who clung to the helm
to the last, and sunk with the words: “I call upon thee, Poseidon, as my
witness, that the ship went down standing upright.”
The arts and literature also were cherished at Rhodes, though in the
earlier times there are not many Rhodian names that can be called
great. Cleobulus of Lindos is mentioned as one of the seven sages. But
Apollonius is a poet who certainly ought not to be despised; we read
his work with pleasure and can learn much from it, though he cannot
be compared with Callimachus who lived before him. The wealth of the
Rhodians and their taste for the beautiful and magnificent gave great
encouragement to the arts. When oratory had died away at Athens, and all
vital energy had withdrawn from that city, it took refuge in Rhodes; it
had indeed already assumed the character of old age, but still at a time
when in Greece proper no good speech was heard, when in the towns of
Mysia and Caria literature had degenerated into mere bombast, a _sanum
loquendi genus_ was preserved in Rhodes, which is no small praise, though
the _sanum_ was sometimes a _siccum_.
The constitution of Rhodes is difficult to make out. The part of Cicero’s
work, “De Re Publica,” where he spoke of it, is wanting, so that we can
form only conjectures; but it would lead me too far to explain them here.
Certain it is, that Rhodes, by the peculiarity of its institutions, was
so far democratic, that all its citizens took an active part in the
administration, and a large number of them in the council. The manner in
which this was done is the obscure point. The magistrates, as Polybius
says, had very great powers, both the _strategi_ and the _nauarchi_.
There existed an _arcanum imperii_, of which the Athenian constitution
knows nothing, and to which the Roman state alone presents something
analogous: in certain circumstances the nauarchus had the power to
conclude treaties, which, however, it would seem were valid only during
his term of office, the state not being bound by them for the future.
This arose from the fact of the Rhodian fleet being generally very far
away from home. Owing to this peculiarity of the constitution, things
required by the force of circumstances might be done even contrary to the
letter of the law. The republic contrived to make excellent use of this
expedient, whenever it wished to enter into a relation without making it
permanent. The nauarchus was a kind of plenipotentiary representative of
Rhodes with foreign nations.
The language of the Rhodians was Doric. Cicero went to Rhodes to
cultivate his intellect, and under the first Roman emperors the young
Roman nobles very frequently resorted to Rhodes as they had formerly done
to Athens.
According to the Homeric Catalogue the Rhodians dwelt τριχθὰ καταφυλαδόν.
When at a later time the phylae appear in the city, they occupy different
districts. The Dorians, to whom the division into three was natural, were
also in possession of the opposite mainland. This division was the reason
why they did not attach to themselves places which were situated at some
distance, such as Phaselis. Halicarnassus, Cos, and Cnidos formed the
second Dorian triad by the side of the Rhodian.
Among these three places, HALICARNASSUS is particularly interesting to
us as the birth-place of Herodotus. It is strange, however, that he
wrote his work in the Ionic dialect, and that, too, in such perfection.
Although Halicarnassus was excluded by the Dorians, it lost nothing of
its prosperity, nor of its peculiarly Greek character. It was deprived
of its freedom like the other Greek towns on the coast of Asia Minor,
but it is doubtful whether after the expedition of Xerxes it recovered
it, or whether it remained in perpetual dependence upon Persia. Certain
it is, that it was the seat of the Carian dynasty, which established
itself there, and attached itself to Persia: it was the residence of
Mausolus, and afterwards of his widow Artemisia, who there built the
famous mausoleum to him. But this Carian family did not introduce
barbarous customs at Halicarnassus; for its members spoke Greek, received
a Greek education, and had a taste for the beauties of Greek art. But
the misfortune was, that through its splendour the city became too large
and too influential; it was strongly fortified, thoroughly devoted to
the interests of Persia, and one of the chief stations of the Persian
forces; for which reason it offered an obstinate defence during the siege
of Alexander, who ravaged it in such a manner that it never recovered
from the blow, but ever after remained an insignificant place. This
defence of Halicarnassus was very brilliant, for there still existed men
inspired with a love of freedom, and actively opposed to the dominion of
Macedonia. Ephialtes, the friend of Demosthenes, who everywhere tried to
thwart Alexander, there fought against him and was killed.
CNIDOS was situated on a peninsula which was wholly occupied by the
town; the Cnidians once strangely wished to cut through the isthmus
which connected it with the main land. The Aphrodite of Praxiteles shed
a peculiar lustre over the place, and attracted many strangers, but was
afterwards carried away by the Romans.
COS is the third Dorian place in Asia Minor; it was at once a town and
an island, and possessed a considerable navy down to the time of the
Romans, though it was not to be compared with that of the Rhodians. In
the earlier times it was allied with Rhodes, and remained for a long time
in a state of independence. It contained a celebrated temple of Asclepius
and the family of the Asclepiadae, who regarded Asclepius as their
ancestor.
Rhodes and the opposite continent accordingly had together six Dorian
towns, as there were six feudal principalities in Peloponnesus. Let us
now pass on from Doris to
IONIA.
According to the universal tradition of the Greeks, Ionia was a
δωδεκάπολις, established by Neleus and Androclus, the sons of Codrus,
who, after their father’s death, when the royal dignity ceased, emigrated
from Athens to Asia Minor. These Ionians, on their arrival, found the
coast occupied partly by Carians and partly by Meonians, while Chios and
Samos were inhabited by Pelasgians. We must not conceive these colonies
as purely Greek in their origin in the same manner as the inhabitants
of the states of North America are purely English and German. Herodotus
himself says, that four dialects were spoken among the Ionians, and,
what is very important, that the Ionians did not go across with their
wives and children, but as soldiers; that they conquered the country, and
married the captive women, as the Spaniards did in what were afterwards
the Spanish colonies of America. But as the Greeks, Carians, and
Meonians, although differing from one another, still belonged to the same
race, their mixture was no longer discernible in the features and forms
of the body of their descendants, and thus the New-Ionians could not be
distinguished from the ancient and original ones. The ancient population
had not withdrawn as in the states of North America, but remained in the
country as subjects. Such was the case especially in Chios: there is an
ancient story according to which slavery took its origin in that island;
and this is quite natural, for the old Ionians established themselves
there, and the ancient inhabitants not being able to get out of the
island, were reduced by the new settlers to a state of servitude; and for
this reason a completely aristocratic constitution was developed: the
towns were the rulers, and the rural population were their subjects. The
same may be supposed to have been the case in other islands as well as
on the continent. But whether on this account servitude was more ancient
there, than, for example, the _penestia_ in Thessaly, cannot be decided.
The division into twelve states here likewise suggests the existence
of some regulating power, which, however, cannot be historically
demonstrated, and in regard to which we must be on our guard against mere
fancies. We know from Herodotus, that in the earliest times the Ionians
had kings. The country appears to us remarkable for its misfortunes at an
earlier period than any other Greek state, if we except Messene; and this
misfortune arose from the extension of the Lydians, a conquering nation
from the interior of Asia Minor. This people, conjointly with the Mysians
and Carians, expelled the Meonians, for this must be understood when we
read that the dynasty of the Mermnadae (that of Gyges) supplanted that
of the Heracleidae (that of Candaules). When these Lydians immigrated
with the fresh power of conquerors, they subdued the Ionian cities; first
(Olymp. 25) Colophon, which, according to unequivocal indications, was at
that time the capital of Ionia. In regard to the greatness of Colophon,
the Greek authors, whose works have come down to us, contain only vague
traditions; but allusion to it is made in the newly discovered fragments
from the beginning of the Margites and in the Paroemiographi (Κολοφῶνα
ἐπιθεῖναι); the city is said to have been so powerful, that upon its
decision everything depended. It was not indeed destroyed by the Lydians,
but reduced to a place of no importance. One of the obscure statements
is, that about the beginning of the Olympiads, Colophon carried on an
obstinate war against Erythrae.
Ionia does not form a compact country, it is only a strip of land, and
whatever, therefore, is to be said about its chorography, refers also to
the neighbouring countries, especially Lydia.