Manual of Greek literature from the earliest authentic periods to the close of the Byzantine era
Anthon, Charles, 1797-1867.

Page  [unnumbered]

Page  [unnumbered]


Page  II Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year one thousand eight hundred and flfty-three, by HARPER & BROTHERS, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Southern District of New York.

Page  III P R E FAC E, A COURSE Of Lectures on Greek Literature is one of the duties connected with the department of Ancient Languages in Columbia College, and, in fulfilling this requirement, the author of the present work has, for many years past, read a series of lectures on the subject to the senior classes of the institution. Each of these lectures being invariably followed by a written examination, on the plan pursued in foreign universities, and the student being called upon, in the course of such examination, for additional information obtained by private reading, a difficulty has long been felt with regard to the proper sources whence this information was to be derived. The principal works on the history of Greek Literature are not, in general, of easy access to American students, some by reason of the expense connected with them, but by far the greater part from their being written in foreign languages with which few of our youth are familiar. To obviate, therefore, in some degree, these two difficulties, the present work has been prepared, and, should it meet with a favorable reception, it will be followed by a similar manual of Roman Literature. The introductory portion of the volume commences with a brief abstract of what is termed Linguistic, so far as this has a bearing on the Indo-European chain of languages, to which the Hellenic tongue belongs; a subject naturally possessing great interest for the young student, and well calculated to impart a liberal tone to academical researches. In preparing this part of the work, rich mate

Page  IV iv PREFACE. rials have been obtained from the stores of German eru. dition, and others of no less value from the productions of Donaldson, Prichard, Winning, and Mure, among English scholars. The main work itself embraces in its plan the whole range of Greek Literature, from the earliest periods down to the close of the Byzantine era, and, besides a brief account of each successive stage of development in the history of the Grecian mind, will be found to contain biographical sketches of all the most eminent writers who flourished within the limits just mentioned. To the list of their works there is also appended, in the case of each writer, a condensed account of the principal editions, prepared from the best bibliographical sources, and which, though necessarily brief, may not prove without its value. A rapid survey is also taken of the different schools of Greek philosophy, of the medical systems of Greece, and likewise of the advances made in the cultivation of the mathematical sciences. The earlier part of the work is based, in a great measure, upon the admirable history of Greek Literature by C. O. Muller, left unfinished at his death, and upon the labors of Mure and Ihne, from the latter of whom, in particular, the history of the Homeric controversy has chiefly been drawn. In general, the language and arrangement of these writers have been carefully retained, as far as was compatible with the system of condensation required throughout the work. The biographical sketches are taken, for the most part, from the excellent Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, edited by Dr. Smith, a work the high price of which places it almost entirely out of the reach of American students. It is but fair, however, to state, that? in giving these sketches, additions have frequently been made from other sources, and not a few errors have been corrected in matters appertaining to chronology and literary history. Valuable materials have also been obtained from Clinton, Scholl, Bernhardy, Bode, and

Page  V PREFACE. V many others of the most eminent European scholars. Indeed, the main object of the author has been to give, as far as possible, a complete resume of the History of Greek Literature, and he presents the, work as such to the students of his own country, in the earnest hope that it may lead them to a more intimate acquaintance with that noble field of mental culture, from which the literature of the civilized world almost exclusively derives its origin. The subject of Sacred Literature forms no part of the present work, and only a few, therefore, of the ecclesiastical writers, such as Justin Martyr, Clemens of Alexandrea, and Origen, have been briefly mentioned under the head of the Neo-Platonic school. The following is a list of the principal works from which materials have been obtained, or which have been consulted in the preparation of the present work: 1. Bopp, Vergleichende Grammatik, &c., Berlin, 4to, 1833, &c. 2. " Comparative Grammar of the Sanscrit, Zend, &c., translated by Eastwick, London, 3 vols. 8vo, 1845-50. 3. Pott, Etymologische Forschungen, Lemgo, 2 vols. 8vo, 1833-36. 4. Marsh, Horae Pelasgice, Cambridge, 8vo, 1815. 5. Hug, Die Erfindung der Buchstabenschrift, Ulmn, 8vo, 1801. 6. Donaldson, New Cratylus, London, 8vo, 2d ed., 1850. 7. Prichard, Researches into the Physical History of Mankind, London, 5 vois. 8vo, 1841-7. 8. Eichhoff, Parallgle des Langues de l'Europe et de l'Inde, Paris, 4to, 1836. 9. Eichhoff, Vergleichung der Sprachen, &c., von Kaltschmidt, Leipzig, 4to, 1840. 10. Chav6e, Lexiologie Indo-Europeenne, Paris, 8vo, 1849. 11. Winning, Manual of Comparative Philology, London, 8vo, 1838. 12. Pictet, De 1'Affinit6 des Langues Celtiques avec le Sanscrit, Paris, 8vo, 1827. 13. Dankovszky, Die Griechen als Stamm- und Sprachverwandte der Slawen, Pressburg, 8vo, 1828. 14. Ahrens, De Lingune Graecae Dialectis, G6tting., 2 vols. 8vo, 1839-43. 15. Prichard, Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations, Oxford, 8vo, 1831. 16. Dieffenbach, Celtica, Stuttgart, 2 vols. 8vo, 1839-40. 17. Pococke, India in Greece, London, 8vo, 1852. 18. Latham, The Germania of Tacitus, with Ethnological dissertations and notes, London, 8vo, 1851.

Page  VI Vi -PREFACE. 19. Fabricii, Bibliotheca Greca, Hamb., ed. 3, 14 vols. 4to, 1718-~28. 20. " " " " ed. Harless, 12 vols. 4to, 1790 -1811. 21. Harless, Brevior Notitia Literature Graecn, Lips., 12mo, 1812. 22. Vossius, De Historicis Graecis, ed. Westermann, Lips., 8vo, 1838. 23. Muller, History of the Literature of Ancient Greece, London, 2 vols. 8vo, 1840-1. 24. Miuller, Griechische Literatur, Breslau, 2 vols. 8vo, 1841. 25. Mure, Critical History of the Language and Literature of Greece, London, 4 vols. 8vo, 1850-3. 26. Sch6ll, Histoire de la Lit6rature Grecque Profane, Paris, 8 vols. 8vo, 1825. 27. Scholl, Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur, &c., Berlin, 3 vols. 8vo, 1828-30. 28. Bernhardy, Grundriss der Griechischen Literatur, Halle, 2 vols. 8vo, 1845-52. 29. Bode, Dichtkunst der Hellenen, Leipzig, 6 vols. 8vo, 1838-40. 30. Mohnike, Geschichte der Lit. der Griechen und R6mer, Greifswald, 8vo, 1813. 31. Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, &c., London, 3 vols. 8vo, 1843-9. 32. Grdfenhan, Geschichte der Klasslschen Philologie, Bonn, 4 vols. Svo, 1843- 50. 33. Roulez, Manuel de i'Histoire de la Lit. Grecque, Bruxelles, 8vo, 1837. 34. Jouffroy, Manuel de la Literature Ancienne, Paris, 8vo, 1842. 35. Munk, Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur, Berlin, 2 vols. 12mo, 1849-50. 36. Tregder, Handbuch der Gr. und Rom. Literaturgeschichte, Marburg, 12mo, 1847. 37. Matthiae, Manual of the History of Greek and Roman Literature, Oxford, 12mo, 1841. 38. Pierron, Histoire de la Lit. Grecque, Paris, 12mo, 1850. 39. Talfourd, History of Greek Literature, London, 8vo, 1850. 40. Matter, Histoire de l'Ecole d'Alexandrie, Paris, 2 vols. 8vo, 2d ed., 1840-44. 41. Egger, Histoire de la Critique chez les Grecs, Paris, 8vo, 1849. 42. Brucker, Historia Critica Philosophiee, Lipsiae, 6 vols. 4to, 1767. 43. Degerando, Histoire compar6e des Systemes de Philosophie, Paris, 4 vols. 8vo, 1823. 44. Tennemann, Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, Leipzig, 8vo, 1829. 45. Tennemann, Manual of Philosophy, by Morell, London, 12mo, 1852. 46. Ritter, History of Philosophy, translated by Morrison, Oxford and London, 4 vols. 8vo, 1838-46. 47. Finlay, Greece under the Romans, London, 8vo, 1844. 48. " Medieval Greece, and Trebizond, London, 8vo, 1851. 49. Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, Oxford, 3 vols. 4to, 1834-51.

Page  VII PREFACE. ViI 50. Clinton, Epitome of the Civil and Literary Chronology of Greece, Oxford, 8vo, 1851. 51. Donaldson, Theatre of the Greeks, London, Svo, 6th edition, 1849. 52. Wieseler, Theatergebaude, &c., bei den Griechen und R6mern, G6tting., 4to, 1851. 53. Browne, History of Classical Literature, London, 2 vols. 8vo, 1851. 54. Blackie, On Greek Pronunciation, Edinburgh, 8vo, 1852. 55. Grote, History of Greece, London, 10 vols. 8vo, 1846-52. 56. Thirlwall, History of Greece, London, new ed., 8 vols. 8vo, 1845-52. CHARLES ANTHON. Columbia College, April 5tk, 1853.

Page  VIII









Page  1 HISTORY OF GREEK LITERATURE, INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.' I. THE Greek language forms a branch of the great family of languages, known by the name of the Indo-Germanic, and extending from India to the British Isles. II. Some writers,2 in speaking of this chain of languages, prefer the appellation Indo-European; but the term Indo-Germanic is decidedly preferable, since it points at the two most important branches of the family, namely, the Indian and Teutonic languages, and is also free from the vagueness which attaches itself to the name Indo-European; for there are languages in Europe which have no established affinity with this family.3 III. The languages included under the title of Indo-Germanic are the following: 1. The Sanscrit4 and its derivative dialects. 2. The Zend,5 1 Donaldson's New Cratylus, 2d ed., p. 108, seqq.; Penny Cyclopeedia, vol. xi, p. 427, seqq.; diller, History of Greek Literature, p. 3, seqq.; Winning's MIanual of Comparative Philology, p. 20, seqq.; AMure, Critical History of the Language and Literature of Greece, vol. i., p. 87, seqq.; St. John, The Hellenes, vol. i., p. 3, seqq.; Bernhardy, Grundriss der Griechischen Literatur, vol. i., p. 160, seqq.; Browne, History of Classical Literature, vol. i., p. 9, seqq. 2 Winning's Manual, &c., p. 20. Compare Prichard, Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations, p. 17. 3 Donaldson, New Cratylus, p. 108, 2d ed. 4 The term Sanscrit is an epithet employed by the Brahmins to designate the language in which their books of law and religion are written. The original word San-s-krZta is a compound: the first syllable is the preposition sam, "with" (compare the Greek av-v and /ala); the second is the passive participle Icrita, of the verb kri, "to make" (compare the Latin cre-are, and the Greek Kpaivmo), with a silent s interposed between the two. Hence Sanskrita is equivalent to the Latin confectus, and means " done, made, or formed completely." It indicates, therefore, a perfect, highly-polished, regularly inflected language, one possessing all its flexions and grammatical forms; in other words, a classical language, or one removed from the corrupting influences of every-day use.New Cratylus, p. 121, 2d ed. 5 The term Zend seems to be the ancient Parsee word for "book," and to have been specially applied to the volume of Zoroaster's sacred writings, in the same way as we use the word Bible (Burnouf, Comm., p. 16). It was first applied by Anquetil to the language in which the Scriptures of the Parsees are written, and in this sense it has been generally adopted throughout Europe. The Zend language belongs to the Median branch of'the Indo-Germanic family of languages (Penny Cyclop., xxvii., p. 760). Some writers have regarded the Zend as merely a dialect of the Sanscrit, but this is evidently erroneous. Consult the remarks of Donaldson, New Cratylus, p. 126, 2d ed. A

Page  2 GREE K LIT ER A T URE. and the other ancient dialects of Persia. 3. The Teutonic languages, comprising the Gothic, German, Anglo-Saxon, Icelandic, Swedish, &c. 4. The Latin and Greek. 5. The Sclavonic languages, including the Lithuanian, Prussian, Polish, Bohemian, &c. 6. The Celtic languages.' IV. The affinity which exists between all the languages of the IndoGermanic family is evident, not merely from the number of words which are common to them all, but likewise from the similarity of their grammatical forms. The same words, only slightly disguised, are used in most of these languages for the pronouns, the numerals, and the most simple of the prepositions. V. On the other hand, the Indo-Germanic languages are distinguished from those of the Semitic family (to which latter class the Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and other kindred tongues belong) by a different mode of inflection, by different words for the pronouns, numerals, and prepositions, and by the power of forming compound words, which are not found, with the exception of a few instances, in the Semitic tongues.2 VI. While the Semitic branch occupies the southwest of Asia, the IndoGermanic languages run almost in a straight line from southeast to northwest, through Asia and Europe. A slight interruption, however, occurs in the case of the latter in the country between the Euphrates and Asia Minor, which appears to have been occasioned by the pressure of Semitic or Syrian races from the south; for it seems probable that originally the members of this national family succeeded one another in a continuous line from the great parent source or home.3 VII. This home or parent source of the Indo-Germanic race appears to have been a region called _Irdn, bounded on the north by the Caspian, on the south by the Indian Ocean, on the east by the Indus, and on the west by the Euphrates. ~Wvithin these limits nwere spoken, so far as we can discover, two languages, which bore the same relation to one another that we recognize as subsisting between Low and High German, a language analogous to the former being spoken in the low countries, in the north and east of the district, and one analogous to the latter in the more mountainous regions of the south. The southern one of these languages has been called by philologists the High Iranian, the northern and eastern the Low Iranian. VIII. The surrounding nations to the north and east belonged to the Turanian or Sporadic family, who appear to have scattered themselves over Europe long before the great Indo-Germanic migration commenced, and to have been either conquered by the latter races in their subsequent onward progress, or to have been driven by them to the mountainous extremities of the continent of Europe.5 l On the claims of the Celtic to a place among the Indo-Germanic languages, consult Prichard, Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations, Oxford, 1831, and Pictet, De l'Affinit des Langues Celtiques avec le Sanscrit, Paris, 1837. 2 Penny Cyclopaedia, xi., p. 428. 3 Miiller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 4. 4 Donaldson, New Cratylus, p. 117, 2d ed. 5 By the term " Turanian," which has been borrowed from the old Persian legends of Iran and Turan, countries engaged from the earliest times in perpetual enmities, modern writers designate all the tribes to the north of Iran, or, in other words, the races dwelling to the northward of the Oxua and the range of Tmaus. Among these, the

Page  3 INTRODUCTION., IX. When the mighty people confined within the comparatively narrow limits of Iran had become too numerous for the country they lived in, the eastern and northern tribes sent off emigrations to the southeast and northwest, breaking through or driving before them the tribes by which they were hemmed in. Those, however, who went off to the northwest were more powerful or more enterprising than the emigrants who took a southeasterly course; for while the former carried the Low Iranian dialect over all Asia and Europe to the islands of the West, the latter mastered only the northern part of Hindostan, and perhaps also, to a certain extent, a few of the islands of the Polynesia.' X. Although we have no good reason to doubt the great antiquity of the Sanscrit language, and though the writings in which it is contained are the modern representatives of a school of epic and didactic poetry, probably older than the earliest specimens of Greek literature, we must not suppose that it was as we have it now, the same old Iranian idiom which was taken into Europe; on the contrary, it bears evident marks of those changes which long usage introduces into every language, and which have not operated to so great an extent in some of the sister tongues of Europe, for instance, in the Low German, the Latin, and the Greek. However, as we do not possess any memorials of the primeval language from which it sprung, and as it does present most remarkable correspondences with the oldest European languages of the Indo-Germanic family, we must be content to take it as the representative of the old Low Iranian.2 XI. If we consider the elements of the population of Europe, according to the order in which they were successively added to the first sprinkling of scattered Turanian tribes that had preceded them, we can hardly fail to arrive at the following results. The first emigrants from Asia were the sons of Gomer-Celts and Cimmerians-who entered the continent of Europe from the steppes of the Caucasus, and, passing round the northern coasts of the Black Sea, not only spread over the whole ot Europe, especially to the south and west, but also recrossed into Asia by the H-ellespont, and conquered or colonized the countries bordering on the southern shore of the Euxine.3 XII. The next invaders were the sons of Magog - Sarmatians or Sclavonians-who are generally found by the side of the Celts in the earliest settlements. They more fully occupied the east of Europe; but though they largely contributed to the population of Greece and Italy, they do not appear to have spread beyond the Oder in the North, or to have established themselves permanently in the Alps, or in the middle highlands of Germany. The Sclavonian is the most widely-extended idiom of the Indo-Germanic family. It is spread over a wide surface of Scythians, or Mongoles and Kalmuks, are particularly meant. The Finns and the Esquimaux also belong to this great division, and it has been supposed that a Finnish population was spread over Europe when the great Celtic immigration commenced. Compare Prichard, Researches snto the Physical History of Mankind, vol. i., p. 257, seqq. I Donaldson, New Cratylus, p. 117, 2d ed. 2 Id. ib., p. 124. s Id. ib., p. 108.

Page  4 4 GRE-EK LITERATURE. Europe and Asia, from the Pacific to the Baltic, from the Adriatic to the Arctic Sea.1 XIII. Next in order after the Sclavonians came the Teutonic races, consisting, first, of the Low Germans, who, starting from the regions be. tween the Oxus and the Iaxartes, burst through the Sclavonians, and finally settled themselves in the northwest of Europe; and, secondly, of the High Germans, who subsequently occupied the higher central regions. The High Germans, like the High Iranians, we so name from their inhabiting the mountainous districts of the south; and the Low Germans from their occupying the low countries toward the north.2 XIV. The people whom we call Greeks, from the Latin appellation Grczei, but who styled themselves Hellenes ("EXXrlves),3 were not the earliest inhabitants of the country which bore their name (Grcecia,'EXXds). Various tribes are said to have occupied the land previous to the arrival of the Hellenic race, the most celebrated among which was that of the Pelasgi (IITexao-yot), although some writers are of opinion that all these tribes were connected together, and merely formed so many parts of one great Pelasgic race.4 XV. Who the Pelasgi were must ever remain a matter of uncertainty.5 Even the Greeks themselves appear to have had no definite information on the subject. Some accounts represent them as little better than mere savages, strangers even to the simplest arts of life, and to the first necessaries of civilized society, ignorant even of fire; while other legends made them, in the very earliest period of their settlement in Greece, to have already reached a comparatively high stage of social refinement. These latter accounts assigned unto them tillage and the useful arts as their proper and original pursuits. We are told that they loved to settle on the rich soil of alluvial plains, that they built towns which they fortified with walls of a colossal size, and zealously worshipped the powI Donaldson, N1ew Cratylus, p. 113. Compare Schafarik, Slavische Alterthiimer, vol. i., p. 33, seqq. 2 Donaldson, 1. c. Compare Mannert, Geschichte der alten Deutschen, p. 4, seqq.; Menzel, Gesch. der Deutschen, p. 5. 3 The name'EAXXrve is supposed to mean " warriors." Compare Muller's note on the Doric form'Are~owv for'Ar6XXAov (Dorians, ii., 6, 6). Some, however, on the authority of Aristotle (Mleteorol., i., 14), find a relation between the'EhXrves and the ehXkog of Dodona, called'Ehkog by Pindar, the sanctuary of Dodona having itself been termed Hella. Compare Niiebuhr, Rom. Hist., vol. i., p. 47, note 143. 4 This latter is the true opinion. Niebuhr asserts, not as a mere hypothesis, but as a matter, with him, of historical conviction, that there was a time when the Pelasgi, then, perhaps, more widely spread than any other people in Europe, extended over Italy and Greece, from thePo and Arno to the Bosporus (Rom. Hist., vol. i., p. 52). The remarks of Grote on this assertion of Niebuhr are exceedingly flippant and unfair (Hist. of Greece, vol. ii., p. 347, note). 5 The derivation of the name lleXacryot from rreXapyoe, " storks," in allusion to their migratory habits, quoted by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (i., 28) from Myrsilus of Lesbos, is simply absurd. Some modern attempts at etymology are not much better. ItRth (Gesch. abendldnd. Philos.) makes the term one of Phoenician origin, Plashi, " the wanderer," while Donaldson, on the other hand, makes HIcX-aao'ys (following the analogy of IldX-oq, "swarthy of face") mean "the swarthy Asgian, or Asiatic" (Varronianus, p. 24. Compare Philolog. Mus., ii., p. 353). On the subject of the Pelasgi generally, consult Lepsmzs, Ueber die Tyrrhen. Pelasger; Annali dell' Inst. Archceol., 1836, p. 186.

Page  5 INTRODUCTION. 5 ers of heaven and earth, who made their fields fruitful and their cattle prolific.l XVI. The language spoken by the ancient Pelasgi is described by one of the Greek writers as a barbarous tongue, that is, not Hellenic;2 and this opinion has also been adopted by several modern inquirers. It appears exceedingly improbable, however, if the Pelasgic and Hellenic languages had either no relation to each other, or else only a very slight one, that these two tongues should have so readily amalgamated in all parts of Greece; and still more strange that the Athenians and Arcadians, who are admitted to have been of pure Pelasgic origin, should have both lost their original language, and learned the pure Hellenic tongue. It is reasonable, therefore, to suppose that the Pelasgic and Hellenic languages were different dialects of one common tongue, and formed by their union the Greek language of later times.3 XVII. But, what is of most importance with regard to the Pelasgian language, it appears that the old inhabitants of Italy were also Pelasgi, and there is certainly no radical difference between the Latin and the Greek. It is probable, therefore, that the Pelasgic and Hellenic tongues resembled each other as much as the Swedish and German, or the Spanish and Italian. In each of these cases the difference is such as to constitute, in the familiar sense, the one a foreign tongue as compared with the other, although in each the critical inquirer discovers a close affinity.4 XVIII. It has already been stated that the origin of the Pelasgic race is involved in utter uncertainty. Some modern scholars, however, think it probable that they were a Low Iranian people, and a branch of the great Sclavonic nation;5 and what has been regarded as a strong argument in favor of this opinion has been drawn from the striking agreement of even the modern Sclavonic with the Latin, and also with the oldest element of Greek.6 XIX. The additional or Hellenic element of the Greek, which afterward pervaded the whole language, and gave a High German character to its entire structure, seems to have come from the East by the way of Asia Minor; at any rate, we find that the Hellenes make their first historical appearance in the south of Thessaly, or the northeastern part of 1 Herod., ii., 52; Guigniaut, Religions de l'Antiquiti, vol. ii., pt. i., p. 289, note; Miller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 8; Thirlwall, Hist. of Greece, vol. i., p. 38, seqq., ed. 1845; St. John, Hellenes, vol. i., p. 12. 2 Herod., i., 55. 3 Donaldson, New Cratylus, p. 128. Compare the remark of Niebuhr: "The farther we look back into antiquity, the richer, the more distinct, and the more broadly marked do we find the dialects of great languages. They subsist, one beside the other, with the same character of originality, and just as if they were different tongues" (Hist. Rom., vol. i., p. 54). 4 Donaldson, Newz Crat., p. 129. 5 Id. ib. 6 The resemblance of the Russian to the Latin is said to be so striking, that a modern traveller has not hesitated to assert that the founders of Rome spoke the Russian language! (Italy and its Inhabitants, by J. A. Galiffe, of Geneva, vol. i., p. 356, seqq.). The student may consult the two following works on the affinity between the early Greek and the Sclavonic. " Homerus Slavicis dialectis cognata lingua scripsit: ex ipsius Homeri Carmine ostendit Gregorius Dankovsky," Vindob., 1829; and "Der Griechen als Stamm- And Sprachverwandte der Slaven. Historisch und Philologisch dargestellt, von Gregor. Dankovsky," Pressburg, 1828.

Page  6 6 GREEK LITERATURE. Greece. Aristotle, indeed, makes the original seat of the Hellenic race to have been near Dodona, in Epirus, but on what authority he gives this statement we do not know.' The general feeling of the Greeks, however, was different, connecting the Hellenes, primarily and specially, with the territory called Achaia Phthiotis, between Mounts Othrys and (ZEta. The region here meant was first called Hellas, a name extended afterward to the whole of Greece.2 XX. This new or Hellenic element is supposed by some eminent modern scholars to have been High Iranian or Persian.3 The striking resemblance between the High German, on the one hand, and the ancient Greek and modern Persian on the other, was pointed out in the infancy of comparative philology.4 The resemblance which the Greek bore to the Persian, in particular, must have been much greater formerly; so much so, indeed, that a Greek could learn Persian without any difficulty, as appears from the examples of Democedes and Themistocles, the former of whom made a witty remark in Persian before he had been long at Susa;5 while the latter, an elderly man, who had never learned a foreign tongue in his life, made himself a proficient in the language within a year.6 XXI. In accordance with the usual method pursued by the Greeks, of inventing names to account for the origin of nations, the Hellenes are said to have descended from Hellen, the son of Deucalion. Hellen had three sons, Dorus, Xuthus, and lEolus; and Xuthus, again, had two sons, Achaeus and Ion. From Dorus, _.Eolus, Achaeus, and Ion, the Dorians, lEolians, Achaeans, and Ionians were said to have descended, who formed the four great tribes into which the Hellenic nation was for many centuries divided. XXII. According, however, to the ingenious and more satisfactory explanation of some modern scholars, the name Hellenes, as already remarked,7 means "the warriors;" the Dorians (ACOwpLEs) are "Highlanders," from &a and'pos; the XEolians (AhoXes) are " the mixed men," from aidxos, "varied," a name which arose when the Dorians first descended from their mountains in the region of Thessaly, and incorporated themselves with the Pelasgi of the Thessalian plains. So, again, the Ionians ('Iwves) are "the men of the coast," from?iovia, or ii'c&, " the coast or shore," called also AIyLaXes, or "Beachmen," from ay7LaKLds, " the beach," and the'AXaioL are " seamen," from a root in the Greek language answering to the Latin aqua.8 XXIII. It is a curious fact, noticed by some modern scholars, that the Grecian race which made the earliest and most rapid progress in civilization and intellectual attainments was the one in which the Pelasgian 1 Aristot., Meteorol., i., 14. 2 Grote, Hist. of Greece, vol. ii., p. 356. Aristotle very probably alludes to the first Hellenic settlement in the land, after which they may have moved south into Thessaly, and /then first became known to history. 3 Donaldson, New Cratylus, p. 131. 4 Lipsii Epist. Henrico Schottio, Op., vol. ii., p. 41, seqq., Cent. iii., ed. 1614; Salmas., De Ling. Hellen., p. 331, seqq. 5 Herod., iii., 130. A Plut., Themist., c. 29. 7 Page 4, note 3. e Kenrick, Phil. OMus., vol. ii., p. 367; Donaldson, New Cratylus, p. 134.

Page  7 IN'I' D U C T IO t.N, 7 blood was least adulterated by foreign admixture, namely, the lonlians of Attica and of the settlements in Asia; and that we probably owe to the Pelasgic element in the population of Greece all that distinguishes the Greeks in the history of the human mind. The Dorians, on the other hand, who were the most strictly Hellenic, long disdained to apply themselves to literature and the fine arts.1 XXIV. Before proceeding farther, however, one point naturally remains to be settled, namely, why the Hellenes were known to the Romans only under the appellation of Gr-ceci or Graii. The best solution of the difficulty appears to be, that the early Pelasoian colonists of central Italy were the Grmcci or Graii, who retained in their transmarine possessions their early name, which becare obsolete in the mother country. Hence may be explained the practice so inveterate with thie Latin poets, from Elnnius downward, of calling the Greeks, even of the purely Hellenic age, Pelasgians, while the name Tellenes rarely, if ever, occurs in their text in its generic sense.2 XXV. During the cent ury subsequeniCt tio tLIe fall of Troy (1184 B.C.), extensive changes took place in the dialectical as well as political relations of the Hellenic states. About sixty Vea-rs aiter that evenilt (1124 B.C.), dissensions among thle olic tribes in northern and central Greece produced a large emigration from Breotia, and the neigiboring districts, to the conquered coasts and islands of Asia MTinor, already partially occupied by the sons or followers of the victorious chiefs. As the colonists were chiefly of /Eolian race, the expedlitiol bears the familiar name of EEolian, and the region occupied that of ifolis. Akbout twenty years afterward, the Peloponnesus iwas overrun by thle Dorians (1104 B.C.). This catastrophe was followed, at some interval (1 044- B.C.), by a similar settlement of the greater part of the ejeected populationl oI the peninsula on the Asiatic coast, to the south of the district possessed by theilr /Eolial kinsmen. Through these convulsions, the ties, social and political, whlich had previously united thie Hellenic ation, ere in a gat measure dissolved, and the subsequent wider separation of domnicie and interests interposed serious obstacles to their reunewal.3 XXVI. From this period, accordi-gly, ml-ay be dated the more specific distinction of dialects, which becomes so important in the subsequent stages of Greek literary culture. lThe IIellenic tongue, prior to that distinction, might be divided into two comprellliensive varieties; first, the Ionic, indigenous in the more civilized states, namely Attica, the lowlands of the Peloponnesus, and probably other coasts and islands subject to or politically connected with these provinces; and, secondly, the /Edolic, in the wider sense, embracing the whole remaining body of less cultivated dialects.4 XXVII. That the Ionic originahiy comprised secondary fornis of dia1 Malden, Hist. of Rome, p. 70. 2 Compare Nliebth?, I-Hist of Rome, vol. i., p. 56, note 162. 3 liure, Crit. Hist., vol. i., p. 107. Compare Thirltvall, Hist. Gr., vol. i., p. 1282, seCqq. Grote, Hlist. Gr., vol. ii.,. 43c4, seqq.; Clinton, Fast. Hell., vol. i., p. 107, scqq. 4 Muare, Crit. Hist., vol. i.? p. 1i08

Page  8 8 GREEK LITERATURE. lect, as the AEolic did, may be inferred from the account given by Herodotus of those prevalent in his own time among the Ionians of Asia. We possess, however, no positive knowledge either from traditional or literary sources, of these particular varieties. The old Epic dialect, or, as it is also called, the old poetical Ionic, which was carried to perfection by Homer, exhibits the efforts of a nation pre-eminently gifted with poetical and musical genius, and as yet neither aided nor shackled by grammatical refinements, to embody its conceptions in the most expressive and harmonious forms. That this branch of the Ionic is, in a great degree, of poetical formation, its own internal evidence betrays. Many of its characteristic features originate in a tendency to adapt the structure of words to the exigencies of hexameter verse, the earliest, and, for a long time, the only measure in which the Greek poets are known to have composed.l XXVIII. Under the name ifolic the Greek grammarians included dialects very different from one another, as in later times every thing was comprehended under that term which was not Doric, Ionic, or Attic. According to this acceptation of the name, about three fourths of the Greek nation consisted of XAolians, and dialects were classed together as AEolic, which, as is evident from the more ancient inscriptions, differed more from one another than from the Doric; as, for example, the Thessalian and lEtolian, the Bceotian and Elean dialects. The three most marked and distinguished varieties of the _Eolic dialect were the Lesbian, the Thessalian, and the Bceotian;2 the Thessalian forming a mean between the other two. A modern scholar3 has shown, in fact, that the ancient grammatical critics are accustomed to affirm peculiarities as belonging to the tEolic dialect generally, which in truth belong only to the Lesbian variety of it, or to the poems of Alcaeus and Sappho, which those critics attentively studied. Lesbian lEolic, Thessalian.LEolic, and Bceotian Aolic, are all different; and if, abstracting from these differences, we confine our attention to that which is common to all three, we shall find little to distinguish this abstract cEolic from the abstract Doric, or that which is common to the many varieties of the Doric dialect.4 XXIX. On the whole, it may be said of the LEolic dialect, that it bears an archaic character, and approaches nearest to the sources of the Greek language. Hence the Latin, as being closely connected with the most ancient Greek, has a strong affinity with it, and, in general, the agreement with the other languages of the Indo-Germanic family is almost always perceptible in AEolic. It is distinguished from the Doric, as already remarked, by trifling differences; chiefly, however, by the so-called 2Eolic digamma.5 XXX. The superiority of the Lesbian Eolic to the other branches of that dialect may be accounted for as follows: The colonists of Lesbos, and of the neighboring XEolian coast, united with the taste for sensual enjoyment, common to their Ionian neighbors, a peculiar fervor and excitability of temperament. There sprung up, accordingly, amnong them a Mure, Crit. Hist., vol. i., p. 112. 2 Miiller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 9. 3 Ahrens, De Dial. /Eol., 0 51. 4 Grote, Hist. of Greece, vol. ii., p. 448. 5 Mitller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 10.

Page  9 INTRODUCTION. 9 school of lyric poetry, pre-eminent above all others in impassioned composition, especially that of the amatory or voluptuous order. The adaptation of their language to such subjects actually involved a refinement of the old rustic features which it retained in the mother country. This was effected with little sacrifice of its native simplicity, partly by softening down its ruder asperities, and partly by an infusion of more liquid forms from the Homeric fountain-head of pure poetical idiom.l XXXI. In Attica, the ancient population, with its pure Ionic idiom, remained undisturbed by any political movements from without. In the Peloponnesus, however, the change of inhabitants, consequent upon the Dorian invasion, was accompanied by a corresponding revolution of dialects. A remnant of the old Achaean population kept its ground on the narrow strip of territory between the Corinthian Gulf and the Cyllenian Mountains; and some other petty tribes of Ionians here and there, submitting to the conquerors, retained their possessions in a state of vassalage. But the language and habits of the subdued race became, in later times, more or less assimilated to those of the dominant states. Elis, on the eastern coast, was assigned to a body of AEtolian adventurers, who had joined the Dorian armament on its passage through their country. As, however, the previous dialect of both XEtolia and Elis was lolic, no essential change was here produced. The Arcadian mountaineers, moreover, preserved, together with their independence, their proper XEolian tongue, which, itself closely allied to that of their new Dorian neighbors, had not participated in the culture of the expelled tribes.2 The districts immediately occupied by the Dorians were Argolis, Laconia, and Messenia. In the sequel, however, their conquests, with their language, were gradually extended over Corinthia and Megaris to the Attic frontier, and subsequently, by settlers from Epidaurus, to the neighboring island of YEgina.3 XXXII. The peculiarities by which the Doric dialect was distinguished from the other varieties of the Greek language, are to be attributed to the mountain life of the Dorians in their earliest settlements. We always find a tendency to the formation of broad vowel sounds in the language of mountaineers, and this fondness for the a and o, which letters the Dorians generally used where'and ou were employed in other dialects, and also their aversion to sibilants, is analogous to what we frequently observe in the languages which are spoken by both Highlanders and Lowlanders. The use of the article, also, in the Greek language is attributed to the Dorians, the poetry of Alcman having first introduced it into the literature of Greece, the older language, like the Latin, being entirely without it.4. XXXIII. The Doric dialect was rudest among the Spartans, the enemies of all change. It was spoken in the greatest purity by the Messe1 lMl/ure, Crit. Hist., vol. i., p. 116. 2 Strab., p. 333. Compare Herod., viii., 73. 3 Mure, Crit. Hist., vol. i., p. 110. 4 Miller, Dorians, vol. ii., p. 488; Penny Cyclop., vol. ix., p. 90; Matthice, G. G., vol. i., p. 5; Ahrens, De Dial. Dor., p. 395, seqq. MUller has given a very full account of the Doric dialect, in Appendix viii. to his work on the Dorians (vol. ii., p. 484, seqq.), which is well worthy of perusal. But he carries the Doric peculiarities too far, and makes too wide a distinction between Doric and AEolic.

Page  10 10 GREEK LITERATUrLE. nians. The grammarians notice two epochs in it, according to which they divide it into the old and new Doric dialects. In the old, the comic poet Epicharmus, and Sophron, author of the Mimes, were the principal writers. In the new, which approached nearer the softness of the Ionic, the chief writer is Theocritus. Besides these, the first Pythagorean philosophers wrote in Doric. XXXIV. The ejected inhabitants of the Peloponnesus first sought refuge among their Ionian kinsmen of Attica. Afterward, however, under the auspices of Athenian leaders, they crossed the IEgean, and occupied the coast of Asia, southward from the AEolian settlements, as far as the headland of Miletus, together with the adjacent islands of Chios and Samos. Here they appear in later times, under the distinctive name of Ionians. Their subsequent celebrity under this title, and the still greater celebrity of the metropolitan state of Athens on the opposite continent, caused the appellation of Ionian, in after ages, to be so exclusively restricted to the colonies, that the terms Athenian and Ionian, or Attic and Ionic, instead of being identical, as with Homer, were henceforward pointedly distinct. The southwestern extremity of the same Asiatic coast, with the adjacent islands, was afterward occupied, in like manner, by Dorian settlements.l XXXV. During the long separation of interests between the two great bodies of the same Ionian race, consequent on the Dorian revolution, the previous common dialect was subjected in each to other changes, offering an interesting analogy to those in their national character. In the Asiatic colonies many causes conspired, not only to soften the ferocity of the old heroic spirit, but also to diminish the sense of political independence, and to promote effeminate habits. The enervating influence of Oriental luxury, with which they were brought into closer contact, was aided by a seductive climate, increase of commerce and wealth, and by their position in regard to the powerful nations of the interior, whose favor they were under the frequent necessity of courting, and toward whom they latterly stood on the footing of vassal to liege lord. Hence the new or later Ionic became the softest of the dialects, on account of the frequent meeting of vowels, producing a liquidness of sound, and the deficiency of aspirated letters.2 XXXVI. On the other hand, among the people of Attica, or the European descendants of the Ionic race, opposite causes produced as opposite effects. In Athens, with a less rapid advance in science or wealth, a complete political independence was accompanied by greater integrity of manners. The importance of that state, as a member of the old national confederacy, was also increased by the rivalry into which she was brought with the new Dorian dynasties. It was under these circumstances, therefore, that the intellectual powers of the Athenians, naturally of the highest order, were called forth; combining acuteness of conception with fertility of invention and purity of taste, they exhibit, during the flourishing ages of the republic, all the proper excellences of the Hellenic genius in the highest perfection. The Attic dialect, accordingly, offers the most exM aIUreB, 1. c. 2 JMritre, Hist. Crit., vol. i., p. 11.

Page  11 iNTRODUCTION. 11 cellent model of a language for the familiar usage of social life, or the more practical and intellectual branches of letters.' XXXVII. As the varieties of dialect were met by a corresponding variety of taste or talent, certain styles of composition came to be considered the more immediate province of one dialect than of another. The Doric became the favorite language of the higher branches of lyric composition, and of the primitive schools of philosophy; the zEolic of the amatory ode; the old Ionic retained its former privilege in regard to the epic style and hexameter verse; the new Ionic for a long time was the favorite dialect for prose, and especially historical composition, until supplanted by the Attic, which last also was regarded as the model in one particular department of poetry, namely, the dramatic, with the exception, however, of the choruses and lyric portions generally, in which a species of Doric predominates, the most eminent lyric poets having written in the Doric dialect. Most of the great works of antiquity which have been transmitted to our times are written in the Attic dialect.2 XXXVIII. Some writers have made two, and some three divisions of the Attic dialect, with reference to extant writers; but the general division of the Attic dialect into old and new seems to be sufficiently exact. To the former division belong _Eschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Antiphon, Thucydides, &c.; to the latter, Demosthenes, Eschines, and the contemporary orators. The language of Xenophon, Plato, and indeed Aristophanes also, may be considered as possessing a character somewhat intermediate between the two classes, and the name of middle Attic may consequently be given to it; but it would be difficult to say exactly how a writer of this middle class is to be distinguished from the writers of the new Attic.3 XXXIX. After the time of Alexander the Great, when the Greeks were more united as a nation, the superiority of Athenian literature made the language of Athens the common language of those who wrote pure Greek. Aristotle may be regarded as the earliest extant writer, not an Athenian by birth, who adopted the language of Athens. The Attic dialect, then somewhat modified under Macedonian influence and by local circumstances, became the common written language of the educated Greeks. We find, accordingly, under the successors of Alexander, and afterward under the Romans, a series of Greek prose writers, belonging to various countries, but all attempting to write one common language. This common language of the learned Greeks was called the commonZ dialect (ij xoLv', or'EXXVLK4 8LdaxeKTos), and was marked, of course, by numerous deviations from the pure old Attic standard. Polybius, a native of the Peloponnesus; Strabo, of Asia Minor; Diodorus, of Sicily; and others, belong to the writers who use the common dialect.4 XL. Poetry, however, was not written in this common dialect. The peculiarities of the Homeric language were imitated by those who composed in hexameters, as the epic, didactic, and elegiac; and this became llutre, Hist. Clit., vol. i., p. 115, Id., p. 121; Buttmann, G. G., p. 4, b 110, Robinson's tranlsl.' Pernny Cyclop.? vol. iii, p, 52 lbi

Page  12 12 GREEK LITERATURE. therefore, just as the Attic for prose, the prevailing dialect or universal language for these forms of poetry, and remained current even in the Alexandrine and later ages, when it was no longer understood by the common people, but a learned education was necessary for the full comprehending and enjoyment of such poems. The most celebrated poets of this class are, in the Alexandrine period, Apollonius, Callimachus, Aratus; and later, Nicander, Oppian, Quintus Smyrnaus,' &c. XLI. In the mean time the Doric dialect was not entirely excluded from poetry, even in the later periods. It maintained itself in some of the minor species, especially in rural and sportive poems; partly because there were even here certain earlier models; and partly, also, because in many of these poems it was essential to imitate the tone and language of the countryman and of the lower classes, whose dialect was almost every where the Doric, in consequence of the very general spread of the Doric tribe. Hence the works of the idyllic writers, Theocritus, Bion, and Moschus, are Doric, though their later Doric differs much from that of Pindar.2 XLII. Out of the common language arose what was called the Alexandrine dialect, to which partial allusion has already been made. This was the common dialect, interspersed with peculiarities, which the grammarians designate as Macedonian forms, and deriving its name from the city of Alexandrea, the centre of later literary culture. The Septuagint version of the Old Testament was written in this dialect; but it can hardly be considered a fair specimen of the language spoken at Alexandrea, since the Jewish translators have introduced into the version many Hebrew phrases and constructions. The New Testament was written in the same dialect, whence it passed, with some variations, into the writings of the Fathers, and has hence been called Ecclesiastical Greek. The Greek spoken at Constantinople subsequently assumed a still more corrupt form, and so many foreign words were introduced into the language that a glossary is necessary for understanding many of the writers of the Eastern empire.3 XLIII. No one of the sister tongues can compete with the Greek in regard to sound, or in fertility of composition and flection, in luxuriance of grammatical forms, and in many delicate phases assumed by the primary parts of speech; characteristics reflecting a singular acuteness of the discriminating faculty, and affording in return a rich fund of materials for its exercise. The nearest approach in these respects is made by the Sanscrit. The vowel-sounds of the Sanscrit, however, are comparatively monotonous, occasionally harsh and constrained. Those of the Greek, on the other hand, are distinguished for variety and euphony. In the combination of consonants and vowels, the Greek, also, exhibits the same happy blending of uniformity and versatility, the same just medium between redundancy and poverty, which characterizes all the productions of Hellenic genius.4 XLIV. Another remarkable feature, which distinguishes the Greek Buttmann, p. 4, ~ 12; Mure, Crit. Hist., vol. i., p. 126. 2 Buttmann, I. c.; Mure, 1. c. 3 Penny Cyclop., vol. ix., p. 428. i ~Mure, Crit. Hist., vol. i., p. 97, seqq.

Page  13 INTRODUCTION. 13 from all the other European dialects, is the extreme delicacy and subtlety of its metrical and musical development, as shown in the distinction which obtained in familiar pronunciation, between accent and quantity, and in the nicety of the laws by which the two were adjusted in their relation to each other, or to the language at large. In the modern European tongues this distinction is unknown. Accent and quantity, the long syllable and the accentuated syllable, are, in the poetry of the present day, as identical, as they were essentially distinct in that of Greece.l XLV. One more characteristic of the Greek language remains to be mentioned, and to which, also, no parallel can probably be found in any other cultivated language, namely, its anomaly. This feature may be classed under two heads; anomaly of structure, and anomaly of syntax. The former, in particular, is familiar to the classical scholar in the elementary rules of his grammar: that no Greek verb possesses, for example, its full complement of forms derived from the same root; and that many of the verbs in most universal use are dependent, even for certain of their more fundamental forms, on radically distinct sources. Both peculiarities constitute important elements of that richness and variety which form such prominent characteristics of the Greek language.2 I Mure, Crit. Hist., vol. i., p. 97, seqq. 2 Id. ib.

Page  14 GREEK LITERATURE. CHAPTER I. DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT. I. THE literature of Greece may be divided most conveniently into SEVEN PERIODS; namely, 1. The Mythical; 2. The Poetical; 3. The Early Prosaic; 4. The Attic; 5. The Alexandrine; 6. The Roman; and, 7. The Byzantine.l II. The First or Mythical Period comprises the origin and early cultivation of the art of poetry, with the legendary notices of those bards and sages to whom popular belief ascribed the first advances in literary culture, but of whose existence or influence no authentic monuments have been preserved. III. The Second or Poetical Period extends from the epoch of the earliest authenticated productions of Greek poetical genius, through those ages in which poetry continued to be either the only, or else the most assiduously cultivated branch of composition, and terminates about the period of the Persian war. IV. The Third or Early Prosaic Period begins, in fact, before the full termination of the preceding one, with the first attempts at prose composition, and extends to and includes the era of Herodotus. V. The Fourth or Attic Period commences with the rise of the Attic dramra, and of the fuller culture of prose literature, and closes with the establishment of the Macedonian ascendency, and the consequent extinction of republican freedom in Greece. VI. The Fifth or Alexandrine Period may be dated from the foundation of Alexandrea, and ends with the fall of the Greco-Egyptian empire. VII. The Sixth or Roman Period succeeds, and extends to the foundation of Constantinople. VIII. The Seventh or Byzantine Period comprises the remaining ages of the decay and corruption of ancient civilization, until the final extinction of the classical Greek as a living language. IX. Some divide the history of Greek literature into three periods merely; the first extending from the earliest times to the rise of Athenian literature; the second comprising the flourishing period of Athenian literature; and the third comprehending all the writers from the time of Alexander to the fall of the Eastern empire. This arrangement, however, is open to serious objections, and is by no means equal, in point of precision and clearness, to the one which we have first given, and which will be followed in the present work. 1 lTure, Crit. Hist., vol. i. p 6. Compare Bernhardy, vol. i., p. 148.

Page  15 MYTHICAL PERIOD. 15 CHAPTER II. FIRST OR MYTHICAL PERIOD. I. MANY centuries' must have elapsed before the poetical language of the Greeks could have attained to the splendor, copiousness, and fluency which so strongly excite our admiration in the poems of Homer. The first outpourings of poetical enthusiasm were doubtless songs describing, in few and simple verses, events which powerfully affected the feelings of the hearers. II. It is probable that the earliest date may be assigned to the songs which referred to the seasons and their phenomena, and expressed with simplicity the notions and feelings to which these events gave birth. They appear to have been sung by peasants at the corn and wine harvests. III. It is remarkable that songs of this kind often had a plaintive and melancholy character; which circumstance, however, is explained when we remember that the'ancient worship of outward nature (which was preserved in the rites of Ceres and Proserpina, and also in those of Bacchus) contained festivals of wailing and lamentation, as well as of rejoicing and mirth. I. THE LINUS. IV. To the number of these plaintive ditties belongs the song LINus (Alvos), mentioned by Homer,2 the melancholy character of which is shown by its fuller names, A''XLvos3 and OxwLvosr4 (literally, "Alas! Linus," and " Death of Linus"). It was frequently sung in Greece, according to Homer, at the grape-picking. From a fragment of Hesiod,5 it would appear prooable that the song of lamentation began and ended with the exclamation A' A[vE. V. Linus was originally the subject of this song, the person whose fate was bewailed in it; and there were many districts in Greece (for example, Thebes, Chalcis, and Argos) in which tombs of Linus were shown. VI. According to the very remarkable and explicit tradition of the Argives, Linus was a youth who, having sprung from a divine origin, grew up with the shepherds among the lambs, and was torn in pieces by wild dogs. Similar legends are found in other parts of Greece, and also in Asia Minor, wherein boys in the bloom of youth, and of divine-parentage, are supposed to have been drowned, or devoured by raging dogs, or destroyed by wild beasts, and whose death is lamented in the harvest, or other periods of the hottest season of the year.6 VII. The real object of lamentation, however, both in the Linus and 1 Miller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 16, seqq. 2 II., xviii., 569, seqq. 3.Esch., Ag., 121; Soph., Aj., 627; Pausan., ix., 29, 8. 4 Pausan., ix., 29, 3. 5 Ap. Eustath., p. 1163 (fragm. 1, ed. Gaisf.). 6 Fabric.. Bibl. Grec., vol. i., p. ll0, seqq., ed. Harles

Page  16 16 GREEK LITERATURE. in all these other dirges, was the tender beauty of spring destroyed by the summer heats, and other phenomena of the same kind, which the imagination of these early times invested with a personal form, and represented as being of a divine origin. These popular dirges, therefore, originally the expression of grief at the premature death of nature, through the heat of the sun, were transformed into lamentations for the death of youths, and were sung on certain religious occasions. VIII. It was a natural confusion of the tradition that Linus should afterward become a minstrel, one of the earliest bards of Greece,' who begins a contest with Apollo himself, and overcomes Hercules in playing on the cithara. Even, however, in this character, Linus meets his death, having been killed by Hercules,2 and we must probably assume that his fate was mentioned in the ancient song. IX. Plaintive songs of this same kind, in which not the misfortunes of a single individual, but a universal and perpetually recurring cause of grief, was expressed, abounded in ancient Greece, but more particularly in Asia Minor, the inhabitants of which latter country had a peculiar fondness for mournful tunes. The IALhMUS ('IdaXceos)) seems to have been nearly identical with the Linus, as, to a certain extent, the same mythological narrations are applied to both. At Tegea, in Arcadia, there was a plaintive song called SCEPHRUS (:KicpOS), which appears, from the fabulous relation in Pausanias,4 to have been sung at the time of the summer heat. In Phrygia, a melancholy song called LITYERSES (ALT'vipr's)5 was sung at the cutting of the corn. At the same season of the year, the Mariandkni, on the shores of the Euxine, played the mournful ditty called BORMUS (Bippos)6 on the native flute. Of similar meaning are the cries for the youth HYLAS ("TXas),? swallowed up by the waters of the fountain, which, in the neighboring country of the Bithyni, re-echoed from mountain to mountain. In the southern parts of Asia Minor we find, in connection with the Syrian worship, a similar lament for ADONIS ('AawpLs),8 and in Egypt a like dirge for MANPRbS (MavE'pws). II. PE ANS. X. A very different class of feelings is expressed in the PYEANS (inaavyes: in Homer, 1Iatoves). These songs were originally dedicated only to Apollo, and were closely connected with the ideas relating to the attributes and actions of this deity. They were chants, of which the tune and words expressed courage and confidence. "All sounds of lamentation" (aAcLva), says Callimachus, "cease when the Ie Paean, Ie Paean (iN taltiov) is heard."9 As with the Linus the interjection at, so with the Paean the cry of 1i1 was connected;" exclamations, unmeaning in themselves, but made expressive by the tone with which they were uttered. XI. Paeans were sung, not only when there was a hope of being able, Eudocia,'IOva, p. 277. Compare D)iod. Sic., iii., c. 66. 2 Diod. Sic., 1. c.; Fabric., 1. c..3 EAsch., Supp., 116; Eurip., Phozn., 1034. - Pausan., viii., 53, 2. 5 Ilgen, Scol. Gr., p. xvi., seq. Athen., xv., p. 620, A. 7 Ap. Rhod., i., 131, 1350. 8 Avollod., iii.. 14. 9 Hymn. ad Apoll., 20. to Athen., xv., p. 696, E, seqq.

Page  17 MYTHICAL PERIOD. 17 by the help of the gods, to overcome a great and imminent danger, but when the danger was happily past; they were songs of hope and confidence, as well as of thanksgiving for victory and safety. The custom at the termination of the winter, when the year again assumes a mild and serene aspect, and every heart is filled with hope and confidence, of singing vernal pceans (eiapolo 7rataves), recommended by the Delphic oracle to the cities of Lower Italy, is probably of very high antiquity. XII. The Paean was sung by several persons, one of whom probably led the others, and the singers either marched onward or sat together at table. Thus Achilles, after the death of Hector, calls upon his companions to return to the ships, singing a paean on account of the glory they had gained;' and the Achaeans, after restoring Chryseis to her father, are represented as singing a pnean to Apollo at the end of the sacrificial feast, in order to appease his wrath.2 XIII. The Paean was also sung, in a later age, as a battle song, both before an attack on the enemy and after the battle was finished.3 This practice seems to have prevailed chiefly among the Dorians, but it was also common among the other Greek states. The origin of it is said to have arisen from the fact that Apollo sang a paean after his victory over the Pythian serpent. It must be remarked, however, that the Paean was, in later times, sung to the honor of other gods besides Apollo. Thus Xenophon relates that the Lacedaemonians on one occasion sang a paean to Neptune, to propitiate him after an earthquake,4 and also that the Greek forces in Asia, under the younger Cyrus, sang a paean to Jove.5 III. THE THRENUS AND HYMENMEUS. XIV. Not only the common and public worship of the gods, but also those events of private life which strongly excited the feelings, called forth the gift of poetry. The lamentation for the dead, which was chiefly sung by women, with vehement expressions of grief, had, at the time described by Homer, already been so far systematized, that singers by profession stood near the bed where the body was laid out, and began the lament; and while they sang it, the women accompanied them with cries and groans.6 This lament was called the THRENUS (~prVOS) or "Dirge." XV. Opposed to the Threnus is the HY.MEvEUS ('TrIeawos), the joyful and merry bridal song, of which there are descriptions by Homer7 in the account of the designs on the shield of Achilles, and by Hesiod in that of the shield of Hercules.8 Homer speaks of a city, represented as the seat of bridal rejoicing, in which the bride is led from the virgin's apartment through the streets by the light of torches. A loud hymenzeus arises: young men dance around, while flutes and harps (0JpusLyyes) resound. 1 II., xxiii., 391. 2 lb., i., 473. 3 T77ucyd., i., 50; iv., 43; ii., 91; vii., 44; Xen., Anab., i., 8, 17. 4 Xen., Hell., iv., 7, 4. s Id., Anab., iii., 2, 9. 6 II., xxiv., 720, seqq. 7 Ib., xviii., 492, seqq. 8 Scut., 274, seqq.

Page  18 18 t-GREEK LITERATURE. IV. EARLY B ARDS.1 XVI. After this brief sketch of the kinds of poetry which existed in Greece before the Homeric era, with the exception of the epic, we will now proceed to give some account of the early composers of sacred songs and hymns, as far as any reliable information can be obtained respecting them from the confused mass of statements contained in later writers. The best accounts of these early bards were those which had been preserved in the temples, at the places where hymns were sung under their names. Hence it appears that most of these names are in constant connection with the worship of peculiar deities; and it will thus be easy to distribute them into certain classes, formed by the resemblance of their character and their reference to the same worship. (A.) SINGE RS BELONGING TO THE WORSHIP OF APOLLO IN DELPHI, DELOS, AND CRETE. XVII. Among these, one of the most conspicuous is OLEN ('Q2A~v). According to the ancient legend,2 he was a Lycian or Hyperborean, that is to say, sprung from a country where Apollo loved to dwell. Many ancient hymns, attributed to him, were preserved at Delos, which are mentioned by Herodotus,3 and which contained remarkable mythological traditions, and significant appellatives of the gods; also nomes (P46o0), that is, simple and antique songs, combined with certain fixed tunes, and fitted to be sung for the circular dance of a chorus. The Delphian poetess Bceo called him the first prophet of Phcebus, and the first who, in early times, founded the style of singing in epic metre (6r&Ewv coL a).4 His name, according to Welcker, signifies simply the flute-player.5 Of the ancient hymns which went under his name, Pausanias mentions those to Juno, to AcheiYa, and to Ilithyia. The last of these was in celebration of the birth of Apollo and Diana. XVIII. Another of these bards is PHILAAMZON (IoXaLauycV), said to have been a son of Apollo,6 and who became, by the nymph Argiope, who dwelt on Parnassus, the father of Thamyris and Eumolpus.7 He is closely associated with the worship of Apollo at Delphi, and with the music of the cithara. To him also was referred the formation of the Delphian choruses of virgins, which sang the birth of Latona, and that of her children, Apollo and Diana; and some ascribe to him the invention of choral music in general. According to Pherecydes,8 it was Philammon, and not Orpheus, who accompanied the Argonauts. XIX. Another bard of this class was a Cretan, named CHRYSOTHkaMIS (Xpve(60e1ls), who is said to have sung the first chorus to the Pythian I Miuiller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 24, seqq. 2 Suid., s. v.; Fabr., Bibl. Gr., vol. i., p. 134, ed. Harles. 3 Herod., iv., 35. Compare Pausan., i., 18, 5; ii., 13, 3; v., 7, 8, &c. 4 Pausan., x., 5, 8. 5 Welcker, Europa und Kadmos, p. 35. 6 Tatian. adv. Greec., 62, seq. Compare Ovid, Met., xi., 317. 7 Apollod., i., 3, 3; Pausan., iv., 33, 3. 8 Ap. Schol. ad Apoll. Rhod., i., 23. Compare Fabric., b'ibl. Gr-., vol. i., p. 214.

Page  19 MYTHICAL PERIOD. 19 Apollo, clothed in the solemn dress of ceremony, which the citharcedi, in later times, wore at the Pythian games.' (B.) SINGERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE COGNATE WORSHIPS OF CERES AND BACCHUS. XX. Among these were the EUMOLPIDrE (EVluox7rlTaI), of Eleusis in Attica, a race which, from early times, took part in the worship of Ceres, and, in the historical age, exercised the chief sacerdotal function connected with it, namely, the office of Hierophant.2 These Eumolpidae evidently derived their name, which means " beautiful singers," from their character (eV peE'Xvreo-OaL), and their original employment was the singing of sacred hymns. Popular tradition, however, made them to be the descendants of a Thracian named EUmOLPUS (EviyoX7ros), who is described as having come to Attica either as a bard, a warrior, or a priest of Ceres and Bacchus. As Eumolpus is evidently a mythic personage, the various legends respecting his origin and-history need not be given here. It will be sufficient to state that he was regarded as an ancient priestly bard, and that poems and writings on the mysteries were fabricated and circulated at a later period under his name. One hexameter line of a Dionysiac hymn, ascribed to him, is preserved in Diodorus.3 The legends connected him, also, with Hercules, whom he is said to have instructed in music, or initiated into the mysteries.4 XXI. Another Attic house, the LYcoMiDIE (AvicoGfiaL), which likewise had, in later times, a part in the Eleusinian worship of Ceres, were in the habit of singing hymns, and, moreover, hymns ascribed to Orpheus, MusCeus, and Pamphos. XXII. Of the songs which were attributed to PAMPH6S (rnd/ctwOsc), we may form a general idea by remembering that he is said to have first sung the strain of lamentation at the tomb of Linus.6 Besides this Linus-song, he is said to have composed hymns to Ceres, Diana, Neptune, Jove, and Eros. Pausanias places him later than Olen, and much earlier than Homer.7 Philostratuss has preserved for us two remarkable verses ascribed to this bard, which remind us forcibly of the symbol (the scarabus) under which the Egyptians represented the Creator of the universe, or the author of animal life. Ze6 KV&ITTe, yLucyL0rre OeCov, e1XVJlg'Ve K67rpc f1k4eln 7 KTL K7rlein Kar 75oveC. "0 Jove, most glorious, most mighty of the gods, enveloped in the dung of sheep, and horses, and mules." XXIII. The name of Musmus (Movo-aos), which, in fact, only signified a singer inspired by the Muses, is in Attica generally connected with songs for the initiations of Ceres, and the legend represented him as preI Pausan., x., 7, 2. 2 Hesych., s. v. Ey"okriSac; Tac., Hist., iv., 82; Arnob., v., 25; Clemens Alex., Protrept., p. 16, seqq. 3 Diod. Sic., i., 11. Compare Suid., s. v. EiStokrroq. 4 Hygin., Fab., 273; Theocrit., xxiv., 108; Apollod., ii., 5,12. 5 Often incorrectly written IMelbosg. G Pausan., ix., 29, 3. Compare Bernhardy, Grund~iss der Griech. Lit., vol. i., p. 248. 7 Pausan., 1. c. 8 Heroic., p69. Comnpare Bernhardy, 1. c.

Page  20 20 GREEK LITERATURE. siding over her rites in the time of Hercules.l Among the numerous works ascribed to him, a hymn to Ceres is alone considered by Pausanias as genuine.2 Musaeus, in tradition, is commonly called a Thracian. He is also reckoned as one of the race of Eumolpidae, and stated to be the disciple of Orpheus.3 Pausanias mentions a tradition that the Movo-eZoY in the Piraeeus bore that name from having been the place where Musmus was buried.4 We find the following poetical compositions accounted as his among the ancients:5 1. Xp?7Ylolt, Oracles.6 Onomacritus, in the time of the Pisistratidae, made it his business to collect and arrange the oracles that passed under the name of Musaeus, and was banished by Hipparchus for interpolating in the collection oracles of his own making.7 2.'T~roOKaL, or Precepts, addressed to his son Eumolpus, and extending to the length of 4000 lines.8 3. A hymn to Ceres, mentioned above as, according to Pausanias,9 the only genuine production of Musneus extant in his day4.'EcaKE'ELs vovw.~10 5. OEOyovyC.l" 6. TrcavoYpacpla.12 7. YSa-cpa.'l What this was is not clear. 8. IappaAcoeLs, TeAera'i, and KaOapfxo[.'4 Aristotle quotes some verses of Musaeus, but without specifying from what work or collection.15 The poem on the loves of Hero and Leander is by a very much later author of the same name. Nothing remains of the poems attributed to Musaeus but the few quotations in Pausanias, Plato, Clemens Alexandrinus, Philostratus, and Aristotle.l6 XXIV. The Thracian singer ORPHEUS ('OpeteSs) is unquestionably the darkest point in the entire history of the early Greek poetry, on account of the scantiness of the information respecting him which has been preserved in the more ancient writers. This deficiency is ill supplied by the multitude of marvellous stories concerning him which occur in later writers, and by the poems and poetical fragments which are extant under his name. The name of Orpheus does not occur in the Homeric or Hesiodic poems, but during the lyric period it had attained to great celebrity. Ibycus, who flourished about the middle of the sixth century B.C., mentions him as " the renowned Orpheus" (3yojacKAV7~O "OpqpmV).17 Pindar enumerates him among the Argonauts as' the celebrated harp-player, father of songs, and as sent forth by Apollo.l8 In the dramatic poets, also, there are several references to Orpheus. Many poems ascribed to Orpheus were current as early as the time of the Pisistratidee, and they are, moreover, often quoted by Plato. The allusions in them to later writers are very frequent; for example, Pau1 Diod. Sic., iv., 25. 2 Pausan., i., 22, 7. Compare iv., 1, 5. 3 Diod., l. c.; Serv., ad Virg. _An., vi., 667. 4 Pausan., i., 25, 8. s Fabric., Bibl. Gr., vol. i., p. 120, seqq. 6 Aristoph., Ran., 1031; Paus., x., 9, 11; Herod., viii., 96. 7 Herod., vii., 6; Pausan., i., 22, 7. s Suid., s. v. Movo-aioq. 9 Pausan., i., 22, 7. 1o Aristoph., Ran., 1031; Plin., H. N., xxi., 8, 21. 11 Diog. Laert., Procem., 3. 12 Schol. ad Apol. Rhod., iii., 1200; Eudocia,'Iovta, p. 248 13 Diog. Laert., 1. c.'4 Schol. ad Aristoph., 1. c.; Plat., De Repub., ii., p. 364, extr. 15 Aristot., Polit., viii., 5; Hist. An., vi., 6. 16 Fabric., Bibl. Gr., 1. c. 7 Ap. Prisc., vi., 18, 92, vol. i., p. 283, ed. Krehl (fragm. 22, ed. Schneidewin). 18 Pind., Pyth.. iv., 315.

Page  21 MYTHICAL PERIOD. 21 sanias speaks of hymns of his which he believed to be still preserved by the Lycomidee, of whom we have already made mention, and which hymns, he says, were only inferior in beauty to the poems of Homer, and held even in higher honor, on account of their divine subjects. He also speaks of them as very few in number, and distinguished by great brevity of style.' Considering the slight acquaintance which the ancients evidently possessed with these works, it is somewhat surprising that certain extant poems which bear the name of Orpheus should have been generally regarded by scholars, until a very recent period, as genuine, that is, as works more ancient than the Homeric poems, if not the productions of Orpheus himself. It is now, however, fully established that the bulk of these poems are the forgeries of Christian grammarians and philosophers of the Alexandrean school; but still that among the fragments, which form a part of the collection, are some genuine remains of that Orphic poetry which was known to Plato, and which must be assigned to the period of Onomacritus, or perhaps a little earlier. The Orphic literature, which, in this sense, we may call genuine, seems to have included Hymns, a Theogony, an ancient poem called Minyas, or the Descent into Hades, Oracles, and Songs for Initiations (TEkrcal), a collection of Sacred Legends ('Iepol Axyoi), ascribed to Cercops, and perhaps some other works.2 The apocryphal productions which have come down to us under the name of Orphica ('OpplcKd), are the following:3 1.'Ap-yoavwrlcd, an epic poem in 1384 hexameters, giving an account of the expedition of the Argonauts. It is full of indications of its late date. 2. "Twr/ot, eighty-seven or eighty-eight hymns in hexameters, evidently the productions of the Neo-Platonic school. 3. AtOacd, the best of the three apocryphal Orphic poems, which treats of the properties of stones both precious and common, and their uses in divination. 4. Fragments, chiefly of the Theogony. It is in this class that we find the genuine remains, above referred to, of the literature of the early Orphic theology, but intermingled with others of a much later date." The chief editions of Orpheus, after the early ones of 1517, 1519, 1540, 1543, 1566, and 1606, are those of Eschenbach, Traj. ad Rhen., 1689, 12mo; Gesner and IHamberger, Lips., 1764, 8vo; and Hermann, Lips., 1805, 8vo, by far the best. The genuine fragments are collected by Lobeck in his Aglaophamus, vol. i., p. 410, seqq., Regimont., 1829. (C.) SINGERS AND MUSICIANS, WHO BELONGED TO THE PHRYGIAN WORSHIP OF THE GREAT MOTHER OF THE GODS, OF THE CORYBANTES, ETC.5 XXV. The Phrygians, allied indeed to the Greeks, yet a separate and distinct nation, differed from their neighbors in their strong disposition to an orgiastic worship, that is, a worship which was connected with a tumult and excitement produced by loud music and violent bodily movements, such as occurred in Greece at the Bacchanalian rejoicings; where, 1 Pausan., ix., 30, 5. 2 Smith's Dict. Biogr., s. v. 3 Fabric., Bibl. Gr., vol. i., p. 148, seqq. 4 Smith's Dict. Biogr., s. v. Compare Bernhardy, Grundriss d. Griech. Litt., vol. ii., p. 266, seqq. 5 3iiller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 26.

Page  22 22 GREEK LITERATURE. however, it never, as in Phrygia, gave its character to every variety of divine worship. With this worship was connected the development of a peculiar kind of music, especially of the flute, which instrument was always considered in Greece to possess a stimulating and passion-stirring force. This, in the Phrygian tradition, was ascribed to the demi-god MARSYAS,' who is known as the inventor of the flute, and the unsuccessful opponent of Apollo, to his disciple OLYMPus,2 and, lastly, to HYAGNlS,3 to whom also the composition of nomes addressed to the Phrygian deities in a native melody was attributed. V. ANCIENT THRACIAN MINSTRELS.4 XXVI. By far the most remarkable circumstance in these accounts of the earliest minstrels of Greece is that several of them, especially from the second of the three classes just described, are called THRACIANS. It is utterly inconceivable that, in the later historic times, when the Thracians were contemned as a barbarian race, a notion should have sprung up that the first civilization of Greece was due to them; consequently, we can not doubt that this was a tradition handed down from a very early period. Now, if we are to understand it to mean that Eumolpus, Orpheus, Museus, and others, were the fellow-countrymen of those Edonians, Odrysians, and Odomantians, who, in the historical age, occupied the Thracian territory, and who spoke a barbarian language, that is, one unintelligible to the Greeks, we must despair of being able to comprehend these accounts of the ancient Thracian minstrels, and of assigning them a place in the history of Greek civilization. XXVII. WVhen we come, however, to trace more precisely the country of these Thracian bards, we find that the traditions refer to Pieria, a district to the east of the range of Olympus, to the north of Thessaly, and the south of' Emathia or Macedonia. In other words, they refer to a narrow slip of country, on the southeastern coast of Macedonia, extending from the mouth of the Peneus to the Haliacmon, and bounded on the west by Mount Olympus and its offshoots. In Pieria, likewise, was Libethra, where the Muses are said to have sung the lament over the tomb of Orpheus. The ancient poets, moreover, always make Pieria, not Thrace, the native place of the Muses, which last Homer clearly distinguishes from Pieria. It was not until the Pierians were pressed in their own country by the early Macedonian princes that some of them crossed the Strymon into Thrace Proper, where Herodotus mentions the castles of the Pierians at the time of the expedition of Xerxes.5 XXVIII. It is, however, quite conceivable that, in early times, either on account of their close vicinity, or because all the north was comprehended under one name, the Pierians might, in Southern Greece, have been called Thracians. These Pierians, from the intellectual relations which they maintained with the Greeks, appear to have been a Grecian 1 Apollod., i., 4, 2; Diod., iii., 58, 59. 2 Suid., s. v.'OhAvf7ro. 3 Plut., 2, p. 1132, F.; Anthol. Pal., 9, 266. 4 Miiller, 1. c. 5 Herod., vii., 112.

Page  23 MYT'rHICAL PERIOD. 23 race; which supposition is also confirmed by the Greek names of their places, rivers, fountains, &c., although it is probable that, situated on the limits of the Greek nation, they may have borrowed largely from the neighboring tribes.' XXIX. These same Thracians or Pierians lived, up to the time of the Doric and zEolic migrations, in certain districts of Bceotia and Phocis. That they had dwelt about the Boeotian mountain of Helicon, in the district of Thespiae and Ascra, was evident to the ancient historians, as well from the traditions of the cities as from the agreement of many names of places in the country near Olympus, such as Libethrion, Pimpleis, Helicon, &c. At the foot of Parnassus, moreover, in Phocis, was said to have been situated the city of Daulis, the seat of the Thracian king Tereus, who is known by his connection with the Athenian king Pandion, and by the fable of the metamorphosis of his wife Procne into a nightingale. From what has been said, then, it appears sufficiently clear that these Pierians or Thracians, dwelling about Helicon and Parnassus, in the vicinity of Attica, are chiefly signified when a Thracian origin is ascribed to the mythical bards of Attica. XXX. With these movements of the Pierians was also connected the extension of the temples of the MusEs in Greece, who alone among the gods are represented by the ancient poets as presiding over poetry, since Apollo, in strictness, is only concerned with the music of the cithara. Homer calls the Muses the Olympian; in Hesiod, at the beginning of the Theogony, they are called the Heliconian, although, according to the notion of the Bceotian poet, they were born at Olympus, and dwelt at a short distance from the highest.pinnacle of this mountain, where Jove was enthroned; whence they only go at times to Helicon, bathe in the Hippocrdne, and celebrate their choral dances around the altar of Jove, on the top of the mountain. Now, when it is borne in mind that the same mountain on which the worship of the Muses originally flourished was also represented in the earliest Greek poetry as the common abode of the gods, it seems highly probable that it was the poets of this region, the ancient Pierian minstrels, whose imagination had created this council of the gods, and had distributed and arranged its parts. XXXI. The poetry of these Pierian minstrels, moreover, was doubtless not concerned merely with the gods, but contained the first germs of the Epic or Heroic style. More especially should Thamyris, who in Homer is called a Thracian,2 and in other writers a son of Philammon3 (by which the neighborhood of Daulis is designated as his abode), be considered as an Epic poet, although some hymns were ascribed to him; for in the account of Homer, that Thamyris, while going from one prince to another, and having just returned from Eurytus of CEchalia, was deprived of both his eyesight and his power of singing and playing on the cithara by the Muses, with whom he had undertaken to contend,4 it is much more natural to understand a poet, such as Phemius and Demodocus, who entertained kings and nobles at meals by the narration of heroic adventures, 1 Miuller, Dorians, vol. i., p. 472, 488, 501. 2 n., ii., 594, seqq. 3 Apollod., i., 3, 3; Pausan., iv., 33, 4; x., 7, 2. 4 II., ii., 594, seqq.

Page  24 24 GREEK LITERATURE. than a singer devoted to the pious service of the gods and the celebration of their praises in hymns. These remarks lead naturally to the consideration of the Epic style of poetry, or, in other words, to the second division of our subject, namely, the Poetical Period. CHAPTER III. SECOND OR POETICAL PERIOD. INTRODUCTORY. REMARKS.1 I. THE Second or Poetical Period of Grecian literature extends, as we have already remarked, from the period of the earliest authenticated productions of poetical genius, or, in other words, from Homer and the Homeric poems, down to about the period of the Persian war. II. The whole poetical literature of Greece was familiarly classed by the native critics under three comprehensive heads: Epic, Lyric, and Dramatic. The compositions of this period, however, fall strictly under the two former alone; the Drama being yet so completely in its infancy as not to supply materials for a separate subdivision. III. The term Epic, in its literal acceptation, denotes what is narrated or recited; Lyric, what is sung to the lyre. This, however, like some other similar distinctions, invented at a later stage of the arts to which they apply, will be found defective in regard to the origin or more flourishing epochs of those arts Epic poems were, during the earlier and better days of Greek heroic minstrelsy, chanted to an instrumental accompaniment little less habitually than lyric odes. The epithet lyric, therefore, might, in so far, appear as applicable to the Iliad and Odyssey as to a song of Sappho's or an elegy of Mimnermus's. The distinction, however, is justified, even in its extension to this early period, by the more artificial nature of the accompaniment; and the more vital connection between the music and the words, in the case of the lyric than in that of the epic poems. The nice distinction of terms may have originated about the period when lyric composition first acquired importance as a branch of cultivated literature; epic poetry being then on the decline, and the practice of its musical recital gradually falling into disuse. IV. But although, in point of origin, these two branches of composition may be classed as coeval, yet the Epic invariably enjoys a priority of cultivation wherever the progress of letters, as in Greece, is spontaneous and free from secondary influence. This is a consequence of the more direct medium through which it appeals to the sympathies; the mass of mankind, in all ages, being more interested in the study of facts than of opinions, in listening to accounts of great or marvellous adventures than to commentaries on the admiration of which they may be deserving. lMure, Crit. Hist., vol. i., p. 168, seqq.

Page  25 POETICAL PERIOD. 25 V. The difference of the mode, too, in which the epic and lyric styles are embodied, corresponds to that of their characters. In the epic, an exclusive preference is given to prolonged metrical forms in harmony with the continuity of the narrative. The lyric, on the other hand, offers a greater subdivision and a more varied combination of numbers, adapted to its more lively and versatile expression of thought or feeling.' VI. Under these two general heads of Epic and Lyric have been here comprised various works but partially marked by the proper features on which the distinction just drawn depends, and which might, therefore, appear, in a more accurate classification, to require a separate allotment. To the Epic head, for example, have been referred the "Works and Days" of Hesiod, and the so-called Homeric Hymns. The former poem, in a more artificial age of literature, would be assigned to the Didactic rather than the Epic style. At the period, however, in which this distinction of terms takes its origin, and, indeed, more or less, throughout' the flourishing ages of Grecian art, the phrase Epic familiarly denotes any descriptive or narrative work, any thing told or recited, as distinct from what is sung or dramatically represented. The Homeric Hymns, on the other hand, might seem, both in right of their title and their subject, to belong to the Lyric order. The epic character, however, in the narrower sense, really predominates in them to such an extent as to warrant the arrangement here adopted. VII. From deference to a parallel law of custom, various works have been embraced in the Lyric division of the subject which, on a more subtle principle of distinction, might appear to belong more properly to the Epic. The Elegiac measure, for example, though, in its origin and early use, familiarly ranked as lyric, was frequently employed in narrative or didactic poems of considerable compass. It may, indeed, be considered as an intermediate stage between the one style and the other, being compounded of purely dactylic elements, with such modification as was requisite to adapt the old heroic hexameter to compositions of a more fugitive nature. The Iambic trimeter, on the other hand, appropriated, during its earlier stages of cultivation, to the same class of poems as the elegy, and, like it, comprehended under the general head of lyric poetry, possesses epic qualities only inferior to the hexameter. VIII. Upon the above general data, therefore, the whole poetic Greek literature of this period may be classed as follows: FIRST. Epic Composition, comprising, in addition to heroic poems properly so called, every work in hexameter verse possessing reasonable claims to date prior to the period of the Persian war. SECOND. Lyric Composition, comprising every poetical work not embodied in hexameter verse, and, by consequence, the whole elegiac and iambic, in addition to the melic and choral poetry of the period. Each class will be made the subject of a separate treatment. 1 Mure, Crit. Hist., vol. i., p. 172. 2 Id. ib., vol. i., p. 174. B

Page  26 26 GREEIK LITERATURE. CHAPTER IV. SECOND OR POETICAL PERIOD.-continued. H 0 IME R. I. PERSONAL HISTORY OF HOMER.1 I. THE various dates assigned to Homer's age offer no less a diversity than 500 years, namely, from B.C. 1184 to B.C. 684. Crates and Eratosthenes state that he lived within the first century after the Trojan war; Aristotle and Aristarcnus make him a contemporary of the Ionian migration, 140 years after the war; the chronologist Apollodorus gives the year 240, Porphyrius 275, the Parian Marble 277, Herodotus 490 after that event; and Theopompus even makes him a contemporary of Gyges, king of Lydia.2 It seems most probable that the events he celebrated took place at a considerable distance from his time, because, as observed by Velleius Paterculus, he represents men in his age as far inferior in strength to the heroes whom he celebrates. II. The place of Homer's birth was the subject of great controversy, even among the Greeks. Seven cities are enumerated as contending for this honor in the following distich: ETrra' rwesae1Jpvavro ao7frv SLa pbtav O'L)7pOv, lwA'pva, XCos, KIoXo00cv,'IOa6K7, IIvAo;,'Apyo,'A0)vat. But, in fact, there were more than seven cities which claimed Homer for their countryman; for if we number all those that we find mentioned in different passages of ancient writers, we have seventeen or nineteen mentioned as his birth-place. The claims, however, of most of them are so suspicious and feeble, that they easily vanish before a closer examination. III. Athens, for instance, alleged that she was the metropolis or parent city of Smyrna, and had, therefore, a right to number Homer among her citizens;3 and the opinion of Aristarchus, the Alexandrine critic, which admitted her claim, was probably qualified with the same explanation. Even Chios can not establish its right to be considered as the original source of the Homeric poetry, although the claims of this island are supported by the high authority of Simonides. It is true that in Chios lived the race of the Homerida. These, however, were not a family, but merely a society of persons who followed the same art, and therefore worshipped the same gods, and who placed at their head a bard-hero, from whom they derived their name. A member of this body of Horneridoe was probably the "blind poet," who, in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo, relates of himself that he dwelt on the rocky Chios, and whom even Thucydides erroneously took for Homer himself. Ihne (Smith's Dict. Biogr., s. v. Homerus), p. 500. Compare Grote, Hist. G?., vol. ii., p. 175, seq. 2 Nitzsch, Ilelet, de Histor. Ho07., fase. ii., p. 2; De Hist. Horn., p. 78. Bekker, Anecd. Cr.. vol. ii., p. 768.

Page  27 POETICAL PERIOD. 27' IV. The best claim seems to have been advanced by Smyrna, and the opinion that Homer was a Smyrneean appears to have been the prevalent one in the flourishing times of Greece. It is also adopted by the generality of modern scholars.l V. Smyrna was founded by an Ionian colony from Ephesus, or from an Ephesian village called Smyrna. These Ionians were followed, and afterward expelled, by zEolians from Cyme. The expelled Ionians fled to Colophon, and Smyrna thus became AEolic. Subsequently, however, the Colophonians drove out the tEolians from Smyrna, which from henceforth was a purely Ionic city. Now the zEolians were originally in possession of the traditions of the Trojan war, which their ancestors had waged, and in which no Ionians had taken part.2 It has been supposed, therefore, and with no small degree of probability, that Homer, himself an Ionian, and belonging to one of the families which went from Ephesus to Smyrna, received these traditions from the _/Eolian colonists who came to Smyrna after the Ionians had settled there, and who subsequently, as above remarked, expelled them from that city; and hence, too, perhaps we may explain the peculiarities of the Homeric dialect, which is different from the pure Ionic, and contains a large mixture of tEolic elements. VI. According to this view of the subject, the time of Homer would fall a few generations after the Ionic migration to Asia; and with this the best testimonies of antiquity agree. VII. The parentage also of Homer is involved in doubt. According to the writer of the Life of Homer, falsely attributed to Herodotus,3 the name of the poet's mother was Crithdis, and he was born on the banks of the Meles, near Smyrna, from which circumstance his parent gave him the name of Melesigenes (MEXA7LoyeVs). The bard, according to this same authority, was of illegitimate origin. These and various other particulars that are related of him by the writer of the life in question are equally unworthy of belief. Thus, for instance, we are informed that Crithe'is subsequently married Phemius, a schoolmaster of Smyrna, and that, on the death of his step-father, Homer succeeded him in his school, and became celebrated for his wisdom. He subsequently travelled in many countries, and in the course of his wanderings became afflicted with total blindness. Finally, he settled at Chios, where he acquired great wealth by reciting his poems. He died at the island of Ios, while on a voyage to Athens. VIII. Whatever credit, however, we may refuse to these details, it certainly would appear from the Iliad and Odyssey that Homer had actually travelled much, and that in the course of his travels he had visited and accurately observed all the principal places in Greece. IX. As to the blindness of Homer, no one need extend to this part of 1 Welcker, Episch. Cyclus, vol. i., p. 153; Mdiller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 41, seqq. 2 Miller, Eginet., p. 25; Orchom., p. 367. 3 There are many lives of Homer, all of which, whatever truth is mixed up with them, derive their materials from early legendary history. Two of these are attributed to Plutarch. The one ascribed to Herodotus. however, is by far the most circumstantial.

Page  28 28 GREEK LITERATURE. the story a moment's credence. The character of his compositions, as has been correctly remarked, seems rather to suppose him all eye than destitute of sight; and if they were even framed during his blindness, they form a glorious proof of the vivid power of the imagination, more than supplying the want of the bodily organs, and not merely throwing a variety of its own tints over the objects of nature, but presenting them to the mind in a clearer light than could be shed over them by one whose powers of immediate vision were perfectly free from blemish.l X. The name of Homer ("Oy77pos) is supposed by many not to have been the poet's original appellation, but to have been given to him to denote some quality of his mind or incident of his life. Etymology has, therefore, been employed to develop its meaning, in the hope that some light might thus be thrown upon his history. In the life falsely ascribed to Herodotus, he is said to have been called Homer ("'Olypos) from his blindness, the term 9txopos, in the Cumaean dialect, being equivalent to the Attic vqpAxs. According to others, he was so named from Lxi77pos, "a hostage," having been delivered in that character in a war between Smyrna and Chios. The derivation which favors the theory of Wolf (to which we shall presently refer) is from OlAoD, "together," and dpow, "to fit." This etymology proceeds on the assumption that such a poet as Homer never had any real existence, but that the Iliad and Odyssey are merely collections of rhapsodies or lays by different bards, united into two large poems. II. PRODUCTIONS OF HOMER.2 XI. This Homer, then (of the circumstances of whose life we know so little), was the one who gave epic poetry its first great impulse. Before his time, in general, only single actions and adventures were celebrated in short lays, such as, in later times, were produced by several poets of the school of Hesiod. Occasionally, if it was desired, a longer series of adventures of the same hero was formed from these, but they always remained a collection of independent poems on the same subject, and never attained to that unity of character and composition which constitutes one poem. It was an entirely new phenomenon, therefore, which could not fail to make the greatest impression, when a Homer selected a subject of the heroic tradition, which had in itself the means of awakening a lively interest, and of satisfying the mind; and which, at the same time, admitted of such a development that the principal personages could be represented as acting each with a peculiar and individual character, without obscuring the chief hero and the main action of the poem. XII. One legendary subject of this extent and interest Homer found in the anger of Achilles, and another in the return of Ulysses; the first producing the ILIAD, and the second the ODYSSEY. ILIAD.-SKETCH OF THE POEM.3 XIII. The Iliad ('IXcid, scil. 7'rofloLs), or Poem of Troy, consists of 24 1 Talfourd, Early Greek Poetry, p. 36. 2 Miller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 47, seqq. 3 Mure, Crit. Hist., vol. i., p. 268, seqq.

Page  29 POETICAL PERIOD. 29 books, and contains, strictly speaking, a simple episode of the Trojan war. The poet sings of the events which took place during the compass of fifty-one days, from the quarrel between Agamemnon and Achilles to the obsequies of Hector. XIV. From the notices interspersed throughout the poem, it appears that the first nine years of the siege of Troy had passed without any event of a decisive character. After a vigorous attempt to frustrate the landing of the Greeks, the Trojans, unable to cope with them in the field, shut themselves up within the walls of the city, where, by the strength of its fortifications, they baffled every assault of the enemy.' The Greeks naturally shaped their tactics by those of the besieged, and, in order to wear out their resources,- occupied themselves in ravaging the country, and reducing other cities of the hostile confederacy.2 XV. In the tenth year, however, events occurred to alter the Trojan policy. Dissensions between Agamemnon and Achilles, the hero on whose valor the Greeks mainly relied for success, caused the secession of the latter. In proportion as this event tended to discourage the one party, already somewhat disheartened by a long and unprofitable warfare, it revived the hopes of the other. The city was at this epoch crowded with Asiatic auxiliaries, who, however valuable their services, pressed heavily on the resources of Priam,3 and rendered some desperate effort the more indispensable. XVI. Such a combination of circumstances obviously marked out this as the moment for a bold attack on the invaders. The quarrel, therefore, between the chiefs, as the immediate cause of a change in the languid character of the war, and of a series of fierce engagements, involving the death of Hector, the main bulwark of his country, but, above all, from the fine field it afforded for developing the character of Achilles, the heart and soul of the Iliad, could not fail to offer itself to the genius of Homer as the centre or pivot of action in any poem founded on the siege of Troy. XVII. Nor does the peculiar nature of these events mark out the completion of the design less clearly than its commencement. From the quarrel of the heroes down to the restoration of Hector's body, the whole series of occurrences follow each other by a constant chain of cause and effect. On the withdrawal of Achilles depend the unwonted boldness and success of the Trojans. The disasters of the Greeks excite the sympathy of Patroclus, whose successful mediation with Achilles leads to his own death by the hand of Hector. Grief, anger, and remorse procure the immediate restoration of Achilles to the field, and the infliction of death on the destroyer of his friend. The duties of friendship and of religion indispensably require a performance of the last honors to the remains of the two fallen warriors, and with this the poem concludes. ODYSSEY.-SKETCH OF THE POEM.4 XVIII. The Odyssey ('Obdveo-Ea, scil. Froboss), also in 24 books, recounts the adventures of Ulysses ('3vo-~Oevs) returning to his island home from 1 Il.,viii., 5, &c. 2 Id., ix., 328. 3 Id., ii., 130; xvii., 220; xviii., 288, seqq. 4 Midller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 57, seqq.

Page  30 30 GREEK LITERATURE. Troy. It is indisputably, as well as the Iliad, a poem possessing a unity of subject; nor can any one of its chief parts be removed without leaving a chasm in the development of the leading idea; but it differs from the Iliad in being composed on a more artificial and more complicated plan. This is the case, partly because, in the first and greater half, up to the sixteenth book, two main actions are carried on side by side; partly because the action, which passes within the compass of the poem, and, as it were, beneath our eyes, is greatly extended by means of an episodical narration, by which the chief action itself is made distinct and complete, and the most marvellous and the strangest part of the story is transferred from the mouth of the poet to that of the inventive hero himself. XIX. The subject of the Odyssey is the return of Ulysses from a land lying beyond the range of human intercourse or knowledge, to a home invaded by bands of insolent intruders, who seek to rob him of his wife and to kill his son. Hence the Odyssey begins exactly at that point where the hero is considered to be farthest from his home, in the island of Ogygia,l at the navel, that is, the central point of the sea, where the nymph Calypso (Ka2v'ci6, " the concealer") has kept him hidden from all mankind for seven years. Thence having, by the help of the gods, who pity his misfortunes, passed through the dangers prepared for him by his implacable enemy, Neptune, he gains the land of the Phaeacians, a careless, peaceable, and effeminate nation on the confines of the earth, to whom war is only known by means of poetry. XX. Borne by a marvellous Pheeacian vessel, he reaches Ithaca sleeping; here he is entertained by the honest swineherd Eumaeus, and having been introduced into his own house as a beggar, he is there made to suffer the harshest treatment from the suitors, in order that he may afterward appear with the stronger right as a terrible avenger. XXI. With this simple story a poet might have been satisfied, and we should even in this form, notwithstanding its smaller extent, have placed the poem almost on an equality with the Iliad. But the poet to whom we are indebted for the Odyssey in its complete form has interwoven a second story, by which the poem is rendered much richer and more complete; although, indeed, from the union of two actions, some roughnesses have been produced, which, perhaps, with a plan of this kind, could scarcely be avoided; for, while the poet represents the son of Ulysses, stimulated by Minerva, coming forward in Ithaca with newly-excited courage, and calling the suitors to account before the people, and then afterward describes him as travelling to Pylos and Sparta to obtain information of his lost father, he gives us a picture of Ithaca and its anarchical condition, and of the rest of Greece in its state of peace after the return of the princes, which produces the finest contrast, and, at the same time, prepares Telemachus for playing an energetic part in the work of vengeance, which by this means becomes more probable.2 1'flyvyta, from'a2yv5y,~, who was originally a deity of the watery expanse which covered all things. 2 Mller,. c.

Page  31 POETIICAL PERIOD. 31 CHAP'1TER V. SECOND OR POETICAL PERIOD-coztinued. HO AMERIC CONTROVERSY. t I. THE whole of antiquity unanimously viewed the Iliad and the Odyssey as the productions of a certain individual called Homer. No doubt of this fact ever entered the mind of any of the ancients; and even a large number of other poems were attributed to the same author. This opinion continued unshaken down to the year 1795 of our era, when Wolf wrote his famous Prolegomenea, in which he endeavored to show that the Iliad and Odyssey were not two complete poems, but small, separate, independent epic songs, celebrating single exploits of the heroes, and that these lays were for the first time written down and united, as the Iliad and Odyssey, by Pisistratus, tyrant of Athens. II. This opinion, however, startling and paradoxical as it seemed, was not entirely new. Casaubon had already doubted the common belief respecting Homer, and the great Bentley had said expressly that " Homer wrote a sequel of songs and rhapsodies. These loose songs were not collected together in the form of an epic poem till about 500 years after."2 Some French writers, Perault and Hedelin, and the Italian Vico, had made similar conjectures, but all these were forgotten, and overborne by the common and general opinion, and the more easily, since these bold conjectures had been thrown out almost at hazard, and without sound arguments to support them. III. When, therefore, Wolf's Prolegomena appeared, the whole literary world was startled by the boldness and novelty of his positions, and great opposition was, of course, excited. The publication of his work took place during a crisis in the intellectual as well as the political destinies of Europe. A bold spirit of speculative inquiry was then abroad, the valuable effects of which, in exploding error and prejudice, have been too often counterbalanced by the spread of groundless or mischievous innovation. Wolf himself professed the scope of his argument to be rather to subvert the ancient fabric of opinion, than to erect any solid edifice in its place. The result, however, has not fully justified the accuracy of the figure; for, while no one has to this day been able to refute some of the principal arguments of the great critic, and to re-establish fully the old opinion which he overthrew, yet his views have been materially modified by protracted discussions, and a considerable portion of the old way of thinking has been revived. IV. We will first state Wolf's principal arguments, and the chief objections of his opponents, and will then endeavor to discover the most probable result of all these inquiries. 1 Ihne (Smith's Dict. Biogr., s. v. Homerus), p. 501, seqq. 2 Letter by Phileleuttherus Lipsiensis, I 7.

Page  32 32 GREEK LITERATURE. In 1770, Wood published a book On the Original Genius of Homer,' in which he mooted the question whether the Homeric poems had originally been written or not. This idea was caught up by Wolf, and proved the foundation of all his inquiries. But the most important assistance, which he obtained was from the discovery and publication by Villoison, in 1788, of the famous Venetian scholia on Homer. These valuable scholia, in giving us some insight into the studies of the Alexandrine critics, furnished materials and an historical basis for Wolf's inquiries. WOLF'S FIRST ARGUMENT.2 V. The point from which Wolf started was, as we have said, the idea that the Homeric poems were originally not written. To prove this, he enters into a minute and accurate discussion concerning the age of the art of writing. He sets aside as groundless fables the traditions which ascribed the invention or introduction of this art to Cadmus, Cecrops, Orpheus, Linus, or Palamedes. Then, allowing that letters were known in Greece at a very early period, he justly insists upon the great difference which exists between the knowledge of the letters and their general use for works of literature. Writing is first applied to public monuments, inscriptions, and religious purposes, centuries before it is employed for the common purposes of social life. This is still more certain to be the case when the common ordinary materials for writing are wanting, as they were among the ancient Greeks. Wood, lead, brass, and stone are not proper materials for writing down poems consisting of 24 books. Even hides, which were used by the Ionians, seem too clumsy for this purpose, and, besides, we do not know when they were first in use. VI. It was not, according to Wolf, before the sixth century B.C. that papyrus became easily accessible to the Greeks, through King Amasis, who first opened Egypt to Greek traders. The laws of Lycurgus were not committed to writing; those of Zaleucus, among the Locri Epizephyrii, in the 29th Olympiad, or 664 B.C., are particularly recorded as the first laws that were ever written down.3 The laws of Solon, seventy years later, were written on wood, and after the fashion called BovorpoVII. Wolf allows that all these considerations do not prove that no use at all was made of the art of writing as early as the seventh and eighth centuries B.C., which would be particularly improbable in the case of the lyric poets, such as Archilochus, Alcman, Pisander, and Arion, but that before the time of the seven sages, that is, the time when prose writing first originated, the art was not so common that we can suppose it to have been employed for such extensive works as the poems of Homer. Wolf refers, in support of his position, to the testimony of Josephus,4 and to a scholiast cited by Villoison in his Anecdota.5 1 " An Essay on the Original Genius and Writings of Homer," &c. Lond., 1775, 4to. 2 Ihne,.p. 501. 3 Scynzn. Perieg., 313; Strab., vi., p. 259. 4 C. Apion., i., 2:'Oi Kcat 6xehse'yvnoav oL'EAXqve; ~ acLv ypa'tovrwv.... Kat aor'tv oAi1 7TOi-TOV (i. e.,'Oijxpov) IEv ypdtcLLa(rCTn TCi aVTVo 7ronLtv KarTaXt7reev, (AA& sLatevpEtovevoJev&qv eK T&i-lV c(rO a'Ov ur-repoV rvvYTe6Oeva. 5 Schol. ap. Villois., Anecd. Gr., ii., p. 182.

Page  33 POETICAL PERIOD. 33 VIII. But Wolf draws still more convincing proofs from the poems themselves. In the seventh book of the Iliad (v. 175), the Grecian heroes decide by lot who is to fight with Hector. The lots are marked by each respective hero, and are all thrown into a helmet, which is shaken until one lot is jerked out. This is handed round by the herald till it reaches Ajax, who recognizes the mark he had made on it as his own. If this mark had been any thing like writing, the herald would have read it at once, and not have handed it round. Again, in the sixth book of the Iliad (v. 168, seqq.) we have the story of Bellerophon, whom Prcetus sends to Lycia, ro6pev I' o~ye arlyaTa kvypl, ypce/ag Ev rtvaKt. 7rTVKT'C OvpLocO6pa 7rohAi, Sefate a' jvS6yeL t rrevOepoy, olp' a7r&6oLTo. Wolf here shows that oyIru=-a xvuypc are a kind of conventional marks, and not letters, and that this story is far from proving the existence of writing. IX. Throughout the whole of Homer, indeed, remarks Wolf, every thing is calculated to be heard, nothing to be read. Not a single epitaph, nor any other inscription, is mentioned; the tombs of the heroes are rude mounds; coins are unknown. In the eighth book of the Odyssey (v. 163, seqq.) an overseer of a ship is mentioned, who, instead of having a list of the cargo, must remember it; he is cp7P-ov UArheuv. All this seems to prove, according to Wolf, without the possibility of doubt, that the art of writing was entirely unknown at the time of the Trojan war, and could not have been common at the time when the poems were composed. ANSWER TO WOLF'S FIRST ARGUMENT, WVITH REMARKS. X. Among the opponents of Wolf, there is none superior to Nitzsch in zeal, perseverance, learning, and acuteness. He wrote a series of monographies' to refute Wolf and his supporters, and he has done a great deal toward establishing a solid and well-founded view of this complicated question. Next to Nitzsch may be mentioned Kreuser, Clinton, and Thirlwall. XI. Nitzsch opposes Wolf's conclusions concerning the later date of written documents. He denies that the laws of Lycurgus were transmitted by oral tradition alone, and were for this purpose set to music by Terpander and Thaletas, as is generally believed, on the authority of Plutarch.2 The Spartan V40toi, which those two musicians are said to have composed, Nitzsch declares to have been hymns, and not laws, although Strabo calls Thaletas a VOUOOTeLKIb &avp (by a mistake, as Nitzsch ventures to say!). Clinton also remarks, that it would have been an unnecessary provision for Lycurgus to have enacted that his laws should not be committed to writing, if writing had not been practiced. XII. In answer to Strabo's statement, as quoted by Wolf, that the Epizephyrian Locrians were the first Greek people that received a code 1 Qucestion. Homeric. Specim., i., 1824; Indagand&e per Odyss. lnterpolttionis Praeparatio, 1828; De Ilist. Homeri, fascic. i., 1830; De Aristotele contra Wolfianos, 1831; Patria et.Etas Homeri, 1834. 2 De M.usO. 3.

Page  34 34 GREEK LITERATURE. of written laws, Nitzsch gives a different explanation of Strabo's meaning, and maintains that the point in which the novelty consisted was, not that the laws were reduced to writing, but that the discretion of the Locrian magistrates was limited by a penal code. XIII. To Wolf's argument, drawn from Bellerophon's atuara xAvypd, no satisfactory answer has ever been given, though this has been attempted by Nitzsch, Kreuser, Thirlwall, and many others. Writing materials, however, were, according to Nitzsch, not wanting at a very early period. He maintains that wooden tablets and the hides (Upqe4pan) of the Ionians were employed, and that even papyrus was known and used by the Greeks long before the time of Amasis, and was brought into Greece by Phcenician merchants. Amasis, according to Nitzsch, only rendered the use of papyrus more general (sixth century B.C), whereas previously its use had been confined to a few. XIV. Thus Nitzsch comes to the conclusion that writing was common in Greece full one hundred years before the time which Wolf had supposed, namely, about the beginning of the Olympiads (eighth century B.C.), and that this is the time in which the Homeric poems were committed to writing. Even if this is granted, however, it does not follow that the poems were also composed at that time. Nitzsch can not prove that the age of Homer was so late as the eighth century. The best authorities place Homer much earlier, so that we again come to the conclusion that the Homeric poems were composed and handed down for a long time without the assistance of writing. In fact, this point seems indisputable. The nature of the Homeric language is alone a sufficient argument, but into this consideration Nitzsch never entered.' The Homeric dialect could never have attained to the softness and flexibility which render it so well adapted to versification-that variety of longer and shorter forms, which existed together-that freedom in contracting and resolving vowels, and of forming the contractions into two syllables-if the practice of, writing had at that time exercised the power, which it naturally possesses, of fixing the forms of a language.2 XV. Moreover, the state of the Iliad and Odyssey in respect to the letter called the digamma affords a proof that they were recited for a considerable period before they were committed to writing, insomuch that the oral pronunciation underwent during the interval a sensible change. At the time when these poems were composed, the digamma was an effective consonant, and figured as such in the structure of the verse; at the time, however, when they were committed to writing, it had ceased to be pronounced, and therefore never found a place in any of the manuscripts, insomuch that the Alexandrine critics, though they knew of its existence in the much later poems of Alceeus and Sappho, never recognized it in Homer. The hiatus, and the various perplexities of metre, occasioned by the loss of the digamma, were corrected by different grammatical stratagems; but the whole history of this lost letter is very curious, and is rendered intelligible only by the supposition that the Iliad Hermann, Opusc., vi., 1, 75; Giese, d. Afol. Dialect., p. 154. 2 iHliller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 38.

Page  35 POETICAL PERIOD. 35 and Odyssey belonged for a wide space of time to the memory, the voice, and the ear exclusively.1 XVI. It is necessary, therefore, to admit WVolf's first position, that the Homeric poems were originally not committed to writing. We now proceed to examine the conclusions which he draws from these premises, regarding them, for convenience' sake, as so many successive arguments. WOLF'S SECOND ARGUMENT, WITH AN ANSWER TO THE SADIE. XVII. However great the genius of Homer may have been, says Wolf, it is quite incredible that, without the assistance of writing, he could have conceived in his mind and executed such extensive works. XVIII. But it is difficult to determine, as Miller remarks in reply to this argument,2 how many thousand verses a person thoroughly impregnated with his subject, and absorbed in the contemplation of it, might produce in a year, and confide to the faithful memory of disciples devoted to their master and his art. We have instances of modern poets who have composed long poems without writing down a single syllable, and have preserved them faithfully in their memory, before committing them to writing. And how much more easily could this have been done in the time anterior to the use of writing, when all those faculties of the mind, which had to dispense with this artificial assistance, were powerfully developed, trained, and exercised. XIX. Again, we must not look upon the old bards as amateurs, who amused themselves in leisure hours with poetical compositions, as is the fashion nowadays. Composition was their profession. All their thoughts were concentrated on this one point, in which and for which they lived. Their composition was, moreover, facilitated by their having no occasion to invent complicated plots and wonderful stories; the simple traditions, on which they founded their songs, were handed down to them in a form already adapted to poetical purposes. If now, in spite of all these advantages, the composition of the Iliad and Odyssey was no easy task, we must attribute some superiority to the genius of Homer, which caused his name and his works to acquire eternal glory, and covered all his innumerable predecessors, contemporaries, and followers with oblivion.3 WOLF'S THIRD ARGUMENT, WITH AN ANSWER TO THE SAME. XX. Wolf's third argument, or second deduction from his main premises, is of more weight and importance. When people neither wrote nor read, the only way of publishing poems was by oral recitation. The bards, therefore, of the Heroic Age, as we see from Horner himself, used to entertain their hearers at banquets, festivals, and on similar occasions. At such times they certainly could not recite more than one or two rhapsodies or books. Now %Wolf asks what could have- induced any one to compose a poem of such a length that it could not be heard all at once. XXI. To refute this argument, the opponents of Wolf were obliged to seek for occasions which afforded at least a possibility of reciting the Grote, Hist. of Greece, vol. ii., p. 196, seq. 2 Ciiller, Hist. Or. Lit., p. 62. Ilne, p. 502.

Page  36 36 G REEK LItTEiRATUE. whole of the Iliad and Odyssey. Banquets and small festivals were not sufficient; but there were musical contests (&ycd'es), connected with great national festivals, at which thousands assembled, anxious to hear and patient to listen. If, says Muller,l the Athenians could at one festival hear in succession nine tragedies, three satyric dramas, and as many comedies, without ever thinking that it might be better to distribute this enjoyment over the whole year, why should not the Greeks of earlier times have been able to listen to the whole Iliad and Odyssey, and perhaps other poems, at the same festival. Such occasions, we know, did occur at the Panionian festival, where poetical contests of the bards were held; at Sicyon, during the contests of the rhapsodists in the time of Clisthenes; and also in many other parts of Greece.2 XXII. Besides, it is not inconsistent with the theory, that each of these poems was composed with a unity of subject and design, to suppose that some of the parts or episodes might have been recited separately; that the plan of the whole, and the gradual unfolding of the story, should be so well known, from familiarity with it, that the hearers could delight in the recitation of a part, and their imaginations readily place and arrange it in the frame-work which fully occupied their minds. In later times, it was essential to the idea of Greek tragedy that the histories which the poet developed should be well known to the audience, and this probably was the case with the legends of the Trojan war, which were the original foundation of the Iliad'and Odyssey.3 XXIII. Again, to refer, by way of illustration, to the habits of modern times, the popularity of those works of fiction, which are periodically published in parts, shows that, even with long intervals between the publication of the parts, it is possible to sustain the interest of a tale, and to keep awake the attention of the reader. In the same manner, those who listened to the divine poems of Homer might have been delighted to receive, book by book, his inspired strains.4 WOLF'S FOURTH ARGUMENT,5 WITH AN ANSWER TO THE SAME. XXIV. Wolf observes that Aristotle first derived the laws of epic poetry from the examples which he found laid down in the Iliad and Odyssey. It was for this reason, says Wolf, that people never thought of suspecting that those examples themselves were destitute of that poetic unity which Aristotle, from a contemplation of them, drew up as a principal requisite for this kind of poetry. It was transmitted, says Wolf, by old traditions, how once Achilles withdrew from the battle; how, in consequence of the absence of the great hero, who alone awed the Trojans, the Greeks were worsted; how Achilles at last allowed his friend Patroclus to protect the Greeks; and how, finally, he avenged the death of Patroclus by killing Hector. XXV. This simple course of the story, Wolf thinks, would have been treated by any other poet in very much the same manner as we now read it in the Iliad; and he maintains that there is no unity in it, except a iATlidler, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 62. 2 Browne, Hist. Class. Lit., vol. i., p. 48. 3Id., 1. c. 4 Id., 1. c.: Ihne, p. 503.

Page  37 POETICAL PE RIOtD. 37 chronological one, in so far as we have a narration of the events of several days in succession. Nay, he continues, if we examine closely the last six books, we shall find that they have nothing to do with what is stated in the introduction as the object of the poem, namely,the wrath of Achilles. This wrath subsides with the death of Patroclus, and what follows is a wrath of a different kind, which does not belong to the former. XXVI. The composition of the Odyssey is not viewed with any greater favor by Wolf. The journey of Telemachus to Pylos and Sparta, the sojourn of Ulysses in the island of Calypso, the stories of his wanderings, were originally, according to him, independent songs, which, as they happened to fit into one another, were afterward connected into one whole, at a time when literature. the arts, and a general cultivation of the mind began to flourish in Greece, supported by the important art of writing. XXVII. These bold speculations of Wolf have met with almost universal disapprobation. Still, this is a subject on which reasoning and demonstration are very precarious and almost impossible. The feelings and tastes of every individual must determine the matter. But to oppose to Wolf's skeptical views the judgment of a man whose authority on matters of taste is as great as on those of learning, we proceed to give what Muiller says on this same subject. REMARKS OF MULLER ON THE UNITY OF THE ILIAD.1 XXVIII. All the laws which reflection and experience can suggest for the epic form are observed in Homer with the most refined taste; all the means are employed by which the general effect can be heightened. XXIX. The anger of Achilles is an event which did not long precede the final destruction of Troy, inasmuch as it produced the death of Hector, who was the defender of the city. It was, doubtless, the ancient tradition, established long before Homer's time, that Hector had been slain by Achilles in revenge for the slaughter of his friend Patroclus, whose fall in battle, unprotected by the son of Thetis, was explained by the tradition to have arisen from the anger of Achilles against the other Greeks for an affront offered to him, and his consequent retirement from the contest. Now the poet seizes, as the most critical and momentous period of the action, the conversion of Achilles from the foe of the Greeks into that of the Trojans; for as, on the one hand, the sudden revolution in the fortunes of war, thus occasioned, places the prowess of Achilles in the strongest light, so, on the other hand, the change of his firm and resolute mind must have been the more touching to the feelings of the hearers. XXX. From this centre of interest there springs a long preparation and gradual development, since not only the cause of the anger ofAchilles, but also the defeats of the Greeks, occasioned by that anger, were to be narrated; and the display of the insufficiency of all the other heroes, at the same time, offered the best opportunity for exhibiting their several excellencies It is in the arrangement of this preparatory part, and its connection with the catastrophe, that the poet displays his perfect acquaintance with all the mysteries of poetical composition; and in his conMiiller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 48.

Page  38 38 GREEK LITERATURE. tinual postponement of the crisis of the action, and his scanty revelations with respect to the plan of the entire work, he shows a maturity of knowledge which is astonishing for so early an age. XXXI. To all appearance, the poet, after certain obstacles have been first overcome, tends only to one point, namely, to increase perpetually the disasters of the Greeks, which they have drawn on themselves by the injury offered to Achilles; and Jupiter himself, at the beginning, is made to pronounce, as coming from himself, the vengeance and consequent exaltation of the son of Thetis. At the same time, however, the poet plainly shows his wish to excite, in the feelings of an attentive hearer, an anxious and perpetually increasing desire not only to see the Greeks saved from destruction, but also that the unbearable and more than human haughtiness and pride of Achilles should be broken. Both these ends are attained through the fulfillment of the secret counsel of Jove, which he did not communicate to Thetis, and through her to Achilles (who, if he had known it, would have given up all enmity against the Acheeans), but only to Juno, and to her not till the middle of the poem;1 and Achilles, through the loss of his dearest friend, whom he had sent to battle not to save the Greeks, but for his owzn glory, suddenly changes his hostile attitude toward the Greeks, and is overpowered by entirely opposite feelings. In this manner the exaltation of the son of Thetis is united to that almost imperceptible operation of destiny which the Greeks were required to observe in all human affairs. XXXII. To remove from this collection of various actions, conditions, and feelings any substantial part, as not necessarily belonging to it, would, in fact, be to dismember a living whole, the parts of which would necessarily lose their vitality. As in an organic body life does not dwell in one single point, but requires a union of certain systems and members, so the internal connection of the Iliad rests on the union of certain parts; and neither the interesting introduction, describing the defeat of the Greeks, up to the burning of the ship of Protesilaus, nor the turn of affairs brought about by the death of Patroclus, nor the final pacification of the anger of Achilles, could be spared from the Iliad, when the fruitful seed of such a poem had once been sown in the soul of Homer, and had begun to develop its growth. UNITY OF THE ODYSSEY.2 XXXIII. If we yield our assent to these convincing reflections, we shall hardly need to defend the unity of the Odyssey, which has always been admired as one of the greatest master-pieces of Grecian genius, against the aggressions of Wolf, who could more easily believe that chance and learned compilers had produced this poem, than that it should have sprung from the mind of a single man. 1 Thetis had said nothing to Achilles of the loss of Patroclus (II., xvii., 411), for she herself did not know it. Jove also long conceals his plans from Juno and the other gods, notwithstanding their anger on account of the sufferings of the Achaeans. He does not reveal them to Juno until after his sleep upon Ida (II., xv., 65). The spuriousness of ths verses (II., viii., 475, seq.) was recognized by the ancients, although the principal objection to them is not mentioned.' Ihc.r, p. 501.

Page  39 POETICAL PERIOD. 39 XXXIV. Nitzsch' has endeavored to exhibit the unity of the plan o1 this poem. He has divided the whole into four large sections, in each of which there are again subdivisions facilitating the distribution of the recital for several rhapsodists and several days. Thus, 1. The first part treats of the absent Ulysses (books i.-iv.). Here we are introduced to the state of affairs in Ithaca during the absence of Ulysses. Telemachus goes to Pylos and Sparta to ascertain the fate of his father. 2. The song of the returning Ulysses (books v.-xiii., v. 92) is naturally divided into two parts; the first contains the departure of Ulysses from Calypso, and his arrival and reception in Scheria; the second, the narration of his wanderings. 3. The song of Ulysses meditating revenge (books xiii., 92-xix.). Here the two threads of the story are united; Ulysses is conveyed to Ithaca, and is met in the cottage of Eumeus by his son, who has just returned from Sparta. 4. The song of the revenging and reconciled Ulysses (books xx.-xxiv.) brings all the manifold wrongs of the suitors and the sufferings of Ulysses to the desired and long-expected conclusion. CHAPTER VI. SECOND OR POETICAL PERIOD —continued. HOMERIC CONTROVERS Y —continued. PROOF FROM INTERNAL EVIDENCE THAT THE HOMERIC POEMS ARE THE WORK OF ONE AUTHOR.2 I. In order to prove from internal evidence that the Homeric poems are the works of one author, it is necessary to establish three points. I. General similarity of style, taste, and feeling. II. Unity of plan. III. Consistency in the characters. The second of these points has already been anticipated in the previous chapter. The remaining two will now occupy our attention. I. GENERAL SIMILARITY OF STYLE, TASTE, AND FEELING. II. The language of the Iliad is throughout evidently that of one period; it does not exhibit so much variation as might be supposed to take place during the course of two successive generations; but, more than this, the propriety of expression, the adaptation of the descriptions to the things described, bear such marks of undesigned and natural resemblance, that it is scarcely possible to imagine them to have proceeded from more than one mind. Such, it must be confessed, is the general impression produced upon the reader, unless biased and inclined toward the contrary belief' by other arguments and considerations. III. The same words, the same phrases, the same modes of illustration, are constantly recurring. Some favorite similes, for instance, such as those of the lion and the boar, are frequently used. Their details are 1 Hall. Enzcyclop., s. v. Odyssee; Anmerk. z. Odyss., vol. ii., pref. 2 Browne, Hist. Class. Lit., vol. i., p). 52, seqq.

Page  40 40 GREEK LITERATURE. sufficiently similar to show probable identity of authorship, without wearying by too much repetition. IV. The same musical rhythm and metrical arrangement are preserved throughout. The Homeric verse is sui generis, it can be compared to that of no other poet in any age. And this phenomenon, be it remembered, occurred when the laws of metre must have been simply the suggestions of a delicately organized ear and a naturally refined taste. They could not have been reduced to rule in so remote an age, and therefore there were no means of attaining resemblance to one great and perfect model by study and imitation. V. There is a characteristic of the Homeric poetry which, in the manner of its treatment, is without parallel, although it has been imitated by countless poets since his time: this is the Simile.' It is evidently the favorite figure of the bard, full of knowledge gathered from observation of nature, animate and inanimate. Apposite, however, as the Homeric similes are, it is not that quality which strikes the reader as constituting their especial beauty; we almost lose sight of its intention to illustrate, in the profusion and variety of the images presented to us. This is not the case with the similes of any other author, except where they are palpable imitations of those of Homer. As no poet ever possessed the same graphic power, so none could venture, without danger of producing weariness, to introduce this figure so frequently. Every part of the Iliad abounds with them, except the commencement and conclusion of the poem; and this fact is to be accounted for by the busy character of these portions; the rapid succession of events left no room for illustration. VI. Again, dramatic power pervades the whole poem.2 Every character describes himself, and tells his own story. The poet is never seen, his sentiments are never known but through the medium of his actors: he is never subjective, he seems to forget himself. Although he is describing his own feelings, and enforcing his own sentiments, he never personally appears upon the stage, but leaves it to his characters to express his thoughts; and this is not only the case sometimes, but universally. Is it probable, then, that more than one poet, in one age, should have possessed this dramatic faculty in so eminent a degree? VII. Uniformity on other points of this nature seems to stamp the poem as the work of one mind. Stories the most different from one another are told precisely in the same way; conversations and councils are carried on after the same plan. The sentiments on all important subjects, whether religious, political, or social, are uniform and without variation. One high tone of moral principle and willing obedience to law, both human and divine, pervades the whole work. VIII. It is, doubtless, possible to conceive that a school of poets, such as the bards of the Homeric Age must have been, venerated for their inspiration, and respected for their moral and religious worth, would have resembled each other in mental culture, taste, and sentiments; but they could not have been equal in that mental power, which would have been necessary to produce the uniformity in these points observable in the Ho1 Compare Milure, Crit. Hist., vol. ii., p. 89, seqq. 2 Id. ib., p. 57, seqq.

Page  41 POETICAL PERIOD, 41 meric poems. Throughout the Iliad no more inequality of talent is to be discerned than in great works which are known to have had but one author; at any rate, no more than would rlesult from interpolations and additions, the introduction of which, to a certain extent, it is ixmpossible to deny. IX. The language of the Odyssey is throughout the whole poem as uniform in its structure and its principles as the Iliad. The versification never varies, it has always the same mechanical structure and the same harmonious flow, which is so difficult to arrive at, without betraying a palpable attempt at imitation. There can be traced also, from beginning to end, a consistent moral and religious principle, dramatic power, fidelity in describing, and taste in appreciating the beauties of nature; and lastly, spirit and picturesqueness in the use of similes and illustrations. These considerations are in favor of the hypothesis that the Odyssey, like the Iliad, had but one author, and was not formed by collecting together lays and episodes by different poets. II. CONSISTENCY IN THE CHARACTERS.I X. In his heroes the poet evidently intended to typify some striking phase of the heroic character. They all have their points of resemblance, but the points of contrast are more fully dwelt upon. Each is a representative man. Standing out, therefore, thus in bold relief, the slightest inconsistency would be at once detected. So strong, in fact, was the poet's impression of the distinct individuality of his heroes, that frequently the same distinctive epithet is applied to each, on the majority of occasions, throughout his whole career. Opposite as are the traits which mark the character of Achilles, they are all, vices as well as virtues, such as may be found united in noble and impetuous natures. Revengeful as he is, even to ferocity, his warm and passionate heart can sympathize with deep sorrow, and feel compassion for the vanquished. He is haughty and reserved, and yet a devoted and affectionate friend; unrelenting under a sense of injustice, yet, when satisfaction is offered, he is generously and unconditionally forgiving. XI. Agamemnon2 has all the regard for his subjects which marks the sovereign of a free people, but his generosity proceeds from impulse rather than principle, and therefore he is generally dignified, but sometimes vacillating. Menelaus,3 though not kingly, possesses the virtues of royal race. He is brave and gentle, and has an unfeigned respect for the regal authority. Nestor4 is an old man, and an experienced statesman; he has all the garrulity of the one, and the long-sighted wisdom of the other. He is too cheerful to betray much of the querulousness of age, although he can not forbear comparing the virtue of former days with the degeneracy of the present generation. XII. Ajax5 and Diomede6 are thoroughly soldiers. The former has all' Browne, Hist. Class. Lit., vol. ii., p. 78, seqq. Compare Minure, Crit. Iist., vol. i., p. 304, seqq. 2 Compare Mure, Crit. Hist., vol. i., p. 314, seqq. 3 Id. ib., p. 324, seqq. 4 Id. ib., p. 329, seqq. 5 Id. ib., p. 334, seqq. 6 d ib,, p. 320, seqq.

Page  42 42 GREE K LI'TERATURE. the physical strength and animal courage which fit a man for the perils of war; the latter, the moral firmness and well-disciplined coolness which render him fit either to command or obey. Ulysses possesses every qualification, bodily as well as mental, for influencing men's minds; he is of noble figure and graceful bearing, sound-judging and discreet; an accurate observer of men and things. His intimate knowledge of the human heart, and its crooked ways, causes the policy, which is his favorite weapon, to appear at times crafty and dishonest, but it is only appearance, for he is benevolent, and has a strong sense of justice. XIII. Hector unites moral with physical courage, but his warlike spirit sometimes degenerates into rashness. He is domestic and affectionate, and shows that tenderness toward women and children which characterizes true bravery. Priam is an Oriental sovereign, whose yielding yet amiable temper allows things to take their own course. He is too careless and self-indulgent to have any high moral principle, and yet he has strong affections, and impulses toward good. At length the depth of his despair awakens his energy, and in his old age, for the first time, he acts with vigor and heroism. Paris is an effeminate and conceited fop, but brave notwithstanding, as those often are who have been brought up in refinement and luxury. XIV. Helen, though a light wanton, who has left her husband and child for an adulterer, is full of fascination. She is neither bold nor depraved; she can admire chastity, she feels remorse for her sin; to her seducer she is tender and faithful; but even when restored to her husband, there remains that voluptuous self-indulgence which perhaps paved the way to her weakness and her fall. XV. Hecuba is a woman of strong passions, whose ferocity is increased, and not softened, by affliction; she can never look on Helen in any other light than as the cause of all her sorrows, and of course her revengeful temper can never forgive her. Andromache, the affectionate wife and mother, has not a spark of selfishness in her character. In his lifetime she was wrapped up in her husband, and after his death, though overwhelmed with the weight of her sorrows, she thinks more of her husband's fame, her child's irreparable loss, and the ruin of her country. XVI. Such are the principal characters of the Iliad. Those who play an important part in the Odysseyl are very few. Helen and Ulysses have already been described, and in the luxurious matron, restored to her place in society, and the patient, strong-willed voyager, struggling with adverse fortune, the same points of character which were depicted in the Iliad are plainly discoverable, modified, as they necessarily must be, by change of circumstances. XVII. Telemachus is a modest, ingenuous, and promising youth, full of consideration for his mother, and although not yet able to act for himself, willing to act with decision and energy at the suggestion of a wise counsellor, and with a strong sense of filial duty and obedience to his father's will. XVIII. Penelope appears to possess the cool diplomatic policy which 1 Compare Sleure, Crit. Hist., vol. i., p. 413, seqq.

Page  43 POETICAL PERIOD. 43 distinguishes her husband, alloyed with somewhat of duplicity. Exposed as she is to the solicitations of the suitors, she has doubtless a difficult part to play; but the false hopes with which she deceives them, and the stratagem with which she puts off the fulfillment of her promise, while she permits their riot and extravagance, are scarcely consistent with a high tone of morality. She remains, however, faithful to her husband, even when his return scarcely seems probable; and when her fidelity is rewarded by his return, her coldness gradually melts, her caution gives way to conviction, and at length all her calculating shrewdness vanishes. The mask and restraint under which she had so long lived are removed, and her true woman's nature shines forth at once in all its tenderness and affection. Such a change, at first sight, may appear inconsistent, but the skillful and gradual manner in which it is managed by the poet renders it perfectly natural. XIX. Euryclea is a model nurse; she continues the same attention to Telemachus when he is a youth which she paid him in infancy; nor is her kindness unreturned by her foster-child, for she it is to whom he applies in his difficulty, when a ship is refused him by the suitors. XX. The elegant and unaffected simplicity of Nausicaa is most charming; and the noble swineherd Eumaeus, the keeper of the king's swine, the principal wealth of his rocky isle, presents an inimitable picture of that sturdy, yeoman-like independence which is fostered and nurtured by the pursuits of rural life. XXI. Such is the internal evidence in favor of both the great Homeric poems having been the works of one mind, and to this evidence may be added the following considerations. It is not too much to assert that the conditions requisite for denying the personality of Homer have never been fulfilled in any nation or in any times. The separators' of the Iliad from the Odyssey require the belief that, during a period extending over no very wide space, there should have lived two poets, whose talents and genius were of so high an order, and so nearly equal, as to have produced these two great poems. And yet the history of the world proves that no nation, during the whole period of its existence, has ever possessed more than one great epic poet. Rome had one Virgil, modern Italy one Dante, England one Milton.2 XXII. If the separators demand that which is improbable, those, on the other hand, who attribute the poems to a large number of original bards, argue in favor of a moral impossibility. To adopt their view implies the belief that at a period when all the rest of the world was destitute of literature, except the Semitic nations inhabiting Palestine, Greece and her colonies were so fruitful in poets as to give birth, almost simultaneously, to a vast number; that this phenomenon never occurred in that country either before or since; that they all chose for their theme different parts of the same subject; and that these, by accident or design, were so portioned out among them as to be capable of being welded together into one harmonious whole. This whole, moreover, was so complete as to contain all that so acute a critic as Aristotle, and many schol1 Vid. p. 53. 2 Browne, Hist. Class. Lit., vol. i., p. 83.

Page  44 44 GREEK LITERATURE. ars of the most accomplished taste since his time, deemed essential to an epic poem. And again, those who arranged and set in order these separate poems, whether rhapsodists or others, must have possessed such exquisite skill and judgment that the places where they are joined together never present the appearance of abrupt transition from one part to another. And as this union could not have been effected without the composition of some fresh passages, they must have been poets and imitators nearly equal to the original composers themselves! CHAPTER VII. SECOND OR POETICAL PERIOD —continued. HOMERIC CONTROVERS -continued. HOMERIC INTERPOLATIONS.2 I. ALTHOUGH we maintain the unity of both the Homeric poems, we can not deny that they have suffered greatly from interpolations, omissions, and alterations; and it is only by admitting some original poetical whole that we are able to discover those parts which do not belong to this whole. II. Wolf, therefore, in pointing out some parts as spurious, has been led into an inconsistency in his demonstration, since he is obliged to acknowledge something as the genuine centre of the two poems, which he must suppose to have been spun out more and more by subsequent rhapsodists. This altered view, which is distinctly pronounced in the preface to his edition of Homer, appears already in the Prolegomena,.and has been subsequently embraced by Hermann and other critics. It is, as we have said, a necessary consequence from the discovery of interpolations. III. These interpolations are particularly apparent in the first part of the Iliad. The catalogue of the ships has long been recognized as a later addition, and can be omitted without leaving the slightest gap. The battles from the third to the seventh book seem almost entirely foreign to the plan of the Iliad. Jove appears to have quite forgotten his promise to Thetis, that he would honor her son by letting Agamemnon feel his absence. The Greeks are far from feeling this. Diomede fights successfully even against gods; the Trojans are driven back to the town. In an assembly of the gods, in the beginning of the fourth book, the glory of Achilles is no motive to deliver Troy from her fate; it is not till the eighth book that Jupiter all at once seems mindful of his promise to Thetis. IV. The preceding five books are not only loosely connected with the whole of the poem, but even with one another. The single combat between Menelaus and Paris, in the third book, in which the former was on the point of dispatching the seducer of his wife, is interrupted by the treacherous shot of Pandarus. In the next book all this is forgotten. The Greeks neither claim Helen as the prize of the victory of Menelaus, nor do they complain of the breach of the oath: no god avenges the perjury. I Browne, p. 84. 2 Ihne (Smith's Dict. Biogr., s. v. Homerus), p. 505.

Page  45 POETICAL PERIOD. 45 Paris, in the sixth book, sits quietly at home, where Hector severely upbraids him for his cowardice and retirement from war; to which Paris makes no reply, and does not plead that he had only just encountered Menelaus in deadly fight. V. The tenth book, containing the nocturnal expedition of Ulysses and Diomede, in which they kill the Thracian king Rhesus, and take his horses, is avowedly of later origin.l No reference is subsequently made by any of the Greeks or Trojans to this gallant deed. The two heroes were sent as spies, but they never narrate the result of their expedition; not to speak of many other improbabilities. To enumerate all those passages which are reasonably suspected as interpolated would lead us too far. VI. The Odyssey has experienced similar extensions and interpolations, which, far from inducing us to believe in an atomistical origin of the poem, only show that the original plan has been here and there obscured. Nitzsch2 has tried to remove these difficulties, but he does not deny extensive interpolations, particularly in the eighth book, where the song of Demodocus concerning Mars and Venus is very suspicious. In the nineteenth book, the recognition of Ulysses by his old nurse, and, most of all, some parts near the end, appear to be also interpolated. All that follows after verse 296, book twenty-three, was declared spurious even by the Alexandrine critics, Aristophanes and Aristarchus.3 The second Necyia (in the beginning of book twenty-four) is evidently spurious, and, like many parts of the first Necyia, in book eleven, most likely taken from a similar passage in the NooroT, in which was narrated the arrival of Agamemnon in Hades.4 VII. Considering all these interpolations and the original unity, which has only been obscured and not destroyed by them, we must come to the conclusion that the Homeric poems were originally composed as poetic wholes, but that a long oral tradition gave occasion to great alterations in their original form. RH AP SO DI STS.5 VIII. Wolf, from the premises laid down by him, and which we have already examined, came to the conclusion that the Homeric poems originated as small songs, unconnected with one another, which, after being preserved in this state for a long time, were at length put together. The agents to whom he attributed these two tasks of composing and preserving on the one hand, and of collecting and combining on the other, are the rhapsodists and Pisistratus. Originally, the bard sang, enlivening the song with occasional touches of the harp. His successor, the rhapsodist, merely recited the words, depending for effect upon voice and manner; a species of musical and rhythmical declamation, which gradually increased in vehement emphasis and gesticulation until it approached to that of the dramatic actor. IX. The subject of the rhapsodists (p1aScGo,) is one of the most compli1 Schol. Ven. ad Ii., x., 1. 2 Anmerk. z. Odyss., vol. ii., preef., p. xliii. 3 Spohn, Comment. de extrem. Odysse&e parte, 1816. 4 Pausan., x., 23, 4. 5 Ihne, p. 506.

Page  46 46 GREEK LITERATURE. cated and difficult of all; because the fact is, that we know very little about them, and thus a large field is opened to conjecture and hypothesis.1 Wolf derives the name of rhapsodist ('a/qo'ps) from pdi7rTEV, 98iav, which he interprets " breviora carmina modo et ordine publicke recitationi apto connectere." These breviora carmina are the rhapsodies of which the Iliad and Odyssey consist, not indeed containing originally one book each, as they do now, but sometimes more and sometimes less. The nature and condition of these rhapsodists may be learned, according to Wolt, from Homer himself, where they appear as singing at the banquets, games, and festivals of the princes, and are held in high honor.2 In fact, the first rhapsodists were the poets themselves, just as the first dramatic poets were the first actors. Therefore Homer and Hesiod are said to have rhapsodized.3 X. We must imagine, continues Wolf, that these minstrels were spread over all Greece, and that they did not confine themselves to the recital of the Homeric poems. One class of rhapsodists at Chios, the Homeridle,4 who called themselves, without any good ground however, descendants of the poet, possessed these particular poems, and transmitted them to their disciples by oral teaching, and not by writing. This kind of oral teaching was most carefiully cultivated in Greece, even when the use of writing was quite common. The tragic and comic poets employed no other way of training the actors than this oral cMarcaaAa, with which the greatest accuracy was combined. Therefore, says Wolf, it is not likely that, although not committed to writing, the Homeric poems underwent very great changes by a long and oral tradition; only it is impossible that they should have remained quite unaltered. Many of the rhapsodists were not destitute of poetic genius, or they acquired it by the constant recitation of those beautiful lays. Why, he asks, should they not have sometimes adapted their recitation to the immediate occasion, or even have endeavored to make some passages better than they were. XI. We can admit almost all this without drawing from it Wolf's conclusion. Does not such a condition of the rhapsodists agree as well with the task which we assign to them, of preserving and reciting a poem which already existed as a whole? Even the etymology of the name of rhapsodist, which is surprisingly inconsistent with Wolf's general view, favors that of his adversaries. Wolf's fundamental opinion is, that the original songs were unconnected, and singly recited. How, then, can the rhapsodists have obtained their name from connecting poems? On the other hand, if the Homeric poems originally existed as wholes, and the rhapsodists connected the single parts of these wholes for public recitation, they might, perhaps, be called "connecters of songs." But this etymology has not appeared satisfactory to some, who have thought that this process would rather be a keeping together than a putting together. They have therefore supposed that the word was derived from Pdi38os, the staff t Wolf, Proleg., p. 96; Nitzsch, Prol. ad Plat. Ion.; Heyne, 2 Excurs. ad It., xxiv.; Bickh ad Pind. Nem., ii., 1; Isthm., iii., 55; Nitzsch, Indagandae, &c., Histor. Crit.; Kreuser, d. Hom. Rhapsod. 2 Od., iii., 267; xviii., 383. 3 Plat., De Rep., x., p. 600; Schol. ad Pind. Noem., ii., 1. 4 Harpocrat., s. v.'/0L7ypSat.

Page  47 POETICAL PERIOD. 47 or ensign of the bards;1 an etymology which seems countenance by Pindar's expression p5di8i3B ov YEOrEOeio &ro.2 But Pindar in another pa egives the other etymology;3 and, besides, it does not appear how'papoSds could be formed from p~acios, which would make'ais;,rs. Others, therefore, have thought of pcdris, " a stick," and have formed pa7rsLo-ds, pat4~8ds. But even this will not do; for, leaving out of view that pjdirr does not occur in the signification of pd38aos, the word would be pa'rGIsor. Nothing is left, therefore, but the etymology from pi'airELv cq3ar, which is only to be interpreted in the proper way. XII. Muller says4 that paioswei signifies nothing more than the peculiar method of epic recitation, consisting in some high-pitched, sonorous declamations, with certain simple modulations of the voice, not in singing regularly accompanied by an instrument, which was the method of reciting lyric poetry. Every poem, he remarks, can be rhapsodized, which is composed in an epic tone, and in which the verses are of equal length, without being distributed into corresponding parts of a larger whole, strophes, or similar systems. Miuller, therefore, thinks that pdrc'reIL CP83r denotes the coupling together of verses, without any considerable divisions or pauses; in other words, the even, continuous, and unbroken flow of the epic poem. XIII. But it has been justly objected to this explanation of Muiller's that,6a does not mean a verse; and besides, that a reference to the manner of epic recitation, as different from that of lyric poetry, could only be imparted to the word'pa+qos at a time when lyric composition and recitation originated, that is, not before Archilochus. Previous to that time, the meaning of' rhapsodist must have been different. It has been suggested, therefore, that pcd7rrTelV qhrs may have been used in the signification of planning and making lays, just as dc7rTeulY icatcd is to plan or make mischief. XIV. But whatever may be the right derivation of the word, and whatever may have been the nature and condition of the rhapsodists, so much is evident, that no support can be derived from this point for Wolf's position. THE COLLECTION OF THE HOMERIC POEMS ASCRIBED TO PISISTRATUS.5 XV. Solon6 made the first step toward that which Pisistratus accomplished. He is described as having checked the prevailing irregularities of recital, and having compelled the rhapsodists to adhere to the regular order of the text. Pisistratus went farther, and collected the poems, previously in a state of disorder, into a single body or volume.7 Wolf explains this tradition respecting Pisistratus in a manner well calculated to favor his own peculiar views. He held this to have been the first move that was made in order to connect what, according to him, were before this loose and incoherent songs, into continued and uninterrupted Hes., Theog., 30. 2 Isthm., iii., 5. 3 Nem., ii., 1. 4 Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 33. 5 Ihne, p. 506. Compare Miure, Crit. Hist., vol. i., p. 203, seqq. 6 Diog. Laert., i., 57. 7 Cic., De Or., iii., 34; Pausan., vii., 26; Joseph. c. Ap., i., 2; zElian., V. H., xiii., 14; Liban., Paneg. in Tulian., i., p. 170, ed. Reiske, &e.

Page  48 48 GREEK LITERATURE. stories. Pausanias mentions associates (E'rapol) of Pisistratus, who assisted him in the undertaking. These associates Wolf thought were the LacKEvao'vagL mentioned sometimes in the scholia; but in this he was evidently mistaken. ALaocoevaoal are, in the phraseology of the scholia, interpolators, and not arrangers.' XVI. Another weak point in Wolf's reasoning is his saying that Pisistratus was the first who committed the Homeric poems to writing. This is expressly stated by none of the ancient writers. On the contrary, it is not unlikely that before Pisistratus, persons began in various parts of Greece, and particularly in Asia Minor, which was far in advance of the mother country, to write down parts of the Iliad and Odyssey. Whom Pisistratus employed in this undertaking Wolf could only conjecture. The poet Onomacritus lived at that time in Athens, and was engaged in similar pursuits respecting the old poet Museeus. Besides him, Wolf thought of a certain Orpheus of Crotona; but nothing definite was known on this point till Professor Ritschl discovered, in a MS. of Plautus at *Rome, an old Latin scholion translated from the Greek of Tzetzes (published in Cramer's Anecdota). This scholion gives the names of four poets who assisted Pisistratus, viz., Onomacritus, Zopyrus, Orpheus, and a fourth, whose name is corrupted, Concylus.2 XVII. These four persons may have interpolated some passages, as it suited the pride of the Athenians or the political purposes of their patron Pisistratus. In fact, Onomacritus is particularly charged with having interpolated Od., xi., 604.3 The Athenians were generally believed to have had no part in the Trojan war; therefore n., ii., 547, 552-554, were marked by the Alexandrine grammarians as spurious, and for similar reasons Od., vii., 80, 81, and Od., iii., 308. But how unimportant are these alterations in comparison with the long interpolations which must be attributed to the rhapsodists previous to Pisistratus! XVIII. It must be confessed that these four men accomplished their task, on the whole, with great accuracy. However inclined we may be to attribute this accuracy less to their critical investigations and conscientiousness than to the impossibility of making great changes on account of the general knowledge of what was genuine, through the number of existing copies; and although we may, on the whole, be induced, after Wolf's exaggerations, to think little of Pisistratus, still we must admit that the praise bestowed on him by the ancient writers is too great and too general to allow us to assent to Nitzsch's opinion that he only compared and examined various MSS. XIX. If, then, it does not follow, as- Wolf thought, that the Homeric poems never formed a whole before Pisistratus, it is at the same time undeniable that to Pisistratus we owe the first written text of the whole of the poems, which, without his care, would most likely now exist only in a few disjointed fragments.' Heinrich., De Diask. Homericis; Lehrs, Aristarchi Stucd. Hom., p. 349. 2 Ritschl, Die Alex. Bibl. u. d. Sammrlung d. Hornm. Gedichte durch Peisistr., 1838; Td., Corollar. Disput. de Bibl. Alex. deque Pisistr. Curis Hornm., 1840. 3 Schol. Harlei., ed. Porson.

Page  49 OE'rTICAL PERIOD. 49 CHTIAP'TER VITI. SECOND OR POETICAL PERIOD-continued. HOMERIC CONT1 OVER sY-concluded. GENERAL SUMMARY.L I. HAVING taken this general survey of the most important arguments for and against Wolf's hypothesis concerning the origin of the poems of Homer, the following may be regarded as the most probable conclusion. There can be no doubt that the seed of the Homeric poems was scattered in the time of the heroic exploits which they celebrate, and in the land of the victorious Achaeans, that is, in European Greece. An abundance of heroic lays preserved the records of the Trojan war. It was a puerile idea, which is now completely exploded, that the events are fictitious on which the Iliad and Odyssey are based, and that a Trojan war never was waged. II. Europe must necessarily have been the country where these songs originated, both because here the victorious heroes dwelt, and because so many traces in the poems still point to these regions. It was here, moreover, that the old Thracian bards had effected that unity of mythology which, spreading all over Greece, had gradually absorbed and obliterated the discrepancies of the old local myths, and substituted one general mythology for the whole nation, with Jove as the supreme ruler, dwelling on the snowy heights of Olympus. Impregnated with this European mythology, the heroic lays were brought to Asia Minor by the Greek colonies, which left the mother country about three ages after the Trojan war. III. In European Greece, a new race gained the ascendency, the Dorians, foreign to those who gloried in having the old heroes among their ancestors. The heroic songs, therefore, died away more and more in Europe; but in Asia the./Eolians fought, conquered, and settled nearly in the same regions in which their fathers had signalized themselves by immortal exploits, the glory of which was celebrated, and their memory still preserved by their national bards. Their dwelling in the same locality not only kept alive the remembrance of the deeds of their fathers, but gave a new impulse to their poetry, just as, in the Middle Ages in Germany, the foundation of the kingdom of the Hungarians in the East, and their destructive invasions, together with the origin of a new empire of the Burgundians in the West, awakened the old songs of the Niebelungen, after a slumber of centuries.2 IV. Now the Homeric poems advanced a step farther. From unconnected songs they were for the first time united by a great genius, who, whether he was really called Homer, or whether the name be of later l Ihne, p. 507, seq. 2 Geruinus, Poetical Lit. of Germ., vol. i., p. 108. C

Page  50 50 GREEK LITERATURE. origin, and significant of his work of uniting songs,L was the one individual who conceived in mind the lofty idea of that poetical unity which we can not help acknowledging and admiring. What were the peculiar excellencies which distinguished this one Homer among a great number of contemporary poets, and saved his works alone from oblivion, we do not venture to determine; but the conjecture of Miiller2 is not improbable, that Homer first undertook to combine into one great unity the scattered and fragmentary poems of earlier bards, and that it was this task which established his great renown. V. We can now judge of the probability that Homer was an Ionian, who in Smyrna, where Ionians and _AEolians were mixed together, became acquainted with the subject of his poems, and moulded them into the form which was suited to the taste of his Ionian countrymen. But as a faithful preservation of these long works was impossible in an age unacquainted with, or, at least, not versed in the art of writing, it was a natural consequence that, in the lapse of ages, the poems should not only lose their purity, but should also become more and more dismembered, and thus return into their original state of loose, independent songs. Their public recitation became more and more fragmentary, and the time at festivals and musical contests, formerly occupied by epic rhapsodists exclusively, was encroached upon by the rising lyric performances and players on the flute and lyre. VI. Yet the knowledge of the unity of the different Homeric rhapsodies was not entirely lost. Solon, himself a poet, directed the attention of his countrymen toward it; and Pisistratus at last raised a lasting monument to his high merits, in fixing the genuine Homeric poems by the indelible marks of writing, as far as was possible in his time and with his means. That, previous to the famous edition of Pisistratus, parts of Homer, or the entire poems, were committed to writing in other towns of Greece or Asia Minor is not improbable, but we do not possess sufficient testimonies to prove it. WVe can, therefore, safely affirm that from the time of Pisistratus the Greeks had a written Homer, a regular text, the source and foundation of all subsequent editions.3 Welcker, Ep. Cycl., vol. i., p. 125,128; Ilgen, Hymn. Hornm., prief., p. 23; Heyne ad Il., vol. viii., p. 795, &c. 2 Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 47. Compare Yitzsch, Annr/., vol. ii., p. 26. 3 The following list of the principal authors who have advocated, in whole or for the most part, the doctrines of Wolf; mdy not be unacceptable to the student. It is from Mure (Hist. Crit., vol. i., p. 202), and will be found complete enough for all ordinary purposes: C. F. Franceson, Essai sur la question, si Homere, &c.; F. Schlegel, Gesch. der Ep. Dichtk., viii.; Heyne, Obs. ad II. (who claims, however, the right of prior discovery); W. Miiller, Homer. Vorschule; B. Thiersch, Urgestalt der Odyssee; Hermann, Opusc., vol. v., p. 52, seqq.; vol. vi., p. 70, seqq.; Ritscil, Die Alexandrin. Biblioth.; Lachnann, Betrachtungen iiber die Ilias; Grote, History of Greece, vol. ii., chl, 21. The following are such as have entertained middle or opposite views: Ste. Croix, Refutation, tc., de A1I. Wolf; Hug, Efindung der Buchstabenschrft; Kreuser, Veofragen fiber Homer; Clinton, Fast. Hell., vol. i., p. 366, seqq.; Coleridge, Introd. to the Study of the Gr. Classics; Quarterly Review, vol. xliv., p. 121, seqq. (article by Milman); IVelcker, Der Epische Cyclus, vol. i., p. 122. seqq.; K. 0. Miiller, list. of Gr. Lit.; Ihne (Smith's Dict Biogr.); Thirlwall, Hist. of Greece, appendix to vol. i., 2d ed.; Payne Knight, Prolegom in Hom.; Nitzsch, De fist. Homeri (and other works already cited by us).

Page  51 POETICAL PERIOD. 51 CHAPTER IX. SECOND OR POETICAL PERIOD-continued. HOMERIC HYMNS AND MINOR POEMS.' I. As certain hymns, which were known and admired in a more advanced literary period, were ascribed to the mythical bards, such as Olen, Orpheus, Linus, and Museeus, so many minor poems, consisting of hymns and humorous effusions, have been attributed to the author of the Iliad and Odyssey. Besides these there are a few short addresses to cities or private persons, which have been entitled Epigrams. II. The Hymns, including the hymn to Ceres and the fragment to Bacchus, which were discovered in the last century at Moscow, and edited by Ruhnken, amount to thirty-three. There are six longer, and twentyseven shorter ones. They were called by the ancients rpooila, i. e., overtures or preludes, and were sung by the rhapsodists-as introductions to epic poems at the festivals of the respective gods, to whom they are addressed. To these rhapsodists the hymns most probably owe their origin. According to Miiller,2 they exhibit such a diversity of language and poetical tone, that in all probability they contain fragments from every century, from the time of Homer to the Persian war. III. Still, most of them were reckoned to be Homeric productions by those who lived in a time when Greek literature still flourished. This is easily accounted for. Being recited in connection with Homeric poems, they were gradually attributed to the same author, and continued to be so regarded more or less generally, till critics, and particularly those of Alexandrea, discovered the differences between their style and that of Homer. At Alexandrea they were never reckoned genuine, which accounts for the circumstance that no one of the great critics of that school is known to have made a regular collection of them.3 IV. Of the hymns now extant five deserve particular attention, on account of their greater length and mythological contents; they are those addressed to the Delian and Pythian Apollo, to Mercury, Ceres, and Venus. The hymn to the Delian Apollo, formerly regarded as part of the one to the Pythian Apollo, is the work of a Homerid of Chios, and approaches so nearly to the true Homeric tone, that the author, who calls himself the blind poet, who lived in the rocky Chios, was held even by Thucydides to be Homer himself. It narrates the birth of Apollo in Delos, but a great part of it is lost. V. The hymn to the Pythian Apollo contains the foundation of the Pythian sanctuary by the god himself, who slays the serpent, and, in the form of a dolphin, leads certain men to Crissa, whom he establishes as priests of his temple. VI. The hymn to Mercury, which, on account of its mentioning the 1 Ihne, p. 508. 2 Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 74. 3 Wolf, Proleg., p. 266.

Page  52 52 GREEK LITERATURE. seven-stringed lyre, the invention of Terpander, can not have been composed before the 30th Olympiad, relates the tricks of the new-born Mercury, who, having left his cradle, drove away the cattle of Apollo from their pastures in Pieria to Pylos, there killed two, and then invented the lyre, made of a tortoise-shell, with which he pacified the anger of Apollo. VII. The hymn to Venus celebrates the birth of'Eneas in a style not very different from that of Homer. The hymn to Ceres, first discovered in 1778, in Moscow, by Matthaei, and first published by Ruhnken in 1780, gives an account of Ceres's search after her daughter Proserpina, who had been carried away by Pluto. The goddess obtains from Jupiter that her daughter should pass only one third part of the year with Pluto, and return to her for the rest of the year. With this symbolical description of the corn, which, when sown, remains for some time under ground, and then springs up, the poet has connected the mythology of the Eleusinians, who hospitably received the goddess on her wanderings, afterward built her a temple, and were rewarded by instruction in the mysterious rites of Ceres. VIII. Another poem, of quite a different nature from the hymns, was also erroneously ascribed to Homer. This was the Margites (Mapy~frlTs), a poem which Aristotle regarded as the source of comedy, just as he called the Iliad and Odyssey the fountain of all tragic poetry. From this view of Aristotle we may judge of the nature of the poem. It ridiculed a man who was said " to know many things, and to know all badly." The subject was nearly related to the scurrilous and satirical poetry of Archilochus and other contemporary iambographers, although in versification, epic tone, and language it imitated the Iliad. The iambic verses which are quoted from it by the grammarians were most likely interspersed by Pigres, brother of Artemisia, who is also called the author of this poem, and who interpolated the Iliad with pentameters in a similar manner. IX. The same Pigres was perhaps the author of the Batrachomyomachia (BarpaXoyluoy/aXia), or the Battle of the Frogs and Mice,l a poem frequently ascribed by the ancients to Homer. It is a harmless, playful tale, without a marked tendency to sarcasm and satire, amusing as a parody, but without any great poetical merit which could justify its being ascribed to the author of the Iliad and Odyssey. Knight2 infers, from the employment of the word 3'EAxos as a writing tablet, instead of 6Lp/eopa, a skin, which, according to Herodotus, was the material employed by the Asiatic Greeks for that purpose, that this poem was an offspring of Attic ingenuity; and, moreover, that the familiar mention of the cock (v. 191) affords a strong argument in favor of its late origin. X. Besides these poems there were a great many more, most of which we know only by name, which we find attributed to Homer with more or less confidence. But we have good reason for doubting all such statements concerning lost poems, whose claims we can not examine, when we see that even Thucydides and Aristotle considered as genuine not only such poems as the Margites, and some of the hymns, but also all those passages of the Iliad and Odyssey which are evidently interpolated, and I Suid., s. iv.: Plut., De Mlalign. Herod., 43. 2 Prolegom.. in Homerum, 1 6.

Page  53 POETICAL PERIOD. 53 which at the present day nobody would dream of ascribing to their reputed author.l XI. The time in which Greek literature flourished was not adapted for tracing out the poems which were spurious and interpolated. People enjoyed all that was beautiful, without caring who was the author. The task of sifting and correcting the works of literature was left to the age in which the faculties of the Greek mind had ceased to produce original works, and had turned to scrutinize and preserve former productions. Then it was not only discovered that the cyclic poems and the hymns had no title to be styled "' Homeric," but the question was mooted and warmly discussed whether the Odyssey was to be attributed to the author of the Iliad. Of the existence of this interesting controversy we had only a slight indication in Seneca,2 before the publication of the Venetian scholia. From these we know now that there was a regular party of critics, who assigned the Iliad and Odyssey to two different authors, and were therefore called Chorizontes (XwpgovTres), " the Separators."3 The question has been again opened in modern times, and we have already considered it. CHAPTER X. SECOND OR POETICAL PERIOD-continued. HISTORY OF THE HOMERIC POEMS.4 I. THE history of the Homeric poems may be divided conveniently into two great periods: one in which the text was transmitted by oral tradition, and the other of the written text after Pisistratus. Of the former we have already spoken; it, therefore, only remains to treat of the latter. II. The epoch from Pisistratus down to the establishment of the first critical school at Alexandrea, that is, to Zenodotus, presents very few facts concerning the Homeric poems. Oral tradition still prevailed over writing for a long time; though in the days of Alcibiades it was expected that every schoolmaster would have a copy of Homer with which to teach his boys.5 Homer became a sort of ground-work for a liberal education; and as his influence over the minds of the people thus became still stronger, the philosophers of that age were naturally led either to explain and recommend, or to oppose and refute the moral principles and religious doctrines contained in the heroic tales.6 III. It was with this practical view that Pythagoras, Xenophanes, and Heraclitus condemned Homer as one who uttered falsehoods, and degraded the majesty of the gods; while Theagenes, Metrodorus, Anaxagoras, and Stesimbrotus expounded the deep wisdom of Homer, which was disguised from the eyes of the common observer under the vail of an apparently insignificant tale. So old is the allegorical explanation, a folly at which the sober Socrates smiled, which Plato refuted, and Aristarchus 1 Nitzsch, Anm. z. Odyss., vol. ii., p. 40. 2 De Brevit. Vitce, 13, 3 Grauert, uiber d. Hornm. Choriz. Rhein. Mus., vol. i. 4 Ihne, p. 510, seqq. 6 Plut., Alcib., p. 194, D. 6 Grfhfenhan, Gesch. der Philologie, vol. i., p. 202.

Page  54 54 GREEK LITERATURE. opposed with all his might, but which, nevertheless, outlived the sound critical study of Homer among the Greeks, and has thriven luxuriantly even down to the present day. IV. A more scientific study was bestowed on Homer by the sophists of Pericles's age, Prodicus, Protagoras, Hippias, and others. There are even traces which seem to indicate that -the &7ropifa and XvdE-s, such favorite themes with the Alexandrine critics, originated with these sophists. Thus the study of Homer increased, and the copies of his works must naturally have been more and more multiplied. We may suppose that not a few of the literary men of that age carefully compared the best MSS. within their reach, and, choosing what they thought best, made new editions (6aopOer~Eslt). The task of these first editors was not an easy one. It may be concluded from the nature of the case, and it is known by various testimonies, that the text of those days offered enormous discrepancies, not paralleled in the text of any other classical writer. There were passages left out, transposed, added, or so altered as not easily to be recognized; nothing, in short, like a smooth vulgate existed before the time of the Alexandrine critics. V. This state of the text must have presented immense difficulties to the first editors in the infancy of criticism. Yet these early editions were valuable to the Alexandreans, as being derived from good and ancient sources. Two only are known to us through the scholia, one of the poet Antimachus, and the famous one of Aristotle (X7 EK TOO vrpepOqKos), which Alexander the Great used to carry about with him in a splendid case (vdpOe7q) on all his expeditions. Besides these editions, called in the scholia at icaT' gvspa, there were several other old 6topOacrEts at Alexandrea, under the name of ai Kaiy& wdArets, or at' K r7rAECV, or at voXlTLKuc. We know six of them, those of Massilia, Chios, Argos, Sinope, Cyprus, and Crete. It is hardly likely that they were made by public authority in the different states whose names they bear; on the contrary, as the persons who had made them were unknown, they were called, just as manuscripts are now, from the places where they had been found. VI. All these editions, however, were only preparatory to the establishment of a regular and systematic criticism and interpretation of Homer, which began with Zenodotus at Alexandrea. For such a task the times after Alexander were quite fit. Life had fled from the literature of the Greeks; it was become a dead body, and was very properly carried into Egypt, there to be embalmed, and safely preserved for many ensuing centuries. It was the task of men, who, like Aristarchus, could judge of poetry without being able to write any themselves, to preserve carefully that which was extant, to clear it from all stains and corruptions, and to explain what was no longer rooted in and connected with the institutions of a free political life, and therefore was become unintelligible to all but the learned. VII. Three men, who stand in the relation of masters and pupils, were at the head of a numerous host of scholars, who directed their attention either occasionally or exclusively to the study and criticism of the Ho1 Compare Wolf, Prolegom., p. 174.

Page  55 POETICAL PERIOD. 55 meric poems. Zenodotus laid the foundation of systematic criticism by establishing two rules for purifying the corrupted text. He threw out: 1st, whatever was contradictory to, or not necessarily connected with, the whole of the work; 2d, what seemed unworthy of the genius of the author. To these two rules his followers, Aristophanes and Aristarchus, added two more; they rejected, 3d, what was contrary or foreign to the customs of the Homeric Age; and, 4th, what did not agree with the epic language and versification. VIII. It is not to be wondered at that Zenodotus, in his first attempt, did not reach the summit of perfection. The manner in which he cut out long passages, arbitrarily altered others, transposed, and, in short, corrected Homer's text as he would have done his own, seemed shocking to all sober critics of later times, and would have proved very injurious to the text, had not Aristophanes, and still more Aristarchus, acted on sounder principles, and thus put a stop to the arbitrary system of Zenodotus. Aristophanes of Byzantium, a man of vast learning, seems to have been more occupied with the other parts of Greek literature, particularly the comic poets, than with Homer. He inserted in his edition many of the verses which had been thrown out by Zenodotus, and in many respects laid the foundations for what his pupil Aristarchus executed. IX. The reputation of Aristarchus as the prince of grammarians was so great throughout the whole of antiquity, that, before the publication of the Venetian scholia by Villoison, we hardly knew how to account for it. But these excellent scholia, which have chiefly enabled us to understand the origin of the Homeric poems, teach us also to appreciate their great and unrivalled interpreter, and have now generally led to the conclusion that the highest aim of the ambition of modern critics with respect to Homer is to restore the edition of Aristarchus, an undertaking which is believed to be possible by one of the most competent judges, chiefly through the assistance afforded by these scholia.l X. The Obelus (i3exdls), one of the critical marks used by Aristarchus ( —), and invented, like the accents, by his master Aristophanes, was used for the a&OETi7rzs, i. e., to mark those verses which seemed improper and detrimental to the beauty of the poem, but which Aristarchus dared not throw out of the text, as it was impossible to determine whether they were to be ascribed to an accidental carelessness of the author, or to interpolations of rhapsodists. Those verses which Aristarchus was convinced were spurious he left out of his edition altogether. Aristarchus was in constant opposition to Crates of Mallus, the founder of the Pergamenian school of grammar. This Crates had the merit of transplanting the study of literature to Rome. XI. In the time of Augustus, the great compiler, Didymus, wrote most comprehensive commentaries on Homer, copying mostly the works of preceding Alexandrean grammarians, which had swollen to an enormous extent. Under Tiberius, Apollonius Sophista lived, whose Lexicon Hoimericum is very valuable. Apion, a pupil of Didymus, was of much less 1 Leehrs, 1)e Aristarchi Studiis Homericis, 1833.

Page  56 56 GREEK LITERATURE. importance than is generally believed, chiefly on the authority of Wolf. he was a great quack and an impudent boaster. Longinus and his pupil, Porphyrius, of whom we possess some tolerably good scholia, were of more value. The Homeric scholia are dispersed in various MSS. Complete collections do not exist, nor are they desirable, as many of them are utterly useless. The most valuable scholia on the Iliad are those already referred to, which were published by Villoison from a MS. of the tenth century, in the library of St. Mark at Venice, together with the scholia to the Iliad previously published, Ven., 1788, fol. These scholia were reprinted with additions, edited by Bekker, Berlin, 1825, 2 vols. 4to, with an appendix, 1826, which collection contains all that is worth reading. A few additions are to be found in Bachmann's Scholia ad Homeri Iiadem, Lips., 1835. The most valuable scholia to the Odyssey are those published by Buttmann, Berl., 1821, mostly taken from the scholia originally published by Mai, from a MS. at Milan, in 1819. The extensive commentary of Eustathius is a compilation destitute of judgment and of taste, but contains much valuable information from sources which are now lost. EDITIONS OF HOMIIER.1 XII. The old editions of Homer, as well as the MSS., are of very little importance for the restoration of the text, for which we must apply to the scholia. The Editio Princeps, by Demetrius Chalcondylas, Flor., 1488, fol., was the first large work printed in Greek, one psalm only, and the Batrachomyomachia, having preceded This edition was frequently reprinted. Wolf reckons scarcely seven critical editions from the Editio Princeps to his time. That of H. Stephanus, in Poet. Grrec. Princ. her. Carm., Paris, 1566, fol., was one of the best. In England, the edition of Barnes, Cantab., 1711, 2 vols. 4to; and that of Clarke, who published the Iliad in 1729, and the Odyssey in 1740, were generally used for a long time, and often reprinted. The latter was published, with additions by Ernesti, Lips., 1759-1764, 5 vols. 8vo. This edition was reprinted at Glasgow, with Wolf's Prolegomena, in 1814, and again at Leipzig, in 1824. XIII. A new period began with Wolf's second edition, Honmeri et Homeridarum Op. et Rel.,Halis, 1794, the first edition (1784 and 1785) being merely a copy of the vulgate. Along with the second edition were published the Prolegomena. A third edition was published from 1804-1807. It is very much to be regretted that the editions of Wolf are without commentaries or critical notes, so that it is impossible to know in many cases on what grounds he adopted his readings, which differ from the vulgate. Heyne began in 1802 to publish the Iliad, which was finished in eight volumes, and was most severely and unsparingly reviewed by Wolf, Voss, and Eichstidt, in the Jenaer Literatur Zeitung, 1803. A ninth volume, containing the Indices, was published by Grxefenhan in 1822. XIV. The best recension of the text of Homer is that by Bekker, Berlin, 1843. A very good edition of the Iliad, with critical notes, was given by Spitzner, Gotha, 1832-1836, but the author did not live to publish his explanatory commentary. There is an excellent commentary to the two first books of the Iliad by Freytag, Petersburg, 1837, and a more extensive one by Stadelmann, of which two volumes have appeared, Leipzig, 18401844. But the best of all commentaries which have yet appeared on the Homeric poems are those of Nitzsch on the Odyssey, Hanover, 1825, &c., of which the three volumes now published extend only as far as the twelfth book. The latest edition of Homer for general readers is that from the press of Didot, Paris, 1838, containing also the Cyclic fragments. It has a corrected Latin version, but no commentary. There is a good school edition of the Iliad and Odyssey, with German notes by Crusius, Hanover, 1840, 1842. XV. The most valuable of the separate editions of the Hymns are those by Ilgen, Hal., 1791, and Hermann, Lips., 1806. Tho Lexicon Novum Iomericum (et Pindaricum) of Damm, originally published at Berlin in 1765, and reprinted at London, 1827, is still of t Ihne, p. 511.

Page  57 POETICAL PERIOD. 57 some value, though the author was destitute of all sound principles of criticism. But a far more important work for the student is Buttmann's Lexilogus, Berlin, 1825 and 1837, translated by Fishlake, London, 1840, 2d ed. A complete account of the literature of the Homeric poems will be found in the Bibliotheca Homerica, Hal., 1837, and in the notes to the first volume of Bode's Geschichte der Hellenischen Dichtkunst. CHAPTER Xl. SECOND OR POETICAL PERIOD-continued. CYCLIC POETS.' I. THE Iliad and Odyssey contained only a small part of the copious traditions concerning the Trojan war. A great number of poets undertook to fill up, by separate poems, the whole cycle (KcKcos) of the events of this war, from which circumstance they are commonly styled the Cyclic poets (KviXucoI). The series terminated with the death of Ulysses, this event being regarded as the closing scene of the cycle. II. The Cyclic poems, both in their character and conception of the mythical events, were very different from the Iliad and Odyssey. These Cyclic authors can not even have been called Homeridw, since a class of persons bearing this name existed only in Chios, and not one of the Cyclic bards is called a Chian. It is probable that they were Homeric rhapsodists by profession, to whom the constant recitation of the ancient Homeric poems would naturally suggest the notion of continuing them by essays of their own in a similar tone. III. From a close comparison of the extracts and fragments of these poems, which we still possess, it is evident that their authors had before them copies of the Iliad and Odyssey in their complete form, or, to speak more accurately, comprehending the same series of events as those current among the later Greeks and ourselves, and that they merely connected the action of their own poems with the beginning and the end of these two epopees. But, notwithstanding the close connection which they made between their own productions and the Homeric poems, and notwithstanding that they often built upon particular allusions in Homer, and formed from them long passages of their own poems, still their manner of treating and viewing mythical subjects differs so widely from that of Homer, as of itself to be a sufficient proof that the Homeric poems were no longer in progress of development at the time of the Cyclic poets, but had, on the whole, attained a settled form, to which no additions of importance were afterward made. IV. The CYPRIU2 (ra KtvirpLa gir-), in eleven books, was the first, in the order of the events contained in it, of the poems of the Epic Cycle relating to the Trojan war. It embraced the period antecedent to the beginning of the Iliad, to which it was evidently designed to form an introduction. From the outline given by Proclus, and from the extant fragments, a good idea may be formed of its structure and contents. The Earth, 1 M1Iuller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 64, seqq. Compare Mitre, Crit. Hzst., vol. ii., p. 248, seqq.; Welcker, Der epische Cyclus, &c. 2 Smith, Diet. Biogr., s. v. Stasinus: Weelker, vol. ii., p. 85, seeqqf

Page  58 68 GREEK LITERATURE. wearied with the burden of the degenerate race of man, entreats Jupitei to diminish their numbers. He grants her request, and prepares two chief agents to accomplish it, Helen and Achilles, the beauty of the former furnishing the cause of the contest, and the sword of the latter the instrument of extermination. The events succeeding the birth of Helen, or, rather (for the form of the myth is varied), her being sent by Jupiter to Leda to bring up, and the marriage of Peleus, down to the sailing of the expedition against Troy, were related at great length, and the incidents of the war itself much more briefly, the latter part being apparently occupied chiefly with those previous adventures of the heroes which are referred to in the Iliad. It concluded with the following somewhat clumsy contrivance to connect it with the opening of the Iliad: the war itself is not found to be murderous enough to accomplish the object prayed for by Earth, and in order to effect it more surely, the fresh contention between Achilles and Agamemnon is stirred up by Jupiter. V. The Cypria was attributed by some of the ancient writers to STASINUS (~Yrac'7~uos) of Cyprus, but the statements on the subject are so various, and partake so much of conjecture, that no certain conclusion can be drawn from them. In the earliest historical period of Greek literature, and before critical inquiries began, the poem was accepted without question as a work of Homer. It is not till we come down to the times of Athenaeus and the grammarians that we find any mention of Stasinus, and even then the Cypria is ascribed to him in a very hesitating and indefinite manner.' Proclus, who is our chief authority for the history of the epic cycle,2 not only tells us that the poem was ascribed to Stasinus, or Hegesinas, or Homer, but what he and others say of Stasinus only adds new doubts to those which already beset the subject, and new proofs of the uncertainties of the ancients themselves respecting it. VI. Stasinus was said to have been the son-in-law of Homer, who, according to one story, composed the Cypria, and gave it to Stasinus as his daughter's marriage portion; manifestly an attempt to reconcile the two different accounts, which ascribed it to Homer and Stasinus.3 Considering the immense range of mythological stories which we know the poem to have embraced, there is much probability in the opinion of Bernhardy, that it was a work of many times and many hands. Its title also was not, as we are told, derived from the native island of Stasinus, but may be explained by the conspicuous part which Venus (Kvwrpis) has in the general action. VII. Proceeding next to the Cyclic poems which continued the Iliad, we come to ARCTINUS of MILETUS,4 who was confessedly a very ancient poet; nay, he is even called by Dionysius of Halicarnassus' the oldest Grecian poet, whence some writers have placed him even before the time ofi Homer; but the ancients who have assigned to him any certain date agree in placing him about the commencement of the Olympiads. He is 1 Athen., ii., p. 35, c; viii., p. 334; xv., p. 682, e. 2 Prodl., Chrestom., in Gaisford's Hephest. et Procl., p. 471, seqq. Procl., 1. c.;.,Elian., V. H., ix., 15. " Smith, Dict. tiogr., s. v.; Welcker, vol. iL, p. 211, scqq 5 Ant. Rom., i., 68, seqq.

Page  59 OE T ICA L PER OD. 59 called a disciple of Homer; and, frora all we know about him, there was scarcely a poet in his time who deserved this title more than Arctinus. He was the most distinguished among the cyclic poets. There were in antiquity two epic poems belonging to the cycle, which are unanimously attributed to him, namely, the zEthiopis (AOLo0t7rs) and'IUXov repels. VIII. The Ethiopis was in five books. It was a kind of continuation of the Iliad, and its chief heroes were Memnon, son of Aurora, king of the.Ethiopians, and Achilles, who slew him. The substance of it has been preserved by Proclus. The'Ixiov,repo[s, or Destruction of Ilium, was in two books, and contained a description of the taking and destruction of Troy, and the subsequent events, until the departure of the Greeks. The substance of this poem has also been given by Proclus. A third epic poem, called Tcravou.caXia, that is, the fight of the gods with the Titans, and which was probably the first poem in the epic cycle, was ascribed by some to Arctinus, by others to Eumelus of Corinth.' IX. LESCHES, or LESCHEUS2 (AtolXrIs, AFGxeUS), was a native of Pyrrha, in the island of Lesbos, and in the neighborhood of Mytilene.3 Hence he is called a Mytilenean or Lesbian. The best authorities concur in placing him in the time of Archilochus, or about the 18th Olympiad. The account, therefore, which we find in ancient authors of a contest between Arctinus and Lesches, can only mean that the later competed with the earlier poet in treating the same subjects, and not that they were contemporaries, which would be an anachronism. His poem, which was attributed by many to Homer, and, besides, to various other authors, was called the Little Ilia ('Ia'tas iACo-owv, or'IALas 1utcpa). It consisted of four books, according to Procius, who has preserved an extract from it. It was evidently intended as a supplement to the Homleric Iliad; consequently, it related the events after the death of Hector, the fate of Ajax, the exploits of Philoctetes, Neoptolemus, and Ulysses, and the final cap)ture and destruction of Troy.4 The connection of events was necessarily loose and superficial, and without any unity of subject.5 X. Between the poems of Arctinus, and Lesches, and the Odyssey, came the epic of AeI ats,6 the Trcezenian, divided into five books, andl entitled Nrostoi (Ndri-o0). His poem was celebrated in antiquity, anld gave the history of the return (0do'rot) of the Grecians fiom Troy, and consisted of five books. The poem began with the cause of the misfortunes which befell the Greeks on their way home and after their arrival, that is, with the outrage committed upon Cassandra and witli the seizure of the Palladium. Agias wrote about B.C. 740. Some writers attributed the NJodoL to Homer.7 Similar poems, and with the same title, were written by other poets also.s Wherever the NdoTroL, however, is mentioned without a name, wve have generally to understand the work of Agias.9 XI. The continuation of the Odyssey was the Telegoania"~ (T?1Ae-yovia). l Athen., i., p. 22; vii., p. 277. 2'Smith, D)it. Biogr., s. v. 3 PaUsan., x., 25, 5. 4- Arist., Poet., 23, ed. Bekkler. 5 3itllter, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 6. 6 Sm it/, I)ict. Biog., s. v. 7 Suid., s. v. v6oaro; Anthol. Planud., iv., 30. 8 Schol. ad Pind., Ol., xiii., 31; Athen., iv., p. 157; ix., p. 4660.'. The name was formerly written Augias, throughl a mistatc ot the lhe st editor of tlho Excerpla l' Proclum. 1 "! liillcr, Hist. C;-. Lit.? p. 70; t'ldcher?, aol. ii.? p. 301,

Page  60 60 GREEK LITERATURE. It consisted of two books or rhapsodies, and formed the conclusion of the epic cycle. EUGAMON (Evy4dvJLws) of CYRENE, who did not live before the 53d Olympiad, is named as the author. It contained an account of all that happened after the fight of Ulysses with the suitors of Penelope, until the death of Ulysses. The substance of the poem is preserved by Proclus. As Eugamon lived at so late a period, it is highly probable that he made use of the productions of earlier poets; and Clemens of Alexandrea expressly states that Eugamon incorporated in his Telegonia a whole epic poem of Museus, entitled " Thesprotis." The name Telegonia was formed from Telegonus, a son of Ulysses and Circe, who killed his father. XII. With the exception of the events of the Trojan war, and the return of the Greeks, nothing was so closely connected with the Iliad and Odyssey as the war of the Argives against Thebes; since many of the principal heroes of Greece, particularly Diomede and Sthenelus, were themselves among the conquerors of Thebes, and their fathers before them, a bolder and wilder race, had fought on the same spot, in a contest which, though unattended with victory, was still far from inglorious. The Thebais, which consisted of seven books, or 5600 verses, took this war for its subject, and originated from Argos. The Epigbni ('E7r'iyozoL) was so far a second part of the Thebais, that it was sometimes comprehended under the same name. Its subject was the second expedition against Thebes, in which the Epigoni proved successful.'CHAPTER XII. SECOND OR POETICAL PERIOD-continued. IE SIOD. I. HESIOD ('Hifo5os)2 was one of the earliest Greek poets, and we possess respecting his personal history little more authentic information than respecting that of Homer, together with whom he is frequently mentioned by the ancients. The names of these two poets, in fact, form, as it were, the two poles of the early epic poetry of the Greeks; and as Homer represents the poetry, or school of poetry, belonging chiefly to Ionia, in Asia Minor, so Hesiod is the representative of a school of bards, which was developed somewhat later at the foot of Mount Helicon, in Bceotia, and spread over Phocis and Eubcea. II. The only points of resemblance between the two poets, or their respective schools, consist in their forms of versification and in their dialect, but in all other respects they move in totally different spheres; for the Homeric takes for its subjects the restless activity of the Heroic Age, while the Hesiodic turns its attention to the quiet pursuits of ordinary life, to the origin of the world, the gods and heroes. The latter thus gives to its productions an ethical and religious character; and this circumstance alone suggests an advance in the intellectual state of the ancient Greeks upon that depicted in the Homeric poems; though we do not mean to assert that the elements of the Hesiodic poetry are of a later date Mi iilZer, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 71..2,Tmith, Dit. Biogr.,. v.

Page  61 POETICAL PERIOD. 61 than the age of Homer, for they may, on the contrary, be as ancient as the Greek nation itself. III. But we must, at any rate, infer that the Hesiodic poetry, such as it has come down to us, is of later growth than the Homeric; an opinion which is confirmed also by the language and expressions of the two schools, and by a variety of collateral circumstances, among which we may mention the range of knowledge being much more extensive in the poems which bear the name of Hesiod than in those attributed to Homer. Herodotus and others regarded Homer and Hesiod as contemporaries, and some even assigned to the latter an earlier date than the former;1 but the general opinion of the ancients was that Homer was the elder of the two. IV. Most modern critics assume that Hesiod lived about a century later than Homer, which is pretty much in accordance with the statement of some ancient writers, who place him about the eleventh Olympiad, that is, about B.C. 735. Respecting the life of the poet we derive some information from one of the poems ascribed to him, namely, the "EpWya cai 2e'pal. We learn from that poem2 that he was born in the village of Ascra, in Boeotia, whither his father had emigrated from the _Eolian Cyma, in Asia Minor. The poet describes himself3 as tending a flock on the side of Mount Helicon, and from this, as well as from the fact of his calling himself an a&T77tros,4 we must infer that he belonged to an humble station, and was engaged in rural pursuits. But subsequently his circumstances seem to have been bettered, and after the death of his father he was involved in a dispute with his brother Perses about his small patrimony, which was decided in favor of Perses.5 V. Hesiod seems after this to have migrated to Orchomenus, where he spent the remainder of his life.6 At Orchomenus he is also said to have been buried, and his tomb was shown there in later times. What we have thus far stated is all that can be said with any degree of certainty about the life of Hesiod. Among the apocryphal stories related of the bard is one respecting a poetical contest between him and Homer, which is said to have taken place at Chalcis during the funeral solemnities of King Amphidamas, or, according to others, at Aulis or Delos.7 The story of this contest gave rise to a composition still extant under the title of'A7yc&'Of.dpov Kal'Ho-dsov, the work of a grammarian who lived toward the end of the first century of our era, in which the two poets are represented as engaged in the contest, and answering each other in their verses. The author of this production pretends to know the whole family history of Hesiod, and traces his descent from Orpheus, Linus, and Apollo himself. These legends, though they are mere fictions, show the connection which the ancients conceived to exist between the poetry of Hesiod (especially the Theogony) and the ancient schools of priests and bards, which had their seats in Thrace and Pieria, and thence spread into Bceotia, where I Gell., i.,, 11; xvii., 21; Suid., s. v.'Ho-oSos. 2 v. 648, seqq. 3 Theog., 23. 4 Op. et Dies, 636. 5 Id., 219. 261, 637. 6 Pind. ap. Procl., 1yvos'Ho-L68ov, p. xliv.; Hes., ed. GOttl. 7 Froclus, 1. c., p. xliii.. F/zt., Cony. -rS'e. S ap., 10.

Page  62 62 GREEK LITERAT URE. they probably formed the elements out of which the Hesiodic poetry was developed. VI. The differences between the Homeric and the Hesiodic schools of poetry are plain and obvious, and were recognized in ancient times no less than at present, as may be seen from the'Ay&v'Outpov ical'H~odov.l In their mode of delivery the poets of the two schools likewise differed; for while the Homeric poems were recited under the accompaniment of the cithara, those of Hesiod were recited without any musical instrument, the reciter holding in his hand only a branch of bay, or a staff (pacpos, OK7rnrpor).2 Another point of difference between the Homeric and Hesiodic poetry is produced by certain grammatical forms in the language of Hesiod, although the dialect in which the poems of both schools are composed is, on the whole, the same, namely, the Ionic-epic, which had become established as the language of epic poetry through the influence of Homer. VII. The ancients attributed to Hesiod a great variety of works; that is, all those which in form and substance answered to the spirit of the Hesiodic school, and thus seemed to be of a common origin. We shall subjoin a list of them, beginning with those which are still extant. 1. "Ep-ya iKa'Hy'dpat, or "Epya simply, commonly called Opera et Dies, or "Works and Days." In the time of Pausanias,3 this was the only poem which the people about Mount Helicon considered to be a genuine production of Hesiod, with the exception of the first ten lines, which certainly appear to -have been prefixed by a later hand. There are also several other parts of this poem which seem to be later interpolations; but, on the whole, it bears the impress of a genuine production of very high antiquity, though in its present form it may consist only of disjointed portions of the original. It is written in the most homely and simple style, with scarcely any poetic imagery or ornament, and must be looked upon as the most ancient specimen of didactic poetry. It contains ethical, political, and economical precepts, the last of which constitute the greater part of the work, consisting of rules about choosing a wife, the education of children, agriculture, commerce, and navigation. A poem on these subjects was not, of course, held in much esteem by the powerful and ruling classes in Greece at the time, and made the Spartan Cleomenes contemptuously call Hesiod the poet of Helots, in contrast with Homer, the delight of the warrior.4 Afterward, however, when the warlike spirit of the Heroic Ages subsided, and peaceful pursuits began to be held in higher esteem, the poet of the plough rose from his obscurity, and was looked upon as a sage; nay, the very contrast with the heroic poetry may have contributed to raise his fame, except, indeed, with such martial spirits as Cleomenes. At all events, the poem, notwithstanding its want of unity, and the incoherence of its parts, gives us an attractive picture of the simplicity of the early Greek mode of life, of their manners, and their domestic relations. The conclusion of the poem, from v. 750 to 828, is a sort of calendare, and was probably appended to it in later times; and the addition eKal yAIp. 248, ed. Gottling. 2 Hesiod., Theog., 30; Paus., ix., 30; x., 7, 2. Pa Us3, iX., 31.4 Plut, Apophth. Lac, C'leom., i.

Page  63 POETICAL PERIOD. 63 pat, in the title of the poem, seems to havobeen added in consequence of this appendage, for the poem is sometimes simply called "Epya. It would farther seem that three distinct poems have been inserted in it, namely: 1. The fable of Prometheus and Pandora (v. 47-105); 2. On the Ages of the World, which are designated by the names of metals (v. 109-201); and, 3. A Description of Winter (v. 504-558). The first two of these poems are not so much out of keeping with the whole as the third, which is manifestly the most recent production of all, and most foreign to the spirit of Hesiod. That which remains, after the deduction of these probable interpolations, consists of a collection of maxims, proverbs, and wise sayings, containing a considerable amount of practical wisdom; and some of these yvi&/ac or v7roO7cat may be as old as the Greek nation itself.' 2. eo-yovia, or " Theogony." This poem was, as we'have already remarked, not considered by Hesiod's countrymen to be a genuine production of the poet's. It presents, indeed, great differences from the preceding one, its very subject being apparently foreign to the homely author of the "Epya. The Alexandrine grammarians, however, especially Zenodotus and Aristarchus, appear to have had no doubt about its genuineness,2 though their opinion can not be taken to mean any thing else than that the poem contained nothing that was opposed to the character of the Hesiodic school; and thus much we may therefore take for granted, that the " Theogony" is not the production of the same poet as the'Epya, and that it probably belongs to a later date. The " Theogony" gives an account of the origin of the world and the birth of the gods, explaining the whole order of nature in a series of genealogies, for every part of physical as well as moral nature there appears personified in the character of a distinct being. The whole concludes with an account of some of the most illustrious heroes, whereby the poem enters into some kind of connection with the Homeric epics. The whole poem may be divided into three parts: 1. The Cosmogony, which widely differs from the simple Homeric notion,3 and afterward served as the ground-work for the various physical speculations of the Greek philosophers, who looked upon the Theogony of Hesiod as containing in an allegorical form all the physical wisdom that they were able to propound, though Hesiod himself was believed not to have been aware of the profound philosophical and theological wisdom which he was uttering. The Cosmogony extends from v. 116 to 452; 2. The Theogony, in the strict sense of the word, from v. 453 to 962; and, 3. The last portion, which is, in fact, a heroogony, being an account of the heroes born from mortal mothers, whose charms had drawn the immortals from Olympus. This part is very brief, extending only from v. 963 to 1021, and forms the transition to the E~&, of which we shall speak presently. If we ask for the sources from which the author of the Theogony drew his information respecting the origin of the world and the gods, the answer can not be much more than a conjecture, for there is no direct information on the point. Herodotus asserts that Homer and Hesiod made 1 Isocr. c. Nicocl., p. 23, ed. Steph.; Lucian., Dial. de Hes., i., 8. 2 Schol. Venet. ad II., xviii., 39. 3 I., xiv., 200.

Page  64 64 GREEK LITERATURE. the Theogony of the Greeks, and, in reference to Hesiod in particular, this probably means that Hesiod collected and combined into a system the various local legends, especially of northern Greece, such as they had been handed down by priests and bards. The assertion of Herodotus farther obliges us to take into consideration the fact that, in the earliest Greek theology, the gods do not appear in any definite forms, whereas Hesiod strives to anthropomorphize all of them, the ancient elementary gods, as well as the later dynasties of Saturn and Jove. Now both the system of the gods and the forms under which he conceived them afterward became firmly established in Greece, and, considered in this way, the assertion of Herodotus is perfectly correct. Whether the form in which the Theogony has come down to us is the original and genuine one, and whether it is complete or only a fragment, is a question which has been much discussed in modern times. There can be little doubt but that in the course of time the poets of the Hesiodic school and the rhapsodists introduced various interpolations, which produced many of the inequalities, both in the substance and form of the poem, which we now perceive; many parts, also, may have been lost. Hermann has endeavored to show that there exist no less than seven different introductions to the Theogony, and that, consequently, there existed as many different recensions and editions of it. But as our present form itself belongs to a very early date, it would be useless to attempt to determine what part of it formed the original kernel, and what is to be considered as later addition or interpolation.' 3.'HoTai, or fhoTai ie.Ld;aOL, also called KacrdXoyoL yvva1c&Zv. The name -7oClat was derived, according to the ancient grammarians, from the fact that the heroines, who, by their connection with the immortal gods, had become the mothers of the most illustrious heroes, were introduced into the poem by the expression i) ol, " or such as." The poem itself, which is lost, is said to have consisted of four books, the last of which was by far the longest, and was hence called iozaL teyjchat, whereas the titles KaicrdAoy7o, or 7o0aiL, belonged to the whole body of poetry, containing accounts of the women who had been beloved by the gods, and had thus become the mothers of the heroes in the various parts of Greece, from whom the ruling families derived their origin. The work thus contained the genealogies or pedigrees of the most illustrious Greek families. Whether the Ecea or Catalogi was the work of one and the same poet, was a disputed'point among the ancients themselves.2 4.'An7rls'HpaKtceovs, or " Shield of Hercules," a poem on the combat between Hercules and Cycnus, containing a description of the hero's shield. This description is an imitation of the Homeric account of the shield of Achilles, but is done with much less skill and ability. It is generally supposed that this poem, or perhaps fragment of a poem, originally belonged to the Eoee. 5. Ai)yLtoyr, an epic poem, consisting of several books or rhapsodies, on Compare Creuzer und Hermann, Briefe uiber Homrn. und lies., Heidelb., 1817, 8vo, Sickler, Cadmus, &c., Hildburg., 1818, 4to.'ho. ad Apoll. Rhod., ii., 181; Schol. ad Hes., Theog., 142.

Page  65 POETICAL PERIOD. 65 the story of _Egimius, the famous ancestral hero of the Dorians, and the mythical history of the Dorians in general. Some of the ancients attributed this poem to Cercops of Miletus.1 A few fragments alone remain. 6. MeXaqu7roLa, an epic poem, consisting of at least three books, and containing the stories about the seer Melampus. It was thus of a similar character with the poems which celebrated the glory of the heroic families of the Greeks. Some of the ancients~ denied that this was an Hesiodic poem.2 Fragments alone have reached us. 7.'Ei7y;roLs rl T'rpacav. This is mentioned as an Hesiodic work by Pausanias,3 and is distinguished by him from another entitled E7rz7 uaTrrvKa'; hut it is not improbable that both were identical with, or portions of, an astronomical work, ascribed to Hesiod, under the title of &TarpLK /3ji/Aos, or aoTpoXoYLa.4 We have some fragments remaining. 8. XELpCVos b7roOqccat. This seems to have been an imitation of the'Epya.. A few fragments remain. VIII. The poems of Hesiod, especially the Theogony, were looked up to by the Greeks from very early times as great authority in theological and philosophical matters, and philosophers of nearly every school attempted, by various modes of interpretation, to bring about a harmony between the statements of Hesiod and their own theories. The scholars of Alexandrea and of other cities, such as Zenodotus, Aristophanes, Aristarchus, Crates of Mallus, Apollonius Rhodius, Seleucus of Alexandrea, Plutarch, and others, devoted themselves with great zeal to the criticism and explanation of the poems of Hesiod; but all their works on this poet are lost, with the exception of some isolated remarks contained in the scholia on Hesiod, now extant. These scholia are the productions of a much later age, though their authors made use of the works of the earlier grammarians. The scholia of the Neo-Platonist Proclus (though only in an abridged form), of Joannes Tzetzes, and Moschopulus, on the'Epyca, and introductions on the life of Hesiod, are still extant. The scholia on the Theogony are a compilation from earlier and later commentators. The most complete edition of the scholia on Hesiod is that in the third volume of Gaisford's Poetc Greci Minores. EDITIONS OF HESIOD.5 IX. The Greek text of the Ilesiodic poems was first printed at Milan in 1493, fol., together with Isocrates and some of the idylls of Theocritus. The next edition is that in the collection of gnomic and bucolic poems, published by Aldus Manutius, Venice, 1495. The first separate edition is that of Junta, Florence, 1515, and again 1540, Svo. The first edition that contains the Greek scholia is that of Trincavellus, Venice, 1537, 4to, and more complete at Cologne, 1542, 8vo, and Frankfurt, 1591, 8vo. The most important among the subsequent editions are those of Dan. Iteinsius, Amsterdam, 1667, Svo, with lectiones Hesiodere and notes by Scaliger and Guietus: it was reprinted by Leclerc in 1701, 8vo; of Th. Robinson, Oxford, 1737, 4to; reprinted at Leipzig, 1746, 8vo; of Loesner, Leipzig, 1778, 8vo, containing all that his predecessors had accumulated, together with some new remarks; of Gaisford, in the first volume of his Poeto Grceci liinores, where some new manuscripts are collated; and of Ghttling, Gotha and Erfurt, 1831, Svo (2d ed., 1843), with good critical and explanatory notes. A revision of the text by Loers, with Latin version, is given in the Bibl. Graeca of Didot, Paris, 1840. The'Epya were 1 Apollod., ii., 1, 3; Diog. Laert., ii., 46. 2 Paus., ix., 31, 4. 3 7d. ih 4 Athen.., xi., p. 491; Plut., De Pyth. Orac_, 18. s Smith, Dict, Biogr, s. vs.

Page  66 66 GREEK LITERIATURE. edited also by Brunck, in his Poetee Gnomici and other collections. The Theogony was edited separately by F. A. Wolf, Halle, 1783, and by Van Lennep, Amsterdam, 1843, 8vo, with a very useful commentary. There are also two good editions of the'Arrwc, the one by Heinrich, Breslau, 1802, 8vo, with an introduction, scholia, and commentary; and the other by Ranke, Quedlinburg, 1840, 8vo. CHAPTER XIII. SECOND OR POETICAL PERIOD-continued. MISCELLANEOUS EPIC POETRY OF THIS PERIOD.1' I. GREAT as was the number of poems which in ancient times passed under the name of Homer, and were connected in the way of supplement or continuation with the Iliad and Odyssey, and also of those which were included under the all-comprehensive name of Hesiod, yet these formed only about one half of the entire epic literature of the early Greeks. Of the others, some appear to have aimed at a certain amount of Homeric unity of structure, others were but metrical chronicles. Their authors appear, for the most part, both in the selection of their mythical subjects and in general style and phraseology, to have conformed to the old conventional standard of epic mannerism. II. Toward the close of this period, however, efforts are observable on the part of Pisander, Epimenides, and other poetically gifted disciples of the popular schools of religious mysticism, who availed themselves of the Epic Muse in promulgating their doctrines, to enliven the prevailing monotony, partly by the introduction of new materials, partly by bolder methods of working up those transmitted by their predecessors. Few of these works, however, enjoyed any great celebrity or popularity with the later Hellenic public. Several had perished even during the flourishing ages of Greek literature, or were no longer familiar in the original text to the authors by whom they were cited; and with the exception of a limited stock of fragments, the whole are now entirely lost. We subjoin a brief account of the principal ones among these writers. III. 1. CINMOTHON (Kvai0cov), of Lacedwenion, is placed by Eusebius3 in B.C. 765. He was the author of: 1. Telegonia (TqXEseyozla), which gave the history of Ulysses, from the point where the Odyssey breaks off to his death.4 2. Genealogies, which are frequently referred to by Pausanias,5 and which must consequently have been extant in A.D. 175. 3. Heraclea ('HpcbkXELa), containing an account of the adventures of Hercules.6 4. (Edipodia (0&7iroeia), the adventures of CEdipus; ascribed to Cinaethon in an ancient inscription, but other authorities speak of the author as uncertain.7 5. The Little Iliad ('IAlas y/cKpa), attributed by some to Cinaethon, though more correctly by others to Lesches, whom we have already mentioned among the Cyclic poets. 2. EUMELUS (E/urlAos), of Corinth, a member of the noble house of the 1 lfieller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 100; Mure, Crit. Hist., vol. ii., p. 445, seq. 2 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s.. 3 Chron., 01. 3, 4. 4 Euseb., 1. c. 5 Paus., ii., 3, 7; ii., 18, 5; iv., 2, 1, &c. 6 Schol. ad Apoll. Rhod., i., 1357. 7 Paus., ix., 5, 5; Schol. ad Eurip., Phwn., 1760.

Page  67 POETI'CAL PERIOD. 67 Bacchiadse, flourished about 761-744 B.C. Eusebius makes him contemporary with Arctinus. Those of the poems ascribed to him which appear pretty certainly genuine were genealogical and historical legends. To this class belonged his Corinthian History (KopLvOLacca);1 his Eumopia (EbpciWrLa), or legend of Europa; and his rIposoo&ov es /Aiov,2 a strain which he had composed for the Messenians, for a sacred mission to the temple of Delos. He also wrote Bougonia (Bovyovza), a poem on bees, which the Greeks called BovTyvac and o30vy'eVes.3 Some writers ascribed to him a TrL-avouaXia, which was also attributed to Arctinus. The Cyclic poem on the return of the Greeks from Troy is ascribed to Eumelus by a scholiast on Pindar, who writes the name wrongly, Eumolpus. 3. ANTIMICHuUS ('Avr''uaXos), of Teos, an epic poet of great antiquity, but of little celebrity. Plutarch4 cites him as having mentioned, contemporaneously it must be understood, theeclipse which happened on the 20th of April, in the third year of the sixth Olympiad, B.C. 753, the date assigned to the foundation of Rome. The title of no work by this poet has been preserved, and but a single verse is quoted, in condemnation of bribery. 4. Asius ("Aatos), of Samos,5 ranks among the more ancient epic poets of the genealogical order, but no specific date is connected with his name, nor are his works mentioned under any other titles than the general one of genealogies. He lived in all probability about B.C. 700. He seems to have treated a variety of subjects, as episodes, it may be presumed, illustrative of local and family history. The longest extant passage gives a glowing and vivid description of the brilliant appearance of the Samian ladies advancing in procession to the temple of Juno, and is distinguished by a festive pomp of diction in good keeping with the subject.6 5. PISANDER (HeLocav'pos), of Camirus, in Rhodes, is the most celebrated epic poet of this period next to Homer and Hesiod, and he ranks, accordingly, next to them in the epic canon of Alexandrea. He appears to have flourished about B.C. 648-645. Pisander was the author of a poem in two books on the exploits of Hercules. It was called Heraclea ('Hpaccxkea), and Clement of Alexandrea7 accuses him of having taken it entirely from one Pisinus of Lindus. In this poem, Hercules was for the first time represented as armed with a club, and covered with the lion's skin, instead of the usual armor of the heroic period; and it is not improbable, as Muller suggests, that Pisander was also the first that fixed the number of the hero's labors at twelve.8 Only a few lines of this poem have been preserved; two are given us by the scholiast on Aristophanes,9 and another by Stobaeus.l~ Other poems which were ascribed to Pisander were, as we learn from Suidas, spurious, having been composed chiefly by Aristeas. Pisander of Camirus must not be confounded with Pisander of Laranda, who flourished in the reign of Alexander Severus, A.D. 222-235.11 1 Paus., ii., 1, 1; ii., 3, 8; Schol. ad Apoll. Rhod., i., 148. 2 Paus., iv., 4, 1; v., 19, 2. 3 Varro, R. R., ii., 5, 5, ed. Schneid. 4 Vit. Rom., 12. 5 Athen., iii., p. 125. 6 MllUler, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 102. 7 Strom., vi., p. 266, ed. Sylburg. 8 Strab., xv., p. 688; Suid., s. v. IIeafav3pos. 9 Nub., 1034.'o Floril., xii., 6. 1I Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v,

Page  68 68 GREEK LITERATURE. 6. EPIMENIDES' ('EwrrteYvi87s) was a poet and prophet of Crete, whose biography2 is partly connected with the realities of history, and partly enveloped in the mists of fable. Numerous works, both in prose and verse, were attributed to him, though few, if any, can be considered to have been genuine productions of Epimenides; the age in which he lived was certainly not an age of prose composition in Greece. All that tradition has handed down about him suggests that we ought to rank him in the class of priestly bards and sages, who are generally comprised under the name of Orphici; for every thing we hear of him is of a priestly or religious nature: he was a purifying priest, of superhuman knowledge and wisdom, a seer and a prophet, and acquainted also with the healing powers of plants. These notions about Epimenides were propagated throughout antiquity, and it was probably owing to the great charm attached to his name that so many works were ascribed to him. Diogenes Laertius3 notices as prose works of his, one on sacrifices, and another on the political constitution of Crete. Among his poetic productions were Xpjoa-;oi, " Oracles," and Ka0apa[ot,4 " Hymns of Purification." It is, however, very doubtful whether he wrote the rE'VE-Ls and Eso-yovia of the Curetes and Corybantes in 5000 verses, the epic on Jason and the Argonauts in 6500, and the epic on Minos and Rhadamanthys in 4000 verses; all of which works are mentioned by Diogenes. There can not, however, be any doubt but that there existed in antiquity certain old-fashioned poems written upon skins; and the expression'El7ry.evdeov,ept/Aa was used by the ancients to designate any thing old-fashioned, obsolete, and curious. An allusion to Epimenides seems to be made in St. Paul's Epistle to Titus.s 7. ARISTEAS ('ApourE'as), of Proconnesus, appears to belong to the same mysterious class with Epimenides, and his age, in so far as a real personality can be assigned him, nearly coincides with that of the latter. The accounts of his life are full of fable. Herodotus calls him the inspired bard of Apollo ((poL38XaaczrTros). He is said to have travelled through the countries north and east of the Euxine, and to have visited the Issedones, Arimaspse, Cimmerii, Hyperborei, and other mythic nations, and on his return to have written an epic poem in three books, called r&'Apqlcdo-,7reLa, in which he seems to have described all that he had seen or pretended to have seen. This work appears to have been full of marvellous stories, but was nevertheless looked upon as a source of historical and geographical information. Still it was an epic poem, and is frequently mentioned by the ancients; but it fell into oblivion at an early period. Thirteen hexameter verses from it are preserved by Longinus. EDITIONs. —The most complete collection of the fragments of the minor Epic poets is by DiUntzer, Die Fragmente der epischen Poesie der Griechen bis zur Zeit AZexander's des Grossen, Koln, 1840; and Nachtrag, &c., Ib., 1841: others are given by Diibner in the edition of Hesiod and the minor Epic poets in Didot's Bibl. GrTeca; and by Marckscheffel in his collection of the fragments of Hesiod, Eumelus, Cinxethon, &c., Leipzig, 1840. 1 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. V. 2 Diog. Laert., i., 10; i., 109; Plut., Vit. Sol., 12. 3 Diog'. Laert., i., 112. 4 Suid., s. v.'ErrLtevtr83. 5 Chap. i., v. 12.

Page  69 POETICAL PERIOD. 69 CHAPTER XIV. SECOND OR POETICAL PERIOD-continued. LYRIC POETRY. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.I I. ACCORDING to the subdivision that has been laid down by us, Lyric composition is considered to comprise every poetical work not embodied in hexameter verse, and, consequently, the whole elegiac and iambic, in addition to the melic and choral poetry of this period. II. Until the beginning of the seventh century before our era, or the 20th Olympiad, the epic was the only kind of poetry in Greece, and the hexameter the only kind of metre which had been cultivated by the poets with art and diligence. Doubtless there were, especially in connection with different worships, strains of other kinds, and measures of a lighter movement, according to which dances of a sprightly character could be executed; but these as yet did not form a finished style of poetry, and were only rude essays and undeveloped germs of other varieties, which hitherto had only a local interest, confined to the rites and customs of particular districts. III. In all musical and poetical contests, the solemn and majestic tone of the epopee and the epic hymn alone prevailed; and the soothing placidity which these lays imparted to the mind was the only feeling which had found its satisfactory poetical expression. As yet the heart, agitated by joy and grief, by love and anger, could not give utterance to its lament for the lost, its longing after the absent, its care for the present, in appropriate forms of poetical composition. These feelings were still without the elevation which the beauty of art can alone confer. The epopee kept the mind fixed in the contemplation of a former generation of heroes, which it could view with sympathy and interest, but not with passionate emotion. And although, in the economical poem of Hesiod, the cares and sufferings of the present time furnished the occasion for an epic work, yet this was only a partial descent from the lofty career of epic poetry; for it immediately rose again from this lowly region, and celebrated in solemn strains the order of the universe. IV. This exclusive prevalence of epic poetry was also doubtless connected with the political state of Greece at the time. The ordinary subjects of the epic poems must, as we have already remarked, have been peculiarly acceptable to the princes who derived their race from the heroes of the mythical age, as was the case with all the royal families of early times. This rule of hereditary princes was the prevailing form of government in Greece, at least up to the beginning of the Olympiads, and from this period it gradually disappeared; at an earlier date and by more violent revolutions among the Ionians, than among the nations of Peloponnesus. l Miiller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 104.

Page  70 70 GREEK LITERATURE. V. The republican movements, by which the princely families were deprived of their privileges, could not be otherwise than favorable to a free expression of the feelings, and, in general, to a stronger development of each man's individuality. Hence the poet, who, in the most perfect form of the epos, was completely lost in his subject, and was only the mirror in which the grand and brilliant images of the past were reflected, now comes before the people as a man with thoughts and objects of his own; and gives free vent to the struggling emotions of his soul in elegiac and iambic strains. As the elegy and the iambic, those two contemporary and cognate species of poetry, originated with Ionic poets, and (as far as we are aware) with citizens of free states, so again the remains and accounts of these styles of' poetry furnish the best image of the internal condition of the Ionic states of Asia Minor and the Islands, in the first period of their republican constitution.1 1. ELEGIAC VERSE.2 VI. We may safely assume, by reference both to the general law of human invention, and to the discriminating taste which marks the development of art among the Greeks, that the elegiac distich, namely, an hexameter followed by a pentameter, was called into existence by the object to which it was best adapted, that of modifying the old dactylic metre to familiar epigrammatic purposes; for the obvious effect of this conmbination of the longer and shorter measures, enhanced by a peculiar abruptness in the central caesura of the latter, and in its closing foot, or catalexis, is to impart a certain emphatic point to the entire period. VII. The Elegy or elegiac poem (XE-yeta) is but a repetition of the distich in numbers proportioned to the extent of the subject; and the scope and tendency of this branch of composition is to express concisely and emphatically, in the case of the single distich, a certain statement or maxim; in that of the prolonged elegy, a series of similar statements or maxims. VIII. Each pentameter couplet ought obviously, in the true spirit of the Elegiac Muse, either itself to comprise a distinct clause or period of the sense, or at least to form a subdivision of another more comprehensive clause or head of argument, terminating in a pentameter verse; in other words, every full pause in the sense ought to coincide with a full pause in the measure. Where a continuous head of the subject runs through the close of one distich into the commencement of another, there results a palpable incongruity, which becomes the more glaring when the ensuing pause takes place in the body of the distich, whether at the close of the hexameter or in the middle of either verse. Not only, therefore, is the elegy disqualified by its epigrammatic spirit for continuous narrative, but even in its own proper sphere comparative brevity is essential to the full effect of an elegiac poem. However carefully, therefore, this real impropriety may be smoothed over by the ingenuity of the poet, the discerning critic must, in his own experience, have felt how much superior is the effect of the elegiac measure in the pointed epigram, and other concise 1 Midler, 1. c. 2 Miutre, Crit. Hist., vol. iii., p. 16, seqq.; Mi7l/er, 1. c.

Page  71 POETICAL PERIOD. 71 and pithy compositions, than in prolonged poetical narratives or moral dissertations.' IX. The word EE;yE0oY, as used by the best writers, like the word e'iros, refers not to the subject of a poem, but simply to its form, and in this sense, therefore, means nothing more than the combination of an hexameter and a pentameter, making together a distich; and an elegeia (~EXyelEa) is a poem made up of such distichs. The word EXE'yEOiv, however, is itself only a derivative from a simpler word, namely, ehE-yor. This parent term i'Xeyos, as we learn from the united testimony of the ancient critics, although its own etymology is quite uncertain, denoted, in its earliest usage, what had reference to mourning or sorrow. It means, properly, a strain of lament, without any determinate reference to a metrical form; thus, for example, in Aristophanes, the nightingale sings an elegos for her lost Itys; and in Euripides, the halcyon, or kingfisher, sings an elegos for her husband Cejx; in both which passages the word has this general sense.2 X. To this view, however, it has been objected that the extant elegiac compositions of remote antiquity are for the most part in a style. quite opposite to either the funebrial or the epigrammatic, being chiefly martial or patriotic appeals, often of considerable length, addressed to the poet's fellow-citizens in times of public emergency. These poems, however, while possibly the oldest ascertained specimens of pentameter style, can not reasonably be assumed to represent the taste or practice in which that style originated. The distinction between what may formerly have existed and what has been preserved to posterity, is one of essential importance in questions of this nature. The elegy in the works of Callinus, Archilochus, and Tyrteeus, its earliest professional votaries, already appears in an advanced state of cultivation, implying a long course of previous practice, and consequent modification of its primitive use. Their compositions stand to its first beginnings in the same relation as the Iliad and Odyssey to the earlier efforts of the Epic Muse.3 XI. It were as reasonable to argue from the actual priority of the Iliad that the first poem in hexameter verse was a finished epopee, as from the existing compositions of Callinus, admitting him to be the most ancient author in this style, that the first elegy was a martial or political ode. For the great antiquity of the elegy, however, in its application to what has here been assumed to be its original object, appeal may be made to Archilochus, an author of the same age as Callinus, but of far more varied genius. The remains of Archilochus, while exhibiting the measure in its adaptation to every variety of subject, plaintive, martial, and satirical, offer, together with several elegies of a funebrial character, a general predominance of those of the epigrammatic order. XII. But, even did the works of these earlier poets furnish no distinct proof of this presumed original destination of the measure, there remains another more competent source of illustration in the sepulchral or votive dedications of the same era. The existing relics of this class, though scanty in the ratio of their antiquity, yet form a more or less continuous series of evidence, that, during this whole early period, from an epoch equal or lit1 Mure, 1. c. 2 Mller, l.. 3 Mure, 1. c.

Page  72 i72 O GREEK LITERATURE. tie inferior to that of the poets above cited, the pentameter was the measure exclusively preferred in monumental inscriptions.' ~We will now proceed to give a brief account of the most eminent elegiac writers. 1. CALLINUTS2 (Kaxx;Zvos), of Ephesus, ranks among the earliest elegiac poets of whose compositions any portions are still extant. As regards — the time in which he lived, we have no definite statement, and the ancients themselves endeavored to determine it from the historical allusions which they found in his elegies. From Strabo,3 it is evident that Callinus, in one of his poems, mentioned Magnesia, on the Maeander, as still existing, and at war with the Ephesians. Now we know that Magnesia was destroyed by the Treres, a Cimmerian tribe, in B.C. 727, and, consequently, the poem referred to by Strabo must have been written previous to that year, perhaps about B.C. 730, or shortly before Archilochus, who, in one of his earliest poems, mentioned the destruction of Magnesia. Callinus himself, however, appears to have long survived that event; for there is a line of his4 which is usually referred to the destruction of Sardis by the Cimmerians about B.C. 678. If this calculation be correct, Callitlns must have been in the bloom of life at the time of the war between Magnesia and Ephesus, in which he himself, perhaps, took a part. We possess only a very few fragments of the elegies of Callinus, but among them there is one of twenty-one lines, which forms part of a war-elegy, and is, consequently, the most ancient specimen of this species of poetry extant.5 In this fragment the poet exhorts his countrymen to courage and perseverance against their enemies, who are usually supposed to be the Magnesians, but the fourth line of the poem seems to render it more probable that Callinus was speaking of the Cimmerians. This elegy is one of great beauty, and gives us the highest opinion of the talent of Callinus. It is printed in the various collections of the " Poetae Graeci Minores." All the fragments of Callinus are collected in Bach's Callini, Tyrtcei, et Asii Fragmenta, Leipzig, 1831, 8vo, and Bergk's Poetce Lyrici Graci, p. 303, seqq. 2. TYRTEcUS' (Tvpraibos or TVpTalios), contemporary with Callinus, and probably a few years younger. His age is determined by the second Messenian war, in which he bore a part. According to the older tradition, the Spartans, during the second Messenian war, were commanded by an oracle to take a leader from among the Athenians, and thus to conquer their enemies, whereupon they chose Tyrtneus as their leader.7 Later writers,8 however, embellish the story, and represent Tyrtaeus as a lame schoolmaster, of low family and reputation, whom the Athenians, when applied to by the Lacedemonians, in accordance with the oracle, purposely sent as the most inefficient leader they could select, being unwilling to assist the Lacedaemonians in extending their dominion in the Peloponnesus, and but little thinking that the poetry of Tyrteeus would achieve that victory which his physical constitution seemed to forbid his aspiring to. Many modern critics reject altogether the account of the Attic origin 1 Mure, 1. c. 2 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 3 Strab., xiv., p. 647. 4 Fragm. 2. Compare fragm. 8, ed. Bergk. 5 Stobeus, Floril., ii., 19. 6 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 7 Lycurg. c. Leocr., p. 211, ed. Reiske. 8 Paus., iv., 15, 3; Justin., iii., 5, &c.

Page  73 POETICAL PERIOD. 73 of Tyrteeus, and maintain that the extant fragments of his poetry actually furnish evidence of his being a Lacedaemonian. But it is impossible to arrive at any positive decision on the subject. Most probably, however, he was a native of the Athenian town of Aphiden, which is placed by the legends about the Dioscuri in very early connection with Laconia. The statement that he was a lame schoolmaster is rejected by all modern writers. It may simply mean that he was, like the other early musicians and poets, a teacher of his own art; and his alleged lameness may possibly be connected with some misunderstanding of expressions used by the earlier writers to describe his metres, namely, the pentameter in conjunction with the hexameter, compared with which the former is short of a foot. The poems of Tyrtaeus exercised an important influence upon the Spartans, allaying their dissensions at home, and animating their courage in the field. In order to appease their civil discords, he composed his celebrated elegy, entitled Evryoula, " Legal Order,"' which appears to have had a wondrous effect in stilling the excited passions of the Spartans. But still more celebrated were the poems by which he animated the courage of the Spartans in their conflict with the Messenians. These poems were of two kinds; namely, elegies, containing exhortations to constancy and courage, and descriptions of the glory of fighting bravely for one's native land; and more spirited compositions in the anapeestic measure, which were intended as marching songs, to be performed with the music of the flute. He lived to see the success of his efforts in the entire conquest of the Messenians, and their reduction to the condition of Helots.2 He therefore flourished down to B.C. 668, which was the last year of the second Messenian war. The extant fragments of Tyrtaeus are contained in most of the older and more recent collections of the Greek poets, and, among the rest, in Gaisford's Poetc Minores Grceci, Schneidewin's Deleclus Po'sis Grcecorurm, and Bergk's Poetc Lyrici Greci. The best separate editions are those of Klotz, Bremae, 1764, 8vo; of Francke, in his edition of Callinus, 1816, 8vo; of Didot, with an elegant French translation, a Dissertation on the poet's life, and a modern Greek version by Clonaras, Paris, 1826, 8vo; and of Bach, with the remains of the elegiac poets Callinus and Asius, Lips., 1831, 8vo. 3. ARCHIL6CHUS ('ApXiAoXos). The biography of this poet belongs properly to the head of Iambic poetry, since it was on his satiric iambic poetry that his fame was founded. This union of elegiac and iambic poetry, however, in the same person, often appears after this. The same poet who employs the elegy to express his joyous and melancholy emotions, had recourse to the iambus,where his cool sense prompts him to censure the follies of mankind. The elegies of Archilochus, of which considerable fragments are extant, had nothing of that bitter spirit of which his iambics were full, but they contain the frank expression of a mind powerfully affected by outward circumstances. Nor are they quite wanting in the warlike spirit of Callinus, although he was not ashamed to avow in verse 1 Aristot., Polit., v. 7, 1; Paues., iv., 8, 2. 2 Paus., iv., 14, 3. D

Page  74 74 GREEK LITERATURE. that he had on one occasion incurred the disgrace of having lost his shield in an engagement with the Thracian foe.l 4. SIMONiDES (SLWIGVsS), of Amorgus, like Archilochus, properly belongs to the iambic school of poetry, and will be more fully noticed under that head. He composed an elegy in two books, which appears, from all that we can ascertain respecting it, to have been akin to the Eunomzia of Tyrteus. 5. MIMNERMUS (Miu'Vepp.os),2 a celebrated elegiac poet, generally called a Colophonian,3 but, from a fragment of his poem entitled Nanno, it appears that he was descended from those Colophonians who reconquered Smyrna from the _Eolians,' and that, strictly speaking, Smyrna was his birth-place. Mimnermus flourished from about B.C. 634 to the age of the seven sages (about B.C. 600). He was a contemporary of Solon, who, in an extant fragment of one of his poems, addresses him as still living.5 No other biographical particulars respecting him have come down to us, except what is mentioned in a fragment of Hermesianax,6 of his love for a flute-player named Nanno, who does not seem to have returned his affection.7 The numerous compositions of Mimnermus were preserved for several centuries, comprised in two books, until they were burned, together with most of the other monuments of the erotic poetry of the Greeks by the Byzantine monks. A few fragments only have come down to us; sufficient, however, when compared with the notices contained in ancient writers, to enable us to form a tolerably accurate judgment of the nature of his poetry. These fragments belong chiefly to a poem entitled Nanno, and addressed to the flute-player of that name. The compositions of Mimnermus form an epoch in the history of elegiac poetry. Although the elegy had, from its first beginnings, a mournful tendency, and had been awarded a preference in odes of a funebrial and melancholy character by Archilochus and other early poets, Mimnermus is the first author who peculiarly and systematically adapted it to the more tender class of plaintive subjects. Though warlike themes were not altogether unnoticed by him, and though the subjection of a large part of Ionia, and especially of his native city, to the Lydian yoke, could not fail to produce a strong feeling of melancholy, yet he seems, on the whole, to have spoken of valorous deeds more in a tone of regret, as things that had been, than with any view of rousing his countrymen to imitate them. The instability of human happiness, the helplessness of man, the cares and miseries to which life is exposed, the brief season that man has to enjoy himself in, the wretchedness of old age, are plaintively dwelt upon by him, while love is held up as the only consolation that men possess, life not being worth having when it can no longer be enjoyed. The latter topic was most frequently dwelt upon, and as an erotic poet he was held in high estimation in antiquity.8 1 Muller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 113. 2 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v.; Muller, p. 115. 3 Strab., xiv., p. 643. 4 Id. ib., p. 634. 3 Diog. Laert., i., 60; Bergk, Poette Lyrici Grceci, p. 331.. 6 Athen., xiii., p. 597. 7 Compare, however, AMure, Crit. Hist., vol. iii., p. 334, where a different opinion is expressed s Hor. PFpist. ii., 2, 100; Propert., i., 9, 11.

Page  75 POETICAL PERIOD. 75 From the general character of his poetry, Mimnermus received the appellation of Alyvotsciaqs or AlyOvar'drsr. He was a flute-player as well as a poet,l and in setting his poems to music he made use of the plaintive melody called the Normos kradias. So highly appreciated, indeed, were the claims of Mimnermus to novelty, if not to absolute originality, as regards the plaintive character of his elegies, and so marked the terms in which they were asserted by his admirers, as to have led superficial critics, both ancient and modern, to admit him, in the face of insuperable chronological difficulties, to a competition with Callinus and Archilochus for the honor of inventing the elegiac measure itself. Setting aside, however, this more fanciful title to priority, Mimnermus enjoys, perhaps deservedly, the same pre-eminence among erotic poets of the elegiac order, as Sappho among the cultivators of the melic branches of erotic poetry.2 The fragments of Mimnermus have been several times published, in the collections of Stephens, Brunck, Gaisford, Boissonade, and Bergk. There is a separate edition by Bach, Lips, 1826. 6. SOLON (:XVwv), the celebrated legislator of Athens, also appears in the list of elegiac poets, but, like Archilochus, and Simonides of Amorgus, he belongs to that class which cultivated iambic verse as well as elegiac, and will therefore be considered under both heads. Of his poems several fragments remain. The whole number of extant verses is about two hundred and seventy-five. Of these upward of two hundred are in elegiac measure; between thirty and forty are iambic trimeters; of the remainder, sixteen are trochaic tetrameters; five alone are in purely relic style. The two hexameter verses, which make up the sum total of the collection, are of questionable authenticity. They are cited by Plutarch in reference to a tradition, of which he himself appears to make but little account, that Solon had originally intended to draw up his code in a metrical form; and of this legislative poem they profess to be the exordium.3 The longest passage of the collection, comprising seventy-six elegiac verses, in essentially gnomic4 style, may be considered as a fair and favorable sample of the general character of Solon's poetry. It contains a summary of his views relative to the tenor of his life and conduct, forming evidently a portion of his " Reflections on his own Affairs," which last was the title of one of the works ascribed to him by the ancients. The doctrines inculcated are sound, often original and striking; are expressed with a vigor and terseness sometimes bordering on abruptness, and are illustrated by some spirited imagery. He comments, in equally emphatic but less querulous terms than Mimnermus, on the ephemeral nature of human enjoyments; dwells on the blessings of a clear conscience and a contented mind; condemning the insatiable thirst of mortals for the possession of a happiness beyond their reach, and their wayward caprice in its pursuit. The whole is pervaded by a deep tone of religious feeling and dependence 5 1 Strab., iv., p. 643; Hermesianax ap. Athen., 1. c. 2 Mure, Crit. Hist., vol. iii., p. 339. 3 Id. ib., p. 363. 4 This term will be explained under the article Theognis. 5 Mitre, Crit. Hist., vol. iii,, p. 364, Compare Miiller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 119.

Page  76 76 GREEK. LITERATURE. Another bulky text, or series of texts, of a more strictly political tendency, composed, it would appear, about or shortly prior to the epoch of his legislative undertaking, describes in the same elegiac measure, and in equally spirited language, the evils which led his fellow-countrymen to resort to his healing interposition.' Of the Salaminian ode, the most remarkable of all Solon's productions, and by which, as is well known, he sought to stimulate the Athenians to reconquer the island of Salamis, only eight elegiac verses are extant, composed in a spirited vein of patriotism. The merits of Solon as an encourager of literature are chiefly concentrated around his regulations for the more orderly recital of the Homeric poems in the public festivities, to which we have already alluded. He has also the credit of having interpolated verse 558 of the Catalogue of the Forces, in support of the claims of Athens to the possession of Salamis. It was in the time of Solon that Thespis introduced his improvements in the drama, according to the commonly received account, and on this assumption is founded the story told by Diogenes Laertius2 of Solon's having expressed great anger at these dramatic entertainments, on the ground of the deception connected with them. That the whole account, however, is a mere fable, is sufficiently clear even upon chronological grounds, since the first introduction of these entertainments at Athens (535 B.C.) took place twenty years after the death of Solon.3 The fragments of Solon are usually incorporated in the collections of the Greek gnomic poets, as, for example, in those of Sylburg, Brunck, and Boissonade. They are also inserted in the collections of Gaisford and Schneidewin, and in Bergk's Poetce Lyrici Greeci. There is likewise a separate edition by Bach, Lugd. Bat., 1825. The select correspondence of Solon with Periander, Pisistratus, Epimenides, and Crcesus, with which Diogenes Laertius has favored us, is of course spurious. 7. THEOGNIS (04eoy?,s) of Megara was an elegiac and gnomic poet, whose reputed works form the most extensive collection of gnomic poetry that has come down to us under any one name; but, unfortunately, the form in which these remains exist is altogether unsatisfactory. The term "Gnomic" (from yY?3jaL, " maxims," or " apophthegms") appears to have been originally invented, as it was exclusively employed, to denote a school of elegiac poetry, the object of which was to inculcate moral doctrines, rather than express mental emotions; to enforce maxims of worldly wisdom in their more immediate bearings on objects of special interest to the author or his public. The characteristic, consequently, of the gnomic style was a sententious gravity, savoring often more of philosophy than of poetry.4 Most of our information respecting the life of Theognis is derived from his own writings. He was a native of Megara, the capital of Megaris, and flourished B.C. 548 or 544. It is evident, from passages in his po1 Mure, 1. c. 2 Diog. Laert., i., 59. 3 Mure, Crit. Hist., vol. iii., p. 359, where the error of Grote (vol. iii., p. 194) and of Smith (Dict. Biog., s. v.) is noted, both of whom place this very palpable fable respecting Thespis among the ascertained historical facts of Solon's life. 4 Mure, 1. c.

Page  77 POETICAL PERIOD. 77 ems, that he lived till after the commencement of the Persian wars, B.C. 490. Theognis was born and spent his life in the midst of a series of conflicts between the aristocracy and the popular party in Megara, producing several revolutions and counter-revolutions, and the consequent banishing and return of exiles. Theognis belonged to the party of the nobility, being himself noble by birth. In one of these revolutions, when a division was made of the property of the nobles, Theognis lost his all, and was cast out as an exile, barely escaping with his life. In his verses he pours out his indignation upon his enemies, laments the folly of the bad pilots by whom the vessel of the state had been often wrecked, and speaks of the common people with unmeasured contumely. It is inter-. esting to observe in him, on these occasions, the employment of certain terms in their early or political meaning, as contradistinguished fiom their later and ethical one, although, even in his own verses, this ethical meaning is not absolutely unknown, but only rare. Thus, by &yaOof, edAOXo, Xp77'rot, &c., are commonly meant the noble or upper classes, and by caKof, &eLXot, &c., the lower orders, the mean.l Most of these political verses are addressed to a certain Cyrnus, the son of Polypas, for it is now generally admitted that the name noAvira'&Vs, which has been sometimes supposed to refer to a different person, is to be understood as a patronymic, and as applying to Cyrnus. From the verses themselves, as well as from the statements of the ancient writers, it appears that Cyrnus was a young man toward whom Theognis cherished a warm and firm friendship. The other fragments of the poetry of Theognis are of a social, most of them of a festive character. They place us, as Miiller remarks, in the midst of a circle of friends, who formed a kind of eating society, like the philitia of Sparta, and like the ancient public tables of Megara itself.2 All the members of this society belonged to the class whom the poet calls "the good." The collection of gnomic poetry, which has come down to us under the name of TheogniS, contains, however, many additions from later poets. The genuine fragments contain much that is highly poetical in thought, and elegant as well as forcible in expression. There are two standard modern editions of the remains of Theognis, that of Bekker, who has preserved the order of the MSS., Lips., 1815, and 2d ed., 1827, 8vo; and that of Welcker, who has rearranged the verses, Francof., 1826, 8vo. There is also an edition of the text, with critical notes, by Orelli, Turic., 1840, 4to. The poems are also contained in several modern collections, and particularly in Schneidewin's Delectus Poesis Grcecorum, G6tting., 1838, 8vo; Bergk's Poettc Lyrici Greeci, Lips., 1843, 8vo, and in Gaisford's Poetec Minores Graeci, Oxon., 1814-1820; Lips., 1823, 8vo. 8. PHOCYLiDES (4'oncvxf8?s) of Miletus, an Ionian poet, was contemporary with Theognis, both having been born, according to Suidas, in the 55th Olympiad, B.C. 560, which agrees with Eusebius, who places Phocylides at 01. 60 (B.C. 540) as a contemporary of the lyric poet Simonid~ Welcker, Prolegom. ad Theogn. Compare Grote, Hist. Gr., vol. iii., p. 62, 1/,.a 2 M2iller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 123.

Page  78 78 GREEK LITERATURE. According to Suidas, he wrote epic poems and elegies, among which were r1apaLveYeLS or rviCLaL, which were also called KEcpdXaLa. This gnomic poetry shows the reason why Suidas calls him a philosopher. Most of the few fragments we possess are of this character; and they display that contempt for birth and station, and that love for substantial enjoyment, which always marked the Ionian character. The didactic character of his poetry is shown by the frequent occurrence of verses beginning Kal TrdeE coWKcvu[EW. These words no doubt formed the heading of each of those sections (KeptcXhata), in which, as we have seen from Suidas, the poems of Phocylides were arranged. We possess only about eighteen short fragments of his poems, of which only two are in elegiac metre, and the rest in hexameters. They have been included in all the chief collections of the lyric and gnomic poets, from that of Constantine Lascaris, Venet., 1494, 1495, 4to, down to those of Gaisford, Schneidewin, and Bergk. There is a separate edition by Schier, Lips., 1751. 9. XENOPHANES (Aevoq0dxl/s) of Colophon, who, about the 68th Olympiad (508 B.C.), founded the celebrated Eleatic school of philosophy,l at an earlier period, while he was still living at Colophon, gave vent to his thoughts and feelings on the circumstances surrounding him in the form of elegies. These elegies were symposiac in their character. There is preserved in Athenaeus a considerable fragment, in which the beginning of a symposium is described with much distinctness and elegance. In his elegies, also, we see exhibited the direction of his mind toward investigation, and his earnest view of life. He derides in them the Pythagorean doctrine of the migration of souls;2 makes good the claims of wisdom in opposition to the excessive admiration of the bodily strength and activity by which the victory was gained in athletic games;3 lashes the effeminate luxury of the Ionians, which they had imitated from the Lydians,4 &c. The fragments of Xenophanes are contained in the collections of Schneidewin and Bergk: there is a separate edition by Karsten, Bruxell., 1830.5 10. SIMONIDES (.wZ'6v[8t7S) of Ceos, one of the most celebrated lyric poets of Greece, was the perfecter of the elegy and epigram, and the rival of Lasus and Pindar in the dithyramb and the epinician ode. As a lyric poet, however, he will be considered elsewhere. He is stated to have been victorious at Athens over.LEschylus himself, in an elegy in honor of those who fell at Marathon, the Athenians having instituted a contest of the chief poets. The ancient biographer of.Eschylus, who gives this account, adds in explanation that the elegy requires a tenderness of feeling which was foreign to the character of YEschylus. To what degree Simonides possessed this quality, and, in general, how great a master he was of the pathetic, is proved by his celebrated lyric piece containing the lament of Danai, and by other remains of his poetry. Simonides likewise, like Archilochus and others, used the elegy as a plaintive song for the deaths of individuals; at least the Greek Anthology contains several pieces of Simonides, which appear to be not entire epigrams, but fragi Plat., Soph., p. 242; Arist., Met., ii., 5. Compare Cousin, Nouveaua Frag. Philos., p. 9, seqq. 2 Frag. xviii, 3 Frag. xix. 4 Frag. xx. 6 Miller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 124; Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v.

Page  79 POETICAL PERIOD. 79 ments of longer elegies lamenting with heartfelt pathos the death of persons dear to the poet. Among these are the verses concerning Gorgo, who, dying, utters these words to her mother: " Remain here with my father, and become, with a happier fate, the mother of another daughter, who may tend you in your old age."' XIII. This place is the most convenient for mentioning a subordinate kind of poetry, namely, the Epigram, as the elegiac form was the best suited to it, although there are also epigrams composed in hexameters and other metres. EPIGRAM 2 XIV. The Epigramn (eZriTypcala) was originally, as Its name imports, an znscription either on a tombstone, or on a votive offering in a temple, or on any other object which required explanation. Afterward, from the analogy of these real epigrams, thoughts excited by the view of any object, and which might have served as an inscription, were called epigrams, and expressed in the same form. That this form was the elegiac may have arisen from the circumstance that epitaphs appeared closely allied to laments for the dead, which, as we have before remarked, were composed in this metre. However, as this elegy comprehended all the events of life which caused a strong emotion, so the epigram might be equally in place on a monument of' war, and on the sepulchral pillar of a beloved kinsman or friend. XV. The unexpected turn of thought and the pointedness of expression, which the moderns consider as the essence of this species of composition, were not required in the ancient Greek epigram; in this nothing more is requisite than that the entire thought should be conveyed within the limits of a few distichs; and thus, in the hands of the early poets, the epigram was remarkable for the conciseness and expressiveness of its language; differing in this respect from the elegy, in which a full vent was given to the feelings of the poet. XVI. Epigrams were probably composed in an elegiac form, shortly after the time when the elegy first arose; and the collection which has come down to us contains some under the celebrated names of Archilochus, Sappho, and Anacreon. No peculiar character, however, is to be observed in the genuine epigrams of this early period. It was Simonides of Ceos who first gave to the epigram the perfection of which, consistently with its purpose, it was capable. In this respect Simonides was favored by the circumstances of his time; for, on account of the high consideration which he enjoyed both in Athens and throughout the Peloponnesus, he was frequently employed by the states which had fought against the Persians, to adorn with inscriptions the tombs of their fallen warriors. The best and most celebrated of these epitaphs is the inimitable inscription on the Spartans who died at Thermopylae, which actually existed on the spot: " Stranger, tell the Lacedaemonians that we are lying here in obedience to their laws."3 Never was heroic courage expressed with such calm and unadorned grandeur. 1 Miiller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 125. 2 Ib., p. 126, seqq. 3 Simonides, Frag. 27, ed. Gaisf.

Page  80 80 GREEK LITERATURE. XVII. There are, besides,not a few epigrams of Simonides, which were intended for the tombstones of individuals; among these we will mention only one, which differs from the others in being a sarcasm in the form of an epitaph. It is that on the Rhodian lyric poet and athlete Timocreon, an opponent of Simonides in his art: " Having eaten much, and drunk much, and said much evil of other men, here I lie, Timocreon the Rhodian."1 XVIII. With the epitaphs are naturally connected the inscriptions on sacred offerings, especially where both refer to the Persian war; the former being the discharge of a debt to the dead, the latter a thanksgiving of the survivors to the gods. Among the best of these is one referring to the battle of Marathon, which, from the neatness and elegance of the expression, loses its chief beauty in a prose translation. It was inscribed on the statue of Pan, which the Athenians had set up in a grotto under their Acropolis, because the Arcadian god had, according to the popular belief, assisted them at Marathon. "Miltiades set me up, the clovenfooted Pan, the Arcadian, who took part against the Medes, and with the Athenians." The original runs as follows: Tbov pa-y6irovv ey l Halva, 6bv'ApKCiaa, T'v KaTa M8iowv, Tbv fUeT"'AOrvacoov, n'or'aT'o M.tAtdci8s.2 XIX. But Simonides sometimes condescended to express sentiments which he could not have shared, as in the inscription on the tripod consecrated at Delphi, which the Greeks afterward caused to be erased, " Pausanias, the commander of the Greeks, having destroyed the army of the Medes, dedicated this memorial to Phcebus." These verses express the arrogance of the Spartan general, which the good sense and moderation of the poet would never have approved. The form of nearly all these epigrams of Simonides is the elegiac. Simonides usually adhered to it, except when a name (on account of a short between two long syllables) could not be adapted to the dactylic metre, as, for instance,'ApXEvaYv1'TS,'I?7r&~zlKos: in which cases he employed trochaic measures. The character of the language, and especially the dialect, also remained, on the whole, true to the elegiac type, except that, in inscriptions for monuments designed for Doric tribes, traces of the Doric dialect sometimes occur. XX. The term Anthology is peculiarly appropriated to a collection of epigrams. The largest portion of those collected in the Greek Anthology, as it exists at the present day, was written in honor of the dead, introducing their names and characters, or occupations; or as tributes to beauty, in gratitude for acceptance, or in complaint on account of rejection; some of them are panegyrics on living and illustrious virtue; others contain brief records of remarkable events; others, again, consist of observations on human life, for the most part in a dark style of coloring. The weariness of old age, the shortness and unsatisfactory tenor of human life, the murmurs of sickness, and the miseries of poverty, are favorite topics. Bacchanalian poetry is mixed up with exhortations to eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. This prevailing tendency must be ascribed to the vague notions, undefined prospects, and differently sustained hopes respecting Frag. 58. 2 Ib), 25.

Page  81 POETICAL PERIOD. 81 our transition into some other state of existence, by which the philosophers, poets, and ordinary men of those times were equally perplexed. But, however gloomy this view of things might be, it was compatible with a not unpleasing pathos, and raised their amatory and convivial effusions above vulgar voluptuousness or mere festive riot.l LITERARY HISTORY OF THE GREEK ANTHOLOGY.2 I. The earliest known collection of inscriptions was made by the geographer Polemon (B.C. 200), in a work rEpi 7TWV KCaTa 7r'XEIS E'7riypa/Lj.uaTcrI.3 He also wrote other works on votive offerings, which probably contained the epigrammatic inscriptions on them. Similar collections were made by Alcetas, 7repl rTv iv AcEXpo7s &aa0,ei-ct'T;4 by Menetor, Ev Tj w7repl avaOvl/aTwcov;5 and perhaps by Apellas Ponticus. These persons collected chiefly the inscriptions on offerings (&vaOil/aTa). Epigrams of other kinds were also collected, as the Theban Epigrams, by Aristodemus;6 the Attic, by Philochorus; and others by Neoptolemus of Paros,7 and Euhemerus.8 II. The above compilers chiefly collected epigrams of particular classes, and with reference to their use as historical authorities. The first person who made such a collection solely for its own sake, and to preserve epigrams of all kinds, was MELEAGER, a Cynic philosopher of Gadara, in Palestine, about B.C. 60. His collection contained epigrams by no less than forty-six poets of all ages of Greek poetry, up to the most ancient lyric period. He entitled it the Garland (S:r~davos), with reference, of course, to the common comparison of small beautiful poems to flowers; and, in the introduction to his work, he attaches the names of various flowers, shrubs, and herbs, as emblems, to the names of the several poets. The same idea is kept up in the word Anthology (avOoGAoya), or "nosegay," which was adopted by the next compiler as the title of his work. The Garland of Meleager was arranged in alphabetical order, according to the initial letters of the first line of each epigram. III. In the time of Trajan, as it seems, PHILIP of THESSALONICA compiled his Anthology ('AOoXoTya), avowedly in imitation of the Garland of Meleager, and chiefly with the view of adding to that collection the epigrams of more recent writers. The arrangement of this work was the same as that of Meleager. It was also entitled mrE-pavos, as well as avOoAoya. Another title by which it is quoted is ovAAXoy? viEco'v'reypa/q/d7TWr. Shortly after Philip, in the reign of Hadrian, the learned grammarian, DIOGENIANUS of Heraclea, compiled an Anthology, which is entirely lost. It might, perhaps, have been well if the same fate had befallen the very polluted, though often beautiful collection of his contemporary, Straton of Sardis. About the same time, Diogenes Laertius collected the epigrams, which are interspersed, in his lives of the philosophers, into a separate book, under the title of i 7rd/y.ETrpos. This collection, however, as containing only the poems of Diogenes himself, must rather be viewed as 1 Penny Cyclop., vol. ii., p. 95. 2 Smith, Dict. Biog., s. v. Planudes. 3 Athen., x., p. 436, d.; p. 442, e. 4 Id., xiii., p. 591, c. 5 Id. ib., p. 594, d. 6 Schol. in Apoll. Rhod., ii., 906. 7 Athen., x., p. 454,f. s Lactant., Instit. Div., i., 9; -Cic, N. D., i., 42. F

Page  82 82 GREEK LITERATURE. among the materials of the later Anthologies than as an Anthology in itself. IV. During the long period from the decline of original literature to the era when the imitative compositions of the Constantinopolitan grammarians had reached their height, we find no more Anthologies. The next was the KvKXos EirTypalzadTcwy of AGATHIAS SCHOLASTICUS, who lived in the time of Justinian. It was divided into seven books, according to subjects, and was the earliest Anthology so arranged. The poems included in it were those of recent writers, and chiefly those of Agathias himself and of his contemporaries, such as Paulus Silentiarius and Macedonius. V. Next in order is the Anthology of CONSTANTINUS CEPHALAS, called also the Palatine Anthology. Constantinus Cephalas appears to have lived about four centuries after Agathias, and to have flourished in the tenth century, under the Emperor Constantinus Porphyrogennetus.1 The labors of preceding compilers may be viewed as merely supplementary to the Garland of Meleager; but the Anthology of Cephalas was an entirely new collection from the preceding Anthologies and from original sources. Nothing is known of Cephalas himself. Modern scholars had never even heard his name till it was brought to light by the fortunate discovery of Salmasius. That great scholar, when a very young man, visited Heidelberg about the end of the year 1606, and there, in the library of the Electors Palatine, he found the MS. collection of Greek epigrams, which was afterward removed to the Vatican, with the rest of the Palatine library, in 1623, and has become celebrated under the names of the Palatine Anthology, and the Vatican Codex of the Greek Anthology. This MS. was transferred to Paris upon the peace of Tolentino in 1797; and, after the peace of 1815, it was restored to its old home at Heidelberg, where it now lies in the University library. VI. Salmasius at once saw that it was quite a different work from the Planudean Anthology (to be mentioned presently). He collated it with Weichel's edition of the same work, and copied out those epigrams which were not contained in the latter. The work thus discovered soon became known among the scholars of the day as the Anthologia inedita codicis Palatini. The MS. is written on parchment, of a quarto form, though somewhat longer than it is broad, and contains 710 pages, without reckoning three leaves at the commencement, which are stuck together, and which are also full of epigrams. The writing is by different hands, of different ages. The most ancient handwriting is supposed to be of the eleventh century. The time of the others can not be fixed with any certainty. Of the compiler Cephalas, and his labors, the only mention made is in the MS. itself. In one passage (p. 81) a marginal scholium states that Cephalas arranged the Garland of Meleager, dividing it into different chapters; namely, amatory, dedicatory, monumental, and epideictic. The work itself, however, shows that this is not all that Cephalas did, and that the mention of Meleager, and of the titles of each section, are only given by way of example. VII. The Anthology of Cephalas seems to have been compiled from the I Smith, Diet. Bzogr., p. 387.

Page  83 POETICAL P RIOD. 83 old Anthologies, as a basis, with the addition of other epigrams. He appears to have extracted in turn from Meleager, Philip, Agathias, &c., those epigrams which suited his purpose, and his work often exhibits traces of the alphabetical order of the Garland of Meleager. With respect to arrangement, he seems to have taken the KvlcXos of Agathias as a foundation, for both works are alike in the division of their subjects, and in the titles prefixed to the epigrams. The order of the books, however, is different, and one book of Agathias, namely, the descriptions of works of art, is altogether omitted by Cephalas. It is also to be observed that the Palatine Anthology contains ancient epigrams which had not ap. peared in any of the preceding Anthologies, but had been preserved in some other way. VIII. Last in order is the Anthology of PLANUDES, a learned monk of the last age of the Greek empire. It is arranged in seven books, each of which, except the fifth and seventh, is divided into chapters, according to subjects, and these chapters are arranged in alphabetical order. The chapters of the first book, for example, run thus: 1. Els'AYCoas. 2. Ets a/.LreXoY. 3. Eir &VaOtaTara, and so on, to 91. El's 6pas. According to Brunck and Jacobs, Planudes did little more than abridge and rearrange the Anthology of Cephalas. Only a few epigrams are found in the Planudean Anthology which are not in the Palatine. From the time of its first publication at the end of the fifteenth century, down to the discovery of the Palatine Anthology in the seventeenth, the Planudean Anthology was esteemed one of the greatest treasures of antiquity, and was known under the name of the Greek Anthology. Planudes, however, was but ill qualified for the duties of editor of such a work. Devoid of true poetical taste, he brought to his task the conceit and rashness of a mere literatus. The discovery of the Palatine Anthology soon taught scholars how much they had over-estimated the worth of the Anthology of Planudes. On comparing the two collections, it is manifest that Planudes was not only guilty of the necessary carelessness of a mere compiler, but also of the willful faults of a conceited monk, tampering with words, " expurgating" whole couplets and epigrams, and interpolating his own frigid verses. He reaped the reward which often crowns the labors of bad editors who undertake great works. The pretensions of his compilation insured its general acceptance, and prevented not only the execution of a better work, which in that age could scarcely be hoped for, but, what.was far more important, the multiplication of copies of the more ancient Anthologies; and thus modern scholars are reduced to one MS. of the Anthology of Cephalas, which, excellent as it is, leaves many hopeless difficulties for the critic. IX. The last and most perfect of the editions of the Planudean Anthology is that which was commenced by Hieronymus de Bosch, and finished after his death by Van Lennep, in 5 vols., 4to, Ultraj., 1795-1822. This splendid edition is not only useful for those who wish to read the Greek Anthology in the form in which it was compiled by Planudes, but it is valuable on account of the large mass of illustrative matter which it contains, including the notes of Huet, Sylburg, and other scholars; but above all for the metrical Latin versions of Grotius, which are esteemed by far thl

Page  84 84 GREEK LITERATURE. best of his productions in that department of scholarship, and which have never been printed except in this edition. The Greek text, however, is only a reprint of the Wechelian edition of 1600,1 with many of its worst errors uncorrected. X. In the years 1772-1776, appeared the Analecta Veterum Poetaeeum Grcecorum of Brunck, Argentorati, 3 vols. 8vo, which contains the whole of the Greek Anthology, besides some poems which are not properly included under that title. The epigrams of the Anthology were edited by Brunck, from a carefill comparison of the Planudean Anthology with various copies of the Vatican Codex; and they now appeared for the first time revised by a scholar competent to the task. Brunck also adopted a new arrangement, which certainly has its defects, but yet is invaluable for the student of the history of Greek literature. Discarding altogether the books and chapters of the early Anthology, he placed together all the epigrams of each poet, and arranged the poets themselves in chronological order, placing those epigrams, the authors of which were unknown, under the separate head of aiE'0rrocTa. XI. Important, however, as Brunck's edition was when it was published, it has been entirely superseded by the edition of Jacobs. The original plan of the last mentioned scholar was only to form a complete commentary on Brunck's Analecta, but the scarceness of copies of that work induced him to reprint it, omitting those parts which do not properly belong to the Greek Anthology, and carefully re-editing the whole. The result of his labors was a work which ranks most deservedly as the standard edition of the Greek Anthology. It is in 8 vols., or 13 parts, 8vo, viz., 4 vols. of the text, one of Indices, and three of Commentaries, divided into eight parts. In editing his Anthologia Grceca, Jacobs had the full benefit of the Palatine Anthology. Not content with the almost perfect transcript made by Spalletti in 1776, and which, from its having been purchased by Ernest II., duke of Gotha, for the library at Gotha, is commonly called the Apographum Gothanum, Jacobs availed himself of the services of Uhden, then Prussian ambassador at Rome, who collated the copy once more with the original codex in the Vatican. The important results are to be found in Jacobs' emendations of Brunck's text, in his corrections of many of Brunck's errors in the assignment of epigrams to wrong authors, and in his Appendix of 213 epigrams from the Vatican MS., which are wanting in the Analecta. In the mean time, he formed the design of rendering to scholarship the great service of printing an exact and complete edition of this celebrated codex. After the printing of the text was completed, the unlooked-for restoration of the MS. to the University library at Heidelberg afforded an opportunity for a new collation, which was made by Paulssen, who has given the results of it in The Wechelian edition (Francofurti, apud Claudium Marnium et Jo. Aubrium, 1600, fol.) is, in the text, a mere reprint of that of Stephanus, with few of its errors corrected, and many new ones introduced. It is, however, of considerable value, as it contains, besides some new scholia, and the notes of Obsopxus and Stephanus, the whole of the excellent commentary of Brodeeus. In spite of its faults, it remained for nearly two centuries, until the publication of Brunck's Analecta, the standard edition of the Greek Anthology.

Page  85 POETICAL PERIOD. 85 an Appendix to the third volume of Jacobs' Anthologia Palatina. This work may, therefore, be considered an all but perfect copy of the Palatine Codex, and is hence invaluable for the critical study of the Anthology. It was published at Leipsic, 1813-1817, in 3 vols. 8vo.1 XII. Immense, however, as were Jacobs'- services for the Greek Anthology, much has still been left for his successors to accomplish, in the further correction of the text, the investigation of the sources and forms of the earlier Anthologies, the more accurate assignment of many epigrams to their right authors, and the collection of additional epigrams, especially from recently-discovered inscriptions. The great scholars of Germany, such as Hermann, Welcker, Meineke, and others,2 have not neglected this duty; and, in particular, a new edition of the Anthology is said to be in preparation by Meineke, who is, perhaps, better qualified for the task than any other living scholar. CHAPTER XV. SECOND OR POETICAL PERIOD-continued. LYRIC POET RY-continued. II. IAMBIC VERSE.3 I. THE invention of Iambic verse, the rival of the Elegy in antiquity and early popularity, was familiarly ascribed by the ancients, as was that of many other metrical forms, to Archilochus.4 In the 1Margites, however, a poem of very early date, and assigned by Aristotle to Homer himself, iambic verses were introduced with heroic hexameters. It must be presumed, therefore, either that the respectable authors who attribute the invention of the former measure to Archilochus, differed from Aristotle as to the genuine antiquity of the llMargites, or that the term Invention, as here applied by them, relates merely to the regular poem of continuous trimeters, to which, in popular usage, the phrase Iambic measure was appropriated. II. But the nature and spirit of Iambic verse, still more, perhaps,than of the Elegy, entitle us to look, for its first beginnings at least, to the spontaneous effort of the primitive muse, rather than to the artifice of a politer age. The component elements of the elegy were contained in the old hexameter. It might very naturally occur, therefore, to an ingenious master of later times to invent a new form to suit a new purpose, by curtailing two syllables of every alternate verse; for such, in fact, is the t The following is its title: Anthologia Grceca, adfidem Codicis Palatini,'nunc Parisini, ex Apographo Gothano edita. Curavit, Epigrammata in Codice Palatino desiderata et Annotationem criticam adjecit F. Jacobs, &c. 2 Welcker, Sylloge.Epigramen. Grec., Bonn., 1828, 8vo, with Hermann's review in the Ephem. Lit. Lips., 1829, Nos. 148-151; and Welcker's reply, Abweisung der verungli2ckten Conjecturen des Herrnz Prof. Heermann, Bonn, 1829, 8vo; Cramer, Anecd., vol. iv., p. 366388, Oxon., 1838, &c. 3 Mure, Crit. Hist., vol. iii., p. 23, seqq. 4 Plut., De Mus., xxviii.; Clem. Alex., Strom., p. 308, &c.

Page  86 86 GREEK LITERATURE. whole amount of change in the mechanical structure of the measure. The Iambic, on the other hand, bears, perhaps above all other metres, in its very essence, the stamp of popular origin. It is, as Aristotle and other ancient critics have pointedly remarked, the metre of familiar discourse.' Hence, as the same critics observe, the frequency of its spontaneous occurrence in prose compositions, the justice of which remark may be easily verified by the test of experiment. The iambic measure, therefore, suggested itself instinctively to primitive genius, in any attempt to impart to the poetical treatment of a subject, not so much dignity or solemnity, as emphatic pungency and smartness. III. In its further cultivation, however, iambic verse, or, rather, the iambic trimeter, for in that form alone is its full excellence displayed, not only embraces, like the elegy, the treatment of every variety of subject, but as possessing, in a degree little short of the hexameter, the principle of continuity, which is wanting in the elegy, is qualified to treat those subjects with similar, if not the same ease, amplitude, and dignity as the hexameter itself. The perfection of iambic versification is the text of Aristophanes, where it will ever remain unsurpassed and unrivalled in variety and brilliancy of dramatic effect. IV. We' will now proceed to give a brief sketch of the lives and works of the most eminent among the early iambic poets of Greece. 1. ARCHILOCHUS ('ApxLAoXos), of whom some mention has already been made under the head of elegiac verse, but whose fuller biography belongs more properly to this place, was descended from a noble family who held the priesthood in the island of Paros. His father was Telesicles, and his mother a slave named Enipo. He flourished about 714-676 B.C. In the flower of his age, between 710 and 700 B.C., and probably after he had gained a prize for his hymn to Ceres,2 he went from Paros to Thasos, with a colony, of which one account makes him the leader. The motive for the emigration can only be conjectured. It was most probably the result of a political change, to which cause was added, in the case of Archilochus, a sense of personal wrongs. He had been a suitor to Neobfile, one of the daughters of Lycambes, who first promised and afterward refused to give his daughter to the poet. Enraged at this treatment, Archilochus attacked the whole family in an iambic poem, accusing Lycambes of perjury, and his daughters of the most abandoned lives. The verses were recited at the festival of Ceres, and produced such an effect that the daughters of Lycamrbes are said to have hung themselves through shame. The bitterness, moreover, which he expressed in his poems toward his native island seems to have arisen, in part, from the low estimation in which he was held, as being the son of a slave. Neither was he more happy at Thasos. He draws the most melancholy picture of his adopted country, which he at length quitted in disgustA. While at Thasos, he incurred the disgrace of losing his shield in an engagement with the Thracians of the opposite continent; but, like Alcaeus, under similar cir1 Arist., Rhet., iii., 1; Poet., xxiv. 2 Schol. in Aristoph., Av., 1762. 3 Plut., De Exil., 12, p. 604; Strab., xiv., p. 648; viii, p, 370, &c.

Page  87 POETICAL PERIOD. 87 cumstances, instead of being ashamed of the disaster, he recorded it in his verse. Plutarch states' that Archilochus was banished from Sparta the very hour that he had arrived there, because he had written in his poems that a man had better throw away his arms than lose his life. But Valerius Maximus says that the poems of Archilochus were forbidden at Sparta because of their licentiousness, and especially on account ofthe attack on the daughters of Lycambes.2 - The fact that the fame of Archilochus was spread in his lifetime over the whole of Greece, together with his unsettled character, render it probable that he made many journeys of which we have no account. It seems that he visited Siris, in Lower Italy, the only city of which he speaks well.3 At length he returned to Paros, and in a war between the Parians and the people of Naxos, he fell by the hand of a Naxian named Calondas, or Corax. Of the merits of Archilochus in elegiac verse we have already spoken. His fame, however, principally rested on his satiric iambic poetry, the first place in which was awarded to him by the consent of the ancient writers, who did not hesitate to compare him with Sophocles, Pindar, and even Homer; meaning, doubtless, that, as they stood at the head of tragic, lyric, and epic poetry respectively, so was Archilochus the first of iambic satirical writers; while some place him next to Homer, above all other poets.4 The Emperor Hadrian judged that the Muses had shown a special mark of favor to Homer in leading Archilochus into a different department of poetry. The Iambics of Archilochus expressed the strongest feelings in the most unmeasured language. The license of Ionian democracy, and the bitterness of a disappointed man, were united with the highest degree of poetical power to give them force and point. In countries and ages unfamiliar with the political and religious license which at once incited and protected the poet, his satire was blamed for its severity; and the emotion accounted most conspicuous in his verses was "rage," as we see in the line of Horace,5 "Archilochum proprio rabies armavit iambo," and in the expression of Hadrian, XvaGr'rcTas IdcIaovs, and his bitterness passed into a proverb,'ApXiXoXov 7raT E7s. But there must have been something more than mere sarcastic pow-. er; there must have been truth and delicate wit in the sarcasms of the poet, whom Plato does not hesitate to call the " very wise" (roeO oxpwordTov).' Quintilian also ascribes to him the greatest power of expression, displayed in sentences sometimes strong, sometimes brief, with rapid changes (quum validce, turn beeves vibrantesque sententice), the greatest life and nervousness (plurinmum vitae atque nervorum), and considers that whatever blame his works deserve is the fault of his subjects, and not of his genius.7 In the latter opinion the Greek critics seem to have joinedl.8 The best opportunity we have of judging of the structure of Archilochus's poetry, though not of its satiric character, is furnished by the Epodes of 1 Inst. Lacon., p. 239, b. 2 Val. Max., vi., 3, ext. 1. 3 Athen., xii., p. 523, d. 4 Dion Chrysost., Orat. 33, vol. ii., p. 5; Longin., xiii., 3; Vell. Paterc., i., 5; Cic., Orat., 2, &c. 5 Ep. ad Pis., 79 6 Plat., Repub., ii., p. 365. 7 Quint., x., 1, 60. 8 Plut., De Aud., 13, p. 45, a.

Page  88 88 GREEK LITERATURE. Horace, as we learn from that poet himself. Some manifest translations of Archilochus may be seen in the Epodes. The fragments of Archilochus are collected in Jacobs' Anthologia Graeca, Gaisford's Poeta3 Grceci Minores, Bergk's Poetce Lyrici Graci, and by Liebel, in his Archilochi Reliquice, Lips., 1812, 8vo (2d edit., Vienna, 1819). 2. SIMONIDES (~,0UWvi[77S) of Samos, or, as he is more usually designated, of Amorgos, has already, like Archilochus, been briefly alluded to under the head of the elegiac poets. He was the second, both in time and reputation, of the three principal iambic poets of the early period of Greek literature, namely, Archilochus, Simonides, and Hipponax.1 He was a native of Samos, whence he led a colony to the neighboring island of Amorgos, where he founded three cities, Minoa, zEgialus, and Arcesine, in the first of which he fixed his own abode.2 He flourished about B.C. 664. The iambic poems of Simonides were of two species, gnomic and satirical; and he is remarkable for the peculiar application which he made of the iambic metre; that is to say, he took not individuals,but whole classes of persons as the object of his satire. The most important of his extant fragments is a satire upon women, in which he derives the various, though generally bad qualities of women from the variety of their origin; thus, the uncleanly woman is derived from the swine; the cunning woman from the fox, the talkative woman from the dog, and so on. There is only one race created for the benefit of men, the woman sprung from the bee, who is fond of her work, and keeps faithful watch over her house.3 The fragments of Simonides of Amorgos have been edited, intermixed with those of Simonides of Ceos, and almost without an attempt to distinguish them, in the chief collections of the Greek poets; in Brunck's Analecta, and in Jacobs' Anthologia GroTca. There is an edition of the fragment on women by Koeler, with a prefatory epistle by Heyne, Gotting., 1781, 8vo. But the first complete edition was that of Welcker, published in the Rheinisches Museum for 1835, 2d series, vol. iii., p. 353, seqq., and also separately, under the title of Simonidis Amorgini lambi qui supersunt, Bonn., 1835, 8vo. The text of the fragments is also contained in Schneidewin's Delectus Poesis Graecorum, and in Bergk's Poetce Lyrici Grcci. 3. SOLON (xJcov) of Athens has been already mentioned, like the preceding, under the head of elegiac poets. After Solon had introduced his new constitution, he soon found that, although he had attempted to satisfy the claims of all parties, or, rather, to give to each party and order its due share. of power, he had not succeeded in satisfying any. In order to shame his opponents, he wrote some iambics, in which he calls on his censors to consider of how many citizens the state would have been bereaved, if he had listened to the demands of the contending factions. As a witness of the goodness of his plans, Solon calls the great goddess Earth, the mother of Saturn, whose surface had before this time been I Proclus, Chrestom., 7; Lucian., Pseudol., 2. 2 Compare Strab., x., p. 487; Steph. Byz., s. v.'Alxopy6s. 3 Miier, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 140.

Page  89 POETICAL PERIOD. 89 covered with numerous boundary-stones, in sign of the ground's being mortgaged; these he had succeeded in removing, and in restoring the land in full property to the mortgagers. This fragment is well worth reading, since it gives as clear an idea of the political situation of Athens at the time as it does of Solon's iambic style. It shows a truly Attic energy and address in defending a favorite cause, while it contains the first germs of that power of speech which afterward came to maturity in the dialogue of the Athenian stage, and in the oratory of the popular assembly and of the courts of justice. In the dialect and expressions, the poetry of Solon retains more of the Ionic cast.' The editions of the fragments of Solon have already been mentioned on page 76. 4. HIPPONAX ('I7rmrcva), a native of Ephesus, was, after Archilochus and Simonides, the third of the classical iambic poets of Greece. He flourished B.C. 546-520. Like others of the early poets, Hipponax was distinguished for his love of liberty. The tyrants of his native city having expelled him from his home, he took up his abode at Clazomenae, for which reason he is sometimes called a Clazomenian.2 He lived at the latter place in great poverty, and, according to one account, died of want. In person Hipponax was little, thin, and ugly, but very strong.3 The two brothers Bupalus and Athenis, who were sculptors of Chios, made statues of Hipponax, in which they caricatured his natural ugliness, and he, in return, directed all the power of his satirical poetry against them, and especially against Bupalus.4 Later writers add that the sculptors hanged themselves in despair. This, however, is probably a mere attempt to improve upon the resemblance between the stories of Archilochus and Hipponax, since Pliny contradicts the account of the suicide of Bupalus by referring to works of his which were executed at a later period. As for the fragment of Hipponax,5 Iz KXAaNotEvoLoi BovTraAAos KcarE'CTELeOEV if it really be his (for it is only quoted anonymously by Rufinus),6 instead of being considered a proof of the story, it should more probably be regarded as having formed, through a too literal interpretation, one source of the error. The satire of Hipponax, however, was not concentrated entirely on certain individuals; from existing fragments it appears rather to have been founded on a general view of life, taken, however, on its ridiculous or grotesque side. He severely chastised the luxury of his Ionian brethren; he did not spare his own parents; and he ventured even to ridicule the gods. His language is filled with words taken from common life, such as the names of articles of food, clothing, and of ordinary utensils current among the working people. He evidently strives to make his iambics local pictures full of freshness, nature, and homely truth. For this purpose, the change which Hipponax devised in the iambic metre was as felicitous as it was bold; he crippled the rapid agile gait of the iambic, by transforming the last foot from a pure iambus to a spondee, contrary I Mdlter, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 140, seq. 2 Sulpicia, Sat., v., 6. 3 Athen., xii., p. 552, c, d; /Elian, V. H., x., 6. 4 Plin., H. N., xxxvi., 5, 4; Horat., Epod., vi., 14; Lucian., Pseudol., 2. 5 Frag. vi., p. 29, Welcker, where Bergk gives'fl I KaoabvLtoc, BothraX6e s6 KreQvmS 6 p. 2712, Putsch.

Page  90 90 GREEK LITERATURE. to the fundamental principle of the whole mode of versification. The metre thus maimed and stripped of its beauty and regularity, adid technically made WPPvOpos, was a perfectly appropriate rhythmical form for the delineation of such pictures of intellectual deformity as Hipponax delighted in. As this new species of verse had hence a sort of halting movement, it obtained the name of Chloliamnbus (XwxLaup4ds), "lame iambic," or Iambus Scazbn (a1pl,8os mccowv), "limping iambic." Iambics of this kind are still more cumbrous and halting when the fifth foot is also a spondee; which, indeed, according to the original structure, is not forbidden. These last were called Ischiorrhogic, " broken-backed" (hrXLoP3PWyKOLi), and were invented by another iambographer named Ananius. They are very rarely used by Hipponax. The choliambics of Hipponax were imitated by many later writers; among others by Babrius, whose Fables are composed entirely in this metre.l Hipponax wrote also a parody on the Iliad. He may be said to occupy a middle place between Archilochus and Aristophanes. He is as bitter, but not so earnest as the former, while, in lightness and jocoseness, he more resembles the latter. There are still extant about a hundred lines of his poems which are collected by Welcker (Hipponactis et Ananii Jambographorum Fragmenta, G6tting., 1817, 4to), Bergk (Poete Lyrici Graci), Schneidewin (Delectus Poesis Grcecorum), and by Meineke, in Lachmann's edition of Babrius, Berol., 1845. 5. ANANIus ('AcdvLos), a Greek iambic poet, contemporary with Hipponax, flourished about 540 B.C. He is generally regarded as the inventor of ischiorrhogic iambics, of which we have just made mention. Ananius has hardly any individual character in literary history distinct from that of Hipponax. In Alexandrea their poems seem to have been regarded as forming one collection; and thus the criterion by which to determine whether a particular passage belonged to the one or the other was often lost, or never existed. Hence, in the uncertainty which is the true author, the same verse is occasionally ascribed to both.2 The few fragments which are attributed with certainty to Ananius are so completely in the tone of Hipponax, that it would be a vain labor to attempt to point out any characteristic difference. These fragments appear with those of Hipponax in the edition of Welcker, and in the collections mentioned in the previous article.3 FABLE AND PARODY.4 V. Akin to the Iambic are two kinds of poetry, which, though differing widely from each other, have both their source in the turn for the delineation of the ludicrous, and both stand in a close historical relation to the iambic: 1. FABLE, originally called aicvos, and afterward, less precisely, v0os and A&yos; and, 2. PARoDY. VI. WVith regard to Fable, it is not improbable that in other countries, particularly in the north of Europe, it may have arisen from a child-like, playful view of the character and habits of animals, which frequently sugMilnter, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 142; Smith, Dict. Biog;., s. v. 2 Athen., xiv., p. 625, c. Mitller, p. 143; Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v.;fMiller, 1. c.

Page  91 POETICAL PERIOD. 91 gest a comparison with the nature and incidents of human life. In Greece, however, it originated in an intentional travestie of human affairs. The abcos is, as its name denotes, an admonition, or rather a reproof, veiled, either from fear of an excess of frankness, or'from love of fun and jest, beneath the fiction of an occurrence happening among beasts. Such is the character of the alpos at its very first appearance in Hesiod.1 Archilochus employed the acos in a similar manner in his iambics against Lycambes.' In like manner Stesichorus cautioned his countrymen, the Himeraeans, against Phalaris, by the fable of the horse, who, to revenge himself on the stag, took the man on his back, and thus became his slave.3 VII. It is probable that the taste for fables of beasts, and numerous similar inventions, found their way into Greece from the East, since this sort of symbolical and veiled narrative is more in harmony with the Oriental than with the Greek character. Indeed, the very names given by the Greeks contain a distinct avowal of this. Thus, one kind of fable was called the Libyan, which we may, therefore, infer was of African origin, and was introduced into Greece through Cyrene. To this class belongs, according to 2Eschylus, the beautiful fable of the wounded eagle, who, looking at the feathering of the arrow with which he was pierced, exclaimed, " I perish by feathers drawn from my own wing."4 From this example, we see that the Libyan fable belonged to the class of fables of animals. So also did the sorts to which later teachers of rhetoric give the names of the Cyprian and the Cilician. The contest between the olive and the bay, on Mount Tmolus, is cited as a fable of the ancient Lydians.5 VIII. The Carian stories or fables, however, were taken from human life, as, for instance, that quoted by the Greek lyric poets, Timocreon and Simonides. A Carian fisherman, in the winter, sees a sea-polypus, and he says to himself, " If I (live to catch it, I shall be frozen to death; if i don't catch it, my children must starve."G The Sybaritic fables, mentioned by Aristophanes, have a similar character.7 Both the Sybaritic and LEsopian fables are represented by Aristophanes as jests or ludicrous stories (?yeXoa). As regards.LEsop himself, Bentley has shown that he was very far from being regarded by the Greeks as one of their poets, and still less as a writer. They considered him merely an ingenious fabulist, under whose name a number of fables, often applicable to human affairs, were current, and to whom, at a later period, nearly all that were either invented or derived from any other source were attributed. His history has been dressed out by the later Greeks with all manner of droll and whimsical incidents. What can be collected from the ancient writers down to Aristotle is, however, confined to the following: IX.,/Esop (Alofwros) was a slave of the Samian Iadmon, who lived in the time of the Egyptian king Amasis, the reign of which monarch begins B.C. 569. According to the statement of Eugeon, an old Samian historian, he was a native of the Thracian city of Mesembria, which existed 1 Op. et D., v. 202, seqq. 2 Frag. xxxviii., Gaisf. 3 Arist., Rhet., ii., 20. 4 Frag. Myrmid. 5 Frag. xciii., Bentl. 6 Walz, Rhet. Gr., vol. ii., p. 11. 7 Aristoph., Vesp., 1259, r427, 1437.

Page  92 92 GREEK LITERATURE. long before it was peopled by a colony of Byzantines in the reign of Darius. According to a less authentic account, he was from Cotyteum, in Phrygia. It seems that his wit and pleasantry procured him his freedom; for, though he remained in Iadmon's family, it must have been as a freedman, or he could not, as Aristotle relates, have appeared publicly as the defender of a demagogue, on which occasion he told a fable in support of his client. It is generally received as certain that ~Esop perished at Delphi; the Delphians, exasperated by his sarcastic fables, having put him to death on a charge of robbing the temple.' The fables now extant in prose, bearing the name of z.Esop, are unquestionably spurious. Of these there are three principal collections, the one containing 136 fables, published first A.D. 1610, from MSS., at Heidelberg. This is so clumsy a forgery, that it mentions the orator Demades, who lived 200 years after.Esop, and contains a whole sentence from the book of Job. Some of the passages Bentley has shown to be fragments of choliambic verses, and has made it tolerably certain that they were stolen from Babrius. The second collection was made by Maximus Planudes, the monk of Constantinople, living in the fourteenth century. The third collection was found in a MS. at Florence, and published in 1809. Its date is about a century before the time of Planudes.2 The two best editions of LEsop are, that of De Furia, containing the new fables from the Florentine MS., Florent., 1809, 8vo, reprinted at Leipsic, and also by Coray, at Paris, in the following year; and that of Schneider, Breslau, 1810, 8vo. X. Attempts were probably made at an early period to give a poetical form to the 2Esopian fable. Socrates is said to have thus beguiled his imprisonment. Demetrius Phalereus, following his example (B.C. 320), turned zEsop's fables into verse, and collected them in a book; and, after him, an author whose name is unknown, published them in elegiacs, of which some fragments are preserved by Suidas. But the only Greek versifier of 2Esop, of whose writings any whole fables are preserved, is BABRIUS (Bd/pios), called also BABRIAS (Ba3pSias), and sometimes GABRIAS (raSpias), an author of no mean powers, and who may well take his place among fabulists with Phaedrus and Lafontaine. He lived, in all probability, a little before the age of Augustus, and made his version in choliambics. This version consisted of ten books, of which only a few fragments were known until within a few years, when a manuscript, containing 123 fables, was discovered on Mount Athos. Later writers of Esopean fables, such as Maximus Planudes, probably turned the poems of Babrius into prose, but they did it in so clumsy a manner, that many choliambic verses may still be traced in their fables, as Bentley has shown in his Dissertation on the Fables of ZEsop,3 and as Tyrwhitt has proved still more clearly.4 The latest editions of Babrius are, that of Boissonade, Paris, 1844, 8vo; in which the newly-discovered fables first ap1 Muller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 146. 2 Smith, Diet. Biogr., s. v. 3 Appended to the Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris. 4" De Babrio, Fabularum XEsopearum Scriptore," Lond., 1776, reprinted at Erlangen, 1785, ed. Harles.

Page  93 POETICAL PERIOD. 93 peared; that of Lachmann, Berol., 1845; of Orelli and Baiter, Turic., 1845; and of Lewis, Lond., 1847. XI. The other kind of poetry to which we referred was Parody (7rap.pKga). This was understood by the ancients, as it is by ourselves, to mean an adoption of the form of some celebrated poem, with such changes in the matter as to produce a totally different effect; and generally to substitute mean and ridiculous for elevated poetical sentiments. This contrast between the grand and sublime images suggested to the memory, and the comic ones introduced in their stead, renders parody peculiarly fitted to place any subject in a ludicrous, grotesque, and trivial light. The purpose of it, however, was not, in general, to detract from the reverence due to the ancient poet (who, in most instances, was Homer) by this travesty, but only to add zest and pungency to the satire.' CHAPTER XVI. SECOND OR POETICAL PERIOD-continued. LYR IC P O E T R Y-conztinued. CONNECTION OF LYRIC POETRY WITH MUSIC.2 I. IN the Elegiac and Iambic styles of poetry, the former suited to the expression of grief, the latter to the expression of anger, hatred, and contempt, Greek poetry entered the domain of real life. Still, however, a great variety of new forms of poetry was reserved for the invention of future poets. The elegy and the iambic versification contained the germs of the lyric style, but the principal characteristic of lyric poetry, strictly so called, was its connection with music, vocal as well as instrumental. This connection, indeed, existed, to a certain extent, in epic, and still more in elegiac and iambic poetry; but singing was not essential in those styles. Such a recitation by a rhapsodist, as was usual for epic poetry, also served, at least in the beginning, for elegiac, and in great part for iambic verses. II. Singing, however, and a continued instrumental accompaniment, are appropriate where the expression of feeling or passion is inconsistent with a more measured and equable mode of recitation. Moreover, as the expression of strong feeling required more pauses and resting-places, the verses in lyric poetry, strictly so called, naturally fell into strophes of greater or less length, each of which comprised several varieties of metre, and admitted of an appropriate termination. This arrangement of the strophes was, at the same time, connected with dancing, which was naturally, though not necessarily, associated with lyric poetry in this its stricter sense. III. The Greek lyric poetry, therefore, in the stricter sense in which we are now considering it, was characterized by the expression of deeper and more impassioned feeling, and a more swelling and impetuous tone, 1 ailler, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 146. 2 Ib., p. 149.

Page  94 94! REEK LITERATURE. than the elegiac or iambic metre; and, at the same time, the effect was heightened by appropriate vocal and instrumental music, and often by the movements and figures of the dance. In this union of the sister arts, poetry was indeed predominant, and music and dancing were only employed to enforce and elevate the conceptions of the higher art. Yet music in its turn exercised a reciprocal influence on poetry; so that, as it became more cultivated, the choice of the musical measure decided the tone of the whole poem. IV. In order, therefore, that the character of the Greek lyric poetry, strictly so called, may be more clearly understood, some account must be given of early Grecian music. Not, indeed, a technical analysis of the art, which would be here quite out of place, but some remarks merely on its elementary history, in connection with brief sketches of the history of the primitive improvers of Greek musical science. V. The mythical traditions respecting Orpheus, Philammon, Chrysothemis, and other minstrels of the early times, being set aside, the history of Greek music begins with TERPANDER, the Lesbian,' who appears to have been properly the founder of it. He first reduced to rule the different modes of singing which prevailed in different countries, and formed out of these rude strains a connected system, from which the Greek music never departed throughout all the improvements and refinements of later ages. It is probable that Terpander belonged to a family who derived their practice of music from the ancient Pierian bards of Boeotia. The Eolians of Lesbos had their origin in Bceotia, the country to which the worship of the muses and the Thracian hymns belonged; and they probably brought with them the first rudiments of poetry. This migration of the art of the muses is ingeniously expressed by the legend, that, after the murder of Orpheus by the Thracian Meenads, his head and lyre were thrown into the sea, and borne upon its waves to Lesbos, whence singing and the music of the cithara flourished in this the most musical of islands. The grave supposed to contain the head of Orpheus was shown in Antissa, a small town of Lesbos;2 and it was thought that in that spot the nightingales sang most sweetly. In Antissa, also, according to the testimony of several ancient writers, Terpander was born. In this way, the domestic impressions and the occupations of his youth may have prepared Terpander for the great undertaking which he afterward performed. According to the best opinion, Terpander flourished between B.C. 700 and 650. Of his early life in Lesbos nothing is known. We find him subsequently removing from Lesbos to Sparta, where lie introduced his new system of music, and established the first musical school or system (KiaT-daTao-cr) that existed in Greece.3 Terpander's connection with Lacedeemon is said to have originated in an invitation by the Spartan rulers to visit their city during a period of intestine discord. This step was taken by them in obedience to an injunction of the Delphic priestess, by whom the Lesbian musician had been pointed out as the destined means of rec1 Pind. ap. Athen., xiv., p. 635, d; Plut., De Mus., 30, p. 1141, c; Suid., s. v. a Steph. Byz., s. v. "AYmt-ca. 3 Plut., Alas., 9, p. 1134, c.

Page  95 POETICAL PERIOD. 95 onciling the hostile factions. Such is said to have been the effect of his music on the Spartans, that the contending parties, dissolved in tears, embraced each other, and buried all previous differences in oblivion.' Fixing his abode in that city, he fulfilled, during the remainder of his life, the functions of state poet and musician amid universal admiration and esteem. After his death his memory was revered, and his compositions were regarded as models to all succeeding professors of citharcedic art. His system continued to flourish up to the time of his countryman Phrynis, whose innovations, about the period of the Persian war, were regarded as corruptions of the genuine Hellenic music.2 Great as was Terpander's fame, however, as an original genius, his merits would yet appear, from the more authentic notices, to have consisted less in actual discovery than in the adaptation, to Greek tastes and habits, of refinements of art already familiar to the cultivated nations of Asia. The most celebrated novelty for which he obtained credit was the invention of the seven-stringed lyre,3 by the addition of three chords to the old tetrachord instrument. This, however, can not be considered, nor has it been so understood by the more critical even of his own countrymen, as indicating the first actual construction of a stringed instrument with the compass of an octave. There can be no doubt that the more civilized nations of Asia possessed, before his time, instruments of equal or greater compass; and Terpander is stated, on no less authority than that of Pindar, to have founded his improvements of the Greek cithara on a Lydian instrument of two octaves, called a vmagadis, which, under the Greek name of 7rnKCTS or fplZL'oTY, he had also the merit (though this some modern critics doubt) of first introducing into Europe.4 Terpander is also the accredited inventor of the art of writing music;5 and there'can be little doubt of his having possessed a system of notation, forming the basis of that still in use. Here again, however, his services are probably to be understood rather in the way of adaptation to native Greek practice than of original discovery. Plutarch tells us that he set his own verses and those of Homer to certain citharcedic nomes, and sang them in the musical contests; and that he was the first who gave names to the various citharcedic nomes. These nomes were simple tunes, from which others could be derived by slight variations; and these latter were called /sAx. That the nomes of Terpander were entirely of his own composition is not very probable, and, indeed, there is evidence to prove that some of them were derived from old tunes, ascribed to the ancient bards, and others from national melodies. The remains of Terpander's poetry, which no doubt consisted entirely of religious hymns, consist of a few fragments, contained in the collections of Bergk and Schneidewin. VI. Another ancient master, the Phrygian OLYMPUS, so much enlarged the system of the Greek music, that Plutarch considers him, and not Terpander, to have been the founder of it. The date, and, indeed, the whole history of this Olympus, are involved in obscurity, by a confusion 1 aure, Crit. Hist., vol. iii., p. 39. 2 Id. ib. 3 Frag. Terpandri, 1, ap. Schneidewvin., Del. Poes. Gr., p. 237. 4 B6ckh, De Metr. Pind., p. 261; Frag..Pind., ix.; Mure, p. 41, 5 Platt., Mlus., 3.

Page  96 96 GREEK LITERATURE. between him (who is certainly as historical as Terpander) and a mythological Olympus, who is connected with the first founders of the Phrygian religion and worship. Even Plutarch, who, in his learned treatise upon music, has marked the distinction between the earlier and the later Olympus, has still attributed inventions to the fabulous Olympus which properly belong to the historical one. The ancient Olympus is quite lost in the dawn of mythical legends; he is the favorite and disciple of the Phrygian Silenus, Marsyas, who invented the flute, and used it in his unfortunate contest with the cithara of the Hellenic god Apollo.l The later Olympus, whom we are here considering, was a Phrygian, and perhaps belonged to a family of native musicians, since he was said to be descended from the first Olympus. He is placed by Plutarch at the head of auletic music, as Terpander stood at the head of the citharcedic; and, on account of his inventions in the art, Plutarch even assigns to him, rather than to Terpander, the honor of being the father of Greek music, as we have already remarked (apX?7ybs Ti-s'EAA7X7rKs icc Kal aXs jovoKLtcs).2 With respect to his age, Muller places him, for satisfactory reasons, after Terpander and before Thaletas, that is, between the 30th and 40th Olympiads, B.C. 660-620. Though a Phrygian by origin, Olympus must be reckoned among the Greek musicians, for all the accounts make Greece the scene of his artistic activity, and his subjects Greek; and he had Greek disciples, such as Crates and Hierax.3 He may, in fact, be considered as having naturalized in Greece the music of the flute, which had previously been almost peculiar to Phrygia. Of the particular tunes (vidot) ascribed to him, the most important was the'ApciuaTEsos voyos, a mournful and passionate strain, of the rhythm of which we are able to form an idea from a passage in the Orestes of Eu. ripides, which was set to it, as the passage itself tells us. A dirge also, in honor of the slain Python, was said to have been played by Olympus, at Delphi, and in the Lydian style. Olympus was a great inventor in rhythm as well as in music. To the two existing species of rhythm, the lYoo,, in which the arsis and thesis are equal (as in the dactyl and anapoest), and the 7~rAxdoiov, in which the arsis is twice the length of the thesis (as in the iambus and trochee), he added a third, the ijuodAIov, in which the length of the arsis is equal to two short syllables, and that of the thesis to three, as in the Cretic (' -), the Paeons (t_ - A, &c.), and the Bacchius (_' — ). There is no mention of any poems composed by Olympus.4 VII. THALTAS (OaXi'as), or THALES (OaAis), marks the third epoch in the history of Greek music. A native of Crete, he found means to express in a musical form the spirit which pervaded the religious institutions of his country, by which he produced a strong impression upon the other Greeks. He seems to have been partly a priest and partly an artist; and from this circumstance his history is veiled in obscurity. He is called a Gortynian, but is also said to have been born in Cnossus or l Mtller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 156. 2 Plut., Mus., p. 1133, e; 1135, c. 3 Id. ib., p. 1133, e; 1140, d; Poll., iv., 79. 4 Smith, Dict Biogr., s. v.

Page  97 POETICAL l'RIOD. 97 Elyrus.' In compliance, according to tradition, with an invitation which the Spartans sent to him in obedience to an oracle, he removed to Sparta, where, by the sacred character of his pleans, and the influence of his music, he appeased the wrath of Apollo, who had visited the city with a plague, and he composed the factions of the citizens, who were at enmity with one another.2 He introduced from Crete certain principles or elements of music and rhythm which did not exist in Terpander's system, and thereby founded the second of the musical schools which flourished at Sparta. The date of Thaletas is uncertain; he seems to have flourished about B.C. 670 or 660, and how much before or after these dates can not be determined. It appears not unlikely that he was already distinguished in Crete, while Terpander flourished at Sparta. We have no remains of his poetry. Plutarch and other writers speak of him as a lyric poet, and Suidas mentions, as his works, tEcXm1 and 7ro/.aJTd c' Tlva /VVIII. Terpander, Olympus, and Thaletas are distinguished by the salient peculiarities which belong to inventive genius. But it is difficult to find any individual characteristics in the numerous masters who followed them between the 40th and 50th Olympiads. By the efforts of these masters, however, music appears to have been brought to the degree of excellence at which we find it in the time of Pindar.3 CHAPTER XVII. SECOND OR POETICAL PERIOD-continued. LYR I C P O E T RY-continted. SCHOOLS OF LYRIC POETRY,4 ETC. I. THE Lyric Poetry proper of the Greeks, or Lyric poetry in the stricter sense of the term, is of two kinds, which were cultivated by different schools of poets, the name which is commonly given to poets living in the same country, and following the same rules of composition. Of these two schools one is called the iEolic, the other the Doric. II. The Folic school is so called because it flourished among the zEolians of Asia Minor, and particularly in the island of Lesbos. The Doric school was so called because, though it was diffused over the whole of Greece, yet it was first and principally cultivated by the Dorians in the Peloponnesus and Sicily.. The difference of origin appears also in the dialects of these two schools. The Lesbian school wrote in the YEolic dialect, as it is still to be found in' inscriptions in that island, while the Doric employed almost indifferently either a mitigated Dorism or the epic dialect, the dignity and solemnity of which was heightened by a limited use of Doric forms. III. These two schools differ essentially in every respect, as much in the subject as in the form and style of their poems. To begin with the 1 Suid., s. v.; lliiller, p. 159. 2 Pausan., i., 14, 4; Plut., Lycurg., 4. 3 Miller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 161. 4 Midller, p. 164. E

Page  98 ) 11 G R E: E KREE L'I E R AT Ul IE. mode of recitation: the Doric lyric poetry was intended to be executed by choruses, and to be sung to choral dances, whence it is sometimes called choral poetry. On the other hand, the rEolic is never called choral, because it was meant to be recited by a single person, who accompanied his recitation with a stringed instrument, generally the lyre, and with suitable gestures. The structure of the Doric lyric strophe is comprehensive, and often very artificial, inasmuch as the ear, which might perhaps be unable to detect the recurring rhythms, was assisted by the eye, which could follow the different movements of the chorus; and thus the spectator was able to understand the intricate and artificial plan of the composition. The.Eolic lyric poetry, on the other hand, was much more limited, and either consisted of verses joined together, or else it formed, of a few short verses, strophes in which the same verse is frequently repeated, and the conclusion is effected by a change in the versification, or by the addition of a short final verse. IV. The strophes of the Doric lyric poetry were also often combined, by annexing to two strophes corresponding with one another (the first technically called strophe, and the second antistrophe) a third and different one, called epode. The origin of this (according to the ancients) is that the chorus, having performed one movement during the strophe, returned to their former position during the antistrophe, and then remained motionless for a time, during which the epode is sung. The short strophes of the LEolic lyric poetry, on the other hand, follow each other in equal measure, and without being interrupted by epodes. The _/olic strophe is sometimes called, for distinction' sake, the Melic strophe; the Dorian, in like manner, the Choric strophe. V. It must not be inferred, however, from what is here stated, that poems for choral exhibition were never composed by the Eolic poets;'for choruses were undoubtedly performed in Lesbos, as well as in other parts of Greece. Several of the Lesbian lyric poems, of which we have fragments and accounts, appear to have been composed for choral recitation. But the characteristic excellence of this lyric poetry was the expression of individual ideas and sentiments with warmth and frankness. These sentiments formed a natural expression in the native dialect of these poets, the ancient AEolic, which has a character of simplicity and fondness; the epic dialect, the general language of Greek poetry, being only used sparingly, in order to soften and elevate this popular dialect. Unhappily, the works of these poets were allowed to perish at a time when they had become unintelligible from the singularity of their dialect, and the condensation of their thoughts. To this cause, and not to the warmth of their erotic descriptions, is to be attributed the oblivion to which they were consigned. For if literary works had been condemned on moral grounds of this kind, the writings of Martial and Petronius, and many poems of the Anthology, would not now exist, while Alcaeus and Sappho would probably be extant.l VI. Before entering, however, upon the biographies of the poets belonging to the two schools which we have just been considering, it will I Miller, p. 166.

Page  99 POETICAL PERIOD. 99 be proper to give a brief sketch of the orders and occasions of lyric performances, more particularly as many terms connected with these will occur in the course of those biographies, which it will be less convenient then to explain. ORDERS AND OCCASIONS OF LYRIC PERFORMANCE.! VII. The various modes of adapting lyric poetry to those festive rites, public or private, with which its higher cultivation was so vitally connected, have special claims on our attention,,since they supply one of the most striking- illustrations of the fertile genius and discriminating taste of the Greek nation. From Olympus down to the work-shop or the sheepfold, from Jove and Apollo to the wandering mendicant, every rank and degree of the Greek community, divine or human, had its own proper allotment of poetical celebration. The gods had their hymns, nomes, poans, and dithyrambs; great men their encomia and epinicia; the votaries of pleasure their erotica and symposiaca; the mourner his threnodia and elegies; the vine-dresser his epilenia; the herdsmen their bucolica; even the beggar his eiresione and chelidonisma. The number of these varieties of Grecian song recorded under distinct titles, and most of them enjoying a certain benefit of scientific culture, amounts to upward of fifty.2 VIII. A portion, indeed, of this number no longer exist but in name; and, with the exception of those immediately connected with the great public festivals, few have been described with such precision, or are so clearly illustrated by existing specimens, as to supply materials for treatment as distinct heads of subject. Those which in this more tangible capacity chiefly claim attention are the following: the Hymn, Nome, Pean, Hyporchem, Prosodium, Parthenia, Dithyramb, Threnus, Symposiaca, Encomia, Epinicia, Erotica, Gamelia, Embateria. This catalogue may be ranged under two general heads, of Sacred, and Profane or Secular:3 the former comprising poems in exclusive honor of the gods; the latter, those devoted, in whole or in part, to human concerns or interests. To the former head belong the hymn, nome, paean, hyporchem, prosodium, dithyramb; to the latter, the symposiaca, encomia, epinicia, erotica, gamelia, embateria. As an intermediate class, partaking of both characters, may be ranked the threnus and parthenia. We will now proceed to offer a brief account of each, with the exception of the paean, of which we have already treated. IX. The first two names in the above list, Hymn and Nome, are rather generic terms applicable to every more dignified species of lyric compositions, than designations of any particular class of ode. The paean, for example, was the hymn of rejoicing or triumph; the prosodium, the processional hymn; the procemium, the introductory hymn to the sacred office in the sanctuary. In later times, however, the title Hymn appears to have attached, in a peculiar sense, to the odes sung by the chorus during the sacrifice, when stationary around the altar. Nome (v4Aos), in its orig1 lure, Hist. Crit., vol. iii., p. 63, seqq. 2 Compare Ilgen, Scolia siRe Carmina convivialia Grcec., p. xiv., seqq: 3 Proclus, Chrestomn., ed. Gaisf., p. 380, seq.

Page  100 100 GR EEK LITERATURE. inal more comprehensive signification, denoted simply that more definite adaptation of musical to poetic numbers, which forms the essence of all lyric composition, as distinct from the continuous chant or recitative of the old epic minstrelsy. In the more advanced stages of lyric art, however, the term is restricted, in a proper sense, to a certain more solemn order of hymn or anthem, the older specimens of which were marked by a peculiar simplicity and dignity of style, and passed generally current as productions of the earliest and purest periods of lyric art.l X. The term Hyporchenm (a7ropX-una) denotes, in familiar usage, both a lively kind of mimic dance, and the branch of lyric composition by which that dance was accompanied.2 The musical or poetical element of the hyporchem, from the earliest period of its cultivation, appears in style and numbers to have closely resembled the paean. Both performances were;onnected preferably, during their best period, with the worship of Apollo; and a favorite measure of both was the Cretic or paonic. Much similarity is, accordingly, observable between existing specimens of each order of composition; and among the ancient critics themselves it was often matter of doubt under which denomination an ode was to be ranked.3 The main difference seems to have been, that the palan was characterized by a pervading dignity and propriety, the hyporchem by a greater degree of vivacity, tending at times to levity or license.? Another feature of distinction was the greater prevalence in the hyporchem, when combined with dancing, of that mimetic action which entered more or less into all such solemnities among the Greeks. A third distinction was, that the paean, during the best ages, was exclusively addressed to the gods, whereas hyporchems appear to have been, though rarely, composed and performed in honor of men.5 The first poet to whom hyporchems are ascribed was Thaletas. In the fiagments of the hyporchems of Pilidar, the rhythms are peculiarly light, and have a very imitative and graphic character.6 These characteristics must have existed in a much higher degree in the hyporchematic songs of Thaletas.7 The chief recorded author of hyporchematic productions during the earlier period, besides Thaletas, was Xenodamus of Cythera. But no remains of the works of either of them have been preserved. The extant specimens of the immediately succeeding period emanate from its most celebrated poets, Simonides, Pindar, Pratinas, and Bacchylides, with several of whom the hyporchem was a favorite style.s XI. The Proscldium (rpos3Lov, scil. 1te;Aos) was the hymn sung by the choristers in their procession to the altar or sanctuary. Although this order of composition must have been connected with the service of every deity of whose rites processional movements formed a part, its early culture and chief popularity were concentrated around the worship of Apollo. The prosodium, accordingly, is classed under the general head of Paean, l Plat., De Leg., p. 700; Proclus, Chrestom., ed. Gaisf., p. 383. Proclus, p. 384, Gaisf. 3 Plut., 3Mus., 9. Compare Bbckh, De Metr. Pind., p 201.: See a hyporchem of Pratinas, ap. Athen., xiv., p. 617. 5 Bockhi, l'r-ag. Pind., p. 596, seq. 6 Bbckh, De Mletr. Pind., p. 201, seqq.; p. 270. q lilpr, Hist. Lit. Gr. p. 23, seqq. Compare p. 160. seqq. 8 Mere, Crit. Hist., p. 72.

Page  101 POE'rICAL PERIOD. 101 )by the special title of Prosodiac, or Processional, pnan. Like the kindred order of sacred odes, the nome and piean proper, it was composed, in the earlier epochs of its cultivation, in hexameter measure. Afterward, however, when the lyric school of art acquired the ascendant, and the dance became popular even in these graver processional solemnities, lyric numbers were exclusively preferred. The prosodia of Pindar, the oldest of' which any considerable remains have been preserved, are chiefly in the same grave Dorian measure as the greater part of his epinician odes. The accompaniment of the flute, as usual in festive movements, was preferred to that of the harp, customary in the stationary choral rites.' XII. To the head of Prosodia belongs in part the order of composition entitled Parthenia,2 or "virginal songs." This title, however, comprises two different kinds of ode: first, processional or sacrificial songs, sung, as their liame denotes, by virgins, in honor of certain deities; secondly, songs in honor of those same youthful members of the female sex.3 The parthenia of the first class may, therefore, be characterized as sacred; those of the second as profane or secular. The sacred parthenia were substantially hymns, paeans, or prosodia, as the object or occasion might require. Their distinctive feature was a blending of feminine grace and tenderness with devotional solemnity.4 Hence may be explained the great popularity of this style of composition with most of the leading lyric poets fi-om Aleman downward.5 XIII. The Dithyranmb (itOdpapu,os), which comes next in order, is a celebrated branch of composition, and, as the parent of the Attic tragedy, assumes a still greater degree of importance and interest, than would even otherwise justly attach to it on account of its great popularity, and its extensive influence on the style and taste of every period of Greek poetical literature. The dithyramb, in its earliest form, was the hymn of Bacchus,6 as the paan was the hymn of Apollo. Its character was always, like that of the worship to which it belonged, impassioned and enthusiastic;, the extremes of feeling, rapturous pleasure and wild lamentation, were both expressed by it. The existing notices of this order of composition are of comparatively recent date; nor, indeed, is there any allusion by Homer, Hesiod, or other primitive authorities, to the festive rites of'Bacchus as popular in their day. That the dithyramb, however, in its simpler melic form of Dionysiac hymn or paean, was already a cultivated branch of lyric art in the age of Archilochus, appears from a still extant distich of that poet,7 in which he mentions it by name as the "beautiful song of Dionysus," and prides himself on his skill in its execution. These verses are in a lively vein of trochaic tetrameter, the same ameasure which Aristotle describes as originally proper to the dithyramb; and they may hence be presumed to have been themselves the exordium of a dithyrambic ode or chorus. In the generation subsequent to Archilochus, a more extended and artificial character was imparted to this branch 1 Plut., Mitus., 18; nMafre, p. 74. 2 Athen., xiv., p. 631. 3 Schol. in Aristoph.,Av., 920; Suid(., s.v.; Proclus, Chrestoi., p. 380, Gaisf. D I)ion. Hial., ed. Reiske, vol. iii., p. 1073. Compare Plut., lmus., 17. 5 MuILe, p. 74 6 Plat., i)e Ler., p. 7 00. v Frag. 72, Berglk. Compare.Alhen., xiv., ip. 628

Page  102 102 GREEK LITERAT'URE. of lyric performance by Arion, the celebrated Lesbian musician, and by means of which the dithyramb was raised to a regular choral song.l But of this change we will speak more fully in our remarks on the origin of tragedy. XIV. The term Threnus (apivos) denotes in its origin any species of lamentation, more properly the dirge or lament for the death of kinsmen or dear friends. In later usage, the title became nearly equivalent to the more familiar one of elegy. When sung over the corpse at its laying out or entombment, the threnus acquired the distinctive name of Epicedium (4&ruc1jeiov), or funeral song.2 The only two occasions on which the threnus is mentioned by Homer were of the latter description. To the threnus belongs also the song of Linus, which we have already considered. The measure of the threnus was probably at first the dactylic. With the advance of lyric art, however, a great variety of metrical forms was admitted. The reputed author of the extension was the Phrygian Olympus.3 XV. We come next to the Syrnposiaca, or convivial poetry of the Greeks. Convivial songs were classed by the ancients under three heads:4 first, those sung in chorus by the whole company; secondly, those sung by each guest in succession; thirdly, such as were sung also in succession, but under certain peculiarities of arrangement, and with a limitation in ordinary cases to the more gifted members of the company. The songs of the first class appear to have been chiefly those inaugural odes familiarly called Paeans, sung as grace or procemium to the whole entertainment, and usually addressed to Apollo, sometimes to Jove, Bacchus, Mercury, or such other deity as the occasion suggested. The next more varied order of symposiac performances, in which all took part, though not all simultaneously, very much resembles the modern custom of laying each guest under an obligation to sing his song,5 whether his own composition or some popular ode of the day. On these occasions a lyre or myrtle branch,6 less frequently a drinking cup,7 was handed round as a temporary badge of office from guest to guest, each, in his turn, receiving it from his predecessor, and passing it on to his neighbor at the close of his own part. The lyre was probably destined for those alone who, together with a musical voice, possessed skill in the use of the instrument. When these qualifications, one or both, were wanting, the myrtle branch was preferred, as the ancient and proper symbol of the more simple styles of poetic recitation. The songs thus circulated bore no distinctive -title, but that of Paroenia (Trapotv'a, scil. AeX?7), " wine songs," or symnposiaca, " drinking songs," common to all those of the convivial order.8 The third more complicated and more celebrated species of Paroenia were those called Scolia (osKoXL). The performance was here reserved for the more scientific and experienced musicians of the party. The chief 1 Mure, p. 78. 2 Proclus, Chrestom., p. 385, Gaisf.; Etym. 111ag., s. v. Opsvog. 3 nure, p. 94, seqq. Diccearch. ap. Suid., Hesych. et Phot., s. v. o-KoXLov; Plut., Synmpos., i., 1, 5. 5 Plut., Sympos., p. 214, seqq. Occasionally prose was substituted for poetry, each guest telling a story, or offering a short essay on some pleasant topic. Plut., 1. c. 6 Aristoph., Nub., 1358; Schol. ad loc.; Vesp., 1214-1220; Schol. ad loc.; Plut., Syn2poss. i., 1, 5, &c. 7 Athen., xi., p. 503. Iliure, p. 100.

Page  103 POETICAL, PERIOD. 103 of the qualified guests led off with a short stave'or sonnet, whether an entire ode or a part of some longer composition, marked in either case by some lively spirit or point. He then handed the symbol of office to the person who, it had been arranged, should follow, or whom he thought fit to select as his successor, who passed it on, in his turn, to a third, and so on; each being expected at once to carry on the strain, whether in the way of continuation or repartee, in the same or a closely congenial style of subject or measure. Tihe notion that the name of the song arose from its irregular course around the table (owxoAoAv, " crooked") is not probable. It is much more likely (according to the opinion of other ancient writers) that in the melody to which the scolia were sung certain liberties and irregularities were permitted, by which the extemporaneous execution of the song was facilitated; and that on this account the song was said to be bent. The rhythms of the extant scolia are very various, though, on the whole, they resemble those of the FEolic lyric poetry, only that the course of the strophes is broken by an accelerated rhythm, and is in general more animated.' The Lesbians awnere the principal composers of' scolia. Terpander, who, according to Pindar, invented this kind of song, was followed by Alcaus and Sappho, and afterward by Anacreon and Praxilla of Sicyon, besides many others celebrated for choral poetry, as Simonides and Pindar. Among the preserved scolia are many of the more popular current in the best ages of Greece. Some of these are also, as may be supposed, among the most brilliant specimens of Greek epigrammatic or didactic poetry? and are constantly quoted and commented upon as such by the leading critics and moralists of every period. Even where the sense itself is not remarkable for point or spirit, the structure and rhythm are usually distinguished by a certain combination of emphasis with harmony, and by an alternate rapidity in the flow and abruptness in the termination of the rhythmical clauses, peculiar to these compositions, and singularly conducive to that mixture of elegance and pungency which it was clearly the object of their authors to impart to them. Although scolia were mostly composed of moral maxims, or of short invocations to the gods, or panegyrics on heroes, there exist two, of great length and interest, the authors of which are not otherwise known as poets. The one beginning, " My great wealth is my spear and sword," and written by Hybrias, a Cretan, in the Doric measure, expresses all the pride of the dominant Dorian, whose right rested upon his armls; the other is the production of an Athenian named Callistratus, and was written probably not long after the Persian war, as it was a favorite song in the time of Aristophanes. It celebrates the liberators of the Athenian people, Harmodius and AristogIton, for having, at the great festival of Minerva, slain the tyrant Hipparchus, and restored equal rights to the Athenians.2 XVI. The term Encomniumn (&yCciluov, scil. 6ros) denoted originally the ode sung at the CSmus (KcCojOS), which latter term, in the wider sense, comprehended every convivial meeting accompanied by dance, song, and MI iller, tist. Gr. Lit., P. 188. 2 Id. ib., p. 189.

Page  104 104 GREEK LITERATURE. Bacchanalian festivity.'In its more dignified application, however, the term Coimus denoted a higher order of festive entertainment. Such were the public banquets held in honor of distinguished personages, of a warrior after a victory or successful campaign, of a magistrate on entering office; and, in later habitual practice, of the conquerors in the Olympian, Pythian, and other great national games. In every variety of the comus, a main part of the ceremony was performed in the open air; it being customary, even for private bands of revellers, when flushed with the pleasures of the table, to sally forth with music, song, and dance, sometimes to the sound of the trumpet,' into the streets and public thoroughfares.2 The term thus became more peculiarly appropriated to this latter part of the entertainment, which in its turn assumed the character of a distinct ceremony. Such was the escort home, or serenade to a mistress,3 or, after a banquet, to some favorite guest; such, in a nobler sense, the triumphal procession of the victorious hero or chief to the temple or banqueting-hall; such, by a still wider extension of the analogy, the deputation or mission which escorted the victor in the national games back to his native city. The title Encomium, or song of the comus, is limited in its classical acceptation, as denoting an order of lyric poetry, solely, or chiefly to the panegyrical odes performed in the comi of a more dignified character. It is hence defined by the ancients as bearing the same relation to the praises of men as the hymn to those of the deity. No work of this class, prior to the age of Pindar, has been preserved. The leading poets, from Pindar downward, left large collections of encomia, of which the most celebrated were those addressed to the victors in the national games. These are usually ranked under the separate head of Epinicia (vrrMAla), or triumphal encomia. No such distinction, however, seems to have been recognized by their authors. Pindar, in his frequent appeals to his own Epinician odes, avails himself more frequently of the phrase Encomzia, and other cognate derivatives of comus, than of their proper title.4 XVII. The Ertica (ePW1tcd), or love-songs, require no explanation. The most celebrated authors in this department, during the period we are at present considering, were: Aleman, of the Dorian school; Sappho and Alceeus, of the 2Eolian or Lesbian; and Mimnermus, of the Ionian school. The erotic odes of the three former poets are almost exclusively of the purely melic order, and in monostrophic forms, that is, with one form of strophe continually repeated. Mimnermus composed solely or chiefly in elegiac measure. Such effusions, though called forth by human objects of adoration alone, occasionally in so far partake of a sacred character as to assume the form of addresses to the deities whose countenance and favor were invoked. Such, for example, is the most brilliant of all lovesongs, the Invocation of Venus, by Sappho.6 XVIII. Gamelia (-yajxmia), or'bridal songs, are classed under two heads: first, those called Hymencra, sung at the marriage festival; secondly, the i Aristot., De Aud., 49. 2 Hesiod, Scut. Herc., 281; Aristoph., Plint., 1040; Thesmoph., 104, &c. 3 Hermesianax, v. 38, 47, op. Athen., xiii., p. 598. 74 Jlure, p. 112. 2 Id., p. 114.

Page  105 POETICAL PERIOD. 105 Epithalamia, or bed-chamber songs, performed on the night of the ceremony, as a serenade or vigil, in front of the door or below the window of the newly-wedded couple. The epithalamia are again subdivided into the Lulling song and the Waking so0nf,I the former sung during the early part of the night, the latter toward the hour of rising. These songs, as may be supposed, formed, from a very early period, a popular branch of lyric composition, whether in honor of hero or heroine, living or dead, real or imaginary. The earliest-mentioned example is Hesiod's Epithalamium of Peleus and Thetis. Alcman2 also availed himself of this, among other modes of honoring the sex, which formed the favorite subject of his muse; and Sappho left an entire book of hymenaea,3 several of which seem to have partaken of the dramatic character. In the metre of these compositions no definite rule is observable. Hesiod, it need scarcely be remarked, uses the hexameter; Sappho occasionally employs the same measure, in addition to her own favorite combinations of more purely melic rhythm. The hexameter is also preferred by Theocritus. The invocations, " O Hymen! O Hymenseus!" addressed to the patron deity of the rite, were habitually introduced, as a sort of burden or epode, in all these varieties of metrical arrangement.4 XIX. Under the general head of Embateria (ie13.a~TpLa, scil. sEa;tW) may be distinguished two kinds of military music; the first comprising every species of ode or song adapted, on ordinary festive occasions, to inspire or maintain warlike enthusiasm; the second may be defined as war music in the narrower sense, marches, charges, &c. In Homer mention is made of the first kind alone. The celebration of the exploits of the heroes of the olden time is described as a favorite recreation of the Homeric warriors. To the first kind also belong the elegiac odes of Callinus, and most of those of Tyrteuts. The latter were sung, consistently with Spartan usage, at the meals of the soldiers, after the ordinary convivial paean, sometimes in chorus, sometimes by single performers in competition, the victor receiving as his prize from the polemarch an extra ration of butcher-meat.5 They were also chanted in chorus before the tent-door of the king or commander-in-chief.6 The military music of the second kind was little cultivated, even in historical times, except among the Spartans. Their paean embaterius, or hymn invoking the god of war, or other patron deities, commenced immediately after the order to advance, and continued during the charge and assault. The air was called the Castorean melody,7 after the Tyndarid Castor, one of the popular martial demigods of Sparta, and was accompanied by wind instruments, disposed in different parts of the line. Its character was impressive, rather than wild or turbulent; the object being, in unison with the genius of Spartan warfare, to inspire steady determination, rather than furious ardor for the attack. The measure preferred was the anapaestic, as the most natural march time, and peculiarly ex1 Schol. ad Theocrit. Id., xviii.; Procl., Chrest., p. 385, Gaisf. 2 Welcker, Praf. ad Flragrn., p. iii. 3 Sapph., Frag. xxxvi., seqq., Gaisf. * Mrite, p. 116. 5 Philoch. ap. Athen., xiv., p. 630. 6 Miare, p. 117. 7 Plut., Lycurg.? 22, De lus.. 26; Schol. in Pind. Pyth., ii., 127_ irqq.

Page  106 106 GREEK LITERATURE. pressive in its cadence of stern, energetic resolution. The custom of attacking in regular march-step, to the sound of music, is frequently noticed by the ancients as a peculiarity of Spartan discipline; nor is there any allusion to the same practice in any other Grecian state, with the partial exception of the kindred Dorian republics of Crete.2 CHAPTER XVIII. SECOND OR POETICAL PERIOD —continued. L Y R I C P 0 E T R Y-continuzed. POETS OF THE YEOLIC SCHOOL. I. ALcEUS- ('AXKa7os) of Mytilene, in the island of Lesbos, the earliest of the.Eolian lyric poets, began to flourish about B.C. 611. He belonged to a noble family, and a great part of his public life was employed in asserting the privileges of his order. These privileges were then endangered by democratic factions, which appear to have placed ambitious men at their head, and to have given them powerful support. A tyrant of this kind in Mytilene was Melanchrus, who was opposed by the brothers of Alceaus, Antimenidas and Cicis, in conjunction with Pittacus, the wisest statesman of the time in Lesbos, and was slain by them B.C. 612.3 At this time the Mytileneans were at war with foreign enemies, the Athenians, who had conquered and retained possession of Sigaeum, a maritime town of Troas. The Mytileneans, among whom was Alcneus, were defeated, and the poet incurred the disgrace of leaving his arms behind on the fieid of battle; these arms were hung up as a trophy by the Athenians in the temple of Minerva, at Sigxeum.4 His sending home the news of this disaster, in a poem addressed to his friend Melanippus,5 seems to show that he had a reputation for courage such as a single disaster could not endanger; and, accordingly, we find him spoken of by ancient writers as a brave and skillful warrior.6 Alceus afterward appears as an adherent of the aristocratic or constitutional party, in the resistance offered by them to the attempts made by a new series of demagogues. The most formidable of these leaders was Myrsilus, whose death the poet celebrates in a still extant passage of his works. In the sequel of the same political vicissitudes, Alcaeus and his brothers appear in their turn as usurpers, or disturbers of the repose of the state. They were expelled, in consequence, by their old ally Pittacus, the only stanch and disinterested patriot, it would seem, among these political chiefs, and who was supported by the mass of the better disposed citizens. At last, as the most effectual stop to these disastrous Thucyd., v., 70; Polyb., iv., 20; Athen., xiv., p. 626, 630, F, &c. 2 Heracl., Polit., iii.; Athen., xii., p. 517, A; Rlure, p. 119. 3 Diog. Laert., i., 74, 79; Strab., xiii., p. 617. 4 Herod., v., 95; Plut., De Herod. Malig., s. 15, p. 858; Strab., xiii., p. 599, seq. 5 Frag. 56, p.' 438, Blomf.' Anthol. Palat., ix., 184; Cic., TuSC., iv., 33; Hor., Carm,, i., 32, 6, &c.

Page  107 POETICAL PERIOD. 107 series of civil broils, the same Pittacus was elected by the unanimous voice of the people, as Alceus himself admits, to the dignity entitled among the lEolians aloavuy'rs, or constitutional chief, with dictatorial powers, for the preservation of the laws and liberty of the state. This measure is said to have been chiefly directed against the machinations of Alcaeus and the other malcontents.1 The poet's muse, following the bent of his passions, was speedily directed against Pittacus, with an animosity as fervid as the zeal with which the cause of that patriot had formerly been lauded and supported. Imputed failings were now described in terms of vituperation expressly invented for the purpose, such as Archilochus himself might not have been ashamed to employ in his most withering iambic sallies. This is one of the worst features in the character or history of Alceus; the moderation of Pittacus, aid the purity of his motives, being admitted and eulogized by every impartial authority. But the hostility of Alcaeus was not confined to words. In an armed attempt-to re-establish their influence, his party was defeated, and himself made prisoner; when his generous adversary restored him to liberty.2 His ultimate fate is unknown. By some authorities he is supposed to have been permanently reconciled to Pittacus, and to have passed the remainder of his life in tranquillity at Mytilene, under the mild sway of that patriotic ruler; by others, to have ended his days a discontented wanderer in foreign lands. In the course of his peregrinations, and of the maritime disasters with which Horace describes them as having been attended,3 he visited Egypt;4 and, about the same time, his brother Axtimenidas, his steady companion, it would seem, in good or bad fortune, entered into the service of the Babylonian monarch Nebuchadnezzar, where he distinguished himself by his valor.5 The poems of were chiefly addressed to particular friends, and at first they seem not to have been much known beyond the island of Lesbos, partly because they were written in the lEolic dialect, and partly, perhaps, because they had only a local and temporary interest. But subsequently they were considered by all the Greeks as master-pieces; and among the nine lyric poets in the Alexandrean canon, Alceeus occupied, according to some authorities, the first, and, according to others, the second place. Aristophanes and Aristarchus prepared the first correct editions, in which the poems were divided into at least ten books, and great care was taken to insure the correct representation of the metre. It is not known how the poems were arranged in these editions, except that the hymns formed the commencement. Besides these hymns, the poems of Alcaeus consisted of odes, patriotic war-songs, erotic and symposiac songs, and epigrams. All were characterized by strong passion and enthusiasm. With Alcaeus, as with most poets of the _Eolic school, poetry was the outpouring of his deepest emotions, excited by the occurrences of the times in which he lived. Independent of their high poetical merits, the loss of the poems of Alceus is much to be regretted, as they' Smith, Dict. Bogvr., s. v 2 Diog. Laert., i., 76; Val. Max., iv., 1, 6. " C&rm., ii., 13, 28, 4 Stroahb it, p. 37. 5 Ale., Frag. 33, p. 433, Blomf.

Page  108 108 GREEK LITERATURE. would have enabled us to gain a clearer insight into the public and private life of the 2Eolians.' The metrical forms used by Alcmus are most light and lively; sometimes with a softer, sometimes with a more vehement character. They consist principally of AEolic dactyls, which, though apparently resembling the dactyls of epic poetry, are yet essentially unlike. Instead of depending upon the perfect balance of the Arsis and Thesis, they admit the shortening of the former; whence arises an irregularity, which was distinguished by the ancient writers on metre by the name of disproportionzed dactyls (&AoTo-t ICTVAoI). These dactyls begin with the undetermined foot of two syllables, which is called a base, and they flow on lightly and swiftly, without alternating with heavy spondees. The choriambics of the 2Eolic lyric poets are composed on the same plan, as they have also the preceding base; yet this metre always retains something of the stately tone which belongs to it. The Logacedic metre also belongs peculiarly to the./Eolic lyric poets. It is produced by the immediate junction of dactylic and trochaic feet, so that a rapid movement passes into a feebler one. This lengthened and various kind of metre was peculiarly adapted to express the softer emotions, such as tenderness, melancholy, and longing. Hence this metre was frequently used by the 2Eolians, and their strophes were principally formed by connecting logacedic rhythms with trochees, iambi, and 2Eolic dactyls. Of this kind is the Sapphic strophe, the softest and sweetest metre in the Greek lyric poetry, and which Alcaeus seems sometimes to have employed, as in his hymn to Hermes. But the firmer and more vigorous tone of the metre, called after him the Alcaic, was better suited to the temper of his mind. The logacedic elements of this metre have but little.of their characteristic softness, and they receive an impulse from the iambic dipodies which precede them. Hence the Alcaic strophe is generally employed by these poets in political and warlike poems, and in all in which manly passions predominate.2 The fragments of Alcaeus were first collected by Neander in his Aristologia Pindarica, Basil, 1556, 8vo, then by Henry Stephens in his collection of the fragments of the nine chief lyric poets of Greece (1557), of which there are several editions, and by Fulvius Ursinus, 1568, 8vo. The more modern collections are those by Iani, Hale Sax., 1780-1782, 4to; by Stange, Hala, 1810, 8vo; by Blomfield, in the Mffuseum Criticurm, vol. i., p. 421, seqq., Camb., 1826, reprinted in Gaisford's Poetce Graeci Jllinores; by Schneidewin, in his Delectus Poesis Greecorum, and by Bergk in his Poetee Lyrici Greeci. Of separate editions, that of Matthime, Lips., 1827, used to be regarded as the most complete, until the appearance of Bergk's work. This last-mentioned is now deemed the most complete collection, since it contains the additions and supplements made by Welcker, Seidler, Osann, and others, in several philological journals in Germany, as well as those contained in Cramer's Anecdota Grceca, vol. i., Oxon., 1835. II. SAPPHO (aar~rc6, or, in her own.eEolic dialect, a'i'rqpa) was a native 1 fidle', p. 170, seqq. 2 Id. ib.

Page  109 POETICAL PERIOD. 109 of the island of' Lesbos, though the exact place of her birth is uncertain, for, according to some, she was born in Eresus, but according to others in Mytilene. The time of her birth is also unknown, and there are few events of her life which can be exactly ascertained. Her own fragments, as well as those of Alceus, show that these two greatest poets of the.2Eolic school were contemporaries, though Sappho must have been younger than Alceus, for she was still alive in 568 B.C., as may be inferred from the ode which she addressed to her brother Charaxus, in which she reproached him for having purchased Rhodopis, the courtesan, from her master, and having been induced, by his love for her, to emancipate her.l Now Charaxus bought Rhodopis at Naucratis, in Egypt, and in all probability not before the reign of Amasis, who ascended the throne in 569 B.C. Before this time, and while she was still in the prime of life, Sappho is said to have left her country for Sicily, but the cause of this flight is unknown. It was formerly a common belief that Sappho destroyed herself by leaping into the sea from the Leucadian promontory, inl despair at her love being unrequited by a youth named Phaon. This story, however, vanishes at the first approach of criticism. The name of Phaon does not occur in one of Sappho's fragments, and there is no evidence that it was once mentioned in her poems. It first appears in the Attic comedies, and is probably derived from the legend of the love of Venus for Adonis, wiho, in the Greek version of the myth, was called Phaethon or Phaon, "the bright or shining one." How this name came to be connected with that of Sappho it is now impossible to trace. There are passages in her poems referring to her love for a beautiful youth, whom she endeavored to conciliate by her poetry; and these passages may perhaps be the foundation for the story. As for the leap from the Leucadian rock, it is a mere metaphor, which is taken from an expiatory rite connected with the worship of Apollo, and which seems to have been a frequent poetical image; it occurs in Stesichorus and Anacreon, and may have been used by Sappho, though it is not to be found in any of her extant fragments. A remarkable confirmation of the unreal nature of the whole legend is the fact that none of the writers who relate it go so far as positively to assert that Sappho died in consequence of her frantic leap.2 At Mytilene, Sappho appears to have been the centre of a female literary society, most of the members of which were her pupils, and her character for purity, in connection with this association, appears, if we credit the ancient accounts, to have been seriously marred. Advocates have, indeed, been found in more modern days who strive to vindicate the personal character of the poetess; and one of their principal arguments in her favor is as follows: that Sappho belonged to the Eolic race, which, at the time when the state of society in Attica had assumed a totally different aspect from that of the Heroic Age, still retained much of the simplicity of early Greek manners: that at Athens, on the contrary, women 1 Herod., ii., 135; Strab., xvii., p. 808; Athen., xiii., p. 596, B. 2 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v.

Page  110 110 ICREEK LITERATURE. lived in the strictest seclusion, and that hence the free intercourse of women of ability, such as Sappho and her numerous friends, would lead to the opinion among Athenians that she pursued an immoral life. Plausible, however, as this reasoning is, it is very far from being satisfactory; and it is impossible to read the fragments which remain of Sappho's poetry without being forced to come to the conclusion that a female who could write such verses could not be the pure and virtuous woman which her modern apologists pretend.' But whatever doubt there may be as to the moral character of Sappho, there can be only one opinion as to her poetic genius. It is almost superfluous to refer to the numerous passages in which the ancient writers have expressed their unbounded admiration of her productions. In true poetic genius she appears to have been fully equal to Alceus, and far superior to him in grace and sweetness. Of all Greek lyric poets, she is the one, perhaps, who, in her own peculiar branch of inspiration, was held to have attained most nearly to perfection. She was complimented with the title of the "Tenth Muse," and already in her own age, if we may believe an interesting tradition, the recitation of one of her poems so affected Solon that he expressed an earnest desire to learn it before he died ('aca 1cc0,Y av'rb a&'rodcw).2 Strabo speaks of her as 5avJuaOT'y, Tr Xp7ua,3 and the praises and imitations of her by Catullus and Horace are too well known to require any mention here. The fragments that survive of her poetry, though some of them are exquisite, barely furnish a sample of the surpassing beauty of the whole. They are chiefly of an erotic character; and at the head of this.class must be placed that splendid ode to Venus, of which we possess the whole, and next to it the shorter one to a beloved female. Sappho is described, by the only authors who have transmitted any distinct notices on the subject, as not distinguished for personal beauty, but as short in stature, and of dark, it may be understood swarthy, complexion. The laudatory commonplace of KaNx, or "fair," which Plato and others connect with her name, implies nothing more, perhaps less, than does the English term by which the Greek epithet has here been rendered, and which is as frequently bestowed, in familiar usage, on plain as on handsome women. Alceus describes her simply as " dark-haired," and sweetly smiling. The lyric poems of Sappho formed nine books. She appears also to have composed a large number of hymeneals, or nuptial songs, of which we possess some very beautiful fragments. Her hymns invoking the gods (ol KicqruKco iv4Yol) are mentioned by the rhetorician Menander,4 who tells Consult, on this subject, Welcker, Sappho von einem herrsch. Vorurth. befreyet, Gott., 1816, and in his Kleine Schr., vol. ii., p. 80, seqq.; Iliiller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 172, seqq. Bode, Gesch. der Hell. Dichtk., vol. ii., pt. ii., p. 411, seqq.; Neue, Sapphonis Fragmenta; Utrici, Gesch. der Hell. Dichtk., vol. ii., p. 359, seqq.; Richter, Sappho und Erinna. We have adopted in the text the views of Mure, who gives the whole matter a very careful and fair examination (Crit. Hist., vol. iii., p. 290, seqq., and Appendix F, p. 497, seqq.). In the larger Biographical Dictionary of Smith, Sappho's character is warmly defended, in the abridgment of the same work it is condemned. 2 2Elian. ap. S.tob.,Scrm. xxix,, 58.,ab, xiii., p. 61. Enco?. i., 2.

Page  111 POETICAL PERIOD. 111 us that among them were many to Diana and Venus, in which the various localities of their worship were mentioned. Suidas also ascribes to her epigrams, elegies, iambics, and monodies. The Greek anthology contains three epigrams under her name, but their genuineness is doubtful. Her poems were all written in her native.Eolic dialect, and form with those of Alcseus the standard of the.AEolic dialect of Lesbos. The rhythmical construction of her odes was essentially the same as that of Alcemus, though with many variations, and in harmony with the softer character of her poetry.' A few remarks may not here be amiss respecting the musical and rhythmical forms in which the poetry of Sappho was embodied. Herodotus calls her generically pUovro7roLOS. Suidas uses the specific terms xAVpLK and /daXTpLa. Her instrument was the harp, which she seems to have used both in the form of the zEolian barbiton and the ILydian pectis. The invention of the latter was ascribed to her by some of the ancients. Her chief mode of music was the Mixolydian, the tender and plaintive character of which was admirably adapted to her erotic poems, and the invention of which was ascribed to her by Aristoxenus, although others assigned it to Pythoclides, and others to Terpander.2 Of the metres of Sappho, the most important is that which bears her name, and which only differs from the Alcaic by the position of a short syllable, which ends the Sapphic and begins the Alcaic verse; thus, for example, [ Grcndzins misit ptier et ruben I te Vidles dt alta stet nive cdnddzinm. F'rom the resemblance between the two forms, and from the frequent occurrence of each of them in the fragments of Sappho and Alcaeus, and in the odes of Catullus and Horace, we may fairly conclude that in these two verses we have the most characteristic rhythm of the _Eolian lyric poetry. A new and manifestly more correct mode of reading the Sapphic verse is now beginning to prevail, the nature of which may be understood from the authorities mentioned in the notes.3 The fragments of Sappho have appeared in numerous collections, particularly in Brunck's Analectl, vol. i., p. 54, seqq.; vol. iii., p. 8, secqq.; in the Museum Criticurn, vol. i., by Blomfield; by Gaisford, in his Poetce Greeci Minores; by Schneidewin, in his Dclectus Poesis Grcecorum; in Ahren's treatise, "De Linguce Grecce Dialectis;" and in Bergk's Poetae Lyrici Grceci. The best separate edition is that of Neue, Berol., 1827, 4to. III. ERINNA ('Hpivia), a contemporary and friend of Sappho (about B.C. 612), who died at the age of nineteen, but left behind her poems which were thought worthy to rank with those of Homer. Her poems were of the epic class; the chief of them was entitled'HAaKaT71, " The Distaff;" it consisted of three hundred lines, of which only four are extant.4 It Smith, Diet. Biogr., s. v. 2 Id. ib. 3 Journal of Education, vol. iv., p. 356; Penny Cyclopaedia, s. v. Arsis. Compare Donaldson's Varronianus, p. 275. The prior claim to the discovery, or, rather, introduction of this new mode of reading Sapphics, gave rise to a pamphlet warfare between Dr. Donaldson and Professor Key of the London University. 4 Stob.,Flor., cxviii., 4; Athen., vii., p. 283, D; Berglc, Poet. Lyr. Graec., p: 632.

Page  112 112 GREEK LITERATURE. was written in a dialect which was a mixture of the Doric and /Eolic, and which was spoken at Rhodes, where, or in the adjacent island of Telos, Erinna was born. She is also called a Lesbian and a Mytilenean, on account of her residence in Lesbos with Sappho.' There are several epigrams upon Erinna, in which her praise is celebrated, and her untimely death is lamented.2 Three epigrams in the Greek Anthology are ascribed to her,3 of which the first has the genuine air of antiquity, but the other two, addressed to Baucis, seem to be a later fabrication.4 IV. We come next to ANACREON ('AvaKcpEcv), whose poetry may be considered as akin to that of Alcaeus and Sappho, although he was an Ionian, a native of Teos, and his genius had an entirely different tone and bent. The accounts of his life are meagre and confused, but he seems to have spent his youth in his native city, and to have removed with the great body of the inhabitants to Abdera, in Thrace, when Teos was taken by Harpagus, the general of Cyrus, about B.C. 540.5 If this statement be true, Anacreon can not have remained long at Abdera, for it was about this same time that Polycrates became tyrant of Samos; and it is said that Anacreon was invited from Teos, by the father of Polycrates, at the request of the latter, and before he became tyrant, to be his instructor and friend. Hence the account of his emigration to Abdera is rejected by some critics. Anacreon remained in Samos till after, or, at least, till shortly before the murder of his friend and patron, in B.C. 522. He then went to Athens, on the invitation of the tyrant Hipparchus,' where he became acquainted with Simonides and other poets. After the death of Hipparchus in B.C. 514, Anacreon appears to have returned to Teos. He died at the age of 85, probably about B.C. 478, but the place of his death is uncertain. Simonides wrote two epitaphs upon him, the second of which appears to say clearly that he was buried at Teos, but there is also a tradition that, after his return to Teos, he fled a second time to Abdera, in consequence of the revolt of Histiaeus. This tradition, however, very probably arose from a confusion with the original emigration of the Teians to Abdera.7 The death of Anacreon is said to have been occasioned by a dried grape, which choked him, an account, however, which looks too like a poetical fiction. The statement that he was a lover of Sappho is, if not impossible, at least in the highest degree improbable, and arose from the practice, so common among writers of antiquity, of placing persons of the same character in some sort of relation to each other. His native town, proud of the poet, placed sometimes his full figure, sometimes his bust only, on its coins, some of which are still extant. As a man, Anacreon has often been viewed in a false light, both in the later periods of antiquity and in modern times, being regarded, in fact, as a most consummate voluptuary. The ancients, however, considered his Suidas, s. v.; Eustath. ad. II., ii., 726, p. 326. 2 Brunck, Anal., vol. i., p. 241, n. 81; p. 218, n. 35; vol. ii., p. 19, n. 47, &c. 3 Id. ib., p. 58; Jacobs, vol. i., p. 50. 4 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 5 Strab., xiv., p. 638; Herod., iii., 121. G Plat., Hipparch., p. 228. 7 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v.

Page  113 POETICAL PERIOD. 113 residence at the court of Polycrates as one of the greatest favors that fortune bestowed upon this prince. It is attested by the best authorities that Anacreon, although courted by the powerful and the rich, did not use his influence for purposes of base gain. He even rejected the munificent presents of Polycrates, declaring that they were not worth the trouble of keeping. Enjoying his talent of song, he lived a simple and happy life. In his enthusiasm for love and song, he never transgressed the boundaries of a pure poetical feeling. There have always been persons unable to understand how a poet can sing of drunken revelry, and yet be a sober man, and how the mere sight of the beautiful can raise enthusiasm. All the writers of the best times of Greece speak of Anacreon, as a man, in the same high terms in which they record his merit as a poet; and a poet whom Plato calls the wise, was assuredly not a lover of licentiousness.1 We still possess numerous fragments of the genuine poems of Anacreon, which enable us to form a notion of the character of his poetry, and which justify the universal admiration of antiquity. The praise of beauty, love, and wine was the substance of his poems from his earliest to his latest age; and the cheerful and joyous old man, as Anacreon describes himself in some of his latest productions, has made so strong an impression, that we can scarcely picture him to ourselves in any other form than that of an aged person, although the greater part of his fragments belong to the period which he spent at Samos and Athens. Simonides, his contemporary, in a fragment still extant, gives a most lively picture of Anacreon's character, and says that his whole life breathed-the Graces, Bacchus, and Love. It was part of the poet's Ionic nature that his poems on these subjects were more light and playful than the deep and impassioned songs of Sappho and Alcaeus. The collection of these songs, which was probably nmade long after his time, consisted of at least five books: they were extremely popular, and we have evidence that in the time of Plutarch and Athenelus they were sung on every joyous and festive occasion, to tunes composed by the poet himself. Besides these lighter poems, he also wrote elegies, iambic poems or satires, epigrams (of which several are still extant in the Greek Anthology), and hymns. All his poems were composed in the Ionic dialect.' Besides the numerous fragments of the genuine poems of Anacreon preserved in ancient writers, there is a collection of fifty-five odes which have been generally considered as poems of Anacreon, most of which, however, are productions of a much later age. This collection was first published by.Henry Stephens, Paris, 1554, 4-to, from two manuscripts which he describes very vaguely, and which no one else has seen. The same poems, however, were subsequently found in the Codex Palatinus (now at Heidelberg) of the Greek Anthology, though arranged in a different order from that in the edition of Stephens. These poems have been subsequently published in numerous editions, but the best are those of Brunck, Strasb., 1786; Fischer, Lips., 1793; Mehlhorn, Giogau, 1825; and Bergk, Lips., 1834. The genuine fragments are given along with them. 1 Biograph. Dict. of Soc.for Dif. of rTseful Knowledge, vol. ii., pt, ii., p. 529, J Al IH

Page  114 114 GREEK LITERATURE. Most of these fifty-five poems are pretty in their way, but exhibit very little of the character and spirit which we perceive in the genuine frag-'ments of Anacreon; and all modern critics are agreed that they are not the work of this poet, although they have been translated into all European languages, and have,with the majority of persons, been the groundwork upon which they have formed their notions of Anacreon. In order to understand how it was possible for such a number of poems to be attributed to him,'we must recollect that, down to the third century of our era, the poems of Anacreon enjoyed extraordinary popularity, and that many poets attempted to write in his style. In proportion as such imitations suited the taste of their age, they became popular under the name of Anacreontic songs. Those who collected such popular poems in later times were frequently unable to judge of their merits, and they admitted into their collections what was most popular or most suited to their taste. It would seem, therefore, that the poems, now commonly known under the name of Anacreon, were a collection of this kind, made many centuries after the time of that poet. They are very unequal, and some may have been written soon after the time of Alexander the Great, while others bear strong marks of belonging to that description of poetry which was written during the fourth and fifth centuries. The chief reasons why they can not be attributed to Anacreon are briefly these: 1. Among the numerous passages cited by ancient writers from Anacreon, there is only one, and that in a very late writer, which refers to any poem contained in the collection published by Stephens. 2. The genuine poems of Anacreon were full of allusions to circumstances and persons around him, whereas, in the odes of Stephens's collection there is scarcely any thing that suggests the circumstances of the author's life; they rather resemble modern poems, written in the closet, than the ancient Greek lyrics, which are all drawn from the freshness of real life. 3. They contain ideas which were altogether foreign to the age of Anacreon. One example may suffice. The god of Love (Eros), down to the time of Alexander, and even later, was always represented as a full-grown youth; but in this collection he is always described as a wanton and mischievous little boy. 4. The language in some of the odes is barbarous, the versification faulty, and the sentiments trivial. For further particulars on all these points, the student can consult Fischer's preface to his second edition of Anacreon.l In Anacreon we see plainly how the spirit of the Ionic race, notwithstanding the elegance and refinement of Ionian manners, had lost its energy, its warmth of moral feeling, and its power of serious reflection, and was reduced to a light play of pleasing thoughts and sentiments. The Ionic softness and departure from strict rule which characterizes his poetry may also be perceived in his versification. His language approached much nearer to the style of common conversation than that of the.2Eolic lyric poets, so as frequently to seem like prose embellished with ornamental epithets; and his rhythm is also softer and less bounding than that of the 2Eolians, and has an easy and graceful negligence, which I Biograph. ict. of Soc. for Dff. of Usef2l Knowliedge, vol. ii., pt. ii., p. 529.

Page  115 POETICAL PERIOD. 115 Horace has endeavored to imitate. Sometimes he makes use of logacedic metres, as in the Glyconean verses, which he combines into strophes, by subjoining a Pherecratean verse to a number of Glyconeans. Sometimes, like the iEolic lyric poets, he used long choriambic verses; and again, an alternation of choriambics with iambic dipodies. Another measure much used by him was the Ionic a minore, the expression of which, however, he changed by combining two Ionic feet, so that the last long syllable of the first was shortened, and the first short syllable of the second foot was lengthened, by which change the second foot became a trochaic dipody. By this process, called by the ancients aucCKXAaos, " a bending," or "refraction," the metre obtained a less uniform, and, at the same time, a softer expression, and thus, when distributed into short verses, it became peculiarly suited to erotic poetry. The only traces of this metre before Anacreon's time occur in two fragments of Sappho. Anacreon, however, formed upon this plan a great variety of metres, particularly the short Anacreontic verse (an Ionic dimeter), which occurs so frequently both in his genuine fragments and in the later odes imitated from his style.' V. With Anacreon ceased the species of lyric poetry in which he excelled; indeed, he stands alone in it, and the tender softness of his song was drowned by the louder tones of the choral poetry. The poem (or melos) destined to be sung by a single person, never, among the Greeks, acquired so much extent as it has since attained in the modern English and German poetry. By modern poets it has been used as the vehicle for expressing almost every variety of thought and feeling. The ancients, however, drew a more precise distinction between the different feelings to be expressed in different forms of poetry, and reserved the AZolic melos for lively emotions of the mind in joy or sorrow, or for impassioned overflowings of an oppressed heart. Anacreon's poetry contains rather the play of a graceful imagination than deep emotion; and among the other Greeks, there is no instance of the employment of lyric poetry for the expression of strong feeling; so that this kind of poetry was confined to a short period of time, and to a small portion of the Greek territory.2 CHAPTER XIX. SECOND OR POETICAL PERIOD-continued. L Y R I c PO E T, Y-continued. POETS OF THE DORIAN OR CHORAL SCHOOL.3 I. THE characteristic features of the Doric lyric poetry have been already described, for the purpose of distinguishing it from the.Eolic. These were: recitation by choruses, the artificial structure of long strophes, the Doric dialect, and its reference to public affairs, especially to the celebration of divine worship. The origin of this kind of lyric poetry can be traced to the earliest times of Greece; for, as has been already shown, choruses were generally used in Greece before the time of I Miller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 185. 2 MAhiller, p. 187, seqq. Id. p. 190, seqq.

Page  116 116 GREEK LITERATURE. Homer; although the dancers in the more ancient choruses did not also sing, and therefore an exact correspondence of all their motions with the words of the song was not requisite. II. The production of those polished forms in which the style of singing and the movements of the dance were brought into perfect harmony, coincides with the last advance in musical art; the improvements in which, made by Terpander, Olympus, and Thaletas, have formed the subject of a particular notice. In the first century subsequent to the epoch of these musicians, choral poetry does not, however, appear in its full perfection and individuality, but approaches either to the Lesbian lyric poetry or to the epos; and thus the line which separated these two kinds (between which the choral songs occupy a middle place) gradually became more distinct. Among the lyric poets whom the Alexandrean graminarians placed in their canon, Aleman and Stesichorus belong to this period of progress; while finished lyric poetry is represented by Ibycus, Simonides, with his disciple Bacchylides, and Pindar.1 III. We shall now proceed to take a view of these poets separately, classing among the former the dithyrambic poet Arion, and among the latter Pindar's instructor, Lasus, and a few others who have sufficient individuality of character to distinguish them from the crowd. IV. ALcMAN ('AAK;Jaxv), called by the Attic and later Greek writers Alcmaron ('AAKic/aiwv), of which Alcnanz is merely the Doric form, the chief lyric poet of Sparta, was by birth a Lydian, and a native of Sardis. He was brought into Laconia as a slave, evidently when very young. His master, whose name was Agesidas, discovered his genius and emancipated him, and he then began to distinguish himself as a lyric poet.2 To what extent he obtained the rights of citizenship is not known. Suidas calls him a Laconian of Messoa, one of the quarters or divisions of Sparta, meaning probably that he was enrolled as a citizen of Messoa after his emancipation. Aleman probably flourished from about 671 to about 631 B.C. The period during which most of his poems were composed was that which followed the conclusion of the second Messenian war. During this period of quiet the Spartans began to cherish that taste for the spiritual enjoyments of poetry, which, though felt by them long before, had never attained to a high state of cultivation while their attention was absorbed in war. In this process of improvement Aleman was immediately preceded by Terpander. But besides the aid which he derived from the important changes introduced by the latter, he had also an intimate acquaintance with the Phrygian and Lydian styles of music, and he was himself the inventor of new forms of rhythm, some of which bore his name.3 A large portion of Aleman's poetry was erotic. In fact, he is said by some ancient writers to have been the inventor of erotic poetry.4 From his poems of this class, which were marked by a freedom bordering on licentiousness, he obtained the epithets of " sweet" and " pleasant" (7yvtc5s, xapLeLs). Among these poems were many hym;eneal pieces. But the t Mifller, p. 191. 2 Suid., s. v.; Heraclid., Polit., p..206; Vell. Pat., 1, 18. S3 ith, Dict. Bior., s,. 4 Athen., xiii., p. 600; Suid., s. v.

Page  117 POETICAt, PERIOD. 117 Parthenia, which form a branch of Alcman's poems, must not be confounded with the erotic. T~ hey were so called, as we have already remarked, because composed for the purpose of being sung by choruses of virgins, and not on account of their subjects, which were very various, sometimes, indeed, erotic, but often religious. Aleman's other poems embrace hymns to the gods, peans, prosodia, songs adapted for different religious festivals, and short ethical or philosophical pieces. It is disputed whether he wrote any anapastic war-songs, or embateria; but it seems very unlikely that he should have neglected a kind of composition which had been rendered so popular by Tyrteeus.' His metres are very various. He is said by Suidas to have been the first poet who composed any but dactylic hexameters. This statement, however, is incorrect; but Suidas perhaps refers to the short dactylic lines into which Alcman broke up the Homeric hexameter. In this practice, however, he had been preceded by Archilochus, from whom he borrowed several others of his peculiar metres; others he invented himself. The Cretic hexameter was named Alcmanic from his being its inventor. The poems of Aleman were chiefly strophes, composed of lines sometimes of the same metre throughout the strophe, sometimes of different metres. His dialect was the Spartan Doric, with an intermixture of,Eolic. The popular idioms of Laconia appear most frequently in his more familiar poems. The Alexandrean grammarians placed Alcman at the head of their canon of the nine lyric poets. The few fragments that remain of his poetry, though some of them are very beautiful, scarcely warrant the admiration which the ancients have expressed of him; but this may be owing to their extreme shortness, or because they are very unfavorable specimens. Muller endeavors to shield Aleman from the charge of licentiousness, but the terms in which the ancients speak of this are so strong that we can not well acquiesce in so favorable a representation of the character of his erotic poetry.2 Alcman's poems comprised six books, the extant fragments of which are included in the collections of Neander, H. Stephens, Fulvius Ursinus, Schneidewin, and Bergk. The latest and best edition is that of Welcker, Giessen, 1815. V. STESICHORUS (Z:71i1Xopos) of Himera, in Sicily, a celebrated poet, was contemporary with Sappho and Alceus, later than Aleman, and earlier than Simonides. He is said to have been born B.C. 632, and to have died at the age of eighty, or, according to Lucian, eighty-five.3 The Parian marble says that Stesichorus the poet came into Greece at the same time at which zEschylus gained his first tragic victory, B.C. 4'75. But this statement refers, no doubt, to a later poet of the same name and family. Of the events of the life of Stesichorus we have only a few obscure accounts. Like other great poets, his birth is fabled to have been attended by an omen: a nightingale sat upon the babe's lips, and sang a sweet strain.4 He is said to have been carefillly educated at Catana, and 1 Smith, 1. c. 2 Id. ib. 3 Suid., s. v.; Aristot., Rhet., ii., 20, 5; Lucian., Macrob., 26. 4 (Clristod. Ecph7r. ap. Jacobs, AAnth. Grec., vol. i., p. 42; Plir., HI. N., x., 29.

Page  118 118 GREEK LITERATURE. afterward to have enjoyed the friendship of Phalaris, the tyrant of Agrigentum. Many writers relate the fable of his being'miraculously struck with blindness after writing an attack upon Helen, and recovering his sight when he had composed a recantation or palinodia. Thile statement that he travelled in Greece appears to be supported by some passages in the fragments of his poems, by the known usage of the early Grecian poets, and by the confused tradition preserved by Suidas, that he came to Catana as an exile from Pallantium, in Arcadia. For his connection with Catana, and his burial there, we have several testimonies. Suidas says that he was buried by a gate of the city, which was called after him the Stesichorean gate, and that a splendid octagonal monument was erected over his tomb, having eight pillars, and eight sets of steps, and eight angles; whence, according to some, was derived the name:STrlMXopos 6pLOIuos, applied to the throw " all eight" in gaming.2 Stesichorus lived at a time when the serene tone of the epos, and an exclusive devotion to a mythical subject no longer sufficed; the predominant tendency of the Greek mind was toward lyric poetry. He himself was powerfully affected by this taste, and consecrated his life to the transplantation of all the rich materials, and the mighty and imposing shapes, which had hitherto been the exclusive property of the epos, to the choral poem. His special business was the training and direction of choruses, and hence, it is said, he was called, or more properly assumed the name of, Stesichorus, or "'leader of choruses," his original name having been Tisias. Hence Suidas remarks: eKx-0v se ~-'TO0IXopos, OrL 7rp~cros clmOapqV6q XOPbV iE'0r7TEYV, e7rEL tro L rpdTEpoY Tlo'-as icaAE'ro. In other words, it was he who first broke the monotonous alternation of the strophe and antistrophe through a whole poem, by the introduction of the epode. So great was the celebrity of this invention in later times, that the " Triad of Stesichorus" (a'rpia:ErVT-lXopov), denoting the strophe, antistrophe, and epode, passed into a proverb for the fundamental elements of a liberal education. The chorus of Stesichorus seems to have consisted of a combination of several rows or members of eight dancers; the number eight appears indeed, from various traditions, to have. been, as it were, consecrated to him, a number which we have already mentioned in speaking of his tomb.3 As the metres of Stesichorus approach much more nearly to the epos than those of Aleman, as his dialect also is founded on the epic, to which he gave a different tone only by the most frequent and current Dorisms, so also, with regard to the matter and contents of his poems, Stesichorus makes, of all lyric poets, the nearest approach to the epic. According to the elegant language of Quintilian, he sustained the weight of epic poetry with the lyre.4 The subjects of his poems were chiefly heroic. He transferred the subjects of the old epic poetry to the lyric form, dropping, of course, the continuous narrative, and dwelling on isolated adventures of his heroes. He also composed poems on other subjects. His extant ret Pausan., iii., 19, 11. 2 Suid., s. v. Iravraa 6ircT; Pollux, ix., 7; Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 3.liiller, Hist. 7Gr. Lit., p. 199, x., i, 62':.3iller, p. 200.

Page  119 POETICAL PERIOD. 119 mains have been classified under the following heads: 1. Mythological poems; 2. Hymns, Encomia, Epithalamia, Paeans; 3. Erotic poems and Scolia; 4. A pastoral poem entitled Daphrnis; 5. Fables; 6. Elegies. From what we have remarked, it would appear that the poetry of Stesichorus was not employed in expressing his own feelings, or describing the events of his own life, but that he preferred the past to the present. This character seems to have been common to all the poems of Stesichorus. Thus, he did not, like Sappho, compose Epithalamia having an immediate reference to the present, but he took some of his materials from mythology. The beautiful epithalamium of Theocritus, supposed to have been sung by the Laconian virgins before the chamber of Menelaus and Helen, is, in part, imitated from a poem of Stesichorus.' The fragments of Stesichorus have been printed with the editions of Pindar published in 1560, 1566, 1567, &c., and in the collections of the Greek poets published in 1568 and 1569, and recently in the collections of Schneidewin and Bergk. They have also been edited by Suchfort, G6tting., 1771, 4to; by Blomfield, in the Museum Criticurn, vol. ii., p. 256, seqq.; in Gaisford's Poetce Minores Greci; and by Kleine, Berol., 1828, 8vo. The last mentioned is by far the most useful edition of his fragments, and the authorities respecting the life and writings of the poet are collected and discussed in a preliminary dissertation. VI. Our information respecting ARION ('Apiav') is far less complete and satisfactory, yet the little that we do know of him proves the wide extension of lyric poetry in the time of Alcman and Stesichorus. Arion was the contemporary of Stesichorus; he is called the disciple of Aleman, and (according to the testimony of Herodotus) flourished du. ring the reign of Periander at Corinth, between 628 and 585 B.C. He was a native of Methymna, in Lesbos, a district in which the worship of Bacchus, introduced by the Boeotians, was celebrated with orgiastic rites and with music. The remarkable adventure of which he became the hero, and the preservation of his life by the music-charmed dolphin, which is narrated with so much attractive simplicity by Herodotus, has contributed nearly as much to his posthumous fame as the brilliancy of his musical compositions.2 Arion was chiefly known in Greece as the perfecter of the dithyramb,3 of which we have already given a general account. According to the concurrent testimonies of the historians and grammarians of antiquity, he was the first who practiced a chorus in the representation of a dithyramb, and therefore gave a regular and dignified character to this song, which before had probably consisted of irregular expressions of excited feeling and of inarticulate ejaculations. This improvement was made by Arion at Corinth, the rich and flourishing city of Periander. The choruses which sang the dithyramb were cyclic or circular choruses (mKicAlot Xdpo'), and were so called because they danced in a circle round the altar on which the sacrifice was burning. Accordingly, in the time of Aristophanes, the expressions " dithyrambic poet" and "teacher of cyclian choruses" (KvKuXoSrNldccaAos) were nearly synonymous. ~ Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v.; 3Miiller, p. 203. 2 Miiller, p. 203. Herodl., i., 23; Schol. ad Pind., 01.. xiii.. 25.

Page  120 120 GREEK LITERATURE. With regard to the musical accompaniments of the dithyrambs of Arion, it may be remarked that the cithara was the principal instrument used in it, and not the flute, as in the boisterous comus. Arion was himself the first cithara-player of his time, and the exclusive fame of the Lesbian musicians was fully maintained by him. He is also stated to have composed, like Terpander, proomia, that is, hymns to the gods, which served as an introduction to festivals.' A fragment of a hymn to Neptune, ascribed to Arion, is contained in Bergk's Poetce Lyrici Grcci. Modern critical opinion has been much divided as to its genuineness. The negative appears to be the stronger side. VII. In descending to the choral poets who lived nearer the time of the Persian war, we meet with two of very peculiar character, the vehement Ibycus and the tender and refined Simonides. IsBcvs ('l/3IKO), the fifth lyric poet of the Alexandrine canon, was a native of Rhegium, the city near the southernmost point of Italy, and which was closely connected with Sicily, the country of Stesichorus. Rhegium was peopled partly by Ionians from Chalcis, partly by Dorians from the Peloponnesus; the latter of whom were a superior class. The peculiar dialect formed in Rhegium had some influence on the poems of Ibycus; although these were in general written in an epic dialect with a Doric tinge, like the poems of Stesichorus. Ibycus spent the best part of his life at Samos, at the court of Polycrates, about B.C. 540. Suidas erroneously places him twenty years earlier, in the time of Crcesus, and the father of Polycrates. We have no farther accounts of his life except the well-known story, about which even some doubt has been raised, of the manner of his death. While travelling through a desert place near Corinth, he was attacked by robbers and mortally wounded; but before he died he called upon a flock of cranes that happened to fly over him to avenge his death. Soon afterward, when the people of Corinth were assembled in the theatre, the cranes appeared, and, as they hovered over the heads of the spectators, one of the murderers, who happened to be present, cried out involuntarily, "Behold the avengers of Ibycus!" and thus were the authors of the crime detected. The phrase ai'I,iiou'ye'pavoL passed into a proverb.2 The poetry of Ibycus was chiefly erotic, and partook largely of the impetuosity of his character. Others of his poems were of a mythical char. acter and heroic caste, but some of these, also, were partially erotic. In his poems on heroic subjects he very much resembled Stesichorus, his immediate predecessor in the canon, and hence the ancient critics often doubted to which of the two a particular idea or expression belonged. The metres of Ibycus also resemble those of Stesichorus, being in gen. eral dactylic series, connected together into verses of different lengths, but sometimes so long that they are rather to be called systems than verses. Besides these, Ibycus frequently uses logacedic verses of a soft or languid character; and in general his rhythms are less stately and I.lIller, p. 205. 2 Suid., s. v.; Antip. Sid., Epig., 78 ap. Brunck, Anal., vol. ii., p. 27; Smith, Dict Biograph., s. v'.

Page  121 POETICAL PERIOD. 121 dignified, and more suitable for the expression of passion, than those of Stesichorus. Suidas mentions seven books of his lyric poems, of which only a few fragments now remain. The best edition of the fragments is that of Schneidewin, Gotting., 1835, 8vo.1 VIII. Leaving Ibycus in the obscurity which envelops all the Greek lyric poets anterior to Pindar, we come to a brighter point in Simonides. This poet has already been described as one of the greatest masters of the elegy and the epigram, but a fuller account of him has been reserved for this place. SIMONIDES (:~uwI[871sr) was born at Iu]lis, in the island of Ceos, which was inhabited by Ionians. His birth-year was about B.C. 556, and he lived, according to a precise account, 89 years. He belonged to a family which sedulously cultivated the musical arts;2 his grandfather on the paternal side had been a poet; Bacchylides, the lyric poet, was his nephew; and Simonides the younger was his grandson. He himself exercised the functions-of a chorus-teacher in the town of Carthaea, in Ceos, and the house of the chorus (Xopye7ov), near the temple of Apollo, was his customary abode. This occupation was to him, as to Stesichorus, the origin of his poetical efforts. He appears, indeed, to have been brought up to music and poetry as a profession. From his native island he proceeded to Athens, probably on the invitation of Hipparchus, who attached him to his society by great rewards.3 After remaining at Athens for some time, probably even after the'expulsion of Hippias, he went to Thessaly, where he lived under the patronage of the Aleuadae and Scopade.4 He afterward returned to Athens, and soon had the noblest opportunity of employing his poetic powers in the celebration of the great events of the Persian war. In 489 B.C., he conquered AEschylus in the contest for the prize which the Athenians offered for an elegy on those who fell at Marathon.5 Ten years later, he composed the epigrams which were inscribed upon the tomb of the Spartans who fell at Thermopyle, as well as an encomium on the same heroes;6 and he also celebrated in verse the battles of Artemisium and Salamis, and the great men who commanded in them. He had completed his 80th year when his long poetical career at Athens was crowned by the victory which he- gained with the dithyrambic chorus, being the 56th prize which he had carried off.7 Shortly after this, he was invited to Syracuse by Hiero, at whose court he lived until his death. Simonides was in high honor at Syracuse, and a great favorite with Hiero, who treated him with lavish munificence. He still continued, while at Syracuse, to employ his muse occasionally in the service of other Grecian states. Throughout his whole life he appears to have been attached to philosophy; and his poetical genius is characterized rather by versatility and purity of taste than by fervid enthusiasm. Many ingenious apophthegms and wise sayings are attributed to him, nearly re1 Smith, 1. c. 2 Chamcelion ap. Athen., x., p. 456, c. 3 Plat., Hipparch., p. 228, c; XiElian, V. H., viii., 2. 4 Theocrit., Id., xvi., 34; Cic., De Orat., ii., 86; Stes., Frag. 71, Bentl. 5 Frag. 58, Epig. 149. 6 Epig. 150-155, Frag. 9. 7 Epig. 203, 204. F

Page  122 122 (GREIEK, ITERATURE. sembling those of the seven sages; for example, the answer to the question, What is God l is ascribed both to him and to Thales: in the one anecdote the questioner is Hiero, in the other Crcesus. Simonides himself is sometimes reckoned among the philosophers, and the Sophists considered him as a predecessor in their art. He is said, moreover, to have been the inventor of the mnemonic art, and of the long vowels and double letters in the Greek alphabet. Simonides made literature a profession, and is said to have been the first who took money for his poems; and the reproach of avarice is too often brought against him by his contemporary and rival, Pindar, as well as by subsequent writers, to be altogether discredited.2 The chief characteristics of his poetry were sweetness (whence he obtained the surname of Melicertes) and elaborate finish, combined with the truest poetic conception and perfect power of expression, though in originality and fervor he was far inferior, not only to the early lyric poets, such as Sappho and Alceus, but also to his contemporary Pindar. He was probably both the most prolific and the most generally popular of all the Grecian lyric poets. Among the poems which he composed for public festivals were hymns and prayers (K acEvXal) to various gods, plans to Apollo, hyporchemes, dithyrambs, epinicia, and parthenia. In the hyporchemes, Simonides seemed to have excelled himself; so great a master was he of the art of painting, by apt rhythms and words, the acts which he wished to describe. His dithyrambs were not, according to the original purpose of this branch of composition, dedicated to Bacchus, but admitted subjects of the heroic mythology. His epinicia appear to have been distinguished from those of Pindar mainly in this, that the former dwelt more upon the particular victory which gave occasion to his song, and described all its details with great minuteness; whereas Pindar passes lightly over the incident, and immediately soars into higher regions.3 The following is a list of those of the compositions of Simonides of which we possess either the titles or fragments: 1. A poem, the precise form of which is unknown, on "The Empire of Cambyses and Darius" (X7 Kau,Bzov ucal AapELov 3aarXEla). 2, 3. Elegies on the battles of Artemisium and Salamis (q ey'Ap'rETLOItq vavtuaXta' Ev caiXaApvit Yavl/aXta). 4. Eulogistic poems in various metres (Eytcc6,uLa). 5. Epinician Odes (irlvLKOL aQal). 6. Hymns or Prayers ('tuYoi, KarevXa/). 7. Plans (ira aves). 8. Dithyrambs (8oiLpat3o0t, also called rpayqTat). 9. Drinking songs (dK6Axa). 10. Parthenia (rrapOevla). 11. Hyporchemes (v7ropXJxua-a). 12. Laments (Spivoi). 13. Elegies (EXeAyeau). 14. Epigrams (E'irrypciaauana, ar orXE6LdtcaaTa).4 The fragment of his Lament of Dana' is one of the finest remains of Greek lyric poetry that we possess. The general character of the dialect of Simonides is, like that of Pindar, the Epic mingled with Doric and,Aolic forms. The fragments of Simonides are contained in the chief collections of the Greek poets, in Brunck's Analecta, who gives with them those which belonged to the other poets of the same name; in Jacobs' Cic., N. D., i., 22. 2 Schneidezwin, p. xxiv.-xxxii. 3 MSidller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 210. Smith, Dict. Rior. s ).

Page  123 POETICAL PERIOD. 123 Anthologia Grceca; in Schneidewin's standard edition, Brunsw., 1835, and in his Delectus Poesis Grcecorum; and in Bergk's Poetca Lyrici Grceci. IX. BACCHYLIDES (BacKXvXu sr), the nephew of Simonides, and, like him, a native of Iulis, in Ceos, adhered closely to the system and example of his uncle. He flourished about B.C. 470, toward the close of the life of Simonides, with whom he lived at the court of Hiero, in Syracuse. He wrote, in the Doric dialect, Hymns, Paeans, Dithyrambs, &c., but all his poems have perished, with the exception of a few fragments, and two epigrams in the Greek Anthology. That his poetry was but an imitation of one branch of that of Simonides, cultivated with great delicacy and finish, is proved by the opinions of ancient critics, among whom Dionysius adduces perfect correctness and uniform elegance as the characteristics of Bacchylides. His genius and art were chiefly devoted to the pleasures of private life, love and wine, and, when compared with those of Simonides, appear marked by greater sensual grace and less moral elevation.' Bacchylides, like Simonides, transfers the diffuseness of the elegy to the choral lyric poem, although he himself composed no elegies, and followed the traces of his uncle only as an epigrammatist. The structure of his verse is generally very simple; nine tenths of his odes, to judge from the fragments, consisted of dactylic series and trochaic dipodies, as we find in those odes of Pindar which were written in the Doric mode. We find also in his poems trochaic verses of great elegance. Like his predecessors in lyric poetry, he wrote in the Doric dialect, but frequently introduces Attic forms, so that the dialect of his poems very much resembles that of the choruses in the Attic tragedies.2 The fragments of Bacchylides have been collected by Neue, " Bacchylidis Coi fragmenta," Berol., 1823; and by Schneidewin and Bergk. X. The universal esteem in which Simonides and Bacchylides were held in Greece, and their acknowledged excellence in their art, did not prevent some of their contemporaries from striking into various other paths, and adopting other styles of treating lyric poetry. LAsvs (Aa-os) of Hermione, in Argolis, was a rival of Simonides, during his residence in Athens, and likewise enjoyed high favor at the court of Hipparchus.3 It is, however, difficult to ascertain, from the very scanty accounts which we possess of this poet, wherein consisted the point of contrast between him and his competitor. He was more peculiarly a dithyrambic poet, and was the first that introduced contests in dithyrambs at Athens, probably about B.C. 508. He is celebrated as the teacher of Pindar. The dithyrambic style predominated so much in his works, that he gave to the general rhythms of his odes a dithyrambic turn, and a free movement, in which he was aided by the variety and flexibility of tone of the flute, his favorite instrument.4 He was also a theorist in his art, and investigated the laws of music, that is, the relation of musical intervals to rapidity of movement. Plutarch says that Lasus invented various new adaptations of music to dithyrambic poetry, giving it an accompaniment of several flutes, and using more numerous and more varied voices, Mi 1ller, p. 213. 2 Id. ib. 3 Aristoph., Vesp., 1410. Compare Herod., viii., 6. 4 Plut.., Mus., 39.

Page  124 124 GREEK LITERATURE. Lasus wrote a hymn to Ceres, who was worshipped at Hermione, in the Doric dialect, with the Aolic harmony, of which there are three lines extant, and also an ode, entitled Ke'ravpo, both of which pieces were remarkable for not containing the letter:, the hissing sound of which he avoided as dissonant.' XI. TIMOCREON (TLowicpov.), of Rhodes,, was a genius of an entirely peculiar character. Powerful both as an athlete and a poet, he transferred the pugnacity of the palaestra to poetry. He is celebrated for the bitter and pugnacious spirit of his works, and especially for his attacks on Themistocles and Simonides. From fragments of his poetry which are preserved by Plutarch,2 it appears that he was a native of Ialysus, in Rhodes, whence he was banished on the then common charge of an inclination toward Persia (Lorwlrods); and in this banishment he was left neglected by Themistocles, who had formerly been his friend, and connected with him by the ties of hospitality. What made the cause of offence greater was, that Themistocles had obtained their recall for other political fugitives. This distinction Timocreon ascribed to pecuniary corruption. Timocreon seems to have ridiculed and parodied Simonides on account of some tricks of his art, as where the latter expresses the same thought in the same words, only transposed, first in an hexameter, and then in a trochaic tetrameter. Of his poetry only a few fragments remain, which are given in the collections of Schneidewin and Bergk.3 XII. PINDXRUS (nivSapos), the greatest lyric poet of Greece, was a native of B3ceotia, but the ancient biographies leave it uncertain whether he was born at Thebes or at Cynoscephale, a village in the territory of Thebes. His parents, it is well ascertained, belonged to Cynoscephalke, and may, perhaps, have resided at Thebes, which would serve to reconcile the two accounts. Pindar was born, as we know from his own testimony, during the celebration of the Pythian games. Clinton places his birth in B.C. 518, Bockh in B.C. 522, but neither of these dates is certain, though the latter is perhaps the more probable. He appears to have died in his 80th year, though other accounts make him much younger at the time of his death. If he was born in B.C. 522, his death would fall in B.C. 442. He was in the prime of life at the battles of Marathon and Salamnis, and was nearly of the same age as the poet LEschylus. But the causes which determined Pindar's poetical character are to be sought in a period previous to the Persian war, and in the Doric and 2Eolic parts of Greece rather than in Athens; and thus we may separate Pindar from his contemporary LEschylus, by placing the former at the close of the early period, the latter at the head of the new period of literature.4 The family of Pindar ranked among the noblest in Thebes. It was sprung from the ancient race of the LEgida, who claimed descent from Cadmus. The family seems to have been celebrated for its skill in music, though there is no authority for stating, as B6ckh and Miiller have done, that they were hereditary flute-players, and exercised their profession regularly at certain great religious festivals. The ancient biogra1 AilZler, p. 214; Smith, Diet. Bior., s. v. 2 Theemist., 21.. 3MfSil e7, p. 2)15 Slithl, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 4 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v.

Page  125 POETICAL PERIOD. 125 phies relate that the father or uncle of Pindar was a flute-player, and we are told that Pindar, at an early age, received instruction in the art from the flute-player Scopelinus. But the youth soon gave indications of a genius for poetry, which induced his father to send him to Athens to receive more perfect instruction in the art; for it must be recollected that lyric poetry among the Greeks was so intimately connected with music, dancing, and the whole training of the chorus, that the lyric poet required no small amount of education to fit him for his profession. At Athens Pindar became the pupil of Lasus of Hermione, the founder of the Athenian school of dithyrambic poetry, and who was at that time residing at Athens, under the patronage of Hipparchus. He returned to Thebes before he had completed his twentieth year, and is said to have received instruction there from Myrtis, and Corinna of Tanagra, two poetesses, who then enjoyed great celebrity in Bceotia.l Corinna appears to have exercised considerable influence over the youthful poet, and he was'not a little indebted to her example and precepts. It is related by Plutarch,2 that she recommended Pindar to introduce mythical narrations into his poems, and that when, in accordance with her advice, he composed a hymn (part of which is still extant), in which he interwove almost all the Theban mythology, she smiled and said, "We ought to sow with the hand, and not with the whole sack" (.,r7 XELpIl 6EWy TrE1p~Ev, aAAa /7 lp?o, y T& vcuAdtccr). With both these poetesses Pindar contended for the prize in the musical contests at Thebes. But Corinna was five times victorious over him. Pindar commenced his professional career as a poet at a very early age, and acquired so great a reputation that he was soon employed by different states and princes in all parts of the Hellenic world to compose for them choral songs for special occasions. He received money and presents for -his works; but he never degenerated into a common mercenary poet, and he continued to preserve to his latest days the respect of all parts of Greece. His earliest poem which has come down to us (the 10th Pythian) he composed at the age of twenty. It is an Epinician ode in honor of Hippocles, a Thessalian youth, belonging to the powerful family of the Aleuade, and who had gained the prize at the Pythian games. The next ode of Pindar in point of time is the 6th Pythian, which he wrote in his twenty-seventh year. It would be tedious, however, to relate at length the different occasions on which he composed his other odes. It may suffice to mention that he composed poems for Hiero, tyrant of Syracuse; Alexander, son of Amyntas, king of Macedonia; Theron, tyrant of Agrigentum; Arcesilaus IV., king of Cyrene, and besides for many free states and private persons. He was courted especially by Alexander, king of Macedonia, and by Hiero of Syracuse; and the praises which he bestowed upon the former are said to have been the chief reason which led his descendant, Alexander, son of Philip, to spare the house of the poet when he destroyed the rest of Thebes.3 About B.C. 473, Pindar visited the court of Hiero, in consequence of the pressing invitation of 1 Smith, Dict. Bioc'r., s. v. 2 De Glor. Athen., 14. 3 Dion Chrysost., Orat. de Regno, ii., p. 25.

Page  126 126 GREE K LITERATURE. that monarch; but it appears that he did not remain more than four years at Syracuse, as he loved an independent life, and did not care to cultivate the courtly arts which rendered his contemporary, Simonides, a more welcome guest at the table of their patron.' But the estimation in which Pindar was held by his contemporaries is still more strikingly shown by the honors conferred upon him by the free states of Greece. Although a Theban, he was always a great favorite with the Athenians, whom he frequently praised in his poems, and whose city he often visited. In one of his dithyrambs2 he called it " the support (fpeLopEa) of Greece, glorious Athens, the divine city.'? The Athenians testified their gratitude by making him their public guest (7rprEvos) and giving to him 10,000 drachme;3 and at a later period they erected a statue to his honor,4 but this was not done in his lifetime, as the pseudoLEschines states.5 The inhabitants of Ceos employed Pindar to compose for them a -rpoodiLov, or processional song, although they had two celebrated poets of their own, Bacchylides and Simonides. The Rhodians had his seventh Olympic ode written in letters of gold in the temple of the Lindian Minerva.6 Pindar's stated residence was at Thebes, though he frequently left home in order to attend the great public games, and to visit the states and distinguished men who courted his friendship and employed his services. In the public events of the time he appears to have taken no share. In. deed, the praises which he bestowed upon Athens, the ancient rival of Thebes, displeased his fellow-citizens, who are said even to have fined him in consequence. It is farther stated that the Athenians paid the fine, but the tale does not deserve much credit. The poems of Pindar show that he was penetrated with a strong religious feeling. He had not imbibed any of the skepticism which began to take root at Athens after the close of the Persian war. The old myths were for the most part realities to him, and he accepted them with implicit credence, except when they exhibited the gods in a point of view which was repugnant to his moral feelings; and he accordingly rejects some tales, and changes others, because they are inconsistent with his conceptions of the gods. Pindar was a strict observer of the worship of the gods. He dedicated a shrine to the mother of the gods near his own house at Thebes.7 He also dedicated to Jupiter Ammon, in Libya, a statue made by Calamis,s and likewise a statue in Thebes to Mercury of the Agora.9 He was in the habit of frequently visiting Delphi, and there, seated in an iron chair, which was reserved for him, he used to sing hymns in honor of Apollo.l~ The only poems of Pindar which have come down to us entire are his Epinicia, or triumphal odes, commemorating victories at the games (E7rLVlK a, scil. &teaca, from earI and L'KS). But these were only a small portion of his works. Besides his triumphal odes, he wrote hymns to the Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 2 Dithyr., Frag. 4. 3 Isocr., 7repl avtL8., p. 304, ed. Dind. 4 Pausanz., i., 8, 4.! Epist., 4. 6 Smith, 1. c. 7 Pausan., ix., 25, 3. 8 Id., ix., 6, 1. 9 Id., ix., 17, 1. 1 ) PIearsan., x., 24, 4.

Page  127 POETICAL PERIOD. 127 gods, pceans, dithyracmbs, prosodia, or processional odes; parthenia, or songs of maidens; hyporchemnes, or mimic songs; scolia, or convivial songs; threni, or dirges; and enconmia, or panegyrics on princes. Of these we have numerous fragments. Most of them are mentioned in the well-known lines of Horace: Sen per audaces n va dithyrambos Verba devolvit, nunlerisque fertur Lege solutis: Seu deos (hymns and peans) regesve (encomia) canit deorumr Sanguinem: Sive quos Elea domum reducit Palma cclestes (Epinicia): Flebili sponsae juvenemve rapture Plorat (dirges). In all of these varieties Pindar equally excelled, as we see from the numerous quotations made from them by the ancient writers, though they are generally of too ~Fagmentary a kind to allow us to form a judgment respecting them. Our estimate of Pindar as a poet must be formed almost exclusively from his Epinicia, which were all composed, as already remarked, in commemoration of some victory in the public games, with the exception of the eleventh Nemean, which was written for the installation of Aristagoras in the office of Prytanis at Tenedos. The Epinicia are divided into four books, celebrating respectively the victories gained in the Olympic, Pythian, Nemean, and Isthmian games. In order to understand them properly, we must bear in mind the nature of the occasion for which they were composed, and the object which the poet had in view. A victory gained in one of the four great national festivals conferred honor not only on the conqueror and his family, but also on the city to which he belonged. It was accordingly celebrated with great pomp and ceremony. Such a celebration began with a procession to a temple, where a sacrifice was offered, and it ended with a banquet and the joyous revelry called by the Greeks cet oOs. For this celebration a poem was expressly composed, which was sung by a chorus, trained for the purpose, either by the poet himself, or some one acting on his behalf. The poems were sung either during the procession to the temple, or at the comus at the close of the banquet.2 Those of Pindar's Epinician odes which consist of strophes without epodes, were sung during the procession, but the majority of them appear to have been sung at the comus. For this reason, they partake to some extent of the joyous nature of the occasion, and accordingly contain at times jocularities which are hardly in accordance with the modern notions of lyric poetry. In these odes Pindar rarely describes the victory itself, as the scene was familiar to all the spectators, but he dwells upon the glory of the victor, and celebrates chiefly either his wealth ('X/Bos) or his skill (&peTri)-his wealth, if he had gained the victory in the chariotrace, since it was only the wealthy that could contend for the prize in this contest; his skill, if he had been exposed to peril in the encounter. He frequently celebrates, also, the piety and goodness of the victor; for, I Carm., iv., 2., Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v.

Page  128 128 GREEK LITERATURE. with the deep religious feeling which pre-eminently characterizes Pindar, he believed that the moral and religious character of the conqueror conciliated the favor of the gods, and gained for him their support and assistance in the contest. For the same reason, he dwells at great length upon the mythical origin of the person whose victory he extols, and connects his exploits with the similar exploits of the heroic ancestors of the race or nation to which he belongs. These mythical narratives occupy a very prominent feature in almost all of Pindar's odes; they are not introduced for the sake of ornament, but have a close and intimate connection with the whole object and purpose of each poem, as is clearly pointed out by Dissen, in his admirable essay, " De Ratione Poetica Carminum Pindaricorum," &c., prefixed to his edition of Pindar.l Every Epinician ode of Pindar has its peculiar tone, depending upon the course of the ideas and the consequent choice of the expressions. The principal differences are connected with the choice of the rhythms, which again is regulated by the musical style. According to the last distinction, the epinicia of Pindar are of three sorts, Doric, JEolic, and Lydian, which can be easily distinguished, although each admits of innumerable varieties. In respect of metre, every ode of Pindar has an individual character, no two odes having the same metrical structure. In the Doric ode the same metrical forms occur as those which prevailed in the choral lyric poetry of Stesichorus, namely, systems of dactyls and trochaic dipodiae, which most nearly approach the stateliness of the hexameter. Accordingly, a serene dignity pervades these odes; the mythical narrations are developed with greater fullness, and the ideas are limited to the subject, and are free from personal feeling; in short, their general character is that of calmness and elevation. The language is Epic, with a slight Doric tinge, which adds to its brilliancy and dignity.2 The rhythms of the AEolic odes resemble those of the Lesbian poetry, in which light dactylic, trochaic, or logacedic metres prevailed; these rhythms, however, when applied to choral lyric poetry, were rendered far more various, and thus often acquired a character of greater volubility and liveliness. The poet's mind also moves with greater rapidity; and sometimes he stops himself in the midst of narrations which seem to him impious or arrogant. The AEolic odes, moreover, from the rapidity and variety of their movements, have a less uniform character than the Doric odes; for example, the first Olympic, with its joyous and glowing images, is very different from the second, in which a lofty melancholy is expressed, and from the ninth, which has an expression of proud and complacent self-reliance. The language of the Aolic epinicia is also bolder, more difficult in its syntax, and marked by rarer dialectical forms. Lastly, there are the Lydian odes, the number of which is inconsiderable; their metre is mostly trochaic, and of a particularly soft character, agreeing with the tone of the poetry. Pindar appears to have preferred the Lydian rhythms for odes which were destined to be sung during a procession to a temple or at the altar, and in which the favor of the deity was implored in an humble spirits 1 Smith, 1. c. 2 Miller, p. 227. 3 Id. ib.

Page  129 PROSAIC PERIOD. 129 The Editio Princeps of Pindar was printed at the Aldine press at Venice, in 1513, 8vo, without the scholia; but the same volume contained likewise the poems of Callimachus, Dionysius, and Lycophron. The second edition was published at Rome, by Zacharias Calliergi, with the scholia, in 1515, 4to. These two editions, which were taken from different families of manuscripts, are still of considerable value for the formation of the text. The other editions of Pindar published in the course of the sixteenth century were little more than reprints of the two above named. The first edition containing a new recension of the text, with explanatory notes, a Latin version, &c., was that published by Erasmus Schmidius, Vitembergae, 1616, 4to. Next appeared the edition of Benedictus, Salinurii, 1620, 4to; and then the one published at Oxford, 1697, fol. From this time Pindar appears to have been little studied, until Heyne published his celebrated edition of the poet at GMttingen, in 1773, 4to. A second and much improved edition was published at Gottingen, in 1798-1799, 3 vols. 8vo, containing a valuable treatise on the metres of Pindar, by Hermann. Heyne's third edition was published after his death, by Schafer, Lips., 1817, 3 vols. 8vo. But the best edition of Pindar is that by Bickh, Lips., 1811-1821, 2 vols. 4to, which contains a most valuable commentary, and dissertations, and is indispensable to the student who wishes to obtain a thorough insight into the musical system of the Greeks, and the artistic construction of their lyric poetry. The commentary on the Nemean and Isthmian odes in this edition was written by Dissen. Dissen also published, in the Bibliotheca Grceca, a smaller edition of the poet, Gotha, 1830, 2 vols. 8vo, taken from the text of BSckh, with a most valuable explanatory commentary. This edition is the most useful to the student from its size, though it does not supersede that of Bickh. A second edition of Dissen's, by Schneidewin, appeared, Gotha, 1843, seq. There is also a valuable edition of Pindar by Fr. Thiersch, Lips., 1820, 2 vols. 8vo, with a German translation, and an important introduction; and a very useful one by Cookesley, Etonwe, 1851, 2 vols. 8vo. The text of the poet is given with great accuracy by Bergk, in his Poete Lyrici Grweci.l CHAPTER XX. THIRD OR EARLY PROSAIC PERIOD. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. I. THE third period of Greek literature is also denominated the early prosaic one, and, as we have already remarked, begins, in fact, before the full termination of the preceding one, with the first attempts at prose composition, and extends to and includes the era of Herodotus. In considering this period, it will be necessary to distinguish between the philosophical and historical writers; and as prose writing, according to some, originated among the former, we will consider them first in order, although some of the writers to be mentioned by us in this enumeration will be found to have written in philosophic verse, not in prose. Our object in making mention of these writers is to give a continuous view of early Greek philosophy. I. EARLIER GREEK PHIILOSOPHY.2 II. Philosophy, for some time after its origin in Greece, was as far removed from the ordinary thoughts, occupations, and amusements of the people, as poetry was intimately connected with them. Poetry ennobles and elevates all that is characteristic of a nation; its religion, mythology, political and social institutions, and manners. Philosophy, on the other hand, begins by detaching the mind from the opinions and habits in which it has been bred up; from the national conceptions of the gods and the I Smith, 1. c. 2 Mitller, Hi-st, (r. Lit., p. 230, seqq.

Page  130 130 GREEK LITERATURE. universe; and from the traditionary maxims of ethics and politics. The philosopher attempts, as far as possible, to think for himself; and hence he is led to disparage all that is handed down from antiquity. Hence, too, the Greek philosophers from the beginning generally renounced the ornaments of verse; that is, of the vehicle which had been previously used for the expression of every elevated feeling. III. Philosophical writings were nearly the earliest compositions in the unadorned language of common life. It is not probable that they would have been composed in this form if they had been intended for recital to a multitude assembled at games and festivals. It would have required great courage to break in upon the rhythmical flow of the euphonious hexameter and lyric measures, with a discourse uttered in the language of ordinary conversation. IV. The most ancient writings of Greek philosophers were, however, only brief records of their principal doctrines, designed to be imparted to a few persons. There was no reason why the form of common speech should not be used for these, as it had long before been used for laws, treaties, and the like. In fact, prose composition and writing are so intimately connected, that we may venture to assert that, if writing had become common among the Greeks at an earlier period, poetry would not have so long retained its ascendency. We shall, indeed, find that philosophy, as it advanced, sought the aid of poetry, in order to strike the mind more forcibly; but this philosophical poetry may, without any impropriety, be classed with prose composition, as being a limited and peculiar deviation from the usual practice with regard to philosophical writings. V. However the Greek philosophers may have sought after originality and independence of thought, they could not avoid being influenced in their speculations by the peculiar circumstances of their position. Hence the earliest philosophers may be classed according to the races and countries to which they belonged; the idea of a school (that is, of a transmission of doctrines through an unbroken series of teachers and disciples) not being applicable to this period. VI. The earliest attempts at philosophical speculation were made by the Ionians; that race of the Greeks which not only had, in common life, shown the greatest desire for new and various kinds of knowledge, but had also displayed the most decided taste for scientific researches into the phenomena of external nature. From this direction of their inquiries, the Ionic philosophers were called by the ancients " physical philosophers," or "physiologers." With a boldness characteristic of inexperience and ignorance, they began by directing their inquiries to the most abstruse subjects; and, unaided by any experiments which were not within the reach of a common man, and unacquainted with the first elements of mathematics, they endeavored to determine the origin and principle of the existence of all things.l VII. If we are tempted to smile at the temerity with which the once ventured upon the solution of the highest problems, we are, on the other hand, astonished at the sagacity with which many of them con1 Miiller, p. 240.

Page  131 PROSAIC PERIOD. 131 jectured the connection of appearances, which they could not fully comprehend without a much greater progress in the study of nature. The scope of these Ionian speculations proves that they were not founded on a priori reasonings, independent of experience. The Greeks were always distinguished by their curiosity and their powers of delicate observation. Yet this gifted nation, even when it had accumulated a large stock of knowledge concerning natural objects, seems never to have attempted more than the observation of phenomena which presented themselves unsought, and never to have made experiments devised by the investigator. VIII. PHERECiDES (q4epEKvc3s),L a native of Syros, one of the-Cyclades, deserves mention before we pass to the individual philosophers of the Ionic school (taking the term in its most extended sense), because he forms an intermediate link between the sacerdotal enthusiasts, Epimenides, Abaris, and others, and the Ionic physiologers. He is, according to some, the earliest Greek of whose prose -writings we possess any remains, and was certainly one of the first who, after the manner of the Ionians (before they had obtained any papyrus-from Egypt), wrote down their unpolished wisdom upon sheep-skins. But his prose is only so far prose, that it has cast off the fetters of verse, and not because it expresses the ideas of the writer in a simple and perspicuous manner. His ideas and language closely resembled those of the Orphic theologers, and he ought rather to be classed with them than with the Ionic philosophers. He maintained that there were three principia (Zeus or Anther, Chthona or Chaos, and Cronos or Time), and four elements (fire, earth, air, and water), from which were formed every thing that exists. Pherecydes lived about B. C. 544.2 According to some, he was not the first who wrote any thing in prose, this honor being reserved for Cadmus of Miletus, but merely the first who employed prose in the explanation of philosophical questions. IX. THALES (Oaxils), of Miletus,3 was the first in the series of the Ioni.c physical philosophers. He was born, according to Apollodorus, in the 35th Olympiad, and lived in the age of the Seven Sages, one of whom he himself was. These seven sages were not solitary thinkers, whose renown for wisdom was acquired by speculations unintelligible to the mass of the people; their fame, on the contrary, which extended over all Greece, was founded solely on their acts as statesmen, counsellors of the people in public affairs, and practical men. This is also true of Thales, whose sagacity in affairs of state and public economy appears from many anecdotes. Thales is also said to have predicted the eclipse of the sun, which happened in the reign of the Lydian king Alyattes, B.C. 609;4 and, under Crcesus, to have managed the diversion of the course of the Halys.5 For calculating the eclipse in question, he doubtless employed astronomical formulae, which he had obtained, through Asia Minor, from the Chaldveans, the fathers of Grecian, and, indeed, of all ancient astronomy; for his own knowledge of mathematics could not have reached as far as the Pytha1 Miiller, p. 240, seq. 2 Diog. Laert., i., 121; Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 3 Miuller, p. 241; Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. Oltmann, Abhandl. der K nigil Akad. der Wiss, in Berlin. 1812,1813. 5 Herod,, i., 75,

Page  132 132 GREEK LITERATURE. gorean theorem. He is said to have been the first teacher of such problems as that of the equality of the angles at the base of an isosceles triangle. In the main, the tendency of Thales was practical; and, when his own knowledge was insufficient, he applied the discoveries of nations more advanced than his own in natural science. Thus he was the first who advised his countrymen, when at sea, not to steer by the Great Bear, which forms a considerable circle around the pole, but to follow the example of the Phoenicians (from whom, according to Herodotus, the family of Thales was descended), and to take the Lesser Bear for their polar star. Thales was not a poet, nor, indeed, the author of any written work, and, consequently, the accounts of his doctrine rest only upon the testimony of his contemporaries and immediate successors; so that it would be vain to attempt to construct from them a system of natural philosophy according to his own notions. It may, however, be collected from these traditions that he considered all nature as endowed with life. " Every thing," he said, " is full of gods;,,2 and he cited, as proofs of this opinion, the magnet and amber, on account of their magnetic and electrical properties.3 It also appears that he considered water as a general principle or cause of things. What may have led him to this last opinion was, according to Aristotle, that the fruit and seeds of things are moist, and that warmth is developed out of moistness. What we have here said is sufficient to show that Thales broke through the common prejudices produced by the impressions of the senses, and sought to discover the principle of external forms in moving powers which lie beneath the surface of appearances.4 X. ANAXIMANDER ('AvaSL/uaavpos),5 also a Milesian, is next after Thales, whose pupil he is said to have been. He was born B.C. 610.6 It seems pretty certain that his little work "upon nature" (7repl vlioEws), as the books of the Ionic physiologers were mostly called, was written in B.C. 547, when he was sixty-three years old. This may be said to be the earliest philosophical work (strictly so termed) in the Greek language; for we can scarcely give that name to the mysterious revelations of Pherecydes. It was probably written in a style of extreme conciseness, and in language more befitting poetry than prose, as indeed appears from the few extant fragments. The astronomical and geographical explanations attributed to Anaximander were probably contained in this work. Anaximander possessed a gnomon, or sun-dial, which he had doubtless obtained from Babylon; and, being at Sparta (which was still the focus of Greek civilization), he made observations, by which he determined exactly the solstices and equinoxes, and calculated the obliquity of the ecliptic. According to Eratosthenes, he was the first who attempted to draw a map; in which his object probably was rather to make a mathematical division of the whole earth, than to lay down the forms of the different countries composing it. 1 Miller, 1. c. 2 Aristot., De Anima, i., 5. 3 Id. ib., i., 2. 4 Miller, 1. C.; Smith, Dict. Biogr., s.. 5 Ifller, p. 242; Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. w. 6 -Apollod. ap. Diog. Laert., ii., 1, 2. 7 Plin., H. N., ii., 8; Herod., ii., 109.

Page  133 PROSAIC PERIOD. 133 According to Aristotle,' Anaximander thought that there were innumlerable worlds, which he called gods; supposing these worlds to be beings endowed with an independent power of motion. He also thought that existing worlds were always perishing, and that new worlds were always springing into being; so that motion was perpetual. According to his views, these worlds arose out of the eternal, or, rather, indeterminable substance, which he called TrO &7rEpov; he arrived at the idea of an original substance, out of which all things arose, and to which all things return, by excluding all attributes and limitations. XI. ANAXIMNES ('A variL/udS),2 another Milesian, according to the general tradition of antiquity, was third in the series of Ionic philosophers. With both Thales and Anaximander he had personal intercourse; for, besides the common tradition, which makes him a disciple of the latter, Diogenes Laertius3 quotes at length two letters said to have been written to Pythagoras by Anaximenes; in one of which he gives an account of the death of Thales, speaking of him with reverence as the first of philosophers, and as having been his own teacher. In the other he congratulates Pythagoras on his removal to Crotona from Samos, while he was himself at the mercy of the tyrants of Miletus, and was looking forward with fear to the approaching war with the Persians, in which he foresaw that the Ionians must be subdued. There is no safe testimony as to the exact period of the birth and death of Anaximenes; but since there is sufficient evidence that he was the teacher of Anaxagoras, B.C. 480, and he was in repute in B.C. 544, he must have lived to a great age.4 Like the other early Greek philosophers, he employed himself in speculating upon the origin, and accounting for the phenomena of the universe; and as Thales held water to be the material cause out of which the world was made, so Anaximenes considered air to be the first cause of all things, the primary form, as it were, of matter, into which the other elements of the universe were resolvable.5 The elementary principle of the Ionians was always considered as having an independent power of motion, and as endowed with certain attributes of the divine essence.6 Hence it appears that Anaximenes, like his predecessors, held the eternity of matter: nor, indeed, does he seem to have believed in the existence of any thing immaterial; for even the human soul, according to his theory, is, like the body, formed of air; and he saw no necessity for supposing an Agent in the work of creation, since he held that motion was a natural and necessary law of the universe.8 XII. A person of far greater importance in the history of Greek philosophy, and especially of Greek prose, is HERACLITUS ('HpdcAiXELcos),9 of Ephesus. The time when he flourished is ascertained to be about the 69th Olympiad, or B.C. 505.0~ After travelling extensively in his youth, he 1 Aristot., Phys., iii., 4. 2.li11ler, p. 243; Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 3 Diog. Laert., ii., 3, seqq. 4 Strab., xiv., p. 645; Cic., N. D., i., 11; Origen, vol. iv., p. 238; Philol. Museum, vol. i., p. 86, seqq. 5 Aristot., Metaph., i., 3. 6 Stobeus, Eclog., p. 296. 7 Plut., De Plac. Phil., i., 3. 8 Smith, 1. c. 9 Muller, p. 244; Smith, Diet. Biogr., s. v. 1o Diog. Laert., ix., 1. Clinton (F. H., vol. ii.) places him under B.C. 513.

Page  134 134 GREEK LITERATURE. appears to have led the life of a complete recluse, and at last to have retreated to the mountains, where he lived on pot-herbs; but, after some time, he was compelled, by the sickness consequent on such meagre diet, to return to Ephesus, where he died. The common story, that he was continually shedding tears on account of the vices and follies of mankind, is as little entitled to sober belief as that of the perpetually-laughing Democritus. The philosophical system of Heraclitus was contained in a work which received various titles from the ancients, of which the most common is 7repi Qpvcws. Some fragments of it remain, and have been collected and explained by Schleiermacher, in Wolf and Buttmann's Museum der Alterthumwissenschaft.l From the obscurity of his style, Heraclitus gained the title of 0-coreLvs, and with his predilection for this method of writing was probably connected his aristocratic pride and hauteur (whence he was called oXXoXo'8opos), his tenacious adherence to his own views, which, according to Aristotle, had as much weight with him as science itself,2 his contempt for the opinions of previous writers, and the wellknown melancholy of his disposition, whence originated the story already alluded to of his weeping for the follies and vices of mankind.3 With regard, however, to his obscurity, we must also take into account the cause assigned for it by Ritter, that the oldest philosophical prose must have been rude and loose in its structure; and since it had grown out of a poetical style, would naturally have recourse to figurative language.4 The cardinal doctrine of his natural philosophy seems to have been, that every thing is in perpetual motion,5 that nothing has any stable or permanent existence, but that every thing is assuming a new form or perishing. Seeking in natural phenomena for the principle of this perpetual motion, Heraclitus supposed it to befire,6 but by fire he meant only a clear light fluid, self-kindled and self-extinguished, and therefore not differing materially from the air of Anaximenes. Thus, then, the world is formed, "not made by God or man," but simply evolved by a natural operation from fire, which, also, is the human life and soul, and, therefore, a rational intelligence guiding the whole universe. With his physical theories his moral ones were closely connected. Thus, he accounted for a drunkard's incapacity by supposing him to have a wet soul; and he even pushed this so far as to maintain that the soul is wisest where the land and climate are driest, which would account for the mental greatness of the Greeks. He held man's soul to be a portion of the divine fire, though degraded by its migration to earth; and he considered the eyes more trustworthy than the ears, as revealing to us the knowledge of fire. The Greek epistles bearing the name of Heraclitus, published in the Aldine collection of Greek letters, Rome, 1499, and Geneva, 1606, and also in the edition of Eunapius, by Boissonade, p. 425, are the invention of some later writer. Vol. i., part 3. 2 Aristot., Eth. Nic., vii., 5. 3 Juv., Sat., x., 34.? Ritter, Gesch. tier Phil., vol. i., p. 267, seqq. 5 Miiller, 1. c. 6 llaxin. 7yr., Diss., xxv., p. 260.

Page  135 PROSAIC PERIOD. 135 XIII. ANAXAG6RAS ('vaca.oaypas)l of Clazomenae, in Ionia, was born about B.C. 499. He is said to have gone to Athens at the age of twenty, during the contests of the Greeks with Persia, and to have lived and taught in that city for a period of thirty years. He became here the intimate friend and teacher of the most eminent men of the time, such as Euripides and Pericles; but, while he thus gained the friendship and admiration of the most enlightened Athenians, the majority, uneasy at being disturbed in their hereditary superstitions, soon found reasons for complaint. The principal cause of hostility toward him must, however, be looked for in the following circumstance. As he was a friend of' Pericles, the party which was dissatisfied with the administration of the latter seized upon the disposition of the people toward the philosopher as a favorable opportunity for striking a blow at the great statesman. Anaxagoras, therefore, was accuc d of impiety, and it was only owing to the influence and eloquence of Pericles that he was not put to death. He was sentenced, however, to pay a fine of five talents, and to quit Athens. The philosopher now went to Lampsacus, and during his residence here a charge of r5F~fUs, or partiality to Persia, was brought against him at Athens, in consequence of which he was condemned to death. He is said to have received the intelligence of his sentence with a smile, and to have died at Lampsacus, at the age of seventy-two.2 The treatise on Nature by Anaxagoras (which was written late in life) was in the Ionic dialect, and in prose, after the example of Anaximenes. We have copious fragments remaining of it, consisting of quotations made from it by later writers, such as Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Diogenes Laertius, Cicero, and others. These fragments exhibit short sentences connected by particles (as, and, but, for), without long periods. But though his style was loose, his reasoning was compact and well arranged. His demonstrations were synthetic, not analytic, that is to say, he subjoined the proof to the proposition to be proved, instead of arriving at his result by a process of inquiry.3 The Ionic philosophers had endeavored to explain nature and its various phenomena by regarding matter in its different forms and modifications as the cause of all things. Anaxagoras, on the other hand, conceived the necessity of seeking a higher cause, independent of matter, and this cause he considered to be Yous, that is, mind, thought, or intelligence. This Yois, however, is not the creator of the world, but merely that which originally arranged the world and gave motion to it; for, according to the axiom that out of nothing nothing can come, he supposed the existence of matter from all eternity, though, before the voils was exercised upon it, it was in a chaotic confusion. In this original chaos there was an infinite number of homogeneous parts (05o0o/epi), as well as heterogeneous ones. The rols united the former, and separated from them what was heterogeneous, and out of this process arose the things we see in this world. This union and separation, however, were made in such a manner that each thing contains in itself parts of other things or heterogeneous elements, and is what it is only on account of the prepondert Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v.; Miiller, p. 246. 2 Diog. Laert., ii., 3, seqq. 3 Millter, 1. c.

Page  136 136 GREEK LITERATURE. ance of certain homogeneous parts which constitute its character.' Anaxagoras thus adopted the doctrine of atoms, and excluded the idea of creation.from his explanation of nature. No doctrine of his, however, gave so much oftfence, or was considered so clear a proof of his atheism, as his opinion that the sun, the bountiful god Helios, who shines upon both mortals and immortals, was a mass of red-hot iron. How startling must these opinions have appeared at a time when the people were accustomed to consider nature as pervaded by a thousand divine powers! And yet these new doctrines rapidly gained the ascendency, in spite of all the opposition of religion, poetry, and even the laws which were intended to protect the ancient customs and opinions. A hundred years later, Anaxagoras, with his doctrine of vovs, appeared to Aristotle a sober inquirer, compared with the wild speculators who preceded him; although Aristotle was aware that his applications of his doctrines were unsatisfactory and defective.2 The fragments of Anaxagoras have been collected by Schaubach, Anaxagorae Fragmenta collegit, &c., Leipzig, 1827, 8vo, and much better by Schorn, Anaxag-orce Fragmenta dispos. et illustr., &c., Bonn, 1829, 8vo. XIV. DIOGENES APOLLONIaTES3 (A0oye'/1Sjs 6'AvroAWYtcir]s), a native of Apollonia, in Crete, was not equal in importance to Anaxagoras, but is still too considerable a writer upon physical subjects to be here passed over in silence. Without being either the disciple or the teacher, he was a contemporary of Anaxagoras; and in the direction of his studies he closely followed Anaximenes, expanding the main doctrines of this philosopher rather than establishing new principles of his own. He wrote a work in the Ionic dialect, entitled 7repi 4IoEWs, " Upon Nature" (a colmmon title with the Ionic philosophers, as we have already seen), which consisted of at least two books, and in which he appears to have treated of physical science in the largest sense of the words. Of this work only a few short fragments remnaiii, proselrved by Aristotle, Diogenes Laertius, and Simplicius. Diogenes, like Anaxagoras, lived at Athens, and is said to have been exposed to similar dangers.4 He maintained that air was the primal element of all things; that there was an infinite number of worlds, and an fnfinite void; that air, densified and rarefied, produced the different members of the universe; that nothing was produced from nothing, or was reduced to nothing; that the earth was round, supported in the middle, and had received its shape from the whirling round of the warm vapors, and its concretion and hardening from cold. He also imputed to air an intellectual energy, though without recognizing any distinction between mind and matter.5 The fragments of Diogenes have been collected and published, with those of Anaxagoras, by Schorn, Bonn, 1829, 8vo, and alone by Panzerbeiter, Leipzig, 1830, 8vo, with a copious dissertation on his philosophy. XV. A third Ionic physical philosopher of this time, ARCIaELAZUS ('ApXISmith.,. c. 2 Miiller, I. c. 3 11iller, p. 2,18; Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 4 ]iog LertL,, ix., 57. 5 Id. ibl

Page  137 PROSAIC PERIOD. 137 Aaos) of Miletus,l who followed the manner of Anaxagoras, is chiefly important from having established himself permanently at Athens. It is evident that these men were not drawn to Athens by any prospect of benefit to their philosophical pursuits; for the Athenians at that time showed a disinclination to such studies, which they ridiculed under the name of meteorosophy, and even made the subject of persecution. It was undoubtedly the power which Athens had acquired as the head of the confederates against Persia, and the oppression of the states of Asia Minor, which drove these philosophers from Clazomenwe and Miletus to the independent, wealthy, and flourishing Athens. And thus these political events contributed to transfer to Athens the last efforts of Ionic philosophy, which the Athenians at first rejected as foreign to their modes of thinking, but which they afterward understood and appreciated, and used as a foundation for more extensive and accurate investigations of their own.2 XVI. But before Athens had reached this pre-eminence in philosophy, the spirit of speculation was awakened in other parts of Greece, and had struck into new paths of inquiry. The Eleatics afford a remarkable instance of independent philosophical research at this period; for, although Ionians by descent, they departed. very widely from their countrymen on the coast of Asia Minor. Elea (afterward Velia, according to the Roman pronunciation) was a colony founded in Italy by the Phocaans, when, from a noble love of freedom, they had delivered up their country in Asia Minor to the Persians, and had been forced, by the enmity of the Etruscans and Carthaginians, to abandon their first settlement in Corsica; which happened about B.C. 536. The three most eminent philosophers of the Eleatic school were Xenophanes, Parmenides, and Zeno.3 XVII. XENoPHXNES4 (~eVOqxYs), a native of Colophon, and who flourished between the 60th and 70th Olympiads,5 was concerned in the colonizing of Elea, and lived at least for some time in that place. He had quitted Colophon as a fugitive or exile. Xenophanes was a poet in earlier life, and did not attach himself to philosophy until he had settled at Elea. But even as a philosopher he retained the poetic form of composition: his work upon nature was written in epic language and metre, and he himself recited it at public festivals after the manner of a rhapsodist. Xenophanes, from the first, adopted a different principle from that of the Ionic physical philosophers; for he proceeded upon an ideal system, while their system was exclusively founded upon experience. He began with the idea of the godhead, and showed the necessity of conceiving it as an eternal and unchanging existence. The lofty idea of an everlasting and immutable God, who is all spirit and mind, was described in his poem as the only true knowledge. Xenophanes was universally regarded by antiquity as the originator of the Eleatic doctrine of the oneness of the universe.6 The deity was, in his view, the animating power of the universe, 1 Ritter and others incline to regard him as a native of Athens, considering the fact as nearly established on the authority of Simplicius. We have preferred, however, following the common account with Miiller. 2 Muller, p. 249. 3 Id. ib. 4 Id., p. 250. 5 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v, 6 Plat., Soph., p. 242; Aristot, 1Met., ii., 5,

Page  138 138 GREEK LITERATURE. which is expressed by Aristotle in the words that, directing his glance on the whole universe, Xenophanes said, " God is the One."' The fragments of Xenophanes have been collected by Karsten: "Xenophanis Colophonii Carminum Reliquica," &c., Bruxell., 1830. XVIII. Xenophanes was followed by PARMENIDES2 (fIap/EYzd&s) of Elea. According to Plato, Parmenides, at the age of sixty-five, came to Athens to the Panatheneea, accompanied by Zeno, then forty years old, and became acquainted with Socrates, who at that time was quite young. Supposing Socrates to have been nineteen or twenty years of age at the time, we may place the visit of Parmenides to Athens in B.C. 448, and, consequently, his birth in 513.3 Parmenides was regarded with great esteem by Plato4 and Aristotle;5 and his fellow-citizens thought so highly of him, that every year they bound their magistrates to render obedience to the laws which he had enacted for them.6 The philosophical opinions of Parmenides were developed in a didactic poem in hexameter verse, entitled 7repl o0VOEWS,7 of which only fragments remain. In this poem he maintained that the phenomena of sense were delusive, and that it was only by mental abstraction that a person could attain to the knowledge of the only reality, a One and All, a continuous and self-existent substance, which could not be perceived by the senses. But, although he believed the phenomena of sense to be delusive, he nevertheless adopted two elements, Warm and Cold, or Light and Darkness.8 The best edition of the fragments of Parmenides is by Karsten. It forms the second part of the first volume of Philosophorum Graecorum Veterum Oper. _Reliquixe, Amstd., 1835. XIX. ZENO (Zpcavv), of Elea, was the favorite disciple of Parmenides. He was born about B.C. 488, and at the age of forty accompanied Parmenides to Athens. He appears to have resided some time at this latter place. Zeno developed the doctrines of Parmenides in a prose work, in which his chief object was to justify the disjunction of philosophical speculation from the ordinary modes of thought. This he did by showing the absurdities involved in the doctrines of variety, of motion, and of creation, opposed to that of an all-comprehending substance.9 XX. Before we turn from the Eleatics to those other philosophers of Italy, to whom the name of Italic has been appropriated, we must notice a Sicilian, who is so peculiar both in his personal qualities and his philosophical doctrines, that he can not be classed with any sect, although his opinions were influenced by those of the Ionians, the Eleatics, and the Pythagoreans. EMPEDUCLES'0 ('Eu7Tre0aoieAs) of Agrigentum, in Sicily, flourished about B.C. 444. He was held in high honor by his countrymen of Agrigentum, and also apparently by the other Doric states of Sicily. He reformed the constitution of his native city by abolishing the oligarchical I Aristot., 1. c. Compare Timon ap. Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. Hyp., i., 224. 2 Miiller, p. 251; Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 3 Plat., Parmen., p. 127, B; Id., Soph., p. 217, G. 4 Id., Theet., p. 183, E; Soph., p. 237. 5 Aristot., Metaph., A. 5, p. 986; Phys. Auscult., i., 23. 6 Diog. Laert.. ix., 23. Compare Strab., vi., p. 252. 7 Plut., De Pyth. Orac., p. 402. S lith, I, c. 9 Miiller, p. 253. 10 Ibid., 1, c.; Snmith, Diet. Biogr., s. v.

Page  139 PROSAIC PERIOD. 139 council of the Thousand; which measure gave such general satisfaction, that the people are said to have offered him the regal authority.' The fame of Empedocles was, however, principally acquired by improvements which he made in the physical condition of large tracts of country. He destroyed the pestiferous exhalations of the marshes about Selinus, by carrying two small streams through the swampy grounds, and thus draining off the water. In other places he blocked up some narrow valleys with large constructions, and thus screened a town from the noxious winds which blew into it, by which he earned to himself the title of " wind averter" (acXvouaYEduas).2 It is probable that Empedocles did not conceal his consciousness of possessing extraordinary intellectual powers, so that we need not wonder at his having been considered by his countrymen in Sicily as a person endowed with supernatural and prophetic gifts. The works of Empedocles were all in verse. The two most important were a didactic poem on nature (rep 4BvrSEcQs), of which considerable fragments are extant, and a poem entitled KaOap1uol, which seems to have recommended good moral conduct as the means of averting epidemics and other evils. Lucretius, the greatest of all didactic poets, speaks of Empedocles with enthusiasm, and evidently makes him his model. Empedocles was acquainted with the theories of the Eleatics and the Pythagoreans; but he did not adopt the fundamental principles of either school, although he agreed with the latter in his belief in the migration of souls, and in a few other points. With the Eleatics he agreed in thinking that it was impossible to conceive any thing arising out of nothing. Empedocles first established the number of four elements, which he called the roots of things.3 The first comprehensive collection of the fragments of Empedocles was made by Sturz, Empedocles Agrigentinus, Lips., 1805. Karsten also has greatly distinguished himself for what he has done for the criticism and explanation of the text, as well as for the light he has thrown on separate doctrines. (Philosophorum Greecorum veterum Reliquice, vol. ii.) A collection of the Fragments by Stein, Bonn, 1852, has also appeared. XXI. We now turn to that class of ancient philosophers which in Greece itself was called the Italic;4 the most obscure region of the Greek philosophy, as we have no accounts of individual writings, and scarcely even of individual writers, belonging to it. The most conspicuous name here is that of Pythagoras, which will alone occupy our attention. PYTHAOORAS5 (IfvOaToypas) was a native of Samos.6 The date of his birth is uncertain, but all authorities agree that he flourished in the times of' Polycrates and Tarquinius Superbus (B.C. 540-510).7 He studied in his own country under Creophilus, Pherecydes of Syros, and others, and is said to have visited Egypt and many countries of the East for the purpose of acquiring knowledge. We have not much trustworthy evidence either as to the kind and amount of knowledge which he acquired, or as to his Diog. Laert., viii., 63, seqq. 2 Id.,viii., 60, 70, 69; Plut., De Curios. Princ., p. 515. 3 iiiller, 1. c.; Smith,. c. 4 itlller, p. 255. 5 Id. ib.; Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 6 Isocr., B1usir., p. 227, ed. Steph. 7 Clinton, Fast. Hell., vol. ii., p. 19=21,

Page  140 140 GREEK LITERATURE. definite philosophical views. It is certain, however, that he believed in the transmigration of souls.' He is also said to have discovered the propositions that the triangle inscribed in a semicircle is right-angled, and that the square of the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle is equal to the sum of the squares on the sides.2 Discoveries in astronomy are also attributed to him; and there can be little doubt that he paid great attention to arithmetic, and its application to weights, measures, and the theory of music.3 Apart from all direct testimony, however, it may safely be affirmed, that the very remarkable influence exerted by Pythagoras, and even the fact that he was made the hero of so many marvellous stories, prove him to have been a man both of singular capabilities and of great acquirements. It may also be affirmed with safety that the religious element was the predominant one in the character of Pythagoras, and that religious ascendency, in connection with a certain mystic religious system, was the object which he chiefly labored to secure. It was this religious element which made the profoundest impression upon his contemporaries. They regarded him as standing in a peculiarly close connection with the gods. The Crotoniats even identified him with the Hyperborean Apollo.4 And, without viewing him as an impostor, we may easily believe that he himself, to some extent, shared the same views. He pretended to divination and prophecy;5 and he appears as the revealer of a mode of life calculated to raise his disciples above the level of mankind, and to recommend them to the favor of the gods.6 When we come to inquire what were the philosophical or religious opinions held by Pythagoras himself, we are met at the outset by the difficulty that even the authors from whom we have to draw possessed no authentic records bearing upon the age of Pythagoras himself. If Pythagoras ever wrote any thing, his writings perished with him, or not long after. The probability is that he wrote nothing.7 Every thing current under his name in antiquity was spurious. It is all but certain that Philolaus was the first who published the Pythagorean doctrines, at any rate in a written form. Still, there was so marked a peculiarity running through the Pythagorean philosophy, that there can be but little question as to the germs of the system having, at any rate, been derived from Pythagoras himself.8 Pythagoras resembled the philosophers of the Ionic school, who undertook to solve, by means of a single primordial principle, the vague problem of the origin and constitution of the universe as a whole. His predilection for mathematical studies led him to trace the origin of all things to number, his theory being suggested, or at all events confirmed, by the observation of various numerical relations, or analogies to them, in the phenomena of the universe. Musical principles likewise played almost as important a part in the 1 Diog. Laert., viii., 36; Pausan., ii., 17. 2 Diog. Laert., viii., 12. 3 Id. ib.; Plin., H. N., ii., 8. 4 Porph., Vit. Pythag., 20; lamb., Vit. Pythag., 31, 140. 5 Cic., De Divin., i., 3, 46; Porph., 1. c., 29. 6 Grote, Hist. Gr., vol. iv., p. 129. 7 Compare Plitt., De Alex.fort., p. 329; Porph., 1. c., 57. s Brandis, Gesch. der Griech. Rom. Philos., p. 442.

Page  141 P'ROSAIC PERIOD. 141 Pythagorean system as mathematical or numerical ideas. We find running through the entire system the idea that order, or harmony of relation, is the regulating principle of the whole universe. The intervals between the heavenly bodies were supposed to be determined according to the laws and relations of musical harmony.l Hence arose the celebrated doctrine of the harmony of the spheres; for the heavenly bodies, in their motion, could not but occasion a certain sound or note, depending on their distances and velocities; and as these were determined by the laws of harmonical intervals, the notes altogether formed a regular musical scale or harmony. This harmony, however, we do not hear, either because we have been accustomed to it from the first, and have never had an opportunity of contrasting it with stillness, or because the sound is so powerful as to exceed our capacities for hearing.2 The ethics of the Pythagoreans consisted more in ascetic practice and in maxims for the restraint of the passions, especially of anger, and the cultivation of the power of endurance, than in scientific theory. VWhat of the latter they had was, as might be expected, intimately connected with their number-theory.3 Happiness consisted in the science of the perfection of the virtues of the soul, or in the perfect science of numbers.4 Likeness to the Deity was to be the object of all our endeavors,5 man becoming better as he approaches the gods, who are the guardians and the guides of men.' Great importance was attached to the influence of music as a means of controlling the force of the passions.7 Self-examination was strongly insisted upon.8 The transmigration of souls was viewed apparently in the light of a process of purification. Souls under the dominion of sensuality either passed into the bodies of animals, or, if incurable, were thrust down into Tartarus, to meet with expiation or condign punishment. The pure were exalted to higher modes of life, and at last attained to incorporeal existence.9 As regards the fruits of this system of training or belief, it is interesting to remark, that wherever we have notices of distinguished Pythagoreans, we usually hear of them as men of great uprightness, conscientiousness, and self-restraint, and as capable of devoted and enduring friendship. II. EARLIER GREEK HISTORIANS.10 I. It is a remarkable fact that a nation so intellectual and cultivated as the Greeks should have been so long without feeling the want of a correct record of its transactions in war and peace. II. From almost the earliest times, the East appears to have had its annals and chronicles, whereas the Greeks, on the other hand, evinced a careless and nearly infantine indifference about the registering of pass1 Nicom., Harm., i., p. 6; ii., 33; Plin., H. IN., ii., 20. 2 Aristot., De Celo, ii., 9; Porph. in HIarm. Ptol., 4, p. 257. 3 Aristot., Eth. Mag., i., 1; Eth. Nic., i., 4; ii., 5. 4 Clem. Alex., Strom., ii., p. 417; Theodoret., Serm., xi., p. 165. 5 Stob., Ecl. Eth., p. 64. 6 Plat., De Def. Or., p. 413 7 Plut., De Is. et Os., p. 384; Porph., Vit. Pyth., 30. 8 Cic., De Sen., I 1. 9 Aristot., De Agn., i., 2, 3; Herod., ii., 123; Diog. Laert., viii., 31. 10 Mi/ller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 258, seqq.

Page  142 142 GREEK LITERATURE. ing events, almost to the time when they became one of the great nations of the world, and waged mighty wars with the ancient kingdoms of the East. The celebration of a by-gone age, which imagination had decked with all its charms, engrossed the attention of the Hellenic race, and prevented them from dwelling on more recent events. Besides this, the division of the nation into numerous small states, and the republican form of the governments, prevented a concentration of interests on particular events and persons. III. No action, no event, before the great conflict between Greece and Persia, could be compared in interest with those great exploits of the Mythical Age, in which heroes from all parts of Greece were supposed to have had a share; certainly none made so pleasing an impression upon all hearers. The Greeks required that a work read in public, and designed for general instruction and entertainment, should impart unmixed pleasure to the mind; but, owing to the dissensions between the Greek republics, their historical traditions could not but offend some, if they flattered others. In short, it was not till a late period that the Greeks outgrew their poetical mythology, and considered contemporary events as worthy of being thought of and written about. IV. From this cause, the history of many transactions prior to the Persian war has perished; but then, without its influence, Greek literature could never have become what it was. Greek poetry, by its purely fictitious character, and its freedom from the shackles of particular truths, acquired that general probability, on account of which Aristotle considers poetry as more philosophical than history. Greek art, likewise, from the lateness of the period at which it descended from the ideal representation of gods and heroes to the portraits of real men, acquired a nobleness and beauty of form which it could never have otherwise attained. And, in fine, the intellectual culture of the Greeks in general would not have taken its liberal and elevated turn, if it had not rested on a poetical basis. V. Writing was probably known in Greece some centuries before the time of Cadmus of Miletus, the earliest Greek historian;' but it had not been employed for the purpose of preserving any detailed historical record. The lists of the Olympic victors, and of the kings of Sparta and the prytanes of Corinth, which the Alexandrean critics considered sufficiently authenticated to serve as the foundation of the early Greek chronology; ancient treaties and other contracts, which it was important to perpetuate in precise terms; determinations of boundaries, and other records of a like description, formed the first rudiments of a documentary history. Yet this was still very remote from a detailed chronicle of contemporary events. And even when, toward the end of the age of the Seven Sages, some writers of historical narratives in prose began to appear among the Ionians and the other Greeks, they did not select domestic and recent events. Instead of this, they began with accounts of distant times and countries, and gradually narrowed their view to a history of the Greeks 1 Compare the opinions of Wolf and Nitzsch on this subject, in relation to the Homeric controversy, as already given by us, p. 32, 34, of the present work.

Page  143 PROSAIC PERIOD. 143 of recent times. So entirely did the ancient Greeks believe that the daily discussion of common life and oral tradition were sufficient records of the events of their own time and country. VI. The Ionians, who throughout this period were the daring innovators and indefatigable discoverers in the field of intellect, took the lead in history. They were also the first who, satiated with the childish amusement of mythology, began to turn their keen and restless eyes on all sides, and to seek new matter for thought and composition. The Ionians had a peculiar delight in varied and continuous narration. Nor is it to be overlooked that the first Ionian who is mentioned as a historian was a Milesian. Miletus, the birth-place of the earliest philosophers; flourishing by its industry and commerce; the centre of the political movements, produced by the spirit of Ionian independence; and the spot in which the native dialect was first formed into written Greek prose, was evidently fitted to be the cradle of historical composition in Greece. If the Milesians had not, together with their neighbors of Asia Minor, led a life of too luxurious enjoyment; if they had known how to retain the severe manners and manly character of the ancient Greeks in the midst of the refinements and excitements of later times, it is probable that Miletus, and not Athens, would have been the teacher of the world. VII. CADMUS (Kdayos), of Miletus, is mentioned as the earliest historian, and, together with Pherecydes of Syros, whom we have already treated of, as the earliest writer of prose. It remains an unsettled point which of the two was the earliest prose writer, but there can be no doubt of the fact that Cadmus was the earliest Greek historian. There is every probability that he lived about B.C. 540.1 He wrote a history of the foundation of Miletus, embracing the earliest history of Ionia generally, in four books (Ky',oLs Mth.rov cal Tris brh.xs'Icovias). The subject of this history lay in the dim period, from which only a few oral traditions of an historical kind, but intimately connected with mythical notions, had been preserved. The genuine work of Cadmus seems to have been lost at a very early period, for the book that bore his name in the time of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (that is, in the Augustan Age) was considered a forgery.' When Suidas and others3 call Cadmus of Miletus the inventor of the alphabet, this statement must be regarded as the result of a confusion between the mythical Cadmus, who emigrated from Phoenicia into Greece, and the writer under consideration. VIII. AcvsILAus ('Atcovraiaos),4 of Argos, is the next historian in order of time. Although by descent a Dorian, he wrote his history in the Ionic dialect, because the Ionians were the founders of the historical style. He probably lived in the latter half of the sixth century B.C. Acusilaus confined his attention to the mythical period. His object was to collect into a short and connected narrative all the events from the period of chaos to the end of the Trojan war. It was said of him that he translated Hesiod into prose, an expression which serves to characterize his work. He appears, however, to have related many legends differently from I Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 2 Dion. Hal., Jud. de Thucyd., 23. 3 Bekker, Anecd., p. 781. 4 iJliler, p. 261.

Page  144 144 G R E E K L I T ER Ar u R E. Hesiod, and in the tone of the Orphic theologers of his own time. The fragments of Acusilaus have been published by Sturz, Gerae, 1787, 2d ed., Lips., 1824; and also in the Museum Criticum, vol. i., p. 216, seqq., Camb., 1826; and in Didot's Fragmenta Histor. GraEc., by C. and T. Miuller, vol. i., p. 100, seqq., Paris, 1841. IX. HECATZEUS ('EKtearaos)1 of Miletus, the Ionian, was a man of a very different character of mind from the preceding. He belonged to a very,ancient and illustrious family. We have only a few particulars of his life. In B.C. 500 he endeavored to dissuade his countrymen from revolting from the Persians; and when this advice was disregarded, he gave them -some sensible counsel respecting the conduct of the war, which was also neglected. Previous to this, Hecataeus had visited Egypt and many other countries. He survived the Persian wars, and appears to have died about B.C. 476.2 Hecataeus wrote two works: 1. rIEptoaos?ys, or flepL?{7?7oms, divided into two parts, one of which contained a description of Europe, and the other of Asia, Egypt, and Libya. Both parts were <subdivided into smaller sections, which are sometimes quoted under their respective names, such as Hellespontus, &c. 2. rEVEeaho-yJat, or'Ieropfal, in four books, containing an account of the poetical fables and traditions,of the Greeks. His work on geography was the more important, as it embodied the results of his numerous travels. Herodotus knew the works of Hecataeus, and frequently controverts his opinions. Hecatnus wrote in the Ionic dialect, in a pure and simple style, which sometimes became animated through the vividness of his descriptions. The fragments of his works have been collected by Clausen, Hecataei Milesii Fragmenta, Berlin, 1831, and are also given in Didot's Fragmenta Histor. Graec., by C. and T. Muller, vol. i., p. 1, seqq., Paris, 1841. X. PHERECV-DES (4,epetcKrls) of Leros, a small island near Miletus, also wrote on genealogies and mythical history, but did not extend his labors to geography and ethnography. He is sometimes called the Athenian, from having spent the greater part of his life at Athens.3 He flourished about the time of the Persian war. His writings comprehended a great portion of the mythical traditions; and, in particular, he gave a copious account, in a separate work, of the ancient times of Athens. He was much consulted by the later mythographers, and his numerous fragments must still serve as the basis of many mythological inquiries. By following a genealogical line, he was led from Philaeus, the son of Ajax, down to Miltiades, the founder of the sovereignty in the Chersonesus. He thus found an opportunity of describing the campaign of Darius against the Scythians, concerning which we have a valuable fragment of his history.4 The fragments of Pherecydes have been collected by Sturz, Pherecydis Fragmenta, Lips., 1824, 2d ed.; and they are also given in Didot's Fragmenta Histor. Grec., by C. and T. Muiller, vol. i., p. 70, seqq., Paris, 1841. XI. CHARON (XipWCv),5 a native of Lampsacus, a Milesian colony, also belongs to this generation, although he mentioned some events which fell Mt iiller, p. 261. 2 Smith. Dict. Biogr., s. v. 3 Vossius, De Hist. Grcecis, p. 24, ed. Westermann. 4 Suid., s. v.; 1'Iiiller, p. 263. 5 Miiller, p. 263.

Page  145 PTROsAIC PERIOD, 145 in the beginning of the reign of Artaxerxes, B.C. 465.' Charon continued the researches of Hecateus into Eastern ethnography. He wrote (as was the custom of these early historians) separate works upon Persia, Libya, Ethiopia, &c. He also subjoined the history of his own time, and he preceded Herodotus in narrating the events of the Persian war, although Herodotus nowhere mentions him. From the fragments of his writings which remain, it is manifest that his relation to Herodotus was that of a day chronicler to a historian, under whose hands every thing acquires life and character. Charon wrote, besides, a chronicle of his own country, as several of the early historians did, who were thence called Horographers ('apoypcapot). The fragments of Charon, together with those of Hecatieus and Xanthus, have been published by Creuzer, HRst. GrcpC. Antzquiss. Fragmenta, Heidelb., 1806, 8vo, and also in Didot's Fragm. Histor. Grcec., by C. and T. Muiller, vol. i., p. 32, seqq., Paris, 1841. XII. HELLANICUS ('EAActrcos)2 of Mytilene, in the island of Lesbos, was almost a contemporary of Herodotus, since we know that at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war he was sixty-five years old,3 and still continued to write. The character of Hellanicus as a mythographer and historian is essentially different from that of the early chroniclers, such as Acusilaus and Pherecydes. He has far more the character of a learned compiler, whose object is not merely to note down events, but to arrange his materials, and to correct the errors of others. Besides a number of writings upon particular legends and local fables, he composed a work entitled " the Priestesses of Juno of Argos," in which the women who had filled this priesthood were enumerated up to a very remote period (on no better authority than of certain obscure traditions), and various striking events of the heroic times were arranged in chronological order, according to this series. Another work, the Carneonzice (KapveovZkca), contained a list of the victors in the musical and poetical contests of the Carnea at Sparta. It was, therefore, one of the first attempts at literary history. Hellanicus was a very prolific writer, and, if we were to look upon all the titles that have come down to us as titles of genuine productions and distinct works, their number would amount to nearly thirty. But the recent investigations of Preller4 have shown that several works bearing his name are spurious and of later date, and that many others, which are referred to as separate works, are only chapters or sections of other productions. Among the works deemed spurious, we may mention the accounts of Phcenicia, Persia, aind Egypt, and also a description of a journey to the oracle of Jupiter Ammon. Thucydides5 charges Hellanicus with want of accuracy ili chronology. In his geographical view, also, lie seems to have been greatly dependent upon his predecessors, and gave, for the most part, what he found in them. But the censure for falsehood, and the like, bestowed on him by such writers as Ctesias,6 Theopompus,7 Ei~rorus,s and Strabo,' is evidently one-sided, and should not bias us in 1 Smith, Dct. Biogr., s. v.; Plut., Themist., 27. 2 Miiller, p. 264. 3 Pamphila ap. Gell., xv., 23. 4 De Hellanico Lesbio Historico, Dorpat, 1840; 4to. 5 Thucyd., i., 97. 6 Ctes. ap. Phot.,Bibl. Cod., 72. 7 Theopomp. ap. Strab., p. 43. 8 Ephor. ap. Joseph. c. Apion., i., 3. 9 Strab., x., p. 541; xi., p. 508; xiii., p. 602. K

Page  146 146 GREEK LITERATURE. forming our judgment of his merits or demerits as a writer; for there can be no doubt that he was a learned and diligent compiler, and that, so far as his sources went, he was a trustworthy one. The fragments of Hellanicus have been collected by Sturz, Hellanici Lesbii Frag'menta, Lips., 1826, and by C. and T. Miller, in Didot's Frag'm. Hist. Gr., vol. i., p. 45, seqq., Paris, 1841. XIII. Among the historical writers that remain, the most celebrated, and the only one deserving of mention, is XANnTHus' (-dv0os), the Lydian. Suidas makes him to have been a native of Sardis, but this point is a doubtful one, as is also the period when he flourished. His date, however, is commonly fixed by modern scholars at B.C. 499. Xanthus, though a Lydian by birth, received a Greek education, and wrote a history of Lydia in that language, of which some considerable fragments have come down to us. The genuineness of the work, however, which went under his name, was questioned by some of the ancient grammarians themselves, and at the present day, also, opinions are divided. Among modern scholars, Creuzer, in his edition of the fragments of Xanthus, has maintained the genuineness of the work, while Welcker has constructed an elaborate argument against it.2 C. Miller adopts the opinion of Welcker. It is certain that much of the matter in the extant fragments is spurious; and the probability appears to be that the work from which they are taken is the production of an Alexandrean grammarian, founded upon the genuine work of Xanthus. C. Miiller has pointed out those passages which, in his opinion, are most probably portions of the original work. They are of great value. A work on the Magian religion (MayTKoc) was also ascribed to Xanthus, but was indubitably spurious. The fragments of Xanthus are collected in Creuzer's Histor. Gr'Tc. Antiquiss. Fragmenta, Heidelb., 1806, and by C. and T. Mdiller, in Didot's Fragim. Hist. Grec., vol. i., p. xx., seqq.; p. 36, seqq., Paris, 1841. XIV. To the Greek historical writers before Herodotus modern scholars have given the common name of logographers (xoyooypa7pco), which is applied by Thucydides3 to all historians previous to himself, including thus even Herodotus in the number. The appellation is a convenient one, though perhaps not very correct; for the term had not so limited a meaning as this among the ancients, since Xdyos signifies any discourse in prose, and accordingly the Athenians gave the name to persons who wrote judicial speeches or pleadings, and sold them to those who were in want of them. These persons were also called Xoyoorolo[. Be this, however, as it may, the term logographer, as applied to the historical writers previous to Herodotus, is meant to indicate a class of persons who seem to have aimed more at amusing their hearers or: readers than at imparting accurate historical knowledge. They described in prose the mythological subjects and traditions which had previously been treated of by the epic, and especially by the cyclic poets. The omissions in t-he narratives of their predecessors were probably filled up by traditions derived from other quarters, in order to produce, at least in form, a conSmith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 2 Seebode, Archiv., 1830, p. 70, seqq. 3Thatcyd., i., 21.

Page  147 PROSAIC PER-IOD. 147 nected history. In many cases, as we have already seen, they were mere collections of local and genealogical traditions.' The first Greek to whom the title of historian properly and truly belonged was Herodotus, the Homer of history. CHAPTER XXI. THIRD OR EARLY PROSAIC PERIOD-continued. IHERODO TUS.2 HERODOTUS ('HpSoros),.the earliest Greek historian (in the true sense of the term), was, according to his own statement at the beginning of his work, a native of Halicarnassus, a Doric city in Caria, which, at the time of his birth, was governed by Artemisia, a vassal-queen of the great king of Persia. Our information respecting the life of Herodotus is extremely scanty, since, besides the meagre and confused article of Suidas, there are only one or two passages of ancient writers that contain any direct notice of the life and age of the historian, and the rest must be gleaned from his own work. He was born about B.C. 484. His family was one of the most distinguished in Halicarnassus, and thus became involved'in the civil commotions of the city. Artemisia had been succeeded by her son Pisindelis, and he, in his turn, by his son Lygdamis. This last-mentioned ruler was hostile to the family of Herodotus. He put to death Panyasis,3 who was probably the maternal uncle of the historian, and who will be mentioned hereafter as one of the restorers of epic poetry; and he obliged Herodotus himself to take refuge abroad. His flight must have taken place at an early age. Muller places it about B.C. 452, but this is too late a period. Herodotus repaired to Samos, the Ionic island, where probably some of his kinsmen resided, since Panyasis, too, is called a Samian. In Samos, he cultivated the Ionic dialect, and here too he imbibed the Ionic spirit which pervades his history. Before he was thirty years of age, he joined in an attempt made from Samos to effect the liberation of his native city from the yoke of Lygdamis. The attempt proved successful; but the banishment of the tyrant did not give tranquillity to Halicarnassus, and Herodotus, who himself had become an object of dislike, again left his native country, and settled at Thurii, in Magna Greacia, where, excepting the intervals of his travels, he spent the remainder of his life. Whether he went to Thurii with the first Athenian colonists, in B.C. 445, or whether he followed afterward, is a disputed point. The better opinion appears to be that he did not go with the first settlers to Thurii, but followed them many years after, perhaps about the time of the death of Pericles. The grounds f6r this opinion are a passage in his own work (v., 77), from which we must, in all probability, infer that in B.C. 431, the year of the outbreak of the Peloponnesian war, he was at Athens, for it appears from that passage that he saw 1 Thirlwall, Hist. Gr., ii., p. 126, seqq.; Miiller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 206, scqq. 2 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v.; Miiller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 266, seqq. 3 Suid., s. v. TTavvaat~,

Page  148 148 GREEK LITERATUR G. the Propylnea, which were not completed till the year in which that war began; and also the circumstance of his being well acquainted with and adopting the principles of policy followed by Pericles and his party, which leads us to the belief that he witnessed the disputes at Athens between Pericles and his opponents.: The time when Herodotus wrote his history has been a matter of considerable discussion; the following, however, may be regarded as the fairest view of the case. The narrative of the Persian war, which forms the main substance of the whole work, breaks off with the victorious return of the Greek fleet from the coast of Asia, and the taking of Sestos by the Athenians, in B.C. 479. But numerous events, which belong to a much later period, are alluded to or mentioned incidentally, and the latest of them refers to the year B.C. 408, when Herodotus was at least 77. years old. Hence it follows that, with Pliny, we must believe that Herodotus wrote his work in his old age, during his stay at Thurii, where, according to Strabo, he also died and was buried, for no one mentions that he ever returned to Greece, or that he made two editions of his work, as some modern critics assume, who suppose that at Thurii he revised his work, and among other things introduced those parts which refer to later events. The whole work makes the impression of a fresh composition; there is no trace of labor or revision; it has all the appearance of having been written by a man at an advanced period of his life. Its abrupt termination, and the fact that the author does not tell us what in an earlier part of his work he distinctly promises (e. g., vii., 213), prove almost beyond a doubt that his work was the production of the last years of his life, and that death prevented his completing it. Had he not written it at Thurii, he would scarcely have been called a Thurian, or the Thurian historian, a name by which he is sometimes distinguished by the ancients.2 There are, lastly, some passages in the work itself, which must suggest to every unbiased reader the idea that the author wrote somewhere in the south of Italy.3 Herodotus presents himself to our consideration in two points of view; as a traveller and observer, and as an historian. The extent of his travels may be ascertained pretty clearly from his History, but the order in which he visited each place, and the time of visiting, can not be determined. His travels, however, must have occupied a considerable period of his life, and he would seem to have first entered upon them in the full strength of body and mind, and after having been completely educated. The story of his reading his work at the Olympic games, which has found its way into most modern narratives, has been ably discussed by Dahlmann,4 and we may say disproved. This story is founded on a small piece by Lucian, entitled " Herodotus or Aftion," which apparently was not intended by the writer himself as an historical truth; and, in addition to this, Herodotus was only about twenty-eight years old when he is said to have read to the assembled Greeks at Olympia a work which was the Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 2 Aristot., Rhet., iii., 6;Plut., DeExil., 13; De MAalign. Herod., 35. 3 Smith, lDict., v..4 Life of Hfrodotus, p. 8, seqq., Engl. transl

Page  149 PROSAIC PERIOD. 149 result of most extensive travelling and research, and which bears in every part of it evident marks of the hand of a man of mature age. Some critics have recourse to the supposition that what he recited at Olympia was only a sketch or a portion of his work; but this is in direct contradiction to the statement of Lucian, who asserts that he read the whole of the nine books, which, on that occasion, received the names of the Muses. If the story in question had been known at all in the time of Plutarch, this writer surely would not have passed it over in silence, when he tells of Herodotus having calumniated all the Greeks, except the Athenians, who had bribed him. There is one tradition, indeed, which mentions that Herodotus read his work at the Panathenaic festival at Athens, in B.C. 445 or 446, and that there existed at Athens a psephisma, granting to the historian a reward of ten talents from the public treasury.l This tradition, however, is not only in contradiction with the time when he must have written his work, but is evidently nothing more than part and parcel of the charge, which the author of that contemptible treatise on the Malignity of Herodotus makes against the historian, namely, that he was bribed by the Athenians. The source of all this calumnious scandal is nothing but the petty vanity of the Thebans, which was hurt by the truthful description of their conduct during the war against Persia.2 With a simplicity which characterizes his whole work, Herodotus makes no display of the great extent of his travels; and he is so free from the ordinary vanity of travellers, that, instead of acting a prominent part in his narrative, he very seldom appears at all in it. Hence it is impossible for us to give any thing like an accurate chronological succession of his travels. In Greece Proper, and on the coasts of Asia Minor, there is scarcely any place of importance with which he is not perfectly familiar from his own observation, and where he did not make inquiries respecting this or that particular point; we may mention more especially the oracular places, such as Dodona and Delphi. In many quarters of Greece, such as Samos, Athens, Thebes, and Corinth, he seems to have made a rather long stay. The spots where the great battles had been fought between the Greeks and barbarians, as Marathon, Thermopylse, Salamis, and Plataee, were well known to him, and on the whole route which Xerxes and his army took, on their march from the Hellespont to Athens, there was probably not a place which he had not seen with his own eyes. He also visited most of the Greek islands, not only in the /Egean, but even those in the western waters of Greece, such as Zacynthus. As for his travels in foreign countries, we know that he sailed through the Hellespont, the Propontis, and crossed the Euxine in both directions; with the Palus Meeotis he was but imperfectly acquainted. He further visited Thrace3 and Scythia.4 The interior of Asia Minor, especially Lydia, was well known to him, and so was also Phcenicia. He visited Tyre for the special purpose of obtaining information respecting the worship of Hercules. Previous to this he had been in Egypt, for it was in Egypt that his curiosity respecting Hercules had been excited.5 L Plut., De Malign. Herod., 26. 2 Smith, 1. c. 3 ii., 10. 4 iv., 76, 81. 5 Smith, 1. c.

Page  150 150 GREEK LITERATURE. What Herodotus has done for the history of Egypt surpasses in importance every thing that was written in ancient times upon that country, although his account of it forms only an episode in his work. There is no reason for supposing that he made himself acquainted with the Egyptian language, which was, in fact, scarcely necessary on account of the numerous Greek settlers in Egypt, as well as on account of that large class of persons who made it their business to act as interpreters between the Egyptians and Greeks; and it appears that Herodotus was accompanied by one of these interpreters. He travelled to the south of Egypt, as far as Elephantine, every where forming connections with the priests, and gathering information upon the early history of the country and its relations to Greece. He saw with his own eyes all the wonders of Egypt, and the accuracy of his observations and descriptions still excites the astonishment of travellers in that country. The time at which he visited Egypt may be determined with tolerable accuracy. He was there shortly after the defeat of Inarus by the Persian general Megabyzus, which happened in B.C. 456; for he saw the battle-field still covered with the bones and skulls of the slain,' so that his visit to Egypt may be assigned to about B.C. 450. From Egypt lie appears to have made excursions to the east into Arabia, and to the west into Libya, at least as far as Cyrene, which was well known to him. It is not impossible that he may have even visited Carthage. From Egypt he crossed over by sea to Tyre, and visited Palestine; that he saw the Rivers Euphrates and Tigris, and the city of Babylon, is quite certain.2 From thence he seems to have travelled northward, for he saw the city of Ecbatana, which reminded him of Athens. There can be little doubt that he visited Susa also, but we can not trace him farther into the interior of Asia. His desire to increase his knowledge by travelling does not appear to have subsided even in his old age, for it would seem that during his residence at Thurii he visited several of the Greek settlements in Southern Italy and Sicily, though his knowledge of the west of Europe was very limited, for he strangely calls Sardinia the greatest of all islands.3 A second source from which Herodotus drew his information was the literature of his country, especially the poetical portion, for prose had not yet been cultivated very extensively, as we have just had occasion to observe. ~ With the poems of Homer and Hesiod he was perfectly familiar, though he attributed less historical importance to them than might have been expected. He placed them about 400 years before his own time, with the paradoxical assertion that they had made the theogony of the Greeks, a subject to which we have alluded in a previous part of the present work. He was also acquainted with the poetry of Alcaeus, Sappho, Simonides, _Eschylus, and Pindar. He farther derived assistance from the Arimaspda, the epic poem of Aristeas, and from the works of the historical writers or logographers who had preceded him, such as Hecateens, though he worked with perfect independence of them, and occasionally corrected mistakes which they had committed; but his main sources, after all, were his own investigations and observations.4 iiii.; 1. 2 i., 178, seqq.; i., 193. 3 i., 170 v., 106; vi., 2. 4 Smith, 1. c.

Page  151 PROSAIC PERIOD. 151 The object of the work of Herodotus is to give an account of the struggles between the Greeks and Persians, from which the former, with the aid of the gods, came off victorious. The subject, therefore, is a truly national one, but the discussion of it, especially in the early part, led the author into various digressions and episodes, as he was sometimes obliged to trace to distant times the causes of the events he had to relate, or to give a history or description of a nation or country, with which, according to his view, the reader ought to be made familiar; and having once launched out into such a digression, he usually can not resist the temptation of telling the whole tale, so that most of his episodes form each an interesting and complete whole by itself. He traces the enmity between Europe and Asia to the mythical times. But he rapidly passes over the mythical ages to come to Creesus, king of Lydia, who was known to have committed acts of hostility against the Greeks. This induces him to give a full history of Crceesus and the kingdom of Lydia. The conquest of Lydia by the Persians under Cyrus then leads him to relate the rise of the Persian monarchy, and the subjugation of Asia Minor and Babylon. The nations which are mentioned in the course of this narrative are again discussed more or less minutely. The history of Cambyses and his expedition into Egypt induce him to enter into the detail of Egyptian history. The expedition of Darius against the Scythians causes him to speak of Scythia and the north of Europe. The kingdom of Persia now extended from Scythia to Cyrene, and an army being called in by the Cyreneans against the Persians, Herodotus proceeds to give an account of Cyrene and Libya. In the mean time, the revolt of the Ionians breaks out, which eventually brings the contest between Persia and Greece to an end. An account of this insurrection, and of the rise of Athens after the expulsion of the Pisistratids, is followed by what properly constitutes the principal part of the work, and the history of the Persian war now runs on in a regular channel until the taking of Sestos.' In this manner alone was it possible for Herodotus to give a record of the vast treasures of information which he had collected in the course of many years. But these digressions and episodes do not impair the plan and unity of the work, for one thread, as it were, runs through the whole, and the episodes are only like branches that issue from one and the same tree: each has its peculiar charms and beauties, and yet is manifestly no more than a part of one great whole. The whole structure of the history thus bears a strong resemblance to a grand epic poem. The work, however, has an abrupt termination, and is probably incomplete. This opinion is strengthened, on the one hand, by the fact that in one place the author promises to give the particulars of an occurrence in another part of'his work, though the promise is nowhere fulfilled (vii., 213); and, on the other hand, by the story that a favorite of the historian, of the name of Plesirrhous, who inherited all his property, also edited the work after the author's death.2 The division of the history into nine books, each bearing the name of a muse, was probably made by some 1 Smith 1. c. 2 Ptol, Hephcest. ap. Phot., Bibl. Cod., 190.

Page  152 152 GREEK LITERATURE. grammarian, for there is no indication in the whole work of the division having been made by the author himself.' There are two passages2 in which Herodotus promises to write a history of Assyria, which was either to form a part of his great work, or to be an independent treatise by itself. Whether he ever carried his plan into effect is a question of considerable doubt; the probability is that he never did. Layard is wrong when he says, in the introduction to his work on Nineveh, that Aristotle3 had seen this history of Assyria. Aristotle merely mentions a fact in natural history of which a certain author was ignorant, for that author, in his account of the taking of Nineveh, describes an eagle drinking. But the name of that author, in the best MSS., is'Ho[osos, which reading is retained by Bekker; and however it may seem more probable that Herodotus should have described the taking of Nineveh than Hesiod, yet, even if so, there is nothing to show that Aristotle did not cite from memory, or copy from some other less accurate writer.4 The life of Homer in the Ionic dialect, which was formerly attributed to Herodotus, and is printed at the end of several editions of his work, is now universally acknowledged to be a production of a later date, though it was undoubtedly written at a comparatively early period, and contains some valuable information. It now remains to add a few remarks5 on the character of the work of Herodotus, its importance as an historical authority, and its style and language. The whole work is pervaded by a profoundly religious idea, which distinguishes Herodotus from all other Greek historians. This idea is the strong belief in a divine power existing apart and independent of man and nature, which assigns to every being its sphere. This sphere no one is allowed to transgress without disturbing the order which has existed from the beginning in the moral world, no less than in the physical; and by disturbing this order,man brings about his own destruction. This divine power is, in the opinion of Herodotus, the cause of all external events, although he does not deny the free activity of man, or establish a blind law of fate or necessity. The divine power with him is rather the manifestation of eternal justice, which keeps all things in a proper equilibrium, assigns to each being its path, and keeps it within its bounds. Where it punishes overweening haughtiness and insolence, it assumes the character of the divine Nemesis, and nowhere in history had Nemesis overtaken and chastised the offender more obviously than in the contest between Greece and Asia. When Herodotus speaks of the envy of the gods ((pO3os Triv rle6), as he often does, we must understand this divine Nemesis, who appears sooner or later to pursue or destroy him who, in frivolous insolence and conceit, raises himself above his proper sphere. Herodotus every where shows the most profound reverence for every thing which he conceives as divine, and rarely ventures to express an opinion on what he considers a sacred or religious mystery, though now and then he can not refrain from expressing a doubt in regard to the 1 Smith, 1. c. 2 i., 106, 184. 3 Aristot., De An., viii., 18. 4 London Quarterly Review, vol. Ixxxiv., p. 138, note. s Smith, 1. c.

Page  153 PROSAIC PERIOD. 153 correctness of the popular belief of his countrymen, commonly owing to the influence which the Egyptian priests exercised on his mind, but in general his good sense and sagacity were too strong to allow him to be misled by vulgar notions and errors.l It would be vain to deny that Herodotus was, to a certain extent, credulous, and related things without putting to himself the question as to whether they were possible at all or not; his political knowledge, and his acquaintance with the laws of nature, were equally deficient; and, owing to these deficiencies, he frequently does not rise above the rank of a mere story-teller, a title which Aristotle bestows upon him.2 But, notwithstanding all this, it is evident that he had formed a high notion of the dignity of history; and, in order to realize his idea, he exerted all his powers, and cheerfully went through more difficult and laborious preparations than any other historian either before or after him. In order to form a fair judgment of the historical value of the work of Herodotus, we must distinguish those parts in which he speaks from his own observation, or gives the results of his own investigations, from those in which he merely repeats what he was told by priests, interpreters, guides, and the like. In the latter case he undoubtedly was often deceived; but he never intrudes such reports as any thing more than they really are; and, under the influence of his natural good sense, he very frequently cautions his reader by some such remark as " I know this only from hearsay," or "I have been told so, but do not believe it." The same caution should guide us in his account of the early history of the Greeks, on which he touches only in episodes, for he is generally satisfied with some one tradition, without entering into any critical examination or comparison with other traditions, which he silently rejects. But, wherever he speaks from his own observation, Herodotus is a real model of truthfulness and accuracy; and the more those countries of which he treats have been explored by modern travellers, the more firmly has his authority been established.3 The dialect in which Herodotus wrote is the Ionic, intermixed with epic or poetical expressions, and sometimes even with Attic and Doric forms. This peculiarity.of his language called' forth a number of lexicographical works of learned grammarians, all of which are lost, with the exception of a few remnants in the Homeric glosses (AEetLs). The excellencies of his style do not consist in any artistic or melodious structure of his sentences, but in the antique and epic coloring, the transparent clearness, the lively flow of his narrative, the natural and unaffected gracefulness, and the occasional signs of carelessness. There is, perhaps, no work in the whole range of ancient literature which so closely resembles a familiar and homely oral narration as that of Herodotus. Its reader can not help feeling as though he was listening to an old man, who, from the inexhaustible stores of his knowledge and experience, tells his stories with that single-hearted simplicity and naivete which are the marks and indications of a truthful spirit.4 I Smith, I. c. 2 Aristot., De Animal. Gener., iii., 5. 3 Smith, I c. 4 Smith, 1. c. Compare Dahlmann, Life qf Herodotus, p. 127, seqq., Eng. traisl.

Page  154 154 GREEK LITERATURE. Notwithstanding, however, all the merits and excellencies of Herodotus, there were, as we have already remarked, certain writers of antiquity who attacked the historian on very serious points, both in regard to the form and the substance of his work. Besides Ctesias, zElius Harpocration, Manetho, and one Pollio, are mentioned as authors of works against Herodotus; but all of them have perished, with the exception of one bearing the name of Plutarch, and entitled rIepl'r s'Hpo5rTou KaKIoSJOElaS, "On the Malignity of Herodotus," which is full of the most futile accusations of every kind. It is written in a mean and malignant spirit, and is probably the work of some young rhetorician or sophist, who composed it as an exercise in polemics or controversy.1 EDITIONS OF HERODOTUS. Herodotus was first published in a Latin translation by Laurentius Valla, Venice, 1474; and the first edition of the Greek original is that of Aldus Manutius, Venice, 1502, fol., which was followed by two Basle editions, in 1541 and 1557, fol. The text is greatly corrected in the edition of II. Stephens, Paris, 1570 and 1592, fol., which was followed by that of Jungermann, Frankfort, 1608, fol., reprinted at Geneva in 1618, and at London in 1679, fol. The edition of James Gronovius, Leyden, 1715, fol., has a peculiar value, from his having made use of the excellent Medicean MS.; but it was greatly surpassed by the edition of P. Wesseling and L. C. Valckenaer, Amsterdam, 1763, fol. Both the language and the matter are there treated with great care; and the learned apparatus of this edition, with the exception of the notes of Gronovius, was afterward incorporated in the edition of Schweighaeuser, Strasburg and Paris, 1806, 6 vols. in 12 parts (reprinted in London, 1824, in 6 vols., and again in 1830, in 5 vols. 8vo), with a valuable Lexicon Herodoteum. The editor had compared several new MSS., and was thus enabled to give a text greatly superior to that of his predecessors. The best edition after this is that of Gaisford, Oxford, 1824, 4 vols. 8vo, who incorporated in it nearly all the notes of Wesseling, Valckenaer, and Schweighaeuser, and also made a collation of some English MSS. A reprint of this edition appeared at Leipzig in 1824, 4 vols. 8vo. The last great edition, in which the subject-matter also is considered with reference to modern discoveries, is that of Bahr, Leipzig, 1830, &c., 4 vols. 8vo. An edition with valuable English notes has been commenced in the Bibliotheca Classica, under the superintendence of Professor Long, London, 8vo. A revised text, with Latin translation, and a valuable dissertation on the Ionic dialect by W. Dindorf, forms one of the volumes of Didot's Bibliotheca GrEeca, Paris, 1844, royal 8vo. Among the school editions, which are numerous, we may especially mention those of Matthime, Leipzig, 1825, 2 vols. 8vo; Steger, Gissle, 1827-29, 3 vols. 8vo; Long, London, 1830, 8vo; Bekker, Berlin, 1833 and 1837, 8vo; Stocker, London, 1843, 2 vols. 12mo, 2d ed., containing merely a continuous history of the Persian wars; and that of Lhardy, in the collection of IIaupt and Sauppe, Leipzig, 1850, &c., 12mo. To these may be added the translation of Larcher's Notes by Cooley, London, 1844, 2 vols. 8vo, and a selected commentary on the whole of Herodotus by Dawson Turner, Oxford, 1848, 8vo. 1 Smith, 1. c. On the whole subject of the Life. and Writings of Herodotus, consult the excellent work of Dahlmann just cited.

Page  155 A'rTIC PERIOD. 156 CHAPTER XXII. FOURTH OR ATTIC PERIOD. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.1 I. GREEK literature, so far as we have hitherto followed its progress, was a common property of the different races of the nation; each race cultivating that species of composition which was best suited to its dispositions and capacities, and impressing on it a corresponding character. In this manner the city of Miletus in Ionia, the zEolians in the island of Lesbos, the colonies in Magna Greecia and Sicily, as well as the Greeks of the fnother country, created new for/ns of poetry and eloquence. The various sorts of excellence thus produced did not, after the age of the Homeric poetry, remain the exclusive property of the race among which they originated. A national literature was early formed; every literary work in the Greek language, in whatever dialect it might be composed, was enjoyed by the whole Greek nation. II. But the literature of Greece necessarily assumed a different form, when Athens, raised as well by her political power and other external circumstances as by the mental qualities of her citizens, acquired the rank of a Capital of Greece with respect to literature and art. Not only was her copious native literature received with admiration by all the Greeks, but her judgment and taste were predominant in all things relating to language and the arts, and decided what should be generally recognized as the classical literature of Greece, long before the Alexandrine critics had prepared their canons. There is, in fact, no more important epoch in the history of the Greek intellect than the time when Athens obtained this pre-eminence over her sister states. III. The character of the Athenians peculiarly fitted them to take this lead. Energy in action and cleverness in the use of language were the qualities which most distinguished the Athenians in comparison with the other Greeks, and which are most clearly seen in their political conduct and their literature. The consciousness of dexterity in the use of words, which the Athenians cultivated more than the other Greeks, induced them to subject every thing to discussion. Hence, too, arose a copiousness of speech, very striking as compared with the brevity of the early Greeks; a copiousness which subsequently displayed itself in so marked a degree both in the field of literature and the arena of eloquence, though chastened at the same time, and stripped of all false and meretricious ornOa ment by the severity of Attic taste. iG &Iu IV. Before the Persian war, however,2 Athens had contri W )4t6i5 than many other cities, her inferiors in magnitude and in, p6il1tibFi1i*jil ance, to the intellectual progress of Greece. She-hftBrXdh6 94rf[W Miller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 275, seqq.

Page  156 156 GREEK LITERATURE. to be compared with those of Argos, Corinth, Sicyon, LEgina, Laconia, and of many cities both in the eastern and western colonies. She could boast of no poets so celebrated as those of the Ionian and LEolian schools. But her peaceful glories quickly followed, and outshone her victories, conquests, and political ascendency. In the period between the Persian and the Peloponnesian wars, both literature and the fine arts began to tend toward Athens, as their most favored seat. For here, above all other parts of Greece, genius and talents were encouraged by an ample field of exertion, by public sympathy and applause, as well as by the prospect of other rewards, which, however, were much more sparingly bestowed. Accordingly, it was at Athens that architecture and sculpture reached the highest degree of perfection which either ever attained in the ancient world, and that Greek poetry was enriched with a new kind of composition, the drama, which united the leading features of every species before cultivated in a new whole, and exhibited all the grace and vigot of the Greek imagination, together with the full compass and the highest refinement of the form of the language peculiar to Attica.' V. The Drama, indeed, was the branch of literature which peculiarly signalized the age of Pericles. The steps by which it was brought through a series of innovations to the form which it presents in its earliest extant remains are still a subject of controversy among antiquarians; and even the poetical character of the authors by whom these changes were effected, and also of their works, is involved in great uncertainty. We have reason to believe that it was no want of merit or of absolute worth which caused them to be neglected and forgotten, but only the superior attraction of the form which the drama finally assumed.2 VI. We now proceed to the history of the Drama, its origin and progress, and will endeavor to show how the utmost beauty and elegance were gradually developed out of rude, stiff, antique forms: I. ORIGIN OF TRAGEDY.3 VII. The Tragedy (Tpaycpaia) of the ancient Greeks, as well as their Comedy (cKwptta), confessedly originated in the worship of Dionysus or Bacchus. This worship was of a two-fold character, corresponding to the different conceptions which were anciently entertained of Dionysus, as the changeable god of flourishing, decaying, or renovated nature, and the various fortunes to which in that character he was considered to be subject at the different seasons of the year. VIII. Hence the festivals of Dionysus at Athens and elsewhere were all solemnized in the months nearest to the shortest day, coincidently with the changes going on in the course of nature, and by which his worshippers conceived the god himself to be affected. His mournful or joyous fortunes, his mystical death, symbolizing the death of all vegetation in the winter, and his birth4 indicating the renovation of all nature in the spring, and his struggles in passing from one state to another, were not only represented and sympathized in by the dithyrambic singers and l Thirlwall, 1. c. 2 Id. 3 i.idller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 288; Smith, Dict. Ant., s. v. Plat., De Leg., iii., p. 700.

Page  157 ATTIC PERIOD. T57 dancers, but they also carried their enthusiasm so far as to fancy themselves under the influence of the same events as the god himself, and, in their attempts to identify themselves with him and his fortunes, assumed the character of the subordinate divinities, the Satyrs, Nymphs, and Panes, who formed the mythological train of the god. IX. Hence arose the custom of the disguise of satyrs being taken by the worshippers at the festivals of Dionysus; from the choral songs and dances of whom the Grecian tragedy originated, being from its commencement connected with the public rejoicings and ceremonies of Dionysus in cities, while comedy was more a sport and merriment of the country festivals. In fact, the very name of Tragedy (.rpayeT3a), far from signifying any thing mournful or pathetic, is most probably derived from the goatlike appearance of the satyrs, who sang or acted with mimetic gesticulations (brpXorLs) the old Bacchic songs, with Silenus, the constant companion of Dionysus, for their leader.' From their resemblance in dress and action to goats, they were sometimes called Tpcayoi, and their song Trpaycpaa, "the goat-song." According to another opinion, the word TpaCypSia was first coined from the goat that was the prize for the best ode or song in honor of Dionysus.2 This derivation, however, as well as another, connecting it with the goat offered on the altar of the god, around which the chorus sang, is not equally supported by either the etymological principles of the language or the analogous instance of icowfeqoCa, " the revel-song."3 X. But the Dionysian dithyrambs were not always of a gay and joyous character: they were capable of expressing the extremes of sadness and wild lamentation, as well as the enthusiasm of joy; and it was from the dithyrambic songs of a mournful cast, probably sung originally in the winter months, that the stately and solemn tragedy of the Greeks arose. It must be borne in mind, however, that in the most ancient times the dithyrambic song was not executed by a regular chorus. A crowd of worshippers, under the influence of wine, danced up to and around a blazing altar, led probably by a flute-player, the subject of the song being, as already remarked, the birth and adventures of Dionysus.4 It is a reasonable conjecture that the coryphaeus, or leader of this irregular chorus, occasionally assumed the character of the god himself, while the rest of the train or comus represented his noisy band of thyrsus-bearing followers.5 XI. The first improvement in the mode of performing the dithyramb was introduced by ARIoN, a celebrated citharcedus of Methymna in Lesbos, who flourished in the days of Stesichorus and Periander, and to whom we have already alluded. He is generally admitted to have been the inventor of the Cyclic chorus (cdbKeos Xopds), in which the dithyramb was danced, after a more regular fashion, around the blazing altar by a band of fifty men or boys, to a lyric accompaniment. The idea seems to have been borrowed by him from the Dorian choral odes, with their regular lyric movements, since Arion travelled extensively in the Dorian states 1 Bode, Gesch. d. Hell. Dichtk., vol. iii., p. 31. 2 Bentley, Phalar., p. 249. 3 Etym. Mag., p. 764; Eurip., Bacch., 131; XElian, V. H., iii., 40. 4 Plat., Leg., iii., p. 700, B. D5 Donaldson, Theatre of the Greeks, p. 25, 6th ed.

Page  158 158 GREEK LITE RATURE; of Hellas, and had ample opportunities of observing the varieties of choral worship, and of introducing any improvement which he might wish to make in it.l XII. Previous to the time of Arion, the leaders of the wild, irregular comus, which danced the dithyramb, bewailed the sorrows of Bacchus, or commemorated his wonderful birth in spontaneous effusions, accompanied by suitable action, for which they trusted to the inspiration of the wine-cup. This is the meaning of Aristotle's assertion, that this primitive Tragedy was "extemporaneous" (ac'T0oo-XE&curc lr).2 Arion, however, by composing regular poems to be sung to the lyre, at once raised the dithyramb to a literary position, and laid the foundations of the stately superstructure which was afterward erected. He turned the comus also, or moving crowd of worshippers, into a standing chorus, of the same kind as that which gave Stesichorus his surname. He was the inventor, also, of the trag'ic style (TrpryLTKoi Tp'&rrov ebpeT's), that is, he introduced a style of music or harmony adapted to and intended for a chorus of Satyrs. XIII. Next in order was Thespis, the celebrated contemporary of Pisistratus, to whom the invention of Greek tragedy has been generally ascribed. He was born at Icarius,3 an Attic deme,4 at the beginning of the sixth century B.C.5 His birth-place derived its name, according to tradition, from the father of Erigone;6 it had always been a seat of the religion. of Bacchus, and the origin of Athenian tragedy and comedy has been confidently referred to the drunken festivals of the place; indeed, it is not improbable that the name itself may point to the old mimetic exhibitions which were common there.7 XIV. Thespis is said to have introduced an actor for the sake of affording an interval of rest to the Dionysian chorus.s The actor was called 67roMpt'r-s, from 67rotpveo-0ai, " to answer," because he answered, as it were, the songs of the chorus. This actor was generally, perhaps always, the poet himself. He invented a disguise for the face by means of a pigment, prepared from the herb purslain; and afterward constructed a linen mask, in order, probably, that he might be able to sustain more than one character.9 He is also said to have introduced some important alterations into the dances of the chorus, and his figures were known in the days of Aristophanes.l~ He did not, however, as an actor, confine his speech to mere narration; he addressed it to the chorus, which carried on with him, by means of its leaders, a sort of dialogue. The chorus, when not dancing, stood upon the steps of the thymele (av/utEx), or altar of Bacchus; and in order that he might address them from an equal elevation, he was placed upon a table (Xeeds),I" which was thus the predecessor of the stage, between which and the thymele, in later times, there was always an intervening space. The wagon of Thespis, of which Horace writes, must ~ Donaldson, p. 29. 2 Arstot., Poet., c. 4. 3 Suid., s. v. 4 Leake, I)emi of Attica, p. 194. 5 Bentley, however, fixes the time of Thespiss first exhibition at 536 B.C. 6 Steph. Byz., s. v.'IKapta; Hygin., Fab., 130. 7 Athen., ii., p. 40; Donaldson, p. 47. 8 Diog. Laert., ii., 66. Welcker, Nachtrag, p. 271; Thirlioall, Hist. Gr., vol. ii., p. 126. 10 Vesp., 1479. J Welcker, Nachtrag, p. 248.

Page  159 ATTIC PERIOD. 159 have arisen from some confusion between this standing-place for the actor and the wagon of Susarion.' XV. The custom introduced by Thespis was continued by Phrynichus. But as it was clear that, if the chorus took an active and independent part in such a play, it would have been obliged to leave its original and characteristic sphere, AEschylus, in consequence, added a second actor, so that the action and the dialogue became now independent of the chorus, and the dramatist, at the same time, had an opportunity of showing two persons in contrast with each other on the stage. A third actor was added by Sophocles; and it is said that Cratinus was the first to make this addition in comedy. A fourth actor, except, perhaps, in the (Edipus Coloneus,2 was never added; but if a fourth character had to be introduced, one of the three present on the stage retired, and came in again personating this fourth one. Any number of mutes, however, might appear upon the stage. XVI. The three regular actors were distinguished by the technical names of 7rpwcraywv7Lo-s, epaywvrepycoTrs, and rpLa -ywLo-Trrs, which indicated the more or less prominent part which an actor had to perform in the drama. Certain conventional means were also devised, by which the spectators, at the moment an actor appeared on the stage, were enabled to judge which part he was going to perform. Thus the protagonistes always came on the stage from a door in the centre, the deuteragonistes from one on the right, and the tritagonistes from a door on the left hand side. The protagonistes was the principal hero or heroine of a play, in whom all the power and energy of the drama were concentrated; and whenever a Greek play is called after the name of one of its characters, it is always the name of the character sustained by the protagonistes. The female characters of a play were always performed by young men. II. ORIGIN OF THE SATYRIC DRAMIA.3 XVII. The first writer of satyric dramas was PRATINAS, of Phlius, a town not far from Sicyon. For some time previous to this poet, and probably as early as Thespis, tragedy had been gradually departing more and more from its old characteristics, and inclining to heroic fables, to which the chorus of satyrs was not a fit accompaniment. But the fun and merriment caused by them were too good to be lost, or displaced by the severe dignity of the zEschylean drama. Accordingly, the satyric drama, distinct from the recent and dramatic tragedy, but suggested by the sportive element of the old dithyramb, was founded by Pratinas, who, however, appears to have been surpassed in his own invention by Chcerilus. XVIII. It was always written by tragedians, and generally three tragedies and one satyric piece were represented together, which, in some instances at least, formed a connected whole, called a tetralogy (crecTpaXoy4a). The satyric piece was acted last, so that the minds of the spectators were agreeably relieved by a merry after-piece, at the close of an earnest and 1 Welcker, Nachtrag, p. 247; Gruppe, Ariadne, p. 122; Donaldson, p. 48. 2 Miiller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 305. Consult, on the opposite side, Donaldson, p. 164. 3 Smith, Diet. Ant,, s.. T. Iragodia

Page  160 160 GREEK LITERATURE. engrossing tragedy. The distinguishing feature of this drama was the chorus of satyrs, in appropriate dresses and masks, and its subjects seem to have been taken from the same class of the adventures of Bacchus and of the heroes as those of tragedy; but, of course, they were so treated and selected, that the presence of rustic satyrs would seem appropriate. In their jokes, and drollery, and naivet6, consisted the merriment of the piece; for the kings and heroes who were introduced into their company were not of necessity thereby divested of their epic and legendary character, though they were obliged to conform to their situation, and suffer some diminution of dignity from their position. Hence the satyric drama is not unaptly called " a playful tragedy" (7rcaLovaa rpayfa), being both in form and materials the same as tragedy.' XIX. It must, however, be observed, that there were some characters and legends which, as not presenting any serious or pathetic aspects, were not adapted for tragedy, and therefore were naturally appropriated to the Satyric drama. Such were Sisyphus, Autolycus, Circe, Callisto, Midas, Omphale, and the robber Sciron. Hercules, also, as he appears in Aristophanes (Rana) and in the Alcestis of Euripides, was a favorite subject of this drama, as being no unfit companion for a drunken Silenus and his crew.2 The only extant satyric drama is the Cyclops of Euripides, though we possess numerous fragments of others. A list of satyric pieces is given by Welcker.3 III. REPRESENTATION OF GREEK PLAYS.4 XX. If the Greek plays themselves differed essentially from those of our own times, they were even more dissimilar in respect to the mode and circumstances of their representation. We have theatrical exhibitions of some kind every evening throughout the greater part of the year, and in capital cities many are going on at the same time in different theatres. In Greece, however, the dramatic performances were carried on for a few days only in the spring; the theatre was large enough to contain the whole population, and every citizen was there, as a matter of course, from daybreak to sunset.5 With us, a successful play is repeated night after night, for months together; in Greece the most admired dramas were seldom repeated, and never in the'same year. The theatre with us is merely a place of public entertainment; in Greece it was the temple of the god, whose altar was the central point of the semicircle of seats or steps from which some 30,0006 of his worshippers gazed upon a spectacle instituted in his honor. Our theatrical costumes are intended to convey an idea of the dresses actually worn by the persons represented, while those of the Greeks were nothing but modifications of the festal robes worn in the Dionysian processions.7 Finally, the modern playwright has only the approbation or disapprobation of his audience to look to, whereas no Greek play was represented until it had been approved by a board appointed to decide between the rival dramatists. 1 Welcker, Nachtrag, p. 331. 2 MOiller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 295. N3 achtrag, p. 284, seqq. 4 Donaldson, Theatre of the Greeks, p. 141, seqq. 5 YEschin. c. Ctes., p. 488, Bekker. 6 Plat., Sympos., p. 175, E. 7 ]liller, Eumneniden, 6 32; Id., Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 296.

Page  161 ATTIC PERIOD. 161 XXI. Theatrical exhibitions formed a part of certain festivals of Bacchus. In order, then, to ascertain at what time of the year they took place, we must inquire how many festivals were held in Attica in honor of that god, and then determine at which of them theatrical representations were given. There have been great diversities of opinion in regard to the number of the Attic Dionysia, or festivals of Bacchus. It appears, however, to be now pretty generally agreed among scholars that there were four Bacchic feasts, in the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth months respectively of the Attic year. These were the i" country Dionysia," the "Lenea," the "Anthesteria," and the "great Dionysia." XXII. The " country Dionysia" (ra KeaT' a&po's Arovaoira) were celebrated all over Attica in the month Poseideon, which included the latter half of December and the first half of January. This was the festival of the vintage, which is still in some places postponed to December.l The Lenaa (Aieala), or festival of the wine-press, was held in the month Gamelion, which corresponded to part of January and February. It was, like the rural Dionysia, a vintage festival; but it differed from them in being confined to a particular spot in the city of Athens, called the Lenaonwhere the first wine-press (?uvzs) was erected. The Anthesteria (a'AvOEo'rTpLa, Ta El AiLva'rs) were held on the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth days of the month Anthesterion, corresponding to part of February and March. This was not a vintage festival like the former two. The new wine was drawn from the cask on the first day of the feast (rIIr0o(ya), and tasted on the second day (Xdes): the third day was called Xvdrpo, on account of the banqueting which went on then. The great Dionysia (.a Ev aerTT, ai KaT' &iov, Tha &a3LKea) were celebrated between the eighth and eighteenth of the month Elaphebolion, corresponding to part of March and April. This festival is always meant when the Dionysia are mentioned without any qualifying epithet. XXIII. At the first, second, and fourth of these festivals, it is known that theatrical exhibitions took place. The exhibitions at the country Dionysia were generally of old pieces; indeed, there is no instance of a play being acted on those occasions for the first time, at least after the Greek drama had arrived at perfection. At the Lenaea and the great Dionysia, both tragedies and comedies were performed;2 at the latter, the tragedies, at least, were always new pieces; the instances in the didascalie, which have come down to us, of representations at the Lenea are indeed always of new pieces, but from the manner in which the exhibition of new tragedies is mentioned in connection with the city festival, we must conclude that repetitions were allowed at the Lenaea, as well as at the country Dionysia. The month Elaphebolion may have been selected for the representation of new tragedies, because Athens was then full of the dependent allies, who came at that time to pay the tributes; whereas the Athenians alone were present at the Lenea. It does not appear that there were any theatrical exhibitions at the Anthesteria; it is, however, at least probable that the tragedians read to a select audience at the Anthesteria the tragedies which they had composed for the I Philol. iMus., ii., p. 296. 2 Demosth., lMid., p. 517.

Page  162 162 GREEK L ITERATURE. festival in the following month, or perhaps contests took place then, and the intervening month was employed in perfecting the actors and chorus in their parts.' XXIV. In considering next the means of performance, we must recall to mind the different origins of the two constituent parts of a Greek drama-the chorus and the dialogue. Choruses were originally composed of the whole population. When, however, in process of time, the fine arts became more cultivated, the duties of this branch of worship devolved upon a few, and ultimately upon one, who bore the whole expense, when paid actors were employed.2 This person, who was called the Choragus, was considered as the religious representative of the whole people, and was said to do the state's work for it (xelrovpye?,). It was the business of the choragus3 to provide the chorus in all plays, whether tragic or comic, and also the lyric choruses of men and boys, cyclian dancers, &c.; he was selected by the managers of his tribe (&ErqLzEXsl'ral QpvAxs) for the choragy which had come round to it. His first duty, after collecting his chorus, was to provide and pay a teacher (XopoStc(aKaXos), who instructed them in the songs and dances which they had to perform, and it appears that the choragi drew lots for the first choice of teachers. The choragus had also to pay the musicians and singers who composed the chorus, and was allowed to press children, if their parents did not give them up of their own accord. He was obliged to lodge and maintain the chorus till the time of performance, and to supply the singers with such aliments as conduce to strengthen the voice. XXV. In the laws of Solon, the age prescribed for the choragus was forty years; but this rule does not appear to have been long in force. The relative expense of the different choruses, in the time of Lysias, is given in a speech of that orator.4 We learn from this that the tragic chorus cost nearly twice as much as the comic, though neither of the dramatic choruses was so expensive as the chorus of men, or the chorus of flute-players.5 The actors were the representatives, not of the people, but of the poet; consequently, the choragus had nothing to do with them. If he had paid for them, the dramatic choruses would surely have exceeded in expensiveness all the others; besides, the actors were not allowed to the choragi, but to the poets; and were, therefore, paid either by these, or, as is more likely, by the state. XXVI. WVhen a dramatist had made up his mind to bring out a play, he applied, if he intended to represent at the Lenna, to the king-archon, and if at the greater Dionysia, to the chief archon, for a chorus, which was given to him if his piece was considered worthy of it. Along with this chorus he received three actors by lot, and these he taught independently of the choragus, who confined his attentions to the chorus. If successful, he chose his own actors for the following year.6 WVhen the day appointed for the trial came on, they united their efforts, and endeavored 1 Philol. ilMus., ii., p. 292, seqq. 2 Buttmann ad Demosth. 1Mid., p. 37. 3 BOckh, Public Econ. of Athens, vol. ii., p. 207, seqq., Engl. transl. t Lys.,'A7roX. 8wpoS., p. 698; Bentley, Phal., p. 360, s Demosth., Mid., p. 565, E Hesych., s, v. v,6/JsrL i7TroKp.Tr-V,

Page  163 A'TIC PERIOD. 163 to gain the prize by a combination of the best-taught actors with the most sumptuously dressed and most diligently exercised chorus. That the exertions of the choragus and the actors were often as influential with the judges as the beauty of the poem, can not be doubted, when we have so many instances of the ill success of the best dramatists. XXVII. The judges were appointed by lot, and were generally, but not always, five in number.l The archon administered an oath to them; and, in the case of the cyclian chorus, partiality or injustice was punishable by fine.2 The successful poet was crowned with ivy (with which his choragus and performers were also adorned),3 and his name was proclaimed before the audience. The choragus who had exhibited the best musical or theatrical entertainment generally received a tripod as a reward or prize. This he was at the expense of consecrating, and in somle cases built the monument on which it was placed. Thus the beautiful choragic monument of Lysicrates, which is still standing at Athens, was undoubtedly surmounted by a tripod, and the statue of Bacchus, in a sitting posture, which was on the top of the choragic monument of Thrasyllus, probably supported the tripod on its knees. Such, at least, seems to have been the intention of the holes drilled in the lap of the figure. The choragus, in comedy, consecrated the equipments of his chorus. The successful poet commemorated his victory with a feast. As, however, no prize drama was permitted to be represented for a second time (with an exception in favor of the three great dramatists, which was not long in operation), the poet's glory was very transient. The time allowed for the representation was portioned out by the clepsydra, and seems to have been dependent upon the number of pieces represented. What this number was is not known. It is probable, however, that about three trilogies might have been represented on one day. XXVIII. The place of exhibition was, in the days of the perfect Greek drama, the great stone theatre erected within the Lenaeon, or inclosure sacred to Bacchus. The building was commenced in the year 500 B.C., but not finished until about 381 B.C., when Lycurgus was manager of the treasury. In the earlier days of the drama, the theatre was of wood, but an accident having occurred at the representation of some plays of ZEschylus and Pratinas, the stone theatre was commenced in its stead.4 The student who wishes to acquire an adequate notion of the Greek theatre must not forget that it was only an improvement upon the mode of representation adopted by Thespis, which it resembled in its general features. The two original elements were the av~ueAx1, or altar of Bacchus, round which the cyclic chorus danced,5 and the AOy/E7Y, or stage, from which the actor spoke; it was the representative of the wooden table from which the earliest actor addressed his chorus,6 and was also called cKp/3Bas. But in the great stone theatres, in which the perfect Greek dramas were represented, these two simple materials for the exhibition of a play were 1 Maussac., Diss. Crit., p. 204. 2 XiEschin. c. Ctes., I 85. 3 Blomfield, in Mius. Crit., ii., p. 88. 4 Liban., Ar-g. Demosth. Olynth., i. 5 Miller, Anhang zum Butch,'sch. Euamet., p. 35. 6 Pollux, iv., 123.

Page  164 164 GREEK LITERATURE. surrounded by a mass of buildings, and subordinated to other details of a very artificial and complicated description. XXIX. In building a theatre,' the Greeks always availed themselves of the slope of a hill, which enabled them to give the necessary elevation to the back rows of seats, without those enormous substructions which we find in Roman theatres. If the hill was rocky, semicircles of steps, rising tier above tier, were hewn out of the living material. If the ground was soft, a similar excavation of certain dimensions was made in the slope of the hill, and afterward lined with rows of stone benches. Even when the former plan was practicable, the steps were frequently faced with copings of marble. This was the case with the theatre of Bacchus at Athens, which stood on the southeastern side of the rocky Acropolis. This semicircular pit, surrounded by seats on all sides but one, and in part filled by them, was called the KoAXo (in Latin, cavea), and was assigned to the aun dience. At the top it was inclosed by a lofty portico and balustraded terrace (marked c in the subjoined plan): Nsi XXX. Concentric with this circular arc, and at the foot of the lowest range of seats, was the boundary line of the orchestra (ipX~eTpa), or "dancing-place," which was given up to the chorus. If we complete the' On the structure of ancient theatres generally, consult Wieseler, Theatergebd'ude, &c. Giitting., 1851, 4to.

Page  165 ATTIC PERIOD. 165 circle of the orchestra, and draw a tangent to it at the point most removed from the audience, this line will give the position of the scene, Aod-v,*, or " covered building," which presented to the view of the spectators a lofty faqade of hewn stone, susceptible of such modifications as the different plays rendered suitable. In front of this scene was a narrow stage, called, therefore, the 7rpooJKticov (proscenium), and marked f in our plan. It was indicated by the parallel side of a square, inscribed in the orchestral circle, but extended to the full length of the scene on both sides. Another parallel, at a greater distance behind the scene, gave the portico, which formed the lower front of the whole building. XXXI. The KO-?XOV, or cavea, was divided into two or more flights of steps or seats by the 8iza(cara (in Latin, prcecinctiones), marked bbb on the plan, which were broad belts, concentric with the upper terrace, and with the boundary line of the orchestra, and which served both as lobbies and landings. The steps or seats of the cKoAov were again subdivided transversely into masses called pCE'pcLaES (cunei), or "wedges," marked aaa, by stairs, KL0aUKCES, running from one 8Ldowtla to another, and converging to the centre of the orchestra. Different parts of the theatre received different names from the class of spectators to whom they were appropriated. Thus the lower seats, nearest to the orchestra, which were assigned to the members of the senate (BovuX) and others who had a right to reserved seats (7rpoe6pLa), were called the,ovAEvT-Kbs T'4ros,l and, again, the young men sat together in the edq7/L1CKbS TrdoS.2 The spectators entered either from the hill above by door-ways in the upper portico, or by staircases in the wings of the lower fagade. XXXII. The orchestra was a levelled space, twelve feet lower than the front seats of the Ko7Xov, by which it was bounded. Six feet above this was a boarded platform, which did not cover the whole area of the orchestra, but terminated where the line of view from the central cunei was intercepted by the boundary line. It ran, however, to the right and left of the spectators' benches till it reached the sides of the scene. The main part of this platform, as well as an altar of Bacchus (d) in the centre of the orchestral circle, was called the avueiAx? (thymele). The segment of the orchestra not covered by this platform was termed the KovLo'rpa (arena), or " place of sand." In front of the elevated scene, and six feet higher than the platform in the orchestra (that is, on the same level with the lowest range of seats), was the TrpoKIiYihoy, already mentioned, and called also the AoyEZo, (in Latin, pulpitum), or " speaking-stage." There was a double flight of steps (KMIalca-r-pes), from the KovirTpa to the platform in the orchestra, and another of a similar description from this orchestral platform to the rpoo-KiV'ov, or real stage. These last are seen in our plan on either side. There were also two other flights of steps leading to the orchestral platform from the chambers below the stage. These were called XapCVLo KcxzuCaKES, or " Charon's stairs," and were used for the entrance of spectres from the Lower World, and for the ghostly apparitions of the departed. The regular entrances of the chorus were by the rdcposo,, or broad passages, on each side, between the projecting wings of the I Aristoph. Av., 794. 2 Schol. ad Aristoph., 1. c.

Page  166 166 GREEK LITERATURE. stage and the seats of the spectators, and which are marked ee on our plan. XXXIII. It does not appear that the stage (irpoKwvov,, XoYE7ov) extended farther to the right or left than the scene or elevated centre of the facade. The parts of the facade on either side of the stage were called ~rapaorcttla,l a name which was also given to the chambers behind the whole range of scene-buildings. The front and sides of the Aoyezo, were called v57rooicvla, and this name was given also to the chambers below the stage. The walls of the wrapaoiKiYa and dvrool-txLa were not liable to change of decoration, but were constantly adorned with statues and other architectural adjuncts.2 The scene itself was altered to meet the emergencies of the case. As a general rule, it represented a public building with three entrances (erso6o0). That in the centre belonged, as we have already remarked, to the principal personage in the play; that on the right introduced the second personage; while the inferior characters entered by the door on the left hand. Behind the central Es'so0os was a chamber, which might be opened to the spectators' view by a contrivance called the icKVcKAxtta or 4or'r-pa. Thus the actions or spectacles which belonged to the interior of the house were sometimes openly exhibited. For example, in the Agamnemnon of zAschylus, Clytemnestra was seen standing over the body of her murdered husband; and in the Achlarnians of Aristophanes, Euripides was discovered in his study. XXXIV. Before the 7rdpo8os, on either side, stood a triangular prism, or side-scene, called lrepLac'ros,3 which moved on a pivot, and not only indicated the different regions supposed to lie in the neighborhood of the scene, but was also made use of as a machine for introducing suddenly sea and river gods, and other incidental appearances. The theatre at Athens, being built on the southeastern side of the Acropolis, was so situated that a person standing on the stage saw the greater part of the city and the harbor on his left, and the country of Attica on his right. Hence a man who entered on the right by the parascenia was invariably understood to come from the country, or from afar; on the left, from the city or the neighborhood. As the right-hand passage, or apd4os, therefore, represented the road to the country, and the left-hand one that which led to the city, the changes of scene effected by the revolutions of the righthand lrEpacKTos were distant views painted in perspective; while those on the left were pictures of single objects supposed to be close at hand. Changes of scene were very seldom necessary in ancient tragedy. The Greek tragedies are so constructed, that the speeches and actions of which they are mainly composed might with perfect propriety pass on one spot, and, indeed, ought generally to pass in the court in front of the royal dwelling. The actions to which no speech is attached, and which do not serve to develop thoughts and feelings (such as Eteocles' combat with his brother; the murder of Agamemnon; Antigone's performance of the obsequies of Polynices, &c.), are imagined to pass behind or without the scene, and are only related on the stage. Hence the importOn tne rapaocKrrvLa, consult Meineke,.Frag. Corn.. Grac., vol. iv.; Epim., vii., p. 722, seqq. 2 Pollux, iv., 124. 3 Vitruv., v., 7; Pollux, iv., 126.

Page  167 ATTIC PERIOD. 167 ance of the parts of messengers and heralds in ancient tragedy. The poet was not influenced only by the reason given by Horace,' namely, that bloody spectacles and incredible events excite less horror and doubt when related, and ought, therefore, not to be produced on the stage there was also the far deeper general reason, that it is never the outward act with which the interest of ancient tragedy is most intimately bound up. The action which forms the basis of every tragedy of those times is internal and spiritual; the reflections, resolutions, feelings, the mental or moral phenomena, which can be expressed in speech, are developed on the stage. For outward action, which is generally mute, or, at all events, can not be adequately represented by words, the epic form -narration-is the only appropriate vehicle. Exceptions, such as the chaining of Prometheus, and the suicide of Ajax, are rather apparent than real, and, indeed, serve to confirm the general rule; since it is only on account of the peculiar psychological state of Prometheus when bound, and of Ajax at the time of his suicide, that the outward acts are brought upon the stage. Moreover, the costume of tragic actors was calculated for impressive declamation, and not for action. The lengthened and stuffed-out figures of the tragic actors would have had an awkward, not to say a ludicrous effect in combat or other violent action. From the sublime to the ridiculous would here have been but one step, which ancient tragedy carefully avoided risking.2 XXXV. The theatre at Athens was well supplied with machinery calculated to produce startling effects. Besides the ireptlarot, which were used occasionally to introduce a sea-deity on his fish-tailed steed, or a river-god with his urn, there was the aeoxo-yJov, a platform surrounded by clouds, and suspended from the top of the central scene, whence the deities conversed with the actors or chorus. Sometimes they were introduced near the left parodus, close to the periaktus, by means of a crane turning on a pivot, which was called the cu'Xay.3 The?yEpavos was a contrivance for snatching up an actor from the stage and raising him to the aeoAXo'yE0v, and, by means of the afwpau, an arrangement of ropes and pulleys, Bellerophon or Trygaeus could fly across the stage. Then there was the fporeZ7ov, a contrivance for imitating the sound of thunder. It seems to have consisted of bladders full of pebbles, which were rolled over sheets of copper laid out in the vooraoicvza. Again, the appearance of lightning was produced by means of a periaktus, or triangular prism of mirrors placed in the JeoXOTyEov. This place was called the KEpavvoaoco7-rEov. It may be inferred, too, that the orchestra near the stage was occasionally supposed to represent water. Thus, in the " Frogs," Bacchus rows in front of the XoyE7ov to the melodious croakings of the chorus which swims around his boat. From the enormous size of the theatre at Athens, which is said to have contained 30,000 spectators,4 it became necessary to employ the principles of acoustics to a considerable extent. All round the KooXao were bell-shaped vessels of bronze, called 9XEoa, placed in an inverted position, and resting on pedestals, which received 1 Ep. ad Pis., 180, seqq. 2 Mfller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 307, seq. 3 Pollux, iv., 128. * Plato, Sympos., 175, E. Compare Wordsworth, Athens and Attica, p. 92, seqq.

Page  168 168 GREEK LITERATURE. and distributed the vibrations of sound. In some theatres, though not in that of Athens, these'XETa were placed in niches excavated for the purpose. The difficulty of hearing must have been greatly increased by the want of a roof to the Ko7Xov. XXXVI. The chorus was supposed to be a lochus of soldiers in battle array. In the dithyrambic or cyclic chorus of fifty, this military arrangement was not practicable; but when the original choral elements had become more deeply enrooted in the worship of Bacchus, and the three principal Apollonian dances were transferred to the worship of that god, the dramatic choruses became, like them, quadrangular, and were arranged in Inilitary rank and file. The number of the tragic chorus for the whole trilogy appears to have been 50; the comic chorus consisted of 24. The chorus of the tetralogy was broken into four sub-choruses, two of 15, one of 12, and a satyric chorus of 8, as appears from the distribution in the remaining trilogy. When the chorus of 15 entered in ranks three abreast, it was said to be divided caa& Cv-yd: when it was distributed into three files of five, it was said to be caT&'roixovs. The same military origin explains the fact that the anapaestic measure was generally, if not always, adopted for the opening choral song; for this metre, as we have before seen, was also used in the Dorian marching-songs. The muster of the chorus round the Thymele shows that the chorus was Bacchic as well as military; the mixture of. lyric and flute music points to the same union of two worships; and in the strophic and antistrophic form of most of the choral odes we discern the traces of the choral improvements of Stesichorus. XXXVII. In the life of antiquity, every thing great and important, all the main actions of family or political interest, passed in the open air and in the view of men. Even social meetings took place rather in public halls, in market-places and streets, than in rooms and chambers; and the habits and actions, which were confined to the interior of a house, were never regarded as forming subjects for public observation. Accordingly, it was necessary that the action of the drama should come forth from the interior of the house; and tragic poets were compelled to comply strictly with this condition in the invention and plan of their dramatic compositions. The heroic personages, when about to give utterance to their thoughts and feelings, came forth into the court in front of their houses. From the other side came the chorus, out of the city or district in which the principal persons dwelt; they assembled, as friends or neighbors might, to offer their counsel or their sympathy to the principal actors on the stage, on some open space; often a market-place designed for public meetings; such as, in the monarchical times of Greece, was commonly attached to the prince's palace. Far from shocking received notions, the performance of choral dances in this place was quite in accordance with Greek usages. Anciently these market-places were specially designed for numerous popular choruses; they even themselves bore the name of chorus.' As regards the chorus itself, considered in the light of an element of the drama, we must conceive of it, with Schlegel, as the personA1 il er, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 302.

Page  169 ATTIC PERIOD. 1G9 ification of the thought inspired by the represented action; in other words, it often expresses the reflections of a dispassionate and right-minded spectator, and inculcates the lessons of morality and resignation to the will of heaven, taught by the occurrences of the piece in which it is engaged. Besides this, the chorus enabled the poet to produce an image of the s" council of elders," which existed under the heroic governments, and under whose advice and in whose presence the ancient princes of the Greek tragedy generally acted. This image was the more striking and vivid, inasmuch as the chorus was taken from the people at large, and did not at all differ from the appearance and stature of ordinary men; so that the contrast or relation between them and the actors was the same as that of the Homeric Xaol and dyaK'TES. Lastly, the choral songs produced an agreeable pause in the action, breaking the piece into parts, while they presented to the spectator a lyrical and musical expression of his own emotions, or suggested to him lofty thoughts and great arguments. As Schlegel says, the chorus was the spectator idealized.' XXXVIII. The great size of the theatre gave occasion to another remarkable difference between the exhibitions of the ancients and our own. Every one of the actors in tragedy wore the thick-soled cothurnus or hunting-boot (Kd0opvos, a&pi3ax). This gave additional height to the person, while his body and limbs were also stuffed and padded to a corresponding size, and his head was surmounted by a colossal mask suited to the character which he bore. Masks (7rpldscrna, irposowrEZa) appear to have originated in the taste for mumming and disguises of all sorts prevalent at the Bacchic festivals. In the earlier periods of the drama, as we have already seen, the actors smeared their faces with the lees of wine, then substituted a species of pigment, and subsequently adopted a mask of linen. The regular mask was introduced by 2.Eschylus, and still farther improved by Sophocles. With regard to the material of which it was composed, a difference of opinion exists. According to some, it was made of bronze or copper. This, however, is scarcely credible, since, when taken in connection with the other parts of the mask, which actually covered the whole head and came down as far as the shoulders, it would make the entire apparatus too unwieldy. According to others, the part which covered the face was of a light kind of wood, which seems the more reasonable opinion. Others are in favor of thin pipe-clay or terra cotta. One thing is pretty certain, that such metallic specimens as have come down to us are rather to be regarded simply as model masks, or as works of art, designed by the artist as mere ornaments.' XXXIX. The ancient mask was so constructed as not only to add to the height of the actor, but also to give greater power to the voice. The first of these objects was effected by means of the o'yicos, a species of topknot, forming a prolongation of the mask, the hair being arranged in a pyramidal form, like the roof of a house, or the Greek letter A, and having sometimes a bonnet superadded. For the purpose, again, of giving more power to the voice, the mask was connected with a tire or periwig (7t1r4vi, PEV&sr), of which the yiKcos formed part, which covered the whole I Smith, Diet. Ant., s. v. Tragoelia. 2 St. John, Hellenes, ii., p. 265. a t. on einsTi..~

Page  170 170 GREEK LITERATURE. head, and left only one passage for the voice, indicated by the half-opened mouth, and answering, in fact, all the ends of a speaking-trumpet, whence the Latin name for a mask, persona a personando. XL. The mask not only concealed the individual features of well-known actors, and enabled the spectators entirely to forget the performer in his part, but it gave to his whole aspect that ideal character which the tragedy of antiquity demanded. The tragic mask was not, indeed, intentionally ugly and caricatured, like the comic, but the half-open mouth, the large eye-sockets, the sharply-defined features, in which every characteristic was presented in its utmost strength, the bright and hard coloring, were calculated to produce the impression of a being agitated by the emotions and the passions of human nature in a degree far above the standard of ordinary life. The unnatural effect which a set and uniform cast of features would produce in tragedy of varied passion and action like ours, was much less striking in ancient tragedy, wherein the principal persons, once forcibly possessed by certain objects and emotions, appeared throughout the whole remaining piece in a state of mind which was become the habitual and fundamental character of their existence. It is possible to imagine the Orestes of zEschylus, the Ajax of Sophocles, the Medea of Euripides, throughout the whole tragedy with the same countenance, though this would be difficult to assert of Hamlet, or any other character in a modern drama. But, in truth, there is no necessity for supposing that the actors appeared throughout a whole play with the same countenance, for, if circumstances required it, they might surely change masks during the intervals between the acts of a piece. Thus, in the tragedy of Sophocles, after King (Edipus knows the extent of his calamity, and has executed the bloody punishment upon himself, he appeared in a different mask from that which he wore in the confidence of virtue and of happiness.' XLI. Not only, however, were the masks intended to personify historical or mythological personages, designed in imitation of some wellknown type, handed down through ages by the poets, painters, and sculptors, but every age and condition of life, from youth to decrepitude, or from the hero to the slave, was represented by an appropriate mask, the characteristics of which were sufficiently well known for the quality and condition of the personage represented to be immediately recognized by the spectators on his appearance upon the stage; and even the iy7Kos belonging to each particular mask had a settled style of coiffure, as well known as the features it accompanied. The color of the hair, also, was fixed in each particular case. No wonder, therefore, that the greatest possible care was bestowed upon the manufacture of masks. Julius Pollux divides the tragic masks into twenty-six classes;2 the comic masks, however, were much more numerous. XLII. The performers wore long striped garments reaching to the ground (XLTrcves 7ro0peIS, aO-oXaM), which were serviceable also in concealing a portion of the cothurnus. Over these were thrown upper robes (iutATLa, Xa/Ia68es) of purple, or some other brilliant color, with all sorts.iiuller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 298. 2 Pollux, iv., 133, seqq.

Page  171 ATTIC PERIOD. 171' of gay trimmings and gold ornaments, the ordinary attire of Bacchic festal processions and choral dances. Nor was the Hercules of the stage represented as the sturdy athletic hero, whose huge limbs werei only concealed by a lion's hide; he appeared in the rich and gaudy dress we have described, to which his distinctive attributes, the club and the bow, were merely added. The dress of the chorus was not different in kind from that of the actors, and the choragus took care that it was equally splendid. But as the actors represented heroic characters, whereas the chorus was merely a deputation from the people at large, and in fact stood much nearer to the audience, the mask was omitted, and moreover, while the actors wore the cothurnus, the chorus appeared in their usual sandals. The comic actors, for the same reason, were content with the soccus, or thin-soled shoe, and their mask had no b-ycos. They often, too, wore harlequinade dresses, with trowsers fitting close to the leg.l XLIII. Aristotle, or the grammarian by whom his treatise on Poetry has been interpolated, informs us2 that every Greek tragedy admitted of the following subdivisions: the prologue, the episodes, the exode, which applied to the performances of the actors, and the parodus and stasima, which belonged to the chorus. The songs from the stage (an a7rNb oaies), and the dirges (Ko0,U0ol), are peculiar to some tragedies only. Besides these, it seems that there was occasionally a dancing song or canzonet of a peculiar nature.3 The proper entrance of the chorus, as already remarked, was from the paeascenia, by one of the parodi. The parodus was the song which the choreutae sang as they moved, probably in different parties, along the side entrances of the orchestra. It was generally either interspersed with anapwests, as is the case in the Antigone; or preceded by a long anapaestic march, as in the case of the Supplices and Agamemnon. Sometimes this anapaestic march was followed by a system of the cognate Ionics a minore.- This we find in the Perse. In some tragedies there was no parodus, but the opening of the play found the chorus already assembled on the thymele, and prepared to sing the first stasimon. Such is the case in the (Edipus Tyrannus. It seems probable that they then entered by the passage under the seats. XLIV. The stasima were always sung by the chorus when it was either stationary or moving on the same limited surface around the altar of Bacchus, and with its front to the stage. The places of the choreutae were marked by lines on the stage (6Laypalepa'aa). The comic chorus sang its parodus and its stasima in the same manner as the tragic; but they were, as pieces of poetry, much less elaborate, and generally much shorter. The main performance of the chorus in comedy was the parabasis. It was an address to the audience in the middle of the play, and was the most immediate representative of the old trochaic or anapaestic address by the leader of the phallic song, for which the personal lampoons of Archilochus furnished the model, and to which the old comedy of Athens was mainly indebted for its origin. This parabasis, or "countermarch," was so called because the chorus, which had previously stood facing the I Milller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 296, seqq.; Id., Eumen., 32. 2 Arist., Poet., 12. 3 Donaldson, Introd. to Antig., p. xxxi. 4 Id., Gr. Gr., Q 650.

Page  172 172 GREEK LITERATURE. stage, and on the other side of the central altar, wheeled about, and made a movement toward the spectators, who were then addressed by the coryphaeus in a short system of anapests or trochees, called the Ko1EcuaTLoV, and this was followed by a long anapeestic systern, termed -rv-iyos, "suffocation," or /LaKpdv, "long," from the effort which its delivery imposed upon the reciter. The parabasis is often followed by a lyric song in honor of some divinity, and this by a short system, properly of sixteen trochaic tetrameters, which is called the wrlpp55ua, or " supplement." It contains some joking addition to the main purport of the parabasis. XLV. There were regularly never more than three actors (7roKpiTat, &ywvorLai). who were designated as respectively the first, second, and third actor (7rpwTaywaorTSs, beVTepayCOa70LrTs, TrpLT~yW'wr'7s). The third actor in tragedy, as we have already remarked, was first added by Sophocles, an addition which Cratinus was the first to make in comedy. Any number of mutes (Kcpa& Irpdsco7ra) might appear on the stage. If children were introduced as speaking or singing on the stage, the part was undertaken by one of the chorus, who stood behind the scene, and it was, therefore, called a 7rapao'Iozraoy, from his position, or 7rapaxop$ylsAa, from its being something beyond the\proper functions of the chorus. It has been concluded by Miller,1 that a fourth actor was indispensable to the proper performance of the (Edipus Coloneus, an opinion which, though opposed by some eminent scholars,2 seems extremely probable. XLVI. The narrowness and distance of the stage rendered any grouping unadvisable. The arrangement of the actors was that of a processional bas-relief. Their movements were slow, their gesticulations abrupt and angular, and their delivery a sort of loud and deep-drawn singsong, which resounded throughout the immense theatre. They probably neglected every thing like by-play, and making points, which are so effective on the modern stage. The distance at which the spectators were placed would prevent them from seeing those little movements, and hearing those low tones which have made the fortune of many a modern actor. The mask, too, precluded all attempts at varied expression, and it is probable that nothing more was expected from the performer than was looked for from his predecessor the rhapsodist, namely, good recitation. XLVII. The rhythmical systems of the tragic choruses were very simple, and we may conclude that the music to which they were set was equally so. The dochmiac metre, which is regularly found in the KoplTqoW and & &7rb cKrIVjS, would admit of the most inartificial of plaintive melodies. The comic choral songs very frequently introduce the easy asynartete combinations,3 which were so much used by Archilochus; and we find in Aristophanes a very curious form of the antispastic metre, the invention of which is attributed to Eupolis.4 XLVIII. We shall conclude with a few observations on the audience, and on the social position of the actors. For the first few years after the commencement of theatrical performances no money was paid for admission to them; but after a time (probably about B.C. 501) it was found Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 305. 2 Donaldson, Theatre of the Greeks, p. 164. Id., Gr. Gr., ~ 666. 4 Id. ib., ~ 677.

Page  173 ATTIC PERIOD. 173 convenient to prevent the crowds and disturbances occasioned by the gratuitous admission of every one who chose to come. The charge' was two oboli; but lest the poorer classes should be excluded, the entrance-money was given to any person who might choose to apply for it, provided his name was registered in the book of the citizens (AXLapXLKb, -ypaAC/iaTrEo)). The lowest and best seats were set apart for the magistrates, the members of the Bovux, or senate, and all such persons as had acquired or inherited a right to front seats (7rpoE3pia). It is probable that those who were entitled to reserved places at the theatre had also tickets of admission provided for them. The entrance-money was paid to the lessee of the theatre (aEarp&CVs, 9leaTpo7roX's, apX,17'eKov), who paid the rent and made the necessary repairs out of the proceeds. The distribution of the admission money, or rEWopLKdy, as it was called, out of the public funds, was set on foot by Pericles, at the suggestion of Demonides of CEa; its application was soon extended, till it became a regular largess from the demagogues to the mob at all the great festivals; and well might the patriot Demosthenes lift up his voice against a practice, which was in the end nothing but an instrument in the hands of the profligate orators, who pandered to the worst passions of the people. XLIX. The lessee sometimes gave a gratuitous exhibition, in which case tickets of admission were distributed.' Any citizen might buy tickets for a stranger residing at Athens.3 The question whether in Greece, and more especially at Athens, women were present at tragedies, is one of those which have given rise to much discussion among modern scholars, as we have scarcely any passage in ancient writers in which the presence of women is stated as a positive fact. But Jacobs4 and Passow5 have placed it almost beyond a doubt, from the various allusions made by ancient writers, that women were allowed to be present during the performance of tragedies. This opinion is now perfectly confirmed by a passage in Athenneus,6 which has been quoted by Becker7 in corroboration of the conclusion to which the above-mentioned scholars had come. We have, however, on the other hand, every reason to believe that women were not present at comedies, while boys might be present both at tragedy and comedy.8 The seats which women occupied in the Greek theatres were in the highest row of benches, and separated from those of the men.9 L. Theatrical representations at Athens began early in the morning, or after breakfast;L0 and when the concourse of people was expected to be great, persons would even go to occupy their seats in the night. The theatres had no roofs. The sun, however, could not be very troublesome to the actors, as they were in a great measure protected by the buildings surrounding the stage, and the spectators protected themselves against it by hats with broad brims.M" When the weather was fine, especially at Boclkh, Pub. Econ. of Athens, vol. i., p. 289, seqq., Engl. trans. 2 Theophrast., Charact., xi. 3 Plat., Gorg., p. 502, D; Id., Leg., ii., p. 658, D 4 Vermi.,cht. Schriften, iv., p. 272. 5 Zeitschr.fiir die Alterth., 1837, n. 29. 6 Athen., xii., p. 534. 7 Charikles, ii., p. 560. s Theophr., Char., ix.; Aristoph., Nub., 537. 9 Gittling, Rh. Mus., 1834, p. 103, seqq 10o Eschin. c. Ctes., p. 466; Athen., xi., p. 464. 11 Suid., s. v. 7r4aao9 and dpaKcov.

Page  174 174 GREEK LITERATURE. the Dionysiac festivals in the spring, the people appeared with garlands on their heads; when it was cold, as at the Lenaea in January, they used to wrap themselves up in their cloaks.' When a storm or a shower of rain came on suddenly, the spectators took refuge in the porticoes behind the stage, or in those above the uppermost row of benches. Those who wished to sit comfortably brought cushions with them.2 As it was not unusual for the theatrical performances to last from ten to twelve hours, the spectators required refreshments, and we find that, in the intervals between the several plays, they used to take wine and cakes.3 LI. The Athenian performers were much esteemed all over Greece; they took great pains about their bodily exercises, and dieted themselves in order to keep their voices clear and strong.4 They appear to have been generally paid by the state; in the country exhibitions, however, two actors would occasionally pay the wages of their rplraycwvoro-s.5 The salary of actors was often very high, and Polus, who commonly acted with Tlepolemus in the plays of Sophocles, sometimes earned a talent by two days' performances. The histrionic profession was not thought to carry with it any degradation. The actor was the representative of the dramatist, and often the dramatist himself. Sophocles, who sometimes performed in his own plays, was a person of the highest consideration; the actor Aristodemus went on an embassy, and many actors took a lead in the public assembly. In some cases, the actors were not only recognized by the state, but controlled and directed by special enactments. Thus, according to the law brought forward by the orator Lycurgus, the actors were obliged to compare the acting copies of the plays of the three great tragedians with the authentic manuscripts of their works, preserved in the state archives; and it was the duty of the public secretary to see that the texts were accurately collated.6 CHAPTER XXIII. FOURTH OR ATTIC PERIOD-continued. GREEK TRAGEDIANS. I. CH(ERILUS (XoLptXos) or CH(ERILLUS (XofpLxAos), of Athens, was a tragic poet, contemporary with Thespis, Phrynichus, Pratinas, zEschylus, and even with Sophocles, unless, as Welcker supposes, he had a son of the same name, who was also a tragic poet.7 His first appearance as a competitor for the tragic prize was in B.C. 523, in the reign of Hipparchus, when Athens was becoming the centre of Greek poetry by the residence there of Simonides, Anacreon, Lasus, and others. This was twelve years after the first appearance of Thespis in the tragic contests; and it is, therefore, not improbable that Chcerilus had Thespis for an antagonist. 1 Suid., I. c. 2 Theophr., Charact., ii. 3 Athen., xi., p. 464; Aristot., Eth. Nicom., x., 5. 4 Cic., Orat., 4. 5 Demosth., De Coron., p. 345, Bekker. 6. Plut., Vit. X. Orat., p. 841, D, p. 377, Wyttenb. 7 Griech. Trag., p. 892.

Page  175 ATTIC PERIOD. 175 It was also twelve years before the first victory of Phrynichus (B.C. 511). After another twelve years, Choerilus came into competition with.yEschylus, when the latter first exhibited (B.C. 499); and since we know that.Eschylus did not carry off a prize till sixteen years afterward, the prize of this contest must have been given either to Chcerilus or to Pratinas. Chcerilus was still held in high estimation in the year 483 B.C., after he had exhibited tragedies for forty years. Of the character of Chcerilus we know little more than that, during a long life, he retained a good degree of popular favor. The number of his tragedies was 150, of his victories 13,1 being exactly the number of victories assigned to yEschylus. The great number of his dramas establishes an important point, namely, that. the exhibition of tetralogies commenced early in the time of Choerilus; for new tragedies were exhibited at Athens only twice a year, and at this early period we never hear of tragedies being written and not exhibited, but rather the other way. In fact, it is the general opinion that Chmerilus was the first who composed written tragedies, and that even of his plays the greater number were not written. The poetical character and construction of the plays of Chcerilus probably differed but little from those of Thespis, until.2Eschylus introduced the second actor. Of all his plays we have no remnant, except the statement by Pausanias2 of a mythological genealogy from his play called'AXAJ7r.3 II. PHRYNICHUS (4bp6VLXoS), an Athenian, was one of the poets to whom the invention of tragedy is ascribed. He was a scholar of Thespis.4 The dates of his birth and death are alike unknown. He gained his first tragic victory B.C. 511, twenty-four years after Thespis (B.C. 535), twelve years after Chcerilus (B.C. 523), and twelve years before.Eschylus (B.C. 499), and his last in B.C. 476, on which occasion Themistocles was his choragus,5 and recorded the event by an inscription. Phryni-'chus must, therefore, have flourished at least 35 years. He probably went, like other poets of the age, to the court of Hiero at Syracuse, and there died. Various improvements in the ancient drama are ascribed to Phrynichus. He introduced female masks, paid particular attention to the dances of the chorus, and for the light, ludicrous Bacchanalian stories of Thespis, he substituted regular and serious subjects, taken either from the Heroic Age, or the heroic deeds which illustrated the history of his own time. In these he aimed not so much to amuse the audience as to move their feelings; and so powerful was the effect of his tragedy on the capture of Miletus, which city had recently been taken by the Persians, B.C. 494, that the audience burst into tears, and Phrynichus was fined 1000 drachmae for having recalled so forcibly a painful recollection of the misfortunes of a kindred people.6 Phrynichus seems to have been chiefly remarkable for the sweetness of his melodies, and the great variety and cleverness of his figure-dances. The Aristophanic Agathon speaks generally of the beauty of his dramas, though, of course, they fell far short of the grandeur of AEschylus, and the perfect skill of Sophocles. In the dramas of Phrynichus the chorus still retained the principal place, 1 Suid., s. v. 2 Paus., i., 14, 2. 3 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 4 Suid., s v. 5 Plut., Themist., 5. 6 Herod., vi., 21.

Page  176 176 GREEK LITERATURE. and it was reserved for 2Eschylus and Sophocles to bring the dialogue and action into their true position. The names of several tragedies attributed to Phrynichus have come down to us, but it is probable that some of these belonged to other poets. The few fragments of Phrynichus are given by WVagner, in his Trag. Grcac. Fragm. (in Didot's Bibliotheca).' III. PRATINAS (rfpaTias).,2 one of the early tragic poets at Athens, was a native of Phlius, and therefore by birth a Dorian. It is not stated at what time he went to Athens, but he was older than ~Eschylus, and younger than Chcerilus, with both of whom he competed for the prize about B.C. 500. The step in the progress of the art which was ascribed to Pratinas was the separation of the satyric from the tragic drama,3 to which we have already alluded. His plays were much esteemed. Pratinas also ranked high among the lyric as well as among the dramatic poets of the day. He cultivated two species of lyric poetry, the hyporcheme and the dithyramb, of which the former was closely related to the satyric drama by the jocular character which it often assumed, the latter by its ancient choruses of satyrs. Pratinas may, perhaps, be considered to have shared with his contemporary Lasus the honor of founding the Athenian school of dithyrambic poetry. The firagments of Pratinas are contained in Wagner's Tragic. Graec. Fragm. (in Didot's Bibliotheca). IV..EscHILus (AiaXbXos)4 was born at Eleusis, in Attica, B.C. 525, so that he was thirty-five years of age at the time of the battle of Marathon, and contemporary with Simonides and Pindar. Hfis, father Euphorion was probably connected with the worship of Ceres, and z~Eschylus himself was, according to some authorities, initiated in the mysteries of that goddess. At the age of 25 (B.C. 499) he made his first appearance as a competitor for the prize of tragedy against Clhoerilus and Pratinas, without, however, being successful. Afterward, with his brothers Cynegirus and Aminias, he fought at the battle of Marathon (B.C. 490), and also at those of Salamis (B.C. 480) and Platrae (B.C. 479). In B.C. 484, sixteen years subsequent to his first defeat in the tragic contest, AEschylus gained his first dramatic victory. The titles of the pieces which he brought out on this occasion are not known, but his competitors were most probably Pratinas and Phrynichus, or Chcerilus. Afterward, in B.C. 472, he gained the prize with the Persie, the earliest of his extant dramas. In B.C. 468, a remarkable event occurred in the poet's life: he was defeated in a tragic contest by his younger rival Sophocles, and, if we may believe Plutarch,5 his mortification at this indignity, as he conceived it, was so great, that he quitted Athens in disgust the very same year, and went to the court of Hiero at Syracuse, where he found Simonides the lyric poet. Of the fact of his having visited Syracuse at the time alluded to there can be no doubt; but whether the motive alleged by Plutarch for his doing so was the only one, or a real one, is a question of considerable difficulty, though of little practical moment. It has been conjectured by some that the charge of haEitea, or impiety, brought against zEschylus 1 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 2 Idl.) s. v. 3 Suid., s. v. lrp&ro3 &ypaik IIpa7rvas. 4 Smith, DiCt. Biogr., s. v,. Plut, Cm.t S.

Page  177 ATTIC PERIOD. 177 for an alleged divulging of the mysteries of Ceres,' but possibly from political motives, was in some way connected with his retirement on this occasion from his native country, but this charge belongs rather to a subsequent period of his life. Shortly before the arrival of AEschylus at the court of Hiero, that prince had built the town of -Etna, at the bottom of the mountain of that name, and on the site of the ancient Catana. In connection with this event, XEschylus is said to have composed his play of the " Women of AEtna," in which he predicted and prayed for the prosperity of the new city. At the request of Hiero, he also reproduced the play of the " Persee," with which he had been victorious in the dramatic contests at Athens (B. C. 472). Now we know that the trilogy of the " Seven against Thebes" was represented soon after the "Persee," and hence it follows that the former must have been first represented not later than B.C. 470.2 Besides the " Women of,Etna," 2Eschylus also composed other pieces in Sicily, in which are said to have occurred Sicilian words and expressions not intelligible to the Athenians.3 From the number of such words and expressions which have been noticed in the later extant plays of AEschylus, it has been inferred that he spent a considerable time in Sicily on this his first visit. It may be remarked here, that, according to some accounts,.Eschylus had even visited Sicily before this, about B.C. 488, in consequence of the victory gained over him by Simonides, to whom the Athenians had adjudged the prize for the best elegy on those who had fallen at Marathon. The truth of this statement, however, has been greatly questioned.4 In B.C. 467, his friend and patron Hiero died; and in B.C. 458 it appears that.Eschylus was again at Athens, from the fact that the trilogy of the Orestea was produced in that year. In the same or the following year (B.C. 457), 2Eschylus again visited Sicily for the last time, and the reason assigned for this his second visit to that island is both probable and sufficient. He was accused of impiety before the court of the Areopagus, and would have been condemned but for the interposition of his brother Aminias, who had distinguished himself at the battle of Salamis.5 What the specific nature of the charge was is not known; but it is supposed to have been founded on his having either divulged or spoken profanely in some of his plays concerning the mysteries of Ceres. At any rate, from the number of authorities all confirming this conclusion, there can be no doubt that toward the end of his life IEschylus incurred the serious displeasure of a strong party at Athens, and that after the exhibition of the Orestean trilogy he retired to Gela in Sicily, where he died, B.C. 456, in the 69th year of his age, and three years after the representation of the Eumenides, on which play, according to some, the charge of impiety was founded. On the manner of his death the ancient writers are unanimous.6 An eagle, say they, mistaking the poet's bald head for a stone, let a tortoise fall upon it to break the shell, and so fulfilled an 1 Aristot., Eth., iii., 1. 2 Welcker, Trilogie, p. 520; Schol. ad Aristoph., Ran., 1053. 3 Athenceus, ix., p. 402, b. 4 Bode, Gesch. d. Dichtk., iii., p. 215. 6 /i/an, V. H., v., 19. 6 Suid., s. v. XehA rvq".:

Page  178 178 GREEK LITERATURE. oracle, according to which.Eschylus was fated to die by a blow from heaven. The inhabitants of Gela showed their regard for his character, by public solemnities in his honor, by erecting a noble monument to him, and inscribing it with an epitaph written by himself,' in which, strangely enough, he describes the field of Marathon as the scene of his glory, without any allusion whatever to his success as a dramatist. In Sicily the' memory of.Eschylus was long held in the highest veneration; and in Attica, although he had parted from its shores with bitter feelings, the next generation appears to have prized the works of.JEschylus very highly, for what we read about him in the " Frogs" of Aristophanes must be regarded as the judgment of the ablest Athenian critics at the time. Not only were the dramas which had been performed in his lifetime repeated after his death, and treated like new compositions, so as to be allowed to come into competition with new dramas, the state, by a special decree of the people, providing a chorus at the public expense, for any one who might wish to exhibit his tragedies a second time,2 but pieces which had not been brought out by the poet himself were produced upon the stage by his son Euphorion, and gained prizes. In this way Euphorion was victorious with a tetralogy in B.C. 431, over Sophocles and Euripides. Philocles, also, the son of a sister of 2Eschylus, was victorious over the King CEdipus of Sophocles, probably with a tragedy of his uncle's. Front and by means of these persons arose what was called the Tragic school of,Eschylus, which continued for the space of 125 years.3 The style of AEschylus is bold, energetic, and sublime, full of gorgeous imagery and magnificent expressions, such as became the elevated characters of his dramas, and the ideas he wished to express.4 In the turn of his expressions the poetical predominates over the syntactical. He was peculiarly fond of metaphorical phrases and strange compounds, and of obsolete language, so that he was much more epic in his manner of expression than either Sophocles or Euripides, and he excelled in displaying strong feelings and impulses, and in describing the awful and the terrible, rather than in exhibiting the workings of the human mind under the influence of complicated and various emotions. But, notwithstanding the general elevation of his style, the subordinate characters in his plays, as the watchman in the Agamemnon, and the nurse of Orestes in the Choiphorae, are made to use language fitting their station, and less removed from that of ordinary life. The characters of AEschylus, like his diction, are sublime and majestic; they were gods and powers of colossal magnitude, whose imposing aspect could be endured by the heroes of Marathon and Salamis, but was too awful for the contemplation of a later age, who complained that 2Eschylus's language was not human.. Hence the general impression produced by the poetry of 2Eschylus was rather of a religious than a moral nature; his personages being both in action and suffering superhuman, and therefore not always fitted to teach practical lessons.5 I Paus., i., 14, 4; Athen., xiv., p. 627, D. 2 Aristoph., Acharn., 102, XEschyl. Vit. 3 Htman., Spuac., ii., p. 158. 4 Ari toph., Ran, 924. 5 Stith, Dict. i3ognt, A vo

Page  179 ATTIC PERIOD. 179 The Greeks justly regarded LEschylus as the father of tragedy. Before his time the art scarcely deserved the name of drama, and the progress which it made under the direction of his genius was far greater than any which it owed to his successors. It required much more power to raise the drama from the state in which it was in the hands of the poets previous to iEschylus, to the condition in which we find it in his works, than merely to continue what he had commenced. Before the time of _/Eschylus, as we have before remarked, only one actor appeared on the stage at once, who carried on the dialogue with the chorus, or told his story to them. lEschylus introduced a seconrd actor, which was the first step toward making the dialogue and the action independent of the chorus. The dialogue now became more free and animated, and the contrast between a principal (protagonistes) and a secondary character (deuteragonistes) enabled the poet to interest his audience in the action, which before his time was of secondary importance, the chorus being then the principal part of the drama. But still the action in the dramas of.schylus is yet not altogether independent of the chorus, which takes a considerable part in the events of the piece. The complete separation of these two elements was reserved for Sophocles.L An innovation like the above was undoubtedly adopted by the contemporaries of,Eschylus, just as he himself, at a later period, adopted that of Sophocles, by which a third actor was introduced. There are, it is true, dramas of.Eschylus in which three persons appear on the stage at once; but in this case the dialogue is carried on by only two of them. A third actor who takes part in the dialogue does not occur in any drama written before the year B.C. 468, when Sophocles showed the advantage of a third actor. The part of the protagonistes was in most cases performed by.Eschylus himself, and the names of two celebrated actors are known who were trained and instructed by the poet, and probably acted the parts of deuteragonistaw. They were Clearchus and Myniscus of Chalcis. Before the time of iLEschylus, the poets generally acted their own dramas, and were obliged to perform the parts of the several characters of a piece, one by one, in succession. This inconvenience was obviated, in some degree, by thenintroduction of a second actor, though the same actor was still obliged to perform several parts. There are, however, several points in the dialogue of the _.Jschylean drama which remind us of what the art was before his time. The dialogue is sometimes carried on between the actor and the chorus, and in this, as well as in other cases, it proceeds with great regularity, which to a modern critic would appear stiff and unnatural: the verses are mostly distributed in certain proportions between the speakers, and the protagonistes, in most cases, uses more verses than the deuteragonistes. This is, indeed, a peculiarity of all Greek tragedies, but in.Eschylus it is more striking than in any of his successors.2 /E schylus also introduced great improvements in the choral dance. He invented several dances himself4-instructed the dancers without the assistance of a teacher, and paid the most anxious attention to the orB iograpk. Diet. of Soc.for Diff. of Usefut Knowledge, vol. i., p, 408. 2 Ibid.

Page  180 180 GREEK LITERATURE. chestral performances of the chorus. He was also the first who saw the propriety of adapting the dress of the actors and the scenery to the characters which they represented. He introduced the cothurnus, or highsoled buskin, and the other artificial means already mentioned, to raise the figure of the actors above the standard of ordinary men; the masks were greatly improved by him, and he bestowed the utmost care and attention upon the whole of the theatrical wardrobe. The introduction of scene-painting is likewise ascribed to ~Eschylus. The machinery requisite for theatrical performances must have attained a high degree of perfection under him, on account of his frequent introduction of the gods and other supernatural beings upon the stage. Every thing, in fine, of importance to the performance of the drama was thus either perfected or introduced by iEschylus, who left to those who succeeded him nothing but to complete the work which he had commenced. It is stated that ~Eschylus wrote seventy tragedies and several satyric dramas. Five were ascribed to him on doubtful authority. All these productions were written within forty-four years, from 500 to 456 B.C. Of their general excellence we may judge from the fact that he gained the prize of tragedy thirteen times. It is a very questionable point whether the tragedies of IEschylus were always so arranged as to form trilogies, that is, great dramatic compositions consisting of three distinct tragedies, each of which was in some degree entire in itself, and yet formed, as it were, only one of the three acts of a greater drama, and could not be properly understood unless viewed in its connection with the others. Welcker, by a careful examination of the extant plays, and of the fragments and titles of those which are lost, has endeavored to show that all the works of.tEschylus were such trilogies; but although it is beyond doubt that many were intended to form trilogies, there is not sufficient evidence to show this of all; and as regards the " Persee," it is perfectly certain that it was not part of a trilogy. The few fragments of many of the lost pieces, moreover, scarcely enable us to form an accurate idea of their contents. The only specimen of a trilogy which is preserved entire is the "'Orestea," consisting of the "kAgamemnon," the "Chodphoree," and the "Eumenides." The three other pieces which we possess entire, namely, the "' Seven against Thebes," the " Suppliants," and the " Prometheus," are undoubtedly likewise parts of trilogies. The earliest among the seven extant plays is the "Persee," which was first acted at Athens in B.C. 472, and forms an exception to the other plays of AEschylus, inasmuch as the subject is taken from the history of the poet's own time. A year after the "Persas," the "Seven against Thebes" was brought out. The latest is the Orestean trilogy, which, as already stated, was brought upon the stage in B.C. 458. The "Suppliants" and the "Prometheus" came in the period between this year and that in which the " Persians" was brought out, but the exact time is not known. From allusions, however, in the "Suppliants," it has been inferred, with some probability, that it was written about B.C. 461, during the time that Athens was allied with Argos.' 1 B3iograh. Dict. of Soc. for Diff. qf Useful Knowledge, vol. i., p. 408,

Page  181 ATTIC PERIOD. 181 The performance of each trilogy of l]schylus was followed by that of a satyric drama, which, together with the three tragedies, formed a tetralogy, and the subject of which was in some cases connected with that of the trilogy. The name of the satyric drama connected with the " Orestea" was the "' Proteus." We know the names of eight others of these burlesque dramas of Eschylus, but none are preserved. The ancients state that.2Eschylus was as great a master in the satyric drama as in tragedy. As regards the artistic character of the tragedies of ZEschylus, to which we have already in part alluded, we have few observations of the ancients themselves. Sophocles, who is reported to have said that IEschylus always composed his poems as he ought, without being conscious of it, has expressed in the best manner the fact that tEschylus was a great poet. All that Sophocles, Aristophanes, and other ancient writers object to in _Eschylus refers merely to form, and not to the artistic plan and structure of his work; it is only the pompous grandiloquence and the boldness of his imagery which they find fault with. These are, indeed, very striking features in the dramas of 2Eschylus, but he himself seems not only to have been aware of it, but to have thought it necessary that his gods and heroes, being so far above the human standard, should also speak a language above that of ordinary mortals. Although the Greeks at all times had great reverence for the father of their tragedy, yet the further they were removed from his age, the less were they able to appreciate him. In fact, the most extraordinary power of his master genius, the artistic construction of a trilogy, is scarcely noticed by them, and its discovery and right appreciation belong altogether to modern times, and more especially to VWelcker, whose researches on this point have been followed up by Droysen, Gruppe, and others. Soon after the death of LEschylus, the Greeks began to perform his single plays separately, and thus gradually forgot that they were only acts of greater. dramas. The plan of a tragedy of t.schylus is always extremely simple, and without any complicated plot; thie action proceeds smoothly, but rapidly, and the poet does not anxiously concern himself to lay open to his audience every link by which the parts of the action are connected; he draws his pictures only in bold outline, which he leaves to the imagination of his hearers to fill up. But it is this very simplicity of his design which constitutes his grandeur and sublimity. One leading idea of the dramas of 2Eschylus is a struggle between the free will of man and the power of destiny, to which the gods themselves must submit, and to which man must fall a victim if he presumes to oppose it. Such an idea is both religious and ethical, and intended to impress upon man the necessity of submitting to higher powers, and of humbly recognizing his own weakness. Another leading idea which appears in some of his plays is, that crime, by a moral necessity, leads to farther crime, and so to calamity, which is its punishment, or, as Droysen has expressed it, that "whoever acts must suffer." AEschylus represents to us the piety of the age to which he belonged, an age which could not conceive that its own great works were accomplished without the aid of the gods. He himself was, as we have said, initiated in the Eleusinian mys

Page  182 182 GREEK LITERATURE. teries, and well acquainted with the philosophical inquiries which then began to be carried on in Greece; and these circumstances undoubtedly contributed to the earnestness with which he looked upon man, and his relation to higher powers.' EDITIONS OF AESCHYLUJS.2 The tragedies of.Eschylus which have come down to us have, with the exception of the " Prometheus," suffered more from the carelessness of transcribers than many other remains of ancient literature. The first edition was printed at Venice, 1518, 8vo, by Aldus; but considerable parts of the "Agamemnon" and of the " Choiphorne" are not contained in this edition; and, what is still more surprising, the printed part of the Agamemnon is attached to the Choephorte, and both are made up into one play; so that thus this edition contains six plays merely. Robortellus, in his edition, Venice, 1552, 8vo, corrected the error, and separated the Agamemnon from the Choiphorae; and in the same year he also published the Greek scholia, and the Greek " Life of tEschylus," in 2 vols. 8vo. The first complete edition of the seven tragedies is that by H. Stephens, Paris, 1557, 4to. One of the best among the subsequent editions is that of Stanley, London, 1663, fol., which contains the scholia, a commentary, and a Latin translation. This was reprinted with some additions by De Pauw, Haag, 1745, 2 vols. 4to, and again by Butler, Cambridge, 1809-1816, with additions from Stanley's unpublished notes, 8 vols. 8vo, and 4 vols. 4to. The edition of Schiitz, in 5 vols. 8vo, though of very little value, has gone through three imprints (1782-1809). The first three volumes contain the text and commentary, the other two the fragments of the lost plays and the Greek scholia. The best recent editions are those of Wellauer, Lips., 1823-1830, 3 vols. 8vo, the text and notes in two volumes, and the Lexicon ZEschyleum in one; of W. Dindorf, in the Poete Scenici Grccci, reprinted at Oxford, 1832-1841, in 3 vols. 8vo, the last volume in two parts; of Scholefield, Cambridge, 1828, 8vo, reprinted in 1851; of Ahrens, in Didot's Bibliotheca, Paris, 1842; and of Hermann, Leipzig, 1852, 2 vols. 8vo. A new edition was commenced, also, by Klausen, Gotha, 1833, 8vo, but was interrupted by his death. Only the Agamemnon and Cho6phorme were published. The editions of single plays, and dissertations upon them, or passages of them, are almost innumerable. The separate plays, except the " Suppliants" and the " Eumenides," have been ably edited in England by Blomfield. Of the separate editions of these plays in Germany, one of the most valuable is that of'the "Eumenides," by K. O. Miller. There is also an excellent edition of the " Orestea," by Franz, Leipzig, 1846, 8vo. Welcker's works in relation to Xschylus, and Greek tragedy in general, are also exceedingly valuable. Their titles are: Die AEschylische Trilogie Prometheus, Darmstadt, 1824, 8vo; N~achtrag zur Trilogie, Frankfort, 1826; and Die Griechischen Tragoedien, Bonn, 1840, 8vo. The Lexicon to.Eschylus, by Linwood, Iond., 1843, reprinted Lond., 1847, will be found a very useful auxiliary to the student. 1 Biograph. Dict. of Soc. for Diff. of Useful Knowledge, vol. i., p. 408. 2 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v.

Page  183 ATTIC PERIOD. 183 CHAPTER XXIV. FOURTH OR ATTIC PERIOD-continued. GREEK TRAGEDIANS-continued. I. SOPH6CLES (>:oqpocAXS)1 was born at Colonus, a demus of Attica, about a mile from the city of Athens, toward the northwest, five years before the battle of Marathon, B.C. 495.2 He was thirty years younger, therefore, than LEschylus, and fifteen years older than Euripides. His father's name was Sophilus or Sophillus, of whose condition in life we know nothing for certain; but it is clear that Sophocles received an education not inferior to that of the most distinguished citizens of Athens. To both of the two leading branches of Greek education, music and gymnastics, he was carefully trained, and in both he gained the prize of a garland. Of the skill which he had attained to in music and dancing in his sixteenth year, and of the perfection of his bodily form, we have conclusive evidence in the fact that, when the Athenians were assembled in solemn festival around the trophy which they had set up in Salamis to celebrate their victory over the fleet of Xerxes, Sophocles was chosen to lead, naked and with lyre in hand, the chorus which danced around the trophy, and sang the songs of triumph, B.C. 480.3 The statement of the anonymous biographer of Sophocles, that he learned tragedy from zEschylus, has been objected to on grounds that are perfectly conclusive, if it be understood as meaning any direct and formal instruction; but, from the connection in which the words stand, they appear to express nothing more than the simple and obvious fact, that Sophocles, having received the art in the form to which it had been advanced by.ZEschylus, made in it other improvements of his own. His first appearance as a dramatist took place in B.C. 468, under peculiarly interesting circumstances; not only from the fact that Sophocles, at the age of twenty-seven, came forward as the rival of the veteran.Eschylus, whose supremacy had been maintained during an entire generation, but also from the character of the judges. The solemnities of the greater Dionysia were rendered more imposing by the occasion of the return of Cimon from his expedition to Scyros, bringing with him the bones of Theseus. Public expectation was so excited respecting the approaching dramatic contest, and party feeling ran so high, that Apsephion, the archon eponymus, whose duty it was to appoint the judges, had not yet ventured to proceed to the final act of drawing the lots for their election, when Cimon, with his nine colleagues in the command, having entered the theatre, the archon detained them at the altar, and administered to them the oath appointed for the judges in the dramatic contests. Their decision was in favor of Sophocles, who received the first prize, the sece.. t Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v.; Donaldson, T'heatre of the Greeks, p. 81, seqq., 6th ed.; Miller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 337, seqq. 2 Clinton, MUller, and others prefer B.C. 496. 3 Athen., i., p. 20; Vit. Anon.

Page  184 184 GREEK LITERATURE. ond only being awarded to AEschylus, who was so mortified at his defeat that, according to the common account, he left Athens in consequence, and. retired to Sicily.' From this epoch Sophocles held the supremacy of the Athenian stage, until a formidable rival arose in Euripides, who gained the first prize for the first time in 441. The drama which Sophocles exhibited on the occasion of his first victory is supposed, from a chronological computation in Pliny,2 to have been the Triptolemus, respecting the nature of which there has been much disputation. Welcker, who has discussed the question very fully, supposes that the main subject of the drama was the institution of the Eleusinian mysteries, and the establishment of the worship of Ceres at Athens, by Triptolemus. The year 440 B.C. is a most important era in the poet's life. In the spring of that year, most probably, he brought out the earliest and one of the best of his extant dramas, the Antigone, a play which gave the Athenians so much satisfaction, especially on account of the political wisdom it displayed, that they appointed him one of the ten generals, of whom Pericles was the chief, in the war against the aristocratic faction of Samos, which lasted from the summer of B.C. 440 to the spring of B.C. 439. The anonymous biographer states that this expedition took place seven years before the Peloponnesian war, and that Sophocles was 55 years old at the time. From an anecdote preserved by Athenaeus, from the. Travels of the poet Ion, it appears that Sophocles was engaged in bringing ur the re-enforcements from Chios, and that, amid the occupations of his military command, he preserved his wonted tranquillity of mind, and found leisure to gratify his voluptuous tastes, and to delight his comrades with his calm and pleasant conversation at their banquets. From the same narrative it would seem that.Sophocles neither obtained nor sought for any military reputation; he is represented as good-humoredly repeating the judgment of Pericles concerning him, that he understood the making of poetry, but not the commanding of an army.3 The period extending from the 56th year of his age to his death was that of his greatest poetical activity, and to it belong, with the exception of the Antigone, all his extant dramas. Respecting his personal history, however, during this period of thirty-four years, we have scarcely any details. The excitement of the Peloponnesian war seems to have had no other influence upon him than to stimulate his literary efforts by the new impulse which it gave to the intellectual activity of the age; until that disastrous period after the Sicilian expedition, when the reaction of unsuccessful war led to anarchy at home. Then we find him, like others of the chief literary men of Athens, joining in the desperate attempt to stay the ruin of their country, by means of an aristocratic revolution; although, according to the accounts which have come down to us of the part which Sophocles took in this movement, he only assented to it as a.measure of public safety, and not from any love of oligarchy. As he was then in his 83d year, however, it is not likely that he took an active part in public affairs. One thing, at least, is clear as to his political principles, t Plut. Cim., 8; 1Marm. Par., 57. 2 H. N., xviii., 7, 12. 3 Ash., xiii., p. 603, seq.; Vit. Anon.; Plut., Per., 8.

Page  185 ATTIC PERIOD. 185 that he was an ardent lover of his country. The patriotic sentiments which we still admire in his poems were illustrated by his own conduct; for, unlike Simonides and Pindar, 2Eschylus, Euripides, and Plato, and others of the greatest poets and philosophers of Greece, Sophocles would never condescend to accept the patronage of monarchs, or to leave his country in compliance with their repeated invitations. The family dissensions which troubled his last years are connected with a well-known and beautiful story. His family consisted of two sons, Iophon, the offspring of Nicostrate, who was a free Athenian woman, and Ariston, his son by Theoris of Sicyon; and Ariston had a son named Sophocles, for whom his grandfather showed the greatest affection. Iophon, who was, by the laws of Athens, his father's rightful heir, jealous of his love for the young Sophocles, and apprehending that the poet purposed to bestow upon his grandson a large proportion of his property, is said to have summoned his father before the Phratores, who seem to have had a sort of jurisdiction in family affairs, on the charge that his mind was affected by old age. As his only reply, Sophocles exclaimed, "If I am Sophocles, I am not beside myself; and if I am beside myself, I am not Sophocles;" and then he read from his " CEdipus at Colonus," which had been only lately written, and was not yet brought out, the magnificent parodus beginning Evb7r7rov, J6E, ias6E xcipas, whereupon the judges at once dismissed the case, and rebuked Iophon for his undutiful conduct.' Sophocles forgave his son; and it is probable that the reconciliation was referred to in the lines of the " CEdipus at Colonus," where Antigone pleads with her father to forgive Polynices, as other fathers had been induced to forgive their bad children. Sophocles died soon afterward, in B.C. 406, in his ninetieth year. All the various accounts of his death and funeral are of a fictitious and poetical complexion. According to some writers, he was choked by a grape; another writer related that, in a public recitation of the Antigene, he sustained his voice so long without a pause that, through the weakness of extreme age, he lost his breath and his life together; while others ascribed his death to excessive joy at obtaining a dramatic victory. By the universal consent of the best critics, both of ancient and modern times, the tragedies of Sophocles are not only the perfection of the Greek drama, but they approach as nearly as is conceivable to the perfect ideal model of that species of poetry. The subjects and style of Sophocles are human, while those of LEschylus are essentially heroic. The latter excite terror, pity, and admiration, as we view them at a distance; the former bring those same feelings home to the heart, with the addition of sympathy and self-application. No individual human being can imagine himself in the position of Prometheus, or derive a personal warning from the crimes and fate of Clytemnestra; but every one can, in feeling, share the self-devotion of Antigone in giving up her life at the call of fraternal piety, and the calmness which comes over the spirit of CEdipus when he is reconciled to the gods. In LEschylus, the sufferers are the victims of an inexorable destiny; but Sophocles brings more 1 Plut., An seni sit gerend. Resp., 3, p. 775, B.

Page  186 186 GREEK LITERATURE. prominently into view those faults of their own, which form one element of the destiny of which they are the victims, and is more intent upon inculcating, as the lesson taught by their woes, that wise calmness and moderation, in desires and actions, in prosperity and adversity, which the Greek poets and philosophers celebrate under the name of ao'wpocrdvj1. On the other hand, he never descends to that level to which Euripides brought down the art, the exhibition of human passion and suffering for the mere purpose of exciting emotion in the spectators, apart from the moral end. The difference between the two poets is illustrated by the saying of Sophocles, that he himself represented men as they ought to be, but Euripides exhibited them as they are.L Of the dramatic changes introduced by Sophocles, the most important was the addition of the TrpsaywcLo'rzs, or third actor, by which three persons were allowed to appear on the stage at once and take part in the dialogue, instead of only two. This change vastly enlarged the scope of the dramatic action, and appeared, indeed, to accomplish all that was necessary to the variety and mobility of action in tragedy, without sacrificing that simplicity and clearness which, in the good ages of antiquity, were always held to be most essential qualities. By the addition of this third actor, the chief person of the drama was brought under two conflicting influences, by the force of which both sides of his character are at once displayed; as in the scene where Antigone has to contend at the sarut time with the weakness of Ismene and the tyranny of Creon. Sophocles also introduced some very important modifications in the choral parts of the drama. According to Suidas, he raised the number of choreutoe from twelve to fifteen. At the same time, the choral odes, which still in iEschylus occupied a large space in the tragedy, and formed a sort of lyric exhibition of the subject interwoven with the dramatic representation, were very considerably curtailed. The mode, too, in which the chorus is connected with the general subject and progress of the drama, is different in Sophocles. In the dramas of.Eschylus, the chorus is a deeply-interested party, often taking a decided and even vehement share in the action, and generally involved in the catastrophe; but the chorus of Sophocles has more of the character of a spectator, moderator, and judge, comparatively impartial, but sympathizing generally with the chief character of the play, while it explains and harmonizes, as far as possible, the feelings of all the actors. The chorus of Sophocles is cited by Aristotle as an example of his definition of the part to be taken by the chorus. By these changes, Sophocles made the tragedy a drama in the proper sense of the word. The interest and progress of the piece centred almost entirely in the actions and speeches of the persons on the stage. A necessary consequence of this alteration, combined with the addition of a third actor, was a much more careful elaboration of the dialogue; and the care bestowed upon this part of the composition is one of the most striking features of the art of Sophocles, whether we regard the energy and point of the conversations which take place upon the stage, Smith, Diet. Biogr., s. v.

Page  187 ATTIC PERIOD. 187 or the vivid pictures of actions occurring elsewhere, which are drawn in the speeches of the messengers. It must not, however, be imagined for a moment that, in bestowing so much care upon the dialogue, and confining the choral parts within their proper limits, Sophocles was careless as to the mode in which he executed the latter. On the contrary, he appears as if determined to use his utmost efforts to compensate in the beauty of his odes for what he had taken away from their length. Another alteration of the greatest consequence, which, though it perhaps did not originate with Sophocles, he was the first to convert into a general practice, was the abandonment of the trilogistic form, in so far at least as the continuity of subject was concerned. In obedience to the established custom at the Dionysiac festivals, Sophocles appears generally to have brought forward three tragedies and a satyric drama together; but the subjects of these four plays were entirely distinct, and each was complete in itself. Among the merely mechanical improvements introduced by Sophocles, the most important was that of scene-painting, in which he availed himself of the aid of the Athenian artist Agatharchus, and improved upon the perspective painting which the same artist had previously executed for A2Eschylus. The number of plays ascribed to Sophocles was 130, of which, however, according to Aristophanes of Byzantium, seventeen were spurious. He contended not only with _/Eschylus and Euripides, but also with Choerilus, Aristias, Agathon, and other poets, among whom was his own son Iophon; and he carried off the first prize twenty or twenty-four times, frequently the second, but never fell to the third.' It is remarkable, as proving his growing activity and success, that of his 113 dramas eighty-one were brought out in the second of the two periods into which his career is divided by the exhibition of the Antigone, which was his thirty-second play;2 and also that all his extant dramas, which of course, in the judgment of the grammarians, were his best, belong to the latter of these two periods. By comparing the number of his plays with the sixty-two years over which his career extended, and also the number belonging to each of the two periods, Muller obtains the result that he at first brought out a tetralogy every three or four years, but afterward every two years, at least; and also that in several of the tetralogies the satyric dramas must have been lost, or never existed, and that among those 113 plays there could only have been, at the most, twenty-three satyric dramas to ninety tragedies. The titles and fragments of the lost plays of Sophocles will be found collected in the chief editions, and in Wvelcker's Griechischen Tragoediea, Bonn, 1840. In addition to his tragedies, Sophocles is said to have written an elegy, paans, and other poems, and a prose work on the chorus in opposition to Thespis and Chcerilus. The following is most probably the chronological order in which the seven extant tragedies of Sophocles were brought out: 1. Antigone; 2. Electra; 3. Trachiniae; 4. (Edipus Tyrannus; 5. Ajax; 6. Philoctetes; 7. CEdipus at Colonus. The last of these was brought out after the death of the poet by his grandson, as has already been stated. 1 Vit. Anon.; Suid., s. v. 2 Aristoph. Byz., Argum. ad Antig.

Page  188 188 GREEK LITERATURE. ANCIENT COMMENTATORS ON SOPHOCLES. In the scholia, the commentators are quoted by the general title of oei brovuuqearto-Lafr or ot v7reotLve7taTLroadevo.. Among those cited by name, or to whom commentaries on Sophocles are ascribed by other authorities, are Aristarchus, Praxiphanes, Didymus, Herodianus, Horapollon, Androtion, and Aristophanes of Byzantium. The question of the value of the scholia is discussed by Wunder, De Schol. in Soph. auctoritate, 1838, 4to, and Wolff, De Sophoclis Scholiorum Laur. Variis Lectionibus, Lips., 1843, 8vo.1 EDITIONS OF SOPHOCLES. The Editio Princeps is that of Aldus, 1502, 8vo, and there were numerous other editions printed in the 16th century, the best of which are those of H. Stephanus, Paris, 1568, 4to, and of Canterus, Antwerp, 1579, 12mo, both founded on the text of Turnebus. None of the subsequent editions deserve any particular notice, until we come to those of Brunck, in 4 vols. 8vo, Strasburg, 1786-1789, and in 2 vols. 4to, Strasburg, 1786; both editions containing the Greek text with a Latin version, and also the scholia and indices. The text of Brunck, which was founded on that of Aldus, has formed the foundation of all the subsequent editions, of which the following are the most important: that of Musgrave, with scholia, notes, and indices, Oxford, 1800, 1801, 2 vols. 8vo, reprinted Oxford, 1809, 1810, 3 vols. 8vo; that of Erfurdt, with scholia, notes, and indices, Leipzig, 1802-1825, 7 vols. 8vo, completed by Heller and Doederlein; that of Bothe, who re-edited Brunck's edition, but with many rash changes in the text, Leipzig, 1806, 2 vols. 8vo, last edition, 1827, 1828; that of Hermann, who completed a new edition, which Erfurdt commenced, but only lived to publish the first two volumes, Leipzig, 1809-1825, 7 vols. small 8vo; Ilermann's entirely new revision of Brunck's edition, with additional notes, &c., Leipzig, 1823-1825, 7 vois. 8vo; the edition of Schneider, with German notes and a Lexicon, Weimar, 1823-1830, 10 vols. 12mo; the London reprint of Brunck's edition, with the notes of Burney and Schaefer, 1824, 3 vols. 8vo; the edition of Elmsley, with the notes of Brunck and Schaefer, Lexicon Sophocleum, &c., Oxford, 1826, 2 vols. 8vo, reprinted Leipzig, 1827; that of the text alone by Dindorf, in the Poetc Scenici Graeci, Leipzig, 1830, 2d ed. 1847, reprinted at Oxford, 1832-1836, with the scholia and a volume of notes, 3 vols. 8vo; that of Benloew and Ahrens, in Didot's Bibliotheca, Paris, 1842: that of Mitchell, Lond., 1841-2, 2 vols. 8vo; and lastly, by far the most useful editions for the ordinary student are, that of Neue, Leipzig, 1831, 8vo; that of Linwood, Lond., 1846, 8vo; and more particularly that of Wunder, in Jacob and Rost's Bibliotheca Greeca, containing the text, with critical and explanatory notes, and introductions, Gotha and Erfurdt, 1831-1846, 2 vols. 8vo, in 7 parts, and with a supplemental part of emendations to the Trachiniae, Grima, 1841, 8vo. The editions of separate plays are, as may be supposed, exceedingly numerous. Among the number the following are deserving of especial mention: the "Ajax," by Lobeck, Leipzig, 1835, 2d ed., and with English notes by Pitman, London, 1830; the " (Edipus Coloneus," by Reisig, Jena, 1820, and by Elmsley, London, 1823, 8vo; and the "Antigone" by Wex, Leipzig, 1829-31, 2 vols. 8vo, and by Boeckh with a German version and notes, Berlin, 1843, 8vo. A very useful and learned commentary on Sophocles is contained in the valuable " Lexicon Sophocleum" of Ellendt, Klnigsberg, 1835, 2 vols. 8vo. II. EURIPIDES2 (EbpirLt3ws) was the son of Mnesarchus and Clito, and is said to have been born at Salamis, B.C. 480, on the very day that the Greeks defeated the Persians off that island, whither his parents had fled frbrfi Athens on the invasion of Xerxes. Miller regards, however, the account of his having been born on the day of the battle a aa mere legend,3 and other scholars also look with suspicion on the way in which it was thus contrived to bring the three great tragic poets of Athens into connection with the most glorious day in her annals.' Thus it has been said that while Euripides then first saw the light, iEschylus, in the maturity of manhood, fought in the battle, and Sophocles, a beautiful boy of 1 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 2 Ibid. 3 Miller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 358. 4 Hartung, Eurip. Restitut., p. 10.

Page  189 ATTIC PERIOD. 189 fifteen, led the chorus in the festival which celebrated the victory. According to-another account, he received his name in commemoration of the battle of Artemisium, which took place near the Euripus, not long before he was born, and in the same year; but Euripides was not a new name, and had already belonged to an earlier tragic writer mentioned by Suidas. Some writers relate that the parents of Euripides were in mean circumstances, and his mother is represented by Aristophanes as an herbseller, and not a very honest one either;' but much weight can not be accorded to these statements. It is more probable that his family was respectable.2 We are told that the poet, when a boy, was cup-bearer to a chorus of noble Athenians at the Thargelian festival, an office for which nobility of blood was requisite.3 We know, also, that he was taught rhetoric by Prodicus, who was certainly not moderate in his terms for instruction, and who was in the habit of seeking his pupils among youths of high rank.4 It is said that the future distinction of Euripides was predicted by an oracle, promising that he should be crowned with "sacred garlands," in consequence of which his father had him trained to gymnastic exercises; and we learn that, while yet a boy, he won the prize at the Eleusinian and Thesean contests, and offered himself, when seventeen years old, as a candidate at the Olympic games, but was not admitted because of some doubt about his age.5 Some trace of his early gymnastic pursuits has been remarked in the detailed description of the combat between Eteocles and Polynices in the Phcenissme.6 Soon, however, abandoning these pursuits, he studied the art of painting,7 not, as we learn, without success; and it has been observed. that the veiled figure of Agamemnon in the Iphigenia of Timanthes was probably suggested by a line in Euripides' description of the same scene.s To philosophy and literature he devoted himself with much interest and energy, studying physics under Anaxagoras, and rhetoric, as we have already seen, under Prodicus. We learn also from Athenaeus that he was a great book-collector, and it is recorded of him that he committed to memory certain treatises of Heraclitus, which he found hidden in the temple of Diana, and which he was the first to introduce to the notice of Socrates.9 His intimacy with the latter is beyond a doubt, though we must reject the statement of Gellius, that he received instruction from him in moral science, since Socrates was not born till B.C. 468, twelve years after the birth of Euripides. Traces of the teaching of Anaxagoras have been remarked in many passages both of the extant plays and of the fragments, and were impressed especially on the lost tragedy of "Melanippa the Wise."'~ Euripdes is said to have written a tragedy at the age of eighteen; but the first play which was exhibited in his own name was the Peliades, when he was twenty-five years of age (B.C. 455). In B.C. 441 he gained, 1 Aristoph., Acharn., 454; Thesm., 387, 456; Plin., H. N., xxii., 22. 2 Suid., s. v. 3 Athen., x., p. 424, E. 4 Plat., Apol., p. 19, E; Stallb. ad loc. 5 (Enom. ap. Euseb., Prep. Evang., v. 33; Gell., xv., 20. 6 v. 1392, seqq. 7 Thom. Mag., Vit. Eur.; Suid., s.v. 8 Iph. in Aul., 1550.;9 Athen., i., p. 3, A. 10 Orest., 545, 971; Pors. ad loc.; Fragm. Melanipp., ed. Wagner, p. 255.

Page  190 190 GREEK LITERATURE. for the first time, the first prize, and he continued to exhibit plays until B.C. 408, the date of the " Orestes." Soon after this he left Athens for the court of Archelaus, king of Macedonia, his reasons for which step can only be matter of conjecture. Traditionary scandal has ascribed it to his disgust at the intrigue of his wife with Cephisophon, and the ridicule which was showered upon him in consequence by the comic poets. But the whole story has been refuted by modern writers.' Other causes must, therefore, have led him to accept an invitation from Archelaus, at whose court the highest honors awaited him. The attacks of Aristophanes and others had probably not been without their effect; and he must have been aware that his philosophical tenets were regarded with considerable suspicion. He died in Macedonia in-B.C. 406. Most testimonies agree in stating that he was torn in pieces by the king's dogs, which, according to some, were set upon him through envy by Arrhidaeus and Crateuas, two rival poets. The Athenians sent to ask for his remains, but Archelaus refused to give them up, and buried them in Macedonia with great honor. The regret of Sophocles for his death is said to have been so great, that, at the representation of his next play, he made his actors appear uncrowned. The statue of Euripides in the theatre at Athens is mentioned by Pausanias. The admiration felt for him by foreigners, even in his lifetime, may be illustrated not only by the patronage of Archelaus, but also by what Plutarch records, that many of the Athenian prisoners in Sicily regained their liberty by reciting his verses to their masters, and that the Caunians, on one occasion, having at first refused to admit into their harbor an Athenian ship pursued by pirates, allowed it to put in when they found that some of the crew could repeat fragments of his poems.2 We have already intimated that the accounts which we find in Athenaeus and others of the profligacy of Euripides are mere idle scandal, and scarcely worthy of serious refutation. Nor does there appear to be any better foundation for that other charge, which has been brought against him, of hatred to the female sex. This is said to have been occasioned by the infidelity of his wife, but, as has already been remarked, this tale does not deserve credit. Euripides, like his master Anaxagoras, was a man of serious temper and averse to mirth,' and it was in consequence of this that the charge probably originated. It is certain that the poet who drew such characters as Antigone, Iphigenia, and, above all, Alcestis, was not blind to the gentleness, the strong affection, the self-abandoning devotedness of woman. With respect to the world and the Deity, he seems to have adopted the doctrines of his master, not unmixed apparently with pantheistic views.5 To class him with atheists, as some have done, is undoubtedly unjust. At the same time, it must be confessed that we look in vain in his plays for the high faith of 2Eschylus; nor can we fail to admit that the pupil of Anaxagoras could not sympathize with the popular religious system around him, nor throw himself cordially into it. He frequently, also, altered in the most arbitrary manner the ancient 1 Hartung, p. 165, seqq. 2 Smith, I. c. 3 Athen., xiii., p. 557, E; p. 603, E. 4 Gell., xv., 20; compare Ml., V. H., viii., 13. 6 Valck. Diatr., p. 4, seqq.; Hartung, ~ 47.

Page  191 ATTIC PERIOD. 191 legends. Thus, in the " Orestes," Menelaus comes before us as a selfish coward; in the "Helena," the notion of Stesichorus is adopted that the heroine was never carried to Troy at all, and that it was a mere E'cowav of her for which the Greeks and Trojans fought.' With Euripides tragedy is brought down into the sphere of every-day life. Men are represented, according to the remark of Sophocles, not as they ought to be, but as they are. Under the names of the ancient heroes, the characters of his own times are set before us; it is not Iphigenia, or Medea, or Alcestis, that is speaking, but a daughter, a mother, or a wife.2 All this, indeed, gave fuller scope, perhaps, for the exhibition of passion, and for those scenes of tenderness and pathos in which Euripides especially excelled; and it will serve also to account, in a great measure, for the preference given to his plays by the practical Socrate*, who is said to have never entered the theatre unless when they were acted, as well as for the admiration felt for him by Menander and Philemon, and other poets of the new comedy. The most serious defects in his tragedies, artistically speaking, are his constant employment of the " Deus ex machina;" the disconnection of his choral odes from the subject of the play; the extremely awkward and formal character of his prologues; and the frequent introduction of frigid?yyviuat and of philosophical disquisitions, making Medea talk like a sophist, and Hecuba like a free-thinker, and aiming rather at subtilty than simplicity. On the same principles on -which he brought his subjects and characters to the level of common life, he adopted also in his style the every-day mode of speaking, and Aristotle commends him as having been the first to produce an effect by the skillful employment of words from the ordinary language of men, peculiarly fitted, it may be observed, for the expression of the gentler and more tender feelings. Euripides was held in high estimation by Cicero and Quintilian, the latter of whom says thatihe is worthy of being compared with the most eloquent pleaders of the Forumn3 while Cicero so admired him that he is said to have had in his hand- his tragedy of the " Medea" at the time of his murder.' According to some accounts, Euripides wrote, in all, 75 plays; according to others, 92. Of these, 18 are extant, if we omit the " Rhesus," the genuineness of which has been defended. by Vater and Hartung, while Valckenaer, Hermann, and Muiller have, on good grounds, pronounced it spurious. To what author, however, or to what period it should be assigned, is a disputed point.5 A list is here subjoined of the extant plays of Euripides, with their dates, ascertained or probable: 1. Alcestis, B.C. 438. This play was brought out as the last of a tetralogy, and stood, therefore, in the place of a satyric drama, to which, indeed, it bears, in some parts, great similarity, particularly in the representation of Hercules in his cups. 2. Medea, B.C. 431. 3. Hippolytus Coronifer, B.C. 428. gained the first prize. 4. Hecuba. Exhibited before B.C. 423. 5. Her1 Compare Herod., ii., 112, seqq. 2 Keble, Preelect. Acad., p. 596. 3 Cic., Ep. ad Fam., xvi., 8; Quint., Inst. Or., x., 1. 4 Ptol. Hephet., v., 5. s Valck., Diatr., 9, 10; Herm., De Rheso trag., Opusc., vol. iii.; ailler, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 380, note.

Page  192 192 GREEK LITERATURE. aclid&a, about B.C. 421. 6. Supplices, about B.C. 421. 7. Ion, of uncertain date. 8. Hercules Furens, of uncertain date. 9. Andromache, about B.C. 420-417. 10. Troades, B.C. 415. 11. Electra, about B.C. 415-413. 12. Helena, B.C. 412. 13. Iphigenia among the Tauri, of uncertain date. 14. Orestes, B.C. 408. 15. Phoenisse, of uncertain date. 16. Bacchce. This play was apparently written for representation in Macedonia, and therefore at a very late period of the life of Euripides. 17. Iphigenia at Aulis. This play, together with the Bacchae and the AlcmTeon, was brought out at Athens, after the poet's death, by the younger Euripides. 18. Cyclops, of uncertain date. It is interesting as the only extant specimen of the Greek satyric drama. Besides the plays, there are extant five letters, purporting to have been written by Euripides, but they are spurious. They are generally appended to the editions of the entire plays, and are also given in the Collection of Greek letters by Aldus and others. Three of these letters are addressed to King Archelaus, and the other two to Sophocles and Cephisophon respectively. Among those who deny their authenticity may be named Bentley. Barnes declares in their favor! EDITIONS OF EURIPIDES. The Editio Princeps of Euripides contains the AMedea, Hippolytus, Alcestis, and Andromache, in capital letters. It is without date or printer's name, but is supposed, with much probability, to have been edited by J. Lascaris, and printed by De Alopa, at Florence, toward the end of the 15th century. In 1503, an edition was published by Aldus, at Venice; it contains I8 plays, including the " Rhesus," and omitting the " Electra." Another, published at Heidelberg in 1597, contained the Latin version of ZEmilius Portus, and a fragment of the DanaS, for the first time, from some ancient MSS. in the Palatine library. Another was published by P. Stephens, Geneva, 1602. In that of Barnes, Cambridge, 1694, whatever be the defects of Barnes as an editor, much was done toward the correction and illustration of the text. It contains also many fragments, and the spurious letters. Other editions are that of Musgrave, Oxford, 1778, 4 vols. 4to; of Beck, Leipzig, 1778-88, 3 vols. 8vo; of Matthime, Leipzig, 1813-1829, 9 vols. 8vo; a variorum edition, published at Glasgow in 1821, 9 vols. 8vo; the edition of Dindorf, the text merely, contained in his Poetco Scenici Grceci, reprinted at Oxford, 1832-40, 4 vols. 8vo, with a commentary; that of Pflugk, in the Bibliotheca Grceca of Jacobs and Rost, Lips., 1829, &c., continued after Pflugk's death by Klotz, still in a course of publication; and that of Fix, in Didot's Bibliotheca, Paris, 1840. The fragments have been edited in a separate form by Wagner, Wratislaw, 1844, reprinted in Didot's Bibliotheca. Of separate plays there have been numerous editions; but the most important and valuable are those by Porson, Elmsley, Valckenaer, Monk, and Hermann. Porson edited four plays, the Hecuba, Orestes, Phoenissce, and AMedea, with critical notes, and valuable prefatory matter. His work was reprinted at Leipzig, under the supervision of Schaefer. Elmsley edited the MIedea, Heraclidce, and Bacchce; Valckenaer edited the Phcenissie and Hippolytus; Monk, the Alcestis and Hippolytus; and Hermann, the Hecuba, Phoenissce, Helena, Andromache, Iphigenia among the Tauri, Iphigenia at Aulis, Cyclops, and the Orestes.

Page  193 ATTIC PERIOD. 193 CHAPTER XXV. FOURTH OR ATTIC PERIOD —continued. THE OTHER TRAGIC POETS.1 I. WE may consider ourselves fortunate in possessing, as specimens of Greek tragedy, master-pieces by th9se poets whom their contemporaries and all antiquity unanimously regarded as the heroes of the tragic stage. LEschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides are the names which continually recur whenever the ancients speak of the height which tragic poetry attained at Athens; the state itself distinguished them by founding institutions the object of which was to preserve their works pure and unadulterated, and to protect them from being interpolated at the caprice of the actors. According to a law proposed by the orator Lycurgus, authentic copies of the works of the three great tragic poets were kept in the archives at Ath'ns, and it was the duty of the public secretary (.ypau/caTeEVs T's 7rAeows) to see that the actors delivered this text only.2 II. Their contemporaries among the tragic writers must be regarded as, for the most' At, far from insignificant poets, inasmuch as they maintained their places on the stage beside them, and not unfrequently gained the tragic prize in competition with them. Yet, though their separate productions may have been in part happy enough to merit most fully the approbation of the public, the general character of these poets must have been deficient in that depth and peculiar force of genius by which the great tragic poets were distinguished. If this had not been the case, their works would assuredly have attracted greater attention, and have been read more frequently in later times. III. NE6PHRON (Nedfppco) or NE6PHON (Neo~C&Y), of Sicyon, appears to have been one of the most ancient of these poets, and is placed by Clin. ton before the age of Euripides. In the scholia to the " Medea" of the latter, we have two fragments of a play written on the same subject by Neophron, one of four lines at verse 668, and another of five lines at verse 1354. Besides these, we have fifteen lines quoted by Stobueus from the same tragedy. Suidas states that he wrote 120 tragedies, that the " Medea" of Euripides was sometimes attributed to him, and that he was the first to introduce on the stage the 7rai6aywyhJs, and the examination of slaves by torture. In one particular, namely, that the "Medea" of Euripides was sometimes attributed to him, Suidas is confirmed by Diogenes Laertius; but when the former adds that Neophron was involved in the fate of Callisthenes, and put to death by Alexander the Great, he violates chronology, and evidently confounds Neophron with a later tragedian named Nearchus. As far as we can judge from the fragments of Neophron already mentioned, Euripides may have borrowed his 1 Muller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 381. 2 Plut., Vit. Decem Orat., p. 841, seqq. 3 Elms. ad Eurip., Med., p. 68; Diog. Laert., ii., 134. I

Page  194 194 GREEK LITERATURE. plot and characters from him, but certainly not his style.' The fragments are given in Wagner's collection, in Didot's Bibliotheca Graeca. IV. ION (l'Iwo), of Chios, was one of the five Athenian tragic poets of the canon. He lived at Athens in the time of. Eschylus and Cimon, and in the fragments of his writings speaks of the events of their day as from personal knowledge. He was a very comprehensive writer, and, what was very uncommon in ancient times, a prose author as well as a poet. He wrote a history, entitled Xiov IciLrOs, in the dialect and after the manner of Herodotus, except that he paid more attention to the private life of distinguished individuals. This work was probably the same with the avTyypacph, which is quoted by Pausanias.2 Another prose work was entitled KooohoAyTKcs, identical probably with the philosophical work named.rpaCy/.LJs (or rptLaCyluoi), which seems to have been a treatise on the constitution of things according to the theory of triads, and which some ancient writers ascribed to Orpheus. Another work, entitled v7ro/ybuv'a'a, seems to have contained either an account of his own travels, or of the visits of great men to Chios.3 Ion did not come forward as a tragedian until B.C. 452, after the death of AEschylus, whose place, it seems, he expected to fill on the stage. The materials of his dramas were in a great measure taken from Homer; they may have been connected in trilogies like those of LEschylus; the few remains, however, hardly allow us to trace the connection of these trilogical compositions. He is mentioned as third in competition with Euripides and Iophon in 01. 87, 4 (B.C. 429-428); and he died before B.C. 419, as appears from the " Peace" of Aristophanes,4 which was brought out in that year. Only one victory of Ion's is mentioned, on which occasion, it is said, having gained the dithyrambic and tragic prizes at the same time, he presented every Athenian with a pitcher of Chian wine.5 Hence it would seem that he was a man of considerable wealth. The number of his tragedies is variously stated at twelve, thirty, and forty. We have the titles and a few fragments of eleven. Longinus describes the style of Ion's tragedies as marked by petty refinements and want of boldness, and he adds an expression, which shows the distance that there was, in the opinion of the ancients, between the great tragedians and the best of their rivals, that no one in his senses would compare the value of the "CEdipus" with that of all the tragedies of Ion taken together. Nevertheless, he was greatly admired, chiefly, it would seem, for a sort of elegant wit. There are some beautiful passages in the extant fragments of his tragedies. Commentaries were written upon him by Arcesilaus, Batton of Sinope, Didymus, Epigenes, and even by Aristarchus. Besides his tragedies, we are told by the scholiast on Aristophanes that Ion also wrote lyric poems, comedies, epigrams, paeans, hymns, scolia, and elegies. Respecting his comedies a doubt has been raised, on account of the confusion between comedy and tragedy, which is so frequent in the writings of the grammarians; but, in the case of so universal a writer as Ion, the Elnms., 1. c.; Smith, Diet. Biogr., s. v. 2 Pausaz., vii., 4, 8. 3 Bentley, Ep. ad 3fill.; Opusc., p. 494, seqq., ed. Lips. ~ Aristoph.. Pax, 830.' Schol. ail Aristoph., l. c.; Athen., i., p. 3, F.

Page  195 ATTIC PERIOD. 195 probability seems to be in favor of the scholiast's statement. Of his elegies we have still some remnants in the Greek Anthology,' which are given also in the collections of Schneidewin and Bergk. The fragments of Ion have been published, with an account of his life, &c., by Nieberding, Lips., 1836, and Kdpke, Berol., 1836. They are contained also in Wagner's Fragm. Trag. Graec. V. ARISTARCHUS ('Api'C-apXos), of Tegea, was contemporary with Euripides, and flourished about 454 B.C. He lived to the age of a hundred. Out of seventy tragedies which he exhibited, only two obtained the prize.2 Nothing remains of his works except a few lines,3 and the titles of three of his plays, namely, the'AcKAriprdis, which he is said to have written and named after the god in gratitude for his recovery from illness; the'AXLXxEds, which Ennius translated into Latin;4 and the Tdirahos.5 The fragments are contained in Wagner's Fragm. Trag. Grec. VI. AcH us ('AXadhs), of Eretria, in Euboea, was born B.C. 484, the year in which AEGschylus gained his first victory, and four years before the birth of Euripides. In B.C. 447, he contended with Sophocles and Euripides, and though he subsequently brought out many dramas, according to some as many as thirty or forty, he nevertheless only gained the prize once. The fragments of Achaeus contain much strange mythology, and his expressions were often forced and obscure.6 Still, in the satyrical drama, he must have possessed considerable merit, for in this department some ancient critics thought him inferior only to 2.Eschylus.7 The titles of seven of his satyrical dramas and ten of his tragedies are still known. The extant fragments of his pieces have been collected and edited by Urlichs, Bonn, 1834, and are also contained in Wagner's Fragm. Trag. Grcec. This Achaeus must not be confounded with a later tragic writer of the same name, a native of Syracuse, who, according to Suidas and Phavorinus, wrote ten, but, according to Eudocia, fourteen tragedies." VII. CARCINUS (Kap,,idos), of Athens, was a very skillful scenic dancer,9 and is occasionally alluded to by Aristophanes."~ His dramas, of which no fragments have come down to us, seem to have perished at an early day. Another tragic poet of the same name appears to have been a grandson of the first, and is probably the same as the one who spent a great part of his life at the court of Dionysius the younger at Syracuse." The tragedies which are referred to by the ancients under the name of Carcinus probably all belong to the younger one. Suidas attributes to him 160 tragedies, but we possess the titles and fragments of nine only, aMid some fragments of uncertain dramas. His style is said by some of the ancient writers to have been marked by studied obscurity; though in the fragments extant we can scarcely perceive any trace of this obscurity, and their style bears a close resemblance to that of Euripides.' The fragments of the younger Carcinus are given in Wagner's Fragm. Trag. Grewc. 1 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 2 Suzd., s. v.; Euseb., Chron. Armen. 3 Stob., tit. 63, ~ 9; tit. 120, ) 2; Athen., xiii., p. 612, F. 4 Festus, s. v. prolato a(re. 5 Stob., ii., 1, ~1. 6 Athen., x., p. 451, C. 7 Diog. Laert., ii., 133. 8 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 9 Athen., i., p. 22. "o Aristoph., Nub., 1263; Pax, 794. 1 Diog. Laert., ii., 7. 12 lieineke, Hist. Crit. Comn. Grmc., p. 505, seqq.; Smith, Dict. Bio r., s. v

Page  196 196 GREEK LITERATURE. VIII. AGXTHON ('Ayctv) was born about B.C. 447, and sprung from a rich and respectable Athenian family. He was contemporary with Socrates and Alcibiades, and the other distinguished characters of their age, with many of whom he was on terms of intimate acquaintance. Among these was his friend Euripides. He was remarkable for the handsomeness of his person, and his various accomplishments.' He gained his first victory at the Lenaan festival in B.C. 416, when he was a little above thirty years of age; in honor of which Plato represents the symposium or banquet to have been given, which he has made the occasion of his dialogue so called. The scene is laid at Agathon's house, and among the interlocutors are Apollodorus, Socrates, Aristophanes, Diotima, and Alcibiades. Plato was then fourteen years of age, and a spectator at the tragic contest in which Agathon was victorious.2 When Agathon was about forty years of age (B.C. 407), he visited the court of Archelaus, king of Macedonia,3 where his old friend Euripides was also a guest at the same time. He is generally supposed to have died about B.C. 400, at the age of forty-seven.4 The poetic merits of Agathon were considerable, but his compositions were more remarkable for elegance and flowery ornaments, than force, vigor, or sublimity. They abounded in antithesis and metaphor, and he is said to have imitated in verse the prose of Gorgias the philosopher. The style of his verses, and especially of his lyric compositions, is represented by Aristophanes as affected and effeminate, corresponding with his personal appearance and manner.5 In another play, however, acted five years afterward, Aristophanes speaks of him in high terms both as a poet and a man. In some respects Agathon was instrumental in causing the decline of tragedy at Athens. He was the first tragic poet, according to Aristotle,' who adopted the practice of inserting choruses between the acts, the subject-matter of which was unconnected with the story of the piece, and which were, therefore, called Lpf3dupCAa, or intercalary, as being merely lyrical or musical interludes. Agathon also wrote pieces, the story and characters of which.were the creations of pure fiction. One of these was called the "Flower" ("AzOos);7 its subject-matter was neither mythical nor historical, and therefore probably neither seriously affecting nor terrible. We can not but regret the loss of this work, which must have been both amusing and original. The titles of only four of his tragedies are known with certainty; they are the " Thyestes," the "' Telephus," the " A6rope," and the " Alemneon." A fifth, which is ascribed to him, is of doubtful authenticity. The opinion that Agathon also wrote comedies has been refuted by Bentley, in his Dissertation upon the Epistles of Euripides.s The fragments of Agathon are given in Wagner's Fragm. Trag. Grcec. IX. About this time the tragic stage received a great influx of poets, which, however, does not prove that a great advance had taken place in 1 Plat., Protag., p. 156, B. 2 Athen, v., p. 217, A. 3 iElian, V. H., xiii., 4. 4 Bode, Gesch. d. Dram. Dichtk., i., p. 553. 5 Aristoph., Thesmoph., p. 191. 6 Aristot., Poet., 18, ~ 22. 7 Ibid., 9, ~ 7. e Ritschl, Comment. de Agathonis vita, &c., Ialis, 1829, Svo; Smith, s. v.

Page  197 ATTIC PERIOD. 197 the art of tragic poetry.' Aristophanes speaks of thousands of tragedymaking babblers, more garrulous by a good deal than Euripides. He calls their poems muses' groves for swallows, comparing their trifling and insignificant attempts at polite literature with the chirping of birds. Happily these dilettanti were generally satisfied with presenting themselves once before the people as tragic poets. There was such a taste for the composition of tragedies, that we find, among those who wrote for the stage, men of the most different pursuits and dispositions; such as CRITIAS, the head of the oligarchical party at Athens, and DIONYSIUS the elder, tyrant of Syracuse, who often came forward as a competitor for the tragic prize, and had the satisfaction of receiving the crown once before he died. Such men were fond of availing themselves of tragedy, in the same way that Euripides did, as a vehicle for bringing before the public, in a less suspicious manner, their speculations on the political and social interests of their auditors. In the drama called Sisyphus (which is,perhaps,more rightly- ascribed to Critias than to Euripides), there was a development of the pernicious doctrine of the sophists, that religion was an ancient political institution, designed to sanction the restraints of law by superadding the fear of the gods; and we are told that Dionysius wrote a drama against Plato's theory of the state, which was called a tragedy, but had rather the character of a comedy. It is well known, too, that PLATO also composed a tetralogy in his younger days, which he committed to the flames when he had convinced himself that dramatic poetry was not his vocation.2 X. The families of the great poets contributed in a considerable degree to continue the tragic art after their death. As the great poets not only felt themselves called upon by their own taste to devote themselves to dramatic poetry, and to bring out plays and teach the chorus year after year, but really practiced this art as an ostensible profession, we can not wonder that this, like other employments and trades, was transmitted by a regular descent to their sons and grandsons. 2Eschylus was followed by a succession of tragedians, who flourished through several generations. His son EUPHORION, as we have before remarked, sometimes brought out plays of his father's which had not been represented before, sometimes pieces of his own, and he gained, as we have seen, the tragic prize in competition with both Sophocles and Euripides. Similarly, iEschylus' nephew, PHILOCLES, gained the prize against the "King CEdipus" of Sophocles, a piece which, in the opinion of modern times, is not to be surpassed. Philocles must have had a good deal of his uncle's manner. MoRSIMus, the son of Philocles, seems to have done but little honor to the family; but, after the Peloponnesian war, the.Eschyleans gained new lustre from ASTYDAMAS, who brought out 240 pieces, and gained fifteen victories. From these numbers we see that Astydamas in his time supplied the Athenian public with new tetralogies almost every year at the Lenvea and great Dionysia, and that, on an average, he gained the prize once every four contests.3 XI. With regard to the family of Sophocles, IOPHON was an active and I Miller, Hist. Gr. Lit., p. 384. 2 Miller, 1. c. 3 Id. ib.

Page  198 198 GREEK LITERATURE. popular tragedian in his father's lifetime, and Aristophanes considers him as the only support of the tragic stage after the death of the two great poets. We do not know, however, in what manner a later age answered the comedian's doubtful question, whether Iophon would be able to do as much by himself, now that he was deprived of the benefit of his father's counsel and guidance. Some years later, the younger SOPHOCLES, the grandson of the great poet, came forward, at first with the legacy of unpublished dramas which his grandfather had left him, and soon after with plays of his own. As he gained the prize, according to one statement, twelve times, he must have been one of the most prolific poets of the da) He was undoubtedly the most considerable rival of-the.Eschylean Asty.. damas. He did not begin to exhibit his own dramas until B.C. 396. He had previously, in B.C. 401, brought out the " CEdipus Coloneus" of his grandfather, followed very probably by other plays of the latter.1 XII. A younger EURIPIDES also gained some reputation by the side of these descendants of the other two tragedians. He stands on the same footing in relation to his father as Euphorion to zEschylus, and the younger Sophocles to his grandfather; he first brought out plays by his distinguished parent, and then tried the success of his own productions. Suidas mentions also a nephew of the great poet of the same name, to whom he ascribes the authorship of three plays, " Medea," " Orestes," and " Polyxena," and who, he tells us, gained a prize with one of his uncle's tragedies, after the death of the latter. It is probable, however, that the son and the nephew have been confounded by him. XIII. By the side of these successors of the great tragedians others from time to time made their appearance, and in them we may see more distinct traces of those tendencies of the age, which were not without their influence on the others. In them tragic poetry appears no longer as independent, and as following its own object and its own laws, but as subordinated to the spirit which had developed itself in other branches of literature. The lyric poetry and the rhetoric of the time had an especial influence on the form of tragic poetry. XIV. How much CHLERfMON (Xaitp#uw,), who flourished about B.C. 380, was possessed with the spirit of the lyric poetry of his time, is clear from all that is related of him. The contemporary dithyrambic poets were continually making sudden transitions in their songs from one species of tones and rhythms to another, and sacrificed the unity of character to a striving after metrical variety of expression. But nobody went farther than Chzeremon in this, for, according to Aristotle, he mixed up all kinds of metres in his Kvrcavpos, which seems to have been a most extraordinary compound of epic, lyric, and dramatic poetry. His dramatic productions were rich in descriptions, which did not, like those of the old tragedians, belong to the pieces, and contribute to place in a clearer light the condition, the relations, the deeds of some person engaged in the action, but sprung altogether from a fondness for delineating subjects which produce a pleasing impression on the senses. No tragedian could be compared with Chreremon in the number of his charming pictures of female I 1iiller, p. 387.

Page  199 ATTIC PERIOD. 199 beauty, in which the serious muse of the great tragedians is exceedingly chaste and retiring; the only counterpoise to this is his passion for the multifarious perfumes and colors of flowers, in the description of which he luxuriates. With this mixture of foreign ingredients, tragedy ceases to be a drama, in the proper sense of the word, in which every thing depends on the causes and developments of actions, and on manifestations of the will of man. Accordingly, Aristotle calls this Chwremon, in connection with the dithyrambic poet Licymnius, poets to be read (avaeyvcW~ocol), and says of the former, in particular, that he is exact, that is, careful and accurate in detail, like a professed writer, whose sole object is the satisfaction of his readers.' The fragments of Chaeremon have been collected by Bartsch, Mogunt., 1843, 4to, and are also contained in Wagner's Fragm. Trag. Greec. XV. But this later tragedy was still more powerfully affected by the rhetoric of the time, that is, the art of speaking as taught in the school. Dramatic poetry and oratory were so near one another from the beginning, that they often seem to join hands over the gap which separates poetry from prose. The object of oratory is to determine by means of argument the convictions and the will of other men; but dramatic poetry leaves the actions of the persons represented to be determined by the development of their own views and the expression of the opinions of others. The Athenians were so habituated to hear long public speeches in their courts and assemblies, and had such a passion for them, that their tragedy, even in its better days, admitted a greater proportion of speeches on opposite sides of a question than would have been the case had their public life taken another direction. But, in process of time, this element was continually gaining upon the others, and soon transcended its proper limits, as we see even in Euripides, and still more in his successors. The excess consists in this, that the speeches, which in a drama should only serve as a means of explaining the thoughts and frame of mind of the actors, and of influencing their convictions and resolves, became, on their own account, the chief business of the play, so that the situations and all the labor of the poet were directed toward affording opportunities for the display of rhetorical sparring. And as the practical object of real life was, naturally enough, wanting to this stage-oratory, and as it depended on the poet alone how he should put the point of dispute, it is easy to conceive that this theatrical rhetoric would, in most cases, make a display of the more artificial forms, which, in practical life, were thrown aside as useless, and would approximate rather to the scholastic oratory of the sophists than to the eloquence of a Demosthenes, which, possessed by the great events of the time, raised itself far above the trammels of a scholastic art.2 XVI. THEODECTES (OEo3fOeTris),3 of Phaselis, the chief specimen of this class of writers, flourished about B.C. 356, in the time of Philip of Macedon. Rhetoric was his chief study, although he also applied himself to philosophy. He belongs to the scholars of Isocrates,4 another of whom, 1 MTiiler, Hist. Gr. Lzt., p. 387; Smith, Diet. Biogr., s. v. Miiller, Hist. Gr. Lit,, p. 388. 3 Id. i, 4 I'setCudo-PLtt., Vit, Isocr., 10, p, 837, D.

Page  200 200 GREEK LITERATURE. a son of Aphareus, also left the rhetorical school for the tragic stage. Theodectes never gave up his original pursuits, but came forward both as an orator and tragedian. At the splendid funeral feast which the Carian queen, Artemisia, instituted in honor of Mausolus,l the husband whom she mourned for so ostentatiously, Theodectes, in competition with Theopompus and other orators, delivered a panegyric on the deceased, and at the same time produced a tragedy, the Mausolus, the materials for which were probably borrowed front the mythical traditions or early history of Caria, but which had also in view, of course, the exaltation of the prince of the same name just deceased. In the competition of oratory, on this occasion, Theodectes was defeated by Theopompus; but his tragedy gained the prize, and was extant down to the time of Gellius.2 Theodectes, indeed, had so hit the taste of the age in his tragedies, that he obtained eight victories in thirteen contests. Aristotle, who was his friend, and, according to some, his teacher also, made use of his tragedies as furnishing him with examples of rhetoric. For excellence in the art of rhetoric, indeed, as it was practiced by the school of Isocrates, Theodectes appears to have possessed the highest qualifications. Dionysius places him with Aristotle, at the head of the writers on the art of rhetoric.3 Some even appear to have believed the "Rhetoric" of Aristotle to be the work of Theodectes; but this is a manifest error.4 CHAPTER XXVI. FOURTH OR ATTIC PERIOD-continued. GREEK COMEDY. I. COMEDY (Kwp3u[ta) took its rise at the vintage festivals of Bacchus.5 It originated, as Aristotle' remarks, with those who led off the phallic songs of the comus (KiC6eos) or band of revellers, who, at the vintage festivals of Bacchus; gave expression to the feelings of exuberant joy and merriment which were regarded as appropriate to the occasion, by parading about, partly on foot, partly in wagons, singing a wild, jovial song in honor of Bacchus and his companions. These songs were commonly interspersed with or followed by petulant, extemporaneous witticisms, with which the revellers assailed the by-standers. This origin of comedy is indicated by the name Kwiucoka, which undoubtedly means " the song of the Comus" (KcNXou 06). This appears both from the testimony of Aristotle, that it arose out of the phallic songs, and from the language of Demosthenes,7 in whom we find mentioned together 6o Kc3os iKa oi Swo/lpol'.8 Other derivations of the name were, however, given even in antiquity. The Megarians, conceiving it to be connected with the word Suid., s. v.; Aul. Gell., x., 18. 2 Gell., 1. c. 3 Dion. Hal., De Comp. Verb., 2; De vi dic. in Dem., 48. 4 Quintil., ii., 15, 10; Spalding, ad loc.; Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 5 Smith, Dict. Ant., s. v. 6 Poet., 4. 7 c. Mid., p. 517. 8 Mistller, Itist. Gr. Lit., vol. ii., p. 4; Dor., iv., 7, 1.

Page  201 ATTIC PERIOD. 201 K4Ut, "a village," and to mean " village-song," appealed to the name as an evidence of the superiority of their claim to be regarded as the originators of Comedy over that of the Athenians.' This derivation was also adopted by several of the old grammarians, and has the sanction of Bentley, W. Schneider, and even of Bernhardy.2 II. It was among the Dorians that comedy first assumed any thing of a regular shape. The Megarians, both in the mother country and in Sicily, claimed to be considered its originators, as we have just remarked; and so far as the comedy of Athens is concerned, the claim of the former appears well founded. They were always noted for their coarse humor,3 and their democratical constitution, which was established at an early period, favored the development of comedy in the proper sense of the word. In the aristocratical states, the mimetic impulse, as connected with the laughable or the absurd, was obliged to content itself with a less unrestrained mode of manifestation. III. Among the Athenians, the first attempts at comedy, according to the almost unanimous accounts of antiquity, were made at Icaria, an Attic demus, by Susarion, a native of Tripodiscus, in Megaris.4 Icaria was the oldest seat of the worship of Bacchus in Attica,5 and comus processions must undoubtedly have been known there long before the time of Susarion. From the jests and railleries directed by the Bacchic comus, as it paraded about, against the by-standers, or any others whom they selected, arose the proverb'a e td a's.6 IV. It was B.C. 578 that Susarion introduced at Icaria comedy, in that stage of development to which it had attained among the Megarians.7 It is not easy, however, to decide in what his improvements consisted. Of course there were no actors besides the chorus or comus; whatever there was of drama must have been performed by the latter. The introduction of an actor separate from the chorus was an improvement not yet made in the drama. According to one grammarian, he was the first who adopted the metrical form of language for comedy.8 It is not, however, to be inferred that the comedies of Susarion were written. Bentley has shown that the contrary is probably true. He no doubt merely substituted for the more ancient improvisations of the chorus and its leader, premeditated compositions, though still of the same general kind. There would also seem to have been some kind of poetical contest, for we learn that the prize for the successful poet was a basket of figs and a jar of wine.9 It was also the practice of those who took part in the comus to smear their faces with wine-lees, either to prevent their features from being recognized, or to give themselves a more grotesque appearance. Hence comedy came to be called rpvyupia, or " lees-song," though others connected the name with the circumstance of a jar of new wine i Aristot., Poet., 3. 2 Grundriss der Griech. Lit., vol. ii., p. 892. 3 Aristoph., Vesp., 57; Schol. ad loc.; Suid., s. v. yhXs. Schol. ad Dion. Thrac., in Bekker's Anecd. &rscv., ii., p. 748. 5 Athen., ii., p. 40. 6 Schol. ad Aristoph., Equit., 544; Nub., 296. 7 Smith, Diet. Ant., s. v. 8 Schol. ad Dion. Thrac., in Bekker's Anecd. Gr., ii., p. 748. 9 Miarm. Par., ep. 40; Btckh, Corp. Inscript., vol. ii., p. 301; Bentley, Phal., vol. i., p. 259, ed. Dyce.

Page  202 202 GREEK LITERATURE. (srp6) being the prize for the successful poet.l- The comedies of Susarion were, according to the common account, acted upon wagons. But Meineke has rendered the truth of this assertion extremely doubtful. His plays very probably partook of that petulant, coarse, and unrestrained personality for which the Megarian comedy was noted. For entertainxnents of such a character the Athenians were, however, not yet prepared. It required the freedom of a democracy. Accordingly, comedy was discouraged, and for eighty years after the time of Susarion we have nothing of it in Attica. V. It was, however, in Sicily that comedy was earliest brought to something like perfection. The Greeks in Sicily always exhibited a lively temperament, and the gift of working up any occurrence into a spirited, fluent dialogue.2 This faculty finding its stimulus in the excitement produced by the political contests, which were so frequent in the different cities, and the opportunity for its exercise in the numerous rustic festivals connected with the worship of Ceres and Bacchus, it was natural that comedy should early take its rise among them. Yet before the time of the Persian wars, we only hear of iambic compositions, and of a single poet, Aristoxenus. The performers were called aV'oKd'jo8aaot, or improvisatori,3 and subsequently i'acuB3oi, and their entertainments, being of a choral character, were doubtless accompanied by music and dancing. Afterward, the comic element was developed partly into travesties of religious legends, partly into delineations of character and manners; the former in the comedy of Epicharmus, Phormis, and Dinolochus; the latter in the mimes of Sophron and Xenarchus. Epicharmus is very commonly^ called the inventor of comedy by the grammarians and others; this, however, is true only of that more artistical shape which he gave it.4 We will treat more fully of this writer in a subsequent part of the present work. VI. In Attica, the first comic poet of any importance whom we hear of after Susarion is CHIONIDES, who is said to have brought out plays in B.C. 487, about eight years before the second Persian war. Such, at least, is the account of Suidas. On the other hand, according to a passage in the Poetic of Aristotle,5 Chionides was long after Epicharmus. On the strength of this passage, Meineke thinks that Chionides can not be placed much earlier than B.C. 460, and, in confirmation of this date, he quotes from Athenmeus6 a passage from a play of Chionides, the IlT-wXoL, in which mention is made of Gnesippus, a poet contemporary with Cratinus. But we also learn from Athenemus that some of the ancient critics considered the IIcrwXot to be spurious, and with respect to the passage from Aristotle, Ritter has brought forward some very strong arguments against its genuineness.7 We have some titles and fragments remaining of the pieces of Chionides. They are given by Meineke, in the Comic. Graec. i Athen., ii., p. 40; Anon., De Corn., ap. Meineke, p. 535, &c. 2 Cic., Verr., iv., 43; Orat., ii., 54. 3 Athen., xiv., p. 622; Etynz. Mag., s. v. abroKd,3p. 4 Smith, Dict. Ant., s. v. 5 Poet., 3. 6 Athen., xiv., p. 638, A. 7 Ritter, Comm. in Aristot. Poet., 3; Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v.

Page  203 ATTIC PERIOD. 203 Fragm., vol. i., p. 3, seqq., ed. min. The only other writer of this period deserving of mention is MAGNES, a native of Icaria, in Attica.- He is mentioned by Aristotle in such a manner as to imply that he was contemporary, or nearly so, with Chionides;2 and from this and other statements of the ancient writers it has been inferred that he flourished about B.C. 460 and onward. There appears to have been a great deal of coarse buffoonery in his pieces.3 According to Suidas and Eudocia, he exhibited nine plays, and gained two victories; a statement obviously at variance with what Aristophanes says of him. An anonymous writer on comedy assigns to himl eleven victories, and states that none of his dramas were preserved, but that nine were falsely ascribed to him. It is worthy of notice that Magnes is the earliest comic poet of whom we find any victories recorded. Only a few titles of his works remain, together with some fragments scarcely exceeding half a dozen lines.4 The fragments are given by Meineke, Conmic. Grcec. Fragile., vol. i., p. 5-6, ed. min. VII. That branch of the Attic drama which was called the Old Comedy begins properly with Cratinus, who was to comedy very much what'Eschylus was to tragedy. As in the Attic drama there can plainly be traced various stages of progress before it arrived at that which in modern times is considered the true form of comedy, namely, the comedy of character or manners, it has been customary to divide it into three species, which are termed the Old, Mliddle, and New comedy. These divisions are of course arbitrary, and, as the advance from one stage to another took place gradually, it is somewhat difficult to determine accurately the epoch when each species gave place to the succeeding one. T'he middle comedy, however, is considered by the best modern authorities to have commenced about B.C. 375, with Eubulus, and to have continued until about B.C. 330, when Philemon and Menander, the authors of the New Comedy, began to exhibit.5 OLD COMN1EDY. VIII. The characteristic feature of the Old Comedy is personality. It has been described as the comedy of caricature, and such indeed it was, but it was also a great deal more. Real personages were exhibited on the stage, and the shafts of the poet's ridicule were fearlessly directed against them. As it appeared in the hands of its great masters, Cratinus, Hermippus, Eupolis, and especially Aristophanes, its main characteristic was that it was throughout political. Every thing that bore upon the political or social interests of the Athenians furnished materials for it. It assailed every thing that threatened liberty, religion, and the old established principles of social morality and taste, and tended to detract from the true nobleness of the Greek character. It performed, in short, the functions of a public censorship.6 Though merely personal satire, having no higher object than the sport of the moment, was by no means excluded, though the secrets of domestic life were laid open, its sanctity SI uid., s. v. 2 Aristot., Poet., 3. 3 Diomedes, iii., p. 486. 4 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v, 5 Clinton, Fast. Hell., vol. ii.; Introd., p. xxxvi., seQ. Hor., Serr7., i., 4, 1. seqq, I socr., De pace, p. 161.

Page  204 204 GREEK LITERATURE. violated, and the faults of private character held up to odium or ridicule, yet commonly it is on political or general grounds that individuals are brought forward and satirized. A ground-work of reality usually lay at the basis of the most imaginative forms which its wild license adopted. All kinds of fantastic impersonations and mythological beings were mixed up with those of real life. With such unbounded stores of materials for the subject and form of comedies, complicated plots were of course unnecessary, ana were not adopted. IX. All this abuse and slander, and caricature and criticism, were conveyed in the most exquisite and polished style; it was recommended by all the refinements of taste and the graces of poetry. It was because of this exquisite elegance and purity which distinguished the style of the Attic comedy, as well as its energetic power, that Quintilian recommends an orator to study, as the best model next to Homer, the writings of the Old Attic comedy. Doubtless it abounded in grossness and impurity, such as would not for a moment be tolerated in dramatic exhibitions of the present day. But an age in which man was not softened by the influence of good female society, and in which the virtuous of the female sex were not educated so as to fit them for being companions of man, was necessarily a gross one. The comic poet, therefore, was not the corruptor of his countrymen. The worst that can be said against him is, that he did not stem the tide of corruption, that he pandered to a degraded popular taste, instead of using his best endeavors to mould it to a higher standard.. X. The old comedy was to the Athenians the representative of many influences which exist in the present day. It was the newspaper-the review-the satire-the pamphlet-the caricature-the pantomime of Athens. Addressed to the thousands who flocked to the theatre to witness the representation of a new comedy, most of whom were keenly alive to every witty allusion and stroke of satire, and who took a deep interest in every thing of a public nature, because each individual was personally engaged in the administration of state affairs, the old comedy must have been a powerful engine for good or for evil. There can be little doubt that, scurrilous and immoral as it was, the good nevertheless predominated. Gross and depraved as the Athenians were already, notwithstanding their refinement, it is not likely that comedy corrupted their morals in this respect. The vices which prevailed would have existed without it, and were neither increased nor fostered by it. But the comic poet seems, generally speaking, to have been on the side of that which was good in taste, in education, in politics. Fostered as the free satire of comedy was by the unbounded license of a democracy, and owing its vigor, as well as its existence, to the patronage of a sovereign people, it neither spared the vices, nor flattered the follies of its patrons. Like those of the court-fool in the Middle Ages, its most biting jests were received with good humor, and welcomed as acceptable by its supporters, although they themselves were the object of them.2 XI. Notwithstanding, however, the favor with which the old comedy' Browne, list. Class. Lit., vol. ii., p. 20, seq. 2 Id. ib., I. 21, seq,

Page  205 ATTiC PERIOD. 205 was viewed by the people, its extreme personality sometimes provoked the interference of the law. In B.C. 440, a law was passed ToO pU~ KCiCoaev,1 which remained in force for three years, when it was repealed. Some understand the law to have been a prohibition of comedy altogether;2 others,3 a prohibition merely against bringing forward individuals in their proper historic personality, and under their own name, in order to ridicule them (AX Icwcqyev o'vocuaari). During the period when this law remained in force, the comic chorus, as Horace4 tells us, " turpiter obticuit, sublato jure nocendi." To this same period probably belongs the law, that no Areopagite should write comedies.5 About B.C. 415, apparently at the instigation of Alcibiades, whose vanity, ambition, and support of the new systems of philosophy and education had drawn upon him the enmity of the comic poets, the law of B.C. 440, or, at all events, a law U i0 KW/L;86Ve 5roolarTI, was again passed, but this law only remained in force for a short time. The nature of the political events in the ensuing period would of itself act as a check upon the license of the comic poets. With the overthrow of the democracy in B.C. 411, comedy would of course be silenced, but on the restoration of the democracy it revived. It was doubtless again restrained by the Thirty tyrants. During the latter part of the Peloponnesian war, also, it became a matter,of difficulty to get choragi; and hinderances were sometimes thrown in the way of the comic poets by those who had been attacked by them. Agyrrhius, for instance, though when is not known, got the pay of the poets lessened. XII. The Old Attic comedy lasted, as has already been remarked, until B.C. 375, ending with Theopompus. The whole number of poets belonging to this division was, according to Clinton, fifty-two. Some, less accurately, make the old comedy to have ended in B.C. 404, and the number of poets to have been forty-one. XIII. It was not usual for comic poets to bring forward more than one or two comedies at a time; and there was a regulation according to which a poet could not bring forward comedies before he was of a certain age, which is variously stated at thirty or forty years.6 To decide on the merits of the comedies exhibited, five judges were appointed, which was half the number of those who adjudged the prize for tragedy.7 The chorus in comedy, as before remarked, consisted of twenty-four. The dance of the chorus was the icJpsa4, the movements of which were capricious and licentious, consisting partly in a reeling to and fro, in imitation of a drunken man, and partly in various unseemly and immodest gestures. For a citizen to dance the cKdpat sober, and without a mask, was looked upon as the height of shamelessness.8 Aristophanes, however, and probably other comic poets also, frequently dispensed with the iKpaaS.9 The most important of the choral parts was the Parabasis, already described, when, the actors having left the stage, the chorus turned round from fac1 Schol. ad Aristoph., Acharn., 67. 2 Clinton, Fast. Hell., s. a. 3 Meineke, Hist. Crit. Corn. Grcc. 4 Ep. ad Pis., 284. 5 Plut., De Glor. Ath., p. 348, c. 6 Aristoph., Nub., 530; Schol. ad loc. 7 Schol. ad Aristoph., Av., 445. 8 Theophrast., Charact., 6. 9 Aristoph., Nub., 537, seqq.

Page  206 206 GR E E IEK L ITERA TUR E. ing the perbformers, and, advancing toward the spectators, delivered an address to them in the name of the poet, either on public topics of general interest, or on matters which concerned the poet personally, criticising his rivals and calling attention to his own merits; the address having nothing whatever to do with the action of the play.' XIV. From the hints furnished by Aristophanes (for we have a great want of special information on the subject), his comic actors must have been very unlike the performers of the new comedy, of Plautus and Terence.2 Of the latter we know, from some very valuable and instructive paintings in ancient manuscripts, that they adopted, on the whole, the costume of every-day life, and that the form and mode of their tunics and palliums were the same as those of the actual personages whom they represented. The costume of Aristophanes' players must, on the other hand, have resembled rather the garb of the farcical acotors whom we often see depicted on vases from Magna Graecia, namely, close-fitting jackets and trowsers striped with divers colors, reminding us of the modern harlequin; to which were added great bellies and other disfigurations purposely extravagant, the grotesque form being, at the most, but partially covered by a little mantle. Then there were masks, the features of which were exaggerated even to caricature, yet so that particular persons, when such were brought upon the stage, might at once be recognized. The costume of the chorus in a comedy of Aristophanes went farthest into the strange and fantastic. His choruses of birds, wasps, &c., must not, of course, be regarded as having consisted of birds, wasps, &c., actually represented, but,as is clear from numerous hints from the poet himself, of a mixture of the human form with various appendages borrowed from the creatures we have mentioned; and in this the poet allowed himself to give special prominence to those parts of the costume which he was most concerned about: thus, for example, in the "Wasps," which are designed to represent the swarms of Athenian judges, the sting was the chief attribute, as denoting the stylus, with which the judges used to mark down the number of their division in their wax tablets. These waspish judges were introduced humming and buzzing up and down, now thrusting out, and now drawing in an immense spit, which was attached to them by way of a gigantic sting.3 XV. That the prevalent form of the dialogue should be the same in tragedy and comedy, namely, the iamnbic trimeter, was natural, notwithstanding the opposite character of the two kinds of poetry; for this common organ of dramatic colloquy was capable of the most varied treatment, and was modified by the comic poets in a manner most suitable to their object. The avoidance of spondees, the congregation of short syllables, and the variety of the caesuras, impart to the verse of comedy an extraordinary lightness and spirit, and the admission of anapeests into all places of the verse but the last, opposed as this is to the fundamental form of the trimeter, proves that the careless, voluble recitation of comedy treated the long and short syllables with greater freedom than the tragic art i Schol. ad Aristoph., Nub., 518; Pac., 733 2 IiiZller, Hist. Gr. Lit., vol. ii., p. 9, seq. Miller, vol. ii., p. 10.

Page  207 AT'TIC PERIOD. 207 permitted. In order to distinguish the different styles and tunes, comedy employed, besides the trimeter, a great variety of metres, which we must suppose were also distinguished by different sorts of gesticulation and delivery, such as the light trochaic tetrameter, so well suited to the dance; the lively iambic tetrameter; and the anapaestic tetrameter, flaunting along in comic pathos, which had been used by Aristoxenus of Selinus, an old Sicilian poet, who lived before Epicharmus. In all these things comedy was just as inventive and refined as tragedy. Aristophanes had the skill to convey by his rhythms sometimes the tone of romping merriment, at others that of festal dignity; and often, in jest, he would give to his verses and his words such a pomp of sound that we lament he is not in earnest.' MIDDLE COMEDY. XVI. The old comedy was replaced by oqe of a somewhat different style, which was known as the Middle Comedy, the age of which lasted from the end of the Peloponnesian war to the overthrow of liberty by Philip of Macedon. During this period, the Athenian state had the form, but none of the spirit of its earlier democratical constitution, and the energy and public spirit of earlier years had departed. The comedy of this period, accordingly, found its materials in satirizing classes of people instead of individuals, in criticising the systems and merits of philosophers and literary men, and in parodies of the compositions of living or earlier poets, and travesties of mythological subjects. It formed a transition from the old to the slew comedy, and approximated to the latter in the greater attention paid to the structure of plots, which seem frequently to have been founded on amorous intrigues, and in the absence of that wild grotesqueness which marked the old comedy.2 XVII. As regards external form, the plays of the middle comedy, generally speaking, had neither parabasis nor chorus. The absence of the chorus was occasioned, partly by the change in the spirit of comedy itself, partly by the increasing difficulty of finding persons capable of undertaking the duties of choragus. As the change in comedy itself was gradual, so it is most likely that the alterations in form were brought about by degrees. At first, showing the want of proper musical and orchestic training, the chorus was at last dropped altogether. Some of the fragments of pieces of the middle comedy, which have reached us, are of a lyrical kind, indicating the presence of a chorus. The poets of this school of comedy seem to have been extraordinarily prolific. Atheneeus says that he had read above 800 dramas of the middle comedy. Only a few fragments, however, are now extant. Meineke gives a list of thirtynine poets of the middle comedy.3 Clinton makes the number thirtyfive.4 The most celebrated were Antiphanes and Alexis. 1 Miller, vol. ii., p. 13, seq. 2 Bode, Gesch. d. Hell. Dichtk., vol. iii., p. 396; Milller, vol. ii., p. 46; Smith, Dict. Ant., s. v. 3 Hist. Crit. Corn. Gr., p. 303. 4 Fast. Hell., vol. ii., p. xlii., seqq.

Page  208 208 GREEK LITERATURE. NEW COMEDY. XVIII. The New Comedy was a farther development of the last-mentioned kind. It answered as nearly as may be to the modern comedy of manners or character. Dropping for the most part personal allusions, caricature, ridicule, and parody, which, in a more general form than in the old, had maintained their ground in the middle comedy, the poets of the new comedy made it their business to reproduce, in a generalized form, a picture of the every-day life of those by whom they were surrounded. This new comedy might be described, in the words of Cicero, as " imitationem vitce, speculum consuetudinis, imaginem veritatis."l The frequent introduction of sententious maxims was a point of resemblance with the later tragic poets.2 XIX. In the new comedy there was no chorus, and the dramas were commonly introduced by prologues, spoken by allegorical personages, such as'EXEyXos, 4d$os, &c. The new comedy flourished until B.C. 289, if, with Clinton, we close the list with Posidippus. But others give B.C. 260. The number of poets belonging to the new comedy was estimated in antiquity at sixty-four, but, as Bernhardy remarks, it is now impossible to find even the half of this number. Clinton gives the names of twenty, beginning with Phihppides, and ending, as before remarked, with Posidippus.3 CHAPTER XXVII. FOURTH OR ATTIC PERIOD —continued. POETS OF THE OLD COMEDY. I. CRATINUS (Kpa'z?0os),4 one of the most celebrated poets of the old comedy, and who witnessed its rise and complete perfection during a life of ninety-seven years, was born B.C. 519, but did not exhibit till B.C. 454, when he was sixty-five years of age.5 He exhibited twenty-one plays, and gained nine victories. He was the poet of the old comedy. He gave it its peculiar character, and he did not, like Aristophanes, live to see its decline. Before his time the comic poets had aimed at little beyond exciting the laughter of their audience: it was Cratinus who first made comedy a terrible weapon of personal attack, and the comic poet a severe censor of public and private vice. He did not even, like Aristophanes, in such attacks unite mirth with satire, but, as an ancient writer says, he hurled his reproaches in the plainest form at the bare heads of the offenders.6 Still, like Aristophanes with respect to Sophocles, he sometimes bestowed the highest praise, as upon Cimon.7 Pericles, on the other hand, was the object of his most persevering and vehement abuse. Besides what Cratinus thus did to give a new character and 1 Cic., De Rep., iv., 11. 2 Smith, Diet. Ant., s. v. 3 Clinton, p. xlv., seq. 4 Smith, Diet. Biogr., s. v. 5 Euseb., Chron., s. a.; Syncell., p. 339. 6 Platonius, De Corn., p. xxvii.; Christod., Ecphras., v. 357. 7 Plut., Cim., 10.

Page  209 ATTIC PERIOD. 209 power to comedy, he is said to have made changes in its outward form, so as to bring it into better order, especially by fixing the number of actors, which before had been indefinite, at three. On the other hand, however, Aristotle asserts that no one knew who made this and other such changes. The character of Cratinus as a poet rests upon the testimonies of the ancient writers, as we have no complete play of his extant. These testimonies are most decided in placing him in the very first rank of comic poets. By one writer he is compared to.Eschylus.1 His style seems to have been somewhat grandiloquent, and full, of tropes, and altogether of a lyric cast. He was very bold in inventing new words, and in changing the meaning of old ones. His choruses especially were very much admired, and were for a time the favorite songs at banquets.2 It was perhaps on account of the dithyrambic character of his poetry that he was likened, as we have said, to ZEschylus. His metres seem to have partaken of the same lofty character. He sometimes even used the epic verse. In the invention of his plots, he was most ingenious and felicitous, but his impetuous and exuberant fancy was apt to derange them in the progress of the play.3 In his later years, Cratinus became much addicted to drinking, and Aristophanes and the other comic poets began to sneer at him as a drivelling old dotard, whose poetry was fuddled with wine.4 This at length roused the spirit of the veteran dramatist, who brought out, in consequence, his comedy of the n1rivtv, or "bottle," in which he acknowledged the charge of habitual intemperance, but at the same time treated the subject in so amusing a way as to bear off the prize over the Connus of Amipsias, and the Clouds of Aristophanes hinself.5 In the following year Cratinus died, at the age of ninety-seven. His fragments are given by Meineke, Comic. Grcec. Fragm., vol. i., p. 7, seqq., ed. min. They were also edited separately by Runkel, Lips., 1827, 8vo. II. CRATES (KpdUvs),6 an Athenian, was a younger contemporary of Cratinus, in whose plays he was the principal actor before he betook himself to writing comedies.7 He began to flourish in B.C. 449, and is spoken of by Aristophanes in such a way as to imply that he was dead before the comedy of the Knights was acted, B.C. 424. It would appear from a passage in Aristotle,8 which has been misunderstood by some, that, instead of making his comedies vehicles of personal abuse, he chose such subjects as admitted of a more general mode of depicting character. His great excellence is attested by Aristophanes, though in a somewhat ironical tone," and also by the fragments of his plays. He excelled chiefly in mirth and fun, which he carried so far as to bring intoxicated persons on the stage, a thing which Epicharmus had done, but which no Attic comedian had ventured on before."' His example was followed by Aristophanes and by later comedians; and with the poets of the new comedy it became a very common practice.l' Like the other great comic 1 Anon., De Corn., p. xxix. 2 Aristoph., Equit., 526. 3 Platonius, p. xxvii. 4 Aristoph., Equit., 531, seqq. 5 Arg. Nub. 6 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 7 Diog. Laert., iv., 23; Aristoph., Equit., 536, seqq. 8 Poet., 5. 9 Aristoph., 1. c. 10 Athen., x., p. 429, A. 11 Dion Chrysost., Orat. 32, Ip 391, R.

Page  210 210 GREEK LITERATURE. poets, he was made to feel strongly both the favor and the inconstancy of the people. The scholiast on Aristophanes says that Crates used to bribe the spectators, a charge which Meineke thinks may have been taken from some comic poet who was an enemy of his. There is much confusion among the ancients about the number and titles of his plays. Some grammarians assign to him seven and eight comedies respectively. The result of Meineke's analysis of the statements of the ancient writers is in favor of eight. Of these eight plays fragments are still extant. There are also several fragments which can not be assigned to their proper plays. The language of Crates is pure, elegant, and simple, with very few peculiar words and constructions. He uses, however, a very rare metrical peculiarity, namely, a spondaic ending to the anapaestic tetrameter. The fragments are given by Meineke, Comic. Grcec. Fragm., vol. i., p. 78, seqq., ed. min. III. HEGiMON ('HylUuA),1 a native of Thasos, but established at Athens, was more celebrated for his parodies than his regular comic pieces. Aristotle makes him the inventor of parody. He was nicknamed,PaKi, on account of his fondness for that kind of pulse. Hegemon lived in the time of the Peloponnesian war, and was contemporary with Cratinus, when the latter was an old man, and with Alcibiades. His parody of the Gigantomachia was the piece to which the Athenians were listening when the news was brought to them in the theatre of the total failure of the expedition to Sicily, and when, in order not to betray their feelings, they remained in the theatre to the end of the performance. The only comedy of his which is mentioned is the 4,LnX(Wv, of which one fragment is preserved by Athenaeus, who also gives some amusing particulars respecting him.2 IV. PHRYNICHUS (ptvLXos), of Athens, not to be confounded with the tragic poet of the same name, already mentioned, began to exhibit B.C. 435.3 He was ranked by the grammarians among the most distinguished poets of the old comedy,4 and the elegance and vigor of his extant fragments confirm this judgment. Aristophanes, indeed, attacks him, together with other comic poets, for the use of low and obsolete buffoonery,5 but the scholiast on the passage asserts that there was nothing of the sort in his extant plays. He was also charged with corrupting both language and metre, and with making use of the labors of others. These accusations, however, are probably to be regarded rather as indications of the height to which the rivalry of the comic poets was carried, than as the statement of actual truths. On the subject of metre we are informed that Phrynichus invented the Ionic a minore catalectic verse, which was named after him.6 His language is generally terse and elegant, but he sometimes uses words of peculiar formation. The celebrated grammarian Didymus, of Alexandrea, wrote commentaries on Phrynichus 7 1 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 2 Athen., i., p. 5, B; Aristot., Poet., 2; Ritter, ad loc. 3 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v., where B.C. 429 is thought the more probable date, and Suidas, who gives B.C. 435, is supposed to be in error. Compare Clinton, s. v. 4 Anon., De Comoed., p. xxviii. 5 Ran., 14, 6 dMarius Victor, p. 2542, Putsch. 7 Athen., ix., p. 371, F; Smith, Diet. Biogr., s. v.

Page  211 ATTIC PERIOD. 211 The number of his comedies is given at ten. We have the fragments in Meineke, Comrn. Grac. Frag., vol. i., p. 228, seqq., ed. min. V. EUP6LIS (Eviroxls)' was born about B.C. 446, and is said to have exhibited his first drama in his seventeenth year, B.C. 429, two years before Aristophanes, who was nearly of the same age with him.2 The date of his death is uncertain. The common story was, that Alcibiades, when sailing to Sicily, B.C. 415, threw Eupolis into the sea, in revenge for an attack which he had made upon him in his Bac'7r-a. But, to say nothing of the improbability of even Alcibiades venturing on such an outrage, or the still stranger fact of its not being alluded to by Thucydides, or any other trustworthy historian, the answer of Cicero is conclusive, that Eratosthenes mentioned plays produced by Eupolis after the Sicilian expedition.3 There is also a fragment still extant, in which the poet applies the title 0'paT-yds to Aristarchus, whom we know to have been 6OrpaTrlyds four years later than the date at which the common story fixed the death of Eupolis.4 He probably died in B.C. 411. The chief characteristic of the poetry of Eupolis seems to have been the liveliness of his fancy, and the power which he possessed of imparting its images to his audience. This characteristic of his genius influenced his choice of subjects, as well as his mode of treating them, so that he not only appears to have chosen subjects which other poets might have despaired of dramatizing, but we are expressly told that he wrought into the body of his plays those serious political views which other poets expounded in their parabases, as in the AjlooL, in which he represented the legislators of other times deliberating on the administration of the state. To do this in a genuine Attic old comedy, without converting the comedy into a serious philosophic dialogue, must have been a great triumph of dramatic art.5 The introduction of deceased persons on the stage appears to have given to the plays of Eupolis a certain dignity, which would have been inconsistent with the comic spirit had it not been relieved by the most graceful and clever merriment. In elegance he is said to have even surpassed Aristophanes,6 while in bitter jesting and personal abuse he emulated Cratinus. Among the objects of his satire was Socrates, on whom he made a bitter, though less elaborate attack than that in the Clouds of Aristophanes.7 The dead were not even exempt from his abuse, for there are still extant some lines of his in which Cimon is most unmercifully treated.8 A close relation subsisted between Eupolis and Aristophanes, not only as rivals, but as imitators of each other. Cratinus attacked Aristophanes for borrowing from Eupolis, and Eupolis, in his Bdcrcat, made the same charge, especially with reference to the Knights. The scholiasts specify the last parabasis of the Knights as borrowed from Eupolis.9 On the other hand, Aristophanes, in the second (or third) edition of the Clouds, retorts upon Eupolis the charge of imitating the 1 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 2 Anon., De Corn., p. xxix. 3 Cic., Ep. ad Att., vi., 1. c Schol. Victor. ad II., xiii., 353. 5 Platon., p. xxvi. 6 Id. ib. 7 Schol. ad Aristoph., Nub., 97, 180. 8 Plut., Cim., 15; Schol. ad Aristid., p. 515. 9 Schol. ad Aristoph., Equit., 528, 1288.

Page  212 212 GREEK LIT.ERATURE. Knights in his Maricas,l and taunts him with the further indignity of jesting on his rival's baldness. The number of the plays of Eupolis is stated by Suidas at seventeen, and by another authority at fourteen. The extant titles exceed the greater of these numbers, but some of them are very doubtful. The fragments of Eupolis have been edited by Runkel, Pherecratis et Eupolidis Fragm., Lips., 1829, and are also given by Meineke, Fragm. Comic. Grcac., vol. i., p. 158, seqq., ed. min. VI. ARISTOPHXNES ('Apmo-0roqxYVs),' the prince of the old comedy, was born about B.C. 444, and probably at Athens. His father, Philippus, had possessions in LEgina, and may originally have come from that island, whence a question arose whether Aristophanes was. a genuine Athenian citizen. His enemy Cleon brought against him more than one accusation to deprive him of his civic rights, but without success, as, indeed, they were merely the fruit of revenge for his attacks on that demagogue. He had three sons, Philippus, Araras, and Nicostratus, called also by some Philetwerus, but of his private history we know nothing. He probably died about B.C. 380. The comedies of Aristophanes are of the highest historical interest, containing, as they do, an admirable series of caricatures on the leading men of the day, and a contemporary commentary on the evils existing at Athens. Indeed, the caricature is the only feature in modern social life which at all resembles them. Aristophanes was a bold, and often a wise patriot. He had the strongest affection for Athens, and longed to see her restored to the state in which she was flourishing in the previous generation, and almost in his own childhood, before Pericles became the head of the government, and when the age of Miltiades and Aristides had but just passed away. The first great evil of his own time against which he inveighs is the Peloponnesian war, which he regards as the work of Pericles, and even attributes it3 to his fear of punishment for having connived at a robbery said to have been committed by Phidias on the statue of Minerva in the Parthenon, and also to the influence of Aspasia.4 To this fatal war, among a host of evils, he ascribes the influence of vulgar demagogues like Cleon at Athens, of which also the example was set by the more refined demagogism of Pericles. Another great object of his indignation was the recently adopted system of education, which had been introduced by the Sophists, acting on the speculative and inquiring turn given to the Athenian mind by the Ionian and Eleatic philosophers, and the extraordinary intellectual development of the age following the Persian war. The new theories introduced by the Sophists threatened to overthrow the foundations of morality, by making persuasion, and not truth, the object of man in his intercourse with his fellows, and to substitute a universal skepticism for the religious creed of the people. The worst effects of such a system were seen in Alcibiades, who combined all the elements which Aristophanes most disliked, heading the war party in politics, and protecting the sophistical school in philosophy and also in literature. Of this latter school, the literary and poetical sophists, Euripides was the chief, whose works are full of that 1 Nub., 544, seqq. 2 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s.. 3 Pax, 606. 4 Acharn., 500.

Page  213 ATTIC PERIOD. 213 /ueTEWpoooq[Pa which contrasts so offensively with the moral dignity of 2.Eschylus and Sophocles, and for which Aristophanes introduces him as sitting aloft to write his tragedies. In the comedy of the Clouds, however, the sophistical principles in general are attacked at their very source, and as their representative he selects Socrates, whom he depicts in the most odious light. The selection of Socrates for this purpose is doubtless to be accounted for by the supposition that Aristophanes observed the great philosopher from a distance only, while his own unphilosophical turn of mind prevented him from entering into Socrates' merits, both as a teacher and a practicer of morality; and also by the fact that Socrates was an innovator, the friend of Euripides, the tutor of Alcibiades, and pupil of Archelaus, and that there was much in his appearance and habits in the highest degree ludicrous. The philosopher who wore no under-garments, and the same upper robe in winter and summer, who generally went barefoot, and appears to have possessed one pair of dress-shoes which lasted him for life,l who used to stand for hours in a public place in a fit of abstraction-to say nothing of his snubnose and extraordinary figure and physiognomy-could hardly expect to escape the license of the old comedy. The invariably speculative turn which he gave to the conversation, his bare acquiescence in the stories of Greek mythology, which Aristophanes would think it dangerous even to subject to inquiry,2 had certainly produced an unfavorable opinion of Socrates in the minds of many, and explain his being set down by Aristophanes as an arch-sophist, and represented even as a thief. Another feature of the times was the excessive love for litigation at Athens, the consequent importance of the dicasts, and the disgraceful abuse of their power; all of which are made by Aristophanes direct objects of attack. But, though he saw what were the evils of the times, he had not wisdom to find a remedy for them, except the hopeless and undesirable one of a movement backward; and therefore, though we allow him to have been honest and bold, we must deny him the epithet of great. The merits of Aristophanes as a poet and humorist can not be fully understood without an actual study of his works. We have no means of comparing him with his rivals Cratinus and Eupolis, though he is said to have tempered their bitterness, and given to comedy additional grace; but to have been surpassed by Eupolis in the conduct of his plots.3 Plato called the soul of Aristophanes the temple of the Graces, and has introduced him into his Symposium. His works contain snatches of lyric poetry which are quite noble, and some of his choruses, particularly one in the Knights, in which the horses are represented as rowing triremes in an expedition against Corinth, are written with a spirit and humor unrivalled in Greek, and are not very dissimilar to English ballads. Aristophanes was a complete master of the Attic dialect, and in his hands the perfection of that glorious instrument of thought is wonderfully shown. No flights are too bold for the range of his fancy: animals of every kind i Bockh, Public Econ. of Athens, vol. i., p. 150. 2 Compare Plat., Phcedr., p. 299. 3 Platonius, I. c.

Page  214 214 GREEK LITERATURE. are pressed into his service: frogs chaunt choruses; a dog is tried for stealing a cheese; and an iambic verse is composed of the squeakings of a pig. Words are invented of a length which must have made the speakers breathless. Suidas tells us that Aristophanes was the author, in all, of fifty-foul plays. Of these we have only eleven remaining. In the year B.C. 427, the poet brought out his first play, entitled AaLTaXErS, or " the Feasters," which gained the second prize of the contending pieces. His chief object in this play was to censure the system of education and manners then prevalent at Athens, and to advocate a return to the habits of former times. In it he held up to public contempt the character of the spendthrift. This play was brought out in the name of Callistratus, not in his own. Some have thought that this was done because the poet was under thirty years of age, and because an express law, as they maintain, forbade a poet to exhibit a drama in his own name while he was under thirty. But Bergk has shown that such a law is a mere fiction of the commentators; for.Eschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides are all known to have brought out plays in their own name while they were under thirty. The true reason for the step is given by Aristophanes himself in the parabasis of the " Knights,"' where he states that he had pursued this course, not from want of thought, but from a sense of the difficulty of his profession, and from a fear that he might suffer from that fickleness of taste which the Athenians had shown toward other poets, as Magnes, Crates, and Cratinus. It was the dread of this same fickleness that induced him, even when his fame was established, to have recourse to the same expedient in the case of many of his other plays.2 The ancient grammarians state that he transferred to Callistratus the political dramas, and to Philonides those which belonged to private life. The next year he brought out the " Babylonians," also in the name of Callistratus. In this play he ridiculed some of the democratical institutions of Athens, especially the system of appointing to office by lot, and attacked Cleon, the most powerful demagogue of the day, in the presence of the allies and foreign ambassadors. Cleon brought an action, not against Callistratus, in whose name the play appeared, but against Aristophanes himself, on the ground of his having calumniated the government and its officers in the presence of foreigners. The action failed, and the poet was the more encouraged to pursue the course he had begun. In the following play, the "Acharnians," B.C. 425, again exhibited by Callistratus, he renewed the attack upon Cleon, and followed up the attack subsequently in the " Knights." The following is a list of the extant comedies of Aristophanes, with the year in which they were performed: 1. Achar'nians, B.C. 425. Produced, as we have said, in the name of Callistratus. It gained the first prize. The poet in this play exhorts his countrymen to peace. 2. Knights (or Horsemen), B.C. 424. The first play produced in the name of Aristophanes himself. It gained the first prize, Cratinus being second. This v. 514. Compare Nub., 530. 2 Compare Bergk, in Meieke's Frag~n. Corn. Gr c., p. 939.

Page  215 ATTIc PERIOD. 215 play, as just remarked, was directed against Cleon, whose power at this time was so great that no one was bold enough to make a mask to represent his features; so that Aristophanes performed the character himself,l with his face smeared with wine-lees. 3. Clouds, B.C. 423. This play, though perhaps its author's master-piece, met with a complete failure in the contest for prizes, owing probably to the intrigues of Alcibiades; nor was it more successful when altered for a second representation, if indeed the alterations were ever completed, which Sdvern denies. The play, as we have it, contains the parabasis of the second edition.2 4. Wasps, B.C. 422.3 This is a pendant to the Knights. In the latter, the poet had attacked the sovereign assembly, and here he aims his battery at the courts of justice, the other strong-hold of party violence and the power of demagogues. It gained the second prize. 5. Peace, B.C. 419. Gained the second prize, Eupolis carrying off the first. This play is a return to the subject of the Acharnians. 6. Birds,4 B.C. 414. Gained the second prize, Amipsias being first. This piece is intended to discourage the disastrous Sicilian expedition. 7. Lysistrata,5 B.C. 411. The old subject of the Peloponnesian war. 8. Thesmophoriazusce. Exhibited during the oligarchy. This is the first of the two great attacks on Euripides, and contains some inimitable parodies on his plays, especially the "Andromeda," which had just appeared. It is almost wholly free from political allusions. 9. Plutus, B.C. 408. 10. Frogs,6 B.C. 405. Gained the first prize, Phrynichus being second, and Plato third. In this play, Baechus descends to Hades in search of a tragic poet-those then alive being worthless-and IEschylus and Euripides contend for the prize of resuscitation. Euripides is at last dismissed by a parody on his own famous line, j xTa&r' 43/Cc&oX', 6E (p pv avcceyoroS, " My tongue took an oath, but my mind is unsworn.".Eschylus accompanies Bacchus, the tragic throne in Hades being given to Sophocles during his absence. 11. Ecclesiazusace, B.C. 392. Written in ridicule of.the political theories of Plato, which were based on Spartan institutions. In B.C. 388, the second edition of the Plutus appeared. The last two comedies of Aristophanes were the XEolosicon and Cocalzs, produced about B.C. 387 (date of the peace of Antalcidas), by Araros, one of his sons. They are both lost. EDITIONS OF ARISTOPHANES. The Editio Princeps of Aristophanes is that of Aldus, Venice, 1498, published without the Lysistrata and Thesnophoriazuse. Of subsequent editions the most deserving of mention are, that of Kuster, Amsterdam, 1710, fol.; that of Brunck, Strasburg, 1783, 6 vols. 8vo, which would be more complete did it contain the scholia; that of Invernizzi, completed by Beck and Dindorf, 13 vols. 8vo, Lips., 1794-1826; that of Bekker, 5 vols. 8vo, London, 1829, with a Latin version, the scholia, and a very copious but ill-digested body of notes, embracing the remarks of numerous preceding commentators; that of Dindorf (the text merely), in the Poete Scenici Greeci, reprinted at Oxford, with the addi1 This, however, though the generally-received account, is denied by Bergk, 1. c. 2 Bergk (p. 913, seq.) thinks it probable that the " Clouds" was brought out in the name of Philonides. 3 Brought out in the name of Philonides. 4 Brought out in the name of Callistratus. 5 Brought out in the name of Callistratus. 6 Brought out in the name of Philonides.

Page  216 216 GREEK LITERATURE. tion of the scholia and a commentary, in 7 vols. 8vo; that of Bothe, 4 vols. 8vo, Lips., 1828-1830, forming part also of his Poete Scenici G1reci (vol. v.-viii.); that of Thiersch, Lips., 1830, &c., of which only the first volume, containing extensive prolegomena, and the comedy of the Plutus, and the first part of the sixth volume, containing the Ranes, have appeared; that in Didot's Bibliotheca Grceca, with a revised text by Dindorf, and the Scholia by Dlibner, 2 vols., Paris, 1838-42; and a new edition with critical text by Enger, Bonn, 1844, of which 2 vols., the Lysistrata and 77zesmophoriazusse, have appeared. There is also a valuable edition by Mitchell, of the Aclharnians, Wasps, Knights, Clouds, and Frog's, with English notes, 5 vols. 8vo, London, 1835-39, and he has also translated the Acharnians, Wasps, and Knights, with great ability, into English verse. Of editions of separate plays there is a large number, among which we may particularly mention that of the Acharnians, by Elmsley, London, 1830; of the Wasps, by Conz, Tubing., 1823; of the Clouds, by Hermann, Leipzig, 1830; of the Thlesmophoriazus6s, and of the Ranrs by Fritzsche, the former at Leipzig, 1838, the latter at Zurich, 1845; of the Plutus, by IHemsterhuis, Harl., 1744, 8vo; of the same, by Dobree, Lond., 1820; and by Cookesley, Lend., 1834, with useful notes in English; and that of the Birds and Frogs, by Cookesley, Lend., 1834, 1837, also with English notes. The Essay of Siivern Oti the plot of the Birds, in the Transactions of the Royal Academy of Sciences of Berlin (1827), and translated by Hamilton, is well worth perusal. A copious index verborum to Aristophanes, by Caravella, was issued from the Clarendon press, Oxfobrd, 1822. VII. PHERECRX.TES' ('epefKpc'ruls), of Athens, was contemporary with Cratinus, Crates, Eupolis, Plato, and Aristophanes, being somewhat younger than the first two, and somewhat older than the others. He gained his first victory B.C. 438, and he imitated the style of Crates, whose actor he had been.2 Crates and Pherecrates very much modified the coarse satire and vituperation of which the old comedy had previously been the vehicle, and constructed their comedies on the basis of a regular plot, and with more dramatic action. Pherecrates did not, however, abstain altogether from personal satire, for we see by the fragments of his plays that he attacked Alcibiades, the tragic poet Melanthius, and others.3 He invented a new metre, which was named after him the Pherecratean or Pherecratic, and which may be best explained as a choriambus, with a spondee for its base, and a long syllable. for its termination. The metre is very frequent in the choruses of the Greek tragedians, and in Horace, as, for example, Grato Pyrrha sub antro. The extant titles of his plays amount to eighteen, which Meineke reduces to fifteen. The fragments of Pherecrates are given, with those of Eupolis, by Runkel, and also by Meineke, Conmic. Grcec. F7ragm., vol. i., p. 87, seqq., ed. einm. VIII. PLATO (PLaA cow),4 of Athens, one of the chief poets of the old comedy, was contemporary with Pherecrates and the others whom. we have just mentioned, and flourished from B.C. 428 to 389. From the language of the grammarians, and from the large number of fragments which are preserved, it is evident that his plays were only second in popularity to those of Aristophanes. Purity of language, refined sharpness of wit, and a combination of the vigor of the old comedy, with the greater elegance of the middle and the new, were his chief characteristics. Though many of his plays had no political reference at all, yet it is evident that he kept up the spirit of the old comedy in his attacks on the corruptions and corrupt persons of his age. Among the chief objects of his attacks were the 1 Smith, Dict. Biog., s. v. 2 Anon., De Cont., p. xxix. 3 Athen., viii., p. 343, C; xii., p. 538, B. " Sith, Dict., s. v.

Page  217 ATTIC PERIOD. 217 demagogues Cleon, Hyperbolus, Cleophon, and the orators Cephalus and Archinus, for,.ike, Aristophanes, he regarded the art of rhetoric as one of the worst so6urces of mischief to the commonwealth. Plato seems to have been- one:of the most diligent of the old comic poets. Suidas gives the titles of thirty_ of his dramas, to which number another is to be added, not mentioned by the lexicographer. The fragments of Plato are given by Cobet, Amsterdam, 1840, and also by Meineke, Comic. Grcec. Frag., vol. i., p. 357, seqq., ed. min. IX. PHILONIDES (uAcwvl/[s), an Athenian, better known on account of his connection with, the literary history of Aristophanes than from his comic productions. It is generally stated that Philonides was an actor of Aristophanes, who is said to have committed to him and to Callistratus his chief characters; but the best modern critics have shown that this is an erroneous statement, and that the true state of the case is, that several of the plays of Aristophanes were brought out in the names of Callistratus and Philonides.l The fragments of Philonides are given by Meineke' Comic. Grcec. Frag., vol. i., p. 156, seqq., ed. min. CHAPTER XXVIII. FOURTH OR ATTIC PERIOD —continued. WRITERS OF SICILIAN COMEDY. I. -WE have'already stated that comedy was earliest brought to something like perfection in Sicily. It will not be amiss, therefore, to give a brief account of some of the principal comic poets of the Sicilian school before proceeding to the writers of the middle and new comedy of the Athenians. The flourishing period of Sicilian comedy was that in which Phormis, Epicharmus, and Dinolochus wrote for the stage. To these may be added, though not coming strictly under the denomination of a comic poet, Sophron, the composer of Mimes. II. PHORMIS (qplts),2 less correctly PHORMUS ('I'plAos),3 came originally from Maenalus in Arcadia, and, having removed to Sicily, became intimate with Gelon, whose children he educated. He distinguished himself as a soldier, both under Gelon and Hiero his brother, who succeeded B.C. 478. Though the matter has been called in question, there seems to be little or no doubt that this is the same person who is associated by Aristotle with Epicharmus as one of the originators of comedy, or of a particular form of it. We have the names of eight comedies written by him, in Suidas, who also states that he was the first to introduce actors with robes reaching to the ankles, and to ornament the stage with skins dyed purple-as drapery, it may be presumed. From the titles of the plays, we may safely infer that he selected the same mythological subjects as Epicharmus.4 1 Smith, Dict., s. v. Philonides. 2 Aristot.; Pausan. Bentley is in favor-of this as the more correct form. Phal., vol. i., p. 252, ed. Dyce. 3 Athen., Suid. 4 Smith, Diet. Miog., s. v.

Page  218 218 1;GRIEK LITERATURE. III. EPICHARMUS ('EriXapLos), the chief comic poet among the Dorians, was born in the island of Cos, about B.C. 540. At the age of three months, he was carried to Megara, in Sicily, or, according to the account preserved by Suidas, he went thither at a much later period, with Cadmus, the tyrant of Cos, when the latter resigned his power and emigrated to that island, about B.C. 488. Thence he removed to Syracuse, with the other inhabitants of Megara, when the latter city was destroyed by Gelon (B.C. 484 or 483). Here he spent the remainder of his life, which was prolonged throughout the reign of Hiero, at whose court Epicharmus associated with the other great writers of the time, and among them with XEschylus, who seems to have had some influence on his dramatic course.L He died at the age of ninety (B.C. 450), or, according to Lucian,2 ninetyseven (B.C. 443). Epicharmus was a Pythagorean philosopher, and spent the earlier part of his life in the study of philosophy, both physical and metaphysical. He is said to have followed for some time his father's profession of medicine, and it appears that he did not commence writing comedies until his removal to Syracuse.3 Comedy, as we have already remarred, had for some time existed at Megara in Sicily, which was a colony from Megara, near the isthmus of Corinth, the latter of which two towns disputed, it will be remembered, with the Athenians the invention of comedy. But the comedy at the Sicilian Megara, before Epicharmus, seems to have been little more than a low buffoonery. It was he, together with Phormis, who gave it a new character, and introduced a regular plot. The number of his comedies is differently stated at 52 or at 35. There are still extant thirty-five titles. The majority of them refer to mythological subjects, that is, travesties of the heroic myths, and these plays no doubt very much resembled the satyric dramas of the Athenians. But, besides mythology, Epicharmus wrote pieces on othei subjects, political and moral, relating to manners and customs, and, it would seem, even to personal character. Those, however, of his comedies which belong to the last head are rather general than individual, and resembled the writings of the new comedy, so that when the ancient writers enumerated him among the poets of the old comedy, they must be understood as referring rather to his antiquity in point of time, than to any close resemblance between his works and those of the old Attic comedians. A considerable number of fragments remain.4 Miller has observed that the painted vases of Lower Italy often enable us to gain a complete and vivid idea of those theatrical representations of which the plays of Epicharmus are the type. The style of his pieces appears to have been a curious mixture of the broad buffoonery which distinguished the old Megarian comedy, and of the sententious wisdom of the Pythagorean philosopher. His language was remarkably elegant; he was celebrated for his choice epithets; his plays abounded, as the extant fragments prove, with yvyrCaL, or philosophical and moral maxims, and long speculative discourses, on the instinct of animals, for example. In proof of the high estimation in which he was held by the ancients, it may be enough to refer to the notices of him by t iog. Laert,, viii., 78. 2,Macro(., 2.5. 3 Smith, Dict., s. v. 4 Id. b.

Page  219 ATTIC PERIOD. 219 Plato and Cicero. It is singular, however, that he had no successor in his peculiar style of comedy, except his son or disciple Dinolochus. He had, however, distinguished imitators in other times and countries. Plautus, for instance, is said by Horace to have made him his model, " Plautus ad exemplar Siculi properare Epicharmi."' The parasite, which forms so conspicuous a character in the plays of the new comedy, is first found in Epicharmus. The fragments of Epicharmus are printed in the collections, of Morellius, Sententice Vet. Comic., Paris, 1553, 8vo; of Hertelius, Collect. Frag. Comic., Basil., 1560, 8vo; of H. Stephens, Poesis Philosophica, 1573, 8vo; of Grotius, Excerpt. ex Trag. et Com., Paris, 1626, 4to; by Ahrens, in his De Linguce Graece Dialectis, vol. ii., p. 435, seqq.; and separately by Kruseman, Harlem, 1834. Additions have been made by Welcker (Zeitschrift fiir die Alterthumsw., 1835, p. 1123) and others. The most important modern work on Epicharmus is that of Grysar, De Doriensium Comcedia, Colon., 1828. The second volume, however, containing the fragments, has never appeared. IV. DINOL6CHUS (AELfZVOXOS), of Syracuse or Agrigentum, was, according to some, the son, according to others, the disciple of Epicharmus. He lived about B.C. 488, and wrote fourteen plays in the Doric dialect, about which we only know, from a few titles, that some of them were on mythological subjects.2 V. SOPHRSN (:&qppwc),3 of Syracuse, was the principal writer, and, in one sense, the inventor of that species of composition called the Mime (lculos), which was one of the numerous varieties of the Dorian comedy. He flourished about B.C. 460-420. When Sophron is called the inventor of mimes, the meaning is, that he reduced to the form of a literary composition a species of amusement, which the Greeks of Sicily, who were preeminent for broad humor and merriment, had practiced from time immemorial at their public festivals. Whether the term y?7os originally includetany kind of imitation without words, we are not sufficiently informed; but it is clear that the mimes of Sophron were ethical, that is, they exhibited not only incident, but characters. Moreover, as is implied in the very fact of their being a literary composition, words were put into the mouths of the actors, though still quite in subordination to their gestures; and in proportion as the spoken part of the performance was increased, the mime would approach nearer and nearer to a comedy. Of all such representations instrumental music appears to have formed an essential part. One feature of the mimes of Sophron, which formed a marked distinction between them and comic poetry, was the nature of their rhythm. There is some difficulty, however, in determining whether they were in mere prose, or in mingled poetry and prose, or in prose with a peculiar rhythmical movement, but no metrical arrangement. Suidas expressly states that they were in prose (iKaaXoyacidh);4 and the existing fragments confirm the general truth of this assertion, for they defy all at1 Epist., ii., 1, 58. 2 SUid., s. v.; Grysar, De Dor. Corn., p. 81. 3 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s, v. 4 Suid., s. v,

Page  220 220 GREEK LITERATURE. tempts at scansion. Nevertheless, they frequently fall into a sort of rhythmical cadence or swing, which is different from the rhythm of ordinary prose.' _This prosaic structure of the mimes of Sophron has given rise to a doubt whether they were ever intended for public exhibition, a doubt which ought never to have been entertained. The dialect of Sophron is the old Doric, interspersed with Sicilian peculiarities. The character of these compositions, as we have said above, appears to have been ethical; that is, the scenes represented were those of ordinary life, and the language employed was intended to bring out more clearly the characters of the persons exhibited in those scenes, not only for the amusement, but also for the instruction of the spectators. Plato was a great admirer of Sophron, a fact which shows that there must have been something of sound philosophy in these productions, and he is said to have been the first who made the mimes known at Athens. The serious purpose which was aimed at in the works of Sophron, was always, as in the Attic comedy, clothed under a sportive form; and it can easily be imagined that sometimes the latter element prevailed even to the extent of grossness, as some of the extant fragments and the parallel of the Attic comedy combine to prove.2 The best collection of the fragments of Sophron is by Ahrens, De Grescce Linguce Dialectis. They have also been collected by Blomfield, in the Classical Journal for 1811, No. 8, p. 380, seqq., and more filly in the Museum Criticum, vol. ii., p. 340, seqq., Cambridge, 1826. CHAPTER XXIX. FOURTH OR ATTIC PERIOD-continued. WRITERS OF THE MIDDLE COMEDY. I. EUBTLUS (EVBovAos) was a very distinguished poet of the middle-comedy, and flourished about B.C. 376. His plays were chiefly on mythological subjects. Several of them contained parodies of passages from the tragic poets, and especially from Euripides. There are a few instances of his attacking eminent individuals by name, as Philocrates, Cydias, Callimedon, Dionysius the tyrant of Syracuse, and Callistratus. He sometimes ridiculed classes of persons, as the Thebans in his'Avzri7rVn. His language is simple and elegant, and generally pure, containing few words which are not found in writers of the best period. Like Antiphanes, he was extensively pillaged by later poets, as, for example, by Alexis, Ophelion, and Ephippus. Suidas gives the number of his plays at 104, of which there are extant more than 50 titles.3 The fragments of Eubulus are given by Meineke, Comic. Gracc. Frag., vol. i., p. 594, seqq., ed. min. II. ARIR.S ('Apapcas), son of Aristophanes, was first introduced to public notice by his father as the principal actor in the second Plutus, B.C. 388, the last play which Aristophanes exhibited in his own name. The father wrote two more comedies, the Kc5Kaxos and the AloXoaolcwv, 1 Herm. ad Aristot,, Piet., i,, 8. 2 Smith. Diet. Biogr., s. v. 3 Id. ib.

Page  221 ATTIC PERIOD. 221 which were brought out in the name of Araros,l probably very soon after the above date. Araros first exhibited in his own name, B.C. 375.2 He is charged with frigidity by Alexis,3 who, however, was his rival. Suidas mentions six comedies of his. The fragments are given in Meineke, Comic. Grcec. Frag., vol. i., p. 630, seqq., ed. min. III. ANAXANDRIDES ('At'aSavSpi8rls) was the son of Anaxander, a native of Camirus, in Rhodes. He'began to exhibit comedies in B.C. 376, and 29 years later he was present,- and probably exhibited at the games celebrated by Philip at Dium.n Aristotle held him in high esteem.' He is said to have been the first poet who made love-intrigues a prominent part of comedy. He gained ten prizes, the whole number of his comedies being sixty-five. Though he is said to have destroyed several of his plays in anger at their rejection, we still have the titles of thirty-three.5 The fragments are given by Meineke, Frag. Comic. Grcec., vol. i., p. 574, seqq., ed. min. IV. ANTIPHXNES ('AYTL(PadV7S) was the most highly-esteemed writer of the middle comedy, excepting Alexis, who shared that honor with him. He was born about B.C. 404, and died B.C. 330. The parentage and birthplace of Antiphanes are doubtful. As his birth-place are mentioned Cios on the Propontis, Smyrna, Rhodes, and Larissa; but the last statement deserves little credit.6 The fragments which remain of his pieces prove that Athenaeus was right in praising him for the elegance of his language, though he uses some words and phrases which are not found in older writers. He was one of the most fertile dramatic authors that ever lived, for his plays amounted, on the largest computation, to 365, on the least to 260. ftWe still possess the titles of about 130. It is probable, however, that some of the comedies ascribed to him were by other writers, for the grammarians frquently confound him with other comic poets. Some of his plays were on mythological subjects, others had reference to particular persons, others to characters, personal, professional, and national, while others seem to have been wholly occupied with the intrigues of private life.7 The fragments of Antiphanes are given by Meineke, Frag. Comic. Grcec., vol. i., p. 491, seqq., ed. min. V. NICOSTRXTUS (NLKtcrpaCros), the youngest of the three sons of Aristophanes, called by some Phileterus. He is ranked by Athenaeus expressly among the poets of the middle comedy,8 though some of his pieces, as, for instance, the'OpYtOevTrs, belonged rather to the new comedy. Some of the characters also which he introduced in other dramas demonstrate the same. In his BaarXE7s, he introduced a boasting soldier;9 in his TOKLo*4Ts, an avaricious money-lender, and a vaunting cook. Photius has got a story that Nicostratus, through unrequited love, leaped off the Leucadian rock. The titles of nineteen of his plays have come down to us.'~ The fragments are given by Meineke, Frag. Comic. Grcec., vol. i., p. 632, seqq., ed. min.' Arg. ad Plut., iv., Bekker. 2 Suid., s. v. 3 Athen., iii., p. 123, E. 4 Rhet., iii., 10, seqq.; Eth. Nicom., vii., 10. 5 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. V. 6 Meineke, i., 308. 7 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 8 Athen., xiii., p. 597, D. 9 Id., vi., p. 230, D.'o Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v.

Page  222 222 GREEK LITERATURE. VI. ALEXIS ('AAXeLs) was a native of Thurii, in Magna Graecia, but admitted subsequently to the privileges of an Athenian citizen.: He was the uncle and instructor of Menander,: was born about B.C. 394, and lived to the age of 106.2 He appears to have been rather addicted to the pleasures of the table.3 According to Plutarch, he expired upon the stage while being crowned as victor.' By the old grammarians he is commonly called a writer of the middle comedy, and fragments and titles of many of his plays confirm this statement. Still, for more than thirty years, he was contemporary with Philippides, Philemon, Menander, and Diphilus, and several fragments show that he also wrote pieces which would be classed with those of the new comedy. He was a remarkably prolific writer. Suidas, says he wrote 245 plays, and the titles of 113 have come down to us. In some of his pieces he ridiculed Plato, in others he satirized Demosthenes. As might have been expected in a person who wrote so much, the same passage frequently occurred in several plays; nor did he scruple sometimes to borrow from other poets, as, foi example, from Eubulus. His wit and elegance are praised by Athenaeus,5 whose testimony is confirmed by the extant fragments. His plays were frequently translated by the Roman writers.6'A considerable list of peculiar words and forms employed by him is furnished by Meineke,7 who has also given the fragments of his pieces, Frag. Comic. Grcec., vol. ii., p. 688, seqq., ed. min. CHAPTER XXX. FOURTH OR ATTIC PERIOD-continued. WRITERS OF THE NEW COMEDY. I. PHILIPPiDES (inALR7r(r/ls), of Athens, is mentioned as one of the six principal poets of the new comedy, these six being Philemon, Menander, Diphilus, Philippides, Posidippus, and Apollodorus. He flourished about B.C. 335. Philippides seems to have deserved the rank assigned him, as one of the best poets of the new comedy. He attacked the luxury and corruption of the age, defended the privileges of his art, and made use of personal satire with a spirit approaching to that of the old comedy.8 Plutarch eulogizes him highly.9 His death is said to have been caused by excessive joy at an unexpected victory. It appears from Gellius that he lived to an advanced age. The number of his dramas is stated by Suidas at forty-five; there are fifteen titles extant. Some of the ancient critics charge Philippides with infringing upon the purity of the Attic dialect, and Meineke produces several words from his fragments as examples. The fragments are given by the scholar just mentioned, Frag. Comic. Grec., vol. ii., p. 1116, seqq., ed. min.1~ II. PHILEMON (NtLiU6W),"x one of the most eminent poets of the new 1 Suid., s. v. 2 Plut., Defect. Orac., p. 420, E. 3 Athen., viii., p. 344. 4 An sen. ger. resp., p. 785, B. 5 Athen., ii., p. 59, F. 6 Aul. Gell., ii., 23. 7 Meineke, Fragnz. Corn., vol. i., p. 374, seqq. 8 Ill., Hist. Crit., p. 437, seqq. 9 Plut., Demetr., 12. 10 Smith, Dict. Biogr.,'. a. IJ Id. ib,

Page  223 ATTIC PERIOD. 223 comedy, ranking next to Menander. He was the son of Damon, and a native of Soli, in Cilicia; or, according to some, of Syracuse. He came to Athens at an early age, and there subsequently received the rights of' citizenship. He flourished in the reign of Alexander, a little earlier than Menander, whom, however, he long survived, having lived nearly 100 years. The manner of his death is differently related; some ascribing it to excessive laughter at a ludicrous incident,l others to joy at obtaining a victory in a dramatic contest;2 while another story represents him as quietly called away by the goddesses, whom he served, in the midst of' the composition or representation of his last and best work. Philemon is regarded by some modern scholars as the first poet of the new comedy in order of time, a place, however, which we have preferred, with others, assigning to Philippides. Although there can be no doubt that Philemon was inferior to Menander as a poet, yet he was a greater favorite with the Athenians, and often conquered his rival in the dramatic contests.3 Gellius ascribes these victories to the use of unfair influence, and tells us that Menander was accustomed to ask Philemon himself whether he did not blush when he conquered him. We have other proofs of the rivalry between Menander and Philemon in the identity of some of their titles. Philemon was, however, sometimes defeated; and it would seem that on one such occasion he went into exile for a time.4 At all events, he undertook a journey to the East, either from this cause or by the desire of King Ptolemy, who appears to have invited him to Alexandrea; and to this journey ought, no doubt, to be referred his adventure with Magas, tyrant of Cyrene, the brother of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Philemon had ridiculed Magas for his want of learning, in a comedy, copies of which he took pains to circulate; and the arrival of the poet at Cyrene, whither he was driven by a storm, furnished the king with an opportunity of taking a contemptuous revenge, by ordering a soldier to touch the poet's throat with a naked sword, and then to retire politely without hurting him; after which he made him a present of a set of child's playthings, and then dismissed him.5 Philemon seems to have been inferior to Menander in the liveliness of his dialogue, for his plays were considered, on account of their more connected arguments and longer periods, better fitted for reading than for acting.6 The extant fragments display much liveliness, wit, elegance, and practical knowledge of life. His favorite subjects seem to have been love-intrigues, and his characters were the standing ones of the new comedy, with which Plautus and Terence have made us familiar. The jest upon Magas, already mentioned, is a proof that the personal satire which formed the chief characteristic of the old comedy was not entirely relinquished in the new. The number of Philemon's plays was ninetyseven. The extant titles, after the doubtful and spurious ones are rejected, amount to about fifty-three; but it is very probable that some of 1 Suid., s. v.; Val. llax., ix., 12, extr. 6. 2 Plut. an Sen., &c., p. 785, B. 3 Aul. Gell., xvii., 4. 4 Stob., Serm., xxxviii., p. 232. 6 Plit., 1)e cohib. ira, p. 458, A. 6 Demetr. Phal., De Eloc., I 193.

Page  224 224 GREEK LITERATURE. them should be assigned to the younger Philemon.1 The fragments of Philemon are printed, with those of Menander, by Meineke, Berlin, 1823, 8vo, and in his Frag. Comic. Gnrc., vol. ii., p. 821, seqq., ed. mrin. They are given also by Diibner, at the end of the Aristophanes in Didot's Bibliotheca Grceca, Paris, 1839. (Cf. editions of Menander on p. 226.) III. MENANDER (M4'Cavpos),2 of Athens, the most distinguished poet of the new comedy, was born B.C. 342, and flourished in the time of the successors of' Alexander. His father, Diopithes, commanded the Athenian forces on the Hellespont in the year of his son's birth. Alexis, the comic poet, was the uncle of Menander, on the father's side; and we may naturally suppose that the young Menander derived from his uncle his taste for the comic drama, and was instructed by him in its rules of composition. His character must have been greatly influenced and formed by his intimacy with Theophrastus and Epicurus, of whom the former was his teacher and the latter his intimate friend. His taste and sympathies were altogether with the philosophy of Epicurus; and in an epigram he declared that " as Themistocles rescued Greece from slavery, so did Epicurus from unreason."3 From Theophrastus, on the other hand, he must have derived much of that skill in the discrimination of character which we so much admire in the XapaKctrpes of the philosopher, and which formed the great charm of the comedies of Menander. His master's attention to external elegance and comfort he not only imitated, but, as was natural in a man of an elegant person, a joyous spirit, and a serene and easy temper, he carried it to the extreme of luxury and effeminacy. The moral character of Menander is defended by modern writers against the aspersions of Suidas and others. Thus much is certain, that his comedies contain nothing offensive, at least to the taste of his own and the following ages, none of the purest, it must be admitted, as they were frequently acted at private banquets. Of'the actual events of Menander's life we know but little. He enjoyed the friendship of Demetrius Phalereus, whose attention was first drawn to him by admiration of his works.4 This intimacy was attended, however, with danger as well as with honor, for when Demetrius Phalereus was expelled from Athens by Demetrius Poliorcetes, Menander became a mark for the public informers, and would have been put to death but for the intercession of Telesphorus, the son-in-law of Demetrius.5 The first Greek king of Egypt, Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, was also one of his admirers; and he invited the poet to his court at Alexandrea; but Menander seems to have declined the proffered honor.6 Suidas mentions some letters to Ptolemy as among the works of Menander. The time of his death is differently stated. The same inscription which gives the date of his birth, adds that he died at the age of fifty-two years, in the archonship of Philippus, in the thirty-second year of Ptolemy Soter. Clinton shows that these statements refer to the year B.C. 292-1; but to make up the fifty-two years, we must reckon in both extremes, 342 and 291. The date is confirmed by Eusebius. by the anonymous writer on 1 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s.. v. 2 Id. ib. 3 Anth. Pal., vii., 72.' Phledrus, i., 11. Diog. Laert., v., 80. 6 Plin., H. N., vii., 29.

Page  225 ATTIC PERIOD. 220 comedy, who adds that Menander died at Athens; by Apollodorus;1 and by Aulus Gellius.2 Respecting the manner of his death, all that we know is that an old commentator on Ovid3 applies the line " Comicus ut mediis periit dum nabat in undis" to Menander, and tells us that he was drowned while swimming in the harbor of Pireeeus, and we learn from Alciphron4 that Menander had an estate at that place. He was buried by the road leading out of Piraeus toward Athens. There are two epigrams upon him in the Greek Anthology. Notwithstanding Menander's fame as a poet, his public dramatic career, during his lifetime, was not eminently successful; for, though he composed upward of a hundred comedies, he gained the prize only eight times.5 His preference for elegant exhibitions of character above coarse jesting may have been the reason why he was not so great a favorite with the common people as his principal rival, Philemon, who is said, moreover, as we have already remarked, to have used unfair means of gaining popularity.6 Menander appears, however, to have borne the popular neglect very lightly, in the consciousness of his own superiority. The Athenians erected his statue in the theatre; but this was an honor too often conferred upon very indifferent poets to be of much value: indeed, according to Pausanias, he was the only distinguished comic poet of all whose statues had a place there.7 The neglect of Menander's contemporaries, however, has been amply compensated by his posthumous fame. His comedies retained their place on the stage down to the time of Plutarch,s and the unanimous consent of antiquity placed him at the head of the new comedy, and on an equality with the great masters of the various kinds of poetry. The grammarian Aristophanes assigned him the second place among all writers, after Homer alone;9 and to the same grammarian is ascribed the happy saying, a12 MEvcevapE, KAc $te, r6rEpos up' vUuZ 7rp4rEpov.ejtu laa'o;0T s O Menander and life, which one of you, pray, first imitated (the other) l" Among the Romans, besides the fact that their comedy was founded chiefly on the plays of Menander, we have the celebrated phrase of Julius Caesar, who addresses Terence as " dimidiate Menander,"''1 or " halved Menander." The imitations of Menander are at once a proof of his reputation, and an aid in appreciating his poetic character. Among the Greeks, Alciphron and Lucian12 were, in various degrees, indebted to his comedies. Among the Romans, Ctecilius, Afranius, and more particularly Terence, are well known to have drawn largely on his rich stores. Menander is remarkable for the elegance with which he threw into single verses or short sentences the maxims of that practical wisdom in the affairs of common life which forms so important a feature in the new comedy. Various " Anthologies" of such sentences were compiled by the ancient grammarians from his works, of which there is still extant a very 1 Ap. Aul. Gell., xvii., 4. 2 xvii., 21. 3 Ibis, 593. 4 Epist., ii., 4. 5 Aul. Gell., xvii., 4. 6 Id. ib. 7 Paus., i., 21, 1. 8 Comp. Men. et Arist., p. 854, B., 9 Brunck, Anal., vol. iii., p. 269. 1o Or, according to Scaliger's correction, roTepbv &areFz~lnUiraTo. 11 Donat. Vit. Terent., p. 754. 12 Meincke, p. xxxv. P

Page  226 226 GREEK LITERATURE. interesting specimen, in the collection of several hundred lines, under the title of'yv'74ac 0covdao t-X. The number of Menander's comedies is stated at a few more than a hundred; 105, 108, and 109, according to different authorities.' We know with certainty the date of only one of the plays, namely, the'Opty, which was brought out in B.C. 321, when Menander was only in his twenty-first year. We have fragments of or references to plays, amounting in all to nearly ninety titles. There are also about 500 fragments which can not be assigned to their proper places. To these must be added the yYvat i.ja1 Co'XIot, some passages of the?yvc/ar (or Ovyfcplts) MeMOpov ical ~Xto-A.rooWos, and two epigrams, one in the Greek Anthology, and one in the Latin version of Ausonius.2 Of the letters to Ptolemy, which Suidas mentions, nothing survives, and it may fairly be doubted whether they were not, like the so-called letters of other great men of antiquity, the productions of the later rhetoricians. Suidas ascribes to him some orations, a statement of which there is no confirmation; but Quintilian tells us that some ascribed the orations of Charisius to Menander.3 There were several commentaries on Menander among the ancients, and one in particular by the grammarian Aristophanes, whose admiration of the poet we have already mentioned. The first attempt at a complete critical edition of Menander, after several previous editions of the poet, was the following: Menandri et Philemonis Reliqujia, quotquot reperire potuerunt, cum notis Hug. Grotii et Joh. Clerici, Amst., 1709, 8vo. This edition was reprinted in 1732, 1752,1771, and 1777, but has been very generally condemned. Its only merit is that it gave occasion to Bentley's emendations on 323 passages of the fragments. (Cf. Mllonk's Life of Bentley, p. 211.) Since the publication of that work there has been no edition of Menander worthy of notice, except that his y1oyvae have had a place in the various collections of the gnomic poets, until the appearance of Meineke's Menandri et Philemonis Reliquiw, Berol., 1823, 8vo. This admirable edition contains, besides the fragments, dissertations on the lives and writings of the two poets, and also Bentley's emendations of the fragments. The fragments were reprinted by Meineke (with the annotations somewhat condensed), in his larger (1841) and smaller (1847) editions of the Fragmenta Comicorumn Grcecorum. In the larger edition they are given in vol. iv., p. 69, seqq., in the smaller, p. 867, seqq., vol. ii. Meineke's collection has been reprinted (carefully revised) by Dibner, as an Appendix, along with those of Philemon, to the Aristophanes of Didot's Bibliotheca, Paris, 1839.4 IV. DIPHILUS (AqPlhos), a contemporary of Menander and Philemon, was a native of Sinope.5 He is said to have exhibited one hundred plays, and sometimes to have acted himself. Though, in point of time, Diphilus belonged to the new comedy, his poetry seems to have had more of the character of the middle. This is shown, among other indications, by the frequency with which he chooses mythological subjects for his plays, and by his bringing on the stage the poets Archilochus, Hipponax, and Sappho.6 His language is simple and elegant, but contains, at the same time, many departures from Attic purity. The Roman comic poets borrowed largely from Diphilus. The Casina of Plautus is a translation of his KX77po6eeot.L.7 His uvva7roOvijtKcozes was translated by Plautus in the lost play of the t Suid., s. v.; Anon., De Com., p. xii.; Donat. Vit. Terent., p. 753; Aul. Gell., xvii., 4. 2 Epig., 139. 3 Quint., x., 1, 70. 4 Smith, Dict. Bzogr., s. v. 5 Strab., xii., p. 546; Anon., De Cornm., p. xxx., seq. 6 Athen., xi., p. 487, A; xiii., p. 599, D. 7 Plant., Cas. Prolog., 31.

Page  227 ATTIC PERIOD. 227 Commorientes, and was partly followed by Terence in his Adelphi.' The Rudens of Plautus is also a translation of a play,2 but the title of the Greek piece is not known. The fragments of Diphilus are given by Meineke, Fragm. Comic. Greec., vol. ii., p. 1066, seqq., ed. min. V. PosIDIPrrus (rITo-E[ilros) was a native of Cassandrea, in Macedonia, and one of the six principal poets of the new comedy.3 He began to exhibit dramas in the third year after the death of Menander, that is, in B.C. 289, so that his time falls just at the era in Greek literary history which is marked by the accession of Ptolemy Philadelphus.4 Of the events in the poet's life nothing is known; but his portrait is preserved to us in the beautiful sitting statue in the Vatican, which, with the accompanying statue of Menander, is esteemed by Winckelmann and others as among the finest works of Greek sculpture that have come down to us.5 According to Suidas, he wrote forty plays, of which eighteen titles are preserved. In his language Meineke has detected some new words, and old words in new senses, totally unknown to the best Attic writers. Gellius mentions him among the Greek comedians who were imitated by the Latin poets. It seems from the titles that some of his plays were of a licentious character. The fragments are given by Meineke, Fragm. Grac., vol. ii., p. 1141, seqq., ed.?min. VI. APOLLODnRus ('AsroAAoecepos), a native of Carystus, in Euboea, was the' last in the canon of the six principal poets of the new comedy. It was from him that Terence took his Hecyra and Phormio. According to Suidas, Apollodorus wrote forty-seven comedies, and gained the prize five times. We know the titles and possess fragments of several of his plays. The fragments are given by Meineke, Fragm. Comic. Grec., vol. ii., p. 1101, seqq., ed. min.7 CHAPTER XXXI. FOURTH OR ATTIC PERIOD-continued. OTHER POETS OF THIS PERIOD.8 I. THE drama was so well adapted to reflect the thoughts and feelings of the people of Attica in the mirror of poetry, that other sorts of metrical composition fell comparatively into the background, and for the public in general assumed the character rather of isolated and momentary gratifications than of a poetic expression of prevailing sentiments and principles. II. Still, however, some nrames occur well deserving of mention, especially in the two departments of Elegiac and Epic verse, and to a brief consideration of these we will devote the present chapter, before proceeding to the more enlarged field of prose composition. 1 Terent., Prol. Adelph., 10. 2 Plaut., Rud. Prol., 32. 3 Anon., De Corn., p. xxx. 4 Clinton, Fast. Hell., s. a. 5 Visconti, Mus. Pio-Clem., vol. iii., p. 16, seqq.; Winckelmann, Vorlif.Abhand., c. iv., 0126. 6 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 7 Id. i., s s lTiiller-, Hist. fr. Lit, vol. ii., p 56,.seq.

Page  228 228 GREEK LITERATURE. I. ELEGIAC POETRY. III. The Elegy still continued a favorite poetical amusement while Attic literature flourished; it remained true to one of its particular designations, to enliven the banquet and to shed the gentle light of a higher poetic feeling over the convivialities of the feast. Consequently, the fragments of elegies belonging to this period, by ION of Chios, DIONYSIUS of Athens, EUENUS, the sophist, of Paros, and CRITIAS of Athens, all speak much of wine, of the proper mode of drinking, of dancing and singing at banquets, of the cottabus-game, which young people were then so fond of, and of other things of the same kind, and they took as their subject the joys of the banquet, and the right measure to be observed at it.' IV. This elegiac poetry proceeds on the principle that we should enjoy ourselves in society, combining the pleasures of the senses with intellectual gratifications, and not forgetting our higher calling in the midst of such enjoyments. As, however, the thoughts easily passed from the festal board to the general social and political interests of the times, the elegy had political features also, and statesmen often expressed in this form their opinions on the course to be adopted for Greece in general, and for the different republics in particular. This must have been the case with the elegies of DiONYSIUS, who was a considerable statesman of the time of Pericles, and led the Athenians who settled at Thurii in the great Hellenic migration to that place. V. The political tendency appeared still more clearly in the elegies of CRITIAS, the son of Calleeschrus, in which he said bluntly that he had recommended in the public assembly that Alcibiades should be recalled, and had drawn up the decree. The predilection for Lacedaemon, which Critias had imbibed as one of the Eupatridae, and as a friend of Socrates, declares itself in his commendations of the old customs which the Spartans kept up at their banquets.2 VI. From this elegiac poetry, however, which was cultivated in the circle of Attic training, we must carefully distinguish the elegies of ANTIMACHUS,3 which we may term a revival of the love-sorrows of Mimnermus. Antimachus was a native of Claros. He is usually, however, called a Colophonian, probably only because Claros belonged to the dominion of Colophon. He flourished during the latter period of the Peloponnesian war.4 Antimachus was in general a reviver of ancient poetry; one who, keeping aloof from the stream of the new-fashioned literature, applied himself exclusively to his own studies, and on that very account found little sympathy among the people of his own time, as, indeed, appears from the well-known story that, when he was reciting his Thebais, all his audience left the room, with the single exception of Plato, then a young man.5 This want of sympathy, however, in the case of the Thebais at least, must have been greatly increased by the voluminous nature of his poem, since we are told that he had spun out his work so much, that in the twenty-fourth book his seven heroes had not yet arrived at I Miller, 1. c. 2 Id. ib. 3 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. I Diod. Sic., xiii., 108. 5 Miller, 1. c.

Page  229 ATTIC PERIOD. 229 Thebes.' According to Quintilian, Antimachus was unsuccessful in his description of passion, his works were not graceful, and were deficient in arrangement.2 His style also had not the simple and easy flow of the Homeric poems. He borrowed expressions and phrases from the tragic writers, and frequently introduced Doric forms.3 But the work which brings him under the present head was his elegiac poem called Lyde, which was dedicated to the remembrance of a Lydian maid of that name, whom Antimachus had loved and early lost. This elegy was very celebrated in antiquity. It was very long, and consisted of accounts of the misfortunes of all the mythical heroes, who, like the poet, had become unfortunate through the early deaths of those whom they loved.4 It thus contained vast stores of mythical and antiquarian information, and it was chiefly for this, and not for any higher and poetical reason, that Agatharchides made an abridgment of it.5 From what has here been stated concerning him, it will be seen that Antimachus was one of the forerunners of the poets of the Alexandrine school, who wrote more for the learned, and a select number of readers, than for the public at large. The Alexandrine grammarians assigned to him the second place among the epic poets, and the Emperor Hadrian preferred his works even to those of Homer. The numerous fragments of this poet have been collected and published by Schellenberg, Halle, 1786, re-edited with Blomfield's corrections by Giles, London, 1838. Some additional fragments are contained in Stoll's Animadversiones in Antimachi Fragm., G6tting., 1840. The epic fragments, or those belonging to the Thebais, are collected in Duntzer's "Die Fragiz. der Episch. Poes. der Griech. his auf Alexander," p. 99, seqq.; and by Diibner in the Poetce Epici Minores, in Didot's Bibliotheca Orceca, Paris, 1840. II. EPIC POETRY. VII. The mention of Antimachus and his Thebais has in some degree anticipated the present head, and no further notice of that work need here be taken. The only other epic poets deserving of mention are Panyasis and Chorilus. VIII. PANYisIs (Ilavbca'is) was a native of Halicarnassus,6 and probably the maternal uncle of Herodotus. He began to be known about B.C. 489, continued in reputation till B.C. 467, in which year he is placed by Suidas, and was put to death by Lygdamis, tyrant of Halicarnassus, probably about the same time that Herodotus left his native city, that is, about B.C. 457.7 Ancient writers mention two poems by Panyasis. Of these the most celebrated was entitled Heracleia ('HpdcIelXa) or Heracleias ('Hpackecids), and gave a detailed account of the exploits of Hercules. It consisted of fourteen books and nine thousand verses, and appears, as far as we can judge from the references to it in ancient writers, to have 1 Porph. ad Horat., Ep. ad Pis., 146. 2 Quint., x., 1, 53. Compare Dion. Hal., De Verb. Comp., 22. s Schol. ad Nicand., Theriac., 3. 4 Plut., Consol. ad Apolloan., p. 106, B. 5 Phot., Bibl., p. 171, ed. Bekker. 6 Pausan., x., 8, 5; Clem. Alex., Strom., vi., 2, 52. 7 Clinton, Flast. Hell., sub amnis 489, 457.

Page  230 230 GREEK LITERATURE. passed over briefly the adventures of the hero which had been related by previous poets, and to have dwelt chiefly upon his exploits in Asia, Libya, &c. An outline of the contents of the various books, as far as they can be restored, is given by Muiller, in an appendix to his work on the Dorians.' The other poem of Panyasis bore the name of lonica ('IwvCKd), and contained seven thousand verses. It gave the history of Neleus, Codrus, and the Ionic colonies. Suidas says it was written in pentameters; but it is improbable that, at so early a period, a poem of such a length was written simply in pentameters; still, as no fragments have come down to us, we have no certain information on the subject. We do not know what impression the poems of Panyasis made upon his contemporaries and their immediate descendants, but it was probably not great, since he is not mentioned by any of the great Greek writers. But in later times his works were extensively read, and much admired. The Alexandrine grammarians ranked him with Homer, Hesiod, Pisander, and Antimachus, as one of the five principal epic poets, and some even went so far as to compare him with Homer.2 Panyasis occupied an intermediate position between the later cyclic poets and the studied efforts of Antimachus, who is stated to have been his pupil. From two of the longest fragments which have come down to us, it appears that Panyasis kept close to the old Ionic form of epic poetry, and had imbibed no small portion of the Homeric spirit. The fragments of the Heraclea are given in the collections of the Greek poets by WVinterton, Brunck, Boissonade, and Gaisford; in Diintzer's Fragments of Greek epic poetry; in Tzschirner's De Panyasidis Vita et Carminibus Dissertatio, Vratisl., 1836; and in Funcke's De Panyasidis Vita ac Poesi Dissertatio, Bonn, 1837. IX. CHOcRILUS (Xo0piXos) or CHCERILLUS (XoiplXXos),4 a native of Samos, was born about B.C. 470, and died at the court of Archelaus, king of Macedonia, consequently not later than B.C. 399, which was the last year of Archelaus. Suidas says that Chcerilus was a slave at Samos, and was distinguished for his beauty; that he ran away, and resided with Herodotus, from whom he acquired a taste for literature; and that he turned his attention subsequently to poetry. Athenneus states that Chcerilus received from Archelaus, after having taken up his residence at his court, four mince a day,5 and spent it all upon good living (4o(pc-yaiav). Chcerilus was the author of an epic poem on the wars of the Greeks with Darius and Xerxes. The exact title of the work, however, is not known. It may have been Ileporlccd. It is remarkable as the earliest attempt to celebrate in epic verse events which were nearly contemporary with the poet's life. Of its character we may form some conjecture from the connection between the poet and Herodotus. There are also fragments preserved by Aristotle from the Procemium;6 by Ephorus, from the description of Darius's bridge of boats, in which the Scythians are mentioned;7 by Josephus, from the catalogue of the nations in the army of Xerxes, 1 vol. i., p. 532, Eng. transl. 2 Compare Suid., s. v.; Dionys., De Vet. Script. Cens., c. 2, p. 419, ed. Reiske. 3 Smith, Diet. Biogr., s. v. 4 Id. ib. 5 Athen., viii., p. 345, E. 6 Aristot., Rhet., iii., 14. 7 Strab., xii.., p. 303.

Page  231 ATTIC PERIOD. 231 among whom were the Jews;' and other fragments, the place of which is uncertain. The chief action of the poem appears to have been the battle of Salamis. The high estimation in which Chcerilus was held is proved by his reception into the epic canon; from which, however, he was again expelled by the Alexandrine grammarians, and Antimachus was put in his place, on account of a statement which was made on the authority of Heraclides Ponticus, that Plato very much preferred Antimachus to Chcerilus.2 The great inferiority of Chcerilus to Homer in his similes is noticed by Aristotle. Chcerilus must not be confounded with the worthless poet of the same name, a native of Iasos, and one of the train of Alexander the Great, of whom Horace makes mention. The fragments of Choerilus are given by Ndke, " Cherili Samii Fragmenta," Lips., 1817. CHAPTER XXXII. FOURTH OR ATTIC PERIOD-continued. PROSE WRITINGS.3 I. WE have seen both tragedy and comedy, in their latter days, gradually sinking into prose; and this has shown us that prose was the most powerful instrument in the literature of the time, and has made us the more curious to investigate its tendency, its progress, and its development. II. The cultivation of prose belongs almost entirely to the period which intervened between the Persian war and the time of Alexander the Great. Before this time every attempt at prose composition was either so little removed from the colloquial style of the day, as to forfeit all claim to be considered as a written language, properly so called; or else owed all its charms and splendor to an imitation of the diction and the forms of words found in poetry, which attained to completeness and maturity many hundred years before the rise of a prose literature. III. In considering the history of Attic prose, we propose to give a view of the general character of the works of the prose writers, and their relation to the circumstances and intellectual energy of the Athenian people. And, in order to effect this in the clearest and most satisfactory manner, we will divide the remainder of the present period into three great branches, namely, the SCHOOL OF HISTORY, the SCHOOL OF ELOQUENCE, and the SCHOOL OF PHILOSOPHY, giving an account of the most prominent individuals connected with each. I. SCHOOL OF HISTORY. IV. THUCYDIDES (EoVKVc[vaS),4 the great Athenian historian, was the son of Olorus5 or Orolus6 and Hegesipyle. According to a statement of Pamphila, a female historian in the time of Nero, and who is cited by Gellius, 1 Joseph. c. Apion., i., 22; vol. ii., p. 454, ed. Hav. 2 Proclus, Comm. in Plat. Tim., p. 28. 3 Miuller, Hist. Gr. Lit., vol. ii., p. 66. 4 Smith Dict. Biogr., s. v. 5 Thiucyd., iv., 104. 6 Marcell., Vit. Thuecyd.

Page  232 232 GREEK LITERATURE. he was forty years of age at the commencement of the Peloponnesian war, or B.C. 431, and, accordingly, he was born B.C. 471. Krfiger attempts to show, indeed, on the authority of Marcellin~us, that Thucydides was only about twenty-five years of age at the commencement of the war; but he relies too much on his own interpretation of certain words of Thucydides, which are by no means free from ambiguity (aOcavPytueos T 7r Xcia).' He is said to have been connected with the family of Cimon, and we know that Miltiades, the conqueror at Marathon, married Hegesipyle, the daughter of a Thracian king named Olorus,2 by whom she became the-mother of Cimon; whence it has been conjectured, with much probability, that the mother of Thucydides was a grand-daughter of Miltiades and Hegesipyle. There is a story in Lucian3 of Herodotus having read his history at the Olympic games to the assembled Greeks; and Suidas adds, that Thucydides, then a boy, was present, and shed tears of emulation; a presage of his own future historical distinction. This story, of which we have already made mention in the account given by us of Herodotus, has been discussed most completely by Dahlmann,4 as we there remarked, and been rejected as a mere fable. Thucydides is said to have been instructed in oratory by Antiphon, and in philosophy by Anaxagoras, but whether these statements are to be received can not be determined. It is certain, however, that, being an Athenian of a good family, and living in a city which was the centre of Greek civilization, he must have had the best possible education. That he was a man of great ability and of cultivated understanding, his work itself clearly shows. He informs us that he possessed gold mines in that part of Thrace which is opposite to the island of Thasos, and that he was a person of the greatest influence among those in that quarter.5 This property, according to some accounts, he had from his ancestors; according to other accounts, he married a rich woman of Scaptesyle, and received these mines as a portion with her. Suidas says that Thucydides left a son, called Timotheus; and a daughter also is mentioned, who is said to have written the eighth book of the history. Thucydides was one of those who suffered from the great plague of Athens, and one of the few who recovered.6 We have no trustworthy evidence of Thucydides having distinguished himself as an orator, though it is not unlikely that he did, for his oratorical talent is shown by the speeches which he has inserted in his history. He was, however, employed in a military capacity, and was in command of an Athenian squadron of seven ships at Thasos, B.C. 424, when Eucles, who commanded in Amphipolis, sent for his assistance against Brasidas, who was before that town with an army. Brasidas, fearing the arrival of a superior force, offered favorable terms to Amphipolis, which were readily accepted, for there were few Athenians in the place, and the rest did not wish to make resistance. Thucydides arrived at Eion, at the mouth of the Strymon, on the evening of the same day on which Amphipolis sur1 Thucyd., v., 26; Poppo, ad loc. 2 Herod., vi., 39. 3 Lucian, Herod. s. Act., i., seqq. 4 Life of Herodotus, p. 8, seqq., Eng. transl. 5 77Thucyd., iv., 105. 6 Id., ii., 48.

Page  233 ATTIC PERIOD, 233 rendered; and though he was too late to save Amphipolis, he prevented Eion from falling into the hands of the enemy.1 In consequence of this failure, Thucydides became an exile, probably to avoid a severer punishment, that of death, for such appears to have been the penalty of a failure like his, though he may have done the best that he could. According to Marcellinus, Cleon, who was at that time in great favor with the Athenians, excited popular suspicion against the unfortunate commander. Thucydides simply says that he lived in exile twenty years after the affair of Amphipolis,2 but he does not say whether it was a voluntary exile or a punishment. There are various untrustworthy accounts as to his places of residence during his exile; but we may conclude that he could not safely reside in any place which was under Athenian dominion, and, as he kept his eye on the events of the war, he must have lived in those parts which belonged to the Spartan alliance. His own words certainly imply that, during his exile, he spent much of his time either in the Peloponnesus or in places which were under Peloponnesian influence;3 and his work was the result of his own experience and observations. His minute description of Syracuse and the neighborhood leads to the probable conclusion that he was personally acquainted with tile localities; and, if he visited Sicily, it is probable that he also saw some parts of Southern Italy; indeed, an anonymous biographer speaks of his having been at Sybaris. But it is rather too bold a conjecture to make, as some have done, that Olorus and his son Thucydides went out in the colony to Thurii, B.C. 443, which was joined by Herodotus, and the orator Lysias, then a young man. Thucydides says that he lived in exile twenty years;4 and as his exile commenced in the beginning of B.C. 423, he may have returned to Athens in the beginning of B.C. 403, about the time when Thrasybulus liberated Athens. Thucydides is said to have been assassinated at Athens soon after his return; but other accounts place his death in Thrace. There is a general agreement, however, among the ancient authorities that he came to a violent end. His death can not be placed later than B.C. 401. The time when he composed his work has been a matter of dispute. He himself informs us that he was busy in collecting materials all through the war, from the beginning to the end,5 and, of course, he would register them as he got them. Plutarch says that he wrote the work in Thrace; and his words mean the whole work, as he does not qualify them; but the work, in the shape in which we have it, was certainly not finished until after the close of the war; and he was probably engaged upon it at the time of his death. A question has also arisen as to the authorship of the eighth and last book of Thucydides, which breaks off in the twenty-first year of the war, B.C. 411. It differs from all the other books in containing no speeches, and it has also been supposed to be inferior to the rest as a piece of composition. Accordingly, several ancient critics supposed that the eighth book was not by Thucydides; some attributed it to his daughter, and some to Xenophon or Theopompus, because both of them continued the history. 1 thucyd., iv.. 102 seqq. 2 Id., v., 26 3 Id. ib. Id. ib. 5 Id., i, 2.

Page  234 284 GREEK LITERATURE. The words with which Xenophon's Hellenica commence (uE'T Be Travra) may chiefly have led to the supposition that he was the author, for his work is made to appear as a continuation of that of Thucydides; but this argument is in itself of little weight; and, besides, both the style of the eighth book is different from that of Xenophon, and the manner of treating the subject, for the division of the year into summers and winters, which Thucydides has observed in his first seven books, is continued in the eighth, but is not observed by Xenophon. The rhetorical style of Theopompus also, which was the characteristic of his writing, renders it improbable that he was the author of the eighth book. It seems the simplest supposition to consider Thucydides himself as the author of this book, since he names himself as the author twice (viii., 6, 60); but it is probable that he had not the opportunity of revising it with the same care as the first seven books. It is stated by an ancient writer that Xenophon made the work of Thucydides known, which may be true, as he wrote the first two books of his Hellenica, or the part which now ends with the second book, for the purpose of completing the history. The work of Thucydides, from the commencement of the second book, is chronologically divided into winters and summers, and each summer and winter make a year.' His summer comprises the time from the vernal to the autumnal equinox, and the winter comprises the period from the autumnal to the vernal equinox. The division into books and chapters was probably made by the Alexandrine critics. There is nothing in the work itself which gives the least intimation that the division into books was part of the author's design; and, in fact, this same division into books is made in a very arbitrary and clumsy way. For instance, the seventh book ought to end with the sixth chapter of the eighth book; and the seventh chapter of the eighth book ought to be the first. There was a division of the work also into nine books,2 and a still later division into thirteen books. The title of the work, as well as the division into books, is probably che act of the critics or grammarians. The titles vary in the MSS., but the simple one of SvyTycTpaip is that which is most appropriate to the author's own expression, eovtcvai&rls'AOwra7os uvvEypa4e rbv IrdXAEoM,, fr. T. A.3 The history of the Peloponnesian war opens the second book of Thucydides, and the first is introductory to the history. He begins his first book by observing that the Peloponnesian war was the most important event in Grecian history, which he shows by a rapid review of the history of the Greeks, from the earliest periods to the commencement of the war (i., 1-21). After his introductory chapters, he proceeds to explain the alleged grounds and causes of the war. The real cause was, he says, the Spartan jealousy of the Athenian power. His narrative is interrupted (c. 89-118), after he has come to the time when the Lacedwmonians resolved on war, by a digression on the rise and progress of the power of Athens; a period which had been either omitted by other writers, or treated imperfectly, and with little regard to chronology, as by Hellanicus in his Attic history (c. 97). He resumes his narrative (c. 119) with the negotiations which preceded the war; but this leads to another l Thucyd., ii.,,1 2 Diod. Sic., xii., 37. 3 7'1.1Clyd., i., 1

Page  235 ATTIC PERIOD. 235 digression of some length on the treason of Pausanias (c. 128-134) and the exile of Themistocles (c. 135-138). He concludes the book with the speech of Pericles, who advised the Athenians to refuse the demands of the Peloponnesians; and his subject, as already observed, begins with the second book. A history, intended by its author as "an eternal possession," which treats of so many events that took place at remote spots, could only be written, in the time of Thucydides, by a man who took great pains to ascertain facts by personal inquiry. In modern times, facts are made known by printing as soon as they occur; and the printed records of the day, newspapers and the like, are often the only evidence of many facts which become history. When we know the careless way in which facts are now reported and recorded by very incompetent persons, often upon very indifferent and hearsay testimony, and compare with such records the pains that Thucydides took to ascertain the chief events of a war with which he was contemporary, in which he took a share as a commander, the opportunities which his means allowed, his great abilities, and serious earnest character, it is a fair conclusion that we have a more exact history of a long, eventful period by Thucydides than we have of any period in modern history, equally long and equally eventful. His whole work shows the most scrupulous care and diligence in ascertaining facts, while his strict attention to chronology, and the importance that he attaches to it, are additional proofs of his historical accuracy. His narrative is brief and concise: it generally contains bare facts expressed in the fewest possible words; and when we consider what pains it must have cost him to ascertain these facts, we admire the self-denial of a writer who is satisfied with giving facts in their naked brevity, without ornament, without any parade of his personal importance, and of the trouble that his matter cost him. A single chapter must sometimes have represented the labor of many days and weeks. Such a principle of historical composition is the evidence of a great and elevated mind. The history of Thucydides only makes an octavo volume of moderate size; many a modern writer would have spun it out to a dozen volumes, and so have spoiled it. A work that is for all ages must contain much in little compass.1 Thucydides seldom makes reflections in the course of his narrative. Occasionally he has a chapter of political and moral observations, animated by the keenest perceptions of the motives of action and the moral character of man. Many of his speeches are political essays, or materials for them: they are not mere imaginations of his own for rhetorical effect; they contain the general sense of what was actually delivered as nearly as he could ascertain, and in many instances he had good opportunities of knowing what was said, for he heard some speeches delivered.2 His opportunities, his talents, his character, and his subject all combined to produce a work that stands alone, and in its kind has neither equal nor rival. His pictures are sometimes striking and tragic, an effect produced by severe simplicity and minute particularity. Such is the de1 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 2 Thucyd., i., 22.

Page  236 236 GREEK LITERATURE. scription of the plague of Athens. Such also is the incomparable history of the Athenian expedition to Sicily, and its melancholy termination. A man who thinks profoundly will have a form of expression which is stamped with the character of his mind; and the style of Thucydides is accordingly concise, vigorous, and energetic. We feel that all the words were intended to have a meaning: none of them are idle. Yet he is sometimes harsh and obscure; and probably he was so even to his own countrymen. Some of his sentences are very involved, and the connection and dependence of the parts are often difficult to seize. Cicero, undoubtedly a good Greek scholar, found him difficult:1 he says that the speeches contain so many obscure and impenetrable sentences as to be scarcely intelligible and this, he adds, is a very great defect in the language of political life (in oratione civili). TEXT AND EDITIONS OF THUCYDIDES. The first thing that is requisite in reading Thucydides is to have a good text, established on a collation of the MSS., and this we owe to Bekker. Those who were accustomed to read Thucydides in such a text as Duker's can estimate their obligations to Bekker. For the understanding of the text, a sound knowledge of the language, and the assistance of the best critics are necessary, and perhaps nearly all has been done in this department that can be done. But, after all, a careful and repeated study of the original is necessary in order to understand it. For the illustration of the text a great mass of geographical and historical knowledge- is requisite; and here also the critics have not been idle. To derive all the advantage, however, from the work that may be derived for political instruction, we must study it; and here the critics give little help, for Politik is a thing they seldom meddle with, and not often with success. Here, then, a man must be his own commentator; but a great deal might be done by a competent hand in illustrating Thucydides as a political writer.2 The Greek text was first published by Aldus, Venice, 1502, fol., and the scholia were published in the following year. The first Latin translation, which was by Valla, was printed before 1500, and reprinted at Paris, 1513, fol., and frequently after that date. The first edition of the Greek text accompanied by a Latin version was that of H. Stephens, 1564, fol., the Latin version being that of Valla, revised by Stephens. This well-printed edition contains the scholia, the life of Thucydides by Marcellinus, and an anonymous life of the historian. The edition of Bekker, Berlin, 1821, 3 vols. 8vo (reprinted Oxford, 3 vols. 8vo, 1824), forms an epoch in the editions of Thucydides, and, as regards the text, renders it unnecessary to consult any which are of prior date. Among the best editions since the appearance of Bekker's we may mention that of Poppo, Leipzig, 10 vols. 8vo, 1821-38, of which two volumes are filled with Prolegomena; of Haack, with selections from the scholia, and short notes, Leipz., 1820, 2 vols. 8vo, reprinted Lond., 1823, 2 vols. 8vo; of Goller, Leipz., 1826, 2 vols. 8vo; 2d edit., 1836, 2 vols. 8vo; the first edition of which was reprinted at London, 1835, in 1 vol. 8vo; of Arnold, Oxford, 183035, 3 vols. 8vo; 2d edit., Oxford, 1840-42, 3 vols.; 3d edit., with copious indexes, Oxford, 1847, 3 vols.; of Bloomfield, Lond., 1830, 3 vois. small 8vo (school edition), enlarged and reprinted, Lond., 1842, 2 vols. 8vo; of Hase, in Didot's Bibliotheca, Paris, 1839; of Kriiger, with grammatical and brief explanatory notes, for schools, Berlin, 1846, 2 vols. 8vo; and of Poppo (school edition), with brief notes, Erfurt and Gotha, 1843-48, still incomplete. To these may be added the edition of Gail, containing the Greek text, the scholia, the variations of thirteen manuscripts of the Bibliothkque du Roi, a Latin version corrected, and a French version, with notes, historical and philological, Paris, 1807-8, 12 vols. 8vo. Among the subsidiary works for the study of Thucydides may be mentioned " Untersuchungen iiber das Leben des Thucydides," Berlin, 1832, by Kriger, and Dodwell's " Annales Thucydides et Xenophontei," Oxford, 1702, 4to. Ct ic., Orator, c. 9. 2 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v.

Page  237 ATTIC PERIOD. 237 V. XENOPHON (E'opoGzv),' the Athenian, was the son of Gryllus, and a native of the demus of Ercheia. The only extant biography of him is by Diogenes Laertius, which, as usual, is carelessly written; but this biography and the scattered notices of ancient writers, combined with what may be collected from Xenophon's own works, are the only materials for his life. There is no direct authority either for the time of Xenophon's birth or death, but these dates may be approximated to with reasonable probability. Laertius and Strabo2 state that Socrates saved Xenophon's life at the battle of Delium, B.C. 424, a fact which there seems no reason for rejecting, and from which it may be inferred that Xenophon was born about B.C. 444. In his Hellenica, he mentions the assassination of Alexander of Pherae,3 which took place B.C. 357,4 and Xenophon, of course, was alive in that year. This agrees well enough with Lucian's statement,5 that Xenophon attained the age of above ninety. There has been much discussion, also, as to the age of Xenophon at the time of his joining the expedition of the younger Cyrus, B.C. 401; and the dispute turns on the point whether he was then a young man, between twenty and thirty, or a man of forty and upward. Those who make him a young man must reject the evidence as to the battle of Delium; but they rely on an expression in the Anabasis,6 where he is called Yeavfl'cos. In this passage, however, the best MSS. read " Theopompus" in place of " Xenophon;" and it may also be remarked that the term veavzo'Los was not confined to young men, but was sometimes applied to men of forty at least. Moreover, Xenophon seemed to Seuthes7 old enough to have a marriageable daughter. The most probable conclusion, then, seems to be, that Xenophon was not under forty at the time when he joined the army of Cyrus. Xenophon is said to have been a pupil of Socrates at an early age, which is consistent with the intimacy which might have arisen from Socrates saving his life. Philostratus states that he also received instruction from Prodicus of Ceos, during the time that he was a prisoner in Boeotia, but nothing is known of this captivity of Xenophon from any other authority. Photius8 states that he was also a pupil of Isocrates, which may be true, though Isocrates was younger than Xenophon, having been born in B.C. 436. Another question connected with the life of Xenophon is that which has reference to the statement of Diogenes Laertius, namely, that Xenophon made known the books of Thucydides, which were then unknown. This point, however, has been al eady considered in the sketch we have just given of the life of Thucydide In B.C. 401 Xenophon went to Sardes, to Cyrus the younger, the brother of Artaxerxes Mnemon, king of Persia. He tells us himself, in the Anabasis,9 the circumstances under which he went. Proxenus, Xenophon's friend, was then with Cyrus, and he invited Xenophon to come, and promised to introduce him to Cyrus. Xenophon took the advice of Socrates, who, fearing that Xenophon might incur the displeasure of the 1 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 2 Strab., p. 403. 3 Hellen., vi., 4, 35. 4 Diod. Sic., xvi., 14. 5 Macrob., 21. 6 ii. 1,12. 7 Anab., vii., 2, 8. 8 Biblioth. Cod., cclx. 9 iii., 1.

Page  238 238 GREEK LITERATURE. Athenians if he attached himself to Cyrus, inasmuch as Cyrus was supposed to have given the Lacedaemonians aid in their recent wars against Athens, advised Xenophon to consult the oracle of Delphi. Xenophon went to Delphi, and asked Apollo to what gods he should sacrifice and make his vows in order to secure success in the enterprise which he meditated. The god gave him his answer, but Socrates blamed him for not asking whether he should undertake the voyage or not. However, as he had obtained an answer from the god, Socrates advised him to go, and accordingly Xenophon set out for Sardes, where he found Cyrus and Proxenus just ready to leave the city on an expedition. This story is characteristic both of Socrates and Xenophon. It was given out by Cyrus that his expedition was against the Pisidians, and all the Greeks in the army were deceived, except Clearchus, who was alone in the secret. The real object of Cyrus was to dethrone his brother, and, after advancing a short distance, this became apparent enough to his Grecian followers, who, however, with the exception of a few, determined to accompany him. After a long march through Asia Minor, Syria, and the sandy tract east of the Euphrates, Cyrus met the vast army of the Persians in the plain of Cunaxa, about forty miles from Babylon. In the affray that ensued, for it was not a battle, Cyrus lost his life, his barbarian troops were dispersed, and the Greeks were left alone on the wide plains between the Tigris and Euphrates. It was after the treacherous massacre of Clearchus, and other of the Greek commanders, by the Persian satrap Tissaphernes, that Xenophon came forward. He had held no command in the army of Cyrus, nor had he, in fact, served as a soldier. He introduces himself to our notice, at the beginning of the third book of the "Anabasis," in that simple manner which characterizes the best writers of antiquity. From this time, Xenophon became one of the most active leaders, and under his judicious guidance the Greeks effected their retreat northward, across the high lands of Armenia, and arrived at Trapezus (Trebisond), a Greek colony, on the southeastern coast of the Euxine. From Trapezus the troops were conducted to Chrysopolis, which is opposite to Byzantium. The Greeks were in great distress, and some of them under Xenophon entered the service of Seuthes, king of Thrace, who wanted their aid, and promised to pay for it. The Greeks performed what they had agreed to do, but Seuthes was unwilling to pay, and it was with great difficulty that Xenophon got from him part of what he had promised. The description which Xenophon gives of the manners of the Thracians is very curious and amusing.' As the Lacedaemonians under Thimbron were now at war with Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus, Xenophon and his troops were invited to join the army of Thimbron, which was done. Before, however, they joined Thimbron, Xenophon, who was very poor, led them on an expedition into the plain of the Caicus, to plunder the house and property of a Persian named Asidates. The Persian, with his women, children, and all his movables, was seized; and Xenophon, by this robbery, replenished his empty pockets.32 He tells the story himself, as if he were not ashamed of it. Anab., vi., 3, seqq. 2 lb., vii., 8, 23.

Page  239 'ATT'IC PERIOD. 239 It is uncertain what Xenophon did after giving up the troops to Thimbron. He remarks, just before he speaks of leading the troops back into Asia, that he had not yet been banished; but as it is stated by various authorities that he was banished by the Athenians because he joined the expedition of Cyrus against the Persian king, who was then on friendly terms with Athens, it is most probable that sentence of banishment followed soon after. It is not certain what he did after the troops joined Thimbron. The assumption of Letronne that he went to Athens is unsupported by evidence. Agesilaus, the Spartan king, was sent with an army into Asia, B.C. 396, and Xenophon was with him during the whole, or a part at least, of this Asiatic expedition. Agesilaus was recalled to Greece B.C. 394, and Xenophon accompanied him on his return,1 and he was with Agesilaus in the battle against his own countrymen at Coronea.2 According to Plutarch, he accompanied Agesilaus to Sparta, after this last mentioned battle, and shortly after settled himself at Scillus,3 in Elis, near Olympia, on a spot which the Laced-emoniais gave him, and here, it is said, he was joined by his wife and children. This was his second wife, named Philesia, and he had probably married her in Asia. On the advice of Agesilaus,' he sent his sons to Sparta to be educated. Thus Xenophon had become an exile from his country for an act of treason, or what was equivalent to treason: he had received a present of land from the Lacedaemonians, the enemies of the Athenians; and he was educating his children in Spartan usages. From this time Xenophon took no part in public affairs. His time, during his long residence at Scillus, was employed in hunting, entertaining his friends, and in writing some of his later works. Diogenes Laertius states that he wrote here his histories, by which he must mean the "Anabasis" and the "Hellenica," and probably the "Cyropedia." Here also lie probably wrote the treatise on "Hunting," and that on "Horsemanship." The history of the remainder of his life is somewhat doubtful. Diogenes says that the Eleans sent a force against Scillus, and, as the Lacedaemonians did not come to the aid of Xenophon, they seized the place. Xenophon's sons, with some slaves, made their escape to Lepreum, a town of Elis, near the confines of Arcadia and Messenia. Xenophon himself first went to Elis, the capital, for what purpose it is not said, and then to Lepreum to meet his children. At last he withdrew to Corinth, and probably died there. The time of his expulsion from Scillus is uncertain. Kriger conjectures that the Eleans took Scillus not earlier than B.C. 371, in which year the Lacedwmonians were defeated at Leuctra. Letronne, however, fixes the date at B.C. 368, and considers it very probable that the Eleans invaded Scillus at the time when the Lacedamonians were most engaged with the Theban war, which would be during the invasion of Laconia by Epaminondas. Xenophon must have lived above twenty years at Scillus, if the date of his expulsion from that place is not before the year B.C. 371.5 Anab., v., 3, 6. 2 Plut., Ages., 18. Anab., v., 3, 7. 4 Pinlt., Ages., 20. 5 mith, 1. c.

Page  240 240( GREEK LITERATURE. The sentence of banishment against Xenophon was revoked by a decree proposed by Eubulus; but the date of this decree is uncertain. Before the battle of Mantinea, in B.C. 362, the Athenians had joined the Spartans against the Thebans. Upon this Xenophon sent his two sons, Gryllus and Diodorus, to Athens, to fight on the Spartan side against the Thebans. Gryllus fell in the battle of Mantinea, in which the Theban general Epaminondas also lost his life, and, according to one account, by the hand of Gryllus himself. No reason is assigned by any ancient writer for Xenophon's not returning to Athens; for, in the absence of direct evidence as to his return, we must conclude that he did not. Several of his works were written or completed after the revocation of his sentence: the " Hipparchicus," the Epilogus to the Cyropaedia, if we assume that his sentence was revoked before B.C. 362; and the treatise on the " Revenues of Athens." Stesiclides, quoted by Diogenes, places the death of Xenophon in B.C. 359; but there is much uncertainty on this head. Probably he died a few years after B.C. 359.1 The extant works of Xenophon may be divided into four classes: Historical, comprising the "Anabasis," the "Hellenica," the "Cyropaedia" (which, however, is not strictly historical), and the "Life of Agesilaus." Didactic, comprising the "Hipparchicus," the treatise on "Horsemanship," and that on "Hunting." Political, comprising the works on the "Republics of Sparta and of Athens," and the "Revenues of Athens." Philosophical, comprising the " Memorabilia of Socrates," the " CEconomicus," the " Symposium or Banquet," the " Hiero," and the "Apology of Socrates." There are also extant certain letters attributed to Xenophon, but, like many other ancient productions of the same class, they are not genuine. The works of Xenophon, as enumerated by Diogenes, agree exactly with those which are extant, and we may therefore conclude that we have at least as many works as Xenophon published, though all of them may not be genuine. It is true that Diogenes2 says that Xenophon wrote about forty books (,3l3Aia), but he adds that they were variously divided, from which expression, and the list that he gives, it is certain that by the word t3iSXiaa he intends to- reckon the several divisions or books, as we call them, of the Anabasis, Hellenica, Cyropaedia, and Memorabilia, as distinct BLh3Xia, and thus we have in the whole the number of thirty-eight, which is near enough to forty. We will now proceed to give a more particular account of the several works of Xenophon already mentioned, observing the same order that has just been given. HISTORICAL WORKS OF XENOPHON. 1. The Anabdsis ('AvdBarls), in seven books, is the work by which Xenophon is best known. It contains the history of the expedition of the younger Cyrus against his brother Artaxerxes Mnemon, and the retreat of the Greeks who formed part of his army. The first book comprises the march of Cyrus to the neighborhood of Babylon, and ends with his death at the battle of Cunaxa. The six remaining books contain the X Smith, 1. c. 2 Diog. Laert., ii., 6, 57.

Page  241 A' IC PER. 2- 41 account of the retreat of the " Ten Thousand," as the Greek army is often called. The work is written in an easy, agreeable style, and gives a great deal of curious information respecting the country traversed by the Greeks, and the manners of the people. It is full of interest also as being a minute detail by an eye-witness of the hazards and adventures of the army in their difficult march through an unknown and hostile country. The impression which it makes is favorable to the writer's veracity and his practical good sense; but as a history of military operations it is as much inferior to the only work of antiquity with which it can be compared, the " Commentaries of Caesar," as the writer himself falls short of the lofty genius of the great Roman commander. Indeed, those passages in the Anabasis which relate directly to the movements of the retreating army are not always clear, nor have we any evidence that Xenophon did possess any military talent for great operations, whatever skill he may have had as a commander of a division. 2. The Hellentca ('EXXvLKCa), or Greek history, divided into seven books, and comprehending the space of forty-eight years, from the time when the history of Thucydides ends to the battle of Mantinea, B.C. 362. As, however, the assassination of Alexander of Pherae, which took place B.C. 357, is mentioned in this work,' some have supposed that a portion of the Hellenica was written at a later period than the rest, and perhaps not published till after Xenophon's death, by his son Diodorus, or his grandson Gryllus. There is no need, however, of any such hypothesis, since the mention of the death of Alexander of Pherae would only prove that Xenophon had the work a long time under his hands. The " Hellenica" has little merit as a history. The author was altogether deficient in that power of reflection and of penetrating into the motives of action which characterize the great work of Thucydides. Itis, in general, adry narrative of events, and contains little to move or affect, with the exception of a few incidents which are given with more than the usual detail. The parts also are not treated in their due proportions, and many important events are passed over briefly. This, the only proper historical work of Xenophon, does not entitle him to the praise of being a good historical writer. It may be urged that the work was only a kind of Memoires pour servir, as some have supposed; hbut if it is to be taken as a continuation of Thucydides, it is a history, and as such it has been regarded both in ancient and modern times. 3. The Cyropadia (Kdpov 7rasLeia), in eight books, is a kind of political romance, in which the ethical element prevails; but, since it is based upon the history of Cyrus, the founder of the Persian monarchy, it is commonly ranked among the historical works of Xenophon. Its object is to show how citizens can be formed to be virtuous and brave, and to exhibit also a model of a wise and good governor. Xenophon chooses for his exemplar Cyrus, the founder of the Persian empire, and the Persians are his models of men who are brought up in a true discipline. The work has no authority whatever as a history, nor is it even authority for the usages of the Persians, some of which we know, from other writers, 1 vi., 4, 35. L

Page  242 24~2 GREEK LITERATURE. to have been different from what they are represented to be by Xenophon. The writer borrows his materials from the Grecian states, and especially from Lacedlemon, and the "Cyropsedia" is one of the many proofs of his aversion to the usages and the political constitution of his native city. The genuineness of the Epilogus, or conclusion of the work, has been doubted by some critics. Its object is to show that the Persians had greatly degenerated since the time of Cyrus. The "Cyropaedia" is one of the most labored of Xenophon's works, and contains his views on the training of youth, and of the character of a perfect prince. It is an agreeable exposition of principles under the form of a history, and, like Xenophon's other treatises, it contains more of plain, practical precepts, founded on observation and supported by good sense, than any profound views. The dying speech of Cyrus is worthy of a pupil of Socrates.4. The Agesildus ('Ay2o4Aaos) is a panegyric on Xenophon's friend, the Lacedeemonian king, and forms another proof of his Spartan predilections. Cicero2 says that he has in this panegyric surpassed all the statues that have been raised in honor of kings. Some modern critics, however, do not consider the extant work as deserving of high praise, to which it may be replied that it will be difficult to find a panegyric which is. It is a kind of composition in which failure can hardly be avoided. However true it may be, it is apt to be insipid, and to appear exaggerated. DIDACTIC WORKS OF XENOPHON. 1. The Hipparchicus ('IhrrapXLics) is a treatise on the duties of a commander of cavalry (hrrapXos), and contains nmany military precepts, especially for the choice of cavalry men. One would be inclined to suppose that it was written at Athens, but this conclusion, like many others from internal evidence, is not satisfactory. A strain of devotion runs through the treatise, called forth, as the writer himself states in the conclusion of the work, by a view of the many dangers with which the career of arms is beset. 2. The treatise on Horsemnanshzip ('I1rrac~) was written after the "Hipparchicus," to which reference is made at the end of the present work. The author says that he has had much experience as a horseman, and is therefore qualified to give instruction to others. He speaks at the beginning of a work on the subject by Simon, in whose opinions he coincides, and he professes to supply some of his omissions. This Simon was a writer on horses, to whom several ancient authors refer, and in such a way as to show that he was quite an authority in such matters. His exact date is not known, but he was not earlier than the painter Micon, who lived about B.C. 460, for he criticised the works of that artist. 3. The Cynegeticus (Kvv?17-EtLds) is a treatise on hunting, an amusement' of which Xenophon was very fond; and on the dog, and the breeding and training of dogs, on the various kinds of game, and the mode of taking them. It is a treatise written by a genuine sportsman, who loved the exercise and the excitement of the chase, and it may be read with delight by any sportsman who deserves the name. 1 Cyrop., viii., 7. Compare Cic., De Sen., 22. 2 Ep. ad Fam., v.. 12,

Page  243 ATTIC PERIOD. 243 4. Two treatises on the " Republics of Sparta and of Athens" (AaKcealtzovdcor IIoATeLa,'AOisaLwov rIoALTeta). These were not always recognized as genuine works of Xenophon even by the ancients. They pass, however, under his name, and there is nothing in the internal evidence that appears to throw any doubt upon the authorship. The writer clearly prefers the Spartan to the Athenian institutions. 5. A treatise on the "Revenues" of Athens (rIpo,, w crEpl nrposlawv). This has for its object to show how the revenues of Athens, and especially those derived from the mines, may be improved by better management, and made sufficient for the maintenance of the poor citizens, and for all other purposes, without requiring contributions from the allies and subject states. The matter of this treatise is discussed by Bclckh, in his work on the Public Economy of Athens. PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS OF XENOPHON. i. The Memorabilia of Socrates ('A7ro.Ay..ovEd.eLaTra:oZWKPaTovs), in four books, contains a defence of the memory of Socrates against the charge of irreligion, and of corrupting the Athenian youth.' Socrates is represented as holding a series of conversations, in which he develops and inculcates moral doctrines in his peculiar fashion. It is entirely a practical work, such as we might expect from the practical nature of Xehophon's mind, and it professes to exhibit Socrates as he taught. It is true that it may exhibit only one side of the Socratic argumentation, and that it does not deal in those subtleties and verbal disputes which occupy so large a space in some of Plato's dialogues. Xenophon was a hearer of Socrates, an admirer of his master, and anxious to defend his memory; and hence, as he certainly had no pretensions himself to originality as a thinker, we may assume that the matter of the " Memorabilia" is genuine, that the author has exhibited a portion of the moral and intellectual character of Socrates, such part as he was able to appreciate, or such as suited his taste, and that we have in this work as genuine a picture of Socrates as his pupil Xenophon could make. That it is a genuine exhibition of the man is indisputable, and it is the most valuable memorial that we have of the practical philosophy of Socrates. On the other hand, the " Memorabilia" will always be undervalued by the lovers of the transcendental, who give to an unintelligible jargon of words the name of philosophy. It comes too near the common understanding (communis sensus) of mankind to be valued by those who would raise themselves above this common understanding, and who have yet to learn that there is not a single notion of philosophy which is not expressed or involved by implication in the common language of life.2 2. The (Economicus (Oi:cO/.vol1s) is a dialogue between Socrates and Critobulus, in which Socrates begins by showing that there is an art called (Economic (O0KovouKc,), which relates to the administration of a household and of a man's property. Socrates, when speaking in praise of agriculture, quotes the instance of the younger Cyrus, who was fond of horticulture, and once showed to the Spartan Lysander the gar dens 1 Mere., i., 1. 2 Smith, 1 c.

Page  244 244 GREEK L ITE: RATURE which he had planned, and the trees which he had planted with his own hands. Cicero copies this passage in his treatise on Old Age.' In answer to the praises of agriculture, Critobulus speaks of the losses to which the husbandman is exposed from hail, frost, drought, and other causes. The answer of Socrates is, that the husbandman must trust in Heaven, and worship the gods. The seventh chapter is on the duty of a good wife, as exemplified in the case of the wife of Ischomachus. This is one of the best treatises of Xenophon. 3. The Symposium (2vUlsr4oaov), or Banquet of Philosophers, contains a delineation of the character of Socrates. The speakers are supposed to meet at the house of Callias, a rich Athenian, at the celebration of the great Panathennea. Socrates, Critobulus, Antisthenes, Charmides, and others, are the speakers. The accessories of the entertainment are managed with skill, and the piece is interesting as a picture of an Athenian drinking party, and of the amusement and conversation with which it was diversified. The nature of love and friendship is discussed. Some critics think that the Symposium is a juvenile performance, and that the Symposium of Plato was written after that of Xenophon; but it is an old tradition that the Symposium of Plato was written before that of Xenophon. 4. The Hiero ('IEpwcv i TvpavvrKcs) is a dialogue between King Hiero and Simonides, in which the king speaks of the dangers and difficulties incident to an exalted station, and the superior happiness of a private man. The poet, on the other hand, enumerates the advantages which the possession of power gives, and the means which it affords of obliging and doing services. Hiero speaks of the burden of power, and answers Simonides, who wonders why a man should keep that which is so troublesome, by saying that power is a thing which a man can not safely lay down. Simonides offers some suggestions as to the best use of power, and the way of empl.oying it for the public interest. It is suggested by Letronne that Xenophon may have been induced to write this treatise by what he saw at the court of Dionysius, since there is a story of his having visited Sicily in the lifetime of the tyrant of Syracuse. 5. The Apology of Socrates ('47roo0y7[a oWKpIciovs 7rpbS ToVs LcKacdcs) is not, as the title imports, the defence which Socrates made on his trial, but it contains the reasons which determined him to prefer death rather than to humble himself by asking for his life from his prejudiced judges. Valckenaer and others do not allow this to be Xenophon's work, because they consider it to be unworthy of him. But, if a man is to lose the discredit of a bad work simply because he has written better, many persons may disown their own books. The " Apology" is certainly a trivial performance, but Xenophon did write an "Apology," according to Diogenes Laertius, and this may be it. A man's character can not be entirely derived from his writings, especially if they treat of exact science. Yet a man's writings are some index of his character, and, when they are of a popular and varied kind, not a bad index. From the brief sketch which we have given here of his life and writings, some estimate may be easily formed of the general 1 De Senect., 17.

Page  245 ATTIC PERIOD. 245 character of Xenophon. As we know him from his writings, he was a humane man, at least for his age; a man of good understanding and strong religious feelings: we might call him, indeed, superstitious, if the name superstition had a well-defined meaning. Some modern critics find much to object to in Xenophon's conduct as a citizen. He did not like Athenian institutions altogether; but a man is under no moral or political obligation to like the government under which he is born. His duty is to conform to it, or to withdraw himself. There is no evidence that Xenophon, after his banishment, acted against his native country, even at the battle of Coronea. If his preference of Spartan to Athenian institutions is matter for blame, he is blamable indeed. His philosophy was the practical: it had reference to actual life, and in all practical matters, and every thing that concerns the ordinary conduct of human life, he shows good sense and honorable feeling.l As a writer, he deserves the praise of perspicuity and ease, and for these qualities he has in all ages been justly admired. As an historical writer, he is infinitely below Thucydides: he had no depth of reflection, no great insight into the fundamental principles of society. His Hellenica, his only historical effort, would not have preserved his name, except for the importance of the facts which this work contains, and the deficiency of other historical records. His mind was not adapted for pure philosophical speculation: he looked to the practical in all things, and the basis of his philosophy was a strong belief in a divine mediation in the government of the world. His belief only required a little correction and modification to allow us to describe it as a profound conviction that God, in the constitution of things, has given a moral government to the world, as manifestly as he has given laws for the mechanical and chemical actions of matter, the organization of plants and animals, and the vital energies of all beings that live and move.2 EDITIONS OF XENOPHON. There are numerous editions of the whole and of the separate works of Xenophon. The IHellenica, the first of Xenophon's works that appeared in type, was printed at Venice, 1503, fol., by the elder Aldus, with the title of Paraliponenza, and as a supplement to Thucydides, which had been printed the year before. The first general edition is that of Boninus, printed by Giunta, and dedicated to Leo X., Florence, 1516, fol.; but this edition does not contain the "Agesilaus," the " Apology," and the treatise on the " Revenues of Athens." A part of the treatise on the " Athenian Republic" is also wanting. This edition of Giunta is a very good specimen of early printing, and useful to an editor of Xenophon. The edition by Andrea of Asola, printed by Aldus, at Venice, 1525, fol., contains all the works of Xenophon, except the " Apology;" though the " Apology" was already edited by Reuchlin, Hagenau, 1520, 4to, with the "Agesilaus and Hiero." The Basle edition, printed by Brylinger, 1545, fol., is the first edition of the Greek text with. a Latin translation. The edition of H. Stephens, 1561, fol., contains an amended text, and the edition of 1581 has a Latin version. After these editions we may name the following: that of Leunclavius, or Loewenklau, Basle, 1569, reprinted at the same place in 1572, and at Frankfort in 1694, fol.; of Wells, Oxford, 5 vols. 8vo, with Dodwell's Chronologia Xenophontea; reprinted with additions, Lips., 1763-64, 4 vols. 8vo, under the editorial care of Thieme, with a preface by Ernesti; and again in 1801-4, under the superintendence of Sturz; of Weiske, Leipzig, 1798-1804, 6 vols. 8vo; of Schneider, Leipzig, 1815, 6 vols. 8vo (of which the first, second, and fourth volumes have been re-edited 1 Smnith, 1. c. 2 Id. ab,

Page  246 246 GREEK LITERATURE. and much improved by Bornemann, containing, the first, the Cyropcedia, Leipzig, 1838; the second, the Anabasis, 1825; the fourth, the Memorabilia, 1829; and the sixth, containing the Opuscula politica, equestria, venatica, by Sauppe, 1838); of Dindorf, in Didot's Bibliotheca, Paris, 1838. An edition was commenced in the Bibliotheca Grceca of Jacobs and Reost, Gotha, 1828, of which there have appeared, vol. i., Cyropedia, by Bornemann, 1828; vol. ii., IMemorabilia, by Kihner, 1841; vol. iii., Anabasis, by Kthner, 1852; and vol. iv., ltconomicus, Agesilaus, and Hiero, by Breitenbach, 1842, seqq. The most pretending edition of the works of Xenophon is that of Gail, with a Latin and a French version, critical and explanatory notes, maps and plans, &c., Paris, 1797-1814, 7 vols. 4to. The seventh volume consists of three parts, one of which (published in 1808) contains the various readings of three MSS.; a second (1814) contains the notices of the MSS., and observations literary and critical; and the third an atlas of maps and plans. Letronne, an excellent judge, as all scholars know, bestows very moderate praise upon this edition. Gail has kept to the old text, and has made no use of his various readings for improving it. The notes, however, are generally useful for the understanding of Xenophon. The best editions of detached portions of the works of Xenophon are the following: of the Cyropcedia, by Poppo, Leipzig, 1821, 8vo, and by Jacobitz, Leipz., 1843; of the Anabasis, by Lion, Glttingen, 1822, 2 vols. 8vo; by L. Dindorf, Leipzig, 1826, 8vo; by Kruiger, Halle, 1826, 8vo, last (3d) school edition, 1851; by Poppo, Leipzig, 1827, 8vo; by Constantine Matthite, Quedlinburg, 1852, 8vo (school ed.); of the Symposium and Apologia, by Bornemann, Leipzic, 1824, 8vo; of the Symposium, by tIerbst, Halle, 1830; by Mehler, Lugd. Bat., 1850; of the Mliemorabilia, by Sauppe, Leipz., 1834; by Herbst, Halle, 1827, 8vo; by Kiihner, Gotha, 1841, 8vo; of the Le Republica Lacedcemoniorum, by Haase, Berlin, 1833; of the Hellenica, from the text of Dindorf, with selected notes, at the University press, Oxford, 1831; of the Hiero and Agesilaus, by Hanow, Halle, 1835; of the Agesilaus, by Baumgarten-Crusius, Leipzig, 1812 (new ed.). There is also a separate volume of commentary on the CyropeEdia by Fischer, edited by Kuinoel, Leipzig, 1803. As a very useful auxiliary in the perusal of Xenophon, we may mention the Lexicon Xenophonteum of Sturz, 4 vols. 8vo, Leipzig, 1801-1804. III. CTESIAS (KTrGoais)' was a native of Cnidus, in Caria, and a con temporary of Xenophon. He was by profession a physician, and belonged to the caste or family of the Asclepiade, whose principal seats were at Cnidus and Cos. Ctesias lived for seventeen years in Persia, at the court of Artaxerxes Mnemon, as private physician to the king.2 Diodorus says that he was made prisoner by the king, and that, owing to his great skill in medicine, he was afterward drawn to the court, and was highly honored there.3 When he was thus made prisoner we are not informed; some critics think that it was at the battle of Cunaxa, B.C. 401; but if Ctesias remained seventeen years in Persia, as Diodorus says, and if, as the same writer informs us, he returned to his native country in B.C. 398, it follows that he must have gone to Persia long before the battle of Cunaxa, that is, about B.C. 415. How long he survived his return to his native city is unknown. During his stay in Persia, Ctesias gathered all the information that was attainable in that country, and wrote, 1. A great work on the history of Persia, entitled IleptYrucd, with the view of giving his countrymen a more accurate knowledge of that empire than they possessed, and to refute the errors current in Greece, which had arisen partly from ignorance and partly from the national vanity of the Greeks. The materials for his history, so far as he did not describe events of which he had been an eyewitness, he derived, according to the testimony of Diodorus, from the I Smith, Diet. Biogr., s. v. 2 Strab., xiv., p. 656. 3 Died. Sic., ii., 32.

Page  247 ATTIC PERIOD. 247 Persian archives (6LqOE'pai $aozX.KaL), or the official history of the Persian empire, which was written in accordance with a law of the country. This important work of Ctesias was written, like that of Herodotus, in the Ionic dialect, and consisted of twenty-three books. The first six contained the history of the great Assyrian monarchy, down to the foundation of the kingdom of Persia. It is for this reason that Strabo speaks of Ctesias as avy7yp',as rTa'AoovplaKa tea l r& IspKacd.' The next seven books contained the history of Persia down to the end of the reign of Xerxes, and the remaining ten carried the history down to the time when Ctesias left Persia, that is, to the year B.C. 398.2 The form and style of this work were of considerable merit, and its loss may be regarded as one of the most serious for the history of the East.3 All that is now extant of it is a meagre abridgment in Photius,4 and a number of fragments which are preserved in Diodorus, Athenaus, Plutarch, and others. Of the first portion, which contained the history of Assyria, there is no abridgment in Photius, and all we possess of that part is contained in the second book of Diodorus, which seems to be taken almost entirely from Ctesias. There we find that the accounts of Ctesias, especially in their chronology, differ considerably from those of Berosus, who likewise derived his information from Eastern sources. These discrepancies can only be explained by the fact that the annals used by the two historians were written in different places and under different circumstances. The chronicles used by Ctesias were xwritten by official persons, and those used by Berosus were the work of priests; both, therefore, were written from a different point of view, and neither was, perhaps, strictly true in all its details. The part of Ctesias's work which contained the history of Persia, that is, from the sixth book to the end, is somewhat better known from the extracts which Photius made from it, and which are still extant. Here, again, Ctesias is frequently at variance with other Greek writers, especially with Herodotus. To account for this, we must remember that he is expressly reported to have written his work with the intention of correcting the erroneous notions about Persia prevalent in Greece; and if this was the case, the reader must naturally be prepared- to find the accounts of Ctesias differing from those of others. It is, moreover, not improbable that the Persian Chronicles were as partial to the Persians, if not more so, as the accounts written by Greeks were to the Greeks. These considerations may fairly account for the differences existing between the statements of Ctesias and the other writers; and there would. seem to be no good reason for charging him, as some have done, with wilfully falsifying history. It is at least certain that there can be no positive evidence for such a serious charge. The court chronicles of Persia appear to have contained chiefly the history of the royal family, the occurrences at the court and the seraglio, the intrigues of the women and eunuchs, and the insurrections of satraps to make themselves independent of the great monarch. Suidas mentions that Pamphila made an abridgment of the work of Ctesias, probably the Persica, in three books. 1 Strab.,. c.' Diod. Sic., xiv., 46. 3 Dion. Hal., De Conpl Verb., 10. 4 Cod., 72.

Page  248 248 GREEK LITERATURE. Another work, for which Ctesias also collected his materials during his stay in Persia, was, 2. A treatise on India, entitled'IWvLcd, in one book, of which we likewise possess an abridgment in Photius, and a great number of fragments preserved in other writers. The description refers chiefly to the northwestern parts of India, and is principally confined to a description of the natural history, the produce of the soil, and the animals and men of India. In this description, truth is to a great extent mixed up with fables, and it seems to be mainly owing to this world that Ctesias was looked upon in later times as an author who deserved no credit. But if his account of India is looked upon from a proper point of view, it does not in any way deserve to be treated with contempt. Ctesias himself never visited India, and his work was the first in the Greek language that was written upon this country; he could do nothing more than lay before his countrymen that which was known or believed about India among the Persians. His Indica must, therefore, be regarded as a picture of India, such as it was conceived by the Persians. Many things, moreover, in his description, which were formerly looked upon as fabulous, have been proved by the more recent discoveries in India to be founded on facts. Ctesias also wrote several other works, of which, however, we know little more than their titles: they were, 3. riEpi op&v, which consisted of at least two books.l 4. TIepW7rXovs'Aolas,2 which is perhaps the same with the rleprtiyq,-rs, of which Stephanus Byzantinus3 quotes the third book. 5. IIepI rorTajV;4 and, 6. IepI rcv C~ara rv'Aeritalv ppwr. It has been inferred from a passage in Galen5 that Ctesias also wrote on medicine, but no account of his medical works have come down to us.6 The abridgment which Photius made of the Persica and Indica of Ctesias were printed separately by H. Stephens, Paris, 1557 and 1594, 8vo, and were also added to his edition of Herodotus. After his time it became customary to print the remains of Ctesias as an appendix to Herodotus. The first separate edition of those abridgments, together with the fragments preserved in other writers, is that of Lion, Gdttingen, 1823, 8vo, with critical notes and a Latin translation. A more complete edition, with an introductory essay on the life and writings of Ctesias, is that of Biihr, Frankfort, 1824, 8vo. An edition of Photius, with a revised text, formed on a collation of four MSS., was published by Bekker, 2 thin vols. 4to, Berlin, 1824-5. It has, however, neither version nor notes. IV. PHILISTUS (Af1nr0os), a Syracusan, was one of the most celebrated historians of antiquity, though, unfortunately, only a few fragments of his works have come down to us. He was born probably about B.C. 435. Philistus assisted Dionysius in obtaining the supreme power, and stood so high in the favor of the'tyrant that the latter intrusted him with the charge of the citadel of Syracuse.7 At a later period, however, he excited the jealousy of the tyrant by marrying, without his consent, one of the daughters of his brother Leptines, and was in consequence banished from Plut., De Fluv., 21; Stob., Floril., c. 18. 2 Steph. Byz., s. v. i[yvvo9. 3 S. v. Kooirl. 4 Plut., De Flu/v., 19. 5 v., p. 652, ed. Basle. 6 Smith, 1. c. 7 Diod. Sic., xiv., 8, scqq.

Page  249 ATTIC PERIOD. 249 Sicily. He at first retired to Thurii, but afterward established himself at Adria, where he composed the historical work which has given celebrity to his name.' But he always bore his exile with impatience, and he is accused both of indulging in abject lamentations over his hard fate and fallen fortunes, and of base and unworthy flattery toward Dionysius, in hopes of conciliating the tyrant, and thus obtaining his recall.2 These arts, however, failed in producing any effect during the lifetime of the elder Dionysius, but after his death and the accession of his son, those who were opposed to the influence which Dion and Plato were acquiring over the young despot persuaded the latter to recall Philistus from banishment, in hopes that from his age and experience, as well as his military talents, he might prove a counterpoise to the increasing influence of the two philosophers. The plan succeeded; he was recalled from exile, and quickly gained so great an influence over the mind of Dionysius as to alienate him from his former friends, and eventually cause Plato to be sent back to Athens, and Dion to be banished.3 Philistus was absent from Sicily when Dion first landed in the island, and made himself master of Syracuse, B.C. 356. Afterward, however, he raised a powerful fleet, with which he gave battle to the Syracusans, but having been defeated, and finding himself cut off from all hopes of escape, he put an end to his own life to avoid falling into the hands of his enraged countrymen. Philistus wrote a history of Sicily, which was one of the most celebrated historical works of antiquity, though unfortunately only a few fragments of it have come down to us. It consisted of two portions, which might be regarded either as two separate works, or as parts of one great whole, a circumstance which explains the discrepancies in the statements of the number of books of which it was composed. The first seven books comprised the general history of Sicily, commencing from the earliest times, and ending with the capture of Agrigentum by the Carthaginians, B.C. 406. Diodorus tells us that this portion included a period of 800 years and upward. He began with the mythical times, and the alleged colonies in Sicily, founded by Daedalus and others before the Trojan war. He appears, besides, to have entered at some length into the origin and migrations of the original inhabitants of the island, the Sicani and Siculi.4 The second part, which formed a regular sequel to the first, contained the history of the elder Dionysius in four books, and that of the younger in two: the latter was necessarily imperfect, a circumstance which Dionysius of Halicarnassus absurdly ascribes to his desire to imitate Thucydides. As it ended only five years after the accession of the younger tyrant, it is probable that Philistus had not found time to continue it after his own return from exile.5 Suidas enumerates several other historical works by Philistus, especially a history of Egypt, in twelve books, one of Phcenicia, and another 1 Diod. Sic., xv., 7; Plut., Dion, 7. 2 Plut., Timol., 15; Paus., i., 13, 9. 3 Plut., Dion, 11, seqq.; Pseud. Plat., Ep., 3, p. 671. 4 Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom., i., 22; Diod. Sic., v., 6. 3 Diod. Sic., xiii., 103; xv., 89; Suid., s. v.,

Page  250 250 GREEK LITErRATURE. of Libya and Syria. As no traces, however, of any of these works are to be found in any other authority, it has been doubted by some whether the whole statement is not erroneous,' while others suppose that these writings are to be attributed to a second Philistus, a native of Naucratis, in Egypt, which would account also for the error of Suidas, who calls our historian Navwtpactl'qs X:vpaKtcoioLos. In point of style, Philistus is represented by the concurrent testimony of antiquity as imitating and even closely resembling Thucydides, though still falling far short of his great model. Cicero3 calls him " capitalis, crebher, acutus, brevis, prene pusill'us Thlucydides;" Quintiliant also terms him " imitator Thucydidis, et, ut multo infirmior, ita aliquatenus lucidior." This qualified praise is confirmed by the more elaborate judgment of Dionysius of Halicarnassus,5 who censures Philistus also for the unskillful arran-gement of his subject, and the monotony and want of art displayed in his ordinary narrative. Longinus,6 wlio cites him as occasionally rising to sublimity, intimates, at the same time, that this was far from being the general character of his composition. His conciseness, also, led him not unfrequently into obscurity, though in a less degree than Thucydides; and this defect caused many persons to neglect his works even in the days of Cicero.7 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, however, associates his name with those of Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, and Theopompus,8 as the historians most deserving of study and imitation; but his writings seem to have been almost wholly neglected by the rhetoricians of a later period; and Hermogenes' passes over his name, in common with those of Ephorus and Theopompus, as wholly unworthy of attention. It is more remarkable that he does not appear to have been included by the Alexandrine critics in their canon of historical authors."~ But the reputation that he enjoyed in Greece itself shortly before that period is attested by the fact that his history was among the books selected by Harpalus to send to Alexander in Upper Asia." The gravest reproach to the character of Philistus as an historian is the charge brought against him by many writers of antiquity, that he had sought to palliate the tyrannical deeds of Dionysius, and give a specious color to his conduct, in order to pave the way for his own return from exile. Plutarch calls him a man eminently skilled in inventing specious pretences and fair speeches to cloak unjust actions and evil dispositions. He was severely censured on the same account by Timaeus."2 The fragments of Philistus have been collected, and all the circumstances transmitted to us concerning his life and writings fully examined and discussed by G6ller, in an appendix to his work De Situ et Origine Syracusarumn (Lips., 8vo, 1816); the fragments are also given in the Fragm.. Histor. Grcec. of C. and Th. Muiller, vol. i., p. 185, seqq., forming part of Didot's Bibliotheca Grseca, Paris, 1841. 1 Wesseling, ad Diod. Sic., xiii., p. 615; GOller, De Orig., &c., Syrac., p. 106, 124. 2 Bayle, Dict. Crit., s. v. Philist., not. C. 3 Ad, ii., 13. 4 Inst. Or., x., 1, 74. 5 Ep. ad Pomp., 5, p. 779, seqq. 6 De Subl., 40. 7 Cic., Brut., 17. 8 Ep. ad Pomp., p. 767. 9 De Formis, p. 396. 10 Creuzer, Hist. Ktunst d. Griechen, p. 225. 11 Plut., Alex., 8. 92 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v.

Page  251 AT'TI C PE R I 0 D. 251 V. THEOPONIPUS (0de7ro/uros)' of Chios, a celebrated Greek historian, was born about B.C. 378. He accompanied his father Damasistratus into banishment, when the latter was exiled on account of his espousing the interests of the Lacedamonians, but he was restored to his native country in the forty-fifth year of his age (B.C. 333), in consequence of the letters of Alexander the Great, in which he exhorted the Chians to recall their exiles.2 In what year Theopompus quitted Chios with his father is uncertain; but we know that, before he left his native country, he attended the school of rhetoric which Isocrates opened at Chios, and that he profited so much by the lessons of his great master as to be regarded by the ancients as the most distinguished of all his scholars.3 Ephorus the historian was a fellow-student with him, but was of a very different character; and Isocrates used to say of them, that Theopompus needed the bit, and Ephorus the spur.4 In consequence of the advice of Isocrates, Theopompus did not devote his oratorical powers to the pleading of causes, but gave his chief attention to the study and composition of history.5 Like his master Isocrates, however, he composed many orations of the kind called Epideictic by the Greeks, that is, speeches on set subjects, delivered for display, such as eulogiums on states and individuals. Thus, in B.C. 352, he contended at Halicarnassus, with Naucrates and his master Isocrates, fobr the prize of oratory, offered by Artemisia in honor of her husband's memory, and gained the victory.6 On his return to Chios in B.C. 333, Theopompus, who was a man of great wealth as well as learning, naturally took an important position in the state, but his vehement temper and his support of the aristocratical party soon raised against him a host of enemies. Of these, one of the most formidable was the sophist Theocritus. As long, however, as Alexander lived, his enenies dared not take any open proceedings against Theopompus; and even after the death of the Macedonian monarch he appears to have enjoyed for some years the protection of the royal house. But when he lost this support, he was expelled from Chios as a disturber of the public peace. He fled to Egypt, to Ptolemy,7 about B.C. 305, being at the time about seventy-three years old. Ptolemy, however, not only refused to receive Theopompus, but would even have put him to death as a dangerous busybody, had not some of his friends interceded for his life. Of his farther fate we have no particulars, but he probably died soon afterward. The following is a list of the works of Theopompus, none of which have come down to us. We have merely some fragments remaining. 1.'EnrTroU i TyV'Hpoar'ov o'GOropLtv. a" An Epitome of the History of Herodotus." This work is mentioned by Suidas, and in a few passages of the grammarians, but it has been questioned by Vossius whether it was really drawn up by Theopompus, on the ground that it is improbable that a writer of his attainments and skill in historical composition would have engaged in such a task. It is, however, not impossible that Theopompus may have made the Epitome at an early period of his life as an exercise 1 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 2 Phot., Cod., 176, p. 120, B, ed. Bekker. 3 Plut., Vit. Dec. Orat., p. 837, B. 4 Cic., Brut., 56; Ep. ad Att., v., 1, 12. ~ Cic,, De Oratl, ii., 13, 22. A Au1, Gell., x, 18. Phot., Cod., 176.

Page  252 252 GREEK LITERATURE. in composition. 2.'EMXXr.Kal o1Topiai, or:26v~a~rs'EAX7vLK0v'. " A History of Greece," in twelve books, and a continuation of the history of Thucydides. It commenced B.C. 411, at the point where the history of Thucydides breaks off, and embraced a period of seventeen years, down to the battle of Cnidus,l in B.C:.394. Only a few fragments of this work are preserved. 3.,IXivr-rKa, also called'Ibropia (ca"' l4oXiY). " Te History of Philip," father of Alexander the Great, in fifty-eight books, from the commencement of his reign (B.C. 360) to his death (B.C. 336). This work contained numerous digressions, which, in fact, formed the greater part of the whole work, so that Philip V., king of Macedonia, was able, by omitting them, and retaining only what belonged to the proper subject, to reduce the work from fifty-eight books to sixteen; Fifty-three of the fifty-eight books of the original were extant in the ninth century of the Christian era, and were read by Photius, who has preserved an abstract of the twelfth book. 4. Orations, which were either panegyrics,2 or what the Greeks called SvuBovXev'Kico Xdyoi. Of the latter kind, one of the most celebrated was addressed to Alexander on the state of Chios..5. Kap nlXd'cwvos &asp/3i. Perhaps a digression in his Philippica. 6. rlepl EbelEeasr. Another digression, probably, in the same work. Theopompus is praised by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, as well as by other ancient writers, for his diligence and accuracy; but he is, at the same time, blamed by most writers for the extravagance of his praises and censures. He is said, however, to have taken more pleasure in blaming than in commending; and many of his judgments respecting events and characters were expressed with such acrimony and severity, that several of the ancients speak of his malignity, and call him a reviler.3 It would seem that the vehemence of the temper of Theopompus frequently overcame his judgment, and prevented him from expressing himself with the calmness and impartiality of an historian. The ancients also blame him for introducing innumerable fables into his history.4 The style of Theopompus was formed on the model of Isocrates, and possessed the characteristic merits and defects of his master. It was pure, clear, and elegant, but deficient in vigor, loaded with ornament, and, in general, too artificial. It is praised in high terms by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, but it is spoken of in very different language by other critics.5 The fragments of Theopompus have been published by Wichers, " Theopompi Chii Fragmenta, collegit, &c., R. H. Eyssonius Wichers, Lugd. Bat., 1829; and by C. and Th. Miiller, Fragm. Histor. Grec., vol. i., p. 278, seqq., in Didot's Bibliotheca Groaca, Paris, 1841. The following works may also be consulted respecting him: Aschbach, Dissert. de Theopomp., Francof., 1823; Pflugk, De Theopomp. vita et scriptis, Berol., 1827..VI. EPHrRUS (*Epopos)6 of Cyme, in Eolis, a celebrated Greek historian, was a contemporary of Philip and Alexander, and flourished about B.C. 340. He studied rhetoric under Isocrates, of whose pupils he and i Diod. Sic., xiii., 42. 2 Theon, Progymn., p. 19, 103; Suid., s. v. 3 Corn. Nep., Alcib., c. 11; Clem. Alex., i., p. 316. 4 Cic., De Leg., i., 1;.Elian, V. H., iii., 18. 3 Longin., De Sutbl., 43; Demetr. Phal., 7repti ipI., 75. Q Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v.

Page  253 ATTIC PERIOD. 253 Theopompus were considered the most distinguished. From Seneca' it might almost appear that Ephorus began the career of a public orator. Isocrates, however, dissuaded him from that course, for he well knew that oratory was not the field on which he could win laurels, and he exhorted him to devote himself to the study and composition of history. As Ephorus was of a more quiet and contemplative disposition than Theopompus, Isocrates advised the former to write the early history of Greece, and Theopompus to take'up the later and more turbulent periods of history.2 Plutarch relates3 that Ephorus was among those who were accused of having conspired against the life of Alexander, but that he successfully refuted the charge when he was summoned before the king. This is all that is known of his life. The most celebrated of all the works of Ephorus was a History ('Ioaoplat), in thirty books, which began with the return of the Heraclidae, and came down to the siege of Perinthus, in B.C. 341. It treated of the history of the barbarians as well as of the Greeks, and was thus the first attempt at writing a universal history that was ever made in Greece. It embraced a period of 750 years, and each of the thirty books contained a compact portion of the history, which formed a complete whole by itself. Each also contained a special preface, and might bear a separate title, which either Ephorus himself or some later grammarian seems actually to have given to each book, for we know that the fourth book was called E`&c67rv.4 Ephorus himself did not live to complete his work, and it was finished by his son Demophilus. Diyllus began his history at the point at which the history of Ephorus left off. Ephorus also wrote a few other works of less importance, of which the titles only are preserved by the grammarians. WVe possess only isolated fragments of the history. It was written, as might be expected from a scholar of Isocrates, in a clear, lucid, and elaborately-polished style, but at the same time diffuse, and deficient in power and energy, so that Ephorus is by no means equal to his master. As an historian, Ephorus appears to have been faithful and impartial in the narration of events; but he did not always follow the best authorities, and in the latter part of his work he frequently differed from Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon, on points on which they are entitled to credit. Diodorus Siculus made great use of his work. Polybius5 praises him for his knowledge of maritime warfare, but adds that he was utterly ignorant of the mode of warfare upon land. Strabo6 acknowledges his merits by saying that he separated the historical from the geographical portions of his work; and, in regard to the latter, he did not confine himself to mere lists of names, but he introduced investigations concerning the origin of nations, their constitution and manners, and many of the geographical fragments which have come down to us contain lively and beautiful descriptions.7 The fragments of Ephorus were first collected by Marx, Carlsruhe, 1815, 8vo, who afterward published some additions in Friedemann and i De Tranq. An., 6. 2 Suid., s. v.; Cic., De Orat., iii., 9; Phot., Cod., 176, 260. 3 De Stoic. Reputgn., 10. 4 Diod. Sic., iv.,.1; v., 1; Polyb., v., 33; Strab., vii., p. 302. 5 xii., 25. 6 viii., p. 332. 7 Smith, 1. c.

Page  254 2534 GREEK LITERA; TUR E. Seebode's Miscllan. Crit., ii., 4, p. 764, seqq. They are also contained in C. and Th. Miiller's Frag'm. Histor. Grec., vol. i., p. 234, seqq., forming part of Didot's Bibliotheca Graceca, Paris, 1841. HISTORIANS OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT. I. Several works existed among the ancients relative to the expeditions of Alexander in the course of his Eastern conquests, most of them composed by individuals who had either followed in his train or had served under his command. We must guard, however, against the common error of making the number of these writers a large one, an error not confined merely to modern times, but into which even Cicero himself' has fallen, when he says, with far more of oratorical embellishment than of historical truth, " quam multos scriptores reruns suarum magnus ille Alexander secum habuisse traditur!"2 II. A careful examination of the whole subject will limit the list of the writers in question to the following individuals; namely, of those who followed in the train of Alexander, Anaximenes, Callisthenes, and perhaps Clitarchus, and of the monarch's companions in arms, Ptolenmceus, Aristobulus, Onesicritus, Nearchus, Chares, Ephipplus, Marsyas, Androsthenes, and Medius. To these we may add, though not strictly falling under the denomination of historians of Alexander, Eumenes and Diodotus, authors of'Epf71tEp3lEs'AXEhavSpov, and Beaton and Diognetus, who measured distances in the marches of Alexander, and wrote each a work on the subject, the title of Baeton's book having been raOeol 7iTs'AAecidz'pov 7ropeifas.3 III. As the works of all these writers are lost, and some scattered fragments alone remain, our account of them will be necessarily brief. 1. ANAXIM9NES4 ('AYvaqtLhy's) was a native of Lampsacus, and pupil of Zoilus and Diogenes the Cynic. He was a contemporary of Alexander, whom he is said to have instructed, and whom he accompanied on his Asiatic expedition.5 He wrote three historical works: 1. A history of Philip of Macedonia, consisting of at least eight books.6 2. A history of Alexander the Great,7 the second book of which is quoted by Harpocration. 3. A history of Greece, in twelve books, from the earliest mythical ages down to the battle of Mantinea and the death of Epaminondas. The histories of Anaximenes, of which only a very few fragments are now extant, are censured by Plutarch for the numerous prolix and rhetorical speeches which he introduced into them. The fact that we possess so little of his histories shows that the ancients did not think highly of them, and that they were more of a rhetorical than an historical character. He enjoyed some reputation as a teacher of rhetoric and as an orator, and what renders him a person of the highest importance in the history of Greek literature is the fact that he is the only rhetorician whose scientific treatise on rhetoric, prior to that of Aristotle, is now extant. This is the so-called'IPr'opwlC vrpbs'AX6davapoy, which is usually printed 1 Or. pro Arch., c. 10. Compare Sainte-Croix, Ex. Crit., &c., p. 33. 2 Geier, Hist. Scrip. Alex. M., Prolegom., c. 2, p. xvii. Geier's work is far more worthy of reliance than Sainte-Croix's. 3. Geier, 1. c. ~ Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 5 Suid,, s. v.; Eudoc., p. 51. 6 Harpocrat., s. r..KaP36sk. 7 Diog. Laert,, ii., 3.

Page  255 ATTIC PERIOD. 255 among the works of Aristotle, to whom, however, it can not belong, as all critics agree. The treatise on rhetoric was edited separately by Spengel, Turici, 1844. The fragments of the history of Alexander are given by Geier, in his " Scriptores Historiarum Alexandri M-i. cetate suppares," Lips., 1844, p. 285, seqq., and by C. Miiller, in the appendix to Diibner's Arrian, in Didot's Bibliotheca Grceca, p. 35, seqq. 2. CALLISTHENES1 (KaXXAlo0eyws) of Olynthus, a relation and pupil of Aristotle, accompanied Alexander the Great to Asia. In his intercourse with the monarch he was arrogant and,bold, and took every opportunity of showing his independence. He expressed his indignation at Alexander's adoption of Oriental customs, and especially at the requirement of the ceremony of adoration. He thus rendered himself so obnoxious to the king that he was accused of being privy to the plot of Hermolaus to assassinate Alexander, and, after being kept in chains for seven months, was either put to death or died of disease. Callisthenes wrote an account of Alexander's expedition; a history of Greece, in ten books, from the peace of Antalcidas to the seizure of the Delphic temple by Philomelus (B.C. 387-357), and other works, all of which, except a few fragments, have perished. The fragments of the history of Alexander are given by Geier, Script. Hist. Alex. M., &c., Lips., 1844, p. 232, seqq., and by C. Miller, in the appendix to Diibner's Arrian, in Didot's Bibliotheca Graeca, p. 1, seqq. Some MSS. are still extant, professing to contain writings of Callisthenes, but they are spurious.2 3. CLITARCHUS3 (KAE1S'apXOS), son of the historian Dinon,4 accompanied Alexander in his Asiatic expedition, and wrote a history of it. Such, at least, is the commonly received account, although considerable doubt has recently been thrown upon the assumed fact of his having accompanied the monarch. The work of Clitarchus has been erroneously supposed by some to have formed the basis of that of Quintus Curtius, who is thought to have closely followed, even if he did not translate it. We find Curtius, however, in one passage, differing from Clitarchus, and even censuring him for his inaccuracy. Cicero also speaks very slightingly of the production in question. Quintilian says that his ability was greater than his veracity; and Longinus condemns his style as frivolous and inflated. The fragments of Clitarchus are given by Geier, Script. Hist. Alex. M., p. 160, seqq., Lips., 1844, and by C. Mtiller, in the appendix to Diibner's Arrian, p. 77, seqq. 4. PTOLEMEUS (nToXE~ta0os), son of Lagus, first Greek king of Egypt, not content with the praise of an enlightened patron and friend of literature, sought for himself also the fame of an author, and composed an historical narrative of the wars of Alexander, in which he had borne part. His work is frequently cited by later writers, and is one of the chief authorities which Arrian made the ground-work of his history. That author repeatedly praises Ptolemy for the fidelity of his narrative, and the absence of all fables and exaggerations, and justly pays the greatest defer1 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 2 Miiller has given the Pseudo-Callisthenes in his appendix to Diibncr's Arrian, p. 1-152, 3 Smith, Dict. Biog., s. t. 4 Pl i., H. N., x., 49.

Page  256 256 GREEK LITERATURE. ence to his authority, on account of his personal acquaintance with the events Which he relates. No notice of his style has been preserved to us, from which we may probably infer that his work was not so much distinguished in this respect as for its historical value. Arrian expressly tells us that it was composed by Ptolemy after he was established on the throne of Egypt, and probably during the latter years of his life.' The fragments of this work are given by Geier, Script. Hist. Alex. M., p. 5, seqq., Lips., 1844, and by C. Miller, as above, p. 87, seqq. 5. ARISTOBs LUS ('Apl''TI3ovAos) of Cassandrea (of which, however, consistently with chronology, he could not have been a native) was one of the companions of Alexander the Great in his Asiatic conquests, though not named among his generals. He wrote a history of Alexander, which was one of the chief sources used by Arrian in the composition of his work. Aristobulus lived to the age of ninety, and did not begin to write his history until he was eighty-four.2 His work is frequently referred to by Athenaeus.A Lucian4 relates an anecdote relative to Alexander and Aristobulus, tending to prove that the latter had written his work in a spirit of gross adulation toward the monarch, but many modern scholars think that the story ought to be referred to Onesicritus, and that the error arose from the copyists. Schneider and Geier, however, dissent from this opinion. The fragments of Aristobulus are given by Geier, Script. Hist. Alex. M., p. 31, seqq., Lips., 1844, and by C. Muiller, as above, p. 94, seqq. 6. ONESICRITUs S ('OYrvi pLP1TOS) was, according to some writers, a native of Astypalea, one of the Sporades; according to others, of zEgina;6 and it was probably to this island-origin that he was indebted for the skill in nautical matters which afterward proved so advantageous to him. Onesicritus accompanied Alexander on his campaigns in Asia, and wrote a history of them, which is frequently cited by ancient authors. We have no account of the circumstances which led him to accompany Alexander into Asia, nor does it appear in what capacity lie attended on the conqueror; but during the expedition into India he was sent by the king to hold a conference with the Indian philosophers or Gymnosophists, the details of which have been transmitted to us from his own account of the interview.7 When Alexander constructed his fleet on the Hydaspes, he appointed Onesicritus to the important station of pilot of the king's ship, or chief pilot to the fleet (&PXrtCV8epv'Tvs), a post which he held not only during the descent of the Indus, but throughout the long and perilous voyage from the mouth of that river to the Persian Gulf. In this capacity, he discharged his duties so much to the satisfaction of Alexander, that, on his arrival at Susa, he was rewarded by that monarch with a crown of gold, at the same time as Nearchus. Yet Arrian blames him for want of judgment, and on one occasion expressly ascribes the safety of the fleet to the firmness of Nearchus in overruling his advice.8 1 Arrian, Anab., i., procem. 2 Lucian, Macrob., 22. 3 ii., p. 43, D,; vi., p. 251, A; x., p. 434, D, &c. 4 Quomodo Hist. conscrib., c. 12. 5 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v 6 Diog. Laert., vi., 75; Arrian, Ind., 18. 7 Strab:, xv., p. 715; Plut., Alex., 65. Arrian, vii., C)r; T[d., 352.

Page  257 ATTIC PERIOD. 257 We know nothing of his subsequent fortunes; but, from an anecdote related by Plutarch, it seems probable that he attached himself to Lysimachus, and it was perhaps at the court of that monarch that he composed his historical work,' though, on the other hand, a passage of Lucian2 might lead us to infer that this was at least commenced during the lifetime of Alexander himself. Such is the opinion of Geier, among others. We learn from Diogenes Laertius3 that the history of Onesicritus comprised the whole life of Alexander, including his youth and education; but it is most frequently cited in relation to the campaigns of that prince in Asia, or to the geographical description of the countries that he visited. Though an eye-witness of much that he described, it appears that he intermixed many fables and falsehoods with his narrative, so that he early fell into discredit as an authority. Still, his work appears to have contained much valuable information concerning the remote countries for the first time laid open by the expedition of Alexander. In particular, he was the first author that mentioned the island of Taprobane.4 He is said to have imitated Xenophon in his style, though he fell short of him, as a copy does of the original.- Onesicritus, when advanced in years, turned his attention to the Cynic philosophy, of which he became an ardent votary. The fragments of Onesicritus are given by Geier, Script. Hist. Alex. M., p. 83, seqq., Lips., 1844, and by C. Miiller, in Didot's Bibliotheca Greeca, p. 47, seqq., Paris, 1846. 7. NEARCHUS (NEapXos) was a native of Crete, but settled at Amphipolis,6 and one of the rnmost distinguished of the officers and friends of Alexander. He accompanied the king to Asia, and in B.C. 325 was intrusted by Alexander with the command of the fleet which he had caused to be constructed on the Hydaspes.7 Upon reaching the mouth of the Indus, Alexander resolved to send round his ships by sea from thence to the Persian Gulf, and he gladly accepted the offer of Nearchus to undertake the command of the fleet during this long and perilous navigation. Nearchus set out on the 21st of September, B.C. 326, and arrived at Susa in safety in February, B.C. 325. He was rewarded with a crown of gold for his distinguished services. Nearchus left a history of the voyage, the substance of which has been preserved to us by Arrian, who has derived from it the whole of the latter part of the " Indica." The fragments of the work of Nearchus are given by Geier, Script. Hist. Alex. 1l., p. 117, seqq., Lips., 1844, and by C. Miller, at the end of Diibner's Arrian, Paris, 1846, p. 60, seqq. There is also a valuable translation of the voyage of Nearchus (from Arrian) by Vincent, Oxford, 1809, 4to. 8. CHARES (Xdgps) was a native of Mytilene, and an officer at the court of Alexander, whose duty it was to introduce strangers to the king (eisayyXAevs). He wrote a history, or, rather, a collection of anecdotes concerning the campaigns and the private life of Alexander, in ten books, fragments of which are preserved by AthenEeus and Plutarch. Pliny appears-to have drawn largely fronm him. Chares was regarded as a writer I.Plut., Alex., 46. 2 Quomodo Hist, conscr., c. 40. 3 Vi., 84. 4 Strab., xv., p. 691; Plin., H. N., vi., 24. 5 Diog. Laert., vi., 84. 6 Arrian, aild., 18; Diod. Sic., xix., 19 7 Arrian, Anab., iv., 7, 4, &c

Page  258 258 GREEK LITERATURE. of high authority, and pleasing in style. The fragments are given by Geier, Script. Hist. Alex. M., p. 293, seqq., and by C. Muiller, as above, p. 114, seqq. 9. EPHIPPUS ('EQTrros), of Olynthus, was also an historian of Alexander. Mention is made in a passage of Arrian of an Ephippus who was appointed, along with.IEschylus the Rhodian, superintendent (i7ro'lKoros) of Egypt. It has been supposed that this Ephippus is the same with the historian. From the few fragments still extant, it would appear that Ephippus described more the private and personal character of his heroes than their public careers. The fragments are given by Geier, p. 312, seqq., and by C. Mfiller, p. 125, seqq. 10. MARSYAS! (Mapodas) was a native of Pella, in Macedonia, and, according to Suidas, was educated along with Alexander, whom he afterward accompanied into Asia. - We find him, after the death of that monarch, appointed by Demetrius to command one division of his fleet in the great sea-fight off Salamis, in the island of Cyprus,2 B.C. 306. His principal literary work was a history of Macedonia, in ten books, commencing fiom the earliest times, and coming down to the wars of Alexander in Asia, when it terminated abruptly with the return of that monarch into Syria, after the conquest of Egypt and the foundation of Alexandrea. It is repeatedly cited by Athenmus, Plutarch, Harpocration, and other writers. Suidas also speaks of a history of the education of Alexander (aiv-ov,oi;'AXEta&Cpovu &cocyiv) as a separate work by Marsyas. He is often confounded with another and younger Marsyas, a native of Philippi. The fragments of Marsyas are given by Geier, p. 325, seqq., and by C. Miiller, p. 42, seqq. 11. ANDROSTH9NES ('AvspooOer4s), of Thasus, was one of Alexander's admirals, and sailed with Nearchus. He was also sent by Alexander to explore the coast of the Persian Gulf. He wrote an account of this voyage, and also a Tois'IvmLKXS 7rapirAovs. The fragments of Androsthenes are given by Geier, p. 345, seqq., and by C. Mfiller, p. 72, seqq. 12. MEDIUS (Mi83os)3 was a native of Larissa, in Thessaly, and a friend of Alexander's. He is mentioned as commanding a trireme during the descent of the Indus,4 but, with this exception, his name does not appear in the military operations of the king. He appears, however, to have enjoyed a high place in the personal favor of the monarch, and it was at his house that Alexander supped just before his last illness. Hence, according to those writers who represented the king to have been poisoned, it was at this banquet that the fatal draught was administered, and not without the cognizance, as it was said, of Medius himself. Plutarch speaks in very unfavorable terms of Medius, whom he represents as one of the flatterers to whose evil counsels the most reprehensible of the actions of Alexander were to be ascribed.5 But no trace of this is to be found in the better authorities. After the death of Alexander, Medius followed the fortunes of A:ntigonus, whose fleet we find him commanding in B.C. 314. The following I Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 2 Dliod. Sic., xx., 50. 3 Smith, Dict. Biog'., s. v. 4 Arrian, Ind., 18. P Plt., )De AdiLt et Amic., 24.

Page  259 ATTIC PERIOD. 259 year he took Miletus. In B.C. 312 he was dispatched by Antigonus, with a fleet of 150 ships, to make a descent on Greece, and landed a large army in Bceotia. At a subsequent period, he accompanied Antigonus on his unsuccessful expedition against Egypt, but after this we hear no more of him. He wrote an historical work, as plainly appears from Strabo, but whether it related to the campaigns of Alexander or of his successors, is uncertain. The fragments are given by Geier, p. 351, and by C. Miiller, p. 128. 13. The fragments of the'Eqnp.uepl6es of Eumenes and Diodotus are given by Geier, p. 360, seqq., and by C. Muller, p. 121, seqq.; and those of the:.raOtoi T'qs'ANe~tvapov rropelas of Boeton and Diognetus, by Geier, p. 367, seqq., and C. Muller, p. 134, seq. CHAPTER XXXIII. FOURTH OR ATTIC PERIOD-continued. GEOGRAPHICAL WRITERS. I. IN connection with the writers composing the school of history, we propose to consider briefly the geographical authors of this same period, as far as their date can be correctly ascertained through the investigations of modern scholars. Geography and history are so naturally connected, that a separation of them would only tend to produce confusion and consequent obscurity. II. The geographical writers, however, that will here require our attention are very few in number, namely, Scylax of Caryanda, and Pytheas of Massilia, as a fit introduction to whose labors we will first give a sketch of the discoveries of the Carthaginian navigator Hanno, the more especially as they are known to us through the medium of the Greek translation of the Punic work in which the account was originally written. III. HANNO ("'AucoV)1 was a Carthaginian navigator, as already stated, under whose name we possess a Iepfirxovs, or a short account of a voyage round a part of Africa. This work was originally written in the Punic language, and what has come down to us is a Greek translation of the original. The work is often referred to by the ancients, but we have no statement containing any direct information, by means of which we might identify its author, Hanno, with any of the many other Carthaginians of that name, or fix the time at which he lived. Pliny2 states that Hanno undertook the voyage when Carthage was in a most flourishing condition. Some call him king, and others dux or imperator of the Carthaginians, from which we may infer that he was invested with the office of Suffete.3 In,the Periplus itself Hanno says that he was sent out by his countrymen to undertake a voyage beyond the Pillars of Hercules, and to found Libyphoenician towns, and that he sailed accordingly with sixty penteconteres, and a body of men and women, to the number of 30,000, and provisions and other necessaries. On his return from his voyage, he dedicated an Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 2 H. N., ii., 67; v., 1, 36. 3 Solin., 56; Hanno, Peripl., Introd.

Page  260 260 GREEK LITERATURE. account of it, inscribed on a tablet, in the temple of Saturn, or, as Pliny says, in that of Juno.L It is therefore presumed that the Periplus which has come down to us is a Greek version of the contents of that Punic tablet. These vague accounts, leaving open the widest field for conjecture and speculation, have led some critics to place the expedition as early as the Trojan war, or the time of Hesiod, while others bring it down to the reign of Agathocles. Others, again, as Falconer, Bougainville, and Gail, with somewhat more probability, place Hanno about B.C. 570. But it seems preferable to identify him with Hanno, the father or son of Hamilcar, who was killed at Himera B.C. 480. The fact of such an expedition at that time has nothing at all improbable, for in the reign of the Egyptian king Necho, a similar voyage had been undertaken by the Phcenicians, and an accurate knowledge of the western coast of Africa was a matter of the highest importance to the Carthaginians. The number of colonists, 30,000, is undoubtedly an error either of the translator or of later transcribers. This circumstance, as well as many fabulous accounts contained in the Periplus, and the difficulties connected with the identification of the places visited by Hanno, and with the fixing of the southernmost point to which he penetrated, are not sufficient reasons for denying the genuineness of the Periplus, or for regarding it as the product of a much later age, as Dodwell did. The best opinion appears to be that Hanno passed considerably south of the Senegal River, but hardly farther than the coast of Sierra Leone. The first edition of Hanno's Periplus appeared at Basle, 1534, 4to, as an appendix to Arrian, by Gelenius. This was followed by the editions of Boecler and Miuller, Strasburg, 1661, 4to; Berkel, Leyden, 1674, 12mo; and Falconer, London, 1797, with an English translation, two dissertations, and maps. It is also printed in Hudson's Geographi Gravci JMinores, Oxford, 1698-1712, 4 vols. 8vo, with Dodwell's dissertation "De vero Peripli, qui fIannonis nomine circumfertur, tempore," in which he attacks the genuineness of the work; but his arguments are satisfactorily refuted by Bougainville (111em. de l'Acad. des Inscript., xxvi., p. 10, seqq.; xxviii., p. 260, seqq.), and by Falconer in his second dissertation. The Periplus is also given in Gail's Geographi Grceci lfinores, Paris, 18261831, 3 tols. 8vo, and separately by Kluge, Lips., 1829, 8vo. IV. SCYLAX (Ki;vxaS) of Caryanda, in Caria, was sent, according to Herodotus, by Darius Hystaspis, on a voyage of discovery down the Indus. Setting out from the city of Caspatyrus and the Pactyican district, Scylax and his companions sailed down the river to the east and the rising of the sun, till they reached the sea; whence they sailed westward through the Indian Ocean to the Red Sea, performing the whole voyage in thirty months. Thus far Herodotus.2 We have still extant a brief description of certain countries in Europe, Asia, and Africa, which bears the name of Scylax of Caryanda, and is entitled lIepT7rXovs rrs aaAacdoarls oiKeoV/I,&s Ebpc6rzs Kad'Aoras mKal Al[ibqs. This little work was supposed by Holstenius, Fabricius, Sainte-Croix, and others, to have been written by the Scylax mentioned by Herodotus; other writers, on the contrary, such as G. Vossius, J. Vossius, and Dodwell, regarded the author as the contemporary of Panwetius and Polybius; but most modern scholars are disCompare Pomp. Ms/ea, iii., 9; Athen., iii., 83. Herod., iv., 44.

Page  261 A'TTIC PERIOD. 261 posed to follow the opinion of Niebuhr, who supposes the writer to have lived in the first half of the reign of Philip of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great (Philip began to reign B.C. 360). Niebuhr shows from internal evidence that the Periplus must have been composed long after the time of Herodotus; while, from its omitting to mention any of the cities founded by Alexander, such as Alexandrea in Egypt, as well as from other circumstances, we may conclude that it was drawn up before the reign of Alexander. It is probable, however, that the author, whoever he was, may not have borne the name of Scylax himself, but prefixed to his work that of Scylax of Caryanda, on account of the celebrity of the navigator in the time of Darius Hystaspis. Aristotle is the first writer who refers to Scylax;l but it is evident from his reference, as well as from the quotations from Scylax in other ancient writers,2 which refer to matters not contained in the Periplus that has come down to us, that we possess only an abridgment of the original work.3 The Periplus of Scylax was first published by Hoeschel, with other minor Greek geographers, Augsburg, 1600, 8vo; next by Is. Vossius, Amsterdam, 1639, 4to; subsequently by Hudson, in his Geographi Grceci Minores, Oxford, 1698-1712, 4 vols. 8vo; by Gail, in his Geogr. Grec. Min., Paris, 1826-1831, 3 vols. 8vo; and separately by Klausen, attached to his edition of the fragments of Hecateus, Berlin, 1831, 8vo. The following works may be consulted with profit in relation to the work under consideration: Niebuhr, Ueber das Alter des Kiistenbeschreibers Skylax von Karyanda, in his Kleine Schriften, vol. i., p. 105, seqq., translated in the Philological Museum, vol. i., p. 245, seqq., and Ukert, Geogr. der Gr. und Rdm., vol. i., pt. ii., p. 285, seqq., as also the dissertations prefixed to Klausen's edition. V. PYTHEAS (rIvOeas) of Massilia, in Gaul, a celebrated Greek navigator, sailed to the western and northern parts of Europe, and wrote a work containing the results of his discoveries. We know nothing of his personal history, with the exception of the statement of Polybius that he was a poor man.4 The time at which he lived can not be determined with accuracy; as he is quoted, however, by Dicawarchus, a pupil of Aristotle, and by Timmus, he probably lived in the time of Alexander the Great, or shortly afterward. It would appear from Pytheas's own statement, as related by Polybius, that he undertook two voyages. In one he visited Britain and Thule, and of this voyage he appears to have given an account in his work " On the Ocean" (nrepl TOI'nKCEaVo). In a second, undertaken after his return from his first voyage, he coasted along the whole of Europe from Gadira (now Cadiz) to the Tanais, and the description of this second voyage probably formed the subject of his Periplus (IfEpirAovs, or, as it is termed by the scholiast on Apollonius Rhodius, ris IrepioBos). There has been much dispute as to what river we are to understand by the Tanais. The most probable conjecture appears to be, that, upon reaching the Elbe, Pytheas concluded he had arrived at the Tanais, separating Europe from Asia.5 1 Polit., iii., 14. 2 Philostr., Apollon., iii., 47; Iarpocrat., p. 174, ed. Gronov. 3 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 4 Ap. Strab., ii., p. 104. 5 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v.

Page  262 262 GREEK LITElRATURE. The works of Pytheas are frequently referred to by the ancient writers; some, as, for example, Eratosthenes and Hipparchus, regarding them as worthy of belief; but other writers, especially Polybius and Strabo, regard them as of no value at all. Polybius says that it is incredible that a private man, and one who was also poor, could have undertaken such long voyages and journeys; and Strabo, on more than one occasion, calls him a great liar, and regards his statements as mere fables, only deserving to be classed with those of Euhemerus and Antiphanes.2 Most modern writers, however, have been disposed to set more value upon the narrative of Pytheas. It would appear from the extracts which have been preserved from his works, that he did not give simply the results of his own observations, but added all the reports which reached him respecting distant countries, without always drawing a distinction between what he saw himself and what was told him by others. His statements, therefore, must be received with caution and some mistrust. It is equally uncertain how far he penetrated. Some modern writers have regarded it as certain that he must have reached Iceland, in consequence of his re.. mark that the day was six months long at Thule; while others have supposed that he advanced as far as the Shetland islands. But either supposition is very improbable, and neither is necessary; for reports of the great length of the day and night in the northern parts of Europe had already reached the Greeks before the time of Pytheas.3 Pytheas cultivated science. He appears to have been the first person that ascertained the latitude of a place from the shadow of the sun, and it is expressly stated that he determined the position of Massilia by observing the shadow of the sun by the gnomon.4 He also paid considerable attention to the phenomena of the tides, and was well aware of the influence of the moon upon them. The voyages of Pytheas have been discussed by a large number of modern writers. Among the most important works on the subject we may name Boug'ainville, Sur l'Origine et sur les Voyag-es de Pythlas, in the Merne. de l'Acad. des Inscript., vol. xix., p. 146, seqq.; D'Anville, Sur la Navigation de Pythtas ci Thule, ibid., vol. xxxvii., p. 436, seqq.; Ukert, Bemerkuzngen igber Pytheas, in the Geogr. der Gr. und Rd7m., vol. i., pt. i., p. 298, seqq.; Fuhr, De Pythea Massiliensi dissertatio, Darmstadt, 1835; Lelewel, Pytheas und die Geographie seincr Zeit, &c., Leipzig, 1838. The fragments of Pytheas have been edited by Arwedson, Upsala, 1824, 8vo. 1 Polyb. ap. Strab., ii., p. 104. 2 Strab., i., p. 63; ii., p. 102; iii., p. 148, &c. 3 Smith, 1. c. 4 Strab., ii., p. 71, 115.

Page  263 ATTIC PERIOD). CHAPTER XXXIV. FOURTH OR ATTIC PERIOD-continued. II. SCHOOL OF ELOQUENCE. INTRODUCTORY RE MARKS.1 1. IF we take an extensive view of ancient and modern literature, and compare their several departments, in order to form an accurate estimate of their relative merit, the palm of oratory seems confessedly conceded to the former. A review of modern history presents to our observation few who deserve the name of orators, even among those nations whose governments would seem likely to facilitate the growth of eloquence, by admitting to a share in its Legislature such assemblies as may be supposed to lie under the dominion of its influence. Indeed, the slightest acquaintance with the records of antiquity is sufficient to teach us, that the style and character of the eloquence of the ancients is materially different from our own; and, before we proceed to give any account of the productions of the Greek orators, or to introduce a sketch of their respective lives, it will not be amiss to make some preliminary observations on the causes of their vast and acknowledged superiority. II. Without inquiring into the extent of that influence which climate may exercise over national character, it may be remarked that the geographical situation of Greece was eminently favorable to the development of intellectual power, and to that peculiarly nice organization by which delicacy of feeling is refined even to fastidiousness. That the Athenians did possess this exquisite susceptibility, we know as well by several historical anecdotes as by the direct and explicit testimony of Cicero. Speaking of this extraordinary people, he says, " Sincerum fuit corum judicium, nihil ut possent nisi incorruptum audire atque elegans."2 So faultless was their judgment, that they would listen to nothing but what was pure and elegant. A tribunal, then, whose discrimination was so keen, whose taste was so fastidious, and from whose authority there was no appeal, would, by the very severity of its decisions, call forth productions of finished excellence from those who were conscious of talents which deserved approbation, and were stimulated by ambition to pursue it. Such a tribunal, though it might intimidate and abash minds of inferior calibre, would urge to active industry and unwearied perseverance those more eminent abilities which no difficulties can alarm, and no disappointment effectually retard. III. Accordingly, we find that among the ancients the study of eloquence was, as it were, almost the occupation of life, and the splendor of their success is only proportionate to the vigor of their exertions. The laborious diligence of Demosthenes, his careful correction of natural defects, his seclusion from society, and his earnest zeal in preparing himOttley, Greek Orators, Encyc. Metropol. 2 Cic., De Orat., viii., 25.

Page  264 264 GREEKI LITERATURE. self for the career of a public speaker, are familiar to every one. The moderns may have the same powers of genius, and the same indefatigable application as orators-both parties must have aimed at persuasion; but some of the means which one employed are either above or beneath the other. In fact, our scholastic pursuits were an Athenian's leisure occupation (o-XoXl); his business was politics; literature was his recreation, and he found both in the speeches of the public orator. These were allied to politics by their subject, to music by their rhythm, and by attitude, gesture, and action to the drama. Hence some of their beauties, expected and admired by an Athenian audience, would be thrown away upon a modern assembly; they would be too visibly artificial to be persuasive. Legislative assemblies at the present day are too practical, too intent generally on business, to care much about the rhythmical structure of sentences.- As, on the one hand, modern orators could not, perhaps (a few rare cases excepted), copy the vehement reasoning, the energy, and earnest boldness of Demosthenes, there are, on the other hand, beauties of style in the structure of his sentences which they would not copy if they could. So, again, Dionysius of Halicarnassus praises the dignity and magnificence with which the funeral oration of Pericles opens; then he accounts for these excellencies by remarking that the first period contains three spondees, then an anapwest, then a spondee, then a cretic, " all dignified feet" (&ircavrs &Low,uamTcoT).l Praise of this kind does not occur to any one who enjoys or recommends a speech of Burke or of Fox, of Clay or of Webster; yet, no doubt, these dignified feet were important beauties to the ears of the Athenian assembly, and the supply was adjusted to the demand. IV. Cicero, in his celebrated treatise " De Oratore,"2 has left us much valuable information respecting the Greek orators. From them he learned the graces which eloquence is capable of assuming, and the deep and durable impression which it makes on the minds both of the learned and the illiterate. His estimate of what an orator ought to be was formed by what the Greeks had actually done; and we may therefore learn, in some measure, from his precepts, the nature and extent of their exertions in the prosecution of their favorite pursuit. After enumerating some exercises, such as speaking extempore, and from memory, or repeating, in Latin, orations which had been read in Greek —exercises, the habitual practice of which was necessary to the attainment of eloquence r-he contends that an almost universal knowledge is essentially requisite to perfection in this noble art, enumerating, among other things, an acquaintance with the poets, or, as we would say, a full course of belleslettres studies; a thorough knowledge of history, of the principles and constitution of the republic, of law in general and the municipal code in particular, of philosophy and the moral nature and habits of men. V. If, then, such were the earnestness and zeal with which the ancients cultivated the art of eloquence, and so wide the range of learning which they brought to bear upon it; if the audience, to whose judgment their speeches were submitted, were so alive to the perception of beauI Dion. Hal., De Verb. Comp.,.i xviii., p. 114, ed. Reiske. 2 Cic., De Orat., i., 34.

Page  265 A.TTIC PERIOD. 265 ties, and so keen in discovering defects, we need not wonder that the superior excellence of the Greek orators is so vast and indisputable. As the prize for which these intellectual gladiators contended was valuable, so the weapon they employed combined the highest polish with the greatest strength. Those who are familiar with the Greek language need not to be reminded of its unrivalled copiousness of expression, its majesty, elegance, and compactness, its unlimited range of compound words, and the flexible ductility with which it lends itself to convey every variety of meaning. The power of such an instrument was only to be surpassed by the skill of those who wielded it. The democratic government of Athens, its foreign wars and domestic discord, furnished the Greek orators with ample materials for the employment of their eloquence; and successful exertions were crowned, not only with the pleasing tribute of popular applause, but the more profitable reward of political power. VI. Such, then, were some of the causes which promoted the growth and secured the celebrity of eloquence in Greece, or, to speak more properly, at Athens. Oratory, in fact, flourished only at Athens; and while other states arrest attention by occasional periods of military glorywhile Sparta excites astonishment by the extreme austerity of its national manners, and the singularity of its political institutions, history does not inform us that these republics produced any individual whose eloquence elevated him to importance during his life, or secured his posthumous renown.1 HISTORY OF ELOQUENCE AMONG THE GREEKS.2 I. iPublic speaking had been common in Greece from the earliest times. Long before popular assemblies had gained the sovereign power by the establishment of democracy, the ancient kings had been in the habit of addressing their people, sometimes with that natural eloquence which Homer ascribes to Ulysses, at other times, like Menelaus, with concise but persuasive diction. Hesiod assigns to kings a muse of their ownCalliope-by whose aid they were enabled to speak convincingly and persuasively in the popular assembly and from the seat of judgment. With the farther development of republican constitutions after the age of Homer and Hesiod, public officers and demagogue' without number had spoken in the public meetings, or in the deliberative councils of the numerous independent states, and no doubt they often spoke eloquently and wisely; but these speeches did not survive the particular occasion which called them forth., II. Turning to Athens, the native soil of oratory, the first great name that arrests our attention in the departnient of public speaking is that of PERICLES. It is manifest,from the whole political career of this eminent statesman, that while, on the one hand, he presupposed in type Athenian people a power of governing themselves, so, on the other, he wished tob prevent the state from becoming a mere stake, to be played for by ambitious demagogues; for he favored every institution which gave the poorer 2 Cic, Brut., 13; Vell. Paterc., i., 18. 2 Miiller, Hist. Gr. Lit., vol. ii., p. 67. Al

Page  266 266 GREEK LITERATURE. citizens a share in the government; he encouraged every thing which might contribute to extend education and knowledge; and by his astonishing expenditure on works of architecture and sculpture, he gave the people a decided fondness for the grand and beautiful. And thus the appearance of Pericles on the bema (which he purposely reserved for great occasions) was not intended merely to aid the passing of some law, but was, at the same time, calculated to infuse a noble spirit into the general politics of Athens, to guide the views of the Athenians in regard to their external relations, and all the difficulties of their position; and it was the wish of this true friend of the people that all this might long survive himself. This is obviously the opinion of Thucydides, whom we may consider as in many respects a worthy disciple of the school of Pericles; and this is the representation which he has given us of the oratory of that statesman in the three speeches (all of them delivered on important occasions) which he has put into his mouth.' III. This wonderful triad of speeches forms a beautiful whole, which is perfect and complete in itself. The first speech proves the necessity of a war with the Peloponnesians, and the probability that it will be successful; the second, delivered immediately after the first successes obtained in the war, under the form of a funeral oration, confirms the Athenians in their mode of living and acting. It is half an apology for, half a panegyric upon Athens: it is full of a sense of truth, and of noble selfreliance, tempered with moderation. The third, delivered after the calamities which had befallen Athens, rather through the plague than through the war, and which had nevertheless made the people vacillate in their resolutions, offers the consolation most worthy of a noble heart, namely, that up to that time fortune, on which no man can count, had deceived them, but they had not been misled by their own calculations and convictions; and that these would never deceive them, if they did not allow themselves to be led astray by some unforeseen accidents.2 IV. No speech of Pericles has been preserved in writing. It may seem surprising that no attempt was made to write down and preserve, for the benefit of the present and future generations, works which every one considered admirable, and which were regarded as, in some respects, the most perfect specimens of oratory. The only explanation of this that can be offered is, that in those days a speech was not considered as possessing any value or interest, save in reference to the particular practical object for which it was designed. It had never occurred to people that speeches and poems might be placed in one class, and both preserved without reference to their subjects, on account of the skill with which the subjects were treated, and the general beauties of the form and composition. Only a few emphatic and nervous expressions of Pericles were kept in remembrance; but a general impression of the grandeur and copiousness of his oratory long prevailed among the Greeks.3 V. We have said that Athens was the native soil of oratory, a remark that must not, however, be construed so strictly as to prove any disparagement to the Sicilian Greeks, and especially the Syracusans, whose M AMiiller, 1. c. 2 Id, ib. 3 Id. ib.

Page  267 ATTIC PERIOD. 267 lively disposition and natural quickness raised them, more than any other Dorian people, to a level with the Athenians, and who had commenced, even earlier than the people of Attica, the study of an artificial rhetoric useful for the discussions of the law-courts. The situation of Syracuse, at the time of the Persian war, had contributed a good deal to awaken their natural inclination and capacity for such a study; especially by the impulse which the abolition of arbitrary government had given to democratic sentiments, and by the complicated transactions which sprang up from the renewal of private claims long suppressed by the tyrants.' VI. At this time, CORAx, who had been highly esteemed by the tyrant Hiero, came forward in a conspicuous manner, both as a public orator and as a pleader in the law courts. His great practice led him to consider more accurately the principles of his art; and at last it occurred to him to write a work on the subject. This book, like the innumerable treatises which succeeded it, was entitled TE'Xvn'P-TopLKw, 1" the Art of Rhetoric," or simply TEXvVq, " the Art." This work is worthy of notice as the first of its kind, not only among the Greeks, but perhaps also in the whole world. All that we know of it is, that it laid down a regular form and regular divisions for the oration, which, above all, was to begin with a distinct procemium, calculated to put the hearers in a favorable train, and to conciliate their good-will at the very opening of the speech. According to some, Corax would seem not to have been a pleader in the law courts, but merely a composer of speeches for others, since it is doubtful whether there was an establishment of patroni and causidici at Syracuse as at Rome, or whether every one was compelled to plead his own cause, as at Athens, in which case he was always able to get his speech made for him by some professed rhetorician.2 VII. TISIAS was first a pupil, and afterward a rival of Corax. He also was known not only as a public speaker, but likewise as the author of a TEWXv. GoRGIAs,3 again, was the pupil of Tisias, and followed closely in his steps. Gorgias was a native of Leontini, a Chalcidian colony in Sicily. He was somewhat older than the Attic orator Antiphon (born in B.C. 480 or 479), and lived to such an advanced age (some say 105, and others 109 years), that he survived Socrates, though probably only a short time. According to the common account, he was sent by his fellow-citizens, when advanced in years (B.C. 427), as ambassador to Athens, for the purpose of soliciting its protection against the threatening power of Syracuse. Another account makes Tisias to have been his colleague on the occasion. Through Gorgias this artificial rhetoric obtained more fame and glory than fell to the share of any other branch of literature. The Athenians, to whom this Sicilian rhetoric was still a novelty, though they were fully qualified and predisposed to enjoy its beauties, were quite enchanted with it, and it soon became fashionable to speak like Gorgias. The impression produced by his oratory was greatly increased by his stately appearance, his well-chosen and splendid costume, and the selfpossession and confidence of his demeanor. Besides, his rhetoric rested on a basis of philosophy, which taught that the sole aim of the orator is I Miiller, 1. c., p. 75. 2 Id. ib. s Id., p. 73; Smith, Diet. Biogr., s. v,

Page  268 268 GREEK LITERATURE. to turn the minds of his hearers into such a train as may best consist with his own interests; that, consequently, rhetoric is the agent of persuasion, the art of all arts, because the rhetorician is able to speak well and convincingly on every subject, even though he has no accurate knowledge respecting it.' In accordance with this view of rhetoric, Gorgias took little pains with the subject-matter of his speeches; he only concerned himself about this so far as to exercise himself in treating of general topics, which were called loci communes, and the proper application and management of which have always helped the rhetorician to conceal his ignorance. The chief study of Gorgias, however, was directed to the form of expression. His oratory was chiefly calculated to tickle the ear by antitheses, by combinations of words of similar sound, by the symmetry of its parts and similar artifices, and to dazzle by metaphors, allegories, repetitions, apostrophes, and the like; by novel images, poetical circumlocutions, and high-sounding expressions, and sometimes also by a strain of irony. He, lastly, tried to charm his hearers by a symmetrical arrangement of his periods. But as these artifices, in the application of which he is said to have often shown real grandeur, earnestness, and elegance, were made use of too profusely, and for the purpose of giving undue prominence to poor thoughts, his orations did not excite the feelings of his hearers, and, at all events, could produce only a momentary impression. This was the case with his oration addressed to the assembled Greeks at Olympia, exhorting them to union against their common enemy, and with the funeral oration which he wrote at Athens, though he probably did not deliver it in public; and a fragment of which is preserved by the scholiast on Hermogenes.2 Gorgias seems to have returned to Leontini, but only for a short time, and to have spent the remaining years of his vigorous old age in the towns of Greece proper, especially at Athens and the Thessalian Larissa, enjoying honor every where as an orator and teacher of rhetoric. Besides Polus, of Agrigentum, his favorite scholar and devoted partisan, who is described in such lively colors in the Gorgias of Plato, such men as Alcibiades, Critias, Alcidamas,.Eschines, and Antisthenes, are called either pupils or imitators of Gorgias. We will return to this individual in our remarks on the Sophists. Two declamations have come down to us under the name of Gorgias, viz., the Apology of Palamedes, and the Encomium on Helena. Their genuineness is maintained by Reiske, Geel, and Schdnborn, and doubted by Voss and others. It is difficult to give any decisive opinion on the subject, since the characteristic peculiarities of the oratory of Gorgias, which appear in these declamations, especially in the former, might very well have been imitated by a skillful rhetorician of later times. These declamations are given by Reiske in the eighth volume of his Oratores Grceci; by Bekker, in the fifth volume of his Oratores Attici; and by Mullach, Berlin, 1845, 1 MIiller, Hist, Gr. Lit., vol. ii., p. 77. 2 Id. ib.

Page  269 ATTIC PERIOD. 269 ATTIC ORATORS. VIII. The cultivation of the art of oratory among the Athenians is due to a combination of the natural eloquence displayed by the Athenian statesmen, and especially by Pericles, with the rhetorical studies introduced by Gorgias. The first person in whom the effects of this combination were fully shown was Antiphon, who was both a practical statesman and man of business, and also a rhetorician of the schools.l The canon of Attic orators, as settled in a later age by the Alexandrine grammarians, c6mmences therefore with his name. This canon contains ten names, given in chronological order, as follows: Antiphon, Andocides, Lysias, Isocrates, Isceus, AEschines, Lycurgus, Demosthenes, Hyperides, and Dinarchus. These ten are known by the appellation of the Ten Attic Orators, and we shall proceed to consider them in the order in which they have been named. 1. ANTIPHON ('AvrLpciv),2 the most ancient of the ten Attic orators in the Alexandrine canon, was a son of Sophilus the sophist, and born at Rhamnus, in Attica, B.C. 480.3 He was a man of eminent talent and firm character,4 and is said to have been educated partly by his father and partly by Pythodorus, while, according to others, he owed his education to no one but himself. When he was a young man, the fame of Gorgias was at its height. The object of Gorgias's sophistical school of oratory, as already remarked, was more to dazzle and captivate the hearer by brilliancy of diction and rhetorical artifices, than to produce a solid conviction based upon sound arguments. Antiphon perceived this deficiency, and formed a higher and more practical view of the art to which he devoted himself; that is, he wished to produce conviction in the minds of the hearers by means of a thorough examination of the subjects proposed, and this not with a view to the narrow limits of the school, but to the courts and the public assembly. Hence the ancients call Antiphon the inventor of public oratory, or state that he raised it to a higher position.5 Antiphon was thus the first who regulated practical eloquence by certain theoretical laws, and he opened a school in which he taught rhetoric. Thucydides the historian, a pupil of Antiphon, speaks of his master with the highest esteem, and many of the excellences of his style are ascribed by the ancients to the influence of Antiphon.6 At the same time, Antiphon occupied himself with writing speeches for others, who delivered them in the courts of justice; and as he was the first who received money for such orations-a practice which subsequently became quite generalhe was severely attacked and ridiculed, especially by the comic writers Plato and Pisander. 7 These attacks, however, may also have been owing to his political opinions, for he belonged to the oligarchical party. This i MUller, Hist. Gr. Lit., vol. ii., p. 79. 2 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 3 Plut., Vit. Dec. Orat., p. 832, B. 4 Thucyd., viii., 88; Plnt., Nic,, 6. 5 Philostr., Vit. Soph., i., 15, 2; Hermog., De Form., ii., p. 498. 6 Schol. ad Thucyd., iv., p. 312, ed. Bekker. 7 Philostr., 1. c.; Plut., Vit. Dec. Orat., p. 833, C.

Page  270 270 GREEK LITERATURE. unpopularity, together with his own reserved character, prevented his ever appearing as a speaker, either in the courts or in the assembly; and the only time he spoke in public was in B.C. 411, when, on the overthrow of the oligarchical government, Antiphon was brought to trial for having attempted to negotiate peace with Sparta, and was condemned to death. His speech in defence of himself is stated by Thucydides' to have been the ablest that was ever made by any man in similar circumstances. It is now lost, but was known to the ancients, and is referred to by Harpocration, who calls it xo'yos rEpi reTaac'rcaoEws. His property was confiscated, his house razed to the ground, and on the site of it a tablet was erected with the inscription "Antiphon the Traitor." His remains were not allowed to be buried in Attic ground; his children, as well as any one who should adopt them, were punished with atimia. As an orator, Antiphon was highly esteemed by the ancients. Hermogenes2 says of his orations that they were clear, true in the expression of feeling, and faithful to nature, and consequently convincing. Others say that his orations were beautiful but not graceful, or that they had something austere or antique about them. The want of freshness and gracefulness is very obvious in the orations still extant, but more especially in those actually spoken by Antiphon's clients. His language is pure and correct, and the treatment and solution of the point at issue are always striking and interesting.3 The ancients possessed sixty orations of different kinds which went by the name of Antiphon, but Caecilius, a rhetorician of the Augustan Age, declared twenty-five to be spurious." We now possess only fifteen orations of Antiphon, three of which were written by him for others. The remaining twelve were composed as specimens for his school, or exercises on fictitious cases. They are a peculiar phenomenon in the history of ancient oratory, for they are divided into three tetralogies, each of which consists of four orations, two accusations and two defences on the same subject. The subject of the first tetralogy is a murder, the perpetrator of which is yet unknown; that of the second an unpremeditated murder; and that of the third a murder committed in self defence. The clearness which distinguishes his other three orations is not perceptible in these tetralogies, which arises in part from the corrupt and mutilated state in which they have come down to us. A great number of the orations of Antiphon, and in fact all those which are extant, have for their subject the commission of a murder, whence they are sometimes referred to under the name of xo'yot oovmKot.5 The three real speechesthe tetralogies must be left out of the question here-contain more information than any other ancient writings respecting the mode of proceeding in the criminal courts at Athens. Besides the orations, the ancients ascribe to Antiphon, 1. A treatise on " Rhetoric" (TExPv' P)7TopLK-c), in three books. This work is occasionally referred to by ancient rhetoricians and grammarians, but is now lost. 2. nIpoouceta Kal'E7rtXoyot. These seem to have been model-speeches or exercises, for the use of himself or his viii., 68. 2 De Form., p. 497. 3 Dionys., Jud. de Thucyd., 51; Phot., p. 485. Plutt., Vit. Dec. Orat., p. 833, B'. 5 Hermog., De Form., p. 496, seqq.

Page  271 r'ATTIC Pr RIloD. 271 scholars; and it is not improbable that his tetralogies may have belonged to them. The orations of Antiphon are printed in the collections of the Attic o rators, edited by Aldus (Venice, 1513, fol.), II. Stephens (Paris, 1575, fol.), Reiske (Leipzig, 1770-75, 12 volumes Svo), Bekker (Oxford, 1822-3, 4 volumes 8vo; reprinted Berlin, 1823-4, 5 volumes 8vo), Dobson (London, 1828, 16 volumes 8vo), Baiter and Sauppe (Z[irich, 183845, 4to), and others. The best separate editions are those of Baiter and Sauppe (the text merely), Zirich, 1838, 16mo, and Mitzner, Berlin, 1838, Svo, the last with critical notes and commentary. The best modern woriks on Antiphon are, I'.Van Spaan (Iuhnken), Dissertatio de A/ntiph.onte, Oratore Atlico, Leyden, 1765, 4to, reprinlted in Ruhnlken's Opuscula, and in Reiske's and Dobson's Greek Orators; Taylor, Lect. Lysiac., vii., p. 848, seqq., ed. Reiske; and WVestermann, Geschichte dcr Grieck.. Beredtsas/sceit, I 40, seq. The student may consult also Dobree's " Asinnot. in AntiphonteCn," ill Scholelield's edition of Dobree's Adversaria, Cambridge, 1831, and in Dobson's Attic Orators. 2. ANDnoCIDES ('AvoKLSos)- weas born at Athens ill 3.C. 467. He blelonged to a noble falmily,2 and was a supporter of tile oligarchical party at Athens, and through their influence obtained, in B.C. 436, together with Glaucon, the comillmand of a fleet of twenty sail, which was to protect the Corcyreans against the Corinthianls.3 After this he seems to have been employed on various occasions as ambassador to Thessaly, Macedonia, Molossia, Thesprotia, Italy, and Sicily;4 and, although lie was frequently attacked for his political opinions, he yet maintained his ground, until ill B.C. 415, when he became involved in the charge brought against Alcibiades for having profaned the mysteries and mutilated the Hermne. It appeared the more likely that Andocides was an accomplice in the latter of these crimes, which was believed to be a preliminary step toward overthrowing the democratical constitution, since the Hermes standing close to his house was among the very few which had not been injured.5 Andocides was accordingly seized and thrown into prison, but after some time recovered his liberty by a promise that he would reveal the names of the real perpetrators of the crime; and, on the suggestion of one Charmides or Timweus,6 he mentioned four, all of whom were put to death. He is said to have also denounced his own father, but to have rescued him again in the hour of danger. But as Andocides was unable to clear himself from the charge, he was deprived of his rights as a citizen, and left Athens.7 He returned to Athens on the establishment of the government of the Four Hundred in 411, but was soon obliged to fly again.8 In the following year he ventured once more to return to Athens, and it was at this time that he delivered the speech still extant, On his Return (liepI T's Eavwrot caO0ouv), in which he petitioned for permission to reside at Athens, but in vain. He was thus driven into exile a third time, and went to reside at Elis.9 In B.C. 403 lie again returned to Athens, upon the overthrow of the tyranny of the Thirty by Thrasybulus, and the proclamation of the general amnesty. He was now allowed to remain quietly at Athens for the next three years, but in B.C. 400 his enemies accused him Smnith7, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 2 Plut., Vit. Dec. Orat., p. 834, B. 3 Tsicyd., i., 51; PlOt., 1. c. 4 A4ndoc. c. Alcib., i 41. 5 Plitt., 1. c.; iNcos., Alcit., 3. G De Myst., 8 48; Ploit., Alcib., 21. 7 7)r icd., 6 25. P Llys. c 2.. Pit.o, Vit. )Dec. Orat., )p. 835, A.

Page  272 272 GREEK LITERATURE. of having profaned the mysteries. He defended himself in the oration still extant, On the Mysteries (Iespi.Tv MvompiarY), and was acquitted. In B.C. 394 he was sent as ambassador to Sparta, to conclude a peace, and on his return, in 393, he was accused of illegal conduct (7rapa7rpea&etias) during his embassy. He defended himself in the extant speech On the Peace with Lacedcemon (rIEpl rs 7rpbs lAaCE&a1/uovLovs eilpivqs), but was found guilty, and sent into exile for the fourth time. He seems to have died soon afterward in exile. Andocides appears to have left no issue, since at the age of seventy he had no children,l though the scholiast on Aristophanes mentions Antiphon as a son of Andocides. This was probably owing to his wandering and unsteady life, as well as to his dissolute character.2 The large fortune which he inherited from his father, or acquired in his commercial undertakings, was greatly diminished in the latter years of his life.3 Andocides has no claim to the esteem of posterity either as a man or as a citizen. Besides the three orations already mentioned, which are undoubtedly genuine, there is a fourth, against Alcibiades (KaT'AAKl/3cLd&ouv), said to have been delivered by Andocides in B.C. 415, but it is in all probability spurious, though it appears to contain genuine historical matter. Taylor ascribed it to Phaeax, while others think it more probable that it is the work of some one of the later rhetoricians, with whom the accusation or defence of Alcibiades was a standing theme. Besides these four orations we possess only a few fragments, and some very vague allusions to other orations. As an orator Andocides does not appear to have been held in very high esteem by the ancients, as he is seldom mentioned, though Valerius Theon is said to have written a commentary on his orations. We do not hear of his having been trained in any of the sophistical schools of the time, and he had probably developed his talents in the practical school of the popular assembly. Hence his orations have no mannerism in them, and are really, as Plutarch says, simple, and free from all rhetorical pomp and ornament. Sometimes, however, his style is diffuse, and becomes tedious and obscure. The best among the orations is that on the Mysteries; but, for the history of the time, all are of the highest importance. The orations are printed in the collections of the Greek orators mentioned at the end of the article on Antiphon. The best separate editions are those of Schiller, Leipzig, 1835, 8vo, and of Baiter and Sauppe, Zurich, 1838, 8vo. The most important works on the life and orations of Andocides are: Sluiter, Lectiones Andocideew, Leyden, 1804, reprinted at Leipzig, 1834, with notes by Schiller; a treatise of A. G. Becker, prefixed to his German translation ofAndocides, Quedlinburg, 1832, 8vo; Ruhnken, Hist. Crit. Orat. Grcec., p. 47, seqq.; Westermann, Gesch. der Griech. Beredtsamkeit, 4 42, seq. 3. LYSIAS (Avo[as) was born at Athens in B.C. 458. He was the son of Cephalus, who was a native of Syracuse, and had taken up his abode at Athens on the invitation of Pericles.4 When he was little more than fifteen years old, in B.C. 443, Lysias and his two (some say three) brothers joined the Athenians who went as colonists to Thurii, in Italy. He I De Myst., ~ 146, ~ 148. 2 lb., ~ 100. 3 Ib., 4 144. 4 Dionys., Lys., 1; Plut., Vit. Dec. Orat., p. 835.

Page  273 ATTIC PERIOD. 273 there completed his education under the instruction of two Syracusans, Tisias (already mentioned by us) and Nicias, and afterward enjoyed great esteem among the Thurians, and even seems to have taken part in the administration of the young republic. From a passage of Aristotle,' we learn that he devoted some time to the teaching of rhetoric, though it is uncertain whether he entered upon this profession while yet at Thurii, or did not commence till after his return to Athens, where we know that Isaeus was one of his pupils.2 In B.C. 411, when he had attained the age of forty-seven, after the defeat of the Athenians in Sicily, all persons, both in Sicily and in the south of Italy, who were suspected of favoring the cause of the Athenians, were exposed to persecutions; and, accordingly, Lysias, together with 300 others, was expelled by the Spartan party from Thurii as a partisan of the Athenians. He now returned to Athens; but there, too, great misfortunes awaited him; for, during the rule of the Thirty tyrants, after the battle of lEgospotami, he was looked upon as an enemy of the government, his large property was confiscated, and he was thrown into prison with a view to being put to death. But he escaped from Athens, and took refuge at Megara.3 His attachment to Athens, however, was so great, that when Thrasybulus, at the head of the patriots, marched from Phyle to liberate their country, Lysias joyfully sacrificed all that yet remained of his fortune, for he sent the patriots 2000 drachmas and 200 shields, and engaged a band of 302 mercenaries. Thrasybulus procured him the Athenian franchise as a reward for his generosity; but Archinus afterward induced the people to declare it void, because it had been conferred without a probouleuma; and Lysias henceforth lived at Athens as an isoteles, occupying himself, as it appears, solely with writing judicial speeches for others, and died in B.C. 378, at the age of eighty.4 Lysias was one of the most fertile writers of orations that Athens ever produced, for there were in antiquity no less than 425 orations which were current under his name, though the ancient critics were of opinion that only 230 of them were genuine.5 Of these orations only thirty-five are extant, and even among these some are incomplete, and others are probably spurious. Of fifty-three others we possess only a few fragments. Most of these orations, only one of which (that against Eratosthenes, B.C. 403) he delivered himself in court, were composed after his return from Thurii to Athens. There are, however, some among them which probably belong to an earlier period of his life, when Lysias treated his art more from a theoretical point of view, and they must therefore be regarded as rhetorical exercises. But from the commencement of the speech against Eratosthenes, we must conclude that his real career as a writer of orations began about B.C. 403. Among the lost works of Lysias we may mention a manual of rhetoric (erTXve7 pj4loplKrI), probably one of his early productions, which, however, is lost. How highly the orations of Lysias were valued in antiquity may be inferred from the great number of persons that wrote commentaries upon them. All the works, however, of these critics have perished. The only 1 Ap. Cic. Brut., 12. 2 Plut., 1. c.; Phot., Cod., p. 490, A. 3 Plut., Phot., II. cc. 4 Dionys., Lys., 12; Plut., p. 836. 5 Dionys., Lys., 17; Plut., p. 836.

Page  274 274 GREEK LITERATURE. criticism of any importance upon Lysias that has come down to us is that of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, in his IIEpl TWv apcXa1ov p'irpnpv b7ro'curelaTrlGOL[, the rcwv apXacWiV KptJLS, and in his account of Lysias; to which we may add the remarks of Photius. According to the judgment of Dionysius, and the accidental remarks of others, which are borne out by a careful examination of the orations still extant, the diction of Lysias is perfectly pure, and may be looked upon as the best canon of the Attic idiom. His language is natural and simple, but, at the same time, noble and dignified;1 it is always clear and lucid; the copiousness of his style does not injure its precision, nor can his rhetorical embellishments be considered as impairing the charming simplicity of his manner of expression.2 His delineations of character are always striking and true to life. But what characterizes his orations above those of all other ancients, is the indescribable gracefulness and elegance which pervade all of them, without in the least impairing their power and energy; and this gracefulness was considered so peculiar a feature in all the productions of Lysias, that Dionysius thought it a fit criterion by which the genuine works of this orator might be distinguished from the spurious productions which went by his name.- The manner in which Lysias treats his subjects is equally deserving of high praise. It is therefore no matter of surprise to hear that, among the many orations he wrote for others, two only are said to have been unsuccessful.4 The extant orations of Lysias axe contained in the collections of the Greek orators mentioned at the close of the article on Antiphon. Among the separate editions we may mention those of Taylor, London, 1739, 4to, with a full critical apparatus, and the emendations of Markland; of Auger, Paris, 1783, 4to, and 8vo, 2 vols.; of Bremi, in Jacobs' and Rost's Biblioth. Grac., Gotha, 1826 (" Lysie et AEschinis Orationes Selecte"); of Baiter and Sauppe, Zirich, 1838; of Foertsch, Leipzig, 1829; of Franz, Muiinich, 1831; and the Select Orations of Rauchenstein, in Haupt and Sauppe's Collection, Leipzig, 1850. The following modern works in relation to Lysias deserve also to be mentioned here: Franz, Dissertatio de Lysia Oratore Attico Grcece scripta, Nurimb., 1828, 8vo; Hoelscher, De Lysiee oratoris vita et dictione, Berlin, 1836, 8vo; and Westermann, Gesch. der Griech. Beredtsamkeit, Q 46, seqq.; Beilage, iii., p. 278, seqq. 4. ISOCRATES ('IoKcpd7Tsm)5 was born at Athens in B.C. 436. His father, Theodorus, was a man of considerable wealth, and had a manufactory of flutes or musical instruments, for which the son was often ridiculed by the comic poets of the time; but the father made a good use of his property, in procuring for the young Isocrates the best education that could be obtained. The most celebrated sophists are mentioned among his teachers, such as Tisias, Gorgias, and Prodicus.6 Socrates also is named among his instructors. Isocrates was naturally timid, and of a weakly constitution, for which reasons he abstained from taking any direct part in the political affairs of his country, and resolved to contribute toward the development of eloquence by teaching and writing, and thus to guide others in the path for which his own constitution unfitted him. According, however, to some accounts, he devoted himself to the teaching of Dionys., Lys., 2, 3; Cic., Brut., 82; Quintil., xii., 10, 21. 2 Dionys., Lys., 4, seqq. 3 Id. ib., 10, seqq. 4 Plut., Vit. Dec. Orat., p. 836. s Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 6 Dionys., Isocrat., 1; Plut., Vit. Dec. Orat., p. 836.

Page  275 A'TTIC PERIOD. 275 rhetoric for the purpose of ameliorating his circumstances, since he had lost his paternal inheritance in the war against the Lacedaemonians.'l Isocrates first established a school of rhetoric in the island of Chios, but his success does not appear to have been very great, for he is said to have had only nine pupils there. He is stated, however, to have exerted himself in another direction, and to have regulated the political constitution of Chios after the model of that of Athens. After this he returned to Athens, and there opened a school of rhetoric. He met now with the greatest success, and the number of his pupils soon increased to 100, every one of whom paid him 1000 drachmas. In addition to this he realized a large income by writing orations. Thus Plutarch2 relates that Nicocles, king of Cyprus, gave Isocrates twenty talents for the oration 7rpbs NLKcocXa. The orations of Isocrates were either sent thus to the persons to whom they were addressed, for their private perusal, or they were intrusted to others to deliver in public. He is said to have delivered only one himself. In this manner he gradually acquired a considerable property, and he was several times called upon to undertake the expensive trierarchy. This happened first in B.C. 355, but, being ill, he excused himself through his son Aphareus. In B.C. 352 he was called upon again, and, in order to silence the calumnies of his enemies, he performed it in the most splendid manner. The oration 7repl &cvrLT&1oEWs 7rpbs AvauolaXov refers to that event, though it was written after it. This is said by Plutarch to have been the only oration that he ever delivered. Isocrates has the great merit of being the first who clearly saw the great value and objects of oratory in its practical application to public life and the affairs of the state. At the same time, he endeavored to base public oratory upon sound moral principles, and thus to rescue it from the influence of the Sophists, who used and abused it for any and every purpose; for Isocrates, although educated by the most eminent sophists, was the avowed enemy of all sophistry. He was, however, not altogether free from their influence; and what is most conspicuous in his political discourses is the absence of all practical knowledge of real political life, so that his fine theories, though they were unquestionably well meant, bear a strong resemblance to the visions of an enthusiast. The influence which he exercised on his country by his oratory must have been limited, since his exertions were confined to his school, but through his school he had the greatest possible influence upon the development of public oratory; for the most eminent statesmen, philosophers, orators, and historians of the time were trained in it, and afterward developed, each in his particular way, the principles they had imbibed therein. No ancient rhetorician had so many disciples that afterward shed lustre on their country as Isocrates. Hence Cicero3 beautifully compares his school to the Trojan horse, from which so many leaders (principes) came forth. The great esteem in which the orations of Isocrates were held by the ancient grammarians is attested by the numerous commentaries that were written upon them. All these commentaries, however, are now 1 Plut., 1. c.. p. 837; Isocrat., De Permut., b 172. 2 1. c., p. 838. n De Orat., ii., 22.

Page  276 276 GREEK LITERATURE. lost, with the exception of the criticism by Dionysius of Halicarnassus. The language of Isocrates is the most refined Attic, and thus forms a great contrast to the pure and natural simplicity of Lysias, as well as the sublime power of Demosthenes. His artificial style is more elegant than graceful, and more ostentatious than pleasing; the carefully-rounded periods, the frequent application of figurative expressions, are features which remind us of the Sophists; and although his sentences flow very melodiously, yet they become wearisome'and monotonous by the perpetual recurrence of the same over-refined periods, which are not relieved by being interspersed with shorter and easier sentences. In saying this, however, we must remember that Isocrates wrote his orations to be read, and not with a view to their recitation before the public. The immense care which he bestowed on. the composition of his orations, and the time he spent in working them out and polishing them, may be inferred from the statement that he was engaged for a period of ten, and,according to others, of fifteen years, upon his Panegyric oration.' It is owing to this very care and labor that, in the arrangement and treatment of his subject. Isocrates is far superior to Lysias and other orators of the time, and that the number of orations which he wrote is comparatively small. The politics of Isocrates were conciliatory. He was a friend of peace: he repeatedly exhorted the Greeks to concord among themselves, and to turn their arms against their common enemy, the Persians. He addressed Philip of Macedon in a similar strain after his peace with Athens, B.C. 346, exhorting him to reconcile the states of Greece, and to unite them against Persia. Though no violent partisan, he proved, however, a warm-hearted patriot; for, on receiving the news of the battle of ChWronea, he refused to take food for several days, and thus closed his long and honorable career at the age of ninety-eight, B.C. 338. There were in antiquity sixty orations which went by the name of Isocrates, but Caecilius, a rhetorician of the time of Augustus, recognized only twenty-eight of them as genuine,2 and of these only twenty-one have come down to us. Eight of them were written for judicial purposes in civil cases, and intended to serve as models for this species of oratory. All the others are political discourses, or show-speeches, intended to be read by a large public; they are particularly characterized by the ethical element, on which his political views are based. Of these, the most remarkable is the discourse entitled IlaoyysvpKids, Panegyricus, or " Panegyrical Oration," that is, a discourse intended to be pronounced before the assembled people. It was published (though not with a view of being delivered) about B.C. 379, in the time of the Lacedaemonian ascendency, and in it he exhorts the Lacedoemonians and Athenians to vie with each other in a noble emulation, and to unite their forces in an expedition against Asia. He descants eloquently on the merits and glories of the Athenian commonwealth, on the services it had rendered to Greece, and on its high intellectual cultivation; while he defends it from the charges, urged by its enemies, of tyranny by sea, and of oppression toward its colonies. In the'ApEo'rayLTLK4dS, Areopagiticus, one of the best Quintil., x., 4, 4. 2 Plut., 1. c., p. 838; Phot., Cod., 260.

Page  277 ATTIC PERIOD. 277 of his discourses, he declares that he sees no safety for Athens save in the restoration of that democracy which Solon had founded, and Clisthenes had revived. Besides these entire orations, we have the titles and fragments of twenty-seven other orations, which are referred to under the name of Isocrates. There also exist under his name ten letters, which were written to friends on political questions of the time; one of them, however (the tenth), is in all probability spurious. A scientific manual of rhetoric ('eXeV ~WfrqopKIC), which Isocrates wrote, is lost, with the exception of a few fragments, so that we are unable to form any definite idea of his merits in this respect. The orations of Isocrates are printed in the various collections of the Greek orators already mentioned at the close of the article on Antiphon. Of the separate editions we may mention those of H. Wolf, Basle, 1553, 8vo, and with Wolf's notes and emendations, Basle, 1570, fol.; of Auger, Paris, 1782, 3 vols. 8vo, which is not what it might have been; considering the MSS. he had at his disposal; of Lange, Halle, 1803, 8vo; of Coraes, Paris, 1807, 2 vols. 8vo; of Baiter and Sauppe, ZUrich, 1839, 8vo; and of Baiter, in Didot's Bibliotheca Grcca, Paris, 1846, 8vo. There are also many good editions either of the orations separately, or else of particular orations, among which we may name the Select Orations, by Bremi, Gotha, 1831, part i.; the Panegyricus, with the notes of Morus, by Spohn, Leipzig, 1817, 2d edition by Baiter, Lips., 1831; by Pinzger, Leipzig, 1825, and by Dindorf, 1826; the Areopagiticus, by Benseler, Leipzig, 1832; the Panegyricus and Areopa-iticus, by Rauchenstein, Leipzig, 1849, 8vo, forming part of Haupt and Sauppe's collection; the Euagorae Encomium, by Leloup, Mayence, 1828; and the oration srepi avTLreoeewc, by Orelli, Zurich, 1814. A useful Index Grecitatis was published by Mitchell, Oxford, 1827, 8vo. The following works will also be found worthy of attention: Westermann, Gesch. der Griech. Beredtsamkeit, 1 48, seq.; Beilage, iv., p. 288, seqq.; Leloup, Commentatio de Isocrate, Bonn, 1823, 8vo; and Pfund, De Isocratis Vita et Scriptis, Berlin, 1833. 5. IsxEus ('Ioaos) was a native of Chalcis, or, as some say, of Athens, probably only because he came to the latter city at an early age, and spent the greater part of his life there. The time of his birth and death is unknown, but all accounts agree in the statement that he flourished (StcKeace) during the period between the Peloponnesian war and the accession of Philip of Macedonia, so that he lived between B.C. 420 and 348.1 He was instructed in oratory by Lysias and Isocrates.2 He was afterward engaged in writing judicial orations for others, and established a rhetorical school at Athens, in which Demosthenes is said to have been one of his pupils. Suidas states that Iseus instructed him gratis, whereas Plutarch relates that: he received 10,000 drachmas;3 and it is further said that Iseus wrote for Demosthenes the speeches against his guardians, or, at least, assisted him in the composition. All particulars about his life are unknown, and were so even in the time of Dionysius, since Hermippus, who had written an account of the disciples of Isocrates, did not mention Iseus at all. In antiquity there were sixty-four orations which bore the name of Iseus, but fifty only were recognized as genuine by the ancient critics.4 Of these only eleven have come down to us; but we possess fragments and the titles of fifty-six speeches ascribed to him. The eleven extant are 1- Dionys., Isceus, I; Plut., Vit. Dec. Orat., p. 839. 2 Phot., Cod., 263. Plut., De Glor. Atlh.? p. 350, C. 4 Id., Vit. Dec. Orat., 1. c.

Page  278 278 GREEK LITERATURE. all on subjects connected with disputed inheritances; and Iseus appears to have been particularly well acquainted with the laws relating to inheritance (7repl KicXpov). Ten of these orations have been known ever since the revival of letters, and were printed in the collections of the Greek orators; but the eleventh,.r'epl so MEveiXAeovs KXipov, was first published from a Florentine MS., by Tyrwhitt, London, 1785, 8vo; and afterward in the Gotting. Biblioth. fiir alte Lit. und Kunst, for 1788, part iii., and by Orelli, Ziirich, 1814, 8vo. In 1815, Mai discovered the greater part of the oration of Isweus, 7repl ToO KXecWYov cV KrXpov, which he published at Milan, 1815, fol., and reprinted in his Classic. Auctor. e Cod. Vatican., vol. iv., p. 280, seqq. Isaeus wrote also on rhetorical subjects, such as a work entitled I1fat Trx'cat, which, however, is lost.' Though his orations were placed in the Alexandrean canon, still we do not hear of any of the grammarians having written commentaries upon them except Didymus. But we still possess the criticism upon Isweus written by Dionysius of Halicarnassus; and, by a comparison of the orations still extant with the opinions of Dionysius, we come to the following conclusion. The oratory of Ismeus resembles in many points that of his teacher Lysias; the style of both is pure, clear, and concise. But while Lysias is, at the same time, simple and graceful, Isaus evidently strives to attain a higher degree of polish and refinement, without, however, in the least injuring the powerful and impressive character of his oratory. The same spirit is visible in the manner in which he handles his subjects, especially in their skillful division, and in the artful manner in which he interweaves his arguments with various parts of the exposition, whereby his orations become like a painting in which light and shade are distributed with a distinct view to produce certain effects. It was mainly owing to this mode of management that he was envied and censured by his contemporaries, as if he had tried to deceive and mislead his hearers. He was one of the first who turned their attention to a scientific cultivation of political oratory; but excellence in this department of the art was not attained till the time of Demosthenes.2 The orations of Iseeus are contained in the collections of the Greek orators mentioned at the close of the article on Antiphon. A separate edition, with Reiske's and Taylor's notes, appeared at Leipzig, 1773, 8vo, and another by Schafer, Leipzig, 1822, 8vo. The best separate edition, however, is that by Schumann, Greifswald, 1831, 8vo, with critical notes and a good commentary. There is an English translation of the orations of Isweus by Sir William Jones, London, 1794, 4to, with prefatory discourse, notes critical and historical, and a commentary. This translation will give an English reader a sufficient notion of the orator, but it is somewhat deficient in critical accuracy, and also wanting in force. For farther information concerning Isaeus, the student may consult Westermann, Cfesch. der Griech. Beredts., 4 51, Beilage, v., p. 293, seqq., and Liebmann, De Isei Vita et Scriptis, Halle, 1831, 4to. 6. 2ESCHINES (Ai',XiV-s)3 was the son of Atrometus and Glaucothea, and was'born B.C. 389. According to Demosthenes, his political antagonist, and who was no doubt in this guilty of exaggeration, his parents were of disreputable character, and not even citizens of Athens..,Es1 Plut., Vit. Dec. Orat., 1. c. 2 Smith, Diet. Biogr., s. v. 3 Id. ib.

Page  279 ATTIC PERIOD. 279 chines himself, on the other hand, says that his father was descended from an honorable family, and lost his property during the Peloponnesian war..LEschines had two brothers, one of whom, Philochares, was older than himself, and the other, Aphobetus, was the youngest of the three. Philochares was at one time one of the ten Athenian generals, an office which was conferred upon him for three successive years; Aphobetus followed the calling of a scribe, but had once been sent on an embassy to the King of Persia, and was afterward connected with the administration of the public revenue of Athens.' All these things seem to contain strong evidence that the family of AEschines, though poor, must have been of some respectability. In his youth LEschines appears to have assisted his father, who kept a small school; he next acted as secretary to Antiphon, and afterward to Eubulus, a man of great influence with the democratical party, with whom he formed an intimate friendship, and to whose political principles he remained faithful to the end of his life. After leaving the service of Eubulus, he tried his fortune as an actor, for which he was provided by nature with a strong and sonorous voice. He acted the parts of a Tprapywvcr'iTs, but was unsuccessful, and, on one occasion, when he was performing in the character of CEnomaus, he was hissed off the stage.2 After this he left the stage and engaged in military services, in which, according to-his own account,3 he gained great distinction.4 After sharing in several less important engagements in other parts of Greece, he distinguished himself, in B.C. 362, in the battle of Mantinea. Subsequently, in B.C. 358, he also took part in the expedition of the Athenians against Eubcea, and fought in the battle of Tamyna, and on this occasion he gained such laurels that he was praised by the generals on the spot, and, after the victory was gained, was sent to carry the news of it to Athens. The Athenians honored him with a crown. Two years before this campaign, the last in which he took part, yEschines had come forward at Athens as a public speaker,5 and the military fame which he had now acquired established his reputation. His former occupation as a scribe to Antiphon and Eubulus had made him acquainted with the laws and constitution of Athens, while his acting on the stage had been a useful preparation for public speaking. During the first period of his public career, _LEschines was, like all other Athenians, zealously engaged in directing the attention of his fellow-citizens to the growing power of Philip, and exhorted them to check it in its growth. In B.C. 347, he was sent, along with Demosthenes, as one of the ten ambassadors to negotiate a peace with Philip. From this time he appears as the friend of the Macedonian party, and as the opponent of Demosthenes. Shortly afterward, he formed one of the second embassy sent to Philip to receive that monarch's oath to the treaty which had been concluded with the Athenians; but, as the delay of the ambassadors in obtaining the ratification had been favorable to the interests of Philip, YEschines, on his return to Athens, was accused by Timarchus. He evaded the danger, however, by bringing forward a counter-accusation Esch., Defals. Leg., p. 48. 2 Dem., De Coron., p. 288. Defals. Leg., p. 50. Compare Demosth., De.fals. Leg., p. 375. 5 /EXsch., Epist., 12.

Page  280 280 GREEK LITERATURE. against Timarchus, and by showing that the moral character of his accuser was such that he had no right to speak before the people. The speech in which 2Eschines attacked Timarchus is still extant. Timarchus was condemned, and ZEschines gained a brilliant triumph. As we know little more of the matter than what is contained in the two speeches of.lEschines and his accuser, as they have come down to us, we have not the means of forming a proper judgment of the innocence or guilt of ZEschines. His simple, clear, and persuasive statement, however, of his own case proves his great abilities; and, contrasted with the somewhat confused speech of his accuser, leaves a favorable impression of the justice of his defence..LEschines and Demosthenes at length were at the head of the two parties, into which not only Athens, but all Greece, was divided, and their political enmity created and nourished personal hatred. This enmity came to a head in B.C. 343, when Demosthenes charged.Eschines with having been bribed, and having betrayed the interests of his country during the second embassy to Philip. This charge of Demosthenes (.rEpl 7rapa7rpeo',jEas) was not spoken, but published as a memorial, and.iEschines answered it in a similar memorial on the embassy, which was likewise published, and in the composition of which he is said to have been assisted by his friend Eubulus.' The result of these mutual attacks is unknown, but there is no doubt that a severe shock was given to the popularity of lEschines. At the time he wrote his memorial we gain a glimpse into his private life. Some years before that occurrence he had married a daughter of Philodemus, a man of high respectability in his tribe of Paeania, and in B.C. 343 he was father of three little children.2 The last great event in the public life of_ Eschines was his prosecution of Ctesiphon. It seems that after the battle of Chveronea, in B.C. 338, the enemies of Demosthenes made the misfortune of that day a handle for attacking him; but, notwithstanding the bribes which l.Eschines had received from Antipater for this purpose, the pure and unstained patriotism of Demosthenes was so generally recognized, that he received the honorable charge of delivering the funeral oration over those who had fallen at Chaeronea. Acting upon this same idea, therefore, Ctesiphon proposed that Demosthenes should be rewarded for the services he had done to his country with a golden crown in the theatre, at the great Dionysia. AEschines availed himself of the illegal form in which this reward was proposed to be given to bring a charge against Ctesiphon on that ground. But he did not prosecute the matter till eight years later, that is, in B.C. 330, when, after the death of Philip, and the victories of Alexander, political affairs had assumed a different aspect in Greece. After having commenced the prosecution against Ctesiphon, he is said to have gone for some time to Macedonia. What induced him to drop the prosecution of Ctesiphon, and to take it up again eight years afterward, are questions which can only be answered by conjectures. The speech in which he accused Ctesiphon in B.C. 330, and which is still extant, is so skillfully managed, that, if he had succeeded, he would have totally destroyed all 1 Demnosth., Defals. Leg., p. 337. 2 XEsch., De fals. Leg., p. 52.

Page  281 ATTIC PERIOD. 281 the political influence and authority of Demosthenes. The latter answered rEschines in his celebrated oration "' on the crown" (7epl arOTEpdVov)..Eschines lost his cause, and not having obtained one fifth part of the votes of the judges, he was compelled to leave Athens, being unable to pay the penalty in that case required by the law. AEschines went to Asia Minor. The statement of Plutarch that Demosthenes provided him with the means of accomplishing his journey is surely a fable. He spent several years in Ionia and Caria, occupying himself with teaching rhetoric, and anxiously waiting for the return of Alexander to Europe. When, in B.C. 324, the report of the death of Alexander reached him, he left Asia and went to Rhodes, where he established a school of eloquence, which subsequently became very celebrated, and occupies a middle position between the grave manliness of the Attic orators and the effeminate luxuriance of the so-called Asiatic school of eloquence. On one occasion, he read to his audience in Rhodes his speech against Ctesiphon, and when some of his hearers expressed their astonishment at his having been defeated, notwithstanding his brilliant oration, he replied, " You would not have been surprised if you had heard Demosthenes." The anecdote is told somewhat differently by Cicero,' and in a manner better suited to the purpose to which he applies it. The conduct oflEschines has been censured by the writers of all ages, and for this many reasons may be mentioned. In the first place, and above all, it was his misfortune to be constantly brought into juxtaposition or opposition to the spotless glory of Demosthenes, and this must have made him appear more guilty in the eyes of those who saw through his actions, while in later times the contrast between the greatest orators of the day was frequently made the theme of rhetorical declamation, in which one of the two was praised or blamed at the cost of the other, and less with regard to truth than to effect. Respecting the last period of his life we scarcely possess any other source of information than the accounts of late sophists, and declamations. Another point to be considered, in forming a just estimate of the character of Eschines, is, that he had no advantages of education, and that he owed his greatness to no one but himself. His occupations during the early part of his life were such as necessarily engendered in him the low desire of gain and wealth; and had he overcome these passions, he would perhaps have been nearly equal to Demosthenes. No ancient writer except Demosthenes charges him with having received bribes from the Macedonians for the purpose of betraying his country; still, however, coming as it does from so true a patriot, the charge can hardly have been an unfounded one, though perhaps in some degree exaggerated by the violence of party. It is impossible to arrive at the complete truth from the perplexing history of a period when the principal authorities are two political rivals, whose statements about the same matter are often in direct contradiction to one another.2 But if the integrity of AEschines is suspected, his great abilities both as a popular leader and an orator are undisputed. He was the rival, and, D De Orat., iii., 56. Compare Plin., H. iN., vii., 30; Quintil., xi*, 3, 6. 2 Smitt4,. r.

Page  282 282 G;REEK LITER ATURE. in the judgment of Cicero and Quintilian, all but the equal of Demosthenes. In the lucid arrangement of his matter, in the ease and clearness of his narrative, he has never been surpassed; if he falls below Demosthenes in any quality of an orator, it is in powerful invective and vehement passion. The facility and felicity of his diction, the boldness and the vigor of his descriptions, carry away the reader now, as they must have carried away his audience in former times. flEschines published only three of his numerous orations, namely, the one against Timarchus, that on the embassy, and the oration against Ctesiphon. The ancients, as Photius remarks, designated these three orations as the Graces. Photius mentions also nine letters of _Eschines, which the ancients in like manner called the Muses. At present, besides the three orations, we possess twelve letters ascribed to.Eschines, which, however, in all probability, are not more genuine than the so-called epistles of Phalaris, and are undoubtedly the work of late sophists. The orations and letters are given in all the collections of the Greek orators mentioned at the end of the article on Antiphon. Of separate editions we may mention the following: that by Wolf, Basle, 1572, fol.; by Taylor, Cambridge, 1748-57, 3 vols. 4to; by Schiifer, Leipzig, 1817, 8vo; by Bremi, Zurich, 1823-4, 2 vols. 8vo; by W. Dindorf, Leipzig, 1824, 8vo; by Bremi, Lysiw et lEschinis Orationes Selecta, in Jacobs' and Rost's Bibliotheca Graeca, Gotha, 1826, 8vo; by Baiter and Sauppe, Zirich, 1840, 16mo; by Wunderlich (the oration against Ctesiphon), Gdttingen, 1810, 8vo; by Franke (the oration against Timarchus), Cassel, 1839, 8vo. 7. LYCURGUS (AuvKogpyos), namesake of the celebrated Spartan lawgiver, was born at Athens about B.C. 396, and was the son of Lycophron, who belonged to the noble family of the Eteobutadae.' In early life he devoted himself to the study of philosophy in the school of Plato, but afterward became one of the disciples of Isocrates, and entered upon public life at a comparatively early age. He was appointed three successive times to the office of srcatlas T's iKotLs 7rposd4ov, or manager of the public revenue, and held his office each time for five years, beginning with B.C. 337. The conscientiousness with which he discharged the duties of this station enabled him to raise the public revenue to the sum of 1200 talents This, as well as the unwearied activity with which he labored, for increasing both the security and splendor of the city of Athens, gained for him the universal confidence of the people to such a degree, that when Alexander the Great demanded, among the other opponents of the Macedonian interest, the surrender of Lycurgus also, who had, in conjunction with Demosthenes, exerted himself against the intrigues of Macedonia even as early as the reign of Philip, the people of Athens clung to him, and boldly refused to deliver him up.2 He was farther intrusted with the superintendence (qvhxaaic) of the city, and the keeping of public discipline; and the severity with which he watched over the conduct of the citizens became almost proverbial.3 Lycurgus had a noble taste for every thing that was beautiful and grand, as he showed by the buildings he. erected or completed, both for the use of the citizens and the ornament of the city. His integrity was i Plut., Vit. Dec. Orat., p. 841. 2 Phot., Cod., 268, p. 496, seqq. Cic. ad At., i., 13; Pltt., Flamin., 12.

Page  283 ATTIC PERIOD. 283 so great that even private persons deposited with him large sums of money, which they wished to be kept in safety. He was also the author of several legislative enactments, of which he enforced the strictest observance. One of his laws forbade women to ride in chariots at the celebration of the mysteries; and when his own wife transgressed this law she was fined.' Another ordained that bronze statues should be erected to LEschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, and that copies of their tragedies should be made and preserved in the public archives. The lives of the ten orators ascribed to Plutarch2 are full of anecdotes and characteristic features of Lycurgus, from which we must infer that he was one of the noblest specimens of old Attic virtue, and a worthy contemporary of Demosthenes. He often appeared as a successful accuser in the Athenian courts, but he himself was as often accused by others, though he always, and even in the last days of his life, succeeded in silencing his enemies. He died while holding the office of ertor'ra-r's of the theatre of Bacchus, in B.C. 323. A fragment of an inscription containing an account which, he rendered to the state of his administration of the finances is still extant. According to Bdckh, Lycurgus was the only statesman of antiquity who had a real knowledge of the management of finance. At his death he left behind him three sons. Among the honors paid his memory it may be mentioned that he received a public funeral, and that a bronze statue was subsequently erected to him in the Ceramicus. Plutarch3 and Photius4 mention fifteen orations of Lycurgus as extant, but we know the titles of at least twenty.5 With the exception, however, of one entire oration against Leocrates, and some fragments of others, all the rest are lost, so that our knowledge of his skill and style as an orator is very incomplete. Dionysius and other ancient critics draw particular attention to the ethical tendency of his orations, but they censure the harshness of his metaphors, the inaccuracy in the arrangement of his subject, and his frequent digressions. His style is noble and grand, but neither elegant nor pleasing.6 The extant oration (Kara& AEwKpdrovs) is an accusation of Leocrates, an Athenian citizen, for abandoning Athens after the battle of Chaeronea, and settling in another Grecian state. It was delivered in B.C. 330. The oration against Leocrates is printed in the various collections of the Attic orators nmentioned at the close of the article on Antiphon. Anlong the separate editions the following are most worthy of notice: that of Taylor, Cambridge,`1743, 8vo, printed together with the speech of Demosthenes against Midias; of Heinrich, Bonn, 1821, 8vo; of Pinzger, Leipzig, 1824, 8vo, with a learned introduction, notes, and a German translation; of Becker, Magdeburg, 1821, 8vo; of Baiter and Sauppe, Zurich, 1834, 8vo; and of Matzner, Berlin, 1836, 8vo. The fragments of the other orations are collected by Kiessling, Lycurgi Deperd. Orat. Fragmenta, Halle, 1847. The following works may be consulted in relation to Lycurgus: Blume, lNarratio de Lycurgo Oratore,Potsdam, 1834, 4to; Nissen, De Lycurgi Oratoris vita et rebus gestis dissertatio, Kiel, 1833, 8vo. 8. DEMOSTHENES (A17ccooOEvfIs), the greatest of the Greek orators, was the son of Demosthenes, and born in the Attic demus of Paiania. His Ii Alian, V. H., xiii., 24. 2 p. 842, seqq. 3 Plut., 1. c., p. 843. 4 Phot., 1. c., p. 496, B. 5 Vestermann, Gesch. d. Griech. Beredts., Beilage. vi., p. 296. 6 Dionys., Vet. Scri pt. r,(s., v., 3.

Page  284 284 GREEK LITERATURE. birth-year, according to the most commonly received opinion, was B.C. 385, His father carried on the trade of sword-manufacturer (/aXaapo7roLrs); his mother was Cleobule, the daughter of Gylon. This Gylon, who had been governor of Nymphaeum, an Athenian settlement in the Tauric Chersonesus, betrayed it to the Scythians, and, afterward taking refuge with their chief, married a Scythian woman, who was the maternal grandmother of Demosthenes. This impurity of blood and the misconduct of Gylon, his maternal grandfather, formed a theme for the taunts of.Eschines. There is a well-known allusion in Juvenall to the trade of Demosthenes the elder, and hence the opinion so commonly entertained that the father of the orator was a blacksmith. The point of the satirist, however, is somewhat if not altogether lost, when we remember that Plutarch2 applies to the father a term (caXAoic&'yaOs) which expresses all that can be said to the advantage of a man, and also that he had two manufactories (epcyaar7-pma), containing,on the whole,more than fifty slaves. Demosthenes the elder died when his son was seven years old, leaving him and a sister, younger than himself, to the care of three guardians, Aphobus and Demophon, his first cousins, and Therippides, a friend. The property left by him amounted to fifteen talents. The guardians, however, as we learn from Demosthenes himself, disregarded all his father's injunctions, and, while they neglected to improve the property of which they were trustees, embezzled nearly the whole of it. Plutarch3 states that they also deprived Demosthenes of proper masters. He himself, however, in a passage where it is his object to magnify all that concerns his own history, boasts of the fitting education which he had received. He is said to have been instructed in philosophy by Plato;4 but it is very doubtful whether this statement be correct. It may be that Demosthenes knew and esteemed Plato, but this probably is all, and to make him, as some critics have done, a perfect Platonist, is certainly going too far. According to some accounts, moreover, he was instructed in oratory by Isocrates;5 but this was a disputed point with the ancients themselves, some of whom stated that he was not personally instructed by Isocrates, but only that he studied the TeXV77 P7TQOpLICI which Isocrates had written.6 To this may be added, that Demosthenes himself speaks with contempt of the rhetorical school of Isocrates.7 The account that Demosthenes was instructed in oratory by Isseus8 has much more probability; for at that time Ismeus was the most eminent orator in matters connected with the laws of inheritance, the very thing that Demosthenes needed. This account is farther supported by the fact that the earliest orations of Demosthenes, nanlely, those against Aphobus and Onetor, bear so strong a resemblance to those of Ismus, that the ancients themselves believed them to have been composed by Ismus for Demosthenes, or that the latter had written them un-der the guidance of the former.9 I Sat., x., 130. 2 Plut., Dem., 4. 3 Plut., I. c. 4 Plut., Vit. Dec. Orat., p. 844; Dem., 5. 5 Plut., 1. c. 6 Plut., Vit. Dec. Orat., p. 837; Dem., 5. 7 Dem. c. Lacrin., p. 928, 937. 8 Plut., Dem., 5; Vit. Dec. Orat., p. 844. 9 Plut., Vit. Dec. Orat., p. 839; Liban., Vit. Dem., 3.

Page  285 ATTIC PERIOD. 285 At the age of eighteen, the termination of his minority, Demosthenes called upon his guardians to render him an account of their administration of his property, but by intrigues they contrived to defer the business for two years. At length, in B.C. 364, Demosthenes accused Aphobus before the archon, and obtained a verdict in his favor.l Aphobus was condemned to pay ten talents, Demosthenes having estimated his losses at thirty talents (inclusive of ten years' interest), and having sued him for one third part. He did not, however, succeed in obtaining more than a small part of the sum thus awarded to him. This took place, as already intimated, when Demosthenes was in his twentieth year, or, as he says of himself, when he was quite a boy; but the extant orations against his guardians are evidently not the work of a youth of that age, and, as we have before remarked, were either composed by Iseeus or under his direction. Emboldened by his success, Demosthenes ventured to come forward as a speaker in the public assembly. His first effort, however, was a failure, and he encountered the ridicule of his hearers; but he was encouraged to persevere by the actor Satyrus, who gave him instruction in action and declamation; and his efforts were finally crowned with the most brilliant success. The physical disadvantages under which Demosthenes labored are well known, and the manner in which he surmounted them is often quoted as an example to encourage others to persevere. It should be observed, however, that the authority for some of these stories is but small, and that they rest on the assertions of writers of late date. He was naturally of a weak constitution; he had a feeble voice, an indistinct articulation, and a shortness of breath. From his defective utterance, his inability to pronounce the letter p, and his constant stammering, he derived, in fact, the nickname of 3dra'TaXos (or /d'raXos), the delicate youth or stammerer. It was only owing to the most unwearied and persevering exertions that he succeeded in overcoming and removing the obstacles which nature had thus placed in his way; and yet the means which he is said to have taken to remedy these defects look very like the inventions of some writer of the rhetorical school, though Plutarch quotes Demetrius Phalereus as saying that he had from the orator's own lips that the account was correct. Among these means we hear of his speaking with pebbles in his mouth, in order to cure himself of stammering; of repeating verses of the poets as he ran up hill, in order to strengthen his voice; of declaiming on the sea-shore, to accustom himself to the noise and confusion of the popular assembly; of his living for months in a cave under ground, engaged in constantly writing out the orations contained in the history of Thucydides, in order to form a standard for his own style. And yet, though these tales are not worthy of much credit, they, nevertheless, attest the common tradition of antiquity respecting the great efforts made by Demosthenes to attain to excellence as an orator. It was about B.C. 355 that Demosthenes began to obtain reputation as a speaker in the public assembly. It was in this year that he delivered the oration against Leptines, and from this time we have a series of I Dem. c. Aphob., i., p. 828.

Page  286 286 GREEK LITERATURE. his speeches on public affairs. His eloquence soon gained him the favor of the people; and the influence which he acquired he employed for the good of his country, and not for his own aggrandizement. He clearly saw that Philip had resolved to subjugate Greece, and he therefore devoted all his powers to resist the aggressions of the Macedonian monarch. For fourteen years he continued the struggle against Philip, and neither threats nor bribes could turn him from his purpose. It is true he failed; but the failure must not be regarded as his fault. The struggle was brought to a close by the battle of Cheronea, which crushed the independence of Greece. Demosthenes was present in the conflict, and fled like thousands of others. His enemies reproached him with his flight, and upbraided him as the cause of the misfortunes of his country; but the Athenians judged better of his conduct, requested him to deliver the funeral oration upon those who had fallen at Ch.eronea, and even celebrated the funeral feast in his house. At this time many accusations were brought against him by the adherents of the Macedonian party, one of the most formidable of which was the attack made by -Eschines upon Ctesiphon, but which was in reality aimed at Demosthenes himself. The nature and the issue of this prosecution have already been mentioned in the article on iEschines. Meantime important events had taken place in Greece. The death of Philip, in B.C. 336, roused the hopes of the patriots, and Demosthenes, though he had lost his daughter only seven days before, was the first to proclaim the joyful tidings of the king's death, and to call upon the Greeks to unite their strength against Macedonia. But Alexander's energy, and the frightful vengeance which he took upon Thebes, compelled Athens to submit and sue for peace. Alexander demanded the surrender of Demosthenes and the other leaders of the popular party, and with difficulty allowed them to remain at Athens. During the life of Alexander, Athens made no open attempt to throw off the Macedonian supremacy. But in B.C. 325, Harpalus having fled from Babylon with the treasure intrusted to his care by Alexander, came to Athens, the protection of which he purchased by distributing his gold among the most influential demagogues. The reception of such an open rebel was viewed as an act of hostility against Macedonia itself; and accordingly Antipater called upon the Athenians to deliver up the offender, and to bring to trial those who had accepted his bribes. Demosthenes was one of those who were suspected of having received money from Harpalus. The accounts of his conduct during the presence of Harpalus at Athens are so confused that it is almost impossible to arrive at any certain conclusion respecting his guilt or his innocence. Theopompus,1 and Dinarchus, in his oration against Demosthenes, state that he did accept the bribes of Harpalus; but Pausanias2 expressly acquits him of the crime. The authority of his accusers, however, is very questionable; for, in the first place, they do not agree in the detail of their statements, and, secondly, if we consider the conduct of Demosthenes throughout the disputes about Harpalus, if we remember that he opposed the reception of the rebel, and that he volunTheopomp. ap. Piltt., Dem., 25. Compare Vit. Dec. Orat., p. 846. 2 Pausan,., ii., 33, 4.

Page  287 ATTIC PERIOD. 287 tarily offered himself to be tried, we must own that it is, at least, highly improbable that he should have been guilty of common bribery, and that it was not his guilt which caused his condemnation, but the implacable hatred of the Macedonian party, which eagerly seized this favorable opportunity to rid itself of its most formidable opponent, who was at that time abandoned by his friends from sheer timidity. Demosthenes was declared guilty, and thrown into prison, from which, however, he escaped, apparently with the connivance of the Athenian magistrates.' Having quitted his country, he resided partly at Trcezene and partly in.Egina, looking daily, it is said, across the sea toward his beloved native land. But his exile did not last long. On the death of Alexander, in B.C. 323, the Greek states rose in arms against Macedonia, Demosthenes was recalled from exile, a trireme was sent to.Egina to convey him to his native land, and his progress to the city was a glorious triumph.2 It was a triumph, however, of short duration. In the following year, B.C. 322, the confederate Greeks were defeated by Antipater at the battle of Cranon, and were compelled to sue for peace. Antipater demanded the surrender of Demosthenes, who thereupon fled to the island of Calauria, in the Saronic Gulf, off the coast of Argolis, and took refuge in the temple of Neptune. Here he was pursued by the emissaries of Antipater; he thereupon took poison, which he had for some time carried about his person, and died in the temple, B.C. 322. Thus terminated the career of a man who has been ranked by persons of all ages among the greatest and noblest spirits of antiquity. And this fame will remain undiminished so long as sterling sentiments and principles, and a consistent conduct through life, are regarded as the standard by which a man's worth is measured, and not simply the success -so often merely dependent upon circumstances —by which his exertions are crowned. The very calumnies which have been heaped upon Demosthenes by his enemies and detractors, more extravagantly than upon any other man, have only served to bring forth his political virtues in a more striking and brilliant light. Some points there are in his life which perhaps will never be quite cleared up, on account of the distorted statements which have come down to us respecting them. Some minor charges which are m de against him, and affect his character as a man, are almost below contempt. It is said, for example, that he took to flight after the battle of Chaeronea, as if thousands of others had not fled with him;3 that, notwithstanding his domestic calamity (his daughter had died seven days before), he rejoiced at Philip's death, which shows only the predominance of his patriotic feelings over his personal and selfish ones;4 ahd, lastly, that he shed tears on going into exile, a fact for which he deserves to be loved and honored rather than blamed. In his administration of public affairs Demosthenes is perfectly spotless, and free from all the crimes which the men of the Macedonian party committed openly and without any disguise. The charge of bribery, which was so often raised against him by.ZEschines, must be rejected altogether, and' Plut., Vit. Dec. Orat., p. 846. 2 Plut., Dem., 27; Vit. Dec. Orat., p. 846. 3 Plut., Denm., 20; Vit, Dec. Orat., p. 845. 4 Phlt., De., 22; A2sch. c. Otes., ~ 77.

Page  288 298 GREEK LITERATURE. is a mere distortion of the fact that Demosthenes accepted subsidies from Persia for Athens, which assuredly stood in need of such aid in its struggles with Macedonia; but there is not the shadow of a suspicion that he ever accepted any personal bribes.L His career as a statesman received its greatest lustre from his powers as an orator, in which he has not been equalled by any man of any country. Our own judgment on this point would necessarily be one-sided, as we can only read his orations; but among the contemporaries of Demosthenes there was scarcely one who could point out any definite fault in his oratory. By far the greater part looked up to him as the greatest orator of his time, and it was only men of such over-refined and hypercritical tastes as Demetrius Phalereus who thought him either too plain and simple or too harsh and strong.2 These peculiarities, however, are far from being faults; they are, on the contrary, proofs of his genius, if we consider the temptations which natural deficiencies hold out to an orator to pursue the opposite course. The obstacles which his physical constitution threw in his way when he commenced his career were so great, that a less courageous and persevering man than Demosthenes would at once have been intimidated, and entirely shrunk from the arduous career of a public orator. Those early difficulties with which he had to contend led him to bestow more care upon the composition of his orations than he would otherwise have done, and produced in the end, if not the impossibility of speaking extempore, at least the habit of never venturing upon it; for he never spoke without preparation, and he sometimes even declined speaking when called upon in the assembly to do so, merely because he was not prepared for it. There is, however, no reason for believing that all the extant orations were delivered in that perfect form in which they have come down to us, for most of them were probably subjected to a careful revision before publication; and it is only the oration against Midias, which, having been written for the purpose of being delivered, and being afterward given up and left incomplete, may be regarded with certainty as a specimen of an oration in its original form. This oration alone sufficiently shows how little Demosthenes trusted to the impulse of the moment.3 The first cause of the mighty impression which his speeches made upon the minds of his hearers was their pure and ethical character; for every sentence exhibits Demosthenes as the friend of his country, of virtue, truth, and public decency;4 and as the struggles in which he was engaged were fair and just, he could without scruple unmask his opponents, and wound them where they were vulnerable, though he never resorted to sycophantic artifices. The second cause was his intellectual superiority. By a wise arrangement of his subjects, and by the application of the strongest arguments in their proper places, he brought these subjects before his hearers in the clearest possible form; doubts that might be raised were met by him beforehand, and thus he proceeded calmly but irresistibly toward his end. The third and last cause was the magic force of his language, which, being majestic and yet simple, rich, I Smith, 1. c. 2 Plut., Dem., 9, 11. 3 Smith, 1. c. 4 Plut., Dem., 13.

Page  289 A'1'I' i 1 E 1 I o D. 289 yet not bombastic, strange and yet familiar, solemn without being ornamented, grave and yet pleasing, concise and yet fluent, sweet and yet impressive, carried away the minds of his hearers. That such orations should, notwithstanding, sometimeshave failed to produce the desired effect, was owing only to the spirit of the times.' The ancients2 state that there existed sixty-five orations of Demosthenes, but of these only sixty-one, and if we deduct the letter of Philip, which is, strangely enough, counted as an oration, only sixty have come down to us under his name, though some of these are spurious, or, at least, of very doubtful authenticity. Besides these orations there are fifty-six exordia, or introductions to public orations (Irpoo[uia 8Vlt77lyopL/d), and six letters which bear the name of Demosthenes, though their genuineness is very doubtful. Confining ourselves to the classification adopted by the ancient rhetoricians, we may arrange all the discourses of Demosthenes under one of three heads: 1. Deliberative discourses (A4yoL rveu3,ovAEVTrrco'), treating of political topics, and delivered before the Senate or the Assembly of the People. 2. Judicial speeches (AX-yoL aKavlcoi), hav-. ing for their object accusation or defence. 3. Studied or set speeches, called also Show-speeches (X4yoi EirLzaeLcvTcoi), intended to censure or praise. Seventeen of the orations of Demosthenes belong to the first of these classes, forty-two to the second, and two to the third. Of the deliberative or political discourses, the twelve Philippic orations are the most important, and relate to the quarrels between the state and King Philip, and also to the other political movements of that monarch for the increase of his power. In the common arrangement, four of these are specially termed "Philippics," while three others are denominated "Olynthiacs," the object of the former being to urge the Athenians to prosecute the war vigorously against Philip, and of the Olynthiacs, to stimulate the Athenians to succor Olynthus, and prevent its falling into the hands of that monarch. The twelve Philippics were delivered in the following order. The first Philippic, B.C. 352; the three Olynthiacs, also called the second, third, and fourth Philippics, B.C. 349; the fifth Philippic (which, according to some critics, forms part of the first in our present copies), B.C. 347; the sixth Philippic, also called the " Oration on the Peace," B.C. 346; the seventh Philippic (according to the common arrangement, the second), B.C. 344; the eighth Philippic, also called the "Oration concerning Halonesus," B.C. 343; the ninth Philippic, also called the " Oration on the Chersonesus," the tenth and eleventh Philippics (according to the common arrangement, the third and fourth), all in B.C. 342; the twelfth Philippic, also called the " Oration against the Letter," B.C. 340. This last is a spurious oration, and so, according to nearly all critics, is the eleventh, which many make to belong, not to B.C. 342, but to 341. The oration concerning Halonesus, also, was suspected by the ancients themselves, and ascribed to Hegesippus. Weiske undertakes to defend it, but is opposed by Becker and V6mel, the latter of whom even published a separate edition of it under the name of Hegesippus in 1833. Of the judicial discourses, the most important are the oration against 1 Smith, 1. c. 2 Plut., Vit. Dec. Orat., p. 847; Phot., p. 490.

Page  290 290 GREE K LITE 1'RATURE. Midias, written B.C. 355, but never delivered; that against Leptines, in the same year; that on the dishonest conduct of _Eschines during his embassy to Philip; and especially that on the Crown. The action against Midias was for personal violence offered to Demosthenes during the celebration of the great Dionysia, but it was settled before trial, on Demosthenes receiving from Midias the sum of thirty minme. The oration against Leptines charged him with having proposed a law taking away all special exemptions from the burden of public charges (&TzeXEal'ev;E1T'reopwylV). The subjects of the other two orations have already been referred to. The.7rirdpLos A&yos and the?PW00cs are the two show-speeches. But they are both unquestionably spurious. The former belongs to B.C. 338, and is an eloge on those who fell at Chaeronea; the latter is written in praise of the beauty of the young Epicrates. EDITIONS OF DEMIOSTHENES. Most of the critical works that were written upon Demosthenes by the ancients are lost, and, independent merely of many scattered remarks, the only important critical work that has come down to us is that of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, entitled wrepi T7S Too A1ioaEOe&ov Setv6evOT7Te. The acknowledged excellence of Demosthenes' orations made them the principal subjects of study and speculation with the rhetoricians, and called forth numerous commentators and imitators. It is probably owing to these rhetorical speculations, which began as early as the second century B.C., that a number of orations, which are decidedly spurious and unworthy of him, such as the h6yo~ jrLAc4tot and the Epv'TLK6, were incorporated in the collections of those of Demosthenes. Others, such as the speech on Halonesus, the first against Aristogiton, those against Theocrines and Netera, which are undoubtedly the productions of contemporary orators, may have been introduced among those of Demosthenes by mistake. It would be of great assistance to us to have the commentaries which were written upon Demosthenes by such men as Didymus, Longinus, Itermogenes, and others;but, unfortunately, most of what they wrote is lost, and scarcely any thing of importance is extant, except the miserable collection of scholia which have come down to us under the name of Ulpian, and the Greek argumenta to the orations by Libanius and other rhetoricians. The orations of Demosthenes are contained in the various collections of the Attic orators mentioned in the account of the editions of Antiphon. Of separate editions we may mention that of Wolf, Basle, 1572 (often reprinted); of Auger, Paris, 1790; of Schiifer, fwith a copious commentary, Leipzig and London, 1822, 9 vols. 8vo, the first two containing the text, the third the Latin version, and the others the critical apparatus, indices, &c. A thin volume containing an Index verborum, grammaticus, &c., was added by Seiler, Leipzig, 1833. A good edition of the text is that by WV. Dindorf, Leipzig, 1825, 3 vols. 8vo, 2d edition, Leipzig, 1851; and with a revised text and Latin translation, by Voemel, in Didot's Bibliotheca Greeca, Paris, 1843. But the most elaborate and complete edition is the one recently issued from the Oxford press, edited anew by W. Dindorf, 1847-52, 9 vols. 8vo, the first four volumes containing the text, the fifth, sixth, and seventh the commentary, and the eighth and ninth the scholia, amended and enlarged from MSS. The orations of Demosthenes have often been edited also in selections or separately. Of these the most valuable for text or commentary are as follows: The Philippics, by Bekker, Berlin, 1816, 1825, and 1835; by RUdiger, Leipzig, 1818,1829, and 1833; by Voemel, Frankfort, 1829; and by Franke, Leipzig, 1842, 2d edition, 1850. The Olynthiacs, by Frotscher and Funkhaenel, Leipzig, 1834. The oration De Halozeso, by Voemel, Frankfort, 1830. De Corona, by Bekker, with scholia, Italle, 1815, and Berlin, 1825; by Harless, Leipzig, 1814; with other select orations, by Bremi, in 2 parts, Gotha, 1829-33, 2d edition, by Sauppe, 1845-51; by Dissen, Gittingen, 1837. The oration against Leptines, best edition by Wolf, Halle, 1789, re-edited by Bremi, ZUrich, 1839, 8vo. The oration against Midias, by Buttmann, Berlin, 1823, 1833, and 1841; by Blume, Sund., 1828; and by Meier, Halle, 1832. The oration against Androtion, by Funkhaenel, Leipzig, 1832, 8vo. The oration against Aristocrates, by Weber, Jena, 1845.

Page  291 ATT'IC PERIOD. 291 Besides the ancient and modern historians of the times of Philip and Alexander, the following works will be found useful to the student of Demosthenes; Schott, Vitce Parallelce Aristot. et Demosth., Antwerp, 1603; Becker, Demosthenes als Staatsmnann und Redner, Halle, 1816, 2 vols. 8vo; Westermann, Qucestiones Denmosthenice, in four parts, Leipzig, 1830-37; Geschichte der Griech. Beredtsamkeit, ~ 56, seq., and Beilage, vii., p. 297, seqq.; Bohneke, Studien azf demn Gebiete der Attischen Redner, Berlin, 1843. 9. HYPERIDES ('Tirepefri6s or'TirEspizs) was the son of Glaucippus, and belonged to the Attic demus of Collytus. He was a friend of Demosthenes, and with him and Lycurgus he was at the head of the anti-Macedonian party. His birth-year is unknown, but he must have been of about the same age as Lycurgus, who was born in B.C. 396.' Throughout his public career he joined the patriots with the utmost determination and with his whole soul, and remained faithful to them to the last, through all the dangers and catastrophes by which Athens was weighed down successively under Philip, Alexander, and Antipater. This steadfast adherence to the good cause may have been owing, in a great measure, to the influence which Demosthenes and Lycurgus exercised over him, for he seems to have been naturally a person of a vacillating character; and Plutarch states that he sometimes gave way to his passions, which were not always of the noblest kind.2 In philosophy he was a pupil of Plato,3 and Isocrates trained and developed his oratorical talent.4 He began his career by conducting lawsuits of others in the courts of justice.5 Our information, however, respecting his life is very meagre. It seems that he first displayed his patriotic feelings in B.C. 358 by the sacrifices which he made for the public good during the expedition against Euboea, for on that occasion he and his son are said to have equipped two triremes at their own expense. After the death of Alexander (B.C. 323), Hyperides took an active part in organizing that confederacy of the Greeks against Antipater which produced the Lamian war. Upon the defeat of the confederates at the battle of Cranon in the following year, Hyperides fled to 1.Egina, where he was slain by the emissaries of Antipater. Hyperides must have appeared before the public on many occasions, both in the courts of justice and in the assembly of the people. The number of orations attributed to him was seventy-seven, but even the ancient critics rejected twenty-five of them as spurious.6 The titles of sixty-one (for more are not known) are enumerated by Westermann.7 The most important among them appear to have been the AnXIalacs, the r7rL(deplOS, and the orations against Aristogiton, Demades, and Demosthenes, especially the last. This speech was the one which he delivered when he accused Demosthenes of corruption in the affair of Harpalus. Plutarch states that Hyperides was found to have been the only man who had not received any money from Harpalus, and it may therefore be that he was compelled to act the part of an accuser, or he may have hoped to give the matter a more favorable turn for Demosthenes by coming forward as accuser. Hyperides and Demosthenes, however, again, at a 1 Plut., Vit. Dec. Orat., p. 848, D; Diog. Laert., ii., 46. 2 Plut., 1. c., p. 849, D. 3 Diog. Laert., 1. c. 4 Athen., viii., p. 342; Phot., Cod., 260, p. 487. 5 Plut., 1. c., p. 448, E. 6 Id. ib., p. 849, D. 7 Gesch. d. Griech. Beredts., p. 307, seqq.

Page  292 292 GREEK LITERATURE. subsequent period, stood in friendly relations to each other, and again united against the common foe. Until the year 1847, we may be said to have had no one of the orations of Hyperides remaining, but merely a considerable number of fragments, few of them of any length. In that year, however, a manuscript of the oration against Demosthenes was discovered at Thebes, in Egypt, on papyrus, which, though it did not give the entire speech, in consequence of its mutilated condition, yet afforded fragments of so great length, that we may almost be said to have the oration entire. Bdckh undertook the restitution and arrangement of these fragments in 1848, in the Hallischer Literaturzeitung, and afterward in a separate form. A similar attempt was made by Sauppe, somewhat later, in the "Philologus" (vol. iii., p. 610, seqq.). About the same time, the fragments, arranged, and with a translation, were published by Sharpe in the transactions of the Philological Society (vol. iv., No. 79, p. 39, seqq.); and, finally, an edition was published in 1850, by Babington, London, with preliminary dissertation and notes.' The discovery of these fragments renders the accounts of Brassicanus and Taylor more probable than they have been accustomed to be regarded. The former (Prcef. ad Salvianum), who lived at the beginning of the seventeenth century, states that he himself saw at Ofen, in the library of King Matthias Corvinus, a complete copy of Hyperides, with numerous scholia; and Taylor (Prcef. ad Demosth.) likewise says that he saw a MS. containing some orations of Hyperides. As we have, therefore, but little to form an independent opinion upon respecting the merits of Hyperides, we must acquiesce in the judgment which some of the ancients have pronounced upon him. That he was regarded as a great orator is attested by the fact of his speeches being incorporated in the canon of the ten Attic orators, and of several distinguished grammarians having written commentaries upon them. Hyperides did not bind himself to any particular model; his oratory was graceful and powerful, thus holding the middle between the gracefulness of Lysias and the overwhelming power of Demosthenes. His delivery, however, is said to have been wanting in liveliness. His style and diction were Attic, though not quite free from a kind of mannerism, especially in certain words. But his orations were distinguished, above all, by their exquisite elegance and gracefulness, which were calculated, however, to produce a momentary rather than a lasting and moral impression.2 10. DINARCHUS (AefvapXoS),3 the tenth and least important of the Attic orators, was born at Corinth about B.C. 361.4 Though a native of Corinth, he lived at Athens from his earliest youth, and devoted himself with great zeal to the study of oratory under Theophrastus, ha4ving, at the same time, profited much by his intercourse with Demetrius Phalereus.5 As he was a foreigner, and did not possess the Athenian franchise, he was not allowed to come forward himself as an orator on the great questions, 1 Zeitschriftfir die Alterthumswiss. (Bergk und Cesar), Achter Jahrgang, 1850, p. 378. 2 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. v. 3 Id. ib. 4 Dionys., Dinarch., 4. 5 Dionys., 1. c, 2; Plut., Vit. Dec. Orat., p. 850.

Page  293 ATTIC PERIOD. 293 which then divided public opinion at Athens, and he was therefore obliged to content himself with writing orations for others. He appears to have commenced this career in his twenty-sixth year, about B.C. 336, and as about that time the great Attic orators died away one after the other, Dinarchus soon acquired considerable reputation and great wealth. He belonged to the friends of Phocion, and the Macedonian party, and took a very active part in the disputes as to whether Harpalus, who had openly deserted the cause of Alexander the Great, should be tolerated at Athens or not. The time of his greatest activity is from B.C. 317 to B.C. 307, during which time Demetrius Phalereus conducted the administration of Athens. But when, in B.C. 307, Demetrius Poliorcetes advanced against Athens, and Demetrius Phalereus was obliged to take to flight, Dinarchus, who was suspected on account of his equivocal political conduct, and who was anxious to save his riches, fled to Chalcis, in Eubcea. It was not till fifteen years after, B.C. 292, that, owing to the exertions of his friend Theophrastus, he obtained permission to return to Athens, where he spent the last years of his life, and died at an advanced age. The last event of his life of which we have any record is a lawsuit which he instituted against his faithless friend, Proxenus, who had robbed him of his property; but in what manner the suit ended is unknown. The number of orations which Dinarchus wrote is uncertain, for Demetrius of Magnesia' ascribed to him 160, while Plutarch and Photius speak only of sixty-four genuine ones; and Dionysius is of opinion that, among the eighty-seven which were ascribed to him in his time, only sixty were genuine productions of Dinarchus. Of all these orations only three have come down to us entire, and all three refer to the question about Harpalus. It is, however, not improbable that the speech against Theocrines, which is usually printed among those of Demosthenes, is likewise a production of Dinarchus. The titles and fragments of the orations which are lost are collected by Fabricius,2 and more completely by Westermann.3 The ancients, such as Dionysius, who gives an accurate account of the oratory of Dinarchus, and especially Hermogenes,4 speak in terms of commendation of his orations; but there were others also who thought less favorably of him; some grammarians would not even allow him a place in the canon of the ten Attic orators, and Dionysius mentions that he was treated with indifference by Callimachus and the grammarians of Pergamus. However, some of the most eminent grammarians, such as Didymus of Alexandrea, and Heron of Athens, did not disdain'to write commentaries upon him. The orations still extant enable us to form an independent opinion upon the merits of Dinarchus; and we find that Dionysius's judgment is, on the whole, quite correct. Dinarchus was a man of no originality of mind, and it is difficult to say whether he had any oratorical talent or not. His want of genius led him to imitate others, such as Lysias, Hyperides, and more especially Demosthenes; but he was uilable to come up to his great model in any point, and was therefore nicknamed ~Amo-OE'vJso 6 iypotcos, or 5 tcpiOulos. Even Hermogenes, his great1 Ap. Dionys., 1. c., 1. 2 Bibl. Gr., ii., p. 864, seqq. 3 Gesch. der Griech. Beredts., p. 311, seqq. 4 De Form., ii., 11.

Page  294 294 GREEK LITERA TuRE. est admirer, does not deny that his style had a certain roughness, whence his orations were thought to resemble those of Aristogiton. Although it can not be denied that Dinarchus is the best among the many imitators of Demosthenes, yet he is far inferior to him in power and energy, in the choice of his expressions, in invention, clearness, and the arrangement of his subjects.l The orations of Dinarchus are contained in the various collections of Attic orators already mentioned. There are two good separate editions, one by Schmidt, Leipzig, 1826, 8vo, and the other by Mdtzner, Berlin, 1842, 8vo. There is also a useful commentary on Dinarchus by Wurm, " Commentarius in Dinarchi Orationes tres," Nuremburg, 1828, 8vo. CHAPTER XXXV. FOURTH OR ATTIC PERIOD-continued. III. SCHOOL OF PHILOSOPHIY. I. OUR remarks on the earlier Greek philosophy closed with a brief sketch of the school of' Pythagoras. The period that now comes under consideration embraces some of the most important and singular speculations in which the human mind has ever indulged, and deserves a much more extended examination than our limits will allow us to give. All that we can do will be to enumerate the several schools of philosophy that marked the period under review, and give a brief sketch of the eminent individuals who either founded, enlarged, or adorned them. II. The different schools or sects which, according to this arrangement, will occupy our attention, are the following: 1. The Atomic; 2. The Sophistic; 3. The Socratic; 4. The Cyrenaic; 5. The lIegaric; 6. The Eliac and Eretriac; 7. The Academic; 8. The Cynic; 9. The Peripatetic; 10. The Stoic; 11. The Skeptical; 12. The Epicurean. I. THE ATOMIC SCHOOL. III. The founder of the Atomic theory of the ancient philosophy is admitted on all hands to have been LEUCIPPUS (AeVKLcrrros).2 Where and when he was born we have no data for deciding, Miletus, Abdera, and Elea having been assigned as his birth-place; the first, apparently for no other reason than because it was the birth-place of several natural philosophers; the second, because Democritus came from that city; the third, because he was looked upon as a disciple of the Eleatic school. The period when he lived is equally uncertain. He is called the teacher of Democritus,3 the disciple of Parmenides,4 or, according to other accounts, of Zeno, of Melissus, nay, even of Pythagoras.5 With regard to his philosophical system it is impossible to speak with certainty, since the writers who mention him either speak of him in conjunction with Democritus, or attribute to him doctrines which are in like manner attributed to Democritus. I Smith, i. c. 2 Smith, Dict. Biogr., s. cv. 3 Diog. Laert., ix., 34. 4 Sirnplic., Phlys.,fol. 7, A. Simplic., 1. c.; Diog. Laert., ix., 30, &c.

Page  295 ATTIC PERIOD. 295 IV. DEIMOCRITUS (A-nX KpLrTOS)1 was a native of' Abdera, in Thrace, an Ionian colony of Teos, and was born about B.C. 460. He was thus forty years younger than Anaxagoras, and eight years younger than Socrates. His father, Hegesistratus-or, as others call him, Damasippus or Athenocritus-was possessed of so large a property, that he -was able to entertain Xerxes on his march through Abdera. Democritus spent the inheritance which his father left him on travels into distant countries, which he undertook to satisfy his extraordinary thirst for kinowledge. He is said to have visited Egypt that he might learn geometry from the Egyptian priests; to have been in Persia with the magi, and with the gymnosophists in India; and to have penetrated to 2Ethiopia.2 He sojourned for some time at Athens; but fromn contempt of notoriety, as it is said, was known to nobody in that city. It is for this reason that Demetrius Phalereus, as cited by Diogenes Laertius,3 contended that Democritus had never visited Athens. One result of his extensive travels was, as we have already remarked, that he expended all his patrimony, which is said to have exceeded 100 talents. Now it was a law of his native city, that any one who spent his whole patrimony should not be buried within the limits of his country; but Democritus having read his chief work aloud to his fellow-citizens, so impressed them with an admiration of his learning, that he not only obtained a special exemption from the above law, but was presented with 500 talents, and at his death was buried at the public expense. A story substantially the same, though varying somewhat in detail, is given in Athenseus. He is said to have continued travelling till he was eighty years old. He died B.C. 357, at the age of 104, the same year in which Hippocrates is said to have died. There is a story of his having protracted his life for three days after death seemed inevitable, by means of the smell of either bread or honey, in order to gratify his sister, who, had he died when first he seemed likely to die, would have been prevented from attending a festival of Ceres. Democritus loved solitude, and was wholly wrapped up in study. There are several anecdotes illustrative of his devotion to knowledge, and his disregard of every thing else. They conflict somewhat with one another in their details, but accuracy of detail is not to be looked for, and, tending as they all do to the same point, they prove, which is all that we can expect to know, what character was traditionally assigned to Democritus. Cicero speaks of him as, like Anaxagoras, leaving his lands uncultivated in his undivided care for learning; while, as an instance of how these stories conflict, Diogenes Laertius represents him as having, on the division of the paternal estate with his two brothers, taken his own share entirely in money, as being more convenient than land for a traveller. Valerius Maximus makes him show