Part 12

The Locrians on the Euripus formed two states, that of OPUS and that of CNEMIS. In the east of Epicnemidian Locris is mount (the town of?) NARYX, whence the Locrians are called _Narycii_. Virgil has been much censured by the ancients for calling the Locrians in Italy _Narycii_, but it appears that he regarded all the Locrians, and consequently those in Italy also, as belonging to one and the same race. Opus was, comparatively speaking, an important town, though it was small. During the first war which the Romans, allied with the Aetolians, carried on against Philip, the son of Demetrius, Opus was taken and laid waste by the Roman fleet and king Attalus.

PHOCIS.

Phocis in our maps embraces Delphi, but as far as we can trace history backwards, Delphi is separate from Phocis. I will not venture any conjectures as to whether the Delphians were a different people, but politically they did not belong to the Phocians. The history of Phocis begins at the time of the Persian wars; and thenceforth until the Peloponnesian war, the Phocians are constantly seen endeavouring to unite Delphi with their country, in which at times they succeeded; the Spartans, however, took it from them, and left Delphi in a state of independence. Afterwards the two states were again united, but our authorities on this subject are very scanty. Herodotus contains tolerably certain indications, that the Delphians formed an independent state by themselves; wherever Thucydides takes notice of the rest of Greece, his information is very trustworthy;[56] besides him we have only Xenophon and Diodorus Siculus; even these two do not enable us to fix the time of the union; but it is very probable that it did not take place before the Sacred war, for the chastisement was inflicted upon the Phocians alone, the Delphians being on the side of the allies. It is impossible to follow the traces any farther. Delphi stood to the Phocians in a relation similar to that in which Thebes stood to the Boeotians, Alba to the other Latin towns, and afterwards Rome to all the Latins, only with this difference, that in this division there existed not only no unity, but no connection at all. If there ever existed an alliance between Delphi and the Phocians, it certainly ceased at an early period, and was never permanently renewed.

It is possible that Delphi may have been a remnant of the ancient mysterious state of Cirrha, which was foreign to the Phocians. Many moderns relate a great many things about that state—the forms CIRRHA and CRISSA are only dialectic differences of the same name—as, for example, about its connection with Crete and the like. I confess that I know nothing of all this; the existence of the town alone is beyond doubt. Cirrha was a great commercial place on the Corinthian gulf, and against it a general religious war of the united Greeks was carried on in the early historical times, apparently about Olymp. 40 and 50. In that war the town was taken and destroyed. These events alone are historical, all the rest is mythical. The observation of these and similar circumstances is of importance, to prove how late our history of Greece commences. There is no necessity for pushing everything mysterious back beyond the commencement of the Olympiads, for even great events belonging to the period between that era and the Persian wars are buried in obscurity. We need not, therefore, push the great changes of early history back into remote antiquity as is commonly done; it is a mere delusion to believe that the space for changes in antiquity must be so very large. To mention an example, the time from the commencement of the Olympiads to the legislation of Solon is a period of 200 years, and the period from the Persian wars until the age of Pyrrhus is of the same length; and what immense changes did Greece experience during this latter period! An expedient equally illogical is the readiness with which certain critics distinguish, when they have to deal with different traditions about a person or a thing, and assume two persons or things of the same name. The late Professor Heyne, whose merits I readily acknowledge, was labouring under this delusion, for he invented, e.g., a double Minos, an idea which never occurred to any ancient writer. Minos is not an historical personage, the years of whose reign can be stated. Another bad expedient is to divide different accounts of the same subject, which do not agree with each other, so as to treat them as separate events. The Doric tradition and several ancient authors, and among them even Timaeus, stated that Lycurgus founded the Olympic games; now as Lycurgus, according to the calculation of generations, belongs to a period far beyond the time of the Olympiads, it was assumed that the Olympic games were instituted at two different times, first by Lycurgus, and when afterwards they fell into oblivion, they were restored by Coroebus. But Lycurgus is probably no historical person at all, as was believed even at the time after Alexander; it is impossible to assign him to any period: the intention was to fill up the period subsequent to the migration of the Heracleids, but in attempting this the ancients went too far back, by making three generations amount to a century; in order to remove the incorrectness, one account was then changed into two. Whoever tries to harmonise these statements falls into inextricable difficulties.

DELPHI, previously called Pytho (Πυθοῖ ἐν ἠγαθέῃ, as Homer has it), was situated at the foot of _biceps Parnassus_. This mount Parnassus extends from the mountains which separate Thessaly from Phocis (they are likewise called Parnassus, and reaching a considerable height, join Pindus on the one side and Oeta on the other), as far as the Gulf of Cirrha. Its highest peak is near Delphi; it then turns to the south-east, and becomes less and less wild where it passes into Helicon. The situation of Delphi cannot be mistaken, notwithstanding the scanty accounts we have of it: above it there rose a twofold rock, which during the greater part of the year was covered with snow; it rises in two peaks, between which there is a considerable chasm; towards the sea it turns in the form of a theatre, within which Delphi was situated. It was built high up on the slope of the mountain, like many towns of the ancient Latins, so that the upper streets were higher than the roofs of the houses below, and a man might from an upper street step upon the roof of a house below. Delphi was not fortified and had no walls, but it was nevertheless difficult of access, foot-paths only leading up, which it was easy to defend; no real acra is mentioned. About the size of the town nothing can be said; the ruins are too unimportant; it is scarcely possible to recognise the temple of Apollo, and I do not believe that the statements of travellers on this point are altogether trustworthy. Delphi was in all its relations a mysterious place; the question as to the nature of the προμαντεία, and a number of others cannot easily be answered. The well Castalia may still be recognised by its icy coldness. The chasms in the rock of which the ancients speak, and from which the intoxicating vapours rose, have never been discovered; it is possible, however, that by careful examinations they may yet be found, though it is not unlikely that they may have been closed by earthquakes, as they owed their origin to them. I readily believe that vapours may have risen from the earth, which produced a certain intoxication or inspiration; I also consider it possible that there may have been a time when the Pythia believed that she was inspired, and when even those consulting the oracle were convinced that they consulted the god himself; but subsequently, and during the greater part of the period of which we know anything, neither the people nor the priests believed in it, and the Pythia was a mere improvisatrice. Such things, however, rarely begin as impositions; and how it can have been that originally there was no imposition, no one is able to say on mere reflection.

Delphi was under the protection of the Amphictyons, who once in every year assembled there, and a second time at Thermopylae. It seems to have stood as directly under the protection of the senate of the Amphictyons, as Washington, in a very anomalous manner, stands under the municipal administration of the congress of the United States of North America.

I have here mentioned the Amphictyony, for the purpose of noticing some results at which I have arrived respecting its misunderstood constitution. In former times it was generally regarded as a federative government, and this opinion is still prevalent in France, where it is said, that the seven United States of Holland and the United States of North America are Amphictyonies; but an Amphictyony and a federative government are by no means identical, for a confederation forms a political whole with one head directing its foreign relations. An Amphictyony is indeed a union of nations, but of quite a peculiar kind, to which nothing corresponding is found either in the middle ages or in modern times. Under this name twelve nations were united, who sent deputies twice every year, in the spring to Delphi, and in the autumn to Thermopylae. These meetings were attended by deputies from every people, each of which had one vote.[57] But not only deputies went thither: the citizens of all the peoples also might appear if they chose, and they too formed an Ἀμφικτυονικόν; those who thus came of their own accord, voted in a body, each people having only one vote, so that all the Dorians, and all the Ionians respectively voted together. In all the transactions among Greeks a βουλή and an ἐκκλησία were necessary; the former consisted at these gatherings of the deputies, and the latter of the αὐταγγελτοί. This constitution points to something very different from what we know about the later condition of Greece: the division was made simply according to nations, and without any regard to political importance; all had the same right, nay tribes which were subject to the Thessalians voted on an equality with the Thessalians themselves. The connection with the temple of Delphi is undeniable; the nations were united together, all standing for one and one for all, for the purpose of protecting the integrity of the sanctuary; nearly all the most ancient instances of their activity have this for their object, as in the war of Cirrha and down to the one occurring in Olymp. 125, which is mentioned by Justin.[58] Another statement, which probably refers to very ancient times, seems surprising to us. There the legislations of the various states were confirmed, just as at Rome the auspices seemed to express the will of the gods; but the Delphic oracle appears, above all things, to have had the power of watching over the exercise of humanity in the wars among the Greeks. And this is the point where the character of the Greeks shows itself most nobly. The Amphictyons did not by any means prevent war, but they made laws regulating the manner in which it should be conducted; there were laws, which no one was allowed to violate in any war; and it is possible that the expression ὁ κοινὸς τῶν Ἑλλήνων νόμος refers to them. It was ordained, _e.g._, that the Greeks should not carry on among themselves any internecine war, that the inhabitants of a Greek town should not be sold as slaves, that fruit-trees should not be cut down,[59] and that the supply of water should not be cut off from any town. All these laws originated in the Delphic Amphictyony, and were maintained without being written. We must carefully bear in mind, that they could not possibly prevent every outrage; but their express object was that war should be carried in a humane manner. The fact that England insists upon abolishing the slave trade, leads to smuggling those unhappy creatures, who are, in consequence of this, treated with all imaginable cruelty. In like manner an interdict forbidding war in Greece would have been of no avail, and hence it was better to inflict heavy penalties upon acts of inhumanity. These rules were not indeed always observed, the nature of man does not admit of it; but even if they were violated as often as they were observed, we still must own that they were in the highest degree salutary.

The Phocians are unimportant in Greek history, and are mentioned only in connection with their misfortunes, first in the wars which they had to wage against the Thessalians,—for the Thessalians, after completing the conquest of Haemonia, also endeavoured to subdue Phocis, and its inhabitants had great difficulty in warding them off,—and afterwards in the Sacred War. The twenty-two Phocian towns, which were destroyed by Philip, were probably for the most part insignificant places. We are perfectly ignorant as to the relations subsisting among them, but they did not form a political community, with a common magistracy, a common commander in war, and the like; not a trace of such institutions is to be found. It is, in general, one of the most puzzling problems to state what were the bonds which kept an ἔθνος together: to acquire the name of an ἔθνος, no political band was needed; a co-operation for common objects is generally produced spontaneously through the power of circumstances. There are, however, traces to show, that in early times the Phocians formed a closer union among themselves. The case of their leaders in the Sacred War was of a different kind: they are generally called στρατηγοί, but sometimes also τύραννοι; Philomelus and Onomarchus were, in fact, not lawful magistrates; the circumstance that being elected in a lawful form, they were at the head of a numerous army of mercenaries, gave them a power which was limited by no laws, and was, therefore, formidable indeed.

The only important place in Phocis was ELATEA, which was either spared in an inconceivable manner by Philip, or was soon afterwards restored on account of its excellent situation, and attained a high degree of prosperity; for during the Macedonian period it is mentioned as a considerable place, notwithstanding the general decay of the Greek towns; and in the same light it appears in Livy’s account of the Roman wars. It was situated in the rich valley of the Cephisus, which widens towards Boeotia, and this may have contributed to its prosperity. The valley formed a pass; and an enemy even after forcing his way through Thermopylae had difficulties at Elatea, which was the key to Boeotia; hence when Philip occupied Elatea by a garrison, this act created at Athens the consternation which is so graphically described by Demosthenes.

ANTICYRA, also, had a kind of importance; and after the destruction of Cirrha, it was the real port of Phocis, whence a small trade was kept up with the gulf of Corinth. In the first war of the Romans against Philip, Anticyra was destroyed by the fleet which, under the command of Sulpicius, cruised along the coasts of Greece, and laid waste so many thinly-peopled places.

The well-known war called “The Sacred” has received that name quite improperly; it had been stirred up by the Thessalians and Boeotians to the misfortune of the Phocians, who were driven to despair and an infuriated defence, just like the Hussites in the 15th century; and the Phocians ravaged all the countries around, as the Hussites from Bohemia spread devastation far and wide in Bavaria, Franconia, and Saxony. They were completely outlawed, so that no quarter was given to any one; the dead were treated as accursed, and the wounded were run through with spears or nailed on crosses: the rage was quite savage and unpardonable. The Phocians were driven to such extremities, as to seize upon the sacred treasures of the Delphic temple, which enabled them to carry on the war for eight years, until Philip came forward as the champion of the Amphictyons, and, after the withdrawal of the Athenian troops from Thermopylae, advanced with irresistible force. The commanders of the Phocians were unskilful and faithless men, and the nation, losing courage, laid down its arms. Their fate was terrible, though it was called mercy: Philip granted to the troops a free departure; all the towns were destroyed, and their walls demolished; all arms and horses were taken; the inhabitants dispersed in villages, and, in a condition of servitude, placed under the supremacy of the temple of Delphi, which itself stood under the supremacy of Macedonia. They were obliged to pay an annual tribute to the temple, to refund the treasures; but they seem to have neglected this duty, or the money was pocketed by the Macedonians, for Brennus found no gold at Delphi, but only works in bronze. This is again a remarkable instance of the uncertainty of history, even at so late a period: some say that Brennus did not enter Delphi at all, while other historians state that he was at Delphi and plundered it, but that he found little to take. However, the Phocians showed great valour; they withdrew into the highest mountains, and thence made great havoc among the formidable host of Gauls, especially during their retreat. For this reason it was resolved to make amends for what had been done: they were again admitted into the Amphictyony, and allowed to restore their towns; but, like the Locrians, Chalcis, and Corinth, they remained under the supremacy of Macedonia, and when the Romans appeared, they did not belong to Greece, but were Macedonian subjects. Afterwards, they also shared the last two calamities of Greece: the flight of Critolaus from Thermopylae led the Romans through Phocis, and on that occasion the country was ravaged by the conquerors, and Elatea had to suffer severely; lastly, the campaign of Archelaus, who had his head-quarters at Chaeronea, also extended to Phocis, which for this reason was then completely devastated by Sulla.

DORIS.

Doris was that district where the highest parts of Parnassus extend towards Pindus. Its towns formed the Doric tetrapolis, or rather tripolis, for the names of only three places are certain, viz., BOION, CYTINION, and ERINEOS, and they are described by the Greeks themselves as very small places (πολίχνια). The general Greek tradition is, that the Dorians who conquered Peloponnesus came from these three towns; but this is impossible. It is true no traveller has yet visited that district, but we are able to determine at least its extent, which is not as large as that of the Swiss canton of Uri; and as the latter has about 12,000 inhabitants, we may be sure that Doris had not by far as many, for the country in those parts of Parnassus is extremely mountainous, and contains only few valleys that are inhabitable to Alpine shepherds. The Dorians must at one time have occupied a far more extensive country: the little district of Doris stands in the same relation to the former seats of the Dorians, as the present district of Angeln in the duchy of Schleswig stands to the extensive countries once occupied by the ancient Angli. We should be forming a very erroneous estimate, if we were to calculate the number of Angli who invaded Britain from the district at present bearing their name. After the emigration of the great body of the Dorians, the little country of Doris retained their name, while the earlier Doris may perhaps have embraced all Phocis and other neighbouring countries. According to the express testimony of Herodotus,[60] they had formerly dwelt on mount Pindus, and had migrated from north to south. The little tribe maintained itself in the impassable mountains, but we do not know how; it may have been by alliances. They boasted of their pure Doric origin, and regarded themselves as the μητρόπολις of the Peloponnesians, though the latter were mixed with the earlier inhabitants of the peninsula. The Peloponnesians, however, showed them the respect and attachment which everywhere in Greece colonists used to show to their mother country. The Dorians were often involved in wars with the Phocians, and even before the Peloponnesian war they had once been subdued by them, but a Spartan army quickly coming to their rescue, chastised the Phocians, and restored the Dorians to freedom.

It is quite uncertain what afterwards became of the little people. During the period when the administration of Greece was in the hands of the Romans, the Dorians are not mentioned at all; so that they must have been united either with the Phocians, or, which is not improbable, with the Aetolians. If that part of Greece should ever become accessible, much may be discovered that is of importance for ancient history and geography; with the exception of the coasts, scarcely anything is accurately known; the upper countries of Parnassus have scarcely been visited at all, and our maps are arbitrary. It will hardly be possible ever to ascertain the sites of the towns from the want of inscriptions. Beyond the mountains of Doris there is a grand Alpine country.

AETOLIA.

In the later history of Greece, the Aetolians are a people of the highest importance, and so they are in the earliest traditions, but during the best period of the Greeks, they sink completely into the background. Their peculiarity is very perplexing to the inquiring historian. We find them mentioned in the Homeric Catalogue, and in the legends of Calydon and Pleuron, and there can be no doubt as to their being a Greek people, for the Curetes as well as the Aetolians themselves are called Greeks. Thucydides too[61] considers them in this light, though only conditionally; he calls them Ἠπειρωτικὸν ἔθνος, and where he mentions their separate tribes, they appear as different from all the other Greeks; he speaks of their language being unintelligible (ἀγνωστότατοι γλῶσσαν), which is a strong expression with Athenians who, like all Greeks, were very tolerant in regard to dialects. The Laconian dialect was quite as different from the Attic, as the Swiss German is from the Low German, and the Athenians scarcely understood one third of it. The Aetolian dialect, accordingly, seems to have already become so barbarous, as to require great attention to guess the meaning when it was spoken. In these circumstances, therefore, the Aetolians appear as non-Greeks, and still more so in Polybius, who says that most of the Aetolians were barbarians. In one passage, Thucydides also classes them with the barbarians, when he states that they, like the Acarnanians, went about in time of peace armed with knives (σιδηροφορεῖν); he also asserts that they were ὠμόφαγοι. Such statements appear to us extremely strange, and seem to suggest a degree of barbarism similar to that of the Abyssinians; but a French traveller has given an excellent explanation of the matter. The inhabitants of those countries are to this day shepherds, for agriculture is scarcely possible there. They kill their cattle, and sometimes cook the meat, but they also smoke it for the purpose of keeping it, and such smoked meat they eat raw, which is not done in the other parts of Greece. Sometimes also they act like the savages in America: they cut the meat into very thin slices, dry it in the air, and then eat it.