Part 13

As far back as we can trace history, we always find the AETOLIANS and CURETES as two nations dwelling by the side of each other in the south of Aetolia: such is the case in the Iliad. Afterwards the Curetes disappear, and all the country is occupied by the Aetolians alone. But that country is only a very small portion of what is subsequently called Aetolia, for it embraced only the district of Pleuron and Calydon, about the Evenus. These two towns play as prominent a part in the legends as Mycenae and Tiryns, and Oeneus and Meleager are as familiar to you as Agamemnon and Menelaus. This was Aetolia proper, and a truly Hellenic country: from it proceeded the emigration of Oxylus, which must not be viewed as if Oxylus had served the Heracleids as a guide and joined them; but the Aetolian migration to which Elis owed its origin, was an occurrence quite distinct from the migration of the Dorians into the other parts of Peloponnesus. The Aetolians farther inland were subsequently joined by other Pelasgian tribes of Epirus. As early as the Peloponnesian war, Aetolia was a country of considerable extent, and Thucydides mentions the Bomians, Ophians (Ophionians), and Eurytanians, as its greatest tribes; but these names are uncertain, at least the first two. Within these limits the Aetolians were united during the Peloponnesian war. Their union may be conceived as a relation of isopolity, in which each nation formed an independent community, but on certain emergencies they united and acted as one state. They seem to have met in common sanctuaries, and to have mutually had the perfect right of isopolity, a connection which was however extremely loose, and did not oblige the several members to join one another in offensive operations. In the Peloponnesian war, the Aetolians resisted the Athenians; they were hostile to Naupactus and allied with Ampracia[62]; but beyond their own territory they were weak, and the expedition of the Athenians into Aetolia did the country much harm. The Aetolians showed themselves equally independent towards the Spartans, for when the latter, after the battle of Leuctra, wanted to interfere in their affairs, they were repulsed by the Aetolians. They did not, however, rise to any importance till after the death of Alexander. During the latter part of his life, they took Oeniadae, expelled its inhabitants, and colonised the place anew. Alexander, whose fate was that of all other conquerors, did not know in the end whither to turn; he conceived the unfortunate idea of interfering, from Babylon, in the affairs of Greece, and of coming forward as mediator. Whether it was that he actually wished to restore peace, or whether he had any other motives, in short he issued a proclamation ordering the Greeks to restore all φυγάδες in the widest sense of the term; and the order was even made retrospective, so as to embrace the φυγάδες who had been in exile for many years, and in many cases, as in that of Oeniadae, the φυγάδες consisted of the entire population of a town. This measure, perhaps adopted with a good intention, threw the firebrand of war into Greece. All were in consternation, because it was expected that the exiles would return with their old pretensions, and that the tranquillity which had only just been restored, would be disturbed again. The Athenians were exasperated because the amnesty was in favour of many who had been exiled as traitors and partisans of Macedonia, and whose banishment they had effected with great determination, and under circumstances which rendered the recall scarcely possible. The Aetolians were called upon to evacuate Oeniadae, and this led them to ally themselves with the Athenians in the Lamian war, and to display the greatest perseverance. When the allied army in Thessaly was broken and the Athenians were disabled, the Aetolians alone held out, resisting the great power of the Macedonians, a perseverance which ever after remained the great object of their national pride. All the Macedonian forces under Polysperchon and Antipater now turned against them: with moveable columns they entered the country, and carried on a very cruel war, devastating the country in the same fearful manner as the barbarians did in Peloponnesus, and as the French have frequently done in modern times: they advanced gradually chasing the whole population before them, and all who fell into their hands were either murdered or sold as slaves; all the cultivation of the country was destroyed, towns were reduced to ashes, and all trees rooted out. In this manner, they drove the inhabitants from one valley into another, and into the highest mountains, where they maintained themselves. But here they would have perished from cold, hunger and snow, had not a change of circumstances produced a diversion in their favour: the feuds among the Macedonian generals in Asia saved them. Antipater, who envied Perdiccas for his power, thought it advisable for the present to conclude a truce with the Aetolians, with the intention of completing the devastation of their country afterwards. But God disposed things differently. Amid the perplexities in Asia, Antipater forgot the Aetolians, and the war was not resumed. They now returned from their mountains, and this forms the commencement of a new era in their history.

Several of the nations of Greece had, even as early as that time, begun to feel an instinctive want of uniting with each other for the purpose of increasing their strength. Such had been the case in Arcadia and Thessaly (where Jason of Pherae fostered the feeling) before, and it was now awakened among several other nations. From this time forward two political terms acquired importance in history; the relations they designate were not indeed new, but their import in an extended sense was. At an earlier period, I mean at the time of the Peloponnesian war, this tendency to unite had shown itself at Olynthus on the coast of Thrace, where the Chalcidian and Bottian towns, which until then had stood isolated, united with that city which had become great; and thus they became καθάπερ δῆμος. This is the relation called by later writers ἰσοπολιτεία[63], which two towns established between each other, as was the case in Switzerland and in the league of the Swabian towns; in former times it had been called πολιτεία. A citizen of such a place was entitled to take up his abode in the other, without becoming a mere resident alien; the ancient Italian law was of the same kind. There can be no doubt that in earlier times the Aetolian tribes were united only by the relation of a common πολιτεία; but they did not form one state, the establishment of which, with one common strategus and one common council (ἀπόκλητοι), belongs to a much later period; it was probably not till after the war with Antipater that the Aetolian state was constituted; but we do not know much about its origin.

The relation of συμπολιτεία was different; it is very necessary to distinguish the two, and great attention is required not to confound them. Sympolity was the relation subsisting between Rome and its _municipia_, it was the connection of one place with another on a footing of inequality; the citizens of the subordinate state had not the same rights with those of the chief state, their advantage consisting in the close alliance with a powerful head, but they had no share in the election of magistrates (_civitas sine suffragio_), and the relation was altogether one-sided. Isopolite states, on the other hand, generally stood to each other in a relation of perfect equality, and were quite independent in their transactions with foreign countries; it is only in a very few instances that in later times we find them in a subordinate relation to a chief state. Sympolite states could not, on their own responsibility, enter into negociations with foreign countries, as had been the case of isopolite states only in earlier times. It may perhaps be assumed that all sympolite places were at one time in the relation of isopolity, and that their citizens were entitled to the general franchise in every one of the allied states. Isopolity, therefore, may have existed with several states, which among themselves had no isopolity, as, for example, the Hernicans were in a relation of isopolity with the Romans and also with the Samnites.

At that time the Aetolians increased their connections in both ways, and many distant towns joined them and became Aetolians. Of this we have evident proofs in inscriptions, in which the Aetolians grant to the inhabitants of such places letters of safety against robbery, as for example to the inhabitants of Crete, Carthaea in the island of Ceos, and others, ὡς ὄντων Αἰτωλῶν. Others, seeking the direct protection of the Aetolians, entered the relation of sympolity; but this must not be understood, as if they had taken upon themselves duties as subjects towards the Aetolians; the towns were too distant; but if they did, the great distance at least prevented the relation from becoming oppressive. In the case of isopolity a town could not claim to be protected by the more powerful one. Aetolia thus extended chiefly through the relation of sympolity, and Cephallenia, _e.g._, joined it. In the earlier times, and down to the sixth century of Rome, Olymp. 135, we can trace the extension only with difficulty; we cannot indeed doubt that the Aetolians extended beyond their own frontiers, but we are unable to say how or how far. The newly added part was called Αἰτωλία ἐπίκτητος, but it is wrongly marked in our maps, for the part beyond the Aetolian mountains, on the coast of Locris, belongs to ancient Aetolia.

The first accession gained by the Aetolians consisted in the alliance with Alexander of Epirus, the son of Pyrrhus (not to be confounded with Alexander the Molottian, the brother of Olympias), against the Acarnanians. On his unfortunate death, Pyrrhus had left to his son a still splendid empire. The two allies divided Acarnania between themselves, and from this time a large portion of that country belongs to Aetolia, especially Stratos, a very important town, the ruins of which still attest its former greatness. I cannot say, whether the acquisition of Naupactus and perhaps the whole country of the Ozolian Locrians belongs to this or to a later period; but Naupactus certainly was united with Aetolia, for about Olymp. 140, a strategus is mentioned who was a native of that town. During the decay of the Macedonian empire, that is, in the latter years of Antigonus Gonatas, the Aetolians greatly extended their empire; a part of Phocis appears to have been in their hands, and in alliance with the Achaeans they carried on a successful war against his son Demetrius, the father of the last Philip; they conquered Phthiotis and a part of Thessaly proper which then became united with them partly by isopolity, and partly by sympolity. The nations on this side of Thermopylae, the Trachinians and Aenianians, became so completely incorporated with them, that Heraclea even was one of their chief cities. At the same time they extended their power in Epirus, after the Epirots had murdered the last member of the royal family of the Aeacidae; they did not, however, confine themselves to that country, but also took possession of Cephallenia, Zacynthus and probably Ithaca also, nay, they even crossed over into Peloponnesus. Elis stood in the relation of isopolity, and several places in western Arcadia, as Phigalea, Heraea, Psophis and others, were connected with them by sympolity. Many towns also stood to them in the relation of isopolity, even the Athenians did so for a time. Aetolia reached the highest point of its power about Olymp. 140, where Polybius commences his history: that was the time of the outbreak of the social war, which the last Philip, in conjunction with the Achaeans, carried on against the Aetolians, who then lost their possessions in Thessaly and Phthiotis. But they were still very powerful, ruling over the country as far as the Spercheus, over the greater part of Acarnania, and Cephallenia, besides being on terms of isopolity with many places. Afterwards, in the second Philippic war, they lost still more, but we know nothing definite about it. In the third war of the Romans against Philip, which ended in the battle of Cynoscephalae, they again recovered many places, but the Romans, contrary to the compact entered into, deprived them of some which belonged to them. The claims they then made led to the war with Antiochus, in which they lost Cephallenia, Heraclea, and other places. They now lived in a state of nominal independence, for they did not, like the Achaeans, form a Roman province; but in point of fact they were dependent upon the Romans, though they did not lose their autonomy, that is their own political constitution and jurisdiction. Their frontiers were very much narrowed, though their territory was still greater than it had ever been during the best period of Greek history. Such is a brief sketch of the various vicissitudes of that remarkable people.

It is difficult to say how we should judge of the character of the Aetolians; it is not easy to arrive at a clear and precise result. But it is a point beyond all dispute that at the period during which we know them, they show a great resemblance in character to the Greek Clephths: they never were a regularly organised people with a civil constitution; their state was only of a military character, and their whole government was military; in the interior, there must necessarily have been great anarchy. Alexander is the only Aetolian whose name occurs in the whole range of Greek literature, and he lived at Alexandria; but he deserves no more to be despised than Callimachus. It is a well-founded charge that the Aetolians were faithless, so that treaties concluded with them were not safe,—hence the disgraceful attack upon the Pamboeotians,—that they disregarded the public law established among the Greeks, which ordained that in the midst of war a truce should be observed during the celebration of the national games. In war they indulged in devastation and robbery, the latter always being the principal motive of their undertakings. It must also be said, to their disgrace, that in regular and open battles they were good for nothing. Their cavalry was excellent, which, considering the nature of their country, is rather surprising; but they never formed a regular phalanx, and their peltasts were no better than the most ordinary ones; if these latter had been well trained, they might have become very efficient, but they never went beyond the first steps of military training.

In geography we treat of Aetolia within its ancient boundaries, and without regard to its later acquisitions. Aetolia has the largest river in Greece within Mount Oeta and Thermopylae: I allude to the ACHELOUS, which for Greece is a very considerable river, though in other countries it would not be so. Its sources are in Mount Pindus, and it is properly a χειμάῤῥους, for although it has always water, yet in winter, during the rainy season, and in spring, after the melting of the snow in the mountains, it is much larger. During these latter seasons of πλήμμυρα it is a mighty river, whereas in summer it may be forded in several places without danger. Where it comes forth from the Dolopian mountains, its bed is very broad and covered with gravel, over which it flows in many arms; at Stratos it is divided, at the season of high water, into seven arms, and in summer perhaps into three or four, which flow between high islands. Its modern name is Aspropotamo, the white river, perhaps from the white mud which during the rainy season it carries with it, and not from its clear water as is commonly supposed. In summer its water is clear, but in spring it is θολερός or muddy, whence it formed a Delta which was constantly increasing. The ECHINADES were islands at the mouth of the river, but owing to the continual deposits they are now parts of the main land; in like manner Ravenna, in the time of the Roman emperors, was surrounded by the sea, whereas at present it is a few miles distant from it. Such alluvial land as that formed by the Achelous is in modern Greek called βάλτος. A little to the side of the mouth of the river, we have the town of Oeniadae, whose position was as strong as that of Missolunghi, which is situated in the same lagoons, but somewhat more towards the cape and the river Evenus.

In the ancient Greek legends, the Achelous is celebrated on account of the contest with Heracles, in which the river-god metamorphosed himself into a bull, and Heracles broke one of his horns. Some very silly allegorical explanations of this mythus have been proposed.

EVENUS, the second river of Aetolia, is much smaller, and flows from the north; it discharges its waters at the point where the Achelous formed its deposits. It is in itself not of much consequence, but the country about its mouth, that is, the district of CALYDON and PLEURON, is the ancient and original Aetolia, which is called Aeolis by Thucydides, and perhaps also by Herodotus. This certainly is an ancient and remarkable name, though for our history it is a matter of indifference. Calydon and Pleuron are among the most ancient towns in Greek history, but in later times they were decayed and insignificant, and in the days of Strabo they were completely destroyed. Modern travellers assure us that they have discovered the Cyclopian walls of both towns, but I cannot say whether they are right: their site is indicated with tolerable precision by the ancients; it was not very far inland.

Respecting DULICHION, which occurs in the Odyssey, nothing can be ascertained. The opinion of modern geographers, that it was an ancient Delta, and afterwards disappeared in consequence of further deposits, is erroneous. The modern Greeks are probably no less mistaken in their belief that it was swallowed up by the earth; the sand-banks are in a different place. It is possible that Dulichion may have been the coast of Acarnania, which the Homeric poet, who was not altogether well informed about the western countries, erroneously called an island.

THERMON, the later capital of the Aetolians in Polybius, was situated in the interior. The building of this place pre-supposes that Aetolia at the time was a more extensive country, so that the more ancient towns were situated too near the frontier. Its site cannot be mistaken. No traveller has yet visited it, and I do not believe that any considerable ruins are to be found unless excavations be made; inscriptions do not exist there any more than in Epirus. It was about three miles distant from the great lake, which is situated in the centre of Aetolia in a hollow surrounded by mountains, and separates the waters of the Achelous and Evenus. This lake, which is upwards of twenty-five English miles in length and tolerably broad, now consists of several smaller lakes, which are connected by marshes. Polybius calls it TRICHONIS, and it forms the receptacle for the waters which flow from the neighbouring mountains and are not carried off by the Evenus. Thermon was not fortified, but was an open place like Sparta; Philip, the son of Demetrius, ravaged it twice, without the Aetolians attempting to defend it. It was there that the Aetolian people assembled and held their general diets: the hot springs were another and still more direct temptation to build the place. Aetolia is, in general, rich in hot sulphureous springs, and I here remind you of what I said on a former occasion respecting the volcanic veins which extend from the Corinthian gulf to Epirus, and especially to Thesprotia. The account of Polybius does not enable us to say whether it was a large city, but I am inclined to believe that it was not very important as a town. It contained a temple of Apollo, government-buildings, and extensive halls, probably adorned with works of art and other costly decorations, being destined as places of meeting for the Παναιτώλιον. These public buildings were set on fire by Philip. After this first conflagration, they were restored by the inhabitants, but ten or twelve years later they were destroyed a second time, and afterwards the place is no longer mentioned.

The walls of the other towns noticed by Polybius still show that they must have been very strong places; they were of considerable extent, but as there are no inscriptions, it is very difficult to determine their names, and it cannot be done without acting in an arbitrary manner.

According to Polybius, the Aetolians were joined by nations which Thucydides still distinguishes from them; some of them are pure Epirot tribes, such as the Amphilochians and Agraeans. I shall speak of them afterwards when I come to Epirus, to which they belong, both ethnographically and geographically. They were probably the first that joined the Aetolians, although in the time of Pyrrhus they still belonged to Epirus, to which they had been ceded by Macedonia.

ACARNANIA.

Acarnania is the country on the western bank of the Achelous. The earliest notices of the Acarnanians in Thucydides down to those of the latest times, exhibit them in constant collision with the more powerful Aetolians, who endeavoured to unite them with themselves, and, as they resisted, tried to destroy them. They are not mentioned in the Homeric Catalogue; they regarded themselves as the youngest among the Greek peoples, and set it forth as a merit of their own, that they had taken no part in the expedition against the Trojans, the ancestors of the Romans. But we must not infer too much from this: it is certain that at the time when the Catalogue was composed, the interior, or principal part, of the country was inhabited by Epirots, that is, Pelasgians, while the coast was, in my opinion, occupied by Greeks. The people over whom Odysseus ruled were certainly not confined to the little island of Ithaca; they extended far and wide, and their common name was Cephallenians, which also embraced those who lived on the ἤπειρος, that is, in Acarnania, on the coast near the Echinades, in Leucas, and in the Echinades themselves. In the ante-historic times they are mentioned under the name of the Taphians, who afterwards disappear, but seem to have equalled the Minyans in greatness and power. Whether, on the destruction of the empire of Odysseus, the Cephallenians and Arcananians separated, whether they gained strength to extend their dominion towards the interior, or whether a Hellenic immigration peopled the country, are questions on which we cannot decide. The last, however, is the most probable, and is supported by the mythus about Alcmaeon, who is said to have gone to the Echinades; but, however this may be, in the earliest times they are not mentioned under the name Acarnanians. Herodotus speaks of Acarnanians (Ἀκαρνὴν ἀνήρ) even before the time of the Persian wars, in which they took no more part than the Aetolians: their distance seems to have separated them from the rest of the Greeks, so as to prevent their having any share in their doings. Afterwards, in the Peloponnesian war, they sided with the Ionians against the Dorians, being the allies of the Athenians from hatred of the Corinthians, who had established themselves on the coast of Acarnania, had there founded the colonies of Leucas, Anactorion, Alyzia, and the powerful town of Ambracia on the opposite coast, and were severely oppressive to the Acarnanians. This induced the latter to seek the assistance of the Athenians, which was effective, also, against the Aetolians, and brought on the war against them. The Aetolians themselves thereby became connected with the Ambraciots and the Dorians.