became completely hellenised. During the first century after the Greek
settlements, they were not yet subdued, but they were reduced at the time
when Sybaris and Croton had reached their highest prosperity. This is
proved by the colonies of these two cities on the western coast, which
oblige us to assume that the intermediate country was subject to them.
Hence the almost fabulous accounts of the immense population of Sybaris
and Croton, which must be understood to refer, not to the population
of the cities alone, but also to comprise their subjects. The fall of
Sybaris, in Olymp. 67, 3, was the death blow to the Greek dominion in
southern Italy, and to the subjects who all lived in willing submission;
for in the course of a long time a relation had arisen, in which the rule
of Sybaris had become milder and milder, and in which the nations became
more and more united with it. It was probably after the foundation of
Thurii in the territory of Sybaris, that the Lucanians appeared in the
northern part of the country, the modern Basilicata. They first attacked
Posidonia and captured it; they next conquered the western part of the
whole country, which derived from them the name of Lucania, and then
advanced more and more against the Greek towns, as on the eastern coast
against Thurii and Croton, which now dropped their former jealousy in
order to defend themselves against the common enemy. But they were so
far reduced as to be confined within their own walls. This extension of
the Lucanians becomes manifest about the beginning of the Peloponnesian
war. Strabo is not correct in saying, that the Lucanians expelled the
Oenotrians and Chonians, for they only subdued them. The decisive battle
of Laos between the population of Magna Graecia and the Lucanians, in
which the latter gained the upper hand, belongs to the period of the
conquest of Rome by the Gauls; and this battle prostrated the Greeks
for ever. Lucania now became a great state, extending from the frontier
of the Hirpinians to the gates of Rhegium. But it did not long maintain
itself in this extent. The Sabellian Lucanians were not numerous enough
to rule over so large a territory. The consequence of their victory
over the Greek towns was, that the latter were broken, and that the
ancient serfs of the Greeks in those parts, a portion of the Lucanians
themselves, and the subjects of the Lucanians, constituted themselves as
an independent state under the name of the Bruttii. Henceforth Lucania
was reduced to about one half of its former territory; but it retained
this extent until the last period of the Roman empire, and under its name
a separate region of Italy was formed.
Lucania was fearfully devasted during the several wars which were carried
on there. The resistance of the Lucanians against the Romans was not so
desperate as that of the Samnites, whence they did not suffer so much
when at length they were obliged to succumb. But they committed the
folly of throwing themselves into the arms of Hannibal; the consequence
of which was that the Romans destroyed their towns one after another;
some of them, however, which remained faithful to Rome, especially the
capital, Petelia, were severely treated by Hannibal. After the war a
great part of their territory became Roman domain land. Still, however,
they recovered to some extent; they then took part in the Social War, but
do not appear to have suffered much. The result was that they obtained
the Roman franchise. But they again suffered severely during the servile
war of Spartacus, whose real head-quarters were in Lucania and Bruttium;
at that time the country was changed into a wilderness. From Cicero’s
speech for Tullius, we see that at Thurii every thing was burnt down.
Lucania is a woody mountainous country, and the Apennines in those parts
are full of the most beautiful forests; during the latter period of the
republic large estates were formed there; the free population was for
the most part extirpated, and the large farms were managed by slaves,
coloni being seldom employed, and wherever slaves put their feet, not a
blade of grass remained. Hence, during the first centuries of the empire,
the country was almost deserted, and was employed only as pasture land;
the population had become completely uncivilised. From the edicts of the
emperors during the fourth and fifth centuries, we see what terrible
people those slaves were: the severest laws were enacted merely to
establish some security; they were disarmed, and for ever forbidden the
use of any weapons whatsoever.
BRUTTIUM was in the same condition; it had been laid waste as early as
the Hannibalian war. After the war of Pyrrhus, the Bruttians had obtained
tolerable terms from the Romans, and their subsequent revolt was not
provoked by any act on the part of the Romans. They suffered especially
from the circumstance that Hannibal, during the latter years of his war
established himself among them, recruited his armies there, and carried
many of their young men capable of bearing arms with him to Africa. He
was obliged, against his own inclination, to make heavy demands upon the
country. The Romans, on the other hand, afterwards took fearful vengeance
on them; although the events had been brought about less by the desire
of the Bruttians than by unavoidable circumstances. The Romans deprived
them of their political existence, and treated them as a people among
whom only _servi publici_ for all manner of services were levied. By this
means, the Bruttians were reduced to a state of helotism. This is one
of the reasons why they are not mentioned at all during the Social War;
another circumstance contributing to the same result was that the Romans
did not regard them as Italicans, but as Greeks.
I have not much to say respecting the towns in the interior of the
country. PETELIA, an ancient Pelasgian town, the origin of which was
connected with Greek traditions, was the capital of Lucania. CRUMENTUM
was the most important town in the interior; the form of its name is
like those of others with which we have become acquainted: the Pelasgian
Κρυμόεις or Κρυμοῦς changes its termination into _entum_, and signifies
“the cold,” or “frosty,” from its situation on a high hill.
In time of war, the Lucanians had a common magistrate, called βασιλεὺς
by the Greeks, and _imperator_ by the Romans, and a common constitution;
but we know nothing about the political forms of the Bruttians. The
inscriptions on Lucanian coins are Oscan, written in Greek characters;
but the people, also, spoke Greek perfectly, so that the fact of
the Pseudo-Pythagorean books being called Lucanian is not against
probability. The Lucanian coins are far less beautiful than those of
Bruttium, which have Greek inscriptions, and are like the most beautiful
coins of Greek cities. Though, therefore, they destroyed Greek towns,
still they learned and cultivated the arts of the Greeks. CONSENTIA
was the capital of the Bruttians, and the modern Cosenza is likewise a
capital.
The great SILA forest, in the north of Bruttium, was of great importance
to the Bruttians; it was very extensive, and such a large forest shows
the desolation of the country from war. It furnished the Romans with
excellent timber for ship-building, and also yielded a considerable
revenue from the manufacture of tar.
GREEK TOWNS ON THE COAST OF ITALY.
CALLIPOLIS (now Gallipoli), a colony of Tarentum, situated on the
Iapygian promontory on the south-east of Tarentum, has no historical
interest. But TARENTUM itself is all the more important. This city is
generally spoken of by the ancients, and especially by Livy, with great
moral contempt. I am quite sure that no man is less disposed to put forth
paradoxes than I: on the contrary, every paradox is repulsive to me,
and calls forth in me a feeling of distrust. There are, however, many
points in history on which we cannot help asserting the very opposite
of the opinion generally current. People speak of the Tarentines as if
they had been completely lost in luxuries and effeminacy, and as if
they had really deserved the frightful fate they had to endure; they
are spoken of with contempt, because, it is said, they embarked in
great undertakings, but did not possess the strength to carry them out
by themselves, and lived in a constant round of sensual pleasures. But
it is especially the ὕβρις and βδελυρία which the Tarentines displayed
towards the Roman ambassadors, that has made an indelible stain on their
character. Now, although I am far from believing that the Tarentines were
deserving of any unusual degree of moral respect, yet I must positively
assert, that the things for which they are so generally condemned, are
for the most part false, and in some points the allegations against them
are no grounds for condemnation. It is impossible to despise a people
which, while the other Greek towns succumbed to the Italians, rose to
such greatness during that very period, and without being favoured by
any outward circumstances. Such a thing cannot be done without skill,
ability, and character; it is not a mere fortunate accident, especially
in a republic, where a brilliant period cannot be brought about by a
single great ruler, as in a monarchy. Moreover, Tarentum produced an
Archytas, who was, perhaps, the greatest philosopher, mathematician, and
statesman, in all antiquity, unless we may except Thucydides who, if
he had wished it, might have become equally great in the sciences; but
he took no interest in them. Such a man usually cannot expect the most
favourable reception among his countrymen, the voice of envy and jealousy
immediately rising against him. But Archytas was, notwithstanding all
this, repeatedly placed at the head of the state as its strategus, and
with such confidence, that the democratic Tarentines allowed themselves
to be guided and directed entirely by him. This circumstance alone would
convince me, that they do not deserve the harsh sentence which posterity
has pronounced upon them: however much they may have degenerated fifty
years later, at that time their prosperity was not undeserved.
Ancient Tarentum was a very extensive place; the modern town with
its 18,000 or 20,000 inhabitants, though, it is true, they live very
close together, does not occupy more space than the ancient acra, the
original Laconian colony, around which the new town arose and extended.
This immense new town has disappeared, though its circumference can
still be recognised. It is well known, that the origin of Tarentum
is connected with the history of Laconia; the story has indeed some
historical foundation, but is evidently perverted; and the statement
about Phalanthus and the Parthenii has no historical character at all.
In very many states, in which no connubium existed between the different
parts of the population, the persons sprung from unlawful marriages
between members of the ruling and those of the subject people, endangered
the government of the ruling class. Such were the Parthenii. For about
two centuries and a half the Tarentines were powerful far and wide,
but an attempt they made about the time of the Persian wars, to reduce
the Messapians to the condition of helots, failed, and they suffered
a defeat from which for a century they could not recover; the defeat,
according to Herodotus, was the most bloody that had ever been sustained
by a Greek nation. Still, however, Tarentum afterwards recovered, and
that too at a period when we should least expect it, when Thurii,
Croton, and other towns sank, and when in many parts the towns entirely
disappeared. It may be, that Tarentum offered a place of refuge to the
Greeks expelled from Caulon and other places; but the people must have
made every effort to overcome their difficult circumstances, for their
city became very powerful. It now assumed altogether a commercial and
manufacturing character, and became the real emporium for southern
Italy, and perhaps for Samnium also. Salt was a lucrative article of
its commerce; it had excellent wool, cloth manufactories, and dyeing
establishments; purple in particular was made there in the greatest
perfection. Tarentum was in every respect an industrial place, with
extensive navigation and fisheries. Such a population could not possibly
feel inclined to serve in the army as a heavy-armed infantry, such as
was then required; their cavalry was anything but contemptible; it
was distinguished for peculiar tactics of its own. The fact that they
enlisted foreign mercenaries, ought not to be made a subject of reproach
to them, as they were a commercial people, and as it was the general
practice of the Greeks at that time. That they took into their pay
foreign princes with their whole armies, may have been imprudent; but in
this respect too they did no more than what was done by England, which,
during the eighteenth century, often took whole regiments of foreign
countries into its service, a system which the United States of the
Netherlands followed ever since the time of Maurice of Orange. It was
the natural consequence of circumstances; and it is absurd to expect of
such a wealthy commercial people, that it should be as great in war as
an agricultural people. They, no doubt, did not conceal from themselves
the fact that their military system was bad; but politics cannot always
control all circumstances. The Tarentines certainly do not deserve the
reproach of ingratitude towards Alexander of Epirus, for his intention
was to set himself up as king of southern Italy, and he first acted as
an enemy towards them. The fate of Tarentum in its contest with Rome is
known from history: after the fall of Samnium, it threw itself into the
arms of Pyrrhus, after whose death it was betrayed and sold. According to
the Roman historians, Rome treated the city very generously, leaving it
independent: this independence, however, may have been a mere name; the
Romans for a longtime kept a garrison there, which, in the Hannibalian
war defended the old town against the siege of Hannibal. The new town
threw itself into the arms of the Carthaginian, but he could not maintain
it, and the inhabitants were obliged to surrender to the Romans, who now
took cruel vengeance and destroyed the place. In the time of C. Gracchus
it became a Roman colony.
The Greek towns of Southern Italy are comprised under the general name of
MAGNA GRAECIA; whether this name also included Tarentum, or whether it
was limited to the coast of Oenotrian Italy, and whether it also embraced
the interior, these are questions which, so far as I know, the ancients
do not decide, though the name was in use at a very early period. If we
possessed the work of Antiochus of Syracuse, a contemporary of Herodotus,
it would perhaps furnish us information about it; from Ephorus and
Eratosthenes we could hardly expect to learn anything on this point. It
is possible also that the name ἡ μεγάλη Ἑλλάς may not have been confined
to the Greek towns.
In enumerating these towns, we may follow a twofold system: we may either
trace them along the coast, beginning with the one next to Tarentum and
thus proceeding as far as Posidonia, or we may arrange them according to
the Greek tribes to which they belonged, and according to the alleged
periods of their foundation. The first system may be traced on any map
where they follow one another in this order: Metapontum, Heraclea, Siris
(which is found in very few maps), Sybaris (afterwards Thurii), Croton,
Scylletion, Caulon, Locri, and Rhegium: on the other side, we have
Hipponium, Laos, Pyxus, Elea, and Posidonia. These towns were colonies
of different tribes, but the most important among them were of Achaean
origin. The original number of the latter was four, which again became
the mother towns of the rest; even in regard to the fourth, however,
it is not certain whether it was not a colony of Croton. Sybaris was
the most ancient among them: next came Croton; Metapontum, the third,
was of much more recent origin; and the fourth, was Caulon or Caulonia,
concerning which, as I have already said, it is doubtful whether it was
an Achaean colony, or whether it received at the same time settlers from
Croton, as was the case at Apollonia which was founded by Corinth and
Corcyra conjointly.
The colonies of the Locrians are equally ancient, and, according to
tradition, they even belong to an earlier date. Both these sets of
colonies again founded others: the Achaean Laos founded Scidros, Elea
(a mixed colony), and Posidonia; and the Locrians built Hipponium and
Medina. There were also Ionian colonies of different kinds; Siris was
a very ancient Colophonian settlement; Rhegium, a Chalcidian colony of
a more recent date, afterwards founded Pyxus. Elea, too, may be called
Ionian, inasmuch as the fugitives from Phocaea were admitted there, as
those from Colophon had been at Siris. They accordingly lie, as it were,
in chronological strata above one another, not proceeding in their origin
from the same points.
In regard to some of these colonies, the same question presents itself
which we had to answer in the case of those in Asia Minor, namely,
whether they were really ancient Greek colonies in the sense in which
they are so called by our historians, or whether they are not partially
of earlier origin, so that, being originally founded by people akin to
the Greeks, they afterwards assumed an entirely Greek character. This
is really probable in the case of some of them, but nothing certain
can be said about it. This opinion is most plausible in regard to the
Locrians, for the accounts of their origin are too mythical, and they
act a part in all the ancient traditions relating to the period of the
Siculi and Itali. The only definite tradition about their origin is the
one mentioned by Aristotle, of which I shall speak in due time. The fact,
that the Achaeans appear as a colonising people, is likewise mysterious,
as they are so insignificant in the early history of Greece. However,
Zacynthos, too, is an Achaean colony, and one of the results of the
historical inquiries of modern times is, that very little is known about
Greek history previous to the Persian wars. Many changes, therefore, may
have taken place, of which we are completely ignorant: as the Achaeans
passed through a revolution in Aegialos, it is at all events possible,
that previously they were a more important people, and that after the
Doric migration the oppressed perioeci may have assembled and emigrated
from Peloponnesus, just as the Minyans are said to have emigrated from
Taenaron to other parts. But these things scarcely admit of sober
criticism, and I will not dwell upon them. I shall now enumerate the
towns according to the common practice beginning with the most important.
The Achaean colonies will be mentioned first.
SYBARIS, according to tradition, was the most ancient among the Achaean
towns. It has a great name, but in the period of historical certainty it
had ceased to exist. The greatness of Sybaris is beyond a doubt, but all
the details related about the luxuriousness of its inhabitants, their
wealth, their works of art, and their final catastrophe, are either
doubtful or altogether fabulous. The numbers of its inhabitants and of
the men capable of bearing arms are exaggerated in an almost oriental
fashion, for at its destruction, the city is said to have had 300,000 men
capable of bearing arms; the manner also, in which Croton is said to have
gained the battle, is a mere silly story. But we need not wonder at the
fabulous character of these accounts, or at the obscurity of the history,
for all the early history of Greece is in the same predicament, and Roman
history too begins very late. We must be on our guard not to measure the
history of the western nations by the standard of eastern annals. Even
if we trace the contemporary records among the Hebrews only as far as
the time of Solomon, we already reach a very early period compared with
that to which history ascends in Greece. There can be no doubt, that the
Egyptians had annals from the period of the seventeenth dynasty, that is,
from the time of Sesostris and Amenophis, or the expulsion of the Hycsos;
but the Greeks had no such ancient contemporary records, and although
there existed certain annalistic tables, as for example, the list of
the priestesses at Argos, still they did not, like the oriental annals,
constitute a history, but were mere lists of years. It is of extreme
importance to an historical philologer, to know how late Greek history
commences. At the period of my youth, I and those of the same age with me
grew up under the most erroneous notions in this respect. I was already a
young man, when it first occurred to me to doubt the truth of the stories
about the Messenian wars and about Aristomenes; in the common histories
of Greece no doubts were expressed, the events were assigned to definite
years, and were narrated as confidently as if they were reported on the
best historical authority. People are not yet sufficiently free from
these thoroughly erroneous notions, although a right view has already
gained some ground. All we know about Sybaris with certainty is, that it
was destroyed several years before the period which we regard as the time
of the expulsion of the Roman kings; Greek writers place the destruction
three years before this event; but synchronistic statements of this kind
are of no value. Posidonia and Laos on the opposite coast were colonies
of Sybaris, whence we may suppose that all Lucania, with the exception of
Metapontum, was subject to it. Sybaris and all those towns became great
and powerful within an incredibly short period, which probably arose
from the fact of their being commercial colonies. The rapidity, with
which commercial cities rise, is exemplified by New York, which 120 years
ago had no more than 1000 inhabitants, while at present its population
amounts to upwards of 140,000. The same increase has taken place at
Philadelphia. If, as is generally supposed, Sybaris at the time of its
destruction had existed for two centuries, we may easily admit that it
had become great and powerful, and hence there is nothing impossible in
the statement, that it ruled over four nations and twenty-five towns. We
must also bear in mind, that those Greek towns might grow up even with
much greater rapidity than the English colonies in North America; for
in the latter all the settlers were Europeans, and consequently quite
foreign to the original population; in southern Italy, on the other hand,
the greater part of the population consisted unquestionably of native
Oenotrians, who were by no means foreign to the Greeks. In countries
where the natives were foreign to them, as on the Euxine, their colonies
never rose so rapidly as on the coasts of Asia Minor and Italy, where
they settled among kindred tribes. Cyrene, which was a large city,
perhaps forms the only exception in this respect.
In regard to the history of Sybaris, it is certain that Sybaris and
Tarentum, being Achaean and Dorian towns respectively, were hostile to
each other, and that there was a time when Sybaris and Croton, both of
Achaean origin, were on friendly terms. The object of the dispute with
Tarentum was the fertile district between the Acalandrus and the Siris,
which was called Siritis; and in order to maintain their possession of
it, the Sybarites are said to have invited other Achaeans to come over,
and these latter are reported to have founded—