A SURVEY

GREEK C V L ZAT I O

j . P. MA HA FFY,D .D .

,D .C.L. (Oxom

FELLOW OF TR I N I TY COLLEG E , DUBLlN ; HON . FELLOW O I"

QUEEN '

S COLLEGE,OXFORD ; PROFESSOR OP A NC lENT H I STORY m T H E U N I VERS I TY OF

DUBL I N . A UTHOR OF‘soaL L I FE I N um —zsc z ,

‘

PROLEGOMENA

TO A NC I ENT H leRv,

’ ‘c ks z x L I FE A ND THOUGHT ,

‘H I ST ORV OF GRE EK L I T ERA T U RE , T H E GREEK

wORLO UNDER ROMA N swm r,’

ET C .

3Lonhon

MA CMI L LA N A ND CO .,L IMI T ED

1 8 9 7

A 11 r ig/1 3 5 rescr f 'az’

PREFACE .

T H ER E is, I th ink, astrong tendency in thepresen tday to pursuethethreads of knowledgeseparately . I t is

on thewholeawholesometenden cy , though it sacrificesbreadth and variety ofacqu isition to thoroughness ineach department . A herd of special ists is ris ing up ,each master of h is own subject , but absolutely ign orantand careless of all that is go ing on around h im in

k indred stud ies . T heman who has turned h is m ind tovarious pursu its , and hasendeavoured toembracein h isview many fields of research , is even looked upon w ithsus

’

picion , ,

instead of respect , and presumed to beinaccuratein each of thepart icular fields wh ich occupyso many Spec ial. studentsexclusively .

I fear that th is separat ion is being carried out beyondits legit imateor useful degreeeven in theseparationof secular. and rel igious subjects , of in tellectual andmoral stud ies . To takethemost s ignalexamp le: I ntheR oman Cathol ic Church it is an avowed princ iplethat theology is theon ly necessary sc iencefor theeducation o i apriest

,that th is theology , far from beingeu

l ightened , is l ikely to beendangered by secular knowledge. On theother hand

, thesc ien tist generally standsaloof from theology , and too often expresses h is con

tempt for it as anon -progress ivescien ce, o r if hebeofabetter moral fibre

, and acknowledges theweight andimportanceof rel igion , heis ready to accept , as amerelayman , what h is pastor or other clerical adviser mayteach .

T heresult isaloss ofbreadth on thetheological s ide,i i i

aloss of seriousness ( in themoral sense) on thescient ific s ide. I n both thereis theincreasing tenden cyto thrust as i deor forget thegreat un ifying principleofall ou r l ifeand knowledge— that all ou r thought ,allou r scien ce, all ou r h istory , all ou r speculation ofeverykind

,nay,even all thevast complex of worlds in wh ich

m yriads of other beings may beprosecut ing s im i lar inqu i r ies— thesearethep roduct or theoutcomeof thedesign of oneA lm ighty God , who has created theworldaccording to h is infin itew isdom , and rules i taccord ingto h is infin itegoodness . A recogn i tion of th is great facton ou r part is theproper l ink or common ground ofallthevariousand ’minutespecial researches wemay makein to thelaws of‘ theun iverse, or theh istory ofany part ofit . Nay, more, i t is theproper defence, theon ly defencewecan make

,ifwearechecked by thewarn ing that in ‘

thefew years vouchsafed to us on th isearth wehavenor ight to spend onemomen t of our precious t imeuponth ings of no eternal import ; that thestudy of rel igionand our futurecondition under theprovidenceof Godis ou r on ly proper employmen t . Wecan reply inthemost thorough earnest that theexclus ivestudy of

what wehaveseparated and cal led moral or rel igiousscienceis n ot thebest way to promotethat very science.T hemost remarkableillustrationsf themost powerfulv ind icat ions of God ’s providen ce

,arefound in prob ing

thesecrets of thelaws of nature,thevarieties in the

courseof human h istory . Herewemay seework ing inpracticewhat welearn from our theology in theory , andif in our feebleness and bl indness weareunabletoaccommodateall thephenomenaof scienceor ofh istoryto theselaws , surely theworst way ou t of thedifficultyis to ignoreit, to shut ou r eyes to thefacts , instead of

using them to correct or en largeou r theory .

Preface. v

I t is for thesereasons that what may becalled theChautauquaideaof start ing from theknowledgeandloveofGodasagreat first princ iple,and passing from itin to thebroadest and most various survey of humanknowledgeas such , is not on ly theh ighest , but theon lytruemethod of general education . But it is part andparcel of th is method that thestuden t need no t perpetually berem inded of it . Hemust haveh is hours of

specialand absorbing study when heisengrossed in thespecial branch hehas in hand , and when heneednot , and cannot , beconstantly dwel l ing upon thegreatideawh ich underl iesall h is l ifeand work . Justasad iligen t man of business , whosefaithand trust in Godarestrong and clear, must nevertheless plungein to dailyaffairsand do worldly work wh ichabsorbs h im fo r hoursin theday, wh ilethethought of God ret ires in tothedepths of h is soul — thes ilen t influencewh ich ,w ithout being constan tly recalled in to consc iousness ,nevertheless orders h is thoughts and protects h im fromtemptations to fraud o r selfishness — so thestuden tof this h istory orany other branch of knowledgeoughtto pursueit w ithall h is heart and search i t outas such ,secureifhereverts to thefi rst bas is ofall knowledgeandconcludes that all thephenomenahehas exam ined areinstan ces of lawsestabl ished by thegreat Creator of theworld . For theGod revealed to us is no orien taldespot , who is con ten t to seeh is slaves perpetuallyoccup ied in watch ing and praising their master , thusneglect ing all other duties . Hehas rather set themto gain moreknowledgew ith thetalen ts in trusted tothem , to push their way in to thesecrets of h is w isdomwithall thed il igen ce, all theaccuracy , all thedevotionto th is work of wh ich theyarecapable; and if such aservan t

,in ten t upon h is lawful work , fails to look upand

seethat theMaster is presen t , may n ot such afault bepardoned by h im who has ordained that labour is honourableand zealamoral duty ? Whatsoever th inehandfindeth t o do ,

do i t withall thy m ight . ”

Thesecon s iderations j ustify avery common feel ingamong l iterary men , who do n ot regard thequestion beforeus so seriously . Even in works of fiction ,

they say ,

i t is adefect and an injury to thein ten tions of theteacher ifh is moral bedrawn too plain ly ; ifhen ot on lyshows h is charactersand theiradven tures to thereader ,butalso tel ls h im what lesson s that reader isexpected todraw from thenarrative. T hegreatest moral teacherseven in fiction arethosewho g iveus thetruestand moststriking p ictures of human l ifeand haveleft all moralinferences to work their own way w ith thereader . Suchis thesubtlebut powerful teach ing in ZEschylus, Shakespeare, S cott , in fiction ,

and in trueh istory thereisno mores ignal examplethan theGospel narratives of

ou r Lord ’ s pass ion,wherenotasinglereflection or ad

v icefrom thewriter mars thedign ityand thepathos ofthenarrat ive.T hesamegreat prin ciplemay beappl ied in smal lerand less importan t work . I t is on thewholebetter formeto drawap ictureofGreek c iv il i zation as it was, andas it asp ired to be

,w i thout laying ' stress

,during ou r

progress,on thecon trasts of thecultureof in tellect w ith

ou t moral forces to balan ceit , to that wh ich has receivedthepowerful support ofChristian ity. I t is n oteasyevento guess what changes th is great moral forcewould havemadein Greek culturehad it been appl ied during i tsmost brill ian t days . Christ ian ity has h itherto beenpowerless toaffect somebril l ian t societies

,though it has

worked agreat reformat ion in theworld . T heI tal ianstates in theRenaissanceof thefifteen th and s ixteen th

Preface.

cen turies weretorn by all thev ices and crimes whichThucydides describes as r ifein thewarring Greekrepubl ics . Mach iavel l i ’s ideaof pol itics seems to haveadvan ced in no way upon A ristotle’s

,from amoral

poin t of v iew . Nay ,even in thepresen t day, on the

very sk irts of c iv il ization and in coun tries on ceen-dowed w ith human ity and culture, thereareatroc it iescomm itted such as wem ight on ly expect from thesavages of Cen tral A frica. I n thevery cen tre, in thevery forefron t of c iv il ization do wenot seegreed ,

ambition , in ternational jealousy urging neighbour nation sto castas ideevery moral , every Christ ian cons ideration ,

and to draw thesword in support of national objects ,wh ich every honest man in either nat ion would d isavowas baseand unworthy in any privatetran saction ? So

far onem ight betempted to say that theteach ing of

Christ ian ity has made, alas but l ittled ifferen ce.On theother hand

,it cannot beden ied that , in th is

cen tury at least , thereis amoderat ion in thepracticeof war among Christ ian nations , wh ich d id no tex ist inold Greek days . Not that therewerethen wan ting menqu itemodern in their human ity ' but theaveragehasbeen raised ; theOp in ion of themajority , of common menand women

,is morehumanes in cethepreach ing of the

Gospel . On theother hand , it is qu iteposs iblethatanearl ier diffus ion of Christian ity m ight havestopped thegreat artistic developmen t wh ich has left so many permanen t traces upon ou r l ife. Polytheism ,

with Greeksl iving under it , produced far finer results in ar t thanChristian ity

,w ith I tal ians striving to glorify it on canvas

and in stone. A t all even ts , weshould never havelearned what was poss iblefor thehuman in tellect apartfrom revelation , and what flawsand faultsadhereto theh ighest man ifestat ions of that in tel lect , had wenot be

foreus theexampleofboth thegreatnessand thesmal lness ofGreek civi li zat ion .

But it is indeed an id lespeculation to con s ider whatwould or would not havehappened had God orderedtheworld ’s h istory otherwisethan hehas done. Oneweighty utteran ceis sufficien t for us W/zen t/zefu lness of timewas comeGod sen t forth H is Son .

”I f,

therefore, theworld requ ired preparat ion for that card inal turn ing poin t

,ifacertain condit ion ‘

of ripenesswas requ ired for theproper acceptan ceof theGospelby man

,then theh istory wh ich I havewritten in

this volumeis probably amost v ital and importan tstep in that preparation

,perhaps hard ly less importan t

than that Law “ wh ich was ou r schoolmaster to bring usun to Christ . ” For that Law affected on ly thechosenpeople

,whereas Hel len ic cultureaffected theworld .

T hereader w i l l find th is top ic discussed in my finalchapter , so that I need not en largeupon it here. I t isenough to rem ind h im that heis n ot about to studyawork of meresecular import

,and on ly ofuseo r in ter

est toaworldly man thewholeof theserichand variedan teceden ts to theestabl ishmen t of that Christian culturewh ich is theh ighest ideal wepossess of l ifeuponth is eartharewel l worth thestudy ofevery in tell igen tman and woman . To such it is not on ly aprivi lege,but aduty , “ to search all th ings , to tryall th ings , ” inorder that they may hold fast that wh ich is good .

”

T r in i ty College, D ublin,

Mare/z , 1 896.

C H APT E R .

IV .

IX .

CONTENTS .

INT R O DUCT ORY

T H E HoMER I c A GE

T H E F IRST Two CENT UR IES OF H I ST OR I

CA L DEVELOPMENT I N GR EECE, 700

500 B . C .

T HE PASSAGE FR OM SPOR AD IC T o SYS

T EMA T I C C U L T U R E . T H E G R E A T

ST RUGGLE W IT H T HE EAST

T H E L I FE OF T H E NAT ION FR OM T H E

DEFEAT OF T H E PERS I ANS (479 B . C. )

T I LL T H E FA LL OF IMPER I AL A T HENS

(404 B . C . )

T H E FOUR T H CENT UR Y B . C.

T H E FOUR T H CENT UR Y B . C . ( Continued )T H E T IME OF A LEXANDER T H E GREAT

A ND H I S EAR LY SuccESSORs

T H E HELLEN IST IC WOR LD ,250

— 1 50 B . C .

GREEK CULT UR E UNDER T HE R OMANS .

POST SCR I PT

PAGE.

254

292

3 3 2

I LLUSTRA T I ONS .

LION GAT E A T MYCENE

BEE-H IVE TOME ExcAVA T ED BY MRS . SCHL IEMANN

TEMPLE A T PE ST UM

TH ESEUS WIT H T H E MARAT HON IAN BULL

T ANAGRA FIGU R I NES

SCULPT UR E O F T H E PER IOD O F PH ID IAS

SC ULPT UR E ON T H E SAR COPHAGUS O F A S I D O N I

KING

GOLD CUP PR OM MYC EN zE

GENE RAL V IEW O F OLYMPIA

ExcA vA T I ONS

A SURVEY OF GREEK C IVI LI ZAT I ON .

CHA PTER I .

INT R O DUCT OR Y.

I T werequ iteidlenow ,in theclos ing n ineteenth cen

tury , to wastemany words in sett ing forth theimportanceo r in teres t of Greek h istory and c ivil izat ion .

Sin cethedays when Lascar is and h is fellows broughtfrom Con stan t inopleGreek booksand Greek tastes , theremnan t of thesack of theTurks, fugit iveand needy

,

was theseed wh ich grew up in onegenerat ion ’ s sowinginto themagn ificent early Renaissanceof Italy . I tseduced popes from their p iety , princes from their pol it ics , and again madeletters and ar t oneo f thefirstcons iderat ion s of c iv il ized men . Raphael and M ichaelA ngelo steeped themselves in Greekar t they searchedfor it w itheagerness under theru ins o f R oman palaces ,and Cop ied it w ith thefaithfulness o f gen ius . T hebu ilders of thematchless Certosa( near Pav ia) almostmakeus condonether uffian Viscon t i ’s vices ; thesolem n ar t ofBorgognoneseems alm ost incompat iblew iththecr imes of h is patron . Then comes Mach iavell i w ithh is reflex of A ristotle’ s in tricac ies in pol itics , Cellin iw ith h is revival of theA lexandrian toreutic , n ot: to speakof thenew creat ion of l iterary styleby thelong-fore

gotten masterp ieces of Plato ,Isocrates , and Demos'

thenes.

A ll theseth ings arenow comm onp lace, but whatnever can becommonplaceis to con templatethepermanenceof th is revival . Wax ing indeed and wani ng,

B

Polit ics.

Letters.

A S u r vey of Greek

m isunderstood and travestied by thebu ilders , thesculptors

, and thepoets,of theseven teen th and eigh

teen th cen turies, i t was reserved for us in then ineteen thto turn from themuddy stream and seek again at thepuresourcethereal freshness and glory of what theGreeks had produced . A nd so I n ou r day wehavenoton ly laid asidethepatch and powder w ith wh ich ou r

grandfathers had thought to im provethenatural complexion of Greek ar t , wehaveeven advan ced to newdiscoveries in analyz ing thesubtleties of Greek gen ius .T hebu ilders of theMadeleinein Paris thought it as impleth ing to copy theParthenon . I t was reservedfo r themarvel lous investigations of M . Penr ose>l< toshow us that thesebu ilders had n ot thesmallest inkl ingof therecond itear t by wh ich Ictinus des igned h is

masterp iece. I n l ikemanner,it was n ot t ill yesterday

that thear t of Demosthenes,thear tifices Of Theocritus

and h is fellows,received their proper apprec iation . I t

was not t il l theimmortal work of Grotethat wecametounderstand how Greek pol it ics areno t l ikethepol iticsof med iaeval Eu rope- thecun n ing of thep riest , thev iolenceof thebaron , thecunn ing v iolen ceof thek ing— but in theoryat least thereasonabled iscuss ion of thepubl ic

, thefinal decision of themajority , thesubm issionof magistrates and rulers to thew il l of thesovereignpeop le. Modern inqu iry has sought out along manypaths themyriad developmen ts of Greek in tellect , andthereis agreat l ibrary of spec ial researches in everyEuropean languagerecord ing theresults . To gatherup thesum of theseresearches in to onebroad v iew,

with in thel im i ts of onevolume, is indeed atask of

great fasc inat ion ,bu t is duerather to thepubl ishers’

I n h is Princ iples of Athen ian Arch itecture, written fo r theSociety ofD ilettant i .

I n tr oductory .

boldness than to theauthor’s amb ition . I n such ataskany man may fail . No onehas ar ight to attemp t i twho cannot consc ien tiously say that hehas l ived thelong summer of h is l ifein daily con tact w ith all in turnof themany remains st ill extan t of Greek ar t , pol it ics ,letters , l ife, speculation . Such an onemay even cometo regard itasanact ofduty , in theautumn ofh is days ,to stand l ikeHomer’ s royal husbandmanat thehead of

thefurrows , rest ing on h is staff, surveying w ith greatcon ten tmen t therich harvest gathered byahost of w illing toilers.

\Vith sweep ing strokethem owers strew thelandsT hegatherers fo l lowand co l lect in bands.

T herustic m o narch of thefield descries,Wi th thankfu l glee, theheapsaround h im rise.

Our own generat ion has seen agreat revolution of

Op in ion regard ing theepoch when theearl iest c ivil i zedl ifein Greecebegan . I t used to beperfectly agreedupon that Homer gaveus theearl iest p icture. I n h im

certain ly do wefind all thosed ist inct iveexcellenc ieswh ichareon ly found in Greek l ifeand in Greek letters .Therewas no subsequen t generat ion of Greeks wh ichd id not find Homer congen ial , Homer natural , Homerancestral . T hesoc iety wh ich hedescribed was indeedin many respects differen t from thesoc iet ies of h istoricaldays but Groteand o thers took pains to Show that thechanges arosefrom natural developmen t ; that theagoraof freemen and thevo iceof publ ic Op in ion *

werealready known and felt . Though A gamemnonasserted in al ineknown to A ristotle, but s inceexpunged by offended ed itors , that hehad thepower ofl ifeand death , h is sovereign ty was ev iden tly not absolutebut , accord ing to Thucydides ’ s words , an hered itaryDescribedas someonesaid , ” when c i t ingageneral feeling.

I

A S u r vey of C ree/eCivi li zation .

monarchy w i th defined pr ivileges.

>l< A ccord ingly bothancien tsand modern s wereagreed to accep t Homerasthecommencemen t ofGreek h istory .

But what agedoes th is imp ly ? I t used to bethefash ion to pu t back Homer to averyearly date. T hefall of Troy was set down according to thechronologyof Eratosthenes — theh ighest Greek authority— at 1 1 04B . C . , and Homer was supposed to havebeen no t farremoved in datefrom th is even t

,fo r did hen ot know

allabout it perfectly,and had henotal iving conception

of all theheroes beforeh im ? Besides,thewhole

Homeric soc iety wen t to p ieces in consequen ceof thewar

,and had n o t thepoet l ived closeto thet ime,all the

in timatekn owledgeheShows would havebeen lost o rdiss ipated in to fragmen ts all over Greece. Wemayadd that thewholesoc iety described in thepoemsd iffers So cons iderably from theearl iest h istorical Greeksshown us in thepoems of A r ch ilochus and theelderS imon ides

,that along gap must havein tervened be‘

tween thedays of Agamem nOn and thedays ofGygestheLyd ian

,w ith h is

'

Greek friends thelyric poets.

I t used thereforeto bemain tained that wehad atleast asem i -h istorical knowledgeof Greek societyandGreek man ners as far back as 1 000 B . C . in theI l iadand Odyssey . A ll theearl ier h istories

,even down to

T h ir lwall’s and Gr ote’s , began by giving ap ictureof

Homeric soc iety from th is po in t of v iew . Grotealsogavean expl ic itaccoun t of themythology of thepeople,all theh istories and adven tures of their gods

,as evi

denceofwhat thebel iefs of thenation were, and whattheir n otions of th ings sp iritualand th ings un seen . Herefused , indeed , to allow any h istorical valueto thesestories . Hewould not even adm it that wehad in them

Dateof Homer.

T h is is thedescr ipt ion given by Aristotlein h is Po li tics .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A Su r vey of Gree/eCivi li zation .

arefrequen t , sutures obvious, and thetraces of olderand shorter lays worked in toaplot arenot to bem istaken .

I t follows at oncethat someparts at least of theHomeric poemsarethework of later hands

,who had no

l iving knowledgeeven of thesoc iety wh ich producedtheearl iest and s imp lest lays. Theselater bards mayhavewritten asan tiquarian s , draw ing upon their imagination s fo r their facts . They did n ot l iveat any veryremoteage, for they must haveknown and used writ ingin thecomposition of theselong , elaborateep ics ; andthey Show n otafew s ign s ofar t ificiality. Thus moderncritic ism has reduced theh istorical s ign ifican ceof theHomeric poems even below thes cept ical pos itionadopted by Grote. Therearosealsoaschool of th inker s in Germany , ofwhom Professor Max Mii ller was themostem inen t represen tativein England

,who wereled

by their speculation s on comparativemythology to denyany h istorical bas is whatever to thestory of thes iegeof Troy , o r theadventures of U lysses . T hehumantraged ies ascribed to theheroes wereon ly travest ies orm isunderstandings of someth ing far Older and moreun iversal , thephenomenaof dayand n ight

,of theris ing

and sett ing sun,

o r of tempest and clear weather.Though th is theory is now ou t of favour , it can har dly besaid to beyetextin ct , so I may herequotethewords inwh ich I critic ised it morethan twen ty years ago ,

whenit threatened , l ikether od of Aaron ,

to swallow up therods of theother magicians w ith whom it camein con

fl ict

Thereis afal lacy, cal led by A rchbish op Whately thethanmatr opefal lacy, in wh ich thei l lusion is produced by rapid ly p resenting to ou r m inds aseries of separateideas, andringing thechanges on them til l weareconfused and bel ieve

I ntr oductory .

them all iden tical o r connected . A logical reader is stronglyrem inded of th is fal lacy when hefinds thesun ,

thedawn,the

sto rm -c louds, and thegloam ing, kept go ing l ikeanum ber ofballs inajuggler ’s hand . A ny hero can p layany part . I f heis Spoken wel l of hem ust bethesun

,if no t

,heis then igh t .

Whether hem u rders o r mar ries o r deserts amaiden o r aw idow ,

sheis thedawn . \Vhat is st i l l m o reunscien tific,if he

havetwo o r th reeletters of h is nameiden tical w i th any o therm yth ical name, iden t i ty ofcharacter isasserted . Th is isahab itwh ich ou r com parat ivem ytho logers ough t not toacqu ire

,see

ing thateven them ost advanced com parativem ytho logers of

Germany canno t fo rget thed iffi cu l t ies befo rethem . EvenProfesso rMax Mii ller canno t develop h is theo ry withou t m uch

hesi tation . Far from being satisfied w ith any random S im i

lar ity,heprofessed ly requ ires com p leteiden tity of letters, a

knowledgeof theetym o logy,and even an iden tity ofaccent ,

befo reheis satisfied . Thus, hehesitatesabout Septem tr iones.

*

Hehesitates about Paris, as wehaveseen . Hehesitates( though l ittle) abou t Hermes, becausethefo rm Heremeiasdoes no t occur . Hehesi tates concern ing A di ti hav ing themean ing of theI nfin itefrWepass to thepsycho logical argumen t , wh ich bases thewho lesystem ofin terpretat ion by thesun and dawn aloneonananalysis Of themen tal cond it ion of savages, o r of prim itiveraces ; and I wou ld d raw Special attention to th is sideof thetheo ry ,

wh ich has h i ther to been very sl igh tly exam ined by

carefu l critics . Com parat ivem ytho logers d raw very poeticaland very detai led p ictu res of theseh isto rical infants,and giveus to understand that they havestud ied their hab i ts closely.

“H is mental cond ition t determ ined thecharacter of h is

language, and that cond i tion exh ibits in h im ,as in ch i ldren

now,thewo rking of afeel ing wh ich endows all outward

th ings withal ifeno t un l ikeh is own . Of theseveral Objects

Lectures, I L, page3 65 . T hough ,

in matters o f thek in d , i t is im possibleto speak very po s i t ively ,

i t seem s n ot imp r obablethat thenametn ones may bean O ld namefor star in general.1 Cf . i bid . ,

I I . , 500 , note. Th is is doubtfu l , but I know no better etym ol

ogy.

"T hereader w ill fi nd sim i lar cau t ion used in Ch ips,” I I . , page1 3 3 . I

mayadd , however, that thegreatest ofGreeketym ologists , G . C urt ius, rejectsmany o fthederivat ions w h icheven M. Max Muller considers sound . So fararewest ill rem oved from thej ud zc zal i nqu i ry stage.I T hat is, of theprim it iveAryan . T hequo tat ion is from Cox 's AryanMyth ology , I . , pages 42 sq.

Imagery.

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

wh ich met h iseyehehad no positiveknowledge, whether ofthei r o rigin ,

thei r natu re,o r thei r p roperties. Bu t hehad l ife,

and therefo reall things elsemust havel ifealso . Hewasunder no necessity of person ifying them

,fo r hehad fo r h im

selfno distinctions between consciousnessand personal ity. Heknew noth ing of thecond itions ofh is own l ifeor ofany o ther

,

and thereforeall th ings on theearth o r in theheavens wereinvested w ith thesamevagueideaofexistence. T hesun

,the

m oon, thestars,theground on wh ich hetrod, theclouds,

storm s,and l ightn ings wereall l iving beings ; could hehelp

th ink ing that, l ikeh im self,they wereconscious beings also ?

H is very words would , byan inev itablenecessity, express thisconviction . H is languagewould adm it no S ingleexpressionfrom wh ich theattr ibu teof l ifewas excluded

,wh i lei t would

vary thefo rm s of that l ifewith unerring instinct . Every objectwould beal iving real ity, and every word aspeak ing p icture.Fo r h im therewould beno barerecu rrenceof days andseasons, but each m orning thedawn would driveher brigh tflocks to thebluepastures of heaven beforetheb irth of thelord ofday from theto i l ingwom b ofn igh t . Round thel ivingp rogress of thenew-born sun therewou ld begroupedalavishimagery, expressiveof them ost intensesym pathy with whatweterm theoperation ofmaterial fo rces

,and n ot lessexpress

iveof theutterabsenceofeven thefain test knowledge, Lifewou ld beanalternation ofjoyand sorrow

,of terro rand rel ief

fo r everyeven ing thedawn would return lead ing her brigh tflocks,and theshort-lived sun wou ld d ie. Years m igh t pass,o rages, befo reh is risingagain wouldestabl isheven theweak ?

estanalogy ; but in themeanwh i leman would m ourn for h isdeath , as for theloss of onewho m ight never retu rn . Fo r

everyaspect of thematerial world hewould haveready somel ife-givingexpression ; and thoseaspects wou ld bescarcelyless varied than h is wo rds. T hesameObject wouldat d ifferentt imes

,o r under d ifferen t cond itions

,awaken them ost opposite

o r inconsisten t conceptions. But theseconceptions and thewords wh ichexpressed them wou ldexist sideby sidewi thoutp roducing thesl ightest consciousness of their incongruity nor

is i t easy to determ inetheexact o rder in wh ich they m ightarise. T hesun wou ld awaken both m ou rnfu l and inspiritingideas

,ideas ofv icto ryand defeat , of to i land prematu redeath .

Hewould betheTitan, strangl ing theserpents of then igh t

I ntr oductory .

beforehed roveh is chario t up thesky and hewould also bethebeing who ,

wo rn down by unw i l l inglabou r undergoneformen

,S inks wearied in to '

thearm s of them o ther who bareh imin them orn ing. Other images wou ld no t bewan ting ; thedawn and thedewand thev io let c louds would benot less realand l iving than thesun . I n h is rising from theeast hewou ldquit thefair dawn , whom heshou ld seeno m o reti l l h is labou rdrew toward i ts close. A nd not less would heloveand beloved by thedewand by them o rn ing herself, wh i leto both h isl ifewould befatalas h is fiery car roseh igher in thesky . So

wou ld man Speak ofall o ther th ingsalso of thethunder andtheearthquakeand thesto rm ,

not less than of sum mer andwinter . ”From what sou rceis th is p icturedrawn Certain ly not froman invest igation of thetr ibes that st i l l l ivein their p rim itivecondition in rem otequarters o f theglobe. T hesetribes

,

whether they roam in theprairies of No rth A mericao r inhab ittheforests ofInd ia, whether crushed in their development bytheco ld ofSiberiao r theheat of A frica, havemany po ints incom m on ,

so many that pat ien t inqu i rers arebeginn ing to formsomegeneral ideaofwhatall tr ibes o r races m ust havebeen intheirearl iest cond ition .

* Wemay safelyassert that thereareno casesatall paral lel to thefancy p ictureof them ytho logers .

Thereareplenty of savages that wo rsh ip thesun and moon ,

that person ify moving objects, becausethey canno t conceivem ot ion w i thou t l ife

, 1'and that havefo rmed m ythsabou t physical phenomena. Bu t welook in vain fo rall th is wonderfu l r iotof imaginat ionabout thedai ly operations ofnatu re, th is terribleanguish abou t an ord inary sunset , th is outbu rst of joy in thesummer dawn , when their n ightly grief had scarcelu l led themto S leep .

I n th is argument I had not perhaps given stressenough to thequery wh ich ought to beset to everysuch hypothes is to an swer. Why wereall the~great

lfi t beobjected that thesetribes belon to lower races , w ithout an sweringtheassum pt ion Ofan original d ifference0 race, i t may fairly beretorted thatthereis n oevi denceo fan y h igher in telligencein theoriginal Aryan s than I I I

thepresen t New Zealanders.

‘

i‘ so Schoo lcraft says of theRed In d ian totem (Vol . l l . , page

O

H is

always somean imated Object ,and seldom or never derived from theman imateclass ofnature.

”T hewidely spread worsh ip of sacred stonesappear s

to besym bo l ical ,and not d ueto theattribut ion to them o f l ife.

Lion GateatMycenae.

A S u r vey of Gree/eCivi li zation .

legends grouped about afew s ites — Troy , Mycenae,Tiryns ? Werethereno h istorical facts wh ich madesuchalocal izat ion n ot on ly l ikely but necessary ? I t isvery strangeindeed that th is very natural question wasn otanswered by thelearned who d iscussed thematter

,

as it ought to havebeen ,by an appeal to thespade.

T heo ld Lion Gateat Mycenaewas long and wel lknown

,and it was qu iteplain that hereat least was the

seat of somean cien t grandee, who Should haveleft beh ind h im somefarther traces of h is splendour . Couldweiden t ify h im w ith A gamemnon who had ruled thereaccording to theI l iad ? What about Troy , theseatof Priam ’s wealthy k ingdom Whatabout Tiryn sandO r chomenus, both wel l- iden tified Sites, both show ingtraces of massiveand an tiquebu ild ing ? That learnedmen

,d iscuss ing w ith zeal and even w ith passion the

poss ibil it ies of thequest ion , should never havecon

descended toadj ourn their d isputes t ill they had investigated thevarious s ites to wh ich theI l iad and Odysseyareattached by theirauthors , shows how men of books

prefer v ictory in an argumen t to aconquest of newfactsandasupersed ing of threadbared iscuss ions by realdiscoveries . Butat last “

thet imecame,and theman .

”

I need not delay hereupon theeviden ces of humanoccupat ion of theHellen ic pen insulalong beforec ivi l ization . Fl in t arrow-heads and rudehand-madepotteryarefoundall over Europe, and con tain in them noth ingd istinctiveofarace. Therewereeven found under thelavaof San torin

,avolcan ic island in theLevan t (bes ide

theancien t Thera) engulfed houses , asort ofpreh istoricPompei i , w ith someskeleton s , gold ornamen ts , axes ,and other remains of pr im i t i veindustry .

>l< But these

Fouque, San torinet ses é rup t ions (Paris , 1 879) o r Busolt’s (German )H istory of Greece,” Vol. I . , page5 1 sq. ( 2ded i t ion ,

Gotha,

I ntr oductory .

and theother fl in t remains of Greecearenot to becompared in perfect ion w ith thosed iscovered in theterramareof Reggio d i Em il iain north Italy

, andwh ich thetraveller now adm ires in thewonderfulmuseum of theCol/egio R omano at R ome. I f wejudged from merefl in t-heads , thenat ives of northernI taly ought to haveeasily ou tstripped thenatives of theHellen ic pen insula.

But theseth ings need no t hereconcern us. Let usturn to themomentous d iscoveries madeby thelateDr .Schl iemann on thes ites of thec ities marked out in theHomeric poems , as thecap itals o r strongholds of

monarchs who controlled thepeoplearound them .

Hereweought to find , no t meresavagetools andornamen ts , bu t theremains of theinvent ionsand luxuries ofamoredeveloped soc iety . Schl iemann undertook much morethan th is. W ith theenthusiasmwh ich seldom dwells in theheart of thethoroughlysc ien t ific invest igator , hehoped to find theactual palaceof A gamemnon , theactual scenery of thec ity of Troy ,wherePr iam and Paris, Hector and I Eneas, oncestalked through theecho ing streets . I t seemed for aseason that h is w ildest expectations werereal ized . Hefound at H issarl ik ,

wh ich h is intu it ivegen ius told h imto bethetrues iteof Troy

, theremains ofaburn t H issarl ik theS i teof T roy.

palace, theweapons o f pr im i t ivewarfare, thejewelsof queens , theworn querns of slaves . Hefound thatlayerafter layer had been p iled upon thechosen s ite, asif men could not tear themselves , in sp iteof thegrimassoc iations of fi reand sword ,

from thelong-settledspot , to wh ich thetemples of gods and thegraves ofancest ors bound them w ith invisible, but indissolublefetters . H is brill ian t d iagnos is revealed to recalc itran tpedan ts . not on ly that hehad found thetrues iteof the

H omercon firmed .

A S u r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

renowned c ity , but that theI l iad of Homer had adist inct h istorical basis

, apart from thesuperstructures offan cy . Even ifA ch illes was, as somefan c ied ,

thesun ,

and Helen thedawn ,theseprim itiveper son ifications

had been attached to ad istinct local hab itat ion ,and

connected w ithagreat confl ictam ong real men .

I f thesegeneral conclus ions requ ired theconfirmat ionof another instan ce

,S chl iemann suppl ied it by h is

second and m orebrill ian t discoveryat Mycenae. Hereagain ,

on thealleged s ite. of Homeric grandeur,he

found thetombs of k ings, thetreasures of arichmonarchy

, thecolossal bui lding of coun tless humanhands . T heHomeric ep ithets of very -

golden Mycenaeand m uck-for tified Tiryn s werecOnfirmed by facts .K ings’ palaces werediscovered w ith no mean remnan tsofar t , no mean con trol of themost mass ivematerials .Herethen was thepalaceofA gamemnon ,

k ing of menfrom hen ceheset out w ith thecomb ined forces of

theMoreafor theEast . Thus again Homer seemedperfectly justified ,

‘and theI l iad ,etc . , assumed an

aspect of freshness and real ity , wh ich it had lost am idtherudehandl ing of themen of books . But thosewhohad been trained to estimateev idencekept coun sell ingcaution ,

andapostponemen t of ou r dec is ion upon thesegigan tic addition s to ou r ev idence: Fo r wh iletherewereon theonehand en thusiasts , who accepted thewholed iscoveryasamerematerial confirmat ion of theHomeric story

,so therewereother far mores illy

people, fast id ious s ceptics , who would n ot bel ievethateven thes iteofHomeric;Troy had been d iscovered , andwho ven tured toaffi rm that theMycenaean tombs’ wereofmediaeval construct ion . Thesefatuous judgments arenow well-n igh forgotten , espec ially by themen whoon ceheld them ,

and thearchaic character of theremains

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

regret , tain ted even w ith traces of that I/Veltscni ner zwh ich mars thes implefaith of Herodotus , wh ich embitters thes cepticism ofEurip ides .From thevery outset , all of us who exam ined dis

passionately theremain s of that layer of bu ilding wh ichS chl iemann called theHomeric c ity wereaston ishedand d iscon certed by two facts . I n thefirst place, thefortifiedenclosurewas so much smal ler than what Homerhad led us to expect , that it seemed rather afortifiedpalaceand fort than ac ity w ith streets and acon s iderablepopulation . Second ly

,thepottery

,weapons

,wal ls ,

all appeared very rudeand prim itivefor aplaceso richand long settledas thec ity ofPriam . Thosewho comparedall that was saidabout Mycenaew ith what was saidabout Troy in Homer , had inferred that thelatter wasthericher and themoreluxurious, theoutcomeof

longer growthand greater luxury . T heremain s told usavery d ifferen t story. T hepotteryespec ial ly was muchruderat H issarl ik , most of it hand — madeand not wheelmade

,nor was therethat advan ced o r pecul iar fin ish

which is now recogn ized in Mycenaean ware. A glan cethrough themany spec imen s in Schl iemann ’s ‘

f I lios”

and acomparison w ith thosein h is “Myciénae w illmaketh is obv ious to thestuden t . So far

,then

,the

remains d id not corroboratetheI l iad . T hewholeaspeet of thefort ofPergamum was Olderand ruder . Noteveryan tiquarian has thecourageof h is convictions

,andso theopen assertion of th is d iscrepan cy was on ly madehereand thereby thoseof us who weren ot afraido r ashamed to retractafalsem ove, or confessan error.W ith in thelast two years , however , wehavehad thesatisfaction ofabrill ian t corroborat ion from thelater researches o i Professor Do r pfeld . Hehas n ow madeitqu itep lain that wewereright in hold ing S chl iemann

’s

I ntr odu ctor y .

Troy to beolder and ruder than theru ins of Mycenaeand Tiryns. For outsidethe“ second c ity ” at H issarlik,w ith alargerareaand far moreadvan ced construe

t ion,hehas .

,fou nd thestratum of bu ild ing wh ich corre

sponds w ith theGreek palaces , and wh ich held aS im ilarand synchronous populat ion . A boveall

,hehas found

herethat Mycenaean pottery wh ich is so d ist inct iveafeaturein thepreh istoric remains of A rgol is and theislands. Really rudeand prim it ivepottery proves no

affi n ity ; all simplemen in their first attem pts at making vessels of clay follow thesameprocess . R udenessof th is k ind is not even by itselfaclear proof ofant iqu ity,

fo r thereis n oth ing morecommon than neobar bar ism

,or such wan t of developmen t that men

con t inueto makein thesamefash ion w ithout al terationo r improvemen t for myriads of years . When I was inNub iain 1 89 3 I used to buy from thenativewomenbaskets ofHalfagrass not d iffer ing in onefeatureofmater ial, design ,

or colour from thebaskets wefind in thetom bsabout thepyram ids in Egypt , fivethousand yearsold . But when wecometo except ional colourand dist inct ivepattern

, thecasealters immed iately . T hedifferencein pottery , therefore, between Schl iemann ' sin terior c ityand Do rpfeld

’

s outer c ircleis in itself conelusive.T hegeneral result

,however

,d isposes of theclaim of

Schl iemann ’

s c ity to any further placein th is book . Hehad found no t thetown of Priamand theIl iad , orevenof theagean d developmen t ofTiryn sand Mycenae, perhaps seven cen turiesan ter ior to Homer , but afar morean t iqueand prim it ivefort , dat ingat themost moderateestimaten ot less than years beforetheb irth of

Christ ! To cal l such ac ity Greek ,to assumethat

i ts inhab itan ts spokeo r thought l ikeGreeks , o r even

Mycenat .

A S u r vey of Greek Civi li zati on .

werethesp iritual forefathers of Homer’s Trojan s , isbeyond thedemands to bemadeupon any reasonable

Wemay lay th is p ieceofevidenceas ide,w ith onelesson ,

however , deeply engraved upon ourm inds. A S c iv il ization of somek ind was vastly olderupon theH ill of Troy than any of us had imagined

,

so thes iteofevery h istoric c ity is l ikely to havebeenthehab itation of coun tless generation s . W hen oncesettled w ith local gods , and surrounded by thetombs ofan cestors

,it is n ot l ikely to havebeen abandoned in

sp iteof s iegeand capture, ofmassacreand conflagration .

A remnan t of thepopulat ion always escapes from suchcatastrophes and reoccup ies theplace, though thefi reand blood -stained ru in s must belevelled for new toundat ions . Thus wemay assumethat thegreat majorityof c ities in Greeceand A siaM inor , wh ich werecele‘brated in h istory

,werebu il t upon layers and layers

of older débris, through wh ich wemay reach , in thecaseof h ill fortresses , to theoriginal rock . T hec ivilizat ion round theI Egean is thereforevery old ,

older thanany of us had suspected th irty years ago ,

and thesudden and marvel lous bloom of Greek l ifecameafterm illen n iums of obscureand forgotten effort . Obscureand forgotten indeed ,

but n ot for that reason w ithout itseffect . For if theracewas n ot changed ,

theregrewup in theseremoteand un chron icled ages thehab itofwork , thesenseof strivingafter h igherends , thelonging for progress , wh ich produced their secret effectsupon futuregenerations . Th is is themystery ofatavism .

When wecometo theremains of Mycenae, wearenearer to ou r subject . No doubt thereis at Troy astratum yet to beexam ined morem inutely , wh ich w ill*T h is is thesort ofanach r on ism perpetrated by Professor Ebers in h is popu

lar n ovel Uar da. Hemakes theG reekadven turers of thet imeo f Ram sesI I . ( 1 3 50 B . C . )as refinedandadvancedas theGreeks of thefifth cen tu ry B . C .

I ntr oductory .

correspond w ith what weshal l now d iscuss. Butas yetD r . DOrpfeld has found too l ittleto beofany useforour purpose. T hereader w il l wonder how wecanspeak w ith any co ii fidenceabout themanners of asociety so l ittleknown , so l ittlesuspected t il l therevelat ions of Dr . Schl iemann ’

s spade. Let us takeup theev idenceof pottery . Look at thefew spec imens of Evidencefrompain ted vases in Schl iemann ’

s book . You w il l seeat “may.

oncethefam ily l ikeness to thearchaic pots found atA thensand o ther p laces dat ing from thes ixth cen turybeforeChrist . No t on ly arethecostumes of thewarriorsanalogous , bu t thedraw ing of thefigures , therudeattempts to represen t v iolen tact ion , theutter ignoranceand d isregard of what weconsider beauty of faceandfigure. Look again at thecarved rel iefs upon thesepulchral stones found over thegraves at Mycenae.You w ill seeth ings n o t very d issim ilar in theold rel iefsfound at Sparta, and now preserved in theinterestingmuseum of that town . A strong fam ily l ikeness is

there. A closer exam inat ion of thepalaceof Tirynsshowed l ikew isethat thegeneral arrangements of therooms weresuch as agreed w ith Homeric descriptions.

T heonevery d ist inct ivefeatureof thehousebu ildingwas theconstruct ion of thedoorways. Th is was themodel of every early templedoorway in h istoricalGreece. Thesesuggest ion sareenough for themomen tto show thereader what I mean by saying that wemaynow fairly consider not H issarl ik ,

but theremai ns of

Tirynsand Mycen ze, together w ith thetom bs ofMen id i ,Spata, etc .

, as belonging to thedirect forerunners of

theHomeric heroes .

I say direct , not immed iate, for in my op in ion therewasalong progress of culturein Greeceduring th is p rehistoric t ime. Therearetwo d ist inct stagesatMycenm.

Evidencefromthe. tom bs.

T he l icell t ‘

”to m bs.

A S u r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

Th is is proved by thetombs . Thoserecen tly found bySchl iemann weredeep shaft-graves, w ith inadequateroom to lay o ut thedead ,

wh ich werehuddled o r

crushed into their rest ing place, though covered w ithgold masks and p iled about w ith prec ious cups ando rnaments o fgo ld ,

s ilver,and bron ze. Never was there

amorepainful co ntrast between thetreatmen t o f theactual bodyand theSplend id g ifts wh ich werelav ishedi ipo n it. Thesepeopleseem to havebu il t their walls ofsmal l rubble, w ithout fin ish o r elegance, though theirvessels o f gold and s ilver , and thei r o rnaments , wereboth costlyand h ighly fi n ished . Thoseo f thegoldands ilver cups

, thefamous cow ’

s head ,andavaseo falabaster , areas good as they would beinanyageof Greekh istory . Let us cal l thosepeoplefo r conven ience’ saketheDynasty o f thePerseids o r descendants o f Perseus ,whom Greek legend makes theearl iest occupant o f

Mycenie. l in t theseacco rd ing to thelegend wereoustedby thel’clop ids, wh ich namewemay apply to theseco nd raceo f very super io r bu ilders , who madethegreat“ bee-h ive tombs , known as theTreasury o f A treusand its fellows . Thesetombs haveall been r ifled longago , so that wecanno t tell what o rnaments thel‘elop idslaid besidethedead in their roomyand stately chambers .l int from thefact that they covered theinsidesurfaceo f thedomew ith plates o fpol ished bronze,and from thefact that analogous tombs at O r chomenus and atA inyclze(south o f Sparta) haveshown us gracefulm onuments, and at least o negold cup w ith des ignsgood enough fo r theI tal ian Renaissance, wemay con

cludethatas in bu ild ing they far exceeded thePerseids,so in theeleganceo f their household vessels they werei t least their equals . To excel even theolder cupswould no t beeasy .

l izlr odzzctwy .

i n onerespec t bo th Perseids and l’elop ids aresilentfo rever . They possessed neither thear t o f writ ing nor Wri tingand

co inagethear t o fco in ing . Bel iev ingas I d id that both Mycenaem 'km w'h

and Tiryns weredestroyed to consol idateA rgos, and

that th is happened in theeighth o r early seventh cen turyB . C . , I had predicted to Schl iemann that hewouldfi nd neither inscript ions no r co ins , and so it turned out .Had thes tory told by latewr iters and cop ied intomodern books been true,* theremust infall ibly havebeen both found in plenty ateither place. Therewasin factabag of lateT irynth ian co ins found by Schliemann wh ich dated from apoor l ittlere-settlement inMacedon ian days . But alas ! so far as wecan safelyinfer , thesplendour of both theseroyal abodes wasrecorded in no written form . I f anc ien t bards sangtheir praises , they wereon ly l iketheearl iest Celticbards ofmed iaeval days , who could rememberand recite,but could no t write. Wearethereforeleft to imaginewhat wecan of thel ifeof theseearl iest c iv il ized ocenpants of Hellen ic so il from thematerial remains oftheirarch itectureand their ar t , and from thefar -oh' echoeswh ich th is long past per iod carried onward into Homericsong . Fo r ,as wealready insisted , thelociaround wh ichthelater bards fixed their story wereall theactual seatsofananc ien tand splendid royalty .

Perhaps thefi rst th ing wh ich strikes us when weexam inethedes igns and workmansh ip on thepalaces ,o r in thematchless Mycenzean room in themuseumatA thens , is that thereareunm istakableevidences of

Lack o fwri tten reco rds.

Echoes of th isearlier c iv i li za~t ion in H omer.

foreign influence. T heoccurrenceofan ostr ich egg, Ostricheggmprobablyadorned and used as acup , in theremains ofMycenaewould in itself put thematter beyond doubt .‘ 1 mean thec itat ions from D iodo rusand S traboand thefact thatao-calledMycemeansand T i ryn th iaus (ofcourseex i les) fough t with thepatriotic sideinthePersian wars .

Mycenee.

Orien tal influen ce.

A Su r vey of Gr og/eCivi lz'zaz‘ion .

But thereisagreat deal morethan th is stray importation . Oneof them ost notabledesigns for o rnamen tingsurfaces at Mycenaeis what many cal l therepeatedsp iral . Th is very pattern I found on theceil ing ofarock templeo r shrineat Kasr Ibrim

,and again as the

pattern on aqueen ’ s dress in theHorus Templeat Wad iHalfa(both in Nub ia) . Thesetemples datefrom theEighteen th Dynasty of Pharaohs — from A men oph is I I .and T othmes I I I . Wemay thereforesafely ascr ibeth is w idespread des ign to thefifteen th cen tury B . C . ,

and as it is not reasonably to beassumed that thebu ilders of Mycenaecar ried it to Egypt , wemay con

cludethat Egyp tian workmen brought it to Greece.Thus theanc ien t legend wh ich tel ls us that Danauscamew ith h is daughters from Egypt to A rgos finds itsunexpected support in fact

,and wearetaught n ot to

desp isethegeneral indication s given us by populartradition . But as thesestories also tel l us of Cadmuscom ing from Phoen ic ia, so thereareorien tal — A ssyrianand Syrian — influences to beseen in theMycenaeandes igns , especial ly upon theseal rings wh ich seem tomes impleimportations .Even therouteby wh ich merchandisecamefrom the

East in thosedays can n ow bedeterm ined . A long aparticular r ow of islands, reaching from A rgos toR hodes , arest ill found frequen t spec imen s of thatspec ial pottery called Mycenaean , wh ich provethat th iswas thetrack ofan an cien t commerce. But what is farmoreremarkable, as showing theforceof old trad itionsin theI l iad ,

is thefact that th is very series of islands ,wh ich would naturally belong to theTrojan confederacy ,send their tr00ps to fight under A gamemnon ’s banner .Wemay thereforeassumew ith certain ty that whateverrefinement can beimported w ith del icateand expressive

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

Religion .

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

theinstin ct ofall early societies . W hether thel im itation ofp rivileges was indeedan original feature, and no t

aboon extorted by longagitat ionand by tak ingadvantageofforeign help

,I greatly doubt .

I t remain s to say someth ingabout therel igion of th isMycenaean c ivil ization . Thereare

,so far as I kn ow

,

on ly two mean s ofattain ing to thesl ightest knowledgeon th is po in t . How indeed can apeoplewho had no

records,who haven ot left oneword of writing

,who

wereobserved by n o external w itness,tel l us aught

concern ing their inner l ife? T heon ly two possiblescraps of ev iden ceare ( I ) theidols wh ich wefindam ong their household stuff

,l ikethegods wh ich Rachel

con cealed from Laban (Genesis XXX I . 3 0, ( 2 )thetreatmen t of thedead . A s regards thefirst wehavefrom Troyalargen umber of therudeowl-headed deitywhom Schl iemann iden tified with Glou/eop is A i liene.Headvanced toanew tran slation ofGlaukop is wh ich wehad rendered gray -eyed ,

declaring it to beowlBut wealready found that “

theTroy of Schl ieman n issometh ing long an teceden t to theTroy of Homer, oreven of theMycenaean period . I n theremai ns of

Mycenaeand of Tiryns I am not awarethat l ittleidolsareat all so frequen t , but stil l therearen ot wan tingl ittleimages used probablyas fetishes o r amulets , wh ichwould naturally imply avery low stateof sp iritualdevelopmen t

,d id wen ot seeeven in modern times

amulets and charms of var lous k inds used in thesameway as thefetish of thesavagei I f wehad there

A s m y readers aren ot supposed to understand Greek , I need no t en terupon an ex p ianat 1on o fth is duierence1 11 therendering o fasim p le, undispu tedwo 1 d . Bu t they may behevemethat i t i s so ,

an d that theword may havepassed from thelatter mean ing to thefo 1 mer.TA San i llust1at ion o f thefact that such supe1 st it ion is n ot con fined to theigno ran t an d uneducated , I may statethat I havequ iterecen t] kn own awoman born ofeducated paren ts and married toamem ber o f ther i t ish Patl iamen t , who p utanam ulet of th 1s k ind on theleg of her ch ild , wh o had justbeen b i tten byadog.

mainder of thei r worsh ip , it m ight possibly befound on

ah igher level than th is very w idespread superstition .

T heeviden cefrom thetreatmen t of thedead is farm oreimportan t and suggest ive. T heprec ious tombsd iscovered by Schl iemann at Mycenaeweredeep undertheearth , at thebottom of shafts over wh ich thereweregravestones w ith sculp tures on them

, and theseagaininclosed byac ircleof stones , to mark thesacred place.A t thebottom of theseshafts, someof them twen ty-sixfeet deep , thedead werefound , as I havealready told ,

crushed in to rest ing places too narrow for them butcovered w ith gold masks , and w ith many precious cupsand ornamen ts ofgold , s ilver , and bron zep iled in uponthebod ies. T heon ly mean ing wh ich such prec iousofferings to thedead can haveis to express thebel iefthat thereis somecont inued ex istencefo r thedead ;that theprec ious th ings wh ich they hadacqu ired duringtheir l ives arest il l their property , and that it was not

on lyan outward mark ofhonour from thesurv ivors , butacauseof sat isfact ion to thedead , to havetheir mostvaluableproperty buried w ith them . T hevery con ten ts ,therefore, of Schl iemann ’

s tombs proveabel ief in theex istenceof man after death . But what is pass ingstrangein thediscovery is thecrush ing of thebodiesin to anarrow hole

,wh ilethey covered them w ith

treasure. Th is treatmen t seems to bein con sisten t , too ,w ith theworsh ip ofancestors , an early form of rel igioncurren t among most A ryan races . Weknow of no

placefo r offerings , no altar o r shrineto wh ich survivorscould havecometo honour thedead , un less it bethatw ith in thec ircleofstones over thespot someceremon ieswereperformed . Though thereweretraces of burn ingabout someof thebod ies , thereseems to havebeenn oth ing found in thelayers of so il over them su fficien t

Evi dencefromthetom bs.

I ntr oductory.

to war ran t such an inferen ce. But it is possiblethatSchl iemann in throw ingall theearth heexcavated overthegreat wall wh ich hereincloses thefort , has coveredup someev iden ces ofan approach from theoutside

,

wheretheofferer could comecloseto thetombs from afar lower level . Th is po in t is still unsettled . What ishowever qu iteclearand no tal ittlesurprising is that thesecond racewho

.

bu ilt thereadopted awholly differen tmodeof burial

,and onespecially adapted for the

worsh ip ofan cestors.

T hefamous “ bee-h ive bu ilding , madeofhugehewnstones , known as theTreasure-houseof A treus ( thefather of Agamemnon ) and so often descr ibed ,

’l< wasof courseno treasure-housein thed irect sense, but thespac ious houseof adeceased k ing , in wh ich manytreasures wereoriginal ly laid . T heappearanceof th isgreat construct ion leads us to bel ievethat in an innerrudechamber theactual bones werelaid ,

wh ilethelargedome-shaped hall , w ithabroad way lead ing to its mass iveportal , its wal ls adorned w ith sh in ing p laques of

bron ze, was in tended fo r thoseserv ices and offeringswhereby thel iv ing expressed their respectand affect ionfo r thedead . Therewas probably n o god worsh ippedw ith such c ircumstanceat Mycenaeas th is deceasedk ing

,whoever hewas ; but thed iscovery of several

other less splend id chambers ofthesameform by Schliemann shows that i t was no isolated labour , but amereinstan ceofawel l-establ ished custom . T hetomb of thek ing has been long s incerifled no traceof its splendourbut themassiveand careful construct ion ,

someremainsof its bron zeplat ing w ith in ,

and of thecareful carving of

its portal ornamen ts is left to us . But theseareenought beei llustrat io n ,

on Opposi tepage, fo r as im ilar bee-h ive”0

bu ildingand

for the“T reasury of Atreus seeProfessor Tarbell ’s History 0 Greek

A r t,

” Figs. 26and 27 .

T reasu re-l1ouseof Atreus.

Sp lendo ur o f i tsconstruct ion .

A S u r vey of Gree/eCivi li zati on .

to show not on ly theworsh ip ofancestorsas part of thereligion of that day ,

_

bu t moregenerally that in terest inthepastand in thefuturewh ich d istingu ishes thec ivili zed man from thesavage. T helatter , l ikethebeaststhat perish

,th inks on ly of thepresen t o r at most of the

com ing w in ter’ s store; it is n ot t il l each generationcomes to regard itselfas themerel ife-holder ofan entailedestatethat sord id material caresarepostponed totheinterest in past

,and thein terest of future, genera

t ions .I t is amatter of great importancethat in neither

theso -called Perseid or thePelop id tombs is thereanyeviden ceofburn ing thedead . Theyareall buried ,

somew ith partial embalm ing , somes imp ly laid in theearth . T heHomeric hab it of burn ing ( i noiuerai iou asopposed to seems qu iteforeign to thesep re-Homeric people. A nd th is is what wem ight expeet . So long as thedead weresuffered to l ivein thetombanden joy thep ious offerings placed thereperiod ically for their use, it was obv ious that any destructionof that body would seem not on ly cruel but imp ious .T hefirst desireof many early races

,n otably of the

Egyptian ,has been not to destroy , but to perpetuatethe

body ,as thenecessary cond ition ofany ,even thefain test

and vaguest , futurel ife.But in theHomeric epoch other not ions seemed to

prevail . Man had learned to separatethesoul , -

o r

shade,from thebody , and to find for i t an abodefar

from thetomb , in another world ,whereall thegreat

company of dead meet together,and so could receive

therewards and pun ishmen t that had not been metedou t to them justly in th is l ife. Th is separat ion thenof soul and body was thenecessary beginn ing of thedoctrineof futureretribut ion . For so longas thedead

I n i r oductorj f.

l ived on ly in h is tomb hem ight indeed bepun ishedor rewarded by being deprived of, or amply suppl iedw ith , food , h is arms , ornaments, and slaves , but noin terferenceof h igher power s was apprehended . T heearl iest p ictureof thenext world weknow is in a

°

latebook ( theeleventh ) of theOdyssey

, and therein thewholesoc iety of thedead is gathered in to theduskyrealms ofPluto , and the“ lamentablek ingdom .

” Twoof themost magn ificen t poems in thewo rld

, thes ixthbook of Virgil ’ s ZEnc id

,and Dan te’s Inferno

, arederived directly from th is model . Thereis, however ,eviden cethat Mycenaean sen t imen t

,wh ich h id thedead

inasafechamber and watched over their preservat ionw ithaffect ionatecare, was not ousted by Homerand theep ic poets , and was never replaced in thehab its ofthenat ion by thefuneral pyreand thec inerary u rn . I tiseven probablethat th is latter fash ion was main ly thatofprin cesand nobles

,many ofwhom fell in war far from

their homes , and whoserelations had themeans to carryout th is costly ceremony . Therearetraces enough ,even in theHomeric poems , of theolder fash ion . Bu t

in later and h istorical t imes, west ill find theord inarypracticeto bebury ing thedead ,

and even st ill p lac ingbes idethem ornamen ts, toys , amulets, as if thebel ief inthefuturel ifeof thebody was notext inct .How

,indeed , can wecal l itabel ief? T heevidences

of decayand destruct ion werebut too obvious . I t wason lyavaguehope, alonging to soothedespair ,an effortto prolongat least for atimetheinfluenceand thememo ry of thedeparted . Dreamsand ghosts gavecolour toth is hope

,and thev isits of thedead wereeven dreaded

as omens ofev il . Somethen may havefelt that theburn ing of thebody protected them from th is alarm ingsuperv is ion . But th is is not thesen t imen t of c ivil ized

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zai iou .

mankind . Even now in c ivi l ized Europe, thecare“and

CareOf tom bso decoration at stated in tervals of tombs , theerect ion of

funeral monumen ts , po in t to morethanamererecording of theplaceand timewhen aparen t , achi ld , afriend

, was laid in theearth . I t recalls thoseloweranddeeper strataof human sen timen t lying at theveryfoundation of our men tal con stitution and derived fromtheprim i tivebeliefs of ou r long-forgotten an cestors .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A S u r vey of Greek Ci vi li zai iou .

Phoen ician p iratetraders stil l curren t ; Egypt was st il lkn own as thereal homeofen ormous wealthand culture.A nd when wecometo the“ Homeric Age, ” heretoowehavebeen taught to d iscrim inatelayers o r stratain thestory ; wehavelearned to accept its gradualgrowth

, wearen o longer obdurateas to theearly dateofall thebooks of each poem . Nay,

rather,thereis

every reason to th ink that thecloseof theep ic age,represen ted by thosecycl ic poems that arenow lost ,camevery near thedatewhen A rch ilochus brokew ithold trad ition , w1th preceden t , w ithan art ific ial andeffetestyle, and drew from popular song adeep draughtof splend id in sp irat ion .

What wenow havebeforeus is to discuss how far theHomer ic poems, as wehavethem ,

w ith thehelp of

Hesiod and of material remain s , can tel l us of thereal l ifeand thought of theGreeks n ow rap id ly crystalliz ing in to anational ity d istinct from Pelasgian

,Thra

eian ,Macedon ian ,

I llyrian,and though severed in to

many confl icting societies , yet attain ing someun ity inlanguage, in rel igion , and in pol itical ideas . Wew illnot attemp t toen ter upon thewholeHomeric question ,

onewh ich properly belongs to theh istory of Greekl iterature

,but wemust bring newer researchesand con

elus ion s to bear upon thequestion How w idein t imeis theepoch wh ich thesepoems represen t , and how narr ow is their adherenceto real facts ? Thesepoemsareof courseworks of theimagination . N0 onew ill th inkfor onemomen t of seekingany scrap of truth , h istoricalor even phys ical , in the“ Battleof theGods ( I l iad ,

Book n or can webel ievethat all theI l iad wasoriginally composed upon oneshort ep isodeof thewar ,wh ileall its long years of ch ival r y werelaid in obl ivion .

Both I l iad and '

Odyssey areclearlyaselection from a.

great mass of poemsabout all thewarsand adven turesofalong period — theselect ion by agen ius

, and endowed w ith an art ist ic un ity wh ich d id not liein thefacts, but in thepoet’s m ind , when hechosetheWrathof A ch illes or theReturn of U lysses as thewarp wh ichhefilled up w ith hi s prec iousand variegated woof.Th is is thev iew of thequestion toward wh ich scholarswhosem inds areopen havebeen gravitat ing for thelast twen ty

.

years , and now thereisasort ofagreemen twheretherewas formerly noth ing but b itter and aridcontroversy . T heform in wh ich I stated it someyearsago* does n ot d iffer in substancefrom the‘

fuller andclearer expos it ion of M . Cro iset in h isadm irabletreatmen t of theproblem , wh ich I heregivein abridgmen t .T heanalys is of theI l iad shows us certain sections

of thepoem possess ing very str iking common characteristics . Someof them even formachronological series ,in so far as theeven ts wh ich they describearerelativelydeterm ined in t ime. I f then thesescenes wererelated intheir natural order , they formed not indeedacompleteepic poem ,

butagroup of lays resembl ing i t , by bringing beforethehearer thesuccessivemomen ts of thesameseries ofact ions. A few l ines of transition wouldeasily explain ,

to such as werenot intimatew ith thestory

, theconnect ion ofeach p iecew ith theforegoinglay . Therearealso

,however , somescenes , such , for ex

am ple, as theparting ofHectorand A ndromache( I l iad ,

Book wh ich thepoets wereat l iberty to insertatany poin t they thought fit , and very possibly notalwaysat thesamemomen t in theaction .

Such then is theprobableearl iest condition of theI liad— isolated ,

but connected ,lays , most of them find

ingafixed placeaccord ing to theorder of theevents ,Cf . m y Greek Li terature, chapters on H omer in Vol . I .

Structureof theIl iad .

Un ity of thepoem s

accoun ted for .

ValueofH omeric poem s

for h istory of

civil i zation .

A S u r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

others floatingamong them w ithoutany such log ical determ ination . Hen cethoseearly lays , w ithout producingtheI l iad ,

clearly laid thefoundat ion of that poem . I f

theactual plot was n ot bequeathed to thosewho cameafter , st il l theoutl ines of theplot , o r thesuggestion of it

,

is there— several great scenes form ing what A ristotleinh is “ Poetics ” cal ls an ar tistic zv/zole, that wh ich hasabeginn ing , am iddle, and an end . Th is was then ucleus wh ich fam il ies or gu ilds of success ivepoetsexpanded and completed upon thel ines of theoriginal

,

though w ith freedom and variety . For it was n ot in

tended for onelong rec itat ion each passagewas l ikely,

therefore,to retain acertain independen ce, and m ight

even bein serted to pleaseapart icular aud ience. I t isthen not theartificeofan arranger or ofacomm itteewh ich has produced theI l iad ,

but rather theunfetteredwork of many poets con trolled by thegreatness ofanearly creation of gen ius wh ich they des ired to completeand perfect by further developmen ts . T heun ity wastherefrom theoutset

,but on ly becameclear when

theoriginal sketch was filled in . To useametaphorT hefirst poet had raised upon thegreat territory of

Greek legend threeor four splend id towers to mark out

thedomain wh ich heclaimed for h im self h is successorsjo ined thesetowers by new construction s , morerichlydecorated

,but not grander than theorig inal work , then

theremain ing gaps werestopped byas implewal l . So

in t imethewholewas in closed to form as inglecastleLand c ity , wh ich men called theI liad .

>l<

Such being thestructureof thepoems,what must we

expect from theni as genu ineeviden ces of c ivil ization ?I n theoldest lays therewil l bethebard ’s Op in ion about

I I ;A

‘ebr idged front Croiset’

s H isto iredelaLittératureGrecque, I . , Chapter.0| 5 '

T126 H omer i c Ago.

theheroes whom hes ingsand thesociety in wh ich theyl ived , glor ified moreor less accord ing as thevoiceof tradition told h im of bygonesplendour ,and h is imaginat ion led h im toenhancethevalourand thev irtueoftheprinces who wereh is patrons . But thesp ir itualground of it all, theprinc iples heacknowledges , theemotions wh ich herespects , thefash ion s wh ich hep ictures all thesearethereflex of h isage, and g iveus y

adeeper and truer v iew of theearl iest Greek societythan any d ry chron icleor genealogy .

I n thedays when men bel ieved in asimpleHomer ,author of both I l iad and Odyssey , no t to say of lesserpoems

,thewholenarrativecould beregarded in th is

l ight , and so wehavemany attract ivep ictures of theage, gathered from all thefour corners of theseep ics .Bu t n ow that weknow of various layers and addit ions ,of later poetsand arrangers, wemust bemorecaut iousfo r in thelast-born offspring of theep ic poets , wemustpresumeaknowledgeof theearl ier parts ,

an adherenceto them as models

,aconsc ious c loth ing of theheroes in

an t iquedress and manners — in fact,acertainamoun t of

an t iquarian ism,wh ich cannot but takefrom thevalueof sluttllgugggjl

l

ésn l

theevidence,wh ich is now art ific ially wrought , and not

spon taneous) l< I n no respect is th is m oreman ifest than inthed ialect , wh ich is in many places clearlyartific ial , even Vconstruct ing words upon falseanalogiesand so produc ingstrangefo rms wh ich can never havebeen in real use. T hewho led ialect is com positeandart ific ial , fo r it is morethanl ikely that lays or iginally composed in theZ-Eol ic d ialect D iaiect ,

I t is m orethan l ikely ,as H o lm hasat ued ,that i t was n ot t i llafter theso

called Io n ic m i rat ion that thebards o Sm yrnaan d M iletus began to p u t

togetheran d en ar er 11n 1t 1velegends concer n in thean cestors o f theco lo

n ists i n their Gree omes . Hencethemen 0 AsiaMinor wereseek ing todescribemenand th in o f somegenerat io nsearl ier i n Greece. Features o f

thelateragemax o ttenis

avecrep t m to their desc r 1pt 10n s , fo r whatan t iquar ian ,

least o fall th oseofan earlyand u n learned age, hasever been p r oofagainstsuch m istakes ?

Meter.

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

weretransformed in to themorefash ionableand w idespread I o to meet therequ iremen ts o r thetasteofIon ic courts . But wherethemetreres isted thechange

,

theolder forms wereleft embedded in their new surroundings

,and so producedalanguagewh ich was on ce

thoughtadel iberateselection from var ious local d ialects,

but wh ich is reallyan imperfectadaptat ion of theold tothenew ,

w itharchaisms,naturalandartific ial ;as it were,

an old set of Dryden s deal ing w ith an older school ofChaucers

,and spo il ing them n otal ittlein theprocess .

But to say thateven theoldest parts of thepoems werethenatural song ofany prim it ivebard is to ignorethemost vital featurein all Greekar t. T hespon taneous ,thenaturalas such , wasalways regarded , ineveryepochof Greek l ife, as merely theun tutored and un refined ,

and no greater censurecould beexpressed by anyGreek critic than that theproducer ofawork wasanau toa’idaot— aself-taught man .

>i<

T hewholestructureof thestately hexameter , o r

Homeric meter,shows it to bean artificial growth ,

probably o r lgtnattng am ong thepriests of A pollo atDelph i . T hevery scansion by quan tity instead of

accen t ( for then , as n ow, theGreek spokeaccord ing to

accen t) , marks astart ing pom t o f ar tificiality wh ichGreek poetry never laid aside. Therearevestiges ofolderand s impler metres in thesongs of thepeoplewem ust assumethat at somedefin iteperiod n ot longan terior to theearl iest Homeric lays

,hexameter verse

was adopted as thefittest med ium for mus ical rec itat ions . I f

,as I havein timated

,th is changecamefroma

school ofpriests , and priests in theserviceofA pollo , we

* I beg thereader to noteth isassert ion part icu larly ; weshall haveoccasionto return to i t many t imes i n thecourseof th is book . I t is q u iteopposed t o

thevan ity o f m odern l ife, wh ich often p rofesses to bel ievethat natural gen iuscan producegreatand fin ished resu lts in ar tand l iterature.

T116 H omer i c Age.

can also understand thedel iberateabsten tion of thepoets from men t ion ing o ld superst it ion s

, anc ien t worsh ips suchas thoseo i ancestors

, and their eagerness tobring thewholeh ierarchy of thenewer Olymp ian godsbeforetheir hearers . I n th is sensethewords of Herodotus would receivetheir fulles t in terpretat ion ,

when hesays that Homer and Hesiod madethetheology of theGreeks , and assigned to theseveral gods their stylesand attributes . Un less thesegods wereof recen torigin ,

such atask would befar beyond any poet oreven school of poets . But i f theadven tures of heroescameto bein tertw ined w ith theinfluenceof thegods ofO lympus , wecan understand that thepopularity of theformer wouldaccrueto thelatter

,and so theep ic poetry

would causelocal godsand demons, local worsh ipsandsuperst it ions , to beforgotten fo r thenewand fash ionablepan theon ofMoun t O lympus .Wem ight indeed supposethat theolder and moreprim itivelays would show ev idences ofaruder societythan thelater work w ith which they arenow comb ined ,

and it m ight occur to somelearned man to sever thecom ponen t parts , and exam inethem from th is po in t ofv iew . But such labour wou ld , I th ink ,

belost . For theman o f gen ius, called Homer i f you l ike, who welded

“i n to un ity theI l iad ,

o r theOdyssey,was surely artist

enough to p roduceageneral harmonyamong theparts ,and givethemall that general character which has imposed upon many cen turies as thework ofas inglem ind .

Wemust thereforebecon ten t to takethepoemsas theystand

, and draw ou r earl iest p ictureof really Greekc ivil izat ion from theep ic poemsas wehavethem , w iththegeneral warn ing that they arecomposed by menwho l ived somegenerat ion s later than theh istoricalbas is of thestory , or thepatriarchal royalties wh ich they

A S u r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

describe,and so many ev idences of alateand even

decaying soc iety may besurprised am ong thedescr iption s of what thepoet thought themorn ing of Greekl ife.I n th is respect theOdyssey hasaflavour far -d ifferen t

S p i r it of from theI l iad . Detailed descript ions of bloody wounds0d 0 o

emyfiiffi'

nfafif ceaseto playap r om men t part ; theshock of battleI Smerely stated asafact A ll day wefought upon theshore, but on theeven ing came, wewereworsted andweredriven to our sh ips

,losing many of ou r comrades . ”

Th is is told as in anarrative1 wheretheadven tures oftravelafford theleadtng 1n terest . I t iseasy to seethatn ow thesp irit of trad ingadven turewas ris ingamong thenat ion ; theexp loration of d istan t lands

,thesearch for

wealth across thestormy seas am id roman tic dangers ,fasc inated theh igher c lasses , who could n ot brook theshabbyand confined l ifeof thepeasan t , as portrayed inHes iod . Cetterace

, qu i on t fait du commerceunepoé s ie, ” aFren ch writer exclaims , arethosewho insp ired

,and who del ighted in , theOdyssey . But then

J thehomev irtues arealso put forward ; thesol id advan tageof having an hereditary ch ief who isafather toh is people thedangers ofaristocraticanarchy when thek ing is from home thevaluablecheck of publ ic feel ingupon thelawless n obles

,even though thepoet w il l n ot

adm it that it hadany legal force.W ithall thesefeatu res

,wh ich lead us to thethreshold

V o iaristocratic days, when monarchy was fal l ing in toi

old

ageand democracy was n o t yet weaned , thesu 1to rs ofPenelopehad their coun terpart in manyastate, t il l theirA n t inous or Eurybates got thepeop leto jo in h im

,and

massacred therest as U lysses had done,but as a

usurper , n otasalegit imatek ing . But w ith thesepol itical revolutions comealso theb itter reflect ion s upon the

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A S u r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

Mannersat habits of thetableas i n d i cativeof civi l ization ,and i t was

tab‘e'special ly noted of such m yth ical h uman i zers as Orpheus, thatthey had induced men to im p rovethetoneand manners of

thei r feasting. T heG reeks of h isto ric t imes not on ly con

trasted them selves in th is respect with their sem i-barbarousneighbou rs, bu teven (as weshal l see)estimated thecom parativecu ltu reof theG reek cities by th is sensitivesoc ial test .

From th isaspect , then ,theG reeks of Homer and of Hesiod

occupy avery defin iteposition . T heappo intments of thei rS im p l ic ity.

feasts seem sim p le, bu t n o t un refined . Each guest general lyhadasmal l tableto h im self wel l c leansed w ith sponges, andaspecial supp ly of bread . T hewash ing of hands beforeeat ingwas un iversal . Wi th theexcep tion o f thelargecup for m ixing,

wh ich was often em bossed,and thewo rk ofafam ousartist

,

wehear of n o p lateo r o ther valuables to o rnamen t theroom .

T h is neat sim p l icity, however , does n ot co rrespond w ith theextraordinary quan tity and rudeness of thefood

,and the

barbarous sameness in thev ictualsand thei r p reparation . T heBarbarous pr o A chaean heroes seem always ready to jo in inameal of greatggfri

l

‘

gé‘

gdof

roast jo in ts,and they hard ly ever meet on any im portan t

food . occasion withou t fo rthwith p roceeding to such arepast . Nor

do weseeany refinemen t o r variety in either cook ing or

materials. Wehear of no vegetables excep t am ong thepecu l iar Lotos-eaters, o r of fish ,

except indeed that thelatter ismentioned by Menelaus as thewretched sustenanceof h is

starving com rades when wind -bound off thecoast of Egypt !

Hereis indeed acontrast to theA ttic banquet , wherelargejo in ts wereth ough t coarseand Boeotian ,

wh i lefish was theFgreatestand m ostexpensiveof luxu ries.

Tem perateuse,Yet withal thep rim itiveand p rim itively cooked materials of

o fWine thebanquet, in them selves n o better than the m utton anddam per ” of thew i ld A ustral ian squatter

,wereaccom pan ied

byevidences ofh igh refinemen tand cu lture. Therewas ruddysweet wine, mel lowed byage, and esteemed fo r its bouquetaswel l as i ts flavou r . A nd yet, good as theG reeks though t i t ,they tem pered i t with water, fo r d runkenness was inall agesan offenceagainst G reek taste; it waseven by theim m o ralsu itors considered fi t fo r Cen tau rs, and by later G recfi fl

'

cfi r

Th racians “to d rink in decen t measure was aun iversal

Bardsat feasts. ruleof society . T herewasalso p resen t therecit ing bard ,who

ai ded and was aided by thegenerous winein raising the

T/zeH omer ic Age.

em otions of theguests toawarmerand loftier p itch ,fo r hesang

thedeeds of men of o ld renown,theancesto rs and m odels

of thewarr io rs who sat beforeh im at their tables. T h is wastru ly thein tel lectual sideof theHomeric banquet

, aforetasteof the“Sym posium ofPlato . But theHomeric Greeksweresti l l far below thestagewhen intel lectual conversation ,

in wh ichall took part , was consideredessen tial to socialenjoymen t ; fo r them ost cu lt ivated of theheroes

, U lysses, describesi tas h is not ion of theh ighestenjoymen t to sit inar ow ofsi lentguestsand l isten toabard singing,

w ith am p lemeatand d rinkupon thetable. Thereweresometimes lad ies p resen talso ,

asweseein thecaseofHelenand A reteat thei r respectivecourts,and thestrong in tel lect and h igh qual ities of such lad iesarep lain ly seen in thelead ing part wh ich they takein theconversation .

T hecu rrent news of theday seem s to havebeen thech ieftop ic , whenever strangers werepresent, and wecan imaginetheeagerness wi th wh ich men inqu ired concern ing absen tfriends

,when they had no o ther means of hearing of thei r

welfare. So m uch was thewan t of regu lar com m un ication feltthat wander ing beggars ev iden tly attained an im portancesim i lar to that of thebeggars andalso of theped lars in Scott ’snovels , who com b inewith thetradeof sel l ing goods that ofcarrying news

,and wereevenat timesem p loyedas confidential

messengers . Thesevagran ts, in Homer ’s day,either carried

or invented news, and obtained their l iving in reward fo r i t .

Thus U lysses , in th is d isgu ise, asks h is swineherd what sort ofman h is lost master was, perhaps hemay havemet h im in his

wanderings . A nd theswineherd rep l iesI t werevain ly stri ven ,

O ld man ,with news to cheer h is wifeand ch i ld ,

Oft needy wander ingmen ,to fraud m uch given ,

Havefo ralodgingmany l ies com p i ledThesefar too m uch wh ileomehavem y dear queen begui led .

Such shetreats tenderly,enqu iringall,

A nd in heart-b itter ness do th weepand wai l ,A s shou ldawifewhoselo rd far off doth fal l .Thou too ,

old man ,wou ldst qu ickly fo rgesometale

Butas for h im ,long sinceh is l ifed id fai l

Dogs m ust haveto rn h im ,and w i ld b irds of p rey

H osp itality ofMenelaus.

A S u r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

Or,as thedead fo rm d r ifted w ith thegale,

Fishes devou red h im,and h is bones th is day ,

Wrapt in theco ld sea-sand,liem ou lderingfaraway.

I n so sim i larastateof society to that of o ld Sco tland,I fancy

that thePh oen ician traders may haveco rresponded somewhatto theped lars, as thebeggars wereso analogous. T heHomeric beggars do not

,however

,seem to havemadeso

m uch m oney as thoseof Scotland and Ireland in thelastcentu ry.

T hegreat courtesyand hosp ital ity shown to strangers, evenof thelowest type, nevertheless appear to merather theremains ofam o reprim itivestateof th ings than thenaturaloutbu rst of Homeric generosity, fo r even in thei deal soc ietydep icted by thepoets therearemany passages wheretheclosesh rewdnessand calcu latinggenerosity of theG reek m ind breakout

“

naivelyenough th rough thecurtain of nobler feel ingwh ichon ly disgu ised them . I lay no stress on theabsenceof thatm odern sen timen t wh ich values agift asakeepsake, and wi l lnot part w ith i t even fo r greater value. T heHomeric heroesread i ly gaveaway thegifts of respected guest friends. But

th is was p robably becausetheabsenceof co ined m oney hadnot madethebroad d istinction n ow un iversal ly felt between themarket valueand thesentimental valueof ap resent . T hemain Homeric personal ities consisted of arm s

,cups, and

o rnamen ts. Thesewereobtained by barter,and taken in pay

ment,and soeven thegifts of friends wereno t cons idered in

any d ifferen t l igh t from amerem oney p resent .

But in other po in ts hosp ital i ty was,I th ink

,decaying.

Though every ch ief was bound to receiveastranger, andthough them o renobleof them d id so ‘ readi ly, yet thereareh in ts of somecom punctions inaccepting hosp ital ity, and somemeri t claimed by theh ost fo r gran ting i t . Men to r and Telemachus riseup from Nestor ’s feast

,and intend to return to

thei r sh ip ,when theold hero lays ho ld of them

,andexclaim s

,

Zeusand theother im m o rtals fo rb id that you shou ld leavemeand go to you r sh ips as if I wereaman sho rt of c loth ing,

o r

poo r , who had no wrappersand rugs for h im selfand h is gueststo sleep in com fo rtably.

”A nd so when Telemachus arrives

at Sparta, Menelaus’

s confiden tial servant asks,Tell me

,

Worsley’s translat ion .

T/zeH omer ic Age.

shal l wetakeround theh o rses of thesenoblestrangers, or

send them on to someoneelse,who may befr iend them ? ”

But Menelausanswers in greatanger Yo u used not to beafoo l bu t n ow youaretalk ing s i lly nonsense

,l ikeach i ld as if

weo u rselves had no t befo rereach ing homeenjoyed thehosp ital ity o f many Both Nesto rand Menelaus weregen tlemenof theo ld schoo l ; so that when thequestion is raised

,they

hesi tateno t in theiranswer . Bu tano ther hero speaks ou t m orenaively :

“Of cou rseyou m ust receiveastranger, when he

comes but who wo u ld beso foo l ishas to i nvi teaman of h is

own acco rd ,excep t i t wereask i l led artisan — who of course

wou ld m o rethan repay h is host by h is serv ices.

\Vehear too that thep resen ts generously bestowed by thek ings wererecovered by them subsequen tly from thei r peop le,and yet th is homely arrangemen t seem s fairer and m o resat isfacto ry than thehab it o f m odern times

,when peop legive

their k ingsalargeincomebefo rehand ,in thevainexpectat ion

that they w i l l spend part o f i t at least in hosp ital ity. T heHomeric G reeks weretoo sh rewdand w ide-awakeapeopletosow wherethey d id no t reap ,

and theincreaseof com m un icat ion

,and consequent frequency of v isito rs

,weresureto c lose

quickly theopen doo r , and bar ther igh t ofen teringunasked .

T heanxious p recau t ions o f U lysses on en tering thehouseofA lcinous

,so sim ilar to theacts of theexi leThem istoclesat the

hearth of theMo lossian k ing,show that therewas ri sk

,even in

peace, for travel lers and i t may bethat thegenerous hosp ital ityof thenobler Homeric ch iefs waseven then no t thegeneralru le

,but themark o fah igher and m o rerefined nature. So

wefind theelder M i l tiades,in h isto r ical times, si ttingat h is H osp ital ity no t

open doo r,in con trast to thegeneral selfishness of h is un iver sal.

neighbou rs. Homeric po l iteness seem s,then

,in th is respect

also,afo rerunner of thelater G reek cou rtesy, that i t consisted

rather in good tasteand in tact than in reckless extravaganceo r in self-den ial fo r thesakeof others. Thus wefind Homericmen avo id ing to p ress an unw i lling guest— ap ieceof good

tasteunknown to many of our m idd lec lasses andevadingallunp leasant subjects— ap ieceof tact requ i ring subtlety of m indand qu ickness o f percep t ion . T hemed iaeval baron o r theo ld

T act ofIrish squ irewou ld read i ly figh t aduel fo r afr iend from mereH omer ic men

po l i teness, they wou ld no t havecom prehended thepo in ts on

wh ich theG reeks laid stress .

F inefeel ingand fa1rness.

Influen ceofwomen .

Freedom of

women .

A S u r vey of Greek Ci vi li zation .

Indeed ,n o onecan read theaccoun t of thegames in theI l iad

o r that of thecou rts of A lc inous and o f Menelaus in theOdyssey, withou t being greatly struck w ith thegentlenessandgraceof theideal l ifepo rtrayed by theHomeric poets. T hem odern betting man w i ll besu rp rised to seetheopen andgentleman ly way in wh ich theracesand o ther con tests wereconducted . Of coursetherewas al i ttlejostl ing and somecheating,

espec ial ly on thepart of thegods who befriendedeach com petito r but then wefindaman ’

s wo rd bel ieved thathehad no unfai r in tention — ap ieceof open deal ing wh ichwou ld hard lyansweram ong theI zaoitue’s of ou r race-cou rses.

A boveall, theconduct ofA ch i l les is marked th roughout by thefinest and k ind l iest feel ing ; indeed ,

in no o ther part of thepoem does heappear to nearly suchadvan tage.T hecou rt ofMenelaus isawo rthy counterpart to th is p icture.

No doubt th is hero isalways rep resen ted inavery favou rablepo in t of v iew soc ial ly, and Helen is acknowledged to havecharm s no t on ly of person ,

bu t of intel lect, beyond all o therwomen

,so that th is court may beregardedas thepoet ’s ideal

of refinemen tand po l iteness. Bu tadm itting th is, wem ustalsoadm it that theideal is very h igh . T hereis noth ing inferio r to thetoneofsoc iety in ou r best c irc les in th is p icture. T hep resenceofHelenam ongthecom pany, her luxu riouselegance, her qu icktact and ab i l ity -all thesefeatu res sh ow h ow ful ly thepoetsapp reciated theinfluenceoffemalesociety in soften ing therudemanners of thepugnacious heroes. So at thecou rt of A lcinous weareespec ial ly in troduced to Q ueen A reteas aladyh onou red by her h usband abovetheh onour given to o therlad ies by thei r husbands, and greeted w ith k ind ly wo rds by herpeop lewhenever shewen t out th rough theci ty,

“fo r shewas

not wan t ing in good senseand d iscretion ,andactedasapeace

maker,al laying thequarrels ofmen .

”

Wehavethus been passing insensibly from theHomerichero ’

s treatment of h is fel lows to h is treatmen t of thelad ies ofh is fam i ly. T hecases I haveal ready c ited show h ow h igh wastheposition of married women in theroyal h ouses. T hecharm ingpo rtrait of thePrincess Nausicaacorresponds with i tperfectly — and in all theselad ies’

hab its wefind thegreatestl iberty of demeanour

,and all absenceof si l ly jealousy on

thepart of their relatives. A rete, as wehavejust seen,was

in thehab it of go ing,apparen tly on foot

,th rough her city.

T lzeH omer ic Age.

Nausicaath inks that if her gossip ing townsmen seeher passingth rough thestreets wi th so handsomeastranger as U lysses,they w i l l at onceset h im down as her in tended husband

,

and censureher beh ind backs fo r desp isingall her Phaeac iansui to rs. A nd when U lysses hasapparently fo rgotten her , andshefeels somewhat heartso reabou t h im

,shedoes not th ink it

unmaiden ly to liein wai t fo r h im wherehecanno t pass her ,andgen tly cast up to h im that though now h onoured and courtedbyall thenat ion , yet to her heonceowed h is rescuefrom wan tand hunger . Theseand many o ther passages show thattheHomeric lad iesenjoyedal iberty unknown in good soc ietyat A thens, though perhapsal lowed in o ther parts of G reece;and i t w i ll beaquestion for spec ial d iscussion hereafter , whytheA then ians, ofall G reeks, retrograded m ost from theh igheratt itudeof theep ic age. Mo reespec ial ly, theabduction of

Helenand theseduction of Clytem nestraseem to im p lyaveryfreein tercou rseam ong thesexes, even to adm it of such

attem p ts beingmade. From th is po int of v iew fEschylus fel twi thatrueinstinct theindependen tand freeatt itudeofareigning queen when her h usband was from home. So Penelopeen tertainseven wandering strangers,and has long interviewswith them

,in thehopeof hearing of U lysses, and there

was no th ing unseem ly in do ing so . Sophocles, in h is d ialoguesbetween Clytem nestraand Electra, was m isled by thecustom s

of h is day, and d id no t feel theep ic freedom of womensuffic ien t ly. I t is also im po rtan t to no tethat th is l iberty wasnot thep rivi legeof theh igher c lasses, as m igh t possibly besupposed fo raremarkablesim i lesays, “Why shou ld wenowrevi leoneano ther , likewomen who in someangry quarrel gointo them idd leof thestreet and abuseeach other w ith rep roaches both trueand false? Weshal l find thesamel icenseim pl ied in many of thelyric poets.

But I do no t feel at all su rewhether thevery m i ld censureexpressed against infidel ity is to beregarded asatrustworthyreflex of them o rals of thet imes. No doubt thepainfu l factswh ich I haveno ticedabovem ust haveblunWof men on thesedel icaterelat ions. Though wenowadays rateM y so 1g ly that‘ theloss of i t by m isfortuneis hard ly lessexcused by soc iety than itsabandonment throughpassion , yet in theH omeric times, when thec ompu lsory infidel i ty ofaw ifeas ap r isoner of war was open ly recogn i zed ,

Clytem nestra.

A S u r vey of Greek Ci vi li zation .

and in n o way rep rehended ,th is cal lousattitudemay havere

flected i ts influenceUpon cases of vo luntary sin,and so they

cameto beregarded wi th m uch indu lgence. A ll th is is pos

sible,and may beal lowed ,

I th ink,someweigh t . Soalso the

open concub inageal lowed to married men often afforded ap leafo r retal iation andajust ification in thecaseof crime.But yet , after all theseal lowances, I th ink wem ust s ti l lattribu tethem ost im portan t reason fo r theapparen t len iencywith wh ich theadu l tery of p rincesses is regarded to thepoet ’sown social position ,

and to theaudiencebefo rewh om hesang.

Doubtless noblelad ies werep resen t at h is songs ; heowedto thei r favour many p recious gifts, and perhapsacom fo rtableretreat in thep rec incts of thepalace. I t was necessary then totreat them

,as hedoes thek ings, w i th pecu l iar len iency, and to

set down thei r del inquencies to thespec ial tem ptations of thegods, rather than to thei r own w ickedness.

I t was,I th ink

,fo r th is part of h isaud iencethat thepoet in

ser ted thel ist of celebrated lad ies whom U lysses met in thelower regions. I hard ly th ink themalepart of theaud iencefelt suffic ien t in terest in them . I f they d id , i t wou ld beanadd itional p roof of thep rom inenceof nobleladies in theirsociety

,and of thecelebrity wh ichalady ofexcep t ional beau ty

and rank m igh tattain . Therecan beno doubt that th is passagewas very sim i lar to thefu l ler catalogueof femaleworth iesusual lyascribed to Hesiod .

Desp i teall that theadvocates of Homeric m o rals may say,webu t seldom find th roughou t thepoem sareal ly strong reprobatlon of Helen ’

s adu ltery,even in her own m ind . Sheis

never spoken of by o thersas d isgraced in theeyes of men ,she

is never regarded asacastaway, o r unfit to retu rn to her posit ion in Menelaus’

s palace. I f shehad not caused bloodshedand m i sery by theTrojan War

,I seel ittlereason to th ink

that her crimewou ld havebeen regarded m uch m oreseriouslythan that of A ph roditein thelay of Dem odocus.

T hetreatmen t of Clytem nestrais, I th ink ,equal ly len ient , ifweconsider her m orev iolen t characterand that sheadded thec rimeof m u rder to heradu ltery. Sheis spec ial ly said to havebeen ofagood d isposition ,

and to havestood fi rm as longas theold bard wh om Agamem non had left in chargeof herwas theretoadv iseher . T heshadeof A gamem non of cou rsespeaks m o resharply but theadviceput in to h is m ou th shows

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

T henurseofUlysses.

Greek loveofrevenge.

A S u r vey ef Greek Civi li zation .

Eu ryclea, who p laysalead ingpart th rough thepoem ,is clearly

oneof themainstays of theh ouse,and so self-devo ted in

her conduct that wefeel hu rt with U lyssesas wedo nowhereelsein thewho lepoem ,

when heth reatens her , shou ld shebewan ting in d iscretion . T hereis acu rious com b ination of

harshness and of h igh feel ing in th is passage, wh ich is oneof thefinest in either poem . T heold nu rse

,recogn i zingh im

sudden ly by h is scar,lets everyth ing fal l , and thebath pou rs

over thefloo r . Overcomebyabu rst of m ingled joyand grief,shecries ou t and looks round to Penelope, whoseeyes aredarkenedand her m ind distracted by A thenethat shemay not

perceivei t . U lysses seizes her by theth roat , and wh ispers vehemen tly : Nu rse

,why w i l l you destroy me—

you thatnu rsed meat you r breast now that I am comehomeawaywo rn sufferer after twenty years ? Bu t sincegod hasal lowedyou to recogn izeme, si lenceand let no onein thehouseknowi t

, [for if you do ] I so lem n ly dec larethat I shal l no t spareyou ,

though you arem y n u rse,when I am putting to death the

o ther women servan ts in m y house. A nd sheanswers“ Ch i ld

,how cou ld you say such ath ing? You know h ow

stanch is m y reso lve,and that I shal l keep thesecret, l ikesomehard stoneo r mass of i ron . But when theday of vengeancecomes I can tel l you whoarethewomen whoared ishonou r ingyou r h ouse. Heanswers : “ Nu rse

,why shou ld y ou tel l of

them ?’tis n o t you r business, I shal l find them ou t fo r m yself.

Keep you si len t and leaveit to thegods . Such slavesd iffered in soc ial stand ing bu t l ittlefrom thefreeattendan tswho held avery h onou rableposit ion in theret inueof thech iefs

,j ust as wel l -bred gen tlemen and men of respectab i l i ty

arenow n o tashamed to perfo rm men ial du tiesat thecou rts of

k ingsand governo rs .

What consideration thosereceived who l ived apart from thereign ing caste, o r madethem selves obnoxious to i t

,appears

painfu l lyenough in theHomeric poem sand in Hesiod . I f weconsider thepun ishmen t of h is rebel l ious househo ld by

U lysses, or thefateth reatened to Irus by thesu ito rs,if he

decl ines to figh t wi th U lysses , weseewhat treatmen t rebel l iono r d isobed iencemetat their hands. T heGreeks werealwaysapassionatepeop le, and wreaked fiercevengeanceto satisfythei r wrath . Thus men d id no tabstainaltogether from m ut i lat ion of thel iv ing thus A ch i l les keeps insu l ting thedead body

T/zeH omer i c Age.

of h is foe, and thuseven queens desi retoeat theraw flesh of

thei renem ies .

But theu tteranceof A ch i l les in thenether world i s sti l l m oreremarkableon theposition of thepoor, whoareunattached to firféil’figjiiigfthehouses of thegreat .

“Talk not to me

,

”says thehero

,

ofhonoursam ong thedead I wou ld rather beah i red servant ouearth and that toapo o r man ,

than ru leasak ingam ong

theshades. I n o ther wo rds, I had rather choosethem ost

wretched existenceconceivableo n earth than ru lebeneath .

A cco rd ingly theh ired servan ts of poo r farmersareselected forth is d istinction . I s not th is h int tho rough ly borneout by thestateof th ings wemeet in Hesiod ? I f thepoor-farmer c lass,though perso nal ly free, had such ahard l ifeas hedescr ibes

,

how wretched m ust havebeen theh i red servant,whom the

poet recom mends h is hearers to tu rn ou tas soon as thepressof farm work was o ver . Therem ust

,then ,

havebeen anabundanceof such servan ts ,

sincethey cou ld beagain p ro

cu red at p leasu re,and wecan conceivehow m iserablem ust

havebeen thei r payand lodging on Hes iod ’

s farm .

But thepoet Hesiod h im self had noenviabledays. A nd ofHes1od ’

s testtall h is gneis , undoubted ly thefo rem ost was apaten t fact m ony to capacseldom al luded to by thepo l iteHomeric bards— thegrossinjust iceof thech iefs in decid ing lawsu its and thei r read inessto devour br ibes . T hefableheadduces im p l ies p lain lyenoughthat they feltLa’ sup remecontem pt fo r thelower classes andthei r feel ings they o pen ly p roc laimed thelaw of m igh t , andr id iculed thelamen tat io ns o f thei l l-usedand inju red husbandman . T herepeated rem inder to thepeop leof IthacathatU lysses had no t thus treated them ,

but had been consideratetothem asafather

,alm ost im p l ies that hewasexceptional in h is

j ustice. A nd indeed what cou ld weexpect from asoc ietywh ich regarded thePal las A theneof theI l iadand Odysseyas i tsideal of intel lect and v i rtue? But in Homer weseeon ly thegood side( if weexcept theIthacan su ito rs, who aredescr ibedas qu i teexceptional ) in Hesiod weareshown on ly thebadside. T hewretched farmer looked on thewho leclas!4 \

aristoc rats as unjust and v io len t men,that cared not at all

abou t h is righ tsand h is in terests .

Perhaps i f westrikeanaverageo r balance, weshal l obtainafair view o f thereal stateo f th ings in theseold days. Possiblythearistoc rats who managed thestatesafter theabo l it ion of

J

A S u r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

m onarchy in Boeo tiawereworsethan thesinglek ings fo r weknow n owadays that boards and parl iamen ts haveneitherconsciencenor h uman feel ing,

so that they com m it injusticesalm ost im possibleto indiv iduals,and m oreover theyaredeafto theappeal that touchesasingleheart . But i t is surely acertain p roof of thean tiqu ity of Hesiod ’

s poem s,and perhaps

them ost hopeless featu rein h is difficu l ties, that thereseem s no

red ress possiblefo r thej njust iee_ of-then obles,£xcept -thein terfgenefi j i fi gds whosedu ty i t is to pun ish wrongam ong

men . T hepoet insists that thegods do seetheseth ings, andthat they wi l l interfere; but th is very insisting,

coup led w i ththedespond ing toneof thewho lebook

,lets us seep lain ly

what was thegeneral feel ing of thelower c lasses. Fo r as toobtain ing help from publ ic op in ion ofany sort

,even from the

harsh talk of thepeop lef’ in Homer,of thegrum bl ing in the

assem bly to wh ich Telemachusappeals— thereis no traceof it .

T heearnestand deep ly ou traged h usbandman never d ream s of

arevo lu tion,of cal l ing theassem bly to declarei ts anger , o r

even ofen l isting someof thech iefsagainst therest . I t speakswel l fo r thesterner and sounder qual ities of theBoeo t ianfarmers that such circum stances d id not inducedespair , butrather astern reso lveto avo id thew icked judgmen t-seats ofthearistocrats, aboveall th ings to keep c lear o f l i tigation ,

andto seek thecom fo rts of hard —earned bread and o f in tel l igenthusbandry. Th is

,then

,is theiso lated posit ion of thewo rks of

Hesiod — thepoet of theHelo ts— of wh ich I havespokenal ready.

A nd yet in them o ral parts ofh is writings theG reeks of laterages found m uch that wasattractive. T heWo rksand Days ”

becameeven an o rd inary hand -book ofeducation . Th is factwi l l no t su rp riseus, when weconsider that in o nebroad featu rethem o ral lessons of Hesiod r un paral lel w ith thep ictures ofHomer , in th is theexponen t of them ost permanen t featu res i nG reek character — I mean that com b ination o f rel igion andsh rewdness

,that com b inat ion o f thehonourableand theex

ped ien t , wh ich ,th ough i t often jars upon us

, yet saved theG reeks

,oneand all, from sen t imen tal i ty, from bom bast

,and

from hypocr isy . T hek ingU lyssesand thefarmer Hesiod havethesamerespect for thegods and thesame“eyeto business

,

”thesamegood natureand thesameselfishness, the

sameh onou r and thesamemeanness. Perhaps thek ing was

laxer in his notions of tru th than thehusbandman justas theCaval ier though t less o f lying than theRoundhead . But

perhaps th is arosefrom h is greater proxim ity to thegods of

theep ic poets, who had no d iffi cu lty at all in practising falsehood .

I n another po in t , however, thek ing, owing to h is man ifo ld Greed ofwealth vpursuitsand in terests, escaped agravedanger . No am b itionwhatever lay open to Hesiod and h is fel lows, savethemak ingof m oney and laying up sto res of wealth , as hesays, “

to

wretched m ortals m oney is clear as their souls.

”I n those

depraved days, when averd ict cou ld bebough t under anyci rcum stances from theco rrupt ch iefs, m oney was power, evento agreaterexten t than in m o reciv il ized cond itions . Hencethenatural tendencyam ong thelower classes m ust havebeento postponeeveryth ing to theamassing ofwealth — nay ,

rather,

therewas no o ther occupation open to them . So wefind thatbo th T yr tm usand So lon , early poetsand po l it ical refo rmers,set down greed of weal thas thereal causeo f thed iso rders inthei r respectivestates. T hesametendency is p lainenough ink ingU lysses,and shows itselfeven lud icrously in them idst ofthedeepest melancho ly and thegreatest danger ; as, fo r exam p le, when hefinds h im self cast uponadeso lateshoreandabandoned ,

and when hesees Peneloped rawing gifts from thesui to rs bu t h is loftyand varied sphereofaction fo rces i t backinto asubo rd inatep lace. Yet I wou ld havethereader noteth is featu recarefu l ly,as weshal l meet it again in many form s

th roughout later G reek society.

Thereis ano ther po in t on wh ich Hesiod is vastly inferiorsoc ialattitudeto Homer ; I mean in h isest imateof women .

p lain -spoken bard was not singing at courts, wheresat byand longed to hear ofwo rth ies of their own sexhecon tem p latetheim po rtan t du ties of thehousein theabsenceof her h usband in wars and on theof h is state. Hencei t was that Ai sgbylus, though

adem ocracy wherewomen fared bad ly enough , yet( I felt in theep ic poets such charactersas h is Clytemreign ing queen ,

invested w ith fu l l powers in theking’

s

— freeto d iscuss publ ic affai rs, to receiveem bassies,as her judgmen t d irected her . A ll theseth ings wereto Hesiod ’

s attitude; yet su rely i t is strangethat inng farm l ifeand farm du t ies heshould not have

E

characteristicofearlyas oflater Greeks.

l

Hes iod ’sattitudeto womencon trasted w ithH omer’s.

Hes iod ’sgloom y p ictureofh fe, 1n con

t rast w i th

JH omer’s.

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

th ough t m oreof theim po rtan t duties of thehousew ife— du t ieswh ich th roughou tall G reekand Roman h istory raised theposit ion of thecoun trywoman abovethat of thetownswoman

,

whoseduties wereless im po rtan t, and whom thejealousyof city l ifecom pel led to l ivein fear and darkness. Yet thefirstal lusion in the“Wo rksand Days ”

is rudeenough “You

m ust start with ahouse,aw ife

,andan o x to p lough , and have

your farm ing im p lemen ts ready in thehouse. ” Thereis, I

bel ieve,no farther no ticeof thewoman t i l l thesh o rt advice

concern ing marriage; and heretoo noth ing is stranger thanthebrevity w ith wh ich thesubject is not iced

,and theto tal

si lenceconcern ing theall-im po rtant duties wh ich even Homer ’sp rincesses perfo rmed and wh ich werecertain ly in thehands ofthewomen ofHesiod sacquain tance. Wem igh talm ost imaginethat somesou r A ttic ed ito r had expunged theadv icewh ichHesiod owes us on thepo int , and had justified h im self w iththefam ousapoph thegm of Pericles (o r rather of Thucydides) ,that “

that woman is best who is least spoken ofam ongmen ,

ei ther fo r good o r fo r ev i l . ” Hesiod im p l ies, indeed ,that

,

aman may know someth ing of theyoungwomen in theneighbo rhood

,and th is supposes somefreedom of in tercou rseyet

heseem s to consider thewo rst featu reofabad w ifeher desireto sit at meals w ith her h usband

,an op in ion wh ich in h isage,

and h is p lainand poo r society, seem s very harsh indeed .

However,then

,I may beaccused of hav ing d rawn Homeric

soc iety in darker co lou rs than i t deserves, though I havegivenau tho rity fo revery charge, yet on theHesiodic societyall intelligen t studen ts ofthe“Worksand Days arep rettywel lagreed .

I t p ictu resah opeless and m iserableexistence, in wh ich careand thedespai r of better th ings tended to makemen hardandselfish

,and to blo t out th osefai rer features wh ich cannot

beden ied to thecou rtsand palaces of theI l iadand Odyssey.

So great , indeed ,is thecon trast , that m ost critics haveassumed

achangeof th ings between thestates described in Homerandin Hesiod they haveimagined that thegaietyand sp lendou rof theep ic; herd cou ld n o t havecoexisted w i th theso rrowsand themeanness of themgfl teacher . But bo th traditionand in ternal ev idenceshould conv inceus that thesepoem s

,if

not strictly con tem poraneous, areyet p roximateenough indateto beconsidered social! 1ctures ofthesamg‘

g‘mes , d l ifering,as I haveexplained ,

in theattitudeof thepoets, but not in

T/zeH omer ic Age.

themenand themanners wh ich gavethem b i rth . I fso,Hesiod

has to ld us what thepoo r man though t and felt,wh i lethe

Homeric poet p ictu red how k ings and lad ies ough t , in h is

Op in ion ,to havel ived and loved . A nd w ithall thecon trasts

,

I th ink wecan seeconclusively that thefundamental featu reswerethesame,and that they werethelegitimateseed fromwh ich sp rang theG reeks of h isto ric t imes.

But far morestrik ing than thesorrows and hardsh ipsof Hes iod ’

s l ife, described in theforego ing pages , is theconcept ion of sorrowas afr iend that keeps companyw ith man ,and in somesortassumes thegarb Ofafriend .

Wehaveit in thepoet ShelleyCome, behappy, sit by me, shadow-vested M isery .

Wehaveit in Shakespeare’ sG rieffi l ls theroom up ofm yabsent ch i ld ,

Puts on h is pretty looks

but who shouldexpect suchamen talatt itudein Homer ?Yet it is there, in theOdyssey , plain lyenough in thefamous scenewhen Penelopew ill not recogn izeher husband becausesheis now so wedded to her grief that ithas madehis presenceaperplex ity ,and thed isappo intedhero finds h imself in h is home, but no longer at home,w ith thew ifewhom hehad longed fo r through twen tyyears . Th is is indeed themost modern of themanymodern features of theOdyssey , and onewh ich hadescaped not icet ill I calledatten t ion to it in my H istoryofGreek Literature. ”Wemay con cludeou r sketch by asummary Of theadvan ces in culturewh ich wecan fairlyattributeto theHomeric Age, mean ing by that term Greece, thecoastofA siaM inor , and thein terven ing islands from thepreh istoric Mycenman agedown toabout theyear 700 B .C .

T hegreatest gain wh ich wecan seein theHomericsociety over that revealed to us by theold Mycenaean

Moder n touchesin theOdyssey .

Grow th of

p ubl ic op in ion .

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

ru in s , and thebee-h ivetombs, is thesubstitution of

homeor nativep rin ces for foreigners . I f theHomericch iefs werel ineally descended from theOld invaders

,

they had at all even ts becomeind igenous . I t is no

longer Cadmus or Danaus that brings c ivil i zat ion to theaston ished nat ives

,and so imposes upon them h is sway ,

butanativek ing , speak ing their language, and recogn izedas oneof themselves . R ound theprin cipal ch ieftherehas sprung upanat ivearistocracy

,each member

of wh ich has h is own court and possess ions , and is

ready to takethelead ing place, whenever h is own prowessand thec ircumstan ces of h is ruleperm it h im to doso . Am id th is rivalry of isolated rulers, Oftenerat feudthan at peace, themasses of thefreepopulation aregain ing in importan ce, for their favour must besought byevery amb itious leader . Thereareas yet n o Greekpol ities

,wherethemajorityenact lawsand framean in

dependen t con stitution but thegerms of itaretherethegrowth Of publ ic op in ion

,thedecay ofabsolutism

,

therecogn ition ofpreceden tasab inding Obl igation , theclaim ofevery sent ien t being , even theslaveand thebeast Ofburden , to somecons iderat ion .

But w ith th is homedevelopmen t thereseems to haveeen adecay 111 commerce, certain ly in theimportation

offoreign l uxuries . T heOld foreigner,an absolutek ing

commanding un l im ited forced labour,and keep ing in di

rect con tact w ith h is Phoen ic ian o r Egyptian home,had

both weal th to buy and arecogn ized sh ip serv icetoconvey theivory , thegold , thes i lver , thebron ze,wrought by cun n ingartists in their old homes . W iththeriseof homerulersand themultipl icat ion of courtsth is con cen trated power and theclosecon nection w itholderar t cen tres seem to havedecayed ,

and thech iefsofGreece, as contrasted with thoseof theA siatic coast ,

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A S u r vey of Greek Civi li zati on .

and honesty in men,though according to thelegends

they regarded their own act ions as perfectly freefromall moral cons iderations . I n th is they werecom parableto thosemediaeval sovereigns , who , wh ileinsist ing uponobedien ceto themoral law from their subjects , assertedthemselves in their passionsand their pleasuresasaboveall law . On thewhole

, therefore,'

wh iletherewasabel ief in thegovernmen t of theworld by thegods, therewereso manyexcep tion sandexcuses , so many ways Ofevad ing thewrathand buying thefavour ofthesegods ,that wedo not wonderat thelow standard of truth andhonour wh ich is found in thenation

,as weknow it h is

But theh igh in tel l igenceof thepeoplewas sureto seelts way through thesed ifficulties , and th is h igh in telligen cewas shown n o t on ly in theadoption of foreignhand icrafts and theproduction of new work on independen t l ines

,but in theextraord inary excellen ceof

their l iterature.T heHomeric poems show clear traces ofalong liary developmen t , in wh ich theoldest parts areto allappearan ceequal

,if not superior , to therest . They

seemeven to havehadalong h istory , if they weretrans;formed from theruder o l ic d ialect in to that compositeand artific ial speech wh ich is n ow

' kn own as theEp ic ‘d ialect . A ll th is presupposes n ot on ly great poeticalfaculty on thepart of theearl iest bards , but an almostequal power ofappreciation , ass im ilation , and coord ination in thosewho tran sformed theselays and orderedthem in to dramat ic un ities , wh ich sat isfied for cen turiesthecrit ical faculty of themost crit ical of peop le. I t is,indeed , not t ill thelast twen ty years that wemay say

* T hed ishonesty of theGreeks was proverb ial am ong thenat ions thatcamein con tact w i th them cf . Soc ial Lifein Greece,” pages 1 22 sqq.

that thebold sceptic ism ofWolf has foundamod ifiedacceptance, and that wemayexpect in any new book onGreek l iteratureto find theOld bel ief in theuni ty of

planand Ofauthorsh ip in I l iad and Odyssey laid as ideWo lf’

s theo r y,

fo r somecomprom isew ith thescept ical school .I" l refer to Wolf‘ s fam ous Prol omenato theIl iad , " publ ished in theend of thelast cen tury , wherewas rst broached thetheory that t h is poemwas n o t thework ofasinglepoet , com posingaccord ing to afixed plan ,

but

theconglomerateofman y short la) 3 ofvario us hands.

CHAPTER I I I .

T H E F IR ST TWO CENT UR IES OF H I ST OR ICA L DE

VELOPMENT I N GR EECE, 700

—

500 B . C .

T H E greatest ofGreek h istorian s , Grote, act ing underoneof thosesudden attacks of credul ity to wh icheverys cept ic is l iable, fixed not 700 round ly , but 776 B . C .

prec isely , as themomen t when wecould declarethath istorical records commen ced in Greece. I t was thereceived datefor thecelebration of thefirst O lymp icfestival

,and from that day onward heheld that every

four years Greeks had met at that holy assembly andcommemorated theeven t by nam ing thev ictor publ iclyin apermanen t record ,

most l ikely upon stone. Probably themost importan t con tribut ion I havemadeto thebetter understanding Ofearly Greek h istory was theexplod ing of th is superstition . T helearned world in

Germany at all even ts , and I supposecon sequen tly inEngland ,

hasaccepted theproof I offered , that th is l ist ,l ikethegenealogies of k ings and priests wh ich wen tback to thegods , was n ot agenu inerecord com ingdown from early t imes, but thedel iberateconcoction Of

T hefraud of aclever man , H ipp ias of El is , who d id n ot flourish t i llH ipp ias °fE1i5 ° after 400 B . C . Heused what an c ien t dedicat ion s and

inscribed offerings hecould find at O lymp ia, and soobtained somedates far back in theseven th cen tury ;theearl ier part hesuppl ied from various legends , andfrom h is own

Cf . theappend ix o f m y Problem s in Greek H istory.

Fi r st Two Cen tu r ics if H istor ical Developmen t. 69

T heearl iest firm ground wereach after wanderingthrough land of m ist and legend , of comparat ivem y Reign ofGyges.

thologyandep ic poetry , is thereign ofGyges ofLyd ia,

whosecareer is sketched by Herodotus, and w ith whom

weknow from an extan t fragmen t that thegreat poetA rch ilochus was acquain ted , probably as acontempo rary. T hedateof A rch ilochus was formerly placedsomewhat before700 . Wenow know from astronom ical data— an ecl ipsemen t ioned in th is reign — that hel ived in thefirst th irty years of thefollow ing cen tury.

Thereareindeed many other precisedates far earl ierthan th is to befound in ou r Greek h istories . Thereis Pheidon of A rgos , oneof theearliest despots

,who

coined money , who humbled Sparta, who celebratedtheeighth O lymp iad , who figures thereforeunder theyear 747 B . C . Thereis thefoundat ion of many c itiesin S ic ily from 73 6 onward ,

as reported by Thucydides,

who is to most Greek scholars far moreinsp ired thantheir B ible.A ll thesedates areto berejected , as being thefabrications ofalater age, when men began to coun t downward from thedem igod Heracles, thed iv ineforefatherof theearly rulers ofSpartaand A rgosand Corin th ,andthetenth generat ion was fixed upon for Pheidon , thefounder of trade, and A rch ias , thefounder of colon ies .Commercetherewas, and colon ies therewere, of

course, not on ly in theeighth cen tury , but far earl ier .T hePhaen ic ians had shown theway to theGreeks , andth is versat ilepeoplewas not slow in rivall ing theirteachers . But thefix ing of theseth ings by O lymp iadso r preciseyears seems to mewholly ch imerical . I n allour excavat ions wehavenever found onescrap of

writ ing on stone( no doubt theearl iest material used )wh ich leads us to bel ievethat theG reeks had records

G reeceo ftheLyr1eAge.

' A S u r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

in that cen tury . I t is most probablethat MycenaeandTiryn s wereoverthrown and their population embodiedw ith A rgos during th isepoch

,and yet , as I haveabove

observed,n o traceofwritingappears , am id other hand i

work so developed and artist ic ,as would causeus to

assumeit as certain . A ll wecan thereforesay ,and

happ ily it is enough for our purpose, is that Greeceabout theyear 700 B . C . showsaconsiderableprogress,or at least change, from thecondition in wh ich theHomeric bards knew o r imagined it . Their workswerein common use

,and recited daily even then ,

butthehearers had adopted other fash ions in pol itics , othertastes than war

,other ideals in morals and rel igion .

Th is is what I havecalled theGreeceof theLyric A ge, >l<becauseou r prin cipal knowledgeof it. comes from thefragmen ts of thegreat lyric poets

,who werethen re

plac ing theep ic in esteemand in popularity .

T heh istorical causes of th is changein thestateof

Greek lands ( I in cludeof coursetheislands of the[Egean and thecoast settlemen ts of A siaM inor) arenot far to seek . W ith thedecay or abol ition of foreignsovereign t ies , thehomech iefs brokeup moreand morein to smal land isolated powers

,busy w ith border feuds ,

and hardly ableto sustain any largepol icy of coal itionor of commerce. Hencei t appears that an invas ion of

hardy Doric moun taineers brought new masters in to thePeloponnesus , and replaced theolder royalties . Thatthesewereasmal l body of conquerors , who found itnecessary to makeacomprom isew ith thevanqu ished ,

appears clearlyenough from thefict ion that thelead inghouses , thek ings of Sparta, Messene, A rgos , Corin th ,werenot Dorian invaders

,but A chman descendan ts of

thehero Heracles . Wehaven ot evidenceen oughCf. m y Soc ial Lifein Greece,” 6thed it ion , Chap . IV .

Fi r st T zoo Cen tu r ies of Hi stor ical Developmen t. 7 t

to stateas certain , what seems very probable, that i twas by an infantry armed w ith iron or steel weaponsthat theDorians overthrew theA chaean nobles

,who

fought ch iefly from chariots , as wemay infer n o t on lyfrom Homer , but from theoldest tomb-rel iefs andfigured vases . I f so ,

it was theoldest occurren ceonGreek so il of that strugglebetween horseand foot inbattleof wh ich thelast dec isiveinstan cewas theoverthrow and slaughter of theFrank ish ch ivalry of theMoreaby theGrand Catalan Company on thefield of

O r chomenus in 1 3 10 A . D .

*

I n consequence, however , of th is invas ion ,there

Return waveseems to havebeen areturn wave, oran outward wavei‘ to AsiaMinor.

to thecoasts of A siaM inor , and there, in richer so il , incon tac t w ith richer nat ions , and by theaddit ion of landto seacommerce, theZEol iansand I on ians of thecoastattained to awealth and comfort far superior to thoseenjoyed by thehardy moun taineers , o r even thestirringislanders in andabout theHellen ic pen insula.Moreover

, about thebeginn ing of theseven th centuryB . C. theA s iat ic Greeks camein to permanen t con tactw ith two monarch ies , from wh ich they learned all theluxuries ofages of developmen t . I n thefirst place, theconcess ion o f aGreek mart at Naucratis ~ in Egypt ,though under many jealous establ ishedrelat ions between theGreeks and Egypt , relationsrap idly increas ing when Psam met ichusestabl ished h im

Cf. F inlay ‘

s H istory of Greece, IV . ,1 50.

TH is not certain ,bu t robable, that theGreek racecameth r ough A 5 1a

Minor in to Greece,and t at t hey may haveleft settlemen ts on their way, o r

otherw isepreserved thetrad it ion ofan old occupat ion o f that coun try . t h us

theT rojansand Lyc ians ,espec ially their leaders,areassumed i n H omer to beof thesamerace, descended from thesamegods , and speak ing thesamelanguageas their Argiveinvader s . I t is thetheoryadvocated i n E . Curt ius 5h isto ry , to wh ich I refer i n speak ing ofaretu r n wave. I t i s probabletheory ,

but by no means proved .

I T heearly Naucrat is corresponded in i ts own day to theEngl ish martatH ongKong in ours ,

w hereaforeign nat ion was allowed to settleand tradei nSp iteofgreat jealous ies on thepart ofab igotedan d ex cluswegovernment .

Effect on thefinearts.

A S u r vey of Greek Ci vi li zation .

selfon the' throneby theaid of Greekand Carian mercenar ies ( 668 B . Herethen t heGreeks cametoknow apeoplefar older

,wealth ier

,and morec ivi lized

than themselves , and learned all manner of inven tion s ,and ofbetter methods in artsand crafts . They seem tohaveimported , andeven producedat Naucratis , potteryofafiner qual ity and better design than theEgyptian .

But in other arts they must havebeen very inferior.Who could imagine, for example, that Greeks of thatdatecould p roduceanyth ing l ikethemagn ificen t jewelryfound upon thebody of thePr in cess Aahotep of theE ighteen th Dynasty Or upon thoseof Eknoum it andMerit , recen tly d iscovered by Mr . deMorgan and datingfrom theTwelfth Dynasty , that is to say from about2500 B . C .

Secondly , ther iseof theLyd ian monarchy and itsoppos it ion to theMed ian created agreat eastern courtat Sardis w ith in easy reach of thecoast settlemen ts .This monarchy

,copying of coursetheSplendoursand

hab its of theolder orien tal monarch ies , was anotherexampleto theA siatic Greeks of material prosperity

,

and probably of courtly manners . T heparticular channel through wh ich theGreeks not on ly of I on ia

,but of

themother- land , learned most both from Egypt andfrom Lydiawas that mercenary service, wh ich seemsthenatural outcomeofGreekenergy ,and wh ich becamealeading profess ion

,if n ot theleading profession of

Hellenes,un ti l theext i n ct i on of their l iberty and the

pax R omanaabol ished local wars throughout thebasinof theMed iterranean . To fight for thepay ofwealth ierstates , w ithoutany regard to patriot ism or j ustice, wasaGreek practicefrom thedays of thepoet A lcaeus , whose

Cf . thein terest ing art icleon thesed iscoveries byM. Am é lineau in theRevuedes Deux Mon des for J uly 1 5 , 1 895 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

Crete,but indiv iduals of therace, ch ieflyas mercenary

sold iers , but also as p irates and buccaneers , scatteredin to afar w ider region , and learned theproducts andways of divers men . Thesewerethep ioneers of thoselater colon ies , long after theIon ic m igrat ion ,

wh ichcarried Greek c iv il ization and Greek en terpriseas far asS icily , Cumaein I taly , and even Massil ia(Marseilles)in theWest , wh ileit reached at least to Phasel is(Pamphyl ia) in theEast

,and was on ly stayed by

stringen t restrict ions from reach ing up theN iletoMemph is . But Naucrat is was there, and presen tlyCyrene, from wh ich theoasis of j up iter A mmon wasreached by Greeks beforePindar ’s t ime. I t wassought as an oracle, but theGreeks would n ot havebeen Greeks if they had n ot comb ined their rel igionw ith abit of trading . T hemost surprising featu reinth is so w idely-spread and parcelled -out racewas thed ist inctness w ith wh ich its national ity was preserved .

Thereseems to havebeen no d ifficulty whatever indistingu ish ing aGreek from anon -Greek population ,

and in sp iteofall themany colon ies , and thenecessaryin termarriages of thecolon ists w ith thenatives , wedonot hear of m ongrel population s , about whoseHellenedom therewas any doubt

,except perhaps thecoast

c it ies in Pam phyl ia, at theeasternmost extremeof theGreek world , Selgeand Phasel is, o r whatever they mayhavebeen called , and somec ities of Cyprus , wh ichshowed so strong an infusion of Samn ites as totheir national ity doubtful . But theseareon ly fewun importan t except ions , very obscurein h istory ;main fact remain sas I havestated it .

ith in Hellenedom , however , theun iform itynsequen tly haveexpected was not to befoureall manner of traditions , from thoseof

Fi r st Two Cen tu r ies of ffistor i cal Developmen t. 75

Spartan n oble, who was considered byevery Hellenethear istocrat of therace, down to theobscu reislander whol ived on therocks of Seriphos o r Pholegand r os by labor ions fish ing . ThesewereDor ians , o lians, Ion ians ,Bceotians, Thessal ians,all speak ing their various dialects ;allworsh ipp ing local gods , wh ich wereon ly externallyhar in on i zed

_

by thepoets and priests who sought aun ion of religip us sen t imen t ; all develop ing many d ifferemees of custom in to d ist inctand even con trasted codesof law. Th is is thevariety in un ity

, theharm onyin d iscord , wh ich produced that extraordinary manysidedness that is oneof thesecrets of thepermanenceofGreek culture. I t fits every phaseof modern c ivil izedl ifein somerespect , in somedepartmen t ofar t , in somedevelopmen t ofpol it ics .I know no t that I can better illustrateth is Hellen icun ity , shown (as Groteexpounded long ago ) by acommon language, acom m on rel igion

, and commonfestivals, than by imagin ing theU n ited S tates w ith thecen tral con trol so weakened and laid asleep that eachstatefollowed its own bent , and worked ou t its own

problem s, w ithout check from Wash ington , even in the

caseof local quarrels and c iv il wars . Therewouldremain that comm un ity of sent imen t , thefeel ing ofacomm on origin ,

acomm on developmen t , language, andgeneral l ikeness in rel igion and laws , wh ich would makethemembers ofall thestates st ill feel thecomm on bond ,

and st il l un iteoccasionally in acommon effort againstan invader

,o r an enemy of foreign race. But the

many var iet ies of thestates in d ialect , in m ixturewithother population s , in condit ions of cl imateand hen ceOfproduce, would makethecon trasts between MaineandTexas far moreobv ious than thedeeper sim ilarities .T hed iscovery of steam reduces theenormous d iffer

Many-sidednessoftheGreeks .

A Su r vey of Greek Ci vi li zation .

emees otherwiseinev itablefrom theter r itor ial‘

vastness of

North A merica,fo r themembers of theconglomerateof

independen t states could pass from oneto theother aseas ily as theGreek in h is sail ing boat from coast tocoast .Hen cetheh istory of Greecein theseearly cen turies

,

ifwepossessed it , would betheh istory ofagreat number of independen t states

,each w ith its own in terests

,

quarrels,legislations , l iterature, trad ition s . Thesede

tails arenearly all lost , and perhaps it is so far well ,as no s inglem ind and no s inglepen could compassthesubject , any morethan any oneman could writetheh istory of thecoun ties of England , wh ich aremerelyhandled from thean t iquarian aspect .* But in thefragmen ts of thel iteratureand in theoccas ional gl impses ofthedo ings of themost importan t cen tres , thereisenough to explain to us thecoursewh ich Gr'eek h istoryasawholewas taking , and theinfluen ces wh ich werealready p roduc ing wonders in l iterature, to befollowed bywonders in ar t , and then by thesolution ( on asmallscale) ofevery pol itical problem theworld has s in ceencoun tered .

ween ter upon that inqu iry , wemay best reviewqu itebriefly thecond ition of theGreek world in theseven th and early s ixth cen turies, in order to showthereader what wemean by thegreat con trasts wh ichgavedes ign and richness to theHellen ic un ity . Beginn ing w ith thePeloponnesus (Morea) as thecen tre, bothgeograph ical ly and pol itical ly , of theGreek world

,

wehavetheretheDorian racedom inan t in thearistocracies of Corin th , A rgos , Sparta, Messene. Elis

,

* T herecen tly d iscovered Const itu t ion of Athens, wh ich is ascribed toAristotle

,and wh ich has madesuchast ir in thel i terary world

,was oneo fa

set of 1 58 tracts , each o fw h ich describedad ist inct Hellen ic poli ty ,w i th the

growth of i ts lawsand inst itut ions.

Fi r st Two Cen tu r ies of fl istor ical Developmen t. 77

accord ing to thelegend , was occup ied by Z-Etolians whocrossed thenarrow strait in company w ith theinvadingDor ians , but herealso wefind in old inscript ions ad ialect ak in to theDoric , and far removed from theIoni c speech . Each of theseDorian settlemen tsexceptCorinth , wh ich reaped theharvest of her two seas

, wass ituateinarich valley , wh ich theDoricaristocracy parcel led O ti t into lots fo r themselves

,mak ing theolder

population t il l theground for them . A t SpartaandA rgos theseinvaders succeeded to thetrad itions of

older and richer k ingdoms . A rgos swallowed up Mycenae, Tiryns, and other an c ien t fortresses in theuppervalley , and itsearly success in doing so , probably underthedespot Pheidon , madeaun ited power , for sometimethestrongest in thePeloponnesus .* Wecan seeplain lyenough in theI l iad that A rgos was an importan t butnew power , when that poemassumed its presen t shape.T hewholekingdom of D iomede, h isacts , h is valour ,areso to speak carved out of thepossessions of Agamemnon o i Mycenae. D iomedeis theyoung , en terpris ing ,valorous ch ief who stands gr ievously in thel ight of theolderand morewidely recogn i zed “ k ing ofmen .

” Butboth thefifthand ten th books , wh ich narrateD iomede’swonderful ach ievemen ts , may betaken ou t w ithoutaffect ing theplot of thepoem , theten th being notoriouslyalaterand independen t lay. Th is old supremacyof A rgos is expressed in thelegend of the“ Returnof theHeracleidae” by theass ignmen t of A rgos totheeldest son of Heracles , Temenus , from whom theruling clan was called Temen id . But although therewas amomen t when Pheidon bid fair to assert th is

T heearly d igi nction ofMy cenaeand T iryns I havein ferred from inter nalev idence, though i t does notagreew ith therepo rts of lateGreek h istor ians .

T hedateof Pheidon I place, W i th E . C urt ius,about 660 B . C . ,n ot 743 ,as usual

in Greek h istories.

Doriansettlements.

Tem porarysupremacy ofArgos.

A S u r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

supremacy over thewholepen insula, thepower ofA rgoswaned beforethebetter organ ization ofSparta.Heretoo , as theI l iad and Odyssey testify, therewasan oldand famous royalty ,and thesplendid “bee-h ive”tomb foundat A myclae(Vaph io ) seems to show that itsseat was somewhat south of thefivev illages afterwardsso famous in h istory . Nor is th is barrow an isolatedtest imony . T hetomb-rel iefs to beseen in themuseumat Sparta

,and thepoetry of A lcman ,

composed for

theSpartan nob ility,show an early wealth and luxury

w idely d ifferen t from the black bread and broth ”of Lycurgus . T hes iteof their cap ital shows clearlyenough what theconquerors had in v iew . I n ord inaryh istories

,indeed , theharsh train ing of their lawgivers

and therudeplainness of their manners has somewhatreflected itself in to their supposed home

,and mademen

of books talk of thewild moun tain home,

‘

theruggedglen s ofTaygetus, thestonyand poor soil ,as condition sofSpartan national character . Th is wholecon ception isfalse, as I learned when I wen t to lookat theplace.

T hetown was in h o l iday,and ath letic sports werego ing on

in com mem oration of theestabl ishmen t of G reek l iberty.

Crowds of finetall men werein thevery wideregu lar streets,and in theeven ing th is new town vind icated itsancient titleof“spacious.

”But thevery first glanceat thesurround ings of

thep lacewas suffi cient to correct in m y m ind avery widespread erro r, wh ich weall obtain from reading thebooks of

peop lewho havenever stud ied h isto ry on thespot . Weimagineto ourselves theSpartans as hardy m oun taineers

,

l iving inarudealp inecountry, with steri leso i l,therudenurse

of l iberty. They may havebeen such when they arrived inp reh istoric times from them ountains of Phocis

,bu t avery

short residencein Lacon iam ust havechanged them verym uch . T hevaleof Spartais therichest and m ost ferti leinPeloponnesus. T hebound ing chains of m ountains areseparated byastretch , sometwen ty m i les wide, of undulating h i l ls

Fi r st Two Cen tu r ies of H istor ical Development. 79

and slopes, all now covered with v ineyards, orangeand lem on

o rchards, and com fo rtablehomesteads o r v i l lages. T hegreatchain on thewest l im its thevalebyadefin i tel ine, but towardtheeast theh i l ls that r un toward Malearisevery gradual lyandw i th many delays beyond thearablegrounds. T heold l/Spartans therefo resettled in therichest and best coun tryavai lable,and m ust from thevery ou tset of their career havehad better food , better cl imate, and hencem uch m oreluxurythan thei r neighbours.

Weareled to thesameconclusion by theart-remains wh ich Evidencefromarenow com ing to l igh t ,and wh ich arebeing co l lected in thear t ‘ remainswel l-bui lt local m useum of thetown . They show us that therewasanarchaic schoo l of scu lpture, wh ich p roduced votiveandfuneral rel iefs, and therefo rethat theo ld Spartans wereby no

means so opposed to ar t as they havebeen represented in theh istories . T hepoetry of A lcman

,with its social and m oral v

freedom ,its suggestions of luxu ry and good l iving, shows

what k ind of l iteraturetheSpartan rulers though t fi t to

im po rt and encouragein thec ity of Lycu rgus. T hewho lesketch of Spartan soc iety wh ich weread in Plutarch ’

s“Life

and other lateautho rities seem s rather to smack of imaginaryreconstruction on Doric p rinciples than of h istorical real ity .

Contrasts therewere,no doubt

,between Doriansand Ion ians

,

iffy—

Evan between Spartanand Tarentineo r A rgiveDorians ;but sti l l Spartawasarichand luxurious society,as is confessedonall hands wherethereisany mention of theladiesand thei rhomes. Wem ight as wel l infer from therudeness of thedo rm ito ries in theCo l legeatWinchester or from thesim p l icityofan Engl ish man-Of-war ’s mess, that our nation consisted of

rudem ountaineers l iving in thestemest sim p l icity.

*

I t is strangethat no less am istake, but in preciselytheoppos itedirection ,

has been madeabout theneighbou r ingA rcadia. Herealand of real moun tain ruggedness

, of harsh cl imateand ungrateful soil— thehomeofbears and wolves— has been translated in to asceneofperpetual spring

,peopled with p ip ing shepherds and

scarce-clad nymphs . Both theLacon iaof thebook

Ram blesand Stud ies in Greece,”Mahaffy, pages 3 81-3 (3 ded ition) .

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

wormand theA rcadiaof theeuphu istareto beexpel ledfrom real h istory .

I t seems indeed that most of theDorian invadersfound itacomparativelyeasy taskeither by conquest o raccommodation to s i len cetheolder populat ion andestabl ish themselves as arul ing caste. I n Messenetherewereeven trad itions that theinvaders and nativesbecamefriends , and coalesced w ithout d iffi culty . Butin Spartaeither theA chaean s werestronger , or theinvaders werethemselves at variance, o r therewassomeolder stratum of population moredifficult to dealwith — in short , thecon quest of Lacon iawas not on lyyer-y gradual , but was not really effected t ill agreatind ividual gen ius

,known as Lycurgus

,extended the

d iscipl ineofwar and thecamp to thec ity , abol ished thegreater part of homeeducat ion

,and turned thewhole

dom inan t castein toagarrison wh ich did n oth ing duringpeacebut p reparefor war . T hehigher. branches of

cultureweredel iberately neglected thesen timen tal relations of thesexes werepostponed to themerepracticalproduction of strong youths to servethestate; theamusemen ts ofathletics (w ithout competit ion for prizes )and offield sports fi lled up themomen ts of leisurefromtrain ing ; so that wehavein theSpartan s , as theyemergein to h istory

, thevery model ofan aristocracywh ich desp isesall occupation s but war and sport , wh ichlooks w ith con tempt upon tradeand hand icraft

,wh ich

scorns theimprovemen ts of theageand then ovelt ies ofdiscovery

,and hugs w ith prideold trad itions , rude

ways of l ife,prim it ivefash ions .

I t has been recen tly thefash ion to d im in ish thecred itwh ich older h istorian s , and wh ich indeed theun iversalfeel ing of theGreeks , ascribed to Lycurgus . Grotein part icular was never weary of carpingat theSpartan ,

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A Sur vey of Greek Ci vi li zation .

Plutarch ’s “Lives areaccess ibleto all, I '

need not

c itefrom h is description . Modern critic ism has n othing toaddand very l ittleto takeaway from h is charming sketch . To furn ish it throughout w ith notes of

in terrogation , to question each and every statemen t , isof coursethecheapest of criticism . But h itherto wehavemadeno d iscovery wh ich can explain to us i tsstrangeanomal ies .Why , for example, weretheretwo kings , not one?

A nd yet thereis n o h in t in legend that theGermantheory ofan early comprom iseis true

,and that these

k ings represen t theinvaders and theolder racerespect ively. Theyareun iformly stated to beof thesameor ig i n ,

and their genealogy waseven traced back fromson to father til l they reached thehero Heracles .Why werethe

,ceremon ies wh ich followed upon the

death ofeither king so strangeand un l ikeHellen iccustoms that Herodotus turn s asideto describethemand comparethem to thefuneral ceremon ies of A s iaticbarbarians ?>l< Why

,in sp iteofall th is d ign ity of tra

d ition,do wefind thesekings dom inated by thefive

ephors , p lain men chosen w ith no c ircumstan cefromamong theaverageSpartans to con trol thewholestateandeven bring thekings to trial ? Why d id theluxuryand refinemen t wh ich wecan find

'

in theold tombs , andHerodotus V I . , Cha

p. LV I I I . : Sucharetheh onours aid by theSpartans

to their princes wh ilstaive; they haveothersafter t heir ecease. Messengersaresen t toevery par t of Spartato relatetheeven t , wh ilst th rough theC i ty thewomen beat onacaldron . A t th is signal onefree-born person ofeach sex iscom pelled under very heavy penalt ies to d isfigu rethem selves. T hesamecerem on ies wh ich theLacedaem on ians observeon thedeath o f their k ingsarepractisedalso by thebarbarian s of Asia; thereater part o f wh om ,

on asim ilar occasion , usetheser ites. Whenak ing OGLacedaem on d ies ,acertainn um ber o f Lacedaem on ians, independen t of theSpartan s ,areobl iged from allarts of Lacedm m on to atten d h is funeral . When thesetogether w ith theelotsand Spar tans, to theam ount ofseveral th ousands

,areassem bled in one

p lace, they begin , menand women, to beat their breasts ; to makeloud and

d ismal Iamen tat ions ; always exclaim ing of their last prin cethat hewasofall p receding ones thebest . I f oneof their k ings d ies i n battletheymakearepresen tat ion of h is person ,

and carry i t to thep laceof in termen t onab ier rich lyadorned . When i t is buried thereisan in terval of ten days fromall businessandam usemen t , w ithevery public test im ony of sorrow .

Fi r st Two Centur ies of H istor i cal Developmen t. 8 3

in theallus ions of A lcman and other lyric poets,give

way to thestern s impl ic ity wh ich becametheosten tationof h istorical Sparta? Why did their loveand patronageo iar tand l iteraturegiveway to ignoranceand rudeness ? Why weretheir women freefrom thestrict d isc iplineof themen

,freefrom therestrain ts of A ttic

or Ion ian l ife, and yet for cen turies no t theworseforthewealth and un restrained l iberty in wh ich they l ived .

Why in asoc iety wheresexual relations wereas unsen timen tal as poss iblewerethepurity and dign ity of thefemalesex so longand so honourably main tainedFor all theseproblems thereader must seek h is

answer from theh istorian . T hewriter upon Greekc iv il ization has on ly to statethesecon trasts to therest ofHellen ic l ife, as oneof theelemen ts ofaculturer icherand morevar ious than any other in theOld World .

A nd what weretheideas wh ich werepecul iarlyderived from th isar istocrat i c soc iety , and spreadabroadthrough theGreek world ? F irst ofall, thaf: digp ity did v

‘

not mean luxury,that aristocracy did not mean wealth ,

that upon black breadand broth could l iveaman whomeven thetyrant , who added un l im ited power to h isluxury

,looked upon w ith respect , if not w ith envy .

Second ly,that thevery po in t in which th is tyran t , who

put h imselfaboveall law ,m issed themark , was that in

wh ich real nob il ity cons isted — an unswerving obedien ceto thelaw , and loyal acceptanceof its decrees , evenwerethey harsh . Th irdly , all this conduct was basedupon thepostponemen t of each man ’s in terest andpleasureto thoseof thestate, of thecommon weal ,of thegreatness ofh is country . I n almostevery Greekstatethetheory prevailed that theindividual had no

rights against thestate; in nonewas th is theory soloyallyand un reservedly carried outasamong theSpar

Cond it ions ofculturein restofGreece.

Athens.

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

tans , who gloried in sacrificing everything — property,

w ife, ch ildren ,comfort — for thegreatness and glory

of their state. Th is is that ideal ofpatriotism wh ich hasled indeed to notafew graveconsequen ces , to notafews ig'nal in justices

,to many terriblem istakes , b i tt stil l it is

anoblefeeling,and onewh ich raises men from thelevel

of thesavageor thecyn ic to someth ing loftier andpurer

,to someth ing deserving of immortal ity.

What werethecond itions of culturein theother statesofGreeceand A siaM inor , whosematerial advan cewasfar greater than that of Sparta? Weknow very l ittleindeed of soc ial A thens t ill wecometo Solon andPisistratus

,but

-“

viacan infer someth ing from thepol itical changes wh ich arechron icled in Plutar cli ’s “Lifeof Theseus

,in A ristotle’ s “ Con stitut ion of A thens , ”

and in theallusion s of other authors . Weknow thatthere

,too

,therewas alanded aristocracy , but that the

poor. peoplewerenot ofad ifferen t or conquered race.

“For’

ft’

heA ttic peoplealways boasted that they wereautoc/zt/i onous

,that is

,nat iveto thesoil , wh ich provesat

alleven ts thatall recollection of theiradven t,o r of the

displacemen t of an older populat ion, was gone. T he

lan ded aristocracy seem to havel ived hosp itably , l ikefeudal lords , in thecoun try , as is told of theelderM iltiades , and not w ithout luxury . Thucyd ides saysthat it was on ly recen tly , that is in thefifth cen tury , thatthey had g iven up wearing theflowing Ion ian robes ,and thetettix ( cicada) ofgold in their hair. T heseventeen mut ilated goddesses , or perhaps rather prin cesses ,found under therubblegathered from thePersian furyon theA cropol is , areall dressed most elaborately , and

Early Att ic ar t . in divers colours,w ith their hair carefully plaited ; and

ther ich effects wh ich still remain show how elaboratewas thetasteof that early day . T hedeepexpression

A S u r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

wh ich moreperfect artists put in to thefaceand formwas stil l wan ting to thesestiffand ungain ly figures , w iththeir stereotyped sm ile

,but thetastefor luxuryand the

splendour oftheoutwardappo in tmen ts areunm istakablythere. Weknow thesamething of theearly A tticarch itecture. Whether thematerial of atemplewasmarbleor not , it was covered w ith rich colours , and ifposs iblewith gi lded ornamen ts , so that thewhole

v modern not i on of thepurity of wh itemarble, and its

No materialevi denceextantfo r Athen ianh omel ife.

Publ ic works.

perfection asamaterial for sculptureand for ar ch itecture, was almost foreign to theGreeks . T heA tticideal of splendour in a' statuewas to haveit ckryselepkantine, gilded ,

w ith theexposed parts of thefigureinivory .

Wehaveunfortunately n o closer knowledgeof theirhomel ifeas to its material aspect , as wehave, fromtheexcavated palaces

, of theMycenaean age. T hehouses of theA tt ic n obles

,nay,even ofSolon and Pisis

tratus, havewholly van ished ,no r do I supposethateven

if thelatter dwelt in theA cropol is , as sometyran ts d idfor safety’s sakein other c ities

,h is residen cewas ofany

real splendour. A ll wecan sayabout thePisistrat ids isthat they carried out great works fo r thepubl icadornmen t of their city . I t is but yesterday that Dr . Dorpfeld discovered how they had led great undergroundcondu its from somem i les h igher up theI l issus round theA cropol is to thespot wherethey madethegreat publ icfoun tain w ith its n inemouths , theEnneakr ounus, wh ichwas stil l used for all solemn purposes in Thucyd ides’sday. Weknow too that very s im ilar work was carriedout by their con temporary Polykrates ofSamos , wherebyan engineer called Eupalinos p ierced amoun tain tosupply thec ity with water. Th is condu it hasalso beendiscovered (by Dr . Fabricius ) , and so amplewas the

Fi r st Two Cen tu r iese/ fi istor ical Development. 87

supply oflabour that over theactual water condu it wassetasecond toenablethewater courseto beinspectedand cleaned .

Theseisolated cases provewhat I havelong heldand T yrants theargued in opposition to thetoo pol itical Grote, that thegigggcgggsmofso-called tyran ts weremater ially thebenefactors ~

o i page?“Hellenedom . They commanded thewholemeans of

their respectivec it ies ; they could employ adequateslavelabour ; they wereun ited through Greece, I taly ,and A siaM inor in acertain brotherhood of ir respon 7

sibility, and kep t in such corresponden cew ith eachother that artists and poets passed from oneto theother , and so spread theknowledgeof luxuries andlettersamong peopleh ighly suscept ibletoall progress ,but as yet far beh ind Egyptians and Babylon ian s andA ssyrians in thecomforts of l ife. Yet in two respectsthey werealready superior : first , they had already Athen ians “advanceofobtai ned awhp lly d i fferen t V iew of pol i t i cs ; they had EgYPt lans iet

i n pol it ics.

learned toassert ther ights of thefreemen ; they hadlearned to settleth ings by publ ic discuss ion and if therich werestil l themasters of thepoor, and claimedtheprivileges of anc ien t descen t. or wealth , it on lyrequ ired thebrief dom inat ion of

‘as ingletyrant’

who seth imselfover thewholepopulation and ruled by forceofarms to depress thesearistocrats to thesamelevelandto thesamerights as therest of thepeople. Hencetheintensehatred of thearistocratic classes to thetyrantshence

,through aristocratic influences , theperpetual

t irades wefindagainst tyran ts in Greek l iterature. Forwhen thetyran t was assassinated h is tyranny still livedtheupper classes had lost their advan tageand neverregained it . Their sentimental influencewas shaken or

abol ished ; they had served thedespot l iketherest ofthec itizens they had suffered v iolenceor wrongat h is

Advanceinletters.

A S u r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

hands without redress l ikethemeanest peasan t ; thegreat lord had lost h isa’r oi tsa’eseigneu r , and w ith themh is prest ige, forever. Th is was thepol itical gain .

Secondly , wehaveawonderful advafi ze_ ih letters ; wehaveeven in thefew fragmen ts now extan t clearev iden cethat thepoets of that early day wereasaccompl ishedartists ,ayeandas keen th inkers ,asWordsworth and Tennyson . No elaboration of style

,no

subtlety ofform was unknown to them . T hewonderfulth ing is that theearl iest of theselyric poets , A rch ilochus

,isas perfectly developed asany of them in metre

and in trenchan t style, as developed ,indeed

,as Hein

rich Heinein our own cen tury . Wehaveremain ing of

h im on ly isolated l ines,and in them theaptness of the

metreand thetren chan t v igour oftheexpress ion cannotsurvivein any translation . T heAmerican publ ic whowan t toappreciatesuch th ings must sit down and learnGreek

,and that w ill cost them t ime. But though we

haveofA rch ilochus such scan ty remains , theyenableusperfectly to accept theunan imous verdict of thelaterGreek critics

,who stil l possessed h im ,

and whoagreedto class h im second to Homer on ly .

Yet it was indeed difficult to say who was greatest inthat wondrous galaxy of poets that fi lled theseven thand s ixth cen turies

,and sang in 'all Greek lands from

S ic ily to Sardis , from Corcyrato Cyrene— A lcaeus , Sappho , A nacreon , Ibycus , Stesichor us, S imon ides , Pindar ,n ot to men t ion thelower forms , thesatires of theelderS imon ides and of H ipponax ,

and hosts of lesser namesthat haveleft butatraceupon thestream of t ime. T hedistinct ion s and d ifferenceof thesemen ’s work aretheaffair of theh istorian ofGreek l iterature. I need on lyhererem ind thereader that if someof them devotedthemselves to choral hymns and odes to thegods , most

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A Su r veyef' Greek Civi lizati

I fe’er you heard m yardent vow,

Prop itious goddess, hear menowA nd oft m yardent vow you ’veheard ,By Cup id ’

s friend lyaid p refer r ’d ,

Oft left thego lden cou rts of j ove,T o l isten to my tales of love.

T heradiant car your sparrows d rewYou gavethewo rd , and swift they flew,

Th rough l iquidair they wing’

d thei r way,I saw their quiveringp in ions p layT o my plain roof they bo retheir queen ,

Ofaspect m i ld ,and look serene.

Soonas you came,by your command ,

Back flew thewanton feathered band ,Then

,with asweetenchan ting look ,

D ivinely sm i l ing, thus you spokeWhy didst thou cal l meto thy cel l ?Tel l me

,m y gentleSappho, tel l .

What heal ingmed icineshall I findT o curethy love-d istem per ’d m indSay, shal l I lend theeall my charm s

,

T o win youngPhaon to thyarm s ?

O r does someother swain subdueT hy heart ? m y Sappho, tell me, who ?

Though now,averse

,thy charms hesligh t,

Hesoon shal l v iew theewi th del ight ;Though now hesco rns thy gifts to take,Hesoon to theeshal l offer ings makeThough now thy beauties fai l to m ove

,

Hesoon shal l mel t withequal love. ”

Oncem ore, 0 Venus, hear my prayer,A ndeasem y mind ofanxious careAgain vouchsafeto bem y guest,A nd calm th is tempest in m y breastT o thee

,brigh t queen ,

my vowsasp ire0 grant meall m y heart’s desire

Two Centu r iesef fi istor ical Development.I I

MORE happy than thegods is heWho ,

soft recl in ing,si ts by thee

H isears thy p leasing talk begu i les,H iseyes thy sweetly-d im p led sm i les.

T h is,th is

,alas alarm ’

d m y breast ,A nd robb

’

d meof m y go lden restWh i legaz ing on thy charm s I hung,

My vo icedied faltering on m y tongue.

With subtleflames m y bosom glows,Q uick th rough each vein thepo ison flowsDark d im m ingm ists m yeyes surroundMyears with ho l low m urm urs sound .

My l im bs w ith dewy ch i l lness freeze,On m y who leframepaletrem bl ings seize,A nd losing co lo u r

,sense

,and breath

,

I seem qu itelanguish ing in death .

*

T helast of theseries is to us thebest known ,because

largeport ions ofh is works havesurv ived . But hel ived Pindar.on thethreshold ofanewepoch heeven l ived to seethegreat national strugglewh ich remodelled all Greekpol itics and Greek soc iety , yet hewas of theold ,

andbelonged to thepast ; n ot on ly thec ity (Thebes) towhich hebelonged ,

but theman h imself was unableto v

appreciatethenewera. T hemodern reader finds h imnow,as theR oman reader did ,

soelaborateandartific ialthat h is truemeritsarenot eas ily to beestimated . No

1 bH iseaorat iongreat poet is bound to beobvious or eveneasy but heandan ificiality‘

is on ly condoned h is obscurity becausetheideas hegrasps

, or.

endeavours to grasp , arevast and beyondour clear v is ion . H is caseis w ithoutexcuse, if, as Mr .

T hesevers ions loseall thetranscen den t beau ty ofexpression in theoriginal.h ing they canno t change. I w i ll call i t them odern flavour ofth isI n n o respect has theversion changed o r m od i fied th is str ik ingLet i t beremem bered that Sappho l ived m orethan fivecen turies

H is ideal ism .

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

GeorgeMered ith does nowadays , helabours toenvelopevery-day plat itudes in thecontorted grammar o r theinverted d ict ion wh ich demands careful analys is, andseeks to cheat thereader in toabel ief that what is madedifficult of comprehension is thereforewel l worth beingunderstood . Pindar, to my m ind ,

is often gu ilty of

th is fault . H is elaboratemetreand rich vocabularyoften conceal ideas obvious and tameenough whenstated in s implewords . But h is duty was to bestfi ely,

to producean effect by themus icand themarch of h is

processional hymns,to affect men ’s m inds by great

words , set in anobleframework of rhythmand of song,

and so wemay layas ideour crit ic ismand takeh im asaman not only successful in do ing what heattempted ,

buteven in del ighting modern schoolmasters with thed ifficulties of h is in terpretation , and thesatisfaction of

think ing that h is perfection s areon ly known to thosewho havemasteredall thetechn ical ities ofh isar t .

Wearerather con cerned w ith hearing from h im whatwecan con cern ing thesociety in wh ich hel ived .

does not say muchabout thepresen t . Heis con cch iefly in glorifying thepresen t by mean s of tT hec ity that hepraises is great becauseof itssplendours

,and becauseit was thehomeof old

heroes . T heind ividual that hepraises isbecausehehas shown by h is prowess thevalueofdescen t , and theglorious s ideofatavism . T herefas compared w ith therealism ofmany of thelyric psuch as A rch ilochus

,herepresen ts theideal s ide,

glories of legendand trad ition , thegreatnessandof thepast . T heonefact thatapoet w ith th ifeatureshould havebeen employed by allGreeks odes

,s

Fi r st Two Cen tu r ies of [fistor ical Developmen t. 9 3

Greeks , butalso that thebetter classesalready stood on

avery h igh level of culture. T hepoemsareall d ifficult,

elaborate, to someexten t un real ; theother great poetof th is day , S imon ides , was, so far as wecan tell , easyand clear yet therewas room for both in theaffectionsof thepubl ic . But then Pindar celebrated Olymp icv ictories at solemn feasts , when thepomp ofaprocess ion suggested splendou rand gorgeous imagery . S imonides is best known by h isep itaphs , wheresuch qualitieswereout of place. However pompouseven thetkrenoiof Pindar , when therich man ’ s burial was conductedw ith ceremony

,thewords that marked therest ing place

of thewarrior , themaiden , and thesageneeded butterseness and thepathos of s impl ic ity. So it is thatwh ilePindar is now intensely anc ient— I feel sureheseemed so to themen of thenext cen tury* — Simon idesm ight havewritten to-day. Take, for example, h is

5 lamen t of Danae, when shut up with her in fan t( I sen tadrift upon thesea

WH EN rudearound theh igh-wrough tarkT hetem pests raged ,

thewaters darkA round them o ther tossedand swel ledWith not unm o istened cheek , sheheldHer Perseus in herarm s, and said“What so rrows bow th is hap less headThou sleep ’

st thewh i le,thy gentlebreast

I s heaving in unbroken restI n th is our dark unjoyous home,Clam ped wi th therugged brass, thegloomScarcebroken by thedoubtfu l l igh tThat gleam s from yon d im fires of n igh t .

But thou,unwet thy c lustering hair,

Heed ’st not thebi l lows ragingwi ld ,

an extant fragment thatwant of tasteof the

haveensued .

Moder nnessofS im on i des.

A Su r vey of Greek Ci vi li zation .

T hemoan ings of theb itterair ,Wrapt in thy purp lerobe, m y beauteous ch i ld

Oh , seemed th is peri l peri lous to theeH ow sad ly to m y wo rds of fearWouldst thou bend down thy l isten ingearBut now

,sleep on

,m y ch i ld ! S leep thou ,

widesea!S leep ,

m y unutterableagonyOr if m y rash in tem peratezeal offend ,

For m y ch i ld ’s sake, m y father , pardon me

O r th is odeto thev ineMOT H ER of purplegrapes, soul-sooth ingvine,Whoseverdan t boughs thei r gracefu l tendri ls twineS ti l l round th is u r n

,w ith youth unfai l ing,

bloom ,

T hegentleslopeof old A nacreon ’s tom b .

For so theunm ixed-

goblet-loving sire,

Touch ing thel ive-long n igh t h isam o rous lyreEven low inearth

,upon h is brows shal l wear

T heruddy c lustering crowns thy branches bear .

Where, though sti l l fall thesweetest dews, thesongDisti l led m oresweetly from that old man ’

s tongueT

I don ’ t know that i t would befair to presen t Pindars im ilarly in an Engl ish dress . Thosewho cannot readh im in theoriginal must imagineh im theGray ofGreekpoetry , but morecomplex and elaboratethan Gray .

Hespokeof courseon ly to theupper classes , butyet rather to thewealthy upper classes than thoseofthepurest blood . For Spartahewroten oth ing , forA thens almost noth ing . R ich Sic il ian tyran ts

,and the

rich mercan tilemen ofn ina, Cyrene, and other 5

places , possessed moreambition to sh ineas thepurtherace, and moremean s to pay thecostlyartist .may then infer that at theO lymp ic and otheri games , thesepol itically inferior states claimed th

full shareof importance, and took their places am o

Milman , page1 93 .

1'Milman , page1 94.

Fi r st Two Cen tu r ies of ffistor i cal Developmen t. 95

thedemocracy of Greek pol ities . Weknow that atO lymp iaandat Delph i c ities insign ifican t in h istory hadthemost sp lend id of thosetreasure-houses , in wh ich theofferings of thestateand its c it izen s wered isplayed .

I tis but recen tly , for example, that theFrench ar chmologists haved iscovered thetreasury of theSiphn ians’l<at Delph i , wh ich was moresplend id than any of therest .But then therehad been gold m ines at S iphnos

, andwh ilethey lasted theisland was very wealthy .

Pindar dwel t in Thebes,wh ich was rather despised

among its neighbours fo r wan t of culture, and notedfor r ich l iv ing ; yet , as is always thecasew ith greatGreek poets , wecan traceno inferiority , no wan t of

train ing, in th is Boeot ian bard . Webegin to doubtwhether theland wh ich produced Hes iod

,Pindar ,

Corinna, Epam inondas , Pelop idas, and Plutarch,was

not mal igned by therest of Greece, just as theassand thegoose, wh ichareamong themost in tell igen t ofdomesticated creatures

,havebeen un iversally , and yet

most falsely,set down asembod imen ts of stup id ity. But

inaprofess ion suchas h is, wh ich brought h im in to connection w ithevery c ity in Greece, h is homewas really ofl ittleimportance. Hewas thepoet laureateof allHellen ic lands

,replac ing w ith h is pecul iarar t , and with

thosechoral processions and dances accompan ied bymusicand poetry

, theold Homeric bard , who wanderedfrom court to court

, alone, and depending upon h is

s implec itharato aid h is declamation . But Pindar wasnoth ing ifnot gorgeous . I n complexity ofmetre, in theelaboratestatel iness of theperforman ce, poss ibly in thecompos ition of themus ic , wh ich wasas essen tially partof h is work as thetext , th is lyrical symphon ist , l ikeWagner in ou r own day, combined ma_nyarts in sucha*S iphnoswasan obscurel ittleisland in theE gean .

A S ur vey of Greek Civi li zation .

wayas to produceawonderfuleffect ,and onewh ich couldn ot beim itated by better men , o r w ith lesser means .I n great con trast to th is cl imax of choric compos itionarethesimpleiamb ics and elegiaes of themoreph i losoph ical arfd

'

reflectivepoets , of whom thew iseSolon ,

l iving nearlyacentury earl ier than Pindar , is themostprominen t example. Weshal l comepresen tly to h ispol itical s ide

,but h is poetry is not less remarkablethan

that of Pindar, and for thevery oppositequal ities ,s impl icity and d irectness , an utter absen ceofsplendour,but agreat depth and breadth of good sense, and of

that w isdom wh ich raised h im to rankamong theSevenSages ofearly Greece. I t is again to theinestimablePlutarch , whose“ Lives should beunder thehandofevery onethat reads th is book , that weoweal ivelyp ictureofSolon and h is t imes . But h is many quotationsfrom thepoet-statesman wenow know to havebeentaken from'

A ristotle’s Constitution of A thens , ” wherewehaverecen tly found them in somewhat fuller form .

Thesefragmen ts , taken from what wemay cal l h isSol iloqu ies

,

”thevolumeby wh ich hewas best known ,

T ranslation of aremost strik ing from their m oa’er n tone, their plainandSolon .

clear way of lookingat men and things .

SOLON .

NE’ER shal l our city fall by doom ofJove,

Or sentenceof theim m ortal powersabove.So strong theh igh -born ru ler of theland ,Pallas A thene

,l ifts her guard ian hand ,

But th ineown sons,O A thens

,arethy fate,

A nd, slaves to gain ,

destroy theunconquered state.Fiercedemagogues unjust , o ’er whom shal l flow,

Fo r their dark crimes,ab itter taleof woe

Whosepam pered wi l ls brook no restraint,nor rest,

Enjoying, with calm hearts, good fortune’s feast.**Milman , page197.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

T yranny ofPisistratus.

Solon n otadem ocrat .

A Su r vey of Greek Ci vi li zation .

n ot sei z ing theopportun ity . But Solon was too morallypure, too politically s imple, toadopt th is unscrupulous ,but practical course. Hemadeh is laws , and left themw ithoutadequatesan ction . Therewas n o power in thehands of themajority to securetheir enforcemen t . So

i t requ ired themoderateand w isem

tyranny of Pis istratus( 560—

5 1 0 B . C . ) to carry out , ifn otall, at least themajor ity of Solon ’ s laws

,and in any caseto put down

themost crying abuseof that day — theoppressionof thepoor by therich , of thepeasan t by then oble.Solon

,and indeed Pis istratus also , was far removed

from thevain n ot i on of un iversal suffrage,

or fromputt ing thel ifeand property of thepropertied classesin to thepower of thehungry masses . T hewholeof

Solon ’ s arrangemen ts werebased on theprinciplethatwealth was not on lyarespectableth ing in an individualbutaguaran teeofh is conduct to thestate. Democracyin onesen sewas n ot on ly unknown to h im ,

but hewould haveturned from it in horror. For no Greek thatever l ived bel ieved in themasses , in theworth of slavesand barbarian s , in thew isdom ofany but educated men .

Butas theremedying of in j ust icewas themain featureof Solon ’ s pol icy

,so also heshows thereasonable

moderation ofaph ilosopher,n ot sweep ing away what

was oldand respectable, n ot break ing w ith trad ition l ikeaé’vulgar radical , but endeavouring to makejei zil. out of

good ,h ist01y ou t of change

,progress out of thegreat

fermen tat ion wh ich threatened to explodethestate.T hepoems of Solon as wehavethem express all thesemoderateand wiseprinciples

,nor do I know that there

areany fragmen ts of theperiod wh ich provemorethoroughly what I always in s ist on as themodern ness of

Greek c ivili zation . I fSolon wereto risefrom thedeadn ow ,

hewouldaccommodateh imsel f in afew days to the

Fi r st Two Cen tu r ies of fi istor i cal Development. 99

material changes in c iv il ized l ife; themethod of th inking, thelogicemployed in arguments , hewould not find

in any way strange. A baron o r amonk from theM iddleA ges would beat far greater loss to find h is footino r or to follow thethoughts ofmen .

But if therebest ill atouch ofan t iqu ityabout Solon,

weshal l find it completely goneamong thosemost developed of l iterary men , theA tt ic h istoriansand orators .A s Solonand Lycurgusareou r greatest specimens ofearly lawgivers, so Periander and Pisistratus areof Greek tyrants.

theearly despots or tyrants , who con tributed so much tobreak ing down theboundar ies between noblesand peasan ts in their respect ivestates,and whoalso d issem inatedart and l iteratureby their en l ightened patronage. Wehear terribleth ings about thesetyran ts from Greekprosewriters . Herodotus , Xenophon ,

Plato, and many

others pain t thehorrors of their acts,and theh ideous

vices that po ison their souls and ru in their own happ iness . A nd yet from theearl iest to thelatestepochs ofGreek h istory

,tyran ts areawell-known class , rul ing

many c it iesall through theGreek worldand ind ividuallyrespected and esteemed ,

though they belong to th isabom inableorder . T hefact is that theawful p ictures of Pictu reo f

.

thetyran t ’s soul and ofh is do ingsareeither theoretical iiii ii triii‘et iigt tosketches of what happens to ambitious men when all

be’m Sted '

restraints areremoved,o r elsearistocratic lamen tations

over thefal l of thenob i lity and theprotection wh ichthesemen accorded to themasses . Fo r to thetyran tthesupport of thepeoplewas necessary against therevenge

, theplots , theslander, of thearistocracy whichhehad coerced and subdued ,

and from whoseoutragesyheprotected manyahumblehome. T hewholeof the

1" T hem ost celebrated is probably that i n then in th book o f Plato ’

s Republi c

,

”wh ich can beread in Mr . Jowett ’sexcellen t translat ion .

A Su r veyef Greek Civi li zation .

an ti-despotic l iteraturecomes from aristocrats,from the

men who told Solon what afool hewas to refrainfrom seiz ing th is sort of power , and g ives us p ictures oftheworst sort of despot , avoiding all c itation of thebetter in stan ces . Such men asPerianderand Pisistratuswerecertain ly capableof h igh-handed proceedings ;they d id not scrupleto takethel ifeofan opponen t ;they raised money when they wanted it by requ isitionswh ich may havebeen often oppress ive. But thecommerceof Corin th first developed in to greatness underPeriander thear t ofA thens grew under Pisistratus ,andifweseekaparallel caseto i llustratetheir motives in our

own cen tury , weshal l chooseMehemet A li , thefirst greatViceroy of Egypt

,who rosefrom theranks by h is cour

ageand h is astuteness , ‘ got r id ofaturbulen t,un just

,

v iolen t m il itaryaristocracy ( theMamelukes ) byagreatmassacre, and then brought h is coun try out of thesavagery ofTurk ish mediaeval ism in to thepath ofEuropean p r ogress.

>l< But for Mehemet A li , Egypt wouldn ow bein thecondition of

’

A rmen iao r Syria, w ithoutproper laws o r roads , or tradeor con tact w ith thewester n world . Th is great man had indeed schemes of conquest wh ich wereon ly checked by thein terferen ceofallEurope, but h is in ternal managemen t of Egypt wasawonderful advan ceupon theMamelukes . Lifeandproperty weresafe; travellers could wander at theireasefrom Cairo to Khartoum agricultureand tradeincreased tenfold ,

and theoccas ional acts of h igh — handedjust icewh ich swept away adetected crim inal , or d is

gracedacorrupt official , wereprobably far moreefficien tin teach ing morals to suchapeoplethan themorecumbrous proceed ings of const itutionalauthorities .

Cf .anart icleon th is remarkableman and h is pol icy by thewell-knownd iplomat ist , Coun t Benedett i , in Revuedes Deux Mondes for August 1 , 1 895 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A Su r vey of Greek Civi lization .

rel ig ious in terests , wh ich vary w ith thesocietyand thecreed of every cen tury . A lcaeus

, Sappho , A nacreon ,

and their rivals dwelt both in freec itiesandat thecourtsof tyran ts . They wereengaged in pol itical strifeathome

,often in adven tures abroad , and theselyric out

bursts tel l us of thew ild pleasuresand poignan t griefsof h igh , stormy , sens itivem inds , trained to aperfectpower ofexpression , and w ith themost perfect canonsof taste. Wemay wel l wonder how thesebril l iantpoets , w ithout any models outs idetheir own language

,

o r in any cen tury an teceden t to Homer , should havedeveloped such perfect literary form . I t is perhaps on lyapproached by thel iterary excellen ceof much of theO ld Testamen t , wh icheven in paletranslation main tainsits preem inen ceabovemost l iterary developmen ts of

that k ind among men . So that if wecan deliberatelymain tain that theextan t fragmen ts of A lcaeus andSapphoareas perfect as thepoems of Tennyson — thegreatest master ofpoetical form in our own generationwearestat ing astrangefact, but onenot withoutanalogies

,or in cred ibletoany studen t of h istory.

T herecogn ition of th isextraord inary perfection in theGreek lyric poetry of thes ixth cen tury B . C . is, however , of great importan cebeyond theh istory of l iterature. I t makes us infer , perhaps not over safely, that inthes ister arts men could n ot tolerateugl iness andabsen ceof clear des ign . T hefinearts do not subm it toany such law of regularity

,andas thereis no doubt that

con temporary statues of thesepoets , if such therewere,would beas stiff, awkward ,

and conven tional as thearchaic statues of gods foundat theanc ien t TempleofM iletus

,so wemay besurethat themus ic to wh ich they

sang their hymn sand secular poems would seem to usak in to themus ic of barbaric orien tals , ifnot of savages.

Fi r st Two Cen tu r iesef H istor ical Development. 1 03

But wemay, I th ink , concludereasonably that in twobranches of human improvemen t th is perfect ion of

expression must havegiven great help , or perhaps beenthesymptom ofagreatadvan ce.I t is certain that what wecal l pol it ics

,or d iplomacy

,

thesettlemen t of quest ions of publ ic in terest by d iscuss ion

,theendeavour torpersuadebyargumen t and not to

coerceby force, thesat isfaction at being conv inced andnot bull ied in ad ispute— all th is rational procedureisnot poss iblew ithoutapower of languagein thespeaker ,apower of comprehens ion in thehearer , wh ich implyalong and considerabletrain ing . I t was through theirpoets that theGreeks got th is train ing

,and weknow

v

that thepower of express ion , original ly developed bythepower of th ink ing , reacts upon it , and that therisinggenerat ion iseducated by learn ing thelanguagewh ichits ancestors havelaboured out by slow degrees . SO ,

therefore, theact iveand various pol it ical movementswh ich took placein Hellen ic lands in thefollow ingcen tury could hardly havear isen so soon

,wereit not for

thein tellectual train ing of theracethrough their poets .T hesamecon clusion may bedrawn regarding ph i

IOSOphy. Deeper th ink ing con cern ing theorigin of

th ings, thecreat ion of theworld ,

its purposeand itsdest iny

,cannot becarr ied on w ithout amastery of

abstract terms,and apower of making careful distinc

t ions . Thereis wan t ing too , for any reasonablecosm icph ilosophy

,alofty imagination ,

wh ich can grasp ‘

sp ir itualconceptionsand deal w ith theunseen . T hefirst steps inth is direction weretaken by theso -called Seven W iseMen ofGreece, who wereall ph ilosoph ical poets , clothing their speculat ion in that form of writing wh ich hadthen attained perfection . How importan t ph ilosophywas in thetextureof Hellen ic culturew ill beobvious to

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

themodern reader if hereflects that th is was theon lyavenueopen to theGreeks whereby thegross andprim itiveconcept ion s of their popular creeds could bepurifiedand refined in toareasonableand sp iritual faith .

They had no insp ired teacher to tel l them ofarevelat ionfrom God ,

they had n o sacred book dictated by theSp ir it of God . They werethereforecompelled to findtheir way in to moral and sp iritual truth by “

thel ightJ that l ighteth every man that cometh in to the. world ,exam in ing themyth ical accoun ts of theworld’ s originby their reason ,

exam in ing theHomericaccoun ts of thepowers that rulethe

'

world by thetest of their own

m

q

oi‘al sen se.I t is not al ittleremarkablethat in thecen tury of

wh ich wearespeak ing m oral speculations had n ot yetcommenced . Socrates had n ot yetarisen to bring downph ilosophy from theskies in to thel ifeof man . T heearl iest Ion ic ph ilosophers sought to d iscover theun itythat underl ies themany phenomenaof nature, thecomm on substan cefrom wh ich all had arisen , theun iversallaws ofproportion wh ich changed C

_haos in to

theworld that was w ithout formand void ”

heaven s that declaretheglory of God , and th

men t that showeth h is hand iwork . A nd asfelt that theun iversewas real ly . of un iform substhough appearing in myriad variety , so theyreached theph ilosoph ic truth that thephenomenalthereal , thatall th ingsarenotas they seem , that Beingo r essen ceis d istinct from its qual ities ; eternal andimmutableas opposed to thefleet ing and thechangeable. Nor werethey far from thegreater discovery thattheunseen is greater than thevis ible, that asecretPower dom inates theorder of theworld ,

if not that th isPower i s thereal world .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

CHAPTER IV.

T H E PASSAGE FR OM SPOR A D IC T O SYST EMAT IC CUL

T UR E . T H E GR E AT ST R UGGLE WI T H T H E E AST .

T H E ph ilosoph ic observer who exam ined thenatureand exten t of thec ivil ization wh ich wehavesketched sofar , in them iddleof thes ixth cen tury , m ight haven otedthefollow ing pecul iarit iesand con sequen t dangers in itsbri ll ian t l ife. I tsexpansiveness was wonderful . Duringtheprev ious onehundred and fifty years it had thrownout offshoots westward to thecoasts of I talyand Sicily ,even to Marseillesand then ow Provencal coast , southward to therich upland about Cyrene; eastward bothon thesouthand thenorth coasts ofA s iaM inor in to therecesses of theSyrian and Pon t i c seas , northwardthrough theHellespon t to theCrimea. But thewholeof th is vast d issem inat ion was no emp ire; fo r it possessed n o combined naval power it

~

maden oattempt toconquer theadjo in ing con t inen ts . On islands

,therefore,

and pen insulas theGreek settlers in their c ities wereon ly safeun til anaval power arosewhich could command thesea on coasts theGreeks must trust to conven tions w ith thein land nat ions

, o r thestrength of theirfortification s , to defend them from raid or conquest bythebarbarian s of thein terior .T hecaseof Byzan tium was typ ical of thewhole

question . T hepeopleof Megarachosethematchls iten ow occupied by Constan tinople, from wh ichcommanded thetradeof theBlack Sea, as well aswh ich camefrom then ean ; but all their gifts , their

1 06

conven t ions, their arms , wereunableto savethem fromtheconstan t raids of their Thrac ian neighbours

,who Precaf ious

pounced upon their crops ,. lev ied blackmail upon their fi’fiiifftimf f

c itizens , and so impeded their peaceand security forcenturies that it was not t ill acon t inen tal powerarosewh ich could subdueand c ivil izethewholepopulation of

thein terior , that thec ity attained theimportancetowh ich it was ent itled from its wonderful pos it ion .

Polyb iusexplainsall th is to us at length in thesecondcen tury beforeChrist ; thesameth ings weretrueforcen turies before, whenever thebarbarians comb inedunder acapableleader , o r theGreek c it ies wereweakened by in ternal d iscord . T hewealth of maritimec ities wh ich haveagreat carry ing tradeis indeedsuffic ien t to obtain fo r themarm ies of mercenaries butit isamatter of cons isten t human experiencethat forcesofnatives

,it may bepastoral savages , i t may beagr icul

tural yeomen ,w ill in thelong r un defeatall theresources v

of mercan tilecit ies . T hefact then that theoutlyingGreeks on ly occup ied coasts , and did not attemptanyother than traderelations w ith thenat ives of foreignlands , madeit certain that they would fal l aprey to thecon t inental powers which m ightarisein theselands .T heon ly safety against such aresult would havelain

Confed er ationin thecloseconfederation of theHellen ic c ities and anhonest effort to help each member , accord ingas it was jealOUS ieS °

subject to attack . How could th is beexpected fromthesec ities founded by jealous rivals , each profitingatoncefrom thetroubles o r thedownfall ofaneighbou rand hat ing i ts prosperi ty ? I t was much morel ikelythat Byzant ium ,

for example, would conn iveat , or evenencouragetheA s iat ic Thracian s attacking Chalcedonoveragainst them on theBosphorus , than send that c ityits aid when hard pressed by its barbaric neighbours .

A Su r vey of Greek Civi lization .

Commerc ial jealous ies always show themean sideof

human nature, and jealousy , general ly speak ing , wasaningrained viceof theGreeks from theearl iest to thepresen t day.

Loss ofGreek T hefuturem ight thereforealmost havebeen foretold .

A s theland was w idest and deepest beh ind theeasternGreeks , they werethefirst to losetheir l iberties thencametheturn of theI tal iot c it ies , crushed by theLucan iansand Samn ites of theCalabrian Moun tains ,andthen by theR oman s . U ltimately cametheturn o i

\

Greeceitself. A fter it had been shown by in testinewars thateven w ith in th isareatheyeoman was superiorto thesailor

,however sustained by h is commerc ial

resources , thewholeof Greecefell under thefirst greatorgan ization of then orthern main land ,

when Ph ilip I I .of Macedon comb ined theinfan try of h is moun taineersw ith thecavalry of Thessaly to subduethecoasts andislandsand smal l territories of theprimary Greek cities .T hevarious causes that accelerated or retarded th isconsummat ion aregenerally obvious enough , and willappear in thesequel . T hemost favourableareafor suchaspread ing of colon iesas theGreek was undoubtedly

Sifflyfflseof v Sicily , an island largeenough to hold agreat popula

t ion,and yet n ot too vas t for thecoast Ci t ies to

dominateit . But herealso thejealousies between thevarious c ities , wh ich seldom perm itted theGreek population to put forth its strength , weresupported by the

“dangerous in terferen ceof Carthage, whosecons istentpol icy it was to preven tany un ited power in theisland .

R elat ion ofWenow revert to thefirstand most signal case, that

Greek C it ies °fof theGreek cities on theA siatic coast , lying upon theAsiaMinor to

eastern owers 9.

and c ivi i zation .

border s ofagreat cont i nen t , wi th alargepopulat ionopen to their trade, but also theseat of great civi lizedpowers , at first too far away east to causealarm ,

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A Su r vey of Greek Ci vi li zation .

lessness , as if thevery practiceof pol itical l iberties hadst imulated thepopulat ion on theones ideto industryand en terprise, wh i leavery moderateand humanecontrol , but from adistan ceand by strangers , had takentheheart ou t of thesubjects of theEngl ishWh ile, however , thepol itical effects on thec ities

ofA s iaM inor weresuch that they never regained independen ce, but on lyexchanged thenom inal servitudetotheMedes or thePersian s for afar morereal slavery totheA then ian o r to theSpartan Emp ire, it had not beenadm itted by theh i storian s that other effects followedwh ich can not but beregarded as benefic ial . T hearts

J and crafts of the'

East,in prec ious metals

,in chain

armour,in rich carpets

,in del icateware, far richer

and better than Greek products,exerc ised apowerful

effect upon themanufactures of theGreeks . T hestyleof l iving among eastern n obles was vastly morerefinedthan that of thewealth iest k ing o r tyran t in Greece;even thean cestral d ign ity and loyalty of thegreatPers ian n obles weresometh ing d ifferen t from ,

andsuperior to

, thesomewhat mercan t ilerefinemen t of theGreeks . T heon ly thorough aristocrats in Greece

, theSpartan s

,sustained their prideby rudeness and exclu

siveness, whereas theLydian or Pers ian grandeel ived insplendour

,w ithagreat retinue, and w ith thefield sports

of our modern gen tleman . T heelder o r younger Cyrusd id n ot hun t w ith less zeal than theSpartan youbut kept in their preserves far n oblerand moredangous game.Thus theGreeks werebrought veryearly in to

w ithad istin ct typeofhuman excellen cenot demj ust as they camein Polybius

’

s day to wonderI need hardly say that th is

of Canada, no r in any caseto

Passagefr om Sporad ic to Systematic Cu ltu re. 1 I I

R oman patric ian , who was agreat gen tleman ,also ofa

distin ct type. So cleverandassim ilatingapeop lecouldn ot but adm i re, and perhaps envy , th is splend id l ife.Individuals l iketheolder M iltiades and l iketheA then ian I ph icrates wereabletoattain to somesemblan ceof it by connections w ith Thrac ian Ch ieftainsand wealthderived from thegold m ines of that coun try . But

,

generally speak ing , the“ Great K ing ” was asortof figureof gold , l iv ing in aglorious res iden ce

, of

wh ich theoccasional mercenaries who reached Babylono r Ecbatanabrought back reports that sounded l ikefairy tales . Hen cetherewas to Open to adven turousyoung men thechan ceof serv icein thefar East o r

in Egypt , from wh ich they must havebrought back con

siderablewealth . Yet wenever in th is early t imehearofmercenariesasaclass , but on ly of ind iv iduals , nor doweknow ofany importan t accoun ts wh ich they preserved of theiradven tures

,un t il wecometo thedays of

Xenophon . Wemayassumethat thegreat satrapsandnobles l ooked w ith con tempt upon theclever selfseek ing adven turers whom they employed ,

whom att imes they enslaved , and again at whosehands theysuffered defeat . But no con tact w ith theWest everdestroyed their h igh qual ities . From thet imes of thePers ian wars

,when Herodotus describes them w ith sym

pathy in their homel ife— or elsej ump ing overboardwhen asked by their k ing to l ighten h is sh ip inadangerous sto rm wefeel ourselves in thesociety l ikethat oftheold French noblesse; so that down to thebaronswho fought against A lexander and whosesplendour inwar and sport may beseen perpetuated on thegreatsarcophagus of thek ing of S idon , theeastern (A ryan )*T hemarr iageof thegeneral I ph icrates to aT hrac ian prin cess ,and theluxury of thefeast , was thesubjec t of popular com men t on thestageat Athens .

A S u r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

n obles weren ot barbarian s in any reasonablesense, butc ivi li zedand probably cultivated men .

T hepeoples who kept pressing on thegreat I tal iotci ties werevery far differen t — rudeSamn ites and Lucan ians, who , l iketheThracian s , thought on ly of raidsand plunder. T heS ikels o r aborigines of S icily weren ot numerous or powerful en ough for th is aggressivepol icy

,un less backed by theCarthagin ians , and were

kept in check,and even greatly c iv il i zed

,by thechain

of c it ies reach ing round their coasts . But heretoo thejealous isolation ofDorian from Ion ian

,ofmerchan t from

merchan t,would have‘ caused theru in of thesec ities

in detail but for ther iseof thegreat tyran ts , of whomGelon was theforemost

,who consol idated theGreek

power in capablehands and fought thebattleof Hellenedom as wel l in their wayas d id thedemocracy of

A then s . T hefameofGelon becameso great that whenappealed to by Spartaand A thens for help in thegreatPers ian wars , heofferedagreat con tribution of sh ipsandmen

,provided heweregiven thech ief command . He

claimed thereforetheprimacy in Hellenedom . But theeven ts of theprevious hundred years had determ inedthat thecen treof grav ity in th is bril l ian t civi l izat ion layn ot in S ic ily

,I taly

, o r A s iaM inor , but , in sp iteof itscomparativepoverty

,in thecen tral pen insulaof therace.

Fo r here, after many struggles , in war and in pol itics ,

it was becom ing moreand moreclear that in Peloponnesus Spartamust lead ; in con tinen tal Greece, A thens .Spartahad had long struggles w ith her neighbours s in ceshehad attained in ternal peaceand stab il ity from thew isdom ofLycurgus . F irst camethegreat warsagainstMesseneand A rcad ia— thelatter so p icturesquelysketched ( in h is first book ) by Herodotus , theformeron ly known to us from thefragments of Tyrtaeus and

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zati on .

But howeveradm irablethes ilen ceand modesty of theyouth , theterseand p ithy utteran ceofage, thes impledressand hab its , theabsen ceof moneyand trade, mayhavebeen With in Spartan soc iety

,th iseducation unfitted

thec iti zen s fo r an imperial pol icy,and generally failed

to keep its hold on thosewho camew ith in thereach of

luxuriesabroad . T heSpartan s werethefirst to discoverand in sist upon dril l and disc ipl ineas thenecessarymean s of securing their m il itary superiority . But toth is developmen t

,of tactics they never added good

strategy. They did not pursuev igorouslyafterabattlethey had no n otion of plann ingacampaign . Never theless they attained to such prest igeas ad isc ip l inedinfan try that no Greeks ever w ithstood them in fairfight on theopen field

,t ill theTheban sat Cor oneaand

afterward most s ignallyat Leuctrashowed that they hadsolved theproblem of defeating them . T heSpartanwas n ot without van ity ; theyouth showed it in theirm il itary dress and thepol ish ing of their arms theelders in thepol ish ing of theirep igrams for thepoin tedretorts wherewith theyan swered floweryeloquen cewerec itedand werecollected throughout Greece.To sum up then , theSpartan s though n otan advanc

ing or conquering power , aim ing at thesubjection of

Greece, werestill thegreat res isting power , wh ich anyassailan t would find most form idable. They werein th issensethebackboneof Hellas and , asamatter of fact ,i n sp iteof successful invasion sand great reverses in subsequen t cen turies

, Spartawas not subdued t il l theveryend ofGreek h istory .

But when wespeak of thebackboneof Greece, wemust not forget that therewerealso somelargereserveforces ofprim itivefolk , wh ich had not yeten tered uponthepath of c ivilization , and wereh idden in their moun

Passagefr om Sporad ic to Sy stematic Cu ltu re. I I 5

tains t ill theday camewhen theGreater S tates becamewearyand exhausted ,and theseothers in their turn tookup thetorch— such weretheinhab itants ofA rcadia

,and

of thein land A chaea, wh ich , after theo ld coast c it ies hadsen t out colon ists to Ion ia( in sem i-myth ical times ) , fallin to obscur ity t ill thedays of theA chaean and theA rcad ian Leagues , threehundred years later . Such tooin cen tral Greecewereall themoun taineers dwell ingnorth and west of Delph i— ZEtoliansand A carnan ians

,

who spokeindeed Greek ,and who had Greek blood in

their veins, but whosed ialect and manners wererudeand barbarous to their morebrill ian t neighbours . Nevertheless thesewere, as I havesaid ,

alargereserveforceofpurityand v igour , wh ich was ever imperceptibly sustain ing its moreadvanced neighbours w ith its labourand its blood ,

and main tain ing that variety wh ich is soessen tial afeaturein Greek c iv il ization .

From theselatter theBoeot ians and A then ian s wereIm portancelong s in ced ifferent iated by greater wealth and betterorgan ization . Or chomenus and Thebes werefamousold Greek c it ies of theh ighest type. T heM inyae, orold n ob il ity of O r chomenus, had long s inceshown bytheir palaces , and st il l moreby thosetunnels wherew iththey drained LakeCopais through thenorthern h ills ,in to theEuripus , that they had profited l ikeMycenaeand Tiryn s by thecultureofearl ier races . But ofearlyh istorical Boeot iaweknow curiously l ittle. FromHes iod wehaveav ivid p ictureof thehard l ifeof thepoorer peopleand their oppression by therich , sayabout 700 B . C. From Pindar wehaveno defin iteaccoun t of h is nativecoun try ; but wecan infer w ithcertain ty that thec ity wh ich held such apoet by no

mean s deserved theA ttic j ibes , nor was theschool thatformed about Pindar— every early Greek poet was the

A Su r vey of Greek Civi lization .

centreof somesuch school — composed of men thatdeserved to becalled Boeotian swine. ” Details

,how

ever, wehavealmost n one. Hes iod spokeof h is distriotas oneof poor soi land bad climate, in comparisonwith h is father’s A s iat ic home. But in h istorical days

,

Boeotiais known indeed fo r afoggyand comparativelydamp cl imate

,caused by theplen tiful watering of the

coun try,but th isalso secured thefertil ity of thealluv ial

soil,carried down by many rivers from thesurrounding

moun tain s .I t is in con trast to theserich lowlands that T hucyd i

des speaks of thel ight so i l of A ttica, and says that inearly days it was l ittlesubject to invas ion s , to wh ich i tsnatural features afforded but l ittleinducemen t . A

strugglewith theso il has often been theeducation forfuturegreatness . Human beings who find everyth ingready to their hand seldom riseabovetheir materialcomforts . Thosethat areborn to hard labour acqu irethequal ities that makethem first masters of theirc ircumstan ces , then of other men . Thus ifall Greece,as compared with neighbouring lands , was aruggedmother train ing up av igorous offspring , so w ith inGreeceitself it was n ot therich Thessaly

,Boeotia, or

Messenethat brought up thefinest population . A ttica,however

,had another s ignal advan tageover Boeotia.

T helatter is c ircled by moun tain s wh ich forb id easyaccess of commerceto thesea

,and wh ich afford no

harbours ; whereas A ttica, along pen in sula, afforded on

either s ideacoast for sh ips and other inducemen ts forcommerce.I t is somewhat surpris ing that though Solon showeda

d istin ct sympathy for th isadven turous l ife, though tradingwas in no respect derogatory to theI on ian o r A tticgrandee

,though it should havebeen thepol icy of Pisis

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

Expu lsion ofH ipp ias.

A S u r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

ferred to h im from h is younger and d issolutebrother ,

T heactual expulsion of theremain ing tyran t H ipp iasis ascribed by Herodotus to themach inat ion s of theex iled A lcmaeon idae, who brought round theSpartan s toin terfere. I t is un desirablethat in th is book I shouldrehearseagain thefacts , wh ich arefound inevery h istoryofGreece. T heremarkablepo in t is that prom inen tlybrought out by Herodotus (V .

“ I t is man ifestthat not in onebut in every respect theright of freespeech isagood th ing

,if indeed theA then ian s so long

as they wereunder tyran ts weren o better in war thanany of their neighbours

,whereas as soon -as they had

got r id of thetyran ts they becamealong way thebest .Th is makes it plain that when subjects they wereslackbecausethey wereon ly work ing for amaster , but whenl iberated each becameeager toach ievesuccess for h imself. ” T heh istorian forgets or ignores what I havealready set down asan importan t causeof th is changetheun ification of classes and in terests in oppos ition tothetyran ts

,grow ing w ith thein creased in tell igen ceof

thepeop le, ow ing to their education by theseverytyran ts . I t is them ild and con cess iveabsoluterulerwho general ly feeds up theoppos ition wh ich h is moreruthless p redecessors had crushed w ith av iolen t hand .

I t is qu itecertain that theA then ian s of 5 1 0 B . C . werefar morefit for l iberty than thoseof 590 . Solon wasprobablyafar greater man than Cl isthenes, yet Solon ’scon stitution wasalmostabortive, whereas Cl isthenesthereal father of theA then ian democracy .

But though A then s,Sparta

,and Syracusehad got so

far that they asserted,and main tained by arms , a

T h is is what thenewly d iscovered Const i tu t ion of Athens has to say on

thesubject . T heau th or, beheAristotleo r not , seem s desirous to correctT h ucyd ides.

Passagefr om Sporad ic to Sy stematic Cu ltu re. I 1 9

superiority over their neighbours about theyear 500 B .

C . ,th is superiority was but new at A thens ; new and Reason s for

instabi l i ty of

doubtful , and depend ing upon aclever despot , at Syra33nggqui red

cuse theon ly trad it ional and stableprimacy , thefiriillegjf'aigggia’

Spartan , was no t su itablefor an act iveor improvingpol icy . [Tn other words , theloveof independenceineach organ i zed c ity , thejealousy of its neighbours’ inter feren ce, nay even of their success , kept Greecefromcoalesc ing , and so from subdu ing thepeop les of theLevan t by her arms and her arts. O n theother hand

,

wemust not forget that th is pol it ical individual ism wh ichleft her aprey toastrong invader had its compensat ingfeature! ! T hebrill iancy of Greek c iv i l izat ion is to agreatexten t theconsequenceof its ofa

1 .

diamond is of i ts many facets , and wemay besure-that“ g. ”

neithé r ’

h téfatu ren or art would haverea'

che‘c‘

li fi matcless height had it not been for thecompetit ion of

"

manyT hesameth ingmay be

.

said ( ifi 'atheGermany wh ich I remember , Modern par

allel of Gersixty-six independen t dukeletsand princelets , many .

thecourts , embassies , co inage, customs , of

k ingdoms . Pol it ically they wereimpoten t in

iterature, in sc ien ceand ph ilosophy , thesemanythesemany un iversit ies, havedonean inestimableor mank ind . T heGreek world up to theyear x/

C . on ly showed its so -cal led un ity by acomof language, onegeneral complex ion in its manyand thefestivals or games to wh ich on ly memtheracewereadm itted . So longas n o conquereoccup ied theneighbouring lands th is stateof

Pol it ical danm ight last ; but when that con temporaryarose, ers to Greece

rom lack ofmusteither go to p iecesand fall p iecemeal in to un ity,

my’s power,or shemust consolidateherselfand

nat ional res istanceto theinvader. T heformer

catastrophehappened in Ion ia, on thecoas

M inor , wherethemany Greek c ities would n

comb ine; thelatter in Greeceproper,wherethe

strugglecommen ced under thepres iden cy of S

but passed ,for wan t ofen terprise, ou t of their

in to thoseof theA then ians . Thereis no s truggleinallh istory morefamous

,or morep icturesquely told , than

theconfl ict -wh ich lasted from theIon ian revol t to thebattleofPlataea.But thelast twelveyears (49 1 -79 B . C . )areespec ial lyand perman eresting. H ow much they owetothegen ius ,0 o'rian Herodotus it is hard to overestimate“ W itli thefairness of real gen i us hehas giventhePers ian s credit for their good po in ts , for thevalouroftheiraristocracy , for that self-sacr ificing loyalty to theirsovereign wh ich was impossibletoaGreek . (Soalso hehas not failed to chron icletheshortcom ingsand meannesses of theGreeks , their squabbles and jealousies ,their frequen t disloyal ty to thegreat nat ional cause; I tseemed indeed that th is causewas hopeless . T hepriests of theDelph ic oracle, who based their responseson thebest and w idest information received fr

parts of theHellen ic world , madeup their m indsresistan cewas vain . They prophesied ru in ,andadvsubm iss ion . Nor can wesay that their forecastun reasonable. They werebound to main tain treputation for infal l ib ility , so that in doubtful casesfel l back on stud ied amb igui ty . But n ow their decis iwas qu iteclear , and by it they must havelost muchtheir reputation and influen ce. Herodotus leadsindeed to bel ievethat w ith theleast morediplomacyobstinacy o r delay , thePers ian s must havesucceedTheir Opponen ts werealways on thepoin t of makterms separately and d ispers ing . But thehand

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

T hem istoclesatyp ical Greek .

Main result 0strugglew i tPers iawasHellen ic un ity

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

l ifewas from thebook of Esther , of wh ich heis theA hasuerus . Wehave

,bes ides theh istory of Her odo

tus,an inestimablerel ic of thet imein thePersae of

ZEschylus. For that poet was apartaker in thewar,

and foughtat Marathonandat Salam is . I n h is poeticalvers ion of theeven ts , wh ich dwells rather upon thetragic results at thePers ian court than theGreekexultation ,

‘

theghost of Darius rises,an obleand calm

figu re— to emphas izethewretched weakness,and re

buketheweak lamen tation s , ofh is degenerateson .

On theother sidewehavethat extraordinary andtyp ical figureofaGreek , Them istocles aman of readywit , ofendless resource, not hampered by moral seruin somerespectsascoundrel , in many moreapatridiplomatist rather than atactic ian ,

adebater ratherawarrior . Such werein ou r own cen turypatriot-bandits that freed their coun try , Odysseus , Kkotr on is, and others, comb in ing d ishonesty , greed ,

cruelty w ith akeen loveof l ibertyandah igh resolvrisk their l ives fo r their coun try’s eman c ipat ion . So

Spartan infan try and theA then ian fleet wereheldgether by argumen t , by fraud ,

by threats , t ilwas saved . T hedefeat was probably not sothePers ian s as theGreeks pretended . A r t

k ing’s un cle,carr ied h is forty thousand men hom

Plataea, just as Grouchy carried h is division toafter Waterloo . But therewas n o pursu it ofA rtaPersian gold was stil lableto buy d issens ion sand obt

treacheryamong theGreeks .But thegreat strugglehad oneindel ibleeffect .madetheGreeks fo r thefi rst t imefeel themselvesnation as opposed to thePers ian Emp ire. T hededt ionsand votiveofferings commemorated MycenaeanT i ryn thian ex iles from long-destroyed cities as i t d i

Passagefr om Sporad ic to Sy stematic Cu ltu re. 1 23

Spartansand A then ians — all mem bers of thegreat Hellen ic un ity , nowassert ing itselfagainst theworld of barbar ians. T hebron zepedestal of thetripod offered bythek ing of Spartaat Delph i , to thedumfoundedoracle

,still stands in theH ippodromeofConstan tinople,

and upon it when first it wasexcavated thenames of thetribes were JWould that wehad morematerial rel ics of th is glori

ous t ime Wecan hardly ven tureto drawap ictureofthel ifeof themen that saved Greece. [Eschylus weA th en ianknow ,

bu t heis so engrossed w ith theideal in h isaugust Fffii ffifimus'

traged ies that themerehuman A then ian is lost in E SChylus ‘

theworld -

poet . Yet merely to haveunderstood h is

thoughts shows what was to beexpected from h is A then ian audien ce. Heshows to us thegreat strides withwh ich A then ian culturewas progress ing

,and that i t was

progress ing in depth as well as breadth . Noth ingw ill better i llustrateth is than to compareh im w ithhis elder con temporary , Pindar , alyric poet of thefirst order , wel l versed in all therichnessand thesplendour o i lyrical d ict ion and of stately per fo rmancej‘ Yetifweput thelyrical port ions of fEschylus in to comparison w ith Pindar , weseem to becon templating not

con temporar ies but men acen turyapart . I t isas greatas thecon trast between theold -fash ioned ,

s imple, believing Herodotus and theadvan ced , crabbed , s ceptical!Thucydides . I n Pindar ther ichness of thewords , theelaborateness of themetres, seemaveh iclefar too great Contrast be_fo r h is ideas. I n fEschylus thehugecon ception s , thetween E schy

I nsand Pindar.deep speculat ions

,seem far too great for thewords .

though them on umen t is surr oun ded byarail ingandes w h ich areon thelower port ion ,

w h ich stands inaonger to bedec iphered , t ill thesurfacei s againI madeafterapersonalexam inat ion of them onu

con tem po

T heAgamemnon .

V

A S ur vey of Greek Civi li zation .

A nd yet thewords arem ighty words z’Eschylus

’

bron ze-throat eagle-bark for blood ,

” as Brown ing hasdescribed them ,

borrow ing h is metaphors from i/Eschy

lus h imself.I t wereexceed ingly instructiveto demonstrateth iscon trast by prin t ing passages in parallel column s to i llustratemyassertion . But how can th is bedonew ithoutprin t ing them in theoriginal ? and th is book is in tendedfor readers who would not understand it . I t is hardenough to translateany real styl ist , in proseor poetry ,from h is own in toany other tongue. W ith apoet l ikePindar it is perfectly impossible, for themus ic of theoriginal is most of its merit , and h is ideas Withoutth is mus icarebut second-ratel iterature. I t is not qu iteimpossiblew ith [Eschylus, for even in bald proseh is ideas cannot losetheir splendour . But how d ifficul ti t is may beseen from thetran slation of the Agamemnon by themost learned of thegreat Engl ish poets ofth is cen tury , R obert Brown ing , who knew theGreekpoets

,as I can testify from many d iscuss ion s w ith h im ,

w ith an accuracy hard ly equalled by any professor ofGreek in England . H is vers ion s from Euripides

,h is

stud ies on A ristophanes , show th iserudition very plain ly .

But h is A gamemnon is on ly in tel l igibleto thosewhoknow theoriginal ; to therest of theworld it is wel ln ighasealed book .

Yet what can better provethegreatness of the“Agamemnon ofZEschylus than thefact that it is oneof thethreeor four books wh ich scholarsand poetsarealwaysendeavouring to tran slate, and yet no vers ion

,however

wel l received ,is final . T he“ I l iad ”

of Homer , the“ Inferno ” of Dan te, the“ Faust ” of Goethe, sharewith the A gamemnon of j Eschylus th is eternaltributeto theirexcellence, and of thesefifvjetherecan be

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

Sc ien t ific.

Pol it ical.

Romant ic.

A Sur vey of Greek Civi li zation .

biti us,aBasleeditor of the Prometheus in 1 559 , seem s

to haveled theway in th is d irection . But as Lo rd Lytton

justly observes, whatever theo logical system i t shadows forthwas rather thegigan tic conception of thepoet h im self than theim perfect revival ofany forgotten creed , o r thepoetical d isgu iseofanyexistingph i losophy.

”Yet thereis certain ly some

th ing of d isbel ief o r defianceof thecreed of thepopu lace.Fifth ly, thescien tific, wh ich regard i tasamereperson ificationofastronom ical facts, as is thefash ion with com parativem ythologies. S im i larattem pts seem to havebeen madeofold bythealchem ists. S ixth ly, thereis thepoli ti cal in terp retation of

Mr . Watkiss Lloyd , who th inks thegen ius ofThem istoclesandtheingratitudeof A thens

i

werethereal object of thepoet ’steach ing,

though d isgu ised in amyth . Thereis lastly tobenoticedaun iquetheo ry, wh ich may becal led ther omanti c

,

propounded by Desmaretz in 1 648, when hepubl ishedarationalistic im itation of Euemerus

, en titled Lavé r i te’ a'es fables ou

l’lz istoi rea’es d ieux a’el ’antiou i té . Heexp lains how Prome

theus betrays h is sovereign , Jup iter, for theloveofh is m istressPandora, aladyas exactingasany p rincess of ch ival ry. Heretires in despair to thewastes of theCaucasus, whererem orsedai ly gnaws h is heart,and hesuffersagon ies m ored readfulthan ifan eaglewerecontinual ly devouring h is entrai ls.

Prometheus at theFrench court of theseventeen th centurywas su reto cu t astrangefigure.*

But I return from th is superhuman,supernatural crea

t ion , thesceneof wh ich is laid in thegrim moun tain s oftheCaucasus , to con sider thep roblem treated in theA gamemnon and its connected plays . I t is theproblem of theduty imposed upon theson ofan adulterous mother , who has slain h is father , and l ives in thepalaceand upon thethroneofher murdered husband incompany w ith her paramour . Both deservedeath atthehands of thenatural avenger of blood

,but one

is bound to h im by thehol iest t ies of affection ; sheis h is mother . What then is thepath of duty beforeh im ? A nd

, what to ZEschylus is vastly moreimportan t,Creek Literature,” Mahafi'

y , Vol. I l . , pages 261-2.

Passagef r om Sporadic to Sy stematic Cu ltu re. 1 27

what is theworld-law wh ich dec ides thequestion ? A rethebonds of blood wh ich b ind ason to h is father,and wh ich command h im to avengethat father , hol ierthan thosewh ich b ind h im to h is mother

, and commandh im to protect her , and to saveher l ife? W ith fEschylus thegu ilt of theoriginal murder is too great ; theod ious crimeof thequeen must haveits pun ishmen t ;but no sooner is shedead than theavenging Furies

,that

pun ish matr ic ideas such , and w ill allow no palliation,

r iseupon thescene,and persecutethematric ideto madness . Each of thesegreat moral obl igation s has itssanct ion ; each is determ ined by adiv inelaw ; thewretched mortal who is en tangled in so terr ibleaposit ion cannot escapefrom woe, for thelaws of thegods arenot to beset aside, and they show us acon

fi iet wh ich no human m ind can solve.*T hereader w il l already havean tic ipated thereasonwhy I dwel l upon th is play. I t is thevery problemwh ich Shakespearehas rehandled in thegreates t ofallh is plays . Hamlet has beforeh im thevery sameproblem . I ts solut ion is so terr ibleas train upon h im that itunh inges h is m ind ,

and if heis forb idden by theeth icsofaChrist ian ageto lay hands upon h is mother, nevertheless her death is requ ired to satisfy just ice, and h is toremoveh im fromahousepolluted beyond curew ith thestains of lustand violen ce.T hefact that ZEschylus two thousand years before

Shakespearefel t out thesamegreat con troversy , andhandled it w ith no less grandeur and depth , showsperhaps

,better than athousand analogies in material

T hefinalescapeof Orestes by thecast ingvoteof Athena, when theAreopagusat Athens waseq ually d ivided on thegroun d that thech i ld 15 reallyderived from i ts fatherand no t i ts m other , isapoorand lamecon clusion ,

i nascenein ten ded for apo l iti cal purpose,and

.

very damaging to thed igm ty o f

tragedy . But such in uali t iesaremet w i th am ong other great poets also .

No h uman gen ius is w it out i ts flaws .

Greek m usic farbeh ind poetry .

A Sur vey of Greek Civi li zation .

comforts , how completely modern ,in thetruest sen se,

was thecultureof theGreeks . Weareat aloss toknow how so d ifficultand noveladramacould possiblyhavebeen followed byanyaudien ce. Thereis certain lyno modern aud iencewho could do so w ithout prev iousstudy of thewords . Yet it is very doubtful whethersuch previous study was possibleto thehearers of

ZEschylus. Novelty was an essen tial featurein theplaysacted for competition ,

and though cop ies certain lybecameaccessibleafter theperforman ce, it seems l ikelythat theseextraord inary dramas wereplayed to averyimperfectly preparedaud ien ce.I t seems to methat no problem in theh istory of c ivi

lizat ion is moredeeply in teresting than to fathom if

possiblethel ifeand other occupat ion s of thepeoplewhowerefed upon such in tellectual d iet . Wekn ow that thepoet h imself composed themus ic of h is dramas

,wh ich

werealmost l ikeour Operas in theprom inen ceof themelic and or clzestic s ide

,* as theGreeks would cal l

theadjun cts to stagepoetry .

But thereisevery reason to th ink that , tran scenden tas is thepoetry , and fit for

, nay,too good for

,any

modern stage, themusic would appear to us s implybarbarous . S ister arts , as I said already , do not

advancealong parallel l inesabreast onemay befar inadvanceof therest , and in th is casetherel ics wehaveof later Greek music giveus no suggest i on that weshouldapp rec iateitsearl ier forms .Regarding sculpturewearebetter informed , and here

thecaseis all themorein teresting , as that ar t , beforeanother cen tury had passed over

,had becomeso perfect

thatall theefforts ofall our presen t c ivilization havenever

T hat is to say them usical and dan cing side. T heor chestrainaGreektheatrewas so called becausei t wasadan c i ng-place.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

attained ,or even approached to it . Fortunately we

haveafew specimens of theplastic ar t of theearl iert ime— two o r threetomb-rel iefs , thefigureof Theseuscarrying theMarathon ian bull , and , best ofall, theveryremarkableseries of goddesses or priestesses foundrecen tly on theA cropol is and undoubtedly part of theornaments of theolder temples then , wh ich wereburn t ,and their statues overthrown , by thePers ians . Thusthestrangeseries of ladies w ith their rich though con

ventional dressing of thehair, their very gaudy butelegan t dresses , their stereotyped sm ile, tell us what thehearers of great poetry could adm ireas represen tation sof thehuman figure. Thereseems in them butasomewhat improved represen tation ,

ih stone, of thegrotesquefigures common on thearchaic vases thereis that d isregard of l ifeand adheren ceto aconven t ional typewh ich characterizes ar t in its infan cy. Who couldimaginethat in fifty years morePhidias would beatwork in h is studio ?

Wearenot informed about thearch itectureof thesedays . Weknow that thewooden p illars

,supporting

awooden arch itravew ith brick walls and terra-cottafac ing , had madeway for stonetemples bu ilt on thesamemodel . T heoriginal wooden structuremay beplain lyfelt byany onewho studies any Greek temple. Therearesomedrums of p illars ofan Older Parthenon bu iltinto thegreat c ircu it wall , wh ich was raised around thehugeplatform , madeofall theOlder ru in sand rubbish ,whereon Pericles and h is friends set up theperfectbu ildings whoseremains arest il l there. Thesedrumslook rudeand clumsy bes idethefiner work wh ich isnear them . A hugeterra-cottacomposition represen tingamonster of theserpen t kind , used no doubt toornamen t theped imen t (gableend ) of oneof theolder

Passagefr om Sporadic to Systematic Cu ltu re. 1 3 1

temples , is now to beseen on theA cropol is, and is

rather grotesqueand ugly than grand . I t is therefore,

on thewhole, l ikely that thearchitectureof th is peoplekept pacew ith their sculpture, and d id not

“attain tod ign ityand harmony t il l thenext generation . But th isis no t certain . Most crit ics seem to placethegreattempleat Pmstum in thes ixth century B . C . I f th is beso

, even outly ing Greeks , who had settled beyond theborders of MagnaGraec ia, could then erect asplendidbu ild ing , mass ive, d ign ified , and perfect in its proport ions . But I gravely doubt its age. Wehavenorecord or ment ion of it in any anc ien t author. Suchsplendour was so common in Greek cit ies that butaverysmal l number of our extan t ru ins could havebeend iscovered by follow ing theindications of thehistorianso r an tiquaries . I n its proport ions it seems analogousenough to thegreat templeat O lymp iafor us to placeitin thesamecen tury— that is to say, after thePers ianwars wereover. T hefew gaun t p illars standing atCorinth may poss ibly beolder ; but thebu ild ing towh ich they belonged is too ru ined to formany judgmen tof its generaleffect .A s regards theprivatearch itectureof theday,

it isallgone; probably thecheap materials and thes impleconstruction of men who desired to lodgetheir godssplendidly

,but werecareless of themselves , would not

havelasted , even through qu iet times , very long . T hel ifeof thesepeoplewas in theOpenair , in thefieldsandthemarket-place,and they on ly retired in to their housestoeat or to sleep . Their h ouses wereof l ittlevaluetothem . T hegods and thestateoccup ied all theirin terests . T hetraged ies of Z—Eschylus as con trastedw ith theodes of Pindar show how deeply they thoughtabout their gods ,

how moral theology was displacing

R iseof m oraltheology .

A Su r vey of Greek Ci vi li zation .

storiesabout thegods , so that theiralleged adven tureswerenow far less in teresting than their moral qual ities .Th is deeper v iew was derived , I th ink , from theircompleter stud ies in pol itics — asc iencein wh ich theyalready showed thesamemastery that they showed intheir poetry . I t is perhapsaSpec ial talen t for expres~s ion

,fo r languageas d istingu ished from other human

products, wh ich spec ial ly marks theGreeks . I n poetryweknow theresult . But in prosel ong beforethedevelopmen t of forensic oratoryas astud ied ar t , theremust havebeen agreat developmen t of natural eloquen ce, of an imated d iscussion ,

of that freespeechwh ich theGreeks regardedas their dearest l iberty . I tis certain that th is talen t would react upon their th inking,and producethat clearness of ins ight , that general

apprec iation of sound argumen t,wh ich is perfectly

necessary to any sober dem ocratic governmen t . For

there,it is by persuad ing themajority that theact ion s

of thestatearedeterm ined . Them istoclesand A rist idescarried on their con trovers ies beforethepeop le theoneper suaded thepeopleto becomeanaval force

,and to

fortify their c ity w ith impregnabledefences ; theotherper suaded theGreeks of theislands and coast c ities ofthen ean ,

n ot moreby h is upright character than byh is argumen ts , to look away from Spartaas auselessand lazy presiden t of Greece

,and put them selves under

theenergetic gu idan ceof A then s . But now wearepass ing in toanew stageofGreek c ivil izat ion

,wh ich w ill

requ ireaseparatechapter .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

brotosand therest , been preserved . But thereis veryl ittleto gu ideus now.

Our best information is concern i ng pol i t i cs , concerning thesuccessivesteps by wh ich theA then ians waxedgreat , and th is sideof theperiod has received greatadd itional l ight from the“ Pol ity of theA then ians ,”

found in Egypt not long sin ce. But ,as if ou r d ifficultieswerenot already great enough , their author , long s incereceivedas A ristotleby Plutarch and thegrammarianswho quoted from h im ,

d iffers in material po in ts fromThucydides , Herodotus , and Xenophon . Th is work ,however , is not intended to d iscuss or d isplay ou r

difficulties .Wecan still seereasons , however , why theepochbeforeus should no t havebeen an epoch generally greatin l iteratureor general ly brill ian t in ar t , however greattheexception in A thens andafewar t centres . I n thefirst place, theA s iatic Greeks werecon siderably damaged in wealth and importance. Though thec ities onheadlandsand on theadjacen t islands could beprotectedby theA then ian navy , thein land c ities werewell n ighlost to thenational ity , being subject to thedom in ion ,

and probably theharsher dom in ion , of thePersians .Commercetoo , and in tercoursein general , w ith therichand populous in terior of A s iaM inor must havebeenmuch impeded

,s in cetheGreeks werenow Open and

v igorousenem ies of thePers ians,and d isposed to carry

on apermanen t war between theEastand theWest .I n th is way,

therefore,Hellenedom was somewhat

curtailed ,and theexampleof courtly luxury formerly

Often seen at thePers ian court and at thoseof thesatraps , must havebeen rarerand less influen tial . T heluxurious l ifeof theOld Ion ians had passed away , andw ith it perhaps many of therefinements ofan earl ier

TbeL ifeof tbeNation, 479

—

404 B . C. 1 3 5

age. For democracy had becomefash ionable, and w ith

dem ocracy ruder manners and s imp ler fare, wh iletheenergies formerly d irected to ar t and to commercemerged in pol itics . Weknow in our own t imehowabsorbing pol itics are, and how anat ion that l ives inthem may cometo th ink ofnoth ingelse. I t is noteveryc ity

,it is not onein athousand ,

that can find gen iusandenergy forall paths of l ife

,as d id theA then ians . I

th ink , therefore, that thepredom inanceof pol it ics hadmuch to say to theapparen t neglect , or wan t ofadvance,in mater ial l ifein many parts of Greece. T heSpartansof thePeloponnesian War appear rather inferior to thoseof thePers ian . T herest of Greecedoes not seemadvanc ing , except inarch itectureand sculpture. Thereareno new d iscoveries to makethel ifeof men easier .Thereis no such advan ceas wehavemadein ourcen tury s in cethegreat wars ceased . But s ilen tly theremust havebeen progress . T hetemples of them iddleofth is cen tury , notably thegreat templeat O lymp ia, theParthenon and Theseum at A thens , and thebest of

what wecal l thearchaic school ofsculpture, arederivedfrom th is t ime.T hestimulus of A then s accoun ts fo r agreat deal .Many pup ils must havegoneout from theschool ofPh idiasand spread abroad thegreatand subtlepr in c iples of h isar t . I ctinus

, thebu ilder of theParthen on ,

wroteabook describ ing it . Such abook must havebeen aprecious handbook ofarch itectureto all thatacqu ired it . A nd acqu ireit they could ,

fo r n ow thatin tercoursew ith Egypt

,during i ts revolt from the

Pers ian s,waseasy , theu seofpapyrus must havespread

rap idly toall parts of n ean ,and so books must have

been easily multipl ied . T hegreat poets from Pindardownward could n ot poss ibly composetheir elaborate

Perfection of

marinetact ics.

A Su r vey of Greek Ci vi li zation .

choral system s w ithout writing. T heplays ofZEschylusand Sophocles weren ot laid by after thefirst performance, but read and quoted among thecrowd atA thens . I n th is way kn owledgemust havein creased ,

and l ifemust havebecome, if n ot morel uxuriousandcomfortable, at least moremodern .

T hedevelopmen t of theA ttic navy was perhaps themost s ingular th ing of that time. Fo r two cen turiesback , theso -called tr i reme, anarrow decked sh ipworked w ith threebanks of oars , had been kn own andused for war . No modern naval con structor has beenabletoexplain to us how rows of oars , oneh igher thantheother , could poss ibly bemanaged w ithou t foul ing or

hopelessawkwardness . Noneof us hasever succeededin produc ingaposs iblemodel of suchash ip . Yet th iswas theusual sh ip of war , and ,

as theA then ian sdeveloped it , wen t long journeysateight or ten m ilesanhour

,apacen o t inferior to theord inary coasting

steamers n ow in thosewaters . I t was n ot detained bycalm ,and was in th is way better than ou r sai ling sh ips .

But so completely d id theA then ian s makethesesh ipsamatter of naval tact ics

,ofevolut ion s w ith theactual

boat,that in their palmy days they carried on ly ten

armed men as marinesoldiers, wh ilethereweretwohundred to managetheoars . They won their battlesn ot by board ing and fighting

,but by so manoeuvring

that they rammed their opponen ts’ sh ips,an d sank

them , deal ing w ith thecrews when they lay helpless intheir d isabled and s ink ing sh ip . A very small battlefought by their A dm iral Phorm ion at themouth of theGulf of Corin th , described by Thucyd ides , has becomemorefamous than many great and dec is iveseafights ,becauseit shows us clearly thegreat perfection to whichtheA ttic navy had brought its marinetact ics . Each

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A Sur vey of Greek Civi li zation .

analyzed w ith precis ion and w ith depth . But theyarestrictly men of thepresen t ; theorators especially ,also theh istorians , and st il l moretheph ilosophers .Everywhere, even in theimagination of Plato (whocomes later) , reason holds its sway ,and thereisastrictness and chastity in all A tt ic stylewh ich perm it on lyal ittleornamen t , and that of themost carefully chosenkind . Thesewriters all p resupposean exceed ingly ihtelligent publ ic , catch ing thewri ter’ s mean ingat everyh in t

,guess ing thepoint , ofevery fain tal lus ion , desp ising

dulnessand hating med iocrity . Th is deep-seatedambit ion to beclever , wh ich soon becameanecess ity for success , tended to producean over-subtlety of language,not conduciveto real d ign ity thewholeeffect , in tendedto beartistic, and in most cases real ly so , is often ,

evenin thegreates t Of them ,

in theproseof Thucydides ,in thepoetry ofSophocles

,d istinctlyartificial . A n tithe

sis, balan cing ofep ithets

,aplay ofwords rather than the

labour ofthought,sometimes disappoin t thereader ,even

though thegraceand purity of thelanguage, both in itsstrictand s implevocabulary

, and in therich variety ofits part icles , arethedespair ofany translator .I t is this prose, reach ing from Thucyd ides to Demos

thenes in i ts goldenage, in its s ilver down to Plutarchand D io Chrysostom

,or even Lucian

,wh ich mustever

demonstratetoany in telligen t man who learn s to understand it , that no societyever was, orever w il l be, morein tellectually cultivated than theseGreeks . Noaudien cehas arisen ever s in cewh ich could follow or appreciatesuch del icateperfectionas is thestandard of good A tticprose. Futurenation s may beinfin itely morelearnedin material th ings they may havemyriad facts of

h istory and facts of scien ceput in to their heads ; theymay havethefull experien ces of two thousand more

TlieL ifeof t/zeNation , 479—

404 B . C. 1 3 9

years boiled down in toan essen ce,and adm in istered to

them from you th up,so that they mayen ter l ifecarry

ingw ith themamen tal s torehouseof wh ichevery shelfis labelled and laden w ith knowledge. But th is veryprocess w ill probably d im in ish rather than in creasethatappreciation ofexcellen cewh ich theperfection Ofgoodsense, good taste, and rational train ing produced in theA then s of Pericles and Plato . What is perhaps morewonderful is that th is great resul t d id not dieout whenthefew generation s passed away whosegen ius createdth is wonderful cond ition Of th ings . T heGreek in tellectwas so permanen tly raised by theeducation of th isperfect prosethat even down to theageof decadence,among slaves and foreigners who learned its use, theaudiences ofS t . Paul understood argumen ts and apprec iated subtlet ies wh ich no pract ical teacher wouldven tureto set und iluted beforeany modern collection of

men .

But it must not befor onemomen t imagined that th isresult wasattained by flashes of heaven -born gen ius it

was theresult of gen ius do ing what real gen iusalwaysdoes , taking an infin ity of trouble. Though theearlywriters

,such as Thucyd ides , had amplemodels of clear

and s impled iction beforethem ,not on ly in theIon ic

proseOf older men ,but also in thegraceand clearness

OfEurip ides ’s dialogue, it is plain that they plumethemselves not upon thenarrative, which is s impleand clearenough

,but on thosesubtleand con torted lucubrations

wh ichassumearhetorical form ,andareeffortsat h ighly

art istic composition . Wehaveremain s ofThucydides ’smaster , A n t iphon

,astrong and dangerous sp irit , who

helped thearistocratic partyat A thens w ith h is in tellectand w ith h is pen morethan w ith asword , and whoseforen sic talen ts , long used to thecrim inal courts at

I ts permanence.

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

A thens , werelast used in h is great personal defenceofh is own l ifeand pol icy , when accused and conv icted ofpol it ical murdersand of treason again st thedemocracy .

Wehavesomehalf dozen of h is earl ier speeches , buthow dry and harsh they are, l ikeafinew inethat hasnot yet ripened ,

full of closereason ing , of strong sense,but devoid ofall thegraceand perfumeof thematurevin tage.I n thesamemanner , when Thucydides turn s to reflect ions in h is h istory , reflection s wh ich usual ly taketheform of debates , hemakes h is speakers del iver periodsso con tortedand obscurethat they could on ly del ightanaudienceenamoured ofsubtlet ies ,and longing toexerc isetheiracuteness upon en igmas ofdiction . T hethoughtsof thesecon torted sen ten cesareseldom deep theyarenot , as many commen tators pretend , crowded tooclosely together for clear express ion ; thesameidea, initself obviousenough

,is taken upand tossed about l ike

ashuttlecock between battledores of an tithesis . T hereader who expects anew truth in each sen tenceisdeceived heis on ly chewing thecud of thelast clause,but heis so pu z zled and in terested w ith theseingenuit ies that hefeels h imself perform ingah igh in tel lectualprocess . I f I heregiveaspecimen from Jowett’s translation ,

it is necessary to warn thereader that h is pel lucidEngl ish is no represen tativeof theweaknesses , but on lyof thestrength ofh is original . Hecould no morehaveal lowedasen ten cesuch as thosein wh ich Thucydidesdel ighted to issuefrom h is hand

,than Racinewould

haveallowed theGreek tragic poet to speak h is real itiesupon theFren ch stage.

They p retend that they first offered to havethematterdee1ded byarbitration . T heappeal to justicemigh t havesomemean ing in them outh of onewho beforehehad recourseto

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

T hestyleofSophocles.

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

c iplewh ich wi l l tel l against you rselves m o rethan against ,us.

*

Herethereis but oneidea, w ith afewappendages .T hesamecriticism appl ies to most chapters in thesespeeches

,and if wetakeup themost famous of them ,

the“ Ep itaph ios”

or funeral laudation put in to themouth of Per icles,Tweshal l besurprisedat thecrankiness , thevagueness , and even thewan t of tact wh ichi t frequen tly displays . Nevertheless it is not w ithout

jacertain graved ign i ty , and th is qual ity i t is wh ichhas obtained for Thucydidesapermanen t hearingandah igh respect in all l iteraryages . T heh igh standard of

pol itical self-den ial,

of self-sacr ificefor theglory of

h is country,wh ich hesets forth , has someth ing splend id

about it , and thereareoccasional flashes of fel icitousphrase

,as thereareeven in Mr . Mered ith ’ s n ovels . 1

Much of th is criticism,m utatis m utana’is, applies

to theh istorian ’ s greatest con temporary, Sophocles .

For wecan hard ly con sider ZEschylus’s l iteraryactivityas coin cid ing with h is younger rivals. Sophocles isavery great poet ; hehas many of theh ighes t qual ities ;h is tragedies w il l never ceaseto bequotedas then oblestbloom of Periclean A then s but therecan ben o doubtwhatever that h is stylereflects thecurren t tastefor subfletyand obscurity

,that h is vocabulary wasanyth ing but

pure,and that h isearl ier worksat least retained much Oftheharshness of thenew v in tage. Hereagain wehavean author qu itebeyond tran slation

,even though the

reader w i l l find that Mr . Whi telaw ’ s vers ion ,among

many good ones , isawonderful attempt to tran sfer thel" T h ucyd ides I . , Chaps. XXX IX .

-XL . Jowett ’s translat ion .

fBook l l . , C haps. XXXV .-XLVI

.

1 Indeed , ie. Meredith wereset h im selfto tran slatethespeeches of T huCyd ides wem igh texpectaremarkably faith fu l version in theh igher sen se, n o tword fo r word

, but sp 1r1t fo r sp iri t .

I T hereader w ill fin d theo

facts wh ich support theseviews in thechapter onSophocles i n m y Greek L 1terature. ”

T lzeL ifeof fileNation , 479—

404 B . C. 1 4 3

A ttic beein toaforeign land . T hereason why Ei rip jdes , an inferior poet , though agreater th inker , wasso frequen tly successful in h is day , and presen tly oustedboth fEschylus and Sophocles from publ ic favour

,is

that he-madeh is d iction pureand h is styleclear , andso spoketo thelarger publ ic that had n ot been trainedin all thesubtleties and thecleverness of theoverrefined A tt ic publ ic .

Thereis reason to th ink that thestrain upon thesoc iall ifeat A then s must havebeen very great , during theperiod of its brill ian ce. A largeimperial pol icy

, an extended commerc ial activ ity , thetrain ing of anavyto sweep theseas , thepracticeofan oratory toaston ishtheaud ience, and last , but not least , therebu ild ing of

thec ity toappear worthy of its greatness-m al l th is musthavekept th ings go ing at afever heat , and Plutarch ,ou r on ly informan t con cern ing thear t s ide

,n otices

special ly theextraord inary exped it ion w ith wh ich thegreat bu ildings of thet imewereerected . Yet so far asweknow them ,

they seemerected to last forever. D r .

DOrpfeld ,walk ing w ith meabout theParthenon

,re

marked that in h is m ind hewasaprofessionalarch itect — such abu ilding could never again ,

and oughtneveragain , becreated . T hebeautyand perfection of

all theinv is iblepar ts aresuch that thecost of labourandmoney must beenorm ousf Thereis no show whateverfor much of th isextraord inary fin ish , wh ich can on ly beseen by go ing up on theroof, o r by open ingawall . I tis abu ilding l ikethat very religious bu ilding of thetwelfth cen tury , when art ists worked absolutely for

theglory of God and for thesalvation of their souls ,without regard ing whether their work was ever to beseen of men . Yet , in both cases , therel igiousnessof theun seen work has secured that what is seen shal l

A rt pol icy ofPericles .

A Su r vey‘

of Greek Ci vi li zation .

beperfect w ith n o ord inary perfect ion . I t is wel l worthquot ing theremarkablepassagein Plutarch

’ s Pericles,” Chapters X I I . — X I I I . , wh ich gives usav ivid p ictureof thear t pol icy of thegreat statesman .

That wh ich was thech ief del igh t of theA then iansand thewonder of strangers, and wh ich aloneserves for aproof thattheboasted power and opu lenceof anc ien t G reeceis no t

an id letale, was themagn ificenceof thetem p les and publ iced ifices . Yet no part of theconduct of Per icles m oved thesp leen of h is enem ies m orethan th is. I n their accusationsof h im to thepeop lethey insisted ,

That hehad brough t thegreatest d isgraceon theA then ians by rem oving thepubl ictreasu res of G reecefrom Delos

,and tak ing them in to h is own

custody that hehad not left h im selfeven thespeciousapo logyof having caused them oney to bebrough t to A thens fo ri ts greater secu ri ty,and to keep i t from beingseized by thebarbar ians ; that G reecem ust needs consider i t as theh ighestinsu lt

,and an act of open tyranny, when shesaw them oney

shehad been obl iged to contribu tetoward thewar lav ished bytheA then ians in gi ld ing their city, and o rnamen ting i t withstatues and tem p les that cost athousand talen ts

,as ap roud

and vain woman decks herself out wi th jewels.

” Periclesanswered th is chargeby observing,

“That they werenot

obl iged to givetheal l iesanyaccoun t of thesum s they had received

, sincethey had kept thebarbarian s at ad istance,

and effectual ly defended theal l ies,who had not furn ished

ei ther h orses,sh ips, or men

,but on ly con tribu ted m oney

,

wh ich is no longer theproperty of thegiver , bu t of thereceiver

,if heperform s thecond itions on wh ich i t is received .

T hatas thestatewas p rov ided withall thenecessaries of war ,its superfluous wealth shou ld belaid out on such works as

,

whenexecu ted ,wou ld beeternal m onuments of i ts glo ry, and

wh ich,during theirexecu tion ,

would d iffuseaun iversal p len ty ;fo r as so many k inds of labourand such

’

avariety of instru

men ts and materials wererequ isiteto theseundertak ings,every ar t wou ld beexerted

,every hand em p loyed ,

alm ost

thewho lec ity wou ld bein pay, and beat thesamet imebo th adornedand supported by i tself. ” Indeed

,such as were

of ap roper ageand strength , werewan ted for thewars,and wel l rewarded fo r their services andas fo r themechan ics

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A Sur vey of Greek Civi li zation .

T heParthenon . Parthenon ,or Tem p leof Pal las, whosed imensions had beena

T helongwall.

T heOdeum .

hund red feet square, was rebu i lt by Cal l icratesand Ictinus.

T helong wal l , thebu i lding of wh ich Socrates says heheardPericles p roposeto thepeop le, was undertaken by Cal licrates.

Cratinusrid icules th is workas proceed ing very slowlyS tones upon stones theo rato r has p i led ,

Wi th swel lingwords, bu t wo rds wi l l bu i ld no wal ls.

T heOdeum o r m usic theater, wh ich was l ikewisebu i lt by thed irection of Per icles, had with in i t many rows of seatsand of

p i l lars ; theroof was of acon ic figure, after themodel ,weareto ld , of thek ing Of Persia’s pavi l ion . C ratinus thereforeral l ies h im again in h is p lay cal led T h rattae

A s j ove,an on ion on h is head hewearsA s Pericles,awho leo rchestrabearsA fraid of bro i lsand ban ishmen t no m oreHetunes theshel l hetrem bledat before.

Periclesat th is t imeexer tedall h is interest to haveadecreemade

,appo inting ap rizefor thebest perfo rmer in music

during thePanathenaea; and , as heh im self was appo in tedjudgeand distributor of thep rizes, hegavethecon tend ingartists di rections in what manner to proceed , whether thei r perfo rmancewas vocal o r on theflu teo r lyre. From that timetheprizes in m usic werealways contended for in theOdeum .

T hevestibuleOf thecitadel was fin ished in fiveyears byMnesicles thearchitect .

*

T hegroup of bu ildings on theA cropol is of A then s ,wh ichall datefrom th is golden epoch , is certain ly themost perfect and beautiful in theworld . . Theyarenotvery large; hugeness was no object to thebu i lders andhow wel l thesemen understood thepermanen t laws of

ar t is man ifest from th is fact,that no hugeness dwarfs

their bu ild ings by comparison no vastness makes themlook smaller than is required for perfect beauty . Comeifyou l ikefresh from S t . Peter’ s at R ome

,or from the

Pon t-du -Gardat Nimes,or from thecolossal halls Of the

0Plutarch , Pericles,

” Langh orne’s tran slat ion .

TlzeL ifeof MeNation , 479—

40; 8 . C. 1 47

great templeat Luxor , and tel l meifyou feel theParthenon small or ins ign ifican t . So it is w ith thequestionofrichness . N0 d isplay of ornamen t w il l makeit lookpoor

,even now in its ru in , when its coloursarelong s ince

fadedand gone. Comefresh from St. Mark’sat Ven iceor from thePav ian Certosa, and tel l mewhether theremain ing ornamen t seems to you inadequate.Wenow know that themarvellous symmetry of the

Parthenon is not attained by setting up afour-squarebu ild ing ofvery prec ious stone, w ith carved decorationsof great beauty . Far from being what ignoran t observers imagine, an affair of straight l ines , thereis not ,

so far as I know, as inglestraight l inein thewholestructure. T hefloor is sl ightlyarched up , very sl ightly,and not merely to causerain to r un Off, for all theothersurfacesarealso curved . T hep illarsarenot setatequalin tervals , but closer together near thecorner of thebu ilding . T heshafts swel l toward them iddle, noneofthem stand perpendicular , but sl ightly incl ined inwards .Wekn ow from comparing modern bu ildings in thatstyle, wh ich do not Observeth is law ,

thatar ow ofperpendicular p i llar s seems to splay outward ateither endof ther ow. Th is was what I ctin us chosetoavoid . T heupper hori z on tal l ines of thearch itravearel ikewisecurved ,

toavo idas im ilar unpleasan t i llus ion of theeye,and all thesedel icatevariations from theright l ineareconstructedas thearcs of vast circles stand ing in fixedrelations . T heornamen t cons i sted of carving donebytheschool Of Ph id ias, and colouring of th is and all theUseofcolou r

bu ifdm A then ians had no esteem fo r wh iteon thecar vm g'

marbleasasurface in astatueits coldness would havebeen most repulsiveto them . But thecolour is gone, orratherall thevarious colours havegiven placeto thatbeaut iful gold brown w ith wh ich theA ttic dust ofages

A Su r vey q/ Greek Civi li zation .

has stained theon cepain ted marble. When new fragmen tsaredug up in modern excavations , thetraces ofbright colour

,green

,blue, gold ,

red ,areusual ly there.

A s regards thesculpture, wh ich consist of pedimen ts(gablegroups) , thefrieze( corn ice) al ong themainwal l , and metopes ( original ly plaques to stop theholesbetween theends of theroof beams) , they areso wel lknown that they need n ot herebedescribed ,

espec ial lyas they fil l theprincipal chapter in every work on Greekar t .Not less perfect than theParthenon is thefar smaller ,

Erech theum buteven richer Erechtheum ,wherethep illars w ith their

inward trendaremost gracefully replaced by Caryatides ,women w ith sacred baskets upon their heads , who resteach upon thefoot nearest thecen tre, thus produc ingtheeffect in tended byamerenatural pose.Weshould will ingly giveaway all thespeeches inThucydides to havesomeaccoun t ofthestud ios in wh ichPh id ias thesculptor and I ctinus thearch itect devisedand executed thesemarvel lous plan s . T hestonewasbrought from themarblequarries ofMoun t Pen tel icuswecan stil l tracetheroad , and wecan wonderat thehugecuttings in themoun tain

,someten m iles n orth of

A then s . They had n oexplos iveto separatetheblocks ,they had no instrumen ts comparableto ours . But w iths imp letoolsand un l im ited slavelabour they carried downbeamsand blocks of marbleoften th irty feet longandhundreds of tons in weight ; they carried them up thesteep in cl ineto theplateau of therock ; theretheycarved them , and then l ifted them th irty o r forty feetin to theair in to their places . I n afew years

,Plutarch

tel ls us , theParthenon was completed by theseprocesses , and even now thejo in i ngs and fittings of thestones, theaccuracy of their placemen t , thebeams of

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A S ur vey of Greek Civi li zation .

affairs , in all theHellen ic pol i ties , however small ; andth is was thefeeling wh ich madean attack upon anysuch emp ire, o r moreproperly , liegem ony , ofA then ians ,Spartans , or Thebans, popular in Greece. I t was thevery sameproblem as that wh ich agitated A mericaattheOpen ing of thegreat Civi l War thirty years ago .

Werethestates wh ich werethemothers of theUn ionbound forever to remain in that Un ion

,even ifwhat theyheld to betheir statel iberties wereviolated ? Whatever m ight havebeen therights of thosestates wh ichweredaughters of theUn ion

, theoriginal partnersseemed to havean indefeas ibleright of withdraw ing

,if

theterms of theoriginal con tract werev iolated .

Our real superiority l ies in our moral ideals , in our

ph ilan thropy , our careof thepoor and thes ick , veryprobably in ou r developed notion s of human ity. I do

n ot know whether theexistenceand justification of

slaveryasanational institution arenot themain causeof th is differen ce. I n all slave-hold ing soc ieties thefeel ings of theslavearev iolated by thewi l l or thecapriceof themaster. Even as n owadays men wi l l nothesitateto sacrificedomestic an imals to their con

ven ience, so wi l l they sacrificetheir slaves . A s far assecuring leisureto thefree

, as faras sav ing them fromdrudgery , slavery general ly conduces to refinemen t ofmanners and elegan ceof l ifein thedom inating class .But ifany press ing need occurs

, thel ives of slaves wi llbesacrificed without scruple, and thehab it of so do ingcannot but react Upon themorals of themasters , andmakethem callous in other cases wherehuman ity isinvolved . Th is weseein thebest and foremost Greeksociety of this period . How many slaves weresacrificedto thehurry of bu i ld ing theParthenon weshal l neverknow . I n thes ilver m ines of Laurium i t would seem

T116 L ifeof theNation , 479—

404 B . C.

that two years was theaveragel ifeofaworkman . Butthetreatmen t of prisoners is constan tly stated to us .Very frequen tly -theadult malepr isoners

,especially if

they belonged toahated r ival c ity,weremassacred in

cold blood,no r did therefinemen t man ifested by the

compan ions Of Pericles and Ph id ias revolt from thesebutcheries . T hewomen and ch ildren weremadeslaves ,and if not ransomed ,

becamethechattels of thev ictors .T hehonour ofawoman who was even atemporaryprisoner was no morerespected than her purse

,n o r was

sucham isfortune, wh ich Often happened ,cons ideredas

in any way ru in ing her reputat ion . Wehaveth isindeed expl ici tly from Xenophon , ageneration laterthan that now under con s iderat ion . But if it was truethen ,

it must havebeen trueten t imes morein thecolder , harsher , and moreselfish society of A n tiphon ,

Thucydides , A lc ib iades , and Lysander. T hem ilk of

human k indness seems to haver un dry among them .

Even in theA ttic comedy of theday, thebrill ian tandgen ial A r istophanes seldom paints th is feature.SO far

,then , theassoc iation of thegood with the

beaut iful and thetrueseems incomplete. T helattertwo areattained in no ordinary degree. T heformer ,wh ich is to us themost div ineof thethree, was butpoorly represen ted .

T hewholepol icy of A then s as drawn by its greath istorian Thucyd ides isas repulsiveas thefigures of theO lympian gods drawn by Hetells us in as ingular passagethat it was thegreat PeloponnesianWar wh ich ru ined thepubl ic morals Of thenation ,

andthough th is statemen t is un true, for weknow of thesamev ices rampan t at earl ier epochs , thep icturehedrawsoffers so curiousand dark ashadow to thebrill ian cy of

T h is subject is treated in theearly chapters of m y Social Lifein Greece.

A S u r vey qf Greek Civi li zation .

thear t s ideof th is l ifethat weshall do wel l to quoteit .

For not longafterwards thewh o leHel len ic world was incom m otion

,in every c ity thech iefs of the’ dem ocracy and of

theo l igarchywerestruggl ing,theoneto bring in theA then ians,

theother theLacedaem on ians. Now,in timeof peace, men

wou ld havehad no excusefo r in troduc ing ei ther, and no

desireto do so,but when they wereat war and both sides

cou ldeasi ly Obtain al l ies to thehu rt of thei r enem ies and theadvantageof them selves

,thed issatisfied party wereon ly too

ready to invokefo reignaid . A nd revo lution brough t upon thec ities of Hel las many terriblecalam ities, suchas havebeenandalwayswi l l bewh i lehuman natu reremains thesame, bu t wh icharem oreo r lessaggravatedand d iffer in character w itheverynew com b ination of circum stances. I n peaceand prosperityboth states and ind ividuals areactuated by h igher motives,becausethey do not fal l under thedom in ion of im periousnecessities ; bu t war , wh ich takes away thecom fo rtablep rovision of dai ly life, isahard master, and tends to assim i latemen ’

s characters to thei r conditions.

When troubles had oncebegun in thecities,th osewho

fo l lowed carried therevo lutionary sp irit fur ther and fu rther ,and determ ined to outdo thereport ofall who had p recededthem by theingenu ity of thei r en terprises and theatrocity of

their revenges. T hemean ing of wo rds had n o longer thesamerelation to th ings, but was changed by them as theythough t proper . Reckless daringwasheld to beloyal cou ragepruden t delay was theexcuseofacoward ; m oderation wasthed isguiseof unman ly weakness ; to know everyth ing wasto do noth ing. Fran tic energy was thetruequal ity ofaman .

A consp irato r who wan ted to besafewasarecrean t in d isguise.T helover of v io lencewas always trusted , and h is Opponentsuspected . Hewho succeeded inap lot was deemed knowing,

but asti l l greater master in craft was hewho detected one.On theother hand

,hewho p lotted from thefirst to have

noth ing to do with p lots was abreaker up of part ies and apo l troon who was afraid of theenem y. I n aword

,hewho

cou ld outstrip another inabad action was app lauded , and so

was hewhoencouraged toevi l onewho had no ideaofit . T het ieof party was stronger than thet ieof blood

,becausea

partisan was m oreready to darew ithout ask ingwhy. (For

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

D ialoguefromT hucyd ides.

A Sur vey of Greek Civi li zation .

naturewas laughed to sco rn and d isappeared . A nattitudeofper fid iousan tagon ism everywherep revai led for therewas noword b indingenough n o r oath terribleenough to reconci leenem ies. Each man was strong on ly in theconviction thatnoth ingwas secu rehem ust look to h is own safety, and cou ldnot afford to trust others. Inferio r in tel lects general ly suc

ceeded best . For,awareof their own deficiencies, and fearing

thecapacity of thei r opponen ts, fo r whom they wereno matchin powers of speech ,

and whosesubtlewits werelikely toant ic ipatethem in contrivingevi l , they struck bo ld lyand atonce. But thec leverer so rt

, p resum ing in theirarrogancethatthey wou ld beawarein time, and d isdain ing toact when theycou ld th ink

,weretaken Off thei r guardand easi ly destroyed .

*

A ll theseevils are, however , set forth in connectionw ith theh ideous massacres at Corcyra, an outlyingand not very respectablepart of theGreek world .

Thucyd ides in duetimelets us know thatas far as principles wen t theA then ian s weren o better . Hehas putinto their mouths ad ialoguew ith theMel ian s , whoseisland they des ired to take, wh ich may indeed not

beh istorical ly accurate— therewas no reporter presen tto takeit down and bring it to theh istorian — but wh ichexpresses h is op i n i on of themot ives wh ich led to thecruel treatmen t of theseislanders . Thereis no moreshocking instanceof cold-blooded cyn icism in all Greekh istory .

A t/zen ians. Wel l then , weA then ians wi l l useno finewords ;wew i l l not go out of ou r way to p roveat length that wehavearigh t to rule, becauseweoverth rew thePersians ,

o r that weattack you now becausewearesuffering any inju ryat you rhands. Weshou ld not convinceyou i f wed id ; nor m ust youexpect to conv inceus byargu ing that,althoughaco lony of theLacedmm on ians

, you havetaken no part in theirexped itions,o r that you havenever doneusany wrong. But you and weshou ld say what wereal ly th ink

,and aim on ly at what is

possible, fo r weboth al ikeknow that into thed iscussion‘ T h ucvd ides l l l Chaps. LXXX I I .-LXXX I I I . Jowett .

TbeL ifeof theNation, 479

—

404 B . C. 1 55

of human affairs thequestion of just iceon lyen ters wherethep ressureOfnecessi ty isequal ,and that thepowerfu lexact whatthey can ,

and theweak gran t what they m ust .

flietians . Wel l then,sinceyou set asidejust iceand invite

us to speak ofexped iency, in ou r judgment i t is certain lyexped ient that you should respect ap rincip lewhich is for

thecom m on good ; and that to every man when in peri l areasonableclaim should beaccoun tedac laim of righ t ,andanyp leawh ich heis d isposed to u rge, even i f fail ing of thepo in tal ittle, shou ld help h is cause. Your interest in th is princip leis qu iteas greatas Ou rs, inasm uch as you ,

ifyou fal l , wi l l incu rtheheav iest vengeance, and w i l l bethem ost terribleexam pleto mank ind .

A tk. T hefal l of ou r em p ire, if it shou ld fal l , is not

an even t to wh ich welook fo rward w ith d ismay ; fo r rul ingstates such as Lacedmm on arenot cruel to thei r vanqu ishedenem ies. A nd wearefigh ting no t so m uch against theLacedmm on ians

,asagainst ou r own subjects who may someday

riseup and overcomethei r fo rmer masters . But th is isadanger wh ich you may leaveto us. A nd wewi l l nowendeavou rto show that wehavecomein thein terests of ou rem p ire, andthat in what weareabout to say weareon ly seeking thepreservation ofyou r c i ty. For wewan t to makeyou ou rs w i ththeleast troubleto ou rselves, and it is fo r theinterests of

us both that you should no t bedestroyed .

Mel. I t may beyou r in terest to beour masters, buthow can i t beours to beyou r slaves ?A tlz . T o you thegain w i l l bethat by subm ission you wi l lavert theworst and weshal l beall ther icher fo r you r p reservafi on .

Riel. Bu t m ust webeyou renem ies ? Wi l l you not receiveusas friends if weareneutraland remainat peacew ith you ?A t/i . NO

, you r enm ity is n o t half so m isch ievous to us asyour friendsh ip ; fo r theoneis in theeyes of ou r subjectsanargumen t of our power, theother of ou r weakness.

Mel. But areyou r subjects real ly u nableto distingu ish between states in wh ich you haveno concern ,

and thosewh icharech iefly your own co lon ies, and in somecases haverevo ltedand been subdued by you ?AM. Why, they do not doubt that both of them haveagood deal to say for them selves on thescoreof justice,

Migh t is r igh t.

A S u r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

but they th ink that states likeyours areleft freebecausetheyareableto defend them selvesand that wedo not attackthem becausewedarenot . So that you r subjection wi ll giveus an increaseof securi ty, as wel l as an extension ofem p ire.For wearemasters of thesea, and you wh oareislanders,andinsign ificant islanders too ,

m ust not beal lowed toescapeus.

Mel. But do you n o t recogn izeano ther danger ? For,

oncem ore, sinceyou d riveus from thep leaof justiceandpress upon us you r doctrineof exped iency, wem ust showyou what is fo r o u r interest, and , if i t befor you rs also ,

may hopeto convinceyou Wi l l you no t bemak ingenem ies ofall whoarenow neu trals ? When they seehow youaretreatingus they wi llexpect yousomeday to tu rnagainst them andi fso

,areyou not strengthen ing theenem ies whom youal ready

have,and bringing upon you o thers who

,if they cou ld help ,

wou ld never d ream of being you renem iesatallAM. Wedo not consider ou r real ly dangerous enem ies to

beany of thepeop les inhab iting themain land who, secu re

in their freedom,may defer indefin itely any measures of

precau tion wh ich they takeagainst us, bu t islanders who ,l ike

you ,happen to beunder no contro l

,and all who may be

al ready i rritated by thenecessi ty ofsubm ission to ou rem p iretheseareour real enem ies, for theyarethem ost recklessandm ost l ikely to bring them sel ves as wel l as us in to adangerwh ich they cannot but fo resee.Mel. Su rely then

,if you and your subjects wi l l brave

all th is risk , you to p reserveyourem p i reand they to bequ it ofi t

,how baseand coward ly would i t bein us

,who retain ou r

freedom,not to do and suffer anyth ing rather than beyou r

slaves.

A tti . Not so,if you calm ly reflect ; for you arenot figh t

ingagainstequals to whom you cannot yield w ithou t d isgrace,but you aretak ing counsel whether o r no you shal l resistan overwhelm ing fo rce. T hequestion is no t oneof honou rbu t ofprudence.

H istorians tel l us that Thucyd ides wasatraged ian inprose, that hedes ired toexposethecruel tyand selfishness of A thensas themoral causeof thegreat disaster

T hucydides V ., Chaps. LXXX IX — C I . Jowett .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

Reasons for hi spopu larity.

A S u r vey qf Greek Ci vi li zation .

attacked as rational ists who underm ined faith , and w ithfaith morals . Both protested that they on ly criticisedfaith so far as i t was absolutely necessary to upholdmorals . T hepoet upon h is stage, pain ting thev ices ofmen and thev irtues of women ,

thepass ion of both ,preachedalargerand k indl ierest imateof human naturethan thehard pol it ic ian s would adm it . Human i tyindeed in all its better phases , espec ial ly thel oyal tyand n ob il ity of thepoorand theslave, is in Eurip idesanewand blessed con cept ion am id thecruelties and thebeauties of A ttic l ife. H is many innovation s wereregarded by thestricter school as decadences , h isphi losophy as ou t of place, h is rehand l ing of sacredstories as irrel igious ; but Eurip ides knew better thanh is critics ; hestood at thecloseofan epoch bril lian tindeed , but n ot destined to last , l iving upon an energyimposs ibleto sustain

,and when thecrash camehesur

vived , thepoetand teacher of succeed ing cen turies .When wenow rakethesands of Egypt , and find

fragmen ts of theschool-books,or thepopular books

wh ich theGreeks under A lexander carried w ith them totheir new homes

, wefind fragmen ts of Eurip idesalmostas common as fragmen ts of Homer , wh ich was then theGreek B ible, whereas thoseof fEsChylus or Sophoclesaremost rare. I t was doubtless on accoun t of h is cosm opolitan ism ,

h is greater clearness , h is s implelanguage,h is rather Hel len ic than A tt ic sp irit , that hesatisfiedmen who could not brook thepomp offEschylus or thesubtlety of S ophocles . H is ph ilosophy , too , agen tlepess im ism , was moreconfined to thedays of Greekdecadence, when theextravagan t hopes and sp

'

lE—

ridid

performanceof Periclean A then s wereth ings of thepast . Many ofh is lyrical passages , too , werecapableofqu itegeneralappl ication

,and could besung , as modern

T/zeL ifeof . t/zeNation, 479

—

404 B . C. 1 59

lyrics are, apart from thestageand i ts accessor ies .Here, fo r examp le, is an odetranslated for meby

R obert Brown ing , and wh ich I gladly repeat in th isplace

Oh Love, Love, thou that from theeyes d iffusestYearn ing,

and on theso u l sweet graceinducestfi

So u lsagainst whom thy host i lemarch is madeNever to mebeman ifest in i re

,

No r,ou t of timeand tune

, m y peaceinvadeS inceneither from thefi reNo

,no r thestars— is launched abo lt m o rem igh ty

Than that ofA ph rod iteHurled from thehands ofLove, theboy wi th Zeus fo r

Id ly, how id ly, by theA lpheian riverA nd in thePyth ian sh r ines o fPhoebus

,qu iver

Blood -ofl'er ings from thebu l l

,wh ich Hel las heaps

Wh ileLovewewo rsh ip not— theLo rd ofmen !Wo rship not h im

,thevery key who keeps

OfA ph rod ite, whenShec loses up her dearest cham ber-po rtals

-Love, when hecomes to m o rtals,

Wide-wasting,th rough thosedeeps ofwoes beyond thedeep

Th is great poet has had in ou r t imethegood fortuneto fall in to Brown ing’ s hands

,and two plays at least ,

w ith many fragmen ts, can bestud ied better than other

Greek masterp ieces in h is Balaustion ’

s A dven ture”

( the A lces tis ” ) and A ristophanes ’s “A pology ” ( the

“Mad Heracles T helatter vers ion is far themoreperfect , fo r hehas hererendered thelyrical Odes inlyri cal metres , whereas in the A lcestis hehas giventhemall in h is halt ing blank verse, wh ich does not represen t thevarietyand beauty of theoriginal metres . Butboth arethework ofapoet appreciatingapoet , andas

Brown ing’s

translat ion OfaE urip ideanode.

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

such havebut few rivalsamong ou r A nglo -Greek books .Wepass on to theother cap ital figurein Periclean

A thens , who l ived ,l ikeEurip ides , to seethedebacle, but

was thesecond great forcewh ich led to abri llian tregeneration in thesucceeding cen tury . I f Eurip ideswas arational ist , how much morewas Socrates arational ist ; if Eurip ides , am id thes ceptic ism wh ichfollows upon thecritic ism of afalseandabsurd rel igion ,

was sti ll aserious and p ious man ,how much

’

moresowas Socrates . Heset h imself to work again st thebri ll ian t superficial teachers of practical pol itics , cal led“ Soph ists ,

” who trained men in argumen t but not inprinc iples , and sought in debateon ly v ictory , not truth .

vBut to Socrates prin ciplewaseveryth ing. Heknew no

fear , herecoi led from no hardsh ip , hewas tain ted w ithno amb ition ; hel ived and d ied for h is conv ictions ,preach ing that truth , and theclear kn ow ing of it , wastheon ly fi t occupat ion ofmen .

H is doctrineof But in h im thebeautiful wh ich had been theglory ofthebeauty of thePericlean agegaveway utterly toanother beauty ,goodness.

thebeauty ofgoodness . Hefound , as hebel ieved ,the

real nexus between thos'egreat ideas,and it is from h is

t imeonward that every nobleth inker has essayed toattain them in h is con cept ion of theDeity . I t was saidthat hebrought down ph ilosophy from heaven to dwellamong men . Perhaps it would betruer to say that heraised ‘

man from theearth to dwel l in heaven . S til lmoretruewas it that hebrought ph i losophy from Ion ia,from S ic ily , and from MagnaGraecia, to dwel l atA thens . Hewas h imselfnoascetic hed id noteschewthepleasures of thebody

,butevery pleasureand every

relaxation hesubord inated to theonegreat object , tomain tain h is own moral d ign ity and purity

,and to

promotethesesamev irtuesamong others .

J

V

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A then ianatt itudeto death .

Evidencefromtom bstones .

A S u r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

T heeffect of th is upon thecultureof A thens , andthrough h is pup i ls upon thecultureof many Greekc it ies , must havebeen immense. I t was n ow fel t thaten l ightenmen t mean t not cheap sceptic ism , but deeperknowledge that therewasahuman naturedeeperandmorepermanen t than thetypes perpetuated as ideal inthepoetryand mythology of thean cien ts . Not A pollo ,not A thene, had thed ign ity and thestrength of thehuman sage. H is very death wasagreater lesson thanh is l ife. Fo r both beforeh is j udges and beforeh isfriends hemain tained clearly that after th is l ifeagoodman w ill receiveeither thereward of greater happ iness ,or theeternal sleep ofann ih ilat i on . I n n o casew il l h ispainsand imperfection s beperpetuated . A nd if therebeindeed ad ivinespark in thesoul of man ,

wemayhopefor areturn of th is h igherelemen t to its home,andafutureblessedness in thepurity ofeternal l ight .T hedeep consolat ions of th is n obleteach ing cannot

befully appreciated til l weunderstand thepopularattitudetoward death among theA then ian s of h is day.

Wehavenot indeed thecomplain ts, thedespair , the

gloom Of theaveragepeoplerecorded in any book .

But therestil l remain s to us very curiouseviden cein themany tombstones w ith sculptured rel iefs wh ich arefound in theCeram icus at thewest end of A then sduring recen t years

,and arenow theornamen t of the

Great Museum .

I cannot do better than repeat herewhat I wroteyears ago , when first I was brought faceto facew iththesecuriousand veryaffecting memorials ofanation ’ sgrief.

I t seem s to methat thetom bs beforeus areremarkableasexem pl ifying, with thetact of gen ius, th is trueand perfectreserve. T hey aresim p lep ictures of thegrief of part ing— o i

TlzeL ifeof t/zeNation, 479

—

404 B . C. 1 6 3

thereco l lection of p leasan t days of loveand friendsh ip— of thegloom of theunknown future. Bu t thereis no exaggeration ,

nor special i ty— no ind iv idual i ty, I had alm ost said — in thep icture. I feel no cu riosity to inquirewho thesepeople

'

arewhat weretheir names— even what was therelationsh ip Of thedeceased . Fo r I am perfectly satisfied withan ideal portrait ofthegrief of part ing— agrief that comes to us all

, and laysb itter ho ld of usat someseason of l ifeand i t is th is un iversalso rrow— th is great com m on p lan in ou r l ives— wh ich theGreekart ist has brough t befo reus, and wh ich cal ls fo rth ou r deepestsym pathy. Therew il l befurther occasion to comeback upon

th isall-im po rtan t featu rein connection wi th theaction in Greekscu lpture, and even wi th thed rap ing of thei r statues— in allof wh ich thecalm and chastereserveof thebetter G reekar tcontrasts strangely with theM ichael A ngelosand Ber n in isandCanovas of o ther days nay, even w ith theG reek sculptureofano less bri l l ian t but less refinedage.But in conclud ing th is d igression I w i l l cal l atten tion toa

m odern paral lel in thepo rtraitu reof grief, and of griefat finalparting. Th is paral lel is no tap ieceo f scu lp ture, butapoem ,

perhaps them ost remarkablepoem ofou r generation — the“ I nMem o riam ”

of Lo rd Tennyson Though written from personal feel ing,

and to com mem o rateaspec ial person — A rthurHal lam — whom someof useven knew

,has th is poem laid ho ld

of theimagination of men strongly and lastingly owing to thepoet’s spec ial loss ? Cer tain ly no t. I do not even th ink thatth is great d irge— th is magn ificen t funeral poem — hasexc ited inm ost of usany strong in terest in A rthu r Hal lam . I n fact

,any

o ther friend of thepoet ’s wou ld havesu ited thegeneral readerequal ly wel las theexc iting causeofapoem ,

wh ich wedel ightin

,becauseit pu ts in to great wo rds theever-recurringand

permanent featu res in such grief— thosedark longings aboutthefuturethosesuggestions of despair, of d isconten t with thep rov idenceof thewo rld ,

Of wi ld specu lat ion abou t i ts laws ;thosestruggles to reconci leou r own loss

,and that of the

human race,with somelarger law of wisdom and of benevo

lence. T o thepoet , Of cou rse, h is own particu lar friend wasthegreat cen trepo in t of thewho le. But to us

,in reading i t,

thereis awided istinct ion between thepersonal passages— I

mean th osewh ich givefam i ly detai lsand special c ircum stancesin Hal lam ’

s l ife, o r h is in t imacy with thepoet— and thepu rely

A Sur vey of Greek Civi li zation .

poetical o rartistic passages, wh ich soaraway into aregion faraboveall special detai l , and sing of thegreat gloom wh ichhangs over thefuture, and of thevehemen t beating of thehuman sou l against thebars of its p rison house, when oneistaken ,

and another left, not merely at apparen t random ,but

withapparent injusticeand damageto mankind . Henceeveryman in grief fo r alost friend wi ll read thepoem to h is greatcom fort,and wi l l then on ly seeclearly what i t means and hewi l l find i t speak to h im special lyand particularly, not in i tspersonal passages, but in its general features in its hard metaphysics ; in i ts m ystical theo logy ; in i ts angryand uncertaineth ics. For even thecomm onest m ind is forced by grief outof i ts com m onness,and attacks theworld-problem s

,wh ichat

other times it has no power o r tastetoapproach .

*

I t is indeed certain that many of them datefrom thesucceeding generations ; but thetypewas created atthemomen t when sculptors had vanqu ished all theirdifficulties , and fel t themselves perfectly ableto giveexpress ion to theemotions in unfeel ing marble. Whenonceestabl ished , thetypeof th is work con tinuedunvaried in sen timen t

,wh iletheh igher m inds werefind

ing h igher consolation s and better memorials to recordtheir impression s of death and of bereavement . I t wastheutter sadness ofmen w ithout hope, thedreary futurein themeadow ofasphodel , wh ich Socrates and his

followers combated,showing that wh i leagood l ifewas

anend in i tself, not cut short but completed byadeathof calmness and res ignation

, thefuturel ifecould bringno terrors to therighteous , even if it werenotacrownand culm ination to their yet imperfect happ iness .

Ram blesand Stud ies in Greece,” pages 74-5 (4thedit ion )

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

d iction ,al ternatew ith scurrilous lampoons and v iolen t

pol itical attacks . T hefollow ing Odew il l illustrateh islyric poetry

ODE OF T HE HOOPOE T O T H E N IGHT INGALE .*

S IST ER warbler, ceasefrom slum ber,Pou r thy ho l iest sweetest num ber ;With thy heaven ly

’

vo icebewai lT hy own sad Itys’ tearful taleGush ing forth thel iqu id noteCop ious th rough thy yel low th roat .C learand fu l l theholy soundTh rough thefu l l — leaved ivy roundSoarsaway to Jove’s h igh hal lGo ld-haired Phoebus hears thecall,Hearsandanswers backagain ,

Mou rnful to them ou rnful strain .

Hew i th ivory-gleam ing lyreVVakensall theim m o rtal cho i r.

A ll theeverlasting th rongTakeup thesong

T hevo ices of theblest theful lacco rd prolong.

What has been already said about therest of Periclean l ifeis herealso exempl ified . Goodness as suchplays but asmal l part in thepoet’ s scenes . I f he

Con servatism ofA r istophanes.

preaches honesty and truth against ch icaneryand selfishness

,it is for thegood of thestate, for thepol itical

salvat ion of A thens,

n ot becausethesequal it ies arein themselves honourableand of good report . H is

famousattack on Socrates ( in the Clouds ” ) isam isrepresen tat ion as gross as any ever perpetrated in

A merican pol it ics . Hecould on ly havedefended it byi ts pol iticalexped iency . Hebelonged to theold Conservativeparty , to whom th is shak ing of received truths ,of trad itional dogmas , was connected w ith rad ical pol i

A translat ion Of oneof Aristophanes’s lyrics. Milman , page222.

T/zeFou r t/t Centu i jy B . C.

tics , and w ith theriseof new ideas in morals andrel igion . Most of thedangerous young men at A thens ,notably theringleader Of theTh irty Tyran ts

, Cr itias,werefollowers of thesage. Th is featurewasenough inA ristophanes ’s m ind to justifyaw ickedand falsesatireupon agreatand good man .

I t was th is wan t of moral earnestness,as wellas the

local flavour of h is plays,wh ich madethem d istasteful

to thepubl ic , as soon as thec ircumstan ces wh ich explained theiral lus ionsand thepol it ical struggles wh ichpal l iated their injustices had been forgotten . T hetamerand betterageOf theRestorat ion requ ired m ilder Sp iritual food ,

greater moral earnestness , and so , wh iletheteach ing of thev irtues passed in to thehands of ph ilosopher sand rhetoric ians , theso-called M iddleComedy , towh ich A ris tophanes ’ s latest play , the“ Plutus , approx imates , adopted avery d ifferen t , and amorecultivated tone. Classes of men and not individuals werecritic ised ,

l iteraryand soc ial ideals , no t practical pol itics ,wered iscussed andalthough it may beseen that nowand then , even in thehands of thevery latest of thecom ic poets , personal lampoons werelaunched at theaudiencefrom thestage, thewholetoneand tempershow that l icenseand scurril ity wereno longer thoughtamusing or in good taste. Th is is what weshouldexpect from theageofXenophon and Plato , LysiasandIsocrates .T heSpartans werenow masters of thepol itical world ,

and though all thetheorists , as wel l as practical menl ikeXenophon ,

weredaz zled w ith thetenacious andconsisten t method of l ife, wh ich hadattained thesupremacy over bri l l ian t A then s , theSpartan s as adom inating society borethetest of prosper ity and powervery badly .

H is sketcho f Socrates .

Of Cyrus.

OfAgesilaus.

A Sur vey of Greek Civi li zation .

T heon ly writer who wen t about all over theGreekworldand saw thewaysand manners of men , theU lysses ofthefourth cen tury B . C .

,was Xenophon , who has

given us in h is various wri tings h is various ideals , suchas they weresuccess ively presen ted to h im . F irstcomes Socrates theA then ian , whose Memo irs giveusap ictureof theman morereal ist icand poss ibly moretrue>l< than thed ialogues ofPlato . Then hecomes in tocon tact w ith theyounger Cyrus , agreat Pers ian prin ce,whosesplendourand d ign ity , vastly beyond that ofanyGreek , so daz z leh im that hepain ts theideal monarchin his Education ofCyrus . ” Heremoves h is p icturein to thedays of theolderand greater k ing of thenamebut it is qu itecertain that it was thebri ll ian t , ch ivalrousprinceunder whom hefoughtat Cunaxathat suggestedthework . Later in l ifehecamew ith in reach of theSpartan k ing Agesilaus, aman of cons iderableab il ityand longexperien ce, but rather represen ting theaverageSpartan v irtues than possess ing any gen ius ofh is own . Th is man also becomes an ideal figu retoXenophon , who gives us through h im aglanceatthebest sort of l ifein thelead ing c ity ofGreece. Thesethreefigures

,w ith their strong con trasts , their w ide

d ifferen ceof surround ings,their total ly distinct ideals Of

l ifeand ofmorals,arethemost remarkablelegacy wh ich

th is great writer has left us . H is greatest blot is to haveobscured for us

,so far as hecould , themajestic per

sonality of theTheban Epam inondas , h is greatest fo ibleto haveexaggerated h is own importan ceas am il itarycommanderandaman ofaction . But heretoo l ies h ismost brill ian t l iterary success . H is accoun t of theex

*T heSocrates who appeared in thestreets ,and was known to thepubl icas aquain t figurew i th pecul iar views— th is outsideSocrates is what wefindi n Xenoph on . T heideal man

, w i th h is deep suggest ions,even w ith theseedo f h i s doctrinesownand bearing fru i t , is what wefind in Plato.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

T hestyleofXenophon .

H is d isl ikeofT hebes.

A S u r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

son than that ofA ristotle’ s p ictureof the great-souledman o r ideal Greek ,

in thefourth book of h is “Eth ics ,

”

w ith thep ictureof theelder Cyrus in Cyr opaed ia.

Greatness seems to sit artific ial ly on A r istotle’s man ;h is voicemust bedeep , and h is step slow ,

” as if

hewereposing as ahero to h is valet ; greatness istrad itional and natural to thePersian ,

w ith ach ivalryandageneros ity qu iteforeign to Greek ideas . I t wasnot t ill Macedon ian feudal ism was comb ined w ith Greekculturethat wehavesuch afigureas that of A lexander ,who at on cefeels that in Pers iais theideal of asovereign and who treated thegreat orien tal baron sas weseedep icted on thematchless sarcophagus of

S idon . I n sport,in war , in courtesy , theyarethefull

equals of Macedon ian s and Hellenes .By theseexperien ces Xen ophon becamecosmopol itan ,

and shook off thenarrownessand thecon ceit wh ich stil lhung about A ttic l ife. H is very styleproves it . Headm its many words foreign to A ttic u se

,and approaches

the“ common d ialect,

” wh ich in thenext cen turyleavened all theHel len ist ic world . But as far as h isown cen tury was con cerned

,heseems to havethought

that noth ing was so n obleas Spartan s impl ic ity , n oth ingsoexped ien tas Spartan disc ipl ine:T heupstart power of Thebes heev iden tly regardedw ith astrong dislike— A thens I kn ow

,and SpartaI

know , but whoareye? A nd yet , in them idst of therudenessand revelryattributed to theBoeotians sprangup asmal l soc iety of men ,

led by thegreatest gen ius Ofh is cen tury , and moreoveraman as great in h is refinemen tas in h is m il itary science. Beforeth is personagethestar of Agesilaus, Xenophon ’s hero

,paled its

ineffectual fi re; thehopeOf theSpartan to follow thefootsteps of Xenophon ’s mercenaries . and conquer a

T/zeFou r t/z Cen tu ry B . C.

k ingdom in A sia, gaveway to ahopeless effort to holdthecon trol of Greeceagainst thepower of E&nondas and so Xenophon ,

whosegreat hopes mustaways havelain in thed irection of campaign s in A s ia

,

was balked by thehomecompl icat ions,in wh ich he

could take110 lead ing part . I t remained for h im toretireto

.

h is hun t ing-box in thew ilds of El is,not far

from theEpsom of Greece, wherehecould meetall h isscattered friends at theO lymp ic fest ival , and herehedevoted h imself to theamusemen ts hehad learned tolovein A s ia— hunt ing , train ing of horses and dogs ,farm ing

,and w ith theseaprolonged and em inen t

l iterary activity .

Butaretheideals in thesebooks thosederived fromSocrates ? Far from i t. Xenophon

’ s rel igion is d is

t inctlyabargain ,acompact w ith thegods , as received

by thevulgar publ ic . I fheOffer s them l iberal sacrifices ,theyarebound on their s ideto secureh im prosperity .

Piety for its own sakeseems strangeto h im . I t is thesameth ing w ith domes t ic v irtues . T heyoung w ife,whoseeducat ion after her marriageis so graph ical lydescribed in h is CEconom icus,

”is trained that shemay

beuseful , and conduceto thepeaceand happ iness ofher husband

, not that shemay becomein herselfan oblerand better soul . Even then ,

as now ,thefash ion

ableyoung woman thought that yel low hair , rougeupontheface

,and h igh -heeled shoes wererequ is itefor the

attainmen t of beauty — atheory wh ich th is modelhusband combats w itharguments wh ich seem ineffectualin thepresen t day. Very sympathet ic to us is h is. loveofhorses and of sport . Hefelt in h is day theimportan ceof cavalry

,wh ich theGreeks had neglected for

wan t ofmeansand for wan t of Open coun try . But nowthat wars m ight any dav betransferred to A s ia, the

A S u r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

importanceof cavalry was in creased ,and in thebri llian t

campaign ofAgesilaus, noth ing had been moredec is ivethan h is creation ofacavalry force, to meet thePers iansatraps in thep lains of Lydia. Xenophon ’ s huntingwas h is great amusemen t , and hethrows in to it thatseriousness and zeal wh ich every sportsman from thatday to th is has man ifested . Hewrites h is tract

o

on hun ting thehare— aSport wh ich heth inks moredel ightfulthananyth ingelsein theworld . When aman sees the'

dogs track ing,finding

,cours ing thean imal , “ hew il l

forget that heever lovedanyth ingelse. ” How l ikethefox hun ter of to -day l A nd as regards seriousness , hebrought h is practical p iety in to th is importan t pursu it .When thehare’ s track is found ,

“ having prayed toA polloand to A rtem is , let looseyour best dog.

” Th iswas thekind of l ifeimposs iblein theth ickly populatedA ttica it had been onegreat causeofthev igourand thehealth of theSpartan youth . Xenophon fel tas wedo ,

that it produces not on ly phys ical ly , but moral ly , atypeof man vastly superior to theathleteor therunner incompet itiveen coun ters . T heGreeks were, on thewhole, worseoff than theEnglish for field sportsandexercises . R ow ing

,wh ich is so prom inen t among us ,

was ch iefly thework of slaves,and though in the

A then ian navy theupper r ow Of thetriremeseems tohavebeen worked by citizens

,it was never theoccupa

t ion ofagen tleman,and thecompetition s of th is kind

wh ich they had wererather between ther ich men whomanned and equ ipped sh ips for thestatethan for thecrew . F ish ing was always theoccupat ion of thepoor ,n or do I supposethat PelOp idas o r Epam inondas everdreamt of going ou t in aboat to sport on thelakeCOpais, wh ich occup iesalargepart of Boeotia, and wasalways celebrated for i ts fish . Train ing for athletic

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

Descrip t iono fArcadia.

A Su r vey of Greek Ci vi li zation .

first brought A rcad iaas apol itical forcein to Greekh istory .

T heconfiguration ofA rcad iais so in teresting ,and thegen ius ofEpam inondas in found ing Megalopol is so oftenm isunderstood ,

that I shal l quotewhat I wroteabout it ,after carefullyexploring thewholeprov in ce.But let us turn from th is poetical and imaginary coun try to

thereal land — from A rcadiato A rcad ia, as i t is cal led by thereal inhab itan ts . A severybody knows, th is A rcad iais thealp inecen treof theMorea

,bristl ingw ith m ountain chains

,wh ich

reach thei r h ighest po in ts i n thegreat bar of E rymanthus, tothenorthwest, in thelonely peak Of

“ Cyl lenehoar ” to thenortheast , in theless consp icuous, but far m o resacred Lykaeonto thesouthwest, and final ly,

in theserrated Taygetus to thesoutheast . Thesefouraretheangles, as i t were, ofaquadrilateral enclosing A rcad ia. Yet thesearebut thegreatestam ong chains of great m ountains

,wh ich seem to traversethe

coun try in all d irections, and arenot easi ly d istinguished , o rseparated into any connected system . Theyareneverthelessin terrup ted ,

as wefound,by two fineoval p lains— both stretch

ing north and sou th,both surfounded with abeau tifu l pano

ramaof m ountains,and both

,of course

,theseats of theold

cu lture,such as i t was

,in A rcadia. That wh ich is southerly

and westerly, and from wh ich therivers sti l l flow in to theA lpheusand thewestern sea

,is guarded at i ts sou th end by

Megalopo l is. T hat wh ich is m oreeast,wh ich is h igher in level ,

and separated from thefo rmer by thebleak bar of Maenalus, isthep lain of Man tineaand Tegea, now rep resen ted by theimportan t town of Tripo l itza. Thesetwo paral lel p lains givesomep lan and system to theconfusion of m oun tains wh ichcover theo rd inary maps of A rcad ia.*

T hegeneral effect of thecollapseof theSpartan/dom inat ion , of theriseof Thebes

,and con sequen tly

of thepart ial recovery of A thens,must havebeen most

benefic ial in bringing theseseparatec ivi l i zations in tocon tact , far morethan had been h itherto thecase, and

Ram blesand S tud ies in Greece, pages 3 1 7- 1 8 (4th edit ion) .

T/zeFour tk Cen t ury B . C.

so creating abroader and moreun iversal typeof Hellen ic culture. S tates learned to pass from oneall iancetoanother , accord ing as thebalanceof power requ iredit , and becamefr iends Of their previousenem ies . Em

bassies wen t toand fr o from city to c ity, and learned to

know that their neighbours werebetter at homethanthey had imagined . T hetreatmen t of residen t al ienswas sureto bemodified by th is moreconstan t commun icat ion ,

for many strangers cameand wen t,and they fre

quen tly saw their own coun trymen , who could reportconcer n ing their welfare.A nd yet it is wonderful how distinct all thec itiesremained . Thebes roseand fell , Spartaroseand fell inth is cen tu ry

,and yet to its veryend wecan distingu ish

no largeapprox imat ion , no attempt at fusion in theirrespect ivecharacterist ics . A thens recovered ,

and learnedthelesson that ademocracy w ith aseapower is not

amatch for an army of yeomen,but though every

A then ian ph ilosopher makes h is ideal statemorel iketheSpartan than h is own

,thereis neither des irenor at

tempt to ass im ilatethehab its of A thens to thoseof

Sparta.I n ph ilosophy

,indeed ,

and in oratory , A thens stil lkept far in thevan

,and though her great l iterary men

wereseldom her great c it izens,shegavein th is cen tu ry

two figures to theworld that w ill keep her gloryal iveforever. A nd each of them was on ly thebest ofagalaxy of ableand b ri ll ian t rivals . But in th is generalsketch I can on ly deal w ith themost prom inen t figuresto attempt morewould beso to crowd thecanvasthat n oth ing but confus ion would result . T hefirstof thesefigures is Plato , thesecond is Demosthenes .Thereis n o Greek figurebetter known to theworldthan that of Plato

,though hecon ceals h imself behind

Plato ’s

D ialogues.

H is method ofargumen t .

A Su r vey of Greek Ci vi li zation .

h is master Socrates , and gives us h is views n ot in ph ilosoph ical essays but in dramatic d ialogue and if anyGreek author ever received adequatetreatmen t in aforeign tongue, Plato has received it in themagn ificen ttranslat ion of j owett , who has prefaced each d ialoguewithamasterlyessay , gather ing up thepo in ts scatteredthrough asometimes too expanded con versation . I f

thereader des ires acloser and deeper acquain tan cewith theph ilosophy preached in thesed ialogues , hecanfind i t in many learned books , n otably in that famousbook Of Grote, “Plato and theO ther Compan ions of

Socrates,wherein thegreat h istorian has shown the

absolutefairnessand thoroughness w ith wh ich hecouldd iscuss asystem totally opposed to h is own th inking.

Oneth ing hewas thefirst to prove. Each of thesed ialogues stands independen t of therest it is not wri ttenaspart ofaharmon ious system i t often arrivesat con clus ionsapparen tly

,or even really , in con s isten t w i th other

d ialogues ; it represen tsasearchafteraSpecial truth , conducted w ith earnestness

,and not careful whether the

conclusion harmon i zes w ith therest , o r even whethertherebeany pos itivecon clusion at all. Thereis th isinconsisten cy in all serious human ph ilosophy ; necessityand freew ill , election and vir tue,

'

lawand thev iolationof law ,

allappear in their turn completeexplanations ofl ife,andattemptsatatheoretical comprom iseon ly lead toincon sisten cy and confusion . Plato preferred to carryouteach d iscussion to its natural conclusion

,taking up

differen t l ines ofargumen tat d ifferen t times, and show

ing howearl ier teachers , Gorgias , Protagoras , Parmen ides

,had defended their tenets

,and how far each of

them had constructedareasonable, though perhaps notan adequatetheory .

What concerns us here,however , is not thedeeper

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

to makethepubl ic character of i ts nat ion morehonestand morerespected . Thesepeople, l iketheS ocraticset , arein somesensebad c itizens , but they arenevertheless soc ially thebest and most in teresting of theirday,and in privatel ifeat least their influen ceradiates to

their neighboursand keeps up an ideal of honourandrefinemen t .Weseein Plato agradually in creas ing al ienation

from h isage h is theories weren o doubt v isionaryanddistasteful to thevulgar, publ ic wecan imaginehow h istheory of stateselection of husbandsand w ives , andasaconsequen cetemporary marriages , must havejarredupon therespectableA then ian householderH is views upon theemanc ipat ion of women , wherein

hewas as modern as themost advan ced n ineteen thcen tury A merican

,had already been rid iculed w ith

relen tless severity by A ristophanes in two of h is plays,

wh icharenow hard ly fi t to quote. Theremust thereforehavebeen amovemen t in th is d irection too in theearly part of Plato ’s l ife

, and ther ights of women werebeingadvocated by others bes ides th is great authority.

But unfortunately A ristophanes ’s satirestands aloneontheother s ideand wedo not know who theearl ieradvocates of theequal ization Of thesexes may havebeen . Plato led theway for other “ ideal ” systems , inwh ich thesen t imen tal ities of marriagewerecastas ideasunworthy , in comparison w ith theduty of producingahealth ier race, and of bringing up ch ildren freefrom theindulgen cesand partial ities of ineffic ien t paren ts.

>l< But

I wo uld not havei t th ough t that I stand in th is matter w i th thevulgar pubhe, o r that I d o no t th ink theproposed reform o f Plato w i th regar d tomarriageo f thegreatest im portance. T heh uman racew i ll never im proveasi t o ugh t t ill thephysical cond i t ions o f theproduct ion of ch ildren aremadeamatter of sc 1ent ific inqu iry , t i ll d iseased o r m orally worth less persons , i fshown to beun su itableparen ts ,areforbidden to un dertaketh isall-im portan tfunction t ill themarch of publ ic Op in ion makes i t less repugnan t to havethecond it ions of paren tageanalyzed ,and thesecrets o f domest ic l ifescru t in ized ,than toallow thebreed ing of them ost im portan t ofallan imals to becarried

T/zeFou r t/z Cen tu ry B . C.

all theseschemes foundered against therocks of tradit ion , perhapsagainsteven that of comm on sen se A nd

so wehaveasad p ictureof the“ A tt ic Moses,as he

was cal led in subsequen t cen turies,s ink ing in to ades 25155218 6 of

ponden tand even querulous Oldage.But wi th all th is strangem odernness

,Plato isaHel leneof

theHel lenes . H is p rospect does no t inc ludeany non -Hel len icraces. Though heacknowledges thecu l tureand thelearn ingof theEgyp tians,and bo rrows, o r effects to borrow

,sp lendid

m yths from o ther barbarians,thefusion of theJewand G reek ,

o f bondand free— theHel len ism ofalater age— is far beyondh is v ision . Heshares w ith Isocrates theOld — I had wel l n ighsaid thevu lgar— G reekadm iration fo r them ost retrogradeandnarrow of theHel lenes

,theSpartans ; nay, heis soexclusive

andaristocratic in sp ir it that hewi l l hard ly condescend to con

sider thelower c lasses,and conceives, l ikeevery o ther G reekof that day,even h is ideal society to beaselect body ofequalsam idacrowd of unpriv i leged inferio rs and of slaves. Th is i tis wh ich gives to Plato ’

s com m un ism acharacter so rad ical lyd istinct from all themodern d ream s known by thesamename,o r from theearly Ch r ist ian soc iety descr ibed in theA cts of tilep lai d sem n

Apostles. I t was essen tial ly an aristocrat ic com m un ism,and w eHel‘e’1 i 5m '

was based no t on theequal ity of men ,but upon their inheren t

and rad ical d isparity. I t was real ly therepubl ic of theselectfew, exercisingastrictandeven in to lerabledespo tism over themasses. Hereagain ,

in sp iteof them odernness of theSocraticconception of theph i losopher as ap riv i leged d issen t ien t, of

therigh ts and thed ign ity of theind iv idualand h is conscience— hereagain Plato fal ls into thepu rest fo u rth -cen tu ry Hel lenedom

,when heconstructsan ideal state, o racodeof laws, in

wh ich th is d issen t ien t can beal lowed no p lace. T O p rotectsuch an ind ividual

,w ith all h is nob i l ity, and h is inest imable

goodeflects on thosearound h im ,theactual A thens of Plato ’

s

onat mererandom ,wh ilethat o f therest , wh ich areas n oth ing com pared to

i t , is carefully guarded and directed . I t w i ll no doubt benecessar y to

r un coun ter to m uch o f thepresen t sen t imen t on t hesematters , but surely i f

them ost sens it ivepeoplenowadays w ill undergo them ost extremev iolat ionsof del icacy in order to havech i ldren ,

i s i t n o t absu r d that they shou ld refuseto undergo an y sacrificeof sen t imen t in order to havehealthy o r talentedch ildren ? Gen ius now appears sporad ically ,

and apparently from ord inaryparen ts. I f weonceknew thelaw o f i ts product ion , even approx imately,what strides i nadvancetheh uman racem igh t make1

A Su r vey of Greek ‘ Civi li zation .

day, as Mr . G rotesays, was afar safer, happ ier, and betterabode. T heredem ocratic habits and com m on sensehadm od ified and softened thosetheories of statein terference

,

wh ich no individual th inker of thatageseem sableto shakeOff.A ll theseprofound contrad ictionsweredoubtless thecauseofT hegloom Of

h is later year s. that i ncreasmg gloom and m orb i dness wh i ch seem to havec louded Plato ’

s later years. Hed id no t bel ievein theperfectib ility of thehuman race.

.

Even h is ideal po l i ty, if carried in top ractice, is declared by h im to con tain theseeds ofanecessarydecay. T hehuman racewas not advancing,

bu t decaying.

Dialectic and freethough t led to scep ticism ; acqu iescenceinreceived ideas to igno ranceand mental apathy . Wemayalm ost infer from thesi lenceof con tem po rary h istory concerningh is later years that, beyond h is im med iated iscip les, hewasneglectedand regardedasan id led reamer . Yet if th is was sohebut verified h is own p rophecies on thesocial position of thetrueph i losopher .I n h is styleheisas m odernas in h is th ink ing. Heem p loyed

that m ixtureof sober p roseargumen tand ofpoetical metaphorwhich is usual in theo rnatep roseof m odern Eu rope, butforeign to thecharacter and stricter ar t of theGreeks. Th isstyle, wh ich is freely censured by G reek critics asahybrid o r

bastard prose, was adm irably su ited to al ively conversation ,

whereasustained and equabletonewou ld havebeen amistake. But when Plato attem p ts fo rmal rhetor i c,as i n therep ly to Lysias in thePhaedrus

,

”o r in theMenexenus, ” we

find how truewas theartistic feel ing of theG reek schoo ls, andhow th is greater gen ius, with i ts i rregularities, fal ls below them o rechastenedand strictly fo rmalessays ofp rofessional o rato rs.

Heis said in h is you th to haveincl ined to d ramatic poetry, buth isaversion to d ramatizing passion was so ingrained , and h isloveofanalyzing thep lay of intel lect so in tense, that wemayimagineh im p roduc ingvery d ryand unpopu lar traged ies. Yeth is app reciation of thegreat poets, though h is criticism s of

them arealways m o ral,and never aesthetic

,was certain ly

tho rough , and to ld upon h is style. A boveall,heshowsa

stronger Homeric flavou r than all thosewho p rofessed to worsh ip theep ics wh ich hecensu red . H is languageeverywherebears theinfluenceof Homer

,justas someof ou r greatestand

purest writers use,unconsciously, b ibl ical ph rases and meta

pho rs. I t isalso very remarkablethat heis not on ly thefirst

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

JH is perfectl i terary style.

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

eign war that theGreeks had even approximatelyun ited . Hefel t most strongly thesuperiority of Hellen ic over barbaric c iv ilizat ion — asuperiority wh ich beattributed rather to culturethan to race. Hehoped atonet imethat hecould induceSpartaand A thens to jo intogetheras in thedays of Xerxes , and lead thecombined nation . But hehad no nobler object beforeh imthan to humblethebarbarian s , now profiting by Greekdissension ,

and to providefor theun ceasing d iscon ten tand poverty of Hellas

,agreat mater ial increaseof

wealth . I n thosedays conquest was regarded aperfectly legit imateway ofobtain ing power . I t never oc

curred to h im that thePers ian k ing hadas goodarightto h is k ingdom as Spartahad to i ts supremacy in

Greece. Hehoped to comb ineh is coun trymen underthateasiest ofall bonds to forge, but theeas iest also tobreak , that of common greed and common plunder.Th is pol icyand various essays upon therefinemen t

ofA ttic c ivi l ization wereset forth in periods which forperfect rhythmand easy flow had never been equalledh itherto . T hemost perfect master of proseas prosehad arisen

, themaster whom our M ilton in vain attemp ted to r ival in h is ponderousand clumsy A reopagitica.

’Bu t thesmooth flow of I Socrates’s periods , the

long roll ofh is sen tences,wereto h im agreater Object

than h is pol icy . I t was fel t that,l iketherhetorical h is

tor ians whom hefash ioned,theway of saying th ings was

to h im far moreimportan t than theth ings said ,to be

convicted ofasolecism worsethan to becharged w ithacrime. Henceth is famous man ’s famerests upon h isstylealone, and wemay d ism iss h im w ith themerenotethat heattained to theutmost perfection of l iteraryeloquence.Buteven hesaw

,toward thecloseofh is l ife, that the

T/zeFou r t/t Cen tuey B . C.

m utual jealousies Of two nearlyequal powers would neverperm it them to bejo in t leaders in thegreaten terpriseofregenerating theGreeks by foreign conquest , and hesaw r is ing in theNorth anew and fresh power

,near

enough to Hellen ic l ifefor '

thepu rposefwh ich m ightundertakethetask . H is open letter to Ph il ip of Macedon abandons h is former scheme, and calls upon th isableand ambit ious monarch to stay further oppressionand conquest of theGreeks, and turn to lead themagainst their hered itary enemy in theEast . Hehadgradually cometo feel that theruleofoneman prom isedbetter results than democracy ; hehad been ready toadv isethetyran t of Cyprus how hem ight consol idateand secureh is k ingdom by just iceand moderat ion .

Th is veryexhortat ion proves how much thehorror ofmonarchy was dy ing out of theHellen ic race; howoften has that been thecase, when peoplefeel weary ofdiscuss ion

,of changes ofpol icy

,Of un certain ty ? Pol iti

cal d iscussion had becomeless in teresting in many ways ,l iteraryand soc ial quest ions Obtained predom inanceinmany m inds and bothar tand elegan ceof l ifeseemedto haveincreased w i th povertyand thedecreaseof themeans to sat isfy them . I f weturn to theindicationswh ich remain to us ofar t , wemay say that from thedomest ic po in t of v iew i t was develop ing , wh ilefrom thepubl icand rel igious po in t of v iew it was rather verg ingto decl ine. Therewas not on lyar t on asmaller scale,but thesk illed mechan ic was working in clay figures toadorn theprivatehouseas thesculptor adorned thepubl ic bu ilding . Pain ters also had becomemanyandcelebrated , not on ly Zeux isand Par rhasius, who pain tedfor k ing and state, but lesser men , who pain ted l ittlep ictures for thepleasureof smal l people. >l<

T h is is what Isocrates im pl ies in h is speech on ExchangeofProperty, 22.

ScopasandPrax iteles.

T he HermesofOlym p ia.”

A S u r vey of Greek Civi lization .

From theend oftheperiod beforeus , justat theend OfPh il ip ’

s reign,dateat A thensandat O lymp iathosegrace

ful r otuna’as, mean t to celebratev ictories , wh ich showhow thetastefor thegrandeur of thePericlean agehadgoneby

,or elsethemeans to satisfy it no longerexisted .

But weknow that in Scopas and Prax iteles th is century could showartists not to beequal led in any but theprev ious cen tury . Weon ly know of S copas throughsomefragmen ts of thegreat Templeof A thenaA lea,near Tegeain A rcad ia, wh ich has recen tly been found ,

and through R oman cop ies of h is seagods . Prax iteleswelong knew on ly from cop ies of h is N iobeand h isfauns

,t ill theexcavation s at O lymp iabrought to l ight

themarvellous Hermes , in thevery spot wherethetraveller Pausan ias had seen and men t ioned it ( 1 50

A . D . which may now becalled themost perfect rel icof sculpturein theworld . What is most in ten selyGreekabout thesesculptors is their ideaof person ifyingnature

,and not on ly represen tingamoun tain orariver

by its tributary god ,but even theemotions suggested

by nature, in theexpression of thesefigures .T o Scopas was duethefixing of thegeneral typefo r the

great com pany ofgods and nym phs wh ich inhab ited seas andrivers— matted locks of d ripp ing hai r,

‘and alonging melancholy ofexp ression ,

in wh ich therestless m oan ing of thetroubled seafinds i ts p lastic utterance. T o Praxiteles was duetheanalogous typefor theforest gods— thefaunsand satyrs,wh ich

,with thei r gnarledand knotty jo in ts, and roughness of

sk in ,imageeven m o eclearly thesylvan fo rm s wh ich the

superstitious traveller ég vith terror in thefantastic stem s of

aged trees. Nay, even in h is ideal Faun — acreatureofperfectbeauty— thel isten ingattitude, thePandean p ipe, theindefinablesuggestion ofwantonness

,and ofm ystery, speakadeeper feel

ingfo r thebeau ty offo rest l ifethan could beconveyed byanyo rdinary landscapepain ting.

*

“Social Lifein Greece, page483 (7thed it ion ) .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

TbeFou r tlz Cen tu ry B . C.

in theordinary Greek house. Th is isawarn ing to us,

how l ittleweknowabout thetr ifles of their l ife,and how

caut ious wemust bein draw ing conclus ions from thes ilen ceof ourauthorit ies upon other po in ts .T heprivatel ife, therefore, of th isepoch , so far as weknow it

, was morecomfortableand elegan t than thatwh ich preceded it , wh ileit was on thewholeless br ill ian t in l iteratureand in pol itics. I t also appears fromtherap id increaseof theprofess ion of mercenary sold iers , spec ially noted by Isocrates , that therewasan increas ing class ofadven turous paupers , ready to put theirswords at anybody ’

8 serv ice, and also an increas ingclass Of comfortablec it izens , devoted to bus iness ofvarious k inds , who would not takethefield i n person w ithou t thed irest necess ity ,and weresatisfied toemploy noton ly mercenary soldiers , but amercenary general , tofight their battles fo r them .

When th is stateof th ings was on cerecogn ized,it was

perfectly plain that thepower of thepursewas l ikely tomakeany stateSupreme.

~

Tf thePer sian'

king could payGreeks to fightagainst other mercenary Greeks , insteadof theOld c iti zen arm ies wh ich had res isted h im atThermopylaeand Pla‘

taea,how easy was h is problem

to solve! Had theyounger Cyrus not been killed atCunaxa, it is morethan probablethat hewould haveaccompl ished what h isan cestors fai led to do , un less indeedthecomb ined Greeks had donewhat they never d id before, put theTheban Epam inondas at thehead of thewholenation . T hejealousies ofA then sand Spartacollectively ,

and of their prom inen t leaders ind ividually,could not havetolerated suchapol icy for an instan t .Hencethedanger from Pers iawas nowan in creasing

one, and when Darius Ochus, theablest of the' later Darius Ochus.

Persian k ings,succeeded ,

and threatened invasion not

A S u r vey ef Greek Civi li zation .

on ly of Syriaand Egypt , wh ich had revolted , but ofA s iaM inor , wecannot but feel that patriot ic Greekpol itic ian s l ikeDemosthenes fel t theprospect verygloomy and uncertain . But wh ilethey werelook ingeastward ,

thesamedanger arosein theNorth— thatofan ableking , w ith resources to payan efficien t mercenaryarmy , andam b it ion to ruleover Greece. I t hadbeen preached by Xenophon that thegreat power of

Pers iawas at themercy of an ableinvasion fromtheWest . Hed id not say,

what perhaps heandIsocrates both felt , that thedanger ofaPers ian invas ionwas equally great to Greece. I t was in fact acasewhereeach coun try was weak in defence

,strong in

attack , andeven theinternal cohesion ofeach dependedupon av igorous foreign policy .

So wecometo thedays of Ph il ip ofMacedon , and of

h is great opponen t Demosthenes , aperiod wh ich weknow, pol itically speaking , better than most periods ofan cien t o r mediaeval h istory . Would that wecouldp iercethevei l , and learn thesocial andartistic l ifewithevenat itheof thepol it ical details A s is wel l kn ownto thosewho haveread my earl ier books

,I th ink

Demosthenesasapol itician overrated . Hehad indeedonegreat idea, to main tain the“power and prest igeofA thens asaleading power in Hellenedom . But themean s hetook to promoteth isend seem to meto havebeen neither themost moral p r themost expedien t .A t thecloseof h is l ife

, at all even ts , h is conduct wasmorethan doubtful , and it requ iresall thespecial pleading Of themost learned ofadvocates— A rnold Sch

'aiferstarting , too , w ith aprecon ceived conviction of h is

absolutehonesty , to shaketheeviden cewh ich thepubl ic cen sureof h is conduct by h is countrymen aifords us .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

T heT heoricFund .

Early l ifeofPh il ip .

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

adom inan t c ity population in idleness by money o r corndrawn from thetaxes of their subjects . T hesameth ingwasapparen tly doneby thePtolem ies in A lexandria it

was doneafterward on alarger scaleand w ith morefataleffectsat R ome. A ny straightforward proposal toal locateth is fund to war purposes would havebroughton theproposeraprosecution under the“ B ill of I llegality,andaheavy finefor theoffenceofattempting to

alter thelaw. Th is was thesafeguard adopted bytheA then ians to preven t innovation s in legislation . I twas not til l theutmostextrem ity ,and when it was really“far too late, that thec itizen s werebrought to maketh issacrifice.T hedetails of thelong struggles by wh ich Ph il ip

of Macedon gradual ly sapped and overthrew theres istan ceof theGreek states to h is en croachmen ts , andbecamewhat wem ight cal l Emperor of theGreeks ,as wellas K ing of Macedon ,

may beread in any Greekh istory . T hespeeches of Demosthenes and h is opponen t fEsch ines, Plutarch ’s “ LifeofDemosthenes ” andD iodor us

’

s h istory ( Book XVI . ) makethes ituat ionperfectly clear. Ph il ip wasaman l ikePeter theGreatof R ussia, born in apartly c ivi l ized but young andvigorous nation . Hecameearly to thecen tres of c ivil ization and was even ahostageat Thebes in her greatdays , when hecould s tudy thenew methods of Epam ih ondasand thesuccess of theTheban infan try under h istrain ing . Helearned to speak and writeGreek perfectly, and could claim that hero ic Greek descen t wh ichh isancestor A lexander I . hadestabl ished in thetimeofthePers ian wars . >i< His court had offic ially themannersand theelegan ceofGreek l ife. Therewereprofessionalartists and poets whom largepay would eas ily attract

Cf. Herodotus V . , Chap . XX I I .

TlzeFou r t/i Centu ry B . C.

courtesy . But it was freely said that when business wasover

,and ler oi s

’am use, thevarn ish of cultured isappeared ; thereweredrunkenness and ro istering , andmen wereoften compelled to appeal from Ph il ip drunkto Ph il ip sober. T heMacedon ian n obles weregreatpeoplein their way most of them seem to havebeenbrought up as royal pagesabout thecourt , and so theywould shakeoffat least therudeness of their moun tainhomes , and learn Greek and manners w ith theroyalprinces . But in many respectseven thesesuffered fromtheimperfect refinemen t of thekingdom . Polygamyseemsalways to havebeen perm itted to thek ing ; if notpolygamy , that l icensewh ich was sod isgraceful amongtheEuropean princes of thelast cen tury . By mean s ofmarry ing Illyrian o r Thrac ian princesses thek ingsofMacedon thought to cemen t newal l iances w ith powerful or threaten ing neighbours . But they lost far morebythed isin tegration of their home-l ifethan they gained bysecuring their fron tiers . Therewerefrequen t fam ily I tsevils.

traged ies , in wh ich thesesem i-barbarous prin cessesendeavou red to sweep away their r ivals ; therewererelatives ex iled

,who revived thedangers from w ithout ;

thereweredoubts about thesuccession ,and all the

attendan tev ils wh ich th is uncertaintyen tails .I t was in sp iteof thesed ifli culties, wh ich causedeveryaccess ion ofanew king to beacr isis in Macedon ian affairs

,that Ph ilip byabil ity , pertinacity , d iplomacy , and

strategy combined ,madeh imself in twen ty years master

ofnorthern Greece. Demosthenes , who had no weaponbut h is tongue

,and A thens , ademocracy whereevery

th ing was publ icly d iscussed beforeit was undertaken ,

wereno match for Ph il ip , aman w ith asword , w ith

A S u r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

am ineof gold in Moun t Pangaeus, and with thepowerto carry ou t h is secret plan s byamerecommand . Hekep t , moreover , paidagen ts in most Greek ci ties , whonot on ly thwarted and delayed anyaction again st h im ,

but kept h im fully informed ofall theproposals andpossibil ities d iscussed in theGreek assembl ies . T hewonder is that northern Greeceres isted so long . I t wasno t t ill Ph il ip had excited through h isagen t JEsch inestwo rel igious wars , that hemadetheconfusion so greatas to requ ireh is assistan ceto beinvited by thed istracted rel igious synodat Delph i . >l< T hegraph ic storyis as fresh , when weread it n ow ,

as ever. How theorator fEsch ines, attendingafeastat theshrineof Delph i , looked down from h is lofty pos i tion in to theplainfar beneath , aplain devoted to thegod in alongforgotten act of theGreeks under Solon ,

when thosethat murdered or plundered thep ilgrims com ing fromthenearest port (K ir r ha) werehumbled and ban ished ,and thecult ivation of th is plain forb idden . Gradually ,as years and generation s wen t on , theneighbouringLocrians

,after thedefeat and hum il iation of thePho

cians, had en croached upon thesacred plain ,and

covered it w ith crops and cattle. Nobody apparen tlyobjected ; i t wasan accompl ished Sacri legeof con siderablestand ing . Upon theunsuspect ing occup iers of thesacred plain fEsch ines sudden ly turned h is m ightyeloquence, in wel l -feigned horror at so outrageous andbarefacedasacrilege. H isaud ien ceat Delph i weren ot

.

* I pass over ,as requ iring too longad iscussion ,Ph il ip ’

s wars w ith thePh oc 1an mercenary leader swho had sei zed the’

l‘em p leofDelph iand plundered i t of

someth ingl ike

o

eleven m i llions of dollar s i n treasure. T h us many h istoricjewelsan prec ious ornamen ts wen t to themelt ing-pot . T hem istresses ofthePh oc ian ch iefs, wh o weremereleaders o f mercenaries, woreneck laces thathad belonged to anc ient an d sem i-m yth ical queen s. A ll thesen t iments ofhol inessan d ofvenerat ion fo ranoblepast weresh ocked by theseproceedings,bu t i t was not t ill Ph il ip was called in that themercenary forces fed by thetreasures of thetem plewered ispersedan d Ph il ip camein to Greeceas theadvocateof rel igionan d oftheau th ority oftheAm ph ictyon ic Synod .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

tivated by theA m ph issians, w i th bui ld ings erected in i t forfarm ingand pottery You havebefo reyoureyes theharbour,consecrated by theoath ofyou r fo refathers, now occup ied andfo rtified . You know ofyoursel ves, withou t need ingwitnessesto tell you ,

that theseA m ph issians havelev ied to l ls and aretak ingprofit out of thesacred harbou r !’ I then caused to beread publ icly theancien t o racle

,theoath

,and theim preca

t ions (pronounced after thefirst sacred war, wherein Ki r rha

was destroyed ) . Then con tinu ing, I said Heream I,ready

to defend thegod and thesacred p roperty, acco rd ing to theoath of our fo refathers, w i th hand

,foot

,vo ice

,and all the

powers that I possess. I stand p repared to c lear m y own c ityof her obl igations to thegods do you takecounsel forthwithfo r yourselves. Youarehereabout to offer sacrificeand p rayto thegods fo r good th ings, publ icly and ind ividual ly. Lookwel l then — wherewi l l you find vo ice, o r soul , o reyes, o r courage, to p ronouncesuch supp l ications, if you perm it theseaccursed A m ph issians to remain unpun ished ,

when they havecomeunder theim precations of thereco rded oath ? Reco l lectthat theoath d istinctly p roc laim s thesufferingsawaitingall impious transgressors,andeven menaces thosewho to leratethei rproceed ings, by declaring— They who do

_

not stand forward tov ind icateA po l lo ,

A rtem is,Latona

,and A thenePr onaea, may

not sacrificeundefiled or w ith favourableacceptance. ”Such is thegraph ic and im pressivedescription given by

fEsch ines h im self someyearsafterwards to theA then ianassem bly, of h is own address to theA m ph iktyon iemeeting inspring 3 3 9 B . C . ,

on thelofty siteof theDelph ian Pylaea, withKi r rhaand its p lain sp read ou t beforeh is eyes

,and w ith the

ancien t oathand all its fearfu l im p recations reco rded on thebrass p latehard by, readablebyevery one. H is speech ,

received with loud shouts, roused vio len t passion in thebosom s

of theA m ph iktyons, as wel l as of thehearers assem bledround . T heaud ienceat Delph i was not l ikethat ofA thens.

A then ian citizens wereaccustomed toexcel len t o ratory,and tothetask ofbalancing oppositearguments though suscep tibleofh igh

-wrough t in tel lectual excitemen t— adm i ration o r repugnanceas thecasem igh t be— they d ischarged i tall in thefinalvote,and then wen t hometo thei r privateaffairs. But to thecom paratively rudemen at Delph i , thespeech ofafir st-rateA then ian o rato r was ararity. When fEsch ines

,with great

TlieFou r t/z Cen tury B . C.

rheto rical fo rce, unexpected ly rev ived in their imaginations theancien tand terrific h isto ry of thecu rseof Ki r rha— assisted byall thefo rceofv isibleand localassoc iation — they werewo rkedup to madness ; wh i lein such m inds as theirs

,theem ot ion

raised wou ld no t pass off by sim p levo ting, but requi red to bed ischarged by instan taction .

*

A ll th is is most interest ing , as show ing us that inSp iteofph ilosophersand h istorians

,in sp iteof rational

inqu iryand moral protests, thegods of theGreek pantheon werest il l gods to themass of thepeople

,and it

was stil l poss ibleto d iscred it and ru in an adversary bycharging h im w ith imp iety. Th is sort of faith seems toremain in thepeopledown to thelatestand most seept ical days , when most of theserious th inkers and mostof theeducated classes do not hesitateto avow theirs cept icism . But haveweno t had s im ilar phenomenamany t imes s ince

,dur ing theI tal ian Renaissance

,dur

ing theFrench Revolution , and even after apol itefash ion in our own day ? '

j‘ I t should beremembered in

pall iat ion of theGreeks that they had n o revelation ,no

faith purified of superst it ion ,no h igh moral standard

preached byanyestabl ished clergy in their land . Theirh ighest moral teachers werelaymen , and ,

if I may sosay , amateurs in theology .

Th is sudden flameexc ited by fEsch ines, as sudden astheoutbreak of theA rmen ian d isturban ces in 1 895 ,

clouded thewholepol it ical horizon , brought Ph il ipthrough thepasses ( hefortified Elateain thecriticalplace) , and forcedat thelast momen t theTheban s andA then ians to comb inein avain attempt to resist h im .

T hebattleofChaeronea( 3 3 8 B . C . ) settled thequestionGrote, H istoryOfGreece, ” Chap . XC .

1" T h usatarecentelect ion fo r theBri tish Parl iamen t held in Dubl in Un iver

si ty theopponen ts ofthefam ous h istorian ,Mr . Lecky ,

who werelawyers ,anddes ired to return oneof their own bod raised arel igious cry against h im ,

w ith no m orehonesty than thet iradeo ZEsch ines . T h is hap pened i n theyearofou r Lord 1 895 .

Ph il i advan cesinto reece.

Greek defeatat Chaeronea.

A S u r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

of thesupremacy in Greece. Two memorablemonuments remain of th is cris is , onethel ion over thefal lenin that battle, theother the“ funeral oration ”

ofGreekl iberty— thefamous speech “On theCrown ”

del iveredsomeyears later by Demosthenes . A s regards thel ionI cannot tel l theimpression it madeupon mebetterthan by repeat ing my words written longago .

A s wesaw it , onasp lend id afternoon in June, i t lay in perT hel ion of feet reposeand obl ivion

,thefragmen ts largeenough to tel l the

C haeronea'con tour and thestyle; in . them outh of theupturned head ,wi ld bees werebusy at thei r wo rk ,and thehoneycom b wastherebetween its teeth . T heHebrew story camefresh upon

us,and welonged for thestrength wh ich to rethel ion of old

,

to gather thel im bs and heal therents of h is marblefel low .

T hel ion ofSam son wasar idd leto thePhi l istines wh ich theycould not so lveand so I supposeth is l ion ofChaeroneawas aridd le

,too — adeeper ridd leto better men — why thepatriot

shou ld fal l beforethedespot,and thecultu reofG reecebeforetheCaesarism of Macedon ia. Even w ith in Greecethereis no

wan t of remarkableparal lels. Th is,thelasteffulgenceof the

setting sun ofGreek l iberty, was com mem orated byal ionandT h e 1,on of

am ound,as theopen ing struggleofMarathon wasalso marked

Marathon . byal ionandam ound . A t Marathon them ound is thereandthel ion gone— at Chaeroneathel ion is thereand them oundgone. But doubtless theearl ier l ion was far inferio r inexp ressionand in beauty, and wasasmal l object on so largeatom b .

Later men madethesepu lch rei tself of less im po rtance,andthepoeticelemen t m o rep rom inent and perhaps th is very facttel ls thesecret of thei r fai lu re

,and why therefined scu lpto r of

thel ion was noequal in po l iticsand war to therudecarver oftherel iefof theMarathon ian warrior .Theseand such l ikethough ts th rong them ind ofh im who si tsbesidetheso l itary tom b ; and i t may besaid in favou r of i tsrem otenessand difficu l ty ofaccess

,that in so l itudethereis at

least peaceand leisu re,and thescattered Objects of interestarescanned withaffectionand w i th care.T heother monumen t is thegreat speech

,wh ich was

out of datewhen it was del ivered , for thepart icular

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A Sur vey of Greek Civi li zation .

on ly of this great master , but of h is predecessorsas farbackas Lys iasat theopen ing of thecen tury , and ofh is

successors or younger con temporaries , w ith whom hewasfrequently in confl ict .I t does not con cern us to kn ow whether theargumen ts

of Lys ias and h is school wereaccurate. I n oneth ingthey must haveapproached l ifeas nearlyas thegen teelcomedy d id ; they composed their court speeches inckaracter , and put very d ifferen t argumen ts in averyd ifferen t styleaccording.as their cl ien ts varied in rankand circumstan ces . Wehavethebold and recklessyoung aristocrat , full of horse-play and insolence, thet im id householderappeal ing for mercy by bringing uph is wifeand l ittlech i ldren toexcitecomm iseration ,

nayeven in onespeech ofLys ias “Con cern ing thePauperapictureof what is common ly cal led an original

, aman patron i zed by therich for h is pleasan t mannersandgood sayings , and who defends h imself against thechargeofbeing no pauper

,becauseh is friends giveh im

ahorseto ride,w ith no l ittlehumour .

T hegen ius of Demosthenes does not liein th is d irect ion . T hespeeches written for h is privatecl ien ts donot show th is dramatic turn . Even in thel ong processagainst h is guard ians , wedo not feelany mored ifferencein their varieties of dishonesty than wedo in thesecondary characters in “ Pickw ick , wh ich are, with oneortwoexception s

,lay figures .

I t w il l besaid by h is extremeadm irers that hewastoo serious for such matters , that hefixed h is wholeatten tion on thecase, w ithout des iring to do morethanpress homethemost convinc ingargumen ts . That maybetrue, but to giveusap ictureof soc iety heis therefore

Hewas supportedas such byastateallowan ce. H isaccuser th ough t it noproper casefo r such chari ty becausetheman was really well off.

T/zeFou r tk Cen tu ry B . C.

not so useful as h is inferior but morehuman rivals .H is honesty is on ly worth cons ideringas giving usaclueto themoral s tandard of publ ic l ifeat A thens in thosedays . That such astandard could beabsolutely veryh igh weknow from thel ifeand acts of Phoc ion

,who

seemsalways to havedesp ised Demosthenes not on lyasaman of too many words , but ( I fancy) as aman of

doubtful honesty .

But I desireto insist upon th is,that wem ust rather blame

thelow averageof po l i tical honesty at A thens than degradethegreat o rato r to theposition to wh ich m odern m o rals wou ldcondem n h im . I n fact

,theo rd inary rules of po l itical l ifeat

A thens to lerated abuses wh ich may perhaps sti l l exist inA merica, bu t wh ich arehapp i ly alm ost extinct in England .

I al ludeaboveall to theabuseofal lowing indi rect profits to bemadeby po l itics .

Ourev idenceon th is po in tand in thecaseof Dem osthenes istoo preciseto berefuted ,

and shows us that hem ust havedonemanyacts in h is l ifewh ich left h im open to charges of d is

honesty wh ich hecould on ly rebu t byageneral appeal to h ischaracter

,but wh ich hecou ld never d irectly refute. A ll h is

accusers agreein speak ing of h is great wealth in maturel ife.I t is thecom m on theo ry of them oderns that hemadeh isfo rtuneby speech-wr iting. Butas heabandoned th is professionearly,and as wenever hear of i ts beingavery lucrativeone,such an exp lanation is qu iteinadequate. H ow do h is oppo

nents account ‘

fo r it ? H ypereides is pecu l iarly precise, andgives usexactly theinfo rmation wh ich is interesting for ou r

p resen t pu rpose. “A s I haveOften befo resaid in publ ic ,

judges, youal low many profits without dem ur to generalsandpo l iticians — not by theperm ission of thelaws, bu t from you reasy tem perand good natu re— making th is onecond ition ,

thatwhat they makem ust befo r you r sake,and notagainst yourinterests . A nd I supposethat Dem osthenes and Demades,from themeredecrees passed in thecity, and their relationsw ithal iens

,haveeach received m orethan sixty talents, apart

from gifts from thePersian k ing.

” Wehavethesameth ingasserted in thespeech fo r Euxen ippus qu itegeneral ly ; as toDem osthenes

,wehavein theaccusation of Deinarchus the

T oken m oney.

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

samefacts worked ou t in detai l . Wearegivenal ist ofdecreeswh ich hewas supposed to havecarried not w ithou t gratuitiesfor do ing so ,

and then weareinformed that hehadan im menseproperty of ready m oney— as m uch as ahund red and fiftytalen ts— theevidenceof thelargep rofits of h is po l itics.

I can seen o reason to doubt, and I am convinced no con

tem porary doubted , thetruth of thesestatemen ts as to h is

wealth ,and h is manner ofacqu iring i t . But I repeat that i twas looked upon as fair and honou rablein thesociety of thatday, p

rov ided i t was obtained from friends, and not from

enem ies of thedem ocracy,and p rovided i t was spent l iberal ly

on publ ic Objects. I n fact, theo rd inary fo rm u laofaccusationall th rough theseo rations is no t that theaccused took bribesand benevo lences, bu t that hetook them “against yourinterests

,

”and th is was theon ly crim inal po in t . A cco rd inglyin Dem osthenes’

s rep l ies, so far as wecan judgefrom theOration on theCrown ,

”henever den ied h iswealth henever

den ied that hehad received largem on ies on thescoreof

po l itics, but heinsists that henever acted o r spokeexcept intheinterests of thedem ocracy.

*

T hebus iness s ideof thesespeeches isaspec ial studywh ich requ ires in tricateresearch , and themonetaryquestion s wh ich somet imesar i sein th is and later daysareas compl icatedand in comprehens ibleas theb imetallic con troversy in ou r own time. Weknow from ad ialogueattributed to oneof thecompan ion s o r followersofSocrates (ZEsch ines, not theorator) that thegreattraders of theeastern Levan t , thePhoen ic ians , had longs in ced iscovered theuseoftoken money . They had n o

doubtalso b illsand checks,but thedev icein question

was to seal up smal l bags profess ing to havew ith in themacertain sum

,wh ich was stamped upon theouts ide

w ith theseal of thestate. Though it was notoriousthat theco in was n ot there

,such abag,

so long as itcarried theseal guaran teeing its valuein exchange,passedasactual money .

Soc ial Lifein Greece,”Mahaffy , pages 425-7 (7th ed it ion ).

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A Su r vey of Greek Civi lization .

many senses thegreatest of theGreeks , is not aGreekatall. Hewasan en cyclopaedist h is stud iesembracedall departmen ts of human knowledge. LikeSolomon ,

hediscoursed on plan ts,

“ from thecedar that is in Lebanon to thehyssop that groweth on thewal l ” uponan imals , upon theheaven ly bod ies and their d ivineauthor

,on them ind ofman and its faculties , in tel lectual

and moral , in fact , on all th ings human and divine.Heeven turns , not on ly to rhetoric , wh ich hedefinesas thear t ofpersuas ion ,

but to poetry , espec ially thear tof represen ting fictitiouscharacters upon thestage, andsubjects what weshould cal lamereform ofamusemen tto themost search inganalysisand critic ism . But herehe‘ is indeedaGreek , and bases h is researches upon thetheory that in tel lectualand refined leisureis thech iefend ofman . Th is heholds to beeven thehapp iness ofthegods

,or of theDeity ,andwhatever beings thereare

in ah igher statethan men . Theyareemployed in thecon templat ion of theimmensevarietyand beauty of theun iverse,and th is con templation is n o labour , but theeujoyment ofperfect knowledgeand perfect leisure. Th is ,too

, should bethehapp iness of thecultivated man here,whoseleisurehours should not bespen t in regardingvulgar cares , or bewasted upon vulgar sympath ies , butengaged in con templating ideal human actions— not

always ideal ly good,but ideal in their greatness , their

d ignity , their importan ce, as i l lustrat ions of thelawswh ich govern theworld . Thus heraises thetragedy of

thegreat masters toasubject fi t for d ivineph ilosophy ,and not unworthy of theh ighest scien tific treatmen t .Weneed not hereturn as ideto h is purely . phys icallabours — labours wh ich haveaffected med iaeval l ifefarmorethan theyaffected h is own t imeandage, labours inwh ich hesubstituted for thepoetry of Plato ’s theories

TbeFou r t/i Cen tu ry B . C.

theproseof thepainstak ing Observat ion ofmyriad facts .Hereweshould find h is most un iversal and non -Hellen ieside. But in h is Eth ics ” and h is Pol itics heis st il laHel leneof theHellenes

,overrat ing thepower

of in tellectas compared w ith moral instincts, aboveall

overrating thepol itics of thel ittleGreek democraticstatein comparison w ith theimperial system inaugurated by h is great pup il A lexander.* A nd yet henevertook any pract ical part in theturbulen t affairs of thestates in wh ich hel ived .

Hesojourned in Macedon ia, in A siaM inor ; heultimately keptaschoolat A thens buteven therehewasa Peripatet ic , ” n ot settledas i t were, or rooted toany A r i stotleatr uespot , not bound , as every other Hellenewas, to one Pen patenc '

”

narrow fatherland . Thus hecomes ~to havebut l ittleplacein th is book , for I can not but inst inctively regardh im asagreat outs ider , comb in ing many narrownessesindeed of h isageand racew ithacertain cosmopol itanism wh ich was no small agen t in break ing down thepecul iar v irtues as wel l as theweaknesses of Hellenedom , and changing i t in to thebroader , shallower , morecommonplaceHel len ism ,

wh ich weshal l consider in asubsequen t chapter. A s in h is personal appearance, soin h is writ ings

,therewas an almost total absen ceof

beauty,and therecovery of h is lost work on thecon

stitu tion ofA thens has n otaltered that judgmen t .What placecanaman devoid of th is featurehaveinastudy ofGreek culture? None, I think , but that ofastrangeand n otableexception ,

given us , as i t were, toShow thateven in scien tific severity , in cold reason ing ,in completeabsen ceofany relaxation of thoughtand of

l ife, theGreeks wereou r masters , and equalled thebest

I m ust refer thereader for details to thechapter on Aristotlein m y H is

tory ofGreek C lassical Literature. ”

A S u r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

modern men here,as they surpassed them in man ifesta

t ions of thebeautiful . For therenever was any s ingleman who hadagreatereffect in promoting theknowledgeofh is own and of succeed ing generat ions . I t mayeven besaid in proof of h is greatness that healso retarded morethan any other man ever d id thecourseofscien tific d iscovery . Fo r hebound thelearned men of

theM iddleA ges by thesuperstitious veneration for h iswords , wh ich theyaccepted asalmost insp ired . I n theth irteen th cen tury hewasall but can on i zedasasain t bytheR oman Cathol ic Church . A nd so modern th inkersfound i t their hardest task to break through thebondsofA ristotle, whom early th inkers had failed to follow inh ismarvellous invest igation s . Werethereever strangeror moreincon s isten t ev iden ces of human greatness l

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

m ind and givereposeto thefeel ings by thestrict chast ity of their forms and theideal perfection of theirdes igns .Th is un iquephenomenon in h istory is most easilyseen ,

of course, in thoseproducts wherepureform is

theprimary object . Thereis not thesmallest questionabout theproducts of Greek sculpturefrom Phid ias ,who walked w ith Pericles , to Lys ippus , who addedglory to A lexander theGreat . Wehavebut scan ty remains o i it , orelseR oman cop ies , wh icharebu t faithfultranslations of theoriginals w ith theanx iety of thecopyist marring thefreedom of thecon ception . But th is isenough

,qu iteenough , to tel l us that no med iaeval

o r modern sculptor haseverapproached theirexcellen cein treat ing ideal human ity . They d id not d issect thehuman body they had n o lesson s in anatomy , suchas themodern sculptor mayattend ,

to show h im theaccuratework ing of j o in ts

, theplay of muscle,thesecrets of

naturein rais ingamach inein toan organ ism . But thedai ly experien ceof youths in thepalestrae

,thestudy

of then udein theother sex ,in asocietyand acl imate

wherethen udewas not shock ing , and thereforenotexcep tional, gavethem knowledgeenough to set thecriticism of themost careful modern anatom ist at defian ce, and proveto h im that it is n ot sc ien ce, butar t , wh ich solves problems , wh ich understands myster ies, so far as its provin ceis con cerned .

But theisolated figureon lyaffords usasmal l ideaofth is classical sculpture. Whenwecon s ider thecomposition ofafrieze, thebringing in to harmony thevarietyof many figures

,thevarious attitudes

,suchas wehave

them in theParthenon frieze, o r in theA ttic tombrel iefs , then their senseofbeauty , of proport ion , of freesymmetry , strikes us w ith even greater wonder. We

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

shall revert in duet imetoan instan ceof th is composition ( on thegreat sarcophagus of S idon ) as wel l asto theperfect ion ofas inglefigure( theVenus of Melos) ,wh ich provethat thesesecrets weren ot lostas sudden lyas they werefound ,

and thateven latein to theHellen ist ic decadencemen wereableto apprec iateand evento reproducethebeauties of truly class ical sculpture.T hecaseis nearlyas clear in arch itecture, though heremany other nat ions

,an cien t and modern , havesup

pl ied us w ith other splendid models , wh ich wecancopy

,but cannot rival by any new creation of style.

I t is themost s ingular proof of thepoverty of thear t instincts of our cen tury that in an agewherenot on ly thescien ceof mechan ical construction , but thecon trol ofnew materials

,hasattainedap itch unheard ofbefore,all

th is new power has n ot taught us to apply it in anew way, or in astyleeither original or beautiful . Thustheconquest of iron as abu ilding material in our

cen tury ought to haveproduced ad istin ct ivestyle,as much as theconquest of Pen tel ic marbled id in

thedays of I ctinusand Mnesicles,thegreat bu ilders on

theA then ian A cropol is . But it is not so . Our ironbu ild ings im itateolder des igns

,they copy Renaissan ce

ornamen ts , compound and con tort old ideas in to someth ing pretend ing to benew , but it is on ly apretence.“ For theold is better . ” I fany c ity in theworld couldnow securefor oneof i ts publ ic bu ildings an exactrepl icaof theParthenon

,it wouldat onceberecogn ized

as themost peerless and perfect th ing wh ich that c itycould procure. Weknow also that thecost of it

now would bealmost fabulous . A nd though thetemplesin Egypt aresplend id , they havebecomean tiquatedto modern taste. N0 onewould now seek to reproducethem on alargescale

,any m orethan weshould re

11

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

Severepurity of0Greek style.

A Su r vey of Greek Civi lization .

What weretheideas wh ich thesepeopleclothed insuchexqu is itedress ? Werethey ideas commonplace,unworthy

,even prov inc ial , spec ial , not fi t for tran s

ferencein to modern l ife? Far from it . T hefirst andgreatest A then ian poet who comes beforethegoldenageof l iterature, fEschylus, has indeed such vast conceptions that h is utteran ceat t imes fails h im ,

andthoughahundred im itators haveessayed to giveus h isA gamemnon ,

”it stil l remain s hal f revealed to us in

i ts mysterious gloom . But when wecometo SORlE CleS ,though thesubject of h is greatest tragedy is hardlymorefit for modern tastethan Shelley ’s Cen ci

,

”

yetin every l ineof it thereis refinemen t , therearebeautyand fitness ofexpression

,thereis suchan avoidan ceof

dread detai ls as shows theperfect artist , and w ith alltherichness of th is work

,w ith all thelyric splendour of

theodes , thepathetic d ign ity of thed ialogue, thereisonefeaturecommon to thearch itecture

, thepoetry , thesculpture, theeloquen ce— its chastity in style.I know not by what other word I can des ignateth isessen t ial ly class ical feature

,wh ich mean s theabsenceof

all that is tawdry , theabsen ceeven ofall that wecouldcal l florid ,

acertain sever ityand ret icen cewh ichareasmarked in theproseof Thucyd idesas theyarein themarbleof Ph id ias . T hear t of Eurip ides was censuredby theolder school of th is cen tury as deficien t in th isqual ity : hesought

,they said , to excitepathos too

directly and v iolen tly,instead of purifying such em o

tion s of thesoul byexerc is ing them on h igh and pureideas , far from thevulgarit ies of l ife. But if th is beso

,

hesurely sought to gain in breadth what hemay havelost in height ; hedesired to bring them orecom m on v

phases of l ifein to thetragic d ign ity hesought,too

,to

in fusein to h is d ialoguetouches of that deeper ph iloso

T/zeFou r t/i Centu ry B . C.

phy wh ich had h itherto been astranger to thestage.For Eurip ides was thefriend of A naxagoras

,whose

rationalismattracted Periclesand theh igher sp i ri ts,but

exc ited thepersecut ions of thecrowd . Such meat wastoo strong fo r babes in metaphysics ; it was throughthepores of their in tellectual sk in that Eurip idesadm inistered themedic inethat they would not o r could not

drink . Hewas thesp iritual friend also of Socrates ,whosegreat homem iss ion must haveaffected him w ithdeep sympathy , though wedo not hear of any closein tercoursebetween therecluseof thestudy and them issionary who spen t h is l ifein thestreets .Thesewerethemen who led theway in thesecondhalf of our period to thed iv ineph ilosophy of Plato ,wh ich com bines w ith thepurest and loft iest th ink ingthat perfect ion of form not s inceequalled ,

and placesthat great sp iri t not on lyam ong thedeepest th inkers ,but themost perfectart is ts ofall t ime. T heold fash ionof present ing ph ilosoph ical systems in poetic form ,

wh ich had been that of Parmen ides , of Empedocles , ofDem ocritus — how splend id such poetry can be, weknow from thereproduction by Lucretius — now gaveway forever to thetreatmen t in prose; but , as if toshow us how th is class ical period was destined to outstrip in everyth ing laterand lesserepochs ,all thesubsequen t essays in proseph ilosophy never attained toPlato ’s perfection . Therehaves incebeen great ph ilOSOpher s therehaves incebeen great prosewriters ;but never has thecomb inat ion been so adm irable; noteven in thedialogues of ou r greatest Engl ish masters , ofwhom B ishop Berkeley alonemay becalled aworthyfollowerand pup i l of Plato , but very far indeed from arival .Is it not themost wonderfulevidenceof theabsolute

Ph i loso hy ofEurip i es.

Plato ’smastery

of style.

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

superiority of th is matchless cen tury , that in suchasubject , wheresubsequen t th ink ing , subsequen t d iscoveries ,subsequen tadvan ces in sc ien cehavecorrected so muchof what Plato thought , and added so much to whatPlato said

,notas inglemaster has ever given usal ife

work to comparein itsartistic perfection w ith th is classical ed ificeof ph ilosophy ? So it is w ith theforens iceloquen ce, so it seems to bewherever theGreeks of thatday choseto show usamodel ofartistic work .

Wemust not weary ~of repeating theseth ings in acon certed and self-con scious age, among peoplewhoimaginethat thegreat conquests over matter in our

cen tury im ply great conquests in thedomain of m ind .

But scien ceis n otar t scien ceis not human l ifesc ien ceis n ot perhaps even thebest h ighroad to happ iness ,though it may beto material comfort .On theother hand

,I am n ot surethat theperfectap

prec iat ion of thebeautiful has as yet , in any society ,impl ied what i t ought to imply

, thekeenest pursu i t of

thegood , and I at least havemain tained for many yearstheposition that theaverageGreeks of th is t imewerenot wonders ofbeauty , del icacy , and refinemen t in theirevery-day l ife. To meit is ch imerical toassert that theaverageyoung Spartan or A then ian was l iketheidealfigureofPh id iasand Prax iteles thesegreat men knewhow to ideal izebetter than ou r sculptors do ,

wh ichmeans that from ord inary men and women they wereableto draw types of what was betterand moresplend id

, that l ikeVirgi l copy ing from A ratus,

>l< thetranslat ion wh i lefaithful was far purerand morepoet ical thantheoriginal . Had ou r sculptors been transferred tothosestudios , they would probably not havefoundmodelsas perfect asany sculptor m ight n ow find if he

I n h is“Georgics, concern ing thesigns ofweather.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

T hedar ker sideof thep icture.

A Su r vey of Greek Civi lization .

T heworld momen ts ofgreatar tarel ikethosebrill ian tconstel lations wh ich occurat long in tervals in thestarryheavens . T hewholegroundas weseeit , though madeup of innumerablel ights , is darkand on ly studded withsomeisolated lum inaries . Hereand there, thereis abri ll ian t group , but thesedo not makeany changeinthebackground ,

un less it is that they obscurethelesserl ights wh ich arebes idethem . T hefloor of heavenshows noth ing but con s isten t gloom . So it is w ith thebackground of human h istory . Up to thepresen t dayit is on ly thefew that haveever madetheglory ofasociety themasses , even theclasses , havecon tributed insomecases en couragemen t , in many moreh indrancesand obstacles to ther iseof gen ius . A veragehumannaturehas in allages been apoorand vulgar th ing, andI do not th ink thateven thebrill ian t A then s of Pericleswasmorethan apartialexcept ion to th is sad rule.Thesearethecons ideration s w ith wh ich I desireto

introduceafew remarks on thelesserand lower s ideofGreek l ife, even at A then s , at th is memorablet ime. I tis not for thesakeof carp ing at theshady s ideof

splendour , or ofbringing down theach ievemen ts of thesepeopleto thelevel of our own . Far from it . But whenrightly understood it w ill completeour p ictureby showing us that wearedeal ing w ith no raceof superiorbeings del icately march ing through themost pel lucidair

,

” but w ith men of l ikepass ion s w ith ourselves , andin somerespects worsethan wehavelearned to be,though in others vastly Ou r superiors . H istory showsno steady and systematic advancefrom barbarism tosem i-barbarism

,from sem i-barbarism to lower , then to

h igher civ il ization,butachron icleofbrill ian t beginn ings

that werebut dreams, of splend id hopes that turned to

disappo in tmen t , oferas wh ich heralded agreat future

TheFou r th Cen tu ry B . C.

and turned to decay . Even as ind iv idual gen ius commouly springs from obscureparen ts

, and producesobscurech ildren , so epochs grow sudden ly splendidand yet produceno offspring worthy of their greatness .T hefirst th ing that meets amodern reader when hestud ies theh istory of theGolden Ageof Greeceis theconstan t occurren ceof cruelty . Not on ly areslavesconstan tly put to thetorturewhen requ ired to giveevidence, as if they wereunableotherw iseto speak thetruth , but wefind in war that it is qu iteusual , even fortheA then ian s who boast of their human ity

,to put

prisoners to death in cold blood . I haveindeed byan emendat ion wh ich I cons ider certain removed fromthetext of Thucyd ides what seemed themost horribleinstan ce: A fter thepubl ic assembly at A then s hadactually decreed that thewholeadult malepopulationof Myt ilene, subdued after arevolt , should beput todeath

,and th is cruel votewh ich affected fivethousand

l ives had been resc inded ,and theexecution of the

decreestopped at thelast momen t, theh istorian saysqu ietly : T her ingleaders , however, theA then ian s put Q

Emendat ionto death , and they weremorethanathousand .

”Hap ofT hucyd ides.

p ily I wasableto show that theearly s igns for 1 , 4 , and3 0 wereconstantly confused in early cursivewriting,and that in thepresen t caseA ,

wh ich is 3 0, must havebeen m istaken for A ,

and then madein to ”A, wh ich is

thesign forBut therecan bel ittledoubtabout atrocities fullyas

great at thecloseof what wemay cal l the“ ThirtyYears’ War

,

” when Lysander and theLacedaemon ian sput to death in cold blood over threethousand A then ianprisoners on theshoreof theHellespon t . During thecourseof that war thePlataean prisoners of war hadbeenexecuted oneby onew ith s im i laratrocity . I need

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

not delay upon th is painful subject ; thefacts in theselatter cases seem to be‘

indisputable.Not less d isagreeablethough less shocking is the

ingrained grasp ing and jealousy of theGreek nature,shown in their pol it ics

,both homeand foreign

,all

through theepoch . I t was indeed thefash ion stil l toappeal to thegodsand to thecauseof j ustice, but theseappeals werenever regarded ,

and seem qu iteid leexcepttoexciteodiumagainst theaggressor. For thefoundat ions of hon ourand mercyarelaid so deep in all humannaturethat n o courseof crimeseems ableto erad icatethem ; therewere, moreover , in Greecealways greatind ividuals who stil l kep t aliveamong men theh ighstandard wh ich theold poets and moral ists hadpreached . But greed and jealousy seem always to bethere, as they arein someof themodern nations of

Eu rope.When Plato puts in to themouth of Socrates that

nobledefenceof h is m iss ion called the A pologia, herepl ies to thequestion why so constan t ateacherandpreacher had not taken to pol itics and given advicetotheA then ian s in publ ic affairs , by saying that had hedoneso , hewould havebeen ex iled o r put to deathlongago , becausetheassemblywould n ot tolerateanyadviser who res isted their passion s and censured theirin justice.I f th is betrueof theA then ian assembly , how muchmoremust it havebeen so w ith inferior states ? T hecold-blooded selfishness of Spartan pol icy iseven morerepulsivethan thepassionateoutrages of theA then ian .

Even still p iracy was regarded rather as adven turousthan crim inal , and theA ttic navy kept theseas clear notbecausethe“ v in tageof thesea” was regarded ascrim inaland cruel , but becauseit in terfered w ith com

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

Spartan eccen tric ity than ath ing to becop ied ordesired . Th isabsen ceof themoral influenceofwomen ,

who l ivedand ‘ though tapart , and whoseprivatel ifewassuspected of many disorders wh ich wecannot establ isho r gainsay , had ,

I bel ieve, agreat effect in makingGreek lifehardand un lovely . T heangel of thehouse,whoal lays so much strife, who sets theexampleof somuch unselfishness, who protects thefeebleand thes ick ,

was wan ting there. T hegen tleness of modern l ifeisn ot thegen tleness of . theGreeks . No man was eversounder in morals than S ocrates , yet t hereisastrangewan t ofk indness about h im . I n h is great dying sceneh is w ifeand ch i ldren aresen t away as an obstacletonobletalk asamerean n oyan ce, w ith their lamen tationand their tears Couldanyth ing bemores ign ifican t ofthecon trast ofwh ich I speakThosewho had mosteffect upon society werewomenl ikeSappho o r A spas ia

,who comb ined w ith ah igh

in tellectandathorougheducation al ifeun restrained byord inary moral cons iderations . Wem ight put it in aparadoxand say that they werein soc ietyand influen cedsociety , becausethey wereout of soc iety . I f thehab i tofexposing infan ts was indeed common ,

and theevidenceon th is po in t is usually thought con clus ive, can wecon ceiveanyth ing morebrutal iz ing and searing to thenatural instinct ofaffect ion ofany young mother than tohaveher new-born infan t taken from her , and thrown totheravensand thewolves ? A nd yet it is very hard toevadethestatemen ts not on ly that such conduct wasstrictly legal , but that it frequen tly occurred . I personal ly stil l feel sceptical , for I know not in actual h istory ofany casewheresuchan infan t was p icked up , or whereexposureof th is k ind is said to havebeen perpetrated byaperson w ith aname. But in Greek fict ion

,from the

TheFour th Century B . C.

early legends down to thecomed ies of Menander , itis theconstan t background ofastory. Th is at leastshows that it was tolerated by Greek sen timen t

,and

isanother proofof thehardness of their hearts .I t is qu iteposs iblethat thehab it of keep ing slaves

may havehad much to do w ith th is inhuman ity in

thel ifeof an c ien t nat ions . Men arenot regardlessof therights ofhuman beings in onerelation without thepenal ty of fal l ing in to general callousness . T heinflicting of pain on others , un less i t beOpposed by asentimen t of horror , is n o t l ikely to bechecked by rationalcons iderat ions o r by legislation . I supposethat totheir domest ic an imals thesepeoplewerealso cruel .T heurgen t speedat wh ich theParthenon and thePr opylaeawerebu il t probablyen tailed horriblesuffering on

countless slaves and coun tless beasts of burden . Wewonder at thepur ity and perfection of thedesign ;weforget thetearsand theblood shed in thelabou r ofthebu ild ing. Weknow very well that in many casestheslavewas wel l treated ,

that hebecametheconfidant ,even thefriend of h is master. Eurip ides turns asideconstan tly to show upon h is stagethefaithfulness of theslavewho really owed h is master n oth ing but h is manuallabour. Increas ing refinemen t , if not human ity, musthaverevoltedagainst con t inuousand barbarous pun ishmen ts

,and houses wherethelashand thecry ofangu ish

wereoften heard must havebeenavo ided becauseit wascoar seand d isagreeable, ifnot becausei t was tyrannousand un just toexerc isesuch barbarous con trol . But thefrightful possib il ities werealways there, though wehaveno Greek “Un cleTom ’s Cabin ” to d isplay them to us .Such

,then

,is myestimateof th is wonderful momen t

in theworld ’ s h istory . I havestriven toavoidallexaggeration , to get r id of theprejudices of thepedant , the

laveryacausef i nh uman i ty.

A Su r vey of G reek Civi li zation .

strong and j ust prepossess ions of theChristian ; whatever was thereto cen sureand to blame, I havenot

scrupled to put it forward ,and takediscount from

thesum of theobl igation s under wh ich theGreeks havelaid us . A nd I havepaused here, in them iddleof

my work,to makeup theaccoun t , becausethereis

in Greek h istory , w ith thedeath of Ph il ip , w ith thecollapseof Demosthenes ’ s policy , astrangeand completehalt

,andanew beginn ing , wh ich brokecomp letely w ith

thepast .T heGreeceknown in our schoolsand colleges is on ly

theolder Greece, beforei t'

really cameto influencealargepart of theworld . BecausethestyleofT hucydides and Xenophon is purer than that of Polyb ius andof Plutarch , theselatter, great and instruct iveas theyare, haven o placein theeducat ion of ou r youth . Ineed not po in t out to any educated man how falseth is perspectiveis, how in earl ier t imes Plutarch influenced thegreatest men

,o r was j ustly esteemed

themost prec ious possess ion left us by theGreeks . I tis h igh timethatall part ial views of th is k ind should belaidaside

,and thatas weadm iretheParthenon and its

matchless rel ief, so weshould also wonder at the[VikeofSamothraceand theGreek tomb of thek ing ofSidonat Constan tinople, n ot to say theVenus of Melos , all ofthem work inferior to noth ing that Hel len ic sculpturehas left us . I n language, indeed , thevery fact that theknowledgeof Greek spread to various foreign landsmadeit necessary that someof theexqu is iterefinemen tofPlato o r Demosthenes should belost . A ny languagewh ichasp ires to beal/I/Z’ltsp rache(world-language) ,astheGerman s say, must sacrifi cemuch of its del icacy

,its

shades of mean ing expressed by many syn onyms andpart iclesand tenses , wh ich theforeigner in h is hurryand

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A S u r vey of Greek Ci vi li zation .

Golden Agein tact , nevertheless both in l iteratureandin ar t long preferred thelater models

,and cop ied

from Parthen ius and Cal l imachus , from Tau r iscus andPasiteles, long beforethey wereled to bel ievethat theolder work was better . Even then they wen t to theOppositeextreme, and preferred archaic th ings becausethey werestiffand odd to theperfect momen t whenarchaic modestyand reservearecomb ined w ith moderngraceand mastery ofmaterial . So d ifficult is it to judgecorrectly of thework ofour predecessors.

CHAPTER VI I I .

T H E T IME OF A LEXANDER T H E GREA T'

A ND H i s

EAR LY SUCCESSOR S .

*

PER HAPS thebest way toapproach thework whichA lexander d id for Greek civ i l ization and toest imateitsvalueis to speculatefor amomen t on what wouldposs ibly havehappened had henot cometo thethrone.I t is idleto say that Greecewas freeduring theclosingyears ofh is father Ph il ip ’ s reign . Thatableprincehadshown clearly that w ith theaid ofahardy nation of

moun taineers devoted to h is house,w ith m oney to h ire

troops of mercenaries,w ith thech iefs of Thessaly

supply ing h im w ith cavalry,all chan ceof real inde

pendencewas gonefor aset of smal l states wh ich weremutually jealous

,mutual ly d istrustful

,and wh ich were

each qu iteready to call h im in to settleits quarrels ,provided hewould humbleits rivals . A ll th is wasp lain ly seen by Isocrates in Ph il ip ’s l ifetime, as wemayseefrom h is Letter to Ph il ip ,

”already com men ted on .

Wemay thereforesay w ith con fiden cethatall possibil ityofagreat and un ited Greece, observing theindependenceof each stateand comb in ing against every comm on enemy

,was gone. Th is was of coursetheideal

cond i tion ofwh ich many had dreamed .

Hard ly morepractical was thenotion that Greeceshould beled by onedom inan t power , wh ich shouldgu ideall foreign pol icy , wh ilein ternal affairs wereleft

‘ A ll th is peri od has been treated i n fuller detail in m y Greek LifeandT hough t from Alexander to theRoman Conquest ( 2d ed it ion ) .

A S itrvey of Greek Civi li zation .

to theind iv idual c ities. Threeleading states hadattempted th is : first Sparta, then A then s , then Spartaagain ,

then Thebes . I n every case, except thefirst ,thedom inan t power had at on cetaken advan tageof itsleading pos ition to gratify privatejealousies , toavengeold griefs , to en rich privatec itizen s at theexpenseofthelesser states . A nd in every caseth is sort of federation under alead ing power showed symptoms of

becom ing atyranny , an irrespons ibleruleby theGreek d isl ike m il itary power wh ich could coerceif it could n otOfahegem ony .

persuade. Hen cethegr owm g feel i ng i n Greecehadbeen against such hegem ony ,

as they called it,and in

favour ofau tonomy , or homerule, in every c ity state.Therewereindeedafewexception s among thepoorerand moreins ign ifican t moun tain tribes , which had no

real c ities,but dwelt in l ittlefortified places so called ,

and wh ich werenow crystall iz ing in to federations inZEtolia, A chaea, and A car nan ia, destined erelong totakeaprom inen t part in Greek pol itics . Therewasalso somesuch leaguein themoun tainous Lycia

,but

thegreater cities in A siaM inor had long been under thesway of Pers ia; many of them had been d isman tledSmyrna, for example, and Ephesus werenow on lygroups of scattered villages, >l< and hereall pol itical l ifeseemed dead .

vT heoutlook thereforein pol it ics seemed very hopeless . No stateseemed l ikely to lead

,and

,if w i ll ing

,

would not beallowed to lead ; in ternecinewars werewasting theyouth and strength of thecoun try ; commercewas suffering greatly by thesefool ish quarrels ,and theglories of Greeceseemed so completely passedaway , at least pol itical ly , that thefirst v igorous and

I t was thepol icy of Alexander’sear ly successors (Ant igon us, Lysimach us)to refound thesec it ies, bu t they werenot freefrom them odern van i ty of renam ing them after them selves.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A S u rvey of Greek Civi li zation .

Greeks arel ief from Macedon ian dom ination . Ph il ip'

had been slain in theflower of h is age, w ithout amomen t of notice; no preparation s weremadefor thesuccession ,

un less wecoun tas such thevarious in triguesof several claiman ts , both older and younger thanA lexander . I t was morethan l ikely that acivi l warwouldensue.But thegen ius of A lexander soon crushed all theexpectation s of h is enem ies . Hehad been brought upat thequ iet M ieza, far from theimmoral and d isorderlycourt ofPh ilf

'

T—

fi'

nder thecareofAristotle, whom Ph il ipw ith con summatej udgmen t had chosen for thetask .

Never d id such amaster havesuchapup il . A nd yetn oth ing is moreremarkable— I do n ot hold it strangethan thecompleteindependen ceand original ity of

A lexander’s ideas . Wecann ot find onefeatureofh is

pol icy,o r ofh is dai ly l ife, wh ich can befairlyattributed

to A ristotle’s influen ce. A t all times and among allmen

,theinfluen ceofeducation is

,won t to beexag

gerated . Thereseems to beaconstan t tenden cy toattributeanyth ing wh ichaman does to someadvicehehas got from somebodyelse. I t is far nearer thetruthto say thatevery man comes in to theworld ad istin ctbeing

,w ithacharacter wh ich education can on ly some

t imes mod ify,but wh ich it can never change. T he

condit ion s of th is character liein theparen ts,perhaps

even in theancestors,andaretran sm itted by them u n

consc iously w ith their phys ical characteristics to theiroffspring . A lexander’s paren ts wereboth strong anddom inat ing characters . They werepossessed both of

beautyand of very pass ionatetempers . Yet weknowon ly too wel l that no known comb ination of cleverparen ts w ill secureaclever offspring. T hegreatmajor ity of thosesupremein tel lects wh ich havetrans

T imeof A lexander and f i lis Successor s.

formed theworld haveSprung from obscureor insign ifican t paren ts . When such appear , theireducators , evenwerethey A ristotles , can do l ittlemorethan watch withwonder their developmen ts .Wehaveno t aword , even of allus ion

,in A ris

totle’s many works to th is subject,wh ich would have

been to us far moreinteresting than h is metaphys ics, or

his natural h istory of thelower an imals . But thereis ground fo r assert ing that as A ristotle’s studies in“ Pol it ics ” arecompletely an tiquated in thel ight ofA lexander’ s conquest , as thewholerangeof A ristotle’spol iti cal v is ion is confined to thel ittleGreek statesof prev ious cen turies , and ignores thegreat emp irewh ich hesaw created

,as it wereby magic , before

h iseyes , so theremust havebeen many other po in ts i nwh ich A lexander choseto d iffer from h is great instr uctor . T heyoung k ing’ s Greek stylewas bad that weknow from thetext of h is Open letter to Darius , wh ichhein tended all theworld to read . But stylewas perhaps theonly corner of cultureto wh ich wemaysupposeA ristotleind ifferen t , and thereforeno zealousteacher thereof. T hework recen tly recovered , wh ichtheancien ts attributed to h is pen ,

if it beindeed h is,

gi ves useven apoorer ideathan wehad already of h iswriting

,as compared w ith h is th ink ing .

I t is,however , very probablethat though A ristotle

could not makeh im th ink in any A ristotel ian l ine, hehelped h im ,

wereit on ly by h is Oppos ition , to think forh imself

,if it beindeed th ink ing, and not someh igher

spon taneous power , wh ichenablesagen ius to solvew ithou t troubleproblems thatarethedespair ofordinary men .

H is m il itary train ing was n ot theoretical but practicalasaboy of seven teen or eighteen hetookalead ing partin thegreat battleof Chaeroneaand h is flatterer safter

Alexanderat Chaeronea.

Heputs h isr ivals to death .

Alexander’sfirstexped it ion .

A Su r veyef Greek Civi li zation .

wardsattributed to h im thel ion ’s shareof thevictory .

But Diodor us’s accoun t is so meagreand '

so full ofvaguerhetoric , that wedo n ot even know whetherA lexander fought w ith thecavalry , as was h is con stan tpract iceafterwards , or whether hecommanded aphalanx of infan try . A t all even ts , hehad , when hewassudden ly cal led to thesuccess ion ,

actual pract iceinbattle; hehad , moreover , been involved in angry d isputes w ith h is father , and must havebeen rap idly learning how to d iscern h is faithful friendsand how toevadeor overcometheplots of h is rivals and enem ies . H is

education thereforein pol itical in trigues must havebeenveryadvan ced for h isage. Upon h is success ion

,how

ever,hesettled such d ifficulties by s imply putting to

death thosewhom hesuspected ,in th isact ingasevery

Macedon ian k ing , in that polygamous court , fel t compelled to do for h is personal safety .

Of courseGreeceprepared to riseagai n st h im . T heHel len ic peoplehad no trad itional o r other loyal tyto b ind them to h is al legian ce. They had pledgedthemselves to h is father Ph il ip personally ; had Ph il ipmet w ithany reversein war their pledgewould not havebeen kept for aday. But A lexander d id not givethemtimefor any open revolt . Heappeared w ith. h isarmy

,

andexacted from them,as h is father had done,apledge

that they would servew ith h im against Pers ia. Then hereturned home, and set out for thefirst of h is expedition s , thecampaign through Thraceto theDanube

,

and homeagain by way of I llyria. Th is was thet imewhen hesawan embassy of Gauls o r Galatae, who sen tto ask h is friendsh ip . T hestory goes that heaskedthem of what they weremost afraid

,and that they

answered “Of n oth ing

, except that thesky m ightfal l . ” T heanecdoteis on ly worth repeating to Show

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

clemencyand human ity. Heleft dangerous opponen tssuchas Demosthenesand theorators Opposed to Macedon iafreeat A thens hein s isted on n o murders

,con

giggfiéef fiscations, or d isman t i i ng of for tificat ions— generousand

largem inded h imself, hemay havehoped that hewouldberequited by somegratitude, by someconsiderationfrom themen whosel ives hehad spared . But h is hopeswerevain . I t is thestain upon h is Opponen ts wh ich wemeet in so many other cen turies of Greek h istory .

Gratitudeseems to them an unknown v irtue. A ll therest ofh is l ifeDemosthenes kept plann ingand plottingagainst h im ,

negotiating w ith thePersian k ing , andspreading d isaffection w ith Pers ian gold in Greece. A t

last hewas even charged w ith embez zl ing th is goldfor h is own use. A nd yet i t is Demosthenes who commands all thesympath ies of theh istorian s . Not eventhegallan tand s implePhocion ,

whosesoul was so pureas to raiseh im aboveall thefalsehoodand themean nessof thetimes , who clearly saw through and repudiatedthepol icy of Demosthenes , can obtain from them morethan scan t praise.Why is so strangearesul t poss ible? H ow canlearnedand honest men bl ind themselves so completelyto thefacts ? S imply becauseDemosthenes wasagreatorator , who has told us h is own story

,whereas thecase

against h im 13 told by inferior men,and by thosewhom

hehas persuaded us to havebeen d ishonest . But thefalseestimateof Demosthenes as apol itician is thenatural product of thosecommen tators who spend somany years in expound ing theperfections of h is eloquencethat they cannotenduretoadm itas inglefau lt intheman .

T hefalseand m isgu ided patriotism of Demostheneshad very fatal results. I f heand theother lead ing pol i

T imeof A lexander and fl is S uccessor s.

ticians had loyally accepted thes ituation, and helped

A lexander not on ly w ith thearms of their states,but

w ith their brains , h is wholeattitudeto Greecewouldhavebeen changed . Hecertain ly began w ith everycons iderat ion for them ; heeven spokeou t about thestrangecon tras t of Hellen ic and Macedon ian soc iety

,

call ing theformer gen tlemen and thelatter boors ;hedes iredaboveall th ings to beknown as theleader oftheGreeks , no t of theMacedon ians

,against Persia.

T hestup id and unworthy conduct of thelead ing c it iessoon madeh im changeh is m ind . Though hewasalways ready to promoteind iv idual Greeks that servedh im well , hefound in theconquered Persian s m oreloyalty

,morehonesty , moredes ireto do h is w il l ;

and so A thensand Thebes lost an Opportun ity of gu iding thecourseof h istory wh ich never recu rred .

T hecaseof Spartawas even morestrik ing , andtheconduct ofA lexander , and indeed of Ph il ip , regarding it is well worth ou r consideration . Both k ings werew ith their arm ies at Corin th , whereall theGreeksassembled and accepted their pres iden cy . But therewas onen otableexcept ion . Spartawould taken o partin thecongress , and refused to acqu iesceexcept byits moody s ilencein thedec is ion ofall Hellas . I t wascertain ly w ith in thepower ofeither to conquer thec ity.

T hecampaign in Thraceand across theDanube, fromwh ich A lexander had j ust returned v ictorious , offered fargreater d ifli cu lties, and moreover d ifficulties wereexactly what A lexander loved . Why then d id both Ph ilipand A lexander spareSpartain sp iteof her sulky impert inen ée? I can suggest n o other reason than th is , thatSpartawas now then urseof thebest mercenary sold iersin Greece. Not on ly werethey personal ly bravesoldiers

,w ith old tradit ion s ofvalour , bu t they commanded

Reasons form ild treatmen t 0

o f Spar ta.

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

therespect of all other Hel lenes , who werecon ten tto serveunder aSpartan when they weremost jealousofany other officer . Hen ceagood understand ing w iththeSpartan s was of cons iderableimportan ceto generalswho desired an efficien t mercenary con tingen t fromGreece. T hegreat maj ority of themen ofSpartaweregrow ing poor ; theland was pass ing in to fewer handstherest wereidleand d iscon ten ted ,

and ready atany momen t to go off to thegreat mart of mercenariesat Taenar on . I f Spartaweretaken by an enemy , allthesepeoplewould sailawayand j oin thePers ian armyin A s iaM inor . I t was thereforenot on ly con tem ptuously generous , but pol itic , to leaveSpartan s freeto jointheMacedon ian army , and fight underak ing who hadat least refrained from invading Lacon ia. A ccordinglytheSpartan s wereleft in their proud isolation

,posingas

thepurestand mostaristocrat ic ofGreeks,looked up to

as men of blueblood and lofty traditions,wh iletheir

poverty compelled them to go abroad and fight othermen ’s quarrels for pay .

But soldiering even as mercenaries hasalways beenlooked upon byaristocratsas morerespectablethan anypeaceabletrade. Thereis in theprofess ion ofarmsid leness , adven ture, and achanceof great prizes ; andif A ristotleinqu ires in oneof h is

“ Problems ” whyactorsareusual ly very bad characters , and solves it bypoint ing ou t thestrong con trasts of wealthand poverty

,

of idlenessand work,in factall theups and down s of

their l ives , hem ight havesaid much thesameof thercenary soldiers . Beit remembered also that thesemercenaries werefar morethan amereguard for ak ing , l iketheScottish archers of Lou is XL , o r theSw iss guard of thepope. They weregreat bodies ofmen w ith their own generals

, as weknow from

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

Adopt ion ofJ Greek inMacedon ia.

A S u r vey of Greek Ci vi li zati on .

d iffusion in Hellen ic culture? Thesearethereasonswhy most modern h istorian s esteem them ission of

A lexanderas n o m isfortunefor Greece.Of courseits first and immed iateeffect was to make

theuseof Greek anecess ity for thecompos itearmywh ich wen t in to A sia. I t is qu iteclear that therewasnoattem pt to imposeMacedon ian , as thelanguageoftheconquerors, upon theworld

,though it was kept up

w ith prideand used at special meetings of theMacedon ian sold iery for somegenerat ion s . But Greekbecameso completely thelanguageof thenewemp irethat all A lexander’s official cor responde'fi cei '

nay evenh is letters to h is mother , and theR oyal D iary of h is

l ife,werekept in that tongue. Therewerein t imate

momen ts when theking would exclaim something inMacedon ian and when h is soldiers would shoutapplausein that language. But throughout theEasttheMacedon ian sarecal led Greeks byall their subjects .Yet of coursethedel icacies of thelanguage, theuseofvarious dialects

,thegraces ofcomposition suffered by this

adoption . Wefindalmost sudden lyad ialect cal led the“ common ,

” wh ich is derived from,or s im i lar to , A ttic ,

but wh ich has many pecul iarities,not yet fullyexplained ,

fo r its h istory is qu iteobscure. I t grew up in campsandmarts w ithout any systematic teach ing , and wewonderhow it keptas pureas wefind it in theremoteprovincesof Egypt in thenext cen tury.

>l< Therewereind ividualc it ies indeed in Thessaly

, A s iaM inor , Crete, which stil lT hecom m on

" set up decrees couched in thel ocal dialects but foralldialect .business purposes thelanguageat last becameun iform .

T h is wen ow know from themany Petr iePapy r i dat ing from 260-20 wh ichI havedec1 heredan d p ubl ished fo r theR0 al Irish Academ y ,

and wh ich giveu s thed iaect i n an earl ier and p urer o rm than any extan t book . T heSeptuagin t translat ion o f theO ld Testamen t isabout t hesameage, but doneby men w ho weren ot Greeks and m oreover had their freedom of styleshackled by their c loseadhesion to theHebrew original hen cetheir workcan hardly becalledafair spec imen of theaverageGreek ofthet ime.

T imeof A lexander and ffis S uccessor s.

I t is need less to d ilateupon theenormousadvan tagewh ich th is expansion and un ificat ion of thelanguageproduced upon c iv il izat ion . Men who could formerlyhardly understand each other in Greececould n ow

meet as member s of thesamesoc iety ; many c iv il izedorien tals who wereformerly regarded as merebarbarians could now teach their Old trad ition s

,their arts

,

their rel igion to theon ceproudand exclusiveHel lenes.

\Vemay wel l prophesy of thatage Knowledgeshallincreaseand men shal l r un toand fro . T hepreciousth ings of theEast weredom ic iled in Europe thep rec ions th ings of theWest found their way to A siaandto Egypt ,and if theorien tals werefar superior in handi

Vc rafts, theGreeks werestil l far superior in ar t . Greatsculptor sand painters still flourished in Greece, notablyA pelles thecolourist , and Lysippus theartist in bronze.A pelles is to us amerename, but thecop ies of Lysip Apellesandpus ’s work wh ich remain ,

fo r exampletheyoungathleteLysipp us.

w ith thestr igi l ,* in theVatican at R omeShow that hewas worthy of thegreatest tradit ions ofh is great race.Wenowalso know that hestood not alone, but that

nameless men of h is generat ion could do work wh ichputs to shameall modern sculpture. I t is but theotherday that therewas found at Saida(S idon ) thefam ilyvault ofaS idon ian k ing wh ich con tain s several marblecoffins of thepurest Greek style. T heprinc ipal oneisadorned on all four s ides w ith scenes of battleandof chasein wh ich Macedon ian s , Greeks , and Persians

Sarcophagus 01takepart — i h thechaseas fr iends and comrades , i n theaS idon ian king.

battleas foes . T hechoiceof subjects, an d theapparen tprom inen ceofafigureknown as represen ting thetypeof A lexander , provethework to havebeen donein h isgenerat ion ; somefool ish peopleeven asserted that it

1 .e. , thescraper w i th wh ich heis clean ing theo ilan d dust from h is l im bs.

l ts im portance0 fo r theh istory

ofar t .

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

was h is tomb . From its prom inen cein them idst of thetombs ofearl ierand later Sidon ian k ings wemay infer itwith good reason to bethat of theS idon ian k ing whomA lexander patron ized ; perhaps thePh ilocles who helpedthefirst Ptolemy in h is wars . A t all even ts

,what

wehavebeforeus isaperfectly pureand splend id p ieceofGreekar t brought to S idon and depos ited there.Happ ily themodern travel ler can now seeth is ines

t imabletreasurenotat Saidaon abarren coast,where

,

as Ezech iel p r ophesied , ,

instead ofwealthand splendourthefisher now spreads h is nets , but in amuseum ofCon

stan tinople, wheretheanx ious and in tell igen t careof

thed iscoverer , Hamdi Bey,has put togetherevery frag

men t wh ich sacri legious hands had broken ,and has set

up,underasafecover of glass , th is monumen t wh ich

stands second on ly to theParthenon friezes in excellenceofdes ign , wh i leit far surpasses them in richness ofexecution . T hes ilver bridles

,thes i lver spears and

swords , havebeen wrenched from thehands of thefigures that held them ,

but thesefiguresaremostly perfect ,retain ingeven theoriginal colours

,w ith wh ich theartist

hadadorned thecold marble.This d iscovery tells us w ith aclearer vo icethanall our books what Hellen ic ar t

,

‘and so Hellen ic culture

,was, in thegenerat ion when A lexander spread it

over alargepart of A s ia. T hesplend id publicationwherein Hamdi Bey has p icturedand described h is discovery is naturally very costly

,but ought to bein every

publ ic l ibrary of A mer ica. >l< T hefirst featurein theseU neNé cropoleroyaledeS idon ,

” by Ham d i Beyand T heodoreReinach ,

Paris , Leroux . 1 892-4 . T hefourth and last vo lumehas not yetappeared

Bu teven in th is n obleboolr , wh ich has madefu ll useoftheex ist ing resourceo f ph o tograph y , thecolours o f theo r i mm ] aren ot yet reproduced . Let ush opethat thegreatadvan ce— therer o uct ion o f thenatural colours— wh ichm y friend Mr . j oly has recen tly maein T rin ity Collegew ill soon beappliedto th is work

,and so giveto therem oteworld aperfect copy of so un iquea

masterp iece.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

SCULPTURE ON T H E SARCOPHAoUs OF A S i DON I AN K I NG . (Seepage

T imee/ A lexander and ffis Successor s.

Wehavethereforeal iv ing p ictureofwhat A lexandermean t by themarriageofEuropeand A s ia. ’ I t was n o t

merely that Macedon ian grandees should marry Persianprin cesses it impl ied thesoc ial combination ofall thatwas nobleand man ly in both races

,and moreespecially

ofMacedon ians rather than Greeks, on accoun t of their

Open -air hab its and theloveof sport wh ich on lyari stocrats w ith largedomains in w i ld coun try can gratify .

T heGreeks weremorefi t fo r offi cework,for thein telli

gencedepartmen t , for d iplomatic w iles . But they werenotan aristocracy , l iketheother two , un less it betheSpartans , whosesullen refusal kept themaloof. >l< Thusit is characterist ic that among all A lexander’s leadingmen , therewas but oneGreek , Eumenes ofCardia, who Eumenes of

Card ia.

was h is confiden t ial secretary and whosegreat ab i l i tysecured theforemost posit ion in thedisputes wh ich succeeded theconqueror’ s death . But it isequal ly sign ifican t that h is beingaGreek was an in superableobstacleto h is keep ing thecommand over Macedon ian sold iers .Hecould win battles with them ,

but h is success , ifagains t aMacedon ian n oble

,was rather resen ted than

applauded , even by h is own troops . Thus hefel lawet im to their treachery .

But though theGreeks may havefelt that so far theywerean inferior race— thePers ian nobles had alwaysdesp ised them as venal mercenaries— they must haveseen perfectly that theMacedon ian conquest openedalltheworld to their talen ts . T heeducation of theMacedon ians was unequal to theadm in istration of so vastadom in ion . I n every officeof governmen t , in thecommand Of many remotedependen cies , in all sorts of intellectual work

,theGreeks wereindispensable as v

T hefact of theSpartan s fi h t ing for pay of courselowered them in thesoc ialesteem of them orech ivarous races.

A S u r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

explorers , asenvoys to foreign poten tates, suchas theremotek ings of Ind ia, they wereequal ly so . A nd whatshal l wesay of trade? I t is hard ly possiblenow toestimatetheextraord inary stimulus given to tradeandcommerce

,not on ly by theopen ing up of A s iaand

Egypt to thewestern world ,but perhapseven m oreby

thefreeing from thePers ian treasure-housesat Susaandat Pasargadaeof thehoards ofgold wh ich had therebeenaccumulated for cen turies . Therewas indeed amongthePhoen ic ian s someattempt at token money . Butthroughout inner A s iamerchan ts could on ly trade( ifnot by barter) w ith coin ,

and so long as curren t coinwas on ly s i lver or copper , theweight to becarried madelargetransact ion s with d istan t lands almost imposs ible.When m ill ion s of gold and precious stones werescattered or lost among thesold iers , and madetheir wayin to bus iness hands

,thetrader found that hecould now

carry in h is belt moremoney valuethan hehad formerlyladen upon acamel . T heissue

,therefore

,of A lexan

der’s gold curren cy must havebeen almost l iketheinven tion ofbank n otesas compared w ithactual coin .

W ithall th is stir in themercan tileworld therecameagreat increaseofluxury. T hesuccessful soldier is usual lyaspendthriftand is lav ish of h is l oot ; the“ M ilesGloriosus of thetimeisacommon figureon thecom icstage, and rid iculed for h is vulgar osten tation .

>l< Butalthough thecultivated A then ian m ight deridetheextravaganceof thecommon mercenary

,

‘ who had risenfrom indigen ceto sudden wealth

,it was n ot so when he

cameto seeroyal courts,w i th therefinemen ts ofanc ien t

and traditional splendour . Even thegreat k ing ofMacedon when heen tered thesu iteof ten ts wh ich Darius had

‘wextan t Plautineplay of that nameis taken from aGreek m odel ofth isperio

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A Su r veyef Greek Ci vi li zation .

the( l iberated ) cities set up altars as toagod ,and sac

r ificed ,and to h im fir st

'

they sang paean s , ofwh ich onebegins thus

T hegeneral of Greece, from thebroad -w inged Sparta, weshal l p raisein hym ns

,Oh Paean , Healer

and thepeopleof Samos even decreed to cal l theirHeraea( feast ofHera) Ly sandrea.

I t is very l ikely that th is deification was as yet confined to theA siatic Greek c ities . They had been l ongused to thePers ian royalty , and theA s iatic subjects ofthegreat king had never been very chary ofgiving suchhonour to amonarch whosedaily serv icecon tained anetiquetteapproach ing very closely in its prostration s tothereveren cegiven to adeity . I t is thereforecertainthat theGreeks werequ iteprepared , by previous instan ces , to recogn izesuchaclaim in asovereign whosedeeds seemed superior to thoseof ord inary men . Wemust also remember that accord ing to theGreek religion ,

asexpounded by theold poetsand practi sed bythepriests

, thegulf between thegod and theman wasby no mean s so in surmoun tableas i t is to us .Thus it was n o great stretch of bel ief on thepart ofany man then l iv ing in Greeceto th ink that so wonderfulaperson as A lexander was ofd ivineorigin ,

no r wasit d ifficult to persuadetheking h imself

,who fel t s trongly

theinsp irat ion of h is gen ius,that hewas n o ordinary

mortal . Hecould indeed bewounded or even k i l led inbattle, but weren ot thevery gods in Homer’s I l iadwounded ,

and had not many son s of gods died v iolen tdeaths at thehands of their enem ies ? T hev is it toAmmon ’ s templein theoas is of S iwah had indeed alltheappearan ceof beingapol it ical dev iceto obtain thesanction of that famous shrineto h is claim

,but w ith the

young A lexander theclaim was probably qu iteserious,

T imeqf A lexander and f1 i'

s S uccessor s.

and not theleast in tended to deceive. I t is very remar kablethat h is first ch ild

,theson of Bars ine

, thew idow of Memnon ,

h is princ ipal Opponen t in A siaM inor, was cal led Heracles . I am not awarethatanyGreekever ven tured to cal l h is son by suchanameforHeracles was themost famous son ofZeusand A lcmena.Th is s implefact proves to us that hewas determ ined on

assert ing h is d iv in ity , wh ich was readily accepted not

on ly by theorien tals , but by theA s iatic Greeks , andvery soon by theHellen ic racegenerally. Thus whenthek ing quarrelled w ith h isarmyat Op is , themutinousMacedon ian s badeh im carry on h is wars w ith theaid of

h is father Ammon ,upon wh ich heleaped from h is p lat

form,and causing th irteen of them to beseized , put

them to deathat once.Theseconsiderations show it to bein no way in cred

iblethat heshould send hometo Greece, ordering thec ities

,even A then sand Sparta, to pay h im d iv inehonour .

Nor would therehavebeen thesmal lest difficulty in theiracqu iescencehad henot accompan ied th is order w ithanother , wh ich affected their pockets . Heorderedalltheirex iles to berestored to their homes . That mean t ,as I havealreadyexplained ,

areturn ofproperty , wh ichhad changed hands , from thepresen t owners to thosewho had formerly held it . No transaction of thek indcan takeplaceinany state, ancien t o r modern ,

W i thoutshak ing confiden cein con tract , and w ithout annullingmany honest sales , and infl ict ing incalculablehardsh ipson many honest people. Butas regards theadm issionof d ivin ity by A then ians , weknow that w ith in twen tyyears of th is timethey volun teered to confer thet itleofSav iour Gods on A n tigonus and h is son Demetrius( theBes ieger) ,and when thelatter cameto A thens , theworsh ip of h im asad ivineperson and h is association

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

w ith thevirgin goddess in theParthen on weresoeffus iveand disgustingas to shockeven thepeopleof that day.

Beforetheyear 3 00 B . C . every Hellen istic k ing hadbegun toassert h is own d ivin ity , to claim descen t fromHeracles , or A pollo , o r D ionysus , to haveapriestandanal tar , and toassociateh is own worsh ip w ith that oftheprin c ipal gods in h is c ity . Wehavealready seen i tin thecaseof Demetrius , weknow that Seleucus atA n tioch madethesameclaim ,

as d id also Ptolemy inEgypt

,and though systematized and extended in after

generations , theideawasadopted from A lexander h imselfby thefirst D iadoch i . I t was from theseroyal tiesthat theworsh ip of theemperor was taken by A ugustus ,and set upas theoneun iform cult of theR oman Emp ire. Th is is oneof theideas in wh ich theHel len isticworld differs profoundly from any medimval or modernsocieties , and yet thek ings who in theM iddleA gesasserted their d iviner ight , thepopewho asserted h isinfall ib il ity

,weren ot very far removed from theother

claim ,asaGreek would understand i t .

T heeffect upon theHellen istic kings was, however ,much thesameas thelesser claim upon their mediaevalsuccessors . I t caused both to regard themselvesabovetheordinary laws ofmoral ity. T heresult could not butbed isastrousas well to themselvesas to thepeoplewhocamein con tact w ith them . Th is may beshown invarious in stan ces . To takethemost obvious

,they were

all polygamous,they madeand brokeal l ian cesas they

thought conven ien t . T hequeens and prin cesses of

thosedays werenotashamed,but proud of thenumber

Of their husbands . They werej ustas freeof their personsas theprin ces . TakethecaseofA rs inoe, daughterof thefi rst Ptolemy . F irst sheis married to Lysimachus , k ing ofThrace. oneof her father’ s compan ion s ,

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

‘

appeared ,and who wasaccoun tedamagic ian ,

had goneto Macedon

,and thereunder theform ofaserpen tap

peared to O lymp ias , and becomethefather ofA lexander .

By this fabletheEgypt ian s stroveto Show thattheconqueror was after all their legitimatesovereign .

Nor werethePers ian s beh ind hand . They too inven tedalegend to show thelegitimacy ofA lexanderas k ing of

Persia. >l<But when thekings began to claim div inedescen t

,

someallowan cemust bemadefor theconduct of theirmothers . Yet th is too is to beremembered , that inEgyptat least , thed iv ineorigin ofaking , thoughexpressly asserted ,

was in no way supposed to i n terferew ith thepatern ity of h is earthly father . T hesecondPtolemy , who was theson ofRa

,andagod ,

wasat thesametimetheson of Ptolemy Soter and Beren ike.Theseareattitudes ofm ind wh ich it is vain for us toexplainand v ind icatewecan do no morethan statethemas h istorical facts .I t followsasanatural consequencethat thesed ivin izedrulers kept great state

,and l ived after afash ion qu ite

superior to ord inary men . They knew theeffect to beObtained by goldand s ilver plate

,r ich carpetsand hang

ings,splendidarmourand jewelry , agreat household

w ith endless lords in waiting,lad ies of honour

,pages ,

household troops,and servan ts ’ servan ts . A ll th is came

through thecourt of A lexander , but original ly from thePers ian court

,as its prototype. When theR hod ian s ,

during thegreat s iegeof their c ity by Demetrius , captured someof thepersonaleffects com i ng i nash ip fromh is queen Ph ila

,they sen t them as apresen t to King

Ptolemy , seeing that such garmen ts of purpleand suchSeethelegend in Gobineau '

s H isto iredesPerses, Vol. I I . (Paris, aver curiousand o r i inal book

, giving theorien tal sideo fthePers ian strugglew i t theWest

,and t ev iew wh ich theorientals took ofAlexander.

T imeof A lexander and ffis Successor s.

ornamen ts werequ iteuseless to any onebut ak ing .

But th is Demetrius loved not on ly splendour of th is k indhewasam un ificen t patron ofar t . Weknow how hecarefully preserved thework ofProtogenes

, thepainter,wh ich hefound in asuburb ofR hodes.

>l<

West il l have, fairly preserved ,amagn ificen t statueofV ictory (N ike) wh ich heset up , probablyafter h is greatseabattlew ith Ptolemy . I t is now in theLouvre, andis known as theN ikeof Samoth race. I n th is sacredisland it stood on thes ideofah ill

, ahugefemalefigurestanding on theprow o fash ip ,

and blow ing atrumpetinannoun cemen t ofanaval v ictory . I t has been ident ified by means ofextan t co ins ofDemetrius

,wh ich give

thecompletefigureon their reverse, and is oneof themost strikingev idences how pureand nobleGreekar tst ill remained under theearly D iadoch i . What was saidbeforeof thefamous tomb ofConstantinopleappl ies herealso . I fwewerenot sureof thedateof th is statueandof theiden t ity of thedonor , weshould probably havereferred it to thegolden ageofHellen icar t .

I t is remarkablethat th is very d issoluteman ’s wife,Ph ila

,maintained all her l ifetheh ighest character for

devot ion and fidel ity to her husband , and is spec iallypraised for hav ing taken po ison when shedespaired of

h is success . Noneof h is vagaries or infidelities evershook her constan cy. T hesameh igh qual ities areascr ibed to h is son A n t igonus (known as Gonatas, andafter many v ic iss itudes k ing of Macedon ) , who wasalways most loyal to h is father , and offered h is own

l iberty to saveh im from bondage. T hew ildest of thesuccessors , therefore, must havebeen , w ithall h is faults ,avery lovableman . Probably thecasewas not so w ith

A ll thedetailsabou t h im w i ll befo un d i n Plu tarch ’

s m ost interesting LifeofDemetri us ,

"C haps .

XX I I I.

-XXVI I I . , to wh ich I refer thereader, bo thas theveri ficat ion o fwhat I say ,

andalso fo r man y m o reanecdotes than I can quote.

Demetriusapatron ofart .

Antigonus. son

of Demetrius.

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

K ing Pyrrhus ofEp irus , theother great kn ight-erran t ofth isage, who seems not to havebeen ableto fasc inatewomen in sp iteof h is gen ius fo r warsand that ch ivalrywh ich forms so attractiveachapter in early R oman h istory .

T hemercenary arm ies of thesemen must havebeenl ikethearm ies wh ich roamed about Germany in theTh irty Years’ War , faithful on ly to ind ividual leaders ,and to them on ly so longas they weresuccessful treatingeach other in battlew i th great cons iderat ion ,

butaruthless pest to thepeaceablepopulation . Many of

thesesoldiers offortuneweren ot even c iv il ized Greeks ,but barbarous Thrac ians

,and

,sti ll more

,barbarous Gala

t ians,who werenow press ing from thewest in to the

Balkan Pen in sula,and sell ing their services to theh igh

est b idder. Theseweretheprin cipal perpetrators of

thehorriblecruelties wh ich wehear of in th is troubledt ime. Thesewerethemen who rifled thean cien t tombsof theMacedon ian s and of other k ings

,and who were

for many aday theterror of A s iaM inor,so that the

main glory of theA ttal id k ings of Pergamum was tohavechecked them ,

and to haveconfined them to theirnew home(Galatia) . T heold respectablec itizen soldiers had disappeared . Noarmy foughtexcept fo r payand thefirstattempt

,when two forces met , was to settle

thedisputeby offers of money . Very often oneS idewould desert to theother under thesecircumstan ces ,and thepoorer man

,however righteous h is cause, would

find h imselfageneral w ithout an army . T hegeneraleffect of suchasystem ofwarfaremust havebeen mostdemoral iz ing to society . T hehab it of v iolen ceandtreachery does not con finei tself to thosewho hab ituallyand cyn ically practi seit . “

Ev il commun ication s corruptgood manners . ” T heaccoun t of theconduct of the

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

Heis carried toAthens.

A S u r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

thereforemadesigns to thedeputies toarguethematter there.However i t was far from being conducted with im partial ity.

Polyper chon Often in terrupted Phocion,who at last was so

p rovoked that hestruck h is staff upon theground and wouldspeak no m ore. Hegem on said , Polyper chon h im self couldbear witness to h isaffectionateregard fo r thepeopleand that

‘

general answered , “Do you comehereto slander mebefo re

thek ing?” Upon th is thek ing started up and was go ing tor un Hegem on th rough wi th h is Spear ; bu t Polyperchon p revented h im ; and thecounci l brokeup im med iately. T heguards then su rrounded Phoc ion and h is party, exceptafew,

who,beingat somed istance, m uffled them selves Up , and fled .

Cl itus carried thep risoners to A thens,under co lour ofhaving

them tried there,bu t

,in real ity, on ly to havethem pu t to

death , as persons already condem ned . T hemanner of con

ducting theth ing madei t am oremelan cho ly scene. T heprisoners werecarried in carts th rough theCeram icus to thetheatre

,whereCl itus shut them up ti l l thearch

’

ons hadassem bled thepeop le. From th isassem bly neither slaves

,nor

foreigners, nor persons stigmatizedas infam ouswereexcluded ;thetribunaland thetheater wereopen toall. Then thek ing’

s

letter was read thepu rport of wh ich was That hehad foundtheprisoners gu i lty of treason ; but that heleft i t to theA then ians

,as freemen who wereto begoverned by thei r own

laws,to pass sentenceupon them .

”A t thesamet imeCl itus

presented them to thepeop le. T hebest of thec i tizens, whenthey saw Phocion

,appeared greatly dejected , and covering

their faces wi th their man tles began to weep . One,however

,

had thecourageto say, S incethek ing leaves thedeterm ination of so im po rtan tamatter to thepeop le, it would bep roperto com mand all slaves and strangers to depar t . But thepopu lace, instead ofagreeing to that motion

,cried out ,

“I t

wou ld bemuch m orep roper to stoneall thefavou rers of

o l igarchy, all theenem ies of thepeop le.” A fter wh ich no oneattem pted to Offer anyth ing in behalf of Phoc ion . I t was w i thm uch d iffi culty that heobtained perm ission to speak . A t last ,silencebeing made

,hesaid

, Do you design to takeaway m yl ifejustly o r unjustly ? ” Someof them answering, “ Justly

,

hesaid,

H ow can you know whether"

i t wi l l bejustly, if youdo not hear mefirst ?” A s hed id not find them incl inableintheleast to hear h im

,headvanced somepaces fo rward and

T imeef A lexander and ffis S uccessor s.

said,

“ C itizens of A thens,I acknowledgeI havedoneyou

injustice; and fo r m y fau lts in theadm in istration adjudgem yself gu i lty of death but why w i l l you put thesemen to deathwho havenever injured you

? ” T hepopu lacemadeanswer,“ Becausetheyarefriends to you . Upon wh ich hedrew backand resigned h im self qu ietly to h is fate.Agnon ides then read thedecreehehad p repared accord ing

to wh ich thepeoplewereto declareby their suffrages whethertheprisoners appeared to begu i lty o r n ot ; and if they appeared so

,they wereto suffer death . When thedecreewas

read ,somecal led fo r an additional c lausefo r putt ingPhocion

to theto rtu rebefo reexecution and insisted that therackandi ts managers shou ld besen t fo r im med iately. But Agnon ides,observing that Cl itus was d isp leased at that proposal , andlook ing upon i t h im selfasabarbarousand detestableth ing,

said,

“When wetakethat v i l lain Callimedon,let us pu t h im to

theto rture; but , indeed ,m y fel low-c itizens

,I canno t consent

that Phoc ion sh ould havesuch hard measure. ” Upon th is,

oneof thebetter d isposed A then ians cried out,

“T hou ar t

certain ly righ t fo r if weto rturePhocion ,what m ust wedo to

thee?” Therewas,however

,hard ly o nenegativewhen the

sen tenceof death was proposed ; all thepeop legavetheirvo ices stand ing ; and someof them even crowned them selvesw ith flowers

,as if i t had beenamatter Of festivity. A fter

theassem bly was d ism issed theconv icts weresent to prison .

T heem braces of their friends and relations mel ted them into

tears, and they all wen t o n bewai l ing their fate, excep t Phocion . H is coun tenancewas thesameas when thepeop lesen th im out to com mand their arm ies ; and thebeh o lders cou ldnot bu t adm ireh is inv inc iblefirm ness and magnan im ity .

Someof h is enem ies, indeed ,revi led h im as hewent along ;

and oneof them even sp i t in h is faceupon wh ich ,heturned

to themagistrates, and said,

“W i l l nobody correct th isfel low ’

s rudeness ? ” T hud ippus, when hesaw theexecutioners pounding thehem lock , began to lament what hardfo rtunei t was fo r h ini to suffer unjustly on Ph oc ion ’

saccoun t .

“What then,

”said thevenerablesage, dost thou not th ink

i tan honou r to d iew i th Phocion ?” Oneof h is friendsask ingh im whether hehad any com mands to h is son ;

"Yes

,

”said

he, “byall means tell h im from meto forget thei ll-treatmentI havehad from theA then ians.

” A nd when . Nicocles, the

T hedecreei sread .

H is magnanim ity.

Hedrinks thehem lock .

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

m ost faithfu l of h is friends, begged that hewould let h imd rink thepo ison befo reh im “Th is, said he, N icocles, isahard request ; and theth ing m ust givemegreat uneasiness ;but sinceI haveobl iged , you inevery instanceth rough l ife, Iw i l l do thesamein th is.

” When they cameall to d rink thequantity p roved n ot suffi cien t and theexecu tioner refused top reparem ore, except hehad twelved rachmas paid h im ,

wh ich

was thepriceofafu l l d raugh t . A s th is occasionedatroublesomedelay, Phocion cal led oneof h is friends, and sai d

,

Sinceonecannot d iefo r n oth ingat A thens, givetheman h ism oney.

” Th is execution was on then ineteen th day of A p ri lwhen therewasap rocession of horsemen in honou r ofJup iter .A s thecavalcadepassed by, sometook Off thei r Chap lets fromtheir heads ; others shed tears, as they looked at theprisondoo rs ; all who had not hearts en tirely savage, or weren ot

corrupted by rageand envy, looked upon i tasam ost im p ious

th ing, no t to haverep r ieved them at least fo r that day, and so

to havekept thecity unpo l luted on thefestival .However

,theenem ies of Phocion

,as if someth inghad been

wan ting to thei r trium ph , go t an o rder that h is body sh ou ldnot besuffered to remain w ith in thebounds ofA ttica; nor thatany A then ian shou ld furn ish fi refo r thefuneral p i le. Therefo reno friend durst touch i t ; but oneConop ion ,

who l ived bysuch services

,fo r asum of m oney carried theco rpseou t of the

territories of Eleugis, and go t fi refor thebu rn ing of i t in thoseof Megara. A woman of Megarawh o happened to assist atthecerem ony w ith her maid servan ts raisedacenotaph uponthespot and perfo rmed thecustomary l ibations. T hebonesshegathered up carefu l ly in to her lap ,

carried them by n igh t to

her own house,and interred them under thehearth . A t the

samet imeshethus addressed thedomestic gods Yeguard ians of th is p lace, to you I com m it theremains of th is

good man do you resto rethem to thesepu lch reof h isancestors, when theA then ians shal l oncemorel isten to thed ictatesof

I f theseth ings weredoneat A thens wh ich boastedto betheacmeof cultureand human ity

,what would

happen in less pol ished c ities ? What used to hapPlutarch , Ph oc ion ,

”Chaps. XXX I I I .-XXXV I I .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

CHAPTER IX .

T H E HELLEN I ST I C WOR LD , 250— 1 50 B . C .

WHENall theimmed iatesuccessors ofA lexander hadfought ou t their troubled l ives over thesuccess ion ,andhad found their ends , m ost of them on thefield of

battlewheneven thenext generation ofkn ight-erran ts ,pol it ic ian s , opportun ists , had settled their main d ifferemees

,and had defin itively won or lost their crown s , the

Hellen istic world settled down in to thecomplex th ingwh ich ultimately camein con tact w ith theR oman s , andwas swallowed up by theall-devouring republ ic.During theearly days of th is period , R omewas stil lstruggl ing for thepreem inen cein I taly , then in Sici ly

,

and thefirst rudecon tact w ith Hellen ismwas theconfl ictin southern I taly w ith theGreek c ities , and their coudottiere, King Pyrrhus ofEp irus . Therewerestories curren t that A lexander theGreat had thought of conquering theR oman s , that they had sen t , among theothernat ions of theworld ,

an embassy of peaceand of observation to thek ing of Babylon . Wehaven o good eviden cefor thesestories , and weknow that during A lexander’ s l ife

,and fo r yearsafter it

, theR omans wereverybusy subdu ing theSamn ites and Lucan ians“and soapproach ing theGreek cities on their southern coast ,wh ich led to thein terferen ceofPyrrhus .Th is confl ict

,thefirst between theHellen istic and

I tal ic powers,was most in terest ing

,and has given rise

to someof them ost characteristic stories — most of theminvent ions— on thepart of theR oman h istorians . To

254

T/zefie/len z'slz'c I/Vor la’, 25 0— 1 5 0 B . C. 255

Pyrrhus , who was n ot on lyaborn strategist,but had

publ ishedatreat iseon h is ar t , th is new m il itary powerand its methods of fighting m ust havegiven many occas ions fo r reflect ion . Hesaw immed iately that hehad todo w ith asol id infan try

,such as would conquer the

world for h im if hecould en l ist it under h is ban ner .But theprimed ifli culty was that th is peop lewouldserveunder no banner savethat of their own republic .Pyrrhus had been used ,

all through h is m il itary l ife,to

noth ing but mercenaryarm ies,wh ich cons isted of men

ready to serveunderany successful and l iberal master.A s soon as thefateofabattlewas dec ided

,such men”

brought in as prisoners,werereadyat onceto takethe

oath ofal legian ceto thev ictor,and transfer their battal

ion s to h is standard . But when Pyrrhus had conqueredtheseR oman s inamost bloody battle, hefound to h isaston ishmen t that theprisoners would havenoth ing tosay to h im . They wereR oman o r I tal ian c itizens, n ot Roman sold iersmercenaries . Th is thereforemarked adeep l ineof

"Ot mer cenar y '

severance,deeper perhaps than that of language, in the

hab its of theEastand thewestern commun it ies .T heHellen ist ic sovereign who saw theimportanceof

R omeat oncewas thesecond Ptolemy . No sooner hadhelearned theresult of thewar w ith Pyrrhus than hesen t apol iteembassy offering friendsh ip and otherfriend ly relations

, ,especially of trade, to theR omans .

Thereis st ill clearevidencein thehonours they conferredupon h im

,and in thed ign ity of thereturn embassy

wh ich they sen t , how deeply flattered they felt at thisattent ion from amonarch who must naturally haveregarded them as barbarians . T hesplendours of A lexandriamust haveaffected theR oman envoys w ithastonishmen t . Onepract ical result is men tioned by Pliny ,*

Natural H istory ,

”Chap . Xxx i I I 1 3 '

A S u r vey of Greek C

that it was ow ing to th is v is i t theR oman s learned tocoin ( in 269 B . C . ) thes ilver coin s , cal led consular

But th is is theon ly serious con tact of theR oman sw ith theHel len ist ic world for many years . T heF irstPun ic War occup iedall their energies , and their friendPtolemy on ly helped them by refus ing to lend money totheir great adversaries . I t is worth not ing thesefactspart icularly , lest it m ight beimagined that R omanseriousness hadanyth ing to say to theserious aspectsof Greek l ifein theth ird cen tury B . C . Thereis somuch that is R oman assoc iated w ith S toicism as to produceasort ofgeneral impress ion that it wasessen tially ,or at least main ly , an outcomeof theR oman gravz

’

fas.

Noth ing is further from thetruth . I f S toic ism was not

purely Hel len ic,i t was d istinctly or ien tal , rather than

occiden tal .I cannot do better than begin th is sketch of theinner

l ifeof thebest per i od of Hellen ism‘

by cons idering itsmost serious and permanen t feature, and thereforeIshal l startat on cew i th that S to ic ism wh ich survives tothepresen t day,

one’ of’

thegreat legac ies of theGreekm ind to theworld . I t originated

,as I havej ust said ,

in theeastern l im its of Hellen ism,

‘and in con tact w ithforeign

,apparen tly Sem itic races

,wh ich werebrought

in to con tact w ith Greeks . T heproper homeof theGreeks had n oth ing to say to it , beyond theacceptingand following thedoctrinewh ich camefrom theEast.Of thethreegreat teachers

,who l ikethethreegreat

tragic poets formed agroup never again equal led ,

Zenoand Chrys ippus camefrom theisland of Cyprus ,Clean thes , whoseextan t hymn isanobleprayer , camefrom A ssos , n ot very far from thes iteof Troy. But

Cf . m y Em p ireofthePtolem ies, page489 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A S u r vey of Gree/eCivi li zation .

that hewas obl iged to support h imselfasaday labourerwh ileheattended thelectures of Zeno . Hetoo '

wasw ithout graceof d iction o r elegan ceof manners .Though com ing fromatruly Greek town ,

heseems tohaveaffected h is master’ s con tempt for s tyle. Yet hetoo had friendly relation s w ith royalty , though hechosethevery um-S toic second Ptolemy as .h is friend

,and

sen t h im apup i l when inv i ted to go h imselfand l iveattheMuseum .

Ch rysippus. T hesystemati z ing of thedoctrines of theseand theother S toics was doneby Chrysippus , who taught in thelatter half of theth ird cen tury B . C . and whosel iteraryactivi ty— seven hundred and fiveseparatebooks o r

tracts — was such that thesay ing wen t abroad ,

“ NoChrys ippus , n o S toa. T heS toawas thecolonnadew ith frescoes on its in ner wall in wh ich Zen o had walkedupand down wh i lediscours ing w ith h is favou r itepup ils .Chrys ippus is n oted for having n o relation s w ith k ings ,and th is seemed to men of that dayextraordinary buti t was moreconsisten t w ith aS toic l ife, and w ith therudemannersand careless d ressaflected by theschool .I n what

,then

,con sisted theextraordinary d ign ity

T henobili ty ofand importan ceof theS toic creed ? Why has i t lasted

theSto ic creed from that day to th is as thesymbol ofacertain loftytypeof human nature? Becauseit was anoblecreedin i tself ; also becauseit set i tsel f again st theoppos itetheory ofEp icurus , and fought hard fo r thedign ity ofthehuman soul . To theS to ic the’ wholeworld wasunder thecon trol ofas inglegu id ing providence, or

even w ith someof theschool thewholeworld was butaman ifestation of that eternal Being

,in whom

,as St .

Paul c ites their words , “wel ive, and move, and have

S to ic panth eour being. Th is

o

is what wenow cal l pan theism , theism . doctri nethat therei s but oneimmen seBeing , ofwhom

TfieHellen istic I/Vor la', 25 0

— 1 5 0 B . C. 259

all theworld that weseeand know is but aman ifestat ion T hegods areh is laughter

, theraceof mortalmen h is tears ,

” saysalateand obscurefollower,usinga

hugemetaphor .But if it has been cast up to thepan theist that he

des troysall moral responsib il ity,by destroying thed is

t inct indiv idual ity ofeach man,wem ightanswer for h im

by quoting theparal lel and perfectly logical accusationbrought against theCalv in ist

,that hedestroyed the

samemoral responsib il ity byabol ish ing all human freedom . Though both argumen tsarelogical , bothareinfact false; fo r no men havebeen morestringen t in requ iring moral duties from men than theS to ic pan theist and theCalv in ist necess itarian . T heduty of manwas to learn thecourseand w ill of providen ce, and toshapeh is l ifeaccordingly . Hehad no t been put in totheworld to en j oy h imself, nor was pleasure, as somesaid , theend of l ife, but to forward ,

so far as in h im lay,

thecourseof d ivineorder in theworld . That world ,

theS to ic held ,was not eternal , but would onceand

again bedestroyed by fi re. Nevertheless , when amanhad grasped that by h is reason God had madeh im aparticipato r in thework ing ou t of h is prov idence, and thattherewasap r in c ipleto befollowed ou t , in always actingaccord ing to theh ighest laws of nature, then theS to ic sagebecametheforerunner of thePuritan in manycurious ways . Hewas sudden lyand sometimes evenunconsciously transformed from afool , whoseeveryaction was wan ting in prin c iple, in toastateofen l ightenmen t o r grace, d iffering in kind from h is former state.Therewas no gradualapproach to th is salvation . A s

aman in thewater was drowned , whether hewas six feeto r six in ches under thesurface, and gained no safety til lh is head wasabovewater as thepuppy born bl ind saw

S t . Pau landS to i c ism .

A Sur vey of Greek Civi li zation .

as l ittletheeighth day as thefirst,so thefool who

thought to makesomeprogress toward w isdom hadgained n oth ing t ill thereal l ight sudden ly dawned uponh im . Then hebecameabsolutely freefrom v iceo r fromm isfortune, for noth ing could shackleh is m ind ,

and hecould leaveh is body l ikeagarmen t in thehands of thetyran t or persecutor , if imprisonmen t or torturethreatened h im . Nay,

hewas rich w ith unfail ing treasurethough poor hewas perfectly satisfied though hungry ;hewasaking

,though in thecondition ofaslave. No

onecan thereforem istaketheS to ic sourceofS t . Paul’sfamous passage “as deceivers

,and yet true; as un

known and yet wel l known as dy ing , and behold ,we

l ive; as sorrowful , yet always rej o ic ing ; as poor , yetmaking many rich ; as hav ing n oth ing

, yet possess ingallHeheld , then ,

thetheological doctrineofassuran cein theh ighest degree

,andas thesagewas incapableof

sin, so ther ighteousness of thefool was but dross , h is

v irtueofno meri t,h is pretended knowledgeutter igno

ran ce. Th is gavetheindiv idual w iseman adangerousright to d ictateto theworld

,and so to in terferein pol i

tics , though ph ilosophers as aruleprofessed to w ithdraw from thearenaof debateand ch icanery , and refused toadvisetheturbulen t democracies in wh ich theyl ived . But theSto ics never refused toadviseatyran t ,or s ingleruler , if hewould taketheir advice; n ot un

frequen tly they jo ined in remov ing h im,if hewere

v ic ious ; and n o consp irator was so dangerous as theman who desp ised death and tortures in comparisonwith thecarrying ou t ofh is conviction s .T heopposed system of Ep icurus had many po in ts in2 Corin th ians s O u r fullestaccoun t oftheseSto ics is in theth ird

book.

ofC icero ’s treat iseDeFi n ibus. Wehavealso D iogenes Laer tius on

thel ives of themasters.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A Su r vey of Greek Ci vi li zation .

garded thebasis of friendsh ip to bemutual profit , no(é zqg

'

lffigf

s

‘cy Of onewas moresen timen tal in h is attachmen ts .* Th is isindeed themost prom inen t featurein thelong and explicitaccoun t of h is l ifeand writings left us by D iogenesLaer tius. Weseetoo in thegreat poem of Lucretiusw ith what majesty th is advocacy of pleasurecould bestated . But in theday of its b irth , thereal momen t ofthedoctrinelay in its sat isfy ing thewan t of that otherk ind ofm ind wh ich revolts from S to icism , wh ich des iresaclear reason ,

and apractical one, for every action ,

wh ich desires to get r id of falsetheoryand tradi tionalw isdom

,wh ich is s ick of pol itics and d iscon ten ted w ith

traditional faith,and yet w il l n ot besat isfied w ith mere

s cepticism . To such tame, unpoetical natures Ep icurusofferedasystem based d irectly on what they could seeand feel

,on thepursu it of such sat isfaction as theyall

understood,on theputtingas ideof rel igion asasystem

of con trol orasourceoffear , and supplan ting i t with ascien tific creed ,

alargeand dist in ct body ofdoctrine.Fo r th is , too , is to ben oted in that age, that it was

not prepared fo r tren chan t s cept ic ism . Such asystemwas tried by Pyrrho ofEl is

,but in sp iteofh is followers ,

Timonand AZnesidem us,hemadeno largeschool and

S cept ic ism m tleft but smal l traces on Greek thought . T hedays were

yet fash ionable. n ot yet comewhen thePlaton ists turned s ceptics andbrought theworld round w ith them it was st ill theageofpos itiveteach ing

, ofafirm bel ief that knowledgewasattainable, of thesubstitution of ph ilOSOph ic creeds fortheold rel igions . Second-ratepeoplewen t in crowdsto thesecond -ratesuccessors of Plato and A ristotle,Upon th isW ilam ow i tz An tigonus of Karystos , page93 , note) has wellremarked , that i t met oneof thech ief tenden c ies of theage. I t was aday

when o ther bon dsam ongmen had given way , w hen patriot ism felt i tselfallastray , when thet ies o f fam i l and of creed wereloosened . T hen i t was thattheeternal , inerad icablebon o f personal sym pathyan d of personal attachmen t camein to theforegr ou nd ,and wasem braced even by such asystem asthat o fEp icurus, wh ich logically seemed to contradict i t.

whoseschools werenow wel l establ ished at A thens .Bu t Xenocratesand Theoph rastus could on ly lead suchmenas Demetrius of Phaleron

, o r Menander , and whatthey taught was no t l ifebut learn ing. Hen cewemaybesurethat if thelesser num ber frequen ted theStoao r

theGarden , to hear men who werestrangers in birth orin educat ion , but stranger stil l in their creed ,

thesefewwereindeed thesol idand thoughtful m inds of theday.

I t is notat A thens on ly , but in many c ities ofGreeceat Corin th , El is, Colophon , Heracleain Pon tus — thatth is sober and serious teach ing mademen l ook awayfrom thefolly , theturmo il , thewar wh ich rackedtheHellen ic world for forty years

,to what trueand

sol id sat isfaction was st il l attainable. T heGreek wholost h isautonomy pol it ical ly regained it sp iritual ly , andreasserted th is newand greater l iberty w ithoutelegance

,

w ith con tempt of style, but w ith thes in cerity ofadeepconv iction . T heexqu is iteproseof Plato could not

hold its placeagainst thebaldaphorisms of Ep icurus ortheclumsy argumen ts of theCyprioteZeno . Thesemen open ly desp ised any qual ity in styleexcept clearness

, and wemay besurethat in th is they appealedto thesenseof their publ ic , wh ich was tired of idlerhetor ic .

Such weretheprin c ipal systems wh ich emerged fromtheag itated t imes of theearly D iadoch i . A s A dam Sm ithobserved longago ,

thec ircumstan ces of l ife, wh ich maybes t becompared to theTh irty Years’War in Germany ,madeit qu iteprobablethat any man in any c ity ,however peaceful hewas, however neutral h is c ityendeavoured to be, would someday suffer in an invas ion ,

haveh is property plundered ,h is fam ily en slaved ,

andh imselfexposed to destitution ,

i f n ot to av iolen t andun just death .

Henceit was v ital , as it was in theearly

A S u r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

Christian ages,to preachadoctrinewh ich would offer

grounds to desp isesuch i lls of fortune, to stand firmunder tyranny and Opp ress ion ,

to valuel ifeno t as apriceless jewel , but asath ing on ly worth having underreasonablecond ition s . A s I said before, thesepracticalsystems of l ifeembraceall that has ever been thoughtou t s inceby men ,

apart from d ivinerevelation . Settingapart as exceptional and less importan t themoderncyn ic

, theconscien tious scept ic , both of whom hadtheir coun terpart , as theyalso found their namesamongtheschools of an c ien t Greece, thereremain thetwoframes of m ind

, theS to ical and theEp icurean ,wh ich

d ividetheworld . Far themajority is Ep icurean ; fartheh ighest and finest natures areS to ical . Whatevertheir dogmas

,whatever their creed

,thesetypesareto be

met w ith in every soc iety,and w il l bemet w ith so long

as human natureremains thesame.I turn n ow to theinferior s ideof thep icture, and ,

havingendeavoured to portray theearnestand th ink ingclasses , w il l say someth ing of theid leand frivolous people, who then ,

‘as now ,formed alargepart of themost

fash ionablesociety in each decaying town of Greece.Our information weoweto thewriters of gen teelcomedy , who haveleft us innumerablefragmen ts thoughnot as inglecompleteplay . Wehavefrom severalof them

,Ph ilemon

,D iph ilus, Menander , passages of

description ,of reflection

,of world ly w isdom ,

of stagefolly , wh ich giveusadequatematerials for ajudgmen t ,not to speak of theLatin vers ions , for they arel ittlemorethan tran slations

,left us by Teren ce. T hegrace

Menander .

and theeleganceof Menanderareman ifest even in theLatin vers ion ,

and j ustify thewel l-known panegyricOh , Menanderand Life, wh ich of you has cop ied theother ? ”

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

rudeand barbarous R oman s , though their society wasinfin itely purer , and in other respects at total varian cew ith that imp l ied in theNew Comedy , could never theless understand them iserand thespendthrift , thescept icand thesuperstitious , thematron and thecou rtesantherepain ted in their un iversal characteristics ; wh iletheplays ofA ristophanes , oreven thel iteraryand ph ilosophical cri ticism of theso -cal led M iddleComedy , weretothem wholly un in tel l igible. Even later Greeks l ikePlutarch fel t th is , and knew that , wh ileA ristophaneswas on ly to befully understood by thosewho understood Periclean A then s , thelater comedy m ight beactedat A n tioch or A lexandriaor Seleuc iaon theT igrisaswel las in Greece. A nd yet w i th th is quas i -ph i losoph icalgeneral i ty , how narrow it all was I f

,in stead of b itter

and scurri lousal lus ions to great personages,wh ich were

frequen t enough, and in nuendos again st v irtueand

morals,they had bold ly pain ted Demetrius theBes ieger ,

o r thePh ilosopher,o r Cassander’s pedan t brother , o r the

con ceitedartists of theday , what far deeper instructionthey would haveleft us Their personagesarel iketheingen ious variation s of second -ratecomposers upon awell-known melody

,wh ichexh ib it graceand ingen u ity

but en rich us w ith no new feel ing . A s inglenationalair w ith its inexp ress iblecharm of d istin ct local colourin fact , of original ity— is worth awholeworld of thesevariations .T hesamecritic ismappl ies to thetract kn own as theCharacters ofTheophrastus

,

” abook far morepraisedthan it deserves . I n theform n ow extan t it gives aseries of portraits of various soc ial v ices— all of themform s of l ittleness o r meanness suchasarethecharacteristics ofashabbyand id lesociety . Moreover

,thedraw

ing of thesecharacters is n ot psychologically subtle,as

TbeHellen istic Wor ld, 25 0

— 15 0 B . C. 267

is often asserted . T hefeatures brought out areratherthosein tended fo r stagecharacters than thosedrawnfromacareful observat ion of real life. >l<T heoph rastus

’

s book has to metheair ofatreatisenotcop ied from theNew Comedy

, as has been suggested ,

but rather composedasahandbook of characters for ayoungauthor in tending to writesuch comedies . I t wasthen thefash ion to haverecourseto ph ilosophers , andto taketheiradviceon most matters of l ife. They weresupposed to know human character better than theirneighbours . Menander h imself, though h is practical ph ilosophy was d ist in ctly that of h is friend Ep icurus

,

studied in th is very Peripatet ic school of Theophrastus,

whosed ist inct ivefeaturewas theatten tion to natu rallz istory ofevery k ind ,

from stones and plan ts to p ietyand pride. So Bol ingbrokedrew up on human natureaseries of proposit ion s wh ich Popeundertook to adornw ith h is splend id stylein thefamous Essay on Man .

”

But in the“ Characters it is thenatureof man asshown in an idleand decaying prov inc ial soc iety -thepass ion sand pursu its of peoplew i th n o publ ic Sp irit orinterests ; thev irtues areom itted ,

even thestrongerv ices

,and all thechanges rung upon thefoibles and

vulgarities ofevery-day l ife.Th is tedious itchi ng to describetypesequal ly infects

thefragments ofatour in Greeceleft us under thenameofD icaear chus. T hewriter not on ly professes to giveadistinct character to theinhab itan ts ofeach town henames in Boeot ia, but even draws d istinct ions of this

k ind between thepeopleof A tticaand theA then ians.

H ow far thefourth book o f Aristotle’s E th ics may havebeen in tendedto givesketches of real l ifei s no t easy to say . T hefam ous por trait of the“great-sou led man seem s to mem oreo fastagecharacter than anyth ingelse. H is vo icem ust bedee and h is step slow seem s to mevery likeatheatrical suggest ion . Bu t so

Ilargeand con troversial aquest ion m ust not be

raised here.

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

Such refinemen ts m ight beserv iceablefor astageboundby theshackles of tradit ion . I n awould-beobserver ofreal l ifeit leads us to doubt h is accuracy in cases whereareal d ist inct ion ex isted .

Through thetroubled medium of Plautus , as wel lasthrough themorecolourless Teren ce, wecan perfectlywel l recover what types of l ifewererepresen ted on theA ttic stage. A ny personal allus ions , indeed ,

wh ichwould havetold us someof theh istory of pol itical feeling,areleft out . Perhaps

, theplays wh ich had al ittlemorethan thesl ightest ‘ local colour werenot tran slatedby theLatin copyists , who could n ot postulatein theiraud ien ceany knowledgeofeastern h istory . Butall thepersonages , thes cenes , themanners of thecoin cea’iapalliataof theR oman s wereA ttic . I f then weweretobel ievetheseelaboratestudies ofmanners in A lexander’sand h is successors ’ days , thel ifeof youth con sisted indrink ing, in squandering money , nayeven in comm ittingtheworst k ind of felony w ithout thepun ishmen t of

much remorse. T heyoung man who is strictly broughtup has to stay in thecoun tryand help to m ind thefarm .

But how completeand oppress iveanex ileth is was consideredappears fromacurious comparison in thetouristj ust c ited (Chapter IV . )

“ To sum up , as far as tkerest of ci ties su rpass t/zecountry for ikep leasu reand t/zer ig/i t useof life, so far again does A thensexceed them .

”

A ccordingly thesympathy of theaud ien ceis warmlyen l isted for theOppressed youth whoescapes by stratagem from h is watchful fatherand comes to spendan ightof riot in thecity. Hedoes th is too w ith theconn ivanceof elders , and through themach inations ofa faithful

” slave. Fo r old men ared iv ided in to two opposedclasses . T heoneis thrifty , morose, hard ,

cen sorioustheother indulgen t , generous , lax in morals . I f two

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A S u r vey of Greek Ci vi li zation .

by its desolateand ru ined young mother , lead ing to itsrecogn ition by thepeccan t father , and its con sequen trehab il itat ion . Thereis no lamen tation that when ach ild is born it w i ll haveto beexposed . A ll thecasesofexposuremen t ionedarein thepast ,and happened faraway . Havewethen beforeus merelyanother fictionof thestageSo strict was theadherenceofall Greekar t , even thebest and greatest , to fixed models, that if onegreatmaster san ct ioned th is dev icewemay becertain to findhundreds of d irect im itation s

,and so thepedan ts of

after daysareled away to stateas natural , o r as ordinary

,what is really theinven tion ofas inglebrain . I n

all ou r soc ial inferences from Greek l iteraturecaution on

th is po in t is of cap ital importan ce. Thusevery heiressi n theplays is imperious

,d isagreeable

,d isgusting to her

husband , often indeed on ly becauseshew i ll not tolerateh is immoral ities . Of coursetherewereat A then sandthroughout Greeceplen ty ofam iableheiresses — thousands who had not bowed thekneeto Mamm on . I fwebel ievetheNew Comedy thereweren one. So alsothereis no colour in any profess ion saveone. T heskippers who camein to port from foreign parts areallthesame. T hesoldiers areall , thesame— cowards

,

braggarts,and defeated in love. Menander declared bythemouth of oneof h is characters that not even thegods , if they tried ,

could produceapolished soldier .Yet in that day,

when theprofess ion wasalead ing oneof Greece, theremust havebeen plen ty of soldiers offortunes im ilar in typeto Xenophon

,and far moreculti

vated by travel and experien cethan their A ttic critics .But theuseofan un -A tt ic form

,or alocal namen ot

recogn izedat A then s , would been ough in Menander ’

s

day to set them downas boors .

T/zeHellen istic Wor ld, 25 0

— 15 0 B . C.

Far mored isagreeablethan theseportraits in theNewComedyarethemany p ictures of immoral old age, offathers indulging their sons in v ice, and conn iv ingat it ,nay worse, tak ing part in it in thepresen ceof theirson s . T heapologies of theGrex at theend of theplay areexh ib ition s of thevery worst Ep icurean ism “

of

thestage, ” and wemay indeed wonder how thesol idR omans of theSecond Pun ic War

, agreat and soundsoc iety , could havetolerated such p ictures of v iceaswould havebeen thought outrageous if occurring atR ome. ‘

How could theFabi i, theA ureli i

,the

.

Marcell iof that dayendu rethat their ch ildren should bemadeintimatew ith thesoc iety of courtesans

,as apart of

elegan ceand culture? I t would beirrelevan t to discussth is question . Suffi ceit to say that wenow tolerateinbookshopsandeven on ou r tables French n ovels wh ich

,

ifprin ted in Engl ish , would besubject to prosecution bythelaw

,and wh ich no respectablebookseller would

ven turetoadvert ise. Recen tly theEngl ish peopleevenfeted in London oneof theworst authors in infamousl iterature. I n somesuch way theR omans may havetolerated in thecom oea’iapalliatath ings wh ich wouldhavebeen revolt ing to them if represen tedas I tal ian .

Whatwehavesaid concern ing theeviden ceof comedyabout theageof thefirst D iadoch iamoun ts to th is Menanderand h is successors— they lasted barely two generat ions— prin ted in afew stereotypes asmal l and veryworthless soc iety at A thens . Therewas n o doubt as im ilar set ofpeopleat Corin th ,at Thebes, possiblyevenin thec ity ofLycurgus . Thesepeop le, idle, for themostpart r ich , and in good soc iety , spen t their earl ier yearsin debauchery

,and their later in sentimen tal reflection s

and regrets . They had no serious object in life,and regarded thecompl ication s ofaloveaffair as morein ter

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

esting than theriseand fal l ofkingdoms or thegain andloss ofanat ion ’ s l iberty . They werel ikethepeopleofou r day who spend all their timeread ing n ovels fromthel ibraries , and who can toleratetheseeternal var iat ion s in twadd len ot on ly w ithout disgust but with in terest . They weresurrounded with slaves , on thewholemorein tel l igen t and in teresting, for in thefirs t placeslaves werebound to exerc isetheir brains , and in thesecond they hadagreat object— l iberty— to givethemakeen pursu i t in l ife. T herelations of thesexes in th isset or portion of soc ietywerebad ,

ow ing to thewan t ofeducation in thewomen and thewan t ofearnestness inthemen . A sanatural con sequenceaclass was found ,

apart from household slaves , who took advan tageofthesedefects , and ,

bringing cultureto fascinateunp r in

cipled men ,establ ished relation s wh ich broughtestrangements

,ifn ot ru in

,in to thehomel ifeof theday.

Such then being thesoc iety wh ich wefind dep ictedatA thens

,and by impl icat ion throughout Greece— for the

scenes of theNew Comedy by no means con finethemselves to A tticaé what notion can weframeof theprin ~cipal c ities , in wh ich thegeneral features already described may havebeen mod ified by c ircumstances , andwhat werethec ircumstan ces ? T hemost brill ian t andpopulous c it ies in theHellen istic world wereat thatt imenot theold h istoric town s ofGreeceo r A s iaM inor ,but great new creation s

,wh ich tried hard to obtain for

themselves thestamp ofan tiqu ity , and inven ted manylegends of myth ical founders

,but st i ll wereperfectly

known to beupstart foundations . Even in many caseswhereold cities l ikeSmyrnaand Ephesus revived ,

it

was from thegather ing of thesurround ing vi llages , in towhich they had been scattered by thePersian s , ofapopulation no longer really theinheritors of theold fame

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

Unreal ity ofT heocritus.

Greek d istastefor country l ife.

Jew ish parallel .

A Sur vey Qf Greek Ci vi li zation .

men also retired there, and formed al iterary soc iety ofwh ich wehaveamost charm ing sketch in theseven thidyll of Theocritus . Theretheweary pedan ts of theMuseumappearas shepherds or v ine-dressers , en joyingacoun try feastand s inging rural strain s of loveand of

Wi ne. T hemodern public was long deceived by th ischarm ing idyll , and took as l iteral fact what was eviden tly amereconven tion of themomen t . A s wel lm ight MarieA n to inetteand her dairyat theTrianonhavebeen taken for genu inedairy work . Both weretherevolt ofahuman naturew ith sound inst inctsagainsttheexcessiveceremony

,etiquette

,ar tificiality , pom pos

ity, ofan overwrought and unnatural soc iety . Herethen wefind ,

perhaps for thefirst t imein Greek l ife, agrowing distastefor town l ife

,and con sequen t loveof

thecoun try w ith its s impler tastesand homel ier pursu its .To us th is is natural enough

,for theA nglo-Saxon race

hasalways been asporting race,and field sports postu

latecoun try l ife. But theold Greeks wereessen tial lytownsmen , regarding thec ity o r pol ityas theon ly c ivilized placeof l iv ing , and con sequen tly thedweller in thecoun try was regardedas rustic

,pagan

,boorish

,and gen

erally un cultivated .

“H ow shall

'

hebecomew isethatholdeth theplough

,that glorieth in theshaft of thegoad

that driveth oxen,and is occup ied in their labours , and

whosed iscourseis of thestock ofbulls They shal l n otbesought for in thecoun ci l of thepeople, and in theassembly they shal l not moun t on h igh , neither shal l theydeclareinstructionand j udgmen t ,and whereparablesarethey shal l n ot befound .

” Thesearethewords ofaJewdeeply influen ced w ith Hel len ism

,and w ith thesame

con tempt as theold Greeks had for country pu r su its.

>l<

f Ecclesiast icus xxx ix . 24 , 89 . I haveom itted theverses wh ich in cludethesk illed mechan ic i n th is town class of useful but not honourablemem bers ofsomety .

TheHellen istic Wor ld,25 0

— 1 5 0 B . C.

I t was in direct con trast to all th is that Theocritusmadeh is markand h is permanen t placein theworld of

letters , by desert ing A lexandriaand i ts streets for theglades and upland pastures of S ic ily

, and in sp irit atleast return ing to thefreel ifeof theshepherd and theneat herd , revell ing in thed iv ineleisure of thefields , themyriad depth of thewoods , “

themoan of

doves in immemorial elms, and murmuring of innum

erablebees . ” A ll the“ propert ies of the' mediaevalA rcad ia, w ith its coy nymphsand p ip ing shepherds

,its

murmuring streamsand complain ing n ightingales , werehereintroduced into poetry , and haveever s incebeenthestock in tradeof bards who had l ittleinsp irationfrom real ity , and who sought to compensatew ith artific ial graces for thelack of insp iration . Theocritus was,however , too good an art ist to imposech ild ish innocenceupon h is swains ; thehuman passions , perhapsrather thean imal passions , arestrong in them ,

andmakeh is idylls far morereal ist ic than thoseof h is med iaeval followers . I fancy thepoet mademost of h is

stud ies of th is rural l ifeat Cos or in theisland of

R hodes thereis no ev idencethat hel ived in Sicily ,any morethan that h is greatest im itator , theNeapol itanSannazar o

,ever wen t to A r cad ia.

>l< For thewholeofhiswork isart ific ial , un real , though so artist ic that it hasimposed upon theworld as theeffusion ofapastoralheartI t is well to ins ist upon th is featurein theHellen i st i cpoetry of th is cen tury , when wecometo cons ider therecen t d iscovery wh ich gives us sketches of thetownl ifeat Cos, professed ly during thepoet’s own l ifeandobservat ion . T he M im iambics of Herondas, anew

H

On th is Sannazar oand h is Arcadia, seewhat I havesai d in thechapteron Arcad iain m y Ram blesan d S tudies i n Greece.

React ion inT heocritus.

A r tificiality ofT heocri tus.

Mim iam b icsofHerondas.

A S ur vey of Greek Ci vi li zation .

treasureof theBritish Museum ,professes to giveus

l ife-p ictures , especially of thedai ly walk and talk of

women of them idd leclass , theireffortsateducating un

ruly boys,their loveofbargain ing in shops and try ing

on new clothes , their petty jealous iesand in trigues , no tto speak of theiractual vices . I f thesewerein deed thegeneral features of femalel ifeat Cos , wem ight wel lwonder thatany oneshould chooseitasaresort for litcrary leisure

,stil l less for thesafeeducat ion of ch ildren .

For all thel ifedep icted is baseand vulgar wherethereis not degrading vicethereis meanness of motive, prov inciality of language thereis hard ly aredeem ingfeaturein themoral p icturethat thepoet presen ts to us .But hereagain it is on ly theunwary pedan t who w il l bedeceived . Thesearen ot p ictures ofactual l ifeat Cos,butalso borrowed from S ic ily , and describing not the

0

fair coun try,but theback streets ofSyracuse. T heprose

“ m imes ” of SOph r on of Syracusehad long been celebrated for their sketches of low l ifein dramat ic form , socelebratedas to havebeen thecon stan t study ' of Platowhen composing h is dialogues . A wholebook of thesesketches was devoted to thewaysand works of women .

I t is morethan probablethat th is book was Her ondas’smodel , and that heput in to verse, and dressed upas recen tandactual

,what was real ly two cen turies old , and

what belonged toasociety long past in aremotepart oftheHellen ic world . Every original sketch ofany societyhas general features wh ich w i l l fit anyage. I t is thereproduction of thesewh ich g iveto Her ondasas wel lasto Theocritus that i llus iveappearanceofactual ity wh ichis moreor less persuas iveaccording to thegen ius of theart i st .On n oaccoun t

,therefore

,should wejudgethesociety

of Cos from thesestud ies . T heisland has been ex

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

been gratefullyaccepted . But when theR oman Republic had becomeaproud emp ire, d ictating to theEast ,theoffer of mediation from amerchan t c ity was metw ithahowl of indignat ion ,

got up by themoney people,who desired aconfl ict , and who almost produced adeclaration ofwar again st R hodesat R ome. By declaring Delosafreeport thefinan c ial ru in of thecity was

Financ ial m in however suffic ien tly accompl ished . A nd th is would°t °des° certain ly havebeen brought about , whether R hodes

had madead iplomatic m istakeor not . Shewasprobably led in to i t by del iberatel ies on thepart ofR omans

,who seemed respons iblepersons

,and who

pretended that they gavetheadvicesuggested by thefriends ofR hodesat R ome.I n earl ier days R hodes was remarkablefo r avo id ingall hasty legislation ,

stil l morefo r avo id ingall declarat ion of revengeor personal disl iketoward her enem ies .Herethecaut ion of merchan t prin ces shows itself incon trast to thepass ion s of amob . When bes iegedand brought to thegreatest strai ts by DemetriusPolior cetes, theR hodians would n ot subm i t to theproposal of someangry c itizen to pul l down anddestroy thestatueserected in former years by thegrate,ful stateto th is k ingand to h is father. Very probablythey in tended to show by th is exampleh ow differen tthey werefrom an exc itablemob suchas that ofA then s ,wh ich presen tly overthrewand destroyed all thestatuesof theother Demetrius

,who had been fo r ten years the

successful ruler of A thens . They showed itagain ,in a

war undertaken w ith Byzan tium fo r thesakeofkeep ingtheBosphorus open to Greek trading sh ips w ithout paying toll to that c ity . T heByzan tinepeoplehad beenblackmailed by their in land neighbours , theThracians ,and thec ity had begged aid from theGreek world .

Theffellen istic Wor ld,25 0

- 15 0 B . C.

When refused , they began to . st0p sh ips and levy toll .To th is strong object ion s weremade

,and awar was

begu n by theR hodians. But no sooner had they gottheadvan tagethan they madepeacew ithout demand ingany indemn ity , w ithout hum il iat ing their adversaries ;they merely demanded that theo ld ruleshould beresumed ,

and that sh ips should pass freethrough theBosphorus .I t was ow ing to th is reasonableand honourableway of

conducting their trading supremacy that all theworldwas ready to contributegreat sum s when R hodes wasnearly destroyed by an earthquake

,about 225 B . C.

T hel ist of gifts from k ingsand from freec ities is givenby Polyb ius, who wonders over thegenerosity of thatday,as compared w ith h is own ,

only halfacen turylater . But heom its to tel l us what wecan infer fromotherev idence, that thesegifts wereno meregenerosity ,butapract ical way ofavert ing theimpending financ ialcris is

,wh ich theru in of theR hod ian banks would en tail

upon all thec iv il ized world .

R hodes was also afavouri teplaceofeducation ,not

on ly fo r young business men ,but for young oratorsand

men of letters . T heschools wereadm irable therewasgood and steady soc iety ; in art weknow that therewasafamous R hod ian school , marked w ith thecharacter istics weshould expect— moderation and strictness ofdes ign , at least in comparison w ith theluxurious andsensational schools ofA siaM inor . T hesamething wassaid of therhetoric taught there. They professed toderivetheir stylefrom thefamous XEsch ines, theadversary of Demosthenes , who wen t thi ther in ex ile. I n

any casetheR hod ian styleis con trasted w ith theA s ian ic

, of wh ich Hegesias was theteacher , by its

chastity and adherenceto older and stricter models .

Magnan im ity oftheRhodians.

( C

An t iochandAlexandria.

T hetwo c itiescom pared .

A S u r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

Cos,therefore

,th is c ity

,and perhaps Tarsus

,shared

with A thens thereputation of being what wem ight cal lun ivers ity town s , wh ither it was safeto send young mento prosecutetheir studies .Far differen t werethetwo great cap itals of theeastern

Hellen istic world ,A n tioch and A lexandria. T hecir

cum stances of thefoundation of each weren ot veryd iss imi lar

,but in every other respect , except that they

wereboth newand both cap itals , therearestrong con

trasts. A lexandriawas s ituated on flat sandbanks bythesea, and fed w ith water by canals from theN i le;A n tioch was in thenarrow val ley of theOron tes,between rugged moun tain s and therush ing river, atleast twelvem i les from thesea. A lexandriahad no

other great city near it ; A n tioch was oneof four ,Seleucia( its port) , A pamea, and Laodicea, wh ich wereall great and populous

,and essen tial ly Greek c ities .

A lexandriahad on ly oneother in s ign ifican t Greek c ity ,Naucratis

,w i th in reach of it

,and in all Egypt on ly one

other far away , Ptolemais in theupper coun try A n tiochhad around it in Syriaand Coele— Syriamany GraecoMacedon ian settlemen ts w ith priv ileged inhab itan ts .A lexandriawas founded on cefor all by thegreatconqueror h imself A n tioch was bu ilt by Seleucus fromthedébris of theearl ier A n tigoneia

,wh ich h is rival

had founded afew m iles further up theriver . Butboth weregreat c ities

,w ith thecharacteristics of such

c ities con tain ing am ixed population . Both playedanimportan t part hereafter in theh istoryand developmen tofChristian ity .

A ll thesereasons would makeacomparison of themh ighly in teresting , but badas is our knowledgeof A lexandria, that ofearly A n tioch is sti l l worse. Weon lyknow of its fair suburb called Daphne, wheretheample

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A Sur vey of Greek Civi li zation .

d istrict l iableto frequen t earthquakes , A n tioch sufferedin theearly cen turies of ou r erasuchaseries of devastations from th is dreadful d isturbancethat it becameun inhab itable. Probably great masses of rock havebeen tumbled from abovedown upon i ts palaces , colonnades , and streets . T heremains of theSeleuc ids mayin many cases beh idden under hopeless accumulationsof natural ru in ,

wh ich is not l iketheru in s of merehuman hab itat ions , capableof being probed or removedby the But theseth ings would not haveh indered ou r know ing ‘someth ing about th is greatandsplend id c ity

,thecap ital ofaprov in cefar moreGreek

than any part of Egypt , ifany nat ivewr iter o r anyearly descr ipt ion had survived . I t is on ly from S trabo ,and then from D io and from J ohn Chrysostom thatsometh ing of thel ifeof theA n t iochenes surv ives . Wecan thereforesay no moreof it in th is placethan torepeat theimportan t fact that theHel len ic c iv il ization

,

ofwh ich thegolden epoch had been confined to Greeceand thecoast of A s iaM inor

,had now found for itself

th is new and splend id cen trein Syria, from whenceitcould influen ceno t on ly Coele-Syriaand Palestine

,

but theinner coun try as far as theEuphrates andTigris . T heSeleuc id k ings very j ustly chosefor theircap ital as itenot beyond thereach of Greek culture;thus they Spread its influen cefar away across deserts ,r ivers , and moun tains , to theconfines of India.Not less splendidand far morecelebrated in Hel len

istic h istory is A lexandria, wh ich took up thetorch of

learn ing from decaying Greece, and d id all that couldbedoneto perpetuate, to propagate, to promoteGreek*T heh istor of Ant ioch , w ith all thetroubles from rio ts, angry em perors ,

Saracens, T u r s,andearth uakes

,is to befoun d in awell-known Lat inessay

of K . O . Mii ller, p ublishe in thefifth volumeof h is collected essays on

archaeology. T hereisan insuffic ien tart iclein thegreat new Germanencyclopaed iaof Pauly-Wissowa.

Thefiellen istic I/Vor ld, 25 0

— 1 5 0 B . C.

l iteratureand sc ience. T hePtolem ies who ruled atA lexandrianever indeed succeeded in Hel len iz ingEgypt , as theSeleuc ids had Hellen ized Syria

,but they

d id no t chooseto do so . With practical sensetheymust haveseen that thetough though pl ian t Egyptiancharacter would never taketh is new train ing . They refrained from bu ilding many Greek towns in Egypt . Butthey determ ined to concen trateall their energies uponthecap ital , so that in A lexandriam ight befoundeveryk indand form of Greek product in ar t , l iterature, andsc ience. I t is held un iversally that A lexandriawas des igned by A lexander for acommerc ial c ity

,because, I

suppose, it turned outadm irably su ited for that purpose.I haveendeavoured to show elsewherethat theneighbou r hood of theolder Naucrat is had someth ing to sayto h is dec is ion .

* Poss ibly,however

,hemay havein

tended it asaprovisional and very safecap ital , wherehecould gather stores and train therecru its necessaryfor h is conquest of theremain ing Pers ian Emp ire. T heconqueror ’ s v iews probablyexpanded by degrees .But ifasacommerc ial siteA lexandriawas un rivalled ,

wecannot say much for its natural beauty. Sandh illswithout wooding ,

w ithout cl iffs , andat ideless sea, withno far moun tains o r islands in s ight— what could bemoredreary to thosewho had been accustomed to theenchan ting v iews from theGreek and A s iatic coasttowns ? Weknow that theGreeks of classical dayssaid l ittleabout thep icturesque. Nevertheless its un

consciouseffect upon their poetryand other forms ofar tis clearly discern ible, and perhaps notal ittleof theunpicturesqueness ofA lexandrian cultureis dueto theabsenceof th is vagueyet powerful influen ce. T hegrandeur of solemn moun tain s , themystery ofdeep for

Cf . m y Em p ireof thePtolem ies,” Chap . 1 .

A Sur veyef Greek Civi li zation .

ests , thesweet homel iness ofbabbling streams , thescentof deep meadows and fragran t shrubs

,all th is was

famil iareven to thec ity peopleof Hel len ic days . Fortheir town s weresmal l , andall of them su r r ounded ’

b y

scenes of natural beauty. But thed in’

and thedust ofthenew cap ital , reach ing over an exten t as great asmodern Paris , wereon ly rel ieved w ith in byafew townparks or gymnasia, and w i thout by fash ionablebath ingsuburbs

,wheretheluxuries of c ity l ifereplaced the

sweets of nature; and if therewereretiremen t andleisurewith in theun ivers ity , it wasem inen tly theretiremen tamong books— thenatural homefor pedan ts andgrammarian s .I t would requ ireaseparatevolumeto g iveanyac

coun t of thevast body of l iteraturewh ich has reachedus from th is epoch . Literaturein thepuresenseof

model writing it is n ot ; but l iteraturein thesenseof

scien tific teach ing,archaeological teach ing , h istoricalandph i lological inqu iry

,in theh ighest sense. I t is never to

beforgotten that thelearned men of thegreat l ibraryand of theMuseum (as thegreat CollegeofA lexandriawas cal led ) preservedand purified thetexts of thegreatclassics , sorted thewheat from thechaff, and appendedthosecritical marks and explanatory n otes wh ich havegiven usalmostall theknowledgewepossess of theliterary h istory of earl ier Greece. Thus , for example,A ristophanes would bewell-n igh un in tell igiblewereitn ot for thescholiawh ich comefrom theA lexandriancritics , and wh ich wefind cop ied in themargins ofou rbest med iaeval man uscripts . A ll ou r scient ific knowledgeofHomer dates from thediscovery

,latein thelast cen

tury,ofan eleven th-cen tury copyat Ven ice, furn ished

w ith thecritical marksand notes ofA ristarchus . Thesemen also left us commen taries upon their own produc

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A Sur vey of Greek Civi li zation .

t ion s . Wehavethe A rgonautics of A pollon iusR hodius and the Cassandra” of Lycophron so explained , and ifei ther °

o i them wereworth rankingamongtheclassics , weshould find thesenotes of theh ighestvalue. But thelearned world has cometoatac itagreemen t that ofall theA lexandrian books surviving noneis to havethehonour of form ing modern tasteexcept theIdylls ” of Theocritus . H is pastorals havebeen solongand so con stan tly im itated , ever s in ceVirgi l ’s day,that heis as much ahousehold nameamong l iterarymen as any of h is predecessors . T hegreat scien tificworks

,themathematics

,astronomy

,geography of H ip

par chus, Eucl id , Eratosthenes , A pollon ius , havebeenabsorbed in to themorerecen t systems

,not w ithout the

permanen t recogn ition and gratitudeof thelearned .

Eucl id indeed stil l holds h is placein all Engl ish mathematical teach ingas theunapproachablein troduct ion tostrict scien tific th ink ing. Whether heshould now bereplaced by somemodern text-book or not

,thereis no

doubt that in logic hew ill never besurpassed , and it isof thelogic of th ink ing that h is Elemen ts w i l l everremainaperfect specimen . I f theA lexandrian Greekshad left us nothingelse

,would not themodern sc ien tific

world owethemapermanen t debt of gratitude? nor is

it adoubtful s ign ofgreatness to havebeen theplagueand thedetestation ofmyriads of schoolboys for coun tless generations .T hegreatness of th is city

, thesplendour of i ts court ,theweal th of its sovereign s , madei t in th is cen tury thereal centreofHel len ism to outs idenat ions . I t was not

from A then s w ithall i tsan c ien t prest ige, but from A lexandriathat theR omans learned their civi l i zation . Wecan st il l tracethespread of Greek arts and comfortsfrom thefirst port wh ich was opened by theR omans to

TheHellen istic PVor ld, 25 0

— 1 5 0 B . C.

A lexandrian sh ips , theport of Puteol i (Poz z uoli ) closew ithin theen tranceof theBay of Naples . T heold

Greek trad it ions of that coun try,wh ich had been

crushed by theconquests of Samn ites and R omans, te

v ived agai n under theinfluen ceof themany Greeks whoworked th is A lexandrian trade. Presen tly Baiae, Neapolls , Herculaneum ,

Pompei i , all becamefash ionablesettlements for R omans , owing to theGreek flavour ofthepopulation ,

and thefac ility of obtain ing from A lexandriathearts and crafts wh ich gavecomfort and refinemen t to privatel ife. Recen t researches haveshownthatall theelegan t designs in R oman houses

,all those

conventional ornamen ts which werecop ied from theru ins ofR oman palaces by themasters of theRenaissance

,all thegraceful housedecoration wh ich wehave

found beneath theashes at Pompei i , arecop ied directlyfrom A lexandria. Wehaveeven specimens of purelyEgyptian ornament , crocod iles , h ippopotam i , and papyrus plan ts , util ized by theseR omans through theintermediat ion of theA lexandrians .But though thek ingdom of Egypt thus furn ished ahomeandanew cen trefor Greek ar t , Greek learn ing,Greek letters , it was no homefor Greek pol itics , or thespecial s ideof l iteraturedeveloped by pol itics . Therewas noeloquenceat A lexandria, doubtless becausethePtolem ies knew that to let theGreeks lash themselveswith their periodsand heat themselves w ith their metaphor s would bedangerous to thecourt and thepublicorder . T hec ity population was inflammableenough ;riots wereboth frequen tand bloody had therebeen aschool of orators to promotethem ,

theconsequencesm ight indeed havebeen disastrous . Hen cetherewerenot even Hellen ic rights gran ted to thepopulation .

They had no B ou leor dem os,no council orassembly of

Pergam um .

I ts h istory.

T hek ingdom

A S u r veyef Greek Civi li zation .

c itizen s , wh ich was thed ist in ctivefeatureofevery freeGreek city . Magistratesappointed by thecrown ,

w ithadm in istrativepowers ofasem i -m i litary k ind , kept thec ity in order . Therewasagarrison of household tr00ps ,so -called Macedon ian s , w ith special priv ileges , theprototypeo i thepraetorian guardsat R ome. Indeed ,

many ofthec ityarrangemen tsat A lexandriawerecop ied by theemperor A ugustus

,when hewas organ iz ing h is power .

But hemayalso havetaken someideas from anothervery in terest ing model

,wh ich is most characteristic of

theagenow under con s iderat ion — I mean thec ityandroyalty ofPergamum . Th is in teresting k ingdom

,wh ich

lasted from thebeginn ing of theth ird cen tury to thetimewhen it was bequeathed to

,andabsorbed by , theR oman

peopleduring thedays of theGracch i , has many character istic features

,wh ich werenot known by us t il l the

results of therecen t excavation s by theGerman s weremadeknown . T hefort had beenatreasurefort , held forLys imachus by thefounder of thedynasty , then retainedafter h is deathand that of Seleucus , and held again stA n tiochus

, the‘

new k ing of Syria( 28 1 B . whosed ifficulties wereso great that hewas compelled to perm ittherevolt . Weknow now that Philetaerus even len tmoney from h is treasureto theneighbouring Greekcities to purchasetheir freedom from A n tiochus .Thus arosethek ingdom of A ttal ids

,ruled by rela

OftheAttal ids t ion s of thefounder,seldom inheriting in thedirect l ine

,

but nevertheless show ing thestrongest fami lyaffection s ,and avoiding thosedomestic confl icts wh ich weretheru in ofboth thePtolemaicand Seleuc id dynasties . T hepolitical roleof theA ttal ids was to protect thel ibertiesof thesurrounding c it ies not on ly from Syria, but fromthenew kingdoms of B ithyn iaand Cappadocia,

'

wh ich

threatened toabsorb them . But , aboveall, thesek ings ,

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

I ts k ings.

Wealth oftheA ttal ids.

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

What thei n script i ons havetaught us concern ing thepol itical constitution of thestateis far moreinstructive.Pergamumappears to havehad theregular constitutionofaGreek c ity , andall theextan t decreesarepassed bythecoun c i l and dem os. T hek ings appear in fact ou ts idetheconstitution ,

except that they n om inateofficerscal led strategi , and thesearemen tioned as propos ingthedecrees passed by thepeople. Therearealsofrequen t decrees vot ing thanks , d ivinehonours , etc .

,to

thek ings as benefactors of thestate, as if thei r actualcon trol of it was studiously ignored . Neverthelessthesek ings hadall thestateand appo in tmen ts of otherHel len istic k ings they had hero ic honours and al tarserected to them during their l ives ; they weredeifiedafter their death in all thed iscuss ion s w ith theR oman sand other foreign powers thereis no men t ion of thedem os ofPergamum ,

but on ly of thek ing .

Thesecurious facts po in t to acomprom isebetweenthenew Hel len istic and theold Hellen ic ideas of c itygovernmen t , and ev idently amost successful comprom ise. Wedo not hear ofany struggles of theroyaltyw ith thecommon s . When thelast king had bequeathedh is rights and privileges to theR omans , wefind thepeopleready to adopt thecauseofan i llegitimatep retender , who carried o n fo r someyearsadangerous warw ith thepower of R ome. T heA ttal ids wereeviden tlyvery wealthy . Ei ther by monopol iz ing thestatedomain sof theold Persian ,

and then Seleucid k ings,wh ich were

scatteredall over A siaM inor,o r byaj udic ious system

of taxation ,theyamassed sufficien t treasure, in addition

to theoriginal n inethousand talen ts held by Ph iletaerus ,toadorn their own cap ital w ith splendid temples , colonnades

, al tars , palaces . Theyeven adorned Greek c it ies ,espec ial ly A then s , w ith works of ar t and of publ ic

TheHellen istic W'

or lo’

, 25 0— 15 0 B . C.

comfort . T hefirst A ttalus had offered splendid groupsof statues on theA cropol is . T hesecond Eumenes hadbu iltastoaor colonnadeof wh ich theremains arestillv isible. Thus they preserved their popularity in Greece

,

wh ilethey took careto help theR omans in theireasternwars , and received after thebattleof Magnes ia( 1 90 B :C . ) most ofA s iaM inorasareward .

I t is qu iteposs iblethat thepecul iar constitution con

structed by A ugustus fo r h is own emp ireat R omeowedsomeof its character istic features to Pergamum , as wel las to A lexandr ia. I f thepol iceand adm in istration of

thec ity show traces of thelatter, surely thecuriouscomprom iseofempireand republ ic , ofasovereign outs ideand yet con troll ing thestate, of them ixtureof

nom inees of thecrown and thoseelected by thepeople,of that curious fear ofassert ing royalty wh ilesecuringall its advan tages, may havebeen borrowed by theshrewdand pol it ic A ugustus from theremarkablemodel ,wh ich was so successful in thesecond century B . C.

CHAPTER X .

GR EE K CULT UR E UNDER T H E R OMANS .

WE haven ow brought Hel len ic civil ization down tothetimewhen the cloud in theWest ” began to overshadow it . Wehaveseen howafter thedisruption of

A lexander’s emp ire, h is successors and theold freec ities

,am id many rivalries , many wars , many new foun

dations,many destruction s or amalgamation s of old

ones,had nevertheless keptal iveHellen ic culture. I n

deed,theex isten ceofmany cen tres for ar tand l iteratu re

must havebeen far morefavourable,upon thewhole

,fo r

thecultureof theraceand its d issem ination amongneighbouring races than if thewholeemp irehad beenkept under oneruler

,andall its greatest products cen

tralized in onehugecap ital . Weknew in thecaseofGermany , during theearl ier part of then ineteen th century

,how many smal l courts

, each promoting thearts,

thelearn ing, therefinemen ts of l ife, d id far morefor thecoun try than acen tral i zed German emp irew il l evereffect . T herivalries of A lexandria, A n tioch

,Perga

mum ,

“

R hodes , A then s , and many other c ities gavescopefor manyartists , for many schools , and so maintained thevarieties so characterist ic to Greek culture,even after many c ities of old Greeceweredecayed ,

andn ot l ikely to holdaloft thetorch they had received fromtheiran cestors . Weshowed reason to bel ievethat thear t of theperiod stood very h igh ; what westi ll havefrom thetombs ofSidon and from thesculptures ofPergam um areof thefirst class . I f they d id n otequal the

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

Polyb ius.

A Su r vey of Greek Ci vi li zation .

that they scorned thear t of compos it ion . T heexcess ivestrictnessesand refinemen t of such workas that of I socrates

,or of Demosthenes , must haveseemed wasted

labour to men who had many weighty th ings to say, andthough t i t of l ittleimportan cehow they said them .

But in theother bran ches of l iterature(excluding of

coursepuresc ien ce) adecaden ceof stylecannot possibly beden ied . T hepeopleof th is ageessayed allk inds of composition they bel ieved themselvesas greatas their predecessors , if n ot greater ; yet in two smal ldepartmen ts on ly , that ofbucol ic poetryand in theep igram ,

havethey left us work worthy of their great traditions. T hesewho havefel t th is inferiority of styleintheth irdand second cen turies B . C . areveryapt to imaginethat it was paral leled in other arts , and that themen who wrotebadlyalso carvedand bu iltand pain tedbadly. Such was n ot thecase. I fwebut saw thedecoration s ofaHellen istic palace, o r thearch itectureofaHel len istic c ity , I feel surethat weshould reverseou r

judgmen ts .Wehavealready cons idered thepoetry ofA lexandria,and know how both th isand thegreat critical schoolappear to d ieou t in thet imeof theseven th Ptolemy .

When thegreat Scip io ZEm ilianus '

wen t to v is it Egyptin company w ith Panaetius, hemay st il l havefoundtheresomeem inen t scien tifi c men ,

but A ristarchus, the

king of criticsand thelast of h is race, was in ex ile, andperhapseven already dead .

But in Greeceitsel f wehaveonegreat figure, themanwho l ived to seethegrowth of theR oman Republ ic , theconquest of Macedon ia, theconques t ofGreece, and i tsfinal subjection to R ome. Hestood between thel ivingand thedead

,but theplaguewas not stayed .

Th is u n iquefigureis theh istorian Polyb ius,to whom

Greek Cu lt ureU nder theR omans.

weowe, even in h is shatteredand lacerated remain s, al

mostall ou r knowledgeof th is momen tous time. Therewas no man better su ited by h is c ircumstances to bethem irror of theage hehad taken part in wars

,in em bas

s ies , in debates hehad seen thecourts of A lexandria,

of Pergam um , probably of Macedon ia, and h is long inter nmen t in I taly was changed by good fortunei n to ares iden cein thegreatest noblehousein R ome

,where

helearned to knowand to apprec iatethereal strengthand pur ity of thebest R oman l ife.From h im then wecan learn theaspects ofHel len ism

,

as theyappeared to h im . Hewas born of thebetterclasses , and always took thearistocratic s ide; hence,though headvocatedall through h is l ifethel iberty oftheGreeks , heshows no real horror fo r tyran tsas such ,andavery great respect fo r k ings . Hewas qu iteaccus H isar istocratictomed to royal courtsas thehomeofgood manners

, andSym pathws’

often not ices w ith serious displeasurebreaches of etiquette. Court iers werethen what theyaren ow

,false,

sm il ing,obsequ ious people, and yet becausetheyexer

c isetheir v ices fo r thepleasureof royalty , theyareexcused , and even applauded by soc iety. But Polyb iuscould critic iseeven theman ners of k ings . Hetells us

that thetwo great d iplomatic qual ities in asovereign areurban ityand secrecy. Hemust becourteousand keeph is temper underall c ircumstan ces hemust never betray h is confidan ts underany. Heturnsasidespec iallyto commend avery w icked man

,K ing Ph il ip V . of

Macedon ,fo r hav ing carefully burn t all com prom is ing

papers in h is possession after h is defeat at Cynoscephalae. H is son Perseus , aboorish and m iserly person ,

who possessed no k ingly instin cts, neglected to do soafter thebattleof Pydna, and brought thereby greatm iseries upon theGreeks . For in that seeth ing com

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

p lex of states full of patriots , full of traitors,full of

diplomacy , full of prom ises unfulfi lled ,therewas corre

Sponden ceenough to ru in half theworld .

W i th in Peloponnesus , wherePolyb ius had h is home,hewasastrong party pol itician . Hewas ever advocat ing theclaimsand thed ign ities of theA chaean League,of wh ich hewas avery leading member ; heis everprai s i ng thepol itical and m il itary qual ities of theseA chaean sand A rcad ian s , who produced at that t imesomany remarkablemen

,and madeso in terestingan essay

in in ternational pol itics .'

On theother hand ,hewi l l not

sayagood word for theneighbouring leagueofAZtolia,wh ich was n o less importan t , and wh ich , ow ing to its

naval s ide, found members far away through theGreekworld . Hecal ls th is leagueamereset of p irates andth ieves , andaccoun ts for their “

im portan ce, and therespect w ith wh ich they weretreated by kings and statesin in ternat ional questions

,by thestatemen t that system

atic in justiceand v iolen ceceaseto exc itetheindignat ion wh ich s ingleacts of thek ind do , so that thev i llainon prin c ipleisalways moreregardedand less cen suredthan therespectableman who ‘comm its acrime.Such aj udgmen t on ly Shows how b itter apartisan

Polyb ius could beyet thefacts of‘

h is h istory makei tplain that thestandard of honesty

,both pol it ical and

soc ial , was very lowat th isepoch throughout theHellen ist ic world . Th is was thestrik ing fac t wh ich cameou t when theGreeks werecompared w ith theR oman sin their first d iplomatic relations . I faR oman givesyou h is word you may trust h im impl ic itly hew ill restoreyou afortuneif‘ you in trust it to h im ; whereassheaves of oathsand crowds ofw itnesses w il l n ot secureas ingletalen t fo r you in thehands ofaGreek . Thesecon trasts of national honestyarevery curious , all the

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A S u r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

upon theprec ious p ictures Of ren owned art ists ; othersadded that Mum m ius had sen t h is spoil— un iquep ictures

,statues , ornamen ts— to I taly

'

u nder con tract w iththeSk ippers that they Should replaceanyth ing wh ichwas l ost Th is honestand bluffR oman , whom Polyb iusconsiders n ot on ly j ust buteven humane, had no apprec iation of Greek finer ies. A nd yet hewasafar safermaster than thesnob who abandoned thes implicityOfh is fathers , woreGreek clothes ,and l isped bad Greek ,wrotebooks in Greek ( corrected by h is S laves ) , andvaun ted h is descen t from fEneas o r h is Trojan band .

Thesecreatures had their Greek parallels— men l ikeCharops thef-Etolian ,

who used h is fortuneto l iveat R ome, speak Latin ,

and teach theR omans to desp iseh is coun trymen . T heessays in approx imation betweenGreeceand R omewerethereforeat th is momen t mostunfortunate

,and madeby themost con temptibleclasses .

I n ar t, of course, therewas no question about Greeksuperiority

,but theR omans failed for along t imeto see

that theimportation of ready-madeforeign refinemen t isof littleuse

,when thetemperand tasteof therec ip ien ts

arenot sufficien tly prepared . Polyb ius tells Of oneOf theearlyattempts to in troducefluteplay ing

,dan cing

,

and choral s inging at thetriumph Of av ictorious general , L . A p icius

,who had brought w ith h im artists from

Greece(XXX .,

When thesefamous performers began theaud iencewereat first puz z led

,then bored ;

at lastal ictor ind icated to them that thepubl icexpectedsometh ing ofaphys ical con test . T heready Greekspresen tly took up theidea

,and theaffairended inafree

fight on thestage, to thecompletesatisfact ion Of thecrowd . What I haveto sayabout theperforman ceOftheGreek traged ies at thesamet ime

,

” says Polyb ius,

wil l seemahumorous in ven t ion but herethe‘

frag

Greek Cu ltureUnder theR omans.

ment breaks Off, and weareleft w ithout further details.

Such , then , werethegeneral cond it ions of Greecewhen theabsorbing process by R omebegan .

I t proceeded by stages . Corin th was destroyed and A chaeamadead istrict under aR oman governor in 1 46 B . C .

Then thek ingdom o f Pergamum was bequeathed byA ttalus I I I . to theR omans and occup ied by them asaprovincein I 3 0. Therecameapauseduring thein ternal d issens ions Of theGracch i

,then of thegreat Social

War,and theconquest Of Spain . But no sooner were

them il itary forces of therepubl ic freethan Pompeyconquered and settled theSeleuc id dom in ion last ofallcametheformal conquest of Egypt , spared long afterthefru it was ripeby theOld and closefriendship wh ichi ts dynas ty had kept up w ith R ome, then when all suchconsiderat ion s had no weight w ith R oman greed ,

whenthemutual jealousies o f theleaders feared to letany oneambitious man handlethevast wealth Of th is un iquek ingdom . Th is is thegeneral outl inebut for ou r pu r

poses it must becarefully remembered that thesen timen tal ity and thepol icy of theR omans not on lyperm itted butencouraged what they cal led freeand independen t c ities all through theHellen istic world . I twas in thesec ities

,impoverished ,

decayed , often treatedw ith brutal tyranny, that theGreek cultureOf formerdays main tained itself, and recovered in to n o insign ifi

can t after-bloom . Even for them therewasafrightfulpausein theearly days of R oman domination . Whenyoung patrician r uffians werelet looseas praetors orgovernors in to theseprovin ces , therewas no sort OfOppress ion perpetrated by any Old tyran t wh ich exceeded their crimes . WehavethecaseOfVerres whomCicero attacked ,

that Of Flaccus whom hedefended ,wh ich was perhaps nearlyas bad ; wehavethehorrid

T heconquestOf Egypt .

A S u r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

p icturedrawn ‘ by SenecaOf theR oman praetor walkingabout thepubl ic placeat Ephesusamo ng headsand lictors and bodies , and when heheard thesound Of therods

,and saw theexecut ion s go ing on

,perhaps for some

smal l offence,exclaimed w ith pride: “ Th is i s i ndeed

royal statei ”I n add ition to thesev illain s was another class not

less destructiveOfall leisureand tranqu i ll ity,st ill more

Ofany further developmen ts ofar t o r culture. I meanthespeculators who sought to squeezefrom theprovinces gold fo r their luxur ies o r theiramb itionsat R ome.T hetwo classes of m iscrean ts weren ot indeed d istin ctcruel ty , osten tation ,

and avaricewereOften blended inthesedescendan ts Of thehonestand noblemen who hadconquered I taly , and then had commen ced ,

again st theirw ill , to conquer theworld . For thebetter Of themknew wel l en ough

,wh ilethey weredrifting from one

foreign comp l icat ion to another , that w i ld amb ition swereabroad

,that theadvocates ofastrong outward

pol icy weren ot honestly try ing to securethefron t iers ofI taly , but hop ing for great careers fo r themselves .T heforceOfeven ts was

,however

,too strong . Polyb

ius h imself does no t seehow R oman dom inat ion couldhavebeen avoided ; and how rap idly honesty and allother good prin ciples d ied ou t ofapeoplethat had n o

cultureto depend on appears very clearlywhen wetakeaccoun t of thecaseOf Brutus , then oblest R oman of

themall, ” wh ich Cicero lets ou t in h is corresponden cefrom Ci licia. Hewan ted , th roughan agen t cal led S captins

, toextract forty-eigh t per cen t for aloan to thec ityof Salam is in Cyprus

,and becausethey did not pay,

Shut up thesenateOf thec ity in their council house, t i llo neOf themactual ly d ied of hunger Th is was thetender creaturewho could not bear h is compan ions , the

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A S u r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

th is creaturehad h is domestic ph ilosopher , thewel lPh ilodem us

known Ph ilodem us,whosemany tracts havebeen re

°fGadam '

covered from thelavaOf Herculaneum ,and apparen tly

from h is own (and Piso’s ) coun try

Thus it happened that when theemp irewas established ,and therealpax R omana

, w ith theblessed reliefof thesuffering prov in cials , becamean accompl ishedfact

,theHel len istic culturebecamemorethan ever the

cultureof theworld . T heR omans hadattained to thed ign ity ofaconquering race; they could n ow boastof two o r threegeneration s of passableeducation theywho at thebeginn ing Of theepoch had been dy ingto poseas Greeks , n ow began to fan cy themselves themorerefined , and to speak even Of theGreeks amongthe“ foreign nation s . ” Butall their posingandall theirassertion of their own h igh qual it iesagain st theireast

Rom an debt to er n neighbours could not bl ind any man to thefact thatGreek culture they owed all themorerefined S ideof their l ifeto

Greece. What R oman s wouldever haveproduced du ring thetroubles and terrors of thefirst cen tury B . C .

such booksas thoseOf Diodor us o r of S trabo ? WhatR oman could attempt even to

'

copy w ith suecess any[Greek masterp iecein marbleor in colour ? What R o

man could th ink ou t any new ph i losoph ic system, and

n ot rather followafar Off theinstruction s Of Zen o,Epi

cu r us,A rcesilaus

,Carneades

,so far as hecould under

stand them ? T hecook ing in great houses was donebyGreeks , thewaitingalso theappo in tmen ts Of thetablewerecop ied from thesplendours ofA n t ioch

,A lexandria

,

o r Pergamum ; Old wareand s i lver werenamed andpri zedaccording to theGreek workshop wh ich had p r oduced it even pol iteconversation was better carried on

Concern ing th is manand Piso of. m y Greek World under Roman Sway,”pages 1 27 sq.

Greek Cu ltu reUnder theR omans.

in Greek . I f thev ices Of R omealso becameGreek, it

does no t imply that they increased in quan tity or intens ity ; thev ices Of boors areas great

,and far more

d isgu st ing , than thoseOfgen tlemen refinemen t is generally on thes ideofv irtue, and theloveof thebeaut ifulin no way Opposed to theloveof thegood .

Thus wehavebrought thesubject down to thedaysof thenascen temp ire, and may pauseto consider howfar A ugustusand h is successors wereinfluenced by Hellen istic c ivil izat ion ,

and how far they sought to makeittheir model in theadm in istration of their vast estate.T heconst itut ion establ ished ,

o r adopted from thev iewsOfJul ius Caesar , who wasaman Of ideasas wellas Ofact ion

, had ev iden tly many importan t features borrowedfrom Hellen ist ic models. Caesar had already orderedthemensurat ion Of theemp ireby theski lled surveyorswho d id that work onasmal l scalein theever-changingfarms Of theN ileValley . Hehad l ikew isereformed thecalendaraccord ing to thechanges com manded (but notcarried ou t ) in thedecreeOfA ugustus wen t in thesamed irection . Pretending,l ikethek ings of Pergamum ,

to betheacc iden tal presiden t O r head Ofarepubl ic , heal lowedall theold formsto bekept up , wh ilehein terfered ,

not on ly by hav ingh is nom inees elected by thepeople, but by making h isadm in istratorsall powerful in someprovinces , by claimingalargeroyalestatefrom thedomain of therepubl ic ,by keep ing con trol Of thearmy , and establish ing ahousehold corps in thecity , by making theprivycoun c il of h is friends or advisers moreimportan t thanany Of thedec is ions of thesenate. Still moresign ifi

T hewor sh ip ofcan t was theestabl i shmen t Of theworsh ip of A ugustus theem perors.

Cf. m y Em pireof thePtolem ies, page23 5 , fo r thetext of thedecreeon

th is im portant po in t .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A S u r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

spend great sums on therestoration of decayed o r

ruined c ities in Greeceand A s iaM in or , and to set upcolonnadesand temples , to rem it taxes in years ofearthquakeor fam ine. T hehealth and Vital ity of theraceweregone. They could sti l l teach their old masters ;they could stil l copy their Old statues ; they could sti llexpound therevived systems Of Greek ph ilosophy buttheageOf new creation , of developmen t , Of great ideas ,was goneT Oallappearancetheseth ings weregoneforever yetafteracen tury’s rest wefind th is wonderful m iney ielding new vein s Of o re; wefind it theveh iclefor theChristian rel igion ; wefind in Greek what could neverhavebeen written in any other language, thegospels ofJesus Christ , theep istles OfS t . Paul , theoration s ofD ioChrysostom

,the“

Lives ” Of Plutarch . O f theseweshal l Speak presen tly. For thepresen t wemust delayto notethat s til l in thedecayed town s of Greecetherewereshadowy assembl ies , powerless resolutions Of

coun cils and ci tizen s,elections to h igh Offices— all the

outward Showand paraphernal iaOf thean tiquefreec ity .

What was much morein teresting to R omans andforeigners of taste

,thereweren umerous festivals for

athleticsand for l iterary contests,some, l iketheO lym

p ian and Pyth ian games,reach ing back in to hoar

an t iqu ity,others founded in Hellen istic days , wherethe

Old customs and Old amen i t ies Of l ifewereshown tov isitors , especial ly vis itors of thedom inan t race. Therewerestil l theEleus in ian Mysteries , sacred rites in Samothraceand elsewhere

,wherethep iousand thear chaeo

logical could find ampleedificationand instruction ,and

therestil l remain coun tless in scriptions set up in honourOf rich cit i zens

, o r benevolen t strangers , for havingSpen t moneyand careupon theendowmen tand sustain

G reek Cu ltu reUnder theR omans.

men t of theseceremon ies. I t becamethefash ion Of

nobleR oman s to giveendowmen ts Of various kinds totheGreeks ; an A pp ius Claud ius bu ilt anewen tran ceto thegreat templeof Demeterat Eleus is

, of which thefoundat ionsarenow v is ibleCicero con templated someth ing s im ilar ; and theremain ing Hellen istic kings intheEastemulated in thefirst ’

years of theemp irethel iberal ities whereby theHel len istic monarchsand tyran tshad kept thefurious hatreds Of thedemocrac ies inabeyance, andeven produced pompous decrees Ofgoodw il l toward themselves from themen Who would cry,

thesameday,

“ Death to thetyran t . ” But theGreeksnever showed much disl ikeon prin cipletoatyran t whod id not press upon themselves , especially if hewasl iberal w ith gifts. Who had been thegreat benefactorsto A thens , O lymp ia, Delph i , among theHellen istick ings ? F irst Ofall, thePtolem ies , bad and good , whowerealmost always on good terms w ith theGreekdemocrac ies , then individually Eumenes I I . , who hadbought theisland ofZEginafrom thevictorious R omansfor ready money, and whoseOffers ofmoney to condoneth is act wereso ind iscreet as to producetherarest Ofphenomena, arefusal on thepart Of theA chaeanLeague,* then A n tiochus Epiphanes, who filled Greecew ith h is donation s , then Herod theGreat . Now boththelatter wereactivepropagators Of Hellen ism in theirown domin ions , and both had striven to forceitscustoms upon therecalcitran t Jews ; insidetheir own

dom in ions , therefore, they weregodless and ruthlesstyran ts ; in Greeceor A siaM inor they werem ild andgenerous benefactors , blessed in honorary decrees bymany grateful commun ities .Th is long habit Of receiving donations and beggingCf . Polyb ius XX I I 10-1 2.

A Su r vey of Greek Ci vi li zation .

for them ,th is long obsequ iousness to thegreat people

ofother lands , th is pl ian t subm ission to thetask Ofmakingtyran ts popularand masters seem cultivated , would

surely havedegradedany other peoplethan theGreeks .But theiranc ien t heritagecould not all. betaken fromthem .

Therewerest il l in many temples Of thelandstatues of gods and goddesses , portrai ts of hero ic men ,

wh ich fascinated theworld , and madeGreecethefavouriteground for all in tell igen t pleasure-seekers .LiketheI taly Of our day, w ith i ts wonderful med iaevalriches

,SO Greecein R oman days was the

i

tourist’sElys ium . Westil l havefrom theland OfPausan ius, anen thus iastic ar chmologist in thesecond cen tury , adescript ion Of theOld s ites , shrines , and h istoric monumen ts all over thecoun try

,and thenat least wefind

that publ ic tastehad gonebeyond theGolden Ageback to thearchaic , and adm ired th ings not becausethey werebeautiful

,but becausethey wereOld . Even

therudest th ings that remained then found men to studythem

,and profess that they loved them ,

as is Often thecasein ou r own cen tury .

But I must hurry on to thegreat books wh ich markthecloseOf my subject . A fter thespread ofChristian itythepower OfHel len ism indeed remains

,but thein terests

of theworldarechanging . Up to theflourish ing andthoroughly Hellen istic reign Of Hadrian th is is not so,

and wehaveasplend id afterglow,or shal l I cal l it a

Martinmas summer,in l iterature

,wh ich Shows very

,

clearly that much Of theOld gen tlenessand urban ityandreal refinemen t l ived throughout thec ities

,and even in

theglensand moun tains Of th is fascinating coun try .

But let us sayaword in pass ing upon theGreek Of

Palestinein them idd leof thefirst cen tury,that Greek

wh ich comes beforeus in theNew Testamen t . Noth ing

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A Su r vey of Greek Civi lizati on .

theep istles Of St . Paul , addressed n ot to theeli teOf soc iety,

not to thelearned ,or themembers of theschools

,

but to lower classes , to slaves , at best to theaverageSOc iety Of thec ity headdressed , could n ot on ly havebeenin telligible

,but practicaland effectiveteach ing . A fter

cen turies of commen tary and explanation ,after afa

m iliar ity of many years , welearn to follow their subtleand tangledargumen ts . But what Should wesay ifanyof them appeared now sudden ly as Open letters addressed toany ordinary city in A merica? T heapostleh imsel f wasatrained man

,versed in thecon troversies

Of theschoolsat Tarsus , and from such in that day wem ight fairly expect con s iderablemen tal train ing , butwhat shall wesay Of h is hearers Perhaps in thewholeofthepreceding volumeI haveproduced n o argumen tso convincing toan A mericanaudien ceOf theabnormallyh igh pos ition I claim for theaverageGreek c iv il ization .

T heargumen ts Of theearly Christian teachers areaddressed , I con tend , to hearers far moreeducated in theproper sensethan weare. Their faculties ofapprehens ion Ofanargumen t

,sustained atten t ion to its details ,

readiness to grasp its in tricacies , werefar h igher thanours . Nor can wesay that i t washaffair of race. T hepopulat ion s addressed by “

Paul werem ixed in blood,

confused in national ity,Often orien tal , Often occ iden tal ,

agreeing on ly in theoneprimary condition : they hadall learned Greek , and through it they had been compelled toadopt Hellen ist ic culture.Further than th is I darenot go in to thequestion swh ich encompass therelation Of th is great engineof

civil ization to thenew forcewh ich Jesus Christ had justbrought in to theworld . This is n o book Of theology, stil lless ofcontroversy

,and themeresuggestion s I havemade

w il l beenough for theframewh ich I now des ireto fill .

Greek Cu ltu reU nder theR omans.

I w il l not delay thereader w ith thel ightereffusions oftheday, that host Ofep igrams wh ich remained fashionablefor somecen turies and wh ich arecollected in theb igbook called the A n thology .

” For theseexercises Ep igram s in theOfw itareseldom serious they areon ly mean t to show

A nthomgy'

theart ist’ s cunn ing ; what real l ifethey regard is ofadescript ion not su itablefo r general d iscussion .

Buttherewereserious men in theclos ing first cen turywhosework iseven n ow well worth studying : D ionysius D ionysius of

OfHal icarnassus , thearchaeologistand critic theauthor Halicarnassus ‘

of thetract “On theSubl ime” D io of Pr usa( called

Chrysostom ) and , aboveall, Plutarch . Thesemenhonoured learn ing , advocated good taste, and promotedgood moralsandeducated l ife. Yet their worksaresol ittleread n owadays that I feel constrained to c itepassages from them in support Of what I say. Let us

D io“Pr usa.cons ider what D io recommended by way Of thebestread ing in at imewhen theworld had been flooded w ithall manner Of tawdryand meretric ious l iterature.Let Homer of coursebeyour dai ly sp iritual bread , the

beginn ing,m idd le

,and end Of every cu ltu re

,for youngand

Old,who gives to each as m uch as hecan receive. Lyric

and elegiac poetry isall very wel l , if you havegreat leisure,o therwiseyou may pass i t by. Thus in tragedy you mayprefer Eu rip ides, and in comedy Menander to theO lder andper haps greater masters, becausethey con tain m orep ract icalw isdom . H isto ry is essen tial , but Herodotus fo r charm andThucydides fo r excel lencearefar superior to Ephorus, T heopom pus, and therest.

I n oratory Demosthenes is Of coursesupremein forceand Lysias in thed isgu iseofforce, but Dio recommendsHypereidesand fEsch ines, as it iseas ier to understandtheirar t . Nor w ill heObject to themodern rhetoriciansof theprevious generat ion being stud ied , especiallyasmen approach them w ithafreecritical sp irit , and not in

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

that slavish adm iration wh ich they feel toward thean c ien ts . A mong S ocrat ic th inkers noneis serviceableto theman Ofaction except Xen ophon , who indeed isin h istoryalso themost perfectandexcel len t Ofmasters .Such is thetrain ing in letters recommended by themost em inen t orator of h is cen tury . I t is on ly vagueand general , n ot go ing in toany detailed criticism andth is general ity isalso thecharacter Of thetract On theSubl ime, ” formerly attributed to Longinus , but nowplaced by general agreemen t at thecloseof theA ugustan Age, and in that momen t of reaction fromA lexandriani sm and A sian ism to thepureA ttic ism Of

theGolden Age. Th is essay seeks to stimulateatastefor thereal masterp ieces in letters rather than to giveany analys is Of their excel len ce; it is thewriting ofaclever di lettan terather than Ofaprofessor

,and though

very valuablein direct ing thepubl ic taste,can hardly

besaid to havecon tained new knowledge. A nd yetamongall thebooks of th isagenonehas received moreatten tion than th is remarkabletract . I t is certain ly themost modern and en l ightened Ofall that theGreekshaveleft us on thetheory Ofar t . Unfortunately thetext is m iserably lacerated

, and Often breaks Off in them iddleOfan importan t d iscuss ion .

T hegeneral attitudetheauthor assumes is thatiigziiigg

s“thethough gen ius is distin ctly heaven -born

,i ts Sp lendid re

sults areattained by us ing theresources of ar t . Herightly holds fast to thegreat Greek pr in ciplethat n othing perfect can beproduced w ithout study

,that spon

taneity may suggest but w ill never work ou t what isreal ly beaut iful or majest ic . But at thesamet imeheagrees perfectly w ith modern criticism in recogn iz ingthat irregularit ies may beon lyaflaw in gen ius Of theh ighest order , perhaps even acharacteristic of such

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A Su r vey of Greek Ci vi li zation .

H isextan t stud ies upon Demosthenes and Upon Thucyd ides makeus regret deep ly theloss Of most Of h is .

parallel studies on theother orators . D io,in someof

h is orations , speaks as if thedecaden ceOf Greecewashopelessand complete. But wecannot bu t suspect thatsomeal lowan cemust bemadefo r th is c iti zen Of asecond-rateand newly c ivil ized town in remoteA s iaM inor

,who cannot but havedesired to uphold A siatic

Hel len ism and other prosperous A s iat ic Greeks , at theexpenseof thepoor and decayed c ities of older andgreater famein Greeceitself.For thereis cons iderablereason to th ink that the

$1

822gey ivai days of D io wereby no mean s theworst wh ich Greecehad seen ,

but that acons iderablerevival had takenplaces in ceits completeexhaust ion after thegreat civi lwars w ith thei r terriblerequ isitions upon l ifeand property. I t is true, and very remarkable, that A s iaM inorrev ived and recovered her commercial prosperity w ithpromptitudeand lasting success , whereas that Of Greececan hardlyever becalled flourish ingagain t il l thetradein s ilk and in curran ts madesomest ir in Justin ian ’ stime. S til l therewerealways certain articles ofexportwh ich

,in other daysand w ith other hab its , would have

employed much industry . H o r ses ‘ fr om then ow extended pastures of thedepopulated coun try , O il fromother prov in cesas wel las A ttica

,honey from theslopes

Of Moun t Hymettus,werealways pri zed . Far more

profitableto labour was theproduction — no longerasafinear t

,but as atrade— Of statues at A thens and

elsewherefor theadornmen t Of A s iatic and I tal iantemples ; SO werethefamous marblequarries of theCyclades

,wh ich seem ,

however , l ikethegoldand si lverm ines

,to havebeen Oftenamonopoly of theR omanfi s

cus,and thus less product ivethan m ight beexpected .

Greek Cu ltu reUnder theR omans.

Dio was an itineran t orator,who desired to be

thoughtamoral preacher , n ot teachingany special ph ilosophy but using h is great eloquenceto enforcetheordinaryand received catalogueOf soc ialand moral vir D ioap reachertues , espec ially thesoc ial wh ich wereak in to pol itics

,

“m orals.

and wh ichaffected thegeneral well-being Ofeach city .

For th is purposehenot on ly uses argumen t,but par

ables,i i I may so cal l thep icturesquedescriptions of

remoteor prim it ivel ifeam ong poor and unknownGreeks , wh icharemean t in their s impl ic ityand purityto afford acon trast to thel ifein A lexandriaor inA n tioch . I shal l quotefrom thetwo most remarkable.T hefirst is thep icturehegives of l ifeat Borysthenes, a

Greek settlement at them outh Of theDn ieper on thenorthcoast of theEuxine, whoseinhab itan ts had long been severedfrom their m o ther coun try

,and surrounded with Scyth ian bar

bar ians far m oreintractableto civi l ization than Parth ians or

even Celts . T heintroduction to th is speech ,wh ich is real lyan

essay on m onarchy, as suggested by m onotheism,o r m onarchy

am ong thegods, is l ikethescenery Of theo ration “On

Poverty ,wh ich weshal l p resen tly d iscuss ; and thereforeI

canno t bu t suspect thefo rmer, as I suspect thelatter, of beingmered ramatic inven tion . Thus in d iscussingw ith theBorysthen ites thePlaton ic v iew that theru leOf oneman is best, henever onceal ludes to thefact that the Bosporan k ingdom ,

”

wh ich included theC r imeaand theG reek marts oneither sideOf i t

,had nowbeen fo ralong t imeunder thecontro l Of ki ngs

thelast k ings to lerated with in theRoman sway, anom inalkingdom t i ll thereign of Constan tine. I n D io

’

s t imePl inymentionsamessenger from KingSaur omates com ing to Nicaea.I f it behowever truethat thetown of O lb ia( theother namefo r Bo rysthenes) was left independent, i t wou ld st i l l bem oreOdd that heshou ld d iscuss with a freepeop le” thep rop rietyofm onarchy without thesmal lestal lusion to thepractical bearing Of thequestion . St i l l , as herepeats in h is “

Olym p icathat hehad v isited th is outlying region from curiosity, I th inkwemay, in th is case, accept theSoph ist

’

s p ictureas h istorical .Hebegins withavery graph ic description of thec i ty lying

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

on atongueof land wherethegreat rivers BorysthenesandTanais meet,and thencecon tinuetheir cou rseto theseaovervast shal lows studded with lofty reeds, wh ich appear l ikeaforest of masts to approach ing mariners. Herewas thegreatfacto ry for p reparingsalt wh ich supp l ied all thebarbarians oftheinterio r . T hecity i tselfhefound greatly sh runkenaway bysuccessivestorm ings Of thesurrounding barbarians, with whomit had been for cen turiesat war — thelast great reversebeingthecauest by theGetaeof thewho lecoast as far as A po lIon iaabout 1 20 B . C . From th is theGreek cities had neverrecovered , somebeing who lly deser ted , others rebu i lt on asmal l scale, and obl iged to adm it barbarians as occup iers.

Borysthenes, however, was'

settledagain ,to serveasamart for

theScyth ians with theG reeks, wh o wou ld o therwisehaveabandoned altogetheranyattem pt to deal with thebarbarians.

Yeteven in its restored statethehouses weremean and theareaof thec ity con tracted . I t wasattached

,SO to speak , to

part Of theOld circu it wal l,withafew towers remain ing of the

Old sizeand strength . T henew wal l,wh ich jo ins thear c Of

theOld circuit,is low and weak

,and theareawith in on ly

partial ly occup ied by houses. Thereareso l itary towers sti llstanding out in thecountry far apart from thep resen t town .

A nother S ign Of i ts Old disaster is that notasinglestatuein thesh rines is intact, bu tallarem uti lated , asarealso thoseon theother m onumen ts of thec i ty.

Such was thetown wh ich D io was Obser vingwith interest onasum mer forenoon from thesubu rbalong theriver. Someofthetownsmen jo ined h im

,and therecomes up on h o rsebacka

fineyoung man,wh o d ism ounts and '

gi ves h is h orseto anattendan t .

Under h is short ligh t black Greek c loak (black in im itationOf theScyth ians) hehadahugeswo rdand trousers,and in factScyth ian d ress. Th is Cal l istratus was reputedequal ly fo rm idablein battleand zealous in ph i losophy. Indeed thewho lepopulation is so devoted to Homerand to thewo rsh ip of h is

A ch i l les (whosetem p leis on aneighbouring island ) thatthough they talk very badand barbarized Greek , m ost of themhaveHomer Off by heart ; afew go so faras to study Plato .

”

D io then quotes to them asaw Of Phocyl ides, whosenamethey do not know

,and makes somed isparaging remark on

Homerand h is many detai ls of A ch i l les’s jum p ingand Sh out

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

D ioand theh untsman .

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

inavery l ittleboat, no t in thesum mer season . A great sto rmrose

,and with d ifli culty weescaped in to the ho llows Of

Euboea.

’ Therethey smashed theboat , runn ing her ash oreonarough sh inglebeach under thecl iffs,and they wen t Off tosomepu rple-shel l fishersatanchor insidethenearest c law of

land,intend ing to work with them and remain there. SO I was

left beh indalone, with no p laceofrefuge,and I was wanderingat random along theshore, on thechanceOfmeetingsomesh ipatanchor or sai l ing by. A fteralongwalk , du ringwh ich I d idno t meetasoul , I cameUponabuck wh ich had just fal len fromthec l iffdown to theveryedgeOf thewater, sti l l gasp ingas itwas being touched by thewaves. A nd presen tly I though t Iheard thebayingof dogs far aboveme, indistinctly by reasonoftheroar of thesea. Proceed ing therefo re

,and c l im b ing up

w ith great d ifficulty to theheigh taboveme, I found thedogsbeatingabout, wh ich I concluded had fo rced thegameto Sp ringover thec l iff

,and p resen tly I cameupon aman ,

whoselookand d ress im pl iedahunter, ofhealthy com p lexion ,

wearingh ishai r longbeh ind in no unman ly fash ion

,bu t l iketheEuboeans

whom Homer describes com ing to Troy. A nd hehai led meS tranger, haveyou seenabuck com ing th is way ? to wh ichI answered :

‘Thereheis in thewash Of thesea’

; and I

brough t h im down to h is game. SO hed rew thebuck backfrom thewater

,and skinned h im with h is kn ife

,I help ingas

wel las I could , and then hetook thehaunches with theskin,

and p roceeded to carry them away. Heinvited metoo to followandeatashareof theven ison

,as h is dwel l ingwas not far

Off. When you haverested then igh t with us you can comeback to thesea

,sinceat p resent sailing'is im possiblenor need

youapprehend that therewi ll beachangewh i leyou areresti ng,

for I should beglad to th ink thestorm would subsidewith in thenext fivedays, but i t is not l ikely, so longas youseethem ountain tops capped with c louds as they now are. ’Hewent on toask whenceI came

,and how I got there,and

whether m y boat was not wrecked .

‘I t was avery smal l

one,

’I answered

,

‘ belonging to fishermen,who werecross

ing,and I

, being p ressed for time,was their on ly passenger,

but wewerewrecked upon theshore. ’ ‘

Very natural lylook h ow wi ld thecoast is. Th is isWhat they cal l the hol

lows ofEuboea, andash ip d riven in herehard lyever gets outagain . Even thecrews aregeneral ly lost, un less theyarein

Greek Cu ltu reU nder theR omans.

very l igh t boats, l ikeyours. But comewith meand don ’t fear.

F i rst get over yo ur fatigues, and to -m orrow weShal l consu ltwhat to do to send you on safe

,as wehavenow madeacquaint

ancewi th you . Fo r you seem to mesomec ity person ,not a

sai lo r o r amechan ic , and to haveworn down you r body bysomeo ther k ind of hardsh ip than theirs.

’

I of coursewen tw ith h im glad ly,

fo r I never wasafraid Ofbeing robbed , havingno th ingw ith mebu tashabby c loak— SO hal lowed and sacrosanctath ing haveI found poverty, wh ich men vio latem orerarelyeven than they wou ldaherald w ith h is insign ia.

On theway heto ld mehow hel ived with h is w ifeand ch i ld ren .

‘ Therearetwo Of us l iving in thesamep lace; weA huntef ’Sehavemarried sisters

,and both havesonsand daugh ters. We

l ivem ostly by thechase, w ith thehelp Ofal i ttlefarm ing. For

theland is no t ours, but our fathers werepoo r and freel ikeou rselves,earn ing their bread by herd ing cattlefo r oneOf ther ich men Of th is island who possessed many d roves of horsesand oxen

,many flocks Of sheep , many broad acres, and m uch

o ther weal th ; in fact all them oun tains you seearound you .

But when hed ied ,and h is p roperty was confiscated- they say

hewas put to death by theem pero r [Nero for thesakeof h isweal th — h is herds wereat onced riven away, and with themsomeOf ou r few poor beasts, and nobody th ough t Of payingou r wages. SO wehad to remain wherewewerewi th whatcattlewehad left

,settingup someten ts,andacourtyard fenced

with pal ing,no t largebu t secure, onaccoun t of thecalves, fo r

o u r sum mer use. Fo r in w in ter wegrazed thep lains, wherewehad p len ty Of grass and madehay. I n thesum mer wegoO ff to them oun tains.

’

T heo rato r p roceeds to descr ibein detai l thebeaut ifu l situat ion Of theseh un ters’

home,onaslopec loseto runn ingwater,

w i th fru itfu l patches Of land wel l manu red from their stable,and fair trees giv ingam p leshade. A ndas they had sparetimethey turned from herd ing to hunt ingwith their dogs fo r whenthecattlewereall d riven away, two Of thedogs who wen tw ith them

,m issing theherdsmen ,

turned backafter somet imeto theiraccustomed home.Thesedogs fo l lowed theherdsmen ,

and on ly gradual lylear ned to pu rsuegame, being o riginal ly merewatch -dogs tokeep O ff wo lves. But when win ter cameon our parents hadno out-Of-doo r wo rk , and they never wen t down to theC i ty or

T heh un ter’sv isit to thec ity.

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

any vi l lageso they madethei r hutsand courtyards water-t igh tand com fortable,and took in to cu ltivation thelandabou t them

,

and found hunting far easier in thewinter . For tracks arec learer in thewet so i l

,and snow sh ows thegamefar Off

,and

leaves tracksas c learasah igh road .

’

SO they settled there,and wereconten t . T hetwo o riginal

settlers werenow dead,having l ived out ahaleand v igo rous

Oldage. OneOf thei r widows sti l l remained . I t was her sonwhom D io had met .

‘T heother man [his cousin ] has never been to thecity,

though now fifty years O ld,but I twiceon ly— oncew i th m y

father when wekept thegreat man ’s herds

,and again whena

man cameasking us fo r m oney, as if wehad any, and com

mandingus to fo l low h im to thecity. Weswo rewehad none,

fo r wewould havegiven it to h im at oncei f wehad . SO ween tertained h im as best wecould ,and gaveh im two buckskins

,

and then I wen t with h im to thec i ty [probably Carystos,though D io takes careto leavei t SO vaguethat Chalcis wou ldsu itas wel l] . Fo r hesaid oneof us m ust goand tellallabou ti t. SO I sawagain many great h ousesandastrongwal l roundthem with squaretowers in i t, and many sh ips lying in theharbour,as ifinan in land lake. Wehavenoth ing l ikeit here,whereyou landed ; that is why thesh ips get lost . Theseth ings I sawand agreat crowd gathered together with m uchconfusion and shouting,

so that I though t therewasageneralfigh t go ing on .

‘T heman then brough t meto themagistrates, and said

laugh ing :“T h is is theman you sen t mefo r

,bu t heowns

noth ingexcept h is back hai rand ahu t Of very strong sticksThen themagistrates wen t to thetheatre

,and I along with

them .

’

T heh unter heredescribes thetheatre,adding

Perhaps youarelaugh ingat mefo r tel l ing you what youknow quitewel l . For somet imethem ob was engaged ato ther th ings,at times sh outingin good hum ou randapp laud ing,

at times thevery reverse. T h is,thei r anger, was dangerous,

and they terrified themen at whom they shou ted,so that some

wen t round supp l icating, and someth rew Off thei r cloaks ind read , for thesound was l ikeasudden wave

,o r thunder .

Indeed I m yself wasalm ost knocked down by theShout . A nd

various peoplegot up toaddress theassem bly from them idst

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

features,both Of h is inner sp iri t and h is outward sur

round ings,does herem ind us Of Polyb ius

,whoseprin

c iples and pol icy , though adopted at thevery outsetof th is decaden ce, wereso closely analogous . Uponth is resemblan ceI des irepart icularly to in s ist, for Iknow no moreremarkableev iden ceof thepers isten ceofthesamek ind Of l ifeand th ink ing in Greecefor at leasttwo hundred years . Hereis theportrait in questionFirst Ofall let h im beeasy Ofaccess

,and thecom m on p rop

er ty ofall keep ing Open h ouse, as it wereaharbour of refugeto all that need i t : showing h is p rotectionand h is generosi tynot merely in cases ofwan tand byactivehelp , bu talso in sym

pathy w i th theaffl icted ,and rejo icingwi th thosethat rejo ice;

neverannoying o thers by bringingwith h im acrowd Ofattendan ts to thepubl ic baths, o r by securing good p lacesat thetheatre; never n oto rious for h is Offensiveluxu ry and lav ish ness,bu t l iv ing l iketherest ofh is neighbou rs in d ressand d iet , in thebringingup Of h is ch i ldren

,and theappo in tmen ts of h is wife

,

as in tend ing to beamanandac itizen onapar wi th thepubl icabout h im . Heshou ldalso beever ready to givefriend lyadev iceand gratuitousadvocacy, and Offer sym patheticarb itrationin d ifferences Ofmanand w ife, Offriendand friend ,

spend ingnosmal l part Of theday on thebemao r in themarket-p lace,and inall h is o ther l ifed raw ing to h im

,as thesou th wind does the

c louds, wan tsand trusts from all sides,serving thestatew ith

h is privatethough ts, and not regard ingp o l itics, as many do ,a

troublesomebusiness o r tax upon h is t ime, but ratheral ife’swo rk . By theseand all o ther such means heattracts andattaches to h im thepubl ic , wh ich contrasts thebastard andspu rious fawn ingand brib ing in o thers with th is man ’

s genuinepubl ic sp i ritand character .Therehad been days when suchaman would havehoped for absolutesway in h is c ity , nor do Plutarch ’st iradesagain st tyran ts

,cop ied from thecommonplaces

of theOld dispossessed aristocrats , outweigh h is d ist in ctp referencefor theruleOf oneman ,

whoseduty it on cehad been

,ifhewereconv in ced ofh is own fitness

, toas

sumethed iadem . But nowall thatapopular pol iticiancould gain was therespons ibil ity and bu rden ofexpens ivehonorary dut ies . I n thetract “ Upon Ex ile

,

”

avery rhetorical performance,wh ich rather makes a

casethan expressesaconv iction,themain profit ofexile

is represen tedas theescapefrom theseduties . Youhaven o longerafatherland dragging at you

,bothering

you,ordering youabout crying Pay taxes , go onan

embassy to R ome, en tertain thegovernor,undertake

publ ic festivals . ’ O f theserequ iremen ts I fan cy thejourneys to R omemust havebeen themost exacting.

For though very young men m ight greatlyen joyatripto thecap ital , even w ith therisks of dying abroad , theenvoys sen t w ith formal compl iments, in thehopeofObtain ing real benefits , weremorel ikely to beelderlymen ;they werenot certain to find theemperorat home, andmust follow h im even to thePi llars of Hercules , or atleas t through I taly , wheretheinn -keepers werenotorious extort ioners ; and moreover thewaiting in an terooms

, theinsolenceof R oman senators and imperialOffic ials, must havebeen gal l ingeven toan obsequ iousGreek . Wecan well imaginehow thepubl icat home,who wereready to accord them statues and honoraryinscr ipt ions if they succeeded , would treat them if theyreturned w ithout gain ing their Object — by far themostl ikely result .Plu tarch shows usagreater conservativepersistence

in thesecond main department of publ ic l ife, religionr itual and fest ivals wh ich werethepubl ic relaxation ,

ascon trasted w ith pol itics, wh ich f

werestil l thepretendedbusiness ofevery Greek pol ity . On th is S ideOf l ifetheinformat ion our author gives us is n ot lessexpl ic it , andfull Of thesameinconsisten cies . I t w ill beunderstoodthat fo r thepresen t I shal l om it all accoun t Of ph iloso

H isatt itudetopubl ic worsh ip .

A Sur vey of Greek Ci vi li zation .

phyasaschool of morals , avery n otablepart Of Greekrel igion in onesense, but wholly dissoc iated from thetraditional ritesand ceremon ies , and thetrad itional theologies of thepeople. I t is thegeneraleffectas regardspubl ic worsh ip in thetemplesandat oracles , andat theestabl ished festivals , wh ich I seek n ow to derivefromPlutarch . Nor is thetask veryeasy from aman Of comprom ises

,who desires to adopt reforms and yet retain

theOld courses , who would beaph ilosopherand yet adefender of tradition . I th ink h is realattitudeis best tobegathered from thefollow ing very noblepassage

For theDeity is notath ingwithou t soul o r sp irit under thehand of man [hehas just been censuring theuseOf thewordDemeter fo r wheat, and Of D ionysus for w ine] , but Of suchmaterial gifts haveweconsidered thegods to bethegi vers whogran t them to us continuously and adequately— thegods whodiffer not onefrom theo ther

,as barbarianand G reek

,as Of the

sou th o r of thenorth ; but if thesun and them oon , andheaven ,

earth,and sea

,arethesameto all

,though they be

cal led by d ifferent names, so fo r theOneReason that setsalltheseth ings in o rder

,and theOneProvidencethat con trols

them,and for thesubo rd inateforces that direct each several

department , var ious honou rsand titles havebeenestabl ished bylaw am ong d ivers nations

,and men usehallowed sym bols,

hereObscure,thereclearer

,wh ich lead ou r though ts to God ,

not withou t risk of fai lure; fo r somehavesl ipped altogetherfrom thepath ,

and fal len into superstition ,wh ileo thersavo id

ing theslough Of superstition havegoneover thep recip iceOfatheism .

Hetries to Show in myriad instances that therituals ofEgypt ian s and Greeks werethesamein ideaandas regards themyths hehas recoursetoeither Of theexplanatory processes wh ich hestrongly deprecates whentheir consequences arecarried out boldly— rationalismandallegory . T heformer was theEp icurean , thelattertheStoic dev ice

,adopted of courseby other schools in

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

S tagnat ion inGreekar t .

Plu tarch ’s

table-talk .

A Sur vey of Greek Civi li zation .

thesayingsand counsels Of Plutarch on pol iticsand on

rel igion .

T hesamemay besaid Ofh is utteran ces on ar t . N0new production ofany merit is men tioned Old statues

,

Old temples , Old p ictures werestil l pr ized . Peoplewen tto beshown round Delph i by chattering c icerones theyfrequen ted p icturegal leries theyadm ired thebloom on

an cien t bron zes they praised thesplendour OfHomer orPindar , themus ic of thean c ien ts , wh ich was n o longerunderstood . On theseth ings Plutarch Cop ies Plato orA r istoxenus. But though statues wereset up in crowdsto benefactors Of their several c it ies , wehear that thesemonumen ts of l iberal ity werekept in stock

,Often w ith

ou t theheads , wh ich wereadded when thededicat ionwasascertainedand thestatuebought ; and even th iswas moretolerablethan thepracticeOferas ing Old ded icat ionsand renam ing theeffigies Ofan cien t gods andheroes .I n add ition to h is tracts on theseserious top ics Plutarch has left us many d iscuss ion s upon theevery-daysoc iety wh ich helovedand wh ich hesought to improveheis very fulland suggest iveon thear t Of conversation ,

though thetop ics heselectsas su itablefo r ad inner-tablearecertain ly not thosewh ich weshould choose. >l< Hegives d irect ion s con cern ing thecho iceand number of

thecompany , thequest ion of precedenceat table, the

useof wit and satirein repar tee, theosten tation Of

some, themeanness Of others , and ahost of other l iketop ics wh ich I haved iscussed in another work. j

' Theseth ingsarenot worth repeat ing hereexcept w ith thede

T hehabit ofrec i tat ions in Greek had lately .(hesays) comeinto fash ion atR ome, i n h i s own day ,and hed iscusses Sym posium ” VI I . , 8 ) whatau th orsarefi t fo r th is

pu rpose. Hepro tests am ust Plato ’

s d ialogues being paradedat ad inner-tale, bu t says elsewherefibid . qua’stiones 5 , 4 ) that E urip ides,Pindar,and Menan der,espec ially thelast ,arem oresu itable.1' T heGreek World u nder Roman Sway .

”

A Su r vey of Greek Civi li zation .

tails wh ich ' givethem freshness and in terest . Hereandtherewecomeupon someadm iss ion or somecomprom iseregard ing moral ity wh ich shocks us n ot al ittlei n

them idst Of much that is lofty , much that is w ise. On

thequestion of charity hesaysand th inks th ings wh ich ,taken by themselves , would makeus rank h im on no

very h igh levelamong theworld ’ s great moral ists .But in other respectsalso thesoc iety Of Greecedoes

n ot appear to us in very fair colours,even through th is

m ost favourablemed ium . I repudiate, indeed ,al together

thep icturedrawn by Hertz berg in h is h istory Of theshocking features taken from then ovels Of thedayfeatures rendered imposs ibleby thev irtues wh ich heextracts from Plutarch ’ s and D io ’ s soc iety. Th is randomsett ing down Ofevery narrativenow extan t as equal lygoodeviden ceisaproceed ing on ly saved from rid iculeby thegreat learn ingand earnestness of thewr i ter .But making all duereservation s

,thereis someth ing

vain and self-conscious,n o t on ly in thegeneral com

plex ion of thesocial meetings wh ich Plutarch so carefully describes thereiseven someof it in theold manh imself, who is ev iden tly proud Of h is pos ition , h is vir

tues, h is reputation , and though heOften al ludes to the

foll ies,theloquacity

,thecon ceit of Old age, affords in

h is own person aspec imen,though perhaps avery

lovableone,ofall theseimperfection s . Thereis to me

in th is,as in every other phaseOf Greek l ifewh ich I

havestudied , acertain wan t ,anabsen ceOf thecalmnessand d ign ity wh ich werequ irein theperfect gen tleman .

A ristotle’ s disagreeablegrand seigneu r , whoever standsupon h is dign ity

,isas far removed from ou r ideal as is

Plutarch , w ith h is garrulous unreserve. Nor do I im

aginethat thedomestic arrangemen ts of theGreekhouses , even themost wealthy

,ever attained thereal

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A S u r vey of G reek Civi li zation .

to carry w ith it theweak and wavering masses Of mank ind

,who havenot thestrength or thepatien ceto work

ou t their own salvation .

Even now“theWord had been madeflesh

,and

dweltamong them ,ful l ofgraceand truth even n ow

theGospel had been preached in Syria, in “all A s ia, ”

in Macedon ia,in Corin th and yet thegreat con tempo

raries,D io ,

Plutarch , nay,even Josephus

,seem hard ly

to haveheard Of i t . Had Plutarch been at A then swhen S t . Paul camethere, hewould havebeen thefirstto givetheapostlearespectful hearing , as heh imselfpreached thereal iden tity ofall rel igion s , thesp iritual ityand un ity Of theDeity , and theright Ofall nationsto nameinferior gods o r demon s in accordancew iththeir various tradition s . But n o as Judaeism was un

known to h im beyond thevestmen ts Of theh igh priest ,SO Christian ity

,first iden t ified everywhereas aJewish

sch ism,was stil l beyond h is ken .

I t is not t i ll thefirst cen tury has actual ly closed thatPl iny is star tled

'

to find in B ithyn iathetemples deserted ,

thealtars forgotten,andanew rel igion overrunn ing the

prov ince. Even then wemayassumethat Christian itywas very l ittlekn own in Greecebeyond Corin th , and inall theMacedon ian town s on lyamong Jewsand peopleof thepoorest class . For theseveran ceof GreeceandA s iaM inor is not less remarkableat th is t imethan theirrespect iveun ity under R oman rule. I havespoken Of

th is already as regards theGreeceOf Plutarch . Buteven hestands aloof completely from theHel len ismOfA s iaM inor

,and thereis but onebrief tract (and is it

genu ine? ) wh ich represen ts thewr iteras residing in theturmo iland confus ion of theprinc ipal ass izetown Of theprovince— Ephesus or Pergamum — wh ich hedescribesasasceneofpass ion and ofm isery . SO Dio on h is s ide

Greek Cu ltu reU nder theR omans.

Speaks w ithasort Of complacency Of thedecayand disgraceO i A thens , and Of its vulgarand baseim itations of A S iat iC iealousy

ofAthens.

R oman v ices , as if thejealous A siatic Hel len ist felt thatal though thewealthand prosperity of theA siatic townswerenow vastly superior , therewas sti ll aprimacy Ofsent imen t about thenameOf A thens and Of Greecewh ich no stoas or exedras o r l iberalities from emperorsand rich c itizens could supply.

POSTSCR IPT .

I havenow endeavoured according to my abi l ity togiveageneral View Of thegreat subject en trusted to mein th is book . Had I attempted to touch upon even at itheOf themany top ics that crowded upon mefrom thel iteraturein wh ich I have’ spen t my l ife, thebook wouldhavebeen amerekaleidoscopeof colours , and wouldhaveleft n o permanen t impress ion . I t was imperative,therefore

,to makeaselection ; and in SO do ing I have

been led by my own fan cy , by thepreferen cew ith wh ichmy own m ind

,w ithout any suggestion from books ,

brought up one top ic and neglected theothers .Whether th is was asafegu ideis Of coursedoubtful ;every onehas h is prepossess ions , and they may not beagreeableto other men ,

who des ireamethodical survey ,and who may complain that manyatop ic Of great importancehas been perhaps om itted ,

perhaps sl ightlymen tioned . I f any areso disposed I s in cerely trustthey w il l takeup thesubject afresh , and treat it w ithspecial regard to my om iss ions . Thereis morethanenough room for many other independen t books on thesamegreat and fascinating subject . I t is hard , however , to imagineany Of them attractiveun less it bearstheindividual s tamp of itsauthor theidiosyncras ies , itmay be, Of h is m ind thepecul iarit ies Of h is con ception

.

Of Greek l i fe. I w ill n ot deny that in many respectsm ined iffer w idely from that Of other men ,

whoseauthority and famearefar greater in theph ilologicalworld . What better , even in thefaceof this danger,

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

Postscr ipt.

moredeeply w ill heconv in ceh imself that no modernth inker can sat isfy h im self ( not to say h is readers) inany attempt to reproducetheimpress ion wh ich growsupon h im . Learned men in Germany havewrittengreat books of detail on each departmen t in wh ich theGreeks excelled . Havetheir weighty tomes

,bristl ing

w ith references,madethegreat problem easier ? Fren ch

and Engl ish men havewritten briefessays and l ivelysketches con cern ing it . Havethey satisfied theearnestinqu irer ? I haveno hOpeOfbeingableto steer betweentheScyllaand theCharybdis Of th is criticism .

I NDEX .

A car nanfan League, ,224 .

A ch zean League, 1 1 5 , 224 , 296 , 3 07.

Achaeans , 71 .

Acropol is , 84 ,146 , 29 1 .

Adaptab il i ty of theGreeks, 221 .

E sch ines , 192-195 .

E schylus , 1 22, 1 23- 1 28 , 2 10.

Ai to liai i League, 224 ,296 .

Afterglow Of Greek l i terature, 3 08 .

Agamem non,22 , 3 3 .

“Agamem non ,

”the, 1 24 , 1 26 .

AgeS i laus , 168 .

Alcaeus, 72 , 89 , 102.

Alcman , 78 , 79 ,83 .

A lcmaaon idae, 1 1 8 .

Alexan der theGreat , 223 , 226-23 1 , 23 3 ,24 1 ) 242

-246 :

Alexandria, 280-283 , 286-288 .

Alexandrianar t , 287 .

Alexandrian l i terature, 284-286 .

Am ph ictyon ic Synod , 1 92, 193 , 194 .

A m p li iSS ians, 193 .

Am yclae, 3 0.

Anaxagoras , 21 1 .

An th ology ,” 1 89 , 3 1 1 .

An t igonus Co natas , 247, 257 .

An t ioch,280— 282.

Ant iph on ,1 3 9 .

Apelles , 23 5 .

Apo llon ius Rhod ius, 286 .

Aratus , cop ied by V irgil , 21 2.

Arcad ia, 79 , 1 74 .

Arcad ian League, 1 1 5 .

Arch iloch us, 42 , 88 .

Arch itecture, 1 3 0.

Argos , 3 1 , 70, 77.

Aristarch us,284 , 294 .

Arist ides, 1 3 2 .

Aristophanes, 1 5 1 , 165-1 67, 178, 266 .

Aristo tle, 3 3 ,

201-204 , 226 , 227.

Arsin oe, 244-245 .

A rt , 1 3 , 65 , 72 , 84— 86 .

A r tabaz us , 1 22.

Aspasia, 1 77.

Athens, 84 , 1 74.

Attal ids, 288-289, 290, 291 .

Att ica, so il of, 1 1 6 .

Au tonom y , strugglefo r , 149 .

Bee-h ivetom bs , 3 0.

B ish op Berkeley’s style, 21 1 .

Boeot ia, 95 , 1 1 5 .

Brown ing’s translat ions of Eurip ides,

159.

Bru tus, 3 00

-3 01 .

Burial , 3 9 .

Byzan t ium , 106.

Cadm us, 3 2.

Cassandra of Lycoph ron , 286 .

Chaeronea, 1 95 .

Chaeronea,l ion Of, 1 96 .

Characters ofT heoph rastus, 266.

Chrysippus , 256, 258 .

Clean thes , 256, 257.Cl isthenes

,1 1 8 .

Com m on d ialect , the, 23 4 , 3 09.

Const itut ion ofAthens,” the, 96, 1 3 4.

Corcyra, massacresat , 1 54 .

COS , 273 .

Cremat ion , 3 8.

Cruelty to slaves, 21 5 .

Cult of theem perors, 244, 3 03 .

Cyrus, 1 69 .

Darius Och us, 1 87, 225 .

Death ,Athen ianattitudeto ,

1 62— 163 .

Delph ic oracle, m istakeof, 1 20.

Demetrius, 247.

Demetrius, deification of, 244.

Dem ocri tus, 2 1 1 .

Dem on theory, 3 25 .

Dem osthenes, 1 75 , 1 88- 190, 196, 197,

1 99 , 23 0.

D icaear ch us, 267.

D io Ch rysostom , 3 1 1 , 3 1 5-3 21 .

Diodo r us, 3 02.

D iogenes theCyn ic , 257.

D ionysius o f Hal icarnassus, 3 1 1 —

3 1 3 .

3 3 5

Dorian invasion, 70.

DOr pfeld ,Professor, 26, 27, 86 , 1 43 .

Draco , 97.

Eastern influences, 1 10.

Egypt conquered by theRomans, 299 .

Egypt ian influen ces, 71 .

Em pedocles , 2 1 1 .

Epam in on das, 1 68 , 1 70, 1 73 , 225 .

Ep icurean ph ilosophy ,26 1 - 263 .

Ep icurus, 261 , 267.

E rech theum ,1 48 .

E th ics ” Of Aristotle,203 .

E uclid ’s E lemen ts,

”286 .

E umenes of Cardia, 23 9 .

E ur ip ides, 1 43 , 1 57— 1 59, 2 1 1 .

E xposureOf in fan ts, 2 1 8 , 269-270.

E xtort ion by Roman governors, 299 .

F ield sports, 1 72 .

Gelon,1 1 2 .

Glaukop is A thene, 3 4.

Gold curren cy , 240.

Graecoman iaam ong theR omans, 298 ,

3 02 .

Grote,1 6

,68

,23 3 .

Gyges of Lydia, 69 .

Hegem ony ,Greek d isl ikeo f

,224 .

Hellen ic un ity , 75 .

Hermes of Olym p ia, the, 1 84.

Her ondas,Mim iam b ics of

, 275-276 .

Hesiod , 1 7 , 59— 63 , 1 16.

H ipparch us, 1 1 7.

H ipp ias Of E lis, 68 .

H issarl ik,23 , 25 , 29 .

H omer , 1 5— 1 7, 24, 1 80.

H omer ic Age, 4 1 — 67.

H orace,89 .

H osp ital ity , 52-53 .

Ict in us, 1 3 5 , 1 47, 208 .

Ideal ism Of theGreek gen ius, 2 1 3 .

Idolsat T roy , 3 4 .

I l iad,1 7 , 24 , 42

—

44.

I lios,

” Sch l iemann ’s,26 .

I n Mem oriam,

”the

,1 63 .

In tellectualaverageh igh , 1 28.

I n terest , rateOf, 201 .

Ion icarch i tecture, 209.

I socrates, 1 8 1 , 1 82, 1 83 , 2 1 7.

Jealousies,com merc ial , 1 07.

Leuctra, 1 73 .

Lion Gateat Mycenae, 22 .

Locrian s, 1 92 , 1 93 .

( lLonginus S On theSubl ime, 3 1 2 .

Longwall, the, 1 46.

Lucret ius, 21 1 , 262 .

Lycurgus, 80-8 1 .

Lydian m onarchy , 72—

73 .

Lyric poets, 88 , 1 01 .

Lysander , 1 57, 2 1 5 , 24 1 .

Lysias, 1 98.

Lysippus, 23 5 .

Macedon ian conquest , sign ifican ceof,23 9 .

Marathon , 1 21 .

Marathon,l ion of

,1 96 .

Medes, 73 .

Mehemet A li,1 00 .

Mel ians,Oppression of

,1 54

- 1 56 .

Menander,264 , 267, 271 .

Menelaus,court of

, 54 .

Men i d i,29 , 4 1 .

Mercenar y soldiers, 72 , 1 87, 23 2 , 248 .

Meter O f H omeric p oem s, 46 .

Midd leComedy ,266 .

Monarch ies ,hered itary , 3 3 .

Monetary problem s,200 .

Mum m ius, 298 .

Music, 1 28 .

Mycenae, 24-25 ’27) 29 ) 3 4'

Mycenae, S ch liemann ’s, 26 .

Myth ology, 1 8— 1 9 .

Naucrat is, 71 .

Navy ,Athen ian

,1 3 6 .

New Comedy , 264— 266,268-272 .

New Testamen t Greek, 3 09.

Nikeo f Sam othrace, the, 220, 247.

N ineWells,” the, 86, 1 1 7.

Odeum ,1 46.

Odyssey , 42, 63 .

Olym p iads, 69 .

Olym p ias, 245 .

O lym p ieion ,1 1 7.

Oratory, p ower Of, 1 3 2.

O r ch omen us , 22 , 3 0, 1 1 5 .

Ostrich eggatMycenae, 3 1 .

Paestum ,tem p leat , 1 3 1 .

Pan theism ,1 05 , 258

— 259.

Parmen i des , 21 1 .

Par r hasius, 1 83 .

Parthenon , 14 , 1 3 0, 1 43 , 146, 147.

Pausan ias , 3 08 .

Pelop i ds, 3 0.

Peloponnesian War , 1 5 1 - 1 54 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

BY T H E S AME A UT HO R .

TH E EMPI RE OF THE PTOLEMIES . Crown 8vo .

1 25 . 6d .

A H I STORY OF CLA S S I CA L GREEK L ITERATUR E . By theRev. J. P. MAHAFFY , M. A .

,D .D .

,Fellowand

Professor ofA ncien t H istory in T r in i ty Col lege, Dubl in, and H on .

Fellow ofQueen’

s Col lege, Oxford . I n two Vols. Vol. I . T H E

PoET i CA L WR IT ER S . I n two Parts. Part I . EPIC AND LYR IC .

Part I I . DRAMAT IC . T h ird Ed i tion ,revised and en larged .

Crown Syo . 4s. 6d .each Part . Vol. I I . T H E PROSE WR i T ERs.

Part I . H ERODOT US TO PLAT O. Part I I . I SOCRAT ES T O

A R i ST OT LE. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d . each Part.

CLA S S ICA L A N T I Q U I T IES . I . OLD GREEK LIFE .

Pott 8vo . I s.

SOC IA L L IFE OF TH E GREEK S .

‘ I . SOCIAL LIFEi N GREECE, FROM H OMER T o MENANDER . T h ird Ed i tion .

Crown 8v0. 93 . I I . GREEK LI FE A ND T HOUGH T,FROM T H E

A GE OF A LExANDER T O T HE ROMAN CONQ UEST . Crown 8vo .

1 25 . 6d . I I I . T H E GREEK WORLD UNDER ROMAN SWAY ,

FROM POLYBI US T o PLUTARCH . Crown 8vo . 108 . 6d .

RAMBLES A ND STU D IES I N GREECE . Wi thI l lustrat ions. New Ed ition . W

'

ith aMap. Crown 8vo . I os. 6d .

PROBLEMS I N GREEK H ISTORY . Crown 8VO .

7s. 6d .

TH E DECA Y OF MODERN PREA CH I NG : anEssay. Crown 8v0. 3 s. 6d .

TH E PR I NC IPLES OF THE A RT OF CON

VERS A T I ON . Second Ed i t ion . Crown 8v0. 4s. 6d .

SK ETCH ES FROM A TOU R TH ROU GH HOL

LA ND A ND GERMA NY . By J. P. MAHAFFY and J. E.

ROGERS. With I llustrations by J. E. ROGERS. ExtraCrown 8v0.

105 . 6d .

MA CM ILLA N A ND CO .,LT D .

,LONDON .

BOOKS ABOUT GREEK LIFE AND LITERATURE.

A H A NDBOOK OF GR EEK SC ULPT URE . By ERNEST A RT H URGARDN ER , M.A . ,

former ly D i rector of theB r i t ish School of Ar chaeology atAthens. Par ts I .and I I . ExtraCr own 8vo. 5s .each . Com pletein oneVol. 1 05 .

A HA NDBOOK OF GR EEK CONS T I T UT I ONA L H IS TOR Y .

By A . H . J . GR EEN I D’

GE, M.A . ,Lec tu rer and lateFellow ofHer tford College,

and Lectu rer in An cien t H istory at B rasenoseCollege, Oxford : Wi th Map .

Ex traCr own 8yo. 55 .

TH E H I STOR Y OF GREECE FR OM I T S COMMENCEMENTT O T H E CLOSE OF T H E INDEPENDENCE OF T H E GR EEKNAT ION . By ADOLPH H OLM. T ranslated fr om theGerman . I n fou r Vo ls .

8v0. Vol. I . U p to theend of theS ixth Cen tu ry B . C. 65 . net . Vol. I I . T heFifth Cen tu ry B . C . 65 . net . Vol. I I I . T heFou r th Cen tur y B .C . up to t heDeath ofAlexander . 65 . net . [B ou r th and conclud i ng Vol. i n thePress.

A H I ST OR Y OF GR EEK A R T . Wi th an I n troductory Chapteron A r t in Egyp t and Mesopotam ia. By FRANK B . T AR BELL . ExtraCr own8vo . 65 .

THE MYCENA EA N A GE . A study Of theMonumen tsand Cu ltureofPre-H omer ic Greece. By D r . CH RE ST OS T SOU N T A S , Ephor of An t iqu i t iesand D i rector of Excavat ionsat Mycenae, and Pr ofessor J . I RV I NG MANAT T ,

Ph .D .,LL.D . Wi than I n tr oduct ion by D r . DOrpfeld . 4to. 24s.

SELECT PA SSA GES FR OM A NC IENT WR ITER S ,i llustrative

of theH istory of G reek Scu lp tu re. By H . ST UART JON ES, Fellow of T r in ityCollege, Oxfo rd . ExtraCrown 8vo . 75 . net .

T HE GR OWT H A ND I NFLUENCE OF CLA SS I C A L GR EEKPOET RY, Lectu res delivered in 1 89 1 on thePer cy T u r nbu ll Mem or ialFoundat ion in theJohns H opkins Un iver sity. By R . C . JEBB , Li tt .D . C rown8VO. 7s. 6d . net .

THE A T T I C ORATOR S , FR OM A NT I PHON TO I SA B US . ByR . C . JEBB , Li tt.D . Second Edi t ion . 2 Vols. 8vo. 255 .

SELECT I ONS FR OM T HE A T T I C OR A TOR S . A n tiphon ,A n do

kides, Lysias, I sokrates, I saeus. Being acom pan ion volumeto the“A tt ic

O rato r s fr om An t iphon to.

I saeus. Edi ted w ith Notes. By R . C . JE BB ,L i tt .D . , M.P. Second Ed i t ion . Fcap . 8vo. 55 . [Classical Ser ies.

MODER N GREECE two Lectures del ivered beforethePh i losoph icalI nst i tu t ion ofEd inbu rgh . By R . C . JEB B , Li tt .D . ,

M.P. Cr own 8vo. 55 .

PLA T O A ND PLA T ON I SM. A Ser ies Of Lectures. By WALT ERPAT ER , Fellow of B rasenoseCollege, Oxford . ExtraCrown 8vo . 8s. 6d .

GREEK ST UD I ES . A Ser ies of Essays. By thelateWALT ERPAT ER, Fellow of B rasenoseCollege. Prepared for thePress by CH AR LES L.

SH A DwELL. ExtraCr own 8vo. 1 05 . 6d .

A SPECT S OF T HE GREEK GEN I US . By S . H . BUT CH ER,

M.A ., Pr ofessor of Greek, Un iver si ty of Edinbu rgh . Second Edit ion , revised.

C r own 8vo. 75 . net.

MACM ILLA N A ND C‘ LTD .

,LONDON .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE

CARDS OR SLIPS FROMTHIS POCKET

UNIVERS I TY OF TORONTO LIBRARY