[Sidenote: [_ca._ 764 B.C.]]
That there were two long contests between the Lacedæmonians and
Messenians, and that in both the former were completely victorious, is
a fact sufficiently attested. And if we could trust the statements in
Pausanias,--our chief and almost only authority on the subject,--we
should be in a situation to recount the history of both these wars
in considerable detail. But unfortunately, the incidents narrated in
that writer have been gathered from sources which are, even by his
own admission, undeserving of credit, from Rhianus, the poet of Bene
in Crete, who had composed an epic poem on Aristomenes and the Second
Messenian War, about B.C. 220, and from Myron of Priene, a prose author
whose date is not exactly known, but belonging to the Alexandrine age,
and not earlier than the third century before the Christian era.
The poet Tyrtæus was himself engaged on the side of the Spartans in
the second war, and it is from him that we learn the few indisputable
facts respecting both the first and the second. If the Messenians had
never been re-established in Peloponnesus, we should probably never
have heard any further details respecting these early contests. That
re-establishment, and the first foundation of the city called Messene
on Mount Ithome, was among the capital wounds inflicted on Sparta by
Epaminondas, in the year B.C. 369,--between three hundred and two hundred
and fifty years after the conclusion of the Second Messenian War. The
descendants of the old Messenians, who had remained for so long a period
without any fixed position in Greece, were incorporated in the new city,
together with various helots and miscellaneous settlers who had no
claim to a similar genealogy. The gods and heroes of the Messenian race
were reverentially invoked at this great ceremony, especially the great
hero Aristomenes; and the site of Mount Ithome, the ardour of the newly
established citizens, the hatred and apprehension of Sparta, operating
as a powerful stimulus to the creation and multiplication of what are
called _traditions_, sufficed to expand the few facts known respecting
the struggles of the old Messenians into a variety of details. In almost
all these stories we discover a colouring unfavourable to Sparta,
contrasting forcibly with the account given by Isocrates in his discourse
called _Archidamus_, wherein we read the view which a Spartan might take
of the ancient conquests of his forefathers. But a clear proof that
these Messenian stories had no real basis of tradition, is shown in the
contradictory statements respecting the prime hero Aristomenes. Wesseling
thinks that there were two persons named Aristomenes, one in the first
and one in the second war. This inextricable confusion respecting the
greatest name in Messenian antiquity, shows how little any genuine stream
of tradition can here be recognised.
Pausanias states the First Messenian War as beginning in B.C. 743 and
lasting till B.C. 724,--the Second, as beginning in B.C. 685 and lasting
till B.C. 668. Neither of these dates rest upon any assignable positive
authority; but the time assigned to the first war seems probable, that
of the second is apparently too early. Tyrtæus authenticates both the
duration of the first war, twenty years, and the eminent services
rendered in it by the Spartan king Theopompus. He says, moreover,
speaking during the second war, “the fathers of our fathers conquered
Messene;” thus loosely indicating the relative dates of the two.
The Spartans (as we learn from Isocrates, whose words date from a time
when the city of Messene was only a recent foundation) professed to have
seized the territory, partly in revenge for the impiety of the Messenians
in killing their king, the Heraclid Cresphontes, whose relative had
appealed to them for aid,--partly by sentence of the Delphian oracle.
Such were the causes which had induced them first to invade the
country, and they had conquered it after a struggle of twenty years.
The Lacedæmonian explanations, as given in Pausanias, seem for the most
part to be counter-statements arranged after the time when the Messenian
version, evidently the interesting and popular account, had become
circulated.[b]
Within the limits of Messenia there was a temple of Diana Limnatis,
which was alone common to the Messenians among the Dorians, and to the
Lacedæmonians. The Lacedæmonians asserted, that the virgins whom they
sent to the festival were violated by the Messenians; that their king,
Teleclus, was slain through endeavouring to prevent the injury, and that
the violated virgins slew themselves through shame.
The Messenians, however, relate this affair differently; that stratagems
were raised by Teleclus against those persons of quality that came to
the temple in Messene. For when the Lacedæmonians, on account of the
goodness of the land desired to possess Messenia, Teleclus adorned the
beardless youths after the manner of virgins, and so disposed them, that
they might suddenly attack the Lacedæmonians with their daggers as they
were sitting. The Messenians, however, running to their assistance, slew
both Teleclus and all the beardless youths. But the Lacedæmonians, as
they were conscious that this action was perpetrated by public consent,
never attempted to revenge the death of their king. And such are the
reports of each party, which every one believes, just as he is influenced
by his attachment to each. After this event had taken place, and when one
generation had passed away, a hatred commenced between the Lacedæmonians
and Messenians.[c]
FIRST MESSENIAN WAR
In spite of the death of Teleclus, however, the war did not actually
break out until some little time after, when Alcamenes and Theopompus
were kings at Sparta, and Antiochus and Androcles, sons of Pintas, kings
of Messenia. The immediate cause of it was a private altercation between
the Messenian Polychares (victor at the fourth Olympiad, B.C. 764) and
the Spartan Euæphnus. Polychares having been grossly injured by Euæphnus,
and his claim for redress having been rejected at Sparta, took revenge by
aggressions upon other Lacedæmonians; the Messenians refused to give him
up, though one of the two kings, Androcles, strongly insisted upon doing
so, and maintained his opinion so earnestly against the opposite sense of
the majority and of his brother, Antiochus, that a tumult arose, and he
was slain.
[Sidenote: [_ca._ 750 B.C.]]
The Lacedæmonians, now resolving upon war, struck the first blow without
any formal declaration, by surprising the border town of Amphea, and
putting its defenders to the sword. They further overran the Messenian
territory, and attacked some other towns, but without success. Euphaes,
who had now succeeded his father Antiochus as king of Messenia, summoned
the forces of the country and carried on the war against them with energy
and boldness. For the first four years of the war, the Lacedæmonians
made no progress, and even incurred the ridicule of the old men of their
nation as faint-hearted warriors: in the fifth year, they made a more
vigorous invasion, under their two kings, Theopompus and Polydorus, who
were met by Euphaes with the full force of the Messenians. A desperate
battle ensued, in which it does not seem that either side gained much
advantage: nevertheless the Messenians found themselves so much enfeebled
by it, that they were forced to take refuge on the fortified mountain of
Ithome, and to abandon the rest of the country.[b]
After this battle the affairs of the Messenians were in a calamitous
situation. For, in the first place, through the great sums of money which
they had expended in fortifying their cities, they had no longer the
means of supplying their army. In the next place, their slaves had fled
to the Lacedæmonians. And lastly, a disease resembling a pestilence,
though it did not infest all their country, greatly embarrassed their
affairs. In consequence, therefore, of consulting about their present
situation, they thought proper to abandon all those cities which had the
most inland situation, and to betake themselves to the mountain Ithome.
In this mountain there was a city of no great magnitude, which, they say,
is mentioned by Homer in his catalogue:
“And those that in the steep Ithome dwell.”
In this city, therefore, fixing their residence, they enlarged the
ancient enclosure, so that it might be sufficient to defend the whole of
its inhabitants. This place was in other respects well fortified: for
Ithome is not inferior to any of the mountains within the isthmus in
magnitude; and besides this, is most difficult of access.
When they were settled in this mountain, they determined to send to
Delphos, and consult the oracle concerning the event of the war. Tisis,
therefore, the son of Alcis, was employed on this errand; a man who, in
nobility of birth, was not inferior to any one, and who was particularly
given to divination. This Tisis, on his return from Delphos, was attacked
by a band of Lacedæmonians belonging to the guard of Amphea, but defended
himself so valiantly that they were not able to take him. It is certain,
however, that they did not desist from wounding him, till a voice was
heard, from an invisible cause, “Dismiss the bearer of the oracle.” And
Tisis, indeed, as soon as he returned to his own people, repeated the
oracle to the king, and not long after died of his wounds. But Euphaes,
collecting the Messenians together, recited the oracle, which was as
follows: “Sacrifice a pure virgin, who is allotted a descent from the
blood of the Æpytidæ, to the infernal demons, by cutting her throat
in the night: but if the virgin who is led to the altar descends from
any other family, let her voluntarily offer herself to be sacrificed.”
Such then being the declaration of the god, immediately all the virgins
descended from the Æpytidæ awaited the decision of lots: when the lot
fell upon the daughter of Lyciscus, the prophet Epebolus told them that
it was not proper that she should be sacrificed, because she was not
the genuine daughter of Lyciscus: but that the wife of Lyciscus, in
consequence of her barrenness, had falsely pretended that this was her
daughter.
_The Futile Sacrifice of the Daughter of Aristodemus_
[Sidenote: [_ca._ 750-725 B.C.]]
In the meantime, while the prophet was thus dissuading the people,
Lyciscus privately took away the virgin and fled to Sparta. But the
Messenians being greatly dejected as soon as they perceived that
Lyciscus had fled, Aristodemus, a man descended from the Æpytidæ, and
who was most illustrious in warlike concerns and other respects, offered
his own daughter as a voluntary sacrifice. Destiny, however, no less
absorbs the alacrity of mankind, than the mud of a river the pebbles
which it contains. For the following circumstance became a hindrance
to Aristodemus, who was then desirous of saving Messene by sacrificing
his daughter: A Messenian citizen whose name is not transmitted to us
happened to be in love with the daughter of Aristodemus, and was just on
the point of making her his wife. This man from the first entered into
a dispute with Aristodemus, asserting that the virgin was no longer in
the power of her father, as she had been promised to him in marriage,
but that all authority over her belonged to him as her intended husband.
However, finding that this plea was ineffectual, he made use of a
shameful lie in order to accomplish his purpose, and affirmed that he
had lain with the girl, and that she was now with child by him. But in
the end, Aristodemus was so exasperated by this lie, that he slew his
daughter, and having cut open her womb, plainly evinced that she was not
with child.
Upon this, Epebolus, who was present, exhorted them to sacrifice the
daughter of some other person, because the daughter of Aristodemus, in
consequence of having been slain by her father in a rage, could not be
the sacrifice to those dæmons which the oracle commanded. In consequence
of the prophet thus addressing the people, they immediately rushed forth
in order to slay the suitor of the dead virgin, as he had been the means
of Aristodemus becoming defiled with the blood of his offspring, and
had rendered the hope of their preservation dubious. But this man was
a particular friend of Euphaes; and in consequence of this, Euphaes
persuaded the Messenians that the oracle was accomplished in the death of
the virgin, and that they ought to be satisfied with what Aristodemus had
accomplished. All the Æpytidæ, therefore, were of the opinion of Euphaes,
because each was anxious to be liberated from the fear of sacrificing his
daughter. In consequence of this, the advice of the king was generally
received, and the assembly dissolved. And after this they turned their
attentions to the sacrifices and festival of the gods.[c]
The war still continued, and in the thirteenth year of it another
hard-fought battle took place, in which the brave Euphaes was slain,
but the result was again indecisive. Aristodemus, being elected king
in his place, prosecuted the war strenuously: the fifth year of his
reign is signalised by a third general battle, wherein the Corinthians
assist the Spartans, and the Arcadians and Sicyonians are on the side of
Messenia; the victory is here decisive on the side of Aristodemus, and
the Lacedæmonians are driven back into their own territory. It was now
their turn to send envoys and ask advice from the Delphian oracle; and
the remaining events of the war exhibit a series, partly of stratagems to
fulfil the injunctions of the priestess, partly of prodigies in which the
divine wrath is manifested against the Messenians. The king Aristodemus,
agonised with the thought that he has slain his own daughter without
saving his country, puts an end to his own life. In the twentieth year
of the war, the Messenians abandoned Ithome, which the Lacedæmonians
razed to the ground: the rest of the country was speedily conquered, and
such of the inhabitants as did not flee either to Arcadia or to Eleusis,
were reduced to complete submission.
Such is the abridgement of what Pausanias gives as the narrative of
the First Messenian War. Most of his details bear the evident stamp
of mere late romance: and it will easily be seen that the sequence
of events presents no plausible explanation of that which is really
indubitable--the result. The twenty years’ war, and the final abandonment
of Ithome, are attested by Tyrtæus, and beyond all doubt, as well as
the harsh treatment of the conquered. “Like asses worn down by heavy
burthens” (says the Spartan poet) “they were compelled to make over to
their masters an entire half of the produce of their fields, and to come
in the garb of woe to Sparta, themselves and their wives, as mourners
at the decease of the kings and principal persons.” The revolt of their
descendants, against a yoke so oppressive, goes by the name of the Second
Messenian War.
_The Hero Aristomenes and the Second Messenian War_
[Sidenote: [_ca._ 750-668 B.C.]]
Had we possessed the account of the First Messenian War as given by Myron
and Diodorus, it would evidently have been very different from the above,
because they included Aristomenes in it, and to him the leading parts
would be assigned. As the narrative now stands in Pausanias, we are not
introduced to that great Messenian hero,--the Achilles of the epic of
Rhianus,--until the second war, in which his gigantic proportions stand
prominently forward. He is the great champion of his country in the three
battles which are represented as taking place during this war: the first,
with indecisive result, at Deræ; the second, a signal victory on the part
of the Messenians, at the Boar’s Grave; the third, an equally signal
defeat, in consequence of the traitorous flight of Aristocrates, king
of the Arcadian Orchomenus, who, ostensibly embracing the alliance of
the Messenians, had received bribes from Sparta. Thrice did Aristomenes
sacrifice to Zeus Ithomates the sacrifice called Hecatomphonia, reserved
for those who had slain with their own hands a hundred enemies in battle.
At the head of a chosen band he carried his incursions more than once
into the heart of the Lacedæmonian territory, surprised Amyclæ and
Pharis, and even penetrated by night into the unfortified precinct of
Sparta itself, where he suspended his shield, as a token of defiance, in
the temple of Athene Chalciœcus. Thrice was he taken prisoner, but on two
occasions marvellously escaped before he could be conveyed to Sparta.[b]
Pausanias thus describes one of his escapes:
“Aristomenes continued to plunder the Spartan land, nor did he cease
his hostilities till, happening to meet with more than half of the
Lacedæmonian forces, together with both the kings, among other wounds
which he received in defending himself, he was struck so violently on
the head with a stone, that his eyes were covered with darkness, and
he fell to the ground. The Lacedæmonians, on seeing this, rushed in a
collected body upon him, and took him alive, together with fifty of his
men. They likewise determined to throw all of them into the Ceadas, or a
deep chasm, into which the most criminal offenders were hurled. Indeed,
the other Messenians perished after this manner; but some god who had so
often preserved Aristomenes, delivered him at that time from the fury of
the Spartans. And some who entertain the most magnificent idea of his
character, say, that an eagle flying to him bore him on its wings to the
bottom of the chasm, so that he sustained no injury by the fall.
“Indeed, he had not long reached the bottom before a dæmon shewed him
a passage, by which he might make his escape; for as he lay in this
profound chasm wrapped in a robe, expecting nothing but death, he heard
a noise on the third day, and uncovering his face (for he was now able
to look through the darkness) he saw a fox touching one of the dead
bodies. Considering, therefore, where the passage could be through
which the beast had entered, he waited till the fox came nearer to him,
and when this happened seized it with one of his hands, and with the
other, as often as it turned to him, exposed his robe for the animal to
seize. At length, the fox beginning to run away, he suffered himself to
be drawn along by her, through places almost impervious, till he saw
an opening just sufficient for the fox to pass through, and a light
streaming through the hole. And the animal, indeed, as soon as she was
freed from Aristomenes, betook herself to her usual place of retreat. But
Aristomenes, as the opening was not large enough for him to pass through,
enlarged it with his hands, and escaped safe to Ira. The fortune, indeed
by which Aristomenes was taken, was wonderful, for his spirit and courage
were so great, that no one could hope to take him; but his preservation
at Ceadas is far more wonderful, and at the same time it is evident to
all men that it did not take place without the interference of a divine
power.”[c]
[Sidenote: [_ca._ 668 B.C.]]
The fortified mountain of Ira on the banks of the river Nedon, and near
the Ionian Sea, had been occupied by the Messenians, after the battle
in which they had been betrayed by Aristocrates the Arcadian; it was
there that they had concentrated their whole force, as in the former
war at Ithome, abandoning the rest of the country. Under the conduct
of Aristomenes, assisted by the prophet Theoclus, they maintained
this strong position for eleven years. At length, they were compelled
to abandon it; but, as in the case of Ithome, the final determining
circumstances are represented to have been, not any superiority of
bravery or organisation on the part of the Lacedæmonians, but treacherous
betrayal and stratagem, seconding the fatal decree of the gods. Unable
to maintain Ira longer, Aristomenes, with his sons, and a body of his
countrymen, forced his way through the assailants, and quitted the
country--some of them retiring to Arcadia and Elis, and finally migrating
to Rhegium. He himself passed the remainder of his days in Rhodes, where
he dwelt along with his son-in-law, Damagetus, the ancestor of the noble
Rhodian family, called the Diagorids, celebrated for its numerous Olympic
victories.
Such are the main features of what Pausanias calls the Second Messenian
War, or of what ought rather to be called the Aristomeneïs of the poet
Rhianus. That after the foundation of Messene, and the recall of the
exiles by Epaminondas, favour and credence was found for many tales
respecting the prowess of the ancient hero whom they invoked in their
libations,--tales well-calculated to interest the fancy, to vivify the
patriotism, and to inflame the anti-Spartan antipathies, of the new
inhabitants,--there can be little doubt. And the Messenian maidens of
that day may well have sung, in their public processional sacrifices,
how “Aristomenes pursued the flying Lacedæmonians down to the mid-plain
of Stenyclarus, and up to the very summit of the mountain.” From such
stories, _traditions_ they ought not to be denominated, Rhianus may
doubtless have borrowed; but if proof were wanting to show how completely
he looked at his materials from the point of view of the poet, and not
from that of the historian, we should find it in the remarkable fact
noticed by Pausanias: Rhianus represented Leotychides as having been king
of Sparta during the Second Messenian War; now Leotychides, as Pausanias
observes, did not reign until near a century and a half afterwards,
during the Persian invasion.
THE POET TYRTÆUS
[Sidenote: [_ca._ 668-648 B.C.]]
To the great champion of Messenia, during this war, we may oppose, on the
side of Sparta, another remarkable person, less striking as a character
of romance, but more interesting, in many ways, to the historian--the
poet Tyrtæus, a native of Aphidnæ in Attica, an inestimable ally of
the Lacedæmonians during most part of this second struggle. According
to a story--which however has the air partly of a boast of the later
Attic orators--the Spartans, disheartened at the first successes of the
Messenians, consulted the Delphian oracle, and were directed to ask for
a leader from Athens.[b] “At the same time,” Pausanias writes, “the
Lacedæmonians received an oracle from Delphos, which commanded them to
make use of an Athenian for their counsellor. Hence, when by ambassadors
they had informed the Athenians of the oracle, and at the same time
required an Athenian as their adviser, the Athenians were by no means
willing to comply: for they considered, that the Lacedæmonians could not
without great danger to the Athenians take possession of the best part of
Peloponnesus; and at the same time, they were unwilling to disobey the
commands of the god.
[Illustration: VIEW OF DELPHI, SEAT OF THE DELPHIAN ORACLE]
“At last they adopted the following expedient: There was at Athens a
certain teacher of grammar, whose name was Tyrtæus, who appeared to
possess the smallest degree of intellect, and who was lame in one of
his feet. This man they sent to Sparta, who at one time instructed the
principal persons in what was necessary for them to do, and at another
time instructed the common people by singing elegies to them, in which
the praise of valour was contained, and verses called _anapæsti_.”[c]
[Sidenote: [_ca._ 660-610 B.C.]]
This seems to be a colouring put upon the story by later writers, and
the intervention of the Athenians in the matter in any way deserves
little credit. It seems more probable that the legendary connection of
the Dioscuri with Aphidnæ, celebrated at or near that time by the poet
Alcman, brought about, through the Delphian oracle, the presence of the
Aphidnæan poet at Sparta. Respecting the lameness of Tyrtæus, we can say
nothing: but that he was a schoolmaster (if we are constrained to employ
an unsuitable term) is highly probable, for in that day, minstrels,
who composed and sung poems, were the only persons from whom the youth
received any mental training. Moreover, his sway over the youthful mind
is particularly noted in the compliment paid to him, in after-days, by
king Leonidas: “Tyrtæus was an adept in tickling the souls of youth.”
We see enough to satisfy us that he was by birth a stranger, though he
became a Spartan by the subsequent recompense of citizenship conferred
upon him; that he was sent through the Delphian oracle; that he was an
impressive and efficacious minstrel, and that he had, moreover, sagacity
enough to employ his talents for present purposes and diverse needs;
being able, not merely to reanimate the languishing courage of the
baffled warrior, but also to soothe the discontents of the mutinous. That
his strains, which long maintained undiminished popularity among the
Spartans, contributed much to determine the ultimate issue of this war,
there is no reason to doubt; nor is his name the only one to attest the
susceptibility of the Spartan mind in that day towards music and poetry.
The first establishment of the Carneian festival, with its musical
competition, at Sparta, falls during the period assigned by Pausanias to
the Second Messenian War: the Lesbian harper, Terpander, who gained the
first recorded prize at this solemnity, is affirmed to have been sent for
by the Spartans pursuant to a mandate from the Delphian oracle, and to
have been the means of appeasing a sedition. In like manner, the Cretan
Thaletas was invited thither during a pestilence, which his art, as it is
pretended, contributed to heal (about 620 B.C.); and Aleman, Xenocritus,
Polymnastus, and Sacadas, all foreigners by birth, found favourable
reception, and acquired popularity, by their music and poetry. With the
exception of Sacadas, who is a little later, all these names fall in the
same century as Tyrtæus, between 660 B.C.-610 B.C. The fashion which the
Spartan music continued for a long time to maintain, is ascribed chiefly
to the genius of Terpander.
That the impression produced by Tyrtæus at Sparta, therefore, with
his martial music, and emphatic exhortations to bravery in the field,
as well as union at home, should have been very considerable, is
perfectly consistent with the character both of the age and of the
people; especially as he is represented to have appeared pursuant to the
injunction of the Delphian oracle. From the scanty fragments remaining
to us of his elegies and anapæsts, however, we can satisfy ourselves
only of two facts: first, that the war was long, obstinately contested,
and dangerous to Sparta as well as to the Messenians; next, that other
parties in Peloponnesus took part on both sides, especially on the
side of the Messenians. So frequent and harassing were the aggressions
of the latter upon the Spartan territory, that a large portion of the
border-land was left uncultivated: scarcity ensued, and the proprietors
of the deserted farms, driven to despair, pressed for a redivision of
the landed property in the state. It was in appeasing these discontents
that the poem of Tyrtæus, called _Eunomia_, “Legal Order,” was found
signally beneficial. It seems certain that a considerable portion of
the Arcadians, together with the Pisatæ and the Triphylians, took part
with the Messenians; there are also some statements numbering the Eleans
among their allies, but this appears not probable. The state of the case
rather seems to have been, that the old quarrel between the Eleans and
the Pisatæ, respecting the right to preside at the Olympic games, which
had already burst forth during the preceding century, in the reign of
the Argeian Pheidon, still continued. The Second Messenian War will
thus stand as beginning somewhere about the 33rd Olympiad, or 648 B.C.,
between seventy and eighty years after the close of the first, and
lasting, according to Pausanias, seventeen years; according to Plutarch,
more than twenty years.
[Sidenote: [_ca._ 660-580 B.C.]]
Many of the Messenians who abandoned their country after this second
conquest are said to have found shelter and sympathy among the
Arcadians, who admitted them to a new home and gave them their daughters
in marriage; and who, moreover, punished severely the treason of
Aristocrates, king of Orchomenos, in abandoning the Messenians at the
battle of the Trench.
The Second Messenian War was thus terminated by the complete subjugation
of the Messenians. Such of them as remained in the country were
reduced to a servitude probably not less hard than that which Tyrtæus
described them as having endured between the first war and the second.
In after-times, the whole territory which figures on the map as
Messenia,--south of the river Nedon, and westward of the summit of
Taygetus,--appears as subject to Sparta, and as forming the western
portion of Laconia. Nor do we hear of any serious revolt from Sparta in
this territory until a hundred and fifty years afterwards, subsequent
to the Persian invasion--a revolt which Sparta, after serious efforts,
succeeded in crushing. So that the territory remained in her power
until her defeat at Leuctra, which led to the foundation of Messene by
Epaminondas.
Imperfectly as these two Messenian wars are known to us, we may see
enough to warrant us in saying that both were tedious, protracted, and
painful, showing how slowly the results of war were then gathered, and
adding one additional illustration to prove how much the rapid and
instantaneous conquest of Laconia and Messenia by the Dorians, which the
Heraclid legend sets forth, is contradicted by historical analogy.
The relations of Pisa and Elis form a suitable counterpart and sequel
to those of Messenia and Sparta. Unwilling subjects themselves, the
Pisatæ had lent their aid to the Messenians, and their king Pantaleon,
one of the leaders of this combined force, had gained so great a
temporary success, as to dispossess the Eleans of the _agonothesia_
or administration of the games for one Olympic ceremony, in the 34th
Olympiad. Though again reduced to their condition of subjects, they
manifested dispositions to renew their revolt. These incidents seem to
have occurred about the 50th Olympiad, or B.C. 580; and the dominion of
Elis over her Periœcid territory was thus as well assured as that of
Sparta. The Lacedæmonians, after the close of the Peloponnesian War had
left them undisputed heads of Greece, formally upheld the independence
of the Triphylian towns against Elis, and seem to have countenanced
their endeavours to attach themselves to the Arcadian aggregate, which,
however, was never fully accomplished. Their dependence on Elis became
loose and uncertain, but was never wholly shaken off.[b]
[Illustration]