The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race Volume I Part 13

32. In order to trace the national character and origin of the Macedonians, it is necessary to distinguish three things; first, their Illyrian descent; secondly, their extension over other, for the most part Grecian countries; and thirdly, the introduction by the ruling family, of the civilisation and refinements of the Greeks; which must have gained great ground when Alexander the Philh.e.l.lene offered himself as a combatant at the Olympic games, and honoured the poetry of Pindar;(2101) and when Archelaus, the son of Perdiccas,-the same person who first established many fortresses and roads in his dominions, and formed a Macedonian army,(2102) nay, even had it in view to procure a navy,(2103)-had tragedies of Euripides acted at his court under the direction of that poet. These changes must have chiefly affected the regions near the sea; for they could not have equally extended to the Macedonians of Lyncus, &c., who, even in the time of Strabo, had the greatest resemblance to the Da.s.saretians, Taulantians, &c., and, until the overthrow of the Macedonian monarchy, preserved their ancient savage habits; which Livy only partially accounts for by their intercourse with neighbouring barbarians.(2104)

33. Since the Illyrian tribes were never distinguished for that original invention which imagined new G.o.ds and established new modes of worship; while, on the other hand, they readily adopted strange deities;(2105) we find among the Macedonians more traces of foreign than native religion.

Certain deities which the Greeks compared with the Sileni they called Sauadae,(2106) as the Illyrians called them Deuadae;(2107) a native Macedonian G.o.d of health was named Darrhon;(2108) there was also a G.o.d called Deipatyrus among the neighbouring Stymphaeans.(2109) The wide extension of the worship of Bacchus must be ascribed to the vicinity of, and early intercourse with Pieria: the Macetian women were celebrated as wild and raging Bacchantes.(2110) The worship of Zeus appears to have been early introduced among the Macedonians from mount Olympus.(2111) Hercules, the heroic progenitor of the royal family, was worshipped in their first residence at Edessa:(2112) he was called in Macedonia Aretus.(2113) The worship of Apollo, which was prevalent in Macedonia at an early period,(2114) probably was introduced from Pythium on mount Olympus:(2115) that of Pan, at Pella, was perhaps derived from the Pelasgians.(2116)

34. Many barbarous customs of the northern nations, as, for example, that of tattooing, which prevailed among the Illyrians and Thracians,(2117) must have fallen into disuse in Macedonia at a very early date: for the Greeks would not have forgotten to mention such evident proofs of barbarian descent. Even the usage of the ancient Macedonians, that every person who had not killed an enemy should wear some disgraceful badge, had been discontinued in the time of Aristotle.(2118) Yet at a very late date no one was permitted to lie down at table who had not slain a wild boar without the nets.(2119) It is greatly to be lamented that we know much less of the ancient customs of the Illyrians than of the Thracians, of whose singular and almost Asiatic usages we are sufficiently well informed. The doctrine of the immortality of the soul in the worship of Zalmoxis, the lamentations of the Trausi at the birth of a man,(2120) and the slaughter of the dearest wife on the grave of her husband among the Sintes and Maedi,(2121) point to a particular view of human life, foreign to the Grecian character, but familiar to many eastern nations.(2122) The prevailing custom of polygamy,(2123) the buying and inheriting of women, the selling of children as slaves,(2124) and the delight in intoxication,(2125) are traces of a genuine barbarian character; no one of which, as far as I am aware, can be discovered among the Macedonians: with whom, moreover, the Thracian names (_e.g._, Cotys, and those ending in _cetes_ and _sades_) never occur.

35. On the other hand, a military disposition, which still distinguished the Macedonians in the time of Polybius, personal valour, and a certain freedom of spirit, were the national characteristics of this people. Long before Philip organised his phalanx, the cavalry of Macedon was greatly celebrated, especially that of the highlands, as is shown by the tetradrachms of Alexander the First. In smaller numbers they attacked the close array of the Thracians of Sitalces, relying on their skill in horsemanship and on their defensive armour.(2126) Teleutias the Spartan also admired the cavalry of Elimea;(2127) and in the days of the conquest of Asia the custom still remained that the king could not condemn any person without having first taken the voice of the people or of the army.(2128)

36. It is difficult to treat of the Macedonian language, as not only the _ancient_ period of the native dialect must be distinguished from the _second_, in which the Grecian language was partially introduced, after Archelaus, Philip, and Alexander made their people acquainted with Athenian civilisation, but also from a _third_, in which many barbarous words were adopted from the mixture of the Macedonians with Indians, Persians, and Egyptians.(2129) Nevertheless it is possible to form a well-grounded opinion as to the form of the Macedonian language in the first period. In the first place, they had many barbarous words for very simple and common objects,(2130) which may be certainly considered as Illyrian, since among the _very scanty_ relics of the Illyrian and Athamanian dialects(2131) there are some words which are also mentioned as Macedonian.(2132) Indeed, without supposing some barbarous foundation of this kind, we could hardly account for the Macedonian language being still unintelligible to the Greeks in the time of Alexander the Great.(2133) Yet it cannot be doubted that the Greek had pa.s.sed into the Illyrian dialect _before_ the introduction of Athenian literature, and that their combination produced the mongrel language which was afterwards called Macedonian. The nominatives in a, such as ?pp?ta, p???ta, &c., could not have been derived from the Athenians; but the Thessalians, the Dryopians, and probably all the Pelasgians, used that form.(2134) That some mixture of Greek had taken place at an early period seems also to be proved by the great and almost inexplicable change which the Grecian words experienced in the mouth of the Macedonians, who appear to have been unable to p.r.o.nounce the letters F and T, and hence they always subst.i.tuted ? for the former, and ? for the latter,(2135) perhaps from a peculiarity of the Illyrian nation. On the other hand, the Macedonian language had a consonant ?? or V, as _Vol.u.s.tana_, the name of the country round Olympus,(2136) the _Candavian_ mountains,(2137) &c., prove; and thus both in this and the former respect it approximated to the vocal system of the Latin.

_Note on the Map of Macedonia._

Since the annexed Map is entirely copied from that of Barbie du Bocage, as far as the country is concerned, I will only remark some important points in which Arrowsmith's great Map of Turkey, which is in part founded on quite different authorities, differs from it. In this Map the small lake to the east of Lychnis, or Lychnitis (the lake of Ochrida), is not connected with any river running to the coast, and the mountains to the west of it stretch uninterruptedly to the south. (Perhaps this is correct: see p. 453, note g. [Transcriber's Note: This is the footnote to "Candavian chain," starting "Ptolemy."]) The Haliacmon rises rather more to the north than in Barbie du Bocage's Map. The Cara-Sou, which is certainly the Erigon, runs into the lake of the Lydias. (Incorrect, according to Strabo, quoted in p. 451, note b. [Transcriber's Note: This is the footnote to "mountains of Illyria," starting "Its rise in these mountains."]) The Lydias has a longer course, and rises in the Illyrian mountains. The modern river Gallico, which I make the Echeidorus, flows at some distance from the sea through a lake into the Axius. The tributary branch of the Achelous, called by the ancients the Inachus, rises further to the south, under the Pindus-chain (contrary to the authors quoted in p.

452, note f. [Transcriber's Note: This is the footnote to "Epirus of Lacmon," starting "Or Lacmus."]). Upon the whole, Barbie du Bocage's Map is without doubt the more accurate.

APPENDIX II. GENEALOGY OF h.e.l.lEN.

There is a particular tendency which may be traced throughout all the accounts that have come down to us of early Grecian history, viz., of reducing everything to a _genealogical_ form. It was much encouraged by the opinion of the later historians, that every town and valley had received its name from some ancient prince or hero; thus even Pausanias meets with persons who explained everything by means of genealogies;(2138) who, for example, out of the Pythian temple at Delphi made a son of Delphus Pythis, a prince of early times. This tendency, however, is manifestly founded on the genuine ancient language of mythology. With the inventors of these fabulous narratives, nations, cities, mountains, rivers, and G.o.ds became real _persons_, who stood to one another in the relation of human beings, were arranged in families, and joined to one another in marriage. Now although such fictions are in many cases easily seen through, and the meaning of the connexion may be readily deciphered, yet these genealogies, as there was nothing of arbitrary and fanciful invention in them, in after-times pa.s.sed for real history; and were, both by early and late historians, with full confidence in their general accuracy, made use of for the establishment of a sort of chronology. On these principles, then, the genealogies which were formed in the age of the later epic poets, and perhaps even of the early historians, cannot be considered as pure invention; these too must have been founded on certain arguments and facts, which were generally believed at that time. We will endeavour to point this out in the famous genealogy of the chief races of the Greeks, which was taken from the ???a? of Hesiod.(2139)

[Transcriber's Note: Here are the relationships shown in the table:

Prometheus and Pandora had Deucalion.

Deucalion and Pyrrha had h.e.l.len.

h.e.l.len had Dorus, Xuthus, and aeolus.

Xuthus had Achaeus and Ion.]

Now the pa.s.sage of Hesiod only mentions the three brothers, Dorus, Xuthus, and aeolus, without naming the sons of Xuthus; but it is evident that in this series Xuthus must also represent some race or races; and since no tribe ever bore the t.i.tle of _Xuthi_, this name must have been used by Hesiod to signify the Ionians and Achaaens, as in Apollodorus, and other writers.(2140) According to another tradition, perhaps of equal antiquity, Zeus, the father of G.o.ds and men, was, instead of Deucalion, the husband of Pyrrha.(2141)

It is evident that the above genealogy was intended to represent the chief races of the h.e.l.lenes, or Greeks, as belonging to one nation; and consequently could not have been made before the name h.e.l.lenes was applied to the whole nation; which in the Iliad(2142) is only the name of a small tribe in Phthia.(2143) The more extended use of the name falls in the period of the poems which went under the name of Hesiod:(2144) it is first thus used in the "Works and Days" of the real Hesiod,(2145) before which time, therefore, the above genealogy cannot have been formed. But that the author of it did not make an arbitrary fiction is evident from the circ.u.mstance that he put Xuthus instead of Achaeus and Ion; by which he greatly deranged the symmetry of his genealogy. It is clear that he thought himself bound to respect the tradition, that Achaeus and Ion were the sons of Xuthus; which prevented him from making h.e.l.len their father.

As yet, therefore, the other brothers were not recognised in tradition as having any fathers; and some obscure legends, such as that of Dorus, the son of Apollo,(2146) had not obtained a general belief. There can be no doubt that h.e.l.len was recognised in the most ancient tradition. Now in the fictions of mythology the invention was bound by a sort of fanciful regularity; and in a fabulous genealogy the part was deduced from the whole, the species from the genus, as an inferior and subordinate being: thus in the Theogony the hills are the children of the earth, and the sun and the moon of light.(2147) Accordingly the poet (or whoever was his authority) sang of aeolus, Dorus, and Xuthus, the progenitors of nations, being the sons of h.e.l.len, the son of Zeus, or grandson of Prometheus. It is possible that before this entire genealogy others had been invented, _e.g._, that _Dorus_ was a son of h.e.l.len; since, as early as the time of Lycurgus, the Spartans were commanded by the Pythian oracle to worship Zeus h.e.l.lanius and Athene h.e.l.lania;(2148) and since both the judges in the Spartan army(2149) and the judges of the Olympic games were called h.e.l.lanodicae. And when I consider the celebrated oracle just quoted, and the close connexion of Sparta and Olympia with Delphi, the sacred families of the Delphians (the ?s???), who referred their origin to Deucalion,(2150) and on the other hand remember that a Botian poem, composed in the neighbourhood of the Pythian oracle, first uses the word "h.e.l.lenes" in this extended sense; I cannot help conjecturing that this national sanctuary of the h.e.l.lenic name had a large share in the formation of that really beautiful legend; by which all the different races of Greece, separated for so many centuries by violent and unceasing contention, were united into the peaceable fellowship of brotherly affection and concord.

APPENDIX III. THE MIGRATION OF THE DORIANS TO CRETE.

Cnosus,(2151) the Minoian Cnosus, was, even so late as the time of Plato, the first city in Crete, and the chief domicile of the Cretan laws and customs: and Plato, in his Treatise on Laws, takes a Cnosian as the representative and defender of the Cretan laws in general;(2152) although Cnosus about his time had declined from internal corruption, and the fame of having preserved the good laws of ancient Crete soon pa.s.sed from her to Gortyna and Lyctus.(2153) In earlier times, however, the Cretan laws (???t???? ????), which Archilochus even mentions as being of a distinct character,(2154) were preserved in the greatest purity at Cnosus. Now when modern writers admit indeed that the Cretan laws were founded upon the customs of the Doric race, but affirm that this race did not penetrate into Crete before the expedition of the Heraclidae, and that migrations subsequently took place from Peloponnesus; it is necessary for them first of all to show that _Cnosus_ received its Doric inhabitants from that country, that is, probably either from Argos or Sparta. But had such been the case, the memory of these migrations would a.s.suredly never have been lost: Argos and Sparta would have been too proud to possess such a colony.

Cnosus must therefore have received its Doric inhabitants at an earlier date, in the dark ages of mythology; and the subsequent colonies from Peloponnesus to Lyctus, Gortyna, and other places, helped to increase the Doric population, which in Homer's time(2155) was confined to a _part_ of the island, over the _whole_ of Crete; as was the case in late ages. And at the time which Homer describes, not only the language, but the customs and laws were probably also different; whereas Archilochus appears to mention the Cretan laws as prevalent over the whole island. Upon the whole, the Dorians in Crete-and this is a fact of great importance-never seem to stand, with regard to the Dorians of Peloponnesus, in the relation of a colony to its mother country. In Greece, the parent state-so great was the pride of higher antiquity-never condescended to take the inst.i.tutions of a colony as models for its own, as was the case with Sparta and Crete; nor did the mother country ever procure priests from its colony, as was the case when the Pythian Apollo sent Cretan priests to Sparta.(2156) In short, everything seems to prove that the Doric inst.i.tutions were of great antiquity in Crete, and that the distinction which has lately been taken between the laws of Minos and the Doric inst.i.tutions and customs of Crete-a distinction directly opposed to the unanimous testimony of antiquity-is false and untenable.

But in retaining his conviction respecting a Doric settlement in Crete before the migration of the Heraclidae, and in viewing it as the only means of explaining many facts in the religious and political history of the Greeks, the Author does not imply that this Doric colony was exactly similar to a later migration of Dorians from Argos and Sparta. The condition of the Dorians in Hestiaeotis must have been very different from that to which the same race attained in Peloponnesus. The mixture with other races, which had gone so far, that the head of the mythical settlement bears a Pelasgic name (Teutamus), does not agree with the character of the later Dorians. At that time no line of princes, calling themselves Heraclidae, could have stood at the head of the Dorians; for in Crete, Heraclidae only occur in cities which were colonised from Peloponnesus; for example, they do not occur in Cnosus. Moreover, a maritime, and especially a piratical life (upon which the maritime supremacy of Minos was founded) does not agree with the principles followed by the Dorians in Peloponnesus, where they relied upon a tranquil and secure possession of land. These principles, however, could not be developed so long as the Dorians were excluded from the rich plain of Thessaly, and were forced to eke out their scanty means by hunting and piracy. How different was the rough and perilous life of the ancient sea-kings of the Normans from the proud and secure existence of the barons in Normandy! Yet the eye of the observant historian can trace a unity of national character even in the most different circ.u.mstances. By a similar a.n.a.logy, this remarkable expedition of Doric adventurers from Hestiaeotis to Crete will explain the zeal of the Cretans for the worship of Apollo, the ancient connexion of Crete and Delphi, and the early existence in Crete of notions respecting a strict regulation of public life (??s??).

APPENDIX IV. HISTORY OF THE GREEK CONGRESS OR SYNEDRION DURING THE PERSIAN WAR.

1. In the present article it will be my object to trace the foreign influence which Sparta possessed at the time of the Persian war, and for what length of time her supremacy in Greece remained uncontested and unshaken. This is chiefly seen in the proceedings of the congress of the allied Greek states: to ascertain which with precision, it will be first necessary to fix the chronology of the successive stages of the Persian war.

In the course of the year 481 B.C. (Olymp. 74. 3/4) Xerxes set out from his residence at Susa (Herod. VII. 20), found the great army a.s.sembled in Cappadocia, and marched to Sardis, from which town he sent amba.s.sadors to the Greek cities (ib. 32). Having wintered here, the army marched in the spring of 480 B.C. (Olymp. 74. 4) to Abydos;(2157) when it had reached the pa.s.ses of Pieria, the Persian envoys returned (ib. 131). Soon after this they met at Thermopylae the Greek forces, which had set out before the 75th Olympiad and the Carnean games, about June 480 B.C. Battles of Thermopylae and Artemisium in ?s?? ????? (VIII. 12.) both perhaps a short time before the Olympic festival (VIII. 26). Conquest of Attica, four months after the beginning of the d??as?? t?? ????sp??t?? (VIII. 51). Battle of Salamis, a little after the time of the ?a????, after the e???? of Boedromion Olymp.

75. 1., as the Etesian winds were either blowing or had ceased to blow (they last from the summer solstice to the rising of the dog-star), VII.

168. Mardonius winters in Thessaly and Macedonia, the Persian fleet at c.u.me and Samos. Battle of Plataea on the 26th or 27th of Panemus (Metagitnion), Olymp. 75. 2. 479 B.C. at the same time as that of Mycale.

The year ends with the taking of Sestos.

2. The Greeks certainly received early intelligence of the preparations in Persia (VII. 138), even if the story related by Herodotus (VII. 239.) about the secret message of Demaratus is not true. They either refused or gave earth and water to the envoys late in the year 481 B.C. (VII. 138.).

The states which refused to submit held a congress;(2158) and they are now called by Herodotus, "the Greeks allied against the Persians," (??

s????ta? ??????? ?p? t? ???s?, VII. 148.). This a.s.sembly of course was formed by deputies from the different cities: the manner of its formation may be inferred from the place at which it sat; and it will be shown presently that it first a.s.sembled at Corinth, which city belonged to the Peloponnesian confederacy. It appears therefore that Sparta must have convened an a.s.sembly at Corinth, to which the extra-Peloponnesian states, which had refused earth and water, sent envoys. This congress first put an end to the internal dissensions of Greece (VII. 145.), in which good service Chileus of Tegea and Themistocles are said to have earned the grat.i.tude of their countrymen (Plutarch Themist. 6.). Secondly, when they heard that Xerxes was at Sardis, they despatched spies thither, and at the same time envoys to Argos, Sicily, Corcyra, and Crete. (VII. 145. 199.) The envoys are stated by Herodotus to have been sent by the Lacedaemonians and their allies.(2159) They also made a vow to decimate to the Delphian G.o.d all those Greeks who had unnecessarily given earth and water to the Persians (VII. 132.); the persons who made this vow are called by Diodorus XI. 3. "the Greeks a.s.sembled in congress at the Isthmus," ?? ?? ?s??

s??ed?e???te? t?? ???????.

3. In this narrative taken from Herodotus there still remains one contradiction, viz., that if the Greeks did not a.s.semble till after they had refused earth and water (as appears from VII. 138. cf. 145.), the Argives had no longer any option whether they would join the league or not. Likewise the dismission of the Greek envoys would fall too late in the unfavourable season for sailing, and there would scarcely be time for the messages to the oracles (c. 148, 169.), and the other proceedings. It is therefore probable that this congress was formed _before_ the arrival of the Persian envoys, which was late in 481 B.C.: and Diodorus seems to be correct in stating that of the nations some gave earth and water, while the Persian army was in the valley of Tempe, and others after its departure (XI. 3.); and therefore none till early in 480 B.C.: previously the amba.s.sadors were probably in the north; Herodotus in VII. 138. appears to mean only the amba.s.sadors of Darius. With this the following statements agree, which he adds in VII. 172. "_As soon as_ the Thessalians had heard that the Persians wished to invade Europe"-which they must have known in the winter of 481-80 B.C.-"they sent envoys to the Isthmus." ?? d? t?

?s?? (_i.e._, in the village which had grown up about the temple of Neptune), ?sa? ???s???? p??????? (plenipotentiaries, VI. 7.) t??

????d??, ??a??????? ?p? t?? p????? t?? t? ?e??? f???e??s??? pe?? t??

????da. Now this a.s.sembly, while the Persian king was at Abydos, and therefore very early in 480 B.C., sent the army to Tempe, which soon returned (VII. 173.), and indeed returned to the Isthmus, which must therefore have been the head-quarters of the allied army. When it returned, the congress was still sitting at the Isthmus.(2160) This synedrion or a.s.sembly (which is again mentioned in this place by Diodorus XI. 4.) now resolved to defend the pa.s.ses of Thermopylae and Artemisium: and when the intelligence arrived that the Persians were in Pieria, d?a?????te? ?? t?? ?s??? (_i.e._, departing from the Isthmus) ?st?ate???t? a?t?? ?? ?? ?? Te??p??a? pe??, ????? d? ?at? ???a.s.sa? ?p?

??te?s???. But that the Isthmus was still the place in which the congress sat, is evident from the fact, that Sandoces, Aridolis, and Penthylus, who fell into the hands of the Greeks before the battle of Artemisium, were sent thither (VII. 195.). At this time indeed the Peloponnesians were celebrating the Olympiad, and the Spartans the Carnea, at their respective homes,(2161) after which, as had been previously arranged, they were to take the field with all their forces (pa?d?e?, VII. 206. VIII. 26.).

Nevertheless, the decree that the ships which came too late for Artemisium should a.s.semble in the Trzenian Pogon (VIII. 42.), as well as the other, that the Isthmus should be fortified (VIII. 40, 71.), which measure was not thought of before the battle of Thermopylae, must have been pa.s.sed in this interval. Diodorus (XI. 16.) mentions the synedrion in connexion with this decree. The fortification began after the Carnea (VIII. 72.). The fleet was commanded (as is evident from VIII. 2, 9, 56, 58, 74, 108, 111.

IX. 90.) by the Spartan admiral and a council, a s???d???? of the st?at???? or ?? t??e? ??te? (IX. 106.), in which the admiral t?? ?????

p??et??e? (VIII. 59.) put the question to the vote (?pe??f??e, c. 61.), and gave out the decree. This commander was armed with very large powers, and Leotychidas concluded an alliance with the Samians (IX. 92.), and even the captains of the fleet debated on the projected migration of the Ionians (IX. 106.). Nor is it ever mentioned that the fleet received orders from the Isthmus. But the circ.u.mstance of the fleet's sailing to the Isthmus, after the battle of Salamis, for the decree on the ???ste?a (VIII. 123.), is a proof that the Isthmus was still the seat of the confederate a.s.sembly. Diodorus likewise represents this decree as proceeding from the s???d???? (XI. 55.); probably the "Greeks," who refused to confirm the vote of the commanders (VIII. 124.), were the members of the league. The ships which had been engaged in the battle returned home without any decision. Late in the year, after the eclipse of the sun on the 2nd of October, Cleombrotus had led the great allied army from the Isthmus, and soon afterwards died (IX. 10.). The decree for the following year, that the fleet should go to aegina (VIII. 131.), may have proceeded either from the synedrium of the preceding year, or from _Sparta_. For that there were no longer any deputies a.s.sembled at Corinth is evident from the circ.u.mstance that the Ionian envoys only went to Sparta and aegina (VIII. 132.); nor is the Isthmus afterwards mentioned as the seat of an a.s.sembly, although it was fortified until the middle of summer, till the time of the Hyacinthia (IX. 7.). After this time, Athens, Plataea, and Megara sent their envoys to Sparta, where there were also Peloponnesian envoys, as for instance Chileus of Tegea (IX. 9.), who was mentioned above among the p???????; and all these, together with the amba.s.sadors of the three states just mentioned, are, as it appears, called by Herodotus ?? ???e??? ?? ?p?????? ?p? t?? p?????, IX. 10. There must probably have been some joint act of the allies,(2162) by virtue of which Pausanias was able to collect the great Peloponnesian army. After the battle of Plataea there was in the army a kind of council of war, doubtless a s???d???? t?? ?? t??e? ??t??, which regulated the number of the sacred offerings, divided the booty (IX. 81, 85.), and determined on the expedition against Thebes (c. 86.): the persons who were given up, Pausanias seems at Corinth to have ordered to execution on his own authority (c. 88.).

4. Such is the substance of the narrative of Herodotus; in which we can only be surprised, that of the most remarkable event, viz., the treaty of Pausanias, he should say not a word: a silence which can only be explained by supposing that he had intended to mention it in another pa.s.sage of his unfinished work. When Pausanias, with the a.s.sistance of the allies, had won the battle of Plataea, he sacrificed in the market-place of Plataea to Zeus Eleutherius, and convened an a.s.sembly of all the Greeks, in which the Plataeans (who annually performed certain honorary rites to those who had fallen in the battle, Thuc. III. 58.) were promised that their country and city should remain independent, and that no one should attack them without lawful reason, or with intention to reduce them to subjection: and that, in case these conditions were not observed, all the allies then present would protect them (Thuc. VI. 71. cf. III. 56, 59.); an engagement which the Spartans themselves afterwards broke, on the ground that the Plataeans had first unjustly given up t? ?????t?? (II. 74.). For in "the ancient treaty of Pausanias after the Persian war," it was ordered that the allies in general, and the Plataeans among them, should remain at peace with each other (Thuc. III. 68. cf. II. 72.). The further conditions of this treaty may be collected from Thucyd. I. 67, (for it is evidently this treaty which is in question,) where the aeginetans complain that they are not independent, "according to the treaty;" for the thirty years' truce (I.

115.) cannot be meant, as it was not concluded till after the subjection of aegina (the former in Olymp. 83. 3. the latter in Olymp. 80. 4.); whence it is likewise evident that the treaty, which was violated by the siege of Potidaea, and the exclusion of the Megarians from the market of Attica, (I.

67, 87. cf. c. 144.) was the same ancient act, only renewed by later treaties. Thus Plutarch states that the latter prohibition was "contrary to the common principles of justice, and the solemn oaths of _the Greeks_."(2163) And in another place he mentions that, in a general a.s.sembly of the Greeks after the battle of Plataea, Aristides proposed a decree that the Greeks should annually send deputies and sacred messengers to Plataea, and that the Eleutheria should be solemnised every five years.(2164) Also, that it was agreed that an allied Greek armament should be organised against the Persians, consisting of 10,000 heavy-armed infantry, 1000 cavalry, and 100 ships: and that the Plataeans should be considered sacred and inviolable. From what has been stated above, it is clear how much of this account is true, and how much added by Athenian partiality.

5. In the following years, when Sparta still continued the war against the Persians and their allies by means of Pausanias and Leotychidas, there must have been a congress, though not constantly sitting; since the Spartans would not have determined the amount of "the war contribution"(2165) on their own authority; and there is much probability in the account of Diodorus (XI. 55.), that the Spartans summoned Themistocles for his share in the treason of Pausanias before the common-council of the Greeks, which used at this time to a.s.semble at Sparta. At least it is not contradicted by Thucydides; indeed his narrative (I. 135.) perfectly agrees in this point with that of Diodorus.

The words ?? t? Sp??t?, which are omitted in some MSS. of Diodorus, and suspected by Wesseling (yet, it should be observed, _only_ these words), cannot be well spared; and, even if they were expunged, the whole chapter would show that the congress was sitting at Sparta; for it was evidently under Lacedaemonian influence, and therefore met in the Peloponnese; and, since the instance mentioned above, it does not appear that any of its meetings were held at the Isthmus.

This account likewise proves that, after Pausanias had occasioned the defection of the Ionians and aeolians from Sparta, who were now considered as the separate allies of Athens, a confederate council, which included other states besides the Peloponnesians, continued to sit at Sparta; and affords fresh grounds for supposing that this abandonment of the Spartan alliance was not considered as a transfer of the chief command to Athens, but that Sparta only intrusted the Athenians, together with those Greeks who dwelt in the territory of the Persian king, with the continuation of the war in Asia, and the management of all affairs connected with it; and still considered Athens as under her command, until that state revolted in Olymp. 79. At last the internal wars of Peloponnesus, Olymp. 79-81, subverted all the relations of Athens and Sparta.

End Of Vol. I.