Aristotle’s survey of the Greek forms of government was founded on a
vast store of information which he had collected on the history and
constitution of more than a hundred and fifty states, in the mother
country and the colonies, and which he had consigned to a great work
now unfortunately lost. Our knowledge of the internal conditions and
vicissitudes of almost all these states is very scanty and fragmentary:
but some of the main facts concerning them, which have been saved from
oblivion, will serve to throw light on several parts of the ensuing
history.
ARCADIA, ELIS, AND ACHAIA
We have scarcely anything to say, during this period, of the state
of parties, or even the forms of government, in Arcadia, Elis, and
Achaia. If Arcadia was ever subject to a single king, which seems to be
intimated by some accounts of its early history, it was probably only,
as in Thessaly, by an occasional election, or a temporary usurpation.
The title of king however appears not to have been everywhere abolished
down to a much later time, as we find a hint that it was retained at
Orchomenos even in the fifth century before our era. That the republican
constitutions were long aristocratical can scarcely be doubted, as the
two principal Arcadian cities, Tegea and Mantinea, were at first only the
chief among several small hamlets, which were at length united in one
capital. This, whenever it happened, was a step towards the subversion
of aristocratical privileges; and it was no doubt with this view that
the five Mantinean villages were incorporated by the Argives, as Strabo
mentions without assigning the date of the event. But it is not probable
that Argos thus interfered before her own institutions had undergone a
like change, which, as we shall see, did not take place before a later
period than our history has yet reached. Whether the union of the nine
villages, which included Tegea as their chief, was effected earlier
or later, does not appear. But, after she had once acknowledged the
supremacy of Sparta, Tegea was sheltered by Spartan influence from
popular innovations, and was always the less inclined to adopt them when
they prevailed at Mantinea: for as the position of the two Arcadian
neighbours tended to connect the one with Sparta, and the other with
Argos, so it supplied occasion for interminable feuds between them. But,
in general, the history of the western states of Arcadia is wrapt in deep
obscurity, which was only broken, in the fourth century B.C., by the
foundation of a new Arcadian capital.
In Elis the monarchical form of government continued for some generations
in the line of Oxylus, but appears to have ceased there earlier than
at Pisa, which, at the time when it was conquered and destroyed by
the Eleans, was ruled by chiefs, who were probably legitimate kings.
Immediately after the conquest, in the fiftieth Olympiad, the dignity
of _hellanodicæ_, which had been held by the kings of Elis, or shared
by them with those of Pisa, was assigned to two Elean officers by lot,
a proof that royalty was then extinct. The constitution by which it was
replaced seems to have been rigidly aristocratical, perhaps no other
than the narrow oligarchy described by Aristotle,--who observes that
the whole number of citizens exercising any political functions was
small--confined, perhaps to the six hundred mentioned by Thucydides;
and that the senate, originally composed of ninety members, who held
their office for life, and filled up vacancies at their pleasure, had
been gradually reduced to a very few. Elis, the capital, remained in
a condition like that of the above-mentioned Arcadian towns until the
Persian War, when the inhabitants of many villages were collected in its
precincts. This was probably attended by other changes of a democratical
nature--perhaps by the limitation which one Phormis is said to have
effected in the power of the senate--and henceforth the number of the
_hellanodicæ_ corresponded to that of the tribes or regions into which
the Elean territory was divided; so that, whenever any of these regions
was lost by the chance of war, the number of the _hellanodicæ_ was
proportionately reduced. So too the matrons who presided at the games in
honour of Hera, in which the Elean virgins contended at Olympia, were
chosen in equal number from each of the tribes.
In Achaia, the royal dignity was transmitted in the line of Tisamenus
down to Ogyges, whose sons, affecting despotic power, were deposed,
and the government was changed to a democracy, which is said to have
possessed a high reputation. From Pausanias it would rather seem as if
the title of king had been held by a number of petty chiefs at once.
If so, the revolution must have had its origin in causes more general
than those assigned to it by Polybius. It was probably accelerated by
the number of Achæan emigrants who sought refuge in Achaia from other
parts of the Peloponnesus, and who soon crowded the country, till it
was relieved by its Italian colonies. What Polybius and Strabo term
a democracy may however have been a polity, or a very liberal and
well-tempered form of oligarchy. Of its details we know nothing; nor
are we informed in what relation the twelve principal Achaian towns--a
division adopted from the Ionians--stood to the hamlets, of which each
had seven or eight in its territory, like those of Tegea and Mantinea.
As little are we able to describe the constitution of the confederacy in
which the twelve states were now united.
ARGOS, ÆGINA, AND EPIDAURUS
More light has been thrown by ancient authors on the history of the
states in the northeast quarter of Peloponnesus, those of Argolis in the
largest sense of the word. At Argos itself, regal government subsisted
down to the Persian wars, although the line of the Heraclid princes
appears to have become extinct toward the middle of the preceding
century. Pausanias remarks, that, from a very early period, the Argives
were led by their peculiarly independent spirit to limit the prerogatives
of their kings so narrowly as to leave them little more than the name.
We cannot however place much reliance on such a general reflection of
a late writer. But we have seen that Phidon, who, about the year 750
B.C., extended the power of Argos farther than any of his predecessors,
also stretched the royal authority so much beyond its legitimate bounds,
that he is sometimes called a tyrant, though he was rightful heir of
Temenus. After his death, as his conquests appear to have been speedily
lost, so it is probable that his successors were unable to maintain the
ascendancy which he had gained over his Dorian subjects, and the royal
dignity may henceforth have been, as Pausanias describes it, little more
than a title. Hence, too, on the failure of the ancient line, about B.C.
560, Ægon, though of a different family, may have met with the less
opposition in mounting the throne. The substance of power rested with
the Dorian freemen: in what manner it was distributed among them we can
only conjecture from analogy. Their lands were cultivated by a class
of serfs, corresponding to the Spartan helots, who served in war as
light-armed troops, whence they derived their peculiar name, “gymnesii.”
They were also sovereigns of a few towns, the inhabitants of which, like
the Laconians subject to Sparta, though personally free, were excluded
from all share in their political privileges. The events which put an end
to this state of things, and produced an entire change in the form of
government at Argos, will be hereafter related.
Among the states of the Argolic _acte_, Epidaurus deserves notice, not
so much for the few facts which are known of its internal history, as
on account of its relation to Ægina. This island, destined to take
no inconsiderable part in the affairs of Greece, was long subject to
Epidaurus, which was so jealous of her sovereignty as to compel the
Æginetans to resort to her tribunals for the trial of their causes. It
seems to have been as a dependency of Epidaurus that Ægina fell under the
dominion of the Argive Phidon. After recovering her own independence,
Epidaurus still continued mistress of the island. Whether she had any
subjects on the main land standing on the same footing, we are not
expressly informed. But here likewise the ruling class was supported by
the services of a population of bondsmen, distinguished by a peculiar
name (_conipodes_, the dusty-footed), designating indeed their rural
occupations, but certainly expressive of contempt. Towards the end of
the seventh century B.C., and the beginning of the next, Epidaurus
was subject to a ruler named Procles, who is styled a tyrant, and was
allied with Periander the tyrant of Corinth. But nothing is known as
to the origin and nature of his usurpation. He incurred the resentment
of his son-in-law Periander, who made himself master of Procles and of
Epidaurus. It was perhaps this event which afforded Ægina an opportunity
of shaking off the Epidaurian yoke. But, had it been otherwise, the
old relation between the two states could not have subsisted much
longer. Ægina was rapidly outgrowing the mother country, was engaged
in a flourishing commerce, strong in an enterprising and industrious
population, enriched and adorned by the arts of peace, and skilled in
those of war. The separation which soon after took place was embittered
by mutual resentment; and the Æginetans, whose navy soon became the most
powerful in Greece, retaliated on Epidaurus for the degradation they
had suffered by a series of insults. But the same causes to which they
owed their national independence seem to have deprived the class which
had been hitherto predominant in Ægina of its political privileges. The
island was torn by the opposite claims and interests arising out of
the old and the new order of things, and became the scene of a bloody
struggle.
SICYON AND MEGARA
The history of Sicyon presents a series of revolutions, in many points
resembling those of Corinth. At what time, or in whose person, royalty
was there extinguished, and what form of government succeeded it, we
are not expressly informed; but, as we know that there was a class
of bondsmen at Sicyon, answering to the helots, and distinguished by
peculiar names, derived from their rustic dress or occupation, there
can be little doubt that other parts of the Dorian system were also
introduced there, and subsisted until a fortunate adventurer, named
Orthagoras, or Andreas, overthrew the old aristocracy, and founded a
dynasty, which lasted a century: the longest period, Aristotle observes,
of a Greek tyranny. Orthagoras is said to have risen from a very low
station--that of a cook--and was, therefore, probably indebted for
his elevation to the commonalty. The long duration of his dynasty is
ascribed by Aristotle to the mildness and moderation with which he and
his descendants exercised their power, submitting to the laws and taking
pains to secure the good will of the people.
His successor, Myron, having gained a victory in the Olympic chariot-race
in the thirty-third Olympiad, erected a treasury at Olympia, which was
remarkable for its material, brass of Tartessus, which had not long
been introduced into Greece; for its architecture, in which the Doric
and Ionic orders were combined; and for its inscription, in which the
name of Myron was coupled with that of the people of Sicyon. It may be
collected, from an expression of Aristotle’s, that, though Myron was
succeeded, either immediately or after a short interval, by his grandson
Clisthenes, son of Aristonymus, this transmission of the tyranny did not
take place without interruption or impediment; and, if this arose from
the Dorian nobles, it would explain some points in which the government
of Clisthenes differed from that of his predecessors.
He seems to have been the most able and enterprising prince of his house,
and to have conducted many wars, beside that in which we have seen him
engaged on the side of the Amphictyons, with skill and success: he was
of a munificent temper, and displayed his love of splendour and of the
arts both in the national games and in his native city, where, out of
the spoils of Crissa, he built a colonnade, which long retained the
name of the Clisthenean. The magnificence with which he entertained the
suitors who came from all parts of Greece, and even from foreign lands,
to vie with one another, after the ancient fashion, in manly exercises,
for his daughter’s hand, was long so celebrated, that Herodotus gives a
list of the competitors. It proves how much his alliance was coveted by
the most distinguished families; and it is particularly remarkable, that
one of the suitors was a son of Phidon, king of Argos, whom Herodotus
seems to have confounded with the more ancient tyrant of the same name.
Still Clisthenes appears not to have departed from the maxims by which
his predecessors had regulated their government with regard to the
commonalty, but, in the midst of his royal state, to have carefully
preserved the appearance, at least, of equity and respect for the laws.
On the other hand, towards his Dorian subjects he displayed a spirit of
hostility which seems to have been peculiar to himself, and to have been
excited by some personal provocation. It was probably connected with a
war in which he was engaged with Argos, and it impelled him to various
political and religious innovations, the real nature of which can now be
but very imperfectly understood.
One of the most celebrated was the change which he made in the names
of the Dorian tribes, for which he substituted others, derived from
the lowest kinds of domestic animals; while a fourth tribe, to which
he himself belonged, was distinguished by the majestic title of the
_archelai_ (the princely). Herodotus supposes that he only meant to
insult the Dorians; and we could sooner adopt this opinion than believe,
with a modern author, that he took so strange a method of directing their
attention to rural pursuits. But Herodotus adds, that the new names were
retained for sixty years after the death of Clisthenes and the fall of
his dynasty, when those of the Dorian tribes were restored, and, in the
room of the fourth, a new one was created, called from a son of the
Argive hero, Adrastus, the Ægialeans. When the Dorians resumed their old
division, the commonalty was thrown into the single tribe (called not
from the hero, but from the land), the Ægialeans.
We do not know how this dynasty ended, and can only pronounce it probable
that it was overthrown at about the same time with that of the Cypselids
(B.C. 580), by the intervention of Sparta, which must have been more
alarmed and provoked by the innovations of Clisthenes than by the
tyranny of Periander. It would seem, from the history of the tribes,
that the Dorians recovered their predominance; but gradually, and not so
completely as to deprive the commonalty of all share in political rights.
On the other side of the isthmus, the little state of Megara passed
through vicissitudes similar to those of Corinth and Sicyon, but attended
with more violent struggles. Before the Dorian conquest royalty is said
to have been abolished there after the last king, Hyperion, son of
Agamemnon, had fallen by the hand of an enemy, whom he had provoked by
insolence and wrong: and a Megarian legend seems to indicate that the
elective magistrates, who took the place of the kings, bore the title of
_æsymnetes_. The Dorians of Corinth kept those of Megara, for a time,
in the same kind of subjection to which Ægina was reduced by Epidaurus;
and the Megarian peasantry were compelled to solemnise the obsequies
of every Bacchiad with marks of respect, such as were exacted from the
subjects of Sparta on the death of the king. This yoke however was cast
off at an early period; and Argos assisted the Megarians in recovering
their independence. Henceforth it is probable Megara assumed a more
decided superiority over the hamlets of her territory, which had once
been her rivals; and she must have made rapid progress in population
and in power, as is proved by her flourishing colonies in the east and
west, and by the wars which she carried on in defence of them. One of
her most illustrious citizens, Orsippus, who, in the fifteenth Olympiad,
set the example of dropping all incumbrances of dress in the Olympic
foot-race, also conducted her arms with brilliant success against her
neighbours--probably the Corinthians--and enlarged her territory to
the utmost extent of her claims. But the government still remained in
the hands of the great Dorian land-owners, who, when freed from the
dominion of Corinth, became sovereigns at home; and they appear not to
have administered it mildly or wisely. For they were not only deprived
of their power by an insurrection of the commonalty, as at Corinth and
Sicyon, but were evidently the objects of a bitter enmity, which cannot
have been wholly unprovoked.
Theagenes, a bold and ambitious man, who put himself at the head of
the popular cause, is said to have won the confidence of the people
by an attack on the property of the wealthy citizens, whose cattle he
destroyed in their pastures. The animosity provoked by such an outrage,
which was probably not a solitary one, rendered it necessary to invest
the demagogue with supreme authority. Theagenes, who assumed the tyranny
about 620 B.C., followed the example of the other usurpers of his time.
He adorned his city with splendid and useful buildings, and no doubt in
other ways cherished industry and the arts, while he made them contribute
to the lustre of his reign. He allied himself to one of the most eminent
families of Athens, and aided his son-in-law, Cylon, in his enterprise,
which, if it had succeeded, would have lent increased stability to his
own power.
The victories which deprived the Athenians of Salamis, and made them at
last despair of recovering it, were probably gained by Theagenes. Yet he
was at length expelled from Megara; whether through the discontent of the
commonalty, or by the efforts of the aristocratical party, which may have
been encouraged by the failure of Cylon’s plot, we are not distinctly
informed. Only it is said that, after his overthrow, a more moderate and
peaceful spirit prevailed for a short time, until some turbulent leaders,
who apparently wished to tread in his steps, but wanted his ability
or his fortune, instigated the populace to new outrages against the
wealthy, who were forced to throw open their houses, and to set luxurious
entertainments before the rabble, or were exposed to personal insult
and violence. But a much harder blow was aimed at their property by a
measure called the _palintocia_,--which carried the principles of Solon’s
_seisachtheia_ to an iniquitous excess,--by which creditors were required
to refund the interest which they had received from their debtors.
This transaction at the same time discloses one, at least, of the causes
which had exasperated the commonalty against the nobles, who probably
had exacted their debts no less harshly than the Athenian Eupatrids.
But, in this period of anarchy, neither justice nor religion was held
sacred: even temples were plundered; and a company of pilgrims, passing
through the territory of Megara, on their way to Delphi, was grossly
insulted; many lives even were lost, and the Amphictyonic council was
compelled to interpose, to procure the punishment of the ringleaders. It
is unquestionably of this period that Aristotle speaks, when he says that
the Megarian demagogues procured the banishment of many of the notable
citizens for the sake of confiscating their estates; and he adds, that
these outrages and disorders ruined the democracy, for the exiles became
so strong a body, that they were able to reinstate themselves by force,
and to establish a very narrow oligarchy, including those only who had
taken an active part in the revolution. Unfortunately we have no means
of ascertaining the dates of these events, though the last-mentioned
reaction cannot have taken place very long after 600 B.C.
During the following century, our information on the state of Megara is
chiefly collected from the writings of the Megarian poet, Theognis, which
however are interesting not so much for the historical facts contained
in them, as for the light they throw on the character and feelings of
the parties which divided his native city and so many others. Theognis
appears to have been born about the fifty-fifth Olympiad, not long before
the death of Solon; and to have lived down to the beginning of the
Persian wars. He left some poems, of which considerable fragments remain,
filled with moral and political maxims and reflections. We gather from
them, that the oligarchy, which followed the period of anarchy, had been
unable to keep its ground; and that a new revolution had taken place, by
which the poet, with others of the aristocratical party, had been stript
of his fortune and driven into exile. But his complaints betray a fact
which throws some doubt on the purity of his patriotism, and abates our
sympathy for his misfortunes.
BŒOTIA, LOCRIS, PHOCIS, AND EUBŒA
The peculiar circumstances under which Bœotia was conquered, by a people
who had quitted their native land to avoid slavery or subjection, would
be sufficient to account for the fact that royalty was very early
abolished there. It may indeed be doubted whether the chief named
Xanthus, who is called king, sometimes of the Bœotians, sometimes of the
Thebans, and who was slain by the Attic king Melanthus, was anything more
than a temporary leader. The most sacred functions of the Theban kings
seem to have been transferred to a magistrate, who bore the title of
archon, and, like the archon-king at Athens, was invested rather with a
priestly than a civil character.
From the death of Xanthus, down to about 500 B.C., the constitution of
Thebes continued rigidly aristocratical, having probably been guarded
from innovation as well by the inland position of the city as by the
jealousy of the rulers; and the first change, of which we have any
account, was one which threw the government into still fewer hands. But,
about the thirteenth Olympiad, it seems as if discontent had arisen,
among the members of the ruling caste itself, from the inequality in
the division of property, which had perhaps been increased by lapse of
time, until some of them were reduced to indigence. Not long after that
Olympiad, Philolaus, one of the Corinthian Bacchiads, having been led by
a private occurrence to take up his residence at Thebes, was invited to
frame a new code of laws; and one of the main objects of his institutions
was to prevent the accumulation of estates, and to fix forever the number
of those into which the Theban territory, or at least the part of it
occupied by the nobles, was divided. He too was perhaps the author of the
law which excluded every Theban from public offices who had exercised
any trade within the space of ten years. It is probable enough that his
code also embraced regulations for the education of the higher class
of citizens; and it may have been he who, with the view, as Plutarch
supposes, of softening the harshness of the Bœotian character, or to
counterbalance an excessive fondness for gymnastic exercises, to which
the Thebans were prone, made music an essential part of the instruction
of youth.
Our information on the other Bœotian towns is still scantier as to their
internal condition; but we may safely presume that it did not differ
very widely from that of Thebes, especially as we happen to know that
at Thespiæ every kind of industrious occupation was deemed degrading
to a freeman: an indication of aristocratical rigour which undoubtedly
belongs to this period, and may be taken as a sample of the spirit
prevailing in Bœotia. The Bœotian states were united in a confederacy
which was represented by a congress of deputies, who met at the festival
of the _Pambœotia_, in the temple of the Itonian Athene, near Coronea,
more perhaps for religious than for political purposes. There were also
other national councils, which deliberated on peace and war, and were
perhaps of nearly equal antiquity, though they were first mentioned at a
later period, when there were four of them. It does not appear how they
were constituted, or whether with reference to as many divisions of the
country, of which we have no other trace. The chief magistrates of the
league, called _Bœotarchs_, presided in these councils, and commanded the
national forces. They were, in later times at least, elected annually,
and rigidly restricted to their term of office.
As to the institutions of the Locrian tribes in Greece, very little is
known, and they never took a prominent part in Greek history. Down to a
late period the use of slaves was almost wholly unknown among them, as
well as among the Phocians. This fact, which indicates a people of simple
habits, strangers to luxury and commerce, and attached to ancient usages,
may lead us to the further conclusion that their institutions were mostly
aristocratical; and this conclusion is confirmed by all that we hear of
them. Opus is celebrated, in the fifth century B.C., as a seat of law and
order by Pindar.
[Illustration: MT. PARNASSUS, IN PHOCIS]
Equally scanty is our information as to the general condition of the
Phocians. Their land, though neither extensive nor fertile, was divided
among between twenty and thirty little commonwealths, which were united
like the Achæans and the Bœotians, and sent deputies at stated times to
a congress which was held in a large building, called the Phocicum, on
the road between Daulis and Delphi. But Delphi, though lying in Phocis,
disclaimed all connection with the rest of the nation. Its government,
as was to be expected under its peculiar circumstances, was strictly
aristocratical, and was in the hands of the same families which had
the management of the temple, on which the prosperity of the city and
the subsistence of a great part of the inhabitants depended. In early
times the chief magistrate bore the title of king, afterwards that of
_prytanis_. But a council of five, who were dignified with a title
marking their sanctity, and were chosen from families which traced their
origin--possibly through Dorus--to Deucalion, and held their offices for
life, conducted the affairs of the oracle.
In Eubœa an aristocracy or oligarchy of wealthy land-owners, who,
from the cavalry which they maintained, were called _hippobotæ_, long
prevailed in the two principal cities, Chalcis and Eretria. The great
number of colonies which Chalcis sent out, and which attests its early
importance, was probably the result of an oligarchical policy. Its
constitution appears to have been, in proper terms, a timocracy: a
certain amount of property was requisite for a share in the government.
Eretria, once similarly governed, seems not to have been at all inferior
in strength. She was mistress of several islands, among the rest of
Andros, Tenos, and Ceos; and, in the days of her prosperity, could
exhibit 600 horsemen, 3000 heavy-armed infantry, and 60 chariots in a
sacred procession. Chalcis and Eretria were long rivals, and a tract
called the Lelantian plain, which contained valuable copper mines,
afforded constant occasion for hostilities. These hostilities were
distinguished from the ordinary wars between neighbouring cities by
two peculiar features--the singular mode in which they were conducted,
and the general interest which they excited throughout Greece. They
were regulated, at least in early times, by a compact between the
belligerents, which was recorded by a monument in a temple, to abstain
from the use of missile weapons. But, while this agreement suggests the
idea of a feud like those which we have seen carried on, in an equally
mild spirit, between the Megarian townships, we learn with surprise from
Thucydides that the war between Eretria and Chalcis divided the whole
nation, and that all the Greek states took part with one or the other of
the rivals.
It has been suspected that the cause which drew this universal attention
to an object apparently of very slight moment was, that the quarrel
turned upon political principles; that the oligarchy at Eretria had very
early given way to democracy, while that of Chalcis, threatened by this
new danger, engaged many states to espouse its cause. We are informed
indeed that the Eretrian oligarchy was overthrown by a person named
Diagoras, of whom we also hear that he died at Corinth while on his way
to Sparta, and that he was honoured with a statue by his countrymen.
It is also certain that the oligarchy at Chalcis, though more than
once interrupted by a tyranny, was standing till within a few years of
the Persian wars. But we do not know when Diagoras lived, and, without
stronger evidence, it is difficult to believe that the revolution which
he effected took place before the fall of the Athenian aristocracy, an
epoch which appears to be too late for the war mentioned by Thucydides.
THESSALY
Thessaly seems, for some time after the conquest, to have been governed
by kings of the race of Hercules, who however may have been only chiefs
invested with a permanent military command, which ceased when it was no
longer required by the state of the country. Under one of these princes,
named Aleuas, it was divided into the four districts, Thessaliotis,
Pelasgiotis, Pthiotis, and Hestiæotis. And, as this division was retained
to the latest period of its political existence, we may conclude that
it was not a merely nominal one, but that each district was united
in itself, as well as distinct from the rest. As the four Bœotian
councils seem to imply that a like division existed in Bœotia, so we may
reasonably conjecture that each of the Thessalian districts regulated its
internal affairs by some kind of provincial council. But all that we know
with certainty is, that the principal cities exercised a dominion over
several smaller towns, and that they were themselves the seat of noble
families, sprung from the line of the ancient kings, which were generally
able to draw the government of the whole nation into their hands.
Thus Larissa was subject to the great house of the Aleuadæ, who were
considered as descendants of the ancient Aleuas; Crannon and Pharsalus
to the Scopadæ and the Creondæ, who were branches of the same stock. The
vast estates of these nobles were cultivated, and their countless flocks
and herds fed, by their serfs, the Penests, who at their call were ready
to follow them into the field on foot or on horseback. They maintained a
princely state, drew poets and artists to their courts, and shone in the
public games of Greece by their wealth and liberality.
We are not anywhere informed whether there were any institutions which
provided for the union of the four districts, and afforded regular
opportunities for consultation on their common interests. But, as often
as an occasion appeared to require it, the great families were able to
bring about the election of a chief magistrate, always of course taken
from their own body, whose proper title was that of _tagus_, but who is
sometimes called a king. We know little of the nature of his authority,
except that it was probably rather military than civil; nor of its
constitutional extent, which perhaps was never precisely ascertained,
and depended on the personal character and the circumstances of the
individual.
The population of Thessaly, beside the penests, whose condition was
nearly that of the Laconian helots, included a large class of free
subjects, in the districts not immediately occupied by the Thessalian
invaders, who paid a certain tribute for their lands, but, though
not admitted to the rights of citizens, preserved their personal
liberty unmolested. But above this class stood a third, of the common
Thessalians, who, though they could not boast, like the Aleuadæ and the
Scopadæ, of a heroic descent, and had therefore received a much smaller
portion of the conquered land, still, as the partners of their conquest,
might think themselves entitled to some share in the administration
of public affairs. Contests seem early to have arisen between this
commonalty and the ruling families, and at Larissa the aristocracy of
the Aleuadæ was tempered by some institutions of a popular tendency. We
do not know indeed to what period Aristotle refers, when he speaks of
certain magistrates at Larissa who bore the title of guardians of the
freemen, and exercised a superintendence over the admission of citizens,
but were themselves elected by the whole body of the people, out of the
privileged order, and hence were led to pay their court to the multitude
in a manner which proved dangerous to the interests of the oligarchy.
It seems not improbable that the election of a tagus, like that of a
dictator at Rome, was sometimes used as an expedient for keeping the
commonalty under. But the power of the oligarchs was also shaken by
intestine feuds; and, under the government of the Aleuadæ, such was
the state of parties at Larissa, that, by common agreement, the city
was committed to the care of an officer, who was chosen, perhaps from
the commonalty, to mediate between the opposite factions; but, being
entrusted with a body of troops, made himself master of both. This event
took place two generations before the Persian War; but the usurpation
appears to have been transitory, and not to have left any durable traces,
while the factions of Larissa continue to appear from time to time
throughout the whole course of Grecian history.
The western states of Greece are, during this period, shrouded in so
complete obscurity, that we cannot pretend to give any account of their
condition. With respect to the Ætolians indeed it is uncertain how far
they are entitled to the name of Greeks. The Acarnanians, as soon as they
begin to take a part in the affairs of Greece, distinguish themselves as
a finer and more civilised people; and it is probable that the Corinthian
colonies on the Ambracian Gulf may have exerted a beneficial influence on
their social progress.[b]
CORINTH UNDER PERIANDER
In the Isthmus of Corinth there is a pillar with a double inscription.
On the side facing Peloponnesus is written “Here is Peloponnesus and
not Ionia.” On the opposite side, which faced the territory of Megaris,
was written, “This is not Peloponnesus but Ionia.” Between the hostile
worlds of the Dorians and Ionians, Corinth was as between two stools.
Originally, however, the Corinthians favoured the Dorians because they
had been conquered by them when Peloponnesus was subjugated under the
Heraclids. Corinth took the side of Lacedæmon in the internal quarrels of
Greece.
The aristocratic genius of the Dorians without abolishing the ancient
royalty, subordinated Corinth. One of the Heraclids was called king.
He commanded the army and presided over the debates of this military
aristocracy. Later, the oligarchy made this not very powerful king
disappear, and kept for itself all the rights of sovereignty. This was at
the time of the descendants of Bacchis, the Heraclid.
The Bacchiadæ numbered over two hundred, amongst them being other
families with whom they were connected and who governed Corinth together.
Each year, one of them, elected by his fellows, exercised under the name
Prytanis, a power very much resembling royalty. One day this annual
authority fell into the hands of an ambitious man Cypselus, who was not
satisfied with his power, and became master, not only of the people
but of his equals. This tyranny was followed by that of Periander, son
of Cypselus. Periander’s first acts were popular, but a sad occurrence
weighed upon his brain and made him cruel. This was found out in Corinth,
and from that time Periander, thinking he had nothing more to hope for,
gave way to all the bad traits of his character. He banished the most
powerful citizens. He killed his wife, Melissa, by a kick in the stomach
and then wishing by way of atonement to give her a splendid funeral, he
assembled all the women of Corinth in Juno’s Temple, where his guards
stripped them of their jewels and clothes which were burnt in honour of
Melissa.
However, Periander kept down luxury. He forbade the citizens to keep
many slaves, he ordered land-owners to live on their estates in order
to cultivate them, he allowed no one to spend more than his income, and
he established no new taxes. Last of all, he increased the Corinthian
navy and he conceived the idea of piercing the isthmus. These acts were
worthy of a statesman. He wrote and composed over two thousand verses
with morals. He praised democratic government and said that he himself
was a tyrant because he thought it too dangerous to give up being so. He
recommended moderation in happiness and that friendship should not change
with fortune.
Man’s heart is large enough to have good as well as bad qualities.
Besides, to have supreme power over equals was a double spur exciting
good as well as bad actions. If the intoxication of power inflamed
the senses and passions of the usurper, and defiance had to be met
by cruelty, it was in Periander’s interest to give his town all the
advantages of good government. Also, as he was clever, he knew how to
conciliate the people. Force is always admired and worshipped when it
comes from the highest, and protects and spares the weak.
After Periander, who died in his bed, Corinth had an aristocratic
government and knew no more the tyranny of a single ruler. The people
had an assembly but the direction of the important affairs of state was
in the hands of a senate. The aristocracy of Corinth which was rich and
prudent in governing, watched with jealous care over maintaining its
power and it is due to the energy of one of its number that Corinth
escaped from a new tyranny.
Of an illustrious family, Timophanes had become the idol of the people.
His audacity, his prowess in warfare, his familiarity with the humblest
citizens delighted the multitude and seemed to invite him to take the
reins of government into his hands. But Timophanes had near him a severe
judge in his brother. This brother, though loving him very much and
having for a long time screened or excused his faults, ended by killing
him in order that Corinth should not be reduced to servitude. The verses
Virgil dedicated to the first of the Brutuses might be applied to
Timoleon.
This republican fratricide had the misfortune of being cursed by his
mother. He lived twenty years, not in repentance but in solitude, and
we shall find him again at Syracuse. Corinth had not only founded that
celebrated city in Sicily, she had founded other colonies besides,
amongst them Corcyra, with which she was a long time at war, accusing
the inhabitants of not paying the respect due to a capital. “Our other
colonies love and respect us whilst the Corcyreans are arrogant and
unjust, to such a point that they have seized Epidamnus, which belongs to
us and which they intend to keep.” These were the complaints Corinth made
through her deputies, at Athens, against her colonies. However, in spite
of the complaints, the Athenians received the alliance of Epidamnus,
which had a powerful navy, and which, in their eyes, had the great
advantage of being situated on the way to Italy and Sicily.
This determination not to help Corinth, irritated the Corinthians, whose
Dorian origin already made them Athens’ natural enemy, and was one of
the decisive causes of the Peloponnesian War. It was at the instigation
of Corinth that the Peloponnesians held a kind of congress at Sparta, in
which they denounced the ambition and audacity of the Athenians who were
born, they said, never to have rest and never to allow anybody else to
have any.
Before Athens shone by her eloquence, poetry, and art, Corinth was
the centre of Hellenic trade and was the sojourn of pleasure. All the
merchandise of Europe and of Asia was imported on payment of duty, and
all foreigners flocked there more than they did to any other town of
Greece. People came from everywhere, from Egypt as well as from Sicily;
but Corinth was a town essentially for rich men--it was the town of
Venus. The courtesans were honoured. They had the privilege of offering
the public vows to Venus, when the goddess was appealed to in a case of
great danger. They it was who asked her to grant the salvation of Greece
when that country was invaded by Xerxes. When private people had their
prayers granted by the goddess they showed their gratitude by offering
her a number of courtesans for her temple. All the countries which traded
with Corinth provided these charming priestesses.
At Sparta the glory of women was their patriotism, at Athens their
intellect, and at Corinth their beauty. Laïs was the queen of the
courtesans and received homage from the most important and serious
personages of Greece, from philosophers as well as from politicians. She
was in reality a Sicilian, captured when a child by the Athenians and
sold to Corinth. But the Corinthians idolised her, and always swore she
was born amongst them.
Riches and pleasure! It was to the interest of the Corinthians not to
get rid of these women, in order to enjoy life, and this was in itself a
guarantee against the rule of a demagogue in the city of Periander and
of Timoleon. Pindar can say with great truth in one of his Olympics,
“Harmony and good legislation are found in Corinth, also justice and
peace. The daughters of the prudent Themis dispense happiness to mankind
and watch over their cities.”
This prosperity had a tragic ending. When the Romans triumphed over the
Achæan League, Corinth perished miserably. Such lamentable ruin was like
the last day of Ilium. Everything condemned the town before the Roman
tribunals: its admirable position, the key to the whole of Greece; its
riches and works of art, which were placed in the Capitol at Rome.[c]
[Illustration: RUINS OF A TOWER OF TITHOREA, IN PHOCIS
(Near Mt. Parnassus)]
[Illustration]