| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Volume 12, Slice 4 - "Grasshopper" to "Greek Language"
Author: Various
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Volume 12, Slice 4 - "Grasshopper" to "Greek Language"" ***
Transcriber's notes:
(1) Numbers following letters (without space) like C2 were originally
printed in subscript. Letter subscripts are preceded by an
underscore, like C_n.
(2) Characters following a carat (^) were printed in superscript.
(3) Side-notes were relocated to function as titles of their respective
paragraphs.
(4) Macrons and breves above letters and dots below letters were not
inserted.
(5) [root] stands for the root symbol; [alpha], [beta], etc. for greek
letters.
(6) The following typographical errors have been corrected:
ARTICLE GREAT REBELLION: "The king's line was steadily rolled up
from left to right, the Parliamentary troopers captured his guns
and regiment after the regiment broke up." added 'the'.
ARTICLE GREECE: "The revenue accruing to the government in 1905 was
1,418,158 dr., as compared with 583,991 dr. in 1883. The increase
is mainly due to improved administration." 'accruing' amended from
'accuring'.
ARTICLE GREECE: "If we would judge fairly of tyranny, and of what
it contributed to the development of Greece ..." 'If' amended from
'It'.
ARTICLE GREECE: "It failed still more significantly to unite Greece
north of the Isthmus. It left Greece weaker and more divided than
it found it (see the concluding words of Xenophon's Hellenics)."
'significantly' amended from 'signally'.
ARTICLE GREECE: "The chief defects of Herodotus are his failure to
grasp the principles of historical criticism, to understand the
nature of military operations, and to appreciate the importance of
chronology." 'to' amended from 'too'.
ARTICLE GREECE: "Four of Plutarch's Lives are concerned with this
period, viz. Themistocles, Aristides, Cimon and Pericles. From the
Aristides little can be gained." 'Plutarch's' amended from
'Plutatch's'.
ARTICLE GREECE: "It was evident, however, that nothing could be
gained by an appeal to arms, the powers not being prepared to apply
coercion to Turkey." 'It' amended from 'In'.
ARTICLE GREEK ART: "In the same graves with the pottery are
sometimes found plaques of gold or bronze, and towards the end of
the geometric age these sometimes bear scenes from mythology,
treated with the greatest simplicity." 'sometimes' amended from
'somtimes'.
ARTICLE GREEK LANGUAGE: "The ancestry of the Greek towns of Sicily
has been explained by Thucydides (vi. 2-5). Selinus, a colony of
Megara, betrays its origin in its dialect." 'betrays' amended from
'bewrays'.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE
AND GENERAL INFORMATION
ELEVENTH EDITION
VOLUME XII, SLICE IV
GRASSHOPPER to GREEK LANGUAGE
ARTICLES IN THIS SLICE:
GRASSHOPPER GRAY, THOMAS
GRASS OF PARNASSUS GRAY, WALTER DE
GRATE GRAY
GRATIAN GRAYLING
GRATIANUS, FRANCISCUS GRAYS THURROCK
GRATRY, AUGUSTE JOSEPH ALPHONSE GRAZ
GRATTAN, HENRY GRAZZINI, ANTONIO FRANCESCO
GRATTIUS [FALISCUS] GREAT AWAKENING
GRAUDENZ GREAT BARRIER REEF
GRAUN, CARL HEINRICH GREAT BARRINGTON
GRAVAMEN GREAT BASIN
GRAVE GREAT BEAR LAKE
GRAVEL GREAT CIRCLE
GRAVELINES GREAT FALLS
GRAVELOTTE GREAT HARWOOD
GRAVES, ALFRED PERCEVAL GREATHEAD, JAMES HENRY
GRAVESEND GREAT LAKES OF NORTH AMERICA, THE
GRAVINA, GIOVANNI VINCENZO GREAT MOTHER OF THE GODS
GRAVINA GREAT REBELLION
GRAVITATION GREAT SALT LAKE
GRAVY GREAT SLAVE LAKE
GRAY, ASA GREAT SOUTHERN OCEAN
GRAY, DAVID GREAVES, JOHN
GRAY, ELISHA GREBE
GRAY, HENRY PETERS GRECO, EL
GRAY, HORACE GRECO-TURKISH WAR, 1897
GRAY, JOHN DE GREECE
GRAY, JOHN EDWARD GREEK ART
GRAY, PATRICK GRAY GREEK FIRE
GRAY, ROBERT GREEK INDEPENDENCE, WAR OF
GRAY, SIR THOMAS GREEK LANGUAGE
GRASSHOPPER (Fr. _sauterelle_, Ital. _grillo_, Ger. _Grashüpfer_,
_Heuschrecke_, Swed. _Gräshoppa_), names applied to orthopterous insects
belonging to the families _Locustidae_ and _Acridiidae_. They are
especially remarkable for their saltatory powers, due to the great
development of the hind legs, which are much longer than the others and
have stout and powerful thighs, and also for their stridulation, which
is not always an attribute of the male only. The distinctions between
the two families may be briefly stated as follows:--The _Locustidae_
have very long thread-like antennae, four-jointed tarsi, a long
ovipositor, the auditory organs on the tibiae of the first leg and the
stridulatory organ in the wings; the _Acridiidae_ have short stout
antennae, three-jointed tarsi, a short ovipositor, the auditory organs
on the first abdominal segment, and the stridulatory organ between the
posterior leg and the wing. The term "grasshopper" is almost synonymous
with LOCUST (q.v.). Under both "grasshopper" and "locust" are included
members of both families above noticed, but the majority belong to the
_Acridiidae_ in both cases. In Britain the term is chiefly applicable to
the large green grasshopper (_Locusta_ or _Phasgonura viridissima_)
common in most parts of the south of England, and to smaller and much
better-known species of the genera _Stenobothrus_, _Gomphocerus_ and
_Tettix_, the latter remarkable for the great extension of the pronotum,
which often reaches beyond the extremity of the body. All are vegetable
feeders, and, as in all orthopterous insects, have an incomplete
metamorphosis, so that their destructive powers are continuous from the
moment of emergence from the egg till death. The migratory locust
(_Pachytylus cinerascens_) may be considered only an exaggerated
grasshopper, and the Rocky Mountain locust (_Caloptenus spretus_) is
still more entitled to the name. In Britain the species are not of
sufficient size, nor of sufficient numerical importance, to do any great
damage. The colours of many of them assimilate greatly to those of their
habitats; the green of the _Locusta viridissima_ is wonderfully similar
to that of the herbage amongst which it lives, and those species that
frequent more arid spots are protected in the same manner. Yet many
species have brilliantly coloured under-wings (though scarcely so in
English forms), and during flight are almost as conspicuous as
butterflies. Those that belong to the _Acridiidae_ mostly lay their eggs
in more or less cylindrical masses, surrounded by a glutinous secretion,
in the ground. Some of the _Locustidae_ also lay their eggs in the
ground, but others deposit them in fissures in trees and low plants, in
which the female is aided by a long flattened ovipositor, or process at
the extremity of the abdomen, whereas in the _Acridiidae_ there is only
an apparatus of valves. The stridulation or "song" in the latter is
produced by friction of the hind legs against portions of the wings or
wing-covers. To a practised ear it is perhaps possible to distinguish
the "song" of even closely allied species, and some are said to produce
a sound differing by day and night.
GRASS OF PARNASSUS, in botany, a small herbaceous plant known as
_Parnassia palustris_ (natural order _Saxifragaceae_), found on wet
moors and bogs in Britain but less common in the south. The white
regular flower is rendered very attractive by a circlet of scales,
opposite the petals, each of which bears a fringe of delicate filaments
ending in a yellow knob. These glisten in the sunshine and look like a
drop of honey. Honey is secreted by the base of each of the scales.
[Illustration: Grass of Parnassus (_Parnassia palustris_). 1, one of the
gland-bearing scales enlarged.]
GRATE (from Lat. _crates_, a hurdle), the iron or steel receptacle for a
domestic fire. When coal replaced logs and irons were found to be
unsuitable for burning the comparatively small lumps, and for this
reason and on account of the more concentrated heat of coal it became
necessary to confine the area of the fire. Thus a basket or cage came
into use, which, as knowledge of the scientific principles of heating
increased, was succeeded by the small grate of iron and fire-brick set
close into the wall which has since been in ordinary use in England. In
the early part of the 19th century polished steel grates were
extensively used, but the labour and difficulty of keeping them bright
were considerable, and they were gradually replaced by grates with a
polished black surface which could be quickly renewed by an application
of black-lead. The most frequent form of the 18th-century grate was
rather high from the hearth, with a small hob on each side. The brothers
Adam designed many exceedingly elegant grates in the shape of movable
baskets ornamented with the paterae and acanthus leaves, the swags and
festoons characteristic of their manner. The modern dog-grate is a
somewhat similar basket supported upon dogs or andirons, fixed or
movable. In the closing years of the 19th century a "well-grate" was
invented, in which the fire burns upon the hearth, combustion being
aided by an air-chamber below.
GRATIAN (FLAVIUS GRATIANUS AUGUSTUS), Roman emperor 375-383, son of
Valentinian I. by Severa, was born at Sirmium in Pannonia, on the 18th
of April (or 23rd of May) 359. On the 24th of August 367 he received
from his father the title of Augustus. On the death of Valentinian (17th
of November 375) the troops in Pannonia proclaimed his infant son (by a
second wife Justina) emperor under the title of Valentinian II. (q.v.).
Gratian acquiesced in their choice; reserving for himself the
administration of the Gallic provinces, he handed over Italy, Illyria
and Africa to Valentinian and his mother, who fixed their residence at
Milan. The division, however, was merely nominal, and the real authority
remained in the hands of Gratian. The eastern portion of the empire was
under the rule of his uncle Valens. In May 378 Gratian completely
defeated the Lentienses, the southernmost branch of the Alamanni, at
Argentaria, near the site of the modern Colmar. When Valens met his
death fighting against the Goths near Adrianople on the 9th of August in
the same year, the government of the eastern empire devolved upon
Gratian, but feeling himself unable to resist unaided the incursions of
the barbarians, he ceded it to Theodosius (January 379). With Theodosius
he cleared the Balkans of barbarians. For some years Gratian governed
the empire with energy and success, but gradually he sank into
indolence, occupied himself chiefly with the pleasures of the chase, and
became a tool in the hands of the Frankish general Merobaudes and bishop
Ambrose. By taking into his personal service a body of Alani, and
appearing in public in the dress of a Scythian warrior, he aroused the
contempt and resentment of his Roman troops. A Roman named Maximus took
advantage of this feeling to raise the standard of revolt in Britain and
invaded Gaul with a large army, upon which Gratian, who was then in
Paris, being deserted by his troops, fled to Lyons, where, through the
treachery of the governor, he was delivered over to one of the rebel
generals and assassinated on the 25th of August 383.
The reign of Gratian forms an important epoch in ecclesiastical history,
since during that period orthodox Christianity for the first time became
dominant throughout the empire. In dealing with pagans and heretics
Gratian, who during his later years was greatly influenced by Ambrose,
bishop of Milan, exhibited severity and injustice at variance with his
usual character. He prohibited heathen worship at Rome; refused to wear
the insignia of the pontifex maximus as unbefitting a Christian; removed
the altar of Victory from the senate-house at Rome, in spite of the
remonstrance of the pagan members of the senate, and confiscated its
revenues; forbade legacies of real property to the Vestals; and
abolished other privileges belonging to them and to the pontiffs. For
his treatment of heretics see the church histories of the period.
AUTHORITIES.--Ammianus Marcellinus xxvii.-xxxi.; Aurelius Victor,
_Epit._ 47; Zosimus iv. vi.; Ausonius (Gratian's tutor), especially
the _Gratiarum actio pro consulatu_; Symmachus x. epp. 2 and 61;
Ambrose, _De fide_, prolegomena to _Epistolae_ 11, 17, 21, _Consolatio
de obitu Valentiniani_; H. Richter, _Das weströmische Reich, besonders
unter den Kaisern Gratian, Valentinian II. und Maximus_ (1865); A. de
Broglie, _L'Église et l'empire romain au IV^e siècle_ (4th ed., 1882);
H. Schiller, _Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit_, iii., iv. 31-33;
Gibbon, _Decline and Fall_, ch. 27; R. Gumpoltsberger, _Kaiser
Gratian_ (Vienna, 1879); T. Hodgkin, _Italy and her Invaders_ (Oxford,
1892), vol. i.; Tillemont, _Hist. des empereurs_, v.; J. Wordsworth in
Smith's _Dictionary of Christian Biography_. (J. H. F.)
GRATIANUS, FRANCISCUS, compiler of the _Concordia discordantium canonum_
or _Decretum Gratiani_, and founder of the science of canon law, was
born about the end of the 11th century at Chiusi in Tuscany or,
according to another account, at Carraria near Orvieto. In early life he
appears to have been received into the Camaldulian monastery of Classe
near Ravenna, whence he afterwards removed to that of San Felice in
Bologna, where he spent many years in the preparation of the
_Concordia_. The precise date of this work cannot be ascertained, but
it contains references to the decisions of the Lateran council of 1139,
and there is fair authority for believing that it was completed while
Pope Alexander III. was still simply professor of theology at
Bologna,--in other words, prior to 1150. The labours of Gratian are said
to have been rewarded with the bishopric of Chiusi, but if so he appears
never to have been consecrated; at least his name is not in any
authentic list of those who have occupied that see. The year of his
death is unknown.
For some account of the _Decretum Gratiani_ and its history see CANON
LAW. The best edition is that of Friedberg (_Corpus juris canonici_,
Leipzig, 1879). Compare Schultze, _Zur Geschichte der Litteratur über
das Decret Gratians_ (1870), _Die Glosse zum Decret Gratians_ (1872),
and _Geschichte der Quellen und Litteratur des kanonischen Rechts_ (3
vols., Stuttgart, 1875).
GRATRY, AUGUSTE JOSEPH ALPHONSE (1805-1872), French author and
theologian, was born at Lille on the 10th of March 1805. He was educated
at the École Polytechnique, Paris, and, after a period of mental
struggle which he has described in _Souvenirs de ma jeunesse_, he was
ordained priest in 1832. After a stay at Strassburg as professor of the
Petit Séminaire, he was appointed director of the Collège Stanislas in
Paris in 1842 and, in 1847, chaplain of the École Normale Supérieure. He
became vicar-general of Orleans in 1861, professor of ethics at the
Sorbonne in 1862, and, on the death of Barante, a member of the French
Academy in 1867, where he occupied the seat formerly held by Voltaire.
Together with M. Pététot, _curé_ of Saint Roch, he reconstituted the
Oratory of the Immaculate Conception, a society of priests mainly
devoted to education. Gratry was one of the principal opponents of the
definition of the dogma of papal infallibility, but in this respect he
submitted to the authority of the Vatican Council. He died at Montreux
in Switzerland on the 6th of February 1872.
His chief works are: _De la connaissance de Dieu_, opposing Positivism
(1855); _La Logique_ (1856); _Les Sources, conseils pour la conduite
de l'esprit_ (1861-1862); _La Philosophie du credo_ (1861);
_Commentaire sur l'évangile de Saint Matthieu_ (1863); _Jésus-Christ,
lettres à M. Renan_ (1864); _Les Sophistes et la critique_ (in
controversy with E. Vacherot) (1864); _La Morale et la loi de
l'histoire_, setting forth his social views (1868); _Mgr. l'évêque
d'Orléans et Mgr. l'archevêque de Malines_ (1869), containing a clear
exposition of the historical arguments against the doctrine of papal
infallibility. There is a selection of Gratry's writings and
appreciation of his style by the Abbé Pichot, in _Pages choisies des
Grands Écrivains_ series, published by Armand-Colin (1897). See also
the critical study by the oratorian A. Chauvin, _L'Abbé Gratry_
(1901); _Le Père Gratry_ (1900), and _Les Derniers Jours du Père
Gratry et son testament spirituel_, (1872), by Cardinal Adolphe
Perraud, Gratry's friend and disciple.
GRATTAN, HENRY (1746-1820), Irish statesman, son of James Grattan, for
many years recorder of Dublin, was born in Dublin on the 3rd of July
1746. He early gave evidence of exceptional gifts both of intellect and
character. At Trinity College, Dublin, where he had a distinguished
career, he began a lifelong devotion to classical literature and
especially to the great orators of antiquity. He was called to the Irish
bar in 1772, but never seriously practised the law. Like Flood, with
whom he was on terms of friendship, he cultivated his natural genius for
eloquence by study of good models, including Bolingbroke and Junius. A
visit to the English House of Lords excited boundless admiration for
Lord Chatham, of whose style of oratory Grattan contributed an
interesting description to _Baratariana_ (see FLOOD, HENRY). The
influence of Flood did much to give direction to Grattan's political
aims; and it was through no design on Grattan's part that when Lord
Charlemont brought him into the Irish parliament in 1775, in the very
session in which Flood damaged his popularity by accepting office,
Grattan quickly superseded his friend in the leadership of the national
party. Grattan was well qualified for it. His oratorical powers were
unsurpassed among his contemporaries. He conspicuously lacked, indeed,
the grace of gesture which he so much admired in Chatham; he had not the
sustained dignity of Pitt; his powers of close reasoning were inferior
to those of Fox and Flood. But his speeches were packed with epigram,
and expressed with rare felicity of phrase; his terse and telling
sentences were richer in profound aphorisms and maxims of political
philosophy than those of any other statesman save Burke; he possessed
the orator's incomparable gift of conveying his own enthusiasm to his
audience and convincing them of the loftiness of his aims.
The principal object of the national party was to set the Irish
parliament free from constitutional bondage to the English privy
council. By virtue of Poyning's Act, a celebrated statute of Henry VII.,
all proposed Irish legislation had to be submitted to the English privy
council for its approval under the great seal of England before being
passed by the Irish parliament. A bill so approved might be accepted or
rejected, but not amended. More recent English acts had further
emphasized the complete dependence of the Irish parliament, and the
appellate jurisdiction of the Irish House of Lords had also been
annulled. Moreover, the English Houses claimed and exercised the power
to legislate directly for Ireland without even the nominal concurrence
of the parliament in Dublin. This was the constitution which Molyneux
and Swift had denounced, which Flood had attacked, and which Grattan was
to destroy. The menacing attitude of the Volunteer Convention at
Dungannon greatly influenced the decision of the government in 1782 to
resist the agitation no longer. It was through ranks of volunteers drawn
up outside the parliament house in Dublin that Grattan passed on the
16th of April 1782, amidst unparalleled popular enthusiasm, to move a
declaration of the independence of the Irish parliament. "I found
Ireland on her knees," Grattan exclaimed, "I watched over her with a
paternal solicitude; I have traced her progress from injuries to arms,
and from arms to liberty. Spirit of Swift, spirit of Molyneux, your
genius has prevailed! Ireland is now a nation!" After a month of
negotiation the claims of Ireland were conceded. The gratitude of his
countrymen to Grattan found expression in a parliamentary grant of
£100,000, which had to be reduced by one half before he would consent to
accept it.
One of the first acts of "Grattan's parliament" was to prove its loyalty
to England by passing a vote for the support of 20,000 sailors for the
navy. Grattan himself never failed in loyalty to the crown and the
English connexion. He was, however, anxious for moderate parliamentary
reform, and, unlike Flood, he favoured Catholic emancipation. It was,
indeed, evident that without reform the Irish House of Commons would not
be able to make much use of its newly won independence. Though now free
from constitutional control it was no less subject than before to the
influence of corruption, which the English government had wielded
through the Irish borough owners, known as the "undertakers," or more
directly through the great executive officers. "Grattan's parliament"
had no control over the Irish executive. The lord lieutenant and his
chief secretary continued to be appointed by the English ministers;
their tenure of office depended on the vicissitudes of English, not
Irish, party politics; the royal prerogative was exercised in Ireland on
the advice of English ministers. The House of Commons was in no sense
representative of the Irish people. The great majority of the people
were excluded as Roman Catholics from the franchise; two-thirds of the
members of the House of Commons were returned by small boroughs at the
absolute disposal of single patrons, whose support was bought by a
lavish distribution of peerages and pensions. It was to give stability
and true independence to the new constitution that Grattan pressed for
reform. Having quarrelled with Flood over "simple repeal" Grattan also
differed from him on the question of maintaining the Volunteer
Convention. He opposed the policy of protective duties, but supported
Pitt's famous commercial propositions in 1785 for establishing free
trade between Great Britain and Ireland, which, however, had to be
abandoned owing to the hostility of the English mercantile classes. In
general Grattan supported the government for a time after 1782, and in
particular spoke and voted for the stringent coercive legislation
rendered necessary by the Whiteboy outrages in 1785; but as the years
passed without Pitt's personal favour towards parliamentary reform
bearing fruit in legislation, he gravitated towards the opposition,
agitated for commutation of tithes in Ireland, and supported the Whigs
on the regency question in 1788. In 1792 he succeeded in carrying an
Act conferring the franchise on the Roman Catholics; in 1794 in
conjunction with William Ponsonby he introduced a reform bill which was
even less democratic than Flood's bill of 1783. He was as anxious as
Flood had been to retain the legislative power in the hands of men of
property, for "he had through the whole of his life a strong conviction
that while Ireland could best be governed by Irish hands, democracy in
Ireland would inevitably turn to plunder and anarchy."[1] At the same
time he desired to admit the Roman Catholic gentry of property to
membership of the House of Commons, a proposal that was the logical
corollary of the Relief Act of 1792. The defeat of Grattan's mild
proposals helped to promote more extreme opinions, which, under French
revolutionary influence, were now becoming heard in Ireland.
The Catholic question had rapidly become of the first importance, and
when a powerful section of the Whigs joined Pitt's ministry in 1794, and
it became known that the lord-lieutenancy was to go to Lord Fitzwilliam,
who shared Grattan's views, expectations were raised that the question
was about to be settled in a manner satisfactory to the Irish Catholics.
Such seems to have been Pitt's intention, though there has been much
controversy as to how far Lord Fitzwilliam (q.v.) had been authorized to
pledge the government. After taking Grattan into his confidence, it was
arranged that the latter should bring in a Roman Catholic emancipation
bill, and that it should then receive government support. But finally it
appeared that the viceroy had either misunderstood or exceeded his
instructions; and on the 19th of February 1795 Fitzwilliam was recalled.
In the outburst of indignation, followed by increasing disaffection in
Ireland, which this event produced, Grattan acted with conspicuous
moderation and loyalty, which won for him warm acknowledgments from a
member of the English cabinet.[2] That cabinet, however, doubtless
influenced by the wishes of the king, was now determined firmly to
resist the Catholic demands, with the result that the country rapidly
drifted towards rebellion. Grattan warned the government in a series of
masterly speeches of the lawless condition to which Ireland had been
driven. But he could now count on no more than some forty followers in
the House of Commons, and his words were unheeded. He retired from
parliament in May 1797, and departed from his customary moderation by
attacking the government in an inflammatory "Letter to the citizens of
Dublin."
At this time religious animosity had almost died out in Ireland, and men
of different faiths were ready to combine for common political objects.
Thus the Presbyterians of the north, who were mainly republican in
sentiment, combined with a section of the Roman Catholics to form the
organization of the United Irishmen, to promote revolutionary ideas
imported from France; and a party prepared to welcome a French invasion
soon came into existence. Thus stimulated, the increasing disaffection
culminated in the rebellion of 1798, which was sternly and cruelly
repressed. No sooner was this effected than the project of a legislative
union between the British and Irish parliaments, which had been from
time to time discussed since the beginning of the 18th century, was
taken up in earnest by Pitt's government. Grattan from the first
denounced the scheme with implacable hostility. There was, however, much
to be said in its favour. The constitution of Grattan's parliament
offered no security, as the differences over the regency question had
made evident that in matters of imperial interest the policy of the
Irish parliament and that of Great Britain would be in agreement; and at
a moment when England was engaged in a life and death struggle with
France it was impossible for the ministry to ignore the danger, which
had so recently been emphasized by the fact that the independent
constitution of 1782 had offered no safeguard against armed revolt. The
rebellion put an end to the growing reconciliation between Roman
Catholics and Protestants; religious passions were now violently
inflamed, and the Orangemen and Catholics divided the island into two
hostile factions. It is a curious circumstance, in view of the
subsequent history of Irish politics, that it was from the Protestant
Established Church, and particularly from the Orangemen, that the
bitterest opposition to the union proceeded; and that the proposal found
support chiefly among the Roman Catholic clergy and especially the
bishops, while in no part of Ireland was it received with more favour
than in the city of Cork. This attitude of the Catholics was caused by
Pitt's encouragement of the expectation that Catholic emancipation, the
commutation of tithes, and the endowment of the Catholic priesthood,
would accompany or quickly follow the passing of the measure.
When in 1799 the government brought forward their bill it was defeated
in the Irish House of Commons. Grattan was still in retirement. His
popularity had temporarily declined, and the fact that his proposals for
parliamentary reform and Catholic emancipation had become the watchwords
of the rebellious United Irishmen had brought upon him the bitter
hostility of the governing classes. He was dismissed from the privy
council; his portrait was removed from the hall of Trinity College; the
Merchant Guild of Dublin struck his name off their rolls. But the
threatened destruction of the constitution of 1782 quickly restored its
author to his former place in the affections of the Irish people. The
parliamentary recess had been effectually employed by the government in
securing by lavish corruption a majority in favour of their policy. On
the 15th of January 1800 the Irish parliament met for its last session;
on the same day Grattan secured by purchase a seat for Wicklow; and at a
late hour, while the debate was proceeding, he appeared to take his
seat. "There was a moment's pause, an electric thrill passed through the
House, and a long wild cheer burst from the galleries."[3] Enfeebled by
illness, Grattan's strength gave way when he rose to speak, and he
obtained leave to address the House sitting. Nevertheless his speech was
a superb effort of oratory; for more than two hours he kept his audience
spellbound by a flood of epigram, of sustained reasoning, of eloquent
appeal. After prolonged debates Grattan, on the 26th of May, spoke
finally against the committal of the bill, ending with an impassioned
peroration in which he declared, "I will remain anchored here with
fidelity to the fortunes of my country, faithful to her freedom,
faithful to her fall."[4] These were the last words spoken by Grattan in
the Irish parliament.
The bill establishing the union was carried through its final stages by
substantial majorities. The people remained listless, giving no
indications of any eager dislike of the government policy. "There were
absolutely none of the signs which are invariably found when a nation
struggles passionately against what it deems an impending tyranny, or
rallies around some institution which it really loves."[5] One of
Grattan's main grounds of opposition to the union had been his dread of
seeing the political leadership in Ireland pass out of the hands of the
landed gentry; and he prophesied that the time would come when Ireland
would send to the united parliament "a hundred of the greatest rascals
in the kingdom."[6] Like Flood before him, Grattan had no leaning
towards democracy; and he anticipated that by the removal of the centre
of political interest from Ireland the evil of absenteeism would be
intensified.
For the next five years Grattan took no active part in public affairs;
it was not till 1805 that he became a member of the parliament of the
United Kingdom. He modestly took his seat on one of the back benches,
till Fox brought him forward to a seat near his own, exclaiming, "This
is no place for the Irish Demosthenes!" His first speech was on the
Catholic question, and though some doubt had been felt lest Grattan,
like Flood, should belie at Westminster the reputation made in Dublin,
all agreed with the description of his speech by the Annual Register as
"one of the most brilliant and eloquent ever pronounced within the walls
of parliament." When Fox and Grenville came into power in 1806 Grattan
was offered, but refused to accept, an office in the government. In the
following year he showed the strength of his judgment and character by
supporting, in spite of consequent unpopularity in Ireland, a measure
for increasing the powers of the executive to deal with Irish disorder.
Roman Catholic emancipation, which he continued to advocate with
unflagging energy though now advanced in age, became complicated after
1808 by the question whether a veto on the appointment of Roman Catholic
bishops should rest with the crown. Grattan supported the veto, but a
more extreme Catholic party was now arising in Ireland under the
leadership of Daniel O'Connell, and Grattan's influence gradually
declined. He seldom spoke in parliament after 1810, the most notable
exception being in 1815, when he separated himself from the Whigs and
supported the final struggle against Napoleon. His last speech of all,
in 1819, contained a passage referring to the union he had so
passionately resisted, which exhibits the statesmanship and at the same
time the equable quality of Grattan's character. His sentiments with
regard to the policy of the union remained, he said, unchanged; but "the
marriage having taken place it is now the duty, as it ought to be the
inclination, of every individual to render it as fruitful, as profitable
and as advantageous as possible." In the following summer, after
crossing from Ireland to London when out of health to bring forward the
Catholic question once more, he became seriously ill. On his death-bed
he spoke generously of Castlereagh, and with warm eulogy of his former
rival, Flood. He died on the 6th of June 1820, and was buried in
Westminster Abbey close to the tombs of Pitt and Fox. His statue is in
the outer lobby of the Houses of Parliament at Westminster. Grattan had
married in 1782 Henrietta Fitzgerald, a lady descended from the ancient
family of Desmond, by whom he had two sons and two daughters.
The most searching scrutiny of his private life only increases the
respect due to the memory of Grattan as a statesman and the greatest of
Irish orators. His patriotism was untainted by self-seeking; he was
courageous in risking his popularity for what his sound judgment showed
him to be the right course. As Sydney Smith said with truth of Grattan
soon after his death: "No government ever dismayed him. The world could
not bribe him. He thought only of Ireland; lived for no other object;
dedicated to her his beautiful fancy, his elegant wit, his manly
courage, and all the splendour of his astonishing eloquence."[7]
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Henry Grattan, _Memoirs of the Life and Times of the
Right Hon. H. Grattan_ (5 vols., London, 1839-1846); _Grattan's
Speeches_ (ed. by H. Grattan, junr., 1822); _Irish Parl. Debates_; W.
E. H. Lecky, _History of England in the Eighteenth Century_ (8 vols.,
London, 1878-1890) and _Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland_
(enlarged edition, 2 vols., 1903). For the controversy concerning the
recall of Lord Fitzwilliam see, in addition to the foregoing, Lord
Rosebery, _Pitt_ (London, 1891); Lord Ashbourne, _Pitt: Some Chapters
of his Life_ (London, 1898); _The Pelham Papers (Brit. Mus. Add.
MSS._, 33118); _Carlisle Correspondence_; _Beresford Correspondence_;
_Stanhope Miscellanies_; for the Catholic question, W. J. Amhurst,
_History of Catholic Emancipation_ (2 vols., London, 1886); Sir Thomas
Wyse, _Historical Sketch of the late Catholic Association of Ireland_
(London, 1829); W. J. MacNeven, _Pieces of Irish History_ (New York,
1807) containing an account of the United Irishmen; for the volunteer
movement Thomas MacNevin, _History of the Volunteers of 1782_ (Dublin,
1845); _Proceedings of the Volunteer Delegates of Ireland 1784_ (Anon.
Pamph. Brit. Mus.). See also F. Hardy, _Memoirs of Lord Charlemont_
(London, 1812); Warden Flood, _Memoirs of Henry Flood_ (London, 1838);
Francis Plowden, _Historical Review of the State of Ireland_ (London,
1803); Alfred Webb, _Compendium of Irish Biography_ (Dublin, 1878);
Sir Jonah Barrington, _Rise and Fall of the Irish Nation_ (London,
1833); W. J. O'Neill Daunt, _Ireland and her Agitators_; Lord
Mountmorres, _History of the Irish Parliament_ (2 vols., London,
1792); Horace Walpole, _Memoirs of the Reign of George III._ (4 vols.,
London, 1845 and 1894); Lord Stanhope, _Life of William Pitt_ (4
vols., London, 1861); Thomas Davis, _Life of J. P. Curran_ (Dublin,
1846)--this contains a memoir of Grattan by D. O. Madden, and
Grattan's reply to Lord Clare on the question of the Union; Charles
Phillips, _Recollections of Curran and some of his Contemporaries_
(London, 1822); J. A. Froude, _The English in Ireland_ (London, 1881);
J. G. McCarthy, _Henry Grattan: an Historical Study_ (London, 1886);
Lord Mahon's _History of England_, vol. vii. (1858). With special
reference to the Union see _Castlereagh Correspondence_; _Cornwallis
Correspondence_; _Westmorland Papers_ (Irish State Paper Office).
(R. J. M.)
FOOTNOTES:
[1] W. E. H. Lecky, _Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland_, i. 127
(enlarged edition, 2 vols., 1903).
[2] _Ibid._ i. 204.
[3] _Ibid._ i. 241.
[4] _Grattan's Speeches_, iv. 23.
[5] W. E. H. Lecky, _History of England in the Eighteenth Century_,
viii. 491. Cf. _Cornwallis Correspondence_, iii. 250.
[6] W. E. H. Lecky, _Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland_, i. 270.
[7] Sydney Smith's _Works_, ii. 166-167.
GRATTIUS [FALISCUS], Roman poet, of the age of Augustus, author of a
poem on hunting (_Cynegetica_), of which 541 hexameters remain. He was
possibly a native of Falerii. The only reference to him in any ancient
writer is incidental (Ovid, _Ex Ponto_, iv. 16. 33). He describes
various kinds of game, methods of hunting, the best breeds of horses and
dogs.
There are editions by R. Stern (1832); E. Bährens in _Poëtae Latini
Minores_ (i., 1879) and G. G. Curcio in _Poeti Latini Minori_ (i.,
1902), with bibliography; see also H. Schenkl, _Zur Kritik des G._
(1898). There is a translation by Christopher Wase (1654).
GRAUDENZ (Polish _Grudziadz_), a town in the kingdom of Prussia,
province of West Prussia, on the right bank of the Vistula, 18 m. S.S.W.
of Marienwerder and 37 m. by rail N.N.E. of Thorn. Pop. (1885) 17,336,
(1905) 35,988. It has two Protestant and three Roman Catholic churches,
and a synagogue. It is a place of considerable manufacturing activity.
The town possesses a museum and a monument to Guillaume René Courbière
(1733-1811), the defender of the town in 1807. It has fine promenades
along the bank of the Vistula. Graudenz is an important place in the
German system of fortifications, and has a garrison of considerable
size.
Graudenz was founded about 1250, and received civic rights in 1291. At
the peace of Thorn in 1466 it came under the lordship of Poland. From
1665 to 1759 it was held by Sweden, and in 1772 it came into the
possession of Prussia. The fortress of Graudenz, which since 1873 has
been used as a barracks and a military depot and prison, is situated on
a steep eminence about 1½ m. north of the town and outside its limits.
It was completed by Frederick the Great in 1776, and was rendered famous
through its defence by Courbière against the French in 1807.
GRAUN, CARL HEINRICH (1701-1759), German musical composer, the youngest
of three brothers, all more or less musical, was born on the 7th of May
1701 at Wahrenbrück in Saxony. His father held a small government post
and he gave his children a careful education. Graun's beautiful soprano
voice secured him an appointment in the choir at Dresden. At an early
age he composed a number of sacred cantatas and other pieces for the
church service. He completed his studies under Johann Christoph Schmidt
(1664-1728), and profited much by the Italian operas which were
performed at Dresden under the composer Lotti. After his voice had
changed to a tenor, he made his début at the opera of Brunswick, in a
work by Schürmann, an inferior composer of the day; but not being
satisfied with the arias assigned him he re-wrote them, so much to the
satisfaction of the court that he was commissioned to write an opera for
the next season. This work, _Polydorus_ (1726), and five other operas
written for Brunswick, spread his fame all over Germany. Other works,
mostly of a sacred character, including two settings of the _Passion_,
also belong to the Brunswick period. Frederick the Great, at that time
crown prince of Prussia, heard the singer in Brunswick in 1735, and
immediately engaged him for his private chapel at Rheinsberg. There
Graun remained for five years, and wrote a number of cantatas, mostly to
words written by Frederick himself in French, and translated into
Italian by Boltarelli. On his accession to the throne in 1740, Frederick
sent Graun to Italy to engage singers for a new opera to be established
at Berlin. Graun remained a year on his travels, earning universal
applause as a singer in the chief cities of Italy. After his return to
Berlin he was appointed conductor of the royal orchestra
(_Kapellmeister_) with a salary of 2000 thalers (£300). In this capacity
he wrote twenty-eight operas, all to Italian words, of which the last,
_Merope_ (1756), is perhaps the most perfect. It is probable that Graun
was subjected to considerable humiliation from the arbitrary caprices of
his royal master, who was never tired of praising the operas of Hasse
and abusing those of his _Kapellmeister_. In his oratorio _The Death of
Jesus_ Graun shows his skill as a contrapuntist, and his originality of
melodious invention. In the Italian operas he imitates the florid style
of his time, but even in these the recitatives occasionally show
considerable dramatic power. Graun died on the 8th of August 1759, at
Berlin, in the same house in which, thirty-two years later, Meyerbeer
was born.
GRAVAMEN. (from Lat. _gravare_, to weigh down; _gravis_, heavy), a
complaint or grievance, the ground of a legal action, and particularly
the more serious part of a charge against an accused person. In English
the term is used chiefly in ecclesiastical cases, being the technical
designation of a memorial presented from the Lower to the Upper House of
Convocation, setting forth grievances to be redressed, or calling
attention to breaches in church discipline.
GRAVE. (1) (From a common Teutonic verb, meaning "to dig"; in O. Eng.
_grafan_; cf. Dutch _graven_, Ger. _graben_), a place dug out of the
earth in which a dead body is laid for burial, and hence any place of
burial, not necessarily an excavation (see FUNERAL RITES and BURIAL).
The verb "to grave," meaning properly to dig, is particularly used of
the making of incisions in a hard surface (see ENGRAVING). (2) A title,
now obsolete, of a local administrative official for a township in
certain parts of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire; it also sometimes appears
in the form "grieve," which in Scotland and Northumberland is used for
sheriff (q.v.), and also for a bailiff or under-steward. The origin of
the word is obscure, but it is probably connected with the German
_graf_, count, and thus appears as the second part of many Teutonic
titles, such as landgrave, burgrave and margrave. "Grieve," on the other
hand, seems to be the northern representative of O.E. _gerefa_, reeve;
cf. "sheriff" and "count." (3) (From the Lat. _gravis_, heavy), weighty,
serious, particularly with the idea of dangerous, as applied to diseases
and the like, of character or temperament as opposed to gay. It is also
applied to sound, low or deep, and is thus opposed to "acute." In music
the term is adopted from the French and Italian, and applied to a
movement which is solemn or slow. (4) To clean a ship's bottom in a
specially constructed dock, called a "graving dock." The origin of the
word is obscure; according to the _New English Dictionary_ there is no
foundation for the connexion with "greaves" or "graves," the refuse of
tallow, in candle or soap-making, supposed to be used in "graving" a
ship. It may be connected with an O. Fr. _grave_, mod. _grève_, shore.
GRAVEL, or PEBBLE BEDS, the name given to deposits of rounded,
subangular, water-worn stones, mingled with finer material such as sand
and clay. The word "gravel" is adapted from the O. Fr. _gravele_, mod.
_gravelle_, dim. of _grave_, coarse sand, sea-shore, Mod. Fr. _grève_.
The deposits are produced by the attrition of rock fragments by moving
water, the waves and tides of the sea and the flow of rivers. Extensive
beds of gravel are forming at the present time on many parts of the
British coasts where suitable rocks are exposed to the attack of the
atmosphere and of the sea waves during storms. The flint gravels of the
coast of the Channel, Norfolk, &c., are excellent examples. When the sea
is rough the lesser stones are washed up and down the beach by each
wave, and in this way are rounded, worn down and finally reduced to
sand. These gravels are constantly in movement, being urged forward by
the shore currents especially during storms. Large banks of gravel may
be swept away in a single night, and in this way the coast is laid bare
to the erosive action of the sea. Moreover, the movement of the gravel
itself wears down the subjacent rocks. Hence in many places barriers
have been erected to prevent the drift of the pebbles and preserve the
land, while often it has been found necessary to protect the shores by
masonry or cement work. Where the pebbles are swept along to a
projecting cape they may be carried onwards and form a long spit or
submarine bank, which is constantly reduced in size by the currents and
tides which flow across it (e.g. Spurn Head at the mouth of the Humber).
The Chesil Bank is the best instance in Britain of a great accumulation
of pebbles constantly urged forward by storms in a definite direction.
In the shallower parts of the North Sea considerable areas are covered
with coarse sand and pebbles. In deeper water, however, as in the
Atlantic, beyond the 100 fathom line pebbles are very rare, and those
which are found are mostly erratics carried southward by floating
icebergs, or volcanic rocks ejected by submarine volcanoes.
In many parts of Britain, Scandinavia and North America there are marine
gravels, in every essential resembling those of the sea-shore, at
levels considerably above high tide. These gravels often lie In
flat-topped terraces which may be traced for great distances along the
coast. They are indications that the sea at one time stood higher than
it does at present, and are known to geologists as "raised beaches." In
Scotland such beaches are known 25, 50 and 100 ft. above the present
shores. In exposed situations they have old shore cliffs behind them;
although their deposits are mainly gravelly there is much fine sand and
silt in the raised beaches of sheltered estuaries and near river mouths.
River gravels occur most commonly in the middle and upper parts of
streams where the currents in times of flood are strong enough to
transport fairly large stones. In deltas and the lower portions of large
rivers gravel deposits are comparatively rare and indicate periods when
the volume of the stream was temporarily greatly increased. In the
higher torrents also, gravels are rare because transport is so effective
that no considerable accumulations can form. In most countries where the
drainage is of a mature type, river gravels occur in the lower parts of
the courses of the rivers as banks or terraces which lie some distance
above the stream level. Individual terraces usually do not persist for a
long space but are represented by a series of benches at about the same
altitude. These were once continuous, and have been separated by the
stream cutting away the intervening portions as it deepened and
broadened its channel. Terraces of this kind often occur in successive
series at different heights, and the highest are the oldest because they
were laid down at a time when the stream flowed at their level and mark
the various stages by which the valley has been eroded. While marine
terraces are nearly always horizontal, stream terraces slope downwards
along the course of the river.
The extensive deposits of river gravels in many parts of England,
France, Switzerland, North America, &c., would indicate that at some
former time the rivers flowed in greater volume than at the present day.
This is believed to be connected with the glacial epoch and the
augmentation of the streams during those periods when the ice was
melting away. Many changes in drainage have taken place since then;
consequently wide sheets of glacial and fluvio-glacial gravel lie spread
out where at present there is no stream. Often they are commingled with
sand, and where there were temporary post-glacial lakes deposits of
silt, brick clay and mud have been formed. These may be compared to the
similar deposits now forming in Greenland, Spitzbergen and other
countries which are at present in a glacial condition.
As a rule gravels consist mainly of the harder kinds of stone because
these alone can resist attrition. Thus the gravels formed from chalk
consist almost entirely of flint, which is so hard that the chalk is
ground to powder and washed away, while the flint remains little
affected. Other hard rocks such as chert, quartzite, felsite, granite,
sandstone and volcanic rocks very frequently are largely represented in
gravels, while coal, limestone and shale are far less common. The size
of the pebbles varies from a fraction of an inch to several feet; it
depends partly on the fissility of the original rocks and partly on the
strength of the currents of water; coarse gravels indicate the action of
powerful eroding agents. In the Tertiary systems gravels occur on many
horizons, e.g. the Woolwich and Reading beds, Oldhaven beds and Bagshot
beds of the Eocene of the London basin. They do not essentially differ
from recent gravel deposits. But in course of time the action of
percolating water assisted by pressure tends to convert gravels into
firm masses of conglomerate by depositing carbonate of lime, silica and
other substances in their interstices. Gravels are not usually so
fossiliferous as finer deposits of the same age, partly because their
porous texture enables organic remains to be dissolved away by water,
and partly because shells and other fossils are comparatively fragile
and would be broken up during the accumulation of the pebbles. The rock
fragments in conglomerates, however, sometimes contain fossils which
have not been found elsewhere. (J. S. F.)
GRAVELINES (Flem. _Gravelinghe_), a fortified seaport town of northern
France, in the department of Nord and arrondissement of Dunkirk, 15 m.
S.W. of Dunkirk on the railway to Calais. Pop. (1906) town, 1858;
commune, 6284. Gravelines is situated on the Aa, 1¼ m. from its mouth in
the North Sea. It is surrounded by a double circuit of ramparts and by a
tidal moat. The river is canalized and opens out beneath the
fortifications into a floating basin. The situation of the port is one
of the best in France on the North Sea, though its trade has suffered
owing to the nearness of Calais and Dunkirk and the silting up of the
channel to the sea. It is a centre for the cod and herring fisheries.
Imports consist chiefly of timber from Northern Europe and coal from
England, to which eggs and fruit are exported. Gravelines has
paper-manufactories, sugar-works, fish-curing works, salt-refineries,
chicory-roasting factories, a cannery for preserved peas and other
vegetables and an important timber-yard. The harbour is accessible to
vessels drawing 18 ft. at high tides. The greater part of the population
of the commune of Gravelines dwells in the maritime quarter of
Petit-Fort-Philippe at the mouth of the Aa, and in the village of Les
Huttes (to the east of the town), which is inhabited by the fisher-folk.
The canalization of the Aa by a count of Flanders about the middle of
the 12th century led to the foundation of Gravelines (_grave-linghe_,
meaning "count's canal."). In 1558 it was the scene of the signal
victory of the Spaniards under the count of Egmont over the French. It
finally passed from the Spaniards to the French by the treaty of the
Pyrenees in 1659.
GRAVELOTTE, a village of Lorraine between Metz and the French frontier,
famous as the scene of the battle of the 18th of August 1870 between the
Germans under King William of Prussia and the French under Marshal
Bazaine (see METZ and FRANCO-GERMAN WAR). The battlefield extends from
the woods which border the Moselle above Metz to Roncourt, near the
river Orne. Other villages which played an important part in the battle
of Gravelotte were Saint Privat, Amanweiler or Amanvillers and
Sainte-Marie-aux-Chênes, all lying to the N. of Gravelotte.
GRAVES, ALFRED PERCEVAL (1846- ), Irish writer, was born in Dublin,
the son of the bishop of Limerick. He was educated at Windermere
College, and took high honours at Dublin University. In 1869 he entered
the Civil Service as clerk in the Home Office, where he remained until
he became in 1874 an inspector of schools. He was a constant contributor
of prose and verse to the _Spectator_, _The Athenaeum_, _John Bull_, and
_Punch_, and took a leading part in the revival of Irish letters. He was
for several years president of the Irish Literary Society, and is the
author of the famous ballad of "Father O'Flynn" and many other songs and
ballads. In collaboration with Sir C. V. Stanford he published _Songs of
Old Ireland_ (1882), _Irish Songs and Ballads_ (1893), the airs of which
are taken from the Petrie MSS.; the airs of his _Irish Folk-Songs_
(1897) were arranged by Charles Wood, with whom he also collaborated in
_Songs of Erin_ (1901).
His brother, Charles L. Graves (b. 1856), educated at Marlborough and at
Christ Church, Oxford, also became well known as a journalist, author of
two volumes of parodies, _The Hawarden Horace_ (1894) and _More Hawarden
Horace_ (1896), and of skits in prose and verse. An admirable musical
critic, his _Life and Letters of Sir George Grove_ (1903) is a model
biography.
GRAVESEND, a municipal and parliamentary borough, river-port and market
town of Kent, England, on the right bank of the Thames opposite Tilbury
Fort, 22 m. E. by S. of London by the South-Eastern & Chatham railway.
Pop. (1901) 27,196. It extends about 2 m. along the river bank,
occupying a slight acclivity which reaches its summit at Windmill Hill,
whence extensive views are obtained of the river, with its windings and
shipping. The older and lower part of the town is irregularly built,
with narrow and inconvenient streets, but the upper and newer portion
contains several handsome streets and terraces. Among several piers are
the town pier, erected in 1832, and the terrace pier, built in 1845, at
a time when local river-traffic by steamboat was specially prosperous.
Gravesend is a favourite resort of the inhabitants of London, both for
excursions and as a summer residence; it is also a favourite yachting
centre. The principal buildings are the town-hall, the parish church of
Gravesend, erected on the site of an ancient building destroyed by fire
in 1727; Milton parish church, a Decorated and Perpendicular building
erected in the time of Edward II.; and the county courts. Milton Mount
College is a large institution for the daughters of Congregational
ministers. East of the town are the earthworks designed to assist
Tilbury Fort in obstructing the passage up river of an enemy's force.
They were originally constructed on Vauban's system in the reign of
Charles II. Rosherville Gardens, a popular resort, are in the western
suburb of Rosherville, a residential quarter named after James Rosher,
an owner of lime works. They were founded in 1843 by George Jones.
Gravesend, which is within the Port of London, has some import trade in
coal and timber, and fishing, especially of shrimps, is carried on
extensively. The principal other industries are boat-building,
ironfounding, brewing and soap-boiling. Fruit and vegetables are largely
grown in the neighbourhood for the London market. Since 1867 Gravesend
has returned a member to parliament, the borough including Northfleet to
the west. The town is governed by a mayor, 6 aldermen and 18
councillors. Area, 1259 acres.
In the Domesday Survey "Gravesham" is entered among the bishop of
Bayeux's lands, and a "hythe" or landing-place is mentioned. In 1401
Henry IV. granted the men of Gravesend the sole right of conveying in
their own vessels all persons travelling between London and Gravesend,
and this right was confirmed by Edward IV. in 1462. In 1562 the town was
granted a charter of incorporation by Elizabeth, which vested the
government in 2 portreeves and 12 jurats, but by a later charter of 1568
one portreeve was substituted for the two. Charles I. incorporated the
town anew under the title of the mayor, jurats and inhabitants of
Gravesend, and a further charter of liberties was granted by James II.
in 1687. A Thursday market and fair on the 13th of October were granted
to the men of Gravesend by Edward III. in 1367; Elizabeth's charters
gave them a Wednesday market and fairs on the 24th of June and the 13th
of October, with a court of pie-powder; by the charter of Charles I.
Thursday and Saturday were made the market days, and these were changed
again to Wednesday and Saturday by a charter of 1694, which also granted
a fair on the 23rd of April; the fairs on these dates have died out, but
the Saturday market is still held.
From the beginning of the 17th century Gravesend was the chief station
for East Indiamen; most of the ships outward bound from London stopped
here to victual. A customs house was built in 1782. Queen Elizabeth
established Gravesend as the point where the corporation of London
should welcome in state eminent foreign visitors arriving by water.
State processions by water from Gravesend to London had previously taken
place, as in 1522, when Henry VIII. escorted the emperor Charles V. A
similar practice was maintained until modern times; as when, on the 7th
of March 1863, the princess Alexandra was received here by the prince of
Wales (King Edward VII.) three days before their marriage. Gravesend
parish church contains memorials to "Princess" Pocahontas, who died when
preparing to return home from a visit to England in 1617, and was buried
in the old church. A memorial pulpit from the state of Indiana, U.S.A.,
made of Virginian wood, was provided in 1904, and a fund was raised for
a stained-glass window by ladies of the state of Virginia.
GRAVINA, GIOVANNI VINCENZO (1664-1718), Italian littérateur and
jurisconsult, was born at Roggiano, a small town near Cosenza, in
Calabria, on the 20th of January 1664. He was descended from a
distinguished family, and under the direction of his maternal uncle,
Gregorio Caloprese, who possessed some reputation as a poet and
philosopher, received a learned education, after which he studied at
Naples civil and canon law. In 1689 he came to Rome, where in 1695 he
united with several others of literary tastes in forming the Academy of
Arcadians. A schism occurred in the academy in 1711, and Gravina and his
followers founded in opposition to it the Academy of Quirina. From
Innocent XII. Gravina received the offer of various ecclesiastical
honours, but declined them from a disinclination to enter the clerical
profession. In 1699 he was appointed to the chair of civil law in the
college of La Sapienza, and in 1703 he was transferred to the chair of
canon law. He died at Rome on the 6th of January 1718. He was the
adoptive father of Metastasio.
Gravina is the author of a number of works of great erudition, the
principal being his _Origines juris civilis_, completed in 3 vols.
(1713) and his _De Romano imperio_ (1712). A French translation of the
former appeared in 1775, of which a second edition was published in
1822. His collected works were published at Leipzig in 1737, and at
Naples, with notes by Mascovius, in 1756.
GRAVINA, a town and episcopal see of Apulia, Italy, in the province of
Bari, from which it is 63 m. S.W. by rail (29 m. direct), 1148 ft. above
sea-level. Pop. (1901) 18,197. The town is probably of medieval origin,
though some conjecture that it occupies the site of the ancient Blera, a
post station on the Via Appia. The cathedral is a basilica of the 15th
century. The town is surrounded with walls and towers, and a castle of
the emperor Frederick II. rises above the town, which later belonged to
the Orsini, dukes of Gravina; just outside it are dwellings and a church
(S. Michele) all hewn in the rock, and now abandoned.
Prehistoric remains in the district (remains of ancient settlements,
_tumuli_, &c.) are described by V. di Cicco in _Notizie degli scavi_
(1901), p. 217.
GRAVITATION (from Lat. _gravis_, heavy), in physical science, that
mutual action between masses of matter by virtue of which every such
mass tends toward every other with a force varying directly as the
product of the masses and inversely as the square of their distances
apart. Although the law was first clearly and rigorously formulated by
Sir Isaac Newton, the fact of the action indicated by it was more or
less clearly seen by others. Even Ptolemy had a vague conception of a
force tending toward the centre of the earth which not only kept bodies
upon its surface, but in some way upheld the order of the universe. John
Kepler inferred that the planets move in their orbits under some
influence or force exerted by the sun; but the laws of motion were not
then sufficiently developed, nor were Kepler's ideas of force
sufficiently clear, to admit of a precise statement of the nature of the
force. C. Huygens and R. Hooke, contemporaries of Newton, saw that
Kepler's third law implied a force tending toward the sun which, acting
on the several planets, varied inversely as the square of the distance.
But two requirements necessary to generalize the theory were still
wanting. One was to show that the law of the inverse square not only
represented Kepler's third law, but his first two laws also. The other
was to show that the gravitation of the earth, following one and the
same law with that of the sun, extended to the moon. Newton's researches
showed that the attraction of the earth on the moon was the same as that
for bodies at the earth's surface, only reduced in the inverse square of
the moon's distance from the earth's centre. He also showed that the
total gravitation of the earth, assumed as spherical, on external
bodies, would be the same as if the earth's mass were concentrated in
the centre. This led at once to the statement of the law in its most
general form.
The law of gravitation is unique among the laws of nature, not only in
its wide generality, taking the whole universe in its scope, but in the
fact that, so far as yet known, it is absolutely unmodified by any
condition or cause whatever. All other forms of action between masses of
matter, vary with circumstances. The mutual action of electrified
bodies, for example, is affected by their relative or absolute motion.
But no conditions to which matter has ever been subjected, or under
which it has ever been observed, have been found to influence its
gravitation in the slightest degree. We might conceive the rapid motions
of the heavenly bodies to result in some change either in the direction
or amount of their gravitation towards each other at each moment; but
such is not the case, even in the most rapidly moving bodies of the
solar system. The question has also been raised whether the action of
gravitation is absolutely instantaneous. If not, the action would not be
exactly in the line adjoining the two bodies at the instant, but would
be affected by the motion of the line joining them during the time
required by the force to pass from one body to the other. The result of
this would be seen in the motions of the planets around the sun; but the
most refined observations show no such effect. It is also conceivable
that bodies might gravitate differently at different temperatures. But
the most careful researches have failed to show any apparent
modification produced in this way except what might be attributed to the
surrounding conditions. The most recent and exhaustive experiment was
that of J. H. Poynting and P. Phillips (_Proc. Roy. Soc._, 76A, p. 445).
The result was that the change, if any, was less than 1/10 of the force
for one degree change of temperature, a result too minute to be
established by any measures.
Another cause which might be supposed to modify the action of
gravitation between two bodies would be the interposition of masses of
matter between them, a cause which materially modifies the action of
electrified bodies. The question whether this cause modifies gravitation
admits of an easy test from observation. If it did, then a portion of
the earth's mass or of that of any other planet turned away from the sun
would not be subjected to the same action of the sun as if directly
exposed to that action. Great masses, as those of the great planets,
would not be attracted with a force proportional to the mass because of
the hindrance or other effect of the interposed portions. But not the
slightest modification due to this cause is shown. The general
conclusion from everything we see is that a mass of matter in Australia
attracts a mass in London precisely as it would if the earth were not
interposed between the two masses.
We must therefore regard the law in question as the broadest and most
fundamental one which nature makes known to us.
It is not yet experimentally proved that variation as the inverse square
is absolutely true at all distances. Astronomical observations extend
over too brief a period of time to show any attraction between different
stars except those in each other's neighbourhood. But this proves
nothing because, in the case of distances so great, centuries or even
thousands of years of accurate observation will be required to show any
action. On the other hand the enigmatical motion of the perihelion of
Mercury has not yet found any plausible explanation except on the
hypothesis that the gravitation of the sun diminishes at a rate slightly
greater than that of the inverse square--the most simple modification
being to suppose that instead of the exponent of the distance being
exactly -2, it is -2.000 000 161 2.
The argument is extremely simple in form. It is certain that, in the
general average, year after year, the force with which Mercury is drawn
toward the sun does vary from the exact inverse square of its distance
from the sun. The most plausible explanation of this is that one or more
masses of matter move around the sun, whose action, whether they are
inside or outside the orbit of Mercury, would produce the required
modification in the force. From an investigation of all the observations
upon Mercury and the other three interior planets, Simon Newcomb found
it almost out of the question that any such mass of matter could exist
without changing either the figure of the sun itself or the motion of
the planes of the orbits of either Mercury or Venus. The qualification
"almost" is necessary because so complex a system of actions comes into
play, and accurate observations have extended through so short a period,
that the proof cannot be regarded as absolute. But the fact that careful
and repeated search for a mass of matter sufficient to produce the
desired effect has been in vain, affords additional evidence of its
non-existence. The most obvious test of the reality of the required
modifications would be afforded by two other bodies, the motions of
whose pericentres should be similarly affected. These are Mars and the
moon. Newcomb found an excess of motions in the perihelion of Mars
amounting to about 5' per century. But the combination of observations
and theory on which this is based is not sufficient fully to establish
so slight a motion. In the case of the motion of the moon around the
earth, assuming the gravitation of the latter to be subject to the
modification in question, the annual motion of the moon's perigee
should be greater by 1.5' than the theoretical motion. E. W. Brown is
the first investigator to determine the theoretical motions with this
degree of precision; and he finds that there is no such divergence
between the actual and the computed motion. There is therefore as yet no
ground for regarding any deviation from the law of inverse square as
more than a possibility. (S. N.)
GRAVITATION CONSTANT AND MEAN DENSITY OF THE EARTH
The law of gravitation states that two masses M1 and M2, distant d from
each other, are pulled together each with a force G. M1M2/d², where G is
a constant for all kinds of matter--the _gravitation constant_. The
acceleration of M2 towards M1 or the force exerted on it by M1 per unit
of its mass is therefore GM1/d². Astronomical observations of the
accelerations of different planets towards the sun, or of different
satellites towards the same primary, give us the most accurate
confirmation of the distance part of the law. By comparing accelerations
towards different bodies we obtain the ratios of the masses of those
different bodies and, in so far as the ratios are consistent, we obtain
confirmation of the mass part. But we only obtain the ratios of the
masses to the mass of some one member of the system, say the earth. We
do not find the mass in terms of grammes or pounds. In fact, astronomy
gives us the product GM, but neither G nor M. For example, the
acceleration of the earth towards the sun is about 0.6 cm/sec.² at a
distance from it about 15 × 10^12 cm. The acceleration of the moon
towards the earth is about 0.27 cm/sec.² at a distance from it about 4 ×
10^10 cm. If S is the mass of the sun and E the mass of the earth we
have 0.6 = GS/(15 × 10^12)² and 0.27 = GE/(4 × 10^10)² giving us GS and
GE, and the ratio S/E = 300,000 roughly; but we do not obtain either S
or E in grammes, and we do not find G.
The aim of the experiments to be described here may be regarded either
as the determination of the mass of the earth in grammes, most
conveniently expressed by its mass ÷ its volume, that is by its "mean
density" [Delta], or the determination of the "gravitation constant" G.
Corresponding to these two aspects of the problem there are two modes of
attack. Suppose that a body of mass m is suspended at the earth's
surface where it is pulled with a force w vertically downwards by the
earth--its weight. At the same time let it be pulled with a force p by a
measurable mass M which may be a mountain, or some measurable part of
the earth's surface layers, or an artificially prepared mass brought
near m, and let the pull of M be the same as if it were concentrated at
a distance d. The earth pull may be regarded as the same as if the earth
were all concentrated at its centre, distant R.
Then
w = G · (4/3)[pi]R³[Delta]m/R² = G · (4/3)[pi]R[Delta]m, (1)
and
p = GMm/d² (2)
By division
3M w
[Delta] = -------- · --.
4[pi]Rd² p
If then we can arrange to observe w/p we obtain [Delta], the mean
density of the earth.
But the same observations give us G also. For, putting m = w/g in (2),
we get
d² p
G = -- · -- · g.
M w
In the second mode of attack the pull p between two artificially
prepared measured masses M1, M2 is determined when they are a distance d
apart, and since p = G · M1M2/d² we get at once G = pd²/M1M2. But we can
also deduce [Delta]. For putting w = mg in (1) we get
g 1
[Delta] = ¾ -- · -----.
G [pi]R
Experiments of the first class in which the pull of a known mass is
compared with the pull of the earth maybe termed experiments on the mean
density of the earth, while experiments of the second class in which the
pull between two known masses is directly measured may be termed
experiments on the gravitation constant.
We shall, however, adopt a slightly different classification for the
purpose of describing methods of experiment, viz:--
1. Comparison of the earth pull on a body with the pull of a natural
mass as in the Schiehallion experiment.
2. Determination of the attraction between two artificial masses as in
Cavendish's experiment.
3. Comparison of the earth pull on a body with the pull of an
artificial mass as in experiments with the common balance.
It is interesting to note that the possibility of gravitation
experiments of this kind was first considered by Newton, and in both of
the forms (1) and (2). In the _System of the World_ (3rd ed., 1737, p.
40) he calculates that the deviation by a hemispherical mountain, of the
earth's density and with radius 3 m., on a plumb-line at its side will
be less than 2 minutes. He also calculates (though with an error in his
arithmetic) the acceleration towards each other of two spheres each a
foot in diameter and of the earth's density, and comes to the conclusion
that in either case the effect is too small for measurement. In the
_Principia_, bk. iii., prop. x., he makes a celebrated estimate that the
earth's mean density is five or six times that of water. Adopting this
estimate, the deviation by an actual mountain or the attraction of two
terrestrial spheres would be of the orders calculated, and regarded by
Newton as immeasurably small.
Whatever method is adopted the force to be measured is very minute. This
may be realized if we here anticipate the results of the experiments,
which show that in round numbers [Delta] = 5.5 and G = 1/15,000,000 when
the masses are in grammes and the distances in centimetres.
Newton's mountain, which would probably have density about [Delta]/2
would deviate the plumb-line not much more than half a minute. Two
spheres 30 cm. in diameter (about 1 ft.) and of density 11 (about that
of lead) just not touching would pull each other with a force rather
less than 2 dynes, and their acceleration would be such that they would
move into contact if starting 1 cm. apart in rather over 400 seconds.
From these examples it will be realized that in gravitation experiments
extraordinary precautions must be adopted to eliminate disturbing forces
which may easily rise to be comparable with the forces to be measured.
We shall not attempt to give an account of these precautions, but only
seek to set forth the general principles of the different experiments
which have been made.
I. _Comparison of the Earth Pull with that of a Natural Mass._
_Bouguer's Experiments._--The earliest experiments were made by Pierre
Bouguer about 1740, and they are recorded in his _Figure de la terre_
(1749). They were of two kinds. In the first he determined the length of
the seconds pendulum, and thence _g_ at different levels. Thus at Quito,
which may be regarded as on a table-land 1466 toises (a toise is about
6.4 ft.) above sea-level, the seconds pendulum was less by 1/1331 than
on the Isle of Inca at sea-level. But if there were no matter above the
sea-level, the inverse square law would make the pendulum less by 1/1118
at the higher level. The value of _g_ then at the higher level was
greater than could be accounted for by the attraction of an earth ending
at sea-level by the difference 1/1118-1/1331 = 1/6983, and this was put
down to the attraction of the plateau 1466 toises high; or the
attraction of the whole earth was 6983 times the attraction of the
plateau. Using the rule, now known as "Young's rule," for the attraction
of the plateau, Bouguer found that the density of the earth was 4.7
times that of the plateau, a result certainly much too large.
In the second kind of experiment he attempted to measure the horizontal
pull of Chimborazo, a mountain about 20,000 ft. high, by the deflection
of a plumb-line at a station on its south side. Fig. 1 shows the
principle of the method. Suppose that two stations are fixed, one on the
side of the mountain due south of the summit, and the other on the same
latitude but some distance westward, away from the influence of the
mountain. Suppose that at the second station a star is observed to pass
the meridian, for simplicity we will say directly overhead, then a
plumb-line will hang down exactly parallel to the observing telescope.
If the mountain were away it would also hang parallel to the telescope
at the first station when directed to the same star. But the mountain
pulls the plumb-line towards it and the star appears to the north of the
zenith and evidently mountain pull/earth pull = tangent of angle of
displacement of zenith.
[Illustration: FIG. 1.--Bouguer's Plumb-line Experiment on the
attraction of Chimborazo.]
Bouguer observed the meridian altitude of several stars at the two
stations. There was still some deflection at the second station, a
deflection which he estimated as 1/14 that at the first station, and he
found on allowing for this that his observations gave a deflection of 8
seconds at the first station. From the form and size of the mountain he
found that if its density were that of the earth the deflection should
be 103 seconds, or the earth was nearly 13 times as dense as the
mountain, a result several times too large. But the work was carried on
under enormous difficulties owing to the severity of the weather, and no
exactness could be expected. The importance of the experiment lay in its
proof that the method was possible.
_Maskelyne's Experiment._--In 1774 Nevil Maskelyne (_Phil. Trans._,
1775, p. 495) made an experiment on the deflection of the plumb-line by
Schiehallion, a mountain in Perthshire, which has a short ridge nearly
east and west, and sides sloping steeply on the north and south. He
selected two stations on the same meridian, one on the north, the other
on the south slope, and by means of a zenith sector, a telescope
provided with a plumb-bob, he determined at each station the meridian
zenith distances of a number of stars. From a survey of the district
made in the years 1774-1776 the geographical difference of latitude
between the two stations was found to be 42.94 seconds, and this would
have been the difference in the meridian zenith difference of the same
star at the two stations had the mountain been away. But at the north
station the plumb-bob was pulled south and the zenith was deflected
northwards, while at the south station the effect was reversed. Hence
the angle between the zeniths, or the angle between the zenith distances
of the same star at the two stations was greater than the geographical
42.94 seconds. The mean of the observations gave a difference of 54.2
seconds, or the double deflection of the plumb-line was 54.2 - 42.94,
say 11.26 seconds.
The computation of the attraction of the mountain on the supposition
that its density was that of the earth was made by Charles Hutton from
the results of the survey (_Phil. Trans._, 1778, p. 689), a computation
carried out by ingenious and important methods. He found that the
deflection should have been greater in the ratio 17804 : 9933 say 9 : 5,
whence the density of the earth comes out at 9/5 that of the mountain.
Hutton took the density of the mountain at 2.5, giving the mean density
of the earth 4.5. A revision of the density of the mountain from a
careful survey of the rocks composing it was made by John Playfair many
years later (_Phil. Trans._, 1811, p. 347), and the density of the earth
was given as lying between 4.5588 and 4.867.
Other experiments have been made on the attraction of mountains by
Francesco Carlini (_Milano Effem. Ast._, 1824, p. 28) on Mt. Blanc in
1821, using the pendulum method after the manner of Bouguer, by Colonel
Sir Henry James and Captain A. R. Clarke (_Phil. Trans._, 1856, p. 591),
using the plumb-line deflection at Arthur's Seat, by T. C. Mendenhall
(_Amer. Jour. of Sci._ xxi. p. 99), using the pendulum method on
Fujiyama in Japan, and by E. D. Preston (_U.S. Coast and Geod. Survey
Rep._, 1893, p. 513) in Hawaii, using both methods.
_Airy's Experiment._--In 1854 Sir G. B. Airy (_Phil. Trans._ 1856, p.
297) carried out at Harton pit near South Shields an experiment which he
had attempted many years before in conjunction with W. Whewell and R.
Sheepshanks at Dolcoath. This consisted in comparing gravity at the top
and at the bottom of a mine by the swings of the same pendulum, and
thence finding the ratio of the pull of the intervening strata to the
pull of the whole earth. The principle of the method may be understood
by assuming that the earth consists of concentric spherical shells each
homogeneous, the last of thickness h equal to the depth of the mine. Let
the radius of the earth to the bottom of the mine be R, and the mean
density up to that point be [Delta]. This will not differ appreciably
from the mean density of the whole. Let the density of the strata of
depth h be [delta]. Denoting the values of gravity above and below by
g_a and g_b we have
[pi]R³[Delta]
g_b = G (4/3) ------------- = G · (4/3) [pi]R[Delta],
R²
and
[pi]R³[Delta]
g_a = G (4/3) ------------- + G · 4[pi]h[delta]
(R + h)²
(since the attraction of a shell h thick on a point just outside it is
G · 4[pi](R + h)²h[delta]/(R + h)² = G · 4[pi]h[delta]). Therefore
/ 2h 3h [delta] \
g_a = G · (4/3) [pi]R[Delta] ( 1 - -- + -- ------- ) nearly,
\ R R [Delta] /
whence
g_a 2h 3h [delta]
--- = 1 - -- + -- -------,
g_b R R [Delta]
and
[Delta] 3h / / 2h g_a \
------- = -- / ( -1 + -- + --- ).
[delta] R / \ R g_b /
Stations were chosen in the same vertical, one near the pit bank,
another 1250 ft. below in a disused working, and a "comparison" clock
was fixed at each station. A third clock was placed at the upper station
connected by an electric circuit to the lower station. It gave an
electric signal every 15 seconds by which the rates of the two
comparison clocks could be accurately compared. Two "invariable" seconds
pendulums were swung, one in front of the upper and the other in front
of the lower comparison clock after the manner of Kater, and these
invariables were interchanged at intervals. From continuous observations
extending over three weeks and after applying various corrections Airy
obtained g_b/g_a = 1.00005185. Making corrections for the irregularity
of the neighbouring strata he found [Delta]/[delta] = 2.6266. W. H.
Miller made a careful determination of [delta] from specimens of the
strata, finding it 2.5. The final result taking into account the
ellipticity and rotation of the earth is [Delta] = 6.565.
_Von Sterneck's Experiments._--(_Mitth. des K.U.K. Mil. Geog. Inst. zu
Wien_, ii, 1882, p. 77; 1883, p. 59; vi., 1886, p. 97). R. von Sterneck
repeated the mine experiment in 1882-1883 at the Adalbert shaft at
Pribram in Bohemia and in 1885 at the Abraham shaft near Freiberg. He
used two invariable half-seconds pendulums, one swung at the surface,
the other below at the same time. The two were at intervals
interchanged. Von Sterneck introduced a most important improvement by
comparing the swings of the two invariables with the same clock which by
an electric circuit gave a signal at each station each second. This
eliminated clock rates. His method, of which it is not necessary to give
the details here, began a new era in the determinations of local
variations of gravity. The values which von Sterneck obtained for
[Delta] were not consistent, but increased with the depth of the second
station. This was probably due to local irregularities in the strata
which could not be directly detected.
All the experiments to determine [Delta] by the attraction of natural
masses are open to the serious objection that we cannot determine the
distribution of density in the neighbourhood with any approach to
accuracy. The experiments with artificial masses next to be described
give much more consistent results, and the experiments with natural
masses are now only of use in showing the existence of irregularities
in the earth's superficial strata when they give results deviating
largely from the accepted value.
II. _Determination of the Attraction between two Artificial Masses._
[Illustration: FIG. 2.--Cavendish's Apparatus.
h h, torsion rod hung by wire l g,; x, x, attracted balls hung from its
ends; WW, attracting masses.]
_Cavendish's Experiment_ (_Phil. Trans._, 1798, p. 469).--This
celebrated experiment was planned by the Rev. John Michell. He completed
an apparatus for it but did not live to begin work with it. After
Michell's death the apparatus came into the possession of Henry
Cavendish, who largely reconstructed it, but still adhered to Michell's
plan, and in 1797-1798 he carried out the experiment. The essential
feature of it consisted in the determination of the attraction of a lead
sphere 12 in. in diameter on another lead sphere 2 in. in diameter, the
distance between the centres being about 9 in., by means of a torsion
balance. Fig. 2 shows how the experiment was carried out. A torsion rod
hh 6 ft. long, tied from its ends to a vertical piece mg, was hung by a
wire lg. From its ends depended two lead balls xx each 2 in. in
diameter. The position of the rod was determined by a scale fixed near
the end of the arm, the arm itself carrying a vernier moving along the
scale. This was lighted by a lamp and viewed by a telescope T from the
outside of the room containing the apparatus. The torsion balance was
enclosed in a case and outside this two lead spheres WW each 12 in. in
diameter hung from an arm which could turn round an axis Pp in the line
of gl. Suppose that first the spheres are placed so that one is just in
front of the right-hand ball x and the other is just behind the
left-hand ball x. The two will conspire to pull the balls so that the
right end of the rod moves forward. Now let the big spheres be moved
round so that one is in front of the left ball and the other behind the
right ball. The pulls are reversed and the right end moves backward. The
angle between its two positions is (if we neglect cross attractions of
right sphere on left ball and left sphere on right ball) four times as
great as the deflection of the rod due to approach of one sphere to one
ball.
The principle of the experiment may be set forth thus. Let 2a be the
length of the torsion rod, m the mass of a ball, M the mass of a large
sphere, d the distance between the centres, supposed the same on each
side. Let [theta] be the angle through which the rod moves round when
the spheres WW are moved from the first to the second of the positions
described above. Let [mu] be the couple required to twist the rod
through 1 radian. Then [mu][theta] = 4GMma/d². But [mu] can be found
from the time of vibration of the torsion system when we know its
moment of inertia I, and this can be determined. If T is the period
[mu] = 4[pi]²I/T², whence G = [pi]²d²I[theta]/T²Mma, or putting the
result in terms of the mean density of the earth [Delta] it is easy to
show that, if L, the length of the seconds pendulum, is put for
g/[pi]², and C for 2[pi]R, the earth's circumference, then
L Mma T²
[Delta] = (3/2) -- --- -------.
C d²I [theta]
The original account by Cavendish is still well worth studying on
account of the excellence of his methods. His work was undoubtedly very
accurate for a pioneer experiment and has only really been improved upon
within the last generation. Making various corrections of which it is
not necessary to give a description, the result obtained (after
correcting a mistake first pointed out by F. Baily) is [Delta] = 5.448.
In seeking the origin of the disturbed motion of the torsion rod
Cavendish made a very important observation. He found that when the
masses were left in one position for a time the attracted balls crept
now in one direction, now in another, as if the attraction were varying.
Ultimately he found that this was due to convection currents in the case
containing the torsion rod, currents produced by temperature
inequalities. When a large sphere was heated the ball near it tended to
approach and when it was cooled the ball tended to recede. Convection
currents constitute the chief disturbance and the chief source of error
in all attempts to measure small forces in air at ordinary pressure.
_Reich's Experiments_ (_Versuche über die mittlere Dichtigkeit der Erde
mittelst der Drehwage_, Freiberg, 1838; "Neue Versuche mit der
Drehwage," _Leipzig Abh. Math. Phys._ i., 1852, p. 383).--In 1838 F.
Reich published an account of a repetition of the Cavendish experiment
carried out on the same general lines, though with somewhat smaller
apparatus. The chief differences consisted in the methods of measuring
the times of vibration and the deflection, and the changes were hardly
improvements. His result after revision was [Delta] = 5.49. In 1852 he
published an account of further work giving as result [Delta]= 5.58. It
is noteworthy that in his second paper he gives an account of
experiments suggested by J. D. Forbes in which the deflection was not
observed directly, but was deduced from observations of the time of
vibration when the attracting masses were in different positions.
Let T1 be the time of vibration when the masses are in one of the
usual attracting positions. Let d be the distance between the centres
of attracting mass and attracted ball, and [delta] the distance
through which the ball is pulled. If a is the half length of the
torsion rod and [theta] the deflection, [delta] = a[theta]. Now let
the attracting masses be put one at each end of the torsion rod with
their centres in the line through the centres of the balls and d from
them, and let T2 be the time of vibration. Then it is easy to show
that
[delta]/d = a[theta]/d = (T1 - T2)/(T1 + T2).
This gives a value of [theta] which may be used in the formula. The
experiments by this method were not consistent, and the mean result
was [Delta] = 6.25.
_Baily's Experiment_ (_Memoirs of the Royal Astron. Soc._ xiv.).--In
1841-1842 Francis Baily made a long series of determinations by
Cavendish's method and with apparatus nearly of the same dimensions. The
attracting masses were 12-in. lead spheres and as attracted balls he
used various masses, lead, zinc, glass, ivory, platinum, hollow brass,
and finally the torsion rod alone without balls. The suspension was also
varied, sometimes consisting of a single wire, sometimes being bifilar.
There were systematic errors running through Baily's work, which it is
impossible now wholly to explain. These made the resulting value of
[Delta] show a variation with the nature of the attracted masses and a
variation with the temperature. His final result [Delta] = 5.6747 is not
of value compared with later results.
_Cornu and Baille's Experiment_ (_Comptes rendus_, lxxvi., 1873, p. 954;
lxxxvi., 1878, pp. 571, 699, 1001; xcvi., 1883, p. 1493).--In 1870 MM.
A. Cornu and J. Baille commenced an experiment by the Cavendish method
which was never definitely completed, though valuable studies of the
behaviour of the torsion apparatus were made. They purposely departed
from the dimensions previously used. The torsion balls were of copper
about 100 gm. each, the rod was 50 cm. long, and the suspending wire was
4 metres long. On each side of each ball was a hollow iron sphere. Two
of these were filled with mercury weighing 12 kgm., the two spheres of
mercury constituting the attracting masses. When the position of a mass
was to be changed the mercury was pumped from the sphere on one side to
that on the other side of a ball. To avoid counting time a method of
electric registration on a chronograph was adopted. A provisional result
was [Delta] = 5.56.
[Illustration: FIG. 3.--Diagram of a Section of Professor Boys's
Apparatus.]
_Boys's Experiment_ (_Phil. Trans._, A., 1895, pt. i., p. 1).--Professor
C. V. Boys having found that it is possible to draw quartz fibres of
practically any degree of fineness, of great strength and true in their
elasticity, determined to repeat the Cavendish experiment, using his
newly invented fibres for the suspension of the torsion rod. He began by
an inquiry as to the best dimensions for the apparatus. He saw that if
the period of vibration is kept constant, that is, if the moment of
inertia I is kept proportional to the torsion couple per radian [mu],
then the deflection remains the same however the linear dimensions are
altered so long as they are all altered in the same proportion. Hence we
are driven to conclude that the dimensions should be reduced until
further reduction would make the linear quantities too small to be
measured with exactness, for reduction in the apparatus enables
variations in temperature and the consequent air disturbances to be
reduced, and the experiment in other ways becomes more manageable.
Professor Boys took as the exactness to be sought for 1 in 10,000. He
further saw that reduction in length of the torsion rod with given balls
is an advantage. For if the rod be halved the moment of inertia is
one-fourth, and if the suspending fibre is made finer so that the
torsion couple per radian is also one-fourth the time remains the same.
But the moment of the attracting force is halved only, so that the
deflection against one-fourth torsion is doubled. In Cavendish's
arrangement there would be an early limit to the advantage in reduction
of rod in that the mass opposite one ball would begin seriously to
attract the other ball. But Boys avoided this difficulty by suspending
the balls from the ends of the torsion rod at different levels and by
placing the attracting masses at these different levels. Fig. 3
represents diagrammatically a vertical section of the arrangement used
on a scale of about 1/10. The torsion rod was a small rectangular mirror
about 2.4 cm. wide hung by a quartz fibre about 43 cm. long. From the
sides of this mirror the balls were hung by quartz fibres at levels
differing by 15 cm. The balls were of gold either about 5 mm. in
diameter and weighing about 1.3 gm. or about 6.5 mm. in diameter and
weighing 2.65 gm. The attracting masses were lead spheres, about 10 cm.
in diameter and weighing about 7.4 kgm. each. These were suspended from
the top of the case which could be rotated round the central tube, and
they were arranged so that the radius to the centre from the axis of the
torsion system made 65° with the torsion rod, the position in which the
moment of the attraction was a maximum. The torsion rod mirror reflected
a distant scale by which the deflection could be read. The time of
vibration was recorded on a chronograph. The result of the experiment,
probably the best yet made, was [Delta] = 5.527; G = 6.658 × 10^-8.
_Braun's Experiment_ (_Denkschr. Akad. Wiss. Wien, math.-naturw. Cl._
64, p. 187, 1896).--In 1896 Dr K. Braun, S.J., gave an account of a very
careful and excellent repetition of the Cavendish experiment with
apparatus much smaller than was used in the older experiments, yet much
larger than that used by Boys. A notable feature of the work consisted
in the suspension of the torsion apparatus in a receiver exhausted to
about 4 mm. of mercury, a pressure at which convection currents almost
disappear while "radiometer" forces have hardly begun. For other
ingenious arrangements the original paper or a short abstract in
_Nature_, lvi., 1897, p. 127, may be consulted. The attracted balls
weighed 54 gm. each and were 25 cm. apart. The attracting masses were
spheres of mercury each weighing 9 kgm. and brought into position
outside the receiver. Braun used both the deflection method and the time
of vibration method suggested to Reich by Forbes. The methods gave
almost identical results and his final values are to three decimal
places the same as those obtained by Boys.
_G. K. Burgess's Experiment_ (_Thèses présentées à la faculté des
sciences de Paris pour obtenir le titre de docteur de l'université de
Paris_, 1901).--This was a Cavendish experiment in which the torsion
system was buoyed up by a float in a mercury bath. The attracted masses
could thus be made large, and yet the suspending wire could be kept
fine. The torsion beam was 12 cm. long, and the attracted balls were
lead spheres each 2 kgm. From the centre of the beam depended a vertical
steel rod with a varnished copper hollow float at its end, entirely
immersed in mercury. The surface of the mercury was covered with dilute
sulphuric acid to remove irregularities due to varying surface tension
acting on the steel rod. The size of the float was adjusted so that the
torsion fibre of quartz 35 cm. long had only to carry a weight of 5 to
10 gm. The time of vibration was over one hour. The torsion couple per
radian was determined by preliminary experiments. The attracting masses
were each 10 kgm. turning in a circle 18 cm. in diameter. The results
gave [Delta] = 5.55 and G = 6.64 × 10^-8.
_Eötvos's Experiment_ (_Ann. der Physik und Chemie_, 1896, 59, P.
354).--In the course of investigations on local variations of gravity by
means of the torsion balance, R. Eötvos devised a method for determining
G somewhat like the vibration method used by Reich and Braun. Two
pillars were built up of lead blocks 30 cm. square in cross section, 60
cm. high and 30 cm. apart. A torsion rod somewhat less than 30 cm. long
with small weights at the ends was enclosed in a double-walled brass
case of as little depth as possible, a device which secured great
steadiness through freedom from convection currents. The suspension was
a platinum wire about 150 cm. long. The torsion rod was first set in the
line joining the centres of the pillars and its time of vibration was
taken. Then it was set with its length perpendicular to the line joining
the centres and the time again taken. From these times Eötvos was able
to deduce G = 6.65 × 10^-8 whence [Delta] = 5.53. This is only a
provisional value. The experiment was only as it were a by-product in
the course of exceedingly ingenious work on the local variation in
gravity for which the original paper should be consulted.
_Wilsing's Experiment_ (_Publ. des astrophysikalischen Observ. zu
Potsdam_, 1887, No. 22, vol. vi. pt. ii.; pt. iii. p. 133).--We may
perhaps class with the Cavendish type an experiment made by J. Wilsing,
in which a vertical "double pendulum" was used in place of a horizontal
torsion system. Two weights each 540 gm. were fixed at the ends of a rod
1 metre long. A knife edge was fixed on the rod just above its centre of
gravity, and this was supported so that the rod could vibrate about a
vertical position. Two attracting masses, cast-iron cylinders each 325
kgm., were placed, say, one in front of the top weight on the pendulum
and the other behind the bottom weight, and the position of the rod was
observed in the usual mirror and scale way. Then the front attracting
mass was dropped to the level of the lower weight and the back mass was
raised to that of the upper weight, and the consequent deflection of the
rod was observed. By taking the time of vibration of the pendulum first
as used in the deflection experiment and then when a small weight was
removed from the upper end a known distance from the knife edge, the
restoring couple per radian deflection could be found. The final result
gave [Delta] = 5.579.
_J. Joly's suggested Experiment_ (_Nature_ xli., 1890, p. 256).--Joly
has suggested that G might be determined by hanging a simple pendulum in
a vacuum, and vibrating outside the case two massive pendulums each with
the same time of swing as the simple pendulum. The simple pendulum would
be set swinging by the varying attraction and from its amplitude after a
known number of swings of the outside pendulums G could be found.
III. _Comparison of the Earth Pull on a body with the Pull of an
Artificial Mass by Means of the Common Balance._
The principle of the method is as follows:--Suppose a sphere of mass m
and weight w to be hung by a wire from one arm of a balance. Let the
mass of the earth be E and its radius be R. Then w = GEm/R². Now
introduce beneath m a sphere of mass M and let d be the distance of its
centre from that of m. Its pull increases the apparent weight of m say
by [delta]w. Then [delta]w = GMm/d². Dividing we obtain [delta]w/w =
MR²/Ed², whence E = MR²w/d²[delta]w; and since g = GE/R², G can be found
when E is known.
_Von Jolly's Experiment_ (_Abhand. der k. bayer. Akad. der Wiss._ 2 Cl.
xiii. Bd. 1 Abt. p. 157, and xiv. Bd. 2 Abt. p. 3).--In the first of
these papers Ph. von Jolly described an experiment in which he sought to
determine the decrease in weight with increase of height from the
earth's surface, an experiment suggested by Bacon (_Nov. Org._ Bk. 2,
§36), in the form of comparison of rates of two clocks at different
levels, one driven by a spring, the other by weights. The experiment in
the form carried out by von Jolly was attempted by H. Power, R. Hooke,
and others in the early days of the Royal Society (Mackenzie, _The Laws
of Gravitation_). Von Jolly fixed a balance at the top of his laboratory
and from each pan depended a wire supporting another pan 5 metres below.
Two 1-kgm. weights were first balanced in the upper pans and then one
was moved from an upper to the lower pan on the same side. A gain of 1.5
mgm. was observed after correction for greater weight of air displaced
at the lower level. The inverse square law would give a slightly greater
gain and the deficiency was ascribed to the configuration of the land
near the laboratory. In the second paper a second experiment was
described in which a balance was fixed at the top of a tower and
provided as before with one pair of pans just below the arms and a
second pair hung from these by wires 21 metres below. Four glass globes
were prepared equal in weight and volume. Two of these were filled each
with 5 kgm. of mercury and then all were sealed up. The two heavy globes
were then placed in the upper pans and the two light ones in the lower.
The two on one side were now interchanged and a gain in weight of about
31.7 mgm. was observed. Air corrections were eliminated by the use of
the globes of equal volume. Then a lead sphere about 1 metre radius was
built up of blocks under one of the lower pans and the experiment was
repeated. Through the attraction of the lead sphere on the mass of
mercury when below the gain was greater by 0.589 mgm. This result gave
[Delta] = 5.692.
_Experiment of Richarz and Krigar-Menzel_ (_Anhang zu den Abhand. der k.
preuss. Akad. der Wiss. zu Berlin_, 1898).--In 1884 A. König and F.
Richarz proposed a similar experiment which was ultimately carried out
by Richarz and O. Krigar-Menzel. In this experiment a balance was
supported somewhat more than 2 metres above the floor and with scale
pans above and below as in von Jolly's experiment. Weights each 1 kgm.
were placed, say, in the top right pan and the bottom left pan. Then
they were shifted to the bottom right and the top left, the result
being, after corrections for change in density of air displaced through
pressure and temperature changes, a gain in weight of 1.2453 mgm. on the
right due to change in level of 2.2628 metres. Then a rectangular column
of lead 210 cm. square cross section and 200 cm. high was built up under
the balance between the pairs of pans. The column was perforated with
two vertical tunnels for the passage of the wires supporting the lower
pans. On repeating the weighings there was now a decrease on the right
when a kgm. was moved on that side from top to bottom while another was
moved on the left from bottom to top. This decrease was 0.1211 mgm.
showing a total change due to the lead mass of 1.2453 + 0.1211 = 1.3664
mgm. and this is obviously four times the attraction of the lead mass on
one kgm. The changes in the positions of the weights were made
automatically. The results gave [Delta] = 5.05 and G = 6.685 × 10^-8.
_Poynting's Experiment_ (_Phil. Trans._, vol. 182, A, 1891, P. 565).--In
1878 J. H. Poynting published an account of a preliminary experiment
which he had made to show that the common balance was available for
gravitational work. The experiment was on the same lines as that of von
Jolly but on a much smaller scale. In 1891 he gave an account of the
full experiment carried out with a larger balance and with much greater
care. The balance had a 4-ft. beam. The scale pans were removed, and
from the two arms were hung lead spheres each weighing about 20 kgm. at
a level about 120 cm. below the beam. The balance was supported in a
case above a horizontal turn-table with axis vertically below the
central knife edge, and on this turn-table was a lead sphere weighing
150 kgm.--the attracting mass. The centre of this sphere was 30 cm.
below the level of the centres of the hanging weights. The turn-table
could be rotated between stops so that the attracting mass was first
immediately below the hanging weight on one side, and then immediately
under that on the other side. On the same turn-table but at double the
distance from the centre was a second sphere of half the weight
introduced merely to balance the larger sphere and keep the centre of
gravity at the centre of the turn-table. Before the introduction of this
sphere errors were introduced through the tilting of the floor of the
balance room when the turn-table was rotated. Corrections of course had
to be made for the attraction of this second sphere. The removal of the
large mass from left to right made an increase in weight on that side of
about 1 mgm. determined by riders in a special way described in the
paper. To eliminate the attraction on the beam and the rods supporting
the hanging weights another experiment was made in which these weights
were moved up the rods through 30 cm. and on now moving the attracting
sphere from left to right the gain on the right was only about ½ mgm.
The difference, 4/5 mgm., was due entirely to change in distance of the
attracted masses. After all corrections the results gave [Delta] = 5.493
and G = 6.698 × 10^-8.
_Final Remarks._--The earlier methods in which natural masses were used
have disadvantages, as already pointed out, which render them now quite
valueless. Of later methods the Cavendish appears to possess advantages
over the common balance method in that it is more easy to ward off
temperature variations, and so avoid convection currents, and probably
more easy to determine the actual value of the attracting force. For the
present the values determined by Boys and Braun may be accepted as
having the greatest weight and we therefore take
_Mean density of the earth_ [Delta] = 5.527
_Constant of gravitation_ G = 6.658 × 10^-8.
Probably [Delta] = 5.53 and G = 6.66 × 10^-8 are correct to 1 in 500.
AUTHORITIES.--J. H. Poynting, _The Mean Density of the Earth_ (1894),
gives an account of all work up to the date of publication with a
bibliography; A. Stanley Mackenzie, _The Laws of Gravitation_ (1899),
gives annotated extracts from various papers, some historical notes
and a bibliography. _A Bibliography of Geodesy, Appendix 8, Report for
1902 of the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey_ includes a very complete
bibliography of gravitational work. (J. H. P.)
GRAVY, a word usually confined to the natural juices which come from
meat during cooking. In early uses (in the _New English Dictionary_ the
quotations date from the end of the 14th to the beginning of the 16th
centuries) it meant a sauce of broth flavoured with spices and almonds.
The more modern usage seems to date from the end of the 16th century.
The word is obscure in origin. It has been connected with "graves" or
"greaves," the refuse of tallow in the manufacture of soap or candles.
The more probable derivation is from the French. In Old French the word
is almost certainly _grané_, and is derived from _grain_, "something
used in cooking." The word was early read and spelled with a u or v
instead of n, and the corruption was adopted in English.
GRAY, ASA (1810-1888), American botanist, was born at Paris, Oneida
county, N.Y., on the 18th of November 1810. He was the son of a farmer,
and received no formal education except at the Fairfield (N.Y.) academy
and the Fairfield medical school. From Dr James Hadley, the professor of
chemistry and _materia medica_ he obtained his first instruction in
science (1825-1826). In the spring of 1827 he first began to collect and
identify plants. His formal education, such as it was, ended in February
1831, when he took the degree of M.D. His first contribution to
descriptive botany appeared in 1835, and thereafter an uninterrupted
series of contributions to systematic botany flowed from his pen for
fifty-three years. In 1836 his first botanical text-book appeared under
the title _Elements of Botany_, followed in 1839 by his _Botanical
Text-Book for Colleges, Schools, and Private Students_ which developed
into his _Structural Botany_. He published later _First Lessons in
Botany and Vegetable Physiology_ (1857); _How Plants Grow_ (1858);
_Field, Forest, and Garden_ Botany (1869); _How Plants Behave_ (1872).
These books served the purpose of developing popular interest in
botanical studies. His most important work, however, was his _Manual of
the Botany of the Northern United States_, the first edition of which
appeared in 1847. This manual has passed through a large number of
editions, is clear, accurate and compact to an extraordinary degree, and
within its geographical limits is an indispensable book for the student
of American botany.
Throughout his life Gray was a diligent writer of reviews of books on
natural history subjects. Often these reviews were elaborate essays, for
which the books served merely as texts; often they were clear and just
summaries of extensive works; sometimes they were sharply critical,
though never ill-natured or unfair; always they were interesting, lively
and of literary as well as scientific excellence. The greater part of
Gray's strictly scientific labour was devoted to a _Flora_ of North
America, the plan of which originated with his early teacher and
associate, John Torrey of New York. The second volume of Torrey and
Gray's _Flora_ was completed in 1843; but for forty years thereafter
Gray gave up a large part of his time to the preparation of his
_Synoptical Flora_ (1878). He lived at the period when the flora of
North America was being discovered, described and systematized; and his
enthusiastic labours in this fresh field placed him at the head of
American botanists and on a level with the most famous botanists of the
world. In 1856 he published a paper on the distribution of plants under
the title _Statistics of the Flora of the Northern United States_; and
this paper was followed in 1859 by a memoir on the botany of Japan and
its relations to that of North America, a paper of which Sir J. D.
Hooker said that "in point of originality and far-reaching results [it]
was its author's _opus magnum_." It was Gray's study of plant
distribution which led to his intimate correspondence with Charles
Darwin during the years in which Darwin was elaborating the doctrines
that later became known as Darwinism. From 1855 to 1875 Gray was both a
keen critic and a sympathetic exponent of the Darwinian principles. His
religious views were those of the Evangelical bodies in the Protestant
Church; so that, when Darwinism was attacked as equivalent to atheism,
he was in position to answer effectively the unfounded allegation that
it was fatal to the doctrine of design. He taught that "the most
puzzling things of all to the old-school teleologists are the
_principia_ of the Darwinian." He openly avowed his conviction that the
present species are not special creations, but rather derived from
previously existing species; and he made his avowal with frank courage,
when this truth was scarcely recognized by any naturalists, and when to
the clerical mind evolution meant atheism.
In 1842 Gray accepted the Fisher professorship of natural history in
Harvard University. On his accession to this chair the university had no
herbarium, no botanical library, few plants of any value, and but a
small garden, which for lack of money had never been well stocked or
well arranged. He soon brought together, chiefly by widespread
exchanges, a valuable herbarium and library, and arranged the garden;
and thereafter the development of these botanical resources was part of
his regular labours. The herbarium soon became the largest and most
valuable in America, and on account of the numerous type specimens it
contains it is likely to remain a collection of national importance.
Nothing of what Gray did for the botanical department of the university
has been lost; on the contrary, his labours were so well directed that
everything he originated and developed has been enlarged, improved and
placed on stable foundations. He himself made large contributions to the
establishment by giving it all his own specimens, many books and no
little money, and by his will he gave it the royalties on his books.
During his long connexion with the university he brought up two
generations of botanists and he always took a strong personal interest
in the researches and the personal prospects of the young men who had
studied under him. His scientific life was mainly spent in the herbarium
and garden in Cambridge; but his labours there were relieved by numerous
journeys to different parts of the United States and to Europe, all of
which contributed to his work on the Synoptical Flora. He lived to a
good age--long enough, indeed, to receive from learned societies at home
and abroad abundant evidence of their profound respect for his
attainments and services. He died at Cambridge, Mass., on the 30th of
January 1888.
His _Letters_ (1893) were edited by his wife; and his _Scientific
Papers_ (1888) by C. S. Sargent. (C. W. E.)
GRAY, DAVID (1838-1861), Scottish poet, the son of a hand-loom weaver,
was born at Merkland, near Glasgow, on the 29th of January 1838. His
parents resolved to educate him for the church, and through their
self-denial and his own exertions as a pupil teacher and private tutor
he was able to complete a course of four sessions at the university of
Glasgow. He began to write poetry for _The Glasgow Citizen_ and began
his idyll on the Luggie, the little stream that ran through Merkland.
His most intimate companion at this time was Robert Buchanan, the poet;
and in May 1860 the two agreed to proceed to London, with the idea of
finding literary employment. Shortly after his arrival in London Gray
introduced himself to Monckton Milnes, afterwards Lord Houghton, with
whom he had previously corresponded. Lord Houghton tried to persuade him
to return to Scotland, but Gray insisted on staying in London. He was
unsuccessful in his efforts to place Gray's poem, "The Luggie," in _The
Cornhill Magazine_, but gave him some light literary work. He also
showed him great kindness when a cold which had seized him assumed the
serious form of consumption, and sent him to Torquay; but as the disease
made rapid progress, an irresistible longing seized Gray to return to
Merkland, where he arrived in January 1861, and died on the 3rd of
December following, having the day before had the gratification of
seeing a printed specimen copy of his poem "The Luggie," published
eventually by the exertions of Sydney Dobell. He was buried in the Auld
Aisle Churchyard, Kirkintilloch, where in 1865 a monument was erected by
"friends far and near" to his memory.
"The Luggie," the principal poem of Gray, is a kind of reverie in which
the scenes and events of his childhood and his early aspirations are
mingled with the music of the stream which he celebrates. The series of
sonnets, "In the Shadows," was composed during the latter part of his
illness. Most of his poems necessarily bear traces of immaturity, and
lines may frequently be found in them which are mere echoes from
Thomson, Wordsworth or Tennyson, but they possess, nevertheless,
distinct individuality, and show a real appreciation of natural beauty.
_The Luggie and other Poems_, with an introduction by R. Monckton
Milnes, and a brief memoir by James Hedderwick, was published in 1862;
and a new and enlarged edition of Gray's _Poetical Works_, edited by
Henry Glassford Bell, appeared in 1874. See also _David Gray and other
Essays_, by Robert Buchanan (1868), and the same writer's poem on
David Gray, in _Idyls and Legends of Inverburn_.
GRAY, ELISHA (1835-1901), American electrician, was born in Barnesville,
Belmont county, Ohio, on the 2nd of August 1835. He worked as a
carpenter and in a machine shop, reading in physical science at the
same time, and for five years studied at Oberlin College, where he
taught for a time. He then investigated the subject of telegraphy, and
in 1867 patented a telegraphic switch and annunciator. Experimenting in
the transmittal of electro-tones and of musical tones by wire, he
utilized in 1874 animal tissues in his receivers, and filed, on the 14th
of February 1876, a caveat for the invention of a telephone, only a few
hours after the filing of an application for a patent by Alexander
Graham Bell. (See TELEPHONE.) The caveat was disregarded; letters patent
No. 174,465 were granted to Bell, whose priority of invention was upheld
in 1888 by the United States Supreme Court (see _Molecular Telephone
Co._ v. _American Bell Telephone Co._, 126 U.S. 1). Gray's experiments
won for him high praise and the decoration of the Legion of Honour at
the Paris Exposition of 1878. He was for a time a manufacturer of
electrical apparatus, particularly of his own inventions; and was chief
electrical expert of the Western Electric Company of Chicago. At the
Columbian Exposition of 1893 Gray was chairman of the International
Congress of Electricians. He died at Newtonville, Massachusetts, on the
21st of January 1901. Among his later inventions were appliances for
multiplex telegraphy and the telautograph, a machine for the electric
transmission of handwriting. He experimented in the submarine use of
electric bells for signalling.
Gray wrote, besides scientific addresses and many monographs,
_Telegraphy and Telephony_ (1878) and _Electricity and Magnetism_
(1900).
GRAY, HENRY PETERS (1819-1877). American portrait and genre painter, was
born in New York on the 23rd of June 1819. He was a pupil of Daniel
Huntington there, and subsequently studied in Rome and Florence. Elected
a member of the National Academy of Design in 1842, he succeeded
Huntington as president in 1870, holding the position until 1871. The
later years of his life were devoted to portrait work. He was strongly
influenced by the old Italian masters, painting in mellow colour with a
classical tendency. One of his notable canvases was an allegorical
composition called "The Birth of our Flag" (1875). He died in New York
City on the 12th of November 1877.
GRAY, HORACE (1828-1902), American jurist, was born in Boston,
Massachusetts, on the 24th of March 1828. He graduated at Harvard in
1845; was admitted to the bar in 1851, and in 1854-1861 was reporter to
the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. He practised law, first in
partnership with Ebenezer Rockwood Hoar, and later with Wilder Dwight
(1823-1862) and Charles F. Blake; was appointed associate justice of the
state Supreme Court on the 23rd of August 1864, becoming chief-justice
on the 5th of September 1873; and was associate justice of the Supreme
Court of the United States from December 1881 to August 1902, resigning
only a few weeks before his death at Nahant, Mass., on the 15th of
September 1902. Gray had a fine sense of the dignity of the bench, and a
taste for historical study. His judgments were unmistakably clear and
contained the essence of earlier opinions. A great case lawyer, he was a
much greater judge, the variety of his knowledge and his contributions
to admiralty and prize law and to testamentary law being particularly
striking; in constitutional law he was a "loose" rather than a "strict"
constructionist.
See Francis C. Lowell, "Horace Gray," in _Proceedings of the American
Academy_, vol. 39, pp. 627-637 (Boston, 1904).
GRAY, JOHN DE (d. 1214), bishop of Norwich, entered Prince John's
service, and at his accession (1199) was rapidly promoted in the church
till he became bishop of Norwich in September 1200. King John's attempt
to force him into the primacy in 1205 started the king's long and fatal
quarrel with Pope Innocent III. De Gray was a hard-working royal
official, in finance, in justice, in action, using his position to
enrich himself and his family. In 1209 he went to Ireland to govern it
as justiciar. He adopted a forward policy, attempting to extend the
English frontier northward and westward, and fought a number of
campaigns on the Shannon and in Fermanagh. But in 1212 he suffered a
great defeat. He assimilated the coinage of Ireland to that of England,
and tried to effect a similar reform in Irish law. De Gray was a good
financier, and could always raise money: this probably explains the
favour he enjoyed from King John. In 1213 he is found with 500 knights
at the great muster at Barham Downs, when Philip Augustus was
threatening to invade England. After John's reconciliation with Innocent
he was one of those exempted from the general pardon, and was forced to
go in person to Rome to obtain it. At Rome he so completely gained over
Innocent that the pope sent him back with papal letters recommending his
election to the bishopric of Durham (1213); but he died at St Jean
d'Audely in Poitou on his homeward journey (October 1214).
GRAY, JOHN EDWARD (1800-1875), English naturalist, born at Walsall,
Staffordshire, in 1800, was the eldest of the three sons of S. F. Gray,
of that town, druggist and writer on botany, and author of the
_Supplement to the Pharmacopoeia_, &c., his grandfather being S. F.
Gray, who translated the _Philosophia Botanica_ of Linnaeus for the
_Introduction to Botany_ of James Lee (1715-1795). Gray studied at St
Bartholomew's and other hospitals for the medical profession, but at an
early age was attracted to the pursuit of botany. He assisted his father
by collecting notes on botany and comparative anatomy and zoology in Sir
Joseph Banks's library at the British Museum, aided by Dr W. E. Leach,
assistant keeper, and the systematic synopsis of the _Natural
Arrangement of British Plants_, 2 vols., 1821, was prepared by him, his
father writing the preface and introduction only. In consequence of his
application for membership of the Linnaean Society being rejected in
1822, he turned to the study of zoology, writing on zoophytes, shells,
_Mollusca_ and _Papilionidae_, still aided by Dr Leach at the British
Museum. In December 1824 he obtained the post of assistant in that
institution; and from that date to December 1839, when J. G. Children
retired from the keepership, he had so zealously applied himself to the
study, classification and improvement of the national collection of
zoology that he was selected as the fittest person to be entrusted with
its charge. Immediately on his appointment as keeper, he took in hand
the revision of the systematic arrangement of the collections;
scientific catalogues followed in rapid succession; the department was
raised in importance; its poverty as well as its wealth became known,
and whilst increased grants, donations and exchanges made good many
deficiencies, great numbers of students, foreign as well as English,
availed themselves of its resources to enlarge the knowledge of zoology
in all its branches. In spite of numerous obstacles, he worked up the
department, within a few years of his appointment as keeper, to such a
state of excellence as to make it the rival of the cabinets of Leiden,
Paris and Berlin; and later on it was raised under his management to the
dignity of the largest and most complete zoological collection in the
world. Although seized with paralysis in 1870, he continued to discharge
the functions of keeper of zoology, and to contribute papers to the
_Annals of Natural History_, his favourite journal, and to the
transactions of a few of the learned societies; but at Christmas 1874,
having completed half a century of official work, he resigned office,
and died in London on the 7th of March 1875.
Gray was an exceedingly voluminous writer, and his interests were not
confined to natural history only, for he took an active part in
questions of public importance of his day, such as slave emancipation,
prison discipline, abolition of imprisonment for debt, sanitary and
municipal organizations, the decimal system, public education, extension
of the opening of museums, &c. He began to publish in 1820, and
continued till the year of his death.
The titles of the books, memoirs and miscellaneous papers written by
him, accompanied by a few notes, fill a privately printed list of 56
octavo pages with 1162 entries.
GRAY, PATRICK GRAY, 6TH BARON (d. 1612), was descended from Sir Andrew
Gray (c. 1390-1469) of Broxmouth and Foulis, who was created a Scottish
peer as Lord Gray, probably in 1445. Andrew was a leading figure in
Scottish politics during the reigns of James I. and his two successors,
and visited England as a hostage, a diplomatist and a pilgrim. The 2nd
Lord Gray was his grandson Andrew (d. 1514), and the 4th lord was the
latter's grandson Patrick (d. 1582), a participant in Scottish politics
during the stormy time of Mary, queen of Scots. Patrick's son, Patrick,
the 5th lord (d. 1609), married Barbara, daughter of William, 2nd Lord
Ruthven, and their son Patrick, known as the "Master of Gray," is the
subject of this article. Educated at Glasgow University and brought up
as a Protestant, young Patrick was married early in life to Elizabeth
Lyon, daughter of Lord Glamis, whom he repudiated almost directly; and
afterwards went to France, where he joined the friends of Mary, queen of
Scots, became a Roman Catholic, and assisted the French policy of the
Guises in Scotland. He returned and took up his residence again in
Scotland in 1583, and immediately began a career of treachery and
intrigue, gaining James's favour by disclosing to him his mother's
secrets, and acting in agreement with James Stewart, earl of Arran, in
order to keep Mary a prisoner in England. In 1584 he was sent as
ambassador to England, to effect a treaty between James and Elizabeth
and to exclude Mary. His ambition incited him at the same time to
promote a plot to secure the downfall of Arran. This was supported by
Elizabeth, and was finally accomplished by letting loose the lords
banished from Scotland for their participation in the rebellion called
the Raid of Ruthven, who, joining Gray, took possession of the king's
person at Stirling in 1585, the league with England being ratified by
the parliament in December. Gray now became the intermediary between the
English government and James on the great question of Mary's execution,
and in 1587 he was despatched on an embassy to Elizabeth, ostensibly to
save Mary's life. Gray had, however, previously advised her secret
assassination and had endeavoured to overcome all James's scruples; and
though he does not appear to have carried treachery so far as to advise
her death on this occasion, no representations made by him could have
had any force or weight. The execution of Mary caused his own downfall
and loss of political power in Scotland; and after his return he was
imprisoned on charges of plots against Protestantism, of endeavouring to
prevent the king's marriage, and of having been bribed to consent to
Mary's death. He pleaded guilty of sedition and of having obstructed the
king's marriage, and was declared a traitor; but his life was spared by
James and he was banished from the country, but permitted to return in
1589, when he was restored to his office of master of the wardrobe to
which he had been appointed in 1585. His further career was marked by
lawlessness and misconduct. In 1592, together with the 5th Lord
Bothwell, he made an unsuccessful attempt to seize the king at Falkland,
and the same year earned considerable discredit by bringing groundless
accusations against the Presbyterian minister, Robert Bruce; while after
the king's accession to the English throne he was frequently summoned
before the authorities on account of his conduct. Notwithstanding, he
never lost James's favour. In 1609 he succeeded his father as 6th Baron
Gray, and died in 1612.
Gray was an intimate friend of Sir Philip Sidney, but, if one of the
ablest, handsomest and most fascinating, he was beyond doubt one of the
most unscrupulous men of his day. He married as his second wife in 1585
Mary Stewart, daughter of Robert, earl of Orkney, and had by her,
besides six daughters, a son, Andrew (d. 1663), who succeeded him as 7th
Baron Gray. Andrew, who served for a long time in the French army, was a
supporter, although not a very prominent one, of Charles I. and
afterwards of Charles II. He was succeeded as 8th Lord Gray by Patrick
(d. 1711), a son of his daughter Anne, and Patrick's successor was his
kinsman and son-in-law John (d. 1724). On the extinction of John's
direct line in 1878 the title of Lord Gray, passed to George Stuart,
earl of Moray. In 1606 Gray had been ranked sixth among the Scottish
baronies.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Article in _Dict. of Nat. Biog._, and authorities there
quoted; Gray's relation concerning the surprise at Stirling
(_Bannatyne Club Publns._ i. 131, 1827); Andrew Lang, _History of
Scotland_, vol. ii. (1902); Peter Gray, _The Descent and Kinship of
Patrick, Master of Gray_ (1903); _Gray Papers_ (Bannatyne Club, 1835);
_Hist. MSS. Comm., Marq. of Salisbury's MSS._
GRAY, ROBERT (1809-1872), first bishop of Cape Town and metropolitan of
South Africa, was born at Bishop Wearmouth, Durham, and was the son of
Robert Gray, bishop of Bristol. He was educated at Eton and Oxford, and
took orders in 1833. After holding the livings of Whitworth, Durham,
1834-1845, and Stockton-on-Tees, 1845-1847, he was consecrated bishop of
Cape Town in 1847; the bishopric having been endowed through the
liberality of Miss (afterwards Baroness) Burdett-Coutts. Until 1853 he
was a suffragan of Canterbury, but in that year he formally resigned his
see and was reappointed by letters patent metropolitan of South Africa
in view of the contemplated establishment of the suffragan dioceses of
Graham's Town and Natal. In that capacity his coercive jurisdiction was
twice called in question, and in each case the judicial committee of the
privy council decided against him. The best-known case is that of Bishop
Colenso, whom Gray deposed and excommunicated in 1863. The spiritual
validity of the sentence was upheld by the convocation of Canterbury and
the Pan-Anglican synod of 1867, but legally Colenso remained bishop of
Natal. The privy council decisions declared, in effect, that the
Anglican body in South Africa was on the footing of a voluntary
religious society. Gray, accepting this position, obtained its
recognition by the mother church as the Church of the Province of South
Africa, in full communion with the Church of England. The first
provincial synod was held in 1870. During his episcopate Bishop Gray
effected a much-needed organization of the South African church, to
which he added five new bishoprics, all carved out of the original
diocese of Cape Town. It was also chiefly owing to his suggestions that
the universities' mission to Central Africa was founded.
GRAY, SIR THOMAS (d. c. 1369), English chronicler, was a son of Sir
Thomas Gray, who was taken prisoner by the Scots at Bannockburn and who
died about 1344. The younger Thomas was present at the battle of
Neville's Cross in 1346; in 1355, whilst acting as warden of Norham
Castle, he was made a prisoner, and during his captivity in Edinburgh
Castle he devoted his time to studying the English chroniclers, Gildas,
Bede, Ranulf Higdon and others. Released in 1357 he was appointed warden
of the east marches towards Scotland in 1367, and he died about 1369.
Gray's work, the _Scalacronica_ (so called, perhaps, from the
scaling-ladder in the crest of the Grays), is a chronicle of English
history from the earliest times to about the year 1362. It is, however,
only valuable for the reigns of Edward I. and Edward II. and part of
that of Edward III., being especially so for the account of the wars
between England and Scotland, in which the author's father and the
author himself took part. Writing in Norman-French, Gray tells of
Wallace and Bruce, of the fights at Bannockburn, Byland and Dupplin, and
makes some mention of the troubles in England during the reign of Edward
II. He also narrates the course of the war in France between 1355 and
1361; possibly he was present during some of these campaigns.
The _Scalacronica_ was summarized by John Leland in the 16th century;
the part dealing with the period from 1066 to the end, together with
the prologue, was edited for the Maitland Club by J. Stevenson (1836);
and the part from 1274 to 1362 was translated into English by Sir
Herbert Maxwell (Glasgow, 1907). In the extant manuscript, which is in
Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, there is a gap extending from about
1340 to 1355, and Gray's account of this period is only known from
Leland's summary.
GRAY, THOMAS (1716-1771), English poet, the fifth and sole surviving
child of Philip and Dorothy Gray, was born in London on the 26th of
December 1716. His mother's maiden name was Antrobus, and in partnership
with her sister Mary she kept a millinery shop in Cornhill. This and the
house connected with it were the property of Philip Gray, a
money-scrivener, who married Dorothy in 1706 and lived with her in the
house, the sisters renting the shop from him and supporting themselves
by its profits. Philip Gray had impaired the fortune which he inherited
from his father, a wealthy London merchant; yet he was sufficiently
well-to-do, and at the close of his life was building a house upon some
property of his own at Wanstead. But he was selfish and brutal, and in
1735 his wife took some abortive steps to obtain a separation from him.
At this date she had given birth to twelve children, of whom Thomas was
the only survivor. He owed his life as well as his education to this
"careful, tender mother," as he calls her. The child was suffocating
when she opened one of his veins with her own hand. He went at her
expense to Eton in 1727, and was confided to the care of her brother,
William Antrobus, one of the assistant-masters, during some part at
least of his school-life.
At Eton Gray's closest friends were Horace Walpole, Richard West (son of
the lord chancellor of Ireland and grandson of the famous Bishop
Burnet), and Thomas Ashton, afterwards fellow of Eton. This little
coterie was dubbed "the Quadruple Alliance"; its members were studious
and literary, and took little part in the amusements of their fellows.
In 1734 Gray matriculated at Peterhouse, Cambridge, of which his uncle,
Robert Antrobus, had been a fellow. At Cambridge he had once more the
companionship of Walpole and Ashton who were at King's, but West went to
Christchurch, Oxford. Gray made at this time the firmest and most
constant friendship of his life with Thomas Wharton (not the poet
Warton) of Pembroke College. He was maintained by his mother, and his
straitened means were eked out by certain small exhibitions from his
college. His conspicuous abilities and known devotion to study perhaps
atoned in the eyes of the authorities for his indifference to the
regular routine of study; for mathematics in particular he had an
aversion which was the one exception to his almost limitless curiosity
in other directions. During his first Cambridge period he learnt Italian
"like any dragon," and made translations from Guarini, Dante and Tasso,
some of which have been preserved. In September 1738 he is in the agony
of leaving college, nor can we trace his movements with any certainty
for a while, though it may be conjectured that he spent much time with
Horace Walpole, and made in his company some fashionable acquaintances
in London. On the 29th of March 1739, he started with Walpole for a long
continental tour, for the expenses of which it is probable that his
father, for once, came in some measure to his assistance. In Paris, Gray
visited the great with his friend, studied the picture-galleries, went
to tragedies, comedies, operas and cultivated there that taste for the
French classical dramatists, especially Racine, whom he afterwards tried
to imitate in the fragmentary "Agrippina." It is characteristic of him
that he travels through France with Caesar constantly in his hands, ever
noting and transcribing. In the same way, in crossing the Alps and in
Piedmont, he has "Livy in the chaise with him and Silius Italicus too."
In Italy he made a long sojourn, principally at Florence, where
Walpole's lifelong correspondent, Horace Mann, was British envoy, and
received and treated the travellers most hospitably. But Rome and Naples
are also described in Gray's letters, sometimes vividly, always
amusingly, and in his notes are almost catalogued. Herculaneum, an
object of intense interest to the young poet and antiquary, had been
discovered the year before. At length in April 1741 Gray and Walpole set
out northwards for Reggio. Here they quarrelled. Gray, "never a boy,"
was a student, and at times retiring; Walpole, in his way a student too,
was at this time a very social being, somewhat too frivolous, and, what
was worse, too patronizing. He good-humouredly said at a later date,
"Gray loves to find fault," and this fault-finding was expressed, no
doubt with exaggeration, in a letter to Ashton, who violated Gray's
confidence. The rupture followed, and with two friends, John Chute of
the Vyne, Hampshire, and the young Francis Whithed, Gray went to Venice
to see the doge wed the Adriatic on Ascension Day. Thence he returned
home attended only by a _laquais de voyage_, visiting once more the
Grande Chartreuse where he left in the album of the brotherhood those
beautiful alcaics, _O Tu severa Religio loci_, which reveal his
characteristic melancholy (enhanced by solitude and estrangement) and
that sense of the glory as distinct from the horror of mountain scenery
to which perhaps he was the first of Englishmen to give adequate
expression. On the 18th of September 1741 we find him in London,
astonishing the street boys with his deep ruffles, large bag-wig and
long sword, and "mortified" under the hands of the English barber. On
the 6th of November his father died; Philip Gray had, it is evident,
been less savage and niggardly at last to those who were dependent upon
him, and his death left his wife and son some measure of assured peace
and comfort.
London was Gray's headquarters for more than a year, with occasional
visits to Stoke Poges, to which his mother and Mary Antrobus had retired
from business to live with their sister, Mrs Rogers. At Stoke he heard
of the death of West, to whom he had sent the "Ode on Spring," which was
returned to him unopened. It was an unexpected blow, shocking in all its
circumstances, especially if we believe the story that his friend's
frail life was brought to a close by the discovery that the mother whom
he tenderly loved had been an unfaithful wife, and, as some say,
poisoned her husband. About this tragedy Gray preserved a mournful
silence, broken only by the pathetic sonnet, and some Latin lines, in
which he laments his loss. The year 1742, was, for him, fruitful in
poetic effort, of which, however, much was incomplete. The "Agrippina,"
the _De principiis Cogitandi_, the splenetic "Hymn to Ignorance" in
which he contemplates his return to the university, remain fragments;
but besides the two poems already mentioned, the "Ode on a Distant
Prospect of Eton College" and the "Hymn to Adversity," perhaps the most
faultless of his poems, were written before the close of the summer.
After hesitating between Trinity Hall and Peterhouse, he returned to the
latter, probably as a fellow-commoner. He had hitherto neglected to read
for a degree; he proceeded to that of LL.B. in 1744. In 1745 a
reconciliation with Walpole, long desired probably on both sides, was
effected through the kind offices of Chute's sister. In 1746 he spent
his time between Cambridge, Stoke and London; was much with Walpole;
graphically describes the trial of the Scottish rebel lords, and studied
Greek with avidity; but "the muse," which by this time perhaps had
stimulated him to begin the "Elegy," "has gone, and left him in much
worse company." In town he finds his friends Chute and Whithed returned
to England, and "flaunts about" in public places with them. The year
1747 produced only the ode on Walpole's cat, and we gather that he is
mainly engaged in reading with a very critical eye, and interesting
himself more in the troubles of Pembroke College, in which he almost
seems to live, than in the affairs of Peterhouse. In this year also be
made the acquaintance of Mason, his future biographer. In 1748 he first
came before the public, but anonymously, in Dodsley's _Miscellany_, in
which appeared the Eton ode, the ode on spring, and that on the cat. In
the same year he sent to Wharton the beginning of the didactic poem,
"The Alliance of Education and Government," which remains a fragment.
His aunt, Mary Antrobus, died in 1749.
There is little to break the monotony of his days till 1750, when from
Stoke he sent Walpole "a thing to which he had at last put an end." The
"thing" was the "Elegy." It was shown about in manuscript by his
admiring friend; it was impudently pirated, and Gray had it printed by
Dodsley in self-defence. Even thus it had "a pinch or two in its
cradle," of which it long bore the marks. The publication led to the one
incident in Gray's life which has a touch of romance. At Stokehouse had
come to live the widowed Lady Cobham, who learnt that the author of the
"Elegy" was her neighbour. At her instance, Lady Schaub, her visitor,
and Miss Speed, her protégée, paid him a call; the poet was out, and his
quiet mother and aunts were somewhat flustered at the apparition of
these women of fashion, whose acquaintance Gray had already made in
town. Hence the humorous "Long Story." A platonic affection sprang up
between Gray and Miss Speed; rumour, upon the death of Lady Cobham, said
that they were to be married, but the lady escaped this mild destiny to
become the Baroness de la Peyrière, afterwards Countess Viry, and a
dangerous political _intriguante_.
In 1753 all Gray's completed poems, except the sonnet on the death of
West, were published by Dodsley in a handsome volume illustrated by
Richard Bentley, the son of the celebrated master of Trinity. To these
designs we owe the verses to the artist which were posthumously
published from a MS. torn at the end. In the same year Gray's mother
died and was buried in the churchyard at Stoke Poges, the scene of the
"Elegy," in the same grave with Mary Antrobus. A visit to his friend Dr
Wharton at Durham later in the year revives his earlier impressions of
that bolder scenery which is henceforth to be in the main the framework
of his muse. Already in 1752 he had almost completed "The Progress of
Poesy," in which, and in "The Bard," the imagery is largely furnished
forth by mountain and torrent. The latter poem long held fire; Gray was
stimulated to finish it by hearing the blind Welsh harper Parry at
Cambridge. Both odes were the first-fruits of the press which Walpole
had set up at Strawberry Hill, and were printed together there in 1757.
They are genuinely Pindaric, that is, with corresponding strophes,
antistrophes and epodes. As the Greek motto prefixed to them implies,
they were vocal to the intelligent only; and these at first were few.
But the odes, if they did not attain the popularity of the "Elegy,"
marked an epoch in the history of English poetry, and the influence of
"The Bard" may be traced even in that great but very fruitful imposture,
the pseudo-Ossian of Macpherson. Gray yields to the impulse of the
Romantic movement; he has long been an admirer of ballad poetry; before
he wrote "The Bard" he had begun to study Scandinavian literature, and
the two "Norse Odes," written in 1761, were in style and metrical form
strangely anticipative of Coleridge and Scott. Meanwhile his Cambridge
life had been vexed by the freaks of the fellow-commoners of Peterhouse,
a peculiarly riotous set. He had suffered great inconvenience for a time
by the burning of his property in Cornhill, and so nervous was he on the
subject of fire that he had provided himself with a rope-ladder by which
he might descend from his college window. Under this window a
hunting-party of these rude lads raised in the early morning the cry of
fire; the poet's night-capped head appeared and was at once withdrawn.
This, or little more than this, was the simple fact out of which arose
the legend still current at Cambridge. The servile authorities of
Peterhouse treated Gray's complaints with scant respect, and he migrated
to Pembroke College. "I left my lodgings," he said, "because the rooms
were noisy, and the people of the house dirty."
In 1758 died Mrs Rogers, and Gray describes himself as employed at Stoke
in "dividing nothing" between himself and the surviving aunt, Mrs
Oliffe, whom he calls "the spawn of Cerberus and the Dragon of Wantley."
In 1759 he availed himself of the MS. treasures of the British Museum,
then for the first time open to the public, made a very long sojourn in
town, and in 1761 witnessed the coronation of George III., of which to
his friend Brown of Pembroke he wrote a very vivacious account. In his
last years he revealed a craving for a life less sedentary than
heretofore. He visited various picturesque districts of Great Britain,
exploring great houses and ruined abbeys; he was the pioneer of the
modern tourist, noting and describing in the spirit now of the poet, now
of the art-critic, now of the antiquary. In 1762 he travelled in
Yorkshire and Derbyshire; in 1764 in the Lowlands of Scotland, and
thence went to Southampton and its neighbourhood. In 1765 he revisits
Scotland; he is the guest of Lord Strathmore at Glamis; and revels in
"those monstrous creatures of God," the Highland mountains. His most
notable achievement in this direction was his journey among the English
lakes, of which he wrote an interesting account to Wharton; and even in
1770, the year before his death, he visited with his young friend Norton
Nicholls "five of the most beautiful counties of the kingdom," and
descended the Wye for 40 m. In all these quests he displays a physical
energy which surprises and even perplexes us. His true academic status
was worthily secured in 1768, when the duke of Grafton offered him the
professorship of modern history which in 1762 he had vainly endeavoured
to obtain from Bute. He wrote in 1769 the "Installation Ode" upon the
appointment of Grafton as chancellor of the university. It was almost
the only instance in which he successfully executed a task, not, in the
strictest sense, self-imposed; the great founders of the university are
tactfully memorized and pass before us in a kind of heraldic splendour.
He bore with indifference the taunts to which, from Junius and others,
he was exposed for this tribute to his patron. He was contemplating a
journey to Switzerland to visit his youthful friend de Bonstetten when,
in the summer of 1771, he was conscious of a great decline in his
physical powers. He was seized with a sudden illness when dining in his
college hall, and died of gout in the stomach on the 30th of July 1771.
His last moments were attended by his cousin Mary Antrobus, postmistress
through his influence at Cambridge and daughter of his Eton tutor; and
he was laid beside his beloved mother in the churchyard of Stoke Poges.
Owing to his shyness and reserve he had few intimate friends, but to
these his loss was irreparable; for to them he revealed himself either
in boyish levity and banter, or wise and sympathetic counsel and tender
and yet manly consolation; to them he imparted his quiet but keen
observation of passing events or the stores of his extensive reading in
literature ancient, medieval or modern; and with Proteus-like variety he
writes at one time as a speculative philosopher, at another as a critic
in art or music, at another as a meteorologist and nature-lover. His
friendship with the young, after his migration to Pembroke College, is a
noteworthy trait in his character. With Lord Strathmore and the Lyons
and with William Palgrave he conversed as an elder brother, and Norton
Nicholls of Trinity Hall lost in him a second father, who had taught him
to think and feel. The brilliant young foreigner, de Bonstetten, looked
back after a long and chequered career with remembrance still vivid to
the days in which the poet so soon to die taught him to read Shakespeare
and Milton in the monastic gloom of Cambridge. With the elderly
"Levites" of the place he was less in sympathy; they dreaded his
sarcastic vein; they were conscious that he laughed at them, and in the
polemics of the university he was somewhat of a free lance, fighting for
his own hand. Lampoons of his were privately circulated with effect, and
that he could be the fiercest of satirists the "Cambridge Courtship" on
the candidature of Lord Sandwich for the office of high steward, and the
verses on Lord Holland's mimic ruins at Westgate, sufficiently prove.
The faculty which he displayed in humour and satire was denied to his
more serious muse; there all was the fruit of long delay; of that higher
inspiration he had a thin but very precious vein, and the sublimity
which he undoubtedly attained was reached by an effort of which captious
and even sympathetic criticism can discover the traces. In his own time
he was regarded as an innovator, for like Collins he revived the poetic
diction of the past, and the adverse judgments of Johnson and others
upon his work are in fact a defence of the current literary traditions.
Few men have published so little to so much effect; few have attained to
fame with so little ambition. His favourite maxim was "to be employed is
to be happy," but he was always employed in the first instance for the
satisfaction of his own soul, and to this end and no other he made
himself one of the best Greek scholars at Cambridge in the interval
between Bentley and Porson. His genius was receptive rather than
creative, and it is to be regretted that he lacked energy to achieve
that history of English poetry which he once projected, and for which he
possessed far more knowledge and insight than the poet Thomas Warton, to
whom he resigned the task. He had a fine taste in music, painting and
architecture; and his correspondence includes a wide survey of such
European literature as was accessible to him, with criticisms, sometimes
indeed a little limited and insular, yet of a singularly fresh and
modern cast. In person he was below the middle height, but well-made,
and his face, in which the primness of his features was redeemed by his
flashing eyes, was the index of his character. There was a touch of
affectation in his demeanour, and he was sometimes reticent and
secretive even to his best friends. He was a refined Epicurean in his
habits, and a deist rather than a Christian in his religious beliefs;
but his friend, Mrs Bonfoy, had "taught him to pray" and he was keenly
alive to the dangers of a flippant scepticism. In a beautiful alcaic
stanza he pronounces the man supremely happy who in the depths of the
heart is conscious of the "fount of tears," and his characteristic
melancholy, except in the few hours when it was indeed black, was not a
pitiable state; rather, it was one secret of the charm both of the man
and of the poet.
A very complete bibliography of Gray will be found in Dr. Bradshaw's
edition of the poems in the Aldine series. Dodsley published ten of
the poems, exclusive of the "Long Story," in 1768. Mason's _Life of
Gray_ (1778) included the poems and some hitherto unpublished
fragments, with a selection from his letters, much garbled. Mathias in
1814 reprinted Mason's edition and added much from Gray's MS.
commentaries together with some more of his translations. The most
exhaustive edition of Gray's writings was achieved by the Rev. John
Mitford, who first did justice to the correspondence with Wharton and
Norton Nicholls (5 vols., Pickering, 1836-1843; correspondence of Gray
and Mason, Bentley, 1853); see also the edition of the works by Edmund
Gosse (4 vols., 1884); the Life by the same in Eng. Men of Letters
(2nd ed., 1889); some further relics are given in _Gray and His
Friends_ by D. C. Tovey (Cambridge, 1890); and a new edition of the
letters copiously annotated by D. C. Tovey is in the Standard Library
(1900-1907). Nicholl's _Illustrations_, vol. vi. p. 805, quoted by
Professor Kittredge in the _Nation_, Sept. 12th, 1900, gives the true
story of Gray's migration to Pembroke College. Matthew Arnold's essay
on Gray in Ward's _English Poets_ is one of the minor classics of
literary criticism. (D. C. To.)
GRAY (or GREY), WALTER DE (d. 1255), English prelate and statesman, was
a nephew of John de Gray, bishop of Norwich, and was educated at Oxford.
He owed his early and rapid preferment in church and state to the favour
of King John, becoming the king's chancellor in 1205, and being chosen
bishop of Lichfield in 1210. He was, however, not allowed to keep this
bishopric, but he became bishop of Worcester in 1214, resigning his
office as chancellor in the same year. Gray was with John when the king
signed Magna Carta in June 1215; soon after this event he left England
on the king's business, and it was during his absence that he was forced
into the archbishopric of York, owing his election to the good offices
of John and of Pope Innocent III. He took a leading part in public
affairs during the minority of Henry III., and was regarded with much
favour by this king, who employed him on important errands to foreign
potentates, and left him as guardian of England when he went to France
in 1242. Afterwards the archbishop seems to have been less favourably
disposed towards Henry, and for a time he absented himself from public
business; however, in 1255, he visited London to attend a meeting of
parliament, and died at Fulham on the 1st of May 1255. Gray was always
anxious to assert his archiepiscopal authority over Scotland, and to
maintain it against the archbishop of Canterbury, but in neither case
was he very successful. He built the south transept of the minster at
York and bought for his see the village, afterwards called Bishopthorpe,
which is still the residence of the archbishop of York. He was also
generous to the church at Ripon. Gray was regarded by his contemporaries
as an avaricious, but patriotic man.
GRAY, a town of eastern France, capital of an arrondissement in the
department of Haute-Saône, situated on the declivity of a hill on the
left bank of the Saône, 36 m. S.W. of Vesoul by the Eastern railway.
Pop. (1906) 5742. The streets of the town are narrow and steep, but it
possesses broad and beautiful quays and has a busy port. Three bridges,
one dating from the 18th century, unite it to suburbs on the right bank
of the river, on which is the railway-station from which lines branch
off to Auxonne, Dijon, Besançon and Culmont-Chalindrey. The principal
buildings are the Gothic church, restored in the style of the
Renaissance but with a modern portal, and the hôtel de ville, built by
the Spaniards in 1568. The latter building has a handsome façade
decorated with columns of red granite. Gray is the seat of a subprefect
and has tribunals of first instance and of commerce, a chamber of
commerce, a communal college and a small museum. It has large
flour-mills; among the other industries is the manufacture of machinery
and iron goods. There is also a considerable transit traffic in goods
from the south of France and the colonies, and trade in iron, corn,
provisions, vegetables, wine, wood, &c., much of which is carried by
river. Gray was founded in the 7th century. Its fortifications were
destroyed by Louis XIV. During the Franco-German War General von Werder
concentrated his army corps in the town and held it for a month, making
it the _point d'appui_ of movements towards Dijon and Langres, as well
as towards Besançon.
Gray gave its name to the distinguished English family of de Gray, Gray
or Grey, Anschitel de Gray being mentioned as an Oxfordshire tenant in
Domesday.
GRAYLING (_Thymallus_), fishes belonging to the family _Salmonidae_. The
best known are the "poisson bleu" of the Canadian voyageurs, and the
European species, _Thymallus vulgaris_ (the _Asch_ or _Äsche_ of
Germany, _ombre_ of France, and _temola_ of Upper Italy). This latter
species is esteemed on account of its agreeable colours (especially of
the dorsal fin), its well-flavoured flesh, and the sport it affords to
anglers. The grayling differ from the genus _Salmo_ in the smaller mouth
with comparatively feeble dentition, in the larger scales, and
especially in the much greater development of the dorsal fin, which
contains 20 to 24 rays. These beautiful fishes, of which five or six
species are known, inhabit the fresh waters of Europe, Siberia and the
northern parts of North America. The European species, _T. vulgaris_ or
_vexillifer_, attains, though rarely, a length of 2 ft. The colours
during life are remarkably changeable and iridescent; small dark spots
are sometimes present on the body; the very high dorsal fin is
beautifully marked with purplish bands and ocelli. In England and
Scotland the grayling appears to have had originally a rather irregular
distribution, but it has now been introduced into a great number of
rivers; it is not found in Ireland. It is more generally distributed in
Scandinavia and Russia, and the mountain streams of central Europe
southwards to the Alpine water of Upper Italy. Specimens attaining to a
weight of 4 lb. are very scarce.
GRAYS THURROCK, or GRAYS, an urban district in the south-eastern
parliamentary division of Essex, England, on the Thames, 20 m. E. by S.
from London by the London, Tilbury & Southend railway. Pop. (1901)
13,834. The church of St Peter and St Paul, wholly rebuilt, retains some
Norman work. The town takes its name from a family of Gray who held the
manor for three centuries from 1149. There are an endowed and two
training ship schools. Roman remains have been found in the vicinity;
and the geological formations exhibiting the process of silting up of a
former river channel are exposed in the quarries, and contain large
mammalian remains. The town has trade in bricks, lime and cement.
GRAZ [GRATZ], the capital of the Austrian duchy and crownland of Styria,
140 m. S.W. of Vienna by rail. Pop. (1900) 138,370. It is picturesquely
situated on both banks of the Mur, just where this river enters a broad
and fertile valley, and the beauty of its position has given rise to the
punning French description, _La Ville des grâces sur la rivière de
l'amour_. The main town lies on the left bank of the river at the foot
of the Schlossberg (1545 ft.) which dominates the town. The beautiful
valley traversed by the Mur, known as the Grazer Feld and bounded by the
Wildonerberge, extends to the south; to the S.W. rise the Bacher Gebirge
and the Koralpen; to the N. the Schöckel (4745 ft.), and to the N.W. the
Alps of Upper Styria. On the Schlossberg, which can be ascended by a
cable tramway, beautiful parks have been laid out, and on its top is the
bell-tower, 60 ft. high, and the quaint clock-tower, 52 ft. high, which
bears a gigantic clock-dial. At the foot of the Schlossberg is the
Stadt-Park.
Among the numerous churches of the city the most important is the
cathedral of St Aegidius, a Gothic building erected by the emperor
Frederick III. in 1450-1462 on the site of a previous church mentioned
as early as 1157. It has been several times modified and redecorated,
more particularly in 1718. The present copper spire dates from 1663. The
interior is richly adorned with stained-glass windows of modern date,
costly shrines, paintings and tombs. In the immediate neighbourhood of
the cathedral is the mausoleum church erected by the emperor Ferdinand
II. Worthy of mention also are the parish church, a Late Gothic
building, finished in 1520, and restored in 1875, which possesses an
altar piece by Tintoretto; the Augustinian church, appropriated to the
service of the university since 1827; the small Leech Kirche, an
interesting building in Early Gothic style, dating from the 13th
century, and the Herz Jesu-Kirche, a building in Early Gothic style,
finished in 1891, with a tower 360 ft. high. Of the secular buildings
the most important is the Landhaus, where the local diet holds its
sittings, erected in the 16th century in the Renaissance style. It
possesses an interesting portal and a beautiful arcaded court, and
amongst the curiosities preserved here is the Styrian hat. In its
neighbourhood is the Zeughaus or arsenal, built in 1644, which contains
a very rich collection of weapons of the 15th-17th centuries, and which
is maintained exactly in the same condition as it was 250 years ago. The
town hall, built in 1807, and rebuilt in 1892 in the German Renaissance
style, and the imperial castle, dating from the 11th century, now used
as government offices, are also worth notice.
At the head of the educational institutions is the university founded in
1586 by the Austrian archduke Charles Francis, and restored in 1817
after an interruption of 45 years. It is now housed in a magnificent
building, finished in 1895, and is endowed with numerous scientific
laboratories and a rich library. It had in 1901 a teaching staff of 161
professors and lecturers, and 1652 students, including many Italians
from the Küstenland and Dalmatia. The Joanneum Museum, founded in 1811
by the archduke John Baptist, has become very rich in many departments,
and an additional huge building in the rococo style was erected in 1895
for its accommodation. The technical college, founded in 1814 by the
archduke John Baptist, had in 1901 about 400 pupils.
An active trade, fostered by abundant railway communications, is
combined with manufactures of iron and steel wares, paper, chemicals,
vinegar, physical and optical instruments, besides artistic printing and
lithography. The extensive workshops of the Southern railway are at
Graz, and since the opening of the railway to the rich coal-fields of
Köflach the number of industrial establishments has greatly increased.
Amongst the numerous interesting places in the neighbourhood are: the
Hilmteich, with the Hilmwarte, about 100 ft. high; and the Rosenberg
(1570 ft.), whence the ascent of the Platte (2136 ft.) with extensive
view is made. At the foot of the Rosenberg is Maria Grün, with a large
sanatorium. All these places are situated to the N. of Graz. On the left
bank of the Mur is the pilgrimage church of Maria Trost, built in 1714;
on the right bank is the castle of Eggenberg, built in the 17th century.
To the S.W. is the Buchkogel (2150 ft.), with a magnificent view, and a
little farther south is the watering-place of Tobelbad.
_History._--Graz may possibly have been a Roman site, but the first
mention of it under its present name is in a document of A.D. 881, after
which it became the residence of the rulers of the surrounding district,
known later as Styria. Its privileges were confirmed by King Rudolph I.
in 1281. Surrounded with walls and fosses in 1435, it was able in 1481
to defend itself against the Hungarians under Matthias Corvinus, and in
1529 and 1532 the Turks attacked it with as little success. As early as
1530 the Lutheran doctrine was preached in Graz by Seifried and Jacob
von Eggenberg, and in 1540 Eggenberg founded the Paradies or Lutheran
school, in which Kepler afterwards taught. But the archduke Charles
burned 20,000 Protestant books in the square of the present lunatic
asylum, and succeeded by his oppressive measures in bringing the city
again under the authority of Rome. From the earlier part of the 15th
century Graz was the residence of one branch of the family of Habsburg,
a branch which succeeded to the imperial throne in 1619 in the person of
Ferdinand II. New fortifications were constructed in the end of the 16th
century by Franz von Poppendorf, and in 1644 the town afforded an asylum
to the family of Ferdinand III. The French were in possession of the
place in 1797 and again in 1805; and in 1809 Marshal Macdonald having,
in accordance with the terms of the peace of Vienna, entered the citadel
which he had vainly besieged, blew it all up with the exception of the
bell-tower and the citizens' or clock tower. It benefited greatly during
the 19th century from the care of the archduke John and received
extended civic privileges in 1860.
See Ilwof and Peters, _Graz, Geschichte und Topographie der Stadt_
(Graz, 1875); G. Fels, _Graz und seine Umgebung_ (Graz, 1898); L.
Mayer, _Die Stadt der Grazien_ (Graz, 1897), and Hofrichter,
_Rückblicke in die Vergangenheit von Graz_ (Graz, 1885).
GRAZZINI, ANTONIO FRANCESCO (1503-1583), Italian author, was born at
Florence on the 22nd of March 1503, of good family both by his father's
and mother's side. Of his youth and education all record appears to be
lost, but he probably began early to practise as an apothecary. In 1540
he was one of the founders of the Academy of the Humid (degli Umidi)
afterwards called "della Fiorentina," and later took a prominent part in
the establishment of the more famous Accademia della Crusca. In both
societies he was known as _Il Lasca_ or _Leuciscus_, and this pseudonym
is still frequently substituted for his proper name. His temper was what
the French happily call a difficult one, and his life was consequently
enlivened or disturbed by various literary quarrels. His Humid brethren
went so far as to expel him for a time from the society--the chief
ground of offence being apparently his ruthless criticism of the
"Arameans," a party of the academicians who maintained that the
Florentine or Tuscan tongue was derived from the Hebrew, the Chaldee, or
some other branch of the Semitic. He was readmitted in 1566, when his
friend Salviati was "consul" of the academy. His death took place on the
18th of February 1583. Il Lasca ranks as one of the great masters of
Tuscan prose. His style is copious and flexible; abundantly idiomatic,
but without any affectation of being so, it carries with it the force
and freshness of popular speech, while it lacks not at the same time a
flavour of academic culture. His principal works are _Le Cene_ (1756), a
collection of stories in the manner of Boccaccio, and a number of prose
comedies, _La Gelosia_ (1568), _La Spiritata_ (1561), _I Parentadi_, _La
Arenga_, _La Sibilla_, _La Pinzochera_, _L' Arzigogolo_. The stories,
though of no special merit as far as the plots are concerned, are told
with verve and interest. A number of miscellaneous poems, a few letters
and _Four Orations to the Cross_ complete the list of Grazzini's extant
works.
He also edited the works of Berni, and collected _Tutti i trionfi,
larri, mascherate, e canti carnascialaschi, andati per Firenze dal
tempo del magnifico Lorenzo de' Medici fino all' anno 1559_. In 1868
Adamo Rossi published in his _Ricerche per le biblioteche di Perugia_
three "novelle" by Grazzini, from a MS. of the 16th century in the
"Comunale" of Perugia: and in 1870 a small collection of those poems
which have been left unpublished by previous editors appeared at
Poggibonsi, _Alcune Poesie inedite_. See Pietro Fanfani's "Vita del
Lasca," prefixed to his edition of the _Opere di A. Grazzini_
(Florence, 1857).
GREAT AWAKENING, the name given to a remarkable religious revival
centring in New England in 1740-1743, but covering all the American
colonies in 1740-1750. The word "awakening" in this sense was frequently
(and possibly first) used by Jonathan Edwards at the time of the
Northampton revival of 1734-1735, which spread through the Connecticut
Valley and prepared the way for the work in Rhode Island, Massachusetts
and Connecticut (1740-1741) of George Whitefield, who had previously
been preaching in the South, especially at Savannah, Georgia. He, his
immediate follower, Gilbert Tennent (1703-1764), other clergymen, such
as James Davenport, and many untrained laymen who took up the work,
agreed in the emotional and dramatic character of their preaching, in
rousing their hearers to a high pitch of excitement, often amounting to
frenzy, in the undue stress they put upon "bodily effects" (the physical
manifestations of an abnormal psychic state) as proofs of conversion,
and in their unrestrained attacks upon the many clergymen who did not
join them and whom they called "dead men," unconverted, unregenerate and
careless of the spiritual condition of their parishes. Jonathan Edwards,
Benjamin Colman (1675-1747), and Joseph Bellamy, recognized the
viciousness of so extreme a position. Edwards personally reprimanded
Whitefield for presuming to say of any one that he was unconverted, and
in his _Thoughts Concerning the Present Revival of Religion_ devoted
much space to "showing what things are to be corrected, or avoided, in
promoting this work." Edwards' famous sermon at Enfield in 1741 so
affected his audience that they cried and groaned aloud, and he found
it necessary to bid them be still that he might go on; but Davenport
and many itinerants provoked and invited shouting and even writhing, and
other physical manifestations. At its May session in 1742 the General
Court of Massachusetts forbade itinerant preaching save with full
consent from the resident pastor; in May 1743 the annual ministerial
convention, by a small plurality, declared against "several errors in
doctrine and disorders in practice which have of late obtained in
various parts of the land," against lay preachers and disorderly revival
meetings; in the same year Charles Chauncy, who disapproved of the
revival, published _Seasonable Thoughts on the State of Religion in New
England_; and in 1744-1745 Whitefield, upon his second tour in New
England, found that the faculties of Harvard and Yale had officially
"testified" and "declared" against him and that most pulpits were closed
to him. Some separatist churches were formed as a result of the
Awakening; these either died out or became Baptist congregations. To the
reaction against the gross methods of the revival has been ascribed the
religious apathy of New England during the last years of the 18th
century; but the martial and political excitement, beginning with King
George's War (i.e. the American part of the War of the Austrian
Succession) and running through the American War of Independence and the
founding of the American government, must be reckoned at the least as
contributing causes.
See Joseph Tracy, _The Great Awakening_ (Boston, 1842); Samuel P.
Hayes, "An Historical Study of the Edwardean Revivals," in _The
American Journal of Psychology_, vol. 13 (Worcester, Mass., 1902); and
Frederick M. Davenport, _Primitive Traits in Religious Revivals_ (New
York, 1905), especially chapter viii. pp. 94-131. (R. We.)
GREAT BARRIER REEF, a vast coral reef extending for 1200 m. along the
north-east coast of Australia (q.v.). The channel within it is protected
from heavy seas by the reef, and is a valuable route of communication
for coasting steamers. The reef itself is also traversed by a number of
navigable passages.
GREAT BARRINGTON, a township of Berkshire county, Massachusetts, U.S.A.,
on the Housatonic river, in the Berkshire hills, about 25 m. S.W. of
Pittsfield. Pop. (1890) 4612; (1900) 5854, of whom 1187 were
foreign-born; (1910 census) 5926. Its area is about 45 sq. m. The
township is traversed by a branch of the New York, New Haven & Hartford
railroad, and the Berkshire Street railway (controlled by the N.Y., N.H.
& H.) has its southern terminus here. Within the township are three
villages--Great Barrington (the most important), Housatonic and Van
Deusenville; the first two are about 5 m. apart. The village of Great
Barrington, among the hills, is well known as a summer resort. The
Congregational church with its magnificent organ (3954 pipes) is worthy
of mention. There is a public library in the village of Great Barrington
and another in the village of Housatonic. Monument Mt. (1710 ft.),
partly in Stockbridge, commands a fine view of the Berkshires and the
Housatonic Valley. The Sedgwick School (for boys) was removed from
Hartford, Connecticut, to Great Barrington in 1869. There are various
manufactures, including cotton-goods (in the village of Housatonic), and
electric meters, paper, knit goods and counterpanes (in the village of
Great Barrington); and marble and blue stone are quarried here; but the
township is primarily given over to farming. The fair of the Housatonic
Agricultural Society is held here annually during September; and the
district court of South Berkshire sits here. The township was
incorporated in 1761, having been, since 1743, the "North Parish of
Sheffield"; the township of Sheffield, earlier known as the "Lower
Housatonic Plantation" was incorporated in 1733. Great Barrington was
named in honour of John Shute (1678-1734), Viscount Barrington of
Ardglass (the adjective "Great" being added to distinguish it from
another township of the same name). In 1761-1787 it was the shire-town.
Great Barrington was a centre of the disaffection during Shays's
rebellion, and on the 12th of September 1786 a riot here prevented the
sitting of court. Samuel Hopkins, one of the most eminent of American
theologians, was pastor here in 1743-1769; General Joseph Dwight
(1703-1765), a merchant, lawyer and brigadier-general of Massachusetts
militia, who took part in the Louisburg expedition in 1745 and later in
the French and Indian War, lived here from 1758 until his death; and
William Cullen Bryant lived here as a lawyer and town clerk in
1816-1825.
See C. J. Taylor, _History of Great Barrington_ (Great Barrington,
1882).
GREAT BASIN, an area in the western Cordilleran region of the United
States of America, about 200,000 sq. m. in extent, characterized by
wholly interior drainage, a peculiar mountain system and extreme
aridity. Its form is approximately that of an isosceles triangle, with
the sharp angle extending into Lower California, W. of the Colorado
river; the northern edge being formed by the divide of the drainage
basin of the Columbia river, the eastern by that of the Colorado, the
western by the central part of the Sierra Nevada crest, and by other
high mountains. The N. boundary and much of the E. is not conspicuously
uplifted, being plateau, rather than mountain. The W. half of Utah, the
S.W. corner of Wyoming, the S.E. corner of Idaho, a large area in S.E.
Oregon, much of S. California, a strip along the E. border of the
last-named state, and almost the whole of Nevada are embraced within the
limits of the Great Basin.
The Great Basin is not, as its name implies, a topographic cup. Its
surface is of varied character, with many independent closed basins
draining into lakes or "playas," none of which, however, has outlet to
the sea. The mountain chains, which from their peculiar geologic
character are known as of the "Basin Range type" (not exactly
conterminous in distribution with the Basin), are echeloned in short
ranges running from N. to S. Many of them are fault block mountains, the
crust having been broken and the blocks tilted so that there is a steep
face on one side and a gentle slope on the other. This is the Basin
Range type of mountain. These mountains are among the most recent in the
continent, and some of them, at least, are still growing. In numerous
instances clear evidence of recent movements along the fault planes has
been discovered; and frequent earthquakes testify with equal force to
the present uplift of the mountain blocks. The valleys between the
tilted mountain blocks are smooth and often trough-like, and are often
the sites of shallow salt lakes or playas. By the rain wash and wind
action detritus from the mountains is carried to these valley floors,
raising their level, and often burying low mountain spurs, so as to
cause neighbouring valleys to coalesce. The plateau "lowlands" in the
centre of the Basin are approximately 5000 ft. in altitude. Southward
the altitude falls, Death valley and Coahuila valley being in part below
the level of the sea. The whole Basin is marked by three features of
elevation--the Utah basin, the Nevada basin and, between them, the
Nevada plateau.
Over the lowlands of the Basin, taken generally, there is an average
precipitation of perhaps 6-7 in., while in the Oregon region it is twice
as great, and in the southern parts even less. The mountains receive
somewhat more. The annual evaporation from water surfaces is from 60 to
150 in. (60 to 80 on the Great Salt Lake). The reason for the arid
climate differs in different sections. In the north it is due to the
fact that the winds from the Pacific lose most of their moisture,
especially in winter, on the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada; in the
south it is due to the fact that the region lies in a zone of calms, and
light, variable winds. Precipitation is largely confined to local
showers, often of such violence as to warrant the name "cloud bursts,"
commonly applied to the heavy down-pours of this desert region. It is
these heavy rains, of brief duration, when great volumes of water
rapidly run off from the barren slopes, that cause the deep channels, or
arroyas, which cross the desert. Permanent streams are rare. Many
mountains are quite without perennial streams, and some lack even
springs. Few of the mountain creeks succeed in reaching the arid plains,
and those that do quickly disappear by evaporation or by seepage into
the gravels. In the N.W. there are many permanent lakes without outlet
fed by the mountain streams; others, snow fed, occur among the Sierra
Nevada; and some in the larger mountain masses of the middle region.
Almost all are saline. The largest of all, Great Salt Lake, is
maintained by the waters of the Wasatch and associated plateaus. No
lakes occur south of Owens in the W. and Sevier in the E. (39°);
evaporation below these limits is supreme. Most of the small closed
basins, however, contain "playas," or alkali mud flats, that are
overflowed when the tributary streams are supplied with storm water.
Save where irrigation has reclaimed small areas, the whole region is a
vast desert, though locally only some of the interior plains are known
as "deserts." Such are the Great Salt Lake and Carson deserts in the
north, the Mohave and Colorado and Amargosa (Death Valley) deserts of
the south-west. Straggling forests, mainly of conifers, characterize the
high plateaus of central Utah. The lowlands and the lower mountains,
especially southward, are generally treeless. Cottonwoods line the
streams, salt-loving vegetation margins the bare playas, low bushes and
scattered bunch-grass grow over the lowlands, especially in the north.
Gray desert plants, notably cactuses and other thorny plants, partly
replace in the south the bushes of the north. Except on the scattered
oases, where irrigation from springs and mountain streams has reclaimed
small patches, the desert is barren and forbidding in the extreme. There
are broad plains covered with salt and alkali, and others supporting
only scattered bunch grass, sage bush, cactus and other arid land
plants. There are stony wastes, or alluvial fans, where mountain streams
emerge upon the plains, in time of flood, bringing detritus in their
torrential courses from the mountain canyons and depositing it along the
mountain base. The barrenness extends into the mountains themselves,
where there are bare rock cliffs, stony slopes and a general absence of
vegetation. With increasing altitude vegetation becomes more varied and
abundant, until the tree limit is reached; then follows a forest belt,
which in the highest mountains is limited above by cold as it is below
by aridity.
The successive explorations of B. L. E. Bonneville, J. C. Frémont and
Howard Stansbury (1806-1863) furnished a general knowledge of the
hydrographic features and geological lacustrine history of the Great
Basin, and this knowledge was rounded out by the field work of the U.S.
Geological Survey from 1879 to 1883, under the direction of Grove Karl
Gilbert. The mountains are composed in great part of Paleozoic strata,
often modified by vulcanism and greatly denuded and sculptured by wind
and water erosion. The climate in late geologic time was very different
from that which prevails to-day. In the Pleistocene period many large
lakes were formed within the Great Basin; especially, by the fusion of
small catchment basins, two great confluent bodies of water--Lake
Lahontan (in the Nevada basin) and Lake Bonneville (in the Utah basin).
The latter, the remnants of which are represented to-day by Great Salt,
Sevier and Utah Lakes, had a drainage basin of some 54,000 sq. m.
See G. K. Gilbert in Wheeler Survey, _U.S. Geographical Survey West of
the Hundredth Meridian_, vol. iii.; Clarence King and others in the
_Report of the Fortieth Parallel Survey_ (U.S. Geol. Exploration of
the Fortieth Parallel); G. K. Gilbert's _Lake Bonneville_ (U.S.
Geological Survey, _Monographs_, No. 1, 1890), also I. C. Russell's
_Lake Lahontan_ (Same, No. 11, 1885), with references to other
publications of the Survey. For reference to later geological
literature, and discussion of the Basin Ranges, see J. E. Spurr,
_Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer._ vol. 12, 1901, p. 217; and G. D. Louderback,
same, vol. 15, 1904, p. 280; also general bibliographies issued by the
U.S. Geol. Survey (e.g. _Bull._ 301, 372 and 409).
GREAT BEAR LAKE, an extensive sheet of fresh water in the north-west of
Canada, between 65° and 67° N., and 117° and 123° W. It is of very
irregular shape, has an estimated area of 11,200 sq. m., a depth of 270
ft., and is upwards of 200 ft. above the sea. It is 175 m. in length,
and from 25 to 45 in breadth, though the greatest distance between its
northern and southern arms is about 180 m. The Great Bear river
discharges its waters into the Mackenzie river. It is full of fish, and
the neighbouring country, though barren and uncultivated, contains
quantities of game.
GREAT CIRCLE. The circle in which a sphere is cut by a plane is called a
"great circle," when the cutting plane passes through the centre of
sphere. Treating the earth as a sphere, the meridians of longitude are
all great circles. Of the parallels of latitude, the equator only is a
great circle. The shortest line joining any two points is an arc of a
great circle. For "great circle sailing" see NAVIGATION.
GREAT FALLS, a city and the county-seat of Cascade county, Montana,
U.S.A., 99 m. (by rail) N.E. of Helena, on the S. bank of the Missouri
river, opposite the mouth of the Sun river, at an altitude of about 3300
ft. It is 10 m. above the Great Falls of the Missouri, from which it
derives its name. Pop. (1890) 3979; (1900) 14,930, of whom 4692 were
foreign-born; (1910 census) 13,948. It has an area of about 8 sq. m. It
is served by the Great Northern and the Billings & Northern (Chicago,
Burlington & Quincy system) railways. The city has a splendid park
system of seven parks (about 530 acres) with 15 m. of boulevards.[1]
Among the principal buildings are a city hall, court house, high school,
commercial college, Carnegie library, the Columbus Hospital and Training
School for Nurses (under the supervision of the Sisters of Charity), and
the Montana Deaconess hospital. There is a Federal land office in the
city. Great Falls lies in the midst of a region exceptionally rich in
minerals--copper, gold, silver, lead, iron, gypsum, limestone, sapphires
and bituminous coal being mined in the neighbourhood. Much grain is
grown in the vicinity, and the city is an important shipping point for
wool, live-stock and cereals. Near Great Falls the Missouri river,
within 7½ m., contracts from a width of about 900 to 300 yds. and falls
more than 500 ft., the principal falls being the Black Eagle Falls (50
ft.), from which power is derived for the city's street railway and
lighting plant, the beautiful Rainbow Falls (48 ft.) and Great Falls (92
ft.). Giant Spring Fall, about 20 ft. high, is a cascade formed by a
spring on the bank of the river near Rainbow Falls. The river furnishes
very valuable water-power, partly utilized by large manufacturing
establishments, including flour mills, plaster mills, breweries, iron
works, mining machinery shops, and smelting and reduction works. The
Boston & Montana copper smelter is one of the largest in the world; it
has a chimney stack 506 ft. high, and in 1908 employed 1200 men in the
smelter and 2500 in its mining department. Great Falls ranked second (to
Anaconda) among the cities of the state in the value of the factory
product of 1905, which was $13,291,979, showing an increase of 42.4%
since 1900. The city owns and operates its water-supply system. Great
Falls was settled in 1884, and was chartered as a city in 1888.
FOOTNOTE:
[1] Great Falls was a pioneer among the cities of the state in the
development of a park system. When the city was first settled its
site was a "barren tract of sand, thinly covered with buffalo-grass
and patches of sage brush." The first settler, Paris Gibson, of
Minneapolis, began the planting of trees, which, though not
indigenous, grew well. The city's sidewalks are bordered by strips of
lawn, in which there is a row of trees, and the city maintains a
large nursery where trees are grown for this purpose. A general state
law (1901) placing the parking of cities on a sound financial basis
is due very largely to the impulse furnished by Great Falls. See an
article, "Great Falls, the Pioneer Park City of Montana," by C. H.
Forbes-Lindsay, in the _Craftsman_ for November 1908.
GREAT HARWOOD, an urban district in the Darwen parliamentary division of
Lancashire, England, 4½ m. N.E. of Blackburn, on the Lancashire and
Yorkshire railway. Pop. (1901) 12,015. It is of modern growth, a
township of cotton operatives, with large collieries in the vicinity. An
agricultural society is also maintained.
GREATHEAD, JAMES HENRY (1844-1896), British engineer, was born at
Grahamstown, Cape Colony, on the 6th of August 1844. He migrated to
England in 1859, and in 1864 was a pupil of P. W. Barlow, from whom he
became acquainted with the shield system of tunnelling with which his
name is especially associated. Barlow, indeed, had a strong belief in
the shield, and was the author of a scheme for facilitating the traffic
of London by the construction of underground railways running in
cast-iron tubes constructed by its aid. To show what the method could
do, it was resolved to make a subway under the Thames near the Tower,
but the troubles encountered by Sir M. I. Brunel in the Thames Tunnel,
where also a shield was employed, made engineers hesitate to undertake
the subway, even though it was of very much smaller dimensions (6 ft. 7
in. internal diameter) than the tunnel. At this juncture Greathead came
forward and offered to take up the contract; and he successfully carried
it through in 1869 without finding any necessity to resort to the use of
compressed air, which Barlow in 1867 had suggested might be employed in
water-bearing strata. After this he began to practise on his own
account, and mainly divided his time between railway construction and
taking out patents for improvements in his shield, and for other
inventions such as the "Ejector" fire-hydrant. Early in the 'eighties he
began to work in conjunction with a company whose aim was to introduce
into London from America the Hallidie system of cable traction, and in
1884 an act of Parliament was obtained authorizing what is now the City
& South London Railway--a tube-railway to be worked by cables. This was
begun in 1886, and the tunnels were driven by means of the Greathead
shield, compressed air being used at those points where water-bearing
gravel was encountered. During the progress of the works electrical
traction became so far developed as to be superior to cables; the idea
of using the latter was therefore abandoned, and when the railway was
opened in 1890 it was as an electrical one. Greathead was engaged in two
other important underground lines in London--the Waterloo & City and the
Central London. He lived to see the tunnels of the former completed
under the Thames, but the latter was scarcely begun at the time of his
death, which happened at Streatham, in the south of London, on the 21st
of October 1896.
GREAT LAKES OF NORTH AMERICA, THE. The connected string of five
fresh-water inland seas, Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie and
Ontario, lying in the interior of North America, between the Dominion of
Canada on the north and the United States of America on the south, and
forming the head-waters of the St Lawrence river system, are
collectively and generally known as "The Great Lakes." From the head of
lake Superior these lakes are navigable to Buffalo, at the foot of lake
Erie, a distance of 1023 m., for vessels having a draught of 20 ft.;
from Buffalo to Kingston, 191 m. farther, the draught is limited, by the
depth in the Welland canal, to 14 ft.; lake Superior, the largest and
most westerly of the lakes, empties, through the river St Mary, 55 m.
long, into lake Huron. From Point Iroquois, which may be considered the
foot of the lake, to Sault Ste Marie, St Mary's Falls, St Mary's Rapids
or the Soo, as it is variously called, a distance of 14 m., there is a
single channel, which has been dredged by the United States government,
at points which required deepening, to give a minimum width of 800 ft.
and a depth of 23 ft. at mean stage water. Below the Sault, the river,
on its course to lake Huron, expands into several lakes, and is divided
by islands into numerous contracted passages. There are two navigated
channels; the older one, following the international boundary-line by
way of lake George, has a width of 150 to 300 ft., and a depth of 17
ft.; it is buoyed but not lighted, and is not capable of navigation by
modern large freighters; the other, some 12 m. shorter, an artificial
channel dredged by the United States government in their own territory,
has a minimum width of 300 ft. and depth of 20 ft. It is elaborately
lighted throughout its length. A third channel, west of all the islands,
was designed for steamers bound down, the older channel being reserved
for upbound boats.
Between lake Superior and lake Huron there is a fall of 20 ft. of which
the Sault, in a distance of ½ m., absorbs from 18 to 19½ ft., the
height varying as the lakes change in level. The enormous growth of
inter-lake freight traffic has justified the construction of three
separate locks, each overcoming the rapids by a single lift--two side by
side on the United States and one on the Canadian side of the river.
These locks, the largest in the world, are all open to Canadian and
United States vessels alike, and are operated free from all taxes or
tolls on shipping. The Canadian ship canal, opened to traffic on the 9th
of September 1895, was constructed through St Mary Island, on the north
side of the rapids, by the Canadian government, at a cost of $3,684,227,
to facilitate traffic and to secure to Canadian vessels an entrance to
lake Superior without entering United States territory. The canal is
5967 ft. long between the extremities of the entrance piers, has one
lock 900 ft. long and 60 ft. wide, with a depth on the sills at the
lowest known water-level of 20½ ft. The approaches to the canal are
dredged to 18 ft. deep, and are well buoyed and lighted. On the United
States side of the river the length of the canal is 1-2/3 m., the
channel outside the locks having a width varying from 108 to 600 ft. and
depth of 25 ft. The locks of 1855 were closed in 1886, to give place to
the Poe lock. The Weitzel lock, opened to navigation on the 1st of
September 1881, was built south of the old locks, the approach being
through the old canal. Its chamber is 515 ft. long between lock gates,
and 80 ft. wide, narrowing to 60 ft. at the gates. The length of the
masonry walls is 717 ft., height 39½ ft., with 17 ft. over mitre sills
at mean stage of water. The Poe lock, built because the Weitzel lock,
large and fully equipped as it is, was insufficient for the rapidly
growing traffic, was opened on the 3rd of August 1896. Its length
between gates is 800 ft.; width 100 ft.; length of masonry walls 1100
ft.; height 43½ to 45 ft., with 22 ft. on the mitre sill at mean stage.
The expenditure by the United States government on the canal, with its
several locks, and on improving the channel through the river,
aggregated fourteen million dollars up to the end of 1906.[1] Plans were
prepared in 1907 for a third United States lock with a separate canal
approach.
The canals are closed every winter, the average date of opening up to
1893 being the 1st of May, and of closing the 1st of December. The
pressure of business since that time, aided possibly by some slight
climatic modification, has extended the season, so that the average date
of opening is now ten days earlier and of closing twelve days later. The
earliest opening was in 1902 on the 1st of April, and the latest closing
in 1904 on the 20th of December.
The table below gives the average yearly commerce for periods of five
years, and serves to show the rapid increase in freight growth.
_Statement of the commerce through the several Sault Ste Marie canals,
averaged for every five years._[2]
+------------+--------+------------+--------+-----------+-----------+------------+------------+------------+---------+------------+---------+------------+
| | Pass- | Registered | Passen-| Coal. | Flour. | Wheat. | Other | General | Salt. | Iron Ore. | Lumber. | Total |
| Years. | ages. | Tonnage. | gers. | Net Tons. | Barrels. | Bushels. | Grains. |Merchandise.| Barrels.| Net Tons. | M. ft. | Freight. |
| | | | | | | | Bushels. | Net Tons. | | | B.M. | Net Tons. |
+------------+--------+------------+--------+-----------+-----------+------------+------------+------------+---------+------------+---------+------------+
| 1855-1859* | 387 | 192,207 | 6,206 | 4,672 | 19,555 | None. | 34,612 | 2,249 | 1,248 | 27,206 | 320 | 55,797 |
| 1880-1884 | 4,457 | 2,267,166 | 34,607 | 463,431 | 681,726 | 5,435,601 | 936,346 | 81,966 | 107,225 | 867,999 | 79,144 | 2,184,731 |
| 1885-1889 | 7,908 | 4,901,105 | 29,434 | 1,398,441 | 1,838,325 | 18,438,085 | 1,213,815 | 74,447 | 175,725 | 2,497,403 | 197,605 | 5,441,297 |
| 1890-1894 | 11,965 | 9,912,589 | 24,609 | 2,678,805 | 5,764,766 | 34,875,971 | 1,738,706 | 87,540 | 231,178 | 4,939,909 | 510,482 | 10,627,349 |
| 1895-1899 | 18,352 | 18,451,447 | 40,289 | 3,270,842 | 8,319,699 | 57,227,269 | 23,349,134 | 164,426 | 282,156 | 10,728,075 | 832,968 | 19,354,974 |
| 1900-1904 | 19,374 | 26,199,795 | 54,093 | 5,457,019 | 7,021,839 | 56,269,265 | 26,760,533 | 646,277 | 407,263 | 20,020,487 | 999,944 | 31,245,565 |
| 1906 alone | 22,155 | 41,098,324 | 63,033 | 8,739,630 | 6,495,350 | 84,271,358 | 54,343,155 | 1,134,851 | 468,162 | 35,357,042 | 900,631 | 51,751,080 |
+------------+--------+------------+--------+-----------+-----------+------------+------------+------------+---------+------------+---------+------------+
* The first five years of operation.
Around the canals have grown up two thriving towns, one on the Michigan,
the other on the Ontario side of the river, with manufactories driven by
water-power derived from the Sault. The outlet of lake Michigan, the
only lake of the series lying wholly in United States territory, is at
the Strait of Mackinac, near the point where the river St Mary reaches
lake Huron. With lake Michigan are connected the Chicago Sanitary and
Ship canal, the Illinois and Michigan, and the Illinois and Mississippi
canals, for which see Illinois. With lake Huron is always included
Georgian Bay as well as the channel north of Manitoulin Island. As it is
principally navigated as a connecting waterway between lakes Superior
and Michigan and lake Erie it has no notable harbours on it. It empties
into lake Erie through the river St Clair, lake St Clair and the river
Detroit. On these connecting waters are several important manufacturing
and shipping towns, and through this chain passes nearly all the traffic
of the lakes, both that to and from lake Michigan ports, and also that
of lake Superior. The tonnage of a single short season of navigation
exceeds in the aggregate 60,000,000 tons. Extensive dredging and
embankment works have been carried on by the United States government in
lake St Clair and the river Detroit, and a 20-ft. channel now exists,
which is being constantly improved. Lake St Clair is nearly circular, 25
m. in diameter, with the north-east quadrant filled by the delta of the
river St Clair. It has a very flat bottom with a general depth of only
21 ft., shoaling very gradually, usually to reed beds that line the low
swampy shores. To enter the lake from river St Clair two channels have
been provided, with retaining walls of cribwork, one for upward, the
other for downward bound vessels. Much dredging has also been necessary
at the outlet of the lake into river Detroit. A critical point in that
river is at Limekiln crossing, a cut dredged through limestone rock
above the Canadian town of Amherstburg. The normal depth here before
improvement was 12½-15 ft.; by a project of 1902 a channel 600 ft. wide
and 21 ft. deep was planned; there are separate channels for up- and
down-bound vessels. To prevent vessels from crowding together in the
cut, the Canadian government maintains a patrol service here, while the
United States government maintains a similar patrol in the St Mary
channel.
The Grand Trunk railway opened in 1891 a single track tunnel under the
river St Clair, from Sarnia to Port Huron. It is 6026 ft. long, a
cylinder 20 ft. in diameter, lined with cast iron in flanged sections. A
second tunnel was undertaken between Detroit and Windsor, under the
river Detroit.
From Buffalo, at the foot of lake Erie, the river Niagara runs
northwards 36 m. into lake Ontario. To overcome the difference of 327
ft. in level between lakes Erie and Ontario, the Welland canal,
accommodating vessels of 255 ft. in length, with a draught of 14 ft.,
was built, and is maintained by Canada. The Murray canal extends from
Presqu'ile Bay, on the north shore of lake Ontario, a distance of 6½ m.,
to the headquarters of the Bay of Quinte. Trent canal is a term applied
to a series of water stretches in the interior of Ontario which are
ultimately designed to connect lake Huron and lake Ontario. At Peterboro
a hydraulic balance-lock with a lift of 65 ft., 140 ft. in length and 33
ft. clear in width, allowing a draught of 8 ft., has been constructed.
The ordinary locks are 134 by 33 ft. with a draught of 6 ft. When the
whole route of 200 m. is completed, there will not be more than 15 m. of
actual canal, the remaining portion of the waterway being through lakes
and rivers. For the Erie canal, between that lake and the Hudson river,
see ERIE and NEW YORK.
The population of the states and provinces bordering on the Great Lakes
is estimated to be over 35,000,000. In Pennsylvania and Ohio, south of
lake Erie, there are large coal-fields. Surrounding lake Michigan and
west of lake Superior are vast grain-growing plains, and the prairies of
the Canadian north-west are rapidly increasing the area and quantity of
wheat grown; while both north and south of lake Superior are the most
extensive iron mines in the world, from which 35 million tons of ore
were shipped in 1906. The natural highway for the shipment of all these
products is the Great Lakes, and over them coal is distributed westwards
and grain and iron ore are concentrated eastwards. The great quantity of
coarse freights, that could only be profitably carried long distances by
water, has revolutionized the type of vessel used for its
transportation, making large steamers imperative, consolidating
interests and cheapening methods. It is usual for the vessels in the
grain trade and in the iron-ore trade to make their up trips empty; but
in consequence of the admirable facilities provided at terminal points,
they make very fast time, and carry freight very cheaply. The cost of
freight per ton-mile fell from 23/100 cent in 1887 to 8/100 cent in
1898; since then the rate has slightly risen, but keeps well below 1/10
cent per ton-mile.
The traffic on the lakes may be divided into three classes, passenger,
package freight and bulk freight. Of passenger boats the largest are 380
ft. long by 44 ft. beam, having a speed of over 20 m. an hour, making
the round trip between Buffalo and Chicago 1800 m., or Buffalo and
Duluth 2000 m., every week. They carry no freight. The Canadian Pacific
railway runs a line of fine Tyne-built passenger and freight steamers
between Owen Sound and Fort William, and these two lines equal in
accommodation transatlantic passenger steamers. On lake Michigan many
fine passenger boats run out of Chicago, and on lake Ontario there are
several large and fast Canadian steamers on routes radiating from
Toronto. The package freight business, that is, the transportation of
goods in enclosed parcels, is principally local; all the through
business of this description is controlled by lines run by the great
trunk railways, and is done in boats limited in beam to 50 ft. to admit
them through bridges over the rivers at Chicago and Buffalo. By far the
greatest number of vessels on the lakes are bulk freighters, and the
conditions of the service have developed a special type of vessel.
Originally sailing vessels were largely used, but these have practically
disappeared, giving place to steamers, which have grown steadily in size
with every increase in available draught. In 1894 there was no vessel on
the lakes with a capacity of over 5000 tons; in 1906 there were 254
vessels of a greater capacity, 12 of them carrying over 12,000 tons
each. For a few years following 1890 many large barges were built,
carrying up to 8000 tons each, intended to be towed by a steamer. It was
found, however, that the time lost by one boat of the pair having to
wait for the other made the plan unprofitable and no more were built.
Following 1888 some 40 whale-back steamers and barges, having oval
cross-sections without frames or decks, were built, but experience
failed to demonstrate any advantage in the type, and their construction
has ceased. The modern bulk freighter is a vessel 600 ft. long, 58 ft.
beam, capable of carrying 14,000 tons on 20 ft. draught, built with a
midship section practically rectangular, the coefficient frequently as
high as .98, with about two-thirds of the entire length absolutely
straight, giving a block coefficient up to .87. The triple-expansion
machinery and boilers, designed to drive the boat at a speed of 12 m. an
hour, are in the extreme stern, and the pilot house and quarters in the
extreme bow, leaving all the cargo space together. Hatches are spaced at
multiples of 12 ft. throughout the length and are made as wide as
possible athwartships to facilitate loading and unloading. The vessels
are built on girder frames and fitted with double bottoms for strength
and water ballast. This type of vessel can be loaded in a few minutes,
and unloaded by self-filling grab buckets up to ten tons capacity,
worked hydraulically, in six or eight hours. The bulk freight generally
follows certain well-defined routes; iron ore is shipped east from ports
on both sides of lake Superior and on the west side of lake Michigan to
rail shipping points on the south shore of lake Erie. Wheat and other
grains from Duluth find their way to Buffalo, as do wheat, corn (maize)
and other grains from Chicago. Wheat from the Canadian north-west is
distributed from Fort William and Port Arthur to railway terminals on
Georgian Bay, to Buffalo, and to Port Colborne for trans-shipment to
canal barges for Montreal, and coal is distributed from lake Erie to all
western points. The large shipping trade is assisted by both governments
by a system of aids to navigation that mark every channel and danger.
There are also life-saving stations at all dangerous points.
The Great Lakes never freeze over completely, but the harbours and often
the connecting rivers are closed by ice. The navigable season at the
Sault is about 7½ months; in lake Erie it is somewhat longer. The season
of navigation has been slightly lengthened since 1905, by using powerful
tugs as ice-breakers in the spring and autumn, the Canadian government
undertaking the service at Canadian terminal ports, chiefly at Fort
William and Port Arthur, the most northerly ports, where the season is
naturally shortest, and the Lake Carriers' Association, a federation of
the freighting steamship owners, acting in the river St Mary. Car
ferries run through the winter across lake Michigan and the Strait of
Mackinac, across the rivers St Clair and Detroit, and across the middle
of lakes Erie and Ontario. The largest of these steamers is 350 ft. long
by 56 ft. wide, draught 14 ft., horse power 3500, speed 13 knots. She
carries on four tracks 30 freight cars, with 1350 tons of freight.
Certain passenger steamers run on lake Michigan, from Chicago north, all
the winter.
The level of the lakes varies gradually, and is affected by the general
character of the season, and not by individual rainfalls. The variations
of level of the several lakes do not necessarily synchronize. There is
an annual fluctuation of about 1 ft. in the upper lakes, and in some
seasons over 2 ft. in the lower lakes; the lowest point being at the end
of winter and the highest in midsummer. In lake Michigan the level has
ranged from a maximum in the years 1859, 1876 and 1886, to a minimum
nearly 5 ft. lower in 1896. In lake Ontario there is a range of 5½ ft.
between the maximum of May 1870 and the minimum of November 1895. In
consequence of the shallowness of lake Erie, its level is seriously
disturbed by a persistent storm; a westerly gale lowers the water at its
upper end exceptionally as much as 7 ft., seriously interfering with the
navigation of the river Detroit, while an easterly gale produces a
similar effect at Buffalo. (For physiographical details see articles on
the several lakes, and UNITED STATES.)
There is geological evidence to show that the whole basin of the lakes
has in recent geological times gradually changed in level, rising to the
north and subsiding southwards; and it is claimed that the movement is
still in gradual progress, the rate assigned being .42 ft. per 100 m.
per century. The maintenance of the level of the Great Lakes is a matter
of great importance to the large freight boats, which always load to the
limit of depth at critical points in the dredged channels or in the
harbours. Fears have been entertained that the water power canals at
Sault Ste Marie, the drainage canal at Chicago and the dredged channel
in the river Detroit will permanently lower the levels respectively of
lake Superior and of the Michigan-Huron-Erie group. An international
deep-waterway commission exists for the consideration of this question,
and army engineers appointed by the United States government have worked
on the problem.[3] Wing dams in the rivers St Mary and Niagara, to
retard the discharges, have been proposed as remedial measures. The
Great Lakes are practically tideless, though some observers claim to
find true tidal pulsations, said to amount to 3½ in. at spring tide at
Chicago. Secondary undulations of a few minutes in period, ranging from
1 to 4 in., are well marked.
The Great Lakes are well stocked with fish of commercial value. These
are largely gathered from the fishermen by steam tenders, and taken
fresh or in frozen condition to railway distributing points. In lakes
Superior and Huron salmon-trout (_Salvelinus namaycush_, Walb) are
commercially most important. They ordinarily range from 10 to 50 lb. in
weight, and are often larger. In Georgian Bay the catches of whitefish
(_Coregonus clupeiformis_, Mitchill) are enormous. In lake Erie
whitefish, lesser whitefish, erroneously called lake-herring (_C.
artedi_, Le Sueur), and sturgeon (_Acipenser rubicundus_, Le Sueur) are
the most common. There is good angling at numerous points on the lakes
and their feeders. The river Nipigon, on the north shore of lake
Superior, is famous as a stream abounding in speckled trout (_Salvelinus
fontinalis_, Mitchill) of unusual size. Black bass (_Micropterus_) are
found from Georgian Bay to Montreal, and the maskinonge (_Esox
nobilior_, Le Sueur), plentiful in the same waters, is a very game fish
that often attains a weight of 70 lb.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--E. Channing and M. F. Lansing, _Story of the Great
Lakes_ (New York, 1909), for an account of the lakes in history; and
for shipping, &c., J. O. Curwood, _The Great Lakes_ (New York, 1909);
_U.S. Hydrographic office publication_, No 108, "Sailing directions
for the Great Lakes," Navy Department (Washington, 1901, seqq.);
_Bulletin No. 17_, "Survey of Northern and North-western Lakes," Corps
of Engineers, U.S. War Department, U.S. Lake Survey Office (Detroit,
Mich., 1907); _Annual reports of Canadian Department of Marine and
Fisheries_ (Ottawa, 1868 seqq.). (W. P. A.)
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Statistical report of lake commerce passing through canals. Col.
Chas. E. L. B. Davis, U.S.A., engineer in charge, 1907.
[2] Statistical report of lake commerce passing through canals,
published annually by the U.S. engineer officer in charge.
[3] Report of the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army, in _Report of War
Department, U.S._ 1898, p. 3776.
GREAT MOTHER OF THE GODS, the ancient Oriental-Greek-Roman deity
commonly known as Cybele (q.v.) in Greek and Latin literature from the
time of Pindar. She was also known under many other names, some of which
were derived from famous places of worship: as Dindymene from Mt.
Dindymon, Mater Idaea from Mt. Ida, Sipylene from Mt. Sipylus, Agdistis
from Mt. Agdistis or Agdus, Mater Phrygia from the greatest stronghold
of her cult; while others were reflections of her character as a great
nature goddess: e.g. Mountain Mother, Great Mother of the Gods, Mother
of all Gods and all Men. As the great Mother deity whose worship
extended throughout Asia Minor she was known as Ma or Ammas. Cybele is
her favourite name in ancient and modern literature, while Great Mother
of the Gods, or Great Idaean Mother of the Gods (_Mater Deum Magna_,
_Mater Deum Magna Idaea_), the most frequently recurring epigraphical
title, was her ordinary official designation.
The legends agree in locating the rise of the worship of the Great
Mother in Asia Minor, in the region of loosely defined geographical
limits which comprised the Phrygian empire of prehistoric times, and was
more extensive than the Roman province of Phrygia (Diod. Sic. iii. 58;
Paus. vii. 17; Arnob. v. 5; Firm. Mat. _De error._, 3; Ovid, _Fasti_,
iv. 223 ff.; Sallust. Phil. _De diis et mundo_, 4; Jul. _Or._ v. 165
ff.). Her best-known early seats of worship were Mt. Ida, Mt. Sipylus,
Cyzicus, Sardis and Pessinus, the last-named city, in Galatia near the
borders of Roman Phrygia, finally becoming the strongest centre of the
cult. She was known to the Romans and Greeks as essentially Phrygian,
and all Phrygia was spoken of as sacred to her (Schol. Apollon. Rhod.
_Argonautica_, i. 1126). It is probable, however, that the Phrygian
race, which invaded Asia Minor from the north in the 9th century B.C.,
found a great nature goddess already universally worshipped there, and
blended her with a deity of their own. The Asiatic-Phrygian worship thus
evolved was further modified by contact with the Syrians and
Phoenicians, so that it acquired strong Semitic characteristics. The
Great Mother known to the Greeks and Romans was thus merely the Phrygian
form of the nature deity of all Asia Minor.
From Asia Minor the cult of the Great Mother spread first to Greek
territory. It found its way into Thrace at an early date, was known in
Boeotia by Pindar in the 6th century, and entered Attica near the
beginning of the 4th century (Grant Showerman, _The Great Mother of the
Gods_, _Bulletin of the University of Wisconsin_, No. 43, Madison,
1901). At Peiraeus, where it probably arrived by way of the Aegean
islands, it existed privately in a fully developed state, that is,
accompanied by the worship of Attis, at the beginning of the 4th
century, and publicly two centuries later (D. Comparetti, _Annales_,
1862, pp. 23 ff.). The Greeks from the first saw in the Great Mother a
resemblance to their own Rhea, and finally identified the two
completely, though the Asiatic peculiarities of the cult were never
universally popular with them (Showerman, p. 294). In her less Asiatic
aspect, i.e. without Attis, she was sometimes identified with Gaia and
Demeter. It was in this phase that she was worshipped in the Metroön at
Athens. In reality, the Mother Goddess appears under three aspects:
Rhea, the Homeric and Hesiodic goddess of Cretan origin; the Phrygian
Mother, with Attis; and the Greek Great Mother, a modified form of the
Phrygian Mother, to be explained as the original goddess of the
Phrygians of Europe, communicated to the Greek stock before the Phrygian
invasion of Asia Minor and consequent mingling with Asiatic stocks (cf.
Showerman, p. 252).
In 204 B.C., in obedience to the Sibylline prophecy which said that
whenever an enemy from abroad should make war on Italy he could be
expelled and conquered if the Idaean Mother were brought to Rome from
Pessinus, the cult of the Great Mother, together with her sacred symbol,
a small meteoric stone reputed to have fallen from the heavens, was
transferred to Rome and established in a temple on the Palatine (Livy
xxix. 10-14). Her identification by the Romans with Maia, Ops, Rhea,
Tellus and Ceres contributed to the establishment of her worship on a
firm footing. By the end of the Republic it had attained prominence, and
under the Empire it became one of the three most important cults in the
Roman world, the other two being those of Mithras and Isis. Epigraphic
and numismatic evidence prove it to have penetrated from Rome as a
centre to the remotest provinces (Showerman, pp. 291-293). During the
brief revival of paganism under Eugenius in A.D. 394, occurred the last
appearance of the cult in history. Besides the temple on the Palatine,
there existed minor shrines of the Great Mother near the present church
of St Peter, on the Sacra Via on the north slope of the Palatine, near
the junction of the Almo and the Tiber, south of the city (_ibid._
311-314).
In all her aspects, Roman, Greek and Oriental, the Great Mother was
characterized by essentially the same qualities. Most prominent among
them was her universal motherhood. She was the great parent of gods and
men, as well as of the lower orders of creation. "The winds, the sea,
the earth and the snowy seat of Olympus are hers, and when from her
mountains she ascends into the great heavens, the son of Cronus himself
gives way before her" (Apollon. Rhod. _Argonautica_, i. 1098). She was
known as the All-begetter, the All-nourisher, the Mother of all the
Blest. She was the great, fruitful, kindly earth itself. Especial
emphasis was placed upon her maternity over wild nature. She was called
the Mountain Mother; her sanctuaries were almost invariably upon
mountains, and frequently in caves, the name Cybele itself being by some
derived from the latter; lions were her faithful companions. Her
universal power over the natural world finds beautiful expression in
Apollonius Rhodius, _Argonautica_, i. 1140 ff. She was also a chaste and
beautiful deity. Her especial affinity with wild nature was manifested
by the orgiastic character of her worship. Her attendants, the
Corybantes, were wild, half demonic beings. Her priests, the Galli, were
eunuchs attired in female garb, with long hair fragrant with ointment.
Together with priestesses, they celebrated her rites with flutes, horns,
castanets, cymbals and tambourines, madly yelling and dancing until
their frenzied excitement found its culmination in self-scourging,
self-laceration or exhaustion. Self-emasculation sometimes accompanied
this delirium of worship on the part of candidates for the priesthood
(Showerman, pp. 234-239). The _Attis_ of Catullus (lxiii.) is a
brilliant treatment of such an episode.
Though her cult sometimes existed by itself, in its fully developed state
the worship of the Great Mother was accompanied by that of Attis (q.v.).
The cult of Attis never existed independently. Like Adonis and Aphrodite,
Baal and Astarte, &c., the two formed a duality representing the relations
of Mother Nature to the fruits of the earth. There is no positive evidence
to prove the existence of the cult publicly in this phase in Greece before
the 2nd century B.C., nor in Rome before the Empire, though it may have
existed in private (Showerman, "Was Attis at Rome under the Republic?" in
_Transactions of the American Philological Association_, vol. 31, 1900,
pp. 46-59; Cumont, s.v. "Attis," De Ruggiero's _Dizionario epigrafico_ and
Pauly-Wissowa's _Realencyclopädie_, Supplement; Hepding, _Attis, seine
Mythen und seine Kult_, Giessen, 1903, p. 142).
The philosophers of the late Roman Empire interpreted the Attis legend
as symbolizing the relations of Mother Earth to her children the fruits.
Porphyrius says that Attis signified the flowers of spring time, and was
cut off in youth because the flower falls before the fruit (Augustine,
_De civ. Dei_, vii. 25). Maternus (_De error._ 3) interprets the love of
the Great Mother for Attis as the love of the earth for her fruits; his
emasculation as the cutting of the fruits; his death as their
preservation; and his resurrection as the sowing of the seed again.
At Rome the immediate direction of the cult of the Great Mother devolved
upon the high priest, _Archigallus_, called Attis, a high priestess,
_Sacerdos Maxima_, and its support was derived, at least in part, from a
popular contribution, the _stips_. Besides other priests, priestesses
and minor officials, such as musicians, curator, &c., there were certain
colleges connected with the administration of the cult, called
_cannophori_ (reed-bearers) and _dendrophori_ (branch-bearers). The
Quindecimvirs exercised a general supervision over this cult, as over
all other authorized cults, and it was, at least originally, under the
special patronage of a club or sodality (Showerman, pp. 269-276). Roman
citizens were at first forbidden to take part in its ceremonies, and the
ban was not removed until the time of the Empire.
The main public event in the worship of the Great Mother was the annual
festival, which took place originally on the 4th of April, and was
followed on the 5th by the Megalesia, games instituted in her honour on
the introduction of the cult. Under the Empire, from Claudius on, the
Megalesia lasted six days, April 4-10, and the original one day of the
religious festival became an annual cycle of festivals extending from
the 15th to the 27th of March, in the following order. (1) The 15th of
March, _Canna intrat_--the sacrifice of a six-year-old bull in behalf of
the mountain fields, the high priest, a priestess and the _cannophori_
officiating, the last named carrying reeds in procession in
commemoration of the exposure of the infant Attis on the reedy banks of
the stream Gallus in Phrygia. (This may have been originally a phallic
procession. Cf. Showerman, _American Journal of Philol._ xxvii. 1;
_Classical Journal_ i. 4.) (2) The 22nd of March, _Arbor intrat_--the
bearing in procession of the sacred pine, emblem of Attis'
self-mutilation, death and immortality, to the temple on the Palatine,
the symbol of the Mother's cave, by the _dendrophori_, a gild of workmen
who made the Mother, among other deities, a patron. (3) The 24th of
March, _Dies sanguinis_--a day of mourning, fasting and abstinence,
especially sexual, commemorating the sorrow of the Mother for Attis, her
abstinence from food and her chastity. The frenzied dance and
self-laceration of the priests in commemoration of Attis' deed, and the
submission to the act of consecration by candidates for the priesthood,
was a special feature of the day. The _taurobolium_ (q.v.) was often
performed on this day, on which probably took place the initiation of
mystics. (4) The 25th of March, _Hilaria_--one of the great festal days
of Rome, celebrated by all the people. All mourning was put off, and
good cheer reigned in token of the return of the sun and spring, which
was symbolized by the renewal of Attis' life. (5) The 26th of March,
_Requietio_--a day of rest and quiet. (6) The 27th of March,
_Lavatio_--the crowning ceremony of the cycle. The silver statue of the
goddess, with the sacred meteoric stone, the _Acus_, set in its head,
was borne in gorgeous procession and bathed in the Almo, the remainder
of the day being given up to rejoicing and entertainment, especially
dramatic representation of the legend of the deities of the day. Other
ceremonies, not necessarily connected with the annual festival, were the
taurobolium (q.v.), the sacrifice of a bull, and the _criobolium_
(q.v.), the sacrifice of a ram, the latter being the analogue of the
former, instituted for the purpose of giving Attis special recognition.
The baptism of blood, which was the feature of these ceremonies, was
regarded as purifying and regenerating (Showerman, _Great Mother_, pp.
277-284).
The Great Mother figures in the art of all periods both in Asia and
Europe, but is especially prominent in the art of the Empire. No work of
the first class, however, was inspired by her. She appears on coins, in
painting and in all forms of sculpture, usually with mural crown and
veil, well draped, seated on a throne, and accompanied by two lions.
Other attributes which often appear are the patera, tympanum, cymbals,
sceptre, garlands and fruits. Attis and his attributes, the pine,
Phrygian cap, pedum, syrinx and torch, also appear. The Cybele of
Formia, now at Copenhagen, is one of the most famous representations of
the goddess. The Niobe of Mt. Sipylus is really the Mother. In
literature she is the subject of frequent mention, but no work of
importance, with the exception of Catullus lxiii., is due to her
inspiration. Her importance in the history of religion is very great.
Together with Isis and Mithras, she was a great enemy, and yet a great
aid to Christianity. The gorgeous rites of her worship, its mystic
doctrine of communion with the divine through enthusiasm, its promise of
regeneration through baptism of blood in the taurobolium, were features
which attracted the masses of the people and made it a strong rival of
Christianity; and its resemblance to the new religion, however
superficial, made it, in spite of the scandalous practices which grew up
around it, a stepping-stone to Christianity when the tide set in against
paganism.
AUTHORITIES.--Grant Showerman, "The Great Mother of the Gods,"
_Bulletin of the University of Wisconsin_, No. 43; _Philology and
Literature Series_, vol. i. No. 3 (Madison, 1901); Hugo Hepding,
_Attis, seine Mythen und seine Kult_ (Giessen, 1903); Rapp, _Roscher's
Ausführliches Lexicon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie s.v._
"Kybele"; Drexler, _ibid._ s.v. "Meter." See ROMAN RELIGION, GREEK
RELIGION, ATTIS, CORYBANTES; for the great "Hittite" portrayal of the
Nature Goddess at Pteria, see PTERIA. (G. Sn.)
GREAT REBELLION (1642-52), a generic name for the civil wars in England
and Scotland, which began with the raising of King Charles I.'s standard
at Nottingham on the 22nd of August 1642, and ended with the surrender
of Dunottar Castle to the Parliament's troops in May 1652. It is usual
to classify these wars into the First Civil War of 1642-46, and the
Second Civil War of 1648-52. During most of this time another civil war
was raging in Ireland. Its incidents had little or no connexion with
those of the Great Rebellion, but its results influenced the struggle in
England to a considerable extent.
1. _First Civil War (1642-46)._--It is impossible rightly to understand
the events of this most national of all English wars without some
knowledge of the motive forces on both sides. On the side of the king
were enlisted the deep-seated loyalty which was the result of two
centuries of effective royal protection, the pure cavalier spirit
foreshadowing the courtier era of Charles II., but still strongly tinged
with the old feudal indiscipline, the militarism of an expert soldier
nobility, well represented by Prince Rupert, and lastly a widespread
distrust of extreme Puritanism, which appeared unreasonable to Lord
Falkland and other philosophic statesmen and intolerable to every other
class of Royalists. The foot of the Royal armies was animated in the
main by the first and last of these motives; in the eyes of the sturdy
rustics who followed their squires to the war the enemy were rebels and
fanatics. To the cavalry, which was composed largely of the higher
social orders, the rebels were, in addition, bourgeois, while the
soldiers of fortune from the German wars felt all the regular's contempt
for citizen militia. Thus in the first episodes of the First Civil War
moral superiority tended to be on the side of the king. On the other
side, the causes of the quarrel were primarily and apparently political,
ultimately and really religious, and thus the elements of resistance in
the Parliament and the nation were at first confused, and, later, strong
and direct. Democracy, moderate republicanism and the simple desire for
constitutional guarantees could hardly make head of themselves against
the various forces of royalism, for the most moderate men of either
party were sufficiently in sympathy to admit compromise. But the
backbone of resistance was the Puritan element, and this waging war at
first with the rest on the political issue soon (as the Royalists
anticipated) brought the religious issue to the front. The Presbyterian
system, even more rigid than that of Laud and the bishops--whom no man
on either side supported save Charles himself--was destined to be
supplanted by the Independents and their ideal of free conscience, but
for a generation before the war broke out it had disciplined and trained
the middle classes of the nation (who furnished the bulk of the rebel
infantry, and later of the cavalry also) to centre their whole
will-power on the attainment of their ideals. The ideals changed during
the struggle, but not the capacity for striving for them, and the men
capable of the effort finally came to the front and imposed their ideals
on the rest by the force of their trained wills.
Material force was throughout on the side of the Parliamentary party.
They controlled the navy, the nucleus of an army which was in process of
being organized for the Irish war, and nearly all the financial
resources of the country. They had the sympathies of most of the large
towns, where the trained bands, drilled once a month, provided cadres
for new regiments. Further, by recognizing the inevitable, they gained a
start in war preparations which they never lost. The earls of Warwick,
Essex and Manchester and other nobles and gentry of their party
possessed great wealth and territorial influence. Charles, on the other
hand, although he could, by means of the "press" and the
lords-lieutenant, raise men without authority from Parliament, could not
raise taxes to support them, and was dependent on the financial support
of his chief adherents, such as the earls of Newcastle and Derby. Both
parties raised men when and where they could, each claiming that the law
was on its side--for England was already a law-abiding nation--and
acting in virtue of legal instruments. These were, on the side of the
Parliament, its own recent "Militia Ordinance"; on that of the king, the
old-fashioned "Commissions of Array." In Cornwall the Royalist leader,
Sir Ralph Hopton, indicted the enemy before the grand jury of the county
as disturbers of the peace, and had the _posse comitatus_ called out to
expel them. The local forces in fact were everywhere employed by
whichever side could, by producing valid written authority, induce them
to assemble.
2. _The Royalist and Parliamentarian Armies._--This thread of local
feeling and respect for the laws runs through the earlier operations of
both sides almost irrespective of the main principles at stake. Many a
promising scheme failed because of the reluctance of the militiamen to
serve beyond the limits of their own county, and, as the offensive lay
with the king, his cause naturally suffered far more therefrom than that
of the enemy. But the real spirit of the struggle was very different.
Anything which tended to prolong the struggle, or seemed like want of
energy and avoidance of a decision, was bitterly resented by the men of
both sides, who had their hearts in the quarrel and had not as yet
learned by the severe lesson of Edgehill that raw armies cannot bring
wars to a speedy issue. In France and Germany the prolongation of a war
meant continued employment for the soldiers, but in England "we never
encamped or entrenched ... or lay fenced with rivers or defiles. Here
were no leaguers in the field, as at the story of Nuremberg,[1] neither
had our soldiers any tents or what they call heavy baggage. 'Twas the
general maxim of the war--Where is the enemy? Let us go and fight them.
Or ... if the enemy was coming ... Why, what should be done! Draw out
into the fields and fight them." This passage from the _Memoirs of a
Cavalier_, ascribed to Defoe, though not contemporary evidence, is an
admirable summary of the character of the Civil War. Even when in the
end a regular professional army is evolved--exactly as in the case of
Napoleon's army--the original decision-compelling spirit permeated the
whole organization. From the first the professional soldiers of fortune,
be their advice good or bad, are looked upon with suspicion, and nearly
all those Englishmen who loved war for its own sake were too closely
concerned for the welfare of their country to attempt the methods of the
Thirty Years' War in England. The formal organization of both armies was
based on the Swedish model, which had become the pattern of Europe after
the victories of Gustavus Adolphus, and gave better scope for the
_moral_ of the individual than the old-fashioned Spanish and Dutch
formations in which the man in the ranks was a highly finished
automaton.
3. _Campaign of 1642._--When the king raised his standard at Nottingham
on the 22nd of August 1642, war was already in progress on a small scale
in many districts, each side endeavouring to secure, or to deny to the
enemy, fortified country-houses, territory, and above all arms and
money. Peace negotiations went on in the midst of these minor events
until there came from the Parliament an ultimatum so aggressive as to
fix the warlike purpose of the still vacillating court at Nottingham,
and, in the country at large, to convert many thousands of waverers to
active Royalism. Ere long Charles--who had hitherto had less than 1500
men--was at the head of an army which, though very deficient in arms and
equipment, was not greatly inferior in numbers or enthusiasm to that of
the Parliament. The latter (20,000 strong exclusive of detachments) was
organized during July, August and September about London, and moved
thence to Northampton under the command of Robert, earl of Essex.
At this moment the military situation was as follows. Lord Hertford in
south Wales, Sir Ralph Hopton in Cornwall, and the young earl of Derby
in Lancashire, and small parties in almost every county of the west and
the midlands, were in arms for the king. North of the Tees, the earl of
Newcastle, a great territorial magnate, was raising troops and supplies
for the king, while Queen Henrietta Maria was busy in Holland arranging
for the importation of war material and money. In Yorkshire opinion was
divided, the royal cause being strongest in York and the North Riding,
that of the Parliamentary party in the clothing towns of the West Riding
and also in the important seaport of Hull. The Yorkshire gentry made an
attempt to neutralize the county, but a local struggle soon began, and
Newcastle thereupon prepared to invade Yorkshire. The whole of the south
and east as well as parts of the midlands and the west and the important
towns of Bristol and Gloucester were on the side of the Parliament. A
small Royalist force was compelled to evacuate Oxford on the 10th of
September.
On the 13th of September the main campaign opened. The king--in order to
find recruits amongst his sympathizers and arms in the armouries of the
Derbyshire and Staffordshire trained bands, and also to be in touch with
his disciplined regiments in Ireland by way of Chester--moved westward
to Shrewsbury, Essex following suit by marching from Northampton to
Worcester. Near the last-named town a sharp cavalry engagement (Powick
Bridge) took place on the 23rd between the advanced cavalry of Essex's
army and a force under Prince Rupert which was engaged in protecting the
retirement of the Oxford detachment. The result of the fight was the
instantaneous overthrow of the rebel cavalry, and this gave the Royalist
troopers a confidence in themselves and in their brilliant leader which
was not destined to be shaken until they met Cromwell's Ironsides.
Rupert soon withdrew to Shrewsbury, where he found many Royalist
officers eager to attack Essex's new position at Worcester. But the road
to London now lay open and it was decided to take it. The intention was
not to avoid a battle, for the Royalist generals desired to fight Essex
before he grew too strong, and the temper of both sides made it
impossible to postpone the decision; in Clarendon's words, "it was
considered more counsellable to march towards London, it being morally
sure that the earl of Essex would put himself in their way," and
accordingly the army left Shrewsbury on the 12th of October, gaining two
days' start of the enemy, and moved south-east via Bridgnorth,
Birmingham and Kenilworth. This had the desired effect. Parliament,
alarmed for its own safety, sent repeated orders to Essex to find the
king and bring him to battle. Alarm gave place to determination when it
was discovered that Charles was enlisting papists and seeking foreign
aid. The militia of the home counties was called out, a second army
under the earl of Warwick was formed round the nucleus of the London
trained bands, and Essex, straining every nerve to regain touch with the
enemy, reached Kineton, where he was only 7 m. from the king's
headquarters at Edgecote, on the 22nd.
4. _Battle of Edgehill._--Rupert promptly reported the enemy's presence,
and his confidence dominated the irresolution of the king and the
caution of Lord Lindsey, the nominal commander-in-chief. Both sides had
marched widely dispersed in order to live, and the rapidity with which,
having the clearer purpose, the Royalists drew together helped
considerably to neutralize Essex's superior numbers. During the morning
of the 23rd the Royalists formed in battle order on the brow of Edgehill
facing towards Kineton. Essex, experienced soldier as he was, had
distrusted his own raw army too much to force a decision earlier in the
month, when the king was weak; he now found Charles in a strong position
with an equal force to his own 14,000, and some of his regiments were
still some miles distant. But he advanced beyond Kineton, and the enemy
promptly left their strong position and came down to the foot of the
hill, for, situated as they were, they had either to fight wherever they
could induce the enemy to engage, or to starve in the midst of hostile
garrisons. Rupert was on the right of the king's army with the greater
part of the horse, Lord Lindsey and Sir Jacob Astley in the centre with
the foot, Lord Wilmot (with whom rode the earl of Forth, the principal
military adviser of the king) with a smaller body of cavalry on the
left. In rear of the centre were the king and a small reserve. Essex's
order was similar. Rupert charged as soon as his wing was deployed, and
before the infantry of either side was ready. Taking ground to his right
front and then wheeling inwards at full speed he instantly rode down the
Parliamentary horse opposed to him. Some infantry regiments of Essex's
left centre shared the same fate as their cavalry. On the other wing
Forth and Wilmot likewise swept away all that they could see of the
enemy's cavalry, and the undisciplined Royalists of both wings pursued
the fugitives in wild disorder up to Kineton, where they were severely
handled by John Hampden's infantry brigade (which was escorting the
artillery and baggage of Essex's army). Rupert brought back only a few
rallied squadrons to the battlefield, and in the meantime affairs there
had gone badly for the king. The right and centre of the Parliamentary
foot (the left having been brought to a halt by Rupert's charge)
advanced with great resolution, and being at least as ardent as, and
much better armed than, Lindsey's men, engaged them fiercely and slowly
gained ground. Only the best regiments on either side, however,
maintained their order, and the decision of the infantry battle was
achieved mainly by a few Parliamentary squadrons. One regiment of
Essex's right wing only had been the target of Wilmot's charge, the
other two had been at the moment invisible, and, as every Royalist troop
on the ground, even the king's guards, had joined in the mad ride to
Kineton, these, Essex's life-guard, and some troops that had rallied
from the effect of Rupert's charge--amongst them Captain Oliver
Cromwell's--were the only cavalry still present. All these joined with
decisive effect in the attack on the left of the royal infantry. The
king's line was steadily rolled up from left to right, the Parliamentary
troopers captured his guns and regiment after regiment broke up. Charles
himself stood calmly in the thick of the fight, but he had not the skill
to direct it. The royal standard was taken and retaken, Lindsey and Sir
Edmund Verney, the standard-bearer, being killed. By the time that
Rupert returned both sides were incapable of further effort and
disillusioned as to the prospect of ending the war at a blow.
On the 24th Essex retired, leaving Charles to claim the victory and to
reap its results. Banbury and Oxford were reoccupied by the Royalists,
and by the 28th Charles was marching down the Thames valley on London.
Negotiations were reopened, and a peace party rapidly formed itself in
London and Westminster. Yet field fortifications sprang up around
London, and when Rupert stormed and sacked Brentford on the 12th of
November the trained bands moved out at once and took up a position at
Turnham Green, barring the king's advance. Hampden, with something of
the fire and energy of his cousin Cromwell, urged Essex to turn both
flanks of the Royal army via Acton and Kingston, but experienced
professional soldiers urged him not to trust the London men to hold
their ground while the rest manoeuvred. Hampden's advice was undoubtedly
premature. A Sedan or Worcester was not within the power of the
Parliamentarians of 1642, for, in Napoleon's words, "one only manoeuvres
around a fixed point," and the city levies at that time were certainly
not, _vis-à-vis_ Rupert's cavalry, a fixed point. As a matter of fact,
after a slight cannonade at Turnham Green on the 13th, Essex's
two-to-one numerical superiority of itself compelled the king to retire
to Reading. Turnham Green has justly been called the Valmy of the
English Civil War. Like Valmy, without being a battle, it was a victory,
and the tide of invasion came thus far, ebbed, and never returned.
5. _The Winter of 1642-43._--In the winter, while Essex lay inactive at
Windsor, Charles by degrees consolidated his position in the region of
Oxford. The city was fortified as a reduit for the whole area, and
Reading, Wallingford, Abingdon, Brill, Banbury and Marlborough
constituted a complete defensive ring which was developed by the
creation of smaller posts from time to time. In the north and west,
winter campaigns were actively carried on. "It is summer in Yorkshire,
summer in Devon, and cold winter at Windsor," said one of Essex's
critics. At the beginning of December Newcastle crossed the Tees,
defeated Hotham, the Parliamentary commander in the North Riding, then
joining hands with the hard-pressed Royalists at York, established
himself between that city and Pontefract. Lord Fairfax and his son Sir
Thomas, who commanded for the Parliament in Yorkshire, had to retire to
the district between Hull and Selby, and Newcastle was free to turn his
attention to the Puritan "clothing towns" of the West Riding--Leeds,
Halifax and Bradford. The townsmen, however, showed a determined front,
the younger Fairfax with a picked body of cavalry rode through
Newcastle's lines into the West Riding to help them, and about the end
of January 1643 the earl gave up the attempt to reduce the towns. He
continued his march southward, however, and gained ground for the king
as far as Newark, so as to be in touch with the Royalists of
Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Leicestershire (who, especially about
Newark and Ashby-de-la-Zouch, were strong enough to neutralize the local
forces of the Parliament), and to prepare the way for the further
advance of the army of the north when the queen's convoy should arrive
from over-seas.
In the west Sir Ralph Hopton and his friends, having obtained a true
bill from the grand jury against the Parliamentary disturbers of the
peace, placed themselves at the head of the county militia and drove the
rebels from Cornwall, after which they raised a small force for general
service and invaded Devonshire (November 1642). Subsequently a
Parliamentary army under the earl of Stamford was withdrawn from south
Wales to engage Hopton, who had to retire into Cornwall. There, however,
the Royalist general was free to employ the militia again, and thus
reinforced he won a victory over a part of Stamford's forces at Bradock
Down near Liskeard (January 19, 1643) and resumed the offensive. About
the same time Hertford, no longer opposed by Stamford, brought over the
South Wales Royalists to Oxford, and the fortified area around that
place was widened by the capture of Cirencester on the 2nd of February.
Gloucester and Bristol were now the only important garrisons of the
Roundheads in the west. In the midlands, in spite of a Parliamentary
victory won by Sir William Brereton at Nantwich on the 28th of January,
the Royalists of Shropshire, Staffordshire and Leicestershire soon
extended their influence through Ashby-de-la-Zouch into Nottinghamshire
and joined hands with their friends at Newark. Further, around Chester a
new Royalist army was being formed under Lord Byron, and all the efforts
of Brereton and of Sir John Gell, the leading supporter of the
Parliament in Derbyshire, were required to hold their own, even before
Newcastle's army was added to the list of their enemies. Lord Brooke,
who commanded for the Parliament in Warwickshire and Staffordshire and
was looked on by many as Essex's eventual successor, was killed in
besieging Lichfield cathedral on the 2nd of March, and, though the
cathedral soon capitulated, Gell and Brereton were severely handled in
the indecisive battle of Hopton Heath near Stafford on the 19th of
March, and Prince Rupert, after an abortive raid on Bristol (March 7),
marched rapidly northward, storming Birmingham en route, and recaptured
Lichfield cathedral. He was, however, soon recalled to Oxford to take
part in the main campaign. The position of affairs for the Parliament
was perhaps at its worst in January. The Royalist successes of November
and December, the ever-present dread of foreign intervention, and the
burden of new taxation which the Parliament now found itself compelled
to impose, disheartened its supporters. Disorders broke out in London,
and, while the more determined of the rebels began thus early to think
of calling in the military assistance of the Scots, the majority were
for peace on any conditions. But soon the position improved somewhat;
Stamford in the west and Brereton and Gell in the midlands, though hard
pressed, were at any rate in arms and undefeated, Newcastle had failed
to conquer the West Riding, and Sir William Waller, who had cleared
Hampshire and Wiltshire of "malignants," entered Gloucestershire early
in March, destroyed a small Royalist force at Highnam (March 24), and
secured Bristol and Gloucester for the Parliament. Finally, some of
Charles's own intrigues opportunely coming to light, the waverers,
seeing the impossibility of plain dealing with the court, rallied again
to the party of resistance, and the series of negotiations called by the
name of the Treaty of Oxford closed in April with no more result than
those which had preceded Edgehill and Turnham Green. About this time
too, following and improving upon the example of Newcastle in the north,
Parliament ordered the formation of the celebrated "associations" or
groups of counties banded together by mutual consent for defence. The
most powerful and best organized of these was that of the eastern
counties (headquarters Cambridge), where the danger of attack from the
north was near enough to induce great energy in the preparations for
meeting it, and at the same time too distant effectively to interfere
with these preparations. Above all, the Eastern Association was from the
first guided and inspired by Colonel Cromwell.
6. _The Plan of Campaign, 1643._--The king's plan of operations for the
next campaign, which was perhaps inspired from abroad, was more
elaborate than the simple "point" of 1642. The king's army, based on the
fortified area around Oxford, was counted sufficient to use up Essex's
forces. On either hand, therefore, in Yorkshire and in the west, the
Royalist armies were to fight their way inwards towards London, after
which all three armies, converging on that place in due season, were to
cut off its supplies and its sea-borne revenue and to starve the
rebellion into surrender. The condition of this threefold advance was of
course that the enemy should not be able to defeat the armies in detail,
i.e. that he should be fixed and held in the Thames valley; this
secured, there was no purely military objection against operating in
separate armies from the circumference towards the centre. It was on the
rock of local feeling that the king's plan came to grief. Even after the
arrival of the queen and her convoy, Newcastle had to allow her to
proceed with a small force, and to remain behind with the main body,
because of Lancashire and the West Riding, and above all because the
port of Hull, in the hands of the Fairfaxes, constituted a menace that
the Royalists of the East Riding refused to ignore. Hopton's advance
too, undertaken without the Cornish levies, was checked in the action of
Sourton Down (Dartmoor) on the 25th of April, and on the same day Waller
captured Hereford. Essex had already left Windsor to undertake the siege
of Reading, the most important point in the circle of fortresses round
Oxford, which after a vain attempt at relief surrendered to him on the
26th of April. Thus the opening operations were unfavourable, not indeed
so far as to require the scheme to be abandoned, but at least delaying
the development until the campaigning season was far advanced.
7. _Victories of Hopton._--But affairs improved in May. The queen's
long-expected convoy arrived at Woodstock on the 13th. The earl of
Stamford's army, which had again entered Cornwall, was attacked in its
selected position at Stratton and practically annihilated by Hopton (May
16). This brilliant victory was due above all to Sir Bevil Grenville and
the lithe Cornishmen, who, though but 2400 against 5400 and destitute of
artillery, stormed "Stamford Hill," killed 300 of the enemy, and
captured 1700 more with all their guns, colours and baggage. Devon was
at once overrun by the victors. Essex's army, for want of material
resources, had had to be content with the capture of Reading, and a
Royalist force under Hertford and Prince Maurice (Rupert's brother)
moved out as far as Salisbury to hold out a hand to their friends in
Devonshire, while Waller, the only Parliamentary commander left in the
field in the west, had to abandon his conquests in the Severn valley to
oppose the further progress of his intimate friend and present enemy,
Hopton. Early in June Hertford and Hopton united at Chard and rapidly
moved, with some cavalry skirmishing, towards Bath, where Waller's army
lay. Avoiding the barrier of the Mendips, they moved round via Frome to
the Avon. But Waller, thus cut off from London and threatened with
investment, acted with great skill, and some days of manoeuvres and
skirmishing followed, after which Hertford and Hopton found themselves
on the north side of Bath facing Waller's entrenched position on the top
of Lansdown Hill. This position the Royalists stormed on the 5th of
July. The battle of Lansdown was a second Stratton for the Cornishmen,
but this time the enemy was of different quality and far differently
led, and they had to mourn the loss of Sir Bevil Grenville and the
greater part of their whole force. At dusk both sides stood on the flat
summit of the hill, still firing into one another with such energy as
was not yet expended, and in the night Waller drew off his men into
Bath. "We were glad they were gone," wrote a Royalist officer, "for if
they had not, I know who had within the hour." Next day Hopton was
severely injured by the explosion of a wagon containing the reserve
ammunition, and the Royalists, finding their victory profitless, moved
eastward to Devizes, closely followed by the enemy. On the 10th of July
Sir William Waller took post on Roundway Down, overlooking Devizes, and
captured a Royalist ammunition column from Oxford. On the 11th he came
down and invested Hopton's foot in Devizes itself, while the Royalist
cavalry, Hertford and Maurice with them, rode away towards Salisbury.
But although the siege was pressed with such vigour that an assault was
fixed for the evening of the 13th, the Cornishmen, Hopton directing the
defence from his bed, held out stubbornly, and on the afternoon of July
13th Prince Maurice's horsemen appeared on Roundway Down, having ridden
to Oxford, picked up reinforcements there, and returned at full speed to
save their comrades. Waller's army tried its best, but some of its
elements were of doubtful quality and the ground was all in Maurice's
favour. The battle did not last long. The combined attack of the Oxford
force from Roundway and of Hopton's men from the town practically
annihilated Waller's army. Very soon afterwards Rupert came up with
fresh Royalist forces, and the combined armies moved westward. Bristol,
the second port of the kingdom, was their objective, and in four days
from the opening of the siege it was in their hands (July 26), Waller
with the beaten remnant of his army at Bath being powerless to
intervene. The effect of this blow was felt even in Dorsetshire. Within
three weeks of the surrender Prince Maurice with a body of fast-moving
cavalry overran that county almost unopposed.
8. _Adwalton Moor._--Newcastle meanwhile had resumed operations against
the clothing towns, this time with success. The Fairfaxes had been
fighting in the West Riding since January with such troops from the Hull
region as they had been able to bring across Newcastle's lines. They and
the townsmen together were too weak for Newcastle's increasing forces,
and an attempt was made to relieve them by bringing up the Parliament's
forces in Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Lincolnshire and the Eastern
Association. But local interests prevailed again, in spite of Cromwell's
presence, and after assembling at Nottingham, the midland rebels quietly
dispersed to their several counties (June 2). The Fairfaxes were left to
their fate, and about the same time Hull itself narrowly escaped capture
by the queen's forces through the treachery of Sir John Hotham, the
governor, and his son, the commander of the Lincolnshire
Parliamentarians. The latter had been placed under arrest at the
instance of Cromwell and of Colonel Hutchinson, the governor of
Nottingham Castle; he escaped to Hull, but both father and son were
seized by the citizens and afterwards executed. More serious than an
isolated act of treachery was the far-reaching Royalist plot that had
been detected in Parliament itself, for complicity in which Lord Conway,
Edmund Waller the poet, and several members of both Houses were
arrested. The safety of Hull was of no avail for the West Riding towns,
and the Fairfaxes underwent a decisive defeat at Adwalton (Atherton)
Moor near Bradford on the 30th of June. After this, by way of
Lincolnshire, they escaped to Hull and reorganized the defence of that
place. The West Riding perforce submitted.
The queen herself with a second convoy and a small army under Henry
(Lord) Jermyn soon moved via Newark, Ashby-de-la-Zouch, Lichfield and
other Royalist garrisons to Oxford, where she joined her husband on the
14th of July. But Newcastle (now a marquis) was not yet ready for his
part in the programme. The Yorkshire troops would not march on London
while the enemy was master of Hull, and by this time there was a solid
barrier between the royal army of the north and the capital. Roundway
Down and Adwalton Moor were not after all destined to be fatal, though
peace riots in London, dissensions in the Houses, and quarrels amongst
the generals were their immediate consequences. A new factor had arisen
in the war--the Eastern Association.
9. _Cromwell and the Eastern Association._--This had already intervened
to help in the siege of Reading and had sent troops to the abortive
gathering at Nottingham, besides clearing its own ground of
"malignants." From the first Cromwell was the dominant influence. Fresh
from Edgehill, he had told Hampden, "You must get men of a spirit that
is likely to go as far as gentlemen will go," not "old decayed
serving-men, tapsters and such kind of fellows to encounter gentlemen
that have honour and courage and resolution in them," and in January
1643 he had gone to his own county to "raise such men as had the fear of
God before them and made some conscience of what they did." These men,
once found, were willing, for the cause, to submit to a rigorous
training and an iron discipline such as other troops, fighting for
honour only or for profit only, could not be brought to endure.[2] The
result was soon apparent. As early as the 13th of May, Cromwell's
regiment of horse--recruited from the horse-loving yeomen of the eastern
counties--demonstrated its superiority in the field in a skirmish near
Grantham, and in the irregular fighting in Lincolnshire during June and
July (which was on the whole unfavourable to the Parliament), as
previously in pacifying the Eastern Association itself, these Puritan
troopers distinguished themselves by long and rapid marches that may
bear comparison with almost any in the history of the mounted arm. When
Cromwell's second opportunity came at Gainsborough on the 28th of July,
the "Lincolneer" horse who were under his orders were fired by the
example of Cromwell's own regiment, and Cromwell, directing the whole
with skill, and above all with energy, utterly routed the Royalist horse
and killed their general, Charles Cavendish.
In the meantime the army of Essex had been inactive. After the fall of
Reading a serious epidemic of sickness had reduced it to impotence. On
the 18th of June the Parliamentary cavalry was routed and John Hampden
mortally wounded at Chalgrove Field near Chiselhampton, and when at last
Essex, having obtained the desired reinforcements, moved against Oxford
from the Aylesbury side, he found his men demoralized by inaction, and
before the menace of Rupert's cavalry, to which he had nothing to
oppose, he withdrew to Bedfordshire (July). He made no attempt to
intercept the march of the queen's convoys, he had permitted the Oxford
army, which he should have held fast, to intervene effectually in the
midlands, the west, and the south-west, and Waller might well complain
that Essex, who still held Reading and the Chilterns, had given him
neither active nor passive support in the critical days preceding
Roundway Down. Still only a few voices were raised to demand his
removal, and he was shortly to have an opportunity of proving his skill
and devotion in a great campaign and a great battle. The centre and the
right of the three Royalist armies had for a moment (Roundway to
Bristol) united to crush Waller, but their concentration was
short-lived. Plymouth was to Hopton's men what Hull was to
Newcastle's--they would not march on London until the menace to their
homes was removed. Further, there were dissensions among the generals
which Charles was too weak to crush, and consequently the original plan
reappears--the main Royalist army to operate in the centre, Hopton's
(now Maurice's) on the right, Newcastle on the left towards London.
While waiting for the fall of Hull and Plymouth, Charles naturally
decided to make the best use of his time by reducing Gloucester, the one
great fortress of the Parliament in the west.
10. _Siege and Relief of Gloucester._--This decision quickly brought on
a crisis. While the earl of Manchester (with Cromwell as his
lieutenant-general) was appointed to head the forces of the Eastern
Association against Newcastle, and Waller was given a new army
wherewith again to engage Hopton and Maurice, the task of saving
Gloucester from the king's army fell to Essex, who was heavily
reinforced and drew his army together for action in the last days of
August. Resort was had to the press-gang to fill the ranks, recruiting
for Waller's new army was stopped, and London sent six regiments of
trained bands to the front, closing the shops so that every man should
be free to take his part in what was thought to be the supreme trial of
strength.
On the 26th, all being ready, Essex started. Through Aylesbury and round
the north side of Oxford to Stow-on-the-Wold the army moved resolutely,
not deterred by want of food and rest, or by the attacks of Rupert's and
Wilmot's horse on its flank. On the 5th of September, just as Gloucester
was at the end of its resources, the siege was suddenly raised and the
Royalists drew off to Painswick, for Essex had reached Cheltenham and
the danger was over. Then, the field armies being again face to face and
free to move, there followed a series of skilful manoeuvres in the
Severn and Avon valleys, at the end of which the Parliamentary army
gained a long start on its homeward road via Cricklade, Hungerford and
Reading. But the Royalist cavalry under Rupert, followed rapidly by
Charles and the main body from Evesham, strained every nerve to head off
Essex at Newbury, and after a sharp skirmish on Aldbourne Chase on the
18th of September succeeded in doing so. On the 19th the whole Royal
army was drawn up, facing west, with its right on Newbury and its left
on Enborne Heath. Essex's men knew that evening that they would have to
break through by force--there was no suggestion of surrender.
11. _First Battle of Newbury, September 20, 1643._--The ground was
densely intersected by hedges except in front of the Royalists' left
centre (Newbury Wash) and left (Enborne Heath), and, practically,
Essex's army was never formed in line of battle, for each unit was
thrown into the fight as it came up its own road or lane. On the left
wing, in spite of the Royalist counter-strokes, the attack had the best
of it, capturing field after field, and thus gradually gaining ground to
the front. Here Lord Falkland was killed. On the Reading road itself
Essex did not succeed in deploying on to the open ground on Newbury
Wash, but victoriously repelled the royal horse when it charged up to
the lanes and hedges held by his foot. On the extreme right of the
Parliamentary army, which stood in the open ground of Enborne Heath,
took place a famous incident. Here two of the London regiments, fresh to
war as they were, were exposed to a trial as severe as that which broke
down the veteran Spanish infantry at Rocroi in this same year. Rupert
and the Royalist horse again and again charged up to the squares of
pikes, and between each charge his guns tried to disorder the Londoners,
but it was not until the advance of the royal infantry that the trained
bands retired, slowly and in magnificent order, to the edge of the
heath. The result of it all was that Essex's army had fought its hardest
and failed to break the opposing line. But the Royalists had suffered so
heavily, and above all the valour displayed by the rebels had so
profoundly impressed them, that they were glad to give up the disputed
road and withdraw into Newbury. Essex thereupon pursued his march,
Reading was reached on the 22nd after a small rearguard skirmish at
Aldermaston, and so ended one of the most dramatic episodes of English
history.
12. _Hull and Winceby._--Meanwhile the siege of Hull had commenced. The
Eastern Association forces under Manchester promptly moved up into
Lincolnshire, the foot besieging Lynn (which surrendered on the 16th of
September) while the horse rode into the northern part of the county to
give a hand to the Fairfaxes. Fortunately the sea communications of Hull
were open. On the 18th of September part of the cavalry in Hull was
ferried over to Barton, and the rest under Sir Thomas Fairfax went by
sea to Saltfleet a few days later, the whole joining Cromwell near
Spilsby. In return the old Lord Fairfax, who remained in Hull, received
infantry reinforcements and a quantity of ammunition and stores from the
Eastern Association. On the 11th of October Cromwell and Fairfax
together won a brilliant cavalry action at Winceby, driving the
Royalist horse in confusion before them to Newark, and on the same day
Newcastle's army around Hull, which had suffered terribly from the
hardships of continuous siege work, was attacked by the garrison and so
severely handled that next day the siege was given up. Later, Manchester
retook Lincoln and Gainsborough, and thus Lincolnshire, which had been
almost entirely in Newcastle's hands before he was compelled to
undertake the siege of Hull, was added in fact as well as in name to the
Eastern Association.
Elsewhere, in the reaction after the crisis of Newbury, the war
languished. The city regiments went home, leaving Essex too weak to hold
Reading, which the Royalists reoccupied on the 3rd of October. At this
the Londoners offered to serve again, and actually took part in a minor
campaign around Newport Pagnell, which town Rupert attempted to fortify
as a menace to the Eastern Association and its communications with
London. Essex was successful in preventing this, but his London
regiments again went home, and Sir William Waller's new army in
Hampshire failed lamentably in an attempt on Basing House (November 7),
the London trained bands deserting _en bloc_. Shortly afterwards Arundel
surrendered to a force under Sir Ralph, now Lord Hopton (December 9).
13. _The "Irish Cessation" and the Solemn League and
Covenant._--Politically, these months were the turning-point of the war.
In Ireland, the king's lieutenant, by order of his master, made a truce
with the Irish rebels (Sept. 15). Charles's chief object was to set free
his army to fight in England, but it was believed universally that Irish
regiments--in plain words, papists in arms--would shortly follow. Under
these circumstances his act united against him nearly every class in
Protestant England, above all brought into the English quarrel the armed
strength of Presbyterian Scotland. Yet Charles, still trusting to
intrigue and diplomacy to keep Scotland in check, deliberately rejected
the advice of Montrose, his greatest and most faithful lieutenant, who
wished to give the Scots employment for their army at home. Only ten
days after the "Irish cessation," the Parliament at Westminster swore to
the Solemn League and Covenant, and the die was cast. It is true that
even a semblance of Presbyterian theocracy put the "Independents" on
their guard and definitely raised the question of freedom of conscience,
and that secret negotiations were opened between the Independents and
Charles on that basis, but they soon discovered that the king was merely
using them as instruments to bring about the betrayal of Aylesbury and
other small rebel posts. All parties found it convenient to interpret
the Covenant liberally for the present, and at the beginning of 1644 the
Parliamentary party showed so united a front that even Pym's death
(December 8, 1643) hardly affected its resolution to continue the
struggle.
The troops from Ireland, thus obtained at the cost of an enormous
political blunder, proved to be untrustworthy after all. Those serving
in Hopton's army were "mutinous and shrewdly infected with the
rebellious humour of England." When Waller's Londoners surprised[3] and
routed a Royalist detachment at Alton (December 13, 1643), half the
prisoners took the Covenant. Hopton had to retire, and on the 6th of
January 1644 Waller recaptured Arundel. Byron's Cheshire army was in no
better case. Newcastle's retreat from Hull and the loss of Gainsborough
had completely changed the situation in the midlands, Brereton was
joined by the younger Fairfax from Lincolnshire, and the Royalists were
severely defeated for a second time at Nantwich (January 25). As at
Alton, the majority of the prisoners (amongst them Colonel George Monk)
took the Covenant and entered the Parliamentary army. In Lancashire, as
in Cheshire, Staffordshire, Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire, the cause
of the Parliament was in the ascendant. Resistance revived in the West
Riding towns, Lord Fairfax was again in the field in the East Riding,
and even Newark was closely besieged by Sir John Meldrum. More important
news came in from the north. The advanced guard of the Scottish army had
passed the Tweed on the 19th of January, and the marquis of Newcastle
with the remnant of his army would soon be attacked in front and rear at
once.
14. _Newark and Cheriton (March 1644)._--As in 1643, Rupert was soon on
his way to the north to retrieve the fortunes of his side. Moving by the
Welsh border, and gathering up garrisons and recruits snowball-wise as
he marched, he went first to Cheshire to give a hand to Byron, and then,
with the utmost speed, he made for Newark. On the 20th of March 1644 he
bivouacked at Bingham, and on the 21st he not only relieved Newark but
routed the besiegers' cavalry. On the 22nd Meldrum's position was so
hopeless that he capitulated on terms. But, brilliant soldier as he was,
the prince was unable to do more than raid a few Parliamentary posts
around Lincoln, after which he had to return his borrowed forces to
their various garrisons and go back to Wales--laden indeed with captured
pikes and muskets--to raise a permanent field army. But Rupert could not
be in all places at once. Newcastle was clamorous for aid. In
Lancashire, only the countess of Derby, in Lathom House, held out for
the king, and her husband pressed Rupert to go to her relief. Once, too,
the prince was ordered back to Oxford to furnish a travelling escort for
the queen, who shortly after this gave birth to her youngest child and
returned to France. The order was countermanded within a few hours, it
is true, but Charles had good reason for avoiding detachments from his
own army. On the 29th of March, Hopton had undergone a severe defeat at
Cheriton near New Alresford. In the preliminary manoeuvres and in the
opening stages of the battle the advantage lay with the Royalists, and
the earl of Forth, who was present, was satisfied with what had been
achieved and tried to break off the action. But Royalist indiscipline
ruined everything. A young cavalry colonel charged in defiance of
orders, a fresh engagement opened, and at the last moment Waller
snatched a victory out of defeat. Worse than this was the news from
Yorkshire and Scotland. Charles had at last assented to Montrose's plan
and promised him the title of marquis, but the first attempt to raise
the Royalist standard in Scotland gave no omen of its later triumphs. In
Yorkshire Sir Thomas Fairfax, advancing from Lancashire through the West
Riding, joined his father. Selby was stormed on the 11th of April, and
thereupon Newcastle, who had been manoeuvring against the Scots in
Durham, hastily drew back, sent his cavalry away, and shut himself up
with his foot in York. Two days later the Scottish general, Alexander
Leslie, Lord Leven, joined the Fairfaxes and prepared to invest that
city.
15. _Plans of Campaign for 1644._--The original plan of the
Parliamentary "Committee of Both Kingdoms," which directed the military
and civil policy of the allies after the fashion of a modern cabinet,
was to combine Essex's and Manchester's armies in an attack upon the
king's army, Aylesbury being appointed as the place of concentration.
Waller's troops were to continue to drive back Hopton and to reconquer
the west, Fairfax and the Scots to invest Newcastle's army, while in the
midlands Brereton and the Lincolnshire rebels could be counted upon to
neutralize, the one Byron, the others the Newark Royalists. But Waller,
once more deserted by his trained bands, was unable to profit by his
victory of Cheriton, and retired to Farnham. Manchester, too, was
delayed because the Eastern Association was still suffering from the
effects of Rupert's Newark exploit--Lincoln, abandoned by the rebels on
that occasion, was not reoccupied till the 6th of May. Moreover, Essex
found himself compelled to defend his conduct and motives to the
Committee of Both Kingdoms, and as usual was straitened for men and
money. But though there were grave elements of weakness on the other
side, the Royalists considered their own position to be hopeless. Prince
Maurice was engaged in the fruitless siege of Lyme Regis, Gloucester was
again a centre of activity and counterbalanced Newark, and the situation
in the north was practically desperate. Rupert himself came to Oxford
(April 25) to urge that his new army should be kept free to march to aid
Newcastle, who was now threatened--owing to the abandonment of the
enemy's original plan--by Manchester as well as Fairfax and Leven. There
was no further talk of the concentric advance of three armies on London.
The fiery prince and the methodical earl of Brentford (Forth) were at
one at least in recommending that the Oxford area with its own garrison
and a mobile force in addition should be the pivot of the field armies'
operations. Rupert, needing above all adequate time for the development
of the northern offensive, was not in favour of abandoning any of the
barriers to Essex's advance. Brentford, on the other hand, thought it
advisable to contract the lines of defence, and Charles, as usual
undecided, agreed to Rupert's scheme and executed Brentford's. Reading,
therefore, was dismantled early in May, and Abingdon given up shortly
afterwards.
16. _Cropredy Bridge._--It was now possible for the enemy to approach
Oxford, and Abingdon was no sooner evacuated than (May 26) Waller's and
Essex's armies united there--still, unfortunately for their cause, under
separate commanders. From Abingdon Essex moved direct on Oxford, Waller
towards Wantage, where he could give a hand to Massey, the energetic
governor of Gloucester. Affairs seemed so bad in the west (Maurice with
a whole army was still vainly besieging the single line of low
breastworks that constituted the fortress of Lyme) that the king
despatched Hopton to take charge of Bristol. Nor were things much better
at Oxford; the barriers of time and space and the supply area had been
deliberately given up to the enemy, and Charles was practically forced
to undertake extensive field operations with no hope of success save in
consequence of the enemy's mistakes. The enemy, as it happened, did not
disappoint him. The king, probably advised by Brentford, conducted a
skilful war of manoeuvre in the area defined by Stourbridge, Gloucester,
Abingdon and Northampton, at the end of which Essex, leaving Waller to
the secondary work, as he conceived it, of keeping the king away from
Oxford and reducing that fortress, marched off into the west with most
of the general service troops to repeat at Lyme Regis his Gloucester
exploit of 1643. At one moment, indeed, Charles (then in Bewdley) rose
to the idea of marching north to join Rupert and Newcastle, but he soon
made up his mind to return to Oxford. From Bewdley, therefore, he moved
to Buckingham--the distant threat on London producing another evanescent
citizen army drawn from six counties under Major-General Browne--and
Waller followed him closely. When the king turned upon Browne's motley
host, Waller appeared in time to avert disaster, and the two armies
worked away to the upper Cherwell. Brentford and Waller were excellent
strategists of the 17th century type, and neither would fight a pitched
battle without every chance in his favour. Eventually on the 29th of
June the Royalists were successful in a series of minor fights about
Cropredy Bridge, and the result was, in accordance with continental
custom, admitted to be an important victory, though Waller's main army
drew off unharmed. In the meantime, Essex had relieved Lyme (June 15)
and occupied Weymouth, and was preparing to go farther. The two rebel
armies were now indeed separate. Waller had been left to do as best he
could, and a worse fate was soon to overtake the cautious earl.
17. _Campaign of Marston Moor._--During these manoeuvres the northern
campaign had been fought to an issue. Rupert's courage and energy were
more likely to command success in the English Civil War than all the
conscientious caution of an Essex or a Brentford. On the 16th of May he
left Shrewsbury to fight his way through hostile country to Lancashire,
where he hoped to re-establish the Derby influence and raise new forces.
Stockport was plundered on the 25th, the besiegers of Lathom House
utterly defeated at Bolton on the 28th. Soon afterwards he received a
large reinforcement under General Goring, which included 5000 of
Newcastle's cavalry. The capture of the almost defenceless town of
Liverpool--undertaken as usual to allay local fears--did not delay
Rupert more than three or four days, and he then turned towards the
Yorkshire border with greatly augmented forces. On the 14th of June he
received a despatch from the king, the gist of which was that there was
a time-limit imposed on the northern enterprise. If York were lost or
did not need his help, Rupert was to make all haste southward via
Worcester. "If York be relieved and you beat the rebels' armies of both
kingdoms, then, but otherways not, I may possibly make a shift upon the
defensive to spin out time until you come to assist me."
Charles did manage to "spin out time." But it was of capital importance
that Rupert had to do his work upon York and the allied army in the
shortest possible time, and that, according to the despatch, there were
only two ways of saving the royal cause, "having relieved York by
beating the Scots," or marching with all speed to Worcester. Rupert's
duty, interpreted through the medium of his temperament, was clear
enough. Newcastle still held out, his men having been encouraged by a
small success on the 17th of June, and Rupert reached Knaresborough on
the 30th. At once Leven, Fairfax and Manchester broke up the siege of
York and moved out to meet him. But the prince, moving still at high
speed, rode round their right flank via Boroughbridge and Thornton
Bridge and entered York on the north side. Newcastle tried to dissuade
Rupert from fighting, but his record as a general was scarcely
convincing as to the value of his advice. Rupert curtly replied that he
had orders to fight, and the Royalists moved out towards Marston Moor
(q.v.) on the morning of July 2, 1644. The Parliamentary commanders,
fearing a fresh manoeuvre, had already begun to retire towards
Tadcaster, but as soon as it became evident that a battle was impending
they turned back. The battle of Marston Moor began about four in the
afternoon. It was the first real trial of strength between the best
elements on either side, and it ended before night with the complete
victory of the Parliamentary armies. The Royalist cause in the north
collapsed once for all, Newcastle fled to the continent, and only
Rupert, resolute as ever, extricated 6000 cavalry from the _débâcle_ and
rode away whence he had come, still the dominant figure of the war.
18. _Independency._--The victory gave the Parliament entire control of
the north, but it did not lead to the definitive solution of the
political problem, and in fact, on the question of Charles's place in a
new Constitution, the victorious generals quarrelled even before York
had surrendered. Within three weeks of the battle the great army was
broken up. The Yorkshire troops proceeded to conquer the isolated
Royalist posts in their county, the Scots marched off to besiege
Newcastle-on-Tyne and to hold in check a nascent Royalist army in
Westmorland. Rupert in Lancashire they neglected entirely. Manchester
and Cromwell, already estranged, marched away into the Eastern
Association. There, for want of an enemy to fight, their army was forced
to be idle, and Cromwell and the ever-growing Independent element
quickly came to suspect their commander of lukewarmness in the cause.
Waller's army, too, was spiritless and immobile. On the 2nd of July,
despairing of the existing military system, he made to the Committee of
Both Kingdoms the first suggestion of the New Model,--"My lords," he
wrote, "till you have an army merely your own, that you may command, it
is ... impossible to do anything of importance." Browne's trained band
army was perhaps the most ill-behaved of all--once the soldiers
attempted to murder their own general. Parliament in alarm set about the
formation of a new general service force (July 12), but meantime both
Waller's and Browne's armies (at Abingdon and Reading respectively)
ignominiously collapsed by mutiny and desertion. It was evident that the
people at large, with their respect for the law and their anxiety for
their own homes, were tired of the war. Only those men--such as
Cromwell--who has set their hearts on fighting out the quarrel of
conscience, kept steadfastly to their purpose. Cromwell himself had
already decided that the king himself must be deprived of his authority,
and his supporters were equally convinced. But they were relatively few.
Even the Eastern Association trained bands had joined in the
disaffection in Waller's army, and that unfortunate general's suggestion
of a professional army, with all its dangers, indicated the only means
of enforcing a peace such as Cromwell and his friends desired. There
was this important difference, however, between Waller's idea and
Cromwell's achievement--that the professional soldiers of the New Model
were disciplined, led, and in all things inspired by "godly" officers.
Godliness, devotion to the cause, and efficiency were indeed the only
criteria Cromwell applied in choosing officers. Long before this he had
warned the Scottish major-general Lawrence Crawford that the precise
colour of a man's religious opinions mattered nothing compared with his
devotion to them, and had told the committee of Suffolk, "I had rather
have a plain russet-coated captain that knows what he fights for and
loves what he knows than that which you call a 'gentleman' and is
nothing else. I honour a gentleman that is so indeed ... but seeing it
was necessary the work must go on, better plain men than none." If "men
of honour and birth" possessed the essentials of godliness, devotion,
and capacity, Cromwell preferred them, and as a fact only seven out of
thirty-seven of the superior officers of the original New Model were not
of gentle birth.
19. _Lostwithiel._--But all this was as yet in the future. Essex's
military promenade in the west of England was the subject of immediate
interest. At first successful, this general penetrated to Plymouth,
whence, securely based as he thought, he could overrun Devon.
Unfortunately for him he was persuaded to overrun Cornwall as well. At
once the Cornishmen rose, as they had risen under Hopton, and the king
was soon on the march from the Oxford region, disregarding the armed
mobs under Waller and Browne. Their state reflected the general
languishing of the war spirit on both sides, not on one only, as Charles
discovered when he learned that Lord Wilmot, the lieutenant-general of
his horse, was in correspondence with Essex. Wilmot was of course placed
under arrest, and was replaced by the dissolute General Goring. But it
was unpleasantly evident that even gay cavaliers of the type of Wilmot
had lost the ideals for which they fought, and had come to believe that
the realm would never be at peace while Charles was king. Henceforward
it will be found that the Royalist foot, now a thoroughly professional
force, is superior in quality to the once superb cavalry, and that not
merely because its opportunities for plunder, &c., are more limited.
Materially, however, the immediate victory was undeniably with the
Royalists. After a brief period of manoeuvre, the Parliamentary army,
now far from Plymouth found itself surrounded and starving at
Lostwithiel, on the Fowey river, without hope of assistance. The horse
cut its way out through the investing circle of posts, Essex himself
escaped by sea, but Major-General Skippon, his second in command, had to
surrender with the whole of the foot on the 2nd of September. The
officers and men were allowed to go free to Portsmouth, but their arms,
guns and munitions were the spoil of the victors. There was now no
trustworthy field force in arms for the Parliament south of the Humber,
for even the Eastern Association army was distracted by its religious
differences, which had now at last come definitely to the front and
absorbed the political dispute in a wider issue. Cromwell already
proposed to abolish the peerage, the members of which were inclined to
make a hollow peace, and had ceased to pay the least respect to his
general, Manchester, whose scheme for the solution of the quarrel was an
impossible combination of Charles and Presbyterianism. Manchester for
his part sank into a state of mere obstinacy, refusing to move against
Rupert, even to besiege Newark, and actually threatened to hang Colonel
Lilburne for capturing a Royalist castle without orders.
20. _Operations of Essex's, Waller's and Manchester's Armies._--After
the success of Lostwithiel there was little to detain Charles's main
army in the extreme west, and meanwhile Banbury, a most important point
in the Oxford circle, and Basing House (near Basingstoke) were in danger
of capture. Waller, who had organized a small force of reliable troops,
had already sent cavalry into Dorsetshire with the idea of assisting
Essex, and he now came himself with reinforcements to prevent, so far as
lay in his power, the king's return to the Thames valley. Charles was
accompanied of course only by his permanent forces and by parts of
Prince Maurice's and Hopton's armies--the Cornish levies had as usual
scattered as soon as the war receded from their borders. Manchester
slowly advanced to Reading, Essex gradually reorganized his broken army
at Portsmouth, while Waller, far out to the west at Shaftesbury,
endeavored to gain the necessary time and space for a general
concentration in Wiltshire, where Charles would be far from Oxford and
Basing and, in addition, outnumbered by two to one. But the work of
rearming Essex's troops proceeded slowly for want of money, and
Manchester peevishly refused to be hurried either by his more vigorous
subordinates or by the Committee of Both Kingdoms, saying that the army
of the Eastern Association was for the guard of its own employers and
not for general service. He pleaded the renewed activity of the Newark
Royalists as his excuse, forgetting that Newark would have been in his
hands ere this had he chosen to move thither instead of lying idle for
two months. As to the higher command, things had come to such a pass
that, when the three armies at last united, a council of war, consisting
of three army commanders, several senior officers, and two civilian
delegates from the Committee, was constituted. When the vote of the
majority had determined what was to be done, Essex, as lord general of
the Parliament's first army, was to issue the necessary orders for the
whole. Under such conditions it was not likely that Waller's hopes of a
great battle at Shaftesbury would be realized. On the 8th of October he
fell back, the royal army following him step by step and finally
reaching Whitchurch on the 20th of October. Manchester arrived at
Basingstoke on the 17th, Waller on the 19th, and Essex on the 21st.
Charles had found that he could not relieve Basing (a mile or two from
Basingstoke) without risking a battle with the enemy between himself and
Oxford;[4] he therefore took the Newbury road and relieved Donnington
Castle near Newbury on the 22nd. Three days later Banbury too was
relieved by a force which could now be spared from the Oxford garrison.
But for once the council of war on the other side was for fighting a
battle, and the Parliamentary armies, their spirits revived by the
prospect of action and by the news of the fall of Newcastle and the
defeat of a sally from Newark, marched briskly. On the 26th they
appeared north of Newbury on the Oxford road. Like Essex in 1643,
Charles found himself headed off from the shelter of friendly
fortresses, but beyond this fact there is little similarity between the
two battles of Newbury, for the Royalists in the first case merely drew
a barrier across Essex's path. On the present occasion the eager
Parliamentarians made no attempt to force the king to attack them; they
were well content to attack him in his chosen position themselves,
especially as he was better off for supplies and quarters than they.
21. _Second Newbury._--The second battle of Newbury is remarkable as
being the first great manoeuvre-battle (as distinct from "pitched"
battle) of the Civil War. A preliminary reconnaissance by the
Parliamentary leaders (Essex was not present, owing to illness)
established the fact that the king's infantry held a strong line of
defence behind the Lambourn brook from Shaw (inclusive) to Donnington
(exclusive), Shaw House and adjacent buildings being held as an advanced
post. In rear of the centre, in open ground just north of Newbury, lay
the bulk of the royal cavalry. In the left rear of the main line, and
separated from it by more than a thousand yards, lay Prince Maurice's
corps at Speen, advanced troops on the high ground west of that village,
but Donnington Castle, under its energetic governor Sir John Boys,
formed a strong post covering this gap with artillery fire. The
Parliamentary leaders had no intention of flinging their men away in a
frontal attack on the line of the Lambourn, and a flank attack from the
east side could hardly succeed owing to the obstacle presented by the
confluence of the Lambourn and the Kennet, hence they decided on a wide
turning movement via Chieveley, Winterbourne and Wickham Heath, against
Prince Maurice's position--a decision which, daring and energetic as it
was, led only to a modified success, for reasons which will appear. The
flank march, out of range of the castle, was conducted with punctuality
and precision. The troops composing it were drawn from all three armies
and led by the best fighting generals, Waller, Cromwell, and Essex's
subordinates Balfour and Skippon. Manchester at Clay Hill was to stand
fast until the turning movement had developed, and to make a vigorous
holding attack on Shaw House as soon as Waller's guns were heard at
Speen. But there was no commander-in-chief to co-ordinate the movements
of the two widely separated corps, and consequently no co-operation.
Waller's attack was not unexpected, and Prince Maurice had made ready to
meet him. Yet the first rush of the rebels carried the entrenchments of
Speen Hill, and Speen itself, though stoutly defended, fell into their
hands within an hour, Essex's infantry recapturing here some of the guns
they had had to surrender at Lostwithiel. But meantime Manchester, in
spite of the entreaties of his staff, had not stirred from Clay Hill. He
had made one false attack already early in the morning, and been
severely handled, and he was aware of his own deficiencies as a general.
A year before this he would have asked for and acted upon the advice of
a capable soldier, such as Cromwell or Crawford, but now his mind was
warped by a desire for peace on any terms, and he sought only to avoid
defeat pending a happy solution of the quarrel. Those who sought to gain
peace through victory were meanwhile driving Maurice back from hedge to
hedge towards the open ground at Newbury, but every attempt to emerge
from the lanes and fields was repulsed by the royal cavalry, and indeed
by every available man and horse, for Charles's officers had gauged
Manchester's intentions, and almost stripped the front of its defenders
to stop Waller's advance. Nightfall put an end to the struggle around
Newbury, and then--too late--Manchester ordered the attack on Shaw
House. It failed completely in spite of the gallantry of his men, and
darkness being then complete it was not renewed. In its general course
the battle closely resembled that of Freiburg (q.v.), fought the same
year on the Rhine. But, if Waller's part in the battle corresponded in a
measure to Turenne's, Manchester was unequal to playing the part of
Condé, and consequently the results, in the case of the French won by
three days' hard fighting, and even then comparatively small, were in
the case of the English practically nil. During the night the royal army
quietly marched away through the gap between Waller's and Manchester's
troops. The heavy artillery and stores were left in Donnington Castle,
Charles himself with a small escort rode off to the north-west to meet
Rupert, and the main body gained Wallingford unmolested. An attempt at
pursuit was made by Waller and Cromwell with all the cavalry they could
lay hands on, but it was unsupported, for the council of war had decided
to content itself with besieging Donnington Castle. A little later,
after a brief and half-hearted attempt to move towards Oxford, it
referred to the Committee for further instructions. Within the month
Charles, having joined Rupert at Oxford and made him general of the
Royalist forces vice Brentford, reappeared in the neighbourhood of
Newbury. Donnington Castle was again relieved (November 9) under the
eyes of the Parliamentary army, which was in such a miserable condition
that even Cromwell was against fighting, and some manoeuvres followed,
in the course of which Charles relieved Basing House and the
Parliamentary armies fell back, not in the best order, to Reading. The
season for field warfare was now far spent, and the royal army retired
to enjoy good quarters and plentiful supplies around Oxford.
22. _The Self-denying Ordinance._--On the other side, the dissensions
between the generals had become flagrant and public, and it was no
longer possible for the Houses of Parliament to ignore the fact that the
army must be radically reformed. Cromwell and Waller from their places
in parliament attacked Manchester's conduct, and their attack ultimately
became, so far as Cromwell was concerned, an attack on the Lords, most
of whom held the same views as Manchester, and on the Scots, who
attempted to bring Cromwell to trial as an "incendiary." At the crisis
of their bitter controversy Cromwell suddenly proposed to stifle all
animosities by the resignation of all officers who were members of
either House, a proposal which affected himself not less than Essex and
Manchester. The first "self-denying ordinance" was moved on the 9th of
December, and provided that "no member of either house shall have or
execute any office or command ...," &c. This was not accepted by the
Lords, and in the end a second "self-denying ordinance" was agreed to
(April 3, 1645), whereby all the persons concerned were to resign, but
without prejudice to their reappointment. Simultaneously with this, the
formation of the New Model was at last definitely taken into
consideration. The last exploit of Sir William Waller, who was not
re-employed after the passing of the ordinance, was the relief of
Taunton, then besieged by General Goring's army. Cromwell served as his
lieutenant-general on this occasion, and we have Waller's own testimony
that he was in all things a wise, capable and respectful subordinate.
Under a leader of the stamp of Waller, Cromwell was well satisfied to
obey, knowing the cause to be in good hands.
23. _Decline of the Royalist Cause._--A raid of Goring's horse from the
west into Surrey and an unsuccessful attack on General Browne at
Abingdon were the chief enterprises undertaken on the side of the
Royalists during the early winter. It was no longer "summer in Devon,
summer in Yorkshire" as in January 1643. An ever-growing section of
Royalists, amongst whom Rupert himself was soon to be numbered, were for
peace; many scores of loyalist gentlemen, impoverished by the loss of
three years' rents of their estates and hopeless of ultimate victory,
were making their way to Westminster to give in their submission to the
Parliament and to pay their fines. In such circumstances the old
decision-seeking strategy was impossible. The new plan, suggested
probably by Rupert, had already been tried with strategical success in
the summer campaign of 1644. As we have seen, it consisted essentially
in using Oxford as the centre of a circle and striking out radially at
any favourable target--"manoeuvring about a fixed point," as Napoleon
called it. It was significant of the decline of the Royalist cause that
the "fixed point" had been in 1643 the king's field army, based indeed
on its great entrenched camp, Banbury-Cirencester-Reading-Oxford, but
free to move and to hold the enemy wherever met, while now it was the
entrenched camp itself, weakened by the loss or abandonment of its outer
posts, and without the power of binding the enemy if they chose to
ignore its existence, that conditioned the scope and duration of the
single remaining field army's enterprises.
24. _The New Model Ordinance._--For the present, however, Charles's
cause was crumbling more from internal weakness than from the blows of
the enemy. Fresh negotiations for peace which opened on the 29th of
January at Uxbridge (by the name of which place they are known to
history) occupied the attention of the Scots and their Presbyterian
friends, the rise of Independency and of Cromwell was a further
distraction, and over the new army and the Self-denying Ordinance the
Lords and Commons were seriously at variance. But in February a fresh
mutiny in Waller's command struck alarm into the hearts of the
disputants. The "treaty" of Uxbridge came to the same end as the treaty
of Oxford in 1643, and a settlement as to army reform was achieved on
the 15th of February. Though it was only on the 25th of March that the
second and modified form of the ordinance was agreed to by both Houses,
Sir Thomas Fairfax and Philip Skippon (who were not members of
parliament) had been approved as lord general and major-general (of the
infantry) respectively of the new army as early as the 21st of January.
The post of lieutenant-general and cavalry commander was for the moment
left vacant, but there was little doubt as to who would eventually
occupy it.
25. _Victories of Montrose._--In Scotland, meanwhile, Montrose was
winning victories which amazed the people of the two kingdoms.
Montrose's royalism differed from that of Englishmen of the 17th century
less than from that of their forefathers under Henry VIII. and
Elizabeth. To him the king was the protector of his people against
Presbyterian theocracy, scarcely less offensive to him than the
Inquisition itself, and the feudal oppression of the great nobles.
Little as this ideal corresponded to the Charles of reality, it inspired
in Montrose not merely romantic heroism but a force of leadership which
was sufficient to carry to victory the nobles and gentry, the wild
Highlanders and the experienced professional soldiers who at various
times and places constituted his little armies. His first unsuccessful
enterprise has been mentioned above. It seemed, in the early stages of
his second attempt (August 1644), as if failure were again inevitable,
for the gentry of the northern Lowlands were overawed by the prevailing
party and resented the leadership of a lesser noble, even though he were
the king's lieutenant over all Scotland. Disappointed of support where
he most expected it, Montrose then turned to the Highlands. At Blair
Athol he gathered his first army of Royalist clansmen, and good fortune
gave him also a nucleus of trained troops. A force of disciplined
experienced soldiers (chiefly Irish Macdonalds and commanded by Alastair
of that name) had been sent over from Ireland earlier in the year, and,
after ravaging the glens of their hereditary enemies the Campbells, had
attempted without success, now here, now there, to gather the other
clans in the king's name. Their hand was against every man's, and when
he finally arrived in Badenoch, Alastair Macdonald was glad to protect
himself by submitting to the authority of the king's lieutenant.
There were three hostile armies to be dealt with,
besides--ultimately--the main covenanting army far away in England. The
duke of Argyll, the head of the Campbells, had an army of his own clan
and of Lowland Covenanter levies, Lord Elcho with another Lowland army
lay near Perth, and Lord Balfour of Burleigh was collecting a third
(also composed of Lowlanders) at Aberdeen. Montrose turned upon Elcho
first, and found him at Tippermuir near Perth on the 1st of September
1644. The Royalists were about 3000 strong and entirely foot, only
Montrose himself and two others being mounted, while Elcho had about
7000 of all arms. But Elcho's townsmen found that pike and musket were
clumsy weapons in inexperienced hands, and, like Mackay's regulars at
Killiecrankie fifty years later, they wholly failed to stop the rush of
the Highland swordsmen. Many hundreds were killed in the pursuit, and
Montrose slept in Perth that night, having thus accounted for one of his
enemies. Balfour of Burleigh was to be his next victim, and he started
for Aberdeen on the 4th. As he marched, his Highlanders slipped away to
place their booty in security. But the Macdonald regulars remained with
him, and as he passed along the coast some of the gentry came in, though
the great western clan of the Gordons was at present too far divided in
sentiment to take his part. Lord Lewis Gordon and some Gordon horse were
even in Balfour's army. On the other hand, the earl of Airlie brought in
forty-four horsemen, and Montrose was thus able to constitute two wings
of cavalry on the day of battle. The Covenanters were about 2500 strong
and drawn up on a slope above the How Burn[5] just outside Aberdeen
(September 13, 1644). Montrose, after clearing away the enemy's
skirmishers, drew up his army in front of the opposing line, the foot in
the centre, the forty-four mounted men, with musketeers to support them,
on either flank. The hostile left-wing cavalry charged piecemeal, and
some bodies of troops did not engage at all. On the other wing, however,
Montrose was for a moment hard pressed by a force of the enemy that
attempted to work round to his rear. But he brought over the small band
of mounted men that constituted his right wing cavalry, and also some
musketeers from the centre, and destroyed the assailants, and when the
ill-led left wing of the Covenanters charged again, during the absence
of the cavalry, they were mown down by the close-range volleys of
Macdonald's musketeers. Shortly afterwards the centre of Balfour's army
yielded to pressure and fled in disorder. Aberdeen was sacked by order
of Montrose, whose drummer had been murdered while delivering a message
under a flag of truce to the magistrates.
26. _Inverlochy._--Only Argyll now remained to be dealt with. The
Campbells were fighting men from birth, like Montrose's own men, and had
few townsmen serving with them. Still there were enough of the latter
and of the impedimenta of regular warfare with him to prevent Argyll
from overtaking his agile enemy, and ultimately after a "hide-and-seek"
in the districts of Rothiemurchus, Blair Athol, Banchory and
Strathbogie, Montrose stood to fight at Fyvie Castle, repulsed Argyll's
attack on that place and slipped away again to Rothiemurchus. There he
was joined by Camerons and Macdonalds from all quarters for a grand raid
on the Campbell country; he himself wished to march into the Lowlands,
well knowing that he could not achieve the decision in the Grampians,
but he had to bow, not for the first time nor the last, to local
importunity. The raid was duly executed, and the Campbells' boast, "It's
a far cry to Loch Awe," availed them little. In December and January the
Campbell lands were thoroughly and mercilessly devastated, and Montrose
then retired slowly to Loch Ness, where the bulk of his army as usual
dispersed to store away its plunder. Argyll, with such Highland and
Lowland forces as he could collect after the disaster, followed Montrose
towards Lochaber, while the Seaforths and other northern clans marched
to Loch Ness. Caught between them, Montrose attacked the nearest. The
Royalists crossed the hills into Glen Roy, worked thence along the
northern face of Ben Nevis, and descended like an avalanche upon
Argyll's forces at Inverlochy (February 2, 1645). As usual, the Lowland
regiments gave way at once--Montrose had managed in all this to keep
with him a few cavalry--and it was then the turn of the Campbells.
Argyll escaped in a boat, but his clan, as a fighting force, was
practically annihilated, and Montrose, having won four victories in
these six winter months, rested his men and exultingly promised Charles
that he would come to his assistance with a brave army before the end of
the summer.
27. _Organization of the New Model Army._--To return to the New Model.
Its first necessity was regular pay; its first duty to serve wherever it
might be sent. Of the three armies that had fought at Newbury only one,
Essex's, was in a true sense a general service force, and only one,
Manchester's, was paid with any regularity. Waller's army was no better
paid than Essex's and no more free from local ties than Manchester's. It
was therefore broken up early in April, and only 600 of its infantry
passed into the New Model. Essex's men, on the other hand, wanted but
regular pay and strict officers to make them excellent soldiers, and
their own major-general, Skippon, managed by tact and his personal
popularity to persuade the bulk of the men to rejoin. Manchester's army,
in which Cromwell had been the guiding influence from first to last, was
naturally the backbone of the New Model. Early in April Essex,
Manchester, and Waller resigned their commissions, and such of their
forces as were not embodied in the new army were sent to do local
duties, for minor armies were still maintained, General Poyntz's in the
north midlands, General Massey's in the Severn valley, a large force in
the Eastern Association, General Browne's in Buckinghamshire, &c.,
besides the Scots in the north.
The New Model originally consisted of 14,400 foot and 7700 horse and
dragoons. Of the infantry only 6000 came from the combined armies, the
rest being new recruits furnished by the press.[6] Thus there was
considerable trouble during the first months of Fairfax's command, and
discipline had to be enforced with unusual sternness. As for the enemy,
Oxford was openly contemptuous of "the rebels' new brutish general" and
his men, who seemed hardly likely to succeed where Essex and Waller had
failed. But the effect of the Parliament's having "an army all its own"
was soon to be apparent.
28. _First Operations of 1645._--On the Royalist side the campaign of
1645 opened in the west, whither the young prince of Wales (Charles II.)
was sent with Hyde (later earl of Clarendon), Hopton and others as his
advisers. General (Lord) Goring, however, now in command of the Royalist
field forces in this quarter, was truculent, insubordinate and
dissolute, though on the rare occasions when he did his duty he
displayed a certain degree of skill and leadership, and the influence of
the prince's counsellors was but small. As usual, operations began with
the sieges necessary to conciliate local feeling. Plymouth and Lyme were
blocked up, and Taunton again invested. The reinforcement thrown into
the last place by Waller and Cromwell was dismissed by Blake (then a
colonel in command of the fortress and afterwards the great admiral of
the Commonwealth), and after many adventures rejoined Waller and
Cromwell. The latter generals, who had not yet laid down their
commissions, then engaged Goring for some weeks, but neither side having
infantry or artillery, and both finding subsistence difficult in
February and March and in country that had been fought over for two
years past, no results were to be expected. Taunton still remained
unrelieved, and Goring's horse still rode all over Dorsetshire when the
New Model at last took the field.
29. _Rupert's Northern March._--In the midlands and Lancashire the
Royalist horse, as ill-behaved even as Goring's men, were directly
responsible for the ignominious failure with which the king's main army
began its year's work. Prince Maurice was joined at Ludlow by Rupert and
part of his Oxford army early in March, and the brothers drove off
Brereton from the siege of Beeston Castle and relieved the pressure on
Lord Byron in Cheshire. So great was the danger of Rupert's again
invading Lancashire and Yorkshire that all available forces in the
north, English and Scots, were ordered to march against him. But at this
moment the prince was called back to clear his line of retreat on
Oxford. The Herefordshire and Worcestershire peasantry, weary of
military exactions, were in arms, and though they would not join the
Parliament, and for the most part dispersed after stating their
grievances, the main enterprise was wrecked. This was but one of many
ill-armed crowds--"Clubmen" as they were called--that assembled to
enforce peace on both parties. A few regular soldiers were sufficient to
disperse them in all cases, but their attempt to establish a third party
in England was morally as significant as it was materially futile. The
Royalists were now fighting with the courage of despair, those who still
fought against Charles did so with the full determination to ensure the
triumph of their cause, and with the conviction that the only possible
way was the annihilation of the enemy's armed forces, but the majority
were so weary of the war that the earl of Manchester's Presbyterian
royalism--which had contributed so materially to the prolongation of the
struggle--would probably have been accepted by four-fifths of all
England as the basis of a peace. It was, in fact, in the face of almost
universal opposition that Fairfax and Cromwell and their friends at
Westminster guided the cause of their weaker comrades to complete
victory.
30. _Cromwell's Raid._--Having without difficulty rid himself of the
Clubmen, Rupert was eager to resume his march into the north. It is
unlikely that he wished to join Montrose, though Charles himself
favoured that plan, but he certainly intended to fight the Scottish
army, more especially as after Inverlochy it had been called upon to
detach a large force to deal with Montrose. But this time there was no
Royalist army in the north to provide infantry and guns for a pitched
battle, and Rupert had perforce to wait near Hereford till the main
body, and in particular the artillery train, could come from Oxford and
join him. It was on the march of the artillery train to Hereford that
the first operations of the New Model centred. The infantry was not yet
ready to move, in spite of all Fairfax's and Skippon's efforts, and it
became necessary to send the cavalry by itself to prevent Rupert from
gaining a start. Cromwell, then under Waller's command, had come to
Windsor to resign his commission as required by the Self-denying
Ordinance. Instead, he was placed at the head of a brigade of his own
old soldiers, with orders to stop the march of the artillery train. On
the 23rd of April he started from Watlington north-westward. At dawn on
the 24th he routed a detachment of Royalist horse at Islip. On the same
day, though he had no guns and only a few firearms in the whole force,
he terrified the governor of Bletchingdon House into surrender. Riding
thence to Witney, Cromwell won another cavalry fight at
Bampton-in-the-Bush on the 27th, and attacked Faringdon House, though
without success, on the 29th. Thence he marched at leisure to Newbury.
He had done his work thoroughly. He had demoralized the Royalist
cavalry, and, above all, had carried off every horse on the countryside.
To all Rupert's entreaties Charles could only reply that the guns could
not be moved till the 7th of May, and he even summoned Goring's cavalry
from the west to make good his losses.
31. _Civilian Strategy._--Cromwell's success thus forced the king to
concentrate his various armies in the neighbourhood of Oxford, and the
New Model had, so Fairfax and Cromwell hoped, found its target. But the
Committee of Both Kingdoms on the one side, and Charles, Rupert and
Goring on the other, held different views. On the 1st of May Fairfax,
having been ordered to relieve Taunton, set out from Windsor for the
long march to that place; meeting Cromwell at Newbury on the 2nd, he
directed the lieutenant-general to watch the movements of the king's
army, and himself marched on to Blandford, which he reached on the 7th
of May. Thus Fairfax and the main army of the Parliament were marching
away in the west while Cromwell's detachment was left, as Waller had
been left the previous year, to hold the king as best he could. On the
very evening that Cromwell's raid ended, the leading troops of Goring's
command destroyed part of Cromwell's own regiment near Faringdon, and on
the 3rd Rupert and Maurice appeared with a force of all arms at Burford.
Yet the Committee of Both Kingdoms, though aware on the 29th of Goring's
move, only made up its mind to stop Fairfax on the 3rd, and did not send
off orders till the 5th. These orders were to the effect that a
detachment was to be sent to the relief of Taunton, and that the main
army was to return. Fairfax gladly obeyed, even though a siege of Oxford
and not the enemy's field army was the objective assigned him. But long
before he came up to the Thames valley the situation was again changed.
Rupert, now in possession of the guns and their teams, urged upon his
uncle the resumption of the northern enterprise, calculating that with
Fairfax in Somersetshire, Oxford was safe. Charles accordingly marched
out of Oxford on the 7th towards Stow-on-the-Wold, on the very day, as
it chanced, that Fairfax began his return march from Blandford. But
Goring and most of the other generals were for a march into the west, in
the hope of dealing with Fairfax as they had dealt with Essex in 1644.
The armies therefore parted as Essex and Waller had parted at the same
place in 1644, Rupert and the king to march northward, Goring to return
to his independent command in the west. Rupert, not unnaturally wishing
to keep his influence with the king and his authority as general of the
king's army unimpaired by Goring's notorious indiscipline, made no
attempt to prevent the separation, which in the event proved wholly
unprofitable. The flying column from Blandford relieved Taunton long
before Goring's return to the west, and Colonel Weldon and Colonel
Graves, its commanders, set him at defiance even in the open country. As
for Fairfax, he was out of Goring's reach preparing for the siege of
Oxford.
32. _Charles in the Midlands._--On the other side also the generals were
working by data that had ceased to have any value. Fairfax's siege of
Oxford, ordered by the Committee on the 10th of May, and persisted in
after it was known that the king was on the move, was the second great
blunder of the year and was hardly redeemed, as a military measure, by
the visionary scheme of assembling the Scots, the Yorkshiremen, and the
midland forces to oppose the king. It is hard to understand how, having
created a new model army "all its own" for general service, the
Parliament at once tied it down to a local enterprise, and trusted an
improvised army of local troops to fight the enemy's main army. In
reality the Committee seems to have been misled by false information to
the effect that Goring and the governor of Oxford were about to declare
for the Parliament, but had they not despatched Fairfax to the relief of
Taunton in the first instance the necessity for such intrigues would not
have arisen. However, Fairfax obeyed orders, invested Oxford, and, so
far as he was able without a proper siege train, besieged it for two
weeks, while Charles and Rupert ranged the midlands unopposed. At the
end of that time came news so alarming that the Committee hastily
abdicated their control over military operations and gave Fairfax a
free hand. "Black Tom" gladly and instantly abandoned the siege and
marched northward to give battle to the king.
Meanwhile Charles and Rupert were moving northward. On the 11th of May
they reached Droitwich, whence after two days' rest they marched against
Brereton. The latter hurriedly raised the sieges he had on hand, and
called upon Yorkshire and the Scottish army there for aid. But only the
old Lord Fairfax and the Yorkshiremen responded. Leven had just heard of
new victories won by Montrose, and could do no more than draw his army
and his guns over the Pennine chain into Westmorland in the hope of
being in time to bar the king's march on Scotland via Carlisle.
33. _Dundee._--After the destruction of the Campbells at Inverlochy,
Montrose had cleared away the rest of his enemies without difficulty. He
now gained a respectable force of cavalry by the adhesion of Lord Gordon
and many of his clan, and this reinforcement was the more necessary as
detachments from Leven's army under Baillie and Hurry--disciplined
infantry and cavalry--were on the march to meet him. The Royalists
marched by Elgin and through the Gordon country to Aberdeen, and thence
across the Esk to Coupar-Angus, where Baillie and Hurry were encountered.
A war of manoeuvre followed, in which they thwarted every effort of the
Royalists to break through into the Lowlands, but in the end retired into
Fife. Montrose thereupon marched into the hills with the intention of
reaching the upper Forth and thence the Lowlands, for he did not disguise
from himself the fact that there, and not in the Highlands, would the
quarrel be decided, and was sanguine--over-sanguine, as the event
proved--as to the support he would obtain from those who hated the kirk
and its system. But he had called to his aid the semi-barbarous
Highlanders, and however much the Lowlands resented a Presbyterian
inquisition, they hated and feared the Highland clans beyond all else. He
was equally disappointed in his own army. For a war of positions the
Highlanders had neither aptitude nor inclination, and at Dunkeld the
greater part of them went home. If the small remnant was to be kept to
its duty, plunder must be found, and the best objective was the town of
Dundee. With a small force of 750 foot and horse Montrose brilliantly
surprised that place on the 4th of April, but Baillie and Hurry were not
far distant, and before Montrose's men had time to plunder the prize they
were collected to face the enemy. His retreat from Dundee was considered
a model operation by foreign students of the art of war (then almost as
numerous as now), and what surprised them most was that Montrose could
rally his men after a sack had begun. The retreat itself was remarkable
enough. Baillie moved parallel to Montrose on his left flank towards
Arbroath, constantly heading him off from the hills and attempting to pin
him against the sea. Montrose, however, halted in the dark so as to let
Baillie get ahead of him and then turned sharply back, crossed Baillie's
track, and made for the hills. Baillie soon realized what had happened
and turned back also, but an hour too late. By the 6th the Royalists were
again safe in the broken country of the Esk valley. But Montrose
cherished no illusions as to joining the king at once; all he could do,
he now wrote, was to neutralize as many of the enemy's forces as
possible.
34. _Auldearn._--For a time he wandered in the Highlands seeking
recruits. But soon he learned that Baillie and Hurry had divided their
forces, the former remaining about Perth and Stirling to observe him,
the latter going north to suppress the Gordons. Strategy and policy
combined to make Hurry the objective of the next expedition. But the
soldier of fortune who commanded the Covenanters at Aberdeen was no mean
antagonist. Marching at once with a large army (formed on the nucleus of
his own trained troops and for the rest composed of clansmen and
volunteers) Hurry advanced to Elgin, took contact with Montrose there,
and, gradually and skilfully retiring, drew him into the hostile country
round Inverness. Montrose fell into the trap, and Hurry took his
measures to surprise him at Auldearn so successfully that (May 9)
Montrose, even though the indiscipline of some of Hurry's young
soldiers during the night march gave him the alarm, had barely time to
form up before the enemy was upon him. But the best strategy is of no
avail when the battle it produces goes against the strategist, and
Montrose's tactical skill was never more conspicuous than at Auldearn.
Alastair Macdonald with most of the Royalist infantry and the Royal
standard was posted to the right (north) of the village to draw upon
himself the weight of Hurry's attack; only enough men were posted in the
village itself to show that it was occupied, and on the south side, out
of sight, was Montrose himself with a body of foot and all the Gordon
horse. It was the prototype, on a small scale, of Austerlitz. Macdonald
resisted sturdily while Montrose edged away from the scene of action,
and at the right moment and not before, though Macdonald had been driven
back on the village and was fighting for life amongst the gardens and
enclosures, Montrose let loose Lord Gordon's cavalry. These, abandoning
for once the pistol tactics of their time, charged home with the sword.
The enemy's right wing cavalry was scattered in an instant, the nearest
infantry was promptly ridden down, and soon Hurry's army had ceased to
exist.
35. _Campaign of Naseby._--If the news of Auldearn brought Leven to the
region of Carlisle, it had little effect on his English allies. Fairfax
was not yet released from the siege of Oxford, in spite of the protests
of the Scottish representatives in London. Massey, the active and
successful governor of Gloucester, was placed in command of a field
force on the 25th of May, but he was to lead it against, not the king,
but Goring. At that moment the military situation once more changed
abruptly. Charles, instead of continuing his march on to Lancashire,
turned due eastward towards Derbyshire. The alarm at Westminster when
this new development was reported was such that Cromwell, in spite of
the Self-Denying Ordinance, was sent to raise an army for the defence of
the Eastern Association. Yet the Royalists had no intentions in that
direction. Conflicting reports as to the condition of Oxford reached the
royal headquarters in the last week of May, and the eastward march was
made chiefly to "spin out time" until it could be known whether it would
be necessary to return to Oxford, or whether it was still possible to
fight Leven in Yorkshire--his move into Westmorland was not yet
known--and invade Scotland by the easy east coast route.
Goring's return to the west had already been countermanded and he had
been directed to march to Harborough, while the South Wales Royalists
were also called in towards Leicester. Later orders (May 26) directed
him to Newbury, whence he was to feel the strength of the enemy's
positions around Oxford. It is hardly necessary to say that Goring found
good military reasons for continuing his independent operations, and
marched off towards Taunton regardless of the order. He redressed the
balance there for the moment by overawing Massey's weak force, and his
purse profited considerably by fresh opportunities for extortion, but he
and his men were not at Naseby. Meanwhile the king, at the geographical
centre of England, found an important and wealthy town at his mercy.
Rupert, always for action, took the opportunity, and Leicester was
stormed and thoroughly pillaged on the night of the 30th-31st of May.
There was the usual panic at Westminster, but, unfortunately for
Charles, it resulted in Fairfax being directed to abandon the siege of
Oxford and given _carte blanche_ to bring the Royal army to battle
wherever it was met. On his side the king had, after the capture of
Leicester, accepted the advice of those who feared for the safety of
Oxford--Rupert, though commander-in-chief, was unable to insist on the
northern enterprise--and had marched to Daventry, where he halted to
throw supplies into Oxford. Thus Fairfax in his turn was free to move,
thanks to the insubordination of Goring, who would neither relieve
Oxford nor join the king for an attack on the New Model. The
Parliamentary general moved from Oxford towards Northampton so as to
cover the Eastern Association. On the 12th of June the two armies were
only a few miles apart, Fairfax at Kislingbury, Charles at Daventry,
and, though the Royalists turned northward again on the 13th to resume
the Yorkshire project under the very eyes of the enemy, Fairfax followed
close. On the night of the 13th Charles slept at Lubenham, Fairfax at
Guilsborough. Cromwell, just appointed lieutenant-general of the New
Model, had ridden into camp on the morning of the 13th with fresh
cavalry from the eastern counties, Colonel Rossiter came up with more
from Lincolnshire on the morning of the battle, and it was with an
incontestable superiority of numbers and an overwhelming moral advantage
that Fairfax fought at Naseby (q.v.) on the 14th of June. The result of
the battle, this time a decisive battle, was the annihilation of the
Royal army. Part of the cavalry escaped, a small fraction of it in
tolerable order, but the guns and the baggage train were taken, and,
above all, the splendid Royal infantry were killed or taken prisoners to
a man.
36. _Effects of Naseby._--After Naseby, though the war dragged on for
another year, the king never succeeded in raising an army as good as, or
even more numerous than, that which Fairfax's army had so heavily
outnumbered on the 14th of June. That the fruits of the victory could
not be gathered in a few weeks was due to a variety of hindrances rather
than to direct opposition--to the absence of rapid means of
communication, the paucity of the forces engaged on both sides
relatively to the total numbers under arms, and from time to time to the
political exigencies of the growing quarrel between Presbyterians and
Independents. As to the latter, within a few days of Naseby, the Scots
rejoiced that the "back of the malignants was broken," and demanded
reinforcements as a precaution against "the insolence of others," i.e.
Cromwell and the Independents--"to whom alone the Lord has given the
victory of that day." Leven had by now returned to Yorkshire, and a
fortnight after Naseby, after a long and honourable defence by Sir
Thomas Glemham, Carlisle fell to David Leslie's besieging corps.
Leicester was reoccupied by Fairfax on the 18th, and on the 20th Leven's
army, moving slowly southward, reached Mansfield. This move was
undertaken largely for political reasons, i.e. to restore the
Presbyterian balance as against the victorious New Model. Fairfax's army
was intended by its founders to be a specifically English army, and
Cromwell for one would have employed it against the Scots almost as
readily as against malignants. But for the moment the advance of the
northern army was of the highest military importance, for Fairfax was
thereby set free from the necessity of undertaking sieges. Moreover, the
publication of the king's papers taken at Naseby gave Fairfax's troops a
measure of official and popular support which a month before they could
not have been said to possess, for it was now obvious that they
represented the armed force of England against the Irish, Danes, French,
Lorrainers, &c., whom Charles had for three years been endeavouring to
let loose on English soil. Even the Presbyterians abandoned for the time
any attempt to negotiate with the king, and advocated a vigorous
prosecution of the war.
37. _Fairfax's Western Campaign._--This, in the hands of Fairfax and
Cromwell, was likely to be effective. While the king and Rupert, with
the remnant of their cavalry, hurried into South Wales to join Sir
Charles Gerard's troops and to raise fresh infantry, Fairfax decided
that Goring's was the most important Royalist army in the field, and
turned to the west, reaching Lechlade on the 26th, less than a fortnight
after the battle of Naseby. One last attempt was made to dictate the
plan of campaign from Westminster, but the Committee refused to pass on
the directions of the Houses, and he remained free to deal with Goring
as he desired. Time pressed; Charles in Monmouthshire and Rupert at
Bristol were well placed for a junction with Goring, which would have
given them a united army 15,000 strong. Taunton, in spite of Massey's
efforts to keep the field, was again besieged, and in Wilts and Dorset
numerous bands of Clubmen were on foot which the king's officers were
doing their best to turn into troops for their master. But the process
of collecting a fresh royal army was slow, and Goring and his
subordinate, Sir Richard Grenville, were alienating the king's most
devoted adherents by their rapacity, cruelty and debauchery. Moreover,
Goring had no desire to lose the independent command he had extorted at
Stow-on-the-Wold in May. Still, it was clear that he must be disposed
of as quickly as possible, and Fairfax requested the Houses to take
other measures against the king (June 26). This they did by paying up
the arrears due to Leven's army and bringing it to the Severn valley. On
the 8th of July Leven reached Alcester, bringing with him a
Parliamentarian force from Derbyshire under Sir John Gell. The design
was to besiege Hereford.
38. _Langport._--By that time Fairfax and Goring were at close quarters.
The Royalist general's line of defence faced west along the Yeo and the
Parrett between Yeovil and Bridgwater, and thus barred the direct route
to Taunton. Fairfax, however, marched from Lechlade via Marlborough and
Blandford--hindered only by Clubmen--to the friendly posts of Dorchester
and Lyme, and with these as his centre of operations he was able to turn
the headwaters of Goring's river-line via Beaminster and Crewkerne. The
Royalists at once abandoned the south and west side of the rivers--the
siege of Taunton had already been given up--and passed over to the north
and east bank. Bridgwater was the right of this second line as it had
been the left of the first; the new left was at Ilchester. Goring could
thus remain in touch with Charles in south Wales through Bristol, and
the siege of Taunton having been given up there was no longer any
incentive for remaining on the wrong side of the water-line. But his
army was thoroughly demoralized by its own licence and indiscipline, and
the swift, handy and resolute regiments of the New Model made short work
of its strong positions. On the 7th of July, demonstrating against the
points of passage between Ilchester and Langport, Fairfax secretly
occupied Yeovil. The post at that place, which had been the right of
Goring's first position, had, perhaps rightly, been withdrawn to
Ilchester when the second position was taken up, and Fairfax repaired
the bridge without interruption. Goring showed himself unequal to the
new situation. He might, if sober, make a good plan when the enemy was
not present to disturb him, and he certainly led cavalry charges with
boldness and skill. But of strategy in front of the enemy he was
incapable. On the news from Yeovil he abandoned the line of the Yeo as
far as Langport without striking a blow, and Fairfax, having nothing to
gain by continuing his détour through Yeovil, came back and quietly
crossed at Long Sutton, west of Ilchester (July 9). Goring had by now
formed a new plan. A strong rearguard was posted at Langport and on high
ground east and north-east of it to hold Fairfax, and he himself with
the cavalry rode off early on the 8th to try and surprise Taunton. This
place was no longer protected by Massey's little army, which Fairfax had
called up to assist his own. But Fairfax, who was not yet across Long
Sutton bridge, heard of Goring's raid in good time, and sent Massey
after him with a body of horse. Massey surprised a large party of the
Royalists at Ilminster on the 9th, wounded Goring himself, and pursued
the fugitives up to the south-eastern edge of Langport. On the 10th
Fairfax's advanced guard, led by Major Bethel of Cromwell's own
regiment, brilliantly stormed the position of Goring's rearguard east of
Langport, and the cavalry of the New Model, led by Cromwell himself,
swept in pursuit right up to the gates of Bridgwater, where Goring's
army, dismayed and on the point of collapse, was more or less rallied.
Thence Goring himself retired to Barnstaple. His army, under the
regimental officers, defended itself in Bridgwater resolutely till the
23rd of July, when it capitulated. The fall of Bridgwater gave Fairfax
complete control of Somerset and Dorset from Lyme to the Bristol
channel. Even in the unlikely event of Goring's raising a fresh army, he
would now have to break through towards Bristol by open force, and a
battle between Goring and Fairfax could only have one result. Thus
Charles had perforce to give up his intention of joining Goring--his
recruiting operations in south Wales had not been so successful as he
hoped, owing to the apathy of the people and the vigour of the local
Parliamentary leaders--and to resume the northern enterprise begun in
the spring.
39. _Schemes of Lord Digby._--This time Rupert would not be with him.
The prince, now despairing of success and hoping only for a peace on the
best terms procurable, listlessly returned to his governorship of
Bristol and prepared to meet Fairfax's impending attack. The influence
of Rupert was supplanted by that of Lord Digby. As sanguine as Charles
and far more energetic, he was for the rest of the campaign the guiding
spirit of the Royalists, but being a civilian he proved incapable of
judging the military factors in the situation from a military
standpoint, and not only did he offend the officers by constituting
himself a sort of confidential military secretary to the king, but he
was distrusted by all sections of Royalists for his reckless optimism.
The resumption of the northern enterprise, opposed by Rupert and
directly inspired by Digby, led to nothing. Charles marched by
Bridgnorth, Lichfield and Ashbourne to Doncaster, where on the 18th of
August he was met by great numbers of Yorkshire gentlemen with promises
of fresh recruits. For a moment the outlook was bright, for the
Derbyshire men with Gell were far away at Worcester with Leven, the
Yorkshire Parliamentarians engaged in besieging Scarborough Castle,
Pontefract and other posts. But two days later he heard that David
Leslie with the cavalry of Leven's army was coming up behind him, and
that, the Yorkshire sieges being now ended, Major-General Poyntz's force
lay in his front. It was now impossible to wait for the new levies, and
reluctantly the king turned back to Oxford, raiding Huntingdonshire and
other parts of the hated Eastern Association _en route_.
40. _Montrose's Last Victories._--David Leslie did not pursue him.
Montrose, though the king did not yet know it, had won two more battles,
and was practically master of all Scotland. After Auldearn he had turned
to meet Baillie's army in Strathspey, and by superior mobility and skill
forced that commander to keep at a respectful distance. He then turned
upon a new army which Lindsay, titular earl of Crawford, was forming in
Forfarshire, but that commander betook himself to a safe distance, and
Montrose withdrew into the Highlands to find recruits (June). The
victors of Auldearn had mostly dispersed on the usual errand, and he was
now deserted by most of the Gordons, who were recalled by the chief of
their clan, the marquess of Huntly, in spite of the indignant
remonstrances of Huntly's heir, Lord Gordon, who was Montrose's warmest
admirer. Baillie now approached again, but he was weakened by having to
find trained troops to stiffen Lindsay's levies, and a strong force of
the Gordons had now been persuaded to rejoin Montrose. The two armies
met in battle near Alford on the Don; little can be said of the
engagement save that Montrose had to fight cautiously and tentatively as
at Aberdeen, not in the decision-forcing spirit of Auldearn, and that in
the end Baillie's cavalry gave way and his infantry was cut down as it
stood. Lord Gordon was amongst the Royalist dead (July 2). The plunder
was put away in the glens before any attempt was made to go forward, and
thus the Covenanters had leisure to form a numerous, if not very
coherent, army on the nucleus of Lindsay's troops. Baillie, much against
his will, was continued in the command, with a council of war (chiefly
of nobles whom Montrose had already defeated, such as Argyll, Elcho and
Balfour) to direct his every movement. Montrose, when rejoined by the
Highlanders, moved to meet him, and in the last week of July and the
early part of August there were manoeuvres and minor engagements round
Perth. About the 7th of August Montrose suddenly slipped away into the
Lowlands, heading for Glasgow. Thereupon another Covenanting army began
to assemble in Clydesdale. But it was clear that Montrose could beat
mere levies, and Baillie, though without authority and despairing of
success, hurried after him. Montrose then, having drawn Baillie's
Fifeshire militia far enough from home to ensure their being
discontented, turned upon them on the 14th of August near Kilsyth.
Baillie protested against fighting, but his aristocratic masters of the
council of war decided to cut off Montrose from the hills by turning his
left wing. The Royalist general seized the opportunity, and his advance
caught them in the very act of making a flank march (August 15). The
head of the Covenanters' column was met and stopped by the furious
attack of the Gordon infantry, and Alastair Macdonald led the men of his
own name and the Macleans against its flank. A breach was made in the
centre of Baillie's army at the first rush, and then Montrose sent in
the Gordon and Ogilvy horse. The leading half of the column was
surrounded, broken up and annihilated. The rear half, seeing the fate of
its comrades, took to flight, but in vain, for the Highlanders pursued
_à outrance_. Only about one hundred Covenanting infantry out of six
thousand escaped. Montrose was now indeed the king's lieutenant in all
Scotland.
41. _Fall of Bristol._--But Charles was in no case to resume his
northern march. Fairfax and the New Model, after reducing Bridgwater,
had turned back to clear away the Dorsetshire Clubmen and to besiege
Sherborne Castle. On the completion of this task, it had been decided to
besiege Bristol, and on the 23rd of August--while the king's army was
still in Huntingdon, and Goring was trying to raise a new army to
replace the one he had lost at Langport and Bridgwater--the city was
invested. In these urgent circumstances Charles left Oxford for the west
only a day or two after he had come in from the Eastern Association
raid. Calculating that Rupert could hold out longest, he first moved to
the relief of Worcester, around which place Leven's Scots, no longer
having Leslie's cavalry with them to find supplies, were more occupied
with plundering their immediate neighbourhood for food than with the
siege works. Worcester was relieved on the 1st of September by the king.
David Leslie with all his cavalry was already on the march to meet
Montrose, and Leven had no alternative but to draw off his infantry
without fighting. Charles entered Worcester on the 8th, but he found
that he could no longer expect recruits from South Wales. Worse was to
come. A few hours later, on the night of the 9th-10th, Fairfax's army
stormed Bristol. Rupert had long realized the hopelessness of further
fighting--the very summons to surrender sent in by Fairfax placed the
fate of Bristol on the political issue,--the lines of defence around the
place were too extensive for his small force, and on the 11th he
surrendered on terms. He was escorted to Oxford with his men, conversing
as he rode with the officers of the escort about peace and the future of
his adopted country. Charles, almost stunned by the suddenness of the
catastrophe, dismissed his nephew from all his offices and ordered him
to leave England, and for almost the last time called upon Goring to
rejoin the main army--if a tiny force of raw infantry and disheartened
cavalry can be so called--in the neighbourhood of Raglan. But before
Goring could be brought to withdraw his objections Charles had again
turned northward towards Montrose. A weary march through the Welsh hills
brought the Royal army on the 22nd of September to the neighbourhood of
Chester. Charles himself with one body entered the city, which was
partially invested by the Parliamentarian colonel Michael Jones, and the
rest under Sir Marmaduke Langdale was sent to take Jones's lines in
reverse. But at the opportune moment Poyntz's forces, which had followed
the king's movements since he left Doncaster in the middle of August,
appeared in rear of Langdale, and defeated him in the battle of Rowton
Heath (September 24), while at the same time a sortie of the king's
troops from Chester was repulsed by Jones. Thereupon the Royal army
withdrew to Denbigh, and Chester, the only important seaport remaining
to connect Charles with Ireland, was again besieged.
42. _Philiphaugh._--Nor was Montrose's position, even after Kilsyth,
encouraging, in spite of the persistent rumours of fighting in
Westmorland that reached Charles and Digby. Glasgow and Edinburgh were
indeed occupied, and a parliament summoned in the king's name. But
Montrose had now to choose between Highlanders and Lowlanders. The
former, strictly kept away from all that was worth plundering, rapidly
vanished, even Alastair Macdonald going with the rest. Without the
Macdonalds and the Gordons, Montrose's military and political
resettlement of Scotland could only be shadowy, and when he demanded
support from the sturdy middle classes of the Lowlands, it was not
forgotten that he had led Highlanders to the sack of Lowland towns. Thus
his new supporters could only come from amongst the discontented and
undisciplined Border lords and gentry, and long before these moved to
join him the romantic conquest of Scotland was over. On the 6th of
September David Leslie had recrossed the frontier with his cavalry and
some infantry he had picked up on the way through northern England.
Early on the morning of the 13th he surprised Montrose at Philiphaugh
near Selkirk. The king's lieutenant had only 650 men against 4000, and
the battle did not last long. Montrose escaped with a few of his
principal adherents, but his little army was annihilated. Of the veteran
Macdonald infantry, 500 strong that morning, 250 were killed in the
battle and the remainder put to death after accepting quarter. The
Irish, even when they bore a Scottish name, were, by Scotsmen even more
than Englishmen, regarded as beasts to be knocked on the head. After
Naseby the Irishwomen found in the king's camp were branded by order of
Fairfax; after Philiphaugh more than 300 women, wives or followers of
Macdonald's men, were butchered. Montrose's Highlanders at their worst
were no more cruel than the sober soldiers of the kirk.
43. _Digby's Northern Expedition._--Charles received the news of
Philiphaugh on the 28th of September, and gave orders that the west
should be abandoned, the prince of Wales should be sent to France, and
Goring should bring up what forces he could to the Oxford region. On the
4th of October Charles himself reached Newark (whither he had marched
from Denbigh after revictualling Chester and suffering the defeat of
Rowton Heath). The intention to go to Montrose was of course given up,
at any rate for the present, and he was merely waiting for Goring and
the Royalist militia of the west--each in its own way a broken reed to
lean upon. A hollow reconciliation was patched up between Charles and
Rupert, and the court remained at Newark for over a month. Before it set
out to return to Oxford another Royalist force had been destroyed. On
the 14th of October, receiving information that Montrose had raised a
new army, the king permitted Langdale's northern troops to make a fresh
attempt to reach Scotland. At Langdale's request Digby was appointed to
command in this enterprise, and, civilian though he was, and disastrous
though his influence had been to the discipline of the army, he led it
boldly and skilfully. His immediate opponent was Poyntz, who had
followed the king step by step from Doncaster to Chester and back to
Welbeck, and he succeeded on the 15th in surprising Poyntz's entire
force of foot at Sherburn. Poyntz's cavalry were soon after this
reported approaching from the south, and Digby hoped to trap them also.
At first all went well and body after body of the rebels was routed. But
by a singular mischance the Royalist main body mistook the Parliamentary
squadrons in flight through Sherburn for friends, and believing all was
lost took to flight also. Thus Digby's cavalry fled as fast as Poyntz's
and in the same direction, and the latter, coming to their senses first,
drove the Royalist horse in wild confusion as far as Skipton. Lord Digby
was still sanguine, and from Skipton he actually penetrated as far as
Dumfries. But whether Montrose's new army was or was not in the
Lowlands, it was certain that Leven and Leslie were on the Border, and
the mad adventure soon came to an end. Digby, with the mere handful of
men remaining to him, was driven back into Cumberland, and on the 24th
of October, his army having entirely disappeared, he took ship with his
officers for the Isle of Man. Poyntz had not followed him beyond
Skipton, and was now watching the king from Nottingham, while Rossiter
with the Lincoln troops was posted at Grantham. The king's chances of
escaping from Newark were becoming smaller day by day, and they were not
improved by a violent dispute between him and Rupert, Maurice, Lord
Gerard and Sir Richard Willis, at the end of which these officers and
many others rode away to ask the Parliament for leave to go over-seas.
The pretext of the quarrel mattered little, the distinction between the
views of Charles and Digby on the one hand and Rupert and his friends on
the other was fundamental--to the latter peace had become a political as
well as a military necessity. Meanwhile south Wales, with the single
exception of Raglan Castle, had been overrun by the Parliamentarians.
Everywhere the Royalist posts were falling. The New Model, no longer
fearing Goring, had divided, Fairfax reducing the garrisons of Dorset
and Devon, Cromwell those of Hampshire. Amongst the latter was the
famous Basing House, which was stormed at dawn on the 14th of October
and burnt to the ground. Cromwell, his work finished, returned to
headquarters, and the army wintered in the neighbourhood of Crediton.
44. _End of the First War._--The military events of 1646 call for no
comment. The only field army remaining to the king was Goring's, and
though Hopton, who sorrowfully accepted the command after Goring's
departure, tried at the last moment to revive the memories and the local
patriotism of 1643, it was of no use to fight against the New Model with
the armed rabble that Goring turned over to him. Dartmouth surrendered
on January 18, Hopton was defeated at Torrington on February 16, and
surrendered the remnant of his worthless army on March 14. Exeter fell
on April 13. Elsewhere, Hereford was taken on December 17, 1645, and the
last battle of the war was fought and lost at Stow-on-the-Wold by Lord
Astley on March 21, 1646. Newark and Oxford fell respectively on May 6
and June 24. On August 31 Montrose escaped from the Highlands. On the
19th of the same month Raglan Castle surrendered, and the last Royalist
post of all, Harlech Castle, maintained the useless struggle until March
13, 1647. Charles himself, after leaving Newark in November 1645, had
spent the winter in and around Oxford, whence, after an adventurous
journey, he came to the camp of the Scottish army at Southwell on May 5,
1646.
45. _Second Civil War (1648-52)._--The close of the First Civil War left
England and Scotland in the hands potentially of any one of the four
parties or any combination of two or more that should prove strong enough
to dominate the rest. Armed political Royalism was indeed at an end, but
Charles, though practically a prisoner, considered himself and was, almost
to the last, considered by the rest as necessary to ensure the success of
whichever amongst the other three parties could come to terms with him.
Thus he passed successively into the hands of the Scots, the Parliament
and the New Model, trying to reverse the verdict of arms by coquetting
with each in turn. The Presbyterians and the Scots, after Cornet Joyce of
Fairfax's horse seized upon the person of the king for the army (June 3,
1647), began at once to prepare for a fresh civil war, this time against
Independency, as embodied in the New Model--henceforward called the
Army--and after making use of its sword, its opponents attempted to
disband it, to send it on foreign service, to cut off its arrears of pay,
with the result that it was exasperated beyond control, and, remembering
not merely its grievances but also the principle for which it had fought,
soon became the most powerful political party in the realm. From 1646 to
1648 the breach between army and parliament widened day by day until
finally the Presbyterian party, combined with the Scots and the remaining
Royalists, felt itself strong enough to begin a second civil war.
46. _The English War._--In February 1648 Colonel Poyer, the
Parliamentary governor of Pembroke Castle, refused to hand over his
command to one of Fairfax's officers, and he was soon joined by some
hundreds of officers and men, who mutinied, ostensibly for arrears of
pay, but really with political objects. At the end of March, encouraged
by minor successes, Poyer openly declared for the king. Disbanded
soldiers continued to join him in April, all South Wales revolted, and
eventually he was joined by Major-General Laugharne, his district
commander, and Colonel Powel. In April also news came that the Scots
were arming and that Berwick and Carlisle had been seized by the English
Royalists. Cromwell was at once sent off at the head of a strong
detachment to deal with Laugharne and Poyer. But before he arrived
Laugharne had been severely defeated by Colonel Horton at St Fagans (May
8). The English Presbyterians found it difficult to reconcile their
principles with their allies when it appeared that the prisoners taken
at St Fagans bore "We long to see our King" on their hats; very soon in
fact the English war became almost purely a Royalist revolt, and the war
in the north an attempt to enforce a mixture of Royalism and
Presbyterianism on Englishmen by means of a Scottish army. The former
were disturbers of the peace and no more. Nearly all the Royalists who
had fought in the First Civil War had given their parole not to bear
arms against the Parliament, and many honourable Royalists, foremost
amongst them the old Lord Astley, who had fought the last battle for the
king in 1646, refused to break their word by taking any part in the
second war. Those who did so, and by implication those who abetted them
in doing so, were likely to be treated with the utmost rigour if
captured, for the army was in a less placable mood in 1648 than in 1645,
and had already determined to "call Charles Stuart, that man of blood,
to an account for the blood he had shed." On the 21st of May Kent rose
in revolt in the king's name. A few days later a most serious blow to
the Independents was struck by the defection of the navy, from command
of which they had removed Vice-Admiral Batten, as being a Presbyterian.
Though a former lord high admiral, the earl of Warwick, also a
Presbyterian, was brought back to the service, it was not long before
the navy made a purely Royalist declaration and placed itself under the
command of the prince of Wales. But Fairfax had a clearer view and a
clearer purpose than the distracted Parliament. He moved quickly into
Kent, and on the evening of June 1 stormed Maidstone by open force,
after which the local levies dispersed to their homes, and the more
determined Royalists, after a futile attempt to induce the City of
London to declare for them, fled into Essex. In Cornwall,
Northamptonshire, North Wales and Lincolnshire the revolt collapsed as
easily. Only in South Wales, Essex and the north of England was there
serious fighting. In the first of these districts Cromwell rapidly
reduced all the fortresses except Pembroke, where Laugharne, Poyer and
Powel held out with the desperate courage of deserters. In the north,
Pontefract was surprised by the Royalists, and shortly afterwards
Scarborough Castle declared for the king. Fairfax, after his success at
Maidstone and the pacification of Kent, turned northward to reduce
Essex, where, under their ardent, experienced and popular leader Sir
Charles Lucas, the Royalists were in arms in great numbers. He soon
drove the enemy into Colchester, but the first attack on the town was
repulsed and he had to settle down to a long and wearisome siege _en
règle_. A Surrey rising, remembered only for the death of the young and
gallant Lord Francis Villiers in a skirmish at Kingston (July 7),
collapsed almost as soon as it had gathered force, and its leaders, the
duke of Buckingham and the earl of Holland, escaped, after another
attempt to induce London to declare for them, to St Albans and St Neots,
where Holland was taken prisoner. Buckingham escaped over-seas.
47. _Lambert in the North._--By the 10th of July therefore the military
situation was well defined. Cromwell held Pembroke, Fairfax Colchester,
Lambert Pontefract under siege; elsewhere all serious local risings had
collapsed, and the Scottish army had crossed the Border. It is on the
adventures of the latter that the interest of the war centres. It was by
no means the veteran army of Leven, which had long been disbanded. For
the most part it consisted of raw levies, and as the kirk had refused to
sanction the enterprise of the Scottish parliament, David Leslie and
thousands of experienced officers and men declined to serve. The duke of
Hamilton proved to be a poor substitute for Leslie; his army, too, was
so ill provided that as soon as England was invaded it began to plunder
the countryside for the bare means of sustenance. Major-General Lambert,
a brilliant young general of twenty-nine, was more than equal to the
situation. He had already left the sieges of Pontefract and Scarborough
to Colonel Rossiter, and hurried into Cumberland to deal with the
English Royalists under Sir Marmaduke Langdale. With his cavalry he got
into touch with the enemy about Carlisle and slowly fell back, fighting
small rearguard actions to annoy the enemy and gain time, to Bowes and
Barnard Castle. Langdale did not follow him into the mountains, but
occupied himself in gathering recruits and supplies of material and food
for the Scots. Lambert, reinforced from the midlands, reappeared early
in June and drove him back to Carlisle with his work half finished.
About the same time the local horse of Durham and Northumberland were
put into the field by Sir A. Hesilrige, governor of Newcastle, and under
the command of Colonel Robert Lilburne won a considerable success (June
30) at the river Coquet. This reverse, coupled with the existence of
Langdale's force on the Cumberland side, practically compelled Hamilton
to choose the west coast route for his advance, and his army began
slowly to move down the long _couloir_ between the mountains and the
sea. The campaign which followed is one of the most brilliant in English
history.
48. _Campaign of Preston._--On the 8th of July the Scots, with Langdale
as advanced guard, were about Carlisle, and reinforcements from Ulster
were expected daily. Lambert's horse were at Penrith, Hexham and
Newcastle, too weak to fight and having only skilful leading and
rapidity of movement to enable them to gain time. Far away to the south
Cromwell was still tied down before Pembroke, Fairfax before Colchester.
Elsewhere the rebellion, which had been put down by rapidity of action
rather than sheer weight of numbers, smouldered, and Prince Charles and
the fleet cruised along the Essex coast. Cromwell and Lambert, however,
understood each other perfectly, while the Scottish commanders
quarrelled with Langdale and each other. Appleby Castle surrendered to
the Scots on the 31st of July, whereat Lambert, who was still hanging on
to the flank of the Scottish advance, fell back from Barnard Castle to
Richmond so as to close Wensleydale against any attempt of the invaders
to march on Pontefract. All the restless energy of Langdale's horse was
unable to dislodge him from the passes or to find out what was behind
that impenetrable cavalry screen. The crisis was now at hand. Cromwell
had received the surrender of Pembroke on the 11th, and had marched off,
with his men unpaid, ragged and shoeless, at full speed through the
midlands. Rains and storms delayed his march, but he knew that Hamilton
in the broken ground of Westmorland was still worse off. Shoes from
Northampton and stockings from Coventry met him at Nottingham, and,
gathering up the local levies as he went, he made for Doncaster, where
he arrived on the 8th of August, having gained six days in advance of
the time he had allowed himself for the march. He then called up
artillery from Hull, exchanged his local levies for the regulars who
were besieging Pontefract, and set off to meet Lambert. On the 12th he
was at Wetherby, Lambert with horse and foot at Otley, Langdale at
Skipton and Gargrave, Hamilton at Lancaster, and Sir George Monro with
the Scots from Ulster and the Carlisle Royalists (organized as a
separate command owing to friction between Monro and the generals of the
main army) at Hornby. On the 13th, while Cromwell was marching to join
Lambert at Otley, the Scottish leaders were still disputing as to
whether they should make for Pontefract or continue through Lancashire
so as to join Lord Byron and the Cheshire Royalists.
49. _Preston Fight._--On the 14th Cromwell and Lambert were at Skipton,
on the 15th at Gisburn, and on the 16th they marched down the valley of
the Ribble towards Preston with full knowledge of the enemy's
dispositions and full determination to attack him. They had with them
horse and foot not only of the army, but also of the militia of
Yorkshire, Durham, Northumberland and Lancashire, and withal were heavily
outnumbered, having only 8600 men against perhaps 20,000 of Hamilton's
command. But the latter were scattered for convenience of supply along
the road from Lancaster, through Preston, towards Wigan, Langdale's corps
having thus become the left flank guard instead of the advanced guard.
Langdale called in his advanced parties, perhaps with a view to resuming
the duties of advanced guard, on the night of the 13th, and collected
them near Longridge. It is not clear whether he reported Cromwell's
advance, but, if he did, Hamilton ignored the report, for on the 17th
Monro was half a day's march to the north, Langdale east of Preston, and
the main army strung out on the Wigan road, Major-General Baillie with a
body of foot, the rear of the column, being still in Preston. Hamilton,
yielding to the importunity of his lieutenant-general, the earl of
Callendar, sent Baillie across the Ribble to follow the main body just as
Langdale, with 3000 foot and 500 horse only, met the first shock of
Cromwell's attack on Preston Moor. Hamilton, like Charles at Edgehill,
passively shared in, without directing, the battle, and, though
Langdale's men fought magnificently, they were after four hours' struggle
driven to the Ribble. Baillie attempted to cover the Ribble and Darwen
bridges on the Wigan road, but Cromwell had forced his way across both
before nightfall. Pursuit was at once undertaken, and not relaxed until
Hamilton had been driven through Wigan and Winwick to Uttoxeter and
Ashbourne. There, pressed furiously in rear by Cromwell's horse and held
up in front by the militia of the midlands, the remnant of the Scottish
army laid down its arms on the 25th of August. Various attempts were made
to raise the Royalist standard in Wales and elsewhere, but Preston was
the death-blow. On the 28th of August, starving and hopeless of relief,
the Colchester Royalists surrendered to Lord Fairfax. The victors in the
Second Civil War were not merciful to those who had brought war into the
land again. On the evening of the surrender of Colchester, Sir Charles
Lucas and Sir George Lisle were shot. Laugharne, Poyer and Powel were
sentenced to death, but Poyer alone was executed on the 25th of April
1649, being the victim selected by lot. Of five prominent Royalist peers
who had fallen into the hands of the Parliament, three, the duke of
Hamilton, the earl of Holland, and Lord Capel, one of the Colchester
prisoners and a man of high character, were beheaded at Westminster on
the 9th of March. Above all, after long hesitations, even after renewal
of negotiations, the army and the Independents "purged" the House of
their ill-wishers, and created a court for the trial and sentence of the
king. The more resolute of the judges nerved the rest to sign the
death-warrant, and Charles was beheaded at Whitehall on the 30th of
January.
50. _Cromwell in Ireland._--The campaign of Preston was undertaken under
the direction of the Scottish parliament, not the kirk, and it needed
the execution of the king to bring about a union of all Scottish parties
against the English Independents. Even so, Charles II. in exile had to
submit to long negotiations and hard conditions before he was allowed to
put himself at the head of the Scottish armies. The marquis of Huntly
was executed for taking up arms for the king on the 22nd of March 1649.
Montrose, under Charles's directions, made a last attempt to rally the
Scottish Royalists early in 1650. But Charles merely used Montrose as a
threat to obtain better conditions for himself from the Covenanters, and
when the noblest of all the Royalists was defeated (Carbisdale, April
27), delivered up to his pursuers (May 4), and executed (May 21, 1650),
he was not ashamed to give way to the demands of the Covenanters, and to
place himself at the head of Montrose's executioners. His father,
whatever his faults, had at least chosen to die for an ideal, the Church
of England. Charles II. now proposed to regain the throne by allowing
Scotland to impose Presbyterianism on England, and dismissed all the
faithful Cavaliers who had followed him to exile. Meanwhile, Ireland, in
which a fresh war, with openly anti-English and anti-Protestant objects,
had broken out in 1648, was thoroughly reduced to order by Cromwell, who
beat down all resistance by his skill, and even more by his ruthless
severity, in a brief campaign of nine months (battle of Rathmines near
Dublin, won by Colonel Michael Jones, August 2, 1649; storming of
Drogheda, September 11, and of Wexford, October 11, by Cromwell; capture
of Kilkenny, March 28, 1650, and of Clonmel, May 10). Cromwell returned
to England at the end of May 1650, and on June 26 Fairfax, who had been
anxious and uneasy since the execution of the king, resigned the
command-in-chief of the army to his lieutenant-general. The pretext,
rather than the reason, of Fairfax's resignation was his unwillingness
to lead an English army to reduce Scotland.
51. _The Invasion of Scotland._--This important step had been resolved
upon as soon as it was clear that Charles II. would come to terms with
the Covenanters. From this point the Second Civil War becomes a war of
England against Scotland. Here at least the Independents carried the
whole of England with them. No Englishman cared to accept a settlement
at the hands of a victorious foreign army, and on the 28th of June, five
days after Charles II. had sworn to the Covenant, the new lord-general
was on his way to the Border to take command of the English army. About
the same time a new militia act was passed that was destined to give
full and decisive effect to the national spirit of England in the great
final campaign of the war. Meanwhile the motto _frappez fort, frappez
vite_ was carried out at once by the regular forces. On the 19th of July
1650 Cromwell made the final arrangements at Berwick-on-Tweed.
Major-General Harrison, a gallant soldier and an extreme Independent,
was to command the regular and auxiliary forces left in England, and to
secure the Commonwealth against Royalists and Presbyterians. Cromwell
took with him Fleetwood as lieutenant-general and Lambert as
major-general, and his forces numbered about 10,000 foot and 5000 horse.
His opponent David Leslie (his comrade of Marston Moor) had a much
larger force, but its degree of training was inferior, it was more than
tainted by the political dissensions of the people at large, and it was,
in great part at any rate, raised by forced enlistment. On the 22nd of
July Cromwell crossed the Tweed. He marched on Edinburgh by the sea
coast, through Dunbar, Haddington and Musselburgh, living almost
entirely on supplies landed by the fleet which accompanied him--for the
country itself was incapable of supporting even a small army--and on the
29th he found Leslie's army drawn up and entrenched in a position
extending from Leith to Edinburgh.
52. _Operations around Edinburgh._--The same day a sharp but indecisive
fight took place on the lower slopes of Arthur's Seat, after which
Cromwell, having felt the strength of Leslie's line, drew back to
Musselburgh. Leslie's horse followed him up sharply, and another action
was fought, after which the Scots assaulted Musselburgh without success.
Militarily Leslie had the best of it in these affairs, but it was
precisely this moment that the kirk party chose to institute a searching
three days' examination of the political and religious sentiments of his
army. The result was that the army was "purged" of 80 officers and 3000
soldiers as it lay within musket shot of the enemy. Cromwell was more
concerned, however, with the supply question than with the distracted
army of the Scots. On the 6th of August he had to fall back as far as
Dunbar to enable the fleet to land supplies in safety, the port of
Musselburgh being unsafe in the violent and stormy weather which
prevailed. He soon returned to Musselburgh and prepared to force Leslie
to battle. In preparation for an extended manoeuvre three days' rations
were served out. Tents were also issued, perhaps for the first time in
the civil wars, for it was a regular professional army, which had to be
cared for, made comfortable and economized, that was now carrying on the
work of the volunteers of the first war. Even after Cromwell started on
his manoeuvre, the Scottish army was still in the midst of its political
troubles, and, certain though he was that nothing but victory in the
field would give an assured peace, he was obliged to intervene in the
confused negotiations of the various Scottish parties. At last, however,
Charles II. made a show of agreeing to the demands of his strange
supporters, and Leslie was free to move. Cromwell had now entered the
hill country, with a view to occupying Queensferry and thus blocking up
Edinburgh. Leslie had the shorter road and barred the way at
Corstorphine Hill (August 21). Cromwell, though now far from his base,
manoeuvred again to his right, Leslie meeting him once more at Gogar
(August 27). The Scottish lines at that point were strong enough to
dismay even Cromwell, and the manoeuvre on Queensferry was at last given
up. It had cost the English army severe losses in sick, and much
suffering in the autumn nights on the bleak hillsides.
53. _Dunbar._--On the 28th Cromwell fell back on Musselburgh, and on the
31st, after embarking his non-effective men, to Dunbar. Leslie followed
him up, and wished to fight a battle at Dunbar on Sunday, the 1st of
September. But again the kirk intervened, this time to forbid Leslie to
break the Sabbath, and the unfortunate Scottish commander could only
establish himself on Doon Hill (see DUNBAR) and send a force to
Cockburnspath to bar the Berwick road. He had now 23,000 men to
Cromwell's 11,000, and proposed, _faute de mieux_, to starve Cromwell
into surrender. But the English army was composed of "ragged soldiers
with bright muskets," and had a great captain of undisputed authority at
their head. Leslie's, on the other hand, had lost such discipline as it
had ever possessed, and was now, under outside influences, thoroughly
disintegrated. Cromwell wrote home, indeed, that he was "upon an
engagement very difficult," but, desperate as his position seemed, he
felt the pulse of his opponent and steadily refused to take his army
away by sea. He had not to wait long. It was now the turn of Leslie's
men on the hillside to endure patiently privation and exposure, and
after one night's bivouac, Leslie, too readily inferring that the enemy
was about to escape by sea, came down to fight. The battle of Dunbar
(q.v.) opened in the early morning of the 3rd of September. It was the
most brilliant of all Oliver's victories. Before the sun was high in the
heavens the Scottish army had ceased to exist.
54. _Royalism in Scotland._--After Dunbar it was easy for the victorious
army to overrun southern Scotland, more especially as the dissensions of
the enemy were embittered by the defeat of which they had been the prime
cause. The kirk indeed put Dunbar to the account of its own remissness
in not purging their army more thoroughly, but, as Cromwell wrote on the
4th of September, the kirk had "done its do." "I believe their king will
set up on his own score," he continued, and indeed, now that the army of
the kirk was destroyed and they themselves were secure behind the Forth
and based on the friendly Highlands, Charles and the Cavaliers were in a
position not only to defy Cromwell, but also to force the Scottish
national spirit of resistance to the invader into a purely Royalist
channel. Cromwell had only received a few drafts and reinforcements from
England, and for the present he could but block up Edinburgh Castle
(which surrendered on Christmas eve), and try to bring up adequate
forces and material for the siege of Stirling--an attempt which was
frustrated by the badness of the roads and the violence of the weather.
The rest of the early winter of 1650 was thus occupied in semi-military,
semi-political operations between detachments of the English army and
certain armed forces of the kirk party which still maintained a
precarious existence in the western Lowlands, and in police work against
the moss-troopers of the Border counties. Early in February 1651, still
in the midst of terrible weather, Cromwell made another resolute but
futile attempt to reach Stirling. This time he himself fell sick, and
his losses had to be made good by drafts of recruits from England, many
of whom came most unwillingly to serve in the cold wet bivouacs that the
newspapers had graphically reported.[7]
55. _The English Militia._--About this time there occurred in England
two events which had a most important bearing on the campaign. The first
was the detection of a widespread Royalist-Presbyterian conspiracy--how
widespread no one knew, for those of its promoters who were captured and
executed certainly formed but a small fraction of the whole number.
Harrison was ordered to Lancashire in April to watch the north Welsh,
Isle of Man and Border Royalists, and military precautions were taken in
various parts of England. The second was the revival of the militia.
Since 1644 there had been no general employment of local forces, the
quarrel having fallen into the hands of the regular armies by force of
circumstances. The New Model, though a national army, resembled
Wellington's Peninsular army more than the soldiers of the French
Revolution and the American Civil War. It was now engaged in prosecuting
a war of aggression against the hereditary foe over the Border--strictly
the task of a professional army with a national basis. The militia was
indeed raw and untrained. Some of the Essex men "fell flat on their
faces on the sound of a cannon." In the north of England Harrison
complained to Cromwell of the "badness" of his men, and the lord general
sympathized, having "had much such stuff" sent him to make good the
losses in trained men. Even he for a moment lost touch with the spirit
of the people. His recruits were unwilling drafts for foreign service,
but in England the new levies were trusted to defend their homes, and
the militia was soon triumphantly to justify its existence on the day of
Worcester.
56. _Inverkeithing._--While David Leslie organized and drilled the
king's new army beyond the Forth, Cromwell was, slowly and with frequent
relapses, recovering from his illness. The English army marched to
Glasgow in April, then returned to Edinburgh. The motives of the march
and that of the return are alike obscure, but it may be conjectured
that, the forces in England under Harrison having now assembled in
Lancashire, the Edinburgh-Newcastle-York road had to be covered by the
main army. Be this as it may, Cromwell's health again broke down and his
life was despaired of. Only late in June were operations actively
resumed between Stirling and Linlithgow. At first Cromwell sought
without success to bring Leslie to battle, but he stormed Callendar
House near Falkirk on July 13, and on the 16th of July he began the
execution of a brilliant and successful manoeuvre. A force from
Queensferry, covered by the English fleet, was thrown across the Firth
of Forth to Northferry. Lambert followed with reinforcements, and
defeated a detachment of Leslie's army at Inverkeithing on the 20th.
Leslie drew back at once, but managed to find a fresh strong position in
front of Stirling, whence he defied Cromwell again. At this juncture
Cromwell prepared to pass his whole army across the firth. His
contemplated manoeuvre of course gave up to the enemy all the roads into
England, and before undertaking it the lord general held a consultation
with Harrison, as the result of which that officer took over the direct
defence of the whole Border. But his mind was made up even before this,
for on the day he met Harrison at Linlithgow three-quarters of his whole
army had already crossed into Fife. Burntisland, surrendered to Lambert
on the 29th, gave Cromwell a good harbour upon which to base his
subsequent movements. On the 30th of July the English marched upon
Perth, and the investment of this place, the key to Leslie's supply
area, forced the crisis at once. Whether Leslie would have preferred to
manoeuvre Cromwell from his vantage-ground or not is immaterial; the
young king and the now predominant Royalist element at headquarters
seized the long-awaited opportunity at once, and on the 31st, leaving
Cromwell to his own devices, the Royal army marched southward to raise
the Royal standard in England.
57. _The Third Scottish Invasion of England._--Then began the last and
most thrilling campaign of the Great Rebellion. Charles II. expected
complete success. In Scotland, _vis-à-vis_ the extreme Covenanters, he
was a king on conditions, and he was glad enough to find himself in
England with some thirty solidly organized regiments under Royalist
officers and with no regular army in front of him. He hoped, too, to
rally not merely the old faithful Royalists, but also the overwhelming
numerical strength of the English Presbyterians to his standard. His
army was kept well in hand, no excesses were allowed, and in a week the
Royalists covered 150 m.--in marked contrast to the duke of Hamilton's
ill-fated expedition of 1648. On the 8th of August the troops were given
a well-earned rest between Penrith and Kendal.
But the Royalists were mistaken in supposing that the enemy was taken
aback by their new move. Everything had been foreseen both by Cromwell
and by the Council of State in Westminster. The latter had called out
the greater part of the militia on the 7th. Lieutenant-General Fleetwood
began to draw together the midland contingents at Banbury, the London
trained bands turned out for field service no fewer than 14,000 strong.
Every suspected Royalist was closely watched, and the magazines of arms
in the country-houses of the gentry were for the most part removed into
the strong places. On his part Cromwell had quietly made his
preparations. Perth passed into his hands on the 2nd of August, and he
brought back his army to Leith by the 5th. Thence he despatched Lambert
with a cavalry corps to harass the invaders. Harrison was already at
Newcastle picking the best of the county mounted troops to add to his
own regulars. On the 9th Charles was at Kendal, Lambert hovering in his
rear, and Harrison marching swiftly to bar his way at the Mersey.
Fairfax emerged for a moment from his retirement to organize the
Yorkshire levies, and the best of these as well as of the Lancashire,
Cheshire and Staffordshire militias were directed upon Warrington, which
point Harrison reached on the 15th, a few hours in front of Charles's
advanced guard. Lambert too, slipping round the left flank of the enemy,
joined Harrison, and the English fell back (16th), slowly and without
letting themselves be drawn into a fight, along the London road.
58. _Campaign of Worcester._--Cromwell meanwhile, leaving Monk with the
least efficient regiments to carry on the war in Scotland, had reached
the Tyne in seven days, and thence, marching 20 m. a day in extreme
heat--with the country people carrying their arms and equipment--the
regulars entered Ferrybridge on the 19th, at which date Lambert,
Harrison and the north-western militia were about Congleton.[8] It
seemed probable that a great battle would take place between Lichfield
and Coventry about the 25th or 26th of August, and that Cromwell,
Harrison, Lambert and Fleetwood would all take part in it. But the scene
and the date of the _denouement_ were changed by the enemy's movements.
Shortly after leaving Warrington the young king had resolved to abandon
the direct march on London and to make for the Severn valley, where his
father had found the most constant and the most numerous adherents in
the first war, and which had been the centre of gravity of the English
Royalist movement of 1648. Sir Edward Massey, formerly the Parliamentary
governor of Gloucester, was now with Charles, and it was hoped that he
would induce his fellow-Presbyterians to take arms. The military quality
of the Welsh border Royalists was well proved, that of the
Gloucestershire Presbyterians not less so, and, based on Gloucester and
Worcester as his father had been based on Oxford, Charles II. hoped, not
unnaturally, to deal with an Independent minority more effectually than
Charles I. had done with a Parliamentary majority of the people of
England. But even the pure Royalism which now ruled in the invading army
could not alter the fact that it was a Scottish army, and it was not an
Independent faction but all England that took arms against it. Charles
arrived at Worcester on the 22nd of August, and spent five days in
resting the troops, preparing for further operations, and gathering and
arming the few recruits who came in. It is unnecessary to argue that the
delay was fatal; it was a necessity of the case foreseen and accepted
when the march to Worcester had been decided upon, and had the other
course, that of marching on London via Lichfield, been taken the battle
would have been fought three days earlier with the same result. As
affairs turned out Cromwell merely shifted the area of his concentration
two marches to the south-west, to Evesham. Early on the 28th Lambert
surprised the passage of the Severn at Upton, 6 m. below Worcester, and
in the action which followed Massey was severely wounded. Fleetwood
followed Lambert. The enemy was now only 16,000 strong and disheartened
by the apathy with which they had been received in districts formerly
all their own. Cromwell, for the first and last time in his military
career, had a two-to-one numerical superiority.
59. _The "Crowning Mercy."_--He took his measures deliberately. Lilburne
from Lancashire and Major Mercer with the Worcestershire horse were to
secure Bewdley Bridge on the enemy's line of retreat. Lambert and
Fleetwood were to force their way across the Teme (a little river on
which Rupert had won his first victory in 1642) and attack St John's,
the western suburb of Worcester. Cromwell himself and the main army were
to attack the town itself. On the 3rd of September, the anniversary of
Dunbar, the programme was carried out exactly. Fleetwood forced the
passage of the Teme, and the bridging train (which had been carefully
organized for the purpose) bridged both the Teme and the Severn. Then
Cromwell on the left bank and Fleetwood on the right swept in a
semicircle 4 m. long up to Worcester. Every hedgerow was contested by
the stubborn Royalists, but Fleetwood's men would not be denied, and
Cromwell's extreme right on the eastern side of the town repelled, after
three hours' hard fighting, the last desperate attempt of the Royalists
to break out. It was indeed, as a German critic[9] has pointed out, the
prototype of Sedan. Everywhere the defences were stormed as darkness
came on, regulars and militia fighting with equal gallantry, and the few
thousands of the Royalists who escaped during the night were easily
captured by Lilburne and Mercer, or by the militia which watched every
road in Yorkshire and Lancashire. Even the country people brought in
scores of prisoners, for officers and men alike, stunned by the
suddenness of the disaster, offered no resistance. Charles escaped after
many adventures, but he was one of the few men in his army who regained
a place of safety. The Parliamentary militia were sent home within a
week. Cromwell, who had ridiculed "such stuff" six months ago, knew them
better now. "Your new raised forces," he wrote to the House, "did
perform singular good service, for which they deserve a very high
estimation and acknowledgment." Worcester resembled Sedan in much more
than outward form. Both were fought by "nations in arms," by citizen
soldiers who had their hearts in the struggle, and could be trusted not
only to fight their hardest but to march their best. Only with such
troops would a general dare to place a deep river between the two halves
of his army or to send away detachments beforehand to reap the fruits of
victory, in certain anticipation of winning the victory with the
remainder. The sense of duty, which the raw militia possessed in so high
a degree, ensured the arrival and the action of every column at the
appointed time and place. The result was, in brief, one of those rare
victories in which a pursuit is superfluous--a "crowning mercy," as
Cromwell called it. There is little of note in the closing operations.
Monk had completed his task by May 1652; and Scotland, which had twice
attempted to impose its will on England, found itself reduced to the
position of an English province under martial law. The details of its
subjection are uninteresting after the tremendous climax of Worcester.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Earl of Clarendon, _The History of the Rebellion_
(Oxford, 1702-1704, ed. W. D. Macray, Oxford, 1888); R. Baillie,
_Letters and Journals_ (Bannatyne Society, 1841); T. Carlyle,
_Cromwell's Letters and Speeches_ (new edition, S. C. Lomas, London,
1904); _Fairfax Correspondence_ (ed. R. Bell, London, 1849); E.
Borlace, _History of the Irish Rebellion_ (London, 1675); R. Bellings,
_Fragmentum historicum, or the ... War in Ireland_ (London, 1772); J.
Heath, _Chronicle of the late Intestine War_ (London, 1676); _Military
Memoir of Colonel Birch_ (Camden Society, new series, vol. vii.,
1873); _Autobiography of Captain John Hodgson_ (edition of 1882);
Papers on the earl of Manchester, Camden Society, vol. viii., and
_English Historical Review_, vol. iii.; J. Ricraft, _Survey of
England's Champions_ (1647, reprinted, London, 1818); ed. E.
Warburton, _Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers_ (London,
1849); J. Vicars, _Jehovah-Jireh_ (1644), and _England's Worthies_
(1647), the latter reprinted in 1845: Anthony à Wood, _History and
Antiquities of the University of Oxford_ (ed. J. Gutch, Oxford,
1792-1795); Margaret, duchess of Newcastle, Life of _William
Cavendish, duke of Newcastle_ (ed. C. H. Firth, London, 1886); Lucy
Hutchinson, _Memoir of the Life of Colonel Hutchinson_ (ed. C. H.
Firth, Oxford, 1896); _Memoirs of Edward Ludlow_ (ed. C. H. Firth,
Oxford, 1892); S. Ashe and W. Goode, _The Services of the Earl of
Manchester's Army_ (London, 1644); H. Cary, _Memorials of the Great
Civil War_ (London, 1842); Patrick Gordon, _Passages from the Diary of
Patrick Gordon_ (Spalding Club, Aberdeen, 1859); J. Gwynne, _Military
Memoirs of the Civil War_ (ed. Sir W. Scott, Edinburgh, 1822);
_Narratives of Hamilton's Expedition_, 1648 (C. H. Firth, Scottish
Historical Society, Edinburgh, 1904); Lord Hopton, _Bellum Civile_
(Somerset Record Society, London, 1902); _Irish War of 1641_ (Camden
Society, old series, vol. xiv., 1841); _Iter Carolinum, Marches of
Charles I. 1641-1649_ (London, 1660); Hugh Peters, _Reports from the
Armies of Fairfax and Cromwell_ (London, 1645-1646); "Journal of the
Marches of Prince Rupert" (ed. C. H. Firth, _Engl. Historical Review_,
1898); J. Sprigge, _Anglia Rediviva_ (London, 1847, reprinted Oxford,
1854); R. Symonds, _Diary of the Marches of the Royal Army, 1644-1645_
(ed. C. E. Long, Camden Society, old series, 1859); J. Corbet, _The
Military Government of Gloucester_ (London, 1645); M. Carter,
_Expeditions of Kent, Essex and Colchester_ (London, 1650); _Tracts
relating to the Civil War in Lancashire_ (ed. G. Ormerod, Chetham
Society, London, 1844); _Discourse of the War in Lancashire_ (ed. W.
Beament, Chetham Society, London, 1864); Sir M. Langdale, _The late
Fight at Preston_ (London, 1648); _Journal of the Siege of Lathom
House_ (London, 1823); J. Rushworth, _The Storming of Bristol_
(London, 1645); S. R. Gardiner _History of the Great Civil War_
(London, 1886); and _History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate_
(London, 1903); C. H. Firth, _Oliver Cromwell_ (New York and London,
1900); _Cromwell's Army_ (London, 1902); "The Raising of the
Ironsides," _Transactions R. Hist. Society_, 1899 and 1901; papers in
_English Historical Review_, and memoirs of the leading personages of
the period in _Dictionary of National Biography_; T. S. Baldock,
_Cromwell as a Soldier_ (London, 1899); F. Hoenig, _Oliver Cromwell_
(Berlin, 1887-1889); Sir J. Maclean, _Memoirs of the Family of Poyntz_
(Exeter, 1886); Sir C. Markham, _Life of Fairfax_ (London, 1870); M.
Napier, _Life and Times of Montrose_ (Edinburgh, 1840); W. B.
Devereux, _Lives of the Earls of Essex_ (London, 1853); W. G. Ross,
_Mil. Engineering in the Civil War_ (R. E. Professional Papers, 1887);
"The Battle of Naseby," _English Historical Review_, 1888; _Oliver
Cromwell and his Ironsides_ (Chatham, 1869); F. N. Maude, _Cavalry,
its Past and Future_ (London, 1903); E. Scott, _Rupert, Prince
Palatine_ (London, 1899); M. Stace, _Cromwelliana_ (London, 1870); C.
S. Terry, _Life and Campaigns of Alexander Leslie, Earl of Leven_
(London, 1899); Madame H. de Witt, _The Lady of Lathom_ (London,
1869); F. Maseres, _Tracts relating to the Civil War_ (London, 1815);
P. A. Charrier, _Cromwell_ (London, 1905), also paper in _Royal United
Service Institution Journal_, 1906; T. Arnold and W. G. Ross,
"Edgehill," _English Historical Review_, 1887; _The History of Basing
House_ (Basingstoke, 1869); E. Broxap, "The Sieges of Hull," _English
Historical Review_, 1905; J. Willis Bund, _The Civil War in
Worcestershire_ (Birmingham, 1905); C. Coates, _History of Reading_
(London, 1802); F. Drake, _Eboracum: History of the City of York_
(London, 1736); N. Drake, _Siege of Pontefract Castle_ (Surtees
Society Miscellanea, London, 1861); G. N. Godwin, _The Civil War in
Hampshire_ (2nd ed., London, 1904); J. F. Hollings, _Leicester during
the Civil War_ (Leicester, 1840); R. Holmes, _Sieges of Pontefract
Castle_ (Pontefract, 1887); A. Kingston, _East Anglia and the Civil
War_ (London, 1897); H. E. Maiden, "Maidstone, 1648," _English Hist.
Review_, 1892; W. Money, _Battles of Newbury_ (Newbury, 1884); J. R.
Phillips, _The Civil War in Wales and the Marches_ (London, 1874); G.
Rigaud, _Lines round Oxford_ (1880); G. Roberts, _History of Lyme_
(London, 1834); [R. Robinson] _Sieges of Bristol_ (Bristol, 1868); [J.
H. Round] _History of Colchester Castle_ (Colchester, 1882) and "The
Case of Lucas and Lisle," _Transactions of R. Historical Society_,
1894; R. R. Sharpe, _London and the Kingdom_ (London, 1894); I.
Tullie, _Siege of Carlisle_ (1840); E. A. Walford, "Edgehill,"
_English Hist. Review_, 1905; J. Washbourne, _Bibliotheca
Gloucestrensis_ (Gloucester, 1825); J. Webb, _Civil War in
Herefordshire_(London, 1879). (C. F. A.)
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Gustavus Adolphus before the battle of the Alte Veste (see THIRTY
YEARS' WAR).
[2] "Making not money but that which they took to be the public
felicity to be their end they were the more engaged to be valiant"
(Baxter).
[3] For the third time within the year the London trained bands
turned out in force. It was characteristic of the early years of the
war that imminent danger alone called forth the devotion of the
citizen soldier. If he was employed in ordinary times (e.g. at Basing
House) he would neither fight nor march with spirit.
[4] Charles's policy was still, as before Marston Moor, to "spin out
time" until Rupert came back from the north.
[5] The ground has been entirely built over for many years.
[6] The Puritans had by now disappeared almost entirely from the
ranks of the infantry. _Per contra_ the officers and sergeants and
the troopers of the horse were the sternest Puritans of all, the
survivors of three years of a disheartening war.
[7] The tents were evidently issued for regular marches, not for
cross-country manoeuvres against the enemy. These manoeuvres, as we
have seen, often took several days. The _bon général ordinaire_ of
the 17th and 18th centuries framed his manoeuvres on a smaller scale
so as not to expose his expensive and highly trained soldiers to
discomfort and the consequent temptation to desert.
[8] The lord general had during his march thrown out successively two
flying columns under Colonel Lilburne to deal with the Lancashire
Royalists under the earl of Derby. Lilburne entirely routed the enemy
at Wigan on the 25th of August.
[9] Fritz Hoenig, _Cromwell_.
GREAT SALT LAKE, a shallow body of highly concentrated brine in the N.W.
part of Utah, U.S.A., lying between 118.8° and 113.2° W. long, and
between 40.7° and 41.8° lat. Great Salt Lake is 4218 ft. above
sea-level. It has no outlet, and is fed chiefly by the Jordan, the Weber
and the Bear rivers, all draining the mountainous country to the E. and
S.E. The irregular outline of the lake has been compared to the roughly
drawn hand, palm at the S., thumb (exaggerated in breadth) pointing
N.E., and the fingers (crowded together and drawn too small) reaching N.
No bathymetric survey of the lake has been made, but the maximum depth
is 60 ft. and the mean depth less than 20 ft., possibly as little as 13
ft. The lake in 1906 was approximately 75 m. long., from N.W. to S.E.,
and had a maximum width of 50 m. and an area of 1750 sq. m. This area is
not constant, as the water is very shallow at the margins, and the
relation between supply from precipitation, &c., and loss by evaporation
is variable, there being an annual difference in the height of the water
of 15-18 in. between June (highest) and November (lowest), and besides a
difference running through longer cycles: in 1850 the water was lower
and the lake smaller than by any previous observations (the area and
general outline were nearly the same again in 1906); then the water rose
until 1873; and between 1886 and 1902 the fall in level was 11.6 ft. The
range of rise and fall from 1845 to 1886 was 13 ft., this being the rise
in 1865-1886. With the fall of water there is an increase in the
specific gravity, which in 1850 was 1.17, and in September 1901 was
1.179; in 1850 the proportion of solids by weight was 22.282%, in
September 1901 it was 25.221; at the earlier of these dates the solids
in a litre of water weighed 260.69 grams, at the latter date 302.122
grams. The exact cause of this cyclic variation is unknown: the low
level of 1906 is usually regarded as the result of extensive irrigation
and ploughing in the surrounding country, which have robbed the lake, in
part, of its normal supply of water. It is also to be noted that the
rise and fall of the lake level have been coincident, respectively, with
continued wet and dry cycles. That the lake will soon dry up entirely
seems unlikely, as there is a central trough, 25 to 30 m. wide, about 40
ft. deep, running N.W. and S.E. The area and shore-line of the lake are
evidently affected by a slight surface tilt, for during the same
generation that has seen the recent fall of the lake level the
shore-line is in many cases 2 m. from the old, and fences may be seen a
mile or more out in the lake. The lake bed is for the most part clear
sand along the margin, and in deeper water is largely coated with crusts
of salt, soda and gypsum.
The lake is a novel and popular bathing resort, the specific gravity of
the water being so great that one cannot sink or entirely submerge
oneself. There are well-equipped bathing pavilions at Garfield and
Saltair on the S. shore of the lake about 20 m. from Salt Lake City. The
bathing is invigorating; it must be followed by a freshwater bath
because of the incrustation of the body from the briny water. The large
amount of salt in the water makes both fauna and flora of the lake
scanty; there are a few algae, the larvae of an _Ephydra_ and of a
_Tipula_ fly, specimens of what seems to be _Corixa decolor_, and in
great quantities, so as to tint the surface of the water, the brine
shrimp, _Artemia salina_ (or _gracilis_ or _fertilis_), notable
biologically for the rarity of males, for the high degree of
parthenogenesis and for apparent interchangeableness with the
_Branchipus_.
The lake is of interest for its generally mountainous surroundings, save
to the N.W., where it skirts the Great Salt Lake Desert, for the
mountainous peninsula, the Promontory, lying between thumb and fingers
of the hand, shaped like and resembling in geological structure the two
islands S. of it, Fremont and Antelope,[1] and the Oquirrh range S. of
the lake. The physiography of the surrounding country shows clearly that
the basin occupied by Great Salt Lake is one of many left by the drying
up of a large Pleistocene lake, which has been called lake Bonneville.
Well-defined wave-cut cliffs and terraces show two distinct shore-lines
of this early lake, one the "Bonneville Shore-line," about 1000 ft.
above Great Salt Lake, and the other, the "Provo Shoreline," about 625
ft. higher than the present lake. These shorelines and the presence of
two alluvial deposits, the lower and the larger of yellow clay 90 ft.
deep, and, separated from it by a plane of erosion, the other, a deposit
of white marl, 10-20 ft. deep, clearly prove the main facts as to lake
Bonneville: a dry basin was first occupied by the shallow waters of a
small lake; then, during a long period of excessive moisture (or cold),
the waters rose and spread over an area nearly as large as lake Huron
with a maximum depth of 1000 ft.; a period of great dryness followed, in
which the lake disappeared; then came a second, shorter, but more
intense period of moisture, and in this time the lake rose, covered a
larger area than before, including W. Utah and a little of S. Idaho and
of E. Nevada, about 19,750 sq. m., had a very much broken shore-line of
2550 m. and a maximum depth of 1050 ft. and a mean depth of 800 ft.,
overflowed the basin at the N., and by a tributary stream through Red
Rock Pass at the N. end of the Cache valley poured its waters into the
Columbia river system. The great lake was then gradually reduced by
evaporation, leaving only shallow bodies of salt water, of which Great
Salt Lake is the largest. The cause of the climatic variations which
brought about this complex history of the Salt Lake region is not known;
but it is worthy of note that the periods of highest water levels were
coincident with a great expansion of local valley glaciers, some of
which terminated in the waters of lake Bonneville.
Industrially Great Salt Lake is of a certain importance. In early days
it was the source of the salt supply of the surrounding country; and the
manufacture of salt is now an important industry. The brine is pumped
into conduits, carried to large ponds and there evaporated by the sun;
during late years the salt has been refined here, being purified of the
sulphates and magnesium compounds which formerly rendered it
efflorescent and of a low commercial grade. Mirabilite, or Glauber's
salt, is commercially valuable, occurring in such quantities in parts of
the lake that one may wade knee-deep in it; it separates from the brine
at a temperature between 30° and 20° F. The lake is crossed E. and W. by
the Southern Pacific railway's so-called "Lucin Cut-off," which runs
from Ogden to Lucin on a trestle with more than 20 m. of "fill"; the
former route around the N. end of the lake was 43 m. long.
Great Salt Lake was first described in 1689 by Baron La Hontan, who had
merely heard of it from the Indians. "Jim" Bridger, a famous mountaineer
and scout, saw the lake in 1824, apparently before any other white man.
Captain Bonneville described the lake and named it after himself, but
the name was transferred to the great Pleistocene lake. John C. Frémont
gave the first description of any accuracy in his _Report_ of 1845. But
comparatively little was known of it before the Mormon settlement in
1847. In 1850 Captain Howard Stansbury completed a survey, whose results
were published in 1852. The most extensive and important studies of the
region, however, are those by Grove Karl Gilbert of the United States
Geological Survey, who in 1879-1890 studied especially the earlier and
greater lake.
See J. E. Talmage, _The Great Salt Lake, Present and Past_ (Salt Lake
City, 1900); and Grove Karl Gilbert, _Lake Bonneville_, monograph 1 of
United States Geological Survey (Washington, 1890), containing (pp.
12-19) references to the earlier literature.
FOOTNOTE:
[1] Besides these islands there are a few small islands farther N.,
and W. of Antelope, Stansbury Island, which, like Antelope and
Fremont Islands, is connected with the mainland by a bar sometimes
uncovered, and rarely in more than a foot of water.
GREAT SLAVE LAKE (ATHAPUSCOW), a lake of Mackenzie district, Canada. It
is situated between 60° 50' and 62° 55' N. and 108° 40' and 117° W., at
an altitude of 391 ft. above the sea. It is 325 m. long, from 15 to 50
m. wide, and includes an area of 9770 sq. m. The water is very clear and
deep. Its coast line is irregular and deeply indented by large bays, and
its north-eastern shores are rugged and mountainous. The western shores
are well wooded, chiefly with spruce, but the northern and eastern are
dreary and barren. It is navigable from about the 1st of July to the end
of October. The Yellow-knife, Hoarfrost, Lockhart (discharging the
waters of Aylmer, Clinton-Colden and Artillery Lakes), Tchzudezeth, Du
Rocher, Hay (400 m. in length), and Slave rivers empty into Great Slave
Lake. The bulk of its water empties by the Mackenzie river into the
Arctic Ocean, but a small portion finds its way by the Ark-i-linik river
into Hudson's Bay. It was discovered in 1771 by Samuel Hearne.
GREAT SOUTHERN OCEAN, the name given to the belt of water which extends
almost continuously round the globe between the parallel of 40° S. and
the Antarctic Circle (66½° S.). The fact that the southern extremity of
South America is the only land extending into this belt gives it special
physical importance in relation to tides and currents, and its position
with reference to the Antarctic Ocean and continent makes it convenient
to regard it as a separate ocean from which the Atlantic, Pacific and
Indian Oceans may be said to radiate. (See OCEAN.)
GREAVES, JOHN (1602-1652), English mathematician and antiquary, was the
eldest son of John Greaves, rector of Colemore, near Alresford in
Hampshire. He was educated at Balliol College, Oxford, and in 1630 was
chosen professor of geometry in Gresham College, London. After
travelling in Europe, he visited the East in 1637, where he collected a
considerable number of Arabic, Persian and Greek manuscripts, and made a
more accurate survey of the pyramids of Egypt than any traveller who had
preceded him. On his return to Europe he visited a second time several
parts of Italy, and during his stay at Rome instituted inquiries into
the ancient weights and measures. In 1643 he was appointed to the
Savilian professorship of astronomy at Oxford, but he was deprived of
his Gresham professorship for having neglected its duties. In 1645 he
essayed a reformation of the calendar, but his plan was not adopted. In
1648 he lost both his fellowship and his Savilian chair on account of
his adherence to the royalist party. But his private fortune more than
sufficed for all his wants till his death on the 8th of October 1652.
Besides his papers in the _Philosophical Transactions_, the principal
works of Greaves are _Pyramidographia, or a Description of the
Pyramids in Egypt_ (1646); _A Discourse on the Roman Foot and_
_Denarius_ (1649); and _Elementa linguae Persicae_ (1649). His
miscellaneous works were published in 1737 by Dr Thomas Birch, with a
biographical notice of the author. See also Smith's _Vita quorundam
erudit. virorum_ and Ward's _Gresham Professors_.
GREBE (Fr. _grèbe_), the generally accepted name for all the birds of
the family _Podicipedidae_,[1] belonging to the group _Pygopodes_ of
Illiger, members of which inhabit almost all parts of the world. Some
systematic writers have distributed them into several so-called genera,
but, with one exception, these seem to be insufficiently defined, and
here it will be enough to allow but two--Latham's _Podiceps_ and the
_Centropelma_ of Sclater and Salvin. Grebes are at once distinguishable
from all other water-birds by their rudimentary tail and the peculiar
structure of their feet, which are not only placed far behind, but have
the tarsi flattened and elongated toes furnished with broad lobes of
skin and flat blunt nails.
[Illustration: Great Crested Grebe.]
In Europe are five well-marked species of _Podiceps_, the commonest and
smallest of which is the very well-known dab-chick of English ponds, _P.
fluviatilis_ or _minor_, the little grebe of ornithologists, found
throughout the British Islands, and with a wide range in the old world.
Next in size are two species known as the eared and horned grebes, the
former of which, _P. nigricollis_, is a visitor from the south, only
occasionally showing itself in Britain and very rarely breeding, while
the latter, _P. auritus_, has a more northern range, breeding
plentifully in Iceland, and is a not uncommon winter-visitant. Then
there is the larger red-necked grebe, _P. griseigena_, also a northern
bird, and a native of the subarctic parts of both Europe and America,
while lastly the great crested grebe, _P. cristatus_ or gaunt--known as
the loon on the meres and broads of East Anglia and some other parts of
England, is also widely spread over the old world. North America is
credited with seven species of grebes, of which two (_P. griseigena_ and
_P. auritus_) are admitted to be specifically inseparable from those
already named, and two (_P. occidentalis_ and _P. californicus_) appear
to be but local forms; the remaining two (_P. dominicus_ and _P.
ludovicianus_) may, however, be accounted good species, and the last
differs so much from other grebes that many systematists make it the
type of a distinct genus, _Podilymbus_. South America seems to possess
four or five more species, one of which, the _P. micropterus_ of Gould
(_Proc. Zool. Society_, 1858, p. 220), has been deservedly separated
from the genus _Podiceps_ under the name _Centropelma_ by Sclater and
Salvin (_Exot. Ornithology_, p. 189, pl. xcv.), owing to the form of its
bill, and the small size of its wings, which renders it absolutely
flightless. Lake Titicaca in Bolivia is, so far as is known at present,
its only habitat. Grebes in general, though averse from taking wing,
have much greater power of flight than would seem possible on
examination of their alar organs, and are capable of prolonged aerial
journeys. Their plumage is short and close. Above it is commonly of some
shade of brown, but beneath it is usually white, and so glossy as to be
in much request for muffs and the trimming of ladies' dresses. Some
species are remarkable for the crests or tippets, generally of a
golden-chestnut colour, they assume in the breeding season. _P. auritus_
is particularly remarkable in this respect, and when in its full nuptial
attire presents an extraordinary aspect, the head (being surrounded, as
it were, by a _nimbus_ or aureole, such as that with which painters
adorn saintly characters), reflecting the rays of light, glitters with a
glory that passes description. All the species seem to have similar
habits of nidification. Water-weeds are pulled from the bottom of the
pool, and piled on a convenient foundation, often a seminatant growth of
bogbean (_Menyanthes_), till they form a large mass, in the centre of
which a shallow cup is formed, and the eggs, with a chalky white shell
almost equally pointed at each end, are laid--the parent covering them,
whenever she has time to do so, before leaving the nest. Young grebes
are beautiful objects, clothed with black, white and brown down,
disposed in streaks and their bill often brilliantly tinted. When taken
from the nest and placed on dry ground, it is curious to observe the way
in which they progress--using the wings almost as fore-feet, and
suggesting the notion that they must be quadrupeds instead of birds.
(A. N.)
FOOTNOTE:
[1] Often, but erroneously, written _Podicipidae_. The word
_Podiceps_ being a contracted form of _Podicipes_ (cf. Gloger,
_Journal für Ornithologie_, 1854, p. 430, note), a combination of
_podex_, _podicis_ and _pes_, _pedis_, its further compounds must be
in accordance with its derivation.
GRECO, EL, the name commonly given to Dominico Theotocopuli (d. 1614),
Cretan painter, architect and sculptor. He was born in Crete, between
1545 and 1550, and announces his Cretan origin by his signature in Greek
letters on his most important pictures, especially on the "St Maurice"
in the Escorial. He appears to have studied art first of all in Venice,
and on arriving in Rome in 1570 is described as having been a pupil of
Titian, in a letter written by the miniaturist, Giulio Clovio, addressed
to Cardinal Alessandro Farnesi, dated the 15th of November 1570.
Although a student under Titian, he was at no time an exponent of his
master's spirit, and his early historical pictures were attributed to
many other artists, but never to Titian. Of his early works, two
pictures of "The Healing of the Blind Man" at Dresden and Palma, and the
four of "Christ driving the money-changers out of the Temple" in the
Yarborough collection, the Cork collection, the National Gallery, and
the Beruete collection at Madrid, are the chief. His first authentic
portrait is that of his fellow-countryman, Giulio Clovio. It was painted
between 1570 and 1578, is signed in Greek characters, and preserved at
Naples, and the last portrait he painted under the influence of the
Italian school appears to be that of a cardinal now in the National
Gallery, of which four replicas painted in Spain are known. He appears
to have come to Spain in 1577, but, on being questioned two years later
in connexion with a judicial suit, as to when he arrived in the country,
and for what purpose he came, declined to give any information. He was
probably attracted by the prospect of participating in the decoration of
the Escorial, and he appears to have settled down in Toledo, where his
first works were the paintings for the high altar of Santo Domingo, and
his famous picture of "The Disrobing of Christ" in the sacristy of the
cathedral. It was in connexion with this last-named work that he proved
refractory, and the records of a law-suit respecting the price to be
paid to him give us the earliest information of the artist's sojourn in
Spain. In 1590, he painted the "History of St Maurice" for Philip II.,
and in 1578, his masterpiece, entitled "The Burial of the Count Orgaz."
This magnificent picture, one of the finest in Spain, is at last being
appreciated, and can only be put a little below the masterpieces of
Velazquez. It is a strangely individual work, representing Spanish
character even more truthfully than did any Spanish artist, and it
gathers up all the fugitive moods, the grace and charm, the devices and
defects of a single race, and gives them complete stability in their
wavering expressions.
Between 1595 and 1600, El Greco executed two groups of paintings in the
church of San José at Toledo, and in the hospital of La Caridad, at
Illescas. Besides these, he is known to have painted thirty-two
portraits, several manuscripts, and many paintings for altar-pieces in
Toledo and the neighbourhood. As an architect he was responsible for
more than one of the churches of Toledo, and as a sculptor for carvings
both in wood and in marble, and he can only be properly understood in
all his varied excellences after a visit to the city where most of his
work was executed.
He died on the 7th of April 1614, and the date of his death is one of
the very few certain facts which we have respecting him. The record
informs us that he made no will, that he received the sacraments, and
was buried in the church of Santo Domingo. The popular legend of his
having gone mad towards the latter part of his career has no foundation
in fact, but his painting became more and more eccentric as his life
went on, and his natural perversity and love of strange, cold colouring,
increased towards the end of his life. As has been well said, "Light
with him was only used for emotional appeal, and was focussed or
scattered at will." He was haughtily certain of the value of his own
art, and was determined to paint in cold, ashen colouring, with livid,
startling effect, the gaunt and extraordinary figures that he beheld
with his eccentric genius. His pictures have wonderful visionary
quality, admirable invention, and are full of passionate fervency. They
may be considered extravagant, but are never commonplace, and are
exceedingly attractive in their intense emotion, marvellous sincerity,
and strange, chilly colour.
El Greco's work is typically modern, and from it the portrait-painter,
J. S. Sargent, claims to have learnt more than from that of any other
artist. It immortalizes the character of the people amongst whom he
dwelt, and he may be considered as the initiator of truth and realism in
art, a precursor and inspirer of Velazquez.
In his own time he was exceedingly popular, and held in great repute.
Sonnets were written in his honour, and he is himself said to have
written several treatises, but these have not come down to our time. For
more than a generation his work was hardly known, but it is now gaining
rapidly in importance, and its true position is more and more
recognized. Some examples of the artist's own handwriting have been
discovered in Toledo, and Señor Don Manuel Cossia of Madrid has spent
many years collecting information for a work dealing with the artist.
(G. C. W.)
GRECO-TURKISH WAR, 1897. This war between Greece and Turkey (see GREECE:
_Modern History_) involved two practically distinct campaigns, in
Thessaly and in Epirus. Upon the Thessalian frontier the Turks, early in
March, had concentrated six divisions (about 58,000 men), 1500 sabres
and 156 guns, under Edhem Pasha. A seventh division was rendered
available a little later. The Greeks numbered about 45,000 infantry, 800
cavalry and 96 guns, under the crown prince. On both sides there was a
considerable dispersion of forces along the frontier. The Turkish navy,
an important factor in the war of 1877-78, had become paralytic ten
years later, and the Greek squadron held complete command of the sea.
Expeditionary forces directed against the Turkish line of communications
might have influenced the course of the campaign; but for such work the
Greeks were quite unprepared, and beyond bombarding one or two
insignificant ports on the coast-line, and aiding the transport of
troops from Athens to Volo, the navy practically accomplished nothing.
On the 9th and 10th April Greek irregulars crossed the frontier, either
with a view to provoke hostilities or in the hope of fomenting a rising
in Macedonia. On the 16th and 17th some fighting occurred, in which
Greek regulars took part; and on the 18th Edhem Pasha, whose
headquarters had for some time been established at Elassona, ordered a
general advance. The Turkish plan was to turn the Greek left and to
bring on a decisive action, but this was not carried out. In the centre
the Turks occupied the Meluna Pass on the 19th, and the way was
practically open to Larissa. The Turkish right wing, however, moving on
Damani and the Reveni Pass, encountered resistance, and the left wing
was temporarily checked by the Greeks among the mountains near Nezeros.
At Mati, covering the road to Tyrnavo, the Greeks entrenched themselves.
Here sharp fighting occurred on the 21st and 22nd, during which the
Greeks sought to turn the right flank of the superior Turkish central
column. On the 23rd fighting was renewed, and the advance guard of the
Turkish left column, which had been reinforced, and had pressed back the
Greeks, reached Deliler. The Turkish forces had now drawn together, and
the Greeks were threatened on both flanks. In the evening a general
retreat was ordered, and the loose discipline of the Greek army was at
once manifested. Rumours of disaster spread among the ranks, and wild
panic supervened. There was nothing to prevent an orderly retirement
upon Larissa, which had been fortified and provisioned, and which
offered a good defensive position. The general _débâcle_ could not,
however, be arrested, and in great disorder the mass of the Greek army
fled southwards to Pharsala. There was no pursuit, and the Turkish
commander-in-chief did not reach Larissa till the 27th. Thus ended the
first phase of the war, in which the Greeks showed tenacity in defence,
which proved fruitless by reason of initially bad strategic dispositions
entailing far too great dispersion, and also because there was no plan
of action beyond a general desire to avoid risking a defeat which might
prevent the expected risings in Macedonia and elsewhere. The handling of
the Turkish army showed little skill or enterprise; but on both sides
political considerations tended to prevent the application of sound
military principles.
Larissa being abandoned by the Greeks, Velestino, the junction of the
Thessalian railways, where there was a strong position covering Volo,
seemed to be the natural rallying point for the Greek army. Here the
support of the fleet would have been secured, and a Turkish advance
across the Othrys range upon Athens could not have taken place until the
flanking position had been captured. Whether by direction or by natural
impulse, however, the mass of the Greek troops made for Pharsala, where
some order was re-established, and preparations were made to resist
attack. The importance of Velestino was recognized by sending a brigade
thither by railway from Pharsala, and the inferior Greek army was thus
split into two portions, separated by nearly 40 m. On 27th April a
Turkish reconnaissance on Velestino was repulsed, and further fighting
occurred on the 29th and 30th, in which the Greeks under Colonel
Smolenski held their own. Meanwhile the Turks made preparations to
attack Pharsala, and on 5th May the Greeks were driven from their
positions in front of the town by three divisions. Further fighting
followed on the 6th, and in the evening the Greek army retired in fair
order upon Domokos. It was intended to turn the Greek left with the
first division under Hairi Pasha, but the flanking force did not arrive
in time to bring about a decisive result. The abandonment of Pharsala
involved that of Velestino, where the Turks had obtained no advantage,
and on the evening of the 5th Colonel Smolenski began a retirement upon
Halmyros. Again delaying, Edhem Pasha did not attack Domokos till the
17th, giving the Greeks time to entrench their positions. The attack was
delivered in three columns, of which the right was checked and the
centre failed to take the Greek trenches and suffered much loss. The
left column, however, menaced the line of retreat, and the Greek army
abandoned the whole position during the night. No effective stand was
made at the Furka Pass, which was evacuated on the following night.
Colonel Smolenski, who arrived on the 18th from Halmyros, was directed
to hold the pass of Thermopylae. The Greek forces being much
demoralized, the intervention of the tsar was invoked by telegraph; and
the latter sent a personal appeal to the Sultan, who directed a
suspension of hostilities. On the 20th an armistice was arranged.
In Epirus at the outbreak of war about 15,000 Greeks, including a
cavalry regiment and five batteries, the whole under Colonel Manos,
occupied a line of defence from Arta to Peta. The Turks, about 28,000
strong, with forty-eight guns, under Achmet Hifsi Pasha, were
distributed mainly at Iannina, Pentepagadia, and in front of Arta. On
18th April the Turks commenced a three days' bombardment of Arta; but
successive attempts to take the bridge were repulsed, and during the
night of the 21st they retired on Philippiada, 26 m. distant, which was
attacked and occupied by Colonel Manos on the 23rd. The Greeks then
advanced to Pentepagadia, meeting with little resistance. Their
difficulties now began. After some skirmishing on the 27th, the position
held by their advanced force near Homopulos was attacked on the 28th.
The attack was renewed on the 29th, and no Greek reinforcements were
forthcoming when needed. The Euzones made a good defence, but were
driven back by superior force, and a retreat was ordered, which quickly
degenerated into panic-stricken flight to and across the Arta.
Reinforcements, including 2500 Epirote volunteers, were sent to Arta
from Athens, and on 12th May another incursion into Turkish territory
began, the apparent object being to occupy a portion of the country in
view of the breakdown in Thessaly and the probability that hostilities
would shortly end. The advance was made in three columns, while the
Epirote volunteers were landed near the mouth of the Luro river with the
idea of cutting off the Turkish garrison of Prevesa. The centre column,
consisting of a brigade, three squadrons and two batteries, which were
intended to take up and hold a defensive position, attacked the Turks
near Strevina on the 13th. The Greeks fought well, and being reinforced
by a battalion from the left column, resumed the offensive on the
following day, and fairly held their own. On the night of the 15th a
retreat was ordered and well carried out. The volunteers landed at the
mouth of the Luro, were attacked and routed with heavy loss.
The campaign in Epirus thus failed as completely as that in Thessaly.
Under the terms of the treaty of peace, signed on 20th September, and
arranged by the European powers, Turkey obtained an indemnity of
£T4,000,000, and a rectification of the Thessalian frontier, carrying
with it some strategic advantage. History records few more unjustifiable
wars than that which Greece gratuitously provoked. The Greek troops on
several occasions showed tenacity and endurance, but discipline and
cohesion were manifestly wanting. Many of the officers were incapable;
the campaign was gravely mismanaged; and politics, which led to the war,
impeded its operations. On the other hand, the fruits of the German
tuition, which began in 1880, and received a powerful stimulus by the
appointment of General von der Goltz in 1883, were shown in the Turkish
army. The mobilization was on the whole smoothly carried out, and the
newly completed railways greatly facilitated the concentration on the
frontier. The young school of officers trained by General von der Goltz
displayed ability, and the artillery at Pharsala and Domokos was well
handled. The superior leading was, however, not conspicuously
successful; and while the rank and file again showed excellent military
qualities, political conditions and the Oriental predilection for
half-measures and for denying full responsibility and full powers to
commanders in the field enfeebled the conduct of the campaign. On
account of the total want of careful and systematic peace training on
both sides, a war which presented several interesting strategic problems
provided warnings in place of military lessons. (G. S. C.)
GREECE,[1] an ancient geographical area, and a modern kingdom more or
less corresponding thereto, situated at the south-eastern extremity of
Europe and forming the most southerly portion of the Balkan Peninsula.
The modern kingdom is bounded on the N. by European Turkey and on the
E., S. and W. by the Aegean, Mediterranean and Ionian seas. The name
_Graecia_, which was more or less vaguely given to the ancient country
by the Romans, seems not to have been employed by any native writer
before Aristotle; it was apparently derived by the Romans from the
Illyrians, who applied the name of an Epirote tribe ([Greek: Graikoi],
Graeci) to all their southern neighbours. The names Hellas, Hellenes
([Greek: Hellas, Hellênes]), by which the ancient Greeks called their
country and their race, and which are still employed by the modern
Greeks, originally designated a small district in Phthiotis in Thessaly
and its inhabitants, who gradually spread over the lands south of the
Cambunian mountains. The name Hellenes was not universally applied to
the Greek race until the post-Homeric epoch (Thucyd. i. 3).
[Illustration: Map of Greece.]
1. GEOGRAPHY AND STATISTICS
Extent of ancient Greece.
The ancient Greeks had a somewhat vague conception of the northern
limits of Hellas. Thessaly was generally included and Epirus excluded;
some writers included some of the southern cantons of Epirus, while
others excluded not only all that country but Aetolia and Acarnania.
Generally speaking, the confines of Hellas in the age of its greatest
distinction were represented by a line drawn from the northern shore of
the Ambracian Gulf on the W. to the mouth of the Peneus on the E.
Macedonia and Thrace were regarded as outside the pale of Hellenic
civilization till 386 B.C., when after his conquest of Thessaly and
Phocis, Philip of Macedon obtained a seat in the Amphictyonic Council.
In another sense, however, the name Hellas expressed an ethnological
rather than a geographical unity; it denoted every country inhabited by
Hellenes. It thus embraced all the Greek settlements on the coasts and
islands of the Mediterranean, on the shores of the Hellespont, the
Bosporus and the Black Sea. Nevertheless, the Greek peninsula within the
limits described above, together with the adjacent islands, was always
regarded as Hellas _par excellence_. The continental area of Hellas
proper was no greater than that of the modern Greek kingdom, which
comprises but a small portion of the territories actually occupied by
the Greek race. The Greeks have always been a maritime people, and the
real centre of the national life is now, as in antiquity, the Aegean Sea
or Archipelago. Thickly studded with islands and bordered by deeply
indented coasts with sheltered creeks and harbours, the Aegean in the
earliest days of navigation invited the enterprise of the mariner; its
shores, both European and Asiatic, became covered with Greek settlements
and its islands, together with Crete and Cyprus, became Greek. True to
their maritime instincts, the Greeks rarely advanced inland to any
distance from the sea; the coasts of Macedonia, Thrace and Asia Minor
are still mainly Greek, but, except for some isolated colonies, the
_hinterland_ in each case lies outside the limits of the race.
Continental Greece is divided by its mountain ranges into a number of
natural cantons; the existence of physical barriers tended in the
earliest times to the growth of isolated political communities, and in
the epoch of its ancient independence the country was occupied by
seventeen separate states, none of them larger than an ordinary English
county. These states, which are noticed separately, were: Thessaly, in
northern Greece; Acarnania, Aetolia, Locris, Doris, Phocis, Megaris,
Boeotia and Attica in central Greece; and Corinthia, Sicyonia, Achaea,
Elis, Messenia, Laconia, Argolis and Arcadia in the Peloponnesus.
Extent of modern Greece.
Modern Greece, which (including the adjacent islands) extends from 35°
50' to 39° 54' N. and from 19° 20' to 26° 15' E., comprises all the area
formerly occupied by these states. Under the arrangement concluded at
Constantinople on the 21st of July 1832 between Great Britain, France,
Russia and Turkey, the northern boundary of Greece was drawn from the
Gulf of Arta (Sinus Ambracius) to the Gulf of Volo (S. Pagasaeus), the
line keeping to the crest of the Othrys range. Thessaly and part of
Acarnania were thus left to Turkey. The island of Euboea, the Cyclades
and the northern Sporades were added to the new kingdom. In 1864 the
Ionian Islands (q.v.) were ceded by Great Britain to Greece. In 1880 the
Conference of Berlin proposed a new frontier, which transferred to
Greece not only Thessaly but a considerable portion of southern Epirus,
extending to the river Kalamas. This, however, was rejected by Turkey,
and the existing boundary was traced in 1881. Starting from the Aegean
coast at a point near Platamona, between Mount Olympus and the mouth of
the Salambria (Peneus), the line passes over the heights of Kritiri and
Zygos (Pindus) and descends the course of the river Arta to its mouth.
After the war of 1897 Greece restored to Turkey some strategical points
on the frontier possessing no geographical importance. The greatest
length of Greece is about 250 m., the greatest breadth 180 m. The
country is generally divided into five parts, which are indicated by its
natural features:--(i.) Northern Greece, which extends northwards from
Mount Othrys and the gulfs of Zeitun (Lamia) and Arta to the Cambunian
Mountains, and comprises Thessaly and a small portion of Epirus; (ii.)
Central Greece, extending from the southern limits of Northern Greece to
the gulfs of Corinth and Aegina; (iii.) the peninsula of the
Peloponnesus or Morea, attached to the mainland by the Isthmus of
Corinth; (iv.) the Ionian Islands on the west coasts of Epirus and
Greece; (v.) The islands of the Aegean Sea, including Euboea, the
Cyclades and the northern Sporades.
Physical features.
In the complexity of its contour and the variety of its natural
features Greece surpasses every country in Europe, as Europe surpasses
every continent in the world. The broken character of its coast-line
is unique; except a few districts in Thessaly no part of the country
is more than 50 m. from the sea. Although the area of Greece is
considerably smaller than that of Portugal, its coast-line is greater
than that of Spain and Portugal together. The mainland is penetrated
by numerous gulfs and inlets, and the adjoining seas are studded with
islands. Another characteristic is the number and complexity of the
mountain chains, which traverse every part of the country and which,
together with their ramifications, cover four-fifths of its surface.
The mountain-chains interlace, the interstices forming small enclosed
basins, such as the plain of Boeotia and the plateau of Arcadia; the
only plain of any extent is that of Thessaly. The mountains project
into the sea, forming peninsulas, and sometimes reappearing in rows or
groups of islands; they descend abruptly to the coast or are separated
from it by small alluvial plains. The portions of the country suitable
for human colonization were thus isolated one from the other, but as a
rule possessed easy access to the sea. The earliest settlements were
generally situated on or around some rocky elevation, which dominated
the surrounding plain and was suitable for fortification as a citadel
or acropolis; owing to the danger of piratical attacks they were
usually at some little distance from the sea, but in the vicinity of a
natural harbour. The physical features of the country played an
important part in moulding the character of its inhabitants. Protected
against foreign invasion by the mountain barriers and to a great
extent cut off from mutual intercourse except by sea, the ancient
Greek communities developed a marked individuality and a strong
sentiment of local patriotism; their inhabitants were both
mountaineers and mariners; they possessed the love of country, the
vigour and the courage which are always found in highlanders, together
with the spirit of adventure, the versatility and the passion for
freedom characteristic of a seafaring people. The great variety of
natural products as well as the facility of maritime communication
tended to the early growth of commercial enterprise, while the
peculiar beauty of the scenery, though little dwelt upon in ancient
literature, undoubtedly quickened the poetic and artistic instincts of
the race. The effects of physical environment are no less noticeable
among the modern Greeks. The rural populations of Attica and Boeotia,
though descended from Albanian colonists in the middle ages, display
the same contrast in character which marked the inhabitants of those
regions in ancient times.
In its general aspect the country presents a series of striking and
interesting contrasts. Fertile tracts covered with vineyards, olive
groves, corn-fields or forests display themselves in close proximity
with rugged heights and rocky precipices; the landscape is never,
monotonous; its outlines are graceful, and its colouring, owing to the
clearness of the air, is at once brilliant and delicate, while the
sea, in most instances, adds a picturesque feature, enhancing the
charm and variety of the scenery.
Mountains.
The ruling feature in the mountain system of northern Greece is the
great chain of Pindus, which, extending southwards from the lofty Shar
Dagh (Skardos) near Uskub, forms the backbone of the Balkan peninsula.
Reaching the frontier of Greece a little S. of lat. 40°, the Pindus
range is intersected by the Cambunian Mountains running E. and W.; the
eastern branch, which forms the northern boundary of Thessaly, extends
to the Gulf of Salonica and culminates in Mount Olympus (9754 ft.) a
little to the N. of the Greek frontier; then bending to the S.E. it
follows the coast-line, forming a rampart between the Thessalian plain
and the sea; the barrier is severed at one point only where the river
Salambria (anc. _Peneus_) finds an exit through the narrow defile of
Tempe. South of Tempe the mountain ridge, known as the Mavro Vouno,
connects the pyramidal Kissovo (anc. _Ossa_, 6400 ft.) with Plessidi
(anc. _Pelion_, 5310 ft.); it is prolonged in the Magnesian peninsula,
which separates the Gulf of Volo from the Aegean, and is continued by
the mountains of Euboea (highest summits, Dirphys, 5725 ft., and Ocha,
4830 ft.) and by the islands of Andros and Tenos. West of Pindus, the
Cambunian Mountains are continued by several ridges which traverse
Epirus from north to south, enclosing the plain and lake of Iannina;
the most westerly of these, projecting into the Adriatic, forms the
Acroceraunian promontory terminating in Cape Glossa. The principal
pass through the Cambunian Mountains is that of Meluna, through which
runs the carriage-road connecting the town of Elassona in Macedonia
with Larissa, the capital of Thessaly; there are horse-paths at Reveni
and elsewhere. The central chain of Pindus at the point where it is
intersected by the Cambunian Mountains forms the mass of Zygos (anc.
_Lacmon_, 7113 ft.) through which a horse-path connects the town of
Metzovo with Kalabaka in Thessaly; on the declivity immediately N. of
Kalabaka are a series of rocky pinnacles on which a number of
monasteries are perched. Trending to the S., the Pindus chain
terminates in the conical Mount Velouchi (anc. _Tymphrestus_, 7609
ft.) in the heart of the mountainous region of northern Greece. From
this centre-point a number of mountains radiate in all directions. To
the E. runs the chain of Helloro (anc. _Othrys_; highest summit,
Hagios Elias, 5558 ft.) separating the plain of Thessaly from the
valley of the Spercheios and traversed by the Phourka pass (2789 ft.);
to the S.E. is Mount Katávothra (anc. _Oeta_, 7080 ft.) extending to
the southern shore of the Gulf of Lamia at Thermopylae; to the S.E.,
S. and S.W. are the mountains of Aetolia and Acarnania. The Aetolian
group, which may be regarded as the direct continuation of the Pindus
range, includes Kiona (8240 ft.), the highest mountain in Greece, and
Vardusi (anc. _Korax_, 8190 ft.). The mountains of Acarnania with
[Greek: Hupsêlê koruphê] (5215 ft.) rise to the W. of the valley of
the Aspropotamo (anc. _Achelous_). The Aetolian Mountains are
prolonged to the S.E. by the double-crested Liakoura (anc.
_Parnassus_; 8064 ft.) in Phocis; by Palaeo Vouno (anc. _Helicon_,
5738 ft.) and Elateas (anc. _Cithaeron_, 4626 ft.) respectively W. and
S. of the Boeotian plain; and by the mountains of Attica,--Ozea (anc.
_Parnes_, 4626 ft.), Mendeli (anc. _Pentelicus_ or _Brilessos_, 3639
ft.), Trellovouno (anc. _Hymettus_, 3369 ft.), and Keratia (2136
ft.)--terminating in the promontory of Sunium, but reappearing in the
islands of Ceos, Cythnos, Seriphos and Siphnos. South of Cithaeron are
Patera in Megaris (3583 ft.) and Makri Plagi (anc. _Geraneia_, 4495
ft.) overlooking the Isthmus of Corinth.
The mountains of the Morea, grouped around the elevated central
plateau of Arcadia, form an independent system with ramifications
extending through the Argolid peninsula on the E. and the three
southern promontories of Malea, Taenaron and Acritas. At the eastern
end of the northern chain, separating Arcadia from the Gulf of
Corinth, is Ziria (anc. _Cyllene_, 7789 ft.); it forms a counterpart
to Parnassus on the opposite side of the gulf. A little to the W. is
Chelmos (anc. _Aroania_, 7725 ft.); farther W., Olonos (anc.
_Erymanthus_, 7297 ft.) and Voïdia (anc. _Panachaïcon_, 6322 ft.)
overlooking the Gulf of Patras. The highest summit in the Argolid
peninsula is Hagios Elias (anc. _Arachnaeon_, 3930 ft.). The series of
heights forming the eastern rampart of Arcadia, including Artemision
(5814 ft.) and Ktenia (5246 ft.) is continued to the S. by the Malevo
range (anc. _Parnon_, highest summit 6365 ft.) which extends into the
peninsula of Malea and reappears in the island of Cerigo. Separated
from Parnon by the Eurotas valley to the W., the chain of Taygetus
(mod. _Pentedaktylon_; highest summit Hagios Elias, 7874 ft., the
culminating point of the Morea) forms a barrier between the plains of
Laconia and Messenia; it is traversed by the Langáda pass leading from
Sparta to Kalamata. The range is prolonged to the S. through the arid
district of Maina and terminates in Cape Matapan (anc. _Taenarum_).
The mountains of western Arcadia are less lofty and of a less marked
type; they include Hagios Petros (4777 ft.) and Palaeócastro (anc.
_Pholoë_, 2257 ft.) N. of the Alpheus valley, Diaphorti (anc.
_Lycaeus_, 4660 ft.), the haunt of Pan, and Nomia (4554 ft.) W. of the
plain of Megalopolis. Farther south, the mountains of western Messenia
form a detached group (Varvara, 4003 ft.; Mathia, 3140 ft.) extending
to Cape Gallo (anc. _Acritas_) and the Oenussae Islands. In central
Arcadia are Apanokrapa (anc. _Maenalus_, also sacred to Pan) and
Roudia (5072 ft.); the Taygetus chain forms the southern continuation
of these mountains.
The more noteworthy fortified heights of ancient Greece were the
Acrocorinthus, the citadel of Corinth (1885 ft.); Ithome (2631 ft.) at
Messene; Larissa (950 ft.) at Argos; the Acropolis of Mycenae (910
ft.); Tiryns (60 ft.) near Nauplia, which also possessed its own
citadel, the Palamidhi or Acro-nauplia (705 ft.); the Acropolis of
Athens (300 ft. above the mean level of the city and 512 ft. above the
sea), and the Cadmea of Thebes (715 ft.).
Rivers.
Greece has few rivers; most of these are small, rapid and turbid, as
might be expected from the mountainous configuration of the country.
They are either perennial rivers or torrents, the white beds of the
latter being dry in summer, and only filled with water after the
autumn rains. The chief rivers (none of which is navigable) are the
Salambria (_Peneus_) in Thessaly, the Mavropotamo (_Cephisus_) in
Phocis, the Hellada (_Spercheios_) in Phthiotis, the Aspropotamo
(_Achelous_) in Aetolia, and the Ruphia (_Alpheus_) and Vasiliko
(_Eurotas_) in the Morea. Of the famous rivers of Athens, the one, the
Ilissus, is only a chain of pools all summer, and the other, the
Cephisus, though never absolutely dry, does not reach the sea, being
drawn off in numerous artificial channels to irrigate the neighbouring
olive groves. A frequent peculiarity of the Greek rivers is their
sudden disappearance in subterranean chasms and reappearance on the
surface again, such as gave rise to the fabled course of the Alpheus
under the sea, and its emergence in the fountain of Arethusa in
Syracuse. Some of these chasms--"Katavothras"--are merely sieves with
herbage and gravel in the bottom, but others are large caverns through
which the course of the river may sometimes be followed. Floods are
frequent, especially in autumn, and natural fountains abound and gush
out even from the tops of the hills. Aganippe rises high up among the
peaks of Helicon, and Peirene flows from the summit of Acrocorinthus.
The only noteworthy cascade, however, is that of the Styx in Arcadia,
which has a fall of 500 ft. During part of the year it is lost in
snow, and it is at all times almost inaccessible. Lakes are numerous,
but few are of considerable size, and many merely marshes in summer.
The largest are Karla (_Boebeïs_) in Thessaly, Trichonis in Aetolia,
Copaïs in Boeotia, Pheneus and Stymphalus in Arcadia.
Plains.
The valleys are generally narrow, and the plains small in extent, deep
basins walled in among the hills or more free at the mouths of the
rivers. The principal plains are those of Thessaly, Boeotia, Messenia,
Argos, Elis and Marathon. The bottom of these plains consists of an
alluvial soil, the most fertile in Greece. In some of the mountainous
regions, especially in the Morea, are extensive table-lands. The plain
of Mantinea is 2000 ft. high, and the upland district of Sciritis,
between Sparta and Tegea, is in some parts 3000 ft.
Coast.
Strabo said that the guiding thing in the geography of Greece was the
sea, which presses in upon it at all parts with a thousand arms. From
the Gulf of Arta on the one side to the Gulf of Volo on the other the
coast is indented with a succession of natural bays and gulfs. The
most important are the Gulfs of Aegina (_Saronicus_) and Lepanto
(_Corinthiacus_), which separate the Morea from the northern mainland
of Greece,--the first an inlet of the Aegean, the second of the Ionian
Sea,--and are now connected by a canal cut through the high land of
the narrow Isthmus of Corinth (3½ m. wide). The outer portion of the
Gulf of Lepanto is called the Gulf of Patras, and the inner part the
Bay of Corinth; a narrow inlet on the north side of the same gulf,
called the Bay of Salona or Itea, penetrates northwards into Phocis so
far that it is within 24 geographical miles of the Gulf of Zeitun on
the north-east coast. The width of the entrance to the gulf of Lepanto
is subject to singular changes, which are ascribed to the formation of
alluvial deposits by certain marine currents, and their removal again
by others. At the time of the Peloponnesian war this channel was 1200
yds. broad; in the time of Strabo it was only 850; and in our own day
it has again increased to 2200. On the coast of the Morea there are
several large gulfs, that of Arcadia (_Cyparissius_) on the west,
Kalamata (_Messeniacus_) and Kolokythia (_Laconicus_) on the south and
Nauplia (_Argolicus_) on the east. Between Euboea and the mainland lie
the channels of Trikeri, Talanti (_Euboicum Mare_) and Egripo; the
latter two are connected by the strait of Egripo (_Euripus_). This
strait, which is spanned by a swing-bridge, is about 180 ft. wide, and
is remarkable for the unexplained eccentricity of its tide, which has
puzzled ancients and moderns alike. The current runs at the average
speed of 5 m. an hour, but continues only for a short time in one
direction, changing its course, it is said, ten or twelve times in a
day; it is sometimes very violent.
Volcanic action.
There are no volcanoes on the mainland of Greece, but everywhere
traces of volcanic action and frequently visitations of earthquakes,
for it lies near a centre of volcanic: agency, the island of Santorin,
which has been within recent years in a state of eruption. There is an
extinct crater at Mount Laphystium (_Granitsa_) in Boeotia. The
mountain of Methane, on the coast of Argolis, was produced by a
volcanic eruption in 282 B.C. Earthquakes laid Thebes in ruins in
1853, destroyed every house in Corinth in 1858, filled up the
Castalian spring in 1870, devastated Zante in 1893 and the district of
Atalanta in 1894. There are hot springs at Thermopylae and other
places, which are used for sanitary purposes. Various parts of the
coast exhibit indications of upheaval within historical times. On the
coast of Elis four rocky islets are now joined to the land, which were
separate from it in the days of ancient Greece. There are traces of
earlier sea-beaches at Corinth, and on the coast of the Morea, and at
the mouth of the Hellada. The land has gained so much that the pass of
Thermopylae which was extremely narrow in the time of Leonidas and his
three hundred, is now wide enough for the motions of a whole army.
(J. D. B.)
Geology.
Structurally, Greece may be divided into two regions, an eastern and a
western. The former includes Thessaly, Boeotia, the island of Euboea,
the isthmus of Corinth, and the peninsula of Argolis, and, throughout,
the strike of the beds is nearly from west to east. The western region
includes the Pindus and all the parallel ranges, and the whole of the
Peloponnesus excepting Argolis. Here the folds which affect the
Mesozoic and early Tertiary strata run approximately from N.N.W. to
S.S.E.
Up to the close of the 19th century the greater part of Greece was
believed to be formed of Cretaceous rocks, but later researches have
shown that the supposed Cretaceous beds include a variety of
geological horizons. The geological sequence begins with crystalline
schists and limestones, followed by Palaeozoic, Triassic and Liassic
rocks. The oldest beds which hitherto have yielded fossils belong to
the Carboniferous System (_Fusulina_ limestone of Euboea). Following
upon these older beds are the great limestone masses which cover most
of the eastern region, and which are now known to include Jurassic,
Tithonian, Lower and Upper Cretaceous and Eocene beds. In the Pindus
and the Peloponnesus these beds are overlaid by a series of shales and
platy limestones (Olonos Limestone of the Peloponnesus), which were
formerly supposed to be of Tertiary age. It has now been shown,
however, that the upper series of limestones has been brought upon the
top of the lower by a great overthrust. Triassic fossils have been
found in the Olonos Limestone and it is almost certain that other
Mesozoic horizons are represented.
The earth movements which produced the mountain chains of western
Greece have folded the Eocene beds and must therefore be of
post-Eocene date. The Neogene beds, on the other hand, are not
affected by the folds, although by faulting without folding they have
in some places been raised to a height of nearly 6000 ft. They lie,
however, chiefly along the coast and in the valleys, and consist of
marls, conglomerates and sands, sometimes with seams of lignite. The
Pikermi deposits, of late Miocene age, are famous for their rich
mammalian fauna.
Although the folding which formed the mountain chains appears to have
ceased, Greece is still continually shaken by earthquakes, and these
earthquakes are closely connected with the great lines of fracture to
which the country owes its outline. Around the narrow gulf which
separates the Peloponnesus from the mainland, earthquakes are
particularly frequent, and another region which is often shaken is the
south-western corner of Greece, the peninsula of Messene.[2] (P. La.)
Flora.
The vegetation of Greece in general resembles that of southern Italy
while presenting many types common to that of Asia Minor. Owing to the
geographical configuration of the peninsula and its mountainous
surface the characteristic flora of the Mediterranean regions is often
found in juxtaposition with that of central Europe. In respect to its
vegetation the country may be regarded as divided into four zones. In
the first, extending from the sea-level to the height of 1500 ft.,
oranges, olives, dates, almonds, pomegranates, figs and vines
flourish, and cotton and tobacco are grown. In the neighbourhood of
streams are found the laurel, myrtle, oleander and lentisk, together
with the plane and white poplar; the cypress is often a picturesque
feature in the landscape, and there is a variety of aromatic plants.
The second zone, from 1500 to 3500 ft., is the region of the oak,
chestnut and other British trees. In the third, from 3500 to 5500 ft.,
the beech is the characteristic forest tree; the _Abies cephalonica_
and _Pinus pinea_ now take the place of the _Pinus halepensis_, which
grows everywhere in the lower regions. Above 5500 ft. is the Alpine
region, marked by small plants, lichens and mosses. During the short
period of spring anemones and other wild flowers enrich the hillsides
with magnificent colouring; in June all verdure disappears except in
the watered districts and elevated plateaus. The asphodel grows
abundantly in the dry rocky soil; aloes, planted in rows, form
impenetrable hedges. Medicinal plants are numerous, such as the _Inula
Helenium_, the _Mandragora Officinarum_, the _Colchicum napolitanum_
and the _Helleborus orientalis_, which still grows abundantly near
Aspraspitia, the ancient Anticyra, at the foot of Parnassus.
Fauna.
The fauna is similar to that of the other Mediterranean peninsulas,
and includes some species found in Asia Minor but not elsewhere in
Europe. The lion existed in northern Greece in the time of Aristotle
and at an earlier period in the Morea. The bear is still found in the
Pindus range. Wolves are common in all the mountainous regions and
jackals are numerous in the Morea. Foxes are abundant in all parts of
the country; the polecat is found in the woods of Attica and the
Morea; the lynx is now rare. The wild boar is common in the mountains
of northern Greece, but is almost extinct in the Peloponnesus. The
badger, the marten and the weasel are found on the mainland and in the
islands. The red deer, the fallow deer and the roe exist in northern
Greece, but are becoming scarce. The otter is rare. Hares and rabbits
are abundant in many parts of the country, especially in the Cyclades;
the two species never occupy the same district, and in the Cyclades
some islands (Naxos, Melos, Tenos, &c.) form the exclusive domain of
the hares, others (Seriphos, Kimolos, Mykonos, &c.) of the rabbits. In
Andros alone a demarcation has been arrived at, the hares retaining
the northern and the rabbits the southern portion of the island. The
chamois is found in the higher mountains, such as Pindus, Parnassus
and Tymphrestus. The Cretan _agrimi_, or wild goat (_Capra nubiana_,
_C. aegagrus_), found in Antimelos and said to exist in Taygetus, the
jackal, the stellion, and the chameleon are among the Asiatic species
not found westward of Greece. There is a great variety of birds; of
358 species catalogued two-thirds are migratory. Among the birds of
prey, which are very numerous, are the golden and imperial eagle, the
yellow vulture, the _Gypaëtus barbatus_, and several species of
falcons. The celebrated owl of Athena (_Athene noctua_) is becoming
rare at Athens, but still haunts the Acropolis and the royal garden;
it is a small species, found everywhere in Greece. The wild goose and
duck, the bustard, partridge, woodcock, snipe, wood-pigeon and
turtle-dove are numerous. Immense flocks of quails visit the southern
coast of the Morea, where they are captured in great numbers and
exported alive. The stork, which was common in the Turkish epoch, has
now become scarce. There is a great variety of reptiles, of which
sixty-one species have been catalogued. The saurians are all harmless;
among them the stellion (_Stellio vulgaris_), commonly called [Greek:
krokodeilos] in Mykonos and Crete, is believed by Heldreich to have
furnished a name to the crocodile of the Nile (Herod. ii. 69). There
are five species of tortoise and nine of Amphibia. Of the serpents,
which are numerous, there are only two dangerous species, the _Vipera
ammodytes_ and the _Vipera aspis_; the first-named is common. Among
the marine fauna are the dolphins, familiar in the legends and
sculpture of antiquity; in the clear water of the Aegean they often
afford a beautiful spectacle as they play round ships; porpoises and
whales are sometimes seen. Sea-fish, of which 246 species have been
ascertained, are very abundant.
Climate.
The climate of Greece, like that of the other countries of the Balkan
peninsula, is liable to greater extremes of heat and cold than prevail
in Spain and Italy; the difference is due to the general contour of
the peninsula, which assimilates its climatic conditions to those of
the European mainland. Another distinctive feature is the great
variety of local contrasts; the rapid transitions are the natural
effect of diversity in the geographical configuration of the country.
Within a few hours it is possible to pass from winter to spring and
from spring to summer. The spring is short; the sun is already
powerful in March, but the increasing warmth is often checked by cold
northerly winds; in many places the corn harvest is cut in May, when
southerly winds prevail and the temperature rises rapidly. The great
heat of summer is tempered throughout the whole region of the
archipelago by the Etesian winds, which blow regularly from the N.E.
for forty to fifty days in July and August. This current of cool dry
air from the north is due to the vacuum resulting from intense heat in
the region of the Sahara. The healthy Etesian winds are generally
replaced towards the end of summer by the southerly Libas or sirocco,
which, when blowing strongly, resembles the blast from a furnace and
is most injurious to health. The sirocco affects, though in a less
degree, the other countries of the Balkan peninsula and even Rumania.
The mean summer temperature is about 79° Fahr. The autumn is the least
healthy season of the year owing to the great increase of humidity,
especially in October and November. At the end of October snow
reappears on the higher mountains, remaining on the summits till June.
The winter is mild, and even in January there are, as a rule, many
warm clear days; but the recurrence of biting northerly winds and cold
blasts from the mountains, as well as the rapid transitions from heat
to cold and the difference in the temperature of sunshine and shade,
render the climate somewhat treacherous and unsuitable for invalids.
Snow seldom falls in the maritime and lowland districts and frost is
rare. The mean winter temperature is from 48° to 55° Fahr. The
rainfall varies greatly according to localities; it is greatest in the
Ionian Islands (53.34 ins. at Corfu), in Arcadia and in the other
mountainous districts, and least on the Aegean littoral and in the
Cyclades; in Attica, the driest region in Greece, it is 16.1 ins. The
wettest months are November, December and January; the driest July and
August, when, except for a few thunder-storms, there is practically no
rainfall. The rain generally accompanies southerly or south-westerly
winds. In all the maritime districts the sea breeze greatly modifies
the temperature; it begins about 9 A.M., attains its maximum force
soon after noon, and ceases about an hour after sunset. Greece is
renowned for the clearness of its climate; fogs and mists are almost
unknown. In most years, however, only four or five days are recorded
in which the sky is perfectly cloudless. The natural healthiness of
the climate is counteracted in the towns, especially in Athens, by
deficient sanitation and by stifling clouds of dust, which propagate
infection and are peculiarly hurtful in cases of ophthalmia and
pulmonary disease. Malarial fever is endemic in the marshy districts,
especially in the autumn.
Area and population.
The area of the country was 18,341 sq. m. before the acquisition of the
Ionian Islands in 1864, 19,381 sq. m. prior to the annexation of
Thessaly and part of Epirus in 1881, and 24,552 sq. m. at the census in
1896. If we deduct 152 sq. m., the extent of territory ceded to Turkey
after the war of 1897, the area of Greece in 1908 would be 24,400 sq. m.
Other authorities give 25,164 and 25,136 sq. m. as the area prior to
the rectification of the frontier in 1898.[3] The population in 1896 was
2,433,806, or 99.1 to the sq. m., the population of the territories
annexed in 1881 being approximately 350,000; and 2,631,952 in 1907, or
107.8 to the sq. m. (according to the official estimate of the area),
showing an increase of 198,146 or 0.81% per annum, as compared with
1.61% during the period between 1896 and 1889; the diminished increase
is mainly due to emigration. The population by sex in 1907 is given as
1,324,942 males and 1,307,010 females (or 50.3% males to 49.6 females).
The preponderance of males, which was 52% to 48% females in 1896, has
also been reduced by emigration; it is most marked in the northern
departments, especially in Larissa. Only in the departments of Arcadia,
Eurytania, Corinth, Cephalonia, Lacedaemon, Laconia, Phocis, Argolis and
in the Cyclades, is the female population in excess of the male.
Neither the census of 1896 nor that of 1889 gave any classification by
professions, religion or language. The following figures, which are
only approximate, were derived from unofficial sources in
1901:--agricultural and pastoral employments 444,000; industries
64,200; traders and their employés 118,000; labourers and servants
31,300; various professions 15,700; officials 12,000; clergy about
6000; lawyers 4000; physicians 2500. In 1879, 1,635,698 of the
population were returned as Orthodox Christians, 14,677 as Catholics
and Protestants, 2652 as Jews, and 740 as of other religions. The
annexation of Thessaly and part of Epirus is stated to have added
24,165 Mahommedan subjects to the Hellenic kingdom. A considerable
portion of these, however, emigrated immediately after the annexation,
and, although a certain number subsequently returned, the total
Mahommedan population in Greece was estimated to be under 5000 in
1908. A number of the Christian inhabitants of these regions,
estimated at about 50,000, retained Turkish nationality with the
object of escaping military service. The Albanian population,
estimated at 200,000 by Finlay in 1851, still probably exceeds
120,000. It is gradually being absorbed in the Hellenic population. In
1870, 37,598 persons (an obviously untrustworthy figure) were returned
as speaking Albanian only. In 1879 the number is given as 58,858. The
Vlach population, which has been increased by the annexation of
Thessaly, numbers about 60,000. The number of foreign residents is
unknown. The Italians are the most numerous, numbering about 11,000.
Some 1500 persons, mostly Maltese, possess British nationality.
By a law of 27 November 1899, Greece, which had hitherto been divided
into sixteen departments ([Greek: nomoi]) was redivided into
twenty-six departments, as follows:--
_Departments._ _Pop._ _Departments._ _Pop._
1 Attica 341,247 14 Corinth 71,229
2 Boeotia 65,816 15 Arcadia 162,324
3 Phthiotis 112,328 16 Achaea 150,918
4 Phocis 62,246 17 Elis 103,810
5 Aetolia and Acarnania 141,405 18 Triphylia 90,523
6 Eurytania 47,192 19 Messenia 127,991
7 Arta 41,280 20 Laconia 61,522
8 Trikkala 90,548 21 Lacedaemon 87,106
9 Karditsa 92,941 22 Corfu 99,571
10 Larissa 95,066 23 Cephalonia 71,235
11 Magnesia 102,742 24 Leucas (with Ithaca) 41,186
12 Euboea 116,903 25 Zante 42,502
13 Argolis 81,943 26 Cyclades 130,378
The population is densest in the Ionian Islands, exceeding 307 per sq.
m. The departments of Acarnania, Phocis and Euboea are the most thinly
inhabited (about 58, 61 and 66 per sq. m. respectively).
Very little information is obtainable with regard to the movement of
the population; no register of births, deaths and marriages is kept in
Greece. The only official statistics are found in the periodical
returns of the mortality in the twelve principal towns, according to
which the yearly average of deaths in these towns for the five years
1903-1907 was approximately 10,253, or 23.8 per 1000; of these more
than a quarter are ascribed to pulmonary consumption, due in the main
to defective sanitation. Both the birth-rate and death-rate are low,
being 27.6 and 20.7 per 1000 respectively. Infant mortality is slight,
and in point of longevity Greece compares favourably with most other
European countries. The number of illegitimate births is 12.25 per
1000; these are almost exclusively in the towns.
Of the total population 28.5% are stated to live in towns. The
population of the principal towns is:--
1896. 1907.
Athens 111,486 167,479
Peiraeus 43,848 73,579
Patras 37,985 37,724
Trikkala 21,149 17,809
Hermopolis (Syra) 18,760 18,132
Corfu 18,581 28,254*
Volo 16,788 23,563
Larissa 15,373 18,001
Zante 14,906 13,580
Kalamata 14,298 15,397
Pyrgos 12,708 13,690
Tripolis 10,465 10,789
Chalcis 8,661 10,958
Laurium 7,926 10,007
* Including suburbs.
No trustworthy information is obtainable with regard to immigration
and emigration, of which no statistics have ever been kept.
Emigration, which was formerly in the main to Egypt and Rumania, is
now almost exclusively to the United States of America. The principal
exodus is from Arcadia, Laconia and Maina; the emigrants from these
districts, estimated at about 14,000 annually, are for the most part
young men approaching the age of military service. According to
American statistics 12,431 Greeks arrived in the United States from
Greece during the period 1869-1898 and 130,154 in 1899-1907; a
considerable number, however, have returned to Greece, and those
remaining in the United States at the end of 1907 were estimated at
between 136,000 and 138,000; this number was considerably reduced in
1908 by remigration. Since 1896 the tendency to emigration has
received a notable and somewhat alarming impulse. There is an
increasing immigration into the towns from the rural districts, which
are gradually becoming depopulated. Both movements are due in part to
the preference of the Greeks for a town life and in part to distaste
for military service, but in the main to the poverty of the peasant
population, whose condition and interests have been neglected by the
government.
Ethnology.
Greece is inhabited by three races--the Greeks, the Albanians and the
Vlachs. The Greeks who are by far the most numerous, have to a large
extent absorbed the other races; the process of assimilation has been
especially rapid since the foundation of the Greek kingdom. Like most
European nations, the modern Greeks are a mixed race. The question of
their origin has been the subject of much learned controversy; their
presumed descent from the Greeks of the classical epoch has proved a
national asset of great value; during the period of their struggle for
independence it won them the devoted zeal of the Philhellenes, it
inspired the enthusiasm of Byron, Victor Hugo, and a host of minor
poets, and it has furnished a pleasing illusion to generations of
scholarly tourists who delight to discover in the present inhabitants of
the country the mental and physical characteristics with which they have
been familiarized by the literature and art of antiquity. This amiable
tendency is encouraged by the modern Greeks, who possess an implicit
faith in their illustrious ancestry. The discussion of the question
entered a very acrimonious stage with the appearance in 1830 of
Fallmerayer's _History of the Morea during the Middle Ages_. Fallmerayer
maintained that after the great Slavonic immigration at the close of the
8th century the original population of northern Greece and the Morea,
which had already been much reduced during the Roman period, was
practically supplanted by the Slavonic element and that the Greeks of
modern times are in fact Byzantinized Slavs. This theory was subjected
to exhaustive criticism by Ross, Hopf, Finlay and other scholars, and
although many of Fallmerayer's conclusions remain unshaken, the view is
now generally held that the base of the population both in the mainland
and the Morea is Hellenic, not Slavonic. During the 5th and 6th
centuries Greece had been subjected to Slavonic incursions which
resulted in no permanent settlements. After the great plague of 746-747,
however, large tracts of depopulated country were colonized by Slavonic
immigrants; the towns remained in the hands of the Greeks, many of whom
emigrated to Constantinople. In the Morea the Slavs established
themselves principally in Arcadia and the region of Taygetus, extending
their settlements into Achaia, Elis, Laconia and the promontory of
Taenaron; on the mainland they occupied portions of Acarnania, Aetolia,
Doris and Phocis. Slavonic place-names occurring in all these districts
confirm the evidence of history with regard to this immigration. The
Slavs, who were not a maritime race, did not colonize the Aegean
Islands, but a few Slavonic place-names in Crete seem to indicate that
some of the invaders reached that island. The Slavonic settlements in
the Morea proved more permanent than those in northern Greece, which
were attacked by the armies of the Byzantine emperors. But even in the
Morea the Greeks, or "Romans" as they called themselves ([Greek:
Rhômaioi]), who had been left undisturbed on the eastern side of the
peninsula, eventually absorbed the alien element, which disappeared
after the 15th century. In addition to the place-names the only
remaining traces of the Slav immigration are the Slavonic type of
features, which occasionally recurs, especially among the Arcadian
peasants, and a few customs and traditions. Even when allowance is made
for the remarkable power of assimilation which the Greeks possessed in
virtue of their superior civilization, it is difficult to resist the
conclusion that the Hellenic element must always have been the most
numerous in order to effect so complete an absorption. This element has
apparently undergone no essential change since the epoch of Roman
domination. The destructive invasions of the Goths in A.D. 267 and 395
introduced no new ethnic feature; the various races which during the
middle ages obtained partial or complete mastery in Greece--the Franks,
the Venetians, the Turks--contributed no appreciable ingredient to the
mass of the population. The modern Greeks may therefore be regarded as
in the main the descendants of the population which inhabited Greece in
the earlier centuries of Byzantine rule. Owing to the operation of
various causes, historical, social and economic, that population was
composed of many heterogeneous elements and represented in a very
limited degree the race which repulsed the Persians and built the
Parthenon. The internecine conflicts of the Greek communities, wars with
foreign powers and the deadly struggles of factions in the various
cities, had to a large extent obliterated the old race of free citizens
by the beginning of the Roman period. The extermination of the Plataeans
by the Spartans and of the Melians by the Athenians during the
Peloponnesian war, the proscription of Athenian citizens after the war,
the massacre of the Corcyraean oligarchs by the democratic party, the
slaughter of the Thebans by Alexander and of the Corinthians by Mummius,
are among the more familiar instances of the catastrophes which overtook
the civic element in the Greek cities; the void can only have been
filled from the ranks of the metics or resident aliens and of the
descendants of the far more numerous slave population. Of the latter a
portion was of Hellenic origin; when a city was taken the males of
military age were frequently put to the sword, but the women and
children were sold as slaves; in Laconia and Thessaly there was a serf
population of indigenous descent. In the classical period four-fifths of
the population of Attica were slaves and of the remainder half were
metics. In the Roman period the number of slaves enormously increased,
the supply being maintained from the regions on the borders of the
empire; the same influences which in Italy extinguished the small landed
proprietors and created the _latifundia_ prevailed also in Greece. The
purely Hellenic population, now greatly diminished, congregated in the
towns; the large estates which replaced the small freeholds were
cultivated by slaves and managed or farmed by slaves or freedmen, and
wide tracts of country were wholly depopulated. How greatly the free
citizen element had diminished by the close of the 1st century A.D. may
be judged from the estimate of Plutarch that all Greece could not
furnish more than 3000 hoplites. The composite population which replaced
the ancient Hellenic stock became completely Hellenized. According to
craniologists the modern Greeks are brachycephalous while the ancient
race is stated to have been dolichocephalous, but it seems doubtful
whether any such generalization with regard to the ancients can be
conclusively established. The Aegean islanders are more brachycephalous
than the inhabitants of the mainland, though apparently of purer Greek
descent. No general conception of the facial type of the ancient race
can be derived from the highly-idealized statues of deities, heroes and
athletes; so far as can be judged from portrait statues it was very
varied. Among the modern Greeks the same variety of features prevails;
the face is usually oval, the nose generally long and somewhat
aquiline, the teeth regular, and the eyes remarkably bright and full of
animation. The country-folk are, as a rule, tall and well-made, though
slightly built and rather meagre; their form is graceful and supple in
movement. The urban population, as elsewhere, is physically very
inferior. The women often display a refined and delicate beauty which
disappears at an early age. The best physical types of the race are
found in Arcadia, in the Aegean Islands and in Crete.
The Albanian population extends over all Attica and Megaris (except the
towns of Athens, Peiraeus and Megara), the greater part of Boeotia, the
eastern districts of Locris, the southern half of Euboea and the
northern side of Andros, the whole of the islands of Salamis, Hydra,
Spetsae and Poros, and part of Aegina, the whole of Corinthia and
Argolis, the northern districts of Arcadia and the eastern portion of
Achaea. There are also small Albanian groups in Laconia and Messenia
(see ALBANIA). The Albanians, who call themselves _Shkyipetar_, and are
called by the Greeks _Arvanitae_ ([Greek: Arbanitai]), belong to the
Tosk or southern branch of the race; their immigration took place in the
latter half of the 14th century. Their first settlements in the Morea
were made in 1347-1355. The Albanian colonization was first checked by
the Turks; in 1454 an Albanian insurrection in the Morea against
Byzantine rule was crushed by the Turkish general Tura Khan, whose aid
had been invoked by the Palaeologi. With a few exceptions, the Albanians
in Greece retained their Christian faith after the Turkish conquest. The
failure of the insurrection of 1770 was followed by a settlement of
Moslem Albanians, who had been employed by the Turks to suppress the
revolt. The Christian Albanians have long lived on good terms with the
Greeks while retaining their own customs and language and rarely
intermarrying with their neighbours. They played a brilliant part during
the War of Independence, and furnished the Greeks with many of their
most distinguished leaders. The process of their Hellenization, which
scarcely began till after the establishment of the kingdom, has been
somewhat slow; most of the men can now speak Greek, but Albanian is
still the language of the household. The Albanians, who are mainly
occupied with agriculture, are less quick-witted, less versatile, and
less addicted to politics than the Greeks, who regard them as
intellectually their inferiors. A vigorous and manly race, they furnish
the best soldiers in the Greek army, and also make excellent sailors.
The Vlachs, who call themselves _Aromâni_, i.e. Romans, form another
important foreign element in the population of Greece. They are found
principally in Pindus (the Agrapha district), the mountainous parts of
Thessaly, Othrys, Oeta, the mountains of Boeotia, Aetolia and Acarnania;
they have a few settlements in Euboea. They are for the most part either
nomad shepherds and herdsmen or carriers (_kiradjis_). They apparently
descend from the Latinized provincials of the Roman epoch who took
refuge in the higher mountains from the incursions of the barbarians and
Slavs (see VLACHS and MACEDONIA). In the 13th century the Vlach
principality of "Great Walachia" ([Greek: Megalê Blachia]) included
Thessaly and southern Macedonia as far as Castoria; its capital was at
Hypati near Lamia. Acarnania and Aetolia were known as "Lesser
Walachia." The urban element among the Vlachs has been almost completely
Hellenized; it has always displayed great aptitude for commerce, and
Athens owes many of its handsomest buildings to the benefactions of
wealthy Vlach merchants. The nomad population in the mountains has
retained its distinctive nationality and customs together with its Latin
language, though most of the men can speak Greek. Like the Albanians,
the pastoral Vlachs seldom intermarry with the Greeks; they occasionally
take Greek wives, but never give their daughters to Greeks; many of them
are illiterate, and their children rarely attend the schools. Owing to
their deficient intellectual culture they are regarded with disdain by
the Greeks, who employ the term [Greek: blachos] to denote not only a
shepherd but an ignorant rustic.
A considerable Italian element was introduced into the Ionian Islands
during the middle ages owing to their prolonged subjection to Latin
princes and subsequently (till 1797) to the Venetian republic. The
Italians intermarried with the Greeks; Italian became the language of
the upper classes, and Roman Catholicism was declared the state
religion. The peasantry, however, retained the Greek language and
remained faithful to the Eastern Church; during the past century the
Italian element was completely absorbed by the Greek population.
The Turkish population in Greece, which numbered about 70,000 before the
war of liberation, disappeared in the course of the struggle or
emigrated at its conclusion. The Turks in Thessaly are mainly descended
either from colonists established in the country by the Byzantine
emperors or from immigrants from Asia Minor, who arrived at the end of
the 14th century; they derive their name Konariots from Iconium (Konia).
Many of the beys or land-owning class are the lineal representatives of
the Seljuk nobles who obtained fiefs under the feudal system introduced
here and in Macedonia by the Sultan Bayezid I.
National character.
Notwithstanding their composite origin, their wide geographical
distribution and their cosmopolitan instincts, the modern Greeks are a
remarkably homogeneous people, differing markedly in character from
neighbouring races, united by a common enthusiasm in the pursuit of
their national aims, and profoundly convinced of their superiority to
other nations. Their distinctive character, combined with their
traditional tendency to regard non-Hellenic peoples as barbarous, has,
indeed, to some extent counteracted the results of their great energy
and zeal in the assimilation of other races; the advantageous position
which they attained at an early period under Turkish rule owing to their
superior civilization, their versatility, their wealth, and their
monopoly of the ecclesiastical power would probably have enabled them to
Hellenize permanently the greater part of the Balkan peninsula had their
attitude towards other Christian races been more sympathetic. Always the
most civilized race in the East, they have successively influenced their
Macedonian, Roman and Turkish conquerors, and their remarkable
intellectual endowments bid fair to secure them a brilliant position in
the future. The intense patriotic zeal of the Greeks may be compared
with that of the Hungarians; it is liable to degenerate into arrogance
and intolerance; it sometimes blinds their judgment and involves them in
ill-considered enterprises, but it nevertheless offers the best
guarantee for the ultimate attainment of their national aims. All
Greeks, in whatever country they may reside, work together for the
realization of the Great Idea ([Greek: hê Megalê Idea])--the supremacy
of Hellenism in the East--and to this object they freely devote their
time, their wealth and their talents; the large fortunes which they
amass abroad are often bequeathed for the foundation of various
institutions in Greece or Turkey, for the increase of the national fleet
and army, or for the spread of Hellenic influence in the Levant. This
patriotic sentiment is unfortunately much exploited by self-seeking
demagogues and publicists, who rival each other in exaggerating the
national pretensions and in pandering to the national vanity. In no
other country is the passion for politics so intense; "keen political
discussions are constantly going on at the cafés; the newspapers, which
are extraordinarily numerous and generally of little value, are
literally devoured, and every measure of the government is violently
criticized and ascribed to interested motives." The influence of the
journals is enormous; even the waiters in the cafés and domestic
servants have their favourite newspaper, and discourse fluently on the
political problems of the day. Much of the national energy is wasted by
this continued political fever; it is diverted from practical aims, and
may be said to evaporate in words. The practice of independent criticism
tends to indiscipline in the organized public services; it has been
remarked that every Greek soldier is a general and every sailor an
admiral. During the war of 1897 a young naval lieutenant telegraphed to
the minister of war condemning the measures taken by his admiral, and
his action was applauded by several journals. There is also little
discipline in the ranks of political parties, which are held together,
not by any definite principle, but by the personal influence of the
leaders; defections are frequent, and as a rule each deputy in the
Chamber makes his terms with his chief. On the other hand, the
independent character of the Greeks is favourably illustrated by the
circumstance that Greece is the only country in the Balkan peninsula in
which the government cannot count on securing a majority by official
pressure at the elections. Few scruples are observed in political
warfare, but attacks on private life are rare. The love of free
discussion is inherent in the strongly-rooted democratic instinct of the
Greeks. They are in spirit the most democratic of European peoples; no
trace of Latin feudalism survives, and aristocratic pretensions are
ridiculed. In social life there is no artificial distinction of classes;
all titles of nobility are forbidden; a few families descended from the
chiefs in the War of Independence enjoy a certain pre-eminence, but
wealth and, still more, political or literary notoriety constitute the
principal claim to social consideration. The Greeks display great
intellectual vivacity; they are clever, inquisitive, quick-witted and
ingenious, but not profound; sustained mental industry and careful
accuracy are distasteful to them, and their aversion to manual labour is
still more marked. Even the agricultural class is but moderately
industrious; abundant opportunities for relaxation are provided by the
numerous church festivals. The desire for instruction is intense even in
the lowest ranks of the community; rhetorical and literary
accomplishments possess a greater attraction for the majority than the
fields of modern science. The number of persons who seek to qualify for
the learned professions is excessive; they form a superfluous element in
the community, an educated proletariat, attaching themselves to the
various political parties in the hope of obtaining state employment and
spending an idle existence in the cafés and the streets when their party
is out of power. In disposition the Greeks are lively, cheerful,
plausible, tactful, sympathetic; very affable with strangers,
hospitable, kind to their servants and dependants, remarkably temperate
and frugal in their habits, amiable and united in family life.
Drunkenness is almost unknown, thrift is universally practised; the
standard of sexual morality is high, especially in the rural districts,
where illegitimacy is extremely rare. The faults of the Greeks must in a
large degree be attributed to their prolonged subjection to alien races;
their cleverness often degenerates into cunning, their ready invention
into mendacity, their thrift into avarice, their fertility of resource
into trickery and fraud. Dishonesty is not a national vice, but many who
would scorn to steal will not hesitate to compass illicit gains by
duplicity and misrepresentation; deceit, indeed, is often practised
gratuitously for the mere intellectual satisfaction which it affords. In
the astuteness of their monetary dealings the Greeks proverbially
surpass the Jews, but fall short of the Armenians; their remarkable
aptitude for business is sometimes marred by a certain short-sightedness
which pursues immediate profits at the cost of ulterior advantages.
Their vanity and egoism, which are admitted by even the most favourable
observers, render them jealous, exacting, and peculiarly susceptible to
flattery. In common with other southern European peoples the Greeks are
extremely excitable; their passionate disposition is prone to take
offence at slight provocation, and trivial quarrels not infrequently
result in homicide. They are religious, but by no means fanatical,
except in regard to politico-religious questions affecting their
national aims. In general the Greeks may be described as a clever,
ambitious and versatile people, capable of great effort and sacrifice,
but deficient in some of the more solid qualities which make for
national greatness.
Customs.
The customs and habits of the Greek peasantry, in which the observances
of the classical age may often be traced, together with their legends
and traditions, have furnished an interesting subject of investigation
to many writers (see _Bibliography_ below). In the towns the more
cosmopolitan population has largely adopted the "European" mode of life,
and the upper classes show a marked preference for French manners and
usages. In both town and country, however, the influence of oriental
ideas is still apparent, due in part to the long period of Turkish
domination, in part to the contact of the Greeks with Asiatic races at
all epochs of their history. In the rural districts, especially, the
women lead a somewhat secluded life and occupy a subject position; they
wait at table, and only partake of the meal when the men of the family
have been served. In most parts of continental Greece the women work in
the fields, but in the Aegean Islands and Crete they rarely leave the
house. Like the Turks, the Greeks have a great partiality for coffee,
which can always be procured even in the remotest hamlets; the Turkish
practice of carrying a string of beads or rosary (_comboloio_), which
provides an occupation for the hands, is very common. Many of the
observances in connexion with births, christenings, weddings and
funerals are very interesting and in some cases are evidently derived
from remote antiquity. Nuptial ceremonies are elaborate and protracted;
in some of the islands of the archipelago they continue for three weeks.
In the preliminary negotiations for a marriage the question of the
bride's dowry plays a very important part; a girl without a dowry often
remains unmarried, notwithstanding the considerable excess of the male
over the female population. Immediately after the christening of a
female child her parents begin to lay up her portion, and young men
often refrain from marrying until their sisters have been settled in
life. The dead are carried to the tomb in an open coffin; in the country
districts professional mourners are engaged to chant dirges; the body is
washed with wine and crowned with a wreath of flowers. A valedictory
oration is pronounced at the grave. Many superstitions still prevail
among the peasantry; the belief in the vampire and the evil eye is
almost universal. At Athens and in the larger towns many handsome
dwelling-houses may be seen, but the upper classes have no predilection
for rural life, and their country houses are usually mere farmsteads,
which they rarely visit. In the more fertile districts two-storeyed
houses of the modern type are common, but in the mountainous regions the
habitations of the country-folk are extremely primitive; the small
stone-built hut, almost destitute of furniture, shelters not only the
family but its cattle and domestic animals. In Attica the peasants'
houses are usually built of cob. In Maina the villagers live in
fortified towers of three or more storeys; the animals occupy the ground
floor, the family the topmost storey; the intermediate space serves as a
granary or hay-loft. The walls are loop-holed for purposes of defence in
view of the traditional vendetta and feuds, which in some instances have
been handed down from remote generations and are maintained by
occasional sharp-shooting from these primitive fortresses. In general
cleanliness and sanitation are much neglected; the traveller in the
country districts is doomed to sleepless nights unless he has provided
himself with bedding and a hammock. Even Athens, though enriched by many
munificent benefactions, is still without a drainage system or an
adequate water supply; the sewers of many houses open into the streets,
in which rubbish is allowed to accumulate. The effects of insanitary
conditions are, however, counteracted in some degree by the excellent
climate. The Aegean islanders contrast favourably with the continentals
in point of personal cleanliness and the neatness of their dwellings;
their houses are generally covered with the flat roof, familiar in Asia,
on which the family sleep in summer. The habits and customs of the
islanders afford an interesting study. Propitiatory rites are still
practised by the mariners and fishermen, and thank-offerings for
preservation at sea are hung up in the churches. Among the popular
amusements of the Greeks dancing holds a prominent place; the dance is
of various kinds; the most usual is the somewhat inanimate round dance
([Greek: syrto] or [Greek: trata]), in which a number of persons,
usually of the same sex, take part holding hands; it seems indentical
with the Slavonic _kolo_ ("circle"). The more lively Albanian fling is
generally danced by three or four persons, one of whom executes a series
of leaps and pirouettes. The national music is primitive and monotonous.
All classes are passionately addicted to card-playing, which is
forbidden by law in places of public resort. The picturesque national
costume, which is derived from the Albanian Tosks, has unfortunately
been abandoned by the upper classes and the urban population since the
abdication of King Otho, who always wore it; it is maintained as the
uniform of the _euzones_ (highland regiments). It consists of a red cap
with dark blue tassel, a white shirt with wide sleeves, a vest and
jacket, sometimes of velvet, handsomely adorned with gold or black
braid, a belt in which various weapons are carried, a white kilt or
_fustanella_ of many folds, white hose tied with garters, and red
leather shoes with pointed ends, from which a tassel depends. Over all
is worn the shaggy white _capote_. The islanders wear a dark blue
costume with a crimson waistband, loose trousers descending to the knee,
stockings and pumps or long boots. The women's costume is very varied;
the loose red fez is sometimes worn and a short velvet jacket with rich
gold embroidery. The more elderly women are generally attired in black.
In the Megara district and elsewhere peasant girls wear on festive
occasions a headdress composed of strings of coins which formerly
represented the dowry.
Government.
Greece is a constitutional monarchy; hereditary in the male line, or, in
case of its extinction, in the female. The sovereign, by decision of the
conference of London (August 1863), is styled "king of the Hellenes";
the title "king of Greece" was borne by King Otho. The heir apparent is
styled [Greek: ho diadochos], "the successor"; the title "duke of
Sparta," which has been accorded to the crown prince, is not generally
employed in Greece. The king and the heir apparent must belong to the
Orthodox Greek Church; a special exception has been made for King
George, who is a Lutheran. The king attains his majority on completing
his eighteenth year; before ascending the throne he must take the oath
to the constitution in presence of the principal ecclesiastical and lay
dignitaries of the kingdom, and must convoke the Chamber within two
months after his accession. The civil list amounts to 1,125,000 dr., in
addition to which it was provided that King George should receive £4000
annually as a personal allowance from each of the three protecting
powers, Great Britain, France and Russia. The heir apparent receives
from the state an annuity of 200,000 dr. The king has a palace at Athens
and other residences at Corfu, Tatoi (on the slopes of Mt Parnes) and
Larissa. The present constitution dates from the 29th of October 1864.
The legislative power is shared by the king with a single chamber
([Greek: boulê]) elected by manhood suffrage for a period of four years.
The election is by ballot; candidates must have completed their
thirtieth year and electors their twenty-first. The deputies ([Greek:
bouleutai]), according to the constitution, receive only their
travelling expenses, but they vote themselves a payment of 1800 dr. each
for the session and a further allowance in case of an extraordinary
session. The Chamber sits for a term of not less than three or more than
six months. No law can be passed except by an absolute majority of the
house, and one-half of the members must be present to form a quorum;
these arrangements have greatly facilitated the practice of obstruction,
and often enable individual deputies to impose terms on the government
for their attendance. In 1898 the number of deputies was 234. Some years
previously a law diminishing the national representation and enlarging
the constituencies was passed by Trikoupis with the object of checking
the local influence of electors upon deputies, but the measure was
subsequently repealed. The number of deputies, however, who had hitherto
been elected in the proportion of one to twelve thousand of the
population, was reduced in 1905, when the proportion of one to sixteen
thousand was substituted; the Chamber of 1906, elected under the new
system, consisted of 177 deputies. In 1906 the electoral districts were
diminished in number and enlarged so as to coincide with the twenty-six
administrative departments ([Greek: nomoi]); the reduction of these
departments to their former number of sixteen, which is in
contemplation, will bring about some further diminution in parliamentary
representation. It is hoped that recent legislation will tend to check
the pernicious practice of bartering personal favours, known as [Greek:
synallagê], which still prevails to the great detriment of public
morality, paralysing all branches of the administration and wasting the
resources of the state. Political parties are formed not for the
furtherance of any principle or cause, but with the object of obtaining
the spoils of office, and the various groups, possessing no party
watchword or programme, frankly designate themselves by the names of
their leaders. Even the strongest government is compelled to bargain
with its supporters in regard to the distribution of patronage and other
favours. The consequent instability of successive ministries has
retarded useful legislation and seriously checked the national progress.
In 1906 a law was passed disqualifying junior officers of the army and
navy for membership of the Chamber; great numbers of these had hitherto
been candidates at every election. This much-needed measure had
previously been passed by Trikoupis, but had been repealed by his rival
Delyannes. The executive is vested in the king, who is personally
irresponsible, and governs through ministers chosen by himself and
responsible to the Chamber, of which they are _ex-officio_ members. He
appoints all public officials, sanctions and proclaims laws, convokes,
prorogues and dissolves the Chamber, grants pardon or amnesty, coins
money and confers decorations. There are seven ministries which
respectively control the departments of foreign affairs, the interior,
justice, finance, education and worship, the army and the navy.
Local Administration.
The 26 departments or [Greek: nomoi], into which the country is divided
for administrative purposes, are each under a prefect or nomarch
([Greek: nomarchos]); they are subdivided into 69 districts or
eparchies, and into 445 communes or demes ([Greek: dêmoi]) under mayors
or demarchs ([Greek: dêmarchoi]). The prefects and sub-prefects are
nominated by the government; the mayors are elected by the communes for
a period of four years. The prefects are assisted by a departmental
council, elected by the population, which manages local business and
assesses rates; there are also communal councils under the presidency of
the mayors. There are altogether some 12,000 state-paid officials in the
country, most of them inadequately remunerated and liable to removal or
transferral upon a change of government. A host of office-seekers has
thus been created, and large numbers of educated persons spend many
years in idleness or in political agitation. A law passed in 1905
secures tenure of office to civil servants of fifteen years' standing,
and some restrictions have been placed on the dismissal and transferral
of schoolmasters.
Justice.
Under the Turks the Greeks retained, together with their ecclesiastical
institutions, a certain measure of local self-government and judicial
independence. The Byzantine code, based on the Roman, as embodied in the
[Greek: Hexabiblos] of Armenopoulos (1345), was sanctioned by royal
decree in 1835 with some modifications as the civil law of Greece.
Further modifications and new enactments were subsequently introduced,
derived from the old French and Bavarian systems. The penal code is
Bavarian, the commercial French. Liberty of person and domicile is
inviolate; no arrest can be made, no house entered, and no letter opened
without a judicial warrant. Trial by jury is established for criminal,
political and press offences. A new civil code, based on Saxon and
Italian law, has been drawn up by a commission of jurists, but it has
not yet been considered by the Chamber. A separate civil code, partly
French, partly Italian, is in force in the Ionian Islands. The law is
administered by 1 court of cassation (styled the "Areopagus"), 5 courts
of appeal, 26 courts of first instance, 233 justices of the peace and 19
correctional tribunals.
The judges, who are appointed by the Crown, are liable to removal by the
minister of justice, whose exercise of this right is often invoked by
political partisans. The administration of justice suffers in
consequence, more especially in the country districts, where the judges
must reckon with the influential politicians and their adherents. The
pardon or release of a convicted criminal is not infrequently due to
pressure on the part of some powerful patron. The lamentable effects of
this system have long been recognized, and in 1906 a law was introduced
securing tenure of office for two or four years to judges of the courts
of first instance and of the inferior tribunals. In the circumstances
crime is less rife than might be expected; the temperate habits of the
Greeks have conduced to this result. A serious feature is the great
prevalence of homicide, due in part to the passionate character of the
people, but still more to the almost universal practice of carrying
weapons. The traditions of the vendetta are almost extinct in the Ionian
Islands, but still linger in Maina, where family feuds are transmitted
from generation to generation. The brigand of the old-fashioned type
([Greek: lêstês, klephtês]) has almost disappeared, except in the
remoter country districts, and piracy, once so prevalent in the Aegean,
has been practically suppressed, but numbers of outlaws or absconding
criminals ([Greek: phygodikoi]) still haunt the mountains, and the
efforts of the police to bring them to justice are far from successful.
Their ranks were considerably increased after the war of 1897, when many
deserters from the army and adventurers who came to Greece as volunteers
betook themselves to a predatory life. On the other hand, there is no
habitually criminal class in Greece, such as exists in the large centres
of civilization, and professional mendicancy is still rare.
Police duties, for which officers and, in some cases, soldiers of the
regular army were formerly employed, are since 1906 carried out by a
reorganized gendarmerie force of 194 officers and 6344 non-commissioned
officers and men, distributed in the twenty-six departments and
commanded by an inspector-general resident at Athens, who is aided by a
consultative commission. There are male and female prisons at all the
departmental centres; the number of prisoners in 1906 was 5705. Except
in the Ionian Islands, the general condition of the prisons is
deplorable; discipline and sanitation are very deficient, and conflicts
among the prisoners are sometimes reported in which knives and even
revolvers are employed. A good prison has been built near Athens by
Andreas Syngros, and a reformatory for juvenile offenders ([Greek:
ephêbeion]) has been founded by George Averoff, another national
benefactor. Capital sentences are usually commuted to penal servitude
for life; executions, for which the guillotine is employed, are for the
most part carried out on the island of Bourzi near Nauplia; they are
often postponed for months or even for years. There is no enactment
resembling the Habeas Corpus Act, and accused persons may be detained
indefinitely before trial. The Greeks, like the other nations liberated
from Turkish rule, are somewhat litigious, and numbers of lawyers find
occupation even in the smaller country towns.
Education.
The Greeks, an intelligent people, have always shown a remarkable zeal
for learning, and popular education has made great strides. So eager is
the desire for instruction that schools are often founded in the rural
districts on the initiative of the villagers, and the sons of peasants,
artisans and small shopkeepers come in numbers to Athens, where they
support themselves by domestic service or other humble occupations in
order to study at the university during their spare hours. Almost
immediately after the accession of King Otho steps were taken to
establish elementary schools in all the communes, and education was made
obligatory. The law is not very rigorously applied in the remoter
districts, but its enforcement is scarcely necessary. In 1898 there were
2914 "demotic" or primary schools, with 3465 teachers, attended by
129,210 boys (5.38% of the population) and 29,119 girls (1.19% of the
population). By a law passed in 1905 the primary schools, which had
reached the number of 3359 in that year, were reduced to 2604. The
expenditure on primary schools is nominally sustained by the communes,
but in reality by the government in the form of advances to the
communes, which are not repaid; it was reduced in 1905 from upwards of
7,000,000 dr. to under 6,000,000 dr. In 1905 there were 306 "Hellenic"
or secondary schools, with 819 teachers and 21,575 pupils (boys only)
maintained by the state at a cost of 1,720,096 dr.; and 39 higher
schools, or gymnasia, with 261 masters and 6485 pupils, partly
maintained by the state (expenditure 615,600 dr.) and partly by
benefactions and other means. Besides these public schools there are
several private educational institutions, of which there are eight at
Athens with 650 pupils. The Polytechnic Institute of Athens affords
technical instruction in the departments of art and science to 221
students. Scientific agricultural instruction has been much neglected;
there is an agricultural school at Aïdinion in Thessaly with 40 pupils;
there are eight agricultural stations ([Greek: stathmoi]) in various
parts of the country. There are two theological seminaries--the Rizari
School at Athens (120 pupils) and a preparatory school at Arta; three
other seminaries have been suppressed. The Commercial and Industrial
Academy at Athens (about 225 pupils), a private institution, has proved
highly useful to the country; there are four commercial schools, each in
one of the country towns. A large school for females at Athens, the
Arsakíon, is attended by 1500 girls. There are several military and
naval schools, including the military college of the Euelpides at Athens
and the school of naval cadets ([Greek: tôn dokimôn]). The university of
Athens in 1905 numbered 57 professors and 2598 students, of whom 557
were from abroad. Of the six faculties, theology numbered 79 students,
law 1467, medicine 567, arts 206, physics and mathematics 192, and
pharmacy 87. The university receives a subvention from the state, which
in 1905 amounted to 563,960 dr.; it possesses a library of over 150,000
volumes and geological, zoological and botanical museums. A small tax on
university education was imposed in 1903; the total cost to the student
for the four years' course at the university is about £25. Higher
education is practically gratuitous in Greece, and there is a somewhat
ominous increase in the number of educated persons who disdain
agricultural pursuits and manual labour. The intellectual culture
acquired is too often of a superficial character owing to the tendency
to sacrifice scientific thoroughness and accuracy, to neglect the more
useful branches of knowledge, and to aim at a showy dialectic and
literary proficiency. (For the native and foreign archaeological
institutions see ATHENS.)
Religion.
The Greek branch of the Orthodox Eastern Church is practically
independent, like those of Servia, Montenegro and Rumania, though
nominally subject to the patriarchate of Constantinople. The
jurisdiction of the patriarch was in fact repudiated in 1833, when the
king was declared the supreme head of the church, and the severance was
completed in 1850. Ecclesiastical affairs are under the control of the
Ministry of Education. Church government is vested in the Holy Synod, a
council of five ecclesiastics under the presidency of the metropolitan
of Athens; its sittings are attended by a royal commissioner. The church
can invoke the aid of the civil authorities for the punishment of heresy
and the suppression of unorthodox literature, pictures, &c. There were
formerly 21 archbishoprics and 29 bishoprics in Greece, but a law passed
in 1899 suppressed the archbishoprics (except the metropolitan see of
Athens) on the death of the existing prelates, and fixed the total
number of sees at 32. The prelates derive their incomes partly from the
state and partly from the church lands. There are about 5500 priests,
who belong for the most part to the poorest classes. The parochial
clergy have no fixed stipends, and often resort to agriculture or small
trading in order to supplement the scanty fees earned by their
ministrations. Owing to their lack of education their personal influence
over their parishioners is seldom considerable. In addition to the
parochial clergy there are 19 preachers ([Greek: hierokêrukes]) salaried
by the state. There are 170 monasteries and 4 nunneries in Greece, with
about 1600 monks and 250 nuns. In regard to their constitution the
monasteries are either "idiorrhythmic" or "coenobian" (see ATHOS); the
monks ([Greek: kalogeroi]) are in some cases assisted by lay brothers
([Greek: kosmikoi]). More than 300 of the smaller monasteries were
suppressed in 1829 and their revenues secularized. Among the more
important and interesting monasteries are those of Megaspelaeon and
Lavra (where the standard of insurrection, unfurled in 1821, is
preserved) near Kalavryta, St Luke of Stiris near Arachova, Daphne and
Penteli near Athens, and the Meteora group in northern Thessaly. The
bishops, who must be unmarried, are as a rule selected from the monastic
order and are nominated by the king; the parish priests are allowed to
marry, but the remarriage of widowers is forbidden. The bulk of the
population, about 2,000,000, belongs to the Orthodox Church; other
Christian confessions number about 15,000, the great majority being
Roman Catholics. The Roman Catholics (principally in Naxos and the
Cyclades) have three archbisboprics (Athens, Naxos and Corfu), five
bishoprics and about 60 churches. The Jews, who are regarded with much
hostility, have almost disappeared from the Greek mainland; they now
number about 5000, and are found principally at Corfu. The Mahommedans
are confined to Thessaly except a few at Chalcis. National sentiment is
a more powerful factor than personal religious conviction in the
attachment of the Greeks to the Orthodox Church; a Greek without the
pale of the church is more or less an alien. The Catholic Greeks of
Syros sided with the Turks at the time of the revolution; the
Mahommedans of Crete, though of pure Greek descent, have always been
hostile to their Christian fellow-countrymen and are commonly called
Turks. On the other hand, that portion of the Macedonian population
which acknowledges the patriarch of Constantinople is regarded as Greek,
while that which adheres to the Bulgarian exarchate, though differing in
no point of doctrine, has been declared schismatic. The constitution of
1864 guarantees toleration to all creeds in Greece and imposes no civil
disabilities on account of religion.
Agriculture.
Greece is essentially an agricultural country; its prosperity depends on
its agricultural products, and more than half the population is occupied
in the cultivation of the soil and kindred pursuits. The land in the
plains and valleys is exceedingly rich, and, wherever there is a
sufficiency of water, produces magnificent crops. Cereals nevertheless
furnish the principal figure in the list of imports, the annual value
being about 30,000,000 fr. The country, especially since the acquisition
of the fertile province of Thessaly, might under a well-developed
agricultural system provide a food-supply for all its inhabitants and an
abundant surplus for exportation. Thessaly alone, indeed, could furnish
cereals for the whole of Greece. Unfortunately, however, agriculture is
still in a primitive state, and the condition of the rural population
has received very inadequate attention from successive governments. The
wooden plough of the Hesiodic type is still in use, especially in
Thessaly; modern implements, however, are being gradually introduced.
The employment of manure and the rotation of crops are almost unknown;
the fields are generally allowed to lie fallow in alternate years. As a
rule, countries dependent on agriculture are liable to sudden
fluctuations in prosperity, but in Greece the diversity of products is
so great that a failure in one class of crops is usually compensated by
exceptional abundance in another. Among the causes which have hitherto
retarded agricultural progress are the ignorance and conservatism of the
peasantry, antiquated methods of cultivation, want of capital, absentee
proprietorship, sparsity of population, bad roads, the prevalence of
usury, the uncertainty of boundaries and the land tax, which, in the
absence of a survey, is levied on ploughing oxen; to these may be added
the insecurity hitherto prevailing in many of the country districts and
the growing distaste for rural life which has accompanied the spread of
education. Large estates are managed under the metayer system; the
cultivator paying the proprietor from one-third to half of the gross
produce; the landlords, who prefer to live in the larger towns, see
little of their tenants, and rarely interest themselves in their
welfare. A great proportion of the best arable land in Thessaly is owned
by persons who reside permanently out of the country. The great estates
in this province extend over some 1,500,000 acres, of which about
500,000 are cultivated. In the Peloponnesus peasant proprietorship is
almost universal; elsewhere it is gradually supplanting the metayer
system; the small properties vary from 2 or 3 to 50 acres. The extensive
state lands, about one-third of the area of Greece, were formerly the
property of Mahommedan religious communities (_vakoufs_); they are for
the most part farmed out annually by auction. They have been much
encroached upon by neighbouring owners; a considerable portion has also
been sold to the peasants. The rich plain of Thessaly suffers from
alternate droughts and inundations, and from the ravages of field mice;
with improved cultivation, drainage and irrigation it might be rendered
enormously productive. A commission has been occupied for some years in
preparing a scheme of hydraulic works. Usury is, perhaps, a greater
scourge to the rural population than any visitation of nature; the
institution of agricultural banks, lending money at a fair rate of
interest on the security of their land, would do much to rescue the
peasants from the clutches of local Shylocks. There is a difficulty,
however, in establishing any system of land credit owing to the lack of
a survey. Since 1897 a law passed in 1882 limiting the rate of interest
to 8% (to 9% in the case of commercial debts) has to some extent been
enforced by the tribunals. In the Ionian Islands the rate of 10% still
prevails.
The following figures give approximately the acreage in 1906 and the
average annual yield of agricultural produce, no official statistics
being available:--
Acres.
Fields sown or lying fallow 3,000,000
Vineyards 337,500
Currant plantations 175,000
Olives (10,000,000 trees) 250,000
Fruit trees (fig, mulberry, &c.) 125,000
Meadows and pastures 7,500,000
Forests 2,000,000
Waste lands 2,875,000
----------
16,262,500
The average annual yield is as follows:--
Wheat 350,000,000 kilograms
Maize 100,000,000 "
Rye 20,000,000 "
Barley 70,000,000 "
Oats 75,000,000 "
Beans, lentils, &c 25,000,000 "
Currants 350,000,000 Venetian lb.
Sultanina 4,000,000 "
Wine 3,000,000 hectolitres
Olive oil 300,000 "
Olives (preserved) 100,000,000 kilograms
Figs (exported only) 12,000,000 "
Seed cotton 6,500,000 "
Tobacco 8,000,000 "
Vegetables and fresh fruits 20,000,000 "
Cocoons 1,000,000 "
Hesperidiums (exported only) 4,000,000 "
Carobs (exported only) 10,000,000 "
Resin 5,000,000 "
Beet 12,000,000 "
Rice is grown in the marshy plains of Elis, Boeotia, Marathon and
Missolonghi; beet in Thessaly. The cultivation of vegetables is
increasing; beans, peas and lentils are the most common. Potatoes are
grown in the upland districts, but are not a general article of diet.
Of late years market-gardening has been taken up as a new industry in
the neighbourhood of Athens. There is a great variety of fruits. Olive
plantations are found everywhere; in 1860 they occupied about 90,000
acres; in 1887, 433,701 acres. The trees are sometimes of immense age
and form a picturesque feature in the landscape. In latter years the
groves in many parts of the western Morea and Zante have been cut down
to make room for currant plantations; the destruction has been
deplorable in its consequences, for, as the tree requires twenty years
to come into full bearing, replanting is seldom resorted to. Preserved
olives, eaten with bread, are a common article of food. Excellent
olive oil is produced in Attica and elsewhere. The value of the oil
and fruit exported varies from five to ten million francs. Figs are
also abundant, especially in Messenia and in the Cyclades. Mulberry
trees are planted for the purposes of sericulture; they have been cut
down in great numbers in the currant-growing districts. Other fruit
trees are the orange, citron, lemon, pomegranate and almond. Peaches,
apricots, pears, cherries, &c., abound, but are seldom scientifically
cultivated; the fruit is generally gathered while unripe. Cotton in
1906 occupied about 12,500 acres, chiefly in the neighbourhood of
Livadia. Tobacco plantations in 1893 covered 16,320 acres, yielding
about 3,500,000 kilograms; the yield in 1906 was 9,000,000 kilograms.
About 40% of the produce is exported, principally to Egypt and Turkey.
More important are the vineyards, which occupied in 1887 an area of
306,421 acres. The best wine is made at Patras, on the royal estate at
Decelea, and on other estates in Attica; a peculiar flavour is
imparted to the wine of the country by the addition of resin. The wine
of Santorin, the modern representative of the famous "malmsey," is
mainly exported to Russia. The foreign demand for Greek wines is
rapidly increasing; 3,770,257 gallons were exported in 1890, 4,974,196
gallons in 1894, There is also a growing demand for Greek cognac. The
export of wine in 1905 was 20,850,941 okes, value 5,848,544 fr.; of
cognac, 363,720 okes, value 1,091,160 fr.
Currants.
The currant, by far the most important of Greek exports, is cultivated
in a limited area extending along the southern shore of the Gulf of
Corinth and the seaboard of the Western Peloponnesus, in Zante,
Cephalonia and Leucas, and in certain districts of Acarnania and
Aetolia; attempts to cultivate it elsewhere have generally proved
unsuccessful. The history of the currant industry has been a record of
extraordinary vicissitudes. Previously to 1877 the currant was
exported solely for eating purposes, the amounts for the years 1872 to
1877 being 70,766 tons, 71,222 tons, 76,210 tons, 72,916 tons, 86,947
tons, and 82,181 tons respectively. In 1877, however, the French
vineyards began to suffer seriously from the phylloxera, and French
wine producers were obliged to have recourse to dried currants, which
make an excellent wine for blending purposes. The importation of
currants into France at once rose from 881 tons in 1877 to 20,999 tons
in 1880, and to 70,401 tons in 1889, or about 20,000 tons more than
were imported into England in that year. Meanwhile the total amount of
currants produced in Greece had nearly doubled in these thirteen
years. The country was seized with a mania for currant planting; every
other industry was neglected, and olive, orange and lemon groves were
cut down to make room for the more lucrative growth. The currant
growers, in order to increase their production as rapidly as possible,
had recourse to loans at a high rate of interest, and the great
profits which they made were devoted to further planting, while the
loans remained unpaid. A crisis followed rapidly. By 1891 the French
vineyards had to a great extent recovered from the disease, and wine
producers in France began to clamour against the competition of
foreign wines and wine-producing raisins and currants. The import duty
on these was thereupon raised from 6 francs to 15 francs per 100
kilos, and was further increased in 1894 to 25 francs. The currant
trade with France was thus extinguished; of a crop averaging 160,000
tons, only some 110,000 now found a market. Although a fresh opening
for exportation was found in Russia, the value of the fruit dropped
from £15 to £5 per ton, a price scarcely covering the cost of
cultivation. In July 1895 the government introduced a measure, since
known as the Retention ([Greek: parakratêsis]) Law, by which it was
enacted that every shipper should deliver into depots provided by the
government a weight of currants equivalent to 15% of the amount which
he intended to export. A later law fixed the quantity to be retained
by the state at 10%, which might be increased to 20%, should a
representative committee, meeting every summer at Athens, so advise
the government. The currants thus taken over by the government cannot
be exported unless they are reduced to pulp, syrup or otherwise
rendered unsuitable for eating purposes; they may be sold locally for
wine-making or distilling, due precautions being taken that they are
not used in any other way. The price of exported currants is thus
maintained at an artificial figure. The Retention Law, which after
1895 was voted annually, was passed for a period of ten years in 1899.
This pernicious measure, which is in defiance of all economic laws,
perpetuates a superfluous production, retards the development of other
branches of agriculture and burdens the government with vast
accumulations of an unmarketable commodity. It might excusably be
adopted as a temporary expedient to meet a pressing crisis, but as a
permanent system it can only prove detrimental to the country and the
currant growers themselves.
In 1899 a "Bank of Viticulture" was established at Patras for the
purpose of assisting the growers, to whom it was bound to make
advances at a low rate of interest; it undertook the storage and the
sale of the retained fruit, from which its capital was derived. The
bank soon found itself burdened with an enormous unsaleable stock,
while its loans for the most part remained unpaid; meantime
over-production, the cause of the trouble, continued to increase, and
prices further diminished. In 1903 a syndicate of English and other
foreign capitalists made proposals for a monopoly of the export,
guaranteeing fixed prices to the growers. The scheme, which conflicted
with Anglo-Greek commercial conventions, was rejected by the Theotokis
ministry; serious disturbances followed in the currant-growing
districts, and M. Theotokis resigned. His successor, M. Rallis, in
order to appease the cultivators, arranged that the Currant Bank
should offer them fixed minimum prices for the various growths, and
guaranteed it a loan of 6,000,000 dr. The resources of the bank,
however, gave out before the end of the season, and prices pursued
their downward course. Another experiment was then tried; the export
duty (15%) was made payable in kind, the retention quota being thus
practically raised from 20 to 35%. The only result of this measure was
a diminution of the export; in the spring of 1905 prices fell very low
and the growers began to despair. A syndicate of banks and capitalists
then came forward, which introduced the system now in operation. A
privileged company was formed which obtained a charter from the
government for twenty years, during which period the retention and
export duties are maintained at the fixed rates of 20 and 15%
respectively. The company aims at keeping up the prices of the
marketable qualities by employing profitably for industrial purposes
the unexported surplus and retained inferior qualities; it pays to the
state 4,000,000 dr. annually under the head of export duty; offers all
growers at the beginning of each agricultural year a fixed price of
115 dr. per 1000 Venetian lb. irrespective of quality, and pays a
price varying from 115 dr. to 145 dr. according to quality at the end
of the year for the unexported surplus. In return for these advantages
to the growers the company is entitled to receive 7 dr. on every 1000
lb. of currants produced and to dispose of the whole retained amount.
A special company has been formed for the conversion of the
superfluous product into spirit, wine, &c. The system may perhaps
prove commercially remunerative, but it penalizes the producers of the
better growths in order to provide a livelihood for the growers of
inferior and unmarketable kinds and protracts an abnormal situation.
The following table gives the annual currant crop from 1877 to 1905:--
+------+----------+------------+-----------+
| Year.|Total crop| Exported to|Exported to|
| | (tons). |Gt. Britain.| France. |
+------+----------+------------+-----------+
| 1877 | 82,181 | .. | 881 |
| 1878 | 100,004 | .. | 9,086 |
| 1879 | 92,311 | .. | 19,087 |
| 1880 | 92,337 | .. | 20,999 |
| 1881 | 121,994 | .. | 30,315 |
| 1882 | 109,403 | 51,933 | 26,282 |
| 1883 | 114,980 | 52,099 | 24,815 |
| 1884 | 129,268 | 59,629 | 39,198 |
| 1885 | 113,287 | 55,765 | 37,730 |
| 1886 | 127,570 | 48,892 | 45,000 |
| 1887 | 127,160 | 55,549 | 37,438 |
| 1888 | 158,728 | 63,714 | 40,735 |
| 1889 | 142,308 | 52,251 | 69,555 |
| 1890 | 146,749 | 67,502 | 37,816 |
| 1891 | 161,545 | 70,762 | 39,712 |
| 1892 | 116,944 | 60,418 | 21,721 |
| 1893 | 119,886 | 73,000 | 6,800 |
| 1894 | 135,500 | 64,500 | 15,000 |
| 1895 | 167,695 | 60,500 | 26,500 |
| 1896 | 153,514 | 65,000 | 6,500 |
| 1897 | 115,730 | 63,000 | 2,000 |
| 1898 | 153,514 | 69,500 | 6,000 |
| 1899 | 144,071 | 65,600 | 3,800 |
| 1900 | 47,236 | 36,000 | 300 |
| 1901 | 139,820 | 58,000 | 1,216 |
| 1902 | 152,580 | 58,400 | 4,782 |
| 1903 | 179,499 | 54,800 | 4,470 |
| 1904 | 146,500 | 58,850 | 820 |
| 1905 | 162,957 | 61,700 | 1,042 |
+------+----------+------------+-----------+
The "peronospora," a species of white blight, first caused
considerable damage in the Greek vineyards in 1892, recurring in 1897
and 1900.
Stock-farming.
More than half the cultivable area of Greece is devoted to pasturage.
Cattle-rearing, as a rule, is a distinct occupation from agricultural
farming; the herds are sent to pasture on the mountains in the summer,
and return to the plains at the beginning of winter. The larger cattle
are comparatively rare, being kept almost exclusively for agricultural
labour; the smaller are very abundant. Beef is scarcely eaten in
Greece, the milk of cows is rarely drunk and butter is almost unknown.
Cheese, a staple article of diet, is made from the milk of sheep and
goats. The number of larger cattle has declined in recent years; that
of the smaller has increased. The native breed of oxen is small;
buffaloes are seldom seen except in north-western Thessaly; a few
camels are used in the neighbourhood of Parnassus. The Thessalian
breed of horses, small but sturdy and enduring, can hardly be taken to
represent the celebrated chargers of antiquity. Mules are much
employed in the mountainous districts; the best type of these animals
is found in the islands. The flocks of long-horned sheep and goats add
a picturesque feature to Greek rural scenery. The goats are more
numerous in proportion to the population than in any other European
country (137 per 100 inhabitants). The shepherds' dogs rival those of
Bulgaria in ferocity. According to an unofficial estimate published in
1905 the numbers of the various domestic animals in 1899 were as
follows: Oxen and buffaloes, 408,744; horses, 157,068; mules, 88,869;
donkeys, 141,174; camels, 51; sheep, 4,568,151; goats, 3,339,439;
pigs, 79,716. During the four years 1899-1902 the annual average value
of imported cattle was 4,218,015 dr., of exported cattle 209,321 dr.
Forests.
The forest area (about 2,500,000 acres or one-fifth of the surface of
the mainland) is for the most part state property. The value of the
forests has been estimated at 200,000,000 fr.; the most productive are
in the district extending from the Pindus range to the Gulf of
Corinth. The principal trees are the oak (about 30 varieties), the
various coniferae, the chestnut, maple, elm, beech, alder, cornel and
arbutus. In Greece, as in other lands formerly subject to Turkish
rule, the forests are not only neglected, but often deliberately
destroyed; this great source of national wealth is thus continually
diminishing. Every year immense forest fires may be seen raging in the
mountains, and many of the most picturesque districts in the country
are converted into desolate wildernesses. These conflagrations are
mainly the work of shepherds eager to provide increased pasturage for
their flocks; they are sometimes, however, due to the carelessness of
smokers, and occasionally, it is said, to spontaneous ignition in hot
weather. Great damage is also done by the goats, which browse on the
young saplings; the pine trees are much injured by the practice of
scoring their bark for resin. With the disappearance of the trees the
soil of the mountain slopes, deprived of its natural protection, is
soon washed away by the rain; the rapid descent of the water causes
inundations in the plains, while the uplands become sterile and lose
their vegetation. The climate has been affected by the change; rain
falls less frequently but with greater violence, and the process of
denudation is accelerated. The government has from time to time made
efforts for the protection of the forests, but with little success
till recently. A staff of inspectors and forest guards was first
organized in 1877. The administration of the forests has since 1893
been entrusted to a department of the Ministry of Finance, which
controls a staff of 4 inspectors ([Greek: epitheôrêtai]), 31
superintendents ([Greek: dasarchoi]), 52 head foresters ([Greek:
archiphylakes]) and 298 foresters ([Greek: dasyphylakes]). The
foresters are aided during the summer months, when fires are most
frequent, by about 500 soldiers and gendarmes. About a third of these
functionaries have received instruction in the school of forestry at
Vythine in the Morea, open since 1898. Owing to the measures now
taken, which include excommunication by the parish priests of
incendiaries and their accomplices, the conflagrations have
considerably diminished. The total annual value of the products of the
Greek forests averages 15,000,000 drachmae. The revenue accruing to
the government in 1905 was 1,418,158 dr., as compared with 583,991 dr.
in 1883. The increase is mainly due to improved administration. The
supply of timber for house-construction, ship-building,
furniture-making, railway sleepers, &c., is insufficient, and is
supplemented by importation (annual value about 12,000,000 francs);
transport is rendered difficult by the lack of roads and navigable
streams. The principal secondary products are valonea (annual
exportation about 1,250,000 fr.) and resin, which is locally employed
as a preservative ingredient in the fabrication of wine. The
administration of the forests is still defective, and measures for the
augmentation and better instruction of the staff of foresters have
been designed by the government. In 1900 a society for the
re-afforesting of the country districts and environs of the large
towns was founded at Athens under the patronage of the crown princess.
+------------------------------+---------+-----------+
| | Tons. | Francs. |
+------------------------------+---------+-----------+
| Chrome | 8,900 | 337,952 |
| Emery | 6,972 | 742,486 |
| Gypsum | 185 | 7,995 |
| Iron ore | 465,622 | 3,387,467 |
| Ferromanganese | 89,687 | 1,182,652 |
| Lead (argentiferous pig) ore | 13,729 | 6,811,792 |
| Lignite | 11,757 | 143,814 |
| Magnesite | 43,498 | 864,982 |
| Manganese ore | 8,171 | 122,565 |
| Mill stones | 12,628 | 34,660 |
| Salt | 25,201 | 1,638,065 |
| Sulphur | 1,126 | 121,000 |
| Zinc ore | 22,562 | 2,852,355 |
+------------------------------+---------+-----------+
Mines.
The chief minerals are silver, lead, zinc, copper manganese, magnesia,
iron, sulphur and coal. Emery, salt, millstone and gypsum, which are
found in considerable quantities, are worked by the government. The
important mines at Laurium, a source of great wealth to ancient
Athens, were reopened in 1864 by a Franco-Italian company, but were
declared to be state property in 1871; they are now worked by a Greek
and a French company. The output of marketable ore in 1899 amounted to
486,760 tons, besides 289,292 tons of dressed lead ore. In 1905 the
output was as follows: Raw and roasted manganese iron ore, 113,636
tons; hematite iron ore, 94,734 tons; calamine or zinc ore, 22,612
tons; arsenic and argentiferous lead, 1875 tons; zinc blende and
galena, 443 tons; total, 233,300 tons, together with 164,857 tons of
dressed lead, producing 13,822 tons of silver pig lead containing 1657
to 1910 grams of silver per ton. It has been found profitable to
resmelt the scoriae of the ancient workings. The total value of the
exports from the Laurium mines, which in 1875 amounted to only
£150,513, had in 1899 increased to £827,209, but fell in 1905 to
£499,882. The revenue accruing to the government from all mines and
quarries, including those worked by the state, was estimated in the
budget for 1906 at 1,332,000 dr. The emery of Naxos, which is a state
monopoly, is excellent in quality and very abundant. Mines of iron ore
have latterly been opened at Larimna in Locris. Magnesite mines are
worked by an Anglo-Greek company in Euboea. There are sulphur and
manganese mines in the island of Melos, and the volcanic island of
Santorin produces pozzolana, a kind of cement, which is exported in
considerable quantities. The great abundance of marble in Greece has
latterly attracted the attention of foreign capitalists. New quarries
have been opened since 1897 by an English company on the north slope
of Mount Pentelicus, and are now connected by rail with Athens and the
Peiraeus. The marble on this side of the mountain is harder than that
on the south, which alone was worked by the ancients. The output in
1905 was 1573 tons. Mount Pentelicus furnished material for most of
the celebrated buildings of ancient Athens; the marble, which is
white, blue-veined, and somewhat transparent, assumes a rich yellow
hue after long exposure to the air. The famous Parian quarries are
still worked; white marble is also found at Scyros, Tenos and Naxos;
grey at Stoura and Karystos; variegated at Valaxa and Karystos; green
on Taygetus and in Thessaly; black at Tenos; and red (porphyry) in
Maina.
The official statistics of the output and value of minerals produced
in 1905 were as in the preceding table.
The number of persons employed in mining operations in 1905 was 9934.
Commerce and industry.
Owing to the natural aptitude of the Greeks for commerce and their
predilection for a seafaring life a great portion of the trade of the
Levant has fallen into their hands. Important Greek mercantile colonies
exist in all the larger ports of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea,
and many of them possess great wealth. In some of the islands of the
archipelago almost every householder is the owner or joint owner of a
ship. The Greek mercantile marine, which in 1888 consisted of 1352
vessels (70 steamers) with a total tonnage of 219,415 tons, numbered in
1906, according to official returns, 1364 vessels (275 steamers) with a
total tonnage of 427,291 tons. This figure is apparently too low, as the
ship-owners are prone to understate the tonnage in order to diminish the
payment of dues. Almost the whole corn trade of Turkey is in Greek
hands. A large number of the sailing ships, especially the smaller
vessels engaged in the coasting trade, belong to the islanders. A
considerable portion of the shipping on the Danube and Pruth is owned by
the inhabitants of Ithaca and Cephalonia; a certain number of their
_sleps_ ([Greek: slepia]) have latterly been acquired by Rumanian Jews,
but the Greek flag is still predominant. There are seven principal Greek
steamship companies owning 40 liners with a total tonnage of 21,972
tons. In 1847 there was but one lighthouse in Greek waters; in 1906
there were 70 lighthouses and 68 port lanterns. Hermoupolis (Syra) is
the chief seat of the carrying trade, but as a commercial port it yields
to Peiraeus, which is the principal centre of distribution for imports.
Other important ports are Patras, Volo, Corfu, Kalamata and Laurium.
The following table gives the total value (in francs) of special Greek
commerce for the given years:--
+---------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| | 1887. | 1892. | 1897. | 1902. |
+---------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Imports | 131,849,325 | 119,306,007 | 116,363,348 | 137,229,364 |
| Exports | 102,652,487 | 82,261,464 | 81,708,626 | 79,663,473 |
+---------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
The marked fluctuations in the returns are mainly attributable to
variations in the price and quantity of imported cereals and in the
sale of currants. The great excess of imports, caused by the large
importation of food-stuffs and manufactured articles, is due to the
neglect of agriculture and the undeveloped condition of local
industries.
The imports and exports for 1905 were distributed as follows:--
+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| | Imports from.| Exports to. |
+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| | Frs. | Frs. |
| Russia | 27,725,218 | 810,925 |
| Great Britain | 27,516,928 | 24,436,707 |
| Austria-Hungary | 19,444,415 | 7,876,806 |
| Turkey | 15,538,370 | 4,516,403 |
| Germany | 13,896,687 | 7,514,474 |
| France | 10,101,070 | 7,078,321 |
| Italy | 6,190,253 | 4,266,210 |
| Bulgaria | 5,135,718 | 133,106 |
| Rumania | 3,814,641 | 1,152,207 |
| America | 2,656,501 | 6,440,648 |
| Belgium | 2,276,393 | 2,068,138 |
| Netherlands | 1,921,762 | 7,180,301 |
| Egypt | 634,035 | 5,928,555 |
| Switzerland | 348,281 | .. |
| Other countries | 4,555,781 | 4,288,365 |
| | ----------- | ---------- |
| Total | 141,756,053 | 83,691,166 |
+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
An enumeration of the chief articles of importation and exportation,
together with their value, will be found in tabular form overleaf.
Greece does not possess any manufacturing industries on a large scale;
the absence of a native coal supply is an obstacle to their
development. In 1889 there were 145 establishments employing steam of
5568 indicated horse-power; in 1892 the total horse-power employed was
estimated at 10,000. In addition to the smelting-works at Laurium, at
which some 5000 hands are employed by Greek and French companies and
local proprietors, there are flour mills, cloth, cotton and silk
spinning mills, ship-building and engineering works, oil-presses,
tanneries, powder and dynamite mills, soap mills (about 40), and
some manufactures of paper, glass, matches, turpentine, white lead,
hats, gloves, candles, &c. About 100 factories are established in the
neighbourhood of Athens and Peiraeus. The wine industry (10 factories)
is of considerable importance, and the manufacture of cognac has
latterly made great progress; there are 10 large and numerous small
cognac distilleries. Ship-building is carried on actively at all the
ports on the mainland and islands; about 200 ships, mostly of low
tonnage, are launched annually.
_Principal Articles of Importation._
+-----------------------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| | 1904. | 1905. |
| +------------+-------------+------------+-------------+
| Articles. |Total value |Imported from|Total value |Imported from|
| | in francs. | the United | in francs. | the United |
| | | Kingdom. | | Kingdom. |
+-----------------------------+------------+-------------+------------+-------------+
| Cereals | 27,735,808 | none | 32,511,784 | none |
| Textiles | 17,999,344 | 10,762,464 | 13,460,620 | 5,497,172 |
| Raw minerals | 13,341,191 | 7,630,633 | .. | .. |
| Forest products | 10,146,500 | 9,769 | 12,254,190 | 61,309 |
| Wrought metals | 7,757,444 | 2,162,250 | .. | .. |
| Coals and pit-coal | 6,522,086 | 6,087,068 | 5,073,841 | 4,308,357 |
| Yarn and tissues | 4,739,819 | 2,504,667 | 8,021,523 | 6,838,079 |
| Fish | 4,992,615 | 2,394,224 | 1,014,164 | 186,072 |
| Raw hides | 4,558,101 | 478,965 | 3,909,657 | 215,745 |
| Various animals | 4,271,151 | none | 3,373,523 | 1,268 |
| Horses | 3,011,450 | none | 2,070,250 | none |
| Paper, books, &c. | 3,327,144 | 157,017 | 3,319,700 | 76,454 |
| Coffee | 2,957,601 | 293,610 | 3,060,904 | 107,296 |
| Sugar | 2,606,696 | none | 2,887,854 | 70 |
| Rice | 1,977,894 | 63,882 | 1,901,486 | 236,027 |
| Colours | 1,750,858 | 341,839 | 2,146,509 | 281,433 |
+-----------------------------+------------+-------------+--------------------------+
_Chief Articles of Exportation._
+-----------------------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| | 1904. | 1905. |
| +--------------------------+------------+-------------+
| Articles. |Total value | Exported to |Total value | Exported to |
| | in francs. | the United | in francs. | the United |
| | | Kingdom. | | Kingdom. |
+-----------------------------+------------+-------------+------------+-------------+
| Currants | 28,841,678 | 14,569,137 | 34,299,780 | 17,008,929 |
| Minerals and raw metals | 19,134,185 | 5,161,898 | 15,125,072 | 5,438,698 |
| Wines | 10,084,960 | 429,143 | 5,832,139 | 881,696 |
| Tobacco | 7,285,385 | 39,512 | 6,157,092 | 147,565 |
| Olive oil | 4,163,262 | 212,081 | 2,150,285 | 64,310 |
| Figs | 3,583,428 | 62,304 | 3,309,432 | 338,196 |
| Minerals and metals (worked)| 2,754,245 | 7,750 | 2,607,580 | 900 |
| Olives | 1,793,362 | 9,833 | 1,138,116 | 18,800 |
| Valonea | 1,558,678 | 200,849 | 1,917,014 | 146,927 |
| Cognac | 1,027,224 | 12,099 | 1,091,160 | 2,283 |
+-----------------------------+------------+-------------+------------+-------------+
_Public Works._--The important drainage-works at Lake Copais were
taken over by an English company in 1890. The lake covered an area of
58,080 acres, the greater part of which is now rendered fit for
cultivation. The drainage works consist of a canal, 28 kilometres in
length, and a tunnel of 600 metres descending through the mountain to
a lower lake, which is connected by a second tunnel with the sea. The
reclaimed land is highly fertile. The area under crops amounted in
1906 to 27,414 acres, of which 20,744 were let to tenants and the
remainder farmed by the company. The uncultivated portion affords
excellent grazing. The canal through the Isthmus of Corinth was opened
to navigation in November 1893. The total cost of the works, which
were begun by a company in 1882, was 70,000,000 francs. The narrowness
of the canal, which is only 24.60 metres broad at the surface, and the
strength of the current which passes through it, seriously detract
from its utility. The high charges imposed on foreign vessels have
proved almost prohibitive. There are reduced rates for ships sailing
in Greek waters. Up to the 31st of July 1906, 37,214 vessels, with a
tonnage of 4,971,922, had passed through the canal. The receipts up to
that date were 3,207,835 drachmae (mainly from Greek ships) and
415,976 francs (mainly from foreign ships). In 1905, 2930 vessels
(2735 Greek) passed through, the receipts being 281,935 drachmae and
34,142 francs. The total liabilities of the company in 1906 were about
40,000,000 fr. The canal would be more frequented by foreign shipping
if the harbours at its entrances were improved, and its sides, which
are of masonry, lined with beams; efforts are being made to raise
funds for these purposes. The widening of the Euripus Channel at
Chalcis to the extent of 21.56 metres was accomplished in 1894. The
operations involved the destruction of the picturesque Venetian tower
which guarded the strait. A canal was completed in 1903 rendering
navigable the shallow channel between Leucas (Santa Maura) and the
mainland (breadth 15 metres, depth 5 metres). Large careening docks
were undertaken in 1909 at Peiraeus at an estimated cost of 4,750,000
drachmae.
_Communications._--Internal communication by roads is improving,
though much remains to be done, especially as regards the quality of
the roads. A considerable impetus was given to road-making under the
Trikoupis administration. In 1878 there were only 555 m. of roads; in
1898 there were 2398 m.; in 1906, 3275 m. Electric trams have been
introduced at Patras. Railways were open to traffic in 1900 for a
length of 598 m.; in 1906 for a length of 867 m. The circuit of the
Morea railways (462 m.) was completed in 1902; from Diakophto, on the
north coast, a cogwheel railway, finished in 1894, ascends to
Kalavryta. A very important undertaking is the completion of a line
from Peiraeus to the frontier, the contract for which was signed in
1900 between the Greek government and the Eastern Railway Extension
Syndicate (subsequently converted into the _Société des Chemins de Fer
helléniques_). A line Connecting Peiraeus with Larissa was begun in
1890, but in 1894 the English company which had undertaken the
contract went into liquidation. Under the contract of 1900 the line
was drawn through Demerli, in the south of Thessaly, to Larissa, a
distance of 217 m., and continued through the vale of Tempe to the
Turkish frontier (about 246 m. in all). Branch lines have been
constructed to Lamia and Chalcis. The establishment of a connexion
with the continental railway system, by a junction with the line from
Belgrade to Salonica, would be of immense advantage to Greece, and the
Peiraeus would become an important place of embarkation for Egypt,
India and the Far East.
Posts and telegraphs.
In 1905 the number of post offices was 640. Of these 320 were also
telegraph and 89 telephone stations, with 664 clerks; the remaining
post offices possess no special staff, but are served by persons who
also pursue other occupations. The number of postmen and other
employees was 889. During the year there passed through the post
6,897,899 ordinary letters for the interior, 2,980,958 for foreign
destinations, 2,788,477 from abroad; 540,411 registered letters or
parcels for the interior, 309,907 for foreign countries, and 300,150
from abroad; 880,673 post-cards for the interior, 504,785 from abroad,
and 187,975 sent abroad; 100,680 samples; 7,068,125 printed papers for
the interior, 5,278,405 to or from foreign countries. Telegraph lines
in 1905 extended over 4222 m. with 6836 m. of wires; 841,913 inland
telegrams, 221,188 service telegrams and 129,036 telegrams to foreign
destinations were despatched, and 169,519 received from abroad.
Receipts amounted to 4,589,601 drachmae (postal service 2,744,212,
telegraph and telephone services 1,845,389 drachmae) and expenditure
to 3,954,742 drachmae.
Army.
The Greek army has recently been in a state of transition. Its condition
has never been satisfactory, partly owing to the absence of systematic
effort in the work of organization, partly owing to the pernicious
influence of political parties, and in times of national emergency it
has never been in a condition of readiness. The experience of the war of
1897 proved the need of far-reaching administrative changes and
disciplinary reforms. A scheme of complete reorganization was
subsequently elaborated under the auspices of the crown prince
Constantine, the commander-in-chief, and received the assent of the
Chamber in June 1904. During the war of 1897 about 65,000 infantry, 1000
cavalry, and 24 batteries were put into the field, and after great
efforts another 15,000 men were mobilized. Under the new scheme it is
proposed to maintain on a peace footing 1887 officers, 25,140
non-commissioned officers and men, and 4059 horses and mules; in time of
war the active army will consist of at least 120,000 men and the
territorial army of at least 60,000 men. The heavy expenditure entailed
by the project has been an obstacle to its immediate realization. In
order to meet this expenditure a special fund has been instituted in
addition to the ordinary military budget, and certain revenues have been
assigned to it amounting to about 5,500,000 drachmae annually. In 1906,
however, it was decided to suspend partially for five years the
operation of the law of 1904 and to devote the resources thus
economized together with other funds to the immediate purchase of new
armaments and equipment. Under this temporary arrangement the peace
strength of the army in 1908 consisted of 1939 officers and civilians,
19,416 non-commissioned officers and men and 2661 horses and mules; it
is calculated that the reserves will furnish about 77,000 men and the
territorial army about 37,000 men in time of war.
Military service is obligatory, and liability to serve begins from the
twenty-first year. The term of service comprises two years in the active
army, ten years in the active army reserve (for cavalry eight years),
eight years in the territorial army (for cavalry ten years) and ten
years for all branches in the territorial army reserve. As a rule,
however, the period of service in the active army has hitherto been
considerably shortened; with a view to economy, the men, under the law
of 1904, receive furlough after eighteen months with the colours.
Exemptions from military service, which were previously very numerous,
are also restricted considerably by the law of 1904, which will secure a
yearly contingent of about 13,000 men in time of peace. The conscripts
in excess of the yearly contingent are withdrawn by lot; they are
required to receive six months' training in the ranks as supernumeraries
before passing into the reserve, in which they form a special category
of "liability" men. Under the temporary system of 1906 the contingent is
reduced to about 10,000 men by postponing the abrogation of several
exemptions, and the period of service is fixed at fourteen months for
all the conscripts alike. The field army as constituted by the law of
1904 consists of 3 divisions, each division comprising 2 brigades of
infantry, each of 2 regiments of 3 battalions and other units. There are
thus 36 battalions of infantry (of which 12 are cadres); also 6
battalions of _evzones_ (highlanders), 18 squadrons of cavalry (6
cadres), 33 batteries of artillery (6 cadres), 3 battalions of engineers
and telegraphists, 3 companies of ambulance, 3 of train, &c. The
artillery is composed of 24 field batteries, 3 heavy and 6 mountain
batteries; it is mainly provided with Krupp 7.5 cm. guns dating from
1870 or earlier. After a series of trials in 1907 it was decided to
order 36 field batteries of 7.5 cm. quick-firing guns and 6 mountain
batteries, in all 168 guns, with 1500 projectiles for each battery from
the Creuzot factory. The infantry, which was hitherto armed with the
obsolete Gras rifle (.433 in.), was furnished in 1907 with the
Mannlicher-Schönauer (model 1903) of which 100,000 had been delivered in
May 1908. Hitherto the gendarmerie, which replaced the police, have
formed a corps drawn from the army, which in 1908 consisted of 194
officers and 6344 non-commissioned officers and men, but a law passed in
1907 provided for these forces being thenceforth recruited separately by
voluntary enlistment in annual contingents of 700 men. The participation
of the officers in politics, which has proved very injurious to
discipline, has been checked by a law forbidding officers below the rank
of colonel to stand for the Chamber. In the elections of 1905 115
officers were candidates. The three divisional headquarters are at
Larissa, Athens and Missolonghi; the six headquarters of brigades are at
Trikkala, Larissa, Athens, Chalcis, Missolonghi and Nauplia. In 1907
annual manoeuvres were instituted.
Navy.
The Greek fleet consisted in 1907 of 3 armoured barbette ships of 4885
tons (built in France in 1890, reconstructed 1899), carrying each three
10.8-in. guns, five 6-in., thirteen quick-firing and smaller guns, and
three torpedo tubes; 1 cruiser of 1770 tons (built in 1879), with two
6.7-in. and six light quick-firing guns; 1 armoured central battery ship
of 1774 tons (built 1867, reconstructed 1897) with two 8.4 in. and nine
small quick-firing guns; 2 coast-defence gunboats with one 10.6-in. gun
each; 4 corvettes; 1 torpedo depôt ship; 8 destroyers, each with six
guns (ordered in 1905); 3 transport steamers; 7 small gunboats; 3 mining
boats; 5 torpedo boats; 1 royal yacht; 2 school ships and various minor
vessels. The personnel of the navy was composed in 1907 of 437 officers,
26 cadets, 1118 petty officers, 2372 seamen and stokers, 60 boys and 99
civilians, together with 386 artisans employed at the arsenal. The navy
is manned chiefly by conscription; the period of service is two years,
with four years in the reserve. The headquarters of the fleet and
arsenal are in the island of Salamis, where there is a dockyard with
naval stores, a floating dock and a torpedo school. Most of the vessels
of the Greek fleet were in 1907 obsolete; in 1904 a commission under the
presidency of Prince George proposed the rearmament of the existing
ironclads and the purchase of three new ironclads and other vessels. A
different scheme of reorganization, providing almost exclusively for
submarines and scout vessels, was suggested to the government by the
French admiral Fournier in 1908, but was opposed by the Greek naval
officers. With a view to the augmentation and better equipment of the
fleet a special fund was instituted in 1900 to which certain revenues
have been assigned; it has been increased by various donations and
bequests and by the proceeds of a state lottery. The fleet is not
exercised methodically either in navigation or gunnery practice; a long
voyage, however, was undertaken by the ironclad vessels in 1904. The
Greeks, especially the islanders of the Aegean, make better sailors than
soldiers; the personnel of the navy, if trained by foreign officers,
might be brought to a high state of efficiency.
Finance.
The financial history of Greece has been unsatisfactory from the
outset. Excessive military and naval expenditure (mainly due to
repeated and hasty mobilizations), a lax and improvident system of
administration, the corruption of political parties and the
instability of the government, which has rendered impossible the
continuous application of any scheme of fiscal reform--all alike have
contributed to the economic ruin of the country. For a long series of
years preceding the declaration of national insolvency in 1893
successive budgets presented a deficit, which in years of political
excitement and military activity assumed enormous proportions: the
shortcomings of the budget were supplied by the proceeds of foreign
loans, or by means of advances obtained in the country at a high rate
of interest. The two loans which had been contracted during the war of
independence were extinguished by means of a conversion in 1889. Of
the existing foreign loans the earliest is that of 60,000,000 frs.,
guaranteed by the three protecting powers in 1832; owing to the
payment of interest and amortization by the powers, the capital
amounted in 1871 to 100,392,833 fr.; on this Greece pays an annual sum
of 900,000 fr., of which 300,000 have been granted by the powers as a
yearly subvention to King George. The only other existing foreign
obligation of early date is the debt to the heirs of King Otho
(4,500,000 dr.) contracted in 1868. A large amount of internal debt
was incurred between 1848 and 1880, but a considerable proportion of
this was redeemed with the proceeds of the foreign loans negotiated
after this period. At the end of 1880 the entire national debt,
external and internal, stood at 252,652,481 dr. In 1881 the era of
great foreign loans began. In that year a 5% loan of 120,000,000 fr.
was raised to defray the expenses of the mobilization of 1880. This
was followed in 1884 by a 5% loan of 170,000,000 fr., of which
100,000,000 was actually issued. The service of these loans was
guaranteed by various State revenues. A "patriotic loan" of 30,000,000
dr. without interest, issued during the war excitement of 1885, proved
a failure, only 2,723,860 dr. being subscribed. In 1888 a 4% loan of
135,000,000 fr. was contracted, secured on the receipts of the five
State monopolies, the management of which was entrusted to a
privileged company. In the following year (1889) two 4% loans of
30,000,000 fr. and 125,000,000 fr. respectively were issued without
guarantee or sinking fund; Greek credit had now apparently attained an
established position in the foreign money market, but a decline of
public confidence soon became evident. In 1890, of a 5% loan of
80,000,000 fr. effective, authorized for the construction of the
Peiraeus-Larissa railway, only 40,050,000 fr. was taken up abroad and
12,900,000 fr. at home; large portions of the proceeds were devoted to
other purposes. In 1892 the government was compelled to make large
additions to the internal floating debt, and to borrow 16,500,000 fr.
from the National Bank on onerous terms. In 1893 an effort to obtain a
foreign loan for the reduction of the forced currency proved
unsuccessful. (For the events leading up to the declaration of
national bankruptcy in that year see under _Recent History_.) A
funding convention was concluded in the summer, under which the
creditors accepted scrip instead of cash payments of interest. A few
months later this arrangement was reversed by the Chamber, and on the
13th December a law was passed assigning provisionally to all the
foreign loans alike 30% of the stipulated interest; the reduced
coupons were made payable in paper instead of gold, the sinking funds
were suspended, and the sums encashed by the monopoly company were
confiscated. The causes of the financial catastrophe may be briefly
summarized as follows: (1) The military preparations of 1885-1886,
with the attendant disorganization of the country; the extraordinary
expenditure of these years amounted to 130,987,772 dr. (2) Excessive
borrowing abroad, involving a charge for the service of foreign loans
altogether disproportionate to the revenue. (3) Remissness in the
collection of taxation: the total loss through arrears in a period of
ten years (1882-1891) was 36,549,202 dr., being in the main
attributable to non-payment of direct taxes. (4) The adverse balance
of trade, largely due to the neglected condition of agriculture; in
the five years preceding the crisis (1888-1892) the exports were
stated to amount to £19,578,973, while the imports reached
£24,890,146; foreign live stock and cereals being imported to the
amount of £6,193,579. The proximate cause of the crisis was the rise
in the exchange owing to the excessive amount of paper money in
circulation. Forced currency was first introduced in 1868, when
15,000,000 dr. in paper money was issued; it was abolished in the
following year, but reintroduced in 1877 with a paper issue of
44,000,000 dr. It was abolished a second time in 1884, but again put
into circulation in 1885, when paper loans to the amount of 45,000,000
dr. were authorized. In 1893 the total authorized forced currency was
146,000,000 dr., of which 88,000,000 (including 14,000,000 dr. in
small notes) was on account of the government. The gold and silver
coinage had practically disappeared from circulation. The rate of
exchange, as a rule, varies directly with the amount of paper money in
circulation, but, owing to speculation, it is liable to violent
fluctuations whenever there is an exceptional demand for gold in the
market. In 1893 the gold franc stood at the ratio of 1.60 to the paper
drachma; the service of the foreign loans required upwards of
31,000,000 dr. in gold, and any attempt to realize this sum in the
market would have involved an outlay equivalent to at least half the
budget. With the failure of the projected loan for the withdrawal of
the forced currency repudiation became inevitable. The law of the 13th
of December was not recognized by the national creditors: prolonged
negotiations followed, but no arrangement was arrived at till 1897,
when the intervention of the powers after the war with Turkey
furnished the opportunity for a definite settlement. It was stipulated
that Turkey should receive an indemnity of £T4,000,000 contingent on
the evacuation of Thessaly; in order to secure the payment of this sum
by Greece without prejudice to the interests of her creditors, and to
enable the country to recover from the economic consequences of the
war, Great Britain, France and Russia undertook to guarantee a 2½%
loan of 170,000,000 fr., of which 150,000,000 fr. has been issued. By
the preliminary treaty of peace (18th of September 1897) an
International Financial Commission, composed of six representatives of
the powers, was charged with the payment of the indemnity to Turkey,
and with "absolute control" over the collection and employment of
revenues sufficient for the service of the foreign debt. A law
defining the powers of the Commission was passed by the Chamber, 26th
of February 1898 (o.s.). The revenues assigned to its supervision were
the five government monopolies, the tobacco and stamp duties, and the
import duties of Peiraeus (total annual value estimated at 39,600,000
dr.): the collection was entrusted to a Greek society, which is under
the absolute control of the Commission. The returns of Peiraeus
customs (estimated at 10,700,000 dr.) are regarded as an extra
guarantee, and are handed over to the Greek government; when the
produce of the other revenues exceeds 28,900,000 dr. the "plus value"
or surplus is divided in the proportion of 50.8% to the Greek
government and 49.2% to the creditors. The plus values amounted to
3,301,481 dr. in 1898, 3,533,755 dr. in 1899, and 3,442,713 dr. in
1900. Simultaneously with the establishment of the control the
interest for the Monopoly Loan was fixed at 43%, for the Funding Loan
at 40%, and for the other loans at 32% of the original interest. With
the revenues at its disposal the International Commission has already
been enabled to make certain augmentations in the service of the
foreign debt; since 1900 it has begun to take measures for the
reduction of the forced currency, of which 2,000,000 dr. will be
annually bought up and destroyed till the amount in circulation is
reduced to 40,000,000 dr. On the 1st of January 1901 the authorized
paper issue was 164,000,000 dr., of which 92,000,000 (including
18,000,000 in fractional currency) was on account of the government;
the amount in actual circulation was 148,619,618 dr. On the 31st of
July 1906 the paper issue had been reduced to 152,775,975 dr., and the
amount in circulation was 124,668,057 dr. The financial commission
retains its powers until the extinction of all the foreign loans
contracted since 1881. Though its activity is mainly limited to the
administration of the assigned revenues, it has exercised a beneficial
influence over the whole domain of Greek finance; the effect may be
observed in the greatly enhanced value of Greek securities since its
institution, averaging 25.76% in 1906. No change can be made in its
composition or working without the consent of the six powers, and none
of the officials employed in the collection of the revenues subject to
its control can be dismissed or transferred without its consent. It
thus constitutes an element of stability and order which cannot fail
to react on the general administration. It is unable, however, to
control the expenditure or to assert any direct influence over the
government, with which the responsibility still rests for an improved
system of collection, a more efficient staff of functionaries and the
repression of smuggling. The country has shown a remarkable vitality
in recovering from the disasters of 1897, and should it in future
obtain a respite from paroxysms of military and political excitement,
its financial regeneration will be assured.
The following table gives the actual expenditure and receipts for the
period 1889-1906 inclusive:
+---------+-------------+--------------+--------------+
| Year. | Actual | Actual | Surplus or |
| | Receipts. | Expenditure. | Deficit. |
+---------+-------------+--------------+--------------+
| | Drachmae. | Drachmae. | Drachmae. |
| 1889 | 83,731,591 | 110,772,327 | -27,040,736 |
| 1890 | 79,931,795 | 125,932,579 | -46,000,784 |
| 1891 | 90,321,872 | 122,836,385 | -32,514,513 |
| 1892 | 95,465,569 | 107,283,498 | -11,817,929 |
| 1893* | 96,723,418 | 92,133,565 | + 4,589,853 |
| 1894 | 102,885,643 | 85,135,752 | +17,749,891 |
| 1895 | 94,657,065 | 91,641,967 | + 3,015,098 |
| 1896 | 96,931,726 | 90,890,607 | + 6,041,119 |
| 1897** | 92,485,825 | 137,043,929 | -44,558,104 |
| 1898*** | 104,949,718 | 110,341,431 | - 5,391,713 |
| 1899 | 111,318,273 | 104,586,504 | + 6,731,769 |
| 1900 | 112,206,849 | 112,049,279 | + 157,570 |
| 1901 | 115,734,159 | 113,646,301 | + 2,087,858 |
| 1902 | 123,949,931 | 121,885,707 | + 2,064,224 |
| 1903 | 120,194,362 | 117,436,549 | + 2,757,813 |
| 1904 | 121,186,246 | 120,200,247 | + 985,999 |
| 1905 | 126,472,580 | 118,699,761 | + 7,772,819 |
| 1906 | 125,753,358 | 124,461,577 | + 1,291,781 |
+---------+-------------+--------------+--------------+
* Reduction of interest on foreign debt by 70%.
** War with Turkey.
*** International Financial Commission instituted.
The steady increase of receipts since 1898 attests the growing
prosperity of the country, but expenditure has been allowed to
outstrip revenue, and, notwithstanding the official figures which
represent a series of surpluses, the accumulated deficit in 1905
amounted to about 14,000,000, dr. in addition to treasury bonds for
8,000,000 dr. A remarkable feature has been the rapid fall in the
exchange since 1903; the gold franc, which stood at 1.63 dr. in 1902,
had fallen to 1.08 in October 1906. The decline, a favourable symptom
if resulting from normal economic factors, is apparently due to a
combination of exceptional circumstances, and consequently may not be
maintained; it has imposed a considerable strain on the financial and
commercial situation. The purchasing power of the drachma remains
almost stationary and the price of imported commodities continues
high; import dues, which since 1904 are payable in drachmae at the
fixed rate of 1.45 to the franc, have been practically increased by
more than 30%. In April 1900 a 4% loan of 43,750,000 francs for the
completion of the railway from Peiraeus to the Turkish frontier, and
another loan of 11,750,000 drachmae for the construction of a line
from Pyrgos to Meligala, linking up the Morea railway system, were
sanctioned by the Chamber; the first-named, the "Greek Railways Loan,"
was taken up at 80 by the syndicate contracting for the works and was
placed on the market in 1902. The service of both loans is provided by
the International Commission from the surplus funds of the assigned
revenues. On the 1st of January 1906 the external debt amounted to
725,939,500 francs and the internal (including the paper circulation)
to 171,629,436 drachmae.
The budget estimates for 1906 were as follows: Civil list, 1,325,000
dr.; pensions, payment of deputies, &c., 7,706,676 dr.; public debt,
34,253,471 dr.; foreign affairs, 3,563,994 dr.; justice, 6,240,271
dr.; interior, 13,890,927 dr.; religion and education, 7,143,924 dr.;
army, 20,618,563 dr.; navy, 7,583,369 dr.; finance, 2,362,143 dr.;
collection of revenue, 10,650,487 dr.; various expenditure, 9,122,752
dr.; total, 124,461,577 dr.
The two privileged banks in Greece are the National Bank, founded in
1841; capital 20,000,000 drachmae in 20,000 shares of 1000 dr. each,
fully paid up; reserve fund 13,500,000 dr.; notes in circulation
(September 1906) 126,721,887 dr., of which 76,360,905 dr. on account
of the government; and the Ionian Bank, incorporated in 1839; capital
paid up £315,500 in 63,102 shares, of £5 each; notes in circulation,
10,200,000 drachmae, of which 3,500,000 (in fractional notes of 1 and
2 dr.) on account of the government. The notes issued by these two
banks constitute the forced paper currency circulating throughout the
kingdom. In the case of the Ionian Bank the privilege of issuing
notes, originally limited to the Ionian Islands, will expire in 1920.
The National Bank is a private institution under supervision of the
government, which is represented by a royal commissioner on the board
of administration; the central establishment is at Athens with
forty-two branches throughout the country. The headquarters of the
Ionian Bank, which is a British institution, are in London; the bank
has a central office at Athens and five branches in Greece. The
privileged Epiro-Thessalian Bank ceased to exist from the 4th of
January 1900, when it was amalgamated with the National Bank. There
are several other banking companies, as well as private banks, at
Athens. The most important is the Bank of Athens (capital 40,000,000
dr.), founded in 1893; it possesses five branches in Greece and six
abroad.
Currency, weights and measures.
Greece entered the Latin Monetary Union in 1868. The monetary unit is
the new drachma, equivalent to the franc, and divided into 100 lepta
or centimes. There are nickel coins of 20, 10 and 5 lepta, copper
coins of 10 and 5 lepta. Gold and silver coins were minted in Paris
between 1868 and 1884, but have since practically disappeared from the
country. The paper currency consists of notes for 1000 dr., 500 dr.,
100 dr., 25 dr., 10 dr. and 5 dr., and of fractional notes for 2 dr.
and 1 dr. The decimal system of weights and measures was adopted in
1876, but some of the old Turkish standards are still in general use.
The dram = 1/10 oz. avoirdupois approximately; the oke = 400 drams or
2.8 lb.; the kilo = 22 okes or 0.114 of an imperial quarter; the
cantar or quintal = 44 okes or 123.2 lb. Liquids are measured by
weight. The punta = 1-5/8 in.; the ruppa, 3½ in.; the pik, 26 in.; the
stadion = 1 kilometre or 1093½ yds. The stremma (square measure) is
nearly one-third of an acre.
AUTHORITIES.--W. Leake, _Researches in Greece_ (1814), _Travels in the
Morea_ (3 vols., 1830), _Travels in Northern Greece_ (4 vols., 1834),
_Peloponnesiaca_ (1846); Bursian, _Geographie von Griechenland_ (2
vols., Leipzig, 1862-1873); Lolling, "Hellenische Landeskunde und
Topographie" in Ivan Müller's _Handbuch der klassischen
Altertumswissenschaft_; C. Wordsworth, _Greece; Pictorial, Descriptive
and Historical_ (new ed., revised by H. F. Tozer, London, 1882); K.
Stephanos, _La Grèce_ (Paris, 1884); C. Neumann and J. Partsch,
_Physikalische Geographie von Griechenland_ (Breslau, 1885); K.
Krumbacher, _Griechische Reise_ (Berlin, 1886); J. P. Mahaffy,
_Rambles and Studies in Greece_ (London, 1887); R. A. H.
Bickford-Smith, _Greece under King George_ (London, 1893); Ch. Diehl,
_Excursions archéologiques en Grèce_ (Paris, 1893); Perrot and
Chipiez, _Histoire de l'art_, tome vi., "La Grèce primitive" (Paris,
1894); tome vii., "La Grèce archaïque" (Paris, 1898); A. Philippson,
_Griechenland und seine Stellung im Orient_ (Leipzig, 1897); L.
Sergeant, _Greece in the Nineteenth Century_ (London, 1897); J. G.
Frazer, _Pausanias's Description of Greece_ (6 vols., London, 1898);
_Pausanias and other Greek Sketches_ (London, 1900); _Greco-Turkish
War of 1897_, from official sources, by a German staff officer (Eng.
trans., London, 1898); J. A. Symonds, _Studies_, and _Sketches in
Italy and Greece_ (3 vols., 2nd ed., London, 1898); V. Bérard, _La
Turquie et l'hellénisme contemporaine_ (Paris, 1900).
For the climate: D. Aeginetes, [Greek: To klima tês Hellados] (Athens,
1908).
For the fauna: Th. de Heldreich, _La Fauna de la Grèce_ (Athens,
1878).
For special topography: A. Meliarakes, [Greek: Kukladika êtoi
geographia kai historia tôn Kukladikôn nêsôn] (Athens, 1874); [Greek:
'Tpomnêmata perigraphika tôn Kukladôn nêsôn Androu kai Keô] (Athens,
1880); [Greek: Geographia politikê nea kai archaia tou nomou Argolidos
kai Korinthias] (Athens, 1886); [Greek: Geographia politikê nea kai
archaia tou nomou Kephallênias]. (Athens, 1890); Th. Bent, _The
Cyclades_ (London, 1885); A. Bötticher, _Olympia_ (2nd ed., Berlin,
1886); J. Partsch, _Die Insel Corfu: eine geographische Monographie_
(Gotha, 1887); _Die Insel Leukas_ (Gotha, 1889); _Kephallenia und
Ithaka_ (Gotha, 1890); _Die Insel Zante_ (Gotha, 1891); A. Philippson,
_Der Peloponnes_. (_Versuch einer Landeskunde auf geologischer
Grundlage._) (Berlin, 1892); "Thessalien und Epirus" (_Reisen und
Forschungen im nördlichen Griechenland_) (Berlin, 1897); _Die
griechischen Inseln des ägäischen Meeres_ (Berlin, 1897); W. J.
Woodhouse, _Aetolia_ (Oxford, 1897); Schultz and Barnsley, _The
Monastery of St Luke of Stiris_ (London, 1901); M. Lamprinides,
[Greek: He Nauplia] (Athens, 1898); _Monuments de l'art byzantin_,
publiés par le Ministère de l'Instruction, tome i.; G. Millet, "Le
Monastère de Daphni" (Paris, 1900). For the life, customs and habits
of the modern Greeks: C. Wachsmuth, _Das alte Griechenland im neuen_
(Bonn, 1864); C. K. Tuckerman, _The Greeks of to-day_ (London, 1873);
B. Schmidt, _Volksleben der Neugriechen und das hellenische Altertum_
(Leipzig, 1871); Estournelle de Constant, _La Vie de province en
Grèce_ (Paris, 1878); E. About, _La Grèce contemporaine_ (Paris, 1855;
8th ed., 1883); J. T. Bent, _Modern Life and Thought among the Greeks_
(London, 1891); J. Rennell Rodd, The Customs and Lore of Modern Greece
(London, 1892). Guide-books, Baedeker's _Greece_ (3rd ed., Leipzig,
1905); Murray's _Handbook for Greece_ (7th ed., London, 1905);
Macmillan's _Guide to the Eastern Mediterranean_ (London, 1901).
(J. D. B.)
2. HISTORY
a. _Ancient; to 146_ B.C.
1. _Introductory._--It is necessary to indicate at the outset the scope
and object of the present article. The reader must not expect to find in
it a compendious summary of the chief events in the history of ancient
Greece. It is not intended to supply an "Outlines of Greek History." It
may be questioned whether such a sketch of the history, within the
limits of space which are necessarily imposed in a work of reference,
would be of utility to any class of readers. At any rate, the plan of
the present work, in which the subject of Greek history is treated of in
a large number of separate articles, allows of the narrative of events
being given in a more satisfactory form under the more general of the
headings (e.g. ATHENS, SPARTA, PELOPONNESIAN WAR). The character of the
history itself suggests a further reason why a general article upon
Greek history should not be confined to, or even attempt, a narrative of
events. A sketch of Greek history is not possible in the sense in which
a sketch of Roman history, or even of English history, is possible.
Greek history is not the history of a single state. When Aristotle
composed his work upon the constitutions of the Greek states, he found
it necessary to extend his survey to no less that 158 states. Greek
history is thus concerned with more than 150 separate and independent
political communities. Nor is it even the history of a single country.
The area occupied by the Greek race extended from the Pyrenees to the
Caucasus, and from southern Russia to northern Africa. It is inevitable,
therefore, that the impression conveyed by a sketch of Greek history
should be a misleading one. A mere narrative can hardly fail to give a
false perspective. Experience shows that such a sketch is apt to resolve
itself into the history of a few great movements and of a few leading
states. What is still worse, it is apt to confine itself, at any rate
for the greater part of the period dealt with, to the history of Greece
in the narrower sense, i.e. of the Greek peninsula. For the
identification of Greece with Greece proper there may be some degree of
excuse when we come to the 5th and 4th centuries. In the period that
lies behind the year 500 B.C. Greece proper forms but a small part of
the Greek world. In the 7th and 6th centuries it is outside Greece
itself that we must look for the most active life of the Greek people
and the most brilliant manifestations of the Greek spirit. The present
article, therefore, will be concerned with the causes and conditions of
events, rather than with the events themselves; it will attempt analysis
rather than narrative. Its object will be to indicate problems and to
criticize views; to suggest lessons and parallels, and to estimate the
importance of the Hellenic factor in the development of civilization.
2. _The Minoan and Mycenaean Ages._--When does Greek history begin?
Whatever may be the answer that is given to this question, it will be
widely different from any that could have been proposed a generation
ago. Then the question was, How late does Greek history begin? To-day
the question is, How early does it begin? The suggestion made by Grote
that the first Olympiad (776 B.C.) should be taken as the starting-point
of the history of Greece, in the proper sense of the term "history,"
seemed likely, not so many years ago, to win general acceptance. At the
present moment the tendency would seem to be to go back as far as the
3rd or 4th millennium B.C. in order to reach a starting-point. It is to
the results of archaeological research during the last thirty years that
we must attribute so startling a change in the attitude of historical
science towards this problem. In the days when Grote published the first
volumes of his _History of Greece_ archaeology was in its infancy. Its
results, so far as they affected the earlier periods of Greek history,
were scanty; its methods were unscientific. The methods have been
gradually perfected by numerous workers in the field; but the results,
which have so profoundly modified our conceptions of the early history
of the Aegean area, are principally due to the discoveries of two men,
Heinrich Schliemann and A. J. Evans. A full account of these discoveries
will be found elsewhere (see AEGEAN CIVILIZATION and CRETE). It will be
sufficient to mention here that Schliemann's labours began with the
excavations on the site of Troy in the years 1870-1873; that he passed
on to the excavations at Mycenae in 1876 and to those at Tiryns in 1884.
It was the discoveries of these years that revealed to us the Mycenaean
age, and carried back the history to the middle of the 2nd millennium.
The discoveries of Dr A. J. Evans in the island of Crete belong to a
later period. The work of excavation was begun in 1900, and was carried
on in subsequent years. It has revealed to us the Minoan age, and
enabled us to trace back the development and origins of the civilization
for a further period of 1000 or 1500 years. The dates assigned by
archaeologists to the different periods of Mycenaean and Minoan art must
be regarded as merely approximate. Even the relation of the two
civilizations is still, to some extent, a matter of conjecture. The
general chronological scheme, however, in the sense of the relative
order of the various periods and the approximate intervals between them,
is too firmly established, both by internal evidence, such as the
development of the styles of pottery, and of the art in general, and by
external evidence, such as the points of contact with Egyptian art and
history, to admit of its being any longer seriously called in question.
[Illustration: Map of Greece (ancient).]
If, then, by "Greek history" is to be understood the history of the
lands occupied in later times by the Greek race (i.e. the Greek
peninsula and the Aegean basin), the beginnings of the history must be
carried back some 2000 years before Grote's proposed starting-point. If,
however, "Greek history" is taken to mean the history of the Greek
people, the determination of the starting-point is far from easy. For
the question to which archaeology does not as yet supply any certain
answer is the question of race. Were the creators of the Minoan and
Mycenaean civilization Greeks or were they not? In some degree the
Minoan evidence has modified the answer suggested by the Mycenaean.
Although wide differences of opinion as to the origin of the Mycenaean
civilization existed among scholars when the results of Schliemann's
labours were first given to the world, a general agreement had gradually
been arrived at in favour of the view which would identify Mycenaean
with Achaean or Homeric. In presence of the Cretan evidence it is no
longer possible to maintain this view with the same confidence. The two
chief difficulties in the way of attributing either the Minoan or the
Mycenaean civilization to an Hellenic people are connected respectively
with the script and the religion. The excavations at Cnossus have
yielded thousands of tablets written in the linear script. There is
evidence that this script was in use among the Mycenaeans as well. If
Greek was the language spoken at Cnossus and Mycenae, how is it that all
attempts to decipher the script have hitherto failed? The Cretan
excavations, again, have taught us a great deal as to the religion of
the Minoan age; they have, at the same time, thrown a new light upon the
evidence supplied by Mycenaean sites. It is no longer possible to ignore
the contrast between the cults of the Minoan and Mycenaean ages, and the
religious conceptions which they imply, and the cults and religious
conceptions prevalent in the historical period. On the other hand, it
may safely be asserted that the argument derived from the Mycenaean art,
in which we seem to trace a freedom of treatment which is akin to the
spirit of the later Greek art, and is in complete contrast to the spirit
of Oriental art, has received striking confirmation from the remains of
Minoan art. The decipherment of the script would at once solve the
problem. We should at least know whether the dominant race in Crete in
the Minoan age spoke an Hellenic or a non-Hellenic dialect. And what
could be inferred with regard to Crete in the Minoan age could almost
certainly be inferred with regard to the mainland in the Mycenaean age.
In the meanwhile, possibly until the tablets are read, at any rate until
further evidence is forthcoming, any answer that can be given to the
question must necessarily be tentative and provisional. (See AEGEAN
CIVILIZATION.)
It has already been implied that this period of the history of Greece
may be subdivided into a Minoan and a Mycenaean age. Whether these terms
are appropriate is a question of comparatively little importance. They
at least serve to remind us of the part played by the discoveries at
Mycenae and Cnossus in the reconstruction of the history. The term
"Mycenaean," it is true, has other associations than those of locality.
It may seem to imply that the civilization disclosed in the excavations
at Mycenae is Achaean in character, and that it is to be connected with
the Pelopid dynasty to which Agamemnon belonged. In its scientific use,
the term must be cleared of all such associations. Further, as opposed
to "Minoan" it must be understood in a more definite sense than that in
which it has often been employed. It has come to be generally recognized
that two different periods are to be distinguished in Schliemann's
discoveries at Mycenae itself. There is an earlier period, to which
belong the objects found in the shaft-graves, and there is a later
period, to which belong the beehive tombs and the remains of the
palaces. It is the latter period which is "Mycenaean" in the strict
sense; i.e. it is "Mycenaean" as opposed to "Minoan." To this period
belong also the palace at Tiryns, the beehive-tombs discovered elsewhere
on the mainland of Greece and one of the cities on the site of Troy
(Schliemann's sixth). The pottery of this period is as characteristic of
it, both in its forms (e.g. the "stirrup" or "false-necked" form of
vase) and in its peculiar glaze, as is the architecture of the palaces
and the beehive-tombs. Although the chief remains have been found on the
mainland of Greece itself, the art of this period is found to have
extended as far north as Troy and as far east as Cyprus. On the other
hand, hardly any traces of it have been discovered on the west coast of
Asia Minor, south of the Troad. The Mycenaean age, in this sense, may be
regarded as extending from 1600 to 1200 B.C. The Minoan age is of far
wider extent. Its latest period includes both the earlier and the later
periods of the remains found at Mycenae. This is the period called by Dr
Evans "Late Minoan." To this period belong the Great Palace at Cnossus
and the linear system of writing. The "Middle Minoan" period, to which
the earlier palace belongs, is characterized by the pictographic system
of writing and by polychrome pottery of a peculiarly beautiful kind. Dr
Evans proposes to carry back this period as far as 2500 B.C. Even behind
it there are traces of a still earlier civilization. Thus the Minoan
age, even if limited to the middle and later periods, will cover at
least a thousand years. Perhaps the most surprising result of the
excavations in Crete is the discovery that Minoan art is on a higher
level than Mycenaean art. To the scholars of a generation ago it seemed
a thing incredible that the art of the shaft-graves, and the
architecture of the beehive-tombs and the palaces, could belong to the
age before the Dorian invasion. The most recent discoveries seem to
indicate that the art of Mycenae is a decadent art; they certainly prove
that an art, hardly inferior in its way to the art of the classical
period, and a civilization which implies the command of great material
resources, were flourishing in the Aegean perhaps a thousand years
before the siege of Troy.
Oriental influence.
To the question, "What is the origin of this civilization? Is it of
foreign derivation or of native growth?" it is not possible to give a
direct answer. It is clear, on the one hand that it was developed, by a
gradual process of differentiation, from a culture which was common to
the whole Aegean basin and extended as far to the west as Sicily. It is
equally clear, on the other hand, that foreign influences contributed
largely to the process of development. Egyptian influences, in
particular, can be traced throughout the "Minoan" and "Mycenaean"
periods. The developed art, however, both in Crete and on the mainland,
displays characteristics which are the very opposite of those which are
commonly associated with the term "oriental." Egyptian work, even of the
best period, is stiff and conventional; in the best Cretan work, and, in
a less degree, in Mycenaean work, we find an originality and a freedom
of treatment which remind one of the spirit of the Greek artists. The
civilization is, in many respects, of an advanced type. The Cretan
architects could design on a grand scale, and could carry out their
designs with no small degree of mechanical skill. At Cnossus we find a
system of drainage in use, which is far in advance of anything known in
the modern world before the 19th century. If the art of the Minoan age
falls short of the art of the Periclean age, it is hardly inferior to
that of the age of Peisistratus. It is a civilization, too, which has
long been familiar with the art of writing. But it is one that belongs
entirely to the Bronze Age. Iron is not found until the very end of the
Mycenaean period, and then only in small quantities. Nor is this the
only point of contrast between the culture of the earliest age and that
of the historical period in Greece. The chief seats of the early culture
are to be found either in the island of Crete, or, on the mainland, at
Tiryns and Mycenae. In the later history Crete plays no part, and Tiryns
and Mycenae are obscure. With the great names of a later age, Argos,
Sparta and Athens, no great discoveries are connected. In northern
Greece, Orchomenos rather than Thebes is the centre of influence.
Further points of contrast readily suggest themselves. The so-called
Phoenician alphabet, in use amongst the later Greeks, is unknown in the
earliest age. Its systems of writing, both the earlier and the later
one, are syllabic in character, and analogous to those in vogue in Asia
Minor and Cyprus. In the art of war, the chariot is of more importance
than the foot-soldier, and the latter, unlike the Greek hoplite, is
lightly clad, and trusts to a shield large enough to cover the whole
body, rather than to the metal helmet, breastplate and greaves of later
times (see Arms and Armour: Greek). The political system appears to have
been a despotic monarchy, and the realm of the monarch to have extended
to far wider limits than those of the "city-states" of historical
Greece. It is, perhaps, in the religious practices of the age, and in
the ideas implied in them, that the contrast is most apparent. Neither
in Crete nor on the mainland is there any trace of the worship of the
"Olympian" deities. The cults in vogue remind us rather of Asia than of
Greece. The worship of pillars and of trees carries us back to Canaan,
while the double-headed axe, so prominent in the ritual of Cnossus,
survives in later times as the symbol of the national deity of the
Carians. The beehive-tombs, found on many sites on the mainland besides
Mycenae, are evidence both of a method of sepulture and of ideas of the
future state, which are alien to the practice and the thought of the
Greeks of history. It is only in one region--in the island of
Cyprus--that the culture of the Mycenaean age is found surviving into
the historical period. As late as the beginning of the 5th century B.C.
Cyprus is still ruled by kings, the alphabet has not yet displaced a
syllabary, the characteristic forms of Mycenaean vases still linger on,
and the chief deity of the island is the goddess with attendant doves
whose images are among the common objects of Mycenaean finds.
3. _The Homeric Age._--Alike in Crete and on the mainland the
civilization disclosed by excavation comes abruptly to an end. In Crete
we can trace it back from c. 1200 B.C. to the Neolithic period. From the
Stone Age to the end of the Minoan Age the development is continuous and
uninterrupted.[4] But between the culture of the Early Age and the
culture of the Dorians, who occupied the island in historical times, no
connexion whatever can be established. Between the two there is a great
gulf fixed. It would be difficult to imagine a greater contrast than
that presented by the rude life of the Dorian communities in Crete when
it is compared with the political power, the material resources and the
extensive commerce of the earlier period. The same gap between the
archaeological age and the historical exists on the mainland also. It is
true that the solution of continuity is here less complete. Mycenaean
art continues, here and there, in a debased form down to the 9th
century, a date to which we can trace back the beginnings of the later
Greek art. On one or two lines (e.g. architecture) it is even possible
to establish some sort of connexion between them. But Greek art as a
whole cannot be evolved from Mycenaean art. We cannot bridge over the
interval that separates the latter art, even in its decline, from the
former. It is sufficient to compare the "dipylon" ware (with which the
process of development begins, which culminates in the pottery of the
Great Age) with the Mycenaean vases, to satisfy oneself that the gulf
exists. What then is the relation of the Heroic or Homeric Age (i.e. the
age whose life is portrayed for us in the poems of Homer) to the
Earliest Age? It too presents many contrasts to the later periods. On
the other hand, it presents contrasts to the Minoan Age, which, in their
way, are not less striking. Is it then to be identified with the
Mycenaean Age? Schliemann, the discoverer of the Mycenaean culture,
unhesitatingly identified Mycenaean with Homeric. He even identified the
shaft-graves of Mycenae with the tombs of Agamemnon and Clytemnestra.
Later inquirers, while refusing to discover so literal a correspondence
between things Homeric and things Mycenaean, have not hesitated to
accept a general correspondence between the Homeric Age and the
Mycenaean. Where it is a case of comparing literary evidence with
archaeological, an exact coincidence is not of course to be demanded.
The most that can be asked is that a general correspondence should be
established. It may be conceded that the case for such a correspondence
appears prima facie a strong one. There is much in Homer that seems to
find confirmation or explanation in Schliemann's finds. Mycenae is
Agamemnon's city; the plan of the Homeric house agrees fairly well with
the palaces at Tiryns and Mycenae; the forms and the technique of
Mycenaean art serve to illustrate passages in the poems; such are only a
few of the arguments that have been urged. It is the great merit of
Professor Ridgeway's work (_The Early Age of Greece_) that it has
demonstrated, once and for all, that Mycenaean is not Homeric pure and
simple. He insists upon differences as great as the resemblances. Iron
is in common use in Homer; it is practically unknown to the Mycenaeans.
In place of the round shield and the metal armour of the Homeric
soldier, we find at Mycenae that the warrior is lightly clad in linen,
and that he fights behind an oblong shield, which covers the whole body;
nor are the chariots the same in form. The Homeric dead are cremated;
the Mycenaean are buried. The gods of Homer are the deities of Olympus,
of whose cult no traces are to be found in the Mycenaean Age. The
novelty of Professor Ridgeway's theory is that for the accepted
equation, Homeric = Achaean = Mycenaean, he proposes to substitute the
equations, Homeric = Achaean = post-Mycenaean, and Mycenaean =
pre-Achaean = Pelasgian. The Mycenaean civilization he attributes to the
Pelasgians, whom he regards as the indigenous population of Greece, the
ancestors of the later Greeks, and themselves Greek both in speech and
blood. The Homeric heroes are Achaeans, a fair-haired Celtic race, whose
home was in the Danube valley, where they had learned the use of iron.
In Greece they are newcomers, a conquering class comparable to the
Norman invaders of England or Ireland, and like them they have acquired
the language of their subjects in the course of a few generations. The
Homeric civilization is thus Achaean, i.e. it is Pelasgian (Mycenaean)
civilization, appropriated by a ruder race; but the Homeric culture is
far inferior to the Mycenaean. Here, at any rate, the Norman analogy
breaks down. Norman art in England is far in advance of Saxon. Even in
Normandy (as in Sicily), where the Norman appropriated rather than
introduced, he not only assimilated but developed. In Greece the process
must have been reversed.
The theory thus outlined is probably stronger on its destructive side
than on its constructive. To treat the Achaeans as an immigrant race is
to run counter to the tradition of the Greeks themselves, by whom the
Achaeans were regarded as indigenous (cf. Herod. viii. 73). Nor is the
Pelasgian part of the theory easy to reconcile with the Homeric
evidence. If the Achaeans were a conquering class ruling over a
Pelasgian population, we should expect to find this difference of race a
prominent feature in Homeric society. We should, at least, expect to
find a Pelasgian background to the Homeric picture. As a matter of fact,
we find nothing of the sort. There is no consciousness in the Homeric
poems of a distinction of race between the governing and the subject
classes. There are, indeed, Pelasgians in Homer, but the references
either to the people or the name are extraordinarily few. They appear as
a people, presumably in Asia Minor, in alliance with the Trojans; they
appear also, in a single passage, as one of the tribes inhabiting Crete.
The name survives in "Pelasgicon Argos," which is probably to be
identified with the valley of the Spercheius,[5] and as an epithet of
Zeus of Dodona. The population, however, of Pelasgicon Argos and of
Dodona is no longer Pelasgian. Thus, in the age of Homer, the Pelasgians
belong, so far as Greece proper is concerned, to a past that is already
remote. It is inadmissible to appeal to Herodotus against Homer. For the
conditions of the Homeric age Homer is the sole authoritative witness.
If, however, Professor Ridgeway has failed to prove that "Mycenaean"
equals "Pelasgian," he has certainly proved that much that is Homeric is
post-Mycenaean. It is possible that different strata are to be
distinguished in the Homeric poems. There are passages which seem to
assume the conditions of the Mycenaean age; there are others which
presuppose the conditions of a later age. It may be that the latter
passages reflect the circumstances of the poet's own times, while the
former ones reproduce those of an earlier period. If so, the
substitution of iron for bronze must have been effected in the interval
between the earlier and the later periods.
The Homeric state.
It has already been pointed out that the question whether the makers of
the Minoan and Mycenaean civilizations were Greeks must still be
regarded as an open one. No such question can be raised as to the
Homeric Age. The Achaeans may or may not have been Greek in blood. What
is certain is that the Achaean Age forms an integral part of Greek
history. Alike on the linguistic, the religious and the political sides,
Homer is the starting-point of subsequent developments. In the Greek
dialects the great distinction is that between the Doric and the rest.
Of the non-Doric dialects the two main groups are the Aeolic and Ionic,
both of which have been developed, by a gradual process of
differentiation, from the language of the Homeric poems. With regard to
religion it is sufficient to refer to the judgment of Herodotus, that it
was Homer and Hesiod who were the authors of the Greek theogony (ii. 53
[Greek: houtoi eisi hoi poiêsantes theogoniên Hellêsi]). It is a
commonplace that Homer was the Bible of the Greeks. On the political
side, Greek constitutional development would be unintelligible without
Homer. When Greek history, in the proper sense, begins, oligarchy is
almost universal. Everywhere, however, an antecedent stage of monarchy
has to be presupposed. In the Homeric system monarchy is the sole form
of government; but it is monarchy already well on the way to being
transformed into oligarchy. In the person of the king are united the
functions of priest, of judge and of leader in war. He belongs to a
family which claims divine descent and his office is hereditary. He is,
however, no despotic monarch. He is compelled by custom to consult the
council (_boule_) of the elders, or chiefs. He must ask their opinion,
and, if he fails to obtain their consent, he has no power to enforce his
will. Even when he has obtained the consent of the council, the proposal
still awaits the approval of the assembly (_agora_), of the people.
Homeric society.
Thus in the Homeric state we find the germs not only of the oligarchy
and democracy of later Greece, but also of all the various forms of
constitution known to the Western world. And a monarchy such as is
depicted in the Homeric poems is clearly ripe for transmutation into
oligarchy. The chiefs are addressed as kings ([Greek: basilêes]), and
claim, equally with the monarch, descent from the gods. In Homer, again,
we can trace the later organization into tribe ([Greek: phylê]), clan
([Greek: genos]), and phratry, which is characteristic of Greek society
in the historical period, and meets us in analogous forms in other Aryan
societies. The [Greek: genos] corresponds to the Roman _gens_, the
[Greek: phylê] to the Roman tribe, and the phratry to the _curia_. The
importance of the _phratry_ in Homeric society is illustrated by the
well-known passage (_Iliad_ ix. 63) in which the outcast is described as
"one who belongs to no phratry" ([Greek: aphrêtôr]). It is a society
that is, of course, based upon slavery, but it is slavery in its least
repulsive aspect. The treatment which Eumaeus and Eurycleia receive at
the hands of the poet of the _Odyssey_ is highly creditable to the
humanity of the age. A society which regarded the slave as a mere
chattel would have been impatient of the interest shown in a swineherd
and a nurse. It is a society, too, that exhibits many of the
distinguishing traits of later Greek life. Feasting and quarrels, it is
true, are of more moment to the heroes than to the contemporaries of
Pericles or Plato; but "music" and "gymnastic" (though the terms must be
understood in a more restricted sense) are as distinctive of the age of
Homer as of that of Pindar. In one respect there is retrogression in the
historical period. Woman in Homeric society enjoys a greater freedom,
and receives greater respect, than in the Athens of Sophocles and
Pericles.
4. _The Growth of the Greek States._--The Greek world at the beginning
of the 6th century B.C. presents a picture in many respects different
from that of the Homeric Age. The Greek race is no longer confined to
the Greek peninsula. It occupies the islands of the Aegean, the western
seaboard of Asia Minor, the coasts of Macedonia and Thrace, of southern
Italy and Sicily. Scattered settlements are found as far apart as the
mouth of the Rhone, the north of Africa, the Crimea and the eastern end
of the Black Sea. The Greeks are called by a national name, _Hellenes_,
the symbol of a fully-developed national self-consciousness. They are
divided into three great branches, the Dorian, the Ionian and the
Aeolian, names almost, or entirely, unknown to Homer. The heroic
monarchy has nearly everywhere disappeared. In Greece proper, south of
Thermopylae, it survives, but in a peculiar form, in the Spartan state
alone. What is the significance and the explanation of contrasts so
profound?
Dorian invasion.
It is probable that the explanation is to be found, directly or
indirectly, in a single cause, the Dorian invasion. In Homer the Dorians
are mentioned in one passage only (_Odyssey_ xix. 177). They there
appear as one of the races which inhabit Crete. In the historical period
the whole Peloponnese, with the exception of Arcadia, Elis and Achaea,
is Dorian. In northern Greece the Dorians occupy the little state of
Doris, and in the Aegean they form the population of Crete, Rhodes and
some smaller islands. Thus the chief centres of Minoan and Mycenaean
culture have passed into Dorian hands, and the chief seats of Achaean
power are included in Dorian states. Greek tradition explained the
overthrow of the Achaean system by an invasion of the Peloponnese by the
Dorians, a northern tribe, which had found a temporary home in Doris.
The story ran that, after an unsuccessful attempt to force an entrance
by the Isthmus of Corinth, they had crossed from Naupactus, at the mouth
of the Corinthian Gulf, landed on the opposite shore, and made their way
into the heart of the Peloponnese, where a single victory gave them
possession of the Achaean states. Their conquests were divided among the
invaders into three shares, for which lots were cast, and thus the three
states of Argos, Sparta and Messenia were created. There is much in this
tradition that is impossible or improbable. It is impossible, e.g. for
the tiny state of Doris, with its three or four "small, sad villages"
([Greek: poleis mikrai kai lyprochôroi], Strabo, p. 427), to have
furnished a force of invaders sufficient to conquer and re-people the
greater part of the Peloponnese. It is improbable that the conquest
should have been either as sudden, or as complete, as the legend
represents. On the contrary, there are indications that the conquest was
gradual, and that the displacement of the older population was
incomplete. The improbability of the details affords, however, no ground
for questioning the reality of the invasion.[6] The tradition can be
traced back at Sparta to the 7th century B.C. (Tyrtaeus, quoted by
Strabo, p. 362), and there is abundant evidence, other than that of
legend, to corroborate it. There is the Dorian name, to begin with. If,
as Beloch supposes, it originated on the coast of Asia Minor, where it
served to distinguish the settlers in Rhodes and the neighbouring
islands from the Ionians and Aeolians to the north of them, how came the
great and famous states of the Peloponnese to adopt a name in use among
the petty colonies planted by their kinsmen across the sea? Or, if
Dorian is simply Old Peloponnesian, how are we to account for the Doric
dialect or the Dorian pride of race?
It is true that there are great differences between the literary Doric,
the dialect of Corinth and Argos, and the dialects of Laconia and Crete,
and that there are affinities between the dialect of Laconia and the
non-Dorian dialects of Arcadia and Elis. It is equally true, however,
and of far more consequence, that all the Doric dialects are
distinguished from all other Greek dialects by certain common
characteristics. Perhaps the strongest sentiment in the Dorian nature is
the pride of race. Indeed, it looks as if the Dorians claimed to be the
sole genuine Hellenes. How can we account for an indigenous population,
first imagining itself to be immigrant, and then developing a contempt
for the rest of the race, equally indigenous with itself, on account of
a fictitious difference in origin? Finally, there is the archaeological
evidence. The older civilization comes to an abrupt end, and it does so,
on the mainland at least, at the very period to which tradition assigns
the Dorian migration. Its development is greatest, and its overthrow
most complete, precisely in the regions occupied by the Dorians and the
other tribes, whose migrations were traditionally connected with theirs.
It is hardly too much to say that the archaeologist would have been
compelled to postulate an inroad into central and southern Greece of
tribes from the north, at a lower level of culture, in the course of the
12th and 11th centuries B.C., if the historian had not been able to
direct him to the traditions of the great migrations ([Greek:
metanastaseis]), of which the Dorian invasion was the chief. With the
Dorian migration Greek tradition connected the expansion of the Greek
race eastwards across the Aegean. In the historical period the Greek
settlements on the western coast of Asia Minor fall into three clearly
defined groups. To the north is the Aeolic group, consisting of the
island of Lesbos and twelve towns, mostly insignificant, on the opposite
mainland. To the south is the Dorian _hexapolis_, consisting of Cnidus
and Halicarnassus on the mainland, and the islands of Rhodes and Cos. In
the centre comes the Ionian _dodecapolis_, a group consisting of ten
towns on the mainland, together with the islands of Samos and Chios. Of
these three groups, the Ionian is incomparably the most important. The
Ionians also occupy Euboea and the Cyclades. Although it would appear
that Cyprus (and possibly Pamphylia) had been occupied by settlers from
Greece in the Mycenaean age, Greek tradition is probably correct in
putting the colonization of Asia Minor and the islands of the Aegean
after the Dorian migration. Both the Homeric and the archaeological
evidence seem to point to the same conclusion. Between Rhodes on the
south and the Troad on the north scarcely any Mycenaean remains have
been found. Homer is ignorant of any Greeks east of Euboea. If the poems
are earlier than the Dorian Invasion, his silence is conclusive. If the
poems are some centuries later than the Invasion, they at least prove
that, within a few generations of that event, it was the belief of the
Greeks of Asia Minor that their ancestors had crossed the seas after the
close of the Heroic Age. It is probable, too, that the names Ionian and
Aeolian, the former of which is found once in Homer, and the latter not
at all, originated among the colonists in Asia Minor, and served to
designate, in the first instance, the members of the Ionic and Aeolic
_dodecapoleis_. As Curtius[7] pointed out, the only Ionia known to
history is in Asia Minor. It does not follow that Ionia is the original
home of the Ionian race, as Curtius argued. It almost certainly follows,
however, that it is the original home of the Ionian name.
Government.
It is less easy to account for the name _Hellenes_. The Greeks were
profoundly conscious of their common nationality, and of the gulf that
separated them from the rest of mankind. They themselves recognized a
common race and language, and a common type of religion and culture, as
the chief factors in this sentiment of nationality (see Herod. viii. 144
[Greek: to Hellênikon eon homaimon te kai homoglôsson kai theôn
hidrymata te koina kai thusiai êthea te homotropa]). "Hellenes" was the
name of their common race, and "Hellas" of their common country. In
Homer there is no distinct consciousness of a common nationality, and
consequently no antithesis of Greek and Barbarian (see Thuc. i. 3). Nor
is there a true collective name. There are indeed Hellenes (though the
name occurs in one passage only, _Iliad_ ii. 684), and there is a
Hellas; but his Hellas, whatever its precise signification may be, is,
at any rate, not equivalent either to Greece proper or to the land of
the Greeks, and his Hellenes are the inhabitants of a small district to
the south of Thessaly. It is possible that the diffusion of the Hellenic
name was due to the Dorian invaders. Its use can be traced back to the
first half of the 7th century. Not less obscure are the causes of the
fall of monarchy. It cannot have been the immediate effect of the
Dorian conquest, for the states founded by the Dorians were at first
monarchically governed. It may, however, have been an indirect effect of
it. We have already seen that the power of the Homeric king is more
limited than that of the rulers of Cnossus, Tiryns or Mycenae. In other
words, monarchy is already in decay at the epoch of the Invasion. The
Invasion, in its effects on wealth, commerce and civilization, is almost
comparable to the irruption of the barbarians into the Roman empire. The
monarch of the Minoan and Mycenaean age has extensive revenues at his
command; the monarch of the early Dorian states is little better than a
petty chief. Thus the interval, once a wide one, that separates him from
the nobles tends to disappear. The decay of monarchy was gradual; much
more gradual than is generally recognized. There were parts of the Greek
world in which it still survived in the 6th century, e.g. Sparta,
Cyrene, Cyprus, and possibly Argos and Tarentum. Both Herodotus and
Thucydides apply the title "king" ([Greek: basileus]) to the rulers of
Thessaly in the 5th century. The date at which monarchy gave place to a
republican form of government must have differed, and differed widely,
in different cases. The traditions relating to the foundation of Cyrene
assume the existence of monarchy in Thera and in Crete in the middle of
the 7th century (Herodotus iv. 150 and 154), and the reign of
Amphicrates at Samos (Herod, iii. 59) can hardly be placed more than a
generation earlier. In view of our general ignorance of the history of
the 7th and 8th centuries, it is hazardous to pronounce these instances
exceptional. On the other hand, the change from monarchy to oligarchy
was completed at Athens before the end of the 8th century, and at a
still earlier date in some of the other states. The process, again, by
which the change was effected was, in all probability, less uniform than
is generally assumed. There are extremely few cases in which we have any
trustworthy evidence, and the instances about which we are informed
refuse to be reduced to any common type. In Greece proper our
information is fullest in the case of Athens and Argos. In the former
case, the king is gradually stripped of his powers by a process of
devolution. An hereditary king, ruling for life, is replaced by three
annual and elective magistrates, between whom are divided the executive,
military and religious functions of the monarch (see ARCHON). At Argos
the fall of the monarchy is preceded by an aggrandisement of the royal
prerogatives. There is nothing in common between these two cases, and
there is no reason to suppose that the process elsewhere was analogous
to that at Athens. Everywhere, however, oligarchy is the form of
government which succeeds to monarchy. Political power is monopolized by
a class of nobles, whose claim to govern is based upon birth and the
possession of land, the most valuable form of property in an early
society. Sometimes power is confined to a single clan (e.g. the
Bacchiadae at Corinth); more commonly, as at Athens, all houses that are
noble are equally privileged. In every case there is found, as the
adviser of the executive, a Boule, or council, representative of the
privileged class. Without such a council a Greek oligarchy is
inconceivable. The relations of the executive to the council doubtless
varied. At Athens it is clear that the real authority was exercised by
the archons;[8] in many states the magistrates were probably subordinate
to the council (cf. the relation of the consuls to the senate at Rome).
And it is clear that the way in which the oligarchies used their power
varied also. The cases in which the power was abused are naturally the
ones of which we hear; for an abuse of power gave rise to discontent and
was the ultimate cause of revolution. We hear little or nothing of the
cases in which power was exercised wisely. Happy is the constitution
which has no annals! We know, however, that oligarchy held its ground
for generations, or even for centuries, in a large proportion of the
Greek states; and a government which, like the oligarchies of Elis,
Thebes or Aegina, could maintain itself for three or four centuries
cannot have been merely oppressive.
Trade.
The period of the transition from monarchy to oligarchy is the period in
which commerce begins to develop, and trade-routes to be organized.
Greece had been the centre of an active trade in the Minoan and
Mycenaean epochs. The products of Crete and of the Peloponnese had found
their way to Egypt and Asia Minor. The overthrow of the older
civilization put an end to commerce. The seas became insecure and
intercourse with the East was interrupted. Our earliest glimpses of the
Aegean after the period of the migrations disclose the raids of the
pirate and the activity of the Phoenician trader. It is not till the 8th
century has dawned that trade begins to revive, and the Phoenician has
to retire before his Greek competitor. For some time to come, however,
no clear distinction is drawn between the trader and the pirate. The
pioneers of Greek trade in the West are the pirates of Cumae (Thucyd.
vi. 4). The expansion of Greek commerce, unlike that of the commerce of
the modern world, was not connected with any great scientific
discoveries. There is nothing in the history of ancient navigation that
is analogous to the invention of the mariner's compass or of the
steam-engine. In spite of this, the development of Greek commerce in the
7th and 6th centuries was rapid. It must have been assisted by the great
discovery of the early part of the former century, the invention of
coined money. To the Lydians, rather than the Greeks, belongs the credit
of the discovery; but it was the genius of the latter race that divined
the importance of the invention and spread its use. The coinage of the
Ionian towns goes back to the reign of Gyges (c. 675 B.C.). And it is in
Ionia that commercial development is earliest and greatest. In the most
distant regions the Ionian is first in the field. Egypt and the Black
Sea are both opened up to Greek trade by Miletus, the Adriatic and the
Western Mediterranean by Phocaea and Samos. It is significant that of
the twelve states engaged in the Egyptian trade in the 6th century all,
with the exception of Aegina, are from the eastern side of the Aegean
(Herod. ii. 178). On the western side the chief centres of trade during
these centuries were the islands of Euboea and Aegina and the town of
Corinth. The Aeginetan are the earliest coins of Greece proper (c. 650
B.C.); and the two rival scales of weights and measures, in use amongst
the Greeks of every age, are the Aeginetan and the Euboic. Commerce
naturally gave rise to commercial leagues, and commercial relations
tended to bring about political alliances. Foreign policy even at this
early epoch seems to have been largely determined by considerations of
commerce. Two leagues, the members of which were connected by political
as well as commercial ties, can be recognized. At the head of each stood
one of the two rival powers in the island of Euboea, Chalcis and
Eretria. Their primary object was doubtless protection from the pirate
and the foreigner. Competing routes were organized at an early date
under their influence, and their trading connexions can be traced from
the heart of Asia Minor to the north of Italy. Miletus, Sybaris and
Etruria were members of the Eretrian league; Samos, Corinth, Rhegium and
Zancle (commanding the Straits of Messina), and Cumae, on the Bay of
Naples, of the Chalcidian. The wool of the Phrygian uplands, woven in
the looms of Miletus, reached the Etruscan markets by way of Sybaris;
through Cumae, Rome and the rest of Latium obtained the elements of
Greek culture. Greek trade, however, was confined to the Mediterranean
area. The Phoenician and the Carthaginian navigators penetrated to
Britain; they discovered the passage round the Cape two thousand years
before Vasco da Gama's time. The Greek sailor dared not adventure
himself outside the Black Sea, the Adriatic and the Mediterranean. Greek
trade, too, was essentially maritime. Ports visited by Greek vessels
were often the starting points of trade-routes into the interior; the
traffic along those routes was left in the hands of the natives (see
e.g. Herod. iv. 24). One service, the importance of which can hardly be
overestimated, was rendered to civilization by the Greek traders--the
invention of geography. The science of geography is the invention of the
Greeks. The first maps were made by them (in the 6th century); and it
was the discoveries and surveys of their sailors that made map-making
possible.
Colonization.
Closely connected with the history of Greek trade is the history of
Greek colonization. The period of colonization, in its narrower sense,
extends from the middle of the 8th to the middle of the 6th century.
Greek colonization is, however, merely a continuation of the process
which at an earlier epoch had led to the settlement, first of Cyprus,
and then of the islands and coasts of the Aegean. From the earlier
settlements the colonization of the historical period is distinguished
by three characteristics. The later colony acknowledges a definite
_metropolis_ ("mother-city"); it is planted by a definite _oecist_
([Greek: oikistês]); it has a definite date assigned to its
foundation.[9] It would be a mistake to regard Greek colonization as
commercial in origin, in the sense that the colonies were in all cases
established as trading-posts. This was the case with the Phoenician and
Carthaginian settlements, most of which remained mere factories; and
some of the Greek colonies (e.g. many of those planted by Miletus on the
shores of the Black Sea) bore this character. The typical Greek colony,
however, was neither in origin nor in development a mere trading-post.
It was, or it became, a _polis_, a city-state, in which was reproduced
the life of the parent state. Nor was Greek colonization, like the
emigration from Europe to America and Australia in the 19th century,
simply the result of over-population. The causes were as various as
those which can be traced in the history of modern colonization. Those
which were established for the purposes of trade may be compared to the
factories of the Portuguese and Dutch in Africa and the Far East. Others
were the result of political discontent, in some form or shape; these
may be compared to the Puritan settlements in New England. Others again
were due to ambition or the mere love of adventure (see Herod. v. 42
ff., the career of Dorieus). But however various the causes, two
conditions must always be presupposed--an expansion of commerce and a
growth of population. Within the narrow limits of the city-state there
was a constant tendency for population to become redundant, until, as in
the later centuries of Greek life, its growth was artificially
restricted. Alike from the Roman colonies, and from those founded by the
European nations in the course of the last few centuries, the Greek
colonies are distinguished by a fundamental contrast. It is significant
that the contrast is a political one. The Roman colony was in a position
of entire subordination to the Roman state, of which it formed a part.
The modern colony was, in varying degrees, in political subjection to
the home government. The Greek colony was completely independent; and it
was independent from the first. The ties that united a colony to its
metropolis were those of sentiment and interest; the political tie did
not exist. There were, it is true, exceptions. The colonies established
by imperial Athens closely resembled the colonies of imperial Rome. The
cleruchy (q.v.) formed part of the Athenian state; the cleruchs kept
their status as citizens of Athens and acted as a military garrison. And
if the political tie, in the proper sense, was wanting, it was
inevitable that political relations should spring out of commercial or
sentimental ones. Thus we find Corinth interfering twice to save her
colony Syracuse from destruction, and Megara bringing about the revolt
of Byzantium, her colony, from Athens. Sometimes it is not easy to
distinguish political relations from a political tie (e.g. the relations
of Corinth, both in the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars, to Ambracia and
the neighbouring group of colonies). When we compare the development of
the Greek and the modern colonies we shall find that the development of
the former was even more rapid than that of the latter. In at least
three respects the Greek settler was at an advantage as compared with
the colonist of modern times. The differences of race, of colour and of
climate, with which the chief problems of modern colonization are
connected, played no part in the history of the Greek settlements. The
races amongst whom the Greeks planted themselves were in some cases on
a similar level of culture. Where the natives were still backward or
barbarous, they came of a stock either closely related to the Greek, or
at least separated from it by no great physical differences. We need
only contrast the Carian, the Sicel, the Thracian or even the Scythian,
with the native Australian, the Hottentot, the Red Indian or the Maori,
to apprehend the advantage of the Greek. Amalgamation with the native
races was easy, and it involved neither physical nor intellectual
degeneracy as its consequence. Of the races with which the Greeks came
in contact the Thracian was far from the highest in the scale of
culture; yet three of the greatest names in the Great Age of Athens are
those of men who had Thracian blood in their veins, viz. Themistocles,
Cimon and the historian Thucydides. In the absence of any distinction of
colour, no insuperable barrier existed between the Greek and the
hellenized native. The _demos_ of the colonial cities was largely
recruited from the native population,[10] nor was there anything in the
Greek world analogous to the "mean whites" or the "black belt." Of
hardly less importance were the climatic conditions. In this respect the
Mediterranean area is unique. There is no other region of the world of
equal extent in which these conditions are at once so uniform and so
favourable. Nowhere had the Greek settler to encounter a climate which
was either unsuited to his labour or subversive of his vigour. That in
spite of these advantages so little, comparatively speaking, was
effected in the work of Hellenization before the epoch of Alexander and
the Diadochi, was the effect of a single counteracting cause. The Greek
colonist, like the Greek trader, clung to the shore. He penetrated no
farther inland than the sea-breeze. Hence it was only in islands, such
as Sicily or Cyprus, that the process of Hellenization was complete.
Elsewhere the Greek settlements formed a mere fringe along the coast.
The tyrants.
To the 7th century there belongs another movement of high importance in
its bearing upon the economic, religious and literary development of
Greece, as well as upon its constitutional history. This movement is the
rise of the _tyrannis_. In the political writers of a later age the word
possesses a clear-cut connotation. From other forms of monarchy it is
distinguished by a twofold differentiation. The _tyrannus_ is an
unconstitutional ruler, and his authority is exercised over unwilling
subjects. In the 7th and 6th centuries the line was not drawn so
distinctly between the tyrant and the legitimate monarch. Even Herodotus
uses the words "tyrant" and "king" interchangeably (e.g. the princes of
Cyprus are called "kings" in v. 110 and "tyrants" in v. 109), so that it
is sometimes difficult to decide whether a legitimate monarch or a
tyrant is meant (e.g. Aristophilides of Tarentum, iii. 136, or Telys of
Sybaris, v. 44). But the distinction between the tyrant and the king of
the Heroic Age is a valid one. It is not true that his rule was always
exercised over unwilling subjects; it is true that his position was
always unconstitutional. The Homeric king is a legitimate monarch; his
authority is invested with the sanctions of religion and immemorial
custom. The tyrant is an illegitimate ruler; his authority is not
recognized, either by customary usage or by express enactment. But the
word "tyrant" was originally a neutral team; it did not necessarily
imply a misuse of power. The origin of the _tyrannis_ is obscure. The
word _tyrannus_ has been thought, with some reason, to be a Lydian one.
Probably both the name and the thing originated in the Greek colonies of
Asia Minor, though the earliest tyrants of whom we hear in Asia Minor
(at Ephesus and Miletus) are a generation later than the earliest in
Greece itself, where, both at Sicyon and at Corinth, tyranny appears to
date back to the second quarter of the 7th century. It is not unusual to
regard tyranny as a universal stage in the constitutional development of
the Greek states, and as a stage that occurs everywhere at one and the
same period. In reality, tyranny is confined to certain regions, and it
is a phenomenon that is peculiar to no one age or century. In Greece
proper, before the 4th century B.C., it is confined to a small group of
states round the Corinthian and Saronic Gulfs. The greater part of the
Peloponnese was exempt from it, and there is no good evidence for its
existence north of the Isthmus, except at Megara and Athens. It plays no
part in the history of the Greek cities in Chalcidice and Thrace. It
appears to have been rare in the Cyclades. The regions in which it finds
a congenial soil are two, Asia Minor and Sicily. Thus it is incorrect to
say that most Greek states passed through this stage. It is still wider
of the mark to assume that they passed through it at the same time.
There is no "Age of the Tyrants." Tyranny began in the Peloponnese a
hundred years before it appears in Sicily, and it has disappeared in the
Peloponnese almost before it begins in Sicily. In the latter the great
age of tyranny comes at the beginning of the 5th century; in the former
it is at the end of the 7th and the beginning of the 6th. At Athens the
history of tyranny begins after it has ended both at Sicyon and Corinth.
There is, indeed, a period in which tyranny is non-existent in the Greek
states; roughly speaking, the last sixty years of the 5th century. But
with this exception, there is no period in which the tyrant is not to be
found. The greatest of all the tyrannies, that of Dionysius at Syracuse,
belongs to the 4th century. Nor must it be assumed that tyranny always
comes at the same stage in the history of a constitution; that it is
always a stage between oligarchy and democracy. At Corinth it is
followed, not by democracy but by oligarchy, and it is an oligarchy that
lasts, with a brief interruption, for two hundred and fifty years. At
Athens it is not immediately preceded by oligarchy. Between the Eupatrid
oligarchy and the rule of Peisistratus there comes the timocracy of
Solon. These exceptions do not stand alone. The cause of tyranny is, in
one sense, uniform. In the earlier centuries, at any rate, tyranny is
always the expression of discontent; the tyrant is always the champion
of a cause. But it would be a mistake to suppose that the discontent is
necessarily political, or that the cause which he champions is always a
constitutional one. At Sicyon it is a racial one; Cleisthenes is the
champion of the older population against their Dorian oppressors (see
Herod. v. 67, 68). At Athens the discontent is economic rather than
political; Peisistratus is the champion of the Diacrii, the inhabitants
of the poorest region of Attica. The party-strifes of which we hear in
the early history of Miletus, which doubtless gave the tyrant his
opportunity, are concerned with the claims of rival industrial classes.
In Sicily the tyrant is the ally of the rich and the foe of the _demos_,
and the cause which he champions, both in the 5th century and the 4th,
is a national one, that of the Greek against the Carthaginian. We may
suspect that in Greece itself the tyrannies of the 7th century are the
expression of an anti-Dorian reaction. It can hardly be an accident that
the states in which the tyrannis is found at this epoch, Corinth,
Megara, Sicyon, Epidaurus, are all of them states in which a Dorian
upper class ruled over a subject population. In Asia Minor the
_tyrannis_ assumes a peculiar character after the Persian conquest. The
tyrant rules as the deputy of the Persian satrap. Thus in the East the
tyrant is the enemy of the national cause; in the West, in Sicily, he is
its champion.
Tyranny is not a phenomenon peculiar to Greek history. It is possible to
find analogies to it in Roman history, in the power of Caesar, or of the
Caesars; in the despotisms of medieval Italy; or even in the Napoleonic
empire. Between the tyrant and the Italian despot there is indeed a real
analogy; but between the Roman principate and the Greek _tyrannis_ there
are two essential differences. In the first place, the principate was
expressed in constitutional forms, or veiled under constitutional
fictions; the tyrant stood altogether outside the constitution. And,
secondly, at Rome both Julius and Augustus owed their position to the
power of the sword. The power of the sword, it is true, plays a large
part in the history of the later tyrants (e.g. Dionysius of Syracuse);
the earlier ones, however, had no mercenary armies at their command. We
can hardly compare the bodyguard of Peisistratus to the legions of the
first or the second Caesar.
The view taken of the _tyrannis_ in Greek literature is almost uniformly
unfavourable. In this respect there is no difference between Plato and
Aristotle, or between Herodotus and the later historians.[11] His policy
is represented as purely selfish, and his rule as oppressive. Herodotus
is influenced partly by the traditions current among the oligarchs, who
had been the chief sufferers, and partly by the odious associations
which had gathered round tyranny in Asia Minor. The philosophers write
under their impressions of the later _tyrannis_, and their account is
largely an a priori one. It is seldom that we find any attempt, either
in the philosophers or the historians, to do justice to the real
services rendered by the tyrants.[12] Their first service was a
constitutional one. They helped to break down the power of the old
aristocratic houses, and thus to create the social and political
conditions indispensable to democracy. The _tyrannis_ involved the
sacrifice of liberty in the cause of equality. When tyranny falls, it is
never succeeded by the aristocracies which it had overthrown. It is
frequently succeeded by an oligarchy, but it is an oligarchy in which
the claim to exclusive power is based, not upon mere birth, but upon
wealth, or the possession of land. It would be unfair to treat this
service as one that was rendered unconsciously and unwillingly. Where
the tyrant asserted the claims of an oppressed class, he consciously
aimed at the destruction of privilege and the effacement of class
distinctions. Hence it is unjust to treat his power as resting upon mere
force. A government which can last eighty or a hundred years, as was the
case with the tyrannies at Corinth and Sicyon, must have a moral force
behind it. It must rest upon the consent of its subjects. The second
service which the tyrants rendered to Greece was a political one. Their
policy tended to break down the barriers which isolated each petty state
from its neighbours. In their history we can trace a system of
widespread alliances, which are often cemented by matrimonial
connexions. The Cypselid tyrants of Corinth appear to have been allied
with the royal families of Egypt, Lydia and Phrygia, as well as with the
tyrants of Miletus and Epidaurus, and with some of the great Athenian
families. In Sicily we find a league of the northern tyrants opposed to
a league of the southern; and in each ease there is a corresponding
matrimonial alliance. Anaxilaus of Rhegium is the son-in-law and ally of
Terillus of Himera; Gelo of Syracuse stands in the same relation to
Theron of Agrigentum. Royal marriages have played a great part in the
politics of Europe. In the comparison of Greek and modern history it has
been too often forgotten how great a difference it makes, and how great
a disadvantage it involves, to a republic that it has neither sons nor
daughters to give in marriage. In commerce and colonization the tyrants
were only continuing the work of the oligarchies to which they
succeeded. Greek trade owed its expansion to the intelligent efforts of
the oligarchs who ruled at Miletus and Corinth, in Samos, Aegina and
Euboea; but in particular cases, such as Miletus, Corinth, Sicyon and
Athens, there was a further development, and a still more rapid growth,
under the tyrants. In the same way, the foundation of the colonies was
in most cases due to the policy of the oligarchical governments. They
can claim credit for the colonies of Chalcis and Eretria, of Megara,
Phocaea and Samos, as well as for the great Achaean settlements in
southern Italy. The Cypselids at Corinth, and Thrasybulus at Miletus,
are instances of tyrants who colonized on a great scale.
Religion under the "tyrants."
In their religious policy the tyrants went far to democratize Greek
religion. The functions of monarchy had been largely religious; but,
while the king was necessarily a priest, he was not the only priest in
the community. There were special priesthoods, hereditary in particular
families, even in the monarchical period; and upon the fall of the
monarchy, while the priestly functions of the kings passed to republican
magistrates, the priesthoods which were in the exclusive possession of
the great families tended to become the important ones. Thus, before the
rise of tyranny, Greek religion is aristocratic. The cults recognized
by the state are the _sacra_ of noble clans. The religious prerogatives
of the nobles helped to confirm their political ones, and, as long as
religion retained its aristocratic character, it was impossible for
democracy to take root. The policy of the tyrants aimed at fostering
popular cults which had no associations with the old families, and at
establishing new festivals. The cult of the wine-god, Dionysus, was thus
fostered at Sicyon by Cleisthenes, and at Corinth by the Cypselids;
while at Athens a new festival of this deity, which so completely
overshadowed the older festival that it became known as the Great
Dionysia, probably owed its institution to Peisistratus. Another
festival, the Panathenaea, which had been instituted only a few years
before his rise to power, became under his rule, and thanks to his
policy, the chief national festival of the Athenian state. Everywhere,
again, we find the tyrants the patrons of literature. Pindar and
Bacchylides, Aeschylus and Simonides found a welcome at the court of
Hiero. Polycrates was the patron of Anacreon, Periander of Arion. To
Peisistratus has been attributed, possibly not without reason, the first
critical edition of the text of Homer, a work as important in the
literary history of Greece as was the issue of the Authorized Version of
the Bible in English history. If we would judge fairly of tyranny, and
of what it contributed to the development of Greece, we must remember
how many states there were in whose history the period of greatest power
coincides with the rule of a tyrant. This is unquestionably true of
Corinth and Sicyon, as well as of Syracuse in the 5th, and again in the
4th century; it is probably true of Samos and Miletus. In the case of
Athens it is only the splendour of the Great Age that blinds us to the
greatness of the results achieved by the policy of the Peisistratids.
The arts.
With the overthrow of this dynasty tyranny disappears from Greece proper
for more than a century. During the century and a half which had elapsed
since its first appearance the whole aspect of Greek life, and of the
Greek world, had changed. The development was as yet incomplete, but the
lines on which it was to proceed had been clearly marked out. Political
power was no longer the monopoly of a class. The struggle between the
"few" and the "many" had begun; in one state at least (Athens) the
victory of the "many" was assured. The first chapter in the history of
democracy was already written. In the art of war the two innovations
which were ultimately to establish the military supremacy of Greece,
hoplite tactics and the trireme, had already been introduced. Greek
literature was no longer synonymous with epic poetry. Some of its most
distinctive forms had not yet been evolved; indeed, it is only quite at
the end of the period that prose-writing begins; but both lyric and
elegiac poetry had been brought to perfection. In art, statuary was
still comparatively stiff and crude; but in other branches, in
architecture, in vase-painting and in coin-types, the aesthetic genius
of the race had asserted its pre-eminence. Philosophy, the supreme gift
of Greece to the modern world, had become a living power. Some of her
most original thinkers belong to the 6th century. Criticism had been
applied to everything in turn: to the gods, to conduct, and to the
conception of the universe. Before the Great Age begins, the claims of
intellectual as well as of political freedom had been vindicated. It was
not, however, in Greece proper that progress had been greatest. In the
next century the centre of gravity of Greek civilization shifts to the
western side of the Aegean; in the 6th century it must be looked for at
Miletus, rather than at Athens. In order to estimate how far the
development of Greece had advanced, or to appreciate the distinctive
features of Greek life at this period, we must study Ionia, rather than
Attica or the Peloponnese. Almost all that is greatest and most
characteristic is to be found on the eastern side of the Aegean. The
great names in the history of science and philosophy before the
beginning of the 5th century--Thales, Pythagoras, Xenophanes,
Heraclitus, Parmenides, Anaximander, Hecataeus; names which are
representative of mathematics, astronomy, geography and metaphysics, are
all, without exception, Ionian. In poetry, too, the most famous names,
if not so exclusively Ionian, are connected either with the Asiatic
coast or with the Cyclades. Against Archilochus and Anacreon, Sappho
and Alcaeus, Greece has nothing better to set, after the age of Hesiod,
than Tyrtaeus and Theognis. Reference has already been made to the
greatness of the Ionians as navigators, as colonizers and as traders. In
wealth and in population, Miletus, at the epoch of the Persian conquest,
must have been far ahead of any city of European Greece. Sybaris, in
Magna Graecia, can have been its only rival outside Ionia. There were
two respects, however, in which the comparison was in favour of the
mother-country. In warfare, the superiority of the Spartan infantry was
unquestioned; in politics, the Greek states showed a greater power of
combination than the Ionian.
External relations.
Persian wars.
Finally, Ionia was the scene of the first conflicts with the Persian.
Here were decided the first stages of a struggle which was to determine
the place of Greece in the history of the world. The rise of Persia
under Cyrus was, as Herodotus saw, the turning-point of Greek history.
Hitherto the Greek had proved himself indispensable to the oriental
monarchies with which he had been brought into contact. In Egypt the
power of the Saite kings rested upon the support of their Greek
mercenaries. Amasis (569-525 B.C.), who is raised to the throne as the
leader of a reaction against the influence of the foreign garrison, ends
by showing greater favour to the Greek soldiery and the Greek traders
than all that were before him. With Lydia the relations were originally
hostile; the conquest of the Greek fringe is the constant aim of Lydian
policy. Greek influences, however, seem to have quickly permeated Lydia,
and to have penetrated to the court. Alyattes (610-560 B.C.) marries an
Ionian wife, and the succession is disputed between the son of this
marriage and Croesus, whose mother was a Carian. Croesus (560-546 B.C.)
secures the throne, only to become the lavish patron of Greek
sanctuaries and the ally of a Greek state. The history of Hellenism had
begun. It was the rise of Cyrus that closed the East to Greek enterprise
and Greek influences. In Persia we find the antithesis of all that is
characteristic of Greece--autocracy as opposed to liberty; a military
society organized on an aristocratic basis, to an industrial society,
animated by a democratic spirit; an army, whose strength lay in its
cavalry, to an army, in which the foot-soldier alone counted; a
morality, which assigned the chief place to veracity, to a morality
which subordinated it to other virtues; a religion, which ranks among
the great religions of the world, to a religion, which appeared to the
most spiritual minds among the Greeks themselves both immoral and
absurd. Between two such races there could be neither sympathy nor
mutual understanding. In the Great Age the Greek had learned to despise
the Persian, and the Persian to fear the Greek. In the 6th century it
was the Persian who despised, and the Greek who feared. The history of
the conflicts between the Ionian Greeks and the Persian empire affords a
striking example of the combination of intellectual strength and
political weakness in the character of a people. The causes of the
failure of the Ionians to offer a successful resistance to Persia, both
at the time of the conquest by Harpagus (546-545 B.C.) and in the Ionic
revolt (499-494 B.C.), are not far to seek. The centrifugal forces
always tended to prove the stronger in the Greek system, and nowhere
were they stronger than in Ionia. The tie of their tribal union proved
weaker, every time it was put to the test, than the political and
commercial interests of the individual states. A league of jealous
commercial rivals is certain not to stand the strain of a protracted
struggle against great odds. Against the advancing power of Lydia a
common resistance had not so much as been attempted. Miletus, the
greatest of the Ionian towns, had received aid from Chios alone. Against
Persia a common resistance was attempted. The Panionium, the centre of a
religious amphictyony, became for the moment the centre of a political
league. At the time of the Persian conquest Miletus held aloof. She
secured favourable terms for herself, and left the rest of Ionia to its
fate. In the later conflict, on the contrary, Miletus is the leader in
the revolt. The issue was determined, not as Herodotus represents it, by
the inherent indolence of the Ionian nature, but by the selfish policy
of the leading states. In the sea-fight at Lade (494 B.C.) the decisive
battle of the war, the Milesians and Chians fought with desperate
courage. The day was lost thanks to the treachery of the Samian and
Lesbian contingents.
The causes of the successful resistance of the Greeks to the invasions
of their country, first by Datis and Artaphernes (490 B.C.), in the
reign of Darius, and then by Xerxes in person (480-479 B.C.), are more
complex. Their success was partly due to a moral cause. And this was
realized by the Greeks themselves. They felt (see Herod. vii. 104) that
the subjects of a despot are no match for the citizens of a free state,
who yield obedience to a law which is self-imposed. But the cause was
not solely a moral one. Nor was the result due to the numbers and
efficiency of the Athenian fleet, in the degree that the Athenians
claimed (see Herod. vii. 139). The truth is that the conditions, both
political and military, were far more favourable to the Greek defence in
Europe than they had been in Asia. At this crisis the centripetal forces
proved stronger than the centrifugal. The moral ascendancy of Sparta was
the determining factor. In Sparta the Greeks had a leader whom all were
ready to obey (Herod. viii. 2). But for her influence the forces of
disintegration would have made themselves felt as quickly as in Ionia.
Sparta was confronted with immense difficulties in conducting the
defence against Xerxes. The two chief naval powers, Athens and Aegina,
had to be reconciled after a long and exasperating warfare (see AEGINA).
After Thermopylae, the whole of northern Greece, with the exception of
Athens and a few minor states, was lost to the Greek cause. The supposed
interests of the Peloponnesians, who formed the greater part of the
national forces, conflicted with the supposed interests of the
Athenians. A more impartial view than was possible to the generation for
which Herodotus wrote suggests that Sparta performed her task with
intelligence and patriotism. The claims of Athens and Sparta were about
equally balanced. And in spite of her great superiority in numbers,[13]
the military conditions were far from favourable to Persia. A land so
mountainous as Greece is was unsuited to the operations of cavalry, the
most efficient arm of the service in the Persian Army, as in most
oriental ones. Ignorance of local conditions, combined with the
dangerous nature of the Greek coast, exposed their ships to the risk of
destruction; while the composite character of the fleet, and the
jealousies of its various contingents, tended to neutralize the
advantage of numbers. In courage and discipline, the flower of the
Persian infantry was probably little inferior to the Greek; in
equipment, they were no match for the Greek panoply. Lastly, Xerxes
laboured under a disadvantage, which may be illustrated by the
experience of the British army in the South African War--distance from
his base.
Systems of government.
5. _The Great Age (480-338 B.C.)._--The effects of the repulse of Persia
were momentous in their influence upon Greece. The effects upon
Elizabethan England of the defeat of the Spanish armada would afford
quite an inadequate parallel. It gave the Greeks a heightened sense,
both of their own national unity and of their superiority to the
barbarian, while at the same time it helped to create the material
conditions requisite alike for the artistic and political development of
the 5th century. Other cities besides Athens were adorned with the
proceeds of the spoils won from Persia, and Greek trade benefited both
from the reunion of Ionia with Greece, and from the suppression of
piracy in the Aegean and the Hellespont. Do these developments justify
us in giving to the period, which begins with the repulse of Xerxes, and
ends with the victory of Philip, the title of "the Great Age"? If the
title is justified in the case of the 5th century, should the 4th
century be excluded from the period? At first sight, the difference
between the 4th century and the 5th may seem greater than that which
exists between the 5th and the 6th. On the political side, the 5th
century is an age of growth, the 4th an age of decay; on the literary
side, the former is an age of poetry, the latter an age of prose. In
spite of these contrasts, there is a real unity in the period which
begins with the repulse of Xerxes and ends with the death of Alexander,
as compared with any preceding one. It is an age of maturity in
politics, in literature, and in art; and this is true of no earlier age.
Nor can we say that the 5th century is, in all these aspects of Greek
life, immature as compared with the 4th, or, on the other hand, that the
4th is decadent as compared with the 5th. On the political side,
maturity is, in one sense, reached in the earlier century. There is
nothing in the later century so great as the Athenian empire. In another
sense, maturity is not reached till the 4th century. It is only in the
later century that the tendency of the Greek constitutions to conform to
a common type, democracy, is (at least approximately) realized, and it
is only in this century that the principles upon which democracy is
based are carried to their logical conclusion. In literature, if we
confine our attention to poetry, we must pronounce the 5th century the
age of completed development; but in prose the case is different. The
style even of Thucydides is immature, as compared with that of Isocrates
and Plato. In philosophy, however high may be the estimate that is
formed of the genius of the earlier thinkers, it cannot be disputed that
in Plato and Aristotle we find a more mature stage of thought. In art,
architecture may perhaps be said to reach its zenith in the 5th,
sculpture in the 4th century. In its political aspect, the history of
the Great Age resolves itself into the history of two movements, the
imperial and the democratic. Hitherto Greece had meant, politically, an
aggregate of independent states, very numerous, and, as a rule, very
small. The principle of autonomy was to the Greek the most sacred of all
political principles; the passion for autonomy the most potent of
political factors. In the latter half of the 6th century Sparta had
succeeded in combining the majority of the Peloponnesian states into a
loose federal union; so loose, however, that it appears to have been
dormant in the intervals of peace. In the crisis of the Persian invasion
the Peloponnesian League was extended so as to include all the states
which had espoused the national cause. It looked on the morrow of
Plataea and Mycale (the two victories, won simultaneously, in 479 B.C.,
by Spartan commanders, by which the danger from Persia was finally
averted) as if a permanent basis for union might be found in the
hegemony of Sparta. The sense of a common peril and a common triumph
brought with it the need of a common union; it was Athens, however,
instead of Sparta, by whom the first conscious effort was made to
transcend the isolation of the Greek political system and to bring the
units into combination. The league thus founded (the Delian League,
established in 477 B.C.) was under the presidency of Athens, but it
included hardly any other state besides those that had conducted the
defence of Greece. It was formed, almost entirely, of the states which
had been liberated from Persian rule by the great victories of the war.
The Delian League, even in the form in which it was first established,
as a confederation of autonomous allies, marks an advance in political
conceptions upon the Peloponnesian League. Provision is made for an
annual revenue, for periodical meetings of the council, and for a
permanent executive. It is a real federation, though an imperfect one.
There were defects in its constitution which rendered it inevitable that
it should be transformed into an empire. Athens was from the first "the
predominant partner." The fleet was mainly Athenian, the commanders
entirely so; the assessment of the tribute was in Athenian hands; there
was no federal court appointed to determine questions at issue between
Athens and the other members; and, worst omission of all, the right of
secession was left undecided. By the middle of the century the Delian
League has become the Athenian empire. Henceforward the imperial idea,
in one form or another, dominates Greek politics. Athens failed to
extend her authority over the whole of Greece. Her empire was
overthrown; but the triumph of autonomy proved the triumph of
imperialism. The Spartan empire succeeds to the Athenian, and, when it
is finally shattered at Leuctra (371 B.C.), the hegemony of Thebes,
which is established on its ruins, is an empire in all but name. The
decay of Theban power paves the way for the rise of Macedon.
Thus throughout this period we can trace two forces contending for
mastery in the Greek political system. Two causes divide the allegiance
of the Greek world, the cause of empire and the cause of autonomy. The
formation of the confederacy of Delos did not involve the dissolution of
the alliance between Athens and Sparta. For seventeen years more Athens
retained her place in the league, "which had been established against
the Mede" under the presidency of Sparta in 480 B.C. (Thuc. i. 102). The
ascendancy of Cimon and the Philolaconian party at Athens was favourable
to a good understanding between the two states, and at Sparta in normal
times the balance inclined in favour of the party whose policy is best
described by the motto "quieta non movere."
The Peloponnesian Wars.
In the end, however, the opposition of the two contending forces proved
too strong for Spartan neutrality. The fall of Cimon (461 B.C.) was
followed by the so-called "First Peloponnesian War," a conflict between
Athens and her maritime rivals, Corinth and Aegina, into which Sparta
was ultimately drawn. Thucydides regards the hostilities of these years
(460-454 B.C.), which were resumed for a few months in 446 B.C., on the
expiration of the Five Years' Truce, as preliminary to those of the
great Peloponnesian War (431-404 B.C.). The real question at issue was
in both cases the same. The tie that united the opponents of Athens was
found in a common hostility to the imperial idea. It is a complete
misapprehension to regard the Peloponnesian War as a mere duel between
two rival claimants for empire. The ultimatum presented by Sparta on the
eve of the war demanded the restoration of autonomy to the subjects of
Athens. There is no reason for doubting her sincerity in presenting it
in this form. It would, however, be an equal misapprehension to regard
the war as merely a struggle between the cause of empire and the cause
of autonomy. Corresponding to this fundamental contrast there are other
contrasts, constitutional, racial and military. The military interest of
the war is largely due to the fact that Athens was a sea power and
Sparta a land one. As the war went on, the constitutional aspect tended
to become more marked. At first there were democracies on the side of
Sparta, and oligarchies on the side of Athens. In the last stage of the
war, when Lysander's influence was supreme, we see the forces of
oligarchy everywhere united and organized for the destruction of
democracy. In its origin the war was certainly not due to the rivalry of
Dorian and Ionian. This racial, or tribal, contrast counted for more in
the politics of Sicily than of Greece; and, though the two great
branches of the Greek race were represented respectively by the leaders
of the two sides, the allies on neither side belonged exclusively to the
one branch or the other. Still, it remains true that the Dorian states
were, as a rule, on the Spartan side, and the Ionian states, as a rule,
on the Athenian--a division of sentiment which must have helped to widen
the breach, and to intensify the animosities.
The Athenian empire.
As a political experiment the Athenian empire possesses a unique
interest. It represents the first attempt to fuse the principles of
imperialism and democracy. It is at once the first empire in history
possessed and administered by a sovereign people, and the first which
sought to establish a common system of democratic institutions amongst
its subjects.[14] It was an experiment that failed, partly owing to the
inherent strength of the oligarchic cause, partly owing to the exclusive
character of ancient citizenship. The Athenians themselves recognized
that their empire depended for its existence upon the solidarity of
democratic interests (see Thuc. iii. 47; Pseudo-Xenophon, _de Rep. Ath._
i. 14, iii. 10). An understanding existed between the democratic leaders
in the subject-states and the democratic party at Athens. Charges were
easily trumped up against obnoxious oligarchs, and conviction as easily
obtained in the Athenian courts of law. Such a system forced the
oligarchs into an attitude of opposition. How much this opposition
counted for was realized when the Sicilian disaster (413 B.C.) gave the
subjects their chance to revolt. The organization of the oligarchical
party throughout the empire, which was effected by Lysander in the last
stage of the war, contributed to the overthrow of Athenian ascendancy
hardly less than the subsidies of Persia. Had Athens aimed at
establishing a community of interest between herself and her subjects,
based upon a common citizenship, her empire might have endured. It would
have been a policy akin to that which secured the permanence of the
Roman empire. And it was a policy which found advocates when the day for
it was past (see Aristophanes, _Lysistrata_, 574 ff.; cf. the grant of
citizenship to the Samians after Aegospotami, _C.I.A._ iv. 2, 1b). But
the policy pursued by Athens in the plenitude of her power was the
reverse of the policy pursued by Rome in her treatment of the franchise.
It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the fate of the empire was
sealed by the law of Pericles (451 B.C.), by which the franchise was
restricted to those who could establish Athenian descent on both sides.
It was not merely that the process of amalgamation through intermarriage
was abruptly checked; what was more serious was that a hard and fast
line was drawn, once and for all, between the small body of privileged
rulers and the great mass of unprivileged subjects. Maine (_Early
Institutions_, lecture 13) has classed the Athenian empire with those of
the familiar Oriental type, which attempt nothing beyond the raising of
taxes and the levying of troops. The Athenian empire cannot, indeed, be
classed with the Roman, or with the British rule in India; it does not,
therefore, deserve to be classed with the empires of Cyrus or of Jenghiz
Khan. Though the basis of its organization, like that of the Persian
empire under Darius, was financial, it attempted, and secured, objects
beyond the mere payment of tribute and the supply of ships. If Athens
did not introduce a common religion, or a common system of education, or
a common citizenship, she did introduce a common type of political
institutions, and a common jurisdiction.[15] She went some way, too, in
the direction of establishing a common system of coins, and of weights
and measures. A common language was there already. In a word, the
Athenian empire marks a definite stage of political evolution.
The mature democracy.
The other great political movement of the age was the progress of
democracy. Before the Persian invasion democracy was a rare phenomenon
in Greek politics. Where it was found it existed in an undeveloped form,
and its tenure of power was precarious. By the beginning of the
Peloponnesian War it had become the prevalent form of government. The
great majority of Greek states had adopted democratic constitutions.
Both in the Athenian sphere of influence and in the colonial world
outside that sphere, democracy was all but the only form of constitution
known. It was only in Greece proper that oligarchy held its own. In the
Peloponnese it could count a majority of the states; in northern Greece
at least a half of them. The spread of democratic institutions was
arrested by the victory of Sparta in the East, and the rise of Dionysius
in the West. There was a moment at the end of the 5th century when it
looked as if democracy was a lost cause. Even Athens was for a brief
period under the rule of the Thirty (404-403 B.C.). In the regions which
had formed the empire of Athens the decarchies set up by Lysander were
soon overthrown, and democracies restored in most cases, but oligarchy
continued to be the prevalent form in Greece proper until Leuctra (371
B.C.), and in Sicily tyranny had a still longer tenure of power. By the
end of the Great Age oligarchy has almost disappeared from the Greek
world, except in the sphere of Persian influence. The Spartan monarchy
still survives; a few Peloponnesian states still maintain the rule of
the few; here and there in Greece itself we meet with a revival of the
_tyrannis_; but, with these exceptions, democracy is everywhere the only
type of constitution. And democracy has developed as well as spread. At
the end of the 5th century the constitution of Cleisthenes, which was a
democracy in the view of his contemporaries, had come to be regarded as
an aristocracy (Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 29. 3). We can trace a similar
change of sentiment in Sicily. As compared with the extreme form of
constitution adopted at Syracuse after the defeat of the Athenian
expedition, the democracies established two generations earlier, on the
fall of the _tyrannis_, appeared oligarchical. The changes by which the
character of the Greek democracies was revolutionized were four in
number: the substitution of sortition for election, the abolition of a
property qualification, the payment of officials and the rise of a class
of professional politicians. In the democracy of Cleisthenes no payment
was given for service, whether as a magistrate, a juror or a member of
the Boule. The higher magistracies were filled by election, and they
were held almost exclusively by the members of the great Athenian
families. For the highest office of all, the archonship, none but
_Pentacosiomedimni_ (the first of the four Solonian classes) were
eligible. The introduction of pay and the removal of the property
qualification formed part of the reforms of Pericles. Sortition had been
instituted for election a generation earlier (487 B.C.).[16] What is
perhaps the most important of all these changes, the rise of the
demagogues, belongs to the era of the Peloponnesian War. From the time
of Cleisthenes to the outbreak of the war every statesman of note at
Athens, with the exception of Themistocles (and, perhaps, of Ephialtes),
is of aristocratic birth. Down to the fall of Cimon the course of
Athenian politics is to a great extent determined by the alliances and
antipathies of the great clans. With the Peloponnesian War a new epoch
begins. The chief office, the _strategia_, is still, as a rule, held by
men of rank. But leadership in the Ecclesia has passed to men of a
different class. The demagogues were not necessarily poor men. Cleon was
a wealthy man; Eucrates, Lysicles and Hyperbolus were, at any rate,
tradesmen rather than artisans. The first "labour member" proper is
Cleophon (411-404 B.C.), a lyre-maker. They belonged, however, not to
the land-owning, but to the industrial classes; they were distinguished
from the older race of party-leaders by a vulgar accent, and by a
violence of gesture in public speaking, and they found their supporters
among the population of the city and its port, the Peiraeus, rather than
among the farmers of the country districts. In the 4th century the
demagogues, though under another name, that of orators, have acquired
entire control of the Ecclesia. It is an age of professionalism, and the
professional soldier has his counterpart in the professional politician.
Down to the death of Pericles the party-leader had always held office as
Strategus. His rival, Thucydides, son of Melesias, forms a solitary
exception to this statement. In the 4th century the divorce between the
general and the statesman is complete. The generals are professional
soldiers, who aspire to no political influence in the state, and the
statesmen devote themselves exclusively to politics, a career for which
they have prepared themselves by a professional training in oratory or
administrative work. The ruin of agriculture during the war had reduced
the old families to insignificance. Birth counts for less than nothing
as a political asset in the age of Demosthenes.
The city-state.
But great as are the contrasts which have been pointed out between the
earlier and the later democracy, those that distinguish the ancient
conception of democracy from the modern are of a still more essential
nature. The differences that distinguish the democracies of ancient
Greece from those of the modern world have their origin, to a great
extent, in the difference between a city-state and a nation-state. Many
of the most famous Greek states had an area of a few square miles; the
largest of them was no larger than an English county. Political theory
put the limit of the citizen-body at 10,000. Though this number was
exceeded in a few cases, it is doubtful if any state, except Athens,
ever counted more than 20,000 citizens. In the nation-states of modern
times, democratic government is possible only under the form of a
representative system; in the city-state representative government was
unnecessary, and therefore unknown. In the ancient type of democracy a
popular chamber has no existence. The Ecclesia is not a chamber in any
sense of the term; it is an assembly of the whole people, which every
citizen is entitled to attend, and in which every one is equally
entitled to vote and speak. The question raised in modern political
science, as to whether sovereignty resides in the electors or their
representatives, has thus neither place nor meaning in ancient theory.
In the same way, one of the most familiar results of modern analysis,
the distinction between the executive and the legislative, finds no
recognition in the Greek writers. In a direct system of government there
can be no executive in the proper sense. Executive functions are
discharged by the ecclesia, to whose decision the details of
administration may be referred. The position of the strategi, the chief
officials in the Athenian democracy of the 5th century, was in no sense
comparable to that of a modern cabinet. Hence the individual citizen in
an ancient democracy was concerned in, and responsible for, the actual
work of government to a degree that is inconceivable in a modern state.
Thus participation in the administrative and judicial business of the
state is made by Aristotle the differentia of the citizen ([Greek:
politês estin ho metechôn kriseôs kai archês], Aristot. _Politics_, p.
1275 a 20). A large proportion of the citizens of Athens, in addition to
frequent service in the courts of law, must in the course of their lives
have held a magistracy, great or small, or have acted for a year or two
as members of the Boule.[17] It must be remembered that there was
nothing corresponding to a permanent civil service in the ancient state.
Much of the work of a government office would have been transacted by
the Athenian Boule. It must be remembered, too, that political and
administrative questions of great importance came before the popular
courts of law. Hence it follows that the ordinary citizen of an ancient
democracy, in the course of his service in the Boule or the law-courts,
acquired an interest in political questions, and a grasp of
administrative work, which none but a select few can hope to acquire
under the conditions of the modern system. Where there existed neither a
popular chamber nor a distinct executive, there was no opportunity for
the growth of a party-system. There were, of course, political parties
at Athens and elsewhere--oligarchs and democrats, conservatives and
radicals, a peace-party and a war-party, according to the burning
question of the day. There was, however, nothing equivalent to a general
election, to a cabinet (or to that collective responsibility which is of
the essence of a cabinet), or to the government and the opposition.
Party organization, therefore, and a party system, in the proper sense,
were never developed. Whatever may have been the evils incident to the
ancient form of democracy, the "boss," the caucus and the spoils-system
were not among them.
Position of women.
Besides these differences, which, directly or indirectly, result from
the difference of scale, there are others, hardly less profound, which
are not connected with the size of the city-state. Perhaps the most
striking contrast between the democracies of ancient and of modern times
is to be found in their attitude towards privilege. Ancient democracy
implies privilege; modern democracy implies its destruction. In the more
fully developed democracies of the modern world (e.g. in the United
States, or in Australia), the privilege of class is unknown; in some of
them (e.g. New Zealand, Australia, Norway) even the privilege of sex has
been abolished. Ancient democracy was bound up with privilege as much as
oligarchy was. The transition from the latter to the former was effected
by enlarging the area of privilege and by altering its basis. In an
oligarchical state citizenship might be confined to 10% of the free
population; under a democracy 50% might enjoy it. In the former case the
qualification might be wealth or land; in the latter case it might be,
as it was at Athens, birth, i.e. descent, on both sides, from a citizen
family. But, in both cases alike, the distinction between a privileged
and an unprivileged body of free-born residents is fundamental. To the
unprivileged class belonged, not only foreigners temporarily resident
([Greek: xenoi]) and aliens permanently domiciled ([Greek: metoikoi]),
but also those native-born inhabitants of the state who were of foreign
extraction, on one side or the other.[18] The privileges attaching to
citizenship included, in addition to eligibility for office and a vote
in the assembly, such private rights as that of owning land or a house,
or of contracting a marriage with one of citizen status. The citizen,
too, was alone the recipient of all the various forms of pay (e.g. for
attendance in the assembly, for service in the Boule or the law-courts,
or for the celebration of the great festivals) which are so conspicuous
a feature in the developed democracy of the 4th century. The _metoeci_
could not even plead in a court of law in person, but only through a
patron ([Greek: prostatês]). It is intelligible that privileges so great
should be jealously guarded. In the democracies of the modern world
naturalization is easy; in those of ancient Greece admission to the
franchise was rarely accorded. In modern times, again, we are accustomed
to connect democracy with the emancipation of women. It is true that
only a few democratic constitutions grant them the suffrage; but though,
as a rule, they are denied public rights, the growth of popular
government has been almost everywhere accompanied by an extension of
their private rights, and by the removal of the restrictions imposed by
law, custom or public opinion upon their freedom of action. In ancient
Greece the democracies were as illiberal in their policy as the
oligarchies. Women of the respectable class were condemned to
comparative seclusion. They enjoyed far less freedom in 4th-century
Athens than in the Homeric Age. It is not in any of the democracies, but
in conservative Sparta, that they possess privilege and exercise
influence.
Slavery.
The most fundamental of all the contrasts between democracy in its
ancient and in its modern form remains to be stated. The ancient state
was inseparable from slavery. In this respect there was no difference
between democracy and the other forms of government. No inconsistency
was felt, therefore, between this institution and the democratic
principle. Modern political theory has been profoundly affected by the
conception of the dignity of labour; ancient political theory tended to
regard labour as a disqualification for the exercise of political
rights. Where slavery exists, the taint of it will inevitably cling to
all labour that can be performed by the slave. In ancient Athens (which
may be taken as typical of the Greek democracies) unskilled labour was
almost entirely slave-labour, and skilled labour was largely so. The
arts and crafts were, to some extent, exercised by citizens, but to a
less extent in the 4th than in the 6th century. They were, however,
chiefly left to aliens or slaves. The citizen-body of Athens in the age
of Demosthenes has been stigmatized as consisting in great measure of
salaried paupers. There is, doubtless, an exaggeration in this. It is,
however, true, both that the system of state-pay went a long way towards
supplying the simple wants of a southern population, and that a large
proportion of the citizens had time to spare for the service of the
state. Had the life of the lower class of citizens been absorbed in a
round of mechanical labours, as fully as is the life of our industrial
classes, the working of an ancient democracy would have been impossible.
In justice to the ancient democracies it must be conceded that, while
popular government carried with it neither the enfranchisement of the
alien nor the emancipation of the slave, the rights secured to both
classes were more considerable in the democratic states than elsewhere.
The lot of the slave, as well as that of the alien, was a peculiarly
favourable one at Athens. The pseudo-Xenophon in the 5th century (_De
rep. Ath._ 1. 10-12) and Plato in the 4th (_Republic_, p. 563 B), prove
that the spirit of liberty, with which Athenian life was permeated, was
not without its influence upon the position of these classes. When we
read that critics complained of the opulence of slaves, and of the
liberties they took, and when we are told that the slave could not be
distinguished from the poorer class of citizens either by his dress or
his look, we begin to realize the difference between the slavery of
ancient Athens and the system as it was worked on the Roman _latifundia_
or the plantations of the New World.
The Spartan empire.
It had been anticipated that the fall of Athens would mean the triumph
of the principle of autonomy. If Athens had surrendered within a year or
so of the Sicilian catastrophe, this anticipation would probably have
been fulfilled. It was the last phase of the struggle (412-404 B.C.)
that rendered a Spartan empire inevitable. The oligarchical governments
established by Lysander recognized that their tenure of power was
dependent upon Spartan support, while Lysander himself, to whose genius,
as a political organizer not less than as a commander, the triumph of
Sparta was due, was unwilling to see his work undone. The Athenian
empire had never included the greater part of Greece proper; since the
Thirty Years' Peace its possessions on the mainland, outside the
boundaries of Attica, were limited to Naupactus and Plataea. Sparta, on
the other hand, attempted the control of the entire Greek world east of
the Adriatic. Athens had been compelled to acknowledge a dual system;
Sparta sought to establish uniformity. The attempt failed from the
first. Within a year of the surrender of Athens, Thebes and Corinth had
drifted into an attitude of opposition, while Argos remained hostile. It
was not long before the policy of Lysander succeeded in uniting against
Sparta the very forces upon which she had relied when she entered on the
Peloponnesian War. The Corinthian War (394-387 B.C.) was brought about
by the alliance of all the second-class powers--Thebes, Athens, Corinth,
Argos--against the one first-class power, Sparta. Though Sparta emerged
successful from the war, it was with the loss of her maritime empire,
and at the cost of recognizing the principle of autonomy as the basis of
the Greek political system. It was already evident, thus early in the
century, that the centrifugal forces were to prove stronger than the
centripetal. Two further causes may be indicated which help to explain
the failure of the Spartan empire. In the first place Spartan sea-power
was an artificial creation. History seems to show that it is idle for a
state to aspire to naval supremacy unless it possesses a great
commercial marine. Athens had possessed such a marine; her naval
supremacy was due not to the mere size of her fleet, but to the numbers
and skill of her seafaring population. Sparta had no commerce. She could
build fleets more easily than she could man them. A single defeat (at
Cnidus, 391 B.C.) sufficed for the ruin of her sea-power. The second
cause is to be found in the financial weakness of the Spartan state. The
Spartan treasury had been temporarily enriched by the spoils of the
Peloponnesian War, but neither during that war, nor afterwards, did
Sparta succeed in developing any scientific financial system. Athens was
the only state which either possessed a large annual revenue or
accumulated a considerable reserve. Under the conditions of Greek
warfare, fleets were more expensive than armies. Not only was money
needed for the building and maintenance of the ships, but the sailor
must be paid, while the soldier served for nothing. Hence the power with
the longest purse could both build the largest fleet and attract the
most skilful seamen.
Theban hegemony.
The battle of Leuctra transferred the hegemony from Sparta to Thebes,
but the attempt to unite Greece under the leadership of Thebes was from
the first doomed to failure. The conditions were less favourable to
Thebes than they had been to Athens or Sparta. Thebes was even more
exclusively a land-power than Sparta. She had no revenue comparable to
that of Athens in the preceding century. Unlike Athens and Sparta, she
had not the advantage of being identified with a political cause. As the
enemy of Athens in the 5th century, she was on the side of oligarchy; as
the rival of Sparta in the 4th, she was on the side of democracy; but in
her bid for primacy she could not appeal, as Athens and Sparta could,
to a great political tradition, nor had she behind her, as they had, the
moral force of a great political principle. Her position, too, in
Boeotia itself was insecure. The rise of Athens was in great measure the
result of the _synoecism_ ([Greek: sunoikismos)] of Attica. All
inhabitants of Attica were Athenians. But "Boeotian" and "Theban" were
not synonymous terms. The Boeotian league was an imperfect form of
union, as compared with the Athenian state, and the claim of Thebes to
the presidency of the league was, at best, sullenly acquiesced in by the
other towns. The destruction of some of the most famous of the Boeotian
cities, however necessary it may have been in order to unite the
country, was a measure which at once impaired the resources of Thebes
and outraged Greek sentiment. It has been often held that the failure of
Theban policy was due to the death of Epaminondas (at the battle of
Mantinea, 362 B.C.). For this view there is no justification. His policy
had proved a failure before his death. Where it harmonized with the
spirit of the age, the spirit of dissidence, it succeeded; where it
attempted to run counter to it, it failed. It succeeded in destroying
the supremacy of Sparta in the Peloponnese; it failed to unite the
Peloponnese on a new basis. It failed still more significantly to unite
Greece north of the Isthmus. It left Greece weaker and more divided than
it found it (see the concluding words of Xenophon's _Hellenics_). It
would be difficult to overestimate the importance of his policy as a
destructive force; as a constructive force it effected nothing.[19] The
Peloponnesian system which Epaminondas overthrew had lasted two hundred
years. Under Spartan leadership the Peloponnese had enjoyed almost
complete immunity from invasion and comparative immunity from _stasis_
(faction). The claim that Isocrates makes for Sparta is probably
well-founded (_Archidamus_, 64-69; during the period of Spartan
ascendency the Peloponnesians were [Greek: eudaimonestatoi tôn
Hellênôn]). Peloponnesian sentiment had been one of the chief factors in
Greek politics; to it, indeed, in no small degree was due the victory
over Persia. The Theban victory at Leuctra destroyed the unity, and with
it the peace and the prosperity, of the Peloponnese. It inaugurated a
period of misery, the natural result of _stasis_ and invasion, to which
no parallel can be found in the earlier history (See Isocrates,
_Archidamus_, 65, 66; the Peloponnesians were [Greek: ômalismenoi tais
sumphopais]). It destroyed, too, the Peloponnesian sentiment of
hostility to the invader. The bulk of the army that defeated Mardonius
at Plataea came from the Peloponnese; at Chaeronea no Peloponnesian
state was represented.
The rise of Macedon.
The question remains, Why did the city-state fail to save Greece from
conquest by Macedon? Was this result due to the inherent weakness either
of the city-state itself, or of one particular form of it, democracy? It
is clear, in any case, that the triumph of Macedon was the effect of
causes which had long been at work. If neither Philip nor Alexander had
appeared on the scene, Greece might have maintained her independence for
another generation or two; but, when invasion came, it would have found
her weaker and more distracted, and the conquerors might easily have
been less imbued with the Greek spirit, and less sympathetic towards
Greek ideals, than the great Macedonian and his son. These causes are to
be found in the tendencies of the age, political, economic and moral. Of
the two movements which characterized the Great Age in its political
aspect, the imperial and the democratic, the one failed and the other
succeeded. The failure and the success were equally fatal to the chances
of Greece in the conflict with Macedon. By the middle of the 4th century
Greek politics had come to be dominated by the theory of the balance of
power. This theory, enunciated in its coarsest form by Demosthenes (_Pro
Megalopolit._ 4 [Greek: sumpherei tê polei kai Lakedaimonious astheneis
einai kai Thêbaious]; cf. _in Aristocrat._ 102, 103), had shaped the
foreign policy of Athens since the end of the Peloponnesian War. As long
as Sparta was the stronger, Athens inclined to a Theban alliance; after
Leuctra she tended in the direction of a Spartan one. At the epoch of
Philip's accession the forces were everywhere nicely balanced. The
Peloponnese was fairly equally divided between the Theban and the
Spartan interests, and central Greece was similarly divided between the
Theban and the Athenian. Farther north we get an Athenian party opposed
to an Olynthian in Chalcidice, and a republican party, dependent upon
the support of Thebes, opposed to that of the tyrants in Thessaly. It is
easy to see that the political conditions of Greece, both in the north
and in the south, invited interference from without. And the triumph of
democracy in its extreme form was ruinous to the military efficiency of
Greece. On the one side there was a monarchical state, in which all
powers, civil as well as military, were concentrated in the hands of a
single ruler; on the other, a constitutional system, in which a complete
separation had been effected between the responsibility of the statesman
and that of the commander.[20]
It could not be doubtful with which side victory would rest. Meanwhile,
the economic conditions were steadily growing worse. The cause which
Aristotle assigns for the decay of the Spartan state--a declining
population (see _Politics_, p. 1270 a [Greek: apôleto ê pólis tôn
Lakedaimoniôn dià tên oliganthrôpian])--might be extended to the Greek
world generally. The loss of population was partly the result of war and
_stasis_--Isocrates speaks of the number of political exiles from the
various states as enormous[21]--but it was also due to a declining
birth-rate, and to the exposure of infants. Aristotle, while condemning
exposure, sanctions the procuring of abortion (_Politics_, 1335 b). It
is probable that both ante-natal and post-natal infanticide were rife
everywhere, except among the more backward communities. A people which
has condemned itself to racial suicide can have little chance when
pitted against a nation in which healthier instincts prevail. The
materials for forming a trustworthy estimate of the population of Greece
at any given epoch are not available; there is enough evidence, however,
to prove that the military population of the leading Greek states at the
era of the battle of Chaeronea (338 B.C.) fell far short of what it had
been at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War. The decline in
population had been accompanied by a decline in wealth, both public and
private; and while revenues had shrunk, expenditure had grown. It was a
century of warfare; and warfare had become enormously more expensive,
partly through the increased employment of mercenaries, partly through
the enhanced cost of material. The power of the purse had made itself
felt even in the 5th century; Persian gold had helped to decide the
issue of the great war. In the politics of the 4th century the power of
the purse becomes the determining factor. The public finance of the
ancient world was singularly simple in character, and the expedients for
raising a revenue were comparatively few. The distinction between direct
and indirect taxation was recognized in practice, but states as a rule
were reluctant to submit to the former system. The revenue of Athens in
the 5th century was mainly derived from the tribute paid by her
subjects; it was only in time of war that a direct tax was levied upon
the citizen-body.[22] In the age of Demosthenes the revenue derived from
the Athenian Confederacy was insignificant. The whole burden of the
expenses of a war fell upon the 1200 richest citizens, who were subject
to direct taxation in the dual form of the _Trierarchy_ and the
_Eisphora_ (property-tax). The revenue thus raised was wholly
insufficient for an effort on a great scale; yet the revenues of Athens
at this period must have exceeded those of any other state.
It is to moral causes, however, rather than to political or economic
ones, that the failure of Greece in the conflict with Macedon is
attributed by the most famous Greek statesmen of that age. Demosthenes
is never weary of insisting upon the decay of patriotism among the
citizens and upon the decay of probity among their leaders. Venality had
always been the besetting sin of Greek statesmen. Pericles' boast as to
his own incorruptibility (Thuc. ii. 60) is significant as to the
reputation of his contemporaries. In the age of Demosthenes the level of
public life in this respect had sunk at least as low as that which
prevails in many states of the modern world (see Demosth. _On the
Crown_, 61 [Greek: para tois Hellêsin, oì tisin all' apasin omoíos phørà
proòton kai dorodókon sunébê]; cf. §§ 295, 296). Corruption was
certainly not confined to the Macedonian party. The best that can be
said in defence of the patriots, as well as of their opponents, is that
they honestly believed that the policy which they were bribed to
advocate was the best for their country's interests. The evidence for
the general decay of patriotism among the mass of the citizens is less
conclusive. The battle of Megalopolis (331 B.C.), in which the Spartan
soldiery "went down in a blaze of glory," proves that the spirit of the
Lacedemonian state remained unchanged. But at Athens it seemed to
contemporary observers--to Isocrates equally with Demosthenes--that the
spirit of the great days was extinct (see Isocr. _On the Peace_, 47,
48). It cannot, of course, be denied that public opinion was obstinately
opposed to the diversion of the Theoric Fund to the purposes of the war
with Philip. It was not till the year before Chaeronea that Demosthenes
succeeded in persuading the assembly to devote the entire surplus to the
expenses of the war.[23] Nor can it be denied that mercenaries were far
more largely employed in the 4th century than in the 5th. In justice,
however, to the Athenians of the Demosthenic era, it should be
remembered that the burden of direct taxation was rarely imposed, and
was reluctantly endured, in the previous century. It must also be
remembered that, even in the 4th century, the Athenian citizen was ready
to take the field, provided that it was not a question of a distant
expedition or of prolonged service.[24] For distant expeditions, or for
prolonged service, a citizen-militia is unsuited. The substitution of a
professional force for an unprofessional one is to be explained, partly
by the change in the character of Greek warfare, and partly by the
operation of the laws of supply and demand. There had been a time when
warfare meant a brief campaign in the summer months against a
neighbouring state. It had come to mean prolonged operations against a
distant enemy.[25] Athens was at war, e.g. with Philip, for eleven years
continuously (357-346 B.C.). If winter campaigns in Thrace were
unpopular at this epoch, they had been hardly less unpopular in the
epoch of the Peloponnesian War. In the days of her greatness, too,
Athens had freely employed mercenaries, but it was in the navy rather
than the army. In the age of Pericles the supply of mercenary rowers was
abundant, the supply of mercenary troops inconsiderable. In the age of
Demosthenes incessant warfare and ceaseless revolution had filled Greece
with crowds of homeless adventurers. The supply helped to create the
demand. The mercenary was as cheap as the citizen-soldier, and much more
effective. On the whole, then, it may be inferred that it is a mistake
to regard the prevalence of the mercenary system as the expression of a
declining patriotism. It would be nearer the mark to treat the
transition from the voluntary to the professional system as cause rather
than effect: as one among the causes which contributed to the decay of
public spirit in the Greek world.
Federal government.
6. _From Alexander to the Roman Conquest (336-146 B.C.)._--In the
history of Greece proper during this period the interest is mainly
constitutional. It may be called the age of federation. Federation,
indeed, was no novelty in Greece. Federal unions had existed in
Thessaly, in Boeotia and elsewhere, and the Boeotian league can be
traced back at least to the 6th century. Two newly-founded federations,
the Chalcidian and the Arcadian, play no inconsiderable part in the
politics of the 4th century. But it is not till the 3rd century that
federation attains to its full development in Greece, and becomes the
normal type of polity. The two great leagues of this period are the
Aetolian and the Achaean. Both had existed in the 4th century, but the
latter, which had been dissolved shortly before the beginning of the 3rd
century, becomes important only after its restoration in 280 B.C., about
which date the former, too, first begins to attract notice. The interest
of federalism lies in the fact that it marks an advance beyond the
conception of the city-state. It is an attempt to solve the problem
which the Athenian empire failed to solve, the reconciliation of the
claims of local autonomy with those of national union. The federal
leagues of the 3rd century possess a further interest for the modern
world, in that there can be traced in their constitutions a nearer
approach to a representative system than is found elsewhere in Greek
experience. A genuine representative system, it is true, was never
developed in any Greek polity. What we find in the leagues is a sort of
compromise between the principle of a primary assembly and the principle
of a representative chamber. In both leagues the nominal sovereign was a
primary assembly, in which every individual citizen had the right to
vote. In both of them, however, the real power lay with a council
([Greek: Boulê]) composed of members representative of each of the
component states.[26]
Alexander's empire.
The real interest of this period, however, is to be looked for elsewhere
than in Greece itself. Alexander's career is one of the turning-points
in history. He is one of the few to whom it has been given to modify the
whole future of the human race. He originated two forces which have
profoundly affected the development of civilization. He created
Hellenism, and he created for the western world the monarchical ideal.
Greece had produced personal rulers of ability, or even of genius; but
to the greatest of these, to Peisistratus, to Dionysius, even to Jason
of Pherae, there clung the fatal taint of illegitimacy. As yet no ruler
had succeeded in making the person of the monarch respectable. Alexander
made it sacred. From him is derived, for the West, that "divinity that
doth hedge a king." And in creating Hellenism he created, for the first
time, a common type of civilization, with a common language, literature
and art, as well as a common form of political organization. In Asia
Minor he was content to reinforce the existing Hellenic elements (cf.
the case of Side, Arrian, _Anabasis_, i. 26. 4). In the rest of the East
his instrument of hellenization was the _polis_. He is said to have
founded no less than seventy cities, destined to become centres of Greek
influence; and the great majority of these were in lands in which
city-life was almost unknown. In this respect his example was emulated
by his successors. The eastern provinces were soon lost, though Greek
influences lingered on even in Bactria and across the Indus. It was only
the regions lying to the west of the Euphrates that were effectively
hellenized, and the permanence of this result was largely due to the
policy of Rome. But after all deductions have been made, the great fact
remains that for many centuries after Alexander's death Greek was the
language of literature and religion, of commerce and of administration
throughout the Nearer East. Alexander had created a universal empire as
well as a universal culture. His empire perished at his death, but its
central idea survived--that of the municipal freedom of the Greek
_polis_ within the framework of an imperial system. Hellenistic
civilization may appear degenerate when compared with Hellenic; when
compared with the civilizations which it superseded in non-Hellenic
lands, it marks an unquestionable advance. (For the history of Greek
civilization in the East, see HELLENISM.) Greece left her mark upon the
civilization of the West as well as upon that of the East, but the
process by which her influence was diffused was essentially different.
In the East Hellenism came in the train of the conqueror, and Rome was
content to build upon the foundations laid by Alexander. In the West
Greek influences were diffused by the Roman conquest of Greece. It was
through the ascendancy which Greek literature, philosophy and art
acquired over the Roman mind that Greek culture penetrated to the
nations of western Europe. The civilization of the East remained Greek.
The civilization of the West became and remained Latin, but it was a
Latin civilization that was saturated with Greek influences. The
ultimate division, both of the empire and the church, into two halves,
finds its explanation in this original difference of culture.
ANCIENT AUTHORITIES.--(I.) For the earliest periods of Greek history,
the so-called Minoan and Mycenaean, the evidence is purely
archaeological. It is sufficient here to refer to the article AEGEAN
CIVILIZATION. For the next period, the Heroic or Homeric Age, the
evidence is derived from the poems of Homer. In any estimate of the
value of these poems as historical evidence, much will depend upon the
view taken of the authorship, age and unity of the poems. For a full
discussion of these questions see HOMER. It cannot be questioned that
the poems are evidence for the existence of a period in the history of
the Greek race, which differed from later periods in political and
social, military and economic conditions. But here agreement ends. If,
as is generally held by German critics, the poems are not earlier than
the 9th century, if they contain large interpolations of considerably
later date and if they are Ionian in origin, the authority of the poems
becomes comparatively slight. The existence of different strata in the
poems will imply the existence of inconsistencies and contradictions in
the evidence; nor will the evidence be that of a contemporary. It will
also follow that the picture of the heroic age contained in the poems is
an idealized one. The more extreme critics, e.g. Beloch, deny that the
poems are evidence even for the existence of a pre-Dorian epoch. If, on
the other hand, the poems are assigned to the 11th or 12th century, to a
Peloponnesian writer, and to a period anterior to the Dorian Invasion
and the colonization of Asia Minor (this is the view of the late Dr D.
B. Munro), the evidence becomes that of a contemporary, and the
authority of the poems for the distribution of races and tribes in the
Heroic Age, as well as for the social and political conditions of the
poet's time, would be conclusive. Homer recognizes no Dorians in Greece,
except in Crete (see _Odyssey_, xix. 177), and no Greek colonies in Asia
Minor. Only two explanations are possible. Either there is deliberate
archaism in the poems, or else they are earlier in date than the Dorian
Invasion and the colonization of Asia Minor.
Herodotus.
II. For the period that extends from the end of the Heroic Age to the
end of the Peloponnesian War[27] the two principal authorities are
Herodotus and Thucydides. Not only have the other historical works which
treated of this period perished (those at least whose date is earlier
than the Christian era), but their authority was secondary and their
material chiefly derived from these two writers. In one respect then
this period of Greek history stands alone. Indeed, it might be said,
with hardly an exaggeration, that there is nothing like it elsewhere in
history. Almost our sole authorities are two writers of unique genius,
and they are writers whose works have come down to us intact. For the
period which ends with the repulse of the Persian invasion our authority
is Herodotus. For the period which extends from 478 to 411 we are
dependent upon Thucydides'. In each case, however, a distinction must be
drawn. The Persian Wars form the proper subject of Herodotus's work; the
Peloponnesian War is the subject of Thucydides. The interval between the
two wars is merely sketched by Thucydides; while of the period anterior
to the conflicts of the Greek with the Persian, Herodotus does not
attempt either a complete or a continuous narrative. His references to
it are episodical and accidental. Hence our knowledge of the Persian
Wars and of the Peloponnesian War is widely different in character from
our knowledge of the rest of this period. In the history of these wars
the _lacunae_ are few; in the rest of the history they are alike
frequent and serious. In the history, therefore, of the Persian and
Peloponnesian Wars little is to be learnt from the secondary sources.
Elsewhere, especially in the interval between the two wars, they become
relatively important.
In estimating the authority of Herodotus (q.v.) we must be careful to
distinguish between the invasion of Xerxes and all that is earlier.
Herodotus's work was published soon after 430 B.C., i.e. about half a
century after the invasion. Much of his information was gathered in the
course of the preceding twenty years. Although his evidence is not that
of an eye-witness, he had had opportunities of meeting those who had
themselves played a part in the war, on one side or the other (e.g.
Thersander of Orchomenos, ix. 16). In any case, we are dealing with a
tradition which is little more than a generation old, and the events to
which the tradition relates, the incidents of the struggle against
Xerxes, were of a nature to impress themselves indelibly upon the minds
of contemporaries. Where, on the other hand, he is treating of the
period anterior to the invasion of Xerxes, he is dependent upon a
tradition which is never less than two generations old, and is sometimes
centuries old. His informants were, at best, the sons or grandsons of
the actors in the wars (e.g. Archias the Spartan, iii. 55). Moreover,
the invasion of Xerxes, entailing, as it did, the destruction of cities
and sanctuaries, especially of Athens and its temples, marks a dividing
line in Greek history. It was not merely that evidence perished and
records were destroyed. What in reference to tradition is even more
important, a new consciousness of power was awakened, new interests were
aroused, and new questions and problems came to the front. The former
things had passed away; all things were become new. A generation that is
occupied with making history on a great scale is not likely to busy
itself with the history of the past. Consequently, the earlier
traditions became faint and obscured, and the history difficult to
reconstruct. As we trace back the conflict between Greece and Persia to
its beginnings and antecedents, we are conscious that the tradition
becomes less trustworthy as we pass back from one stage to another. The
tradition of the expedition of Datis and Artaphernes is less credible in
its details than that of the expedition of Xerxes, but it is at once
fuller and more credible than the tradition of the Ionian revolt. When
we get back to the Scythian expedition, we can discover but few grains
of historical truth.
Much recent criticism of Herodotus has been directed against his
veracity as a traveller. With this we are not here concerned. The
criticism of him as an historian begins with Thucydides. Among the
references of the latter writer to his predecessor are the following
passages: i. 21; i. 22 _ad fin._; i. 20 _ad fin._ (cf. Herod. ix. 53,
and vi. 57 _ad fin._); iii. 62 § 4 (cf. Herod. ix. 87); ii. 2 §§ 1 and 3
(cf. Herod. vii. 233); ii. 8 § 3 (cf. Herod. vi. 98). Perhaps the two
clearest examples of this criticism are to be found in Thucydides'
correction of Herodotus's account of the Cylonian conspiracy (Thuc. i.
126, cf. Herod. v. 71) and in his appreciation of the character of
Themistocles--a veiled protest against the slanderous tales accepted by
Herodotus (i. 138). In Plutarch's tract "On the Malignity of Herodotus"
there is much that is suggestive, although his general standpoint, viz.
that Herodotus was in duty bound to suppress all that was discreditable
to the valour or patriotism of the Greeks, is not that of the modern
critic. It must be conceded to Plutarch that he makes good his charge of
bias in Herodotus's attitude towards certain of the Greek states. The
question, however, may fairly be asked, how far this bias is personal to
the author, or how far it is due to the character of the sources from
which his information was derived. He cannot, indeed, altogether be
acquitted of personal bias. His work is, to some extent, intended as an
_apologia_ for the Athenian empire. In answer to the charge that Athens
was guilty of robbing other Greek states of their freedom, Herodotus
seeks to show, firstly, that it was to Athens that the Greek world, as a
whole, owed its freedom from Persia, and secondly, that the subjects of
Athens, the Ionian Greeks, were unworthy to be free. This leads him to
be unjust both to the services of Sparta and to the qualities of the
Ionian race. For his estimate of the debt due to Athens see vii. 139.
For bias against the Ionians see especially iv. 142 (cf. Thuc. vi. 77);
cf. also i. 143 and 146, vi. 12-14 (Ladë), vi. 112 _ad fin._ A striking
example of his prejudice in favour of Athens is furnished by vi. 91. At
a moment when Greece rang with the crime of Athens in expelling the
Aeginetans from their Island, he ventures to trace in their expulsion
the vengeance of heaven for an act of sacrilege nearly sixty years
earlier (see AEGINA). As a rule, however, the bias apparent in his
narrative is due to the sources from which it is derived. Writing at
Athens, in the first years of the Peloponnesian War, he can hardly help
seeing the past through an Athenian medium. It was inevitable that much
of what he heard should come to him from Athenian informants, and should
be coloured by Athenian prejudices. We may thus explain the leniency
which he shows towards Argos and Thessaly, the old allies of Athens, in
marked contrast to his treatment of Thebes, Corinth and Aegina, her
deadliest foes. For Argos cf. vii. 152; Thessaly, vii. 172-174; Thebes,
vii. 132, vii. 233, ix. 87; Corinth (especially the Corinthian general
Adeimantus, whose son Aristeus was the most active enemy of Athens at
the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War), vii. 5, vii. 21, viii. 29 and
61, vii. 94; Aegina, ix. 78-80 and 85. In his intimacy with members of
the great Alcmaeonid house we probably have the explanation of his
depreciation of the services of Themistocles, as well as of his defence
of the family from the charges brought against it in connexion with
Cylon and with the incident of the shield shown on Pentelicus at the
time of Marathon (v. 71, vi. 121-124). His failure to do justice to the
Cypselid tyrants of Corinth (v. 92), and to the Spartan king Cleomenes,
is to be accounted for by the nature of his sources--in the former case,
the tradition of the Corinthian oligarchy; in the latter, accounts,
partly derived from the family of the exiled king Demaratus and partly
representative of the view of the ephorate. Much of the earlier history
is cast in a religious mould, e.g. the story of the Mermnad kings of
Lydia in book i., or of the fortunes of the colony of Cyrene (iv.
145-167). In such cases we cannot fail to recognize the influence of the
Delphic priesthood. Grote has pointed out that the moralizing tendency
observable in Herodotus is partly to be explained by the fact that much
of his information was gathered from priests and at temples, and that it
was given in explanation of votive offerings, or of the fulfilment of
oracles. Hence the determination of the sources of his narrative has
become one of the principal tasks of Herodotean criticism. In addition
to the current tradition of Athens, the family tradition of the
Alcmaeonidae, and the stories to be heard at Delphi and other
sanctuaries, there may be indicated the Spartan tradition, in the form
in which it existed in the middle of the 5th century; that of his native
Halicarnassus, to which is due the prominence of its queen Artemisia;
the traditions of the Ionian cities, especially of Samos and Miletus
(important both for the history of the Mermnadae and for the Ionian
Revolt); and those current in Sicily and Magna Graecia, which were
learned during his residence at Thurii (Sybaris and Croton, v. 44, 45;
Syracuse and Gela, vii. 153-167). Among his more special sources we can
point to the descendants of Demaratus, who still held, at the beginning
of the 4th century, the principality in the Troad which had been granted
to their ancestor by Darius (Xen. _Hell._ iii. i. 6), and to the family
of the Persian general Artabazus, in which the satrapy of Dascylium
(Phrygia) was hereditary in the 5th century.[28] His use of written
material is more difficult to determine. It is generally agreed that the
list of Persian satrapies, with their respective assessments of tribute
(iii. 89-97), the description of the royal road from Sardis to Susa (v.
52-54), and of the march of Xerxes, together with the list of the
contingents that took part in the expedition (vii. 26-131), are all
derived from documentary and authoritative sources. From previous
writers (e.g. Dionysius of Miletus, Hecataeus, Charon of Lampsacus and
Xanthus the Lydian) it is probable that he has borrowed little, though
the fragments are too scanty to permit of adequate comparison. His
references to monuments, dedicatory offerings, inscriptions and oracles
are frequent.
The chief defects of Herodotus are his failure to grasp the principles
of historical criticism, to understand the nature of military
operations, and to appreciate the importance of chronology. In place of
historical criticism we find a crude rationalism (e.g. ii. 45, vii. 129,
viii. 8). Having no conception of the distinction between occasion and
cause, he is content to find the explanation of great historical
movements in trivial incidents or personal motives. An example of this
is furnished by his account of the Ionian revolt, in which he fails to
discover the real causes either of the movement or of its result.
Indeed, it is clear that he regarded criticism as no part of his task as
an historian. In vii. 152 he states the principles which have guided
him--[Greek: egô de opheilô legein ta legomena, peithesthai ge men ou
pantapasi opheilô, kai moi touto to epos echeto es panta logon]. In
obedience to this principle he again and again gives two or more
versions of a story. We are thus frequently enabled to arrive at the
truth by a comparison of the discrepant traditions. It would have been
fortunate if all ancient writers who lacked the critical genius of
Thucydides had been content to adopt the practice of Herodotus. His
accounts of battles are always unsatisfactory. The great battles,
Marathon, Thermopylae, Salamis and Plataea, present a series of
problems. This result is partly due to the character of the traditions
which he follows--traditions which were to some extent inconsistent or
contradictory, and were derived from different sources; it is, however,
in great measure due to his inability to think out a strategical
combination or a tactical movement. It is not too much to say that the
battle of Plataea, as described by Herodotus, is wholly unintelligible.
Most serious of all his deficiencies is his careless chronology. Even in
the case of the 5th century, the data which he affords are inadequate or
ambiguous. The interval between the Scythian expedition and the Ionian
revolt is described by so vague an expression as [Greek: meta de ou
pollon chronon anesis kakôn ên] (v. 28). In the history of the revolt
itself, though he gives us the interval between its outbreak and the
fall of Miletus ([Greek: ektô etei], vi. 18), he does not give us the
interval between this and the battle of Lade, nor does he indicate with
sufficient precision the years to which the successive phases of the
movement belong. Throughout the work professed synchronisms too often
prove to be mere literary devices for facilitating a transition from one
subject to another (cf. e.g. v. 81 with 89, 90; or vi. 51 with 87 and
94). In the 6th century, as Grote pointed out, a whole generation, or
more, disappears in his historical perspective (cf. i. 30, vi. 125, v.
94, iii. 47, 48, v. 113 contrasted with v. 104 and iv. 162). The
attempts to reconstruct the chronology of this century upon the basis of
the data afforded by Herodotus (e.g. by Beloch, _Rheinisches Museum_,
xlv., 1890, pp. 465-473) have completely failed.
In spite of all such defects Herodotus is an author, not only of
unrivalled literary charm, but of the utmost value to the historian. If
much remains uncertain or obscure, even in the history of the Persian
Wars, it is chiefly to motives or policy, to topography or strategy, to
dates or numbers, that uncertainty attaches. It is to these that a sober
criticism will confine itself.
Thucydides.
Thucydides is at once the father of contemporary history and the father
of historical criticism. From a comparison of i. 1, i. 22 and v. 26, we
may gather both the principles to which he adhered in the composition of
his work and the conditions under which it was composed. It is seldom
that the circumstances of an historical writer have been so favourable
for the accomplishment of his task. Thucydides was a contemporary of the
Twenty-Seven Years' War in the fullest sense of the term. He had reached
manhood at its outbreak, and he survived its close by at least
half-a-dozen years. And he was more than a mere contemporary. As a man
of high birth, a member of the Periclean circle, and the holder of the
chief political office in the Athenian state, the _strategia_, he was
not only familiar with the business of administration and the conduct of
military operations, but he possessed in addition a personal knowledge
of those who played the principal part in the political life of the age.
His exile in the year 424 afforded him opportunities of visiting the
scenes of distant operations (e.g. Sicily) and of coming in contact with
the actors on the other side. He himself tells us that he spared no
pains to obtain the best information available in each case. He also
tells us that he began collecting materials for his work from the very
beginning of the war. Indeed, it is probable that much of books i.-v. 24
was written soon after the Peace of Nicias (421), just as it is possible
that the history of the Sicilian Expedition (books vi. and vii.) was
originally intended to form a separate work. To the view, however, which
has obtained wide support in recent years, that books i.-v. 22 and books
vi. and vii. were separately published, the rest of book v. and book
viii. being little more than a rough draught, composed after the author
had adopted the theory of a single war of twenty-seven years' duration,
of which the Sicilian Expedition and the operations of the years 431-421
formed integral parts, there seem to the present writer to be
insuperable objections. The work, as a whole, appears to have been
composed in the first years of the 4th century, after his return from
exile in 404, when the material already in existence must have been
revised and largely recast. There are exceedingly few passages, such as
iv. 48. 5, which appear to have been overlooked in the process of
revision. It can hardly be questioned that the impression left upon the
reader's mind is that the point of view of the author, in all the books
alike, is that of one writing after the fall of Athens.
The task of historical criticism in the case of the Peloponnesian War is
widely different from its task in the case of the Persian Wars. It has
to deal, not with facts as they appear in the traditions of an
imaginative race, but with facts as they appeared to a scientific
observer. Facts, indeed, are seldom in dispute. The question is rather
whether facts of importance are omitted, whether the explanation of
causes is correct, or whether the judgment of men and measures is just.
Such inaccuracies as have been brought home to Thucydides on the
strength, e.g. of epigraphic evidence, are, as a rule, trivial. His most
serious errors relate to topographical details, in cases where he was
dependent on the information of others. Sphacteria (see Pylos) (see G.
B. Grundy, _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, xvi., 1896, p. 1) is a case in
point. Nor have the difficulties connected with the siege of Plataea
been cleared up either by Grundy or by others (see Grundy, _Topography
of the Battle of Plataea_, &c., 1894). Where, on the contrary, he is
writing at first hand his descriptions of sites are surprisingly
correct. The most serious charge as yet brought against his authority as
to matters of fact relates to his account of the Revolution of the Four
Hundred, which appears, at first sight, to be inconsistent with the
documentary evidence supplied by Aristotle's _Constitution of Athens_
(q.v.). It may be questioned, however, whether the documents have been
correctly interpreted by Aristotle. On the whole, it is probable that
the general course of events was such as Thucydides describes (see E.
Meyer, _Forschungen_, ii. 406-436), though he failed to appreciate the
position of Theramenes and the Moderate party, and was clearly
misinformed on some important points of detail. With regard to the
omission of facts, it is unquestionable that much is omitted that would
not be omitted by a modern writer. Such omissions are generally due to
the author's conception of his task. Thus the internal history of Athens
is passed over as forming no part of the history of the war. It is only
where the course of the war is directly affected by the course of
political events (e.g. by the Revolution of the Four Hundred) that the
internal history is referred to. However much it may be regretted that
the relations of political parties are not more fully described,
especially in book v., it cannot be denied that from his standpoint
there is logical justification even for the omission of the ostracism of
Hyperbolus. There are omissions, however, which are not so easily
explained. Perhaps the most notable instance is that of the raising of
the tribute in 425 B.C. (see DELIAN LEAGUE).
Nowhere is the contrast between the historical methods of Herodotus and
Thucydides more apparent than in the treatment of the causes of events.
The distinction between the occasion and the cause is constantly present
to the mind of Thucydides, and it is his tendency to make too little
rather than too much of the personal factor. Sometimes, however, it may
be doubted whether his explanation of the causes of an event is adequate
or correct. In tracing the causes of the Peloponnesian War itself,
modern writers are disposed to allow more weight to the commercial
rivalry of Corinth; while in the case of the Sicilian expedition, they
would actually reverse his judgment (ii. 65 [Greek: ho es Sikelian plous
hos ou tosoutov gnômês hamartêma ên pros hous epêesan]). To us it seems
that the very idea of the expedition implied a gigantic miscalculation
of the resources of Athens and of the difficulty of the task. His
judgments of men and of measures have been criticized by writers of
different schools and from different points of view. Grote criticized
his verdict upon Cleon, while he accepted his estimate of the policy of
Pericles. More recent writers, on the other hand, have accepted his view
of Cleon, while they have selected for attack his appreciation alike of
the policy and the strategy of Pericles. He has been charged, too, with
failure to do justice to the statesmanship of Alcibiades.[29] There are
cases, undoubtedly, in which the balance of recent opinion will be
adverse to the view of Thucydides. There are many more in which the
result of criticism has been to establish his view. That he should
occasionally have been mistaken in his judgment and his views is
certainly no detraction from his claim to greatness.
On the whole, it may be said that while the criticism of Herodotus,
since Grote wrote, has tended seriously to modify our view of the
Persian Wars, as well as of the earlier history, the criticism of
Thucydides, in spite of its imposing bulk, has affected but slightly our
view of the course of the Peloponnesian War. The labours of recent
workers in this field have borne most fruit where they have been
directed to subjects neglected by Thucydides, such as the history of
political parties, or the organization of the empire (G. Gilbert's
_Innere Geschichte Athens im Zeitalter des pel. Krieges_ is a good
example of such work).
In regard to Thucydides' treatment of the period between the Persian and
Peloponnesian Wars (the so-called _Pentecontaëteris_) it should be
remembered that he does not profess to give, even in outline, the
history of this period as a whole. The period is regarded simply as a
prelude to the Peloponnesian War. There is no attempt to sketch the
history of the Greek world or of Greece proper during this period. There
is, indeed, no attempt to give a complete sketch of Athenian history.
His object is to trace the growth of the Athenian Empire, and the causes
that made the war inevitable. Much is therefore omitted not only in the
history of the other Greek states, especially the Peloponnesian, but
even in the history of Athens. Nor does Thucydides attempt an exact
chronology. He gives us a few dates (e.g. surrender of Ithome, in the
tenth year, i. 103; of Thasos, in the third year, i. 101; duration of
the Egyptian expedition six years, i. 110; interval between Tanagra and
Oenophyta 61 days, i. 108; revolt of Samos, in the sixth year after the
Thirty Years' Truce, i. 115), but from these data alone it would be
impossible to reconstruct the chronology of the period. In spite of all
that can be gleaned from our other authorities, our knowledge of this,
the true period of Athenian greatness, must remain slight and imperfect
as compared with our knowledge of the next thirty years.
Diodorus.
Plutarch.
The constitutions.
Of the secondary authorities for this period the two principal ones are
Diodorus (xi. 38 to xii. 37) and Plutarch. Diodorus is of value chiefly
in relation to Sicilian affairs, to which he devotes about a third of
this section of his work and for which he is almost our sole authority.
His source for Sicilian history is the Sicilian writer Timaeus (q.v.),
an author of the 3rd century B.C. For the history of Greece Proper
during the Pentecontaetia Diodorus contributes comparatively little of
importance. Isolated notices of particular events (e.g. the _Synoecism_
of Elis, 471 B.C., or the foundation of Amphipolis, 437 B.C.), which
appear to be derived from a chronological writer, may generally be
trusted. The greater part of his narrative is, however, derived from
Ephorus, who appears to have had before him little authentic information
for this period of Greek history other than that afforded by Thucydides'
work. Four of Plutarch's _Lives_ are concerned with this period, viz.
_Themistocles_, _Aristides_, _Cimon_ and _Pericles_. From the
_Aristides_ little can be gained. Plutarch, in this biography, appears
to be mainly dependent upon Idomeneus of Lampsacus, an excessively
untrustworthy writer of the 3rd century B.C., who is probably to be
credited with the invention of the oligarchical conspiracy at the time
of the battle of Plataea (ch. 13), and of the decree of Aristides,
rendering all four classes of citizens eligible for the archonship (ch.
22). The _Cimon_, on the other hand, contains much that is valuable;
such as, e.g. the account of the battle of the Eurymedon (chs. 12 and
13). To the _Pericles_ we owe several quotations from the Old Comedy.
Two other of the _Lives_, _Lycurgus_ and _Solon_, are amongst our most
important sources for the early history of Sparta and Athens
respectively. Of the two (besides _Pericles_) which relate to the
Peloponnesian War, _Alcibiades_ adds little to what can be gained from
Thucydides and Xenophon; the _Nicias_, on the other hand, supplements
Thucydides' narrative of the Sicilian expedition with many valuable
details, which, it may safely be assumed, are derived from the
contemporary historian, Philistus of Syracuse. Amongst the most valuable
material afforded by Plutarch are the quotations, which occur in almost
all the _Lives_, from the collection of Athenian decrees ([Greek:
psêphismatôn sunagôgê]) formed by the Macedonian writer Craterus, in the
3rd century B.C. Two other works may be mentioned in connexion with the
history of Athens. For the history of the Athenian Constitution down to
the end of the 5th century B.C. Aristotle's _Constitution of Athens_
(q.v.) is our chief authority. The other _Constitution of Athens_,
erroneously attributed to Xenophon, a tract of singular interest both on
literary and historical grounds, throws a good deal of light on the
internal condition of Athens, and on the system of government, both of
the state and of the empire, in the age of the Peloponnesian War, during
the earlier years of which it was composed.
Inscriptions.
To the literary sources for the history of Greece, especially of Athens,
in the 5th century B.C. must be added the epigraphic. Few inscriptions
have been discovered which date back beyond the Persian Wars. For the
latter half of the 5th century they are both numerous and important. Of
especial value are the series of Quota-lists, from which can be
calculated the amount of tribute paid by the subject-allies of Athens
from the year 454 B.C. onwards. The great majority of the inscriptions
of this period are of Athenian origin. Their value is enhanced by the
fact that they relate, as a rule, to questions of organization, finance
and administration, as to which little information is to be gained from
the literary sources.
For the period between the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars Busolt,
_Griechische Geschichte_, iii. 1, is indispensable. Hill's _Sources of
Greek History, B.C. 478-431_ (Oxford, 1897) is excellent. It gives the
most important inscriptions in a convenient form.
Xenophon.
III. _The 4th Century to the Death of Alexander._--Of the historians who
flourished in the 4th century the sole writer whose works have come down
to us is Xenophon. It is a singular accident of fortune that neither of
the two authors, who at once were most representative of their age and
did most to determine the views of Greek history current in subsequent
generations, Ephorus (q.v.) and Theopompus (q.v.), should be extant. It
was from them, rather than from Herodotus, Thucydides or Xenophon that
the Roman world obtained its knowledge of the history of Greece in the
past, and its conception of its significance. Both were pupils of
Isocrates, and both, therefore, bred up in an atmosphere of rhetoric.
Hence their popularity and their influence. The scientific spirit of
Thucydides was alien to the temper of the 4th century, and hardly more
congenial to the age of Cicero or Tacitus. To the rhetorical spirit,
which is common to both, each added defects peculiar to himself.
Theopompus is a strong partisan, a sworn foe to Athens and to Democracy.
Ephorus, though a military historian, is ignorant of the art of war. He
is also incredibly careless and uncritical. It is enough to point to his
description of the battle of the Eurymedon (Diodorus xi. 60-62), in
which, misled by an epigram, which he supposed to relate to this
engagement (it really refers to the Athenian victory off Salamis in
Cyprus, 449 B.C.), he makes the coast of Cyprus the scene of Cimon's
naval victory, and finds no difficulty in putting it on the same day as
the victory on shore on the banks of the Eurymedon, in Pamphylia. Only a
few fragments remain of either writer, but Theopompus (q.v.) was largely
used by Plutarch in several of the _Lives_, while Ephorus continues to
be the main source of Diodorus' history, as far as the outbreak of the
Sacred War (Fragments of Ephorus in Müller's _Fragmenta historicorum
Graecorum_, vol.i.; of Theopompus in _Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, cum
Theopompi et Cratippi fragmentis_, ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt,
1909).
It may be at least claimed for Xenophon (q.v.) that he is free from all
taint of the rhetorical spirit. It may also be claimed for him that, as
a witness, he is both honest and well-informed. But, if there is no
justification for the charge of deliberate falsification, it cannot be
denied that he had strong political prejudices, and that his narrative
has suffered from them. His historical writings are the _Anabasis_, an
account of the expedition of the Ten Thousand, the _Hellenica_ and the
_Agesilaus_, a eulogy of the Spartan king. Of these the _Hellenica_ is
far the most important for the student of history. It consists of two
distinct parts (though there is no ground for the theory that the two
parts were separately written and published), books i. and ii., and
books iii. to vii. The first two books are intended as a continuation of
Thucydides' work. They begin, quite abruptly, in the middle of the Attic
year 411/10, and they carry the history down to the fall of the Thirty,
in 403. Books iii. to vii., the _Hellenica_ proper, cover the period
from 401 to 362, and give the histories of the Spartan and Theban
hegemonies down to the death of Epaminondas. There is thus a gap of two
years between the point at which the first part ends and that at which
the second part begins. The two parts differ widely, both in their aim
and in the arrangement of the material. In the first part Xenophon
attempts, though not with complete success, to follow the chronological
method of Thucydides, and to make each successive spring, when military
and naval operations were resumed after the winter's interruption, the
starting-point of a fresh section. The resemblance between the two
writers ends, however, with the outward form of the narrative. All that
is characteristic of Thucydides is absent in Xenophon. The latter writer
shows neither skill in portraiture, nor insight into motives. He is
deficient in the sense of proportion and of the distinction between
occasion and cause. Perhaps his worst fault is a lack of imagination. To
make a story intelligible it is necessary sometimes to put oneself in
the reader's place, and to appreciate his ignorance of circumstances and
events which would be perfectly familiar to the actors in the scene or
to contemporaries. It was not given to Xenophon, as it was to
Thucydides, to discriminate between the circumstances that are essential
and those that are not essential to the comprehension of the story. In
spite, therefore, of its wealth of detail, his narrative is frequently
obscure. It is quite clear that in the trial of the generals, e.g.,
something is omitted. It may be supplied as Diodorus has supplied it
(xiii. 101), or it may be supplied otherwise. It is probable that, when
under cross-examination before the council, the generals, or some of
them, disclosed the commission given to Theramenes and Thrasybulus. The
important point is that Xenophon himself has omitted to supply it. As it
stands his narrative is unintelligible. In the first two books, though
there are omissions (e.g. the loss of Nisaea, 409 B.C.), they are not so
serious as in the last five, nor is the bias so evident. It is true that
if the account of the rule of the Thirty given in Aristotle's
_Constitution of Athens_ be accepted, Xenophon must have deliberately
misrepresented the course of events to the prejudice of Theramenes. But
it is at least doubtful whether Aristotle's version can be sustained
against Xenophon's, though it may be admitted, not only that there are
mistakes as to details in the latter writer's narrative, but that less
than justice is done to the policy and motives of the "Buskin." The
_Hellenica_ was written, it should be remembered, at Corinth, after 362.
More than forty years had thus elapsed since the events recorded in the
first two books, and after so long an interval accuracy of detail, even
where the detail is of importance, is not always to be expected.[30] In
the second part the chronological method is abandoned. A subject once
begun is followed out to its natural ending, so that sections of the
narrative which are consecutive in order are frequently parallel in
point of date. A good example of this will be found in book iv. In
chapters 2 to 7 the history of the Corinthian war is carried down to the
end of 390, so far as the operations on land are concerned, while
chapter 8 contains an account of the naval operations from 394 to 388.
In this second part of the _Hellenica_ the author's disqualifications
for his task are more apparent than in the first two books. The more he
is acquitted of bias in his selection of events and in his omissions,
the more clearly does he stand convicted of lacking all sense of the
proportion of things. Down to Leuctra (371 B.C.) Sparta is the centre of
interest, and it is of the Spartan state alone that a complete or
continuous history is given. After Leuctra, if the point of view is no
longer exclusively Spartan, the narrative of events is hardly less
incomplete. Throughout the second part of the _Hellenica_ omissions
abound which it is difficult either to explain or justify. The formation
of the Second Athenian Confederacy of 377 B.C., the foundation of
Megalopolis and the restoration of the Messenian state are all left
unrecorded. Yet the writer who passes them over without mention thinks
it worth while to devote more than one-sixth of an entire book to a
chronicle of the unimportant feats of the citizens of the petty state of
Phlius. Nor is any attempt made to appraise the policy of the great
Theban leaders, Pelopidas and Epaminondas. The former, indeed, is
mentioned only in a single passage, relating to the embassy to Susa in
368; the latter does not appear on the scene till a year later, and
receives mention but twice before the battle of Mantinea. An author who
omits from his narrative some of the most important events of his
period, and elaborates the portraiture of an Agesilaus while not
attempting the bare outline of an Epaminondas, may be honest; he may
even write without a consciousness of bias; he certainly cannot rank
among the great writers of history.[31]
Diodorus.
For the history of the 4th century Diodorus assumes a higher degree of
importance than belongs to him in the earlier periods. This is partly to
be explained by the deficiencies of Xenophon's _Hellenica_, partly by
the fact that for the interval between the death of Epaminondas and the
accession of Alexander we have in Diodorus alone a continuous narrative
of events. Books xiv. and xv. of his history include the period covered
by the _Hellenica_. More than half of book xiv. is devoted to the
history of Sicily and the reign of Dionysius, the tyrant of Syracuse.
For this period of Sicilian history he is, practically, our sole
authority. In the rest of the book, as well as in book xv., there is
much of value, especially in the notices of Macedonian history. Thanks
to Diodorus we are enabled to supply many of the omissions of the
_Hellenica_. Diodorus is, e.g., our sole literary authority for the
Athenian naval confederation of 377. Book xvi. must rank, with the
_Hellenica_ and Arrian's _Anabasis_, as one of the three principal
authorities for this century, so far, at least, as works of an
historical character are concerned. It is our authority for the Social
and the Sacred Wars, as well as for the reign of Philip. It is a curious
irony of fate that, for what is perhaps the most momentous epoch in the
history of Greece, we should have to turn to a writer of such inferior
capacity. For this period his material is better and his importance
greater: his intelligence is as limited as ever. Who but Diodorus would
be capable of narrating the siege and capture of Methone twice over,
once under the year 354, and again under the year 352 (xvi. 31 and 34;
cf. xii. 35 and 42; Archidamus (q.v.) dies in 434, commands
Peloponnesian army in 431); or of giving three different numbers of
years (eleven, ten and nine) in three different passages (chs. 14, 23
and 59) for the length of the Sacred War; or of asserting the
conclusion of peace between Athens and Philip in 340, after the failure
of his attack on Perinthus and Byzantium? Amongst the subjects which are
omitted is the Peace of Philocrates. For the earlier chapters, which
bring the narrative down to the outbreak of the Sacred War, Ephorus, as
in the previous book, is Diodorus' main source. His source for the rest
of the book, i.e. for the greater part of Philip's reign, cannot be
determined. It is generally agreed that it is not the _Philippica_ of
Theopompus.
Historians of Alexander's reign.
For the reign of Alexander our earliest extant authority is Diodorus,
who belongs to the age of Augustus. Of the others, Q. Curtius Rufus, who
wrote in Latin, lived in the reign of the emperor Claudius, Arrian and
Plutarch in the 2nd century A.D. Yet Alexander's reign is one of the
best known periods of ancient history. The Peloponnesian War and the
twenty years of Roman history which begin with 63 B.C. are the only two
periods which we can be said to know more fully or for which we have
more trustworthy evidence. For there is no period of ancient history
which was recorded by a larger number of contemporary writers, or for
which better or more abundant materials were available. Of the writers
actually contemporary with Alexander there were five of
importance--Ptolemy, Aristobulus, Callisthenes, Onesicritus and
Nearchus; and all of them occupied positions which afforded exceptional
opportunities of ascertaining the facts. Four of them were officers in
Alexander's service. Ptolemy, the future king of Egypt, was one of the
_somatophylaces_ (we may, perhaps, regard them as corresponding to
Napoleon's marshals); Aristobulus was also an officer of high rank (see
Arrian, _Anab._ vi. 29. 10); Nearchus was admiral of the fleet which
surveyed the Indus and the Persian Gulf, and Onesicritus was one of his
subordinates. The fifth, Callisthenes, a pupil of Aristotle, accompanied
Alexander on his march down to his death in 327 and was admitted to the
circle of his intimate friends. A sixth historian, Cleitarchus, was
possibly also a contemporary; at any rate he is not more than a
generation later. These writers had at their command a mass of official
documents, such as the [Greek: basileioi ephêmerides]--the _Gazette_ and
_Court Circular_ combined--edited and published after Alexander's death
by his secretary, Eumenes of Cardia; the [Greek: stathmoi], or records
of the marches of the armies, which were carefully measured at the time;
and the official reports on the conquered provinces. That these
documents were made use of by the historians is proved by the references
to them which are to be found in Arrian, Plutarch and Strabo; e.g.
Arrian, _Anab._ vii. 25 and 26, and Plutarch, _Alexander 76_ (quotation
from the [Greek: basileioi ephêmerides]); Strabo xv. 723 (reference to
the [Greek: stathmoi]), ii. 69 (reports drawn up on the various
provinces). We have, in addition, in Plutarch numerous quotations from
Alexander's correspondence with his mother, Olympias, and with his
officers. The contemporary historians may be roughly divided into two
groups. On the one hand there are Ptolemy and Aristobulus, who, except
in a single instance, are free from all suspicion of deliberate
invention. On the other hand, there are Callisthenes, Onesicritus and
Cleitarchus, whose tendency is rhetorical. Nearchus appears to have
allowed full scope to his imagination in dealing with the wonders of
India, but to have been otherwise veracious. Of the extant writers
Arrian (q.v.) is incomparably the most valuable. His merits are twofold.
As the commander of Roman legions and the author of a work on tactics,
he combined a practical with a theoretical knowledge of the military
art, while the writers whom he follows in the _Anabasis_ are the two
most worthy of credit, Ptolemy and Aristobulus. We may well hesitate to
call in question the authority of writers who exhibit an agreement which
it would be difficult to parallel elsewhere in the case of two
independent historians. It may be inferred from Arrian's references to
them that there were only eleven cases in all in which he found
discrepancies between them. The most serious drawback which can be
alleged against them is an inevitable bias in Alexander's favour. It
would be only natural that they should pass over in silence the worst
blots on their great commander's fame. Next in value to the _Anabasis_
comes Plutarch's _Life of Alexander_, the merits of which, however, are
not to be gauged by the influence which it has exercised upon
literature. The _Life_ is a valuable supplement to the _Anabasis_,
partly because Plutarch, as he is writing biography rather than history
(for his conception of the difference between the two see the famous
preface, _Life of Alexander_, ch. i.), is concerned to record all that
will throw light upon Alexander's character (e.g. his epigrammatic
sayings and quotations from his letters); partly because he tells us
much about his early life, before he became king, while Arrian tells us
nothing. It is unfortunate that Plutarch writes in an uncritical spirit;
it is hardly less unfortunate that he should have formed no clear
conception and drawn no consistent picture of Alexander's character.
Book xvii. of Diodorus and the _Historiae Alexandri_ of Curtius Rufus
are thoroughly rhetorical in spirit. It is probable that in both cases
the ultimate source is the work of Clitarchus.
The orators.
Isocrates.
It is towards the end of the 5th century that a fresh source of
information becomes available in the speeches of the orators, the
earliest of whom is Antiphon (d. 411 B.C.). Lysias is of great
importance for the history of the Thirty (see the speeches against
Eratosthenes and Agoratus), and a good deal may be gathered from
Andocides with regard to the last years of the 5th and the opening years
of the next century. At the other end of this period Lycurgus, Hyperides
and Dinarchus throw light upon the time of Philip and Alexander. The
three, however, who are of most importance to the historian are
Isocrates, Aeschines and Demosthenes. Isocrates (q.v.), whose long life
(436-338) more than spans the interval between the outbreak of the
Peloponnesian War and the triumph of Macedon at Chaeronea, is one of the
most characteristic figures in the Greek world of his day. To comprehend
that world the study of Isocrates is indispensable; for in an age
dominated by rhetoric he is the prince of rhetoricians. It is difficult
for a modern reader to do him justice, so alien is his spirit and the
spirit of his age from ours. It must be allowed that he is frequently
monotonous and prolix; at the same time it must not be forgotten that,
as the most famous representative of rhetoric, he was read from one end
of the Greek world to the other. He was the friend of Evagoras and
Archidamus, of Dionysius and Philip; he was the master of Aeschines and
Lycurgus amongst orators and of Ephorus and Theopompus amongst
historians. No other contemporary writer has left so indelible a stamp
upon the style and the sentiment of his generation. It is a commonplace
that Isocrates is the apostle of Panhellenism. It is not so generally
recognized that he is the prophet of Hellenism. A passage in the
Panegyricus (§ 50 [Greek: hôste to tôn Hellênon onoma mêketi tou genous
alla tês dianoias dokein einai kai mallon Hellênas kaleisthai tous tês
paideuseôs tês hêmeteras ê tous tês koinês physeôs metechontas]) is the
key to the history of the next three centuries. Doubtless he had no
conception of the extent to which the East was to be hellenized. He was,
however, the first to recognize that it would be hellenized by the
diffusion of Greek culture rather than of Greek blood. His Panhellenism
was the outcome of his recognition of the new forces and tendencies
which were at work in the midst of a new generation. When Greek culture
was becoming more and more international, the exaggeration of the
principle of autonomy in the Greek political system was becoming more
and more absurd. He had sufficient insight to be aware that the price
paid for this autonomy was the domination of Persia; a domination which
meant the servitude of the Greek states across the Aegean and the
demoralization of Greek political life at home. His Panhellenism led him
to a more liberal view of the distinction between what was Greek and
what was not than was possible to the intenser patriotism of a
Demosthenes. In his later orations he has the courage not only to
pronounce that the day of Athens as a first-rate power is past, but to
see in Philip the needful leader in the crusade against Persia. The
earliest and greatest of his political orations is the _Panegyricus_,
published in 380 B.C., midway between the peace of Antalcidas and
Leuctra. It is his _apologia_ for Panhellenism. To the period of the
Social War belong the _De pace_ (355 B.C.) and the _Areopagiticus_ (354
B.C.), both of great value as evidence for the internal conditions of
Athens at the beginning of the struggle with Macedon. The _Plataicus_
(373 B.C.) and the _Archidamus_ (366 B.C.) throw light upon the politics
of Boeotia and the Peloponnese respectively. The _Panathenaicus_ (339
B.C.), the child of his old age, contains little that may not be found
in the earlier orations. The _Philippus_ (346 B.C.) is of peculiar
interest, as giving the views of the Macedonian party.
Demosthenes.
Not the least remarkable feature in recent historical criticism is the
reaction against the view which was at one time almost universally
accepted of the character, statesmanship and authority of the orator
Demosthenes (q.v.). During the last quarter of a century his character
and statesmanship have been attacked, and his authority impugned, by a
series of writers of whom Holm and Beloch are the best known. With the
estimate of his character and statesmanship we are not here concerned.
With regard to his value as an authority for the history of the period,
it is to his speeches, and to those of his contemporaries, Aeschines,
Hypereides, Dinarchus and Lycurgus, that we owe our intimate knowledge,
both of the working of the constitutional and legal systems, and of the
life of the people, at this period of Athenian history. From this point
of view his value can hardly be overestimated. As a witness, however, to
matters of fact, his authority can no longer be rated as highly as it
once was, e.g. by Schaefer and by Grote. The orator's attitude towards
events, both in the past and in the present, is inevitably a different
one from the historian's. The object of a Thucydides is to ascertain a
fact, or to exhibit it in its true relations. The object of a
Demosthenes is to make a point, or to win his case. In their dealings
with the past the orators exhibit a levity which is almost inconceivable
to a modern reader. Andocides, in a passage of his speech _On the
Mysteries_ (§ 107), speaks of Marathon as the crowning victory of
Xerxes' campaign; in his speech _On the Peace_ (§ 3) he confuses
Miltiades with Cimon, and the Five Years' Peace with the Thirty Years'
Truce. Though the latter passage is a mass of absurdities and
confusions, it was so generally admired that it was incorporated by
Aeschines in his speech _On the Embassy_ (§§ 172-176). If such was their
attitude towards the past; if, in order to make a point, they do not
hesitate to pervert history, is it likely that they would conform to a
higher standard of veracity in their statements as to the present--as to
their contemporaries, their rivals or their own actions? When we compare
different speeches of Demosthenes, separated by an interval of years, we
cannot fail to observe a marked difference in his statements. The
farther he is from the events, the bolder are his mis-statements. It is
only necessary to compare the speech _On the Crown_ with that _On the
Embassy_, and this latter speech with the _Philippics_ and _Olynthiacs_,
to find illustrations. It has come to be recognized that no statement as
to a matter of fact is to be accepted, unless it receives independent
corroboration, or unless it is admitted by both sides. The speeches of
Demosthenes may be conveniently divided into four classes according to
their dates. To the pre-Philippic period belong the speeches _On the
Symmories_ (354 B.C.), _On Megalopolis_ (352 B.C.), _Against
Aristocrates_ (351 B.C.), and, perhaps, the speech _On Rhodes_ (? 351
B.C.). These speeches betray no consciousness of the danger threatened
by Philip's ambition. The policy recommended is one based upon the
principle of the balance of power. To the succeeding period, which ends
with the peace of Philocrates (346 B.C.), belong the _First Philippic_
and the three _Olynthiacs_. To the period between the peace of
Philocrates and Chaeronea belong the speech _On the Peace_ (346 B.C.),
the _Second Philippic_ (344 B.C.), the speeches _On the Embassy_ (344
B.C.) and _On the Chersonese_ (341 B.C.), and the _Third Philippic_. The
masterpiece of his genius, the speech On the Crown, was delivered in 330
B.C., in the reign of Alexander. Of the three extant speeches of
Aeschines (q.v.) that _On the Embassy_ is of great value, as enabling us
to correct the mis-statements of Demosthenes. For the period from the
death of Alexander to the fall of Corinth (323-146 B.C.) our literary
authorities are singularly defective. For the Diadochi Diodorus (books
xviii.-xx.) is our chief source. These books form the most valuable
part of Diodorus' work. They are mainly based upon the work of
Hieronymus of Cardia, a writer who combined exceptional opportunities
for ascertaining the truth (he was in the service first of Eumenes, and
then of Antigonus) with an exceptional sense of its importance.
Hieronymus ended his history at the death of Pyrrhus (272 B.C.), but,
unfortunately, book xx. of Diodorus' work carries us no farther than 303
B.C., and of the later books we have but scanty fragments. The narrative
of Diodorus may be supplemented by the fragments of Arrian's _History of
the events after Alexander's death_ (which reach, however, only to 321
B.C.), and by Plutarch's _Lives of Eumenes_ and of _Demetrius_. For the
rest of the 3rd century and the first half of the 2nd we have his _Lives
of Pyrrhus_, of _Aratus_, of _Philopoemen_, and of _Agis and Cleomenes_.
For the period from 220 B.C. onwards Polybius (q.v.) is our chief
authority (see ROME: _Ancient History_, section "Authorities"). In a
period in which the literary sources are so scanty great weight attaches
to the epigraphic and numismatic evidence.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The literature which deals with the history of Greece,
in its various periods, departments and aspects, is of so vast a bulk
that all that can be attempted here is to indicate the most important
and most accessible works.
_General Histories of Greece._--Down to the middle of the 19th century
the only histories of Greece deserving of mention were the products of
English scholarship. The two earliest of these were published about
the same date, towards the end of the 18th century, nearly
three-quarters of a century before any history of Greece, other than a
mere compendium, appeared on the Continent. John Gillies' _History of
Greece_ was published in 1786, Mitford's in 1784. Both works were
composed with a political bias and a political object. Gillies was a
Whig. In the dedication (to George III.) he expresses the view that
"the History of Greece exposes the dangerous turbulence of Democracy,
and arraigns the despotism of Tyrants, while it evinces the
inestimable benefits, resulting to Liberty itself, from the steady
operation of well-regulated monarchy." Mitford was a Tory, who thought
to demonstrate the evils of democracy from the example of the Athenian
state. His _History_, in spite of its bias, was a work of real value.
More than fifty years elapsed between Mitford's work and Thirlwall's.
Connop Thirlwall, fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, afterwards
bishop of St David's, brought a sound judgment to the aid of ripe
scholarship. His _History of Greece_, published in 1835-1838 (8
vols.), is entirely free from the controversial tone of Mitford's
volumes. Ten years later (1846) George Grote published the first
volumes of his history, which was not completed (in 12 vols.) till
1856. Grote, like Mitford, was a politician--an ardent Radical, with
republican sympathies. It was in order to refute the slanders of the
Tory partisan that he was impelled to write a history of Greece, which
should do justice to the greatest democracy of the ancient world, the
Athenian state. Thus, in the case of three of these four writers, the
interest in their subject was mainly political. Incomparably the
greatest of these works is Grote's. Grote had his faults and his
limitations. His prejudices are strong, and his scholarship is weak;
he had never visited Greece, and he knew little or nothing of Greek
art; and, at the time he wrote, the importance of coins and
inscriptions was imperfectly apprehended. In spite of every defect,
however, his work is the greatest history of Greece that has yet been
written. It is not too much to say that nobody knows Greek history
till he has mastered Grote. No history of Greece has since appeared in
England on a scale at all comparable to that of Grote's work. The most
important of the more recent ones is that by J. B. Bury (1 vol.,
1900), formerly fellow of Trinity College, Dublin, afterwards Regius
Professor of Modern History at Cambridge. Mitford and Bury end with
the death of Alexander; Gillies and Grote carry on the narrative a
generation farther; while Thirlwall's work extends to the absorption
of Greece in the Roman Empire (146 B.C.).
While in France the _Histoire des Grecs_ (ending at 146 B.C.) of
Victor Duruy (new edition, 2 vols., 1883), Minister of Public
Instruction under Napoleon III., is the only one that need be
mentioned, in Germany there has been a succession of histories of
Greece since the middle of the 19th century. Kortüm's _Geschichte
Griechenlands_ (3 vols., 1854), a work of little merit, was followed
by Max Duncker's _Geschichte der Griechen_ (vols. 1 and 2 published in
1856; vols. 1 and 2, Neue Folge, which bring the narrative down to the
death of Pericles, in 1884; the two former volumes form vols. 5, 6 and
7 of his _Geschichte des Altertums_), and by the _Griechische
Geschichte_ of Ernst Curtius (3 vols., 1857-1867). An English
translation of Duncker, by S. F. Alleyne, appeared in 1883 (2 vols.,
Bentley), and of Curtius, by A. W. Ward (5 vols., Bentley, 1868-1873).
Among more recent works may be mentioned the _Griechische Geschichte_
of Adolf Holm (4 vols., Berlin, 1886-1894; English translation by F.
Clarke, 4 vols., Macmillan, 1894-1898), and histories with the same
title by Julius Beloch (3 vols., Strassburg, 1893-1904) and Georg
Busolt (2nd ed., 3 vols., Gotha, 1893-1904). Holm carries on the
narrative to 30 B.C., Beloch to 217 B.C., Busolt to Chaeronea (338
B.C.).[32] Busolt's work is entirely different in character from any
other history of Greece. The writer's object is to refer in the notes
(which constitute five-sixths of the book) to the views of every
writer in any language upon every controverted question. It is
absolutely indispensable, as a work of reference, for any serious
study of Greek history. The ablest work since Grote's is Eduard
Meyer's _Geschichte des Altertums_, of which 5 vols. (Stuttgart and
Berlin, 1884-1902) have appeared, carrying the narrative down to the
death of Epaminondas (362 B.C.). Vols. 2-5 are principally concerned
with Greek history. It must be remembered that, partly owing to the
literary finds and the archaeological discoveries of the last thirty
years, and partly owing to the advance made in the study of epigraphy
and numismatics, all the histories published before those of Busolt,
Beloch, Meyer and Bury are out of date.
_Works bearing on the History of Greece._--Earlier works and editions
are omitted, except in the case of a work which has not been
superseded.
_Introductions._--C. Wachsmuth, _Einleitung in das Studium der alten
Geschichte_ (1 vol., Leipzig, 1895); E. Meyer, _Forschungen zur alten
Geschichte_ (2 parts, Halle, 1892-1899; quite indispensable); J. B.
Bury, _The Ancient Greek Historians_ (London, 1909).
_Constitutional History and Institutions._--G. F. Schömann,
_Griechische Altertümer_ (2 vols., Berlin, 1855-1859; vol. i., tr. by
E. G. Hardy and J. S. Mann, Rivingtons, 1880); G. Gilbert,
_Griechische Staatsaltertümer_ (2nd ed., 2 vols., Leipzig, 1893; vol.
i. tr. by E. J. Brooks and T. Nicklin, Swan Sonnenschein, 1895); K. F.
Hermann, _Lehrbuch der griechischen Antiquitäten_ (6th ed., 4 vols.,
Freiburg, 1882-1895); Iwan Müller, _Handbuch der klassischen
Altertumswissenschaft_ (9 vols., Nördlingen, 1886, in progress;
several of the volumes are concerned with Greek history); J. H.
Lipsius, _Das attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren_ (Leipzig, 1905, in
progress); A. H. J. Greenidge, _Handbook of Greek Constitutional
History_ (1 vol., Macmillan, 1896); Pauly-Wissowa, _Realencyklopädie
der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft_ (Stuttgart, 1894 foll.).
_Geography._--E. H. Bunbury, _History of Ancient Geography amongst the
Greeks and Romans_ (2nd ed., 2 vols., Murray, 1883), W. M. Leake,
_Travels in the Morea_ (3 vols., 1830), and _Travels in Northern
Greece_ (4 vols., 1834); H. F. Tozer, _Lectures on the Geography of
Greece_ (1 vol., Murray, 1873), and _History of Ancient Geography_ (1
vol., Cambridge, 1897); J. P. Mahaffy, _Rambles and Studies in Greece_
(3rd ed., 1 vol., Macmillan, 1887, an admirable book); C. Bursian,
_Geographie von Griechenland_ (2 vols., Leipzig, 1872); H. Berger,
_Geschichte der wissenschaftlichen Erdkunde der Griechen_ (4 parts,
Leipzig, 1887-1893); Ernst Curtius, _Peloponnesos_ (2 vols., Gotha,
1850-1851).
_Epigraphy and Numismatics._--_Corpus inscriptionum Atticarum_
(Berlin, 1875, in progress), _Corpus inscriptionum Graecarum_ (Berlin,
1892, in progress). The following selections of Greek inscriptions may
be mentioned: E. F. Hicks and G. F. Hill, _Manual of Greek Historical
Inscriptions_ (new ed., 1 vol., Oxford, 1901): W. Dittenberger,
_Sylloge inscriptionum Graecarum_ (2nd ed., 2 vols., Berlin, 1898); C.
Michel, _Recueil d'inscriptions grecques_ (Paris, 1900). Among works
on numismatics the English reader may refer to B. V. Head, _Historia
numorum_ (1 vol., Oxford, 1887); G. F. Hill, _Handbook of Greek and
Roman Coins_ (1 vol., Macmillan, 1899), as well as to the _British
Museum Catalogue of Greek Coins_. In French the most important general
work is the _Monnaies grecques_ of F. Imhoof-Blumer (Paris, 1883).
_Chronology, Trade, War, Social Life, &c._--H. F. Clinton, _Fasti
Hellenici_ (3rd ed., 3 vols., Oxford, 1841, a work of which English
scholarship may well be proud; it is still invaluable for the study of
Greek chronology); B. Büchsenschütz, _Besitz und Erwerb im
griechischen Altertume_ (1 vol., Halle, 1869; this is still the best
book on Greek commerce); J. Beloch, _Die Bevölkerung der
griechisch-römischen Welt_ (1 vol., Leipzig, 1886); W. Rüstow and H.
Köchly, _Geschichte des griechischen Kriegswesens_ (1 vol., Aarau,
1852); J. P. Mahaffy, _Social Life in Greece_ (2nd ed., 1 vol., 1875).
(E. M. W.)
b. _Post-Classical: 146 B.C.-A.D. 1800_
I. THE PERIOD OF ROMAN RULE.--(i.) _Greece under the Republic_ (146-27
B.C.). After the collapse of the Achaean League (q.v.) the Senate
appointed a commission to reorganize Greece as a Roman dependency.
Corinth, the chief centre of resistance, was destroyed and its
inhabitants sold into slavery. In addition to this act of exemplary
punishment, which may perhaps have been inspired in part by the desire
to crush a commercial competitor, steps were taken to obviate future
insurrections. The national and cantonal federations were dissolved,
commercial intercourse between cities was restricted, and the government
transferred from the democracies to the propertied classes, whose
interests were bound up with Roman supremacy. In other respects few
changes were made in existing institutions. Some favoured states like
Athens and Sparta retained their full sovereign rights as _civitates
liberae_, the other cities continued to enjoy local self-government.
The ownership of the land was not greatly disturbed by confiscations,
and though a tribute upon it was levied, this impost may not have been
universal. General powers of supervision were entrusted to the governor
of Macedonia, who could reserve cases of high treason for his decision,
and in case of need send troops into the country. But although Greece
was in the _provincia_ of the Macedonian proconsul, in the sense of
belonging to his sphere of command, its status was in fact more
favourable than that of other provincial dependencies.
This settlement was acquiesced in by the Greek people, who had come to
realize the hopelessness of further resistance. The internal disorder
which was arising from the numerous disputes about property rights
consequent upon the political revolutions was checked by the good
offices of the historian Polybius, whom the Senate deputed to mediate
between the litigants. The pacification of the country eventually became
so complete that the Romans withdrew the former restrictions upon
intercourse and allowed some of the leagues to revive. But its quiet was
seriously disturbed during the first Mithradatic War (88-84 B.C.), when
numerous Greek states sided with Mithradates (q.v.). The success which
the invader experienced in detaching the Greeks from Rome is partly to
be explained by the skilful way in which his agents incited the
imperialistic ambitions of prominent cities like Athens, partly perhaps
by his promises of support to the democratic parties. The result of the
war was disastrous to Greece. Apart from the confiscations and exactions
by which the Roman general L. Cornelius Sulla punished the disloyal
communities, the extensive and protracted campaigns left Central Greece
in a ruinous condition. During the last decades of the Roman republic
European Greece was scarcely affected by contemporary wars nor yet
exploited by Roman magistrates in the same systematic manner as most
other provinces. Yet oppression by officials who traversed Greece from
time to time and demanded lavish entertainments and presentations in the
guise of _viaticum_ or _aurum coronarium_ was not unknown. Still greater
was the suffering produced by the rapacity of Roman traders and
capitalists: it is recorded that Sicyon was reduced to sell its most
cherished art treasures in order to satisfy its creditors. A more
indirect but none the less far-reaching drawback to Greek prosperity was
the diversion of trade which followed upon the establishment of direct
communication between Italy and the Levant. The most lucrative source of
wealth which remained to the European Greeks was pasturage in large
domains, an industry which almost exclusively profited the richer
citizens and so tended to widen the breach between capitalists and the
poorer classes, and still further to pauperize the latter. The coast
districts and islands also suffered considerably from swarms of pirates
who, in the absence of any strong fleet in Greek waters, were able to
obtain a firm footing in Crete and freely plundered the chief trading
places and sanctuaries; the most notable of such visitations was
experienced in 69 B.C. by the island of Delos. This evil came to an end
with the general suppression of piracy in the Mediterranean by Pompey
(67 B.C.), but the depopulation which it had caused in some regions is
attested by the fact that the victorious admiral settled some of his
captives on the desolated coast strip of Achaea.
In the conflict between Julius Caesar and Pompey the Greeks provided the
latter with a large part of his excellent fleet. In 48 B.C. the decisive
campaign of the war was fought on Greek soil, and the resources of the
land were severely taxed by the requisitions of both armies. As a result
of Caesar's victory at Pharsalus, the whole country fell into his power;
the treatment which it received was on the whole lenient, though
individual cities were punished severely. After the murder of Caesar the
Greeks supported the cause of Brutus (42 B.C.), but were too weak to
render any considerable service. In 39 B.C. the Peloponnese for a short
time was made over to Sextus Pompeius. During the subsequent period
Greece remained in the hands of M. Antonius (Mark Antony), who imposed
further exactions in order to defray the cost of his wars. The extensive
levies which he made in 31 B.C. for his campaign against Octavian, and
the contributions which his gigantic army required, exhausted the
country's resources so completely that a general famine was prevented
only by Octavian's prompt action after the battle of Actium in
distributing supplies of grain and evacuating the land with all haste.
The depopulation which resulted from the civil wars was partly remedied
by the settlement of Italian colonists at Corinth and Patrae by Julius
Caesar and Octavian; on the other hand, the foundation of Nicopolis
(q.v.) by the latter merely had the effect of transferring the people
from the country to the city.
(ii.) _The Early Roman Empire_ (27 B.C.-A.D. 323).--Under the emperor
Augustus Thessaly was incorporated with Macedonia; the rest of Greece
was converted into the province of Achaea, under the control of a
senatorial proconsul resident at Corinth. Many states, including Athens
and Sparta, retained their rights as free and nominally independent
cities. The provincials were encouraged to send delegates to a communal
synod ([Greek: koinon tôn Achaiôn]) which met at Argos to consider the
general interests of the country and to uphold national Hellenic
sentiment; the Delphic amphictyony was revived and extended so as to
represent in a similar fashion northern and central Greece.
Social conditions.
Economic conditions did not greatly improve under the empire. Although
new industries sprang up to meet the needs of Roman luxury, and Greek
marble, textiles and table delicacies were in great demand, the only
cities which regained a really flourishing trade were the Italian
communities of Corinth and Patrae. Commerce languished in general, and
the soil was mainly abandoned to pasturage. Though certain districts
retained a measure of prosperity, e.g. Thessaly, Phocis, Elis, Argos and
Laconia, huge tracts stood depopulated and many notable cities had sunk
into ruins; Aetolia, Acarnania and Epirus never recovered from the
effects of former wars and from the withdrawal of their surviving
inhabitants into Nicopolis. Such wealth as remained was amassed in the
hands of a few great landowners and capitalists; the middle class
continued to dwindle, and large numbers of the people were reduced to
earning a precarious subsistence, supplemented by frequent doles and
largesses.
The social aspect of Greek life henceforward becomes its most attractive
feature. After a long period of storm and stress, the European Hellenes
had relapsed into a quiet and resigned frame of mind which stands in
sharp contrast on the one hand with the energy and ability, and on the
other with the vulgar intriguing of their Asiatic kinsmen. Seeing no
future before them, the inhabitants were content to dwell in
contemplation amid the glories of the past. National pride was fostered
by the undisguised respect with which the leading Romans of the age
treated Hellenic culture. And although this sentiment could degenerate
into antiquarian pedantry and vanity, such as finds its climax in the
diatribes of Apollonius of Tyana against the "barbarians," it prevented
the nation from sinking into some of the worst vices of the age. A
healthy social tone repressed extravagant luxury and the ostentatious
display of wealth, and good taste long checked the spread of
gladiatorial contests beyond the Italian community of Corinth. The most
widespread abuse of that period, the adulation and adoration of
emperors, was indeed introduced into European Greece and formed an
essential feature of the proceedings at the Delphic amphictyony, but it
never absorbed the energies of the people in the same way as it did in
Asia. In order to perpetuate their old culture, the Greeks continued to
set great store by classical education, and in Athens they possessed an
academic centre which gradually became the chief university of the Roman
empire. The highest representatives of this type of old-world refinement
are to be found in Dio Chrysostom and especially in Plutarch of
Chaeroneia (q.v.).
The relations between European Greece and Rome were practically confined
to the sphere of scholarship. The Hellenes had so far lost their warlike
qualities that they supplied scarcely any recruits to the army. They
retained too much local patriotism to crowd into the official careers of
senators or imperial servants. Although in the 1st century A.D. the
astute Greek man of affairs and the _Graeculus esuriens_ of Juvenal
abounded in Rome, both these classes were mainly derived from the less
pure-blooded population beyond the Aegean.
The influx of Greek rhetoricians and professors into Italy during the
2nd and 3rd centuries was balanced by the large number of travellers who
came to Greece to frequent its sanatoria, and especially to admire its
works of art; the abundance in which these latter were preserved is
strikingly attested in the extant record of Pausanias (about A.D. 170).
Roman administration.
The experience of the Greeks under their earliest governors seems to
have been unfortunate, for in A.D. 15 they petitioned Tiberius to
transfer the administration to an imperial legate. This new arrangement
was sanctioned, but only lasted till A.D. 44, when Claudius restored the
province to the senate. The proconsuls of the later 1st and 2nd
centuries were sometimes ill qualified for their posts, but cases of
oppression are seldom recorded against them. The years 66 and 67 were
marked by a visit of the emperor Nero, who made a prolonged tour through
Greece in order to display his artistic accomplishments at the various
national festivals. In return for the flattering reception accorded to
him he bestowed freedom and exemption from tribute upon the country. But
this favour was almost neutralized by the wholesale depredations which
he committed among the chief collections of art. A scheme for cutting
through the Corinthian isthmus and so reviving the Greek carrying trade
was inaugurated in his presence, but soon abandoned.
As Nero's grant of self-government brought about a recrudescence of
misplaced ambition and party strife, Vespasian revoked the gift and
turned Achaea again into a province, at the same time burdening it with
increased taxes. In the 2nd century a succession of genuinely
phil-Hellenic emperors made serious attempts to revive the nation's
prosperity. Important material benefits were conferred by Hadrian, who
made a lengthy visit to Greece. Besides erecting useful public works in
many cities, he relieved Achaea of its arrears of tribute and exempted
it from various imposts. In order to check extravagance on the part of
the free cities, he greatly extended the practice of placing them under
the supervision of imperial functionaries known as _correctores_.
Hadrian fostered national sentiment by establishing a new pan-Hellenic
congress at Athens, while he gave recognition to the increasing
ascendancy of Hellenic culture at Rome by his institution of the
Athenaeum.
In the 3rd century the only political event of importance was the edict
of Caracalla which threw open the Roman citizenship to large numbers of
provincials. Its chief effect in Greece was to diminish the
preponderance of the wealthy classes, who formerly had used their riches
to purchase the franchise and so to secure exemption from taxation. The
chief feature of this period is the renewal of the danger from foreign
invasions. Already in 175 a tribe named Costoboci had penetrated into
central Greece, but was there broken up by the local militia. In 253 a
threatened attack was averted by the stubborn resistance of
Thessalonica. In 267-268 the province was overrun by Gothic bands, which
captured Athens and some other towns, but were finally repulsed by the
Attic levies and exterminated with the help of a Roman fleet.
(iii.) _The Late Roman Empire._--After the reorganization of the empire
by Diocletian, Achaea occupied a prominent position in the "diocese" of
Macedonia. Under Constantine I. it was included in the "prefecture" of
Illyricum. It was subdivided into the "eparchies" of Hellas,
Peloponnesus, Nicopolis and the islands, with headquarters at Thebes,
Corinth, Nicopolis and Samos. Thessaly was incorporated with Macedonia.
A complex hierarchy of imperial officials was now introduced and the
system of taxation elaborated so as to yield a steady revenue to the
central power. The levying of the land-tax was imposed upon the [Greek:
dekaprôtoi] or "ten leading men," who, like the Latin _decuriones_, were
entrusted henceforth with the administration in most cities. The
tendency to reduce all constitutions to the Roman municipal pattern
became prevalent under the rulers of this period, and the greater number
of them was stereotyped by the general regulations of the Codex
Theodosianus (438). Although the elevation of Constantinople to the rank
of capital was prejudicial to Greece, which felt the competition of the
new centre of culture and learning and had to part with numerous works
of art destined to embellish its privileged neighbour, the general level
of prosperity in the 4th century was rising. Commercial stagnation was
checked by a renewed expansion of trade consequent upon the diversion of
the trade routes to the east from Egypt to the Euxine and Aegean Seas.
Agriculture remained in a depressed condition, and many small
proprietors were reduced to serfdom; but the fiscal interests of the
government called for the good treatment of this class, whose growth at
the expense of the slaves was an important step in the gradual
equalization of the entire population under the central despotism which
restored solidarity to the Greek nation.
This prosperity received a sharp set-back by a series of unusually
severe earthquakes in 375 and by the irruption of a host of Visigoths
under Alaric (395-396), whom the imperial officers allowed to overrun
the whole land unmolested and the local levies were unable to check.
Though ultimately hunted down in Arcadia and induced to leave the
province, Alaric had time to execute systematic devastations which
crippled Greece for several decades. The arrears of taxation which
accumulated in consequence were remitted by Theodosius II. in 428.
The emperors of the 4th century made several attempts to stamp out by
edict the old pagan religion, which, with its accompaniment of
festivals, oracles and mysteries, still maintained an outward appearance
of vigour, and, along with the philosophy in which the intellectual
classes found comfort, retained the affection of the Greeks. Except for
the decree of Theodosius I. by which the Olympian games were interdicted
(394), these measures had no great effect, and indeed were not
rigorously enforced. Paganism survived in Greece till about 600, but the
interchange of ideas and practices which the long-continued contact with
Christianity had effected considerably modified its character. Hence the
Christian religion, though slow in making its way, eventually gained a
sure footing among a nation which accepted it spontaneously. The hold of
the Church upon the Greeks was strengthened by the judicious manner in
which the clergy, unsupported by official patronage and often out of
sympathy with the Arian emperors, identified itself with the interests
of the people. Though in the days when the orthodox Church found favour
at court corruption spread among its higher branches, the clergy as a
whole rendered conspicuous service in opposing the arbitrary
interferences of the central government and in upholding the use of the
Hellenic tongue, together with some rudiments of Hellenic culture.
The separation of the eastern and western provinces of the empire
ultimately had an important effect in restoring the language and customs
of Greece to their predominant position in the Levant. This result,
however, was long retarded by the romanizing policy of Constantine and
his successors. The emperors of the 5th and 6th centuries had no regard
for Greek culture, and Justinian I. actively counteracted Hellenism by
propagating Roman law in Greece, by impairing the powers of the
self-governing cities, and by closing the philosophical schools at
Athens (529). In course of time the inhabitants had so far forgotten
their ancient culture that they abandoned the name of Hellenes for that
of Romans (_Rhomaioi_). For a long time Greece continued to be an
obscure and neglected province, with no interests beyond its church and
its commercial operations, and its culture declined rapidly. Its history
for some centuries dwindles into a record of barbarian invasions which,
in addition to occasional plagues and earthquakes, seem to have been the
only events found worthy of record by the contemporary chroniclers.
In the 5th century Greece was only subjected to brief raids by Vandal
pirates (466-474) and Ostrogoths (482). In Justinian's reign irruptions
by Huns and Avars took place, but led to no far-reaching results. The
emperor had endeavoured to strengthen the country's defences by
repairing the fortifications of cities and frontier posts (530), but his
policy of supplanting the local guards by imperial troops and so
rendering the natives incapable of self-defence was ill-advised;
fortunately it was never carried out with energy, and so the Greek
militias were occasionally able to render good service against invaders.
Slavonic immigrations.
Towards the end of the century mention is made for the first time of an
incursion by Slavonic tribes (581). These invaders are to be regarded as
merely the forerunners of a steady movement of immigration by which a
considerable part of Greece passed for a time into foreign hands. It is
doubtful how far the newcomers won their territory by force of arms; in
view of the desolation of many rural tracts, which had long been in
progress as a result of economic changes, it seems probable that
numerous settlements were made on unoccupied land and did not challenge
serious opposition. At any rate the effect upon the Greek population was
merely to accelerate its emigration from the interior to the coastland
and the cities. The foreigners, consisting mainly of Slovenes and Wends,
occupied the mountainous inland, where they mostly led a pastoral life;
the natives retained some strips of plain and dwelt secure in their
walled towns, among which the newly-built fortresses of Monemvasia,
Corone and Calamata soon rose to prosperity. The Slavonic element, to
judge by the geographical names in that tongue which survive in Greece,
is specially marked in N.W. Greece and Peloponnesus; central Greece
appears to have been protected against them by the fortress-square of
Chalcis, Thebes, Corinth and Athens. For a long time the two nations
dwelt side by side without either displacing the other. The Slavs were
too rude and poor, and too much distracted with cantonal feuds, to make
any further headway; the Greeks, unused to arms and engrossed in
commerce, were content to adopt a passive attitude. The central
government took no steps to dislodge the invaders, until in 783 the
empress Irene sent an expedition which reduced most of the tribes to pay
tribute. In 810 a desperate attempt by the Slavs to capture Patrae was
foiled; henceforth their power steadily decreased and their submission
to the emperor was made complete by 850. A powerful factor in their
subjugation was the Greek clergy, who by the 10th century had
christianized and largely hellenized all the foreigners save a remnant
in the peninsula of Maina.
II. THE BYZANTINE PERIOD.--In the 7th century the Greek language made
its way into the imperial army and civil service, but European Greece
continued to have little voice in the administration. The land was
divided into four "themes" under a yearly appointed civil and military
governor. Imperial troops were stationed at the chief strategic points,
while the natives contributed ships for naval defence. During the
dispute about images the Greeks were the backbone of the
image-worshipping party, and the iconoclastic edicts of Leo III. led to
a revolt in 727 which, however, was easily crushed by the imperial
fleet; a similar movement in 823, when the Greeks sent 350 ships to aid
a pretender, met with the same fate. The firm government of the Isaurian
dynasty seems to have benefited Greece, whose commerce and industry
again became flourishing. In spite of occasional set-backs due to the
depredations of pirates, notably the Arab corsairs who visited the
Aegean from the 7th century onwards, the Greeks remained the chief
carriers in the Levant until the rise of the Italian republics,
supplying all Europe with its silk fabrics.
In the 10th century Greece experienced a renewal of raids from the
Balkan tribes. The Bulgarians made incursions after 929 and sometimes
penetrated to the Isthmus; but they mostly failed to capture the cities,
and in 995 their strength was broken by a crushing defeat on the
Spercheius at the hands of the Byzantine army. Yet their devastations
greatly thinned the population of northern Greece, and after 1084
Thessaly was occupied without resistance by nomad tribes of Vlachs. In
1084 also Greece was subjected to the first attack from the new nations
of the west, when the Sicilian Normans gained a footing in the Ionian
islands. The same people made a notable raid upon the seaboard of Greece
in 1145-1146, and sacked the cities of Thebes and Corinth. The Venetians
also appear as rivals of the Greeks, and after 1122 their encroachments
in the Aegean Sea never ceased.
In spite of these attacks, the country on the whole maintained its
prosperity. The travellers Idrisi of Palermo (1153) and Benjamin of
Tudela (1161) testify to the briskness of commerce, which induced many
foreign merchants to take up their residence in Greece. But this
prosperity revived an aristocracy of wealth which used its riches and
power for purely selfish ends, and under the increasing laxity of
imperial control the _archontes_ or municipal rulers often combined with
the clergy in oppressing the poorer classes. Least of all were these
nobles prepared to become the champions of Greece against foreign
invaders at a time when they alone could have organized an effectual
resistance.
III. _The Latin Occupation and Turkish Conquest._--The capture of
Constantinople and dissolution of the Byzantine empire by the Latins
(1204) brought in its train an invasion of Greece by Frankish barons
eager for new territory. The natives, who had long forgotten the use of
arms and dreaded no worse oppression from their new masters, submitted
almost without resistance, and only the N.W. corner of Greece, where
Michael Angelus, a Byzantine prince, founded the "despotat" of Epirus,
was saved from foreign occupation. The rest of the country was divided
up between a number of Frankish barons, chief among whom were the dukes
of Achaea (or Peloponnese) and "grand signors" of Thebes and Athens, the
Venetians, who held naval stations at different points and the island of
Crete, and various Italian adventurers who mainly settled in the
Cyclades. The conquerors transplanted their own language, customs and
religion to their new possessions, and endeavoured to institute the
feudal system of land-tenure. Yet recognizing the superiority of Greek
civil institutions they allowed the natives to retain their law and
internal administration and confirmed proprietors in possession of their
land on payment of a rent; the Greek church was subordinated to the
Roman archbishops, but upheld its former control over the people. The
commerce and industry of the Greek cities was hardly affected by the
change of government.
Greek history during the Latin occupation loses its unity and has to be
followed in several threads. In the north the "despots" of Epirus
extended their rule to Thessaly and Macedonia, but eventually were
repulsed by the Asiatic Greeks of Nicaea, and after a decisive defeat at
Pelagonia (1259) reduced to a small dominion round Iannina. Thessaly
continued to change masters rapidly. Till 1308 it was governed by a
branch line of the Epirote dynasty. When this family died out it fell to
the Grand Catalan Company; in 1350 it was conquered along with Epirus by
Stephen Dushan, king of Servia. About 1397 it was annexed by the Ottoman
Turks, who after 1431 also gradually wrested Epirus from its latest
possessors, the Beneventine family of Tocco (1390-1469).
The leading power in central Greece was the Burgundian house de la
Roche, which established a mild and judicious government in Boeotia and
Attica and in 1261 was raised to ducal rank by the French king Louis IX.
A conflict with the Grand Catalan Company resulted in a disastrous
defeat of the Franks on the Boeotian Cephissus (1311) and the occupation
of central Greece by the Spanish mercenaries, who seized for themselves
the barons' fiefs and installed princes from the Sicilian house of
Aragon as "dukes of Athens and Neopatras" (Thessaly). After seventy-five
years of oppressive rule and constant wars with their neighbours the
Catalans were expelled by the Peloponnesian baron Nerio Acciaiuoli. The
new dynasty, whose peaceful government revived its subjects' industry,
became tributary to the Turks about 1415, but was deposed by Sultan
Mahommed II., who annexed central Greece in 1456.
The conquest of the Peloponnese was effected by two French knights,
William Champlitte and Geoffrey Villehardouin, the latter of whom
founded a dynasty of "princes of all Achaea." The rulers of this line
were men of ability, who controlled their barons and spiritual vassals
with a firm hand and established good order throughout their province.
The Franks of the Morea maintained as high a standard of culture as
their compatriots at home, while the natives grew rich enough from
their industry to pay considerable taxes without discontent. The climax
of the Villehardouins' power was attained under Prince William, who
subdued the last independent cities of the coast and the mountaineers of
Maina (1246-1248). In 1259, however, the same ruler was involved in the
war between the rulers of Epirus and Nicaea, and being captured at the
battle of Pelagonia, could only ransom himself by the cession of Laconia
to the restored Byzantine empire. This new dependency after 1349 was
treated with great care by the Byzantine monarchs, who sought to repress
the violence of the local aristocracies by sending their kinsmen to
govern under the title of "despots." On the other hand, with the
extinction of the Villehardouin dynasty the Frankish province fell more
and more into anarchy; at the same time the numbers of the foreigners
were constantly dwindling through war, and as they disdained to recruit
them by intermarriage, the preponderance of the native element in the
Morea eventually became complete. Thus by 1400 the Byzantines were
enabled to recover control over almost the whole peninsula and apportion
it among several "despots." But the mutual quarrels of these princes
soon proved fatal to their rule. Already in the 14th century they had
employed Albanians and the Turkish pirates who harried their coasts as
auxiliaries in their wars. The Albanians largely remained as settlers,
and the connexion with the Turks could no longer be shaken off. In spite
of attempts to fortify the Isthmus (1415) an Ottoman army penetrated
into Morea and deported many inhabitants in 1423. An invasion of central
Greece by the despot Constantine was punished by renewed raids in 1446
and 1450. In 1457 the despot Thomas withheld the tribute which he had
recently stipulated to pay, but was reduced to obedience by an
expedition under Mahommed II. (1458). A renewed revolt in 1459 was
punished by an invasion attended with executions and deportations on a
large scale, and by the annexation of the Morea to Turkey (1460).
IV. _The Turkish Dominion till 1800._--Under the Ottoman government
Greece was split up into six _sanjaks_ or military divisions: (1) Morea,
(2) Epirus, (3) Thessaly, (4) Euboea, Boeotia and Attica, (5) Aetolia
and Acarnania, (6) the rest of central Greece, with capitals at Nauplia,
Jannina, Trikkala, Negropont (Chalkis), Karlili and Lepanto; further
divisions were subsequently composed of Crete and the islands. In each
_sanjak_ a number of fiefs was apportioned to Turkish settlers, who were
bound in return to furnish some mounted men for the sultan's army, the
total force thus held in readiness being over 7000. The local government
was left in the hands of the archontes or primates in each community,
who also undertook the farming of the taxes and the policing of their
districts. Law was usually administered by the Greek clergy. The natives
were not burdened with large imposts, but the levying of the land-tithes
was effected in an inconvenient fashion, and the capitation-tax, to
which all Christians were subjected was felt as a humiliation. A further
grievance lay in the requisitions of forced labour which the pashas were
entitled to call for; but the most galling exaction was the tribute of
children for the recruiting of the Janissaries (q.v.), which was often
levied with great ruthlessness. The habitual weakness of the central
government also left the Greeks exposed to frequent oppression by the
Turkish residents and by their own magistrates and clergy. But the new
rulers met with singularly little opposition. The dangerous elements of
the population had been cleared away by Mahommed's executions; the rest
were content to absorb their energies in agriculture and commerce, which
in spite of preferential duties and capitulations to foreign powers
largely fell again into the hands of Greeks. Another important
instrument by which the people were kept down was their own clergy, whom
the Turkish rulers treated with marked favour and so induced to
acquiesce in their dominion.
In the following centuries Greece was often the theatre of war in which
the Greeks played but a passive part. Several wars with Venice (1463-79,
1498-1504) put the Turks in possession of the last Italian strongholds
on the mainland. But the issue was mainly fought out on sea; the
conflicts which had never ceased in the Aegean since the coming of the
Italians now grew fiercer than ever; Greek ships and sailors were
frequently requisitioned for the Turkish fleets, and the damage done to
the Greek seaboard by the belligerents and by fleets of adventurers and
corsairs brought about the depopulation of many islands and
coast-strips. The conquest of the Aegean by the Ottomans was completed
by 1570; but Venice retained Crete till 1669 and never lost Corfu until
its cession to France in 1797.
In 1684 the Venetians took advantage of the preoccupation of Turkey on
the Danube to attack the Morea. A small mercenary army under Francesco
Morosini captured the strong places with remarkable ease, and by 1687
had conquered almost the whole peninsula. In 1687 the invaders also
captured Athens and Lepanto; but the former town had soon to be
abandoned, and with their failure to capture Negropont (1688) the
Venetians were brought to a standstill. By the peace of Karlowitz (1699)
the Morea became a possession of Venice. The new rulers, in spite of the
commercial restrictions which they imposed in favour of their own
traders, checked the impoverishment and decrease of population (from
300,000 to 86,000) which the war had caused. By their attempts to
cooperate with the native magistrates and the mildness of their
administration they improved the spirit of their subjects. But they
failed to make their government popular, and when in 1715 the Ottomans
with a large and well-disciplined army set themselves to recover the
Morea, the Venetians were left without support from the Greeks. The
peninsula was rapidly recaptured and by the peace of Passarowitz (1718)
again became a Turkish dependency. The gaps left about this time in the
Greek population were largely made up by an immigration from Albania.
The condition of the Greeks in the 18th century showed a great
improvement which gave rise to yet greater hopes. Already in the 17th
century the personal services of the subjects had been commuted into
money contributions, and since 1676 the tribute of children fell into
abeyance. The increasing use of Greek officials in the Turkish civil
service, coupled with the privileges accorded to the Greek clergy
throughout the Balkan countries, tended to recall the consciousness of
former days of predominance in the Levant. Lastly, the education of the
Greeks, which had always remained on a comparatively high level, was
rapidly improved by the foundation of new schools and academies.
The long neglect which Greece had experienced at the hands of the
European Powers was broken in 1764, when Russian agents appeared in the
country with promises of a speedy deliverance from the Turks. A small
expedition under Feodor and Alexis Orloff actually landed in the Morea
in 1769, but failed to rouse national sentiment. Although the Russian
fleet gained a notable victory off Chesme near Chios, a heavy defeat
near Tripolitza ruined the prospects of the army. The Albanian troops in
the Turkish army subsequently ravaged the country far and wide, until in
1779 they were exterminated by a force of Turkish regulars. In 1774 a
concession, embodied in the treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji, by which Greek
traders were allowed to sail under the protection of the Russian flag,
marked an important step in the rehabilitation of the country as an
independent power. Greek commerce henceforth spread swiftly over the
Mediterranean, and increased intercourse developed a new sense of
Hellenic unity. Among the pioneers who fostered this movement should be
mentioned Constantine Rhigas, the "modern Tyrtaeus," and Adamantios
Coraës (q.v.), the reformer of the Greek tongue. The revived memories of
ancient Hellas and the impression created by the French revolution
combined to give the final impulse which made the Greeks strike for
freedom. By 1800 the population of Greece had increased to 1,000,000,
and although 200,000 of these were Albanians, the common aversion to the
Moslem united the two races. The military resources of the country alone
remained deficient, for the _armatoli_ or local militias, which had
never been quite disbanded since Byzantine times, were at last
suppressed by Ali Pasha of Iannina and found but a poor substitute in
the klephts who henceforth spring into prominence. But at the first sign
of weakness in the Turkish dominion the Greek nation was ready to rise,
and the actual outbreak of revolt had become merely a question of time.
AUTHORITIES.--General: G. Finlay, _History of Greece_ (ed. Tozer,
Oxford, 1877), especially vols. i., iv., v.; K. Paparrhigopoulos,
[Greek: Historia tou Hellênikou ethnous] (4th ed., Athens, 1903),
vols. ii.-v.; _Histoire de la civilisation hellénique_ (Paris, 1878);
R. v. Scala, _Das Griechentum seit Alexander dem Grossen_ (Leipzig and
Vienna, 1904); and specially W. Miller, _The Latins in the Levant_
(1908).
Special--(a) The Roman period: Strabo, bks. viii.-x.; Pausanias,
_Descriptio Graeciae_; G. F. Hertzberg, _Die Geschichte Griechenlands
unter der Herrschaft der Römer_ (Halle, 1866-1875); Sp. Lampros,
[Greek: Historia tês Hellados] (Athens, 1888 sqq.), vol. iii.; A.
Holm, _History of Greece_ (Eng. trans., London, 1894-1898). vol. iv.,
chs. 19, 24, 26, 28 seq.; Th. Mommsen, _The Provinces of the Roman
Empire_ (Eng. trans., London, 1886, ch. 7); J. P. Mahaffy, _The Greek
World under Roman Sway, from Polybius to Plutarch_ (London, 1890); W.
Miller, "The Romans in Greece" (_Westminster Review_, August 1903, pp.
186-210); L. Friedländer, "Griechenland unter den Römern" (_Deutsche
Rundschau_, 1899, pp. 251-274, 402-430). (b) The Byzantine and Latin
periods: G. F. Hertzberg, _Geschichte Griechenlands seit dem Absterben
des antiken Lebens_ (Gotha, 1876-1879), vols. i., ii.; C. Hopf,
_Geschichte Griechenlands im Mittelalter_ (Leipzig, 1868); J. A.
Buchon, _Histoire des conquêtes et de l'établissement des Français
dans les États de l'ancienne Grèce_ (Paris, 1846); G. Schmitt, _The
Chronicle of Morea_ (London, 1904); W. Miller, "The Princes of the
Peloponnese" (_Quarterly Review_, July 1905, pp. 109-135); D. Bikelas,
_Seven Essays on Christian Greece_ (Paisley and London, 1890); _La
Grèce byzantine et moderne_ (Paris, 1893), pp. 1-193. (c) The Turkish
and Venetian periods: Hertzberg, _op. cit._, vol. iii.; K. M.
Bartholdy, _Geschichte Griechenlands von der Eroberung
Konstantinopels_ (Leipzig, 1870), bks. i. and ii., pp. 1-155; K. N.
Sathas, [Greek: Tourkokratoumenê Hellas] (Athens, 1869); W. Miller,
"Greece under the Turks" (_Westminster Review_, August and September
1904, pp. 195-210, 304-320; _English Historical Review_, 1904, pp.
646-668); L. Ranke, "Die Venetianer in Morea" (_Historisch-politische
Zeitschrift_, ii. 405-502). (d) Special subjects: Religion. E. Hatch,
_The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church_
(London, 1890). Ethnology. J. P. Fallmerayer, _Geschichte der
Halbinsel Morea während des Mittelalters_ (Stuttgart and Tübingen,
1830); S. Zampelios, [Greek: Peri pêgôn neoellênikês ethnotêtos]
(Athens, 1857); A. Philippson, "Zur Ethnographie des Peloponnes"
[_Petermann's Mitteilungen_ 36 (1890), pp. 1-11, 33-41]; A. Vasiljev,
"Die Slaven in Griechenland" [_Vizantijsky Vremennik_, St Petersburg,
5 (1898), pp. 404-438, 626-670].
See also ROMAN EMPIRE, LATER; ATHENS. (M. O. B. C.)
c. _Modern History: 1800-1908._
The decadence of Turkey.
At the beginning of the 19th century Greece was still under Turkish
domination, but the dawn of freedom was already breaking, and a variety
of forces were at work which prepared the way for the acquisition of
national independence. The decadence of the Ottoman empire, which began
with the retreat of the Turks from Vienna in 1683, was indicated in the
18th century by the weakening of the central power, the spread of
anarchy in the provinces, the ravages of the janissaries, and the
establishment of practically independent sovereignties or fiefs, such as
those of Mehemet of Bushat at Skodra and of Ali Pasha of Tepelen at
Iannina; the 19th century witnessed the first uprisings of the Christian
populations and the detachment of the outlying portions of European
Turkey. Up to the end of the 18th century none of the subject races had
risen in spontaneous revolt against the Turks, though in some instances
they rendered aid to the sultan's enemies; the spirit of the conquered
nations had been broken by ages of oppression. In some of the remoter
and more mountainous districts, however, the authority of the Turks had
never been completely established; in Montenegro a small fragment of the
Serb race maintained its independence; among the Greeks, the Mainotes in
the extreme south of the Morea and the Sphakiote mountaineers in Crete
had never been completely subdued. Resistance to Ottoman rule was
maintained sporadically in the mountainous districts by the Greek
_klephts_ or brigands, the counterpart of the Slavonic _haiduks_, and by
the pirates of the Aegean; the _armatoles_ or bodies of Christian
warriors, recognized by the Turks as a local police, often differed
little in their proceedings from the brigands whom they were appointed
to pursue.
Russian influence.
Of the series of insurrections which took place in the 19th century, the
first in order of time was the Servian, which broke out in 1804; the
second was the Greek, which began in 1821. In both these movements the
influence of Russia played a considerable part. In the case of the
Servians Russian aid was mainly diplomatic, in that of the Greeks it
eventually took a more material form. Since the days of Peter the Great,
the eyes of Russia had been fixed on Constantinople, the great
metropolis of the Orthodox faith. The policy of inciting the Greek
Christians to revolt against their oppressors, which was first adopted
in the reign of the empress Anna, was put into practical operation by
the empress Catharine II., whose favourite, Orlov, appeared in the
Aegean with a fleet in 1769 and landed in the Morea, where he organized
a revolt. The attempt proved a failure; Orlov re-embarked, leaving the
Greeks at the mercy of the Turks, and terrible massacres took place at
Tripolitza, Lemnos and elsewhere. By the treaty of Kutchuk-Kainarji
(July 21, 1774) Russia obtained a vaguely-defined protectorate over the
Orthodox Greek subjects of Turkey, and in 1781 she arrived at an
arrangement with Austria, known as the "Greek project," for a partition
of Turkish territory and the restoration of the Byzantine empire under
Constantine, the son of Catharine II. The outbreak of the French
Revolution distracted the attention of the two empires, but Russia never
ceased to intrigue among the Christian subjects of Turkey. A revolt of
the inhabitants of Suli in 1790 took place with her connivance, and in
the two first decades of the 19th century her agents were active and
ubiquitous.
Greek revolutionary activity.
The influence of the French Revolution, which pervaded all Europe,
extended to the shores of the Aegean. The Greeks, who had hitherto been
drawn together mainly by a common religion, were now animated by the
sentiment of nationality and by an ardent desire for political freedom.
The national awakening, as in the case of the other subject Christian
nations, was preceded by a literary revival. Literary and patriotic
societies, the Philhellenes, the Philomousi, came into existence; Greek
schools were founded everywhere; the philological labours of Coraës,
which created the modern written language, furnished the nation with a
mode of literary expression; the songs of Rhigas of Velestino fired the
enthusiasm of the people. In 1815 was founded the celebrated _Philiké
Hetaerea_, or friendly society, a revolutionary organization with
centres at Moscow, Bucharest, Triest, and in all the cities of the
Levant; it collected subscriptions, issued manifestos, distributed arms
and made preparations for the coming insurrection. The revolt of Ali
Pasha of Iannina against the authority of the sultan in 1820 formed the
prelude to the Greek uprising; this despot, who had massacred the Greeks
by hundreds, now declared himself their friend, and became a member of
the Hetaerea. In March 1821 Alexander Ypsilanti, a former aide-de-camp
of the tsar Alexander I., and president of the Hetaerea, entered
Moldavia from Russian territory at the head of a small force; in the
same month Archbishop Germanos of Patras unfurled the standard of revolt
at Kalavryta in the Morea.
Independence of Greece.
For the history of the prolonged struggle which followed see GREEK WAR
OF INDEPENDENCE. The warfare was practically brought to a close by the
annihilation of the Egyptian fleet at Navarino by the fleets of Great
Britain, France and Russia on the 20th of October 1827. Nine months
previously, Count John Capo d'Istria (q.v.), formerly minister of
foreign affairs of the tsar Alexander, had been elected president of the
Greek republic for seven years beginning on January 18, 1828. By the
protocol of London (March 22, 1829) the Greek mainland south of a line
drawn from the Gulf of Arta to the Gulf of Volo, the Morea and the
Cyclades were declared a principality tributary to the sultan under a
Christian prince. The limits drawn by the protocol of London were
confirmed by the treaty of Adrianople (September 14, 1829), by which
Greece was constituted an independent monarchy. The governments of
Russia, France and England were far from sharing the enthusiasm which
the gallant resistance of the Greeks had excited among the peoples of
Europe, and which inspired the devotion of Byron, Cochrane, Sir Richard
Church, Fabvier and other distinguished Philhellenes; jealousies
prevailed among the three protecting powers, and the newly-liberated
nation was treated in a niggardly spirit; its narrow limits were reduced
by a new protocol (February 3, 1830), which drew the boundary line at
the Aspropotamo, the Spercheios and the Gulf of Lamia. Capo d'Istria,
whose Russian proclivities and arbitrary government gave great offence
to the Greeks, was assassinated by two members of the Mavromichalis
family (October 9, 1831), and a state of anarchy followed. Before his
death the throne of Greece had been offered to Prince Leopold of
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, afterwards king of the Belgians, who declined it,
basing his refusal on the inadequacy of the limits assigned to the new
kingdom and especially the exclusion of Crete.
King Otto.
By the convention of London (May 7, 1832) Greece was declared an
independent kingdom under the protection of Great Britain, France and
Russia with Prince Otto, son of King Louis I. of Bavaria, as king. The
frontier line, now traced from the Gulf of Arta to the Gulf of Lamia,
was fixed by the arrangement of Constantinople (July 21, 1832). King
Otto, who had been brought up in a despotic court, ruled absolutely for
the first eleven years of his reign; he surrounded himself with Bavarian
advisers and Bavarian troops, and his rule was never popular. The Greek
chiefs and politicians, who found themselves excluded from all influence
and advancement, were divided into three factions which attached
themselves respectively to the three protecting powers. On the 15th of
September 1843 a military revolt broke out which compelled the king to
dismiss the Bavarians and to accept a constitution. A responsible
ministry, a senate nominated by the king, and a chamber elected by
universal suffrage were now instituted. Mavrocordatos, the leader of the
English party, became the first prime minister, but his government was
overthrown at the ensuing elections, and a coalition of the French and
Russian parties under Kolettes and Metaxas succeeded to power. The
warfare of factions was aggravated by the rivalry between the British
and French ministers, Sir Edmond Lyons and M. Piscatory; King Otto
supported the French party, and trouble arose with the British
government, which in 1847 despatched warships to enforce the payment of
interest on the loan contracted after the War of Independence. A British
fleet subsequently blockaded the Peiraeus in order to obtain
satisfaction for the claims of Pacifico, a Portuguese Jew under British
protection, whose house had been plundered during a riot. On the
outbreak of hostilities between Russia and Turkey in 1853 the Greeks
displayed sympathy with Russia; armed bands were sent into Thessaly, and
an insurrection was fomented in Epirus in the hope of securing an
accession of territory. In order to prevent further hostile action on
the part of Greece, British and French fleets made a demonstration
against the Peiraeus, which was occupied by a French force during the
Crimean War. The disappointment of the national hopes increased the
unpopularity of King Otto, who had never acquiesced in constitutional
rule. In 1862 a military revolt broke out, and a national assembly
pronounced his deposition. The vacant throne was offered by the assembly
to Duke Nicholas of Leuchtenberg, a cousin of the tsar, but the mass of
the people desired a constitutional monarchy of the British type; a
plebiscite was taken, and Prince Alfred of England was elected by an
almost unanimous vote. The three protecting powers, however, had bound
themselves to the exclusion of any member of their ruling houses. In the
following year Prince William George of
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, whom the British government
had designated as a suitable candidate, was elected by the National
Assembly with the title "George I., king of the Hellenes." Under the
treaty of London (July 13, 1863) the change of dynasty was sanctioned by
the three protecting powers, Great Britain undertaking to cede to Greece
the seven Ionian Islands, which since 1815 had formed a commonwealth
under British protection.
Accession of George I.
On the 29th of October 1863 the new sovereign arrived in Athens, and in
the following June the British authorities handed over the Ionian
Islands to a Greek commissioner. King George thus began his reign under
the most favourable auspices, the patriotic sentiments of the Greeks
being flattered by the acquisition of new territory. He was, however,
soon confronted with constitutional difficulties; party spirit ran riot
at Athens, the ministries which he appointed proved short-lived, his
counsellor, Count Sponneck, became the object of violent attacks, and at
the end of 1864 he was compelled to accept an ultra-democratic
constitution, drawn up by the National Assembly. This, the sixth
constitution voted since the establishment of the kingdom, is that which
is still in force. In the following year Count Sponneck left Greece, and
the attention of the nation was concentrated on the affairs of Crete.
The revolution which broke out in that island received moral and
material support from the Greek government, with the tacit approval of
Russia; military preparations were pressed forward at Athens, and
cruisers were purchased, but the king, aware of the inability of Greece
to attain her ends by warlike means, discouraged a provocative attitude
towards Turkey, and eventually dismissed the bellicose cabinet of
Koumoundouros. The removal of a powerful minister commanding a large
parliamentary majority constituted an important precedent in the
exercise of the royal prerogative; the king adopted a similar course
with regard to Delyannes in 1892 and 1897. The relations with the porte,
however, continued to grow worse, and Hobart Pasha, with a Turkish
fleet, made a demonstration off Syra. The Cretan insurrection was
finally crushed in the spring of 1869, and a conference of the powers,
which assembled that year at Paris, imposed a settlement of the Turkish
dispute on Greece, but took no steps on behalf of the Cretans. In 1870
the murder of several Englishmen by brigands in the neighbourhood of
Athens produced an unfavourable impression in Europe; in the following
year the confiscation of the Laurion mines, which had been ceded to a
Franco-Italian company, provoked energetic action on the part of France
and Italy. In 1875, after an acute constitutional crisis, Charilaos
Trikoupes, who but ten months previously had been imprisoned for
denouncing the crown in a newspaper article, was summoned to form a
cabinet. This remarkable man, the only great statesman whom modern
Greece has produced, exercised an extraordinary influence over his
countrymen for the next twenty years; had he been able to maintain
himself uninterruptedly in power during that period, Greece might have
escaped a long succession of misfortunes. His principal opponent,
Theodore Delyannes, succeeded in rallying a strong body of adherents,
and political parties, hitherto divided into numerous factions, centred
around these two prominent figures.
New frontier, 1881.
In 1877 the outbreak of the Russo-Turkish War produced a fever of
excitement in Greece; it was felt that the quarrels of the party leaders
compromised the interests of the country, and the populace of Athens
insisted on the formation of a coalition cabinet. The "great" or
"oecumenical" ministry, as it was called, now came into existence under
the presidency of the veteran Kanares; in reality, however, it was
controlled by Trikoupes, who, recognizing the unpreparedness of the
country, resolved on a pacific policy. The capture of Plevna by the
Russians brought about the fall of the "oecumenical" ministry, and
Koumoundouros and Delyannes, who succeeded to power, ordered the
invasion of Thessaly. Their warlike energies, however, were soon checked
by the signing of the San Stefano Treaty, in which the claims of Greece
to an extension of frontier were altogether ignored. At the Berlin
congress two Greek delegates obtained a hearing on the proposal of Lord
Salisbury. The congress decided that the rectification of the frontier
should be left to Turkey and Greece, the mediation of the powers being
proposed in case of non-agreement; it was suggested, however, that the
rectified frontier should extend from the valley of the Peneus on the
east to the mouth of the Kalamas, opposite the southern extremity of
Corfu, on the west. In 1879 a Greco-Turkish commission for the
delimitation met first at Prevesa, and subsequently at Constantinople,
but its conferences were without result, the Turkish commissioners
declining the boundary suggested at Berlin. Greece then invoked the
arbitration of the powers, and the settlement of the question was
undertaken by a conference of ambassadors at Berlin (1880). The line
approved by the conference was practically that suggested by the
congress; Turkey, however, refused to accept it, and the Greek army was
once more mobilized. It was evident, however, that nothing could be
gained by an appeal to arms, the powers not being prepared to apply
coercion to Turkey. By a convention signed at Constantinople in July
1881, the demarcation was entrusted to a commission representing the six
powers and the two interested parties. The line drawn ran westwards from
a point between the mouth of the Peneus and Platamona to the summits of
Mounts Kritiri and Zygos, thence following the course of the river Arta
to its mouth. An area of 13,395 square kilometres, with a population of
300,000 souls, was thus added to the kingdom, while Turkey was left in
possession of Iannina, Metzovo and most of Epirus. The ceded territory
was occupied by Greek troops before the close of the year.
Trikoupes and Delyannes.
In 1882 Trikoupes came into power at the head of a strong party, over
which he exercised an influence and authority hitherto unknown in Greek
political life. With the exception of three brief intervals (May 1885 to
May 1886, October 1890 to February 1892, and a few months in 1893), he
continued in office for the next twelve years. The reforms which he
introduced during this period were generally of an unpopular character,
and were loudly denounced by his democratic rivals; most of them were
cancelled during the intervals when his opponent Delyannes occupied the
premiership. The same want of continuity proved fatal to the somewhat
ambitious financial programme which he now inaugurated. While pursuing a
cautious foreign policy, and keeping in control the rash impetuosity of
his fellow-countrymen, he shared to the full the national desire for
expansion, but he looked to the development of the material resources of
the country as a necessary preliminary to the realization of the dreams
of Hellenism. With this view he endeavoured to attract foreign capital
to the country, and the confidence which he inspired in financial
circles abroad enabled him to contract a number of loans and to better
the financial situation by a series of conversions. Under a stable,
wise, and economical administration this far-reaching programme might
perhaps have been carried out with success, but the vicissitudes of
party politics and the periodical outbursts of national sentiment
rendered its realization impossible. In April 1885 Trikoupes fell from
power, and a few months later the indignation excited in Greece by the
revolution of Philippopolis placed Delyannes once more at the head of a
warlike movement. The army and fleet were again mobilized with a view to
exacting territorial compensation for the aggrandizement of Bulgaria,
and several conflicts with the Turkish troops took place on the
frontier. The powers, after repeatedly inviting the Delyannes cabinet to
disarm, established a blockade of Peiraeus and other Greek ports (8th
May 1886), France alone declining to cooperate in this measure.
Delyannes resigned (11th May) and Trikoupes, who succeeded to power,
issued a decree of disarmament (25th May). Hostilities, however,
continued on the frontier, and the blockade was not raised till 7th
June. Trikoupes had now to face the serious financial situation brought
about by the military activity of his predecessor. He imposed heavy
taxation, which the people, for the time at least, bore without
murmuring, and he continued to inspire such confidence abroad that Greek
securities maintained their price in the foreign market. It was ominous,
however, that a loan which he issued in 1890 was only partially covered.
Meanwhile the Cretan difficulty had become once more a source of trouble
to Greece. In 1889 Trikoupes was grossly deceived by the Turkish
government, which, after inducing him to dissuade the Cretans from
opposing the occupation of certain fortified posts, issued a firman
annulling many important provisions in the constitution of the island.
The indignation in Greece was intense, and popular discontent was
increased by the success of the Bulgarians in obtaining the _exequatur_
of the sultan for a number of bishops in Macedonia. In the autumn of
1890 Trikoupes was beaten at the elections, and Delyannes, who had
promised the people a radical reform of the taxation, succeeded to
power. He proved unequal, however, to cope with the financial
difficulty, which now became urgent; and the king, perceiving that a
crisis was imminent, dismissed him and recalled Trikoupes. The hope of
averting national bankruptcy depended on the possibility of raising a
loan by which the rapid depreciation of the paper currency might be
arrested, but foreign financiers demanded guarantees which seemed likely
to prove hurtful to Greek susceptibilities; an agitation was raised at
Athens, and Trikoupes suddenly resigned (May 1893). His conduct at this
juncture appears to have been due to some misunderstandings which had
arisen between him and the king. The Sotiropoulos-Rhalles ministry which
followed effected a temporary settlement with the national creditors,
but Trikoupes, returning to power in the autumn, at once annulled the
arrangement. He now proceeded to a series of arbitrary measures which
provoked the severest criticism throughout Europe and exposed Greece to
the determined hostility of Germany. A law was hastily passed which
deprived the creditors of 70% of their interest, and the proceeds of the
revenues conceded to the monopoly bondholders were seized (December
1893). Long negotiations followed, resulting in an arrangement which was
subsequently reversed by the German bondholders. In January 1895
Trikoupes resigned office, in consequence of a disagreement with the
crown prince on a question of military discipline. His popularity had
vanished, his health was shattered, and he determined to abandon his
political career. His death at Cannes (11th April 1896), on the eve of a
great national convulsion, deprived Greece of his masterly guidance and
sober judgment at a critical moment in her history.
Nationalist agitation, 1896.
His funeral took place at Athens on 23rd April, while the city was still
decorated with flags and garlands after the celebration of the Olympic
games. The revival of the ancient festival, which drew together
multitudes of Greeks from abroad, led to a lively awakening of the
national sentiment, hitherto depressed by the economic misfortunes of
the kingdom, and a secret patriotic society, known as the _Ethniké
Hetaerea_, began to develop prodigious activity, enrolling members from
every rank of life and establishing branches in all parts of the
Hellenic world. The society had been founded in 1894, by a handful of
young officers who considered that the military organization of the
country was neglected by the government; its principal aim was the
preparation of an insurrectionary movement in Macedonia, which, owing to
the activity of the Bulgarians and the reconciliation of Prince
Ferdinand with Russia, seemed likely to be withdrawn for ever from the
domain of Greek irredentism. The outbreak of another insurrection in
Crete supplied the means of creating a diversion for Turkey while the
movement in Macedonia was being matured; arms and volunteers were
shipped to the island, but the society was as yet unable to force the
hand of the government, and Delyannes, who had succeeded Trikoupes in
1895, loyally aided the powers in the restoration of order by advising
the Cretans to accept the constitution of 1896. The appearance of strong
insurgent bands in Macedonia in the summer of that year testified to the
activity of the society and provoked the remonstrances of the powers,
while the spread of its propaganda in the army led to the issue of a
royal rescript announcing grand military manoeuvres, the formation of a
standing camp, and the rearmament of the troops with a new weapon (6th
December). The objects of the society were effectually furthered by the
evident determination of the porte to evade the application of the
stipulated reforms in Crete; the Cretan Christians lost patience, and
indignation was widespread in Greece. Emissaries of the society were
despatched to the island, and affairs were brought to a climax by an
outbreak at Canea on 4th February 1897. The Turkish troops fired on the
Christians, thousands of whom took refuge on the warships of the powers,
and a portion of the town was consumed by fire.
Cretan crisis, 1897.
Delyannes now announced that the government had abandoned the policy of
abstention. On the 6th two warships were despatched to Canea, and on the
10th a torpedo flotilla, commanded by Prince George, left Peiraeus amid
tumultuous demonstrations. The ostensible object of these measures was
the protection of Greek subjects in Crete, and Delyannes was still
anxious to avoid a definite rupture with Turkey, but the Ethniké
Hetaerea had found means to influence several members of the ministry
and to alarm the king. Prince George, who had received orders to prevent
the landing of Turkish reinforcements on the island, soon withdrew from
Cretan waters owing to the decisive attitude adopted by the commanders
of the international squadron. A note was now addressed by the
government to the powers, declaring that Greece could no longer remain a
passive spectator of events in Crete, and on the 13th of February a
force of 1500 men, under Colonel Vassos, embarked at Peiraeus. On the
same day a Greek warship fired on a Turkish steam yacht which was
conveying troops from Candia to Sitia. Landing near Canea on the night
of the 14th, Colonel Vassos issued a proclamation announcing the
occupation of Crete in the name of King George. He had received orders
to expel the Turkish garrisons from the fortresses, but his advance on
Canea was arrested by the international occupation of that town, and
after a few engagements with the Turkish troops and irregulars he
withdrew into the interior of the island. Proposals for the coercion of
Greece were now put forward by Germany, but Great Britain declined to
take action until an understanding had been arrived at with regard to
the future government of Crete. Eventually (2nd March) collective notes
were addressed to the Greek and Turkish governments announcing the
decision of the powers that (1) Crete could in no case in present
circumstances be annexed to Greece; (2) in view of the delays caused by
Turkey in the application of the reforms, Crete should be endowed with
an effective autonomous administration, calculated to ensure it a
separate government, under the suzerainty of the sultan. Greece was at
the same time summoned to remove its army and fleet within the space of
six days, and Turkey was warned that its troops must for the present be
concentrated in the fortified towns and ultimately withdrawn from the
island. The action of the powers produced the utmost exasperation at
Athens; the populace demanded war with Turkey and the annexation of
Crete, and the government drew up a reply to the powers in which, while
expressing the conviction that autonomy would prove a failure, it
indicated its readiness to withdraw some of the ships, but declined to
recall the army. A suggestion that the troops might receive a European
mandate for the preservation of order in the island proved unacceptable
to the powers, owing to the aggressive action of Colonel Vassos after
his arrival. Meanwhile troops, volunteers and munitions of war were
hurriedly despatched to the Turkish frontier in anticipation of an
international blockade of the Greek ports, but the powers contented
themselves with a pacific blockade of Crete, and military preparations
went on unimpeded.
War with Turkey.
While the powers dallied, the danger of war increased; on 29th March the
crown prince assumed command of the Greek troops in Thessaly, and a few
days later hostilities were precipitated by the irregular forces of the
Ethniké Hetaerea, which attacked several Turkish outposts near Grevena.
According to a report of its proceedings, subsequently published by the
society, this invasion received the previous sanction of the prime
minister. On 17th April Turkey declared war. The disastrous campaign
which followed was of short duration, and it was evident from the outset
that the Greeks had greatly underrated the military strength of their
opponents (see GRECO-TURKISH WAR). After the evacuation of Larissa on
the 24th, great discontent prevailed at Athens; Delyannes was invited by
the king to resign, but refusing to do so was dismissed (29th April).
His successor, Rhalles, after recalling the army from Crete (9th May)
invoked the mediation of the powers, and an armistice was concluded on
the 19th of that month. Thus ended an unfortunate enterprise, which was
undertaken in the hope that discord among the powers would lead to a
European war and the dismemberment of Turkey. Greek interference in
Crete had at least the result of compelling Europe to withdraw the
island for ever from Turkish rule. The conditions of peace put forward
by Turkey included a war indemnity of £10,000,000 and the retention of
Thessaly; the latter demand, however, was resolutely opposed by Great
Britain, and the indemnity was subsequently reduced to £4,000,000. The
terms agreed to by the powers were rejected by Rhalles; the chamber,
however, refused him a vote of confidence and King George summoned
Zaimes to power (October 3). The definitive treaty of peace, which was
signed at Constantinople on the 6th of December, contained a provision
for a slight modification of the frontier, designed to afford Turkey
certain strategical advantages; the delimitation was carried out by a
commission composed of military delegates of the powers and
representatives of the interested parties. The evacuation of Thessaly by
the Turkish troops was completed in June 1898. An immediate result of
the war was the institution of an international financial commission at
Athens, charged with the control of certain revenues assigned to the
service of the national debt. The state of the country after the
conclusion of hostilities was deplorable; the towns of northern Greece
and the islands were crowded with destitute refugees from Thessaly;
violent recriminations prevailed at Athens, and the position of the
dynasty seemed endangered. A reaction, however, set in, in consequence
of an attempt to assassinate King George (28th February 1898), whose
great services to the nation in obtaining favourable terms from the
powers began to receive general recognition. In the following summer the
king made a tour through the country, and was everywhere received with
enthusiasm. In the autumn the powers, on the initiative of Russia,
decided to entrust Prince George of Greece with the government of Crete;
on 26th November an intimation that the prince had been appointed high
commissioner in the island was formally conveyed to the court of Athens,
and on 21st December he landed in Crete amid enthusiastic demonstrations
(see CRETE).
Macedonian troubles.
In April 1899 Zaimes gave way to Theotokes, the chief of the Trikoupist
party, who introduced various improvements in the administration of
justice and other reforms including a measure transferring the
administration of the army from the minister of war to the crown prince.
In May 1901 a meeting took place at Abbazia, under the auspices of the
Austro-Hungarian government, between King George and King Charles of
Rumania with a view to the conclusion of a Graeco-Rumanian understanding
directed against the growth of Slavonic, and especially Bulgarian,
influence in Macedonia. The compact, however, was destined to be
short-lived owing to the prosecution of a Rumanian propaganda among the
semi-Hellenized Vlachs of Macedonia. In November riots took place at
Athens, the patriotic indignation of the university students and the
populace being excited by the issue of a translation of the Gospels into
modern Greek at the suggestion of the queen. The publication was
attributed to Panslavist intrigues against Greek supremacy over the
Orthodox populations of the East, and the archbishop of Athens was
compelled to resign. Theotokes, whose life was attempted, retired from
power, and Zaimes formed a cabinet. In 1902 the progress of the
Bulgarian movement in Macedonia once more caused great irritation in
Greece. Zaimes, having been defeated at the elections in December,
resigned, and was succeeded by Delyannes, whose popularity had not been
permanently impaired by the misfortunes of the war. Delyannes now
undertook to carry out extensive economic reforms, and introduced a
measure restoring the control of the army to the ministry of war. He
failed, however, to carry out his programme, and, being deserted by a
section of his followers, resigned in June 1903, when Theotokes again
became prime minister. The new cabinet resigned within a month owing to
the outbreak of disturbances in the currant-growing districts, and
Rhalles took office for the second time (July 8). The Bulgarian
insurrection in Macedonia during the autumn caused great excitement in
Athens, and Rhalles adopted a policy of friendship with Turkey (see
MACEDONIA). The co-operation of the Greek party in Macedonia with the
Turkish authorities exposed it to the vengeance of the insurgents, and
in the following year a number of Greek bands were sent into that
country. The campaign of retaliation was continued in subsequent years.
Murder of Delyannes.
In December Rhalles, who had lost the support of the Delyannist party,
was replaced by Theotokes, who promulgated a scheme of army
reorganization, introduced various economies and imposed fresh taxation.
In December the government was defeated on a vote of confidence and
Delyannes once more became prime minister, obtaining a considerable
majority in the elections which followed (March 1905), but on the 13th
of June he was assassinated. He was succeeded by Rhalles, who effected a
settlement of the currant question and cultivated friendly relations
with Turkey in regard to Macedonia.
In the autumn anti-Greek demonstrations in Rumania led to a rupture of
relations with that country. In December the ministry resigned owing to
an adverse vote of the chamber, and Theotokes formed a cabinet. The new
government, as a preliminary to military and naval reorganization,
introduced a law directed against the candidature of military officers
for parliament. Owing to obstruction practised by the military members
of the chamber a dissolution took place, and at the subsequent elections
(April 1906) Theotokes secured a large majority. In the autumn various
excesses committed against the Greeks in Bulgaria in reprisal for the
depredations of the Greek bands in Macedonia caused great indignation in
Greece, but diplomatic relations between the two countries were not
suspended. On the 26th of September Prince George, who had resigned the
high commissionership of Crete, returned to Athens; the designation of
his successors was accorded by the protecting powers to King George as a
satisfaction to Greek national sentiment (see CRETE). The great increase
in the activity of the Greek bands in Macedonia during the following
spring and summer led to the delivery of a Turkish note at Athens (July
1907), which was supported by representations of the powers.
In October 1908 the proclamation by the Cretan assembly of union with
Greece threatened fresh complications, the cautious attitude of the
Greek government leading to an agitation in the army, which came to a
head in 1909. On the 18th of July a popular demonstration against his
Cretan policy led to the resignation of Theotokes, whose successor,
Rhalles, announced a programme of military and economical reform. The
army, however, took matters into its own hands, and on the 23rd of
August Rhalles was replaced by Mavromichales, the nominee of the
"Military League." For the next six months constitutional government was
practically superseded by that of the League, and for a while the crown
itself seemed to be in danger. The influence of the League, however,
rapidly declined; army and navy quarrelled; and a fresh _coup d'état_ at
the beginning of 1910 failed of its effect, owing to the firmness of the
king. On the 7th of February Mavromichales resigned, and his successor,
Dragoumis, accepting the Cretan leader Venezelo's suggestion of a
national assembly, succeeded in persuading the League to dissolve (March
29) on receiving the king's assurance that such an assembly would be
convened. On the 31st, accordingly, King George formally proclaimed the
convocation of a national assembly to deal with the questions at issue.
AUTHORITIES.--Finlay, _History of Greece_ (Oxford, 1877); K. N.
Sathas, [Greek: Mesaiônikê Bibliothêkê] (7 vols., Venice, 1872-1894);
and [Greek: Mnêmeia Hellênikês historias]. _Documents inédits relatifs
à l'histoire du moyen âge_ (9 vols., Paris, 1880-1890); Sp. Trikoupes,
[Greek: Historia tês Hellênikês epanastaseôs] (4 vols., 3rd ed.,
Athens, 1888); K. Paparrhegopoulos, [Greek: Historia tou Hellênikou
ethnous] (5 vols., 4th ed., Athens, 1903); J. Philemon, [Greek:
Dokimion historikon peri tês Hellênikês epanastaseôs] (Athens,
1859-1861); P. Kontoyannes, [Greek: Oi Hellênes kata ton prôton epi
Aikaterinês 'Rhôssotourkikon polemon] (Athens, 1903); D. G.
Kampouroglos, [Greek: Historia tôn Athênaiôn, Tourkokratia,] 1458-1687
(2 vols., Athens, 1889-1890); and [Greek: Mnêmeia tês historias tôn
Athênaiôn], (3 vols., Athens, 1889-1892); G. E. Mavrogiannes, [Greek:
Historia tôn Ioniôn nêsôn,] 1797-1815 (2 vols., Athens, 1889); P.
Karolides, [Greek: Historia tou ith aiônos], 1814-1892 (Athens,
1891-1893); E. Kyriakides, [Greek: Historia tou sugchronou
Hellênismou] 1832-1892 (2 vols., Athens, 1892); G. Konstantinides,
[Greek: Historia tôn Hathênôn apo Xristou gennêseôs mechri tou] 1821
(2nd ed., Athens, 1894); D. Bikelas, _La Grèce byzantine et moderne_
(Paris, 1893). (J. D. B.)
FOOTNOTES:
[1] See also GREEK ART, GREEK LANGUAGE, GREEK LAW, GREEK LITERATURE,
GREEK RELIGION.
[2] For the Geology of Greece see: M. Neumayr, &c., _Denks. k. Akad.
Wiss. Wien, math.-nat. Cl._ vol. xl. (1880); A. Philippson, _Der
Peloponnes_ (Berlin, 1892) and "Beiträge zur Kenntnis der
griechischen Inselwelt," _Peterm. Mitt._, Ergänz.-heft No. 134
(1901); R. Lepsius, _Geologie von Attika_ (Berlin, 1893); L. Cayeux,
"Phénomènes de charriage dans la Méditerranée orientale," _C. R.
Acad. Sci. Paris_, vol. cxxxvi. (1903) pp. 474-476; J. Deprat, "Note
préliminaire sur la géologie de l'île d'Eubée," _Bull. Soc. Géol.
France_, ser. 4, vol. iii. (1903) pp. 229-243, p. vii. and "Note sur
la géologie du massif du Pélion et sur l'influence exercée par les
massifs archéens sur la tectonique de l'Égéide," _ib._ vol. iv.
(1904), pp. 299-338.
[3] No state survey of Greece was available in 1908, though a survey
had been undertaken by the ministry of war.
[4] It would be more accurate to say to the year 1500 B.C. At Cnossus
the palace is sacked soon after this date, and the art, both in Crete
and in the whole Aegean area, becomes lifeless and decadent.
[5] See T. W. Allen in the _Classical Review_, vol. xx. (1906), No. 4
(May).
[6] It has been impugned by J. Beloch, _Griechische Geschichte_, i.
149 ff.
[7] _History of Greece_ (Eng. trans., i. 32 ff.); cf. the same
writer's _Ioner vor der ionischen Wanderung_.
[8] If the account of early Athenian constitutional history given in
the _Athenaion Politeia_ were accepted, it would follow that the
archons were inferior in authority to the Eupatrid Boule, the
Areopagus.
[9] The dates before the middle of the 7th century are in most cases
artificial, e.g. those given by Thucydides (book vi.) for the earlier
Sicilian settlements. See J. P. Mahaffy, _Journal of Hellenic
Studies_, ii. 164 ff.
[10] At Syracuse the _demos_ makes common cause with the Sicel
serf-population against the nobles (Herod. vii. 155).
[11] An exception should perhaps be made in the case of Thucydides.
[12] The Peisistratidae come off better, however.
[13] The numbers given by Herodotus (upwards of 5,000,000) are
enormously exaggerated. We must divide by ten or fifteen to arrive at
a probable estimate of the forces that actually crossed the
Hellespont.
[14] It has been denied by some writers (e.g. by A. H. J. Greenidge)
that Athens interfered with the constitutions of the subject-states.
For the view put forward in the text, the following passages may be
quoted: Aristotle, _Politics_ 1307 b 20; Isocrates, _Panegyricus_,
105, 106, _Panathenaicus_, 54 and 68; Xenophon, _Hellenica_, iii. 4.
7; Ps.-Xen. _Athen. Constit._ i. 14, iii. 10.
[15] The evidence seems to indicate that all the more important
criminal cases throughout the empire were tried in the Athenian
courts. In civil cases Athens secured to the citizens of the
subject-states the right of suing Athenian citizens, as well as
citizens of other subject-states.
[16] After this date, and partly in consequence of the change, the
archonship, to which sortition was applied, loses its importance. The
_strategi_ (generals) become the chief executive officials. As
election was never replaced by the lot in their case, the change had
less practical meaning than might appear at first sight. (See ARCHON;
STRATEGUS.)
[17] For an estimate of the numbers annually engaged in the service
of Athens, see Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 24. 3.
[18] Foreign is not used here as equivalent to non-Hellenic. It means
"belonging to another state, whether Greek or barbarian."
[19] It failed even to create a united Arcadia or a strong Messenia.
[20] See Demosthenes, _On the Crown_, 235. Philip was [Greek:
autokratôr, despotês, êgemôn, kurios panton.]
[21] See _Archidamus_, 68; Philippus, 96, [Greek: ôste raon eínai
sustêsai stratopedon meizon kai kreltton ek ton planômênôn e ek ton
politeuomenon.]
[22] The _Liturgies_ (e.g. the trierarchy) had much the same effect
as a direct tax levied upon the wealthiest citizens.
[23] His extreme caution in approaching the question at an earlier
date is to be noticed. See, e.g., _Olynthiacs_, i. 19, 20.
[24] e.g. the two expeditions sent to Euboea, the cavalry force that
took part in the battle of Mantinea, and the army that fought at
Chaeronea. The troops in all these cases were citizens.
[25] For the altered character of warfare see Demosthenes,
_Philippics_, iii. 48, 49.
[26] It is known that the councillors were appointed by the states in
the Aetolian league; it is only surmised in the case of the Achaean.
[27] Strictly speaking, to 411 B.C. For the last seven years of the
war our principal authority is Xenophon, _Hellenica_, i., ii.
[28] Possibly some of his information about Persian affairs may have
been derived, at first or second hand, from Zopyrus, son of
Megabyzus, whose flight to Athens is mentioned in iii. 160.
[29] For a defence of Thucydides' judgment on all three statesmen,
see E. Meyer, _Forschungen_, ii. 296-379.
[30] On the discrepancies between Xenophon's account of the Thirty,
and Aristotle's, see G. Busolt, _Hermes_ (1898), pp. 71-86.
[31] The fragment of the New Historian (_Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, vol.
v.) affords exceedingly important material for the criticism of
Xenophon's narrative. (See THEOPOMPUS.)
[32] Vol. iii. goes down to the end of the Peloponnesian War.
GREEK ART. It is proposed in the present article to give a brief account
of the history of Greek art and of the principles embodied in that
history. In any broad view of history, the products of the various arts
practised by a people constitute an objective and most important record
of the spirit of that people. But all nations have not excelled in the
same way: some have found their best expression in architecture, some in
music, some in poetry. The Greeks most fully embodied their ideas in two
ways, first in their splendid literature, both prose and verse, and
secondly, in their plastic and pictorial art, in which matter they have
remained to our days among the greatest instructors of mankind. The
three arts of architecture, sculpture and painting were brought by them
into a focus; and by their aid they produced a visible splendour of
public life such as has perhaps been nowhere else attained.
The volume of the remains of Greek civilization is so vast, and the
learning with which these have been discussed is so ample, that it is
hopeless to attempt to give in a work like the present any complete
account of either. Rather we shall be frankly eclectic, choosing for
consideration such results of Greek art as are most noteworthy and most
characteristic. In some cases it will be possible to give a reference to
a more detailed treatment of particular monuments in these volumes under
the heading of the places to which they belong. Architectural detail is
relegated to ARCHITECTURE and allied architectural articles. Coins (see
NUMISMATICS) and gems (see GEMS) are treated apart, as are vases
(CERAMICS), and in the bibliography which closes this article an effort
is made to direct those who wish for further information in any
particular branch of our subject.
1. _The Rediscovery of Greek Art._--The visible works of Greek
architect, sculptor and painter, accumulated in the cities of Greece and
Asia Minor until the Roman conquest. And in spite of the ravages of
conquering Roman generals, and the more systematic despoilings of the
emperors, we know that when Pausanias visited Greece, in the age of the
Antonines, it was from coast to coast a museum of works of art of all
ages. But the tide soon turned. Works of originality were no longer
produced, and a succession of disasters gradually obliterated those of
previous ages. In the course of the Teutonic and Slavonic invasions from
the north, or in consequence of earthquakes, very frequent in Greece,
the splendid cities and temples fell into ruins; and with the taking of
Constantinople by the Franks in 1204 the last great collection of works
of Greek sculpture disappeared. But while paintings decayed, and works
in metal were melted down, many marble buildings and statues survived,
at least in a mutilated condition, while terra-cotta is almost proof
against decay.
With the Renaissance attention was directed to the extant remains of
Greek and Roman art; as early as the 15th century collections of ancient
sculpture, coins and gems began to be formed in Italy; and in the 16th
the enthusiasm spread to Germany and France. The earl of Arundel, in the
reign of James I., was the first Englishman to collect antiques from
Italy and Asia Minor: his marbles are now in the Ashmolean Museum at
Oxford. Systematic travel in Greece for the discovery of buildings and
works of art was begun by Spon and Wheler (1675-1676); and the discovery
of Pompeii in 1748 opened a new chapter in the history of ancient art.
But though kings delighted to form galleries of ancient statues, and the
great Italian artists of the Renaissance drew from them inspiration for
their paintings and bronzes, the first really critical appreciation of
Greek art belongs to Winckelmann (_Geschichte der Kunst des Altertums_,
1764). The monuments accessible to Winckelmann were but a very small
proportion of those we now possess, and in fact mostly works of inferior
merit: but he was the first to introduce the historical method into the
treatment of ancient art, and to show how it embodied the ideas of the
great peoples of the ancient world. He was succeeded by Lessing, and the
waves of thought and feeling set in motion by these two affected the
cultivated class in all nations,--they inspired in particular Goethe in
Germany and Lord Byron in England.
The second stage in the recovery of Greek art begins with the permission
accorded by the Porte to Lord Elgin in 1800 to remove to England the
sculptural decoration of the Parthenon and other buildings of Athens.
These splendid works, after various vicissitudes, became the property of
the English nation, and are now the chief treasures of the British
Museum. The sight of them was a revelation to critics and artists,
accustomed only to the base copies which fill the Italian galleries, and
a new epoch in the appreciation of Greek art began. English and German
savants, among whom Cockerell and Stackelberg were conspicuous,
recovered the glories of the temples of Aegina and Bassae. Leake and
Ross, and later Curtius, journeyed through the length and breadth of
Greece, identifying ancient sites and studying the monuments which were
above ground. Ross reconstructed the temple of Athena Nike on the
Acropolis of Athens from fragments rescued from a Turkish bastion.
Meantime more methodical exploration brought to light the remains of
remarkable civilizations in Asia, not only in the valley of the
Euphrates, but in Lycia, whence Sir Charles Fellows brought to London
the remains of noteworthy tombs, among which the so-called Harpy
Monument and Nereid Monument take the first place. Still more important
were the accessions derived from the excavations of Sir Charles Newton,
who in the years 1852-1859 resided as consul in Asia Minor, and explored
the sites of the mausoleum at Halicarnassus and the shrine of Demeter at
Cnidus. Pullan at Priene, and Wood at Ephesus also made fruitful
excavations.
The next landmark is set by the German excavations at Olympia (1876 and
foll.), which not only were conducted with a scientific completeness
before unknown, and at great cost, but also established the principle
that in future all the results of excavations in Greece must remain in
the country, the right of first publication only remaining with the
explorers. The discovery of the Hermes of Praxiteles, almost the only
certain original of a great Greek sculptor which we possess, has
furnished a new and invaluable fulcrum for the study of ancient art. In
emulation of the achievements of the Germans at Olympia, the Greek
archaeological society methodically excavated the Athenian acropolis,
and were rewarded by finding numerous statues and fragments of pediments
belonging to the age of Peisistratus, an age when the promise of art was
in full bud. More recently French explorers have made a very thorough
examination of the site of Delphi, and have succeeded in recovering
almost complete two small treasuries, those of the people of Athens and
of Cnidus or Siphnos, the latter of 6th-century Ionian work, and adorned
with extremely important sculpture.
No other site of the same importance as Athens, Olympia and Delphi
remains for excavation in Greece proper. But in all parts of the
country, at Tegea, Corinth, Sparta and on a number of other ancient
sites, striking and important monuments have come to light. And at the
same time monuments already known in Italy and Sicily, such as the
temples of Paestum, Selinus and Agrigentum have been re-examined with
fuller knowledge and better system. Only Asia Minor, under the influence
of Turkish rule, has remained a country where systematic exploration is
difficult. Something, however, has been accomplished at Ephesus, Priene,
Assos and Miletus, and great works of sculpture such as the reliefs of
the great altar at Pergamum, now at Berlin, and the splendid sarcophagi
from Sidon, now at Constantinople, show what might be expected from
methodic investigation of the wealthy Greek cities of Asia.
From further excavations at Herculaneum we may expect a rich harvest of
works of art of the highest class, such as have already been found in
the excavations on that site in the past; and the building operations at
Rome are constantly bringing to light fine statues brought from Greece
in the time of the Empire, which are now placed in the collections of
the Capitol and the Baths of Diocletian.
The work of explorers on Greek sites requires as its complement and
corrective much labour in the great museums of Europe. As museum work
apart from exploration tends to dilettantism and pedantry, so
exploration by itself does not produce reasoned knowledge. When a new
building, a great original statue, a series of vases is discovered,
these have to be fitted in to the existing frame of our knowledge; and
it is by such fitting in that the edifice of knowledge is enlarged. In
all the museums and universities of Europe the fresh examination of new
monuments, the study of style and subject, and attempts to work out
points in the history of ancient art, are incessantly going on. Such
archaeological work is an important element in the gradual education of
the world, and is fruitful, quite apart from the particular results
attained, because it encourages a method of thought. Archaeology,
dealing with things which can be seen and handled, yet being a species
of historic study, lies on the borderland between the province of
natural science and that of historic science, and furnishes a bridge
whereby the methods of investigation proper to physical and biological
study may pass into the human field.
These investigations and studies are recorded, partly in books, but
more particularly in papers in learned journals (see bibliography),
such as the _Mitteilungen_ of the German Institute, and the English
_Journal of Hellenic Studies_.
An example or two may serve to give the reader a clearer notion of the
recent progress in the knowledge of Greek art.
To begin with architecture. Each of the palmary sites of which we have
spoken has rendered up examples of early Greek temples. At Olympia there
is the Heraeum, earliest of known temples of Greece proper, which
clearly shows the process whereby stone gradually superseded wood as a
constructive material. At Delphi the explorers have been so fortunate as
to be able to put together the treasuries of the Cnidians (or Siphnians)
and of the Athenians. The former (see fig. 17) is a gem of early Ionic
art, with two Caryatid figures in front in the place of columns, and
adorned with the most delicate tracery and fine reliefs. On the Athenian
acropolis very considerable remains have been found of temples which
were destroyed by the Persians when they temporarily occupied the site
in 480 B.C. And recently the ever-renewed study of the Erechtheum has
resulted in a restoration of its original form more valuable and
trustworthy than any previously made.
In the field of sculpture recent discoveries have been too many and too
important to be mentioned at any length. One instance may serve to mark
the rapidity of our advance. When the remains of the Mausoleum were
brought to London from the excavations begun by Sir Charles Newton in
1856 we knew from Pliny that four great sculptors, Scopas, Bryaxis,
Leochares and Timotheus, had worked on the sculpture; but we knew of
these artists little more than the names. At present we possess many
fragments of two pediments at Tegea executed under the direction of
Scopas, we have a basis with reliefs signed by Bryaxis, we have
identified a group in the Vatican museum as a copy of the Ganymede of
Leochares, and we have pedimental remains from Epidaurus which we know
from inscriptional evidence to be either the works of Timotheus or made
from his models. Any one can judge how enormously our power of
criticizing the Mausoleum sculptures, and of comparing them with
contemporary monuments, has increased.
In regard to ancient painting we can of course expect no such fresh
illumination. Many important wail-paintings of the Roman age have been
found at Rome and Pompeii: but we have no certain or even probable work
of any great Greek painter. We have to content ourselves with studying
the colouring of reliefs, such as those of the sarcophagi at
Constantinople, and the drawings on vases, in order to get some notion
of the composition and drawing of painted scenes in the great age of
Greece. As to the portraits of the Roman age painted on wood which have
come in considerable quantities from Egypt, they stand at a far lower
level than even the paintings of Pompeii. The number of our
vase-paintings, however, increases steadily, and whole classes, such as
the early vases of Ionia, are being marked off from the crowd, and so
becoming available for use in illustrating the history of Hellenic
civilization.
The study of Greek art is thus one which is eminently progressive. It
has over the study of Greek literature the immense advantage that its
materials increase far more rapidly. And it is becoming more and more
evident that a sound and methodic study of Greek art is quite as
indispensable as a foundation for an artistic and archaeological
education as the study of Greek poets and orators is as a basis of
literary education. The extreme simplicity and thorough rationality of
Greek art make it an unrivalled field for the training and exercise of
the faculties which go to the making of the art-critic and art
historian.
2. _The General Principles of Greek Art._--Before proceeding to sketch
the history of the rise and decline of Greek art, it is desirable
briefly to set forth the principles which underlie it (see also P.
Gardner's _Grammar of Greek Art_).
As the literature of Greece is composed in a particular language, the
grammar and the syntax of which have to be studied before the works in
poetry and prose can be read, so Greek works of art are composed in what
may be called an artistic language. To the accidence of a grammar may be
compared the mere technique of sculpture and painting: to the syntax of
a grammar correspond the principles of composition and grouping of
individual figures into a relief or picture. By means of the rules of
this grammar the Greek artist threw into form the ideas which belonged
to him as a personal or a racial possession.
We may mention first some of the more external conditions of Greek art;
next, some of those which the Greek spirit posited for itself.
No nation is in its works wholly free from the domination of climate and
geographical position; least of all a people so keenly alive to the
influence of the outer world as the Greeks. They lived in a land where
the soil was dry and rocky, far less hospitable to vegetation than that
of western Europe, while on all sides the horizon of the land was
bounded by hard and jagged lines of mountain. The sky was extremely
clear and bright, sunshine for a great part of the year almost
perpetual, and storms, which are more than passing gales, rare. It was
in accordance with these natural features that temples and other
buildings should be simple in form and bounded by clear lines. Such
forms as the cube, the oblong, the cylinder, the triangle, the pyramid
abound in their constructions. Just as in Switzerland the gables of the
chalets match the pine-clad slopes and lofty summits of the mountains,
so in Greece, amid barer hills of less elevation, the Greek temple looks
thoroughly in place. But its construction is related not only to the
surface of the land, but also to the character of the race. M. Émile
Boutmy, in his interesting _Philosophie de l'architecture en Grèce_, has
shown how the temple is a triumph of the senses and the intellect, not
primarily emotional, but showing in every part definite purpose and
design. It also exhibits in a remarkable degree the love of balance, of
symmetry, of a mathematical proportion of parts and correctness of
curvature which belong to the Greek artist.
The purposes of a Greek temple may be readily judged from its plan.
Primarily it was the abode of the deity, whose statue dwelt in it as men
dwell in their own houses. Hence the cella or _naos_ is the central
feature of the building. Here was placed the image to which worship was
brought, while the treasures belonging to the god were disposed partly
in the cella itself, partly in a kind of treasury which often existed,
as in the Parthenon, behind the cella. There was in large temples a
porch of approach, the _pronaos_, and another behind, the
_opisthodomos_. Temples were not meant for, nor accommodated to, regular
services or a throng of worshippers. Processions and festivals took
place in the open air, in the streets and fields, and men entered the
abodes of the gods at most in groups and families, commonly alone. Thus
when a place had been found for the statue, which stood for the presence
of the god, for the small altar of incense, for the implements of cult
and the gifts of votaries, little space remained free, and great spaces
or subsidiary chapels such as are usual in Christian cathedrals did not
exist (see TEMPLE).
Here our concern is not with the purposes or arrangements of a temple,
but with its appearance and construction, regarded as a work of art, and
as an embodiment of Greek ideas. A few simple and striking principles
may be formulated, which are characteristic of all Greek buildings:--
(i.) Each member of the building has one function, and only one, and
this function controls even the decoration of that member. The pillar of
a temple is made to support the architrave and is for that purpose only.
The flutings of the pillar, being perpendicular, emphasize this fact.
The line of support which runs up through the pillar is continued in the
triglyph, which also shows perpendicular grooves. On the other hand, the
wall of a temple is primarily meant to divide or space off; thus it may
well at the top be decorated by a horizontal band of relief, which
belongs to it as a border belongs to a curtain. The base of a column, if
moulded, is moulded in such a way as to suggest support of a great
weight; the capital of a column is so carved as to form a transition
between the column and the cornice which it supports.
(ii.) Greek architects took the utmost pains with the proportions, the
symmetry as they called it, of the parts of their buildings. This was a
thing in which the keen and methodical eyes of the Greeks delighted, to
a degree which a modern finds it hard to understand. Simple and natural
relations, 1:2, 1:3, 2:3 and the like, prevailed between various members
of a construction. All curves were planned with great care, to please
the eye with their flow; and the alternations and correspondences of
features is visible at a glance. For example, the temple must have two
pediments and two porches, and on its sides and fronts triglyph and
metope must alternate with unvarying regularity.
(iii.) Rigidity in the simple lines of a temple is avoided by the device
that scarcely any outline is actually straight. All are carefully
planned and adapted to the eye of the spectator. In the Parthenon the
line of the floor is curved, the profiles of the columns are curved, the
corner columns slope inward from their bases, the columns are not even
equidistant. This elaborate adaptation, called entasis, was expounded by
F. C. Penrose in his work on Athenian architecture, and has since been
observed in several of the great temples of Greece.
(iv.) Elaborate decoration is reserved for those parts of the temple
which have, or at least appear to have, no strain laid upon them. It is
true that in the archaic age experiments were made in carving reliefs on
the lower drums of columns (as at Ephesus) and on the line of the
architrave (as at Assus). But such examples were not followed. Nearly
always the spaces reserved for mythological reliefs or groups are the
tops of walls, the spaces between the triglyphs, and particularly the
pediments surmounting the two fronts, which might be left hollow without
danger to the stability of the edifice. Detached figures in the round
are in fact found only in the pediments, or standing upon the tops of
the pediments. And metopes are sculptured in higher relief than friezes.
"When we examine in detail even the simplest architectural decoration,
we discover a combination of care, sense of proportion, and reason.
The flutings of an Ionic column are not in section mere arcs of a
circle, but made up of a combination of curves which produce a
beautiful optical effect; the lines of decoration, as may be best seen
in the case of the Erechtheum, are cut with a marvellous delicacy.
Instead of trying to invent new schemes, the mason contents himself
with improving the regular patterns until they approach perfection,
and he takes everything into consideration. Mouldings on the outside
of a temple, in the full light of the sun, are differently planned
from those in the diffused light of the interior. Mouldings executed
in soft stone are less fine than those in marble. The mason thinks
before he works, and while he works, and thinks in entire
correspondence with his surroundings."[1]
Greek architecture, however, is treated elsewhere (see ARCHITECTURE); we
will therefore proceed to speak briefly of the principles exemplified in
sculpture. Existing works of Greek sculpture fall easily into two
classes. The first class comprises what may be called works of
substantive art, statues or groups made for their own sake and to be
judged by themselves. Such are cult-statues of gods and goddesses from
temple and shrine, honorary portraits of rulers or of athletes,
dedicated groups and the like. The second class comprises decorative
sculptures, such as were made, usually in relief, for the decoration of
temples and tombs and other buildings, and were intended to be
subordinate to architectural effect.
Speaking broadly, it may be said that the works of substantive sculpture
in our museums are in the great majority of cases copies of doubtful
exactness and very various merit. The Hermes of Praxiteles is almost the
only marble statue which can be assigned positively to one of the great
sculptors; we have to work back towards the productions of the peers of
Praxiteles through works of poor execution, often so much restored in
modern times as to be scarcely recognizable. Decorative works, on the
other hand, are very commonly originals, and their date can often be
accurately fixed, as they belong to known buildings. They are thus
infinitely more trustworthy and more easy to deal with than the copies
of statues of which the museums of Europe, and more especially those of
Italy, are full. They are also more commonly unrestored. But yet there
are certain disadvantages attaching to them. Decorative works, even when
carried out under the supervision of a great sculptor, were but seldom
executed by him. Usually they were the productions of his pupils or
masons. Thus they are not on the same level of art as substantive
sculpture. And they vary in merit to an extraordinary extent, according
to the capacity of the man who happened to have them in hand, and who
was probably but little controlled. Every one knows how noble are the
pedimental sculptures of the Parthenon. But we know no reason why they
should be so vastly superior to the frieze from Phigalia; nor why the
heads from the temple at Tegea should be so fine, while those from the
contemporary temple at Epidaurus should be comparatively insignificant.
From the records of payments made to the sculptors who worked on the
Erechtheum at Athens it appears that they were ordinary masons, some of
them not even citizens, and paid at the rate of 60 drachms (about 60
francs) for each figure, whether of man or horse, which they produced.
Such piece-work would not, in our days, produce a very satisfactory
result.
Works of substantive sculpture may be divided into two classes, the
statues of human beings and those of the gods. The line between the two
is not, however, very easy to draw, or very definite. For in
representing men the Greek sculptor had an irresistible inclination to
idealize, to represent what was generic and typical rather than what was
individual, and the essential rather than the accidental. And in
representing deities he so fully anthropomorphized them that they became
men and women, only raised above the level of everyday life and endowed
with a superhuman stateliness. Moreover, there was a class of heroes
represented largely in art who covered the transition from men to gods.
For example, if one regards Heracles as a deity and Achilles as a man of
the heroic age and of heroic mould, the line between the two will be
found to be very narrow.
[Illustration: PLATE I.
_Photo, Brogi._
FIG. 50. HARMODIUS AND ARISTOGITON. (NAT. MUS. NAPLES.)
_Photo, Brogi._
FIG. 51. FARNESE BULL. (NAPLES.)
_Photo, Anderson._
FIG. 52. LAOCOON GROUP. (VATICAN.)
_Photo, Anderson._
FIG. 53. GANYMEDE OF LEOCHARES. (VATICAN.)]
[Illustration: PLATE II.
_Photo, Anderson._
FIG. 54.--FLYING OF MARSYAS. (VILLA ALBANI, ROME.)
_Photo, Anderson._
FIG. 55.--APOLLO OF THE BELVIDERE. (VATICAN.)]
FIG. 56.--HEAD OF YOUNG ALEXANDER. (BRIT. MUS.)
_Photo, Seebah._
FIG. 57.--HERMES OF ALCAMENES. (CONSTANTINOPLE.)
FIG. 58.--THESEUS AND AMAZON (ERETRIA).
_Photo, Mansell._
FIG. 59.--DRUM OF COLUMN FROM EPHESUS. (BRIT. MUS.)
_Photo, Baldwin Coolidge._
FIG. 60.--YOUNG HERMES. (MUS. OF FINE ARTS, BOSTON.)]
Nevertheless one may for convenience speak first of human and afterwards
of divine figures. It was the custom from the 6th century onwards to
honour those who had done any great achievement by setting up their
statues in conspicuous positions. One of the earliest examples is that
of the tyrannicides, Harmodius and Aristogiton, a group, a copy of which
has come down to us (Plate I. fig. 50[2]). Again, people who had not won
any distinction were in the habit of dedicating to the deities portraits
of themselves or of a priest or priestess, thus bringing themselves, as
it were, constantly under the notice of a divine patron. The rows of
statues before the temples at Miletus, Athens and elsewhere came thus
into being. But from the point of view of art, by far the most important
class of portraits consisted of athletes who had won victories at some
of the great games of Greece, at Olympia, Delphi or elsewhere. Early in
the 6th century the custom arose of setting up portraits of athletic
victors in the great sacred places. We have records of numberless such
statues executed by all the greatest sculptors. When Pausanias visited
Greece he found them everywhere far too numerous for complete mention.
It is the custom of studying and copying the forms of the finest of the
young athletes, combined with the Greek habit of complete nudity during
the sports, which lies at the basis of Greek excellence in sculpture.
Every sculptor had unlimited opportunities for observing young vigorous
bodies in every pose and in every variety of strain. The natural sense
of beauty which was an endowment of the Greek race impelled him to copy
and preserve what was excellent, and to omit what was ungainly or poor.
Thus there existed, and in fact there was constantly accumulating, a
vast series of types of male beauty, and the public taste was cultivated
to an extreme delicacy. And of course this taste, though it took its
start from athletic customs, and was mainly nurtured by them, spread to
all branches of portraiture, so that elderly men, women, and at last
even children, were represented in art with a mixture of ideality and
fidelity to nature such as has not been reached by the sculpture of any
other people.
The statues of the gods began either with stiff and ungainly figures
roughly cut out of the trunk of a tree, or with the monstrous and
symbolical representations of Oriental art. In the Greece of late times
there were still standing rude pillars, with the tops sometimes cut into
a rough likeness to the human form. And in early decoration of vases and
vessels one may find Greek deities represented with wings, carrying in
their hands lions or griffins, bearing on their heads lofty crowns. But
as Greek art progressed it grew out of this crude symbolism. In the
language of Brunn, the Greek artists borrowed from Oriental or Mycenaean
sources the letters used in their works, but with these letters they
spelled out the ideas of their own nation. What the artists of Babylon
and Egypt express in the character of the gods by added attribute or
symbol, swiftness by wings, control of storms by the thunderbolt, traits
of character by animal heads, the artists of Greece work more and more
fully into the sculptural type; modifying the human subject by the
constant addition of something which is above the ordinary level of
humanity, until we reach the Zeus of Pheidias or the Demeter of Cnidus.
When the decay of the high ethical art of Greece sets in, the gods
become more and more warped to the merely human level. They lose their
dignity, but they never lose their charm.
The decorative sculpture of Greece consists not of single figures, but
of groups; and in the arrangement of these groups the strict Greek laws
of symmetry, of rhythm, and of balance, come in. We will take the three
most usual forms, the pediment, the metope and the frieze, all of which
belong properly to the temple, but are characteristic of all decoration,
whether of tomb, trophy or other monument.
The form of the pediment is triangular; the height of the triangle in
proportion to its length being about 1:8. The conditions of space are
here strict and dominant; to comply with them requires some ingenuity.
To a modern sculptor the problem thus presented is almost insoluble; but
it was allowable in ancient art to represent figures in a single
composition as of various sizes, in correspondence not to actual
physical measurement but to importance. As the more important figures
naturally occupy the midmost place in a pediment, their greater size
comes in conveniently. And by placing some of the persons of the group
in a standing, some in a seated, some in a reclining position, it can be
so contrived that their heads are equidistant from the upper line of the
pediment.
The statues in a Greek pediment, which are after quite an early period
usually executed in the round, fall into three, five or seven groups,
according to the size of the whole. As examples to illustrate this
exposition we take the two pediments of the temple at Olympia, the most
complete which have come down to us, which are represented in figs. 33
and 34. The east pediment represents the preparation for the chariot
race between Pelops and Oenomaus. The central group consists of five
figures, Zeus standing between the two pairs of competitors and their
wives. In the corners recline the two river-gods Alpheus and Cladeus,
who mark the locality; and the two sides are filled up with the closely
corresponding groups of the chariots of Oenomaus and Pelops with their
grooms and attendants. Every figure to the left of Zeus balances a
corresponding figure on his right, and all the lines of the composition
slope towards a point above the apex of the pediment.
In the opposite or western pediment is represented the battle between
Lapiths and Centaurs which broke out at the marriage of Peirithous in
Thessaly. Here we have no less than nine groups. In the midst is Apollo.
On each side of him is a group of three, a centaur trying to carry off a
woman and a Lapith striking at him. Beyond these on each side is a
struggling pair, next once more a trio of two combatants and a woman,
and finally in each corner two reclining female figures, the outermost
apparently nymphs to mark locality. A careful examination of these
compositions will show the reader more clearly than detailed description
how clearly in this kind of group Greek artists adhered to the rules of
rhythm and of balance.
The metopes were the long series of square spaces which ran along the
outer walls of temples between the upright triglyphs and the cornice.
Originally they may have been left open and served as windows; but the
custom came in as early as the 7th century, first of filling them in
with painted boards or slabs of stone, and next of adorning them with
sculpture. The metopes of the Treasury of Sicyon at Delphi (Plate IV.
fig. 66) are as early as the first half of the 6th century. This
recurrence of a long series of square fields for occupation well suited
the genius and the habits of the sculptor. As subjects he took the
successive exploits of some hero such as Heracles or Theseus, or the
contemporary groups of a battle. His number of figures was limited to
two or three, and these figures had to be worked into a group or scheme,
the main features of which were determined by artistic tradition, but
which could be varied in a hundred ways so as to produce a pleasing and
in some degree novel result.
With metopes, as regards shape, we may compare the reliefs of Greek
tombs, which also usually occupy a space roughly square, and which also
comprise but a few figures arranged in a scheme generally traditional. A
figure standing giving his hand to one seated, two men standing hand in
hand, or a single figure in some vigorous pose is sufficient to satisfy
the simple but severe taste of the Greeks.
In regard to friezes, which are long reliefs containing figures ranged
between parallel lines, there is more variety of custom. In temples the
height of the relief from the background varies according to the light
in which it was to stand, whether direct or diffused. Almost all Greek
friezes, however, are of great simplicity in arrangement and
perspective. Locality is at most hinted at by a few stones or trees,
never actually portrayed. There is seldom more than one line of figures,
in combat or procession, their heads all equidistant from the top line
of the frieze. They are often broken up into groups; and when this is
the case, figure will often balance figure on either side of a central
point almost as rigidly as in a pediment. An example of this will be
found in the section of the Mausoleum frieze shown in fig. 70, Plate IV.
Some of the friezes executed by Greek artists for semi-Greek peoples,
such as those adorning the tomb at Trysa in Lycia, have two planes, the
figures in the background being at a higher level.
The rules of balance and symmetry in composition which are followed in
Greek decorative art are still more to be discerned in the paintings of
vases, which must serve, in the absence of more dignified compositions,
to enlighten us as to the methods of Greek painters. Great painters
would not, of course, be bound by architectonic rule in the same degree
as the mere workmen who painted vases. Nevertheless we must never forget
that Greek painting of the earlier ages was of extreme simplicity. It
did not represent localities, save by some slight hint; it had next to
no perspective; the colours used were but very few even down to the days
of Apelles. Most of the great pictures of which we hear consisted of but
one or two figures; and when several figures were introduced they were
kept apart and separately treated, though, of course, not without
relation to one another. Idealism and ethical purpose must have
predominated in painting as in sculpture and in the drama and in the
writing of history.
We will take from vases a few simple groups to illustrate the laws of
Greek drawing; colouring we cannot illustrate.
[Illustration: (_Brit. Mus. Catalogue of Vases_, iii, Pl. vi. 2).
FIG. 1.--Kylix by Epictetus]
The fields offered to the draughtsman on Greek vases naturally follow
the form of the vase; but they may be set down as approximately round,
square or oblong. To each of these spaces the artist carefully adapts
his designs. In fig. 1 we have a characteristic adaptation to circular
form by the vase painter Epictetus.
In the early period of painting all the space not occupied by the
figures is filled with patterns or accessories, or even animals which
have no connexion with the subject (fig. 9). In later and more developed
art, as in this example, the outlines are so figured as to fill the
space.
When the space is square we have much the same problem as is presented
by the metope spaces of a temple. In the case of both square and oblong
fields the laws of balance are carefully observed. Thus if there is an
even number of figures in the scheme, two of them will form a sort of
centre-piece, those on either side balancing one another. If the number
of figures is uneven, either there will be a group of three in the
midst, or the midmost figure will be so contrived that he belongs wholly
to neither side, but is the balance between them. These remarks will be
made clear by figs. 2 and 3, which repeat the two sides of an amphora,
one of which bears a design of three figures, the other of four.
[Illustration: From _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, 1890, Pl. viii., by
permission of the Director of the _K. K. Österr. Archäol. Institut._
FIG. 2.
FIG. 3.
Vase Drawings.]
The Greek artist not only adhered to the architectonic laws of balance
and symmetry, but he thought in schemes. Certain group arrangements had
a recognized signification. There are schemes for warriors fighting on
equal terms, and schemes which represent the defeat of one of these by
the other; the vanquished has commonly fallen on his knees, but still
defends himself. There is a scheme for the leading away of a captive
woman; the captor leads her by the hand looking back at her, while a
friend walks behind to ward off pursuit. Such schemes, are constantly
varied in detail, and often very skilfully varied; but the Greek artist
uses schemes as a sort of shorthand, to show as clearly as possible what
he meant. They serve the same purpose as the mask in the acting of a
play, the first glance at which will tell the spectators what they have
to look for.
No doubt the great painters of Greece were not so much under the
dominion of these schemes as the very inferior painters of vases. They
used the schemes for their own purposes instead of being used by them.
But as great poets do not revolt against the restrictions of the sonnet
or of rhyme, so great artists in Greece probably found recognized
conventions more helpful than hurtful.
Students of Greek sculpture and vases must be warned not to suppose that
Greek reliefs and drawings can be taken as direct illustrations of Homer
or the dramatists. Book illustration in the modern sense did not exist
in Greece. The poet and the painter pursued courses which were parallel,
but never in actual contact. Each moved by the traditions of his own
craft. The poet took the accepted tale and enshrined it in a setting of
feeling and imagination. The painter took the traditional schemes which
were current, and altered or enlarged them, adding new figures and new
motives, but not attempting to set aside the general scheme. But
varieties suitable to poetry were not likely to be suitable in painting.
Thus it is but seldom that a vase-painter seems to have had in his mind,
as he drew, passages of the Homeric poems, though these might well be
familiar to him. And almost never does a vase-painting of the 5th
century show any sign of the influence of the dramatists, who were
bringing before the Athenian public on the stage many of the tales and
incidents popular with the vase-painter. Only on vases of lower Italy of
the 4th century and later we can occasionally discern something of
Aeschylean and Euripidean influence in the treatment of a myth; and even
in a few cases we may discern that the vase-painter has taken
suggestions direct from the actors in the theatre.
3. _Historic Sketch._--We propose next to trace in brief outline the
history of Greek art from its rise to its decay. We begin with the rise
of a national art, after the destruction of the Minoan and Mycenaean
civilizations of early Greece by the irruption of tribes from the north,
that is to say, about 800 B.C., and we stop with the Roman age of
Greece, after which Greek art works in the service of the conquerors
(see ROMAN ART). The period 800-50 B.C. we divide into four sections:
(1) the period down to the Persian Wars, 800-480 B.C.; (2) the period of
the early schools of art, 480-400 B.C.; (3) the period of the later
great schools, 400-300 B.C.; (4) the period of Hellenistic art, 300-50
B.C. In dealing with these successive periods we confine our sketch to
the three greater branches of representative art, architecture,
sculpture and painting, which in Greece are closely connected. The
lesser arts, of pottery, gem-engraving, coin-stamping and the like, are
treated of under the heads of CERAMICS, GEM, NUMISMATICS, &c., while the
more technical treatment of architectural construction are dealt with
under ARCHITECTURE and allied architectural articles. Further, for brief
accounts of the chief artists the reader is referred to biographical
articles, under such heads as PHEIDIAS, PRAXITELES, APELLES. We treat
here only of the main course of art in its historic evolution.
Northern invasion.
_Period I. 800-480_ B.C.--The fact is now generally allowed that the
Mycenaean, or as it is now termed Aegean, civilization was for the most
part destroyed by an invasion from the north. This invasion appears to
have been gradual; its racial character is much in dispute.
Archaeological evidence abundantly proves that it was the conquest of a
more by a less rich and civilized race. In the graves of the period
(900-600 B.C.) we find none of the wealthy spoil which has made
celebrated the tombs of Mycenae and Vaphio (q.v.). The character of the
pottery and the bronze-work which is found in these later graves reminds
us of the art of the necropolis of Hallstatt in Austria, and other sites
belonging to what is called the bronze age of North Europe. Its
predominant characteristic is the use of geometrical forms, the lozenge,
the triangle, the maeander, the circle with tangents, in place of the
elaborate spirals and plant-forms which mark Mycenaean ware. For this
reason the period from the 9th to the 7th century in Greece passes by
the name of "the Geometric Age." It is commonly held that in the remains
of the Geometric Age we may trace the influence of the Dorians, who,
coming in as a hardy but uncultivated race, probably of purer Aryan
blood than the previous inhabitants of Greece, not only brought to an
end the wealth and the luxury which marked the Mycenaean age, but also
replaced an art which was in character essentially southern by one which
belonged rather to the north and the west. The great difficulty inherent
in this view, a difficulty which has yet to be met, lies in the fact
that some of the most abundant and characteristic remains of the
geometric age which we possess come, not from Peloponnesus, but from
Athens and Boeotia, which were never conquered by the Dorians.
[Illustration: FIG. 4.--Geometric Vase from Rhodes. (Ashmolean Museum.)]
[Illustration: _Mon. d. Inst._ ix. 39.
FIG. 5.--Corpse with Mourners.]
Geometric ware.
The geometric ware is for the most part adorned with painted patterns
only. Fig. 4 is a characteristic example, a small two-handled vase from
Rhodes in the Ashmolean Museum, the adornment of which consists in
zigzags, circles with tangents, and lines of water birds, perhaps swans.
Sometimes, however, especially in the case of large vases from the
cemetery at Athens, which adjoins the Dipylon gate, scenes from Greek
life are depicted, from daily life, not from legend or divine myth.
Especially scenes from the lying-in-state and the burial of the dead are
prevalent. An excerpt from a Dipylon vase (fig. 5) shows a dead man on
his couch surrounded by mourners, male and female. Both sexes are
apparently represented naked, and are distinguished very simply; some of
them hold branches to sprinkle the corpse or to keep away flies. It will
be seen how primitive and conventional is the drawing of this age,
presenting a wonderful contrast to the free drawing and modelling of the
Mycenaean age. In the same graves with the pottery are sometimes found
plaques of gold or bronze, and towards the end of the geometric age
these sometimes bear scenes from mythology, treated with the greatest
simplicity. For example, in the museum of Berlin are the contents of a
tomb found at Corinth, consisting mainly of gold work of geometric
decoration. But in the same tomb were also found gold plates or plaques
of repoussé work bearing subjects from Greek legend. Two of these are
shown in fig. 6. On one Theseus is slaying the Minotaur, while Ariadne
stands by and encourages the hero. The tale could not have been told in
a simpler or more straightforward way. On the other we have an armed
warrior with his charioteer in a chariot drawn by two horses. The
treatment of the human body is here more advanced than on the vases of
the Dipylon. On the site of Olympia, where Mycenaean remains are not
found, but the earliest monuments show the geometric style, a quantity
of dedications in bronze have been found, the decoration of which
belongs to this style. Fig. 7 shows the handle of a tripod from Olympia,
which is adorned with geometric patterns and surmounted by the figure of
a horse.
[Illustration: _Arch. Zeit._ 1884, 8.
FIG. 6.--Gold Plaques: Corinth.]
[Illustration: _Olympia_ iv. 33.
FIG. 7.--Handle of Tripod.]
It was about the 6th century that the genius of the Greeks, almost
suddenly, as it seems to us, emancipated itself from the thraldom of
tradition, and passed beyond the limits with which the nations of the
east and west had hitherto been content, in a free and bold effort
towards the ideal. Thus the 6th century marks the stage in art in which
it may be said to have become definitely Hellenic. The Greeks still
borrowed many of their decorative forms, either from the prehistoric
remains in their own country or, through Phoenician agency, from the
old-world empires of Egypt and Babylon, but they used those forms freely
to express their own meaning. And gradually, in the course of the
century, we see both in the painting of vases and in sculpture a
national spirit and a national style forming under the influence of
Greek religion and mythology, Greek athletic training, Greek worship of
beauty. We must here lay emphasis on the fact, which is sometimes
overlooked in an age which is greatly given to the Darwinian search
after origins, that it is one thing to trace back to its original
sources the nascent art of Greece, and quite another thing to follow and
to understand its gradual embodiment of Hellenic ideas and civilization.
The immense success with which the veil has in late years been lifted
from the prehistoric age of Greece, and the clearness with which we can
discern the various strands woven into the web of Greek art, have tended
to fix our attention rather on what Greece possessed in common with all
other peoples at the same early stage of civilization than on what
Greece added for herself to this common stock. In many respects the art
of Greece is incomparable--one of the great inspirations which have
redeemed the world from mediocrity and vulgarity. And it is the
searching out and appreciation of this unique and ideal beauty in all
its phases, in idea and composition and execution, which is the true
task of Greek archaeological science.
[Illustration: _Mus. Napoléon_, 57.
FIG. 8.--Jug from Rhodes.]
Ionian vases.
In very recent years it has been possible, for the first time, to trace
the influence of Ionian painting, as represented by vases, on the rise
of art. The discoveries at Naucratis and Daphnae in Egypt, due to the
keenness and pertinacity of W. M. Flinders Petrie, threw new light on
this matter. It became evident that when those cities were first
inhabited by Ionian Greeks, in the 7th century, they used pottery of
several distinct but allied styles, the most notable feature of which
was the use of the lotus in decoration, the presence of continuous
friezes of animals and of monsters, and the filling up of the background
with rosettes, lozenges and other forms. Fig. 8 shows a vase found in
Rhodes which illustrates this Ionian decoration. The sphinx, the deer
and the swan are prominent on it, the last-named serving as a link
between the geometric ware and the more brilliant and varied ware of the
Ionian cities. The assignment of the many species of early Ionic ware to
various Greek localities, Miletus, Samos, Phocaea and other cities, is a
work of great difficulty, which now closely occupies the attention of
archaeologists. For the results of their studies the reader is referred
to two recent German works, Böhlau's _Aus ionischen und italischen
Nekropolen_, and Endt's _Beiträge zur ionischen Vasenmalerei_. The
feature which is most interesting in this pottery from our present point
of view is the way in which representations of Greek myth and legend
gradually make their way, and relegate the mere decoration of the vases
to borders and neck. One of the earliest examples of representation of a
really Greek subject is the contest of Menelaus and Euphorbus on a plate
found in Rhodes. On the vases of Melos, of the 7th century, which are,
however, not Ionian, but rather Dorian in character, we have a certain
number of mythological scenes, battles of Homeric heroes and the like.
One of these is shown in fig. 9. It represents Apollo in a chariot drawn
by winged horses, playing on the lyre, and accompanied by a pair of
Muses, meeting his sister Artemis. It is notable that Apollo is bearded,
and that Artemis holds her stag by the horns, much in the manner of the
deities on Babylonian cylinders; in the other hand she carries an arrow;
above is a line of water birds.
[Illustration: Conze. _Mel. Tongefässe_, 4.
FIG. 9.--Vase Painting: Melos.]
Some sites in Asia Minor and the islands adjoining, such cities as
Samos, Camirus in Rhodes, and the Ionian colonies on the Black Sea, have
furnished us with a mass of ware of the Ionian class, but it seldom
bears interesting subjects; it is essentially decorative. For Ionian
ware which has closer relation to Greek mythology and history we must
turn elsewhere. The cemeteries of the great Etruscan cities, Caere in
particular, have preserved for us a large number of vases, which are now
generally recognized as Ionian in design and drawing, though they may in
some cases be only Italian imitations of Ionian imported ware. Thus has
been filled up what was a blank page in the history of early Greek art.
The Ionian painting is unrestrained in character, characterized by a
licence not foreign to the nature of the race, and wants the
self-control and moderation which belong to Doric art, and to Attic art
after the first.
Some of the most interesting examples of early Ionic painting are found
on the sarcophagi of Clazomenae. In that city in archaic times an
exceptional custom prevailed of burying the dead in great coffins of
terra-cotta adorned with painted scenes from chariot-racing, war and the
chase. The British Museum possesses some remarkable specimens, which are
published in A. S. Murray's _Terra-Cotta Sarcophagi of the British
Museum_. On one of them he sees depicted a battle between Cimmerian
invaders and Greeks, the former accompanied to the field by their great
war-dogs. In some of the representations of hunting on these sarcophagi
the hunters ride in chariots, a way of hunting quite foreign to the
Greeks, but familiar to us from Assyrian wall-sculptures. We know that
the life of the Ionians before the Persian conquest was refined and not
untinged with luxury, and they borrowed many of the stately ways of the
satraps of the kings of Assyria and Persia.
[Illustration: Furtwängler, _Goldfund v. Vettersfelde_.
FIG. 10.--Fish of gold.]
Fig. 10 shows a curious product of the Ionian workshops, a fish of solid
gold, adorned with reliefs which represent a flying eagle, lions pulling
down their prey, and a monstrous sea-god among his fishes. This relic is
the more valuable on account of the spot where it was found--Vettersfelde
in Brandenburg. It furnishes a proof that the influence and perhaps the
commerce of the Greek colonies on the Black Sea spread far to the north
through the countries of the Scythians and other barbarians. The fish
dates from the 6th century B.C.
[Illustration: PLATE III.
_Photo, Giraudon._
FIG. 61.--WINGED VICTORY OF SAMOTHRACE. (LOUVRE.)
_Photo, Giraudon._
FIG. 62.--WINGED VICTORY OF SAMOTHRACE. (LOUVRE.)
FIG. 63. HEAD OF WARRIOR, RESTORED, FROM TEGEA.
_Photo, Anderson._
FIG. 64.--MARSYAS OF MYRON. (LATERAN MUS.)
_Photo, Mansell._
FIG. 65.--EAST PEDIMENT OF THE PARTHENON; LEFT AND RIGHT ENDS. (BRIT.
MUS.)]
[Illustration: PLATE IV.
FIG. 66.--METOPE OF THE TREASURY OF SICYON AT DELPHI.
(From _Fouilles de Delphes_, by permission of A. Fontemoing.)
FIG. 67.--GREEK PAINTING OF WOMAN'S HEAD.
(From _Comptes Rendus_ of St. Petersburg, 1865. Pl. I.)
_Photo, F. Bruckmann._
FIG. 68.--DISCOBOLUS OF MYRON, RESTORED BY PROF. FURTWÄNGLER.
_Photo, Giraudon._
FIG. 69.--FIGHTER OF AGASIAS. (LOUVRE.)
_Photo, Mansell._
FIG. 70.--PORTION OF FRIEZE OF MAUSOLEUM. (BRIT. MUS.)]
[Illustration: Brit. Mus.
FIG. 11.--Gold Ornaments from Camirus.]
We may compare some of the gold ornaments from Camirus in Rhodes, which
show an Ionian tendency, perhaps combined with Phoenician elements. On
one of them (fig. 11) we see a centaur with human forelegs holding up a
fawn, on the other the oriental goddess whom the Greeks identified with
their Artemis, winged, and flanked by lions. This form was given to
Artemis on the Corinthian chest of Cypselus, a work of art preserved at
Olympia, and carefully described for us by Pausanias.
[Illustration: _Mon. d. Inst._ i. 51.
FIG. 12.--Fight over the Body of Achilles.]
From Ionia the style of vase-painting which has been called by various
names, but may best be termed the "orientalizing," spread to Greece
proper. Its main home here was in Corinth; and small Corinthian
unguent-vases bearing figures of swans, lions, monsters and human
beings, the intervals between which are filled by rosettes, are found
wherever Corinthian trade penetrated, notably in the cemeteries of
Sicily. For the larger Corinthian vases, which bore more elaborate
scenes from mythology, we must again turn to the graves of the cities of
Etruria. Here, besides the Ionian ware, of which mention has already
been made, we find pottery of three Greek cities clearly defined, that
of Corinth, that of Chalcis in Euboea, and that of Athens. Corinthian
and Chalcidian ware is most readily distinguished by means of the
alphabets used in the inscriptions which have distinctive forms easily
to be identified. Whether in the style of the paintings coming from the
various cities any distinct differences may be traced is a far more
difficult question, into which we cannot now enter. The subjects are
mostly from heroic legend, and are treated with great simplicity and
directness. There is a manly vigour about them which distinguishes them
at a glance from the laxer works of Ionian style. Fig. 12 shows a group
from a Chalcidian vase, which represents the conflict over the dead body
of Achilles. The corpse of the hero lies in the midst, the arrow in his
heel. The Trojan Glaucus tries to draw away the body by means of a rope
tied round the ankle, but in doing so is transfixed by the spear of
Ajax, who charges under the protection of the goddess Athena. Paris on
the Trojan side shoots an arrow at Ajax.
In fig. 13, from a Corinthian vase, Ajax falls on his sword in the
presence of his colleagues, Odysseus and Diomedes. The short stature of
Odysseus is a well-known Homeric feature. These vases are black-figured;
the heroes are painted in silhouette on the red ground of the vases.
Their names are appended in archaic Greek letters.
[Illustration: _Mus. Napoléon_, 66.
FIG. 13.--Suicide of Ajax.]
[Illustration: _Arch. Zeit._ 1882, 9.
FIG. 14. Harpies: Attic Vase.]
Athens.
The early history of vase-painting at Athens is complicated. It was only
by degrees that the geometric style gave way to, or developed into, what
is known as the black-figured style. It would seem that until the age of
Peisistratus Athens was not notable in the world of art, and nothing
could be ruder than some of the vases of Athens in the 7th century, for
example that here figured, on one side of which are represented the
winged Harpies (fig. 14) and on the other Perseus accompanied by Athena
flying from the pursuit of the Gorgons. This vase retains in its
decoration some features of geometric style; but the lotus and rosette,
the lion and sphinx which appear on it, belong to the wave of Ionian
influence. Although it involves a departure from strict chronological
order, it will be well here to follow the course of development in
pottery at Athens until the end of our period. Neighbouring cities, and
especially Corinth, seem to have exercised a strong influence at Athens
about the 7th century. We have even a class of vases called by
archaeologists Corintho-Attic. But in the course of the 6th century
there is formed at Athens a distinct and marked black-figured style. The
most-remarkable example of this ware is the so-called François vase at
Munich, by Clitias and Ergotimus, which contains, in most careful and
precise rendering, a number of scenes from Greek myth. One of these
vases is dated, since it bears the name and the figure of Callias in his
chariot (_Mon. dell' Inst._ iii. 45), and this Callias won a victory at
Olympia in 564 B.C. Fig. 15 shows the reverse of a somewhat later
black-figured vase of the Panathenaic class, given at Athens as a prize
to the winner of a foot-race at the Panathenaea, with the foot-race
(_stadion_) represented on it. A large number of Athenian vases of the
6th century have reached us, which bear the signatures of the potters
who made, or the artists who painted them; lists of these will be found
in the useful work of Klein, _Griechische Vasen mit Meistersignaturen_.
The recent excavations on the Acropolis have proved the erroneousness
of the view, strongly maintained by Brunn, that the mass of the
black-figured vases were of a late and imitative fabric. We now know
that, with a few exceptions, vases of this class are not later than the
early part of the 5th century. The same excavations have also proved
that red-figured vase-painting, that is, vase-painting in which the
background was blocked out with black, and the figures left in the
natural colour of the vase originated at Athens in the last quarter of
the 6th century. We cannot here give a detailed account of the beautiful
series of Athenian vases of this fabric. Many of the finest of them are
in the British Museum. As an example, fig. 16 presents a group by the
painter Pamphaeus, representing Heracles wrestling with the
river-monster Achelous, which belongs to the age of the Persian Wars.
The clear precision of the figures, the vigour of the grouping, the
correctness of the anatomy and the delicacy of the lines are all marks
of distinction. The student of art will perhaps find the nearest
parallel to these vase-pictures in Japanese drawings. The Japanese
artists are very inferior to the Greek in their love and understanding
of the human body, but equal them in freshness and vigour of design. At
the same time began the beautiful series of white vases made at Athens
for the purpose of burial with the dead, and found in great quantities
in the cemeteries of Athens, of Eretria, of Gela in Sicily, and of some
other cities. They are well represented in the British Museum and that
of Oxford.
[Illustration: _Mon. d. Inst._ x. 48 m.
FIG. 15.--Foot-race: Panathenaic Vase.]
[Illustration: _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, D. 6.
FIG. 16.--Heracles and Achelous.]
Delphi.
We now return to the early years of the 6th century, and proceed to
trace, by the aid of recent discoveries, the rise of architecture and
sculpture. The Greek temple in its character and form gives the clue to
the whole character of Greek art. It is the abode of the deity, who is
represented by his sacred image; and the flat surfaces of the temple
offer a great field to the sculptor for the depicting of sacred legend.
The process of discovery has emphasized the line which divides Ionian
from Dorian architecture and art. We will speak first of the temples and
the sculpture of Ionia. The Ionians were a people far more susceptible
than were the Dorians to oriental influences. The dress, the art, the
luxury of western Asia attracted them with irresistible force. We may
suspect, as Brunn has suggested, that Ionian artists worked in the great
Assyrian and Persian palaces, and that the reliefs which adorn the walls
of those palaces were in part their handiwork. Some of the great temples
of Ionia have been excavated in recent years, notably those of Apollo at
Miletus, of Hera at Samos, and of Artemis at Ephesus. Very little,
however, of the architecture of the 6th-century temples of those sites
has been recovered. Quite recently, however, the French excavators at
Delphi have successfully restored the treasury of the people of Cnidus,
which is quite a gem of Ionic style, the entablature being supported in
front not by pillars but by two maidens or Corae, and a frieze running
all round the building above. But though this building is of Ionic type,
it is scarcely in the technical sense of Ionic style, since the columns
have not Ionic capitals, but are carved with curious reliefs. The Ionic
capital proper is developed in Asia by degrees (see ARCHITECTURE and
CAPITAL; also Perrot and Chipiez, _Hist. de l'art_, vii. ch. 4).
[Illustration: FIG. 17.--Restoration of the Treasury of Cnidus.]
The Doric temple is not wholly of European origin. One of the earliest
examples is the old temple of Assus in Troas. Yet it was developed
mainly in Hellas and the west. The most ancient example is the Heraeum
at Olympia, next to which come the fragmentary temples of Corinth and of
Selinus in Sicily. With the early Doric temple we are familiar from
examples which have survived in fair preservation to our own days at
Agrigentum in Sicily, Paestum in Italy, and other sites.
Of the decorative sculpture which adorned these early temples we have
more extensive remains than we have of actual construction. It will be
best to speak of them under their districts. On the coast of Asia Minor,
the most extensive series of archaic decorative sculptures which has
come down to us is that which adorned the temple of Assus (fig. 18).
These were placed in a unique position on the temple, a long frieze
running along the entablature, with representations of wild animals, of
centaurs, of Hercules seizing Achelous, and of men feasting, scene
succeeding scene without much order or method. The only figures from
Miletus which can be considered as belonging to the original temple
destroyed by Darius, are the dedicated seated statues, some of which,
brought away by Sir Charles Newton, are now preserved at the British
Museum. At Ephesus Mr Wood has been more successful, and has recovered
considerable fragments of the temple of Artemis, to which, as Herodotus
tells us, Croesus presented many columns. The lower part of one of these
columns, bearing figures in relief of early Ionian style, has been put
together at the British Museum; and remains of inscriptions recording
the presentation by Croesus are still to be traced. Reliefs from a
cornice of somewhat later date are also to be found at the British
Museum. Among the Aegean Islands, Delos has furnished us with the most
important remains of early art. French excavators have there found a
very early statue of a woman dedicated by one Nicandra to Artemis, a
figure which may be instructively compared with another from Samus,
dedicated to Hera by Cheramues. The Delian statue is in shape like a
flat beam; the Samian, which is headless, is like a round tree. The arms
of the Delian figure are rigid to the sides; the Samian lady has one arm
clasped to her breast. A great improvement on these helpless and
inexpressive figures is marked by another figure found at Delos, and
connected, though perhaps incorrectly, with a basis recording the
execution of a statue by Archermus and Micciades, two sculptors who
stood, in the middle of the 6th century, at the head of a sculptural
school at Chios. The representation (fig. 19) is of a running or flying
figure, having six wings, like the seraphim in the vision of Isaiah, and
clad in long drapery. It may be a statue of Nike or Victory, who is said
to have been represented in winged form by Archermus. The figure, with
its neatness and precision of work, its expressive face and strong
outlines, certainly marks great progress in the art of sculpture. When
we examine the early sculpture of Athens, we find reason to think that
the Chian school had great influence in that city in the days of
Peisistratus.
[Illustration: From Perrot and Chipiez, vii. pl. 35, by permission of
Chapman and Hall, Ltd., and Hachette & Co.
FIG. 18.--Restoration of the Temple at Assus.]
[Illustration: FIG. 19.--Nike of Delos, restored.]
[Illustration: _Athen. Mitteil._ x. 237.
FIG. 20.--Athenian Pediment: Heracles and Hydra.]
[Illustration: _Athen. Mitteil._ xxii. 3.
FIG. 21.--Pediment: Athena and Giant.]
Athenian sculpture.
At Athens, in the age 650-480, we may trace two quite distinct periods
of architecture and sculpture. In the earlier of the two periods, a
rough limestone was used alike for the walls and the sculptural
decoration of temples; in the later period it was superseded by marble,
whether native or imported. Every visitor to the museum of the Athenian
acropolis stands astonished at the recently recovered groups which
decorated the pediments of Athenian temples before the age of
Peisistratus--groups of large size, rudely cut in soft stone, of
primitive workmanship, and painted with bright red, blue and green, in a
fashion which makes no attempt to follow nature, but only to produce a
vivid result. The two largest in scale of these groups seem to have
belonged to the pediments of the early 6th-century temple of Athena. On
other smaller pediments, perhaps belonging to shrines of Heracles and
Dionysus, we have conflicts of Heracles with Triton or with other
monstrous foes. It is notable how fond the Athenian artists of this
early time are of exaggerated muscles and of monstrous forms, which
combine the limbs of men and of animals; the measure and moderation
which mark developed Greek art are as completely absent as are skill in
execution or power of grouping. Fig. 20 shows a small pediment in which
appears in relief the slaying of the Lernaean hydra by Heracles. The
hero strikes at the many-headed water-snake, somewhat inappropriately,
with his club. Iolaus, his usual companion, holds the reins of the
chariot which awaits Heracles after his victory. On the extreme left a
huge crab comes to the aid of the hydra.
There can be little doubt that Athens owed its great start in art to the
influence of the court of Peisistratus, at which artists of all kinds
were welcome. We can trace a gradual transformation in sculpture, in
which the influence of the Chian and other progressive schools of
sculpture is visible, not only in the substitution of island marble for
native stone, but in increased grace and truth to nature, in the toning
down of glaring colour, and the appearance of taste in composition. A
transition between the older and the newer is furnished by the
well-known statue of the calf-bearer, an Athenian preparing to sacrifice
a calf to the deities, which is made of marble of Hymettus, and in
robust clumsiness of forms is not far removed from the limestone
pediments. The sacrificer has been commonly spoken of as Hermes or
Theseus, but he seems rather to be an ordinary human votary.
[Illustration: FIG. 22.--Figure by Antenor, restored.]
In the time of Peisistratus or his sons a peristyle of columns was added
to the old temple of Athena; and this necessitated the preparation of
fresh pediments. These were of marble. In one of them was represented
the battle between gods and giants; in the midst Athena herself striking
at a prostrate foe (fig. 21). In these figures no eye can fail to trace
remarkable progress. On about the same level of art are the charming
statues dedicated to Athena, which were set up in the latter half of the
6th century in the Acropolis, whose graceful though conventional forms
and delicate colouring make them one of the great attractions of the
Acropolis Museum. We show a figure (fig. 22) which, if it be rightly
connected with the basis on which it stands, is the work of the sculptor
Antenor, who was also author of a celebrated group representing the
tyrant-slayers, Harmodius and Aristogiton. To the same age belong many
other votive reliefs of the Acropolis, representing horsemen, scribes
and other votaries of Athena.
[Illustration: FIG. 23.--Bust from Crete.]
Dorian sculpture.
From Athens we pass to the seats of Dorian art. And in doing so we find
a complete change of character. In place of Dorian draped goddesses and
female figures, we find nude male forms. In place of Ionian softness and
elegance, we find hard, rigid outlines, strong muscular development, a
greater love of and faithfulness to the actual human form--the influence
of the palaestra rather than of the harem. To the known series of
archaic male figures, recent years have added many examples. We may
especially mention a series of figures from the temple of Apollo Ptoos
in Boeotia, probably representing the god himself. Still more noteworthy
are two colossal nude figures of Apollo, remarkable both for force and
for rudeness, found at Delphi, the inscriptions of which prove them to
be the work of an Argive sculptor. (Plate V. fig. 76.) From Crete we
have acquired the upper part of a draped figure (fig. 23), whether male
or female is not certain, which should be an example of the early
Daedalid school, whence the art of Peloponnesus was derived; but we can
scarcely venture to treat it as a characteristic product of that school;
rather the likeness to the dedication of Nicandra is striking.
Another remarkable piece of Athenian sculpture, of the time of the
Persian Wars, is the group of the tyrannicides Harmodius and
Aristogiton, set up by the people of Athens, and made by the sculptors
Critius and Nesiotes. These figures were hard and rigid in outline, but
showing some progress in the treatment of the nude. Copies are preserved
in the museum of Naples (Plate I. fig. 50). It should be observed that
one of the heads does not belong.
[Illustration: FIG. 24.--Head of Hera: Olympia.]
[Illustration: FIG. 25.--Spartan Tombstone: Berlin.]
Olympia, Sparta, Selinus.
Next in importance to Athens, as a find-spot for works of early Greek
art, ranks Olympia. Olympia, however, did not suffer like Athens from
sudden violence, and the explorations there have brought to light a
continuous series of remains, beginning with the bronze tripods of the
geometric age already mentioned and ending at the barbarian invasions of
the 4th century A.D. Notable among the 6th-century stone-sculpture of
Olympia are the pediment of the treasury of the people of Megara, in
which is represented a battle of gods and giants, and a huge rude head
of Hera (fig. 24), which seems to be part of the image worshipped in the
Heraeum. Its flatness and want of style are noteworthy. Among the
temples of Greece proper the Heraeum of Olympia stands almost alone for
antiquity and interest, its chief rival, besides the temples of Athens,
being the other temple of Hera at Argos. It appears to have been
originally constructed of wood, for which stone was by slow degrees,
part by part, substituted. In the time of Pausanias one of the pillars
was still of oak, and at the present day the varying diameter of the
columns and other structural irregularities bear witness to the process
of constant renewal which must have taken place. The early small bronzes
of Olympia form an important series, figures of deities standing or
striding, warriors in their armour, athletes with exaggerated muscles,
and women draped in the Ionian fashion, which did not become unpopular
in Greece until after the Persian Wars. Excavations at Sparta have
revealed interesting monuments belonging to the worship of ancestors,
which seems in the conservative Dorian states of Greece to have been
more strongly developed than elsewhere. On some of these stones, which
doubtless belonged to the family cults of Sparta, we see the ancestor
seated holding a wine-cup, accompanied by his faithful horse or dog; on
some we see the ancestor and ancestress seated side by side (fig. 25),
ready to receive the gifts of their descendants, who appear in the
corner of the relief on a much smaller scale. The male figure holds a
wine-cup, in allusion to the libations of wine made at the tomb. The
female figure holds her veil and the pomegranate, the recognized food of
the dead. A huge serpent stands erect behind the pair. The style of
these sculptures is as striking as the subjects; we see lean, rigid
forms with severe outline carved in a very low relief, the surface of
which is not rounded but flat. The name of Selinus in Sicily, an early
Megarian colony, has long been associated with some of the most curious
of early sculptures, the metopes of ancient temples, representing the
exploits of Heracles and of Perseus. Even more archaic metopes have in
recent years been brought to light, one representing a seated sphinx,
one the journey of Europa over the sea on the back of the amorous bull
(fig. 26), a pair of dolphins swimming beside her. In simplicity and in
rudeness of work these reliefs remind us of the limestone pediments of
Athens (fig. 20), but yet they are of another and a severer style; the
Ionian laxity is wanting.
[Illustration: PLATE V.
_From a Cast._
FIG. 71.--APHRODITE OF CNIDUS. (VATICAN.)
_Photo, Anderson._
FIG. 72.--BRONZE BOXER OF TERME. (ROME.)
FIG. 73.--BRONZE OF CERIGOTTO. (ATHENS.)
Found in the sea near Cythera.
FIG. 74.--AGIAS AT DELPHI.
(From _Fouilles de Delphes_, by permission of A. Fontemoing.)
FIG. 75.--CORA (KORÉ) OF ERECHTHEUM. (ATHENS.)
FIG. 76.--APOLLO AT DELPHI.
(From _Fouilles de Delphes_, by permission of A. Fontemoing.)]
[Illustration: PLATE VI.
_Photo, Giraudon._
FIG. 77.--APHRODITE PF MELOS. (LOUVRE.)
_Photo, Alinari._
FIG. 78.--NIOBE AND HER YOUNGEST DAUGHTER. (FLORENCE.)
_Photo, Anderson._
FIG. 79.--APOXYOMENUS. (VATICAN.)
_Photo, Brogi._
FIG. 80.--DORYPHORUS OF POLYCLITUS. (NAT. MUS., NAPLES.)
_Photo, Alinari._
FIG. 81.--ANTIOCH SEATED ON A ROCK. (VATICAN.)
_Photo, English Photographic Co._
FIG. 82.--HERMES OF TELES. (OLYMPIA.)]
[Illustration: FIG. 26.--Metope: Europa on Bull: Palermo.]
[Illustration: FIG. 27.--Restoration of West Pediment, Aegina.]
Delphi.
The recent French excavations at Delphi add a new and important chapter
to the history of 6th-century art. Of three treasure-houses, those of
Sicyon, Cnidus and Athens, the sculptural adornments have been in great
part recovered. These sculptures form a series almost covering the
century 570-470 B.C., and include representations of some myths of which
we have hitherto had no example. We may say here a few words as to the
sculpture which has been discovered, leaving to the article DELPHI an
account of the topography and the buildings of the sacred site. Of the
archaic temple of Apollo, built as Herodotus tells us by the
Alcmaeonidae of Athens, the only sculptural remains which have come down
to us are some fragments of the pedimental figures. Of the treasuries
which contained the offerings of the pious at Delphi, the most archaic
of which there are remains is that belonging to the people of Sicyon. To
it appertain a set of exceedingly primitive metopes. One represents Idas
and Dioscuri driving off cattle (Plate IV. fig. 66); another, the ship
Argo; another, Europa on the bull, others merely animals, a ram or a
boar. The treasury of the people of Cnidus (or perhaps Siphnos) is in
style some half a century later (see fig. 17). To it belongs a long
frieze representing a variety of curious subjects: a battle, perhaps
between Greeks and Trojans, with gods and goddesses looking on; a
gigantomachy in which the figures of Poseidon, Athena, Hera, Apollo,
Artemis and Cybele can be made out, with their opponents, who are armed
like Greek hoplites; Athena and Heracles in a chariot; the carrying off
of the daughters of Leucippus by Castor and Pollux; Aeolus holding the
winds in sacks. The Treasury of the Athenians, erected at the time of
the Persian Wars, was adorned with metopes of singularly clear-cut and
beautiful style, but very fragmentary, representing the deeds of
Heracles and Theseus.
Aegina.
We have yet to speak of the most interesting and important of all Greek
archaic sculptures, the pediments of the temple at Aegina (q.v.). These
groups of nude athletes fighting over the corpses of their comrades are
preserved at Munich, and are familiar to artists and students. But the
very fruitful excavations of Professor Furtwängler have put them in
quite a new light. Furtwängler (_Aegina: Heiligtum der Aphaia_) has
entirely rearranged these pediments, in a way which removes the extreme
simplicity and rigour of the composition, and introduces far greater
variety of attitudes and motive. We repeat here these new arrangements
(figs. 27 and 28), the reasons for which must be sought in Furtwängler's
great publication. The individual figures are not much altered, as the
restorations of Thorwaldsen, even when incorrect, have now a
prescriptive right of which it is not easy to deprive them. Besides the
pediments of Aegina must be set the remains of the pediments of the
temple of Apollo at Eretria in Euboea, the chief group of which (Plate
II. fig. 58), Theseus carrying off an Amazon, is one of the most finely
executed works of early Greek art.
_Period II. 480-400 B.C._--The most marvellous phenomenon in the whole
history of art is the rapid progress made by Greece in painting and
sculpture during the 5th century B.C. As in literature the 5th century
takes us from the rude peasant plays of Thespis to the drama of
Sophocles and Euripides; as in philosophy it takes us from Pythagoras to
Socrates; so in sculpture it covers the space from the primitive works
made for the Peisistratidae to some of the most perfect productions of
the chisel.
Architecture.
In architecture the 5th century is ennobled by the Theseum, the
Parthenon and the Erechtheum, the temples of Zeus at Olympia, of Apollo
at Phigalia, and many other central shrines, as well as by the Hall of
the Mystae at Eleusis and the Propylaea of the Acropolis. Some of the
most important of the Greek temples of Italy and Sicily, such as those
of Segesta and Selinus, date from the same age. It is, however, only of
their sculptural decorations, carried out by the greatest masters in
Greece, that we need here treat in any detail.
[Illustration: FIG. 28.--Restoration of East Pediment, Aegina.]
Painting.
It is the rule in the history of art that innovations and technical
progress are shown earlier in the case of painting than in that of
sculpture, a fact easily explained by the greater ease and rapidity of
the brush compared with the chisel. That this was the order of
development in Greek art cannot be doubted. But our means for judging of
the painting of the 5th century are very slight. The noble paintings of
such masters as Polygnotus, Micon and Panaenus, which once adorned the
walls of the great porticoes of Athens and Delphi, have disappeared.
There remain only the designs drawn rather than painted on the beautiful
vases of the age, which in some degree help us to realize, not the
colouring or the charm of contemporary paintings, but the principle of
their composition and the accuracy of their drawing.
Polygnotus of Thasos was regarded by his compatriots as a great ethical
painter. His colouring and composition were alike very simple, his
figures quiet and statuesque, his drawing careful and precise. He won
his fame largely by incorporating in his works the best current ideas as
to mythology, religion and morals. In particular his painting of Hades
with its rewards and punishments, which was on the walls of the building
of the people of Cnidus at Delphi, might be considered as a great
religious work, parallel to the paintings of the Campo Santo at Pisa or
to the painted windows of such churches as that at Fairford. But he also
introduced improvements in perspective and greater freedom in grouping.
[Illustration: _From monumenti dell' Instituto di Correspondenza
archeologica_, xi. 40.
FIG. 29.--Vase of Orvieto. (The Children of Niobe.)]
It is fortunate for us that the Greek traveller Pausanias has left us
very careful and detailed descriptions of some of the most important of
the frescoes of Polygnotus, notably of the Taking of Troy and the Visit
to Hades, which were at Delphi. A comparison of these descriptions with
vase paintings of the middle of the 5th century has enabled us to
discern with great probability the principles of Polygnotan drawing and
perspective. Professor Robert has even ventured to restore the paintings
on the evidence of vases. We here represent one of the scenes depicted
on a vase found at Orvieto (fig. 29), which is certainly Polygnotan in
character. It represents the slaying of the children of Niobe by Apollo
and Artemis. Here we may observe a remarkable perspective. The different
heights of the rocky background are represented by lines traversing the
picture on which the figures stand; but the more distant figures are no
smaller than the nearer. The forests of Mount Sipylus are represented by
a single conventional tree. The figures are beautifully drawn, and full
of charm; but there is a want of energy in the action.
[Illustration: _Arch. Zeit._ 1878, pl. 22.
FIG. 30.--Vase Drawing.]
There can be little doubt that the school of Polygnotus exercised great
influence on contemporary sculpture. Panaenus, brother of Pheidias,
worked with Polygnotus, and many of the groupings found in the
sculptures of the Parthenon remind us of those usual with the Thasian
master. At this simple and early stage of art there was no essential
difference between fresco-painting and coloured relief, light and shade
and aerial perspective being unknown. We reproduce two vase-paintings,
one (fig. 30) a group of man and horse which closely resembles figures
in the Panathenaic frieze of the Parthenon (fig. 31); the other (fig.
32) representing Victory pouring water for a sacrificial ox to drink,
which reminds us of the balustrade of the shrine of Wingless Victory at
Athens.
[Illustration: FIG. 31.--Part of Frieze of the Parthenon.]
Most writers on Greek painting have supposed that after the middle of
the 5th century the technique of painting rapidly improved. This may
well have been the case; but we have little means of testing the
question. Such improvements would soon raise such a barrier between
fresco-painting and vase-painting,--which by its very nature must be
simple and architectonic,--that vases can no longer be used with
confidence as evidence for contemporary painting. The stories told us by
Pliny of the lives of Greek painters are mostly of a trivial and
untrustworthy character. Some of them are mentioned in this
_Encyclopaedia_ under the names of individual artists. We can only
discern a few general facts. Of Agatharchus of Athens we learn that he
painted, under compulsion, the interior of the house of Alcibiades. And
we are told that he painted a scene for the tragedies of Aeschylus or
Sophocles. This has led some writers to suppose that he attempted
illusive landscape; but this is contrary to the possibilities of the
time; and it is fairly certain that what he really did was to paint the
wooden front of the stage building in imitation of architecture; in fact
he painted a permanent architectural background, and not one suited to
any particular play. Of other painters who flourished at the end of the
century, such as Zeuxis and Aristides, it will be best to speak under
the next period.
[Illustration: From Gerhard's _Auserlesene Vasenbilder_, ii. pl. 1.
FIG. 32.--Nike and Bull.]
It is now generally held, in consequence of evidence furnished by tombs,
that the 5th century saw the end of the making of vases on a great scale
at Athens for export to Italy and Sicily. And in fact few things in the
history of art are more remarkable than the rapidity with which
vase-painting at Athens reached its highest point and passed it on the
downward road. At the beginning of the century black-figured ware was
scarcely out of fashion, and the masters of the severe red-figured
style, Pamphaeus, Epictetus and their contemporaries, were in vogue.
The schools of Euphronius, Hiero and Duris belong to the age of the
Persian wars. With the middle of the century the works of these makers
are succeeded by unsigned vases of most beautiful design, some of them
showing the influence of Polygnotus. In the later years of the century,
when the empire of Athens was approaching its fall, drawing becomes
laxer and more careless, and in the treatment of drapery we frequently
note the over-elaboration of folds, the want of simplicity, which begin
to mark contemporary sculpture. These changes of style can only be
satisfactorily followed in the vase rooms of the British Museum, or
other treasuries of Greek art (see also A. B. Walters, _History of
Ancient Pottery_; and the article CERAMICS).
[Illustration: FIG. 33.--East Pediment, Olympia. Two Restorations.]
[Illustration: FIG. 34.--West Pediment, Olympia. Two Restorations.]
Olympia: Temple of Zeus.
Among the sculptural works of this period the first place may be given
to the great temple of Zeus at Olympia. The statue by Pheidias which
once occupied the place of honour in that temple, and was regarded as
the noblest monument of Greek religion, has of course disappeared, nor
are we able with confidence to restore it. But the plan of the temple,
its pavement, some of its architectural ornaments, remain. The marbles
which occupied the pediments and the metopes of the temple have been in
large part recovered, having been probably thrown down by earthquakes
and gradually buried in the alluvial soil. The utmost ingenuity and
science of the archaeologists of Germany have been employed in the
recovery of the composition of these groups; and although doubt remains
as to the places of some figures, and their precise attitudes, yet we
may fairly say that we know more about the sculpture of the Olympian
temple of Zeus than about the sculpture of any other great Greek temple.
The exact date of these sculptures is not certain, but we may with some
confidence give them to 470-460 B.C. (In speaking of them we shall
mostly follow the opinion of Dr Treu, whose masterly work in vol. iii.
of the great German publication on Olympia is a model of patience and of
science.) In the eastern pediment (fig. 33), as Pausanias tells us, were
represented the preparations for the chariot-race between Oenomaüs and
Pelops, the result of which was to determine whether Pelops should find
death or a bride and a kingdom. In the midst, invisible to the
contending heroes, stood Zeus the supreme arbiter. On one side of him
stood Oenomaüs with his wife Sterope, on the other Pelops and
Hippodameia, the daughter of Oenomaüs, whose position at once indicates
that she is on the side of the newcomer, whatever her parents may feel.
Next on either side are the four-horse chariots of the two competitors,
that of Oenomaüs in the charge of his perfidious groom Myrtilus, who
contrived that it should break down in the running, that of Pelops
tended by his grooms. At either end, where the pediment narrows to a
point, reclines a river god, at one end Alpheus, the chief stream of
Olympia, at the other end his tributary Cladeus. Only one figure
remains, not noticed in the careful description of Pausanias, the figure
of a handmaid kneeling, perhaps one of the attendants of Sterope. Our
engraving gives two conjectural restorations of the pediment, that of
Treu and that of Kekule, which differ principally in the arrangement of
the corners of the composition; the position of the central figures and
of the chariots can scarcely be called in question. The moment chosen is
one, not of action, but of expectancy, perhaps of preparation for
sacrifice. The arrangement is undeniably stiff and formal, and in the
figures we note none of the trained perfection of style which belongs to
the sculptures of the Parthenon, an almost contemporary temple. Faults
abound, alike in the rendering of drapery and in the representation of
the human forms, and the sculptor has evidently trusted to the painter
who was afterwards to colour his work, to remedy some of his clumsiness,
or to make clear the ambiguous. Nevertheless there is in the whole a
dignity, a sobriety, and a simplicity, which reconcile us to the
knowledge that this pediment was certainly regarded in antiquity as a
noble work, fit to adorn even the palace of Zeus. In the other, the
western pediment (fig. 34), the subject is the riot of the Centaurs when
they attended the wedding of Peirithous in Thessaly, and, attempting to
carry off the bride and her comrades, were slain by Peirithous and
Theseus. In the midst of the pediment, invisible like Zeus in the
eastern pediment, stands Apollo, while on either side of him Theseus and
Peirithous attack the Centaurs with weapons hastily snatched. Our
illustration gives two possible arrangements. The monsters are in
various attitudes of attempted violence, of combat and defeat; with
each grapples one of the Lapith heroes in the endeavour to rob them of
their prey. In the corners of the pediment recline female figures,
perhaps attendant slaves, though the farthest pair may best be
identified as local Thessalian nymphs, looking on with the calmness of
divine superiority, yet not wholly unconcerned in what is going forward.
Though the composition of the two pediments differs notably, the one
bearing the impress of a parade-like repose, the other of an
overstrained activity, yet the style and execution are the same in both,
and the shortcomings must be attributed to the inferior skill of a local
school of sculptors compared with those of Athens or of Aegina. It even
appears likely that the designs also belong to a local school.
Pausanias, it is true, tells us that the pediments were the work of
Alcamenes, the pupil of Pheidias, and of Paeonius, a sculptor of Thrace,
respectively; but it is almost certain that he was misled by the local
guides, who would naturally be anxious to connect the sculptures of
their great temple with well-known names.
[Illustration: _Olympia_, iii. 45.
FIG. 35--Metope: Olympia; restored.]
[Illustration: _Olympia_, iii. 48.
FIG. 36--Nike of Paeonius; restored.]
The metopes of the temple are in the same style of art as the pediments,
but the defects of awkwardness and want of mastery are less conspicuous,
because the narrow limits of the metope exclude any elaborate grouping.
The subjects are provided by the twelve labours of Heracles; the figures
introduced in each metope are but two or at most three; and the action
is simplified as much as possible. The example shown (fig. 35)
represents Heracles holding up the sky on a cushion, with the friendly
aid of a Hesperid nymph, while Atlas, whom he has relieved of his usual
burden, approaches bringing the apples which it was the task of Heracles
to procure.
Another of the fruits of the excavations of Olympia is the floating
Victory by Paeonius, unfortunately faceless (fig. 36), which was set up
in all probability in memory of the victory of the Athenians and their
Messenian allies at Sphacteria in 425 B.C. The inscription states that
it was dedicated by the Messenians and people of Naupactus from the
spoils of their enemies, but the name of the enemy is not mentioned in
the inscription. The statue of Paeonius, which comes floating down
through the air with drapery borne backward, is of a bold and innovating
type, and we may trace its influence in many works of the next age.
Delphic charioteer.
Among the discoveries at Delphi none is so striking and valuable to us
as the life-size statue in bronze of a charioteer holding in his hand
the reins. This is maintained by M. Homolle to be part of a
chariot-group set up by Polyzalus, brother of Gelo and Hiero of
Syracuse, in honour of a victory won in the chariot-race at the Pythian
games at Delphi (fig. 37). The charioteer is evidently a high-born
youth, and is clad in the long chiton which was necessary to protect a
driver of a chariot from the rush of air. The date would be about
480-470 B.C. Bronze groups representing victorious chariots with their
drivers were among the noblest and most costly dedications of antiquity;
the present figure is our only satisfactory representative of them. In
style the figure is very notable, tall and slight beyond all
contemporary examples. The contrast between the conventional
decorousness of face and drapery and the lifelike accuracy of hands and
feet is very striking, and indicates the clashing of various tendencies
in art at the time when the great style was formed in Greece.
[Illustration: _Mémoires, Piot_, 1807, 16.
FIG. 37.--Bronze Charioteer: Delphi.]
The three great masters of the 5th century, Myron, Pheidias and
Polyclitus are all in some degree known to us from their works. Of Myron
we have copies of two works, the Marsyas (Plate III. fig. 64) and the
Discobolus. The Marsyas (a copy in the Lateran Museum) represents the
Satyr so named in the grasp of conflicting emotions, eager to pick up
the flutes which Athena has thrown down, but at the same time dreading
her displeasure if he does so. The Discobolus has usually been judged
from the examples in the Vatican and the British Museum, in which the
anatomy is modernized and the head wrongly put on. We have now
photographs of the very superior replica in the Lancelotti gallery at
Rome, the pose of which is much nearer to the original. Our illustration
represents a restoration made at Munich, by combining the Lancelotti
head with the Vatican body (Plate IV. fig. 68).
Of the works of Pheidias we have unfortunately no certain copy, if we
except the small replicas at Athens of his Athena Parthenos. The larger
of these (fig. 38) was found in 1880: it is very clumsy, and the
wretched device by which a pillar is introduced to support the Victory
in the hand of Athena can scarcely be supposed to have belonged to the
great original. Tempting theories have been published by Furtwängler
(_Masterpieces of Greek Sculpture_) and other archaeologists, which
identify copies of the Athena Lemnia of Pheidias, his Pantarces, his
Aphrodite Urania and other statues; but doubt hangs over all these
attributions.
A more pertinent and more promising question is, how far we may take the
decorative sculpture of the Parthenon, since Lord Elgin's time the pride
of the British Museum, as the actual work of Pheidias, or as done from
his designs. Here again we have no conclusive evidence; but it appears
from the testimony of inscriptions that the pediments at all events were
not executed until after Pheidias's death.
[Illustration: FIG. 38.--Statuette of Athena Parthenos.]
Of course the pediments and frieze of the Parthenon (q.v.), whose work
soever they may be, stand at the head of all Greek decorative sculpture.
Whether we regard the grace of the composition, the exquisite finish of
the statues in the round, or the delightful atmosphere of poetry and
religion which surrounds these sculptures, they rank among the
masterpieces of the world. The Greeks esteemed them far below the statue
which the temple was made to shelter; but to us, who have lost the great
figure in ivory and gold, the carvings of the casket which once
contained it are a perpetual source of instruction and delight. The
whole is reproduced by photography in A. S. Murray's _Sculptures of the
Parthenon_.
An abundant literature has sprung up in regard to these sculptures in
recent years. It will suffice here to mention the discussions in
Furtwängler's _Masterpieces_, and the very ingenious attempts of Sauer
to determine by a careful examination of the bases and backgrounds of
the pediments as they now stand how the figures must have been arranged
in them. The two ends of the eastern pediment (Plate III. fig. 65) are
the only fairly well-preserved part of the pediments.
Among the pupils of Pheidias who may naturally be supposed to have
worked on the sculptures of the Parthenon, the most notable were
Alcamenes and Agoracritus. Some fragments remain of the great statue of
Nemesis at Rhamnus by Agoracritus. And an interesting light has been
thrown on Alcamenes by the discovery at Pergamum of a professed copy of
his Hermes set up at the entrance to the Acropolis at Athens (Plate II.
fig. 57). The style of this work, however, is conventional and
archaistic, and we can scarcely regard it as typical of the master.
Another noted contemporary who was celebrated mainly for his portraits
was Cresilas, a Cretan. Several copies of his portrait of Pericles
exist, and testify to the lofty and idealizing style of portraiture in
this great age.
We possess also admirable sculpture belonging to the other important
temples of the Acropolis, the Erechtheum and the temple of Nike. The
temple of Nike is the earlier, being possibly a memorial of the Spartan
defeat at Sphacteria. The Erechtheum belongs to the end of our period,
and embodies the delicacy and finish of the conservative school of
sculpture at Athens just as the Parthenon illustrates the ideas of the
more progressive school. The reconstruction of the Erechtheum has been a
task which has long occupied the attention of archaeologists (see the
paper by Mr Stevens in the _American Journal of Archaeology_, 1906). Our
illustration (Plate V. fig. 75) shows one of the Corae or maidens who
support the entablature of the south porch of the Erechtheum in her
proper setting. This use of the female figure in place of a pillar is
based on old Ionian precedent (see fig. 17) and is not altogether
happy; but the idea is carried out with remarkable skill, the perfect
repose and solid strength of the maiden being emphasized.
Beside Pheidias of Athens must be placed the greatest of early Argive
sculptors, Polyclitus. His two typical athletes, the Doryphorus or
spear-bearer (Plate VI. fig. 80) and the Diadumenus, have long been
identified, and though the copies are not first-rate, they enable us to
recover the principles of the master's art.
Polyclitus.
Among the bases discovered at Olympia, whence the statues had been
removed, are three or four which bear the name of Polyclitus, and the
definite evidence furnished by these bases as to the position of the
feet of the statues which they once bore has enabled archaeologists,
especially Professor Furtwängler, to identify copies of those statues
among known works. Also newly discovered copies of Polyclitan works have
made their appearance. At Delos there has been found a copy of the
Diadumenus, which is of much finer work than the statue in the British
Museum from Vaison. The Museum of Fine Arts at Boston, U.S.A., has
secured a very beautiful statue of a young Hermes, who but for the wings
on the temples might pass as a boy athlete of Polyclitan style (Plate
II. fig. 60). In fact, instead of relying as regards the manner of
Polyclitus on Roman copies of the Doryphorus and Diadumenus, we have
quite a gallery of athletes, boys and men, who all claim relationship,
nearer or more remote, to the school of the great Argive master. It
might have been hoped that the excavations, made under the leadership of
Professor Waldstein at the Argive Heraeum, would have enlightened us as
to the style of Polyclitus. Just as the sculptures of the Parthenon are
the best monument of Pheidias, so it might seem likely that the
sculptural decoration of the great temple which contained the Hera of
Polyclitus would show us at large how his school worked in marble.
Unfortunately the fragments of sculpture from the Heraeum are few. The
most remarkable is a female head, which may perhaps come from a pediment
(fig. 39). But archaeologists are not in agreement whether it is in
style Polyclitan or whether it rather resembles in style Attic works.
Other heads and some highly-finished fragments of bodies come apparently
from the metopes of the same temple. (See also article Argos.)
[Illustration: FIG. 39.--Female Head: Heraeum.]
Another work of Polyclitus was his Amazon, made it is said in
competition with his great contemporaries, Pheidias, Cresilas and
Phradmon, all of whose Amazons were preserved in the great temple of
Artemis at Ephesus. In our museums are many statues of Amazons
representing 5th century originals. These have usually been largely
restored, and it is no easy matter to discover their original type.
Professor Michaelis has recovered successfully three types (fig. 40).
The attribution of these is a matter of controversy. The first has been
given to the chisel of Polyclitus; the second seems to represent the
Wounded Amazon of Cresilas; the third has by some archaeologists been
given to Pheidias. It does not represent a wounded amazon, but one
alert, about to leap upon her horse with the help of a spear as a
leaping pole.
[Illustration: FIG. 40.--Types of Amazons (Michaelis.)]
Lycia.
We can devote little more than a passing mention to the sculpture of
other temples and shrines of the later 5th century, which nevertheless
deserve careful study. The frieze from the temple of Apollo at Phigalia,
representing Centaur and Amazon battles, is familiar to visitors of the
British Museum, where, however, its proximity to the remains of the
Parthenon lays stress upon the faults of grouping and execution which
this frieze presents. It seems to have been executed by local Arcadian
artists. More pleasing is the sculpture of the Ionic tomb called the
Nereid monument, brought by Sir Charles Fellows from Lycia. Here we have
not only a series of bands of relief which ran round the tomb, but also
detached female figures, whence the name which it bears is derived. A
recent view sees in these women with their fluttering drapery not nymphs
of the sea, but personifications of sea-breezes.
The series of known Lycian tombs has been in recent years enriched
through the acquisition by the museum of Vienna of the sculptured
friezes which adorned a heroon near Geul Bashi. In the midst of the
enclosure was a tomb, and the walls of the enclosure itself were adorned
within and without with a great series of reliefs, mostly of mythologic
purport. Many subjects which but rarely occur in early Greek art, the
siege of Troy, the adventure of the Seven against Thebes, the carrying
off of the daughters of Leucippus, Ulysses shooting down the Suitors,
are here represented in detail. Professor Benndorf, who has published
these sculptures in an admirable volume, is disposed to see in them the
influence of the Thasian painter Polygnotus. Any one can see their
kinship to painting, and their subjects recur in some of the great
frescoes painted by Polygnotus, Micon and others for the Athenians. Like
other Lycian sculptures, they contain non-Hellenic elements; in fact
Lycia forms a link of the chain which extends from the wall-paintings of
Assyria to works like the columns of Trajan and of Antoninus, but is not
embodied in the more purely idealistic works of the highest Greek art.
The date of the Vienna tomb is not much later than the middle of the 5th
century. A small part of the frieze of this monument is shown in fig.
41. It will be seen that in this fragment there are two scenes, one
directly above the other. In the upper line Ulysses, accompanied by his
son Telemachus, is in the act of shooting the suitors, who are reclining
at table in the midst of a feast; a cup-bearer, possibly Melanthius, is
escaping by a door behind Ulysses. In the lower line is the central
group of a frieze which represents the hunting of the Calydonian boar,
which is represented, as is usual in the best time of Greek art, as an
ordinary animal and no monster.
Portraits.
Archaeologists have recently begun to pay more attention to an
interesting branch of Greek art which had until recently been neglected,
that of sculptured portraits. The known portraits of the 5th century now
include Pericles, Herodotus, Thucydides, Anacreon, Sophocles, Euripides,
Socrates and others. As might be expected in a time when style in
sculpture was so strongly pronounced, these portraits, when not later
unfaithful copies, are notably ideal. They represent the great men whom
they portray not in the spirit of realism. Details are neglected,
expression is not elaborated; the sculptor tries to represent what is
permanent in his subject rather than what is temporary. Hence these
portraits do not seem to belong to a particular time of life; they only
represent a man in the perfection of physical force and mental energy.
And the race or type is clearly shown through individual traits. In some
cases it is still disputed whether statues of this age represent deities
or mortals, so notable are the repose and dignity which even human
figures acquire under the hands of 5th-century masters. The Pericles
after Cresilas in the British Museum, and the athlete-portraits of
Polyclitus, are good examples.
_Period III. 400-300 B.C._--The high ideal level attained by Greek art
at the end of the 5th century is maintained in the 4th. There cannot be
any question of decay in it save at Athens, where undoubtedly the loss
of religion and the decrease of national prosperity acted prejudicially.
But in Peloponnesus the time was one of expansion; several new and
important cities, such as Messene, Megalopolis and Mantinea, arose under
the protection of Epaminondas. And in Asia the Greek cities were still
prosperous and artistic, as were the cities of Italy and Sicily which
kept their independence. On the whole we find during this age some
diminution of the freshness and simplicity of art; it works less in the
service of the gods and more in that of private patrons; it becomes less
ethical and more sentimental and emotional. On the other hand, there can
be no doubt that technique both in painting and sculpture advanced with
rapid strides; artists had a greater mastery of their materials, and
ventured on a wider range of subject.
[Illustration: _Heroon of Gyeul Bashi Trysa_, Pl. 7.
FIG. 41.--Odysseus and Suitors; Hunting of Boar.]
In the 4th century no new temples of importance rose at Athens; the
Acropolis had taken its final form; but at Messene, Tegea, Epidaurus and
elsewhere, very admirable buildings arose. The remains of the temple at
Tegea are of wonderful beauty and finish; as are those of the theatre
and the so-called _Tholus_ of Epidaurus. In Asia Minor vast temples of
the Ionic order arose, especially at Miletus and Ephesus. The colossal
pillars of Miletus astonish the visitors to the Louvre; while the
sculptured columns of Ephesus in the British Museum (Plate II. fig. 59)
show a high level of artistic skill. The Mausoleum erected about 350
B.C. at Halicarnassus in memory of Mausolus, king of Caria, and adorned
with sculpture by the most noted artists of the day, was reckoned one
of the wonders of the world. It has been in part restored in the British
Museum. Mr Oldfield's conjectural restoration, published in
_Archaeologia_ for 1895, though it has many rivals, surpasses them all
in the lightness of the effect, and in close correspondence to the
description by Pliny. We show a small part of the sculptural decoration,
representing a battle between Greeks and Amazons (Plate IV. fig. 70),
wherein the energy of the action and the careful balance of figure
against figure are remarkable. We possess also the fine portraits of
Mausolus himself and his wife Artemisia, which stood in or on the
building, as well as part of a gigantic chariot with four horses which
surmounted it.
Another architectural work of the 4th century, in its way a gem, is the
structure set up at Athens by Lysicrates, in memory of a choragic
victory. This still survives, though the reliefs with which it is
adorned have suffered severely from the weather.
[Illustration: Nat. Mus., Naples.
FIG. 42.--Greek Drawing of Women Playing at Knucklebones.]
The 4th century is the brilliant period of ancient painting. It opens
with the painters of the Asiatic School, Zeuxis and Parrhasius and
Protogenes, with their contemporaries Nicias and Apollodorus of Athens,
Timanthes of Sicyon or Cythnus, and Euphranor of Corinth. It witnesses
the rise of a great school at Sicyon, under Eupompus and Pamphilus,
which was noted for its scientific character and the fineness of its
drawing, and which culminated in Apelles, the painter of Alexander the
Great, and probably the greatest master of the art in antiquity. To each
of these painters a separate article is given, fixing their place in the
history of the art. Of their paintings unfortunately we can form but a
very inadequate notion. Vase-paintings, which in the 5th century give us
some notion at least of contemporary drawing, are less careful in the
4th century. Now and then we find on them figures admirably designed, or
successfully foreshortened; but these are rare occurrences. The art of
the vase decorator has ceased to follow the methods and improvements of
contemporary fresco painters, and is pursued as a mere branch of
commerce.
But very few actual paintings of the age survive, and even these
fragmentary remains have with time lost the freshness of their
colouring; nor are they in any case the work of a noteworthy hand. We
reproduce two examples. The first is from a stone of the vault of a
Crimean grave (Plate IV. fig. 67). The date of the grave is fixed to the
4th century by ornaments found in it, among which was a gold coin of
Alexander the Great. The representation is probably of Demeter or her
priestess, her hair bound with poppies and other flowers. The original
is of large size. The other illustration (fig. 42) represents the
remains of a drawing on marble, representing a group of women playing
knucklebones. It was found at Herculaneum. Though signed by one
Alexander of Athens, who was probably a worker of the Roman age,
Professor Robert is right in maintaining that Alexander only copied a
design of the age of Zeuxis and Parrhasius. In fact the drawing and
grouping is so closely like that of reliefs of about 400 B.C. that the
drawing is of great historic value, though there be no colouring.
Several other drawings of the same class have been found at Herculaneum,
and on the walls of the Transtiberine Villa at Rome (now in the Terme
Museum).
[Illustration: _Olympia_, iii. 53.
FIG. 43.--Hermes of Praxiteles; restored.]
Praxiteles.
Until about the year 1880, our knowledge of the great Greek sculptors of
the 4th century was derived mostly from the statements of ancient
writers and from Roman copies, or what were supposed to be copies, of
their works. We are now in a far more satisfactory position. We now
possess an original work of Praxiteles, and sculptures executed under
the immediate direction of, if not from the hand of, other great
sculptors of that age--Scopas, Timotheus and others. Among all the
discoveries made at Olympia, none has become so familiar to the artistic
world as that of the Hermes of Praxiteles. It is the first time that we
have become possessed of a first-rate Greek original by one of the
greatest of sculptors. Hitherto almost all the statues in our museums
have been either late copies of Greek works of art, or else the mere
decorative sculpture of temples and tombs, which was by the ancients
themselves but little regarded. But we can venture without misgiving to
submit the new Hermes to the strictest examination, sure that in every
line and touch we have the work of a great artist. This is more than we
can say of any of the literary remains of antiquity--poem, play or
oration. Hermes is represented by the sculptor (fig. 43 and Plate VI.
fig. 82) in the act of carrying the young child Dionysus to the nymphs
who were charged with his rearing. On the journey he pauses and amuses
himself by holding out to the child-god a bunch of grapes, and watching
his eagerness to grasp them. To the modern eye the child is not a
success; only the latest art of Greece is at home in dealing with
children. But the Hermes, strong without excessive muscular development,
and graceful without leanness, is a model of physical formation, and his
face expresses the perfection of health, natural endowment and sweet
nature. The statue can scarcely be called a work of religious art in the
modern or Christian sense of the word religious, but from the Greek
point of view it is religious, as embodying the result of the harmonious
development of all human faculties and life in accordance with nature.
The Hermes not only adds to our knowledge of Praxiteles, but also
confirms the received views in regard to him. Already many works in
galleries of sculpture had been identified as copies of statues of his
school. Noteworthy among these are, the group at Munich representing
Peace nursing the infant Wealth, from an original by Cephisodotus,
father of Praxiteles; copies of the Cnidian Aphrodite of Praxiteles,
especially one in the Vatican which is here illustrated (Plate V. fig.
71); copies of the Apollo slaying a lizard (Sauroctonus), of a Satyr (in
the Capitol Museum), and others. These works, which are noted for their
softness and charm, make us understand the saying of ancient critics
that Praxiteles and Scopas were noted for the pathos of their works, as
Pheidias and Polyclitus for the ethical quality of those they produced.
But the pathos of Praxiteles is of a soft and dreamy character; there is
no action, or next to none; and the emotions which he rouses are
sentimental rather than passionate. Scopas, as we shall see, was of
another mood. The discovery of the Hermes has naturally set
archaeologists searching in the museums of Europe for other works which
may from their likeness to it in various respects be set down as
Praxitelean in character. In the case of many of the great sculptors of
Greece--Strongylion, Silanion, Calamis and others--it is of little use
to search for copies of their works, since we have little really
trustworthy evidence on which to base our inquiries. But in the case of
Praxiteles we really stand on a safe level. Naturally it is impossible
in these pages to give any sketch of the results, some almost certain,
some very doubtful, of the researches of archaeologists in quest of
Praxitelean works. But we may mention a few works which have been
claimed by good judges as coming from the master himself. Professor
Brunn claimed as work of Praxiteles a torso of a satyr in the Louvre, in
scheme identical with the well-known satyr of the Capitol. Professor
Furtwängler puts in the same category a delicately beautiful head of
Aphrodite at Petworth. And his translator, Mrs Strong, regards the
Aberdeen head of a young man in the British Museum as the actual work of
Praxiteles. Certainly this last head does not suffer when placed beside
the Olympian head of Hermes. At Mantinea has been found a basis whereon
stood a group of Latona and her two children, Apollo and Artemis, made
by Praxiteles. This base bears reliefs representing the musical contest
of Apollo and Marsyas, with the Muses as spectators, reliefs very
pleasing in style, and quite in the manner of Attic artists of the 4th
century. But of course we must not ascribe them to the hand of
Praxiteles himself; great sculptors did not themselves execute the
reliefs which adorned temples and other monuments, but reserved them for
their pupils. Yet the graceful figures of the Muses of Mantinea suggest
how much was due to Praxiteles in determining the tone and character of
Athenian art in relief in the 4th century. Exactly the same style which
marks them belongs also to a mass of sepulchral monuments at Athens, and
such works as the Sidonian sarcophagus of the Mourning Women, to be
presently mentioned.
Scopas.
Excavation on the site of the temple of Athena Alea at Tegea has
resulted in the recovery of works of the school of Scopas. Pausanias
tells us that Scopas was the architect of the temple, and so important
in the case of a Greek temple is the sculptural decoration, that we can
scarcely doubt that the sculpture also of the temple at Tegea was under
the supervision of Scopas, especially as he was more noted as a sculptor
than as an architect. In the pediments of the temple were represented
two scenes from mythology, the hunting of the Calydonian boar and the
combat between Achilles and Telephus. To one or other of these scenes
belong several heads of local marble discovered on the spot, which are
very striking from their extraordinary life and animation. Unfortunately
they are so much injured that they can scarcely be made intelligible
except by the help of restoration; we therefore engrave one of them, the
helmeted head, as restored by a German sculptor (Plate III. fig. 63).
The strong bony frame of this head, and its depth from front to back,
are not less noteworthy than the parted lips and deeply set and strongly
shaded eye; the latter features impart to the head a vividness of
expression such as we have found in no previous work of Greek art, but
which sets the key to the developments of art which take place in the
Hellenistic age. A draped torso of Atalanta from the same pediment has
been fitted to one of these heads. Hitherto Scopas was known to us,
setting aside literary records, only as one of the sculptors who had
worked at the Mausoleum. Ancient critics and travellers, however, bear
ample testimony to his fame, and the wide range of his activity, which
extended to northern Greece, Peloponnese and Asia Minor. His Maenads
and his Tritons and other beings of the sea were much copied in
antiquity. But perhaps he reached his highest level in statues such as
that of Apollo as leader of the Muses, clad in long drapery.
[Illustration: FIG. 44.--Amazon from Epidaurus.]
Timotheus, Bryaxis, Leochares.
The interesting precinct of Aesculapius at Epidaurus has furnished us
with specimens of the style of an Athenian contemporary of Scopas, who
worked with him on the Mausoleum. An inscription which records the sums
spent on the temple of the Physician-god, informs us that the models for
the sculptures of the pediments, and one set of acroteria or roof
adornments, were the work of Timotheus. Of the pedimental figures and
the acroteria considerable fragments have been recovered, and we may
with confidence assume that at all events the models for these were by
Timotheus. It is strange that the unsatisfactory arrangement whereby a
noted sculptor makes models and some local workman the figures enlarged
from those models, should have been tolerated by so artistic a people as
the Greeks. The subjects of the pediments appear to have been the common
ones of battles between Greek and Amazon and between Lapith and Centaur.
We possess fragments of some of the Amazon figures, one of which,
striking downwards at the enemy, is here shown (fig. 44). Their
attitudes are vigorous and alert; but the work shows no delicacy of
detail. Figures of Nereids riding on horses, which were found on the
same site, may very probably be roof ornaments (acroteria) of the
temple. We have also several figures of Victory, which probably were
acroteria on some smaller temple, perhaps that of Artemis. A base found
at Athens, sculptured with figures of horsemen in relief, bears the name
of Bryaxis, and was probably made by a pupil of his. Probable conjecture
assigns to Leochares the originals copied in the Ganymede of the
Vatican, borne aloft by an eagle (Plate I. fig. 53) and the noble statue
of Alexander the Great at Munich (see LEOCHARES). Thus we may fairly say
that we are now acquainted with the work of all the great sculptors who
worked on the Mausoleum--Scopas, Bryaxis, Leochares and Timotheus; and
are in a far more advantageous position than were the archaeologists of
1880 for determining the artistic problems connected with that noblest
of ancient tombs.
Contemporary with the Athenian school of Praxiteles and Scopas was the
great school of Argos and Sicyon, of which Lysippus was the most
distinguished member. Lysippus continued the academic traditions of
Polyclitus, but he was far bolder in his choice of subjects and more
innovating in style. Gods, heroes and mortals alike found in him a
sculptor who knew how to combine fine ideality with a vigorous
actuality. He was at the height of his fame during Alexander's life, and
the grandiose ambition of the great Macedonian found him ample
employment, especially in the frequent representation of himself and his
marshals.
We have none of the actual works of Lysippus; but our best evidence for
his style will be found in the statue of Agias an athlete (Plate V. fig.
74) found at Delphi, and shown by an inscription to be a marble copy of
a bronze original by Lysippus. The Apoxyomenus of the Vatican (man
scraping himself with a strigil) (Plate VI. fig. 79) has hitherto been
regarded as a copy from Lysippus; but of this there is no evidence, and
the style of that statue belongs rather to the 3rd century than the 4th.
The Agias, on the other hand, is in style contemporary with the works
of 4th-century sculptors.
Of the elaborate groups of combatants with which Lysippus enriched such
centres as Olympia and Delphi, or of the huge bronze statues which he
erected in temples and shrines, we can form no adequate notion. Perhaps
among the extant heads of Alexander the one which is most likely to
preserve the style of Lysippus is the head from Alexandria in the
British Museum (Plate II. fig. 56), though this was executed at a later
time.
Many noted extant statues may be attributed with probability to the
latter part of the 4th or the earlier part of the 3rd century. We will
mention a few only. The celebrated group at Florence representing Niobe
and her children falling before the arrows of Apollo and Artemis is
certainly a work of the pathetic school, and may be by a pupil of
Praxiteles. Niobe, in an agony of grief, which is in the marble tempered
and idealized, tries to protect her youngest daughter from destruction
(Plate VI. fig. 78). Whether the group can have originally been fitted
into the gable of a temple is a matter of dispute.
Two great works preserved in the Louvre are so noted that it is but
necessary to mention them, the Aphrodite of Melos (Plate VI. fig. 77),
in which archaeologists are now disposed to see the influence of Scopas,
and the Victory of Samothrace (Plate III. figs. 61 and 62), an original
set up by Demetrius Poliorcetes after a naval victory won at Salamis in
Cyprus in 306 B.C. over the fleet of Ptolemy, king of Egypt.
Nor can we pass over without notice two works so celebrated as the
Apollo of the Belvidere in the Vatican (Plate II. fig. 55), and the
Artemis of Versailles. The Apollo is now by most archaeologists regarded
as probably a copy of a work of Leochares, to whose Ganymede it bears a
superficial resemblance. The Artemis is regarded as possibly due to some
artist of the same age. But it is by no means clear that we have the
right to remove either of these figures from among the statues of the
Hellenistic age. The old theory of Preller, which saw in them copies
from a trophy set up to commemorate the repulse of the Gauls at Delphi
in 278 B.C., has not lost its plausibility.
[Illustration: Hamdy et Reinach, _Nécropole à Sidon_, Pl. 7.
FIG. 45.--Tomb of Mourning Women: Sidon.]
Sarcophagi of Sidon.
This may be the most appropriate place for mentioning the remarkable
find made at Sidon in 1886 of a number of sarcophagi, which once
doubtless contained the remains of kings of Sidon. They are now in the
museum of Constantinople, and are admirably published by Hamdy Bey and
T. Reinach (_Une Nécropole royale à Sidon_, 1892-1896). The sarcophagi
in date cover a considerable period. The earlier are made on Egyptian
models, the covers shaped roughly in the form of a human body or mummy.
The later, however, are Greek in form, and are clearly the work of
skilled Greek sculptors, who seem to have been employed by the grandees
of Phoenicia in the adornment of their last resting-places. Four of
these sarcophagi in particular claim attention, and in fact present us
with examples of Greek art of the 5th and 4th centuries in several of
its aspects. To the 5th century belong the tomb of the Satrap, the
reliefs of which bring before us the activities and glories of some
unknown king, and the Lycian sarcophagus, so called from its form, which
resembles that of tombs found in Lycia, and which is also adorned with
reliefs which have reference to the past deeds of the hero buried in the
tomb, though these deeds are represented, not in the Oriental manner
directly, but in the Greek manner, clad in mythological forms. To the
4th century belong two other sarcophagi. One of these is called the
Tomb of Mourning Women. On all sides of it alike are ranged a series of
beautiful female figures, separated by Ionic pillars, each in a somewhat
different attitude, though all attitudes denoting grief (fig. 45). The
pediments at the ends of the cover are also closely connected with the
mourning for the loss of a friend and protector, which is the theme of
the whole decoration of the sarcophagus. We see depicted in them the
telling of the news of the death, with the results in the mournful
attitude of the two seated figures. The mourning women must be taken,
not as the representation of any persons in particular, but generally as
the expression of the feeling of a city. Such figures are familiar to us
in the art of the second Attic school; we could easily find parallels to
the sarcophagus among the 4th-century sepulchral reliefs of Athens. We
can scarcely be mistaken in attributing the workmanship of this
beautiful sarcophagus to some sculptor trained in the school of
Praxiteles. And it is a conjecture full of probability that it once
contained the body of Strato, king of Sidon, who ruled about 380 B.C.,
and who was _proxenos_ or public friend of the Athenians.
More celebrated is the astonishing tomb called that of Alexander, though
there can be no doubt that, although it commemorates the victories and
exploits of Alexander, it was made not to hold his remains, but those of
some ruler of Sidon who was high in his favour. Among all the monuments
of antiquity which have come down to us, none is more admirable than
this, and none more characteristic of the Greek genius. We give, in two
lines, the composition which adorned one of the sides of this
sarcophagus. It represents a victory of Alexander, probably that of the
Granicus (fig. 46). On the left we see the Macedonian king charging the
Persian horse, on the right his general Parmenio, and in the midst a
younger officer, perhaps Cleitus. Mingled with the chiefs are
foot-soldiers, Greek and Macedonian, with whom the Persians are mingled
in unequal fray. What most strikes the modern eye is the remarkable
freshness and force of the action and the attitudes. Those, however, who
have seen the originals have been specially impressed with the
colouring, whereof, of course, our engraving gives no hint, but which is
applied to the whole surface of the relief with equal skill and
delicacy. There are other features in the relief on which a Greek eye
would have dwelt with special pleasure--the exceedingly careful symmetry
of the whole, the balancing of figure against figure, the skill with
which the result of the battle is hinted rather than depicted. The
composition is one in which the most careful planning and the most
precise calculation are mingled with freedom of hand and expressiveness
in detail. The faces in particular show more expression than would be
tolerated in art of the previous century. We are unable as yet to assign
an author or even a school to the sculptor of this sarcophagus; he comes
to us as a new and striking phenomenon in the history of ancient art.
The reliefs which adorn the other sides of the sarcophagus are almost
equally interesting. On one side we see Alexander again, in the company
of a Persian noble, hunting a lion. The short sides also show us scenes
of fighting and hunting. In fact it can scarcely be doubted that if we
had but a clue to the interpretation of the reliefs, they would be found
to embody historic events of the end of the 4th century. There are but a
few other works of art, such as the Bayeux tapestry and the Column of
Trajan, which bring contemporary history so vividly before our eyes. The
battles with the Persians represented in some of the sculpture of the
Parthenon and the temple of Nike at Athens are treated conventionally
and with no attempt at realism; but here the ideal and the actual are
blended into a work of consummate art, which is at the same time, to
those who can read the language of Greek art, a historic record. The
portraits of Alexander the Great which appear on this sarcophagus are
almost contemporary, and the most authentic likenesses of him which we
possess. The great Macedonian exercised so strong an influence on
contemporary art that a multitude of heads of the age, both of gods and
men, and even the portraits of his successors, show traces of his type.
We have yet to mention what are among the most charming and the most
characteristic products of the Greek chisel, the beautiful tombs,
adorned with seated or standing portraits or with reliefs, which were
erected in great numbers on all the main roads of Greece. A great number
of these from the Dipylon cemetery are preserved in the Central Museum
at Athens, and impress all visitors by the gentle sentiment and the
charm of grouping which they display (Gardner, _Sculptured Tombs of
Hellas_).
[Illustration: Hamdy et Reinach. _Nécropole à Sidon_, Pl. 30.
FIG. 46.--Battle of The Granicus: Sarcophagus from Sidon.]
_Period IV., 300-50 B.C._--There can be no question but that the period
which followed the death of Alexander, commonly called the age of
Hellenism, was one of great activity and expansion in architecture. The
number of cities founded by himself and his immediate successors in Asia
and Egypt was enormous. The remains of these cities have in a few cases
(Ephesus, Pergamum, Assus, Priene, Alexandria) been partially excavated.
But the adaptation of Greek architecture to the needs of the semi-Greek
peoples included in the dominions of the kings of Egypt, Syria and
Pergamum is too vast a subject for us to enter upon here (see
ARCHITECTURE).
Painting during this age ceased to be religious. It was no longer for
temples and public stoae that artists worked, but for private persons;
especially they made frescoes for the decoration of the walls of houses,
and panel pictures for galleries set up by rich patrons. The names of
very few painters of the Hellenistic age have come down to us. There can
be no doubt that the character of the art declined, and there were no
longer produced great works to be the pride of cities, or to form an
embodiment for all future time of the qualities of a deity or the
circumstances of scenes mythical or historic. But at the same time the
mural paintings of Pompeii and other works of the Roman age, which are
usually more or less nearly derived from Hellenistic models, prove that
in technical matters painting continued to progress. Colouring became
more varied, groups more elaborate, perspective was worked out with
greater accuracy, and imagination shook itself free from many of the
conventions of early art. Pompeian painting, however, must be treated of
under Roman, not under Greek art. We figure a single example, to show
the elaboration of painting at Alexandria and elsewhere, the wonderful
Pompeian mosaic (fig. 47), which represents the victory of Alexander at
Issus. This work being in stone has preserved its colouring; and it
stands at a far higher level of art than ordinary Pompeian paintings,
which are the work of mere house-decorators. This on the contrary is
certainly copied from the work of a great master. It is instructive to
compare it with the sarcophagus illustrated in Fig. 46, which it excels
in perspective and in the freedom of individual figures, though the
composition is much less careful and precise. Alexander charges from the
left (his portrait being the least successful part of the picture), and
bears down a young Persian; Darius in his chariot flees towards the
right; in the foreground a young knight is trying to manage a restive
horse. It will be observed how very simple is the indication of
locality: a few stones and a broken tree stand for rocks and woods.
Among the original sculptural creations of the early Hellenistic age, a
prominent place is claimed by the statue of Fortune, typifying the city
of Antioch (Plate VI. fig. 81), a work of Eutychides, a pupil of
Lysippus. Of this we possess a small copy, which is sufficient to show
how worthy of admiration was the original. We have a beautiful
embodiment of the personality of the city, seated on a rock, holding
ears of corn, while the river Orontes, embodied in a young male figure,
springs forth at her feet.
[Illustration: From a photograph by G. Borgi.
FIG. 47.--Mosaic of the Battle of Issus (Naples).]
This is, so far as we know, almost the only work of the early part of
the 3rd century which shows imagination. Sculptors often worked on a
colossal scale, producing such monsters as the colossal Apollo at
Rhodes, the work of Chares of Lindus, which was more than 100 ft. in
height. But they did not show freshness or invention; and for the most
part content themselves with varying the types produced in the great
schools of the 4th century. The wealthy kings of Syria, Egypt and Asia
Minor formed art galleries, and were lavish in their payments; but it
has often been proved in the history of art that originality cannot be
produced by mere expenditure.
[Illustration: FIG. 48.--Head of Anytus: Lycosura.]
A great artist, whose date has been disputed, but who is now assigned to
the Hellenistic age, Damophon of Messene, is known to us from his actual
works. He set up in the shrine of the _Mistress_ (Despoena) at Lycosura
in Arcadia a great group of figures consisting of Despoena, Demeter,
Artemis and the Titan Anytus. Three colossal heads found on the spot
probably belong to the three last-mentioned deities. We illustrate the
head of Anytus, with wild disordered hair and turbulent expression (fig.
48). Dr Dörpfeld has argued, on architectural grounds, that shrine and
images alike must be given to a later time than the 4th century; and
this judgment is now confirmed by inscriptional and other evidence.
In one important direction sculpture certainly made progress. Hitherto
Greek sculptors had contented themselves with studying the human body
whether in rest or motion, from outside. The dissection of the human
body, with a consequent increase in knowledge of anatomy, became usual
at Alexandria in the medical school which flourished under the
Ptolemies. This improved anatomical knowledge soon reacted upon the art
of sculpture. Works such as the Fighter of Agasias in the Louvre (Plate
IV. fig. 69), and in a less degree the Apoxyomenus (Plate VI. fig. 79),
display a remarkable internal knowledge of the human frame, such as
could only come from the habit of dissection. Whether this was really
productive of improvement in sculpture may be doubted. But it is
impossible to withhold one's admiration from works which show an
astonishing knowledge of the body of man down to its bony framework, and
a power and mastery of execution which have never since been surpassed.
With accuracy in the portrayal of men's bodies goes of necessity a more
naturalistic tendency in portraiture. As we have seen, the art of
portraiture was at a high ideal level in the Pheidian age; and even in
the age of Alexander the Great, notable men were rendered rather
according to the idea than the fact. To a base and mechanical naturalism
Greek art never at any time descended. But from 300 B.C. onwards we have
a marvellous series of portraits which may be termed rather
characteristic than ideal, which are very minute in their execution, and
delight in laying emphasis on the havoc wrought by time and life on the
faces of noteworthy men. Such are the portraits of Demosthenes, of
Antisthenes, of Zeno and others, which exist in our galleries. And it
was no long step from these actual portraits to the invention of
characteristic types to represent the great men of a past generation,
such as Homer and Lycurgus, or to form generic images to represent
weatherbeaten fishermen or toothless old women.
Altar of Pergamum.
Our knowledge of the art of the later Hellenistic age has received a
great accession since 1875 through the systematic labours directed by
the German Archaeological Institute, which have resulted in recovering
the remains of Pergamum, the fortress-city which was the capital of the
dynasty of the Philetaeri. Among the ancient buildings of Pergamum none
was more ambitious in scale and striking in execution than the great
altar used for sacrifices to Zeus, a monument supposed to be referred to
in the phrase of the Apocalypse "where Satan's throne is." This altar,
like many great sacrificial altars of later Greece, was a vast erection
to which one mounted by many steps, and its outside was adorned with a
frieze which represented on a gigantic scale, in the style of the 2nd
century B.C., the battle between the gods and the giants. This enormous
frieze (see PERGAMUM) is now one of the treasures of the Royal Museums
of Berlin, and it cannot fail to impress visitors by the size of the
figures, the energy of the action, and the strong vein of sentiment
which pervades the whole, giving it a certain air of modernity, though
the subject is strange to the Christian world. In early Greek art the
giants where they oppose the gods are represented as men armed in full
panoply, "in shining armour, holding long spears in their hands," to use
the phrase in which Hesiod describes them. But in the Pergamene frieze
the giants are strange compounds, having the heads and bodies of wild
and fierce barbarians, sometimes also human legs, but sometimes in the
place of legs two long serpents, the heads of which take with the giants
themselves a share in the battle. Sometimes also they are winged. The
gods appear in the forms which had been gradually made for them in the
course of Greek history, but they are usually accompanied by the animals
sacred to them in cultus, between which and the serpent-feet of the
giants a weird combat goes on. We can conjecture the source whence the
Pergamene artist derived the shaggy hair, the fierce expression, the
huge muscles of his giants (fig. 49); probably these features came
originally from the Galatians, who at the time had settled in Asia
Minor, and were spreading the terror of their name and the report of
their savage devastations through all Asia Minor. The victory over the
giants clearly stands for the victory of Greek civilization over Gallic
barbarism; and this meaning is made more emphatic because the gods are
obviously inferior in physical force to their opponents, indeed, a large
proportion of the divine combatants are goddesses. Yet everywhere the
giants are overthrown, writhing in pain on the ground, or transfixed by
the weapons of their opponents; everywhere the gods are victorious, yet
in the victory retain much of their divine calm. The piecing together of
the frieze at Berlin has been a labour of many years; it is now
complete, and there is a special museum devoted to it. Some of the
groups have become familiar to students from photographs, especially the
group which represents Zeus slaying his enemies with thunderbolts, and
the group wherein Athena seizes by the hair an overthrown opponent, who
is winged, while Victory runs to crown her, and beneath is seen Gaia,
the earth-goddess who is the mother of the giants, rising out of the
ground, and mourning over her vanquished and tortured children. Another
and smaller frieze which also decorated the altar-place gives us scenes
from the history of Telephus, who opposed the landing of the army of
Agamemnon in Asia Minor and was overthrown by Achilles. This frieze,
which is quite fragmentary, is put together by Dr Schneider in the
_Jahrbuch_ of the German Archaeological Institute for 1900.
[Illustration: FIG. 49.--Giant from Great Altar: Pergamum.]
Since the Renaissance Rome has continually produced a crop of works of
Greek art of all periods, partly originals brought from Greece by
conquering generals, partly copies, such as the group at Rome formerly
known as Paetus and Arria, and the overthrown giants and barbarians
which came from the elaborate trophy set up by Attalus at Athens, of
which copies exist in many museums. A noted work of kindred school is
the group of Laocoon and his sons (Plate I. fig. 52), signed by Rhodian
sculptors of the 1st century B.C., which has been perhaps more discussed
than any work of the Greek chisel, and served as a peg for the
aesthetic theories of Lessing and Goethe. In our days the histrionic and
strained character of the group is regarded as greatly diminishing its
interest, in spite of the astounding skill and knowledge of the human
body shown by the artists. To the same school belong the late
representations of Marsyas being flayed by the victorious Apollo (Plate
II. fig. 54), a somewhat repulsive subject, chosen by the artists of
this age as a means for displaying their accurate knowledge of anatomy.
On what a scale some of the artists of Asia Minor would work is shown us
by the enormous group, by Apollonius and Tauriscus of Tralles, which is
called the Farnese Bull (Plate I. fig. 51), and which represents how
Dirce was tied to a wild bull by her stepsons Zethus and Amphion.
Rome.
The extensive excavations and alterations which have taken place at Rome
in recent years have been very fruitful; the results may be found partly
in the palace of the Conservatori on the Capitol, partly in the new
museum of the Terme. Among recently found statues none excel in interest
some bronzes of large size dating from the Hellenistic age. In the
figure of a seated boxer (Plate V. fig. 72), in scale somewhat exceeding
life, attitude and gesture are expressive. Evidently the boxer has
fought already, and is awaiting a further conflict. His face is cut and
swollen; on his hands are the terrible caestus, here made of leather,
and not loaded with iron, like the caestus described by Virgil. The
figure is of astounding force; but though the face is brutal and the
expression savage, in the sweep of the limbs there is nobility, even
ideal beauty. To the last the Greek artist could not set aside his
admiration for physical perfection. Another bronze figure of more than
life-size is that of a king of the Hellenistic age standing leaning on a
spear. He is absolutely nude, like the athletes of Polyclitus. Another
large bronze presents us with a Hellenistic type of Dionysus.
Besides the bronzes found in Rome we may set those recently found in the
sea on the coast of Cythera, the contents of a ship sailing from Greece
to Rome, and lost on the way. The date of these bronze statues has been
disputed. In any case, even if executed in the Roman age, they go back
to originals of the 5th and 4th centuries. The most noteworthy among
them is a beautiful athlete (Plate V. fig. 73) standing with hand
upraised, which reflects the style of the Attic school of the 4th
century.
After 146 B.C. when Corinth was destroyed and Greece became a Roman
province, Greek art, though by no means extinct, worked mainly in the
employ of the Roman conquerors (see ROMAN ART).
IV. SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY.[3]--I. General works on Greek Art.--The only
recent general histories of Greek art are: H. Brunn, _Griechische
Kunstgeschichte_, bks. i. and ii., dealing with archaic art; W. Klein,
_Geschichte der griechischen Kunst_, no illustrations; Perrot et
Chipiez, _Histoire de l'art dans l'antiquité_, vols. vii. and viii.
(archaic art only).
Introductory are: P. Gardner, _Grammar of Greek Art_; J. E. Harrison,
_Introductory Studies in Greek Art_; H. B. Walters, _Art of the
Greeks_.
Useful are also: H. Brunn, _Geschichte der griechischen Künstler_,
(new edition, 1889); J. Overbeck, _Die antiken Schriftquellen zur
Geschichte der bildenden Künste bei den Griechen_; untranslated
passages in Latin and Greek; the Elder Pliny's _Chapters on the
History of Art_, edited by K. Jex-Blake and E. Sellers; H. S. Jones,
_Ancient Writers on Greek Sculpture_.
II. Periodicals dealing with Greek Archaeology.--England: _Journal of
Hellenic Studies_; _Annual of the British School at Athens_;
_Classical Review_. France: _Revue archéologique_; _Gazette
archéologique_; _Bulletin de correspondance hellénique_. Germany:
_Jahrbuch des K. deutschen arch. Instituts_; _Mitteilungen des arch.
Inst._, Athenische Abteilung, Römische Abteilung; _Antike Denkmäler_.
Austria: _Jahreshefte des K. Österreich. arch. Instituts_. Italy:
Publications of the _Accademia dei Lincei_; _Monumenti antichi_; _Not.
dei scavi_; _Bulletino comunale di Roma_. Greece: _Ephemeris
archaiologikè_; _Deltion archaiologikon_; _Praktika_ of the Athenian
Archaeological Society.
III. Greek Architecture.--General: Perrot et Chipiez, _Histoire de
l'art dans l'antiquité_, vol. vii.; A. Choisy, _Histoire de
l'architecture_, vol. i.; Anderson and Spiers, _Architecture of Greece
and Rome_; E. Boutmy, _Philosophie de l'architecture en Grèce_; R.
Sturgis, _History of Architecture_, vol. i.; A. Marquand, _Greek
Architecture_.
IV. Greek Sculpture.--General: M. Collignon, _Histoire de la sculpture
grecque_ (2 vols.); E. A. Gardner, _Handbook of Greek Sculpture_; A.
Furtwängler, _Masterpieces of Greek Sculpture_, translated and edited
by E. Sellers; Friederichs and Wolters, _Bausteine zur Geschichte der
griechisch-römischen Plastik_ (1887); von Mach, _Handbook of Greek and
Roman Sculpture_, 500 plates; H. Bulle, _Der schöne Mensch in der
Kunst: Altertum_, 216 plates; S. Reinach, _Répertoire de la statuaire
grecque et romaine_, 3 vols.
V. Greek Painting and Vases.--Woltmann and Woermann, _History of
Painting_, vol. i., translated and edited by S. Colvin (1880); H. B.
Walters, _History of Ancient Pottery_ (2 vols.); Harrison and MacColl,
_Greek Vase-paintings_ (1894); O. Rayet et M. Collignon, _Histoire de
la céramique grecque_ (1888); P. Girard, _La Peinture antique_ (1892);
S. Reinach, _Répertoire des vases peints grecs et étrusques_ (2
vols.); Furtwängler und Reichhold, "Griechische Vasenmalerei," _Wiener
Vorlegeblätter für archäologische Übungen_ (1887-1890).
VI. Special Schools and Sites.--A. Joubin, _La Sculpture grecque entre
les guerres médiques et l'époque de Périclès_; C. Waldstein, _Essays
on the Art of Pheidias_ (1885); W. Klein, _Praxiteles_; G. Perrot,
_Praxitèle_; A. S. Murray, _Sculptures of the Parthenon_; W. Klein,
_Euphronios_; E. Pottier, _Douris_; P. Gardner, _Sculptured Tombs of
Hellas_; E. A. Gardner, _Ancient Athens_; A. Bötticher, _Olympia_;
Bernoulli, _Griechische Ikonographie_; P. Gardner, _The Types of Greek
Coins_ (1883); E. A. Gardner, _Six Greek Sculptors._
VII. Books related to the subject.--J. G. Frazer, _Pausanias's
Description of Greece_ (6 vols.); J. Lange, _Darstellung des Menschen
in der älteren griechischen Kunst_; E. Brücke, _The Human Figure; its
Beauties and Defects_; A. Michaelis, _Ancient Marbles in Great
Britain_ (1882); _Catalogue of Greek Sculpture in the British Museum_
(3 vols.); _Catalogue of Greek Vases in the British Museum_ (4 vols.);
J. B. Bury, _History of Greece_ (illustrated edition); Baumeister,
_Denkmäler des klassischen Altertums_ (3 vols.). (P. G.)
FOOTNOTES:
[1] _Grammar of Greek Art._
[2] It may here be pointed out that it was found impossible, with any
regard for the appearance of the pages, to arrange the Plates for
this article so as to preserve a chronological order in the
individual figures; they are not arranged consecutively as regards
the history or the period, and are only grouped for convenience in
paging.--Ed.
[3] The date is given when the work cannot be considered new.
GREEK FIRE, the name applied to inflammable and destructive compositions
used in warfare during the middle ages and particularly by the Byzantine
Greeks at the sieges of Constantinople. The employment of liquid fire is
represented on Assyrian bas-reliefs. At the siege of Plataea (429 B.C.)
the Spartans attempted to burn the town by piling up against the walls
wood saturated with pitch and sulphur and setting it on fire (Thuc. ii.
77), and at the siege of Delium (424 B.C.) a cauldron containing pitch,
sulphur and burning charcoal, was placed against the walls and urged
into flame by the aid of a bellows, the blast from which was conveyed
through a hollow tree-trunk (Thuc. iv. 100). Aeneas Tacticus in the
following century mentions a mixture of sulphur, pitch, charcoal,
incense and tow, which was packed in wooden vessels and thrown lighted
upon the decks of the enemy's ships. Later, as in receipts given by
Vegetius (_c._ A.D. 350), naphtha or petroleum is added, and some nine
centuries afterwards the same substances are found forming part of
mixtures described in the later receipts (which probably date from the
beginning of the 13th century) of the collection known as the _Liber
ignium_ of Marcus Graecus. In subsequent receipts saltpetre and
turpentine make their appearance, and the modern "carcass composition,"
containing sulphur, tallow, rosin, turpentine, saltpetre and crude
antimony, is a representative of the same class of mixtures, which
became known to the Crusaders as Greek fire but were more usually called
wildfire. Greek fire, properly so-called, was, however, of a somewhat
different character. It is said that in the reign of Constantine
Pogonatus (648-685) an architect named Callinicus, who had fled from
Heliopolis in Syria to Constantinople, prepared a wet fire which was
thrown out from siphons ([Greek: to dia tôn siphônôn ekpheromenon pyr
hugron]), and that by its aid the ships of the Saracens were set on fire
at Cyzicus and their defeat assured. The art of compounding this
mixture, which is also referred to as [Greek: pyr thalassion], or sea
fire, was jealously guarded at Constantinople, and the possession of the
secret on several occasions proved of great advantage to the city. The
nature of the compound is somewhat obscure. It has been supposed that
the novelty introduced by Callinicus was saltpetre, but this view
involves the difficulty that that substance was apparently not known
till the 13th century, even if it were capable of accounting for the
properties attributed to the wet fire. Lieut.-Colonel H. W. L. Hime,
after a close examination of the available evidence, concludes that what
distinguished Greek fire from the other incendiaries of the period was
the presence of quicklime, which was well known to give rise to a large
development of heat when brought into contact with water. The mixture,
then, was composed of such materials as sulphur and naphtha with
quicklime, and took fire spontaneously when wetted--whence the name of
wet fire or sea fire; and portions of it were "projected and at the same
time ignited by applying the hose of a water engine to the breech" of
the siphon, which was a wooden tube, cased with bronze.
See Lieut.-Col. H. W. L. Hime, _Gunpowder and Ammunition, their Origin
and Progress_ (London, 1904).
GREEK INDEPENDENCE, WAR OF, the name given to the great rising of the
Greek subjects of the sultan against the Ottoman domination, which began
in 1821 and ended in 1833 with the establishment of the independent
kingdom of Greece. The circumstances that led to the insurrection and
the general diplomatic situation by which its fortunes were from time to
time affected are described elsewhere (see GREECE: _History_; TURKEY:
_History_). The present article is confined to a description of the
general character and main events of the war itself. If we exclude the
abortive invasion of the Danubian principalities by Prince Alexander
Ypsilanti (March 1821), which collapsed ignominiously as soon as it was
disavowed by the tsar, the theatre of the war was confined to
continental Greece, the Morea, and the adjacent narrow seas. Its history
may, broadly speaking, be divided into three periods: the first
(1821-1824), during which the Greeks, aided by numerous volunteers from
Europe, were successfully pitted against the sultan's forces alone; the
second, from 1824, when the disciplined troops of Mehemet Ali, pasha of
Egypt, turned the tide against the insurgents; the third, from the
intervention of the European powers in the autumn of 1827 to the end.
When, on the 2nd of April 1821, Archbishop Germanos, head of the
_Hetaeria_ in the Morea, raised the standard of the cross at Kalavryta
as the signal for a general rising of the Christian population, the
circumstances were highly favourable. In the Morea itself, in spite of
plentiful warning, the Turks were wholly unprepared; while the bulk of
the Ottoman army, under the _seraskier_ Khurshid Pasha, was engaged in
the long task of reducing the intrepid Ali, pasha of Iannina (see ALI,
pasha of Iannina).
Another factor, and that the determining one, soon came to the aid of
the Greeks. In warfare carried on in such a country as Greece, sea-girt
and with a coast deeply indented, inland without roads and intersected
with rugged mountains, victory--as Wellington was quick to observe--must
rest with the side that has command of the sea. This was assured to the
insurgents at the outset by the revolt of the maritime communities of
the Greek archipelago. The Greeks of the islands had been accustomed
from time immemorial to seafaring; their ships--some as large as
frigates--were well armed, to guard against the Barbary pirates and
rovers of their own kin; lastly, they had furnished the bulk of the
sailors to the Ottoman navy which, now that this recruiting ground was
closed, had to be manned hastily with impressed crews of dock-labourers
and peasants, many of whom had never seen the sea. The Turkish fleet,
"adrift in the Archipelago"--as the British seamen put it--though
greatly superior in tonnage and weight of metal, could never be a match
for the Greek brigs, manned as these were by trained, if not
disciplined, crews.
Outbreak of the insurrection.
The war was begun by the Greeks without definite plan and without any
generally recognized leadership. The force with which Germanos marched
from Kalavryta against Patras was composed of peasants armed with
scythes, clubs and slings, among whom the "primates" exercised a
somewhat honorary authority. The town itself was destroyed and those of
its Mussulman inhabitants who could not escape into the citadel were
massacred; but the citadel remained in the hands of the Turks till 1828.
Meanwhile, in the south, leaders of another stamp had appeared: Petros,
bey of the Maina (q.v.) chief of the Mavromichales, who at the head of
his clan attacked Kalamata and put the Mussulman inhabitants to the
sword; and Kolokotrones, a notable brigand once in the service of the
Ionian government, who--fortified by a vision of the Virgin--captured
Karytaena and slaughtered its infidel population. Encouraged by these
successes the revolt spread rapidly; within three weeks there was not a
Mussulman left in the open country, and the remnants of the once
dominant class were closely besieged in the fortified towns by hosts of
wild peasants and brigands. The flames of revolt now spread across the
Isthmus of Corinth: early in April the Christians of Dervenokhoria rose,
and the whole of Boeotia and Attica quickly followed suit; at the
beginning of May the Mussulman inhabitants of Athens were blockaded in
the Acropolis. In the Morea, meanwhile, a few Mussulman fortresses still
held out: Coron, Modon, Navarino, Patras, Nauplia, Monemvasia,
Tripolitsa. One by one they fell, and everywhere were repeated the same
scenes of butchery. The horrors culminated in the capture of Tripolitsa,
the capital of the vilayet. In September this was taken by storm;
Kolokotrones rode in triumph to the citadel over streets carpeted with
the dead; and the crowning triumph of the Cross was celebrated by a
cold-blooded massacre of 2000 prisoners of all ages and both sexes. This
completed the success of the insurrection in the Morea, where only
Patras, Nauplia, and one or two lesser fortresses remained to the Turks.
Meanwhile, north of the Isthmus, the fortunes of war had been less
one-sided. In the west Khurshid's lieutenant, Omar Vrioni (a Mussulman
Greek of the race of the Palaeologi), had inflicted a series of defeats
on the insurgents, recaptured Levadia, and on the 30th of June relieved
the Acropolis; but the rout of the troops which Mahommed Pasha was
bringing to his aid by the Greeks in the defile of Mount Oeta, and the
news of the fall of Tripolitsa, forced him to retreat, and the campaign
of 1821 ended with the retirement of the Turks into Thessaly.
The month of April had witnessed the revolt of the principal Greek
islands, Spetsae on the 7th, Psara on the 23rd, Hydra on the 28th and
Samos on the 30th. Their fleets were divided into squadrons, of which
one, under Tombazes, was deputed to watch for the entrance of the
Ottomans into the archipelago, while the other under Andreas Miaoulis
(_q.v._) sailed to blockade Patras and watch the coasts of Epirus. At
sea, as on land, the Greeks opened the campaign with hideous atrocities,
almost their first exploit being the capture of a vessel carrying to
Mecca the sheik-ul-Islam and his family, whom they murdered with every
aggravation of outrage.
General character of the war.
These inauspicious beginnings, indeed, set the whole tone of the war,
which was frankly one of mutual extermination. On both sides the
combatants were barbarians, without discipline or competent
organization. At sea the Greeks rapidly developed into mere pirates, and
even Miaoulis, for all his high character and courage, was often unable
to prevent his captains from sailing home at critical moments, when pay
or booty failed. On land the presence of a few educated Phanariots, such
as Demetrios Ypsilanti or Alexander Mavrocordato, was powerless to
inspire the rude hordes with any sense of order or of humanity in
warfare; while every lull in the fighting, due to a temporary check to
the Turks, was the signal for internecine conflicts due to the rivalry
of leaders who, with rare exceptions, thought more of their personal
power and profit than of the cause of Greece.
Turkish reprisals.
Europe and the rising Philhellenism.
This cause, indeed, was helped more by the impolitic reprisals of the
Turks than by the heroism of the insurgents. All Europe stood aghast at
the news of the execution of the Patriarch Gregorios of Constantinople
(April 22, 1821) and the wholesale massacres that followed, culminating
as these did in the extermination of the prosperous community of Scio
(Chios) in March 1822. The cause of Greece was now that of Christendom,
of the Catholic and Protestant West, as of the Orthodox East. European
Liberalism, too, gagged and fettered under Metternich's "system,"
recognized in the Greeks the champions of its own cause; while even
conservative statesmen, schooled in the memories of ancient Hellas, saw
in the struggle a fight of civilization against barbarism. This latter
belief, which was, moreover, flattering to their vanity, the Greek
leaders were astute enough to foster; the propaganda of Adamantios
Coraës (_q.v._) had done its work; and wily brigands, like Odysseus of
Ithaka, assuming the style and trappings of antiquity, posed as the
champions of classic culture against the barbarian. All Europe, then,
hailed with joy the exploit of Constantine Kanaris, who on the night of
June 18-19 succeeded in steering a fire-ship among the Turkish squadron
off Scio, and burned the flag-ship of the capudan-pasha with 3000 souls
on board.
Expedition of Dramali, 1822.
Meanwhile Sultan Mahmud, now wide awake to the danger, had been
preparing for a systematic effort to suppress the rising. The threatened
breach with Russia had been avoided by Metternich's influence on the
tsar Alexander; the death of Ali of Iannina had set free the army of
Khurshid Pasha, who now, as _seraskier_ of Rumelia, was charged with the
task of reducing the Morea. In the spring of 1822 two Turkish armies
advanced southwards: one, under Omar Vrioni, along the coast of Western
Hellas, the other, under Ali, pasha of Drama (Dramali), through Boeotia
and Attica. Omar was held in check by the mud ramparts of Missolonghi;
but Dramali, after exacting fearful vengeance for the massacre of the
Turkish garrison of the Acropolis at Athens, crossed the Isthmus and
with the over-confidence of a conquering barbarian advanced to the
relief of the hard-pressed garrison of Nauplia. He crossed the perilous
defile of Dervenaki unopposed; and at the news of his approach most of
the members of the Greek government assembled at Argos fled in panic
terror. Demetrios Ypsilanti, however, with a few hundred men joined the
Mainote Karayanni in the castle of Larissa, which crowns the acropolis
of ancient Argos. This held Dramali in check, and gave Kolokotrones time
to collect an army. The Turks, in the absence of the fleet which was to
have brought them supplies, were forced to retreat (August 6); the
Greeks, inspired with new courage, awaited them in the pass of
Dervenaki, where the undisciplined Ottoman host, thrown into confusion
by an avalanche of boulders hurled upon them, was annihilated. In
Western Greece the campaign had an outcome scarcely less disastrous for
the Turks. The death of Ali of Iannina had been followed by the
suppression of the insurgent Suliotes and the advance of Omar Vrioni
southwards to Missolonghi; but the town held out gallantly, a Turkish
surprise attack, on the 6th of January 1823, was beaten off, and Omar
Vrioni had to abandon the siege and retire northwards over the pass of
Makrynoros.
Civil war among the Greeks.
Campaign of 1823.
The victorious outcome of the year's fighting had a disastrous effect
upon the Greeks. Their victories had been due mainly to the guerilla
tactics of the leaders of the type of Kolokotrones; Mavrocordato, whose
character and antecedents had marked him out as the natural head of the
new Greek state, in spite of his successful defence of Missolonghi, had
been discredited by failures elsewhere; and the Greeks thus learned to
despise their civilized advisers and to underrate the importance of
discipline. The temporary removal of the common peril, moreover, let
loose all the sectional and personal jealousies, which even in face of
the enemy had been with difficulty restrained, and the year 1823
witnessed the first civil war between the Greek parties. These
internecine feuds might easily have proved fatal to the cause of Greece.
In the Archipelago Hydriotes and Spetsiotes were at daggers drawn; the
men of Psara were at open war with those of Samos; all semblance of
discipline and cohesion had vanished from the Greek fleet. Had Khosrev,
the new Ottoman admiral, been a man of enterprise, he might have
regained the command of the sea and, with it, that of the whole
situation. But the fate of his predecessor had filled him with a lively
terror of Kanaris and his fire-ships; he contented himself with a cruise
round the coasts of Greece, and was happy to return to safety under the
guns of the Dardanelles without having accomplished anything beyond
throwing supplies and troops into Coron, Modon and Patras. On land,
meanwhile, the events of the year before practically repeated
themselves. In the west an army of Mussulman and Catholic Albanians,
under Mustai Pasha, advanced southwards. On the night of the 21st of
August occurred the celebrated exploit of Marko Botzaris and his
Suliotes: a successful surprise attack on the camp of the Ottoman
vanguard, in which the Suliote leader fell. The jealousy of the Aetolian
militia for the Suliotes, however, prevented the victory being decisive;
and Mustai advanced to the siege of Anatoliko, a little town in the
lagoons near Missolonghi. Here he was detained until, on the 11th of
December, he was forced to raise the siege and retire northwards. His
colleague, Yussuf Pasha, in East Hellas fared no better; here, too, the
Turks gained some initial successes, but in the end the harassing
tactics of Kolokotrones and his guerilla bands forced them back into the
plain of the Kephissos. At the end of the year the Greeks were once more
free to renew their internecine feuds.
Just when these feuds were at their height, in the autumn of 1823, the
most famous of the Philhellenes who sacrificed themselves for the cause
of Greece, Lord Byron, arrived in Greece.
Second civil war, 1824.
Intervention of Mehemet Ali.
The year 1824 was destined to be a fateful one for the Greek cause. The
large loans raised in Europe, the first instalment of which Byron had
himself brought over, while providing the Greeks with the sinews of war,
provided them also with fresh material for strife. To the struggle for
power was added a struggle for a share of this booty, and a second civil
war broke out, Kolokotrones leading the attack on the forces of the
government. Early in 1825 the government was victorious; Kolokotrones
was in prison; and Odysseus, the hero of so many exploits and so many
crimes, who had ended by turning traitor and selling his services to the
Turks, had been captured, imprisoned in the Acropolis, and finally
assassinated by his former lieutenant Gouras (July 16, 1824). But a new
and more terrible danger now threatened Greece. Sultan Mahmud,
despairing of suppressing the insurrection by his own power, had
reluctantly summoned to his aid Mehemet Ali, pasha of Egypt, whose
well-equipped fleet and disciplined army were now thrown into the scale
against the Greeks. Already, in June 1823, the pasha's son-in-law
Hussein Bey had landed in Crete, and by April of the following year had
reduced the insurgent islanders to submission. Crete now became the base
of operations against the Greeks. On the 19th of June Hussein appeared
before Kasos, a nest of pirates of evil reputation, which he captured
and destroyed. The same day the Egyptian fleet, under Ibrahim Pasha,
sailed from Alexandria. Khosrev, too, emboldened by this new sense of
support, ventured to sea, surprised and destroyed Psara (July 2), and
planned an attack on Samos, which was defeated by Miaoulis and his
fire-ships (August 16, 17). On the 1st of September, however, Khosrev
succeeded in effecting a junction with Ibrahim off Budrun, and two
indecisive engagements followed with the united Greek fleet on the 5th
and 10th. The object of Ibrahim was to reach Suda Bay with his
transports, which the Greeks should at all costs have prevented. A first
attempt was defeated by Miaoulis on the 16th of November, and Ibrahim
was compelled to retire and anchor off Rhodes; but the Greek admiral was
unable to keep his fleet together, the season was far advanced, his
captains were clamouring for arrears of pay, and the Greek fleet sailed
for Nauplia, leaving the sea unguarded. On the 5th of December Ibrahim
again set sail, and reached Suda without striking a blow. Here he
completed his preparations, and, on the 24th of February 1825, landed at
Modon in the Morea with a force of 4000 regular infantry and 500
cavalry. The rest followed, without the Greeks making any effort to
intercept them.
Ibrahim in the Morea.
The conditions of the war were now completely changed. The Greeks, who
had been squandering the money provided by the loans in every sort of
senseless extravagance, affected to despise the Egyptian invaders, but
they were soon undeceived. On the 21st of March Ibrahim had laid siege
to Navarino, and after some delay a Greek force under Skourti, a
Hydriote sea-captain, was sent to its relief. The Greeks had in all some
7000 men, Suliotes, Albanians, _armatoli_ from Rumelia, and some
irregular Bulgarian and Vlach cavalry. On the 19th of April they were
met by Ibrahim at Krommydi with 2000 regular infantry, 400 cavalry and
four guns. The Greek entrenchments were stormed at the point of the
bayonet by Ibrahim's fellahin at the first onset; the defenders broke
and fled, leaving 600 dead on the field. The news of this disaster, and
of the fall of Pylos and Navarino that followed, struck terror into the
Greek government; and in answer to popular clamour Kolokotrones was
taken from prison and placed at the head of the army. But the guerilla
tactics of the wily klepht were powerless against Ibrahim, who marched
northward, and, avoiding Nauplia for the present, seized Tripolitsa, and
made this the base from which his columns marched to devastate the
country far and wide.
Reshid "Kutahia" besieges Missolonghi.
Meanwhile from the north the Ottomans were making another supreme
effort. The command of the army that was to operate in west Hellas had
been given to Reshid "Kutahia," pasha of Iannina, an able general and a
man of determined character. On the 6th of April, after bribing the
Albanian clansmen to neutrality, he passed the defile of Makrynoros,
which the Greeks had left undefended, and on the 7th of May opened the
second siege of Missolonghi. For twelve months the population held out,
repulsing the attacks of the enemy, refusing every offer of honourable
capitulation. This resistance was rendered possible by the Greek command
of the sea, Miaoulis from time to time entering the lagoons with
supplies; it came to an end when this command was lost. In September
1825 Ibrahim, at the order of the sultan, had joined Reshid before the
town; piecemeal the outlying forts and defences now fell, until the
garrison, reduced by starvation and disease, determined to hazard all on
a final sortie. This took place on the night of the 22nd of April 1826;
but a mistaken order threw the ranks of the Greeks into disorder, and
the Turks entered the town pell-mell with the retreating crowd. Only a
remnant of the defenders succeeded in gaining the forests of Mount
Zygos, where most of them perished.
Karaiskakis.
The fall of Missolonghi, followed as this was by the submission of many
of the more notable chiefs, left Reshid free to turn his attention to
East Hellas, where Gouras had been ruling as a practically independent
chief and in the spirit of a brigand. The peasants of the open country
welcomed the Turks as deliverers, and Reshid's conciliatory policy
facilitated his march to Athens, which fell at the first assault on the
25th of August, siege being at once laid to the Acropolis, where Gouras
and his troops had taken refuge. Round this the war now centred; for all
recognized that its fall would involve that of the cause of Greece. In
these straits the Greek government entrusted the supreme command of the
troops to Karaiskakis, an old retainer of Ali of Iannina, a master of
the art of guerilla war, and, above all, a man of dauntless courage and
devoted patriotism. A first attempt to relieve the Acropolis, with the
assistance of some disciplined troops under the French Colonel Fabvier,
was defeated at Chaidari by the Turks. The garrison of the Acropolis was
hard pressed, and the death of Gouras (October 13th) would have ended
all, had not his heroic wife taken over the command and inspired the
defenders with new courage. For months the siege dragged on, while
Karaiskakis fought with varying success in the mountains, a final
victory at Distomo (February 1827) over Omar Vrioni securing the
restoration to the Greek cause of all continental Greece, except the
towns actually held by the Turks.
Cochrane and Church.
Greek defeat at Athens.
It was at this juncture that the Greek government, reinforced by a fresh
loan from Europe, handed over the chief command at sea to Lord Cochrane
(earl of Dundonald, _q.v._), and that of the land forces to General
(afterwards Sir Richard) Church, both Miaoulis and Karaiskakis
consenting without demur to serve under them. Cochrane and Church at
once concentrated their energies on the task of relieving the Acropolis.
Already, on the 5th of February, General Gordon had landed and
entrenched himself on the hill of Munychia, near the ancient Piraeus,
and the efforts of the Turks to dislodge him had failed, mainly owing to
the fire of the steamer "Karteria" commanded by Captain Hastings. When
Church and Cochrane arrived, a general assault on the Ottoman camp was
decided on. This was preceded, on the 25th of April, by an attack,
headed by Cochrane, on the Turkish troops established near the monastery
of St Spiridion, the result of which was to establish communications
between the Greeks at Munychia and Phalerum and isolate Reshid's
vanguard on the promontory of the Piraeus. The monastery held out for
two days longer, when the Albanian garrison surrendered on terms, but
were massacred by the Greeks as they were marching away under escort.
For this miserable crime Church has, by some historians, been held
responsible by default; it is clear, however, from his own account that
no blame rests upon him (see his MS. _Narrative_, vol. i. chap. ii. p.
34). The assault on the Turkish main camp was fixed for the 6th of May;
but, unfortunately, a chance skirmish brought on an engagement the day
before, in the course of which Karaiskakis was killed, an irreparable
loss in view of his prestige with the wild _armatoli_. The assault on
the following day was a disastrous failure. The Greeks, advancing
prematurely over broken ground and in no sort of order, were fallen upon
in flank by Reshid's horsemen, and fled in panic terror. The English
officers, who in vain tried to rally them, themselves only just escaped
by scrambling into their boats and putting off to the war-vessels, whose
guns checked the pursuit and enabled a remnant of the fugitives to
escape. Church held Munychia till the 27th, when he sent instructions
for the garrison of the Acropolis to surrender. On the 5th of June the
remnant of the defenders marched out with the honours of war, and
continental Greece was once more in the power of the Turks. Had Reshid
at once advanced over the Isthmus, the Morea also must have been
subdued; but he was jealous of Ibrahim, and preferred to return to
Iannina to consolidate his conquests.
Renewed anarchy.
The fate of Greece was now in the hands of the Powers, who after years
of diplomatic wrangling had at last realized that intervention was
necessary if Greece was to be saved for European civilization. The worst
enemy of the Greeks was their own incurable spirit of faction; in the
very crisis of their fate, during the siege of Missolonghi, rival
presidents and rival assemblies struggled for supremacy, and a third
civil war had only been prevented by the arrival of Cochrane and Church.
Under their influence a new National Assembly met at Troezene in March
1827 and elected as president Count Capo d'Istria (_q.v._), formerly
Russian minister for foreign affairs; at the same time a new
constitution was promulgated which, when the very life of the
insurrection seemed on the point of flickering out, set forth the full
ideal of Pan-Hellenic dreams. Anarchy followed; war of Rumeliotes
against Moreotes, of chief against chief; rival factions bombarded each
other from the two forts at Nauplia over the stricken town, and in
derision of the impotent government. Finally, after months of inaction,
Ibrahim began once more his systematic devastation of the country. To
put a stop to this the Powers decided to intervene by means of a joint
demonstration of their fleets, in order to enforce an armistice and
compel Ibrahim to evacuate the Morea (Treaty of London, July 6, 1827).
The refusal of Ibrahim to obey, without special instruction from the
sultan, led to the entrance of the allied British, French and Russian
fleet into the harbour of Navarino and the battle of the 20th of October
1827 (see NAVARINO). This, and the two campaigns of the Russo-Turkish
war of 1828-29, decided the issue.
AUTHORITIES.--There is no trustworthy history of the war, based on all
the material now available, and all the existing works must be read
with caution, especially those by eye-witnesses, who were too often
prejudiced or the dupes of the Greek factions. The best-known works
are: G. Finlay, _Hist. of the Greek Revolution_ (2 vols., London,
1861); T. Gordon, _Hist. of the Greek Revolution_ (London, 1833); C.
W. P. Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, _Geschichte Griechenlands_, &c.
(_Staatengeschichte der neuesten Zeit_) (2 vols., Leipzig, 1870-1874);
F. C. H. L. Pouqueville, _Histoire de la régénération de la Grèce,
&c._ (4 vols., Paris, 1824),--the author was French resident at the
court of Ali of Iannina and afterwards consul at Patras; Count A.
Prokesch-Osten, _Geschichte des Abfalls der Griechen vom türkischen
Reich, &c._ (6 vols., Vienna, 1867), the last four volumes consisting
of _pièces justificatives_ of much value. See also W. Alison Phillips,
_The War of Greek Independence_ (London and New York, 1897), a sketch
compiled mainly from the above-mentioned works: Spiridionos Tricoupi,
[Greek: Historia tês Hellênikês epanastaseôs] (Athens, 1853); J.
Philemon, [Greek: Dokimion historikon peri tês Hellênikês
epanastaseôs] (Athens, 1859), in four parts: (1) History of the
Hetaeria Philike, (2) The heralding of the war and the rising under
Ypsilanti, (3 and 4). The insurrection in Greece to 1822, with many
documents. Of great value also are the 29 volumes of Correspondence
and Papers of Sir Richard Church, now in the British Museum (Add MSS.
36,543-36,571). Among these is a Narrative by Church of the war in
Greece during his tenure of the command (vols. xxi.-xxiii., Nos.
36,563-36,565), which contains the material for correcting many errors
repeated in most works on the war, notably the strictures of Finlay
and others on Church's conduct before Athens. For further references
see the bibliography appended to W. Alison Phillips's chapter on
"Greece and the Balkan Peninsula" in the _Cambridge Modern History_,
x. 803. (W. A. P.)
GREEK LANGUAGE. Greek is one of the eight main branches into which the
Indo-European languages (q.v.) are divided. The area in which it is
spoken has been curiously constant throughout its recorded history.
These limits are, roughly speaking, the shores of the Aegean, on both
the European and the Asiatic side, and the intermediate islands (one of
the most archaic of Greek dialects being found on the eastern side in
the island of Cyprus), and the Greek peninsula generally from its
southern promontories as far as the mountains which shut in Thessaly on
the north. Beyond Mt. Olympus and the Cambunian mountains lay Macedonia,
in which a closely kindred dialect was spoken, so closely related,
indeed, that O. Hoffmann has argued (_Die Makedonen_, Göttingen, 1906)
that Macedonian is not only Greek, but a part of the great Aeolic
dialect which included Thessalian to the south and Lesbian to the east.
In the north-west, Greek included many rude dialects little known even
to the ancient Greeks themselves, and it extended northwards beyond
Aetolia and Ambracia to southern Epirus and Thesprotia. In the Homeric
age the great shrine of Pelasgian Zeus was at Dodona, but, by the time
of Thucydides, Aetolia and all north of it had come to be looked upon as
the most backward of Greek lands, where men lived a savage life,
speaking an almost unintelligible language, and eating raw flesh
([Greek: agnôstotatoi de glôssan kai ômophagoi], Thuc. iii. 94, of the
Aetolian Eurytanes). The Greeks themselves had no memory of how they
came to occupy this land. Their earliest legends connected the origin of
their race with Thessaly and Mt. Pindus, but Athenians and Arcadians
also boasted themselves of autochthonous race, inhabiting a country
wherein no man had preceded their ancestors. The Greek language, at any
rate as it has come down to us, is remarkably perfect, in vowel sounds
being the most primitive of any of the Indo-European languages, while
its verb system has no rival in completeness except in the earliest
Sanskrit of the Vedic literature. Its noun system, on the other hand, is
much less complete, its cases being more broken down than those of the
Aryan, Armenian, Slavonic and Italic families.
The most remarkable characteristic of Greek is one conditioned by the
geographical aspect of the land. Few countries are so broken up with
mountains as Greece. Not only do mountain ranges as elsewhere on the
European continent run east and west, but other ranges cross them from
north to south, thus dividing the portions of Greece at some distance
from the sea into hollows without outlet, every valley being separated
for a considerable part of the year from contact with every other, and
inter-communication at all seasons being rendered difficult. Thus till
external coercion from Macedon came into play it was never possible to
establish a great central government controlling the Greek mainland.
The geographical situation of the islands in the Aegean equally led to
the isolation of one little territory from another. To these
geographical considerations may be added the inveterate desire of the
Greeks to make the [Greek: polis], the city state, everywhere and at
all times an independent unit, a desire which, originating in the
geographical conditions, even accentuated the isolating effect of the
natural features of the country. Thus at one time in the little island
of Amorgos there were no less than three separate and independent
political units. The inevitable result of geographical and political
division was the maintenance of a great number of local
characteristics in language, differentiating in this respect also each
political community from its nearest neighbours. It was only natural
that the inhabitants of a country so little adapted to maintain a
numerous population should have early sent off swarms to other lands.
The earliest stage of colonization lies in the borderland between myth
and history. The Greeks themselves knew that a population had preceded
them in the islands of the Cyclades which they identified with the
Carians of Asia Minor (Herodotus i. 171; Thucydides i. 4. 8). The same
population indeed appears to have preceded them on the mainland of
Greece, for there are similar place-names in Caria and in Greece which
have no etymology in Greek. Thus the endings of words like Parnassus
and Halicarnassus seem identical, and the common ending of place-names
in -[Greek: inthos, Korinthos, Probalinthos], &c., seems to be the
same in origin with the common ending of Asiatic names in -_nda_,
Alinda, Karyanda, &c. Probably the earliest portion of Asia Minor to
be colonized by the Greeks was the north-west, to which came settlers
from Thessaly, when the early inhabitants were driven out by the
Thesprotians, who later controlled Thessaly. The name Aeolis, which
after times gave to the N.W. of Asia Minor, was the old name for
Thessaly (Hdt. vii. 176). These Thesprotians were of the same stock as
the Dorians, to whose invasion of the Peloponnese the later migration,
which carried the Ionians to Asia and the Cypriot Greeks to Cyprus, in
all probability was due. From the north Aegean probably the Dorians
reached Crete, where alone their existence is recorded by Homer
(_Odyssey_, xix. 175 ff.; Diodorus Siculus v. 80. 2); cp. Fick,
_Vorgriechische Ortsnamen_ (1906).
Among the Greeks of the pre-Dorian period Herodotus distinguishes
various stocks. Though the name is not Homeric, both Herodotus and
Thucydides recognize an Aeolian stock which must have spread over
Thessaly and far to the west till it was suppressed and absorbed by
the Dorian stock which came in from the north-west. The name of Aeolis
still attached in Thucydides' time to the western area of Calydon
between the mountains and the N. side of the entrance to the
Corinthian gulf (iii. 102). In Boeotia the same stock survived (Thuc.
vii. 57. 5), overlaid by an influx of Dorians, and it came down to the
isthmus; for the Corinthians, though speaking in historical times a
Doric dialect, were originally Aeolians (Thuc. iv. 42). In the
Peloponnese Herodotus recognizes (viii. 73) three original stocks, the
Arcadians, the Ionians of Cynuria, and the Achaeans. In Arcadia there
is little doubt that the pre-Dorian population maintained itself and
its language, just as in the mountains of Wales, the Scottish
Highlands and Connemara the Celtic language has maintained itself
against the Saxon invaders. By Herodotus' time the Cynurians had been
doricized, while the Ionians, along the south side of the Corinthian
gulf, were expelled by the Achaeans (vii. 94, viii. 73), apparently
themselves driven from their own homes by the Dorian invasion (Strabo
viii. p. 333 _fin_.). However this may be, the Achaeans of historical
times spoke a dialect akin to that of northern Elis and of the Greeks
on the north side of the Corinthian gulf. How close the relation may
have been between the language of the Achaeans of the Peloponnese in
the Homeric age and their contemporaries in Thessaly we have no means
of ascertaining definitely, the documentary evidence for the history
of the dialects being all very much later than Homeric times. Even in
the Homeric catalogue Agamemnon has to lend the Arcadians ships to
take them to Troy (_Iliad_, ii. 612). But a population speaking the
same or a very similar dialect was probably seated on the eastern
coast, and migrated at the beginning of the Doric invasion to Cyprus.
As this population wrote not in the Greek alphabet but in a peculiar
syllabary and held little communication with the rest of the Greek
world, it succeeded in preserving in Cyprus a very archaic dialect
very closely akin to that of Arcadia, and also containing a
considerable number of words found in the Homeric vocabulary but lost
or modified in later Greek elsewhere.
On this historical foundation alone is it possible to understand
clearly the relation of the dialects in historical times. The
prehistoric movements of the Greek tribes can to some extent be
realized in their dialects, as recorded in their inscriptions, though
all existing inscriptions belong to a much later period. Thus from the
ancient Aeolis of northern Greece sprang the historical dialects of
Thessaly and Lesbos with the neighbouring coast of Asia Minor. At an
early period the Dorians had invaded and to some extent affected the
character of the southern Thessalian and to a much greater extent that
of the Boeotian dialect. The dialects of Locris, Phocis and Aetolia
were a somewhat uncouth and unliterary form of Doric. According to
accepted tradition, Elis had been colonized by Oxylus the Aetolian,
and the dialect of the more northerly part of Elis, as already pointed
out, is, along with the Achaean of the south side of the Corinthian
gulf, closely akin to those dialects north of the Isthmus. The most
southerly part of Elis--Triphylia--has a dialect akin to Arcadian.
Apart from Arcadian the other dialects of the Peloponnese in
historical times are all Doric, though in small details they differ
among themselves. Though we are unable to check the statements of the
historians as to the area occupied by Ionic in prehistoric times, it
is clear from the legends of the close connexion between Athens and
Troezen that the same dialect, had been spoken on both sides of the
Saronic gulf, and may well have extended, as Herodotus says, along the
eastern coast of the Peloponnese and the south side of the Corinthian
gulf. According to legend, the Ionians expelled from the Peloponnese
collected at Athens before they started on their migrations to the
coast of Asia Minor. Be that as it may, legend and language alike
connected the Athenians with the Ionians, though by the 5th century
B.C. the Athenians no longer cared to be known by the name (Hdt. i.
143). Lemnos, Imbros and Scyros, which had long belonged to Athens,
were Athenian also in language. The great island of Euboea and all the
islands of the central Aegean between Greece and Asia were Ionic.
Chios, the most northerly Ionic island on the Asiatic coast, seems to
have been originally Aeolic, and its Ionic retained some Aeolic
characteristics. The most southerly of the mainland towns which were
originally Aeolic was Smyrna, but this at an early date became Ionic
(Hdt. i. 149). The last important Ionic town to the south was Miletus,
but at an early period Ionic widened its area towards the south also
and took in Halicarnassus from the Dorians. According to Herodotus,
there were four kinds of Ionic ([Greek: charaktêres glôssês tesseres],
i. 142). Herodotus tells us the areas in which these dialects were
spoken, but nothing of the differences between them. They were (1)
Samos, (2) Chios and Erythrae, (3) the towns in Lydia, (4) the towns
in Caria. The language of the inscriptions unfortunately is a [Greek:
koinê], a conventional literary language which reveals no differences
of importance. Only recently has the characteristic so well known in
Herodotus of [kappa] appearing in certain words where other dialects
have [pi] ([Greek: hokôs] for [Greek: hopôs, kou] for [Greek: pou],
&c.) been found in any inscription. It is, however, clear that this
was a popular characteristic not considered to be sufficiently
dignified for official documents. We may conjecture that the native
languages spoken on the Lydian and Carian coasts had affected the
character of the language spoken by the Greek immigrants, more
especially as the settlers from Athens married Carian women, while the
settlers in the other towns were a mixture of Greek tribes, many of
them not Ionic at all (Hdt. i. 146).
The more southerly islands of the Aegean and the most southerly
peninsula of Asia Minor were Doric. In the Homeric age Dorians were
only one of many peoples in Crete, but in historical times, though the
dialects of the eastern and the western ends of the island differ from
one another and from the middle whence our most valuable documents
come, all are Doric. By Melos and Thera Dorians carried their language
to Cos, Calymnus, Cnidus and Rhodes.
These settlements, Aeolic, Ionic and Doric, grew and prospered, and
like flourishing hives themselves sent out fresh swarms to other
lands. Most prosperous and energetic of all was Miletus, which
established its trading posts in the Black Sea to the north and in the
delta of the Nile (Naucratis) to the south. The islands also sent off
their colonies, carrying their dialects with them, Paros to Thasos,
Euboea to the peninsulas of Chalcidice; the Dorians of Megara guarded
the entrance to the Black Sea at Chalcedon and Byzantium. While
Achaean influence spread out to the more southerly Ionian islands,
Corinth carried her dialect with her colonies to the coast of
Acarnania, Leucas and Corcyra. But the greatest of all Corinthian
colonies was much farther to the west--at Syracuse in Sicily.
Unfortunately the continuous occupation of the same or adjacent sites
has led to the loss of almost all that is early from Corinth and from
Syracuse. Corcyra has bequeathed to us some interesting grave
inscriptions from the 6th century B.C. Southern Italy and Sicily were
early colonized by Greeks. According to tradition Cumae was founded
not long after the Trojan War; even if we bring the date nearer the
founding of Syracuse in 735 B.C., we have apparently no record earlier
than the first half of the 5th century B.C., though it is still the
earliest of Chalcidian inscriptions. Tarentum was a Laconian
foundation, but the longest and most important document from a
Laconian colony in Italy comes from Heraclea about the end of the 4th
century B.C.--the report of a commission upon and the lease of temple
lands with description and conditions almost of modern precision. To
Achaea belonged the south Italian towns of Croton, Metapontum and
Sybaris. The ancestry of the Greek towns of Sicily has been explained
by Thucydides (vi. 2-5). Selinus, a colony of Megara, betrays its
origin in its dialect. Gela and Agrigentum no less clearly show their
descent from Rhodes. According to tradition the great city of Cyrene
in Africa was founded from Thera, itself an offshoot from Sparta.
CHIEF CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GREEK DIALECTS
1. _Arcadian and Cyprian._--As Cyprian was written in a syllabary
which could not represent a consonant by itself, did not distinguish
between voiced, unvoiced and aspirated consonants, did not represent
at all a nasal before another consonant, and did not distinguish
between long and short vowels, the interpretation of the symbols is of
the nature of a conundrum and the answer is not always certain. Thus
the same combination of two symbols would have to stand for [Greek:
tote, tode, dote, dothê, tonde, tôde, to, dê]. No inscription of more
than a few words in length is found in either dialect earlier than the
5th century B.C. In both dialects the number of important inscriptions
is steadily increasing. Both dialects change final [omicron] to
[upsilon], [Greek: apo] passing into [Greek: apy]. Arcadian changes
the verb ending -[Greek: ai] into -[Greek: oi]. Arcadian uses [delta]
or [zeta] for an original _gw_-sound, which appears in Attic Greek as
[beta]: [Greek: zellô], Attic [Greek: ballô], "throw." In inflexion
both agree in changing -[Greek: ao] of masculine -[alpha] stems into
[Greek: au] (Arcadian carries this form also into the feminine
-[alpha] stems), and in using locatives in -[Greek: ai] and -[Greek:
oi] for the dative, such locatives being governed by the prepositions
[Greek: apy] and [Greek: ex] (before a consonant [Greek: es] in
Arcadian). Verbs in -[Greek: aô], -[Greek: eô] and -[Greek: oô] are
declined not as -[omega], but as -[Greek: mi] verbs. The final [iota]
of the ending of the 3rd plural present changes the preceding [tau] to
[sigma]: [Greek: pheronsi], cp. Laconian (Doric) [Greek: pheronti],
Attic [Greek: pherousi], Lesbian [Greek: pheroisi]. Instead of the
Attic [Greek: tis], the interrogative pronoun appears as [Greek: sis],
the initial [sigma] in Arcadian being written with a special symbol
[koppa]. The pronunciation is not certain. The original sound was
_qw_, as in Latin _quis_, whence Attic [Greek: tis] and Thessalian
[Greek: kis]. In Arcadian [Greek: kan] the Aeolic particle [Greek: ke]
and the Ionic [Greek: an] seem to be combined.
2. _Aeolic._--Though Boeotian is overlaid with a Doric element, it
nevertheless agrees with Thessalian and Lesbian in some
characteristics. Unlike Greek generally, they represent the original
_qw_ of the word for _four_ by [pi] before [epsilon], where Attic and
other dialects have [tau]: [Greek: pettares], Attic [Greek: tettares].
The corresponding voiced and aspirated sounds are similarly treated:
[Greek: Belphaios] the adjective in Thessalian to [Greek: Delphoi],
and [Greek: phêr] for [Greek: thêr]. They all tend to change [omicron]
to [upsilon]: [Greek: onyma], "name"; [Greek: ou] for [omega] in
Thessalian: [Greek: Aploun], "Apollo"; and [upsilon] in Boeotian for
[Greek: oi]: [Greek: wukia] ([Greek: oikia]), "house." They also make
the dative plural of the third declension in -[Greek: essi], and the
perfect participle active is declined like a present participle in
-[Greek: ôn]. Instead of the Athenian method of giving the father's
name in the genitive when a citizen is described, these dialects
(especially Thessalian) tend to make an adjective: thus instead of the
Attic [Greek: Dêmosthenês Dêmosthenous], Aeolic would rather have
[Greek: D. Dêmostheneios]. Thessalian stands midway between Lesbian
and Boeotian, agreeing with Lesbian in the use of double consonants,
where Attic has a single consonant, with or without lengthening of the
previous syllable: [Greek: emmi], Attic [Greek: eimi] for an original
*_esmi_; [Greek: stalla], Attic [Greek: stêlê]; [Greek: xennos] for an
earlier [Greek: xenwos], Attic [Greek: xenos], Ionic [Greek: xeinos],
Doric [Greek: xênos]. Where Attic has -[Greek: as] from an earlier
-[Greek: ans] or -[Greek: ants], Lesbian has -[Greek: ais]: [Greek:
tais archais] accusative in Lesbian for older [Greek: tans archans].
Lesbian has no oxyton words according to the grammarians, the accent
being carried back to the penult or ante-*penultimate syllable. It has
also no "rough breathing," but this characteristic it shared with the
Ionic of Asia Minor, and in the course of time with other dialects.
The characteristic particle of the dialects is [Greek: ke], which is
used like the Doric [Greek: ka], the Arcadian [Greek: kan], and the
Attic and Ionic [Greek: an]. Thessalian and Lesbian agree in making
their long vowels close, [eta] belonging [Greek: ei] (a close _e_, not
a diphthong), [Greek: pateir], "father." The [upsilon] sound did not
become _ü_ as in Attic and Ionic, and hence when the Ionic alphabet
was introduced it was spelt [Greek: ou], or when in contact with
dentals [Greek: iou], as in [Greek: oniouma = onyma], "name," [Greek:
tioucha = tychê], "chance"; the pronunciation, therefore, must have
been like the English sound in _news_, _tune_. Boeotian developed
earlier than other dialects the changes in the vowels which
characterize modern Greek: [Greek: ai] became _e_, [Greek: kai]
passing into [Greek: kê]: compare [Greek: pateir] and [Greek: wukia]
above: [Greek: ei] became [iota] in [Greek: echi], "has." Thessalian
shows some examples of the Homeric genitive in -[Greek: oio:
polemoio], &c.; its ordinary genitive of [omicron]- stems is in
-[Greek: oi].
There are some points of connexion between this group and
Arcadian-Cyprian: in both Thessalian and Cyprian the characteristic
[Greek: ptolis] (Attic, &c., [Greek: polis]) and [Greek: dauchna]- for
[Greek: daphnê] are found, and both groups form the "contracting
verbs" not in -[omega] but in -[Greek: mi]. In the second group as in
the first there is little that precedes the 5th century B.C. Future
additions to our materials may be expected to lessen the gap between
the two groups and Homer.
3. _Ionic-Attic._--One of the earliest of Greek inscriptions--of the
7th century, at least--is the Attic inscription written in two lines
from right to left upon a wine goblet ([Greek: oinochoê]) given as a
prize: [Greek: hos nun orcheston panton | atalotata paizei toto dekan
min]. The last words are uncertain. Till lately early inscriptions in
Ionic were few, but recently an early inscription has been found at
Ephesus and a later copy of a long early inscription at Miletus.
The most noticeable characteristic of Attic and Ionic is the change of
[alpha] into [eta] which is universal in Ionic but does not appear in
Attic after another vowel or [rho]. Thus both dialects used [Greek:
mêtêr, timê] from an earlier [Greek: matêr, tima], but Attic had
[Greek: sophia, pragma] and [Greek: chôra], not [Greek: sophiê,
prêgma] and [Greek: chôrê] as in Ionic. The apparent exception [Greek:
korê] is explained by the fact that in this word a digamma [digamma]
has been lost after [rho], in Doric [Greek: korwa]. That the change
took place after the Ionians came into Asia is shown by the word
[Greek: Mêdoi], which in Cyprian is [Greek: Madoi]; the Medes were
certainly not known to the Greeks till long after the conquest of
Ionia. While Aeolic and the greater part of Doric kept [digamma], this
symbol and the sound _w_ represented by it had disappeared from both
Ionic and Attic before existing records begin--in other words, were
certainly not in use after 800 B.C. The symbol was known and occurs in
a few isolated instances. Both dialects agreed in changing _u_ into
_ü_, so that a _u_ sound has to be represented by [Greek: ou]. The
short _o_ tended towards _u_, so that the contraction of [omicron] +
[omicron] gave [Greek: ou]. In the same way short _e_ tended towards
_i_, so that the contraction of [epsilon] + [epsilon] gave [Greek:
ei], which was not a diphthong but a close _e_-sound. In Attic Greek
these contractions were represented by O and E respectively till the
official adoption of the Ionic alphabet at Athens in 403 B.C. So also
were the lengthened syllables which represent in their length the loss
of an earlier consonant, as [Greek: emeina] and [Greek: eneima],
Aeolic [Greek: emenna, enemma], which stand for a prehistoric *[Greek:
emensa] and *[Greek: enemsa], containing the -[sigma]- of the first
aorist, and [Greek: tous, oikous, echousi] representing an earlier
[Greek: tons, oikons, echonti] (3 pl. present) or *[Greek: echontsi]
(dative pl. of present participle). Both dialects also agreed in
changing [tau] before [iota] into [sigma] (like Aeolic), as in [Greek:
echousi] above, and in the 3rd person singular of -[Greek: mi] verbs,
[Greek: tithêsi, didôsi], &c., and in noun stems, as in [Greek: dosis]
for an earlier *[Greek: dotis]. Neither dialect used the particle
[Greek: ke] or [Greek: ka], but both have [Greek: an] instead. One of
the effects of the change of [alpha] into [eta] was that the
combination [Greek: ao] changed in both dialects to [Greek: êo], which
in all Attic records and in the later Ionic has become [Greek: eô] by
a metathesis in the quantity of the vowels: [Greek: naos], earlier
[Greek: nawos], "temple," is in Homeric Greek [Greek: nêos], in later
Ionic and Attic [Greek: neôs]. In the dative (locative) plural of the
-[alpha] stems, Ionic has generally -[Greek: êisi] on the analogy of
the singular; Attic had first the old locative form in -[Greek: êsi],
-[Greek: asi], which survived in forms which became adverbs like
[Greek: Athênêsi] and [Greek: thurasi]; but after 420 B.C. these were
replaced by -[Greek: ais, thurais], &c. The Ionic of Asia Minor showed
many changes earlier than that of the Cyclades and Euboea. It lost the
aspirate very early: hence in the Ionic alphabet H is _e_, not _h_; it
changed [Greek: au] and [Greek: eu] into [Greek: ao] and [Greek: eo],
and very early replaced to a large extent the -[Greek: mi] by the
-[omega] verbs. This confusion can be seen in progress in the Attic
literature of the 5th and 4th centuries B.C., [Greek: deiknymi]
gradually giving way to [Greek: deiknyô], while the literature
generally uses forms like [Greek: ephiei] for [Greek: ephiê] (impft.).
In Attica also the aspiration which survived in the Ionic of Euboea
and the Cyclades ceased by the end of the 5th century. The Ionic of
Asia Minor has -[Greek: ios] as the genitive of _o_-stems; the other
forms of Ionic have -[Greek: idos].
4. _Doric._--As already mentioned, the dialects of the North-West
differ in several respects from Doric elsewhere. As general
characteristics of Doric may be noted the contractions of [alpha] +
[epsilon] into [eta], and of [alpha] + [omicron] or [omega] into
[alpha], while the results in Attic and Ionic of these contractions
are [alpha] and [omega] respectively: [Greek: enikê] from [Greek:
nikaô], Attic [Greek: enika; timames] 1 pl. pres. from [Greek: timaô],
Attic [Greek: timômen; timan] gen. pl. of [Greek: tima] "honour,"
Attic [Greek: timôn]. In inflection the most noticeable points are the
pronominal adverbs in locative form: [Greek: toutei, tênei] (this from
a stem limited to a few Doric dialects and the Bucolic Poets), [Greek:
teide, hopei], &c.; the nom. pl. of the article [Greek: toi, tai], not
[Greek: hoi, hai] and so [Greek: toutoi] in Selinus and Rhodes; the
1st pl. of the verb in -[Greek: mes], not in -[Greek: men], cp. the
Latin -_mus_; the aorist and future in -[xi]-, where other dialects
have -[sigma]-, or contraction from presents in-[Greek: zô]; dikazô,
dikasô], Doric [Greek: dikaxô], &c.; the future passive with active
endings, [Greek: epimelêthêseunti] (Rhodes), found as yet only in the
Doric islands and in the Doric prose of Archimedes; the particles
[Greek: ai] "if" and [Greek: ka] with a similar value to the Aeolic
[Greek: ke] and the Attic-Ionic [Greek: an]. Doric had an accentuation
system different both from Aeolic and from Ionic-Attic, but the
details of the system are very imperfectly known.
In older works Doric is often divided into a _dialectus severior_ and
a _dialectus mitis_. But the difference is one of time rather than of
place, the peculiarities of Doric being gradually softened down till
it was ultimately merged in the _lingua franca_, the [Greek: koinê],
which in time engulfed all the local dialects except the descendant of
Spartan, Tzakonian. Here it is possible to mention its varieties only
in the briefest form. (a) The southern dialects are well illustrated
in the inscriptions of Laconia recently much increased in number by
the excavations of the British School at Athens. Apart from some brief
dedications, the earliest inscription of importance is the list of
names placed on a bronze column soon after 479 B.C. to commemorate the
tribes which had repulsed the Persians. The column, originally at
Delphi, is now at Constantinople. The most striking features of the
dialect are the retention of [digamma] at the beginning of words, as
in the dedication from the 6th century [Greek: wanaxibios] (_Annual of
British School_, xiv. 144). The dialect changed -[sigma]- between
vowels into -h-, [Greek: môha] for [Greek: môsa] "muse." Later it
changed [theta] into a sound like the English _th_, which was
represented by [sigma]. Before o-sounds [epsilon] here and in some
other Doric dialects changed to [iota]: [Greek: thios, sios] for
[Greek: theos] "god." The result of contraction and "compensatory
lengthening" was not [Greek: ei] and [Greek: ou] as in Attic and
Ionic, but [eta] and [omega]: [Greek: êmen] infinitive = [Greek:
einai] from *esmen; gen. sing. of _o_-stems in [omega]: [Greek: theô],
acc. pl. in -[Greek: ôs: theôs]; dy was represented by [Greek: dd],
not [zeta], as in Attic-Ionic; [Greek: musidde = muthize]. The dialect
has many strange words, especially in connexion with the state
education and organization of the boys and young men. The Heraclean
tables from a Laconian colony in S. Italy have curious forms in
-[Greek: assi] for the dat. pl. of the participle [Greek:
prassontassi] = Attic [Greek: prattousi]. Of the dialect of Messenia
we know little, the long inscription about mysteries from Andania
being only about 100 B.C. From Argolis there are a considerable number
of early inscriptions, and in a later form of the dialect the cures
recorded at the temple of Asklepios at Epidaurus present many points
of interest. There is also an inscription of the 6th century B.C. from
the temple of Aphaia in Aegina. [Digamma] survives in the old
inscriptions: [Greek: wewremena (= eirêmena); ns], whether original or
arising by sound change from -_nty_, persists till the 2nd century
B.C.: [Greek: hantitychonsa = hê antitychousa, tons huions = tous
huious]. The dialect of the Inachus valley seems to resemble Laconian
more closely than does that of the rest of the Argolic area. Corinth
and her colonies in the earliest inscriptions preserve [Digamma] and
[qoppa] (= Latin Q) before [omicron] and [upsilon] sounds, and write
[xi] and [psi] by [Greek: chs] and [Greek: phs], the symbols which are
used also for this purpose in old Attic. In the Corcyrean and Sicilian
forms of the dialect, [lambda] before a dental appears as [nu]:
[Greek: Phintias = Philtias]; and in Sicilian the perfect-active was
treated as a present: [Greek: dedoikô] for [Greek: dedoika], &c. From
Megara has come lately an obscure inscription from the beginning of
the 5th century; its colony Selinus has inscriptions from the middle
of the same century; the inscriptions from Byzantium and its other
Pontic colonies date only from Hellenistic times. In Crete, which
shows a considerable variety of subdialects, the most important
document is the great inscription from Gortyn containing twelve tables
of family law, which was discovered in 1884. The local alphabet has no
separate symbols for [chi] and [phi], and these sounds are therefore
written with [kappa] and [pi]. As in Argive the combination -[Greek:
ns] was kept both medially and finally except before words beginning
with a consonant; -_ty_- was represented by [zeta], later by -[Greek:
tt]-, as in Thessalian and Boeotian: [Greek: hopottoi], Attic [Greek:
hoposoi]; and finally by -[Greek: tt]-; [lambda] combined with a
preceding vowel into an au-diphthong: [Greek: auka], Attic [Greek:
alkê], cp. the English pronunciation of _talk_, &c. In Gortyn and
some other towns -[Greek: st]--was assimilated to--[Greek: tt], where
[theta] must have been a spirant like the English _th_ in _thin_;
[zeta] of Attic Greek is represented initially by [delta], medially by
[Greek: dd], but in some towns by [tau] and [Greek: tt: doos (= zôos),
dikadden (= dikazein)]. Final consonants are generally assimilated to
the beginning of the next word. In inflection there are many local
peculiarities. In Melos and Thera some very old inscriptions have been
found written in an alphabet without symbols for [phi], [chi], [phi],
[xi], which are therefore written as [pi]h, [kappa]h or [koppa]h,
[Greek: ps, ks]. The contractions of [epsilon] + [epsilon] and of
[omicron] + [omicron] are represented by E and O respectively. The old
rock inscriptions of Thera are among the most archaic yet discovered.
The most characteristic feature of Rhodian Doric is the infinitive in
-[Greek: mein: domein], &c. (= Attic [Greek: dounai]), which passed
also to Gela and Agrigentum. The inscriptions from Cos are numerous,
but too late to represent the earliest form of the dialect.
(b) The dialects of N.W. Doric, Locrian, Phocian, Aetolian, with which
go Elean and Achaean, present a more uncouth appearance than the other
Doric dialects except perhaps Cretan. Only from Locris and Phocis come
fairly old inscriptions; later a [Greek: koinê] was developed, in
which the documents of the Aetolian league are written, and of which
the most distinctive mark is the dative plural of consonant stems in
-[Greek: ois: archontois] (= Attic [Greek: archousi]), [Greek:
agônois] (= Attic [Greek: agôsi]), &c. Phocian and the Locrian of Opus
have also forms like Aeolic in -[Greek: essi]. In place of the dative
in -[omega], locatives in -[Greek: oi] are used in Locrian and
Phocian. Generally north of the Corinthian gulf the middle present
participle from -[Greek: eô]-verbs ends in-[Greek: eimenos]; similar
forms are found also in Elean. Locrian changed [epsilon] before [rho]
into [alpha]: [Greek: patara] for [Greek: patera]; cf. English _Kerr_
and _Carr_, _sergeant_ and _Sargeaunt_. [Greek: st] appears for
[Greek: st], and [koppa] and [Digamma] are still much in use in the
5th century B.C. Many thousands of inscriptions were found in the
French excavations at Delphi, but nothing earlier than the 5th century
B.C. In the older inscriptions the Aeolic influence--datives in
-[Greek: essi, onyma] for [Greek: onoma]--is better marked than later.
In the Laws of the Labyad phratry (about 400 B.C.) the genitive is in
[Greek: ou], but a form in -[omega] is also found, [Greek: woikô],
which seems to be an old ablative fossilized as an adverb. The nom.
pl. [Greek: dekatetores] is used for the acc.; similar forms are found
in Elean and Achaean.
The more important of the older materials for Achaean come from the
Achaean colonies of S. Italy, and being scanty give us only an
imperfect view of the dialect, but it is clearly in its main features
Doric. Much more remarkable is the Elean dialect known chiefly from
inscriptions found at Olympia, some of which are as early as the
beginning of the 6th century. The native dialect was replaced first by
a Doric and then by the Attic [Greek: koinê], but under the Caesars
the archaic dialect was restored. Many of its characteristics it
shares with the dialects north of the Corinthian gulf, but it changes
original [epsilon] to [alpha]: [Greek: ma = mê], &c.; [delta] was
apparently a spirant, as in modern Greek (= _th_ in English _the_,
_thine_), and is represented by [zeta] in some of the earliest
inscriptions. Final -[sigma] became -[rho]; this is found also in
Laconian; -_ty_- became -[Greek: ss]-, but was not simplified as in
Attic to -[sigma]-: [Greek: ossa] = Attic [Greek: hosa].
As we have seen, Ionians, Aetolians and Dorians tended to level local
peculiarities and make a generally intelligible dialect in which
treaties and other important records were framed. The language of
literature is always of necessity to some extent a [Greek: koinê]:
with some Greek writers the use of a [Greek: koinê] was especially
necessary. The local dialect of Boeotia was not easily intelligible in
other districts, and a writer like Pindar, whose patrons were mostly
not Boeotians, had perforce to write in a dialect that they could
understand. Hence he writes in a conventional Doric with Aeolic
elements, which forms a strong contrast to that of Corinna, who kept
more or less closely to the Boeotian dialect. For different literary
purposes Greek had different [Greek: koinai]. A poet who would write
an epic must adopt a form of language modelled on that of Homer and
Hesiod; Alcaeus and Sappho were the models for the love lyric, which
was therefore Aeolic; Stesichorus was the founder of the triumphal
ode, which, as he was a Dorian of Sicily, must henceforth be in Doric,
though Pindar was an Aeolian, and its other chief representatives,
Simonides and Bacchylides, were Ionians from Ceos. The choral ode of
tragedy was always conventional Doric, and in the iambics also are
Doric words like [Greek: draô, laô], &c. Elegy and epigram were
founded on epic; the satirical iambics of Hipponax and his late
disciple Herondas are Ionic. The first Greek prose was developed in
Ionia, of which an excellent example has been preserved to us in
Herodotus. Thucydides was not an Ionian, but he could not shake
himself free of the tradition: he therefore writes [Greek: prassô,
tassô], &c., with -[Greek: ss]-, which was Ionic, but is never found
in Attic inscriptions nor in the writers who imitate the language of
common life--Aristophanes (when not parodying tragedy, or other forms
of literature or dialect), Plato and the Orators (with the partial
exception of Antiphon, who ordinarily has -[Greek: ss]-, but in the
one speech actually intended for the law-courts -[Greek: tt]-).
Similarly Hippocrates and his medical school in Cos wrote in Ionic,
not, however, in the Ionic of Herodotus, but in a language more akin
to the Ionic [Greek: koinê] of the inscriptions; and this dialect
continued to be used in medicine later, much as doctors now use Latin
for their prescriptions. The first literary document written in Attic
prose is the treatise on the _Constitution of Athens_, which is
generally printed amongst the minor works of Xenophon, but really
belongs to about 425 B.C. From the fragment of Aristophanes'
_Banqueters_ and from the first speech of Lysias "Against
Theomnestos" it is clear that the Attic dialect had changed rapidly in
the 6th and 5th centuries B.C., and that much of the phraseology of
Solon's laws was no longer intelligible by 400 B.C. Among the most
difficult of the literary dialects to trace is the earliest--the
Homeric dialect. The Homeric question cannot be discussed here, and on
that question it may be said _quot homines tot sententiae_. To the
present writer, however, it seems probable that the poems were
composed in Chios as tradition asserted; the language contains many
Aeolisms, and the heroes sung are, except for the Athenians (very
briefly referred to), and possibly Telamonian Ajax, not of the Ionic
stock. Chios was itself an Ionicized Aeolic colony (Diodorus v. 81.
7). The hypothesis of a great poet writing on the basis of earlier
Aeolic lays ([Greek: klea andrôn]) in Chios seems to explain the main
peculiarities of the Homeric language, which, however, was modified to
some extent in later times first under Ionic and afterwards under
Athenian influence.
Of Dorian literature we know little. The works of Archimedes written
in the Syracusan dialect were much altered in language by the late
copyists. The most striking development of the late classical age in
Doric lands is that of pastoral poetry, which, like Spenser, is "writ
in no language," but, on a basis of Syracusan and possibly Coan Doric,
has in its structure many elements borrowed from the Aeolic love lyric
and from epic.
From the latter part of the 5th century B.C. Athens became ever more
important as a literary centre, and Attic prose became the model for
the later [Greek: koinê], which grew up as a consequence of the decay
of the local dialects. For this decay there were several reasons. If
the Athenian empire had survived the Peloponnesian War, Attic
influence would no doubt soon have permeated the whole of that empire.
This consummation was postponed. Attic became the court language of
Macedon, and, when Alexander's conquests led to the foundation of
great new towns, like Alexandria, filled with inhabitants from all
parts of the Greek world, this dialect furnished a basis for common
intercourse. Naturally the resultant dialect was not pure Attic. There
were in it considerable traces of Ionic. In Attica itself the dialect
was less uniform than elsewhere even in the 5th century B.C., because
Athens was a centre of empire, literature and commerce. Like every
other language which is not under the dominion of the schoolmaster, it
borrowed the names of foreign objects which it imported from foreign
lands, not only from those of Greek-speaking peoples, but also from
Egypt, Persia, Lydia, Phoenicia, Thrace and elsewhere. The Ionians
were great seafarers, and from them Athens borrowed words for seacraft
and even for the tides: [Greek: amtôtis] "ebb," [Greek: rhachia] "high
tide," an Ionic word [Greek: rhêchiê] spelt in Attic fashion. From the
Dorians it borrowed words connected with war and sport: [Greek:
lochagos, kunagos], &c. A soldier of fortune like Xenophon, who spent
most of his life away from Athens, introduced not only strange words
but strange grammatical constructions also into his literary
compositions. With Aristotle, not a born Athenian but long resident in
Athens, the [Greek: koinê] may be said to have begun. Some
characteristics of Attic foreigners found it hard to acquire--its
subtle use of particles and its accent. Hence in Hellenistic Greek
particles are comparatively rare. According to Cicero, Theophrastus,
who came from as near Attica as Eretria in Euboea, was easily detected
by a market-woman as no Athenian after he had lived thirty years in
Athens. Thoucritus, an Athenian, who was taken prisoner in the
Peloponnesian War and lived for many years in Epirus as a slave, was
unable to recover the Athenian accent on his return, and his family
lay under the suspicion that they were an alien's children, as his son
tells us in Demosthenes' speech "Against Eubulides." In the [Greek:
koinê] there were several divisions, though the line between them is
faint and irregular. There was a [Greek: koinê] of literary men like
Polybius and of carefully prepared state documents, as at Magnesia or
Pergamum; and a different [Greek: koinê] of the vulgar which is
represented to us in its Egyptian form in the Pentateuch, in a later
and at least partially Palestinian form in the Gospels. Still more
corrupt is the language which we find in the ill-written and ill-spelt
private letters found amongst the Egyptian papyri. Not out of the old
dialects but out of this [Greek: koinê] arose modern Greek, with a
variety of dialects no less bewildering than that of ancient Greek. In
one place more rapidly, in another more slowly, the characteristics of
modern Greek begin to appear. As we have seen, in Boeotia the vowels
and diphthongs began to pass into the characteristic sounds of modern
Greek four centuries before Christ. Dorian dialects illustrate early
the passing of the old aspirate [Greek: th], the sound of which was
like the final t in English _bit_, into a sound like the English _th_
in _thin_, _pith_, which it still retains in modern Greek. The change
of [gamma] between vowels into a y sound was charged by the comic
poets against Hyperbolus the demagogue about 415 B.C. Only when the
Attic sound changes stood isolated amongst the Greek dialects did they
give way in the [Greek: koinê] to Ionic. Thus the forms with -[Greek:
ss]- instead of -[Greek: tt]- won the day, while modern Greek shows
that sometimes the -[Greek: rr]- which Attic shared with some Doric
dialects and Arcadian was retained, and that sometimes the Ionic
-[Greek: rs]-, which was also Lesbian and partly Doric, took its
place. In other cases, where Ionic and Attic did not agree, forms came
in which were different from either: the genitives of masculine a
stems were now formed as in Doric with [alpha], but the analogy of the
other cases may have been the effective force. The form [Greek: naos]
"temple," instead of Ionic [Greek: nêos], Attic [Greek: neôs], can
only be Doric.[1] In the first five centuries of the Christian era
came in the modern Greek characteristics of Itacism and vowel
contraction, of the pronunciation of [Greek: mp] and [Greek: nt] as
_mb_ and _nd_ and many other sound changes, the loss of the dative and
the confusion of the 1st with the 3rd declension, the dropping of the
-[Greek: mi] conjugation, the loss of the optative and the
assimilation of the imperfect and second aorist endings to those of
the first aorist.[2] There were meantime spasmodic attempts at the
revival of the old language. Lucian wrote Attic dialogue with a
facility almost equal to Plato; the old dialect was revived in the
inscriptions of Sparta; Balbilla, a lady-in-waiting on Hadrian's
empress, wrote epigrams in Aeolic, and there were other attempts of
the same kind. But they were only _tours de force_, [Greek: kêpoi
Adônidos], whose flowers had no root in the spoken language and
therefore could not survive. Even in the hands of a cultivated man
like Plutarch the [Greek: koinê] of the 1st century A.D. looks
entirely different from Attic Greek. Apart from non-Attic
constructions, which are not very numerous, the difference consists
largely in the new vocabulary of the philosophical schools since
Aristotle, whose jargon had become part of the language of educated
men in Plutarch's time, and made a difference in the language not
unlike that which has been brought about in English by the development
of the natural sciences. It is hardly necessary to say that these
changes, whether of the [Greek: koinê] or of modern Greek, did not of
necessity impair the powers of the language as an organ of expression;
if elaborate inflection were a necessity for the highest literary
merit, then we must prefer Cædmon to Milton and Cynewulf to
Shakespeare.
_The Chief Characteristics of Greek._
As is obvious from the foregoing account of the Greek dialects, it is
not possible to speak of the early history of Greek as handed down to
us as that of a single uniform tongue. From the earliest times it
shows much variety of dialect accentuated by the geographical
characteristics of the country, but arising, at least in part, from
the fact that the Greeks came into the country in separate waves
divided from one another by centuries. For the history of the language
it is necessary to take as a beginning the form of the Indo-European
language from which Greek descended, so far as it can be reconstructed
from a comparison of the individual I.E. languages (see ANDO-EUROPEAN
LANGUAGES). The sounds of this language, so far as at present
ascertained, were the following:--
(a) 11 vowels: _a_, _a_, _e_, _e_, _i_, _i_, _o_, _o_, _u_, _u_,
_[schwa]_ (a short indistinct vowel).
(b) 14 diphthongs: _ai_, _au_, _ei_, _eu_, _oi_, _ou_, _ai_, _au_,
_ei_, _eu_, _oi_, _ou_, _[schwa]i_, _[schwa]u_.
(c) 20 stop consonants.
Labials: _p_, _b_, _ph_, _bh_ (_ph_ and _bh_ being _p_ and _b_
followed by an audible breath, not _f_ and _v_).
Dentals: _t_, _d_, _th_, _dh_ (_th_ and _dh not_ spirants like the two
English sounds in _thin_ and _then_, but aspirated _t_ and _d_).
Palatals: _k_, _g_, _kh_, _gh_ (_kh_ and _gh_ aspirates as explained
above).
Velars: _q_, _g_, _qh_, _gh_ (velars differ from palatals by being
produced against the soft palate instead of the roof of the mouth).
Labio-velars: _qu_, _qu_, _quh_, _guh_ (these differ from the velars
by being combined with a slight labial w-sound).
(d) Spirants--
Labial: _w_.
Dental: _s_, _z_, post-dental _s_, _z_, interdental possibly þ, ð.
Palatal: [chi] (Scotch ch), y.
Velar: _x_ (a deeply guttural [chi], heard now in Swiss dialects),
[gh].
Closely akin to _w_ and _y_ and often confused with them were the
semi-vowels _u_ and _i_.
(e) Liquids: _l_, _r_.
(f) Nasals: _m_ (labial), _n_ (dental), _ñ_ (palatal), [symbol]
(velar), the last three in combination with similar consonants.
(a) As far as the vowels are concerned, Greek retains the original
state of things more accurately than any other language. The sounds of
short _e_ and short _o_ in Attic and Ionic were close, so that _e_ +
_e_ contracted to a long close e represented by [Greek: ei], _o_ + _o_
to a long close _o_ represented by [Greek: oe]. In these dialects _u_,
both long and short, was modified to _ü_, and they changed the long
_a_ to _e_, though Attic has [alpha] after [epsilon], [iota] and
[rho]. In Greek [schwa] appeared regularly as [alpha], but under the
influence of analogy often as [epsilon] and [omicron].
(b) The short diphthongs as a whole remained unchanged before a
following consonant. Before a following vowel the diphthong was
divided between the two syllables, the [iota] or [upsilon] forming a
consonant at the beginning of the second syllable, which ultimately
disappeared. Thus from a root dheu- "run" comes a verb [Greek: theô]
for [Greek: the-wô], from an earlier *[Greek: theu-ô]. The
corresponding adjective is [Greek: thoos] "swift," for [Greek:
tho-wo-s], from an earlier *[Greek: thou-o-s]. The only dialect which
kept the whole diphthong in one syllable was Aeolic. The long
diphthongs, except at the ends of words, were shortened in Attic. Some
of these appear merely as long vowels, having lost their second
element in the proethnic period. Apparent long diphthongs like those
in [Greek: lêtourgia, sôzô] arise by contraction of two syllables.
(c) The consonants suffered more extensive change. The voiced
aspirates became unvoiced, so that _bh_, _dh_, _gh_, _gh_, _guh_ are
confused with original _ph_, _th_, _kh_, _qh_, _quh_: I.E. *_bhero_
(Skt. _bharami_) is Gr. [Greek: pherô]; I.E. *_dhumos_ (Skt.
_dhumas_), Gr. [Greek: thymos]; I.E. *_ghimo_- (Skt. _hima_-), Gr.
[Greek: (dys)-chimo-s]; I.E. *_stigh_- (Skt. _stigh_-), Gr. [Greek:
stiches]; I.E. _guhen_- (Skt. _han_-), Gr. [Greek: theinô] (probably),
[Greek: phonos]. The palatal and velar series cannot be distinguished
in Greek; for the differences between them resort must be had to
languages of the _satem_-group, such as Sanskrit, Zend or Slavonic,
where the palatals appear as sibilants (see INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES).
The labio-velar series present a great variety of forms in the
different Greek dialects, and in the same dialect before different
sounds. Thus in Attic before _o_ vowels, nasals and liquids, the
series appears as [pi], [beta], [phi]; before _e_ and _i_ vowels as
[tau], [beta] ([delta]), [theta]; in combination with _u_, which led
to loss of the u by dissimilation, [kappa], [gamma] [chi]. Thus
[Greek: hepomai] corresponds to the Latin _sequo-r_, apart from the
ending; [Greek: boûs] to Latin _bos_ (borrowed from Sabine), English
_cow_; [Greek: phonos] "slaughter," [Greek: epephnon], old Irish
_gonim_, "I wound." Parallel to these forms with _p_ are forms in the
Italic languages except Latin and Faliscan, and in the Cymric group of
the Celtic languages. The dental forms [tau], [delta], [theta] stand
by themselves. Thus [Greek: tis] (from the same root as [Greek: pou,
poi, pothen], etc.) is parallel to the Latin _quis_, the Oscan _pis_,
old Irish cía, Welsh _pwy_, "who?" "what?"; Attic [Greek: tettares],
Ionic [Greek: tesseres] "four" is parallel to Latin _quattuor_, Oscan
[Greek: petora], old Irish _cethir_, old Welsh _petguar_; [Greek:
tisis] is from the same root as [Greek: poinê]. For the voiced sound,
[beta] is much more common than [delta] before _e_ and _i_ sounds;
thus [Greek: bios] "life," from the same root as Skt. _jivas_, Latin
_vivus_; [Greek: bios] "bowstring," Skt. _jya_, &c. In Arcado-Cyprian
and Aeolic, [pi] and [beta] often precede _e_ and _i_ sounds. Thus
parallel to Attic [Greek: tettares] Lesbian has [Greek: pessyres],
Homer [Greek: pisyres], Boeotian [Greek: pettares]; Thessalian [Greek:
bellomai], Boeotian [Greek: beilomai] alongside of Attic [Greek:
boulomai], Lesbian [Greek: bollomai], Doric [Greek: bôlomai] and also
[Greek: dêlomai]. In Arcadian and Cyprian the form corresponding to
[Greek: tis] was [Greek: sis], in Thessalian [Greek: kis], where the
labialization was lost (see the article on Q).
A great variety of changes in the stopped consonants arose in
combination with other sounds, especially _i_ (a semivowel of the
nature of English _y_), _u_ (_w_) and _s_; -[Greek: ti-, -thi]- became
first -[Greek: ss]- and later -[sigma]- in Attic Greek, -[Greek: tt]-
in Boeotian (the precise pronunciation of -[Greek: ss]- and -[Greek:
tt]- is uncertain): Attic [Greek: ho-posos], earlier [Greek:
ho-possos], Boeotian [Greek: ho-pottos], from the same stem as the
Latin _quot_, _quotiens_; Homeric [Greek: messos], Attic [Greek:
mesos] from *[Greek: methios], Latin _medius_; -[Greek: ki-, -chi]-
became -[Greek: ss]-, Attic -[Greek: tt-: pissa] "pitch," Attic
[Greek: pitta] from *[Greek: píkia], cp. Latin _pix_, _picis_, [Greek:
elasson], Attic [Greek: elatton] comparative to [Greek: elachus].
[Greek: di] and [Greek: gi] became [zeta]: [Greek: Zeus] (Skt.
_Dyaus_) [Greek: elpizo] from [Greek: elpis], stem [Greek:
èlpid]-"hope," [Greek: mastizo] from [Greek: mastix], stem [Greek:
mastig]- "lash."
(d) The sound _u_ was represented in the Greek alphabet by [digamma],
the "digamma," but in Attic and Ionic the sound was lost very early.
In Aeolic, particularly Boeotian and Lesbian, it was persistent, and
so also in many Doric dialects, especially at the beginning of words.
When the Ionic alphabet was adopted by districts which had retained
[digamma], it was represented by [beta]: [Greek: brodon] Aeolic for
[Greek: rodon], i.e. [Greek: Drodon]. In Attic it disappeared, leaving
no trace; in Ionic it lengthened the preceding syllable; thus in Homer
[Greek: hupodeisas] is scanned with o long because the root of the
verb contained [digamma]: [Greek: ddei]-. Attic has [Greek: xenos],
but Ionic [Greek: xeinos] for [Greek: xenwos]. Its combination with
[tau] became -[Greek: ss]-, Attic and Boeotian -[Greek: tt]-, in
[Greek: tesseres, tettares, pettares] for I.E. [Greek: guetu]-.
But the most effective of all elements in changing the appearance of
Greek words was the sound _s_. Before vowels at the beginning, or
between vowels in the middle of words, it passed into an _h_ sound,
the "rough breathing." Thus [Greek: hepta] is the same word as the
Latin _septem_, English _seven_; [Greek: hal-s] has the same stem as
the Latin _sal_, English _sal-t_; [Greek: euo] for [Greek: euho] is
the same as the Latin _uro_ (*_eusô_). Combined with _i_ or _u_ also
it passes into _h_; [Greek: hymên], Skt. _syuman_, "band"; [Greek:
hêdus], Doric [Greek: adus], Latin _sua(d)vis_, English sweet; cp.
[Greek: oikoio] for *[Greek: woíkosio, nêos], Lesbian [Greek: nauos]
"temple," through [Greek: nawos] from *[Greek: naswo-s] connected with
[Greek: naiô] "dwell." Before nasals and liquids _s_ was assimilated:
[Greek: mei-daô], Latin _mi-ru-s_, English _smile_; [Greek: nipha],
Latin _nivem_, English _snow_; [Greek: lêgo], Latin _laxus_, English
_slack_; [Greek: rheô] from *_sreu-o_ of the same origin as English
_stream_ (where _t_ is a later insertion), imperfect [Greek: erreon]
for *_esreuom_; cp. also [Greek: philommeidês, aganniphos, allêktos].
After nasals _s_ is assimilated except finally; when assimilated, in
all dialects except Aeolic the previous syllable is lengthened if not
already long: Attic [Greek: eneima, emeina] for the first aorist
*_enemsa_, *_emensa_; but [Greek: tons, tans], &c., of the accusative
pl. either remained or became in Aeolic [Greek: tois, tais], in Ionic
and Attic [Greek: tous, tas], in Doric [Greek: tôs, tas]; cp. [Greek:
titheis] for *[Greek: tithents, bas] for *[Greek: bants, heis] "one"
for *sem-s, then by analogy of the neuter *sens. Assimilation of
[sigma] to preceding [rho] and [lambda] is a matter of dialect: Ionic
[Greek: tharseo], but Attic [Greek: tharrô], and so also the Doric of
Thera: [Greek: ekelsa], but [Greek: esteila] for *[Greek: ettelsa].
With nasals [iota] affected the previous syllable: [Greek: tektainô]
(*[Greek: tekteio]), where _n_ is the nasal of the stem [Greek:
tektôn], itself forming a syllable (see the article N for these
so-called sonant nasals). Before [iota] original _m_ becomes _n_;
hence [Greek: bainô] with _n_, though from the same root as English
_come_. Original [iota] does not survive in Greek, but is represented
by the aspirate at the beginning of words, [Greek: hagnos] = Skt.
_yajnas_; medially after consonants it disappears, affecting the
preceding consonant or syllable where a consonant precedes; between
vowels it disappears. A sound of the same kind is indicated in Cyprian
and some other dialects as a glide or transition sound between two
vowels.
(e) The most remarkable feature in the treatment of the nasals is that
when _n_ or _m_ forms a syllable by itself its consonant character
disappears altogether and it is represented by the vowel [alpha] only:
[Greek: tatos], Latin _tentus_, [alpha]- negative particle, Latin
_in_, English _un_; [Greek: ha-ploos] has the same prefix as the Latin
_sim-plex_ (_sm_). The liquids in similar cases show [Greek: la] or
[Greek: al] and [Greek: ra] or [Greek: ar: te-tla-men, pe-paltai;
edrakon, thrasys, tharsos].
The ends of words were modified in appearance by the loss of all
stop-consonants and the change of final _m_ to _n_, [Greek: edeixe],
Latin _dixit_; [Greek: zygon], Latin _iugum_.
_Accent._--The vowel system of Greek has been so well preserved
because it shows till late times very little in the way of stress
accent. As in early Sanskrit the accent was predominantly a pitch
accent (see ACCENT).
_Noun System._--The I.E. noun had three numbers, but the dual was
limited to pairs, the two hands, the two horses in the chariot, and
was so little in use that the original form of the oblique cases
cannot be restored with certainty. Ionic has no dual. The I.E. noun
had the following cases: Nominative, Accusative, Genitive, Ablative,
Instrumental, Locative and Dative. The vocative was not properly a
case, because it usually stands outside the syntactical construction
of the sentence; when a distinctive form appears, it is the bare stem,
and there is no form (separate from the nominative) for the plural.
Greek has confused genitive and ablative (the distinction between them
seems to have been derived from the pronouns), except for the solitary
[Greek: woikô = oikothen] in an inscription of Delphi. The
instrumental, locative and dative are mixed in one case, partly for
phonetic, partly for syntactical reasons. In Arcadian, Elean,
Boeotian, and later widely in N. Greece, the locative -[Greek: oi] is
used for the dative. The masculine _a_-stems make the nom. in most
dialects in -[Greek: as]. The genitive is in -[Greek: ao] (with
[omicron] borrowed from the _o_-stems), which remains in Homer and
Boeotian, appears in Arcado-Cyprian as -[Greek: au], and with
metathesis of quantity -[Greek: eô] in Ionic. The Attic form in
-[Greek: ou] is borrowed directly from the _o_-stems. In the plural
the -[alpha] and -_o_ stems follow the article in making their
nominatives in -[Greek: ai] and -[Greek: oi] instead of the original
-_as_ and -_os_. The neuter plural was in origin a collective
singular, and for this reason takes a singular verb; the plural of
[Greek: zygon] "yoke" was originally *_iuga_, and declined like any
other -a stem. But through the influence of the masculine and feminine
forms the neuter took the same oblique cases, and like its own
singular made the accusative the same as the nominative. In the plural
of -_a_ and -_o_ stems, the locative in -[Greek: aisi, -oisi] was long
kept apart from the instrumental-dative form in -[Greek: ais, -ois].
_The Verb System._--The verb system of Greek is more complete than
that of any of the other I.E. languages. Its only rival, the early
Vedic verb system, is already in decay when history begins, and when
the classical period of Sanskrit arrives the moods have broken down,
and the aorist, perfect, and imperfect tenses are syntactically
confused. Throughout the Greek classical period the moods are
maintained, but in the period of the [Greek: koinê] the optative
occurs less and less and finally disappears. The original I.E. had two
voices, an active and a middle, and to these Greek has added a third,
the passive, distinguished from the middle in many verbs by separate
forms for the future and aorist, made with a syllable -[Greek: thê-,
timêthêsomai, etimêthên], though in this instance, [Greek: timêsomai],
the future middle, is often used with a passive sense. Other forms
which Greek has added to the original system are the pluperfect--in
form a past of the perfect stem with aorist endings. It merely
expressed the perfect action in past time, and, except as derived from
the context, did not possess the notion of relative time (past at a
time already past), which attaches to the Latin forms with the same
name. The future optative was also a new formation, betraying its
origin in the fact that it is almost entirely limited to _Oratio
Obliqua_. The aorist imperatives were also new; the history of some of
them, as the second sing. act. [Greek: pauson], is not very clear. The
whole verb system is affected by the distinction between -_o_ and
-_mi_ verbs; the former or thematic verbs have a so-called "thematic
vowel" between the root and the personal suffix, while the -_mi_ verbs
attach the suffixes directly to the root. The distinction is really
one between monosyllabic and disyllabic roots. The history of the
personal endings is not altogether clear; the -_o_ verbs have in the
present forms for the 2nd and 3rd person in -[Greek: eis] and -[Greek:
ei], which are not yet elucidated. In the middle, Greek does not
entirely agree with Sanskrit in its personal endings, and the original
forms cannot all be restored with certainty. The endings of the
primary tenses differed from those of the secondary, but there has
been a certain amount of confusion between them.
The syntax of the verb is founded on the original I.E. distinction of
the verb forms, not by time (tense), but by forms of action,
progressive action (present and imperfect), consummated action
(aorist), state arising from action, emphatic or repeated action
(perfect). For the details of this see INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--(i.) A grammar of Greek, which will deal fully with the
whole material of the language, is at present a _desideratum_, and is
hardly possible so long as new dialect material is being constantly
added and while comparatively so little has been done on the syntax of
the dialects. The greatest collection of material is to be found in
the new edition of Kühner's _Griechische Grammatik, Laut- und
Formenlehre_, by Blass (2 vols., 1890-1892); _Syntax_, by Gerth (2
vols., 1896, 1900). Blass's part is useful only for material, the
explanations being entirely antiquated. The only full historical
account of the language (sounds, forms and syntax) at present in
existence is K. Brugmann's _Griechische Grammatik_ (3rd ed., 1900).
Gustav Meyer's _Griechische Grammatik_ (nothing on accent or syntax),
which did excellent pioneer work when it first appeared in 1880, was
hardly brought up to date in its 3rd edition (1896), but is still
useful for the dialect and bibliographical material collected. See
also H. Hirt, _Handbuch der griech. Laut- und Formenlehre_ (1902). Of
smaller grammars in English perhaps the most complete is that of J.
Thompson (London, 1902). The grammar of Homer was handled by D. B.
Monro (2nd ed., Oxford, 1891). The syntax has been treated in many
special works, amongst which may be mentioned W. W. Goodwin, _Syntax
of the Greek Moods and Tenses_ (new ed., 1889); B. L. Gildersleeve and
C. W. E. Miller, _Syntax of Classical Greek from Homer to
Demosthenes_, pt. i. (New York, 1901--and following); J. M. Stahl,
_Kritisch-historische Syntax des griechischen Verbums_ (1907); F. E.
Thompson, _Attic Greek Syntax_ (1907). (ii.) The relations between
Greek and the other I.E. languages are very well brought out in P.
Kretschmer's _Einleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache_
(Göttingen, 1896). For comparative grammar see K. Brugmann and B.
Delbrück, _Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen
Sprachen_ (the 2nd ed., begun 1897, is still incomplete) and
Brugmann's _Kurze vergleichende Grammatik_ (1902-1903); A. Meillet,
_Introduction à l'étude comparative des langues indo-européennes_ (2nd
ed., 1908). Greek compared with Latin and English: P. Giles, _A Short
Manual of Comparative Philology for Classical Students_ (2nd ed.,
1901, with an appendix containing a brief account and specimens of the
dialects); Riemann and Goelzer, _Grammaire comparative du Grec et du
Latin_ (1901), a parallel grammar in 2 vols., specially valuable for
syntax. (iii.) For the dialects two works have recently appeared, both
covering in brief space the whole field: A. Thumb, _Handbuch der
griechischen Dialekte_ (with bibliographies for each dialect, 1909);
C. D. Buck, _Introduction to the Study of the Greek Dialects, Grammar,
Selected Inscriptions, Glossary_ (Boston, 1910). Works on a larger
scale have been undertaken by R. Meister, by O. Hoffmann and by H. W.
Smyth. For the [Greek: koinê] may be specially mentioned A. Thumb,
_Die griech. Sprache in Zeitalter des Hellenismus_ (1901); E. Mayser,
_Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit: Laut- und
Wortlehre_ (1906); H. St J. Thackeray, _A Grammar of the Old Testament
in Greek_, vol. i. (1909); Blass, _Grammar of New Testament Greek_,
trans. by Thackeray (1898); J. H. Moulton, _A Grammar of New Testament
Greek. I. Prolegomena_ (3rd ed., 1906). (iv.) For the development from
the [Greek: koinê] to modern Greek: A. N. Jannaris, _An Historical
Greek Grammar, chiefly of the Attic Dialect, as written and spoken
from Classical Antiquity down to the Present Time_ (1901); G. N.
Hatzidakis, _Einleitung in die neugriechische Grammatik_ (1892); A.
Thumb, _Handbuch der neugriechischen Volkssprache_ (2nd ed. 1910).
(v.) The inscriptions are collected in _Inscriptiones Graecae_ in the
course of publication by the Berlin Academy, those important for
dialect in the _Sammlung der griech. Dialektinschriften_, edited by
Collitz and Bechtel. The earlier parts of this collection are to some
extent superseded by later volumes of the _Inscr. Graecae_, containing
better readings and new inscriptions. A good selection (too brief) is
Solmsen's _Inscriptiones Graecae ad inlustrandas dialectos selectae_
(3rd ed., 1910). A serviceable lexicon for dialect words is van
Herwerden's _Lexicon Graecum suppletorium et dialecticum_ (2nd ed.,
much enlarged, 2 vols. 1910). (vi.) The historical basis for the
distribution of the Greek dialects is discussed at length in the
histories of E. Meyer (_Geschichte des Altertums_, ii.) and G. Busolt
(_Griechische Geschichte_, i.); by Professor Ridgeway, _Early Age of
Greece_, i. (1901), and P. Kretschmer in _Glotta_, i. 9 ff. See also
A. Fick, _Die vorgriechischen Ortsnamen_ (1905). (vii.) Bibliographies
containing the new publications on Greek, with some account of their
contents, appear from time to time in _Indogermanische Forschungen:
Anzeiger_ (Strassburg, Trübner), annually in _Glotta_ (Göttingen,
Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht), and _The Year's Work in Classical Studies_
(London, Murray). (P. Gi.)
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Thumb, _Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus_
(1901), pp. 242-243.
[2] Thumb, _op. cit._ p. 249.
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Volume 12, Slice 4 - "Grasshopper" to "Greek Language"" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.