After the overthrow of Spartan domination in Greece, Olynthus

recovered its independence and regained, during the second

quarter of the fourth century B. C., a considerable degree of

prosperity and power. It was even helped in its rise by the

cunning, dangerous hand of Philip of Macedon, who secured many

and great advantages in his treacherous diplomacy by playing

the mutual jealousies of Athens and Olynthus against one

another. The Olynthian Confederacy, formed anew, just served

its purpose as a counterpoise to the Athenian Confederacy,

until Philip had no more need of that service. He was the

friend and ally of the former until he had secured Amphipolis,

Methone, and other necessary positions in Macedonia and

Thrace. Then the mask began to slip and Olynthus (B. C. 351)

got glimpses of the true character of her subtle neighbor. Too

late, she made overtures to Athens, and Athens, too late, saw

the vital importance of a league of friendship between the two

Greek confederacies, against the half Hellenic, half barbaric

Macedonian kingdom. Three of the great speeches of

Demosthenes—the "Olynthiac orations"—were made upon this

theme, and the orator succeeded for the first time in

persuading his degenerated countrymen to act upon his clear

view of the situation. Athens and Olynthus were joined in a

defensive league and Athenian ships and men were sent to the

Chalcidian peninsula,—too late. Partly by the force of his

arms and partly by the power of his gold, buying traitors,

Philip took Olynthus (B. C. 348) and all the thirty-two lesser

towns that were federated with her. He took them and he

destroyed them most brutally. "The haughty city of Olynthus

vanished from the face of the earth, and together with it

thirty-two towns inhabited by Greeks and flourishing as

commercial communities. … The lot of those who saved life

and liberty was happy in comparison with the fate of those

who, like the majority of the Olynthians, fell into the hands

of the conqueror and were sold into slavery, while their

possessions were burnt to ashes or flung as booty to the

mercenaries. … The mines continued to be worked for the

royal treasury; with this exception the whole of Chalcidice

became a desert"

_E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 7, chapter 3 (volume 5)._

ALSO IN:

_A. M. Curteis,

Rise of the Macedonian Empire,

chapters 4-5._

_B. G. Niebuhr,

Lectures on Ancient History,

lectures 66-68 (volume 2)._

GREECE: B. C. 340.

Siege of Byzantium by Philip of Macedonia.

The enmity between Athens and Byzantium yielded in 340 B. C.

to their common fear of Philip of Macedon, and the exertions

of Demosthenes brought about an alliance of the two cities, in

which Perinthus, the near neighbor of Byzantium, was also

joined. Philip, in wrath, proceeded with a fleet and army

against both cities, laying siege, first to Perinthus and

afterwards to Byzantium, but without success in either case.

He was compelled to withdraw, after wasting several months in

the fruitless undertaking. It was one of the few failures of

the able Macedonian.

_G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 90 (volume 11)._

GREECE: B. C. 336-335.

Northern campaign of Alexander of Macedonia.

Revolt at Thebes.

Destruction of the city.

"Alexander … took up and continued the political and

military schemes which his father had begun. We first make

acquaintance with him and his army during his campaign against

the tribes on the northern frontier of Makedonia. This

campaign he carried out with energy equal to that of Philip,

and with more success (spring of 335 B. C.). The distinctive

feature of the war was that the Makedonian phalanx, the

organization and equipment of which were adapted from Grecian

models, everywhere won and maintained the upper hand. … Even

at this epoch Byzantium was rising into importance. That city

had, owing to its hostility with Persia, deserted the side of

the Greeks for that of the Makedonians. It was from Byzantium

that Alexander summoned triremes to help him against the

island in the Danube on which the king of the Triballi had

taken refuge. … The great successes of Alexander induced all

the neighboring nationalities to accept the proposals of

friendship which he made to them. … In Greece false reports

concerning the progress of events in the north had raised to

fever heat the general ferment which naturally existed.

{1599}

Alexander relied upon the resolutions of the League of the

Public Peace [formed by the Congress at Corinth], which had

recognized his father and afterwards himself as its head. But

he was now opposed by all those who were unable to forget

their former condition, and who preferred the alliance with

Persia which had left them independent, to the league with

Makedonia which robbed them of their autonomy. … Thebes took

the lead of the malcontents, and set about ridding herself of

the garrison which Philip had placed in the Cadmeia. She thus

became the centre of the whole Hellenic opposition. The

enemies of Makedon, who had been exiled from every city,

assembled in Thebes. … The same party was stirring in

Lakedæmon, in Arcadia, in Ætolia, and, above all, at Athens.

From Athens the Thebans were supplied, through the mediation

of Demosthenes, and doubtless by means of Persian gold, with

arms, of which they were likely to stand in need. …

Alexander had no sooner settled with his enemies in the north

than he turned to Hellas. So rapid was his movement that he

found the pass of Thermopylæ still open, and, long before he

was expected, appeared before the walls of Thebes." The fate

of the city was decided by a battle in which the Makedonians

were overwhelmingly victorious. "In the market-place, in the

streets, in the very houses, there ensued a hideous massacre.

… The victors were, however, not satisfied with the

slaughter. Alexander summoned a meeting of his League, by

which the complete destruction of Thebes was decreed, and this

destruction was actually carried out (October, 335 B. C.). [At

the same time Platæa, which Thebes had destroyed, was ordered

to be rebuilt.] In Grecian history it was no unheard-of event

that the members of the defeated nation should be sold into

slavery, and so it happened on this occasion. The sale of the

slaves supplied Alexander with a sum of money which was no

inconsiderable addition to his military chest. But his main

object was to strike terror, and this was spread through

Greece by the ruthless destruction of the city of Œdipus, of

Pindar, and of Epameinondas. … Deep and universal horror

fell upon the Greeks. … The close connection that existed at

this moment between Grecian and Persian affairs forbade him to

lose a moment in turning his arms towards Asia. … A war

between Alexander and Persia was inevitable, not only on

account of the relation of the Greeks to Makedon, whose yoke

they were very loth to bear, but on account of their relation

to Persia, on whose support they leaned. … The career which

Philip had begun, and in which Alexander was now proceeding,

led of necessity to a struggle with the power that held sway

in Asia Minor. Until that power were defeated, the Makedonian

kingdom could not be regarded as firmly established."

_L. von Ranke,

Universal History:

The Oldest Historical Group of Nations and the Greeks,

chapter 10, part 2._

ALSO IN:

_Arrian,

Anabasis of Alexander,

book 1, chapters 1-10._

_T. A. Dodge,

Alexander,

chapters 14-17._

GREECE: B. C. 334-323.

Asiatic conquests of Alexander the Great.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330; and 330-323.

GREECE: B. C. 323-322.

Attempt to break the Macedonian yoke.

The Lamian War.

Subjugation of Athens.

Suppression of democracy.

Expulsion of poor citizens.

Death of Demosthenes.

On the death of Alexander the Great, B. C. 323, a party at

Athens which still hoped for freedom in Greece set on foot a

vigorous movement designed to break the Macedonian yoke. A

league was formed in which many cities joined—a larger

assemblage of Hellenic states, says Mr. Grote, than that which

resisted Xerxes in 480 B. C. A powerful army of Greek citizens

and mercenaries was formed and placed under the command of a

capable Athenian, Leosthenes, who led it into Thessaly, to

meet the Macedonian general Antipater, who now ruled Greece.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.

The latter was defeated in a battle which ensued, and was

driven into the fortified Thessalian town of Lamia, where he

was besieged. Unfortunately, Leosthenes was killed during the

progress of the siege, and a long interval occurred before a

new commander could be agreed on. This gave Antipater time to

obtain succor from Asia. A Macedonian army, under Leonnatus,

crossed the Hellespont, and the besiegers of Lamia were forced

to break up their camp in order to meet it. They did so with

success; Leonnatus was slain and his army driven back. But

meantime Antipater escaped from Lamia, joined the defeated

troops and retreated into Macedonia. The war thus begun, and

which took the name of the Lamian War, was continued, not

unfavorably to the confederates, on the whole, until the

following summer—August, 322 B. C.—when it was ended by a

battle fought on the plain of Krannon, in Thessaly. Antipater,

who had been joined by Kraterus, from Asia, was the victor,

and Athens with all her allies submitted to the terms which he

dictated. He established a Macedonian garrison in Munychia,

and not only suppressed the democratic constitution of Athens,

but ordered all the poorer citizens—all who possessed less

than 2,000 drachmæ's worth of property, being 12,000 out of

the 21,000 who then possessed the Athenian franchise—to be

driven from the city; thus leaving a selected citizenship of

9,000 of the richer and more manageable men. The banished or

deported 12,000 were scattered in Thrace, Illyria, Italy and

even in northern Africa. The leaders of the anti-Macedonian

rising were pursued with unrelenting animosity. Demosthenes,

the great orator, who had been conspicuous among them, was

dragged from a temple at Kalauria, to which he had fled, and

took poison to escape the worse death which probably awaited

him.

_G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 95 (volume 12)._

GREECE: B. C. 323-301.

Wars of the Diadochi or Successors of Alexander.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316; 315-310; and 310-301.

GREECE: B. C. 321-312.

The contest for Athens and Peloponnesus, between Cassander and

Polysperchon.

Execution of Phocion.

Restoration of Thebes.

"Antipater, after the termination of the Lamian war, passed

over to Asia and took part in the affairs there.

See MACEDONIA: A. D. 323-316.

Being appointed guardian to the Kings, as the children and

relatives of Alexander were called, he returned to Macedonia,

leading them with him. … Antipater died (Olympiad 115, 3)

shortly after his return to Macedonia. He directed that

Polysperchon, his ancient mate in arms, should succeed him in

his office, while to his son Cassander he left only the second

place. But Cassander, an ambitious youth, looked upon his

father's authority as his inheritance; and relying on the aid

of the aristocratic party in the Grecian states, of Ptolemæus,

who ruled in Egypt, and of Antigonus, the most powerful

general in Asia, he resolved to dispute it with Polysperchon.

{1600}

Under pretext of going a-hunting, he escaped out of Macedonia,

and passed over to Asia to concert matters with Antigonus.

Polysperchon, seeing war inevitable, resolved to detach

Greece, if possible, from Cassander. Knowing that the

oligarchies established in the different states by Antipater

would be likely to espouse the cause of his son, he issued a

pompous edict, in the name of the Kings, restoring the

democracies. … At Athens (Olympiad 115,4) [B. C. 317],

Nicanor, who commanded in the Munychia, finding that the

people were inclined toward Polysperchon, secretly collected

troops, and seized the Piræeus. The people sent to him

Phocion, Conon the son of Timotheüs, and Clearchus, men of

distinction, and his friends; but to no purpose. A letter also

came to him from Olympias, Alexander's mother, whom

Polysperchon had recalled from Epeirus, and given the charge

of her infant grandson, ordering him to surrender both the

Munychia and the Piræeus; but to as little effect. Finally,

Polysperchon's son Alexander entered Attica with an army, and

encamped before the Piræeus. Phocion and other chiefs of the

aristocracy went to Alexander, and advised him not to give

these places up to the people, but to hold them himself till

the contest with Cassander should be terminated. They feared,

it is evident, for their own safety, and not without reason;

for the people, ferocious with the recovery of power, soon

after held an assembly, in which they deposed all the former

magistrates, appointed the most furious democrats in their

room, and passed sentences of death, banishment, and

confiscation of goods on those who had governed under the

oligarchy. Phocion and his friends fled to Alexander, who

received them kindly, and sent them with letters in their

favor to his father, who was now in Phocis. The Athenians also

despatched an embassy, and, yielding to motives of interest,

Polysperchon sent his suppliants prisoners to Athens, to stand

a trial for their lives before the tribunal of an anarchic

mob. … The prisoners were condemned and led off to prison,

followed by the tears of their friends and the triumphant

execrations of their mean-spirited enemies. They drank the

fatal hemlock-juice, and their bodies were cast unburied

beyond the confines of Attica. Four days after the death of

Phocion, Cassander arrived at the Piræeus with 35 ships,

carrying 4,000 men, given him by Antigonus. Polysperchon

immediately entered Attica with 20,000 Macedonian foot and

4,000 of those of the allies, 1,000 horse, and 65 elephants,

which he had brought from Asia, and encamped near the Piræeus.

But as the siege was likely to be tedious, and sufficient

provisions for so large an army could not be had, he left a

force such as the country could support with his son

Alexander, and passed with the remainder into Peloponnesus, to

force the Megalopolitans to submit to the Kings; for they

alone sided with Cassander, all the rest having obeyed the

directions to put to death or banish his adherents. The whole

serviceable population of Megalopolis, slaves included,

amounted to 15,000 men; and under the directions of one Damis,

who had served in Asia under Alexander, they prepared for a

vigorous defence. Polysperchon sat down before the town, and

his miners in a short time succeeded in throwing down three

towers and a part of the wall. He attempted a storm, but was

obliged to draw off his men, after an obstinate conflict. …

The Athenians meantime saw themselves excluded from the sea,

and from all their sources of profit and enjoyment, while

little aid was to be expected from Polysperchon, who had been

forced to raise the siege of Megalopolis, and whose fleet had

just now been destroyed by Antigonus in the Hellespont. A

citizen of some consideration ventured at length to propose in

the assembly an arrangement with Cassander. The ordinary

tumult at first was raised, but the sense of interest finally

prevailed. Peace was procured, on the conditions of the

Munychia remaining in Cassander's hands till the end of the

present contest; political privileges being restricted to

those possessed of ten minas and upwards of property, and a

person appointed by Cassander being at the head of the

government. The person selected for this office was Demetrius

of Phaleron, a distinguished Athenian citizen; and under his

mild and equitable rule the people were far happier than they

could have been under a democracy, for which they had proved

themselves no longer fit. Cassander then passed over into

Peloponnesus, and laid siege to Tegea. While here, he heard

that Olympias had put to death several of his friends in

Macedonia; among the rest, Philip Aridæus and his wife

Eurydice, members of the royal family. He at once (Olympiad

116, 1) [B. C. 316] set out for Macedonia; and, as the pass of

Pylæ was occupied by the Ætolians, he embarked his troops in

Locris, and landed them in Thessaly. He besieged Olympias in

Pydna, forced her to surrender, and put her to death.

Macedonia submitted to him, and he then set forth for

Peloponnesus, where Polysperchon's son Alexander was at the

head of an army. He forced a passage through Pylæ, and coming

into Bœotia, announced his intention of restoring Thebes,

which had now lain desolate for twenty years. The scattered

Thebans were collected; the towns of Bœotia and other parts of

Greece (Athens in particular), and even of Italy and Sicily,

aided to raise the walls and to supply the wants of the

returning exiles, and Thebes was once more numbered among the

cities of Greece. As Alexander guarded the Isthmus, Cassander

passed to Megara, where he embarked his troops and elephants,

and crossed over to Epidaurus. He made Argos and Messene come

over to his side, and then returned to Macedonia. In the

conflict of interests which prevailed in this anarchic period,

Antigonus was ere long among the enemies of Cassander. He sent

one of his generals to Laconia, who, having obtained

permission from the Spartans to recruit in Peloponnesus,

raised 8,000 men. The command in Peloponnesus was given to

Polysperchon, whose son Alexander was summoned over to Asia to

accuse Cassander of treason before the assembly of the

Macedonian soldiers. Cassander was proclaimed a public enemy

unless he submitted to Antigonus; at the same time the Greeks

were declared independent, Antigonus hoping thus to gain them

over to his side. He then sent Alexander back with 500

talents; and when Ptolemæus of Egypt heard what Antigonus had

done, he also hastened to declare the independence of the

Greeks; for all the contending generals were anxious to stand

well with the people of Greece, from which country, exclusive

of other advantages, they drew their best soldiers.

{1601}

… Antigonus, to show the Greeks that he was in earnest in

his promise to restore them to independence, sent one of his

generals, named Telesphorus, with a fleet and army to

Peloponnesus, who expelled Cassander's garrisons from most of

the towns. The following year (Olympiad 117, 1) [B. C. 312] he

sent an officer, named Ptolemæus, with another fleet and army

to Greece. Ptolemæus landed in Bœotia, and being joined by

2,200 foot, and 1,300 horse of the Bœotians, he passed over to

Eubœa; where having expelled the Macedonian garrison from

Chalcis (the only town there which Cassander held), he left it

without any foreign garrison, as a proof that Antigonus meant

fairly. He then took Orôpus, and gave it to the Bœotians; he

entered Attica, and the people forced Demetrius Phalereus to

make a truce with him, and to send to Antigonus to treat of an

alliance. Ptolemæus returned to Bœotia, expelled the garrison

from the Cadmeia, and liberated Thebes."

_T. Keightley,

History of Greece,

part 3, chapter 5._

ALSO IN:

_C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 58 (volume 7)._

GREECE: B. C. 307-197.

Demetrius and the Antigonids.

In the spring of the year 307 B. C. Athens was surprised by an

expedition sent from Ephesus by Antigonus, under his

adventurous son Demetrius, surnamed Poliorcetes.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301.

The city had then been for ten years subject to Cassander, the

ruling chief in Macedonia for the time, and appears to have

been mildly governed by Cassander's lieutenant, Demetrius the

Phalerian. The coming of the other Demetrius offered nothing

to the Athenians but a change of masters, but they welcomed

him with extravagant demonstrations. Their degeneracy was

shown in proceedings of Asiatic servility. They deified

Demetrius and his father Antigonus, erected altars to them and

appointed ministering priests. After some months spent at

Athens in the enjoyment of these adulations, Demetrius

returned to Asia, to take part in the war which Antigonus was

waging with Ptolemy of Egypt and Lysimachus of Thrace, two of

his former partners in the partition of the empire of

Alexander. He was absent three years, and then returned, at

the call of the Athenians, to save them from falling again

into the hands of Cassander. He now made Athens his capital,

as it were, for something more than a year, while he acquired

control of Corinth, Argos, Sicyon, Chalcis in Eubœa and other

important places, greatly reducing the dominion of the

Macedonian, Cassander. His treatment at Athens, during this

period, was marked by the same impious and disgraceful

servility as before. He was called the guest of the goddess

Athene and lodged in the Parthenon, which he polluted with

intolerable debaucheries. But in the summer of 301 B. C. this

clever adventurer was summoned again to Asia, to aid his

father in the last great struggle, which decided the partition

of the empire of Alexander between his self-constituted heirs.

At the battle of Ipsus (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301),

Antigonus perished and Demetrius was stripped of the kingdom

he expected to inherit. He turned to Athens for consolation,

and the fickle city refused to admit him within her walls. But

after some period of wanderings and adventures the

unconquerable prince got together a force with which he

compelled the Athenians to receive him, on more definite terms

of submission on their part and of mastery on his. Moreover,

he established his rule in the greater part of Peloponnesus,

and finally, on the death of Cassander (B. C. 297), he

acquired the crown of Macedonia. Not satisfied with what

fortune had thus given him, he attempted to recover the

Asiatic kingdom of his father, and died, B. C. 283, a captive

in the hands of the Syrian monarch, Seleucus. His Macedonian

kingdom had meantime been seized by Pyrrhus of Epirus; but it

was ultimately recovered by the eldest legitimate son of

Demetrius, called Antigonus Gonatus. From that time, for a

century, until the Romans came, not only Macedonia, but Greece

at large, Athens included, was ruled or dominated by this king

and his descendants, known as the Antigonid kings.

_C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapters 59-60 (volumes 7-8)._

GREECE: B. C. 297-280.

Death of Cassander.

Intrigues and murders of Ptolemy Keraunos and his strange

acquisition of the Macedonian throne.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280.

GREECE: B. C. 280-279.

Invasion by the Gauls.

See GAULS: B. C. 280-279.

GREECE: B. C. 280-275.

Campaigns of Pyrrhus in Italy and Sicily.

See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

GREECE: B. C. 3d Century.

The Hellenistic world.

As the result of the conquests of Alexander and the wars of

his successors, there were, in the third century before

Christ, three great Hellenistic kingdoms, Macedonia, Egypt,

Syria, which lasted, each under its own dynasty, till Rome

swallowed them up. The first of these, which was the poorest,

and the smallest, but historically the most important,

included the ancestral possessions of Philip and Alexander—

Macedonia, most of Thrace, 'Thessaly, the mountainous centre

of the peninsula, as well as a protectorate more or less

definite and absolute over Greece proper, the Cyclades, and

certain tracts of Caria. … Next came Egypt, including Cyrene

and Cyprus, and a general protectorate over the sea-coast

cities of Asia Minor up to the Black Sea, together with claims

often asserted with success on Syria, and on the coast lands

of Southern Asia Minor. … Thirdly came what was now called

Syria, on account of the policy of the house of Seleucus, who

built there its capital, and determined to make the Greek or

Hellenistic end of its vast dominions its political centre of

gravity. The Kingdom of Syria owned the south and south-east

of Asia Minor, Syria, and generally Palestine, Mesopotamia,

and the mountain provinces adjoining it on the East, with

vague claims further east when there was no king like

Sandracottus to hold India and the Punjaub with a strong hand.

There was still a large element of Hellenism in these remote

parts. The kingdom of Bactria was ruled by a dynasty of kings

with Greek names—Euthydemus is the chief—who coined in Greek

style, and must therefore have regarded themselves as

successors to Alexander. There are many exceptions and

limitations to this general description, and many secondary

and semi-independent kingdoms, which make the picture of

Hellenism infinitely various and complicated. There was, in

fact, a chain of independent kingdoms reaching from Media to

Sparta, all of which asserted their complete freedom, and

generally attained it by balancing the great powers one

against the other.

{1602}

Here they are in their order. Atropatene was the kingdom in

the northern and western parts of the province of Media, by

Atropates, the satrap of Alexander, who claimed descent from

the seven Persian chiefs who put Darius I. on the throne. Next

came Armenia, hardly conquered by Alexander, and now

established under a dynasty of its own. Then Cappadocia, the

land in the heart of Asia Minor, where it narrows between

Cilicia and Pontus, ruled by sovereigns also claiming royal

Persian descent. … Fourthly, Pontus, under its equally

Persian dynast Mithridates—a kingdom which makes a great

figure in Eastern history under the later Roman Republic.

There was moreover a dynast of Bithynia, set up and supported

by the robber state of the Celtic Galatians, which had just

been founded, and was a source of strength and of danger to

all its neighbours. Then Pergamum, just being founded and

strengthened by the first Attalid, Philetærus, an officer of

Lysimachus, and presently to become one of the leading

exponents of Hellenism. … Almost all these second-rate

states (and with them the free Greek cities of Heracleia,

Cyzicus, Byzantium, &c.) were fragments of the shuttered

kingdom of Lysimachus. … We have taken no account of a very

peculiar feature extending all through even the Greek

kingdoms, especially that of the Selucids—the number of large

Hellenistic cities founded as special centres of culture, or

points of defence, and organized as such with a certain local

independence. These cities, most of which we only know by

name, were the real backbone of Hellenism in the world.

Alexander had founded seventy of them, all called by his name.

Many were upon great trade lines, like the Alexandria which

still exists. Many were intended as garrison towns in the

centre of remote provinces, like Candahar—a corruption of

Iskanderieh, Iskendar being the Oriental form for Alexander.

Some were mere outposts, where Macedonian soldiers were forced

to settle, and guard the frontiers against the barbarians,

like the Alexandria on the Iaxartes. … As regards Seleucus

… we have a remarkable statement from Appian that he founded

cities through the length and breadth of his kingdom, viz.,

sixteen Antiochs called after his father, five Laodiceas after

his mother, nine Seleucias after himself, three Apameias and

one Stratoniceia after his wives. … All through Syria and

Upper Asia there are many towns bearing Greek and Macedonian

names—Berea, Edessa, Perinthos, Aclæa, Pella, &c. The number

of these, which have been enumerated in a special catalogue by

Droysen, the learned historian of Hellenism, is enormous, and

the first question which arises in our mind is this: where

were Greek-speaking people found to fill them? It is indeed

true that Greece proper about this time became depopulated,

and that it never has recovered from this decay. … Yet …

the whole population of Greece would never have sufficed for

one tithe of the cities—the great cities—founded all over

Asia by the Diadochi. We are therefore driven to the

conclusion that but a small fraction, the soldiers and

officials of the new cities, were Greeks—Macedonians, when

founded by Alexander himself—generally broken down veterans,

mutinous and discontented troops, and camp followers. To these

were associated people from the surrounding country, it being

Alexander's fixed idea to discountenance sporadic country life

in villages and encourage town communities. The towns

accordingly received considerable privileges. … The Greek

language and political habits were thus the one bond of union

among them, and the extraordinary colonizing genius of the

Greek once more proved itself."

_J. P. Mahaffy,

The Story of Alexander's Empire,

chapter 10._

See, also,

HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE.

GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

The Achaian League.

Its rise and fall.

Destruction of Sparta.

Supremacy of Rome.

The Achaian League, which bore a leading part in the affairs

of Greece during the last half of the third and first half of

the second century before Christ, was in some sense the

revival of a more ancient confederacy among the cities of

Achaia in Peloponnesus. The older League, however, was

confined to twelve cities of Achaia and had little weight,

apparently, in general Hellenic politics. The revived League

grew beyond the territorial boundaries which were indicated by

its name, and embraced the larger part of Peloponnesus. It

began about 280 B. C. by the forming of a union between the

two Achaian cities of Patrai and Dyme. One by one their

neighbors joined them, until ten cities were confederated and

acting as one. "The first years of the growth of the Achaian

League are contemporary with the invasion of Macedonia and

Greece by the Gauls and with the wars between Pyrrhos and

Antigonos Gonatas.

See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 277-244.

Pyrrhos, for a moment, expelled Antigonos from the Macedonian

throne, which Antigonos recovered while' Pyrrhos was warring

in Peloponnesos. By the time that Pyrrhos was dead, and

Antigonos again firmly fixed in Macedonia, the League had

grown up to maturity as far as regarded the cities of the old

Achaia. … Thus far, then, circumstances had favoured the

quiet and peaceful growth of the League." It had had the

opportunity to grow firm enough and strong enough, on the

small scale, to offer some lessons to its disunited and

tyrannized neighbors and to exercise an attractive influence

upon them. One of the nearest of these neighbors was Sikyon,

which groaned under a tyranny that had been fastened upon it

by Macedonian influence. Among the exiles from Sikyon was a

remarkable young man named Aratos, or Aratus, to whom the

successful working of the small Achaian League suggested some

broader extension of the same political organism. In B. C.

251, Aratos succeeded in delivering his native city from its

tyrant and in bringing about the annexation of Sikyon to the

Achaian League. Eight years later, having meantime been

elected to the chief office of the League, Aratos accomplished

the expulsion of the Macedonians and their agents from

Corinth, Megara, Troizen and Epidauros, and persuaded those

four cities to unite themselves with the Achaians. During the

next ten years he made similar progress in Arkadia, winning

town after town to the federation, until the Arkadian federal

capital, Megalopolis, was enrolled in the list of members, and

gave to the League its greatest acquisition of energy and

brain. In 229 B. C. the skill of Aratos and the prestige of

the League, taking advantage of disturbances in Macedonia,

effected the withdrawal of the Macedonian garrisons from

Athens and the liberation of that city, which did not become

confederated with its liberators, but entered into alliance

with them. Argos was emancipated and annexed, B. C. 228, and

"the League was now the greatest power of Greece.

{1603}

A Federation of equal cities, democratically governed,

embraced the whole of old Achaia, the whole of the Argolic

peninsula, the greater part of Arkadia, together with Phlious,

Sikyon, Corinth, Megara, and the island of Aigina." The one

rival of the Achaian League in Peloponnesus was Sparta, which

looked with jealousy upon its growing power, and would not be

confederated with it. The consequences of that jealous rivalry

were fatal to the hopes for Greece which the Achaian union had

seemed to revive. Unfortunately, rather than otherwise, the

Lacedæmonian throne came to be occupied at this time by the

last of the hero-kings of the Herakleid race—Kleomenes. When

the inevitable collision of war between Sparta and the League

occurred (B. C. 227-221), the personal figure of Kleomenes

loomed so large in the conflict that it took the name of the

Kleomenic War. Aratos was the worst of generals, Kleomenes one

of the greatest, and the Achaians were steadily beaten in the

field. Driven to sore straits at last, they abandoned the

whole original purpose of their federation, by inviting the

king of Macedonia to help them crush the independence of

Sparta. To win his aid they gave up Corinth to him, and under

his leadership they achieved the shameful victory of Sellasia

(B. C. 221), where all that is worthy in Lacedæmonian history

came to an end. The League was now scarcely more than a

dependency of the Macedonian kingdom, and figured as such in

the so-called Social War with the Ætolian League, B. C.

219-217. The wars of Rome with Macedonia which followed

renewed its political importance considerably for a time.

Becoming the ally of Rome, it was able to maintain a certain

dignity and influence until the supremacy of the Roman arms

had been securely proved, and then it sank to the helpless

insignificance which all Roman alliances led to in the end. It

was in that state when, on some complaint from Rome (B. C.

167), a thousand of the chief citizens of Achaia were sent as

prisoners to Italy and detained there until less than 300

survived to return to their homes. Among them was the

historian Polybios. A little later (B. C. 146) there was a

wild revolt from the Roman yoke, in which Corinth took the

lead. A few months of war ensued, ending in a decisive battle

at Leukopetra. Then Corinth was sacked and destroyed by the

Roman army and the Achaian League disappeared from history.

_E. A. Freeman,

History of Federal Government,

chapters 5-9._

ALSO IN:

_C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapters 61-66 (volume 8)._

_Polybius,

History._

GREECE: B. C. 214-146.

The Roman conquest.

The series of wars in which the Romans made themselves masters

of Greece were known in their annals as the Macedonian Wars.

At the beginning, they were innocent of aggression. A young

and ambitious but unprincipled king of Macedonia—Philip, who

succeeded the able Antigonos Doson—had put himself in

alliance with the Carthaginians and assailed the Romans in the

midst of their desperate conflict with Hannibal. For the time

they were unable to do more than trouble Philip so far as to

prevent his bringing effective reinforcements to the enemy at

their doors, and this they accomplished in part by a treaty

with the Ætolians, which enlisted that unscrupulous league

upon their side. The first Macedonian war, which began B. C.

214, was terminated by the Peace of Dyrrachium, B. C. 205. The

Peace was of five years duration, and Philip employed it in

reckless undertakings against Pergamus, against Rhodes,

against Athens, everyone of which carried complaints to Rome,

the rising arbiter of the Mediterranean world, whose hostility

Philip lost no opportunity to provoke. On the Ides of March,

B. C. 200, the Roman senate declared war. In the spring of B.

C. 197 this second Macedonian War was ended at the battle of

Cynoscephalæ—so called from the name of a range of hills

known as the Dog-heads—where the Macedonian army was

annihilated by the consul T. Quinctius Flamininus. At the next

assembly of the Greeks for the Isthmian Games, a crier made

proclamation in the arena that the Roman Senate and T.

Quinctius the General, having conquered King Philip and the

Macedonians, declared all the Greeks who had been subject to

the king free and independent. Henceforth, whatever freedom

and independence the states of Greece enjoyed were according

to the will of Rome. An interval of twenty-five years, broken

by the invasion of Antiochus and his defeat by the Romans at

Thermopylæ (see SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187), was followed by a

third Macedonian War. Philip was now dead and succeeded by his

son Perseus, known to be hostile to Rome and accused of

intrigues with her enemies. The Roman Senate forestalled his

intentions by declaring war. The war which opened B. C. 171

was closed by the battle of Pydna, fought June 22, B. C. 168,

where 20,000 Macedonians were slain and 11,000 taken

prisoners, while the Romans lost scarcely 100 men. Perseus

attempted flight, but was soon driven to give himself up and

was sent to Rome. The Macedonian kingdom was then extinguished

and its territory divided between four nominal republics,

tributary to Rome. Twenty years after, there was an attempt

made by a pretender to re-establish the Macedonian throne, and

a fourth Macedonian War occurred; but it was soon finished (B.

C. 146—see above, B. C. 280-146). The four republics then

gave way, to form a Roman province of Macedonia and Epirus,

while the remainder of Greece, in turn, became the Roman

province of Achaia.

_C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapters 64-66 (volume 8)._

ALSO IN:

_H. G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

chapters 39, 43 and 45._

_E. A. Freeman,

History of Federal Government,

chapters 8-9._

_Polybius,

General History._

GREECE: B. C. 191.

War of Antiochus of Syria and the Romans.

See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

GREECE: B. C. 146-A. D. 180.

Under the Romans, to the reign of Marcus Aurelius.

Sufferings in the Mithridatic war and revolt,

and in the Roman civil wars.

Treatment by the emperors.

Munificence of Herodes Atticus.

"It was some time [after the Roman conquest] before the Greeks

had great reason to regret their fortune. A combination of

causes, which could hardly have entered into the calculations

of any politician, enabled them to preserve their national

institutions, and to exercise all their former social

influence, even after the annihilation of their political

existence. Their vanity was flattered by their admitted

superiority in arts and literature, and by the respect paid to

their usages and prejudices by the Romans. Their political

subjection was at first not very burdensome; and a

considerable portion of the nation was allowed to retain the

appearance of independence.

{1604}

Athens and Sparta were honoured with the title of allies of

Rome. [Athens retained this independent existence, partaking

something of the position of Hamburg in the Germanic body,

until the time of Caracalla, when its citizens were absorbed

into the Roman empire.—Footnote.] The nationality of the

Greeks was so interwoven with their municipal institutions,

that the Romans found it impossible to abolish the local

administration; and an imperfect attempt made at the time of

the conquest of Achaia was soon abandoned. … The Roman

senate was evidently not without great jealousy and some fear

of the Greeks; and great prudence was displayed in adopting a

number of measures by which they were gradually weakened, and

cautiously broken to the yoke of their conquerors. … It was

not until after the time of Augustus, when the conquest of

every portion of the Greek nation had been completed, that the

Romans began to view the Greeks in the contemptible light in

which they are represented by the writers of the capital.

Crete was not reduced into the form of a province until about

eight years after the subjection of Achaia, and its conquest

was not effected without difficulty, after a war of three

years, by the presence of a consular army. The resistance it

offered was so obstinate that it was almost depopulated ere

the Romans could complete its conquest. … The Roman

government … soon adopted measures tending to diminish the

resources of the Greek states when received as allies of the

republic. … If we could place implicit faith in the

testimony of so firm and partial an adherent of the Romans as

Polybius, we must believe that the Roman administration was at

first characterised by a love of justice, and that the Roman

magistrates were far less venal than the Greeks. … Less than

a century of irresponsible power effected a wonderful change

in the conduct of the Roman magistrates. Cicero declares that

the senate made a traffic of justice to the provincials. …

But as the government of Rome grew more oppressive, and the

amount of the taxes levied on the provinces was more severely

exacted, the increased power of the republic rendered any

rebellion of the Greeks utterly hopeless. … For sixty years

after the conquest of Achaia, the Greeks remained docile

subjects of Rome. … The number of Roman usurers increased,

and the exactions of Roman publicans in collecting the taxes

became more oppressive, so that when the army of Mithridates

invaded Greece, B. C. 86, while Rome appeared plunged in

anarchy by the civil broils of the partisans of Marius and

Sylla, the Greeks in office conceived the vain hope of

recovering their independence. …

See MITHRIDATIC WARS;

and ATHENS: B. C. 87-86.

Both parties, during the Mithridatic war, inflicted severe

injuries on Greece. … Many of the losses were never

repaired. The foundations of national prosperity were

undermined, and it henceforward became impossible to save from

the annual consumption of the inhabitants the sums necessary

to replace the accumulated capital of ages, which this short

war had annihilated."

_G. Finlay,

Greece under the Romans,

chapter 1._

"Scarcely had the storm of Roman war passed by, when the

Cilician pirates, finding the coasts of Greece peculiarly

favorable for their marauding incursions, and tempted by the

wealth accumulated in the cities and temples, commenced their

depredations on so gigantic a scale that Rome felt obliged to

put forth all her military forces for their suppression. The

exploits of Pompey the Great, who was clothed with autocratic

power to destroy this gigantic evil, fill the brightest

chapter in the history of that celebrated but too unfortunate

commander. …

See CILICIA, PIRATES OF.

The civil wars in which the great Republic expired had the

fields of Greece for their theatre. Under the tramp of

contending armies, her fertile plains were desolated, and

Roman blood, in a cause not her own; again and again moistened

her soil.

See ROME: B. C. 48, 44-42, and 31.

But at length the civil wars have come to an end, and the

Empire introduces, for the first time in the melancholy

history of man, a state of universal peace. Greece still

maintains her pre-eminence in literature and art, and her

schools are frequented by the sons of the Roman aristocracy.

Her elder poets serve as models to the literary genius of the

Augustan age. … The historians form themselves on Attic

prototypes, and the philosophers of Rome divide themselves

among the Grecian sects, while in Athens the Platonists, the

Stoics, the Peripatetics, and the Epicureans still haunt the

scenes with which the names of their masters were inseparably

associated. … The establishment of the Empire made but

little change in the administration of Greece. Augustus,

indeed, showed no great solicitude, except to maintain the

country in subjection by his military colonies,—especially

those of Patræ and Nicopolis. He even deprived Athens of the

privileges she had enjoyed under the Republic, and broke down

the remaining power of Sparta, by declaring the independence

of her subject towns. Some of his successors treated the

country with favor, and endeavored, by a clement use of

authority, to mitigate the sufferings of its decline. Even

Nero, the amiable fiddler of Rome, was proud to display the

extent of his musical abilities in their theatres. … The

noble Trajan allowed the Greeks to retain their former local

privileges, and did much to improve their condition by his

wise and just administration. Hadrian was a passionate lover

of Greek art and literature. Athens especially received the

amplest benefits from his taste and wealth. He finished the

temple of Olympian Zeus; established a public library; built a

pantheon and a gymnasium; rebuilt the temple of Apollo at

Megara; improved the old roads of Greece and made new ones.

… Antoninus and Marcus Aurelius showed good will to Greece.

The latter rebuilt the temple at Eleusis, and improved the

Athenian schools, raising the salaries of the teachers, and in

various ways contributing to make Athens, as it had been

before, the most illustrious seat of learning in the world. It

was in the reign of this Emperor, in the second century of our

era, that one of the greatest benefactors of Athens and all

Greece lived,--Herodes Atticus, distinguished alike for

wealth, learning, and eloquence. Born at Marathon, …

educated at Athens by the best teachers his father's wealth

could procure, he became on going to Rome, in early life, the

rhetorical teacher of Marcus Aurelius himself. Antoninus Pius

bestowed on him the honor of the consulship; but he preferred

the career of a teacher at Athens to the highest political

dignities … , and he was followed thither by young men of

the most eminent Roman families, from the Emperor's down. …

{1605}

At Athens, south of the Ilissus, he built the stadium … and

the theatre of Regilla. … At Corinth he built a theatre; at

Olympia, an aqueduct; at Delphi, a race-course; and at

Thermopylæ, a hospital. Peloponnesus, Eubœa, Bœotia, and

Epeirus experienced his bounty, and even Italy was not

forgotten in the lavish distribution of his wealth. He died in

A. D. 180."

_C. C. Felton,

Greece, Ancient and Modern, 4th course,

lecture 3 (volume 2)._

On the influence which Greek genius and culture exercised upon

the Romans,

See HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE.

ALSO IN:

_T. Mommsen,

History of Rome: The Provinces,

chapter 7 (volume 1)._

_J. P. Mahaffy,

The Greek World under Roman Sway._

See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 197-A. D. 138.

GREECE: B. C. 48.

Cæsar's campaign against Pompeius.

Pharsalia.

See ROME: B. C. 48.

GREECE: A. D. 258-395.

Gothic invasions.

See GOTHS.

GREECE: A. D. 330.

Transference of the capital of the Roman Empire to Byzantium

(Constantinople).

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 330.

GREECE: A. D. 394-395.

Final division of the Roman Empire between the sons of

Theodosius.

Definite organization of the Eastern Empire under Arcadius.

See ROME: A. D. 394-395.

GREECE: A. D. 425.

Legal separation of the Eastern and Western Empires.

See Rome: A. D. 423-450.

GREECE: A. D. 446.

Devastating invasion of the Huns.

See HUNS: A. D. 441-446.

GREECE: A. D. 527-567.

The reign of Justinian at Constantinople.

His recovery of Italy and Africa.

See ROME: A. D. 527-567, and 535-553.

GREECE: 7th Century.

Slavonic occupation of the Peninsula.

See SLAVONIC PEOPLES: 6TH AND 7TH CENTURIES.

GREECE: A. D. 717-1205.

The Byzantine Empire to its fall.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 717, to 1204-1205.

GREECE: A. D. 1205-1261.

Overthrow of the Byzantine Empire by the Crusaders.

The Latin Empire of Romania.

The Greek Empire of Nicæa.

The dukedoms of Athens and Naxos;

The principality of Achaia.

See ROMANIA; GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA;

ATHENS: A. D.1205;

ACHAIA: A. D. 1205-1387;

and NAXOS.

GREECE: A. D. 1261-1453.

The restored Byzantine or Greek Empire.

See CONSTANTINOPLE; A. D. 1261-1453;

and BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1261-1453.

GREECE: A. D. 1453-1479.

The Turkish Conquest.

See TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481;

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1453, and 1453-1481;

and ATHENS: A. D. 1456.

GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.

War of Turks and Venetians in the Peninsula.

Siege of Corinth.

Sack of Athens.

Massacres at Negropont and Croia.

"The taking of Constantinople by the Turks, and the captivity

of the Venetians settled in Pera, threatened [the power of

Venice] … in the East; and she felt no repugnance to enter

into a treaty with the enemies of her religion. After a year's

negotiation, terms were concluded [1454] between the Sultan

and Venice; by which her possessions were secured to her, and

her trade guaranteed throughout the empire. In virtue of this

treaty she continued to occupy Modon, Coron, Napoli di

Romania, Argos, and other cities on the borders of the

Peninsula, together with Eubœa (Negropont) and some of the

smaller islands. But this good understanding was interrupted

in 1463, when the Turks contrived an excuse for attacking the

Venetian territory. Under pretence of resenting the asylum

afforded to a Turkish refugee, the Pasha of the Morea besieged

and captured Argos; and the Republic felt itself compelled

immediately to resent the aggression. A re-inforcement was

sent from Venice to Napoli, and Argos was quickly recaptured.

Corinth was next besieged, and the project of fortifying the

isthmus was once more renewed. … The labour of 30,000

workmen accomplished the work in 15 days; a stone wall of more

than 12 feet high, defended by a ditch and flanked by 136

towers, was drawn across the isthmus. … But the approach

of the Turks, whose numbers were probably exaggerated by

report, threw the Venetians into distrust and consternation;

and, unwilling to confide in the strength of their rampart,

they abandoned the siege of Corinth, and retreated to Napoli,

from which the infidels were repulsed with the loss of 5,000

men. The Peloponnesus was now exposed to the predatory

retaliations of the Turks and Venetians; and the Christians

appeared anxious to rival or surpass the Mahomedans in the

refinement of their barbarous inflictions. … In the year

1465, Sigismondo Malatesta landed in the Morea with a

re-inforcement of 1,000 men; and, without effecting the

reduction of the citadel, captured and burned Misitra [near

the ruins of ancient Sparta]. In the following year, Vittore

Cappello, with the Venetian fleet, arrived in the straits of

Euripus; and landing at Aulis marched into Attica. After

making himself master of the Piræus, he laid siege to Athens;

her walls were overthrown; her inhabitants plundered; and the

Venetians retreated with the spoil to the opposite shores of

Eubœa. The victorious career of Matthias Corvinus, King of

Hungary, for a time diverted the Sultan from the war in the

Morea; but … in the beginning of the year 1470 a fleet of

108 gallies, besides a number of smaller vessels, manned by a

force 70,000 strong, issued from the harbour of

Constantinople, and sailed for the straits of Euripus. … The

army landed without molestation on the island, which they

united to the mainland by a bridge of boats, and immediately

proceeded to lay siege to the city of Negropont. … The hopes

of the besieged were now centred in the Venetian fleet, which,

under the command of Nicolo Canale, lay at anchor in the

Saronic Gulf. But that admiral, whilst he awaited a

re-inforcement, let slip the favourable opportunity of

preventing the debarcation of the enemy, or of shutting up the

Turks in the island by the destruction of their half-deserted

fleet and bridge of boats. By an unaccountable inactivity, he

suffered the city to be attacked, which, after a vigorous

resistance of nearly a month, was carried by assault [July 12,

1470]; and all the inhabitants, who did not escape into the

citadel, were put to the sword. At length that fortress was

also taken; and the barbarous conqueror, who had promised to

respect the head of the intrepid governor, deemed it no

violation of his word to saw his victim in halves. After this

decisive blow, which reduced the whole island, Mahomed led

back his conquering army to Constantinople. … This success

encouraged the Turks to attack the Venetians in their Italian

territory; and the Pasha of Bosnia invaded Istria and Friuli,

and carried fire and sword almost to the gates of Udine.

{1606}

In the following year [1474], however, the Turks were baffled

in their attempt to reduce Scutari in Albania, which had been

delivered by the gallant Scanderbeg to the guardian care of

Venice. Some abortive negotiations for peace suspended

hostilities until 1477, when the troops of Mahomed laid siege

to Croia in Albania, which they reduced to the severest

distress. But a new incursion into Friuli struck a panic into

the inhabitants of Venice, who beheld, from the tops of their

churches and towers, the raging flames which devoured the

neighbouring villages." The Turks, however, withdrew into

Albania, where the siege of Croia was terminated by its

surrender and the massacre of its inhabitants, and the Sultan,

in person, renewed the attack on Scutari. The stubborn

garrison of that stronghold, however, resisted, with fearful

slaughter, a continuous assault made upon their walls during

two days and a night. Mahomed was forced to convert the siege

into a blockade, and his troops reappeared in Friuli. "These

repeated aggressions on her territories made Venice every day

more anxious to conclude a peace with the Sultan," and a

treaty was signed in April, 1479. "It was agreed that the

islands of Negropont and Mitylene, with the cities of Croia

and Scutari in Albania, and of Tenaro in the Morea, should be

consigned to the Turk; whilst other conquests were to be

reciprocally restored to their former owners. A tribute of

10,000 ducats was imposed upon Venice, and the inhabitants of

Scutari [now reduced to 500 men and 150 women] were to be

permitted to evacuate the city."

_Sir R. Comyn,

History of the Western Empire,

chapter 31 (volume 2)._

ALSO IN:

_Sir E. S. Creasy,

History of the Ottoman Turks,

chapter 5._

GREECE: A. D. 1645-1669.

The war of Candia.

Surrender of Crete to the Turks by the Venetians.

See TURKS: A. D. 1645-1669.

GREECE: A. D. 1684-1696.

Conquests by the Venetians from the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

GREECE: A. D. 1699.

Cession of part of the Morea to Venice by the Turks.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

GREECE: A. D. 1714-1718.

The Venetians expelled again from the Morea by the Turks.

Corfu defended.

See TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.

GREECE: A. D. 1770-1772.

Revolt against the Turkish rule.

Russian encouragement and desertion.

See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

Overthrow of Turkish rule.

Intervention of Russia, England and France.

Battle of Navarino.

Establishment of national independence.

"The Spanish revolution of 1820 [see SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827],

which was speedily followed by the revolutions of Naples,

Sicily, and Piedmont, caused a great excitement throughout

Europe, and paved the way for the Greek revolution of 1821.

Since the beginning of the century the Greeks had been

preparing for the struggle; in fact, for more than fifty years

there had been a general movement in the direction of

independence. … There had been many insurrections against

the Turkish authority, but they were generally suppressed

without difficulty, though with the shedding of much Greek

blood. Nearly every village in Greece suffered from pillage by

the Turks, and the families were comparatively few that did

not mourn a father, son, or brother, killed by the Turks or

carried into slavery, or a daughter or sister transported to a

Turkish harem. … Notwithstanding their subjugation, many of

the Greeks were commercially prosperous, and a large part of

the traffic of the East was in their hands. They conducted

nearly all the coasting trade of the Levant, and a few years

before the revolution they had 600 vessels mounting 6,000 guns

(for defence against pirates) and manned by 18,000 seamen. …

In laying their plans for independence the Greeks resorted to

the formation of secret societies, and so well was the scheme

conducted that everything was ripe for insurrection before the

Turkish rulers had any suspicion of the state of affairs. A

great association was formed which included Greeks everywhere,

not only in Greece and its islands, but in Constantinople,

Austria, Germany, England, and other countries, wherever a

Greek could be found. Men of other nationalities were

occasionally admitted, but only when their loyalty to the

Greek cause was beyond question, and their official positions

gave them a chance to aid in the work. Several distinguished

Russians were members, among them Count Capo D'Istria, a Greek

by birth, who held the office of private secretary to the

Emperor Alexander I. of Russia. The society was known as the

Hetaira, or Hetairist, and consisted of several degrees or

grades. The highest contained only sixteen persons, whose

names were not all known, and it was impossible for any member

of the lower classes to ascertain them. … All the Hetairists

looked hopefully towards Russia, partly in consequence of

their community of religion, and partly because of the

fellow-feeling of the two countries in cordially detesting the

Turk. … The immediate cause of the revolution, or rather the

excuse for it, was the death of the Hospodar of Wallachia,

January 30, 1821, followed by the appointment of his

successor. During the interregnum, which naturally left the

government in a weakened condition, the Hetairists determined

to strike their blow for liberty. A band of 150 Greeks and

Arnauts, under the command of Theodore Vladimiruko, formerly a

lieutenant-colonel in the Russian service, marched out of

Bucharest and seized the small town of Czernitz, near Trajan's

Bridge, on the Danube. There Theodore issued a proclamation,

and such was the feeling of discontent among the people, that

in a few days he had a force of 12,000 men under his command.

Soon afterwards there was an insurrection in Jassy, the

capital of Moldavia, headed by Prince Alexander Ipsilanti, an

officer in the Russian service. He issued a proclamation in

which the aid of Russia was distinctly promised, and as the

news of this proclamation was carried to Greece, there was a

general movement in favor of insurrection. The Russian

minister assured the Porte that his government had nothing to

do with the insurrection, and the Patriarch and Synod of

Constantinople issued a proclamation emphatically denouncing

the movement, but in spite of this assurance and proclamation

the insurrection went on. Count Nesselrode declared officially

that Ipsilanti's name would be stricken from the Russian army

list, and that his act was one for which he alone was

responsible. This announcement was the death-blow of the

insurrection in Moldavia and Wallachia, as the forces of

Theodore and Ipsilanti were suppressed, after some sharp

fighting, by the hordes of Moslems that were brought against

them. … Nearly the whole of Greece was in full insurrection

in a few months, and with far better prospects than had the

insurrection on the Danube.

{1607}

Turks and Greeks were embittered against each other; the

war-cry of the Turk was, 'Death to the Christian!' while that

of the Christian was, 'Death to the Turk!' The example was set

by the Turks, and, to the eternal disgrace of the Turkish

government, slaughter in cold blood was made official. It was

by the order and authority of the Porte that Gregory,

Patriarch of Constantinople, a revered prelate, eighty years

of age, was seized on Easter Sunday, as he was descending from

the altar where he had been celebrating divine service, and

hanged at the gate of his archiepiscopal palace, amid the

shouts and howls of a Moslem mob. After hanging three hours,

the body was cut down and delivered to some Jews, who dragged

it about the streets and threw it into the sea, whence it was

recovered the same night by some Christian fishermen. Some

weeks later it was taken to Odessa and buried with great

ceremony. This act of murder was the more atrocious on the

part of the Turks, since the Patriarch had denounced the

insurrection in a public proclamation, and his life and

character were most blameless and exemplary. It is safe to say

that this barbarity had more to do with fanning the fires of

revolt than any other act of the Turkish government. But it

was by no means the only act of the kind of which the Turks

were guilty. The Patriarch of Adrianople with eight of his

ecclesiastics was beheaded, and so were the dragoman of the

Porte and several other eminent residents of Constantinople,

descended from Greek settlers of two or three centuries ago.

Churches were everywhere broken open and plundered; Greek

citizens of the highest rank were murdered, their property

stolen, and their wives and daughters sold as slaves; on the

15th of June five archbishops and a great number of laymen

were hanged in the streets, and 450 mechanics were sold and

transported into slavery; at Salonica the battlements of the

town were lined with Christian heads, from which the blood ran

down and discolored the water in the ditch. In all the great

towns of the empire there were similar atrocities; some were

the work of mobs, which the authorities did not seek to

restrain, but the greater part of them were ordered by the

governors or other officials, and met the approval of the

Porte. At Smyrna, the Christian population was massacred by

thousands without regard to age or sex, and in the island of

Cyprus a body of 10,000 troops sent by the Porte ravaged the

island, executed the metropolitan, five bishops, and

thirty-six other ecclesiastics, and converted the whole island

into a scene of rapine, bloodshed, and robbery. Several

thousand Christians were killed before the atrocities ceased,

and hundreds of their wives and daughters were carried into

Turkish harems. These and similar outrages plainly told the

Greeks that no hope remained except in complete independence

of the Turks, and from one end of Greece to the other the

fires of insurrection were everywhere lighted. The islands, as

well as the mainland, were in full revolt, and the fleet of

coasting vessels, nearly all of them armed for resisting

pirates, gave the Turks a great deal of trouble. … On the

land, battle followed battle in different parts of the

country, and the narration of the events of the insurrection

would fill a bulky volume. … During the latter part of 1821,

the advantages to the Greeks were sufficient to encourage them

to proclaim their independence, which was done in January,

1822. In the same month the Turks besieged Corinth, and in the

following April they besieged and captured Chios (Scio),

ending the capture with the slaughter of 40,000 inhabitants,

the most horrible massacre of modern times. In July, the

Greeks were victorious at Thermopylæ; in the same month

Corinth fell, with great slaughter of the defenders. In April,

1823, the Greeks held a national congress at Argos; the

victories of Marco Bozzaris occurred in the following June,

and in August he was killed in a night attack upon the Turkish

camp; in August, too, Lord Byron landed at Athens to take part

in the cause of Greece, which was attracting the attention of

the whole civilized world. The first Greek loan was issued in

England in February, 1824; Lord Byron died at Missolonghi in

the following April; in August the Capitan Pasha was defeated

at Samos with heavy loss; in October, the provisional

government of Greece was set up; and the fighting became

almost continuous in the mountain districts of Greece. In

February, 1825, Ibrahim Pasha arrived with a powerful army

from Egypt, which captured Navarino in May, and Tripolitza in

June of the same year. In July, the provisional government

invoked the aid of England; in the following April (1826),

Ibrahim Pasha took Missolonghi after a long and heroic defence

[for twelve months]; and nearly a year later Reschid Pasha

captured Athens. Down to the beginning of 1826, the Greeks had

felt seriously the deprivation of Russian sympathy and aid for

which they had been led to look before the revolution. The

death of Alexander I., and the accession of Nicholas in

December, 1825, caused a change in the situation. The British

government sent the Duke of Wellington to St. Petersburg

ostensibly to congratulate Nicholas on his elevation to the

throne, but really to secure concert of action in regard to

Greece. On the 4th of April a protocol was signed by the Duke

of Wellington, Prince Lieven, and Count Nesselrode, which may

be considered the foundation of Greek independence. Out of

this protocol grew the treaty of July 6, 1827, between

England, Russia, and France, by which it was stipulated that

those nations should mediate between the contending Greeks and

Turks. They proposed to the Sultan that he should retain a

nominal authority over the Greeks, but receive from them a

fixed annual tribute. … The Sultan … refused to listen to

the scheme of mediation, and immediately made preparations for

a fresh campaign, and also for the defence of Turkey in case

of an attack. Ships and reinforcements were sent from

Constantinople, and the Egyptian fleet, consisting of two

84-gun ships, twelve frigates, and forty-one transports, was

despatched from Alexandria with 5,000 troops, and reached

Navarino towards the end of August, 1827. The allied powers

had foreseen the possibility of the Porte's refusal of

mediation, and taken measures accordingly; an English fleet

under Admiral Sir Edward Codrington, and a French fleet under

Admiral De Rigny, were in the Mediterranean, and were shortly

afterwards joined by the Russian fleet under Admiral Heiden.

… The allied admirals held a conference, and decided to

notify Ibrahim Pasha that he must stop the barbarities of

plundering and burning villages and slaughtering their

inhabitants.

{1608}

But Ibrahim would not listen to their remonstrances, and to

show his utter disregard for the powers, he commanded four of

his ships to sail to the Gulf of Patras to occupy Missolonghi

and relieve some Turkish forts, in effect to clear those

waters of every Greek man-of-war which was stationed there.

This he did easily, the allied squadrons being temporarily

absent. Admiral Codrington pursued him and, without

difficulty, drove him back to Navarino. … A general muster

of all the ships was ordered by Admiral Codrington,

Commander-in-Chief of the squadron. … The allied fleet

mounted 1,324 guns, while the combined Turkish and Egyptian

fleet mounted 2,240 guns. To this superiority in the number of

guns on board must be added the batteries on shore, which were

all in the hands of the Turks. But the Christians had a point

in their favor in their superiority in ships of the line, of

which they possessed ten, while the Turks had but three. …

The allied fleet entered the Bay of Navarino about two o'clock

on the afternoon of October 20, 1827. … In less than four

hours from the beginning of the contest the Ottoman fleet had

ceased to be. Every armed ship was burnt, sunk, or destroyed;

the only remaining vessels belonging to the Turks and

Egyptians were twenty-five of the smallest transports, which

were spared by order of Admiral Codrington. It was estimated

that the loss in men on the Turkish and Egyptian vessels was

fully 7,000. On the side of the allies, no vessels were

destroyed, but the Asia, Albion, and Genoa of the English

fleet were so much injured, that Admiral Codrington sent them

to Malta for repairs which would enable them to stand the

voyage home to England. Seventy-five men were killed and 197

wounded on the British fleet, and the loss of the French was

43 killed and 117 wounded. The Russian loss was not reported.

… It was feared that when the news of the event at Navarino

reached Constantinople, the lives of all Europeans in that

city, including the foreign ambassadors, would be in great

danger, but happily there was no violence on the part of the

Turks. The ambassadors pressed for an answer to their note of

August 16th, and at length the Sultan replied: 'My positive,

absolute, definitive, unchangeable, eternal answer is, that

the Sublime Porte does not accept any proposition regarding

the Greeks, and will persist in its own will regarding them

even to the last day of judgment.' The Porte even demanded

compensation for the destruction of the fleet, and

satisfaction for the insult, and that the allies should

abstain from all interference in the affairs of Greece. The

reply of the ambassadors was to the effect that the treaty of

July obliged them to defend Greece, and that the Turks had no

claim whatever for reparation for the affair of Navarino. The

ambassadors left Constantinople on the 8th December, and soon

afterwards Count Capo D'Istria, who had been elected President

of Greece, took his seat, and issued a proclamation, declaring

that the Ottoman rule over the country was at an end after

three centuries of oppression. Thus was the independence of

Greece established. There was little fighting after the events

of Navarino, and early in 1828 Admiral Codrington and Ibrahim

Pasha held a convention and agreed upon measures for

evacuating the land of the Hellenes. During the summer and

autumn Patras, Navarino, and Modon were successively

surrendered to the French, and the Morea was evacuated by the

Turks. Missolonghi was surrendered to Greece early in 1829,

and by the Treaty of Adrianople in September of the same year

the Porte acknowledged the independence of Greece, which was

henceforth to be one in the family of nations."

_T. W. Knox,

Decisive Battles since Waterloo,

chapter 3._

ALSO IN:

_C. A. Fyffe,

History of Modern Europe,

volume 2, chapter 4._

_S. G. Howe,

Historical Sketch of the Greek Revolution._

_T. Gordon,

History of the Greek Revolution._

_Lord Byron,

Letters and Journals, 1823-4 (volume 2)._

_E. J. Trelawny,

Records of Shelley, Byron, etc.,

chapters 19-20 (volume 2)._

_S. Walpole,

History of England,

chapters 9 and 11 (volume 2)._

GREECE: A. D. 1822-1823.

The Congress of Verona.

See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

GREECE: A. D. 1830-1862.

The independent kingdom constituted under Otho of Bavaria.

Its unsatisfactoriness.

Dethronement of King Otho.

Election of Prince George of Denmark.

"On February 3d, 1830, a protocol was signed which constituted

Greece an independent State; and on the 11th of the same month

Prince Leopold of Belgium accepted the crown which was offered

to him by the Powers: He, however, soon resigned the honour;

giving for his main reason the hopelessness of establishing a

Greek kingdom from which Krete, Epeiros, and Thessaly were to

be excluded. The northern boundary, as drawn in 1830,

stretched from the Gulf of Zeitoun to the mouth of the

Aspropotamos, thus depriving Greece of the greater part of

Akarnania and Aitolia. After the assassination [by the family

of an insurgent chief] of Count Capodistna (who was the

popularly elected President of Greece from April 14th, 1827,

to October 9th, 1831), and after the Powers had selected

Prince Otho of Bavaria for the position declined by Prince

Leopold, an arrangement was concluded between England, France,

Russia, and Turkey, whereby the boundary was drawn from the

Gulf of Arta to the same termination in the Gulf of Zeitoun.

But a few months later the district of Zeitoun, north of the

Spercheios, was added to Greece; and the new kingdom paid to

the Porte an indemnity of 40,000,000 piastres, or about

£460,000. The Powers guaranteed a loan to Greece of 60,000,000

francs, out of which the payment of the indemnity was made;

and thus, at last, in the autumn of 1832, the fatherland of

the Greeks was redeemed. Under Otho of Bavaria the country was

governed at first by a Council of Regency, consisting of Count

Armansperg, Professor Maurer, and General Heideck. Maurer was

removed in 1834, and Armansperg in 1837; and at the close of

the latter year, after the trial of another Bavarian as

president of the Council, a Greek was for the first time

appointed to the principal post in the Ministry. The greatest

benefit conferred upon the country by its German rulers was

the reinforcement of the legal system, and the elevation of

the authority of the law. But, on the other hand, an

unfortunate attempt was made to centralize the whole

administration of Greece, her ancient municipal rights and

customs were overlooked, taxation was almost as indiscriminate

and burdensome as under the Turks, whilst large sums of money

were spent upon the army, and on other objects of an

unremunerative or insufficiently remunerative character, so

that the young State was laden with pecuniary liabilities

before anything had been done to develope her resources. …

{1609}

No national assembly was convened, no anxiety was shown to

conciliate the people, liberty of expression was curtailed,

personal offence was given by the foreigners, and by

Armansperg in particular; brigandage and piracy flourished,

and Greece began to suffer all the evils which might have been

expected to arise from the government of unsympathetic aliens.

… In addition to the rapid and alarming increase of

brigandage by land and piracy by sea, there were popular

insurrections in Messenia, Maina, Akarnania, and elsewhere.

One of the most capable Englishmen who have ever espoused the

cause of the Greeks, General Gordon, was commissioned in 1835

to clear northern Greece of the marauders by whom it was

overrun. He executed his mission in an admirable manner,

sweeping the whole of Phokis, Aitolia, and Akarnania, and

securing the cooperation of the Turkish Pasha at Larissa.

Hundreds of brigands were put to flight,—but only to return

again next year, and to enjoy as great immunity as ever. …

In the absence of a strong and active organization of the

national forces, brigandage in Greece was an ineradicable

institution; and, as a matter of fact, it was not suppressed

until the year 1870. Gradually the discontent of the people,

and the feebleness and infatuation of the Government, were

breeding a revolution. … The three Guaranteeing Powers urged

on Otho and his advisers the necessity of granting a

Constitution, which had been promised on the establishment of

the kingdom; and moral support was thus given to two very

strong parties, known by the titles of Philorthodox and

Constitutional, whose leaders looked to Russia and England

respectively. The King and the Government neglected symptoms

which were conspicuous to all besides, and the revolution of

1843 found them practically unprepared and helpless. On the

15th of September, after a well-contrived demonstration of the

troops, which was acquiesced in and virtually sanctioned by

the representatives of the three Powers, King Otho gave way,

and signed the decrees which had been submitted to him. The

Bavarian Ministers were dismissed, Mavrokordatos was made

Premier, a National Assembly was convoked, and a Constitution

was granted. For the first time since the Roman conquest,

Greece resumed the dignity of self-government. The

Constitution of 1844 was by no means an adequate one. It did

not fully restore the privileges of local self-rule, and it

only partially modified the system of centralization, from

which so many evils had sprung. But it was nevertheless a

great advance towards popular liberty. … The difficulties

which arose between Russia and Turkey in 1853, and which led

up to the Crimean War, inspired the Greeks with a hope that

their 'grand idea'—the inheritance of the dominion of Turkey

in Europe, so far as the Greek-speaking provinces are

concerned—might be on the eve of accomplishment. … The

Russian army crossed the Pruth in July, 1853, and preparations

were at once made by the Greeks to invade Turkey. … The

temper of the whole country was such that England and France

deemed it necessary to take urgent measures for preventing an

alliance between Russia and Greece. In May, 1854, an

Anglo-French force was landed at the Peiraios, where it

remained until February, 1857. Pressure was thus brought to

bear upon King Otho, who was not in a position to resist it.

… The humiliation of the Greeks under the foreign occupation

weakened the authority of the King and his Ministers, and the

unhappy country was once more a prey to rapine and disorder.

… From the year 1859 a new portent began to make itself

apparent in Greece. As the insurrection of 1821 may be said to

have derived some of its energy from the upheaval of France

and Europe in the preceding decades, so the Greek revolution

of 1862 was doubtless hastened, if not suggested, by the

Italian regeneration of 1848-1861. … On February 13th, 1862,

the garrison of Nauplia revolted; other outbreaks followed;

and at last, in October, during an ill-advised absence of the

Monarch from his capital, the garrison of Athens broke out

into open insurrection. A Provisional Government was

nominated; the deposition of King Otho was proclaimed; and

when the royal couple hurried back to the city they were

refused an entrance. The representatives of the Powers were

appealed to in vain; and the unfortunate Bavarian, after

wearing the crown for thirty years, sailed from the Peiraios

never to return. The hopes of the Greeks at once centred in

Prince Alfred of England for their future king. … But the

agreement of the three Powers on the establishment of the

kingdom expressly excluded from the throne all members of the

reigning families of England, France, and Russia; and thus,

although Prince Alfred was elected king with practical

unanimity, the English Government would not sanction his

acceptance of the crown. The choice eventually and happily

fell upon Prince George of Denmark, the present King of the

Hellenes; and neither Greece nor Europe has had reason to

regret the selection. … From this time forward the history

of modern Greece enters upon a brighter phase."

_L. Sergeant,

Greece,

chapter 5._

ALSO IN:

_L. Sergeant,

New Greece,

part 2, chapter 8-10._

GREECE: A. D. 1846-1850.

Rude enforcement of English claims.

The Don Pacifico Affair.

"Greek independence had been established under the joint

guardianship of Russia, France, and England. Constitutional

government had been guaranteed. It had however been constantly

delayed. Otho, the Bavarian Prince, who had been placed upon

the throne, was absolute in his own tendencies, and supported

by the absolute Powers; and France, eager to establish her own

influence in the East, … had sided with the Absolutists,

leaving England the sole supporter of constitutional rule. The

Government and administration were deplorably bad. … Any

demands raised by the English against the Government—and the

bad administration afforded abundant opportunity for

dispute—were certain to encounter the opposition of the King,

supported by the advice of all the diplomatic body. Such

questions had arisen. Ionians, claiming to be British

subjects, had been maltreated, the boat's crew of a Queen's

ship roughly handled, and in two cases the money claims of

English subjects against the Government disregarded. They were

trivial enough in themselves; a piece of land belonging to a

Mr. Finlay [the historian of mediæval and modern Greece], a

Scotchman, had been incorporated into the royal garden, and

the price—no doubt somewhat exorbitant—which he set upon it

refused. The house of Don Pacifico, a Jew, a native of

Gibraltar, had been sacked by a mob, without due interference

on the part of the police. He demanded compensation for

ill-usage, for property destroyed, and for the loss of certain

papers, the only proof as he declared of a somewhat doubtful

claim against the Portuguese Government.

{1610}

Such claims in the ordinary course of things should have been

made in the Greek Law Court. But Lord Palmerston, placing no

trust in the justice to be there obtained, made them a direct

national claim upon the Government. For several years, on

various pretences, the settlement of the question had been

postponed, and Palmerston had even warned Russia that he

should some day have to put strong pressure upon the Greek

Court to obtain the discharge of their debts. At length, at

the close of 1849, his patience became exhausted. Admiral

Parker, with the British fleet, was ordered to the Piræus. Mr.

Wyse, the English Ambassador, embarked in it. The claims were

again formally laid before the King, and upon their being

declined the Piræus was blockaded, ships of the Greek navy

captured and merchant vessels secured by way of material

guarantee for payment. The French and the Russians were

indignant at this unexpected act of vigour." The Russians

threatened; the French offered mediation, which was accepted.

The French negotiations at Athens had no success; but at

London there was promise of a friendly settlement of the

matter, when Mr. Wyse, the English Minister at the Greek

Court, being left in ignorance of the situation, brought fresh

pressure to bear upon King Otho and extorted payment of his

claims. The French were enraged and withdrew their Minister

from London. "For the time, this trumpery little affair caused

the greatest excitement, and, being regarded as a typical

instance of Lord Palmerston's management of the Foreign

Office, it formed the ground of a very serious attack upon the

Government."

_J. F. Bright,

History of England,

period 4, pages 200-203._

ALSO IN:

_S. Walpole,

History of England, from 1815,

chapter 22 (volume 4)._

_J. McCarthy,

History of Our Own Times,

chapter 19 (volume 2)._

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1849-1850.

GREECE: A. D. 1862.

Annexation of the Ionian Islands.

See IONIAN ISLANDS: A. D. 1815-1862.

GREECE: A. D. 1862-1881.

The Cretan struggle and defeat.

The Greek question in the Berlin Congress.

Small cession of territory by Turkey.

"The annexation of the Heptannesos [the seven (Ionian)

islands] was a great benefit to Hellas. It was not only a

piece of good fortune for the present but an earnest of the

future. … There still remained the delusion of the Integrity

of the Turkish Empire; but the Christians of the East really

cannot believe in the sincerity of all the Powers who proclaim

and sustain this extraordinary figment, any more than they are

able to fall a prey to the hallucination itself. The reunion

of the Heptannesos with the rest of Hellas was therefore

regarded as marking the beginning of another and better era—a

sanction to the hopes of other re-unions in the future. The

first of the Hellenes who endeavoured to gain for themselves

the same good fortune which had fallen upon the Ionians were

again the Cretans. They defied Turkey for three years,

1866-7-8. With the exception of certain fortresses, the whole

island was free. Acts of heroism and sacrifice such as those

which had rendered glorious the first War of Independence,

again challenged the attention of the world. Volunteers from

the West recalled the Philhellenic enthusiasm of old days. The

Hellenes of the mainland did not leave their brethren alone in

the hour of danger; they hastened to fight at their side,

while they opened in their own homes a place of refuge for the

women and children of the island. Nearly 60,000 fugitives

found protection there. For a while there was room for

believing that the deliverance of Crete was at last

accomplished. Russia and France were favourably disposed.

Unhappily the good-will of these two Powers could not overcome

the opposition of England, strongly supported by Austria.

Diplomacy fought for the enslavement of the Cretans with as

much persistence and more success than those with which it had

opposed the deliverance of Greece. Freedom has not yet come

for Crete. The islanders obtained by their struggle nothing

but a doubtful amelioration of their condition by means of a

sort of charter which was extracted from the unwillingness of

the Porte in 1868, under the name of the 'Organic Regulation.'

This edict has never been honestly put in force. However, even

if it had been carried out, it would not have been a

settlement of the Cretan question. The Cretans have never

concealed what they want, or ceased to proclaim their

intention of demanding it until they obtain it. At the time of

the Congress of Berlin they thought once more that they would

succeed. They got nothing but another promise from the Porte

'to enforce scrupulously the Organic Regulation of 1868, with

such modifications as might be judged equitable.' … The

history of the Greek Question at the Congress of Berlin and

the conferences which followed it, is not to be treated in

detail here. The time is not come for knowing all that took

place. … We do not know why Hellas herself remained so long

with her sword undrawn during the Russo-Turkish War—what

promises or what threats held her back from moving when the

armies of Russia, checked before Plevna, would have welcomed a

diversion in the West, and when the Hellenic people both

within and without the Kingdom were chafing at the do-nothing

attitude of the Government of Athens. Everyone in Greece felt

that the moment was come. The measures taken by hordes of

Bashi-Bazooks were hardly sufficient to repress the

insurrection which was ready in all quarters, and which at

length broke out in the mountains of Thessaly. … It was only

at the last moment, when the war was on the point of being

closed by the treaty which victorious Russia compelled Turkey

to grant at San Stefano, that the Greek Government, under the

Presidency of Koumoundouros, yielded tardily to the pressure

of the nation, and allowed the army to cross the frontier. It

was too late for the diversion to be of any use to Russia, and

it could look for no support from any other Government in

Europe. This fact was realized at Athens, but men felt, at the

same time, that it was needful to remind the world at any

price that there is a Greek Question connected with the

Eastern Question. The step was taken, but it was taken with a

hesitation which betrayed itself in act as well as in word.

… Diplomacy saw the danger of the fresh conflagration which

the armed intervention of Greece was capable of kindling.

{1611}

The utmost possible amount of pressure was therefore brought

to bear upon the Government of Athens in order to induce it to

retrace the step, and in the result an order was obtained to the

Greek Commander-in-Chief to recross the frontier, upon the

solemn assurance of the great Powers 'that the national

aspirations and interests of the Greek populations should be

the subject of the deliberations of the approaching Congress.'

… On July 5, 1878, the Congress accepted the resolution

proposed by the French plenipotentiary, 'inviting the Porte to

come to an understanding with Greece for a rectification of

the frontiers in Thessaly and Epiros, a rectification which

may follow the valley of the Peneus upon the Eastern side, and

that of the Thyamis (or Kalamas) upon the Western.' In other

words, they assign to Hellas the whole of Thessaly and a large

part of Epiros. Notwithstanding the abandonment of the island

of Crete, this was some satisfaction for the wrongs which she

had suffered at the delimitation of the Kingdom. … But the

scheme suggested by the Congress and sanctioned by the

Conference of Berlin on July 1, 1880, was not carried out.

When Turkey found that she was not confronted by an Europe

determined to be obeyed, she refused to submit. And then the

Powers, whose main anxiety was peace at any price, instead of

insisting upon her compliance, put upon Hellas all the

pressure which they were able to exercise, to induce her to

submit the question of the frontiers to a fresh arbitration.

… Hellas had to yield, and on July 2, 1881, three years

after the signing of the famous Protocol of Berlin, she signed

the convention by which Turkey ceded to her the flat part of

Thessaly and a small scrap of Epiros."

_D. Bikelas,

Seven Essays on Christian Greece,

essay 6._

GREECE: A. D. 1864-1893.

Government under the later constitution.

A new constitution, framed by the National Assembly, "was

ratified by the King on November 21, 1864. Abolishing the old

Senate, it established a Representative Chamber of 150

deputies, since increased to 190, and again to 307, elected by

ballot by all males over the age of twenty-one, from equal

electoral districts (they were afterwards elected by

nomarchies; the system now is by eparchies). Mr. Sergeant

gives the number of electors (in 1879) at 311 per 1,000, but I

do not know what he does with the women and minors, who must

be about 75 per cent of the population. The present [1893]

number of electors is 450,000, or 205 per 1,000. The King has

considerable power: he is irresponsible; he appoints and

dismisses his ministers and all officers and officials; and he

can prorogue or suspend Parliament. Nor is his power merely

nominal. In 1866 the Chamber behaved illegally, and the King

promptly dissolved it; in 1875 again the King successfully

steered his country out of a whirlpool of corruption; and,

lastly, in 1892, his Majesty, finding M. Deleyannes obstinate

in his financial dilatoriness, dismissed him. … Before King

Otho there were 4 administrations; under his rule 24 (13

before the Constitution was granted and 11 after), 10 in the

interregnum, and 42 under King George. This gives 70

administrations in 62 years, or about one every 10½ months,

or, deducting the two kingless periods, 56 administrations in

60 years—that is, with an average duration of nearly 13

months. This compares for stability very well with the

duration of French Ministries, 28 of which have lasted 22

years, or about 9½ months each. It should also be stated that

there has been a distinct tendency to greater Ministerial

longevity of late years in Greece. Under King Otho there were

seven Parliaments in 18 years, which allows 2 years and 7

months for each Parliamentary period. Under King George there

have been 13 in 28 years, or with a life of 2 years and 2

months each. However, we know that Parliament had not the same

free play under the first King that it has had under the

second; and, besides, the present Parliament, considering the

Prime Minister's enormous majority, is likely to continue some

time, and bring up the Georgian average. … There have been

no notable changes of the Greek Constitution since its first

promulgation, though there has been a natural expansion,

especially in the judicial section. This very fact is of

itself a vindication of Hellenic national stability."

_R. A. H. Bickford-Smith,

Greece under King George,

chapter 18._

----------GREECE: End----------

GREEK, Origin of the name.

See HELLAS.

GREEK CHURCH, The.

See CHRISTIANLY: A. D. 330-1054.