Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A survey of Greek historians of the 5th and 4th centuries B.C. Alston, Jessie Winifred 1935

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1935_A8_A4_S8.pdf [ 27.02MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0302126.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0302126-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0302126-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0302126-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0302126-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0302126-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0302126-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0302126-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0302126.ris

Full Text

A SURVEY OF GREEK HISTORIANS OP THE 5TH AJJD 4TH CENTURIES B.C. By JESSIE WINIFRED ALSTOE A THESIS SUBMITTED "FOB THE DEGREE OF M A S T _E_R__ OP A H ^ S I I THE DEBARTHEHT TEE USIVERS ITY OP BRITISH OCTOBER t 1935 COLUMBIA A SUBVET OP CHEEK HISTOEIAHS OF THE 5 T H AJfD 4TH CENTURIES B.C. T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Page 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n . I 4 The H i s t o r i e s of Herodotus and h i s Predecessors. II 86 The H i s t o r y o f THucydides. I I I 115 The H i s t o r i e s of Gratippue &n<5 Xenophon. I ? 123 The H i s t o r i e s of P h i l i s t u s ; Ephorusj Theopompusf Timaeas; Hegesiasj D u r i s f C l i t a r c h u s ; A r i s t o l m l u s and Ptolemy. 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0 A SURVEY OF GEEEE HISTORIANS OF THE 5TH AHD 4TH CENTURIES B.C Before we look i n t o the l i m i t a t i o n s which the w r i t t e n h i s t o r y of the 5th and 4th c e n t u r i e s of Ancient Greece p r e -s e n t s , i t seems to me that a few remarks upon the subject o f h i s t o r y i n general would not come amies; tou c h i n g , perhaps, upon the d i f f e r e n t methods of t r e a t i n g h i s t o r y , and determining what we should expect from an h i s t o r i a n . The German, Hegel, assums t h a t t h e r e are three kinds of H i s t o r y , o r i g i n a l , r e f l e c t i v e and p h i l o s o p h i c a l . Let us look merely at h i s d e f i n i t i o n of the f i r s t two, the t h i r d not p e r t a i n i n g to our survey. To the f i r s t c a t e g o r y , he t e l l s us, belong the h i s t o r i a n s "whose d e s c r i p t i o n s are f o r the most part l i m i t e d to deeds, events, and sta'tes of s o c i e t y which they had before t h e i r eyes and who se s p i r i t they shared." (I) T h i s idea of s p i r i t , i n the sense i n which the word i s used here, d i s t i n g u i s h e s the f i r s t method from the second. In the f i r s t the h i s t o r i a n i s molded by the same i n f l u e n c e s which have shaped the events that he r e l a t e s $ he changes these events i n t o an o b j e c t f o r the concept!ve f a c u l t y , and h i s aim i s mere-l y to present to p o s t e r i t y an image o f them as c l e a r as that which he h i m s e l f possessed by v i r t u e of p e r s o n a l o b s e r v a t i o n or l i f e - l i k e d e s c r i p t i o n s . On the other hand, the s p i r i t o f the h i s t o r i a n who adopts the second method, transcends the p r e s e n t . He approaches h i s task w i t h h i s own s p i r i t , a s p i r i t d i s t i n c t from that o f the element he i s to manipulate. His r e a d e r s , (1) Philosophy of H i s t o r y , P . l . t h e r e f o r e , shoaid c o n s i d e r the p r i n c i p l e s which have guided the author i n determining the h e a r i n g and motives o f the ac-t i o n s and events he d e s c r i b e s , and which have decided the form of h i s n a r r a t i v e . I t o f t e n happens t h a t the i n d i v i d u a l i t y of tone which must c h a r a c t e r i z e a w r i t e r b elonging to a d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r e than t h a t of which he would he the h i s t o r i a n , i s not modified i n accordance with the d i s t a n c e h i s r e c o r d must t r a v e l a h i s t o r y which a s p i r e s to t r a v e r s e long p e r i o d s of time, as to he u n i v e r s a l , must forgo the attempt to g i v e i n d i v i d u a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f the past as I t a c t u a l l y e x i s t e d . I t must shorten i t s p i c t u r e s by a b s t r a c t i o n s , so that a b a t t l e , a great v i c t o r y , a s i e g e , no longer maintains i t s o r i g i n a l pro-p o r t i o n s , hut i s passed by with a hare mention. low i t seems to us that the h i s t o r i a n s with whom we have to deal i n t h i s essay, belong to both o f these c a t e g o r i e s , and we have endeavoured, e s p e c i a l l y i n the case of Herodotus and Thucydides, the two most important of them, to show how t h i s i s t r u e , and wherein they succeed i n measuring up to the standard thus set f o r them, and wherein they f a l l s h o r t of i t . What e l s e do we d e s i r e i n an h i s t o r i a n , apart from t h i s fundamental requirement of i n s t i n c t i v e grasp of the scope \ o f h i s t o r y ? Honesty of purpose f i r s t of a l l , I t h i n k ; breadth j of v i s i o n ? c r i t i c a l a b i l i t y i n l a r g e measure; i m p a r t i a l i t y , and a c l e a r , readable s t y l e . And i n the content of a h i s t o r y ? A modern expects, I suppose, g e o g r a p h i c a l , p o l i t i c a l , economic, s o c i a l , l i t e r a r y and p h i l o s o p h i c a l f a c t s , p r o p e r l y combined i n \ one work. Eut we must not hope to f i n d such a h i s t o r y among the a n c i e n t Greeks. Geographical i n f o r m a t i o n they supply to 3« ns l i b e r a l l y . P o l i t i c a l h i s t o r y , too, f i l l s the hulk of t h e i r pages, hut i f one seeks t h e r e i n f o r the other f a c t o r s that are taken f o r granted i n any modern work of such a n a t u r e , he w i l l s c a r c e l y d i s c o v e r them, except where they e x i s t i n the germ or are suggested through the \7orks of persons v/hose names are b a r e l y mentioned -4. H i B Q B B g ¥ S We w i l l review the l i f e o f Herodotus i n s o f a r as i t a p p e r t a i n s to our i n q u i r y , i n order t h a t we may see what were the o p p o r t u n i t i e s and advantages that enabled him to compile h i s work, and what were h i s handicaps and l i m i t a t i o n s . L i m i t -a t i o n s not only i n the f a c i l i t i e s f o r t r a v e l and i n v e s t i g a t i o n , but i n the man h i m s e l f . By so d o ing we w i l l l e a r n to what ex-tent he merits the name of H i s t o r i a n , and wherein he f a l l s short of that i d e a l . Suidas i s our main a u t h o r i t y f o r the l i f e o f Herodotus. Prom him we l e a r n c e r t a i n f a c t s , t h a t , as they are confirmed by i n d i c a t i o n s i n the work of the h i s t o r i a n h i m s e l f , we may consider as f a i r l y c e r t a i n . F i r s t , that he was w e l l - b o r n and a n a t i v e of H a l i c a r n a s s u s ; second, that he was connected with Panyasis, who was the poet of Hercules and of the s t o r y of the I o n i a n c o l o n i z a t i o n ! t h i r d , that he spent p a r t of h i s e a r l y l i f e i n Samos, a f a c t which i s borne out by h i s s p e c i a l fami-l i a r i t y w i t h , and favour f o r , t h a t i s l a n d ? f o u r t h , that he took part i n the c o l o n i z a t i o n of T h u r i i and died there j f i f t h , the date of h i s b i r t h , which we can a s s e r t f a i r l y a c c u r a t e l y to have been i n the e a r l y f i f t h c entury, about 484 B.C. C e r t a i n obvious advantages accrued to a man born i n such a p l a c e , i n such an ages who had so spent h i s l i f e . The f a c t t h a t h i s c i t y was a sea-port had an important h e a r i n g on the subsequent w r i t i n g and nature of the h i s t o r i e s . A sea-p o r t town, then even more than now, a f f o r d e d innumerable o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r a wakeful, eager boy to meet and l i s t e n to widely d i v e r s e types o f human beings j and Herodotus was a keen l o v e r o f human na t u r e . He loved the pers o n a l element i n h i s t -ory and knew how to d e p i c t i t . n I n h i s pages statesmen, grooms, d o c t o r s , nurses, peasants, gods, t h i e v e s , j o s t l e one another. How a k i n g speaks, now a p h i l o s o p h e r , now a cafe l o a f e r , " ^ ) He l i v e d among a l l the t a l k of the market-place, personal? p o l i t i c a l , commercial 9 i n t e r n a t i o n a l . He heard a l l manner of marvellous t a l e s and stored them up in. h i s memory, though somewhat u n f o r t u n a t e l y f o r us he neglected t h e i r chronology^ His f a m i l y connect ions? t o o, must have been of use to him i n f u r t h e r i n g h i s own n a t u r a l bent* T h e i n f l u e n c e o f Panyasis may be traced i n Herodotus* H i s t o r y . ^ 2 ^  "Herodotus," w r i t e s Br, Macan, "wa s t r a i n e d , so to speak, i n the school of hi s uncle P a n y a s i s , one of the epic poets, His h i s t o r y of the great i n v a s i o n i s but the a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e p r i n c i p l e s of Panyasis to a new s u b j e c t , t h e f r e s h e s t t h a t could have en-gaged h i s attention,'* (3) B u t there were gaps i n h i s educa-t i o n . His s p e l l i n g has been compared to t h e E l i z a b e t h a n f o r i t s spacious freedom* His a r i t h m e t i c i s not always r e l i a b l e . There i s ve r y l i t t l e r e f e r e n c e to music i n h i s pages* He does not t a l k p h i l o s o p h y , though i t had i t s i n f l u e n c e upon him. But whatever gaps there were i n h i s t r a i n i n g , i t was pre-eminently Greek, and Greek educ a t i o n not o n l y l e f t a l i v e i n the man the ardent and I n q u i s i t i v e mind of the boy, xvith i t s p e r p e t u a l d e s i r e to know, but f o s t e r e d and f u r t h e r e d i t . (1) P, w„ L i v i n g s t o n e , "The Greek Genius", P.151 (2) c f . e s p e c i a l l y 11,43-5; IT,8-10j 1,142-150 (3) " I n t r o d u c t i o n to Herodotus" pp.¥11,TIII,IX fy^l f1, We pass from the c h i l d to the man* Somewhere about 454 B.C., the h i s t o r i a n l e f t H a l i c a r n a s s u s , banished by i t s t y r a n t Lygdamis, who had put Herodotus* u n c l e Panyasis to death. He stayed f o r some time, a p p a r e n t l y , i n Samoa, and then went to Athens, where he supposedly d e l i v e r e d r e c i t a t i o n s from h i s books. Prom Athens he proceeded to I t a l y as one of the f i r s t c i t i z e n s of the ne?/ colony of 5?hurii (445 B.C.). His subsequent l i f e Is undetermined and t r a d i t i o n a l accounts vary. I t i s p o s s i b l e that he returned to Athens i n 431-30 B.C., though i f be d i d he probably returned thence to T h u r i i . Even the date of h i s death i s u n c e r t a i n . At best he survived o n l y the f i r s t years of the Peloponnesian War. Into t h i s framework we have to f i t h i s t r a v e l s , which i n c l u d e d the c o a s t s of the Euxine, Babylon, P h o e n i c i a , Egypt, and probably Gyrene. Few s t o r i e s i n h i s a c t u a l n a r r a t i v e are more i n t e r e s t i n g to us than these voyages o f h i s own, which have made him i n some ways the f a t h e r o f geography as w e l l as of h i s t o r y . He went, as a r u l e , by water, and d i d no t under o r d i n a r y circumstances leave the c o a s t . Of the dates of h i s v i s i t s i t i s not necessary here to d i s c u s s the d i s p u t e d chronology. His most important journeys, to Babylon and Egypt, took place around 449 B.C. As to t h e i r motive, i t Is p l a u s -i b l e to suggest t h a t Herodotus t r a v e l l e d as a merchant, a t any r a t e i n the north and e a s t . He i s c a r e f u l to mention a r t i c l e s o f commerce, i s fond o f d e s c r i b i n g methods of t r a n s p o r t , men-t i o n s curious forms of t r a d e , and uses what seem to be trade terms. Of course h i s t r a v e l s were e s p e c i a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g and i n v a l u a b l e i n that they enabled him to c o l l e c t the m a t e r i a l s f o r h i s h i s t o r y from the v a r i o u s o r a l sources, and to some extent to use h i s eyes i n seeing the scenes of the events he d e s c r i b e s . The mention of m a t e r i a l s "brings us to the q u e s t i o n of the evidence Herodotus made use of i n w r i t i n g the h i s t o r i e s * I t may be c l a s s i f i e d under the heads of w r i t t e n , o r a l and a r c h a e o l o g i c a l evidence* Each of these k i a d s must be con-sidered s e p a r a t e l y . Herodotus c o n t i n u a l l y quotes poetry} he i s c e r t a i n l y indebted to the 'Persae * of Aes c h y l u s , and perhaps a l s o to Phrynichus • 'Taking o f M i l e t u s 1 1 , though t h i s can not be proved. Above a l l , he knew h i s Homer thoroughly and d i d not h e s i t a t e to i m i t a t e him. L i k e Homer, he made h i s c h a r a c t e r s speak, i n t r o -ducing both s h o r t , pointed c o n v e r s a t i o n s and d i a l o g u e s , and o r a t i o n s of c o n s i d e r a b l e l e n g t h . He adopted another e p i c f e a t u r e , and d i v e r s i f i e d h i s work with d i g r e s s i o n s and episodes. "The Homeric q u a l i t i e s of Herodotus, which communicate to h i s h i s t o r y an epi c f l a v o u r , accord with the o b j e c t to produce a work which, l i k e Homer*'®, should f a s c i n a t e the minds of men. I t was h i s aim to hold h i s audience or readers e n t e r t a i n e d ; to do f o r h i s world i n prose what Horaer had done f o r the a n c i e n t world i n numhers.** (I) . . We must remember that Herodotus, i n common with a l l the Greeks, considered Homer h i s t o r y , long before h i s t o r y i n the c o r r e c t sense of the word came to be w r i t t e n . To t h i s ex-t e n t , at l e a s t , they were j u s t i f i e d , i n that the groundwork and p r i n c i p a l motives of the epics were h i s t o r i c a l , and d u r i n g (1) Bury. "Ancient Greek H i s t o r i a n s , " P.43. the l a t e r c e n t u r i e s they were becoming qua s i - h i s t o r i c a l i n form. Q?he body of t r a d i t i o n s was being submitted to crude and rudimentary processes o f what we may c a l l h i s t o r i c a l i n q u i r y . The l a t e r poets of the Homeric s c h o o l , and the poets of the H e s i o d i c school., worked i n obedience to the new found need of systematic arrangement and c h r o n o l o g i c a l o r d e r , while s c a t t e r -ed and c o n t r a d i c t o r y t r a d i t i o n s were harmonized more or l e s s Into a c o n s i s t e n t p i c t u r e of the p a s t . I t might be expected that t h i s examining of the a n c i e n t l i t e r a t u r e and t r a d i t i o n s , though e f f e c t e d w i t h no thought of q u e s t i o n i n g t h e i r t r u t h as a whole, would have sown the seeds of c r i t i c i s m and paved the way f o r u n b e l i e f . But the p a u c i t y of the remains of t h i s l i t e r a t u r e makes t h i s .question a d i f f i c u l t one to answer. I t would seem, however, that toward the end of the e p i c era a s p i r i t arose, i n I o n i a , not i n c r e d u l o u s , perhaps, but s c e p t i c a l and l i k e l y to break out at any moment i n t o i n c r e d u l i t y . At the same time the mythopoe i c i n s t i n c t o f the Greeks was s t i l l s t r o n g , but with i t nas a growing tendency to r a t i o n a l i z e what men nor f e l t to be i m p o s s i b l e . I t i s b e l i e v e d that much about the same time a western Greek, Theagenes of Bhegium, was attempting to i n t e r p r e t Homer a l l e g o r i c a l l y . Herodotus, of course, does not proceed to such l e n g t h s as t h i s , but he does to a l a r g e extent make i t h i s custom to s t r i p h i s own s t o r i e s of the s u p e r n a t u r a l , not r e a l i s i n g that i n r e j e c t i n g p a r t of a t a l e , he makes the r e s t of i t i n a c c e p t a b l e . Homer and the other poets, then, Herodotus was fam-i l i a r w i t h , and made use of f o r evidence, d o u b t f u l though we r e a l i z e i t now to have been. But besides these, he owed much to c e r t a i n p r o s e - w r i t e r s who preceded him, though he mentions only one.. The works of these w r i t e r s , however, while they i n c l u d e d very important episodes i n the h i s t o r y of Greece, were p r o p e r l y and f o r m a l l y h i s t o r i e s of P e r s i a j the h i s t o r y of Greece entered i n t o them o n l y i n c i d e n t a l l y . Xanthus, f o r example, composed i n Greek a h i s t o r y of Lydia* Charon of Lampsacus wrote a h i s t o r y of Crete and one of P e r s i a d own to 492 B.C., and Dio n y s i u s of M i l e t u s another as f a r as Marathon and the death o f D a r i u s , which he followed with a sequel n a r r a t i n g the events of the P e r s i a n war. Skylax of Caryanda, a P a r i a n Greek, wrote a h i s t o r y which had as i t s hero H e r a c l e r i d e s , P r i n c e of S y l a s a , who deserted the cause o f the P e r s i a n s and helped the Greeks i n the i n v a s i o n of Greece. How f a r i t was "biographical ws do not know, but at l e a s t i t i s noteworthy as the e a r l i e s t Greek book we know that made an I n d i v i d u a l the centre of an h i s t o r i c a l n a r r a t i v e . Antiochus of Syracuse made-a step forward when he com-posed a work on the h i s t o r y o f the western Greeks, having i n -v e s t i g a t e d the e a r l y h i s t o r y of S i c i l y and I t a l y and the p l a n t -i n g of the Greek c o l o n i e s In those l a n d s . H i s contemporary, H e l l a n i c u s of Lesbos, pointed out a way f o r a g r e a t e r advance, and h i s importance i n the h i s t o r y of the development of Greek w r i t t e n - h i s t o r y i s c o n s i d e r a b l e . His range was a wide one. He wrote on the h i s t o r y of P e r s i a , and ths customs o f the Bar-b a r i a n s ; on the m y t h i c a l period of Greece? the o r i g i n of the Greek c i t i e s i n A s i a Minor? on the l a t e r h i s t o r y o f Greece, and e s p e c i a l l y the h i s t o r y of Athens. Moreover he t r i e d , by us i n g the few n a t i o n a l or p r i e s t l y r e g i s t e r s that presented something l i k e contemporary r e g i s t r a t i o n , to l a y down the foundations of a s c i e n t i f i c system of chronology, based primar-i l y on the l i s t s of the Argine p r i e s t e s s e s of Uera, and second-a r i l y on g e n e a l o g i e s , l i s t s of magistrates, (e.g. the archons at Athens), and o r i e n t a l d a t e s , i n p l a c e of the o l d reckoning by g e n e r a t i o n s . The s t y l e of these works, i f the testimony of Dionysius of H a l i c a r n a s s u o ^ ) can be b e l i e v e d , was somewhat bare, i f concise,, Few fragments of them, however, no matter what value as p r e c u r s o r s of h i s t o r y they may have had, remain to us. P r o f e s s o r Bury ^2} a t t r i b u t e s the books of these men to the impulse a f f o r d e d by the g e o g r a p h i c a l work of Hecatasu s, the most important w r i t e r of them a l l . Hecatae us was f i r s t and foremost a geographer. His c h i e f c o n t r i h u t i o n s to knowledge were i n the f i e l d o f geo-g r a p h i c a l s c i e n c e . His t r a v e l s i n c l u d e d not o n l y the Greek l a n d s , and the Black Sea, but the i n t e r i o r o f the P e r s i a n Empire and Egypt.. The f a c t s he collected» he p u b l i s h e d under the t i t l e o f " T r a v e l s Around the World," and i t went beyong the realm of geography. I t contained i n a d d i t i o n a great d e a l of ethnography and h i s t o r y , and most of a l l , I t introduced the Greeks to the h i s t o r y of the East. In a d d i t i o n to the " T r a v e l s Around the World", Hecataeas wrote a h i s t o r y of Greece. I t was a c o m p i l a t i o n from the g e n e a l o g i c a l e p i c s , w r i t t e n i n prose. But, though, as i t s t i t l e "Genealogies" shows, i t was s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d by the e p i c s , i t was a c r i t i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . His (1) 'Be Thucydide*, f {2) 'Ancient Greek H i s t o r i a n s *, P.26. 11. opening words lead us to expect that the h i s t o r y was a th o r -oughgoing r e v i s i o n o f what was considered the a n c i e n t h i s t o r y of H e l l a s . But the fragments of i t that remain do not enable us a u n f o r t u n a t e l y , to form an o p i n i o n as to the lengths to which h i s s c e p t i c i s m went. The few i n s t a n c e s that we can f a s t e n upon as showing a tendency to q u e s t i o n , would i n d i c a t e that i t was onl y a r a t i o n a l i s a t i o n of i m p r o b a b i l i t i e s , of which we spoke i n con n e c t i o n w i t h Herodotus. To Hecataeus, i f to any, Herodotus i s most i n debt. We know that he knew the works of Hecatae us, and he a l l u d e s to him. That he used him but r e j e c t e d h i s t h e o r i e s we may i n f e r from h i s p a g e s . ^ ^ But the charge of p l a g i a r i s m , made a g a i n s t him i n connection with book II p a r t i c u l a r l y and elab o r a t e d by o ( 2 ) aayce, who t r i e s to prove t h a t Herodotus 'drew without scruple on the works of the w r i t e r he d e s i r e d to supersede*, depends upon the assumption that those who f i r s t made i t , - i t i s quoted by Eusebius from Porphyry - knew f o r c e r t a i n that i t M S the genuine Hecataeus that they held i n t h e i r hands - some-t h i n g by no means sure. The whole p o i n t i s of some importance, for i f Herodotus borrowed f r e e l y without acknowledgment i n Book I I , he may have borrowed elsewhere. Many s c h o l a r s , how-ever, have held the view that the genuine f> 1 0 $0f f^S of Hecataeus perished e a r l y , and that the borrowings are . borrowings not by Herodotus but from Herodotus on the part of a f o r g e r i n the t h i r d century B.G. An answer to the whole q u e s t i o n . i s put forward by How and W e l l s . I f there were (1) Of. 11,21$ I I , 15-16 {2} "Herodotus" XXI seq. (S) "Commentary on Herodotus", PP.25-6. an e a s i l y a c c e s s i b l e prose l i t e r a t u r e i n the f i f t h century at Athens or Samos, Herodotus c e r t a i n l y ought to have studied i t j perhaps he did so. But i n view of h i s own s i l e n c e and o f the u n c e r t a i n t y of the connections t r a c e d between him and h i s pre-d e c e s s o r s , i t i s more n a t u r a l to conclude that he c o l l e c t e d t h e mass o f h i s i n f o r m a t i o n , apart from poetry, by word o f mouth, when he could not use h i s own eyes. Had h i s sources been l a r g e l y l i t e r a r y , we should have had c l e a r e r evidence of the f a c t . Herodotus was too s u c c e s s f u l a w r i t e r to be popular $ many would have "been eager to p o i n t out h i s o b l i g a t i o n s . " There i s , however, one kind of evidence t h a t Herodotus c e r t a i n l y used. I n some way that we cannot e x p l a i n , he ob-tained access to P e r s i a n o f f i c i a l documents from which the l i s t of P e r s i a n s a t r a p i e s , f o r i n s t a n c e , i n h i s t h i r d book, must have come. We know to o , f o r he t e l l s us, t h a t there were great c o l l e c t i o n s of o r a c l e s i n the temples. Obviously, the responses so e a g e r l y sought a f t e r would be c a r e f u l l y kept by those who gave them, i f o n l y i n t h e i r own i n t e r e s t , and a c o l l e c t i o n of o r a c l e s would be a source from which the e n q u i r e r could w r i t e the h i s t o r y o f the p a s t , p a r t l y as i t had been, s t i l l more as the keepers of the o r a c l e wished men to t h i n k i t had been. He must have consulted the l i s t s of kings and p r i e s t s which were the beginning of the Greek s e c u l a r o f f i c i a l r e c o r d s - the Spartan kings he l i s t s t w i c e . ^ With regard to o r a l t r a d i t i o n , i t i s u s u a l l y accepted that Herodotus depended upon i t f o r most of h i s evidence. The f a c t that he names o n l y s i x of h i s informants by no means (1) f I I , E 0 4 | VIII,132.2. i m p l i e s that these were a l l . The f a c t that h i s evidence was l a r g e l y o f t h i s s o r t had an important e f f e c t upon the ch a r a c t e r •of h i s n a r r a t i v e , c a u s i n g him to r e p r e s e n t the popular t r a d i -t i o n s of the p a s t , whether of Egypt, of P e r s i a or of Greece, as he l e a r n t them from the v a r i o u s races with whom he achieved contact-F i n a l l y , Herodotus made use of a r c h a e o l o g i c a l evidence of course he had not the wealth of o p p o r t u n i t i e s that presents i t s e l f to the modern h i s t o r i a n of the p a s t , to i n v e s t i g a t e and check. Ancient Greece c a r r i e d on no e x c a v a t i o n on a s c i e n t i f i c basis.whatsoever| even the few f a c t s that came to l i g h t upon the purging of the tombs at Delos were p u r e l y i n c i d e n t a l . But there were temples and monuments o f v a r i o u s s o r t s i n every land that could be consulted and we may be sure that Herodotus made f u l l use of them. Indeed he i s f a r more f r e e i n mentioning the works of a r t or other o b j e c t s from which he d e r i v e d , or i n connection with which he heard the s t o r i e s that make up h i s work, than i n naming h i s a c t u a l Informants. There i s h a r d l y a country w i t h i n the wide range o f h i s t r a v e l s , t o whose monuments he does not r e f e r . For H e l l e n i c lands i t i s im- . p o s s i b l e to give a complete l i s t , but besides innumerable o f f e r i n g s a t D e l p h i , Samos, and elsewhere, there were Spartan f e t t e r s and the manger of Mardonius a t Tegea; prows of Samian ships at A e g l n a ; ^ 2 J o f f e r i n g s of Croesus at Thebes;^ 3 ^  t r o p h i e s c e l e b r a t i n g a v i c t o r y over Thebes and C h a l c i s i n Athens;(4) and many o t h e r s . I n c o u n t r i e s o u t s i d e H e l l a s , (1) 1,164; IX,70 {2} I I I , 59, 5 {5J- -1, .62., 92' {4} T, 77, 4 Herodotus mentionss i n L y d i a , the tomb of A l y a t t e s {1} and an i n s c r i b e d boundary stone of Croesus (2}. In P a l e s t i n e , the temple of M e l c a r t h at Tyre (3) ; i n Babylon, the tomb of E i t o -c r i s (4) and the temple of Bel (5); i n Egypt, the manuscripts of Amasis (6) and the tombs of I s i r i s and the S a i t e kings near Memphis (7 ); the Pyramids (8), and the L a b y r i n t h and Lake of Moeris (9 ); i n S c y t h i a , tombs of the kings (10 ) ; at Byzantium, the bowl of Pausanias (11) and i n s c r i p t i o n s of Darius {12 ); i n Thrace, lake d w e l l i n g s (13 }§ at Cyrene, statues sent by Amasis and Ladice (14 ); at Metapontum, a statue to A r i s t e a s ( 1 5 ) . A v a i l a b l e though a l l these mines of i n f o r m a t i o n were to the h i s t o r i a n , y e t i t must be remembered that Herodotus could not read i n s c r i p t i o n s i n any f o r e i g n language, and was at the mercy o f h i s guides. c " " f With h i s evidence now before us, l e t us see how Herodotus made use o f i t . We have a l r e a d y s a i d that as f a r as the myth i c a l p e r i o d of Greek h i s t o r y was concerned, he accepts the e p i c s as f a c t , p r a c t i c a l l y without q u e s t i o n . Homer i s to him a witness who does not ' c o n t r a d i c t h i m s e l f under o r d i n a r y circumstances.^ He regards the whole age as the h i s t o r i c back-ground f o r subsequent events. He r e p r e s e n t s Greek h i s t o r y as beginning with a p e r i o d of great m i g r a t i o n s , and Greek c i v i l i -s a t i o n as due to f o r e i g n i n f l u e n c e s ? At the same time, Herod-otus r e a l i z e s a d i f f e r e n c e between h i s t o r i c and p r e h i s t o r i c (1) 1.93 (2) VIII.30,2 (3) 11.44,2 (4 ) 1.187 (5 ) 1.181,183 (6 ) 11.175 (7) II.169,170 (8) II.101,2; 125-7; 134; 136; 149 (9) II.148-9 (10) IV.71,1 (11 ) IV.81,3 (12) IV.87,1 (13 ) V.16 (14 ) 11.182,1, 181,5 (15) IV.15,4 p e r i o d s . He c o n t r a s t s Hinas and P a l y o r a t e s as belonging to d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s , (I ) Moreover, i n s p i t e of h i s acceptance of the myths, be can not, as we have mentioned above, forbear to r a t i o n a l i z e them by changing the elements.of the marvellous which they c o n t a i n i n t o commonplace matter of fact5 a tendency which came to be f u l l y e s t a b l i s h e d i n the next g e n e r a t i o n * •'/When Herodotus t r e a t s of the h i s t o r i c a l p e r i o d , however., h i s p o i n t of vie?/ undergoes a change. He handles h i s subject d i f f e r e n t l y . He immerses h i m s e l f i n the a c t u a l as f a r as he can, r e a l i z i n g that h i s t o r y Is a matter of evidence. Hence h i s a n x i e t y to record accepted t r a d i t i o n s , and where p o s s i b l e the o r i g i n of d i v e r g e n t accounts., with the reasons or proofs urged on both s i d e s . Thus, when speaking of Egypt, he makes a d i s t i n c t i o n between the d e s c r i p t i o n of the land and people t h a t depends mainly on h i s own o b s e r v a t i o n s and i n q u i r i e s , and t h e i r past h i s t o r y , drawn i n the main from the r e p o r t s of the Egyptians* Where, moreover, a u t h o r i t i e s c o n f l i c t , though Herodotus o c c a s i o n a l l y comes to some d e c i s i o n on h i s own account, more o f t e n than not he l e a v e s the problem to h i s r e a d e r s , quoting both s i d e s . But i t must be admitted that t h i s general r e t i c e n c e does not save him from a biased accept-ance of Athenian t r a d i t i o n . These attempts, at weighing evidence give him, n e v e r t h e l e s s , some claim to be c a l l e d the f i r s t c r i t i c a l h i s t o r i a n , g rasping as he has the p r i n c i p l e s that eye-witnesses are a l l important - when r e l i a b l e - and t h a t i t I s necessary to put a l l evidence to t e s t . T h i s poi n t I I I . 122,2 with regard to Herodotus' c r i t i c a l a b i l i t y i s o f t e n overlooked. One must give f u l l c r e d i t to him f o r r e c o g n i z i n g these p r i n c i p -l e s o f c r i t i c i s m , u n s a t i s f a c t o r y and sporadic though h i s a p p l i c a t i o n o f them i s . "They are maxims of permanent v a l i d i t y ; p r o p e r l y q u a l i f i e d they l i e at the b a s i s of the modern development o f what i s c a l l e d h i s t o r i c a l methodology."^1 On the great q u e s t i o n of how f a r he was a c c u r a t e , i t must be remembered t h a t a w r i t e r ' s a c c u r a c y depends on two t h i n g s s apart from h i s memory, of courses on h i s own conscience i n d e s c r i b i n g what he has h i m s e l f seen and what he has l e a r n t from others by c a r e f u l and p a r t i c u l a r e n q u i r y , and on the con-science of those who r e p o r t to him what he could not see and cannot v e r i f y . As f o r the l a t t e r s t i p u l a t i o n , there can, of course, be no answer. We are aware t h a t Herodotus was depend-ent to a very great extent on g u i d e s , p r i e s t s and informants of every s o r t and we can o n l y check t h e i r r e l i a b i l i t y by our own knowledge of today, and t r u s t where we cannot check to the common sense of our author and of o u r s e l v e s . ^ With regard to Herodotus' conscience we can speak, I t h i n k , more s u r e l y . True, c e r t a i n s c h o l a r s , of whom P r o f e s s o r Saycs i s a good r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , dismiss Herodotus, f i r s t as i n a c c u r a t e and then as a l i a r , but one does not read f a r i n t o the works of other moderns before one d i s c o v e r s an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t estimate of the h i s t o r i a n . Mr. G. B. Grundy, speaking of Herodotus aiid m i l i t a r y .matters, f i n d s him 'eminently u n m i l i t a r y h i m s e l f 9 and ' p e c u l i a r l y l i a b l e to misnnderstahd•the informa-t i o n at h i s d i s p o s a l , * but *his p a i n f u l c o n s c i e n t i o u s n e s s (1) Bury, "Ancient Greek H i s t o r i a n s , " P.71. seems to "be genuine, not f i c t i t i o u s , ^ and "he "brought to bear upon h i s m a t e r i a l a c e r t a i n amount of c r i t i c a l acumen which the extreme s i m p l i c i t y of h i s n a r r a t i v e has a tendency to c o n c e a l . " ^ 2 ^ In the words of T* P.. Glover, "Anyone who w i l l read Herodotus u n t i l he knows him with r e a l i n t i m a c y w i l l f i n d i t hard'to "bear w i t h p a t i e n c e the s u g g e s t i o n t h a t he i s other than the most candid-and t r u t h f u l of men." 3»he h i s t o r i a n had no laok of c r i t i c s among the ancient world. Thucydides' r a t h e r contemptuous a t t i t u d e i s w e l l known. He accuses him of i n a c c u r a c y and proceeds to c o r r e c t him on more or l e s s minor p o i n t s i n a most severe f a s h i o n , but h i s most c a u s t i c c r i t i c i s m i s i n h i s famous phrase: "Very l i k e l y the non-mythical c h a r a c t e r of my n a r r a t i v e may be d i s a p p o i n t i n g to the ear. My h i s t o r y i s a p o s s e s s i o n for ever, not a p r i z e composition which i s heard and f o r g o t t e n ! (I) • ••• • • L a t e r on Strabo speaks contemptuously of Herodotus' geography as being l e s s r e l i a b l e than Homer * s ; ) some of i t was indeed very wrong, hut i n at l e a s t one i n s t a n c e the older-w r i t e r was c o r r e c t , a g a i n s t Strabo. The most famous of a n c i e n t a t t a c k s on Herodotus was made by P l u t a r c h , who wrote an essay on h i s 'Maligni t y f . Herodotus, he t e l l s as, love s to t e l l us i l l r e p o r t s of peoples i n wanton zest of abuse, and to omit what i s -good about them; he damns with f a i n t p r a i s e ; where there are s e v e r a l accounts he p r e f e r s the worst; he i s a l o v e r of B a r b a r i a n s and suggests that Greeks l e a r n t t h e i r r e l i g i o n from themf he c a l l s the (1) Grundy, "Great P e r s i a n war," P. 373 (2.) I b i d , P.266 burning o f S a r d l s the beginning o f t r o u b l e , when i t was a stroke f o r freedom; he b i t t e r l y s l a n d e r s Thebes, but "he can w r i t e and h i s s t o r y i s p l e a s a n t ; there i s grace and c l e v e r n e s s and bloom upon h i s t a l e s ; be charms and seduces everybody." Acco r d i n g to T . R. Glover, "the general v e r d i c t seems to be that P l u t a r c h t h i s time has w r i t t e n h i m s e l f down an a s s , (unless the t r a c t i s s p u r i o u s , which plea Is r e j e c t e d ), and that the whole t h i n g i s a monument o f c r i t i c a l incompetence, based on absurd p a t r i o t i s m and a f a l s e c onception of h i s t o r y . ^ M o n y s i u s o f E a l i c a r n a s s u s , on the other hand, has b e t t e r t hings t o say about h i s townsman. He compares Herodotus f a v o u r a b l y with Thucydides. "Herodotus chose a more a t t r a c t i v e s u b j e c t , v i c t o r y r a t h e r than d e f e a t ; he showed more judgment i n knowing where t o begin and where to leave o f f, what to put i n and what t o omit; he chose to vary h i £3 s t o r y i n the Homeric way, i m i t a t i n g Homer., and indeed, i f we take h i s book we enjoy i t to the l a s t s y l l a b l e and always wish f o r more, while Thucy-dides r a r e l y attempts v a r i e t y ; and M o n y s i u s f i n d s Thucydides' chronology b o r i n g ; then Herodotus has the k i n d l i e r d i s p o s i t i o n , while Thucydides has a grudge a g a i n s t h i s country. Both are great w r i t e r s , Herodotus the s u p e r i o r i n c h a r a c t e r drawing and n a t u r a l w r i t i n g , Thucydides i n pathos and i n c l e v e r n e s s of s t y l e . The beauty of Herodotus i s b r i g h t and happy; that of Thucydides t e r r i b l e . " L-onginu3, t o o , a f a r s t r o n g e r and surer c r i t i c , supports M o n y s i u s * judgment that Herodotus "chose to vary h i s (1) "Herodotus", P.72 (2) Summarized from part of the " L e t t e r to Pompeius" and from the "de Compositione" , "by T. R. Glover, ••Herodotus" , P.73. s t o r y i n the Homeric way." il) "Herodotus most Homeric" i s the phrase he uses. Some of the charges a g a i n s t Herodotus suggest t h e i r ow,n answers* some of them are more or l e s s t r u e . Space does not permit us to d i s c u s s a l l these c r i t i c i s m s , i n d e t a i l , "but l e t us take one of them and see what c o n c l u s i o n s we reach con-c e r n i n g i t | P l u t a r c h ' s remark, f o r example $ t h a t Herodotus " b i t t e r l y slandered Thebes j n f o r Herodotus* I m p a r t i a l i t y has o f t e n been attacked by more modern c r i t i c s . As a general r u l e , Herodotus* f a i r n e s s and I m p a r t i a l -i t y can be r e l i e d uponj a s t r i k i n g proof of which i s h i s a t t i t u d e to f o r e i g n e r s and enemies. He i s f r e e from the o r d i n a r y contempt of the Greek f o r B a r b a r i a n s ; he e x t o l s the maritime and engineering s k i l l of the P h o e n i c i a n s ! (2) the monuments of - Egypt and Babylon? (3) the n a t u r a l products of the suds of the e a r t h ; {4} He d e r i v e s coinage from L y d i a ; {5) measurement of tima from B a b y l o n ; ( 6 ) and the Greek alphabet from P h o e n i c i a ; (7) he exaggerates the debt o f Greece to Egypt and to A f r i c a ; {8} This freedom from n a t i o n a l p r e j u d i c e shows i t s e l f a l s o i n h i s generous estimate of the P e r s i a n s ; he emphasizes t h e i r t r u t h f u l n e s s , (9) and devoted l o y a l t y , :.nd a s c r i b e s t h e i r defeat to i n f e r i o r i t y i n arms and d i s c i p l i n e , not to l a c k o f v a l o r . J u s t as the h i s t o r i a n i s quick to r e c o g n i s e the merits of the enemy, so he i s c a u t i o u s i n p r a i s i n g h i s own (1) Longinus, 13,3; {2 ) VII,23,3;44;99,3; (3) 1.93,2; U) III.106-114; (5 ) 1.94; {6 ) 11.109,3; (7 } V.58; (8) I?.180-189; (9) 1.136, 11.138,1; (10) III.138,4; 154-5; VIII.118,3; (11) How and W e l l s , "Commentary on Herodotus", P.38. countrymen unduly, " r e f u s i n g to see a hero i n every professed p a t r i o t . " ) T h i s has drawn down upon h i s head the f i e r c e d e n u n c i a t i o n of P l u t a r c h , as we have seen above, who a b s u r d l y accuses him o f d i m i n i s h i n g the g l o r y of Marathon by under-e s t i m a t i n g the number of the s l a i n , and of Artemisiura by r e p r e s e n t i n g i t as a drawn b a t t l e - a l l of which merely pays t r i b u t e without the author's knowledge or d e s i r e to Herodotus* good sense and c r i t i c a l judgment. Unblinded though Herodotus might be by the glamour of p a t r i o t i s m , yet he d i d not e n t i r e l y escape the i n f l u e n c e of the p o l i t i c a l sympathies of h i s day. His very s i m p l i c i t y pre-disposed him to p l a c e a ready confidence i n h i s a u t h o r i t i e s , and to accept as tru s t w o r t h y c u r r e n t s t o r i e s and b e l i e f s ; a weakness which f r e q u e n t l y l e d him to become the mirror o f Athenian p r e j u d i c e . But he d i d not w h o l l y surrender h i s judg-ment. S u r e l y , he does r i g h t i n e x t o l l i n g the 'freedom* which encouraged her c i t i z e n s to devote t h e i r whole energy to her s e r v i c e , ^ ' i n backing t h e i r c l a i m to be considered the s a v i o r s of H e l l a s , * 2 ) - t h i s l a s t i s a noble defense, and i t i s t r u e . Herodotus had not t r a v e l l e d the world i n v a i n ; he could form a shrewd and sound judgment on world p o l i t i c s ; "our old h i s t o r i a n ' s greatness shines i n t h i s passage, not l e a s t f o r h i s r e s o l u t e candour i n p u t t i n g forward an unpopular t r u t h , " 1 ' We can pardon a somewhat n a t u r a l d e s i r e to exaggerate the valour of the Athenians at Marathon, contrasted with the prov-e r b i a l slowness of Spa r t a . The most elaborate p r a i s e s of Athens ^ ^ would seem to be reminiscent of the f u n e r a l o r a t i o n s (1) 7.78 (2) V I I . 139,2 (3) T.B.. Glover,"Hero do tu s " P.35 (4) VII.161,3; IX.27 i n the Ceramicus, and are s u i t a b l y put i n t o the mouths of A t t i c o r a t o r So But. I f Herodotus Is ready to p r a i s e , he i s e q u a l l y ready i f need a r i s e to censure. He r e p r e s e n t s the Athenian people as s u f f e r i n g tyranny g l a d l y and as duped by • • f 1} the c h i l d i s h t r i c k of P i s i s t r a t u s % x ' he condemns t h e i r iP ) c r u e l t y to the P e r s i a n h e r a l d s , ' and i m p l i c i t l y t h e i r r e t e n t i o n of the Aeginean hostages; he t e l l s us that (A) Athens set the example of a p p e a l i n g to P e r s i a , and admits that up to the day of Marathon there were •araverers w i t h i n the army and t r a i t o r s w i t h i n her w a l l s . ^ 5 ' Of a l l Athenian statesmen, Themistocles s u f f e r s most i n Herodotus* pages. The c r e a t i o n of the great navy and the p l a n of f i g h t i n g at sea he could not deny him, but he makes no mention of h i s Long W a l l s . Moreover„ the f i n a l d e c i s i o n to f i g h t at Salamis i s a s c r i b e d i n p a r t to the advice of Hue s i -p h i l u s a n a - the g l o r y of the v i c t o r y i s dimmed by the v i c t o r ? s attempt to secure h i m s e l f a refuge at the P e r s i a n c o u r t . * ' T h e m i s t o c l e s ' "crooked ways," h i s deals i n money, h i s f o o t i n g i n both camps, h i s extortion., r e v o l t e d the simple-l 8 1 minded , candid nature from a c r o s s the Aegean. % ' Herodotus r e p r e s e n t s , i n f i n e , the ambition of a great l e a d e r as mere s e l f - s e a k i n g , h i s c l e v e r n e s s as cunning, ^ ) while h i s greed f o r g a i n i s exaggerated ' and emphasized by c o n t r a s t with the nobleness of A r i s t i d e s , whom he held "to have been the best and most u p r i g h t of a l l the Athenians." ' (1) 1.60,3 (2) VII .1.33 ,J2 (3 ) VI. 86 (4) 7.73 (5) VI.109,5';• -11"5 •(6) VHI.57 . (7 } T i l l . 1 0 9 , 5 (8) T. R. Glover, "Herodotus", P.33 (9) VIII.110 (10) VIII.4,5,112 (11) VII.79 However wrong and even absurd P l u t a r c h * s a c c u s a t i o n s a g a i n s t Herodotus a r e , he makes a good p o i n t when he r e p r e s e n t s him as being too harsh i n h i s treatment of Thebes and C o r i n t h . Among the s t a t e s t h a t fought at Salamis, C o r i n t h played no i n -g l o r i o u s p a r t , as Herodotus h i m s e l f r e c o r d s ; yet he represented the C o r i n t h i a n a d m i r a l , Adlmantus, as h a ving to be bribed by (1} •• • Themistocles to f i g h t at Artemisium, and a l s o as h i s c h i e f opponent i n the Greek c o u n c i l s of war. Yet more s t r i k i n g i s the d i f f e r e n c e i n the weight of the s e v e r i t y he employs i n d e a l i n g with the s t a t e s that "Hedized. n Thebes he a s s a i l e d almost wi t h m a l i c e ; the four hundred men she sends to Thermopylae go and remain only under c o m p u l s i o n . ^ 2 ' Herodotus w i l l not accept the plea l a t e r put forward by the Thebans, that t h e i r l i e d i z i n g was brought about by a narrow c l i q u e , and not by the whole people; and he makes the o l i g a r c h i c l e a d e r , Timagenidas, d e c l a r e that the whole state Medized, and i n s i s t s on the z e a l of the Thehans f o r (41 the P e r s i a n s . On the other hand, with the f a u l t s of Thessaly and Argos Herodotus deals g e n t l y . Although without a doubt the T h e s s a l i a n p r i n c e s had been foremost i n a d v i s i n g the i n t e r -v e n t i o n of P e r s i a , and the whole people had gone over to Xerxes on h i s a r r i v a l , yet i n t h e i r case he admits the very plea that he denies to the Thebans, namely that the nobles alone were to blame f o r the b e t r a y a l , and the people did but (1) T i l l . 5 , 2 (2) VII.222 (3) IX.87 (4) IX.40,67 (5) VII.6,2; 130,3; IX.1 submit to n e c e s s i t y , when the Greeks, by r e f u s i n g to defend Tempe, abandoned T h e s s a l y to the Barbarian* Even more aston-i s h i n g i s the case o f Ar go s « The Argines warned Mardonius of Pausanias * march a g a i n s t him; (1) indeed the very circum-"s (2 ) stance of t h e i r n e u t r a l i t y was a proof that they had. Bledised , f u r t h e r confirmed as i t was l a t e r on by the r e c e p t i o n accorded at Susa to the Argine embassy by A r t a x e r x e s . ^ ^ l e t Herodotus i n c l i n e s to accept the Argine apology, with i t s i n s i s t e n c e on gloomy o r a c l e s and on the u n j u s t c l a i m s of Sparta to hegemony. (4) • ' • • W i t h a l , however, Herodotus does not conceal h i s o p i n i o n that A r g o s 5 d e a l i n g s with the P e r s i a n were a s t a i n on i t s honour,, p a l l i a t e d o n l y by the misdoings of o t h e r s , {5} and he has a few p r a i s e s f o r C o r i n t h and Thebes. Twice ths C o r i n t h i a n s f o i 1 u n j u s t Spartan p r o j e c t s f o r the: enslavement of Athens; (6 ) once they r e c o n c i l e Athens and Thebes; (7) i n the P e r s i a n war they c o n t r i b u t e l a r g e c o n t i n g e n t s both to the f l e e t (8) and to the array,{9) and a t Mycale behave with d i s t i n g u i s h e d g a l l a n t r y . (10) At Plutae a the c a v a l r y of Thebes showed con-spicuous valour (11) and Timagenidas, t h e i r l e a d e r , engages i n an act of s e l f - s a c r i f i c i n g p a t r i o t i s m . (12) Ue may come to the c o n c l u s i o n that i f o c c a s i o n a l l y there are t r a c e s of malice or calumny i n the work of Herodotus, they come ra t h e r from an o v e r - f a i t h f u l r e p r o d u c t i o n of the s t o r i e s t o l d him, than from any n a t i v e m a l i g n i t y ; h i s own (1) IX.12,2 (2) VIII.73,3 (3) VII.150,1 (4) VII.148,4 (5 ) VII.152; VIII.73 (6) V.75,92 (7 ) VI.108,6 (8) VIII.1,1; 43 (9) IX.28,3 (10) IX.105 (11) IX.67-9 (12) IX.87,2 - - " • judgments are j a s t , s i n c e r e , and even generous; the bent of h i s mind i s towards excess rather than d e f e c t o f c h a r i t y . The q u e s t i o n of the i m p a r t i a l i t y of Herodotus i s • l a r g e l y a moral one? the c r i t i c i s m s of h i s i n t e l l e c t u a l f a i l -ings may be more b r i e f l y s t a t e d •» In the f i r s t p l a c e , h i s h i s t o r y i s too t h e o l o g i c a l . " I t i s w r i t t e n , at any r a t e i n p a r t , to p o i n t a moral, and i s a sermon on the t e x t 'Pride' goeth before a fa11 *.* {1} "In h i s case the r e l i g i o u s machin-ery i s not, as with L i n y * s p r o d i g i e s , a mere ornament to emphasize a s t r i k i n g p o i n t j i t i s e s s e n t i a l to the n a r r a t i v e . " " I t may w e l l be said that l i t e r a r y a r t w i t h Herodotus i s l a r g e l y a means of r e l i g i o u s teaching* The h i s t o r y of n a t i o n s i s but the grand stage on which may be seen the workings of d i v i n e Providence." (2} We have mentioned above t h a t Herodo-tus partook of the q u e s t i o n i n g s p i r i t o f h i s age, but a l l h i s r a t i o n a l i s t i c c r i t i c i s m did hot lead him to deny e i t h e r the e x i s t e n c e of the gods or t h e i r i n t e r v e n t i o n i n human a f f a i r s . Tet while the m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of d i v i n e power occur almost as f r e q u e n t l y as i n Homer, the gods are f u r t h e r removed from men; there i s l e s s p e r s o n a l c a p r i c e and more u n i t y i n t h e i r a c t i o n . But Herodotus found i t d i f f i c u l t to j u s t i f y the ways of God to menJ He shared the h a l f - c o n s c i o u s pessimism of the masses who could not r i s e to the e t h i c a l conceptions of Aeschylus and Pindar, and were oppressed by the apparent i n j u s t i c e s of the world. I t was i n e v i t a b l e t h a t he should r e s i g n h i m s e l f to accept those f a c t s that were' beyond h i s mortal comprehension and understanding. (1) How & w e l l s , "Commentary", P.43 (2) " w . • H • P. 48 The second f a u l t se f i n d i n Herodotus i s that he had a f o o l i s h fondness f o r the m a r v e l l o u s , and even h i s contempor-a r i e s made a joke o f i t l (1) E s p e c i a l l y i n the matter of numbers i s t h i s a c c u s a t i o n a true one; h i s estimate of the P e r s i a n army, though c o n s i d e r a b l y lower than the general Greek estimate, i s s t i l l h o p e l e s s l y exaggerated. The t r u t h i s t h a t Herodotus had seen so many r e a l wonders that he was prepared to accept others on mere hearsay; wonders that have since been shown to be unfounded on f a c t . I t i s too much to expect that he should have escaped becoming the butt of humorous or m a l i -c i o u s persons of h i s own and succeeding g e n e r a t i o n s , though some of h i s s t o r i e s are now used by a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s as most val u a b l e m a t e r i a l s i n the r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the p r i m i t i v e h i s t o r y of mankind. A t h i r d count we may make a g a i n s t him i s h i s l a c k of a c h r o n o l o g i c a l framework. He never attempted to grapple with t h i s d i f f i c u l t y i n Greek h i s t o r y , although many of the episodes which he r e l a t e d r a i s e the problem o f s y n c h r o n i z i n g H e l l e n i c t r a d i t i o n s w i t h o r i e n t a l r e c o r d s . The h i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e of h i s s t o r y i s thus f r e q u e n t l y d i s t o r t e d , the most famous in s t a n c e being the s t o r y of Solon and Croesus. (2) Such dates as he does g i v e may be s a f e l y s a i d to have been copied without i n v e s t i g a t i o n from the work of some e a r l i e r w r i t e r , M o n y s i u s o f M i l e t u s , Charon, or more l i k e l y Hecataeus. As f o r the c o n t r a d i c t i o n s i n the works of Herodotus, of which some w r i t e r s make much, they are bound to occur i n a {1} c f . A r i s t o p h a n e s ' • B i r d s ' , 1130 with 11.127; 1.4 (2) 1.29 seq. work drawn, as the h i s t o r y i s , from many sources, and w r i t t e n at many times i n many p l a c e s * A f a r more s e r i o u s charge i s h i s f a i l u r e to a p p r e c i a t e and to t r a c e the r e a l causes and r e l a t i o n o f events. Herodotus c o n t i n u a l l y confuses the mere oc c a s i o n and the cause. He i s always s t r e s s i n g p e r s o n a l a c t i v -i t y and motive, and seems to understand l i t t l e o f the great movements of which people are the o n l y e x p r e s s i o n . In f a c t , with Herodotus e v e r y t h i n g i s p e r s o n a l , as Is I l l u s t r a t e d by the dramatic way i n which he t e l l s h i s s t o r y * To him i s due the custom of p u t t i n g imaginary speeches i n t o the mouths of r e a l persons? a custom that has p r e v a i l e d so long i n h i s t o r y both ancient and modern. The tendency to throw cha r a c t e r Into a s t o r y was an innate p a r t o f Greek dramatic genius, a h e r i t a g e from the age of the e p i c s ; i t has been w e l l s a i d that the beginnings of the Greek novel are to be found i n Herodotus, but I n t e r e s t i n g as t h i s may be from the l i t e r a r y p o i n t o f view, i t s f i c t i o n a l a t t r a c t i o n s impair h i s h i s t o r i c a l v a l u e . To conclude, l e t us look at the success H e r o a o t u 3 ' h i s t o r y has achieved. ' Apparently i t took a l e a d i n g place at once i n Greek l i t e r a t u r e , and c e r t a i n l y i t has been the occa-s i o n of f i e r c e debate ever s i n c e , wherever c l a s s i c a l l i t e r a t u r e has been s t u d i e d . In an c i e n t times, apart from the parodies of Aristophanes, which are good proof of the f a m i l i a r i t y of the h i s t o r y to Athenian audiences, Thucydides'' a t t i t u d e i s s u f f i c -i e n t evidence. Though he did not l i k e h i s predecessor and underestimated h i s work, n e v e r t h e l e s s he wrote h i s own h i s t o r y to continue that of the o t h e r , from the capture of Sestos. Xenophon pay3 Herodotus the compliment of i m i t a t i n g h i s phrases. Ephorus, Aeneas, T a c t i o n s , and o t h e r s , i n the 4 t h century, made use of him. A l l the a t t a c k s upon the h i s t o r y hy such men as C t e s i a s , Manetho, P l u t a r c h and L u c i a n , the h i s t o r y has s u r v i v e d . Sore recent a t t a c k s i t continues to s u r v i v e . To recognize Herodotus* weaknesses i s onl y to say that h i s t o r y w i t h him was not horn complete and at once. His merits f a r outweigh h i s d e f e c t s , as has been s a i d a l r e a d y . He r e a l l y did attempt to t e s t v a r i o u s kinds o f evidence, and to estimate t h e i r degrees of v a l u e , a p r i n c i p l e at the very f o u n d a t i o n of h i s t o r y . He was the f i r s t to c o n s t r u c t a long and e l a b o r a t e n a r r a t i v e , i n which many p a r t s are continued i n due subordina-t i o n and arrangement to make one great whole. L a s t l y , he i s one o f the gre a t s t o r y - t e l l e r s o f mankind. To him a l l can be f o r g i v e n , f o r he i s never d u l l . T h i s g i f t that appears the e a s i e s t , i s i n r e a l i t y the r a r e s t , and i n h i s case th© merit i s a l l the g r e a t e r because he was a p i o n e e r . I n the words o f T. E. Glover, " I f he used to the f u l l , i f he transcended the means and o p p o r t u n i t i e s that l a y to h i s hand , i f by some i n -spi r e d combination of hard work and i n t u i t i o n , he can r e c r e a t e the f o r e i g n or the a n c i e n t scene, and give i t to you with the people t a l k i n g , p l a n n i n g , t h i n k i n g and em p h a t i c a l l y a l i v e a l l the time; i f i n a d d i t i o n h i s honesty i s such as to enable you to check h i a statements, and sometimes from h i s data to seize, a t r u e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f his, reported f a c t s than he has gi v e n ; i f throughout he i s human, and makes humanity mean more and more to you as you l i v e with hira, then he has s u r e l y some strong c l a i m to be c a l l e d a h i s t o r i a n . " (1) (1) T. E. Glover, "Herodotus", P.49. 2 8'.. The f i r s t f o u r "books of Herodotus * h i s t o r y are not so p e r t i n e n t to our essay. The f i r s t d eals with the Lydians and the P e r s i a n s ; the second with the Egyptians; the t h i r d with the P e r s i a n s a g a i n ; and the f o u r t h with the Libyans and S c y t h i a n s . B e v e r t h e l e s s , what account of the Greeks can he gleaned from •this-maze o f i n f o r m a t i o n , we w i l l d i s c o v e r s marshal and d i s-» • ettss. • • • Herodotus* i n t e n t i o n was to n a r r a t e the h i s t o r y of the P e r s i a n war, hut he d i d not begin t h e r e . He went back s e v e r a l g e n e r a t i o n s i n t o what even to him were remote, u n c e r t a i n times - times which, n e v e r t h e l e s s , a f f o r d e d h i s t o r i c a l events to r e c o r d and preserve f o r p o s t e r i t y . I n account of the o l d days of Greece could not but be r e l e v a n t to the h i s t o r i c Per-s i a n epoch. Peoples must he known to the reader before t h e i r wars can i n t e r e s t him; to know one g e n e r a t i o n he must know several» Herodotus, r e a l i z i n g t h i s f a c t , set h i m s e l f the task of d i s c o v e r i n g to h i s readers the h i s t o r y of these g e n e r a t i o n s , that t h e i r peoples might l i v e before them, and t h e i r t r a d i t i o n s be made known. Expansiveness i s the mark of true h i s t o r y . I f i n t r u t h "the Greek race was of one blood, and one speech, with temples of the gods i n common, common s a c r i f i c e s and ways of l i k e k i n d , " i t was part of the task of the h i s t o r i a n to show something of these ideas and "ways of l i k e k i n d . " Herodotus saw.the need, undertook to supply i t to the best of h i s a b i l i t y and d i d not s h i r k h i s self-imposed duty. Bat i t must be remem-bered that h i s a u t h o r i t i e s were few and u n c e r t a i n . S t o r i e s that he p r e s e r v e s , of Spartan wars with Iegea, f o r example, or of P e r i a n d e r * s f a m i l y , and h i s c o l o n i e s , a r e , i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y , a matter of folk-memory. Moreover , i n t o a l l h i s s t o r i e s there s t e a l s an a n a c h r o n i s t i c element , a f l a v o u r of h i s own day, . whi ch h i s t o r y , indeed, r a r e l y seems to escape. But a f t e r a l l , such s t o r i e s are a g a i n and again our onl y chance of r e c a p t u r i n g h i s t o r y , and-we must take them as they are w r i t t e n . Yet when we come to examine what v?e have of h i s t o r y , or of s t o r y "before the opening of the P e r s i a n war, we r e a l i s e how much more we would l i k e to have* With the e x c e p t i o n of Lycurgus and the taigr a t i ons, Herodotus has l i t t l e to t e l l us of h i s t o r i c a l events before 700 P-C. , end n a t u r a l l y h i s Information i s f u l l e r f o r the s i x t h century than f o r the seventh. Many f a c t s of the e a r l i e r day he merely a l l u d e s t o . Of these we w i l l speak l a t e r on i n t h e i r t u r n as we review c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y the i n f o r m a t i o n that he does a f f o r d us. Herodotas knew the t r a d i t i o n of the sea empire of the Cretans, and ••accepted i t , though he went f u r t h e r than modern s c h o l a r s are prepared to go when he recorded Minos - were he man or god - as having had a r e a l e x i s t e n c e , and f u r n i s h e d him with a n c e s t o r s , by name. He he.d heard a l s o from Cretans of h i s own day, at Praesos, of the great d i s a s t e r which overtook the i s l a n d % and that subsequently, "to C r e t e , thus d e s t i t u t e of i n h a b i t a n t s - other men, and e s p e c i a l l y the Grecians.;, went and s e t t l e d . " The men of Praosos were no doubt f o r e s h o r t e n i n g h i s t o r y hy c r y s t a l l i s i n g a process i n t o a s i n g l e event? but the t r a d i t i o n was t h e r e , and i t contained a measure of t r u t h , He know today that Herodotus* account of Minos' t h a l a s s o e r a c y Is s u b s t a n t i a l l y c o r r e c t ? that Crete was once a supreme power {1} ¥11.171 i n the Mediterranean wo rid.} we know, l i k e w i s e , t h a t her de-s t r u c t i o n was sudden and complete, f o r the Minoan kingdom did not f a l l from o v e r - r i p e n e s s and decay} i t s c i v i l i z a t i o n was f a t a l l y a r r e s t e d i n f u l l s t r e n g t h and growth. But the Minoans were not Greeks, and i t Is not necessary to take i n t o account the e a r l i e r Minoan f a c t o r , except to mention that i t had done i t s work In p r o f o u n d l y a f f e c t i n g , i f not c r e a t i n g Achaean c u l t u r e , which must next concern us. In Homer the Minoan element has no independent e x i s t e n c e and i t can h a r d l y be p o s s i b l e to d i s t i n g u i s h any s p e c i a l i n f l u e n c e on l a t e r Greece. The Achaeans, however, c l a i m more of our a t t e n t i o n . The c u l t u r e of the Achaeans o v e r l a i d that of the Minoans, which had f l o u r i s h e d i n mainland Greece among the men of Mycenae and T i r y n s . Greek was the language of these new l o r d s , whether the people of the Cretan c u l t u r e on the mainland had p r e v i o u s l y spoken Greek or a cognate language, or not. They were an i n v a d i n g m i l i t a r y r a c e , who came overland from the n o r t h ; a p a s t o r a l * f i g h t i n g f o l k of c h i e f t a i n s and r e t a i n e r s . Seeking adventure and plunder, some stayed i n the sunny South, e s t a b l i s h i n g themselves i n the A r g o l i d , L a c o n i a , and elsewhere, and took wives from the daughters of the n a t i v e p r i n c e s - as Pelops wedded Hippodamia - ever a f a v o u r i t e way f o r an i n t r u d e r to s t r e n g t h e n h i s p o s i t i o n . I n h e r i t i n g the a r t and wealth of the Minoans whom they succeeded, but small i n numbers and r u l -i n g a much l a r g e r subject p o p u l a t i o n , they came to l i v e i n f o r t i f i e d c a s t l e s , l i v i n g by the si d e of t h e i r s e r f s , the t i l l e r s o f the s o i l , yet having l i t t l e i n common with them beyond the c o l l e c t i n g of t h e i r dues. This s u b j e c t people was known to the a n c i e n t Greeks and i s known to us by the name of P e l a s g i a n s . Herodotus seems to use the term to i n d i c a t e t h a t p o r t i o n o f the p o p u l a t i o n which claimed to have been i n the country before ths f r e s h element that produced Hellenism came i n . {She only t r u e H e l l e n e s , a o c o r d i n g to him, were the Dorians.) (1) So we f i n d the f o l l o w i n g peoples are P e l a s -gians Aeolians,{2) A r c a d i a n s , ( 3 ) A r g i n e 3 j j { 4 ) Athenians , (5 ) Dodonaeans*{6) I t w i l l be seen that these are the peoples . which, a c c o r d i n g to t r a d i t i o n , had. changed l e a s t . Herodotus c l e a r l y meant by 'Pelasgi * the Greeks i n an undeveloped stage. T h i s may be seen e s p e c i a l l y i n ¥111.44, where he t r a c e s the changes of names, not of r a c e , among the 'unchanged* A t t i c p o p u l a t i o n , U n f o r t u n a t e l y Herodotus confuses these t h e o r e t i c -a l P e l a s g i with the r e a l people of that name, when he argues that a l l the * P e l a s g i * were 'barbar i a n s * i n speech because those on the H e l l e s p o n t were so. (7) I t should, be noted, on the other hand, that he assumes the c o n t r a r y i n 11.52, where he ma:kes oj- a P e l a s g i a n word. But how easy the con-f u s i o n was, may be seen by the f a c t that Thucydides a l s o uses •Pelasgian* i n two q u i t e d i f f e r e n t senses: f i r s t , f o r the (8) p r i m i t i v e i n h a b i t a n t s of Greece; second, f o r contemporary b a r b a r i a n s . (9) One s p e c i a l development of the P e l a s g i a n theory i n a n c i e n t times should be mentioned s e p a r a t e l y . They were i d e n t i f I e d with the T y r r h e n i a n s or T y r s e n i a n s , and so w i t h the E t r u s c a n s . T h i s combination appears f i r s t i n (1) 1.56 (2) 711.95 (3) 1.46; ¥111,73 (4) II.171 (5 ) 1.56-7; VIII.44 ( 6 ) 11.50 (7 ) 1.57 (8) Thucydides' ' H i s t o r y * , 1.3 (9) I b i d , IV.109 H e l l a n i c u s ( f r . I.F.H.G. 145} who s t a t e s that the P e l s s g i , "being compelled by the Greeks, s e t t l e d i n I t a l y , changed t h e i r £&si« t© T y r s c n i , aaa • founded E t r u r i a . That the Etruscans came from the east i s very p r o b a b l e . What may be taken as c e r t a i n i s t h a t b a r b a r i a n t r i b e s c a l l e d T y r r h e n i a n s and- P e l a s g i a n s were neighbours i n the north-west Aegean. Kost of the modern theo-r i e s as to the P e l a s g i a n s agree i n making the name r a c i a l , whether they c a l l them Semites, I l l y r i a n S : , or Hycenaeans» But in' t h i s regard the words of Grote ^ •) are as true today as when they were w r i t t e n : " I f any man i s i n c l i n e d to ca11 the un-known a n t e - H e l l e n i c p e r i o d o f Greece by the name of P e l a s g i c , i t i s open f o r him to do so. But t h i s i s a name - no way of e n l a r g i n g our i n s i g h t i n t o r e a l h i s t o r y . "We may without im-p r o p r i e t y apply the remark of Herodotus, that 'the man who c a r r i e s h i s s t o r y i n t o the i n v i s i b l e world, passes out of the range of c r i t i c i s m * . " The P e l a s g i a n s , than* -whatever t h e i r o r i g i n , became the s u b j e c t s of the i n v a d i n g Achaeans. By the time of the T r o j a n war the whole p o p u l a t i o n of Greece was Achaeaniaed, a l -though i n some d i s t r i c t s , such as A t t i c a and Arcadia» l e s s thoroughly than i n o t h e r s . Homer * s e p i c i s the account of a great q u a r r e l that arose between two houses of these w a r l i k e c h i e f t a i n s , the houses of Atreus and Laomedon, which i n v o l v e d t h e i r v a s s a l s , i n t e r r u p t e d t h e i r predatory and e x p l o r a t o r y voyages, and l e d to post-war•disorders at home. Herodotus* f e e l i n g with regard to Homer and the s t o r y of the T r o j a n war has been n o t i c e d i n a previous paragraph. He took, the I l i a d {1} But see Waiter Leaf i n "Troy", ch. V I I , who {continued page 33 ) f o r h i s t o r y and Homer for h i s model. The h i s t o r i c a l value of the e p i c s has a l s o been touched upon, and indeed the whole sub-j e c t has been so much w r i t t e n about from so many angles and by so many authors that a long d i s c u s s i o n here would be s u p e r f l u -ous. S u f f i c e I t then to say t h a t i n time the wounds o f warfare were heale d , and i n c l a s s i c a l Greece we see the r e s u l t s of the m i n g l i n g of two u n u s u a l l y g i f t e d r a c e s , one autochthonous, the other immigrant - the former c o n t r i b u t i n g the t r a d i t i o n and t e c h n i c a l s k i l l of a h i g h l y advanced n a t i v e c i v i l i z a t i o n , the l a t t e r i t s h e r i t a g e of Aryan i n s t i t u t i o n s , power of c o o r d i n a -tion., and an a l l - c o n q u e r i n g language. There remains o n l y one more episode to review i n t h i s s h i f t i n g of the peoples, the Dorian i n v a s i o n . A Dorian him-s e l f , Herodotus i d e n t i f i e d the Dorians with the H e l l e n e s , and i t i s one of the paradoses of e a r l y Greek ethnology that these peoples, who came south l a s t and from f a r t h e r north than even the A e o l i o p e o p l e s , are c o n f i d e n t l y d e s c r i b e d as being i n the f u l l e s t sense " c h i l d r e n of H e l l e n . " H e l l a s was o r i g i n a l l y a d i s t r i c t i n T h e s s a l y , c l o s e l y connected with and r u l e d by A c h i l l e s , whose f o l l o w e r s were Myrmidons and H e l l e n e s . (2) But i n the Catalogue i t i s a l s o used as a general name. •H e l l a s * was a l r e a d y used i n a g e n e r a l sense by A r c h i l o c h u s and (3) Hessiod, ' i . e . , i n the 7th century, and had become estab-l i s h e d i n t h i s sense before 580 B.C. Thucydides d e s c r i b e s the t r a n s i t i o n from the s p e c i a l to the general sense. ^ ) The .(cont.from P.32): takes as from and 2 "neighbours", "march-men", any people on or j u s t over the Greek f r o n t i e r . (1) I I . IX.395 (2) I I . 11.684 (3) Strabo, 1370 (4) 1.3 adoption of the name may he connected with the spread of Dorian i n f l u e n c e . Herodotus* account of the Dorians i n 1.56,145, with ¥111.45 and 73, i s i n t e r e s t i n g as showing that the s t o r y of the Dorian i n v a s i o n was f u l l y developed i n h i s time. He assumes .fir - • . . i t s - m a i n p o i n t s , and even r e f e r s to d e t a i l s . ^ ' That the Dori a n i n v a s i o n was an undoubted f a c t i s almost u n i v e r s a l l y accepted ; though see Beloch {B.M. XIV} f o r the c o n t r a r y . I t was an i n v a s i o n , connected with the Phrygian m i g r a t i o n ^ ^ o f southern Greece, by ruder t r i b e s , i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y of mixed r a c e , from the nor t h or north-west, which swept away the Achaean c i v i l i z a t i o n a f t e r the Homeric age, i n f u s i n g a new element i n t o Greece, which stood lower i n the scale of a r t and thought than the Achaean. The conquest was gradual and may have been a s s i s t e d by the d i s c o n t e n t e d elements i n the Pelopon-nesus . Why i t should have been c a l l e d Dorian i s a d i f f i c u l t q u e s t i o n . Herodotus says that the name was not giv e n to the invaders t i l l a f t e r they had reached the Peloponnesus.^ s X I t was not, t h e r e f o r e , a p r i m i t i v e name of the invaders as a whole. The p r o b a b i l i t y i s that l i k e the names Ion i a n and A e o l i a n , i t came from A s i a Minor, from a d i s t r i c t c a l l e d D o r i s , which i n c l u d e d o r i g i n a l l y the i s l a n d s of Cos, Hhodes, other smaller ones near, Cuidos, H a l i c a r n a s s u s , and one or two other towns on the mainland. I t was assumed by Sparta and her neigh-bours f o r p o l i t i c a l reasons, e x a c t l y as the Ionian was assumed by Athens. Hence i t i s t h a t the Greeks themselves could give us no general account of the meaning of the word Dorian. On (1} c f . VI.52; IX.26,3 (2) Herodotus, " H i s t o r y " , 711.73 (3) 1.56 . 3 5 . the mainland i t included Spartans (with.Messenians), C o r i n t h -i a n s , A r g i n e s , Megarians., and excluded Eleans, A e t o l i a n s and Phocians, though t h e i r d i a l e c t s iTere a k i n , and though, moreover, the A e t o l i a n s t?ho occupied E l i s had been among th© Invaders. Of the d e t a i l s of the i n v a s i o n , i t must he f r a n k l y admitted that we know no t h i n g . I t was pa r t o f a s e r i e s o f movements 5 Thucy-d i d e s ^ 1 ^ connects i t , though not c a u s a l l y , w i t h the conquest o f Boe o t i a , and i t may have l e d to the m i g r a t i o n to A s i a M i n o r , ^ ' That i t took p l a c e a l l at once, a s Herodotus i m p l i e s , i s most u n l i k e l y ? whether, t o o , any great mass of the c o l o n i s t s came from•the north o f the Peloponnese, a3 s t a t e d by Herodotus ( s5 and by Strabo - though with v a r i a t i o n s - i s very u n c e r t a i n . However, though we do no t know the d e t a i l s 0 f the i n v a s i o n , we know I t s r e s u l t s . I t marked the end of the Achaean dominion which.had endured f o r n e a r l y two c e n t u r i e s . But the Achaean name l e f t a memory. On the mainland, as Herodotus t e l l s us, a remnant of the Ache eans held t o g e t h e r , and fought the i r way i n t o p o s s e s s i o n of the northern c o a s t l i n e o f the Peloponnesus, which he n c e f o r t h was c a l l e d by t h e i r name though the i n h a b i t a n t s pre-served no marked i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r , and spoke a d i a l e c t p r a c t i c a l l y the same as that o f t h e i r neighbours. In the c o l o -n i e s the name wholly vanished, ahsorhed i n the new c l a s s i f i c a -t i o n of A e o l i a n , I o n i a n and Dorian, But even here we can t r a c e a f a i n t s u r v i v a l o f the old order of t h i n g s . The k i n g s h i p of the o l d f a m i l i e s d i d not d i e out at once; the t r a c e s of i t i n the h i s t o r i c a l age are no t the l e s s s i g n i f i c a n t because they are p u r e l y a mark o f honour and divorced from any p o l i t i c a l f u n c t i o n . (1) 1.2,3 (2) 1.145 (3) 1.45 (4) 383 The Dorian i n v a s i o n l e d , then, to the next great p e r i o d , the age o f Greek c o l o n i z a t i o n . I t was of course by no means the beginning o f Greek settlements on the e a s t e r n side of the Aegean. The Achaeans, i n t b e i r i n i t i a l m i g r a t i o n , had been n a t u r a l l y drawn t h i t h e r . Lesbos and the more n o r t h e r l y s e c t i o n o f the A s i a t i c coast had been taken p o s s e s s i o n of by s e t t l e r s from T h e s s a l y and B o e o t i a , while others were f i l t e r i n g i n t o the c i t i e s l y i n g a l o n g the coast f u r t h e r south. But the Dorian i n v a s i o n gave the movement new impetus, and before long the r i c h c e n t r a l p o r t i o n of the c o a s t , where afterwards some of the most important c i t i e s o f the Greek world f l o u r i s h e d Ephesns, M i l e t u s , Smyrna - was b e i n g occupied by s e t t l e r s from A t t i c a and the Peloponnesus} and by the 8th century Ionia had become the most prosperous'and c i v i l i z e d p o r t i o n of H e l l a s . In the next two c e n t u r i e s , H e l l a s was to become s t i l l more widely exte'nded by a new movement, to which, f o r the sake of d i s t i n c -t i o n , the name of secondary c o l o n i z a t i o n i s given. Many c i t i e s were concerned i n i t } some i n A s i a Minor, as, f o r example, M i l e t u s , at t h i s time the foremost c i t y of Greece} some on the mainland, such as C o r i n t h and Megara , and C h a l c i s and E r e t r i a i n Euboea. These c i t i e s began to send out s e t t l e r s to c o l o n i z e advantageous s i t e s a l o n g the coast of the Eunine or the Medit-erranean. Many were the important towns thus founded? Byzantium, B.C. 666; Syracuse, 734 B.C.; C o r c y r a ; S y b a r i s , 721 B.C.; M a s s i l i a , Cyrene, e t c , In time, c o l o n i e s sent out other c o l o -n i e s i n t h e i r t u r n , as, f o r example, the c i t y of Uuraae, founded from C h a l c i s , afterwards c o l o n i z e d a s i t e not many miles away -He a p o l i s . Before we n o t i c e i n d e t a i l what Herodotus t e l l s us of the h i s t o r y of the more important Greek s i t e s , "both mother and daughter, perhaps i t would not come amiss to mention those other c o u n t r i e s which, though c l o s e l y connected "both geograph-i c a l l y and h i s t o r i c a l l y with H e l l a s , can not be discussed i n t h i s essay, owing to t h e i r n o n - H e l l e n i c o r i g i n s ; namely, Ep i r u s , I l l y r i a , Paeonia , Thrace and ISacedon. The Thracians , although a n a t i o n of great importance i n the h i s t o r y of c i v i l -i s a t i o n , and speaking a d i a l e c t very s i m i l a r to Greek, were known, even to t h e i r Greek neighbours, as B a r b a r i a n s . The Macedonians, a most important people i n Greek h i s t o r y , were not genuine Hellenes e i t h e r , though t h e i r kings may have been of Greek descent. That they were, Herodotus b e l i e v e d , as he t e l l s us i n Bk. 7.22. He says, " t h a t these descendants of P e r d i c c a s are H e l l e n e s , as they themselves say, I happen to know myself, - — a n d , moreover, the H e l l a n o d i c a i , who manage the games at Olympia» decided that they were so," e t c . Then, i n Bk. 7III.139, he g i v e s the descent of Alexander, and b r i n g s P e r d i c c a s , the founder of the l i n e , . from Argos, But the Mace-donia n people seem to have been an I l l y r i a n n a t i o n , or at l e a s t to have s u f f e r e d d e t e r / o r i a t i o n by i n t e r m i x t u r e with the I l l y r i a n s . The Macedonia n tongue does no t appear to have any p e c u l i a r connection with the Doric d i a l e c t ; hence Herodotus» otherwise unsupported statement that the Dorian and Macedon-ian. (Macednian) n a t i o n s were o r i g i n a l l y i d e n t i c a l , i s not given much credence. According to other a u t h o r s , Macednus i s c a l l e d the son of Lycaon, from whom the Arcadians were de-scended, or Macedon i s the brother of Magnes, or a son of 38. A eolus, a c c o r d i n g to Hestod and H e l l a n i c u s . ^ ) Bat these are merely v a r i o u s attempts to form a g e n e a l o g i c a l connection "be-tween t h i s s e m i - b a r t a r i a n race and the r e s t of the Greek n a t i o n * '9 These peoples, t h e r e f o r e , can have no p l a c e i n our i n v e s t i g a t i o n , save only where t h e i r h i s t o r y becomes the h i s t o r y , o f H e l l a s . We now come to Herodotus* account of the e a r l y h i s t o r y of i n d i v i d u a l c i t y s t a t e s * The f i r s t four books of Herodotus* h i s t o r y deal l a r g e l y , i n s o f a r as they d e a l w i t h Greek h i s t o r y at a l l , with., the Greeks i n A s i a Minor. They are i n t r o d u c e d , even so, as a p a r t of the h i s t o r y of L y d l a r a t h e r than f o r themselves a l o n e . Gyges of Lydia became king about 716 B.C., and soon a f t e r l e d an- army a g a i n s t Hi l e t us and Smyrna, and he took the lower town of Colophon. ^ ) Ardys, h i s son, took Priehe and invaded M i l e t u s . Sadyattes and A l y a t t e s continued these a t t a c k s against the A s i a t i c Greek c i t i e s , but u n t i l the time of Croesus the Greeks remained f r e e . f** ) An e a r l i e r i n v a -s i o n of Cimmerians i n t o Ionia was not a conquest of c i t i e s but only a p l u n d e r i n g e x p e d i t i o n , as Herodotus remarks.- Croesus ascended the Lydian throne In 560 B.C. He attacked the Ephe s-i a n s f i r s t . , and then the other I o n i a n and A e o l i a n c i t i e s one by one, u n t i l he had 3ubdued a l l the Hellenes i n A s i a , and f o r c e d them to pay t r i b u t e . With those i n the i s l a n d s , however, he formed f r i e n d s h i p s . T?hen Croesus* own kingdom f e l l before Cyrus, the Mede, the-Ionian Greeks sought to become Cyrus* sub-j e c t s on the same terms as they had been s u b j e c t s of h i s (1) S t u r z , H e l l a n . Bragra. P.79 (2) Her. 1.14 (3) 1.7 predecessor, but t h e i r request was r e f u s e d . They then pre-pared to r e s i s t him, and sent messengers to Sparta to ask f o r a i d , which Sparta refused to g i v e . I o n i a , of course, was f i n a l l y conquered by Cyrus, and the Greeks i n the I s l a n d s s ur-rendered to him o f t h e i r own ac c o r d . Under CambyseS, Cyrus* son, they remained I n s u b j e c t i o n , being regarded hy t h a t mon-arch as sl a v e s i n h e r i t e d from h i s f a t h e r , and he made use of them i n h i s armies d u r i n g h i s career of conquest. T h i s , then, w i t h the e x c e p t i o n of a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of the Ionian c l i m a t e , I.a a l l we are t o l d by Herodotus i n the f i r s t four books of the H i s t o r y , o f the A s i a t i c Greeks as a whole. But c e r t a i n o f the i n d i v i d u a l s t a t e s had more or l e s s unique experiences which he a l s o r e l a t e s . Among these, perhap the most i n t e r e s t i n g were those o f the Phocaeans and the peopl of Te.os. When Cyrus sent h i s g e n e r a l Harpagos to subdue the Phocaeans, most o f them, g r e a t l y g r i e v e d a t the thought o f sub-j e c t i o n , 'drew down t h e i r sacred g a l l e y s to the sea, put i n t o them t h e i r women and c h i l d r e n , and a l l movable goods, the imag-es out o f the temples* - and s a i l e d towards Chios. ^ ^ Many and v a r i e d were t h e i r subsequent adventures, but f i n a l l y they came to s e t t l e i n Kyrnos, where, twenty years b e f o r e , they had founded A l a l i a . While they were t h e r e , however, the Etruscans and C a r t h a g i n i a n s made e x p e d i t i o n s a g a i n s t them. The Etruscans at t h i s time were at the height o f t h e i r power. The occupation o f A l a l i a was a d i r e c t challenge to them, and no doubt i t was the common danger from the Greeks that l e d them to form a com-m e r c i a l t r e a t y w i t h the C a r t h a g i n i a n s . 1 '' Although the Greeks (1) Her. 1.164 (2) A r i s t . P o l . 111.9,6. 12 80a. were, i n the main, v i c t o r i o u s i n these encounters, they r e -moved e v e n t u a l l y to Bhegium and thence to O e n o t r i a , where they s e t t l e d at Eyele ( V e l i a ) . -This whole d i g r e s s i o n here i s i n -v a l u a b l e , as g i v i n g us our e a r l i e s t evidence of the Barb a r i a n r e a c t i o n i n the west, which kept the Greeks out of C o r s i c a and west S i c i l y , and prevented the Mediterranean from becoming a .Greek lake* The people of Teos had a s i m i l a r , but not so advent-urous an ex p e r i e n c e , which.arose out of the same cause. For rat h e r than submit to Gyrus 1 1 g e n e r a l Harpagos, they l e f t t h e i r c i t y and s a i l e d to Thr a c e , where they refounded Abdera. The h i s t o r y of Smyrna, t oo, i s i n t e r e s t i n g . A c c o r d i n g to Herodotus, Smyrna, before the end o f the 8th c e n t u r y , was an A e o l i a n c i t y , but was taken from them by Ionians by a t r i c k , as a r e s u l t of which the A e o l i a n s were compelled to depart out of the c i t y , bag and baggage, and leav e i t i n the hands of the enemies. When the Lydians took i t , i t was, a c c o r d i n g to Strabo, o — r it destroyed as a c i t y and onl y i n h a b i t e d K /* V * o V . (x } The L y d i a n conquest was as a r u l e m e r c i f u l , but Smyrna, command-in g as i t did the o u t l e t of the Hennas V a l l e y , was too formid-able to be spared. Clazomenai was a l s o a t t a c k e d , as Herodotus mentions, to secure t h i s v a l l e y . Herodotus* account of M i l e t u s i s concerned mainly with i t s c o n n e c t i o n with the Lyd i a n h i s t o r y of Asia Minor, as indeed, as we have s a i d , are most of b i s accounts of the other Greek c i t i e s t h e r e . We are t o l d o f the a t t a c k s made upon i t by Gyges, L a d y a t t e s , and A l y a t t e s , which i t s u c c e s s f u l l y withstood (1) XIV.1,3? due to the f a c t that i t had 'command of the sea *| and of Cyrus* f r i e n d l y agreement wi t h i t , hut l i t t l e e l s e . We can not but deplore i n every account, as w e l l as that merely o f M i l e t -us, the omi s s i o n of the d e t a i l , nay even o f the "broad o u t l i n e , t h a t a modern h i s t o r i a n would deem necessary i n a h i s t o r y . There i s no mention of I o n i a n s o c i a l or economic h i s t o r y , no-t h i n g of t h e i r l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y save the mention of Anacreon of Teos. But i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the s t o r y of M i l e t u s we r e -ceive a meagre account o f i t s p o l i t i c a l h i s t o r y , when we l e a r n that Thrasybulus was despot,of the c i t y and a f r i e n d of P e r i a n -der, the t y r a n t of Corinth? P e r i a n d e r , a s p e c i a l g u e s t - f r i e n d of Thrasybulus, informed him beforehand of A l y a t t e s • designs a g a i n s t h i s c i t y , and thus the t y r a n t was enabled to f r u s t r a t e them. This man, Periander," i s introduced to us at greater l e n g t h , as we s h a l l see, l a t e r . The eleven years* war that M i l e t u s c a r r i e d on with the Lyd i a n s o v e r e i g n s , which l a s t e d from about 623 to 612 B.C., they waged w i t h no other help than that of the Chians, who came to t h e i r a i d because the M i l e s i a n s had f o r m e r l y a s s i s t e d the Chians throughout the war with E r y -t h r a i . Chios, commanding the sea approach to E r y t h r a i , was i t s n a t u r a l enemy? i t was a l s o a r i v a l of Samos, the per-p e t u a l trade competitor of M i l e t u s ? hence the a l l i a n c e of M i l -(1 ) etus and Chio s was a n a t u r a l one. We l e a r n i n Book IV that O l b i a was founded from M i l e t u s (we may place the date as 647 B.C.) and was the o l d e s t colony beyond the Danube. Apart from such scanty and s c a t t e r e d i n f o r m a t i o n , we l e a r n l i t t l e more from the f i r s t four books of the H i s t o r y . When we d i s c u s s (1) IV.78 l a t e r Herodotus and Greek despotism, we w i l l take more n o t i c e of the h i s t o r i a n ' s l i s t o f the I o n i a n despots, who owed t h e i r power to D a r i u s . ^ ) U n t i l then l e t us t u r n to what Herodotus t e l l s us of the Greeks i n the i s l a n d s . 'le have a l r e a d y seen something o f t h e i r h i s t o r y as a whole; t h a t when Groesus conquered the I o n i a n Greeks he made f r i e n d s with them, and they remained f r e e u n t i l the conquest of Gyrus, when, f e a r i n g l e s t he subjugate them f o r c i b l y , they sur-rendered of t h e i r own accord* I t remains f o r us, then, to look at the most important s t a t e s i n d i v i d u a l l y , as f a r as we can l e a r n a n y t h i n g about them from Herodotus, always b e a r i n g i n mind that t h i s i s an account of the Greeks taken from the f i r s t four books only* I t seems f i t t i n g to glean what we can from them separately,- and t r y to complete our p i c t u r e s l a t e r on, than to draw them complete at f i r s t with e x t r a c t s taken from every p a r t o f the h i s t o r y . For. the f i r s t f o u r books are not a -h i s t o r y of Greece a t a l l , but o f Barbery; and what Greek h i s t o r y enters i n t o i t i s a t best o n l y an i n t r o d u c t i o n to the dramatis personae, as i t were, whose h i s t o r y commences i n Bk. T. I t i s w e l l to keep t h i s i n mind. Herodotus knew Samoa be s t . He spent some time there as a young man, as we have seen, and learned a good deal of i t s h i s t o r y , ^e have t h e r e f o r e q u i t e a f a i r amount of m a t e r i a l to review. Herodotus h i m s e l f e x p l a i n s the d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e length of h i s account of i t i n I.GO. The s t o r y of Samos comes to us wrapped around the t y r a n t P o l y o r a t e s , and so, though we have postponed a d i s c u s s i o n of Herodotus and Greek tyranny to a (1 ) IV. 157 l a t e r chapter, we f i n d i t necessary to consider t h i s p a r t i c u l a r despot here. P o l y c r a tes , the son o f Aeacee, became a despot about 552 B.C. He had r i s e n a g a i n s t the government, and ob-t a i n i n g the r u l e had d i v i d e d i t at f i r s t w ith h i s two b r o t h e r s . But l a t e r he slew one and drove out the other and ru l e d alone.' She s t o r y of P o l y c r a t e s * good f o r t u n e and h i s f r i e n d s h i p w i t h 'Amasis, together w i t h the t a l e o f the rang, i s w e l l known. ^Herodotus i g n o r e s the r e a l reasons o f the p o l i c y of P o l y c r a t e s and g i v e s us i n s t e a d a story, i l l u s t r a t i n g the lemeais attendant on good f o r t u n e , which, h i d e s the t r e a c h e r y o f Samo s . " ^  ^ Amasis..had endeavoured to p r o t e c t Egypt, i n accordance w i t h the u s u a l . p o l i c y of the S a i t e dynasty, by forming a league of s a r i -time s t a t e s , but ths d e s e r t i o n of Cyprus and the submission of the Phoenicians to the P e r s i a n s changed the balance of power, and P o l y c r a t e s went over to the side of the s t r o n g e r . Even though he ignored a l l t h i s , or perhaps d i d not f u l l y r e a l i z e i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e , Herodotus makes i t c l e a r that P o l y c r a t e s was the r e a l aggressor a g a i n s t Egypt, \?e are introduced to P o l y c r a t e s i n the midst of a c i v i l war, i n which the p a r t y op-posing . him has c a l l e d i n the Lacedaemonians to a i d them. "The Lacedaemonians prepared a f o r c e and made an e x p e d i t i o n to Samos, as the Samians say, In repayment o f former s e r v i c e s , be-Gaa.se the Samians had f i r s t helped them wit h s h i p s a g a i n s t the Messenians. ^ 3^ T h i s passage i s p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g as the o n l y d e f i n i t e r e f e r e n c e i n Herodotus to the l e s s e n i a n wars. I t supports the l a t e r t r a d i t i o n t h a t the second Hessenian war (1) How & W e l l s , "Commentary", P. 266. (2) Herodotus, Bk. 1.44. .(5) Herodotus, III.47 had an i n t e r n a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r , Argo s, A r c a d i a , and P i s a being a l l i e s of Messenla,^!) and E l i s , ^ C o r i n t h , and Sicyon ^ of the Lacedaemonians. The C o r i n t h i a n s a l s o took p a r t with zea.£ In t h i s e x p e d i t i o n of Samos, f o r reasons which are a c c o r d -i n g l y set f o r t h , but the chronology i s i n e x t r i c a b l y confused. She *insuit» was about 550 B.C., and y e t i t i s i n the time of P e r i a n d e r , who died about 585 B.C. " P l u t a r c h l * 1 puts the events 'three g e n e r a t i o n s ' before P o l y c r a t e s and t e l l s us from Independent sources (Dion, o f C h a l c i s . f l . c . 3 5 0 ; f r . 3 . F. H.G. IV.396) that i t was Ohidians (not Samians) who r e s t o r e d the boys to Corcyra; he confirms t h i s by an appeal to honours granted by Corcyra to Cnidus. Herodotus may have been mi sled by h i s Samian Informants. The t y r a n t ' s b r u t a l i t y , however, may be accepted as f a c t , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the o r i e n t a l l e a n i n g s of the C y p s e l i d a c . ) <phe Lacedaemonians and the C o r i n t h i a n s , then, had come with a great armament and were b e s i e g i n g Samos. Then f o l l o w s an account of the siege which need not concern us. S u f f i c e i t to say that a f t e r f o r t y days of i l l success, they departed and l e f t the Samians to t h e i r own d e v i c e s . These, then, s a i l e d away from Samos to Siphno s f o r money. Siphno s, one of the western Cyclades, was at that time at the height of i t s p r o s p e r i t y , we are t o l d , and possessed more wealth than a l l the other i s l a n d s . The SIphnians refused to lend the e x i l e d Samians any money, and they took some from them by for c e as a f i n e . From the men of Hermione, next, the Samians bought the i s l a n d of Hydrea and gave i t i n charge to the Traezenians, but (1) Strabo, 362. (2) Strabo, 355 (3) Paus. IV.15,5 (4) U.S.C. 22 (5) How & W e l l s , "Commentary"? P.269 they themselves s e t t l e d in. Cydonia, i n C r e t e , to d r i v e the Zakynthians ont. Here they l i v e d f o r f i v e y e a r s , hut i n the s i x t h the Aeginetans, with the help of the Cretans, conquered them. The mention of Aegina r e c a l l s to Herodotus a grude the Aeginetans had a g a i n s t the. people o f Samos. The Samians, under the t y r a n t Amphicrates, had made an e x p e d i t i o n a g a i n s t them and done them much h u r t . Hany chapters l a t e r , Herodotus resumes the s t o r y of Samo s, and records the miserable death o f Poly-c r a t e s , who, i n the h i s t o r i a n ' s own words, "was the f i r s t of the Hellenes o f whom we have any knowledge, who set h i s mind upon having command of the sea, excepting Minos the Cnossian, and any other who may have had dommand of the sea before h i s time? with whom, exc e p t i n g those despots o f the Syracusans, not of one "besides the H e l l e n i c despots was worthy to be compared i n magnificence." ^ ^ When next Herodotus mentions Samos, we f i n d Eacandros despot, 'having r e c e i v e d the government as a t r u s t from Polycrates®, when he s a i l e d away to v i s i t A r a i t e s . T h i s man i s f i n a l l y e x p e l l e d from the i s l a n d by the P e r s i a n s , and S y l a s o n , a Samian e x i l e , i s i n s t a l l e d by them i n h i s p l a c e . T h i s i s the sum of a l l Herodotus t e l l s us of the p o l i t i c a l h i s -t o r y of Samos. In a d d i t i o n , he re c o r d s three great engineer-i n g f e a t s which i n h i s judgment surpassed any others that had been achieved by the Hel l e n e s s an aqueduct, a mole and a temple. The aqueduct was discov e r e d i n 1382, and remains of the mole can s t i l l be seen about s i x f e e t below the surface o f the har-bour. With t h i s we w i l l leave Samos and t u r n our a t t e n t i o n to the l i t t l e we are t o l d o f other important i s l a n d s , Cnidas, (1) 111.122,25. Xanos, Aegiaa> Eutoea, e t c . Cnidus i s mentioned i n s e v e r a l p l a c e s by Herodotus. Ot was c o l o n i z e d "by Sparta, a c c o r d i n g to him, hut Strabo b r i n g s • ( 1 ) the C n i d i a n s from Megara. When Cyrus subdued the Ionian coast i t surrendered to h i s g e n e r a l Harpagos. Xanos f i r s t e n t e r s the h i s t o r y i n the account o f P i s i s t r a t u s of Athens. Lygdamis, a man o f Xanos, came to P i s -i s t r a t u s o f h i s own a c c o r d , and showed very great z e a l i n pro-v i d i n g both men and money. In r e t u r n P i 3 i s t r a t u s conquered Xanos, about 538 B.C., and a f t e r p l a c i n g upon i t c e r t a i n Athen-i a n youths, who were hostages f o r the good behavior of Athens, he d e l i v e r e d i t i n t o the charge of Lygdamis. Aegina, we w i l l remember, came i n t o the s t o r y of Samos. The Aeginetans had a grudge a g a i n s t them .because i n the time of Amphicrates they had made war a g a i n s t them. They took vengeance l a t e r on t h e - e x i l e d Samians who had s e t t l e d i n C r e t e , by e n s l a v i n g them. Both of the p r e v i o u s a c t s of the Samians had been p r o v o c a t i v e to Aegina. The purchase of the i s l a n d of Hydrea, which l a y to the south o f the A r g o l i c p e n i n s u l a , and the s e t t l i n g o f Cydonia on the north-west coast of Crete, were probably part of a movement to i s o l a t e Aegina and extend the r e l a t i o n s of the Corintho-Samian a l l i a n c e . The Aeginetans, r e s e n t i n g the t r e s p a s s on t h e i r p r e s e r v e s , joined the Cretans i n e x p e l l i n g the i n t r u d e r s , and secured t h e i r hold by a colony {3 ) at Cydonia. (For the f r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s between Crete and Aegina, c f . the proverb.* K f> "7 f ^ f 0 S " { Y ' V 1 "r 1 V' * {1} XIV.2,6 (2) Herodotus, V . l (3) Strabo, 376 Our scanty r e f e r e n c e s to these e a r l y wars i n the Aegean a l l tend to e s t a b l i s h the theory of the r i v a l r y o f two great t r a d e - l e a guess M i l e t u s , Aegina, Llegara , and E r e t r i a , t r a d i n g mainly w i t h the n o r t h - e a s t , ranged a g a i n s t C o r i n t h , Samos, and C h a l c i 3 , whose c h i e f sphere l a y i n the west. The mention o f C h a l c i s and E r e t r i a "brings us to the i s l a n d o f Euboea«• As. a matter of f a c t , nothing i s said i n the f i r s t four books of t h i s I s l a n d at a l l . But i t s p r i n c i p a l c i t i e s , C h a l c i s and E r e t r i a , played such an important part i n the commercial h i s t o r y of the Greek w o r l d , and are so bound up with the ' e a r l y wars* r e f e r r e d to i n the p r e c e d i n g paragraph, that to a n t i c i p a t e here i s not very s e r i o u s . One of the most s i g n i f i c a n t events of e a r l y Greek h i s t o r y , appears to have been the s t r u g g l e between E r e t r i a and C h a l c i s f o r the L e l a n t i n e p l a i n of Euboea. The s t o r y i s j u s t r e c a l l e d i n Herodotus; A r i s t a g o r a s persuaded the E r e t r i a n s to send f i v e t r i r e m e s to the a i d of M i l e t u s " f o r the M i l e s i a n s i n former times had borne with the E r e t r i a n s the burden of a l l that war which they had w i t h the C h a l c i d i a n s , at the time when the C h a l c i d i a n s on t h e i r s i d e were helped by .the Samians a g a i n s t the E r e t r i a n s and M i l e s i a n s , " ^ 1 The date of the war- upon the subject of which the whole Greek world, according to Thucy-d i d e s , was d i v i d e d , i s given v a r i o u s l y as being at the beginning of the Oth or of the 7th c e n t u r i e s . Scholars have concluded that the d i v i s i o n of the world f o r t r a d i n g and colon-i z i n g purposes was connected with t h i s cleavage of the Euboean ( 1 ) 1 . 9 9 ( S ) 1 . 1 5 . • c i t i e s and t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e a l l i e s . Megara and M i l e t u s had,at a l l events, a p r a c t i c a l monopoly of the Black Sea, and l i n e d i t w i t h c o l o n i e s . C o r i n t h and Samos looked westward. Herodotus preserves some o f the h i s t o r y of the western Greeks. We have a- few' r e f e r e n c e s i n Bks. I - I 7 , which are a l l we w i l l touch upon f o r the p r e s e n t . $e have a l r e a d y noted the voyages of the Phocoeans, and t h e i r importance. Herodotus r i g h t l y l a y s s t r e s s on t h e i r being 'opener s-up', not the d i s -coverers' of the west. ( c f . 17.153,2 f o r Samians i n Ta r t e s s u s . ) Their a c t i v i t y gave the name 'Ionian* to the sea south of I t a l y . In the west, as we have seen, they came i n t o v i o l e n t contact with the Etruscans and the C a r t h a g i n i a n s . I t was the Carthag-i n i a n s that kept the Greeks out of S a r d i n i a , where Thales of S i l e t u s had advised the Greeks t o s a i l and to found a s i n g l e (1 ) (2 ) c i t y f o r a l l . C o r s i c a was a l r e a d y p a r t l y held by them. (3 } In the s t o r y of A r i o n and the d o l p h i n , we have mention of I t a l y and S i c i l y . A r i o n conceived a d e s i r e to s a i l t h i t h e r and having acquired l a r g e sums of money, he set f o r t h from Taras on a C o r i n t h i a n s h i p . This s t o r y i s i n t e r e s t i n g I f f o r no other reason than that i t shows that at the beginning of the 6th century a t l e a s t there was constant passage of ships from the o l d world to the new; that then, as now, the new world held a glamour f o r those i n the o l d . Before we come to the h i s t o r y o f the mainland Greeks, we w i l l endeavour to f i n d some t r a c e of that o f the Greeks i n A f r i c a and i n the Black Sea a r e a . (1) Herodotus, 1.170 (2) 1.165 49. One very important event i n the h i s t o r y of the Greeks i n A f r i c a was the founding of Gyrene, a s t o r y whioh i s t o l d at l e n g t h i n Herodotus,^ 1) hut need o n l y he noted b r i e f l y here. People from Lacedaemon c o l o n i s e d the i s l a n d o f Thera, and l a t e r on Theraeans, at the i n s t r u c t i o n of the Delphic o r a c l e , made a settlement a t the i s l a n d of P l a t e a o f f the n o r t h - A f r i c a n c o a s t . There they dwelt f o r twenty years hut without p r o s p e r i n g , and f i n a l l y they removed from P l a t e a to the mainland of L i b y a , where they l i v e d f o r s i x years at a spot o p p o s i t e the i s l a n d * At the end of that time they were induced to change t h e i r s i t e by the Libyans, and about 630 B.C. founded Cyrene on the spot i t was h e n c e f o r t h to occupy. There i s no need, to t r y to pene-t r a t e here the true d e t a i l s of the p l a n t i n g of Cyrene. Herodo-tus g i v e s us the s t o r y as i t was t o l d i n the 6th and 5th centu-r i e s , and i t i s evidence as to how Greeks looked at the world i n the great formative p e r i o d t h a t l e d up to the P e r s i a n wars. F i f t y - s i x years the c o l o n i s t s l i v e d t h e r e , "with the same number as when they f i r s t set f o r t h , * under the r u l e of Battos and A r c e s i l a u s , h i s son. But i n the r e i g n of the t h i r d k i n d , Battos the Prosperous, they set out, upon the i n j u n c t i o n o f the Delphic o r a c l e , to s e t t l e L i b y a , together with great numbers of other Hellenes who came to them t h e r e . The Libyans appealed to Egypt f o r h e l p , and A p r i e s the Egyptian k i n g marched against the Greeks but was defeated by them i n two b a t t l e s . A f t e r the death of Battos I I , A r o e s i l a u s , h i s son, became k i n g . In h i s r e i g n occurred the founding of Barca, which came about as the r e s u l t of a q u a r r e l with h i s b r o t h e r s , that induced them f i n a l l y to (1) V.145 leave Gyrene and make a c i t y of t h e i r own. At the same time they persuaded the Libyans to r e v o l t from. Gyrene. When A r c c s i -laus pursued the r e b e l s , he was overwhelmingly defeated by them and subsequently dflain by h i s b r o t h e r H a l i a r c h u s . B a t t o s , son of A r e e s i l a n s , succeeded to the throne, but owing to h i s p h y s i -c a l i n f i r m i t i e s , a lawgiver was G a l l e d i n , upon the advice of the Delphic o r a c l e , a c e r t a i n Mantinean by the name of Demonan. This man d i v i d e d the people i n t o three t r i b e s , one c o n s i s t i n g of the Theraeans and t h e i r dependents, one of the Peloponnesians and Cretans, and a t h i r d o f a l l the i s l a n d e r s * Then f o r the k i n g he set a p a r t domains of l a n d , and p r i e s t h o o d s , but the r e a l power he turned over to the people. During the r e i g n of t h i s lame k i n g the arrangement remained s a t i s f a c t o r y , but when Arce s i l a u s I I I became k i n g , he p r o t e s t e d against i t and asked to be g i v e n back the r o y a l r i g h t s of h i s f o r e f a t h e r s . A f t e r s t i r r i n g up s t r i f e , he was e x i l e d to Samos, and h i s mother to Cyprus. But A r c e s i l a u s , r e t u r n i n g with Samian f o r c e s , regained Cyrene. He began, however, to take vengeance on h i s enemies, and f e a r i n g a s s a s s i n a t i o n , removed to Barca, where he was never-t h e l e s s s l a i n . Pher©time , the mother of A r c e s i l a u s , who had meanwhile returned to Cyrene from Cyprus, f l e d to Egypt upon the death of her son, to ask Aryandes, the s a t r a p , f o r a i d , which he granted her. Herodotus remarks that t h i s army was sent out not so much to avenge Pheretime *s l o s s , but to subdue L i b y a . This e x p e d i t i o n set out about 518 B.C. and l a i d siege to Barca. A f t e r nine months the Barcaeans surrendered. The terms they had made for t h e i r s a f e t y were disregarded by the v i c t o r i o u s Pers-i a n s , and Pheretime exacted her h o r r i b l e vengeance. The Persians then made an attempt to take Cyrene, hut thought bett of i t and returned whence they had come. To t h i s long and f a i r l y f u l l h i s t o r y o f the Greeks i n L i b y a , which covers, as may be noted, a period from about 650 B.C. to 515 B.C., He rodo tus adds a d e s c r i p t i o n of the l o c a t i o n of Cyrene and i t s har-v e s t s , Taken a l t o g e t h e r i t forms a continuous n a r r a t i v e o f no l i t t l e v a l u e , which compares f a v o u r a b l y with any other account of the Hellenes i n any one of the f i r s t four books. As f o r the He l l e n e s i n Egypt, they l i v e d there from q u i t e e a r l y times, c h i e f l y f o r the purposes of t r a d e . We can tr a c e the fo r t u n e s o f the adventurers from the time of the bronze men who appeared and ravaged the l a n d , those f i r s t Dorians and l o n i a n s whom Psamnetichus (664-610 B.C.) e n l i s t e d i n h i s army,^ ^ to the Egypt i a n r e a c t i o n under Amasis, (569-526 B.C.), the sagacious k i n g who headed a n a t i o n a l i s t i c move-ment while he yet c o n t r i v e d to mai n t a i n and r e e s t a b l i s h the f o r e i g n e r s i n the land? who appeared to r e s t r i c t the Greeks' p r i v i l e g e s of t r a d i n g where they p l e a s e d , to give them a (2 ) "concession" at X a u c r a t i s , 4 where a r e a l l y i n p o r t a n t Greek c i t y developed. In the n o r t h , as we have mentioned, many Greek c o l o -nies sprang up, some d e s t i n e d to become of major importance i n the Greek wo r l d . In t h i s c o l o n i z a t i o n , Megara and M i l e t u s had a very l a r g e share. We have r e f e r r e d to the founding of Olbia by M i l e t u s i n 647 B.C.? of Abdera by men of Teos a f t e r Timesias o f Clazamenae had founded and abandoned i t . Chalcedonia and (1) Herodotus, 11.152 (2) Herodotus, 11.178 Byzantium were both Megarian c o l o n i e s ; Byzantium being founded about 660 B.C. Sinope was refounded by M i l e s i a n s i n 630 B.C. and Irapezus was one of Sinope *s daughter c i t i e s . Herodotus i n c l u d e s i n h i s s t o r y of the conquests of Darius i n t h i s area, a d e s c r i p t i o n of the Bosphorus, the P r o p o n t i s , and the Pontus, which, though he i s s t r a n g e l y out i n some of h i s measurements, i s not without v a l u e . Other c i t i e s i n that r e g i o n are mentioned by him more or l e s s i n p a s s i n g , and he gives nothing o f t h e i r h i story» . F i n a l l y we reach the c i t i e s of the Greek mainland, and i n s e a r c h i n g f o r an i n t r o d u c t i o n what could we f i n d more a p p r o p r i a t e than Herodotus* own words? "The Lacedaemonians and the Athenians had the pre-eminence, the f i r s t of .the Dorian, and the others of the Ionian r a c e . " ^ • Herodotus* account of both s t a t e s i s q u i t e l o n g ; i t w i l l s u f f i c e to p o i n t out the most important d e t a i l s of i t . Herodotus f i r s t t e l l s us that Lacedaemon, before the days of Lycurgus, had the worst laws of almost a l l the H e l l e n e s , both I n regard to p r i v a t e a f f a i r s and i n the f a c t t h a t they had no I n t e r c o u r s e with s t r a n g e r s . How the e a r l y h i s t o r y of S p a r t a , as r e l a t e d by Herodotus, i s so wrapped up with the m y s t i c a l f i g u r e of Lycurgus - i n t o the q u e s t i o n of whose h i s t o r i c a l e x i s t e n c e I s h a l l not go - that I t cannot be c a l l e d a true h i sto r y , but i t i s valuable as the 5th century o f f i c i a l Lacedaemonian account of h i s t o r y . Here we come upon our f i r s t q uestionable statement. I t w i l l be seen that Spartan e x c l u s i v e n e s s i s made pre-Lycur-gean. This i s d o u b t f u l . Herodotus makes the Minyae be r e c e i v e d ( 1 ) 1.25. as c i t i z e n s i n the e a r l i e s t days, There i s a c e r t a i n amount of a c t i v i t y i n the founding of Thera and the c o l o n i z i n g of (2) L i b y a . In the 7th century the Ionic Epos and A e o l i o music came i n . (of. the s t o r i e s of Terpander and Alcman. ) Moreover, a r c h a e o l o g i c a l d i s c o v e r i e s of recent years support the b e l i e f that before the e x t r a o r d i n a r y change that came upon Sparta, the c i t y was an. important c u l t u r a l c e n t r e . At any r a t e , a c c o r d i n g to the h i s t o r i a n , Lyeurgus introduced d r a s t i c reforms, as a d i r e c t r e s u l t of which the Lacedaemonians became prosperous and began to look about f o r conquests. They turned t h e i r eyes upon A r c a d i a , and e s p e c i a l l y upon the Iegeans, b e l i e v i n g that f o r t u n e was with them? but they a p p a r e n t l y m i s i n t e r p r e t e d the o r a c l e that had given them t h i s i m p r e s s i o n , because they s u f f e r e d a most h u m i l i a t i n g de-f e a t . A f t e r s t r u g g l i n g c o n t i n u a l l y a g a i n s t the Iegeans with i l l success, they appealed to the D e l p h i c o r a c l e again and as a r e s u l t . o f the a p p l i c a t i o n of the second piece of advice i t gave them, f i n a l l y became v i c t o r s . By the time Croesus sent to them to ask f o r aid a g a i n s t Cyrus, they had subdued the greater p a r t of the Peloponnesus b e s i d e s . T h i s e a r l y Arcadian war i s important as a t u r n i n g - p o i n t i n the p o l i c y of the Lacedaemon-i a n s , the stubborn r e s i s t a n c e of the highlanders of c e n t r a l Peloponnesus made them give up attempting complete conquest, which they had c a r r i e d out i n Messenia j the o n l y d e f i n i t e r e f e r e n c e to t h i s Messenian war i n Herodotus, occurs i n III.47, which we have discussed i n a previous page. They gave up, then, the idea of conquering the whole of the Peloponnesus, and (1) IV.145 (2) IV.147,159 contented themselves with a hegemony over dependent a l l i e s . F r i e n d s h i p with Croesus was e s t a b l i s h e d about 547 B.C. and sometime l a t e r they were c a l l e d upon to send him help , hut they were engaged a t t h i s time i n a q u a r r e l with Argos., over the d i s t r i c t of Thyrea, which the Spartans had taken from her. By the time t h i s d i s p u t e had been s e t t l e d and pr e p a r a t i o n s made for sending h e l p , Croesus had been taken p r i s o n e r . Cyrus, hav-i n g conquered L y d i a , set.out to do the same to the A s i a t i c Greeks,.who thereupon sent messengers to Sparta to ask t h e i r h e l p . The Spartans, however, would not l i s t e n to them. This r e f u s a l of Sp a r t a , leader of the Greek world as she was at that time, to come to the a i d of her f e l l o w Greeks i n A s i a Uinor, has always been a b l o t on her good name. I t was jus t another example of her 6th century e x c l u s i v e n e s s , i f we except her r e a d i n e s s to a i d the r i c h Croesus a g a i n s t Gyrus? i n view o f which her r e f u s a l to help men o f her own race i n the same case, i s not a n i c e problem f o r r e f l e c t i o n . Some time l a t e r , about 532 B.C., Sparta was engaged i n h e l p i n g r e v o l u t i o n a r y Samians aga i n s t t h e i r t y r a n t , P o l y c r a t e s . The outcome has a l r e a d y been noted. They besieged Samos f o r f o r t y days, and as they made no headway, departed a g a i n to t h e i r own country. This i s almost a l l the h i s t o r y of Sparta we are t o l d i n the f i r s t four books. We have seen that Herodotus spent some time i n Athens a f t e r he l e f t Samos, and that as a r e s u l t h i s p o l i t i c a l views were coloured c o n s i d e r a b l y by h i s environment, as we l l as by h i s own n a t u r a l i n c l i n a t i o n . But he was not wholly b l i n d to her f a u l t s , and on the whole what he records i s sane and unbiased. His e a r l i e s t r e f e r e n c e i s to a war between Athens and the people o f E i e u s i a . S r o t e t 1 ) assumes the b a t t l e was a g a i n s t the f o r -mer, and uses t h i s passage to prove the l a t e n e s s o f the union of A t t i c a . This l a t t e r f a c t i s probable on other grounds,^ 2' but the b a t t l e here mentioned was almost c e r t a i n l y a g a i n s t the Megarians at the border town of E l e u s i s . The next h i s t o r i c a l f a c t about Athens which Herodotus records concerns Solon, 594 B.C., who made laws f o r the Athenians at t h e i r b i d d i n g and afterwards l e f t them f o r ten y e a r s , i n order that he might not be compelled to r e p e a l any of the laws he had proposed. He.gives an account of the t r a v e l s of Solon to Lydia and to Egypt. His v i s i t ' t o Egypt Is probably t r u e , and indeed there i s no reason to doubt that the t r a v e l s took p l a c e , except that for c h r o n o l o g i c a l reasons the c e l e b r a t e d s t o r y of Solon and Croesus can not have any foundation i n f a c t . I t must be noted that Herodotus t e l l s us n o t h i n g of the laws of Solon, as he t o l d us something of Lycurgus * reforms. "The e x p l a n a t i o n of the omission i s probably that Herodotus had no i n t e r e s t i n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l h i s t o r y . " ^ ^ Much g r e a t e r space i s a l l o t t e d to the r i s e o f P i s i s t r a t u s . Herodotus* account of the tyranny of t h i s man i s one of h i s most v a l u a b l e c o n t r i b u t i o n s to 6th century h i s t o r y . P i s i s t r a t u s became despot f i r s t i n 560 B.C., by making h i m s e l f l e a d e r of the 'men of the mountain-lands* as opposed to those of *the shore* and *the p l a i n * . During h i s subsequent r u l e P i s i s t r a t u s administered Athens under the same c o n s t i t u t i o n which was a l r e a d y i n e f f e c t , without d i s t u r b i n g the e x i s t i n g m a gistrates or changing the ancient laws. But h i s (1) III.71 (2) Thucydides, 11.15,1 (3) 1.29 {4 j How & W e l l s , "Commentary", P. 6? power did not l a s t l ong. A co n s p i r a c y was formed a g a i n s t him and he was d r i v e n out. Some time l a t e r , however, hy an agree-ment with .the c o n s p i r a t o r s j he was allowed to r e t u r n and e f f e c -ted h i s entry i n t o the c i t y by a t r i c k which caused Herodotus to s c o f f at the c r e d u l i t y and f o o l i s h s i m p l i c i t y o f the Athen-i a n s , 'who were counted the f i r s t of the Hellenes i n a b i l i t y . " (1) In 548 B.C., however, P i s i s t r a t u s was d r i v e n out ag a i n , and not t i l l ten years had passed by, d u r i n g c h i c h he l i v e d i n E r e t r i a , d i d he make an attempt to e s t a b l i s h h i m s e l f as despot i n Athens a g a i n . But i n 538 B.C. he made another t r y with the help o f Thebes and Argos, and a c t u a l l y took the c i t y by f o r c e . His power now became f i r m l y r o o t e d , and some time l a t e r he con-quered the i s l a n d o f Xanos f o r an adventurer who had helped him, and he placed hostsges there f o r the good "behavior of the Athenian c i t i z e n s . This was the c o n d i t i o n of a f f a i r s i n Athens at the time of the Lydi«n «-«r «*1 th the E e d e e , when Croesus made i n q u i r i e s as to which people o f the Hellenes he should esteem the most powerful. Bext i n Importance, perhaps, to Sparta and Athens, was the is t h m i a n s t a t e of C o r i n t h ; commercial C o r i n t h , who l e a s t of a l l the Hellenes despised labour with the hands. Our e a r l i e s t r e f e r e n c e here i 3 to the s t r i f e between her and her colony of Corcyra, of which Herodotus says only that they had been at v a r i a n c e with each other s i n c e the C o r i n t h i a n s f i r s t c o l o n i z e d the i s l a n d , and c i t e s an i n d i v i d u a l instance of t h i s s t r i f e . We next hear of C o r i n t h under her ty r a n t P e r i a n d e r , the son of Cypselus, who reigned from 625-585 B.C. He had a (1) 1.60 g u e s t - f r i e n d ship with Thrasyhulus of M i l e t u s , and gave him some very good advice on one o c c a s i o n . L a t e r Gorinth aided the Spartans i n t h e i r f r u i t l e s s , e x p e d i t i o n a g a i n s t Samos, 531 B.C. •The cause o f t h e i r going was an o l d grudge a g a i n s t the Samians d a t i n g from the time.of P e r l a n d e r . The s t o r i e s about P e r i a n -der, of which there are three of c o n s i d e r a b l e length i n the f i r s t f o u r books, need not d e t a i n us. One other r e f e r e n c e to G o r i n t h i s , however, i n t e r e s t i n g . Gyges, the Lydian, sent g i f t s to the D e l p h i c o r a c l e , which were lodged i n the t r e a s u r y of the C o r i n t h i a n s . Important s t a t e s had t h e i r own t r e a s u r i e s , where the dedicated o b j e c t s were under the n a t i o n a l charge. We Bee the importance of C o r i n t h i n t h i s f a c t , t h a t f o r e i g n kings put t h e i r o f f e r i n g s under i t s c a r e . The pre-eminence of Argos i n e a r l y times, imputed to i t by Herodotus 9 ^ ) i s an i n f e r e n c e from Homer and even more from the C y c l i c poems, the Thebais and the Epigone. A f t e r the h e r o i c age, a p p a r e n t l y , her power dwindled, and the part she subsequently played i n Greek h i s t o r y was a subordinate one. Most of Herodotus* r e f e r e n c e s to Argos i n the f i r s t four books were w r i t t e n , as i t were, i n p a s s i n g . The only one important enougb to need n o t i c e here, i s the account of the war between Argos end Sparta over Thyrea, B.C. 546,^ 2' which we have a l r e a d y mentioned i n co n n e c t i o n with Lacedaemonia. Argos possessed at t h i s time the whole r e g i o n towards the west, extending as f a r down as Malea, both the parts s i t u a t e d on the mainland, and a l s o the i s l a n d o f Oythera with the other i s l a n d s . Thyrea, the Lacedaemonians had cut o f f and a p p r o p r i a t e d . The two antagonists (1 ) 1.1 |2) 1*81 met to p a r l e y and. agreed that three hundred men from each side should f i g h t s the winning side to possess the disputed land« But another d i s p u t e arose over the outcome of t h i s encounter, and both armies f i n a l l y f e l l to f i g h t i n g . The Argines were def e a t e d . . . There i s one mention o f Thebes i n these books, before we leave t h i s s e c t i o n of our essay. She surpassed the other Greek st a t e s i n h e l p i n g P i s i s t r a t u s with monej. We must look to the r e s t of the h i s t o r y f o r what we f i n d l a c k i n g here. Several p o i n t s , however, merit at l e a s t a glance before we go on to books V-IX. We must a l s o give a p l a c e to our long.promised d i s c u s s i o n of Greek tyranny. Herodotus does mention name's, some of which are recognized now as great names, that have l i t t l e or no place i n the p o l i t i c a l h i s t o r y of the H e l l e n i c r a c e , and though we cannot here go into l i t e r a r y or p h i l o s o p h i c a l h i s t o r y , we f e e l bound to n o t i c e that Herodotus did mention them. Thus we hear three times o f Thales of M i l e t u s ? of Bias of P r i e n e twice? of Glaucos of Chios, who d i s c o v e r e d how to weld i r o n ; of Aesop, Sappho, Pindar; of Democedes o f Groton, the famous p h y s i c i a n ? A r l s t e a s of Procon-nestts; A r i o n of Hethymna ? Anacreon of Teos ? Handrocles of Samos, who b u i l t f o r Darius the bridge across the 3o sphorus ? and f i n a l l y Pythagoras of Samos, whom indeed ha does not a c t -u a l l y name, though the i n f e r e n c e i s c l e a r . Moreover, Herodotus d i s c o u r s e s at l e n g t h upon the Greek r e l i g i o n ? c r i t i c i z e s the d o c t r i n e of the t r a n s m i g r a t i o n of souls? comments on the Greek calendar as opposed to the E g y p t i a n , and f i n d s geometry's f i r s t home i n Egypt. Prom which i t can be seen that i f he did not venture f a r i n t o c e r t a i n realms of knowledge, he was not unaware that they e x i s t e d . Another p o i n t i s worth mentioning. One cannot read f a r i n t o Herodotus 9 h i s t o r y without coming to r e a l i z e the vast part o r a c l e s played i n the Greek world; and i n the Barbarian world a l s o , f o r the b a r b a r i a n s consulted them almost as f r e -q uently as the Greeks. How many f i n g e r s i n the marionette show of Greek h i s t o r y the D e l p h i c o r a c l e must have had; how wide-spread the r a m i f i c a t i o n s of the s t r i n g s ? One noted e s p e c i a l l y the c o l o n i e s that were sent out under i t s d i r e c t i o n , and, as i n the case of Gyrene, the very d e f i n i t e s i t e s t h a t were o f t e n f i x e d f o r them beforehand. The Phocaean episode i n C o r s i c a throws an i n t e r e s t i n g l i g h t on i t s p o l i c y . The P y t h i a , not u n n a t u r a l l y , wished to secure f o r Hellenism one of the keys of the western Mediterranean. H o l m ^ i h i n k s the o r a c l e simply sanctioned p r o j e c t s suggested by would-be c o l o n i s t s to i t , but i t a l s o , i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y , o r i g i n a t e d p r o j e c t s i t s e l f . The P y t h i a kept f i n g e r s upon the Greek p u l s e , and no one was more ready to t e s t i f y to i t s i n f l u e n c e than Herodotus. Aside from h i s own r e l i g i o u s reverence f o r the place,he depended upon Delphi f o r much of h i s i n f o r m a t i o n . His Lydian h i s t o r y , f o r i n s t a n c e , i s only the f i r s t of a s e r i e s of n a r r a t i v e s derived l a r g e l y from t h i s source. There remains on l y Greek tyranny to d i s c u s s , and as a p r e l i m i n a r y l e t us look f o r a moment at the e a r l y monarchic r u l e i n Greece. We f i n d , i n Homer, at the head of each t r i b e o f w a r r i o r s and each community, a k i n g , who i s at once leader (1) " H i s t o r y of Greece", I, p. 232. i n war, dispenser of j u s t i c e , and high p r i e s t f o r h i s people; whose s o v e r e i g n t y , whether bestowed upon him by common consent or a legacy from h i s f a t h e r , depends upon h i s personal prowess and superior c a p a c i t y . C l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d with him, as a c o u n c i l , are the other w a r r i o r s , a l s o of noble b i r t h . The government i s a r i s t o c r a t i c a l as w e l l as monarchic. King and nobles possess a l l the power, and the common people have n e i t h e r a u t h o r i t y nor r i g h t s ; they meet i n assembly merely to hear what t h e i r r u l e r s have decided f o r them. This o r g a n i z a t i o n of the st a t e was a n a t u r a l one i n a p r i m i t i v e and w a r l i k e age, and a r i s t o c r a t i c monarchies e x i s t e d In a l l the Greek s t a t e s i n e a r l y times, and did not d i e out before the be g i n n i n g of the 8th century*, and i n some cases, as i n that of. Sparta, not even then though here i t continued to e x i s t with i t s powers very much c u r t a i l e d . In A s i a Minor, f o r example, the name of king where i t s u r v i v e d the old order o f t h i n g s , was a p u r e l y honorary t i t l e and had no p o l i t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . Kingship on the whole, then, disappeared almost e n t i r e l y as a form o f government by the 8th century. I t s a u t h o r i t y passed i n t o the hands of an o l i g a r c h y c l a i m i n g descent from the founder. The people were no b e t t e r , or perhaps worse o f f than before, f o r a p r i v i l e g e d c l a s s , i n s t e a d of r e g a r d i n g i t s advantages as a t r u s t f o r the b e n e f i t of a l l , tended e a s i l y to become s e l f i s h and e x c l u s i v e . Throughout Greece g e n e r a l l y , a't the opening of the 7th century, there was a growing d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n among the people at the unequal c o n d i t i o n s created by the nobles. In many important Greek s t a t e s such c o n d i t i o n s led to the r i s e of t y r a n t s during the next two c e n t u r i e s , 650-500 3.C. - men, u s a a l l y of the upper class» who espoused the cause o f the people e i t h e r a l t r u i s t i c -a l l y or to g a i n power f o r themselves. During the course of our essay.we have met s e v e r a l of these to whom Herodotus has i n t r o -duced us % Thasyhulus of M i l e t u s , Cypselus and Periander of C o r i n t h , P o l y o r a t e s of Samos, P i s i s t r a t u s of Athens. The l a t e r Greek view of such i r r e s p o n s i b l e a u t h o r i t y was that i t was shocking and h a t e f u l to men who were f r e e born. Herodotus does not s t a t e h i s own a t t i t u d e to i t , b u t, as we cannot help f i n d -in g h i s t y r a n t s i n t e r e s t i n g , i t i s . p r o b a b l y true that whatever h i s views on tyranny, Herodotus found them i n t e r e s t i n g too. At l e a s t he t e l l s us a l o t about themf he takes pains to r e l a t e the many s t o r i e s that had gathered around t h e i r names, and even i n the t a l e s that count most to t h e i r d i s c r e d i t he r e f r a i n s from comment of any s o r t . I f he d i s l i k e d them he does not say so In so many words. But i f we wish to reach as c l o s e l y as we can i n t o the heart of the matter, we must approach i t from the other s i d e , and i n f i n d i n g out what Herodotus* f e e l i n g s were f o r democracy, d i s c o v e r h i s r e a l o p i n i o n of tyranny. This w i l l c a r r y us beyong the realm of the f i r s t four books, which we are now l e a v i n g . We w i l l , t h e r e f o r e , expect to r e v i v e the subject l a t e r i n the essay. The f i f t h book of Herodotus* h i s t o r y gives us more i n f o r m a t i o n about the s t a t e s and the men to whom we have "been introduced i n books I-I¥, and then plunges us i n t o the Ionian r e v o l t , which was the beginning of the P e r s i a n war. In Book Four Darius had attempted the conquest of Thrace and S c y t h i a . At the b e g i n n i n g of Book F i v e he r e t u r n s to S a r d i S j l e a v i n g his, g e n e r a l Megabozas to complete the conquest. Hegabozas, t h e r e f o r e , from about 514-512 B. C. , over-ran the whole of Thrace and subdued I t . He then sent envoys to the Macedonians to demand * f i r e and water*, which they y i e l d e d . Amyntas was at t h i s time King of Macedonia, andAlexander h i s son. We have noticed before the o r i g i n that they claimed, i n which c l a i m Herodotus supports them? h i s p r o o f s , however, are (1) weak; a f a m i l y l e g e n d . 4 ' and v e r d i c t of the judges at Olyrapia, probably based on the legend. D a r i u s , meanwhile, having returned to S a r d i s , be-thought h i m s e l f of rewarding the two Hellenes who had done him most s e r v i c e i n Thrace, Goes and H i s t i a e o s . Goes he mad e despot of M y t i l e n e ; H i s t i a e o s he confirmed i n h i s r u l e over M i l e t u s , adding the d i s t r i c t of Myrkinos to h i s t e r r i t o r y . Eut present-l y , on the advice of Megabo za s, he c a l l e d the M i l e s i a n to him and took him with him to Susa. At the same time he made h i s brother Artaphrenes governor of S a r d i s and ©taxes 'commander of those who dwelt along the sea c o a s t * , to succeed Megabozas. Otaxes conquered Byzantium and Chalcedon, which, since Darius had a l r e a d y conquered them, must have r e v o l t e d ; Antandros i n T r o i a , Lamponion, and P e r i n t h u s , a Samiaa colony founded about 600 B.C. had a l r e a d y been reduced by Megabozas. Then, with the help of L e s b i a n ships he conquered Lemnos and Imbros f o r the f i r s t time. Rest then came upon the Aegean world f o r a space u n t i l i t was broken by t r o u b l e between Xanos and M i l e t u s . At t h i s p o i n t we l e a r n a l i t t l e more of the previous h i s t o r y of the l a t t e r s t a t e . At the time of t h i s t r o u b l e M i l e t u s was at ( l j Herodotus, VIII.137 the height of her p r o s p e r i t y , but she had come through much s t r i f e b efore she had a t t a i n e d i t . For two generations the c i t y had been t o r n by f a c t i o n , u n t i l the Parians were c a l l e d i n and reformed i t . But about 501 B.C. wealthy e x i l e s from Xanos, which was al s o a t the summit of i t s greatness, a r r i v e d i n M i l e t u s and sought help from A r i s t a g o r a s to be re s t o r e d to t h e i r s t a t e . T h i s A r i s t a g o r a s was h o l d i n g M i l e t u s f o r H i s t i a e -os, who, i t w i l l be remembered, was i n Susa. A r i s t a g o r a s prom-i s e d to manage the matter f o r them, and appealing to Artaphrenes he persuaded him to send s h i p s . The l a x i a n s r e c e i v e d a l a s t minute warning, and made p r e p a r a t i o n s which were s u f f i c i e n t to f r u s t r a t e the a t t a c k . A r i s t a g o r a s now found h i m s e l f i n a d i f f i c u l t p o s i t i o n . He had l o s t much of h i s own money and had f a i l e d to e f f e c t h i s promise to Artaphrenes. His h a l f formed plans to r e v o l t were strengthened by e x h o r t a t i o n s from H i s t i a e -os, and h i s f r i e n d s urged the same course upon him; a l l save Hecataeus the h i s t o r i a n . His a d v i c e , however, was d i s r e g a r d -ed, and they began to make t h e i r p r e p a r a t i o n s . In order to win over the va r i o u s e i t i e s they drove out t h e i r despots and e s t a b l i s h e d democratic governments i n them. Then A r i s t a g o r a s h i m s e l f set out to seek a i d from the mainland s t a t e s . His appeal to Cleomenes, King of S p a r t a , meeting with no success, he t r i e d at Athens. The Athenians noted a r e s o l u t i o n to despatch twenty ships under Melanthius. "These ships were the {"I ) , , beginning of e v i l s f o r the Hellenes and Barbarians, A r i s t a -goras l e f t f o r M i l e t u s and prepared to s t i r up the r e v o l t . When the Athenian ships with f i v e from E r e t r i a a r r i v e d , the march (1J Herodotus , ¥.97 a g a i n s t S a r d i s was "begun.. A r i s t a g o r a s remained i n M i l e t u s . The i o n i a n s l e f t t h e i r s h i p s at Coresos, i n the land of Ephes-us , and t a k i n g Ephesians with them as guides went up q u i c k l y a g a i n s t S a r d i s and burnt i t . (B.C. 500) They then made a r e t r e a t to Ephesus, whither the Persians pursued them. In the ensuing b a t t l e the Ionians were badly beaten. Such as survived di s p e r s e d t o . t h e i r own c i t i e s . The Athenians s a i l e d home and l e f t the.Ionians to t h e i r own d e v i c e s . The r e v o l t went on. Byzantium and the r e s t of the H e l l e s p o n t i c c i t i e s were made to j o i n them; most of C a r i a a l s o came to t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e ? t o -gether with Cyprus, except Amanthus, which was besieged as a consequence. When Darius heard of the r e v o l t he was e s p e c i a l l y incensed at the Athenians, and set a slave to say three times each day a t d i n n e r , 'Master, remember the Athenians.* He despatched H i s t i a e o s to q u e l l the r e v o l t . The siege of Amal-tu r a was meanwhile going on under On e s i l u s of Salomis i n t h a t I s l a n d . The P e r s i a n s sent a foroe a g a i n s t him, and Ionian help a r r i v e d j u s t i n time. The Cyprians engaged the land f o r c e s of the P e r s i a n s and the Ionians the Ph o e n i c i a n f l e e t . The Ionians ware v i c t o r i o u s but the Cyprians defeated, . Since the Persians had then taken the i s l a n d , the Ionians returned home.. They found that the P e r s i a n s had attacked them there too, and were sac k i n g the c i t i e s . The H e l l e s p o n t i c c i t i e s of Dardanus, Abydus, Percote and Lampsaeos and Parsos had been taken. The P e r s i a n s , then, turned on the Carianc and t r o roted thee i n two b a t t l e s ? but t h e i r defeat was r e t r i e v e d . An ambush was pre-pared f o r the Per s i a n s and i t proved s u c c e s s f u l . They and t h e i r commanders were destroyed. But another P e r s i a n force took Oios In M y s i a s I l i o n , Clazomenae, and Kyrae.. A r i s t a g o r a s , the.author o f these e v i l s , f l e d to Thrace where he was s l a i n i n B.C. 499. T h i s "brings us to the end o f the f i f t h book. But before we leave i t we must look at the f u r t h e r h i s t o r y of S p a r t a , Athens and C o r i n t h continued i n i t ; i n f o r m a t i o n that we have pu r p o s e l y l e f t t i l l now f o r f e a r of breaking the main thread o f the s t o r y . Anaxandridas, son of Leon, was no longer s u r v i v i n g as king of S p a r t a . His son Cleomenes was r u l i n g i n h i s stead. There was some c o n f u s i o n i n the r o y a l house at t h i s time. The two sons of Anaxandrido s by h i s f i r s t wife., Doriens and L e o n i -das, had been passed over upon the death of t h e i r f a t h e r , i n favour of Cleomenes, because although he was the son of the second w i f e , he was the e l d e s t . Doriens, not c a r i n g to see h i s h a l f - b r o t h e r i n what he considered h i s own p l a c e , set out to found a colony* His f i r s t attempt, i n L i b y a , was a f a i l u r e , and a f t e r , three years he returned to Sparta, Then once more he set out, t h i s time f o r S i c i l y ? he became involved" i n a q u a r r e l between S y b a r i s and Croton and with the Crotonians destroyed Sybaris - 510 B.C. When he a r r i v e d i n S i c i l y , however, he and his.men were opposed by Phoenicians and men of Egesta and were s l a i n i n the b a t t l e which fol l o w e d . The sole s u r v i v o r of the l e a d e r s o f t h i s e x p e d i t i o n , Euryleon, took po s s e s s i o n of Minoa , the colony of S e l i n u s , and helped f r e e the S e l i n u n t i a n s from t h e i r despot P i t h a g o r a s . He too was l a t e r s l a i n when he made him s e l f despot i n the l a t t e r * s p l a c e . Meanwhile Cleomenes found h i m s e l f engaged i n s t r i f e with the Athenians. P i s i s t r a t u s was now dead; Hipparchus, h i s son, had perished at the hands of Harmodius and A r i s t o g e r t o n . Hippias was now despot of Athens. To escape h i s harsh r u l e , the Alemaebnids had f l e d to Sparta, where they succeeded i n o b t a i n i n g a i d to b r i n g about t h e i r r e s t o r a t i o n . H i p p i a s , on h i s s i d e , accepted T h e s s a l i a n aid? i n the b a t t l e which followed he was s u c c e s s f u l , but the Lace-daemonians made a second i n v a s i o n under 01eomer.es, and t h i s time secured h i s e x p u l s i o n - 510 B.C. A f t e r having shaken o f f the d e s p o t i c l i n e of the P i s i s t r a t i d s , Athens came under the domination of C l e i sthenes, who had espoused the cause of the people. He made c e r t a i n 'con-s t i t u t i o n a l changes, such as d i v i d i n g the people i n t o ten t r i b e s i n s t e a d of f o u r , and changing some of the t r i b a l names. In r a i s i n g h i m s e l f to power C l e i s t h e n e s had supplanted T i s a n -der *s son I s a g o r a s , who now sought Spartan a i d to r e g a i n h i s p o s i t i o n . 01eomenes once more invaded A t t i c a and succeeded i n s e c u r i n g the c i t y . The Athenians, however, b e s i e g i n g him i n the A c r o p o l i s , forced him to r e t i r e under t r u c e , and r e s t o r e d C l e i s t h e n e b . Then the Athenians, f e a r i n g a f o u r t h Invasion of Spartans, sought help from Darius, but refused to submit to the terms he'proposedi Cleomenes did come a f o u r t h time and enter-ed E l e u s i s w i t h h i s Peloponnesian army, while the Boeotians, h i s a l l i e s , took Qiioe and Hyeiae? the C h a l c i d i a n s , too j began to ravage the c o u n t r y . But at t h i s c r i s e s the C o r i n t h i a n s , t h i n k i n g b e t t e r of i t , abandoned the army, as did a l s o Demaratus, the other Spartan k i n g , and one by one the r e s t of the a l l i e s followed t h e i r example. But the Athenians were not content to l e t things r e s t thus. They proceeded against C h a l c i s and Boeotia and defeated both the same.day. The Lacedaemonians . s t i l l hoped to r e s t o r e H i p p i a s , and c a l l e d a c o u n c i l of t h e i r a l l i e s to d i s c u s s the ques t i o n , A d e c i s i o n a g a i n s t i t was f i n a l l y made, upon the advice of S o s i c l e s , a C o r i n t h i a n , who made a l o n g speech upon the wrong of i n f l i c t i n g tyranny on free c i t i e s . The i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h i s man gives us a few more f a c t s about C o r i n t h i a n h i s t o r y . The speaker reminds h i s hearers of the wrongs C o r i n t h had s u f f e r e d from despots. The o l i g a r c h y of the Bacchiadae l a s t e d from 745-655 B.C., the l a s t of whom, Ampbion, was succeeded by h i s grandson Cypselus, who made him-s e l f a despot and reigned p r o s p e r o u s l y f o r t h i r t y years. He was succeeded by h i s son, P e r i a n d e r , i n 625 B.C., whose deeds we have recorded elsewhere. C o r i n t h ' s r e a l motive i n thus opposing Spartan plans f o r Athens, was her need of an indepen-dent Athens as a counterweight to Aegina, and f o r the mainten-ance of her own freedom. She was a l r e a d y hemmed i n on her nort h e r n borders by c i t i e s s u bservient to S p a r t a . Should Athens j o i n t h e i r company, C o r i n t h i a n l i b e r t y and even commerce would be menaced- C o r i n t h i a n h o s t i l i t y to Athens was to begin with T h e m i s t o c l e s * c r e a t i o n of a great navy. Both the e a r l i e r f r i e n d -ship and the l a t e r h o s t i l i t y were d i c t a t e d by commercial i n t e r -e s t . Book S i x continues with the s t o r y of the Ionian r e v o l t . ^ i t h a c l e a r e r and b e t t e r known road before us, we can proceed a t a grea t e r r a t e . Our data w i l l not have to be taken from here and there and f i t t e d together l i k e the pieces of a p i c t u r e p u z z l e . A r i s t a g o r a s was now dead, and Histaeus had taken up h i 3 cause* 7/ith some ships from Leshos, he s a i l e d to Byaantium and i n t e r c e p t e d the s h i p s tha t • s a i l e d out of the Pontus, a t t a c h -i n g them to h i m s e l f as a l l i e s . The Persians at the same time were marching on M i l e t u s , The Ionians prepared to defend themselves by sea and by l a n d . At the a c t u a l encounter on sea the Samians withdrew, t h i n k i n g that because of the lasaeas of the Ionians i n t r a i n i n g they were sure to be beaten. T h i s •f l i g h t of the Samians was followed by that of the Lesbians and o f most o f the other Ionians, Of those who remained and fought the Chians were the bravest and s u f f e r e d the most s e v e r e l y , b e i n g f i n a l l y d e f e a t e d . Thus ended the b a t t l e of Lade, 495 B.C. M i l e t u s was besieged and f e l l i n the same year.. C e r t a i n of the wealthy Samians, ashamed of the conduct of t h e i r f l e e t i n t h i s war, and not wishing to accept Aiaces as t y r a n t a g a i n , which was the p r i c e of the i s l a n d ' s s e c u r i t y from P e r s i a n vengeance, set out f o r S i c i l y with such M i l e s i a n s as had escaped. They took p o s s e s s i o n of 2>oncle upon the advice of Anaxilaus, the despot of Bhegiusi, while t he Z a n d est n a were absent b e s i e g i n g a S i k e l i a n town. The Z-ancleans thereupon appealed to Hippocrates, t y r a n t of Gela, but he betrayed them to the Samians who thus r e t a i n e d p o s s e s s i o n of the s t o l e n c i t y . Aiaces became despot at Samos, and H i s t i a e u s , a f t e r the conquest of M i l e t u s , s a i l e d south from the H e l l e s p o n t and won a sea b a t t l e a gainst the Chians, Subsequently, however, while f o r a g i n g i n Mysia, he was taken by P e r s i a n s and s l a i n . The P e r s i a n s now set out against the i s l a n d s and took Chios, Leshos, and Tenedos, then the Ionian c i t i e s on the main-land. Afterwards they went a g a i n s t t h e - c i t i e s i n the H e l l e s p o n t , those of the Chersonese, P e r i n t h u s , Selymbria, Byzantium, Pro-connesus, A r t a k e , and took them a l l save Gyzicus, which had submitted to them before,, The people of Byzantium and Chal-cedon had r e t i r e d w i t h i n the Euxine and s e t t l e d i n the c i t y of Mesambria. Before t h i s time M i l t i a d e s of Athens had been des-pot of the Chersonese, upon the request of the people them-s e l v e s , ?/ho were hard pressed by the A p s i n t h i a n s . M i l t i a d e s defeated these and then went a g a i n s t Lampsacas and was taken prisoner.. Croesus, the L y d i a n , procured h i s r e l e a s e . A f t e r h i s death he was succeeded by h i s nephew Stesagoras. Stesagoras pursued the war with Lampsacas and was s l a i n . His brother M i l t i a d e s , son of Kimon, succeeded him, being sent out from Athens f o r that purpose by the sons of P i s i s t r a t u s . In 495 B.C. he was d r i v e n out by nomad Scythians provoked by D a r i u s , but a f t e r t h e i r departure he was r e s t o r e d . When, two years l a t e r , he heard that the P e r s i a n s were coming a g a i n s t him, he f l e d once more to Athens - 495 B.C. The next y e a r , Mardonius, son-in-law of Darius, went to I o n i a with a l a r g e foroe and deposed a l l the despots i n order to r e s t o r e papular government.^' 11 would seem that t h i s was done - a c t u a l l y i t was done only i n some c i t i e s - by a d i s t r u s t of the tyranny which had proved a dangerous instrument of government, and not by a p r e f e r e n c e f o r democracy, as Herodotus suggests. Merdonius next made an e x p e d i t i o n by way of the •• Hellespont a g a i n s t E r e t r i a and Athens, t a k i n g Thasos on the way, but as h i s f l e e t rounded Mt. Athos, a storm arose which wrecked three hundred ships and drowned more than twenty thousand men. (1) Herodotus, 71.43 Mardonins, who had gone by l a n d , s u f f e r e d l o s s a l s o from the Thracians before he f i n a l l y defeated them. He was then com-p e l l e d to abandon h i s e x p e d i t i o n , and returned to P e r s i a i n d i s g r a c e . S h o r t l y a f t e r t h i s , Darius compelled the Thasians who were spending the revenues from t h e i r gold mines i n b u i l d -i n g ships of war and stronger w a l l s , to d e s i s t from these o p e r a t i o n s (491 B.C. ) and i n the same year he sent heralds to the s t a t e s of H e l l a s to demand 'earth and water.* The I s l a n d -e r s , i n c l u d i n g the Aeginetans, gave these tokens of submission. The Athenia ns took t h i s a c t of Aegina i l l , think!ng i t was aimed at themselves, and demanded Spartan i n t e r v e n t i o n . Cleo-menes, the Spartan k i n g , f i n a l l y did intervene} he siezed ten of the noblest Aeginetans and deposited them with the Athenians as hostages. -This r e f e r e n c e to Sparta gives Herodotus an opportun-i t y to t e l l us more of Spartan customs and of the l i v e s of some of the Spartan k i n g s . The d e p o s i t i o n of Demaratos, of whom we hear l a t e r i n the army o f Darius, i s r e t a i l e d at l e n g t h . The r i g h t s and p r i v i l e g e s of the Spartan kings are set f o r t h , t o -gether with c e r t a i n other Lacedaemonian customs, such as the i n h e r i t a n c e of v a r i o u s o f f i c e s , that of cook, f l u t e p l a y e r , h e r a l d , e t c . L e o t y c h i d e s , the successor of Demaratos, made an e x p e d i t i o n i n t o T h e s s a l y i n 478 B.C., but accepted b r i b e s to leave i t untouched. He was banished to Tegea and died there. Cleomenes, a f t e r the Aeginetan i n c i d e n t , f l e d to Thessaly f o r f e a r of the Spartans, since he had p l o t t e d e v i l a g a i n s t Demara-t o s , and from there to A r c a d i a , where he began to s t i r up the i n h a b i t a n t s a g a i n s t Sparta. The Spartans, as a consequence, r e c a l l e d him to r u l e a g a i n , hut he did not long s u r v i v e . His death was a p a r t i c u l a r l y miserable one, and s e v e r a l opinions as to i t s cause were advanced. In the course of t h e i r t e l l i n g we l e a r n that some years p r e v i o u s l y Cleomenes had invaded E l e u -s i s , and i n 495 B.C. had made an e x p e d i t i o n i n t o Argos? more-over, that he had a l l i e d h i m s e l f with the Scythians i n an a b o r t i v e attempt to invade Media. Herodotus does scant j u s t i c e to Cleomenes, who ne v e r t h e l e s s emerges from the mists of o b l i v i o n and calumny as the one great f i g u r e o f h i s day at Sparta. We see i n him an a c t i v e , e n e r g e t i c monarch, a s u c c e s s f u l campaigner, an astute p o l i t i c i a n . I t may be th a t he was d r i v e n i n h i s old age to madness and s u i c i d e by remorse or unsated ambition, but genius, not madness, stamped the p o l i c y of h i s e a r l i e r years. Unfor-t u n a t e l y , s u s p i c i o n o f h i s ambition blackened h i s name e a r l y , and the g l o r i e s of the P e r s i a n war threw h i s e x p l o i t s i n t o the shade. A f t e r h i s death the Aeginetans made re p r e s e n t a t i o n s to Sparta to have t h e i r hostages r e s t o r e d . The Spartans were w i l l i n g , but the Athenians refused to r e s t o r e them. The Aegin-etans then took vengeance by c a p t u r i n g a sacred ship of Athens and i t s erew. Athens r e t a l i a t e d by i n v a d i n g Aegina with the help of some C o r i n t h i a n s h i p s , and there the war went on with v a r y i n g successes f o r both s i d e s . D a r i u s , meanwhile, had not f o r g o t t e n the Athenians, and indeed H i p p i a s , too, was there to jog h i s memory. In the place of Mardonius he appointed Datis and Artaphrenes, and ordered them to conquer Athens and E r e t r i a and b r i n g t h e i r people Into h i s presence. On t h e i r way they took Uaxos, "but spared Delos. When.they came to Euboea , they captured E r e t r i a a f t e r s i x days of f i g h t i n g and then set out f o r Athens. They landed a t Marathon a c r o s s the s t r a i t . The Athenians sent f o r Spartan h e l p , but before i t a r r i v e d i t s need had passed. The Athenians, under the command of that Jkliltiades who had f l e d from the Chersonese, fought the P e r s i a n s and defeated them -490 B.C. The Plataeans were t h e i r o n l y a l l i e s , and they had come to help of t h e i r own a c c o r d , because the Athenians had taken them under t h e i r wing when they were oppressed by Thebes i n 519 JB, 0 . The P e r s i a n s , then, were de f e a t e d , and s u f f e r e d great l o s s e s . They f l e d t o E r e t r i a , picked tip t h e i r p r i s o n e r s there and s a i l e d home. The E r e t r i a n s , Darius s e t t l e d i n A r d e r i c e a , two hundred and ten f u r l o n g s from Susa. Thus ended the f i r s t ' P e r s i a n i n v a s i o n , f a v o u r a b l y f o r H e l l a s . M i l t i a d e s , whose g e n e r a l s h i p had brought I t about, came to be held i n very great esteem, but h i s good fortune was of short d u r a t i o n . A3 a r e -s u l t of an i l l - f a t e d e x p e d i t i o n a g a i n s t Paros In 489 B.C., he was put on t r i a l and f i n e d f i f t y t a l e n t s . He did not long s u r v i v e h i s d i s g r a c e . His previous great deeds, numbered among which was the i n v a s i o n of Lemnos, from which he took the P e l a s g i a n i n h a b i t a n t s , a v a i l e d him l i t t l e i n h i s l a s t days. He s u f f e r e d the f a t e Thimi s t o c l e s was to s u f f e r ? to achieve great deeds f o r h i s c i t y and to die i n ignominy. T h i s b r i n g s to an end the s i x t h book. The only other subject not r e l a t e d h t l t h e r t o , which occurs i n i t , i s the account of the Alemaennids, which Herodotus begins with Aleraaeon and c h r o n i c l e s to P e r i c l e s . • Darius sent no.more e x p e d i t i o n s a g a i n s t Greece. In 485 B.C. he d i e d , and Xerxes, h i s son, succeeded him. -Xerxes had at f i r s t no i n c l i n a t i o n f o r a war with Greece, hut he was urged to that course by h i 3 c o u s i n Hardonius, the Aleuadae who were kings i n Thessaly and Hippias of Athens. Four years he spent i n g a t h e r i n g an army and i n the f i f t h he began hi s cam-paign. To p r e c l u d e any such d i s a s t e r as had overtaken the f l e e t of Hardonius at Mi. Athos, a c a n a l was cut through i t f o r the s h i p s . The army was gathered at O n t a l l a i n Cappadocia and marched wi t h the k i n g "to S a r d i s . A bridge was meanwhile b u i l t a cross the H e l l e s p o n t from Abydos, and the army proceeded thence and crossed i n t o Europe. At t h i s point of the account there f o l l o w s a l i s t of the t r i b a l c ontingents which composes Xerxes' array and f l e e t , which, though i t gives a graphic p i c -t u r e of that immense host, and much new and i n t e r e s t i n g inform-a t i o n about the i n h a b i t a n t s of the P e r s i a n empire, does not concern uo here. Those H e l l e n e s who accompanied him we may mention. The Ionians f u r n i s h e d one thousand s h i p s , the Aeolians s i x t y , the H e l l e s p o n t i a n s , excepting the men of Abydos who r e -mained to guard the b r i d g e , one hundred. And from H a l i c a r n a s -3us came A r t e m i s i a , daughter of Lygdamis, and queen a l s o of Cos, M s y r o s , and Colydna. Demaratns, the Spartan, also ac-companied Xerxes, and the Great King asked him whether the Hellenes would f i g h t or not. Upon Demaratus' answer Xerxes had much time to r e f l e c t t h e r e a f t e r . .Through Thrace, down upon H e l l a s , marched the great a r r a y , d r i n k i n g the r i v e r s dry and subduing a l l as i t passed. The f l e e t s a i l e d through the canal at M i . Athos, and thence to the Thermaie Gulf, c o l l e c t i n g on i t s way eontingentc from the S i t h o n i a n c i t i e s , Alynthus among them, ana from those of P a l l e n e , i n c l u d i n g Potideaa, l e a p o l i s , Skione, and Mende- At Therraa the f l e e t a7/aited the a r r i v a l of the k i n g . Iffhile a t Therms the k i n g went to v i s i t T hessaly, a d e s c r i p t i o n o f which Herodotus, t h e r e f o r e , gives us. To him at Therma same a l s o Hellenes "bringing *earth and water*, c h i e f of whom were the T h e s s a l i a n s , and the Boeotians, excepting those of P l a t a e a and Thespiae^ The r e s t of the Greeks were pre p a r i n g to r e s i s t him, notwithstanding the d i s a s t e r prophesied to them by the Delphic o r a c l e . In Athens a new leader had a r i s e n to meet the coming c r i s i s , T h e m i s t o c l e s , son of Eeooles, who had made the A t h e n i -ans a n a v a l power. The H e l l e n i c s t a t e s came together {481 B.G. anfl agreed to a general, peace t i l l t h e i r common danger had passed. Envoys were sent to S i c i l y to seek help of Gelon, t y r a n t of Syracuse, {485—78 B.C. ), "but he refused to send a i d because the mainland Greeks would not give him the l e a d e r s h i p . The h i s t o r y of Gelon i s hereupon recounted* He was a descend-ant of a man from the i s l a n d o f T e l o s , who joined the L i n d i a n s of Bhodes i n c o l o n i z i n g Gela. Gelon himself became despot of that c i t y by f o r c e , w r e s t i n g the tyranny from the sons of the previous t y r a n t , Hippocrates - Hippocrates, who had succeeded Oleander, h i s b r o t h e r ; who had taken C a l l i p o l i s , Saxos, Leon-t i n i and Sanele, and had almost taken Syracuse, which was saved by C o r i n t h i a n s and Corcyraeans. Gelon, by r e s t o r i n g the Syra-cusan * l a n d - h o l d e r s ' who had been d r i v e n out by the common people, became despot o f Syracuse t oo, and grew r i c h and powerful. As a consequence of such a p o s i t i o n , he would take no second p l a c e , and thus sent no s h i p s to Greece. The outcome showed that i t was as w e l l that he had not weakened, h i s own force., f o r he was faced with a "barbarian i n v a s i o n , led by Amileas of Carthage, about the sane time. The v i c t o r y Gelon won over them, the b a t t l e of HImera, 480 B.C., occurred on the same day as the b a t t l e of Salamis. The Corcyraeans a l s o sent no s h i p s , f o r they chose to s i t on the fence and offend n e i t h e r side t i l l they knew which was v i c t o r i o u s . The Cretans, too, kept out, when they were warned of misfortune by an o r a c l e . The T h e s s a l i a n s , on the other hand, who had f i r s t sworn obedience to Xerxes, now sent to the other Greeks f o r h e l p ; but when an army was sent to. t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e i t found that I t was impossible to guard the country, and l e f t T h e s s a l y to her f a t e . Alexander, son of Aaiyntos, a l s o speeded I t s departure with pointed words of warn-i n g . The T h e s s a l i a n s , t h e r e f o r e , had no choice but to go over to the P e r s i a n s . The Hellenes now d e l i b e r a t e d where to take the.ir stand, and decided upon Thermopylae and Artemisium. The f l e e t of Xerxes l e f t Therma and s a i l e d south. Herodotus s h o r t l y a f t e r r e c o r d i n g t h i s , enumerates the P e r s i a n f l e e t . The moment i s a p p r o p r i a t e % the f l e e t had thus f a r s u f f e r e d no l o s s from storm or b a t t l e . The f a c t that the estimate of the number of the f o r c e s i 3 separate from the d e s c r i p t i o n s of them, i n d i c a t e s that Herodotus found no numbers i n the o f f i c i a l P e r s i a n l i s t s . He r e l i e d on t r a d i t i o n f o r the number of the t r i r e m e s , and the A s i a t i c land f o r c e s , but the enormously overestimated numbers of the f o r c e s from Greece r e s t on mere co n j e c t u r e . Herodotus i s , moreover, dominated by the popular b e l i e f that Xerxes led three m i l l i o n w a r r i o r s a g a i n s t H e l l a s , and he makes no allow-ance f o r l o s s e s on the march through sickness or d e s e r t i o n , She f l e e t set f o r t h , then, and s a i l e d f o r Magnesia, but the bay by Eupe Sepias i n which i t anchored was too small f o r a l l the s h i p s , and a storm which arose wrecked many of them. The d e s c r i p t i o n of the storm i s a patent i m i t a t i o n of Homer, and there i s evident exaggeration i n the l o s s e s a t t r i b u -ted to i t . A p r e l i m i n a r y s k i r m i s h next took place a t Artemis-ium and f i f t e e n b a r b a r i a n ships f e l l to the Greeks. The land armies of both sides had taken up p o s i t i o n s ? the barbarians i n T r a c h i s, and the Hellenes under l e o n i d a s at Thermopylae? they numbered three hundred Spartan h o p l i t e s , one thousand Tegeans and Mantineans, one thousand one hundred and twenty Arcadians, four hundred C o r i n t h i a n s , two hundred P h i i a n s , and eighty from Mycenae? from Thebes and Thespiae, eleven hundred? from Phocis one thousand, and a l l the men of L o e r i a n Opus. The r e s t of the w a r r i o r s of Sparta were c e l e b r a t i n g the f e s t i v a l of the Carneia and were meant to be sent as reinforcements l a t e r . The i s s u e of the b a t t l e needs l i t t l e t e l l i n g * For two days the Persians hurled t h e i r best men a g a i n s t the pass, but owing to i t s nature could only r e t i r e w i t h heavy l o s s e s . This state of a f f a i r s might have continued i n d e f i n i t e l y had not the existence of a path which led around the mountain been betrayed to Xerxes by E p h i a l t e s of T r a c h i s . This path was being guarded by Phocians, but at the f i r s t encounter they f l e d and l e f t the way open f o r the enemy. When the news reached Leonidas, he, seeing what the end must "be, sent home a l l h i s a l l i e s save the Thebans, who stayed u n w i l l i n g l y , and the Thespians, who remained of t h e i r own a c c o r d . His e x p e c t a t i o n s were r e a l i z e d . The Lacedaemoni-ans w i t h the Thespians f e l l f i g h t i n g almost to a man; only the Thebans took no p a r t i n the f i n a l s t r u g g l e , but surrendered to the P e r s i a n s . Thus the 7th book i s brought to an end. Of the s h i p s o f the Hellenes at Artemisium, the Athenians f u r n i s h e d more than any other of the a l l i e s , but they waived t h e i r r i g h t to command i n favour of E u r i b i c i d e s , of Sparta, and i t i s said that Themistocles o n l y by b r i b e s per-suaded the other c a p t a i n s to remain at Artemisium, having him-s e l f been brib e d by the Euboeans. B a t t l e was, however, joined there with the f l e e t of Xerxes, and i n the f i r s t encounter n e i t h e r side had the b e t t e r . But d u r i n g the night a storm arose which did the P e r s i a n s much damage., and when a second b a t t l e took p l a c e two days l a t e r , the Athenians won i t . The land army at the same time was proceeding through Doris and Phocis towards Athens, the i n h a b i t a n t s o f which were removing themselves and t h e i r goods to the i s l a n d of Salamis, whither the Greek f l e e t had r e p a i r e d . The P e r s i a n s , having burnt P l a t -aea, and Thespiae, came to A t t i c a and l a y i n g waste the country-side took Athens and burnt the A c r o p o l i s . T h i s had such an e f f e c t on the Greeks i n the f l e e t t h a t they wished to r e t r e a t to the isthmus of C o r i n t h , and were only with d i f f i c u l t y pre-vented by Themistocles. The king's f l e e t was now at Phalcrum and making ready f o r b a t t l e , while a land army had been sent against the'Peloponnesus. This had a l r e a d y been walled o f f and many men of the v a r i o u s s t a t e s were present to defend i t . A short account of the races of the Peloponnese i s i n s e r t e d at t h i s p o i n t . U ^ Once more the m a j o r i t y of the Greeks i n the f l e e t wished to r e t r e a t to the Peloponnesus/ and were only f o r e -s t a l l e d by X e r x e s 9 f l e e t beginning the a t t a c k and f o r c i n g the f i g h t ? Themistocles had a g a i n saved the day, f o r i t was he who had urged the Great King to t h i s course by promising to desert to him. The s e a - f i g h t at Salamis took place on Septem-ber 20th, 480 B.C. I t ended i n an overwhelmingly d e c i s i v e v i c t o r y f o r the Greeks. Xerxes, not -desiring to r i s k another d e f e a t , returned as q u i c k l y as p o s s i b l e to A s i a , sending mess-engers on b e f o r e . Mardonius with t h i r t y thousand men remained i n .Greece. The H e l l e n e s , d e c i d i n g a g a i n s t Themi s t o c l e s * a d v i c e , to pursue the b a r b a r i a n s , i n v e s t e d Ahdros, which had refused money to T h e m i s t o c l e s . They could not, however, take the i s l a n d so' l a y i n g Carystos waste, they returned to Salamis and d i v i d e d t h e i r s p o i l s , sending * f i r s t f r u i t s * to the Delphic o r a c l e . Themi s t o c l e s was honoured by a l l as the a b l e s t command er of the Hellenes and i n Sparta he r e c e i v e d p a r t i c u l a r honour, namely an o l i v e wreath, a chario t , and when he departed an esco r t of three hundred Spartan knights as f a r as Tegea. A r i s t i d e s , son of Lysimachus, was a l s o concerned i n t h i s b a t t l e , though he was i n e x i l e from Athens 5 he brought the news to Themistocles of the P e r s i a n a t t a c k and l a t e r , with a f o r c e of Athenian h o p l l t e s , c l e a r e d the Persians who had swum to P s y t t a l e i a , o f f the i s l a n d . Mardonius, meanwhile, was w i n t e r i n g i n Thessaly, but Artabazos, having escorted the Great King to Asia with a lar g e (1) VIII.73 f o r c e o f Jffardonius* men, returned and besieged Olynthus, which was on the point of r e v o l t , Olynthus was occupied by B o t t i a e -ans, who had been d r i v e n from the Thermsic g u l f by Macedonians. But when Artabazos took i t , he slew these men and turned the e i t y over to C r i t a b u l u s of Torone and the n a t i v e s of O h a l c i d i c e . And thus i t was that the C h a l c i d i a n s got possession of Olynthus. Artabazos next attacked Potidaea, which was i n open r e v o l t , and might have succeeded i f the t r e a c h e r y of i t s general had been discov e r e d i n time. As i t was, they f a i l e d to capture the place and r e t i r e d to Thessaly with great l o s s e s . The P e r s i a n f l e e t , such as remained, wintered at Kyrae, and i n the sp r i n g anchored o f f Samos, keeping watch over Ionia, to prevent i t from r e v o l t i n g , and a w a i t i n g the r e s u l t o f Mardonius* occupation. The Greek f l e e t , numbering one hundred and ten s h i p s , met at Segina, under Leotyehides, King of Sparta, and Xanthippus of Athens. When a l l the f l e e t was t h e r e , Chian envoys from Ionia a r r i v e d , and urged the H e l l e n e s , as they had p r e v i o u s l y urged the Lacedaemonians- to set Ionia f r e e . But they oould not coax them to go f a r t h e r than Delos. Mardonius now sent an ambassador to Athens i n the 3hape of Alexander, son o f Amyntos, who was a g u e s t - f r i e n d and benefactor of that c i t y . He endeavoured to persuade the Athen-ians to make peace with the Great King, who would i n r e t u r n remit a l l t h e i r o f f e n c e s a g a i n s t him and leave them independent. The Lacedaemonians, g r e a t l y alarmed l e s t they should accept these p r o p o s a l s , sent envoys to them and entreated them not to consent. The two speeches of the Athenians which they addressed to Alexander, and to the Spartan envoys, are as noble i n sentiment and e x p r e s s i o n as any i n Herodotus. The determina-t i o n of Athens to remain true to the H e l l e n i c cause i s admir-a b l y set f o r t h i n "both. Alexander departed uns u c c e s s f u l to make rep o r t to Mardonius, and the envoys to Sparta to r a i s e an army th e r e . With t h i s f i t t i n g c l o s e we are prepared f o r the l a s t "book. In June s 479 B.C., Mardonius came down from Thessaly and once more took Athens, only to f i n d i t deserted. The g r e a t e r number o f the Athenians were i n Salamis or on the s h i p s . Mardonius sent to them, once more, proposals of peace, which they a g a i n r e j e c t e d , but they had the e f f e c t of hastening the Lacedaemonian army which had not yet been sent out* For the Lacedaemonians had by t h i s time completed t h e i r w a l l and were of two minds as to whether to stay i n the Peloponnesus to defend i t , or keep t h e i r promise to the Athenians. They now, however, set out under t h e i r k i n g , Pausanias. Mardonius there-upon burnt Athens a second time and r e t r e a t e d to take up a p o s i t i o n i n B o e o t i a , s u i t a b l e f o r c a v a l r y a c t i o n . His purpose was d i v e r t e d f o r a time by the a r r i v a l of a thousand Spartans i n Megara. He advanced and overran the Megarian la n d , and then r e t i r e d to Thebes. The army of the Hellenes p r e s e n t l y came to Erythrae i n Boeotia and encamped .there. The barbarian army l a y on the Asopas. The f i r s t encounter, a c a v a l r y engagement, was a v i c t o r y f o r the Greeks. The b a t t l e f i e l d then s h i f t e d to the ground about P l a t a e a , and at t h i s p o i n t Herodotus sets out the number and order of both s i d e s . The Hellenes numbered one hundred and ten thousand men, a g a i n s t t h i r t y thousand of the b a r b a r i a n s . For e l e v e n days the two armies sat opposite one another, u n t i l , on the t w e l f t h , Mardonius opened the t a t t l e by sending h i s c a v a l r y to a t t a c k the Greeks* They harassed them to such an extent that the m a j o r i t y f e l l hack upon P l a t a e a , l e a v i n g the Spartans, Tegeans and Athenians behind. The f i n a l engagement was fought before P l a t a e a , September, B.C. 479, and those who had remained to r i s k an engagement had won a d e c i s i v e v i c t o r y before news of the b a t t l e reached the Greeks i n the c i t y . Mardonius perished i n the s t r u g g l e . Artabozas, with the s u r v i v i n g P e r s i a n s , f l e d n o r t h i n t o Thrace, pursued by the Mantineans as f a r as T h e s s a l y , and thence made t h e i r way i n t o A s i a . The Greeks, l e f t i n p o s s e s s i o n of the f i e l d , buried t h e i r dead and c o l l e c t e d the s p o i l , a p a r t i c u l a r l y golden one. They then besieged Thebes f o r twenty days to punish her f o r Medizing, and took the g u i l t y men c a p t i v e . Pausanias, t a k i n g them to C o r i n t h , put them a l l to death. Thus ended the b a t t l e of P l a t a e a , which ended a l l b a r b a r i a n attempts upon the mainland of Greece. As i t happened another v i c t o r y had been won by the Greeks on the same day as P l a t a e a . The ships that had proceeded to Delos at the p e t i t i o n of the D e l i a n envoys, had f i n a l l y determined to engage those of the P e r s i a n s . But when they went i n search of them, they found them beached at Mykale on the Ionian coast, and the Pe r s i a n s ashore. The b a t t l e that followed was, t h e r e f o r e , a land b a t t l e . Once v i c t o r i o u s , the Hellenes completed t h e i r v i c t o r y by burning the P e r s i a n ships and then s a i l e d f o r Samos laden with l o o t . At Samos they added the Samians, Chians, L e s b i a n s , and other non-medizing i s l a n d e r s to t h e i r league, and set o f f f o r the He l l e s p o n t to break down the br i d g e s . When, howeveri they found t h i s a l r e a d y done, the Spartans s a i l e d home, hut the Athenians took Sestos before they returned to Athens with the ropes of the bridges as o f f e r i n g s f o r the temples » This ends the n i n t h and l a s t book of Herodotus*, h i s t o r y , and o n l y a few remarks remain before we, too, end t h i s d i v i s i o n of our essay. We w i l l not be making a mistake i n saying that the I o n i c r e v o l t wes ths cease of the P e r s i a n i n v a s i o n of H e l l a s . The P e r s i a n s were led to attempt the conquest of Greece by the same.reason that afterwards brought J u l i u s Caesar to B r i t a i n . The P e r s i a n s could not be sure o f genuine peace on the A s i a t i c shore of the Aegean, while a kindred race on the f a r t h e r shore was always ready to send ships and h o p l i t e s to the Ionians i n any attempt they made aga i n s t imperial.government% j u s t as J u l i u s Caesar could not be sure of genuine peace i n Gaul while a f r i e n d l y race across the channel was always ready to send ships and f i g h t i n g men to the Gauls In any attempt they made at r e b e l l i o n . But Herodotus* n a r r a t i v e of the I o n i c r e v o l t i s in v o l v e d and d i f f i c u l t , and i t has gaps. The seven years seem telescoped and the names of men who must have fought with a g a l l a n t r y e q u a l l i n g that of the heroes of Thermopylae and Salamis, are l o s t to us. I t i s only by i n f e r e n c e that we even r e a l i s e how grave a s t r u g g l e i t was, and how much more s t u r d i -l y than some of Herodotus* remarks would lead one.to suppose, the Ianians maintained i t . S u r e l y , moreover, we are not to b e l i e v e that men who d e f i e d the might of P e r s i a n f o r seven y e a r s , ••would, not- p r a c t i s e rowing i n t h e i r t r i r e m e s hut pre-f e r r e d to s i t i n the shade. ' { 1 J The idea c l a s h e s with the whole tone.of the n a r r a t i v e . Presumably i t was a Saraian ex-cuse f o r t h e i r unsavoury part i n the b a t t l e of Lade. We must not blame Herodotus f o r these gaps, never-t h e l e s s j while r e a l i s i n g that gaps there are. He recorded a l l he knew. Rather must we be t h a n k f u l that he did not record what he d i d not know and lead-us a s t r a y . We can a p p r e c i a t e the i n t e g r i t y and value of an h i s t o r i a n who r e s i s t s the impulse to supply d e f i c i e n c i e s out o f h i s own head to round o f f h i s n a r r a t i v e . The I o n i c r e v o l t , then, began the s t r u g g l e which was to envelop the whole Greek and Barbarian world. Marathon was a f o r e t a s t e of Salamis and P l a t a e a , o r , as Plato has i t , i t "was the b e g i n n i n g , as P l a t a e a was the completion, of that {2} great d e l i v e r a n c e . " The experts t e l l us that Herodotus sets out the main t a c t i c s played at Marathon with general c l e a r n e s s ; that "that honest old h i s t o r i a n has winnowed out n e a r l y a l l the c h a f f from the crop of legends." (3) we can f o r g i v e him, t h e r e f o r e , i f h i s general l a c k of i n t e r e s t i n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l or o f f i c i a l d e t a i l , makes h i s account of the p r e c i s e p o s i t i o n of the polemarch, Calliraachus, somewhat u n c e r t a i n ! But gener-a l l y speaking, where m i l i t a r y i n f o r m a t i o n i s concerned, 'what Herodotus never l e a r n t would be i n t e r e s t i n g . ' There a r e , to he sure, two h i n t s a t commissariat. Somewhere near Athos there was "a meadow where they had an agora and a market, and great q u a n t i t i e s of wheat came to them from As i a r e g u l a r l y , ready (1) Her. 71.12 (2) Laws, 707 (3) Grundy, "Great P e r s i a n War", P. 15 3 ground f" ^  ) and Xerxes »wa3 making p r e p a r a t i o n s to store pro-v i s i o n s f o r h i s army on the way, that n e i t h e r army nor baggage animals might s u f f e r from s c a r c i t y i n t h e i r march a g a i n s t H e l l a s . " **2' But what of the way i n which the v a r i o u s c o n t i n -gents were massed at S a r d i s , and moved, i n an array of so many tongues? Once Herodotus glances a t the P e r s i a n medical s e r v i c e and s u f f i c i e n t l y r e v e a l s the backwardness of the Greeks.in that s u b j e c t . ^ 3 ) The t r u t h i s that Herodotus had r e a l l y not even an elementary knowledge of'warfare; witness h i s account o f Thermopylae and Artemisium. We are a b l e to grasp from some of h i s remarks that the key to t h e i r a c t i o n s l a y i n the c l o s e con-n e c t i o n and inter-dependence o f the P e r s i a n array and f l e e t , and we can penetrate to some extent the s t r a t e g y of the comhatants, but Herodotus f a i l s completely to r e a l i s e the s i t u a t i o n and t r e a t s the naval o p e r a t i o n s as though they were independent. As f o r h i s d e s c r i p t i o n of the pass of Thermopylae, i t i s c o r r e c t enough to allow even a modern reader to recognize i t s f e a t u r e s , but he can h a r d l y have been there h i m s e l f , f o r he o r i e n t s i t N.S. i n s t e a d of E.W. On the other hand, he probably v i s i t e d and examined the battleground of P l a t a e a , though we have d i f f i c u l t y i n r e c o n s t r u c t i n g the b a t t l e from h i s d e s c r i p -t i o n . T h i s i s s u f f i c i e n t to show Herodotus* shortcomings i n t h i s r e s p e c t . To c l o s e our review, we w i l l conclude the d i s c u s s i o n of Herodotus* a t t i t u d e to tyranny, which we began some time ago. Since we have a l l nine books of the h i s t o r y behind us, we can b e t t e r form a judgment. I n t e r e s t i n g as the s t o r i e s of the (1) VII.25 (2} VII.25 (3) VII.181 t y r a n t s were to Herodotus and "are to o u r s e l v e s , yet they are a l l of an almost u n r e l i e v e d blackness. They show tyranny to be "the negation of law and order? the a r b i t r a r y r u l e of an i n d i -v i d u a l , puffed up with p r i d e yet racked with s u s p i c i o n s ? who s a c r i f i c e s the l i v e s o f men and women to g r a t i f y the c a p r i c e of the moment." U ) j t w a s a s a p a r - f c f r o r a the Greek s p i r i t of freedom as the poles are a p a r t , and t h e r e f o r e from Herodotus? s p i r i t , f o r he was a true Greek. I f he does not denounce t y r -anny i n so many words, he puts i t f o r e v e r beyond the pale i n the e x a l t a t i o n of the l i b e r t y which Athens had preserved f o r Greece? an e x a l t a t i o n which b u r s t s from him *of n e c e s s i t y , Is ) though i t may be h a t e f u l i n the ears of men.* 1 ' The a n t i -t h e s i s of l i b e r t y and s l a v e r y i s never absent from h i s work, "In the l a s t d i v i s i o n , where the f i n a l s t r u g g l e of P e r s i a and Greece i s r e l a t e d , t h i s c o n t r a s t between the s l a v e r y of the Barbarian and the l i b e r t y of the Greek, between o r i e n t a l auto-cr a c y and H e l l e n i c democracy, i s ever present and i s f o r c i b l y brought out. His theme, the s t r u g g l e of Greece with the O r i e n t , possessed f o r him a deeper meaning than the p o l i t i c a l r e s u l t of the P e r s i a n war."^ 3 ) It huddled and brought to the f u l l bloom, L i b e r t y , the key-note of h i s H i s t o r y . .B. For the p e r i o d from the 2nd P e r s i a n i n v a s i o n onward, we have the h i s t o r y of Diodorus S i c u l u s as a supplementary a u t h o r i t y . For the e a r l y c o n s t i t u t i o n a l h i s t o r y of Greece as a whole, A r i s t o t l e ' s " P o l i t i c s " , and f o r that of Athens alone, h i s " C o n s t i t u t i o n of Athens", are sources of much valuable data. P l u t a r c h ' s " L i v e s " of Lycurgus, Solon, Themistocles, A r i s t i d e s , and Ciraon, are l i k e w i s e mines of r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n . (1) How & W e l l s , "Commentary", p.338. (2) 711.139 (3) Bury, "Ancient Greek H i s t o r y " , p. 44 86. T H P 0 Y D I B E S YJhat we know of the l i f e of Thucydides can he summed up very b r i e f l y , but l i t t l e as i t Is we can see how i t i n f l u e n -ced h i s H i s t o r y , a3 the l i f e of Herodotus i n f l u e n c e d h i s . Thucydides was born an Athenian c i t i z e n , about the year 460 B.C. but he a l s o belonged by descent to the p r i n c e l y house of Thrace, i n t o which M i l t i a d e s had married, and he i n h e r i t e d a r i c h es-t a t e with gold mines t h e r e . ^ } I n 424 B.C. he was e l e c t e d a st r a t e g o s and appointed to a command i n Thrace. Then, due to no f a u l t of h i s own, Amphipoli s was taken while he was i n neighbouring waters, and he was blamed for a r r i v i n g too l a t e to prevent i t s c a p t u r e . He was condemned and banished, and f o r twenty years was absent from Athens, l i v i n g , probably, on h i 3 e s t a t e i n Thrace, except when he was t r a v e l l i n g to c o l l e c t m a t e r i a l f o r h i s work. The extent of h i s t r a v e l s we can only c o n j e c t u r e , but i t seems c e r t a i n he v i s i t e d S i c i l y , f o r the n a r r a t i v e of the S i c i l i a n e x p e d i t i o n could not have been w r i t t e n save by one who had seen Syracuse with h i s own eyes. A f t e r the end of the Peloponnesian War, 404 B.C., he was allowed to r e t u r n to Athens, being r e c a l l e d by a decree of Oenobius. But he died not long a f t e r , about 400 B.C., l e a v i n g h i s h i s t o r y unfinished.. These are the few f a c t s we know of h i s l i f e , gleaned i n part from h i s own meagre statements. A l l other data r e l a t i n g to i t , derived from P l u t a r c h , Pausanias, and e s p e c i a l l y from two Greek essays, one anonymous, the other hear-ing the name of M a r c e l l i n u s , are mere a s s e r t i o n s which d i f f e r (1 } Thuc. IT.105 only In degree of p r o b a b i l i t y ? the s o r t of confused and con-t r a d i c t o r y statements which s p r i n g up i n the absence of any contemporary evidence. Thucydides l i v e d i n the time of that i n t e l l e c t u a l r e v o l u t i o n which we a s s o c i a t e with the S o p h i s t s , when the educated H e l l e n i c world was being bathed i n the l i g h t of reason. We have no reason to b e l i e v e thet he accepted the p o s i t i v e teachings of any p a r t i c u l a r man, but h i s mind was moulded by t h e i r g e n e r a l i n f l u e n c e and he cs.me to l e a r n t h e i r g r e a t e s t lesson? to weigh and to c r i t i c i s e f a c t s , unprejudiced by a u t h o r i t y or t r a d i t i o n . His f a m i l y connections provided him with e x c e p t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r o b t a i n i n g a u t h e n t i c information? he had a foot i n two camps, Athens and Thrace, and t h i s second home gave him an i n t e r e s t independent of Athens, which enabled him to look upon the Athenian empire with a detachment t h a t would have been impossible f o r a pure-blooded c i t i z e n with no. home but A t t i c a * Hi? "banishment also tended to the same end, provided that he did not permit h i m s e l f any f e e l i n g of rancour against Athens, f o r what he must have considered an unjust punishment j and i t a l s o gave him o p p o r t u n i t y f o r i n t e r c o u r s e with the ant-a g o n i s t s o f h i s country. His wealth, too, d o u b t l e s s , opened many doors. Thucydides 9 m i l i t a r y t r a i n i n g and experience q u a l i f i e d him to be the h i s t o r i a n of a war. He was not so l i k e l y to- f a l l i n t o the t a c t i c a l e r r o r s of Herodotus, or to f a i l to appreciate» as Herodotus d i d , t h e . s i g n i f i c a n c e or importance of m i l i t a r y manoeuvres. One can not give him too much c r e d i t f o r c o n c e i v i n g the idea of r e c o r d i n g the events of a great war a t i t 3 i n c e p t i o n , oi' f o r r e a l i z i n g t h a t i t vas to "be a great war; and furthermore, f o r the f a c t that he designed h i s h i s t o r y to be p u r e l y a record of that war and the r e l a t i o n s of the m i l i t a n t s t a t e s , which should d e v i a t e i n no p a r t i c u l a r i n t o geography, anthropology, or the r e s t ; and 30 became the founder of " p o l i t i c a l " h i s t o r y i n ' t h e s p e c i a l sense i n which we are accustomed to use that term. ^ So f a r as the evidence -which Thucydides makes use of i s concerned, one p o i n t i s s e l f - e v i d e n t , that he could not f a l l back on any predecessors f o r any but a v e r y - s l i g h t p o r t i o n of the h i s t o r y j moreover, that there were not l i k e l y to be many documents to c o n s u l t , so recent were the events he was r e c o r d -ing!. He was c o n f i n e d , t h e r e f o r e , almost e n t i r e l y to using the evidence of h i s own eyes, and of o t h e r s ' when he had e s t a b l i s h e d to h i s own s a t i s f a c t i o n that t h e i r possessors -were r e l i a b l e . (1) He makes a c l e a r statement to t h i s e f f e c t h i m s e l f , d e p l o r i n g to) . elsewhere the c r e d u l i t y and i n a c c u r a c y of mankinds W r i t i n g a h i s t o r y under such c o n d i t i o n s as these was no easy task. The h i s t o r i a n had to possess great energy and i n i t i a t i v e 5 not only had he to s o r t , compare, and c r i t i c i z e h i s m a t e r i a l before he i n c o r p o r a t e d i t i n one work, but he had to make a c t u a l journeys to c o l l e c t i t . We have seen that he must have gone as f a r as S i c i l y on one such mission* But Thucydides covers h i s traces? he gives us no glimpse i n t o h i s l i t e r a r y workshop? he names no informants, nor does he even t e l l us the occasions on which he was h i m s e l f an eye-witness of what he d e s c r i b e s . O c c a s i o n a l l y , however, we can penetrate to the source of h i s i n f o r m a t i o n . I t "•{Il 1.22 (2} 1.20 i s easy, f o r example, to see that he consulted Plataeans as to the siege o f P l a t a e a , and Athenians and Spartans about Pylos and S p h a c t e r i a . We can sometimes d i v i n e that h i s statements are d e r i v e d from the o f f i c i a l orders given to m i l i t a r y comman-ders. "Sometimes the formulae of decrees or t r e a t i e s peer through the Thucydidean summary."^ ^ On the whole, however, we have to take the h i s t o r y on t r u s t , f o r we have l i t t l e i n -dependent evidence with which to t e s t i t s accuracy. But where o r i g i n a l documents do e x i s t , t h e i r testimony almost e n t i r e l y bears out that of Thucydides, and thus our f a i t h i n the whole work remains unshaken. Though we may only be a b l e to make guesses at the sources o f h i s evidence, we are i n a much b e t t e r p o s i t i o n to judge the p r i n c i p l e that governed h i s use of i t . F i r s t and foremost he adopted an a t t i t u d e of s c e p t i c i s m towards a l l he had not seen w i t h h i s own eyes. But though s c e p t i c a l , c r i t i c a l , quick to doubt, he a c c e p t s , i n h i s b r i e f account of non-contem-porary Greek h i s t o r y , what modern c r i t i c s , at l e a s t u n t i l r e c e n t l y , have been I n c l i n e d to r e j e c t - t r a d i t i o n s , Thucydides r e j e c t e d no t r a d i t i o n s , except i n s o f a r as they c o n f l i c t e d with p r o b a b i l i t y . For example, he did not question the f a c t of the T r o j a n war, but he r a t i o n a l i z e d the legend. L i k e Herodotus and everyone e l s e , he granted the a c t u a l existence of heroes such as Agamemnon, Pelops and Minos, f o r whom the genealogies seemed to vouch, and so he c a r r i e d t h i s h i s t o r i c a l f a i t h too f a r ; mere i n t r i n s i c p r o b a b i l i t y i s by no means a s u f f i c i e n t guarantee of r e a l i t y . For p r o b a b i l i t y v a r i e s ; not only with the (1) Bury, "Ancient Greek H i s t o r y " , P. 85. age i n which we l i v e , hut with our i n d i v i d u a l tempers and education. His method i s here, t h e r e f o r e , d e f i c i e n t , hut the d e f i c i e n c y , needless to say, does not r e f l e c t to h i s d i s c r e d i t . L i v i n g i n the age i n which he d i d , he had to accept without s u s p i c i o n , what on l y comparative enhnography and p h i l o l o g y have taught us to suspect. But i n h i s acute arguments, he employs methods which may be c a l l e d modern and s c i e n t i f i c * For example he p o i n t s to the c u l t u r e of the backward p a r t s o f Greece, as a s u r v i v a l of a c u l t u r e that at one t i n e had p r e v a i l e d g e n e r a l l y . Again, when he s t a t e s that the i s l a n d s once knew Oarian occupa-t i o n , he advances an a r c h a e o l o g i c a l p r o o f ; the d i s c o v e r y of Carian tombs i n . D e l e s , when the i s l a n d was being p u r i f i e d . He w i l l not hasten to minimise the importance of Mycenae because I t s remains are small. One had only to look at the s i z e of Sparta as compared with her importance, to r e a l i z e the f o l l y of such an a c t . In h i s treatment o f contemporary events, a l s o , the standard o f Thucydides i s as s t r i c t l y s c i e n t i f i c as the nature of the subject permits.- The study of human a f f a i r s can never hope to reach the e x a c t i t u d e that the study of p h y s i c a l phenomena has a t t a i n e d ? and even were i t p r a c t i c a b l e f o r the student to be always an eye-witness of events, e r r o r and b i a s , due to upbringing or temperament, or to a preconceived i d e a , are almost c e r t a i n to enter i n t o h i s o b s e r v a t i o n or r e c o r d i n g of them, Thucydides did not escape c r i t i c i s m i n the ancient world, any more than Herodotus d i d . His c h i e f c r i t i c , Diony-s i u s of H a l i c a r n a s s u s , wrote an essay, 'On the Character of Thucydides', which i s supplemented by l e t t e r s to Cn. Pompeig, end Afflmaeae. Dionysius goes i n t o great d e t a i l , but on the whole h i s judgment i s u n f a i r . He f a l l s out f i r s t with Thucy-d i d e s p choice of a s u b j e c t . The ws-r was O U T c XJLYO^ cure BUTO^^ and t h e r e f o r e should have been f o r g o t t e n or ignored by p o s t e r -i t y , but i f he must choose i t , h i s duty was to be p a t r i o t i c :even at the s a c r i f i c e of h i s c r i t i c a l judgment. He s u b j e c t s h i s language to a most minute and: u n f r i e n d l y s c r u t i n y . He f i n d s f a u l t with l i s l a c k of v a r i e t y , and h i s chronology bores him. He grants, however, that he shows a s u p e r i o r i t y i n pathos and has a c l e v e r s t y l e , but i t s beauty, i n c o n t r a s t with the b r i g h t n e s s and happiness of Herodotus 1', Is "old-fashioned and w i l f u l . 5 U) D i o n y s i u s * o p i n i o n that Thucydides was a n t a g o n i s t i c towards Athens, and showed her In <*n unfavourable l i g h t , i s i n t e r e s t i n g when we remember that some modern c r i t i c s have sug-gested j u s t the r e v e r s e , namely- that "Thucydides sympathized with Athens i n the f i r s t years of tho \7ar, and manipulated the f a c t s with the purpose of p r e s e n t i n g her i n a favourable {g ) l i g h t . " S u r e l y the f a c t that the n a r r a t i v e can convey two such c o n t r a d i c t o r y i m p r e s s i o n s , i s a proof o f the author's c r i t i c a l i m p a r t i a l i t y . l o r has Thucydides any lack of c r i t i c s i n our modern world. Some of the c r i t i c i s m s are more or l e s s g e n e r a l , i n that most c r i t i c s advance them; others are p e c u l i a r to t h e i r authors. Let us look at Eome of the most Important ones. (1) 'de Corapositione**, 165: (2) Bury. "Ancient Greek H i s t o r y " , P. 1S2. He has been taken to task g e n e r a l l y f o r a f a i l u r e to recognize the part economic and commercial i n t e r e s t s p lay i n human a f f a i r s . On t h i s p o i n t two Thucydidean students take up the cudgels In h i s defense, whose remarks we can b r i e f l y sum-marize. "Sot without humour i s the n o t i o n that the economic f a c t o r was an e n t i t y he: (Thucydides, a mining magnate) never dreamed of."*-**' "He f u l l y r e a l i z e s the importance of f i n a n c e . " (A) *»fio w r i t e r has ever l a i d g r e a t e r s t r e s s on the supreme importance of money i n s a r . " ^ ' "That he was not b l i n d to economic c o n d i t i o n s i s shown by the l e a d i n g s i g n i f i c a n c e he a t t r i b u t e s to want of m a t e r i a l resources i n the e a r l y Greek (A) communities."* ' Ho w r i t e r has ever traced more c l e a r l y the i n t e r -dependence of wealth and power, and the fundamental c o n d i t i o n s necessary f o r the production of the one and the promotion of the other. P r i m i t i v e Greece, he says, was weak, because there was no accumulated wealth; a g r i c u l t u r e only y i e l d e d the bare means of s u b s i s t e n c e , and trade did not e x i s t because there was ( E ) no accumulated wealth — e t c . " I t i s i m p l i e d , too, that Thucydides should have f u r -nished a d e t a i l e d e x p l a n a t i o n and a n a l y s i s of the commercial b a s i s on which the Athenian power r e s t e d , and of the mercantile i n t e r e s t s of other states® which were a f f e c t e d by her empire. His two champions con t i n u e : "Thucydides r e l a t e s how the r i v a l r y between Athens and G o r i n t h arose out of each s t a t e ' s p u r s u i t of wealth and power; the bone of c o n t e n t i o n was Megara; Thucydides d e s c r i b e s the s t r u g g l e i n a l l i t s v i c i s s i t u d e s , " (A) Bury, "Ancient Greek H i s t o r y , " Pp.91-2 (B) Abbott, "Thucydides" a f t e r which he says no more " f o r the very s u f f i c i e n t reason that there i s no more to he s a i d . The economic aspect of the Megarian q u e s t i o n , though probably paramount to C o r i n t h , was c e r t a i n l y not so to Sparta her i n t e r e s t i n the matter was of a p o l i t i c a l and s t r a t e g i c n a t u r e . " (B) » » T h u c y d i a e s d i d n o t look upon the economic f a c t o r as a master-key f o r the i n t e r p r e -t a t i o n of a i l human a c t i o n ? * ^ 2 ' and Bury, summing up; "Econom-i c and commercial f a c t o r s , — — of such immense importance i n the present age, c e r t a i n l y d i d not p l a y anything l i k e the same part i n the a n c i e n t world, and i f the a n c i e n t h i s t o r i a n s con-s i d e r a b l y underrated them, we may e a s i l y f a l l i n t o the e r r o r of o v e r r a t i n g them. We may be sure that the i n t e r e s t s o f Athens presented themselves to statesmen, as to Thucydides, p r i m a r i l y under the p o l i t i c a l and not the economical p o i n t of view. Thucydides created p o l i t i c a l h i s t o r y ? economic h i s t o r y i s a d i s c o v e r y . o f the 19th century." Another charge a g a i n s t Thucydides i 3 that he f a i l e d to r e a l i s e , i f he did not a c t u a l l y misrepresent, the cause of the Peloponneaian war? that i t was not the growth of Athenian power , - "which alarmed the Lacedaemonians and convinced them that they must f i g h t , " - but the d e s i r e on the part of the commercial i n t e r e s t s i n Piraeus f o r the p r o f i t that command of the main trade routes would e n t a i l . Whereupon they forced upon P e r i c l e s the p o l i c y of c o e r c i o n towards Megara, which r e s u l t e d i n the Peloponnesian war. Thucydides missed e n t i r e l y , i n the o p i n i o n of t h i s c r i t i c , U ) t h i s economic f a c t o r ? and the causes he advances are o n l y " g r i e v a n c e s " . I t seems impo s s i b l e , i n the (1) F. H. Cornford, "Thuc. K y t h i s t o r i c u s " the f i r s t p l a c e , that Thucydides could have Ignored a movement of such import on the p a r t of the commercial i n t e r e s t s of P i r a e u s . "We are- asked to b e l i e v e that an a g i t a t i o n which plunged Athens i n t o war went on among the n o i s i e s t elements of the populace, and not the f a i n t e s t h i n t of i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e reached any contemporary o b s e r v e r . " ' E q u a l l y improbable i s the i n s i n u a t i o n t h a t Thucydides d e l i b e r a t e l y kept i t i n the background, i n order to devolve the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the war from P e r i c l e s ' s houlders. The h i s t o r i a n ' s a t t i t u d e to P e r i c l e s and h i s p o l i c y i s a detached one. The t r i b u t e he pays to h i s p o l i t i c a l a b i l i t y does not imply that he saw eye to eye with him i n a l l matters, or held h i s p o l i t i c a l f a i t h . He e x e r c i s e d , r a t h e r , here as i n other cases, a c o l d , independent judgment and would have had no s c r u p l e s i n e x h i b i t i n g h i s weaknesse<|. As f o r the two words which Thucydides uses i n the sense of "cause », •' ckc T C A ±nd m~ p o cf «• <f , J . B. Bury shows that di-rf^ t in Thucydides g e n e r a l l y means / / ' "charge" or " g r i e v a n c e " , whereas -tr^ o cj> JL <r i ,though i n i t s o r i g i n a l meaning i t was equivalent to our " p r e t e x t " , has a wider range i n Thucydides, and comes to mean "motive"* or " o c c a s i o n " , thus c l o s e l y approximating to the sense of "cause". Thucydides i n s i s t s on the d i f f e r e n c e between the p r e t e x t s a l l e g e d f o r the outbreak of war, as d i s t i n c t from the r e a l cause, and we c e r t a i n l y cannot prove of e i t h e r pretext or cause that h i s judgment was wrong. So much, then, f o r the charges a g a i n s t Thucydides and t h e i r r e f u t a t i o n . {1} Abbott, "Thucy." P.52 (2) "Ancient Greek H i s t o r y " , P.93 The work of Thucydides has l i m i t a t i o n s which we must beware of u n d e r r a t i n g , but i t s d e f e c t s have not prevented i t from s e c u r i n g a l i t e r a r y i m m o r t a l i t y , Thucydides had burst "out of the t w i l i g h t i n which Herodotus s t i l l moved, wonder-in g Into the s u n l i g h t , where f a c t s are hard, not to wonder but to understand."* ' " I t was the longest and most d e c i s i v e step that has ever been taken by a s i n g l e man towards making h i s t o r y what i t i s today."* ' But, although the greatness and the value of h i s h i s t o r y won i n s t a n t r e c o g n i t i o n , i t d i d not become popular. For s e v e r a l c e n t u r i e s a f t e r , h i s immediate suc c e s s o r s , h i s h i s t o r y , read only by s c h o l a r s , sank i n t o a n e g l e c t amounting almost to o b l i v i o n . "He was a great name, ("5 1 not a l i v i n g i n f l u e n c e as a teacher or a model,"* ' Hot u n t i l the f i r s t century B.C. with the r e t u r n to A t t i c models, did I n t e r e s t i n h i s work r e v i v e , and even then i t was not such as the author would have d e s i r e d . I t concerned i t s e l f with s t y l e and phraseology, and i n g e n e r a l , aroused mere s l a v i s h i m i t a t i o n . "Thucydides had a n t i c i p a t e d t h i s r e c e p t i o n when he wrote i n h i s preface that the unromantic character of t h i s n a r r a t i v e might not be very p l e a s i n g to the ear. - But he also a n t i c i p a t e d the u l t i m a t e v e r d i c t when he de s c r i b e d i t as a "possession f o r ever'." Before we n o t i c e the subject matter of the h i s t o r y , there are c e r t a i n remarks to make about I t s composition,• I t f a l l s i n t o two p a r t s ; the f i r s t ending i n 421 B.C, with the F i f t y Years' Peace, the second i n 411 B.C., the h i s t o r y being (1) I h i d . P.147 (2) Ibid,oP.147 (3) I b i d . P.147 {4} Abbott, "Thucydides", P. 234 u n f i n i s h e d . The reason f o r t h i s i s t h a t i n 421 B.C., with the s i g n i n g of the peace, the h i s t o r i a n considered h i s task f i n i s h -ed and i t was probably not u n t i l a f t e r the f a l l of Athens i n 404 B.C. t h a t he r e a l i s e d that the u n d e c i s i v e war which he had recorded was only a p o r t i o n of a gr e a t e r and d e c i s i v e war, and so determined to extend the compass of h i s work to embrace the whole twenty-seven y e a r s . The second p a r t t h e n , ^ 1 ^ he f o r m a l l y i n t r o d u c e s with a personal e x p l a n a t i o n , announcing the c o n t i n u -a t i o n of the subject down to 404 3.Cm and e x p l a i n i n g that the truce which he had form e r l y considered to have separated two wars, had heen i n r e a l i t y only a c e s s a t i o n of h o s t i l i t i e s f o r the time b e i n g , and that the wars were r e a l l y one war, l a s t i n g from 431 to 404 B.C. Though t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n was probably not made, as we have suggested, u n t i l a f t e r the capture of Athens, h i s statements seem to imply that he had not ceased from f o l l o w i n g the course of events as they occurred with a view to c o n t i n u i n g t h i s work. This c o n t i n u a t i o n had been suggested, i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d , by the S i c i l i a n e x p e d i t i o n , which he had proba-b l y intended to be the h i s t o r y of a c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y separate episode. The d i s a s t e r of 404 B.C., however, must have shown him the events of the previous twenty-seven years i n a new l i g h t , and hence he rose to the l a r g e r conception of producing a h i s t o r y to cover the whole p e r i o d . Thucydides based h i s m i l i t a r y h i s t o r y on the n a t u r a l d i v i s i o n of the year, i n t o summer and winter, being f u l l y con-vinced that accurate h i s t o r y was impossible without s t r i c t chronology. He proved i t by c a s t i n g h i s own work into the form (1) ¥.26 a n n a l s 0 He could not have f a i l e d to see as c l e a r l y as h i s c r i t i c s , l i k e M o n y s i u s of H a l i c a r n a ssus, that i t was a draw-hack to any a r t i s t i c p l a n , hut i t was c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of him that he p r e f e r r e d to the e x i g e n c i e s of l i t e r a r y a r t the demand of h i s t o r i c a l p r e c i s i o n . Where h i s h i s t o r y was of a non-contemporary n a t u r e , however, that i s , where he o u t l i n e d the growth of Athenian power a f t e r the P e r s i a n war, he was chary of g i v i n g dates snd he c r i t i c i s e d H e l l e n i c u s , who had b r i e f l y covered the same p e r i o d , f o r the inadequacy of h i s work and the i n a c c u r a c y of i t s chronology. Thucydides* poi n t was that there were no data of a s u f f i c i e n t l y dependable character to warrant any pretense to c h r o n o l o g i c a l p r e c i s i o n . There i s one feature of the h i s t o r y , inbred i n i t s composition and looming l a r g e i n i t s pages, which we must d i s -cuss here once and have dons with f o r a l l ? the speeches of Thucydides. They are a dramatic f e a t u r e , and not an i n v e n t i o n of the author. The i d e a of p u t t i n g speeches i n t o the mouths of the c h a r a c t e r s had been used by Herodotus, who borrowed i t from Homer as we have seen. But both i n s t y l e and i n argument, Thucydides-?. speeches are h i s own. In s t y l e they are a bewild-e r i n g mixture of l u c i d , s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d Greek, and Greek of an obscure darkness, that i s darker, as M o n y s i u s says, than the dark sayings of Herodotus. Attempts are c o n s t a n t l y being made to e x p l a i n t h i s p e c u l i a r i t y , which struck the ancients no l e s s than o u r s e l v e s . I t has been a mistake to a t t r i b u t e these o b s c u r i t i e s to a condensation of thought. As Mahaffy pointed out, he i s "condensed i n e x p r e s s i o n , but not i n thought."^ 1' (1) "Greek L i t e r a t u r e " , I I 1.112 Bury advances the theory that "when Thucydides adopts what we. may f a i r l y c a l l h i s unnatural s t y l e , when he i 3 i n -volved, and obscure , he i s . always making poin t s of h i s own • When he w r i t e s i n the n a t u r a l s t y l e , he i s producing docuraent-ary evidence. G„ P„ Abbott suggests t h a t Thucydides' connection with Thrace was a c l o s e r one than we imagine; that perhaps, i f he was not born there, he spent h i s childhood t h e r e , and so Thraeian was h i s v e r n a c u l a r , and Greek sa ac-quired, tongue. Something to the same e f f e c t i s advanced i n Dr. Grundy's "Thucydides and the H i s t o r y of h i s Age,"^ 2' where a great s c h o l a r and very learned man i s reported to have s a i d , "Thucydides* Greek i s at best good T h r a e i a n * " As f o r the passages, "which f o r c l e a r n e s s and p u r i t y might be compared with the best examples of A t t i c prose," Mr. Abbott suggests that he could not have w r i t t e n them "without strenuous e f f o r t , or (one might almost fancy) e x t e r n a l a i d . " * ' Another hypothesis has been advanced to e x p l a i n t h i s mystery, which, so f a r as we can see, w i l l continue to remain one? namely, that the f a u l t l i e s not with the h i s t o r i a n but with the manuscripts whi ch have come down to us, none of which i s e a r l i e r than the 10th century, being, that i s , the outcome of successive t r a n s c r i p t i o n s over a period of t h i r t e e n hundred y e a r s . But i f we are I n c l i n e d to accept t h i s view, we must remember th a t the m y s t i f i c a t i o n over t h e i r r e c u r r i n g o b s c u r i t i e s date 3 back to as e a r l y as the 1st century B.C. 'before the c o p y i s t s had much time to co n t r i b u t e to a r e p u t a t i o n a l r e a d y e s t a b l i s h e d and, i n Dionysius* o p i n i o n , amply deserved. Enough has been said of hypotheses which (1) "Anc.Greek H i s t o r y " , pp.112,114 (2) P.52 (3) Abbott, " T h u c " , P. 226 (4) Tbi d , , P. 224 can i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y only remain such. I f Thucydides* s t y l e i n the speeches was h i s own, ao was h i s use* o f them. He employed them not as an ornament but to conceal the s u b j e c t i v e element that i n e v i t a b l y enters i n t o the composition o f a h i s t o r y . For an h i s t o r i a n has more to do than to c h r o n i c l e events. He must show why things happen and the f o r c e s that are at work. He i s bound, t h e r e f o r e , to meas-ure the c h a r a c t e r s and penetrate the motives of the a c t o r s , as w e l l as to r e a l i z e the c o n d i t i o n s i n which they a c t . In the s p e e c h e s t h e n , the a c t o r s r e v e a l as much of t h e i r c h a r a c t e r s and p e r s o n a l i t i e s as w i l l enable us to understand the p a r t s they are p l a y i n g i n p u b l i c a f f a i r s , ( c f . Cleor/and A l c i b i a d e s e s p e c i a l l y . ) The a u t h o r , l i k e a d r a m a t i s t , remains i n the background. He comes forward o n l y to introduce them to us, or to i n d i c a t e the impression they made on t h e i r contemporaries. Thucydides 5 r u l e i s to commit h i m s e l f to no personal judgments, and to t h i s r u l e there are very few e x c e p t i o n s . These s t a t e -ments of course apply to the speeches of the l e a d i n g a c t o r s , such as P e r i c l e s , A l c i b i a d e s , l i c i a s , e t c . For Thucydides did make the speeches serve another purpose. He employed them o f t e n as.dramatic d i s g u i s e s of s t u d i e s ' o f h i s own. To give one ex-amples "The c h a r a c t e r s of the two p r o t a g o n i s t i c c i t i e s , Athens and S p a r t a , are d e l i n e a t e d i n a speech of a t h i r d p a r t y , the C o r i n t h i a n s } the author of t h i s famous comparison was unques-t i o n a b l y Thucydides* h i m s e l f . ^ ' With these general remarks we are ready to look i n t o the h i s t o r y i t s e l f . Our task w i l l be a much simpler one than that with which we found ourselves (1) Bury, "Ancient Greek H i s t o r y " , P.116-confronted when we approached the h i s t o r y of Herodotus. We w i l l have here few d i g r e s s i o n s to lead us out of our course. The h i s t o r y , being the h i s t o r y of a war, though i t covers a p e r i o d of twenty-seven y e a r s , w i l l n e v e r t h e l e s s progress step by step to i t s c o n c l u s i o n , and w i l l not n e c e s s i t a t e more from us.than the mere r e c o g n i t i o n of the most s i g n i f i c a n t events i n i t . Book X opens with an account of the e a r l y h i s t o r y of Greece. As we have i n t i m a t e d , i t shows a curio u s mixture of a n c i e n t and modern methods, ancient In that Thucydides depended on e p i c p o e t r y and folk-memory! modern i n that he had seized upon the comparative system,,and used the b a r b a r i a n customs of h i s own day, f o r example, to i l l u s t r a t e the ancient usages of the Greeks - the prevalence of p i r a c y , h a b i t u a l c a r r y i n g of arms i n everyday l i f e , e t c . ^  ^ The power, and the grasp of t h i s account, whether or not we accept i t a l l , Is a s t o n i s h i n g . W i t h i n the l i m i t s to which i t s t r i c t l y adheres, i t i s a most c l o s e l y reasoned argument, and i t proved to be a r e v e l a t i o n to Greece of a t o t a l l y new way of t r e a t i n g h i s t o r y . From the mass of legends and d e t a i l s that had c o n s t i t u t e d the i l l - o r g a n i z e d store of Greek t r a d i t i o n , Thucydides constructed a reasoned march of development, with the arguments that led to h i s con-c l u s i o n s . There i s no need f o r us to c r i t i c i z e the d e t a i l s ; h i s sketch remains a s h i n i n g example of sheer h i s t o r i c a l i n -s i g h t . The o u t l i n e of the growth of the Athenian empire a f t e r the end of the P e r s i a n war, i s a study of another s o r t . (1) Thucydides, 1.4 The account of e a r l y Greece was a preface to the h i s t o r y , the l a t t e r i s a d i g r e s s i o n ? but one p e c u l i a r l y to the p o i n t . The reason which Thucydides advanced as to the cause o f the Pelop-onnesian war, was the fear Sparta had of Athens' growing power. The h i s t o r i a n saw the need that such a statement i n d i c a t e d , and gave us, i n the account of the " P e n t e c o n t a c t i a " a valuable p i e c e of h i s t o r i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t we have received from no other a u t h o r . ^ ^ In the o r g a n i s a t i o n of the D e l i a n League,' 2^ 478 B.C., we see the sowing o f the seed of the Athenian empire, which was destined f o r a great growth before i t i n e v i t a b l y p e r i s h e d . Thucydides has too, by t h i s n a r r a t i o n , l i n k e d up h i s own h i s t o r y w i t h that of Herodotus, which ended, as may be r e -c a l l e d , with the success a t Mycale, and the eventual r e t u r n home of the Greek f l e e t . There e x i s t s , t h e r e f o r e , f o r us, a c o n t i n -uous h i s t o r i c a l n a r r a t i v e o f Greek h i s t o r y from about 650 B.C. to 411 B.C. We have made s u f f i c i e n t comment upon the "cause" of the Peloponnesian war i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n to Thucydides. The occ a s i o n of i t was the i n c i d e n t s of Epidamnus and Potidaea. I t had s u i t e d the purpose of C o r i n t h to keep on f r i e n d l y terms with Athens h i t h e r t o ? she had done her good s e r v i c e at times, as we saw i n Herodotus. But now, her commercial s u p e r i o r i t y threatened, she determined to destroy her. Corinth i t was who c a l l e d the congress of the Peloponnesian a l l i e s , who spurred on, more than once, Sparta's of t - f l a g g i n g s p i r i t s . C o r i n t h i t was who would have razed Athens and sold her c i t i z e n s i n t o s l a v e r y , when the c i t y was f i n a l l y taken. Her i n f l u e n c e throughout (1.) Thucydides, 1.96 should be kept i n mind % the part she played was an unpleasant hut important one. At the end of Book I war i s imminent, "but i t has not a c t u a l l y broken out. "The contending p a r t i e s s t i l l keep up i n t e r c o u r s e with one another, and v i s i t each other without h e r a l d s, but not wit h e n t i r e c o n f i d e n c e . " ^ ^ w e a r e thus pre-pared f o r the begi n n i n g of Book I I . During the course of the f i r s t book, we have seen the dismal end of two great men, who were heroes at the end of the previous war. It i s " f a r e w e l l * " to Themistocles and Pausanias. In Book I I the war between the Athenians and the Peloponnesians, and the a l l i e s of both s i d e s , a c t u a l l y begins. The T h i r t y Years* Peace t r e a t y which had been concluded a f t e r the recovery of Euboea, B.C. 446, was now broken by a Theban a t t a c k on P l a t a e a . The combatants on the one s i d e , l e t i t be remembered, were Sparta and a l l the other Peloponnesian s t a t e s save Argos and Aohaea, p l u s Megara, most of Boeotia, P h o c i s , L o c r i s , Leucas, and Ambraciaj onfcthe other s i d e , Athens and her empire, which c o n s i s t e d at that time of n e a r l y a l l the Aegean i s l a n d s and the coast c i t i e s of Asia Minor; plus Acarn-a n i a , P l a t a e a , Corcyra and Zacynthus. The strengt h of the former l a y i n i t s army, of the l a t t e r , i n i t s f l e e t . Towards the end of the war, as we s h a l l see, even P e r s i a was drawn i n t o the s t r u g g l e . In the e a r l y summer of 431 B.C., the Spartans, under Archidamus, invaded A t t i c a . A l l the Athenians, upon P e r i c l e s » a d v i c e , had withdrawn i n t o the c i t y , abandoning t h e i r country e s t a t e s . P e r i c l e s * p o l i c y of t i r i n g the enemy out by (1) Thucydides, 1.146 p r o v i n g Athens * i n v u l n e r a b i l i t y w a s a sound one, but i t gave r i s e a year l a t e r to.an unforeseen c a l a m i t y . Meanwhile an Athenian f l e e t o f one hundred ships was r e t a l i a t i n g by ravaging the Peloponnesian coast. The Aeginetans, too, r e c e i v e d a t a s t e of Athenian anger, and were expelled from t h e i r i s l a n d . An a l l i a n c e was concluded about the same time by the Athenians with Thrace and Macedonia. In Book I I ^ ' occurs the great 'Funeral Speech* of P e r i c l e s , than which no p o r t i o n of Thucy-d i d e s * work has ever r e c e i v e d greater a d m i r a t i o n . In i t s essence i t i s a eulogy o f the A t h e n i a n Democracy? "a m a g n i f i -cent p i c t u r e of a model s t a t e ; a t once a school f o r c u l t u r e and 12) a p a t t e r n of c i y i c v i r t u e . " 4 ' But Book I I a l s o records the outbreak of the Plague, that d r e a d f u l c a l a m i t y which was the d i r e c t r e s u l t of herding i n t o the c i t y . I t s e f f e c t , both upon Athenian morale and man-power ( l / 3 of the p o p u l a t i o n p e r i s h e d ) was i n e s t i m a b l e , but the c h i e f l o s s i t i n f l i c t e d upon them was the death of P e r i c l e s , who f e l l v i c t i m to i t i n the second summer, B.C. 429,. Thucydides,. i n r e c o r d i n g h i s death, speaks i n the highest terms of P e r i c l e s * p o l i t i c a l a b i l i t y . He was convinced that i f P e r i c l e s had l i v e d or had l e f t a successor as able as h i m s e l f , the war would have terminated f a v o u r a b l y f o r Athens. But he did not, and h i s p o l i c i e s , sound enough had he been there to d i r e c t them, were changed by h i s successors or abandoned a l t o g e t h e r . At the end of Book I I , however, the outlook, f o r Athens i s b r i g h t e r . In the winter of 430 B.C., Potidaea surrendered to her, and at the end of the summer of 429 B.C., the Athenian (1) Oh. 33 seq. (2) Abbott, "Thuc." P.109 f l e e t won a complete v i c t o r y over the enemy a t Haupactos. • Ahout the same time S i t a l c e s , son of Te r e s , king of Thrace, en-tered i n t o an u n s u c c e s s f u l war with Perdiaco s of Hacedon, and here, as Herodotus was accustomed to do, Thucydides s e i s e s the op p o r t u n i t y to give us some i n f o r m a t i o n about the two c o u n t r i e s i n v o l v e d . The Athenians, under Phornius, invaded Aearnania, and returned s u c c e s s f u l , thus b r i n g i n g the t h i r d year of the war and the second book of the h i s t o r y to a c l o s e . In Book I I I the Spartans, w i t h the coming of s p r i n g , repeated t h e i r former t a c t i c s and ravaged A t t i c a , At the same time Lesbos r e v o l t e d from Athens. In the speech of the Myti1-enaeans we see how r a d i c a l l y o p i n i o n had a l t e r e d . Sparta was now the champion of the oppressed, the s a v i o r s of H e l l a s . At the end of 428 B.C., the siege of My t i l e n e was s t i l l going on, and i n 427 B.C. the Spartans once more ravaged A t t i c a , causing great d i s t r e s s . The Mytilenaeans were f i n a l l y reduced to making terms, with the Athenians, and f o r a time were very much i n danger of being exterminated by them, Cleon, son of Cleoenetus, "the most v i o l e n t of the c i t i z e n s , who at that time exercised by f a r the g r e a t e s t i n f l u e n c e over them,"^ * ^  c a r r i e d a decree of death to the r e b e l s , and spoke s t r o n g l y a g a i n s t i t s r e p e a l . F o r t u n a t e l y the f e e l i n g of clemency p e r s o n i f i e d i n Diodotus, son of E u c r a t e s , p r e v a i l e d , and the Athenian name was spared i n t h i s i n s t a n c e , the b l o t upon i t which the i n c i d e n t of Melos i n c u r r e d a t a l a t e r date. But i f the f a i r name of Athens r e -mained u n s o i l e d , the Spartan name did not. They had been be-s i e g i n g f o r some time the c i t y of P l a t a e a , and had f i n a l l y (1) Thuc. III.36 procured i t s surrender. Thereupon,, at the i n s t i g a t i o n of the Thebans* i g n o r i n g the plea of the i n h a b i t a n t s f o r a j u s t t r i a l , they gave the men up to the sword, the women and c h i l d r e n to s l a v e r y , and razed the town to the ground. The Plataean t e r r i -t o r y they converted i n t o p u b l i c land and l e t out f o r terms of ten y e a r s . Such was the f a t e of P l a t a e a , the g a l l a n t l i t t l e s t a t e that had fought at Marathon with the Athenians, and had seen the f i n a l b a t t l e o f the P e r s i a n wars fought before her w a l l s. Corcyra was the scene of the next meeting between the ships of Sparta and Athens.. The i s l a n d i t s e l f was t o r n with s t r i f e that had o r i g i n a t e d w i t h the r e t u r n of the p r i s o n e r s from C o r i n t h , who, being o l i g a r c h s , were seeking to draw Corcyr away from i t s a l l e g i a n c e to Athens. The Spartan f l e e t under Prasi-das was f i n a l l y compelled to withdraw, and the Corcyrans, l e f t to t h e i r own d e v i c e s , massacred the m a j o r i t y of the o l i -garchs 'for t h e i r designs against the democracy." This r e v o l u t i o n i n Corcyra was the beginning of a c o n f l i c t between democracy and o l i g a r c h y .which sprang up i n almost every c i t y i n the H e l l e n i c world; encouraged as i t was, by the hope of Athenian or Lacedaemonian h e l p . Thucydides, r e f l e c t i n g with f e e l i n g on c i v i c s t r i f e , introduces at t h i s p o i n t an excursus s i m i l a r to A r i s t o t l e ' s statements i n the " P o l i t i c s " , upon the causes and e f f e c t s of the r e v o l u t i o n a r y s p i r i t . The war now entered new t e r r i t o r y . The S i c i l i a n Syracusaas and Leontines were at war, and the l a t t e r succeeded i n o b t a i n i n g a i d from Athens, for the Athenians had an eye to S i c i l y a l r e a d y , and they a l s o wished to prevent the Spartans from g e t t i n g corn t h e r e . While a f f a i r s were p r o g r e s s i n g i n an indeterminate f a s h i o n , the Plague a g a i n returned to Athens and earthquakes shook A t t i c a , Boeotia and Euhoea. In one respect they were a b l e s s i n g , f o r Athens, f o r they prevented the Lace-daemonians from once more ravaging A t t i c a ; a p o l i c y they now had adopted permanently. In the f o l l o w i n g summer, the \?ar con-tinued i n S i c i l y and i n v a r i o u s p a r t s of the Greek mainland. Demosthenes, N i c i a s and P r o c l e s were the c h i e f Athenian generals 'They attacked the I s l a n d of Melos to compel the S e l i a n s into the Athenian a l l i a n c e , but p r o v i n g u n s u c c e s s f u l they turned on Tanagra i n Boeotia and took i t . The Lacedaemonians nest sent an e x p e d i t i o n under Eurylochus to Haupactus, but i t was f a i l e d by Demosthenes and some Acarnanian a l l i e s * A thenian arms i n S i c i l y were meeting with poor success, but t h i s was o f f s e t by a v i c t o r y won by the Athenian general Loches over the L o c r i a n s . In the winter the Athenians p u r i f i e d Deles and re s t o r e d the Deldan games., An Athenian v i c t o r y over the Peloponnesians and Ambraciots b r i n g s Book I I I to an end. We s h a l l see i n a l a t e r book the r e s u l t of Athenian determination at t h i s time to take a more a c t i v e part i n the a f f a i r s of S i c i l y . The f i r s t happening of importance r e l a t e d i n Book I f i s Demosthenes' f o r t i f i c a t i o n of P y l o s , which forced the Spart-ans to eease ravaging A t t i c a and hasten to attack him. The Athenians defeated the Peloponnesians i n the bay of Pylos and then blockaded S p h a c t e r i a , a densely wooded l i t t l e i s l a n d i n the mouth of the bay, on which a Lacedaemonian f o r c e , c o n s i s t i n g c h i e f l y of Spartan c i t i z e n s , was pent up. The Spartan government, seeing no way to save t h e i r men, o f f e r e d peace, hut the Athenians, overjoyed at t h e i r success, were persuaded hy Cleon to continue the s i e g e . E v e n t u a l l y Cleon himself set out ••to take the men p r i s o n e r , and did so w i t h i n twenty days. Thucydides* comment upon the s t o r y - "and so Cleon*s andertak-i n g , mad as i t was, came off."? h a r d l y seems a f a i r remark. I t can perhaps he explained "by the f a c t that the h i s t o r i a n , who, as we have seen, c a l l e d 61 eon the most v i o l e n t of the c i t i z e n s , could not here hide h i s d i s l i k e of the man or what he stood f o r . I t may a l s o w e l l be. t h a t Thucydides, as an ex-perienced m i l i t a r y man, was q u i t e r i g h t i n f e e l i n g that a non-m i l i t a r y man l i k e Cleon could not hope f o r one chance i n a hundred of succeeding where experts had f a i l e d . "Long shots" do o c c a s i o n a l l y come o f f | "hut a person might be c a l l e d mad, w'iS'O, l i k e Cleon, guaranteed them to do so. But at l e a s t Athens triumphed enormously through the i n c i d e n t , which put one hundred and twenty Spartan c i t i z e n s i n t o her hands. The Athenians i n S i c i l y meanwhile, a f t e r some success and o c c a s i o n a l l o s s e s , came to terms with the league of S i c i l -i a n c i t i e s and withdrew from the i s l a n d . In Megara the o l i -g a r c h i c a l p a r t y had gained c o n t r o l w i t h the help of the Spartans under B r a s i d a s , but i n Corcyra the o l i g a r c h s who had made another attempt at power, were c r u e l l y put to death. In the summer of 423 B.C. a tru c e f o r one year was concluded between the h o s t i l e s t a t e s . Sparta entered Into i t to secure the r e t u r n of the p r i s o n e r s of P y l o s , Athens because she was alarmed at the success of the Spartan general B r a s i d a s , i n Thrace; among other p l a c e s he had taken Amphipolis from Athens. Nothing of moment was e f f e c t e d hy t h i s t r u c e , and i n the summer of 422 B.C. h o s t i l i t i e s were f o r a time resumed, and are r e l a t e d i n Book IT. Gleon's attempt to win hack Amphipolis f o r Athens r e s u l t e d o n l y i n h i s death and that of Brasidas? hut Athens and Sparta were even more eager than a year before to come to terms; and being urged to that end by P l e i s t o a n a n , k i n g of S p a r t a , and H i c i a s of Athens, they f i n a l l y concluded a peace c a l l e d the " F i f t y Years" Peace, or the "Peace of S i c i a s " . By one of the terms, Sparta was to give up Amphipolis to Athens, but when she t r i e d to do so the c i t y r e fused to r e t u r n to her former a l l e g i a n c e * T h i s became a sore p o i n t w i t h the Athenians who had, f o r t h e i r own p a r t , returned the Spartan p r i s o n e r s taken a t P y l o s . For six years and ten months the t r e a t y held good, but Greece d u r i n g t h i s time was by no means t r a n q u i l . The " T h i r t y Tears" t r e a t y between Argos and Sparta expired and was not renewed. On the c o n t r a r y , Argos set out to form an anti-Lacedaemonian confederacy, a t the p e r s u a s i o n o f C o r i n t h , who hated the peace Sparta had concluded w i t h Athens. Through the t r i c k e r y of A l c i b i a d e s , a t r e a t y was concluded by Athens with Argos and her a l l i e s , Mantinea and E l i s . This t r e a t y led to a reop'ening of h o s t i l i t i e s , f o r , on the s t r e n g t h of i t , Ar-gos began a war a g a i n s t Epidaurus sand Sparta, a f t e r a p r e l i m i n -ary ofcimi sh, prepared f o r war a g a i n s t her i n earnest. The a f f a i r came to a head i n the b a t t l e of Mantinea, B.C. 418, a v i o t o r y f o r Sparta. The truce then made by Sparta and .Argos,v.••••a , led to another between Sparta and Mantinea, which severed the Argine-Athenian a l l i a n c e . T h e " F i f t y Years" peace was s t i l l f o r m a l l y unbroken, but the Argine truce did not l o n g remain so. I t had been concluded by o l i g a r c h s , and the people, encouraged by A l c l b i a d e s , repudiated i t . Book V ends on a heavy note f o r Athens. I t was at t h i s time that she be-smirched her name, by no means unspotted though i t now was, with aii : ugly stain*- The Athenians made an unprovoked a t t a c k on the s m a l l , almost d e f e n c e l e s s I s l a n d of Melos, u t t e r l y destroyed the male i n h a b i t a n t s and c a r r i e d o f f the women and c h i l d r e n i n t o s l a v e r y . They then c o l o n i z e d the i s l a n d with f i v e hundred s e t t l e r s of t h e i r own* Athenian p o l i c y was probably being d i r e c t e d i n t o such channels by A l c i b i a d e s , who deemed such ex-treme measures necessary to overawe the s u b j e c t s and a l l i e s of the c i t y . a Books VI and VII might almost be taken as h i s t o r y I Q themselves. They are an e n t i t y , r e l a t i n g the whole s t o r y of the S i c i l i a n ; e x p e d i t i o n , and as such we w i l l take.them t o g e t h -e r . From the p o i n t of view of s t y l e . Book VII i s the most f i n i s h e d , the most d i s t i n c t i n i n t e n s i t y of a l l the h i s t o r y . Here the n a r r a t i v e s u f f e r s very l i t t l e from d i g r e s s i o n s , de-clam a t i o n s , and documents ? there are no speeches? why we s h a l l never know? "but c e r t a i n l y the reason cannot be that the seventh book i s incomplete or even -unrevised. "In t h i s book the author's g i f t f o r c a r e f u l l y planned and v i g o r o u s l y sustained n a r r a t i v e , f i n d s i t s widest scope and highest e x p r e s s i o n The w r i t i n g , with one s o l i t a r y e x c e p t i o n , i s q u i t e r e s t r a i n e d , but the emotion packed i n t o i t i s tremendous.' Beyond a doubt i t i s Thucydides' crowning a c h i e v e m e n t . " ^ ^ The events r e l a t e d i n Books VI and VII are too well known to need s e t t i n g f o r t h i n d e t a i l . We w i l l n o t i c e only a few of them. {1} Abbott, "Thuc." pp. 204, 205 The account of the races and c i t i e s of S i c i l y i n the beginning of Book 71 belongs i n the category of the d e s c r i p -t i o n s of Thrace and Macedonia, that I s , a c o n v e n t i o n a l d i g r e s -s i o n such as Herodotus made use o f . But there i s t h i s d i f f e r -ence between the two authors* conception of such a d i g r e s s i o n . Thucydides.would have put i t with a footnote or an appendix had he known of such t h i n g s , Herodotus could never have done so. I t has been conjectured w i t h some degree of p r o b a b i l i t y , that i n w r i t i n g these chapters ( ¥ 1 . 1 - 5 ) Thucydides made tt.ee of " H i s t o r y of S i c i l y " , a work by Antiochus of Syracuse, whioh now (only) e x i s t s i n fragments, but once enjoyed a high r e p u t a t i o n among the a n c i e n t s . The Athenians, as we have seen, had a l r e a d y fought i n S i c i l y . The r i v a l r i e s of the Dorian and Ionian c o l o n i e s t h e r e , gave her the o p p o r t u n i t y i n 4S4 as i n 415 B.C. to i n t e r f e r e on the side o f her kinsmen and i n c i d e n t a l l y ' f u r t h e r the Athen-i a n i n t e r e s t s . * The commanders of the e x p e d i t i o n , A l c i b l a d e s , Hi c i a s and Lamarohus, represented the p a r t i e s both o f peace and of war, and thus disagreed from the o u t s e t . The f o l l y of t r u s t -i n g such an e x p e d i t i o n to men of w i d e l y divergent p o l i c i e s was soon apparent, and one f u r t h e r p i e c e of madness removed n e a r l y a l l hope of the war being ended s u c c e s s f u l l y . Alcihia.des was r e c a l l e d on a charge of impiety, and to escape c e r t a i n death he f l e d to Sparta where he used h i s admirable t a l e n t s and g e n e r a l -ship f o r the b e n e f i t of the enemy. Fate, however, gave E l e i a s -a f a r l e s s able leader than A l c i b i a d e s , for h i s heart was not i n h i s job - a chance to win s t i l l . The Syracusans were i n despair and had come to the p o i n t of y i e l d i n g should the Athenians press t h e i r advantage* But Micia s l e t the o p p o r t u n i t y s l i p , and the a r r i v a l o f the Spartan Gylippus put courage i n t o the enemy and ended a l l hope of t h e i r s u r r e n d e r i n g * Even then the Athenians might have r e t r e a t e d i n s a f e t y , hut H i c i a s * s u p e r s t i t i o u s f e a r s at the e c l i p s e o f the new aoozi brought aTsout a delay that was f a t a l to the e x p e d i t i o n . The u l t i m a t e completeness of the (1) Syracusans' v i c t o r y , followed by the c r u e l t y of t h e i r ven-geance, proved the t u r n i n g p o i n t of __the war. For the Atheni-ans at home had been c a r r y i n g on a s t r u g g l e as v i t a l as the one i n which t h e i r navy abroad was engaged, and they had suf-fere d g r e a t l y from the i n v a s i o n s o f the Peloponnesians, which were no longer p e r i o d i c but continuous. For the Spartans, on A l c i b i a d e s * a d v i c e , had f o r t i f i e d Decelea and were using 1 i t as a permanent base for t h e i r i n c u r s i o n s . Twenty thousand of the Athenians' slaves deserted to them there* A l l the Athenian sheep and c a t t l e had per i s h e d at Spartan hands. P r o v i s i o n s f o r the besieged c i t y could no- longer take the overland route, but had to come by sea at great c o s t . 'Athens resembled not so much a c i t y as a f o r t , " ^ I n t M s c o n d i t i o n she stood when Book VII comes to an end. low comes to the fore the indomitable w i l l of Athens, that was stro n g e s t when her danger was g r e a t e s t . Consider her p o s i t i o n . 'She could no longer present her empire with a united f r o n t to the enemy. Her a l l i e s were s e i z i n g the opportunity that her weakness a f f o r d e d them to r e v o l t . Sparta, counting on the same weakness, f o r the f i r s t t i n e ventured to send a strong f l e e t i n t o the Aegean. The resources of the enemy were doubled (1) 413 B.C. (2) VII.23 with the entry of S i c i l y i n t o the f r a y ; w h ile Athens' d i s a s t -rous defeat at Syracuse had robbed her of the flower of her youth, and, what was s t i l l more s e r i o u s , of the s k i l l e d s a i l o r s that had kept the seas f r e e of her enemies. One more hand was to be l i f t e d a g a i n s t her before a l l was done. The P e r s i a n s , long dormant, were roused to: a c t i o n by the Spartans, who were w i l l i n g to give Ionia back i n t o t h e i r hands, provided that they supplied them with money to enable them to prosecute the war w i t h Athens to a s u c c e s s f u l i s s u e . l e t , i n the faee o f such ..enormous odds,. Athens maintained a g a l l a n t s t r u g g l e f o r nine' years more. It i s i n such circumstances as these that the Athenian democracy appears i n i t s most favourable l i g h t ; indeed, i t s . s u r p r i s i n g s p i r i t and energy have drawn the remark that there i s , i n extreme popular government, compensation f o r the e v i l i t breeds. But i t s c h i e f i l l i s c a p r i c e , and c a p r i c e l o s t the Peloponnesian war f o r Athens. ^ Book T i l l i s incomplete* and unrevi sed. Here, as i n Book 711, we have arguments presented to us In the t h i r d person but i t seems l i k e l y t h a t had Thucydides been able to complete the book, he would have .recast them i n t o d i r e c t speeches. Book VIII r e c o r d s the t h i r d and f i n a l stage of the s t r u g g l e , but not the 'knock-down blo.w*. We are indebted to Xenophon f o r the completion of the h i s t o r y . Chios took the i n i t i a t i v e i n the r e v o l t from Athens, and the Athenians spared no pains to recover her. They voted t h e i r reserve fund of money - one thousand t a l e n t s - to be used f o r the purpose', and set about manning s h i p s . For the r e v o l t of Chios was a s i g n a l f o r a l l the a l l i e s to f o l l o w s u i t ; Lesbos, E r y t h r a e , and Euboea had merely heen w a i t i n g an o p p o r t u n i t y , and M i l e t u s soon added h e r s e l f to t h e i r ranks. The Spartans entered now in t o t h e i r f i r s t t r e a t y w i t h P e r s i a , and though professed l i b e r a t o r s of H e l l a s from the Athenian yoke, they "f handed hack i n t h i s agreement the I o n i a n c i t i e s to t h e i r former masters. At .this c r i s i s Samos gave Athens a proof of her l o y -a l t y , although only t h i r t y years before she had sought to secede from the D e l i a n league. Her people, aided by the crews of three Athenian s h i p s , rose a g a i n s t the Samian o l i g a r c h s and slew or banished some s i s hundred of them. They then declared f o r a democracy, and the Athenians, assured o f t h e i r devotion, granted them independence. M y t i l e n e , by t h i s time, persuaded by the Chians, had broken from Athens, but prompt a c t i o n en-" abled her to recover the c i t y with the who 1e of the i s l a n d and afterwards Clazomenae. Moreover, Athens defeated the Chians i n three b a t t l e s , and brought them near to s u r r e n d e r i n g . She a l s o , with Argine h e l p , blockaded<Miletus, but upon the advice of her g e n e r a l , Phrynichus, withdrew to Samos without completing the v i c t o r y . s h e had begun. A l c i b i a d e s up to t h i s time was s t i l l f i g h t i n g with Sparta, but a f t e r the a f f a i r of M i l e t u s he f e l l i n t o s u s p i c i o n there and an order was issued f o r h i s death. He thereupon f l e d to Tissaphornes, the P e r s i a n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the Great King's i n t e r e s t s , and by working upon him, did a l l he could to i n j u r e the Peloponnesian cause, while he kept him from m a t e r i a l l y i n j u r i n g that of Athens. Indeed, Tissaphernes might have gone over e n t i r e l y to the Athenians, had not fe a r of the s u p e r i o r numbers of the Peloponnesian ships prevented him. He f i n a l l y abandoned, however, any idea of so doing that he might have e n t e r t a i n e d , and made a second a l l i a n c e with the Spartans. The Athenians meanwhile were s u f f e r i n g i n t e r n a l l y . O l i g a r c h i c elements i n the c i t y were f a s t o b t a i n i n g a hold and the people, from mutual fear and d i s t r u s t , could not combine aga i n s t them. The r e s u l t was, that a f t e r a hundred years o f popular government, the democracy was brought to an end. A board of f i v e was e s t a b l i s h e d , which created another of four hundred, and n e g o t i a t i o n s were entered i n t o by these with S p a r t a . A l c i b i a d e s a t t h i s time was i n command of the Athenian f l e e t , now a t Samos; he had been r e s t o r e d t o favour, but as yet did not mean to v i s i t the c i t y u n t i l he had accomplished a deed gre a t enough to wipe out h i s past t r e a c h e r y . The o l i g a r c h i c l e a d e r s i n Athens were Theramene s, A r i s t o c r a t e s , Phryni chus, A r i s t a r c h u s , P i sander, and Antiphon. The two former of these were anxious to secure a more c o n s t i t u t i o n a l form o f government because they had a t h r e e f o l d f e a r of the Athenian army i n Samos of A l c i b i a d e s , and of t h e i r awn c o l l e a g u e s * who were n e g o t i a t -i n g f o r peace w i t h Sparta, and intended to save t h e i r own power at the expense of the c i t y . To t h i s end the extreme o l i g a r c h s were b u i l d i n g a f o r t at P i r a e u s , so that they might admit the Spartans when they wished. Theramenes, however, by c i r c u l a t i n g whispers of t h e i r d e s i g n s , f i n a l l y aroused the people to a c t i o n . A f t e r a scene of tumult i n which the two p a r t i e s n e a r l y came to blows, the f o r t was demolished, to the cry of f L e t the F i v e Thousand r u l e ! " Some days l a t e r a Spartan f l e e t s a i l e d by Athens, and the Athenians, f e a r i n g an a t t a c k , h a s t i l y put out a f t e r i t . A b a t t l e was fought i n the bay of Oropos, i n which the Athenians were defeated. The Spartans then induced Euboea to r e v o l t . They, conla have taken Athens now, or at l e a s t com-p e l l e d the Athenian f l e e t t o q_uit Samos, thus l e a v i n g Ionia i n P e r s i a n hands, but these 'convenient enemies' s a i l e d o f f home. The Athenians then c a l l e d an assembly i n the Pnyk, deposed the four hundred and set up the government of the " F i v e Thousand", a l l who could f u r n i s h themselves w i t h arms. Pisander and the other o l i g a r c h i c l e a d e r s f l e d to D e c e l e a i Phrynichus had per-ished e a r l i e r . During t h i s same summer, the Peloponnesians t r a n s f e r r e d t h e i r f l e e t to the H e l l e s p o n t , where Pharnabozas was i n c o n t r o l , having r e a l i z e d a t l a s t the dishonest v a c i l l a -t i o n of T i s s a p h e r n e s . The Athenian f l e e t pursued them, and the b a t t l e of Cynossema ensued, i n which the Athenians were v i c t o r -i o u s . The news of t h i s v i c t o r y g r e a t l y enheartened the Athenian people. They t r u s t e d that with energy they might s t i l l win the war. With t h i s hope of the u l t i m a t e success of Athens, the h i s t o r y of Thucydides comes to an end, i n the twenty-second year of the Peloponnesian war. The h i s t o r y of Thucydides was u n f i n i s h e d , and three men set- themselves to b r i n g i t to completion; Xenophon, C r a t i p -pus, and Theoporapus. Of Oratippus, t h i r t y years ago, l i t t l e was known; not even a fragment was extant to i n d i c a t e the character of h i s work. There were on l y three or four r e f e r e n c e s to him i n a n c i e n t l i t e r a t u r e , but one, a passage from P l u t a r c h , sug-gested that h i s h i s t o r y possessed more than o r d i n a r y merit. Then, i n 1909.A.D., a h i s t o r i c a l fragment was discovered by G r e n f e l l and Hunt which was a s c r i b e d by some eminent s c h o l a r s to Theoporapus, whose h i s t o r y , the " H e l l e n i c a " covered the same period as that of Oratippus, and had a l s o been l o s t ; by o t h e r s , too, n o t a b l y Mr. E. M. Walker, to Ephorus; ( 1 > t , u t t n e w e i h t of evidence would seem to e s t a b l i s h i t as the work of Oratippus T h i s s u b s t a n t i a l fragment covers a part of the year 396 B.C. and most o f the year 395 B.C. The complete h i s t o r y embraced, probably, tho p e r i o d from 411 to 350. B.C. The n a r r a t i v e of the fragment bears the stamp of an o r i g i n a l composition, w r i t -t e n by a contemporary, not compiled from books| w r i t t e n , too, without, the knowledge of Xenophon *s work, which we w i l l con-s i d e r next* There are no speeches i n i t ; the phraseology i s simple and c l e a r , f r e e from r h e t o r i c a 1 or d i d a c t i c devices and from any element of p e r s o n a l c r i t i c i s m . P r o f e s s o r Bury i n c l i -nes to the view that " i f the whole work had s u r v i v e d , i t would occupy a d i s t i n c t l y higher p l a c e than the "Hellenicat? of Xenophon, though the author d i d not possess Xenophon *s t e c h n i c -a l knowledge of w a r f a r e . " 1 ' Xenophon's h i s t o r y was, however, the one of the three l u c k y enough to s u r v i v e , and to i t we are indebted f o r the ac-count both of the end of the Peloponnesian war and of events subsequent t h e r e t o . Xenophon, son of G r y l l u s , was horn at Athens about 428 B.C. His childhood and youth c o i n c i d e d , t h e r e -f o r e , w i t h the Peloponnesian war. He became a d i s c i p l e of S o c r a t e s , and wrote a s e r i e s of work3 i n defense of h i s master's p r i n c i p l e s . Xenophon was an a r i s t o c r a t , and h i s sympathies were not with the democratic p a r t y , to v/hom the continuance of the war was due; and when i t was over and the democracy was r e s t o r e d , he l e f t Athens to go on an e x p e d i t i o n with Cyrus (1) Powell & Barber, "Hew dhapters i n Greek L i t e r a t u r e " , f i r s t s e r i e s . (2) "Ancient Greek H i s t o r y " , P. 158 a g a i n s t the p r i n c e * s b r o t h e r v A r t a x e r x e s . The f a t e of t h i s e x p e d i t i o n Xenophon sets f o r t h i n h i s popular work, "The Anabosls". In 396 B.C. Xenophon took s e r v i c e with A g e s i i a u s , King o f Sparta s and probably fought with him a g a i n s t h i s own' c i t y i n the b a t t l e of Goronea, 3.C. 394. He was now In e x i l e from Athens - the cause and date of which are unknown •=> but i t i s c l e a r that he was wholly out of sympathy with the Athenian government as i t had been since the r e s t o r a t i o n o f the democ-ra c y i n 403 B.C.j and e s p e c i a l l y since the death of Socrates i n 399 B.C. For some years a f t e r Goronea he stayed i n Sparta, and then i n E l l s where the' Spariasi government had given him an estate? here he began h i s l i t e r a r y works. But i n 371 B.C. he was f o t e e i t o leave 511s and went to C o r i n t h , where he spent the r e s t o f h i s days. I n 369 B.C. the sentence of banishment from Athens a g a i n s t him was r e s c i n d e d , but he never returned t h e r e . He l i v e d , occupied with h i s w r i t i n g s , t i l l 355 B.C., or p o s s i b l y l a t e r . • Widely d i f f e r e n t estimates have been made of h i s l i t e r a r y powers and h i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s as an h i s t o r i a n . In some r e s p e c t s he was admirably f i t t e d to be the h i s t o r i a n of the epoch he d e s c r i h e d . He was an Athenian by b i r t h and t r a i n -ing? i n h i s youth a devoted f o l l o w e r of Socrates? he had t r a v -e l l e d and l i v e d i n many pa r t s of the Greek world. He had been on s e v e r a l of the campaigns whi ch he described i n the " H e l l e n -i c a " . We might have reason to presume from these f a c t s , t h e r e f o r e , that he possessed the temper to w r i t e an i m p a r t i a l h i s t o r y and the i n f o r m a t i o n and c a p a c i t y to w r i t e an accurate one. But the " H e l i e n i c a " i s n e i t h e r accurate nor i m p c s t i a l . H i s e r r o r s are r a t h e r of omission than of commission, hut there are s u f f i c i e n t to leave the reader e i t h e r sadly puzzled or with an e n t i r e l y wrong im p r e s s i o n . For example, while we know that the primary purpose o f the " H e l l e n i c a " was to f i n i s h Thucydid-es* n a r r a t i v e , yet Xenophon took no pains to secure p r e c i s e c o n t i n u i t y between the c l o s i n g chapters of Thucydides* and h i s own work's opening ones, and he was as l i t t l e c a r e f u l about p r e c i s e c o n t i n u i t y between the d i f f e r e n t chapters of the " H e l l e n i e a " i t s e l f . Instead he o f t e n a l l u d e s to events or i n -troduces personages o f which we know nothing. More s e r i o u s s t i l l , some of the omissions seem to be i n t e n t i o n a l , as though d i c t a t e d by the author's p a r t i a l i t y or h i a s - not f o r Athens, indeed, but f o r Sparta and Thebes. For Sparta he had conceived an a d m i r a t i o n which led him to excuse her d e f e c t s and omit her h u m i l i a t i o n s , while h i s hatred f o r Thebes that he could not conceal made him construe her a c t i o n s wrongly, and abridge the record of her achievements. His s t y l e , d e s p i t e the c a r e l e s s n e s s and the i r r e g u l -a r i t y of i t s vocabulary, possesses the great merits of c l e a r -ness, d i r e c t n e s s and e n t i r e freedom from exaggeration or a s t r i v i n g a f t e r e f f e c t . I t i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d not i n f r e q u e n t l y by beauty and power, and at a l l times i t i s rendered a t t r a c t i v e l y g r a c e f u l and easy by the amiable p e r s o n a l i t y of the w r i t e r . The " H e l l e n i c a " covers the events of the f i f t y years from 411-362 3.0. I t f a l l s i n t o three main d i v i s i o n s , which s c h o l a r s have shown to have been w r i t t e n at considerable i n t e r -v a l s . Part I , (1.1.1 - 11.3.11) completes Thucydides* account of the Peloponnesian war; Part I I , (11.3.11 - 7.1.36) c a r r i e s 119. on from the c l o s e of the war to the peace of A n t & l c i d a s , and Part I I I , {¥-2 . 1 - the end} from the peace of A n t a l c i d a s to the b a t t l e o f Mantinea. The dates of the composition o f these v a r i o u s p a r t s , have "been approximately f i x e d as f o l l o w s ; Part I i n 395 B.C. or a very l i t t l e l a t e r ; Part I I , between 385 and 380 B.C. ; Part I I I , between 562 and 354 B.C. The h i s t o r y i s , i n b r i e f , the s t o r y of Sparta's triumph over her o l d enemy, Athens, of her heyday of power, and of her overthrow by a new enemy, Thebes. The hero of the n a r r a t i v e i s the r a t h e r medioc-re A g e s i l a u s . That i t might have been Eparainondas can only remain the s i g h o f modern commentators. • At the end of Thucydides" h i s t o r y we f i n d the Athen-i a n s f u l l of the hope o f success and p u t t i n g f o r t h tremendous e f f o r t s to accomplish i t . And f o r a tirae they made head a g a i n s t t h e i r enemies, l a r g e l y through the lukewarmness of Tissaphernes, and the m i l i t a r y s k i l l and vigour of A l c i b i a d e s . But the t i d e was soon to t u r n . Three unfortunate occurrences, f o l l o w i n g almost one a f t e r the ot h e r , changed the appearance of t h i n g s . • In the f i r s t p l a c e , the Oreat King, d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h the con-duct of Tiss a p h e r n e s , sent down h i s younger son, Cyrus, to r e p l a c e him, B.C. 407, and almost simultaneously the Spartans sent out a new a d m i r a l , Lysander, who won Cyrus * confidence, and)proved h i m s e l f the most able commander the Peloponnesian f l e e t had yet had. Some time l a t e r , i n the same year, the Athenians,annoyed at a minor naval d e f e a t , dismissed A l c i b i a d e s and put ten new generals i n h i s p l a c e , P e r i c l e s the younger among them, and Conon at t h e i r head. The stage was now set f o r the l a s t d e f e a t , but before i t came the Athenians were to win one more v i c t o r y . At the b a t t l e of Arginusae, B.O. 406- they succeeded i n s e v e r e l y b e a t i n g a Peloponnesian f l e e t , and causing the death of O a l l i c r a t i d e s , i t s commander. But the Athenian commander?,with the exception of Gonon and two others who did not r e t u r n to- Athens, s u f f e r e d the f a t e of the. Spartan. They were t r i e d , i l l e g a l l y too, I n that they were accused i n a body, on a charge of f a i l u r e to rescue the crews of the d i s a b l e d s h i p s , and put to death. Conon s t i l l remained head of the Athenian f l e e t , but he was e i t h e r i n e f f i c i e n t or unlucky, and q u i t e incapable of coping with the s t r o n g combination of Lysan-der and Gyrus* i n the f o l l o w i n g y e a r , B.C. 405, the b a t t l e o f Aegospotami, l e s s a b a t t l e , indeed, than a s u r p r i s e , brought the war to a c l o s e . When the Paralus a r r i v e d at Athens with t i d i n g s of the d i s a s t e r , "a sound of w a i l i n g ran from Piraeus through the long w a l l s to the c i t y , one man passing on the news to another, and d u r i n g that n i g h t no man s l e p t . " T h e Athenians, having n e i t h e r time nor money to b u i l d another f l e e t , prepared f o r a s i e g e , and t h e i r c i t y was soon invested by land and sea. Por a long time the i n h a b i t a n t s held out, but, a f t e r many months of n e g o t i a t i n g f o r pease w i t h no success, famine Induced them to an U n c o n d i t i o n a l surrender. The v i c t o r s pro-ceeded to lend the Long Walls to the music of f l u t e s , and Lysander, a f t e r winning a second v i c t o r y , over the Samians, r e -turned to Sparta, with a l l the Athenian ships save twelve. A l l the dependencies of Athens except Salamis were taken from her, and at the i n s t i g a t i o n o f •Lysander, an o l i g a r c h y of ' T h i r t y ' was e s t a b l i s h e d , i n the c i t y i t s e l f , with Theramenes and C r i t i a s (1) Xenophon, " H e l l e n i c a " , II.2.1 at i t s head. At f i r s t these two l e a d e r s were agreed i n t h e i r p o l i c i e s , hut when C r i t i a s set about s l a y i n g a l l the enemies of the o l i g a r c h y as dangerous, and the resident, a l i e n s for t h e i r wealth, Theramenes s t r e n u o u s l y opposed him. .Gritias thereupon with the backing of the r e s t of the " T h i r t y " , had him put to death. Then they inaugurated a r e i g n of terror, such as Athens had never known. 7/ealthy or obnoxious c i t i z e n s to the number of f i f t e e n hundred were put to death, and t h e i r property c o n f i s c a t e d ! thousands more f l e d to save t h e i r l i v e s . But the r u l e o f the ' T h i r t y * was too i n t o l e r a b l e to l a s t , supported though i t was by a strong g a r r i s o n of Spartans. Thrasybulus, p l a c i n g h i m s e l f at the head of the e x i l e s , succeeded i n defeat-i n g the s u p e r i o r numbers of the ' T h i r t y * , slew C r i t i a s . , and r e s t o r e d the democracy, 408 B.C. Lysander d i d not i n t e r v e n e a g a i n i n Athenian a f f a i r s , but the general p o l i c y of e s t a b l i s h -i n g a m i l i t a r y despotism throughout Greece was p e r s i s t e d i n by Sparta f o r a g e n e r a t i o n . Thus the Peloponnesian war came to an end. The S i c i l i a n s , d u r i n g the l a t t e r part of the s t r u g g l e , had been engaged i n one of t h e i r own. The C a r t h a g i n i a n s , i n 410 B.C. under the l e a d e r s h i p of Hannibal, invaded S i c i l y with one hundred thousand men, and i n the course of threa months, cap-tured S e l i n u s and Hlmera. Three years l a t e r they returned once more, and were defeated i n b a t t l e by the Syracusans, but they took Agrigentum from the S i c e l i o t s a f t e r a seven months' siege. In 405 B.C. M o n y s i u s , son of Hermocratea, became tyrant of Syracuse, to l o s e , In the f o l l o w i n g year, Gela and Camarina to the b a r b a r i a n s ; and so matters fctood i n S i c i l y at the c l o s e of the war. The " H e l l e n i o a " thus concludes the s t o r y of the Peloponnesian war, and the c i v i l s t r i f e i n Athens that followed i t . The f i r s t two hooks have been engaged i n t e l l i n g of the war and i t s outcome, b r i n g i n g us i n date to 401 B.C. H . B . — As i n the case of the period that the h i s t o r y of Herodotus covered, so we have f o r the period covered by the h i s t o r i e s of Thucydides and Xenophon, the h i s t o r y of Diodorus S i c u l u s as a supplementary authority?, a l s o c e r t a i n of Plutarch*; • L i v e s ' , such as those o f P e r i c l e s , A l c i b i a d e s , N i c i a s , e t c . The " H e l l e n i c a " proceeds with what i s , from t h i s p o i n t e s p e c i a l l y , almost a h i s t o r y of Sparta. Prom 399-38? B.C. the Lacedaemonians, now the undi sputed•leaders of a l l H e l l a s , were engaged i n a war with P e r s i a . (It was at t h i s time, 401 B.C., that the 'march of the ten-thousand Greeks' o c c u r r e d , which Xenophon a l s o recorded i n the 'Anabaris'.) • The Lacedaemonians had entered upon the&* s t r u g g l e with t h e i r second a l l y , at the plea of the I o n i a n Greeks, who were i n dan-ger of being subjected once more to t h e i r former masters. The d e t a i l s of i t are not gery important, because the st r u g g l e was i n c o n c l u s i v e . For some time, i n t r u t h , S p a r t a , through her k i n g , A g e s i l a u s , c a r r i e d on s u c c e s s f u l warfare i n A s i a , but a Spartan f l e e t , on the other hand, met d i s a s t e r i n 394 B.C. from a P e r s i a n f l e e t under the command of the Athenian general Conon, at Cnidus. P e r s i a meanwhile had been s t i r r i n g up t r o u b l e f o r Sparta i n Greece, no hard task; f o r Sparta's a g g r e s s i v e , domin-e e r i n g a t t i t u d e towards her l a t e enemies was causing everywhere a deep resentment. Athens, which since the e x p u l s i o n of the ' T h i r t y ' $ad been q u i e t l y r e g a i n i n g her former commercial preeminence, was now i n league with Thebes and C o r i n t h . War was not long i n breaking out (B.C. 395), and t h i s t h r e a t to Spartan dominion-at home f i n a l l y forced the r e c a l l of Agesilaus and h i s army, and the Greek c i t i e s of Asia Minor were abandoned to P e r s i a . P e r s i a , i n r e t u r n , promised to cease from support-i n g Sparta's enemies i n Greece. The war i n H e l l a s proper had been waged i n earnest -from 394 B.C., and i t continued, as a t -tempts o f v a r i o u s Greek s t a t e s , to curb the growing power of Sparta - u n t i l the I n g l o r i o u s peace of A n t a l c i d a s , whereby the P e r s i a n k i n g assumed the c o n f i r m a t i o n of Sparta 's t i t l e to mi s t r e s s of H e l l a s brought i t to an end. S t i l l , however, Sparta continued to i n t e r f e r e i n the i n t e r n a l a f f a i r s of other s t a t e s , and broke up any a l l i a n c e that threatened her power. Mantinea and Olynthus were only two of the c i t i e s that suffered at her hands. The l a t e r years o f Spartan l e a d e r s h i p , from 387 • to 371 B.C., were e s p e c i a l l y marked by sometimes harsh, some-times t r e a c h e r o u s , but u l t i m a t e l y f u t i l e , e f f o r t s to check the r i s e of Thebes, c u l m i n a t i n g , as they d i d , i n the b a t t l e of L e u c t r a , 371 B.C., which r e s u l t e d i n the h u m i l i a t i o n of Sparta and the triumph of her enemy. Then followed the b r i e f e s a of Theban supremacy, from369-562 B.C. I t was brought to a c l o s e , i n i t s t u r n , by the b a t t l e o f Mantinea, i n which the Thebans, though v i c t o r i o u s , l o s t t h e i r great commander Epaminonda s. The b a t t l e of Mantinea, B.C. 362, brin g s the " H e l l e n i o a " , l i k e w i s e , to an end. Xenophon had included b r i e f c h r o n i c l e s of S i c i l y i n h i s h i s t o r y , but another h i s t o r i a n made the i s l a n d h i s l i m i t . P h i l i s t u s was born i n Syracuse i n 432 B.C. Like Thucydides, by whom h i s w r i t i n g was i n f l u e n c e d , he had experience i n p u b l i c a f f a i r s ? he s u f f e r e d e x i l e and l i v e d to he r e c a l l e d . But he d i d not confi n e h i m s e l f to contemporary h i s t o r y as Thucydides had done i n ths main. He began the• a t o r y o f • S i c i l y . f r o m i t s e a r l i e s t days, and brought i t down to 363 B.C. His work was i n eleven books, and l i k e that of Thucydides, u n f i n i s h e d . But i t * too, found someone to complete i t , i n the person o f Athanas Acero c a l l e d P h i l i s t u s a miniature of T h u c y d i d e s , ^ ' and indeed he had made Thucydides h i s model? "not by a s l a v i s h i m i t a t i o n o f h i s s t y l e , hut ra t h e r i n temper and method, ana we may sus-pect that of a l l Greek h i s t o r i a n s he was most Thucydidean."^ 2 ^  Fragments, u n f o r t u n a t e l y , are a l l that remain of t h i s S i c i l i a n author. . Xenophon c a r r i e d the h i s t o r y of mainland Greece down to the b a t t l e of Mantinea, 362 B.C., and f o r the h a l f century of which he wrote, he i s by f a r the best a u t h o r i t y we have. But he i s not the only one. Two o r a t i o n s of L y s i a s , d e a l i n g w i t h the r u l e of "the T h i r t y " at Athens, and the " C o n s t i t u t i o n of the Athenians" hy A r i s t o t l e , c o n t r i b u t e A d d i t i o n a l informa-t i o n of great value., to supplement the e a r l i e r p o r t i o n of Xenophon's n a r r a t i v e - Books XIII-XV of Didorus S i c u l u s , a l s o t r e a t the period covered by the " H e l l e n i c a . " V7e have, too, i n P l u t a r c h ' s " L i v e s " of A l c i b i a d e s , Lysander, Agesilau3, and Pe l o p i d a s , f u r t h e r f a c t s of thesa years presented to us. One other h i s t o r i a n , contemporary with the events f o l l o w i n g the end of the Peloponnesian war, wrote a h i s t o r y of Greece, of which onl y fragments are extant today. But he i s (?) Bury, "Ancient Greek H i s t o r y " , P.159 (1) Ad.Q. f r , 11,11 very worthy of our n o t i c e . I r e f e r to Ephorus of Cyme, whose datss are 400-320 B.C. He wrote a h i s t o r y i n twenty-nine "books, from the r e t u r n o f the Her a c l i d a e i n t o the Peloponnesus, which took him hack almost i n t o mythical times, to the t a k i n g of Perinthus "by P h i l i p of Macedon i n 340 B.C. Each hook was a u n i t i n i t s e l f , and had a preface of i t s own. The h i s t o r y was unique, i n that i t embraced a l l the Greeks, and non-Greek peoples entered i n t o i t o n l y as f a r as they were connected with Greek h i s t o r y . He thus produced a work which might he c a l l e d a q u a s i - n a t i o n a l h i s t o r y of Greece. But here we must remember that the Greeks had never formed a n a t i o n . They had no n a t i o n a l h i s t o r y i n the true sense of the word. How, then, did t h i s con-c e p t i o n of the u n i t y of Greek h i s t o r y come to Ephorus? I t was i n s p i r e d i n him p r i n c i p a l l y by the teachings of the orator I s o c r a t e s . The r i s e of Macedon and the e x t r a o r d i n a r y a b i l i t i e s of P h i l i p had given b i r t h i n I s o c r a t e s to a hope for the u n i f i -c a t i o n of Greece under Macedonian l e a d e r s h i p . I t became h i s r u l i n g p a s s i o n , and i n d e f i a n c e of Demosthenes, he preached the d o c t r i n e of a H e l l a s , u n i t e d under Macedon, standing square a-g a i n s t her b a r b a r i a n enemies. Such an i d e a , f o s t e r e d by such a man, took root and grew i n the f e r t i l e Athenian mind, and as a r e s u l t there arose an e n t i r e l y new conception of h i s -t o r y which, up t i l l t h i s time s had been concerned e i t h e r with p a r t i c u l a r episodes, such as the combined e f f o r t s of Greek s t a t e s a g a i n s t P e r s i a ; with i n t e r - s t a t e wars; or with the h i s -t o r i e s of i n d i v i d u a l s t a t e s or groups. Ephorus, t h e r e f o r e , wrote h i s h i s t o r y during the f i r s t f l u s h of t h i s new i d e a . He seems to have had a wide knowledge of h i s t o r i c a l and g e o g r a p h i c a l l i t e r a t u r e , and he e x e r c i s e d a sharp c r i t i c a l f a c u l t y In using i t . Strabo U) attached much importance to h i s g eographical i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , and p r a i s e d him f o r being the f i r s t to separate the h i s t o r i c a l from the merely geographical element. P o l y b i u s * ' c r e d i t e d him with a knowledge of condi-t i o n s of naval warfare, but r i d i c u l e d h i s d e s c r i p t i o n s of Leuc-t r a and Mantinea, as showing ignorance of the nature of land o p e r a t i o n s . His b a t t l e - s c e n e s do indeed merit t h i s c r i t i c i s m ; they are c o n v e n t i o n a l , and conform more or l e s s to a model scheme. But h i s work, n e v e r t h e l e s s , r e c e i v e d much p r a i s e from the a n c i e n t s , and was used by M o d o r u s , S i c u l u s , among others. I f I s o c r a t e s was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the idea that brought the h i s t o r y i n t o being, he was l i k e w i s e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a num-ber of d e f e c t s i n the w r i t i n g of i t . The s t y l e , f o r one t h i n g , i s high-flown and a r t i f i c i a l ; t r u t h i s s a c r i f i c e d to the a t -tainment of r h e t o r i c a l e f f e c t ; the n a r r a t i v e i s i n t e r r u p t e d c o n t i n u a l l y by m o r a l i s i n g p l a t i t u d e s , elaborate Isooratean speeches and p a n e g y r i c s . But Ephorus wrote f o r a s o c i e t y that demanded such e f f e c t s . He wanted to he read and so had to w r i t e what would please the p u b l i c , whose t a s t e I s o c r a t e s had done much to educate. This c r a v i n g f o r popular success domin-ated h i s t o r i o g r a p h y henceforward, with few exceptions. Theoporapus of Chios, born i n 380 B.C., belonged a l s o to the I s o c r a t e a n s c h o o l , and h i s h i s t o r y shows the same bowing to popular w i l l . We have mentioned i n connection with Oratippus that he continued the work of Thucydides i n h i s " H e l l e n i c a * , and that a u t h o r i t i e s claimed f o r him the fragment discovered by G r e n f e l l and Hunt. But he was also the author of another work, (1) VIII.332 (2) XII.25g. d i f f e r e n t a g a i n , i n s p i r i t , from that of Ephorus. He too was a f f e c t e d hy the n a t i o n a l idea of I s o c r a t e s ; he too saw i n the power of Macedon a u n i f y i n g f a c t o r , which he made the p i v o t of h i s h i s t o r y . But that h i s t o r y he c a l l e d the " P h i l i p p i c a " , not the "Macedonioa", and i n t h i s he was o r i g i n a l . The " P h i l i p p i c a " covers the p e r i o d from 360-336 B.C. Theopompus shows himself f a i r l y i m p a r t i a l , but he i s over-fond of the marvellous. The a n c i ents blamed him, too, f o r h i s censoriousness. And indeed he seemed to be more concerned with the p r i v a t e m o r a l i t y of men of a c t i o n , than with t h e i r p o l i t i c a l or m i l i t a r y c a p a c i t y . The c r i t i c , D i o n y s i u s , says that h i s aim was to dive i n t o the pro-f u n d i t i e s of the human soul and d i s c o v e r the wickedness almost i n v a r i a b l y l u r k i n g beneath the semblance of v i r t u e . ^ ) Theo-pompus was probably the most i n t e r e s t i n g h i s t o r i a n of the 4th century, but he has no r e a l claim to greatness. At t h i s p o i n t , we come to another h i s t o r i a n of S i c i l y , who, l i k e P h i l i s t u s , was born on the i s l a n d , and also s u f f e r e d e x i l e . The dates of Timaeus are 345-250 B.C. His h i s t o r y , which he wrote i n Athens a f t e r 317 B.C., was of S i c i l y and I t a l y down to 320 B.C., i n t h i r t y - t h r e e books. Not content with c o n s u l t i n g a l l a v a i l a b l e a u t h o r i t i e s and r e c o r d s , Timaeus made s p e c i a l t r i p s to g a i n accurate i n f o r m a t i o n about the i l l -known western n a t i o n s , I b e r i a n s , C e l t s , and L i g u r i a n s . He de-voted much of h i s tirae to chronology, and was the f i r s t to i n t r o d u c e i n t o Greek h i s t i o g r a p h y the clumsy, inconvenient way of reckoning time by the Olympic years. Timaeus r e j e c t e d myths but countenanced daemonic i n f l u e n c e s i n h i s t o r i c a l events. He (1) L e t t e r to Pompey, 6,7 could not d i s c r i m i n a t e , In h i s m a t e r i a l , between important and t r i v i a l t h i n g s . He was not i m p a r t i a l i n h i s treatment of the contemporary peri o d of h i s h i s t o r y , making a hero of Timoleon, and a v i l l a i n of Agathocles, Other h i s t o r i a n s b i t t e r l y a t -tacked him f o r h i s u n f a i r n e s s , l i k e w i s e , to h i s predecessors, but Oicero commended him, arid Modorus S i c u l u s made great use of h i s work. His s t y l e , said M o n y s i u s and Longinus, was f r i g i d but otherwise s a t i s f a c t o r y . We, however, are not able to say so much. We f i n d that Timaeus, notwith-standing h i s A t t i c environment and Isoc r a t e a n t r a i n i n g i n r h e t o r i c , had abandoned A t t i c measure and A t t i c s a n i t y , and adopted a new kind of w r i t i n g which we know as the A s i a n i c s t y l e . I t came Into being f i r s t i n the prose of Gorgias and Alcidamas , but Timaeus c a r r i e d i t f a r beyond the boundaries these men had s e t . His prose "produces the impression of a bacchic r e v e l of rhymes and v e r b a l e f f e c t s . " T h e general p u b l i c , however, adapted themselves to t h i s s t y l e with the ease with which they had adapted themselves to that of Ephorus, and i t predominated f o r two hundred y e a r s . Another author who wrote i n the A s i a n i c way was Hegesias of Magnesia, who f l o u r i s h e d about 500 B.C. Strabo, indeed, speaks of him as the founder of t h i s f l o r i d s t y l e . We cannot t e l l whether he and Timaeus worked independent of each other or not, f o r one reason, because we do not know Hegesias" p r e c i s e dates. As a h i s t o r i a n he must be classed among the w r i t e r s of the l i v e s of Alexander the Great; the fragments of h i s h i s t o r y that are quoted by M o n y s i u s describe Alexander's (1) Bury."A.G.H." p.170 (2) XIY.1.41 treatment of Ghsza and i t s i n h a b i t a n t s ? i t i s p o s s i b l e * however, that t h i s fragment i s part of a show-piece and not of an h i s t o r -i c a l work. Of h i s ancient c r i t i c s , Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Cicero disparaged him, but T a r r o , on the other hand, prai s e d h i s work. Timaeus and Hegesias, then, were r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the A s i a n i c school of s t y l e , and t h e i r p o p u l a r i t y shows the p u b l i c t a s t e . But there was another school of h i s t o r i c a l a r t b i d d i n g f o r p u b l i c favour at the same time, and i n i t i a t e d by Duris of Samos. Du r i s was born about 340 B.C. and passed h i s e a r l y years i n ' e x i l e . He was a p u p i l of Theophrastus of Eresus whom he met at Athens. He became, i n some way, t y r a n t of Samos, and wrote a comprehensive h i s t o r i c a l work on He11enico-Macedon-i a n h i s t o r y , from L e u c t r a , 371 B.C. to the death of Lysimachus, 281 B.C., a l s o a l i f e of Agathocles of Syracuse, and annals o f Syracuse, c h r o n i c a l l y arranged, a c c o r d i n g to the l i s t s of the p r i e s t s of Hera. In the o p i n i o n of a n c i e n t a u t h o r i t i e s he had not much worth as an h i s t o r i a n . P l u t a r c h expresses a doubt as to his. t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s ? Dionysius speaks d i s p a r a g i n g l y of I n \ ( 3 ) h i s s t y l e ? and Photius regards the arrangement of his work as a l t o g e t h e r f a u l t y . Cicero h a s , n e v e r t h e l e s s , p r a i s e f o r him as an i n d u s t r i o u s w r i t e r and Diodorus S i c u l u s made use of h i s works. His s t y l e was intended to overthrow the c o n v e n t i o n a l -ism of the school of Ephorus and Theopompus, which la c k e d , so Duris d e c l a r e d , "mimesis", or what we would c a l l " r e a l i s m " . Duris was extremely i n t e r e s t e d i n the drama; he wrote books on (1) P e r i c l e s , 28 (2) De Compos. Verborum, 4 (5) Cod.176 {4} Ad. Att.,71.1 i r i a n s tragedy and the h i s t o r y of a r t , and he thought that h i s t o could produce i n h i s t o r y the e f f e c t s that dramatists produced i n tragedy; so that the f e e l i n g s o f the readers should "be s t i r r e d "by highly-wrought, p a t h e t i c scenes, conjured up "by the i m a g i n a t i o n of the w r i t e r . There i s much to he said f o r h i s r e a c t i o n a g a i n s t conventionalism, hut i t opened the way, too, to a r e a l danger. "While the h i s t o r i a n i s s t r i v i n g f o r e f f e c t , he i s tempted to d i s t o r t the t r u t h , and so i t was with D u r i s . His school subordinated h i s t o r y , as Thucydides had understood I t , to a r t . While the c o n v e n t i o n a l i s t s were appealing to taste the r e a l i s t s were a p p e a l i n g to the emotions. For both a l i k e , h i s t o r y became simply a branch of r h e t o r i c . The next event of importance which gave men an oppor-t u n i t y to w r i t e h i s t o r y , was the career of Alexander the Great. Such a romantic epoch as t h i s could not f a i l of i t s r e c o r d e r s , e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e h i s t o r y was beginning to invade the realm of f i c t i o n . The s h i n i n g example oa a w r i t e r of q u a s i - h i s t o r i c a l work on Alexander's conquests was C l i t a r c h u s , of Colophon, who wrote at the end of the 4 t h century. He made the most of the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of h i s theme, and "captured h i s p u b l i c by f a n t a s -t i c d e s c r i p t i o n s of the gorgeous Ea s t . " ^ 1 ' His work became the standard book on the s u b j e c t , and i n f l u e n c e d the t r a d i t i o n -a l h i s t o r y o f Alexander very deeply. A l l w r i t e r s on that t o p i c , however, were not c a r r i e d away by the r h e t o r i c a l p o s s i b i l i t i e s of t h e i r s u b j e c t . C h i e f among these were A r i s t o b u l u s of Cassan-d r e i a , and Ptolemy, son of Tagus. Both men were eye-witnesses of the events they recorded. (1) Bury, "Ancient Greek H i s t o r y " 13! A r i s t o b u l u s » account was mainly geographical and e t h n o l o g i c a l ! Ptolemy's had more of the nature of a m i l i t a r y memoir, d i s t i n g u i s h e d by i t s s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d honesty and s o b r i -ety . T h e i r works have u n f o r t u n a t e l y not survived i n t h e i r o r i g i n a l form; but they were, i n t h e i r essence , too Important to be allowed to p e r i s h unrecognised» Four c e n t u r i e s a f t e r thsy had been w r i t t e n , F l a v i u s A r r i a n u s , composing a h i s t o r y of Alexander's conquests, made them, together with the geo-g r a p h i c a l work of l e a r c l m s , his. c h i e f a u t h o r i t i e s ; and h i s h i s t o r y , c.ompleteand t r u s t w o r t h y as i t was, w r i t t e n , too, i n a simple, l u c i d , manly s t y l e , became a f i t t i n g r e c e p t a c l e f o r the memoirs of these sober and v e r a c i o u s h i s t o r i a n s . With the h i s t o r i a n s of the period of Alexander the Great, we b r i n g our i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the h i s t o r i a n s of two c e n t u r i e s , to an end. G s O s O s O t O j O s O i O s O r O JWA:EJ B_I B L I Q G B A P H I "Anabasis" "The Ancient Greek H i s t o r i a n s " "A Commentary on Herodotus" Volumes I & I I "Cre t e , the Fore-runner of Greece" "Cyropaedia and H e l l e n i c u s " " H e l l e n i o a " " H e l l e n i c a " "Herodotus" "The H i s t o r y and A n t i q u i t i e s of the Doric Race", V o l . I "The H i s t o r y of Herodotus" Volumes I & I I Xenophon. G. B e l l and Sons, London, 1919. H a l f - t i t l e s B e l l ' s I l l u s t r a t e d G l a s s i e s 3. B. Bury. MacMillan & Company, London, 1909. W. W. How, J . Wells. Oxford , Clarendon P r e s s , 1928. C.H. Sa H.B. Hawes, Harper & Bros, London & lew Tork, 1911, second e d i t i o n Xenophon. B e l l and Sons, London, 1882 H a l f - t i t l e : Bonn *s C l a s s i c a l L i b r a r y . E. Abbott ( e d i t o r J R l v i n g t o n s , London, 1880. Xenophon. London, 1918. H a l f - t i t l e s Loeb C l a s s i c a l L i b r a r y . T. £. Glover. U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i -f o r n i a Press, Berk. C a l . , 1924. C. 0. H u l l e r , Oxford, 1830. G. C. Macaulay, MacMillan & Co. L t d . London, 1914 X I . X I I , 'Homer and Hist ory" "The Philosophy of H i s t o r y " Walter Leaf. MacMillan & Co. L t d . London, 1915. G. W. F. Hegel. C o l o n i a l Press, Hew York, I960, second e d i t i o n . H a l f - t i t l e s L i b r a r y of the World *s Great C l a s s i c s X I I I , "Prolegomena to Ancient H i s t o r y " XI?, J . P. Mahaffy. Longmans, Green & Co. London, 1871. "Hi se of the Macedonian Empire" Ai M. C u r t e i s. Longmans, Green & Co. London, 1886. f o u r t h e d i t i o n . H a l f - t i t l e : Epochs of Ancient H i s t o r y . XV. "The Sea-Kings of Crete' XVI. XVII "The Story of Greece & Home" "Thucydides", Volumes I & I I XVIII. "Thucydides; a Study i n Hi s t o r i c a l R e a l i t y " XIX. "<v?ho Were the Greeks?" XX "The World of Homer" J. B a i k i e . A. & C. Black, L t d . London, 1926. f o u r t h e d i t i o n . Robertson & Bobertson, •J. M« Bent & Sons,Ltd. London & Toronto, 1928. Jowett. Oxford, Clarendon Press 1900. Ind. ed. r e v i s e d . G. F. Abbott. Routledge & Sons, L t d . London, 1925. J . L. Myers. U. of Gal. Pre ss , Berk. , C a l . , 1930. A. Lang. Longmans", Green & Co. , London, 1910. Encyclopaedia B r i t a n n i c a 11th e d i t i o n , 14th e d i t i o n . 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0302126/manifest

Comment

Related Items