![]()  | 
    HISTORY OF ANCIENT GREECE | 
    ![]()  | 
  
A HISTORY OF GREECE TO   THE DEATH OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT
          
        
 CHAPTER IITHE EXPANSION OF GREECESECT. I. CAUSES AND CHARACTER OF GREEK COLONIZATION
          
        THE expansion of the Greeks beyond Greece proper and
          the coasts of the Aegean, the plantation of Greek colonies on the shores of
          Thrace and the Black Sea, in Italy and Sicily, even in Spain and Gaul, began in
          the eighth and reached its completion in the sixth century. But it must not be
          regarded as a single or isolated phenomenon. It was the continuation of the
          earlier expansion over the Aegean islands and the coast of Asia Minor, the
          details of which were forgotten by the
          Greeks themselves, and are consequently unknown to us.
   The cause of Greek colonization is not to be found in
          mere trade interests. These indeed were in most cases a motive, and in some of
          the settlements on the Black Sea they were perhaps a leading motive. But the
          great difference between Greek and Phoenician colonization is that, while the
          Phoenicians aimed solely at promoting their commerce, and only a few of their
          settlements, notably Carthage, became more than mere trading-stations or
          factories, Greek colonization satisfied other needs than desire of commercial
          profit. It was the expression of the adventurous spirit which has been
          poetically reflected in the legends of the “Sailing of the Argo” and the
          “Homecoming of Odysseus” — the same spirit, not to be expressed in any
          commercial formula, which prompted English colonization.
               Trade, of course, sometimes paved the way. Colonists
          followed in the paths of trade, and the merchants of Miletus, who adventured
          themselves in the dangerous waters of the Euxine, observed natural harbours and inviting sites for cities, and when they
          returned home organized parties of settlers. The adventurous, the discontented,
          and the needy were always to be found. But in the case of the early colonies at
          least, it was not over-population of the land, so much as the nature of
          the land-system, that drove men to emigrate. In
          various ways, under the family system, which was ill suited to independent and
          adventurous spirits, it would come about that individual members were excluded
          from a share in the common estate, and separated from their kin. Such lacklands
          were ripe for colonial enterprise. Again, the political circumstances of most
          Greek states in the eighth and seventh centuries favored emigration. We have
          seen that at this time the aristocratic form of government generally prevailed.
          Sometimes a king was formally at the head, but he was really no more than the
          first of peers; a body of nobles were the
          true masters. Sometimes there was an aristocracy within an aristocracy; or a
          large clan, like the Bacchiads at Corinth, held the power. In all cases the
          distinction between the members of the ruling class and the mass of free
          citizens was widened and deepened. It was the tendency of the rulers to govern
          in their own interest and oppress the multitude, and they cared little to
          disguise their contempt for the mass of the people. At Mytilene things went so
          far that the Penthilids, who had secured the chief
          power, went about in the streets, armed with clubs, and knocked down citizens
          whom they disliked. Under these conditions there were strong inducements for
          men to leave their native city where they were of little account and had to
          endure the slights, if nothing worse, of their rulers, and to join in the
          foundation of a new polis where they might themselves rule. The
          same inducement drew nobles who did not belong to the inner oligarchical
          circle. In fact, political discontent was an immediate cause of Greek
          colonization; and conversely it may be said that colonisation was a palladium of aristocracy. If this outlet had not existed, or if it
          had not suited the Hellenic temper, the aristocracies might not have lasted so
          long, and they wisely discerned that it was their own interest to encourage
          colonization.
   But while we recognize the operation of general causes
          we must not ignore special causes. We must, for instance, take into
          account the fact that Miletus and the south Ionian cities were unable to
          expand in Caria, as the north Ionian cities expanded in Lydia, because the
          Carians were too strong for them; and Lycia presented the same kind of barrier
          to Rhodes. Otherwise, perhaps neither Rhodes nor Miletus would have sent
          settlers to distant lands.
   Wherever the Greek went, he retained his customs and
          language, and made a Greek “polis”. It was as if a bit of Greece were set down
          on the remote shores of the Euxine or in the far west on the wild coasts of
          Gaul or Iberia. The colony was a private enterprise, but the bond of
          kinship with the "mother-city" was carefully fostered, and though
          political discontent might have been the cause which drove the founders forth,
          yet that solemn departure for a distant land, where a new city-state,
          protected by the same gods, was to spring up, always sealed a reconciliation.
          The emigrants took fire from the public hearth of their city to light the fire
          on that of their new home. Intercourse between colonies and the mother-country
          was specially kept up at the great religious festivals of the year, and various
          marks of filial respect were shown by the daughter to the mother. When, as
          frequently befell, the colony determined herself in turn to throw off a new
          shoot, it was the recognized custom that she should seek the oecist or
          leader of the colonists from the mother-city. Thus the Megarian colony,
          Byzantium, when it founded its own colony, Mesembria,
          must have sought an oecist from
          Megara. The political importance of colonization was sanctified by religion,
          and it was a necessary formality, whenever a settlement was to be made, to ask
          the approbation of the Delphic god. The most ancient oracular god of Greece was
          Zeus of Dodona. The Selli, his priests and
          “interpreters”, are mentioned in the Iliad; and in the Odyssey Dodona
          appears as a place to which a king of the west might go to ask the will of Zeus
          “from the lofty oak”, wherein the god was conceived to dwell. But the
          oak-shrine in the highlands of Epirus was too remote to become the chief oracle
          of Greece, and the central position of Delphi enabled the astute priests of the
          Pythian Apollo to exalt the authority of their god as a true prophet to the
          supreme place in the Greek world. There were other oracular deities who
          foretold the future; there was, not far off, Trophonius at Boeotian Lebadea; there was Amphiaraus in the land
          of the Graes, not yet Boeotian. But none of these
          ever became even a rival of the Delphian Apollo, who by the seventh century at
          least had won the position of adviser to Greece.
   It is worthy of notice that colonization tended to
          promote a feeling of unity among the Greek peoples, and it did so in two ways.
          By the wide diffusion of their race on the fringe of barbarous lands, it
          brought home to them more fully the contrast between Greek and barbarian, and,
          by consequence, the community of the Greeks. The Greek dwellers in Asia Minor,
          neighbors of not-Greek peoples, were naturally impressed with their own unity
          in a way which was strange to dwellers in Boeotia or Attica, who were surrounded
          on all sides by Greeks and were therefore alive chiefly to local differences.
          With the diffusion of their sons over various parts of the world, the European
          Greeks acquired a stronger sense of unity. In the second place, colonization
          led to the association of Greeks of different cities. An oecist who decided to organize a party of
          colonists could not always find in his own city a sufficient number of men
          willing to take part in the enterprise. He therefore enlisted comrades
          from other cities; and thus many colonies were joint undertakings and contained
          a mixture of citizens of various nationalities. This feature was not indeed
          confined to the later epoch of colonization; it is one of the few facts about
          the earlier settlements on the Asiatic coast of which we can be certain.
    
               SECT. 2. COLONIES ON THE COASTS OF THE EUXINE, PROPONTIS, AND NORTH AEGEAN
            
                 The voyage of the Argonauts in quest of the golden fleece commemorates in a delightful legend the
          memorable day on which Greek sailors for the first time burst into the waters
          of the Euxine Sea. Accustomed to the island straits and short distances of the
          Aegean, they fancied that when they had passed the Bosphorus they were
          embarking on a boundless ocean, and they called it the “Main”, Pontos. Even when they had
          circumnavigated its shores it might still seem boundless, for they knew not
          where the great rivers, the Ister, the Tanais, the Danapris, might lead. The little preliminary sea into which the Hellespont widens, to contract again
          into the narrow passage of the Bosphorus, was appropriately named the
          “vestibule of the Pontus”—Propontis. Full
          of creeks and recesses, it is happily described by Euripides as the “bayed
          water-key of the boundless Sea”. The Pontus was a treacherous field for the barques of even experienced mariners, and it was supposed
          to have received for this reason its name “Euxine”, or Hospitable, in
          accordance with a habit of the Greeks to seek to propitiate adverse powers by
          pleasant names. It was when the compass of the Euxine was still unknown, and
          men were beginning shyly to explore its coasts, that the tale of the
          wanderings of Odysseus took form. He was imagined to have sailed from Troy into
          the Pontus, and, after having been driven about in its waters, to have at last
          reached Ithaca by an overland journey through Thrace and Epirus. In the Odyssey, as we have it now, compounded
          of many different legends and poems, this is disguised; the island of Circe has
          been removed to the far west, and the scene of the Descent to the Underworld
          translated to the Atlantic Ocean. But Circe, the daughter of the Sun, and
          sister of King Aeetes who possessed the golden fleece,
          belongs to the seas of Colchis; and the world of shades beyond the Cimmerians
          is to be sought near the Cimmerian Bosphorus. The mention of Sicily
          in some of the later parts of the poem, and the part played by Ithaca,
          which, with the other islands of the Ionian Sea, lay on the road to the western
          Mediterranean, reflect the beginning of the expansion of Greece in that
          direction. But the original wanderings of Odysseus were connected, not with the
          west, but with the exploration of the Euxine.
   A mist of obscurity hangs about the beginnings of the
          first Greek cities which arose on the Pontic shores. Here Miletus was the
          pioneer. Merchants carrying the stuffs which were manufactured from the wool of
          Milesian sheep may have established trading-stations along the southern coast.
          Flax from Colchis, steel and silver, slaves were among the chief products which
          their wool bought. But the work of colonization beyond the gate of the
          Bosphorus can hardly have fully begun until the gate itself was secured by the
          enterprise of Megara, which sent out men, in the first part of the seventh
          century, to found the towns of Chalcedon and Byzantium. Byzantium could command
          the trade of the Black Sea, but the great commercial and political importance
          of her situation was not fully appreciated until a thousand years had passed,
          when she became the rival and successor of Rome and took, in honour of her second founder, the name Constantinople. This
          is the first appearance of the little state of Megara in Greek history; and
          none of her contemporaries took a step that was destined to lead to greater
          things than the settlement on the Chalcedon; Bosphorus. The story was
          that Chalcedon was founded first, before the Megarians perceived the striking
          advantages of the opposite shore, and the Delphic oracle, which they consulted
          as a matter of course, chid them as “blind men”.
          Westward from Byzantium they also founded Selymbria,
          on the north coast of the Propontis; eastward they established “Heraclea in
          Pontus”, on the coast of Bithynia.
   The enterprise of the Megarians stimulated Miletus,
          and she determined to anticipate others in seizing the best sites on the Pontic
          shore. At the most northerly point of the southern coast a strait-necked cape
          forms two natural harbours, an attractive site for
          settlers, and here the Milesians planted the city Sinope. Farther east,
          half-way to that extreme eastern point of the sea where the Phasis flows out at
          the foot of Mount Caucasus, arose another
          Milesian colony, Trapezus. At the Bosphorus the
          Milesians had been anticipated by Megara, but they partly made up for this by
          planting Abydos on the Hellespont opposite Sestos, and they also seized a
          jutting promontory on the south coast of the Propontis, where a narrow neck, as
          at Sinope, forms two harbours. The town was Cyzicus, and
          the peninsula was afterwards transformed into an island; the tunny-fish on the
          coins of the city shows what was one of the chief articles of her trade.
          Lampsacus, at the northern end of the Hellespont, once a Phoenician factory,
          was colonized by another Ionian city, Phocaea, about the same time, and the
          winged sea-horse on Lampsacene coins speaks of naval
          enterprise which led afterwards to wealth and prosperity. The foundation of
          Paron was due to a joint undertaking of Miletus and Erythrae; and Clazomenae joined Miletus in planting Cardia at the neck of
          the Thracian Chersonese, in the important position of an advance fort against
          Thrace. On the southern side of the Hellespont the lands of the Scamander
          invited the Greeks of Lesbos, and a number of small Aeolian settlements
          arose.  
   Greek settlements also sprang up in the more remote
          parts of the Euxine. Dioscurias and Phasis were
          founded in the far east, in the fabled land of
          Colchis. On the Tauric Chersonesus or “peninsula” (now the Crimea), Panticapaeum was founded over against Phanagoria at the entrance
          to the Maeotic lake, and Tanais at the mouth of the
          like-named river. Heraclea, or Chersonesus, on the western side of the
          peninsula, was destined to preserve the municipal forms of an old Greek city
          for more than a thousand years. Olbia at the mouth of the Dnieper, Odessus, Istrus, Mesembria were only some of
          the Greek settlements which complete the circuit of the Black Sea.
   This sea and the Propontis were the
          special domain of the sea-god Achilles, whose fame grew greater by his
          association as a hero with the legend of Troy. He was worshipped along the
          coasts as “lord of the Pontus”; and in Leuce, the
          “shining island” near the Danube’s mouth, the lonely island where no man
          dwelled, he had a temple, and the the birds of the
          sea were said to be its warders.
   If Miletus and Megara took the most prominent part in
          extending the borders of the Greek world eastward of the Hellespont, the northwestern
          corner of the Aegean was the special domain of Euboea. The barren islands of Sciathus and Peparethus were the
          bridge from Euboea to the coast of Macedonia, which, between the rivers Axius
          and Strymon, runs out Potidaea into a huge three-pronged promontory. Here
          Chalcis planted so many towns that the whole promontory was named Chalcidice.
          Some of the chief cities, however, were founded by other states, notably
          Corinthian Potidaea on the most westerly of the three prongs, which was called
          Pallene. Sithonia was the central prong, and Acte, ending in Mount Athos, the eastern. Many of the
          colonies on Pallene were founded by Eretria, and those on Acte by Andros, which was dependent on Eretria. Hence we
          may regard this group of cities as Euboean, though we cannot regard it as
          Chalcidian. On the west side of the Thermaic Bay, two
          Euboean colonies were planted, Pydna and Methone, on Macedonian soil.
    
               SECT. 3. COLONIES IN THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN
            
               The earliest mention of Sicilian and Italian regions
          in literature is to be found in some later passages of the Odyssey,
          which should perhaps be referred to the eighth century. There we meet with
          the Sicels, and with the sland of Sicania; while Temesa, where Greek traders could buy Tuscan
          copper, has the distinction of being the first Italian place mentioned by name
          in a literary record. By the end of the seventh century Greek states stood
          thick on the east coast of Sicily and round the sweep of the Tarentine Gulf.
          These colonies naturally fall into three groups :
   1.The Euboean, which were both in Sicily and in Italy.
               2.The Achaean, which were altogether on Italian soil.
               3. The Dorian, which were, with few exceptions, in
          Sicily.
               The chronology is uncertain, and we cannot say whether
          the island or the mainland was first colonized.
               The oldest stories of the adventures of Odysseus were
          laid, as we have seen, in the half-explored regions of the Black Sea.
          Nothing shows more impressively the life of this poetry, and the power it had
          won over the hearts of the Greek folks, than the fact that when the navigation
          of the Italian and Sicilian seas began, these adventures were transferred from
          the east to the west; and in the further growth of this cycle of poems a new
          mythical geography was adopted. At a time when the Greeks knew so little of
          Italy that the southern promontories could be designated as “sacred islands”,
          the straits of Messana were identified with Scylla and Charybdis, Lipara became
          the island of Aeolus, the home of the
          Cyclopes was found in the fiery mount of Aetna. Then Scheria,
          the isle of the Phaeacians, was fancied to be Corcyra; an entrance to the
          underworld was placed at Cumae; and the rocks of the Sirens were sought near
          Sorrento. And not only did the first glimpses of western geography affect the
          transmutation of the Odyssey into its final shape, but the Odyssey reacted
          on the geography of the west. That the promontory of Circei in Latin territory bears the name of the sorceress of Colchis, is
          an evidence of the spell of Homeric song. Odysseus was not the only hero who
          was borne westward with Greek ships in the eighth century. Cretan Minos and
          Daedalus, for example, had links with Sicily. Above all, the earliest
          navigation of the western seas was ascribed to Heracles, who reached the limits
          of the land of the setting sun, and stood on the ledge of the world looking out
          upon the stream of Oceanus. From him the opposite cliffs which form the gate of
          the Mediterranean were called the Pillars of Heracles.
   The earliest colony founded by Greek sailors in the
          western seas was said to have been Cyme on the coast of Campania. Tradition
          assigned to it an origin before 1000 B.C., a date which modern
          criticism has decidedly rejected. But though we place its origin in the eighth
          century, the tradition that it was the earliest Greek city founded in the
          middle peninsula of the Mediterranean may possibly be true. It was at all events
          one of the oldest, and it had an unique
          position. Chalcis, Eretria, and Cyme a town on the
            eastern coast of Euboea, which at that time had some eminence but afterwards
            sunk into the obscurity of a village, joined together, and enlisted for their
            expedition some Graeans who dwelled on the opposite
            mainland in the neighborhood of Tanagra. The colonizers settled
          first on the island of Pithecusae, and soon succeeded
          in establishing themselves on a rocky height which rises above the sea just
          where the Italian coast is about to turn sharply eastward to encircle the bay
          of Naples. The site was happily chosen. It was a strong post, and though there
          was no harbour, the strangers could haul up their
          ships on a stretch of sand below. Subsequently they occupied the harbour which was just inside the promontory, and
          established there the town of Dicaearchia, which
          afterwards became Puteoli; farther east they founded Naples, “the new city”.
   The people in whose midst this outpost of Greek
          civilization was planted were the Opicans, one of the
          chief branches of the Italic race. The colonists were eminently successful in
          their intercourse with the natives; and the solitary position of Cyme in these
          regions—for no Greek settlement could be made northward on account of the great
          Etruscan power, and there was no rival southward until the later plantation of
          Posidonia—made her influence both wide and noiseless. Her external history is
          uneventful; there are no striking wars or struggles to record; but the work she
          did holds an important and definite place in the history of European
          civilization. To the Euboeans of Cyme we may say that we owe the alphabet which
          we use today, for it was from them that the Latins learned to write. The
          Etruscans also got their alphabet independently from the same masters, and,
          having modified it in certain ways to suit themselves, passed it onto the Oscans and Umbrians. Again, the Cymaeans introduced the neighboring Italian peoples to a
            knowledge of the Greek gods and Greek religion. Heracles, Apollo,
          Castor, and Polydeuces became such familiar names in Italy that they came
          to be regarded as original Italian deities. The oracles of the Cymaean Sibyl, prophetess of Apollo, were believed to
          contain the destinies of Rome.
   To Cyme, too, western Europe
          probably owes the name by which she calls Hellas and the Hellenes. The
          Greeks, when they first came into contact with Latins, had no common name;
          Hellenes, the name which afterwards united them, was as yet merely associated
          with a particular tribe. It was only natural that strangers should extend the
          name of the first Greeks with whom they came in contact to others whom they
          fell in with later, and so to all Greeks whatsoever. But the curious
          circumstance is that the settlers of Cyme were known, not by the name of
          Chalcis or Eretria or Cyme itself, but by that of Graia. Graii was
          the term which the Latins and their fellows applied to the colonists, and the
          name Graeci is
          a derivative of a usual type from Graii. It was
          doubtless some trivial accident which ruled that we today call Hellas “Greece”,
          instead of knowing it by some name derived from Cyme, Eretria, or Chalcis. The
          west has got its “Greece” from an obscure district in Boeotia; Greece itself
          got its " Hellas " from a small
          territory in Thessaly. This was accidental. But it was no accident that western
          Europe calls Greece by a name connected with that city in which Greeks first
          came into touch with the people who were destined to civilize western Europe
          and rule it for centuries.
   The next settlement of the Euboean Greeks was on
          Sicilian, not Italian, ground. The island of Sicily is geographically a
          continuation of Italy—just as the Peloponnesus is a continuation of the
          great eastern peninsula; but its historical importance depends much more on
          another geographical fact. It is the centre of the
          Mediterranean; it parts the eastern from the western waters. It has been thus
          marked out by nature as a meeting-place of nations; and the struggle between
          European and Asiatic peoples, which has been called the “Eternal Question”, has
          been partly fought out on Sicilian soil. There has been in historical times no
          native Sicilian power. The greatness of the island was due to colonization—not
          migration—from other lands. Lying as a connecting link between Europe and
          Africa, it attracted settlers from both sides; while its close proximity to
          Italy always rendered it an object of acquisition to those who successively
          ruled in that peninsula.
   The earliest inhabitants of the island were the
          Sicans. They believed themselves to be autochthonous, and we have no record at
          what time they entered the island or whence they came or to what race they
          belonged. The nature of things makes it probable that they entered from Italy.
          From them the island was called Sicania. The next
          comers were the Sicels, of whom we can
          speak with more certainty. As we find Sicels in
          the toe of Italy, we know that tradition correctly described them as settlers
          from the Italian peninsula, and there is some slight evidence to show that they
          spoke the same language as that group of Italic peoples, to which the Latins
          belonged. The likeness of the names Sicel and Sican has naturally led to the
          view that these two folks were akin in race and language. But likeness of names
          is deceptive; and it is a remarkable fact that the Greeks, who were only too
          prone to build up theories on resemblances of words, always carefully
          distinguished the Sican from the Sicel as ethnically different. Still a
          connection is possible, if we suppose that the Sicels were Sicans who remaining behind in Italy had in the course of centuries become
          Italicized by intercourse with the Latin and kindred peoples, and then,
          emigrating in their turn to the island, met without recognition the brethren
          from whom they had parted in the remote past. But all this is uncertain. The Sicels, however, wrested from the Sicans the eastern half
          of the island, which was thus cut up into two countries, Sicania in the west, Sicelia in the east. In the Odyssey we read of Sicania; perhaps the Greeks of Cyme knew it by this name.
          At a very early time Sicania was invaded by a
          mysterious people named Elymians, variously said to
          have come from Italy and from the north of Asia Minor. The probability is that
          they were of Iberian race. They occupied a small territory in the north-west of
          the island.
   These were the three peoples who inhabited this
          miniature continent, soon about to become the battlefield of Greek and
          Phoenician. The Sicels were the most numerous and
          most important. The only Sican town of any significance in historical times was Hykkara on the north-west
          promontory. Minda, originally
          Sican on the south coast, became Greek. Camicus, at
          some distance inland in the same region, was in early days an important
          stronghold. The Elymian settlements at Segesta and Eryx became
          of far greater importance than the Sican. The eastern half of the isle, the
          original Sicelia, was thickly set with Sicel fortresses from Cephaloedium (the
          modern Cefalu), at the centre of the northern coast,
          to Motyca, an inland town in the
          south-eastern corner. Among the most famous were Agyrium, Centuripa, Morgantina, and
          above all Henna.
   At an early age merchants from Phoenicia planted
          factories on the coasts of the island. At first they did not make any
          settlements of a permanent kind,—any that could be called cities. For Sicily
          was to them only a house to call at, lying directly on their way to the land of
          the farthest west, when they went forth to win the golden treasures of Tarshish
          and planted their earliest colony, Gades, outside the straits which divide
          Europe from Africa. Their next colonies were on the coast of Africa over
          against Sicily, and this settlement had a decisive influence on the destinies
          of the island. The Phoenician trading-stations on the east coast of Sicily were
          probably outposts of old Phoenicia, but some at least of those in the west seem
          to have come from the new and nearer Phoenicia. The of Hippo
          and Utica, older than Carthage, were probably the parents of the more abiding
          Phoenician settlements in Sicily. In the east of the island the Phoenicians had
          no secure foothold. They were not able to dispossess the Sicel natives, or to
          make a home among them; they appeared purely in the guise of traders. Hence
          when the Greeks came and seriously set to work to plant true cities, the
          Phoenicians disappeared and left few traces to show that they had ever been
          there.
   
           GREEKS.
           Sicilian, like Italian history, really opens with the
          coming of the Greeks. They came under the guidance of Chalcis and the auspices
          of Apollo. It was naturally on the east coast which faces Greece that the first
          Greek settlement was made, and it is to be noticed that of the coasts of Sicily
          the east is that which most resembles in character the coast-line of Greece.
          The site which was chosen by the Chalcidians, Naxos and the Ionians of Naxos who
          accompanied them, was not a striking one.  A little tongue of land,
          north of Mount Aetna, very different from the height of Cyme, was selected for
          the foundation of Naxos.
   Here, as in the case of Cyme, the Chalcidians who led
          the enterprise surrendered the honor of naming the new city to their less
          prominent fellow-founders. The first of all the Greek towns of Sicily, Naxos
          was not  destined to live for much
          more than three hundred years. It was be destroyed by the fire and lava of the
          dangerous mountain which dominated it. A sort of consecration was always
          attached to Naxos as the first homestead of the Hellenes in the island which was
          to become a brilliant part of Hellas. To Apollo Archegetes an altar was erected on the  spot where
          the Greeks first landed,—driven, as 'the legend told, by contrary winds, owing
          to Apollo’s dispensation, to the Sicilian shores. It was the habit of
          ambassadors from old Greece as soon as they arrived in Sicily to offer
          sacrifice on this altar. In the fertile plain south of Aetna the
          Chalcidians soon afterwards founded Catane (728 BC),
          close to the sea and protected by a low range of hills behind, but under the
          power of Aetna which was to unmake the place again and again; and inland
          Leontini at the south end of her plain between two hills, with an eastern and
          western acropolis. These sites, Leontini certainly if not Catane,
          were wrested from the Sicels. The Chalcidians also
          won possession of the north-east corner, and thus obtained command of the
          straits between the island and the mainland. Here Cymaeans and Chalcidians planted Zancle (715 BC) on a low rim
          of land, which resembles a reaping-hook and gave the place its name. The haven
          is formed by the curving blade; and when Zancle came
          in after-days to mint money she engraved on her coins a sickle representing her harbour and a dolphin floating within it. A hundred
          years later the city was transformed by the immigration of a company of
          Messenians, and ultimately the old local name was ousted in favour of Messana. From Zancle the Euboeans established the
          fortress of Mylae on the other side of the north-eastern promontory; and in the
          middle of the seventh century they founded Himera, the only Greek city on
          the  northern coast, destined to live for scarce two centuries and a
          half, and then to be swept away by the Phoenician. It was important for Zancle that the land over against her, the extreme point of
          the Italian peninsula, should be in friendly hands, and therefore the men of Zancle incited their mother-city to found Rhegion; and in this foundation Messenians took part.
   While this group of Chalcidian colonies was being
          formed in north-eastern Sicily, Dorian Greeks began to obtain a footing in
          south-eastern Sicily, which history decided should become the Dorian quarter.
          The earliest of the Dorian cities was also the greatest. Syracuse, destined to
          be the head of Greek Sicily, was founded by Corinthian emigrants under the
          leadership of Archias before the end of the eighth
          century (734 BC). Somewhere about the same time Corinth also colonised Corcyra; the
          Ionian islands were half-way stations to the
          west. Which colony was the elder, we know not; tradition did not attempt
          to decide, for it placed both in the same year. But in both cases Corinth had
          to dispossess previous Greek settlers, and in both cases the previous settlers
          were Euboeans. Her colonists had to drive Eretrians from Corcyra and Chalcidians from Syracuse.
   The great Haven of Syracuse, with its island and its
          hill, formed the most striking site on the east coast, and could not fail to
          invite the earliest colonists. Chalcidians occupied the island of Ortygia (Isle
          of quails) as it was called—they must have won it from the Sicel or possibly
          from the Phoenician—and held it long enough to associate it for ever with the
          name of a fountain in their old home, Arethusa. It is highly probable that the
          Chalcidian occupation took place very soon after that of Naxos, and it is
          possible that the Corinthians did not supersede the Chalcidians till many
          years later. But when they once held Syracuse, they effectually prevented any
          Chalcidian expansion south of Leontini.
               At an early date
          Megarians also sailed
            into the West to find a new home. After various unsuccessful attempts to
            establish themselves, they finally built their city on the coast north of
            Syracuse, beside the hills of Hybla, and perhaps Sicel natives joined in
            founding the western Megara. It was the most northerly Dorian
            town on the east coast. But, like her mother, the Hyblaean Megara was destined to found a colony more famous than herself. In the middle
            of the seventh century the Megarians sent to their metropolis to invite
            cooperation in planting a settlement in the south-western part of the island.
            This settlement, which was to be the farthest outpost of Greek Sicily, was
            Selinus, the town named of wild celery as its own coins boasted, situated on a
            low hill on the coast. Megara had been occupied with the goodwill of the Sicel;
            Selinus was probably held at the expense of the Sican. In the meantime the
            south-eastern corner was being studded with Dorian cities, though they did not
            rise by any means so rapidly as the Chalcidian in the north. The Sicels seem to have offered a stouter resistance here. At
            the beginning of the seventh century, Gela (688BC)—the name is Sicel—was
            planted by Rhodian colonists with Cretans in their train. This city was set on
            a long narrow hill which stretched between the sea and an inland plain. At a
            later time Acrae and Casmenae were founded
            by Syracuse. They were overshadowed by the greatness of the mother-city,
            and never attained as much independence as more distant Camarina (595 BC)
            which was planted from the same metropolis about half a century later.
   The latest Dorian colony of Sicily was only less
          conspicuous than the first. The Geloans sought
          an oecist from their Rhodian
          metropolis and founded, half-way between
          their own city and Selinus, the lofty town of Acragas, which soon took the
          second place in Greek Sicily and became the rival of Syracuse. It was
          perched on a high hill near the sea-shore. The small poor haven was at some
          distance from the town; “flock-feeding Acragas” never became a maritime power.
          The symbols on its coins were the eagle and the crab.
   
           The Sicans.
           In planting their colonies and founding their
          domination in Sicily, the Greeks had mainly to reckon with the Sicels. In their few foundations in the farther west
          they had to deal with the Sicans. These older inhabitants were forced to
          retire from the coasts, but they lived on in their fortresses on the inland
          hills. The island was too large and its character too continental to invite the
          newcomers to attempt to conquer the whole of it. With the Phoenicians the
          Greeks had no trouble. Their factories and temples had not taken root in the
          soil, and on the landing of a stranger who was resolved to take root they
          vanished. Traces of their worship sometimes remained, here as in the Aegean.
          But they did not abandon the western corner of the island, where the Greeks did
          not attempt to settle. There they maintained three places which now assumed the
          character of cities. These were Panormus, Solus, and Motya—the Haven, the Rock
          and the Island. Panormus or “All-haven” in a fertile plain is protected on the
          north by Mount Hercte, now the Pilgrim Mount, and on
          the east by Solus. Motya is on an island in a small bay on the west coast The Elymian country lay between
          Motya and Panormus. The chief town of the Elymians,
          Segesta (which in Greek mouths became Egesta), was
          essentially a city, while Weyx farther west, high
          above the sea but not actually on it, was their outpost of defence.
          On Eryx they worshipped some goddess of nature, soon to be identified with the
          Greek Aphrodite. The Elymians were on good terms with
          the Phoenicians, and western Sicily became a Phoenician corner. While the
          inland country was left to Sicel and Sican, the coasts were to be the scene of
          struggles between Phoenician and Greek. And here the natural position of the
          combatants was reversed, for the Asiatic power was in the west and the European
          in the east. In the seventh century this struggle was still a long way off,
          Sicily was still large enough to hold both the Greek and the Canaanite in
          peace.
   
           ACHAEAN COLONIES.
           The name by which we know the central of the three
          great peninsulas of the Mediterranean did not extend as far north as the Po in
          the time of Julius Caesar , and originally
          it covered a very small area indeed. In the fifth century Thucydides applies
          the name Italy to the modern Calabria—the western of the two extremities into
          which the peninsula divides. This extremity was inhabited, when the Greeks first
          visited it, by Sicels and Oenotrians.
          But the heel was occupied by peoples of that Illyrian race which had played, as
          we dimly see, a decisive part in the earliest history of the Greeks. The
          Illyrian was now astride of the Adriatic; he had reached Italy before the
          Greek. The Calabrians, who gave their name to the
          heel, were of Illyrian stock; and along with these were the Messapians,
          some of whose brethren on the other side of the water seem to have thrown in
          their fortunes with the Greeks and penetrated into Locris and  Boeotia and perhaps into the
          Peloponnesus. It was on the seaboard of the Sicels and Oenotrians that the Achaeans of the Peloponnesus,
          probably towards the close of the eighth century, found a field for
          colonization. It has been already remarked that the Ionian islands are a sort of stepping-stone to the west, and
          just as we find Corinthians settling in Corcyra, so we find Achaeans settling
          in Zacynthus. The first colonies which they planted
          in Italy were perhaps Sybaris (721 BC) and Croton (703 BC), famous for their
          wealth and their rivalry. Sybaris on the river Crathis,
          in an unhealthy but most fruitful plain, soon extended her dominion across the
          narrow peninsula and, founding the settlements of Laos and Scidros on the western coast, commanded two seas. Thus having in her hands an overland
          route to the western Mediterranean, she could forward to her ports on the
          Tyrrhenian sea the valuable merchandise of the Milesians, whom Chalcidian
          jealousy excluded from the straits between Italy and Sicily. Thus both
          agriculture and traffic formed the basis of the remarkable wealth of Sybaris,
          and the result was an elaboration of luxury which caused the Sybarite name to
          pass into a proverb. Posidonia, famous for its temples and its roses, was
          another colony on the western sea, founded from Sybaris. It is said to have
          been formed by Troezenians who were driven out from
          that city by the Achaeans.
   A good way to the south of Sybaris you come to Croton,
          before the coast, in its southern trend, has yet reached the Lacinian promontory, on which a stately temple of Hera
          formed a central place of worship for the Greek settlers in Italy. Unlike
          the other Achaean colonies, Croton had a good harbour,
          the only good harbour on the west side of the gulf,
          but her prosperity, like that of her fellows, rested not on
          maritime traffic but on the cultivation of land and the rearing of
          cattle. The Delphic god seems to have taken a more than wonted
          interest in the foundation of this city, if we may judge from the
          Delphic tripod which appears on its earliest coins. Like Sybaris,
          Croton widened its territory and planted colonies of its own. On
          the Tyrrhenian sea, Terina and Temesa were
          to Croton what Laos and Scidros were to Sybaris.
   Caulonia, perhaps also a Crotoniate settlement, was the most southerly Achaean colony and was the neighbour of the
          western Locri. This town was founded in the territory
          of the Sicels, it is not certain by which of the
          three Locrian states; perhaps it was a joint enterprise of all three. It
          was agricultural, like its Achaean neighbors, and like them it pushed over to
          the western sea and founded Medma and Hipponium on the other coast.
   The Achaeans and Locrians might quarrel among
          themselves, but they had more in common with each other than either had with
          the Dorians, and we may conveniently  include Locri in the Achaean group. Thus the southern coast of
          Italy would have been almost a homogeneous circle if a Dorian colony had not
          been established in a small sheltered bay at the extreme north point of the
          gulf to which it gave the name it still bears, Taras or Tarentum. Taras was
          remarkable as the only foreign settlement ever made by the greatest of all the
          Dorian peoples. The town—called, like Sybaris, after the name of a neighboring
          stream—was founded by the Partheniae,
          a name which has not yet been explained. There are reasons for thinking that
          these first founders were pre-Dorian Greeks from the Peloponnesus. But Laconian
          settlers occupied the place at some unknown date and made of it a Dorian city.
          A legend then grew up which connected the Partheniae with Sparta, and a historical episode, taking various forms, was manufactured.
          It was said that in a war with the Messenians, when the Spartans were for many
          years absent from home, the women bore sons to Helots, and that this progeny,
          called Partheniae or “Maidens’ Children”, conspired
          against the state, and being driven out of the country were directed by the
          oracle to settle at Taras. The hero Phalanthus, who
          seems to have been originally a local sea-god, degraded to the rank of a hero
          at the coming of Poseidon, was worshipped by the Tarentines, and his ride
          overseas on a dolphin was represented on their coins. The framers of the story
          of the Partheniae made him the leader of the
          colonists from Laconia.
   The prosperity of the Tarentines depended partly on
          the cultivation of a fruitful territory, but mainly on their manufacturing
          industry. Their fabrics and dyed wools became renowned, and their pottery was
          widely diffused. Taras in fact must be regarded as an industrial rather than as
          an agricultural state. Her position brought her into contact with inhabitants
          of the Calabrian peninsula, and she had a foe in the Messapian town of Brentesion. She founded the colonies of Callipolis and Hydrus on the eastern coast where she had
          no Greek rivals. But on the other side, her possible advance was foreseen
          and hindered by the prudence of the Sybarites. They feared lest the Dorian city
          might creep round the coast and occupy the fertile lands which are watered by
          the Bradanos and the Siris. So they induced the
          Achaeans of old Greece to found a colony at Metapontion on the Bradanos, a place which had derived its name
          from Messapian settlers; and this the most northerly of the Achaean cities
          flourished as an agricultural community and cut off the westward expansion of
          Taras. But in the meantime another rival seized the very place from which the
          Achaeans had desired to exclude the Dorians. In the middle of the seventh
          century Colophonians planted a colony at Siris, and this Ionian state
          threatened to interrupt the Achaean line of cities and cut off Metapontion from her sisters. This solitary instance of an
          Ionian attempt to found a colony at this period in these regions is rendered
          interesting through the probability that the poet Archilochus took part in the
          expedition. But the attempt seems to have failed. There are reasons for
          thinking, though the evidence is not clear, that the place was seized by its
          Achaean neighbors and became an Achaean town. Siris, like Sybaris, Croton, and Locri, had her helpmate, though not a daughter, on the
          Tyrrhenian sea. By the persuasion of common
          interest she formed a close connection with Pyxus;
          the two cities issued common coins; and perhaps organized a rival overland
          route.   
   Thus the western coast of the Tarentine gulf was beset
          with a line of Achaean cities, flanked at one extremity by Western Locri, on the other by Dorian Taras. The common feature,
          which distinguished them from the cities settled by the men of Chalcis and
          Corinth, was that their wealth depended on the mainland, not on the sea. Their
          rich men were landowners, not merchants; it was not traffic but rich soil that
          had originally lured them to the far west. The unwarlike Sicels and Oenotrians seem to have laid no obstacles in the
          way of their settlements and to have submitted to their rule. The Iapygians and Messapians of
          Calabria were of different temper, and it is significant that it was men from
          warlike Sparta who succeeded in establishing Taras.
   These cities, with their dependencies beyond the
          hills, on the shores of the Tyrrhenian sea, came
          to be regarded as a group, and the country came to be called Great Hellas. We
          might rather have looked to find it called Great Achaia, by contrast to
          the old Achaean lands in Greece; but here, as in other cases, it is the name of
          a lesser folk which prevails. The Hellenes, who had in earlier days accompanied
          the Achaeans from their mountain dwellings in the north to their southern homes
          on the sea-coast, had also gone forth with them to found new cities in the
          west; and here the Hellenic name rose to celebrity and honor. It was no small
          thing in itself that the belt of Greek settlements on the Tarentine gulf should
          come to be called Great Hellas. But it was a small thing compared with the
          extension of the name Hellenes to designate all peoples of Greek race. There
          was nothing to lead the Greeks of their own accord to fix on Hellenes as a
          common name; if they had sought such a name deliberately, their natural choice
          would have been Achaeans, which Homer had already used in a wide sense. The
          name must have been given to them from without. Just as the barbarian peoples
          in central Italy had taken hold of the name of the Graes,
          so the barbarians in the southern peninsulas took hold of the name of the
          Hellenes, and used it to denote all settlers and strangers of the same race.
          Such a common name, applied by barbarian lips to them all alike, brought home
          to Greek traders the significance of their common race; and they adopted the
          name themselves as the conjugate of barbarians. So the name Hellenes,
          obscure when it had gone forth to the west, travelled back to the east in a new
          sense, and won its way into universal use. The fictitious ancestor Hellen
          became the forefather of the whole Greek race; and the fictitious ancestors of
          the Dorians, Ionians, and Aeolians were all derived from him. The original
          Hellenes lost their separate identity as completely as the original Aeolians
          and Ionians had lost theirs; but their name was destined to live for ever in
          the speech of men, while those of their greater fellows had passed into a
          memory.
    
               SECT. 4. GROWTH OF TRADE AND MARITIME ENTERPRISE
            
                 The age of the aristocratic republics saw the face of
          the Greek world completely transformed. The colonial expansion of Greece
          eastward and westward was itself part of this transformation, but it also
          helped signally to bring about other changes. For, while the colonies were
          politically independent of their mother-states, they reacted in many ways on
          the mother-country.
               We have seen how the system of family property was
          favorable to colonial enterprise. But the colonists, who had suffered under
          that system were not  likely to
          introduce it in their new settlements, and thus the institution of personal
          landownership was probably first established and regulated in the colonies.
          Their example reacted on the mother-country, where other natural causes were
          also gradually undermining the family system. In the first place, as the power
          of the state grew greater the power of the family grew less; and when the head
          of the state, whether king or republican government, was felt as a formidable
          authority, the prestige of the head of the family, overshadowed by the power of
          the state, became insensibly weaker. In the second place, it was common to
          assign a portion of an estate to one member of the family, to manage and enjoy
          the undivided use of it; and although it did not become his and he had no
          power of disposing of it, yet the natural tendency would have been to allow it
          on his death to pass to his son on the same conditions. It is clear that such a
          practice tended to the ultimate establishment of personal proprietorship of the
          soil. Again, side by side of the undivided family estate, personal properties
          were actually acquired. At this period there was much wild unallotted land,
          “which wild beasts haunt”, especially on the hill-slopes, and when a man of
          energy reclaimed a portion of this land for tillage, the new fields became his
          own, for they had belonged to no man. We can thus see generally how inevitable
          it was that the old system should disappear and the large family estates break
          up into private domains; but the change was not accomplished by legislation,
          and the gradual process by which it was brought about is withdrawn from our
          eyes. It was only when private landownership had become an established fact, that the law came in and recognized it by
          regulating sales of land and allowing men to bequeath it freely.
   The Boeotian poet Hesiod has given us a picture of
          rural life in Greece at this period. He was a husbandman himself near
          Ascra, where his father, who had come as a stranger from Cyme in Aeolis, had
          put under cultivation a strip of waste land on the slopes of Helicon. The
          farm was divided between his two sons, Perses and Hesiod, but in unequal shares; and Hesiod accuses Perses of winning the larger moiety by bribing the lords of the district. But Perses managed his farm badly and it did not prosper.
          Hesiod wrote his poem the to teach such
          unthrifty farmers as his brother true principles of agriculture and economy.
          His view of life is profoundly gloomy, and suggests a condition of grave social
          distress in Boeotia. This must have been mainly due to the oppression of the
          nobles, “gift-devouring” princes as he calls them. The poet looks back to the
          past with regret. The golden age, the silver, and the bronze, have all gone by,
          and the age of the heroes who fought at Troy; and mankind is now in the iron age, and “will never cease by day or night from
          weariness and woe”. “Would that I did not live in this
            generation, would that I had died before, or were born hereafter!” The
          poem gives minute directions for the routine of the husbandman’s work, the
          times and tides of sowing and reaping, and the other labours of the field, the fashion of the implements of tillage; and all this is
          accompanied by maxims of proverbial wisdom.
   Apart from the value of his poem as a social picture,
          Hesiod has a great significance as the first spokesman of the common folk. In
          the history of Europe, his is the first voice raised from among the toiling
          classes and claiming the interest of mankind in their lot. It is a voice indeed
          of acquiescence, counseling fellow-toilers to make the best of an evil case;
          the stage of revolt has not yet been reached. But the grievances are aired, and
          the lords who wield the power are exhorted to deal just judgments, that the
          land may prosper. The new poet is, in form and style, under the influence of
          the Homeric poems, but he is acutely conscious that he is striking new notes
          and has new messages for men. He comes forward, unlike Homer, in his own
          person; he contrasts himself with Homer when he claims that the Muses can teach
          truth as well as beautiful fiction. In his other poem, the Theogony,
          he tells us that the daughters of Zeus taught Hesiod as he fed sheep on the
          hill-sides of Helicon; they gave him for staff a branch of bay. The staff was
          now the minstrel’s emblem  for the
          epic poems were no longer sung to the lyre, but were recited by the “rhapsode”
          standing with a staff in his hand. Then the Muses breathed into the shepherd of
          Ascra the wizard power of declaring the future and the past, and set him the
          task of singing the race of the blessed gods. In the Theogony he
          performs this task. He sings how the world was made, the gods and the earth,
          the rivers and the ocean, the stars and the heaven; how in infinite space which
          was at the beginning there arose Earth and Tartarus and Love the cosmic
          principle; and it is notable how he introduces amongst the eldest-born powers
          of the world such abstractions as love itself, memory, sleep. These
          speculations on the origin of the universe, and the attempt to work up the
          popular myths into a system, mark a new stage in the intellectual development
          of Greece. The Theogony produced
          a whole school of bards, who merged their identity under the name of Hesiod;
          and, as we have seens, these Hesiodic poems had a
          decisive influence in moulding the ideas of the
          Greeks as to the early history of their race.
   Boeotia was always an unenterprising country of
          husbandmen, and Hesiod had no sympathy with trade or foreign venture, though
          his father had come from Aeolis. But the growth of trade was the most important
          fact of the times, and here too the colonies reacted on the mother-country. By
          enlarging the borders of the Greek world they invited and facilitated the
          extension of Greek trade and promoted the growth of industries. Hitherto
          the Greeks had been mainly an agricultural and pastoral people; many of them
          were now becoming industrial. They had to supply their western colonies with
          oil and wool, with metal and pottery, and they began to enter into serious
          competition with the Phoenician trader and to drive eastern goods from the
          market.
   Greek trade moved chiefly along water-ways, and this
          is illustrated by the neglect of road-making in Greece. There were
          no paved roads, even in later times, except the Sacred Ways to frequented
          sanctuaries like that from Athens to Eleusis and Delphi, or that from the
          sea-coast to Olympia. Yet the Greeks were still timorous navigators, and it was
          deemed hazardous to sail even in the most familiar waters, except in the late
          summer. Hesiod expresses in vivid verses the general fear of the sea: “For
          fifty days after the solstice, till the end of the harvest, is the tide
          for sailing; then you will not wreck your ship, nor will the sea wash down your
          crew, unless Poseidon or Zeus wills their destruction. In that season winds are
          steady and Ocean kind; with mind at rest, launch your ship and stow your
          freight; but make all speed to return home, and await not the new wine and the
          rain of the vintage-tide, when the winter approaches, and the terrible
          South-wind stirs the waves, in fellowship with the heavy autumnal rain of Zeus,
          and makes the sea cruel”. About this time, however, an important advance was
          made in seacraft by the discovery of the anchor.
   Seafaring states found it needful to build warships
          for protection against pirates. The usual type of the early Greek warship
          was the penteconter or “fifty-oar”, a long, narrow
          galley with twenty-five benches, on each of which two oarsmen sat. The penteconter hardly came into use in Greece before the
          eighth century. The Homeric Greeks had only smaller vessels of twenty oars, but
          we can see in the Homeric poems the penteconter coming within their ken as a strange and wonderful thing. The ocean deity, Briareos, called by the name of the Aegean, appears in the Iliad; and he is probably no
          other than the new racer of the seas, sped by a hundred hands. In the Odyssey the Phaeacians, who are
          the kings of sea-craft, have ships of fifty oars. But before the end of the
          eighth century a new idea revolutionized shipbuilding in Phoenicia. Vessels
          were built with two rows of benches, one above the other, so that the
          number of oarsmen and the speed were increased without adding to the
          length of the ship. The “bireme”, however, never became common in Greece, for
          the Phoenicians had soon improved it into the “trireme”, by the superposition
          of another bank of oars. The trireme, propelled by 170 rowers, was
          ultimately to come into universal use as the regular Greek warship, though for
          a long time after its first introduction by the Corinthians the old penteconters were still generally used; but the unknown
          shipwright who invented the bireme deserves the credit of the new idea.
          Whatever naval battles were fought in the seventh century were fought mainly,
          we may be sure, with penteconters. But penteconters and triremes alike were affected by the new
          invention of the bronze ram on the prow, a weapon of attack which determined
          the future character of Greek naval warfare.
   The Greeks believed that the first regular sea-fight
          between two Greek powers was fought before the middle of the seventh century
          between Corinth and her daughter city Corcyra. If the tradition is true, we may
          be sure that the event was an incident in a struggle for the trade with Italy
          and Sicily and along the Adriatic coasts. The chief competitors, however, with
          Corinth in the west were the Euboean cities, Chalcis and Eretria. In the
          traffic in eastern seas the island city of Aegina, though she had no colonies
          of her own, took an active part, and became one of the richest mercantile
          states of Greece. Athens too had ships, but her industries were still on a
          comparatively small scale, and it was not till a much later period that her
          trade was sufficient to involve her in serious rivalry with her neighbors. But
          the most active of all in industry and commerce were the Greeks of Ionia.
                
               SECT. 5. INFLUENCE OF LYDIA ON
          GREECE
    
               The Greeks of the Asiatic coast were largely
          dependent, for good or evil, on the adjacent inland countries. The inland trade
          added to their prosperity, but at any moment if a strong barbarian power arose
          their independence might be gravely menaced. At the beginning of the seventh
          century active intercourse was maintained between the Greeks and the kingdoms
          of Phrygia and Maeonia. The Phrygian king Midas
          dedicated a throne to the god of Delphi; both the Phrygians and the Lydians
          adopted the Greek alphabet, while the Greeks adopted their modes of music and
          admitted Phrygian legends into Greek mythology.
   A considerable Phrygian element had won its way into
          Lydia, and had gained the upper hand. In the Homeric poems we nowhereread of lydians but only
          of Maeonians, and there can be no doubt that
          name represents the Phrygian settlers or conquerors. A Maeonian dynasty ruled
          in Lydia at the beginning of the seventh century, and the king bears a Maeonian
          name, Candaules, “hound-choker”. The Aryan
          conquerors—conquerors, that is, who spoke an Aryan tongue—had occupied the
          throne for centuries; and Greek tradition afterwards derived the origin of the
          family of Candaules from Heracles himself. But they
          had become degenerate, and Gyges, a native Lydian, of the clan of the Mermnadae, succeeded in slaying Candaules and seizing the crown. This revolution ushered in a new period for the Lydian,
          as it was now called, no longer Maeonian, kingdom.
          The dominion of the Maeonian sovereign had probably extended southward to the
          valley of the Maeander. Gyges extended his power northward to the shores
          of the Propontis, where he founded Dascylion,
          and conquered the Troad. But he also designed to make
          the Aegean his western boundary and bring the Greek cities under his lordship.
          He pressed down the valley of the Hermus against Smyrna; down the valley of the Cayster against Colophon; down the valley of the
          Maeander against Miletus and Magnesia. Of these enterprises only the faintest
          hints have come down to us. It may be that Colophon was actually captured, and
          perhaps Magnesia; but the other cities beat back the enemy. The poet Mimnermus sings how a warrior, perhaps his own grandfather,
          wrought havoc in the ranks of the Lydian horsemen in the plain of the Hermus.
   But the plans of Gyges against his Greek neighbors
          were suddenly interrupted by a blow, which descended, as it were from the other
          side of the world, upon Greeks and Lydians alike. The regions round about Lake
          Maeotis, on the northern coast of the Black Sea, were inhabited by the
          Cimmerians, who appear in the marvellous wanderings of Odysseus. They were now driven forth from their abodes ( Crimea), to which, however, their name clung and
          still clings, by a Scythian folk, the Scolotae,
          who came from the east. Homeless, the Cimmerians wandered to the opposite side
          of the Euxine; but whether they travelled by the eastern or the western route,
          by the Caucasus or by the Danube, is not known for certain. On one hand, they
          seem to have appeared first in eastern Asia Minor; on the other, they seem to
          have associated with themselves some Thracian peoples—the Trerians, Edonians, and Thynians. The
          truth may be that they came round by the eastern coast; and that afterwards,
          when they made their incursions into western Asia Minor, they invited allies
          from Thrace to help them. Having defeated the Milesians of Sinope, they chose
          this place to be their chief settlement. They ventured to attack the great
          Assyrian empire, and King Assarhaddon himself tells
          how “I smote the Cimmerian Teuspa with all his
          army”. But they overthrew the realm of Phrygia under its last king Midas, and
          towards the middle of the seventh century they attacked Lydia. To meet this
          danger, Gyges sought help from Assyria. The warlike Assarhaddon had been succeeded at Nineveh by Assurbanipal, a peaceful and literary
          prince, whose refined luxury is caricatured in the Greek conception of
          Sardanapalus. The lord of Lydia acknowledged the overlordship of the lord of
          Assyria. He gained a victory over the Cimmerians, and sent their chiefs in
          chains to Nineveh. But he did not long brook to be the vassal of another
          sovereign. He threw off his allegiance to Assyria, and sent Ionian and Carian
          mercenary soldiers to Egypt, to help that country also to free itself from Assyrian
          dominion. At this moment, perhaps, Gyges was at the height of his power. His
          wealth was famous, and he too, like Phrygian Midas, sent gifts—among them, six
          golden mixing-bowls—to the Delphian god. The poet Archilochus, who witnessed
          his career, sings defiantly that he “cares not for the wealth of golden Gyges”.
   But the Cimmerians presently renewed their attack, and
          fortune changed. Gyges was slain in battle; his capital Sardis was taken,
          except the citadel; and it was some satisfaction to Assurbanipal to record that
          Lydia was in the hands of the Cimmerians. It was not long before they swooped
          down upon the Greek cities. Callinus, a poet of Ephesus, heard the trample of
          their horses and roused his fellow-citizens to battle; Ephesus defied their
          attack, but the temple of Artemis outside the walls was burned down. They and
          their allies from Thrace destroyed Magnesia on the Maeander. The barbarians
          made a deep impression. The swords which they swept down upon their enemies
          were enormous; they were equipped with large quivers, and wore the curved caps
          of the Scythians; fierce hounds ran with their horses. Such was their
          appearance as they were pourtrayed by a Greek artist
          of a later generation on a painted sarcophagus found at Clazomenae.
          But the danger passed away. Ardys succeeded Gyges on the Lydian throne,
          and he finally not only drave out the Cimmerians
          from the land, but perhaps succeeded in extending his power into Cappadocia, as
          far as the Halys.
   In the meantime Lydia had made an invention which
          revolutionized commerce. It is to Lydia that Europe owes the invention
          of coinage. The Babylonians, Phoenicians, and Egyptians made use of
          weighed gold and silver as a medium of exchange, a certain ratio being fixed
          between the two metals. A piece of weighed metal becomes a coin when it is
          stamped by the State and is thereby warranted to have its professed weight and
          purity. This step was first taken in Lydia, where the earliest money was coined
          somewhere about the beginning of the seventh century, probably by Gyges. These
          Lydian coins were made of the native white gold, or electron—a mixture of gold
          and silver in which the proportion of gold was greater. A bar of the white
          gold of Sardis was regarded as ten times the value of a silver bar, and
          three-fourths of the value of a gold bar, of the same
          weight.  Miletus and Samos soon adopted the new invention, which
          then spread to other Asiatic towns. Then Aegina and the two great cities
          of Euboea instituted monetary systems, and by degrees all the states of Greece
          gave up the primitive custom of estimating value in heads of cattle, and most
          of them had their own mints. As gold was very rare in
            Greece, not being found except in the islands of Siphnos and Pharos, the Greeks coined in silver. This invention, coming at
          the very moment when the Greeks were entering upon a period of great commercial
          activity, was of immense importance, not only in facilitating trade, but in
          rendering possible the accumulation of capital. Yet it took many generations to
          supersede completely the old methods of economy by the new system.
   The Greeks had derived their systems of weight from
          Babylonia and Phoenicia. But, when Aegina and the Euboean cities fixed
          the standard of their silver coinage, they did not adopt the silver
          standard of either of those countries. The heavier stater (as the
          standard silver coin was named) of Aegina weighed 196 grains, and
          slightly exceeded a florin in value; and this system was adopted
          throughout the Peloponnese and in northern Greece. The lighter stater of Euboea
          weighed 130 grains, which was the Babylonian standard of gold. This system, at
          first confined to Euboea, Samos, and a few other places, was afterwards adopted
          by Corinth, and then, in a slightly modified form, by Athens.
   It was highly characteristic of the Greeks that their
          coinage was marked from the beginning by religious associations; and it has
          been supposed that the priests of their temples had an important share in
          initiating the introduction of money. It was in the shrines of their gods that
          men were accustomed to store their treasures for safe-keeping; the gods
          themselves possessed costly dedications; and thus the science of weighing the
          precious metals was naturally studied by the priesthoods. Every coin which a Greek
          state issued bore upon it a reference to some deity. In early times this
          reference always took the shape of a symbol; in later times the head of the god
          was often represented. The Lydian coins of Sardis, the coins of Miletus and
          other Ionian cities, bore a lion; those of Eretria showed a cow with a sucking
          calf; Aegina displayed a tortoise, and Cyzicus a tunny-fish; and all these
          tokens were symbols of the goddess who, whether under the name of Aphrodite or
          Hera or Artemis, was identified by the Greeks with Astarte of Phoenicia.
                
               SECT. 6. THE OPENING OF EGYPT
            
                 Thus the merchants of Miletus and her fellows grew
          rich. They were the intermediaries between Lydia and the Mediterranean; while
          the Lydians carried their wares to the interior parts of Asia
          Minor and the far east. Their argosies sailed to
          the far west, as well as to the coasts of the Euxine. But a new field for
          winning wealth was opened to them, much about the same time as the invention of
          coinage revealed a new prospect to the world of commerce. The jealously guarded
          gates of Egypt were unbarred to Greek trade.
   The greatest exploit of the Assyrian monarch Assarhaddon was the conquest of Egypt. The land had been
          split up into an endless number of small kingdoms, and the kings continued to
          govern as vassals of Assyria. But the foreign domination did not last for much
          more than a quarter of a century. One of the kings, Psammetichus of Sais, in Lower Egypt, probably of Libyan stock, revolted against
          Assurbanipal, who, in the last year of his reign, was occupied in subduing an
          insurrection of the Elamites of Susiana. We have seen how mail-clad soldiers of
          Ionia and Caria were sent by the lord of Lydia to assist Psammetichus.
          With the help of these “bronze-men who came up from the sea”, he
          reduced the other kings and brought the whole of Egypt under his sway.
          This Libyan dynasty kept Sais as their capital, and their power was supported
          by foreign mercenaries, Greeks and Carians, Syrians and Phoenicians. Psammetichus built the fortress of Daphnae—for
          so Greek speech graciously altered into Greek shape the Egyptian name Defenneh—and entrusted it to his Greek soldiers. Relics of
          this foreign garrison have been dug up among the ruins of Daphnae. Psammetichus and his successors completely departed
          from the narrow Egyptian policy of the Pharaohs, and were the forerunners in
          some respects of the Greek dynasty of the Ptolemies, who three centuries hence
          were to rule the land. They opened Egypt to the trade of the world and allowed
          Greeks to settle permanently in the country. Necho, the son of Psammetichus, connected the Red Sea with the Nile by a
          canal, and began a work, which it was reserved for our own time to achieve, the
          cutting of a channel through the isthmus which parts the Red Sea from the
          Mediterranean. His war-fleets sailed both in the Cypriot and in the Arabian
          seas; and a party of Phoenician explorers sent out by him accomplished the
          circumnavigation of Africa—a feat which two thousand years later was regarded
          as a wild dream.
   The Milesians founded a factory on the western or Canobic channel of the Nile, not very far from Sais;
          and around it a Greek of city
          grew up, which received the name of Naucratis, “sea-queen” (640-630 BC). This
          colony became the haven of all Greek traders; for though at first they seem to
          have moved freely, restrictions were afterwards placed upon them and they were
          not permitted to enter Egypt except by the Canobic mouth. At Naucratis, the Milesians, the Samians, and the Aeginetans had each
          their own separate quarter and their own sanctuaries; all the other Greek
          settlers had one common enclosure called the Hellenion,
          girt by a thick brick wall and capable of holding 50,000 men. Here were their
          market-place and their temples. All the colonists of Naucratis were Greeks of
          the Asiatic coast, whether Ionians, Dorians, or Aeolians, excepting alone the
          Aeginetans.
   Egypt, as we see, offered a field not only for traders
          but for adventurous soldiers, and thus helped to relieve the pressure of
          over-population in Ionia. At Abusimbel in Upper Egypt
          we have a relic of the Greek mercenaries, who accompanied King Psammetichus II (594-589 BC) , Necho’s
          successor, in an expedition against Ethiopia. Some them scratched
          their names on the colossal statues of the temple; and the very triviality of
          this relic, at such a distance of time, perhaps makes it the more interesting.
    
               SECT. 7. CYRENE
            
               Not long after Egypt was thrown open to Greek trade,
          there arose to the west of Egypt a new Greek
          city. Civil dissension in the island of Thera between the older population, who
          called themselves by the obscure name of Minyae, and
          the later Dorian settlers led to an emigration of the Minyae—some
          Dorians among them; and the exiles, having increased their band by Cretan
          adventurers, sailed for the shores of Barca. They made their first settlement
          on the little island of Platea off the coast; their second on the opposite
          coast of the mainland; and when this too proved a failure, they founded their
          abiding settlement about eight miles from the sea near an abundant spring of
          water, on two white hills, which commanded the encompassing plain. The city was
          named Cyrene ( 630 BC), and it was the only
          Greek colony on the coast of Africa which attained to eminence and wealth. The
          man who led the island folk to their new home became their king; his name seems
          to have been Aristoteles, but he took the strange name of Battus,
          which is said to mean “king” in the Libyan language, while its resemblance to
          the Greek word for “stammer” gave rise to the legend that Battus I stammered in his speech. His son was Arcesilas; and
          in the line of the Cyrenaean kings Battus and Arcesilas succeeded
          each other in alternation. Under Battus II the new
          city was reinforced by a large incoming of new settlers whom he
          invited, chiefly from the Peloponnese and Crete; and this influx the changed
          character of the
          place, since the original “Minyan” element was outnumbered. The lands which the
          Greeks took from the Libyan inhabitants were made fruitful by the winter rains;
          Pindar describes them as plains over which dark clouds hover. There was
          excellent pasturage, and the men of Cyrene became famous for rearing horses and
          for skill as riders and charioteers. They were naturally the intermediaries
          between Greek merchants and the Libyan natives; but the chief source of the
          wealth of the Cyrenaean kings was the export of silphion, a plant which acquired a high repute for
          medicinal virtues. In those days it grew luxuriantly in the regions of Barca;
          now it is extinct. The sale of silphion was a
          monopoly of the king; and on a fine Cyrenaean cup we can see Arcesilas II himself watching the
          herb being weighed and packed. It was in the reign of this king that Barca was founded, farther west. He quarrelled with his brothers, and they left Cyrene and
          founded a town for themselves.
   Cyrene held her head high in the Greek world though
          she was somewhat apart from it. A Cyrenaean poet
          arose, and continued the Odyssey and described the last
          adventures of Odysseus. His poem was accepted by Greece as winding up the
          Epic Cycle which was associated with the name of Homer. His work was
          distinguished by local pride and local colouring.
          He gave Odysseus a son Arcesilaus, and connected the royal line of Cyrene with
          the great wanderer. And he introduced a flavour of
          those Libyan influences which modified Cyrenaean civilization, just as the remote cities of the Euxine received influences from
          Scythia.
    
               SECT. 8. POPULAR DISCONTENT IN
          GREECE
   The advance of the Greeks in trade and industry
          produced many consequences of moment for their political and social
          development. The manufactures required labour, and a
          sufficient number of free labourers was not to be had. Slaves were therefore indispensable,
          and they were imported in large numbers from Asia Minor and Thrace and the
          coasts of the Euxine. The slave-trade became a profitable enterprise, and the
          men of Chios made it their chief pursuit. The existence of household slaves,
          generally war-captives, such as we meet in Homer, was an innocent institution
          which would never have had serious results; but the new organized slave-system
          which began in the seventh century was destined to prove one of the most fatal
          causes of disease and decay to the states of Greece.
   At first the privileged classes of the aristocratic
          republics benefited by the increase of commerce; for the nobles were themselves
          the chief speculators. But the wealth which they acquired by trade undermined
          their political position. For, in the first place, their position depended
          largely on their domains of land; and when arose to compete with agriculture,
          the importance of land necessarily declined. In the second place, wealth
          introduced a new political standard; and aristocracies resting on birth tended
          to transform themselves into aristocracies resting on wealth. The proverb
          “money makes the man” now came into vogue. As nobility by birth cannot be
          acquired, whereas wealth can, such a change is always a step in the direction
          of democracy.
               On the other hand, the poorer freemen at first
          suffered. How heavily the transition from the old systems of exchange to the
          use of money bore upon them, we shall find illustrated when we come to the
          special history of Athens. But their distress and discontent drove them into
          striving for full political equality, and in many cases they strove with
          success. The second half of the seventh century is marked in many parts of
          Greece by struggles between the classes; and the wiser and better of the nobles
          began themselves to see the necessity of extending political privileges to
          their fellow-citizens. The centralization in towns, owing to the growth of
          industries and the declining importance of agriculture, created a new town
          population and doubtless helped on the democratic movement.
               In this agitated period lived a poet of great genius,
          Archilochus of Paros. It has been truly said that Archilochus is the first
          Greek “of flesh and blood” whom we can grasp through the mists of antiquity.
          Son of a noble by a slave mother he tried his luck among the adventurers who
          went forth to colonise Siris in Italy, but he
          returned having won an experience of sea-faring, which taught him to sing of
          the “bitter gifts of Poseidon” and the mariner’s prayers for “sweet home”. Then
          he took part in a Parian colonisation of Thasos, and
          was involved in party struggles which rent the island. It must have been at
          Thasos that he witnessed an eclipse of the sun at noontide, which he
          describes; and this gives us, as a date in the Thasian period of his life, the
          6th of April, 648 B.C.—the
          first exact date we have bearing on the history of Greece. All the evils of all
          Hellas are here, he exclaims; and “Thasos is not a fair
            place nor a desirable, like the land round the stream of Siris”. He
          announces that he is “the servant of the lord of battle and skilled in the
          delicious gift of the Muses”. But when he fought in a war which the Thasians
          waged with the Thracians of the opposite coast, he ran for his life and dropped
          his shield; “never mind, he said, I will get me another as good”. Poor, with a
          stain on his birth, tossed about the world, soured by adversity, Archilochus in
          his poetry gave full expression to his feelings, and used it to utter his
          passionate hatred against his enemies, such as the Parian Lycambes,
          for instance, who refused him his daughter Neobule. Had fortune favored him, he
          would have been a noble of the nobles; ill-luck drove him to join the movement
          against aristocracy. His poems present a complete contrast to the epic style
          and even to Hesiod. He addressed himself to the people; sang to the flute,
          instead of the lyre; used colloquial language; and perfected iambic and
          trochaic measures for literary purposes. His influence may be judged from the
          fact that his poems were recited by the rhapsodes along with Homer and Hesiod.
   The ills of Greece, which were reflected in the poems of Archilochus, were to lead to the development of equality and freedom. But success in the struggle would in most cases depend on military efficiency; and a revolution in the art of warfare, which was brought about at the same period, was therefore of immense importance. This takes us to the history of Sparta. 
 CHAPTER III.
              
        GROWTH OF SPARTA. FALL OF THE ARISTOCRACIES
          
        
  | 
![]()  | 
      ![]()  | 
      ![]()  |