Part 18

Rhodes had three towns which formed the three tribes in the island; this is expressed in a passage of the Catalogue: τριχθὰ δὲ ᾤκηθεν καταφυλαδόν; these towns were LINDOS, IALYSOS, and CAMIROS. The soil of the island is excellent, and the country being equally adapted for agriculture and navigation, we find both from early times. Hence its power had a much more secure basis than, e.g., that of the Aeginetans, who had no agriculture at all, for agriculture is the only foundation of permanent happiness. Until the time of the Peloponnesian war those three towns remained in the same condition; they formed together one state, which, however, was without a common centre. During the war, the Rhodians distinguished themselves by their prudence, remaining faithful to Athens, and not allowing themselves, like the Naxians and others, to be drawn into unfortunate insurrections; but when Athens abused her power and the Lacedaemonians were gaining the upper hand, the Rhodians, accommodating themselves to the change of circumstances, joined the latter, and that the more readily because they were Dorians. Henceforth a consciousness was awakened in them, that they might raise themselves to a higher position, and they determined to remove from their small towns into one great city. They accordingly founded the city of RHODES on the splendid harbour which the first settlers had overlooked. This place now became the centre of the country, and the other towns καθάπερ δῆμοι, but were not destroyed, and even at this day we hear of villages called Lindo and Camiro. The earliest inhabitants were undoubtedly Carians, who, on receiving a Dorian aristocracy, became at first serfs, but afterwards rose to the rank of free communities; the productive commerce rendered it impossible for the aristocracy to maintain itself for any great length of time. There then followed a period of internal discord, of which only obscure accounts have come down to us. After the war, which was occasioned by the expedition of Cyrus the younger, and in which they joined the Lacedaemonians, they fell, in consequence of their internal divisions, into the hands of the Carian dynasty of Mausolus. The younger Artemisia, the wife of Mausolus, who resided at Halicarnassus, was enabled, by the factions in the island, to take possession of it. One of the first youthful productions of Demosthenes refers to this event. In this manner, Rhodes was for a time connected, through Halicarnassus, with the Persian empire; according to the peace of Antalcidas, this ought not to have been, but that peace was observed only where it was advantageous to the Persians. Before Rhodes came under the rule of Artemisia, it had, in conjunction with Chios and Byzantium, taken part in the Social war against Athens, from which we see that the Rhodians were anxious to throw off the dominion of the Athenians and to establish a maritime power of their own. There now rose among them the family of Mentor and Memnon, which acquired unprecedented influence at the court of Persia; they governed Rhodes nominally as satraps, but in point of fact, as sovereigns, as in the fifteenth century the Medici governed Florence. But they fell with the Persian empire. Both were Greeks, but barbarised in their sentiments and possessing all the passions of barbarians; they had, however, the advantage of Greek intelligence and culture. Memnon, especially, was a distinguished man, and his death alone rendered the success of Alexander’s undertaking possible, and but for this event, it would appear in history as foolhardiness: that which now appears as great and is considered as great, would be looked upon as foolish; Memnon would have cut off Alexander’s return from Persia, and his fate would have been like that of Charles XII. in the Ukraine; nay Memnon would have attacked him in Macedonia and overthrown his power in Greece. I will not decide as to whether this would have been better for the Greeks. After Memnon’s death, Rhodes also submitted to the Macedonians, and it would seem that a republican party there was anxious to bring about this connection with Macedonia. Rhodes now openly showed itself to be what it really was, viz., the connecting link between Europe and Asia, for Tyre was destroyed and Alexandria had not yet risen to greatness. The commerce between the two continents was thus established at Rhodes, which became great soon after Alexander’s death, twenty-eight years after that of Memnon (Olymp. 119). Its siege by Demetrius Poliorcetes is the grandest thing in ancient history: it is as bold as it is distressing and elevating. The inhabitants of a single little island, or rather a small city, had the courage not to allow themselves to be intimidated by the ruler of Asia Minor and Syria, who poured his fleets and his armies upon them, and what is still more, employed against them all the strength of his talent; they resisted him so boldly and so gloriously, that he was obliged to grant them an honourable peace. Rhodes, however, suffered severely on that occasion, and the whole island was fearfully ravaged; but it soon recovered; and, owing to the great confidence which it inspired, and to the obligation which the Egyptian king Ptolemy incurred towards it, the island rose so much in the esteem and respect of all, that, comparatively speaking, it stood as high as Athens did after the Persian wars. From this time, Rhodes, notwithstanding the general confusion, became powerful and respected, not through good fortune, but through the industry and exertions of its inhabitants. It was they who destroyed the Etruscan pirates, and their squadrons sailed as far as the Aegean, securing the freedom of navigation for the good of all Greece. As commerce increased more and more at Alexandria, and as Egypt was not a country fit for shipbuilding, the Rhodians became the freighters for the greater part of the ancient world. Such nations are universal benefactors, and all are concerned in the preservation of their navigation. This accounts for the fact, that at the time when Rhodes suffered from inundations and earthquakes, nations and princes vied with one another in helping and benefitting them. For the good luck which favoured Rhodes did not remain unmixed, for it had to sustain many serious calamities. The city was built in the form of a theatre, but in such a manner that towards the harbour it was protected by a lofty and strong wall. Once during the Macedonian period, when a heavy fall of rain had inundated nearly the whole city, the swollen streams poured down upon it, without finding an outlet into the sea, until in the end they fortunately threw down the mighty wall, and thus ran off. This is one of the most fearful events in Greek history, and was the consequence of an earthquake. The earthquakes by which Rhodes has been visited have been terrible. About the end of Olymp. 138, or at the beginning of Olymp. 139, in the reign of Euergetes, it was almost wholly destroyed by an earthquake, during which the Colossus was overthrown, which was never set up again. In the time of Antoninus Pius, the city was visited by the earthquake, which reduced nearly all the towns on the Asiatic coast to heaps of ruins, and in which Rhodes lost its last splendour, its whole fleet, its arsenals, its trophies and monuments: on that occasion it was thoroughly destroyed. It was then, of course, not restored to what it had been; its navigation henceforth was insignificant, and agriculture formed the principal occupation of its inhabitants.

Rhodes preserved not only its political independence, but also its great importance throughout the Macedonian period. At the time when all the other Greek states were quite servile, and got on only by manoeuvring, the Rhodians stood forth as a princely people, whose friendship was courted by kings, and whose enmity was dreaded. While their state was in this illustrious position, they formed connections with the Romans; they seem to have entered into friendly relations with them as early as the fifth century, not long after Alexander’s death, probably on the occasion of their proceedings against the Etruscan pirates, because both nations aimed at the same objects, but the Rhodians—and this is a proof of their great prudence—never concluded a formal treaty with the Romans; their fleet co-operated with that of Rome, but they undertook no obligations. Their assistance in the war against Antiochus was liberally rewarded by the Romans who gave them Caria and Lycia. But the Romans afterwards harboured ill-feelings towards them, because in their relations with Rome they shewed a spirit of independence and no servility; hence in the war against Perseus the Romans tried to interpret every step taken by them as hostile towards themselves. The Rhodians, it is true, did not wish for the downfall of Perseus, they no doubt wanted to have an equipoise in those parts against the Romans, and some men of influence may have secretly espoused the cause of Perseus; the Romans, moreover, had even before that time taken back a part of the presents they had made to them; they had hurt their feelings and so much offended them, that the Rhodians believed the Romans to be hostile towards them; but they never really did anything that could be laid to their charge. After the fall of Perseus, many Romans were impatient to destroy Rhodes; but Cato, though otherwise not favourably disposed towards the Greeks, was actuated by such respect for their conduct, that he exerted his whole influence with the senate to save them. They retained their independence, but became allies of Rome and lost their subjects; still, however, they shewed prudence, they were free, and had no Roman commander over them. Eighty years later, the Mithridatic war afforded the Romans an opportunity of congratulating themselves for having followed the advice of Cato; for the Rhodians held out faithfully and heroically against Mithridates, and did not allow themselves to be prevailed upon by the Thessalians to enter into an alliance with the king. For this the Romans again rewarded them with territories. After the murder of Caesar, Cassius who was unworthy to be the associate of Brutus, took possession of the town of Rhodes, and treated it very harshly and cruelly. The Rhodians, however, continued to enjoy their freedom and the esteem of the nations until the time of Antoninus Pius. At this period we find, from a speech of Aelius Aristides, that they possessed autonomy, and criminal jurisdiction, and the neighbouring islands as well as the Caunians on the continent recognised as subjects their supremacy. Aristides, in order to cheer them after the terrible earthquake, reminds them of the beautiful story of a Rhodian sailor whose ship perished in a storm, but who clung to the helm to the last, and sunk with the words: “I call upon thee, Poseidon, as my witness, that the ship went down standing upright.”

The arts and literature also were cherished at Rhodes, though in the earlier times there are not many Rhodian names that can be called great. Cleobulus of Lindos is mentioned as one of the seven sages. But Apollonius is a poet who certainly ought not to be despised; we read his work with pleasure and can learn much from it, though he cannot be compared with Callimachus who lived before him. The wealth of the Rhodians and their taste for the beautiful and magnificent gave great encouragement to the arts. When oratory had died away at Athens, and all vital energy had withdrawn from that city, it took refuge in Rhodes; it had indeed already assumed the character of old age, but still at a time when in Greece proper no good speech was heard, when in the towns of Mysia and Caria literature had degenerated into mere bombast, a _sanum loquendi genus_ was preserved in Rhodes, which is no small praise, though the _sanum_ was sometimes a _siccum_.

The constitution of Rhodes is difficult to make out. The part of Cicero’s work, “De Re Publica,” where he spoke of it, is wanting, so that we can form only conjectures; but it would lead me too far to explain them here. Certain it is, that Rhodes, by the peculiarity of its institutions, was so far democratic, that all its citizens took an active part in the administration, and a large number of them in the council. The manner in which this was done is the obscure point. The magistrates, as Polybius says, had very great powers, both the _strategi_ and the _nauarchi_. There existed an _arcanum imperii_, of which the Athenian constitution knows nothing, and to which the Roman state alone presents something analogous: in certain circumstances the nauarchus had the power to conclude treaties, which, however, it would seem were valid only during his term of office, the state not being bound by them for the future. This arose from the fact of the Rhodian fleet being generally very far away from home. Owing to this peculiarity of the constitution, things required by the force of circumstances might be done even contrary to the letter of the law. The republic contrived to make excellent use of this expedient, whenever it wished to enter into a relation without making it permanent. The nauarchus was a kind of plenipotentiary representative of Rhodes with foreign nations.

The language of the Rhodians was Doric. Cicero went to Rhodes to cultivate his intellect, and under the first Roman emperors the young Roman nobles very frequently resorted to Rhodes as they had formerly done to Athens.

According to the Homeric Catalogue the Rhodians dwelt τριχθὰ καταφυλαδόν. When at a later time the phylae appear in the city, they occupy different districts. The Dorians, to whom the division into three was natural, were also in possession of the opposite mainland. This division was the reason why they did not attach to themselves places which were situated at some distance, such as Phaselis. Halicarnassus, Cos, and Cnidos formed the second Dorian triad by the side of the Rhodian.

Among these three places, HALICARNASSUS is particularly interesting to us as the birth-place of Herodotus. It is strange, however, that he wrote his work in the Ionic dialect, and that, too, in such perfection. Although Halicarnassus was excluded by the Dorians, it lost nothing of its prosperity, nor of its peculiarly Greek character. It was deprived of its freedom like the other Greek towns on the coast of Asia Minor, but it is doubtful whether after the expedition of Xerxes it recovered it, or whether it remained in perpetual dependence upon Persia. Certain it is, that it was the seat of the Carian dynasty, which established itself there, and attached itself to Persia: it was the residence of Mausolus, and afterwards of his widow Artemisia, who there built the famous mausoleum to him. But this Carian family did not introduce barbarous customs at Halicarnassus; for its members spoke Greek, received a Greek education, and had a taste for the beauties of Greek art. But the misfortune was, that through its splendour the city became too large and too influential; it was strongly fortified, thoroughly devoted to the interests of Persia, and one of the chief stations of the Persian forces; for which reason it offered an obstinate defence during the siege of Alexander, who ravaged it in such a manner that it never recovered from the blow, but ever after remained an insignificant place. This defence of Halicarnassus was very brilliant, for there still existed men inspired with a love of freedom, and actively opposed to the dominion of Macedonia. Ephialtes, the friend of Demosthenes, who everywhere tried to thwart Alexander, there fought against him and was killed.

CNIDOS was situated on a peninsula which was wholly occupied by the town; the Cnidians once strangely wished to cut through the isthmus which connected it with the main land. The Aphrodite of Praxiteles shed a peculiar lustre over the place, and attracted many strangers, but was afterwards carried away by the Romans.

COS is the third Dorian place in Asia Minor; it was at once a town and an island, and possessed a considerable navy down to the time of the Romans, though it was not to be compared with that of the Rhodians. In the earlier times it was allied with Rhodes, and remained for a long time in a state of independence. It contained a celebrated temple of Asclepius and the family of the Asclepiadae, who regarded Asclepius as their ancestor.

Rhodes and the opposite continent accordingly had together six Dorian towns, as there were six feudal principalities in Peloponnesus. Let us now pass on from Doris to

IONIA.

According to the universal tradition of the Greeks, Ionia was a δωδεκάπολις, established by Neleus and Androclus, the sons of Codrus, who, after their father’s death, when the royal dignity ceased, emigrated from Athens to Asia Minor. These Ionians, on their arrival, found the coast occupied partly by Carians and partly by Meonians, while Chios and Samos were inhabited by Pelasgians. We must not conceive these colonies as purely Greek in their origin in the same manner as the inhabitants of the states of North America are purely English and German. Herodotus himself says, that four dialects were spoken among the Ionians, and, what is very important, that the Ionians did not go across with their wives and children, but as soldiers; that they conquered the country, and married the captive women, as the Spaniards did in what were afterwards the Spanish colonies of America. But as the Greeks, Carians, and Meonians, although differing from one another, still belonged to the same race, their mixture was no longer discernible in the features and forms of the body of their descendants, and thus the New-Ionians could not be distinguished from the ancient and original ones. The ancient population had not withdrawn as in the states of North America, but remained in the country as subjects. Such was the case especially in Chios: there is an ancient story according to which slavery took its origin in that island; and this is quite natural, for the old Ionians established themselves there, and the ancient inhabitants not being able to get out of the island, were reduced by the new settlers to a state of servitude; and for this reason a completely aristocratic constitution was developed: the towns were the rulers, and the rural population were their subjects. The same may be supposed to have been the case in other islands as well as on the continent. But whether on this account servitude was more ancient there, than, for example, the _penestia_ in Thessaly, cannot be decided.

The division into twelve states here likewise suggests the existence of some regulating power, which, however, cannot be historically demonstrated, and in regard to which we must be on our guard against mere fancies. We know from Herodotus, that in the earliest times the Ionians had kings. The country appears to us remarkable for its misfortunes at an earlier period than any other Greek state, if we except Messene; and this misfortune arose from the extension of the Lydians, a conquering nation from the interior of Asia Minor. This people, conjointly with the Mysians and Carians, expelled the Meonians, for this must be understood when we read that the dynasty of the Mermnadae (that of Gyges) supplanted that of the Heracleidae (that of Candaules). When these Lydians immigrated with the fresh power of conquerors, they subdued the Ionian cities; first (Olymp. 25) Colophon, which, according to unequivocal indications, was at that time the capital of Ionia. In regard to the greatness of Colophon, the Greek authors, whose works have come down to us, contain only vague traditions; but allusion to it is made in the newly discovered fragments from the beginning of the Margites and in the Paroemiographi (Κολοφῶνα ἐπιθεῖναι); the city is said to have been so powerful, that upon its decision everything depended. It was not indeed destroyed by the Lydians, but reduced to a place of no importance. One of the obscure statements is, that about the beginning of the Olympiads, Colophon carried on an obstinate war against Erythrae.

Ionia does not form a compact country, it is only a strip of land, and whatever, therefore, is to be said about its chorography, refers also to the neighbouring countries, especially Lydia.

The MAEANDER discharges itself into the sea in the south, near Miletus; it is a very muddy river like all others in Ionia, and hence it alone has filled up the whole bay of Miletus, which was several miles in breadth, but the cleaning out of which has been neglected for thousands of years. Accordingly the island of Lade, which Herodotus mentions there, is now only a hill rising in the midst of marshy meadows. Such is the nature of all the rivers of that coast, and the most beautiful countries have thereby been changed into pestilential swamps. In the north, a range of mountains, extending from mount Taurus to the coast opposite to Chios, forms the peninsula on which the towns of Clazomenae and Erythrae are situated. Chios itself is a continuation of those mountains, separated from the rest by the sea. What Herodotus says of the nature of Ionia, holds good also of the greater part of Aeolis: it is the pearl of creation. The present marshes, which have been formed by the deposits of the rivers in consequence of the neglect of barbarous ages, form the only exceptions. Nowhere in all the world is the splendour of a southern climate more thoroughly felt than there; nowhere are the seasons so healthy, and yet the country suffers neither from excessive heat nor drought; and nowhere are fruits, such as grapes, figs, and pomegranates, produced in such perfection. The Scirocco is unknown there (though it exists in Rhodes), but the mildest west winds prevail, and the south winds are not in the least injurious, while at Rome they are very much so. Hence we cannot wonder, that, during the period of the weakness of the states in western Asia, Ionia attained to such prosperity and greatness.