Title: The Great Events by Famous Historians, Volume 01
Author: Rudd, John [Editor], Johnson, Rossiter, 1840-1931 [Editor], Horne, Charles F. (Charles Francis), 1870-1942 [Editor]
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Great Events by Famous Historians, Volume 01" ***


THE GREAT EVENTS

BY

FAMOUS HISTORIANS

A COMPREHENSIVE AND READABLE ACCOUNT OF THE WORLD'S HISTORY, EMPHASIZING
THE MORE IMPORTANT EVENTS, AND PRESENTING THESE AS COMPLETE NARRATIVES
IN THE MASTER-WORDS OF THE MOST EMINENT HISTORIANS

NON-SECTARIAN            NON-PARTISAN            NON-SECTIONAL

ON THE PLAN EVOLVED FROM A CONSENSUS OF OPINIONS GATHERED FROM THE MOST
DISTINGUISHED SCHOLARS OF AMERICA AND EUROPE, INCLUDING BRIEF
INTRODUCTIONS BY SPECIALISTS TO CONNECT AND EXPLAIN THE CELEBRATED
NARRATIVES, ARRANGED CHRONOLOGICALLY, WITH THOROUGH INDICES,
BIBLIOGRAPHIES, CHRONOLOGIES, AND COURSES OF READING


EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

ROSSITER JOHNSON, LL.D.


ASSOCIATE EDITORS

CHARLES F. HORNE, Ph.D. JOHN RUDD, LL.D.

_With a staff of specialists_


_VOLUME 1_



The National Alumni

COPYRIGHT, 1905,

By THE NATIONAL ALUMNI



CONTENTS

VOLUME I



_General Introduction_


_An Outline Narrative of the Great Events_
  CHARLES F. HORNE

_Dawn of Civilization_ (_B.C. 5867_)
  G.C.C. MASPERO

_Compilation of the Earliest Code_ (_B.C. 2250_)
  HAMMURABI

_Theseus Founds Athens_ (_B.C. 1235_)
  PLUTARCH

_The Formation of the Castes in India_ (_B.C. 1200_)
  GUSTAVE LE BON
  W.W. HUNTER

_Fall of Troy_ (_B.C. 1184_)
  GEORGE GROTE

_Accession of Solomon_
_Building of the Temple at Jerusalem_ (_B.C. 1017_)
  HENRY HART MILMAN

_Rise and Fall of Assyria_
_Destruction of Nineveh_ (_B.C. 789_)
  F. LENORMANT AND E. CHEVALLIER

_The Foundation of Rome_ (_B.C. 753_)
  BARTHOLD GEORG NIEBUHR

_Prince Jimmu Founds Japan's Capital_ (_B.C. 660_)
  SIR EDWARD REED
  THE "NEHONGI"

_The Foundation of Buddhism_ (_B.C. 623_)
  THOMAS W. RHYS-DAVIDS

_Pythian Games at Delphi_ (_B.C. 585_)
  GEORGE GROTE

_Solon's Early Greek Legislation_ (_B.C. 594_)
  GEORGE GROTE

_Conquests of Cyrus the Great_ (_B.C. 550_)
  GEORGE GROTE

_Rise of Confucius, the Chinese Sage_ (_B.C. 550_)
  R.K. DOUGLAS

_Rome Established as a Republic_
_Institution of Tribunes_ (_B.C. 510-494_)
  HENRY GEORGE LIDDELL

_The Battle of Marathon_ (_B.C. 490_)
  SIR EDWARD SHEPHERD CREASY

_Invasion of Greece by Persians under Xerxes_
_Defence of Thermopylæ_ (_B.C. 480_)
  HERODOTUS

_Universal Chronology_ (_B.C. 5867-451_)
  JOHN RUDD



LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

VOLUME I



_Sphinx, with Great and Second Pyramids of Gizeh_ (_page 12_)
Frontispiece From an original photograph.

_The Rosetta Stone, and Description_
Facsimile of original in the British Museum.

_The Sabine Women_--_now mothers_--_suing for peace between the
combatants_ (_their Roman husbands and their Sabine relatives_)
Painting by Jacques L. David.



THE GREAT EVENTS

BY

FAMOUS HISTORIANS

       *       *       *       *       *

General Introduction


THE GREAT EVENTS BY FAMOUS HISTORIANS is the answer to a problem which
has long been agitating the learned world. How shall real history, the
ablest and profoundest work of the greatest historians, be rescued from
its present oblivion on the dusty shelves of scholars, and made welcome
to the homes of the people?

THE NATIONAL ALUMNI, an association of college men, having given this
question long and earnest discussion among themselves, sought finally
the views of a carefully elaborated list of authorities throughout
America and Europe. They consulted the foremost living historians and
professors of history, successful writers in other fields, statesmen,
university and college presidents, and prominent business men. From this
widely gathered consensus of opinions, after much comparison and sifting
of ideas, was evolved the following practical, and it would seem
incontrovertible, series of plain facts. And these all pointed toward
"THE GREAT EVENTS."

In the first place, the entire American public, from top to bottom of
the social ladder, are at this moment anxious to read history. Its
predominant importance among the varied forms of literature is fully
recognized. To understand the past is to understand the future. The
successful men in every line of life are those who look ahead, whose
keen foresight enables them to probe into the future, not by magic, but
by patiently acquired knowledge. To see clearly what the world has done,
and why, is to see at least vaguely what the world will do, and when.

Moreover, no man can understand himself unless he understands others;
and he cannot do that without some idea of the past, which has produced
both him and them. To know his neighbors, he must know something of the
country from which they came, the conditions under which they formerly
lived. He cannot do his own simple duty by his own country if he does
not know through what tribulations that country has passed. He cannot be
a good citizen, he cannot even vote honestly, much less intelligently,
unless he has read history. Fortunately the point needs little urging.
It is almost an impertinence to refer to it. We are all anxious, more
than anxious to learn--_if only the path of study be made easy_.

Can this be accomplished? Can the vanishing pictures of the past be made
as simply obvious as mathematics, as fascinating as a breezy novel of
adventure? Genius has already answered, yes. Hand to a mere boy
Macaulay's sketch of Warren Hastings in India, and the lad will see as
easily as if laid out upon a map the host of interwoven and elaborate
problems that perplexed the great administrator. Offer to the youngest
lass the tale told by Guizot of King Robert of France and his struggle
to retain his beloved wife Bertha. Its vivid reality will draw from the
girl's heart far deeper and truer tears than the most pathetic romance.

We begin to realize that in very truth History has been one vast
stupendous drama, world-embracing in its splendor, majestic, awful,
irresistible in the insistence of its pointing finger of fate. It has
indeed its comic interludes, a Prussian king befuddling ambassadors in
his "Tobacco Parliament"; its pauses of intense and cumulative suspense,
Queen Louise pleading to Napoleon for her country's life; but it has
also its magnificent pageants, its gorgeous culminating spectacles of
wonder. Kings and emperors are but the supernumeraries upon its boards;
its hero is the common man, its plot his triumph over ignorance, his
struggle upward out of the slime of earth.

_Yet the great historians are not being widely read_. The ablest and
most convincing stories of his own development seem closed against the
ordinary man. Why? In the first place, the works of the masters are too
voluminous. Grote's unrivalled history of Greece fills ten large and
forbidding volumes. Guizot takes thirty-one to tell a portion of the
story of France. Freeman won credit in the professorial world by
devoting five to the detailing of a single episode, the Norman Conquest.
Surely no busy man can gather a general historic knowledge, if he must
read such works as these! We are told that the great library of Paris
contains over four hundred thousand volumes and pamphlets on French
history alone. The output of historic works in all languages approaches
ten thousand volumes every year. No scholar, even, can peruse more than
the smallest fraction of this enormously increasing mass. Herodotus is
forgotten, Livy remains to most of us but a recollection of our
school-days, and Thucydides has become an exercise in Greek.

There is yet another difficulty. Even the honest man who tries, who
takes down his Grote or Freeman, heroically resolved to struggle through
it at all speed, fails often in his purpose. He discovers that the
greatest masters nod. Sometimes in their slow advance they come upon a
point that rouses their enthusiasm; they become vigorous, passionate,
sarcastic, fascinating, they are masters indeed. But the fire soon dies,
the inspiration flags, "no man can be always on the heights," and the
unhappy reader drowses in the company of his guide.

This leads us then to one clear point. From these justly famous works a
selection should be made. Their length should be avoided, their prosy
passages eliminated; the one picture, or perhaps the many pictures,
which each master has painted better than any rival before or since,
that and that alone should be preserved.

Read in this way, history may be sought with genuine pleasure. It is
only pedantry has made it dreary, only blindness has left it dull. The
story of man is the most wonderful ever conceived. It can be made the
most fascinating ever written.

With this idea firmly established in mind, we seek another line of
thought. The world grows smaller every day. Russia fights huge battles
five thousand miles from her capital. England governs India. Spain and
the United States contend for empire in the antipodes. Our rapidly
improving means of communication, electric trains, and, it may be,
flying machines, cables, and wireless telegraphy, link lands so close
together that no man lives to-day the subject of an isolated state.
Rather, indeed, do all the kingdoms seem to shrink, to become but
districts in one world-including commonwealth.

To tell the story of one nation by itself is thus no longer possible.
Great movements of the human race do not stop for imaginary boundary
lines thrown across a map. It was not the German students, nor the
Parisian mob, nor the Italian peasants who rebelled in 1848; it was the
"people of Europe" who arose against their oppressors. To read the
history of one's own country only is to get distorted views, to
exaggerate our own importance, to remain often in densest ignorance of
the real meaning of what we read. The ideas American school-boys get of
the Revolution are in many cases simply absurd, until they have been
modified by wider reading.

From this it becomes very evident that a good history now must be, not a
local, but a world history. The idea of such a work is not new. Diodorus
penned one two hundred years before Christ. But even then the tale took
forty books; and we have been making history rather rapidly since
Diodorus' time. Of the many who have more recently attempted his task,
few have improved upon his methods; and the best of these works only
shows upon a larger scale the same dreariness that we have found in
other masters.

Let us then be frank and admit that no one man can make a thoroughly
good world history. No one man could be possessed of the almost infinite
learning required; none could have the infinite enthusiasm to delight
equally in each separate event, to dwell on all impartially and yet
ecstatically. So once more we are forced back upon the same conclusion.
We will take what we already have. We will appeal to each master for the
event in which he did delight, the one in which we find him at his best.

This also has been attempted before, but perhaps in a manner too
lengthy, too exact, too pedantic to be popular. The aim has been to get
in everything. Everything great or small has been narrated, and so the
real points of value have been lost in the multiplicity of lesser facts,
about which no ordinary reader cares or needs to care. After all, what
we want to know and remember are the Great Events, the ones which have
really changed and influenced humanity. How many of us do really know
about them? or even know what they are? or one-twentieth part of them?
And until we know, is it not a waste of time to pore over the lesser
happenings between?

Yet the connection between these events must somehow be shown. They must
not stand as separate, unrelated fragments. If the story of the world is
indeed one, it must be shown as one, not even broken by arbitrary
division into countries, those temporary political constructions, often
separating a single race, lines of imaginary demarcation, varying with
the centuries, invisible in earth's yesterday, sure to change if not to
perish in her to-morrow. Moreover, such a system of division
necessitates endless repetition. Each really important occurrence
influences many countries, and so is told of again and again with
monotonous iteration and extravagant waste of space.

It may, however, be fairly urged that the story should vary according to
the country for which it is designed. To our individual lives the events
happening nearest prove most important. Great though others be, their
influence diminishes with their increasing distance in space and time.
For the people of North America the story of the world should have the
part taken by America written large across the pages.

From all these lines of reasoning arose the present work, which the
National Alumni believe has solved the problem. It tells the story of
the world, tells it in the most famous words of the most famous writers,
makes of it a single, continued story, giving the results of the most
recent research. Yet all dry detail has been deliberately eliminated;
the tale runs rapidly and brightly. Whatever else may happen, the reader
shall not yawn. Only important points are dwelt on, and their relative
value is made clear.

Each volume of THE GREAT EVENTS opens with a brief survey of the period
with which it deals. The broad world movements of the time are pointed
out, their importance is emphasized, their mutual relationship made
clear. If the reader finds his interest specially roused in one of these
events, and he would learn more of it, he is aided by a directing note,
which, in each case, tells him where in the body of the volume the
subject is further treated. Turning thither he may plunge at once into
the fuller account which he desires, sure that it will be both vivid and
authoritative; in short, the best-known treatment of the subject.

Meanwhile the general survey, being thus relieved from the necessity of
constant explanation, expansion, and digression, is enabled to flow
straight onward with its story, rapidly, simply, entertainingly. Indeed,
these opening sketches, written especially for this series, and in a
popular style, may be read on from volume to volume, forming a book in
themselves, presenting a bird's-eye view of the whole course of earth,
an ideal world history which leaves the details to be filled in by the
reader at his pleasure. It is thus, we believe, and thus only, that
world history can be made plain and popular. The great lessons of
history can thus be clearly grasped. And by their light all life takes
on a deeper meaning.

The body of each volume, then, contains the Great Events of the period,
ranged in chronological order. Of each event there are given one,
perhaps two, or even three complete accounts, not chosen hap-hazard, but
selected after conference with many scholars, accounts the most accurate
and most celebrated in existence, gathered from all languages and all
times. Where the event itself is under dispute, the editors do not
presume to judge for the reader; they present the authorities upon both
sides. The Reformation is thus portrayed from the Catholic as well as
the Protestant standpoint. The American Revolution is shown in part as
England saw it; and in the American Civil War, and the causes which
produced it, the North and the South speak for themselves in the words
of their best historians.

To each of these accounts is prefixed a brief introduction, prepared for
this work by a specialist in the field of history of which it treats.
This introduction serves a double purpose. In the first place, it
explains whatever is necessary for the understanding and appreciation
of the story that follows. Unfortunately, many a striking bit of
historic writing has become antiquated in the present day. Scholars have
discovered that it blunders here and there, perhaps is prejudiced,
perhaps extravagant. Newer writers, therefore, base a new book upon the
old one, not changing much, but paraphrasing it into deadly dullness by
their efforts after accuracy. Thanks to our introduction we can revive
the more spirited account, and, while pointing out its value to the
reader, can warn him of its errors. Thus he secures in briefest form the
results of the most recent research.

Another purpose of the introduction is to link each event with the
preceding ones in whatever countries it affects. Thus if one chooses he
may read by countries after all, and get a completed story of a single
nation. That is, he may peruse the account of the battle of Hastings and
then turn onward to the making of the _Domesday Book_, where he will
find a few brief lines to cover the intervening space in England's
history. From the struggles of Stephen and Matilda he is led to the
quarrel of her son, King Henry, with Thomas Becket, and so onward step
by step.

Starting with this ground plan of the design in mind, the reader will
see that its compilation was a work of enormous labor. This has been
undertaken seriously, patiently, and with earnest purpose. The first
problem to be confronted was, What were the Great Events that should be
told? Almost every writer and teacher of history, every well-known
authority, was appealed to; many lists of events were compiled, revised,
collated, and compared; and so at last our final list was evolved,
fitted to bear the brunt of every criticism.

Then came the heavier problem of what authorities to quote for each
event. And here also the editors owe much to the capable aid of many
generous, unremunerated advisers. Thus, for instance, they sought and
obtained from the Hon. Joseph Chamberlain his advice as to the
authorities to be used for the Jameson raid and the Boer war. The
account presented may therefore be fairly regarded as England's own
authoritative presentment of those events. Several little known and
wholly unused Russian sources were pointed out by Professor Rambaud,
the French Academician. But this is mentioned only to illustrate the
impartiality with which the editors have endeavored to cover all fields.
If, under the plea of expressing gratitude to all those who have lent us
courteous assistance, we were to spread across these pages the long roll
of their distinguished names, it would sound too much like boasting of
their condescension.

The work of selecting the accounts has been one of time and careful
thought. Many thousands of books have been read and read again. The
cardinal points of consideration in the choice have been: (1) Interest,
that is, vividness of narration; (2) simplicity, for we aim to reach the
people, to make a book fit even for a child; (3) the fame of the author,
for everyone is pleased to be thus easily introduced to some
long-heard-of celebrity, distantly revered, but dreaded; and (4)
accuracy, a point set last because its defects could be so easily
remedied by the specialist's introduction to each event.

These considerations have led occasionally to the selection of very
ancient documents, the original "sources" of history themselves, as, for
instance, Columbus' own story of his voyage, rather than any later
account built up on this; Pliny's picture of the destruction of Pompeii,
for Pliny was there and saw the heavens rain down fire, and told of it
as no man has done since. So, too, we give a literal translation of the
earliest known code of laws, antedating those of Moses by more than a
thousand years, rather than some modern commentary on them. At other
times the same principles have led to the other extreme, and on modern
events, where there seemed no wholly satisfactory or standard accounts,
we have had them written for us by the specialists best acquainted with
the field.

As the work thus grew in hand, it became manifest that it would be, in
truth, far more than a mere story of events. With each event was
connected the man who embodied it. Often his life was handled quite as
fully as the event, and so we had biography. Lands had to be
described--geography. Peoples and customs--sociology. Laws and the
arguments concerning them--political economy. In short, our history
proved a universal cyclopædia as well.

To give it its full value, therefore, an index became obviously
necessary--and no ordinary index. Its aim must be to anticipate every
possible question with which a reader might approach the past, and
direct him to the answer. Even, it might be, he would want details more
elaborate than we give. If so, we must direct him where to find them.

Professional index-makers were therefore summoned to our help, a
complete and readable chronology was appended to each volume, and the
final volume of the series was turned over to the indexers entirely. We
believe their work will prove not the least valuable feature of the
whole. Briefly, the Index Volume contains:

1. A complete list of the Great Events of the world's history. Opposite
each event are given the date, the name of the author and standard work
from which our account is selected, and a number of references to other
works and to a short discussion of these in our Bibliography. Thus the
reader may pursue an extended course of study on each particular event.

2. A bibliography of the best general histories of ancient, mediæval,
and modern times, and of important political, religious, and educational
movements; also a bibliography of the best historical works dealing with
each nation, and arranged under the following subdivisions: (_a_) The
general history of the nation; (_b_) special periods in its career;
(_c_) the descriptions of the people, their civilization and
institutions. On each work thus mentioned there is a critical comment
with suggestions to readers. This bibliography is designed chiefly for
those who desire to pursue more extended courses of reading, and it
offers them the experience and guidance of those who have preceded them
on their special field.

3. A classified index of famous historic characters. The names are
grouped under such headings as "Rulers, Statesmen, and Patriots,"
"Famous Women," "Military and Naval Commanders," "Philosophers and
Teachers," "Religious Leaders," etc. Under each person's name is given a
biographical chronology of his career, showing every important event in
which he played a part, together with the date of the event, and the
volume and page of this series where a full account of it may be found.
This plan provides a new and very valuable means of reading the
biography of any noted personage, one of the great advantages being that
the accounts of the various events in his life are not all in the
language of the same author, not written by a man anxious to bring out
the importance of his special hero. The writers are mainly interested in
the event, and show the hero only in his true and unexaggerated relation
to it. Under each name will also be found references to such further
authorities on the biography of the personage as may be consulted with
profit by those students and scholars who wish to pursue an exhaustive
study of his career.

4. A biographical index of the authors represented in the series. This
consists of brief sketches of the many writers whose work has been drawn
upon for the narratives of Great Events. It is intended for ready
reference, and gives only the essential facts. This index serves a
double purpose. Suppose, for instance, that a reader is familiar with
the name of John Lothrop Motley, but happens not to know whether he is
still living, whether he had other occupation than writing, or what
offices he held. This index will answer these questions. On the other
hand, an admirer of Thomas Jefferson or Theodore Roosevelt may wish to
know whether we have taken anything--and, if so, what--from their
writings. This index will answer at once.

5. A general index covering every reference in the series to dates,
events, persons, and places of historic importance. These are made
easily accessible by a careful and elaborate system of cross-references.

6. A separate and complete chronology of each nation of ancient,
mediæval, and modern times, with references to the volume and page where
each item is treated, either as an entire article or as part of one; so
that the history of any one nation may be read in its logical order and
in the language of its best historians.

Such, as the National Alumni regard it, are the general character, wide
scope, and earnest purpose of THE GREAT EVENTS BY FAMOUS HISTORIANS. Let
us end by saying, in the friendly fashion of the old days when
bookmakers and their readers were more intimate than now: "Kind reader,
if this our performance doth in aught fall short of promise, blame not
our good intent, but our unperfect wit."

THE NATIONAL ALUMNI.



AN OUTLINE NARRATIVE

TRACING BRIEFLY THE CAUSES, CONNECTIONS, AND CONSEQUENCES OF

THE GREAT EVENTS

A GENERAL SURVEY OF THE PROGRESS OF THE HUMAN RACE, ITS ADVANCE IN
KNOWLEDGE AND CIVILIZATION, AND THE BROAD WORLD MOVEMENTS WHICH HAVE
SHAPED ITS DESTINY

CHARLES F. HORNE, Ph.D.

CONTINUED THROUGH THE SUCCESSIVE VOLUMES AND COVERING THE SUCCESSIVE
PERIODS OF

THE GREAT EVENTS BY FAMOUS HISTORIANS



AN OUTLINE NARRATIVE

TRACING BRIEFLY THE CAUSES, CONNECTIONS, AND CONSEQUENCES OF

THE GREAT EVENTS

(FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE OVERTHROW OF THE PERSIANS)

CHARLES F. HORNE


History, if we define it as the mere transcription of the written
records of former generations, can go no farther back than the time such
records were first made, no farther than the art of writing. But now
that we have come to recognize the great earth itself as a story-book,
as a keeper of records buried one beneath the other, confused and half
obliterated, yet not wholly beyond our comprehension, now the historian
may fairly be allowed to speak of a far earlier day.

For unmeasured and immeasurable centuries man lived on earth a creature
so little removed from "the beasts that die," so little superior to
them, that he has left no clearer record than they of his presence here.
From the dry bones of an extinct mammoth or a plesiosaur, Cuvier
reconstructed the entire animal and described its habits and its home.
So, too, looking on an ancient, strange, scarce human skull, dug from
the deeper strata beneath our feet, anatomists tell us that the owner
was a man indeed, but one little better than an ape. A few æons later
this creature leaves among his bones chipped flints that narrow to a
point; and the archæologist, taking up the tale, explains that man has
become tool-using, he has become intelligent beyond all the other
animals of earth. Physically he is but a mite amid the beast monsters
that surround him, but by value of his brain he conquers them. He has
begun his career of mastery.

If we delve amid more recent strata, we find the flint weapons have
become bronze. Their owner has learned to handle a ductile metal, to
draw it from the rocks and fuse it in the fire. Later still he has
discovered how to melt the harder and more useful iron. We say roughly,
therefore, that man passed through a stone age, a bronze age, and then
an iron age.

Somewhere, perhaps in the earliest of these, he began to build rude
houses. In the next, he drew pictures. During the latest, his pictures
grew into an alphabet of signs, his structures developed into vast and
enduring piles of brick or stone. Buildings and inscriptions became his
relics, more like to our own, more fully understandable, giving us a
sense of closer kinship with his race.


SOURCES OF EARLY KNOWLEDGE

There are three different lines along which we have succeeded in
securing some knowledge of these our distant ancestors, three telephones
from the past, over which they send to us confused and feeble
murmurings, whose fascination makes only more maddening the vagueness of
their speech.

First, we have the picture-writings, whether of Central America, of
Egypt, of Babylonia, or of other lands. These when translatable bring us
nearest of all to the heart of the great past. It is the mind, the
thought, the spoken word, of man that is most intimately he; not his
face, nor his figure, nor his clothes. Unfortunately, the translation of
these writings is no easy task. Those of Central America are still an
unsolved riddle. Those of Babylon have been slowly pieced together like
a puzzle, a puzzle to which the learned world has given its most able
thought. Yet they are not fully understood. In Egypt we have had the
luck to stumble on a clew, the Rosetta Stone, which makes the ancient
writing fairly clear.[1]

[Footnote 1: See page 1 for an engraving and account of this famous
stone. It was found over a century ago and its value was instantly
recognized, but many years passed before its secrets were deciphered. It
contains an inscription repeated in three forms of writing: the early
Egyptian of the hieroglyphics, a later Egyptian (the demotic), and
Greek.]

Where this mode of communication fails, we turn to another which carries
us even farther into the past. The records which have been less
intentionally preserved, not only the buildings themselves, but their
decorations, the personal ornaments of men, idols, coins, every
imaginable fragment, chance escaped from the maw of time, has its own
story for our reading. In Egypt we have found deep-hidden, secret tombs,
and, intruding on their many centuries of silence, have reaped rich
harvests of knowledge from the garnered wealth. In Babylonia the rank
vegetation had covered whole cities underneath green hillocks, and
preserved them till our modern curiosity delved them out. To-day, he who
wills, may walk amid the halls of Sennacherib, may tread the streets
whence Abraham fled, ay, he may gaze upon the handiwork of men who lived
perhaps as far before Abraham as we ourselves do after him.

Nor are our means of penetrating the past even thus exhausted. A third
chain yet more subtle and more marvellous has been found to link us to
an ancestry immeasurably remote. This unbroken chain consists of the
words from our own mouths. We speak as our fathers spoke; and they did
but follow the generations before. Occasional pronunciations have
altered, new words have been added, and old ones forgotten; but some
basal sounds of names, some root-thoughts of the heart, have proved as
immutable as the superficial elegancies are changeful. "Father" and
"mother" mean what they have meant for uncounted ages.

Comparative philology, the science which compares one language with
another to note the points of similarity between them, has discovered
that many of these root-sounds are alike in almost all the varied
tongues of Europe. The resemblance is too common to be the result of
coincidence, too deep-seated to be accounted for by mere communication
between the nations. We have gotten far beyond the possibility of such
explanations; and science says now with positive confidence that there
must have been a time when all these nations were but one, that their
languages are all but variations of the tongue their distant ancestors
once held in common.

Study has progressed beyond this point, can tell us far more intricate
and fainter facts. It argues that one by one the various tribes left
their common home and became completely separated; and that each
root-sound still used by all the nations represents an idea, an object,
they already possessed before their dispersal. Thus we can vaguely
reconstruct that ancient, aboriginal civilization. We can even guess
which tribes first broke away, and where again these wanderers
subdivided, and at what stage of progress. Surely a fascinating science
this! And in its infancy! If its later development shall justify present
promise, it has still strange tales to tell us in the future.


THE RACES OF MAN

Turn now from this tracing of our means of knowledge, to speak of the
facts they tell us. When our humankind first become clearly visible they
are already divided into races, which for convenience we speak of as
white, yellow, and black. Of these the whites had apparently advanced
farthest on the road to civilization; and the white race itself had
become divided into at least three varieties, so clearly marked as to
have persisted through all the modern centuries of communication and
intermarriage. Science is not even able to say positively that these
varieties or families had a common origin. She inclines to think so; but
when all these later ages have failed to obliterate the marks of
difference, what far longer period of separation must have been required
to establish them!

These three clearly outlined families of the whites are the Hamites, of
whom the Egyptians are the best-known type; the Semites, as represented
by ancient Babylonians and modern Jews and Arabs; and the great Aryan or
Indo-European family, once called the Japhites, and including Hindus,
Persians, Greeks, Latins, the modern Celtic and Germanic races, and even
the Slavs or Russians.

The Egyptians, when we first see them, are already well advanced toward
civilization.[2] To say that they were the first people to emerge from
barbarism is going much further than we dare. Their records are the most
ancient that have come clearly down to us; but there may easily have
been other social organisms, other races, to whom the chances of time
and nature have been less gentle. Cataclysms may have engulfed more than
one Atlantis; and few climates are so fitted for the preservation of
man's buildings as is the rainless valley of the Nile.

[Footnote 2: See the _Dawn of Civilization_, page 1.]

Moreover, the Egyptians may not have been the earliest inhabitants even
of their own rich valley. We find hints that they were wanderers,
invaders, coming from the East, and that with the land they appropriated
also the ideas, the inventions, of an earlier negroid race. But whatever
they took they added to, they improved on. The idea of futurity, of
man's existence beyond the grave, became prominent among them; and in
the absence of clearer knowledge we may well take this idea as the
groundwork, the starting-point, of all man's later and more striking
progress.

Since the Egyptians believed in a future life they strove to preserve
the body for it, and built ever stronger and more gigantic tombs. They
strove to fit the mind for it, and cultivated virtues, not wholly animal
such as physical strength, nor wholly commercial such as cunning. They
even carved around the sepulchre of the departed a record of his doings,
lest they--and perhaps he too in that next life--forget. There were
elements of intellectual growth in all this, conditions to stimulate the
mind beyond the body.

And the Egyptians did develop. If one reads the tales, the romances,
that have survived from their remoter periods, he finds few emotions
higher than childish curiosity or mere animal rage and fear. Amid their
latest stories, on the contrary, we encounter touches of sentiment, of
pity and self-sacrifice, such as would even now be not unworthy of
praise. But, alas! the improvement seems most marked where it was most
distant. Perhaps the material prosperity of the land was too great, the
conditions of life too easy; there was no stimulus to effort, to
endeavor. By about the year 2200 B.C. we find Egypt fallen into the grip
of a cold and lifeless formalism. Everything was fixed by law; even
pictures must be drawn in a certain way, thoughts must be expressed by
stated and unvariable symbols. Advance became well-nigh impossible.
Everything lay in the hands of a priestly caste the completeness of
whose dominion has perhaps never been matched in history. The leaders
lived lives of luxurious pleasure enlightened by scientific study; but
the people scarce existed except as automatons. The race was dead; its
true life, the vigor of its masses, was exhausted, and the land soon
fell an easy prey to every spirited invader.

Meanwhile a rougher, stronger civilization was growing in the river
valleys eastward from the Nile. The Semitic tribes, who seem to have had
their early seat and centre of dispersion somewhere in this region, were
coalescing into nations, Babylonians along the lower Tigris and
Euphrates, Assyrians later along the upper rivers, Hebrews under David
and Solomon[3] by the Jordan, Phoenicians on the Mediterranean coast.

[Footnote 3: See _Accession of Solomon_, page 92.]

The early Babylonian civilization may antedate even the Egyptian; but
its monuments were less permanent, its rulers less anxious for the
future. The "appeal to posterity," the desire for a posthumous fame,
seems with them to have been slower of conception. True, the first
Babylonian monarchs of whom we have any record, in an era perhaps over
five thousand years before Christianity, stamped the royal signet on
every brick of their walls and temples. But common-sense suggests that
this was less to preserve their fame than to preserve their bricks.
Theft is no modern innovation.

They were a mathematical race, these Babylonians. In fact, Semite and
mathematician are names that have been closely allied through all the
course of history, and one cannot help but wish our Aryan race had
somewhere lived through an experience which would produce in them the
exactitude in balance and measurement of facts that has distinguished
the Arabs and the Jews. The Babylonians founded astronomy and
chronology; they recorded the movements of the stars, and divided their
year according to the sun and moon. They built a vast and intricate
network of canals to fertilize their land; and they arranged the
earliest system of legal government, the earliest code of laws, that has
come down to us.[4]

[Footnote 4: _Compilation of the Earliest Code_, page 14.]


The sciences, then, arise more truly here than with the Egyptians. Man
here began to take notice, to record and to classify the facts of
nature. We may count this the second visible step in his great progress.
Never again shall we find him in a childish attitude of idle wonder.
Always is his brain alert, striving to understand, self-conscious of its
own power over nature.

It may have been wealth and luxury that enfeebled the Babylonians as,
it did the Egyptians. At any rate, their empire was overturned by a
border colony of their own, the Assyrians, a rough and hardy folk who
had maintained themselves for centuries battling against tribes from the
surrounding mountains. It was like a return to barbarism when about B.C.
880 the Assyrians swept over the various Semite lands. Loud were the
laments of the Hebrews; terrible the tales of cruelty; deep the scorn
with which the Babylonians submitted to the rude conquerors. We approach
here a clearer historic period; we can trace with plainness the
devastating track of war;[5] we can read the boastful triumph of the
Assyrian chiefs, can watch them step by step as they adopt the culture
and the vices of their new subjects, growing ever more graceful and more
enfeebled, until they too are overthrown by a new and hardier race, the
Persians, an Aryan folk.

[Footnote 5: See _Rise and Fall of Assyria_, page 105.]

Before turning to this last and most prominent family of humankind, let
us look for a moment at the other, darker races, seen vaguely as they
come in contact with the whites. The negroes, set sharply by themselves
in Africa, never seem to have created any progressive civilization of
their own, never seem to have advanced further than we find the wild
tribes in the interior of the country to-day. But the yellow or Turanian
races, the Chinese and Japanese, the Turks and the Tartars, did not
linger so helplessly behind. The Chinese, at least, established a social
world of their own, widely different from that of the whites, in some
respects perhaps superior to it. But the fatal weakness of the yellow
civilization was that it was not ennobling like the Egyptian, not
scientific like the Babylonian, not adventurous and progressive as we
shall find the Aryan.

This, of course, is speaking in general terms. Something somewhat
ennobling there may be in the contemplations of Confucius;[6] but no man
can favorably compare the Chinese character to-day with the European,
whether we regard either intensity of feeling, or variety, range,
subtlety, and beauty of emotion. So, also, the Chinese made scientific
discoveries--but knew not how to apply them or improve them. So also
they made conquests--and abandoned them; toiled--and sank back into
inertia.

[Footnote 6: See _Rise of Confucius_, page 270.]

The Japanese present a separate problem, as yet little understood in its
earlier stages.[7] As to the Tartars, wild and hardy horsemen roaming
over Northern Asia, they kept for ages their independent animal strength
and fierceness. They appear and disappear like flashes. They seem to
seek no civilization of their own; they threaten again and again to
destroy that of all the other races of the globe. Fitly, indeed, was
their leader Attila once termed "the Scourge of God."


[Footnote 7: See _Prince Jimmu_, page 140.]


THE ARYANS

Of our own progressive Aryan race, we have no monuments nor inscriptions
so old as those of the Hamites and the Semites. What comparative
philology tells is this: An early, if not the original, home of the
Aryans was in Asia, to the eastward of the Semites, probably in the
mountain district back of modern Persia. That is, they were not, like
the other whites, a people of the marsh lands and river valleys. They
lived in a higher, hardier, and more bracing atmosphere. Perhaps it was
here that their minds took a freer bent, their spirits caught a bolder
tone. Wherever they moved they came as conquerors among other races.

In their primeval home and probably before the year B.C. 3000, they had
already acquired a fair degree of civilization. They built houses,
ploughed the land, and ground grain into flour for their baking. The
family relations were established among them; they had some social
organization and simple form of government; they had learned to worship
a god, and to see in him a counterpart of their tribal ruler.

From their upland farms they must have looked eastward upon yet higher
mountains, rising impenetrable above the snowline; but to north and
south and west they might turn to lower regions; and by degrees, perhaps
as they grew too numerous for comfort, a few families wandered off along
the more inviting routes. Whichever way they started, their adventurous
spirit led them on. We find no trace of a single case where hearts
failed or strength grew weary and the movement became retrograde, back
toward the ancient home. Spreading out, radiating in all directions, it
is they who have explored the earth, who have measured it and marked its
bounds and penetrated almost to its every corner. It is they who still
pant to complete the work so long ago begun.

Before B.C. 2000 one of these exuded swarms had penetrated India,
probably by way of the Indus River. In the course of a thousand years or
so, the intruders expanded and fought their way slowly from the Indus to
the Ganges. The earlier and duskier inhabitants gave way before them or
became incorporated in the stronger race. A mighty Aryan or Hindu empire
was formed in India and endured there until well within historic times.

Yet its power faded. Life in the hot and languid tropics tends to
weaken, not invigorate, the sinews of a race. Then, too, a formal
religion, a system of castes[8] as arbitrary as among the Egyptians,
laid its paralyzing grip upon the land. About B.C. 600 Buddhism, a new
and beautiful religion, sought to revive the despairing people; but they
were beyond its help.[9] Their slothful languor had become too deep.
From having been perhaps the first and foremost and most civilized of
the Aryan tribes, the Hindus sank to be degenerate members of the race.
We shall turn to look on them again in a later period; but they will be
seen in no favorable light.

[Footnote 8: See _The Formation of the Castes_, page 52.]

[Footnote 9: See _The Foundation of Buddhism_, page 160.]

Meanwhile other wanderers from the Aryan home appear to the north and
west. Perhaps even the fierce Tartars are an Aryan race, much altered
from long dwelling among the yellow peoples. One tribe, the Persians,
moved directly west, and became neighbors of the already noted Semitic
group. After long wars backward and forward, bringing us well within the
range of history, the Persians proved too powerful for the whole Semite
group. They helped destroy Assyria,[10] they overthrew the second
Babylonian empire which Nebuchadnezzar had built up, and then, pressing
on to the conquest of Egypt, they swept the Hamites too from their place
of sovereignty.[11]

[Footnote 10: See _Destruction of Nineveh_, page 105.]

[Footnote 11: See _Conquests of Cyrus_, page 250.]

How surely do those tropic lands avenge themselves on each new savage
horde of invaders from the hardy North. It is not done in a generation,
not in a century, perhaps. But drop by drop the vigorous, tingling,
Arctic blood is sapped away. Year after year the lazy comfort, the loose
pleasure, of the south land fastens its curse upon the mighty warriors.
As we watch the Persians, we see their kings go mad, or become
effeminate tyrants sending underlings to do their fighting for them. We
see the whole race visibly degenerate, until one questions if
Marathon[12] were after all so marvellous a victory, and suspects that
at whatever point the Persians had begun their advance on Europe they
would have been easily hurled back.

[Footnote 12: See _The Battle of Marathon_, page 322.]

It was in Europe only that the Aryan wanderers found a temperate
climate, a region similar to that in which they had been bred. Recent
speculation has even suggested that Europe was their primeval home, from
which they had strayed toward Asia, and to which they now returned.
Certainly it is in Europe that the race has continued to develop.
Earliest of these Aryan waves to take possession of their modern
heritage, were the Celts, who must have journeyed over the European
continent at some dim period too remote even for a guess. Then came the
Greeks and Latins, closely allied tribes, representing possibly a single
migration, that spread westward along the islands and peninsulas of the
Mediterranean. The Teutons may have left Asia before B.C. 1000, for they
seem to have reached their German forests by three centuries beyond that
time, and these vast migratory movements were very slow. The latest
Aryan wave, that of the Slavs, came well within historic times. We
almost fancy we can see its movement. Russian statesmen, indeed, have
hopes that this is not yet completed. They dream that they, the youngest
of the peoples, are yet to dominate the whole.


THE GREEKS AND LATINS

Of these European Aryans the only branches that come within the limits
of our present period, that become noteworthy before B.C. 480, are the
Greeks and Latins.

Their languages tell us that they formed but a single tribe long after
they became separated from the other peoples of their race. Finally,
however, the Latins, journeying onward, lost sight of their friends, and
it must have taken many centuries of separation for the two tongues to
grow so different as they were when Greeks and Romans, each risen to a
mighty nation, met again.

The Greeks, or Hellenes as they called themselves, seem to have been
only one of a number of kindred tribes who occupied not only the shores
of the Ægean, but Thrace, Macedonia, a considerable part of Asia Minor,
and other neighboring regions. The Greeks developed in intellect more
rapidly than their neighbors, outdistanced them in the race for
civilization, forgot these poor relations, and grouped them with the
rest of outside mankind under the scornful name "barbarians."

Why it was that the Greeks were thus specially stimulated beyond their
brethren we do not know. It has long been one of the commonplaces of
history to declare them the result of their environment. It is pointed
out that in Greece they lived amid precipitous mountains, where, as
hunters, they became strong and venturesome, independent and
self-reliant. A sea of islands lay all around; and while an open ocean
might only have awed and intimidated them, this ever-luring prospect of
shore beyond shore rising in turn on the horizon made them sailors, made
them friendly traffickers among themselves. Always meeting new faces,
driving new bargains, they became alert, quick-witted, progressive, the
foremost race of all the ancient world.

They do not seem to have been a creative folk. They only adapted and
carried to a higher point what they learned from the older nations with
whom they now came in contact. Phoenicia supplied them with an alphabet,
and they began the writing of books. Egypt showed them her records, and,
improving on her idea, they became historians. So far as we know, the
earliest real "histories" were written in Greece; that is, the earliest
accounts of a whole people, an entire series of events, as opposed to
the merely individual statements on the Egyptian monuments, the
personal, boastful clamor of some king.

Before we reach this period of written history we know that the Greeks
had long been civilized. Their own legends scarce reach back farther
than the first founding of Athens,[13] which they place about B.C. 1500.
Yet recent excavations in Crete have revealed the remains of a
civilization which must have antedated that by several centuries.

[Footnote 13: See _Theseus Founds Athens_, page 45.]

But we grope in darkness! The most ancient Greek book that has come down
to us is the _Iliad_, with its tale of the great war against Troy.[14]
Critics will not permit us to call the _Iliad_ a history, because it was
not composed, or at least not written down, until some centuries after
the events of which it tells. Moreover, it poetizes its theme, doubtless
enlarges its pictures, brings gods and goddesses before our eyes,
instead of severely excluding everything except what the blind bard
perchance could personally vouch for.

[Footnote 14: See _Fall of Troy_, page 70.]

Still both the _Iliad_ and the _Odyssey_ are good enough history for
most of us, in that they give a full, outline of Grecian life and
society as Homer knew it. We see the little, petty states, with their
chiefs all-powerful, and the people quite ignored. We see the heroes
driving to battle in their chariots, guarded by shield and helmet,
flourishing sword and spear. We learn what Ulysses did not know of
foreign lands.. We hear Achilles' famed lament amid the dead, and note
the vague glimmering idea of a future life, which the Greeks had caught
perhaps from the Egyptians, perhaps from the suggestive land of dreams.

With the year B.C. 776 we come in contact with a clear marked
chronology. The Greeks themselves reckoned from that date by means of
olympiads or intervals between the Olympic games. The story becomes
clear. The autocratic little city kings, governing almost as they
pleased, have everywhere been displaced by oligarchies. The few leading
nobles may name one of themselves to bear rule, but the real power lies
divided among the class. Then, with the growing prominence of the
Pythian games[15] we come upon a new stage of national development. The
various cities begin to form alliances, to recognize the fact that they
may be made safer and happier by a larger national life. The sense of
brotherhood begins to extend beyond the circle of personal acquaintance.

[Footnote 15: See _Pythian Games at Delphi_, page 181.]

This period was one of lawmaking, of experimenting. The traditions, the
simple customs of the old kingly days, were no longer sufficient for the
guidance of the larger cities, the more complicated circles of society,
which were growing up. It was no longer possible for a man who did not
like his tribe to abandon it and wander elsewhere with his family and
herds. The land was too fully peopled for that. The dissatisfied could
only endure and grumble and rebel. One system of law after another was
tried and thrown aside. The class on whom in practice a rule bore most
hard, would refuse longer assent to it. There were uprisings, tumults,
bloody frays.

Sparta, at this time the most prominent of the Greek cities, evolved a
code which made her in some ways the wonder of ancient days. The state
was made all-powerful; it took entire possession of the citizen, with
the purpose of making him a fighter, a strong defender of himself and of
his country. His home life was almost obliterated, or, if you like, the
whole city was made one huge family. All men ate in common; youth was
severely restrained; its training was all for physical hardihood. Modern
socialism, communism, have seldom ventured further in theory than the
Spartans went in practice. The result seems to have been the production
of a race possessed of tremendous bodily power and courage, but of
stunted intellectual growth. The great individual minds of Greece, the
thinkers, the creators, did not come from Sparta.

In Athens a different _régime_ was meanwhile developing Hellenes of
another type. A realization of how superior the Greeks were to earlier
races, of what vast strides man was making in intelligence and social
organization, can in no way be better gained than by comparing the law
code of the Babylonian Hammurabi with that of Solon in Athens.[16] A
period of perhaps sixteen hundred years separates the two, but the
difference in their mental power is wider still.

[Footnote 16: See _Solon's Legislation_, page 203, and _Compilation of
the Earliest Code_, page 14.]

While the Greeks were thus forging rapidly ahead, their ancient kindred,
the Latins, were also progressing, though at a rate less dazzling. The
true date of Rome's founding we do not know. Her own legends give B.C.
753.[17] But recent excavations on the Palatine hill show that it was
already fortified at a much earlier period. Rome, we believe, was
originally a frontier fortress erected by the Latins to protect them
from the attacks of the non-Aryan races among whom they had intruded.
This stronghold became ever more numerously peopled, until it grew into
an individual state separate from the other Latin cities.

[Footnote 17: See _The Foundation of Rome_, page 116.]

The Romans passed through the vicissitudes which we have already noted
in Greece as characteristic of the Aryan development. The early war
leader became an absolute king, his power tended to become hereditary,
but its abuse roused the more powerful citizens to rebellion, and the
kingdom vanished in an oligarchy.[18] This last change occurred in Rome
about B.C. 510, and it was attended by such disasters that the city sank
back into a condition that was almost barbarous when compared with her
opulence under the Tarquin kings.

[Footnote 18: See _Rome Established as a Republic_, page 300.]

It was soon after this that the Persians, ignorant of their own
decadence, and dreaming still of world power, resolved to conquer the
remaining little states lying scarce known along the boundaries of their
empire. They attacked the Greeks, and at Marathon (B.C. 490) and Salamis
(B.C. 480) were hurled back and their power broken.[19]

[Footnote 19: See _Battle of Marathon_, page 322, and _Invasion of
Greece_, page 354.]

This was a world event, one of the great turning points, a decision that
could not have been otherwise if man was really to progress. The
degenerate, enfeebled, half-Semitized Aryans of Asia were not permitted
to crush the higher type which was developing in Europe. The more
vigorous bodies and far abler brains of the Greeks enabled them to
triumph over all the hordes of their opponents. The few conquered the
many; and the following era became one of European progress, not of
Asiatic stagnation.



(FOR THE NEXT SECTION OF THIS GENERAL SURVEY SEE VOLUME II.)



DAWN OF CIVILIZATION

B.C. 5867[20]

G.C.C. MASPERO


     It is a far cry to hark back to 11,000 years before Christ, yet
     borings in the valley of the Nile, whence comes the first recorded
     history of the human race, have unveiled to the light pottery and
     other relics of civilization that, at the rate of deposits of the
     Nile, must have taken at least that number of years to cover.

     [Footnote 20: Champollion.]

     Nature takes countless thousands of years to form and build up her
     limestone hills, but buried deep in these we find evidences of a
     stone age wherein man devised and made himself edged tools and
     weapons of rudely chipped stone. These shaped, edged implements, we
     have learned, were made by white-heating a suitable flint or stone
     and tracing thereon with cold water the pattern desired, just as
     practised by the Indians of the American continent, and in our day
     by the manufacturers of ancient (_sic_) arrow-, spear-, and
     axe-heads. This shows a civilization that has learned the method of
     artificially producing fire, and its uses.

     Egypt is the monumental land of the earth, as the Egyptians are the
     monumental people of history. The first human monarch to reign over
     all Egypt was Menes, the founder of Memphis. As the gate of Africa,
     Egypt has always held an important position in world-politics. Its
     ancient wealth and power were enormous. Inclusive of the Soudan,
     its population is now more than eight millions. Its present
     importance is indicated by its relations to England. Historians
     vary in their compilations of Egyptian chronology. The epoch of
     Menes is fixed by Bunsen at B.C. 3643, by Lepsius at B.C. 3892, and
     by Poole at B.C. 2717. Before Menes Egypt was divided into
     independent kingdoms. It has always been a country of mysteries,
     with the mighty Nile, and its inundations, so little understood by
     the ancients; its trackless desert; its camels and caravans; its
     tombs and temples; its obelisks and pyramids, its groups of gods:
     Ra, Osiris, Isis, Apis, Horus, Hathor--the very names breathe
     suggestions of mystery, cruelty, pomp, and power. In the sciences
     and in the industrial arts the ancient Egyptians were highly
     cultivated. Much Egyptian literature has come down to us, but it is
     unsystematic and entirely devoid of style, being without lofty
     ideas or charms. In art, however, Egypt may be placed next to
     Greece, particularly in architecture.

     The age of the Pyramid-builders was a brilliant one. They prove the
     magnificence of the kings and the vast amount of human labor at
     their disposal. The regal power at that time was very strong. The
     reign of Khufu or Cheops is marked by the building of the great
     pyramid. The pyramids were the tombs of kings, built in the
     necropolis of Memphis, ten miles above the modern Cairo. Security
     was the object as well as splendor.

     As remarked by a great Egyptologist, the whole life of the Egyptian
     was spent in the contemplation of death; thus the tomb became the
     concrete thought. The belief of the ancient Egyptian was that so
     long as his body remained intact so was his immortality; whence
     arose the embalming of the great, and hence the immense structures
     of stone to secure the inviolability of the entombed monarch.


The monuments have as yet yielded no account of the events which tended
to unite Egypt under the rule of one man; we can only surmise that the
feudal principalities had gradually been drawn together into two groups,
each of which formed a separate kingdom. Heliopolis became the chief
focus in the north, from which civilization radiated over the wet plain
and the marshes of the Delta.

Its colleges of priests had collected, condensed, and arranged the
principal myths of the local regions; the Ennead to which it gave
conception would never have obtained the popularity which we must
acknowledge it had, if its princes had not exercised, for at least some
period, an actual suzerainty over the neighboring plains. It was around
Heliopolis that the kingdom of Lower Egypt was organized; everything
there bore traces of Heliopolitan theories--the protocol of the kings,
their supposed descent from Ra, and the enthusiastic worship which they
offered to the sun.

The Delta, owing to its compact and restricted area, was aptly suited
for government from one centre; the Nile valley proper, narrow,
tortuous, and stretching like a thin strip on either bank of the river,
did not lend itself to so complete a unity. It, too, represented a
single kingdom, having the reed and the lotus for its emblems; but its
component parts were more loosely united, its religion was less
systematized, and it lacked a well-placed city to serve as a political
and sacerdotal centre. Hermopolis contained schools of theologians who
certainly played an important part in the development of myths and
dogmas; but the influence of its rulers was never widely felt.

In the south, Siut disputed their supremacy, and Heracleopolis stopped
their road to the north. These three cities thwarted and neutralized one
another, and not one of them ever succeeded in obtaining a lasting
authority over Upper Egypt. Each of the two kingdoms had its own natural
advantages and its system of government, which gave to it a peculiar
character, and stamped it, as it were, with a distinct personality down
to its latest days. The kingdom of Upper Egypt was more powerful,
richer, better populated, and was governed apparently by more active and
enterprising rulers. It is to one of the latter, Mini or Menes of
Thinis, that tradition ascribes the honor of having fused the two Egypts
into a single empire, and of having inaugurated the reign of the human
dynasties.

Thinis figured in the historic period as one of the least of Egyptian
cities. It barely maintained an existence on the left bank of the Nile,
if not on the exact spot now occupied by Girgeh, at least only a short
distance from it. The principality of the Osirian Reliquary, of which it
was the metropolis, occupied the valley from one mountain to the other,
and gradually extended across the desert as far as the Great Theban
Oasis. Its inhabitants worshipped a sky-god, Anhuri, or rather two twin
gods, Anhuri-shu, who were speedily amalgamated with the solar deities
and became a warlike personification of Ra.

Anhuri-shu, like all other solar manifestations, came to be associated
with a goddess having the form or head of a lioness--a Sokhit, who took
for the occasion the epithet of Mihit, the northern one. Some of the
dead from this city are buried on the other side of the Nile, near the
modern village of Mesheikh, at the foot of the Arabian chain, whose deep
cliffs here approach somewhat near the river: the principal necropolis
was at some distance to the east, near the sacred town of Abydos. It
would appear that, at the outset, Abydos was the capital of the country,
for the entire nome bore the same name as the city, and had adopted for
its symbol the representation of the reliquary in which the god reposed.

In very early times Abydos fell into decay, and resigned its political
rank to Thinis, but its religious importance remained unimpaired. The
city occupied a long and narrow strip between the canal and the first
slopes of the Libyan mountains. A brick fortress defended it from the
incursions of the Bedouin, and beside it the temple of the god of the
dead reared its naked walls. Here Anhuri, having passed from life to
death, was worshipped under the name of Khontamentit, the chief of that
western region whither souls repair on quitting this earth.

It is impossible to say by what blending of doctrines or by what
political combinations this Sun of the Night came to be identified with
Osiris of Mendes, since the fusion dates back to a very remote
antiquity; it had become an established fact long before the most
ancient sacred books were compiled. Osiris Khontamentit grew rapidly in
popular favor, and his temple attracted annually an increasing number of
pilgrims. The Great Oasis had been considered at first as a sort of
mysterious paradise, whither the dead went in search of peace and
happiness. It was called Uit, the Sepulchre; this name clung to it after
it had become an actual Egyptian province, and the remembrance of its
ancient purpose survived in the minds of the people, so that the
"cleft," the gorge in the mountain through which the doubles journeyed
toward it, never ceased to be regarded as one of the gates of the other
world.

At the time of the New Year festivals, spirits flocked thither from all
parts of the valley; they there awaited the coming of the dying sun, in
order to embark with him and enter safely the dominions of Khontamentit.
Abydos, even before the historic period, was the only town, and its god
the only god, whose worship, practised by all Egyptians, inspired them
all with an equal devotion.

Did this sort of moral conquest give rise, later on, to a belief in a
material conquest by the princes of Thinis and Abydos, or is there an
historical foundation for the tradition which ascribes to them the
establishment of a single monarchy? It is the Thinite Menes, whom the
Theban annalists point out as the ancestor of the glorious Pharaohs of
the XVIII dynasty: it is he also who is inscribed in the Memphite
chronicles, followed by Manetho, at the head of their lists of human
kings, and all Egypt for centuries acknowledged him as its first mortal
ruler.

It is true that a chief of Thinis may well have borne such a name, and
may have accomplished feats which rendered him famous; but on closer
examination his pretensions to reality disappear, and his personality is
reduced to a cipher.

"This Menes, according to the priests, surrounded Memphis with dikes.
For the river formerly followed the sand-hills for some distance on the
Libyan side. Menes, having dammed up the reach about a hundred stadia to
the south of Memphis, caused the old bed to dry up, and conveyed the
river through an artificial channel dug midway between the two mountain
ranges.

"Then Menes, the first who was king, having enclosed a space of ground
with dikes, founded that town which is still called Memphis: he then
made a lake around it to the north and west, fed by the river; the city
he bounded on the east by the Nile." The history of Memphis, such as it
can be gathered from the monuments, differs considerably from the
tradition current in Egypt at the time of Herodotus.

It appears, indeed, that at the outset the site on which it subsequently
arose was occupied by a small fortress, Anbu-hazu--the white wall--which
was dependent on Heliopolis and in which Phtah possessed a sanctuary.
After the "white wall" was separated from the Heliopolitan principality
to form a nome by itself it assumed a certain importance, and furnished,
so it was said, the dynasties which succeeded the Thinite. Its
prosperity dates only, however, from the time when the sovereigns of the
V and VI dynasties fixed on it for their residence; one of them, Papi I,
there founded for himself and for his "double" after him, a new town,
which he called Minnofiru, from his tomb. Minnofiru, which is the
correct pronunciation and the origin of Memphis, probably signified "the
good refuge," the haven of the good, the burying-place where the blessed
dead came to rest beside Osiris.

The people soon forgot the true interpretation, or probably it did not
fall in with their taste for romantic tales. They rather despised, as a
rule, to discover in the beginnings of history individuals from whom the
countries or cities with which they were familiar took their names: if
no tradition supplied them with this, they did not experience any
scruples in inventing one. The Egyptians of the time of the Ptolemies,
who were guided in their philological speculations by the pronunciation
in vogue around them, attributed the patronship of their city to a
Princess Memphis, a daughter of its founder, the fabulous Uchoreus;
those of preceding ages before the name had become altered thought to
find in Minnofiru or "Mini Nofir," or "Menes the Good," the reputed
founder of the capital of the Delta. Menes the Good, divested of his
epithet, is none other than Menes, the first king of all Egypt, and he
owes his existence to a popular attempt at etymology.

The legend which identifies the establishment of the kingdom with the
construction of the city, must have originated at a time when Memphis
was still the residence of the kings and the seat of government, at
latest about the end of the Memphite period. It must have been an old
tradition at the time of the Theban dynasties, since they admitted
unhesitatingly the authenticity of the statements which ascribed to the
northern city so marked a superiority over their own country. When the
hero was once created and firmly established in his position, there was
little difficulty in inventing a story about him which would portray him
as a paragon and an ideal sovereign.

He was represented in turn as architect, warrior, and statesman; he had
founded Memphis, he had begun the temple of Phtah, written laws and
regulated the worship of the gods, particularly that of Hapis, and he
had conducted expeditions against the Libyans. When he lost his only son
in the flower of his age, the people improvised a hymn of mourning to
console him--the "Maneros"--both the words and the tune of which were
handed down from generation to generation.

He did not, moreover, disdain the luxuries of the table, for he invented
the art of serving a dinner, and the mode of eating it in a reclining
posture. One day, while hunting, his dogs, excited by something or
other, fell upon him to devour him. He escaped with difficulty and,
pursued by them, fled to the shore of Lake Moeris, and was there
brought to bay; he was on the point of succumbing to them, when a
crocodile took him on his back and carried him across to the other side.
In gratitude he built a new town, which he called Crocodilopolis, and
assigned to it for its god the crocodile which had saved him; he then
erected close to it the famous labyrinth and a pyramid for his tomb.

Other traditions show him in a less favorable light. They accuse him of
having, by horrible crimes, excited against him the anger of the gods,
and allege that after a reign of sixty-two years he was killed by a
hippopotamus which came forth from the Nile. They also relate that the
Saite Tafnakhti, returning from an expedition against the Arabs, during
which he had been obliged to renounce the pomp and luxuries of life, had
solemnly cursed him, and had caused his imprecations to be inscribed
upon a "stele"[21] set up in the temple of Amon at Thebes. Nevertheless,
in the memory that Egypt preserved of its first Pharaoh, the good
outweighed the evil. He was worshipped in Memphis, side by side with
Phtah and Ramses II.; his name figured at the head of the royal lists,
and his cult continued till the time of the Ptolemies.

[Footnote 21: The burned tile showing the impression of the stylus, made
on the clay while plastic.--ED.]

His immediate successors have only a semblance of reality, such as he
had. The lists give the order of succession, it is true, with the years
of their reigns almost to a day, sometimes the length of their lives,
but we may well ask whence the chroniclers procured so much precise
information. They were in the same position as ourselves with regard to
these ancient kings: they knew them by a tradition of a later age, by a
fragment papyrus fortuitously preserved in a temple, by accidentally
coming across some monument bearing their name, and were reduced, as it
were, to put together the few facts which they possessed, or to supply
such as were wanting by conjectures, often in a very improbable manner.
It is quite possible that they were unable to gather from the memory of
the past the names of those individuals of which they made up the first
two dynasties. The forms of these names are curt and rugged, and
indicative of a rude and savage state, harmonizing with the
semi-barbaric period to which they are relegated: Ati the Wrestler, Teti
the Runner, Qeunqoni the Crusher, are suitable rulers for a people the
first duty of whose chief was to lead his followers into battle, and to
strike harder than any other man in the thickest of the fight.

The inscriptions supply us with proofs that some of these princes lived
and reigned:--Sondi, who is classed in the II dynasty, received a
continuous worship toward the end of the III dynasty. But did all those
who preceded him, and those who followed him, exist as he did? And if
they existed, do the order and relation agree with actual truth? The
different lists do not contain the same names in the same position;
certain Pharaohs are added or suppressed without appreciable reason.
Where Manetho inscribes Kenkenes and Ouenephes, the tables of the time
of Seti I give us Ati and Ata; Manetho reckons nine kings to the II
dynasty, while they register only five. The monuments, indeed, show us
that Egypt in the past obeyed princes whom her annalists were unable to
classify: for instance, they associated with Sondi a Pirsenu, who is not
mentioned in the annals. We must, therefore, take the record of all this
opening period of history for what it is--namely, a system invented at a
much later date, by means of various artifices and combinations--to be
partially accepted in default of a better, but without, according to it,
that excessive confidence which it has hitherto received. The two
Thinite dynasties, in direct descent from the fabulous Menes, furnish,
like this hero himself, only a tissue of romantic tales and miraculous
legends in the place of history. A double-headed stork, which had
appeared in the first year of Teti, son of Menes, had foreshadowed to
Egypt a long prosperity, but a famine under Ouenephes, and a terrible
plague under Semempses, had depopulated the country; the laws had been
relaxed, great crimes had been committed, and revolts had broken out.

During the reign of the Boethos a gulf had opened near Bubastis, and
swallowed up many people, then the Nile had flowed with honey for
fifteen days in the time of Nephercheres, and Sesochris was supposed to
have been a giant in stature. A few details about royal edifices were
mixed up with these prodigies. Teti had laid the foundation of the great
palace of Memphis, Ouenephes had built the pyramids of Ko-kome near
Saqqara. Several of the ancient Pharaohs had published books on
theology, or had written treatises on anatomy and medicine; several had
made laws called Kakôû, the male of males, or the bull of bulls. They
explained his name by the statement that he had concerned himself about
the sacred animals; he had proclaimed as gods, Hapis of Memphis, Mnevis
of Heliopolis, and the goat of Mendes.

After him, Binothris had conferred the right of succession upon all
women of the blood-royal. The accession of the III dynasty, a Memphite
one according to Manetho, did not at first change the miraculous
character of this history. The Libyans had revolted against Necherophes,
and the two armies were encamped before each other, when one night the
disk of the moon became immeasurably enlarged, to the great alarm of the
rebels, who recognized in this phenomenon a sign of the anger of heaven,
and yielded without fighting. Tosorthros, the successor of Necherophes,
brought the hieroglyphs and the art of stone-cutting to perfection. He
composed, as Teti did, books of medicine, a fact which caused him to be
identified with the healing god Imhotpu. The priests related these
things seriously, and the Greek writers took them down from their lips
with the respect which they offered to everything emanating from the
wise men of Egypt.

What they related of the human kings was not more detailed, as we see,
than their accounts of the gods. Whether the legends dealt with deities
or kings, all that we know took its origin, not in popular imagination,
but in sacerdotal dogma: they were invented long after the times they
dealt with, in the recesses of the temples, with an intention and a
method of which we are enabled to detect flagrant instances on the
monuments.

Toward the middle of the third century before our era the Greek troops
stationed on the southern frontier, in the forts at the first cataract,
developed a particular veneration for Isis of Philæ. Their devotion
spread to the superior officers who came to inspect them, then to the
whole population of the Thebaid, and finally reached the court of the
Macedonian kings. The latter, carried away by force of example, gave
every encouragement to a movement which attracted worshippers to a
common sanctuary, and united in one cult two races over which they
ruled. They pulled down the meagre building of the Saite period, which
had hitherto sufficed for the worship of Isis, constructed at great cost
the temple which still remains almost intact, and assigned to it
considerable possessions in Nubia, which, in addition to gifts from
private individuals, made the goddess the richest land-owner in Southern
Egypt. Knumu and his two wives, Anukit and Satit, who, before Isis, had
been the undisputed suzerains of the cataract, perceived with jealousy
their neighbor's prosperity: the civil wars and invasions of the
centuries immediately preceding had ruined their temples, and their
poverty contrasted painfully with the riches of the new-comer.

The priests resolved to lay this sad state of affairs before King
Ptolemy, to represent to him the services which they had rendered and
still continued to render to Egypt, and above all to remind him of the
generosity of the ancient Pharaohs, whose example, owing to the poverty
of the times, the recent Pharaohs had been unable to follow. Doubtless
authentic documents were wanting in their archives to support their
pretensions: they therefore inscribed upon a rock, in the island of
Sehel, a long inscription which they attributed to Zosiri of the III
dynasty. This sovereign had left behind him a vague reputation for
greatness. As early as the XII dynasty Usirtasen III had claimed him as
"his father"--his ancestor--and had erected a statue to him; the priests
knew that, by invoking him, they had a chance of obtaining a hearing.

The inscription which they fabricated set forth that in the eighteenth
year of Zosiri's reign he had sent to Madir, lord of Elephantine, a
message couched in these terms: "I am overcome with sorrow for the
throne, and for those who reside in the palace, and my heart is
afflicted and suffers greatly because the Nile has not risen in my time,
for the space of eight years. Corn is scarce, there is a lack of
herbage, and nothing is left to eat: when any one calls upon his
neighbors for help, they take pains not to go. The child weeps, the
young man is uneasy, the hearts of the old men are in despair, their
limbs are bent, they crouch on the earth, they fold their hands; the
courtiers have no further resources; the shops formerly furnished with
rich wares are now filled only with air, all that was within them has
disappeared. My spirit also, mindful of the beginning of things, seeks
to call upon the savior who was here where I am, during the centuries of
the gods, upon Thot-Ibis, that great wise one, upon Imhotpu, son of
Phtah of Memphis. Where is the place in which the Nile is born? Who is
the god or goddess concealed there? What is his likeness?"

The lord of Elephantine brought his reply in person. He described to
the king, who was evidently ignorant of it, the situation of the island
and the rocks of the cataract, the phenomena of the inundation, the gods
who presided over it, and who alone could relieve Egypt from her
disastrous plight.

Zosiri repaired to the temple of the principality and offered the
prescribed sacrifices; the god arose, opened his eyes, panted, and cried
aloud, "I am Khnumu who created thee!" and promised him a speedy return
of a high Nile and the cessation of the famine.

Pharaoh was touched by the benevolence which his divine father had shown
him; he forthwith made a decree by which he ceded to the temple all his
rights of suzerainty over the neighboring nomes within a radius of
twenty miles.

Henceforward the entire population, tillers and vinedressers, fishermen
and hunters, had to yield the tithe of their income to the priests; the
quarries could not be worked without the consent of Khnumu, and the
payment of a suitable indemnity into his coffers; finally, metals and
precious woods, shipped thence for Egypt, had to submit to a toll on
behalf of the temple.

Did the Ptolemies admit the claims which the local priests attempted to
deduce from this romantic tale? and did the god regain possession of the
domains and dues which they declared had been his right? The stele shows
us with what ease the scribes could forge official documents when the
exigencies of daily life forced the necessity upon them; it teaches us
at the same time how that fabulous chronicle was elaborated, whose
remains have been preserved for us by classical writers. Every prodigy,
every fact related by Manetho, was taken from some document analogous to
the supposed inscription of Zosiri.

The real history of the early centuries, therefore, eludes our
researches, and no contemporary record traces for us those vicissitudes
which Egypt passed through before being consolidated into a single
kingdom, under the rule of one man. Many names, apparently of powerful
and illustrious princes, had survived in the memory of the people; these
were collected, classified, and grouped in a regular manner into
dynasties, but the people were ignorant of any exact facts connected
with the names, and the historians, on their own account, were reduced
to collect apocryphal traditions for their sacred archives.

The monuments of these remote ages, however, cannot have entirely
disappeared: they existed in places where we have not as yet thought of
applying the pick, and chance excavations will some day most certainly
bring them to light. The few which we do possess barely go back beyond
the III dynasty: namely, the hypogeum of Shiri, priest of Sondi and
Pirsenu; possibly the tomb of Khuithotpu at Saqqara; the Great Sphinx of
Gizeh; a short inscription on the rocks of Wady Maghara, which
represents Zosiri (the same king of whom the priests of Khnumu in the
Greek period made a precedent) working the turquoise or copper mines of
Sinai; and finally the step pyramid where this Pharaoh rests. It forms a
rectangular mass, incorrectly oriented, with a variation from the true
north of 4° 35', 393 ft., 8 in. long from east to west, and 352 ft.
deep, with a height of 159 ft. 9 in. It is composed of six cubes, with
sloping sides, each being about 13 ft. less in width than the one below
it; that nearest to the ground measures 37 ft. 8 in. in height, and the
uppermost one 29 ft. 2 in.

It was entirely constructed of limestone from neighboring mountains. The
blocks are small and badly cut, the stone courses being concave, to
offer a better resistance to downward thrust and to shocks of
earthquake. When breaches in the masonry are examined, it can be seen
that the external surface of the steps has, as it were, a double stone
facing, each facing being carefully dressed. The body of the pyramid is
solid, the chambers being cut in the rock beneath. These chambers have
often been enlarged, restored, and reworked in the course of centuries,
and the passages which connect them form a perfect labyrinth into which
it is dangerous to venture without a guide. The columned porch, the
galleries and halls, all lead to a sort of enormous shaft, at the bottom
of which the architect had contrived a hiding-place, destined, no doubt,
to contain the more precious objects of the funerary furniture. Until
the beginning of this century the vault had preserved its original
lining of glazed pottery. Three quarters of the wall surface was covered
with green tiles, oblong and lightly convex on the outer side, but flat
on the inner: a square projection pierced with a hole served to fix them
at the back in a horizontal line by means of flexible wooden rods. Three
bands which frame one of the doors are inscribed with the titles of the
Pharaoh. The hieroglyphs are raised in either blue, red, green, or
yellow, on a fawn-colored ground.

The towns, palaces, temples, all the buildings which princes and kings
had constructed to be witnesses of their power or piety to future
generations, have disappeared in the course of ages, under the feet and
before the triumphal blasts of many invading hosts: the pyramid alone
has survived, and the most ancient of the historic monuments of Egypt is
a tomb.



COMPILATION OF THE EARLIEST CODE

B.C. 2250

HAMMURABI


     The foundation of all law-making in Babylonia from about the middle
     of the twenty-third century B.C. to the fall of the empire was the
     code of Hammurabi, the first king of all Babylonia. He expelled
     invaders from his dominions, cemented the union of north and south
     Babylonia, made Babylon the capital, and thus consolidated an
     empire which endured for almost twenty centuries. The code which he
     compiled is the oldest known in history, older by nearly a thousand
     years than the Mosaic, and of earlier date than the so-called Laws
     of Manu. It is one of the most important historical landmarks in
     existence, a document which gives us knowledge not otherwise
     furnished of the country and people, the civilization and life of a
     great centre of human action hitherto almost hidden in obscurity.
     Hammurabi, who is supposed to be identical with Amraphel, a
     contemporary of Abraham, is regarded as having certainly
     contributed through his laws to the Hebrew traditions. The
     discovery of this code has, therefore, a special value in relation
     to biblical studies, upon which so many other important side-lights
     have recently been thrown.

     The discovery was made at Susa, Persia, in December and January,
     1901-2, by M. de Morgan's French excavating expedition. The
     monument on which the laws are inscribed, a stele of black diorite
     nearly eight feet high, has been fully described by Assyriologists,
     and the inscription transcribed. It has been completely translated
     by Dr. Hugo Winckler, whose translation (in _Die Gesetze
     Hammurabis_, Band IV, Heft 4, of _Der Alte Orient_) furnishes the
     basis of the version herewith presented. Following an
     autobiographic preface, the text of the code contains two hundred
     and eighty edicts and an epilogue. To readers of the code who are
     familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures many biblical parallels will
     occur.


When Anu the Sublime, king of the Anunaki, and Bel [god of the earth],
the Lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned
to Marduk [or Merodach, the great god of Babylon] the over-ruling son of
Ea [god of the waters], God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man,
and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his
illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting
kingdom in it [Babylon], whose foundations are laid so solidly as those
of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the
exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness
in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the
strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the
black-headed people like Shamash [the sun-god], and enlighten the land,
to further the well-being of mankind.

Hammurabi, the prince, called of Bel am I, making riches and increase,
enriching Nippur and Dur-ilu beyond compare, sublime patron of E-kur
[temple of Bel in Nippur, the seat of Bel's worship]; who reëstablished
Eridu and purified the worship of E-apsu [temple of Ea, at Eridu, the
chief seat of Ea's worship]; who conquered the four quarters of the
world, made great the name of Babylon, rejoiced the heart of Marduk, his
lord who daily pays his devotions in Saggil [Marduk's temple in
Babylon]; the royal scion whom Sin made; who enriched Ur [Abraham's
birthplace, the seat of the worship of Sin, the moon-god]; the humble,
the reverent, who brings wealth to Gish-shir-gal; the white king, heard
of Shamash, the mighty, who again laid the foundations of Sippana [seat
of worship of Shamash and his wife, Malkat]; who clothed the gravestones
of Malkat with green [symbolizing the resurrection of nature]; who made
E-babbar [temple of the sun in Sippara] great, which is like the
heavens; the warrior who guarded Larsa and renewed E-babbar [temple of
the sun in Larsa, biblical Elassar, in Southern Babylonia], with Shamash
as his helper; the lord who granted new life to Uruk [biblical Erech],
who brought plenteous water to its inhabitants, raised the head of
E-anna [temple of Ishtar-Nana at Uruk], and perfected the beauty of Anu
and Nana; shield of the land, who reunited the scattered inhabitants of
Isin; who richly endowed E-gal-mach [temple of Isin]; the protecting
king of the city, brother of the god Zamama [god of Kish]; who firmly
founded the farms of Kish, crowned E-me-te-ursag [sister city of Kish]
with glory, redoubled the great holy treasures of Nana, managed the
temple of Harsag-kalama [temple of Nergal at Cuthah]; the grave of the
enemy, whose help brought about the victory; who increased the power of
Cuthah; made all glorious in E-shidlam [a temple], the black steer
[title of Marduk] who gored the enemy; beloved of the god Nebo, who
rejoiced the inhabitants of Borsippa, the Sublime; who is indefatigable
for E-zida [temple of Nebo in Babylon]; the divine king of the city; the
White, Wise; who broadened the fields of Dilbat, who heaped up the
harvests for Urash; the Mighty, the lord to whom come sceptre and crown,
with which he clothes himself; the Elect of Ma-ma; who fixed the temple
bounds of Kesh, who made rich the holy feasts of Nin-tu [goddess of
Kesh]; the provident, solicitous, who provided food and drink for Lagash
and Girsu, who provided large sacrificial offerings for the temple of
Ningirsu [at Lagash]; who captured the enemy, the Elect of the oracle
who fulfilled the prediction of Hallab, who rejoiced the heart of Anunit
[whose oracle had predicted victory]; the pure prince, whose prayer is
accepted by Adad [god of Hallab, with goddess Anunit]; who satisfied the
heart of Adad, the warrior, in Karkar, who restored the vessels for
worship in E-ud-gal-gal; the king who granted life to the city of Adab;
the guide of E-mach; the princely king of the city, the irresistible
warrior, who granted life to the inhabitants of Mashkanshabri, and
brought abundance to the temple of Shid-lam; the White, Potent, who
penetrated the secret cave of the bandits, saved the inhabitants of
Malka from misfortune, and fixed their home fast in wealth; who
established pure sacrificial gifts for Ea and Dam-gal-nun-na, who made
his kingdom everlastingly great; the princely king of the city, who
subjected the districts on the Ud-kib-nun-na Canal [Euphrates?] to the
sway of Dagon, his Creator; who spared the inhabitants of Mera and
Tutul; the sublime prince, who makes the face of Ninni shine; who
presents holy meals to the divinity of Nin-a-zu, who cared for its
inhabitants in their need, provided a portion for them in Babylon in
peace; the shepherd of the oppressed and of the slaves; whose deeds find
favor before Anunit, who provided for Anunit in the temple of Dumash in
the suburb of Agade; who recognizes the right, who rules by law; who
gave back to the city of Assur its protecting god; who let the name of
Istar of Nineveh remain in E-mish-mish; the Sublime, who humbles himself
before the great gods; successor of Sumula-il; the mighty son of
Sin-muballit; the royal scion of Eternity; the mighty monarch, the sun
of Babylon, whose rays shed light over the land of Sumer and Akkad; the
king, obeyed by the four quarters of the world; Beloved of Ninni, am I.

When Marduk sent me to rule over men, to give the protection of right to
the land, I did right and righteousness in..., and brought about the
well-being of the oppressed.


CODE OF LAWS

1. If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he cannot
prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.

2. If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to
the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser
shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the
accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the
accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river
shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.

3. If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and
does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offence
charged, be put to death.

4. If he satisfy the elders to impose a fine of grain or money, he shall
receive the fine that the action produces.

5. If a judge try a case, reach a decision and present his judgment in
writing; if later error shall appear in his decision, and it be through
his own fault, then he shall pay twelve times the fine set by him in the
case, and he shall be publicly removed from the judge's bench, and never
again shall he sit there to render judgment.

6. If any one steal the property of a temple or of the court, he shall
be put to death, and also the one who receives the stolen thing from him
shall be put to death.

7. If any one buy from the son or the slave of another man, without
witnesses or a contract, silver or gold, a male or female slave, an ox
or a sheep, an ass or anything, or if he take it in charge, he is
considered a thief and shall be put to death.

8. If any one steal cattle or sheep, or an ass, or a pig or a goat, if
it belong to a god or to the court, the thief shall pay thirtyfold
therefor; if they belonged to a freed man [of the king] he shall pay
tenfold; if the thief has nothing with which to pay he shall be put to
death.

9. If any one lose an article, and find it in the possession of another:
if the person in whose possession the thing is found say "A merchant
sold it to me, I paid for it before witnesses," and if the owner of the
thing say "I will bring witnesses who know my property," then shall the
purchaser bring the merchant who sold it to him, and the witnesses
before whom he bought it, and the owner shall bring witnesses who can
identify his property. The judge shall examine their testimony--both of
the witnesses before whom the price was paid, and of the witnesses who
identify the lost article on oath. The merchant is then proven to be a
thief and shall be put to death. The owner of the lost article receives
his property, and he who bought it receives the money he paid from the
estate of the merchant.

10. If the purchaser does not bring the merchant and the witnesses
before whom he bought the article, but its owner bring witnesses who
identify it, then the buyer is the thief and shall be put to death, and
the owner receives the lost article.

11. If the owner do not bring witnesses to identify the lost article, he
is an evil-doer, he has traduced, and shall be put to death.

12. If the witnesses be not at hand, then shall the judge set a limit,
at the expiration of six months. If his witnesses have not appeared
within the six months, he is an evil-doer, and shall bear the fine of
the pending case.

14. If any one steal the minor son of another, he shall be put to death.

15. If any one take a male or female slave of the court, or a male or
female slave of a freed man, outside the city gates, he shall be put to
death.

16. If any one receive into his house a runaway male or female slave of
the court, or of a freedman, and does not bring it out at the public
proclamation of the major domus, the master of the house shall be put to
death.

17. If any one find a runaway male or female slave in the open country
and bring them to their masters, the master of the slaves shall pay him
two shekels of silver.

18. If the slave will not give the name of the master, the finder shall
bring him to the palace; a further investigation must follow and the
slave shall be returned to his master.

19. If he hold the slaves in his house, and they are caught there, he
shall be put to death.

20. If the slave that he caught run away from him, then shall he swear
to the owners of the slave, and he is free of all blame.

21. If any one break a hole into a house [break in to steal], he shall
be put to death before that hole and be buried.

22. If any one is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be
put to death.

23. If the robber is not caught, then shall he who was robbed claim
under oath the amount of his loss; then shall the community, and ... on
whose ground and territory and in whose domain it was compensate him for
the goods stolen.

24. If persons are stolen, then shall the community and ... pay one mina
of silver to their relatives.

25. If fire break out in a house, and some one who comes to put it out,
cast his eye upon the property of the owner of the house, and take the
property of the master of the house, he shall be thrown into that
self-same fire.

26. If a chieftain or a man [common soldier], who has been ordered to go
upon the king's highway [for war] does not go, but hires a mercenary, if
he withholds the compensation, then shall this officer or man be put to
death, and he who represented him shall take possession of his house.

27. If a chieftain or man be caught in the misfortune of the king
[captured in battle], and if his fields and garden be given to another
and he take possession, if he return and reaches his place, his field
and garden shall be returned to him, he shall take it over again.

28. If a chieftain or a man be caught in the misfortune of a king, if
his son is able to enter into possession, then the field and garden
shall be given to him, he shall take over the fee of his father.

29. If his son is still young, and cannot take possession, a third of
the field and garden shall be given to his mother, and she shall bring
him up.

30. If a chieftain or a man leave his house, garden and field and hires
it out, and some one else takes possession of his house, garden and
field and uses it for three years: if the first owner return and claims
his house, garden and field, it shall not be given to him, but he who
has taken possession of it and used it shall continue to use it.

31. If he hire it out for one year and then return, the house, garden
and field shall be given back to him, and he shall take it over again.

32. If a chieftain or a man is captured on the "Way of the King" [in
war], and a merchant buy him free, and bring him back to his place; if
he have the means in his house to buy his freedom, he shall buy himself
free: if he have nothing in his house with which to buy himself free, he
shall be bought free by the temple of his community; if there be nothing
in the temple with which to buy him free, the court shall buy his
freedom. His field, garden and house shall not be given for the purchase
of his freedom.

33. If a ... or a ... [from the connection, some man higher in rank than
a chieftain] enter himself as withdrawn from the "Way of the King," and
send a mercenary as substitute, but withdraw him, then the ... or ...
shall be put to death.

34. If a ... [same as in 33] or a ... harm the property of a captain,
injure the captain, or take away from the captain a gift presented to
him by the king then the ... or ... shall be put to death.

35. If any one buy the cattle or sheep which the king has given to
chieftains from him he loses his money.

35. The field, garden and house of a chieftain, of a man, or of one
subject to quit-rent, cannot be sold.

37. If any one buy the field, garden and house of a chieftain, man or
one subject to quit-rent, his contract tablet of sale shall be broken
[declared invalid] and he loses his money. The field, garden and house
return to their owners.

38. A chieftain, man or one subject to quit-rent cannot assign his
tenure of field, house and garden to his wife or daughter, nor can he
assign it for a debt.

39. He may, however, assign a field, garden or house which he has
bought, and holds as property, to his wife or daughter or give it for
debt.

40. He may sell field, garden and house to a merchant [royal agents] or
to any other public official, the buyer holding field, house and garden
for its usufruct.

41. If any one fence in the field, garden and house of a chieftain, man
or one subject to quit-rent, furnishing the palings therefor; if the
chieftain, man or one subject to quit-rent return to field, garden and
house, the palings which were given to him become his property.

42. If any one take over a field to till it, and obtain no harvest
therefrom, it must be proved that he did no work on the field, and he
must deliver grain, just as his neighbor raised, to the owner of the
field.

43. If he do not till the field, but let it lie fallow, he shall give
grain like his neighbor's to the owner of the field, and the field which
he let lie fallow he must plow and sow and return to its owner.

44. If any one take over a waste-lying field to make it arable, but is
lazy, and does not make it arable, he shall plow the fallow field in the
fourth year, harrow it and till it, and give it back to its owner and
for each ten _gan_ [a measure of area] ten _gur_ [dry measure] of grain
shall be paid.

45. If a man rent his field for tillage for a fixed rental, and receive
the rent of his field, but bad weather come and destroy the harvest, the
injury falls upon the tiller of the soil.

46. If he do not receive a fixed rental for his field, but lets it on
half or third shares of the harvest, the grain on the field shall be
divided proportionately between the tiller and the owner.

47. If the tiller, because he did not succeed in the first year, has had
the soil tilled by others, the owner may raise no objection; the field
has been cultivated and he receives the harvest according to agreement.

48. If any one owe a debt for a loan, and a storm prostrates the grain,
or the harvest fail, or the grain does not grow for lack of water; in
that year he need not give his creditor any grain, he washes his
debt-tablet in water [a symbolic action indicating the inability to pay]
and pays no rent for this year.

49. If any one take money from a merchant, and give the merchant a field
tillable for corn or sesame and order him to plant corn or sesame in the
field, and to harvest the crop; if the cultivator plant corn or sesame
in the field, at the harvest the corn or sesame that is in the field
shall belong to the owner of the field and he shall pay corn as rent,
for the money he received from the merchant, and the livelihood of the
cultivator shall he give to the merchant.

50. If he give a cultivated corn-field or a cultivated sesame-field, the
corn or sesame in the field shall belong to the owner of the field, and
he shall return the money to the merchant as rent.

51. If he have no money to repay, then he shall pay in corn or sesame in
place of the money as rent for what he received from the merchant,
according to the royal tariff.

52. If the cultivator do not plant corn or sesame in the field, the
debtor's contract is not weakened.

53. If any one be too lazy to keep his dam in proper condition, and does
not so keep it; if then the dam break and all the fields be flooded,
then shall he in whose dam the break occurred be sold for money, and the
money shall replace the corn which he has caused to be ruined.

54. If he be not able to replace the corn, then he and his possessions
shall be divided among the farmers whose corn he has flooded.

55. If any one open his ditches to water his crop, but is careless, and
the water flood the field of his neighbor, then he shall pay his
neighbor corn for his loss.

56. If a man let in the water, and the water overflow the plantation of
his neighbor, he shall pay ten _gur_ of corn for every ten _gan_ of
land.

57. If a shepherd, without the permission of the owner of the field, and
without the knowledge of the owner of the sheep, lets the sheep into a
field to graze, then the owner of the field shall harvest his crop, and
the shepherd, who had pastured his flock there without permission of
the owner of the field, shall pay to the owner twenty _gur_ of corn for
every ten _gan_.

58. If after the flocks have left the pasture and been shut up in the
common fold at the city gate, any shepherd let them into a field and
they graze there, this shepherd shall take possession of the field which
he has allowed to be grazed on, and at the harvest he must pay sixty
_gur_ of corn for every ten _gan_.

59. If any man, without the knowledge of the owner of a garden, fell a
tree in a garden he shall pay half a mina in money.

60. If any one give over a field to a gardener, for him to plant it as a
garden, if he work at it, and care for it for four years, in the fifth
year the owner and the gardener shall divide it, the owner taking his
part in charge.

61. If the gardener has not completed the planting of the field, leaving
one part unused, this shall be assigned to him as his.

62. If he do not plant the field that was given over to him as a garden,
if it be arable land [for corn or sesame] the gardener shall pay the
owner the produce of the field for the years that he let it lie fallow,
according to the product of neighboring fields, put the field in arable
condition and return it to its owner.


63. If he transform waste land into arable fields and return it to its
owner, the latter shall pay him for one year ten _gur_ for ten _gan_.

64. If any one hand over his garden to a gardener to work, the gardener
shall pay to its owner two-thirds of the produce of the garden, for so
long as he has it in possession, and the other third shall he keep.

65. If the gardener do not work in the garden and the product fall off,
the gardener shall pay in proportion to other neighboring gardens.

[Here a portion of the text is missing, apparently comprising
thirty-five paragraphs.]

100. ... interest for the money, as much as he has received, he shall
give a note therefor, and on the day, when they settle, pay to the
merchant.

101. If there are no mercantile arrangements in the place whither he
went, he shall leave the entire amount of money which he received with
the broker to give to the merchant.

102. If a merchant intrust money to an agent [broker] for some
investment, and the broker suffer a loss in the place to which he goes,
he shall make good the capital to the merchant.

103. If, while on the journey, an enemy take away from him anything that
he had, the broker shall swear by God [take an oath] and be free of
obligation.

104. If a merchant give an agent corn, wool, oil or any other goods to
transport, the agent shall give a receipt for the amount, and compensate
the merchant therefor. Then he shall obtain a receipt from the merchant
for the money that he gives the merchant.

105. If the agent is careless, and does not take a receipt for the money
which he gave the merchant, he cannot consider the unreceipted money as
his own.

106. If the agent accept money from the merchant, but have a quarrel
with the merchant [denying the receipt], then shall the merchant swear
before God and witnesses that he has given this money to the agent, and
the agent shall pay him three times the sum.

107. If the merchant cheat the agent, in that as the latter has returned
to him all that had been given him, but the merchant denies the receipt
of what had been returned to him, then shall this agent convict the
merchant before God and the judges, and if he still deny receiving what
the agent had given him shall pay six times the sum to the agent.

108. If a tavern-keeper [feminine] does not accept corn according to
gross weight in payment of drink, but takes money, and the price of the
drink is less than that of the corn, she shall be convicted and thrown
into the water.

109. If conspirators meet in the house of a tavern-keeper, and these
conspirators are not captured and delivered to the court, the
tavern-keeper shall be put to death.

110. If a "sister of a god" [one devoted to the temple] open a tavern,
or enter a tavern to drink, then shall this woman be burned to death.

111. If an inn-keeper furnish sixty _ka_ of _usakani_-drink to ... she
shall receive fifty _ka_ of corn at the harvest.

112. If anyone be on a journey and intrust silver, gold, precious
stones, or any movable property to another, and wish to recover it from
him; if the latter do not bring all of the property to the appointed
place, but appropriate it to his own use, then shall this man, who did
not bring the property to hand it over be convicted, and he shall pay
fivefold for all that had been intrusted to him.

113. If any one have a consignment of corn or money, and he take from
the granary or box, without the knowledge of the owner, then shall he
who took corn without the knowledge of the owner out of the granary or
money out of the box be legally convicted, and repay the corn he has
taken. And he shall lose whatever commission was paid to him, or due
him.

114. If a man have no claim on another for corn and money, and try to
demand it by force, he shall pay one-third of a mina of silver in every
case.

115. If any one have a claim for corn or money upon another and imprison
him; if the prisoner die in prison a natural death, the case shall go no
further.

116. If the prisoner die in prison from blows or maltreatment, the
master of the prisoner shall convict the merchant before the judge. If
he was a free-born man, the son of the merchant shall be put to death;
if it was a slave, he shall pay one-third of a mina of gold, and all
that the master of the prisoner gave he shall forfeit.

117. If any one fail to meet a claim for debt, and sell himself, his
wife, his son and daughter for money or give them away to forced labor:
they shall work for three years in the house of the man who bought them
or the proprietor and in the fourth year they shall be set free.

118. If he give a male or female slave away for forced labor, and the
merchant sublease them, or sell them for money, no objection can be
raised.

119. If any one fail to meet a claim for debt, and he sell the maid
servant who has borne him children, for money, the money which the
merchant has paid shall be repaid to him by the owner of the slave and
she shall be freed.

120. If any one store corn for safe keeping in another person's house,
and any harm happen to the corn in storage, or if the owner of the house
open the granary and take some of the corn, or if especially he deny
that the corn was stored in his house: then the owner of the corn shall
claim his corn before God [on oath], and the owner of the house shall
pay its owner for all of the corn that he took.

121. If any one store corn in another man's house he shall pay him
storage at the rate of one _gur_ for every five _ka_ of corn per year.

122. If any one give another silver, gold or anything else to keep, he
shall show everything to some witness, draw up a contract, and then hand
it over for safe keeping.

123. If he turn it over for safe keeping without witness or contract,
and if he to whom it was given deny it, then he has no legitimate claim.

124. If any one deliver silver, gold or anything else to another for
safe keeping, before a witness, but he deny it, he shall be brought
before a judge, and all that he has denied he shall pay in full.

125. If any one place his property with another for safe keeping, and
there, either through thieves or robbers, his property and the property
of the other man be lost, the owner of the house, through whose neglect
the loss took place, shall compensate the owner for all that was given
to him in charge. But the owner of the house shall try to follow up and
recover his property, and take it away from the thief.

126. If any one who has not lost his goods, state that they have been
lost, and make false claims: if he claim his goods and amount of injury
before God, even though he has not lost them, he shall be fully
compensated for all his loss claimed [_i.e._, the oath is all that is
needed].

127. If any one point the finger [slander] at a sister of a god or the
wife of any one, and cannot prove it, this man shall be taken, before
the judges and his brow shall be marked [by cutting the skin, or perhaps
hair].

128. If a man take a woman to wife, but have no intercourse with her,
this woman is no wife to him.

129. If a man's wife be surprised with another man, both shall be tied
and thrown into the water, but the husband may pardon his wife and the
king his slaves.

130. If a man violate the wife [betrothed or child-wife] of another man,
who has never known a man, and still lives in her father's house, and
sleep with her and be surprised, this man shall be put to death, but the
wife is blameless.

131. If a man bring a charge against one's wife, but she is not
surprised with another man [_delit flagrant_ is necessary for divorce],
she must take an oath and then may return to her house.

132. If the "finger is pointed" at a man's wife about another man, but
she is not caught sleeping with the other man, she shall jump into the
river for her husband [prove her innocence by this test].

133. If a man is taken prisoner in war, and there is a sustenance in his
house, but his wife leave house and court, and go to another house:
because this wife did not keep her court, and went to another house, she
shall be judicially condemned and thrown into the water.

134. If any one be captured in war and there is no sustenance in his
house, if then his wife go to another house, this woman shall be held
blameless.

135. If a man be taken prisoner in war and there be no sustenance in his
house and his wife go to another house and bear children; and if later
her husband return and come to his home: then this wife shall return to
her husband, but the children follow their father.

136. If any one leave his house, run away, and then his wife go to
another house, if then he return, and wishes to take his wife back:
because he fled from his home and ran away, the wife of this runaway
shall not return to her husband.

137. If a man wish to separate from a woman who has borne him children,
or from his wife who has borne him children: then he shall give that
wife her dowry, and a part of the usufruct of field, garden and
property, so that she can rear her children. When she has brought up her
children, a portion of all that is given to the children, equal as that
of one son, shall be given to her. She may then marry the man of her
heart.

138. If a man wishes to separate from his wife who has borne him no
children, he shall give her the amount of her purchase money [amount
formerly paid to the bride's father] and the dowry which she brought
from her father's house, and let her go.

139. If there was no purchase price he shall give her one mina of gold
as a gift of release.

140. If he be a freed man he shall give her one-third of a mina of gold.

141. If a man's wife, who lives in his house, wishes to leave it,
plunges into debt, tries to ruin her house, neglects her husband, and is
judicially convicted: if her husband offer her release, she may go on
her way, and he gives her nothing as a gift of release. If her husband
does not wish to release her, and if he take another wife, she shall
remain as servant in her husband's house.

142. If a woman quarrel with her husband, and say: "You are not
congenial to me," the reasons for her prejudice must be presented. If
she is guiltless, and there is no fault on her part, but he leaves and
neglects her, then no guilt attaches to this woman, she shall take her
dowry and go back to her father's house.

143. If she is not innocent, but leaves her husband, and ruins her
house, neglecting her husband, this woman shall be cast into the water.

144. If a man take a wife and this woman give her husband a
maid-servant, and she bear him children, but this man wishes to take
another wife, this shall not be permitted to him; he shall not take a
second wife.

145. If a man take a wife, and she bear him no children, and he intend
to take another wife: if he take this second wife, and bring her into
the house, this second wife shall not be allowed equality with his wife.

146. If a man take a wife and she give this man a maid servant as wife
and she bear him children, and then this maid assume equality with the
wife: because she has borne him children her master shall not sell her
for money, but he may keep her as a slave, reckoning her among the
maid-servants.

147. If she have not borne him children, then her mistress may sell her
for money.

148. If a man take a wife, and she be seized by disease, if he then
desire to take a second wife he shall not put away his wife, who has
been attacked by disease, but he shall keep her in the house which he
has built and support her so long as she lives.

149. If this woman does not wish to remain in her husband's house, then
he shall compensate her for the dowry that she brought with her from her
father's house, and she may go.

150. If a man give his wife a field, garden and house and a deed
therefor, if then after the death of her husband the sons raise no
claim, then the mother may bequeath all to one of her sons whom she
prefers, and need leave nothing to his brothers.

151. If a woman who lived in a man's house, made an agreement with her
husband, that no creditor can arrest her, and has given a document
therefor: if that man, before he married that woman, had a debt, the
creditor cannot hold the woman for it. But if the woman, before she
entered the man's house, had contracted a debt, her creditor cannot
arrest her husband therefor.

152. If after the woman had entered the man's house, both contracted a
debt, both must pay the merchant.

153. If the wife of one man on account of another man has their mates
[her husband and the other man's wife] murdered, both of them shall be
impaled.

154. If a man be guilty of incest with his daughter, he shall be driven
from the place [exiled].

155. If a man betroth a girl to his son, and his son have intercourse
with her, but he [the father] afterward defile her, and be surprised,
then he shall be bound and cast into the water [drowned].

156. If a man betroth a girl to his son, but his son has not known her,
and if then he defile her, he shall pay her half a gold mina, and
compensate her for all that she brought out of her father's house. She
may marry the man of her heart.

157. If any one be guilty of incest with his mother after his father,
both shall be burned.

158. If any one be surprised after his father with his chief wife, who
has borne children, he shall be driven out of his father's house.

159. If any one, who has brought chattels into his father-in-law's
house, and has paid the purchase-money, looks for another wife, and says
to his father-in-law: "I do not want your daughter," the girl's father
may keep all that he had brought.

160. If a man bring chattels into the house of his father-in-law, and
pay the "purchase price" [for his wife]: if then the father of the girl
say: "I will not give you my daughter," he shall give him back all that
he brought with him.

161. If a man bring chattels into his father-in-law's house and pay the
"purchase price," if then his friend slander him, and his father-in-law
say to the young husband: "You shall not marry my daughter," then he
shall give back to him undiminished all that he had brought with him;
but his wife shall not be married to the friend.

162. If a man marry a woman, and she bear sons to him; if then this
woman die, then shall her father have no claim on her dowry; this
belongs to her sons.

163. If a man marry a woman and she bear him no sons; if then this woman
die, if the "purchase price" which he had paid into the house of his
father-in-law is repaid to him, her husband shall have no claim upon the
dowry of this woman; it belongs to her father's house.

164. If his father-in-law do not pay back to him the amount of the
"purchase price" he may subtract the amount of the "purchase price" from
the dowry, and then pay the remainder to her father's house.

165. If a man give to one of his sons whom he prefers, a field, garden
and house and a deed therefor: if later the father die, and the brothers
divide [the estate], then they shall first give him the present of his
father, and he shall accept it; and the rest of the paternal property
shall they divide.

166. If a man take wives for his sons, but take no wife for his minor
son, and if then he die: if the sons divide the estate, they shall set
aside besides his portion the money for the "purchase price" for the
minor brother who had taken no wife as yet, and secure a wife for him.

167. If a man marry a wife and she bear him children: if this wife die
and he then take another wife and she bear him children: if then the
father die, the sons must not partition the estate according to the
mothers, they shall divide the dowries of their mothers only in this
way; the paternal estate they shall divide equally with one another.

168. If a man wish to put his son out of his house, and declare before
the judge: "I want to put my son out," then the judge shall examine into
his reasons. If the son be guilty of no great fault, for which he can be
rightfully put out, the father shall not put him out.

169. If he be guilty of a grave fault, which should rightfully deprive
him of the filial relationship, the father shall forgive him the first
time; but if he be guilty of a grave fault a second time the father may
deprive his son of all filial relation.

170. If his wife bear sons to a man, or his maid-servant have borne
sons, and the father while still living says to the children whom his
maid-servant has borne: "My sons," and he count them with the sons of
his wife; if then the father die, then the sons of the wife and of the
maid-servant shall divide the paternal property in common. The son of
the wife is to partition and choose.

171. If, however, the father while still living did not say to the sons
of the maid-servant: "My sons," and then the father dies, then the sons
of the maid-servant shall not share with the sons of the wife, but the
freedom of the maid and her sons shall be granted. The sons of the wife
shall have no right to enslave the sons of the maid; the wife shall take
her dowry [from her father], and the gift that her husband gave her and
deeded to her [separate from dowry, or the purchase money paid her
father], and live in the home of her husband: so long as she lives she
shall use it, it shall not be sold for money. Whatever she leaves shall
belong to her children.

172. If her husband made her no gift, she shall be compensated for her
gift, and she shall receive a portion from the estate of her husband,
equal to that of one child. If her sons oppress her, to force her out of
the house, the judge shall examine into the matter, and if the sons are
at fault the woman shall not leave her husband's house. If the woman
desire to leave the house, she must leave to her sons the gift which her
husband gave her, but she may take the dowry of her father's house. Then
she may marry the man of her heart.

173. If this woman bear sons to her second husband, in the place to
which she went, and then die, her earlier and later sons shall divide
the dowry between them.

174. If she bear no sons to her second husband, the sons of her first
husband shall have the dowry.

175. If a state slave or the slave of a freed man marry the daughter of
a free man, and children are born, the master of the slave shall have no
right to enslave the children of the free.

176. If, however, a state slave or the slave of a freed man marry a
man's daughter, and after he married her she bring a dowry from a
father's house, if then they both enjoy it and found a household, and
accumulate means, if then the slave die, then she who was free born may
take her dowry, and all that her husband and she had earned; she shall
divide them into two parts, one-half the master for the slave shall
take, and the other half shall the free-born woman take for her
children. If the free-born woman had no gift she shall take all that her
husband and she had earned and divide it into two parts; and the master
of the slave shall take one-half and she shall take the other for her
children.

177. If a widow, whose children are not grown, wishes to enter another
house [remarry], she shall not enter it without the knowledge of the
judge. If she enter another house the judge shall examine the estate of
the house of her first husband. Then the house of her first husband
shall be intrusted to the second husband and the woman herself as
managers. And a record must be made thereof. She shall keep the house in
order, bring up the children, and not sell the household utensils. He
who buys the utensils of the children of a widow shall lose his money,
and the goods shall return to their owners.

178. If a "devoted woman" or a prostitute [connected with the temple
neither can marry] to whom her father has given a dowry and a deed
therefor, but if in this deed it is not stated that she may bequeath it
as she pleases, and has not explicitly stated that she has the right of
disposal; if then her father die, then her brothers shall hold her field
and garden, and give her corn, oil and milk according to her portion,
and satisfy her. If her brothers do not give her corn, oil and milk
according to her share, then her field and garden shall be given to a
farmer whom she chooses and the farmer shall support her. She shall have
the usufruct of field and garden and all that her father gave her so
long as she lives, but she cannot sell or assign it to others. Her
position of inheritance belongs to her brothers.

179. If a "sister of a god" [whose hire went to the revenue of the
temple, counterpart to the public prostitute], or a prostitute, receive
a gift from her father, and a deed in which it has been explicitly
stated that she may dispose of it as she pleases, and give her complete
disposition thereof: if then her father die, then she may leave her
property to whomsoever she pleases. Her brothers can raise no claim
thereto.

180. If a father give a present to his daughter--either marriageable or
a prostitute [unmarriageable]--and then die, then she is to receive a
portion as a child from the paternal estate, and enjoy its usufruct so
long as she lives. Her estate belongs to her brothers.

181. If a father devote a temple-maid or temple-virgin to God and give
her no present: if then the father die, she shall receive the third of a
child's portion from the inheritance of her father's house, and enjoy
its usufruct so long as she lives. Her estate belongs to her brothers.

182. If a father devote his daughter as a wife of Marduk of Babylon [as
in 181], and give her no present, nor a deed; if then her father die,
then shall she receive one-third of her portion as a child of her
father's house from her brothers, but she shall not have the management
thereof. A wife of Marduk may leave her estate to whomsoever she wishes.

183. If a man give his daughter by a concubine a dowry, and a husband,
and a deed; if then her father die, she shall receive no portion from
the paternal estate.

184. If a man do not give a dowry to his daughter by a concubine, and no
husband; if then her father die then her brother shall give her a dowry
according to her father's wealth and secure a husband for her.

185. If a man adopt a child and to his name as son, and rear him, this
grown son cannot be demanded back again.

186. If a man adopt a son, and if after he has taken him he injure his
foster father and mother, then this adopted son shall return to his
father's house.

187. The son of a paramour in the palace service, or of a prostitute,
cannot be demanded back.

188. If an artisan has undertaken to rear a child and teaches him his
craft, he cannot be demanded back.

189. If he has not taught him his craft, this adopted son may return to
his father's house.

190. If a man does not maintain a child that he has adopted as son and
reared with his other children, then his adopted son may return to his
father's house.

191. If a man, who had adopted a son and reared him, founded a
household, and had children, wish to put this adopted son out, then this
son shall not simply go his way. His adoptive father shall give him of
his wealth one-third of a child's portion, and then he may go. He shall
not give him of the field, garden and house.

192. If a son of a paramour or a prostitute say to his adoptive father
or mother: "You are not my father, or my mother," his tongue shall be
cut off.

193. If the son of a paramour or a prostitute desire his father's house,
and desert his adoptive father and adoptive mother, and goes to his
father's house, then shall his eye be put out.

194. If a man give his child to a nurse and the child die in her hands,
but the nurse unbeknown to the father and mother nurse another child,
then they shall convict her of having nursed another child without the
knowledge of the father and mother and her breasts shall be cut off.

195. If a son strike his father, his hands shall be hewn off.

196. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out.

197. If he break another man's bone, his bone shall be broken.

198. If he put out the eye of a freed man, or break the bone of a freed
man, he shall pay one gold mina.

199. If he put out the eye of a man's slave, or break the bone of a
man's slave, he shall pay one-half of its value.

200. If a man knock out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be
knocked out.

201. If he knock out the teeth of a freed man, he shall pay one-third of
a gold mina.

202. If any one strike the body of a man higher in rank than he, he
shall receive sixty blows with an ox-hide whip in public.

203. If a free-born man strike the body of another free-born man of
equal rank, he shall pay one gold mina.

204. If a freed man strike the body of another freed man, he shall pay
ten shekels in money.

205. If the slave of a freed man strike the body of a freed man, his ear
shall be cut off.

206. If during a quarrel one man strike another and wound him, then he
shall swear, "I did not injure him wittingly," and pay the physician.

207. If the man die of his wound, he shall swear similarly, and if he
[the deceased] was a free-born man, he shall pay half a mina in money.

208. If he was a freed man, he shall pay one-third of a mina.

209. If a man strike a free-born woman so that she lose her unborn
child, he shall pay ten shekels for her loss.

210. If the woman die, his daughter shall be put to death.

211. If a woman of the freed class lose her child by a blow, he shall
pay five shekels in money.

212. If this woman die, he shall pay half a mina.

213. If he strike the maid-servant of a man, and she lose her child, he
shall pay two shekels in money.

214. If this maid-servant die, he shall pay one-third of a mina.

215. If a physician make a large incision with a operating knife and
cure it, or if he open a tumor [over the eye] with an operating knife,
and saves the eye, he shall receive ten shekels in money.

216. If the patient be a freed man, he receives five shekels.

217. If he be the slave of some one, his owner shall give the physician
two shekels.

218. If a physician make a large incision with the operating knife, and
kill him, or open a tumor with the operating knife, and cut out the eye,
his hands shall be cut off.

219. If a physician make a large incision in the slave of a freed man,
and kill him, he shall replace the slave with another slave.

220. If he had opened a tumor with the operating knife, and put out his
eye, he shall pay half his value.

221. If a physician heal the broken bone or diseased soft part of a man,
the patient shall pay the physician five shekels in money.

222. If he were a freed man he shall pay three shekels.

223. If he were a slave his owner shall pay the physician two shekels.

224. If a veterinary surgeon perform a serious operation on an ass or an
ox, and cure it, the owner shall pay the surgeon one-sixth of a shekel
as fee.

225. If he perform, a serious operation on an ass or ox, and kill it, he
shall pay the owner one-fourth of its value.

226. If a barber, without the knowledge of his master, cut the sign of a
slave on a slave not to be sold, the hands of this barber shall be cut
off.

227. If any one deceive a barber, and have him mark a slave not for sale
with the sign of a slave, he shall be put to death, and buried in his
house. The barber shall swear: "I did not mark him wittingly," and shall
be guiltless.

228. If a builder build a house for some one and complete it, he shall
give him a fee of two shekels in money for each _sar_ of surface.

229. If a builder build a house for some one, and does not construct it
properly, and the house which he built fall in and kill its owner, then
that builder shall be put to death.

230. If it kill the son of the owner the son of that builder shall be
put to death.

231. If it kill a slave of the owner, then he shall pay slave for slave
to the owner of the house.

232. If it ruin goods, he shall make compensation for all that has been
ruined, and inasmuch as he did not construct properly this house which
he built and it fell, he shall reërect the house from his own means.

233. If a builder build a house for some one, even though he has not
yet completed it; if then the walls seem toppling, the builder must make
the walls solid from his own means.

234. If a shipbuilder build a boat of sixty _gur_ for a man, he shall
pay him a fee of two shekels in money.

235. If a shipbuilder build a boat for some one, and do not make it
tight, if during that same year that boat is sent away and suffers
injury, the shipbuilder shall take the boat apart and put it together
tight at his own expense. The tight boat he shall give to the boat
owner.

236. If a man rent his boat to a sailor, and the sailor is careless, and
the boat is wrecked or goes aground, the sailor shall give the owner of
the boat another boat as compensation.

237. If a man hire a sailor and his boat, and provide it with corn,
clothing, oil and dates, and other things of the kind needed for fitting
it: if the sailor is careless, the boat is wrecked, and its contents
ruined, then the sailor shall compensate for the boat which was wrecked
and all in it that he ruined.

238. If a sailor wreck any one's ship, but saves it, he shall pay the
half of its value in money.

239. If a man hire a sailor, he shall pay him six _gur_ of corn per
year.

240. If a merchantman run against a ferryboat, and wreck it, the master
of the ship that was wrecked shall seek justice before God; the master
of the merchantman, which wrecked the ferryboat, must compensate the
owner for the boat and all that he ruined.

241. If any one impresses an ox for forced labor, he shall pay one-third
of a mina in money.

242. If any one hire oxen for a year, he shall pay four _gur_ of corn
for plow-oxen.

243. As rent of herd cattle he shall pay three _gur_ of corn to the
owner.

244. If any one hire an ox or an ass, and a lion kill it in the field,
the loss is upon its owner.

245. If any one hire oxen, and kill them by bad treatment or blows, he
shall compensate the owner, oxen for oxen.

246. If a man hire an ox, and he break its leg or cut the ligament of
its neck, he shall compensate the owner with ox for ox.

247. If any one hire an ox, and put out its eye, he shall pay the owner
one-half of its value.

248. If any one hire an ox, and break off a horn, or cut off its tail or
hurt its muzzle, he shall pay one-fourth of its value in money.

249. If any one hire an ox, and God strike it that it die, the man who
hired it shall swear by God and be considered guiltless.

250. If while an ox is passing on the street [market?] some one push it,
and kill it, the owner can set up no claim in the suit [against the
hirer].

251. If an ox be a goring ox, and it is shown that he is a gorer, and he
do not bind his horns, or fasten the ox up, and the ox gore a free-born
man and kill him, the owner shall pay one-half a mina in money.

252. If he kill a man's slave, he shall pay one-third of a mina.

253. If any one agree with another to tend his field, give him seed,
intrust a yoke of oxen to him, and bind him to cultivate the field, if
he steal the corn or plants, and take them for himself, his hands shall
be hewn off.

254. If he take the seed-corn for himself, and do not use the yoke of
oxen, he shall compensate him for the amount of the seed-corn.

255. If he sublet the man's yoke of oxen or steal the seed-corn,
planting nothing in the field, he shall be convicted, and for each one
hundred _gan_ he shall pay sixty _gur_ of corn.

256. If his community will not pay for him, then he shall be placed in
that field with the cattle [at work].

257. If any one hire a field laborer, he shall pay him eight _gur_ of
corn per year.

258. If any one hire an ox-driver, he shall pay him six _gur_ of corn
per year.

259. If any one steal a water-wheel from the field, he shall pay five
shekels in money to its owner.

260. If any one steal a _shadduf_ [used to draw water from the river or
canal] or a plow, he shall pay three shekels in money.

261. If any one hire a herdsman for cattle or sheep, he shall pay him
eight _gur_ of corn per annum.

262. If any one, a cow or a sheep ... [broken off].

263. If he kill the cattle or sheep that were given to him, he shall
compensate the owner with cattle for cattle and sheep for sheep.

264. If a herdsman, to whom cattle or sheep have been intrusted for
watching over, and who has received his wages as agreed upon, and is
satisfied, diminish the number of the cattle or sheep, or make the
increase by birth less, he shall make good the increase and profit which
was lost in the terms of settlement.

265. If a herdsman, to whose care cattle or sheep have been intrusted,
be guilty of fraud and make false returns of the natural increase, or
sell them for money, then shall he be convicted and pay the owner ten
times the loss.

266. If the animal be killed in the stable by God [an accident], or if a
lion kill it, the herdsman shall declare his innocence before God, and
the owner bears the accident in the stable.

267. If the herdsman overlook something, and an accident happen in the
stable, then the herdsman is at fault for the accident which he has
caused in the stable, and he must compensate the owner for the cattle or
sheep.

268. If any one hire an ox for threshing, the amount of the hire is
twenty _ka_ of corn.

269. If he hire an ass for threshing, the hire is twenty _ka_ of corn.

270. If he hire a young animal for threshing, the hire is ten _ka_ of
corn.

271. If any one hire oxen, cart and driver, he shall pay one hundred and
eighty _ka_ of corn per day.

272. If any one hire a cart alone, he shall pay forty _ka_ of corn per
day.

273. If any one hire a day laborer, he shall pay him from the New Year
until the fifth month [April to August, when days are long and work
hard] six gerahs in money per day; from the sixth month to the end of
the year he shall give him five gerahs per day.

274. If any one hire a skilled artisan, he shall pay as wages of the ...
five gerahs, as wages of the potter five gerahs, of a tailor five gerahs,
of ... gerahs, ... of ... gerahs ... of ... gerahs, of a carpenter four
gerahs, of a rope-maker four gerahs, of ... gerahs, of a mason ... gerahs
per day.

275. If any one hire a ferryboat, he shall pay three gerahs in money per
day.

276. If he hire a freight-boat, he shall pay two and one-half gerahs per
day.

277. If any one hire a ship of sixty _gur_ he shall pay one-sixth of a
shekel in money as its hire per day.

278. If any one buy a male or female slave, and before a month has
elapsed the _benu_-disease be developed, he shall return the slave to
the seller, and receive the money which he had paid.

279. If any one buy a male or female slave, and a third party claim it,
the seller is liable for the claim.

280. If while in a foreign country a man buy a male or female slave
belonging to another [of his own country]: if when he return home the
owner of the male or female slave recognize it: if the male or female
slave be a native of the country, he shall give them back without any
money.

281. If they are from another country, the buyer shall declare the
amount of money he paid before God, and the owner shall give the money
paid therefor to the merchant, and keep the male or female slave.

282. If a slave say to his master: "You are not my master," if they
convict him his master shall cut off his ear.


THE EPILOGUE

Laws of justice which Hammurabi, the wise king, established, A righteous
law, and pious statute did he teach the land. Hammurabi, the protecting
king am I. I have not withdrawn myself from the men, whom Bel gave to
me, the rule over whom Marduk gave to me, I was not negligent, but I
made them a peaceful abiding place. I expounded all great difficulties,
I made the light shine upon them. With the mighty weapons which Zamama
and Ishtar intrusted to me, with the keen vision with which Ea endowed
me, with the wisdom that Marduk gave me, I have uprooted the enemy above
and below [in north and south], subdued the earth, brought prosperity to
the land, guaranteed security to the inhabitants in their homes; a
disturber was not permitted. The great gods have called me, I am the
salvation-bearing shepherd [ruler], whose staff [sceptre] is straight
[just], the good shadow that is spread over my city; on my breast I
cherish the inhabitants of the land of Sumer and Akkad [Babylonia]; in
my shelter I have let them repose in peace; in my deep wisdom have I
inclosed them. That the strong might not injure the weak, in order to
protect the widows and orphans, I have in Babylon the city where Anu and
Bel raise high their head, in E-Sagil, the Temple, whose foundations
stand firm as heaven and earth, in order to bespeak justice in the land,
to settle all disputes, and heal all injuries, set up these my precious
words, written upon my memorial stone, before the image of me, as king
of righteousness.

The king who ruleth among the kings of the cities am I. My words are
well considered; there is no wisdom like unto mine. By the command of
Shamash [the sun-god], the great judge of heaven and earth, let
righteousness go forth in the land: by the order of Marduk, my lord, let
no destruction befall my monument. In E-Sagil, which I love, let my name
be ever repeated; let the oppressed, who has a case at law, come and
stand before this my image as king of righteousness; let him read the
inscription, and understand my precious words: the inscription will
explain his case to him; he will find out what is just, and his heart
will be glad [so that he will say]:

"Hammurabi is a ruler, who is as a father to his subjects, who holds the
words of Marduk in reverence, who has achieved conquest for Marduk over
the north and south, who rejoices the heart of Marduk, his lord, who has
bestowed benefits forever and ever on his subjects, and has established
order in the land."

When he reads the record, let him pray with full heart to Marduk, my
lord, and Zarpanit, my lady; and then shall the protecting deities and
the gods, who frequent E-Sagil, graciously grant the desires daily
presented before Marduk, my lord, and Zarpanit, my lady.

In future time, through all coming generations, let the king, who may be
in the land, observe the words of righteousness which I have written on
my monument; let him not alter the law of the land which I have given,
the edicts which I have enacted; my monument let him not mar. If such a
ruler have wisdom, and be able to keep his land in order, he shall
observe the words which I have written in this inscription; the rule,
statute and law of the land which I have given; the decisions which I
have made will this inscription show him; let him rule his subjects
accordingly, speak justice to them, give right decisions, root out the
miscreants and criminals from his land, and grant prosperity to his
subjects.

Hammurabi, the king of righteousness, on whom Shamash has conferred
right [or law] am I. My words are well considered, my deeds are not
equaled, to bring low those that were high, to humble the proud, to
expel insolence. If a succeeding ruler considers my words, which I have
written in this my inscription, if he do not annul my law, nor corrupt
my words, nor change my monument, then may Shamash lengthen that king's
reign, as he has that of me, the king of righteousness, that he may
reign in righteousness over his subjects. If this ruler do not esteem my
words, which I have written in my inscription, if he despise my curses,
and fear not the curse of God, if he destroy the law which I have given,
corrupt my words, change my monument, efface my name, write his name
there, or on account of the curses commission another so to do, that
man, whether king or ruler, patesi [priest-viceroy] or commoner, no
matter what he be, may the great God [Anu], the Father of the gods, who
has ordered my rule, withdraw from him the glory of royalty, break his
sceptre, curse his destiny. May Bel, the lord, who fixeth destiny, whose
command cannot be altered, who has made my kingdom great, order a
rebellion which his hand cannot control; may he let the wind of the
overthrow of his habitation blow, may he ordain the years of his rule in
groaning, years of scarcity, years of famine, darkness without light,
death with seeing eyes be fated to him; may he [Bel] order with his
potent mouth the destruction of his city, the dispersion of his
subjects, the cutting off of his rule, the removal of his name and
memory from the land. May Belit, the great Mother, whose command is
potent in E-Kur [the Babylonian Olympus], the Mistress, who hearkens
graciously to my petitions, in the seat of judgment and decision [where
Bel fixes destiny], turn his affairs evil before Bel, and put the
devastation of his land, the destruction of his subjects, the pouring
out of his life like water into the mouth of King Bel. May Ea, the great
ruler, whose fated decrees come to pass, the thinker of the gods, the
omniscient, who maketh long the days of my life, withdraw understanding
and wisdom from him, lead him to forgetfulness, shut up his rivers at
their sources, and not allow corn or sustenance for man to grow in his
land. May Shamash, the great Judge of heaven and earth, who supporteth
all means of livelihood, Lord of life-courage, shatter his dominion,
annul his law, destroy his way, make vain the march of his troops, send
him in his visions forecasts of the uprooting of the foundations of his
throne and of the destruction of his land. May the condemnation of
Shamash overtake him forthwith; may he be deprived of water above among
the living, and his spirit below in the earth. May Sin [the moon-god],
the Lord of Heaven, the divine father, whose crescent gives light among
the gods, take away the crown and regal throne from him; may he put upon
him heavy guilt, great decay, that nothing may be lower than he. May he
destine him as fated, days, months and years of dominion filled with
sighing and tears, increase of the burden of dominion, a life that is
like unto death. May Adad, the lord of fruitfulness, ruler of heaven and
earth, my helper, withhold from him rain from heaven, and the flood of
water from the springs, destroying his land by famine and want; may he
rage mightily over his city, and make his land into flood-hills [heaps
of ruined cities]. May Zamama, the great warrior, the first born son of
E-Kur, who goeth at my right hand, shatter his weapons on the field of
battle, turn day into night for him, and let his foe triumph over him.
May Ishtar, the goddess of fighting and war, who unfetters my weapons,
my gracious protecting spirit, who loveth my dominion, curse his kingdom
in her angry heart; in her great wrath, change his grace into evil, and
shatter his weapons on the place of fighting and war. May she create
disorder and sedition for him, strike down his warriors, that the earth
may drink their blood, and throw down the piles of corpses of his
warriors on the field; may she not grant him a life of mercy, deliver
him into the hands of his enemies, and imprison him in the land of his
enemies. May Nergal, the mighty among the gods, whose contest is
irresistible, who grants me victory, in his great might burn up his
subjects like a slender reed-stalk, cut off his limbs with his mighty
weapons, and shatter him like an earthen image. May Nin-tu, the sublime
mistress of the lands, the fruitful mother, deny him a son, vouchsafe
him no name, give him no successor among men. May Nin-karak, the
daughter of Anu, who adjudges grace to me, cause to come upon his
members in E-kur, high fever, severe wounds, that cannot be healed,
whose nature the physician does not understand, which he cannot treat
with dressing, which, like the bite of death, cannot be removed, until
they have sapped away his life.

May he lament the loss of his life-power, and may the great gods of
heaven and earth, the Anunnaki altogether inflict a curse and evil upon
the confines of the temple, the walls of this E-barra [the Sun temple of
Sippara], upon his dominion, his land, his warriors, his subjects and
his troops. May Bel curse him with the potent curses of his mouth that
cannot be altered, and may they come upon, him forthwith.



THESEUS FOUNDS ATHENS

B.C. 1235

PLUTARCH


     The founding of the city of Athens, apart from the mythological
     lore which ascribes its name to Athené, the goddess, is credited by
     the Greeks to Sais, a native of Egypt. The real founder of Athens,
     the one who made it a city and kingdom, was Theseus; an
     unacknowledged illegitimate child. The usual myth surrounds his
     birth and upbringing.

     King Ægeus, of Attica, his father, had an intrigue with Æthra.
     Before leaving, Ægeus informed her that he had hidden his sword and
     sandals beneath a great stone, hollowed out to receive them. She
     was charged that should a son be born to them and, on growing to
     man's estate, be able to lift the stone, Æthra must send him to his
     father, with these things under it, in all secrecy. These
     happenings were in Troezen, in which place Ægeus had been
     sojourning.

     All came about as expected. Theseus, the son, lifted the stone,
     took thence the deposit and departed for Attica, his father's home.
     On his way Theseus had a number of adventures which proved his
     prowess, not the least being his encounter with and defeat of
     Periphetes, the "club-bearer," so called from the weapon he used.

     Theseus had complied with the custom of his country by journeying
     to Delphi and offering the first-fruits of his hair, then cut for
     the first time. This first cutting of the hair was always an
     occasion of solemnity among the Greeks, the hair being dedicated to
     some god. It will be remembered that Homer speaks of this in the
     _Iliad_.

     One salient fact must be borne in mind in Grecian history, which is
     that it was a settled maxim that each city should have an
     independent sovereignty. "The patriotism of a Greek was confined to
     his city, and rarely kindled into any general love for the common
     welfare of Hellas."[22]

     [Footnote 22: Smith.]

     A Greek citizen of Athens was an alien in any other city of the
     peninsula. This political disunion caused the various cities to
     turn against each other, and laid them open to conquest by the
     Macedonians.


As he [Theseus] proceeded on his way, and reached the river Cephisus,
men of the Phytalid race were the first to meet and greet him. He
demanded to be purified from the guilt of bloodshed, and they purified
him, made propitiatory offerings, and also entertained him in their
houses, being the first persons from whom he had received any kindness
on his journey.

It is said to have been on the eighth day of the month Cronion, which is
now called Hecatombaion, that he came to his own city. On entering it he
found public affairs disturbed by factions, and the house of Ægeus in
great disorder; for Medea, who had been banished from Corinth, was
living with Ægeus, and had engaged by her drugs to enable Ægeus to have
children. She was the first to discover who Theseus was, while Ægeus,
who was an old man, and feared every one because of the disturbed state
of society, did not recognize him. Consequently she advised Ægeus to
invite him to a feast, that she might poison him.

Theseus accordingly came to Ægeus's table. He did not wish to be the
first to tell his name, but, to give his father an opportunity of
recognizing him, he drew his sword, as if he meant to cut some of the
meat with it, and showed it to Ægeus. Ægeus at once recognized it,
overset the cup of poison, looked closely at his son, and embraced him.
He then called a public meeting and made Theseus known as his son to the
citizens, with whom he was already very popular because of his bravery,
It is said that when the cup was overset the poison was spilt in the
place where now there is the enclosure in the Delphinium, for there
Ægeus dwelt; and the Hermes to the east of the temple there they call
the one who is "at the door of Ægeus."

But the sons of Pallas, who had previously to this expected that they
would inherit the kingdom on the death of Ægeus without issue, now that
Theseus was declared the heir, were much enraged, first that Ægeus
should be king, a man who was merely an adopted child of Pandion, and
had no blood relationship to Erechtheus, and next that Theseus, a
stranger and a foreigner, should inherit the kingdom. They consequently
declared war.

Dividing themselves into two bodies, the one proceeded to march openly
upon the city from Sphettus, under the command of Pallas their father,
while the other lay in ambush at Gargettus, in order that they might
fall upon their opponents on two sides at once. But there was a herald
among them named Leos, of the township of Agnus, who betrayed the plans
of the sons of Pallas to Theseus. He suddenly attacked those who were
in ambush, and killed them all, hearing which the other body under
Pallas dispersed. From this time forth they say that the township of
Pallene has never intermarried with that of Agnus, and that it is not
customary amongst them for heralds to begin a proclamation with the
words "Acouete Leo," (Oyez) for they hate the name of Leo because of the
treachery of that man.

Shortly after this the ship from Crete arrived for the third time to
collect the customary tribute. Most writers agree that the origin of
this was, that on the death of Androgeus, in Attica, which was ascribed
to treachery, his father Minos went to war, and wrought much evil to the
country, which at the same time was afflicted by scourges from heaven
(for the land did not bear fruit, and there was a great pestilence, and
the rivers sank into the earth).

So that as the oracle told the Athenians that, if they propitiated Minos
and came to terms with him, the anger of heaven would cease and they
should have a respite from their sufferings, they sent an embassy to
Minos and prevailed on him to make peace, on the condition that every
nine years they should send him a tribute of seven youths and seven
maidens. The most tragic of the legends states these poor children when
they reached Crete were thrown into the Labyrinth, and there either were
devoured by the Minotaur or else perished with hunger, being unable to
find the way out. The Minotaur, as Euripides tells us, was:

    "A form commingled, and a monstrous birth,
    Half man, half bull, in twofold shape combined."

So when the time of the third payment of the tribute arrived, and those
fathers who had sons not yet grown up had to submit to draw lots, the
unhappy people began to revile Ægeus, complaining that he, although the
author of this calamity, yet took no share in their affliction, but
endured to see them left childless, robbed of their own legitimate
offspring, while he made a foreigner and a bastard the heir to his
kingdom.

This vexed Theseus, and determining not to hold aloof, but to share the
fortunes of the people, he came forward and offered himself without
being drawn by lot. The people all admired his courage and patriotism,
and Ægeus finding that his prayers and entreaties had no effect on his
unalterable resolution, proceeded to choose the rest by lot. Hellanicus
says that the city did not select the youths and maidens by lot, but
that Minos himself came thither and chose them, and that he picked out
Theseus first of all, upon the usual conditions, which were that the
Athenians should furnish a ship, and that the youths should embark in it
and sail with him, not carrying with them any weapon of war; and that
when the Minotaur was slain, the tribute should cease.

Formerly, no one had any hope of safety; so they used to send out the
ship with a black sail, as if it were going to a certain doom; but now
Theseus so encouraged his father, and boasted that he would overcome the
Minotaur, that he gave a second sail, a white one, to the steersman, and
charged him on his return, if Theseus were safe, to hoist the white one,
if not, the black one as a sign of mourning. But Simonides says that it
was not a white sail which was given by Ægeus, but "a scarlet sail
embrued in holm oak's juice," and that this was agreed on by him as the
signal of safety. The ship was steered by Phereclus, the son of
Amarsyas, according to Simonides.

When they reached Crete, according to most historians and poets, Ariadne
fell in love with Theseus, and from her he received the clew of string,
and was taught how to thread the mazes of the Labyrinth. He slew the
Minotaur, and, taking with him Ariadne and the youths, sailed away.
Pherecydes also says that Theseus also knocked out the bottoms of the
Cretan ships, to prevent pursuit. But Demon says that Taurus, Minos'
general, was slain in a sea-fight in the harbor, when Theseus sailed
away.

But according to Philochorus, when Minos instituted his games, Taurus
was expected to win every prize, and was grudged this honor; for his
great influence and his unpopular manners made him disliked, and scandal
said that he was too intimate with Pasiphaë. On this account, when
Theseus offered to contend with him, Minos agreed. And, as it was the
custom in Crete for women as well as men to be spectators of the games,
Ariadne was present, and was struck with the appearance of Theseus, and
his strength, as he conquered all competitors. Minos was especially
pleased, in the wrestling match, at Taurus's defeat and shame, and,
restoring the children to Theseus, remitted the tribute for the future.

As he approached Attica, on his return, both he and his steersman in
their delight forgot to hoist the sail which was to be a signal of their
safety to Ægeus; and he in his despair flung himself down the cliffs and
perished. Theseus, as soon as he reached the harbor, performed at
Phalerum the sacrifices which he had vowed to the gods if he returned
safe, and sent off a herald to the city with the news of his safe
return.

This man met with many who were lamenting the death of the king, and, as
was natural, with others who were delighted at the news of their safety,
and who congratulated him and wished to crown him with garlands. These
he received, but placed them on his herald's staff, and when he came
back to the seashore, finding that Theseus had not completed his
libation, he waited outside the temple, not wishing to disturb the
sacrifice. When the libation was finished he announced the death of
Ægeus, and then they all hurried up to the city with loud lamentations:
wherefore to this day, at the Oschophoria, they say that it is not the
herald that is crowned, but his staff, and that at the libations the
bystanders cry out, "Eleleu, Iou, Iou!" of which cries the first is used
by men in haste, or raising the pæan for battle, while the second is
used by persons in surprise and trouble.

Theseus, after burying his father, paid his vow to Apollo, on the
seventh day of the month Pyanepsion; for on this day it was that the
rescued youths went up into the city. The boiling of pulse, which is
customary on this anniversary, is said to be done because the rescued
youths put what remained of their pulse together into one pot, boiled it
all, and merrily feasted on it together. And on this day also the
Athenians carry about the Eiresione, a bough of the olive tree garlanded
with wool, just as Theseus had before carried the suppliants' bough, and
covered with first-fruits of all sorts of produce, because the
barrenness of the land ceased on that day; and they sing,

    "Eiresione, bring us figs,
      And wheaten loaves, and oil,
    And wine to quaff, that we may all
      Rest merrily from toil."

However, some say that these ceremonies are performed in memory of the
Heracleidæ, who were thus entertained by the Athenians; but most writers
tell the tale as I have told it.

After the death of Ægeus, Theseus conceived a great and important
design. He gathered together all the inhabitants of Attica and made them
citizens of one city, whereas before they had lived dispersed, so as to
be hard to assemble together for the common weal, and at times even
fighting with one another.

He visited all the villages and tribes, and won their consent, the poor
and lower classes gladly accepting his proposals, while he gained over
the more powerful by promising that the new constitution should not
include a king, but that it should be a pure commonwealth, with himself
merely acting as general of its army and guardian of its laws, while in
other respects it would allow perfect freedom and equality to every one.
By these arguments he convinced some of them, and the rest knowing his
power and courage chose rather to be persuaded than forced into
compliance.

He therefore destroyed the prytanea, the senate house, and the
magistracy of each individual township, built one common prytaneum and
senate house for them all on the site of the present acropolis, called
the city Athens, and instituted the Panathenaic festival common to all
of them. He also instituted a festival for the resident aliens, on the
sixteenth of the month, Hecatombaion, which is still kept up. And
having, according to his promise, laid down his sovereign power, he
arranged the new constitution under the auspices of the gods; for he
made inquiry at Delphi as to how he should deal with the city, and
received the following answer:

    "Thou son of Ægeus and of Pittheus' maid,
    My father hath within thy city laid
    The bounds of many cities; weigh not down
    Thy soul with thought; the bladder cannot drown."

The same thing they say was afterward prophesied by the Sibyl concerning
the city, in these words:

    "The bladder may be dipped, but cannot drown."

Wishing still further to increase the number of his citizens, he invited
all strangers to come and share equal privileges, and they say that the
words now used, "Come hither all ye peoples," was the proclamation then
used by Theseus, establishing as it were a commonwealth of all nations.
But he did not permit his state to fall into the disorder which this
influx of all kinds of people would probably have produced, but divided
the people into three classes, of Eupatridæ or nobles, Geomori or
farmers, Demiurgi or artisans.

To the Eupatridæ he assigned the care of religious rites, the supply of
magistrates for the city, and the interpretation of the laws and customs
sacred or profane; yet he placed them on an equality with the other
citizens, thinking that the nobles would always excel in dignity, the
farmers in usefulness, and the artisans in numbers. Aristotle tells us
that he was the first who inclined to democracy, and gave up the title
of king; and Homer seems to confirm this view by speaking of the people
of the Athenians alone of all the states mentioned in his catalogue of
ships.

Theseus also struck money with the figure of a bull, either alluding to
the bull of Marathon, or Taurus, Minos' general, or else to encourage
farming among the citizens. Hence, they say, came the words, "worth
ten," or "worth a hundred oxen." He permanently annexed Megara to
Attica, and set up the famous pillar on the Isthmus, on which he wrote
the distinction between the countries in two trimeter lines, of which
the one looking east says,

    "This is not Peloponnesus, but Ionia,

and the one looking west says,

    "This is Peloponnesus, not Ionia."

And also he instituted games there, in emulation of Heracles; that, just
as Heracles had ordained that the Greeks should celebrate the Olympic
games in honor of Zeus, so by Theseus' appointment they should celebrate
the Isthmian games in honor of Poseidon.



THE FORMATION OF THE CASTES IN INDIA

B.C. 1200

GUSTAVE LE BON[23] W.W. HUNTER


     The institution of caste was not peculiar to India. In Rome there
     was a long struggle over the connubium. Among the Greeks the right
     of commensality, or eating together, was restricted. In fact, the
     phenomena of caste are world-wide in their extent. In India the
     priests and nobles contended for the first place. India had
     progressed along the line of ethnic evolution from a loose
     confederacy of tribes into several nations, ruled by kings and
     priests, and the iron fetters of caste were becoming more rigidly
     welded. At first the father of the family was the priest. Then the
     chiefs and sages took the office of spiritual guide, and conducted
     the sacrifices. As writing was unknown, the liturgies were learned
     by heart, and handed down in families. The exclusive knowledge of
     the ancient hymns became hereditary, as it were. The ministrants
     increased in number, and thus sprang up the powerful priestly
     caste.

     [Footnote 23: Translated from the French by Chauncey C.
     Starkweather.]

     Then the warrior class arose and grew strong in numbers and power,
     becoming differentiated from the agriculturists, and forming the
     military caste. The husbandmen drifted into another caste, and the
     three orders were rigidly separated by a cessation of
     intermarriage.

     At the bottom came the Sudras, or slave bands, the servile dregs of
     the population. In course of time, from various influences, the
     third class became almost eliminated in many provinces. From the
     cradle to the grave these cruel barriers still intervene between
     the strata of the people, relentless as fate and insurmountable as
     death.


GUSTAVE LE BON

In ancient times the power of kings [in India] was only nominal. In the
Aryan village, forming a little republic, the chief, bearing the name of
rajah, was secure in his fortress, exercising full sway. Such was the
political system prevailing in India through all the ages, and which has
always been respected by the conquerors, whoever they might be. So, for
so many centuries back we see arise the first elements of an
organization which still endures.

We find here also the beginnings of that system of castes, which, at
first indistinct and floating, when the classes sought only to be
distinguished from each other, was to become so rigid, when it was
constituted under the influence of ethnological reasons, as to dig
fathomless abysses between the races.

In the Vedas may be traced the progression of the distance between the
priests and the warriors, at first slight, and then increasing more and
more. The division of functions did not stop there. While the
sacrificing priest was consecrating himself more exclusively day by day
to the accomplishment of the sacred rites and to the composition of
hymns; while the warrior passed his days in adventurous expeditions or
daring feats, what would have become of the land and what would it have
produced if others had not applied themselves without ceasing, to
cultivate it? A third class became distinct, the agriculturists.

In one of the last hymns of Rig Veda these three classes appear,
absolutely separated and already designated by the three words Brahmans,
Kchatryas, Vaisyas.

The fourth class, that of the Sudras, was to arise later and to include
the mass of conquered peoples when the latter joined the circle of Aryan
civilization. The classes, hitherto mingling, now became rigidly
separated castes.

The most important of these divisions, and that which was first formed,
was the one between the priests and the warriors. The Brahmans,
intermediaries between men and the gods, soon became more and more
exacting, and finally considered themselves as entirely superior beings
and were accepted as such.

The distinction between the warriors and the agriculturists also soon
became marked, arising doubtless rather from a difference in fortune
than in functions.

The war chief, who returned laden with booty, covered himself with rings
of gold, rich vestments, and gleaming arms. He became "rajah," that is
to say "shining," for such was the meaning of the word at the Vedic
epoch.

Still no absolute barrier between the classes had arisen. They mingled
to offer sacrifices, and sometimes ate in common.

Heredity of office and profession began to be established. The sacred
songs were handed down in families, as were also the functions of the
sacrificers. And here among the Vedic Aryans are seen in process of
elaboration the germs of the institution which later gained so much
power in India and which dominates it still with apparent immutability.

The system of castes has been the corner-stone of all the institutions
of India for two thousand years. Such is its importance, and so
generally is it misunderstood, that it will be well briefly to explain
its origins, sources, and consequences. A system, the result of which is
to permit a handful of Europeans to hold sway over two hundred and fifty
millions of men deserves the attention of the observer.

The system of castes has existed for more than twenty centuries in
India. It doubtless had its origin in the recognition of the inevitable
laws of heredity. When the white-skinned conquerors, whom we call
Aryans, penetrated India, they found, in addition to other invaders of
Turanian origin, black, half-savage populations whom they subjugated.
The conquerors were half-pastoral, half-stationary tribes, under chiefs
whose authority was counterbalanced by the all-powerful influence of the
priests whose duty it was to secure the protection of the gods. Their
occupations were divided into classes, that of Brahmans or priests,
Kchatryas or warriors, and Vaisyas, laborers or artisans. The last class
was perhaps formed by the invaders anterior to the Aryans, whom we have
just mentioned.

These divisions corresponded, as is evident, to our three ancient
castes, the clergy, the nobility, and the third estate. Beneath these
classes was the aboriginal population, the Sudras, forming three
quarters of the whole population.

Experience soon revealed the inconveniences which might rise from the
mixture of the superior race with the inferior ones, and all the
proscriptions of religion tended thereafter to prevent it. "Every
country which gives birth to men of mixed races," said the ancient
law-giver of the Hindus, the sage Manu, "is soon destroyed together with
those who inhabit it." The decree is harsh, but it is impossible not to
recognize its truth. Every superior race which has mingled with another
too inferior has speedily been degraded or absorbed by it.

The Spaniards in America, the Portuguese in India, are proofs of the
sad results produced by such mixtures. The descendants of the brave
Portuguese adventurers, who in other days conquered part of India, fill
to-day the employments of servants, and the name of their race has
become a term of contempt.

Imbued with the importance of this anthropological truth, the Code of
Manu, which has been the law of India for so many centuries, and which,
like all codes, is the result of long anterior experiences, neglects
nothing to preserve the purity of blood.

It pronounces severe penalties against all intermingling of the superior
castes between themselves, and especially with the caste of the Sudras.
There are no frightful threats which it does not employ to keep the
latter apart.

But in the course of the centuries nature triumphed over these
formidable prohibitions. Woman always has her charms, no matter how
inferior she may be in caste. In spite of Manu, crossings of caste were
numerous, and one need not travel India throughout to perceive that,
to-day, the populations of all the races are mixed to a large extent.
The number of individuals white enough to prove that their blood is
quite pure is very restricted. The word caste, taken in its primitive
sense, is no longer a synonym of color, as it used to be in Sanscrit,
and, if caste had had only formerly prevailing ethnological reasons to
invoke, it would have had no reason for continuing. In fact, the
primitive divisions of caste have long since disappeared. They were
replaced by new divisions, the origin of which is other than the
difference of races, except in the case of the Brahmans, who still form
the less mixed portion of the population.

Among the causes which have perpetuated the system of castes, the law of
heredity has furthermore continued to play a fundamental part. Aptness
is inevitably hereditary among the Hindus, and, also inevitably, the son
follows the profession of the father. The principle of heredity of the
professions being universally admitted, there has resulted the formation
of castes as numerous as the professions themselves, and to-day in India
castes are numbered by the thousand. Each new profession has for an
immediate consequence the formation of a new caste.

The European who comes to India to live soon perceives to what an
extent the castes have multiplied in observing the number of different
persons whom he is obliged to hire to wait on him. To the two preceding
causes of the formations of castes, the ethnological cause, now very
weak, and the professional, which is still very strong, are added
political office, and the heterogeneity of religious beliefs.

The castes springing from political office might, strictly speaking, be
placed in the category of professional castes, but those produced by
diversity of religious beliefs should be attached to none of the
preceding causes. In theory, that is, only judged by the reading of
books, all India would be divided into two or three great religions
only. But practically these religions are very numerous. New gods,
considered as simple incarnations of ancient ones, are born and die
every day, and their votaries soon form a new caste as rigid in its
exclusions as the others.

Two fundamental signs mark the conformity of castes, and separate from
all the others the persons belonging to them. The first is that the
individuals of the same caste cannot eat except among themselves. The
second is that they can only marry among themselves.

These two proscriptions are quite fundamental, and the first not less
than the second. You may meet by the hundreds in India Brahmans who are
employed by the government in the post-office and railway service, or
even Brahmans who are beggars. But the humble functionary or wretched
mendicant would rather die than sit at table with the viceroy of India.

The quality of Brahmans is hereditary, like a title of nobility in
Europe. It is not a synonym of priest, as is generally believed, because
it is from this caste that priests are recruited. This caste was
formerly so exalted that the rank of royalty was not sufficient to
enable one to aspire to the hand of a Brahman's daughter.

The Hindu would rather die than violate the laws of his caste. Nothing
is more terrible than for him to lose it. Such loss may be compared to
excommunication in the middle ages, or to a condemnation for an infamous
crime in modern Europe. To lose his caste is to lose everything at one
blow, parents, relations, and fortune. Every one turns his back upon
the culprit and refuses to have any dealings with him. He must enter the
casteless category, which is employed only for the most abject
functions.

As to the social and political consequences of such a system, the only
social bond among the Hindus is caste. Outside of caste the world does
not exist for him. He is separated from persons of another caste by an
abyss much deeper than that which separates Europeans of the most
different nationalities. The latter may intermarry, but persons of
different castes cannot. The result is that every village possesses as
many groups as there are castes represented.

With such a system union against a master is impossible. This system of
caste explains the phenomenon of two hundred and fifty millions of men
obeying, without a murmur, sixty or seventy thousand strangers[24] whom
they detest. The only fatherland of the Hindu is his caste. He has never
had another. His country is not a fatherland to him, and he has never
dreamed of its unity.

[Footnote 24: English.]


W.W. HUNTER

At a very early period we catch sight of a nobler race from the
northwest, forcing its way in among the primitive peoples of India. This
race belonged to the splendid Aryan or Indo-Germanic stock from which
the Brahman, the Rajput, and the Englishman alike descend. Its earliest
home seems to have been in Western Asia. From that common camping-ground
certain branches of the race started for the east, others for the
farther west. One of the western offshoots built Athens and Sparta, and
became the Greek nation; another went on to Italy, and reared the city
on the Seven Hills, which grew into Imperial Rome. A distant colony of
the same race excavated the silver ores of prehistoric Spain; and when
we first catch a sight of ancient England, we see an Aryan settlement
fishing in wattle canoes, and working the tin mines of Cornwall.
Meanwhile other branches of the Aryan stock had gone forth from the
primitive Asiatic home to the east. Powerful bands found their way
through the passes of the Himalayas into the Punjab, and spread
themselves, chiefly as Brahmans and Rajputs, over India.

The Aryan offshoots, alike to the east and to the west, asserted their
superiority over the earlier peoples whom they found in possession of
the soil. The history of ancient Europe is the story of the Aryan
settlements around the shores of the Mediterranean; and that wide term,
modern civilization, merely means the civilization of the western
branches of the same race. The history of India consists in like manner
of the history of the eastern offshoots of the Aryan stock who settled
in that land.

We know little regarding these noble Aryan tribes in their early
camping-ground in Western Asia. From words preserved in the languages of
their long-separated descendants in Europe and India, scholars infer
that they roamed over the grassy steppes with their cattle, making long
halts to raise crops of grain. They had tamed most of the domestic
animals; were acquainted with iron; understood the arts of weaving and
sewing; wore clothes, and ate cooked food. They lived the hardy life of
the comparatively temperate zone; and the feeling of cold seems to be
one of the earliest common remembrances of the eastern and the western
branches of the race.

The forefathers of the Greek and the Roman, of the English and the
Hindu, dwelt together in Western Asia, spoke the same tongue, worshipped
the same gods. The languages of Europe and India, although at first
sight they seem wide apart, are merely different growths from the
original Aryan speech. This is especially true of the common words of
family life. The names for _father, mother, brother, sister_, and
_widow_ are the same in most of the Aryan languages, whether spoken on
the banks of the Ganges, of the Tiber, or of the Thames. Thus the word
_daughter_, which occurs in nearly all of them, has been derived from
the Aryan root _dugh_, which in Sanscrit has the form of _duh_, to milk;
and perhaps preserves the memory of the time when the daughter was the
little milkmaid in the primitive Aryan household.

The ancient religions of Europe and India had a common origin. They were
to some extent made up of the sacred stories or myths which our joint
ancestors had learned while dwelling together in Asia. Several of the
Vedic gods were also the gods of Greece and Rome; and to this day the
Divinity is adored by names derived from the same old Aryan word
(_deva_, the Shining One), by Brahmans in Calcutta, by the Protestant
clergy of England, and by Roman Catholic priests in Peru.

The Vedic hymns exhibit the Indian branch of the Aryans on their march
to the southeast, and in their new homes. The earliest songs disclose
the race still to the north of the Khaibar pass, in Kabul; the later
ones bring them as far as the Ganges. Their victorious advance eastward
through the intermediate tract can be traced in the Vedic writings
almost step by step. The steady supply of water among the five rivers of
the Punjab led the Aryans to settle down from their old state of
wandering half-pastoral tribes into regular communities of husbandmen.
The Vedic poets praised the rivers which enabled them to make this great
change--perhaps the most important step in the progress of a race. "May
the Indus," they sang, "the far-famed giver of wealth, hear us;
[fertilizing our] broad fields with water." The Himalayas, through whose
southwestern passes they had reached India, and at whose southern base
they long dwelt, made a lasting impression on their memory. The Vedic
singer praised "Him whose greatness the snowy ranges, and the sea, and
the aerial river declare." The Aryan race in India never forgot its
northern home. There dwelt its gods and holy singers; and there
eloquence descended from heaven among men; while high amid the Himalayan
mountains lay the paradise of deities and heroes, where the kind and the
brave forever repose.

The Rig-Veda forms the great literary memorial of the early Aryan
settlements in the Punjab. The age of this venerable hymnal is unknown.
Orthodox Hindus believe, without evidence, that it existed "from before
all time," or at least from 3001 years B.C. European scholars have
inferred from astronomical data that its composition was going on about
1400 B.C. But the evidence might have been calculated backward, and
inserted later in the Veda. We only know that the Vedic religion had
been at work long before the rise of Buddhism in the sixth century B.C.
The Rig-Veda is a very old collection of 1017 short poems, chiefly
addressed to the gods, and containing 10,580 verses. Its hymns show us
the Aryans on the banks of the Indus, divided into various tribes,
sometimes at war with each other, sometimes united against the
"black-skinned" aborigines. Caste, in its later sense, is unknown. Each
father of a family is the priest of his own household. The chieftain
acts as father and priest to the tribe; but at the greater festivals he
chooses some one specially learned in holy offerings to conduct the
sacrifice in the name of the people. The king himself seems to have been
elected; and his title of Vis-pat, literally "Lord of the Settlers,"
survives in the old Persian Vis-paiti, and as the Lithuanian Wiez-patis
in east-central Europe at this day. Women enjoyed a high position; and
some of the most beautiful hymns were composed by ladies and queens.
Marriage was held sacred. Husband and wife were both "rulers of the
house" (_dampati_); and drew near to the gods together in prayer. The
burning of widows on their husbands' funeral pile was unknown; and the
verses in the Veda which the Brahmans afterwards distorted into a
sanction for the practice, have the very opposite meaning. "Rise,
woman," says the Vedic text to the mourner; "come to the world of life.
Come to us, Thou hast fulfilled thy duties as a wife to thy husband."

The Aryan tribes in the Veda have blacksmiths, coppersmiths, and
goldsmiths among them, besides carpenters, barbers, and other artisans.
They fight from chariots, and freely use the horse, although not yet the
elephant, in war. They have settled down as husbandmen, till their
fields with the plough, and live in villages or towns. But they also
cling to their old wandering life, with their herds and "cattle-pens."
Cattle, indeed, still form their chief wealth--the coin in which payment
of fines is made--reminding us of the Latin word for money, _pecunia_,
from _pecus_, a herd. One of the Vedic words for war literally means "a
desire for cows." Unlike the modern Hindus, the Aryans of the Veda ate
beef; used a fermented liquor or beer, made from the _soma_ plant; and
offered the same strong meat and drink to their gods. Thus the stout
Aryans spread eastward through Northern India, pushed on from behind by
later arrivals of their own stock, and driving before them, or reducing
to bondage, the earlier "black-skinned" races. They marched in whole
communities from one river valley to another; each house-father a
warrior, husbandman, and priest; with his wife, and his little ones, and
his cattle.

These free-hearted tribes had a great trust in themselves and their
gods. Like other conquering races, they believed that both themselves
and their deities were altogether superior to the people of the land,
and to their poor, rude objects of worship. Indeed, this noble
self-confidence is a great aid to the success of a nation. Their
divinities--_devas_, literally "the shining ones," from the Sanscrit
root _div_, "to shine"--were the great powers of nature. They adored the
Father-heaven,--_Dyaush-pitar_ in Sanscrit, the _Dies piter_ or
_Jupiter_ of Rome, the _Zeus_ of Greece; and the Encompassing
Sky--_Varuna_ in Sanscrit, _Uranus_ in Latin, _Ouranos_ in Greek.
_Indra_, or the Aqueous Vapor, that brings the precious rain on which
plenty or famine still depends each autumn, received the largest number
of hymns. By degrees, as the settlers realized more and more keenly the
importance of the periodical rains to their new life as husbandmen, he
became the chief of the Vedic gods. "The gods do not reach unto thee, O
Indra, nor men; thou overcomest all creatures in strength." Agni, the
God of Fire (Latin _ignis_), ranks perhaps next to Indra in the number
of hymns addressed to him. He is "the Youngest of the Gods," "the Lord
and Giver of Wealth." The Maruts are the Storm Gods, "who make the rock
to tremble, who tear in pieces the forest." Ushas, "the High-born Dawn"
(Greek _Eos_), "shines upon us like a young wife, rousing every living
being to go forth to his work." The Asvins, the "Horsemen" or fleet
outriders of the dawn, are the first rays of sunrise, "Lords of Lustre."
The Solar Orb himself (Surya), the Wind (Vayu), the Sunshine or Friendly
Day (Mitra), the intoxicating fermented juice of the Sacrificial Plant
(Soma), and many other deities are invoked in the Veda--in all, about
thirty-three gods, "who are eleven in heaven, eleven on earth, and
eleven dwelling in glory in mid-air."

The Aryan settler lived on excellent terms with his bright gods. He
asked for protection, with an assured conviction that it would be
granted. At the same time, he was deeply stirred by the glory and
mystery of the earth and the heavens. Indeed, the majesty of nature so
filled his mind, that when he praises any one of his Shining Gods, he
can think of none other for the time being, and adores him as the
supreme ruler. Verses may be quoted declaring each of the greater
deities to be the One Supreme: "Neither gods nor men reach unto thee, O
Indra!" Another hymn speaks of Soma as "king of heaven and earth, the
conqueror of all." To Varuna also it is said, "Thou art lord of all, of
heaven and earth; thou art king of all those who are gods, and of all
those who are men." The more spiritual of the Vedic singers, therefore,
may be said to have worshipped One God, though not One alone.

"In the beginning there arose the Golden Child. He was the one born lord
of all that is. He established the earth and this sky. Who is the God to
whom we shall offer our sacrifice?

"He who gives life, he who gives strength; whose command all the Bright
Gods revere; whose shadow is immortality, whose shadow is death. Who is
the God to whom we shall offer our sacrifice?

"He who, through his power, is the one king of the breathing and
awakening world. He who governs all, man and beast. Who is the God to
whom we shall offer our sacrifice?

"He through whom the sky is bright and the earth firm; he through whom
the heaven was established, nay, the highest heaven; he who measured out
the light and the air. Who is the God to whom we shall offer our
sacrifice?

"He who by his might looked even over the water-clouds; he who alone is
God above all gods. Who is the God to whom we shall offer our
sacrifice?"

While the aboriginal races buried their dead in the earth or under rude
stone monuments, the Aryan--alike in India, in Greece, and in
Italy--made use of the funeral-pile. Several exquisite Sanscrit hymns
bid farewell to the dead:--"Depart thou, depart thou by the ancient
paths to the place whither our fathers have departed. Meet with the
Ancient Ones; meet with the Lord of Death. Throwing off thine
imperfections, go to thy home. Become united with a body; clothe thyself
in a shining form." "Let him depart to those for whom flow the rivers of
nectar. Let him depart to those who, through meditation, have obtained
the victory; who, by fixing their thoughts on the unseen, have gone to
heaven. Let him depart to the mighty in battle, to the heroes who have
laid down their lives for others, to those who have bestowed their goods
on the poor." The doctrine of transmigration was at first unknown. The
circle round the funeral-pile sang with a firm assurance that their
friend went direct to a state of blessedness and reunion with the loved
ones who had gone before. "Do thou conduct us to heaven," says a hymn of
the later Atharva-Veda; "let us be with our wives and children." "In
heaven, where our friends dwell in bliss--having left behind the
infirmities of the body, free from lameness, free from crookedness of
limb--there let us behold our parents and our children." "May the
water-shedding Spirits bear thee upward, cooling thee with their swift
motion through the air, and sprinkling thee with dew." "Bear him, carry
him; let him, with all his faculties complete, go to the world of the
righteous. Crossing the dark valley which spreadeth boundless around
him, let the unborn soul ascend to heaven. Wash the feet of him who is
stained with sin; let him go upward with cleansed feet. Crossing the
gloom, gazing with wonder in many directions, let the unborn soul go up
to heaven."

By degrees the old collection of hymns, or the Rig-Veda, no longer
sufficed. Three other collections or service-books were therefore added,
making the Four Vedas. The word Veda is from the same root as the Latin
_vid-ere_, to see: the early Greek _feid-enai_, infinitive of _oida_, I
know: and the English _wisdom_, or I _wit_. The Brahmans taught that the
Veda was divinely inspired, and that it was literally "the _wisdom_ of
God." There was, first, the Rig-Veda, or the hymns in their simplest
form. Second, the Sama-Veda, made up of hymns of the Rig-Veda to be used
at the Soma sacrifice. Third, the Yajur-Veda, consisting not only of
Rig-Vedic hymns, but also of prose sentences, to be used at the great
sacrifices; and divided into two editions, the Black and White Yajur.
The fourth, or Atharva-Veda, was compiled from the least ancient hymns
at the end of the Rig-Veda, very old religious spells, and later
sources. Some of its spells have a similarity to the ancient German and
Lithuanian charms, and appear to have come down from the most primitive
times, before the Indian and European branches of the Aryan race struck
out from their common home.

To each of the four Vedas were attached prose works, called Brahmanas,
in order to explain the sacrifices and the duties of the priests. Like
the Four Vedas, the Brahmanas were held to be the very word of God. The
Vedas and the Brahmanas form the revealed Scriptures of the Hindus--the
_sruti_, literally "Things _heard_ from God." The Vedas supplied their
divinely-inspired psalms, and the Brahmanas their divinely-inspired
theology or body of doctrine. To them were afterward added the Sutras,
literally "_Strings_ of pithy sentences" regarding laws and ceremonies.
Still later the Upanishads were composed, treating of God and the soul;
the Aranyakas, or "Tracts for the forest recluse;" and, after a very
long interval, the Puranas, or "Traditions from of old." All these
ranked, however, not as divinely-inspired knowledge, or things "heard
from God" (_sruti_), like the Vedas and Brahmanas, but only as sacred
traditions--_smriti_, literally "The things _remembered_."

Meanwhile the Four Castes had been formed. In the old Aryan colonies
among the Five Rivers of the Punjab, each house-father was a husbandman,
warrior, and priest. But by degrees certain gifted families, who
composed the Vedic hymns or learned them off by heart, were always
chosen by the king to perform the great sacrifices. In this way probably
the priestly caste sprang up. As the Aryans conquered more territory,
fortunate soldiers received a larger share of the lands than others, and
cultivated it not with their own hands, but by means of the vanquished
non-Aryan tribes. In this way the Four Castes arose. First, the priests
or Brahmans. Second, the warriors or fighting companions of the king,
called Rajputs or Kchatryas, literally "of the _royal_ stock." Third,
the Aryan agricultural settlers, who kept the old name of Vaisyas, from
the root _vis_, which in the primitive Vedic period had included the
whole Aryan people. Fourth, the Sudras, or conquered non-Aryan tribes,
who became serfs. The three first castes were of Aryan descent, and were
honored by the name of the Twice-born Castes. They could all be present
at the sacrifices, and they worshipped the same Bright Gods. The Sudras
were "the slave-bands of black descent" of the Veda. They were
distinguished from their "Twice-born" Aryan conquerors as being only
"Once-born," and by many contemptuous epithets. They were not allowed to
be present at the great national sacrifices, or at the feasts which
followed them. They could never rise out of their servile condition; and
to them was assigned the severest toil in the fields, and all the hard
and dirty work of the village community.

The Brahmans or priests claimed the highest rank. But they seemed to
have had a long struggle with the Kchatryas, or warrior caste, before
they won their proud position at the head of the Indian people. They
afterward secured themselves in that position by teaching that it had
been given to them by God. At the beginning of the world, they said, the
Brahman proceeded from the mouth of the Creator, the Kchatryas or Rajput
from his arms, the Vaisya from his thighs or belly, and the Sudra from
his feet. This legend is true so far that the Brahmans were really the
brain power of the Indian people, the Kchatryas its armed hands, the
Vaisyas the food-growers, and the Sudras the down-trodden serfs. When
the Brahmans had established their power, they made a wise use of it.
From the ancient Vedic times they recognized that if they were to
exercise spiritual supremacy, they must renounce earthly pomp. In
arrogating the priestly function, they gave up all claim to the royal
office. They were divinely appointed to be the guides of nations and the
counsellors of kings, but they could not be kings themselves. As the
duty of the Sudra was to serve, of the Vaisya to till the ground and
follow middle-class trades or crafts; so the business of the Kchatryas
was to fight the public enemy, and of the Brahman to propitiate the
national gods.

Each day brought to the Brahmans its routine of ceremonies, studies, and
duties. Their whole life was mapped out into four clearly defined stages
of discipline. For their existence, in its full religious significance,
commenced not at birth, but on being invested at the close of childhood
with the sacred thread of the Twice-born. Their youth and early manhood
were to be entirely spent in learning the Veda by heart from an older
Brahman, tending the sacred fire, and serving their preceptor. Having
completed his long studies, the young Brahman entered on the second
stage of his life, as a householder. He married, and commenced a course
of family duties. When he had reared a family, and gained a practical
knowledge of the world, he retired into the forest as a recluse, for the
third period of his life; feeding on roots or fruits, practising his
religious duties with increased devotion. The fourth stage was that of
the ascetic or religious mendicant, wholly withdrawn from earthly
affairs, and striving to attain a condition of mind which, heedless of
the joys, or pains, or wants of the body, is intent only on its final
absorption into the deity. The Brahman, in this fourth stage of his
life, ate nothing but what was given to him unasked, and abode not more
than one day in any village, lest the vanities of the world should find
entrance into his heart. This was the ideal life prescribed for a
Brahman, and ancient Indian literature shows that it was to a large
extent practically carried out. Throughout his whole existence the true
Brahman practised a strict temperance; drinking no wine, using a simple
diet, curbing the desires; shut off from the tumults of war, as his
business was to pray, not to fight, and having his thoughts ever fixed
on study and contemplation. "What is this world?" says a Brahman sage.
"It is even as the bough of a tree, on which a bird rests for a night,
and in the morning flies away."

The Brahmans, therefore, were a body of men who, in an early stage of
this world's history, bound themselves by a rule of life the essential
precepts of which were self-culture and self-restraint. The Brahmans of
the present India are the result of 3000 years of hereditary education
and temperance; and they have evolved a type of mankind quite distinct
from the surrounding population. Even the passing traveller in India
marks them out, alike from the bronze-cheeked, large-limbed,
leisure-loving Rajput or Kchatryas, the warrior caste of Aryan descent;
and from the dark-skinned, flat-nosed, thick-lipped low castes of
non-Aryan origin, with their short bodies and bullet heads. The Brahman
stands apart from both, tall and slim, with finely-modelled lips and
nose, fair complexion, high forehead, and slightly cocoanut shaped
skull--the man of self-centred refinement. He is an example of a class
becoming the ruling power in a country, not by force of arms, but by
the vigor of hereditary culture and temperance. One race has swept
across India after another, dynasties have risen and fallen, religions
have spread themselves over the land and disappeared. But since the dawn
of history the Brahman has calmly ruled; swaying the minds and receiving
the homage of the people, and accepted by foreign nations as the highest
type of Indian mankind. The position which the Brahmans won resulted in
no small measure from the benefits which they bestowed. For their own
Aryan countrymen they developed a noble language and literature. The
Brahmans were not only the priests and philosophers, but also the
lawgivers, the men of science and the poets of their race. Their
influence on the aboriginal peoples, the hill and forest races of India,
was even more important. To these rude remnants of the flint and stone
ages they brought in ancient times a knowledge of the metals and the
gods.

As a social league, Hinduism arranged the people into the old division
of the "Twice-born" Aryan castes, namely, the Brahmans, Kchatryas,
Vaisyas; and the "Once-born" castes, consisting of the non-Aryan Sudras
and the classes of mixed descent. This arrangement of the Indian races
remains to the present day. The "Twice-born" castes still wear the
sacred thread, and claim a joint, although an unequal, inheritance in
the holy books of the Veda. The "Once-born" castes are still denied the
sacred thread; and they were not allowed to study the holy books, until
the English set up schools in India for all classes of the people. But
while caste is thus founded on the distinctions of race, it has been
influenced by two other systems of division, namely, the employments of
the people, and the localities in which they live. Even in the oldest
times, the castes had separate occupations assigned to them. They could
be divided either into Brahmans, Kchatryas, Vaisyas, and Sudras; or into
priests, warriors, husbandmen, and serfs. They are also divided
according to the parts of India in which they live. Even the Brahmans
have among themselves ten distinct classes, or rather nations. Five of
these classes or Brahman nations live to the north of the Vindhya
mountains; five of them live to the south. Each of the ten feels itself
to be quite apart from the rest; and they have among themselves no
fewer than 1886 subdivisions or separate Brahmanical tribes. In like
manner, the Kchatryas or Rajputs number 590 separate tribes in different
parts of India.

While, therefore, Indian caste seems at first a very simple arrangement
of the people into four classes, it is in reality a very complex one.
For it rests upon three distinct systems of division: namely, upon race,
occupation, and geographical position. It is very difficult even to
guess at the number of the Indian castes. But there are not fewer than
3,000 of them which have separate names, and which regard themselves as
separate classes. The different castes cannot intermarry with each
other, and most of them cannot eat together. The ordinary rule is that
no Hindu of good caste can touch food cooked by a man of inferior caste.
By rights, too, each caste should keep to its own occupation. Indeed,
there has been a tendency to erect every separate kind of employment or
handicraft in each separate province into a distinct caste. But, as a
matter of practice, the castes often change their occupation, and the
lower ones sometimes raise themselves in the social scale. Thus the
Vaisya caste were in ancient times the tillers of the soil. They have in
most provinces given up this toilsome occupation, and the Vaisyas are
now the great merchants and bankers of India. Their fair skins,
intelligent faces, and polite bearing must have altered since the days
when their forefathers ploughed, sowed, and reaped under the hot sun.
Such changes of employment still occur on a smaller scale throughout
India.

The system of caste exercises a great influence upon the industries of
the people. Each caste is, in the first place, a trade-guild. It insures
the proper training of the youth of its own special craft; it makes
rules for the conduct of the caste-trade; it promotes good feeling by
feasts or social gatherings. The famous manufactures of mediæval India,
its muslins, silks, cloth of gold, inlaid weapons, and exquisite work in
precious stones--were brought to perfection under the care of the castes
or trade-guilds. Such guilds may still be found in full work in many
parts of India, Thus, in the northwestern districts of Bombay all heads
of artisan families are ranged under their proper trade-guild. The
trade-guild or caste prevents undue competition among the members, and
upholds the interest of its own body in any dispute arising with other
craftsmen.

In 1873, for example, a number of the bricklayers in Ahmadabad could not
find work. Men of this class sometimes added to their daily wages by
rising very early in the morning, and working overtime. But when several
families complained that they could not get employment, the bricklayers'
guild met, and decided that as there was not enough work for all, no
member should be allowed to work in extra hours. In the same city, the
cloth dealers in 1872 tried to cut down the wages of the sizers or men
who dress the cotton cloth. The sizers' guild refused to work at lower
rates, and remained six weeks on strike. At length they arranged their
dispute, and both the trade-guilds signed a stamped agreement fixing the
rates for the future. Each of the higher castes or trade-guilds in
Ahmadabad receives a fee from young men on entering their business. The
revenue derived from these fees, and from fines upon members who break
caste rules, is spent in feasts to the brethren of the guild, and in
helping the poorer craftsmen or their orphans. A favorite plan of
raising money in Surat is for the members of the trade to keep a certain
day as a holiday, and to shut up all their shops except one. The right
to keep open this one shop is put up to auction, and the amount bid is
expended on a feast. The trade-guild or caste allows none of its members
to starve. It thus acts as a mutual assurance society and takes the
place of a poor-law in India. The severest social penalty which can be
inflicted upon a Hindu is to be put out of his caste.

Hinduism is, however, not only a social league resting upon caste--it is
also a religious alliance based upon worship. As the various race
elements of the Indian people have been welded into caste, so the simple
old beliefs of the Veda, the mild doctrines of Buddha, and the fierce
rites of the non-Aryan tribes, have been thrown into the melting-pot,
and poured out thence as a mixture of precious metal and dross, to be
worked up into the complex worship of the Hindu gods.



FALL OF TROY

B.C. 1184

GEORGE GROTE


     The siege of Troy is an event not to be reckoned as history,
     although Herodotus, the "Father of History," speaks of it as such,
     and it would be quite impossible to understand the history and
     character of the Greek people without a study of the _Iliad_ and
     _Odyssey_ poems attributed to "a blind bard of Scio's
     isle"--immortal Homer. The campaign of the Greek heroes in Asia is
     to be referred to a hazy point in the past when Europe was just
     beginning to have an Eastern Question. A vast circle of tales and
     poems has gathered round this mythical event, and the _Iliad_--Song
     of Ilium, or Troy--is still a poem of unfailing interest and
     fascination.

     Ilium, or Troy, was a city of Asia Minor, a little south of the
     Hellespont. It was the centre of a powerful state, Grecian in race
     and language; and when Paris, son of King Priam, visited Sparta and
     carried off the beautiful wife of Menelaus, king of Sparta, all the
     heroes of Greece banded together and invaded Priam's dominions.

     The twelve hundred ships that sailed for Troy transported one
     hundred thousand warriors to the valley of Simois and Scamander.
     Among them was Agamemnon, "king of men," brother of Menelaus. He
     was the leader, and in his train were Achilles, "swift of foot";
     "god-like, wise" Ulysses, King of Ithaca, the two Ajaxes, and the
     aged Nestor. The narrative of their adventures is told in the
     Homeric poems with a power of musical expression, a charm of
     language, and a vividness of imagery unsurpassed in poetry.

     For ten years the besiegers encircled the city of Priam. After many
     engagements and single combats on "the windy plain of Troy" the
     great hero of the Greeks, Achilles of Thessaly, is wronged by
     Agamemnon, who carries away Briseis, a fair captive girl allotted
     as the spoils of war to the "Swift-footed." The hero of Thessaly
     thenceforth refuses to join in the war, and sullenly shuts himself
     up in his tent. It is only when his dear friend Patroclus has been
     slain by the valiant Hector, eldest son of Priam, that he sallies
     forth, meets Hector in single combat, and finally slays him.
     Achilles then attaches the body of Hector to his chariot and
     insultingly trails it in the dust as he drives three times around
     the walls of Troy. The _Iliad_ closes with the funeral rites
     celebrated over the corpse of Hector.


We now arrive at the capital and culminating point of the Grecian
epic--the two sieges and captures of Troy, with the destinies of the
dispersed heroes, Trojan as well as Grecian, after the second and most
celebrated capture and destruction of the city.

It would require a large volume to convey any tolerable idea of the vast
extent and expansion of this interesting fable, first handled by so many
poets, epic, lyric, and tragic, with their endless additions,
transformations, and contradictions,--then purged and recast by
historical inquirers, who, under color of setting aside the
exaggerations of the poets, introduced a new vein of prosaic
invention,--lastly, moralized and allegorized by philosophers. In the
present brief outline of the general field of Grecian legend, or of that
which the Greeks believed to be their antiquities, the Trojan war can be
regarded as only one among a large number of incidents upon which
Hecatæus and Herodotus looked back as constituting their fore-time.
Taken as a special legendary event, it is, indeed, of wider and larger
interest than any other, but it is a mistake to single it out from the
rest as if it rested upon a different and more trustworthy basis. I
must, therefore, confine myself to an abridged narrative of the current
and leading facts; and amid the numerous contradictory statements which
are to be found respecting every one of them, I know no better ground of
preference than comparative antiquity, though even the oldest tales
which we possess--those contained in the _Iliad_--evidently presuppose
others of prior date.

The primitive ancestor of the Trojan line of kings is Dardanus, son of
Zeus, founder and eponymus of Dardania: in the account of later authors,
Dardanus was called the son of Zeus by Electra, daughter of Atlas, and
was further said to have come from Samothrace, or from Arcadia, or from
Italy; but of this Homer mentions nothing. The first Dardanian town
founded by him was in a lofty position on the descent of Mount Ida; for
he was not yet strong enough to establish himself on the plain. But his
son Erichthonius, by the favor of Zeus, became the wealthiest of
mankind. His flocks and herds having multiplied, he had in his pastures
three thousand mares, the offspring of some of whom, by Boreas, produced
horses of preternatural swiftness. Tros, the son of Erichthonius, and
the eponym of the Trojans, had three sons--Ilus, Assaracus, and the
beautiful Ganymedes, whom Zeus stole away to become his cup-bearer in
Olympus, giving to his father Tros, as the price of the youth, a team of
immortal horses.

From Ilus and Assaracus the Trojan and Dardanian lines diverge; the
former passing from Ilus to Laomedon, Priam, and Hector; the latter from
Assaracus to Capys, Anchises, and Æneas. Ilus founded in the plain of
Troy the holy city of Ilium; Assaracus and his descendants remained
sovereigns of Dardania.

It was under the proud Laomedon, son of Ilus, that Poseidon and Apollo
underwent, by command of Zeus, a temporary servitude; the former
building the walls of the town, the latter tending the flocks and herds.
When their task was completed and the penal period had expired, they
claimed the stipulated reward; but Laomedon angrily repudiated their
demand, and even threatened to cut off their ears, to tie them hand and
foot, and to sell them in some distant island as slaves. He was punished
for this treachery by a sea-monster, whom Poseidon sent to ravage his
fields and to destroy his subjects. Laomedon publicly offered the
immortal horses given by Zeus to his father Tros, as a reward to any one
who would destroy the monster. But an oracle declared that a virgin of
noble blood must be surrendered to him, and the lot fell upon Hesione,
daughter of Laomedon himself. Heracles, arriving at this critical
moment, killed the monster by the aid of a fort built for him by Athene
and the Trojans, so as to rescue both the exposed maiden and the people;
but Laomedon, by a second act of perfidy, gave him mortal horses in
place of the matchless animals which had been promised. Thus defrauded
of his due, Heracles equipped six ships, attacked and captured Troy, and
killed Laomedon, giving Hesione to his friend and auxiliary Telamon, to
whom she bore the celebrated archer Teucros. A painful sense of this
expedition was preserved among the inhabitants of the historical town of
Ilium, who offered no worship to Heracles.

Among all the sons of Laomedon, Priam was the only one who had
remonstrated against the refusal of the well-earned guerdon of
Heracles; for which the hero recompensed him by placing him on the
throne. Many and distinguished were his sons and daughters, as well by
his wife Hecuba, daughter of Cisseus, as by other women. Among the sons
were Hector, Paris, Deiphobus, Helenus, Troilus, Polites, Polydorus;
among the daughters, Laodice, Creusa, Polyxena, and Cassandra.

The birth of Paris was preceded by formidable presage; for Hecuba
dreamed that she was delivered of a firebrand, and Priam, on consulting
the soothsayers, was informed that the son about to be born would prove
fatal to him. Accordingly he directed the child to be exposed on Mount
Ida; but the inauspicious kindness of the gods preserved him; and he
grew up amid the flocks and herds, active and beautiful, fair of hair
and symmetrical in person, and the special favorite of Aphrodite.

It was to this youth, in his solitary shepherd's walk on Mount Ida, that
the three goddesses, Here, Athene, and Aphrodite, were conducted, in
order that he might determine the dispute respecting their comparative
beauty, which had arisen at the nuptials of Peleus and Thetis,--a
dispute brought about in pursuance of the arrangement, and in
accomplishment of the deep-laid designs of Zeus. For Zeus, remarking
with pain the immoderate numbers of the then existing heroic race,
pitied the earth for the overwhelming burden which she was compelled to
bear, and determined to lighten it by exciting a destructive and
long-continued war. Paris awarded the palm of beauty to Aphrodite, who
promised him in recompense the possession of Helen, wife of the Spartan
Menelaus,--the daughter of Zeus and the fairest of living women. At the
instance of Aphrodite, ships were built for him, and he embarked on the
enterprise so fraught with eventual disaster to his native city, in
spite of the menacing prophecies of his brother Helenus, and the always
neglected warnings of Cassandra.

Paris, on arriving at Sparta, was hospitably entertained by Menelaus as
well as by Castor and Pollux, and was enabled to present the rich gifts
which he had brought to Helen. Menelaus then departed to Crete, leaving
Helen to entertain his Trojan guest--a favorable moment, which was
employed by Aphrodite to bring about the intrigue and the elopement.
Paris carried away with him both Helen and a large sum of money
belonging to Menelaus, made a prosperous voyage to Troy, and arrived
there safely with his prize on the third day.

Menelaus, informed by Iris in Crete of the perfidious return made by
Paris for his hospitality, hastened home in grief and indignation to
consult with his brother Agamemnon, as well as with the venerable
Nestor, on the means of avenging the outrage. They made known the event
to the Greek chiefs around them, among whom they found universal
sympathy; Nestor, Palamedes, and others went round to solicit aid in a
contemplated attack of Troy, under the command of Agamemnon, to whom
each chief promised both obedience and unwearied exertion until Helen
should be recovered. Ten years were spent in equipping the expedition.
The goddesses Here and Athene, incensed at the preference given by Paris
to Aphrodite, and animated by steady attachment to Argos, Sparta, and
Mycenæ, took an active part in the cause, and the horses of Here were
fatigued with her repeated visits to the different parts of Greece.

By such efforts a force was at length assembled at Aulis in Boeotia,
consisting of 1,186 ships and more than one hundred thousand men--a
force outnumbering by more than ten to one anything that the Trojans
themselves could oppose, and superior to the defenders of Troy even with
all her allies included. It comprised heroes with their followers from
the extreme points of Greece--from the northwestern portions of Thessaly
under Mount Olympus, as well as the western islands of Dulichium and
Ithaca, and the eastern islands of Crete and Rhodes. Agamemnon himself
contributed 100 ships manned with the subjects of his kingdom Mycenæ,
besides furnishing 60 ships to the Arcadians, who possessed none of
their own. Menelaus brought with him 60 ships, Nestor from Pylus, 90,
Idomeneus from Crete and Diomedes from Argos, 80 each. Forty ships were
manned by the Elians, under four different chiefs; the like number under
Meges from Dulichium and the Echinades, and under Thoas from Calydon and
the other Ætolian towns. Odysseus from Ithaca, and Ajax from Salamis,
brought 12 ships each. The Abantes from Euboea, under Elphenor, filled
40 vessels; the Boeotians, under Peneleos and Leitus, 50; the
inhabitants of Orchomenus and Aspledon, 30; the light-armed Locrians,
under Ajax son of Oileus, 40; the Phocians as many. The Athenians, under
Menestheus, a chief distinguished for his skill in marshalling an army,
mustered 50 ships; the Myrmidons from Phthia and Hellas, under Achilles,
assembled in 50 ships; Protesilaus from Phylace and Pyrasus, and
Eurypylus from Ormenium, each came with 40 ships; Machaon and
Podaleirius, from Trikka, with 30; Eumelus, from Pheræ and the lake
Boebeis, with 11; and Philoctetes from Meliboea with 7; the Lapithæ,
under Polypoetes, son of Peirithous, filled 40 vessels, the Ænianes and
Perrhæbians, under Guneus, 22; and the Magnetes, under Prothous, 40;
these last two were from the northernmost parts of Thessaly, near the
mountains Pelion and Olympus. From Rhodes, under Tlepolemus, son of
Heracles, appeared 9 ships; from Syme, under the comely but effeminate
Nireus, 3; from Cos, Crapathus, and the neighboring islands, 30, under
the orders of Pheidippus and Antiphus, sons of Thessalus and grandsons
of Heracles.

Among this band of heroes were included the distinguished warriors Ajax
and Diomedes, and the sagacious Nestor; while Agamemnon himself,
scarcely inferior to either of them in prowess, brought with him a high
reputation for prudence in command. But the most marked and conspicuous
of all were Achilles and Odysseus; the former a beautiful youth born of
a divine mother, swift in the race, of fierce temper and irresistible
might; the latter not less efficient as an ally, from his eloquence, his
untiring endurance, his inexhaustible resources under difficulty, and
the mixture of daring courage with deep-laid cunning which never
deserted him: the blood of the arch-deceiver Sisyphus, through an
illicit connection with his mother Anticleia, was said to flow in his
veins, and he was especially patronized and protected by the goddess
Athene. Odysseus, unwilling at first to take part in the expedition, had
even simulated insanity; but Palamedes, sent to Ithaca to invite him,
tested the reality of his madness by placing in the furrow where
Odysseus was ploughing his infant son Telemachus. Thus detected,
Odysseus could not refuse to join the Achæan host, but the prophet
Halitherses predicted to him that twenty years would elapse before he
revisited his native land. To Achilles the gods had promised the full
effulgence of heroic glory before the walls of Troy; nor could the
place be taken without both his coöperation and that of his son after
him. But they had forewarned him that this brilliant career would be
rapidly brought to a close; and that if he desired a long life, he must
remain tranquil and inglorious in his native land. In spite of the
reluctance of his mother Thetis he preferred few years with bright
renown, and joined the Achæan host. When Nestor and Odysseus came to
Phthia to invite him, both he and his intimate friend Patroclus eagerly
obeyed the call.

Agamemnon and his powerful host set sail from Aulis; but being ignorant
of the locality and the direction, they landed by mistake in Teuthrania,
a part of Mysia near the river Caicus, and began to ravage the country
under the persuasion that it was the neighborhood of Troy. Telephus, the
king of the country, opposed and repelled them, but was ultimately
defeated and severely wounded by Achilles. The Greeks, now discovering
their mistake, retired; but their fleet was dispersed by a storm and
driven back to Greece. Achilles attacked and took Scyrus, and there
married Deidamia, the daughter of Lycomedes. Telephus, suffering from
his wounds, was directed by the oracle to come to Greece and present
himself to Achilles to be healed, by applying the scrapings of the spear
with which the wound had been given; thus restored, he became the guide
of the Greeks when they were prepared to renew their expedition.

The armament was again assembled at Aulis, but the goddess Artemis,
displeased with the boastful language of Agamemnon, prolonged the
duration of adverse winds, and the offending chief was compelled to
appease her by the well-known sacrifice of his daughter Iphigenia. They
then proceeded to Tenedos, from whence Odysseus and Menelaus were
dispatched as envoys to Troy, to redemand Helen and the stolen property.
In spite of the prudent counsels of Antenor, who received the two
Grecian chiefs with friendly hospitality, the Trojans rejected the
demand, and the attack was resolved upon. It was foredoomed by the gods
that the Greek who first landed should perish: Protesilaus was generous
enough to put himself upon this forlorn hope, and accordingly fell by
the hand of Hector.

Meanwhile, the Trojans had assembled a large body of allies from
various parts of Asia Minor and Thrace: Dardanians under Æneas, Lycians
under Sarpedon, Mysians, Carians, Mæonians, Alizonians, Phrygians,
Thracians, and Pæonians. But vain was the attempt to oppose the landing
of the Greeks: the Trojans were routed, and even the invulnerable
Cyncus, son of Poseidon, one of the great bulwarks of the defense, was
slain by Achilles. Having driven the Trojans within their walls,
Achilles attacked and stormed Lyrnessus, Pedasus, Lesbos, and other
places in the neighborhood, twelve towns on the sea-coast, and eleven in
the interior: he drove off the oxen of Æneas and pursued the hero
himself, who narrowly escaped with his life: he surprised and killed the
youthful Troilus, son of Priam, and captured several of the other sons,
whom he sold as prisoners into the islands of the Ægean. He acquired as
his captive the fair Briseis, while Chryseis was awarded to Agamemnon;
he was, moreover, eager to see the divine Helen, the prize and stimulus
of this memorable struggle; and Aphrodite and Thetis contrived to bring
about an interview between them.

At this period of the war the Grecian army was deprived of Palamedes,
one of its ablest chiefs. Odysseus had not forgiven the artifice by
which Palamedes had detected his simulated insanity, nor was he without
jealousy of a rival clever and cunning in a degree equal, if not
superior, to himself; one who had enriched the Greeks with the invention
of letters of dice for amusement of night-watches as well as with other
useful suggestions. According to the old Cyprian epic, Palamedes was
drowned while fishing by the hands of Odysseus and Diomedes. Neither in
the _Iliad_ nor the _Odyssey_ does the name of Palamedes occur; the
lofty position which Odysseus occupies in both those poems--noticed with
some degree of displeasure even by Pindar, who described Palamedes as
the wiser man of the two--is sufficient to explain the omission. But in
the more advanced period of the Greek mind, when intellectual
superiority came to acquire a higher place in the public esteem as
compared with military prowess, the character of Palamedes, combined
with his unhappy fate, rendered him one of the most interesting
personages in the Trojan legend. Æschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides each
consecrated to him a special tragedy; but the mode of his death as
described in the old epic was not suitable to Athenian ideas, and
accordingly he was represented as having been falsely accused of treason
by Odysseus, who caused gold to be buried in his tent, and persuaded
Agamemnon and the Grecian chiefs that Palamedes had received it from the
Trojans. He thus forfeited his life, a victim to the calumny of Odysseus
and to the delusion of the leading Greeks. The philosopher Socrates, in
the last speech made to his Athenian judges, alludes with solemnity and
fellow-feeling to the unjust condemnation of Palamedes as analogous to
that which he himself was about to suffer; and his companions seem to
have dwelt with satisfaction on the comparison. Palamedes passed for an
instance of the slanderous enmity and misfortune which so often wait
upon superior genius.

In these expeditions the Grecian army consumed nine years, during which
the subdued Trojans dared not give battle without their walls for fear
of Achilles. Ten years was the fixed epical duration of the siege of
Troy, just as five years was the duration of the siege of Camicus by the
Cretan armament which came to avenge the death of Minos: ten years of
preparation, ten years of siege, and ten years of wandering for Odysseus
were periods suited to the rough chronological dashes of the ancient
epic, and suggesting no doubts nor difficulties with the original
hearers. But it was otherwise when the same events came to be
contemplated by the historicizing Greeks, who could not be satisfied
without either finding or inventing satisfactory bonds of coherence
between the separate events. Thucydides tells us that the Greeks were
less numerous than the poets have represented, and that being, moreover,
very poor, they were unable to procure adequate and constant provisions:
hence they were compelled to disperse their army, and to employ a part
of it in cultivating the Chersonese--a part in marauding expeditions
over the neighborhood. Could the whole army have been employed against
Troy at once (he says), the siege would have been much more speedily and
easily concluded. If the great historian could permit himself thus to
amend the legend in so many points, we might have imagined that a
simpler course would have been to include the duration of the siege
among the list of poetical exaggerations and to affirm that the real
siege had lasted only one year instead of ten. But it seems that the ten
years' duration was so capital a feature in the ancient tale that no
critic ventured to meddle with it.

A period of comparative intermission, however, was now at hand for the
Trojans. The gods brought about the memorable fit of anger of Achilles,
under the influence of which he refused to put on his armor, and kept
his Myrmidons in camp. According to the _Cypria_ this was the behest of
Zeus, who had compassion on the Trojans: according to the _Iliad_,
Apollo was the originating cause, from anxiety to avenge the injury
which his priest Chryses had endured from Agamemnon. For a considerable
time, the combats of the Greeks against Troy were conducted without
their best warrior, and severe, indeed, was the humiliation which they
underwent in consequence. How the remaining Grecian chiefs vainly strove
to make amends for his absence--how Hector and the Trojans defeated and
drove them to their ships--how the actual blaze of the destroying flame,
applied by Hector to the ship of Protesilaus, roused up the anxious and
sympathizing Patroclus, and extorted a reluctant consent from Achilles
to allow his friend and his followers to go forth and avert the last
extremity of ruin--how Achilles, when Patroclus had been killed by
Hector, forgetting his anger in grief for the death of his friend,
reëntered the fight, drove the Trojans within their walls with immense
slaughter, and satiated his revenge both upon the living and the dead
Hector,--all these events have been chronicled, together with those
divine dispensations on which most of them are made to depend, in the
immortal verse of the _Iliad_.

Homer breaks off with the burial of Hector, whose body has just been
ransomed by the disconsolate Priam; while the lost poem of Arctinus,
entitled the _Æthiopis_, so far as we can judge from the argument still
remaining of it, handled only the subsequent events of the siege. The
poem of Quintus Smyrnæus, composed about the fourth century of the
Christian era, seems in its first books to coincide with _Æthiopis_, in
the subsequent books partly with the _Ilias Minor_ of Lesches.

The Trojans, dismayed by the death of Hector, were again animated with
hope by the appearance of the warlike and beautiful queen of the
Amazons, Penthesilia, daughter of Ares, hitherto invincible in the
field, who came to their assistance from Thrace at the head of a band of
her country-women. She again led the besieged without the walls to
encounter the Greeks in the open field; and under her auspices the
latter were at first driven back, until she, too, was slain by the
invincible arm of Achilles. The victor, on taking off the helmet of his
fair enemy as she lay on the ground, was profoundly affected and
captivated by her charms, for which he was scornfully taunted by
Thersites; exasperated by this rash insult, he killed Thersites on the
spot with a blow of his fist. A violent dispute among the Grecian chiefs
was the result, for Diomedes, the kinsman of Thersites, warmly resented
the proceeding; and Achilles was obliged to go to Lesbos, where he was
purified from the act of homicide by Odysseus.

Next arrived Memnon, son of Tithonus and Eos, the most stately of living
men, with a powerful band of black Ethiopians, to the assistance of
Troy. Sallying forth against the Greeks, he made great havoc among them:
the brave and popular Antilochus perished by his hand, a victim to
filial devotion in defence of Nestor. Achilles at length attacked him,
and for a long time the combat was doubtful between them: the prowess of
Achilles and the supplication of Thetis with Zeus finally prevailed;
while Eos obtained for her vanquished son the consoling gift of
immortality. His tomb, however, was shown near the Propontis, within a
few miles of the mouth of the river Æsopus, and was visited annually by
the birds called Memnonides, who swept it and bedewed it with water from
the stream. So the traveller Pausanias was told, even in the second
century after the Christian era, by the Hellespontine Greeks.

But the fate of Achilles himself was now at hand. After routing the
Trojans and chasing them into the town, he was slain near the Scæan gate
by an arrow from the quiver of Paris, directed under the unerring
auspices of Apollo. The greatest efforts were made by the Trojans to
possess themselves of the body, which was, however, rescued and borne
off to the Grecian camp by the valor of Ajax and Odysseus. Bitter was
the grief of Thetis for the loss of her son; she came into the camp with
the Muses and the Nereids to mourn over him; and when a magnificent
funeral-pile had been prepared by the Greeks to burn him with every mark
of honor, she stole away the body and conveyed it to a renewed and
immortal life in the island of Leuce in the Euxine Sea. According to
some accounts he was there blest with the nuptials and company of Helen.

Thetis celebrated splendid funeral games in honor of her son, and
offered the unrivalled panoply which Hephæstus had forged and wrought
for him as a prize to the most distinguished warrior in the Grecian
army. Odysseus and Ajax became rivals for the distinction, when Athene,
together with some Trojan prisoners, who were asked from which of the
two their country had sustained greatest injury, decided in favor of the
former. The gallant Ajax lost his senses with grief and humiliation: in
a fit of frenzy he slew some sheep, mistaking them for the men who had
wronged him, and then fell upon his own sword.

Odysseus now learned from Helenus, son of Priam, whom he had captured in
an ambuscade, that Troy could not be taken unless both Philoctetes and
Neoptolemus, son of Achilles, could be prevailed upon to join the
besiegers. The former, having been stung in the foot by a serpent, and
becoming insupportable to the Greeks from the stench of his wound, had
been left at Lemnos in the commencement of the expedition, and had spent
ten years in misery on that desolate island; but he still possessed the
peerless bow and arrows of Heracles, which were said to be essential to
the capture of Troy. Diomedes fetched Philoctetes from Lemnos to the
Grecian camp, where he was healed by the skill of Machaon, and took an
active part against the Trojans--engaging in single combat with Paris,
and killing him with one of the Heracleian arrows. The Trojans were
allowed to carry away for burial the body of this prince, the fatal
cause of all their sufferings; but not until it had been mangled by the
hand of Menelaus. Odysseus went to the island of Scyros to invite
Neoptolemus to the army. The untried but impetuous youth, gladly obeying
the call, received from Odysseus his father's armor; while, on the other
hand, Eurypylus, son of Telephus, came from Mysia as auxiliary to the
Trojans and rendered to them valuable service turning the tide of
fortune for a time against the Greeks, and killing some of their
bravest chiefs, among whom were numbered Peneleos, and the unrivalled
leech Machaon. The exploits of Neoptolemus were numerous, worthy of the
glory of his race and the renown of his father. He encountered and slew
Eurypylus, together with numbers of the Mysian warriors: he routed the
Trojans and drove them within their walls, from whence they never again
emerged to give battle: and he was not less distinguished for good sense
and persuasive diction than for forward energy in the field.

Troy, however, was still impregnable so long as the Palladium, a statue
given by Zeus himself to Dardanus, remained in the citadel; and great
care had been taken by the Trojans not only to conceal this valuable
present, but to construct other statues so like it as to mislead any
intruding robber. Nevertheless, the enterprising Odysseus, having
disguised his person with miserable clothing and self-inflicted
injuries, found means to penetrate into the city and to convey the
Palladium by stealth away. Helen alone recognized him; but she was now
anxious to return to Greece, and even assisted Odysseus in concerting
means for the capture of the town.

To accomplish this object, one final stratagem was resorted to. By the
hands of Epeius of Panopeus, and at the suggestion of Athene, a
capacious hollow wooden horse was constructed, capable of containing one
hundred men. In the inside of this horse the elite of the Grecian
heroes, Neoptolemus, Odysseus, Menelaus, and others, concealed
themselves while the entire Grecian army sailed away to Tenedos, burning
their tents and pretending to have abandoned the siege. The Trojans,
overjoyed to find themselves free, issued from the city and contemplated
with astonishment the fabric which their enemies had left behind. They
long doubted what should be done with it; and the anxious heroes from
within heard the surrounding consultations, as well as the voice of
Helen when she pronounced their names and counterfeited the accents of
their wives. Many of the Trojans were anxious to dedicate it to the gods
in the city as a token of gratitude for their deliverance; but the more
cautious spirits inculcated distrust of an enemy's legacy. Laocoon, the
priest of Poseidon, manifested his aversion by striking the side of the
horse with his spear.

The sound revealed that the horse was hollow, but the Trojans heeded
not this warning of possible fraud. The unfortunate Laocoon, a victim to
his own sagacity and patriotism, miserably perished before the eyes of
his countrymen, together with one of his sons: two serpents being sent
expressly by the gods out of the sea to destroy him. By this terrific
spectacle, together with the perfidious counsels of Simon--a traitor
whom the Greeks had left behind for the special purpose of giving false
information--the Trojans were induced to make a breach in their own
walls, and to drag the fatal fabric with triumph and exultation into
their city.

The destruction of Troy, according to the decree of the gods, was now
irrevocably sealed. While the Trojans indulged in a night of riotous
festivity, Simon kindled the fire-signal to the Greeks at Tenedos,
loosening the bolts of the wooden horse, from out of which the enclosed
heroes descended. The city, assailed both from within and from without,
was thoroughly sacked and destroyed, with the slaughter or captivity of
the larger portion of its heroes as well as its people. The venerable
Priam perished by the hand of Neoptolemus, having in vain sought shelter
at the domestic altar of Zeus Herceius. But his son Deiphobus, who since
the death of Paris had become the husband of Helen, defended his house
desperately against Odysseus and Menelaus, and sold his life dearly.
After he was slain, his body was fearfully mutilated by the latter.

Thus was Troy utterly destroyed--the city, the altars and temples, and
the population. Æneas and Antenor were permitted to escape, with their
families, having been always more favorably regarded by the Greeks than
the remaining Trojans. According to one version of the story they had
betrayed the city to the Greeks: a panther's skin had been hung over the
door of Antenor's house as a signal for the victorious besiegers to
spare it in general plunder. In the distribution of the principal
captives, Astyanax, the infant son of Hector, was cast from the top of
the wall and killed by Odysseus or Neoptolemus: Polyxena, the daughter
of Priam, was immolated on the tomb of Achilles, in compliance with a
requisition made by the shade of the deceased hero to his countrymen;
while her sister Cassandra was presented as a prize to Agamemnon. She
had sought sanctuary at the altar of Athene, where Ajax, the son of
Oileus, making a guilty attempt to seize her, had drawn both upon
himself and upon the army the serious wrath of the goddess, insomuch
that the Greeks could hardly be restrained from stoning him to death.
Andromache and Helenus were both given to Neoptolemus, who, according to
the _Ilias Minor_, carried away also Æneas as his captive.

Helen gladly resumed her union with Menelaus; she accompanied him back
to Sparta, and lived with him there many years in comfort and dignity,
passing afterward to a happy immortality in the Elysian fields. She was
worshipped as a goddess, with her brothers, the Dioscuri, and her
husband, having her temple, statue, and altar at Therapnæ and elsewhere.
Various examples of her miraculous intervention were cited among the
Greeks. The lyric poet Stesichorus had ventured to denounce her,
conjointly with her sister Clytemnestra, in a tone of rude and
plain-spoken severity, resembling that of Euripides and Lycophron
afterward, but strikingly opposite to the delicacy and respect with
which she is always handled by Homer, who never admits reproaches
against her except from her own lips. He was smitten with blindness, and
made sensible of his impiety; but, having repented and composed a
special poem formally retracting the calumny, was permitted to recover
his sight. In his poem of recantation (the famous _Palinode_ now
unfortunately lost) he pointedly contradicted the Homeric narrative,
affirming that Helen had never been at Troy at all, and that the Trojans
had carried thither nothing but her image or _eidolon_. It is, probably,
to the excited religious feelings of Stesichorus that we owe the first
idea of this glaring deviation from the old legend, which could never
have been recommended by any considerations of poetical interest.

Other versions were afterward started, forming a sort of compromise
between Homer and Stesichorus, admitting that Helen had never really
been at Troy, without altogether denying her elopement. Such is the
story of her having been detained in Egypt during the whole term of the
siege. Paris, on his departure from Sparta, had been driven thither by
storms, and the Egyptian king Proteus, hearing of the grievous wrong
which he had committed toward Menelaus, had sent him away from the
country with severe menaces, detaining Helen until her lawful husband
should come to seek her. When the Greeks reclaimed Helen from Troy, the
Trojans assured them solemnly that she neither was nor ever had been in
the town; but the Greeks, treating this allegation as fraudulent,
prosecuted the siege until their ultimate success confirmed the
correctness of the statement. Menelaus did not recover Helen until, on
his return from Troy, he visited Egypt. Such was the story told by the
Egyptian priests to Herodotus, and it appeared satisfactory to his
historicizing mind. "For if Helen had really been at Troy," he argues,
"she would certainly have been given up, even had she been mistress of
Priam himself instead of Paris: the Trojan king, with all his family and
all his subjects, would never knowingly have incurred utter and
irretrievable destruction for the purpose of retaining her: their
misfortune was that, while they did not possess and therefore could not
restore her, they yet found it impossible to convince the Greeks that
such was the fact." Assuming the historical character of the war of
Troy, the remark of Herodotus admits of no reply; nor can we greatly
wonder that he acquiesced in the tale of Helen's Egyptian detention, as
a substitute for the "incredible insanity" which the genuine legend
imputes to Priam and the Trojans. Pausanias, upon the same ground and by
the same mode of reasoning, pronounced that the Trojan horse must have
been, in point of fact, a battering-engine, because to admit the literal
narrative would be to impute utter childishness to the defenders of the
city. And Mr. Payne Knight rejects Helen altogether as the real cause of
the Trojan war, though she may have been the pretext of it; for he
thinks that neither the Greeks nor the Trojans could have been so mad
and silly as to endure calamities of such magnitude "for one little
woman." Mr. Knight suggests various political causes as substitutes;
these might deserve consideration, either if any evidence could be
produced to countenance them, or if the subject on which they are
brought to bear could be shown to belong to the domain of history.

The return of the Grecian chiefs from Troy furnished matter to the
ancient epic hardly less copious than the siege itself, and the more
susceptible of indefinite diversity, inasmuch as those who had before
acted in concert were now dispersed and isolated. Moreover, the stormy
voyages and compulsory wanderings of the heroes exactly fell in with the
common aspirations after an heroic founder, and enabled even the most
remote Hellenic settlers to connect the origin of their town with this
prominent event of their ante-historical and semi-divine world. And an
absence of ten years afforded room for the supposition of many domestic
changes in their native abode, and many family misfortunes and misdeeds
during the interval. One of these historic "Returns," that of Odysseus,
has been immortalized by the verse of Homer. The hero, after a series of
long protracted suffering and expatriation inflicted on him by the anger
of Poseidon, at last reaches his native island, but finds his wife
beset, his youthful son insulted, and his substance plundered by a troop
of insolent suitors; he is forced to appear as a wretched beggar, and to
endure in his own person their scornful treatment; but finally, by the
interference of Athene coming in aid of his own courage and stratagem,
he is enabled to overwhelm his enemies, to resume his family position,
and to recover his property. The return of several other Grecian chiefs
was the subject of an epic poem by Hagias which is now lost, but of
which a brief abstract or argument still remains: there were in
antiquity various other poems of similar title and analogous matter.

As usual with the ancient epic, the multiplied sufferings of this back
voyage are traced to divine wrath, justly provoked by the sins of the
Greeks, who, in the fierce exultation of a victory purchased by so many
hardships, had neither respected nor even spared the altars of the gods
in Troy. Athene, who had been their most zealous ally during the siege,
was so incensed by their final recklessness, more especially by the
outrage of Ajax, son of Oileus, that she actively harassed and
embittered their return, in spite of every effort to appease her. The
chiefs began to quarrel among themselves; their formal assembly became a
scene of drunkenness; even Agamemnon and Menelaus lost their fraternal
harmony, and each man acted on his own separate resolution.
Nevertheless, according to the _Odyssey_, Nestor, Diomedes, Neoptolemus,
Idomeneus, and Philoctetes reached home speedily and safely; Agamemnon
also arrived in Peloponnesus, to perish by the hand of a treacherous
wife; but Menelaus was condemned to long wanderings and to the severest
privations in Egypt, Cyprus, and elsewhere before he could set foot in
his native land. The Locrian Ajax perished on the Gyræan rock. Though
exposed to a terrible storm, he had already reached this place of
safety, when he indulged in the rash boast of having escaped in defiance
of the gods. No sooner did Poseidon hear this language than he struck
with his trident the rock which Ajax was grasping and precipitated both
into the sea. Calchas, the soothsayer, together with Leonteus and
Polypoetes, proceeded by land from Troy to Colophon.

In respect, however, to these and other Grecian heroes, tales were told
different from those in the _Odyssey_, assigning to them a long
expatriation and a distant home. Nestor went to Italy, where he founded
Metapontum, Pisa, and Heracleia: Philoctetes also went to Italy, founded
Petilia and Crimisa, and sent settlers to Egesta in Sicily. Neoptolemus,
under the advice of Thetis, marched by land across Thrace, met with
Odysseus, who had come by sea, at Maroneia, and then pursued his journey
to Epirus, where he became king of the Molossians. Idomeneus came to
Italy, and founded Uria in the Salentine peninsula. Diomedes, after
wandering far and wide, went along the Italian coast into the innermost
Adriatic gulf, and finally settled in Daunia, founding the cities of
Argyrippa, Beneventum, Atria, and Diomedeia: by the favor of Athene he
became immortal, and was worshipped as a god in many different places.
The Locrian followers of Ajax founded the Epizephyrian Locri on the
southernmost corner of Italy, besides another settlement in Libya.

The previously exiled Teucros, besides founding the city of Salamis in
Cyprus, is said to have established some settlements in the Iberian
peninsula. Menestheus, the Athenian, did the like, and also founded both
Elæa in Mysia and Scylletium in Italy. The Arcadian chief Agapenor
founded Paphos in Cyprus. Epius, of Panopeus in Phocis, the constructor
of the Trojan horse with the aid of the goddess Athene, settled at
Lagaria, near Sybaris, on the coast of Italy; and the very tools which
he had employed in that remarkable fabric were shown down to a late date
in the temple of Athene at Metapontum.

Temples, altars, and towns were also pointed out in Asia Minor, in
Samos, and in Crete, the foundation of Agamemnon or of his followers.
The inhabitants of the Grecian town of Scione, in the Thracian peninsula
called Pallene or Pellene, accounted themselves the offspring of the
Pellenians from Achæa in Peloponnesus, who had served under Agamemnon
before Troy, and who on their return from the siege had been driven on
the spot by a storm and there settled. The Pamphylians, on the southern
coast of Asia Minor, deduced their origin from the wanderings of
Amphilochus and Calchas after the siege of Troy: the inhabitants of the
Amphilochian Argos on the Gulf of Ambracia revered the same Amphilochus
as their founder. The Orchomenians under Iamenus, on quitting the
conquered city, wandered or were driven to the eastern extremity of the
Euxine Sea; and the barbarous Achæans under Mount Caucasus were supposed
to have derived their first establishment from this source. Meriones,
with his Cretan followers, settled at Engyion in Sicily, along with the
preceding Cretans who had remained there after the invasion of Minos.
The Elymians in Sicily also were composed of Trojans and Greeks
separately driven to the spot, who, forgetting their previous
differences, united in the joint settlements of Eryx and Egesta. We hear
of Podalerius both in Italy and on the coast of Caria; of Acamas, son of
Theseus, at Amphipolus in Thrace, at Soli in Cyprus, and at Synnada in
Phrygia; of Guneus, Prothous, and Eurypylus, in Crete as well as in
Libya. The obscure poem of Lycophron enumerates many of these dispersed
and expatriated heroes, whose conquest of Troy was indeed a "Cadmean"
victory (according to the proverbial phrase of the Greeks), wherein the
sufferings of the victor were little inferior to those of the
vanquished. It was particularly among the Italian Greeks, where they
were worshipped with very special solemnity, that their presence as
wanderers from Troy was reported and believed.

I pass over the numerous other tales which circulated among the
ancients, illustrating the ubiquity of the Grecian and Trojan heroes as
well as that of the Argonauts--one of the most striking features in the
Hellenic legendary world. Among them all, the most interesting,
individually, is Odysseus, whose romantic adventures in fabulous places
and among fabulous persons have been made familiarly known by Homer.
The goddesses Calypso and Circe; the semi-divine mariners of Phæacia,
whose ships are endowed with consciousness and obey without a steersman;
the one-eyed Cyclopes, the gigantic Læstrygones, and the wind-ruler
Æolus; the Sirens, who ensnare by their song, as the Lotophagi fascinate
by their food,--all these pictures formed integral and interesting
portions of the old epic. Homer leaves Odysseus reëstablished in his
house and family. But so marked a personage could never be permitted to
remain in the tameness of domestic life; the epic poem called the
_Telegonia_ ascribed to him a subsequent series of adventures.
Telegonus, his son by Circe, coming to Ithaca in search of his father,
ravaged the island and killed Odysseus without knowing who he was.
Bitter repentance overtook the son for his undesigned parricide: at his
prayer and by the intervention of his mother Circe, both Penelope and
Telemachus were made immortal: Telegonus married Penelope, and
Telemachus married Circe.

We see by this poem that Odysseus was represented as the mythical
ancestor of the Thesprotian kings, just as Neoptolemus was of the
Molossian.

It has already been mentioned that Antenor and Æneas stand distinguished
from the other Trojans by a dissatisfaction with Priam and a sympathy
with the Greeks, which was by Sophocles and others construed as
treacherous collusion,--a suspicion indirectly glanced at, though
emphatically repelled, by the Æneas of Vergil. In the old epic of
Arctinus, next in age to the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_, Æneas abandons Troy
and retires to Mount Ida, in terror at the miraculous death of Laocoon,
before the entry of the Greeks into the town and the last night battle:
yet Lesches, in another of the ancient epic poems, represented him as
having been carried away captive by Neoptolemus. In a remarkable passage
of the _Iliad_, Poseidon describes the family of Priam as having
incurred the hatred of Zeus, and predicts that Æneas and his descendants
shall reign over the Trojans: the race of Dardanus, beloved by Zeus more
than all his other sons, would thus be preserved, since Æneas belonged
to it. Accordingly, when Æneas is in imminent peril from the hands of
Achilles, Poseidon specially interferes to rescue him, and even the
implacable miso-Trojan goddess Here assents to the proceeding. These
passages have been construed by various able critics to refer to a
family of philo-Hellenic or semi-Hellenic Æneadæ, known even in the time
of the early singers of the _Iliad_ as masters of some territory in or
near the Troad, and professing to be descended from, as well as
worshipping, Æneas. In the town of Scepsis, situated in the mountainous
range of Ida, about thirty miles eastward of Ilium, there existed two
noble and priestly families who professed to be descended, the one from
Hector, the other from Æneas. The Scepsian critic Demetrius (in whose
time both these families were still to be found) informs us that
Scamandrius, son of Hector, and Ascanius, son of Æneas, were the
_archegets_ or heroic founders of his native city, which had been
originally situated on one of the highest ranges of Ida, and was
subsequently transferred by them to the less lofty spot on which it
stood in his time. In Arisbe and Gentinus there seem to have been
families professing the same descent, since the same _archegets_ were
acknowledged. In Ophrynium, Hector had his consecrated edifice, while in
Ilium both he and Æneas were worshipped as gods: and it was the
remarkable statement of the Lesbian Menecrates that Æneas, "having been
wronged by Paris and stripped of the sacred privileges which belonged to
him, avenged himself by betraying the city, and then became one of the
Greeks."

One tale thus among many respecting Æneas, and that, too, the most
ancient of all, preserved among natives of the Troad, who worshipped him
as their heroic ancestor, was that after the capture of Troy he
continued in the country as king of the remaining Trojans, on friendly
terms with the Greeks. But there were other tales respecting him, alike
numerous and irreconcilable: the hand of destiny marked him as a
wanderer (_fato profugus_) and his ubiquity is not exceeded even by that
of Odysseus. We hear of him at Ænus in Thrace, in Pallene, at Æneia in
the Thermaic Gulf, in Delos, at Orchomenus and Mantineia in Arcadia, in
the islands of Cythera and Zacynthus, in Leucas and Ambracia, at
Buthrotum in Epirus, on the Salentine peninsula and various other places
in the southern region of Italy; at Drepana and Segesta in Sicily, at
Carthage, at Cape Palinurus, Cumæ, Misenum, Caieta, and finally in
Latium, where he lays the first humble foundation of the mighty Rome
and her empire. And the reason why his wanderings were not continued
still further was, that the oracles and the pronounced will of the gods
directed him to settle in Latium. In each of these numerous places his
visit was commemorated and certified by local monuments or special
legends, particularly by temples and permanent ceremonies in honor of
his mother Aphrodite, whose worship accompanied him everywhere: there
were also many temples and many different tombs of Æneas himself. The
vast ascendancy acquired by Rome, the ardor with which all the literary
Romans espoused the idea of a Trojan origin, and the fact that the
Julian family recognized Æneas as their gentile primary ancestor,--all
contributed to give to the Roman version of this legend the
preponderance over every other. The various other places in which
monuments of Æneas were found came thus to be represented as places
where he had halted for a time on his way from Troy to Latium. But
though the legendary pretensions of these places were thus eclipsed in
the eyes of those who constituted the literary public, the local belief
was not extinguished; they claimed the hero as their permanent property,
and his tomb was to them a proof that he had lived and died among them.

Antenor, who shares with Æneas the favorable sympathy of the Greeks, is
said by Pindar to have gone from Troy along with Menelaus and Helen into
the region of Cyrene in Libya. But according to the more current
narrative, he placed himself at the head of a body of Eneti or Veneti
from Paphlagonia, who had come as allies of Troy, and went by sea into
the inner part of the Adriatic Gulf, where he conquered the neighboring
barbarians and founded the town of Patavium (the modern Padua); the
Veneti in this region were said to owe their origin to his immigration.
We learn further from Strabo that Opsicellas, one of the companions of
Antenor, had continued his wanderings even into Iberia, and that he had
there established a settlement bearing his name. Thus endeth the Trojan
war, together with its sequel, the dispersion of the heroes, victors as
well as vanquished.



ACCESSION OF SOLOMON

BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE AT JERUSALEM

B.C. 1017

HENRY HART MILMAN


     After many weary years of travail and fighting in the wilderness
     and the land of Canaan, the Jews had at last founded their kingdom,
     with Jerusalem as the capital. Saul was proclaimed the first king;
     afterward followed David, the "Lion of the tribe of Judah." During
     the many wars in which the Israelites had been engaged, the Ark of
     the Covenant was the one thing in which their faith was bound. No
     undertaking could fail while they retained possession of it.

     In their wanderings the tabernacle enclosing the precious ark was
     first erected before the dwellings for the people. It had been
     captured by the Philistines, then restored to the Hebrews, and
     became of greater veneration than before. It will be remembered
     that, among other things, it contained the rod of Aaron which
     budded and was the cause of his selection as high-priest. It also
     contained the tables of stone which bore the Ten Commandments.

     David desired to build a fitting shrine, a temple, in which to
     place the Ark of the Covenant; it should be a place wherein the
     people could worship; a centre of religion in which the ark should
     have paid it the distinction due it as the seat of tremendous
     majesty.

     But David had been a man of war; this temple was a place of peace.
     Blood must not stain its walls; no shedder of gore could be its
     architect. Yet David collected stone, timber, and precious metals
     for its erection; and, not being allowed to erect the temple
     himself, was permitted to depute that office to his son and
     successor, "Solomon the Wise."

     At this time all the enemies of Israel had been conquered, the
     country was at peace; the domain of the Hebrews was greater than at
     any other time, before or afterward. It was the fitting time for
     the erection of a great shrine to enclose the sacred ark. Nobly was
     this done, and no human work of ancient or modern times has so
     impressed mankind as the building of Solomon's Temple.


Solomon succeeded to the Hebrew kingdom at the age of twenty. He was
environed by designing, bold, and dangerous enemies. The pretensions of
Adonijah still commanded a powerful party: Abiathar swayed the
priesthood; Joab the army. The singular connection in public opinion
between the title to the crown and the possession of the deceased
monarch's harem is well understood.[25] Adonijah, in making request for
Abishag, a youthful concubine taken by David in his old age, was
considered as insidiously renewing his claims to the sovereignty.
Solomon saw at once the wisdom of his father's dying admonition: he
seized the opportunity of crushing all future opposition and all danger
of a civil war. He caused Adonijah to be put to death; suspended
Abiathar from his office, and banished him from Jerusalem: and though
Joab fled to the altar, he commanded him to be slain for the two murders
of which he had been guilty, those of Abner and Amasa. Shimei, another
dangerous man, was commanded to reside in Jerusalem, on pain of death if
he should quit the city. Three years afterward he was detected in a
suspicious journey to Gath, on the Philistine border; and having
violated the compact, he suffered the penalty.

[Footnote 25: I Kings, i.]

Thus secured by the policy of his father from internal enemies, by the
terror of his victories from foreign invasion, Solomon commenced his
peaceful reign, during which Judah and Israel dwelt safely, _Every man
under his vine and under his fig-tree, from Dan to Beersheba_. This
peace was broken only by a revolt of the Edomites. Hadad, of the royal
race, after the exterminating war waged by David and by Joab, had fled
to Egypt, where he married the sister of the king's wife. No sooner had
he heard of the death of David and of Joab than he returned, and seems
to have kept up a kind of predatory warfare during the reign of Solomon.
Another adventurer, Rezon, a subject of Hadadezer, king of Zobah, seized
on Damascus, and maintained a great part of Syria in hostility to
Solomon.

Solomon's conquest of Hamath Zobah in a later part of his reign, after
which he built Tadmor in the wilderness and raised a line of fortresses
along his frontier to the Euphrates, is probably connected with these
hostilities.[26] The justice of Solomon was proverbial. Among his first
acts after his accession, it is related that when he had offered a
costly sacrifice at Gibeon, the place where the Tabernacle remained, God
had appeared to him in a dream, and offered him whatever gift he chose:
the wise king requested an understanding heart to judge the people. God
not merely assented to his prayer, but added the gift of honor and
riches. His judicial wisdom was displayed in the memorable history of
the two women who contested the right to a child. Solomon, in the wild
spirit of Oriental justice, commanded the infant to be divided before
their faces: the heart of the real mother was struck with terror and
abhorrence, while the false one consented to the horrible partition, and
by this appeal to nature the cause was instantaneously decided.

[Footnote 26: I Kings, xi., 23; I Chron., viii., 3.]

The internal government of his extensive dominions next demanded the
attention of Solomon. Besides the local and municipal governors, he
divided the kingdom into twelve districts: over each of these he
appointed a purveyor for the collection of the royal tribute, which was
received in kind; and thus the growing capital and the immense
establishments of Solomon were abundantly furnished with provisions.
Each purveyor supplied the court for a month. The daily consumption of
his household was three hundred bushels of finer flour, six hundred of a
coarser sort; ten fatted, twenty other oxen; one hundred sheep; besides
poultry, and various kinds of venison. Provender was furnished for forty
thousand horses, and a great number of dromedaries. Yet the population
of the country did not, at first at least, feel these burdens: _Judah
and Israel were many, as the sand which is by the sea in multitude,
eating and drinking, and making merry_.

The foreign treaties of Solomon were as wisely directed to secure the
profound peace of his dominions. He entered into a matrimonial alliance
with the royal family of Egypt, whose daughter he received with great
magnificence; and he renewed the important alliance with the king of
Tyre.[27] The friendship of this monarch was of the highest value in
contributing to the great royal and national work, the building of the
Temple. The cedar timber could only be obtained from the forests of
Lebanon: the Sidonian artisans, celebrated in the Homeric poems, were
the most skilful workmen in every kind of manufacture, particularly in
the precious metals.

[Footnote 27: After inserting the correspondence between King Solomon
and King Hiram of Tyre, according to I Kings, v., Josephus asserts that
copies of these letters were not only preserved by his countrymen, but
also in the archives of Tyre. I presume that Josephus adverts to the
statement of Tyrian historians, not to an actual inspection of the
archives, which he seems to assert as existing and accessible.]

Solomon entered into a regular treaty, by which he bound himself to
supply the Tyrians with large quantities of corn; receiving in return
their timber, which was floated down to Joppa, and a large body of
artificers. The timber was cut by his own subjects, of whom he raised a
body of thirty thousand; ten thousand employed at a time, and relieving
each other every month; so that to one month of labor they had two of
rest. He raised two other corps, one of seventy thousand porters of
burdens, the other of eighty thousand hewers of stone, who were employed
in the quarries among the mountains. All these labors were thrown, not
on the Israelites, but on the strangers who, chiefly of Canaanitish
descent, had been permitted to inhabit the country.

These preparations, in addition to those of King David, being completed,
the work began. The eminence of Moriah, the Mount of Vision, _i.e._, the
height seen afar from the adjacent country, which tradition pointed out
as the spot where Abraham had offered his son (where recently the plague
had been stayed, by the altar built in the threshing-floor of Ornan or
Araunah, the Jebusite), rose on the east side of the city. Its rugged
top was levelled with immense labor; its sides, which to the east and
south were precipitous, were faced with a wall of stone, built up
perpendicular from the bottom of the valley, so as to appear to those
who looked down of most terrific height; a work of prodigious skill and
labor, as the immense stones were strongly mortised together and wedged
into the rock. Around the whole area or esplanade, an irregular
quadrangle, was a solid wall of considerable height and strength: within
this was an open court, into which the Gentiles were either from the
first, or subsequently, admitted. A second wall encompassed another
quadrangle, called the court of the Israelites. Along this wall, on the
inside, ran a portico or cloister, over which were chambers for
different sacred purposes. Within this again another, probably a lower,
wall separated the court of the priests from that of the Israelites. To
each court the ascent was by steps, so that the platform of the inner
court was on a higher level than that of the outer.

The Temple itself was rather a monument of the wealth than the
architectural skill and science of the people. It was a wonder of the
world from the splendor of its materials, more than the grace, boldness,
or majesty of its height and dimensions. It had neither the colossal
magnitude of the Egyptian, the simple dignity and perfect proportional
harmony of the Grecian, nor perhaps the fantastic grace and lightness of
later Oriental architecture. Some writers, calling to their assistance
the visionary temple of Ezekiel, have erected a most superb edifice; to
which there is this fatal objection, that if the dimensions of the
prophet are taken as they stand in the text, the area of the Temple and
its courts would not only have covered the whole of Mount Moriah, but
almost all Jerusalem. In fact our accounts of the Temple of Solomon are
altogether unsatisfactory. The details, as they now stand in the books
of Kings and Chronicles, the only safe authorities, are unscientific,
and, what is worse, contradictory.

Josephus has evidently blended together the three temples, and
attributed to the earlier all the subsequent additions and alterations.
The Temple, on the whole, was an enlargement of the tabernacle, built of
more costly and durable materials. Like its model, it retained the
ground-plan and disposition of the Egyptian, or rather of almost all the
sacred edifices of antiquity: even its measurements are singularly in
unison with some of the most ancient temples in Upper Egypt. It
consisted of a propylæon, a temple, and a sanctuary; called respectively
the Porch, the Holy Place, and the Holy of Holies. Yet in some respects,
if the measurements are correct, the Temple must rather have resembled
the form of a simple Gothic church.

In the front to the east stood the porch, a tall tower, rising to the
height of 210 feet. Either within, or, like the Egyptian obelisks,
before the porch, stood two pillars of brass; by one account 27, by
another above 60 feet high, the latter statement probably including
their capitals and bases. These were called Jachin and Boaz (Durability
and Strength).[28] The capitals of these were of the richest
workmanship, with net-work, chain-work, and pomegranates. The porch was
the same width with the Temple, 35 feet; its depth 17-1/2. The length of
the main building, including the Holy Place, 70 feet, and the Holy of
Holies, 35, was in the whole 105 feet; the height 52-1/2 feet.[29]

[Footnote 28: Ewald, following, he says, the Septuagint, makes these
pillars not standing alone like obelisks before the porch, but as
forming the front of the porch, with the capitals connected together,
and supporting a kind of balcony, with ornamental work above it. The
pillars measured 12 cubits (22 feet) round.]

[Footnote 29: Mr. Fergusson, estimating the cubit rather lower than in
the text, makes the porch 30 by 15; the pronaos, or Holy Place, 60 by
30; the Holy of Holies, 30; the height 45 feet. Mr. Fergusson, following
Josephus, supposes that the whole Temple had an upper story of wood, a
talar, as appears in other Eastern edifices. I doubt the authority of
Josephus as to the older Temple, though, as Mr. Fergusson observes, the
discrepancies between the measurements in Kings and in Chronicles may be
partially reconciled on this supposition. Mr. Fergusson makes the height
of the eastern tower only 90 feet. The text followed 2 Chron., iii., 4,
reckoning the cubit at 1 foot 9 inches.]

Josephus carries the whole building up to the height of the porch; but
this is out of all credible proportion, making the height twice the
length and six times the width. Along each side, and perhaps at the back
of the main building, ran an aisle, divided into three stories of small
chambers: the wall of the Temple being thicker at the bottom, left a
rest to support the beams of these chambers, which were not let into the
wall. These aisles, the chambers of which were appropriated as
vestiaries, treasuries, and for other sacred purposes, seem to have
reached about half way up the main wall of what we may call the nave and
choir: the windows into the latter were probably above them; these were
narrow, but widened inward.

If the dimensions of the Temple appear by no means imposing, it must be
remembered that but a small part of the religious ceremonies took place
within the walls. The Holy of Holies was entered only once a year, and
that by the High-priest alone. It was the secret and unapproachable
shrine of the Divinity. The Holy Place, the body of the Temple, admitted
only the officiating priests. The courts, called in popular language the
Temple, or rather the inner quadrangle, were in fact the great place of
divine worship. Here, under the open air, were celebrated the great
public and national rites, the processions, the offerings, the
sacrifices; here stood the great tank for ablution, and the high altar
for burnt-offerings.

But the costliness of the materials, the richness and variety of the
details, amply compensated for the moderate dimensions of the building.
It was such a sacred edifice as a traveller might have expected to find
in El Dorado. The walls were of hewn stone, faced within with cedar
which was richly carved with knosps and flowers; the ceiling was of
fir-tree. But in every part gold was lavished with the utmost profusion;
within and without, the floor, the walls, the ceiling, in short, the
whole house is described as overlaid with gold. The finest and
purest--that of Parvaim, by some supposed to be Ceylon--was reserved for
the sanctuary. Here the cherubim, which stood upon the covering of the
Ark, with their wings touching each wall, were entirely covered with
gold.

The sumptuous veil, of the richest materials and brightest colors, which
divided the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place was suspended on chains
of gold. Cherubim, palm-trees, and flowers, the favorite ornaments,
everywhere covered with gilding, were wrought in almost all parts. The
altar within the Temple and the table of shewbread were likewise covered
with the same precious metal. All the vessels, the ten candlesticks,
five hundred basins, and all the rest of the sacrificial and other
utensils, were of solid gold. Yet the Hebrew writers seem to dwell with
the greatest astonishment and admiration on the works which were founded
in brass by Huram, a man of Jewish extraction, who had learned his art
at Tyre.

Besides the lofty pillars above mentioned, there was a great tank,
called a sea, of molten brass, supported on twelve oxen, three turned
each way; this was seventeen and one-half feet in diameter. There was
also a great altar, and ten large vessels for the purpose of ablution,
called lavers, standing on bases or pedestals, the rims of which were
richly ornamented with a border, on which were wrought figures of lions,
oxen, and cherubim. The bases below were formed of four wheels, like
those of a chariot. All the works in brass were cast in a place near
the Jordan, where the soil was of a stiff clay suited to the purpose.

For seven years and a half the fabric arose in silence. All the timbers,
the stones, even of the most enormous size, measuring seventeen and
eighteen feet, were hewn and fitted, so as to be put together without
the sound of any tool whatever; as it has been expressed, with great
poetical beauty:

    "Like some tall palm the noiseless fabric grew."

At the end of this period, the Temple and its courts being completed,
the solemn dedication took place, with the greatest magnificence which
the king and the nation could display. All the chieftains of the
different tribes, and all of every order who could be brought together,
assembled.

David had already organized the priesthood and the Levites; and assigned
to the thirty-eight thousand of the latter tribe each his particular
office; twenty-four thousand were appointed for the common duties, six
thousand as officers, four thousand as guards and porters, four thousand
as singers and musicians. On this great occasion, the Dedication of the
Temple, all the tribe of Levi, without regard to their courses, the
whole priestly order of every class, attended. Around the great brazen
altar, which rose in the court of the priests before the door of the
Temple, stood in front the sacrificers, all around the whole choir,
arrayed in white linen. One hundred and twenty of these were trumpeters,
the rest had cymbals, harps, and psalteries. Solomon himself took his
place on an elevated scaffold, or raised throne of brass. The whole
assembled nation crowded the spacious courts beyond. The ceremony began
with the preparation of burnt-offerings, so numerous that they could not
be counted.

At an appointed signal commenced the more important part of the scene,
the removal of the Ark, the installation of the God of Israel in his new
and appropriate dwelling, to the sound of all the voices and all the
instruments, chanting some of those splendid odes, the 47th, 97th, 98th,
and 107th psalms. The Ark advanced, borne by the Levites, to the open
portals of the Temple. It can scarcely be doubted that the 24th psalm,
even if composed before, was adopted and used on this occasion.

The singers, as it drew near the gate, broke out in these words:--_Lift
up your heads, O ye gates, and be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors,
and the King of Glory shall come in_. It was answered from the other
part of the choir,--_Who is the King of Glory?_--the whole choir
responded,--_The Lord of Hosts, he is the King of Glory_.

When the procession arrived at the Holy Place, the gates flew open; when
it reached the Holy of Holies, the veil was drawn back. The Ark took its
place under the extended wings of the cherubim, which might seem to fold
over, and receive it under their protection. At that instant all the
trumpeters and singers were at once _to make one sound to be heard in
praising and thanking the Lord; and when they lifted up their voice,
with the trumpets, and cymbals, and instruments of music, and praised
the Lord, saying, For he is good, for his mercy endureth forever, the
house was filled with a cloud, even the house of the Lord, so that the
priests could not stand to minister by reason of the cloud; for the
glory of the Lord had filled the house of God_. Thus the Divinity took
possession of his sacred edifice.

The king then rose upon the brazen scaffold, knelt down, and spreading
his hands toward heaven, uttered the prayer of consecration. The prayer
was of unexampled sublimity: while it implored the perpetual presence of
the Almighty, as the tutelar Deity and Sovereign of the Israelites, it
recognized his spiritual and illimitable nature. _But will God in very
deed dwell with men on the earth? behold heaven and the heaven of
heavens cannot contain thee, how much less this house which I have
built?_ It then recapitulated the principles of the Hebrew theocracy,
the dependence of the national prosperity and happiness on the national
conformity to the civil and religious law. As the king concluded in
these emphatic terms:--_Now, therefore, arise, O Lord God, into thy
resting-place, thou and the ark of thy strength: let thy priests, O Lord
God, be clothed with salvation, and thy saints rejoice in goodness. O
Lord God, turn not away the face of thine anointed: remember the mercies
of David thy servant,_--cloud which had rested over the Holy of Holies
grew brighter and more dazzling; fire broke out and consumed all the
sacrifices; the priests stood without, awe-struck by the insupportable
splendor; the whole people fell on their faces, and worshipped and
praised the Lord, _for he is good, for his mercy is forever_.

Which was the greater, the external magnificence, or the moral sublimity
of this scene? Was it the Temple, situated on its commanding eminence,
with all its courts, the dazzling splendor of its materials, the
innumerable multitudes, the priesthood in their gorgeous attire, the
king, with all the insignia of royalty, on his throne of burnished
brass, the music, the radiant cloud filling the Temple, the sudden fire
flashing upon the altar, the whole nation upon their knees? Was it not
rather the religious grandeur of the hymns and of the prayer: the
exalted and rational views of the Divine Nature, the union of a whole
people in the adoration of the one Great, Incomprehensible, Almighty,
Everlasting Creator?

This extraordinary festival, which took place at the time of that of
Tabernacles, lasted for two weeks, twice the usual time: during this
period twenty-two thousand oxen and one hundred and twenty thousand
sheep were sacrificed,[30] every individual probably contributing to
this great propitiatory rite; and the whole people feasting on those
parts of the sacrifices which were not set apart for holy uses.

[Footnote 30: Gibbon, in one of his malicious notes, observes, "As the
blood and smoke of so many hecatombs might be inconvenient, Lightfoot,
the Christian Rabbi, removes them by a miracle. Le Clerc (_ad loc._) is
bold enough to suspect the fidelity of the numbers." To this I ventured
to subjoin the following illustration: "According to the historian
Kotobeddyn, quoted by Burckhardt, _Travels in Arabia_, p. 276, the
Khalif Moktader sacrificed during his pilgrimage to Mecca, in the year
of the Hegira 350, forty thousand camels and cows, and fifty thousand
sheep. Barthema describes thirty thousand oxen slain, and their
carcasses given to the poor. Tavernier speaks of one hundred thousand
victims offered by the king of Tonquin." Gibbon, ch. xxiii., iv., p. 96,
edit. Milman.]

Though the chief magnificence of Solomon was lavished on the Temple of
God, yet the sumptuous palaces which he erected for his own residence
display an opulence and profusion which may vie with the older monarchs
of Egypt or Assyria. The great palace stood in Jerusalem; it occupied
thirteen years in building. A causeway bridged the deep ravine, and
leading directly to the Temple, united the part either of Acra or Sion,
on which the palace stood, with Mount Moriah.

In this palace was a vast hall for public business, from its cedar
pillars called the House of the Forest of Lebanon. It was 175 feet long,
half that measurement in width, above 50 feet high; four rows of cedar
columns supported a roof made of beams of the same wood; there were
three rows of windows on each side facing each other. Besides this great
hall, there were two others, called porches, of smaller dimensions, in
one of which the throne of justice was placed. The harem, or women's
apartments, adjoined to these buildings; with other piles of vast extent
for different purposes, particularly, if we may credit Josephus, a great
banqueting hall.

The same author informs us that the whole was surrounded with spacious
and luxuriant gardens, and adds a less credible fact, ornamented with
sculptures and paintings. Another palace was built in a romantic part of
the country in the valleys at the foot of Lebanon for his wife, the
daughter of the king of Egypt; in the luxurious gardens of which we may
lay the scene of that poetical epithalamium,[31] or collection of Idyls,
the Song of Solomon.[32] The splendid works of Solomon were not confined
to royal magnificence and display; they condescended to usefulness. To
Solomon are traced at least the first channels and courses of the
natural and artificial water supply which has always enabled Jerusalem
to maintain its thousands of worshippers at different periods, and to
endure long and obstinate sieges.[33]

[Footnote 31: I here assume that the Song of Solomon was an
epithalamium. I enter not into the interminable controversy as to the
literal or allegorical or spiritual meaning of this poem, nor into that
of its age. A very particular though succinct account of all these
theories, ancient and modern, may be found in a work by Dr. Ginsberg. I
confess that Dr. Ginsberg's theory, which is rather tinged with the
virtuous sentimentality of the modern novel, seems to me singularly out
of harmony with the Oriental and ancient character of the poem. It is
adopted, however, though modified, by M. Rénan.]

[Footnote 32: According to Ewald, the ivory tower in this poem was
raised in one of these beautiful "pleasances," in the Anti-Libanus,
looking toward Hamath.]

[Footnote 33: Ewald: _Geschichte_, iii., pp. 62-68; a very remarkable
and valuable passage.]

The descriptions in the Greek writers of the Persian courts in Susa and
Ecbatana; the tales of the early travellers in the East about the kings
of Samarcand or Cathay; and even the imagination of the Oriental
romancers and poets, have scarcely conceived a more splendid pageant
than Solomon, seated on his throne of ivory, receiving the homage of
distant princes who came to admire his magnificence, and put to the test
his noted wisdom.[34] This throne was of pure ivory, covered with gold;
six steps led up to the seat, and on each side of the steps stood twelve
lions.

[Footnote 34: Compare the great Mogul's throne, in Tavernier; that of
the King of Persia, in Morier.]

All the vessels of his palace were of pure gold, silver was thought too
mean: his armory was furnished with gold; two hundred targets and three
hundred shields of beaten gold were suspended in the house of Lebanon.
Josephus mentions a body of archers who escorted him from the city to
his country palace, clad in dresses of Tyrian purple, and their hair
powdered with gold dust. But enormous as this wealth appears, the
statement of his expenditure on the Temple, and of his annual revenue,
so passes all credibility, that any attempt at forming a calculation on
the uncertain data we possess may at once be abandoned as a hopeless
task. No better proof can be given of the uncertainty of our
authorities, of our imperfect knowledge of the Hebrew weights of money,
and, above all, of our total ignorance of the relative value which the
precious metals bore to the commodities of life, than the estimate, made
by Dr. Prideaux, of the treasures left by David, amounting to eight
hundred millions, nearly the capital of our national debt.

Our inquiry into the sources of the vast wealth which Solomon
undoubtedly possessed may lead to more satisfactory, though still
imperfect, results. The treasures of David were accumulated rather by
conquest than by traffic. Some of the nations he subdued, particularly
the Edomites, were wealthy. All the tribes seem to have worn a great
deal of gold and silver in their ornaments and their armor; their idols
were often of gold, and the treasuries of their temples perhaps
contained considerable wealth. But during the reign of Solomon almost
the whole commerce of the world passed into his territories. The treaty
with Tyre was of the utmost importance: nor is there any instance in
which two neighboring nations so clearly saw, and so steadily pursued,
without jealousy or mistrust, their mutual and inseparable
interests.[35]

[Footnote 35: The very learned work of Movers, _Die Phönizier_ (Bonn,
1841, Berlin, 1849) contains everything which true German industry and
comprehensiveness can accumulate about this people. Movers, though in
such an inquiry conjecture is inevitable, is neither so bold, so
arbitrary, nor so dogmatic in his conjectures as many of his
contemporaries. See on Hiram, ii. 326 _et seq._ Movers is disposed to
appreciate as of high value the fragments preserved in Josephus of the
Phoenician histories of Menander and Dios.

Mr. Kenrick's _Phoenicia_ may also be consulted with advantage.]

On one occasion only, when Solomon presented to Hiram twenty inland
cities which he had conquered, Hiram expressed great dissatisfaction,
and called the territory by the opprobrious name of Cabul. The Tyrian
had perhaps cast a wistful eye on the noble bay and harbor of Acco, or
Ptolemais, which the prudent Hebrew either would not, or could
not--since it was part of the promised land--dissever from his
dominions. So strict was the confederacy, that Tyre may be considered
the port of Palestine, Palestine the granary of Tyre. Tyre furnished the
shipbuilders and mariners; the fruitful plains of Palestine victualled
the fleets, and supplied the manufacturers and merchants of the
Phoenician league with all the necessaries of life.[36]

[Footnote 36: To a late period Tyre and Sidon were mostly dependent on
Palestine for their supply of grain. The inhabitants of these cities
desired peace with Herod (Agrippa) because their country was nourished
by the king's country (Acts xii., 20).]



RISE AND FALL OF ASSYRIA

DESTRUCTION OF NINEVEH

B.C. 789

F. LENORMANT AND E. CHEVALLIER


     Mesopotamia for many centuries was the field of battle for the
     opposing hosts of Babylonia and Assyria, each striving for mastery
     over the other. At first each city had its own prince, but at
     length one of these petty kingdoms absorbed the rest, and Nineveh
     became the capital of a united Assyria. Babylonia had her own
     kings, but they were little more than hereditary satraps receiving
     investiture from Nineveh.

     From about B.C. 1060 to 1020 Babylon seems to have recovered the
     upper hand. Her victories put an end to what is known as the First
     Assyrian Empire. After a few generations a new family ascended the
     throne and ultimately founded the Second Assyrian Empire.

     The first princes whose figured monuments have come down to us
     belonged to those days. The oldest of all was Assurnizirpal; the
     bas-reliefs with which his palace was decorated are now in the
     British Museum and the Louvre; most of them in the former. His son
     Shalmaneser III, and later Shalmaneser IV, made many campaigns
     against the neighboring peoples, and Assyria became rapidly a great
     and powerful nation. The effeminate Sardanapalus was the last of
     the dynasty.

     The capital of Assyria was Nineveh, one of the most famous of
     cities. It was remarkable for extent, wealth, and architectural
     grandeur. Diodorus Siculus says its walls were sixty miles around
     and one hundred feet high. Three chariots could be driven abreast
     around the summit of its walls, which were defended by fifteen
     hundred bastions, each of them two hundred feet in height. These
     dimensions may be exaggerated, but the Hebrew scriptures and recent
     excavations at the ancient site leave no doubt as to the splendor
     of the Assyrian palaces and the greatness of the city of Nineveh in
     population, wealth, and power. In historical times it was destroyed
     by the Medes, under King Cyaxares, and by the Babylonians, under
     Nebuchadnezzar, about B.C. 607.

     We are indebted to the monuments, tablets, and "books" recently
     discovered for the history of Assyria and other ancient oriental
     nations. Layard unearthed the greater portion, on the site of
     ancient Nineveh, of the Assyrian "books" (for so are named the
     tablets of clay, sometimes enamelled, at others only sun-dried or
     burnt). The writing on these "books" is the cuneiform, and was
     done by impressing the "style" on the clay while in a waxlike
     condition. Many of the tablets were broken when Layard and
     Rawlinson gave them over to the British Museum. The reconstruction
     of these tablets was undertaken by George Smith, an English
     Assyriologist of the British Museum, who displayed great skill and
     earnest application in the deciphering of the cuneiform text.

     In each reign the history of the king and his acts was written by a
     poet or historian detailed to that office. The "books" were
     collected and kept in great libraries, the largest of these being
     made by Sardanapalus.


The greater part of the expeditions of Shalmaneser IV, succeeding each
other year after year, were directed, like those of his father,
sometimes to the north, into Armenia and Pontus; sometimes to the east,
into Media, never completely subdued; sometimes to the south, into
Chaldæa, where revolts were of constant occurrence; and finally
westward, toward Syria and the region of Amanus. In this direction he
advanced farther than his predecessors, and came into contact with some
personages mentioned in Bible history. The part of his annals relating
to the campaigns that brought him into collision with the kings of
Damascus and Israel possesses peculiar interest for us, much greater
than that attaching to the narrative of any other wars.

The sixteenth campaign of Shalmaneser IV (B.C. 890) commenced a new
series of wars; the King crossed the Zab, or Zabat; to make war on the
mountain people of Upper Media, and afterward on the Scythian tribes
around the Caspian Sea. He did not, however, abandon the western
countries, where he soon found himself opposed by the new King whom the
revolution arising from the influence of Elisha the prophet had placed
on the throne of Damascus in the room of Benhidai.

"In my eighteenth campaign" (886), we read on the Nimrud obelisk, "I
crossed the Euphrates for the sixteenth time. Hazael, king of Damascus,
came toward me to give battle. I took from him eleven hundred and
twenty-one chariots and four hundred and seventy horsemen, with his
camp.

"In my nineteenth campaign (885) I crossed the Euphrates for the
eighteenth time. I marched toward Mount Amanus, and there cut beams of
cedar.

"In my twenty-first campaign (883) I crossed the Euphrates for the
twenty-second time. I marched to the cities of Hazael of Damascus. I
received tribute from Tyre, Sidon, and Byblus."

It evidently was at the end of this campaign that Jehu, king of Israel,
whose territory Hazael had ravaged, appealed to Shalmaneser for help
against his powerful enemy. The inscription on the obelisk says that the
Assyrian King received tribute from Jehu, whom it names "son of Omri,"
for the great renown of the founder of Samaria had made the Assyrians
consider all the kings of Israel as his descendants. One of the
bas-reliefs of the same monument represents Jehu prostrating himself
before Shalmaneser, as if acknowledging himself a vassal.

The annals of Shalmaneser say no more after this, either of the king of
Damascus or of Israel. They record, as his twenty-seventh campaign, a
great war in Armenia that brought about the submission of all the
districts of that country that still resisted the Assyrian monarch. In
the thirty-first campaign (873), the last mentioned on the obelisk, the
King sent the general-in-chief of his armies, Tartan, again into
Armenia, where he gave up to pillage fifty cities, among them Van; and
during this time he himself went into Media, subjected part of the
northern districts of that country, which were in a state of rebellion,
chastised the people in the neighborhood of Mount Elwand, where in
after-times Ecbatana was built, and finally made war on the Scythians of
the Caspian Sea.

The official chronology of the Assyrians dates the termination of the
reign of Shalmaneser IV in 870, the period of his death. But during the
last two years his power was entirely lost, and he was reduced to the
possession of two cities, Nineveh and Calah. His second son,
Asshurdaninpal, in consequence of circumstances unknown to us, raised
the standard of revolt against his father, assumed the royal title, and
was supported by twenty-seven of the most important cities in the
empire. One of the monuments has preserved a list of these cities, and
among them we find Arrapkha, capital of the province of Arrapachitis,
Amida (now Diarbekr), Arbela, Ellasar, and all the towns of the banks of
the Tigris. War broke out between the father and his rebellious son; the
army embraced the cause of the latter; he was recognized by all the
provinces, and kept Shalmaneser until his death shut up and closely
blockaded in his capital.

Shalmaneser died in B.C. 870; his son, Shamash-Bin, continued the
legitimate line. He succeeded in repressing the revolt of his brother
Asshurdaninpal and in depriving him of the authority he had usurped. The
monument recording the exploits of his first years gives no details,
however, of the civil war; it merely records, after enumerating the
cities that had joined the revolt of Asshurdaninpal, "With the aid of
the great gods, my masters, I subjected them to my sceptre."

The usurpation of the second son of Shalmaneser and a civil war of five
years had introduced many disorders into the empire and shaken the
fidelity of many provinces. The early years of Shamash-Bin were occupied
in reducing the whole to order. In the narrative which has been
preserved, extending only to his fourth year, we find that the King
overran and chastised with terrible severity Osrhoene or Aramæan
Mesopotamia, where the people had been in rebellion, and reduced to
obedience the mountainous districts, where are the sources of the Tigris
and Euphrates, and finally Armenia proper. In his fourth year he marched
against Mardukbalatirib, king of Babylon, who had taken advantage of the
disorders in Assyria to assert his independence, and who was supported
by the Susianians or Elamites. He completely defeated him and compelled
him to fly to the desert, killed very many of his army in the battle,
took two hundred war chariots, and made seven thousand prisoners, of
whom five thousand were put to death on the field of battle as an
example. Unfortunately our information ceases at that period and we know
absolutely nothing of the greater part of the reign of Shamash-Bin, or
of the expeditions to the west of Asia, Syria, and Palestine, that must
have been made after the termination of the campaigns by which the royal
authority was reëstablished in all the ancient provinces of the empire.
This King remained on the throne until 857. In 859 and 858 he had to
repress a great revolt in Babylon and Chaldæa.

Binlikhish [or Binnirari] III, the next king, reigned twenty-nine years,
from 857 to 828. An inscription of his, engraved in the first years of
his reign, describing the extent of the empire, says that he governed
on one side "From the land of Siluna, toward the rising sun, the
countries of Elam, Albania (at the foot of Caucasus), Kharkhar,
Araziash, Misu, Media, Giratbunda (a portion of Atropatene, frequently
mentioned in the cuneiform inscriptions), the lands of Munna, Parsua
(Parthia), Allabria (Hyrcania), Abdadana (Hecatompyla), Namri (the
Caspian Scythians), even to all the tribes of the Andiu (a Turanian or
Scythian people, whose country is far off), the whole of the mountainous
country as far as the sea of the rising sun, the Caspian Sea; on the
other side from the Euphrates, Syria, all Phoenicia, the land of Tyre,
of Sidon, the land of Omri (Samaria), Edom, the Philistines, as far as
the sea of the setting sun (the Mediterranean)"; on all these countries
he says that "he imposed tribute."

"I marched," he says again, "against the land of Syria, and I took
Marih, king of Syria, in Damascus, the city of his kingdom. The great
dread of Asshur, my master, persuaded him; he embraced my knees and made
submission."

Binlikhish III was a warlike prince; every year of his reign was marked
by an expedition. We have a summary of these in a chronological tablet
in the British Museum, containing a fragment--from the end of the reign
of Shamash-Bin to that of Tiglath-pileser II--of a canon of eponymes
mentioning the principal events year by year. They nearly all occurred
in Southern Armenia and in the land of Van, where obedience was only
maintained by incessant military demonstrations, and subsequently in the
countries to the north of Media as far as the Caspian Sea. Other
expeditions were also made as far as Parthia, toward Ariana and the
various countries that, to the Assyrians, were the extreme East. We do
not, however, know what that region was called by them, as it is always
designated by a group of ideographic characters of unknown
pronunciation. By the defeat of Marih, king of Damascus, the submission
of the western provinces was secured for the remainder of this reign,
for there is no record of any other campaign there.

The year 849 was marked by a great plague in Assyria; 834 by a religious
festival, of which unfortunately no particulars are known; and, lastly,
833 by the solemn inauguration of a new temple to the god Nebo, in the
capital.

But the most interesting monument of the reign of Binlikhish III is the
statue of Nebo, one of the great gods of Babylon, discovered by Mr.
Loftus and now in the British Museum; the inscription on the base of the
statue mentions the wife of the King, and calls her "the queen
Sammuramat"; this is the only historical Semiramis, the one mentioned by
Herodotus. He places her correctly about a century and a half before
Nitocris, the wife of Nabopolassar, king of Babylon. "Semiramis," says
the father of history, "raised magnificent embankments to restrain the
river (Euphrates), which till then used to overflow and flood the whole
country round Babylon." But why did Herodotus, and the Babylonian
tradition he has so faithfully reported, attribute these useful works to
the queen and not to her husband, Binlikhish? It was once supposed, as a
solution of this problem, that Sammuramat had governed alone for some
time, as queen regnant, after the death of her husband. But this
conjecture is absolutely contradicted by the table of eponymes in the
British Museum, where it can be seen that Sammuramat never reigned
alone. In our opinion the only possible explanation will be found in
regarding Binlikhish and Sammuramat as the Ferdinand and Isabella of
Mesopotamia. The restless desire of Babylonia and Chaldæa to form a
state separate from Assyria grew more decided as time went on; in the
time of Binlikhish it had already gained great strength, and the day was
not far distant when the separation was definitely to take place, and to
occasion the utter ruin of Nineveh. In this position of affairs it was
natural for a king of Assyria to seek to strengthen his authority in
Chaldæa by a marriage with a daughter of the royal line of that country,
who were his vassals, and thus, in the opinion of the people of Babylon,
acquire a legitimate right to the possession of the country by means of
his wife, as well as the advantages to be derived from the attachment of
the people to their own legitimate sovereign. We shall therefore
consider Sammuramat as a Babylonian princess married by Binlikhish, and
as reigning nominally at Babylon while her husband occupied the throne
at Nineveh, and as being the only sovereign registered by the
Babylonians in their national annals. In fact, her position must have
been a peculiar one; she must have been considered the rightful queen
in one part of the empire, to have been named as queen, and in the same
rank as the king, in such an official document as the inscription on the
statue of the god Nebo. She is the only princess mentioned in any of the
Assyrian texts, as we might naturally suppose; for unless under such
very exceptional circumstances as we imagine in the case of Sammuramat,
there can have been no queens, but only favorite concubines, under the
organization of harem life, such as it was under the Assyrian kings, and
as it still is in our days.

The exaggerated development of the Assyrian empire was quite unnatural;
the kings of Nineveh had never succeeded in welding into one nation the
numerous tribes whom they subdued by force of arms, or in checking in
them the spirit of independence; they had not even attempted to do so.
The empire was absolutely without cohesion; the administrative system
was so imperfect, the bond attaching the various provinces to each
other, and to the centre of the monarchy, so weak that at the
commencement of almost every reign a revolt broke out, sometimes at one
point, sometimes at another.

It was therefore easy to foresee that, so soon as the reins of
government were no longer in a really strong hand--so soon as the king
of Assyria should cease to be an active and warlike king, always in the
field, always at the head of his troops--the great edifice laboriously
built up by his predecessors of the tenth and ninth centuries would
collapse, and the immense fabric of empire would vanish like smoke with
such rapidity as to astonish the world. And this is exactly what
occurred after the death of Binlikhish III.

The tablet in the British Museum allows us to follow year by year the
events and the progress of the dissolution of the empire. Under
Shalmaneser V, who reigned from B.C. 828 to 818, some foreign
expeditions were still made, as, for instance, to Damascus in B.C. 819;
but the forces of the empire were especially engaged during many
following years in attempting to hold countries already subdued, such as
Armenia, then in a chronic state of revolt; the wars in one and the same
province were constant, and occupied some six successive campaigns--the
Armenian war was from B.C. 827 to 822--proving that no decisive results
were obtained.

Under Asshur-edil-ilani II, who reigned from B.C. 818 to 800, we do not
see any new conquests; insurrections constantly broke out, and were no
longer confined to the extremities of the empire; they encroached on the
heart of the country, and gradually approached nearer to Nineveh. The
revolutionary spirit increased in the provinces, a great insurrection
became imminent, and was ready to break out on the slightest excuse. At
this period, B.C. 804, it is that the British Museum tablet registers,
as a memorable fact in the column of events, "Peace in the land." Two
great plagues are also mentioned under this reign, in 811 and 805, and
on the 13th of June, B.C. 809--30 Sivan in the eponymos of
Bur-el-salkhi--an almost total eclipse of the sun, visible at Nineveh.

The revolution was not long in coming. Asshurlikhish [Assurbanipal]
ascended the throne in B.C. 800, and fixed his residence at Nineveh,
instead of Ellasar, where his predecessor had lived after quitting
Nineveh; he is the Sardanapalus of the Greeks, the ever-famous prototype
of the voluptuous and effeminate prince. The tablet in the British
Museum only mentions two expeditions in his reign, both of small
importance, in 795 and 794; to all the other years the only notice is
"in the country," proving that nothing was done and that all thought of
war was abandoned.

Sardanapalus had entirely given himself up to the orgies of his harem,
and never left his palace walls, entirely renouncing all manly and
warlike habits of life. He had reigned thus for seven years, and
discontent continued to increase; the desire for independence was
spreading in the subject provinces; the bond of their obedience each
year relaxed still more, and was nearer breaking, when Arbaces, who
commanded the Median contingent of the army and was himself a Mede,
chanced to see in the palace at Nineveh the King, in a female dress,
spindle in hand, hiding in the retirement of the harem his slothful
cowardice and voluptuous life.

He considered that it would be easy to deal with a prince so degraded,
who would be unable to renew the valorous traditions of his ancestors.
The time seemed to him to have come when the provinces, held only by
force of arms, might finally throw off the weighty Assyrian yoke.
Arbaces communicated his ideas and projects to the prince then
intrusted with the government of Babylon, the Chaldæan Phul (Palia?),
surnamed Balazu (the Terrible), a name the Greeks have made into
Belesis; he entered into the plot with the willingness to be expected
from a Babylonian, one of a nation so frequently rising in revolt.

Arbaces and Balazu consulted with other chiefs, who commanded
contingents of foreign troops, and with the vassal kings of those
countries that aspired to independence; and they all formed the
resolution of overthrowing Sardanapalus. Arbaces engaged to raise the
Medes and Persians, while Balazu set on foot the insurrection in Babylon
and Chaldæa. At the end of a year the chiefs assembled their soldiers,
to the number of forty thousand, in Assyria, under the pretext of
relieving, according to custom, the troops who had served the former
year.

When once there, the soldiers broke into open rebellion. The tablet in
the British Museum tells us that the insurrection commenced at Calah in
B.C. 792. Immediately after this the confusion became so great that from
this year there was no nomination of an eponyme.

Sardanapalus, rudely interrupted in his debaucheries by a danger he had
not been able to foresee, showed himself suddenly inspired with activity
and courage; he put himself at the head of the native Assyrian troops
who remained faithful to him, met the rebels, and gained three complete
victories over them.

The confederates already began to despair of success, when Phul, calling
in the aid of superstition to a cause that seemed lost, declared to them
that if they would hold together for five days more, the gods, whose
will he had ascertained by consulting the stars, would undoubtedly give
them the victory.

In fact, some days afterward a large body of troops, whom the King had
summoned to his assistance from the provinces near the Caspian Sea, went
over, on their arrival, to the side of the insurgents and gained them a
victory. Sardanapalus then shut himself up in Nineveh, and determined to
defend himself to the last. The siege continued two years, for the walls
of the city were too strong for the battering machines of the enemy,
who were compelled to trust to reducing it by famine. Sardanapalus was
under no apprehension, confiding in an oracle declaring that Nineveh
should never be taken until the river became its enemy.

But, in the third year, rain fell in such abundance that the waters of
the Tigris inundated part of the city and overturned one of its walls
for a distance of twenty _stades_. Then the King, convinced that the
oracle was accomplished and despairing of any means of escape, to avoid
falling alive into the enemy's hands constructed in his palace an
immense funeral pyre, placed on it his gold and silver and his royal
robes, and then, shutting himself up with his wives and eunuchs in a
chamber formed in the midst of the pile, disappeared in the flames.

Nineveh opened its gates to the besiegers, but this tardy submission did
not save the proud city. It was pillaged and burned, and then razed to
the ground so completely as to evidence the implacable hatred enkindled
in the minds of subject nations by the fierce and cruel Assyrian
government. The Medes and Babylonians did not leave one stone upon
another in the ramparts, palaces, temples, or houses of the city that
for two centuries had been dominant over all Western Asia.

So complete was the destruction that the excavations of modern explorers
on the site of Nineveh have not yet found one single wall slab earlier
than the capture of the city by Arbaces and Balazu. All we possess of
the first Nineveh is one broken statue. History has no other example of
so complete a destruction.

The Assyrian empire was, like the capital, overthrown, and the people
who had taken part in the revolt formed independent states--the Medes
under Arbaces, the Babylonians under Phul or Balazu, and the Susianians
under Shutruk-Nakhunta. Assyria, reduced to the enslaved state in which
she had so long held other countries, remained for some time a
dependency of Babylon.

This great event occurred in the year B.C. 789.

[When the noble sculptures and vast palaces of Nimrud had been first
uncovered, it was natural to suppose that they marked the real site of
ancient Nineveh; a passage of Strabo, and another of Ptolemy, lent
confirmation to this theory. Shortly afterward a rival claimant started
up in the region farther to the north.

"After a while an attempt was made to reconcile the rival claims by a
theory the grandeur of which gained it acceptance, despite its
improbability. It was suggested that the various ruins, which had
hitherto disputed the name, were in fact all included within the circuit
of the ancient Nineveh, which was described as a rectangle, or oblong
square, eighteen miles long and twelve broad. The remains at Khorsabad,
Koyunjik, Nimrud, and Keremles marked the four corners of this vast
quadrangle, which contained an area of two hundred and sixteen square
miles--about ten times that of London!

"In confirmation of this view was urged, first, the description in
Diodorus, derived probably from Ctesias, which corresponded (it was
said) both with the proportions and with the actual distances; and,
next, the statements contained in the Book of Jonah, which, it was
argued, implied a city of some such dimensions. The parallel of Babylon,
according to the description given by Herodotus, might fairly have been
cited as a further argument; since it might have seemed reasonable to
suppose that there was no great difference of size between the chief
cities of the two kindred empires."--_Rawlinson_.]



THE FOUNDATION OF ROME

B.C. 753

BARTHOLD GEORG NIEBUHR


     Rome occupies a unique position in the history of the world. The
     whole Mediterranean basin was at one time merely a Roman lake, and
     the adjacent countries were Roman in letters, law, religion and the
     practice of war. Roman roads crossed the continents east and west
     and penetrated to the depths of Asia and Africa. Roman garrisons
     were stationed in every important city of the provinces, and when
     the great city on the banks of the Tiber at last fell before
     successive irruptions of northeasterly barbarians and Roman power
     was at its extreme ebb, the spirit of Roman institutions still
     survived in the civilization of Spain, France, Italy, Britain, even
     in Greece and Asia. Roman law had become the code of the world.
     Iberian, Gaul, and Italian had modified in varying degree their
     native dialects in conformity with the more copious and logical
     idiom of Latium.

     A group of legends gathers round the birthplace of the Eternal
     City. It is Æneas who escapes from Troy and brings into the land of
     Italian Latinus his native gods. His son Ascanius conquers and
     slays Mezentius in a battle between Latins and Etruscans, and
     eleven kings of Alba, all surnamed Silvius, succeeded him on the
     throne. The last king of Alba Longa is Procas, whose usurping son
     Amulius drives his eldest brother Numitor from the throne.
     Numitor's daughter, Silvia, becomes the mother of the immortal
     twins Romulus and Remus, by Mamers, the god of war; the children
     are exposed by cruel Amulius, suckled by a wolf, and become
     founders of Rome.

     Such is the outline of the poem, or rather tissue of poetry in
     which the founding of Rome is embalmed.

     The critical acumen of Niebuhr may have dispelled some of the
     clouds and contradictions in which early historians and poets have
     wrapped the record of this great event. But no critic can ever
     destroy the beauty and charm of the old Latin chronicles or
     diminish the glory of the day that saw the first walls rise about
     the seven hills of the most important of ancient European cities.


I believe that few persons, when Alba is mentioned, can get rid of the
idea, to which I too adhered for a long time, that the history of Alba
is lost to such an extent, that we can speak of it only in reference to
the Trojan time and the preceding period, as if all the statements made
concerning it by the Romans were based upon fancy and error; and that
accordingly it must be effaced from the pages of history altogether. It
is true that what we read concerning the foundation of Alba by Ascanius,
and the wonderful signs accompanying it, as well as the whole series of
the Alban kings, with the years of their reigns, the story of Numitor
and Amulius and the story of the destruction of the city, do not belong
to history; but the historical existence of Alba is not at all doubtful
on that account, nor have the ancients ever doubted it. The _Sacra
Albana_ and the _Albani tumuli atque luci_, which existed as late as the
time of Cicero, are proofs of its early existence; ruins indeed no
longer exist, but the situation of the city in the valley of Grotta
Ferrata may still be recognized. Between the lake and the long chain of
hills near the monastery of Palazzuolo one still sees the rock cut steep
down toward the lake, evidently the work of man, which rendered it
impossible to attack the city on that side; the summit on the other side
formed the arx. That the Albans were in possession of the sovereignty of
Latium is a tradition which we may believe to be founded on good
authority, as it is traced to Cincius. Afterward the Latins became the
masters of the district and temple of Jupiter. Further, the statement
that Alba shared the flesh of the victim on the Alban mount with the
thirty towns, and that after the fall of Alba the Latins chose their own
magistrates, are glimpses of real history. The ancient tunnel made for
discharging the water of the Alban Lake still exists, and through its
vault a canal was made called _Fossa Cluilia_: this vault, which is
still visible, is a work of earlier construction than any Roman one. But
all that can be said of Alba and the Latins at that time is, that Alba
was the capital, exercising the sovereignty over Latium; that its temple
of Jupiter was the rallying point of the people who were governed by it;
and that the gens Silvia was the ruling clan.

It cannot be doubted that the number of Latin towns was actually thirty,
just that of the Albensian demi; this number afterward occurs again in
the later thirty Latin towns and in the thirty Roman tribes, and it is
moreover indicated by the story of the foundation of Lavinium by thirty
families, in which we may recognize the union of the two tribes. The
statement that Lavinium was a Trojan colony and was afterward
abandoned, but restored by Alba, and further that the sanctuary could
not be transferred from it to Alba, is only an accommodation to the
Trojan and native tradition, however much it may bear the appearance of
antiquity. For Lavinium is nothing else than a general name for Latium,
just as Panionium is for Ionia, _Latinus_, _Lavinus_, and _Lavicus_
being one and the same name, as is recognized even by Servius. Lavinium
was the central point of the Prisci Latini, and there is no doubt that
in the early period before Alba ruled over Lavinium, worship was offered
mutually at Alba and at Lavinium, as was afterward the case at Rome in
the temple of Diana on the Aventine, and at the festivals of the Romans
and Latins on the Alban mount.

The personages of the Trojan legend therefore present themselves to us
in the following light. Turnus is nothing else but Turinus, in Dionysius
[Greek: Turrênos]; Lavinia, the fair maiden, is the name of the Latin
people, which may perhaps be so distinguished that the inhabitants of
the coast were called Tyrrhenians, and those further inland Latins.
Since, after the battle of Lake Regillus, the Latins are mentioned in
the treaty with Rome as forming thirty towns, there can be no doubt that
the towns, over which Alba had the supremacy in the earliest times, were
likewise thirty in number; but the confederacy did not at all times
contain the same towns, as some may afterward have perished and others
may have been added. In such political developments there is at work an
instinctive tendency to fill up that which has become vacant; and this
instinct acts as long as people proceed unconsciously according to the
ancient forms and not in accordance with actual wants. Such also was the
case in the twelve Achæan towns and in the seven Frisian maritime
communities; for as soon as one disappeared, another, dividing itself
into two, supplied its place. Wherever there is a fixed number, it is
kept up, even when one part dies away, and it ever continues to be
renewed. We may add that the state of the Latins lost in the West, but
gained in the East. We must therefore, I repeat it, conceive on the one
hand Alba with its thirty _demi_, and on the other the thirty Latin
towns, the latter at first forming a state allied with Alba, and at a
later time under its supremacy.

According to an important statement of Cato preserved in Dionysius, the
ancient towns of the Aborigines were small places scattered over the
mountains. One town of this kind was situated on the Palatine hill, and
bore the name of Roma, which is most certainly Greek. Not far from it
there occur several other places with Greek names, such as Pyrgi and
Alsium; for the people inhabiting those districts were closely akin to
the Greeks; and it is by no means an erroneous conjecture, that
Terracina was formerly called [Greek: Tracheinê] or the "rough place on
a rock"; Formiæ must be connected with [Greek: hormos] "a roadstead" or
"place for casting anchor." As certain as Pyrgi signifies "towers," so
certainly does _Roma_ signify "strength," and I believe that those are
quite right who consider that the name Roma in this sense is not
accidental. This Roma is described as a Pelasgian place in which
Evander, the introducer of scientific culture, resided. According to
tradition, the first foundation of civilization was laid by Saturn, in
the golden age of mankind. The tradition in Vergil, who was extremely
learned in matters of antiquity, that the first men were created out of
trees, must be taken quite literally; for as in Greece the [Greek:
myrmêches] were metamorphosed into the Myrmidons, and the stones thrown
by Deucalion and Pyrrha into men and women, so in Italy trees, by some
divine power, were changed into human beings. These beings, at first
only half human, gradually acquired a civilization which they owed to
Saturn; but the real intellectual culture was traced to Evander, who
must not be regarded as a person who had come from Arcadia, but as _the
good man_, as the teacher of the alphabet and of mental culture, which
man gradually works out for himself.

The Romans clung to the conviction that Romulus, the founder of Rome,
was the son of a virgin by a god, that his life was marvellously
preserved, that he was saved from the floods of the river and was reared
by a she-wolf. That this poetry is very ancient cannot be doubted; but
did the legend at all times describe Romulus as the son of Rea Silvia or
Ilia? Perizonius was the first who remarked against Ryccius that Rea
Ilia never occurs together, and that Rea Silvia was a daughter of
Numitor, while Ilia is called a daughter of Æneas. He is perfectly
right: Nævius and Ennius called Romulus a son of Ilia, the daughter of
Æneas, as is attested by Servius on Vergil and Porphyrio on Horace; but
it cannot be hence inferred that this was the national opinion of the
Romans themselves, for the poets who were familiar with the Greeks might
accommodate their stories to Greek poems. The ancient Romans, on the
other hand, could not possibly look upon the mother of the founder of
their city as a daughter of Æneas, who was believed to have lived three
hundred and thirty-three or three hundred and sixty years earlier.
Dionysius says that his account, which is that of Fabius, occurred in
the sacred songs, and it is in itself perfectly consistent. Fabius
cannot have taken it, as Plutarch asserts, from Diocles, a miserable
unknown Greek author; the statue of the she-wolf was erected in the year
A.U. 457, long before Diocles wrote, and at least a hundred years before
Fabius. This tradition therefore is certainly the more ancient Roman
one; and it puts Rome in connection with Alba. A monument has lately
been discovered at Bovillæ: it is an altar which the _Gentiles Julii_
erected _lege Albana_, and therefore expresses a religious relation of a
Roman gens to Alba. The connection of the two towns continues down to
the founder of Rome; and the well-known tradition, with its ancient
poetical details, many of which Livy and Dionysius omitted from their
histories lest they should seem to deal too much in the marvellous, runs
as follows:

Numitor and Amulius were contending for the throne of Alba. Amulius took
possession of the throne, and made Rea Silvia, the daughter of Numitor,
a vestal virgin, in order that the Silvian house might become extinct.
This part of the story was composed without any insight into political
laws, for a daughter could not have transmitted any gentilician rights.
The name Rea Silvia is ancient, but Rea is only a surname: _rea femmina_
often occurs in Boccaccio, and is used to this day in Tuscany to
designate a woman whose reputation is blighted; a priestess Rea is
described by Vergil as having been overpowered by Hercules. While Rea
was fetching water in a grove for a sacrifice the sun became eclipsed,
and she took refuge from a wolf in a cave, where she was overpowered by
Mars. When she was delivered, the sun was again eclipsed and the statue
of Vesta covered its eyes. Livy has here abandoned the marvellous. The
tyrant threw Rea with her infants into the river Anio: she lost her life
in the waves, but the god of the river took her soul and changed it into
an immortal goddess, whom he married. This story has been softened down
into the tale of her imprisonment, which is unpoetical enough to be a
later invention. The river Anio carried the cradle, like a boat, into
the Tiber, and the latter conveyed it to the foot of the Palatine, the
water having overflowed the country, and the cradle was upset at the
root of a fig-tree. A she-wolf carried the babies away and suckled them;
Mars sent a woodpecker which provided the children with food, and the
bird _parra_ which protected them from insects. These statements are
gathered from various quarters; for the historians got rid of the
marvellous as much as possible. Faustulus, the legend continues, found
the boys feeding on the milk of the huge wild beast; he brought them up
with his twelve sons, and they became the staunchest of all. Being at
the head of the shepherds on Mount Palatine, they became involved in a
quarrel with the shepherds of Numitor on the Aventine--the Palatine and
the Aventine are always hostile to each other. Remus being taken
prisoner was led to Alba, but Romulus rescued him, and their descent
from Numitor being discovered, the latter was restored to the throne,
and the two young men obtained permission to form a settlement at the
foot of Mount Palatine where they had been saved.

Out of this beautiful poem the falsifiers endeavored to make some
credible story: even the unprejudiced and poetical Livy tried to avoid
the most marvellous points as much as he could, but the falsifiers went
a step farther. In the days when men had altogether ceased to believe in
the ancient gods, attempts were made to find something intelligible in
the old legends, and thus a history was made up, which Plutarch fondly
embraced and Dionysius did not reject, though he also relates the
ancient tradition in a mutilated form. He says that many people believe
in demons, and that such a demon might have been the father of Romulus;
but he himself is very far from believing it, and rather thinks that
Amulius himself, in disguise, violated Rea Silvia amid thunder and
lightning produced by artifice. This he is said to have done in order to
have a pretext for getting rid of her, but being entreated by his
daughter not to drown her, he imprisoned her for life. The children were
saved by the shepherd who was commissioned to expose them, at the
request of Numitor, and two other boys were put in their place.
Numitor's grandsons were taken to a friend at Gabii, who caused them to
be educated according to their rank, and to be instructed in Greek
literature. Attempts have actually been made to introduce this stupid
forgery into history, and some portions of it have been adopted in the
narrative of our historians; for example, that the ancient Alban
nobility migrated with the two brothers to Rome; but if this had been
the case there would have been no need of opening an asylum, nor would
it have been necessary to obtain by force the _connubium_ with other
nations.

But of more historical importance is the difference of opinion between
the two brothers respecting the building of the city and its site.
According to the ancient tradition, both were kings and the equal heads
of the colony; Romulus is universally said to have wished to build on
the Palatine, while Remus, according to some, preferred the Aventine;
according to others, the hill Remuria. Plutarch states that the latter
is a hill three miles south of Rome, and cannot have been any other than
the hill nearly opposite St. Paul, which is the more credible, since
this hill, though situated in an otherwise unhealthy district, has an
extremely fine air: a very important point in investigations respecting
the ancient Latin towns, for it may be taken for certain that where the
air is now healthy it was so in those times also, and that where it is
now decidedly unhealthy, it was anciently no better. The legend now goes
on to say that a dispute arose between Romulus and Remus as to which of
them should give the name to the town, and also as to where it was to be
built. A town Remuria therefore undoubtedly existed on that hill, though
subsequently we find the name transferred to the Aventine, as is the
case so frequently. According to the common tradition, the auguries were
to decide between the brothers: Romulus took his stand on the Palatine,
Remus on the Aventine. The latter observed the whole night, but saw
nothing until about sunrise, when he saw six vultures flying from north
to south, and sent word of it to Romulus; but at that very time the
latter, annoyed at not having seen any sign, fraudulently sent a
messenger to say that he had seen twelve vultures, and at the very
moment the messenger arrived there did appear twelve vultures, to which
Romulus appealed. This account is impossible; for the Palatine and
Aventine are so near each other that, as every Roman well knew, whatever
a person on one of the two hills saw high in the air, could not escape
the observation of any one who was watching on the other. This part of
the story therefore cannot be ancient, and can be saved only by
substituting the Remuria for the Aventine. As the Palatine was the seat
of the noblest patrician tribe, and the Aventine the special town of the
plebeians, there existed between the two a perpetual feud, and thus it
came to pass that in after times the story relating to the Remuria,
which was far away from the city, was transferred to the Aventine.
According to Ennius, Romulus made his observations on the Aventine; in
this case Remus must certainly have been on the Remuria, and it is said
that when Romulus obtained the augury he threw his spear toward the
Palatine. This is the ancient legend which was neglected by the later
writers. Romulus took possession of the Palatine. The spear taking root
and becoming a tree, which existed down to the time of Nero, is a symbol
of the eternity of the new city, and of the protection of the gods. The
statement that Romulus tried to deceive his brother is a later addition;
and the beautiful poem of Ennius, quoted by Cicero, knows nothing of
this circumstance. The conclusion which must be drawn from all this is,
that in the earliest times there were two towns, Roma and Remuria, the
latter being far distant from the city and from the Palatine.

Romulus now fixed the boundary of his town, but Remus scornfully leaped
across the ditch, for which he was slain by Celer, a hint that no one
should cross the fortifications of Rome with impunity. But Romulus fell
into a state of melancholy occasioned by the death of Remus; he
instituted festivals to honor him, and ordered an empty throne to be put
up by the side of his own. Thus we have a double kingdom, which ends
with the defeat of Remuria.

The question now is, What were these two towns of Roma and Remuria? They
were evidently Pelasgian places: the ancient tradition states that
Sicelus migrated from Rome southward to the Pelasgians, that is, the
Tyrrhenian Pelasgians were pushed forward to the Morgetes, a kindred
nation in Lucania and in Sicily. Among the Greeks it was, as Dionysius
states, a general opinion that Rome was a Pelasgian, that is, a
Tyrrhenian city, but the authorities from whom he learned this are no
longer extant. There is, however, a fragment in which it is stated that
Rome was a sister city of Antium and Ardea; here too we must apply the
statement from the chronicle of Cumæ, that Evander, who, as an Arcadian,
was likewise a Pelasgian, had his _palatium_ on the Palatine. To us he
appears of less importance than in the legend, for in the latter he is
one of the benefactors of nations, and introduced among the Pelasgians
in Italy the use of the alphabet and other arts, just as Damaratus did
among the Tyrrhenians in Etruria. In this sense, therefore, Rome was
certainly a Latin town, and had not a mixed but a purely
Tyrrheno-Pelasgian population. The subsequent vicissitudes of this
settlement may be gathered from the allegories.

Romulus now found the number of his fellow-settlers too small; the
number of three thousand foot and three hundred horse, which Livy gives
from the commentaries of the pontiffs, is worth nothing; for it is only
an outline of the later military arrangement transferred to the earliest
times. According to the ancient tradition, Romulus's band was too small,
and he opened an asylum on the Capitoline hill. This asylum, the old
description states, contained only a very small space, a proof how
little these things were understood historically. All manner of people,
thieves, murderers, and vagabonds of every kind, flocked thither. This
is the simple view taken of the origin of the clients. In the bitterness
with which the estates subsequently looked upon one another, it was made
a matter of reproach to the Patricians that their earliest ancestors had
been vagabonds; though it was a common opinion that the Patricians were
descended from the free companions of Romulus, and that those who took
refuge in the asylum placed themselves as clients under the protection
of the real free citizens. But now they wanted women, and attempts were
made to obtain the _connubium_ with neighboring towns, especially
perhaps with Antemnæ, which was only four miles distant from Rome, with
the Sabines and others. This being refused Romulus had recourse to a
stratagem, proclaiming that he had discovered the altar of Consus, the
god of counsels, an allegory of his cunning in general. In the midst of
the solemnities, the Sabine maidens, thirty in number, were carried off,
from whom the _curiæ_ received their names: this is the genuine ancient
legend, and it proves how small ancient Rome was conceived to have been.
In later times the number was thought too small; it was supposed that
these thirty had been chosen by lot for the purpose of naming the
_curiæ_ after them; and Valerius Antias fixed the number of the women
who had been carried off at five hundred and twenty-seven. The rape is
placed in the fourth month of the city, because the _consualia_ fall in
August, and the festival commemorating the foundation of the city in
April; later writers, as Cn. Gellius, extended this period to four
years, and Dionysius found this of course far more credible. From this
rape there arose wars, first with the neighboring towns, which were
defeated one after another, and at last with the Sabines. The ancient
legend contains not a trace of this war having been of long continuance;
but in later times it was necessarily supposed to have lasted for a
considerable time, since matters were then measured by a different
standard. Lucumo and Cælius came to the assistance of Romulus, an
allusion to the expedition of Cæles Vibenna, which however belongs to a
much later period. The Sabine king, Tatius, was induced by treachery to
settle on the hill which is called the Tarpeian _arx_. Between the
Palatine and the Tarpeian rock a battle was fought, in which neither
party gained a decisive victory, until the Sabine women threw themselves
between the combatants, who agreed that henceforth the sovereignty
should be divided between the Romans and the Sabines. According to the
annals, this happened in the fourth year of Rome.

But this arrangement lasted only a short time; Tatius was slain during a
sacrifice at Lavinium, and his vacant throne was not filled up. During
their common reign, each king had a senate of one hundred members, and
the two senates, after consulting separately, used to meet, and this was
called _comitium_. Romulus during the remainder of his life ruled alone;
the ancient legend knows nothing of his having been a tyrant: according
to Ennius he continued, on the contrary, to be a mild and benevolent
king, while Tatius was a tyrant. The ancient tradition contained nothing
beyond the beginning and the end of the reign of Romulus; all that lies
between these points, the war with the Veientines, Fidenates, and so on,
is a foolish invention of later annalists. The poem itself is beautiful,
but this inserted narrative is highly absurd, as for example the
statement that Romulus slew ten thousand Veientines with his own hand.
The ancient poem passed on at once to the time when Romulus had
completed his earthly career, and Jupiter fulfilled his promise to Mars,
that Romulus was the only man whom he would introduce among the gods.
According to this ancient legend, the king was reviewing his army near
the marsh of Capræ, when, as at the moment of his conception, there
occurred an eclipse of the sun and at the same time a hurricane, during
which Mars descended in a fiery chariot and took his son up to heaven.
Out of this beautiful poem the most wretched stories have been
manufactured: Romulus, it is said, while in the midst of his senators
was knocked down, cut into pieces, and thus carried away by them under
their togas. This stupid story was generally adopted, and that a cause
for so horrible a deed might not be wanting, it was related that in his
latter years Romulus had become a tyrant, and that the senators took
revenge by murdering him.

After the death of Romulus, the Romans and the people of Tatius
quarrelled for a long time with each other, the Sabines wishing that one
of their nation should be raised to the throne, while the Romans claimed
that the new king should be chosen from among them. At length they
agreed, it is said, that the one nation should choose a king from the
other.

We have now reached the point at which it is necessary to speak of the
relation between the two nations, such as it actually existed.

All the nations of antiquity lived in fixed forms, and their civil
relations were always marked by various divisions and subdivisions. When
cities raise themselves to the rank of nations, we always find a
division at first into tribes; Herodotus mentions such tribes in the
colonization of Cyrene, and the same was afterward the case at the
foundation of Thurii; but when a place existed anywhere as a distinct
township, its nature was characterized by the fact of its citizens being
at a certain time divided into _gentes_ [Greek: genê], each of which had
a common chapel and a common hero. These _gentes_ were united in
definite numerical proportions into _curiæ_ [Greek: phratrai]. The
_gentes_ are not families, but free corporations, sometimes close and
sometimes open; in certain cases the whole body of the state might
assign to them new associates; the great council at Venice was a close
body, and no one could be admitted whose ancestors had not been in it,
and such also was the case in many oligarchical states of antiquity.

All civil communities had a council and an assembly of burghers, that
is, a small and a great council; the burghers consisted of the guilds or
_gentes_, and these again were united, as it were, in parishes; all the
Latin towns had a council of one hundred members, who were divided into
ten _curiæ_; this division gave rise to the name of _decuriones_, which
remained in use as a title of civic magistrates down to the latest
times, and through the _lex Julia_ was transferred to the constitution
of the Italian _municipia_. That this council consisted of one hundred
persons has been proved by Savigny, in the first volume of his history
of the Roman law. This constitution continued to exist till a late
period of the middle ages, but perished when the institution of guilds
took the place of municipal constitutions. Giovanni Villani says, that
previously to the revolution in the twelfth century there were at
Florence one hundred _buoni nomini_, who had the administration of the
city. There is nothing in the German cities which answers to this
constitution. We must not conceive those hundred to have been nobles;
they were an assembly of burghers and country people, as was the case in
our small imperial cities, or as in the small cantons of Switzerland.
Each of them represented a _gens_; and they are those whom Propertius
calls _patres pelliti_. The _curia_ of Rome, a cottage covered with
straw, was a faithful memorial of the times when Rome stood buried in
the night of history, as a small country town surrounded by its little
domain.

The most ancient occurrence which we can discover from the form of the
allegory, by a comparison of what happened in other parts of Italy, is
a result of the great and continued commotion among the nations of
Italy. It did not terminate when the Oscans had been pressed forward
from Lake Fucinus to the lake of Alba, but continued much longer. The
Sabines may have rested for a time, but they advanced far beyond the
districts about which we have any traditions. These Sabines began as a
very small tribe, but afterward became one of the greatest nations of
Italy, for the Marrucinians, Caudines, Vestinians, Marsians, Pelignians,
and in short all the Samnite tribes, the Lucanians, the Oscan part of
the Bruttians, the Picentians, and several others were all descended
from the Sabine stock, and yet there are no traditions about their
settlements except in a few cases. At the time to which we must refer
the foundation of Rome, the Sabines were widely diffused. It is said
that, guided by a bull, they penetrated into Opica, and thus occupied
the country of the Samnites. It was perhaps at an earlier time that they
migrated down the Tiber, whence we there find Sabine towns mixed with
Latin ones; some of their places also existed on the Anio. The country
afterward inhabited by the Sabines was probably not occupied by them
till a later period, for Falerii is a Tuscan town, and its population
was certainly at one time thoroughly Tyrrhenian.

As the Sabines advanced, some Latin towns maintained their independence,
others were subdued; Fidenæ belonged to the former, but north of it all
the country was Sabine. Now by the side of the ancient Roma we find a
Sabine town on the Quirinal and Capitoline close to the Latin town; but
its existence is all that we know about it. A tradition states that
there previously existed on the Capitoline a Siculian town of the name
of Saturnia, which, in this case, must have been conquered by the
Sabines. But whatever we may think of this, as well as of the existence
of another ancient town on the Janiculum, it is certain that there were
a number of small towns in that district. The two towns could exist
perfectly well side by side, as there was a deep marsh between them.

The town on the Palatine may for a long time have been in a state of
dependence on the Sabine conqueror whom tradition calls Titus Tatius;
hence he was slain during the Laurentine sacrifice, and hence also his
memory was hateful. The existence of a Sabine town on the Quirinal is
attested by the undoubted occurrence there of a number of Sabine
chapels, which were known as late as the time of Varro, and from which
he proved that the Sabine ritual was adopted by the Romans. This Sabine
element in the worship of the Romans has almost always been overlooked,
in consequence of the prevailing desire to look upon everything as
Etruscan; but, I repeat, there is no doubt of the Sabine settlement, and
that it was the result of a great commotion among the tribes of middle
Italy.

The tradition that the Sabine women were carried off because there
existed no _connubium_, and that the rape was followed by a war, is
undoubtedly a symbolical representation of the relation between the two
towns, previous to the establishment of the right of intermarriage; the
Sabines had the ascendancy and refused that right, but the Romans gained
it by force of arms. There can be no doubt that the Sabines were
originally the ruling people, but that in some insurrection of the
Romans various Sabine places, such as Antemnæ, Fidenæ, and others, were
subdued, and thus these Sabines were separated from their kinsmen. The
Romans, therefore, reëstablished their independence by a war, the result
of which may have been such as we read it in the tradition--Romulus
being, of course, set aside--namely, that both places as two closely
united towns formed a kind of confederacy, each with a senate of one
hundred members, a king, an offensive and defensive alliance, and on the
understanding that in common deliberations the burghers of each should
meet together in the space between the two towns which was afterward
called the _comitium_. In this manner they formed a united state in
regard to foreign nations.

The idea of a double state was not unknown to the ancient writers
themselves, although the indications of it are preserved only in
scattered passages, especially in the scholiasts. The head of Janus,
which in the earliest times was represented on the Roman _as_, is the
symbol of it, as has been correctly observed by writers on Roman
antiquities. The vacant throne by the side of the _curule_ chair of
Romulus points to the time when there was only one king, and represents
the equal but quiescent right of the other people.

That concord was not of long duration is an historical fact likewise;
nor can it be doubted that the Roman king assumed the supremacy over the
Sabines, and that in consequence the two councils were united so as to
form one senate under one king, it being agreed that the king should be
alternately a Roman and a Sabine, and that each time he should be chosen
by the other people: the king, however, if displeasing to the
non-electing people, was not to be forced upon them, but was to be
invested with the _imperium_ only on condition of the auguries being
favorable to him, and of his being sanctioned by the whole nation. The
non-electing tribe accordingly had the right of either sanctioning or
rejecting his election. In the case of Numa this is related as a fact,
but it is only a disguisement of the right derived from the ritual
books. In this manner the strange double election, which is otherwise so
mysterious and was formerly completely misunderstood, becomes quite
intelligible. One portion of the nation elected and the other
sanctioned; it being intended that, for example, the Romans should not
elect from among the Sabines a king devoted exclusively to their own
interests, but one who was at the same time acceptable to the Sabines.

When, perhaps after several generations of a separate existence, the two
states became united, the towns ceased to be towns, and the collective
body of the burghers of each became tribes, so that the nation consisted
of two tribes. The form of addressing the Roman people was from the
earliest times _Populus Romanus Quirites_, which, when its origin was
forgotten, was changed into _Populus Romanus Quiritium_, just as _lis
vindiciæ_ was afterward changed into _lis vindiciaruum_. This change is
more ancient than Livy; the correct expression still continued to be
used, but was to a great extent supplanted by the false one. The ancient
tradition relates that after the union of the two tribes the name
_Quirites_ was adopted as the common designation for the whole people;
but this is erroneous, for the name was not used in this sense till a
very late period. This designation remained in use and was transferred
to the plebeians at a time when the distinction between Romans and
Sabines, between these two and the Luceres, nay, when even that between
patricians and plebeians had almost ceased to be noticed. Thus the two
towns stood side by side as tribes forming one state, and it is merely a
recognition of the ancient tradition when we call the Latins _Ramnes_,
and the Sabines _Tities_; that the derivation of these appellations from
Romulus and T. Tatius is incorrect is no argument against the view here
taken.

Dionysius, who had good materials and made use of a great many, must, as
far as the consular period is concerned, have had more than he gives;
there is in particular one important change in the constitution,
concerning which he has only a few words, either because he did not see
clearly or because he was careless. But as regards the kingly period, he
was well acquainted with his subject; he says that there was a dispute
between the two tribes respecting the senates, and that Numa settled it
by not depriving the Ramnes, as the first tribe, of anything, and by
conferring honors on the Tities. This is perfectly clear. The senate,
which had at first consisted of one hundred and now two hundred members,
was divided into ten _decuries_, each being headed by one, who was its
leader; these are the _decem primi_, and they were taken from the
Ramnes. They formed the college, which, when there was no king,
undertook the government, one after another, each for five days, but in
such a manner that they always succeeded one another in the same order,
as we must believe with Livy, for Dionysius here introduces his Greek
notions of the Attic _prytanes_, and Plutarch misunderstands the matter
altogether.

After the example of the senate the number of the augurs and pontiffs
also was doubled, so that each college consisted of four members, two
being taken from the Ramnes and two from the Tities. Although it is not
possible to fix these changes chronologically, as Dionysius and Cicero
do, yet they are as historically certain as if we actually knew the
kings who introduced them.

Such was Rome in the second stage of its development. This period of
equalization is one of peace, and is described as the reign of Numa,
about whom the traditions are simple and brief. It is the picture of a
peaceful condition with a holy man at the head of affairs, like Nicolas
von der Flue in Switzerland. Numa was supposed to have been inspired by
the goddess.

Egeria, to whom he was married in the grove of the Camenæ, and who
introduced him into the choir of her sisters; she melted away in tears
at his death, and thus gave her name to the spring which arose out of
her tears. Such a peace of forty years, during which no nation rose
against Rome, because Numa's piety was communicated to the surrounding
nations, is a beautiful idea, but historically impossible in those
times, and manifestly a poetical fiction.

The death of Numa forms the conclusion of the first _sæculum_, and an
entirely new period follows, just as in the Theogony of Hesiod the age
of heroes is followed by the iron age; there is evidently a change, and
an entirely new order of things is conceived to have arisen. Up to this
point we have had nothing except poetry, but with Tullus Hostilius a
kind of history begins, that is, events are related which must be taken
in general as historical, though in the light in which they are
presented to us they are not historical. Thus, for example, the
destruction of Alba is historical, and so in all probability is the
reception of the Albans at Rome. The conquests of Ancus Martius are
quite credible; and they appear like an oasis of real history in the
midst of fables. A similar case occurs once in the chronicle of Cologne.
In the Abyssinian annals, we find in the thirteenth century a very
minute account of one particular event, in which we recognize a piece of
contemporaneous history, though we meet with nothing historical either
before or after.

The history which then follows is like a picture viewed from the wrong
side, like phantasmata; the names of the kings are perfectly fictitious;
no man can tell how long the Roman kings reigned, as we do not know how
many there were, since it is only for the sake of the number that seven
were supposed to have ruled, seven being a number which appears in many
relations, especially in important astronomical ones. Hence the
chronological statements are utterly worthless. We must conceive as a
succession of centuries the period from the origin of Rome down to the
times wherein were constructed the enormous works, such as the great
drains, the wall of Servius, and others, which were actually executed
under the kings and rival the great architectural works of the
Egyptians. Romulus and Numa must be entirely set aside; but a long
period follows, in which the nations gradually unite and develop
themselves until the kingly government disappears and makes way for
republican institutions.

But it is nevertheless necessary to relate the history, such as it has
been handed down, because much depends upon it. There was not the
slightest connection between Rome and Alba, nor is it even mentioned by
the historians, though they suppose that Rome received its first
inhabitants from Alba; but in the reign of Tullus Hostilius the two
cities on a sudden appear as enemies: each of the two nations seeks war,
and tries to allure fortune by representing itself as the injured party,
each wishing to declare war. Both sent ambassadors to demand reparation
for robberies which had been committed. The form of procedure was this:
the ambassadors, that is the Fetiales, related the grievances of their
city to every person they met, they then proclaimed them in the
market-place of the other city, and if, after the expiration of thrice
ten days no reparation was made, they said, "We have done enough and now
return," whereupon the elders at home held counsel as to how they should
obtain redress. In this formula accordingly the _res_, that is, the
surrender of the guilty and the restoration of the stolen property, must
have been demanded. Now it is related that the two nations sent such
ambassadors quite simultaneously, but that Tullus Hostilius retained the
Alban ambassadors, until he was certain that the Romans at Alba had not
obtained the justice due to them, and had therefore declared war. After
this he admitted the ambassadors into the senate, and the reply made to
their complaint was, that they themselves had not satisfied the demands
of the Romans. Livy then continues: _bellum in trigesimum diem
dixerant_. But the real formula is, _post trigesimum diem_, and we may
ask, Why did Livy or the annalist whom he followed make this alteration?
For an obvious reason: a person may ride from Rome to Alba in a couple
of hours, so that the detention of the Alban ambassadors at Rome for
thirty days, without their hearing what was going on in the mean time at
Alba, was a matter of impossibility. Livy saw this, and therefore
altered the formula. But the ancient poet was not concerned about such
things, and without hesitation increased the distance in his
imagination, and represented Rome and Alba as great states.

The whole description of the circumstances under which the fate of Alba
was decided is just as manifestly poetical, but we shall dwell upon it
for a while in order to show how a semblance of history may arise.
Between Rome and Alba there was a ditch, _Fossa Cluilia_ or _Cloelia_,
and there must have been a tradition that the Albans had been encamped
there; Livy and Dionysius mention that Cluilius, a general of the
Albans, had given the ditch its name, having perished there. It was
necessary to mention the latter circumstance, in order to explain the
fact that afterward their general was a different person, Mettius
Fuffetius, and yet to be able to connect the name of that ditch with the
Albans. The two states committed the decision of their dispute to
champions, and Dionysius says that tradition did not agree as to whether
the name of the Roman champions was Horatii or Curiatii, although he
himself, as well as Livy, assumes that it was Horatii, probably because
it was thus stated by the majority of the annalists. Who would suspect
any uncertainty here if it were not for this passage of Dionysius? The
contest of the three brothers on each side is a symbolical indication
that each of the two states was then divided into three tribes. Attempts
have indeed been made to deny that the three men were brothers of the
same birth, and thus to remove the improbability; but the legend went
even further, representing the three brothers on each side as the sons
of two sisters, and as born on the same day. This contains the
suggestion of a perfect equality between Rome and Alba. The contest
ended in the complete submission of Alba; it did not remain faithful,
however, and in the ensuing struggle with the Etruscans, Mettius
Fuffetius acted the part of a traitor toward Rome, but not being able to
carry his design into effect, he afterward fell upon the fugitive
Etruscans. Tullus ordered him to be torn to pieces and Alba to be razed
to the ground, the noblest Alban families being transplanted to Rome.
The death of Tullus is no less poetical. Like Numa he undertook to call
down lightning from heaven, but he thereby destroyed himself and his
house.

If we endeavor to discover the historical substance of these legends,
we at once find ourselves in a period when Rome no longer stood alone,
but had colonies with Roman settlers, possessing a third of the
territory and exercising sovereign power over the original inhabitants.
This was the case in a small number of towns, for the most part of
ancient Siculian origin. It is an undoubted fact that Alba was
destroyed, and that after this event the towns of the _Prisci Latini_
formed an independent and compact confederacy; but whether Alba fell in
the manner described, whether it was ever compelled to recognize the
supremacy of Rome, and whether it was destroyed by the Romans and Latins
conjointly, or by the Romans or Latins alone, are questions which no
human ingenuity can solve. It is, however, most probable that the
destruction of Alba was the work of the Latins, who rose against her
supremacy; whether in this case the Romans received the Albans among
themselves, and thus became their benefactors instead of destroyers,
must ever remain a matter of uncertainty. That Alban families were
transplanted to Rome cannot be doubted, any more than that the _Prisci
Latini_ from that time constituted a compact state; if we consider that
Alba was situated in the midst of the Latin districts, that the Alban
mount was their common sanctuary, and that the grove of Ferentina was
the place of assembly for all the Latins, it must appear more probable
that Rome did not destroy Alba, but that it perished in an insurrection
of the Latin towns, and that the Romans strengthened themselves by
receiving the Albans into their city.

Whether the Albans were the first that settled on the Cælian hill, or
whether it was previously occupied, cannot be decided. The account which
places the foundation of the town on the Cælius in the reign of Romulus
suggests that a town existed there before the reception of the Albans;
but what is the authenticity of this account? A third tradition
represents it as an Etruscan settlement of Cæles Vibenna. This much is
certain, that the destruction of Alba greatly contributed to increase
the power of Rome. There can be no doubt that a third town, which seems
to have been very populous, now existed on the Cælius and on a portion
of the Esquiliæ: such a settlement close to other towns was made for the
sake of mutual protection. Between the two more ancient towns there
continued to be a marsh or swamp, and Rome was protected on the south
by stagnant water; but between Rome and the third town there was a dry
plain. Rome also had a considerable suburb toward the Aventine,
protected by a wall and a ditch, as is implied in the story of Remus. He
is a personification of the _plebs_, leaping across the ditch from the
side of the Aventine, though we ought to be very cautious in regard to
allegory.

The most ancient town on the Palatine was Rome; the Sabine town also
must have had a name, and I have no doubt that, according to common
analogy, it was Quirium, the name of its citizens being Quirites. This I
look upon as certain. I have almost as little doubt that the town on the
Cælian was called Lucerum, because when it was united with Rome, its
citizens were called, _Lucertes_ (_Luceres_). The ancients derive this
name from Lucumo, king of the Tuscans, or from Lucerus, king of Ardea;
the latter derivation probably meaning that the race was Tyrrheno-Latin,
because Ardea was the capital of that race. Rome was thus enlarged by a
third element, which, however, did not stand on a footing of equality
with the two others, but was in a state of dependence similar to that of
Ireland relatively to Great Britain down to the year 1782. But although
the Luceres were obliged to recognize the supremacy of the two older
tribes, they were considered as an integral part of the whole state,
that is, as a third tribe with an administration of its own, but
inferior rights. What throws light upon our way here is a passage of
Festus, who is a great authority on matters of Roman antiquity, because
he made his excerpts from Verrius Flaccus; it is only in a few points
that, in my opinion, either of them was mistaken; all the rest of the
mistakes in Festus may be accounted for by the imperfection of the
abridgment, Festus not always understanding Verrius Flaccus. The
statement of Festus to which I here allude is that Tarquinius Superbus
increased the number of the Vestals in order that each tribe might have
two. With this we must connect a passage from the tenth book of Livy,
where he says that the augurs were to represent the three tribes. The
numbers in the Roman colleges of priests were always multiples either of
two or of three; the latter was the case with the Vestal Virgins and the
great Flamines, and the former with the Augurs, Pontiffs, and Fetiales,
who represented only the first two tribes. Previously to the passing of
the Ogulnian law the number of augurs was four, and when subsequently
five plebeians were added, the basis of this increase was different, it
is true, but the ancient rule of the number being a multiple of three
was preserved. The number of pontiffs, which was then four, was
increased only by four: this might seem to contradict what has just been
stated, but it has been overlooked that Cicero speaks of _five_ new ones
having been added, for he included the Pontifex Maximus, which Livy does
not. In like manner there were twenty Fetiales, ten for each tribe. To
the Salii on the Palatine Numa added another brotherhood on the
Quirinal; thus we everywhere see a manifest distinction between the
first two tribes and the third, the latter being treated as inferior.

The third tribe, then, consisted of free citizens, but they had not the
same rights as the members of the first two; yet its members considered
themselves superior to all other people; and their relation to the other
two tribes was the same as that existing between the Venetian citizens
of the mainland and the _nobili_. A Venetian nobleman treated those
citizens with far more condescension than he displayed toward others,
provided they did not presume to exercise any authority in political
matters. Whoever belonged to the Luceres called himself a Roman, and if
the very dictator of Tusculum had come to Rome, a man of the third tribe
there would have looked upon him as an inferior person, though he
himself had no influence whatever.

Tullus was succeeded by Ancus. Tullus appears as one of the Ramnes, and
as descended from Hostus Hostilius, one of the companions of Romulus;
but Ancus was a Sabine, a grandson of Numa. The accounts about him are
to some extent historical, and there is no trace of poetry in them. In
his reign, the development of the state again made a step in advance.
According to the ancient tradition, Rome was at war with the Latin
towns, and carried it on successfully. How many of the particular events
which are recorded may be historical I am unable to say; but that there
was a war is credible enough. Ancus, it is said, carried away after this
war many thousands of Latins, and gave them settlements on the Aventine.
The ancients express various opinions about him; sometimes he is
described as a _captator auræ popularis_; sometimes he is called _bonus
Ancus_. Like the first three kings, he is said to have been a
legislator, a fact which is not mentioned in reference to the later
kings. He is moreover stated to have established the colony of Ostia,
and thus his kingdom must have extended as far as the mouth of the
Tiber.

Ancus and Tullus seem to me to be historical personages; but we can
scarcely suppose that the latter was succeeded by the former, and that
the events assigned to their reigns actually occurred in them. These
events must be conceived in the following manner: Toward the end of the
fourth reign, when, after a feud which lasted many years, the Romans
came to an understanding with the Latins about the renewal of the
long-neglected alliance, Rome gave up its claims to the supremacy which
it could not maintain, and indemnified itself by extending its dominion
in another and safer direction. The eastern colonies joined the Latin
towns which still existed: this is evident, though it is nowhere
expressly mentioned; and a portion of the Latin country was ceded to
Rome, with which the rest of the Latins formed a connection of
friendship, perhaps of isopolity. Rome here acted as wisely as England
did when she recognized the independence of North America.

In this manner Rome obtained a territory. The many thousand settlers
whom Ancus is said to have led to the Aventine were the population of
the Latin towns which became subject to Rome, and they were far more
numerous than the two ancient tribes, even after the latter had been
increased by their union with the third tribe. In these country
districts lay the power of Rome, and from them she raised the armies
with which she carried on her wars. It would have been natural to admit
this population as a fourth tribe, but such a measure was not agreeable
to the Romans: the constitution of the state was completed and was
looked upon as a sacred trust in which no change ought to be introduced.
It was with the Greeks and Romans as it was with our own ancestors,
whose separate tribes clung to their hereditary laws, and differed from
one another in this respect as much as they did from the Gauls in the
color of their eyes and hair. They knew well enough that it was in their
power to alter the laws, but they considered them as something which
ought not to be altered. Thus when the emperor Otho was doubtful on a
point of the law of inheritance, he caused the case to be decided by an
ordeal or judgment of God. In Sicily, one city had Chalcidian, another
Doric laws, although their populations, as well as their dialects, were
greatly mixed; but the leaders of those colonies had been Chalcidians in
the one case and Dorians in the others. The Chalcidians, moreover, were
divided into four, the Dorians into three tribes, and their differences
in these respects were manifested even in their weights and measures.
The division into three tribes was a genuine Latin institution; and
there are reasons which render it probable that the Sabines had a
division of their states into four tribes. The transportation of the
Latins to Rome must be regarded as the origin of the _plebs_.



PRINCE JIMMU FOUNDS JAPAN'S CAPITAL

B.C. 660

SIR EDWARD REED THE "NEHONGI"


     Prince Jimmu is the founder of the Empire of Japan, according to
     Japanese tradition. The whole of his history is overlaid with myth
     and legend. But it points to the immigration of western Asiatics by
     way of Corea into the Japanese islands of Izumo and Kyushu.

     The historical records of the Japanese relate that Jimmu,
     accompanied by an elder brother, Prince Itsuse, started from their
     grandfather's palace on Mount Takaclicho. They marched with a large
     number of followers, a horde of men, women, and children, as well
     as a band of armed men. On landing in Japan, after many years
     wandering by sea and land, they had serious conflicts with the
     native tribes. They eventually succeeded in overcoming all
     opposition and in conquering the country, so that Prince Jimmu was
     enabled to build a palace and set up a capital, Kashiha-bara, in
     Yamato. This prince is regarded by Japanese historians as the
     founder of the Japanese Empire. He is said to have reigned
     seventy-five years after his accession, and to have died at the age
     of one hundred and twenty-seven years, and his burial place is
     pointed out on the northern side of Mount Unebi, in the province of
     Yamato.

     Prince Jimmu, or whoever was the foreign ruler who conquered and
     founded an empire in Japan, must have been a bold, enterprising,
     and sagacious man. The islands he subdued were barbarous, and he
     civilized them; the inhabitants were warlike and cruel, and he kept
     them in peace. He founded a dynasty which extended its dominion
     over Nagato, Izumo, and Owari, and still has representatives in
     rulers whose people are by far the most progressive dwellers in the
     East.

     That part of the following historical matter, which is translated
     from the old Japanese chronicle, the _Nehongi_, is marked by local
     color and by Oriental characteristics, whereby it curiously
     contrasts with the plain recitals of modern and Western history.

     SIR EDWARD REED


There are endless varying legends about this god-period of Japan. All
that we need now say in the way of reciting the legends of the gods has
relation to the descent of the mikados of Japan from the deities.

It was the misconduct of Susanoo that drove the sun-goddess into the
cave and for this misconduct he was banished. Some say that, instead of
proceeding to his place of banishment, he descended, with his son
Idakiso no Mikoto, upon Shiraga (in Corea), but not liking the place
went back by a vessel to the bank of the Hinokawa River, in Idzumo,
Japan.

At the time of their descent, Idakiso had many plants or seeds of trees
with him, but he planted none in Shiraga, but took them across with him,
and scattered them from Kuishiu all over Japan, so that the whole
country became green with trees. It is said that Idakiso is respected as
the god of merit, and is worshipped in Kinokuni. His two sisters also
took care of the plantation. One of the gods who reigned over the
country in the prehistoric period was Ohonamuchi, who is said by some to
be the son of Susanoo, and by others to be one of his later descendants;
"And which is right, it is more than we can say," remarked one of my
scholarly friends.

However, during his reign he was anxious about the people, and,
consulting with Sukuna no Mikoto, applied "his whole heart," we are
told, to their good government, and they all became loyal to him. One
time he said to his friend just named, "Do you think we are governing
the people well?" And his friend answered: "In some respects well, and
in some not," so that they were frank and honest with each other in
those days.

When Sukunahikona went away, Ohonamuchi said: "It is I who should govern
this country. Is there any who will assist me?" Then there appeared over
the sea a divine light, and there came a god floating and floating, and
said: "You cannot govern the country without me." And this proved to be
the god Ohomiwa no Kami, who built a palace at Mimuro, in Yamato, and
dwelt therein. He affords a direct link with the Mikado family, for his
daughter became the empress of the first historic emperor Jimmu. Her
name was Humetatara Izudsuhime.

All the descendants of her father are named, like him, Ohomiwa no Kami,
and it is said that the present empress of Japan is probably a
descendant of this god. As regards the descent of the Emperor Jimmu
himself we already know that Ninigi no Mikoto, "the sovran grandchild"
of the sun-goddess, was sent down with the sacred symbols of empire
given to him in the sun by the sun-goddess herself before he started for
the earth. Now Ninigi married (reader, forgive me for quoting the lady's
name and her father's) Konohaneno-sakuyahime, the daughter of
Ohoyamazumino-Kami, and the pair had three sons, of whom the last named
Howori no Mikoto succeeded to the throne. He is sometimes called by the
following simple--and possibly endearing--name: Amatsuhitakahi
Kohoho-demi no Mikoto.

He married Toyatama-hime, the daughter of the sea-god, and they had a
son, Ugaya-fuki-ayedsu no Mikoto, born, it is said, under an unfinished
roof of cormorants' wings, who succeeded the father, and who married
Tamayori-hime, also a daughter of the sea-god. This illustrious couple
had four sons, of whom the last succeeded to the throne in the year B.C.
660. He was named Kamuyamatoi warehiko no Mikoto, but posterity has
fortunately simplified his designation to the now familiar Jimmu-Tenno,
the first historic Emperor of Japan, and the ancestor of the present
emperor.

The histories of Japan, prepared under the sanction of the present
Japanese government, date the commencement of the historic period from
the first year of the reign of the first emperor, Jimmu-Tenno, who
is said to have ruled for seventy-six years, viz., from B.C. 660
to 585. Some persons consider that this reign, and a few reigns that
succeeded it, probably or possibly belong to the legendary period,
because while, on the one hand, the Emperor Jimmu is described as the
founder of the present empire and the ancestor of the present emperor,
on the other, he is described as the fourth son of Ukay Fukiaezu no
Mikoto, who was fifth in direct descent from the beautiful sun-goddess,
Tensho-Daijin. But as no such thing as writing existed in Japan in those
days, or for many centuries afterward, it would not be surprising if a
real monarch should have a mythical origin assigned to him; and as I
have quite lately heard the guns firing at Nagasaki an imperial salute
in honor of his coronation, and have seen the flags waving over the
capital city, Tokio, in honor of the birthday, the Emperor Jimmu is
quite historical enough for my present purpose.

The commencement of his reign shall fix for us, as it does for others,
the Japanese year 1, which was 660 years prior to our year 1, so that
any date of the Christian era can be converted into one of the Japanese
era by the addition of 660 years, and _vice-versa._ Some of the emperors
will be found to have lived very long lives, no doubt; but as I have
said elsewhere, none of them lived nearly so long as our Adam,
Methuselah, and others, in whose longevity so many of us profess to
believe; and besides, it is impossible for me to attempt to correct a
chronology which Japanese scholars, and Englishmen versed in the
Japanese language, have thus far left without specific correction.
Deferring for after consideration the incidents of the successive
imperial reigns, except in so far as they bear directly upon the descent
of the crown, let us, then, first glance at the succession of emperors
and empresses who have ruled in the Morning Land.

After the death of the Emperor Jimmu there appears to have been an
interregnum for three years--although it is seldom taken account of--the
second Emperor Suisei, who was the fifth son of the first emperor,
having ascended the throne B.C. 581 and reigned till 549. The cause of
the interregnum appears to have been the extreme grief which Suisei felt
at the death of his father, in consequence of which he committed the
administration of the empire, for a time, to one of his relatives--an
unworthy fellow, as he proved, named Tagishi Mimi no Mikoto, who tried
to assassinate his master and seize the throne for himself, and who was
put to death by Suisei for his pains. The fifth son of the Emperor Jimmu
was nominated by him as the successor, and it is probable that older
sons were living and passed over, and that the throne was inherited in
part by nomination even in this its first transfer.

Some writers on Japanese history profess to see in the pantheon of
Japan, pictured in the Kojiki and Nihonki, nothing more than a
collection of distinguished personages who lived and labored and
contended in the country before the historic period, thus bringing
deified men and women down to earth again. Such persons accept the
records of Jimmu-Tenno's origin as essentially accurate in so far as
they state what is human and reasonable, rejecting them only when they
set forth what is supernatural, and, to them, unbelievable.

Others, on the contrary, consider, or profess to consider, the
supernatural portions of those narratives as perfectly trustworthy, and
discredit only those statements concerning the first of the sacred
emperors which would seem in any way to detract from his divinity. I
should be sorry to have to argue the case with either of these parties,
but I must take the liberty of accepting as sufficiently accurate as
much of the recorded lives of Jimmu and his successors as the modern
prosaic histories in Japan are content to put forth, and no more.

Proceeding upon this basis, there is not much to be said of the reigns
of the mikados who ruled before the Christian era, beyond what has been
already stated. As regards the first emperor, his ancestor Ninigi no
Mikoto--whether a god or not, or whether he came down from the sun by
means of "the bridge of heaven" or not--appears to have established his
residence at the ancient Himuka, now Hiuga; there it was that
Jimmu-Tenno first resided, and thence it was that he started on his
historic and memorable career. The central parts of Japan were
militarily occupied by rebels (whose names are preserved), and it was to
subdue them that he proceeded eastward. He stopped for three years at
Taka Shima, constructing the necessary vessels for crossing the waters,
and then, in the course of years, making his way victoriously as far as
Nanieva, the modern Osaka, encountered his foes at Kawachi, and defeated
them, the chief general being left dead on the battle-field.

Jimmu was now sole master of Japan, as then known, and in the following
year he mounted the throne. The eastern and northern parts of the
country were, however, still, and long afterwards, peopled by the Aino
race, who were at a later period treated as troublesome savages, and
conquered by a famous prince, Yamato-Dake, by help of the sacred sword.
The spot selected by the Emperor Jimmu for his capital was Kashiwabara,
in the province of Yamato, not far from the present western capital of
Kioto. He there did honor to the gods, married, built himself a palace,
and deposited in the throne-room the sacred mirror, sword, and ball, the
insignia of the imperial power handed down from the sun-goddess. He
organized two imperial guards, one as a body-guard to protect the
interior of the palace, and the other to act as sentinels around the
palace.


THE "NEHONGI"

The Emperor Kami Yamato Iharebiko's personal name was Hikohoho-demi. He
was the fourth child of Hiko-nagisa-take-ugaya-fuki-ahezu no Mikoto. His
mother's name was Tama-yori-hime, daughter of the sea-god. From his
birth this emperor was of clear intelligence and resolute will. At the
age of fifteen he was made heir to the throne. When he grew up he
married Ahira-tsu-hime, of the district of Ata in the province of Hiuga,
and made her his consort. By her he had Tagishi-mimi no Mikoto and
Kisu-mimi no Mikoto.

When he reached the age of forty-five, he addressed his elder brothers
and his children, saying: "Of old, our heavenly deities Taka-mi-Musubi
no Mikoto, and Oho-hiru-me no Mikoto, pointing to this land of fair
rice-ears of the fertile reed-plain, gave it to our heavenly ancestor,
Hiko-ho no Ninigi no Mikoto. Thereupon Hiko-ho no Ninigi no Mikoto,
throwing open the barrier of heaven and clearing a cloud-path, urged on
his superhuman course until he came to rest. At this time the world was
given over to widespread desolation. It was an age of darkness and
disorder. In this gloom, therefore, he fostered justice, and so governed
this western border.

"Our imperial ancestors and imperial parent, like gods, like sages,
accumulated happiness and amassed glory. Many years elapsed from the
date when our heavenly ancestor descended until now it is over 1,792,470
years. But the remote regions do not yet enjoy the blessings of imperial
rule. Every town has always been allowed to have its lord, and every
village its chief, who, each one for himself, makes division of
territory and practises mutual aggression and conflict.

"Now I have heard from the Ancient of the Sea, that in the East there is
a fair land encircled on all sides by blue mountains. Moreover, there is
there one who flew down riding in a heavenly rock-boat. I think that
this land will undoubtedly be suitable for the extension of the heavenly
task, so that its glory should fill the universe. It is doubtless the
centre of the world. The person who flew clown was, I believe,
Nigihaya-hi. Why should we not proceed thither, and make it the
capital?"

All the imperial princes answered, and said: "The truth of this is
manifest. This thought is constantly present to our minds also. Let us
go thither quickly." This was the year Kinoye Tora (51st) of the Great
Year.

In that year, in winter, on the Kanoto Tori day (the 5th) of the 10th
month, the new moon of which was on the day Hinoto Mi, the emperor in
person led the imperial princes and a naval force on an expedition
against the East. When he arrived at the Haya-suhi gate, there was there
a fisherman who came riding in a boat. The emperor summoned him and then
inquired of him, saying: "Who art thou?" He answered and said: "Thy
servant is a country-god, and his name is Utsuhiko. I angle for fish in
the bays of ocean. Hearing that the son of the heavenly deity was
coming, therefore I forthwith came to receive him." Again he inquired of
him, saying: "Canst thou act as my guide?" He answered and said: "I will
do so." The emperor ordered the end of a pole of Shihi wood to be given
to the fisher, and caused him to be taken and pulled into the imperial
vessel, of which he was made pilot.

A name was especially granted him, and he was called Shihi-ne-tsu-hiko.
He was the first ancestor of the Yamato no Atahe.

Proceeding on their voyage, they arrived at Usa in the land of Tsukushi.
At this time there appeared the ancestors of the Kuni-tsu-ko of Usa,
named Usa-tsu-hiko and Usa-tsu-hime. They built a palace raised on one
pillar on the banks of the River Usa, and offered them a banquet. Then,
by imperial command, Usa-tsu-hime was given in marriage to the emperor's
attendant minister Ama notane no Mikoto. Now, Ama notane no Mikoto was
the remote ancestor of the Nakatomi Uji.

Eleventh month, 9th day. The emperor arrived at the harbor of Oka in the
Land of Tsukushi.

Twelfth month, 27th day. He arrived at the province of Aki, where he
dwelt in the palace of Ye.

The year Kinoto U, Spring, 3rd month, 6th day. Going onward, he entered
the land of Kibi, and built a temporary palace in which he dwelt. It was
called the palace of Takashima. Three years passed, during which time he
set in order the helms of his ships, and prepared a store of provisions.
It was his desire by a single effort to subdue the empire.

The year Tsuchinoye Muma, Spring, 2d month, 11th day. The imperial
forces at length proceeded eastward, the prow of one ship touching the
stern of another. Just when they reached Cape Naniho they encountered a
current of great swiftness. Whereupon that place was called Nami-haya
(wave-swift) or Nami-hana (wave-flower). It is now called Naniha, which
is a corruption of this.

Third month, 10th day. Proceeding upwards against the stream, they went
straight on, and arrived at the port of Awo-Kumo no Shira-date, in the
township of Kusaka, in the province of Kafuchi.

Summer, 4th month, 9th day. The imperial forces in martial array marched
on to Tatsuta. The road was narrow and precipitous, and the men were
unable to march abreast, so they returned and again endeavored to go
eastward, crossing over Mount Ikoma. In this way they entered the inner
country.

Now when Naga-sune-hiko heard this, he said: "The object of the children
of the heavenly deity in coming hither is assuredly to rob me of my
country." So he straightway levied all the forces under his dominion,
and intercepted them at the Hill of Kusaka. A battle was engaged, and
Itsuse no Mikoto was hit by a random arrow on the elbow. The imperial
forces were unable to advance against the enemy. The emperor was vexed,
and revolved in his inmost heart a divine plan, saying: "I am the
descendant of the sun-goddess, and if I proceed against the sun to
attack the enemy, I shall act contrary to the way of heaven. Better to
retreat and make a show of weakness. Then, sacrificing to the gods of
heaven and earth, and bringing on our backs the might of the sun
goddess, let us follow her rays and trample them down. If we do so, the
enemy will assuredly be routed of themselves, and we shall not stain our
swords with blood."

They all said: "It is good." Thereupon he gave orders to the army,
saying: "Wait a while and advance no further." So he withdrew his
forces, and the enemy also did not dare to attack him. He then retired
to the port of Kusaka, where he set up shields, and made a warlike show.
Therefore the name of this port was changed to Tatetsu, which is now
corrupted into Tadetsu.

Before this, at the battle of Kusaka, there was a man who hid in a great
tree, and by so doing escaped danger. So pointing to this tree, he said:
"I am grateful to it, as to my mother." Therefore the people of the day
called that place Omo no ki no Mura.

Fifth month, 8th day. The army arrived at the port of Yamaki in Chinu
(also called Port Yama no wi). Now Itsuse no Mikoto's arrow wound was
extremely painful. He grasped his sword, and striking a martial
attitude, said: "How exasperating it is that a man should die of a wound
received at the hands of slaves, and should not avenge it!" The people
of that day therefore called the place Wo no Minoto.

Proceeding onward, they reached Mount Kama in the Land of Kii, where
Itsuse no Mikoto died in the army, and was therefore buried at Mount
Kama.

Sixth month, 23d day. The army arrived at the village of Nagusa, where
they put to death the Tohe of Nagusa. Finally they crossed the moor of
Sano, and arrived at the village of Kami in Kumano. Here he embarked in
the rock-boat of heaven, and leading his army, proceeded onward by slow
degrees. In the midst of the sea, they suddenly met with a violent wind,
and the imperial vessel was tossed about. Then Ina-ihi no Mikoto
exclaimed and said: "Alas! my ancestors were heavenly deities, and my
mother was a goddess of the sea. Why do they harass me by land, and why,
moreover, do they harass me by sea?" When he had said this, he drew his
sword and plunged into the sea, where he became changed into the god
Sabi-Mochi.

Miki In no no Mikoto, also indignant at this, said: "My mother and my
aunt are both sea-goddesses; why do they raise great billows to
overwhelm us?" So, treading upon the waves, he went to the Eternal Land.
The emperor was now alone with the imperial prince, Tagishi-Mimi no
Mikoto. Leading his army forward, he arrived at Port Arazaka in Kumano
(also called Nishiki Bay), where he put to death the Tohe of Nishiki.
At this time the gods belched up a poisonous vapor, from which every one
suffered. For this reason the imperial army was again unable to exert
itself. Then there was there a man by name Kumano no Takakuraji, who
unexpectedly had a dream, in which Ama-terasu no Ohokami spoke to
Take-mika-tsuchi no Kami, saying: "I still hear a sound of disturbance
from the central land of reed-plains. Do thou again go and chastise it."

Take-mika-tsuchi no Kami answered and said: "Even if I go not I can send
down my sword, with which I subdued the land, upon which the country
will of its own accord become peaceful." To this Ama-terasu no Kami
assented. Thereupon Take-mika-tsuchi no Kami addressed Taka Kuraji,
saying: "My sword, which is called Futsu no Mitama, I will now place in
the storehouse. Do thou take it and present it to the heavenly
grandchild." Taka Kuraji said, "Yes," and thereupon awoke. The next
morning, as instructed in his dream, he opened the storehouse, and on
looking in, there was indeed there a sword which had fallen down (from
heaven) and was standing upside down on the plank floor of the
storehouse. So he took it and offered it to the emperor. At this time
the emperor happened to be asleep. He awoke suddenly, and said: "What a
long time I have slept."

On inquiry he found that the troops who had been affected by the poison
had all recovered their senses and were afoot. The emperor then
endeavored to advance into the interior, but among the mountains it was
so precipitous that there was no road by which they could travel. And
they wandered about not knowing whither to direct their march.

Then Ama-terasu no Oho-Kami instructed the emperor in a dream of the
night saying: "I will now send the Yata-garasu, make it thy guide
through the land." Then there did indeed appear the Yata-garasu flying
down from the void.

The emperor said: "The coming of this crow is in due accordance with my
auspicious dream. How grand! How splendid! My imperial ancestor
Ama-terasu no Oho-Kami, desires therewith to assist me in creating the
hereditary institution."

At this time Hi no Omi no Mikoto, ancestor of the Ohotomo House, taking
with him Oho-kume as commander of the main body, guided by the direction
taken by the crow, looked up to it and followed after, until at length
they arrived at the district of Lower Uda. Therefore they named the
place which they reached the village of Ukechi in Uda. At this time by
an imperial order he commended Hi no Omi no Mikoto, saying: "Thou art
faithful and brave, and art moreover a successful guide. Therefore will
I give thee a new name, and will call thee Michi no Omi!"

Autumn, 8th month, 2d day. The emperor sent to summon Ukeshi the elder
and Ukeshi the younger. These two were chiefs of the district of Uda.
Now Ukeshi the elder did not come. But Ukeshi the younger came, and
making obeisance at the gate of the camp, declared as follows: "Thy
servant's elder brother, Ukeshi the elder, shows signs of resistance.
Hearing that the descendant of heaven was about to arrive, he forthwith
raised an army with which to make an attack. But having seen from afar
the might of the imperial army, he was afraid, and did not dare to
oppose it. Therefore he has secretly placed his troops in ambush, and
has built for the occasion a new palace, in the hall of which he has
prepared engines. It is his intention to invite the emperor to a banquet
there, and then to do him a mischief. I pray that this treachery be
noted, and that good care be taken to make preparation against it."

The emperor straightway sent Michi no Omi no Mikoto to observe the signs
of his opposition. Michi no Omi no Mikoto clearly ascertained his
hostile intentions, and being greatly enraged, shouted at him in a
blustering manner: "Wretch! thou shalt thyself dwell in the house which
thou hast: made." So grasping his sword and drawing his bow, he urged
him and drove him within it. Ukeshi the elder being guilty before
heaven, and the matter not admitting of excuse, of his own accord trod
upon the engine and was crushed to death, His body was then brought out
and decapitated, and the blood which flowed from it reached above the
ankle. Therefore that place was called Udan no chi-hara. After this
Ukeshi the younger prepared a great feast of beef and _sake_, with which
he entertained the imperial army. The emperor distributed this flesh
and _sake_ to the common soldiers, upon which they sang the following
verses:

    "In the high {castle tree} of Uda
    I set a snare for woodcock,
    And waited,
    But no woodcock came to it;
    A valiant whale came to it."

This is called a Kume song. At the present time, when the department of
music performs this song, there is still the measurement of great and
small by the hand, as well as a distinction of coarse and fine in the
notes of the voice. This is by a rule handed down from antiquity. After
this the emperor wished to respect the Land of Yoshino, so, taking
personal command of the light troops, he made a progress round by way of
Ukechi Mura in Uda. When he came to Yoshino, there was a man who came
out of a well. He shone and had a tail. The emperor inquired of him,
saying: "What man art thou?" He answered and said: "Thy servant is a
local deity, and his name is Wihikari." He it is who was the first
ancestor of the Yoshino no Obito.

Proceeding a little further, there was another man with a tail, who
burst open a rock and came forth from it. The emperor inquired of him,
saying: "What man art thou?" He answered and said: "Thy servant is the
child of Iha-oshiwake." It is he who was the first ancestor of the Kuzu
of Yoshino. Then, skirting the river, he proceeded westward, when there
appeared another man, who had made a fishtrap and was catching fish. On
the emperor making inquiry of him, he answered and said: "Thy servant is
the son of Nihe-molsu." He it is who was the first ancestor of the
U-kahi of Ata.

Ninth month, 5th day. The emperor ascended to the peak of Mount Takakura
in Uda, whence he had a prospect over all the land. On Kuni-mi Hill
there were descried eighty bandits.

Moreover at the acclivity of the Me-Zaka there was posted an army of
women, and at the acclivity of Wo-Zaka there was stationed a force of
men. At the acclivity of Sumi-Zaka was placed burning charcoal. This
was the origin of the names Me-Zaka, Wo-Zaka and Sumi-Zaka.

Again there was the army of Ye-Shiki, which covered all the village of
Ihare. All the places occupied by the enemy were strong positions, and
therefore the roads were cut off and obstructed, so that there was no
room for passage. The emperor, indignant at this, made prayer on that
night in person, and then fell asleep. The heavenly deity appeared to
him in a dream, and instructed him, saying: "Take earth from within the
shrine of the heavenly mount Kagu, and of it make eighty heavenly
platters. Also make sacred jars and therewith sacrifice to the gods of
heaven and earth. Moreover pronounce a solemn imprecation. If thou doest
so, the enemy will render submission of their own accord."

The emperor received with reverence the directions given in his dream,
and proceeded to carry them into execution. Now Ukeshi the younger again
addressed the emperor, saying: "There are in the province of Yamato, in
the village of Shiki, eighty Shiki bandits. Moreover in the village of
Taka-wohari (some say Katsuraki) there are eighty Akagane bandits.

"All these tribes intend to give battle to the emperor, and thy servant
is anxious in his own mind on his account. It were now good to take clay
from the heavenly mount Kagu and therewith to make heavenly platters
with which to sacrifice to the gods of the heavenly shrines and of the
earthly shrines. If after doing so thou dost attack the enemy, they may
be easily driven off."

The emperor, who had already taken the words of his dream for a good
omen, when he now heard the words of Ukeshi the younger, was still more
pleased in his heart. He caused Shihi netsu-hiko to put on ragged
garments and a grass hat and to disguise himself as an old man. He also
caused Ukeshi the younger to cover himself with a winnowing tray, so as
to assume the appearance of an old woman, and then addressed them,
saying: "Do ye two proceed to the heavenly mount Kagu, and secretly take
earth from its summit. Having done so, return hither. By means of you I
shall then divine whether my undertaking will be successful or not. Do
your utmost and be watchful." Now the enemy's army filled the road, and
made all passage impossible. Then Shihi-netsu-hiko prayed, and said: "If
it will be possible for our emperor to conquer this land, let the road
by which we must travel become open. But if not, let the brigands surely
oppose our passage."

Having thus spoken they set forth and went straight onward. Now the
hostile band, seeing the two men, laughed loudly, and said: "What an
uncouth old man and old woman!" So with one accord they left the road,
and allowed the two men to pass and proceed to the mountain, where they
took the clay and returned with it. Hereupon the emperor was greatly
pleased, and with this clay he made eighty platters, eighty heavenly
small jars and sacred jars, with which he went to the upper waters of
the River Nifu and sacrificed to the gods of heaven and earth.
Immediately, on the Asahara plain by the river of Uda, it became as it
were like foam on the water, the result of the curse cleaving to them.
Moreover the emperor went on to utter a vow, saying: "I will now make
_Ame_ in the eighty platters without using water. If the _Ame_ is
formed, then shall I assuredly without effort and without recourse to
the might of arms reduce the empire to peace." So he made _Ame_, which
forthwith became formed of itself. Again he made a vow, saying: "I will
now take the sacred jars and sink them in the River Nifu. If the fishes,
whether great or small, become every one drunken and are carried down
the stream, like as it were to floating _maki_ leaves, then shall I
assuredly succeed in establishing this land. But if this be not so,
there will never be any results."

Thereupon he sank the jars in the river with their mouths downward.
After a while the fish all came to the surface gaping, gasping as they
floated down the stream. Then Shihi-netsu-hiko, seeing this, represented
it to the emperor, who was greatly rejoiced, and plucking up a
five-hundred-branched masakaki tree of the upper waters of the River
Nifu, he did worship therewith to all the gods. It was with this that
the custom began of selling sacred jars.

At this time he commanded Michi no Omi no Mikoto, saying: "We are now in
person about to celebrate a public festival to Taka-mi-Musubi no Mikoto,
and I appoint thee ruler of the festival, and I grant thee the title of
Idzu-hime. The earthen jars which are set up shall be called the Idzube
or sacred jars, the fire shall be called Idzu no Kagu-tsuchi or
sacred-fire-elder, the water shall be called Idzu no Midzu-ha no me or
sacred-water-female, the food shall be called Idzuuka no me, or
sacred-food-female, the firewood shall be called Idzu no Yama-tsuchi or
sacred-mountain-elder, and the grass shall be called Idzu no no-tsuchi
or sacred-moor-elder."

Winter, 10th month, 1st day. The emperor tasted the food of the Idzube,
and arraying his troops set forth upon his march. He first of all
attacked the eighty bandits at Mount Kunimi, routed and slew them. It
was in this campaign that the emperor, fully resolved on victory, made
these verses, saying:

    "Like the Shitadami
    Which creep round
    The great rock
    Of the Sea of Ise,
    Where blows the divine wind--
    Like the Shitadami,
    My boys! My boys!
    We will creep around
    And smite them utterly,
    And smite them utterly."

In this poem, by the "great rock" is intended the Hill of Kunimi.

After this the band which remained was still numerous, and their
disposition could not be fathomed. So the emperor privately commanded
Michi no Omi no Mikoto, saying: "Do thou take with thee the Oho Kume,
and make a great _muro_ at the village of Osaka. Prepare a copious
banquet, invite the enemy to it, and then capture them." Michi no Omi no
Mikoto thereupon, in obedience to the emperor's sacred behest, dug a
_muro_ at Osaka, and having selected his bravest soldiers, stayed
therein mingled with the enemy. He secretly arranged with them, saying:
"When they have got tipsy with _sake_, I will strike up a song. Do you
when you hear the sound of my song, all at the same time stab the
enemy."

Having made this arrangement they took their seats, and the drinking
bout proceeded. The enemy, unaware that there was any plot, abandoned
themselves to their feelings, and promptly became intoxicated. Then
Michi no Omi no Mikoto struck up the following song:

    "At Osaka
    In the great Muro-house,
    Though men in plenty
    Enter and stay,
    We the glorious
    Sons of warriors,
    Wielding our mallet-heads,
    Wielding our stone-mallets,
    Will smite them utterly."

Now when our troops heard this song, they all drew at the same time
their mallet-headed swords, and simultaneously slew the enemy, so that
there were no eaters left. The imperial army were greatly delighted;
they looked up to heaven and laughed. Therefore he made a song saying:

    "Though folk say
    That one Yemishi
    Is a match for one hundred men,
    They do not so much as resist."

The practice according to which, at the present time, the Kume sing this
and then laugh loud, had this origin. Again he sang, saying:

    "Ho! now is the time!
    Ho! now is the time!
    Ha! Ha! Psha!
    Even now
    My boys!
    Even now,
    My boys!"

All these songs were sung in accordance with the secret behest of the
emperor. He had not presumed to compose them with his own motion.

Then the emperor said: "It is the part of a good general when victorious
to avoid arrogance. The chief brigands have now been destroyed, but
there are ten bands of villains of a similar stamp, who are
disputatious.

"Their disposition cannot be ascertained. Why should we remain for a
long time in one place? By so doing we could not have control over
emergencies!" So he removed his camp to another place.

Eleventh month, 7th day. The imperial army proceeded in great force to
attack the Hiko of Shiki. First of all the emperor sent a messenger to
summon Shiki the elder, but he refused to obey. Again the Yata-garasu
was sent to bring him. When the crow reached his camp it cried to him,
saying: "The child of the heavenly deity sends for thee. Haste! haste!"
Shiki the elder was enraged at this and said: "Just when I heard that
the conquering deity of heaven was coming I was indignant at this; why
shouldst thou, a bird of the crow tribe, utter such an abominable cry?"
So he drew his bow and aimed at it. The crow forthwith fled away, and
next proceeded to the house of Shiki the younger, where it cried,
saying: "The child of the heavenly deity summons thee. Haste! haste!"
Then Shiki the younger was afraid, and changing countenance, said: "Thy
servant, hearing of the approach of the conquering deity of heaven, is
full of dread morning and evening. Well hast thou cried to me, O crow!"

He straightway made eight leaf-platters, on which he disposed food, and
entertained the crow. Accordingly, in obedience to the crow, he
proceeded to the emperor and informed him, saying: "My elder brother,
Shiki the elder, hearing of the approach of the child of the heavenly
deity, forthwith assembled eighty bandits and provided arms, with which
he is about to do battle with thee. It will be well to take measures
against him without delay." The emperor accordingly assembled his
generals and inquired of them, saying: "It appears that Shiki the elder
has now rebellious intentions. I summoned him, but again he will not
come. What is to be done?" The generals said: "Shiki the elder is a
crafty knave. It will be well, first of all, to send Shiki the younger
to make matters clear to him, and at the same time to make explanations
to Kuraji the elder and Kuraji the younger. If after that they still
refuse submission, it will not be too late to take warlike measures
against them."

Shiki the younger was accordingly sent to explain to them their
interests. But Shiki the elder and the others adhered to their foolish
design, and would not consent to submit. Then Shiki-netsu-hiko advised
as follows: "Let us first send out our feebler troops by the Osaka road.
When the enemy sees them he will assuredly proceed thither with all his
best troops. We should then straightway urge forward our robust troops,
and make straight for Sumi-Zaka.

"Then with the water of the River Uda we should sprinkle the burning
charcoal, and suddenly take them unawares; when they cannot fail to be
routed." The emperor approved this plan, and sent out the feebler troops
toward the enemy, who, thinking that a powerful force was approaching,
awaited them with all their power. Now up to this time, whenever the
imperial army attacked, they invariably captured, and when they fought
they were invariably victorious, so that the fighting men were all
wearied out. Therefore the emperor, to comfort the hearts of his leaders
and men, struck off this verse:

    "As we fight
    Going forth and watching
    From between the trees
    Of Mount Inasa,
    We are famished.
    Ye keepers of cormorants
    (Birds of the island)
    Come now to our aid."

In the end he crossed Sumi-Zaka with the stronger troops, and, going
round by the rear, attacked them from two sides and put them to the
rout, killing their chieftains, Shiki the elder, and the others.

Third month, 7th day. The emperor made an order, saying: "During the six
years that our expedition against the East has lasted, owing to my
reliance on the majesty of Imperial Heaven, the wicked bands have met
death. It is true that the frontier lands are still unpurified, and that
a remnant of evil is still refractory. But in the region of the Central
Land there is no more wind and dust. Truly we should make a vast and
spacious capital and plan it great and strong.

"At present things are in a crude and obscure condition, and the
people's minds are unsophisticated. They roost in nests or dwell in
caves. Their manners are simply what is customary. Now if a great man
were to establish laws, justice could not fail to flourish. And even if
some gain should accrue to the people, in what way would this interfere
with the sage's action? Moreover it will be well to open up and clear
the mountains and forests, and to construct a palace. Then I may
reverently assume the precious dignity, and so give peace to my good
subjects. Above, I should then respond to the kindness of the heavenly
powers in granting me the kingdom; and below, I should extend the line
of the imperial descendants and foster rightmindedness. Thereafter the
capital may be extended so as to embrace all the six cardinal points
(_sic_), and the eight cords may be covered so as to form a roof. Will
this not be well? When I observe the Kashiha-bara plain, which lies
southwest of Mount Unebi, it seems the centre of the land. I must set it
in order." Accordingly, he, in this month, commanded officers to set
about the construction of an imperial residence.

Year Kanoye Saru, Autumn, 8th month, 16th day. The emperor, intending to
appoint a wife, sought afresh children of noble families. Now there was
a man who made representation to him, saying: "There is a child, who was
born to Koto-Shiro-Nushi no Kami by his union with Tama-Kushi-hime,
daughter of Mizo-kuhi-ni no Kami of Mishima. Her name is
Hime-tatara-i-suzu-hime no Mikoto. She is a woman of remarkable beauty."
The emperor was rejoiced. And on the 24th day of the 9th month he
received Hime-tatara-i-suzu-hime no Mikoto and made her his wife.

Year Kanoto Tori, Spring, 1st month, 1st day. The emperor assumed the
imperial dignity in the palace of Kashiha-bara. This year is reckoned
the first year of his reign. He honored his wife by making her empress.
The children born to him by her were Kami-ya-wi-Mimi no Mikoto and
Kami-Nunagaha-Mimi no Mikoto. Therefore there is an ancient saying in
praise of this, as follows: "In Kashiha-bara in Unebi, he mightily
established his palace-pillars on the foundation of the bottom rock, and
reared aloft the cross roof-timbers to the plain of high heaven. The
name of the emperor who thus began to rule the empire was Kami Yamato
Ihare-biko Hohodemi."

Fourth year, Spring, 2d month, 23d day. The emperor issued the
following decree: "The spirits of our imperial ancestors, reflecting
their radiance down from heaven, illuminate and assist us. All our
enemies have now been subdued, and there is peace within the seas. We
ought to take advantage of this to perform sacrifice to the heavenly
deities, and therewith develop filial duty."

He accordingly established spirit-terraces among the Tomi hills, which
were called Kami-tsu-wono no Kaki-hara and Shimo tsu-wono no Kaki-hara.
There he worshipped his imperial ancestors, the heavenly deities.

Seventy-sixth year, Spring, 3d month, 11th day. The emperor died in the
palace of Kashiha-bara. His age was then 127. The following year,
Autumn, the 12th day of the 9th month, he was buried in the Misasigi,
northeast of Mount Unebi.



THE FOUNDATION OF BUDDHISM

B.C. 623

THOMAS WILLIAM RHYS-DAVIDS


     Not so many years ago, at the time when Buddhism first became known
     in Europe through philosophic writings of about six centuries after
     Buddha, then newly translated, it caused amazement that a religion
     which had brought three hundred millions of people under its sway
     should acknowledge no god. But the religion of Buddha, during a
     thousand years of practice by the Hindus, is entirely different
     from the representations given us in these translations. As shown
     by the bas-reliefs covering the ancient monuments of India, this
     religion, changed by modern scientists into a belief in atheism,
     is, in fact, of all religions the most polytheistic.

     In the first Buddhist monuments, dating back eighteen to twenty
     centuries, the reformer simply figures as an emblem. The imprint of
     his feet, the figure of the "Bo tree" under which he entered the
     state of supreme wisdom, are worshipped; and though he disdained
     all gods, and only sought to teach a new code of morals, we shortly
     see Buddha himself depicted as a god. In the early stages he is
     generally represented as alone, but gradually appears in the
     company of the Brahman gods. He is finally lost in a crowd of gods,
     and becomes nothing more than an incarnation of one of the Brahman
     deities. From that time Buddhism has been practically extinct in
     India.

     This transformation took a thousand years to bring about. During
     part of this great interval Buddha was being worshipped as an
     all-powerful god. Legends are told of his appearance to his
     disciples, and of favors he granted them.

     It has been said that Buddha tried to set aside the laws of caste.
     This is an error. Neither did he attempt to break the Brahmanic
     Pantheon.

     Buddhism, which to-day is the religion of three hundred million
     people, about one-fifth of the world's inhabitants, toward the
     seventh or eighth century of our era almost entirely disappeared
     from its birthplace, India, whence it had spread over the rest of
     Asia, China, Russian Tartary, Burmah, etc. Only the two extreme
     frontiers of India, Nepal, in the north, and Ceylon, in the south,
     now practise the Buddhist cult.

          Gautama Buddha left behind him no written works. The Buddhists
     believe that he composed works which his immediate disciples
     learned by heart, and which were committed to writing long
     afterward. This is not impossible, as the _Vedas_[37] were handed
     down in this manner for many hundreds of years.

     [Footnote 37: _Vedas_: The sacred books of the Hindus, in Sanscrit;
     probably written about six or seven centuries before Christ. _Veda_
     means knowledge. The books comprise hymns, prayers, and liturgical
     forms.]

     There was certainly an historical basis for the Buddhist legend. In
     fact, the legends group themselves round a number of very distinct
     occurrences.

     At the end of the sixth century B.C. those Aryan tribes sprung from
     the same stem as our own ancestors, who have preserved for us in
     their Vedic songs so precious a relic of ancient thought and life,
     had pushed on beyond the five rivers of the Punjab, and were
     settled far down into the valley of the Ganges. They had given up
     their nomadic habits, dwelling in villages and towns, their wealth
     being in land, produce, and cattle.

     From democratic beginnings the whole nation had gradually become
     bound by an iron system of caste. The country was split up into
     little sections, each governed by some petty despot, and harassed
     by internecine feuds. Religion had become a debasing ritualism,
     with charms and incantations, fear of the influence of the stars,
     and belief in dreams and omens. The idea of the existence of a soul
     was supplemented by the doctrine of transmigration.

     The priests were well-meaning, ignorant, and possessed of a sincere
     belief in their own divinity. The religious use of the _Vedas_ and
     the right to sacrifice were strictly confined to the Brahmans.
     There were travelling logicians, anchorites, ascetics, and solitary
     hermits. Although the ranks of the priesthood were closed against
     intruders, still a man of lower caste might become a religious
     teacher and reformer. Such were the conditions which welcomed
     Gautama Buddha.


One hundred miles northeast of Benares, at Kapilavastu, on the banks of
the river Rohini, the modern Kohana, there lived about five hundred
years before Christ a tribe called Sakyas. The peaks of the mighty
Himalayas could be seen in the distance. The Sakyas frequently
quarrelled with the Koliyans, a neighboring tribe, over their water
supplies from the river. Just now the two clans were at peace, and two
daughters of the rajah of the Koliyans were wives of Suddhodana, the
rajah of the Sakyas. Both were childless. This was deemed a very great
misfortune among the Aryans, who thought that the star of a man's
existence after death depended upon ceremonies to be performed by his
heir. There was great rejoicing, therefore, when, in about the
forty-fifth year of her age, the elder sister promised her husband a
son. In due time she started with the intention of being confined at her
parents' house, but it was on the way, under the shade of some lofty
satin trees in a pleasant grove called Lumbini, that her son, the future
Buddha, was unexpectedly born. The mother and child were carried back to
Suddhodana's house, and there, seven days afterward, the mother died;
but the boy found a careful nurse in his mother's sister, his father's
other wife.

Many marvellous stories have been told about the miraculous birth and
precocious wisdom and power of Gautama. The name Siddhartha is said to
have been given him as a child, Gautama being the family name. Numerous
were his later titles, such as Sakyasinha, the lion of the tribe of
Sakya; Sakya-muni, the Sakya sage; Sugata, the happy one; Sattha, the
teacher; Jina, the conqueror; Bhagava, the blessed one, and many others.

In his twentieth year he was married to his cousin, Yasodhara, daughter
of the rajah of Koli. Devoting himself to home pleasures, he was accused
by his relations of neglecting those manly exercises necessary for one
who might at any time have to lead his people in war. Gautama heard of
this, and appointed a day for a general tournament, at which he
distinguished himself by being easily the first at all the trials of
skill and prowess, thus winning the good opinions of all the clansmen.
This is the solitary record of his youth.

Nothing more is heard of him until, in his twenty-ninth year, Gautama
suddenly abandoned his home to devote himself entirely to the study of
religion and philosophy. It is said that an angel appeared to him in
four visions: a man broken down by age, a sick man, a decaying corpse,
and lastly, a dignified hermit. Each time Channa, his charioteer, told
him that decay and death were the fate of all living beings. The
charioteer also explained to him the character and aims of the ascetics,
exemplified by the hermit.

Thoughts of the calm life of the hermit strongly stirred him. One day,
the occasion of the last vision, as he was entering his chariot to
return home, news was brought to him that his wife Yasodhara had given
birth to a son, his only child, who was called Rahula. This was about
ten years after his marriage. The idea that this new tie might become
too strong for him to break seems to have been the immediate cause of
his flight. He returned home thoughtful and sad.

But the people of Kapilavastu were greatly delighted at the birth of
the young heir, their rajah's only grandson. Gautama's return became
an ovation, and he entered the town amid a general celebration of the
happy event. Amid the singers was a young girl, his cousin, whose song
contained the words, "Happy the father, happy the mother, happy the
wife of such a son and husband." In the word "Happy" there was a double
meaning: it meant also "freed" from the chains of sin and of existence,
saved. In gratitude to one who at such a time reminded him of his higher
duties, Gautama took off his necklace of pearls and sent it to her. She
imagined that she had won the love of young Siddhartha, but he took no
further notice of her.

That night the dancing girls came, but he paid them no attention, and
gradually fell into an uneasy slumber. At midnight he awoke, and sent
Channa for his horse. While waiting for the steed Gautama gently opened
the door of the room where Yasodhara was sleeping, surrounded by
flowers, with one hand on the head of her child. After one loving, fond
glance he tore himself away. Accompanied only by Channa he left his home
and wealth and power, his wife and only child behind him, to become a
penniless wanderer. This was the Great Renunciation.

There follows a story of a vision. Mara, the great tempter, the spirit
of evil, appears in the sky, urging Gautama to stop. He promises him a
universal kingdom over the four great continents if he will but give up
his enterprise. The tempter does not prevail, but from that time he
followed Gautama as a shadow, hoping to seduce him from that right way.

All night Gautama rode, and at the dawn, when beyond the confines of his
father's domain, dismounts. He cuts off his long hair with his sword,
and sends back all his ornaments and his horse by the faithful
charioteer.

Seven days he spends alone beneath the shade of a mango grove, and then
fares onward to Rajogriha, the capital of Magadha. This town was the
seat of Bimbasara, one of the most powerful princes in the eastern
valley of the Ganges. In the hillside caves near at hand were several
hermits. To one of these Brahman teachers, Alara, Gautama attached
himself, and later to another named Udraka. From these he learned all
that Hindu philosophy could teach.

Still unsatisfied, Gautama next retired to the jungle of Uruvela, on the
most northerly spur of the Viadhya range of mountains, near the present
temple of Buddha Gaya. Here for six years he gave himself up to the
severest penance until he was wasted away to a shadow by fasting and
self-mortification. Such self-control spread his fame "like the sound of
a great bell hung in the skies." But the more he fasted and denied
himself, the more he felt himself a prey to a mental torture worse than
any bodily suffering.

At last one day when walking slowly up and down, lost in thought,
through extreme weakness he staggered and fell to the ground. His
disciples thought he was dead, but he recovered. Despairing of further
profit from such rigorous penance, he began to take regular food and
gave up his self-mortification. At this his disciples forsook him and
went away to Benares. In their opinion mental conquest lay only through
bodily suppression.

There now ensued a second crisis in Gautama's career which culminated in
his withstanding the renewed attacks of the tempter after violent
struggles.

Soon after, if not on the very day when his disciples had left him, he
wandered out toward the banks of the Nairaujara, receiving his morning
meal from the hands of Sujuta, the daughter of a neighboring villager,
and sat down to eat it under the shade of a large tree (_ficus
religiosa_), called from that day the sacred "Bo tree," or tree of
wisdom. He remained there all day long, pondering what next to do. All
the attractions of the luxurious home he had abandoned rose up before
him most alluringly. But as the day ended his lofty spirit had won the
victory. All doubts had lifted as mists before the morning sun. He had
become Buddha, that is, enlightened. He had grasped the solution of the
great mystery of sorrow. He thought, having solved its causes and its
cure, he had gained the haven of peace, and believed that in the power
over the human heart of inward culture and of love to others he had
discovered a foundation which could never be shaken.

From this time Gautama claimed no merit for penances. A feeling of great
loneliness possessed him as he arrived at his psychological and ethical
conclusions. He almost despaired of winning his fellow-men to his system
of salvation, salvation merely by self-control and love, without any of
the rites, ceremonies, charms, or incantations of the Hindu religion.

The thought of mankind, otherwise, as he imagined, utterly doomed and
lost, made Gautama resolve, at whatever hazard, to proclaim his doctrine
to the world. It is certain that he had a most intense belief in himself
and his mission.

He had intended first to proclaim his new doctrine to his old teachers,
Alara and Udraka, but finding that they were dead, he proceeded to the
deer forest near Benares where his former disciples were then living. In
the cool of the evening he enters the deer-park near the city, but his
former disciples resolve not to recognize him as a master. He tells them
that they are still in the way of death, whereas he has found the way of
salvation and can lead them to it, having become a Buddha. And as they
reply with objections to his claims, he explains the fundamental truths
of his system and principles of his new gospel, which the aged Kondanya
was the first to accept from his master's lips. This exposition is
preserved in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, the Sutra of the
Foundations of the Kingdom of Righteousness.

Gautama Buddha taught that everything corporeal is material and
therefore impermanent. Man in his bodily existence is liable to sorrow,
decay, and death. The reign of unholy desires in his heart produces
unsatisfactory longings, useless weariness, and care. Attempted
purification by oppressing the body is only wasted effort. It is the
moral evil of the heart which keeps a man chained down in the degraded
state of bodily life, which binds him in a union with the material
world. Virtue and goodness will only insure him for a time, and, in
another birth, a higher form of material life. From the chains of
existence only the complete eradication of all evil will set him free.

But these ideas must not be confused with Christian beliefs, for
Buddhism teaches nothing of any immaterial existence. The foundations of
its creed have been summed up in the Four Great Truths, which are as
follows:

1. That misery always accompanies existence;

2. That all modes of existence of men or animals, in death or heaven,
result from passion or desire (tanha);

3. That there is no escape from existence except by destruction of
desire;

4. That this may be accomplished by following the fourfold way to
Nirvana.

The four stages are called the Paths, the first being an awakening of
the heart. The first enemy which the believer has to fight against is
sensuality and the last is unkindliness. Above everything is universal
charity. Till he has gained that the believer is still bound, his mind
is still dark. True enlightenment, true freedom, are complete only in
love. The last great reward is "Nirvana," eternal rest or extinction.

For forty-five years Gautama taught in the valley of the Ganges. In the
twentieth year his cousin Ananda became a mendicant and attended on
Gautama. Another cousin, however, stirred up some persecution of the
great teacher, and the oppositions of the Brahmans had to be faced.

There are clear accounts of the last few days of Gautama's life. On a
journey toward Kusi-nagara he had rested in a grove at Pawa, presented
to the society by a goldsmith of that place named Chunda. After a midday
meal of rice and pork, prepared by Chunda, the Master started for
Kusi-nagara, but stopped to rest at the river Kukusta. Feeling that he
was dying, he left a message for Chunda, promising him a great reward in
some future existence. He died at the river Kukusta, near Kusi-nagara,
teaching to the last.

Gautama's power arose from his practical philanthropy. His philosophy
and ethics attracted the masses. He did not seek to found a new
religion, but thought that all men would accept his form of the ancient
creed. It was his society, the Sangha, or Buddhist order, rather than
his doctrine, which gave to his religion its practical vitality.

The following lines, filled with the poetic beauty of the Orient, are
taken from the last spoken words of the great founder of Buddhism and
the _Book of the Great Decease_. They give a clew to the cult of that
religion and breathe the spirit of Nirvana in every scintillating
sentence. As nearly as may be the translation is a literal one, done by
Rhys-Davids, the world's greatest living authority on this subject:

Now the Blessed One addressed the venerable Ananda, and said: "It may
be, Ananda, that in some of you the thought may arise, 'The word of the
Master is ended, we have no teacher more!' But it is not thus, Ananda,
that you should regard it. The truths and the rules of the order which I
have set forth and laid down for you all, let them, after I am gone, be
the Teacher to you.

"Ananda! when I am gone address not one another in the way in which the
brethren have heretofore addressed each other--with the epithet, that
is, of 'Avuso' (Friend). A younger brother may be addressed by an elder
with his name, or his family name, or the title 'Friend,' But an elder
should be addressed by a younger brother as 'Lord' or as 'Venerable
Sir.'

"When I am gone, Ananda, let the order, if it should so wish, abolish
all the lesser and minor precepts.

"When I am gone, Ananda, let the higher penalty be imposed on brother
Khanna."

"But what, Lord, is the higher penalty?"

"Let Khanna say whatever he may like, Ananda; the brethren should
neither speak to him, nor exhort him, nor admonish him."

Then the Blessed One addressed the brethren, and said: "It may be,
brethren, that there may be doubt or misgiving in the mind of some
brother as to the Buddha, or the truth, or the path, or the way.
Inquire, brethren, freely. Do not have to reproach yourselves afterward
with the thought, 'Our teacher was face to face with us, and we could
not bring ourselves to inquire of the Blessed One when we were face to
face with him.'"

And when he had thus spoken the brethren were silent.

And again the second and the third time the Blessed One addressed the
brethren, and said: "It may be, brethren, that there may be doubt or
misgiving in the mind of some brother as to the Buddha, or the truth, or
the path, or the way. Inquire, brethren, freely. Do not have to reproach
yourselves afterward with the thought, 'Our teacher was face to face
with us, and we could not bring ourselves to inquire of the Blessed One
when we were face to face with him.'"

And even the third time the brethren were silent.

Then the Blessed One addressed the brethren, and said: "It may be,
brethren, that you put no questions out of reverence for the teacher.
Let one friend communicate to another."

And when he had thus spoken the brethren were silent.

And the venerable Ananda said to the Blessed One: "How wonderful a thing
is it, Lord, and how marvellous! Verily, I believe that in this whole
assembly of the brethren there is not one brother who has any doubt or
misgiving as to the Buddha, or the truth, or the path, or the way!"

"It is out of the fulness of faith that thou hast spoken, Ananda! But,
Ananda, the Tathagata knows for certain that in this whole assembly of
the brethren there is not one brother who has any doubt or misgiving as
to the Buddha, or the truth, or the path, or the way! For even the most
backward, Ananda, of all these five hundred brethren has become
converted, and is no longer liable to be born in a state of suffering,
and is assured of final salvation."

Then the Blessed One addressed the brethren, and said: "Behold now,
brethren, I exhort you, saying, 'Decay is inherent in all component
things! Work out your salvation with diligence!'"

This was the last word of the Tathagata!

Then the Blessed One entered into the first stage of deep meditation.
And rising out of the first stage he passed into the second. And rising
out of the second he passed into the third. And rising out of the third
stage he passed into the fourth. And rising out of the fourth stage of
deep meditation he entered into the state of mind to which the infinity
of space is alone present. And passing out of the mere consciousness of
the infinity of space he entered into the state of mind to which nothing
at all was specially present. And passing out of the consciousness of
no special object he fell into a state between consciousness and
unconsciousness. And passing out of the state between consciousness and
unconsciousness he fell into a state in which the consciousness both of
sensations and of ideas had wholly passed away.

Then the venerable Ananda said to the venerable Anuruddha: "O my Lord, O
Anuruddha, the Blessed One is dead!"

"Nay! brother Ananda, the Blessed One is not dead. He has entered into
that state in which both sensations and ideas have ceased to be!"

Then the Blessed One passing out of the state in which both sensations
and ideas have ceased to be, entered into the state between
consciousness and unconsciousness. And passing out of the state between
consciousness and unconsciousness he entered into the state of mind to
which nothing at all is specially present. And passing out of the
consciousness of no special object he entered into the state of mind to
which the infinity of thought is alone present. And passing out of the
mere consciousness of the infinity of thought he entered into the state
of mind to which the infinity of space is alone present. And passing out
of the mere consciousness of the infinity of space he entered into the
fourth stage of deep meditation. And passing out of the fourth stage he
entered into the third. And passing out of the third stage he entered
into the second. And passing out of the second he entered into the
first. And passing out of the first stage of deep meditation he entered
the second. And passing out of the second stage he entered into the
third. And passing out of the third stage he entered into the fourth
stage of deep meditation. And passing out of the last stage of deep
meditation he immediately expired.

When the Blessed One died there arose, at the moment of his passing out
of existence, a mighty earthquake, terrible and awe-inspiring: and the
thunders of heaven burst forth.

When the Blessed One died, Brahma Sahampati, at the moment of his
passing away from existence, uttered this stanza:

    "They all, all beings that have life, shall lay
    Aside their complex form--that aggregation
    Of mental and material qualities,
    That gives them, or in heaven or on earth,

    Their fleeting individuality!
    E'en as the teacher--being such a one,
    Unequalled among all the men that are,
    Successor of the prophets of old time,
    Mighty by wisdom, and in insight clear--
            Hath died!"


When the Blessed One died, Sakka, the king of the gods, at the
moment of his passing away from existence, uttered this stanza:

    "They're transient all, each being's parts and powers,
    Growth is their nature, and decay.
    They are produced, they are dissolved again,
    And then is best, when they have sunk to rest!"

When the Blessed One died, the venerable Anuruddha, at the moment of his
passing away from existence, uttered these stanzas:

    "When he who from all craving want was free,
    Who to Nirvana's tranquil state had reached,
    When the great sage finished his span of life,
    No gasping struggle vexed that steadfast heart!
    All resolute, and with unshaken mind.
    He calmly triumphed o'er the pain of death.
    E'en as a bright flame dies away, so was
    His last deliverance from the bonds of life!"

When the Blessed One died, the venerable Ananda, at the moment of his
passing away from existence, uttered this stanza:

    "Then was there terror!
    Then stood the hair on end!
    When he endowed with every grace--
    The supreme Buddha--died!"

When the Blessed One died, of those of the brethren who were not free
from the passions, some stretched out their arms and wept, and some fell
headlong to the ground, rolling to and fro in anguish at the thought:
"Too soon has the Blessed One died! Too soon has the Happy One passed
away from existence! Too soon has the Light gone out in the world!" But
those of the brethren who were free from the passions (the Arahats) bore
their grief collected and composed at the thought: "Impermanent are all
component things! How is it possible that [they should not be
dissolved]?"

Then the venerable Anuruddha exhorted the brethren, and said: "Enough,
my brethren! Weep not, neither lament! Has not the Blessed One formerly
declared this to us, that it is in the very nature of all things near
and dear unto us, that we must divide ourselves from them, leave them,
sever ourselves from them? How, then, brethren, can this be
possible--that whereas anything whatever born, brought into being, and
organized, contains within itself the inherent necessity of
dissolution--how then can this be possible that such a being should not
be dissolved? No such condition can exist! Even the spirits, brethren,
will reproach us."

"But of what kind of spirits is the Lord, the venerable Anuruddha,
thinking?"

"There are spirits, brother Ananda, in the sky, but of worldly mind, who
dishevel their hair and weep, and stretch forth their arms and weep,
fall prostrate on the ground, and roll to and fro in anguish at the
thought: 'Too soon has the Blessed One died! Too soon has the Happy One
passed away! Too soon has the Light gone out in the world!'

"There are spirits, too, Ananda, on the earth, and of worldly mind, who
tear their hair and weep, and stretch forth their arms and weep, fall
prostrate on the ground, and roll to and fro in anguish at the thought:
'Too soon has the Blessed One died! Too soon has the Happy One passed
away! Too soon has the Light gone out in the world!'

"But the spirits who are free from passion hear it, calm and
self-possessed, mindful of the saying which begins, 'Impermanent indeed
are all component things. How then is it possible [that such a being
should not be dissolved]?'"

Now the venerable Anuruddha and the venerable Ananda spent the rest of
that night in religious discourse. Then the venerable Anuruddha said to
the venerable Ananda: "Go now, brother Ananda, into Kusinara and inform
the Mallas of Kusinara, saying, 'The Blessed One, O Vasetthas, is dead:
do, then, whatever seemeth to you fit!'"

"Even so, Lord!" said the venerable Ananda, in assent to the venerable
Anuruddha. And having robed himself early in the morning, he took his
bowl, and went into Kusinara with one of the brethren as an attendant.

Now at that time the Mallas of Kusinara were assembled in the council
hall concerning that very matter.

And the venerable Ananda went to the council hall of the Mallas of
Kusinara; and when he had arrived there, he informed them, saying, "The
Blessed One, O Vasetthas, is dead; do, then, whatever seemeth to you
fit!"

And when they had heard this saying of the venerable Ananda, the Mallas,
with their young men and their maidens and their wives, were grieved,
and sad, and afflicted at heart. And some of them wept, dishevelling
their hair, and some stretched forth their arms and wept, and some fell
prostrate on the ground, and some reeled to and fro in anguish at the
thought: "Too soon has the Blessed One died! Too soon has the Happy One
passed away! Too soon has the Light gone out in the world!"

Then the Mallas of Kusinara gave orders to their attendants, saying,
"Gather together perfumes and garlands, and all the music in Kusinara!"

And the Mallas of Kusinara took the perfumes and garlands, and all the
musical instruments, and five hundred suits of apparel, and went to the
Upavattana, to the Sala Grove of the Mallas, where the body of the
Blessed One lay. There they passed the day in paying honor, reverence,
respect, and homage to the remains of the Blessed One with dancing, and
hymns, and music, and with garlands and perfumes; and in making canopies
of their garments, and preparing decoration wreaths to hang thereon.

Then the Mallas of Kusinara thought: "It is much too late to burn the
body of the Blessed One to-day. Let us now perform the cremation
to-morrow." And in paying honor, reverence, respect, and homage to the
remains of the Blessed One with dancing, and hymns, and music, and with
garlands and perfumes; and in making canopies of their garments, and
preparing decoration wreaths to hang thereon, they passed the second day
too, and then the third day, and the fourth, and the fifth, and the
sixth day also.

Then on the seventh day the Mallas of Kusinara thought:

"Let us carry the body of the Blessed One, by the south and outside, to
a spot on the south, and outside of the city,--paying it honor, and
reverence, and respect, and homage, with dance and song and music, with
garlands and perfumes,--and there, to the south of the city, let us
perform the cremation ceremony!"

And thereupon eight chieftains among the Mallas bathed their heads, and
clad themselves in new garments with the intention of bearing the body
of the Blessed One. But, behold, they could not lift it up!

Then the Mallas of Kusinara said to the venerable Anuruddha: "What,
Lord, can be the reason, what can be the cause that eight chieftains of
the Mallas who have bathed their heads, and clad themselves in new
garments with the intention of bearing the body of the Blessed One, are
unable to lift it up?"

"It is because you, O Vasetthas, have one purpose and the spirits have
another purpose."

"But what, Lord, is the purpose of the spirits?"

"Your purpose, O Vasetthas, is this: 'Let us carry the body of the
Blessed One, by the south and outside, to a spot on the south, and
outside of the city,--paying it honor, and reverence, and respect, and
homage, with dance and song and music, with garlands and perfumes,--and
there, to the south of the city, let us perform the cremation ceremony.'
But the purpose of the spirits, Vasetthas, is this: 'Let us carry the
body of the Blessed One by the north to the north of the city, and
entering the city by the north gate, let us bring it through the midst
of the city into the midst thereof. And going out again by the eastern
gate,--paying honor, and reverence, and respect, and homage to the body
of the Blessed One, with heavenly dance, and song, and music, and
garlands, and perfumes,--let us carry it to the shrine of the Mallas
called Makuta-bandhana, to the east of the city, and there let us
perform the cremation ceremony.'"

"Even according to the purpose of the spirits, so, Lord, let it be!"

Then immediately all Kusinara down even to the dust-bins and rubbish
heaps became strewn knee-deep with Mandarava flowers from heaven! and
while both the spirits from the skies, and the Mallas of Kusinara upon
earth, paid honor, and reverence, and respect, and homage to the body of
the Blessed One, with dance and song and music, with garlands and with
perfumes, they carried the body by the north to the north of the city;
and entering the city by the north gate they carried it through the
midst of the city into the midst thereof; and going out again by the
eastern gate they carried it to the shrine of the Mallas, called
Makuta-bandhana; and there, to the east of the city, they laid down the
body of the Blessed One.

Then the Mallas of Kusinara said to the venerable Ananda: "What should
be done, Lord, with the remains of the Tathagata?"

"As men treat the remains of a king of kings, so, Vasetthas, should they
treat the remains of a Tathagata."

"And how, Lord, do they treat the remains of a king of kings?"

"They wrap the body of a king of kings, Vasetthas, in a new cloth. When
that is done they wrap it in cotton wool. When that is done they wrap it
in a new cloth,--and so on till they have wrapped the body in five
hundred successive layers of both kinds. Then they place the body in an
oil vessel of iron, and cover that close up with another oil vessel of
iron. They then build a funeral pile of all kinds of perfumes, and burn
the body of the king of kings. And then at the four cross roads they
erect a dagaba to the king of kings. This, Vasetthas, is the way in
which they treat the remains of a king of kings. And as they treat the
remains of a king of kings, so, Vasetthas, should they treat the remains
of the Tathagata. At the four cross roads a dagaba should be erected to
the Tathagata. And whosoever shall there place garlands or perfumes or
paint, or make salutation there, or become in its presence calm in
heart--that shall long be to them for a profit and a joy."

Therefore the Mallas gave orders to their attendants, saying, "Gather
together all the carded cotton wool of the Mallas!"

Then the Mallas of Kusinara wrapped the body of the Blessed One in a new
cloth. And when that was done they wrapped it in cotton wool. And when
that was done, they wrapped it in a new cloth,--and so on till they had
wrapped the body of the Blessed One in five hundred layers of both
kinds. And then they placed the body in an oil vessel of iron, and
covered that close up with another vessel of iron. And then they built a
funeral pile of all kinds of perfumes, and upon it they placed the body
of the Blessed One.

Now at that time the venerable Maha Kassapa was journeying along the
high road from Pava to Kusinara with a great company of the brethren,
with about five hundred of the brethren. And the venerable Maha Kassapa
left the high road, and sat himself down at the foot of a certain tree.

Just at that time a certain naked ascetic who had picked up a Mandarava
flower in Kusinara was coming along the high road to Pava. And the
venerable Maha Kassapa saw the naked ascetic coming in the distance; and
when he had seen him he said to the naked ascetic: "O friend! surely
thou knowest our Master?"

"Yea, friend! I know him. This day the Samana Gautama has been dead a
week! That is how I obtained this Mandarava flower."

And immediately of those of the brethren who were not yet free from the
passions, some stretched out their arms and wept, and some fell headlong
on the ground, and some reeled to and fro in anguish at the thought:
"Too soon has the Blessed One died! Too soon has the Happy One passed
away from existence! Too soon has the Light gone out in the world!"

But those of the brethren who were free from the passions (the Arahats)
bore their grief collected and composed at the thought: "Impermanent are
all component things! How is it possible that they should not be
dissolved?"

Now at that time a brother named Subhadda, who had been received into
the order in his old age, was seated there in their company. And
Subhadda the old addressed the brethren and said: "Enough, brethren!
Weep not, neither lament! We are well rid of the great Samana. We used
to be annoyed by being told, 'This beseems you, this beseems you not.'
But now we shall be able to do whatever we like; and what we do not like
that we shall not have to do!"

But the venerable Maha Kassapa addressed the brethren, and said:
"Enough, my brethren! Weep not, neither lament! Has not the Blessed One
formerly declared this to us, that it is in the very nature of all
things near and dear unto us that we must divide ourselves from them,
leave them, sever ourselves from them? How then, brethren, can this be
possible--that whereas anything whatever born, brought into being, and
organized contains within itself the inherent necessity of
dissolution--how then can this be possible that such a being should not
be dissolved? No such condition can exist!"

Now just at that time four chieftains of the Mallas had bathed their
heads and clad themselves in new garments with the intention of setting
on fire the funeral pile of the Blessed One. But, behold, they were
unable to set it alight! Then the Mallas of Kusinara said to the
venerable Anuruddha: "What, Lord, can be the reason, and what the cause,
that four chieftains of the Mallas who have bathed their heads, and clad
themselves in new garments, with the intention of setting on fire the
funeral pile of the Blessed One, are unable to set it on fire?"

"It is because you, O Vasetthas, have one purpose, and the spirits have
another purpose."

"But what, Lord, is the purpose of the spirits?"

"The purpose of the spirits, O Vasetthas, is this: 'That venerable
brother Maha Kassapa is now journeying along the high road from Pava to
Kusinara with a great company of the brethren, with five hundred of the
brethren. The funeral pile of the Blessed One shall not catch fire,
until the venerable Maha Kassapa shall have been able reverently to
salute the sacred feet of the Blessed One.'"

"Even according to the purpose of the spirits, so, Lord, let it be!"

Then the venerable Maha Kassapa went on to Makuta-bandhana of Kusinara,
to the shrine of the Mallas, to the place where the funeral pile of the
Blessed One was. And when he had come up to it, he arranged his robe on
one shoulder; and bowing down with clasped hands he thrice walked
reverently round the pile; and then, uncovering the feet, he bowed down
in reverence at the feet of the Blessed One. And those five hundred
brethren arranged their robes on one shoulder; and bowing down with
clasped hands, they thrice walked reverently round the pile, and then
bowed down in reverence at the feet of the Blessed One.

And when the homage of the venerable Maha Kassapa and of those five
hundred brethren was ended, the funeral pile of the Blessed One caught
fire of itself. Now as the body of the Blessed One burned itself away,
from the skin and the integument, and the flesh, and the nerves, and the
fluid of the joints, neither soot nor ash was seen: and only the bones
remained behind.

Just as one sees no soot nor ash when glue or oil is burned, so, as the
body of the Blessed One burned itself away, from the skin and the
integument, and the flesh, and the nerves, and the fluid of the joints,
neither soot nor ash was seen: and only the bones remained behind. And
of those five hundred pieces of raiment the very innermost and outermost
were both consumed. And when the body of the Blessed One had been burned
up, there came down streams of water from the sky and extinguished the
funeral pile of the Blessed One; and there burst forth streams of water
from the storehouse of the waters (beneath the earth), and extinguished
the funeral pile of the Blessed One. The Mallas of Kusinara also brought
water scented with all kinds of perfumes, and extinguished the funeral
pile of the Blessed One.

Then the Mallas of Kusinara surrounded the bones of the Blessed One in
their council hall with a lattice work of spears, and with a rampart of
bows; and there for seven days they paid honor and reverence and respect
and homage to them with dance and song and music, and with garlands and
perfumes.

Now the king of Magadha, Agatasattu, the son of the queen of the Videha
clan, heard the news that the Blessed One had died at Kusinara. Then the
king of Magadha, Agatasattu, the son of the queen of the Videha clan,
sent a messenger to the Mallas, saying, "The Blessed One belonged to the
soldier caste, and I too am of the soldier caste. I am worthy to receive
a portion of the relics of the Blessed One. Over the remains of the
Blessed One will I put up a sacred cairn, and in honor thereof will I
celebrate a feast!"

And the Likkhavis of Vesali heard the news that the Blessed One had
died at Kusinara. And the Likkhavis of Vesali sent a messenger to the
Mallas, saying, "The Blessed One belonged to the soldier caste, and we
too are of the soldier caste. We are worthy to receive a portion of the
relics of the Blessed One. Over the remains of the Blessed One will we
put up a sacred cairn, and in honor thereof will we celebrate a feast!"

And the Sakiyas of Kapila-vatthu heard the news that the Blessed One had
died at Kusinara. And the Sakiyas of Kapila-vatthu sent a messenger to
the Mallas, saying "The Blessed One was the pride of our race. We are
worthy to receive a portion of the relics of the Blessed One. Over the
remains of the Blessed One will we put up a sacred cairn, and in honor
thereof will we celebrate a feast!"

And the Bulis of Allakappa heard the news that the Blessed One had died
at Kusinara. And the Bulis of Allakappa sent a messenger to the Mallas,
saying, "The Blessed One belonged to the soldier caste, and we too are
of the soldier caste. We are worthy to receive a portion of the relics
of the Blessed One. Over the remains of the Blessed One will we put up a
sacred cairn, and in honor thereof will we celebrate a feast!"

And the Brahman of Vethadipa heard the news that the Blessed One had
died at Kusinara. And the Brahman of Vethadipa sent a messenger to the
Mallas, saying, "The Blessed One belonged to the soldier caste, and I am
a Brahman. I am worthy to receive a portion of the relics of the Blessed
One. Over the remains of the Blessed One will I put up a sacred cairn,
and in honor thereof will I celebrate a feast!"

And the Mallas of Pava heard the news that the Blessed One had died at
Kusinara. Then the Mallas of Pava sent a messenger to the Mallas,
saying, "The Blessed One belonged to the soldier caste, and we too are
of the soldier caste. We are worthy to receive a portion of the relics
of the Blessed One. Over the remains of the Blessed One will we put up a
sacred cairn, and in honor thereof will we celebrate a feast!"

When they heard these things the Mallas of Kusinara spoke to the
assembled brethren, saying, "The Blessed One died in our village domain,
We will not give away any part of the remains of the Blessed One!" When
they had thus spoken, Dona the Brahman addressed the assembled
brethren, and said:

    "Hear, reverend sir, one single word from me.
    Forbearance was our Buddha wont to teach.
    Unseemly is it that over the division
    Of the remains of him who was the best of beings
    Strife should arise, and wounds, and war!
    Let us all, sirs, with one accord unite
    In friendly harmony to make eight portions.
    Wide spread let Thupas rise in every land
    That in the Enlightened One mankind may trust!"

"Do thou then, O Brahman, thyself divide the remains of the Blessed One
equally into eight parts with fair division."

"Be it so, sir!" said Dona, in assent, to the assembled brethren. And he
divided the remains of the Blessed One equally into eight parts, with
fair division. And he said to them: "Give me, sirs, this vessel, and I
will set up over it a sacred cairn, and in its honor will I establish a
feast." And they gave the vessel to Dona the Brahman.

And the Moriyas of Pipphalivana heard the news that the Blessed One had
died at Kusinara. Then the Moriyas of Pipphalivana sent a messenger to
the Mallas, saying, "The Blessed One belonged to the soldier caste, and
we too are of the soldier caste. We are worthy to receive a portion of
the relics of the Blessed One. Over the remains of the Blessed One will
we put up a sacred cairn, and in honor thereof will we celebrate a
feast!" And when they heard the answer, saying, "There is no portion of
the remains of the Blessed One left over. The remains of the Blessed One
are all distributed," then they took away the embers.

Then the king of Magadha, Agatasattu, the son of the queen of the Videha
clan, made a mound in Ragagaha over the remains of the Blessed One, and
held a feast. And the Likkhavis of Vesali made a mound in Vesali over
the remains of the Blessed One, and held a feast. And the Bulis of
Allakappa made a mound in Allakappa over the remains of the Blessed One,
and held a feast. And the Koliyas of Ramagama made a mound in Ramagama
over the remains of the Blessed One, and held a feast. And Vethadipaka
the Brahman made a mound in Vethadipa over the remains of the Blessed
One, and held a feast. And the Mallas of Pava made a mound in Pava over
the remains of the Blessed One, and held a feast. And the Mallas of
Kusinara made a mound in Kusinara over the remains of the Blessed One,
and held a feast. And Dona the Brahman made a mound over the vessel in
which the body had been burned, and held a feast. And the Moriyas of
Pipphalivana made a mound over the embers, and held a feast.

Thus were there eight mounds [Thupas] for the remains, and one for the
vessel, and one for the embers. This was how it used to be. Eight
measures of relics there were of him of the far-seeing eye, of the best
of the best of men. In India seven are worshipped, and one measure in
Ramagama, by the kings of the serpent race. One tooth, too, is honored
in heaven, and one in Gandhara's city, one in the Kalinga realm, and one
more by the Naga race. Through their glory the bountiful earth is made
bright with offerings painless, for with such are the Great Teacher's
relics best honored by those who are honored, by gods and by Nagas and
kings, yea, thus by the noblest of monarchs--bow down with clasped
hands! Hard, hard is a Buddha to meet with through hundreds of ages!

End of the _Book of the Great Decease_



PYTHIAN GAMES AT DELPHI

B.C. 585

GEORGE GROTE


     Among the leading features of Greek life, especially those
     belonging to its religious customs and observances none are more
     characteristic, and none possess a more attractive interest for the
     modern reader and student than the peculiar festivals which it was
     their practice to hold. The four great national festivals or games
     were: The Olympic, held every four years, in honor of Zeus, on the
     banks of the Alpheus, in Elis; the Pythian, celebrated once in four
     years, in honor of Apollo, at Delphi; the Isthmian, held every two
     years, at the isthmian sanctuary in the Isthmus of Corinth, in
     honor of Poseidon (Neptune); and the Nemean, celebrated at Nemea,
     in the second and fourth years of each Olympiad, in honor of the
     Nemean Juno.

     With regard to the influence of these games or festivals upon the
     political and social life of Greece, much has been written by
     historians and special students of the Grecian states. While the
     celebrations do not appear to have accomplished much for the
     political union of Greece, they are to be credited with marked
     beneficial effects in the promotion of a pan-Hellenic spirit which,
     if it failed to produce such a union of the Greek race,
     nevertheless quickened and strengthened the common feeling of
     family relationship. Thus a sense of their identical origin and
     racial traits was kept alive, and the tendencies of Greek
     development and culture preserved their essential character and
     distinction. By means of these periodical gatherings, representing
     all parts of the Greek world, not only was friendly competition in
     every field of talent and performance secured, but even trade and
     commerce found through them new channels of activity. So in various
     ways the national games proved a source of fresh energy and broader
     enterprise among the various branches of the Grecian people. The
     particular character and significance of the Pythian games at
     Delphi, and their relation to the other national festivals, form an
     interesting subject for study in connection with the general
     history of Greece.


What are called the Olympic, Pythian, Nemean, and Isthmian games (the
four most conspicuous amid many others analogous) were in reality great
religious festivals--for the gods then gave their special sanction,
name, and presence to recreative meetings--the closest association then
prevailed between the feelings of common worship and the sympathy in
common amusement. Though this association is now no longer recognized,
it is nevertheless essential that we should keep it fully before us if
we desire to understand the life and proceedings of the Greek. To
Herodotus and his contemporaries these great festivals, then frequented
by crowds from every part of Greece, were of overwhelming importance and
interest; yet they had once been purely local, attracting no visitors
except from a very narrow neighborhood. In the Homeric poems much is
said about the common gods, and about special places consecrated to and
occupied by several of them; the chiefs celebrate funeral games in honor
of a deceased father, which are visited by competitors from different
parts of Greece, but nothing appears to manifest public or town
festivals open to Grecian visitors generally. And though the rocky Pytho
with its temple stands out in the _Iliad_ as a place both venerated and
rich--the Pythian games, under the superintendence of the Amphictyons,
with continuous enrollment of victors and a pan-Hellenic reputation, do
not begin until after the Sacred War, in the 48th Olympiad, or B.C. 586.

The Olympic games, more conspicuous than the Pythian as well as
considerably older, are also remarkable on another ground, inasmuch as
they supplied historical computers with the oldest backward record of
continuous time. It was in the year B.C. 776 that the Eleans inscribed
the name of their countryman Coroebus as victor in the competition of
runners, and that they began the practice of inscribing in like manner,
in each Olympic or fifth recurring year, the name of the runner who won
the prize. Even for a long time after this, however, the Olympic games
seem to have remained a local festival; the prize being uniformly
carried off, at the first twelve Olympiads, by some competitor either of
Elis or its immediate neighborhood. The Nemean and Isthmian games did
not become notorious or frequented until later even than the Pythian.
Solon in his legislation proclaimed the large reward of 500 drams for
every Athenian who gained an Olympic prize, and the lower sum of 100
drams for an Isthmiac prize. He counts the former as pan-Hellenic rank
and renown, an ornament even to the city of which the victor was a
member--the latter as partial and confined to the neighborhood.

Of the beginnings of these great solemnities we cannot presume to speak,
except in mythical language; we know them only in their comparative
maturity. But the habit of common sacrifice, on a small scale and
between near neighbors, is a part of the earliest habits of Greece. The
sentiment of fraternity, between two tribes or villages, first
manifested itself by sending a sacred legation or Theoria to offer
sacrifices to each other's festivals and to partake in the recreations
which followed; thus establishing a truce with solemn guarantee, and
bringing themselves into direct connexion each with the god of the other
under his appropriate local surname. The pacific communion so fostered,
and the increased assurance of intercourse, as Greece gradually emerged
from the turbulence and pugnacity of the heroic age, operated especially
in extending the range of this ancient habit: the village festivals
became town festivals, largely frequented by the citizens of other
towns, and sometimes with special invitations sent round to attract
Theors from every Hellenic community--and thus these once humble
assemblages gradually swelled into the pomp and immense confluence of
the Olympic and Pythian games. The city administering such holy
ceremonies enjoyed inviolability of territory during the month of their
occurrence, being itself under obligation at that time to refrain from
all aggression, as well as to notify by heralds the commencement of the
truce to all other cities not in avowed hostility with it. Elis imposed
heavy fines upon other towns--even on the powerful Lacedæmon--for
violation of the Olympic truce, on pain of exclusion from the festival
in case of non-payment.

Sometimes this tendency to religious fraternity took a form called an
_Amphictyony_, different from the common festival. A certain number of
towns entered into an exclusive religious partnership for the
celebration of sacrifices periodically to the god of a particular
temple, which was supposed to be the common property and under the
common protection of all, though one of the number was often named as
permanent administrator; while all other Greeks were excluded. That
there were many religious partnerships of this sort, which have never
acquired a place in history, among the early Grecian villages, we may
perhaps gather from the etymology of the word _Amphictyons_--designating
residents around, or neighbors, considered in the point of view of
fellow-religionists--as well as from the indications preserved to us in
reference to various parts of the country. Thus there was an Amphictyony
of seven cities at the holy island of Caluria, close to the harbor of
Troezen. Hermione, Epidaurus, Ægina, Athens, Prasiæ, Nauplia, and
Orchomenus, jointly maintained the temple and sanctuary of Poseidon in
that island--with which it would seem that the city of Troezen, though
close at hand, had no connection--meeting there at stated periods, to
offer formal sacrifices. These seven cities indeed were not immediate
neighbors, but the speciality and exclusiveness of their interest in the
temple is seen from the fact that when the Argians took Nauplia, they
adopted and fulfilled these religious obligations on behalf of the prior
inhabitants: so also did the Lacedæmonians when they had captured
Prasiæ. Again, in Triphylia, situated between the Pisatid and Messenia
in the western part of Peloponnesus, there was a similar religious
meeting and partnership of the Triphylians on Cape Samicon, at the
temple of the Samian Poseidon. Here the inhabitants of Maciston were
intrusted with the details of superintendence, as well as with the duty
of notifying beforehand the exact time of meeting (a precaution
essential amidst the diversities and irregularities of the Greek
calendar) and also of proclaiming what was called the Samian truce--a
temporary abstinence from hostilities which bound all Triphylians during
the holy period. This latter custom discloses the salutary influence of
such institutions in presenting to men's minds a common object of
reverence, common duties, and common enjoyments; thus generating
sympathies and feelings of mutual obligation amid petty communities not
less fierce than suspicious. So, too, the twelve chief Ionic cities in
and near Asia Minor had their pan-Ionic Amphictyony peculiar to
themselves: the six Doric cities, in and near the southern corner of
that peninsula, combined for the like purpose at the temple of the
Triopian Apollo, and the feeling of special partnership is here
particularly illustrated by the fact that Halicarnassus, one of the
six, was formally extruded by the remaining five in consequence of a
violation of the rules. There was also an Amphictyonic union at
Onchestus in Boeotia, in the venerated grove and temple at Poseidon: of
whom it consisted we are not informed. There are some specimens of the
sort of special religious conventions and assemblies which seem to have
been frequent throughout Greece. Nor ought we to omit those religious
meetings and sacrifices which were common to all the members of one
Hellenic subdivision, such as the pan-Boeotia to all the Boeotians,
celebrated at the temple of the Ionian Athene near Coroneia; the common
observances, rendered to the temple of Apollo Pythæus at Argos, by all
those neighboring towns which had once been attached by this religious
thread to the Argian; the similar periodical ceremonies, frequented by
all who bore the Achæan or Ætolian name; and the splendid and
exhilarating festivals, so favorable to the diffusion of the early
Grecian poetry, which brought all Ionians at stated intervals to the
sacred island of Delos. This later class of festivals agreed with the
Amphictyony in being of a special and exclusive character, not open to
all Greeks.

But there was one among these many Amphictyonies, which, though starting
from the smallest beginnings, gradually expanded into so comprehensive a
character, had acquired so marked a predominance over the rest, as to be
called the "Amphictyonic assembly," and even to have been mistaken by
some authors for a sort of federal Hellenic diet. Twelve sub-races, out
of the number which made up entire Hellas, belonged to this ancient
Amphictyony, the meetings of which were held twice in every year: in
spring at the temple of Apollo at Delphi; in autumn at Thermopylæ, in
the sacred precinct of Demeter Amphictyonis. Sacred deputies, including
a chief called the _Hieromnemon_ and subordinates called the _Pylagoræ_,
attended at these meetings from each of the twelve races: a crowd of
volunteers seem to have accompanied them, for purposes of sacrifice,
trade, or enjoyment. Their special, and most important, function
consisted in watching over the Delphian temple, in which all the twelve
sub-races had a joint interest, and it was the immense wealth and
national ascendency of this temple which enhanced to so great a pitch
the dignity of its acknowledged administrators.

The twelve constituent members were as follows: Thessalians, Boeotians,
Dorians, Ionians, Perrhæbians, Magnetes, Locrians, Oetæans, Achæans,
Phocians, Dolopes, and Malians. All are counted as _races_ (if we treat
the Hellenes as a race, we must call these _sub-races_), no mention
being made of cities: all count equally in respect to voting, two votes
being given by the deputies from each of the twelve: moreover, we are
told that in determining the deputies to be sent or the manner in which
the votes of each race should be given, the powerful Athens, Sparta, and
Thebes had no more influence than the humblest Ionian, Dorian, or
Boeotian city. This latter fact is distinctly stated by Æschines,
himself a Pylagore sent to Delphi by Athens. And so, doubtless, the
theory of the case stood: the votes of the Ionic races counted for
neither more nor less than two, whether given by deputies from Athens,
or from the small towns of Erythræ and Priene; and in like manner the
Dorian votes were as good in the division, when given by deputies from
Boeon and Cytinion in the little territory of Doris, as if the men
delivering them had been Spartans. But there can be as little question
that in practice the little Ionic cities and the little Doric cities
pretended to no share in the Amphictyonic deliberations. As the Ionic
vote came to be substantially the vote of Athens, so, if Sparta was ever
obstructed in the management of the Doric vote, it must have been by
powerful Doric cities like Argos or Corinth, not by the insignificant
towns of Doris. But the theory of Amphictyonic suffrage as laid down by
Æschines, however little realized in practice during his day, is
important inasmuch as it shows in full evidence the primitive and
original constitution. The first establishment of the Amphictyonic
convocation dates from a time when all the twelve members were on a
footing of equal independence, and when there were no overwhelming
cities--such as Sparta and Athens--to cast in the shade the humbler
members; when Sparta was only one Doric city, and Athens only one Ionic
city, among various others of consideration not much inferior.

There are also other proofs which show the high antiquity of this
Amphictyonic convocation. Æschines gives us an extract from the oath
which had been taken by the sacred deputies who attended on behalf of
their respective races, ever since its first establishment, and which
still apparently continued to be taken in his day. The antique
simplicity of this oath, and of the conditions to which the members bind
themselves, betrays the early age in which it originated, as well as the
humble resources of those towns to which it was applied. "We will not
destroy any Amphictyonic town--we will not cut off any Amphictyonic town
from running water"--such are the two prominent obligations which
Æschines specifies out of the old oath. The second of the two carries us
back to the simplest state of society, and to towns of the smallest
size, when the maidens went out with their basins to fetch water from
the spring, like the daughters of Celeos at Eleusis, or those of Athens
from the fountain Callirrhoe. We may even conceive that the special
mention of this detail, in the covenant between the twelve races, is
borrowed literally from agreements still earlier, among the villages or
little towns in which the members of each race were distributed. At any
rate, it proves satisfactorily the very ancient date to which the
commencement of the Amphictyonic convocations must be referred. The
belief of Æschines (perhaps also the belief general in his time) was,
that it commenced simultaneously with the first foundation of the
Delphian temple--an event of which we have no historical knowledge; but
there seems reason to suppose that its original establishment is
connected with Thermopylæ and Demeter Amphictyonia, rather than with
Delphi and Apollo. The special surname by which Demeter and her temple
at Thermopylæ was known--the temple of the hero Amphictyon which stood
at its side--the word _Pyloea_, which obtained footing in the language
to designate the half-yearly meeting of the deputies both at Thermopylæ
and at Delphi--these indications point to Thermopylæ (the real central
point for all the twelve) as the primary place of meeting, and to the
Delphian half-year as something secondary and superadded. On such a
matter, however, we cannot go beyond a conjecture.

The hero Amphictyon, whose temple stood at Thermopylæ, passed in
mythical genealogy for the brother of Hellen. And it may be affirmed,
with truth, that the habit of forming Amphictyonic unions, and of
frequenting each other's religious festivals, was the great means of
creating and fostering the primitive feeling of brotherhood among the
children of Hellen, in those early times when rudeness, insecurity, and
pugnacity did so much to isolate them. A certain number of salutary
habits and sentiments, such as that which the Amphictyonic oath
embodies, in regard to abstinence from injury as well as to mutual
protection, gradually found their way into men's minds: the obligations
thus brought into play acquired a substantive efficacy of their own, and
the religious feeling which always remained connected with them, came
afterward to be only one out of many complex agencies by which the later
historical Greek was moved. Athens and Sparta in the days of their
might, and the inferior cities in relation to them, played each their
own political game, in which religious considerations will be found to
bear only a subordinate part.

The special function of the Amphictyonic council, so far as we know it,
consisted in watching over the safety, the interests, and the treasures
of the Delphian temple. "If any one shall plunder the property of the
god, or shall be cognizant thereof, or shall take treacherous counsel
against the things in the temple, we will punish him with foot, and
hand, and voice, and by every means in our power." So ran the old
Amphictyonic oath, with an energetic imprecation attached to it. And
there are some examples in which the council constitutes its functions
so largely as to receive and adjudicate upon complaints against entire
cities, for offences against the religious and patriotic sentiment of
the Greeks generally. But for the most part its interference relates
directly to the Delphian temple. The earliest case in which it is
brought to our view is the Sacred War against Cirrha, in the 46th
Olympiad or B.C. 595, conducted by Eurolychus the Thessalian, and
Clisthenes of Sicyon, and proposed by Solon of Athens: we find the
Amphictyons also about half a century afterward undertaking the duty of
collecting subscriptions throughout the Hellenic world, and making the
contract with the Alcmæonids for rebuilding the temple after a
conflagration. But the influence of this council is essentially of a
fluctuating and intermittent character. Sometimes it appears forward to
decide, and its decisions command respect; but such occasions are rare,
taking the general course of known Grecian history; while there are
other occasions, and those too especially affecting the Delphian temple,
on which we are surprised to find nothing said about it. In the long and
perturbed period which Thucydides describes, he never once mentions the
Amphictyons, though the temple and the safety of its treasures form the
repeated subject as well of dispute as of express stipulation between
Athens and Sparta. Moreover, among the twelve constituent members of the
council, we find three--the Perrhæbians, the Magnetes, and the Achæans
of Phthia--who were not even independent, but subject to the
Thessalians; so that its meetings, when they were not matters of mere
form, probably expressed only the feelings of the three or four leading
members. When one or more of these great powers had a party purpose to
accomplish against others--when Philip of Macedon wished to extrude one
of the members in order to procure admission for himself--it became
convenient to turn this ancient form into a serious reality; and we
shall see the Athenian Æschines providing a pretext for Philip to meddle
in favor of the minor Boeotian cities against Thebes, by alleging that
these cities were under the protection of the old Amphictyonic oath.

It is thus that we have to consider the council as an element in Grecian
affairs--an ancient institution, one among many instances of the
primitive habit of religious fraternization, but wider and more
comprehensive than the rest; at first purely religious, then religious
and political at once, lastly more the latter than the former; highly
valuable in the infancy, but unsuited to the maturity of Greece, and
called into real working only on rare occasions, when its efficiency
happened to fall in with the views of Athens, Thebes, or the king of
Macedon. In such special moments it shines with a transient light which
affords a partial pretense for the imposing title bestowed on it by
Cicero--_commune Græciæ concilium;_ but we should completely
misinterpret Grecian history if we regarded it as a federal council
habitually directed or habitually obeyed. Had there existed any such
"commune concilium" of tolerable wisdom and patriotism, and had the
tendencies of the Hellenic mind been capable of adapting themselves to
it, the whole course of later Grecian history would probably have been
altered; the Macedonian kings would have remained only as respectable
neighbors, borrowing civilization from Greece and expending their
military energies upon Thracians and Illyrians; while united Hellas
might even have maintained her own territory against the conquering
legions of Rome.

The twelve constituent Amphictyonic races remained unchanged until the
Sacred War against the Phocians (B.C. 355), after which, though the
number twelve was continued, the Phocians were disfranchised, and their
votes transferred to Philip of Macedon. It has been already mentioned
that these twelve did not exhaust the whole of Hellas. Arcadians,
Eleans, Pisans, Minyæ, Dryopes, Ætolians, all genuine Hellenes, are not
comprehended in it; but all of them had a right to make use of the
temple of Delphi, and to contend in the Pythian and Olympic games. The
Pythian games, celebrated near Delphi, were under the superintendence of
the Amphictyons, or of some acting magistrate chosen by and presumed to
represent them. Like the Olympic games, they came round every four years
(the interval between one celebration and another being four complete
years, which the Greeks called a _Pentæteris_): the Isthmian and Nemean
games recurred every two years. In its first humble form a competition
among bards to sing a hymn in praise of Apollo, this festival was
doubtless of immemorial antiquity; but the first extension of it into
pan-Hellenic notoriety (as I have already remarked), the first
multiplication of the subjects of competition, and the first
introduction of a continuous record of the conquerors, date only from
the time when it came under the presidency of the Amphictyon, at the
close of the Sacred War against Cirrha, What is called the first Pythian
contest coincides with the third year of the 48th Olympiad, or B.C. 585.
From that period forward the games become crowded and celebrated: but
the date just named, nearly two centuries after the first Olympiad, is a
proof that the habit of periodical frequentation of festivals, by
numbers and from distant parts, grew up but slowly in the Grecian world.

The foundation of the temple of Delphi itself reaches far beyond all
historical knowledge, forming one of the aboriginal institutions of
Hellas. It is a sanctified and wealthy place even in the _Iliad_; the
legislation of Lycurgus at Sparta is introduced under its auspices, and
the earliest Grecian colonies, those of Sicily and Italy in the eighth
century B.C., are established in consonance with its mandate. Delphi and
Dodona appear, in the most ancient circumstances of Greece, as
universally venerated oracles and sanctuaries: and Delphi not only
receives honors and donations, but also answers questions from Lydians,
Phrygians, Etruscans, Romans, etc.: it is not exclusively Hellenic. One
of the valuable services which a Greek looked for from this and other
great religious establishments was, that it should resolve his doubts in
cases of perplexity; that it should advise him whether to begin a new,
or to persist in an old project; that it should foretell what would be
his fate under given circumstances, and inform him, if suffering under
distress, on what conditions the gods would grant him relief.

The three priestesses of Dodona with their venerable oak, and the
priestess of Delphi sitting on her tripod under the influence of a
certain gas or vapor exhaling from the rock, were alike competent to
determine these difficult points: and we shall have constant occasion to
notice in this history with what complete faith both the question was
put and the answer treasured up--what serious influence it often
exercised both upon public and private proceeding. The hexameter verses
in which the Pythian priestess delivered herself were indeed often so
equivocal or unintelligible, that the most serious believer, with all
anxiety to interpret and obey them, often found himself ruined by the
result. Yet the general faith in the oracle was no way shaken by such
painful experience. For as the unfortunate issue always admitted of
being explained upon two hypotheses--either that the god had spoken
falsely, or that his meaning had not been correctly understood--no man
of genuine piety ever hesitated to adopt the latter. There were many
other oracles throughout Greece besides Delphi and Dodona; Apollo was
open to the inquiries of the faithful at Ptoon in Boeotia, at Abæ in
Phocis, at Branchidæ near Miletus, at Patara in Lycia, and other places:
in like manner, Zeus gave answers at Olympia, Poseidon at Tænarus,
Amphiaraus at Thebes, Amphilochus at Mallus, etc. And this habit of
consulting the oracle formed part of the still more general tendency of
the Greek mind to undertake no enterprise without having first
ascertained how the gods viewed it, and what measures they were likely
to take. Sacrifices were offered, and the interior of the victim
carefully examined, with the same intent: omens, prodigies, unlooked-for
coincidences, casual expressions, etc., were all construed as
significant of the divine will. To sacrifice with a view to this or that
undertaking, or to consult the oracle with the same view, are familiar
expressions embodied in the language. Nor could any man set about a
scheme with comfort until he had satisfied himself in some manner or
other that the gods were favorable to it.

The disposition here adverted to is one of these mental analogies
pervading the whole Hellenic nation, which Herodotus indicates. And the
common habit among all Greeks of respectfully listening to the oracle of
Delphi will be found on many occasions useful in maintaining unanimity
among men not accustomed to obey the same political superior. In the
numerous colonies especially, founded by mixed multitudes from distant
parts of Greece, the minds of the emigrants were greatly determined
toward cordial coöperation by their knowledge that the expedition had
been directed, the oecist indicated, and the spot either chosen or
approved by Apollo of Delphi. Such in most cases was the fact: that god,
according to the conception of the Greeks, "takes delight always in the
foundation of new cities, and himself in person lays the first stone."

These are the elements of union with which the historical Hellenes take
their start: community of blood, language, religious point of view,
legends, sacrifices, festivals, and also (with certain allowances) of
manners and character. The analogy of manners and character between the
rude inhabitants of the Arcadian Cynætha and the polite Athens, was,
indeed, accompanied with wide differences; yet if we compare the two
with foreign contemporaries, we shall find certain negative
characteristics of much importance common to both. In no city of
historical Greece did there prevail either human sacrifices or
deliberate mutilation, such as cutting off the nose, ears, hands, feet,
etc.; or castration; or selling of children into slavery; or polygamy;
or the feeling of unlimited obedience toward one man: all customs which
might be pointed out as existing among the contemporary Carthaginians,
Egyptians, Persians, Thracians, etc. The habit of running, wrestling,
boxing, etc., in gymnastic contests, with the body perfectly naked, was
common to all Greeks, having been first adopted as a Lacedæmonian
fashion in the fourteenth Olympiad: Thucydides and Herodotus remark that
it was not only not practised, but even regarded as unseemly, among
non-Hellenes. Of such customs, indeed, at once common to all the Greeks,
and peculiar to them as distinguished from others, we cannot specify a
great number, but we may see enough to convince ourselves that there did
really exist, in spite of local differences, a general Hellenic
sentiment and character, which counted among the cementing causes of a
union apparently so little assured.

During the two centuries succeeding B.C. 776, the festival of the
Olympic Zeus in the Pisatid gradually passed from a local to a national
character, and acquired an attractive force capable of bringing together
into temporary union the dispersed fragments of Hellas, from Marseilles
to Trebizond. In this important function it did not long stand alone.
During the sixth century B.C., three other festivals, at first local,
became successively nationalized--the Pythia near Delphi, the Isthmia
near Corinth, the Nemea near Cleone, between Sicyon and Argos.

In regard to the Pythian festival, we find a short notice of the
particular incidents and individuals by whom its reconstitution and
enlargement were brought about--a notice the more interesting inasmuch
as these very incidents are themselves a manifestation of something like
pan-Hellenic patriotism, standing almost alone in an age which presents
little else in operation except distinct city interests. At the time
when the Homeric Hymn to the Delphinian Apollo was composed (probably in
the seventh century B.C.), the Pythian festival had as yet acquired
little eminence. The rich and holy temple of Apollo was then purely
oracular, established for the purpose of communicating to pious
inquirers "the counsels of the Immortals." Multitudes of visitors came
to consult it, as well as to sacrifice victims and to deposit costly
offerings; but while the god delighted in the sound of the harp as an
accompaniment to the singing of pæans, he was by no means anxious to
encourage horse-races and chariot-races in the neighborhood. Nay, this
psalmist considers that the noise of horses would be "a nuisance", the
drinking of mules a desecration to the sacred fountains, and the
ostentation of fine-built chariots objectionable, as tending to divert
the attention of spectators away from the great temple and its wealth.
From such inconveniences the god was protected by placing his sanctuary
"in the rocky Pytho"--a rugged and uneven recess, of no great
dimensions, embosomed in the southern declivity of Parnassus, and about
two thousand feet above the level of the sea, while the topmost
Parnassian summits reach a height of near eight thousand feet. The
situation was extremely imposing, but unsuited by nature for the
congregation of any considerable number of spectators; altogether
impracticable for chariot-races; and only rendered practicable by later
art and outlay for the theatre as well as for the stadium. Such a site
furnished little means of subsistence, but the sacrifices and presents
of visitors enabled the ministers of the temple to live in abundance,
and gathered together by degrees a village around it.

Near the sanctuary of Pytho, and about the same altitude, was situated
the ancient Phocian town of Crissa, on a projecting spur of
Parnassus--overhung above by the line of rocky precipice called the
Phædriades, and itself overhanging below the deep ravine through which
flows the river Peistus. On the other side of this river rises the steep
mountain Cirphis, which projects southward into the Corinthian gulf--the
river reaching that gulf through the broad Crissoean plain, which
stretches westward nearly to the Locrian town of Amphissa; a plain for
the most part fertile and productive, though least so in its eastern
part immediately under the Cirphis, where the seaport Cirrha was placed.
The temple, the oracle, and the wealth of Pytho, belong to the very
earliest periods of Grecian antiquity. But the octennial solemnity in
honor of the god included at first no other competition except that of
bards, who sang each a pæan with the harp. The Amphictyonic assembly
held one of its half-yearly meetings near the temple of Pytho, the other
at Thermopylæ.

In those early times when the Homeric Hymn to Apollo was composed, the
town of Crissa appears to have been great and powerful, possessing all
the broad plain between Parnassus, Cirphis, and the gulf, to which
latter it gave its name--and possessing also, what was a property not
less valuable, the adjoining sanctuary of Pytho itself, which the Hymn
identifies with Crissa, not indicating Delphi as a separate place. The
Crissæans doubtless derived great profits from the number of visitors
who came to visit Delphi, both by land and by sea, and Cirrha was
originally only the name for their seaport. Gradually, however, the port
appears to have grown in importance at the expense of the town, just as
Apollonia and Ptolemais came to equal Cyrene and Barca, and as Plymouth
Dock has swelled into Devonport; while at the same time the sanctuary of
Pytho with its administrators expanded into the town of Delphi, and came
to claim an independent existence of its own. The original relations
between Crissa, Cirrha, and Delphi, were in this manner at length
subverted, the first declining and the two latter rising. The Crissæans
found themselves dispossessed of the management of the temple, which
passed to the Delphians; as well as of the profits arising from the
visitors, whose disbursements went to enrich the inhabitants of Cirrha.
Crissa was a primitive city of the Phocian name, and could boast of a
place as such in the Homeric Catalogue, so that her loss of importance
was not likely to be quietly endured. Moreover, in addition to the above
facts, already sufficient in themselves as seeds of quarrel, we are told
that the Cirrhæans abused their position as masters of the avenue to the
temple by sea, and levied exorbitant tolls on the visitors who landed
there--a number constantly increasing from the multiplication of the
transmarine colonies, and from the prosperity of those in Italy and
Sicily. Besides such offence against the general Grecian public, they
had also incurred the enmity of their Phocian neighbors by outrages upon
women, Phocian as well as Argian, who were returning from the temple.

Thus stood the case, apparently, about B.C. 595, when the Amphictyonic
meeting interfered--either prompted by the Phocians, or perhaps on their
own spontaneous impulse, out of regard to the temple--to punish the
Cirrhæans. After a war of ten years, the first sacred war in Greece,
this object was completely accomplished by a joint force of Thessalians
under Eurolychus, Sicyonians under Clisthenes, and Athenians under
Alemæon; the Athenian Solon being the person who originated and enforced
in the Amphictyonic council the proposition of interference. Cirrha
appears to have made a strenuous resistance until its supplies from the
sea were intercepted by the naval force of the Sicyonian Clisthenes.
Even after the town was taken, its inhabitants defended themselves for
some time on the heights of Cirphis. At length, however, they were
thoroughly subdued. Their town was destroyed or left to subsist merely
us a landing-place; while the whole adjoining plain was consecrated to
the Delphian god, whose domains thus touched the sea. Under this
sentence, pronounced by the religious fooling of Greece, and sanctified
by a solemn oath publicly sworn and inscribed at Delphi, the land was
condemned to remain untilled and implanted, without any species of human
care, and serving only for the pasturage of cattle. The latter
circumstance was convenient to the temple, inasmuch as it furnished
abundance of victims for the pilgrims who landed and came to
sacrifice--for without preliminary sacrifice no man could consult the
oracle; while the entire prohibition of tillage was the only means of
obviating the growth of another troublesome neighbor on the seaboard.
The ruin of Cirrha in this war is certain: though the necessity of a
harbor for visitors arriving by sea, led to the gradual revival of the
town upon a humbler scale of pretension. But the fate of Crissa is not
so clear, nor do we know whether it was destroyed, or left subsisting in
a position of inferiority with regard to Delphi. From this time forward,
however, the Delphian community appear as substantive and autonomous,
exercising in their own right the management of the temple; though we
shall find, on more than one occasion, that the Phocians contest this
right, and lay claim to the management of it for themselves--a remnant
of that early period when the oracle stood in the domain of the Phocian
Crissa. There seems, moreover, to have been a standing antipathy
between the Delphians and the Phocians.

The Sacred War emanating from a solemn Amphictyonic decree, carried on
jointly by troops of different states whom we do not know to have ever
before coöperated, and directed exclusively toward an object of common
interest--is in itself a fact of high importance, as manifesting a
decided growth of pan-Hellenic feeling. Sparta is not named as
interfering--a circumstance which seems remarkable when we consider both
her power, even as it then stood, and her intimate connection with the
Delphian oracle--while the Athenians appear as the chief movers, through
the greatest and best of their citizens. The credit of a large-minded
patriotism rests prominently upon them.

But if this sacred war itself is a proof that the pan-Hellenic spirit
was growing stronger, the positive result in which it ended reinforced
that spirit still farther. The spoils of Cirrha were employed by the
victorious allies in founding the Pythian games. The octennial festival
hitherto celebrated at Delphi in honor of the god, including no other
competition except in the harp and the pæan, was expanded into
comprehensive games on the model of the Olympic, with matches not only
of music, but also of gymnastics and chariots--celebrated, not at Delphi
itself, but on the maritime plain near the ruined Cirrha--and under the
direct superintendence of the Amphictyons themselves. I have already
mentioned that Solon provided large rewards for such Athenians as gained
victories in the Olympic and Isthmian games, thereby indicating his
sense of the great value of the national games as a means of promoting
Hellenic intercommunion. It was the same feeling which instigated the
foundation of the new games on the Cirrhæan plain, in commemoration of
the vindicated honor of Apollo, and in the territory newly made over to
him. They were celebrated in the autumn, or first half of every third
Olympic year; the Amphictyons being the ostensible _Agonothets_ or
administrators, and appointing persons to discharge the duty in their
names. At the first Pythian ceremony (in B.C. 586), valuable rewards
were given to the different victors; at the second (B.C. 582), nothing
was conferred but wreaths of laurel--the rapidly attained celebrity of
the games being such as to render any further recompense superfluous.
The Sicyonian despot, Clisthenes himself, once the leader in the
conquest of Cirrha, gained the prize at the chariot-race of the second
Pythia. We find other great personages in Greece frequently mentioned as
competitors, and the games long maintained a dignity second only to the
Olympic, over which indeed they had some advantages; first, that they
were not abused for the purpose of promoting petty jealousies and
antipathies of any administering state, as the Olympic games were
perverted by the Eleans on more than one occasion; next, that they
comprised music and poetry as well as bodily display. From the
circumstances attending their foundation, the Pythian games deserved,
even more than the Olympic, the title bestowed on them by
Demosthenes--"the common _Agon_ of the Greeks."

The Olympic and Pythian games continued always to be the most venerated
solemnities in Greece. Yet the Nemea and Isthmia acquired a celebrity
not much inferior; the Olympic prize counting for the highest of all.
Both the Nemea and Isthmia were distinguished from the other two
festivals by occurring not once in four years, but once in two years;
the former in the second and fourth years of each Olympiad, the latter
in the first and third years. To both is assigned, according to Greek
custom, an origin connected with the interesting persons and
circumstances of legendary antiquity; but our historical knowledge of
both begins with the sixth century B.C. The first historical Nemead is
presented as belonging to Olympiad B.C. 52 or 53 (572-568), a few years
subsequent to the Sacred War above mentioned and to the origin of the
Pythia. The festival was celebrated in honor of the Nemean Zeus, in the
valley of Nemea between Philus and Cleonæ. The Cleonæans themselves were
originally its presidents, until, some period after B.C. 460, the
Argians deprived them of that honor and assumed the honors of
administration to themselves. The Nemean games had their Hellanodicæ to
superintend, to keep order, and to distribute the prizes, as well as the
Olympic.

Respecting the Isthmian festival, our first historical information is a
little earlier, for it has already been stated that Solon conferred a
premium upon every Athenian citizen who gained a prize at that festival
as well as at the Olympian--in or after B.C. 594. It was celebrated by
the Corinthians at their isthmus, in honor of Poseidon, and if we may
draw any inference from the legends respecting its foundation, which is
ascribed sometimes to Theseus, the Athenians appear to have identified
it with the antiquities of their own state.

We thus perceive that the interval between B.C. 600-560, exhibits the
first historical manifestation of the Pythia, Isthmia, and Nemea--the
first expansion of all the three from local into pan-Hellenic festivals.
To the Olympic games, for some time the only great centre of union among
all the widely dispersed Greeks, are now added three other sacred
_Agones_ of the like public, open, national character; constituting
visible marks, as well as tutelary bonds, of collective Hellenism, and
insuring to every Greek who went to compete in the matches, a safe and
inviolate transit even through hostile Hellenic states. These four, all
in or near Peloponnesus, and one of which occurred in each year, formed
the period or cycle of sacred games, and those who had gained prizes at
all the four received the enviable designation of Periodonices. The
honors paid to Olympic victors, on their return to their native city,
were prodigious even in the sixth century B.C., and became even more
extravagant afterward. We may remark that in the Olympic games alone,
the oldest as well as the most illustrious of the four, the musical and
intellectual element was wanting. All the three more recent _Agones_
included crowns for exercises of music and poetry, along with
gymnastics, chariots, and horses.

It was not only in the distinguishing national stamp set upon these
four great festivals, that the gradual increase of Hellenic family
feeling exhibited itself, during the course of this earliest period of
Grecian history. Pursuant to the same tendencies, religious festivals
in all the considerable towns gradually became more and more open and
accessible, attracting guests as well as competitors from beyond the
border. The comparative dignity of the city, as well as the honor
rendered to the presiding god, were measured by the numbers, admiration,
and envy, of the frequenting visitors. There is no positive evidence
indeed of such expansion in the Attic festivals earlier than the reign
of Pisistratus, who first added the quadrennial or greater Panathenæ
to the ancient annual or lesser Panathenæa. Nor can we trace the steps
of progress in regard to Thebes, Orchomenus, Thespiæ, Megara, Sicyon,
Pellene, Ægina, Argos, etc., but we find full reason for believing that
such was the general reality. Of the Olympic or Isthmian victors whom
Pindar and Simonides celebrated, many derived a portion of their
renown from previous victories acquired at several of these local
contests--victories sometimes so numerous as to prove how widespread
the habit of reciprocal frequentation had become: though we find, even
in the third century B.C., treaties of alliance between different cities
in which it is thought necessary to confer such mutual right by express
stipulation. Temptation was offered, to the distinguished gymnastic or
musical competitors, by prizes of great value. Timæus even asserted,
as a proof of the overweening pride of Croton and Sybaris, that these
cities tried to supplant the preëminence of the Olympic games by
instituting games of their own with the richest prizes to be celebrated
at the same time--a statement in itself not worthy of credit, yet
nevertheless illustrating the animated rivalry known to prevail among
the Grecian cities in procuring for themselves splendid and crowded
games. At the time when the Homeric hymn to Demeter was composed, the
worship of that goddess seems to have been purely local at Eleusis. But
before the Persian war, the festival celebrated by the Athenians every
year, in honor of the Eleusinian Demeter, admitted Greeks of all cities
to be initiated, and was attended by vast crowds of them.

It was thus that the simplicity and strict local application of the
primitive religious festival among the greater states in Greece
gradually expanded, on certain great occasions periodically recurring,
into an elaborate and regulated series of exhibitions not merely
admitting, but soliciting, the fraternal presence of all Hellenic
spectators. In this respect Sparta seems to have formed an exception to
the remaining states. Her festivals were for herself alone, and her
general rudeness toward other Greeks was not materially softened even at
the Carneia and Hyacinthia, or Gymnopædiæ. On the other hand, the Attic
Dionysia were gradually exalted, from their original rude spontaneous
outburst of village feeling in thankfulness to the god, followed by
song, dance and revelry of various kinds, into costly and diversified
performances, first by a trained chorus, next by actors superadded to
it.

And the dramatic compositions thus produced, as they embodied the
perfection of Grecian art, so they were eminently calculated to invite a
pan-Hellenic audience and to encourage the sentiment of Hellenic unity.
The dramatic literature of Athens however belongs properly to a later
period. Previous to the year B.C. 560, we see only those commencements
of innovation which drew upon Thespis the rebuke of Solon; who however
himself contributed to impart to the Panathenaic festival a more solemn
and attractive character by checking the license of the rhapsodes and
insuring to those present a full orderly recital of the _Iliad_.

The sacred games and festivals took hold of the Greek mind by so great a
variety of feelings as to counterbalance in a high degree the political
disseverance, and to keep alive among their widespread cities, in the
midst of constant jealousy and frequent quarrel, a feeling of
brotherhood and congenial sentiment such as must otherwise have died
away. The Theors, or sacred envoys who came to Olympia or Delphi from so
many different points, all sacrificed to the same god and at the same
altar, witnessed the same sports, and contributed by their donatives to
enrich or adorn one respective scene. Moreover the festival afforded
opportunity for a sort of fair, including much traffic amid so large a
mass of spectators; and besides the exhibitions of the games themselves,
there were recitations and lectures in a spacious council-room for those
who chose to listen to them, by poets, rhapsodes, philosophers and
historians--among which last the history of Herodotus is said to have
been publicly read by its author. Of the wealthy and great men in the
various cities, many contended simply for the chariot-victories and
horse-victories. But there were others whose ambition was of a character
more strictly personal, and who stripped naked as runners, wrestlers,
boxers, or pancratiasts, having gone through the extreme fatigue of a
complete previous training. Cylon, whose unfortunate attempt to usurp
the scepter at Athens has been recounted, had gained the prize in the
Olympic stadium; Alexander son of Amyntas, the prince of Macedon, had
run for it; the great family of the Diagoridæ at Rhodes, who furnished
magistrates and generals to their native city, supplied a still greater
number of successful boxers and pancratiasts at Olympia, while other
instances also occur of generals named by various cities from the list
of successful Olympic gymnasts; and the odes of Pindar, always dearly
purchased, attest how many of the great and wealthy were found in that
list. The perfect popularity and equality of persons at these great
games, is a feature not less remarkable than the exact adherence to
predetermined rule, and the self-imposed submission of the immense crowd
to a handful of servants armed with sticks, who executed the orders of
the Elean Hellanodice. The ground upon which the ceremony took place,
and even the territory of the administering state, was protected by a
"Truce of God" during the month of the festival, the commencement of
which was formally announced by heralds sent round to the different
states. Treaties of peace between different cities were often formally
commemorated by pillars there erected, and the general impression of the
scene suggested nothing but ideas of peace and brotherhood among Greeks.
And I may remark that the impression of the games as belonging to all
Greeks, and to none but Greeks, was stronger and clearer during the
interval between B.C. 600-300 than it came to be afterward. For the
Macedonian conquests had the effect of diluting and corrupting
Hellenism, by spreading an exterior varnish of Hellenic tastes and
manners over a wide area of incongruous foreigners who were incapable of
the real elevation of the Hellenic character; so that although in later
times the games continued undiminished both in attraction and in number
of visitors, the spirit of pan-Hellenic communion which had once
animated the scene was gone forever.



SOLON'S EARLY GREEK LEGISLATION

B.C. 594

GEORGE GROTE


     Lycurgus, the reputed Spartan lawgiver, is credited with the
     construction, about B.C. 800, of the earliest Grecian commonwealth
     founded upon a specific code of laws. These laws had mainly a
     military basis, and through obedience to them the Spartans became a
     people of great hardiness, accustomed to self-discipline, famous
     for their prowess and endurance in war, and for sternness of
     individual and social virtues.

     In Athens there were no written laws until the time of Draco, B.C.
     621, the government before that period having been long in the
     hands of an oligarchy. In the year above named Draco was archon,
     and to him was intrusted the work of framing a legal code,
     conditions under the oligarchic rule having become intolerable to
     the people at large. The chief features of Draco's legislation had
     reference to the punishment of crime, and so extreme were the
     severities of the system and so cruel the penalties it prescribed
     that in later times it was declared to have been written in blood.

     The Draconian laws remained in force until superseded by the great
     system of Solon, whose advent as the new lawgiver was brought about
     mainly through the conspiracy of Cylon, twelve years after the
     legislation of Draco. Affairs in Athens were in a deplorable state
     of confusion and violence, the revolt of the poor against the power
     and privilege of the rich leading to dangerous dissensions and
     collisions. Solon, who enjoyed a universal reputation for wisdom
     and uprightness, was called upon by the oligarchy, which again held
     rule, to assume what was, in fact, almost absolute power. The
     character of his legislation and its influence upon the course of
     Greek history have been set forth by many authors, and the
     following account is perhaps the best that has appeared in modern
     literature.


Solon, son of Execestides, was a Eupatrid of middling fortune, but of
the purest heroic blood, belonging to the _gens_ or family of the
Codrids and Neleids, and tracing his origin to the god Poseidon. His
father is said to have diminished his substance by prodigality, which
compelled Solon in his earlier years to have recourse to trade, and in
this pursuit he visited many parts of Greece and Asia. He was thus
enabled to enlarge the sphere of his observation, and to provide
material for thought as well as for composition. His poetical talents
displayed themselves at a very early age, first on light, afterward on
serious subjects. It will be recollected that there was at that time no
Greek prose writing, and that the acquisitions as well as the effusions
of an intellectual man, even in their simplest form, adjusted themselves
not to the limitations of the period and the semicolon, but to those of
the hexameter and pentameter. Nor, in point of fact, do the verses of
Solon aspire to any higher effect than we are accustomed to associate
with an earnest, touching, and admonitory prose composition. The advice
and appeals which he frequently addressed to his countrymen were
delivered in this easy metre, doubtless far less difficult than the
elaborate prose of subsequent writers or speakers, such as Thucydides,
Isocrates, or Demosthenes. His poetry and his reputation became known
throughout many parts of Greece, so that he was classed along with
Thales of Miletus, Bias of Priene, Pittacus of Mitylene, Periander of
Corinth, Cleobulus of Lindus, Cheilon of Lacedæmon--altogether forming
the constellation afterward renowned as the seven wise men.

The first particular event in respect to which Solon appears as an
active politician, is the possession of the island of Salamis, then
disputed between Megara and Athens. Megara was at that time able to
contest with Athens, and for some time to contest with success, the
occupation of this important island--a remarkable fact, which perhaps
may be explained by supposing that the inhabitants of Athens and its
neighborhood carried on the struggle with only partial aid from the rest
of Attica. However this may be, it appears that the Megarians had
actually established themselves in Salamis, at the time when Solon began
his political career, and that the Athenians had experienced so much
loss in the struggle as to have formally prohibited any citizen from
ever submitting a proposition for its reconquest. Stung with this
dishonorable abnegation, Solon counterfeited a state of ecstatic
excitement, rushed into the agora, and there on the stone usually
occupied by the official herald, pronounced to the surrounding crowd a
short elegiac poem which he had previously composed on the subject of
Salamis. Enforcing upon them the disgrace of abandoning the island, he
wrought so powerfully upon their feelings that they rescinded the
prohibitory law. "Rather (he exclaimed) would I forfeit my native city
and become a citizen of Pholegandrus, than be still named an Athenian,
branded with the shame of surrendered Salamis!" The Athenians again
entered into the war, and conferred upon him the command of it--partly,
as we are told, at the instigation of Pisistratus, though the latter
must have been at this time (B.C. 600-594) a very young man, or rather a
boy.

The stories in Plutarch, as to the way in which Salamis was recovered,
are contradictory as well as apocryphal, ascribing to Solon various
stratagems to deceive the Megarian occupiers. Unfortunately no authority
is given for any of them. According to that which seems the most
plausible, he was directed by the Delphian god first to propitiate the
local heroes of the island; and he accordingly crossed over to it by
night, for the purpose of sacrificing to the heroes Periphemus and
Cychreus on the Salaminian shore. Five hundred Athenian volunteers were
then levied for the attack of the island, under the stipulation that if
they were victorious they should hold it in property and citizenship.
They were safely landed on an outlying promontory, while Solon, having
been fortunate enough to seize a ship which the Megarians had sent to
watch the proceedings, manned it with Athenians and sailed straight
toward the city of Salamis, to which the Athenians who had landed also
directed their march. The Megarians marched out from the city to repel
the latter, and during the heat of the engagement Solon, with his
Megarian ship and Athenian crew, sailed directly to the city. The
Megarians, interpreting this as the return of their own crew, permitted
the ship to approach without resistance, and the city was thus taken by
surprise. Permission having been given to the Megarians to quit the
island, Solon took possession of it for the Athenians, erecting a temple
to Enyalius, the god of war, on Cape Sciradium, near the city of
Salamis.

The citizens of Megara, however, made various efforts for the recovery
of so valuable a possession, so that a war ensued long as well as
disastrous to both parties. At last it was agreed between them to refer
the dispute to the arbitration of Sparta, and five Spartans were
appointed to decide it--Critolaidas, Amompharetus, Hypsechidas,
Anaxilas, and Cleomenes. The verdict in favor of Athens was founded on
evidence which it is somewhat curious to trace. Both parties attempted
to show that the dead bodies buried in the island conformed to their own
peculiar mode of interment, and both parties are said to have cited
verses from the catalogue of the _Iliad_--each accusing the other of
error or interpolation. But the Athenians had the advantage on two
points: first, there were oracles from Delphi, wherein Salamis was
mentioned with the epithet Ionian; next Philæus and Eurysaces, sons of
the Telamonian Ajax, the great hero of the island, had accepted the
citizenship of Athens, made over Salamis to the Athenians, and
transferred their own residences to Brauron and Melite in Attica, where
the _deme_, or _gens_, Philaidæ still worshipped Philæus as its
eponymous ancestor. Such a title was held sufficient, and Salamis was
adjudged by the five Spartans to Attica, with which it ever afterward
remained incorporated until the days of Macedonian supremacy. Two
centuries and a half later, when the orator Æschines argued the Athenian
right to Amphipolis against Philip of Macedon, the legendary elements of
the title were indeed put forward, but more in the way of preface or
introduction to the substantial political grounds. But in the year 600
B.C. the authority of the legend was more deep-seated and operative, and
adequate by itself to determine a favorable verdict.

In addition to the conquest of Salamis, Solon increased his reputation
by espousing the cause of the Delphian temple against the extortionate
proceedings of the inhabitants of Cirrha, and the favor of the oracle
was probably not without its effect in procuring for him that
encouraging prophecy with which his legislative career opened.

It is on the occasion of Solon's legislation that we obtain our first
glimpse--unfortunately but a glimpse--of the actual state of Attica and
its inhabitants. It is a sad and repulsive picture, presenting to us
political discord and private suffering combined.

Violent dissensions prevailed among the inhabitants of Attica, who were
separated into three factions--the Pedieis, or men of the plain,
comprising Athens, Eleusis, and the neighboring territory, among whom
the greatest number of rich families were included; the mountaineers in
the east and north of Attica, called Diacrii, who were, on the whole,
the poorest party; and the Paralii in the southern portion of Attica
from sea to sea, whose means and social position were intermediate
between the two. Upon what particular points these intestine disputes
turned we are not distinctly informed. They were not, however, peculiar
to the period immediately preceding the archonship of Solon. They had
prevailed before, and they reappear afterward prior to the despotism of
Pisistratus; the latter standing forward as the leader of the Diacrii,
and as champion, real or pretended, of the poorer population.

But in the time of Solon these intestine quarrels were aggravated by
something much more difficult to deal with--a general mutiny of the
poorer population against the rich, resulting from misery combined with
oppression. The Thetes, whose condition we have already contemplated in
the poems of Homer and Hesiod, are now presented to us as forming the
bulk of the population of Attica--the cultivating tenants, metayers, and
small proprietors of the country. They are exhibited as weighed down by
debts and dependence, and driven in large numbers out of a state of
freedom into slavery--the whole mass of them (we are told) being in debt
to the rich, who were proprietors of the greater part of the soil. They
had either borrowed money for their own necessities, or they tilled the
lands of the rich as dependent tenants, paying a stipulated portion of
the produce, and in this capacity they were largely in arrear.

All the calamitous effects were here seen of the old harsh law of debtor
and creditor--once prevalent in Greece, Italy, Asia, and a large portion
of the world--combined with the recognition of slavery as a legitimate
status, and of the right of one man to sell himself as well as that of
another man to buy him. Every debtor unable to fulfil his contract was
liable to be adjudged as the slave of his creditor, until he could find
means either of paying it or working it out; and not only he himself,
but his minor sons and unmarried daughters and sisters also, whom the
law gave him the power of selling. The poor man thus borrowed upon the
security of his body (to translate literally the Greek phrase) and upon
that of the persons in his family. So severely had these oppressive
contracts been enforced, that many debtors had been reduced from freedom
to slavery in Attica itself, many others had been sold for exportation,
and some had only hitherto preserved their own freedom by selling their
children. Moreover, a great number of the smaller properties in Attica
were under mortgage, signified--according to the formality usual in the
Attic law, and continued down throughout the historical times--by a
stone pillar erected on the land, inscribed with the name of the lender
and the amount of the loan. The proprietors of these mortgaged lands, in
case of an unfavorable turn of events, had no other prospect except that
of irremediable slavery for themselves and their families, either in
their own native country robbed of all its delights, or in some
barbarian region where the Attic accent would never meet their ears.
Some had fled the country to escape legal adjudication of their persons,
and earned a miserable subsistence in foreign parts by degrading
occupations. Upon several, too, this deplorable lot had fallen by unjust
condemnation and corrupt judges; the conduct of the rich, in regard to
money sacred and profane, in regard to matters public as well as
private, being thoroughly unprincipled and rapacious.

The manifold and long-continued suffering of the poor under this system,
plunged into a state of debasement not more tolerable than that of the
Gallic _plebs_--and the injustices of the rich, in whom all political
power was then vested--are facts well attested by the poems of Solon
himself, even in the short fragments preserved to us. It appears that
immediately preceding the time of his archonship the evils had ripened
to such a point, and the determination of the mass of sufferers to
extort for themselves some mode of relief had become so pronounced, that
the existing laws could no longer be enforced. According to the profound
remark of Aristotle--that seditions are generated by great causes but
out of small incidents--we may conceive that some recent events had
occurred as immediate stimulants to the outbreak of the debtors, like
those which lent so striking an interest to the early Roman annals, as
the inflaming sparks of violent popular movements for which the train
had long before been laid. Condemnations by the archons of insolvent
debtors may have been unusually numerous; or the maltreatment of some
particular debtor, once a respected freeman, in his condition of
slavery, may have been brought to act vividly upon the public
sympathies; like the case of the old plebeian centurion at Rome--first
impoverished by the plunder of the enemy, then reduced to borrow, and
lastly adjudged to his creditor as an insolvent--who claimed the
protection of the people in the forum, rousing their feelings to the
highest pitch by the marks of the slave-whip visible on his person. Some
such incidents had probably happened, though we have no historians to
recount them. Moreover, it is not unreasonable to imagine that that
public mental affliction which the purifier Epimenides had been invoked
to appease, as it sprung in part from pestilence, so it had its cause
partly in years of sterility, which must of course have aggravated the
distress of the small cultivators. However this may be, such was the
condition of things in B.C. 594 through mutiny of the poor freemen and
_Thetes_, and uneasiness of the middling citizens, that the governing
oligarchy, unable either to enforce their private debts or to maintain
their political power, were obliged to invoke the well-known wisdom and
integrity of Solon. Though his vigorous protest--which doubtless
rendered him acceptable to the mass of the people--against the iniquity
of the existing system had already been proclaimed in his poems, they
still hoped that he would serve as an auxiliary to help them over their
difficulties. They therefore chose him, nominally as archon along with
Philombrotus, but with power in substance dictatorial.

It had happened in several Grecian states that the governing
oligarchies, either by quarrels among their own members or by the
general bad condition of the people under their government, were
deprived of that hold upon the public mind which was essential to their
power. Sometimes--as in the case of Pittacus of Mitylene anterior to the
archonship of Solon, and often in the factions of the Italian republics
in the middle ages--the collision of opposing forces had rendered
society intolerable, and driven all parties to acquiesce in the choice
of some reforming dictator. Usually, however, in the early Greek
oligarchies, this ultimate crisis was anticipated by some ambitious
individual, who availed himself of the public discontent to overthrow
the oligarchy and usurp the powers of a despot. And so probably it
might have happened in Athens, had not the recent failure of Cylon, with
all its miserable consequences, operated as a deterring motive. It is
curious to read, in the words of Solon himself, the temper in which his
appointment was construed by a large portion of the community, but more
especially by his own friends: bearing in mind that at this early day,
so far as our knowledge goes, democratical government was a thing
unknown in Greece--all Grecian governments were either oligarchical or
despotic--the mass of the freemen having not yet tasted of
constitutional privilege. His own friends and supporters were the first
to urge him, while redressing the prevalent discontents, to multiply
partisans for himself personally, and seize the supreme power. They even
"chid him as a mad-man, for declining to haul up the net when the fish
were already enmeshed." The mass of the people, in despair with their
lot, would gladly have seconded him in such an attempt; while many even
among the oligarchy might have acquiesced in his personal government,
from the mere apprehension of something worse if they resisted it. That
Solon might easily have made himself despot admits of little doubt. And
though the position of a Greek despot was always perilous, he would have
had greater facility for maintaining himself in it than Pisistratus
possessed after him; so that nothing but the combination of prudence and
virtue, which marks his lofty character, restricted him within the trust
specially confided to him. To the surprise of every one--to the
dissatisfaction of his own friends--under the complaints alike (as he
says) of various extreme and dissentient parties, who required him to
adopt measures fatal to the peace of society--he set himself honestly to
solve the very difficult and critical problem submitted to him.

Of all grievances, the most urgent was the condition of the poorer class
of debtors. To their relief Solon's first measure, the memorable
_Seisachtheia_, or shaking off of burdens, was directed. The relief
which it afforded was complete and immediate. It cancelled at once all
those contracts in which the debtor had borrowed on the security either
of his person or of his land: it forbade all future loans or contracts
in which the person of the debtor was pledged as security; it deprived
the creditor in future of all power to imprison, or enslave, or extort
work, from his debtor, and confined him to an effective judgment at law
authorizing the seizure of the property of the latter. It swept off all
the numerous mortgage pillars from the landed properties in Attica,
leaving the land free from all past claims. It liberated and restored to
their full rights all debtors actually in slavery under previous legal
adjudication; and it even provided the means (we do not know how) of
repurchasing in foreign lands, and bringing back to a renewed life of
liberty in Attica, many insolvents who had been sold for exportation.
And while Solon forbade every Athenian to pledge or sell his own person
into slavery, he took a step farther in the same direction by forbidding
him to pledge or sell his son, his daughter, or an unmarried sister
under his tutelage--excepting only the case in which either of the
latter might be detected in unchastity. Whether this last ordinance was
contemporaneous with the Seisachtheia, or followed as one of his
subsequent reforms, seems doubtful.

By this extensive measure the poor debtors--the Thetes, small tenants,
and proprietors--together with their families, were rescued from
suffering and peril. But these were not the only debtors in the state:
the creditors and landlords of the exonerated Thetes were doubtless in
their turn debtors to others, and were less able to discharge their
obligations in consequence of the loss inflicted upon them by the
Seisachtheia. It was to assist these wealthier debtors, whose bodies
were in no danger--yet without exonerating them entirely--that Solon
resorted to the additional expedient of debasing the money standard. He
lowered the standard of the drachma in a proportion of something more
than 25 per cent., so that 100 drachmas of the new standard contained no
more silver than 73 of the old, or 100 of the old were equivalent to 138
of the new. By this change the creditors of these more substantial
debtors were obliged to submit to a loss, while the debtors acquired an
exemption to the extent of about 27 per cent.

Lastly, Solon decreed that all those who had been condemned by the
archons to _atimy_ (civil disfranchisement) should be restored to their
full privileges of citizens--excepting, however, from this indulgence
those who had been condemned by the Ephetæ, or by the Areopagus, or by
the Phylo-Basileis (the four kings of the tribes), after trial in the
Prytaneum, on charges either of murder or treason. So wholesale a
measure of amnesty affords strong grounds for believing that the
previous judgments of the archons had been intolerably harsh; and it is
to be recollected that the Draconian ordinances were then in force.

Such were the measures of relief with which Solon met the dangerous
discontent then prevalent. That the wealthy men and leaders of the
people--whose insolence and iniquity he has himself severely denounced
in his poems, and whose views in nominating him he had greatly
disappointed--should have detested propositions which robbed them
without compensation of many legal rights, it is easy to imagine. But
the statement of Plutarch that the poor emancipated debtors were also
dissatisfied, from having expected that Solon would not only remit their
debts, but also redivide the soil of Attica, seems utterly incredible;
nor is it confirmed by any passage now remaining of the Solonian poems.
Plutarch conceives the poor debtors as having in their minds the
comparison with Lycurgus and the equality of property at Sparta, which,
in my opinion, is clearly a matter of fiction; and even had it been true
as a matter of history long past and antiquated, would not have been
likely to work upon the minds of the multitude of Attica in the forcible
way that the biographer supposes. The Seisachtheia must have exasperated
the feelings and diminished the fortunes of many persons; but it gave to
the large body of Thetes and small proprietors all that they could
possibly have hoped. We are told that after a short interval it became
eminently acceptable in the general public mind, and procured for Solon
a great increase of popularity--all ranks concurring in a common
sacrifice of thanksgiving and harmony. One incident there was which
occasioned an outcry of indignation. Three rich friends of Solon, all
men of great family in the state, and bearing names which appear in
history as borne by their descendants--namely: Conon, Cleinias, and
Hipponicus--having obtained from Solon some previous hint of his
designs, profited by it, first to borrow money, and next to make
purchases of lands; and this selfish breach of confidence would have
disgraced Solon himself, had it not been found that he was personally a
great loser, having lent money to the extent of five talents.

In regard to the whole measure of the Seisachtheia, indeed, though the
poems of Solon were open to every one, ancient authors gave different
statements both of its purport and of its extent. Most of them construed
it as having cancelled indiscriminately all money contracts; while
Androtion and others thought that it did nothing more than lower the
rate of interest and depreciate the currency to the extent of 27 per
cent., leaving the letter of the contracts unchanged. How Androtion came
to maintain such an opinion we cannot easily understand. For the
fragments now remaining from Solon seem distinctly to refute it, though,
on the other hand, they do not go so far as to substantiate the full
extent of the opposite view entertained by many writers--that all money
contracts indiscriminately were rescinded--against which there is also a
further reason, that if the fact had been so, Solon could have had no
motive to debase the money standard. Such debasement supposes that there
must have been _some_ debtors at least whose contracts remained valid,
and whom nevertheless he desired partially to assist. His poems
distinctly mention three things: 1. The removal of the mortgage-pillars.
2. The enfranchisement of the land. 3. The protection, liberation, and
restoration of the persons of endangered or enslaved debtors. All these
expressions point distinctly to the Thetes and small proprietors, whose
sufferings and peril were the most urgent, and whose case required a
remedy immediate as well as complete. We find that his repudiation of
debts was carried far enough to exonerate them, but no farther.

It seems to have been the respect entertained for the character of Solon
which partly occasioned these various misconceptions of his ordinances
for the relief of debtors. Androtion in ancient, and some eminent
critics in modern times are anxious to make out that he gave relief
without loss or injustice to any one. But this opinion seems
inadmissible. The loss to creditors by the wholesale abrogation of
numerous preëxisting contracts, and by the partial depreciation of the
coin, is a fact not to be disguised. The Seisachtheia of Solon, unjust
so far as it rescinded previous agreements, but highly salutary in its
consequences, is to be vindicated by showing that in no other way could
the bonds of government have been held together, or the misery of the
multitude alleviated. We are to consider, first, the great personal
cruelty of these preëxisting contracts, which condemned the body of the
free debtor and his family to slavery; next, the profound detestation
created by such a system in the large mass of the poor, against both the
judges and the creditors by whom it had been enforced, which rendered
their feelings unmanageable so soon as they came together under the
sentiment of a common danger and with the determination to insure to
each other mutual protection. Moreover, the law which vests a creditor
with power over the person of his debtor so as to convert him into a
slave, is likely to give rise to a class of loans which inspire nothing
but abhorrence--money lent with the foreknowledge that the borrower will
be unable to repay it, but also in the conviction that the value of his
person as a slave will make good the loss; thus reducing him to a
condition of extreme misery, for the purpose sometimes of aggrandizing,
sometimes of enriching, the lender. Now the foundation on which the
respect for contracts rests, under a good law of debtor and creditor, is
the very reverse of this. It rests on the firm conviction that such
contracts are advantageous to both parties as a class, and that to break
up the confidence essential to their existence would produce extensive
mischief throughout all society. The man whose reverence for the
obligation of a contract is now the most profound, would have
entertained a very different sentiment if he had witnessed the dealings
of lender and borrower at Athens under the old ante-Solonian law. The
oligarchy had tried their best to enforce this law of debtor and
creditor with its disastrous series of contracts, and the only reason
why they consented to invoke the aid of Solon was because they had lost
the power of enforcing it any longer, in consequence of the newly
awakened courage and combination of the people. That which they could
not do for themselves, Solon could not have done for them, even had he
been willing. Nor had he in his position the means either of exempting
or compensating those creditors who, separately taken, were open to no
reproach; indeed, in following his proceedings, we see plainly that he
thought compensation due, not to the creditors, but to the past
sufferings of the enslaved debtor, since he redeemed several of them
from foreign captivity, and brought them back to their homes. It is
certain that no measure simply and exclusively prospective would have
sufficed for the emergency. There was an absolute necessity for
overruling all that class of preëxisting rights which had produced so
violent a social fever. While, therefore, to this extent, the
Seisachtheia cannot be acquitted of injustice, we may confidently affirm
that the injustice inflicted was an indispensable price paid for the
maintenance of the peace of society, and for the final abrogation of a
disastrous system as regarded insolvents. And the feeling as well as the
legislation universal in the modern European world, by interdicting
beforehand all contracts for selling a man's person or that of his
children into slavery, goes far to sanction practically the Solonian
repudiation.

One thing is never to be forgotten in regard to this measure, combined
with the concurrent amendments introduced by Solon in the law--it
settled finally the question to which it referred. Never again do we
hear of the law of debtor and creditor as disturbing Athenian
tranquillity. The general sentiment which grew up at Athens, under the
Solonian money-law and under the democratical government, was one of
high respect for the sanctity of contracts. Not only was there never any
demand in the Athenian democracy for new tables or a depreciation of the
money standard, but a formal abnegation of any such projects was
inserted in the solemn oath taken annually by the numerous Dicasts, who
formed the popular judicial body called Heliæa or the Heliastic jurors:
the same oath which pledged them to uphold the democratical
constitution, also bound them to repudiate all proposals either for an
abrogation of debts or for a redivision of the lands. There can be
little doubt that under the Solonian law, which enabled the creditor to
seize the property of his debtor, but gave him no power over the person,
the system of money-lending assumed a more beneficial character. The old
noxious contracts, mere snares for the liberty of a poor freeman and his
children, disappeared, and loans of money took their place, founded on
the property and prospective earnings of the debtor, which were in the
main useful to both parties, and therefore maintained their place in the
moral sentiment of the public. And though Solon had found himself
compelled to rescind all the mortgages on land subsisting in his time,
we see money freely lent upon this same security throughout the
historical times of Athens, and the evidentiary mortgage-pillars
remaining ever after undisturbed.

In the sentiment of an early society, as in the old Roman law, a
distinction is commonly made between the principal and the interest of a
loan, though the creditors have sought to blend them indissolubly
together. If the borrower cannot fulfil his promise to repay the
principal, the public will regard him as having committed a wrong which
he must make good by his person. But there is not the same unanimity as
to his promise to pay interest: on the contrary, the very exaction of
interest will be regarded by many in the same light in which the English
law considers usurious interest, as tainting the whole transaction. But
in the modern mind, principal, and interest within a limited rate, have
so grown together, that we hardly understand how it can ever have been
pronounced unworthy of an honorable citizen to lend money on interest.
Yet such is the declared opinion of Aristotle and other superior men of
antiquity; while at Rome, Cato the censor went so far as to denounce the
practice as a heinous crime. It was comprehended by them among the worst
of the tricks of trade--and they held that all trade, or profit derived
from interchange, was unnatural, as being made by one man at the expense
of another; such pursuits therefore could not be commended, though they
might be tolerated to a certain extent as a matter of necessity, but
they belonged essentially to an inferior order of citizens. What is
remarkable in Greece is, that the antipathy of a very early state of
society against traders and money-lenders lasted longer among the
philosophers than among the mass of the people--it harmonized more with
the social _idéal_ of the former, than with the practical instincts of
the latter.

In a rude condition such as that of the ancient Germans described by
Tacitus, loans on interest are unknown. Habitually careless of the
future, the Germans were gratified both in giving and receiving
presents, but without any idea that they thereby either imposed or
contracted an obligation. To a people in this state of feeling, a loan
on interest presents the repulsive idea of making profit out of the
distress of the borrower. Moreover, it is worthy of remark that the
first borrowers must have been for the most part men driven to this
necessity by the pressure of want, and contracting debt as a desperate
resource, without any fair prospect of ability to repay: debt and famine
run together in the mind of the poet Hesiod. The borrower is, in this
unhappy state, rather a distressed man soliciting aid than a solvent man
capable of making and fulfilling a contract. If he cannot find a friend
to make him a free gift in the former character, he will not, under the
latter character, obtain a loan from a stranger, except by the promise
of exorbitant interest, and by the fullest eventual power over his
person which he is in a condition to grant. In process of time a new
class of borrowers arise who demand money for temporary convenience or
profit, but with full prospect of repayment--a relation of lender and
borrower quite different from that of the earlier period, when it
presented itself in the repulsive form of misery on the one side, set
against the prospect of very large profit on the other. If the Germans
of the time of Tacitus looked to the condition of the poor debtors in
Gaul, reduced to servitude under a rich creditor, and swelling by
hundreds the crowd of his attendants, they would not be disposed to
regret their own ignorance of the practice of money-lending. How much
the interest of money was then regarded as an undue profit extorted from
distress is powerfully illustrated by the old Jewish law; the Jew being
permitted to take interest from foreigners--whom the lawgiver did not
think himself obliged to protect--but not from his own countrymen. The
_Koran_ follows out this point of view consistently, and prohibits the
taking of interest altogether. In most other nations laws have been made
to limit the rate of interest, and at Rome especially the legal rate was
successively lowered--though it seems, as might have been expected, that
the restrictive ordinances were constantly eluded. All such restrictions
have been intended for the protection of debtors; an effect which large
experience proves them never to produce, unless it be called protection
to render the obtaining of money on loan impracticable for the most
distressed borrowers. But there was another effect which they _did_
tend to produce--they softened down the primitive antipathy against the
practice generally, and confined the odious name of usury to loans lent
above the fixed legal rate.

In this way alone could they operate beneficially, and their tendency to
counterwork the previous feeling was at that time not unimportant,
coinciding as it did with other tendencies arising out of the industrial
progress of society, which gradually exhibited the relation of lender
and borrower in a light more reciprocal, beneficial, and less repugnant
to the sympathies of the bystander.

At Athens the more favorable point of view prevailed throughout all the
historical times. The march of industry and commerce, under the
mitigated law which prevailed subsequently to Solon, had been sufficient
to bring it about at a very early period and to suppress all public
antipathy against lenders at interest. We may remark, too, that this
more equitable tone of opinion grew up spontaneously, without any legal
restriction on the rate of interest--no such restriction having ever
been imposed and the rate being expressly declared free by a law
ascribed to Solon himself. The same may probably be said of the
communities of Greece generally--at least there is no information to
make us suppose the contrary. But the feeling against lending money at
interest remained in the bosoms of the philosophical men long after it
had ceased to form a part of the practical morality of the citizens, and
long after it had ceased to be justified by the appearances of the case
as at first it really had been. Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and Plutarch,
treat the practice as a branch of the commercial and money-getting
spirit which they are anxious to discourage; and one consequence of this
was that they were, less disposed to contend strenuously for the
inviolability of existing money-contracts. The conservative feeling on
this point was stronger among the mass than among the philosophers.
Plato even complains of it as inconveniently preponderant, and as
arresting the legislator in all comprehensive projects of reform. For
the most part, indeed, schemes of cancelling debts and redividing lands
were never thought of except by men of desperate and selfish ambition,
who made them stepping-stones to despotic power. Such men were
denounced alike by the practical sense of the community and by the
speculative thinkers: but when we turn to the case of the Spartan king,
Agis III, who proposed a complete extinction of debts and an equal
redivision of the landed property of the state, not with any selfish or
personal views, but upon pure ideas of patriotism, well or ill
understood, and for the purpose of renovating the lost ascendancy of
Sparta--we find Plutarch expressing the most unqualified admiration of
this young king and his projects, and treating the opposition made to
him as originating in no better feelings than meanness and cupidity. The
philosophical thinkers on politics conceived--and to a great degree
justly, as I shall show hereafter--that the conditions of security, in
the ancient world, imposed upon the citizens generally the absolute
necessity of keeping up a military spirit and willingness to brave at
all times personal hardship and discomfort: so that increase of wealth,
on account of the habits of self-indulgence which it commonly
introduces, was regarded by them with more or less of disfavor. If in
their estimation any Grecian community had become corrupt, they were
willing to sanction great interference with preëxisting rights for the
purpose of bringing it back nearer to their ideal standard. And the real
security for the maintenance of these rights lay in the conservative
feelings of the citizens generally, much more than in the opinions which
superior minds imbibed from the philosophers.

Such conservative feelings were in the subsequent Athenian democracy
peculiarly deep-rooted. The mass of the Athenian people identified
inseparably the maintenance of property in all its various shapes with
that of their laws and constitution. And it is a remarkable fact, that
though the admiration entertained at Athens for Solon was universal, the
principle of his Seisachtheia and of his money-depreciation was not only
never imitated, but found the strongest tacit reprobation; whereas at
Rome, as well as in most of the kingdoms of modern Europe, we know that
one debasement of the coin succeeded another. The temptation of thus
partially eluding the pressure of financial embarrassments proved, after
one successful trial, too strong to be resisted, and brought down the
coin by successive depreciations from the full pound of twelve ounces to
the standard of one half ounce. It is of some importance to take notice
of this fact, when we reflect how much "Grecian faith" has been degraded
by the Roman writers into a byword for duplicity in pecuniary dealings.
The democracy of Athens--and indeed the cities of Greece generally, both
oligarchies and democracies--stands far above the senate of Rome, and
far above the modern kingdoms of France and England until comparatively
recent times, in respect of honest dealing with the coinage. Moreover,
while there occurred at Rome several political changes which brought
about new tables, or at least a partial depreciation of contracts, no
phenomenon of the same kind ever happened at Athens, during the three
centuries between Solon and the end of the free working of the
democracy, Doubtless there were fraudulent debtors at Athens; while the
administration of private law, though not in any way conniving at their
proceedings, was far too imperfect to repress them as effectually as
might have been wished. But the public sentiment on the point was just
and decided. It may be asserted with confidence that a loan of money at
Athens was quite as secure as it ever was at any time or place of the
ancient world--in spite of the great and important superiority of Rome
with respect to the accumulation of a body of authoritative legal
precedent, the source of what was ultimately shaped into the Roman
jurisprudence. Among the various causes of sedition or mischief in the
Grecian communities, we hear little of the pressure of private debt.

By the measures of relief above described, Solon had accomplished
results surpassing his own best hopes. He had healed the prevailing
discontents; and such was the confidence and gratitude which he had
inspired, that he was now called upon to draw up a constitution and laws
for the better working of the government in future. His constitutional
changes were great and valuable: respecting his laws, what we hear is
rather curious than important.

It has been already stated that, down to the time of Solon, the
classification received in Attica was that of the four Ionic tribes,
comprising in one scale the Phratries and Gentes, and in another scale
the three Trittyes and forty-eight Naucraries--while the Eupatridæ,
seemingly a few specially respected gentes, and perhaps a few
distinguished families in all the gentes, had in their hands all the
powers of government. Solon introduced a new principle of
classification--called in Greek the "timocratic principle." He
distributed all the citizens of the tribes, without any reference to
their gentes or phratries, into four classes, according to the amount of
their property, which he caused to be assessed and entered in a public
schedule. Those whose annual income was equal to five hundred medimni of
corn (about seven hundred imperial bushels) and upward--one medimnus
being considered equivalent to one drachma in money--he placed in the
highest class; those who received between three hundred and five hundred
medimni or drachmas formed the second class; and those between two
hundred and three hundred, the third. The fourth and most numerous class
comprised all those who did not possess land yielding a produce equal to
two hundred medimni. The first class, called Pentacosiomedimni, were
alone eligible to the archonship and to all commands: the second were
called the knights or horsemen of the state, as possessing enough to
enable them to keep a horse and perform military service in that
capacity: the third class, called the [Greek: Zeugitæ], formed the
heavy-armed infantry, and were bound to serve, each with his full
panoply. Each of these three classes was entered in the public schedule
as possessed of a taxable capital calculated with a certain reference to
his annual income, but in a proportion diminishing according to the
scale of that income--and a man paid taxes to the state according to the
sum for which he stood rated in the schedule; so that this direct
taxation acted really like a graduated income-tax. The ratable property
of the citizen belonging to the richest class (the Pentacosiomedimnus)
was calculated and entered on the state schedule at a sum of capital
equal to twelve times his annual income; that of the Hippeus, horseman
or knight, at a sum equal to ten times his annual income: that of the
Zeugite, at a sum equal to five times his annual income. Thus a
Pentacosiomedimnus, whose income was exactly 500 drachmas (the minimum
qualification of his class), stood rated in the schedule for a taxable
property of 6,000 drachmas or one talent, being twelve times his
income--if his annual income were 1,000 drachmas, he would stand rated
for 12,000 drachmas or two talents, being the same proportion of income
to ratable capital. But when we pass to the second class, horsemen or
knights, the proportion of the two is changed. The horseman possessing
an income of just 300 drachmas (or 300 medimni) would stand rated for
3,000 drachmas, or ten times his real income, and so in the same
proportion for any income above 300 and below 500. Again, in the third
class, or below 300, the proportion is a second time altered--the
Zeugite possessing exactly 200 drachmas of income was rated upon a still
lower calculation, at 1,000 drachmas, or a sum equal to five times his
income; and all incomes of this class (between 200 and 300 drachmas)
would in like manner be multiplied by five in order to obtain the amount
of ratable capital. Upon these respective sums of schedule capital all
direct taxation was levied. If the state required 1 percent of direct
tax, the poorest Pentacosiomedimnus would pay (upon 6,000 drachmas) 60
drachmas; the poorest Hippeus would pay (upon 3,000 drachmas) 30; the
poorest Zeugite would pay (upon 1,000 drachmas) 10 drachmas. And thus
this mode of assessment would operate like a _graduated_ income-tax,
looking at it in reference to the three different classes--but as an
_equal_ income-tax, looking at it in reference to the different
individuals comprised in one and the same class.

All persons in the state whose annual income amounted to less than two
hundred medimni or drachmas were placed in the fourth class, and they
must have constituted the large majority of the community. They were not
liable to any direct taxation, and perhaps were not at first even
entered upon the taxable schedule, more especially as we do not know
that any taxes were actually levied upon this schedule during the
Solonian times. It is said that they were all called Thetes, but this
appellation is not well sustained, and cannot be admitted: the fourth
compartment in the descending scale was indeed termed the Thetic census,
because it contained all the Thetes, and because most of its members
were of that humble description; but it is not conceivable that a
proprietor whose land yielded to him a clear annual return of 100, 120,
140, or 180 drachmas, could ever have been designated by that name.

Such were the divisions in the political scale established by Solon,
called by Aristotle a _timocracy_, in which the rights, honors,
functions, and liabilities of the citizens were measured out according
to the assessed property of each. The highest honors of the state--that
is, the places of the nine archons annually chosen, as well as those in
the senate of Areopagus, into which the past archons always entered
(perhaps also the posts of Prytanes of the Naukrari) were reserved for
the first class: the poor Eupatrids became ineligible, while rich men,
not Eupatrids, were admitted. Other posts of inferior distinction were
filled by the second and third classes, who were, moreover, bound to
military service--the one on horseback, the other as heavy-armed
soldiers on foot. Moreover, the _liturgies_ of the state, as they were
called--unpaid functions such as the trierarchy, choregy, gymnasiarchy,
etc., which entailed expense and trouble on the holder of them--were
distributed in some way or other between the members of the three
classes, though we do not know how the distribution was made in these
early times. On the other hand, the members of the fourth or lowest
class were disqualified from holding any individual office of dignity.
They performed no liturgies, served in case of war only as light-armed
or with a panoply provided by the state, and paid nothing to the direct
property-tax or Eisphora. It would be incorrect to say that they paid
_no_ taxes, for indirect taxes, such as duties on imports, fell upon
them in common with the rest; and we must recollect that these latter
were, throughout a long period of Athenian history, in steady operation,
while the direct taxes were only levied on rare occasions.

But though this fourth class, constituting the great numerical majority
of the free people, were shut out from individual office, their
collective importance was in another way greatly increased. They were
invested with the right of choosing the annual archons, out of the class
of Pentacosiomedimni; and what was of more importance still, the archons
and the magistrates generally, after their year of office, instead of
being accountable to the senate of Areopagus, were made formally
accountable to the public assembly sitting in judgment upon their past
conduct. They might be impeached and called upon to defend themselves,
punished in case of misbehavior, and debarred from the usual honor of a
seat in the senate of Areopagus.

Had the public assembly been called upon to act alone without aid or
guidance, this accountability would have proved only nominal. But Solon
converted it into a reality by another new institution, which will
hereafter be found of great moment in the working out of the Athenian
democracy. He created the pro-bouleutic, or pre-considering senate, with
intimate and especial reference to the public assembly--to prepare
matters for its discussion, to convoke and superintend its meetings, and
to insure the execution of its decrees. The senate, as first constituted
by Solon, comprised four hundred members, taken in equal proportions
from the four tribes; not chosen by lot, as they will be found to be in
the more advanced stage of the democracy, but elected by the people, in
the same way as the archons then were--persons of the fourth, or poorest
class of the census, though contributing to elect, not being themselves
eligible.

But while Solon thus created the new pre-considering senate, identified
with and subsidiary to the popular assembly, he manifested no jealousy
of the preëxisting Areopagitic senate. On the contrary, he enlarged its
powers, gave to it an ample supervision over the execution of the laws
generally, and imposed upon it the censorial duty of inspecting the
lives and occupation of the citizens, as well as of punishing men of
idle and dissolute habits. He was himself, as past archon, a member of
this ancient senate, and he is said to have contemplated that by means
of the two senates the state would be held fast, as it were with a
double anchor, against all shocks and storms.

Such are the only new political institutions (apart from the laws to be
noticed presently) which there are grounds for ascribing to Solon, when
we take proper care to discriminate what really belongs to Solon and his
age from the Athenian constitution as afterward remodelled. It has been
a practice common with many able expositors of Grecian affairs, and
followed partly even by Dr. Thirlwall, to connect the name of Solon with
the whole political and judicial state of Athens as it stood between the
age of Pericles and that of Demosthenes--the regulations of the senate
of five hundred, the numerous public dicasts or jurors taken by lot from
the people--as well as the body annually selected for law-revision, and
called _nomothets_--and the open prosecution (called the _graphe
paranomon_) to be instituted against the proposer of any measure
illegal, unconstitutional, or dangerous. There is indeed some
countenance for this confusion between Solonian and post-Solonian
Athens, in the usage of the orators themselves. For Demosthenes and
Æschines employ the name of Solon in a very loose manner, and treat him
as the author of institutions belonging evidently to a later age--for
example: the striking and characteristic oath of the Heliastic jurors,
which Demosthenes ascribes to Solon, proclaims itself in many ways as
belonging to the age after Clisthenes, especially by the mention of the
senate of five hundred, and not of four hundred. Among the citizens who
served as jurors or dicasts, Solon was venerated generally as the author
of the Athenian laws. An orator, therefore, might well employ his name
for the purpose of emphasis, without provoking any critical inquiry
whether the particular institution, which he happened to be then
impressing upon his audience, belonged really to Solon himself or to the
subsequent periods. Many of those institutions, which Dr. Thirlwall
mentions in conjunction with the name of Solon, are among the last
refinements and elaborations of the democratical mind of
Athens--gradually prepared, doubtless, during the interval between
Clisthenes and Pericles, but not brought into full operation until the
period of the latter (B.C. 460-429). For it is hardly possible to
conceive these numerous dicasteries and assemblies in regular, frequent,
and long-standing operation, without an assured payment to the dicasts
who composed them. Now such payment first began to be made about the
time of Pericles, if not by his actual proposition; and Demosthenes had
good reason for contending that if it were suspended, the judicial as
well as the administrative system of Athens would at once fall to
pieces. It would be a marvel, such as nothing short of strong direct
evidence would justify us in believing, that in an age when even partial
democracy was yet untried, Solon should conceive the idea of such
institutions; it would be a marvel still greater, that the
half-emancipated Thetes and small proprietors, for whom he
legislated--yet trembling under the rod of the Eupatrid archons, and
utterly inexperienced in collective business--should have been found
suddenly competent to fulfil these ascendant functions, such as the
citizens of conquering Athens in the days of Pericles, full of the
sentiment of force and actively identifying themselves with the dignity
of their community, became gradually competent, and not more than
competent, to exercise with effect. To suppose that Solon contemplated
and provided for the periodical revision of his laws by establishing a
nomothetic jury or dicastery, such as that which we find in operation
during the time of Demosthenes, would be at variance (in my judgment)
with any reasonable estimate either of the man or of the age. Herodotus
says that Solon, having exacted from the Athenians solemn oaths that
_they_ would not rescind any of his laws for ten years, quitted Athens
for that period, in order that he might not be compelled to rescind them
himself. Plutarch informs us that he gave to his laws force for a
century. Solon himself, and Draco before him, had been lawgivers evoked
and empowered by the special emergency of the times: the idea of a
frequent revision of laws, by a body of lot-selected dicasts, belongs to
a far more advanced age, and could not well have been present to the
minds of either. The wooden rollers of Solon, like the tables of the
Roman decemvìrs, were doubtless intended as a permanent "_fons omnis
publici privatique juris_".

If we examine the facts of the case, we shall see that nothing more than
the bare foundation of the democracy of Athens as it stood in the time
of Pericles can reasonably be ascribed to Solon. "I gave to the people
(Solon says in one of his short remaining fragments) as much strength as
sufficed for their needs, without either enlarging or diminishing their
dignity: for those too, who possessed power and were noted for wealth, I
took care that no unworthy treatment should be reserved. I stood with
the strong shield cast over both parties so as not to allow an unjust
triumph to either." Again, Aristotle tells us that Solon bestowed upon
the people as much power as was indispensable, but no more: the power to
elect their magistrates and hold them to accountability: if the people
had had less than this, they could not have been expected to remain
tranquil--they would have been in slavery and hostile to the
constitution. Not less distinctly does Herodotus speak, when he
describes the revolution subsequently operated by Clisthenes--the
latter (he tells us) found "the Athenian people excluded from
everything." These passages seem positively to contradict the
supposition, in itself sufficiently improbable, that Solon is the author
of the peculiar democratical institutions of Athens, such as the
constant and numerous dicasts for judicial trials and revision of laws.
The genuine and forward democratical movement of Athens begins only with
Clisthenes, from the moment when that distinguished Alcmæonid, either
spontaneously, or from finding himself worsted in his party strife with
Isagoras, purchased by large popular concessions the hearty coöperation
of the multitude under very dangerous circumstances. While Solon, in his
own statement as well as in that of Aristotle, gave to the people as
much power as was strictly needful--but no more--Clisthenes (to use the
significant phrase of Herodotus), "being vanquished in the party contest
with his rival, _took the people into partnership_." It was, thus, to
the interests of the weaker section, in a strife of contending nobles,
that the Athenian people owed their first admission to political
ascendancy--in part, at least, to this cause, though the proceedings of
Clisthenes indicate a hearty and spontaneous popular sentiment. But such
constitutional admission of the people would not have been so
astonishingly fruitful in positive results, if the course of public
events for the half century after Clisthenes had not been such as to
stimulate most powerfully their energy, their self-reliance, their
mutual sympathies, and their ambition. I shall recount in a future
chapter these historical causes, which, acting upon the Athenian
character, gave such efficiency and expansion to the great democratical
impulse communicated by Clisthenes: at present it is enough to remark
that that impulse commences properly with Clisthenes, and not with
Solon.

But the Solonian constitution, though only the foundation, was yet the
indispensable foundation, of the subsequent democracy. And if the
discontents of the miserable Athenian population, instead of
experiencing his disinterested and healing management, had fallen at
once into the hands of selfish power-seekers like Cylon or
Pisistratus--the memorable expansion of the Athenian mind during the
ensuing century would never have taken place, and the whole subsequent
history of Greece would probably have taken a different course. Solon
left the essential powers of the state still in the hands of the
oligarchy. The party combats between Pisistratus, Lycurgus, and
Megacles, thirty years after his legislation, which ended in the
despotism of Pisistratus, will appear to be of the same purely
oligarchical character as they had been before Solon was appointed
archon. But the oligarchy which he established was very different from
the unmitigated oligarchy which he found, so teeming with oppression and
so destitute of redress, as his own poems testify.

It was he who first gave both to the citizens of middling property and
to the general mass a _locus standi_ against the Eupatrids. He enabled
the people partially to protect themselves, and familiarized them with
the idea of protecting themselves, by the peaceful exercise of a
constitutional franchise. The new force, through which this protection
was carried into effect, was the public assembly called _Heliæa_,
regularized and armed with enlarged prerogatives and further
strengthened by its indispensable ally--the pro-bouleutic, or
pre-considering, senate. Under the Solonian constitution, this force was
merely secondary and defensive, but after the renovation of Clisthenes
it became paramount and sovereign. It branched out gradually into those
numerous popular dicasteries which so powerfully modified both public
and private Athenian life, drew to itself the undivided reverence and
submission of the people, and by degrees rendered the single
magistracies essentially subordinate functions. The popular assembly, as
constituted by Solon, appearing in modified efficiency and trained to
the office of reviewing and judging the general conduct of a past
magistrate--forms the intermediate stage between the passive Homeric
agora and those omnipotent assemblies and dicasteries which listened to
Pericles or Demosthenes. Compared with these last, it has in it but a
faint streak of democracy--and so it naturally appeared to Aristotle,
who wrote with a practical experience of Athens in the time of the
orators; but compared with the first, or with the ante-Solonian
constitution of Attica, it must doubtless have appeared a concession
eminently democratical. To impose upon the Eupatrid archon the necessity
of being elected, or put upon his trial of after-accountability, by the
_rabble_ of freemen (such would be the phrase in Eupatrid society),
would be a bitter humiliation to those among whom it was first
introduced; for we must recollect that this was the most extensive
scheme of constitutional reform yet propounded in Greece, and that
despots and oligarchies shared between them at that time the whole
Grecian world. As it appears that Solon, while constituting the popular
assembly with its pro-bouleutic senate, had no jealousy of the senate of
Areopagus, and indeed, even enlarged its powers, we may infer that his
grand object was, not to weaken the oligarchy generally, but to improve
the administration and to repress the misconduct and irregularities of
the individual archons; and that, too, not by diminishing their powers,
but by making some degree of popularity the condition both of their
entry into office, and of their safety or honor after it.

It is, in my judgment, a mistake to suppose that Solon transferred the
judicial power of the archons to a popular dicastery. These magistrates
still continued self-acting judges, deciding and condemning without
appeal--not mere presidents of an assembled jury, as they afterward came
to be during the next century. For the general exercise of such power
they were accountable after their year of office. Such accountability
was the security against abuse--a very insufficient security, yet not
wholly inoperative. It will be seen, however, presently that these
archons, though strong to coerce, and perhaps to oppress, small and poor
men, had no means of keeping down rebellious nobles of their own rank,
such as Pisistratus, Lycurgus, and Megacles, each with his armed
followers. When we compare the drawn swords of these ambitious
competitors, ending in the despotism of one of them, with the vehement
parliamentary strife between Themistocles and Aristides afterward,
peaceably decided by the vote of the sovereign people and never
disturbing the public tranquillity--we shall see that the democracy of
the ensuing century fulfilled the conditions of order, as well as of
progress, better than the Solonian constitution.

To distinguish this Solonian constitution from the democracy which
followed it, is essential to a due comprehension of the progress of the
Greek mind, and especially of Athenian affairs. That democracy was
achieved by gradual steps. Demosthenes and Æschines lived under it as a
system consummated and in full activity, when the stages of its
previous growth were no longer matter of exact memory; and the dicasts
then assembled in judgment were pleased to hear their constitution
associated with the names either of Solon or of Theseus. Their
inquisitive contemporary Aristotle was not thus misled: but even
commonplace Athenians of the century preceding would have escaped the
same delusion. For during the whole course of the democratical movement,
from the Persian invasion down to the Peloponnesian war, and especially
during the changes proposed by Pericles and Ephialtes, there was always
a strenuous party of resistance, who would not suffer the people to
forget that they had already forsaken, and were on the point of
forsaking still more, the orbit marked out by Solon. The illustrious
Pericles underwent innumerable attacks both from the orators in the
assembly and from the comic writers in the theatre. And among these
sarcasms on the political tendencies of the day we are probably to
number the complaint, breathed by the poet Cratinus, of the desuetude
into which both Solon and Draco had fallen--"I swear (said he in a
fragment of one of his comedies) by Solon and Draco, whose wooden
tablets (of laws) are now employed by people to roast their barley." The
laws of Solon respecting penal offences, respecting inheritance and
adoption, respecting the private relations generally, etc., remained for
the most part in force: his quadripartite census also continued, at
least for financial purposes, until the archonship of Nausinicus in B.C.
377--so that Cicero and others might be warranted in affirming that his
laws still prevailed at Athens: but his political and judicial
arrangements had undergone a revolution not less complete and memorable
than the character and spirit of the Athenian people generally. The
choice, by way of lot, of archons and other magistrates--and the
distribution by lot of the general body of dicasts or jurors into panels
for judicial business--may be decidedly considered as not belonging to
Solon, but adopted after the revolution of Clisthenes; probably the
choice of senators by lot also. The lot was a symptom of pronounced
democratical spirit, such as we must not seek in the Solonian
institutions.

It is not easy to make out distinctly what was the political position of
the ancient gentes and phratries, as Solon left them. The four tribes
consisted altogether of gentes and phratries, insomuch that no one could
be included in any one of the tribes who was not also a member of some
gens and phratry. Now the new pro-bouleutic, or pre-considering, senate
consisted of four hundred members,--one hundred from each of the tribes:
persons not included in any gens or phratry could therefore have had no
access to it. The conditions of eligibility were similar, according to
ancient custom, for the nine archons--of course, also, for the senate of
Areopagus. So that there remained only the public assembly, in which an
Athenian not a member of these tribes could take part: yet he was a
citizen, since he could give his vote for archons and senators, and
could take part in the annual decision of their accountability, besides
being entitled to claim redress for wrong from the archons in his own
person--while the alien could only do so through the intervention of an
avouching citizen or Prostates. It seems, therefore, that all persons
not included in the four tribes, whatever their grade of fortune might
be, were on the same level in respect to political privilege as the
fourth and poorest class of the Solonian census. It has already been
remarked, that even before the time of Solon the number of Athenians not
included in the gentes or phratries was probably considerable: it tended
to become greater and greater, since these bodies were close and
unexpansive, while the policy of the new lawgiver tended to invite
industrious settlers from other parts of Greece and Athens. Such great
and increasing inequality of political privilege helps to explain the
weakness of the government in repelling the aggressions of Pisistratus,
and exhibits the importance of the revolution afterward wrought by
Clisthenes, when he abolished (for all political purposes) the four old
tribes, and created ten new comprehensive tribes in place of them.

In regard to the regulations of the senate and the assembly of the
people, as constituted by Solon, we are altogether without information:
nor is it safe to transfer to the Solonian constitution the information,
comparatively ample, which we possess respecting these bodies under the
later democracy.

The laws of Solon were inscribed on wooden rollers and triangular
tablets, in the species of writing called _Boustrophedon_ (lines
alternating first from left to right, and next from right to left, like
the course of the ploughman)--and preserved first in the Acropolis,
subsequently in the Prytaneum. On the tablets, called _Cyrbis_, were
chiefly commemorated the laws respecting sacred rites and sacrifices; on
the pillars or rollers, of which there were at least sixteen, were
placed the regulations respecting matters profane. So small are the
fragments which have come down to us, and so much has been ascribed to
Solon by the orators which belongs really to the subsequent times, that
it is hardly possible to form any critical judgment respecting the
legislation as a whole, or to discover by what general principles or
purposes he was guided.

He left unchanged all the previous laws and practices respecting the
crime of homicide, connected as they were intimately with the religious
feelings of the people. The laws of Draco on this subject, therefore,
remained, but on other subjects, according to Plutarch, they were
altogether abrogated: there is, however, room for supposing that the
repeal cannot have been so sweeping as this biographer represents.

The Solonian laws seem to have borne more or less upon all the great
departments of human interest and duty. We find regulations political
and religious, public and private, civil and criminal, commercial,
agricultural, sumptuary, and disciplinarian. Solon provides punishment
for crimes, restricts the profession and status of the citizen,
prescribes detailed rules for marriage as well as for burial, for the
common use of springs and wells, and for the mutual interest of
conterminous farmers in planting or hedging their properties. As far as
we can judge from the imperfect manner in which his laws come before us,
there does not seem to have been any attempt at a systematic order or
classification. Some of them are mere general and vague directions,
while others again run into the extreme of specialty.

By far the most important of all was the amendment of the law of debtor
and creditor which has already been adverted to, and the abolition of
the power of fathers and brothers to sell their daughters and sisters
into slavery. The prohibition of all contracts on the security of the
body was itself sufficient to produce a vast improvement in the
character and condition of the poorer population,--a result which seems
to have been so sensibly obtained from the legislation of Solon, that
Boeckh and some other eminent authors suppose him to have abolished
villeinage and conferred upon the poor tenants a property in their
lands, annulling the seigniorial rights of the landlord. But this
opinion rests upon no positive evidence, nor are we warranted in
ascribing to him any stronger measure in reference to the land than the
annulment of the previous mortgages.

The first pillar of his laws contained a regulation respecting
exportable produce. He forbade the exportation of all produce of the
Attic soil, except olive oil alone. And the sanction employed to enforce
observance of this law deserves notice, as an illustration of the ideas
of the time: the archon was bound, on pain of forfeiting one hundred
drachmas, to pronounce solemn curses against every offender. We are
probably to take this prohibition in conjunction with other objects said
to have been contemplated by Solon, especially the encouragement of
artisans and manufacturers at Athens. Observing (we are told) that many
new immigrants were just then flocking into Attica to seek an
establishment, in consequence of its greater security, he was anxious to
turn them rather to manufacturing industry than to the cultivation of a
soil naturally poor. He forbade the granting of citizenship to any
immigrants, except to such as had quitted irrevocably their former
abodes and come to Athens for the purpose of carrying on some industrial
profession; and in order to prevent idleness, he directed the senate of
Areopagus to keep watch over the lives of the citizens generally, and
punish every one who had no course of regular labor to support him. If a
father had not taught his son some art or profession, Solon relieved the
son from all obligation to maintain him in his old age. And it was to
encourage the multiplication of these artisans that he insured, or
sought to insure, to the residents in Attica, the exclusive right of
buying and consuming all its landed produce except olive oil, which was
raised in abundance, more than sufficient for their wants. It was his
wish that the trade with foreigners should be carried on by exporting
the produce of artisan labor, instead of the produce of land.

This commercial prohibition is founded on principles substantially
similar to those which were acted upon in the early history of England,
with reference both to corn and to wool, and in other European
countries also. In so far as it was at all operative it tended to lessen
the total quantity of produce raised upon the soil of Attica, and thus
to keep the price of it from rising. But the law of Solon must have been
altogether inoperative, in reference to the great articles of human
subsistence; for Attica imported, both largely and constantly, grain and
salt provisions, probably also wool and flax for the spinning and
weaving of the women, and certainly timber for building. Whether the law
was ever enforced with reference to figs and honey may well be doubted;
at least these productions of Attica were in after times trafficked in,
and generally consumed throughout Greece. Probably also in the time of
Solon the silver mines of Laurium had hardly begun to be worked: these
afterward became highly productive, and furnished to Athens a commodity
for foreign payments no less convenient than lucrative.

It is interesting to notice the anxiety, both of Solon and of Draco, to
enforce among their fellow-citizens industrious and self-maintaining
habits; and we shall find the same sentiment proclaimed by Pericles, at
the time when Athenian power was at its maximum. Nor ought we to pass
over this early manifestation in Attica of an opinion equitable and
tolerant toward sedentary industry, which in most other parts of Greece
was regarded as comparatively dishonorable. The general tone of Grecian
sentiment recognized no occupations as perfectly worthy of a free
citizen except arms, agriculture, and athletic and musical exercises;
and the proceedings of the Spartans, who kept aloof even from
agriculture and left it to their helots, were admired, though they could
not be copied, throughout most of the Hellenic world. Even minds like
Plato, Aristotle, and Xenophon concurred to a considerable extent in
this feeling, which they justified on the ground that the sedentary life
and unceasing house-work of the artisan were inconsistent with military
aptitude. The town-occupations are usually described by a word which
carries with it contemptuous ideas, and though recognized as
indispensable to the existence of the city, are held suitable only for
an inferior and semi-privileged order of citizens. This, the received
sentiment among Greeks, as well as foreigners, found a strong and
growing opposition at Athens, as I have already said--corroborated also
by a similar feeling at Corinth. The trade of Corinth, as well as of
Chalcis in Euboea, was extensive, at a time when that of Athens had
scarce any existence. But while the despotism of Periander can hardly
have failed to operate as a discouragement to industry at Corinth, the
contemporaneous legislation of Solon provided for traders and artisans a
new home at Athens, giving the first encouragement to that numerous
town-population both in the city and in the Piræus, which we find
actually residing there in the succeeding century. The multiplication of
such town residents, both citizens and _metics_ (_i.e.,_ resident persons,
not citizens, but enjoying an assured position and civil rights), was a
capital fact in the onward march of Athens, since it determined not
merely the extension of her trade, but also the preëminence of her naval
forces--and thus, as a further consequence, lent extraordinary vigor to
her democratical government. It seems, moreover, to have been a
departure from the primitive temper of Atticism, which tended both to
cantonal residence and rural occupation. We have, therefore, the greater
interest in noting the first mention of it as a consequence of the
Solonian legislation.

To Solon is first owing the admission of a power of testamentary bequest
at Athens in all cases in which a man had no legitimate children.
According to the preëxisting custom, we may rather presume that if a
deceased person left neither children nor blood relations, his property
descended (as at Rome) to his gens and phratry. Throughout most rude
states of society the power of willing is unknown, as among the ancient
Germans--among the Romans prior to the twelve tables--in the old laws of
the Hindus, etc. Society limits a man's interest or power of enjoyment
to his life, and considers his relatives as having joint reversionary
claims to his property, which take effect, in certain determinate
proportions, after his death. Such a law was the more likely to prevail
at Athens, since the perpetuity of the family sacred rites, in which the
children and near relatives partook of right, was considered by the
Athenians as a matter of public as well as of private concern. Solon
gave permission to every man dying without children to bequeath his
property by will as he should think fit; and the testament was
maintained unless it could be shown to have been procured by some
compulsion or improper seduction. Speaking generally, this continued to
be the law throughout the historical times of Athens. Sons, wherever
there were sons, succeeded to the property of their father in equal
shares, with the obligation of giving out their sisters in marriage
along with a certain dowry. If there were no sons, then the daughters
succeeded, though the father might by will, within certain limits,
determine the person to whom they should be married, with their rights
of succession attached to them; or might, with the consent of his
daughters, make by will certain other arrangements about his property. A
person who had no children or direct lineal descendants might bequeath
his property at pleasure: if he died without a will, first his father,
then his brother or brother's children, next his sister or sister's
children succeeded: if none such existed, then the cousins by the
father's side, next the cousins by the mother's side,--the male line of
descent having preference over the female.

Such was the principle of the Solonian laws of succession, though the
particulars are in several ways obscure and doubtful. Solon, it appears,
was the first who gave power of superseding by testament the rights of
agnates and gentiles to succession,--a proceeding in consonance with his
plan of encouraging both industrious occupation and the consequent
multiplication of individual acquisitions.

It has been already mentioned that Solon forbade the sale of daughters
or sisters into slavery by fathers or brothers; a prohibition which
shows how much females had before been looked upon as articles of
property. And it would seem that before his time the violation of a free
woman must have been punished at the discretion of the magistrates; for
we are told that he was the first who enacted a penalty of one hundred
drachmas against the offender, and twenty drachmas against the seducer
of a free woman. Moreover, it is said that he forbade a bride when given
in marriage to carry with her any personal ornaments and appurtenances,
except to the extent of three robes and certain matters of furniture not
very valuable. Solon further imposed upon women several restraints in
regard to proceeding at the obsequies of deceased relatives. He forbade
profuse demonstrations of sorrow, singing of composed dirges, and
costly sacrifices and contributions. He limited strictly the quantity of
meat and drink admissible for the funeral banquet, and prohibited
nocturnal exit, except in a car and with a light. It appears that both
in Greece and Rome, the feelings of duty and affection on the part of
surviving relatives prompted them to ruinous expense in a funeral, as
well as to unmeasured effusions both of grief and conviviality; and the
general necessity experienced for legal restriction is attested by the
remark of Plutarch, that similar prohibitions to those enacted by Solon
were likewise in force at his native town of Chæronea.

Other penal enactments of Solon are yet to be mentioned. He forbade
absolutely evil speaking with respect to the dead. He forbade it
likewise with respect to the living, either in a temple or before judges
or archons, or at any public festival--on pain of a forfeit of three
drachmas to the person aggrieved, and two more to the public treasury.
How mild the general character of his punishments was, may be judged by
this law against foul language, not less than by the law before
mentioned against rape. Both the one and the other of these offences
were much more severely dealt with under the subsequent law of
democratical Athens. The peremptory edict against speaking ill of a
deceased person, though doubtless springing in a great degree from
disinterested repugnance, is traceable also in part to that fear of the
wrath of the departed which strongly possessed the early Greek mind.

It seems generally that Solon determined by law the outlay for the
public sacrifices, though we do not know what were his particular
directions. We are told that he reckoned a sheep and a medimnus (of
wheat or barley?) as equivalent, either of them, to a drachma, and that
he also prescribed the prices to be paid for first-rate oxen intended
for solemn occasions. But it astonishes us to see the large recompense
which he awarded out of the public treasury to a victor at the Olympic
or Isthmian games: to the former, five hundred drachmas, equal to one
year's income of the highest of the four classes on the census; to the
latter one hundred drachmas. The magnitude of these rewards strikes us
the more when we compare them with the fines on rape and evil speaking.
We cannot be surprised that the philosopher Xenophanes noticed, with
some degree of severity, the extravagant estimate of this species of
excellence, current among the Grecian cities. At the same time, we must
remember both that these Pan-Hellenic games presented the chief visible
evidence of peace and sympathy among the numerous communities of Greece,
and that in the time of Solon, factitious reward was still needful to
encourage them. In respect to land and agriculture Solon proclaimed a
public reward of five drachmas for every wolf brought in, and one
drachma for every wolf's cub; the extent of wild land has at all times
been considerable in Attica. He also provided rules respecting the use
of wells between neighbors, and respecting the planting in conterminous
olive grounds. Whether any of these regulations continued in operation
during the better-known period of Athenian history cannot be safely
affirmed.

In respect to theft, we find it stated that Solon repealed the
punishment of death which Draco had annexed to that crime, and enacted,
as a penalty, compensation to an amount double the value of the property
stolen. The simplicity of this law perhaps affords ground for presuming
that it really does belong to Solon. But the law which prevailed during
the time of the orators respecting theft must have been introduced at
some later period, since it enters into distinctions and mentions both
places and forms of procedure, which we cannot reasonably refer to the
forty-sixth Olympiad. The public dinners at the Prytaneum, of which the
archons and a select few partook in common, were also either first
established, or perhaps only more strictly regulated, by Solon. He
ordered barley cakes for their ordinary meals, and wheaten loaves for
festival days, prescribing how often each person should dine at the
table. The honor of dining at the table of the Prytaneum was maintained
throughout as a valuable reward at the disposal of the government.

Among the various laws of Solon, there are few which have attracted more
notice than that which pronounces the man who in a sedition stood aloof,
and took part with neither side, to be dishonored and disfranchised.
Strictly speaking, this seems more in the nature of an emphatic moral
denunciation, or a religious curse, than a legal sanction capable of
being formally applied in an individual case and after judicial
trial,--though the sentence of _atimy_, under the more elaborated Attic
procedure, was both definite in its penal consequences and also
judicially delivered. We may, however, follow the course of ideas under
which Solon was induced to write this sentence on his tables, and we may
trace the influence of similar ideas in later Attic institutions. It is
obvious that his denunciation is confined to that special case in which
a sedition has already broken out: we must suppose that Cylon has seized
the Acropolis, or that Pisistratus, Megacles, and Lycurgus are in arms
at the head of their partisans. Assuming these leaders to be wealthy and
powerful men, which would in all probability be the fact, the
constituted authority--such as Solon saw before him in Attica, even
after his own organic amendments--was not strong enough to maintain the
peace; it became, in fact, itself one of the contending parties. Under
such given circumstances, the sooner every citizen publicly declared his
adherence to some of them, the earlier this suspension of legal
authority was likely to terminate. Nothing was so mischievous as the
indifference of the mass, or their disposition to let the combatants
fight out the matter among themselves, and then to submit to the victor.
Nothing was more likely to encourage aggression on the part of an
ambitious malcontent, than the conviction that if he could once
overpower the small amount of physical force which surrounded the
archons, and exhibit himself in armed possession of the Prytaneum or the
Acropolis, he might immediately count upon passive submission on the
part of all the freemen without. Under the state of feeling which Solon
inculcates, the insurgent leader would have to calculate that every man
who was not actively in his favor would be actively against him, and
this would render his enterprise much more dangerous. Indeed, he could
then never hope to succeed, except on the double supposition of
extraordinary popularity in his own person and widespread detestation of
the existing government. He would thus be placed under the influence of
powerful deterring motives; so that ambition would be less likely to
seduce him into a course which threatened nothing but ruin, unless under
such encouragements from the preëxisting public opinion as to make his
success a result desirable for the community. Among the small political
societies of Greece--especially in the age of Solon, when the number of
despots in other parts of Greece seems to have been at its
maximum--every government, whatever might be its form, was sufficiently
weak to make its overthrow a matter of comparative facility. Unless upon
the supposition of a band of foreign mercenaries--which would render the
government a system of naked force, and which the Athenian lawgiver
would of course never contemplate--there was no other stay for it except
a positive and pronounced feeling of attachment on the part of the mass
of citizens. Indifference on their part would render them a prey to
every daring man of wealth who chose to become a conspirator. That they
should be ready to come forward, not only with voice but with arms--and
that they should be known beforehand to be so--was essential to the
maintenance of every good Grecian government. It was salutary in
preventing mere personal attempts at revolution; and pacific in its
tendency, even where the revolution had actually broken out, because in
the greater number of cases the proportion of partisans would probably
be very unequal, and the inferior party would be compelled to renounce
their hopes.

It will be observed that, in this enactment of Solon, the existing
government is ranked merely as one of the contending parties. The
virtuous citizen is enjoined, not to come forward in its support, but to
come forward at all events, either for it or against it. Positive and
early action is all which is prescribed to him as matter of duty. In the
age of Solon there was no political idea or system yet current which
could be assumed as an unquestionable datum--no conspicuous standard to
which the citizens could be pledged under all circumstances to attach
themselves. The option lay only between a mitigated oligarchy in
possession, and a despot in possibility; a contest wherein the
affections of the people could rarely be counted upon in favor of the
established government. But this neutrality in respect to the
constitution was at an end after the revolution of Clisthenes, when the
idea of the sovereign people and the democratical institutions became
both familiar and precious to every individual citizen. We shall
hereafter find the Athenians binding themselves by the most sincere and
solemn oaths to uphold their democracy against all attempts to subvert
it; we shall discover in them a sentiment not less positive and
uncompromising in its direction, than energetic in its inspirations. But
while we notice this very important change in their character, we shall
at the same time perceive that the wise precautionary recommendation of
Solon, to obviate sedition by an early declaration of the impartial
public between two contending leaders, was not lost upon them. Such, in
point of fact, was the purpose of that salutary and protective
institution which is called the _Ostracism_. When two party leaders, in
the early stages of the Athenian democracy, each powerful in adherents
and influence, had become passionately embarked in bitter and prolonged
opposition to each other, such opposition was likely to conduct one or
other to violent measures. Over and above the hopes of party triumph,
each might well fear that, if he himself continued within the bounds of
legality, he might fall a victim to aggressive proceedings on the part
of his antagonists. To ward off this formidable danger, a public vote
was called for, to determine which of the two should go into temporary
banishment, retaining his property and unvisited by any disgrace. A
number of citizens, not less than six thousand, voting secretly, and
therefore independently, were required to take part, pronouncing upon
one or other of these eminent rivals a sentence of exile for ten years.
The one who remained became, of course, more powerful, yet less in a
situation to be driven into anti-constitutional courses than he was
before. Tragedy and comedy were now beginning to be grafted on the lyric
and choric song. First, one actor was provided to relieve the chorus;
next, two actors were introduced to sustain fictitious characters and
carry on a dialogue in such manner that the songs of the chorus and the
interlocution of the actors formed a continuous piece. Solon, after
having heard Thespis acting (as all the early composers did, both tragic
and comic) in his own comedy, asked him afterward if he was not ashamed
to pronounce such falsehoods before so large an audience. And when
Thespis answered that there was no harm in saying and doing such things
merely for amusement, Solon indignantly exclaimed, striking the ground
with his stick, "If once we come to praise and esteem such amusement as
this, we shall quickly find the effects of it in our daily
transactions." For the authenticity of this anecdote it would be rash to
vouch, but we may at least treat it as the protest of some early
philosopher against the deceptions of the drama: and it is interesting
as marking the incipient struggles of that literature in which Athens
afterward attained such unrivaled excellence.

It would appear that all the laws of Solon were proclaimed, inscribed,
and accepted without either discussion or resistance. He is said to have
described them, not as the best laws which he could himself have
imagined, but as the best which he could have induced the people to
accept. He gave them validity for the space of ten years, during which
period both the senate collectively and the archons individually swore
to observe them with fidelity; under penalty, in case of non-observance,
of a golden statue as large as life to be erected at Delphi. But though
the acceptance of the laws was accomplished without difficulty, it was
not found so easy either for the people to understand and obey, or for
the framer to explain them. Every day persons came to Solon either with
praise, or criticism, or suggestions of various improvements, or
questions as to the construction of particular enactments; until at last
he became tired of this endless process of reply and vindication, which
was seldom successful either in removing obscurity or in satisfying
complainants. Foreseeing that if he remained he would be compelled to
make changes, he obtained leave of absence from his countrymen for ten
years, trusting that before the expiration of that period they would
have become accustomed to his laws. He quitted his native city in the
full certainty that his laws would remain unrepealed until his return;
for (says Herodotus) "the Athenians _could not_ repeal them, since they
were bound by solemn oaths to observe them for ten years." The
unqualified manner in which the historian here speaks of an oath, as if
it created a sort of physical necessity and shut out all possibility of
a contrary result, deserves notice as illustrating Grecian sentiment.

On departing from Athens, Solon first visited Egypt, where he
communicated largely with Psenophis of Heliopolis and Sonchis of Sais,
Egyptian priests who had much to tell respecting their ancient history,
and from whom he learned matters, real or pretended, far transcending in
alleged antiquity the oldest Grecian genealogies--especially the history
of the vast submerged island of Atlantis, and the war which the
ancestors of the Athenians had successfully carried on against it, nine
thousand years before. Solon is said to have commenced an epic poem upon
this subject, but he did not live to finish it, and nothing of it now
remains. From Egypt he went to Cyprus, where he visited the small town
of Æpia, said to have been originally founded by Demophon, son of
Theseus, and ruled at this period by the prince Philocyprus--each town
in Cyprus having its own petty prince. It was situated near the river
Clarius in a position precipitous and secure, but inconvenient and
ill-supplied, Solon persuaded Philocyprus to quit the old site and
establish a new town down in the fertile plain beneath. He himself
stayed and became _æcist_ of the new establishment, making all the
regulations requisite for its safe and prosperous march, which was
indeed so decisively manifested that many new settlers flocked into the
new plantation, called by Philocyprus _Soli_, in honor of Solon. To our
deep regret, we are not permitted to know what these regulations were;
but the general fact is attested by the poems of Solon himself, and the
lines in which he bade farewell to Philocyprus on quitting the island
are yet before us. On the dispositions of this prince his poem bestowed
unqualified commendation.

Besides his visit to Egypt and Cyprus, a story was also current of his
having conversed with the Lydian king Croesus at Sardis. The
communication said to have taken place between them has been woven by
Herodotus into a sort of moral tale which forms one of the most
beautiful episodes in his whole history. Though this tale has been told
and retold as if it were genuine history, yet as it now stands it is
irreconcilable with chronology--although very possibly Solon may at some
time or other have visited Sardis, and seen Croesus as hereditary
prince.

But even if no chronological objections existed, the moral purpose of
the tale is so prominent, and pervades it so systematically from
beginning to end, that these internal grounds are of themselves
sufficiently strong to impeach its credibility as a matter of fact,
unless such doubts happen to be out-weighed--which in this case they are
not--by good contemporary testimony. The narrative of Solon and Croesus
can be taken for nothing else but an illustrative fiction, borrowed by
Herodotus from some philosopher, and clothed in his own peculiar beauty
of expression, which on this occasion is more decidedly poetical than is
habitual with him. I cannot transcribe, and I hardly dare to abridge it.
The vainglorious Croesus, at the summit of his conquests and his riches,
endeavors to win from his visitor Solon an opinion that he is the
happiest of mankind. The latter, after having twice preferred to him
modest and meritorious Grecian citizens, at length reminds him that his
vast wealth and power are of a tenure too precarious to serve as an
evidence of happiness; that the gods are jealous and meddlesome, and
often make the show of happiness a mere prelude to extreme disaster; and
that no man's life can be called happy until the whole of it has been
played out, so that it may be seen to be out of the reach of reverses.
Croesus treats this opinion as absurd, but "a great judgment from God
fell upon him, after Solon was departed--probably (observes Herodotus)
because he fancied himself the happiest of all men." First he lost his
favorite son Atys, a brave and intelligent youth (his only other son
being dumb). For the Mysians of Olympus being ruined by a destructive
and formidable wild boar, which they were unable to subdue, applied for
aid to Croesus, who sent to the spot a chosen hunting force, and
permitted--though with great reluctance, in consequence of an alarming
dream--that his favorite son should accompany them. The young prince was
unintentionally slain by the Phrygian exile Adrastus, whom Croesus had
sheltered and protected, Hardly had the latter recovered from the
anguish of this misfortune, when the rapid growth of Cyrus and the
Persian power induced him to go to war with them, against the advice of
his wisest counsellors. After a struggle of about three years he was
completely defeated, his capital Sardis taken by storm, and himself made
prisoner. Cyrus ordered a large pile to be prepared, and placed upon it
Croesus in fetters, together with fourteen young Lydians, in the
intention of burning them alive either as a religious offering, or in
fulfilment of a vow, "or perhaps (says Herodotus) to see whether some of
the gods would not interfere to rescue a man so preëmiently pious as the
king of Lydia." In this sad extremity, Croesus bethought him of the
warning which he had before despised, and thrice pronounced, with a deep
groan, the name of Solon. Cyrus desired the interpreters to inquire whom
he was invoking, and learnt in reply the anecdote of the Athenian
lawgiver, together with the solemn memento which he had offered to
Croesus during more prosperous days, attesting the frail tenure of all
human greatness. The remark sunk deep into the Persian monarch as a
token of what might happen to himself: he repented of his purpose, and
directed that the pile, which had already been kindled, should be
immediately extinguished. But the orders came too late. In spite of the
most zealous efforts of the bystanders, the flame was found
unquenchable, and Croesus would still have been burned, had he not
implored with prayers and tears the succor of Apollo, to whose Delphian
and Theban temples he had given such munificent presents. His prayers
were heard, the fair sky was immediately overcast and a profuse rain
descended, sufficient to extinguish the flames. The life of Croesus was
thus saved, and he became afterward the confidential friend and adviser
of his conqueror.

Such is the brief outline of a narrative which Herodotus has given with
full development and with impressive effect. It would have served as a
show-lecture to the youth of Athens not less admirably than the
well-known fable of the Choice of Heracles, which the philosopher
Prodicus, a junior contemporary of Herodotus, delivered with so much
popularity. It illustrates forcibly the religious and ethical ideas of
antiquity; the deep sense of the jealousy of the gods, who would not
endure pride in any one except themselves; the impossibility, for any
man, of realizing to himself more than a very moderate share of
happiness; the danger from a reactionary Nemesis, if at anytime he had
overpassed such limit; and the necessity of calculations taking in the
whole of life, as a basis for rational comparison of different
individuals. And it embodies, as a practical consequence from these
feelings, the often-repeated protest of moralists against vehement
impulses and unrestrained aspirations. The more valuable this narrative
appears, in its illustrative character, the less can we presume to treat
it as a history.

It is much to be regretted that we have no information respecting events
in Attica immediately after the Solonian laws and constitution, which
were promulgated in B.C. 594, so as to understand better the practical
effect of these changes. What we next hear respecting Solon in Attica
refers to a period immediately preceding the first usurpation of
Pisistratus in B.C. 560, and after the return of Solon from his long
absence. We are here again introduced to the same oligarchical
dissensions as are reported to have prevailed before the Solonian
legislation: the Pediis, or opulent proprietors of the plain round
Athens, under Lycurgus; the Parali of the south of Attica, under
Megacles; and the Diacrii or mountaineers of the eastern cantons, the
poorest of the three classes, under Pisistratus, are in a state of
violent intestine dispute. The account of Plutarch represents Solon as
returning to Athens during the height of this sedition. He was treated
with respect by all parties, but his recommendations were no longer
obeyed, and he was disqualified by age from acting with effect in
public. He employed his best efforts to mitigate party animosities, and
applied himself particularly to restrain the ambition of Pisistratus,
whose ulterior projects he quickly detected.

The future greatness of Pisistratus is said to have been first portended
by a miracle which happened, even before his birth, to his father
Hippocrates at the Olympic games. It was realized, partly by his bravery
and conduct, which had been displayed in the capture of Nisæa from the
Megarians--partly by his popularity of speech and manners, his
championship of the poor, and his ostentatious disavowal of all selfish
pretensions--partly by an artful mixture of stratagem and force. Solon,
after having addressed fruitless remonstrances to Pisistratus himself,
publicly denounced his designs in verses addressed to the people. The
deception, whereby Pisistratus finally accomplished his design, is
memorable in Grecian tradition. He appeared one day in the agora of
Athens in his chariot with a pair of mules: he had intentionally wounded
both his person and the mules, and in this condition he threw himself
upon the compassion and defence of the people, pretending that his
political enemies had violently attacked him. He implored the people to
grant him a guard, and at the moment when their sympathies were freshly
aroused both in his favor and against his supposed assassins, Aristo
proposed formally to the ecclesia (the pro-bouleutic senate, being
composed of friends of Pisistratus, had previously authorized the
proposition) that a company of fifty club-men should be assigned as a
permanent body-guard for the defence of Pisistratus. To this motion
Solon opposed a strenuous resistance, but found himself overborne, and
even treated as if he had lost his senses. The poor were earnest in
favor of it, while the rich were afraid to express their dissent; and he
could only comfort himself after the fatal vote had been passed, by
exclaiming that he was wiser than the former and more determined than
the latter. Such was one of the first known instances in which this
memorable stratagem was played off against the liberty of a Grecian
community.

The unbounded popular favor which had procured the passing of this grant
was still further manifested by the absence of all precautions to
prevent the limits of the grant from being exceeded. The number of the
body-guard was not long confined to fifty, and probably their clubs were
soon exchanged for sharper weapons. Pisistratus thus found himself
strong enough to throw off the mask and seize the Acropolis. His leading
opponents, Megacles and the Alcinæonids, immediately fled the city, and
it was left to the venerable age and undaunted patriotism of Solon to
stand forward almost alone in a vain attempt to resist the usurpation.
He publicly presented himself in the market-place, employing
encouragement, remonstrance and reproach, in order to rouse the spirit
of the people. To prevent this despotism from coming (he told them)
would have been easy; to shake it off now was more difficult, yet at the
same time more glorious. But he spoke in vain, for all who were not
actually favorable to Pisistratus listened only to their fears, and
remained passive; nor did any one join Solon, when, as a last appeal, he
put on his armor and planted himself in military posture before the door
of his house. "I have done my duty (he exclaimed at length); I have
sustained to the best of my power my country and the laws"; and he then
renounced all further hope of opposition--though resisting the instances
of his friends that he should flee, and returning for answer, when they
asked him on what he relied for protection, "On my old age." Nor did he
even think it necessary to repress the inspirations of his Muse. Some
verses yet remain, composed seemingly at a moment when the strong hand
of the new despot had begun to make itself sorely felt, in which he
tells his countrymen--"If ye have endured sorrow from your own baseness
of soul, impute not the fault of this to the gods. Ye have yourselves
put force and dominion into the hands of these men, and have thus drawn
upon yourselves wretched slavery."

It is gratifying to learn that Pisistratus, whose conduct throughout his
despotism was comparatively mild, left Solon untouched. How long this
distinguished man survived the practical subversion of his own
constitution, we cannot certainly determine; but according to the most
probable statement he died during the very next year, at the advanced
age of eighty.

We have only to regret that we are deprived of the means of following
more in detail his noble and exemplary character. He represents the best
tendencies of his age, combined with much that is personally excellent:
the improved ethical sensibility; the thirst for enlarged knowledge and
observation, not less potent in old age than in youth; the conception of
regularized popular institutions, departing sensibly from the type and
spirit of the governments around him, and calculated to found a new
character in the Athenian people; a genuine and reflecting sympathy with
the mass of the poor, anxious not merely to rescue them from the
oppressions of the rich, but also to create in them habits of
self-relying industry; lastly, during his temporary possession of a
power altogether arbitrary, not merely an absence of all selfish
ambition, but a rare discretion in seizing the mean between conflicting
exigencies. In reading his poems we must always recollect that what now
appears commonplace was once new, so that to his comparatively
unlettered age the social pictures which he draws were still fresh, and
his exhortations calculated to live in the memory. The poems composed
on moral subjects generally inculcate a spirit of gentleness toward
others and moderation in personal objects. They represent the gods as
irresistible, retributive, favoring the good and punishing the bad,
though sometimes very tardily. But his compositions on special and
present occasions are usually conceived in a more vigorous spirit;
denouncing the oppressions of the rich at one time, and the timid
submission to Pisistratus at another--and expressing in emphatic
language his own proud consciousness of having stood forward as champion
of the mass of the people. Of his early poems hardly anything is
preserved. The few lines remaining seem to manifest a jovial temperament
which we may well conceive to have been overlaid by such political
difficulties as he had to encounter--difficulties arising successively
out of the Megarian war, the Cylonian sacrilege, the public despondency
healed by Epimenides, and the task of arbiter between a rapacious
oligarchy and a suffering people. In one of his elegies addressed to
Mimnermus, he marked out the sixtieth year as the longest desirable
period of life, in preference to the eightieth year, which that poet had
expressed a wish to attain. But his own life, as far as we can judge,
seems to have reached the longer of the two periods; and not the least
honorable part of it (the resistance to Pisistratus) occurs immediately
before his death.

There prevailed a story that his ashes were collected and scattered
around the island of Salamis, which Plutarch treats as absurd--though he
tells us at the same time that it was believed both by Aristotle and by
many other considerable men. It is at least as ancient as the poet
Cratinus, who alluded to it in one of his comedies, and I do not feel
inclined to reject it. The inscription on the statue of Solon at Athens
described him as a Salaminian; he had been the great means of acquiring
the island for his country, and it seems highly probable that among the
new Athenian citizens, who went to settle there, he may have received a
lot of land and become enrolled among the Salaminian _demots_. The
dispersion of his ashes connecting him with the island as its _oecist_,
may be construed, if not as the expression of a public vote, at least as
a piece of affectionate vanity on the part of his surviving friends.



CONQUESTS OF CYRUS THE GREAT

B.C. 538

GEORGE GROTE


     On the destruction of Nineveh three great Powers still stood on
     the stage of history, being bound together by the strong ties of a
     mutually supporting alliance. These were Media, Lydia, and Babylon.
     The capital of Lydia was Sardis. According to Herodotus, the first
     king of Lydia was Manes. In the semi-mythic period of Lydian
     history rose the great dynasty of the [Greek: Heraclidæ], which
     reigned for 505 years, numbering twenty-two kings--B.C. 1229 to
     B.C. 745. The Lydians are said by Herodotus to have colonized
     Tyrrhenia, in the Italic peninsula, and to have extended their
     conquests into Syria, where they founded Ascalon in the territory
     later known as Palestine.

     In the reign of Gyges, B.C. 724, they began to attack the Greek
     cities of Asia Minor: Miletus, Smyrna, and Priene. The glory of the
     Lydian Empire culminated in the reign of [Greek: Croesus], the
     fifth and last historic king, B.C. 568. The well-known story of
     Solon's warning to [Greek: Croesus] was full of ominous import with
     regard to the ultimate downfall of the Lydian Empire: "For thyself,
     O Croesus," said the Greek sage in answer to the question, "Who is
     the happiest man?" I see that thou art wonderfully rich, and art
     the lord of many nations; but in respect to that whereon thou
     questionest me, I have no answer to give until I hear that thou
     hast closed thy life happily."

     The Median Empire occupied a territory indefinitely extending over
     a region south of the Caspian, between the Kurdish Mountains and
     the modern Khorassan. The Median monarchy, according to Herodotus,
     commenced B.C. 708. The Medes, which were racially akin to the
     Persians, had been for fifty years subject to the Assyrian monarchy
     when they revolted, setting up an independent empire. Putting aside
     the dates given by the Greek historians, we shall perhaps be
     correct in considering that the great Median kingdom was
     established by Cyaxares, B.C. 633; and that in B.C. 610 a great
     struggle of six years between Media and Lydia was amicably ended,
     under the terror occasioned by an eclipse, by the establishment of
     a treaty and alliance between the contending powers. With the death
     of Cyaxares, B.C. 597, the glory of the great Median Empire passed
     away, for under his son, Astyages, the country was conquered by
     Cyrus.

     The rise of the Babylonian Empire seems to have originated B.C.
     2234, when the Cushite inhabitants of southern Babylonia raised a
     native dynasty to the throne, liberated themselves from the yoke
     of the Zoroastrian Medes, and instituted an empire with several
     large capitals, where they built mighty temples and introduced the
     worship of the heavenly bodies in contradistinction to the
     elemental worship of the Magian Medes. The record of Babylonian
     kings is full of obscurity, even in the light of recent
     archæological discoveries. We can trace, however, a gradual
     expansion of Babylonian dominion, even to the borders of Egypt.
     Nabo Polassar, B.C. 625 to B.C. 604, was a great warrior, and at
     Carchemish defeated even the almost invincible Egyptians, B.C. 604.

     His successor, Nebuchadnezzar, B.C. 604, immediately set about the
     fortification of his capital. A space of more than 130 square miles
     was enclosed within walls 80 feet in breadth and 300 or 400 in
     height, if we may believe the record. Meanwhile, with the
     assistance of Cyaxares, King of Media, he captured Tyre, in
     Phoenicia, and Jerusalem, in Syria; but fifteen years after Croesus
     had been taken prisoner and the Persian Empire extended to the
     shores of the Ægean, the Empire of Babylon fell before the
     conquering armies of Cyrus, the Persian.


The Ionic and Æolic Greeks on the Asiatic coast had been conquered and
made tributary by the Lydian king Croesus: "Down to that time (says
Herodotus) all Greeks had been free." Their conqueror, Croesus, who
ascended the throne in 560 B.C., appeared to be at the summit of human
prosperity and power in his unassailable capital, and with his countless
treasures at Sardis. His dominions comprised nearly the whole of Asia
Minor, as far as the river Halys to the east; on the other side of that
river began the Median monarchy under his brother-in-law Astyages,
extending eastward to some boundary which we cannot define, but
comprising, in a south-eastern direction, Persis proper or Farsistan,
and separated from the Kissians and Assyrians on the east by the line of
Mount Zagros (the present boundary-line between Persia and Turkey).
Babylonia, with its wondrous city, between the Uphrates and the Tigris,
was occupied by the Assyrians or Chaldæans, under their king Labynetus:
a territory populous and fertile, partly by nature, partly by prodigies
of labor, to a degree which makes us mistrust even an honest eye-witness
who describes it afterward in its decline--but which was then in its
most flourishing condition. The Chaldean dominion under Labynetus
reached to the borders of Egypt, including as dependent territories both
Judæa and Phenicia. In Egypt reigned the native king Amasis, powerful
and affluent, sustained in his throne by a large body of Grecian
mercenaries and himself favorably disposed to Grecian commerce and
settlement. Both with Labynetus and with Amasis, Croesus was on terms of
alliance; and as Astyages was his brother-in-law, the four kings might
well be deemed out of the reach of calamity. Yet within the space of
thirty years, or a little more, the whole of their territories had
become embodied in one vast empire, under the son of an adventurer as
yet not known even by name.

The rise and fall of oriental dynasties have been in all times
distinguished by the same general features. A brave and adventurous
prince, at the head of a population at once poor, warlike, and greedy,
acquires dominion; while his successors, abandoning themselves to
sensuality and sloth, probably also to oppressive and irascible
dispositions, become in process of time victims to those same qualities
in a stranger which had enabled their own father to seize the throne.
Cyrus, the great founder of the Persian empire, first the subject and
afterward the dethroner of the Median Astyages, corresponds to their
general description, as far, at least, as we can pretend to know his
history. For in truth even the conquests of Cyrus, after he became ruler
of Media, are very imperfectly known, while the facts which preceded his
rise up to that sovereignty cannot be said to be known at all: we have
to choose between different accounts at variance with each other, and of
which the most complete and detailed is stamped with all the character
of romance. The Cyropædia of Xenophon is memorable and interesting,
considered with reference to the Greek mind, and as a philosophical
novel. That it should have been quoted so largely as authority on
matters of history, is only one proof among many how easily authors have
been satisfied as to the essentials of historical evidence. The
narrative given by Herodotus of the relations between Cyrus and
Astyages, agreeing with Xenophon in little more than the fact that it
makes Cyrus son of Cambyses and Mandane and grandson of Astyages, goes
even beyond the story of Romulus and Remus in respect to tragical
incident and contrast. Astyages, alarmed by a dream, condemns the
newborn infant of his daughter Mandane to be exposed: Harpagus, to whom
the order is given, delivers the child to one of the royal herdsmen,
who exposes it in the mountains, where it is miraculously suckled by a
bitch. Thus preserved, and afterward brought up as the herdsman's child,
Cyrus manifests great superiority, both physical and mental; is chosen
king in play by the boys of the village, and in this capacity severely
chastises the son of one of the courtiers; for which offense he is
carried before Astyages, who recognizes him for his grandson, but is
assured by the Magi that the dream is out and that he has no further
danger to apprehend from the boy--and therefore permits him to live.
With Harpagus, however, Astyages is extremely incensed, for not having
executed his orders: he causes the son of Harpagus to be slain, and
served up to be eaten by his unconscious father at a regal banquet. The
father, apprised afterward of the fact, dissembles his feelings, but
meditates a deadly vengeance against Astyages for this Thyestean meal.
He persuades Cyrus, who has been sent back to his father and mother in
Persia, to head a revolt of the Persians against the Medes; whilst
Astyages--to fill up the Grecian conception of madness as a precursor to
ruin--sends an army against the revolters, commanded by Harpagus
himself. Of course the army is defeated--Astyages, after a vain
resistance, is dethroned--Cyrus becomes king in his place--and Harpagus
repays the outrage which he has undergone by the bitterest insults.

Such are the heads of a beautiful narrative which is given at some
length in Herodotus. It will probably appear to the reader sufficiently
romantic; though the historian intimates that he had heard three other
narratives different from it, and that all were more full of marvels, as
well as in wider circulation, than his own, which he had borrowed from
some unusually sober-minded Persian informants. In what points the other
three stories departed from it we do not hear.

To the historian of Halicarnassus we have to oppose Ctesias--the
physician of the neighboring town of Cnidus--who contradicted Herodotus,
not without strong terms of censure, on many points, and especially upon
that which is the very foundation of the early narrative respecting
Cyrus; for he affirmed that Cyrus was no way related to Astyages.
However indignant we may be with Ctesias for the disparaging epithets
which he presumed to apply to an historian whose work is to us
inestimable--we must nevertheless admit that, as surgeon in actual
attendance on king Artaxerxes Mnemon, and healer of the wound inflicted
on that prince at Cunaxa by his brother Cyrus the younger, he had better
opportunities even than Herodotus of conversing with sober-minded
Persians, and that the discrepancies between the two statements are to
be taken as a proof of the prevalence of discordant, yet equally
accredited, stories. Herodotus himself was in fact compelled to choose
one out of four. So rare and late a plant is historical authenticity.

That Cyrus was the first Persian conqueror, and that the space which he
overran covered no less than fifty degrees of longitude, from the coast
of Asia Minor to the Oxus and the Indus, are facts quite indisputable;
but of the steps by which this was achieved, we know very little. The
native Persians, whom he conducted to an empire so immense, were an
aggregate of seven agricultural, and four nomadic tribes--all of them
rude, hardy, and brave--dwelling in a mountainous region, clothed in
skins, ignorant of wine, or fruit, or any of the commonest luxuries of
life, and despising the very idea of purchase or sale. Their tribes were
very unequal in point of dignity, probably also in respect to numbers
and powers, among one another. First in estimation among them stood the
Pasargadæ; and the first phratry or clan among the Pasargadæ were the
Achæmenidæ, to whom Cyrus himself belonged. Whether his relationship to
the Median king whom he dethroned was a matter of fact, or a politic
fiction, we cannot well determine. But Xenophon, in noticing the
spacious deserted cities, Larissa and Mespila, which he saw in his march
with the ten thousand Greeks on the eastern side of the Tigris, gives us
to understand that the conquest of Media by the Persians was reported to
him as having been an obstinate and protracted struggle. However this
may be, the preponderance of the Persians was at last complete: though
the Medes always continued to be the second nation in the empire, after
the Persians, properly so called; and by early Greek writers the great
enemy in the East is often called "the Mede" as well as "the Persian."
The Median Ekbatana too remained as one of the capital cities, and the
usual summer residence, of the kings of Persia; Susa on the Choaspes, on
the Kissian plain farther southward, and east of the Tigris, being their
winter abode.

The vast space of country comprised between the Indus on the east, the
Oxus and Caspian Sea to the north, the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean to
the south, and the line of Mount Zagros to the west, appears to have
been occupied in these times by a great variety of different tribes and
people, yet all or most of them belonging to the religion of Zoroaster,
and speaking dialects of the Zend language. It was known amongst its
inhabitants by the common name of Iran or Aria: it is, in its central
parts at least, a high, cold plateau, totally destitute of wood, and
scantily supplied with water; much of it indeed is a salt and sandy
desert, unsusceptible of culture. Parts of it are eminently fertile,
where water can be procured and irrigation applied. Scattered masses of
tolerably dense population thus grew up; but continuity of cultivation
is not practicable, and in ancient times, as at present, a large
proportion of the population of Iran seems to have consisted of
wandering or nomadic tribes with their tents and cattle. The rich
pastures, and the freshness of the summer climate, in the region of
mountain and valley near Ekbatana, are extolled by modern travellers,
just as they attracted the Great King in ancient times during the hot
months. The more southerly province called Persis proper (Faristan)
consists also in part of mountain land interspersed with valley and
plain, abundantly watered, and ample in pasture, sloping gradually down
to low grounds on the sea-coast which are hot and dry: the care bestowed
both by Medes and Persians on the breeding of their horses was
remarkable. There were doubtless material differences between different
parts of the population of this vast plateau of Iran. Yet it seems that,
along with their common language and religion, they had also something
of a common character, which contrasted with the Indian population east
of the Indus, the Assyrians west of Mount Zagros, and the Massagetæ and
other Nomads of the Caspian and the Sea of Aral--less brutish, restless
and blood-thirsty than the latter--more fierce, contemptuous and
extortionate, and less capable of sustained industry, than the two
former. There can be little doubt, at the time of which we are now
speaking, when the wealth and cultivation of Assyria were at their
maximum, that Iran also was far better peopled than ever it has been
since European observers have been able to survey it--especially the
north-eastern portion, Bactria and Sogdiana--so that the invasions of
the Nomads from Turkestan and Tartary, which have been so destructive at
various intervals since the Mohammedan conquest, were before that period
successfully kept back.

The general analogy among the population of Iran probably enabled the
Persian conqueror with comparative ease to extend his empire to the
east, after the conquest of Ekbatana, and to become the full heir of the
Median kings. If we may believe Ctesias, even the distant province of
Bactria had been before subject to those kings. At first it resisted
Cyrus, but finding that he had become son-in-law of Astyages, as well as
master of his person, it speedily acknowledged his authority.

According to the representation of Herodotus, the war between Cyrus and
Croesus of Lydia began shortly after the capture of Astyages, and before
the conquest of Bactria. Croesus was the assailant, wishing to avenge
his brother-in-law, to arrest the growth of the Persian conqueror, and
to increase his own dominions. His more prudent counsellors in vain
represented to him that he had little to gain, and much to lose, by war
with a nation alike hardy and poor. He is represented as just at that
time recovering from the affliction arising out of the death of his son.

To ask advice of the oracle, before he took any final decision, was a
step which no pious king would omit. But in the present perilous
question, Croesus did more--he took a precaution so extreme, that if his
piety had not been placed beyond all doubt by his extraordinary
munificence to the temples, he might have drawn upon himself the
suspicion of a guilty scepticism. Before he would send to ask advice
respecting the project itself, he resolved to test the credit of some of
the chief surrounding oracles--Delphi, Dodona, Branchidæ near Miletus,
Amphiaraus at Thebes, Trophonius at Labadeia, and Ammon in Libya. His
envoys started from Sardis on the same day, and were all directed on the
hundredth day afterward to ask at the respective oracles how Croesus was
at that precise moment employed. This was a severe trial: of the manner
in which it was met by four out of the six oracles consulted we have no
information, and it rather appears that their answers were
unsatisfactory. But Amphiaraus maintained his credit undiminished, while
Apollo at Delphi, more omniscient than Apollo at Branchidæ, solved the
question with such unerring precision, as to afford a strong additional
argument against persons who might be disposed to scoff at divination.
No sooner had the envoys put the question to the Delphian priestess, on
the day named, "What is Croesus now doing?" than she exclaimed in the
accustomed hexameter verse, "I know the number of grains of sand, and
the measures of the sea: I understand the dumb, and I hear the man who
speaks not. The smell reaches me of a hard-skinned tortoise boiled in a
copper with lamb's flesh--copper above and copper below." Croesus was
awe-struck on receiving this reply. It described with the utmost detail
that which he had been really doing, so that he accounted the Delphian
oracle and that of Amphiaraus the only trustworthy oracles on
earth--following up these feelings with a holocaust of the most
munificent character, in order to win the favor of the Delphian god.
Three thousand cattle were offered up, and upon a vast sacrificial pile
were placed the most splendid purple robes and tunics, together with
couches and censers of gold and silver; besides which he sent to Delphi
itself the richest presents in gold and silver--statues, bowls, jugs,
etc., the size and weight of which we read with astonishment; the more
so as Herodotus himself saw them a century afterwards at Delphi. Nor was
Croesus altogether unmindful of Amphiaraus, whose answer had been
creditable, though less triumphant than that of the Pythian priestess.
He sent to Amphiaraus a spear and shield of pure gold, which were
afterward seen at Thebes by Herodotus: this large donative may help the
reader to conceive the immensity of those which he sent to Delphi.

The envoys who conveyed these gifts were instructed to ask at the same
time, whether Croesus should undertake an expedition against the
Persians--and if so, whether he should solicit any allies to assist him.
In regard to the second question, the answer both of Apollo and of
Amphiaraus was deci sive, recommending him to invite the alliance of
the most powerful Greeks. In regard to the first and most momentous
question, their answer was as remarkable for circumspection as it had
been before for detective sagacity: they told Croesus that if he invaded
the Persians, he would subvert a mighty monarchy. The blindness of
Croesus interpreted this declaration into an unqualified promise of
success: he sent further presents to the oracle, and again inquired
whether his kingdom would be durable. "When a mule shall become king of
the Medes (replied the priestess) then must thou run away--be not
ashamed."

More assured than ever by such an answer, Croesus sent to Sparta, under
the kings Anaxandrides and Aristo, to tender presents and solicit their
alliance. His propositions were favorably entertained--the more so, as
he had before gratuitously furnished some gold to the Lacedæmonians for
a statue to Apollo. The alliance now formed was altogether general--no
express effort being as yet demanded from them, though it soon came to
be. But the incident is to be noted, as marking the first plunge of the
leading Grecian state into Asiatic politics; and that too without any of
the generous Hellenic sympathy which afterward induced Athens to send
her citizens across the Ægean. At this time Croesus was the master and
tribute-exactor of the Asiatic Greeks, whose contingents seem to have
formed part of his army for the expedition now contemplated; an army
consisting principally, not of native Lydians, but of foreigners.

The river Halys formed the boundary at this time between the Median and
Lydian empires: and Croesus, marching across that river into the
territory of the Syrians or Assyrians of Cappadocia, took the city of
Pteria, with many of its surrounding dependencies, inflicting damage and
destruction upon these distant subjects of Ekbatana. Cyrus lost no time
in bringing an army to their defence considerably larger than that of
Croesus; trying at the same time, though unsuccessfully, to prevail on
the Ionians to revolt from him. A bloody battle took place between the
two armies, but with indecisive result: after which Croesus, seeing that
he could not hope to accomplish more with his forces as they stood,
thought it wise to return to his capital, and collect a larger army for
the next campaign. Immediately on reaching Sardis he despatched envoys
to Labynetus king of Babylon; to Amasis, king of Egypt; to the
Lacedæmonians, and to other allies; calling upon all of them to send
auxiliaries to Sardis during the course of the fifth month. In the mean
time he dismissed all the foreign troops who had followed him into
Cappadocia.

Had these allies appeared, the war might perhaps have been prosecuted
with success. And on the part of the Lacedæmonians, at least, there was
no tardiness; for their ships were ready and their troops almost on
board, when the unexpected news reached them that Croesus was already
ruined. Cyrus had forseen and forestalled the defensive plan of his
enemy. Pushing on with his army to Sardis without delay, he obliged the
Lydian prince to give battle with his own unassisted subjects. The open
and spacious plain before that town was highly favorable to Lydian
cavalry, which at that time (Herodotus tells us) was superior to the
Persian. But Cyrus, employing a strategem whereby this cavalry was
rendered unavailable, placed in front of his line the baggage camels,
which the Lydian horses could not endure either to smell or to behold.
The horsemen of Croesus were thus obliged to dismount; nevertheless they
fought bravely on foot, and were not driven into the town till after a
sanguinary combat.

Though confined within the walls of his capital, Croesus had still good
reason for hoping to hold out until the arrival of his allies, to whom
he sent pressing envoys of acceleration. For Sardis was considered
impregnable--and one assault had already been repulsed, and the Persians
would have been reduced to the slow process of blockade. But on the
fourteenth day of the siege, accident did for the besiegers that which
they could not have accomplished either by skill or force. Sardis was
situated on an outlying peak of the northern side of Tmolus; it was well
fortified everywhere except toward the mountain; and on that side the
rock was so precipitous and inaccessible, that fortifications were
thought unnecessary, nor did the inhabitants believe assault to be
possible in that quarter. But Hyroeades, a Persian soldier, having
accidentally seen one of the garrison descending this precipi tous rock
to pick up his helmet which had rolled down, watched his opportunity,
tried to climb up, and found it not impracticable; others followed his
example, the stronghold was thus seized first, and the whole city
speedily taken by storm.

Cyrus had given especial orders to spare the life of Croesus, who was
accordingly made prisoner. But preparations were made for a solemn and
terrible spectacle; the captive king was destined to be burned in
chains, together with fourteen Lydian youths, on a vast pile of wood. We
are even told that the pile was already kindled and the victim beyond
the reach of human aid, when Apollo sent a miraculous rain to preserve
him. As to the general fact of supernatural interposition, in one way or
another, Herodotus and Ctesias both agree, though they described
differently the particular miracles wrought. It is certain that Croesus,
after some time, was released and well treated by his conqueror, and
lived to become the confidential adviser of the latter as well as of his
son Cambyses: Ctesias also acquaints us that a considerable town and
territory near Ekbatana, called Barene, was assigned to him, according
to a practice which we shall find not infrequent with the Persian kings.

The prudent counsel and remarks as to the relations between Persians and
Lydians, whereby Croesus is said by Herodotus to have first earned this
favorable treatment, are hardly worth repeating; but the indignant
remonstrance sent by Croesus to the Delphian god is too characteristic
to be passed over. He obtained permission from Cyrus to lay upon the
holy pavement of the Delphian temple the chains with which he had at
first been bound. The Lydian envoys were instructed, after exhibiting to
the god these humiliating memorials, to ask whether it was his custom to
deceive his benefactors, and whether he was not ashamed to have
encouraged the king of Lydia in an enterprise so disastrous? The god,
condescending to justify himself by the lips of the priestess, replied:
"Not even a god can escape his destiny. Croesus has suffered for the sin
of his fifth ancestor (Gyges), who, conspiring with a woman, slew his
master and wrongfully seized the sceptre. Apollo employed all his
influence with the Moeræ (Fates) to obtain that this sin might be
expiated by the children of Croesus, and not by Croesus himself; but
the Moeræ would grant nothing more than a postponement of the judgment
for three years. Let Croesus know that Apollo has thus procured for him
a reign three years longer than his original destiny, after having tried
in vain to rescue him altogether. Moreover he sent that rain which at
the critical moment extinguished the burning pile. Nor has Croesus any
right to complain of the prophecy by which he was encouraged to enter on
the war; for when the god told him that he would subvert _a great
empire_, it was his duty to have again inquired which empire the god
meant; and if he neither understood the meaning, nor chose to ask for
information, he has himself to blame for the result. Besides, Croesus
neglected the warning given to him about the acquisition of the Median
kingdom by a mule: Cyrus was that mule--son of a Median mother of royal
breed, by a Persian father at once of different race and of lower
position."

This triumphant justification extorted even from Croesus himself a full
confession that the sin lay with him, and not with the god. It certainly
illustrates in a remarkable manner the theological ideas of the time. It
shows us how much, in the mind of Herodotus, the facts of the centuries
preceding his own, unrecorded as they were by any contemporary
authority, tended to cast themselves into a sort of religious drama; the
threads of the historical web being in part put together, in part
originally spun, for the purpose of setting forth the religious
sentiment and doctrine woven in as a pattern. The Pythian priestess
predicts to Gyges that the crime which he had committed in assassinating
his master would be expiated by his fifth descendant, though, as
Herodotus tells us, no one took any notice of this prophecy until it was
at last fulfilled: we see thus the history of the first Mermnad king is
made up after the catastrophe of the last. There was something in the
main facts of the history of Croesus profoundly striking to the Greek
mind, a king at the summit of wealth and power--pious in the extreme and
munificent toward the gods--the first destroyer of Hellenic liberty in
Asia--then precipitated, at once and on a sudden, into the abyss of
ruin. The sin of the first parent helped much toward the solution of
this perplexing problem, as well as to exalt the credit of the oracle,
when made to assume the shape of an unnoticed prophecy. In the
affecting story of Solon and Croesus, the Lydian king is punished with
an acute domestic affliction because he thought himself the happiest of
mankind--the gods not suffering any one to be arrogant except
themselves; and the warning of Solon is made to recur to Croesus after
he has become the prisoner of Cyrus, in the narrative of Herodotus. To
the same vein of thought belongs the story, just recounted, of the
relations of Croesus with the Delphian oracle. An account is provided,
satisfactory to the religious feelings of the Greeks, how and why he was
ruined--but nothing less than the overruling and omnipotent Moeræ
could be invoked to explain so stupendous a result. It is rarely that
these supreme goddesses--or hyper-goddesses, since the gods themselves
must submit to them--are brought into such distinct light and action.
Usually they are kept in the dark, or are left to be understood as the
unseen stumbling block in cases of extreme incomprehensibility; and it
is difficult clearly to determine (as in the case of some complicated
political constitutions) where the Greeks conceived sovereign power to
reside, in respect to the government of the world. But here the
sovereignity of the Moeræ, and the subordinate agency of the gods, are
unequivocally set forth. The gods are still extremely powerful, because
the Moeræ comply with their requests up to a certain point, not
thinking it proper to be wholly inexorable; but their compliance is
carried no farther than they themselves choose; nor would they, even in
deference to Apollo, alter the original sentence of punishment for the
sin of Gyges in the person of his fifth descendant--sentence, moreover,
which Apollo himself had formerly prophesied shortly after the sin was
committed, so that, if the Moeræ had listened to his intercession on
behalf of Croesus, his own prophetic credit would have been
endangered. Their unalterable resolution has predetermined the ruin of
Croesus, and the grandeur of the event is manifested by the
circumstance that even Apollo himself cannot prevail upon them to alter
it, or to grant more than a three years' respite. The religious element
must here be viewed as giving the form, the historical element as giving
the matter only, and not the whole matter, of the story. These two
elements will be found conjoined more or less throughout most of the
history of Herodotus, though as we descend to later times, we shall find
the latter element in constantly increasing proportion. His conception
of history is extremely different from that of Thucydides, who lays down
to himself the true scheme and purpose of the historian, common to him
with the philosopher--to recount and interpret the past, as a rational
aid toward pre-vision of the future.

In the short abstract which we now possess of the lost work of Ctesias,
no mention appears of the important conquest of Babylon. His narrative,
indeed, as far as the abstract enables us to follow it, diverges
materially from that of Herodotus, and must have been founded on data
altogether different.

"I shall mention (says Herodotus) these conquests which gave Cyrus most
trouble, and are most memorable: after he had subdued all the rest of
the continent, he attacked the Assyrians." Those who recollect the
description of Babylon and its surrounding territory, will not be
surprised to learn that the capture of it gave the Persian aggressor
much trouble. Their only surprise will be, how it could ever have been
taken at all--or indeed how a hostile army could have even reached it.
Herodotus informs us that the Babylonian queen Nitocris (mother of that
very Labynetus who was king when Cyrus attacked the place) apprehensive
of invasion from the Medes after their capture of Nineveh, had executed
many laborious works near the Euphrates for the purpose of obstructing
their approach. Moreover there existed what was called the wall of Media
(probably built by her, but certainly built prior to the Persian
conquest), one hundred feet high and twenty feet thick, across the
entire space of seventy-five miles which joined the Tigris with one of
the canals of the Euphrates: while the canals themselves, as we may see
by the march of the ten thousand Greeks after the battle of Cunaxa,
presented means of defence altogether insuperable by a rude army such as
that of the Persians. On the east, the territory of Babylonia was
defended by the Tigris, which cannot be forded lower than the ancient
Nineveh or the modern Mosul. In addition to these ramparts, natural as
well as artificial, to protect the territory--populous, cultivated,
productive, and offering every motive to its inhabitants to resist even
the entrance of an enemy--we are told that the Babylonians were so
thoroughly prepared for the inroad of Cyrus that they had accumulated
within their walls a store of provisions for many years. Strange as it
may seem, we must suppose that the king of Babylon, after all the cost
and labor spent in providing defences for the territory, voluntarily
neglected to avail himself of them, suffered the invader to tread down
the fertile Babylonia without resistance, and merely drew out the
citizens to oppose him when he arrived under the walls of the city--if
the statement of Herodotus is correct. And we may illustrate this
unaccountable omission by that which we know to have happened in the
march of the younger Cyrus to Cunuxa against his brother Artaxerxes
Mnemon. The latter had caused to be dug, expressly in preparation for
this invasion, a broad and deep ditch (thirty feet wide and eight feet
deep) from the wall of Media to the river Euphrates, a distance of
twelve parasangs or forty-five English miles, leaving only a passage of
twenty feet broad close alongside of the river. Yet when the invading
army arrived at this important pass, they found not a man there to
defend it, and all of them marched without resistance through the narrow
inlet. Cyrus the younger, who had up to that moment felt assured that
his brother would fight, now supposed that he had given up the idea of
defending Babylon: instead of which, two days afterward, Artaxerxes
attacked him on an open plain of ground where there was no advantage of
position on either side; though the invaders were taken rather unawares
in consequence of their extreme confidence arising from recent unopposed
entrance within the artificial ditch. This anecdote is the more valuable
as an illustration, because all its circumstances are transmitted to us
by a discerning eye-witness. And both the two incidents here brought
into comparison demonstrate the recklessness, changefulness, and
incapacity of calculation belonging to the Asiatic mind of that day--as
well as the great command of hands possessed by these kings, and their
prodigal waste of human labor. Vast walls and deep ditches are an
inestimable aid to a brave and well-commanded garrison; but they cannot
be made entirely to supply the want of bravery and intelligence.

In whatever manner the difficulties of approaching Babylon may have
been overcome, the fact that they were overcome by Cyrus is certain. On
first setting out for this conquest, he was about to cross the river
Gyndes (one of the affluents from the east which joins the Tigris near
the modern Bagdad, and along which lay the high road crossing the pass
of Mount Zagros from Babylon to Ekbatana) when one of the sacred white
horses, which accompanied him, entered the river in pure wantonness and
tried to cross it by himself. The Gyndes resented this insult and the
horse was drowned: upon which Cyrus swore in his wrath that he would so
break the strength of the river as that women in future should pass it
without wetting their knees. Accordingly he employed his entire army,
during the whole summer season, in digging three hundred and sixty
artificial channels to disseminate the unit of the stream. Such,
according to Herodotus, was the incident which postponed for one year
the fall of the great Babylon. But in the next spring Cyrus and his army
were before the walls, after having defeated and driven in the
population who came out to fight. These walls were artificial mountains
(three hundred feet high, seventy-five feet thick, and forming a square
of fifteen miles to each side), within which the besieged defied attack,
and even blockade, having previously stored up several years' provision.
Through the midst of the town, however, flowed the Euphrates. That river
which had been so laboriously trained to serve for protection, trade and
sustenance to the Babylonians, was now made the avenue of their ruin.
Having left a detachment of his army at the two points where the
Euphrates enters and quits the city, Cyrus retired with the remainder to
the higher part of its course, where an ancient Babylonian queen had
prepared one of the great lateral reservoirs for carrying off in case of
need the superfluity of its water. Near this point Cyrus caused another
reservoir and another canal of communication to be dug, by means of
which he drew off the water of the Euphrates to such a degree it became
not above the height of a man's thigh. The period chosen was that of a
great Babylonian festival, when the whole population were engaged in
amusement and revelry. The Persian troops left near the town, watching
their opportunity, entered from both sides along the bed of the river,
and took it by surprise with scarcely any resistance. At no other time,
except during a festival, could they have done this (says Herodotus) had
the river been ever so low, for both banks throughout the whole length
of the town were provided with quays, with continuous walls, and with
gates at the end of every street which led down to the river at right
angles so that if the population had not been disqualified by the
influences of the moment, they would have caught the assailants in the
bed of the river "as in a trap," and overwhelmed them from the walls
alongside. Within a square of fifteen miles to each side, we are not
surprised to hear that both the extremities were already in the power of
the besiegers before the central population heard of it, and while they
were yet absorbed in unconscious festivity.

Such is the account given by Herodotus of the circumstances which placed
Babylon--the greatest city of Western Asia--in the power of the
Persians. To what extent the information communicated to him was
incorrect or exaggerated, we cannot now decide. The way in which the
city was treated would lead us to suppose that its acquisition cannot
have cost the conqueror either much time or much loss. Cyrus comes into
the list as king of Babylon, and the inhabitants with their whole
territory become tributary to the Persians, forming the richest satrapy
in the empire; but we do not hear that the people were otherwise
ill-used, and it is certain that the vast walls and gates were left
untouched. This was very different from the way in which the Medes had
treated Nineveh, which seems to have been ruined and for a long time
absolutely uninhabited, though reoccupied on a reduced scale under the
Parthian empire; and very different also from the way in which Babylon
itself was treated twenty years afterward by Darius, when reconquered
after a revolt.

The importance of Babylon, marking as it does one of the peculiar forms
of civilization belonging to the ancient world in a state of full
development, gives an interest even to the half-authenticated stories
respecting its capture. The other exploits ascribed to Cyrus--his
invasion of India, across the desert of Arachosia--and his attack upon
the Massagetæ, Nomads ruled by Queen Tomyris and greatly resembling the
Scythians, across the mysterious river which Herodotus calls
Araxes--are too little known to be at all dwelt upon. In the latter he
is said to have perished, his army being defeated in a bloody battle. He
was buried at Pasargadæ, in his native province of Persis proper, where
his tomb was honored and watched until the breaking up of the empire,
while his memory was held in profound veneration among the Persians. Of
his real exploits we know little or nothing, but in what we read
respecting him there seems, though amid constant fighting, very little
cruelty. Xenophon has selected his life as the subject of a moral
romance which for a long time was cited as authentic history, and which
even now serves as an authority, express or implied, for disputable and
even incorrect conclusions. His extraordinary activity and conquests
admit of no doubt. He left the Persian empire extending from Sogdiana
and the rivers Jaxartes and Indus eastward, to the Hellespont and the
Syrian coast westward, and his successors made no permanent addition to
it except that of Egypt. Phenicia and Judæa were dependencies of
Babylon, at the time when he conquered it, with their princes and
grandees in Babylonian captivity. As they seem to have yielded to him,
and became his tributaries without difficulty; so the restoration of
their captives was conceded to them. It was from Cyrus that the habits
of the Persian kings took commencement, to dwell at Susa in the winter,
and Ekbatana during the summer; the primitive territory of Persis, with
its two towns of Persepolis and Pasargadæ, being reserved for the
burial-place of the kings and the religious sanctuary of the empire. How
or when the conquest of Susiana was made, we are not informed. It lay
eastward of the Tigris, between Babylonia and Persis proper, and its
people, the Kissians, as far as we can discern, were of Assyrian and not
of Aryan race. The river Choaspes near Susa was supposed to furnish the
only water fit for the palate of the great king, and it is said to have
been carried about with him wherever he went.

While the conquests of Cyrus contributed to assimilate the distinct
types of civilization in Western Asia--not by elevating the worse,
but by degrading the better--upon the native Persians themselves
they operated as an extraordinary stimulus, provoking alike their
pride, ambition, cupidity, and warlike propensities. Not only did the
territory of Persis proper pay no tribute to Susa or Ekbatana--being
the only district so exempted between the Jaxartes and the
Mediterranean--but the vast tributes received from the remaining empire
were distributed to a great degree among its inhabitants. Empire to them
meant--for the great men, lucrative satrapies or pachalics, with powers
altogether unlimited, pomp inferior only to that of the great king, and
standing armies which they employed at their own discretion sometimes
against each other--for the common soldiers, drawn from their fields or
flocks, constant plunder, abundant maintenance, and an unrestrained
license, either in the suite of one of the satraps, or in the large
permanent troops which moved from Susa to Ekbatana with the Great King.
And if the entire population of Persis proper did not migrate from their
abodes to occupy some of those more inviting spots which the immensity
of the imperial dominion furnished--a dominion extending (to use the
language of Cyrus the younger before the battle of Cunaxa) from the
region of insupportable heat to that of insupportable cold--this was
only because the early kings discouraged such a movement, in order that
the nation might maintain its military hardihood and be in a situation
to furnish undiminished supplies of soldiers. The self-esteem and
arrogance of the Persians were no less remarkable than their avidity for
sensual enjoyment. They were fond of wine to excess; their wives and
their concubines were both numerous; and they adopted eagerly from
foreign nations new fashions of luxury as well as of ornament. Even to
novelties in religion, they were not strongly averse. For though
disciples of Zoroaster, with Magi as their priests and as indispensable
companions of their sacrifices, worshipping sun, moon, earth, fire,
etc., and recognizing neither image, temple, nor altar--yet they had
adopted the voluptuous worship of the goddess Mylitta from the Assyrians
and Arabians. A numerous male offspring was the Persian's boast. His
warlike character and consciousness of force were displayed in the
education of these youths, who were taught, from five years old to
twenty, only three things--to ride, to shoot with the bow, and to speak
the truth. To owe money, or even to buy and sell, was accounted among
the Persians disgraceful--a sentiment which they defended by saying
that both the one and the other imposed the necessity of telling
falsehood. To exact tribute from subjects, to receive pay or presents
from the king, and to give away without forethought whatever was not
immediately wanted, was their mode of dealing with money. Industrial
pursuits were left to the conquered, who were fortunate if by paying a
fixed contribution and sending a military contingent when required, they
could purchase undisturbed immunity for their remaining concerns. They
could not thus purchase safety for the family hearth, since we find
instances of noble Grecian maidens torn from their parents for the harem
of the satrap.

To a people of this character, whose conceptions of political
society went no farther than personal obedience to a chief, a conqueror
like Cyrus would communicate the strongest excitement and enthusiasm
of which they were capable. He had found them slaves, and made them
masters: he was the first and greatest of national benefactors, as well
as the most forward of leaders in the field: they followed him from
one conquest to another, during the thirty years of his reign, their
love of empire growing with the empire itself. And this impulse of
aggrandizement continued unabated during the reigns of his three next
successors--Cambyses, Darius, and Xerxes--until it was at length
violently stifled by the humiliating defeats of Platæa and Salamis;
after which the Persians became content with defending themselves at
home and playing a secondary game.



RISE OF CONFUCIUS, THE CHINESE SAGE

B.C. 550

R.K. DOUGLAS


     Confucius is the Latinized name of Kung Futusze, or "Master Kung,"
     whose work in China did much to educate the people in social and
     civic virtues. He began as a political reformer at a time when the
     empire was cut up into a number of petty and discordant
     principalities. As a practical statesman and administrator, he
     urged the necessity of reform upon the princes whom one after
     another he served. His advice was invariably disregarded, and as he
     said "no intelligent ruler arose in his time." His great maxims of
     submission to the emperor or supreme head of the state he based on
     the analogous duty of filial obedience in a household, and his very
     spirit of piety prevented him from taking independent measures for
     redressing the evils and oppressions of his distracted country.

     His moral teachings are not based on any specific religious
     foundation, but they have become the settled code of Chinese life,
     of which submissiveness to authority, industry, frugality, and fair
     dealing as prescribed by Confucian ethics are general
     characteristics. The political doctrines of this great reformer
     were eventually adopted, and his teaching and example brought about
     a peaceful and gradual, but complete revolution, in the Chinese
     Empire, whose consolidation into a simple kingdom was the practical
     result of this sage's influence.


At the time of which we write the Chinese were still clinging to the
banks of the Yellow River, along which they had first entered the
country, and formed, within the limits of China proper, a few states on
either shore lying between the 33d and 38th parallels of latitude, and
the 106th and 119th of longitude. The royal state of Chow occupied part
of the modern province of Honan. To the north of this was the powerful
state of Tsin, embracing the modern province of Shanse and part of
Chili; to the south was the barbarous state of Ts'oo, which stretched as
far as the Yang-tsze-kiang; to the east, reaching to the coast, were a
number of smaller states, among which those of Ts'e, Loo, Wei, Sung, and
Ching were the chief and to the west of the Yellow River was the state
of Ts'in, which was destined eventually to gain the mastery over the
contending principalities.

On the establishment of the Chow dynasty, King Woo had apportioned these
fiefships among members of his family, his adherents, and the
descendants of some of the ancient virtuous kings. Each prince was
empowered to administer his government as he pleased so long as he
followed the general lines indicated by history; and in the event of any
act of aggression on the part of one state against another, the matter
was to be reported to the king of the sovereign state, who was bound to
punish the offender. It is plain that in such a system the elements of
disorder must lie near the surface; and no sooner was the authority of
the central state lessened by the want of ability shown by the
successors of kings Woo, Ching, and K'ang, than constant strife broke
out between the several chiefs. The hand of every man was against his
neighbor, and the smaller states suffered the usual fate, under like
circumstances, of being encroached upon and absorbed, notwithstanding
their appeals for help to their common sovereign. The House of Chow
having been thus found wanting, the device was resorted to of appointing
one of the most powerful princes as a presiding chief, who should
exercise royal functions, leaving the king only the title and
paraphernalia of sovereignity. In fact, the China of this period was
governed and administered very much as Japan was up till about twenty
years ago. For Mikado, Shogun, and ruling Daimios, read king, presiding
chief, and princes, and the parallel is as nearly as possible complete.
The result of the system, however, in the two countries was different,
for apart from the support received by the Mikado from the belief in his
heavenly origin, the insular position of Japan prevented the possibility
of the advent of elements of disorder from without, whereas the
principalities of China were surrounded by semi-barbarous states, the
chiefs of which were engaged in constant warfare with them.

Confucius' deep spirit of loyalty to the House of Chow forbade his
following in the Book of History the careers of the sovereigns who
reigned between the death of Muh in B.C. 946 and the accession of P'ing
in 770. One after another these kings rose, reigned, and died, leaving
each to his successor an ever-increasing heritage of woe. During the
reign of Seuen (827-781) a gleam of light seems to have shot through the
pervading darkness. Though falling far short of the excellencies of the
founders of the dynasty, he yet strove to follow, though at a long
interval, the examples they had set him; and according to the Chinese
belief, as an acknowledgment from Heaven of his efforts in the direction
of virtue, it was given him to sit upon the throne for nearly half a
century.

His successor, Yew, "the Dark," appears to even less advantage. No
redeeming acts relieve the general disorder of his reign, and at the
instigation of a favorite concubine he is said to have committed acts
which place him on a level with Kee and Show. Earthquakes, storms, and
astrological portents appeared as in the dark days at the close of the
Hea and Shang dynasties. His capital was surrounded by the barbarian
allies of the Prince of Shin, the father of his wife, whom he had
dismissed at the request of his favorite, and in an attempt to escape he
fell a victim to their weapons.

With this event the Western Chow dynasty was brought to a close.

Here, also, the Book of History comes to an end, and the Spring and
Autumn Annals by Confucius takes up the tale of iniquity and disorder
which overspread the land. No more dreadful record of a nation's
struggles can be imagined than that contained in Confucius's history.
The country was torn by discord and desolated by wars. Husbandry was
neglected, the peace of households was destroyed, and plunder and rapine
were the watchwords of the time.

Such was the state of China at the time of the birth of Confucius (B.C.
551). Of the parents of the Sage we know but little, except that his
father, Shuh-leang Heih, was a military officer, eminent for his
commanding stature, his great bravery, and immense strength, and that
his mother's name was Yen Ching-tsai The marriage of this couple took
place when Heih was seventy years old, and the prospect, therefore, of
his having an heir having been but slight, unusual rejoicings
commemorated the birth of the son, who was destined to achieve such
everlasting fame.

Report says that the child was born in a cave on Mount Ne, whither
Ching-tsai went in obedience to a vision to be confined. But this is but
one of the many legends with which Chinese historians love to surround
the birth of Confucius. With the same desire to glorify the Sage, and in
perfect good faith, they narrate how the event was heralded by strange
portents and miraculous appearances, how genii announced to Ching-tsai
the honor that was in store for her, and how fairies attended at his
nativity.

Of the early years of Confucius we have but scanty record. It would seem
that from his childhood he showed ritualistic tendencies, and we are
told that as a boy he delighted to play at the arrangement of vessels
and postures of ceremony. As he advanced in years he became an earnest
student of history, and looked back with love and reverence to the time
when the great and good Yaou and Shun reigned in:

    "A golden age, fruitful of golden deeds."

At the age of fifteen "he bent his mind to learning," and when he was
nineteen years old he married a lady from the state of Sung. As has
befallen many other great men, Confucius' married life was not a happy
one, and he finally divorced his wife, not, however, before she had
borne him a son.

Soon after his marriage, at the instigation of poverty, Confucius
accepted the office of keeper of the stores of grain, and in the
following year he was promoted to be guardian of the public fields and
lands. It was while holding this latter office that his son was born,
and so well known and highly esteemed had he already become that the
reigning duke, on hearing of the event, sent him a present of a carp,
from which circumstance the infant derived his name, Le ("a carp"). The
name of this son seldom occurs in the life of his illustrious father,
and the few references we have to him are enough to show that a small
share of paternal affection fell to his lot. "Have you heard any lessons
from your father different from what we have all heard?" asked an
inquisitive disciple of him. "No," replied Le, "he was standing alone
once when I was passing through the court below with hasty steps, and
said to me, 'Have you read the Odes?' On my replying, 'Not yet,' he
added, 'If you do not learn the Odes, you will not be fit to converse
with.' Another day, in the same place and the same way, he said to me,
'Have you read the rules of Propriety?' On my replying, 'Not yet,' he
added, 'If you do not learn the rules of Propriety, your character
cannot be established.'" "I asked one thing," said the enthusiastic
disciple, "and I have learned three things. I have learned about the
Odes; I have learned about the rules of Propriety; and I have learned
that the superior man maintains a distant reserve toward his son."

At the age of twenty-two we find Confucius released from the toils of
office, and devoting his time to the more congenial task of imparting
instruction to a band of admiring and earnest students. With idle or
stupid scholars he would have nothing to do. "I do not open the truth,"
he said, "to one who is not eager after knowledge, nor do I help any one
who is not anxious to explain himself. When I have presented one corner
of a subject, and the listener cannot from it learn the other three, I
do not repeat my lesson."

When twenty-eight years old Confucius studied archery, and in the
following years took lessons in music from the celebrated master, Seang.
At thirty he tells us "he stood firm," and about this time his fame
mightily increased, many noble youths enrolled themselves among his
disciples; and on his expressing a desire to visit the imperial court of
Chow to confer on the subject of ancient ceremonies with Laou Tan, the
founder of the Taouist sect, the reigning duke placed a carriage and
horses at his disposal for the journey.

The extreme veneration which Confucius entertained for the founders of
the Chow dynasty made the visit to Lo, the capital, one of intense
interest to him. With eager delight he wandered through the temple and
audience-chambers, the place of sacrifices and the palace, and having
completed his inspection of the position and shape of the various
sacrificial and ceremonial vessels, he turned to his disciples and said,
"Now I understand the wisdom of the duke of Chow, and how his house
attained to imperial sway." But the principal object of his visit to
Chow was to confer with Laou-tsze; and of the interview between these
two very dissimilar men we have various accounts. The Confucian writers
as a rule merely mention the fact of their having met, but the admirers
of Laou-tsze affirm that Confucius was very roughly handled by his more
ascetic contemporary, who looked down from his somewhat higher
standpoint with contempt on the great apostle of antiquity. It was only
natural that Laou-tsze, who preached that stillness and self-emptiness
were the highest attainable objects, should be ready to assail a man
whose whole being was wrapt up in ceremonial observances and conscious
well-doing. The very measured tones and considered movements of
Confucius, coupled with a certain admixture of that pride which apes
humility, must have been very irritating to the metaphysically-minded
treasurer. And it was eminently characteristic of Confucius, that
notwithstanding the great provocation given him on this occasion, he
abstained from any rejoinder. We nowhere read of his engaging in a
dispute. When an opponent arose, it was in keeping with the doctrine of
Confucius to retire before him. "A sage," he said, "will not enter a
tottering state nor dwell in a disorganized one. When right principles
of government prevail he shows himself, but when they are prostrated he
remains concealed." And carrying out the same principle in private life,
he invariably refused to wrangle.

It was possibly in connection with this incident that Confucius drew the
attention of his disciples to the metal statue of a man with a triple
clasp upon his mouth, which stood in the ancestral temple at Lo. On the
back of the statue were inscribed these words: "The ancients were
guarded in their speech, and like them we should avoid loquacity. Many
words invite many defeats. Avoid also engaging in many businesses, for
many businesses create many difficulties."

"Observe this, my children," said he, pointing to the inscription.
"These words are true, and commend themselves to our reason."

Having gained all the information he desired in Chow, he returned to
Loo, where pupils flocked to him until, we are told, he was surrounded
by an admiring company of three thousand disciples. His stay in Loo was,
however, of short duration, for the three principal clans of the state,
those of Ke, Shuh, and Mang, after frequent contests between themselves,
engaged in a war with the reigning duke, and overthrew his armies. Upon
this the duke took refuge in the state of T'se, whither Confucius
followed him. As he passed along the road he saw a woman weeping at a
tomb, and having compassion on her, he sent his disciple Tsze-loo to ask
her the cause of her grief. "You weep as if you had experienced sorrow
upon sorrow," said Tsze-loo. "I have," said the woman, "my father-in-law
was killed here by a tiger, and my husband also; and now my son has met
the same fate." "Why, then, do you not remove from the place?" asked
Confucius. "Because here there is no oppressive government," replied the
woman. On hearing this answer, Confucius remarked to his disciples, "My
children remember this, oppressive government is fiercer than a tiger."

Possibly Confucius was attracted to T'se by a knowledge that the music
of the emperor Shun was still preserved at the court. At all events, we
are told that having heard a strain of the much-desired music on his way
to the capital, he hurried on, and was so ravished with the airs he
heard that for three months he never tasted flesh. "I did not think,"
said he, "that music could reach such a pitch of excellence."

Hearing of the arrival of the Sage, the duke of T'se--King, by
name--sent for him, and after some conversation, being minded to act the
part of a patron to so distinguished a visitor, offered to make him a
present of the city of Lin-k'ew with its revenues. But this Confucius
declined, remarking to his disciples, "A superior man will not receive
rewards except for services done. I have given advice to the duke King,
but he has not followed it as yet, and now he would endow me with this
place. Very far is he from understanding me." He still, however,
discussed politics with the duke, and taught him that "There is good
government when the prince is prince, and the minister is minister; when
the father is father, and the son is son." "Good," said the duke; "if,
indeed, the prince be not prince, the minister not minister, and the son
not son, although I have my revenue, can I enjoy it?"

Though Duke King was by no means a satisfactory pupil, many of his
instincts were good, and he once again expressed a desire to pension
Confucius, that he might keep him at hand; but Gan Ying, the Prime
Minister, dissuaded him from his purpose. "These scholars," said the
minister, "are impracticable, and cannot be imitated. They are haughty
and conceited of their own views, so that they will not rest satisfied
in inferior positions. They set a high value on all funeral ceremonies,
give way to their grief, and will waste their property on great
funerals, so that they would only be injurious to the common manners.
This Kung Footsze has a thousand peculiarities. It would take ages to
exhaust all he knows about the ceremonies of going up and going down.
This is not the time to examine into his rules of propriety. If you wish
to employ him to change the customs of T'se, you will not be making the
people your primary consideration." This reasoning had full weight with
the duke, who the next time he was urged to follow the advice of
Confucius, cut short the discussion by the remark, "I am too old to
adopt his doctrines."

Under these circumstances Confucius once more returned to Loo, only
however to find that the condition of the state was still unchanged;
disorder was rife; and the reins of government were in the hands of the
head of the strongest party for the time being. This was no time for
Confucius to take office, and he devoted the leisure thus forced upon
him to the compilation of the "Book of Odes" and the "Book of History."

But in process of time order was once more restored, and he then felt
himself free to accept the post of magistrate of the town of Chung-too,
which was offered him by the duke King.

He now had an opportunity of putting his principles of government to
the test, and the result partly justified his expectations. He framed
rules for the support of the living, and for the observation of rites
for the dead; he arranged appropriate food for the old and the young;
and he provided for the proper separation of men and women. And the
results were, we are told, that, as in the time of King Alfred, a
thing dropped on the road was not picked up; there was no fraudulent
carving of vessels; coffins were made of the ordained thickness; graves
were unmarked by mounds raised over them; and no two prices were charged
in the markets. The duke, surprised at what he saw, asked the sage
whether his rule of government could be applied to the whole state.
"Certainly," replied Confucius, "and not only to the state of Loo,
but to the whole empire." Forthwith, therefore, the duke made him
Assistant-Superintendent of Works, and shortly afterwards appointed him
Minister of Crime. Here, again, his success was complete. From the day
of his appointment crime is said to have disappeared, and the penal laws
remained a dead letter.

Courage was recognized by Confucius as being one of the great virtues,
and about this period we have related two instances in which he showed
that he possessed both moral and physical courage to a high degree. The
chief of the Ke family, being virtual possessor of the state, when the
body of the exiled Duke Chaou was brought from T'se for interment,
directed that it should be buried apart from the graves of his
ancestors. On Confucius becoming aware of his decision, he ordered a
trench to be dug round the burying-ground which should enclose the new
tomb. "Thus to censure a prince and signalize his faults is not
according to etiquette," said he to Ke. "I have caused the grave to be
included in the cemetery, and I have done so to hide your disloyalty."
And his action was allowed to pass unchallenged.

The other instance referred to was on the occasion, a few years later,
of an interview between the dukes of Loo and T'se, at which Confucius
was present as master of ceremonies. At his instigation, an altar was
raised at the place of meeting, which was mounted by three steps, and on
this the dukes ascended, and having pledged one another proceeded to
discuss a treaty of alliance. But treachery was intended on the part of
the duke of T'se, and at a given signal a band of savages advanced with
beat of drum to carry off the duke of Loo. Some such stratagem had been
considered probable by Confucius, and the instant the danger became
imminent he rushed to the altar and led away the duke. After much
disorder, in which Confucius took a firm and prominent part, a treaty
was concluded, and even some land on the south of the river Wan, which
had been taken by T'se, was by the exertions of the Sage restored to
Loo. On this recovered territory the people of Loo, in memory of the
circumstance, built a city and called it, "The City of Confession."

But to return to Confucius as the Minister of Crime.

Though eminently successful, the results obtained under his system were
not quite such as his followers have represented them to have been. No
doubt crime diminished under his rule, but it was by no means abolished.
In fact, his biographers mention a case which must have been peculiarly
shocking to him. A father brought an accusation against his son, in the
expectation, probably, of gaining his suit with ease before a judge who
laid such stress on the virtues of filial piety. But to his surprise,
and that of the on-lookers, Confucius cast both father and son into
prison, and to the remonstrances of the head of the Ke clan answered,
"Am I to punish for a breach of filial piety one who has never been
taught to be filially minded? Is not he who neglects to teach his son
his duties, equally guilty with the son who fails in them? Crime is not
inherent in human nature, and therefore the father in the family, and
the government in the state, are responsible for the crimes committed
against filial piety and the public laws. If a king is careless about
publishing laws, and then peremptorily punishes in accordance with the
strict letter of them, he acts the part of a swindler; if he collect the
taxes arbitrarily without giving warning, he is guilty of oppression;
and if he puts the people to death without having instructed them, he
commits a cruelty."

On all these points Confucius frequently insisted, and strove both by
precept and example to impart the spirit they reflected on all around
him. In the presence of his prince we are told that his manner, though
self-possessed, displayed respectful uneasiness. When he entered the
palace, or when he passed the vacant throne, his countenance changed,
his legs bent under him, and he spoke as though he had scarcely breath
to utter a word. When it fell to his lot to carry the royal sceptre, he
stooped his body as though he were not able to bear its weight. If the
prince came to visit him when he was ill, he had himself placed with his
head to the east, and lay dressed in his court clothes with his girdle
across them. When the prince sent him a present of cooked meat, he
carefully adjusted his mat and just tasted the dishes; if the meat were
uncooked, he offered it to the spirits of his ancestors, and any animal
which was thus sent him he kept alive.

At the village festivals he never preceded, but always followed after
the elders. To all about him he assumed an appearance of simplicity and
sincerity. To the court officials of the lower grade he spoke freely,
and to superior officers his manner was bland but precise. Even at the
wild gatherings which accompanied the annual ceremony of driving away
pestilential influences, he paid honor to the original meaning of the
rite, by standing in court robes on the eastern steps of his house, and
received the riotous exorcists as though they were favored guests. When
sent for by the prince to assist in receiving a royal visitor, his
countenance appeared to change. He inclined himself to the officers
among whom he stood, and when sent to meet the visitor at the gate, "he
hastened forward with his arms spread out like the wings of a bird."
Recognizing in the wind and the storm the voice of Heaven, he changed
countenance at the sound of a sudden clap of thunder or a violent gust
of wind.

The principles which underlie all these details relieve them from the
sense of affected formality which they would otherwise suggest. Like the
sages of old, Confucius had an overweening faith in the effect of
example. "What do you say," asked the chief of the Ke clan on one
occasion, "to killing the unprincipled for the good of the principled?"
"Sir," replied Confucius, "in carrying on your government why should you
employ capital punishment at all? Let your evinced desires be for what
is good and the people will be good." And then quoting the words of King
Ching, he added, "The relation between superiors and inferiors is like
that between the wind and the grass. The grass must bend when the wind
blows across it." Thus in every act of his life, whether at home or
abroad, whether at table or in bed, whether at study or in moments of
relaxation, he did all with the avowed object of being seen of men and
of influencing them by his conduct. And to a certain extent he gained
his end. He succeeded in demolishing a number of fortified cities which
had formed the hotbeds of sedition and tumult; and thus added greatly to
the power of the reigning duke. He inspired the men with a spirit of
loyalty and good faith, and taught the women to be chaste and docile. On
the report of the tranquillity prevailing in Loo, strangers flocked
into the state, and thus was fulfilled the old criterion of good
government which was afterward repeated by Confucius, "the people were
happy, and strangers were attracted from afar."

But even Confucius found it impossible to carry all his theories into
practice, and his experience as Minister of Crime taught him that
something more than mere example was necessary to lead the people into
the paths of virtue. Before he had been many months in office, he signed
the death-warrant of a well-known citizen named Shaou for disturbing the
public peace. This departure from the principle he had so lately laid
down astonished his followers, and Tsze-kung--the Simon Peter as he has
been called among his disciples--took him to task for executing so
notable a man. But Confucius held to it that the step was necessary.
"There are five great evils in the world," said he: "a man with a
rebellious heart who becomes dangerous; a man who joins to vicious deeds
a fierce temper; a man whose words are knowingly false; a man who
treasures in his memory noxious deeds and disseminates them; a man who
follows evil and fertilizes it. All these evil qualities were combined
in Shaou. His house was a rendezvous for the disaffected; his words were
specious enough to dazzle any one; and his opposition was violent enough
to overthrow any independent man."

But notwithstanding such departures from the lines he had laid down for
himself, the people gloried in his rule and sang at their work songs in
which he was described as their savior from oppression and wrong.

Confucius was an enthusiast, and his want of success in his attempt
completely to reform the age in which he lived never seemed to suggest a
doubt to his mind of the complete wisdom of his creed. According to his
theory, his official administration should have effected the reform not
only of his sovereign and the people, but of those of the neighboring
states. But what was the practical result? The contentment which reigned
among the people of Loo, instead of instigating the duke of T'se to
institute a similar system, only served to rouse his jealousy. "With
Confucius at the head of its government," said he, "Loo will become
supreme among the states, and T'se, which is nearest to it, will be
swallowed up. Let us propitiate it by a surrender of territory." But a
more provident statesman suggested that they should first try to bring
about the disgrace of the Sage.

With this object he sent eighty beautiful girls, well skilled in the
arts of music and dancing, and a hundred and twenty of the finest horses
which could be procured, as a present to the duke King. The result fully
realized the anticipation of the minister. The girls were taken into the
duke's harem, the horses were removed to the ducal stables, and
Confucius was left to meditate on the folly of men who preferred
listening to the songs of the maidens of T'se to the wisdom of Yaou and
Shun. Day after day passed and the duke showed no signs of returning to
his proper mind. The affairs of state were neglected, and for three days
the duke refused to receive his ministers in audience.

"Master," said Tsze-loo, "it is time you went." But Confucius, who had
more at stake than his disciple, was disinclined to give up the
experiment on which his heart was set. Besides, the time was approaching
when the great sacrifice to Heaven at the solstice, about which he had
had so many conversations with the duke, should be offered up, and he
hoped that the recollection of his weighty words would recall the duke
to a sense of his duties. But his gay rivals in the affections of the
duke still held their sway, and the recurrence of the great festival
failed to awaken his conscience even for the moment. Reluctantly
therefore Confucius resigned his post and left the capital.

But though thus disappointed of the hopes he entertained of the duke of
Loo, Confucius was by no means disposed to resign his role as the
reformer of the age. "If any one among the princes would employ me,"
said he, "I would effect something considerable in the course of twelve
months, and in three years the government would be perfected." But the
tendencies of the times were unfavorable to the Sage. The struggle for
supremacy which had been going on for centuries between the princes of
the various states was then at its height, and though there might be a
question whether it would finally result in the victory of Tsin, or of
Ts'oo, or of Ts'in, there could be no doubt that the sceptre had
already passed from the hands of the ruler of Chow. To men therefore who
were fighting over the possessions of a state which had ceased to live,
the idea of employing a minister whose principal object would have been
to breathe life into the dead bones of Chow, was ridiculous. This soon
became apparent to his disciples, who being even more concerned than
their master at his loss of office, and not taking so exalted a view as
he did of what he considered to be a heaven-sent mission, were inclined
to urge him to make concessions in harmony with the times. "Your
principles," said Tsze-kung to him, "are excellent, but they are
unacceptable in the empire, would it not be well therefore to bate them
a little?" "A good husbandman," replied the Sage, "can sow, but he
cannot secure a harvest. An artisan may excel in handicraft, but he
cannot provide a market for his goods. And in the same way a superior
man can cultivate his principles, but he cannot make them acceptable."

But Confucius was at least determined that no efforts on his part should
be wanting to discover the opening for which he longed, and on leaving
Loo he betook himself to the state of Wei. On arriving at the capital,
the reigning duke received him with distinction, but showed no desire to
employ him. Probably expecting, however, to gain some advantage from the
counsels of the Sage in the art of governing, he determined to attach
him to his court by the grant of an annual stipend of sixty thousand
measures of grain--that having been the value of the post he had just
resigned in Loo. Had the experiences of his public life come up to the
sanguine hopes he had entertained at its beginning, Confucius would
probably have declined this offer as he did that of the Duke of T'se
some years before, but poverty unconsciously impelled him to act up to
the advice of Tsze-kung and to bate his principles of conduct somewhat.
His stay, however, in Wei was of short duration. The officials at the
court, jealous probably of the influence they feared he might gain over
the duke, intrigued against him, and Confucius thought it best to bow
before the coming storm. After living on the duke's hospitality for ten
months, he left the capital, intending to visit the state of Ch'in.

It chanced, however, that the way thither led him through the town of
Kwang, which had suffered much from the filibustering expeditions of a
notorious disturber of the public peace, named Yang-Hoo. To this man of
ill-fame Confucius bore a striking resemblance, so much so that the
townspeople, fancying that they now had their old enemy in their power,
surrounded the house in which he lodged for five days, intending to
attack him. The situation was certainly disquieting, and the disciples
were much alarmed. But Confucius's belief in the heaven-sent nature of
his mission raised him above fear. "After the death of King Wan," said
he, "was not the cause of truth lodged in me? If Heaven had wished to
let this sacred cause perish, I should not have been put into such a
relation to it. Heaven will not let the cause of truth perish, and what
therefore can the people of Kwang do to me?" Saying which he tuned his
lyre, and sang probably some of those songs from his recently compiled
Book of Odes which breathed the wisdom of the ancient emperors.

From some unexplained cause, but more probably from the people of Kwang
discovering their mistake than from any effect produced by Confucius'
ditties, the attacking force suddenly withdrew, leaving the Sage free to
go wherever he listed. This misadventure was sufficient to deter him
from wandering farther a-field, and, after a short stay at Poo, he
returned to Wei. Again the duke welcomed him to the capital, though it
does not appear that he renewed his stipend, and even his consort
Nan-tsze forgot for a while her intrigues and debaucheries at the news
of his arrival. With a complimentary message she begged an interview
with the Sage, which he at first refused; but on her urging her request,
he was fain obliged to yield the point. On being introduced into her
presence, he found her concealed behind a screen, in strict accordance
with the prescribed etiquette, and after the usual formalities they
entered freely into conversation.

Tsze-loo was much disturbed at this want of discretion, as he considered
it, on the part of Confucius, and the vehemence of his master's answer
showed that there was a doubt in his own mind whether he had not
overstepped the limits of sage-like propriety. "Wherein I have done
improperly," said he, "may Heaven reject me! may Heaven reject me!"
This incident did not, however, prevent him from maintaining friendly
relations with the court, and it was not until the duke by a public act
showed his inability to understand the dignity of the role which
Confucius desired to assume, that he lost all hope of finding employment
in the state of his former patron. On this occasion the duke drove
through the streets of his capital seated in a carriage with Nan-tsze,
and desired Confucius to follow in a carriage behind. As the procession
passed through the market-place, the people perceiving more clearly than
the duke the incongruity of the proceeding, laughed and jeered at the
idea of making virtue follow in the wake of lust. This completed the
shame which Confucius felt at being in so false a position.

"I have not seen one," said he, "who loves virtue as he loves beauty."
To stay any longer under the protection of a court which could inflict
such an indignity upon him was more than he could do, and he therefore
once again struck southward toward Ch'in.

After his retirement from office it is probable that Confucius devoted
himself afresh to imparting to his followers those doctrines and
opinions which we shall consider later on. Even on the road to Ch'in we
are told that he practised ceremonies with his disciples beneath the
shadow of a tree by the wayside in Sung. In the spirit of Laou-tsze,
Hwuy T'uy, an officer in the neighborhood, was angered at his reported
"proud air and many desires, his insinuating habit and wild will," and
attempted to prevent him entering the state. In this endeavor, however,
he was unsuccessful, as were some more determined opponents, who two
years later attacked him at Poo, when he was on his way to Wei. On this
occasion he was seized, and though it is said that his followers
struggled manfully with his captors, their efforts did not save him from
having to give an oath that he would not continue his journey to Wei.
But in spite of his oath, and in spite of the public slight which had
previously been put upon him by the duke of Wei, an irresistible
attraction drew him toward that state, and he had no sooner escaped from
the clutches of his captors than he continued his journey.

This deliberate forfeiture of his word in one who had commanded them to
"hold faithfulness and sincerity as first principles," surprised his
disciples; and Tsze-kung, who was generally the spokesman on such
occasions, asked him whether it was right to violate the oath he had
taken. But Confucius, who had learned expediency in adversity, replied,
"It was an oath extracted by force. The spirits do not hear such."

But to return to Confucius flying from his enemies in Sung. Finding his
way barred by the action of Hwan T'uy, he proceeded westward and arrived
at Ch'ing, the capital of the state of the same name. Thither it would
appear his disciples had preceded him, and he arrived unattended at the
eastern gate of the city. But his appearance was so striking that his
followers were soon made aware of his presence. "There is a man," said a
townsman to Tsze-kung, "standing at the east gate with a forehead like
Yaou, a neck like Kaou Yaou, his shoulders on a level with those of
Tsze-ch'an, but wanting below the waist three inches of the height of
Yu, and altogether having the forsaken appearance of a stray dog."
Recognizing his master in this description, Tsze-kung hastened to meet
him, and repeated to him the words of his informant. Confucius was much
amused, and said: "The personal appearance is a small matter; but to say
I was like a stray dog--capital! capital!"

The ruling powers in Ch'ing, however, showed no disposition to employ
even a man possessing such marked characteristics, and before long he
removed to Ch'in, where he remained a year. From Ch'in he once more
turned his face toward Wei, and it was while he was on this journey that
he was detained at Poo, as mentioned above. Between Confucius and the
duke of Wei there evidently existed a personal liking, if not
friendship. The duke was always glad to see him and ready to converse
with him; but Confucius's unbounded admiration for those whose bones, as
Laou-tsze said, were mouldered to dust, and especially for the founders
of the Chow dynasty, made it impossible for the duke to place him in any
position of importance. At the same time Confucius seems always to have
hoped that he would be able to gain the duke over to his views; and thus
it came about that the Sage was constantly attracted to the court of
Duke Ling, and as often compelled to exile himself from it.

On this particular occasion, as at all other times, the duke received
him gladly, but their conversations, which had principally turned on the
act of peaceful government, were now directed to warlike affairs. The
duke was contemplating an attack on Poo, the inhabitants of which, under
the leadership of Hwan T'uy, who had arrested Confucius, had rebelled
against him. At first Confucius was quite disposed to support the duke
in his intended hostilities; but a representation from the duke that the
probable support of other states would make the expedition one of
considerable danger, converted Confucius to the opinion evidently
entertained by the duke, that it would be best to leave Hwan T'uy in
possession of his ill-gotten territory. Confucius's latest advice was
then to this effect, and the duke acted upon it.

The duke was now becoming an old man, and with advancing age came a
disposition to leave the task of governing to others, and to weary of
Confucius' high-flown lectures. He ceased "to use" Confucius, as the
Chinese historians say, and the Sage was therefore indignant, and ready
to accept any offer which might come from any quarter. While in this
humor he received an invitation from Pih Hih, an officer of the state of
Tsin who was holding the town of Chung-mow against his chief, to visit
him, and he was inclined to go. It is impossible to study this portion
of Confucius' career without feeling that a great change had come over
his conduct. There was no longer that lofty love of truth and of virtue
which had distinguished the commencement of his official life.
Adversity, instead of stiffening his back, had made him pliable. He who
had formerly refused to receive money he had not earned, was now willing
to take pay in return for no other services than the presentation of
courtier-like advice on occasions when Duke Ling desired to have his
opinion in support of his own; and in defiance of his oft-repeated
denunciation of rebels, he was now ready to go over to the court of a
rebel chief, in the hope possibly of being able through his means "to
establish," as he said on another occasion, "an Eastern Chow."

Again Tsze-loo interfered, and expostulated with him on his
inconsistency. "Master," said he, "I have heard you say that when a man
is guilty of personal wrong-doing, a superior man will not associate
with him. If you accept the invitation of this Pih Hih, who is in open
rebellion against his chief, what will people say?" But Confucius, with
a dexterity which had now become common with him, replied: "It is true I
have said so. But is it not also true that if a thing be really hard, it
may be ground without being made thin; and if it be really white, it may
be steeped in a black fluid without becoming black? Am I a bitter gourd?
Am I to be hung up out of the way of being eaten?" But nevertheless
Tsze-loo's remonstrances prevailed, and he did not go.

His relations with the duke did not improve, and so dissatisfied was he
with his patron that he retired from the court. As at this time
Confucius was not in the receipt of any official income, it is probable
that he again provided for his wants by imparting to his disciples some
of the treasures out of the rich stores of learning which he had
collected by means of diligent study and of a wide experience. Every
word and action of Confucius were full of such meaning to his admiring
followers that they have enabled us to trace him into the retirement of
private life. In his dress, we are told, he was careful to wear only the
"correct" colors, viz., azure, yellow, carnation, white and black, and
he scrupulously avoided red as being the color usually affected by women
and girls. At the table he was moderate in his appetite but particular
as to the nature of his food and the manner in which it was set before
him. Nothing would induce him to touch any meat that was "high" or rice
that was musty, nor would he eat anything that was not properly cut up
or accompanied with the proper sauce. He allowed himself only a certain
quantity of meat and rice, and though no such limit was fixed to the
amount of wine with which he accompanied his frugal fare, we are assured
that he never allowed himself to be confused by it. When out driving, he
never turned his head quite round, and in his actions as well as in his
words he avoided all appearance of haste.

Such details are interesting in the case of a man like Confucius, who
has exercised so powerful an influence over so large a proportion of the
world's inhabitants, and whose instructions, far from being confined to
the courts of kings, found their loudest utterances in intimate
communings with his disciples, and in the example he set by the exact
performance of his daily duties.

The only accomplishment which Confucius possessed was a love of music,
and this he studied less as an accomplishment than as a necessary part
of education. "It is by the odes that the mind is aroused," said he. "It
is by the rules of propriety that the character is established. And it
is music which completes the edifice."

But having tasted the sweets of official life, Confucius was not
inclined to resign all hope of future employment, and the duke of Wei
still remaining deaf to his advice, he determined to visit the state of
Tsin, in the hope of finding in Chaou Keen-tsze, one of the three
chieftains who virtually governed that state, a more hopeful pupil. With
this intention he started westward, but had got no farther than the
Yellow River when the news reached him of the execution of Tuh Ming and
Tuh Shun-hwa, two men of note in Tsin. The disorder which this indicated
put a stop to his journey; for had not he himself said "that a superior
man will not enter a tottering state." His disappointment and grief were
great, and looking at the yellow waters as they flowed at his feet, he
sighed and muttered to himself: "Oh how beautiful were they; this river
is not more majestic than they were! and I was not there to avert their
fate!"

So saying he returned to Wei, only to find the duke as little inclined
to listen to his lectures, as he was deeply engaged in warlike
preparations. When Confucius presented himself at court, the duke
refused to talk on any other subject but military tactics, and
forgetting, possibly on purpose, that Confucius was essentially a man of
peace, pressed him for information on the art of manoeuvreing an army.
"If you should wish to know how to arrange sacrificial vessels," said
the Sage, "I will answer you, but about warfare I know nothing."

Confucius was now sixty years old, and the condition of the states
composing the empire was even more unfavorable for the reception of his
doctrines than ever. But though depressed by fortune, he never lost that
steady confidence in himself and his mission, which was a leading
characteristic of his career, and when he found the duke of Wei deaf to
his advice, he removed to Ch'in, in the hope of there finding a ruler
who would appreciate his wisdom.

In the following year he left Ch'in with his disciples for Ts'ae, a
small dependency of the state of Ts'oo. In those days the empire was
subjected to constant changes. One day a new state carved out of an old
one would appear, and again it would disappear, or increase in size, as
the fortunes of war might determine. Thus while Confucius was in Ts'ae,
a part of Ts'oo declared itself independent, under the name of Ye, and
the ruler usurped the title of duke. In earlier days such rebellion
would have called forth a rebuke from Confucius; but it was otherwise
now, and, instead of denouncing the usurper as a rebel, he sought him as
a patron. The duke did not know how to receive his visitor, and asked
Tsze-loo about him. But Tsze-loo, possibly because he considered the
duke to be no better than Pih Hih, returned him no answer. For this
reticence Confucius found fault with him, and said, "Why did you not say
to him, 'He is simply a man who, in his eager pursuit of knowledge,
forgets his food; who, in the joy of its attainments, forgets his
sorrows; and who does not perceive that old age is coming on?'"

But whatever may have been the opinion of Tsze-loo, Confucius was quite
ready to be on friendly terms with the duke, who seems to have had no
keener relish for Confucius' ethics than the other rulers to whom he had
offered his services. We are only told of one conversation which took
place between the duke and the Sage, and on that occasion the duke
questioned him on the subject of government. Confucius' reply was
eminently characteristic of the man. Most of his definitions of good
government would have sounded unpleasantly in the ears of a man who had
just thrown off his master's yoke and headed a successful rebellion, so
he cast about for one which might offer some excuse for the new duke by
attributing the fact of his disloyalty to the bad government of his late
ruler. Quoting the words of an earlier sage, he replied, "Good
government obtains when those who are near are made happy, and those who
are far off are attracted."

Returning from Ye to Ts'ae, he came to a river which, being unbridged,
left him no resource but to ford it. Seeing two men whom he recognized
as political recluses ploughing in a neighboring field, he sent the
ever-present Tsze-loo to inquire of them where best he could effect a
crossing. "Who is that holding the reins in the carriage yonder?" asked
the first addressed, in answer to Tsze-loo's inquiry. "Kung Kew,"
replied the disciple, "Kung Kew, of Loo?" asked the ploughman. "Yes,"
was the reply. "_He_ knows the ford," was the enigmatic answer of the
man as he turned to his work; but whether this reply was suggested by
the general belief that Confucius was omniscient, or by wry of a parable
to signify that Confucius possessed the knowledge by which the river of
disorder, which was barring the progress of liberty and freedom, might
be crossed, we are only left to conjecture. Nor from the second recluse
could Tsze-loo gain any practical information. "Who are you, sir?" was
the somewhat peremptory question which his inquiry met with. Upon his
answering that he was a disciple of Confucius, the man, who might have
gathered his estimate of Confucius from the mouth of Laou-tsze, replied:
"Disorder, like a swelling flood, spreads over the whole empire, and who
is he who will change it for you? Rather than follow one who merely
withdraws from this court to that court, had you not better follow those
who (like ourselves) withdraw from the world altogether?" These words
Tsze-loo, as was his wont, repeated to Confucius, who thus justified his
career: "It is impossible to associate with birds and beasts as if they
were the same as ourselves. If I associate not with people, with
mankind, with whom shall I associate? If right principles prevailed
throughout the empire, there would be no necessity for me to change its
state."

Altogether Confucius remained three years in Ts'ae,--three years of
strife and war, during which his counsels were completely neglected.
Toward their close, the state of Woo made an attack on Ch'in, which
found support from the powerful state of Ts'oo on the south. While thus
helping his ally, the Duke of Ts'oo heard that Confucius was in Ts'ae,
and determined to invite him to his court. With this object he sent
messengers bearing presents to the Sage, and charged them with a
message begging him to come to Ts'oo. Confucius readily accepted the
invitation, and prepared to start. But the news of the transaction
alarmed the ministers of Ts'ae and Ch'in. "Ts'oo," said they, "is
already a powerful state, and Confucius is a man of wisdom. Experience
has proved that those who have despised him have invariably suffered for
it, and, should he succeed in guiding the affairs of Ts'oo, we should
certainly be ruined. At all hazards we must stop his going." When,
therefore, Confucius had started on his journey, these men despatched a
force which hemmed him in a wild bit of desert country. Here, we are
told, they kept him a prisoner for seven days, during which time he
suffered severe privations, and, as was always the case in moments of
difficulty, the disciples loudly bewailed their lot and that of their
master.

"Has the superior man," said Tsze-loo, "indeed, to endure in this way?"
"The superior man may indeed have to suffer want," replied Confucius,
"but it is only the mean man who, when he is in straits, gives way to
unbridled license." In this emergency he had recourse to a solace which
had soothed him on many occasions when fortune frowned: he played, on
his lute and sang.

At length he succeeded in sending word to the duke of Ts'oo of the
position he was in. At once the duke sent ambassadors to liberate him,
and he himself went out of his capital to meet him. But though he
welcomed him cordially, and seems to have availed himself of his advice
on occasions, he did not appoint him to any office, and the intention he
at one time entertained of granting him a slice of territory was
thwarted by his ministers, from motives of expediency. "Has your
majesty," said this officer, "any servant who could discharge the duties
of ambassador like Tsze-kung? or any so well qualified for a premier as
Yen Hwuy? or any one to compare as a general with Tsze-loo? Did not
kings Wan and Woo, from their small states of Fung and Kaou, rise to the
sovereignty of the empire? And if Kung Kew once acquired territory, with
such disciples to be his ministers, it will not be to the prosperity of
Ts'oo."

This remonstrance not only had the immediate effect which was intended,
but appears to have influenced the manner of the duke toward the Sage,
for in the interval between this and the duke's death, in the autumn of
the same year, we hear of no counsel being either asked or given. In the
successor to the throne Confucius evidently despaired of finding a
patron, and he once again returned to Wei.

Confucius was now sixty-three, and on arriving at Wei he found a
grandson of his former friend, the duke Ling, holding the throne against
his own father, who had been driven into exile for attempting the life
of his mother, the notorious Nan-tsze. This chief, who called himself
the duke Chuh, being conscious how much his cause would be strengthened
by the support of Confucius, sent Tsze-loo to him, saying, "The Prince
of Wei has been waiting to secure your services in the administration of
the state, and wishes to know what you consider is the first thing to be
done." "It is first of all necessary," replied Confucius, "to rectify
names." "Indeed," said Tzse-loo, "you are wide of the mark. Why need
there be such rectification?" "How uncultivated you are, Yew," answered
Confucius; "a superior man shows a cautious reserve in regard to what he
does not know. If names be not correct, language is not in accordance
with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the
truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on successfully. When affairs
cannot be carried on successfully, proprieties and music will not
flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will
not properly be awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the
people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore the superior man
considers it necessary that names should be used appropriately, and that
his directions should be carried out appropriately. A superior man
requires that his words should be correct."

The position of things in Wei was naturally such as Confucius could not
sanction, and, as the duke showed no disposition to amend his ways, the
Sage left his court, and lived the remainder of the five or six years,
during which he sojourned in the state, in close retirement.

He had now been absent from his native state of Loo for fourteen years,
and the time had come when he was to return to it. But, by the irony of
fate, the accomplishment of his long-felt desire was due, not to his
reputation for political or ethical wisdom, but to his knowledge of
military tactics, which he heartily despised. It happened that at this
time Yen Yew, a disciple of the Sage, being in the service of Ke K'ang,
conducted a campaign against T'se with much success. On his triumphal
return, Ke K'ang asked him how he had acquired his military skill. "From
Confucius," replied the general. "And what kind of man is he?" asked Ke
K'ang. "Were you to employ him," answered Yen Yew, "your fame would
spread abroad; your people might face demons and gods, and would have
nothing to fear or to ask of them. And if you accepted his principles,
were you to collect a thousand altars of the spirits of the land it
would profit you nothing." Attracted by such a prospect, Ke K'ang
proposed to invite the Sage to his court, "If you do," said Yen Yew,
"mind you do not allow mean men to come between you and him."

But before Ke K'ang's invitation reached Confucius an incident occurred
which made the arrival of the messengers from Loo still more welcome to
him. K'ung Wan, an officer of Wei, came to consult him as to the best
means of attacking the force of another officer with whom he was engaged
in a feud. Confucius, disgusted at being consulted on such a subject,
professed ignorance, and prepared to leave the state, saying as he went
away: "The bird chooses its tree; the tree does not choose the bird." At
this juncture Ke K'ang's envoys arrived, and without hesitation he
accepted the invitation they brought. On arriving at Loo, he presented
himself at court, and in reply to a question of the duke Gae on the
subject of government, threw out a strong hint that the duke might do
well to offer him an appointment. "Government," he said, "consists in
the right choice of ministers." To the same question put by Ke K'ang he
replied, "Employ the upright and put aside the crooked, and thus will
the crooked be made upright."

At this time Ke K'ang was perplexed how to deal with the prevailing
brigandage. "If you, sir, were not avaricious, though you might offer
rewards to induce people to steal, they would not." This answer
sufficiently indicates the estimate formed by Confucius of Ke K'ang
and therefore of the duke Gae, for so entirely were the two of one mind
that the acts of Ke K'ang appear to have been invariably indorsed by the
duke. It was plainly impossible that Confucius could serve under such a
regime, and instead, therefore, of seeking employment, he retired to his
study and devoted himself to the completion of his literary undertaking.

He was now sixty-nine years of age, and if a man is to be considered
successful only when he succeeds in realizing the dream of his life, he
must be deemed to have been unfortunate. Endowed by nature with a large
share of reverence, a cold rather than a fervid disposition, and a
studious mind, and reared in the traditions of the ancient kings, whose
virtuous achievements obtained an undue prominence by the obliteration
of all their faults and failures, he believed himself capable of
effecting far more than it was possible for him or any other man to
accomplish. In the earlier part of his career, he had in Loo an
opportunity given him for carrying his theories of government into
practice, and we have seen how they failed to do more than produce a
temporary improvement in the condition of the people under his immediate
rule. But he had a lofty and steady confidence in himself and in the
principles which he professed, which prevented his accepting the only
legitimate inference which could be drawn from his want of success. The
lessons of his own experience were entirely lost upon him, and he went
down to his grave at the age of seventy-two firmly convinced as of yore
that if he were placed in a position of authority "in three years the
government would be perfected."

Finding it impossible to associate himself with the rulers of Loo, he
appears to have resigned himself to exclusion from office. His
wanderings were over:

    "And as a hare, when hounds and horns pursue,
    Pants to the place from whence at first he flew,"

he had lately been possessed with an absorbing desire to return once
more to Loo. This had at last been brought about, and he made up his
mind to spend the remainder of his days in his native state. He had now
leisure to finish editing the _Shoo King_, or _Book of History_, to
which he wrote a preface; he also "carefully digested the rites and
ceremonies determined by the wisdom of the more ancient sages and
kings; collected and arranged the ancient poetry; and undertook the
reform of music." He made a diligent study of the _Book of Changes_, and
added a commentary to it, which is sufficient to show that the original
meaning of the work was as much a mystery to him as it has been to
others. His idea of what would probably be the value of the kernel
encased in this unusually hard shell, if it were once rightly
understood, is illustrated by his remark, "that if some years could be
added to his life, he would give fifty of them to the study of the _Book
of Changes_ and that then he expected to be without great faults."

In the year B.C. 482 his son Le died, and in the following year he lost
by death his faithful disciple Yen Hwuy. When the news of this last
misfortune reached him, he exclaimed, "Alas! Heaven is destroying me!" A
year later a servant of Ke K'ang caught a strange one-horned animal
while on a hunting excursion, and as no one present, could tell what
animal it was, Confucius was sent for. At once he declared it to be a
K'e-lin, and legend says that its identity with the one which appeared
before his birth was proved by its having the piece of ribbon on its
horn which Ching-tsae tied to the weird animal which presented itself to
her in a dream on Mount Ne. This second apparition could only have one
meaning, and Confucius was profoundly affected at the portent. "For whom
have you come?" he cried, "for whom have you come?" and then, bursting
into tears, he added, "The course of my doctrine is run, and I am
unknown."

"How do you mean that you are unknown?" asked Tsze-kung. "I don't
complain of Providence," answered the Sage, "nor find fault with men
that learning is neglected and success is worshipped. Heaven knows me.
Never does a superior man pass away without leaving a name behind him.
But my principles make no progress, and I, how shall I be viewed in
future ages?"

At this time, notwithstanding his declining strength and his many
employments, he wrote the _Ch'un ts'ew,_ or _Spring and Autumn Annals_,
in which he followed the history of his native state of Loo, from the
time of the duke Yin to the fourteenth year of the duke Gae, that is, to
the time when the appearance of the K'e-lin warned him to consider his
life at an end.

This is the only work of which Confucius was the author, and of this
every word is his own. His biographers say that "what was written, he
wrote, and what was erased, was erased by him." Not an expression was
either inserted or altered by any one but himself. When he had completed
the work, he handed the manuscript to his disciples, saying, "By the
_Spring and Autumn Annals_ I shall be known, and by the _Spring and
Autumn Annals_ I shall be condemned." This only furnishes another of the
many instances in which authors have entirely misjudged the value of
their own works.

In the estimation of his countrymen even, whose reverence for his every
word would incline them to accept his opinion on this as on every
subject, the _Spring and Autumn Annals_ holds a very secondary place,
his utterances recorded in the _Lun yu_, or _Confucian Analects_, being
esteemed of far higher value, as they undoubtedly are. And indeed the
two works he compiled, the _Shoo king_ and the _She king_, hold a very
much higher place in the public regard than the book on which he so
prided himself. To foreigners, whose judgments are unhampered by his
recorded opinion, his character as an original historian sinks into
insignificance, and he is known only as a philosopher and statesman.

Once again only do we hear of Confucius presenting himself at the court
of the duke after this. And this was on the occasion of the murder of
the duke of T'se by one of his officers. We must suppose that the crime
was one of a gross nature, for it raised Confucius' fiercest anger, and
he who never wearied of singing the praises of those virtuous men who
overthrew the thrones of licentious and tyrannous kings, would have had
no room for blame if the murdered duke had been like unto Kee or Show.
But the outrage was one which Confucius felt should be avenged, and he
therefore bathed and presented himself at court.

"Sir," said he, addressing the duke, "Ch'in Hang has slain his
sovereign; I beg that you will undertake to punish him." But the duke
was indisposed to move in the matter, and pleaded the comparative
strength of T'se. Confucius, however, was not to be so silenced.
"One-half of the people of Tse," said he, "are not consenting to the
deed. If you add to the people of Loo one-half of the people of Tse, you
will be sure to overcome." This numerical argument no more affected the
duke than the statement of the fact, and wearying with Confucius'
importunity, he told him to lay the matter before the chiefs of the
three principal families of the state. Before this court of appeal,
whither he went with reluctance, his cause fared no better, and the
murder remained unavenged.

At a period when every prince held his throne by the strength of his
right arm, revolutions lost half their crime, and must have been looked
upon rather as trials of strength than as disloyal villanies. The
frequency of their occurrence, also, made them less the subjects of
surprise and horror. At the time of which we write, the states in the
neighborhood of Loo appear to have been in a very disturbed condition.
Immediately following on the murder of the duke of T'se, news was
brought to Confucius that a revolution had broken out in Wei. This was
an occurrence which particularly interested him, for when he returned
from Wei to Loo he left Tsze-loo and Tsze-kaou, two of his disciples,
engaged in the official service of the state. "Tsze-kaou will return,"
was Confucius' remark, when he was told of the outbreak, "but Tsze-loo
will die." The prediction was verified. For when Tsze-kaou saw that
matters were desperate he made his escape; but Tsze-loo remained to
defend his chief, and fell fighting in the cause of his master. Though
Confucius had looked forward to the event as probable, he was none the
less grieved when he heard that it had come about, and he mourned for
his friend, whom he was so soon to follow to the grave.

One morning, in the spring of the year B.C. 478, he walked in front of
his door, mumbling as he went:

    "The great mountain must crumble;
    The strong beam must break;
    And the wise man withers away like a plant."

These words came as a presage of evil to the faithful Tsze-kung. "If the
great mountain crumble," said he, "to what shall I look up? If the
strong beam break, and the wise man wither away, on whom shall I lean?
The master, I fear, is going to be ill." So saying, he hastened after
Confucius into the house. "What makes you so late?" said Confucius, when
the disciple presented himself before him; and then he added, "According
to the statutes of Hea, the corpse was dressed and coffined at the top
of the eastern steps, treating the dead as if he were still the host.
Under the Yin, the ceremony was performed between the two pillars, as if
the dead were both host and guest. The rule of Chow is to perform it at
the top of the western steps, treating the dead as if he were a guest. I
am a man of Yin, and last night I dreamed that I was sitting, with
offerings before me, between the two pillars. No intelligent monarch
arises; there is not one in the empire who will make me his master. My
time is come to die." It is eminently characteristic of Confucius that
in his last recorded speech and dream, his thoughts should so have dwelt
on the ceremonies of bygone ages. But the dream had its fulfilment. That
same day he took to his bed, and after a week's illness he expired.

On the banks of the river Sze, to the north of the capital city of Loo,
his disciples buried him, and for three years they mourned at his grave.
Even such marked respect as this fell short of the homage which
Tsze-kung, his most faithful disciple, felt was due to him, and for
three additional years that loving follower testified by his grief his
reverence for his master. "I have all my life had the heaven above my
head," said he, "but I do not know its height; and the earth under my
feet, but I know not its thickness. In serving Confucius, I am like a
thirsty man, who goes with his pitcher to the river and there drinks his
fill, without knowing the river's depth."



ROME ESTABLISHED AS A REPUBLIC

INSTITUTION OF TRIBUNES

B.C. 510-494

HENRY GEORGE LIDDELL


     The republic of Rome was the outcome of a sudden revolution caused
     by the crimes of the House of Tarquin, an Etruscan family who had
     reached the highest power at Rome. The indignation raised by the
     rape of Lucretia by Sextus Tarquinius, and the suicide of the
     outraged lady at Collatia, moved her father, in conjunction with
     Lucius Junius Brutus and Publius Valerius, to start a rebellion.
     The people were assembled by curiæ, or wards, and voted that
     Tarquinius Superbus should be stripped of the kingly power, and
     that he and all his family should be banished from Rome.

     This was accordingly done; and, instead of kings, consuls were
     appointed to wield the supreme power. These consuls were elected
     annually at the _comitia centuriata_ and they had sovereign power
     granted them by a vote of the _comitia curiata_. The first consuls
     chosen were Lucius Junius Brutus and Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus.

     What is known as the Secession to the Sacred Hill took place when
     the plebeians of Rome, in the early days of the Republic, indignant
     at the oppression and cruelty of the patricians, left the city en
     masse and gathered with hostile manifestations at a hill, Mons
     Sacer, some distance from Rome. It was here Menenius Agrippa
     conciliated them by reciting the famous fable of "The Belly and the
     Members." After this the people were induced to come to terms with
     the patricians and to return to the city.

     The people had, however, gained a great advantage by their bold
     defiance of the consular and patrician class, who had practically
     been supreme in the state, had been oppressive money-lenders, and
     had controlled the decisions of the law courts. It was not in vain
     that the people now demanded that as the two consuls were
     practically elected to further the interests of the upper class, so
     they, the plebeians, should have the election of two tribunes to
     protect them from wrong and oppression. These new officers were
     duly appointed, and eventually their number was increased to ten.
     Their power was almost absolute, but it never seems to have been
     abused, and this fact is a proof of the native moderation of the
     ancient Romans. There have been many constitutional struggles in
     the history of modern times, but nothing like the plebeian
     tribunate has ever appeared, and it is a question if the
     institution could have existed for a month, in any country of
     modern times, with the salutary influences which it exercised in
     early Rome.


Tarquin had made himself king by the aid of the patricians, and chiefly
by means of the third or Lucerian tribe, to which his family belonged.
The burgesses of the Gentes were indignant at the curtailment of their
privileges by the popular reforms of Servius, and were glad to lend
themselves to any overthrow of his power. But Tarquin soon kicked away
the ladder by which he had risen. He abrogated, it is true, the hated
Assembly of the Centuries; but neither did he pay any heed to the
Curiate Assembly, nor did he allow any new members to be chosen into the
senate in place of those who were removed by death or other causes; so
that even those who had helped him to the throne repented them of their
deed. The name of Superbus, or the Proud, testifies to the general
feeling against the despotic rule of the second Tarquin.

It was by foreign alliances that he calculated on supporting his
despotism at home. The Etruscans of Tarquinii, and all its associate
cities, were his friends; and among the Latins also he sought to raise a
power which might counterbalance the senate and people of Rome.

The wisdom of Tarquinius Priscus and Servius had united all the Latin
name to Rome, so that Rome had become the sovereign city of Latium. The
last Tarquin drew those ties still closer. He gave his daughter in
marriage to Octavius Mamilius, chief of Tusculum, and favored the Latins
in all things. But at a general assembly of the Latins at the Ferentine
Grove, beneath the Alban Mount, where they had been accustomed to meet
of olden time to settle their national affairs, Turnus Herdonius of
Aricia rose and spoke against him. Then Tarquinius accused him of high
treason, and brought false witnesses against him; and so powerful with
the Latins was the king that they condemned their countryman to be
drowned in the Ferentine water, and obeyed Tarquinius in all things.

With them he made war upon the Volscians and took the city of Suessa,
wherein was a great booty. This booty he applied to the execution of
great works in the city, in emulation of his father and King Servius.
The elder Tarquin had built up the side of the Tarpeian rock and
levelled the summit, to be the foundation of a temple of Jupiter, but he
had not completed the work. Tarquinius Superbus now removed all the
temples and shrines of the old Sabine gods which had been there since
the time of Titus Tatius; but the goddess of Youth and the god Terminus
kept their place, whereby was signified that the Roman people should
enjoy undecaying vigor, and that the boundaries of their empire should
never be drawn in. And on the Tarpeian height he built a magnificent
temple, to be dedicated jointly to the great gods of the Latins and
Etruscans, Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva; and this part of the Saturnian
Hill was ever after called the Capitol or the Chief Place, while the
upper part was called the Arx or Citadel.

He brought architects from Etruria to plan the temple, but he forced the
Roman people to work for him without hire.

One day a strange woman appeared before the king and offered him nine
books to buy; and when he refused them she went away and burned, three
of the nine books and brought back the remaining six and offered to sell
them at the same price that she had asked for the nine; and when he
laughed at her and again refused, she went as before and burned three
more books, and came back and asked still the same price for the three
that were left. Then the king was struck by her pertinacity, and he
consulted his augurs what this might be; and they bade him by all means
buy the three, and said he had done wrong not to buy the nine, for these
were the books of the Sibyl and contained great secrets. So the books
were kept underground in the Capitol in a stone chest, and two men
(_duumviri_) were appointed to take charge of them, and consult them
when the state was in danger.

The only Latin town that defied Tarquin's power was Gabii; and Sextus,
the king's youngest son, promised to win this place also for his father.
So he fled from Rome and presented himself at Gabii; and there he made
complaints of his father's tyranny and prayed for protection. The
Gabians believed him, and took him into their city, and they trusted
him, so that in time he was made commander of their army. Now his
father suffered him to conquer in many small battles, and the Gabians
trusted him more and more. Then he sent privately to his father, and
asked what he should do to make the Gabians submit. Then King Tarquin
gave no answer to the messenger, but, as he walked up and down his
garden, he kept cutting off the heads of the tallest poppies with his
staff. At last the messenger was tired, and went back to Sextus and told
him what had passed. But Sextus understood what his father meant, and he
began to accuse falsely all the chief men, and some of them he put to
death and some he banished. So at last the city of Gabii was left
defenceless, and Sextus delivered it up to his father.

While Tarquin was building his temple on the Capitol, a strange portent
offered itself; for a snake came forth and devoured the sacrifices on
the altar. The king, not content with the interpretation of his Etruscan
soothsayers, sent persons to consult the famous oracle of the Greeks at
Delphi, and the persons he sent were his own sons Titus and Aruns, and
his sister's son, L. Junius, a young man who, to avoid his uncle's
jealousy, feigned to be without common sense, wherefore he was called
Brutus or the Dullard. The answer given by the oracle was that the chief
power of Rome should belong to him of the three who should first kiss
his mother; and the two sons of King Tarquin agreed to draw lots which
of them should do this as soon as they returned home. But Brutus
perceived that the oracle had another sense; so as soon as they landed
in Italy he fell down on the ground as if he had stumbled, and kissed
the earth, for she (he thought) was the true mother of all mortal
things.

When the sons of Tarquin returned with their cousin, L. Junius Brutus,
they found the king at war with the Rutulians of Ardea. Being unable to
take the place by storm, he was forced to blockade it; and while the
Roman army was encamped before the town the young men used to amuse
themselves at night with wine and wassail. One night there was a feast,
at which Sextus, the king's third son, was present, as also Collatinus,
the son of Egerius, the king's uncle, who had been made governor of
Collatia. So they soon began to dispute about the worthiness of their
wives; and when each maintained that his own wife was worthiest, "Come,
gentlemen," said Collatinus, "let us take horse and see what our wives
are doing; they expect us not, and so we shall know the truth." All
agreed, and they galloped to Rome, and there they found the wives of all
the others feasting and revelling: but when they came to Collatia they
found Lucretia, the wife of Collatinus, not making merry like the rest,
but sitting in the midst of her handmaids carding wool and spinning; so
they all allowed that Lucretia was the worthiest.

Now Lucretia was the daughter of a noble Roman, Spurius Lucretius, who
was at this time prefect of the city; for it was the custom, when the
kings went out to war, that they left a chief man at home to administer
all things in the king's name, and he was called prefect of the city.

But it chanced that Sextus, the king's son, when he saw the fair
Lucretia, was smitten with lustful passion; and a few days after he came
again to Collatia, and Lucretia entertained him hospitably as her
husband's cousin and friend. But at midnight he arose and came with
stealthy steps to her bedside: and holding a sword in his right hand,
and laying his left hand upon her breast, he bade her yield to his
wicked desires; for if not, he would slay her and lay one of her slaves
beside her, and would declare that he had taken them in adultery. So for
shame she consented to that which no fear would have wrung from her: and
Sextus, having wrought this deed of shame, returned to the camp.

Then Lucretia sent to Rome for her father, and to the camp at Ardea for
her husband. They came in haste. Lucretius brought with him P. Valerius,
and Collatinus brought L. Junius Brutus, his cousin, And they came in
and asked if all was well Then she told them what was done: "but," she
said, "my body only has suffered the shame, for my will consented not to
the deed. Therefore," she cried, "avenge me on the wretch Sextus. As for
me, though my heart has not sinned, I can live no longer. No one shall
say that Lucretia set an example of living in unchastity." So she drew
forth a knife and stabbed herself to the heart.

When they saw that, her father and her husband cried aloud; but Brutus
drew the knife from the wound, and holding it up, spoke thus: "By this
pure blood I swear before the gods that I will pursue L. Tarquinius the
Proud and all his bloody house with fire, sword, or in whatsoever way I
may, and that neither they nor any other shall hereafter be king in
Rome." Then he gave the knife to Collatinus and Lucretius and Valerius,
and they all swore likewise, much marvelling to hear such words from L.
Junius the Dullard. And they took up the body of Lucretia, and carried
it into the Forum, and called on the men of Collatia to rise against the
tyrant. So they set a guard at the gates of the town, to prevent any
news of the matter being carried to King Tarquin: and they themselves,
followed by the youth of Collatia, went to Rome. Here Brutus, who was
chief captain of the knights, called the people together, and he told
them what had been done, and called on them by the deed of shame wrought
against Lucretius and Collatinus--by all that they had suffered from the
tyrants--by the abominable murder of good King Servius--to assist them
in taking vengeance on the Tarquins. So it was hastily agreed to banish
Tarquinius and his family. The youth declared themselves ready to follow
Brutus against the king's army, and the seniors put themselves under the
rule of Lucretius, the prefect of the city. In this tumult, the wicked
Tullia fled from her house, pursued by the curses of all men, who prayed
that the avengers of her father's blood might be upon her.

When the king heard what had passed, he set off in all haste for the
city. Brutus also set off for the camp at Ardea; and he turned aside
that he might not meet his uncle the king. So he came to the camp at
Ardea, and the king came to Rome. And all the Romans at Ardea welcomed
Brutus, and joined their arms to his, and thrust out all the king's sons
from the camp. But the people of Rome shut the gates against the king,
so that he could not enter. And King Tarquin, with his sons Titus and
Aruns, went into exile and lived at Cære in Etruria. But Sextus fled to
Gabii, where he had before held rule, and the people of Gabii slew him
in memory of his former cruelty.

So L. Tarquinius Superbus was expelled from Rome, after he had been king
five-and-twenty years. And in memory of this event was instituted a
festival called the "Regifugium" or "Fugalia," which was celebrated
every year on the 24th day of February.

To gratify the plebeians, the patricians consented to restore, in some
measure at least, the popular institutions of King Servius; and it was
resolved to follow his supposed intention with regard to the supreme
government--that is, to have two magistrates elected every year, who
were to have the same power as the king during the time of their rule.
These were in after days known by the name of Consuls; but in ancient
times they were called "Prætors" or Judges. They were elected at the
great Assembly of Centuries; and they had sovereign power conferred upon
them by the assembly of the Curies. They wore a robe edged with violet
color, sat in their chairs of state called curule chairs, and were
attended by twelve lictors each. These lictors carried fasces, or
bundles of rods, out of which arose an axe, in token of the power of
life and death possessed by the consuls as successors of the kings. But
only one of them at a time had a right to this power; and, in token
thereof, his colleague's fasces had no axes in them. Each retained this
mark of sovereign power (_Imperium_) for a month at a time.

The first consuls were L. Junius Brutus and L. Tarquinius Collatinus.

The new consuls filled up the senate to the proper number of three
hundred; and the new senators were called "Conscripti," while the old
members retained their old name of "Patres." So after this the whole
senate was addressed by speakers as "Patres, Conscripti." But in later
times it was forgotten that these names belonged to different sorts of
persons, and the whole senate was addressed as by one name, "Patres
Conscripti."

The name of king was hateful. But certain sacrifices had always been
performed by the king in person; and therefore, to keep up form, a
person was still chosen, with the title of "Rex Sacrorum" or "Rex
Sacrificulus," to perform these offerings. But even he was placed under
the authority of the chief pontifex.

After his expulsion, King Tarquin sent messengers to Rome to ask that
his property should be given up to him, and the senate decreed that his
prayer should be granted. But the king's ambassadors, while they were in
Rome, stirred up the minds of the young men and others who had been
favored by Tarquin, so that a plot was made to bring him back. Among
those who plotted were Titus and Tiberius, the sons of the Consul
Brutus; and they gave letters to the messengers of the king. But it
chanced that a certain slave hid himself in the place where they met,
and overheard them plotting; and he came and told the thing to the
consuls, who seized the messengers of the king with the letters upon
their persons, authenticated by the seals of the young men. The culprits
were immediately arrested; but the ambassadors were let go, because
their persons were regarded as sacred. And the goods of King Tarquin
were given up for plunder to the people.

Then the traitors were brought up before the consuls, and the sight was
such as to move all beholders to pity; for among them were the sons of
L. Junius Brutus himself, the first consul, the liberator of the Roman
people. And now all men saw how Brutus loved his country; for he bade
the lictors put all the traitors to death, and his own sons first; and
men could mark in his face the struggle between his duty as a chief
magistrate of Rome and his feelings as a father. And while they praised
and admired him, they pitied him yet more.

Then a decree of the senate was made that no one of the blood of the
Tarquins should remain in Rome. And since Collatinus, the consul, was by
descent a Tarquin, even he was obliged to give up his office and return
to Collatia. In his room, P. Valerius was chosen consul by the people.

This was the first attempt to restore Tarquin the Proud.

When Tarquin saw that the plot at home had failed, he prevailed on the
people of Tarquinii and Veii to make war with him against the Romans.
But the consuls came out against them; Valerius commanding the main
army, and Brutus the cavalry. And it chanced that Aruns, the king's son,
led the cavalry of the enemy. When he saw Brutus he spurred his horse
against him, and Brutus declined not the combat. So they rode straight
at each other with levelled spears; and so fierce was the shock, that
they pierced each other through from breast to back, and both fell dead.

Then, also, the armies fought, but the battle was neither won nor lost.
But in the night a voice was heard by the Etruscans, saying that the
Romans were the conquerors. So the enemy fled by night; and when the
Romans arose in the morning, there was no man to oppose them. Then they
took up the body of Brutus, and departed home, and buried him in public
with great pomp, and the matrons of Rome mourned him for a whole year,
because he had avenged the injury of Lucretia.

And thus the second attempt to restore King Tarquin was frustrated.

After the death of Brutus, Publius Valerius ruled the people for a while
by himself, and he began to build himself a house upon the ridge called
Velia, which looks down upon the Forum. So the people thought that he
was going to make himself king; but when he heard this, he called an
assembly of the people, and appeared before them with his fasces
lowered, and with no axes in them, whence the custom remained ever
after, that no consular lictors wore axes within the city, and no consul
had power of life and death except when he was in command of his legions
abroad. And he pulled down the beginning of his house upon the Velia,
and built it below that hill. Also he passed laws that every Roman
citizen might appeal to the people against the judgment of the chief
magistrates. Wherefore he was greatly honored among the people, and was
called "Poplicola," or "Friend of the People."

After this Valerius called together the great Assembly of the Centuries,
and they chose Sp. Lucretius, father of Lucretius, to succeed Brutus.
But he was an old man, and in not many days he died. So M. Horatius was
chosen in his stead.

The temple on the Capitol which King Tarquin began had never yet been
consecrated. Then Valerius and Horatius drew lots which should be the
consecrator, and the lot fell on Horatius. But the friends of Valerius
murmured, and they wished to prevent Horatius from having the honor; so
when he was now saying the prayer of consecration, with his hand upon
the doorpost of the temple, there came a messenger, who told him that
his son was just dead, and that one mourning for a son could not rightly
consecrate the temple. But Horatius kept his hand upon the doorpost,
and told them to see to the burial of his son, and finished the rites of
consecration. Thus did he honor the gods even above his own son.

In the next year Valerius was again made consul, with T. Lucretius; and
Tarquinius, despairing now of aid from his friends at Veii and
Tarquinii, went to Lars Porsenna of Clusium, a city on the river Clanis,
which falls into the Tiber. Porsenna was at this time acknowledged as
chief of the twelve Etruscan cities; and he assembled a powerful army
and came to Rome. He came so quickly that he reached the Tiber and was
near the Sublician Bridge before there was time to destroy it; and if he
had crossed it the city would have been lost. Then a noble Roman, called
Horatius Codes, of the Lucerian tribe, with two friends--Sp. Lartius, a
Ramnian, and T. Herminius, a Titian--posted themselves at the far end of
the bridge, and defended the passage against all the Etruscan host,
while the Romans were cutting it off behind them. When it was all but
destroyed, his two friends retreated across the bridge, and Horatius was
left alone to bear the whole attack of the enemy. Well he kept his
ground, standing unmoved amid the darts which were showered upon his
shield, till the last beams of the bridge fell crashing into the river.
Then he prayed, saying, "Father Tiber, receive me and bear me up, I pray
thee." So he plunged in, and reached the other side safely; and the
Romans honored him greatly: they put up his statue in the Comitium, and
gave him as much land as he could plough round in a day, and every man
at Rome subscribed the cost of one day's food to reward him.

Then Porsenna, disappointed in his attempt to surprise the city,
occupied the Hill Janiculum, and besieged the city, so that the people
were greatly distressed by hunger. But C. Mucius, a noble youth,
resolved to deliver his country by the death of the king. So he armed
himself with a dagger, and went to the place where the king was used to
sit in judgment. It chanced that the soldiers were receiving their pay
from the king's secretary, who sat at his right hand splendidly
apparelled; and as this man seemed to be chief in authority, Mucius
thought that this must be the king; so he stabbed him to the heart. Then
the guards seized him and dragged him before the king, who was greatly
enraged, and ordered them to burn him alive if he would not confess the
whole affair. Then Mucius stood before the king and said: "See how
little thy tortures can avail to make a brave man tell the secrets
committed to him"; and so saying, he thrust his right hand into the fire
of the altar, and held it in the flame with unmoved countenance. Then
the king marvelled at his courage, and ordered him to be spared, and
sent away in safety: "for," said he, "thou art a brave man, and hast
done more harm to thyself than to me." Then Mucius replied: "Thy
generosity, O king, prevails more with me than thy threats. Know that
three hundred Roman youths have sworn thy death: my lot came first. But
all the rest remain, prepared to do and suffer like myself." So he was
let go, and returned home, and was called "Scævola," or "The
Left-handed," because his right hand had been burnt off.

King Porsenna was greatly moved by the danger he had escaped, and
perceiving the obstinate determination of the Romans, he offered to make
peace. The Romans gladly gave ear to his words, for they were hard
pressed, and they consented to give back all the land which they had won
from the Etruscans beyond the Tiber. And they gave hostages to the king
in pledge that they would obey him as they had promised, ten youths and
ten maidens. But one of the maidens, named Cloelia, had a man's heart,
and she persuaded all her fellows to escape from the king's camp and
swim across the Tiber. At first King Porsenna was wroth; but then he was
much amazed, even more than at the deeds of Horatius and Mucius. So when
the Romans sent back Cloelia and her fellow-maidens--for they would not
break faith with the king--he bade her return home again, and told her
she might take whom she pleased of the youths who were hostages; and she
chose those who were yet boys, and restored them to their parents.

So the Roman people gave certain lands to young Mucius, and they set up
an equestrian statue to the bold Cloelia at the top of the Sacred Way.
And King Porsenna returned home; and thus the third and most formidable
attempt to bring back Tarquin failed.

When Tarquin now found that he had no hopes of further assistance from
Porsenna and his Etruscan friends, he went and dwelt at Tusculum, where
Mamilius Octavius, his son-in-law, was still chief. Then the thirty
Latin cities combined together and made this Octavius their dictator,
and bound themselves to restore their old friend and ally, King Tarquin,
to the sovereignty of Rome.

P. Valerius, who was called "Poplicola," was now dead, and the Romans
looked about for some chief worthy to lead them against the army of the
Latins. Poplicola had been made consul four times, and his compeers
acknowledged him as their chief, and all men submitted to him as to a
king. But now the two consuls were jealous of each other; nor had they
power of life and death within the city, for Valerius (as we saw) had
taken away the axes from the fasces. Now this was one of the reasons why
Brutus and the rest made two consuls instead of one king: for they said
that neither one would allow the other to become tyrant; and since they
only held office for one year at a time, they might be called on to give
account of their government when their year was at an end.

Yet though this was a safeguard of liberty in times of peace, it was
hurtful in time of war, for the consuls chosen by the people in their
great assemblies were not always skilful generals; or if they were so,
they were obliged to lay down their command at the year's end.

So the senate determined, in cases of great danger, to call upon one of
the consuls to appoint a single chief, who should be called "dictator,"
or master of the people. He had sovereign power (_Imperium_) both in the
city and out of the city, and the fasces were always carried before him
with the axes in them, as they had been before the king. He could only
be appointed for six months, but at the end of the time he had to give
no account. So that he was free to act according to his own judgment,
having no colleague to interfere with him at the present, and no
accusations to fear at a future time. The dictator was general-in-chief,
and he appointed a chief officer to command the knights under him, who
was called "master of the horse."

And now it appeared to be a fit time to appoint such a chief, to take
the command of the army against the Latins. So the first dictator was T.
Lartius, and he made Spurius Cassius his master of the horse. This was
in the year B.C. 499, eight years after the expulsion of Tarquin.

But the Latins did not declare war for two years after. Then the senate
again ordered the consul to name a master of the people, or dictator;
and he named Aul. Postumius, who appointed T. Æbutius (one of the
consuls of that year) to be his master of the horse. So they led out the
Roman army against the Latins, and they met at the Lake Regillus, in the
land of the Tusculans. King Tarquin and all his family were in the host
of the Latins; and that day it was to be determined whether Rome should
be again subject to the tyrant and whether or not she was to be chief of
the Latin cities.

King Tarquin himself, old as he was, rode in front of the Latins in full
armor; and when he descried the Roman dictator marshalling his men, he
rode at him; but Postumius wounded him in the side, and he was rescued
by the Latins. Then also Æbutius, the master of the horse, and Oct.
Mamilius, the dictator of the Latins, charged one another, and Æbutius
was pierced through the arm, and Mamilius wounded in the breast. But the
Latin chief, nothing daunted, returned to battle, followed by Titus, the
king's son, with his band of exiles. These charged the Romans furiously,
so that they gave way; but when M. Valerius, brother of the great
Poplicola, saw this, he spurred his horse against Titus, and rode at him
with spear in rest; and when Titus turned away and fled, Valerius rode
furiously after him into the midst of the Latin host, and a certain
Latin smote him in the side as he was riding past, so that he fell dead,
and his horse galloped on without a rider. So the band of exiles pressed
still more fiercely upon the Romans, and they began to flee.

Then Postumius the dictator lifted up his voice and vowed a temple to
Castor and Pollux, the great twin heroes of the Greeks, if they would
aid him; and behold there appeared on his right two horsemen, taller and
fairer than the sons of men, and their horses were as white as snow. And
they led the dictator and his guard against the exiles and the Latins,
and the Romans prevailed against them; and T. Herminius the Titian, the
friend of Horatius Cocles, ran Mamilius, the dictator of the Latins,
through the body, so that he died; but when he was stripping the arms
from his foe, another ran him through, and he was carried back to the
camp, and he also died. Then also Titus, the king's son, was slain, and
the Latins fled, and the Romans pursued them with great slaughter, and
took their camp and all that was in it. Now Postumius had promised great
rewards to those who first broke into the camp of the Latins, and the
first who broke in were the two horsemen on white horses; but after the
battle they were nowhere to be seen or found, nor was there any sign of
them left, save on the hard rock there was the mark of a horse's hoof,
which men said was made by the horse of one of those horsemen.

But at this very time two youths on white horses rode into the Forum at
Rome. They were covered with dust and sweat and blood, like men who had
fought long and hard, and their horses also were bathed in sweat and
foam: and they alighted near the Temple of Vesta, and washed themselves
in a spring that gushes out hard by, and told all the people in the
Forum how the battle by the Lake Regillus had been fought and won. Then
they mounted their horses and rode away, and were seen no more.

But Postumius, when he heard it, knew that these were Castor and Pollux,
the great twin brethren of the Greeks, and that it was they who fought
so well for Rome at the Lake Regillus. So he built them a temple,
according to his vow, over the place where they had alighted in the
Forum. And their effigies were displayed on Roman coins to the latest
ages of the city.

This was the fourth and last attempt to restore King Tarquin. After the
great defeat of Lake Regillus, the Latin cities made peace with Rome,
and agreed to refuse harborage to the old king. He had lost all his
sons, and, accompanied by a few faithful friends, who shared his exile,
he sought a last asylum at the Greek city of Cumæ in the Bay of Naples,
at the court of the tyrant Aristodemus. Here he died in the course of a
year, fourteen years after his expulsion.

We shall now record, not only the slow steps by which the Romans
recovered dominion over their neighbors, but also the long-continued
struggle by which the plebeians raised themselves to a level with the
patricians, who had again become the dominant caste at Rome. Mixed up
with legendary tales as the history still is, enough is nevertheless
preserved to excite the admiration of all who love to look upon a brave
people pursuing a worthy object with patient but earnest resolution,
never flinching, yet seldom injuring their good cause by reckless
violence. To an Englishman this history ought to be especially dear, for
more than any other in the annals of the world does it resemble the
long-enduring constancy and sturdy determination, the temperate will and
noble self-control, with which the Commons of his own country secured
their rights. It was by a struggle of this nature, pursued through a
century and a half, that the character of the Roman people was molded
into that form of strength and energy, which threw back Hannibal to the
coasts of Africa, and in half a century more made them masters of the
Mediterranean shore.

There can be no doubt that the wars that followed the expulsion of the
Tarquins, with the loss of territory that accompanied them, must have
reduced all orders of men at Rome to great distress. But those who most
suffered were the plebeians. The plebeians at that time consisted
entirely of landholders, great and small, and husbandmen, for in those
times the practice of trades and mechanical arts was considered unworthy
of a freeborn man. Some of the plebeian families were as wealthy as any
among the patricians; but the mass of them were petty yeoman, who lived
on the produce of their small farm, and were solely dependent for a
living on their own limbs, their own thrift and industry. Most of them
lived in the villages and small towns, which in those times were thickly
sprinkled over the slopes of the Campagna.

The patricians, on the other hand, resided chiefly within the city. If
slaves were few as yet, they had the labor of their clients available to
till their farms; and through their clients also they were enabled to
derive a profit from the practice of trading and crafts, which
personally neither they nor the plebeians would stoop to pursue. Besides
these sources of profit, they had at this time the exclusive use of the
public land, a subject on which we shall have to speak more at length
hereafter. At present, it will be sufficient to say, that the public
land now spoken of had been the crown land or regal domain, which on
the expulsion of the kings had been forfeited to the state. The
patricians being in possession of all actual power, engrossed possession
of it, and seem to have paid a very small quit-rent to the treasury for
this great advantage.

Besides this, the necessity of service in the army, or militia--as it
might more justly be called--acted very differently on the rich
landholder and the small yeoman. The latter, being called out with sword
and spear for the summer's campaign, as his turn came round, was obliged
to leave his farm uncared for, and his crop could only be reaped by the
kind aid of neighbors; whereas the rich proprietor, by his clients or
his hired laborers, could render the required military service without
robbing his land of his own labor. Moreover, the territory of Rome was
so narrow, and the enemy's borders so close at hand, that any night the
stout yeoman might find himself reduced to beggary, by seeing his crops
destroyed, his cattle driven away, and his homestead burnt in a sudden
foray. The patricians and rich plebeians were, it is true, exposed to
the same contingencies. But wealth will always provide some defence; and
it is reasonable to think that the larger proprietors provided places of
refuge, into which they could drive their cattle and secure much of
their property, such as the peel-towers common in our own border
counties. Thus the patricians and their clients might escape the storm
which destroyed the isolated yeoman.

To this must be added that the public land seems to have been mostly in
pasturage, and therefore the property of the patricians must have
chiefly consisted in cattle, which was more easily saved from
depredation than the crops of the plebeian. Lastly, the profit derived
from the trades and business of their clients, being secured by the
walls of the city, gave to the patricians the command of all the capital
that could exist in a state of society so simple and crude, and afforded
at once a means of repairing their own losses, and also of obtaining a
dominion over the poor yeoman.

For some time after the expulsion of the Tarquins it was necessary for
the patricians to treat the plebeians with liberality. The institutions
of "the Commons' King," King Servius, suspended by Tarquin, were,
partially at least, restored: it is said even that one of the first
consuls was a plebeian, and that he chose several of the leading
plebeians into the senate. But after the death of Porsenna, and when the
fear of the Tarquins ceased, all these flattering signs disappeared. The
consuls seem still to have been elected by the Centuriate Assembly, but
the Curiate Assembly retained in their own hands the right of conferring
the _Imperium_, which amounted to a positive veto on the election by the
larger body. All the names of the early consuls, except in the first
year of the Republic, are patrician. But if by chance a consul displayed
popular tendencies, it was in the power of the senate and patricians to
suspend his power by the appointment of a dictator. Thus, practically,
the patrician burgesses again became the _Populus_, or body politic of
Rome.

It must not here be forgotten that this dominant body was an exclusive
caste; that is, it consisted of a limited number of noble families, who
allowed none of their members to marry with persons born out of the pale
of their own order. The child of a patrician and a plebeian, or of a
patrician and a client, was not considered as born in lawful wedlock;
and however proud the blood which it derived from one parent, the child
sank to the condition of the parent of lower rank. This was expressed in
Roman language by saying, that there was no "Right of Connubium" between
patricians and any inferior classes of men. Nothing can be more
impolitic than such restrictions; nothing more hurtful even to those who
count it their privilege. In all exclusive or oligarchical,_pales_,
families become extinct, and the breed decays both in bodily strength
and mental vigor. Happily for Rome, the patricians were unable long to
maintain themselves as a separate caste.

Yet the plebeians might long have submitted to this state of social and
political inferiority, had not their personal distress and the severe
laws of Rome driven them to seek relief by claiming to be recognized as
members of the body politic.

The severe laws of which we speak were those of debtor and creditor. If
a Roman borrowed money, he was expected to enter into a contract with
his creditor to pay the debt by a certain day; and if on that day he was
unable to discharge his obligation, he was summoned before the patrician
judge, who was authorized by the law to assign the defaulter as a bonds
man to his creditor--that is, the debtor was obliged to pay by his own
labor the debt which he was unable to pay in money. Or if a man incurred
a debt without such formal contract, the rule was still more imperious,
for in that case the law itself fixed the day of payment; and if after a
lapse of thirty days from that date the debt was not discharged, the
creditor was empowered to arrest the person of his debtor, to load him
with chains, and feed him on bread and water for another thirty days;
and then, if the money still remained unpaid, he might put him to death,
or sell him as a slave to the highest bidder; or, if there were several
creditors, they might hew his body in pieces and divide it. And in this
last case the law provided with scrupulous providence against the
evasion by which the Merchant of Venice escaped the cruelty of the Jew;
for the Roman law said that "whether a man cut more or less [than his
due], he should incur no penalty." These atrocious provisions, however,
defeated their own object, for there was no more unprofitable way in
which the body of a debtor could be disposed of.

Such being the law of debtor and creditor, it remains to say that the
creditors were chiefly of the patrician caste, and the debtors almost
exclusively of the poorer sort among the plebeians. The patricians were
the creditors, because from their occupancy of the public land, and from
their engrossing the profits to be derived from trade and crafts, they
alone had spare capital to lend. The plebeian yeomen were the debtors,
because their independent position made them, at that time, helpless.
Vassals, clients, serfs, or by whatever name dependents are called, do
not suffer from the ravages of a predatory war like free landholders,
because the loss falls on their lords or patrons. But when the
independent yeoman's crops are destroyed, his cattle "lifted," and his
homestead in ashes, he must himself repair the loss. This was, as we
have said, the condition of many Roman plebeians. To rebuild their
houses and restock their farms they borrowed; the patricians were their
creditors; and the law, instead of protecting the small holders, like
the law of the Hebrews, delivered them over into serfdom or slavery.

Thus the free plebeian population might have been reduced to a state of
mere dependency, and the history of Rome might have presented a
repetition of monotonous severity, like that of Sparta or of Venice.[38]
But it was ordained otherwise. The distress and oppression of the
plebeians led them to demand and to obtain political protectors, by
whose means they were slowly but surely raised to equality of rights and
privileges with their rulers and oppressors. These protectors were the
famous Tribunes of the Plebs. We will now repeat the no less famous
legends by which their first creation was accounted for.

[Footnote 38: A well-known German historian calls the Spartans by the
name of "stunted Romans." There is much resemblance to be traced.]

It was, by the common reckoning, fifteen years after the expulsion of
the Tarquins (B.C. 494), that the plebeians were roused to take the
first step in the assertion of their rights. After the battle of Lake
Regillus, the plebeians had reason to expect some relaxation of the law
of debt, in consideration of the great services they had rendered in the
war. But none was granted. The patrician creditors began to avail
themselves of the severity of the law against their plebeian debtors.
The discontent that followed was great, and the consuls prepared to meet
the storm. These were Appius Claudius, the proud Sabine nobleman who had
lately become a Roman, and who now led the high patrician party with all
the unbending energy of a chieftain whose will had never been disputed
by his obedient clansmen; and P. Servilius, who represented the milder
and more liberal party of the Fathers.

It chanced that an aged man rushed into the Forum on a market-day,
loaded with chains, clothed with a few scanty rags, his hair and beard
long and squalid; his whole appearance ghastly, as of one oppressed by
long want of food and air. He was recognized as a brave soldier, the old
comrade of many who thronged the Forum. He told his story, how that in
the late wars the enemy had burned his house and plundered his little
farm; that to replace his losses he had borrowed money of a patrician,
that his cruel creditor (in default of payment) had thrown him into
prison,[39] and tormented him with chains and scourges. At this sad
tale, the passions of the people rose high.

[Footnote 39: Such prisons were called _ergastula_, and afterward became
the places for keeping slaves in.]

Appius was obliged to conceal himself, while Servilius undertook to
plead the cause of the plebeians with the senate.

Meantime news came to the city that the Roman territory was invaded by
the Volscian foe. The consuls proclaimed a levy; but the stout yeomen,
one and all, refused to give in their names and take the military oath.
Servilius now came forward and proclaimed by edict that no citizen
should be imprisoned for debt so long as the war lasted, and that at the
close of the war he would propose an alteration of the law. The
plebeians trusted him, and the enemy was driven back. But when the
popular consul returned with his victorious soldiers, he was denied a
triumph, and the senate, led by Appius, refused to make any concession
in favor of the debtors.

The anger of the plebeians rose higher and higher, when again news came
that the enemy was ravaging the lands of Rome. The senate, well knowing
that the power of the consuls would avail nothing, since Appius was
regarded as a tyrant, and Servilius would not choose again to become an
instrument for deceiving the people, appointed a dictator to lead the
citizens into the field. But to make the act as popular as might be,
they named M. Valerius, a descendant of the great Poplicola. The same
scene was repeated over again. Valerius protected the plebeians against
their creditors while they were at war, and promised them relief when
war was over. But when the danger was gone by, Appius again prevailed;
the senate refused to listen to Valerius, and the dictator laid down his
office, calling gods and men to witness that he was not responsible for
his breach of faith.

The plebeians whom Valerius had led forth were still under arms, still
bound by their military oath, and Appius, with the violent patricians,
refused to disband them. The army, therefore, having lost Valerius,
their proper general chose two of themselves, L. Junius Brutus and L.
Sicinius Bellutus by name, and under their command they marched
northward and occupied the hill which commands the junction of the Tiber
and the Anio. Here, at a distance of about two miles from Rome, they
determined to settle and form a new city, leaving Rome to the patricians
and their clients. But the latter were not willing to lose the best of
their soldiery, the cultivators of the greater part of the Roman
territory, and they sent repeated embassies to persuade the seceders to
return. They, however, turned a deaf ear to all promises, for they had
too often been deceived. Appius now urged the senate and patricians to
leave the plebeians to themselves. The nobles and their clients, he
said, could well maintain themselves in the city without such base aid.

But wiser sentiments prevailed. T. Lartius, and M. Valerius, both of whom
had been dictators, with Menenius Agrippa, an old patrician of popular
character, were empowered to treat with the people. Still their leaders
were unwilling to listen, till old Menenius addressed them in the famous
fable of the "Belly and the Members":

"In times of old," said he, "when every member of the body could think
for itself, and each had a separate will of its own, they all, with one
consent, resolved to revolt against the belly. They knew no reason, they
said, why they should toil from morning till night in its service, while
the belly lay at its ease in the midst of all, and indolently grew fat
upon their labors. Accordingly they agreed to support it no more. The
feet vowed they would carry it no longer; the hands that they would do
no more work; the teeth that they would not chew a morsel of meat, even
were it placed between them. Thus resolved, the members for a time
showed their spirit and kept their resolution; but soon they found that
instead of mortifying the belly they only undid themselves: they
languished for a while, and perceived too late that it was owing to the
belly that they had strength to work and courage to mutiny."

The moral of this fable was plain. The people readily applied it to the
patricians and themselves, and their leaders proposed terms of agreement
to the patrician messengers. They required that the debtors who could
not pay should have their debts cancelled, and that those who had been
given up into slavery should be restored to freedom. This for the past.
And as a security for the future, they demanded that two of themselves
should be appointed for the sole purpose of protecting the plebeians
against the patrician magistrates, if they acted cruelly or unjustly
toward the debtors. The two officers thus to be appointed were called
"Tribunes of the Plebs." Their persons were to be sacred and inviolable
during their year of office, whence their office is called _sacrosancta
Potestas_. They were never to leave the city during that time, and their
houses were to be open day and night, that all who needed their aid
might demand it without delay.

This concession, apparently great, was much modified by the fact that
the patricians insisted on the election of the tribunes being made at
the Comitia of the Centuries, in which they themselves and their wealthy
clients could usually command a majority. In later times, the number of
the tribunes was increased to five, and afterward to ten. They were
elected at the Comitia of the tribes. They had the privilege of
attending all sittings of the senate, though they were not considered
members of that famous body. Above all, they acquired the great and
perilous power of the veto, by which any one of their number might stop
any law, or annul any decree of the senate without cause or reason
assigned. This right of veto was called the "Right of Intercession."

On the spot where this treaty was made, an altar was built to Jupiter,
the causer and banisher of fear, for the plebeians had gone thither in
fear and returned from it in safety. The place was called Mons Sacer, or
the Sacred Hill, forever after, and the laws by which the sanctity of
the tribunitian office was secured were called the _Leges Sacratæ_.

The tribunes were not properly magistrates or officers, for they had no
express functions or official duties to discharge. They were simply
representatives and protectors of the plebs. At the same time, however,
with the institution of these protective officers, the plebeians were
allowed the right of having two ædiles chosen from their own body, whose
business it was to preserve order and decency in the streets, to provide
for the repair of all buildings and roads there, with other functions
partly belonging to police officers, and partly to commissioners of
public works.



THE BATTLE OF MARATHON

B.C. 490

SIR EDWARD SHEPHERD CREASY


     Marathon! A name to conjure up such visions of glory as few
     battlefields have ever shown. Heroism and determination on the part
     of the Athenians, supported by the small but ever noble band of
     Platæans who came to their aid; who can read the repulse of the
     Persians on this ever memorable plain without experiencing a thrill
     of admiration and delight at the achievement? The whole world since
     that battle has looked upon it as a victory of the under dog. Many
     of the great engagements of modern times have been likened unto it.
     For long it has been the synonym of brave despair; the conquering
     of an enemy many times superior in numbers to its opponent.

     This attempt of the Persians on the Greeks was not the first
     against them, That took place B.C. 493 under Mardonius. This
     commander had reduced Ionia, dethroned the despots, and established
     democracy throughout the land. After this he turned his attention
     to Eretria and Athens, taking his army across the straits in
     vessels. But the ships of war and transports were wrecked by a
     mighty headwind as they rounded Mount Athos. Many were driven
     ashore, about three hundred of them were totally lost, and some
     twenty thousand men perished in the catastrophe.

     All the trouble between the Persians and Greeks arose over the
     capture of Sardis by the Ionians, B.C. 500. The city was burned,
     and then the Ionians retreated. It was to avenge this that Persia
     determined on a punitive expedition against the Greeks. The Ionians
     and Milesian men were mostly slain by the Persians, the women and
     children led into captivity, and the temples in the cities burned
     and razed to the ground.[40]

     [Footnote 40: The year following the fall of the Ionic city of
     Miletus the poet Phrynichus made it the subject of a tragedy. On
     bringing it on the stage he was fined one thousand drachmae for
     having recalled to them their own misfortunes.--SMITH.]

     In the battle of Marathon, which succeeded these events, we have a
     vivid picture presented to us in Creasy's glowing words:


Two thousand three hundred and forty years ago a council of Athenian
officers was summoned on the slope of one of the mountains that look
over the plain of Marathon, on the eastern coast of Attica. The
immediate subject of their meeting was to consider whether they should
give battle to an enemy that lay encamped on the shore beneath them; but
on the result of their deliberations depended, not merely the fate of
two armies, but the whole future progress of human civilization.

There were eleven members of that council of war. Ten were the generals
who were then annually elected at Athens, one for each of the local
tribes into which the Athenians were divided. Each general led the men
of his own tribe, and each was invested with equal military authority.
But one of the archons was also associated with them in the general
command of the army. This magistrate was termed the "Polemarch" or
War-ruler, He had the privilege of leading the right wing of the army in
battle, and his vote in a council of war was equal to that of any of the
generals. A noble Athenian named Callimachus was the war-ruler of this
year, and, as such, stood listening to the earnest discussion of the ten
generals. They had, indeed, deep matter for anxiety, though little aware
how momentous to mankind were the votes they were about to give, or how
the generations to come would read with interest the record of their
discussions. They saw before them the invading forces of a mighty
empire, which had in the last fifty years shattered and enslaved nearly
all the kingdoms and principal cities of the then known world. They knew
that all the resources of their own country were comprised in the little
army intrusted to their guidance. They saw before them a chosen host of
the great king, sent to wreak his special wrath on that country and on
the other insolent little Greek community which had dared to aid his
rebels and burn the capital of one of his provinces. That victorious
host had already fulfilled half its mission of vengeance.

Eretria, the confederate of Athens in the bold march against Sardis nine
years before, had fallen in the last few days; and the Athenian generals
could discern from the heights the island of Ægilia, in which the
Persians had deposited their Eretrian prisoners, whom they had reserved
to be led away captives into Upper Asia, there to hear their doom from
the lips of King Darius himself. Moreover, the men of Athens knew that
in the camp before them was their own banished tyrant, who was seeking
to be reinstated by foreign cimeters in despotic sway over any remnant
of his countrymen that might survive the sack of their town, and might
be left behind as too worthless for leading away into Median bondage.

The numerical disparity between the force which the Athenian commanders
had under them, and that which they were called on to encounter, was
hopelessly apparent to some of the council. The historians who wrote
nearest to the time of the battle do not pretend to give any detailed
statements of the numbers engaged, but there are sufficient data for our
making a general estimate. Every free Greek was trained to military
duty; and, from the incessant border wars between the different states,
few Greeks reached the age of manhood without having seen some service.
But the muster-roll of free Athenian citizens of an age fit for military
duty never exceeded thirty thousand, and at this, epoch probably did not
amount to two-thirds of that number. Moreover, the poorer portion of
these were unprovided with the equipments, and untrained to the
operations of the regular infantry. Some detachments of the best-armed
troops would be required to garrison the city itself and man the various
fortified posts in the territory, so that it is impossible to reckon the
fully equipped force that marched from Athens to Marathon, when the news
of the Persian landing arrived, at higher than ten thousand men.[41]

[Footnote 41: The historians, who lived long after the time of the
battle, such as Justin, Plutarch, and others, give ten thousand as the
number of the Athenian army. Not much reliance could be placed on their
authority if unsupported by other evidence; but a calculation made for
the number of the Athenian free population remarkably confirms it.]

With one exception, the other Greeks held back from aiding them. Sparta
had promised assistance, but the Persians had landed on the sixth day of
the moon, and a religious scruple delayed the march of Spartan troops
till the moon should have reached its full. From one quarter only, and
that from a most unexpected one, did Athens receive aid at the moment of
her great peril.

Some years before this time the little state of Platæa in Boeotia, being
hard pressed by her powerful neighbor, Thebes, had asked the protection
of Athens, and had owed to an Athe man army the rescue of her
independence. Now when it was noised over Greece that the Mede had come
from the uttermost parts of the earth to destroy Athens, the brave
Platæans, unsolicited, marched with their whole force to assist the
defence, and to share the fortunes of their benefactors.

The general levy of the Platæans amounted only to a thousand men; and
this little column, marching from their city along the southern ridge of
Mount Cithæron, and thence across the Attic territory, joined the
Athenian forces above Marathon almost immediately before the battle. The
reënforcement was numerically small, but the gallant spirit of the men
who composed it must have made it of tenfold value to the Athenians, and
its presence must have gone far to dispel the cheerless feeling of being
deserted and friendless, which the delay of the Spartan succors was
calculated to create among the Athenian ranks.[42]

[Footnote 42: Mr. Grote observes that "this volunteer march of the whole
Platæan force to Marathon is one of the most affecting incidents of all
Grecian history." In truth, the whole career of Platæa, and the
friendship, strong, even unto death, between her and Athens form one of
the most affecting episodes in the history of antiquity. In the
Peloponnesian war the Platæans again were true to the Athenians against
all risks, and all calculation of self-interest: and the destruction of
Platæa was the consequence. There are few nobler passages in the
classics than the speech in which the Platæan prisoners of war, after
the memorable siege of their city, justify before their Spartan
executioners their loyal adherence to Athens.]

This generous daring of their weak but true-hearted ally was never
forgotten at Athens. The Platæans were made the civil fellow-countrymen
of the Athenians, except the right of exercising certain political
functions; and from that time forth in the solemn sacrifices at Athens,
the public prayers were offered up for a joint blessing from Heaven upon
the Athenians, and the Platæans also.

After the junction of the column from Platæa, the Athenian commanders
must have had under them about eleven thousand fully armed and
disciplined infantry, and probably a large number of irregular
light-armed troops; as, besides the poorer citizens who went to the
field armed with javelins, cutlasses, and targets, each regular
heavy-armed soldier was attended in the camp by one or more slaves, who
were armed like the inferior freemen. Cavalry or archers the Athenians
(on this occasion) had none, and the use in the field of military
engines was not at that period introduced into ancient warfare.

Contrasted with their own scanty forces, the Greek commanders saw
stretched before them, along the shores of the winding bay, the tents
and shipping of the varied nations who marched to do the bidding of the
king of the Eastern world. The difficulty of finding transports and of
securing provisions would form the only limit to the numbers of a
Persian army. Nor is there any reason to suppose the estimate of Justin
exaggerated, who rates at a hundred thousand the force which on this
occasion had sailed, under the satraps Datis and Artaphernes, from the
Cilician shores against the devoted coasts of Euboea and Attica. And
after largely deducting from this total, so as to allow for mere
mariners and camp followers, there must still have remained fearful odds
against the national levies of the Athenians.

Nor could Greek generals then feel that confidence in the superior
quality of their troops, which ever since the battle of Marathon has
animated Europeans in conflicts with Asiatics, as, for instance, in the
after struggles between Greece and Persia, or when the Roman legions
encountered the myriads of Mithradates and Tigranes, or as is the case
in the Indian campaigns of our own regiments. On the contrary, up to the
day of Marathon the Medes and Persians were reputed invincible. They had
more than once met Greek troops in Asia Minor, in Cyprus, in Egypt, and
had invariably beaten them.

Nothing can be stronger than the expressions used by the early Greek
writers respecting the terror which the name of the Medes inspired, and
the prostration of men's spirits before the apparently resistless career
of the Persian arms. It is, therefore, little to be wondered at that
five of the ten Athenian generals shrank from the prospect of fighting a
pitched battle against an enemy so superior in numbers and so formidable
in military renown. Their own position on the heights was strong and
offered great advantages to a small defending force against assailing
masses. They deemed it mere foolhardiness to descend into the plain to
be trampled down by the Asiatic horse, overwhelmed with the archery, or
cut to pieces by the invincible veterans of Cambyses and Cyrus.

Moreover, Sparta, the great war state of Greece, had been applied to,
and had promised succor to Athens, though the religious observance which
the Dorians paid to certain times and seasons had for the present
delayed their march. Was it not wise, at any rate, to wait till the
Spartans came up, and to have the help of the best troops in Greece,
before they exposed themselves to the shock of the dreaded Medes?

Specious as these reasons might appear, the other five generals were for
speedier and bolder operations. And, fortunately for Athens and for the
world, one of them was a man, not only of the highest military genius,
but also of that energetic character which impresses its own type and
ideas upon spirits feebler in conception.

Miltiades was the head of one of the noblest houses at Athens. He ranked
the Æacidæ among his ancestry, and the blood of Achilles flowed in the
veins of the hero of Marathon. One of his immediate ancestors had
acquired the dominion of the Thracian Chersonese, and thus the family
became at the same time Athenian citizens and Thracian princes. This
occurred at the time when Pisistratus was tyrant of Athens. Two of the
relatives of Miltiades--an uncle of the same name, and a brother named
Stesagoras--had ruled the Chersonese before Miltiades became its prince.
He had been brought up at Athens in the house of his father, Cimon,[43]
who was renowned throughout Greece for his victories in the Olympic
chariot-races, and who must have been possessed of great wealth.

[Footnote 43: Herodotus.]

The sons of Pisistratus, who succeeded their father in the tyranny at
Athens, caused Cimon to be assassinated; but they treated the young
Miltiades with favor and kindness and when his brother Stesagoras died
in the Chersonese, they sent him out there as lord of the principality.
This was about twenty-eight years before the battle of Marathon, and it
is with his arrival in the Chersonese that our first knowledge of the
career and character of Miltiades commences. We find, in the first act
recorded of him, the proof of the same resolute and unscrupulous spirit
that marked his mature age. His brother's authority in the principality
had been shaken by war and revolt: Miltiades determined to rule more
securely. On his arrival he kept close within his house, as if he was
mourning for his brother. The principal men of the Chersonese, hearing
of this, assembled from all the towns and districts, and went together
to the house of Miltiades, on a visit of condolence. As soon as he had
thus got them in his power, he made them all prisoners. He then asserted
and maintained his own absolute authority in the peninsula, taking into
his pay a body of five hundred regular troops, and strengthening his
interest by marrying the daughter of the king of the neighboring
Thracians.

When the Persian power was extended to the Hellespont and its
neighborhood, Miltiades, as prince of the Chersonese, submitted to King
Darius; and he was one of the numerous tributary rulers who led their
contingents of men to serve in the Persian army, in the expedition
against Scythia. Miltiades and the vassal Greeks of Asia Minor were left
by the Persian king in charge of the bridge across the Danube, when the
invading army crossed that river, and plunged into the wilds of the
country that now is Russia, in vain pursuit of the ancestors of the
modern Cossacks. On learning the reverses that Darius met with in the
Scythian wilderness, Miltiades proposed to his companions that they
should break the bridge down and leave the Persian king and his army to
perish by famine and the Scythian arrows. The rulers of the Asiatic
Greek cities, whom Miltiades addressed, shrank from this bold but
ruthless stroke against the Persian power, and Darius returned in
safety.

But it was known what advice Miltiades had given, and the vengeance of
Darius was thenceforth specially directed against the man who had
counselled such a deadly blow against his empire and his person. The
occupation of the Persian arms in other quarters left Miltiades for some
years after this in possession of the Chersonese; but it was precarious
and interrupted. He, however, availed himself of the opportunity which
his position gave him of conciliating the good-will of his
fellow-countrymen at Athens, by conquering and placing under the
Athenian authority the islands of Lemnos and Imbros, to which Athens
had ancient claims, but which she had never previously been able to
bring into complete subjection.

At length, in B.C. 494, the complete suppression of the Ionian revolt by
the Persians left their armies and fleets at liberty to act against the
enemies of the Great King to the west of the Hellespont. A strong
squadron of Phoenician galleys was sent against the Chersonese.
Miltiades knew that resistance was hopeless, and while the Phoenicians
were at Tenedos, he loaded five galleys with all the treasure that he
could collect, and sailed away for Athens. The Phoenicians fell in with
him, and chased him hard along the north of the Ægean. One of his
galleys, on board of which was his eldest son Metiochus, was actually
captured. But Miltiades, with the other four, succeeded in reaching the
friendly coast of Imbros in safety. Thence he afterward proceeded to
Athens, and resumed his station as a free citizen of the Athenian
commonwealth.

The Athenians, at this time, had recently expelled Hippias the son of
Pisistratus, the last of their tyrants. They were in the full glow of
their newly recovered liberty and equality; and the constitutional
changes of Clisthenes had inflamed their republican zeal to the utmost.
Miltiades had enemies at Athens; and these, availing themselves of the
state of popular feeling, brought him to trial for his life for having
been tyrant of the Chersonese. The charge did not necessarily import any
acts of cruelty or wrong to individuals: it was founded on no specific
law; but it was based on the horror with which the Greeks of that age
regarded every man who made himself arbitrary master of his fellow-men,
and exercised irresponsible dominion over them.

The fact of Miltiades having so ruled in the Chersonese was undeniable;
but the question which the Athenians assembled in judgment must have
tried, was whether Miltiades, although tyrant of the Chersonese,
deserved punishment as an Athenian citizen. The eminent service that he
had done the state in conquering Lemnos and Imbros for it, pleaded
strongly in his favor. The people refused to convict him. He stood high
in public opinion. And when the coming invasion of the Persians was
known, the people wisely elected him one of their generals for the year.

Two other men of high eminence in history, though their renown was
achieved at a later period than that of Miltiades, were also among the
ten Athenian generals at Marathon. One was Themistocles, the future
founder of the Athenian navy, and the destined victor of Salamis. The
other was Aristides, who afterward led the Athenian troops at Platæa,
and whose integrity and just popularity acquired for his country, when
the Persians had finally been repulsed, the advantageous preëminence of
being acknowledged by half of the Greeks as their imperial leader and
protector. It is not recorded what part either Themistocles or Aristides
took in the debate of the council of war at Marathon. But, from the
character of Themistocles, his boldness, and his intuitive genius for
extemporizing the best measures in every emergency--a quality which the
greatest of historians ascribes to him beyond all his contemporaries--we
may well believe that the vote of Themistocles was for prompt and
decisive action. On the vote of Aristides it may be more difficult to
speculate. His predilection for the Spartans may have made him wish to
wait till they came up; but, though circumspect, he was neither timid as
a soldier nor as a politician, and the bold advice of Miltiades may
probably have found in Aristides a willing, most assuredly it found in
him a candid, hearer.

Miltiades felt no hesitation, as to the course which the Athenian army
ought to pursue; and earnestly did he press his opinion on his brother
generals. Practically acquainted with the organization of the Persian
armies, Miltiades felt convinced of the superiority of the Greek troops,
if properly handled; he saw with the military eye of a great general the
advantage which the position of the forces gave him for a sudden attack,
and as a profound politician he felt the perils of remaining inactive,
and of giving treachery time to ruin the Athenian cause.

One officer in the council of war had not yet voted. This was
Callimachus, the War-ruler. The votes of the generals were five and
five, so that the voice of Callimachus would be decisive.

On that vote, in all human probability, the destiny of all the nations
of the world depended. Miltiades turned to him, and in simple soldierly
eloquence--the substance of which we may read faithfully reported in
Herodotus, who had conversed with the veterans of Marathon--the great
Athenian thus adjured his countrymen to vote for giving battle:

"It now rests with you, Callimachus, either to enslave Athens, or, by
assuring her freedom, to win yourself an immortality of fame, such as
not even Harmodius and Aristogiton have acquired; for never, since the
Athenians were a people, were they in such danger as they are in at this
moment. If they bow the knee to these Medes, they are to be given up to
Hippias, and you know what they then will have to suffer. But if Athens
comes victorious out of this contest, she has it in her to become the
first city of Greece. Your vote is to decide whether we are to join
battle or not. If we do not bring on a battle presently, some factious
intrigue will disunite the Athenians, and the city will be betrayed to
the Medes. But if we fight, before there is anything rotten in the state
of Athens, I believe that, provided the gods will give fair play and no
favor, we are able to get the best of it in an engagement."

The vote of the brave War-ruler was gained, the council determined to
give battle; and such was the ascendancy and acknowledged military
eminence of Miltiades, that his brother generals one and all gave up
their days of command to him, and cheerfully acted under his orders.
Fearful, however, of creating any jealousy, and of so failing to obtain
the vigorous coöperation of all parts of his small army, Miltiades
waited till the day when the chief command would have come round to him
in regular rotation before he led the troops against the enemy.

The inaction of the Asiatic commanders during this interval appears
strange at first sight; but Hippias was with them, and they and he were
aware of their chance of a bloodless conquest through the machinations
of his partisans among the Athenians. The nature of the ground also
explains in many points the tactics of the opposite generals before the
battle, as well as the operations of the troops during the engagement.

The plain of Marathon, which is about twenty-two miles distant from
Athens, lies along the bay of the same name on the north-eastern coast of
Attica. The plain is nearly in the form of a crescent, and about six
miles in length. It is about two miles broad in the centre, where the
space between the mountains and the sea is greatest, but it narrows
toward either extremity, the mountains coming close clown to the water
at the horns of the bay. There is a valley trending inward from the
middle of the plain, and a ravine comes down to it to the southward.
Elsewhere it is closely girt round on the land side by rugged limestone
mountains, which are thickly studded with pines, olive-trees and cedars,
and overgrown with the myrtle, arbutus, and the other low odoriferous
shrubs that everywhere perfume the Attic air.

The level of the ground is now varied by the mound raised over those who
fell in the battle, but it was an unbroken plain when the Persians
encamped on it. There are marshes at each end, which are dry in spring
and summer and then offer no obstruction to the horseman, but are
commonly flooded with rain and so rendered impracticable for cavalry in
the autumn, the time of year at which the action took place.

The Greeks, lying encamped on the mountains, could watch every movement
of the Persians on the plain below, while they were enabled completely
to mask their own. Miltiades also had, from, his position, the power of
giving battle whenever he pleased, or of delaying it at his discretion,
unless Datis were to attempt the perilous operation of storming the
heights.

If we turn to the map of the Old World, to test the comparative
territorial resources of the two states whose armies were now about to
come into conflict, the immense preponderance of the material power of
the Persian king over that of the Athenian republic is more striking
than any similar contrast which history can supply. It has been truly
remarked that, in estimating mere areas Attica, containing on its whole
surface only seven hundred square miles, shrinks into insignificance if
compared with many a baronial fief of the Middle Ages, or many a
colonial allotment of modern times. Its antagonist, the Persian, empire,
comprised the whole of modern Asiatic and much of modern European
Turkey, the modern kingdom of Persia and the countries of modern
Georgia, Armenia, Balkh, the Punjaub, Afghanistan, Beloochistan, Egypt
and Tripoli.

Nor could a European, in the beginning of the fifth century before our
era, look upon this huge accumulation of power beneath the sceptre of a
single Asiatic ruler with the indifference with which we now observe on
the map the extensive dominions of modern Oriental sovereigns; for, as
has been already remarked, before Marathon was fought, the prestige of
success and of supposed superiority of race was on the side of the
Asiatic against the European. Asia was the original seat of human
societies, and long before any trace can be found of the inhabitants of
the rest of the world having emerged from the rudest barbarism, we can
perceive that mighty and brilliant empires flourished in the Asiatic
continent. They appear before us through the twilight of primeval
history, dim and indistinct, but massive and majestic, like mountains in
the early dawn.

Instead, however, of the infinite variety and restless change which has
characterized the institutions and fortunes of European states ever
since the commencement of the civilization of our continent, a
monotonous uniformity pervades the histories of nearly all Oriental
empires, from the most ancient down to the most recent times. They are
characterized by the rapidity of their early conquests, by the immense
extent of the dominions comprised in them, by the establishment of a
satrap or pashaw system of governing the provinces, by an invariable and
speedy degeneracy in the princes of the royal house, the effeminate
nurslings of the seraglio succeeding to the warrior sovereigns reared in
the camp, and by the internal anarchy and insurrections which indicate
and accelerate the decline and fall of these unwieldy and ill-organized
fabrics of power.

It is also a striking fact that the governments of all the great Asiatic
empires have in all ages been absolute despotisms. And Heeren is right
in connecting this with another great fact, which is important from its
influence both on the political and the social life of Asiatics. "Among
all the considerable nations of Inner Asia, the paternal government of
every household was corrupted by polygamy: where that custom exists, a
good political constitution is impossible. Fathers, being converted into
domestic despots, are ready to pay the same abject obedience to their
sovereign which they exact from their family and dependents in their
domestic economy."

We should bear in mind, also, the inseparable connection between the
state religion and all legislation which has always prevailed in the
East, and the constant existence of a powerful sacerdotal body,
exercising some check, though precarious and irregular, over the throne
itself, grasping at all civil administration, claiming the supreme
control of education, stereotyping the lines in which literature and
science must move, and limiting the extent to which it shall be lawful
for the human mind to prosecute its inquiries.

With these general characteristics rightly felt and understood it
becomes a comparatively easy task to investigate and appreciate the
origin, progress and principles of Oriental empires in general, as well
as of the Persian monarchy in particular. And we are thus better enabled
to appreciate the repulse which Greece gave to the arms of the East, and
to judge of the probable consequences to human civilization, if the
Persians had succeeded in bringing Europe under their yoke, as they had
already subjugated the fairest portions of the rest of the then known
world.

The Greeks, from their geographical position, formed the natural
van-guard of European liberty against Persian ambition; and they
preëminently displayed the salient points of distinctive national
character which have rendered European civilization so far superior to
Asiatic. The nations that dwelt in ancient times around and near the
northern shores of the Mediterranean Sea were the first in our continent
to receive from the East the rudiments of art and literature, and the
germs of social and political organizations. Of these nations the
Greeks, through their vicinity to Asia Minor, Phoenicia, and Egypt, were
among the very foremost in acquiring the principles and habits of
civilized life; and they also at once imparted a new and wholly original
stamp on all which they received. Thus, in their religion, they received
from foreign settlers the names of all their deities and many of their
rites, but they discarded the loathsome monstrosities of the Nile, the
Orontes, and the Ganges; they nationalized their creed, and their own
poets created their beautiful mythology. No sacerdotal caste ever
existed in Greece.

So, in their governments, they lived long under hereditary kings, but
never endured the permanent establishment of absolute monarchy. Their
early kings were constitutional rulers, governing with defined
prerogatives. And long before the Persian invasion, the kingly form of
government had given way in almost all the Greek states to republican
institutions, presenting infinite varieties of the blending or the
alternate predominance of the oligarchical and democratical principles.
In literature and science the Greek intellect followed no beaten track,
and acknowledged no limitary rules. The Greeks thought their subjects
boldly out; and the novelty of a speculation invested it in their minds
with interest, and not with criminality.

Versatile, restless, enterprising, and self-confident, the Greeks
presented the most striking contrast to the habitual quietude and
submissiveness of the Orientals; and, of all the Greeks, the Athenians
exhibited these national characteristics in the strongest degree. This
spirit of activity and daring, joined to a generous sympathy for the
fate of their fellow-Greeks in Asia, had led them to join in the last
Ionian war, and now mingling with their abhorrence of the usurping
family of their own citizens, which for a period had forcibly seized on
and exercised despotic power at Athens, nerved them to defy the wrath of
King Darius, and to refuse to receive back at his bidding the tyrant
whom they had some years before driven out.

The enterprise and genius of an Englishman have lately confirmed by
fresh evidence, and invested with fresh interest, the might of the
Persian monarch who sent his troops to combat at Marathon. Inscriptions
in a character termed the Arrow-headed, or Cuneiform, had long been
known to exist on the marble monuments at Persepolis, near the site of
the ancient Susa, and on the faces of rocks in other places formerly
ruled over by the early Persian kings. But for thousands of years they
had been mere unintelligible enigmas to the curious but baffled
beholder; and they were often referred to as instances of the folly of
human pride, which could indeed write its own praises in the solid rock,
but only for the rock to outlive the language as well as the memory of
the vainglorious inscribers.

The elder Niebuhr, Grotefend, and Lassen, had made some guesses at the
meaning of the cuneiform letters; but Major Rawlinson of the East India
Company's service, after years of labor, has at last accomplished the
glorious achievement of fully revealing the alphabet and the grammar of
this long unknown tongue. He has, in particular, fully deciphered and
expounded the inscription on the sacred rock of Behistun, on the western
frontiers of Media. These records of the Achæmenidæ have at length found
their interpreter; and Darius himself speaks to us from the consecrated
mountain, and tells us the names of the nations that obeyed him, the
revolts that he suppressed, his victories, his piety, and his glory.

Kings who thus seek the admiration of posterity are little likely to dim
the record of their successes by the mention of their occasional
defeats; and it throws no suspicion on the narrative of the Greek
historians that we find these inscriptions silent respecting the
overthrow of Datis and Artaphernes, as well as respecting the reverses
which Darius sustained in person during his Scythian campaigns. But
these indisputable monuments of Persian fame confirm, and even increase
the opinion with which Herodotus inspires us of the vast power which
Cyrus founded and Cambyses increased; which Darius augmented by Indian
and Arabian conquests, and seemed likely, when he directed his arms
against Europe, to make the predominant monarchy of the world.

With the exception of the Chinese empire, in which, throughout all ages
down to the last few years, one-third of the human race has dwelt almost
unconnected with the other portions, all the great kingdoms, which we
know to have existed in ancient Asia, were, in Darius' time, blended
into the Persian. The northern Indians, the Assyrians, the Syrians, the
Babylonians, the Chaldees, the Phoenicians, the nations of Palestine,
the Armenians, the Bactrians, the Lydians, the Phrygians, the Parthians,
and the Medes, all obeyed the sceptre of the Great King: the Medes
standing next to the native Persians in honor, and the empire being
frequently spoken of as that of the Medes, or as that of the Medes and
Persians. Egypt and Cyrene were Persian provinces; the Greek colonists
in Asia Minor and the islands of the Ægean were Darius' subjects; and
their gallant but unsuccessful attempts to throw off the Persian yoke
had only served to rivet it more strongly, and to increase the general
belief that the Greeks could not stand before the Persians in a field
of battle. Darius' Scythian war, though unsuccessful in its immediate
object, had brought about the subjugation of Thrace and the submission
of Macedonia. From the Indus to the Peneus, all was his.

We may imagine the wrath with which the lord of so many nations must
have heard, nine years before the battle of Marathon, that a strange
nation toward the setting sun, called the Athenians, had dared to help
his rebels in Ionia against him, and that they had plundered and burned
the capital of one of his provinces. Before the burning of Sardis,
Darius seems never to have heard of the existence of Athens; but his
satraps in Asia Minor had for some time seen Athenian refugees at their
provincial courts imploring assistance against their fellow-countrymen.

When Hippias was driven away from Athens, and the tyrannic dynasty of
the Pisistratidæ finally overthrown in B.C. 510, the banished tyrant and
his adherents, after vainly seeking to be restored by Spartan
intervention, had betaken themselves to Sardis, the capital city of the
satrapy of Artaphernes. There Hippias--in the expressive words of
Herodotus--began every kind of agitation, slandering the Athenians
before Artaphernes, and doing all he could to induce the satrap to place
Athens in subjection to him, as the tributary vassal of King Darius.
When the Athenians heard of his practices, they sent envoys to Sardis to
remonstrate with the Persians against taking up the quarrel of the
Athenian refugees.

But Artaphernes gave them in reply a menacing command to receive Hippias
back again if they looked for safety. The Athenians were resolved not to
purchase safety at such a price, and after rejecting the satrap's terms,
they considered that they and the Persians were declared enemies. At
this very crisis the Ionian Greeks implored the assistance of their
European brethren, to enable them to recover their independence from
Persia. Athens, and the city of Eretria in Euboea, alone consented.
Twenty Athenian galleys, and five Eretrian, crossed the Ægean Sea, and
by a bold and sudden march upon Sardis, the Athenians and their allies
succeeded in capturing the capital city of the haughty satrap who had
recently menaced them with servitude or destruction. They were pursued,
and defeated on their return to the coast, and Athens took no further
part in the Ionian war; but the insult that she had put upon the Persian
power was speedily made known throughout that empire, and was never to
be forgiven or forgotten.

In the emphatic simplicity of the narrative of Herodotus, the wrath of
the Great King is thus described: "Now when it was told to King Darius
that Sardis had been taken and burned by the Athenians and Ionians, he
took small heed of the Ionians, well knowing who they were, and that
their revolt would soon be put down; but he asked who, and what manner
of men, the Athenians were. And when he had been told, he called for his
bow; and, having taken it, and placed an arrow on the string, he let the
arrow fly toward heaven; and as he shot it into the air, he said, 'Oh!
supreme God, grant me that I may avenge myself on the Athenians,' And
when he had said this, he appointed one of his servants to say to him
every day as he sat at meat, 'Sire, remember the Athenians.'"

Some years were occupied in the complete reduction of Ionia. But when
this was effected, Darius ordered his victorious forces to proceed to
punish Athens and Eretria, and to conquer European Greece, The first
armament sent for this purpose was shattered by shipwreck, and nearly
destroyed off Mount Athos. But the purpose of King Darius was not easily
shaken, A larger army was ordered to be collected in Cilicia, and
requisitions were sent to all the maritime cities of the Persian empire
for ships of war, and for transports of sufficient size for carrying
cavalry as well as infantry across the Ægean. While these preparations
were being made, Darius sent heralds round to the Grecian cities
demanding their submission to Persia. It was proclaimed in the
market-place of each little Hellenic state--some with territories not
larger than the Isle of Wight--that King Darius, the lord of all men,
from the rising to the setting sun,[44] required earth and water to be
delivered to his heralds, as a symbolical acknowledgment that he was
head and master of the country. Terror-stricken at the power of Persia
and at the severe punishment that had recently been inflicted on the
refractory Ionians, many of the continental Greeks and nearly all the
islanders submitted, and gave the required tokens of vassalage. At
Sparta and Athens an indignant refusal was returned--a refusal which was
disgraced by outrage and violence against the persons of the Asiatic
heralds.

[Footnote 44: Æschines.]

Fresh fuel was thus added to the anger of Darius against Athens, and the
Persian preparations went on with renewed vigor. In the summer of B.C.
490, the army destined for the invasion was assembled in the Aleian
plain of Cilicia, near the sea. A fleet of six hundred galleys and
numerous transports was collected on the coast for the embarkation of
troops, horse as well as foot. A Median general named Datis, and
Artaphernes, the son of the satrap of Sardis, and who was also nephew of
Darius, were placed in titular joint-command of the expedition. The real
supreme authority was probably given to Datis alone, from the way in
which the Greek writers speak of him.

We know no details of the previous career of this officer; but there is
every reason to believe that his abilities and bravery had been proved
by experience, or his Median birth would have prevented his being placed
in high command by Darius. He appears to have been the first Mede who
was thus trusted by the Persian kings after the overthrow of the
conspiracy of the Median magi against the Persians immediately before
Darius obtained the throne. Datis received instructions to complete the
subjugation of Greece, and especial orders were given him with regard to
Eretria and Athens. He was to take these two cities, and he was to lead
the inhabitants away captive, and bring them as slaves into the presence
of the Great King.

Datis embarked his forces in the fleet that awaited them, and coasting
along the shores of Asia Minor till he was off Samos, he thence sailed
due westward through the Ægean Sea for Greece, taking the islands in his
way. The Naxians had, ten years before, successfully stood a siege
against a Persian armament, but they now were too terrified to offer any
resistance, and fled to the mountain tops, while the enemy burned their
town and laid waste their lands. Thence Datis, compelling the Greek
islanders to join him with their ships and men, sailed onward to the
coast of Euboea. The little town of Carystus essayed resistance, but
was quickly overpowered.

He next attacked Eretria. The Athenians sent four thousand men to its
aid; but treachery was at work among the Eretrians; and the Athenian
force received timely warning from one of the leading men of the city to
retire to aid in saving their own country, instead of remaining to share
in the inevitable destruction of Eretria. Left to themselves, the
Eretrians repulsed the assaults of the Persians against their walls for
six days; on the seventh they were betrayed by two of their chiefs, and
the Persians occupied the city. The temples were burned in revenge for
the firing of Sardis, and the inhabitants were bound, and placed as
prisoners in the neighboring islet of Ægilia, to wait there till Datis
should bring the Athenians to join them in captivity, when both
populations were to be led into Upper Asia, there to learn their doom
from the lips of King Darius himself.

Flushed with success, and with half his mission thus accomplished, Datis
reëmbarked his troops, and, crossing the little channel that separates
Euboea from the mainland, he encamped his troops on the Attic coast at
Marathon, drawing up his galleys on the shelving beach, as was the
custom with the navies of antiquity. The conquered islands behind him
served as places of deposit for his provisions and military stores. His
position at Marathon seemed to him in every respect advantageous, and
the level nature of the ground on which he camped was favorable for the
employment of his cavalry, if the Athenians should venture to engage
him. Hippias, who accompanied him, and acted as the guide of the
invaders, had pointed out Marathon as the best place for a landing, for
this very reason. Probably Hippias was also influenced by the
recollection that forty-seven years previously, he, with his father
Pisistratus, had crossed with an army from Eretria to Marathon, and had
won an easy victory over their Athenian enemies on that very plain,
which had restored them to tyrannic power. The omen seemed cheering. The
place was the same, but Hippias soon learned to his cost how great a
change had come over the spirit of the Athenians.

But though "the fierce democracy" of Athens was zealous and true
against foreign invader and domestic tyrant, a faction existed in
Athens, as at Eretria, who were willing to purchase a party triumph over
their fellow-citizens at the price of their country's ruin.
Communications were opened between these men and the Persian camp, which
would have led to a catastrophe like that of Eretria, if Miltiades had
not resolved and persuaded his colleagues to resolve on fighting at all
hazards.

When Miltiades arrayed his men for action, he staked on the arbitrament
of one battle not only the fate of Athens, but that of all Greece; for
if Athens had fallen, no other Greek state, except Lacedæmon, would have
had the courage to resist; and the Lacedæmonians, though they would
probably have died in their ranks to the last man, never could have
successfully resisted the victorious Persians and the numerous Greek
troops which would have soon marched under the Persian satraps, had they
prevailed over Athens.

Nor was there any power to the westward of Greece that could have
offered an effectual opposition to Persia, had she once conquered
Greece, and made that country a basis for future military operations.
Rome was at this time in her season of utmost weakness. Her dynasty of
powerful Etruscan kings had been driven out; and her infant commonwealth
was reeling under the attacks of the Etruscans and Volscians from
without, and the fierce dissensions between the patricians and plebeians
within. Etruria, with her _lucumos_ and serfs, was no match for Persia.
Samnium had not grown into the might which she afterward put forth; nor
could the Greek colonies in South Italy and Sicily hope to conquer when
their parent states had perished. Carthage had escaped the Persian yoke
in the time of Cambyses, through the reluctance of the Phoenician
mariners to serve against their kinsmen.

But such forbearance could not long have been relied on, and the future
rival of Rome would have become as submissive a minister of the Persian
power as were the Phoenician cities themselves. If we turn to Spain; or
if we pass the great mountain chain, which, prolonged through the
Pyrenees, the Cevennes, the Alps, and the Balkan, divides Northern from
Southern Europe, we shall find nothing at that period but mere savage
Finns, Celts, Slavs, and Teutons. Had Persia beaten Athens at Marathon,
she could have found no obstacle to prevent Darius, the chosen servant
of Ormuzd, from advancing his sway over all the known Western races of
mankind. The infant energies of Europe would have been trodden out
beneath universal conquest, and the history of the world, like the
history of Asia, have become a mere record of the rise and fall of
despotic dynasties, of the incursions of barbarous hordes, and of the
mental and political prostration of millions beneath the diadem, the
tiara, and the sword.

Great as the preponderance of the Persian over the Athenian power at
that crisis seems to have been, it would be unjust to impute wild
rashness to the policy of Miltiades and those who voted with him in the
Athenian council of war, or to look on the after-current of events as
the mere fortunate result of successful folly. As before has been
remarked, Miltiades, while prince of the Chersonese, had seen service in
the Persian armies; and he knew by personal observation how many
elements of weakness lurked beneath their imposing aspect of strength.
He knew that the bulk of their troops no longer consisted of the hardy
shepherds and mountaineers from Persia proper and Kurdistan, who won
Cyrus's battles; but that unwilling contingents from conquered nations
now filled up the Persian muster-rolls, fighting more from compulsion
than from any zeal in the cause of their masters. He had also the
sagacity and the spirit to appreciate the superiority of the Greek armor
and organization over the Asiatic, notwithstanding former reverses.
Above all, he felt and worthily trusted the enthusiasm of those whom he
led.

The Athenians whom he led had proved by their newborn valor in recent
wars against the neighboring states that "liberty and equality of civic
rights are brave spirit-stirring things, and they, who, while under the
yoke of a despot, had been no better men of war than any of their
neighbors, as soon as they were free, became the foremost men of all;
for each felt that in fighting for a free commonwealth, he fought for
himself, and whatever he took in hand, he was zealous to do the work
thoroughly," So the nearly contemporaneous historian describes the
change of spirit that was seen in the Athenians after their tyrants were
expelled; and Miltiades knew that in leading them against the invading
army, where they had Hippias, the foe they most hated, before them, he
was bringing into battle no ordinary men, and could calculate on no
ordinary heroism.

As for traitors, he was sure that, whatever treachery might lurk among
some of the higher born and wealthier Athenians, the rank and file whom
he commanded were ready to do their utmost in his and their own cause.
With regard to future attacks from Asia, he might reasonably hope that
one victory would inspirit all Greece to combine against the common foe;
and that the latent seeds of revolt and disunion in the Persian empire
would soon burst forth and paralyze its energies, so as to leave Greek
independence secure.

With these hopes and risks, Miltiades, on the afternoon of a September
day, B.C. 490, gave the word for the Athenian army to prepare for
battle. There were many local associations connected with those mountain
heights which were calculated powerfully to excite the spirits of the
men, and of which the commanders well knew how to avail themselves in
their exhortations to their troops before the encounter. Marathon itself
was a region sacred to Hercules. Close to them was the fountain of
Macaria, who had in days of yore devoted herself to death for the
liberty of her people. The very plain on which they were to fight was
the scene of the exploits of their national hero, Theseus; and there,
too, as old legends told, the Athenians and the Heraclidæ had routed the
invader, Eurystheus.

These traditions were not mere cloudy myths or idle fictions, but
matters of implicit earnest faith to the men of that day, and many a
fervent prayer arose from the Athenian ranks to the heroic spirits who,
while on earth, had striven and suffered on that very spot, and who were
believed to be now heavenly powers, looking down with interest on their
still beloved country, and capable of interposing with superhuman aid in
its behalf.

According to old national custom, the warriors of each tribe were
arrayed together; neighbor thus fighting by the side of neighbor, friend
by friend, and the spirit of emulation and the consciousness of
responsibility excited to the very utmost. The War-ruler, Callimachus,
had the leading of the right wing; the Platæans formed the extreme left;
and Themistocles and Aristides commanded the centre. The line consisted
of the heavy-armed spearmen only; for the Greeks--until the time of
Iphicrates--took little or no account of light-armed soldiers in a
pitched battle, using them only in skirmishes, or for the pursuit of a
defeated enemy. The panoply of the regular infantry consisted of a long
spear, of a shield, helmet, breastplate, greaves, and short sword.

Thus equipped, they usually advanced slowly and steadily into action in
a uniform phalanx of about eight spears deep. But the military genius of
Miltiades led him to deviate on this occasion from the commonplace
tactics of his countrymen. It was essential for him to extend his line
so as to cover all the practicable ground, and to secure himself from
being outflanked and charged in the rear by the Persian horse. This
extension involved the weakening of his line. Instead of a uniform
reduction of its strength, he determined on detaching principally from
his centre, which, from the nature of the ground, would have the best
opportunities for rallying, if broken; and on strengthening his wings so
as to insure advantage at those points; and he trusted to his own skill
and to his soldiers' discipline for the improvement of that advantage
into decisive victory.[45]

[Footnote 45: It is remarkable that there is no other instance of a
Greek general deviating from the ordinary mode of bringing a phalanx of
spearmen into action until the battles of Leuctra and Mantinea, more
than a century after Marathon, when Epaminondas introduced the tactics
which Alexander the Great in ancient times, and Frederick the Great in
modern times, made so famous, of concentrating an overpowering force to
bear on some decisive point of the enemy's line, while he kept back, or,
in military phrase, refused the weaker part of his own.]

In this order, and availing himself probably of the inequalities of the
ground, so as to conceal his preparations from the enemy till the last
possible moment, Miltiades drew up the eleven thousand infantry whose
spears were to decide this crisis in the struggle between the European
and the Asiatic worlds. The sacrifices by which the favor of heaven was
sought, and its will consulted, were announced to show propitious omens.
The trumpet sounded for action, and, chanting the hymn of battle, the
little army bore down upon the host of the foe. Then, too, along the
mountain slopes of Marathon must have resounded the mutual exhortation
which Æschylus, who fought in both battles, tells us was afterward heard
over the waves of Salamis: "On, sons of the Greeks! Strike for the
freedom of your country! strike for the freedom of your children and of
your wives--for the shrines of your fathers' gods, and for the
sepulchres of your sires. All--all are now staked upon the strife."

Instead of advancing at the usual slow pace of the phalanx, Miltiades
brought his men on at a run. They were all trained in the exercise of
the _palæstra_, so that there was no fear of their ending the charge in
breathless exhaustion; and it was of the deepest importance for him to
traverse as rapidly as possible the mile or so of level ground that lay
between the mountain foot and the Persian outposts, and so to get his
troops into close action before the Asiatic cavalry could mount, form,
and manoeuvre against him, or their archers keep him long under fire,
and before the enemy's generals could fairly deploy their masses.

"When the Persians," says Herodotus, "saw the Athenians running down on
them, without horse or bowmen, and scanty in numbers, they thought them
a set of madmen rushing upon certain destruction." They began, however,
to prepare to receive them, and the Eastern chiefs arrayed, as quickly
as time and place allowed, the varied races who served in their motley
ranks. Mountaineers from Hyrcania and Afghanistan, wild horsemen from
the steppes of Khorassan, the black archers of Ethiopia, swordsmen from
the banks of the Indus, the Oxus, the Euphrates and the Nile, made ready
against the enemies of the Great King.

But no national cause inspired them except the division of native
Persians; and in the large host there was no uniformity of language,
creed, race or military system. Still, among them there were many
gallant men, under a veteran general; they were familiarized with
victory, and in contemptuous confidence their infantry, which alone had
time to form, awaited the Athenian charge. On came the Greeks, with one
unwavering line of leveled spears, against which the light targets, the
short lances and cimeters of the Orientals offered weak defence. The
front rank of the Asiatics must have gone down to a man at the first
shock. Still they recoiled not, but strove by individual gallantry and
by the weight of numbers to make up for the disadvantages of weapons and
tactics, and to bear back the shallow line of the Europeans. In the
centre, where the native Persians and the Sacæ fought, they succeeded in
breaking through the weakened part of the Athenian phalanx; and the
tribes led by Aristides and Themistocles were, after a brave resistance,
driven back over the plain, and chased by the Persians up the valley
toward the inner country. There the nature of the ground gave the
opportunity of rallying and renewing the struggle.

Meanwhile, the Greek wings, where Miltiades had concentrated his chief
strength, had routed the Asiatics opposed to them; and the Athenian and
Platæan officers, instead of pursuing the fugitives, kept their troops
well in hand, and, wheeling round, they formed the two wings together.
Miltiades instantly led them against the Persian centre, which had
hitherto been triumphant, but which now fell back, and prepared to
encounter these new and unexpected assailants. Aristides and
Themistocles renewed the fight with their reorganized troops, and the
full force of the Greeks was brought into close action with the Persian
and Sacean divisions of the enemy. Datis' veterans strove hard to keep
their ground, and evening was approaching before the stern encounter was
decided.

But the Persians, with their slight wicker shields, destitute of body
armor, and never taught by training to keep the even front and act with
the regular movement of the Greek infantry, fought at heavy disadvantage
with their shorter and feebler weapons against the compact array of
well-armed Athenian and Platæan spearmen, all perfectly drilled to
perform each necessary evolution in concert, and to preserve a uniform
and unwavering line in battle. In personal courage and in bodily
activity the Persians were not inferior to their adversaries. Their
spirits were not yet cowed by the recollection of former defeats; and
they lavished their lives freely, rather than forfeit the fame which
they had won by so many victories. While their rear ranks poured an
incessant shower of arrows over the heads of their comrades, the
foremost Persians kept rushing forward, sometimes singly, sometimes in
desperate groups of ten or twelve, upon the projecting spears of the
Greeks, striving to force a lane into the phalanx, and to bring their
cimeters and daggers into play. But the Greeks felt their superiority,
and though the fatigue of the long-continued action told heavily on
their inferior numbers, the sight of the carnage that they dealt upon
their assailants nerved them to fight still more fiercely on.

At last the previously unvanquished lords of Asia turned their backs and
fled, and the Greeks followed, striking them down, to the water's
edge,[46] where the invaders were now hastily launching their galleys,
and seeking to embark and fly. Flushed with success, the Athenians
attacked and strove to fire the fleet. But here the Asiatics resisted
desperately, and the principal loss sustained by the Greeks was in the
assault on the ships. Here fell the brave War-ruler Callimachus, the
general Stesilaus, and other Athenians of note. Seven galleys were
fired; but the Persians succeeded in saving the rest. They pushed off
from the fatal shore; but even here the skill of Datis did not desert
him, and he sailed round to the western coast of Attica, in hopes to
find the city unprotected, and to gain possession of it from some of the
partisans of Hippias.

[Footnote 46:

    The flying Mede, his shaftless broken bow;
    The fiery Greek, his red pursuing spear;
    Mountains above, Earth's, Ocean's plain below,
    Death in the front, Destruction in the rear!
    Such was the scene.--Byron.]

Miltiades, however, saw and counteracted his manoeuvre. Leaving
Aristides, and the troops of his tribe, to guard the spoil and the
slain, the Athenian commander led his conquering army by a rapid
night-march back across the country to Athens. And when the Persian
fleet had doubled the Cape of Sunium and sailed up to the Athenian
harbor in the morning, Datis saw arrayed on the heights above the city
the troops before whom his men had fled on the preceding evening. All
hope of further conquest in Europe for the time was abandoned, and the
baffled armada returned to the Asiatic coasts.

After the battle had been fought, but while the dead bodies were yet on
the ground, the promised reënforcement from Sparta arrived. Two thousand
Lacedæmonian spearmen, starting immediately after the full moon, had
marched the hundred and fifty miles between Athens and Sparta in the
wonderfully short time of three days. Though too late to share in the
glory of the action, they requested to be allowed to march to the
battle-field to behold the Medes. They proceeded thither, gazed on the
dead bodies of the invaders, and then praising the Athenians and what
they had done, they returned to Lacedæmon.

The number of the Persian dead was sixty-four hundred; of the Athenians,
one hundred and ninety-two. The number of the Platæans who fell is not
mentioned; but, as they fought in the part of the army which was not
broken, it cannot have been large.

The apparent disproportion between the losses of the two armies is not
surprising when we remember the armor of the Greek spearmen, and the
impossibility of heavy slaughter being inflicted by sword or lance on
troops so armed, as long as they kept firm in their ranks.[47]

[Footnote 47: Mitford well refers to Crecy, Poictiers, and Agincourt as
instances of similar disparity of loss between the conquerors and the
conquered.]

The Athenian slain were buried on the field of battle. This was contrary
to the usual custom, according to which the bones of all who fell
fighting for their country in each year were deposited in a public
sepulchre in the suburb of Athens called the "Ceramicus." But it was
felt that a distinction ought to be made in the funeral honors paid to
the men of Marathon, even as their merit had been distinguished over
that of all other Athenians. A lofty mound was raised on the plain of
Marathon, beneath which the remains of the men of Athens who fell in the
battle were deposited. Ten columns were erected on the spot, one for
each of the Athenian tribes; and on the monumental column of each tribe
were graven the names of those of its members whose glory it was to have
fallen in the great battle of liberation. The antiquarian Pausanias read
those names there six hundred years after the time when they were first
graven.[48] The columns have long perished, but the mound still marks
the spot where the noblest heroes of antiquity repose.

[Footnote 48: Pausanias stales, with implicit belief, that the
battle-field was haunted at night by supernatural beings, and that the
noise of combatants and the snorting of horses were heard to resound on
it. The superstition has survived the change of creeds, and the
shepherds of the neighborhood still believe that spectral warriors
contend on the plain at midnight, and they say that they have heard the
shouts of the combatants and the neighing of the steeds.]

A separate tumulus was raised over the bodies of the slain Platæans, and
another over the light-armed slaves who had taken part and had fallen in
the battle.[49] There was also a separate funeral monument to the
general to whose genius the victory was mainly due. Miltiades did not
live long after his achievement at Marathon, but he lived long enough to
experience a lamentable reverse of his popularity and success. As soon
as the Persians had quitted the western coasts of the Ægean, he proposed
to an assembly of the Athenian people that they should fit out seventy
galleys, with a proportionate force of soldiers and military stores, and
place it at his disposal; not telling them whither he meant to lead it,
but promising them that if they would equip the force he asked for, and
give him discretionary powers, he would lead it to a land where there
was gold in abundance to be won with ease.

[Footnote 49: It is probable that the Greek light-armed irregulars were
active in the attack on the Persian ships, and it was in this attack
that the Greeks suffered their principal loss.]

The Greeks of that time believed in the existence of eastern realms
teeming with gold, as firmly as the Europeans of the sixteenth century
believed in El Dorado of the West. The Athenians probably thought that
the recent victor of Marathon, and former officer of Darius, was about
to lead them on a secret expedition against some wealthy and unprotected
cities of treasure in the Persian dominions. The armament was voted and
equipped, and sailed eastward from Attica, no one but Miltiades knowing
its destination until the Greek isle of paros was reached, when his true
object appeared. In former years, while connected with the Persians as
prince of the Chersonese, Miltiades had been involved in a quarrel with
one of the leading men among the Parians, who had injured his credit
and caused some slights to be put upon him at the court of the Persian
satrap Hydarnes. The feud had ever since rankled in the heart of the
Athenian chief, and he now attacked Paros for the sake of avenging
himself on his ancient enemy.

His pretext, as general of the Athenians, was, that the Parians had
aided the armament, of Datis with a war-galley. The Parians pretended to
treat about terms of surrender, but used the time which they thus gained
in repairing the defective parts of the fortifications of their city,
and they then set the Athenians at defiance. So far, says Herodotus, the
accounts of all the Greeks agree. But the Parians in after years told
also a wild legend, how a captive priestess of a Parian temple of the
Deities of the Earth promised Miltiades to give him the means of
capturing Paros; how, at her bidding, the Athenian general went alone at
night and forced his way into a holy shrine, near the city gate, but
with what purpose it was not known; how a supernatural awe came over
him, and in his flight he fell and fractured his leg; how an oracle
afterward forbade the Parians to punish the sacrilegious and traitorous
priestess, "because it was fated that Miltiades should come to an ill
end, and she was only the instrument to lead, him to evil." Such was the
tale that Herodotus heard at Paros. Certain it was that Miltiades either
dislocated or broke his leg during an unsuccessful siege of the city,
and returned home in evil plight with his baffled and defeated forces.

The indignation of the Athenians was proportionate to the hope and
excitement which his promises had raised. Xanthippas, the head of one of
the first families in Athens, indicted him before the supreme popular
tribunal for the capital offence of having deceived the people. His
guilt was undeniable, and the Athenians passed their verdict
accordingly. But the recollections of Lemnos and Marathon, and the sight
of the fallen general, who lay stretched on a couch before them, pleaded
successfully in mitigation of punishment, and the sentence was commuted
from death to a fine of fifty talents. This was paid by his son, the
afterward illustrious Cimon, Miltiades dying, soon after the trial, of
the injury which he had received at Paros.

The melancholy end of Miltiades, after his elevation to such a height
of power and glory, must often have been recalled to the minds of the
ancient Greeks by the sight of one in particular of the memorials of the
great battle which he won. This was the remarkable statue--minutely
described by Pausanias--which the Athenians, in the time of Pericles,
caused to be hewn out of a huge block of marble, which, it was believed,
had been provided by Datis, to form a trophy of the anticipated victory
of the Persians. Phidias fashioned out of this a colossal image of the
goddess Nemesis, the deity whose peculiar function was to visit the
exuberant prosperity both of nations and individuals with sudden and
awful reverses. This statue was placed in a temple of the goddess at
Rhamnus, about eight miles from Marathon. Athens itself contained
numerous memorials of her primary great victory. Panenus, the cousin of
Phidias, represented it in fresco on the walls of the painted porch;
and, centuries afterward, the figures of Miltiades and Callimachus at
the head of the Athenians were conspicuous in the fresco. The tutelary
deities were exhibited taking part in the fray. In the background were
seen the Phoenician galleys, and, nearer to the spectator, the Athenians
and the Platæans--distinguished by their leather helmets--were chasing
routed Asiatics into the marshes and the sea. The battle was sculptured
also on the Temple of Victory in the Acropolis, and even now there may
be traced on the frieze the figures of the Persian combatants with their
lunar shields, their bows and quivers, their curved cimeters, their
loose trousers, and Phrygian tiaras.

These and other memorials of Marathon were the produce of the meridian
age of Athenian intellectual splendor, of the age of Phidias and
Pericles; for it was not merely by the generation whom the battle
liberated from Hippias and the Medes that the transcendent importance of
their victory was gratefully recognized. Through the whole epoch of her
prosperity, through the long Olympiads of her decay, through centuries
after her fall, Athens looked back on the day of Marathon as the
brightest of her national existence.

By a natural blending of patriotic pride with grateful piety, the very
spirits of the Athenians who fell at Marathon were deified by their
countrymen. The inhabitants of the district of Marathon paid religious
rites to them, and orators solemnly invoked them in their most
impassioned adjurations before the assembled men of Athens. "Nothing was
omitted that could keep alive the remembrance of a deed which had first
taught the Athenian people to know its own strength, by measuring it
with the power which had subdued the greater part of the known world.
The consciousness thus awakened fixed its character, its station, and
its destiny; it was the spring of its later great actions and ambitious
enterprises."

It was not indeed by one defeat, however signal, that the pride of
Persia could be broken, and her dreams of universal empire dispelled.
Ten years afterward she renewed her attempts upon Europe on a grander
scale of enterprise, and was repulsed by Greece with greater and
reiterated loss. Larger forces and heavier slaughter than had been seen
at Marathon signalized the conflicts of Greeks and Persians at
Artemisium, Salamis, Platæa, and the Eurymedon. But, mighty and
momentous as these battles were, they rank not with Marathon in
importance. They originated no new impulse. They turned back no current
of fate. They were merely confirmatory of the already existing bias
which Marathon had created. The day of Marathon is the critical epoch in
the history of the two nations. It broke forever the spell of Persian
invincibility, which had previously paralyzed men's minds. It generated
among the Greeks the spirit which beat back Xerxes, and afterward led on
Xenophon, Agesilaus, and Alexander, in terrible retaliation through
their Asiatic campaigns. It secured for mankind the intellectual
treasures of Athens, the growth of free institutions, the liberal
enlightenment of the Western world, and the gradual ascendency for many
ages of the great principles of European civilization.


EXPLANATORY REMARKS ON SOME OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE BATTLE OF
MARATHON

Nothing is said by Herodotus of the Persian cavalry taking any part in
the battle, although he mentions that Hippias recommended the Persians
to land at Marathon, because the plain was favorable for cavalry
evolutions. In the life of Miltiades which is usually cited as the
production of Cornelius Nepos, but which I believe to be of no authority
whatever, it is said that Miltiades protected his flanks from the
enemy's horse by an abatis of felled trees. While he was on the high
ground he would not have required this defence, and it is not likely
that the Persians would have allowed him to erect it on the plain.

But, in truth, whatever amount of cavalry we suppose Datis to have had
with him on the day of Marathon, their inaction in the battle is
intelligible, if we believe the attack of the Athenian spearmen to have
been as sudden as it was rapid. The Persian horse-soldier, on an alarm
being given, had to take the shackles off his horse, to strap the saddle
on, and bridle him, besides equipping himself (Xenophon), and when each
individual horseman was ready, the line had to be formed; and the time
that it takes to form the Oriental cavalry in line for a charge has, in
all ages, been observed by Europeans.

The wet state of the marshes at each end of the plain, in the time of
year when the battle was fought, has been adverted to by Wordsworth,[50]
and this would hinder the Persian general from arranging and employing
his horsemen on his extreme wings, while it also enabled the Greeks, as
they came forward, to occupy the whole breadth of the practicable ground
with an unbroken line of leveled spears, against which, if any Persian
horse advanced, they would be driven back in confusion upon their own
foot.

[Footnote 50: _Greece_.]

Even numerous and fully arrayed bodies of cavalry have been repeatedly
broken, both in ancient and modern warfare, by resolute charges of
infantry. For instance, it was by an attack of some picked cohorts that
Cæsar routed the Pompeian cavalry--which had previously defeated his
own--and won the battle of Pharsalia.



INVASION OF GREECE BY PERSIANS UNDER XERXES

DEFENCE OF THERMOPYLÆ

B.C. 480

HERODOTUS


     The invasion of Greece by Xerxes is the subject of the great
     history written in nine books by Herodotus. His object is to show
     the preëminence of Greece, whose fleets and armies defeated the
     forces of the Persians after these latter had triumphed over the
     most powerful nations of the earth. Xerxes collected a vast army
     from all parts of the empire. The Phoenicians furnished him with an
     enormous fleet, and he made a bridge of a double line of boats
     across the Hellespont and cut a canal through the peninsula of
     Mount Athos. He reached Sardis in the autumn of B.C. 481, and the
     next year his army crossed the bridge of boats, taking seven days
     and seven nights for the transit. The number of his fighting men
     was over two millions and a half. His ships of war were twelve
     hundred and seven in number, and he had three thousand smaller
     vessels for carrying his land forces and supplies. At the narrow
     pass of Thermopylæ, in the northeast of Greece, this immense army
     was checked for a while by the heroic Leonidas and his three
     hundred Spartans, who, however, perished in their attempt to
     prevent the Persian's attack on Athens, which city was almost
     entirely destroyed by the invaders. The sea-fight of Salamis was
     won by the Greeks against enormous odds; and in the battle of
     Platæa, B.C. 479, the defeat of the Persians by the Greek land
     forces was made more complete by the death of Mardonius, the most
     renowned general of Xerxes.


The Greeks, when they arrived at the Isthmus, consulted on the message
they had received from Alexander, in what way and in what places they
should prosecute the war. The opinion which prevailed was that they
should defend the pass at Thermopylæ; for it appeared to be narrower
than that into Thessaly, and at the same time nearer to their own
territories; for the path by which the Greeks who were taken at
Thermopylæ were afterward surprised, they knew nothing of, till, on
their arrival at Thermopylæ, they were informed of it by the
Trachinians. They accordingly resolved to guard this pass, and not
suffer the barbarian to enter Greece; and that the naval force should
sail to Artemisium, in the territory of Histiæotis, for these places are
near one another, so that they could hear what happened to each other.
These spots are thus situated.

In the first place, Artemisium is contracted from a wide space of the
Thracian sea into a narrow frith, which lies between the island of
Sciathus and the continent of Magnesia. From the narrow frith begins the
coast of Euboea, called Artemisium, and in it is a temple of Diana. But
the entrance into Greece through Trachis, in the narrowest part, is no
more than a half _plethrum_ in width: however, the narrowest part of the
country is not in this spot, but before and behind Thermopylæ; for near
Alpeni, which is behind, there is only a single carriage-road, and
before, by the river Phoenix, near the city of Anthela, is another
single carriage-road. On the western side of Thermopylæ is an
inaccessible and precipitous mountain, stretching to Mount Oeta, and on
the eastern side of the way is the sea and a morass. In this passage
there are hot baths, which the inhabitants call "Chytri," and above
these is an altar to Hercules. A wall had been built in this pass, and
formerly there were gates in it. The Phocians built it through fear,
when the Thessalians came from Thesprotia to settle in the Æolian
territory which they now possess: apprehending that the Thessalians
would attempt to subdue them, the Phocians took this precaution; at the
same time, they diverted the hot water into the entrance, that the place
might be broken into clefts, having recourse to every contrivance to
prevent the Thessalians from making inroads into their country. Now this
old wall had been built a long time, and the greater part of it had
already fallen through age; but they determined to rebuild it, and in
that place to repel the barbarian from Greece. Very near this road there
is a village called Alpeni; from this the Greeks expected to obtain
provisions.

Accordingly, these situations appeared suitable for the Greeks; for
they, having weighed everything beforehand, and considered that the
barbarians would neither be able to use their numbers nor their
cavalry, there resolved to await the invader of Greece. As soon as they
were informed that the Persian was in Pieria, breaking up from the
Isthmus some of them proceeded by land to Thermopylæ, and others by sea
to Artemisium.

The Greeks, therefore, being appointed in two divisions, hastened to
meet the enemy; but, at the same time, the Delphians, alarmed for
themselves and for Greece, consulted the oracle, and the answer given
them was, "that they should pray to the winds, for that they would be
powerful allies to Greece."

The Delphians, having received the oracle, first of all communicated the
answer to those Greeks who were zealous to be free; and as they very
much dreaded the barbarians, by giving that message they acquired a
claim to everlasting gratitude. After that, the Delphians erected an
altar to the winds at Thyia, where there is an inclosure consecrated to
Thyia, daughter of Cephisus, from whom this district derives its name,
and conciliated them with sacrifices; and the Delphians, in obedience to
that oracle, to this day propitiate the winds.

The naval force of Xerxes, setting out from the city of Therma, advanced
with ten of the fastest sailing ships straight to Scyathus, where were
three Grecian ships keeping a look-out: a Troezenian, an Æginetan, and
an Athenian, These, seeing the ships of the barbarians at a distance,
betook themselves to flight.

The Troezenian ship, which Praxinus commanded, the barbarians pursued
and soon captured; and then, having led the handsomest of the marines to
the prow of the ship, they slew him, deeming it a good omen that the
first Greek they had taken was also very handsome. The name of the man
that was slain was Leon, and perhaps he in some measure reaped the
fruits of his name.

The Æginetan ship, which Asonides commanded, gave them some trouble;
Pytheas, son of Ischenous, being a marine on board, a man who on this
day displayed the most consummate valor; who, when the ship was taken,
continued fighting until he was entirely cut to pieces. But when, having
fallen (he was not dead, but still breathed), the Persians who served on
board the ships were very anxious to save him alive, on account of his
valor, healing his wounds with myrrh, and binding them with bandages of
flaxen cloth; and when they returned to their own camp, they showed him
with admiration to the whole army, and treated him well; but the others,
whom they took in this ship, they treated as slaves.

Thus, then, two of the ships were taken; but the other, which Phormus,
an Athenian, commanded, in its flight ran ashore at the mouth of the
Peneus, and the barbarians got possession of the ship, but not of the
men; for as soon as the Athenians had run the ship aground, they leaped
out, and, proceeding through Thessaly, reached Athens. The Greeks who
were stationed at Artemisium were informed of this event by signal-fires
from Sciathus; and being informed of it, and very much alarmed, they
retired from Artemisium to Chalcis, intending to defend the Euripus, and
leaving scouts on the heights of Euboea. Of the ten barbarian ships,
three approached the sunken rock called Myrmex, between Sciathus and
Magnesia. Then the barbarians, when they had erected on the rock a stone
column, which they had brought with them, set out from Therma, now that
every obstacle had been removed, and sailed forward with all their
ships, having waited eleven days after the king's departure from Therma.
Pammon, a Scyrian, pointed out to them this hidden rock, which was
almost directly in their course. The barbarians, sailing all day,
reached Sepias in Magnesia, and the shore that lies between the city of
Casthanæa and the coast of Sepias.

As far as this place and Thermopylæ, the army had suffered no loss, and
the numbers were at that time, as I find by calculations, of the
following amount: of those in ships from Asia, amounting to one thousand
two hundred and seven, originally the whole number of the several
nations was two hundred forty-one thousand four hundred men, allowing
two hundred to each ship; and on these ships thirty Persians, Medes, and
Sacæ served as marines, in addition to the native crews of each; this
farther number amounts to thirty-six thousand two hundred and ten. To
this and the former number I add those that were on the
_penteconters[51]_ supposing eighty men on the average to be on board of
each. Three thousand of these vessels were assembled; therefore the men
on board them must have been two hundred and forty thousand. This, then,
was the naval force from Asia, the total being five hundred and
seventeen thousand six hundred and ten. Of infantry there were seventeen
hundred thousand, and of cavalry eighty thousand; to these I add the
Arabians who drove camels, and the Libyans who drove chariots, reckoning
the number at twenty thousand men. Accordingly, the numbers on board the
ships and on the land, added together, make up two millions three
hundred and seventeen thousand six hundred and ten. This, then, is the
force which, as has been mentioned, was assembled from Asia itself,
exclusive of the servants that followed, and the provision ships, and
the men that were on board them.

[Footnote 51: Fifty-oared ships.]

But the force brought from Europe must still be added to this whole
number that has been summed up; but it is necessary to speak by guess.
Now the Grecians from Thrace, and the islands contiguous to Thrace,
furnished one hundred and twenty ships; these ships give an amount of
twenty-four thousand men. Of land-forces, which were furnished by
Thracians, Pæonians, the Eordi, the Bottiæans, the Chalcidian race,
Brygi, Pierians, Macedonians, Perrhæbi, Ænianes, Dolopians, Magnesians,
and Achæans, together with those who inhabit the maritime parts of
Thrace--of these nations I suppose that there were three hundred
thousand men, so that these _myriads_, added to those from Asia, make a
total of two millions six hundred and forty one thousand six hundred and
ten fighting men!

I think that the servants who followed them, and with those on board the
provision ships and other vessels that sailed with the fleet, were not
fewer than the fighting men, but more numerous; but supposing them to be
equal in number to the fighting men, they make up the former number of
_myriads_.[52] Thus Xerxes, son of Darius, led five millions two hundred
and eighty-three thousand two hundred and twenty men to Sepias and
Thermopylæ!

[Footnote 52: In Greek numeration, ten thousand.]

This, then, was the number of the whole force of Xerxes. But of women
who made bread, and concubines, and eunuchs, no one could mention the
number with accuracy; nor of draught-cattle and other beasts of burden;
nor of Indian dogs that followed could any one mention the number, they
were so many; therefore I am not astonished that the streams of some
rivers failed, but rather it is a wonder to me how provisions held out
for so many _myriads_; for I find by calculation, if each man had a
_choenix_ of wheat daily, and no more, one hundred and ten thousand
three hundred and forty _medimni_ must have been consumed every day; and
I have not reckoned the food for the women, eunuchs, beasts of burden,
and dogs. But of these _myriads_ of men, not one of them, for beauty and
stature, was more entitled than Xerxes himself to possess the supreme
command.

When the fleet, having set out, sailed and reached the shore of Magnesia
that lies between the city of Casthanæa and the coast of Sepias, the
foremost of the ships took up their station close to land, others behind
rode at anchor--the beach not being extensive enough--with their prows
toward the sea, and eight deep. Thus they passed the night; but at
daybreak, after serene and tranquil weather, the sea began to swell, and
a heavy storm with a violent gale from the east--which those who inhabit
these parts call a "Hellespontine"--burst upon them; as many of them
then as perceived the gale increasing, and who were able to do so from
their position, anticipated the storm by hauling their ships on shore,
and both they and their ships escaped. But such of the ships as the
storm caught at sea it carried away, some to the parts called Ipni, near
Pelion, others to the beach; some were dashed on Cape Sepias itself;
some were wrecked at Meliboea, and others at Casthanæa. The storm was
indeed irresistible.

The barbarians, when the wind had lulled and the waves had subsided,
having hauled down their ships, sailed along the continent; and having
doubled the promontory of Magnesia, stood directly into the bay leading
to Pagasæ. There is a spot in this bay of Magnesia where it is said
Hercules was abandoned by Jason and his companions when he had been sent
from the Argo for water, as they were sailing to Colchis, in Asia, for
the golden fleece; and from there they purposed to put out to sea after
they had taken in water. From this circumstance, the name of "Aphetæ"
was given to the place. In this place, then, the fleet of Xerxes was
moored.

Fifteen of these ships happened to be driven out to sea some time after
the rest, and somehow saw the ships of the Greeks at Artemisium. The
barbarians thought that they were their own, and sailing on, fell among
their enemies. They were commanded by Sandoces, son of Thaumasius,
governor of Cyme, of Æolia. He, being one of the royal judges, had been
formerly condemned by King Darius (who had detected him in the following
offence), to be crucified. Sandoces gave an unjust sentence, for a
bribe; but while he was actually hanging on the cross, Darius,
considering within himself, found that the services he had rendered to
the royal family were greater than his faults. Darius, therefore, having
discovered this, and perceiving that he, himself, had acted with more
expedition than wisdom, released him. Having thus escaped being put to
death by Darius, he survived; but now, sailing down among the Grecians,
he was not to escape a second time; for when the Greeks saw them sailing
toward them, perceiving the mistake they had committed, they bore down
upon them and easily took them.

King Xerxes encamped in the Trachinian territory of Malis, and the
Greeks in the pass. This spot is called by most of the Greeks,
"Thermopylæ," but by the inhabitants and neighbors, "Pylæ," Both
parties, then, encamped in these places. The one was in possession of
all the parts toward the north as far as Trachis, and the others, of the
parts which stretch toward the south and meridian of this continent.

The following were the Greeks who awaited the Persians in this position.
Of Spartans, three hundred heavy-armed men; of Tegeans and Mantineans,
one thousand (half of each); from Orchomenus in Arcadia, one hundred and
twenty; and from the rest of Arcadia, one thousand (there were so many
Arcadians); from Corinth, four hundred; from Phlius, two hundred men;
and from Mycenæ, eighty. These came from Peloponnesus. From Boeotia, of
Thespians seven hundred; and of Thebans, four hundred.

In addition to these, the Opuntian Locrians, being invited, came with
all their forces, and a thousand Phocians; for the Greeks themselves
had invited them, representing by their embassadors that "they had
arrived as forerunners of the others, and that the rest of the allies
might be daily expected; that the sea was protected by them, being
guarded by the Athenians, the Æginetæ, and others, who were appointed to
the naval service; and that they had nothing to fear, for that it was
not a god who invaded Greece, but a man; and that there never was, and
never would be, any mortal who had not evil mixed with _his prosperity_
from his very birth, and to the greatest of them the greatest _reverses
happen_; that it must therefore needs be that he who is marching against
us, being a mortal, will be disappointed in his expectation." They,
having heard this, marched with assistance to Trachis.

These nations had separate generals for their several cities, but the
one most admired, and who commanded the whole army, was a Lacedæmonian,
Leonidas, son of Anaxandrides, son of Leon, son of Eurycratides, son of
Anaxander, son of Eurycates, son of Polydorus, son of Alcamenes, son of
Teleclus, son of Archelaus, son of Agesilaus, son of Doryssus, son of
Leobotes, son of Echestratus, son of Agis, son of Eurysthenes, son of
Aristodemus, son of Aristomachus, son of Cleodæus, son of Hyllus, son of
Hercules, who had unexpectedly succeeded to the throne of Sparta.

For, as he had two elder brothers, Cleomenes and Dorieus, he was far
from any thought of the kingdom. However, Cleomenes having died without
male issue, and Dorieus being no longer alive--having ended his days in
Sicily--the kingdom thus devolved upon Leonidas; both because he was
older than Cleombrotus--for he was the youngest son of Anaxandrides--and
also because he had married the daughter of Cleomenes. He then marched
to Thermopylæ, having chosen the three hundred men allowed by law, and
such as had children. On his march he took with him the Thebans, whose
numbers I have already reckoned, and whom Leontiades, son of Eurymachus,
commanded. For this reason Leonidas was anxious to take with him the
Thebans alone of all the Greeks, because they were strongly accused of
favoring the Medes: he therefore summoned them to the war, wishing to
know whether they would send their forces with him, or would openly
renounce the alliance of the Grecians; but they, though otherwise
minded, sent assistance.

The Spartans sent these troops first with Leonidas, in order that the
rest of the allies, seeing them, might take the field, and might not go
over to the Medes if they heard that they were delaying; but
afterward--for the Carnean festival was then an obstacle to them--they
purposed, when they had kept the feast, to leave a garrison in Sparta
and to march immediately with their whole strength. The rest of the
confederates likewise intended to act in the same manner; for the
Olympic games occurred at the same period as these events. As they did
not, therefore, suppose that the engagement at Thermopylæ would so soon
be decided, they despatched an advance-guard.

The Greeks at Thermopylæ, when the Persians came near the pass, being
alarmed, consulted about a retreat; accordingly, it seemed best to the
other Peloponnesians to retire to Peloponnesus, and guard the Isthmus;
but Leonidas, perceiving the Phocians and Locrians were very indignant
at this proposition, determined to stay there, and to despatch
messengers to the cities, desiring them to come to their assistance,
they being too few to repel the army of the Medes.

While they were deliberating on these matters, Xerxes sent a scout on
horseback, to see how many they were and what they were doing; for while
he was still in Thessaly, he had heard that a small army had been
assembled at that spot, and as to their leaders, that they were
Lacedæmonians, and Leonidas, who was of the race of Hercules. When the
horseman rode up to the camp, he reconnoitred, and saw not indeed the
whole camp, for it was not possible that they should be seen who were
posted within the wall, which having rebuilt they were now guarding; but
he had a clear view of those on the outside, whose arms were piled in
front of the wall. At this time the Lacedæmonians happened to be posted
outside; and some of the men he saw performing gymnastic exercises, and
others combing their hair. On beholding this he was astonished, and
ascertained their number, and having informed himself of everything
accurately, he rode back at his leisure, for no one pursued him and he
met with general contempt. On his return he gave an account to Xerxes
of all that he had seen.

When Xerxes heard this, he could not comprehend the truth that the
Grecians were preparing to be slain and to slay to the utmost of their
power; but, as they appeared to behave in a ridiculous manner, he sent
for Demaratus, son of Ariston, who was then in the camp, and when he was
come into his presence Xerxes questioned him as to each particular,
wishing to understand what the Lacedæmonians were doing. Demaratus said:
"You before heard me when we were setting out against Greece, speak of
these men, and when you heard, you treated me with ridicule though I
told you in what way I foresaw these matters would issue; for it is my
chief aim, O king, to adhere to the truth in your presence; hear it,
therefore, once more. These men have to fight with us for the pass and
are now preparing themselves to do so; for such is their custom when
they are going to hazard their lives, then they dress their heads; but
be assured if you conquer these men and those that remain in Sparta,
there is no other nation in the world that will dare to raise its hand
against you, O king! for you are now to engage with the noblest kingdom
and city of all among the Greeks and with the most valiant men." What
was said seemed incredible to Xerxes and he asked again, "how, being so
few in number, they could contend with his army." He answered: "O king,
deal with me as with a liar if these things do not turn out as I say!"

By saying this he did not convince Xerxes. He therefore let four days
pass, constantly expecting that they would be taking themselves to
flight; but on the fifth day, as they had not retreated, but appeared to
him to stay through arrogance and rashness, he, being enraged, sent the
Medes and Cissians against them, with orders to take them alive, and
bring them into his presence. When the Medes bore down impetuously upon
the Greeks, many of them fell; others followed to the charge, and were
not repulsed, though they suffered greatly; but they made it evident to
every one, and not least of all to the king himself, that they were
indeed many men, but few soldiers. The engagement lasted through the
day.

When the Medes were roughly handled, they thereupon retired, and the
Persians whom the king called "Immortal," and whom Hydarnes commanded,
taking their place advanced to the attack thinking that they indeed
would easily settle the business. But when they engaged with the
Grecians they succeeded no better than the Medic troops, but just the
same; as they fought in a narrow space and used shorter spears than the
Greeks, they were unable to avail themselves of their numbers. The
Lacedæmonians fought memorably in other respects, showing that they knew
how to fight with men who knew not, and whenever they turned their backs
they retreated in close order, but the barbarians, seeing them retreat,
followed with a shout and clamor; then they, being overtaken, wheeled
round so as to front the barbarians, and having faced about, overthrew
an inconceivable number of the Persians, and then some few of the
Spartans themselves fell, so that when the Persians were unable to gain
anything in their attempt on the pass by attacking in troops and in
every possible manner, they retired.

It is said that during these onsets of the battle, the king, who
witnessed them, thrice sprang from his throne, being alarmed for his
army. Thus they strove at that time. On the following day the barbarians
fought with no better success; for considering that the Greeks were few
in number, and expecting that they were covered with wounds and would
not be able to raise their heads against them any more, they renewed the
contest. But the Greeks were marshalled in companies and according to
their several nations, and each fought in turn, except only the
Phocians; they were stationed at the mountain to guard the pathway.
When, therefore, the Persians found nothing different from what they had
seen on the preceding day, they retired.

While the king was in doubt what course to take in the present state of
affairs, Ephialtes, son of Eurydemus, a Malian, obtained an audience of
him (expecting that he should receive a great reward from the king), and
informed him of the path which leads over the mountain to Thermopylæ,
and by that means caused the destruction of those Greeks who were
stationed there; but afterward, fearing the Lacedæmonians, he fled to
Thessaly, and when he had fled, a price was set on his head by the
Pylagori when the Amphictyons were assembled at Pylæ; but some time
after, he went down to Anticyra and was killed by Athenades, a
Trachinian.

Another account is given, that Onetes, son of Phanagoras, a Carystian,
and Corydallus of Anticyra, were the persons who gave this information
to the king and conducted the Persians round the mountains; but to me,
this is by no means credible; for, in the first place, we may draw the
inference from this circumstance, that the Pylagori of the Grecians set
a price on the head, not of Onetes and Corydallus, but of Ephialtes the
Trachinian, having surely ascertained the exact truth; and, in the next
place, we know that Ephialtes fled on that account. Onetes, indeed,
though he was not a Malian, might be acquainted with this path if he had
been conversant with the country; but it was Ephialtes who conducted
them round the mountain by the path, and I charge him as the guilty
person.

Xerxes, since he was pleased with what Ephialtes promised to perform,
being exceedingly delighted, immediately despatched Hydarnes and the
troops that Hydarnes commanded, and he started from the camp about the
hour of lamp-lighting. The native Malians discovered this pathway, and
having discovered it, conducted the Thessalians by it against the
Phocians at the time when the Phocians, having fortified the pass by a
wall, were under shelter from an attack. From that time it appeared to
have been of no service to the Malians.

This path is situated as follows: it begins from the river Asopus, which
flows through the cleft; the same name is given both to the mountain and
to the path, "Anopæa," and this Anopæa extends along the ridge of the
mountain and ends near Alpenus, which is the first city of the Locrians
toward the Malians, and by the rock called "Melampygus," and by the
seats of the Cercopes, and there the path is the narrowest.

Along this path, thus situate, the Persians, having crossed the Asopus,
marched all night, having on their right the mountains of the Oetæans,
and on their left those of the Trachinians; morning appeared, and they
were on the summit of the mountain. At this part of the mountain, as I
have already mentioned, a thousand heavy-armed Phocians kept guard, to
defend their own country and to secure the pathway--for the lower pass
was guarded by those before mentioned--and the Phocians had voluntarily
promised Leonidas to guard the path across the mountain.

The Phocians discovered them after they had ascended, in the following
manner; for the Persian ascended without being observed, as the whole
mountain was covered with oaks; there was a perfect calm, and, as was
likely, a considerable rustling taking place from the leaves strewn
under foot, the Phocians sprang up and put on their arms, and
immediately the barbarians made their appearance. But when they saw men
clad in armor they were astonished, for, expecting to find nothing to
oppose them, they fell in with an army; thereupon Hydarnes, fearing lest
the Phocians might be Lacedæmonians, asked Ephialtes of what nation the
troops were, and being accurately informed, he drew up the Persians for
battle. The Phocians, when they were hit by many and thick-falling
arrows, fled to the summit of the mountain, supposing that they had come
expressly to attack them, and prepared to perish. Such was their
determination. But the Persians, with Ephialtes and Hydarnes, took no
notice of the Phocians but marched down the mountain with all speed.

To those of the Greeks who were at Thermopylæ, the augur Megistias,
having inspected the sacrifices, first made known the death that would
befall them in the morning; certain deserters afterward came and brought
intelligence of the circuit the Persians were taking. These brought the
news while it was yet night; and, thirdly, the scouts running down from
the heights as soon as day dawned, _brought the same intelligence_. Upon
this the Greeks held a consultation, and their opinions were divided;
some would not hear of abandoning their post, and others opposed that
view. After this, when the assembly broke up, some of them departed, and
being dispersed, betook themselves to their several cities; but others
of them prepared to remain there with Leonidas.

It is said that Leonidas himself sent them away, being anxious that they
should not perish, but that he and the Spartans who were there could not
honorably desert the post which they originally came to defend. For my
own part, I am rather inclined to think that Leonidas, when he perceived
that the allies were averse and unwilling to share the danger with him,
bade them withdraw, but that he considered it dishonorable for himself
to depart; on the other hand, by remaining there, great renown would be
left for him and the prosperity of Sparta would not be obliterated, for
it had been announced to the Spartans by the Pythian, when they
consulted the oracle concerning this war as soon as it commenced, "that
either Lacedæmon must be overthrown by the barbarians, or their king
perish." This answer she gave in hexameter verses, to this effect: "To
you, O inhabitants of spacious Lacedæmon! either your vast glorious city
shall be destroyed by men sprung from Perseus, or, if not so, the
confines of Lacedæmon shall mourn a king deceased, of the race of
Hercules. For neither shall the strength of bulls nor of lions withstand
him with force opposed to force, for he has the strength of Jove, and I
say he shall not be restrained before he has certainly obtained one of
these for his share." I think, therefore, that Leonidas, considering
these things and being desirous to acquire glory for the Spartans alone,
sent away the allies, rather than that those who went away differed in
opinion, and went away in such an unbecoming manner.

The following in no small degree strengthens my conviction on this
point; for not only _did he send away_ the others, but it is certain
that Leonidas also sent away the augur who followed the army, Megistias
the Acarnanian, who was said to have been originally descended from
Melampus, the same who announced, from an inspection of the victims,
what was about to befall them, in order that he might not perish with
them. He however, though dismissed, did not himself depart but sent away
his son who served with him in the expedition, being his only child.

The allies that were dismissed, accordingly departed, and obeyed
Leonidas, but only the Thespians and the Thebans remained with the
Lacedæmonians; the Thebans, indeed, remained unwillingly and against
their inclination, for Leonidas detained them, treating them as
hostages; but the Thespians willingly, for they refused to go away and
abandon Leonidas and those with him, but remained and died with them.
Demophilus, son of Diadromas, commanded them.

Xerxes, after he had poured out libations at sunrise, having waited a
short time, began his attack about the time of full market, for he had
been so instructed by Ephialtes; for the descent from the mountain is
more direct and the distance much shorter than the circuit and ascent.
The barbarians, therefore, with Xerxes, advanced, and the Greeks with
Leonidas, marching out as if for certain death, now advanced much
farther than before into the wide part of the defile, for the
fortification of the wall had protected them, and they on the preceding
days, having taken up their position in the narrow part, fought there;
but now engaging outside the narrows, great numbers of the barbarians
fell; for the officers of the companies from behind, having scourges,
flogged every man, constantly urging them forward; in consequence, many
of them, falling into the sea, perished, and many more were trampled
alive under foot by one another and no regard was paid to any that
perished, for the Greeks, knowing that death awaited them at the hands
of those who were going round the mountain, being desperate and
regardless of their own lives, displayed the utmost possible valor
against the barbarians.

Already were most of their javelins broken and they had begun to
despatch the Persians with their swords. In this part of the struggle
fell Leonidas, fighting valiantly, and with him other eminent Spartans,
whose names, seeing they were deserving men, I have ascertained; indeed,
I have ascertained the names of the whole three hundred. On the side of
the Persians also, many other eminent men fell on this occasion, and
among them two sons of Darius, Abrocomes and Hyperanthes, born to Darius
of Phrataguna, daughter of Artanes; but Artanes was brother to king
Darius, and son of Hystaspes, son of Arsames. He, when he gave his
daughter to Darius, gave him also all his property, as she was his only
child.

Accordingly, two brothers of Xerxes fell at this spot fighting for the
body of Leonidas, and there was a violent struggle between the Persians
and Lacedæmonians, until at last the Greeks rescued it by their valor
and four times repulsed the enemy. Thus the contest continued until
those with Ephialtes came up. When the Greeks heard that they were
approaching, from this time the battle was altered; for they retreated
to the narrow part of the way, and passing beyond the wall came and took
up their position on the rising ground all in a compact body with the
exception of the Thebans. The rising ground is at the entrance where the
stone lion now stands to the memory of Leonidas. On this spot, while
they defended themselves with swords--such as had them still
remaining--and with hands and teeth, the barbarians overwhelmed them
with missiles, some of them attacking them in front, having thrown down
the wall, and others surrounding and attacking them on every side.

Though the Lacedæmonians and Thespians behaved in this manner, yet
Dieneces, a Spartan, is said to have been the bravest man. They relate
that he made the following remark before they engaged with the Medes,
having heard a Trachinian say that when the barbarians let fly their
arrows they would obscure the sun by the multitude of their shafts, so
great was their number; but he, not at all alarmed at this, said,
holding in contempt the numbers of the Medes, that "their Trachinian
friend told them everything to their advantage, since if the Medes
obscure the sun, they would then have to fight in the shade and not in
the sun." This, and other sayings of the same kind, they relate that
Dieneces the Lacedæmonian left as memorials.

Next to him, two Lacedæmonian brothers, Alpheus and Maron, sons of
Orisiphantus, are said to have distinguished themselves most; and of the
Thespians, he obtained the greatest glory whose name was Dithyrambus,
son of Harmatides.

In honor of the slain, who were buried on the spot where they fell, and
of those who died before they who were dismissed by Leonidas went away,
the following inscription has been engraved over them: "Four thousand
from Peloponnesus once fought on this spot with three hundred
_myriads_![53]" This inscription was made for all; and for the Spartans
in particular: "Stranger, go tell the Lacedæmonians that we lie here,
obedient to their commands!" This was for the Lacedæmonians; and for
the prophet, the following: "This is the monument of the illustrious
Megistias, whom once the Medes, having passed the river Sperchius, slew;
a prophet who, at the time well knowing the impending fate, would not
abandon the leaders of Sparta!"

[Footnote 53: Three millions.]

The Amphictyons are the persons who honored them with these inscriptions
and columns, with the exception of the inscription to the prophet; that
of the prophet Megistias, Simonides, son of Leoprepes, caused to be
engraved, from personal friendship.



CHRONOLOGY OF UNIVERSAL HISTORY

EMBRACING THE PERIOD COVERED IN THIS VOLUME

B.C. 5867--B.C. 451

JOHN RUDD, LL.D.

CHRONOLOGY OF UNIVERSAL HISTORY

EMBRACING THE PERIOD COVERED IN THIS VOLUME

B.C. 5867--B.C. 451

JOHN RUDD, LL.D.


Events treated at length are here indicated in large type; the numerals
following give volume and page.

Separate chronologies of the various nations, and of the careers of
famous persons, will be found in the INDEX VOLUME, with volume and page
references showing where the several events are fully treated.

All dates are approximate up to B.C. 776, the beginning of the
Olympiads.

B.C.

=5867.= Menes, the first human ruler recorded in history, unites the two
kingdoms of Egypt under one crown; introduces the cult of Apis; founds
the city of Memphis; rears the great temple of Ptah. See "DAWN OF
CIVILIZATION," i, 1.

=5000.= Babylonia is invaded by a race of Semites; they conquer the land
and become the Babylonians of history.

=4500 (before)=. A patesi (priest-ruler), by name En-shag-kush-anna, is
King of Kengi, Southern Babylonia; Sungir, which later gave the name
Sumer to the whole district, is his capital.

=4400.= Shirpurla, Mesopotamia, subjugated by Mesilim, King of Kish.

=4200.= The hero of Shirpurla, E-anna-tum, throws off the Kish yoke and
takes the title of king. He is successful in conflicts with Erech, Ur,
and Larsa. Walls are erected and canals dug by him.

=3700.= The great Pyramid of Gizeh erected. This was during the IV or
Pyramid dynasty; so called because its chief monarchs built the three
great pyramids.

Beautiful Queen Nitocris, of the VI dynasty, reigned about this time.
She is said to have avenged the killing of her brother, King of Egypt,
by inviting his murderers to a banquet held in a subterranean chamber.
Into this the river was turned, and they all miserably perished.

=3000.= Nineveh, colonized from Babylonia, ruled by subject princes of
that country.

=2800.= Probable date of the foundation of the Chinese empire.

=2500.= Rise of the kingdom of Elam. Asshurbanipal (Sardanapalus), King
of Nineveh, records an invasion of Chaldæa, or Babylonia, by the
Elamites, B.C. 2300. The records of clay recently unearthed show that
Cyrus was originally king of Elam. See "CONQUESTS OF CYRUS THE GREAT,"
i, 250.

=2458=. Zoroaster (Zarathushtra) founds the religion known by his name.
Ancient tradition has it that he was a Median king who conquered Babylon
about B.C. 2458. M. Haug assigns the date as not later than B.C. 2300.
Be the time when he lived what it may, it is certain that, as the
Persian national religion, it dates little further back than B.C. 559
and up to A.D. 641. The four elements--fire, air, earth, and water,
especially the first--were recognized as the only proper objects of
human reverence.

=2300.= A chart of the heavens in China.

=2250.= Commencement of the reign of Hammurabi, King of Babylonia: the
earliest compilation of a code of laws was made in this reign. See
"COMPILATION OF THE EARLIEST CODE," i, 14.

=2200-1700.= Dominion of the Hyksos, or Shepherd kings, in Egypt. It is
not improbable that Abraham made his well-known journey to Egypt during
the early reign of these kings. Joseph's visit occurred near the close
of their power.

=2200.= Hereditary monarchy founded in China.

=1700-1250.= The new empire of Egypt attains the period of its greatest
splendor and power. Meneptah, about 1320 (1322), has been generally
accepted as the Pharaoh of the Exodus.

=1500.= Independence of Assyria as the rising of a kingdom apart from
Babylonia; the rise of Nineveh.

=1450-1300.= The Hittite realm in Syria attains its greatest power. The
Egyptians knew the Hittites as the Khita or Khatta. Recent discoveries
indicate that they formed a civilized and powerful nation. Many
inscriptions and rock sculptures in Asia Minor, formerly inexplicable,
are now attributed to the Hittites of the Bible.

=1330.= Rameses II of Egypt; the Sesostris of the Greeks.

=1300.= Shalmaneser I reigns in Assyria.

=1250.= The Phoenicians, closely allied in language to the Hebrews, begin
their colonizing career.

=1235.= Probable date of the consolidation of Athens, See "THESEUS FOUNDS
ATHENS," i, 45.

=1200.= Exodus of Israel from Egypt.

"FORMATION OF THE CASTES IN INDIA," See i, 52.

=1184.= "FALL OF TROY." See i, 70.

=1122.= Wou Wang becomes emperor of China.

=1120.= Beginning of the reign of Tiglath-Pileser, King of Assyria.

=1100.= Dorian migration into the Peloponnesus.

=1095 (1055; 1080 common chronology).= Hebrews establish the monarchy.
Saul the first king.

=1058 (1033).= At Gilboa, Saul is defeated by the Philistines. David
becomes king in Judah.

=1017 (998).= Accession of Solomon as king of the Hebrews. The Temple at
Jerusalem is built in this reign. See "ACCESSION OF SOLOMON," i, 92.

=1015.= Smyrna founded.

=977 (953).= Israel and Judah become separate kingdoms, following the
revolt of the Ten Tribes under Jeroboam.

=973 (949).= Jerusalem captured by Sheshonk, King of Egypt.

=958 (929).= Asa ascends the throne of Judah.

=931 (899).= Omri's accession in Israel.

=917 (873).= Jehoshaphat begins his reign in Judah.

=900 (853).= The Syrians defeat and slay Ahab, King of Israel, at
Ramoth-Gilead.

Divambar conquers Armenia, Persia, Syria, and adjacent lands.

=887 (843).= The throne of Israel usurped by Jehu.

=850.= The Tyrians colonize Carthage.

=811 (792).= Uzziah succeeds to the throne of Judah.

=800.= The canal and tunnel of Negoub constructed to convey the waters of
the Zab River to Nineveh.

=800 (850).= Sparta: Probable date of the legislation of Lycurgus.

=790 (825).= Jeroboam II becomes King of Israel.

=789.= First destruction of Nineveh: death of Sardanapalus. See "FIRST
DESTRUCTION OF NINEVEH," i, 105.

=776.= Beginning of the Olympiads. Olympiad in ancient Greece meant the
space of four years between one celebration of the Olympic games and
another. In this year it began as a system of chronology.

=772. [A](748)=. End of Jehu's dynasty in Israel.

=753 (common chronology).= "FOUNDATION OF ROME." See i, 116.

=750.= [A] The Corinthians found Syracuse.

=743-724.= First great war between Sparta and Messenia: the latter is
subjugated.

=734.= [A] Syria becomes subject to Tiglath-Pileser II of Assyria.

=731.= [A] Tiglath-Pileser II subjects Chaldea.

=727. [A] (728)=. Hezekiah ascends the throne of Judah.

=722.= [A] King Sargon of Assyria conquers Samaria; he puts an end to the
kingdom of Israel. Captivity of the Ten Tribes.

=701.= Siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib; he encounters the Egyptian and
Ethiopian forces; his expedition into Syria fails.

=697.= Accession of Manasseh to the throne of Judah.

=685-668.= The second war between Sparta and Messenia.

=660.= [A] Prince Jimmu establishes Yamato as the capital of Japan. See
"PRINCE JIMMU FOUNDS JAPAN'S CAPITAL," i, 140.

=650.=[A] The whole of Egypt united under Psammetichus I, founder of the
XXVI dynasty. He frees Egypt from Assyrian rule and opens the country to
the Greeks.

=645-628.= The Messenians make an unsuccessful attempt to throw off the
yoke of Sparta.

[A] Date uncertain

=640.= Birth of Thales, one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece. He taught
the spherical form of the earth and the true causes of lunar eclipses;
discovered the electricity of amber. The Seven Sages, or Wise Men, are
commonly made up of Thales, Solon, Bias, Chilo, Cleobulus, Periander,
and Pittacus.

Media becomes independent of Assyria; she appears as a single united
kingdom.

=625.= Media, Assyria, and Syria have a great irruption of Scythians in
their borders.

=623.= "FOUNDATION OF BUDDHISM," See i, 160.

=621.= [B](624). Date of the legislation of Draco, at Athens.

=612.= Conspiracy of Cylon at Athens.

=609.= [B] Josiah is slain at Megiddo, when Necho, the Egyptian King,
crushes the power of Judah.

=607.= [B] Nineveh taken by the Medes and Babylonians, who overthrow the
Assyrian monarchy.

=605.= [B] Nebuchadnezzar defeats Necho at Carchemish. Necho maintained a
powerful fleet; the Phoenician ships under his order rounded the Cape of
Good Hope. Herodotus says that twice during this voyage the crews,
fearing a lack of food, after landing, drew their ships on shore, sowed
grain and waited for a harvest. It will be noticed that this was over
two thousand years before Vasco da Gama, to whom is usually given the
credit of first circumnavigating Africa.

=597.= [B] Jerusalem captured by Nebuchadnezzar, who carries away the
principal inhabitants.

=595.= The Delphic Games in Greece. See "PYTHIAN GAMES AT DELPHI," i, 181.

=594.= Adoption of the Constitution of Solon at Athens, See "SOLON'S EARLY
GREEK LEGISLATION," i, 203.

=586.= [B] Nebuchadnezzar captures and destroys Jerusalem; puts an end to
the kingdom of Judah. The Babylonish captivity.

=570.= [B] Egypt attacked by Nebuchadnezzar, who dethrones Hophra (Apries);
he places Amasis on the throne.

=560.= Tyranny of Pisistratus at Athens. The Grecian poor were still
getting poorer, notwithstanding Solon's legislation; they clamored for
relief, placed Pisistratus at their head, and passed a decree allowing
him to have a body-guard of fifty men armed with clubs. Pisistratus then
threw off all disguise and established himself in the Acropolis as
tyrant of Athens.

=550.= [B] Cyrus, at the head of the Persians, destroys the Median
monarchy. See "CONQUESTS OF CYRUS THE GREAT," i, 250.

=550.= [B] "RISE OF CONFUCIUS, THE CHINESE SAGE," See i, 270.

=546.= Croesus, King of Lydia, overthrown by Cyrus. See "CONQUESTS OF
CYRUS THE GREAT," i, 250.

=540.= [B] Calimachus invents the Corinthian order of architecture.

[B] Date uncertain.

=538.= Conquest of Babylon by Cyrus. See "CONQUESTS OF CYRUS THE GREAT,"
i, 250.

=529.= Death of Cyrus; Cambyses succeeds him on the throne of Persia.

=527.= Hippias and Hipparchus succeed their father, Pisistratus, at
Athens, in the government of that city.

=525 (527).= Conquest of Egypt by Cambyses, King of Persia. He completely
subdued it, and, after an attempted rising, crushed Egypt with merciless
severity. Cambyses treated the Egyptian deities, priests, and temples
with insult and contempt.

Æschylus, Greek tragic poet, born.

=522.= Pseudo-Smerdis usurps the Persian throne. Cambyses had slain his
brother Bardes, whom Herodotus calls Smerdis. A Magian, Gaumata by name,
resembling Bardes in appearance, impersonated the murdered prince. A
revolution ensued and, owing to the death of Cambyses by his own hand,
Pseudo-Smerdis became master of the empire.

=521.= Darius I, by defeating Pseudo-Smerdis, who had reigned eight
months, ascends the Persian throne.

=521-516.= The Temple at Jerusalem, which had been destroyed by the
Babylonians, rebuilt.

=520.= [C] Birth of Pindar, the chief lyric poet of Greece. He was in the
prime of life when Salamis and Thermopylæ were fought. His poems have as
groundwork the legends which form the Grecian religious literature.

=516.= [C] Invasion of Scythia by Darius, King of Persia, who seems to have
acted according to an oriental idea of right, in that he claimed to
punish the Scythians for an invasion of Media at some previous time.

=514.= Hipparchus, of Athens, assassinated by Harmodius and Aristogiton.

=514.= [C] Birth of Themistocles, a famous Athenian commander and
statesman. He was largely instrumental in increasing the navy; induced
the Athenians to leave Athens for Salamis and the fleet, and brought
about the victory of Salamis.

=510.= Hippias expelled from Athens. The democratic party is headed by
Clisthenes, the master-spirit of the revolution inaugurated for the
overthrow of the despotic and hated sons of Pisistratus. The Athenian
democracy was reorganized by Clisthenes.

=510.= The Crotonians destroy Sybaris. Croton and Sybaris were two ancient
Greek cities situated on the Gulf of Tarentum, Southern Italy. Little is
known of them except their luxury, fantastic self-indulgence, and
extravagant indolence, for which qualities their names remain a
synonyme.

=510.= Expulsion of the Tarquins from Rome. Founding of the Republic;
consulship instituted. See "ROME ESTABLISHED AS A REPUBLIC," i, 300.

=506.= [C] The Persians subject Macedonia, and extend their dominion over
Thrace. The Thracians occupied the region between the rivers Strymon and
Danube. They were more Asiatic than European in character and religion.

[C] Date uncertain.

=500 [D] (501, 502).= Rising of the Greek colonies in Ionia against the
Persians. Harpagus, who had saved Cyrus in his infancy from his
grandfather, while governor of Lydia reduced the cities of the coast.
Town after town submitted. The Tieans abandoned theirs, retiring to
Abdera in Thrace; the Phocians, after settling in Corsica, whence they
were driven by the Carthaginians and Tyrrhenians, went to Italy and
later founded Massalia (Marseilles) on the coast of Gaul. Thus the Greek
colonies became a portion of the Persian empire. The insurrection of the
Ionians continued for six years, the fate of the revolt turning at last
on the siege of Miletus.

=499 [D] (500)=. Ionian expedition against Sardis. The city was taken and
during the pillage was accidentally burned. The Ionian forces were
utterly inadequate to hold Sardis; and their return was not effected
without a serious defeat by the pursuing army of Persians.

=497.57= [D] The Latins are defeated by the Romans at Lake Regillus.

=495.= Birth of Sophocles.

=494.= The naval battle of Lade, in which the Persians defeat the Asiatic
Greeks. Fall of Miletus.

=494 (492).= First secession of the plebeians from Rome. Creation of the
tribunes of the people. See "ROME ESTABLISHED AS A REPUBLIC," i, 300.

=493 (491).= The Latins are compelled by the Romans to enter into a league
with Rome, which is threatened by the Etruscans, Volscians, and the
Æquians. The Latins obtained the name of Roman citizens; the title
disguised a real subjection, since the men who bore it had the
obligation of citizens without the rights.

=492.= [D] Mardonius heads the first Persian expedition against Greece.

=490.= Battle of Marathon, in which Darius' Persian host is overwhelmingly
defeated by Miltiades, See "THE BATTLE OF MARATHON," i, 322.

=489.= Condemnation and death of Miltiades. See "THE BATTLE OF MARATHON,"
i, 322.

=486.= Darius Hystaspes, of Persia, is succeeded on the throne by his son
Xerxes.

League of Rome with the Hernici.

=484.= [D] Birth of Herodotus, the "Father of History,"

=483.= Aristides, one of the ten leaders of the Greeks at Marathon,
ostracized through the jealousy of Themistocles.

=480.= Second Persian invasion of Greece, this time by Xerxes. Defence of
Thermopylæ by Leonidas. See "DEFENCE OF THERMOPYLÆ," i, 354. Naval
battle of Artemisium. Athens burned. The Persian fleet vanquished by
Themistocles and Eurybiades at Salamis. Retreat of Xerxes.

[D] Date uncertain.

The Carthaginians attempt the conquest of the Greek cities of Sicily.
Gelon, the tyrant of Syracuse, defeats their army at Himera.

Birth of Euripides, the celebrated Greek tragic poet.[E]

=479.= The Greeks, under the command of Pausanias, at the battle of
Platæa, crush the Persian army under the lead of Mardonius. Leotychides
and Nanthippus gain a simultaneous victory over the Persian fleet at
Mycale. End of the Persian invasion of Greece.

=478.= The tyranny of Hieron, brother of Gelon, begins at Syracuse. He was
noted as a patron of literature.

=477.= The predominance in Greece passes from Sparta to Athens, by the
formation of the Confederacy of Delos.

=474.= Hieron, of Syracuse, defeats the Etruscans near Cumæ.

=471.= Themistocles exiled from Athens, the Spartan faction having plotted
his ruin, alleging his complicity with the enemy.

Birth of Thucydides.[E]

=470 (471).= The Publilian law passed in Rome; the plebeians accorded the
right of initiating legislation in their assemblies. See "ROME
ESTABLISHED AS A REPUBLIC," i, 300.

=469.= [E] Birth of Socrates.

=468.= [E] Democracy triumphs in the cities of Sicily.

=466.= Naval victory of the Greeks, under Cimon, over the Persians at
Eurymedon. B.C. 470 Cimon had reduced Eion, after a gallant defence by
Boges, the Persian governor, who, rather than surrender, cast all his
gold and silver into the river Strymon, raised a huge pile of wood, and
on it placed the bodies of his wives, children, and slaves--all of whom
he had slain--then, having set fire thereto, he flung himself into the
flames and perished.

The Revolt of Naxos crushed by Cimon during the expedition against the
Persians.

Fall of the tyrants at Syracuse.

=465.= Murder of Xerxes I, by Artabanus, captain of his guard; accession
of Artaxerxes I to the Persian throne.

=464.= Sparta destroyed by an earthquake which shook the whole of Laconia,
opened great chasms in the ground, rolled down huge masses from the
peaks of Taygetus, and threw Sparta into a heap of ruins. Not more than
five houses are said to have remained standing. Twenty thousand persons
lost their lives by the shock. The flower of the Spartan youth was slain
by the overthrow of the building in which they were exercising.

=464-455.= The Messenian helots rise against the Spartans, taking
advantage of the confusion caused by the earthquake. This was the
beginning of the third Messenian war.

=463.= Mycenæ is reduced by the Argives, who enslave or drive away its
inhabitants.

=460.= Birth of Hippocrates, in the island of Cos, who became known as the
"Father of Medicine."

=458.= [E] Jews return from Babylonia to Jerusalem, under Ezra.

Esther, the Jewess, pleases King Ahasuerus and is made queen in place of
Vashti. This was the origin of the Jewish festival of Purim, celebrated
on the 14th and 15th of the month Adar (March).

Beginning of the Long Walls of Athens; built to protect the
communication of the city with its port. One, four miles long, ran to
the harbor of Phalerum, and others, four and one-half miles long, to the
Piræus.

=457.= Beginning of war of Corinth, Sparta, and Ægina with Athens: Battle
of Tanagra, in which the Athenians were defeated.

=456.= Athenian victory at OEnophyta; the Boeotians defeated by Myronides,
who also secures the submission of Phocis and Locris.

=455.= End of the third Messenian war.

=451.= Ion of Chios, historian and tragedian, exhibits his first drama.

[E] Date uncertain.



END OF VOLUME I

[Illustration]

[Illustration: The Sabine women--now mothers--suing for peace between
the combatants (their Roman husbands and their Sabine relations).

Painting by Jacques L. David]

[Illustration: Sphinx with Great and Second Pyramids of Gizeh

From an original photograph.]

[Illustration]

[Illustration: THE TRILINGUAL INSCRIPTION OF THE ROSETTA STONE. IN
HIEROGLYPHIC, DEMOTIC, AND GREEK CHARACTERS. BRITISH MUSEUM, LONDON.

(FOR DESCRIPTION OF THIS CUT, SEE OTHER SIDE.)]



THE ROSETTA STONE


Almost as interesting as the Rosetta Stone itself is the story of its
discovery. During the French occupation of Egypt soldiers were digging
out the foundations of a fort, and in the trench the famous tablet was
found. At the peace of Alexandra the Rosetta Stone passed to the
English, who (1801) housed it in the British Museum, where it remains.
The text when translated showed that the inscription is a "decree of the
priests of Memphis, conferring divine honors on Ptolemy V, Epiphanes,
King of Egypt, B.C. 195," on the occasion of his coronation. Further it
commands that the decree be inscribed in the sacred letters
(hieroglyphics); the alphabet of the people (enuchorial or demotic); and
Greek.

It was recognized by the trustees of the British Museum that the problem
of the Rosetta Stone was one which would test the ingenuity of the
scientists of the world to unfathom, and they promptly published a
carefully prepared copy of the entire inscription. Scholars of every
nation exhausted their learning to unravel the riddle, but beyond a few
shrewd guesses (afterward proved to be quite incorrect) nothing was
accomplished for a dozen years. The key was there, but its application
required the inspired insight of genius.

Dr. Thomas Young, the demonstrator of the vibratory nature of light, who
had perhaps the most versatile profundity of knowledge and the keenest
scientific imagination of his generation, undertook the task.

Accident had called Young's attention to the Rosetta Stone, and his
rapacity for knowledge led him to speculate as to the possible aid this
trilingual inscription might offer in the solution of Egyptian problems.
Having an amazing faculty for the acquisition of languages, he, in one
short year, had mastered Coptic, after having assured himself that it
was the nearest existing approach to the ancient Egyptian language, and
had even made a tentative attempt at the translation of the Egyptian
scroll. This was the very beginning of our knowledge of the meaning of
hieroglyphics.

The specific discoveries that Dr. Young made were: 1, That some of the
pictures of the hieroglyphics stand for the names of the objects
delineated; 2, that other pictures are at times only symbolic; 3, that
plural numbers are represented by repetition; 4, that numerals are
represented by dashes; 5, that hieroglyphics may read either from the
right or from the left, but always from the direction in which the
animals and human figures face; 6, that a graven oval ring surrounds
proper names, making a cartouche; 7, that the cartouches of the Rosetta
Stone stand for the name of Ptolemy alone; 8, that the presence of a
female figure after such cartouches always denotes the female sex; 9,
that within the cartouches the hieroglyphic symbols have an actual
phonetic value, either alphabetic or syllabic; and 10, that several
dissimilar characters may have the same phonetic value.

K A L A RE SA W SA RE M HA HER RE M T

[Illustration:

=_Kaharesapusaremkaherremt_=.

AN EGYPTIAN PROPER NAME SPELLED OUT IN FULL BY MEANS OF ALPHABETICAL AND
SYLLABIC SIGNS.]

Dr. Young was certainly on the right track, and very near the complete
discovery; unfortunately he failed to take the next step, which was to
learn that the use of an alphabet was not confined to proper names. This
grand secret Young missed; his French successor, Champollion, ferreted
it out from the foundation he had laid. The "Enigma of the Sphinx" was
practically solved, and the secrets held by the monuments of Egypt for
so many centuries were disclosed to the world. Champollion proved that
the Egyptians had developed an alphabet--neglecting the vowels, as did
also the early Semitic alphabet--centuries before the Phoenicians were
heard of in history. Some of these pictures are purely alphabetical in
character, some are otherwise symbolic. Some characters represent
syllables, others again stand as representatives of sounds, and once
again, as representatives of things; hence the difficulties and
complications it presented.





*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Great Events by Famous Historians, Volume 01" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.