GREECE,' an ancient geographical area, and a
modern kingdom more or less corresponding thereto, situated at the
south-eastern extremity of
Europe and forming the most southerly portion of
the
Balkan
Peninsula. The modern kingdom is bounded on the N. by European
Turkey and on the E., S. and
W. by the Aegean, Mediterranean and Ionian seas. The name
Graecia, which was more or less vaguely given to the
ancient country by the
Romans,
seems not to have been employed by any native writer before
Aristotle; it was
apparently derived 1 See also
Greek Art,
Greek Language,
Greek Law,
Greek Literature,
Greek
Religion.
by the Romans from the Illyrians, who applied the name of an
Epirote tribe (
Fpatko, Graeci) to all their southern
neighbours. The names Hellas, Hellenes ("EXXas, "EX)op e), by which
the ancient Greeks called their country and their race, and which
are still employed by the modern Greeks, originally designated a
small district in Phthiotis in
Thessaly and its inhabitants, who gradually
spread over the lands south of the Cambunian mountains. The name
Hellenes was not universally applied to the Greek race until the
post-Homeric epoch (Thucyd. i. 3).
I. Geography And Statistics The ancient Greeks had a somewhat
vague conception of the northern limits of Hellas. Thessaly was
generally included and
Epirus
excluded; some writers included some of the southern cantons of
Epirus, while others excluded not
a n only all
that country but
Aetolia and
Acarnania.
Greece. Generally speaking, the confines of Hellas
in the age of its greatest distinction were represented by a line
drawn from the northern shore of the Ambracian Gulf on the W. to
the mouth of the Peneus on the E.
Macedonia and
Thrace were regarded as outside the pale of
Hellenic civilization till 386 B.C., when after his conquest of
Thessaly and
Phocis,
Philip of Macedon obtained a seat
in the Amphictyonic Council. In another sense, however, the name
Hellas expressed an ethnological rather than a geographical unity;
it denoted every country inhabited by Hellenes. It thus embraced
all the Greek settlements on the coasts and islands of the
Mediterranean, on the shores of the
Hellespont, the
Bosporus and the Black Sea. Nevertheless, the
Greek peninsula within the limits described above, together with
the adjacent islands, was always regarded as Hellas
par
excellence. The continental area of Hellas proper was no
greater than that of the modern Greek kingdom, which comprises but
a small portion of the territories actually occupied by the Greek
race. The Greeks have always been a maritime people, and the real
centre of the national life is now, as in antiquity, the
Aegean Sea or
Archipelago. Thickly
studded with islands and bordered by deeply indented coasts with
sheltered creeks and harbours, the Aegean in the earliest days of
navigation invited the enterprise of the mariner; its shores, both
European and Asiatic, became covered with Greek settlements and its
islands, together with
Crete and
Cyprus, became Greek. True to
their maritime instincts, the Greeks rarely advanced inland to any
distance from the sea; the coasts of Macedonia, Thrace and
Asia Minor are still
mainly Greek, but, except for some isolated colonies, the
hinterland in each
case lies outside the limits of the race. Continental Greece is
divided by its mountain ranges into a number of natural cantons;
the existence of physical barriers tended in the earliest times to
the growth of isolated political communities, and in the epoch of
its ancient independence the country was occupied by seventeen
separate states, none of them larger than an ordinary English
county. These states, which are noticed separately, were: Thessaly,
in northern Greece; Acarnania, Aetolia, Locris,
Doris, Phocis, Megaris,
Boeotia and
Attica in central Greece; and Corinthia,
Sicyonia,
Achaea,
Elis,
Messenia,
Laconia, Argolis and
Arcadia in the
Peloponnesus.
Modern Greece, which (including the adjacent islands) extends
from 35° 50' to 39° 54' N. and from 19° 20' to 26° 15' E.,
comprises all the area formerly occupied by these states. Under the
arrangement concluded at
Constantinople on the 21st of July 1832
between Great
Britain,
France,
Russia and Turkey, the northern boundary of
Greece was drawn from the
Gulf of Arta (Sinus Ambracius) to the Gulf
of
Volo (S. Pagasaeus), the line
keeping to the
crest of the
Othrys range. Thessaly and part of Acarnania were thus left to
Turkey. The island of
Euboea,
the
Cyclades and the
northern
Sporades were
added to the new kingdom. In 1864 the
Ionian Islands were ceded by Great
Britain to Greece. In 1880 the Conference of
Berlin proposed a new frontier, which
transferred to Greece not only Thessaly but a considerable portion
of southern Epirus, extending to the river Kalamas. This, however,
was rejected by Turkey, and the existing boundary was traced in
1881. Starting from the Aegean coast at a point xII. 14 a near
Platamona, between Mount
Olympus and the mouth of the Salambria
(Peneus), the line passes over the heights of Kritiri and Zygos
(Pindus) and descends the course of the river
Arta to its mouth. After the war of 1897 Greece
restored to Turkey some strategical points on the frontier
possessing no geographical importance. The greatest length of
Greece is about 250 m., the greatest breadth 180 m. The country is
generally divided into five parts, which are indicated by its
natural features: - (i.) Northern Greece, which extends northwards
from Mount Othrys and the gulfs of Zeitun(Lamia)and Arta to the
Cambunian Mountains, and comprises Thessaly and a small portion of
Epirus; (ii.) Central Greece, extending from the southern limits of
Northern Greece to the gulfs of
Corinth and
Aegina; (iii.) the peninsula of the Peloponnesus
or Morea, attached to the mainland by the
Isthmus of
Corinth; (iv.) the Ionian Islands on the west coasts of Epirus
and Greece; (v.) The islands of the Aegean Sea, including Euboea,
the Cyclades and the northern Sporades.
In the complexity of its
contour and the variety of its natural features
Greece surpasses every country in Europe, as Europe sur-
lca/ passes every continent in the world. The broken
character of its coast-line is unique; except a few districts in
Thes saly no part of the country is more than 50 m. from the sea.
Although the area of Greece is considerably smaller than that of
Portugal, its coast-line is
greater than that of
Spain and
Portugal together. The mainland is penetrated by numerous gulfs and
inlets, and the adjoining seas are studded with islands. Another
characteristic is the number and complexity of
the mountain chains,
which
traverse every part
of the country and which, together with their ramifications, cover
four-fifths of its surface. The mountain-chains interlace, the
interstices forming small enclosed basins, such as the plain of
Boeotia and the plateau of Arcadia; the only plain of any extent is
that of Thessaly. The mountains project into the sea, forming
peninsulas, and sometimes reappearing in rows or groups of islands;
they descend abruptly to the coast or are separated from it by
small alluvial plains. The portions of the country suitable for
human colonization were thus isolated one from the other, but as a
rule possessed easy access to the sea. The earliest settlements
were generally situated on or around some rocky elevation, which
dominated the surrounding plain and was suitable for
fortification as a citadel
or
acropolis; owing to
the danger of piratical attacks they were usually at some little
distance from the sea, but in the vicinity of a natural harbour.
The physical features of the country played an important part in
moulding the character of its inhabitants. Protected against
foreign invasion by the mountain barriers and to a great extent cut
off from mutual intercourse except by sea, the ancient Greek
communities developed a marked individuality and a strong sentiment
of local patriotism; their inhabitants were both mountaineers and
mariners; they possessed the love of country, the vigour and the
courage which are always found in highlanders, together with the
spirit of
adventure, the
versatility and the passion for freedom characteristic of a
seafaring people. The great variety of natural products as well as
the facility of maritime communication tended to the early growth
of commercial enterprise, while the peculiar beauty of the scenery,
though little dwelt upon in ancient literature, undoubtedly
quickened the poetic and artistic instincts of the race. The
effects of physical environment are no less noticeable among the
modern Greeks. The rural populations of Attica and Boeotia; though
descended from Albanian colonists in
the middle ages, display the same
contrast in character which marked the inhabitants of those regions
in ancient times.
In its general aspect the country presents a series of striking
and interesting contrasts. Fertile tracts covered with vineyards,
olive groves,
corn-fields or forests display themselves in close
proximity with rugged heights and rocky precipices; the landscape
is never monotonous; its outlines are graceful, and its colouring,
owing to the clearness of the
air,
is at once brilliant and delicate, while the sea, in most
instances, adds a picturesque feature, enhancing the
charm and variety of the
scenery.
The ruling feature in the mountain system of northern Greece is
the great chain of
Pindus,
which, extending southwards from the
Moun- lofty Shar Dagh
(Skardos) near
Uskub, forms the
back
bone of the Balkan peninsula.
Reaching the frontier of Greece a little S. of lat. 40°, the Pindus
range is intersected by the Cambunian Mountains running E. and W.;
the eastern branch, which forms the northern boundary of Thessaly,
extends to the Gulf of
Salonica and culminates in Mount Olympus (9754
ft.) a little to the N. of the Greek frontier; then bending to the
S.E. it follows the coast-line, forming a rampart between the
Thessalian plain and the sea; the barrier is severed at one point
only where the river Salambria (anc.
Peneus) finds an exit
through the narrow
defile of
Tempe. South of Tempe the mountain ridge, known as the Mavro Vouno,
connects the pyramidal Kissovo (anc.
Ossa, 6400 ft.) with Plessidi (anc.
Pelion, 5310 ft.); it is
prolonged in the Magnesian peninsula, which separates the Gulf of
Volo from the Aegean, and is continued by the mountains of Euboea
(highest summits, Dirphys, 5725 ft., and Ocha, 4830 ft.) and by the
islands of
Andros and Tenos.
West of Pindus, the Cambunian Mountains are continued by several
ridges which traverse Epirus from north to south, enclosing the
plain and lake of
Iannina;
the most
westerly of
these, projecting into the Adriatic, forms the Acroceraunian
promontory terminating in Cape Glossa. The principal pass through
the Cambunian Mountains is that of Meluna, through which runs the
carriage-road connecting
the town of Elassona in Macedonia with
Larissa, the capital of Thessaly; there are
horse-paths at Reveni and
elsewhere. The central chain of Pindus at the point where it is
intersected by the Cambunian Mountains forms the mass of Zygos
(anc.
Lacmon, 7113 ft.) through which a horse-path
connects the town of Metzovo with Kalabaka in Thessaly; on the
declivity immediately N. of Kalabaka are a series of rocky
pinnacles on which a number of monasteries are perched. Trending to
the S., the Pindus chain terminates in the conical Mount Velouchi
(anc.
Tymphrestus, 7609 ft.) in the
heart of the mountainous region of northern
Greece. From this centre-point a number of mountains radiate in all
directions. To the E. runs the chain of Helloro (anc.
Othrys; highest summit, Hagios
Elias, 5558 ft.) separating the plain of Thessaly
from the valley of the Spercheios and traversed by the Phourka pass
(2789 ft.); to the S.E. is Mount Katavothra (anc.
Oeta, 7080 ft.) extending to the
southern shore of the Gulf of
Lamia at
Thermopylae; to the S.E., S. and S.W. are
the mountains of Aetolia and Acarnania. The Aetolian group, which
may be regarded as the direct continuation of the Pindus range,
includes Kiona (8240 ft.), the highest mountain in Greece, and
Vardusi (anc.
Korax, 8190 ft.). The mountains of Acarnania
with `T 1 ' I X Kopeoi (5215 ft.) rise to the W. of the valley of
the Aspropotamo (anc.
Achelous). The Aetolian Mountains are
prolonged to the S.E. by the double-crested Liakoura (anc.
Parnassus; 8064 ft.)
in Phocis; by Palaeo Vouno (anc.
Helicon, 5738 ft.) and Elateas (anc.
Cithaeron, 4626
ft.) respectively W. and S. of the Boeotian plain; and by the
mountains of Attica, - Ozea (anc.
Parnes, 4626 ft.),
Mendeli (anc.
Pentelicus or
Brilessos, 3639
ft.), Trellovouno (anc.
Hymettus, 3369 ft.), and Keratia (2136
ft.) - terminating in the promontory of
Sunium, but reappearing in the islands of
Ceos, Cythnos, Seriphos and Siphnos.
South of Cithaeron are
Patera
in Megaris (3583 ft.) and Makri Plagi (anc.
Geraneia, 4495
ft.) overlooking the Isthmus of Corinth.
The mountains of the Morea, grouped around the elevated central
plateau of Arcadia, form an independent system with ramifications
extending through the Argolid peninsula on the E. and the three
southern promontories of Malea, Taenaron and Acritas. At the
eastern end of the northern chain, separating Arcadia from the Gulf
of Corinth, is Ziria (anc.
Cyllene, 7789 ft.); it forms a counterpart
to Parnassus on the opposite side of the gulf. A little to the W.
is Chelmos (anc.
Aroania, 7725 ft.); farther W., Olonos
(anc.
Erymanthus, 7297 ft.) and Voidia (anc.
Panachaicon, 6322 ft.) overlooking the Gulf of
Patras. The highest summit in the
Argolid peninsula is Hagios Elias (anc.
Arachnaeon, 3930
ft.). The series of heights forming the eastern rampart of Arcadia,
including Artemision (5814 ft.) and Ktenia (5246 ft.) is continued
to the S. by the Malevo range (anc.
Parnon, highest summit 6365 ft.) which
extends into the peninsula of Malea and reappears in the island of
Cerigo. Separated from Parnon by the Eurotas valley to the W., the
chain of
Taygetus (mod.
Pentedaktylon; highest summit Hagios Elias, 7874 ft., the
culminating point of the Morea) forms a barrier between the plains
of Laconia and Messenia; it is traversed by the Langada pass
leading from
Sparta to
Kalamata. The range is
prolonged to the S. through the arid district of
Maina and terminates in Cape Matapan (anc.
Taenarum). The mountains of western Arcadia are less lofty
and of a less marked type; they include Hagios Petros (4777 ft.)
and Palaeocastro (anc.
Pholoe, 2257 ft.) N. of the
Alpheus valley, Diaphorti (anc.
Lycaeus, 4660 ft.),
the haunt of
Pan, and Nomia (4554
ft.) W. of the plain of
Megalopolis. Farther south, the mountains
of western Messenia form a detached group (Varvara, 4003 ft.;
Mathia, 3140 ft.) extending to Cape Gallo (anc.
Acritas)
and the Oenussae Islands. In.central Arcadia are Apanokrapa (anc.
Maenalus, also sacred to Pan) and Roudia (5072 ft.); the
Taygetus chain forms the southern continuation of these
mountains.
The more noteworthy fortified heights of ancient Greece were the
Acrocorinthus, the citadel of Corinth (1885 ft.); Ithome (2631 ft.)
at
Messene; Larissa (950
ft.) at
Argos; the Acropolis of
Mycenae (910 ft.);
Tiryns (60 ft.) near
Nauplia, which also possessed
its own citadel, the Palamidhi or
Acro-nauplia (705 ft.); the Acropolis of
Athens (300 ft. above the mean
level of the city and 512 ft. above the sea), and the Cadmea of
Thebes (715 ft.).
Greece has few rivers; most of these are small, rapid and
turbid, as might be expected from the mountainous configuration of
the country. They are either perennial rivers or torrents, the
white beds /livers. of the latter being dry in summer, and only
filled with water after the autumn rains. The chief rivers (none
ofwhich is navigable) are the Salambria (
Peneus) in
Thessaly, the Mavropotamo (
Cephisus) in Phocis, the
Hellada (
Spercheios) in Phthiotis, the Aspropotamo
(
Achelous) in Aetolia, and the Ruphia (
Alpheus)
and Vasiliko (
Eurotas) in the Morea. Of the famous rivers
of Athens, the one, the Ilissus, is onl / a chain of pools all
summer, and the other, the Cephisus, though never absolutely dry,
does not reach the sea, being drawn off in numerous artificial
channels to irrigate the neighbouring olive groves. A frequent
peculiarity of the Greek rivers is their sudden disappearance in
subterranean chasms and reappearance on the surface again, such as
gave rise to the fabled course of the Alpheus under the sea, and
its emergence in the
fountain of
Arethusa in
Syracuse. Some of these chasms - " Katavothras
"- are merely sieves with herbage and
gravel in the bottom, but others are large
caverns through which the course of the river may sometimes be
followed. Floods are frequent, especially in autumn, and natural
fountains abound and gush out even from the tops of the hills.
Aganippe rises high up among the peaks of Helicon, and Peirene
flows from the summit of Acrocorinthus. The only noteworthy
cascade, however, is that of the
Styx in Arcadia, which has a fall of 500 ft.
During part of the year it is lost in
snow, and it is at all times almost inaccessible.
Lakes are numerous, but few are of considerable size, and many
merely marshes in summer. The largest are Karla (
Boebels)
in Thessaly, Trichonis in Aetolia, Copais in Boeotia, Pheneus and
Stymphalus in Arcadia.
The valleys are generally narrow, and the plains small in
extent, deep basins walled in among the hills or more free at the
mouths of the rivers. The principal plains are those of Thessaly,
Boeotia, Messenia, Argos, Elis and
Marathon. The bottom of these plains consists
of an alluvial soil, the most fertile in Greece. In some of the
mountainous regions, especially in the Morea, are extensive
table-lands. The plain of Mantinea is 2000 ft. high, and the upland
district of Sciritis, between Sparta and
Tegea, is in some parts 3000 ft.
Strabo said that the
guiding thing in the
geography of Greece was the sea, which
presses in upon it at all parts with a thousand
Coast.
arms. From the Gulf of Arta on the one side to the Gulf of Volo on
the other the coast is indented with a succession of natural bays
and gulfs. The most important are the Gulfs of Aegina
(
Saronicus) and Lepanto (
Corinthiacus), which
separate the Morea from the northern mainland of Greece, - the
first an inlet of the Aegean, the second of the Ionian Sea, - and
are now connected by a canal cut through the high land of the
narrow Isthmus of Corinth (32 m. wide). The outer portion of the
Gulf of Lepanto is called the Gulf of Patras, and the inner part
the Bay of Corinth; a narrow inlet on the north side of the same
gulf, called the Bay of Salona or Itea, penetrates northwards into
Phocis so far that it is within 24 geographical miles of the Gulf
of
Zeitun on the north-east
coast. The width of the entrance to the gulf of Lepanto is subject
to singular changes, which are ascribed to the formation of
alluvial deposits by certain marine currents, and their removal
again by others. At the time of the
Peloponnesian war this channel was
1200 yds. broad; in the time of Strabo it was only 850; and in our
own day it has again increased to 2200. On the coast of the Morea
there are several large gulfs, that of Arcadia
(
Cyparissius) on the west, Kalamata (
Messeniacus)
and Kolokythia (
Laconicus) on the south and Nauplia
(
Argolicus) on the east. Between Euboea and the mainland
lie the channels of Trikeri, Talanti (
Euboicum Mare) and
Egripo; the latter two are connected by the strait of Egripo
(Euripus). This strait, which is spanned by a swing-bridge, is
about 180 ft. wide, and is remarkable for the unexplained
eccentricity of its
tide, which
has puzzled ancients and moderns alike. The current runs at the
average speed of 5m. an hour, but continues only for a short time
in one direction, changing its course, it is said, ten or twelve
times in a day; it is sometimes very violent.
There are no volcanoes on the mainland of Greece, but everywhere
traces of volcanic action and frequently visitations of
earthquakes, for it lies near a centre of volcanic agency, the
island of
Santorin, which
has been within recent years in a state of eruption. There is an
extinct
crater at Mount
Laphystium (
Granitsa) in Boeotia. The mountain of Methane,
on the coast of Argolis, was produced by a volcanic eruption in 282
B.C. Earthquakes laid Thebes in ruins in 1853, destroyed every
house in Corinth in 1858, filled up the Castalian spring in 1870,
devastated
Zante in 1893 and the
district of
Atalanta in
1894. There are
hot
springs at Thermopylae and other places, which are used for
sanitary purposes. Various parts of the coast exhibit indications
of upheaval within historical times. On the coast of Elis four
rocky islets are now joined to the land, which were separate from
it in the days of ancient Greece. There are traces of earlier
sea-beaches at Corinth, and on the coast of the Morea, and at the
mouth of the Hellada. The land has gained so much that the pass of
Thermopylae which was extremely narrow in the time of
Leonidas and his three
hundred, is now wide enough for the motions of a whole army. (J. D.
B.) Structurally, Greece may be divided into two regions, an
eastern and a western. The former includes Thessaly, Boeotia, the
island of Euboea, the isthmus of Corinth, and the peninsula of
Argolis, and, throughout, the strike of the beds is nearly from
west to east. The western region includes the Pindus and all the
parallel ranges, and the whole of the Peloponnesus excepting
Argolis. Here the folds which affect the Mesozoic and early
Tertiary strata run
approximately from N.N.W. to S.S.E.
Up to the close of the 19th century the greater part of Greece
was believed to be formed of
Cretaceous rocks, but later
researches have shown that the supposed Cretaceous beds include a
variety of geological horizons. The geological sequence begins with
crystalline
schists and
limestones, followed by Palaeozoic,
Triassic and Liassic rocks. The oldest
beds which hitherto have yielded fossils belong to the
Carboniferous System
(
Fusulina limestone of Euboea). Following upon these
older beds are the great limestone masses which cover most of the
eastern region, and which are now known to include
Jurassic, Tithonian, Lower
and Upper Cretaceous and
Eocene beds. In the Pindus and the Peloponnesus
these beds are overlaid by a series of shales and platy limestones
(Olonos Limestone of the Peloponnesus), which were formerly
supposed to be of Tertiary age. It has now been shown, however,
that the upper series of limestones has been brought upon the top
of the lower by a great overthrust. Triassic fossils have been
found in the Olonos Limestone and it is almost certain that other
Mesozoic horizons are represented.
The earth movements which produced the mountain chains of
western Greece have folded the Eocene beds and must therefore be of
post-Eocene date. The Neogene beds, on the other hand, are not
affected by the folds, although by faulting without folding they
have in some places been raised to a height of nearly 6000 ft. They
lie, however, chiefly along the coast and in the valleys, and
consist of marls, conglomerates and sands, sometimes with seams of
lignite. The Pikermi
deposits, of late
Miocene
age, are famous for their rich mammalian
fauna.
Although the folding which formed the mountain chains appears to
have ceased, Greece is still continually shaken by earthquakes, and
these earthquakes are closely connected with the great lines of
fracture to which the country owes its outline. Around the narrow
gulf which separates the Peloponnesus from the mainland,
earthquakes are particularly frequent, and another region which is
often shaken is the south-western corner of Greece, the peninsula
of Messene.' (P. LA.) The vegetation of Greece in general resembles
that of southern
Italy while
presenting many types common to that of Asia Minor. Owing to the
geographical configuration of the peninsula and its mountainous
surface the characteristic
flora
of the Mediterranean regions:is often found in juxtaposition with
that of central Europe. In respect to its vegetation the country
may be regarded as divided into four zones. In the first, extending
from the sea-level to the height of 1500 ft., oranges, olives,
dates, almonds, pomegranates, figs and vines flourish, and
cotton and
tobacco are grown. In the neighbourhood of
streams are found the
laurel,
myrtle,
oleander and lentisk, together with the plane
and white
poplar; the
cypress is often a picturesque
feature in the landscape, and there is a variety of aromatic
plants. The second zone, from 1500 to 3500 ft., is the region of
the
oak,
chestnut and other British trees. In the
third, from 3500 to 5500 ft., the
beech is the characteristic forest
tree; the
Abies cephalonica
and
Pinus pine y now take
the place of the
Pinus halepensis, which grows everywhere
in the lower regions. Above 5500 ft. is the Alpine region, marked
by small plants,
lichens and
mosses. During the short period of spring anemones and other wild
flowers enrich the hillsides with magnificent colouring; in June
all verdure disappears except in the watered districts and elevated
plateaus. The
asphodel
grows abundantly in the dry rocky soil; aloes, planted in rows,
form impenetrable
hedges. Medicinal plants are
numerous, such as the
Inula Helenium, the
Mandragora
Officinarum, the
Colchicum napolitanum and the
Helleborus orientalis, which still grows abundantly near
Aspraspitia, the ancient
Anticyra, at the foot of Parnassus.
The fauna is similar to that of the other Mediterranean
peninsulas, and includes some species found in Asia Minor but not
elsewhere in Europe. The
lion
existed in northern Greece in the time of Aristotle and at an
earlier period in the Morea. The
bear is still found in the Pindus range. Wolves
are common in all the mountainous regions and jackals are numerous
in the Morea. Foxes are abundant in all parts of the country; the
polecat is found in the
woods of Attica and the Morea; the
lynx is now rare. The wild
boar is common in the mountains of northern
Greece, but is almost extinct in the Peloponnesus. The
badger, the
marten and the
weasel are found on the mainland
and in the islands. The red
deer,
the
fallow deer and
the
roe exist in northern Greece,
but are becoming scarce. The
otter is rare. Hares and rabbits are abundant in
many parts of the country, especially in the Cyclades; the two
species never occupy the same district, and in the Cyclades some
islands (Naxos,
Melos, Tenos,
&c.) form the exclusive domain of the hares, others (Seriphos,
Kimolos, Mykonos, &c.) of the rabbits. In Andros alone a
demarcation has been arrived at, the hares retaining the northern
and the rabbits the southern portion of the island.
1 For the
Geology of
Greece see: M. Neumayr, &c.,
Denks. k. Akad.Wiss. Wien,
math.-nat. Cl. vol. xl. (1880); A. Philippson,
Der
Peloponnes (Berlin, 1892) and"Beitrage zur Kenntnis der
griechischen Inselwelt,"
Peterm. Mitt., Erganz.-heft No.
134 (1901); R. Lepsius,
Geologie von Attika (Berlin,
1893); L. Cayeux, " Phenomenes de charriage dans la Mediterranee
orientale," C.
R. Acad. Sci. Paris, vol. cxxxvi. (1903) PP. 474-47 6; J.
Deprat, " Note preliminaire sur la geologie de l'ile d'Eubee,"
Bull. Soc. Geol. France, ser. 4, vol. iii. (1903) pp.
229-243, p. vii. and " Note sur la geologie du
massif du Pblion et sur l'influence exercee par
les massifs archeens sur la tectonique de I'Egeide,"
ib.
vol. iv. (1904), PP. 299-338.
Volcanic action. The
chamois is found in the higher mountains, such
as Pindus, Parnassus and Tymphrestus. The Cretan
agrimi,
or wild
goat (
Capra nubiana,
C. aegagrus), found in Antimelos and said to exist in
Taygetus, the
jackal, the
stellion, and the
chameleon are among the Asiatic species not
found westward of Greece. There is a great variety of birds; of 358
species catalogued two-thirds are migratory. Among the birds of
prey, which are very numerous, are
the golden and imperial
eagle,
the yellow
vulture, the
Gypaetus barbatus, and several species of falcons. The
celebrated
owl of
Athena (
Athene noctua) is becoming rare
at Athens, but still haunts the Acropolis and the royal
garden; it is a small species,
found everywhere in Greece. The wild
goose and
duck,
the
bustard,
partridge,
woodcock,
snipe, wood-
pigeon and turtle-
dove are numerous. Immense flocks of quails visit
the southern coast of the Morea, where they are captured in great
numbers and exported alive. The
stork, which was common in the Turkish epoch, has
now become scarce. There is a great variety of
reptiles, of which sixty-one species have been
catalogued. The saurians are all harmless; among them the stellion
(
Stellio vulgaris), commonly called
KpOI
&Ialloc in Mykonos and Crete, is believed by Heldreich to
have furnished a name to the
crocodile of the
Nile (Herod. ii. 69). There are five species of
tortoise and nine of
Amphibia. Of the serpents,
which are numerous, there are only two dangerous species, the
Vipera ammodytes and the
Vipera aspis; the
first-named is common. Among the marine fauna are the dolphins,
familiar in the legends and
sculpture of antiquity; in the clear water of
the Aegean they often afford a beautiful spectacle as they play
round ships; porpoises and whales are sometimes seen. Sea-
fish, of which 246 species have been
ascertained, are very abundant.
The climate of Greece, like that of the other countries of the
Balkan peninsula, is liable to greater extremes of heat and cold
than prevail
Climate. in Spain and Italy; the difference
is due to the general contour of the peninsula, which assimilates
its climatic conditions to those of the European mainland. Another
'distinctive feature is the great variety of local contrasts; the
rapid transitions are the natural effect of diversity in the
geographical configuration of the country. Within a few hours it is
possible to pass from winter to spring and from spring to summer.
The spring is short; the sun is already powerful in March, but the
increasing warmth is often checked by cold northerly winds; in many
places the corn
harvest is
cut in May, when southerly winds prevail and the temperature rises
rapidly. The great heat of summer is tempered throughout the whole
region of the archipelago by the Etesian winds, which blow
regularly from the N.E. for forty to fifty days in July and August.
This current of cool dry air from the north is due to the vacuum
resulting from intense heat in the region of the
Sahara. The healthy Etesian winds are generally
replaced towards the end of summer by the southerly Libas or
sirocco, which, when blowing
strongly, resembles the blast from a
furnace and is most injurious to health. The
sirocco affects, though in a less degree, the other countries of
the Balkan peninsula and even
Rumania. The mean summer temperature is about
79° Fahr. The autumn is the least healthy season of the year owing
to the great increase of humidity, especially in October and
November. At the end of October snow reappears on the higher
mountains, remaining on the summits till June. The winter is mild,
and even in January there are, as a rule, many warm clear days; but
the recurrence of biting northerly winds and cold blasts from the
mountains, as well as the rapid transitions from heat to cold and
the difference in the temperature of
sunshine and shade, render the climate
somewhat treacherous and unsuitable for invalids. Snow seldom falls
in the maritime and
lowland
districts and
frost is rare. The
mean winter temperature is from 48° to 55° Fahr. The rainfall
varies greatly according to localities; it is greatest in the
Ionian Islands (53.34 ins. at
Corfu), in Arcadia and in the other mountainous
districts, and least on the Aegean littoral and in the Cyclades; in
Attica, the driest region in Greece, it is 16-1 ins. The wettest
months are November, December and January; the driest July and
August, when, except for a few
thunder-storms, there is practically no
rainfall. The
rain generally
accompanies southerly or,southwesterly winds. In all the maritime
districts the sea
breeze
greatly modifies the temperature; it beginsabout9 A.M.,attains its
maximum force soon after
noon, and
ceases about an hour after sunset. Greece is renowned for the
clearness of its climate; fogs and mists are almost unknown. In
most years, however, only four or five days are recorded in which
the
sky is perfectly cloudless. The
natural healthiness of the climate is counteracted in the towns,
especially in Athens, by deficient sanitation and by stifling
clouds of
dust, which propagate
infection and are peculiarly hurtful in cases of ophthalmia and
pulmonary disease. Malarial
fever is endemic in the marshy districts,
especially in the autumn.
The area of the country was 18,341 sq. m. before the acquisition
of the Ionian Islands in 1864, 19,381 sq. m. prior to the
annexation of Thessaly
and part of Epirus in 1881, and
Area 2 4,55 2 sq. m. at
the
census in 1896. If we
deduct 152
popula- sq. m. the extent of territory ceded to
Turkey after
tion. q Y Y the war of 1897, the area of
Greece in 1908 would be 24,400 sq. m. Other authorities give 25,164
and 25,136 sq. m.
as the area prior to the rectification of the frontier in 1898.1
The population in 1896 was 2,433,806, or 99.1 to the sq. m., the
population of the territories annexed in 1881 being approximately
350,000; and 2,631, 952 in 1907, or 107.8 to the sq. m. (according
to the official estimate of the area), showing an increase of
198,146 or 0 81% per annum, as compared with 1.61% during the
period between 1896 and 1889; the diminished increase is mainly due
to
emigration. The
population by
sex in 1907 is given
as 1,324,942 males and 1,307,010 females (or 50.3% males to 49.6
females). The preponderance of males, which was 52% to 48% females
in 1896, has also been reduced by emigration; it is most marked in
the northern departments, especially in Larissa. Only in the
departments of Arcadia, Eurytania, Corinth,
Cephalonia,
Lacedaemon, Laconia, Phocis, Argolis and in
the Cyclades, is the female population in excess of the male.
Neither the census of 1896 nor that of 1889 gave any
classification by professions, religion or language. The following
figures, which are only approximate, were derived from unofficial
sources in 1901 :- agricultural and
pastoral employments 444,000; industries
64,200; traders and their employes 118,000; labourers and servants
31,300; various professions 15,700; officials 12,000; clergy about
6000; lawyers 4000; physicians 2500. In 1879, 1,635,698 of the
population were returned as Orthodox Christians, 14,677 as
Catholics and Protestants, 2652 as
Jews, and 740 as of other religions. The
annexation of Thessaly and part of Epirus is stated to have added
24,165 Mahommedan subjects to the Hellenic kingdom. A considerable
portion of these, however, emigrated immediately after the
annexation, and, although a certain number subsequently returned,
the total Mahommedan population in Greece was estimated to be under
5000 in 1908. A number of the Christian inhabitants of these
regions, estimated at about 50,000, retained Turkish
nationality with the
object of escaping military service. The Albanian population,
estimated at 200,000 by Finlay in 1851, still probably exceeds
120,000. It is gradually being absorbed in the Hellenic population.
In 18 7 0, 37,59 8 persons (an obviously untrustworthy figure) were
returned as speaking Albanian only. In 1879 the number is given as
58,858. The Vlach population, which has been increased by the
annexation of Thessaly, numbers about 60,000. The number of foreign
residents is unknown. The Italians are the most numerous, numbering
about 11,000. Some 1500 persons, mostly Maltese, possess British
nationality.
|
Departments.
|
Pop.
|
|
Departments.
|
Pop.
|
|
!1 Attica. .
|
341,247
|
14
|
Corinth
|
71,229
|
|
2 Boeotia. .
|
65,816
|
15
|
Arcadia
|
162,324
|
|
'3 Phthiotis.
|
112,328
|
16
|
Achaea
|
150,918
|
|
4 Phocis .
|
62,246
|
17
|
Elis
|
103,810
|
|
5 Aetolia and Acar-
|
|
18
|
Triphylia
|
90,523
|
|
nania.. .
|
141,405
|
19
|
Messenia
|
127,991
|
|
6 Eurytania. .
|
47,192
|
20
|
Laconia .
|
61,522
|
|
7 Arta. .. .
|
41,280
|
21
|
Lacedaemon
|
87,106
|
|
|
90,548
|
22
|
Corfu
|
99,571
|
|
9 Karditsa .
|
92,941
|
23
|
Cephalonia
|
71,235
|
|
10 Larissa.. .
|
95,066
|
24
|
Leucas (with Ithaca)
|
41,186
|
|
|
102,742
|
25
|
Zante.. .
|
42,502
|
|
12 Euboea.. .
|
116,903
|
26
|
Cyclades. .
|
130,378
|
|
13 Argolis. .
|
81,943
|
|
|
|
By a law of 27 November 1899, Greece, which had hitherto been
divided into sixteen departments (voµoc) was redivided
into twenty- six departments, as follows: The
population is densest in the Ionian Islands, exceeding 307 per sq.
m. The departments of Acarnania, Phocis and Euboea are the most
thinly inhabited (about 58, 61 and 66 per sq. m. respectively).
Very little information is obtainable with regard to the
movement of the population; no
register of births, deaths and marriages is
kept in Greece. The only official
statistics are found in the periodical
returns of the mortality in the twelve principal towns, according
to which the yearly average of deaths in these towns for the five
years 1903-1907 was approximately 10,253, or 23.8 per moo; of these
more than a quarter are ascribed to pulmonary
consumption, due in the
main to defective sanitation. Both the birth-rate and death-rate
are low, being 27.6 and 20.7 per moo respectively.
Infant mortality is slight, and
in point of
longevity
Greece compares favourably with most other European countries. The
number of illegitimate births is 12.25 per 1000; these are almost
exclusively in the towns.
|
1896.
|
1907.
|
|
Athens
|
111,486
|
167,479
|
|
Peiraeus
|
43, 8 4 8
|
73,579
|
|
Patras
|
37,9 8 5
|
37,724
|
Of the total population 28.5% are stated to live in towns. The
population of the principal towns is: 1 No state survey of Greece
was available in 1908, though a survey h. d been undertaken by the
ministry of war.
|
ETHNOLOGY]
|
1896.
|
1907.
|
|
Trikkala .
|
21,149
|
17,809
|
|
Hermopolis (Syra) .
|
18,760
|
18,132
|
|
Corfu .
|
18,581
|
28,254 1
|
|
Volo .
|
16,788
|
23,563
|
|
Larissa .
|
1 5,373
|
18,001
|
|
Zante .
|
14,906
|
13,580
|
|
Kalamata
|
14,298
|
15,397
|
|
Pyrgos .
|
12,708
|
13,690
|
|
Tripolis .
|
10 ,4 6 5
|
10,789
|
|
Chalcis .
|
8,661
|
10,958
|
|
Lauriuln
|
7,926
|
10,007
|
No trustworthy information is obtainable with regard to
immigration and
emigration, of which no statistics have ever been kept. Emigration,
which was formerly in the main to
Egypt and Rumania, is now almost exclusively to
the United
States of
America. The
principal exodus is from Arcadia, Laconia and Maina; the emigrants
from these districts, estimated at about 14,000 annually, are for
the most part young men approaching the age of military service.
According to American statistics 12,431 Greeks arrived in the
United States from Greece during the period 1869-1898 and 130,154
in 1899-1907; a considerable number, however, have returned to
Greece, and those remaining in the United States at the end of 1907
were estimated at between 136,000 and 138,000; this number was
considerably reduced in 1908 by remigration. Since 1896 the
tendency to emigration has received a notable and somewhat alarming
impulse. There is an increasing immigration into the towns from the
rural districts, which are gradually becoming depopulated. Both
movements are due in part to the preference of the Greeks for a
town life and in part to distaste for military service, but in the
main to the poverty of the
peasant population, whose condition and
interests have been neglected by the government.
Greece is inhabited by three races - the Greeks, the Albanians
and the
Vlachs. The Greeks who
are by far the most numerous, have to a large extent absorbed the
other races; the the foundation of the Greek kingdom. Like most
European nations, the modern Greeks are a mixed race. The question
of their origin has been the subject of much learned controversy;
their presumed descent from the Greeks of the classical epoch has
proved a national asset of great value; during the period of their
struggle for independence it won them the devoted zeal of the
Philhellenes, it inspired the enthusiasm of Byron,
Victor
Hugo, and a host of minor poets, and it has furnished a
pleasing illusion to generations of scholarly tourists who delight
to discover in the present inhabitants of the country the mental
and physical characteristics with which they have been familiarized
by the literature and art of antiquity. This amiable tendency is
encouraged by the modern Greeks, who possess an implicit faith in
their illustrious ancestry. The discussion of the question entered
a very acrimonious stage with the appearance in 1830 of
Fallmerayer's
History of the Morea during the Middle Ages.
Fallmerayer maintained that after the great Slavonic immigration at
the close of the 8th century the original population of northern
Greece and the Morea, which had already been much reduced during
the Roman period, was practically supplanted by the Slavonic
element and that the Greeks of modern times are in fact
Byzantinized Sla y s. This theory was subjected to exhaustive
criticism by Ross, Hopf, Finlay and other scholars, and although
many of Fallmerayer's conclusions remain unshaken, the view is now
generally held that the base of the population both in the mainland
and the Morea is Hellenic, not Slavonic. During the 5th and 6th
centuries Greece had been subjected to Slavonic incursions which
resulted in no permanent settlements. After the great
plague of 746-747, however, large
tracts of depopulated country were colonized by Slavonic
immigrants; the towns remained in the hands of the Greeks, many of
whom emigrated to Constantinople. In the Morea the Sla y s
established themselves principally in Arcadia and the region of
Taygetus, extending their settlements into Achaia, Elis, Laconia
and the promontory of Taenaron; on the mainland they occupied
portions of Acarnania, Aetolia, Doris and Phocis. Slavonic
place-names occurring in all these districts confirm the evidence
of history with regard to this immigration. The Sla y s, who were
not a maritime race, did not colonize the Aegean Islands, but a few
Slavonic place-names 1 Including suburbs.
in Crete seem to indicate that some of the invaders reached that
island. The Slavonic settlements in the Morea proved more permanent
than those in northern Greece, which were attacked by the armies of
the Byzantine emperors. But even in the Morea the Greeks, or "
Romans " as they called themselves (
`Pw t iaioc), who had
been left undisturbed on the eastern side of the peninsula,
eventually absorbed the
alien
element, which disappeared after the 15th century. In addition to
the placenames the only remaining traces of the Slav immigration
are the Slavonic type of features, which occasionally recurs,
especially among the Arcadian peasants, and a few customs and
traditions. Even when
allowance is made for the remarkable power of
assimilation which the Greeks possessed in virtue of their superior
civilization, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the
Hellenic element must always have been the most numerous in order
to effect so complete an absorption. This element has apparently
undergone no essential change since the epoch of Roman domination.
The destructive invasions of the
Goths in A.D. 267 and 395 introduced no new
ethnic feature; the various races which during the middle ages
obtained partial or complete mastery in Greece - the
Franks, the Venetians, the
Turks - contributed no appreciable
ingredient to the mass of the population. The modern Greeks may
therefore be regarded as in the main the descendants of the
population which inhabited Greece in the earlier centuries of
Byzantine rule. Owing to the operation of various causes,
historical, social and economic, that population was composed of
many heterogeneous elements and represented in a very limited
degree the race which repulsed the Persians and built the
Parthenon. The internecine
conflicts of the Greek communities, wars with foreign powers and
the deadly struggles of factions in the various cities, had to a
large extent obliterated the old race of free citizens by the
beginning of the Roman period. The extermination of the Plataeans
by the Spartans and of the Melians by the Athenians during the
Peloponnesian war, the proscription of Athenian citizens after the
war, the
massacre of the
Corcyraean oligarchs by the
democratic party, the slaughter of the
Thebans by Alexander and of the Corinthians by Mummius, are among
the more familiar instances of the catastrophes which overtook the
civic element in the Greek cities; the void can only have been
filled from the ranks of the metics or resident aliens and of the
descendants of the far more numerous slave population. Of the
latter a portion was of Hellenic origin; when a city was taken the
males of military age were frequently put to the
sword, but the women and children were sold as
slaves; in Laconia and Thessaly there was a serf population of
indigenous descent. In the classical period four-fifths of the
population of Attica were slaves and of the remainder half were
metics. In the Roman period the number of slaves enormously
increased, the supply being maintained from the regions on the
borders of the empire; the same influences which in Italy
extinguished the small landed proprietors and created the
latifundia prevailed also in Greece. The purely Hellenic
population, now greatly diminished, congregated in the towns; the
large estates which replaced the small freeholds were cultivated by
slaves and managed or farmed by slaves or freedmen, and wide tracts
of country were wholly depopulated. How greatly the free
citizen element had diminished
by the close of the 1st century A.D. may be judged from the
estimate of
Plutarch that
all Greece could not furnish more than 3000 hoplites. The composite
population which replaced the ancient Hellenic stock became
completely Hellenized. According to craniologists the modern Greeks
are brachycephalous while the ancient race is stated to have been
dolichocephalous, but it seems doubtful whether any such
generalization with regard to the ancients can be conclusively
established. The Aegean islanders are more brachycephalous than the
inhabitants of the mainland, though apparently of purer Greek
descent. No general conception of the facial type of the ancient
race can be derived from the highly-idealized statues of deities,
heroes and athletes; so far as can be judged from portrait statues
it was very varied. Among the modern Greeks the same variety of
features prevails; the face is usually
oval, the
nose
generally rocess of assimilation has been es eciall ra id since
P P Y P long and somewhat aquiline, the teeth
regular, and the eyes remarkably bright and full of animation. The
country-folk are, as a rule, tall and well-made, though slightly
built and rather meagre; their form is graceful and supple in
movement. The urban population, as elsewhere, is physically very
inferior. The women often display a refined and delicate beauty
which disappears at an early age. The best physical types of the
race are found in Arcadia, in the Aegean Islands and in Crete.
The Albanian population extends over all Attica and Megaris
(except the towns of Athens,
Peiraeus and
Megara), the greater part of Boeotia, the
eastern districts of Locris, the southern half of Euboea and the
northern side of Andros, the whole of the islands of
Salamis,
Hydra, Spetsae and
Poros, and part of Aegina, the whole of Corinthia
and Argolis, the northern districts of Arcadia and the eastern
portion of Achaea. There are also small Albanian groups in Laconia
and Messenia (see
Albania). The Albanians, who call
themselves
Shkyipetar, and are called by the Greeks
Arvanilae ('Ap i 3av rat),
belong to the Tosk or southern branch of the race; their
immigration took place in the latter half of the 14th century.
Their first settlements in the Morea were made in 1347-1355. The
Albanian colonization was first checked by the Turks; in 1454 an
Albanian insurrection in the Morea against Byzantine rule was
crushed by the Turkish general Tura
Khan, whose aid had been invoked by the
Palaeologi. With a few exceptions, the Albanians in Greece retained
their Christian faith after the Turkish conquest. The failure of
the insurrection of 1770 was followed by a settlement of Moslem
Albanians, who had been employed by the Turks to suppress the
revolt. The Christian Albanians have long lived on good terms with
the Greeks while retaining their own customs and language and
rarely intermarrying with their neighbours. They played a brilliant
part during the War of Independence, and furnished the Greeks with
many of their most distinguished leaders. The process of their
Hellenization, which scarcely began till after the establishment of
the kingdom, has been somewhat slow; most of the men can now speak
Greek, but Albanian is still the language of the household. The
Albanians, who are mainly occupied with
agriculture, are less
quick-witted, less versatile, and less addicted
to politics than the Greeks, who regard them as intellectually
their inferiors. A vigorous and manly race, they furnish the best
soldiers in the Greek army, and also make excellent sailors.
The Vlachs, who call themselves
Aromfni, i. e. Romans,
form another important foreign element in the population of Greece.
They are found principally in Pindus (the
Agrapha district), the mountainous parts of
Thessaly, Othrys, Oeta, the mountains of Boeotia, Aetolia and
Acarnania; they have a few settlements in Euboea. They are for the
most part either
nomad shepherds
and herdsmen or carriers (
kiradjis). They apparently
descend from the Latinized provincials of the Roman epoch who took
refuge in the higher mountains from the incursions of the
barbarians and Sla y s (see
Vlachs and
Macedonia). In the 13th century the Vlach
principality of " Great
Walachia " (MEy iXrt BXaxia) included Thessaly
and southern Macedonia as far as Castoria; its capital was at
Hypati near Lamia. Acarnania and Aetolia were known as " Lesser
Walachia." The urban element among the Vlachs has been almost
completely Hellenized; it has always displayed great aptitude for
commerce, and Athens owes many of its handsomest buildings to the
benefactions of wealthy Vlach merchants. The nomad population in
the mountains has retained its distinctive nationality and customs
together with its
Latin language, though most of the men
can speak Greek. Like the Albanians, the pastoral Vlachs seldom
intermarry with the Greeks; they occasionally take Greek wives, but
never give their daughters to Greeks; many of them are illiterate,
and their children rarely attend the schools. Owing to their
deficient intellectual culture they are regarded with disdain by
the Greeks, who employ the term (Xaxos to denote not only a
shepherd but an ignorant rustic.
A considerable
Italian
element was introduced into the Ionian Islands during the middle
ages owing to their prolonged subjection to
Latin princes and subsequently (till 1797) to the
Venetian republic. The Italians intermarried with the Greeks;
Italian became the language of the upper classes, and Roman
Catholicism was declared the state religion. The peasantry,
however, retained the
Greek language and remained faithful to
the
Eastern Church; during the past
century the Italian element was completely absorbed by the Greek
population.
The Turkish population in Greece, which numbered about 70,000
before the war of liberation, disappeared in the course of the
struggle or emigrated at its conclusion. The Turks in Thessaly are
mainly descended either from colonists established in the country
by the Byzantine emperors or from immigrants from Asia Minor, who
arrived at the end of the 14th century; they derive their name
Konariots from
Iconium
(Konia). Many of the beys or land-owning class are the lineal
representatives of the Seljuk nobles who obtained fiefs under the
feudal system introduced here and in Macedonia by the
Sultan Bayezid I.
Notwithstanding their composite origin, their wide geographical
distribution and their
cosmopolitan instincts, the modern Greeks
are a remarkably homogeneous people,
National differing
markedly in character from neighbouring
character. races,
united by a common enthusiasm in the pursuit of their national
aims, and profoundly convinced of their superiority to other
nations. Their distinctive character, combined with their
traditional tendency to regard non-Hellenic peoples as barbarous,
has, indeed, to some extent counteracted the results of their great
energy and zeal in the assimilation of other races; the
advantageous position which they attained at an
early
period under Turkish rule owing to their superior civilization,
their versatility, their wealth, and their
monopoly of the ecclesiastical power would
probably have enabled them to Hellenize permanently the greater
part of the Balkan peninsula had their attitude towards other
Christian races been more sympathetic. Always the most civilized
race in the East, they have successively influenced their
Macedonian, Roman and Turkish conquerors, and their remarkable
intellectual endowments bid fair to secure them a brilliant
position in the future. The intense patriotic zeal of the Greeks
may be compared with that of the Hungarians; it is liable to
degenerate into arrogance and intolerance; it sometimes blinds
their judgment and involves them in ill-considered enterprises, but
it nevertheless offers the best
guarantee for the ultimate attainment of
their national aims. All Greeks, in whatever country they may
reside, work together for the realization of the Great Idea (i
MEyaXrt '
ISEa)- the supremacy of
Hellenism in the East - and to this object
they freely devote their time, their wealth and their talents; the
large fortunes which they amass abroad are often bequeathed for the
foundation of various institutions in Greece or Turkey, for the
increase of the national fleet and army, or for the spread of
Hellenic influence in the
Levant. This patriotic sentiment is
unfortunately much exploited by self-seeking demagogues and
publicists, who rival each other in exaggerating the national
pretensions and in pandering to the national vanity. In no other
country is the passion for politics so intense; " keen political
discussions are constantly going on at the cafes; the
newspapers, which are
extraordinarily numerous and generally of little value, are
literally devoured, and every measure of the government is
violently criticized and ascribed to interested motives." The
influence of the journals is enormous; even the waiters in the:
cafés and domestic servants have their favourite newspaper, and
discourse fluently on the political problems of the day. Much of
the national energy is wasted by this continued political fever; it
is diverted from practical aims, and may be said to evaporate in
words. The practice of independent criticism tends to indiscipline
in the organized public services; it has been remarked that every
Greek soldier is a general and every sailor an
admiral. During the war of 1897 a young naval
lieutenant telegraphed to the minister of war condemning the
measures taken by his admiral, and his action was applauded by
several journals. There is also little discipline in the ranks of
political parties, which are held together, not by any definite
principle, but by the personal influence of the leaders; defections
are frequent, and as a rule each deputy in the Chamber makes his
terms with his chief. On the other hand, the independent character
of the Greeks is favourably illustrated by the circumstance that
Greece is the only country in the Balkan peninsula in which the
government cannot count on securing a majority by official pressure
at the elections. Few scruples are observed in political warfare,
but attacks on private life are rare. The love of free discussion
is inherent in the strongly-rooted democratic
instinct of the Greeks. They are in spirit the
most democratic of European peoples; no trace of Latin
feudalism survives, and
aristocratic pretensions are ridiculed. In social life there is no
artificial distinction of classes; all titles of
nobility are forbidden; a few
families descended from the chiefs in the War of Independence enjoy
a certain pre-
eminence,
but wealth and, still more, political or literary notoriety
constitute the principal claim to social consideration. The Greeks
display great intellectual vivacity; they are clever, inquisitive,
quick-witted and ingenious, but not profound; sustained mental
industry and careful accuracy are distasteful to them, and their
aversion to manual labour is still more marked. Even the
agricultural class is but moderately industrious; abundant
opportunities for relaxation are provided by the numerous church
festivals. The desire for instruction is intense even in the lowest
ranks of the community; rhetorical and literary accomplishments
possess a greater attraction for the majority than the fields of
modern science. The number of persons who seek to qualify for the
learned professions is excessive; they form a superfluous element
in the community, an educated
proletariat, attaching themselves to the
various political parties in the hope of obtaining state employment
and spending an idle existence in the cafes and the streets when
their party is out of power. In disposition the Greeks are lively,
cheerful, plausible, tactful, sympathetic; very affable with
strangers, hospitable, kind to their servants and dependants,
remarkably temperate and frugal in their habits, amiable and united
in family life.
Drunkenness is almost unknown,
thrift is universally practised;
the standard of sexual morality is high, especially in the rural
districts, where
illegitimacy is extremely rare. The faults
of the Greeks must in a large degree be attributed to their
prolonged subjection to alien races; their cleverness often
degenerates into cunning, their ready invention into mendacity,
their thrift into avarice, their fertility of resource into
trickery and
fraud. Dishonesty
is not a national vice, but many who would scorn to steal will not
hesitate to
compass illicit
gains by duplicity and misrepresentation; deceit, indeed, is often
practised gratuitously for the mere intellectual
satisfaction which it
affords. In the astuteness of their monetary dealings the Greeks
proverbially surpass the Jews, but fall short of the Armenians;
their remarkable aptitude for business is sometimes marred by a
certain short-sightedness which pursues immediate profits at the
cost of ulterior advantages. Their vanity and
egoism, which are admitted by even the most
favourable observers, render them jealous, exacting, and peculiarly
susceptible to flattery. In common with other southern European
peoples the Greeks are extremely excitable; their passionate
disposition is prone to take offence at slight provocation, and
trivial quarrels not infrequently result in
homicide. They are religious, but by no means
fanatical, except in regard to politico-religious questions
affecting their national aims. In general the Greeks may be
described as a clever, ambitious and versatile people, capable of
great effort and sacrifice, but deficient in some of the more solid
qualities which make for national greatness.
The customs and habits of the Greek peasantry, in which the
observances of the classical age may often be traced, together
Customs. with their legends and traditions, have
furnished an interesting subject of investigation to many writers
(see
Bibliography below). In the towns the more
cosmopolitan population has largely adopted the " European " mode
of life, and the upper classes show a marked preference for French
manners and usages. In both town and country, however, the
influence of oriental ideas is still apparent, due in part to the
long period of Turkish domination, in part to the contact of the
Greeks with Asiatic races at all epochs of their history. In the
rural districts, especially, the women
lead a somewhat secluded life and occupy a subject
position; they wait at table, and only partake of the
meal when the men of the family have
been served. In most parts of continental Greece the women work in
the fields, but in the Aegean Islands and Crete they rarely leave
the house. Like the Turks, the Greeks have a great partiality for
coffee, which can always be
procured even in the remotest hamlets; the Turkish practice of
carrying a string of beads or
rosary (
comboloio), which provides an
occupation for the hands, is very common. Many of the observances
in connexion with births, christenings, weddings and funerals are
very interesting and in some cases are evidently derived from
remote antiquity. Nuptial ceremonies are elaborate and protracted;
in some of the islands of the archipelago they continue for three
weeks. In the preliminary negotiations for a marriage the question
of the bride's
dowry plays a
very important part; a girl without a dowry often remains
unmarried, notwithstanding the considerable excess of the male over
the female population. Immediately after the christening of a
female child her parents begin to lay up her portion, and young men
often refrain from marrying until their sisters have been settled
in life. The dead are carried to the
tomb in an open
coffin; in the country districts professional
mourners are engaged to
chant
dirges; the body is washed with
wine and crowned with a
wreath of flowers. A valedictory oration is
pronounced at the grave. Many superstitions still prevail among the
peasantry; the belief in the
vampire and the
evil eye is almost universal. At Athens and in
the larger towns many handsome dwelling-houses may be seen, but the
upper classes have no predilection for rural life, and their
country houses are usually mere farmsteads, which they rarely
visit. In the more fertile districts two-storeyed houses of the
modern type are common, but in the mountainous regions the
habitations of the country-folk are extremely primitive; the small
stone-built hut, almost destitute of furniture, shelters not only
the family but its
cattle and
domestic animals. In Attica the peasants' houses are usually built
of
cob. In Maina the villagers live
in fortified towers of three or more storeys; the animals occupy
the ground floor, the family the topmost
storey; the intermediate space serves as a
granary or
hay-
loft. The walls are
loop-holed for purposes of defence in view of the
traditional
vendetta and
feuds, which in some instances have been handed down from remote
generations and are maintained by occasional sharp-
shooting from these primitive
fortresses. In general cleanliness and sanitation are much
neglected; the traveller in the country districts is doomed to
sleepless nights unless he has provided himself with bedding and a
hammock. Even Athens, though
enriched by many munificent benefactions, is still without a
drainage system or an adequate
water supply; the sewers of many houses
open into the streets, in which rubbish is allowed to accumulate.
The effects of insanitary conditions are, however, counteracted in
some degree by the excellent climate. The Aegean islanders contrast
favourably with the continentals in point of personal cleanliness
and the neatness of their dwellings; their houses are generally
covered with the flat roof, familiar in
Asia, on which the family
sleep in summer. The habits and customs of the
islanders afford an interesting study. Propitiatory rites are still
practised by the mariners and fishermen, and thankofferings for
preservation at sea are hung up in the churches. Among the popular
amusements of the Greeks dancing holds a prominent place; the
dance is of various kinds; the most
usual is the somewhat inanimate round dance (
vvprO or
Tatra), in which a number of persons, usually of the same
sex, take part holding hands; it seems indentical with the Slavonic
kolo (" circle "). The more lively Albanian fling is
generally danced by three or four persons, one of whom executes a
series of leaps and pirouettes. The national
music is primitive and monotonous. All classes
are passionately addicted to card-playing, which is forbidden by
law in places of public resort. The picturesque national
costume, which is derived from
the Albanian Tosks, has unfortunately been abandoned by the upper
classes and the urban population since the
abdication of King Otho, who always wore it;
it is maintained as the uniform of the
evzones (highland
regiments). It consists of a red cap with dark blue tassel, a white
shirt with wide sleeves, a vest
and jacket, sometimes of
velvet, handsomely adorned with
gold or black
braid, a
belt in
which various weapons are carried, a white
kilt or
fustanella of many folds, white
hose tied with garters, and red
leather shoes with pointed
ends, from which a tassel depends. Over all is worn the shaggy
white
capote. The islanders wear a dark blue costume with
a
crimson waistband, loose
trousers descending to the
knee, stockings and pumps or long
boots. The women's costume is very varied; the loose red
fez is sometimes worn and a short
velvet jacket with rich gold
embroidery. The more elderly women are
generally attired in black. In the Megara district and elsewhere
peasant girls wear on festive occasions a headdress composed of
strings of coins which formerly represented the dowry.
Greece is a constitutional monarchy; hereditary in the male
line, or, in case of its extinction, in the female. The sovereign,
by decision of the conference of
London (August 1863),
i s styled " king
of the Hellenes "; the title " king of Greece " was borne by King
Otho. The heir apparent is styled
o ScItSoXos, " the
successor "; the title " duke of Sparta," which has been accorded
to the
crown prince, is not
generally employed in Greece. The king and the heir apparent must
belong to the Orthodox Greek Church; a special exception has been
made for King
George, who is a
Lutheran. The king attains his majority on completing his
eighteenth year; before ascending the throne he must take the oath
to the constitution in presence of the principal ecclesiastical and
lay dignitaries of the kingdom, and must convoke the Chamber within
two months after his accession. The
civil list amounts to 1,125,000 dr., in
addition to which it was provided that King George should receive
£4000 annually as a personal allowance from each of the three
protecting powers, Great Britain, France and Russia. The heir
apparent receives from the state an
annuity of 200,000 dr. The king has a palace at
Athens and other residences at Corfu, Tatoi (on the slopes of Mt
Fames) and Larissa. The present constitution dates from the 29th of
October 1864. The legislative power is shared by the king with a
single chamber (
/30vXi 7 ) elected by manhood
suffrage for a period of four
years. The election is by
ballot; candidates must have completed their
thirtieth year and
electors their twenty-first. The deputies
((
30vAev-rai), according to the constitution, receive only
their travelling expenses, but they vote themselves a payment of
1800 dr. each for the
session and a further allowance in case of an
extraordinary session. The Chamber sits for a term of not less than
three or more than six months. No law can be passed except by an
absolute majority of the house, and one-half of the members must be
present to form a
quorum;
these arrangements have greatly facilitated the practice of
obstruction, and often enable individual deputies to impose terms
on the government for their attendance. In 1898 the number of
deputies was 234. Some years previously a law diminishing the
national representation and enlarging the constituencies was passed
by Trikoupis with the object of checking the local influence of
electors upon deputies, but the measure was subsequently repealed.
The number of deputies, however, who had hitherto been elected in
the proportion of one to twelve thousand of the population, was
reduced in 1905, when the proportion of one to sixteen thousand was
substituted; the Chamber of 1906, elected under the new system,
consisted of 177 deputies. In 1906 the electoral districts were
diminished in number and enlarged so as to coincide with the
twenty-six administrative departments (
P6Aoc); the
reduction of these departments to their former number of sixteen,
which is in contemplation, will bring about some further diminution
in parliamentary representation. It is hoped that recent
legislation will tend to check the pernicious practice of bartering
personal favours, known as avvaXAayrt, which still prevails to the
great detriment of public morality, paralysing all branches of the
administration and wasting the resources of the state. Political
parties are formed not for the furtherance of any principle or
cause, but with the object of obtaining the spoils of office, and
the various groups, possessing no party watchword or
programme, frankly
designate themselves by the names of their leaders. Even the
strongest government is compelled to
bargain with its supporters in regard to the
distribution of patronage and other favours. The consequent
instability of successive ministries has retarded useful
legislation and seriously checked the national progress. In 1906 a
law was passed disqualifying junior officers of the army and
navy for membership of the Chamber;
great numbers of these had hitherto been candidates at every
election. This much-needed measure had previously been passed by
Trikoupis, but had been repealed by his rival Delyannes. The
executive is vested in the king, who is personally irresponsible,
and governs through ministers chosen by himself and responsible to
the Chamber, of which they are
ex-officio members. He
appoints all public officials, sanctions and proclaims laws,
convokes, prorogues and dissolves the Chamber, grants
pardon or
amnesty, coins money and confers decorations.
There are seven ministries which respectively control the
departments of foreign affairs, the interior, justice,
finance, education and worship,
the army and the navy.
The 26 departments or
voµoi, into which the country is
divided for administrative purposes, are each under a
prefect or nomarch
(
voµapxos); they are subdivided into 69 districts or
eparchies, and into 445 communes or demes (S
13t oc) .'
under mayors or demarchs
apXoc). The prefects and
sub-prefects are nominated by the government; the mayors are
elected by the communes for a period of four years. The prefects
are assisted by a departmental council, elected by the population,
which manages local business and assesses rates; there are also
communal councils under the
presidency of the mayors. There are
altogether some 12,000 state-paid officials in the country, most of
them inadequately remunerated and liable to removal or transferral
upon a change of government. A host of office-seekers has thus been
created, and large numbers of educated persons spend many years in
idleness or in political agitation. A law passed in 1905 secures
tenure of office to civil
servants of fifteen years' standing, and some restrictions have
been placed on the dismissal and transferral of schoolmasters.
Under the Turks the Greeks retained, together with their
ecclesiastical institutions, a certain measure of local
self-government and judicial independence. The Byzantine code,
based on the Roman, as embodied in the `Ea/3c,3Aos of Armenopoulos
(1345), was sanctioned by royal
decree in1835 with some modifications as the
civil law of Greece.
Further modifications and new enactments were subsequently
introduced, derived from the old French and Bavarian systems. The
penal code is Bavarian, the commercial French. Liberty of person
and
domicile is inviolate;
no
arrest can be made, no
house entered, and no letter opened without a judicial
warrant. Trial by
jury is established for criminal,
political and press offences. A new civil code, based on Saxon and
Italian law, has been drawn up by a commission of jurists, but it
has not yet been considered by the Chamber. A separate civil code,
partly French, partly Italian, is in force in the Ionian Islands.
The law is administered by r court of cassation (styled the "
Areopagus "), 5 courts of
appeal, 26 courts of first instance, 233 justices of the peace and
19 correctional tribunals.
The judges, who are appointed by the Crown, are liable to
removal by the minister of justice, whose exercise of this right is
often invoked by political partisans. The administration of justice
suffers in consequence, more especially in the country districts,
where the judges must reckon with the influential politicians and
their adherents. The pardon or release of a convicted criminal is
not infrequently due to pressure on the part of some powerful
patron. The lamentable effects of this system have long been
recognized, and in 1906 a law was introduced securing tenure of
office for two or four years to judges of the courts of first
instance and of the inferior tribunals. In the circumstances
crime is less rife than might be
expected; the temperate habits of the Greeks have conduced to this
result. A serious feature is the great prevalence of homicide, due
in part to the passionate character of the people, but still more
to the almost universal practice of carrying weapons. The
traditions of the vendetta are almost extinct in the Ionian
Islands, but still linger in Maina, where family feuds are
transmitted from generation to generation. The brigand of the
old-fashioned type (X rri j s, KX c/ Tijs) has almost disappeared,
except in the remoter country districts,
and piracy,
once so prevalent in the Aegean, has been practically suppressed,
but numbers of outlaws or absconding criminals
(
4vyo&Kot) still haunt the mountains, and the efforts
of the
police to bring them to
justice are far from successful. Their ranks were considerably
increased after the war of 1897, when many deserters from the army
and adventurers who came to Greece as
volunteers betook themselves to a predatory
life. On the other hand, there is no habitually criminal class in
Greece, such as exists in the large centres of civilization, and
professional
mendicancy is still rare.
Police duties, for which officers and, in some cases, soldiers
of the regular army were formerly employed, are since 1906 carried
out by a reorganized
gendarmerie force of 194 officers and 6344
non-commissioned officers and men, distributed in the twenty-six
departments and commanded by an inspectorgeneral resident at
Athens, who is aided by a consultative commission. There are male
and female prisons at all the departmental centres; the number of
prisoners in 1906 was 5705. Except in the Ionian Islands, the
general condition of the prisons is deplorable; discipline and
sanitation are very deficient, and conflicts among the prisoners
are sometimes reported in which knives and even revolvers are
employed. A good
prison has
been built near Athens by Andreas Syngros, and a reformatory for
juvenile
offenders (Ecf m13Eiov) has been founded by George Averoff,
another national benefactor. Capital sentences are usually commuted
to penal
servitude for
life; executions, for which the
guillotine is employed, are for the most
part carried out on the island of Bourzi near Nauplia; they are
often postponed for months or even for years. There is no enactment
resembling the
Habeas Corpus Act, and accused persons
may be detained indefinitely before trial. The Greeks, like the
other nations liberated from Turkish rule, are somewhat litigious,
and numbers of lawyers find occupation even in the smaller country
towns.
The Greeks, an intelligent people, have always shown a
remarkable zeal for learning, and popular education has made great
strides. So eager is the desire for instruction that schools are
often founded in the rural districts on the initiative of the
villagers, and the sons of peasants, artisans and small shopkeepers
come in numbers to Athens, where they support themselves by
domestic service or other humble occupations in order to study at
the university during their spare hours. Almost immediately after
the accession of King Otho steps were taken to establish elementary
schools in all the communes, and education was made obligatory. The
law is not very rigorously applied in the remoter districts, but
its enforcement is scarcely necessary. In 1898 there were 2914 "
demotic " or primary schools,
with 3465 teachers, attended by 129,210 boys (5.38% of the
population) and 29,119 girls (1 19% of the population). By a law
passed in 1905 the primary schools, which had reached the number of
3359 in that year, were reduced to 2604. The expenditure on primary
schools is nominally sustained by the communes, but in reality by
the government in the form of advances to the communes, which are
not repaid; it was reduced in 1905 from upwards of 7,000,000 dr. to
under 6,000,000 dr. In 1905 there were 306 " Hellenic " or
secondary schools, with 819 teachers and 21,575 pupils (boys only)
maintained by the state at a cost of 1,720,096 dr.; and 39 higher
schools, or gymnasia, with 261 masters and 6485 pupils, partly
maintained by the state (expenditure 615,600 dr.) and partly by
benefactions and other means. Besides these public schools there
are several private educational institutions, of which there are
eight at Athens with 650 pupils. The
Polytechnic Institute of Athens affords
technical instruction in the departments of art and science to 221
students. Scientific agricultural instruction has been much
neglected; there is an agricultural school at Aidinion in Thessaly
with 4 o pupils; there are eight agricultural stations
(
v-aOpoe) in various parts of the country. There are two
theological seminaries - the Rizari School at Athens (120 pupils)
and a preparatory school at Arta; three other seminaries have been
suppressed. The Commercialand Industrial Academy at Athens (about
225 pupils), a private institution, has proved highly useful to the
country; there are four commercial schools, each in one of the
country towns. A large school for females at Athens, the Arsakion,
is attended by 1500 girls. There are several military and naval
schools, including the military college of the Euelpides at Athens
and the school of naval cadets (r &n,
BoKipcw). The
university of Athens in 1905 numbered 57 professors and 2598
students, of whom 557 were from abroad. Of the six faculties,
theology numbered 79
students, law 1467,
medicine 567, arts 206, physics and
mathematics 192, and
pharmacy 87. The university
receives a subvention from the state, which in 1905 amounted to
563,960 dr.; it possesses a library of over 150,000 volumes and
geological, zoological and botanical museums. A small tax on
university education was imposed in 1903; the total cost to the
student for the four years' course at the university is about X25.
Higher education is practically gratuitous in Greece, and there is
a somewhat ominous increase in the number of educated persons who
disdain agricultural pursuits and manual labour. The intellectual
culture acquired is too often of a superficial character owing to
the tendency to sacrifice scientific thoroughness and accuracy, to
neglect the more useful branches of knowledge, and to aim at a
showy
dialectic and
literary proficiency. (For the native and foreign archaeological
institutions see
Athens.) The
Greek branch of the Orthodox Eastern Church is practically
independent, like those of
Servia,
Montenegro and Rumania, though nominally
subject to the patriarchate of Constantinople. The jurisdiction of
the
patriarch was in
fact repudiated in 1833, when the king was declared the supreme
head of the church, and the severance was completed in 1850.
Ecclesiastical affairs are under the control of the Ministry of
Education. Church government is vested in the Holy
Synod, a council of five ecclesiastics under the
presidency of the
metropolitan of Athens; its sittings are
attended by a royal commissioner. The church can invoke the aid of
the civil authorities for the punishment of
heresy and the suppression of unorthodox
literature, pictures, &c. There were formerly 21 archbishoprics
and 29 bishoprics in Greece, but a law passed in 1899 suppressed
the archbishoprics (except the metropolitan see of Athens) on the
death of the existing prelates, and fixed the total number of sees
at 32. The prelates derive their incomes partly from the state and
partly from the church lands. There are about 5500 priests, who
belong for the most part to the poorest classes. The parochial
clergy have no fixed stipends, and often resort to agriculture or
small trading in order to supplement the scanty fees earned by
their ministrations. Owing to their lack of education their
personal influence over their parishioners is seldom considerable.
In addition to the parochial clergy there are 19 preachers
(
tEpoKipvKEs) salaried by the state. There are 170
monasteries and 4 nunneries in Greece, with about 1600
monks and 250 nuns. In regard to
their constitution the monasteries are either " idiorrhythmic " or
" coenobian " (see
Athos); the
monks (
KaX6yEpot) are in some cases assisted by lay
brothers (KoaµtKoi). More than 300 of the smaller monasteries were
suppressed in 1829 and their revenues secularized. Among the more
important and interesting monasteries are those of Megaspelaeon and
Lavra (where the standard of insurrection, unfurled in 1821, is
preserved) near Kalavryta, St
Luke
of Stiris near Arachova,
Daphne and Penteli near Athens, and the
Meteora group in northern
Thessaly. The
bishops, who
must be unmarried, are as a rule selected from the monastic order
and are nominated by the king; the parish priests are allowed to
marry, but the remarriage of widowers is forbidden. The bulk of the
population, about 2,000,000, belongs to the Orthodox Church; other
Christian confessions number about 15,000, the great majority being
Roman Catholics. The Roman Catholics (principally in Naxos and the
Cyclades) have three archbishoprics(Athens,Naxos andCorfu),five
bishoprics and about 60 churches. The Jews, who are regarded with
much hostility, have almost disappeared from the Greek mainland;
they now number about 5000, and are found principally at Corfu. The
Mahommedans are confined to Thessaly except a few at
Chalcis. National sentiment is
a more powerful factor than personal religious conviction in the
attachment of the Greeks
to the Orthodox Church; a Greek without the pale of the church is
more or less an alien. The
Catholic Greeks of Syros sided with the Turks
at the time of the revolution; the Mahommedans of Crete, though of
pure Greek descent, have always been hostile to their Christian
fellow-countrymen and are commonly called Turks. On the other hand,
that portion of the Macedonian population which acknowledges the
patriarch of Constantinople is regarded as Greek, while that which
adheres to the Bulgarian exarchate, though differing in no point of
doctrine, has been declared schismatic. The constitution of 1864
guarantees
toleration
to all
creeds in Greece and
imposes no civil disabilities on account of religion.
Greece is essentially an agricultural country; its prosperity
depends on its agricultural products, and more than half the
population is occupied in the cultivation of the soil and kindred
pursuits. The land in the plains and valleys is exceedingly rich,
and, wherever there is a sufficiency of water, produces magnificent
crops. Cereals nevertheless furnish the principal figure in the
list of imports, the annual value being about 30,000,000 fr. The
country, especially since the acquisition of the fertile province
of Thessaly, might under a well-developed agricultural system
provide a food-supply for all its inhabitants and an abundant
surplus for exportation. Thessaly alone, indeed, could furnish
cereals for the whole of Greece. Unfortunately, however,
agriculture is still in a primitive state, and the condition of the
rural population has received very inadequate attention from
successive governments. The wooden
plough of the Hesiodic type is
still in use, especially in Thessaly; modern implements, however,
are being gradually introduced. The employment of manure and the
rotation of crops are almost unknown; the fields are generally
allowed to lie
fallow in
alternate years. As a rule, countries dependent on agriculture are
liable to sudden fluctuations in prosperity, but in Greece the
diversity of products is so great that a failure in one class of
crops is usually compensated by exceptional abundance in another.
Among the causes which have hitherto retarded agricultural progress
are the
ignorance and
conservatism of the peasantry, antiquated methods of cultivation,
want of capital, absentee proprietorship, sparsity of population,
bad roads, the prevalence of
usury, the uncertainty of boundaries and the land
tax, which, in the absence of a survey, is levied on ploughing
oxen; to these may be added the insecurity hitherto prevailing in
many of the country districts and the growing distaste for rural
life which has accompanied the spread of education. Large estates
are managed under the metayer system; the
cultivator paying the proprietor from
one-third to half of the
gross
produce; the landlords, who prefer to live in the larger towns, see
little of their tenants, and rarely interest themselves in their
welfare. A great proportion of the best arable land in Thessaly is
owned by persons who reside permanently out of the country. The
great estates in this province extend over some 1,500,000 acres, of
which about 500,000 are cultivated. In the Peloponnesus peasant
proprietorship is almost universal; elsewhere it is gradually
supplanting the metayer system; the small properties vary from 2 or
3 to 50 acres. The extensive state lands, about one-third of the
area of Greece, were formerly the property of Mahommedan religious
communities (
vakoufs); they are for the most part farmed
out annually by auction. They have been much encroached upon by
neighbouring owners; a considerable portion has also been sold to
the peasants. The rich plain of Thessaly suffers from alternate
droughts and inundations, and from the ravages of field mice; with
improved cultivation, drainage and
irrigation it might be rendered enormously
productive. A commission has been occupied for some years in
preparing a scheme of hydraulic works. Usury
is,
perhaps, a greater
scourge
to the rural population than any
visitation of nature; the institution of
agricultural
banks, lending
money at a fair rate of interest on the
security of their land, would do much to
rescue the peasants from the
clutches of local Shylocks. There is a difficulty, however, in
establishing any system of land credit owing to the lack of a
survey. Since .1897 a law passed in 1882 limiting the rate of
interest to 8% (to 9% in the case of commercial debts) has to some
extent been enforced by the tribunals. In the Ionian Islands the
rate of 10% still prevails.
The following figures give approximately the acreage in 1906 and
the average annual yield of agricultural produce, no official
statistics being available: - Acres.
Fields sown or lying fallow 3,000,000 Vineyards 337,500
Currant plantations 175,000
Olives (Io,000,000 trees) 250,000
Fruit trees (fig,
mulberry, &c.) 125,000 Meadows and
pastures 7,500,000 Forests ... 2,000, 000 Waste lands. 2,875,000
16,262,500
Beet 12,000,000
Rice is grown in the marshy plains of
Elis, Boeotia, Marathon and
Missolonghi; beet in Thessaly. The
cultivation of vegetables is increasing; beans, peas and lentils
are the most common. Potatoes are grown in the upland districts,
but are not a general article of diet. Of late years
market-gardening has been taken up as a new industry in the
neighbourhood of Athens. There is a great variety of fruits. Olive
plantations are found everywhere; in 1860 they occupied about
90,000 acres; in 188 7, 433,7 01 acres. The trees are sometimes of
immense age and form a picturesque feature in the landscape. In
latter years the groves in many parts of the western Morea and
Zante have been cut down to make room for currant plantations; the
destruction has been deplorable in its consequences, for, as the
tree requires twenty years to come into full bearing, replanting is
seldom resorted to. Preserved olives, eaten with
bread, are a common article of food. Excellent
olive oil is produced in Attica and elsewhere. The value of the oil
and fruit exported varies from five to ten million francs. Figs are
also abundant, especially in Messenia and in the Cyclades. Mulberry
trees are planted for the purposes of sericulture; they have been
cut down in great numbers in the currant-growing districts. Other
fruit trees are the orange,
citron,
lemon,
pomegranate and
almond. Peaches, apricots, pears, cherries,
&c., abound, but are seldom scientifically cultivated; the
fruit is generally gathered while unripe. Cotton in 1906 occupied
about 12,500 acres, chiefly in the neighbourhood of Livadia.
Tobacco plantations in 1893 covered 16,320 acres, yielding about
3,500,000 kilograms; the yield in 1906 was 9,000,000 kilograms.
About 40% of the produce is exported, principally to Egypt and
Turkey. More important are the vineyards, which occupied in 1887 an
area of 306,421 acres. The best wine is made at Patras, on the
royal estate at
Decelea, and
on other estates in Attica; a peculiar flavour is imparted to the
wine of the country by the addition of
resin. The wine of Santorin, the modern
representative of the famous "
malmsey," is mainly exported to Russia. The
foreign demand for Greek wines is rapidly increasing; 3,770,257
gallons were exported in 1890, 4,974,196 gallons in 1894. There is
also a growing demand for Greek
cognac. The export of wine in 1905 was
20,850,941 okes, value 5,848,544 fr.; of cognac, 363,720 okes,
value 1,091,160 fr.
The currant, by far the most important of Greek exports, is
cultivated in a limited area extending along the southern shore of
the Gulf of Corinth and the seaboard of the Western Peloponnesus,
The average annual yield is as follows: -
Wheat Maize Rye Barley .
Oats Beans, lentils, &c.
Currants Sultanina Wine .
Olive oil Olives (preserved) Figs (exported only)
Seed cotton Tobacco Vegetables and
fresh fruits .
Cocoons.. Hesperidiums (exported only) Carobs (exported only)
.
Resin kilograms „ Venetian lb hectolitres kilograms „
350,000,000.20, 000, 000 70,000,000 75,000,000 25,000,000
350,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 300,000 100, 000, 000 12,000, 000
6,500,000.8,000,000 20,000,000 1,000, 000 4,000,000 10, 000, 000
5,000,000 in Zante, Cephalonia and Leucas, and in certain districts
of Acarnania and Aetolia; attempts to cultivate it elsewhere have
Cu rran ts 'generally proved unsuccessful. The history of
the currant industry has been a record of extraordinary
vicissitudes. Previously to 1877 the currant was exported solely
for eating purposes, the amounts for the years 1872 to 1877 being
70,766 tons, 71,222 tons, 76,210 tons, 72,916 tons, 86,947 tons,
and 82,181 tons respectively. In 1877, however, the French
vineyards began to suffer seriously from the
phylloxera, and French wine producers were
obliged to have recourse to dried currants, which make an excellent
wine for blending purposes. The importation of currants into France
at once
rose from 881 tons in 1877
to 20,999 tons in 1880, and to 70,401 tons in 1889, or about 20,000
tons more than were imported into
England in that year. Meanwhile the total
amount of currants produced in Greece had nearly doubled in these
thirteen. years. The country was seized with a mania for currant
planting; every other industry was neglected, and olive, orange and
lemon groves were cut down to make room for the more lucrative
growth. The currant growers, in order to increase their production
as rapidly as possible, had recourse to loans at a high rate of
interest, and the great profits which they made were devoted to
further planting, while the loans remained unpaid. A crisis
followed rapidly. By 1891 the French vineyards had to a great
extent recovered from the disease, and wine producers in France
began to clamour against the competition of foreign wines and
wine-producing raisins and currants. The import duty on these was
thereupon raised from 6 francs to 15 francs per loo kilos, and was
further increased in 1894 to 25 francs. The currant trade with
France was thus extinguished; of a
crop averaging 160,000 tons, only some 110,000 now
found a market. Although a fresh opening for exportation was found
in Russia, the value of the fruit dropped from £15 to £5 per ton, a
price scarcely covering the cost of cultivation. In July 1895 the
government introduced a measure, since known as the Retention
(
vapaKparfQCS) Law, by which it was enacted that every
shipper should deliver into depots provided by the government a
weight of currants equivalent to 15% of the amount which he
intended to export. A later law fixed the quantity to be retained
by the state at 10% which might be increased to 20%, should a
representative committee, meeting every summer at Athens, so advise
the government. The currants thus taken over by the government
cannot be exported unless they are reduced to pulp,
syrup or otherwise rendered
unsuitable for eating purposes; they may be sold locally for
wine-making or distilling, due precautions being taken that they
are not used in any other way. The price of exported currants is
thus maintained at an artificial figure. The Retention Law, which
after 1895 was voted annually, was passed for a period of ten years
in 1899. This pernicious measure, which is in
defiance of all economic laws, perpetuates a
superfluous production, retards the development of other branches
of agriculture and burdens the government with vast accumulations
of an unmarketable commodity. It might excusably be adopted as a
temporary expedient to meet a pressing crisis, but as a permanent
system it can only prove detrimental to the country and the currant
growers themselves.
|
Year.
|
Total crop
(tons).
|
Exported to
Gt. Britain.
|
Exported to
France.
|
|
1877
|
82,181
|
..
|
881
|
|
1878
|
100,004
|
..
|
9,086
|
|
1 8 79
|
92,311
|
..
|
19,087
|
|
1880
|
92,337
|
. .
|
20,999
|
|
1881
|
121,994
|
|
30,315
|
|
1882
|
109,403
|
51,933
|
26,282
|
|
1883
|
114,980
|
52,099
|
24,815
|
|
1884
|
129,268
|
59,629
|
39,198
|
|
1885
|
113,287
|
55,765
|
37,730
|
|
1886
|
127,570
|
48,892
|
45,000
|
|
1887
|
127,160
|
55,549
|
37,438
|
|
1888
|
158,728
|
63,714
|
40,735
|
|
1889
|
142,308
|
52,251
|
69,555
|
|
1890
|
146,749
|
67,502
|
37,816
|
|
1891
|
161,545
|
70,762
|
39,712
|
|
1892
|
116,944
|
60,418
|
21,721
|
|
1893
|
119,886
|
73,000
|
6,800
|
|
18 94
|
135,500
|
64,500
|
15,000
|
|
1895
|
167,695
|
60,500
|
26,500
|
|
1896
|
153,514
|
65,000
|
6,500
|
|
18 97
|
115,730
|
63,000
|
2,000
|
|
1898
|
153,514
|
69,500
|
6,000
|
|
18 99
|
144,071
|
65,600
|
3,800
|
|
1900
|
47,236
|
36,000
|
300
|
|
1901
|
139,820
|
58,000
|
1,216
|
|
1902
|
152,580
|
58,400
|
4,782
|
|
1903
|
179,499
|
54,800
|
4,470
|
|
1904
|
146,500
|
58,850
|
820
|
|
1905
|
162,957
|
61,700
|
1,042
|
In 1899 a "
Bank of Viticulture " was established at
Patras for the purpose of assisting the growers, to whom it was
bound to make advances at a low rate of interest; it undertook the
storage and the sale of the retained fruit, from which its capital
was derived. The bank soon found itself burdened with an enormous
unsaleable stock, while its loans for the most part remained
unpaid; meantime over-production, the cause of the trouble,
continued to increase, and prices further diminished. In 1903 a
syndicate of English and
other foreign capitalists made proposals for a monopoly of the
export, guaranteeing fixed prices to the growers. The scheme, which
conflicted with Anglo-Greek commercial conventions, was rejected by
the Theotokis ministry; serious disturbances followed in the
currantgrowing districts, and M. Theotokis resigned. His successor,
M. Rallis, in order to appease the cultivators, arranged that the
Currant Bank should offer them fixed minimum prices for the various
growths, and guaranteed it a
loan
of 6,000,000 dr. The resources of the bank, however, gave out
before the end of the season, and prices pursued their downward
course. Another experiment was then tried; the export duty (15%)
was made payable in kind, the retention
quota being thus practically raised from 20 to
35%. The only result of this measure was a diminution of the
export; in the spring of 1905 prices fell very low and the growers
began to despair. A syndicate of banks and capitalists then came
forward, which introduced the system now in operation. A privileged
company was formed which obtained a charter from the government for
twenty years, during which period the retention and export duties
are maintained at the fixed rates of 20 and 15% respectively. The
company aims at keeping up the prices of the marketable qualities
by employing profitably for industrial purposes the unexported
surplus and retained inferior qualities; it pays to the state
4,000,000 dr. annually under the head of export duty; offers all
growers at the beginning of each agricultural year a fixed price of
115 dr. per woo Venetian lb irrespective of quality, and pays a
price varying from 115 dr. to 145 dr. according to quality at the
end of the year for the unexported surplus. In return for these
advantages to the growers the company is entitled to receive 7 dr.
on every 1000 lb of currants produced and to dispose of the whole
retained amount. A special company has been formed for the
conversion of the superfluous product into spirit, wine, &c.
The system may perhaps prove commercially remunerative, but it
penalizes the producers of the better growths in order to provide a
livelihood for the growers of inferior and unmarketable kinds and
protracts an abnormal situation. The following table gives the
annual currant crop from 1877 to 1905: The " peronospora," a
species of white blight, first caused considerable damage in the
Greek vineyards in 1892, recurring in 1897 and 1900.
More than half the cultivable area of Greece is devoted to
pasturage. Cattle-rearing, as a rule, is a distinct occupation from
agricultural farming; the herds are sent to pasture on the
Stock- mountains in the summer, and return to the plains
at the
farming. beginning of winter. The larger cattle are
comparatively rare, being kept almost exclusively for agricultural
labour; the smaller are very abundant.
Beef is scarcely eaten in Greece, the
milk of cows is rarely drunk and
butter is almost unknown.
Cheese, a
staple article of diet, is made from the milk of
sheep and goats. The number of
larger cattle has declined in recent years; that of the smaller has
increased. The native breed of oxen is small; buffaloes are seldom
seen except in north-western Thessaly; a few camels are used in the
neighbourhood of Parnassus. The Thessalian breed of horses, small
but sturdy and enduring, can hardly be taken to represent the
celebrated chargers of antiquity. Mules are much employed in the
mountainous districts; the best type of these animals is found in
the islands. The flocks of long-horned sheep and goats add a
picturesque feature to Greek rural scenery. The goats are more
numerous in proportion to the population than in any other European
country (137 per loo inhabitants). The shepherds' dogs rival those
of
Bulgaria in ferocity.
According to an unofficial estimate published in 1905 the numbers
of the various domestic animals in 1899 were as follows: Oxen and
buffaloes, 408,744; horses, 157,068; mules, 88,869; donkeys,
141,174; camels, 51; sheep, 4,568,151; goats, 3,339,439; pigs,
79,716. During the four years 1899-1902 the annual average value of
imported cattle was 4,218,015 dr., of exported cattle 209,321
dr.
The forest area (about 2,500,000 acres or one-fifth of the
surface of the mainland) is for the most part state property. The
value of the forests has been estimated at 200,000,000 fr.; the
For es ts. most productive are in the district extending
from the Pindus range to the Gulf of Corinth. The principal trees
are the oak (about 30 varieties), the various coniferae, the
chestnut,
maple,
elm, beech,
alder, cornel and arbutus. In Greece, as in other
lands formerly subject to Turkish rule, the forests are not only
neglected, but often deliberately destroyed; this great source of
national wealth is thus continually diminishing. Every year immense
forest fires may be seen raging in the mountains, and many of the
most picturesque districts in the country are converted into
desolate wildernesses. These conflagrations are mainly the work of
shepherds eager to provide increased pasturage for their flocks;
they are sometimes, however, due to the carelessness of smokers,
and occasionally, it is said, to spontaneous ignition in hot
weather. Great damage is also done by the goats, which browse on
the young saplings;. the pine trees are much in j ured by the
practice of scoring their bark for resin. With the disappearance of
the trees the soil of the mountain slopes, deprived of its natural
protection, is soon washed away by the rain; the rapid descent of
the water causes inundations in the plains, while the uplands
become sterile and lose their vegetation. The climate has been
affected by the change; rain falls less frequently but with greater
violence, and the process of denudation is accelerated. The
government has from time to time made efforts for the protection of
the forests, but with little success till recently. A staff of
inspectors and forest guards was first organized in 1877. The
administration of the forests has since 1893 been entrusted to a
department of the Ministry of Finance, which controls a staff of 4
inspectors (hrLBecwpCiTac), 31 superintendents (Sao-apxol), 52 head
foresters (apxu/ 5XaKes) and 298 foresters (SavucbuaaKes). The
foresters are aided during the summer months, when fires are most
frequent, by about 500 soldiers and gendarmes. About a third of
these functionaries have received instruction in the school of
forestry at Vythine in the Morea, open since 1898. Owing to the
measures now taken, which include
excommunication by the parish priests
of incendiaries and their accomplices, the conflagrations have
considerably diminished. The total annual value of the products of
the Greek forests averages 15,000,000 drachmae. The revenue
accuring to the government in 1905 was 1,418,158 dr., as compared
with 583,991 dr. in 1883. The increase is mainly due to improved
administration. The supply of
timber for house-construction,
shipbuilding,
furniture-making,
railway
sleepers, &c., is insufficient, and is supplemented by
importation (annual value about 12,000,000 francs); transport is
rendered difficult by the lack of roads and navigable streams. The
principal secondary products are valonea (annual exportation about
1,250,000 fr.) and resin, which is locally employed as a
preservative ingredient in the fabrication of wine. The
administration of the forests is still defective, and measures for
the
augmentation
and better instruction of the staff of foresters have been designed
by the government. In 1900 a society for the reafforesting of the
country districts and environs of the large towns was founded at
Athens under the patronage of the crown princess.
|
Tons.
|
Francs.
|
|
Chrome. .. .
|
8,900
|
337,952
|
|
Emery. ... .
|
6,972
|
742,486
|
|
Gypsum. ... .
|
185
|
7,995
|
|
Iron ore. .. .. .
|
465,622
|
3,387,467
|
|
Ferromanganese .
|
89,687
|
1,182,652
|
|
Lead (argentiferous pig) ore
|
13729
|
6,811,792
|
|
Lignite.. .
|
11,757
|
143,814
|
|
Magnesite. .. .
|
43,498
|
864,982
|
|
Manganese ore.. .
|
8,171
|
122,565
|
|
Mill stones. .. .
|
12,628
|
34,660
|
|
Salt. .. .. .
|
25,201
|
1,638,065
|
|
Sulphur. ... .
|
1,126
|
121,000
|
|
Zinc ore. ... .
|
22,562
|
2,852,355
|
The chief minerals are
silver, lead,
zinc,
copper
manganese, magnesia,
iron,
sulphur and
coal.
Emery,
salt, millstone and.
gypsum, which are found in
considerable quantities, are worked by the government. The
important mines at
Laurium, a source of great wealth to
ancient Athens,were reopened in 1864 by a Franco-Italian company,
but were declared to be state property in 1871; they are now worked
by a Greek and a French company. The output of marketable ore in
1899 amounted to 486,760 tons, besides 289,292 tons of dressed lead
ore. In 1905 the output was as follows: Raw and roasted manganese
iron ore, 113,636 tons; hematite iron ore, 94,734 tons;
calamine or zinc ore, 22,612
tons;
arsenic and
argentiferous lead, 1875 tons; zinc
blende and
galena, 443 tons; total, 233,300 tons, together
with 164,857 tons of dressed lead, producing 13,822 tons of silver
pig lead containing 1657 to 1910
grams of silver per ton. It has been found profitable to resmelt
the scoriae of the ancient workings. The total value of the exports
from the Laurium mines,which in 1875 amounted to only £150,513, had
in 1899 increased to £827,209, but fell in 1905 to £499,882. The
revenue accruing to the government from all mines and quarries,
including those worked by the state, was estimated in the
budget for 1906 at 1,332,000 dr.
The emery of Naxos, which is a state monopoly, is excellent in
quality and very abundant. Mines of iron ore have latterly been
opened at Larimna in Locris.
Magnesite mines are worked by an Anglo-Greek
company in Euboea. There are sulphur and manganese mines in the
island of Melos, and the volcanic island of Santorin produces
pozzolana, a kind of
cement,
which is exported in considerable quantities. The great abundance
of
marble in Greece has
latterly attracted the attention of foreign capitalists. New
quarries have been opened since 1897 by an English company on the
north slope of Mount Pentelicus, and are now connected by rail with
Athens and the Peiraeus. The marble on this side of the mountain is
harder than that on the south, which alone was worked by the
ancients. The output in 1905 was 1573 tons. Mount Pentelicus
furnished material for most of the celebrated buildings of ancient
Athens; the marble, which is white, blueveined, and somewhat
transparent, assumes a rich yellow
hue after long exposure to the air. The famous
Parian quarries are still worked; white marble is also found at
Scyros, Tenos and Naxos; grey at
Stoura and Karystos; variegated at Valaxa and Karystos; green on
Taygetus and in Thessaly; black at Tenos; and red (porphyry) in
Maina.
The official statistics of the output and value of minerals
produced in 1905 were as in the preceding table.
The number of persons employed in
mining operations in 1905 was 9934.
Owing to the natural aptitude of the Greeks for commerce and
their predilection for a seafaring life a great portion of the
trade of the Levant has fallen into their hands. Im portant Greek
mercantile colonies
exist in all the larger ports of the Mediterranean and the Black
Sea
and g P ?
and many of them possess great wealth. In some of the islands of
the archipelago almost every householder is the owner or joint
owner of a ship. The Greek mercantile marine, which in 1888
consisted of 1352 vessels (70 steamers) with a total
tonnage of 219,415 tons,
numbered in 1906, according to official returns, 1364 vessels (275
steamers) with a total tonnage of 427,291 tons. This figure is
apparently too low, as the shipowners are prone to understate the
tonnage in order to diminish the payment of dues. Almost the whole
corn trade of Turkey is in Greek hands. A large number of the
sailing ships, especially the smaller vessels engaged in the
coasting trade, belong to the
islanders. A considerable portion of the
shipping on the
Danube and Pruth is owned by the inhabitants of
Ithaca and Cephalonia; a
certain number of their sleps (aMirta) have latterly been acquired
by Rumanian Jews, but the Greek
flag is still predominant. There are seven
principal Greek steamship companies owning 40 liners with a total
tonnage of 21,972 tons. In 1847 there was but one
lighthouse in Greek
waters; in 1906 there were 70 lighthouses and 68 port lanterns.
Hermoupolis (Syra) is the chief seat of the carrying trade, but as
a commercial port it yields to Peiraeus, which is the principal
centre of distribution for imports. Other important ports are
Patras, Volo, Corfu, Kalamata and Laurium.
|
1887.
|
1892.
|
1897.
|
1902.
|
|
Imports
Exports
|
131,849,325
102,652,487
|
119,306,007
82,261,464
|
116 ,3 6 3,34 8
81,708,626
|
137,229,364
79,663,473
|
The following table gives the total value (in francs) of special
Greek commerce for the given years: The marked fluctuations in the
returns are mainly attributable to variations in the price and
quantity of imported cereals and in the sale of currants. The great
excess of imports, caused by the large importation of food-stuffs
and manufactured articles, is due to the neglect of agriculture and
the undeveloped condition of local industries.
|
Imports from.
|
Exports to.
|
|
Frs.
|
Frs.
|
|
Russia. .
|
27,725,218
|
810,925
|
|
Great Britain. .
|
27,516,928
|
24,436,707
|
|
Austria-Hungary
|
19,444,415
|
7,876,806
|
|
Turkey. .. .
|
1 5,53 8 ,37 0
|
4,516,403
|
|
Germany
|
13,896,687
|
7,514,474
|
|
France. .. .
|
10,101,070
|
7,078,321
|
|
Italy. .. .
|
6,190,253
|
4,266,210
|
|
Bulgaria.. .
|
5,135, 718
|
133,106
|
|
Rumania
|
3,814,641
|
1,152,207
|
|
America. .. .
|
2,656,501
|
6,440,648
|
|
Belgium. .
|
2,276,393
|
2,068,138
|
|
Netherlands. .
|
1,921,762
|
7,180,301
|
|
Egypt.. .
|
634,035
|
5,9z8,555
|
|
Switzerland .
|
348,281
|
|
|
Other countries
|
4,555,781
|
4,288,365
|
|
Total. .
|
141,756,053
|
83,691,166
|
The imports and exports for 1905 were distributed as follows: An
enumeration of the chief articles of importation and exportation,
together with their value, will be found in tabular form
overleaf.
|
Principal Articles of Importation.
|
|
1904.
|
1905.
|
|
Articles
|
Total value
|
Imported from
the United
|
Total value
|
Imported from
the United
|
|
in francs.
|
Kingdom.
|
in francs.
|
Kingdom.
|
|
Cereals.
|
27,735,808
|
none
|
32,511,784
|
none
|
|
Textiles
|
17,999,344
|
10,762,464
|
13,460,620
|
5,497,172
|
|
Raw minerals. .. .
|
13,341,191
|
7,630,633
|
|
|
|
Forest products. .
|
10,146,500
|
9,769
|
12,254,190
|
61,309
|
|
Wrought metals
|
7,757,444
|
2,162,250
|
..
|
|
|
|
6,522,086
|
6,087,068
|
5,073,841
|
4,308,357
|
|
Yarn and tissues .
|
4,739,819
|
2,504,667
|
8,021,523
|
6,838,079
|
|
Fish ...
|
4,992,615
|
2,394,224
|
1,014,164
|
186,072
|
|
Raw hides
|
4,558,101
|
478,965
|
3,909,657
|
215,745
|
|
Various animals
|
4,271,151
|
none
|
3,373,523
|
1,268
|
|
Horses. .. .
|
3,011,450
|
none
|
2,070,250
|
none
|
|
Paper, books, &c.. .
|
3,327,144
|
157,017
|
3,319,700
|
76,454
|
|
Coffee. ... .. .
|
2,957,601
|
293,610
|
3,060,904
|
107,296
|
|
Sugar. .. ... .
|
2,606,696
|
none
|
2,887,8J4
|
70
|
|
Rice. .. .. .
|
1,977,894
|
63,882
|
1,901,486
|
236,027
|
|
Colours
|
1,750,858
|
341,839
|
2,146,509
|
281,433
|
|
Chief Articles of Exportation.
|
|
1904.
|
1905.
|
|
Articles
|
Total value
|
Exported to
the United
|
Total value
|
Exported to
the United
|
|
in francs.
|
Kingdom.
|
in francs.
|
Kingdom.
|
|
Currants.. .
|
28,841,678
|
14,569,137
|
34,299,780
|
17,008,929
|
|
Minerals and raw metals
|
19,134,185
|
5,161,898
|
15,125,072
|
5,438,698
|
|
Wines. .. ... .
|
10,084,960
|
429,143
|
5,832,139
|
881,696
|
|
Tobacco. .. .. .
|
7,285,385
|
39,512
|
6,157,092
|
147,565
|
|
Olive oil. .. .. .
|
4,163,262
|
212,081
|
2,150,285
|
64,310
|
|
Figs
|
3,583,428
|
62,304
|
3,309,432
|
338,196
|
|
Minerals and metals (worked)
|
2,754,24
|
7,750
|
2,607,580
|
900
|
|
Olives
|
1,793,362
|
9,833
|
1,138,116
|
18,800
|
|
Valonea. .. .. .
|
1,558,678
|
200,849
|
1,917,014
|
146,927
|
|
Cognac.. .. .. .
|
1,027,224
|
12,099
|
1,091,160
|
2,283
|
Greece does not possess any manufacturing industries on a large
scale; the absence of a native coal supply is an obstacle to their
development. In 1889 there were 145 establishments employing
steam of 5568 indicated
horse-power; in 1892
the total horse-power employed was estimated at 10,000. In addition
to the smelting-works at Laurium, at which some 5000 hands are
employed by Greek and French companies and local proprietors, there
are
flour mills, cloth, cotton
and
silk spinning mills, ship-building and engineering
works, oil-presses, tanneries,
powder and
dynamite mills,
soap mills (about under the Trikoupis
administration. In 1878 there were only 555 m. of roads; in 1898
there were 2398 m.; in 1906, 3275 m. Electric trams have been
introduced at Patras. Railways were open to traffic in 1900 for a
length of 598 m.; in 1906 for a length of 867 m. The
circuit of the Morea railways
(462 m.) was completed in 1902; from Diakophto, on the north coast,
a cogwheel railway, finished in 1894, ascends to Kalavryta. A very
important undertaking is the completion of a line from Peiraeus to
the frontier, the contract for which was signed in 1900 between the
Greek government and the Eastern Railway Extension Syndicate
(subsequently converted into the
Societe des Chemins de Fer
helleniques). A line connecting Peiraeus with Larissa was
begun in 1890, but in 1894 the English company which had undertaken
the contract went into
liquidation. Under the contract of 1900 the
line was drawn through Demerli, in the south of Thessaly, to
Larissa, a distance of 217 m., and continued through the
vale of Tempe to
the Turkish frontier (about 246 m. in all). Branch lines have been
constructed to Lamia and Chalcis. The establishment of a connexion
with the continental railway system, by a junction with the line
from
Belgrade to Salonica,
would be of immense advantage to Greece, and the Peiraeus would
become an important place of embarkation for Egypt,
India and the Far East.
In 1905 the number of post offices was 640. Of these 320 were
also
telegraph and 89
telephone stations, with
664 clerks; the remaining post offices
graphs 40), and
some manufactures of paper,
glass, matches,turpentine, white lead, hats,
gloves, candles, &c. About loo factories are established in the
neighbourhood of Athens and Peiraeus. The wine industry (to
factories) is of considerable importance, and the manufacture of
cognac has latterly made great progress; there are to large and
numerous small cognac distilleries. Ship-building is carried on
actively at all the ports on the mainland and islands; about 200
ships, mostly of low tonnage, are launched annually.
Public Works.-The important drainage-works at Lake
Copais were taken over by an English company in 1890. The lake
covered an area of 58,080 acres, the greater part of which is now
rendered fit for cultivation. The drainage works consist of a
canal, 28 kilometres in length, and a
tunnel of 600 metres descending through the
mountain to a lower lake, which is connected by a second tunnel
with the sea. The reclaimed land is highly fertile. The area under
crops amounted in 1906 to 27,414 acres, of which 20,744 were let to
tenants and the remainder farmed by the company. The uncultivated
portion affords excellent grazing. The canal through the Isthmus of
Corinth was opened to navigation in November 1893. The total cost
of the works, which were begun by a company in 1882, was 70,000,000
francs. The narrowness of the canal, which is only 24.60 metres
broad at the surface, and the strength of the current which passes
through it, seriously detract from its utility. The high charges
imposed on foreign vessels have proved almost prohibitive. There
are reduced rates for ships sailing in Greek waters. Up to the 31st
of July 1906, 37,214 vessels, with a tonnage of 4,971,922, had
passed through the canal. The receipts up to that date
were3,2°7,835 drachmae (mainly from Greek ships) and 415,976 francs
(mainly from foreign ships). In 1905, 2930 vessels (2735 Greek)
passed through, the receipts being 281,935 drachmae and 34,142
francs. The total liabilities of the company in 1906 were about
40,000,000 fr. The canal would be more frequented by foreign
shipping if the harbours at its entrances were improved, and its
sides, which are of
masonry,
lined with beams; efforts are being made to raise funds for these
purposes. The widening of the Euripus Channel at Chalcis to the
extent of 21.56 metres was accomplished in 1894. The operations
involved the destruction of the picturesque Venetian
tower which guarded the strait. A
canal was completed in 1903 rendering navigable the shallow channel
between Leucas (Santa Maura) and the mainland (breadth 15 metres,
depth 5 metres). Large careening docks were undertaken in 1909 at
Peiraeus at an estimated cost of 4,75 0, 000 drachmae.
Communications.-Internal communication by roads is
improving, though much remains to be done, especially as regards
the quality of the roads. A considerable impetus was given to
road-making possess no special staff, but are served by persons who
also pursue other occupations. The number of postmen and other
employees was 889. During the year there passed through the post
6,897,899 ordinary letters for the interior, 2,980,958 for foreign
destinations, 2,788,477 from abroad; 540,411 registered letters or
parcels for the interior, 309,907 for foreign countries, and
300,150 from abroad; 880,673 post-cards for the interior, 504,785
from abroad, and 187,975 sent abroad; ioo,680 samples; 7,068,125
printed papers for the interior, 5,278,405 to or from foreign
countries. Telegraph lines in 1905 extended over 4222 m. with 6836
m. of wires; 841,913 inland telegrams, 221,188 service telegrams
and 129,036 telegrams to foreign destinations were despatched, and
169,519 received from abroad. Receipts amounted to 4,589,601
drachmae (postal service 2,744,212, telegraph and telephone
services 1,845,389 drachmae) and expenditure to 3,954,74 2
drachmae.
The Greek army has recently been in a state of transition. Its
condition has never been satisfactory, partly owing to the absence
of systematic effort in the work of organization, partly owing to
the pernicious influence of political
Army. parties, and
in times of national emergency it has never been in a condition of
readiness. The experience of the war of 1897 proved the need of
far-reaching administrative changes and disciplinary reforms. A
scheme of complete reorganization was subsequently elaborated under
the auspices of the crown prince
Constantine, the
commander-in-chief, and received the assent of the Chamber in June
1904. During the war of 1897 about 65,000
infantry,
loon cavalry, and 24 batteries were put into the
field, and after great efforts another 15,000 men were mobilized.
Under the new scheme it is proposed to maintain on a peace footing
1887 officers, 25,140 non-commissioned officers and men, and 4059
horses and mules; in time of war the active army will consist of at
least 120,000 men and the territorial army of at least 60,000 men.
The heavy expenditure entailed by the project has been an obstacle
to its immediate realization. In order to meet this expenditure a
special fund has been instituted in addition to the ordinary
military budget, and certain revenues have been assigned to it
amounting to about 5,50o,000 drachmae annually. In 1906, however,
it was decided to suspend partially for five years the operation of
the law of 1904 and to devote the resources thus economized
together with other funds to the immediate purchase of new
armaments and equipment. Under this temporary arrangement the peace
strength of the army in 1908 consisted of 1939 officers and
civilians, 19,416 non - commissioned officers and men and 2661
horses and mules; it is calculated that the reserves will furnish
about 77, 00 0 men and the territorial army about 37,000 men in
time of war.
Military service is obligatory, and liability to serve begins
from the twenty-first year. The term of service comprises two years
in the active army, ten years in the active army reserve (for
cavalry eight years), eight years in the territorial army (for
cavalry ten years) and ten years for all branches in the
territorial army reserve. As a rule, however, the period of service
in the active army has hitherto been considerably shortened; with a
view to economy, the men, under the law of 1904, receive furlough
after eighteen months with the colours. Exemptions from military
service, which were previously very numerous, are also restricted
considerably by the law of 1904, which will secure a yearly
contingent of about 13,000 men in time of peace. The conscripts in
excess of the yearly contingent are withdrawn by lot; they are
required to receive six months' training in the ranks as
supernumeraries before passing into the reserve, in which they form
a special
category of "
liability " men. Under the temporary system of 1906 the contingent
is reduced to about io,000 men by postponing the
abrogation of several
exemptions, and the period of service is fixed at fourteen months
for all the conscripts alike. The field army as constituted by the
law of 1904 consists of 3 divisions, each division comprising 2
brigades of infantry, each of 2 regiments of 3 battalions and other
units. There are thus 36 battalions of infantry (of which 12 are
cadres); also 6 battalions of
evzones (highlanders), 18
squadrons of cavalry (6 cadres), 33 batteries of
artillery (6 cadres), 3
battalions of engineers and telegraphists, 3 companies of
ambulance, 3 of
train, &c. The artillery is
composed of 24 field batteries, 3 heavy and 6 mountain batteries;
it is mainly provided with Krupp 7.5 cm. guns dating from 1870 or
earlier. After a series of trials in 1907 it was decided to order
36 field batteries of 7.5 cm. quick-firing guns and 6 mountain
batteries, in all 168 guns, with 1500 projectiles for each
battery from the Creuzot
factory. The infantry, which was hitherto armed with the obsolete
Gras
rifle ( 433 in.), was
furnished in 1907 with the Mannlicher-Schonauer (model 1903) of
which 100,000 had been delivered in May 1908. Hitherto the
gendarmerie, which replaced the police, have formed a corps drawn
from the army, which in 1908 consisted of 194 officers and 6344
non-commissioned officers and men, but a law passed in 1907
provided for these forces being thenceforth recruited separately by
voluntary enlistment in annual contingents of 700 men. The
participation of the officers in politics, which has proved very
injurious to discipline, has been checked by a law forbidding
officers below the rank of colonel to stand for the Chamber. In the
elections of 1905 115 officers were candidates. The three
divisional headquarters are at Larissa, Athens and Missolonghi; the
six headquarters of brigades are at Trikkala, Larissa, Athens,
Chalcis, Missolonghi and Nauplia. In 1907 annual manoeuvres were
instituted.
The Greek fleet consisted in 1907 of 3 armoured
barbette ships of 4885 tons
(built in France in 1890, reconstructed 1899),
Navy.
carrying each three io 8-in. guns, five 6-in., thirteen
quick-firing and smaller guns, and three
torpedo tubes; cruiser of 1770 tons (built in
1879), with two 6.7-in. and six light quick-firing guns; 1 armoured
central battery ship of 1 774 tons (built 1867, reconstructed 1897)
with two 8.4 in. and nine small quick-firing guns; 2
coast-defence
gunboats with one 10.6-in.
gun each;
4 corvettes; 1 torpedo
depot
ship; 8 destroyers, each with six guns (ordered in 1905); 3
transport steamers; 7 small gunboats; 3 mining boats; 5 torpedo
boats; royal yacht; 2 school ships and various minor vessels. The
personnel of the navy was composed in 1907 of 437 officers, 26
cadets, 1118 petty officers, 2372 seamen and stokers, 60 boys and
99 civilians, together with 386 artisans employed at the
arsenal. The navy is manned
chiefly by
conscription; the period of service is two
years, with four years in the reserve. The headquarters of the
fleet and arsenal are in the island of Salamis, where there is a
dockyard with naval stores, a floating
dock and a torpedo school. Most of the vessels of
the Greek fleet were in 1907 obsolete; in 1904 a commission under
the presidency of Prince George proposed the rearmament of the
existing ironclads and the purchase of three new ironclads and
other vessels. A different scheme of reorganization, providing
almost exclusively for submarines and
scout vessels, was suggested to the government by
the French admiral Fournier in 1908, but was opposed by the Greek
naval officers. With a view to the augmentation and better
equipment of the fleet a special fund was instituted in 1900 to
which certain revenues have been assigned; it has been increased by
various donations and bequests and by the proceeds of a state
lottery. The fleet is not exercised methodically either in
navigation or gunnery practice; a long voyage, however, was
undertaken by the ironclad vessels in 1904. The Greeks, especially
the islanders of the Aegean, make better sailors than soldiers; the
personnel of the navy, if trained by foreign officers, might be
brought to a high state of efficiency.
The financial history of Greece has been unsatisfactory from the
outset. Excessive military and naval expenditure (mainly due to
repeated and hasty mobilizations), a lax and improvident system of
administration, the corruption of political parties and the
instability of the government, which has rendered impossible the
continuous application of any scheme of fiscal reform - all alike
have contributed to the economic ruin of the country. For a long
series of years preceding the declaration of national insolvency in
1893 successive budgets presented a deficit, which in years of
political excitement and military activity assumed enormous
proportions: the shortcomings of the budget were supplied by the
proceeds of foreign loans, or by means of advances obtained in the
country at a high rate of interest. The two loans which had been
contracted during the war of independence were extinguished by
means of a conversion in 1889. Of the existing foreign loans the
earliest is that of 60,000,000 frs., guaranteed by the three
protecting powers in 1832; owing to the payment of interest and
amortization by the
powers, the capital amounted in 1871 to 100,392,833 fr.; on this
Greece pays an annual sum of 900,000 fr., of which 300,000 have
been granted by the powers as a yearly subvention to King George.
The only other existing foreign
obligation of early date is the debt to the
heirs of King Otho (4,500,000 dr.) contracted in 1868. A large
amount of internal debt was incurred between 1848 and 1880, but a
considerable proportion of this was redeemed with the proceeds of
the foreign loans negotiated after this period. At the end of 1880
the entire
national
debt, external and internal, stood at 252,652,481 dr. In 1881
the era of great foreign loans began. In that year a 5% loan of
120,000,000 fr. was raised to defray the expenses of the
mobilization of 1880. This was followed in 1884 by a 5% loan of
170,000,000 fr., of which 100,000,000 was actually issued. The
service of these loans was guaranteed by various State revenues. A
" patriotic loan " of 30,000,000 dr. without interest, issued
during the war excitement of 1885, proved a failure, only 2,723,860
dr. being subscribed. In 1888 a 4% loan of 135,000,000 fr. was
contracted, secured on the receipts of the five State monopolies,
the management of which was entrusted to a privileged company. In
the following year (1889) two 4% loans of 30,000,000 fr. and
125,000,000 fr. respectively were issued without guarantee or
sinking fund; Greek credit had now apparently attained an
established position in the foreign money market, but a decline of
public confidence soon became evident. In 1890, of a 5% loan of
80,000,000 fr. effective, authorized for the construction of the
Peiraeus-Larissa railway, only 40,050,000 fr. was taken up abroad
and 12,900,000 fr. at home; large portions of the proceeds were
devoted to other purposes. In 1892 the government was compelled to
make large additions to the internal floating debt, and to borrow
16,500,000 fr. from the National Bank on onerous terms. In 1893 an
effort to obtain a foreign loan for the reduction of the forced
currency proved unsuccessful. (For the events leading up to the
declaration of national
bankruptcy in that year see under
Recent
History.) A funding convention was concluded in the summer,
under which the creditors accepted
scrip instead of
cash payments of interest. A few months later this
arrangement was reversed by the Chamber, and on the 13th December a
law was passed assigning provisionally to all the foreign loans
alike 30% of the stipulated interest; the reduced coupons were made
payable in paper instead of gold, the sinking funds were suspended,
and the sums encashed by the monopoly company were confiscated. The
causes of the financial
catastrophe may be briefly summarized as
follows: (1) The military preparations of 1885-1886, with the
attendant disorganization of the country; the extraordinary
expenditure of these years amounted to 1 3 0 ,9 8 7,77 2 dr. (2)
Excessive borrowing abroad, involving a charge for the service of
foreign loans altogether disproportionate to the revenue. (3)
Remissness in the collection of
taxation: the total loss through arrears in a
period of ten years (1882-1891) was 3 6 ,549, 202 dr., being in the
main attributable to non-payment of direct taxes. (4) The adverse
balance of
trade, largely due to the neglected condition of agriculture;
in the five years preceding the crisis (1888-1892) the exports were
stated to amount to £ 19,578,973, while the imports reached
£24,890,146; foreign live stock and cereals being imported to the
amount of £6,193,579. The proximate cause of the crisis was the
rise in the exchange owing to the excessive amount of paper money
in circulation. Forced currency was first introduced in 1868, when
15,000,000 dr. in paper money was issued; it was abolished in the
following year, but reintroduced in 1877 with a paper issue of
44,000,000 dr. It was abolished a second time in 1884, but again
put into circulation in 1885, when paper loans to the amount of
45,000,000 dr. were authorized. In 1893 the total authorized forced
currency was 146,000,000 dr., of which 88,000,000 (including
14,000,000 dr. in small notes)was on account of the government. The
gold and silver coinage had practically disappeared from
circulation. The rate of exchange, as a rule, varies directly with
the amount of paper money in circulation, but, owing to
speculation, it is
liable to violent fluctuations whenever there is an exceptional
demand for gold in the market. In 1893 the gold
franc stood at the ratio of 1.60 to the paper
drachma; the service of the foreign loans required upwards of
31,000,000 dr. in gold, and any attempt to realize this sum in the
market would have involved an outlay equivalent to at least half
the budget. With the failure of the projected loan for the
withdrawal of the forced currency repudiation became inevitable.
The law of the 13th of December was not recognized by the national
creditors: prolonged negotiations followed, but no arrangement was
arrived at till 1897, when the intervention of the powers after the
war with Turkey furnished the opportunity for a definite
settlement. It was stipulated that Turkey should receive an
indemnity of £T4,000,000
contingent on the evacuation of Thessaly; in order to secure the
payment of this sum by Greece without
prejudice to the interests of her creditors,
and to enable the country to recover from the economic consequences
of the war, Great Britain, France and Russia undertook to guarantee
a 22% loan of 170,000,000 fr., of which 150,000,000 fr. has been
issued. By the preliminary treaty of peace (18th of September 1897)
an International Financial Commission, composed of six
representatives of the powers, was charged with the payment of the
indemnity to Turkey, and with " absolute control " over the
collection and employment of revenues sufficient for the service of
the foreign debt. A law defining the powers of the Commission was
passed by the Chamber, 26th of February 1898 (o.s.). The revenues
assigned to its supervision were the five government monopolies,
the tobacco and
stamp duties,
and the import duties of Peiraeus (total annual value estimated at
39,600,000 dr.): the collection was entrusted to a Greek society,
which is under the absolute control of the Commission. The returns
of Peiraeus customs (estimated at 10,700,000 dr.) are regarded as
an extra guarantee, and are handed over to the Greek government;
when the produce of the other revenues exceeds 28,900,000 dr. the "
plus value " or surplus is divided in the proportion of 50-8% to
the Greek government and 49.2% to the creditors. The plus values
amounted to 3,301,481 dr. in 18 9 8, 3,533,755 dr. in 1899, and
3,442,713 dr. in 1900. Simultaneously with the establishment of the
control the interest for the Monopoly Loan was fixed at 43%, for
the Funding Loan at 40%, and for the other loans at 32% of the
original interest. With the revenues at its disposal the
International Commission has already been enabled to make certain
augmentations in the service of the foreign debt; since 1900 it has
begun to take measures for the reduction of the forced currency, of
which 2,000,000 dr. will be annually bought up and destroyed till
the amount in circulation is reduced to 40,000,000 dr. On the 1st
of January 1901 the authorized paper issue was 264,000,000 dr., of
which 92,000,000 (including 18,000,000 in fractional currency) was
on account of the government; the amount in actual circulation was
148,619,618 dr. On the 31st of July 1906 the paper issue had been
reduced to 152,775,975 dr., and the amount in circulation was
124,668,057 dr. The financial commission retains its powers until
the extinction of all the foreign loans contracted since 1881.
Though its activity is mainly limited to the administration of the
assigned revenues, it has exercised a beneficial influence over the
whole domain of Greek finance; the effect may be observed in the
greatly enhanced value of Greek securities since its institution,
averaging 25.76% in 1906. No change can be made in its composition
or working without the consent of the six powers, and none of the
officials employed in the collection of the revenues subject to its
control can be dismissed or transferred without its consent. It
thus constitutes an element of stability and order which cannot
fail to react on the general administration. It is unable, however,
to control the expenditure or to assert any direct influence over
the government, with which the responsibility still rests for an
improved system of collection, a more efficient staff of
functionaries and the repression of
smuggling. The country has shown a remarkable
vitality in recovering from the disasters of 1897, and should it in
future obtain a
respite from
paroxysms of military and political excitement, its financial
regeneration will be assured.
|
Y ear.
|
Actual
Receipts.
|
Actual
Expenditure.
|
Surplus or
Deficit.
|
|
Drachmae.
|
Drachmae.
|
Drachmae.
|
|
1889
|
83,731,591
|
110 ,77 2 ,3 2 7
|
- 27,040,736
|
|
1890
|
79,931,795
|
12 5,93 2 ,579
|
- 46,000,784
|
|
1891
|
90,321,872
|
122, 8 3 6 ,3 8 5
|
- 32,514,513
|
|
1892
|
95,465,569
|
10 7, 28 3,49 8
|
- 11,817,929
|
|
1893 1
|
9 6 ,7 2 3,4 18
|
92,133,565
|
4,589,853
|
|
1894
|
102, 88 5, 6 43
|
8 5, 1 35,75 2
|
+17,749,891
|
|
18 95
|
94,657,065
|
9 1, 6 4 1 ,9 6 7
|
3,015,098
|
|
1896
|
96,931,726
|
90,890,607
|
6,041,119
|
|
1897 2
|
9 2 ,4 8 5, 82 5
|
1 37, 0 43,9 2 9
|
- 44,558,104
|
|
1898 3
|
10 4,949,7 18
|
110 ,34 1 ,43 1
|
- 5,391,713
|
|
1899
|
111 ,3 18, 2 73
|
10 4,5 86 ,5 0 4
|
6,731,769
|
|
1900
|
112,206,849
|
112, 0 49, 2 79
|
157,570
|
|
1901
|
115,734,159
|
113,646,301
|
2,087,858
|
|
1902
|
12 3,949,93 1
|
121, 88 5,7 0 7
|
2,064,224
|
|
1903
|
120,194,362
|
11 7,43 6 ,549
|
2,757,813
|
|
1904
|
121,186,246
|
120,200,247
|
+ 985,999
|
|
1905
|
126,472,580
|
118, 6 99,7 61
|
7,772,819
|
|
1906
|
12 5,753,35 8
|
12 4,4 61 ,577
|
1,291,781
|
The following table gives the actual expenditure and receipts
for the period 1889-1906 inclusive: The steady increase of rece'pts
since 1898 attests the growing prosperity of the country, but
expenditure has been allowed to outstrip revenue, and,
notwithstanding the official figures which represent a series of
surpluses, the accumulated deficit in 1905 amounted to about
14,000,000 dr. in addition to treasury bonds for 8,000,000 dr. A
remarkable feature has been the rapid fall in the exchange since
1903; the gold franc, which stood at 1.63 dr. in 1902, had fallen
to 1.08 in October 1906. The decline, a favourable symptom if
resulting from normal economic factors, is apparently due to a
combination of exceptional circumstances, and consequently may not
be maintained; it has imposed a considerable
strain on the financial and commercial
situation. The purchasing power of the drachma remains almost
stationary and the price of imported commodities continues high;
import dues, which since 1904 are payable in drachmae at the fixed
rate of 1.45 to the franc, have been practically increased by more
than 30%. In April 1900 a 4% loan of 43,750,000 francs for the
completion of the railway from Peiraeus to the Turkish frontier,
and another loan of 11,750,000 drachmae for the construction of a
line from
Pyrgos to Meligala,
linking up the Morea railway system, were sanctioned by the
Chamber; the first-named, the " Greek Railways Loan," was taken up
at 80 by the syndicate contracting for the works and was placed on
the market in 1902. The service of both loans is provided by the
International Commission from the surplus funds of the assigned
revenues. On the 1st of January 1906 the external debt amounted to
725,939,500 francs and the internal (including the paper
circulation) to 171,629,436 drachmae.
The budget estimates for 1906 were as follows: Civil list,
1,325,000 dr.; pensions, payment of deputies, &c., 7,706,676
dr.; public debt, 34, 2 53,47 1 dr.; foreign affairs, 3,563,994
dr.; justice, 6,240,271 dr.; interior, 13,890,927 dr.; religion and
education, 7,143,924 dr.; army, 20,618,563 dr.; navy, 7,583,369
dr.; finance, 2,362,143 dr.; collection of revenue, 10,650,487 dr.;
various expenditure, 9,122,752 dr.; total, 124,461,577 dr.
The two privileged banks in Greece are the National Bank,
founded in 1841; capital 20,000,000 drachmae in 20,000 shares of
moo dr. each, fully paid up; reserve fund 13,500,000 dr.; notes in
circulation (September 1906) 126,721,887 dr., of which 76,360,905
dr. on account of the government; and the Ionian Bank, incorporated
in 1839; capital paid up £315,500 in 63,102 shares of £5 each;
notes in circulation, 10,200,000 drachmae, of which 3,500,000 (in
fractional notes of 1 and 2 dr.) on account of the government. The
notes issued by these two banks constitute the forced paper
currency circulating throughout the kingdom. In the case of the
Ionian Bank the privilege of issuing notes, originally limited to
the Ionian Islands, will expire in 1920. The National Bank is a
private institution under supervision of the government, which is
represented by a royal commissioner on the board of administration;
the central establishment is at Athens with forty-two branches
throughout the country. The headquarters of the Ionian Bank, which
is a British institution, are in London; the bank has a central
office at Athens and five branches in Greece. The privileged
Epiro-Thessalian Bank ceased to exist from the 4th of January 1900,
when it was amalgamated with the National Bank. There are several
other banking companies, as well as private banks, at Athens. The
most important is the Bank of Athens (capital 40,000,000 dr.),
founded in 1893; it possesses five branches in Greece and six
abroad.
Greece entered the Latin Monetary Union in 1868. The monetary
unit is the new drachma, equivalent to the franc, and divided into
1 Reduction of interest on foreign debt by 70%. War with
Turkey.
International Financial Commission instituted.
Ioo lepta or centimes. There are
nickel coins of 20,
IO and 5
lepta, copper coins of 10 and 5 lepta. Gold and silver coins were
minted in Paris between 1868 and 1884, but have since
practicCurrency, ally disappeared from the country. The paper
currency
weights consists of notes for
moo dr., 500 dr., Ioo dr., 25 dr., io dr. and 5 dr., and of
fractional notes for 2 dr. and I dr. The decimal system of weights
and measures was adopted in 1876, but some of the old Turkish
standards are still in general use. The dram = oz.
avoirdupois
approximately; the oke =400 drams or 2.8 lb; the kilo =22 okes or
0.114 of an imperial quarter; the cantar or quintal =44 okes or
123.2 lb. Liquids are measured by weight. The punta = 18 in.; the
ruppa, 32 in.; the pik, 26 in.; the stadion = I kilometre or 10932
yds. The stremma (square measure) is nearly one-third of an
acre.
Authorities. - W. Leake,
Researches in Greece (1814),
Travels in the Morea (3 vols., 1830),
Travels in
Northern Greece (4 vols., 1834),
Peloponnesiaca
(1846); Bursian,
Geographie von Griechenland (2 vols.,
Leipzig, 1862-1873); Lolling, "
Hellenische Landeskunde and Topographic " in Ivan Miiller's
Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft; C.
Wordsworth,
Greece; Pictorial, Descriptive and Historical
(new ed., revised by H. F. Tozer, London, 1882); K. Stephanos,
La Grece (Paris, 1884); C. Neumann and J. Partsch,
Physikalische Geographie von Griechenland (Breslau, 1885);
K. Krumbacher,
Griechische Reise (Berlin, 1886); J. P.
Mahaffy,
Rambles and Studies in Greece (London, 1887); R.
A. H. BickfordSmith,
Greece under King George (London,
1893); Ch. Diehl,
Excursions archeologiques en Grece
(Paris, 1893); Perrot and Chipiez,
Histoire de fart, tome
vi., " La Grece primitive " (Paris, 1894); tome vii., " La Grece
archaIque " (Paris, 1898); A. Philippson,
Griechenland and seine Stellung im Orient
(Leipzig, 1897); L. Sergeant,
Greece in the Nineteenth
Century (London, 1897); J. G. Frazer,
Pausanias's
Description of Greece (6 vols., London, 1898);
Pausanias and other Greek
Sketches (London, 1900);
Greco-Turkish War of 1897, from
official sources, by a German staff officer (Eng. trans., London,
1898); J. A. Symonds,
Studies, and
Sketches in Italy
and Greece (3 vols., 2nd ed., London, 1898); V. Berard,
La
Turquie et l'helle'nisme contemporaine (Paris, 1900).
For the climate: D. Aeginetes, Tò KAiµa Tres `EXX6 os
(Athens, 1908).
For the fauna: Th. de Heldreich, La Fauna de la Grece
(Athens, 1878).
For special
topography: A. Meliarakes,
KvKXaS&eh
yewypa¢ia Kai ZcnopiaTCOPKvKXa&K&v viicwv(Athens,
1874);`T7ropvinuara 7repcypact
o ch
7-WV KvKXb6wv vi l
e-coy "AvOpou Kai
KEw (Athens,
1880); I'ewypa41a 7roXCTCKi]
via Kai apxaia
Tel;
vopou 'ApyoXiSos Kai
KopcvOias (Athens, 1886);
rEwypac61a
7roXtruKj v a Kai apxata vo oil
KecpaXXnvias.
(Athens, 1890); Th. Bent,
The Cyclades (London, 1885);
A. Biitticher,
Olympia (2nd ed., Berlin, 1886); J.
Partsch,
Die Insel Corfu: eine geographische Monographie
(Gotha, 1887);
Die Inset Leukas (Gotha, 1889);
Kephallenia and Ithaka (Gotha, 1890);
Die Inset
Zante (Gotha, 1891); A. Philippson,
Der Peloponnes.
(Versuch einer Landeskunde auf geologischer Grundlage.)
(Berlin, 1892); " Thessalien and Epirus " (
Reisen and
Forschungen im nordlichen Griechenland) (Berlin, 1897);
Die griechischen Inseln des cig¢ischen Meeres (Berlin,
1897); W. J. Woodhouse,
Aetolia (Oxford, 1897); Schultz
and
Barnsley,
The
Monastery of St Luke of Stiris (London, 1901); M. Lamprinides,
`H NavirXia (Athens, 1898);
Monuments de l'art byzantin,
publics par le Ministere de l'Instruction, tome i.; G.
Millet, " Le Monastere de Daphni
" (Paris, 1900). For the life, customs and habits of the modern
Greeks: C. Wachsmuth,
Das alte Griechenland im neuen
(Bonn, 1864); C. K. Tuckerman,
The Greeks of to-day
(London, 1873); B. Schmidt,
Volksleben der Neugriechen and das
hellenische Altertum (Leipzig, 1871); Estournelle de Constant,
La Vie de province en Grece (Paris, 1878); E. About,
La Grece contemporaine (Paris, 1855; 8th ed., 1883); J. T.
Bent,
Modern Life and Thought among the Greeks (London,
1891); J. Rennell Rodd,
The Customs and Lore of Modern Greece (London, 1892).
Guide-books, Baedeker's
Greece (3rd ed., Leipzig, 1905);
Murray's
Handbook for Greece (7th ed., London, 1905);
Macmillan's
Guide to the Eastern Mediterranean (London,
1901). (J. D. B.) 2.
History
a. Ancient; to 146 B.C.
1.
Introductory. - It is necessary to indicate at the
outset the scope and object of the present article. The reader must
not expect to find in it a compendious summary of the chief events
in the history of ancient Greece. It is not intended to supply an "
Outlines of Greek History." It may be questioned whether such a
sketch of the history, within the limits of space which are
necessarily imposed in a work of reference, would be of utility to
any class of readers. At any rate, the plan of the present work, in
which the subject of Greek history is treated of in a large number
of separate articles, allows of the narrative of events being given
in a more satisfactory form under the more general of the headings
(e.g. Athens, Sparta, Peloponnesian War). The character of the
history itself suggests a further reason why a general article upon
Greek history should not be confined to, or even attempt, a
narrative of events. A sketch of Greek history is not possible in
the sense in which a sketch of Roman history, or even of
English
history, is possible. Greek history is not the history of a
single state. When Aristotle composed his work upon the
constitutions of the Greek states, he found it necessary to extend
his survey to no less that 158 states. Greek history is thus
concerned with more than 150 separate and independent political
communities. Nor is it even the history of a single country. The
area occupied by the Greek race extended from the
Pyrenees to the
Caucasus, and from southern
Russia to northern
Africa. It
is inevitable, therefore, that the impression conveyed by a sketch
of Greek history should be a misleading one. A mere narrative can
hardly fail to give a false
perspective. Experience shows that such a
sketch is apt to resolve itself into the history of a few great
movements and of a few leading states. What is still worse, it is
apt to confine itself, at any rate for the greater part of the
period dealt with, to the history of Greece in the narrower sense,
i.e. of the Greek peninsula. For the identification of
Greece with Greece proper there may be some degree of excuse when
we come to the 5th and 4th centuries. In the period that lies
behind the year
500 B.C. Greece proper forms but a small
part of the Greek world. In the 7th and 6th centuries it is outside
Greece itself that we must look for the most active life of the
Greek people and the most brilliant manifestations of the Greek
spirit. The present article, therefore, will be concerned with the
causes and conditions of events, rather than with the events
themselves; it will attempt analysis rather than narrative. Its
object will be to indicate problems and to criticize views; to
suggest lessons and
parallels, and to estimate the importance of
the Hellenic factor in the development of civilization.
2.
The Minoan and Mycenaean Ages. - When does Greek
history begin? Whatever may be the answer that is given to this
question, it will be widely different from any that could have been
proposed a generation ago. Then the question was, How late does
Greek history begin? To-day the question is, How early does it
begin? The suggestion made by Grote that the first
Olympiad (776 B.C.) should be
taken as the startingpoint of the history of Greece, in the proper
sense of the term " history," seemed likely, not so many years ago,
to win general acceptance. At the present moment the tendency would
seem to be to go back as far as the 3rd or 4th
millennium B.C. in order
to reach a starting-point. It is to the results of archaeological
research during the last
thirty years that we must attribute
so startling a change in the attitude of historical science towards
this problem. In the days when Grote published the first volumes of
his
History of Greece archaeology was in its
infancy. Its results, so far as they affected
the earlier periods of Greek history, were scanty; its methods were
unscientific. The methods have been gradually perfected by numerous
workers in the field; but the results, which have so profoundly
modified our conceptions of the early history of the Aegean area,
are principally due to the discoveries of two men,
Heinrich
Schliemann and A. J. Evans. A full account of these discoveries
will be found elsewhere (see
Aegean Civilization and
Crete). It will be sufficient to
mention here that Schliemann's labours began with the excavations
on the site of Troy in the years 1870-1873; that he passed on to
the excavations at Mycenae in 1876 and to those at Tiryns in 1884.
It was the discoveries of these years that revealed to us the
Mycenaean age, and carried back the history to the middle of the
2nd millennium. The discoveries of Dr A. J. Evans in the island of
Crete belong to a later period. The work of excavation was begun in
1900, and was carried on in subsequent years. It has revealed to us
the Minoan age, and enabled us to trace back the development and
origins of the civilization for a further period of 1000 or 1500
years. The dates assigned by archaeologists to the different
periods of Mycenaean and Minoan art must be regarded as merely
approximate. Even the relation of the two civilizations is still,
to some extent, a matter of conjecture. The general chronological
scheme, SPahs.Mend ,P SconC?}-?-? O ?
1C i 9s ° rrd, ,.64ACEDON?IA .? 0loose.o;1 ` Othronos.r
Nessonss. Rhizus eliboea Syc °L.
°GMnphi ro o m ?? s n?9 os ?o o s /
p BO/ sope o
Pert, ,1 O lizon Peparc:a os idium Apollinis Nicopoli? Y
,nAbraoolus Actiura? - Anactotiur 3?R smm eus
Cerinthus Leucadic
(Leucas) CI Cirri na.s
sus
raDelphi ,h JQo ,? h ..
i? 5y ??t ?..
n1 ,x gae Or/p .
CoS?' S O,
Aegifa ?
Ai?t bi i amna?he?on?`inal' e rope.t?
'
hau l ' ,Ithaca Ulcornenae fjy us <t e Molycna
Ant a. ? C ? ..:.
'-p r ' Cyllen Sinus YpA
Cyllenius ?Yl?yyq? ??o CleitL, ? nS ?r
aaPh.. S???ayn,)CiphOtes 'rchorncnns - ? r lon
Cephallea,.. a Proni lae ?
aufOn r? rasiae inus Get roricus;,?.It ?
/orin 3 "' '
-+ on ?:~s aYa '1'
cnri ??._:l
Srnus A z
0 4 rl,
0 Mib. -. a" L?C ? sl' ?
Epidaurus:
ea ?
T+r hn¢ ? ' n rYfloru Pt? Poei'es;a?
S Naupl p i Asr rb Y ?lDia ?
e tp "hiasz m rmro ? Ant?na h Flg C Hali???
drea u}tahc 19 'rasiae ,e 4, Cyplunta „iIg? yene ?cynthua L?
Chelonat a e'.???t ?{ ? O ? p 0r I
r., Cha Macistlik ` Lep Lpcae?s r ,,,,' Neda ?, .alu
coi l s Cyparissius p A rv Ilelh .
'? 'CC r1.fi, nt ?
Sam Zacynthus, Thg, sr
,,Helen' '?nos
Gyarus es
Ceos ? °Carthaea
Myconos ? 3
(
Syro Cythn
Cythno Patmo Continuation north on
Same Scale ?29Seii?ob h o `S tayf -" Cyparlsse,
r.enYOa: ? t
serl phos ))". ?Oliaro Paro
,;t5Donassa ?
cl °Oea t, ,.11 -?? :'.?., .;o f ol
A ? ete bu.e ?.
ri ?' ' 3 r E M A R Siphno, M?Y Myrtoum=O U Ephyr0
Cimolos !ae Methon Asine ?? ?r)oce ? Gv
Oenussg 0etyks Insuliteroro Et Polyaegus '` +.?;
Sicinc Pholegandr Zarax The ssa 4441daurusLimeta
Astypalneaa ?ty? ,throne.?
?
? a?
n I 96b4, vthcra Messa Achr"eJ Anaphe i I
Therasi lophyxus radrae na 01yff{hurk.
a h
Sin Mpns
Thermaicus
?
Cylhe, Cleonaete 9 r" Scale, eracleum ??--
e ?
however, in the sense of the relative order of the various
periods and the approximate intervals between them, is too firmly
established, both by internal evidence, such as the development of
the styles of pottery, and of the art in general, and by external
evidence, such as the points of contact with Egyptian art and
history, to admit of its being any longer seriously called in
question.
If, then, by " Greek history " is to be understood the history
of the lands occupied in later times by the Greek race (i.e. the
Greek peninsula and the Aegean basin), the beginnings of the
history must be carried back some 2000 years before Grote's
proposed starting-point. If, however, " Greek history " is taken to
mean the history of the Greek people, the determination of the
starting-point is far from easy. For the question to which
archaeology does not as yet supply any certain answer is the
question of race. Were the creators of the Minoan and Mycenaean
civilization Greeks or were they not ? In some degree the
Minoan evidence has modified the answer suggested by the Mycenaean.
Although wide differences of opinion as to the origin of the
Mycenaean civilization existed among scholars when the results of
Schliemann's labours were first given to the world, a general
agreement had gradually been arrived at in favour of the view which
would identify Mycenaean with Achaean or Homeric. In presence of
the Cretan evidence it is no longer possible to maintain this view
with the same confidence. The two chief difficulties in the way of
attributing either the Minoan or the Mycenaean civilization to an
Hellenic people are connected respectively with the script and the
religion. The excavations at
Cnossus have yielded thousands of tablets
written in the linear script. There is evidence that this script
was in use among the Mycenaeans as well. If Greek was the language
spoken at Cnossus and Mycenae, how is it that all attempts to
decipher the script have hitherto failed ? The Cretan
excavations, again, have taught us a great deal as to the religion
of the Minoan age; they have, at the same time, thrown a new light
upon the evidence supplied by Mycenaean sites. It is no longer
possible to ignore the contrast between the cults of the Minoan and
Mycenaean ages, and the religious conceptions which they imply, and
the cults and religious conceptions prevalent in the historical
period. On the other hand, it may safely be asserted that the
argument derived from the Mycenaean art, in which we seem to trace
a freedom of treatment which is akin to the spirit of the later
Greek art, and is in
complete contrast to the spirit of Oriental art, has received
striking
confirmation from the remains of Minoan
art. The decipherment of the script would at once solve the
problem. We should at least know whether the dominant race in Crete
in the Minoan age spoke an Hellenic or a non-Hellenic
dialect. And what could be
inferred with regard to Crete in the Minoan age could almost
certainly be inferred with regard to the mainland in the Mycenaean
age. In the meanwhile, possibly until the tablets are read, at any
rate until further evidence is forthcoming, any answer that can be
given to the question must necessarily be tentative and
provisional.
(See
Aegean Civilization.) It has
already been implied that this period of the history of Greece may
be subdivided into a Minoan and a Mycenaean age. Whether these
terms are appropriate is a question of comparatively little
importance. They at least serve to remind us of the part played by
the discoveries at Mycenae and Cnossus in the reconstruction of the
history. The term " Mycenaean," it is true, has other associations
than those of locality. It may seem to imply that the civilization
disclosed in the excavations at Mycenae is Achaean in character,
and that it is to be connected with the Pelopid dynasty to which
Agamemnon belonged. In its
scientific use, the term must be cleared of all such associations.
Further, as opposed to " Minoan " it must be understood in a more
definite sense than that in which it has often been employed. It
has come to be generally recognized that two different periods are
to be distinguished in Schliemann's discoveries at Mycenae itself.
There is an earlier period, to which belong the objects found in
the
shaft-graves, and there is a
later period, to which belong the beehive tombs and the remains of
the palaces. It is the latter period which is " Mycenaean " in the
strict sense;
i.e. it is " Mycenaean " as
opposed to " Minoan." To this period belong also the palace at
Tiryns, the beehive-tombs discovered elsewhere on the mainland of
Greece and one of the cities on the site of Troy (Schliemann's
sixth). The pottery of this period is as characteristic of it, both
in its forms (e.g. the "
stirrup " or " false-necked " form of vase) and
in its peculiar glaze, as is the
architecture of the palaces and the
beehive-tombs. Although the chief remains have been found on the
mainland of Greece itself, the art of this period is found to have
extended as far north as Troy and as far east as Cyprus. On the
other hand, hardly any traces of it have been discovered on the
west coast of Asia Minor, south of the Troad. The Mycenaean age, in
this sense, may be regarded as extending from 1600 to 1200 B.C. The
Minoan age is of far wider extent. Its latest period includes both
the earlier and the later periods of the remains found at Mycenae.
This is the period called by Dr Evans " Late Minoan." To this
period belong the Great Palace at Cnossus and the linear system of
writing. The " Middle Minoan " period, to which the earlier palace
belongs, is characterized by the pictographic system of writing and
by polychrome pottery of a peculiarly beautiful kind. Dr Evans
proposes to carry back this period as far as 2500 B.C. Even behind
it there are traces of a still earlier civilization. Thus the
Minoan age, even if limited to the middle and later periods, will
cover at least a thousand years. Perhaps the most surprising result
of the excavations in Crete is the discovery that Minoan art is on
a higher level than Mycenaean art. To the scholars of a generation
ago it seemed a thing incredible that the art of the shaft-graves,
and the architecture of the beehive-tombs and the palaces, could
belong to the age before the Dorian invasion. The most recent
discoveries seem to indicate that the art of Mycenae is a decadent
art; they certainly prove that an art, hardly inferior in its way
to the art of the classical period, and a civilization which
implies the command of great material resources, were flourishing
in the Aegean perhaps a thousand years before the
siege of Troy.
To the question, " What is the origin of this civilization? Is
it of foreign derivation or of native growth ? " it is not
possible to give a direct answer. It is clear, on the one hand that
it was developed, by a gradual process of differentiation from a
culture which was common to the whole Aegean basin and extended as
far to the west as
Sicily. It
is equally clear, on the other hand, that foreign influences
contributed largely to the process of development. Egyptian
influences, in particular, can be traced throughout the " Minoan "
and " Mycenaean " periods. The developed art, however, both in
Crete and on the mainland, displays characteristics which are the
very opposite of those which are commonly associated with the term
" oriental." Egyptian work, even of the best period, is stiff and
conventional; in the best Cretan work, and, in a less degree, in
Mycenaean work, we find an originality and a freedom of treatment
which remind one of the spirit of the Greek artists. The
civilization is, in many respects, of an advanced type. The Cretan
architects could design on a grand scale, and could carry out their
designs with no small degree of mechanical skill. At Cnossus we
find a system of drainage in use, which is far in advance of
anything known in the modern world before the i 9th century. If the
art of the Minoan age falls short of the art of the Periclean age,
it is hardly inferior to that of the age of
Peisistratus. It is a civilization, too,
which has long been familiar with the art of writing. But it is one
that belongs entirely to the
Bronze Age. Iron is not found until the very
end of the Mycenaean period, and then only in small quantities. Nor
is this the only point of contrast between the culture of the
earliest age and that of the historical period in Greece. The chief
seats of the early culture are to be found either in the island of
Crete, or, on the mainland, at Tiryns and Mycenae. In the later
history Crete plays no part, and Tiryns and Mycenae are obscure.
With the great names of a later age, Argos, Sparta and Athens, no
great discoveries are connected. In northern Greece, Orchomenos
rather than Thebes is the centre of influence. Further points of
contrast readily suggest themselves. The so-called Phoenician
alphabet, in use amongst the
later Greeks, is unknown in the earliest age. Its systems of
writing, both the earlier and the later one, are syllabic in
character, and analogous to those in vogue in Asia Minor and
Cyprus. In the art of war, the
chariot is of more importance than the
foot-soldier, and the latter, unlike the Greek hoplite, is lightly
clad, and
trusts to a
shield large enough to cover the
whole body, rather than to the
metal helmet, breastplate and greaves of later times
(see
Arms And
Armour: Greek). The political system appears to have been a
despotic monarchy, and the
realm
of the monarch to have extended to far wider limits than those of
the " city-states " of historical Greece. It is, perhaps, in the
religious practices of the age, and in the ideas implied in them,
that the contrast is most apparent. Neither in Crete nor on the
mainland is there any trace of the worship of the " Olympian "
deities. The cults in vogue remind us rather of Asia than of
Greece. The worship of pillars and of trees carries us back to
Canaan, while the double-headed
axe,
so prominent in the
ritual of
Cnossus, survives in later times as the
symbol of the national deity of the Carians. The
beehivetombs, found on many sites on the mainland besides Mycenae,
are evidence both of a method of sepulture and of ideas of the
future state, which are alien to the practice and the thought of
the Greeks of history. It is only in one region - in the island of
Cyprus - that the culture of the Mycenaean age is found surviving
into the historical period. As late as the beginning of the 5th
century B.C. Cyprus is still ruled by kings, the alphabet has not
yet displaced a syllabary, the characteristic forms of Mycenaean
vases still linger on, and the chief deity of the island is the
goddess with attendant doves whose images are among the common
objects of Mycenaean finds.
3.
The Homeric Age. - Alike in Crete and on the
mainland the civilization disclosed by excavation comes abruptly to
an end. In Crete we can trace it back from
c. 1200 B.C. to
the
Neolithic period.
From the
Stone Age to
the end of the Minoan Age the development is continuous and
uninterrupted.' But between the culture of the Early Age and the
culture of the
Dorians, who
occupied the island in historical times, no connexion whatever can
be established. Between the two there is a great gulf fixed. It
would be difficult to imagine a greater contrast than that
presented by the rude life of the Dorian communities in Crete when
it is compared with the political power, the material resources and
the extensive commerce of the earlier period. The same
gap between the archaeological age and
the historical exists on the mainland also. It is true that the
solution of continuity is here less complete. Mycenaean art
continues, here and there, in a debased form down to the 9th
century, a date to which we can trace back the beginnings of the
later Greek art. On one or two lines (e.g. architecture) it is even
possible to establish some sort of connexion between them. But
Greek art as a whole cannot be evolved from Mycenaean art. We
cannot bridge over the interval that separates the latter art, even
in its decline, from the former. It is sufficient to compare the "
dipylon " ware (with which the process of development begins, which
culminates in the pottery of the Great Age) with the Mycenaean
vases, to satisfy oneself that the gulf exists. What then is the
relation of the Heroic or Homeric Age (i.e. the age whose life is
portrayed for us in the poems of Homer) to the Earliest Age ?
It too presents many contrasts to the later periods. On the other
hand, it presents contrasts to the Minoan Age, which, in their way,
are not less striking. Is it then to be identified with the
Mycenaean Age ? Schliemann, the discoverer of the Mycenaean
culture, unhesitatingly identified Mycenaean with Homeric. He even
identified the shaft-graves of Mycenae with the tombs of Agamemnon
and Clytemnestra. Later inquirers, while refusing to discover so
literal a correspondence between things Homeric and things
Mycenaean, have not hesitated to accept a general correspondence
between the Homeric Age and the Mycenaean. Where it is a case of 1
It would be more accurate to say to the year 1500 B.C. At Cnossus
the palace is sacked soon after this date, and the art, both in
Crete and in the whole Aegean area, becomes lifeless and
decadent.
comparing literary evidence with archaeological, an exact
coincidence is not of course to be demanded. The most that can be
asked is that a general correspondence should be established. It
may be conceded that the case for such a correspondence appears
prima facie a strong one. There is much in
Homer that seems to find confirmation or
explanation in Schliemann's finds. Mycenae is Agamemnon's city; the
plan of the Homeric house agrees fairly well with the palaces at
Tiryns and Mycenae; the forms and the technique of Mycenaean art
serve to illustrate passages in the poems; such are only a few of
the arguments that have been urged. It is the great merit of
Professor Ridgeway's work (
The Early Age of Greece) that
it has demonstrated, once and for all, that Mycenaean is not
Homeric pure and simple. He insists upon differences as great as
the resemblances. Iron is in common use in Homer; it is practically
unknown to the Mycenaeans. In place of the round shield and the
metal armour of the Homeric soldier, we find at Mycenae that the
warrior is lightly clad in
linen, and that he fights behind an oblong
shield, which covers the whole body; nor are the chariots the same
in form. The Homeric dead are cremated; the Mycenaean are buried.
The gods of Homer are the deities of Olympus, of whose cult no
traces are to be found in the Mycenaean Age. The novelty of
Professor Ridgeway's theory is that for the accepted
equation, Homeric = Achaean =
Mycenaean, he proposes to substitute the equations, Homeric =
Achaean = post-Mycenaean, and Mycenaean = pre - Achaean =
Pelasgian. The Mycenaean civilization he attributes to the
Pelasgians, whom he
regards as the indigenous population of Greece, the ancestors of
the later Greeks, and themselves Greek both in speech and blood.
The Homeric heroes are
Achaeans, a fair-haired Celtic race, whose
home was in the Danube valley, where they had learned the use of
iron. In Greece they are newcomers, a conquering class comparable
to the
Norman invaders of
England or
Ireland, and like
them they have acquired the language of their subjects in the
course of a few generations. The Homeric civilization is thus
Achaean,
i.e. it is Pelasgian (Mycenaean)
civilization, appropriated by a ruder race; but the Homeric culture
is far inferior to the Mycenaean. Here, at any rate, the Norman
analogy breaks down. Norman art
in England is far in advance of Saxon. Even in
Normandy (as in Sicily), where the Norman
appropriated rather than introduced, he not only assimilated but
developed. In Greece the process must have been reversed.
The theory thus outlined is probably stronger on its destructive
side than on its constructive. To treat the Achaeans as an
immigrant race is to run
counter to the tradition of the Greeks
themselves, by whom the Achaeans were regarded as indigenous (cf.
Herod.
viii. 73). Nor is the Pelasgian part of the theory easy to
reconcile with the Homeric evidence. If the Achaeans were a
conquering class ruling over a Pelasgian population, we should
expect to find this difference of race a prominent feature in
Homeric society. We should, at least, expect to find a Pelasgian
background to the Homeric picture. As a matter of fact, we find
nothing of the sort. There is no consciousness in the Homeric poems
of a distinction of race between the governing and the subject
classes. There are, indeed, Pelasgians in Homer, but the references
either to the people or the name are extraordinarily few. They
appear as a people, presumably in Asia Minor, in
alliance with the Trojans;
they appear also, in a single passage, as one of the tribes
inhabiting Crete. The name survives in "Pelasgicon Argos," which is
probably to be identified with the valley of the Spercheius, 2 and
as an epithet of
Zeus of
Dodona. The population, however,
of Pelasgicon Argos and of Dodona is no longer Pelasgian. Thus, in
the age of Homer, the Pelasgians belong, so far as Greece proper is
concerned, to a past that is already remote. It is inadmissible to
appeal to
Herodotus
against Homer. For the conditions of the Homeric age Homer is the
sole authoritative
witness.
If, however, Professor Ridgeway has failed to prove that "
Mycenaean " equals " Pelasgian," he has certainly proved that much
that is Homeric is post-Mycenaean. It is possible 2 See T. W. Allen
in the
Classical Review, vol. xx. (1906), No. 4 (May).
that different strata are to be distinguished in the Homeric
poems. There are passages which seem to assume the conditions of
the Mycenaean age; there are others which presuppose the conditions
of a later age. It may be that the latter passages reflect the
circumstances of the poet's own times, while the former ones
reproduce those of an earlier period. If so, the substitution of
iron for
bronze must have been
effected in the interval between the earlier and the later
periods.
It has already been pointed out that the question whether the
makers of the Minoan and Mycenaean civilizations were Greeks must
still be regarded as an open one. No such question can be raised as
to the Homeric Age. The Achaeans may or may not have been Greek in
blood. What is certain is that the Achaean Age forms an integral
part of Greek history. Alike on the linguistic, the religious and
the political sides, Homer is the starting-point of subsequent
developments. In the Greek dialects the great distinction is that
between the Doric and the rest. Of the nonDoric dialects the two
main groups are the Aeolic and Ionic, both of which have been
developed, by a gradual process of differentiation, from the
language of the Homeric poems. With regard to religion it is
sufficient to refer to the judgment of Herodotus, that it was Homer
and
Hesiod who were the
authors of the Greek theogony (ii.
53 ouroi Eict of
iroc)Qav-rss
OEoryovi-qv "EXX crt). It is a
commonplace that Homer
was the
Bible of the Greeks. On
the political side, Greek constitutional development would be
unintelligible without Homer. When Greek history, in the proper
sense, begins,
oligarchy
is almost universal. Everywhere, however, an antecedent stage of
monarchy has to be presupposed. In the Homeric system monarchy is
the sole form of government; but it is monarchy already well on the
way to being transformed into oligarchy. In the person of the king
are united the functions of
priest, of
judge and of leader in war. He belongs to a
family which claims divine descent and his office is hereditary. He
is, however, no despotic monarch. He is compelled by custom to
consult the council (
boule) of the elders, or chiefs. He must ask
their opinion, and, if he fails to obtain their consent, he has no
power to enforce his will. Even when he has obtained the consent of
the council, the proposal still awaits the approval of the assembly
(
agora), of the
people.
Thus in the Homeric state we find the germs not only of the
oligarchy and
democracy
of later Greece, but also of all the various forms of constitution
known to the Western
Homeric' w orld. And a
monarchy such as is depicted in the
society.
Y P Homeric poems is clearly ripe for
transmutation into oligarchy. The chiefs are addressed as kings
(0acnXi €r), and claim, equally with the monarch, descent from the
gods. In Homer, again, we can trace the later organization into
tribe (gvXi), clan
(yblos), and phratry, which is characteristic of Greek
society in the historical period, and meets us in analogous forms
in other Aryan societies.
The y vos corresponds to the Roman
gens, the t wXr7 to the Roman tribe, and the phratry to
the
curia. The
importance of the
phratry in Homeric society is
illustrated by the well-known passage (
Iliad ix. 63) in
which the outcast is described as " one who belongs to no phratry "
(
a¢pirwp). It is a society that is, of course, based upon
slavery, but it is slavery
in its least repulsive aspect. The treatment which Eumaeus and
Eurycleia receive at the hands of the poet of the
Odyssey
is highly creditable to the humanity of the age. A society which
regarded the slave as a mere
chattel would have been impatient of the
interest shown in a swineherd and a
nurse. It is a society, too, that exhibits many
of the distinguishing traits of later Greek life. Feasting and
quarrels, it is true, are of more moment to the heroes than to the
contemporaries of
Pericles
or
Plato; but " music " and "
gymnastic " (though the terms must be understood in a more
restricted sense) are as distinctive of the age of Homer as of that
of
Pindar. In one respect
there is retrogression in the historical period. Woman in Homeric
society enjoys a greater freedom, and receives greater respect,
than in the Athens of
Sophocles and Pericles.
4.
The Growth of the Greek States. - The Greek world at
the beginning of the 6th century B.C. presents a picture in many
respects different from that of the Homeric Age. The Greek race is
no longer confined to the Greek peninsula. It occupies the islands
of the Aegean, the western seaboard of Asia Minor, the coasts of
Macedonia and Thrace, of southern Italy and Sicily. Scattered
settlements are found as far apart as the mouth of the
Rhone, the north of Africa, the
Crimea and the eastern end of the
Black Sea. The Greeks are called by a national name,
Hellenes, the symbol of a fully-developed national
self-consciousness. They are divided into three great branches, the
Dorian, the Ionian and the Aeolian, names almost, or entirely,
unknown to Homer. The heroic monarchy has nearly everywhere
disappeared. In Greece proper, south of Thermopylae, it survives,
but in a peculiar form, in the Spartan state alone. What is the
significance and the explanation of contrasts so profound?
It is probable that the explanation is to be found, directly or
indirectly, in a single cause, the Dorian invasion. In Homer the
Dorians are mentioned in one passage only (
Odyssey xix.
177). They there appear as one of the races which inhabit Crete. In
the historical period the whole Peloponnese, with the exception of
Arcadia, Elis and Achaea, is Dorian. In northern Greece the Dorians
occupy the little state of Doris, and in the Aegean they form the
population of Crete,
Rhodes
and some smaller islands. Thus the chief centres of Minoan and
Mycenaean culture have passed into Dorian hands, and the chief
seats of Achaean power are included in Dorian states. Greek
tradition explained the overthrow of the Achaean system by an
invasion of the Peloponnese by the Dorians, a northern tribe, which
had found a temporary home in Doris. The story ran that, after an
unsuccessful attempt to force an entrance by the Isthmus of
Corinth, they had crossed from
Naupactus, at the mouth of the Corinthian
Gulf, landed on the opposite shore, and made their way into the
heart of the Peloponnese, where a single victory gave them
possession of the Achaean states. Their conquests were divided
among the invaders into three shares, for which lots were cast, and
thus the three states of Argos, Sparta and Messenia were created.
There is much in this tradition that is impossible or improbable.
It is impossible,
e.g. for the tiny state of Doris, with
its three or four " small, sad villages " (ir6Xecs t ucpai Kai
Xvirpoxwpoc, Strabo, p. 4 27), to have furnished a force
of invaders sufficient to conquer and re-people the greater part of
the Peloponnese. It is improbable that the conquest should have
been either as sudden, or as complete, as the legend represents. On
the contrary, there are indications that the conquest was gradual,
and that the displacement of the older population was incomplete.
The improbability of the details affords, however, no ground for
questioning the reality of the invasion.' The tradition can be
traced back at Sparta to the 7th century B.C. (Tyrtaeus, quoted by
Strabo, p. 3 62), and there is abundant evidence, other than that
of legend, to corroborate it. There is the Dorian name, to begin
with. If, as Beloch supposes, it originated on the coast of Asia
Minor, where it served to distinguish the settlers in Rhodes and
the neighbouring islands from the
Ionians and Aeolians to the north of them, how
came the great and famous states of the Peloponnese to adopt a name
in use among the petty colonies planted by their kinsmen across the
sea? Or, if Dorian is simply Old Peloponnesian, how are we to
account for the Doric dialect or the Dorian pride of race?
It is true that there are great differences between the literary
Doric, the dialect of Corinth and Argos, and the dialects of
Laconia and Crete, and that there are affinities between the
dialect of Laconia and the non-Dorian dialects of Arcadia and Elis.
It is equally true, however, and of far more consequence, that all
the Doric dialects are distinguished from all other Greek dialects
by certain common characteristics. Perhaps the strongest sentiment
in the Dorian nature is the pride of race. Indeed, it looks as if
the Dorians claimed to be the sole genuine Hellenes. How can we
account for an indigenous population, first imagining itself to be
immigrant, and then developing a ' It has been impugned by J.
Beloch, Griechische Geschichte, 149 ff.
contempt for the rest of the race, equally indigenous with
itself, on account of a fictitious difference in origin? Finally,
there is the archaeological evidence. The older civilization comes
to an abrupt end, and it does so, on the mainland at least, at the
very period to which tradition assigns the Dorian
migration. Its development
is greatest, and its overthrow most complete, precisely in the
regions occupied by the Dorians and the other tribes, whose
migrations were traditionally connected with theirs. It is hardly
too much to say that the archaeologist would have been compelled to
postulate an inroad into central and southern Greece of tribes from
the north, at a lower level of culture, in the course of the 12th
and 11th centuries B.C., if the historian had not been able to
direct him to the traditions of the great migrations
(
µcravaQTfivEts), of which the Dorian invasion was the
chief. With the Dorian migration Greek tradition connected the
expansion of the Greek race eastwards across the Aegean. In the
historical period the Greek settlements on the western coast of
Asia Minor fall into three clearly defined groups. To the north is
the Aeolic group, consisting of the island of
Lesbos and twelve towns, mostly insignificant,
on the opposite mainland. To the south is the Dorian
hexapolis, consisting of
Cnidus and
Halicarnassus on the mainland, and the
islands of Rhodes and Cos. In the centre comes the Ionian
dodecapolis, a group consisting of ten towns on the
mainland, together with the islands of
Samos and
Chios. Of these three groups, the Ionian is
incomparably the most important. The Ionians also occupy Euboea and
the Cyclades. Although it would appear that Cyprus (and possibly
Pamphylia) had been occupied by settlers from Greece in the
Mycenaean age, Greek tradition is probably correct in putting the
colonization of Asia Minor and the islands of the Aegean after the
Dorian migration. Both the Homeric and the archaeological evidence
seem to point to the same conclusion. Between Rhodes on the south
and the Troad on the north scarcely any Mycenaean remains have been
found. Homer is ignorant of any Greeks east of Euboea. If the poems
are earlier than the Dorian Invasion, his silence is conclusive. If
the poems are some centuries later than the Invasion, they at least
prove that, within a few generations of that event, it was the
belief of the Greeks of Asia Minor that their ancestors had crossed
the seas after the close of the Heroic Age. It is probable, too,
that the names Ionian and Aeolian, the former of which is found
once in Homer, and the latter not at all, originated among the
colonists in Asia Minor, and served to designate, in the first
instance, the members of the Ionic and Aeolic
dodecapoleis. As Curtius 1 pointed out, the only
Ionia known to history is in Asia
Minor. It does not follow that Ionia is the original home of the
Ionian race, as Curtius argued. It almost certainly follows,
however, that it is the original home of the Ionian name.
It is less easy to account for the name
Hellenes. The
Greeks were profoundly conscious of their common nationality, and
of the gulf that separated them from the rest of mankind. They
themselves recognized a common race and language, and a common type
of religion and culture, as the chief factors in this sentiment of
nationality (see Herod. viii. 144
TO `EXXnv co) Eov oµacµov
TE ?cac 6,116-yXwcrcrov rcac 9EWV iSpuµara TE xocva Kal Ovaiac
ijOEfi m Omenf lora). "Hellenes" was the name of their common
race, and " Hellas " of their common country. In Homer there is no
distinct consciousness of a common nationality, and consequently no
antithesis of Greek
and
Barbarian (see Thuc.
i.
3). Nor is there a true collective name. There are
indeed Hellenes (though the name occurs in one passage only,
Iliad ii. 684), and there is a Hellas; but his Hellas,
whatever its precise signification may be, is, at any rate, not
equivalent either to Greece proper or to the land of the Greeks,
and his Hellenes are the inhabitants of a small district to the
south of Thessaly. It is possible that the
diffusion of the Hellenic name was due to the
Dorian invaders. Its use can be traced back to the first half of
the 7th century. Not less obscure are the causes of the fall of
monarchy. It cannot have been the immediate effect of the 1
History of Greece (Eng. trans., i. 32 ff.); cf. the same
writer's
loner vor der ionischen Wanderung. Dorian
conquest, for the states founded by the Dorians were at first
monarchically governed. It may, however, have been an indirect
effect of it. We have already seen that the power of the Homeric
king is more limited than that of the rulers of Cnossus, Tiryns or
Mycenae. In other words, monarchy is already in decay at the epoch
of the Invasion. The Invasion, in its effects on wealth, commerce
and civilization, is almost comparable to the irruption of the
barbarians into the Roman empire. The monarch of the Minoan and
Mycenaean age has extensive revenues at his command; the monarch of
the early Dorian states is little better than a petty chief. Thus
the interval, once a wide one, that separates him from the nobles
tends to disappear. The decay of monarchy was gradual; much more
gradual than is generally recognized. There were parts of the Greek
world in which it still survived in the 6th century,
e.g.
Sparta,
Cyrene, Cyprus, and
possibly Argos and
Tarentum. Both Herodotus and
Thucydides apply the
title " king " (f ccutXcin) to the rulers of Thessaly in the 5th
century. The date at which monarchy gave place to a republican form
of government must have differed, and differed widely, in different
cases. The traditions relating to the foundation of Cyrene assume
the existence of monarchy in
Thera and in Crete in the middle of the 7th
century (Herodotus iv. 150 and 154), and the reign of Amphicrates
at Samos (Herod. iii. 59) can hardly be placed more than a
generation earlier. In view of our general ignorance of the history
of the 7th and 8th centuries, it is hazardous to pronounce these
instances exceptional. On the other hand, the change from monarchy
to oligarchy was completed at Athens before the end of the 8th
century, and at a still earlier date in some of the other states.
The process, again, by which the change was effected was, in all
probability, less uniform than is generally assumed. There are
extremely few cases in which we have any trustworthy evidence, and
the instances about which we are informed refuse to be reduced to
any common type. In Greece proper our information is fullest in the
case of Athens and Argos. In the former case, the king is gradually
stripped of his powers by a process of devolution. An hereditary
king, ruling for life, is replaced by three annual and elective
magistrates, between whom are divided the executive, military and
religious functions of the monarch (see
Archon). At Argos the fall of the monarchy is
preceded by an aggrandisement of the royal prerogatives. There is
nothing in common between these two cases, and there is no reason
to suppose that the process elsewhere was analogous to that at
Athens. Everywhere, however, oligarchy is the form of government
which succeeds to monarchy. Political power is monopolized by a
class of nobles, whose claim to govern is based upon birth and the
possession of land, the most valuable form of property in an early
society. Sometimes power is confined to a single clan (e.g. the
Bacchiadae at Corinth); more commonly, as at Athens, all houses
that are noble are equally privileged. In every case there is
found, as the adviser of the executive, a Boule, or council,
representative of the privileged class. Without such a council a
Greek oligarchy is inconceivable. The relations of the executive to
the council doubtless varied. At Athens it is clear that the real
authority was exercised by the archons; 2 in many states the
magistrates were probably subordinate to the council (cf. the
relation of the consuls to the
senate at
Rome). And it is clear that the way in which the
oligarchies used their power varied also. The cases in which-the
power was abused are naturally the ones of which we hear; for an
abuse of power gave rise to discontent and was the ultimate cause
of revolution. We hear little or nothing of the cases in which
power was exercised wisely. Happy is the constitution which has no
annals! We know, however, that oligarchy held its ground for
generations, or even for centuries, in a large proportion of the
Greek states; and a government which, like the oligarchies of Elis,
Thebes or Aegina, could maintain itself for three or four centuries
cannot have been merely oppressive.
2 If the account of early Athenian constitutional history given
in the Athenaion Politeia were accepted, it would follow
that the archons were inferior in authority to the Eupatrid Boule,
the Areopagus.
The period of the transition from monarchy to oligarchy is the
period in which commerce begins to develop, and trade routes to be
organized. Greece had been the centre of
Trade. an active
trade in the Minoan and Mycenaean epochs. The products of Crete and
of the Peloponnese had found their way to Egypt and Asia Minor. The
overthrow of the older civilization put an end to commerce. The
seas became insecure and intercourse with the East was interrupted.
Our earliest glimpses of the Aegean after the period of the
migrations disclose the raids of the pirate and the activity of the
Phoenician trader. It is not till the 8th century has dawned that
trade begins to revive, and the Phoenician has to retire before his
Greek competitor. For some time to come, however, no clear
distinction is drawn between the trader and the pirate. The
pioneers of Greek trade in the West are the pirates of
Cumae (Thucyd. vi. 4). The
expansion of Greek commerce, unlike that of the commerce of the
modern world, was not connected with any great scientific
discoveries. There is nothing in the history of ancient navigation
that is analogous to the invention of the mariner's compass or of
the
steam-engine.
In spite of this, the development of Greek commerce in the 7th and
6th centuries was rapid. It must have been assisted by the great
discovery of the early part of the former century, the invention of
coined money. To the Lydians, rather than the Greeks, belongs the
credit of the discovery; but it was the genius of the latter race
that divined the importance of the invention and spread its use.
The coinage of the Ionian towns goes back to the reign of
Gyges (c. 675 B.C.). And it is in
Ionia that commercial development is earliest and greatest. In the
most distant regions the Ionian is first in the field. Egypt and
the Black Sea are both opened up to Greek trade by
Miletus, the Adriatic and the
Western Mediterranean by
Phocaea and Samos. It is significant that of
the twelve states engaged in the Egyptian trade in the 6th century
all, with the exception of Aegina, are from the eastern side of the
Aegean (Herod. ii. 178). On the western side the chief centres of
trade during these centuries were the islands of Euboea and Aegina
and the town of Corinth. The Aeginetan are the earliest coins of
Greece proper (c. 650 B.C.); and the two rival scales of weights
and measures, in use amongst the Greeks of every age, are the
Aeginetan and the Euboic. Commerce naturally gave rise to
commercial leagues, and commercial relations tended to bring about
political alliances. Foreign policy even at this early epoch seems
to have been largely determined by considerations of commerce. Two
leagues, the members of which were connected by political as well
as commercial ties, can be recognized. At the head of each stood
one of the two rival powers in the island of Euboea, Chalcis and
Eretria. Their primary object
was doubtless protection from the pirate and the foreigner.
Competing routes were organized at an early date under their
influence, and their trading connexions can be traced from the
heart of Asia Minor to the north of Italy. Miletus,
Sybaris and
Etruria were members of the Eretrian league;
Samos, Corinth, Rhegium and Zancle (commanding the Straits of
Messina), and Cumae, on the Bay
of
Naples, of the Chalcidian.
The
wool of the
Phrygian uplands, woven in the looms of Miletus, reached the
Etruscan markets by way of Sybaris; through Cumae, Rome and the
rest of
Latium obtained the
elements of Greek culture. Greek trade, however, was confined to
the Mediterranean area. The Phoenician and the Carthaginian
navigators penetrated to Britain; they discovered the passage round
the Cape two thousand years before Vasco da Gama's time. The Greek
sailor dared not adventure himself outside the Black Sea, the
Adriatic and the Mediterranean. Greek trade, too, was essentially
maritime. Ports visited by Greek vessels were often the starting
points of trade-routes into the interior; the traffic along those
routes was left in the hands of the natives (see
e.g.
Herod. iv. 24). One service, the importance of which can hardly be
overestimated, was rendered to civilization by the Greek traders -
the invention of geography. The science of geography is the
invention of the Greeks. The first maps were made by them (in the
6th century); and it was the discoveries and surveys of their
sailors that made
map-making
possible.
Closely connected with the history of Greek trade is the history
of Greek colonization. The period of colonization, in its narrower
sense, extends from the middle of the 8th to the middle of the 6th
century. Greek coloniza3 tion
is, however, merely a
continuation of the process which at an earlier epoch had led to
the settlement, first of Cyprus, and then of the islands and coasts
of the Aegean. From the earlier settlements the colonization of the
historical period is distinguished by three characteristics. The
later colony acknowledges a
definite metropolis ("
mother-city "); it is planted by a definite oecist (06KGUTi);
it has a definite date assigned to its foundation.' It would be
a mistake to regard Greek colonization as commercial in origin, in
the sense that the colonies were in all cases established as
trading-posts. This was the case with the Phoenician and
Carthaginian settlements, most of which remained mere factories;
and some of the Greek colonies (e.g. many of those planted by
Miletus on the shores of the Black Sea) bore this character. The
typical Greek colony, however, was neither in origin nor in
development a mere trading-post. It was, or it became, a
polis,
a city-state, in which was reproduced the life of the
parent state. Nor was Greek colonization, like the emigration from
Europe to America and Australia in the 19th century, simply the
result of over-population. The causes were as various as those
which can be traced in the history of modern colonization. Those
which were established for the purposes of trade may be compared to
the factories of the Portuguese and Dutch in Africa and the Far
East. Others were the result of political discontent, in some form
or shape; these may be compared to the Puritan settlements in New England. Others
again were due to ambition or the mere love of adventure (see
Herod. v. 42 ff., the career of Dorieus). But however various the
causes, two conditions must always be presupposed - an expansion of
commerce and a growth of population. Within the narrow limits of
the citystate 'there was a constant tendency for population to
become redundant, until, as in the later centuries of Greek life,
its growth was artificially restricted. Alike from the Roman
colonies, and from those founded by the European nations in the
course of the last few centuries, the Greek colonies are
distinguished by a fundamental contrast. It is significant that the
contrast is a political one. The Roman colony was in a position of
entire subordination to the Roman state, of which it formed a part.
The modern colony was, in varying degrees, in political subjection
to the home government. The Greek colony was completely
independent; and it was independent from the first. The ties that
united a colony to its metropolis were those of sentiment and
interest; the political tie did not exist. There were, it is true,
exceptions. The colonies established by imperial Athens closely
resembled the colonies of imperial Rome. The cleruchy formed part of the Athenian state;
the cleruchs kept their status as citizens of Athens and acted as a
military garrison. And if
the political tie, in the proper sense, was wanting, it was
inevitable that political relations should spring out of commercial
or sentimental ones. Thus we find Corinth interfering twice to save
her colony Syracuse from destruction, and Megara bringing about the
revolt of Byzantium, her
colony, from Athens. Sometimes it is not easy to distinguish
political relations from a political tie (e.g. the relations of
Corinth, both in the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars, to Ambracia and the neighbouring
group of colonies). When we compare the development of the Greek
and the modern colonies we shall find that the development of the
former was even more rapid than that of the latter. In at least
three respects the Greek settler was at an advantage as compared
with the colonist of modern times. The differences of race, of
colour and of climate, with which the chief problems of modern
colonization are connected, played no part in the history of the
Greek settlements. The races amongst whom the Greeks planted ' The
dates before the middle of the 7th century are in most cases
artificial, e.g.
those given by Thucydides (book vi.) for
the earlier Sicilian settlements. See J. P. Mahaffy, Journal
of Hellenic Studies,
ii. 164 ff.themselves were in some cases on a similar level of culture.
Where the natives were still backward or barbarous, they came of a
stock either closely related to the Greek, or at least separated
from it by no great physical differences. We need only contrast the
Carian, the Sicel, the Thracian or even the Scythian, with the
native Australian, the Hottentot, the Red Indian or the
Maori, to apprehend the advantage
of the Greek. Amalgamation with the native races was easy, and it
involved neither physical nor intellectual degeneracy as its
consequence. Of the races with which the Greeks came in contact the
Thracian was far from the highest in the scale of culture; yet
three of the greatest names in the Great Age of Athens are those of
men who had Thracian blood in their
veins, viz.
Themistocles,
Cimon and the historian Thucydides. In the
absence of any distinction of colour, no insuperable barrier
existed between the Greek and the hellenized native. The
demos of the colonial cities was largely recruited from
the native population,' nor was there anything in the Greek world
analogous to the " mean whites " or the " black belt." Of hardly
less importance were the climatic conditions. In this respect the
Mediterranean area is unique. There is no other region of the world
of equal extent in which these conditions are at once so uniform
and so favourable. Nowhere had the Greek settler to encounter a
climate which was either unsuited to his labour or subversive of
his vigour. That in spite of these advantages so little,
comparatively speaking, was effected in the work of Hellenization
before the epoch of Alexander and the
Diadochi, was the effect of a single
counteracting cause. The Greek colonist, like the Greek trader,
clung to the shore. He penetrated no farther inland than the
sea-breeze. Hence it was only in islands, such as Sicily or Cyprus,
that the process of Hellenization was complete. Elsewhere the Greek
settlements formed a mere fringe along the coast.
To the 7th century there belongs another movement of high
importance in its bearing upon the economic, religious and literary
development of Greece, as well as upon its
The .
constitutional history. This movement is the rise of
tyrants the
tyrannis. In the political writers of
a later age the word possesses a clear-cut
connotation. From other forms of monarchy
it is distinguished by a twofold differentiation. The
tyrannus is an unconstitutional ruler, and his authority
is exercised over unwilling subjects. In the 7th and 6th centuries
the line was not drawn so distinctly between the
tyrant and the legitimate monarch. Even
Herodotus uses the words " tyrant " and " king " interchangeably
(e.g. the princes of Cyprus are called " kings " in v. i io and "
tyrants " in v. 109), so that it is sometimes difficult to decide
whether a legitimate monarch or a tyrant is meant (e.g.
Aristophilides of Tarentum, iii. 136, or Telys of Sybaris, v. 44).
But the distinction between the tyrant and the king of the Heroic
Age is a valid one. It is not true that his rule was always
exercised over unwilling subjects; it is true that his position was
always unconstitutional. The Homeric king is a legitimate monarch;
his authority is invested with the sanctions of religion and
immemorial custom. The tyrant is an illegitimate ruler; his
authority is not recognized, either by customary usage or by
express enactment. But the word " tyrant " was originally a neutral
term; it did not necessarily imply a misuse of power. The origin of
the
tyrannis is obscure. The word
tyrannus has
been thought, with some reason, to be a Lydian one. Probably both
the name and the thing originated in the Greek colonies of Asia
Minor, though the earliest tyrants of whom we hear in Asia Minor
(at
Ephesus and Miletus) are
a generation later than the earliest in Greece itself, where, both
at
Sicyon and at Corinth,
tyranny appears to date back to the second quarter of the 7th
century. It is not unusual to regard tyranny as a universal stage
in the constitutional development of the Greek states, and as a
stage that occurs everywhere at one and the same period. In
reality, tyranny is confined to certain regions, and it is a
phenomenon that is
peculiar to no one age or century. In Greece proper, before the At
Syracuse the
demos makes common cause with the Sicel
serf-population against the nobles (Herod. vii. 155).
4th century B.C., it is confined to a small group of states
round the Corinthian and Saronic Gulfs. The greater part of the
Peloponnese was exempt from it, and there is no good evidence for
its existence north of the
Isthmus, except at Megara and Athens. It plays
no part in the history of the Greek cities in Chalcidice and
Thrace. It appears to have been rare in the Cyclades. The regions
in which it finds a congenial soil are two, Asia Minor and Sicily.
Thus it is incorrect to say that most Greek states passed through
this stage. It is still wider of the
mark to assume that they passed through it at the
same time. There is no " Age of the Tyrants." Tyranny began in the
Peloponnese a hundred years before it appears in Sicily, and it has
disappeared in the Peloponnese almost before it begins in Sicily.
In the latter the great age of tyranny comes at the beginning of
the 5th century; in the former it is at the end of the 7th and the
beginning of the 6th. At Athens the history of tyranny begins after
it has ended both at Sicyon and Corinth. There is, indeed, a period
in which tyranny is non-existent in the Greek states; roughly
speaking, the last sixty years of the 5th century. But with this
exception, there is no period in which the tyrant is not to be
found. The greatest of all the tyrannies, that of
Dionysius at Syracuse,
belongs to the 4th century. Nor must it be assumed that tyranny
always comes at the same stage in the history of a constitution;
that it is always a stage between oligarchy and democracy. At
Corinth it is followed, not by democracy but by oligarchy, and it
is an oligarchy that lasts, with a brief interruption, for two
hundred and fifty years. At Athens it is not immediately preceded
by oligarchy. Between the Eupatrid oligarchy and the rule of
Peisistratus there comes the timocracy of
Solon. These exceptions do not stand alone. The
cause of tyranny is, in one sense, uniform. In the earlier
centuries, at any rate, tyranny is always the expression of
discontent; the tyrant is always the champion of a cause. But it
would be a mistake to suppose that the discontent is necessarily
political, or that the cause which he champions is always a
constitutional one. At Sicyon it is a racial one;
Cleisthenes is the champion of
the older population against their Dorian oppressors (see Herod. v.
67, 68). At Athens the discontent is economic rather than
political; Peisistratus is the champion of the Diacrii, the
inhabitants of the poorest region of Attica. The party-strifes of
which we hear in the early history of Miletus, which doubtless gave
the tyrant his opportunity, are concerned with the claims of rival
industrial classes. In Sicily the tyrant is the ally of the rich
and the foe of the
demos, and the cause which he
champions, both in the 5th century and the 4th, is a national one,
that of the Greek against the Carthaginian. We may suspect that in
Greece itself the tyrannies of the 7th century are the expression
of an anti-Dorian reaction. It can hardly be an
accident that the states in which the
tyrannis is found at this epoch, Corinth, Megara, Sicyon,
Epidaurus, are all of them states in which a Dorian upper class
ruled over a subject population. In Asia Minor the
tyrannis ,assumes a peculiar character after the Persian
conquest. The tyrant rules as the deputy of the Persian
satrap. Thus in the East the
tyrant is the enemy of the national cause; in the West, in Sicily,
he is its champion.
Tyranny is not a phenomenon peculiar to Greek history. It is
possible to find analogies to it in Roman history, in the power of
Caesar, or of the Caesars; in the despotisms of medieval Italy; or
even in the Napoleonic empire. Between the tyrant and the Italian
despot there is indeed a real
analogy; but between the Roman principate and the Greek
tyrannis there are two essential differences. In the first
place, the principate was expressed in constitutional forms, or
veiled under constitutional
fictions; the tyrant stood altogether outside
the constitution. And, secondly, at Rome both
Julius and Augustus owed their position to the
power of the sword. The power of the sword, it is true, plays a
large part in the history of the later tyrants (e.g. Dionysius of
Syracuse); the earlier ones, however, had no
mercenary armies at their command. We can
hardly compare the bodyguard of Peisistratus to the legions of the
first or the second Caesar.
The view taken of the
tyrannis in
Greek
literature is almost uniformly unfavourable. In this respect
there is no difference between Plato and Aristotle, or between
Herodotus and the later historians.' His policy is represented as
purely selfish, and his rule as oppressive. Herodotus is influenced
partly by the traditions current among the oligarchs, who had been
the chief sufferers, and partly by the odious associations which
had gathered round tyranny in Asia Minor. The philosophers write
under their impressions of the later
tyrannis, and their
account is largely an
a
priori one. It is seldom that we find any attempt, either in
the philosophers or the historians, to do justice to the real
services rendered by the tyrants. 2 Their first service was a
constitutional one. They helped to break down the power of the old
aristocratic houses, and thus to create the social and political
conditions indispensable to democracy. The
tyrannis
involved the sacrifice of liberty in the cause of equality. When
tyranny falls, it is never succeeded by the aristocracies which it
had overthrown. It is frequently succeeded by an oligarchy, but it
is an oligarchy in which the claim to exclusive power is based, not
upon mere birth, but upon wealth, or the possession of land. It
would be unfair to treat this service as one that was rendered
unconsciously and unwillingly. Where the tyrant asserted the claims
of an oppressed class, he consciously aimed at the destruction of
privilege and the effacement of class distinctions. Hence it is
unjust to treat his power as resting upon mere force. A government
which can last eighty or a hundred years, as was the case with the
tyrannies at Corinth and Sicyon, must have a moral force behind it.
It must rest upon the consent of its subjects. The second service
which the tyrants rendered to Greece was a political one. Their
policy tended to break down the barriers which isolated each petty
state from its neighbours. In their history we can trace a system
of widespread alliances, which are often cemented by matrimonial
connexions. The Cypselid tyrants of Corinth appear to have been
allied with the royal families of Egypt,
Lydia and
Phrygia, as well as with the tyrants of Miletus
and Epidaurus, and with some of the great Athenian families. In
Sicily we find a league of the northern tyrants opposed to a league
of the southern; and in each case there is a corresponding
matrimonial alliance.
Anaxilaus of Rhegium is the son-in-law and
ally of Terillus of
Himera;
Gelo of Syracuse stands in the same
relation to Theron of
Agrigentum. Royal marriages have played a
great part in the politics of Europe. In the comparison of Greek
and modern history it has been too often forgotten how great a
difference it makes, and how great a disadvantage it involves, to a
republic that it has neither sons nor daughters to give in
marriage. In commerce and colonization the tyrants were only
continuing the work of the oligarchies to which they succeeded.
Greek trade owed its expansion to the intelligent efforts of the
oligarchs who ruled at Miletus and Corinth, in Samos, Aegina and
Euboea; but in particular cases, such as Miletus, Corinth, Sicyon
and Athens, there was a further development, and a still more rapid
growth, under the tyrants. In the same way, the foundation of the
colonies was in most cases due to the policy of the oligarchical
governments. They can claim credit for the colonies of Chalcis and
Eretria, of Megara, Phocaea and Samos, as well as for the great
Achaean settlements in southern Italy. The Cypselids at Corinth,
and
Thrasybulus at
Miletus, are instances of tyrants who colonized on a great
scale.
In their religious policy the tyrants went far to democratize
Greek religion.
The functions of monarchy had been largely religious; but, while
the king was necessarily a priest, he was not the only priest in
the community.
p ' y p y' There were special
priesthoods, hereditary in par ticular families, even in the
monarchical period; and upon the fall of the monarchy, while the
priestly functions of the kings passed to republican magistrates,
the priesthoods which were in the exclusive possession of the great
families tended to become the important ones. Thus, before the rise
of tyranny, Greek religion is aristocratic. The cults recognized '
An exception should perhaps be made in the case of Thucydides.
2 The Peisistratidae come off better, however.
by the state are the
sacra of noble clans. The
religious prerogatives of the nobles helped to confirm their
political ones, and, as long as religion retained its aristocratic
character, it was impossible for democracy to take root. The policy
of the tyrants aimed at fostering popular cults which had no
associations with the old families, and at establishing new
festivals. The cult of the wine-god,
Dionysus, was thus fostered at Sicyon by
Cleisthenes, and at Corinth by the Cypselids; while at Athens a new
festival of this deity, which so completely overshadowed the older
festival that it became known as the Great
Dionysia, probably owed its institution to
Peisistratus. Another festival, the
Panathenaea, which had been instituted only
a few years before his rise to power, became under his rule, and
thanks to his policy, the chief national festival of the Athenian
state. Everywhere, again, we find the tyrants the patrons of
literature. Pindar and
Bacchylides,
Aeschylus and Simonides found a welcome at
the court of
Hiero.
Polycrates was the patron
of
Anacreon,
Periander of Anion. To
Peisistratus has been attributed, possibly not without reason, the
first critical edition of the text of Homer, a work as important in
the literary history of Greece as was the issue of the Authorized
Version of the Bible in English history. It we would judge fairly
of tyranny, and of what it contributed to the development of
Greece, we must remember how many states there were in whose
history the period of greatest power coincides with the rule of a
tyrant. This is unquestionably true of Corinth and Sicyon, as well
as of Syracuse in the 5th, and again in the 4th century; it is
probably true of Samos and Miletus. In the case of Athens it is
only the splendour of the Great Age that blinds us to the greatness
of the results achieved by the policy of the Peisistratids.
With the overthrow of this dynasty tyranny disappears from
Greece proper for more than a century. During the century and a
half which had elapsed since its first appearance the whole aspect
of Greek life, and of the Greek world, had changed. The development
was as yet incomplete, but the lines on which it was to proceed had
been clearly marked out. Political power was no longer the monopoly
of a class. The struggle between the " few " and the " many " had
begun; in one state at least (Athens) the victory of the " many "
was assured. The first chapter in the history of democracy was
already written. In the art of war the two innovations which were
ultimately to establish the military supremacy of Greece, hoplite
tactics and the trireme, had
already been introduced. Greek literature was no longer synonymous
with
epic poetry.
Some of
The arts. its most distinctive forms had not yet
been evolved; indeed, it is only quite at the end of the period
that
prose-writing begins; but
both lyric and elegiac
poetry
had been brought to perfection. In art, statuary was still
comparatively stiff and crude; but in other branches, in
architecture, in vasepainting and in
coin-types, the aesthetic genius of the race had
asserted its pre-eminence.
Philosophy, the supreme gift of Greece to
the modern world, had become a living power. Some of her most
original thinkers belong to the 6th century. Criticism had been
applied to everything in turn: to the gods, to conduct, and to the
conception of the universe. Before the Great Age begins, the claims
of intellectual as well as of political freedom had been
vindicated. It was not, however, in Greece proper that progress had
been greatest. In the next century the centre of gravity of Greek
civilization shifts to the western side of the Aegean; in the 6th
century it must be looked for at Miletus, rather than at Athens. In
order to estimate how far the development of Greece had advanced,
or to appreciate the distinctive features of Greek life at this
period, we must study Ionia, rather than Attica or the Peloponnese.
Almost all that is greatest and most characteristic is to be found
on the eastern side of the Aegean. The great names in the history
of science and philosophy before the beginning of the 5th century -
Thales,
Pythagoras,
Xenophanes,
Heraclitus, Parmenides,
Anaximander,
Hecataeus; names which are
representative of mathematics,
astronomy, geography and
metaphysics, are all,
without exception, Ionian. In poetry, too, the most famous names,
if not so exclusively Ionian, are connected either with the Asiatic
coast or with the Cyclades. Against
Archilochus and Anacreon,
Sappho and
Alcaeus, Greece has nothing better to set,
after the age of Hesiod, than
Tyrtaeus and Theognis. Reference has already
been made to the greatness of the Ionians as navigators, as
colonizers and as traders. In wealth and in population, Miletus, at
the epoch of the Persian conquest, must have been far ahead of any
city of European Greece. Sybaris, in
Magna Graecia, can have been its only
rival outside Ionia. There were two respects, however, in which the
comparison was in favour of the mother-country. In warfare, the
superiority of the Spartan infantry was unquestioned; in politics,
the Greek states showed a greater power of combination than the
Ionian.
Finally, Ionia was the scene of the first conflicts with the
Persian. Here were decided the first stages of a struggle which was
to determine the place of Greece in the history
External
of the world. The rise of
Persia under
Cyrus was, as
relations y Herodotus saw,
the turning-point of Greek history.
Hitherto the Greek had proved himself indispensable to the
oriental monarchies with which he had been brought into contact. In
Egypt the power of the Saite kings rested upon the support of their
Greek mercenaries.
Amasis
(569-525 B.C.), who is raised to the throne as the leader of a
reaction against the influence of the foreign garrison, ends by
showing greater favour to the Greek soldiery and the Greek traders
than all that were before him. With Lydia the relations were
originally hostile; the conquest of the Greek fringe is the
constant aim of Lydian policy. Greek influences, however, seem to
have quickly permeated Lydia, and to have penetrated to the court.
Alyattes (610-560 B.C.)
marries an Ionian wife, and the succession is disputed between the
son of this marriage and
Croesus, whose mother was a Carian. Croesus
(560-546 B.C.) secures the throne, only to become the lavish patron
of Greek sanctuaries and the ally of a Greek state. The history of
Hellenism had begun. It was the rise of Cyrus that closed the East
to Greek enterprise and Greek influences. In Persia we find the
antithesis of all that is characteristic of Greece -
autocracy as opposed to
liberty; a military society organized on an aristocratic basis, to
an industrial society, animated by a democratic spirit; an army,
whose strength lay in its cavalry, to an army, in which the
footsoldier alone counted; a morality, which assigned the chief
place to veracity, to a morality which subordinated it to other
virtues; a religion, which ranks among the great religions of the
world, to a religion, which appeared to the most spiritual minds
among the Greeks themselves both immoral and absurd. Between two
such races there could be neither sympathy nor mutual
understanding. In the Great Age the Greek had learned to despise
the Persian, and the Persian to fear the Greek. In the 6th century
it was the Persian who despised, and the Greek who feared. The
history of the conflicts between the Ionian Greeks and the Persian
empire affords a striking example of the combination of
intellectual strength and political weakness in the character of a
people. The causes of the failure of the Ionians to offer a
successful resistance to Persia, both at the time of the conquest
by Harpagus (546-545 B.C.) and in the Ionic revolt (499-494 B.C.),
are not far to seek. The centrifugal forces always tended to prove
the stronger in the Greek system, and nowhere were they stronger
than in Ionia. The tie of their tribal union proved weaker, every
time it was put to the test, than the political and commercial
interests of the individual states. A league of jealous commercial
rivals is certain not to stand the strain of a protracted struggle
against great odds. Against the advancing power of Lydia a common
resistance had not so much as been attempted. Miletus, the greatest
of the Ionian towns, had received aid from Chios alone. Against
Persia a common resistance was attempted. The Panionium, the centre
of a religious
amphictyony, became for the moment the
centre of a political league. At the time of the Persian conquest
Miletus held aloof. She secured favourable terms for herself, and
left the rest of Ionia to its fate. In the later conflict, on the
contrary, Miletus is the leader in the revolt. The issue was
determined, not as Herodotus represents it, by the inherent
indolence of the Ionian nature, but by the selfish policy of the
leading states. In the sea-fight at Lade (494 B.C.) the decisive
battle of the war, the Milesians and Chians fought with desperate
courage. The day was lost thanks to the treachery of the Samian and
Lesbian contingents.
The causes of the successful resistance of the Greeks to the
invasions of their country, first by Datis and
Artaphernes (49 0
B.C.), in the reign of
Darius,
and then by
Xerxes in person
(4 80 -479 B.C.), are more complex. Their success was partly due to
a moral cause. And this was realized by the Greeks themselves. They
felt (see Herod. vii. 104) that the subjects of a despot are no
match for the citizens of a free
state, who yield obedience to a law which is self-imposed. But the
cause was not solely a moral one. Nor was the result due to the
numbers and efficiency of the Athenian fleet, in the degree that
the Athenians claimed (see Herod. vii. 139). The truth is that the
conditions, both political and military, were far more favourable
to the Greek defence in Europe than they had been in Asia. At this
crisis the centripetal forces proved stronger than the centrifugal.
The moral ascendancy of Sparta was the determining factor. In
Sparta the Greeks had a leader whom all were ready to obey (Herod.
viii. 2). But for her influence the forces of disintegration would
have made themselves felt as quickly as in Ionia. Sparta was
confronted with immense difficulties in conducting the defence
against Xerxes. The two chief naval powers, Athens and Aegina, had
to be reconciled after a long and exasperating warfare (see
Aegina). After Thermopylae, the
whole of northern Greece, with the exception of Athens and a few
minor states, was lost to the Greek cause. The supposed interests
of the Peloponnesians, who formed the greater part of the national
forces, conflicted with the supposed interests of the Athenians. A
more impartial view than was possible to the generation for which
Herodotus wrote suggests that Sparta performed her task with
intelligence and patriotism. The claims of Athens and Sparta were
about equally balanced. And in spite of her great superiority in
numbers,' the military conditions were far from favourable to
Persia. A land so mountainous as Greece is was unsuited to the
operations of cavalry, the most efficient arm of the service in the
Persian Army, as in most oriental ones. Ignorance of local
conditions, combined with the dangerous nature of the Greek coast,
exposed their ships to the risk of destruction; while the composite
character of the fleet, and the jealousies of its various
contingents, tended to neutralize the advantage of numbers. In
courage and discipline, the
flower of the Persian infantry was probably
little inferior to the Greek; in equipment, they were no match for
the Greek
panoply. Lastly,
Xerxes laboured under a disadvantage, which may be illustrated by
the experience of the British army in the South African War -
distance from his base.
5.
The Great Age (480-338 B.C.). - The effects of the
repulse of Persia were momentous in their influence upon Greece.
The effects upon Elizabethan England of the defeat of the Spanish
armada would afford
quite an inadequate parallel. It gave the Greeks a heightened
sense, both of their own national unity and of their superiority to
the barbarian, while at the same time it helped to create the
material conditions requisite alike for the artistic and political
development of the 5th century. Other cities besides Athens were
adorned with the proceeds of the spoils won from Persia, and Greek
trade benefited both from the
reunion of Ionia with Greece, and from the
suppression of piracy in the Aegean and the Hellespont. Do these
developments justify us in giving to the period, which begins with
the repulse of Xerxes, and ends with the victory of Philip, the
title of " the Great Age "? If the title is justified in the case
of the 5th century, should the 4th century be excluded from the
period? At first sight, the difference between the 4th century and
the 5th may seem greater than that which exists between the 5th and
the 6th. On the political side, the 5th century is an age of
growth, the 4th an age of decay; on the literary side, the ' The
numbers given by Herodotus (upwards of 5,000,000) are enormously
exaggerated. We must divide by ten or fifteen to arrive at a
probable estimate of the forces that actually crossed the
Hellespont.
Persian wars. former is an age of poetry, the latter an
age of prose. In spite of these contrasts, there is a real unity in
the period which begins with the repulse of Xerxes and ends with
the death of Alexander, as compared with any preceding one. It is
an age of maturity in politics, in literature, and in art; and this
is true of no earlier age. Nor can we say that the 5th century is,
in all these aspects of Greek life, immature as compared with the
4th, or, on the other hand, that the 4th is decadent as compared
with the 5th. On the political side, maturity is, in one sense,
reached in the earlier century. There is nothing in the later
century so great as the Athenian empire. In another sense, maturity
is not reached till the 4th century. It is only in the later
century that the tendency of the Greek constitutions to conform to
a common type, democracy, is (at least approximately) realized, and
it is only in this century that the principles upon which democracy
is based are carried to their logical conclusion. In literature, if
we confine our attention to poetry, we must pronounce the 5th
century the age of completed development; but in prose the case is
different. The
style even of
Thucydides is immature, as compared with that of
Isocrates and Plato. In
philosophy, however high may be the estimate that is formed of the
genius of the earlier thinkers, it cannot be disputed that in Plato
and Aristotle we find a more mature stage of thought. In art,
architecture may perhaps be said to reach its
zenith in the 5th, sculpture in the 4th century.
In its political aspect, the history of the Great Age resolves
itself into the history of two movements, the imperial and the
democratic. Hitherto Greece had meant, politically, an aggregate of
independent states, very numerous, and, as a rule, very small. The
principle of
autonomy was
to the Greek the most sacred of all
Systems political
principles; the passion for autonomythe
govern- P P P P
ment. most potent of political factors. In the latter half
of the 6th century Sparta had succeeded in combining the majority
of the Peloponnesian states into a loose federal union; so loose,
however, that it appears to have been dormant in the intervals of
peace. In the crisis of the Persian invasion the Peloponnesian
League was extended so as to include all the states which had
espoused the national cause. It looked on the morrow of
Plataea and Mycale (the two
victories, won simultaneously, in 479 B.C., by Spartan commanders,
by which the danger from Persia was finally averted) as if a
permanent basis for union might be found in the
hegemony of Sparta. The sense of a common
peril and a common triumph brought with it the need of a common
union; it was Athens, however, instead of Sparta, by whom the first
conscious effort was made to transcend the isolation of the Greek
political system and to bring the units into combination. The
league thus founded (the
Delian League, established in 477 B.C.)
was under the presidency of Athens, but it included hardly any
other state besides those that had conducted the defence of Greece.
It was formed, almost entirely, of the states which had been
liberated from Persian rule by the great victories of the war. The
Delian League, even in the form in which it was first established,
as a
confederation of autonomous allies, marks
an advance in political conceptions upon the Peloponnesian League.
Provision is made for an annual revenue, for periodical meetings of
the council, and for a permanent executive. It is a real
federation, though an imperfect one. There were defects in its
constitution which rendered it inevitable that it should be
transformed into an empire. Athens was from the first " the
predominant partner." The fleet was mainly Athenian, the commanders
entirely so; the
assessment of the
tribute was in Athenian hands; there was no
federal court appointed to determine questions at issue between
Athens and the other members; and, worst omission of all, the right
of
secession was left
undecided. By the middle of the century the Delian League has
become the Athenian empire. Henceforward the imperial idea, in one
form or another, dominates Greek politics. Athens failed to extend
her authority over the whole of Greece. Her empire was overthrown;
but the triumph of autonomy proved the triumph of imperialism. The
Spartan empire succeeds to the Athenian, and, when it is finally
shattered at
Leuctra (371
B.C.), the hegemony of Thebes, which is established on its ruins,
is an empire in all but name. The decay of Theban power paves the
way for the rise of Macedon. Thus throughout this period we can
trace two forces contending for mastery in the Greek political
system. Two causes divide the
allegiance of the Greek world, the cause of
empire and the cause of autonomy. The formation of the confederacy
of
Delos did not involve the
dissolution of the
alliance between Athens and Sparta. For seventeen years more Athens
retained her place in the league, " which had been established
against the Mede" under the presidency of Sparta in 480 B.C. (Thuc.
i. 102). The ascendancy of Cimon and the Philolaconian party at
Athens was favourable to a good understanding between the two
states, and at Sparta in normal times the balance inclined in
favour of the party whose policy is best described by the
motto " quieta non movere." In the
end, however, the opposition of the two contending forces proved
too strong for Spartan
neutrality. The fall of Cimon (461 B.C.) was
followed by the so-called " First Peloponnesian War," a conflict
between Athens and
The S1an her maritime rivals, Corinth
and Aegina, into which
Wars. Sparta was ultimately drawn.
Thucydides regards the hostilities of these years (460-454 B.C.),
which were resumed for a few months in 446 B.C., on the expiration
of the Five Years' Truce, as preliminary to those of the great
Peloponnesian War (43 1 -4 0 4 B.C.). The real question at issue
was in both cases the same. The tie that united the opponents of
Athens was found in a common hostility to the imperial idea. It is
a complete misapprehension to regard the Peloponnesian War as a
mere
duel between two rival
claimants for empire. The
ultimatum presented by Sparta on the
eve of the war demanded the restoration
of autonomy to the subjects of Athens. There is no reason for
doubting her sincerity in presenting it in this form. It would,
however, be an equal misapprehension to regard the war as merely a
struggle between the cause of empire and the cause of autonomy.
Corresponding to this fundamental contrast there are other
contrasts, constitutional, racial and military. The military
interest of the war is largely due to the fact that Athens was a
sea power and Sparta a land
one. As the war went on, the constitutional aspect tended to become
more marked. At first there were democracies on the side of Sparta,
and oligarchies on the side of Athens. In the last stage of the
war, when Lysander's influence was supreme, we see the forces of
oligarchy everywhere united and organized for the destruction of
democracy. In its origin the war was certainly not due to the
rivalry of Dorian and Ionian. This racial, or tribal, contrast
counted for more in the politics of Sicily than of Greece; and,
though the two great branches of the Greek race were represented
respectively by the leaders of the two sides, the allies on neither
side belonged exclusively to the one branch or the other. Still, it
remains true that the Dorian states were, as a rule, on the Spartan
side, and the Ionian states, as a rule, on the Athenian - a
division of sentiment which must have helped to widen the
breach, and to intensify the
animosities.
As a political experiment the Athenian empire possesses a unique
interest. It represents the first attempt to fuse the principles of
imperialism and democracy. It is at once the first empire in
history possessed and administered by a sovereign people, and the
first which sought to establish a common system of democratic
institutions amongst its subjects.' It was an experiment that
failed, partly owing to the inherent strength of the oligarchic
cause, partly owing to the exclusive character of ancient
citizenship. The Athenians themselves recognized that their empire
depended for its existence upon the solidarity of democratic
interests (see Thuc. iii. 47; Pseudo-
Xenophon,
de Rep. Ath. i. 14, iii. 10). An understanding existed
between the democratic leaders in the subject-states and the
democratic party at Athens.
It has been denied by some writers (e.g. by A. H. J. Greenidge)
that Athens interfered with the constitutions of the
subject-states. For the view put forward in the text, the following
passages may be quoted: Aristotle, Politics 1307 b 20;
Isocrates, Panegyricus, 105, 106, Panathenaicus,
54 and 68; Xenophon, Hellenica, iii. 4.7; Ps.-Xen.
Athen. Constit. i. 14, iii. 10.
The Athenian empire. Charges were easily trumped up
against
obnoxious
oligarchs, and conviction as easily obtained in the Athenian courts
of law. Such a system forced the oligarchs into an attitude of
opposition. How much this opposition counted for was realized when
the Sicilian disaster (413 B.C.) gave the subjects their
chance to revolt. The
organization of the oligarchical party throughout the empire, which
was effected by
Lysander
in the last stage of the war, contributed to the overthrow of
Athenian ascendancy hardly less than the subsidies of Persia. Had
Athens aimed at establishing a community of interest between
herself and her subjects, based upon a common citizenship, her
empire might have endured. It would have been a policy akin to that
which secured the permanence of the Roman empire. And it was a
policy which found advocates when the day for it was past (see
Aristophanes,
Lysistrata, 574 ff.; cf. the grant of citizenship to the
Samians after
Aegospotami,
C.I.A. iv. 2, 1b).
But the policy pursued by Athens in the plenitude of her power was
the reverse of the policy pursued by Rome in her treatment of the
franchise. It is hardly
an exaggeration to say that the fate of the empire was sealed by
the law of Pericles (451 B.C.), by which the franchise was
restricted to those who could establish Athenian descent on both
sides. It was not merely that the process of amalgamation through
intermarriage was abruptly checked; what was more serious was that
a hard and fast line was drawn, once and for all, between the small
body of privileged rulers and the great mass of unprivileged
subjects.
Maine (
Early
Institutions, lecture 13) has classed the Athenian empire with
those of the familiar Oriental type, which attempt nothing beyond
the raising of taxes and the levying of troops. The Athenian empire
cannot, indeed, be classed with the Roman, or with the British rule
in India; it does not, therefore, deserve to be classed with the
empires of Cyrus or of
Jenghiz Khan. Though the basis of its
organization, like that of the Persian empire under Darius, was
financial, it attempted, and secured, objects beyond the mere
payment of tribute and the supply of ships. If Athens did not
introduce a common religion, or a common system of education, or a
common citizenship, she did introduce a common type of political
institutions, and a common jurisdiction.' She went some way, too,
in the direction of establishing a common system of coins, and of
weights and measures. A common language was there already. In a
word, the Athenian empire marks a definite stage of political
evolution.
The other great political movement of the age was the progress
of democracy. Before the Persian invasion democracy was a rare
phenomenon in Greek politics. Where it was found it existed in an
undeveloped form, and its tenure of power was
precarious. By the beginning of the
Peloponnesian War it had become the prevalent form of government.
The great majority of Greek states had adopted democratic
constitutions. Both in the Athenian sphere of influence and in the
colonial world outside that sphere, democracy was all but the only
form of constitution known. It was only in Greece proper that
oligarchy held its own. In the Peloponnese it could count a
majority of the states; in northern Greece at least a half of them.
The spread of democratic institutions was arrested by the victory
of Sparta in the East, and the rise of Dionysius in the West. There
was a moment at the end of the 5th century when it looked as if
democracy was a lost cause. Even Athens was for a brief period
under the rule of the Thirty (404-403 B.C.)". In the regions which
had formed the empire of Athens the decarchies set up by Lysander
were soon overthrown, and democracies restored in most cases, but
oligarchy continued to be the prevalent form in Greece proper until
Leuctra (371 B.C.), and in Sicily tyranny had a still longer tenure
of power. By the end of the Great Age oligarchy has almost
disappeared from the Greek world, except in the sphere of Persian
influence. The Spartan monarchy still survives; a few Peloponnesian
states still maintain the rule of the few; here 1 The evidence
seems to indicate that all the more important criminal cases
throughout the empire were tried in the Athenian courts. In civil
cases Athens secured to the citizens of the subjectstates the right
of suing Athenian citizens, as well as citizens of other
subject-states.
and there in Greece itself we meet with a revival of the
tyrannis;: but, with these exceptions, democracy is
everywhere the only type of constitution. And democracy has
developed as well as spread. At the end of the 5th century the
constitution of Cleisthenes, which was a democracy in the view of
his contemporaries, had come to be regarded as an
aristocracy (Aristot.
Ath. Pol. 29.3). We can trace a similar change of
sentiment in Sicily. As compared with the extreme form of
constitution adopted at Syracuse after the defeat of the Athenian
expedition,. the democracies established two generations earlier,
on the fall of the
tyrannis, appeared oligarchical. The
changes by which the character of the Greek democracies was
revolutionized were four in number: the substitution of sortition
for election, the abolition of a property qualification, the
payment of officials and the rise of a class of professional
politicians. In the democracy of Cleisthenes no payment was given
for service, whether as a
magistrate, a juror or a member of the
Boule. The higher magistracies were filled by election, and they
were held almost exclusively by the members of the great Athenian
families.. For the highest office of all, the archonship, none but
Pentacosiomedimni (the first of the four Solonian classes)
were eligible.. The introduction of pay and the removal of the
property qualification formed part of the reforms of Pericles.
Sortition had been instituted for election a generation earlier
(487 B.C.). 2 What is perhaps the most important of all these
changes, the rise of the demagogues, belongs to the era of the
Peloponnesian War. From the time of Cleisthenes to the outbreak of
the war every statesman of note at Athens, with the exception of
Themistocles (and, perhaps, of Ephialtes), is of aristocratic
birth. Down to the fall of Cimon the course of Athenian politics is
to a great extent determined by the alliances and antipathies of
the great clans. With the Peloponnesian War a new epoch begins. The
chief office, the
strategia, is still, as a rule, held by
men of rank. But leadership in the
Ecclesia has passed to men of a different
class. The demagogues were not necessarily poor men.
Cleon was a wealthy man; Eucrates,
Lysicles and Hyperbolus were, at any rate, tradesmen rather than
artisans. The first " labour member " proper is Cleophon (411-404
B.C.), a
lyre-maker. They
belonged, however, not to the land-owning, but to the industrial
classes; they were distinguished from the older race of
party-leaders by a vulgar
accent, and by a violence of gesture in public
speaking, and they found their supporters among the population of
the city and its port, the Peiraeus, rather than. among the farmers
of the country districts. In the 4th century the demagogues, though
under another name, that of orators, have acquired entire control
of the Ecclesia. It is an age of professionalism, and the
professional soldier has his counterpart in the professional
politician. Down to the death of Pericles the party-leader had
always held office as Strategus. His rival, Thucydides, son of
Melesias, forms a solitary exception to this statement. In the 4th
century the
divorce between
the general and the statesman is complete. The generals are
professional soldiers, who aspire to no political influence in the
state, and the statesmen devote themselves exclusively to politics,
a career for which they have prepared themselves by a professional
training in
oratory or
administrative work. The ruin of agriculture during the war had
reduced the old families to insignificance. Birth counts for less
than nothing as a political asset in the age of
Demosthenes.
But great as are the contrasts which have been pointed out
between the earlier and the later democracy, those that distinguish
the ancient conception of democracy from the modern are of a still
more essential nature. The differences that distinguish the
democracies of ancient Greece from those of the modern world have
their origin, to a great extent, in the difference between a
city-state and a nation-state. Many of the most famous Greek states
2 After this date, and partly in consequence of the change, the
archonship, to which sortition was applied, loses its importance.
The
strategi (generals) become the chief executive
officials. As election was never replaced by the lot in their case,
the change had less practical meaning than might appear at first
sight. (See
Archon; ST
Rategus.) had an area of a few square miles; the largest of them
was no larger than an English county. Political theory put the
limit of the citizen-body at Though this number was exceeded in a
few cases, it is doubtful if any state, except Athens, ever counted
more than 20,000 citizens. In the nation-states of modern times,
democratic government is possible only under the form of a
representative system; in the city-state representative government
was unnecessary, and therefore unknown. In the ancient type of
democracy a popular chamber has no existence. The Ecclesia is not a
chamber in any sense of the term; it is an assembly of the whole
people, which every citizen is entitled to attend, and in which
every one is equally entitled to vote and speak. The question
raised in modern political science, as to whether
sovereignty resides in
the electors or their representatives, has thus neither place nor
meaning in ancient theory. In the same way, one of the most
familiar results of modern analysis, the distinction between the
executive and the legislative, finds no recognition in the Greek
writers. In a direct system of government there can be no executive
in the proper sense. Executive functions are discharged by the
ecclesia, to whose decision the details of administration may be
referred. The position of the strategi, the chief officials in the
Athenian democracy of the 5th century, was in no sense comparable
to that of a modern cabinet. Hence the individual citizen in an
ancient democracy was concerned in, and responsible for, the actual
work of government to a degree that is inconceivable in a modern
state. Thus participation in the administrative and judicial
business of the state is made by Aristotle the differentia of the
citizen (1ro%LTYf s
p ETExWV KpLo-Ews Kai apXris, Aristot.
Politics, p. r 2 7 5 a 20). A large proportion of the
citizens of Athens, in addition to frequent service in the courts
of law, must in the course of their lives have held a magistracy,
great or small, or have acted for a year or two as members of the
Boule.' It must be remembered that there was nothing corresponding
to a permanent
civil
service in the ancient state. Much of the work of a government
office would have been transacted by the Athenian Boule. It must be
remembered, too, that political and administrative questions of
great importance came before the popular courts of law. Hence it
follows that the ordinary citizen of an ancient democracy, in the
course of his service in the Boule or the law-courts, acquired an
interest in political questions, and a grasp of administrative
work, which none but a select few can hope to acquire under the
conditions of the modern system. Where there existed neither a
popular chamber nor a distinct executive, there was no opportunity
for the growth of a party-system. There were, of course, political
parties at Athens and elsewhere - oligarchs and democrats,
conservatives and radicals, a peace-party and a war-party,
according to the burning question of the day. There was, however,
nothing equivalent to a general election, to a cabinet (or to that
collective responsibility which is of the essence of a cabinet), or
to the government and the opposition. Party organization,
therefore, and a party system, in the proper sense, were never
developed. Whatever may have been the evils incident to the ancient
form of democracy, the "
boss,"
the
caucus and the
spoils-system were not among them.
Besides these differences, which, directly or indirectly, result
from the difference of scale, there are others, hardly less
profound, which are not connected with the size of the city-state.
Perhaps the most striking contrast between the democracies of
ancient and of modern times is to be found in their attitude
towards privilege. Ancient democracy implies privilege; modern
democracy implies its destruction. In the more fully developed
democracies of the modern world (e.g. in the United States, or in
Australia), the privilege of class is unknown; in some of them
(e.g.
New Zealand,
Australia, Norway) even the privilege of sex has been abolished.
Ancient democracy was bound up with privilege as much as oligarchy
was. The transition from the latter to the former was effected by
enlarging the area of privilege and by altering its basis. In an
oligarchical state citizenship For an estimate of the numbers
annually engaged in the service of Athens, see Aristot.
Ath.
Pol. 2 4.3.
might be confined to io % of the free population; under a
democracy 50% might enjoy it. In the former case the qualification
might be wealth or land; in the latter case it might be, as it was
at Athens, birth,
i.e. descent, on both sides, from a
citizen family. But, in both cases alike, the distinction between a
privileged and an unprivileged body of free-born residents is
fundamental. To the unprivileged class belonged, not only
foreigners temporarily resident (
vot) and aliens
permanently domiciled (
µETOLKot), but also those
native-born inhabitants of the state who were of foreign
extraction, on one side or the other. 2 The privileges attaching to
citizenship included, in addition to eligibility for office and a
vote in the assembly, such private rights as that of owning land or
a house, or of contracting a marriage with one of citizen status.
The citizen, too, was alone the recipient of all the various forms
of pay (e.g. for attendance in the assembly, for service in the
Boule or the law-courts, or for the celebration of the great
festivals) which are so conspicuous a feature in the developed
democracy of the 4th century. The
metoeci could not even
plead in a court of law in person, but only through a patron
(
7rpovrarfls). It is intelligible that privileges so great
should be jealously guarded. In the democracies of the modern world
naturalization
is easy; in those of ancient Greece admission to the franchise was
rarely accorded. In modern times, again,we are accustomed to
connect democracy with the emancipation of women. It is true that
only a few democratic constitutions grant them the suffrage;
of but though, as a rule, they are denied public rights,
women. the growth of popular government has been
almost everywhere accompanied by an extension of their private
rights, and by the removal of the restrictions imposed by law,
custom or public opinion upon their freedom of action. In ancient
Greece the democracies were as illiberal in their policy as the
oligarchies. Women of the respectable class were condemned to
comparative seclusion. They enjoyed far less freedom in 4th-century
Athens than in the Homeric Age. It is not in any of the
democracies, but in conservative Sparta, that they possess
privilege and exercise influence.
The most fundamental of all the contrasts between democracy in
its ancient and in its modern form remains to be stated. The
ancient state was inseparable from slavery. In
slavery.
this respect there was no difference between democracy and the
other forms of government. No inconsistency was felt, therefore,
between this institution and the democratic principle. Modern
political theory has been profoundly affected by the conception of
the dignity of labour; ancient political theory tended to regard
labour as a disqualification for the exercise of political rights.
Where slavery exists, the taint of it will inevitably cling to all
labour that can be performed by the slave. In ancient Athens (which
may be taken as typical of the Greek democracies) unskilled labour
was almost entirely slave-labour, and skilled labour was largely
so. The
arts and
crafts were, to some extent, exercised by citizens, but to a
less extent in the 4th than in the 6th century. They were, however,
chiefly left to aliens or slaves. The citizen-body of Athens in the
age of Demosthenes has been stigmatized as consisting in great
measure of salaried paupers. There is, doubtless, an exaggeration
in this. It is, however, true, both that the system of state-pay
went a long way towards supplying the simple wants of a southern
population, and that a large proportion of the citizens had time to
spare for the service of the state. Had the life of the lower class
of citizens been absorbed in a round of mechanical labours, as
fully as is the life of our industrial classes, the working of an
ancient democracy would have been impossible. In justice to the
ancient democracies it must be conceded that, while popular
government carried with it neither the enfranchisement of the alien
nor the emancipation of the slave, the rights secured to both
classes were more considerable in the democratic states than
elsewhere. The lot of the slave, as well as that of the alien, was
a peculiarly favourable one at Athens. The pseudoXenophon in the
5th century (
De rep. Ath. i. 10-12) and Plato 2 Foreign is
not used here as equivalent to non-Hellenic. It means " belonging
to another state, whether Greek or barbarian." in the 4th
(
Republic, p. 563 B), prove that the spirit of liberty,
with which Athenian life was permeated, was not without its
influence upon the position of these classes. When we read that
critics complained of the opulence of slaves, and of the liberties
they took, and when we are told that the slave could not be
distinguished from the poorer class of citizens either by his
dress or his look, we begin to
realize the difference between the slavery of ancient Athens and
the system as it was worked on the Roman
latifundia or the
plantations of the New World.
It had been anticipated that the fall of Athens would mean the
triumph of the principle of autonomy. If Athens had surrendered
within a year or so of the Sicilian catas trophe, this anticipation
would probably have been fulfilled. It was the last phase of the
struggle (412 404 B.C.) that rendered a Spartan empire inevitable.
The oligarchical governments established by Lysander recognized
that their tenure of power was dependent upon Spartan support,
while Lysander himself, to whose genius, as a political organizer
not less than as a commander, the triumph of Sparta was due, was
unwilling to see his work undone. The Athenian empire had never
included the greater part of Greece proper; since the Thirty Years'
Peace its possessions on the mainland, outside the boundaries of
Attica, were limited to Naupactus and Plataea. Sparta, on the other
hand, attempted the control of the entire Greek world east of the
Adriatic. Athens had been compelled to acknowledge a dual system;
Sparta sought to establish uniformity. The attempt failed from the
first. Within a year of the surrender of Athens, Thebes and Corinth
had drifted into an attitude of opposition, while Argos remained
hostile. It was not long before the policy of Lysander succeeded in
uniting against Sparta the very forces upon which she had relied
when she entered on the Peloponnesian War. The Corinthian War
(394-3 8 7 B.C.) was brought about by the alliance of all the
secondclass powers - Thebes, Athens, Corinth, Argos - against the
one first-class power, Sparta. Though Sparta emerged successful
from the war, it was with the loss of her maritime empire, and at
the cost of recognizing the principle of autonomy as the basis of
the Greek political system. It was already evident, thus early in
the century, that the centrifugal forces were to prove stronger
than the centripetal. Two further causes may be indicated which
help to explain the failure of the Spartan empire. In the first
place Spartan sea-power was an artificial creation. History seems
to show that it is idle for a state to aspire to naval supremacy
unless it possesses a great commercial marine. Athens had possessed
such a marine; her naval supremacy was due not to the mere size of
her fleet, but to the numbers and skill of her seafaring
population. Sparta had no commerce. She could build fleets more
easily than she could man them. A single defeat (at Cnidus, 391
B.C.) sufficed for the ruin of her sea-power. The second cause is
to be found in the financial weakness of the Spartan state. The
Spartan treasury had been temporarily enriched by the spoils of the
Peloponnesian War, but neither during that war, nor afterwards, did
Sparta succeed in developing any scientific financial system.
Athens was the only state which either possessed a large annual
revenue or accumulated a considerable reserve. Under the conditions
of Greek warfare, fleets were more expensive than armies. Not only
was money needed for the building and maintenance of the ships, but
the sailor must be paid, while the soldier served for nothing.
Hence the power with the longest
purse could both build the largest fleet and
attract the most skilful seamen.
The battle of Leuctra transferred the hegemony from Sparta to
Thebes, but the attempt to unite Greece under the leadership of
Thebes was from the first doomed to failure. The conditions were
less favourable to Thebes than they had been to Athens or Sparta.
Thebes was even more exclusively a land-power than Sparta. She had
no revenue comparable to that of Athens in the preceding century.
Unlike Athens and Sparta, she had not the advantage of being
identified with a political cause. As the enemy of Athens in the
5th century, she was on the side of oligarchy; as the rival of
Sparta in the 4th, she was on the side of democracy; but in her bid
for primacy she could not appeal, as Athens and Sparta. could, to a
great political tradition, nor had she behind her, as they had, the
moral force of a great political principle. Her position, too, in
Boeotia itself was insecure. The rise of Athens was in great
measure the result of the
synoecism (vuvoucury63) of
Attica. All inhabitants of Attica were Athenians. But " Boeotian "
and " Theban " were not synonymous terms. The Boeotian league was
an imperfect form of union, as compared with the Athenian state,
and the claim of Thebes to the presidency of the league was, at
best, sullenly acquiesced in by the other towns. The destruction of
some of the most famous of the Boeotian cities, however necessary
it may have been in order to unite the country, was a measure which
't once impaired the resources of Thebes and outraged Greek
sentiment. It has been. often held that the failure of Theban
policy was due to the death of
Epaminondas (at the battle of Mantinea, 362
B. c.). For this view there is no
justification. His policy had proved a
failure before his death. Where it harmonized with the spirit of
the age, the spirit of dissidence, it succeeded; where it
attempted. to run counter to it, it failed. It succeeded in
destroying the supremacy of Sparta in the Peloponnese; it failed to
unite the Peloponnese on a new basis. It failed still more signally
to unite Greece north of the Isthmus. It left Greece weaker and
more divided than it found it (see the concluding words of
Xenophon's.
Hellenics). It would be difficult to
overestimate the importance of his policy as a destructive force;
as a constructive force it effected nothing.' The Peloponnesian
system which Epaminondas overthrew had lasted two hundred years.
Under Spartan leadership the Peloponnese had enjoyed almost
complete
immunity from
invasion and comparative immunity from
stasis (faction).
The claim that Isocrates makes for Sparta is probably well-founded
(
Archidamus,
64-69; during the period of Spartan ascendency the Peloponnesians
were ebbacµovEVTaroe.
TWV `EXX ivcwv). Peloponnesian
sentiment had been one of the chief factors in Greek politics; to
it, indeed, in no small degree was due the victory over Persia. The
Theban victory at Leuctra. destroyed the unity, and with it the
peace and the prosperity, of the Peloponnese. It inaugurated a
period of misery, the natural result of
stasis and
invasion, to which no parallel can be found in the earlier history
(See Isocrates,
Archidamus, 65, 66; the Peloponnesians
were
chµaXwp. voc Tads vvµq50pads). It destroyed, too, the
Peloponnesian sentiment of hostility to the invader. The bulk of
the army that defeated Mardonius at. Plataea came from the
Peloponnese; at Chaeronea no Peloponnesian state was
represented.
The question remains, Why did the city-state fail to save Greece
from conquest by Macedon? Was this result due to the inherent
weakness either of the city-state itself, or of one particular form
of it, democracy? It is clear, in any case, that the triumph of
Macedon was the effect of causes which had long been at work. If
neither Philip nor Alexander had appeared on the scene, Greece
might have maintained her independence for another generation or
two; but, when invasion came, it would have found her weaker and
more distracted, and the conquerors might easily have been less
imbued with the Greek spirit, and less sympathetic towards Greek
ideals, than the great Macedonian and his son. These causes are to
be found in the tendencies of the age, political,, economic and
moral. Of the two movements which characterized. the Great Age in
its political aspect, the imperial and the democratic, the one
failed and the other succeeded. The failure and the success were
equally fatal to the chances of Greece in the conflict with
Macedon. By the middle of the 4th century Greek politics had come
to be dominated by the theory of the
balance of power. This theory,
enunciated in its coarsest form by Demosthenes (
Pro
Megalopolit. 4
ov i l pet rp 7rOXec Kai
AaKeSacµoviovs aodevels
eivac Kai Orl3aiovs; cf.
in
Aristocrat.. 102, 103), had shaped the foreign policy of
Athens since the end of the Peloponnesian War. As long as Sparta
was the stronger,. Athens inclined to a Theban alliance; after
Leuctra she tended in the direction of a Spartan one. At the epoch
of Philip's 1 It failed even to create a united Arcadia or a strong
Messenia.
accession the forces were everywhere nicely balanced. The
Peloponnese was fairly equally divided between the Theban and the
Spartan interests, and central Greece was similarly divided between
the Theban and the Athenian. Farther north we get an Athenian party
opposed to an Olynthian in Chalcidice, and a
republican
party, dependent upon the support of Thebes, opposed to that of
the tyrants in Thessaly. It is easy to see that the political
conditions of Greece, both in the north and in the south, invited
interference from without. And the triumph of democracy in its
extreme form was ruinous to the military efficiency of Greece. On
the one side there was a monarchical state, in which all powers,
civil as well as military, were concentrated in the hands of a
single ruler; on the other, a constitutional system, in which a
complete separation had been effected between the responsibility of
the statesman and that of the commander.' It could not be doubtful
with which side victory would rest. Meanwhile, the economic
conditions were steadily growing worse. The cause which Aristotle
assigns for the decay of the Spartan state - a declining population
(see
Politics, p. 1270 a a reoNfro
n rats TON,
AaKwwacµoviwv
Sca TO ALTavOpwiriav) - might be extended to
the Greek world generally. The loss of population was partly the
resurt of war and stasis - Isocrates speaks of the number of
political exiles from the various states as enormous 2 - but it was
also due to a declining birth-rate, and to the exposure of infants.
Aristotle, while condemning exposure, sanctions the procuring of
abortion (
Politics,
1335 b). It is probable that both ante-
natal and post-natal
infanticide were rife everywhere, except
among the more backward communities. A people which has condemned
itself to racial
suicide can
have little chance when pitted against a nation in which healthier
instincts prevail. The materials for forming a trustworthy estimate
of the population of Greece at any given epoch are not available;
there is enough evidence, however, to prove that the military
population of the leading Greek states at the era of the battle of
Chaeronea (338 B.C.) fell far short of what it had been at the
beginning of the Peloponnesian War. The decline in population had
been accompanied by a decline in wealth, both public and private;
and while revenues had shrunk, expenditure had grown. It was a
century of warfare; and warfare had become enormously more
expensive, partly through the increased employment of mercenaries,
partly through the enhanced cost of material. The power of the
purse had made itself felt even in the 5th century; Persian gold
had helped to decide the issue of the great war. In the politics of
the 4th century the power of the purse becomes the determining
factor. The public finance of the ancient world was singularly
simple in character, and the expedients for raising a revenue were
comparatively few. The distinction between direct and indirect
taxation was recognized in practice, but states as a rule were
reluctant to submit to the former system. The revenue of Athens in
the 5th century was mainly derived from the tribute paid by her
subjects; it was only in time of war that a direct tax was levied
upon the citizen-body. 3 In the age of Demosthenes the revenue
derived from the Athenian Confederacy was insignificant. The whole
burden of the expenses of a
war fell upon the 1200 richest citizens, who were subject to direct
taxation in the dual form of the
Trierarchy and the
Eisphora (property-tax). The revenue thus raised was
wholly insufficient for an effort on a great scale; yet the
revenues of Athens at this period must have exceeded those of any
other state.
It is to moral causes, however, rather than to political or
economic ones, that the failure of Greece in the conflict with
Macedon is attributed by the most famous Greek statesmen of that
age. Demosthenes is never weary of insisting upon the decay of
patriotism among the citizens and upon the decay of probity among
their leaders. Venality had always been the besetting sin of Greek
statesmen. Pericles' boast as to his 1 See Demosthenes, On the
Crown, 235. Philip was airroKphrwp, Secrn-Orfs, i
Kupcos 7raPTwv.
2 See Archidamus, 68; Philippus, 96, wTTE
iov et y m. (rya-ricrac QTpaT67rE301, JLEiTOV KaL
7rXavw,uEVwv 1 EK TWV 7roXtrevo The Liturgies (e.g. the
trierarchy) had much the same effect as a direct tax levied upon
the wealthiest citizens.
own incorruptibility (Thuc. ii. 60) is significant as to the
reputation of his contemporaries. In the age of Demosthenes the
level of public life in this respect had sunk at least as low as
that which prevails in many states of the modern world (see
Demosth.
On the Crown, 61 7rapa
Tois "EAArtmcv,
ov
Tcmiv aXA'
&amc) 6moiws chop& 1rpoSorc7A)
Kai Swpo06Kwv avz fS; cf. §§ 295, 296). Corruption was
certainly not confined to the Macedonian party. The best that can
be said in defence of the patriots, as well as of their opponents,
is that they honestly believed that the policy which they were
bribed to advocate was the best for their country's interests. The
evidence for the general decay of patriotism among the mass of the
citizens is less conclusive. The battle of Megalopolis (33 1 B.C.),
in which the Spartan soldiery " went down in a
blaze of
glory," proves that the spirit of the
Lacedemonian state remained unchanged. But at Athens it seemed to
contemporary observers - to Isocrates equally with Demosthenes -
that the spirit of the great days was extinct (see Isocr.
On
the Peace, 47, 48). It cannot, of course, be denied that
public opinion was obstinately opposed to the diversion of the
Theoric Fund to the purposes of the war with Philip. It was not
till the year before Chaeronea that Demosthenes succeeded in
persuading the assembly to devote the entire surplus to the
expenses of the war.4 Nor can it be denied that mercenaries were
far more largely employed in the 4th century than in the
5th. In justice, however, to the Athenians of the
Demosthenic era, it should be remembered that the burden of direct
taxation was rarely imposed, and was reluctantly endured, in the
previous century. It must also be remembered that, even in the 4th
century, the Athenian citizen was ready to take the field, provided
that it was not a question of a distant expedition or of prolonged
service. 5 For distant expeditions, or for prolonged service, a
citizen-
militia is unsuited.
The substitution of a professional force for an unprofessional one
is to be explained, partly by the change in the character of Greek
warfare, and partly by the operation of the laws of supply and
demand. There had been a time when warfare meant a brief campaign
in the summer months against a neighbouring state. It had come to
mean prolonged operations against a distant enemy. 6 Athens was at
war,
e.g. with Philip, for eleven years continuously
(357-346 B.C.). If winter campaigns in Thrace were unpopular at
this epoch, they had been hardly less unpopular in the epoch of the
Peloponnesian War. In the days of her greatness, too, Athens had
freely employed mercenaries, but it was in the navy rather than the
army. In the age of Pericles the supply of mercenary rowers was
abundant, the supply of mercenary troops inconsiderable. In the age
of Demosthenes incessant warfare and ceaseless revolution had
filled Greece with crowds of homeless adventurers. The supply
helped to create the demand. The mercenary was as cheap as the
citizen-soldier, and much more effective. On the whole, then, it
may be inferred that it is a mistake to regard the prevalence of
the mercenary system as the expression of a declining patriotism.
It would be nearer the mark to treat the transition from the
voluntary to the professional system as cause rather than effect:
as one among the causes which contributed to the decay of public
spirit in the Greek world.
6. From Alexander to the Roman Conquest (336-146
B.C.). - In the history of Greece proper
during this period the interest is mainly constitutional.
It may be called the age of federation. Federation, indeed, was no
novelty in Greece. Federal unions had existed in Thessaly, in
Boeotia and elsewhere, and the Boeotian league can be traced back
at least to the 6th century. Two newly-founded federations, the
Chalcidian and the Arcadian, play no inconsiderable part in the
politics of the 4th century. But it is not till the 3rd century
that federation attains to its full development in Greece, and
becomes the normal type of polity. The two great 4 His extreme
caution in approaching the question at an earlier date is to be
noticed. See, e.g., Olynthiacs, i. 19, 20.
e.g. the two expeditions sent to Euboea, the cavalry
force that took part in the battle of Mantinea, and the army that
fought at Chaeronea. The troops in all these cases were
citizens.
s For the altered character of warfare see Demosthenes,
Philippics, iii. 4
8, 49.
- leagues of this period are the Aetolian and the
Achaean. Both had existed in the 4th century, but the latter, which
had been dissolved shortly before the beginning of the 3rd century,
becomes important only after its restoration in 280 B.C., about
which date the former, too, first begins to attract notice. The
interest of federalism lies in the fact that it marks an advance
beyond the conception of the city-state. It is an attempt to solve
the problem which the Athenian empire failed to solve, the
reconciliation of the claims of local autonomy with those of
national union. The federal leagues of the 3rd century possess a
further interest for the modern world, in that there can be traced
in their constitutions a nearer approach to a representative system
than is found elsewhere in Greek experience. A genuine
representative system, it is true, was never developed in any Greek
polity. What we find in the leagues is a sort of
compromise between the
principle of a primary assembly and the principle of a
representative chamber. In both leagues the nominal sovereign was a
primary assembly, in which every individual citizen had the right
to vote. In both of them, however, the real power lay with a
council (130uXii) composed of members representative of each of the
component states.' The real interest of this period, however, is to
be looked for elsewhere than in Greece itself. Alexander's career
is one of the turning-points in history. He is one of the few to
whom it has been given to modify the whole future of the human
race. He originated two forces which have profoundly affected the
development of civilization. He created Hellenism, and he created
for the western world the monarchical ideal. Greece had produced
personal rulers of ability, or even of genius; but to the greatest
of these, to Peisistratus, to Dionysius, even to
Jason of Pherae, there clung the fatal taint of
illegitimacy. As yet no ruler had succeeded in making the person of
the monarch respectable. Alexander made it sacred. From him is
derived, for the West, that " divinity that doth hedge a king." And
in creating Hellenism he created, for the first time, a common type
of civilization, with a common language, literature and art, as
well as a common form of political organization. In Asia Minor he
was content to reinforce the existing Hellenic elements (cf. the
case of Side,
Arrian,
Anabasis, i. 26.4). In
the rest of the East his instrument of hellenization was the
polis. He is said to have founded no less than seventy
cities, destined to become centres of Greek influence; and the
great majority of these were in lands in which city-life was almost
unknown. In this respect his example was emulated by his
successors. The eastern provinces were soon lost, though Greek
influences lingered on even in Bactrih and across the
Indus. It was only the regions
lying to the west of the
Euphrates that were effectively hellenized,
and the permanence of this result was largely due to the policy of
Rome. But after all deductions have been made, the great fact
remains that for many centuries after Alexander's death Greek was
the language of literature and religion, of commerce and of
administration throughout the Nearer East. Alexander had created a
universal empire as well as a universal culture. His empire
perished at his death, but its central idea survived - that of the
municipal freedom of the Greek
polis within the framework
of an imperial system. Hellenistic civilization may appear
degenerate when compared with Hellenic; when compared with the
civilizations which it superseded in non-Hellenic lands, it marks
an unquestionable advance. (For the history of Greek civilization
in the East, see
Hellenism.) Greece left her mark upon the
civilization of the West as well as upon that of the East, but the
process by which her influence was diffused was essentially
different. In the East Hellenism came in the train of the
conqueror, and Rome was content to build upon the foundations laid
by Alexander. In the West Greek influences were diffused by the
Roman conquest of Greece. It was through the ascendancy which Greek
literature, philosophy and art acquired over the Roman mind that
Greek culture penetrated to the nations of western Europe. The
civilization 1 It is known that the councillors were appointed by
the states in the Aetolian league; it is only surmised in the case
of the Achaean.
of the East remained Greek. The civilization of the West became
and remained Latin, but it was a Latin civilization that was
saturated with Greek influences. The ultimate division, both of the
empire and the church, into two halves, finds its explanation in
this original difference of culture.
Ancient Authorities. - (I.) For the earliest periods of Greek
history, the so-called Minoan and Mycenaean, the evidence is purely
archaeological. It is sufficient here to refer to the article
Aegean
Civilization. For the next period, the Heroic or Homeric Age,
the evidence is derived from the poems of Homer. In any estimate of
the value of these poems as historical evidence, much will depend
upon the view taken of the authorship, age and unity of the poems.
For a full discussion of these questions see
Homer. It cannot be questioned that the poems are
evidence for the existence of a period in the history of the Greek
race, which differed from later periods in political and social,
military and economic conditions. But here agreement ends. If, as
is generally held by German critics, the poems are not earlier than
the 9th century, if they contain large interpolations of
considerably later date and if they are Ionian in origin, the
authority of the poems becomes comparatively slight. The existence
of different strata in the poems will imply the existence of
inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence; nor will the
evidence be that of a contemporary. It will also follow that the
picture of the heroic age contained in the poems is an idealized
one. The more extreme critics,
e.g. Beloch, deny that the
poems are evidence even for the existence of a pre-Dorian epoch.
If, on the other hand, the poems are assigned to the 11th or 12th
century, to a Peloponnesian writer, and to a period anterior to the
Dorian Invasion and the colonization of Asia Minor (this is the
view of the late Dr D. B. Munro), the evidence becomes that of a
contemporary, and the authority of the poems for the distribution
of races and tribes in the Heroic Age, as well as for the social
and political conditions of the poet's time, would be conclusive.
Homer recognizes no Dorians in Greece, except in Crete (see
Odyssey, xix. 177), and no Greek colonies in Asia Minor.
Only two explanations are possible. Either there is deliberate
archaism in the poems, or
else they are earlier in date than the Dorian Invasion and the
colonization of Asia Minor.
II. For the period that extends from the end of the Heroic Age
to the end of the Peloponnesian War e the two principal authorities
are Herodotus and Thucydides. Not only have the other historical
works which treated of this period perished (those at least whose
date is earlier than the Christian era), but their authority was
secondary and their material chiefly derived from these two
writers. In one respect then this period of Greek history stands
alone. Indeed, it might be said, with hardly an exaggeration, that
there is nothing like it elsewhere in history. Almost our sole
authorities are two writers of unique genius, and they are writers
whose works have come down to us intact. For the period which ends
with the repulse of the Persian invasion our authority is
Herodotus. For the period which extends from 478 to 411 we are
dependent upon Thucydides'. In each case, however, a distinction
must be drawn. The Persian Wars form the proper subject of
Herodotus's work; the Peloponnesian War is the subject of
Thucydides. The' interval between the two wars is merely sketched
by Thucydides; while of the period anterior to the conflicts of the
Greek with the Persian, Herodotus does not attempt either a
complete or a continuous narrative. His references to it are
episodical and accidental. Hence our knowledge of the Persian Wars
and of the Peloponnesian War is widely different in character from
our knowledge of the rest of this period. In the history of these
wars the lacunae are few; in the rest of the history they
are alike frequent and serious. In the history, therefore, of the
Persian and Peloponnesian Wars little is to be learnt from the
secondary sources. Elsewhere, especially in the interval between
the two wars, they become relatively important.
In estimating the authority of Herodotus (q.v.) we must be
Strictly speaking, to 411 B.C. For the last
seven years
of the war our principal authority is Xenophon,
Hellenica, i.,
ii. careful to distinguish between the invasion of Xerxes and
all that is earlier. Herodotus's work was published soon after 43 o
B.C.,
i.e. about half a century after the invasion. Much
of his information was gathered in the course of the preceding
twenty years. Although his evidence is not that of an eye-witness,
he had had opportunities of meeting those who had themselves played
a part in the war, on one side or the other (e.g. Thersander of
Orchomenos, ix. 16). In any case, we are dealing with a tradition
which is little more than a generation old, and the events to which
the tradition relates, the incidents of the struggle against
Xerxes, were of a nature to impress themselves indelibly upon the
minds of contemporaries. Where, on the other hand, he is treating
of the period anterior to the invasion of Xerxes, he is dependent
upon a tradition which is never less than two generations old, and
is sometimes centuries old. His informants were, at best, the sons
or grandsons of the actors in the wars (e.g. Archias the Spartan,
iii. 55). Moreover, the invasion of Xerxes, entailing, as it did,
the destruction of cities and sanctuaries, especially of Athens and
its temples, marks a dividing line in Greek history. It was not
merely that evidence perished and records were destroyed. What in
reference to tradition is even more important, a new consciousness
of power was awakened, new interests were aroused, and new
questions and problems came to the front. The former things had
passed away; all things were become new. A generation that is
occupied with making history on a great scale is not likely to busy
itself with the history of the past. Consequently, the earlier
traditions became faint and obscured, and the history difficult to
reconstruct. As we trace back the conflict between Greece and
Persia to its beginnings and antecedents, we are conscious that the
tradition becomes less trustworthy as we pass back from one stage
to another. The tradition of the expedition of Datis and
Artaphernes is less credible in its details than that of the
expedition of Xerxes, but it is at once fuller and more credible
than the tradition of the Ionian revolt. When we get back to the
Scythian expedition, we can discover but few grains of historical
truth.
Much recent criticism of Herodotus has been directed against his
veracity as a traveller. With this we are not here concerned. The
criticism of him as an historian begins with Thucydides. Among the
references of the latter writer to his predecessor are the
following passages: i. 21; i. 22
ad fin.; i. 20
ad
fin. (cf. Herod. ix. 53, and vi. 57
ad fin.); iii. 62
§ 4 (cf. Herod. ix. 87); ii. 2 §§ 1 and 3 (cf. Herod. vii. 233);
ii. 8 § 3 (cf. Herod. vi. 98). Perhaps the two clearest examples of
this criticism are to be found in Thucydides' correction of
Herodotus's account of the Cylonian
conspiracy (Thuc. i. 126, cf. Herod. v. 71)
and in his appreciation of the character of Themistocles - a veiled
protest against the slanderous tales accepted by Herodotus (i.
138). In Plutarch's tract " On the Malignity of Herodotus " there
is much that is suggestive, although his general standpoint, viz,
that Herodotus was in duty bound to suppress all that was
discreditable to the valour or patriotism of the Greeks, is not
that of the modern critic. It must be conceded to Plutarch that he
makes good his charge of
bias in
Herodotus's attitude towards certain of the Greek states. The
question, however, may fairly be asked, how far this bias is
personal to the author, or how far it is due to the character of
the sources from which his information was derived. He cannot,
indeed, altogether be acquitted of personal bias. His work is, to
some extent, intended as an
apologia for the Athenian
empire. In answer to the charge that Athens was guilty of robbing
other Greek states of their freedom, Herodotus seeks to show,
firstly, that it was to Athens that the Greek world, as a whole,
owed its freedom from Persia, and secondly, that the subjects of
Athens, the Ionian Greeks, were unworthy to be free. This leads him
to be unjust both to the services of Sparta and to the qualities of
the Ionian race. For his estimate of the debt due to Athens see
vii. 139. For bias against the Ionians see especially iv. 142 (cf.
Thuc. vi. 77); cf. also i. 143 and 146, vi. 12-14 (Lade), vi. 112
ad fin. A striking example of his prejudice in favour of
Athens is furnished by vi. 91. At a moment when Greece rang with
the crime of Athens in expelling the Aeginetans from their island,
he ventures to trace in their
expulsion the vengeance of
heaven for an act of
sacrilege nearly sixty years earlier (see
Aegina). As a rule, however, the
bias apparent in his narrative is due to the sources from which it
is derived. Writing at Athens, in the first years of the
Peloponnesian War, he can hardly help seeing the past through an
Athenian medium. It was inevitable that much of what he heard
should come to him from Athenian informants, and should be coloured
by Athenian prejudices. We may thus explain the leniency which he
shows towards Argos and Thessaly, the old allies of Athens, in
marked contrast to his treatment of Thebes, Corinth and Aegina, her
deadliest foes. For Argos cf. vii. 152; Thessaly, vii. 172-174;
Thebes, vii. 132, vii. 233, ix. 87; Corinth (especially the
Corinthian general Adeimantus, whose son Aristeus was the most
active enemy of Athens at the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War),
vii. 5, vii. 21, viii. 29 and 61, vii. 94; Aegina, ix. 78-80 and
85. In his intimacy with members of the great Alcmaeonid house we
probably have the explanation of his depreciation of the services
of Themistocles, as well as of his defence of the family from the
charges brought against it in connexion with Cylon and with the
incident of the shield shown on Pentelicus at the time of Marathon
(v. 71, vi. 121-124). His failure to do justice to the Cypselid
tyrants of Corinth (v. 92), and to the Spartan king
Cleomenes, is to be
accounted for by the nature of his sources - in the former case,
the tradition of the Corinthian oligarchy; in the latter, accounts,
partly derived from the family of the exiled king
Demaratus and partly
representative of the view of the ephorate. Much of the earlier
history is cast in a religious
mould,
e.g. the story of the Mermnad
kings of Lydia in book i., or of the fortunes of the colony of
Cyrene (iv. 145-167). In such cases we cannot fail to recognize the
influence of the Delphic priesthood. Grote has pointed out that the
moralizing tendency observable in Herodotus is partly to be
explained by the fact that much of his information was gathered
from priests and at temples, and that it was given in explanation
of votive offerings, or of the fulfilment of oracles. Hence the
determination of the sources of his narrative has become one of the
principal tasks of Herodotean criticism. addition to the current
tradition of Athens, the family tradition of the
Alcmaeonidae, and the
stories to be heard at
Delphi
and other sanctuaries, there may be indicated the Spartan
tradition, in the form in which it existed in the middle of the 5th
century; that of his native Halicarnassus, to which is due the
prominence of its queen
Artemisia; the traditions of the Ionian
cities, especially of Samos and Miletus (important both for the
history of the Mermnadae and for the Ionian Revolt); and those
current in Sicily and Magna Graecia, which were learned during his
residence at
Thurii (Sybaris
and Croton, V. 44, 45; Syracuse and
Gela, vii. 153-167). Among his more special
sources we can point to the descendants of Demaratus, who still
held, at the beginning of the 4th century, the principality in the
Troad which had been granted to their ancestor by Darius (Xen.
Hell. iii. 1.6), and to
the family of the Persian general Artabazus, in which the satrapy
of Dascylium (Phrygia) was hereditary in the 5th century.' His use
of written material is more difficult to determine. It is generally
agreed that the list of Persian satrapies, with their respective
assessments of tribute (iii. 89-97), the description of the royal
road from
Sardis to
Susa (v. 52-54), and of the march of
Xerxes, together with the list of the contingents that took part in
the expedition (vii. 26-13 I), -are all derived from documentary
and authoritative sources. From previous writers (e.g. Dionysius of
Miletus, Hecataeus,
Charon of
Lampsacus and
Xanthus the Lydian) it is
probable that he has borrowed little, though the fragments are too
scanty to permit of adequate comparison. His references to
monuments, dedicatory offerings, inscriptions and oracles are
frequent.
The chief defects of Herodotus are his failure too grasp the
principles of historical criticism, to understand the nature of
military operations, and to appreciate the importance of 1 Possibly
some of his information about Persian affairs may have been
derived, at first or second hand, from Zopyrus, son of M egabyzus%
whose flight to Athens is mentioned in iii. 160.
chronology. In
place of historical criticism we find a crude
rationalism (e.g. ii.
45, vii. 129, viii. 8). Having no conception of the distinction
between occasion and cause, he is content to find the explanation
of great historical movements in trivial incidents or personal
motives. An example of this is furnished by his account of the
Ionian revolt, in which he fails to discover the real causes either
of the movement or of its result. Indeed, it is clear that he
regarded criticism as no part of his task as an historian. In vii.
152 he states the principles which have guided him - hfeo Xe
yew T a X€ y6 eva, ire/Bea-
Oat rye µEv oU
7ravr61rart
6g5e1Xw,
Kai µOa '7
roS
Exetw
76 y ra Al yov. In obedience to this principle he
again and again gives two or more versions of a story. We are thus
frequently enabled to arrive at the truth by a comparison of the
discrepant traditions. It would have been fortunate if all ancient
writers who lacked the critical genius of Thucydides had been
content to adopt the practice of Herodotus. His accounts of battles
are always unsatisfactory. The great battles, Marathon,
Thermopylae, Salamis and Plataea, present a series of problems.
This result is partly due to the character of the traditions which
he follows - traditions which were to some extent inconsistent or
contradictory, and were derived from different sources; it is,
however, in great measure due to his inability to think out a
strategical combination or a tactical movement. It is not too much
to say that the battle of Plataea, as described by Herodotus, is
wholly unintelligible. Most serious of all his deficiencies is his
careless chronology. Even in the case of the 5th century, the data
which he affords are inadequate or ambiguous. The interval between
the Scythian expedition and the Ionian revolt is described by so
vague an expression as j eTa SE ou 7roXX6v
Xpovov iv& rt
KaK(v 'iv (v. 28). In the history of the revolt itself, though
he gives us the interval between its outbreak and the fall of
Miletus
g vi. 18), he does not give us the interval
between this and the battle of Lade, nor does he indicate with
sufficient precision the years to which the successive phases of
the movement belong. Throughout the work professed synchronisms too
often prove to be mere literary devices for facilitating a
transition from one subject to another (cf.
e.g. v. 81 with 89, 90; or vi. 51 with 87
and 94). In the 6th century, as Grote pointed out, a whole
generation, or more, disappears in his historical perspective (cf.
i. 30, vi. 125, v. 94, iii. 47, 48, v. 113 contrasted with v. 104
and iv. 162). The attempts to reconstruct the chronology of this
century upon the basis of the data afforded by Herodotus (e.g. by
Beloch,
Rheinisches Museum, xlv., 1890, pp. 4 6 5-473)
have completely failed.
In spite of all such defects Herodotus is an author, not only of
unrivalled literary charm, but of the utmost value to the
historian. If much remains uncertain or obscure, even in the
history of the Persian Wars, it is chiefly to motives or policy, to
topography or
strategy, to
dates or numbers, that uncertainty attaches. It is to these that a
sober criticism will confine itself. Thucydides is at once the
father of contemporary history and the father of historical
criticism. From a comparison of i. 1, i. 22 and v. 26, we may
gather both the principles to which he adhered in the composition
of his work and the conditions under which it was composed. It is
seldom that the circumstances of an historical writer have been so
favourable for the accomplishment of his task. Thucydides was a
contemporary of the Twenty-Seven Years' War in the fullest sense of
the term. He had reached manhood at its outbreak, and he survived
its close by at least half-a-dozen years. And he was more than a
mere contemporary. As a man of high birth, a member of the
Periclean circle, and the holder of the chief political office in
the Athenian state, the
strategic, he was not only
familiar with the business of administration and the conduct of
military operations, but he possessed in addition a personal
knowledge of those who played the principal part in the political
life of the age. His exile in the year 424 afforded him
opportunities of visiting the scenes of distant operations (e.g.
Sicily) and of coming in contact with the actors on the other side.
He himself tells us that he spared no pains to obtain the best
information available in each case. He also tells us that he began
collecting materials for his work from the very beginning of the
war. Indeed, it is probable that much of books i. - v. 24 was
written soon after the Peace of
Nicias (421), just as it is possible that the
history of the Sicilian Expedition (books vi. and vii.) was
originally intended to form a separate work. To the view, however,
which has obtained wide support in recent years, that books i. - v.
22 and books vi. and vii. were separately published, the rest of
book v. and book viii. being little more than a rough
draught, composed after the
author had adopted the theory of a single war of twenty-seven
years' duration, of which the Sicilian Expedition and the
operations of the years 431-421 formed integral parts, there seem
to the present writer to be insuperable objections. The work, as a
whole, appears to have been composed in the first years of the 4th
century, after his return from exile in 404, when the material
already in existence must have been revised and largely recast.
There are exceedingly few passages, such as iv. 48.5, which appear
to have been overlooked in the process of revision. It can hardly
be questioned that the impression left upon the reader's mind is
that the point of view of the author, in all the books alike, is
that of one writing after the fall of Athens.
The task of historical criticism in the case of the
Peloponnesian War is widely different from its task in the case of
the Persian Wars. It has to deal, not with facts as they appear in
the traditions of an imaginative race, but with facts as they
appeared to a scientific observer. Facts, indeed, are seldom in
dispute. The question is rather whether facts of importance are
omitted, whether the explanation of causes is correct, or whether
the judgment of men and measures is just. Such inaccuracies as have
been brought home to Thucydides on the strength,
e.g. of
epigraphic evidence, are, as a rule, trivial. His most serious
errors relate to topographical details, in cases where he was
dependent on the information of others. Sphacteria (see PYLos) (see
G. B. Grundy,
Journal of Hellenic Studies, xvi., 1896, p.
1) is a case in point. Nor have the difficulties connected with the
siege of Plataea been cleared up either by Grundy or by others (see
Grundy,
Topography of the Battle of Plataea, &c.,
1894). Where, on the contrary, he is writing at first hand his
descriptions of sites are surprisingly correct. The most serious
charge as yet brought against his authority as to matters of fact
relates to his account of the Revolution of the Four Hundred, which
appears, at first sight, to be inconsistent with the documentary
evidence supplied by Aristotle's
Constitution of Athens. It
may be questioned, however, whether the documents have been
correctly interpreted by Aristotle. On the whole, it is probable
that the general course of events was such as Thucydides describes
(see E. Meyer,
Forschungen, ii. 406-436), though he failed
to appreciate the position of
Theramenes and the Moderate party, and was
clearly misinformed on some important points of detail. With regard
to the omission of facts, it is unquestionable that much is omitted
that would not be omitted by a modern writer. Such omissions are
generally due to the author's 'conception of his task. Thus the
internal history of Athens is passed over as forming no part of the
history of the war. It is only where the course of the war is
directly affected by the course of political events (e.g. by the
Revolution of the Four Hundred) that the internal history is
referred to. However much it may be regretted that the relations of
political parties are not more fully described, especially in book
v., it cannot be denied that from his standpoint there is logical
justification even for the omission of the
ostracism of Hyperbolus. There are omissions,
however, which are not so easily explained. Perhaps the most
notable instance is that of the raising of the tribute in 425 B.C.
(see
Delian
League).
Nowhere is the contrast between the historical methods of
Herodotus and Thucydides more apparent than in the treatment of the
causes of events. The distinction between the occasion and the
cause is constantly present to the mind of Thucydides, and it is
his tendency to make too little rather than too much of the
personal factor. Sometimes, however, it may be doubted whether his
explanation of the causes of an event is adequate or correct. In
tracing the causes of the Peloponnesian War itself,
Thucydides. modern writers are disposed to allow more
weight to the commercial rivalry of Corinth; while in the case of
the Sicilian expedition, they would actually reverse his judgment
(ii. 65 '
Es ' IcKEXiav 7rAovs
6s ou To(Toirrov y
vegzns a / 2 pT?µa rev g ran o& Eir11ecav). To us it seems that
the very idea of the expedition implied a gigantic miscalculation
of the resources of Athens and of the difficulty of the task. His
judgments of men and of measures have been criticized by writers of
different schools and from different points of view. Grote
criticized his
verdict upon
Cleon, while he accepted his estimate of the policy of Pericles.
More recent writers, on the other hand, have accepted his view of
Cleon, while they have selected for attack his appreciation alike
of the policy and the strategy of Pericles. He has been charged,
too, with failure to do justice to the statesmanship of
Alcibiades.' There are
cases, undoubtedly, in which the balance of recent opinion will be
adverse to the view of Thucydides. There are many more in which the
result of criticism has been to establish his view. That he should
occasionally have been mistaken in his judgment and his views is
certainly no detraction from his claim to greatness.
On the whole, it may be said that while the criticism of
Herodotus, since Grote wrote, has tended seriously to modify our
view of the Persian Wars, as well as of the earlier history, the
criticism of Thucydides, in spite of its imposing bulk, has
affected but slightly our view of the course of the Peloponnesian
War. The labours of recent workers in this field have borne most
fruit where they have been directed to subjects neglected by
Thucydides, such as the history of political parties, or the
organization of the empire (G. Gilbert's Innere Geschichte
Athens im Zeitalter des pel. Krieges is a good example of such
work).
In regard to Thucydides' treatment of the period between the
Persian and Peloponnesian Wars (the so-called
Pentecontaeteris) it should be remembered that he does not
profess to give, even in outline, the history of this period as a
whole. The period is regarded simply as a prelude to the
Peloponnesian War. There is no attempt to sketch the history of the
Greek world or of Greece proper during this period. There is,
indeed, no attempt to give a complete sketch of Athenian history.
His object is to trace the growth of the Athenian Empire, and the
causes that made the war inevitable. Much is therefore omitted not
only in the history of the other Greek states, especially the
Peloponnesian, but even in the history of Athens. Nor does
Thucydides attempt an exact chronology. He gives us a few dates
(e.g. surrender of Ithome, in the tenth year, i. 103; of
Thasos, in the third year, i.
tor; duration of the Egyptian expedition six years, i. fro;
interval between Tanagra and Oenophyta 61 days, i. rob; revolt of
Samos, in the sixth year after the Thirty Years' Truce, i. rr5),
but from these data alone it would be impossible to reconstruct the
chronology of the period. In spite of all that can be gleaned from
our other authorities, our knowledge of this, the true period of
Athenian greatness, must remain slight and imperfect as compared
with our knowledge of the next thirty years.
Of the secondary authorities for this period the two principal
ones are Diodorus (xi. 3 8 to xii. 37) and Plutarch. Diodorus is of
value chiefly in relation to Sicilian affairs, to which .
he devotes about a third of this section of his work and for
which he is almost our sole authority. His source for Sicilian
history is the Sicilian writer
Timaeus, an author of the 3 rd century B.C. For
the history of Greece Proper during the Pentecontaetia Diodorus
contributes comparatively little of importance. Isolated notices of
particular events (e.g. the
Synoecism of Elis, 471 B.C.,
or the foundation of
Amphipolis, 437 B.C.), which appear to be
derived from a chronological writer, may generally be trusted. The
greater part of his narrative is, however, derived from
Ephorus, who appears to have
had before him little
authentic information for this period of
Greek history other than that afforded by Thucydides' work. Four of
Plutatch's
Lives are concerned with this period, viz.
Themistocles, Aristides, Cimon and
Pericles.
From the
Aristides little can 'For a defence of
Thucydides' judgment on all three statesmen, see E. Meyer,
Forschungen, ii. 296-379.
be gained. Plutarch, in this biography, appears to be mainly
dependent upon
Idomeneus
of Lampsacus, an excessively untrustworthy writer of the 3 rd
century B.C., who is probably to be credited with the invention of
the oligarchical conspiracy at the time of the battle of Plataea
(ch. 13), and of the decree of Aristides, rendering all four
classes of citizens eligible for the archonship (ch. 22). The
Cimon, on the other hand, contains much that is valuable;
such as,
e.g. the account of the battle of the
Eurymedon (chs. 12 and 13).
To the
Pericles we owe several quotations from the Old
Comedy. Two other of the
Lives, Lycurgus
and
Solon, are amongst our most important sources for the
early history of Sparta and Athens respectively. Of the two
(besides
Pericles) which relate to the Peloponnesian War,
Alcibiades adds little to what can be gained from
Thucydides and Xenophon; the
Nicias, on the other hand,
supplements Thucydides' narrative of the Sicilian expedition with
many valuable details, which, it may safely be assumed, are derived
from the contemporary historian,
Philistus of Syracuse. Amongst the most
valuable material afforded by Plutarch are the quotations, which
occur in almost all the
Lives, from the collection of
Athenian decrees Ofir t c4cayarw.wv
vvva-yo yi) formed by
the Macedonian writer Craterus, in the 3rd century B.C. Two other
works may be mentioned in connexion with the history of Athens. For
the history of the Athenian Constitution down to the end of the 5th
century B.C. Aristotle's
Constitution of Athens (q.v.) is
our chief authority.
The other Constitution of Athens, erroneously
attributed to Xenophon, a tract of singular interest both on
literary and historical grounds, throws a good deal of light on the
internal condition of Athens, and on the system of government, both
of the state and of the empire, in the age of the Peloponnesian
War, during the earlier years of which it was composed.
To the literary sources for the history of Greece, especially of
Athens, in the 5th century B.C. must be added the epigraphic. Few
inscriptions have been discovered which date back beyond the
Persian Wars. For the latter half y of the 5th century they are
both numerous and im portant. Of especial value are the series of
Quota-lists, from which can be calculated the amount of tribute
paid by the subject-allies of Athens from the year 454 B.C.
onwards. The great majority of the inscriptions of this period are
of Athenian origin. Their value is enhanced by the fact that they
relate, as a rule, to questions of organization, finance and
administration, as to which little information is to be gained from
the literary sources.
For the period between the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars
Busolt, Griechische Geschichte, iii. r, is indispensable.
Hill's Sources of Greek History, B.C. 47 8 -43 1 (Oxford,
1897) is excellent. It gives the most important inscriptions in a
convenient form.
III.
The 4th Century to the Death of Alexander. - Of
the historians who flourished in the 4th century the sole writer
whose works have come down to us Xenophon. It is a singular
accident of fortune that neither of the two authors, who at once
were most representative of their age and did most to determine the
views of Greek history current in subsequent generations, Ephorus
(q.v.) and
Theopompus,
should be extant. It was from them, rather than from Herodotus,
Thucydides or Xenophon that the Roman world obtained its knowledge
of the history of Greece in the past, and its conception of its
significance. Both were pupils of Isocrates, and both, therefore,
bred up in an
atmosphere of
rhetoric. Hence their popularity and their
influence. The scientific spirit of Thucydides was alien to the
temper of the 4 th century, and
hardly more congenial to the age of
Cicero or Tacitus. To the rhetorical spirit,
which is common to both, each added defects peculiar to himself.
Theo - pompus is a strong
partisan, a sworn foe to Athens and to
Democracy. Ephorus, though a military historian, is ignorant of the
art of war. He is also incredibly careless and uncritical. It is
enough to point to his description of the battle of the Eurymedon
(Diodorus xi. 60-62), in which, misled by an
epigram, which he supposed to relate to this
engagement (it really refers to the Athenian victory off Salamis in
Cyprus, 449 B.C.), he xii. 15 a makes the coast of Cyprus the scene
of Cimon's naval victory, and finds no difficulty in putting it on
the same day as the victory on shore on the banks of the Eurymedon,
in
Pamphylia. Only a few
fragments remain of either writer, but Theopompus (q.v.) was
largely used by Plutarch in several of the
Lives, while
Ephorus continues to be the main source of Diodorus' history, as
far as the outbreak of the Sacred War (Fragments of Ephorus in
Miiller's
Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum, vol. i.; of
Theopompus in
Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, cum Theopompi et Cratippi
fragmentis, ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, 1909).
It may be at least claimed for Xenophon (q.v.) that he is free
from all taint of the rhetorical spirit. It may also be claimed for
him that, as a witness, he is both honest and well-informed. But,
if there is no justification for the charge of deliberate
falsification, it cannot be denied that he had strong political
prejudices, and that his narrative has suffered from them. His
historical writings are the
Anabasis, an account of the
expedition of the Ten Thousand, the
Hellenica and the
Agesilaus, a eulogy of the Spartan king. Of these the
Hellenica is far the most important for the student of
history. It consists of two distinct parts (though there is no
ground for the theory that the two parts were separately written
and published), books i. and ii., and books iii. to vii. The first
two books are intended as a continuation of Thucydides' work. They
begin, quite abruptly, in the middle of the
Attic year 411/10, and they carry the history
down to the fall of the Thirty, in 403. Books iii. to vii., the
Hellenica proper, cover the period from 401 to 362, and
give the histories of the Spartan and Theban hegemonies down to the
death of Epaminondas. There is thus a gap of two years between the
point at which the first part ends and that at which the second
part begins. The two parts differ widely, both in their aim and in
the arrangement of the material. In the first part Xenophon
attempts, though not with complete success, to follow the
chronological method of Thucydides, and to make each successive
spring, when military and naval operations were resumed after the
winter's interruption, the starting-point of a fresh section. The
resemblance between the two writers ends, however, with the outward
form of the narrative. All that is characteristic of Thucydides is
absent in Xenophon. The latter writer shows neither skill in
portraiture, nor
insight into motives. He is deficient in the sense of proportion
and of the distinction between occasion and cause. Perhaps his
worst
fault is a lack of
imagination. To make a story intelligible it is necessary sometimes
to put oneself in the reader's place, and to appreciate his
ignorance of circumstances and events which would be perfectly
familiar to the actors in the scene or to contemporaries. It was
not given to Xenophon, as it was to Thucydides, to discriminate
between the circumstances that are essential and those that are not
essential to the comprehension of the story. In spite, therefore,
of its wealth of detail, his narrative is frequently obscure. It is
quite clear that in the trial of the generals, e.g., something is
omitted. It may be supplied as Diodorus has supplied it (xiii.
'or), or it may be supplied otherwise. It is probable that, when
under crossexamination before the council, the generals, or some of
them, disclosed the commission given to Theramenes and Thrasybulus.
The important point is that Xenophon himself has omitted to supply
it. As it stands his narrative is unintelligible. In the first two
books, though there are omissions (e.g. the loss of Nisaea, 409
B.C.), they are not so serious as in the last five, nor is the bias
so evident. It is true that if the account of the rule of the
Thirty given in Aristotle's
Constitution of Athens be
accepted, Xenophon must have deliberately misrepresented the course
of events to the prejudice of Theramenes. But it is at least
doubtful whether Aristotle's version can be sustained against
Xenophon's, though it may be admitted, not only that there are
mistakes as to details in the latter writer's narrative, but that
less than justice is done to the policy and motives of the "
Buskin." The
Hellenica
was written, it should be remembered, at Corinth, after 362. More
than forty years had thus elapsed since the events recorded in the
first two books, and after so long an interval accuracy of detail,
even where the detail is of importance, is not always to be
expected.' In the second part the chronological method is
abandoned. A subject once begun is followed out to its natural
ending, so that sections of the narrative which are consecutive in
order are frequently parallel in point of date. A good example of
this will be found in book iv. In chapters 2 to 7 the history of
the Corinthian war is carried down to the end of 390, so far as the
operations on land are concerned, while chapter 8 contains an
account of the naval operations from 394 to 388. In this second
part of the
Hellenica the author's disqualifications for
his task are more apparent than in the first two books. The more he
is acquitted of bias in his selection of events and in his
omissions, the more clearly does he stand convicted of lacking all
sense of the proportion of things. Down to Leuctra (371 B.C.)
Sparta is the centre of interest, and it is of the Spartan state
alone that a complete or continuous history is given. After
Leuctra, if the point of view is no longer exclusively Spartan, the
' narrative of events is hardly less incomplete. Throughout the
second part of the
Hellenica omissions abound which it is
difficult either to explain or justify. The formation of the Second
Athenian Confederacy of 377 B.C., the foundation of Megalopolis and
the restoration of the Messenian state are all left unrecorded. Yet
the writer who passes them over without mention thinks it worth
while to devote more than one-sixth of an entire book to a
chronicle of the unimportant feats of the citizens of the petty
state of Phlius. Nor is any attempt made to appraise the policy of
the great Theban leaders,
Pelopidas and Epaminondas. The former,
indeed, is mentioned only in a single passage, relating to the
embassy to Susa in 368; the
latter does not appear on the scene till a year later, and receives
mention but twice before the battle of Mantinea. An author who
omits from his narrative some of the most important events of his
period, and elaborates the portraiture of an Agesilaus while not
attempting the bare outline of an Epaminondas, may be honest; he
may even write without a consciousness of bias; he certainly cannot
rank among the great writers of history.' For the history of the
4th century Diodorus assumes a higher degree of importance than
belongs to him in the earlier periods. This is partly to be
explained by the deficiencies of Xenophon's
Hellenica,
partly by the fact that for the interval between the death of
Epaminondas and the accession of Alexander we have in Diodorus
alone a continuous narrative of events. Books xiv. and xv. of his
history include the period covered by the
Hellenica. More
than half of book xiv. is devoted to the history of Sicily and the
reign of Dionysius, the tyrant of Syracuse. For this period of
Sicilian history he is, practically, our sole authority. In the
rest of the book, as well as in book xv., there is much of value,
especially in the notices of Macedonian history. Thanks to Diodorus
we are enabled to supply many of the omissions of the
Hellenica. Diodorus is, e.g., our sole literary authority
for the Athenian naval confederation of 377. Book xvi. must rank,
with the
Hellenica and Arrian's
Anabasis, as one
of the three principal authorities for this century, so far, at
least, as works of an historical character are concerned. It is our
authority for the Social and the Sacred Wars, as well as for the
reign of Philip. It is a curious
irony of fate that, for what is perhaps the most
momentous epoch in the history of Greece, we should have to turn to
a writer of such inferior capacity. For this period his material is
better and his importance greater: his intelligence is as limited
as ever. Who but Diodorus would be capable of narrating the siege
and capture of Methone twice over, once under the year 354, and
again under the year 352 (xvi.
31 and 34; cf. xii. 35 and
42; Archidamus (q.v.) dies in 434, commands Peloponnesian army in
431); or of giving three different numbers of years (eleven, ten
and nine) in three different passages (chs. 14, 23 and J9) for the
length of the 1 On the discrepancies between Xenophon's account of
the Thirty, and Aristotle's, see G. Busolt,
Hermes (1898), pp. 71-86.
The fragment of the New Historian (
Oxyrhynchus Papyri,
vol. v.) affords exceedingly important material for the criticism
of Xenophon's narrative. (See
Theopompus.) Sacred War; or of asserting the
conclusion of peace between Athens and Philip in 340, after the
failure of his attack on
Perinthus and Byzantium? Amongst the subjects
which are omitted is the Peace of Philocrates. For the earlier
chapters, which bring the narrative down to the outbreak of the
Sacred War, Ephorus, as in the previous book, is Diodorus' main
source. His source for the rest of the book,
i.e. for the
greater part of Philip's reign, cannot be determined. It is
generally agreed that it is not the
Philippica of
Theopompus.
For the reign of Alexander our earliest extant authority is
Diodorus, who belongs to the age of Augustus. Of the others,
H Q.
Curtius Rufus, who wrote in
Latin, lived in the
of Alex= reign of the
emperor Claudius,
Arrian and Plutarch
ander's in the 2nd century A.D. Yet
Alexander's reign is
reign' one of the best known periods
of ancient history. The Peloponnesian War and the twenty years of
Roman history which begin with 63 B.C. are the only two periods
which we can be said to know more fully or for which we have more
trustworthy evidence. For there is no period of ancient history
which was recorded by a larger number of contemporary writers, or
for which better or more abundant materials were available. Of the
writers actually contemporary with Alexander there were five of
importance -
Ptolemy,
Aristobulus,
Callisthenes,
Onesicritus and
Nearchus; and all of them
occupied positions which afforded exceptional opportunities of
ascertaining the facts. Four of them were officers in Alexander's
service. Ptolemy, the future king of Egypt, was one of the
somatophylaces (we may, perhaps, regard them as
corresponding to Napoleon's marshals); Aristobulus was also an
officer of high rank (see Arrian,
Anab. vi. 29. io);
Nearchus was admiral of the fleet which surveyed the Indus and the
Persian Gulf, and Onesicritus was one of his subordinates. The
fifth, Callisthenes, a pupil of Aristotle, accompanied Alexander on
his march down to his death in 327 and was admitted to the circle
of his intimate friends. A sixth historian,
Cleitarchus, was possibly also a
contemporary; at any rate he is not more than a generation later.
These writers had at their command a mass of official documents,
such as the (3aviXaoc EainµepiSEs - the
Gazette and
Court Circular
combined - edited and published after Alexander's death by his
secretary,
Eumenes of
Cardia; the
crTaeµoi, or records of
the marches of the armies, which were
carefully measured at the time; and the official reports on the
conquered provinces. That these documents were made use of by the
historians is proved by the references to them which are to be
found in Arrian, Plutarch and Strabo;
e.g. Arrian,
Anab. vii. 25 and 26, and Plutarch,
Alexander 76
(quotation from the 13aaiXELot EgnµepLbEs); Strabo xv. 723
(reference to the
6T aO,uoi), ii. 69 (reports drawn up on
the various provinces). We have, in addition, in Plutarch numerous
quotations from Alexander's correspondence with his mother,
Olympias, and with his
officers. The contemporary historians may be roughly divided into
two groups. On the one hand there are Ptolemy and Aristobulus, who,
except in a single instance, are free from all suspicion of
deliberate invention. On the other hand, there are Callisthenes,
Onesicritus and Cleitarchus, whose tendency is rhetorical. Nearchus
appears to have allowed full scope to his imagination in dealing
with the wonders of India, but to have been otherwise veracious. Of
the extant writers Arrian (q.v.) is incomparably the most valuable.
His merits are twofold. As the commander of Roman legions and the
author of a work on tactics, he combined a practical with a
theoretical knowledge of the military art, while the writers whom
he follows in the
Anabasis are the two most worthy of
credit, Ptolemy and Aristobulus. We may well hesitate to call in
question the authority of writers who exhibit an agreement which it
would be difficult to parallel elsewhere in the case of two
independent historians. It may be inferred from Arrian's references
to them that there were only eleven cases in all in which he found
discrepancies between them. The most serious
drawback which can be alleged against them is
an inevitable bias in Alexander's favour. It would be only natural
that they should pass over in silence the worst blots on their
great commander's fame. Next in value to the
Anabasis
comes Plutarch's
Life of Alexander, the merits of which,
however, are not to be gauged by the influence which it has
exercised upon literature. The
Life is a valuable
supplement to the
Anabasis, partly because Plutarch, as he
is writing biography rather than history (for his conception of the
difference between the two see the famous preface,
Life of
Alexander, ch. i.), is concerned to record all that will throw
light upon Alexander's character (e.g. his epigrammatic sayings and
quotations from his letters); partly because he tells us much about
his early life, before he became king, while Arrian tells us
nothing. It is unfortunate that Plutarch writes in an uncritical
spirit; it is hardly less unfortunate that he should have formed no
clear conception and drawn no consistent picture of Alexander's
character. Book xvii. of Diodorus and the
Historiae
Alexandri of Curtius Rufus are thoroughly rhetorical in
spirit. It is probable that in both cases the ultimate source is
the work of Clitarchus.
It is towards the end of the 5th century that a fresh source of
information becomes available in the speeches of the orators, the
earliest of whom is
Antiphon (d. 411 B.C.).
Lysias is ofreat importance for the history of
the Thirty
The great P Y Y
orators. (see the
speeches against Eratosthenes and Agoratus), and a good deal may be
gathered from
Andocides
with regard to the last years of the 5th and the opening years of
the next century. At the other end of this period Lycurgus,
Hyperides and
Dinarchus
throw light upon the time of Philip and Alexander. The three,
however, who are of most importance to the historian are Isocrates,
Aeschines and Demosthenes.
Isocrates (q.v.), whose long life (436-338) more than spans the
interval between the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War and
Isocrates. the triumph of Macedon at Chaeronea, is one of
the most characteristic figures in the Greek world of his day. To
comprehend that world the study of Isocrates is indispensable; for
in an age dominated by rhetoric he is the prince of rhetoricians.
It is difficult for a modern reader to do him justice, so alien is
his spirit and the spirit of his age from ours. It must be allowed
that he is frequently monotonous and prolix; at the same time it
must not be forgotten that, as the most famous representative of
rhetoric, he was read from one end of the Greek world to the other.
He was the friend of
Evagoras and Archidamus, of Dionysius and
Philip; he was the master of Aeschines and Lycurgus amongst orators
and of Ephorus and Theopompus amongst historians. No other
contemporary writer has left so indelible a stamp upon the style
and the sentiment of his generation. It is a commonplace that
Isocrates is the
apostle of
Panhellenism. It is not so generally recognized that he is the
prophet of Hellenism. A passage in the
Panegyricus (§ 50
66Te TO 7-WV 'Exxi/vwv
ovo,..La i n i rcert Toil
'yEvovs TYJs Scavoias
boKELv fr y at Kai AEXXov
"EXXnvas KaXE7V6at
roil Tns 71-m6 6a-eon Tns ihuEr pas 7]
Tois Tijs KOLVns 4 crao ,.
er ovras) is the
key to the history of the next three
centuries. Doubtless he had no conception of the extent to which
the East was to be hellenized. He was, however, the first to
recognize that it would be hellenized by the diffusion of Greek
culture rather than of Greek blood. His Panhellenism was the
outcome of his recognition of the new forces and tendencies which
were at work in the midst of a new generation. When Greek culture
was becoming more and more international, the exaggeration of the
principle of autonomy in the Greek political system was becoming
more and more absurd. He had sufficient insight to be aware that
the price paid for this autonomy was the domination of Persia; a
domination which meant the servitude of the Greek states across the
Aegean and the demoralization of Greek political life at home. His
Panhellenism led him to a more liberal view of the distinction
between what was Greek and what was not than was possible to the
intenser patriotism of a Demosthenes. In his later orations he has
the courage not only to pronounce that the day of Athens as a
first-rate power is past, but to see in Philip the needful leader
in the crusade against Persia. The earliest and greatest of his
political orations is the
Panegyricus, published in 380
B.C., midway between the peace of
Antalcidas and Leuctra. It is his
apologia for Panhellenism. To the period of the Social War
belong the
De pace (355
B.C.) and the
Areopagiticus (354 B.C.), both of great
value as evidence for the internal conditions of Athens at the
beginning of the struggle with Macedon. The
Plataicus (373
B.C.) and the
Archidamus (366 B.C.) throw light upon the
politics of Boeotia and the Peloponnese respectively. The
Panathenaicus (339 B.C.), the child of his old age,
contains little that may not be found in the earlier orations. The
Philippus (346 B.C.) is of peculiar interest, as giving
the views of the Macedonian party.
Not the least remarkable feature in recent historical criticism
is the reaction against the view which was at one time almost
universally accepted of the character, statesmanship
Demos- and authority of the orator Demosthenes
v.. }'
(q) thenes. During the last quarter of a century his character
and statesmanship have been attacked, and his authority impugned,
by a series of writers of whom Holm and Beloch are the best known.
With the estimate of his character and statesmanship we are not
here concerned. With regard to his value as an authority for the
history of the period, it is to his speeches, and to those of his
contemporaries, Aeschines,
Hypereides, Dinarchus and Lycurgus, that we
owe our intimate knowledge, both of the working of the
constitutional and legal systems, and of the life of the people, at
this period of Athenian history. From this point of view his value
can hardly be overestimated. As a witness, however, to matters of
fact, his authority can no longer be rated as highly as it once
was,
e.g. by Schaefer and by Grote. The orator's attitude
towards events, both in the past and in the present, is inevitably
a different one from the historian's. The object of a Thucydides is
to ascertain a fact, or to exhibit it in its true relations. The
object of a Demosthenes is to make a point, or to win his case. In
their dealings with the past the orators exhibit a levity which is
almost inconceivable to a modern reader. Andocides, in a passage of
his speech
On the Mysteries (§ 107), speaks of Marathon as
the crowning victory of Xerxes' campaign; in his speech
On the
Peace (§ 3) he confuses
Miltiades with Cimon, and the Five Years'
Peace with the Thirty Years' Truce. Though the latter passage is a
mass of absurdities and confusions, it was so generally admired
that it was incorporated by Aeschines in his speech
On the
Embassy (§§ 172-176). If such was their attitude towards the
past; if, in order to make a point, they do not hesitate to pervert
history, is it likely that they would conform to a higher standard
of veracity in their statements as to the present - as to their
contemporaries, their rivals or their own actions ? When we
compare different speeches of Demosthenes, separated by an interval
of years, we cannot fail to observe a marked difference in his
statements. The farther he is from the events, the bolder are his
mis-statements. It is only necessary to compare the speech
On
the Crown with that
On the Embassy, and this latter
speech with the
Philippics and
Olynthiacs, to
find illustrations. It has come to be recognized that no statement
as to a matter of fact is to be accepted, unless it receives
independent corroboration, or unless it is admitted by both sides.
The speeches of Demosthenes may be conveniently divided into four
classes according to their dates. To the prePhilippic period belong
the speeches
On the Symmories (354 B. e.),
On
Megalopolis (352 B.C.), Against Aristocrates (351 B.C.), and,
perhaps, the speech
On Rhodes (? 351 B.C.). These speeches
betray no consciousness of the danger threatened by Philip's
ambition. The policy recommended is one based upon the principle of
the balance of power. To the succeeding period, which ends with the
peace of Philocrates (346 B.C.), belong the
First
Philippic and the three
Olynthiacs. To the period
between the peace of Philocrates and Chaeronea belong the speech
On the Peace (346 B.C.), the
Second Philippic
(344 B.C.), the speeches
On the Embassy (344 B.C.) and
On the Chersonese (341 B. c.), and the
Third Philippic. The masterpiece of his genius, the speech
On the Crown, was delivered in 330 B.C., in the reign of
Alexander. Of the three extant speeches of Aeschines (q.v.) that
On the Embassy is of great value, as enabling us to
correct the misstatements of Demosthenes. For the period from the
death of Alexander to the fall of Corinth (323-146 B.C.) our
literary authorities are singularly defective. For the Diadochi
Diodorus (books xviii.-xx.) is our chief source. These books form
the most valuable part of Diodorus' work. They are mainly based
upon the work of
Hieronymus of Cardia, a writer who
combined exceptional opportunities for ascertaining the truth (he
was in the service first of Eumenes, and then of Antigonus) with an
exceptional sense of its importance. Hieronymus ended his history
at the death of
Pyrrhus (272
B.C.), but, unfortunately, book xx. of Diodorus' work carries us no
farther than 303 B.C., and of the later books we have but scanty
fragments. The narrative of Diodorus may be supplemented by the
fragments of Arrian's
History of the events after Alexander's
death (which reach, however, only to 321 B.C.), and by
Plutarch's
Lives of
Eumenes and of
Demetrius. For the
rest of the 3rd century and the first half of the 2nd we have his
Lives of
Pyrrhus, of
Aratus, of
Philopoemen, and of
Agis and Cleomenes. For the
period from 220 B.C. onwards
Polybius is our chief authority (see
Rome:
Ancient History,
section " Authorities "). In a period in which the literary sources
are so scanty great weight attaches to the epigraphic and
numismatic evidence.
Bibliography. - The literature which deals with the history of
Greece, in its various periods, departments and aspects, is of so
vast a bulk that all that can be attempted here is to indicate the
most important and most accessible works.
General Histories of Greece
Down to the middle of the 19th century the only histories of
Greece deserving of mention were the products of English
scholarship. The two earliest of these were published about the
same date, towards the end of the 18th century, nearly
three-quarters of a century before any history of Greece, other
than a mere compendium, appeared on the Continent.
John Gillies'
History of Greece was published in 1786, Mitford's in
1784. Both works were composed with a political bias and a
political object. Gillies was a
Whig. In the
dedication (to George III.) he expresses the
view that " the History of Greece exposes the dangerous turbulence
of Democracy, and arraigns the despotism of Tyrants, while it
evinces the inestimable benefits, resulting to Liberty itself, from
the steady operation of well-regulated monarchy." Mitford was a
Tory, who thought
to demonstrate the evils of democracy from the example of the
Athenian state. His
History, in spite of its bias, was a
work of real value. More than fifty years elapsed between Mitford's
work and Thirlwall's.
Connop Thirlwall, fellow of Trinity
College, Cambridge, afterwards
bishop of St David's, brought a
sound judgment to the aid of ripe scholarship.
His
History of Greece, published in 1835-1838 (8 vols.),
is entirely free from the controversial tone of Mitford's volumes.
Ten years later (1846)
George Grote published the first volumes
of his history, which was not completed (in 12 vols.) till 1856.
Grote, like Mitford, was a politician - an ardent Radical, with
republican sympathies. It was in order to refute the slanders of
the Tory partisan that he was impelled to write a history of
Greece, which should do justice to the greatest democracy of the
ancient world, the Athenian state. Thus, in the case of three of
these four writers, the interest in their subject was mainly
political. Incomparably the greatest of these works is Grote's.
Grote had his faults and his limitations. His prejudices are
strong, and his scholarship is weak; he had never visited Greece,
and he knew little or nothing of Greek art; and, at the time he
wrote, the importance of coins and inscriptions was imperfectly
apprehended. In spite of every defect, however, his work is the
greatest history of Greece that has yet been written. It is not too
much to say that nobody knows Greek history till he has mastered
Grote. No history of Greece has since appeared in England on a
scale at all comparable to that of Grote's work. The most important
of the more recent ones is that by J. B.
Bury (1 vol., 1900), formerly fellow of Trinity
College,
Dublin, afterwards
Regius Professor of Modern History at Cambridge. Mitford and Bury
end with the death of Alexander; Gillies and Grote carry on the
narrative a generation farther; while Thirlwall's work extends to
the absorption of Greece in the Roman Empire (146 B.C.).
While in France the
Histoire des Grecs (ending at 146
B.C.) of
Victor Duruy (new edition, 2 vols.,
1883), Minister of Public Instruction under
Napoleon III., is the only one that need
be mentioned, in
Germany
there has been a succession of histories of Greece since the middle
of the 19th century. Kortiim's
Geschichte Griechenlands (3
vols., 1854), a work of little merit, was followed by Max Duncker's
Geschichte der Griechen (vols. i and 2 published in 1856;
vols. i and 2, Neue Folge, which bring the narrative down to the
death of Pericles, in 1884; the two former volumes form vols. 5, 6
and 7 of his
Geschichte des Altertums), and by the
Griechische Geschichte of
Ernst Curtius (3 vols., 1857-1867). An
English translation of Duncker, by S. F. Alleyne, appeared in 1883
(2 vols., Bentley), and of Curtius, by A. W.
Ward (5 vols., Bentley, 1868-1873). Among more
recent works may be mentioned the
Griechische Geschichte
of Adolf Holm (4 vols., Berlin, 1886-1894; English translation by
F. Clarke, 4 vols.,
Macmillan, 1894-1898), and histories with the
same title by Julius Beloch (3 vols.,
Strassburg, 1893-1904) and Georg Busolt (2nd
ed., 3 vols., Gotha, 1893-1904). Holm carries on the narrative to
30 B.C., Beloch to 217 B.C., Busolt to Chaeronea (33 8 B.C.). 1
Busolt's work is entirely different in character from any other
history of Greece. The writer's object is to refer in the notes
(which constitute five-sixths of the book) to the views of every
writer in any language upon every controverted question. It is
absolutely indispensable, as a work of reference, for any serious
study of Greek history. The ablest work since Grote's is Eduard
Meyer's
Geschichte des Altertums, of which 5 vols.
(Stuttgart and Berlin, 1884-1902) have appeared, carrying the
narrative down to the death of Epaminondas (362 B.C.). Vols. 2-5
are principally concerned with Greek history. It must be remembered
that, partly owing to the literary finds and the archaeological
discoveries of the last thirty years, and partly owing to the
advance made in the study of
epigraphy and
numismatics, all the histories published
before those of Busolt, Beloch, Meyer and Bury are out of date.
Works bearing on the History of Greece. - Earlier works
and editions are omitted, except in the case of a work which has
not been superseded.
Introductions
C.
Wachsmuth, Einleitung in das Studium der alten
Geschichte
(I vol., Leipzig, 1895); E. Meyer, Forschungen
zur alten Geschichte
(2 parts, Halle, 1892-1899; quite indispensable); J. B.
Bury, The Ancient Greek Historians
(London,
1909).Constitutional History and Institutions
G.
F. Schomann, Griechische Altertumer
(2 vols.,
Berlin, 1855-1859; vol. i., tr. by E. G. Hardy and J. S. Mann,
Rivingtons, 1880); G. Gilbert, Griechische Staatsaltertiimer
(2nd ed., 2 vols., Leipzig, 1893; vol. i. tr. by E. J. Brooks
and T. Nicklin, Swan Sonnenschein,
1895); K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der griechischen Antiquitdten
(6th ed., 4 vols., Freiburg, 1882-1895); Iwan Muller,
Handbuch der klassischen Altertums- wissenschaft
(9 vols., NOrdlingen, 1886, in
progress; several of the volumes are concerned with Greek history);
J. H. Lipsius, Das attische Recht and Rechtsverfahren
(Leipzig, 1905, in progress); A. H. J. Greenidge, Handbook
of Greek Constitutional History
(1 vol., Macmillan, 1896);
Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyklopddie der klassischen
Altertumswissenschaft
(Stuttgart, 1894 foll.).Geography
E.
H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography amongst the Greeks and Romans
(2nd
ed., 2 vols., Murray, 1883), W. M. Leake, Travels in the Morea
(3 vols., 1830), and Travels in Northern Greece
(4
vols., 1834); H. F. Tozer, Lectures on the Geography of Greece
(I vol., Murray, 1873), and History of Ancient Geography
(1 vol., Cambridge, 1897); J. P. Mahaffy, Rambles and
Studies in Greece
(3rd ed., I vol., Macmillan, 1887, an
admirable book); C. Bursian, Geographie von Griechenland
(2 vols., Leipzig, 1872); H. Berger, Geschichte der
wissenschaftlichen Erdkunde der Griechen
(4 parts, Leipzig,
1887-1893); Ernst Curtius, Peloponnesos (2
vols., Gotha,
1850-1851).Epigraphy and Numismatics
Corpus inscriptionum Atticarum
(Berlin, 1875, in
progress), Corpus inscriptionum Graecarum
(Berlin, 1892,
in progress). The following selections of Greek inscriptions may be
mentioned: E. F. Hicks and G. F. Hill, Manual of Greek
Historical Inscriptions
(new ed., r vol., Oxford, 1901); W. Dittenberger, Sylloge
inscriptionum Graecarum
(2nd ed., 2 vols., Berlin, 1898); C.
Michel, Recueil d'inscriptions grecques
(Paris, 1900).
Among works on numismatics the English reader may refer to B. V.
Head, Historia -numorum
(1 vol., Oxford, 1887); G. F.
Hill, Handbook of Greek and Roman Coins
(I vol.,
Macmillan, 1899), as well as to the British Museum Catalogue
of Greek Coins.
In French the most important general work is
the Monnaies grecques
of F. Imhoof-Blumer (Paris,
1883).Chronology, Trade, War, Social Life, &c
H.
F. Clinton,
Fasti Ilellenici
(3rd ed., 3
vols., Oxford, 1841, a work of which English scholarship may well
be proud; it is still invaluable for the study of Greek
chronology); B. Buchsenschutz, Besitz and Erwerb im
griechischen Altertume
(I vol., Halle, 1869; this is still the
best book on Greek commerce); J. Beloch, Die Bevolkerung der
griechischrOmischen Welt
(I vol., Leipzig, 1886); W. Rustow and
H. KOchly, Geschichte des griechischen Kriegswesens
(1
vol., Aarau, 1852); J. P.
Mahaffy, Social Life in Greece
(2nd ed., r vol., 1875).
(E. M. W.) b. Post-Classical: 146 B.C.-A.D. 1800
I. THE
Period Of Roman Rule. - (i.) Greece under the Republic
(146-27 B.C.). After the collapse of the Achaean League
the Senate appointed a commission to reorganize Greece as a Roman
dependency. Corinth, the chief centre of resistance, was destroyed
and its inhabitants sold into slavery. In addition to this act of
exemplary punishment, which may perhaps have been inspired in part
by the desire to crush a commercial competitor, steps were taken to
obviate future insurrections. The national and cantonal federations
were dissolved, commercial intercourse between cities was
restricted, and the government transferred from the democracies to
the propertied classes, whose interests were bound up with Roman
supremacy. In other respects few changes were made in existing
institutions. Some favoured states like Athens and Sparta retained
their full sovereign rights as civitates liberae,
the
other 1 Vol. iii. goes down to the end of the Peloponnesian
War.cities continued to enjoy local self-government. The ownership
of the land was not greatly disturbed by confiscations, and though
a tribute upon it was levied, this
impost may not have been universal. General
powers of supervision were entrusted to the governor of Macedonia,
who could reserve cases of high
treason for his decision, and in case of need
send troops into the country. But although Greece was in the
provincia of the Macedonian proconsul, in the sense of
belonging to his sphere of command, its status was in fact more
favourable than that of other provincial dependencies.
This settlement was acquiesced in by the Greek people, who had
come to realize the hopelessness of further resistance. The
internal disorder which was arising from the numerous disputes
about property rights consequent upon the political revolutions was
checked by the good offices of the historian Polybius, whom the
Senate deputed to mediate between the litigants. The pacification
of the country eventually became so complete that the Romans
withdrew the former restrictions upon intercourse and allowed some
of the leagues to revive. But its quiet was seriously disturbed
during the first Mithradatic War (88-84 B.C.), when numerous Greek
states sided with
Mithradates. The success which the invader
experienced in detaching the Greeks from Rome is partly to be
explained by the skilful way in which his agents incited the
imperialistic ambitions of prominent cities like Athens, partly
perhaps by his promises of support to the democratic parties. The
result of the war was disastrous to Greece. Apart from the
confiscations and exactions by which the Roman general L.
Cornelius Sulla punished the
disloyal communities, the extensive and protracted campaigns left
Central Greece in a ruinous condition. During the last decades of
the Roman republic European Greece was scarcely affected by
contemporary wars nor yet exploited by Roman magistrates in the
same systematic manner as most other provinces. Yet oppression by
officials who traversed Greece from time to time and demanded
lavish entertainments and presentations in the
guise of
viaticum or
aurum coronarium was
not unknown. Still greater was the suffering produced by the
rapacity of Roman traders and capitalists: it is recorded that
Sicyon was reduced to sell its most cherished art treasures in
order to satisfy its creditors. A more indirect but none the less
far-reaching drawback to Greek prosperity was the diversion of
trade which followed upon the establishment of direct communication
between Italy and the Levant. The most lucrative source of wealth
which remained to the European Greeks was pasturage in large
domains, an industry which almost exclusively profited the richer
citizens and so tended to widen the breach between capitalists and
the poorer classes, and still further to pauperize the latter. The
coast districts and islands also suffered considerably from swarms
of pirates who, in the absence of any strong fleet in Greek waters,
were able to obtain a firm footing in Crete and freely plundered
the chief trading places and sanctuaries; the most notable of such
visitations was experienced in 69 B.C. by the island of Delos. This
evil came to an end with the general suppression of piracy in the
Mediterranean by
Pompey (67
B.C.), but the depopulation which it had caused in some regions is
attested by the fact that the victorious admiral settled some of
his captives on the desolated coast
strip of Achaea.
In the conflict between Julius Caesar and Pompey the Greeks
provided the latter with a large part of his excellent fleet. In 48
B.C. the decisive campaign of the war was fought on Greek soil, and
the resources of the land were severely taxed by the requisitions
of both armies. As a result of Caesar's victory at Pharsalus, the
whole country fell into his power; the treatment which it received
was on the whole lenient, though individual cities were punished
severely. After the
murder of
Caesar the Greeks supported the cause of
Brutus (42 B.C.), but were too weak to render
any considerable service. In 39 B.C. the Peloponnese for a short
time was made over to
Sextus Pompeius. During the
subsequent period Greece remained in the hands of M.
Antonius (Mark Antony), who
imposed further exactions in order to defray the cost of his wars.
The extensive levies which he made in 31 B.C. for his campaign
against Octavian, and the contributions which his gigantic army
required, exhausted the country's resources so completely that a
general
famine was prevented
only by Octavian's prompt action after the battle of
Actium in distributing supplies
of
grain and evacuating the land
with all haste. The depopulation which resulted from the civil wars
was partly remedied by the settlement of Italian colonists at
Corinth and Patrae by Julius Caesar and Octavian; on the other
hand, the foundation of
Nicopolis by the latter merely had the effect
of transferring the people from the country to the city.
(ii.) The Early Roman Empire (27 B.0 - A.D. 323). -
Under the emperor Augustus Thessaly was incorporated with
Macedonia; the rest of Greece was converted into the province of
Achaea, under the control of a senatorial proconsul resident at
Corinth. Many states, including Athens and Sparta, retained their
rights as free and nominally independent cities. The provincials
were encouraged to send delegates to a communal synod (Kcotvov
TW) 'AXaicov) which met at Argos to consider the general
interests of the country and to uphold national Hellenic sentiment;
the Delphic amphictyony was revived and extended so as to represent
in a similar fashion northern and central Greece.
Economic conditions did not greatly improve under the empire.
Although new industries sprang up to meet the needs of Roman
luxury, and Greek marble, textiles and table delicacies were in
great demand, the only cities which regained a really flourishing
trade were the Italian communities of Corinth and Patrae. Commerce
languished in general, and the soil was mainly abandoned to
pasturage. Though certain districts retained a measure of
prosperity, e.g. Thessaly, Phocis, Elis, Argos and
Laconia, huge tracts stood depopulated and many notable cities had
sunk into ruins; Aetolia, Acarnania and Epirus never recovered from
the effects of former wars and from the withdrawal of their
surviving inhabitants into Nicopolis. Such wealth as remained was
amassed in the hands of a few great landowners and capitalists; the
middle class continued to dwindle, and large numbers of the people
were reduced to earning a precarious subsistence, supplemented by
frequent doles and largesses.
The social aspect of Greek life henceforward becomes its most
attractive feature. After a long period of
storm and stress, the European Hellenes had
relapsed into a quiet and resigned frame of mind which stands in
sharp contrast on the one hand with the energy and ability, and on
the other with the vulgar intriguing of their Asiatic kinsmen.
Seeing no future before them, the inhabitants were content to dwell
in contemplation amid the glories of the past. National pride was
fostered by the undisguised respect with which the leading Romans
of the age treated Hellenic culture. And although this sentiment
could degenerate into antiquarian pedantry and vanity, such as
finds its climax in the diatribes of
Apollonius of Tyana against the "
barbarians," it prevented the nation from sinking into some of the
worst vices of the age. A healthy social tone repressed extravagant
luxury and the ostentatious display of wealth, and good taste long
checked the spread of gladiatorial contests beyond the Italian
community of Corinth. The most widespread abuse of that period, the
adulation and
adoration
of emperors, was indeed introduced into European Greece and formed
an essential feature of the proceedings at the Delphic amphictyony,
but it never absorbed the energies of the people in the same way as
it did in Asia. In order to perpetuate their old culture, the
Greeks continued to set great
store by classical education, and in Athens they
possessed an academic centre which gradually became the chief
university of the Roman empire. The highest representatives of this
type of old-world refinement are to be found in
Dio Chrysostom
and especially in Plutarch of
Chaeroneia.
The relations between European Greece and Rome were practically
confined to the sphere of scholarship. The Hellenes had so far lost
their warlike qualities that they supplied scarcely any recruits to
the army. They retained too much local patriotism to
crowd into the official careers of
senators or imperial servants. Although in the 1st century A.D. the
astute Greek man of affairs and the
Graeculus esuriens of
Juvenal abounded in Rome,
both these classes were mainly derived from the less pure-blooded
population beyond the Aegean.
The influx of Greek rhetoricians and professors into Italy
during the 2nd and 3rd centuries was balanced by the large number
of travellers who came to Greece to frequent its sanatoria, and
especially to admire its works of art; the abundance in which these
latter were preserved is strikingly attested in the extant record
of Pausanias (about A.D. 170).
The experience of the Greeks under their earliest governors
seems to have been unfortunate, for in A.D. 15 they petitioned
Tiberius to transfer the administration to an imperial
legate. This new arrangement was
sanctioned, but
Romaa adminis- only lasted till A.D. 44,
when Claudius restored the
tration. province to the
senate. The proconsuls of the later st and 2nd centuries were
sometimes ill qualified for their posts, but cases of oppression
are seldom recorded against them. The years 66 and 67 were marked
by a visit of the emperor
Nero,
who made a prolonged tour through Greece in order to display his
artistic accomplishments at the various national festivals. In
return for the flattering reception accorded to him he bestowed
freedom and exemption from tribute upon the country. But this
favour was almost neutralized by the wholesale depredations which
he committed among the chief collections of art. A scheme for
cutting through the Corinthian isthmus and so reviving the Greek
carrying trade was inaugurated in his presence, but soon
abandoned.
As Nero's grant of self-government brought about a recrudescence
of misplaced ambition and party strife,
Vespasian revoked the gift and turned Achaea
again into a province, at the same time burdening it with increased
taxes. In the 2nd century a succession of genuinely phil-Hellenic
emperors made serious attempts to revive the nation's prosperity.
Important material benefits were conferred by
Hadrian, who made a lengthy visit to Greece.
Besides erecting useful public works in many cities, he relieved
Achaea of its arrears of tribute and exempted it from various
imposts. In order to check extravagance on the part of the free
cities, he greatly extended the practice of placing them under the
supervision of imperial functionaries known as
correctores. Hadrian fostered national sentiment by
establishing a new pan-Hellenic congress at Athens, while he gave
recognition to the increasing ascendancy of Hellenic culture at
Rome by his institution of the
Athenaeum.
In the 3rd century the only political event of importance was
the
edict of
Caracalla which threw open
the Roman citizenship to large numbers of provincials. Its chief
effect in Greece was to diminish the preponderance of the wealthy
classes, who formerly had used their riches to purchase the
franchise and so to secure exemption from taxation. The chief
feature of this period is the renewal of the danger from foreign
invasions. Already in 175 a tribe named Costoboci had penetrated
into central Greece, but was there broken up by the local militia.
In 253 a threatened attack was averted by the stubborn resistance
of Thessalonica. In 267-268 the province was overrun by
Gothic bands, which captured
Athens and some other towns, but were finally repulsed by the Attic
levies and exterminated with the help of a Roman fleet.
(iii.)
- After the reorganization of the empire by
Diocletian, Achaea
occupied a prominent position in the " diocese " of Macedonia.
Under
Constantine
I. it was included in the " prefecture " of Illyricum. It was
subdivided into the " eparchies " of Hellas, Peloponnesus,
Nicopolis and the islands, with headquarters at Thebes, Corinth,
Nicopolis and Samos. Thessaly was incorporated with Macedonia. A
complex
hierarchy of
imperial officials was now introduced and the system of taxation
elaborated so as to yield a steady revenue to the central power.
The levying of the land-tax was imposed upon the
oeKcalrpcoroc or " ten leading men," who, like the Latin
decuriones, were entrusted henceforth with the
administration in most cities. The tendency to reduce all
constitutions to the Roman municipal pattern became prevalent under
the rulers of this period, and the greater number of them was
stereotyped
Social conditions. by the general regulations
of the Codex Theodosianus (438). Although the elevation of
Constantinople to the rank of capital was prejudicial to Greece,
which felt the competition of the new centre of culture and
learning and had to part with numerous works of art destined to
embellish its privileged
neighbour, the general level of prosperity in
the 4th century was rising. Commercial stagnation was checked by a
renewed expansion of trade consequent upon the diversion of the
trade routes to the east from Egypt to the Euxine and Aegean Seas.
Agriculture remained in a depressed condition, and many small
proprietors were reduced to
serfdom; but the fiscal interests of the
government called for the good treatment of this class, whose
growth at the expense of the slaves was an important step in the
gradual equalization of the entire population under the central
despotism which restored solidarity to the Greek nation.
This prosperity received a sharp set-back by a series of
unusually severe earthquakes in 375 and by the irruption of a host
of Visigoths under
Alaric
(395-396), whom the imperial officers allowed to overrun the whole
land unmolested and the local levies were unable to check. Though
ultimately hunted down in Arcadia and induced to leave the
province, Alaric had time to execute systematic devastations which
crippled Greece for several decades. The arrears of taxation which
accumulated in consequence were remitted by
Theodosius II. in
428.
The emperors of the 4th century made several attempts to stamp
out by edict the old
pagan
religion, which, with its
accompaniment of festivals, oracles and
mysteries, still maintained an outward appearance of vigour, and,
along with the philosophy in which the intellectual classes found
comfort, retained the
affection of the Greeks. Except for the
decree of
Theodosius
I. by which the Olympian games were interdicted (394), these
measures had no great effect, and indeed were not rigorously
enforced. Paganism survived in Greece till about 600, but the
interchange of ideas and practices which the longcontinued contact
with
Christianity
had effected considerably modified its character. Hence the
Christian religion, though slow in making its way, eventually
gained a sure footing among a nation which accepted it
spontaneously. The hold of the Church upon the Greeks was
strengthened by the judicious manner in which the clergy,
unsupported by official patronage and often out of sympathy with
the Arian emperors, identified itself with the interests of the
people. Though in the days when the orthodox Church found favour at
court corruption spread among its higher branches, the clergy as a
whole rendered conspicuous service in opposing the arbitrary
interferences of the central government and in upholding the use of
the Hellenic tongue, together with some rudiments of Hellenic
culture.
The separation of the eastern and western provinces of the
empire ultimately had an important effect in restoring the language
and customs of Greece to their predominant position in the Levant.
This result, however, was long retarded by the romanizing policy of
Constantine and his successors. The emperors of the 5th and 6th
centuries had no regard for Greek culture, and
Justinian I. actively
counteracted Hellenism by propagating
Roman law in Greece, by impairing the powers
of the self-governing cities, and by closing the philosophical
schools at Athens (529). In course of time the inhabitants had so
far forgotten their ancient culture that they abandoned the name of
Hellenes for that of Romans (
Rhomaioi). For a long time
Greece continued to be an obscure and neglected province, with no
interests beyond its church and its commercial operations, and its
culture declined rapidly. Its history for some centuries dwindles
into a record of barbarian invasions which, in addition to
occasional plagues and earthquakes, seem to have been the only
events found worthy of record by the contemporary chroniclers.
In the 5th century Greece was only subjected to brief raids by
Vandal pirates (466-474) and
Ostrogoths (482). In Justinian's reign
irruptions by
Huns and
Avars took place, but led to no
far-reaching results. The emperor had endeavoured to strengthen the
country's defences by repairing the fortifications of cities and
frontier posts (530), but his policy of supplanting the local
guards by imperial troops and so rendering the natives incapable of
self-defence was ill-advised; fortunately it was never carried out
with energy, and so the Greek militias were occasionally able to
render good service against invaders.
Towards the end of the century mention is made for the first
time of an incursion by Slavonic tribes (581). These invaders are
to be regarded as merely the forerunners of a steady movement of
immigration by which a con-
Slavonic siderable part of
Greece passed for a time into foreign t i o`
nigra
- hands. It is doubtful how far the newcomers won their territory
by force of arms; in view of the desolation of many rural tracts,
which had long been in progress as a result of economic changes, it
seems probable that numerous settlements were made on unoccupied
land and did not
challenge serious opposition. At any rate the
effect upon the Greek population was merely to accelerate its
emigration from the interior to the coastland and the cities. The
foreigners, consisting mainly of
Slovenes and
Wends, occupied the mountainous inland, where
they mostly led a pastoral life; the natives retained some strips
of plain and dwelt secure in their walled towns, among which the
newly-built fortresses of Monemvasia, Corone and Calamata soon rose
to prosperity. The Slavonic element, to judge by the geographical
names in that tongue which survive in Greece, is specially marked
in N.W. Greece and Peloponnesus; central Greece appears to have
been protected against them by the fortress-square of Chalcis,
Thebes, Corinth and Athens. For a long time the two nations dwelt
side by side without either displacing the other. The Sla y s were
too rude and poor, and too much distracted with cantonal feuds, to
make any further headway; the Greeks, unused to arms and engrossed
in commerce, were content to adopt a passive attitude. The central
government took no steps to dislodge the invaders, until in 783 the
empress
Irene sent an expedition
which reduced most of the tribes to pay tribute. In 810 a desperate
attempt by the Sla y s to capture Patrae was foiled; henceforth
their power steadily decreased and their submission to the emperor
was made complete by 850. A powerful factor in their subjugation
was the Greek clergy, who by the 10th century had christianized and
largely hellenized all the foreigners save a remnant in the
peninsula of Maina.
II. THE Byzantine Period. - the 7th century the Greek language
made its way into the imperial army and civil service, but European
Greece continued to have little voice in the administration. The
land was divided into four " themes " under a yearly appointed
civil and military governor. Imperial troops were stationed at the
chief strategic points, while the natives contributed ships for
naval defence. During the dispute about images the Greeks were the
backbone of the imageworshipping party, and the iconoclastic edicts
of
Leo III. led to a revolt
in 727 which, however, was easily crushed by the imperial fleet; a
similar movement in 823, when the Greeks sent 350 ships to aid a
pretender, met with the same fate. The firm government of the
Isaurian dynasty seems to have benefited Greece, whose commerce and
industry again became flourishing. In spite of occasional set-backs
due to the depredations of pirates, notably the Arab corsairs who
visited the Aegean from the 7th century onwards, the Greeks
remained the chief carriers in the Levant until the rise of the
Italian republics, supplying all Europe, with its silk fabrics.
In the 10th century Greece experienced a renewal of raids from
the Balkan tribes. The Bulgarians made incursions after 929 and
sometimes penetrated to the Isthmus; but they mostly failed to
capture the cities, and in 995 their strength was broken by a
crushing defeat on the Spercheius at the hands of the Byzantine
army. Yet their devastations greatly thinned the population of
northern Greece, and after 1084 Thessaly was occupied without
resistance by nomad tribes of Vlachs. In 1084 also Greece was
subjected to the first attack from the new nations of the west,
when the Sicilian
Normans
gained a footing in the Ionian islands. The same people made a
notable
raid upon the seaboard of
Greece in 1145-1146, and sacked the cities of Thebes and Corinth.
The Venetians also appear as rivals of the Greeks, and after 1122
their encroachments in the Aegean Sea never ceased.
In spite of these attacks, the country on the whole maintained
its prosperity. The travellers
Idrisi of
Palermo (1153) and
Benjamin of
Tudela (1161) testify to the briskness of commerce, which
induced many foreign merchants to take up their residence in
Greece. But this prosperity revived an aristocracy of wealth which
used its riches and power for purely selfish ends, and under the
increasing laxity of imperial control the
archontes or
municipal rulers often combined with the clergy in oppressing the
poorer classes. Least of all were these nobles prepared to become
the champions of Greece against foreign invaders at a time when
they alone could have organized an effectual resistance.
III.
The Latin Occupation and Turkish Conquest. - The
capture of Constantinople and dissolution of the Byzantine empire
by the Latins (1204) brought in its train an invasion of Greece by
Frankish barons eager for new territory. The natives, who had long
forgotten the use of arms and dreaded no worse oppression from
their new masters, submitted almost without resistance, and only
the N.W. corner of Greece, where Michael
Angelus, a Byzantine prince, founded the
"despotat" of Epirus, was saved from foreign occupation. The rest
of the country was divided up between a number of Frankish barons,
chief among whom were the dukes of Achaea (or Peloponnese) and "
grand signors " of Thebes and Athens, the Venetians, who held naval
stations at different points and the island of Crete, and various
Italian adventurers who mainly settled in the Cyclades. The
conquerors transplanted their own language, customs and religion to
their new possessions, and endeavoured to institute the feudal
system of land-tenure. Yet recognizing the superiority of Greek
civil institutions they allowed the natives to retain their law and
internal administration and confirmed proprietors in possession of
their land on payment of a
rent;
the Greek church was subordinated to the Roman archbishops, but
upheld its former control over the people. The commerce and
industry of the Greek cities was hardly affected by the change of
government.
Greek history during the Latin occupation loses its unity and
has to be followed in several threads. In the north the " despots"
of Epirus extended their rule to Thessaly and Macedonia, but
eventually were repulsed by the Asiatic Greeks of
Nicaea, and after a decisive defeat at Pelagonia
(1259) reduced to a small dominion round Iannina. Thessaly
continued to change masters rapidly. Till 1308 it was governed by a
branch line of the Epirote dynasty. When this family died out it
fell to the Grand Catalan Company; in 1350 it was conquered along
with Epirus by Stephen Dushan, king of Servia. About 1397 it was
annexed by the
Ottoman
Turks, who after 1431 also gradually wrested Epirus from its latest
possessors, the Beneventine family of Tocco (1390-1469).
The leading power in central Greece was the Burgundian house de
la Roche, which
established a mild and judicious government in Boeotia and Attica
and in 1261 was raised to ducal rank by the French king
Louis IX. A conflict with the
Grand Catalan Company resulted in a disastrous defeat of the Franks
on the Boeotian Cephissus (1311) and the occupation of central
Greece by the Spanish mercenaries, who seized for themselves the
barons' fiefs and installed princes from the Sicilian house of
Aragon as " dukes of Athens and
Neopatras " (Thessaly). After seventyfive years of oppressive rule
and constant wars with their neighbours the Catalans were expelled
by the Peloponnesian baron Nerio Acciaiuoli. The new dynasty, whose
peaceful government revived its subjects' industry, became
tributary to the Turks about 1415, but was deposed by Sultan
Mahommed II., who annexed central Greece in 1456.
The conquest of the Peloponnese was effected by two French
knights, William Champlitte and Geoffrey Villehardouin, the latter
of whom founded a dynasty of " princes of all Achaea." The rulers
of this line were men of ability, who controlled their barons and
spiritual vassals with a firm hand and established good order
throughout their province. The Franks of the Morea maintained as
high a standard of culture as their com patriots at home, while the
natives grew rich enough from their industry to pay considerable
taxes without discontent. The climax of the Villehardouins' power
was attained under Prince. William, who subdued the last
independent cities of the coast. and the mountaineers of Maina
(1246-1248). In 1259, however,. the same ruler was involved in the
war between the rulers of Epirus and Nicaea, and being captured at
the battle of
Pela- gonia, could only
ransom himself by the cession of
Laconia to the restored Byzantine empire. This new dependency after
1349 was treated with great care by the Byzantine monarchs,, who
sought to repress the violence of the local aristocracies by
sending their kinsmen to govern under the title of " despots."' On
the other hand, with the extinction of the Villehardouin. dynasty
the Frankish province fell more and more into anarchy;, at the same
time the numbers of the foreigners were constantly dwindling
through war, and as they disdained to recruit them. by
intermarriage, the preponderance of the native element. in the
Morea eventually became complete. Thus by 1400 the Byzantines were
enabled to recover control over almost the whole peninsula and
apportion it among several " despots."' But the mutual quarrels of
these princes soon proved fatal to their rule. Already in the 14th
century they had employed Albanians and the Turkish pirates who
harried their coasts a& auxiliaries in their wars. The
Albanians largely remained as, settlers, and the connexion with the
Turks could no longer be shaken off. In spite of attempts to
fortify the Isthmus (1415) an. Ottoman army penetrated into Morea
and deported many inhabitants in 1423. An invasion of central
Greece by the despot Constantine was punished by renewed raids in
1446 and 1450.. In 1457 the despot
Thomas withheld the tribute which he had
recently stipulated to pay, but was reduced to obedience by an
expedition under Mahommed II. (1458). A renewed revolt in, 1 459
was punished by an invasion attended with executions and
deportations on a large scale, and by the annexation of theMorea to
Turkey (1460).
IV.
The Turkish Dominion till 1800. - Under the Ottoman
government Greece was split up into six
sanjaks or
military divisions: (1) Morea, (2) Epirus, (3) Thessaly, (4)
Euboea, Boeotia and Attica, (5) Aetolia and Acarnania, (6) the rest
of central Greece, with capitals at Nauplia, Jannina, Trikkala,
Negropont (Chalkis), Karlili and Lepanto; further divisions were
subsequently composed of Crete and the islands. In each
sanjak a number of fiefs was apportioned to Turkish
settlers,. who were bound in return to furnish some mounted men for
the sultan's army, the total force thus held in readiness being
over 7000. The
local government was left in the hands
of the
archontes or
primates in each community, who also undertook
the farming of the taxes and the policing of their districts. Law
was usually administered by the Greek clergy. The natives were not
burdened with large imposts, but the levying of the land-
tithes was effected in an
inconvenient fashion, and the capitation-tax, to which all
Christians were subjected was felt as a humiliation. A further
grievance lay in the requisitions: of forced labour which the
pashas were entitled to call for; but the most galling exaction was
the tribute of children for the recruiting of the
Janissaries, which was
often levied with great ruthlessness. The habitual weakness of the
central government also left the Greeks exposed to frequent
oppression by the Turkish residents and by their own magistrates
and clergy. But the new rulers met with singularly little
opposition. The dangerous elements of the population had been
cleared away by Mahommed's executions; the rest were content to
absorb their energies in agriculture and commerce, which in spite
of preferential duties and
capitulations to foreign powers largely
fell again into the hands of Greeks. Another important instrument
by which the people were kept down was their own clergy, whom the
Turkish rulers treated with marked favour and so induced to
acquiesce in their dominion.
In the following centuries Greece was often the
theatre of war in which the
Greeks played but a passive part. Several wars with
Venice (1463-79,1498-1504) put
the Turks in possession of the last Italian strongholds on the
mainland. But the.
issue was mainly fought out on sea; the conflicts which had
never ceased in the Aegean since the coming of the Italians now
grew fiercer than ever; Greek ships and sailors were frequently
requisitioned for the Turkish fleets, and the damage done to the
Greek seaboard by the belligerents and by fleets of adventurers and
corsairs brought about the depopulation of many islands and
coast-strips. The conquest of the Aegean by the Ottomans was
completed by 1570; but Venice retained Crete till 1669 and never
lost Corfu until its cession to France in 1797.
In 1684 the Venetians took advantage of the preoccupation of
Turkey on the Danube to attack the Morea. A small mercenary army
under Francesco
Morosini
captured the strong places with remarkable ease, and by 1687 had
conquered almost the whole peninsula. In 1687 the invaders also
captured Athens and Lepanto; but the former town had soon to be
abandoned, and with their failure to capture Negropont (1688) the
Venetians were brought to a standstill. By the peace of
Karlowitz (1699) the Morea
became a possession of Venice. The new rulers, in spite of the
commercial restrictions which they imposed in favour of their own
traders, checked the impoverishment and decrease of population
(from 300,000 to 86,000) which the war had caused. By their
attempts to cooperate with the native magistrates and the mildness
of their administration they improved the spirit of their subjects.
But they failed to make their government popular, and when in 1715
the Ottomans with a large and well-disciplined army set themselves
to recover the Morea, the Venetians were left without support from
the Greeks. The peninsula was rapidly recaptured and by the peace
of Passarowitz (1718) again became a Turkish dependency. The gaps
left about this time in the Greek population were largely made up
by an immigration from
Albania.
The condition of the Greeks in the 18th century showed a great
improvement which gave rise to yet greater hopes. Already in the
17th century the personal services of the subjects had been
commuted into money contributions, and since 1676 the tribute of
children fell into
abeyance. The increasing use of Greek
officials in the Turkish civil service, coupled with the privileges
accorded to the Greek clergy throughout the Balkan countries,
tended to recall the consciousness of former days of predominance
in the Levant. Lastly, the education of the Greeks, which had
always remained on a comparatively high level, was rapidly improved
by the foundation of new schools and
academies.
The long neglect which Greece had experienced at the hands of
the European Powers was broken in 1764, when
Russian agents appeared in the country with
promises of a speedy deliverance from the Turks. A small expedition
under Feodor and Alexis Orloff actually landed in the Morea in
1769, but failed to rouse national sentiment. Although the Russian
fleet gained a notable victory off Chesme near Chios, a heavy
defeat near Tripolitza ruined the prospects of the army. The
Albanian troops in the Turkish army subsequently ravaged the
country far and wide, until in 1779 they were exterminated by a
force of Turkish regulars. In 1774 a concession, embodied in the
treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji, by which Greek traders were allowed to
sail under the protection of the
Russian flag, marked an important step in the rehabilitation of the
country as an independent power. Greek commerce henceforth spread
swiftly over the Mediterranean, and increased intercourse developed
a new sense of Hellenic unity. Among the pioneers who fostered this
movement should be mentioned
Constantine Rhigas, the " modern
Tyrtaeus," and Adamantios Coraes (q.v.), the reformer of the Greek
tongue. The revived memories of ancient Hellas and the impression
created by
the French revolution combined to
give the final impulse which made the Greeks strike for freedom. By
1800 the population of Greece had increased to 1,000,000, and
although 200,000 of these were Albanians, the common aversion to
the Moslem united the two races. The military resources of the
country alone remained deficient, for the
armatoli or
local militias, which had never been quite disbanded since
Byzantine times, were at last suppressed by
Ali Pasha of Iannina and found but a poor
substitute in the klephts who henceforth spring into prominence.
But at the first sign of weakness in the Turkish dominion the Greek
nation was ready to rise, and the actual outbreak of revolt had
become merely a question of time.
Authorities
- General: G. Finlay,
History of Greece (ed. Tozer,
Oxford, 1877), especially vols. i., iv., v.; K. Paparrhigopoulos,
`IQropia `EXartvucou
vovs (4th ed., Athens, 1903), vols.
ii.-v.;
Histoire de la civilisation hellenique (Paris,
1878); R. v. Scala,
Das Griechentum seit Alexander dem
Grossen (Leipzig and
Vienna, 1904); and specially W. Miller,
The
Latins in the Levant (1908).
Specia
(a) The Roman period: Strabo, bks. viii.-x.; Pausanias,
Descriptio Graeciae; G. F. Hertzberg,
Die Geschichte
Griechenlands unter der Herrschaft der Rdmer (Halle,
1866-1875); Sp. Lampros,
`Iaropia rns `EXXaSos (Athens,
1888 sqq.), vol. iii.; A. Holm,
History of Greece (Eng.
trans., London, 1894-1898), vol. iv., chs. 19, 24, 26, 28 seq.; Th.
Mommsen,
The Provinces of the Roman Empire (Eng. trans.,
London, 1886, ch. 7); J. P. Mahaffy,
The Greek World under
Roman Sway, from Polybius to Plutarch (London, 1890); W.
Miller, " The Romans in Greece " (
Westminster Review, August 1903, pp.
186-210); L. Friedlander, "Griechenland unter den Romern "
(
Deutsche Rundschau, 18 99, PP. 2 5 1 - 2 74, 402-430).
(
b) The Byzantine and Latin periods: G. F. Hertzberg,
Geschichte Griechenlands seit dem Absterben des antiken
Lebens (Gotha, 1876-1879), vols. i., ii.; C. Hopf,
Geschichte Griechenlands im Mittelalter (Leipzig, 1868);
J. A. Buchon,
Histoire des conquetes et de l'etablissement des
Francais dans les Etats de l'ancienne Grece (Paris, 1846); G.
Schmitt,
The Chronicle of Morea (London, 1904); W. Miller,
" The Princes of the Peloponnese " (
Quarterly Review, July
1905, pp. 109 -135); D. Bikelas,
Seven Essays on Christian
Greece (Paisley and London, 1890);
La Grece byzantine et
moderne (Paris, 1893), pp. 1 -193. ` (
c) The Turkish
and Venetian periods: Hertzberg,
op. cit., vol. iii.; K.
M. Bartholdy,
Geschichte Griechenlands von der Eroberung
Konstantinopels (Leipzig, 1870), bks. i. and ii., pp. 1-155;
K. N. Sathas,
TovpxoxparovpEV7j `EXX63 (Athens, 1869); W.
Miller, " Greece under the Turks " (
Westminster Review,
August and September 1904, pp. 195-210, 304-320;
English
Historical Review, 1904, pp. 646-668); L. Ranke, " Die
Venetianer in Morea (
Historisch-politische Zeitschrift,
ii. 405-502). (
d) Special subjects: Religion. E.
Hatch,
The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the
Christian Church (London, 1890).
Ethnology. J. P. Fallmerayer,
Geschichte
der Halbinsel Morea wdhrend des Mittelalters (Stuttgart and
Tubingen, 1830); S.-'Zampelios, IIEpi vsoEXX j vue j s Ov rgros
(Athens, 1857) A. Philippson, ' ` Zur Ethnographie des Peloponnes "
Petermann's Mitteilungen 36 (1890), pp. I-I I, 33-41]; A.
Vasiljev, " Die Slaven in Griechenland " [
Vizantijsky
Vremennik, St Petersburg, 5 (1898), pp. 4 0 4-43 8,
626-670].
See also
Later Roman Empire; Athens. (M. O.
B. C.)
c. Modern History: 1800 - rg08. At the beginning of
the 19th century Greece was still under Turkish domination, but the
dawn of freedom was already
breaking, and a variety of forces were at work which prepared the
way for the acquisition of national independence. The decadence of
the Ottoman empire, which began with the retreat of the Turks from
Vienna in 1683, was indicated in the 18th century by the weakening
of the central power, the spread of anarchy in the provinces, the
ravages of the janissaries, and the establishment of practically
independent sovereignties or fiefs, such as those of Mehemet of
Bushat at Skodra and of Ali
Pasha of Tepelen at Iannina; the 19th century
witnessed the first uprisings of the Christian populations and the
detachment of the outlying portions of European Turkey. Up to the
end of the 18th century none of the subject races had risen in
spontaneous revolt against the Turks, though in some instances they
rendered aid to the sultan's enemies; the spirit of the conquered
nations had been broken by ages of oppression. In some of the
remoter and more mountainous districts, however, the authority of
the Turks had never been completely established; in Montenegro a
small fragment of the Serb race maintained its independence; among
the Greeks, the Mainotes in the extreme south of the Morea and the
Sphakiote mountaineers in Crete had never been completely subdued.
Resistance to Ottoman rule was maintained sporadically in the
mountainous districts by the Greek
klephts or brigands,
the counterpart of the Slavonic
kaiduks, and by the
pirates of the Aegean; the
armatoles or bodies of Christian
warriors, recognized by the Turks as a local police, often differed
little in their proceedings from the brigands whom they were
appointed to pursue.
Of the series of insurrections which took place in the 19th
century, the first in order of time was the Servian, which broke
out in 1804; the second was the Greek, which began in 1821. In both
these movements the influence of Russia played a considerable part.
In the case of the Servians Russian aid was mainly diplomatic, in
that of the Greeks it eventually took a more material form. Since
the days of
Peter the Great, the
eyes of Russia had been fixed on Constantinople, the great
metropolis of the Orthodox faith. The policy of inciting the Greek
Christians to revolt against their oppressors, which was first
adopted in the reign of the empress Anna, was put into practical
operation by the empress Catharine II., whose favourite,
Orlov, appeared in the Aegean with
a fleet in 1769 and landed in the Morea, where he organized a
revolt. The attempt proved a failure; Orlov re-embarked, leaving
the Greeks at the
mercy of the
Turks, and terrible massacres took place at Tripolitza,
Lemnos and elsewhere. By the
treaty of Kutchuk-Kainarji (July 21, 1774) Russia obtained a
vaguelydefined
protectorate over the Orthodox Greek
subjects of Turkey, and in 1781 she arrived at an arrangement with
Austria, known as the "
Greek project," for a
partition of Turkish territory and the
restoration of the Byzantine empire under Constantine, the son of
Catharine II. The outbreak of the French Revolution distracted the
attention of the two empires, but Russia never ceased to intrigue
among the Christian subjects of Turkey. A revolt of the inhabitants
of Suli in 1790 took place with her connivance, and in the two
first decades of the 19th century her agents were active and
ubiquitous.
The influence of the French Revolution, which pervaded all
Europe, extended to the shores of the Aegean. The Greeks, who had
hitherto been drawn together mainly by a common religion, were now
animated by the sentiment of nationality and by an ardent desire
for political
activity. freedom. The national awakening,
as in the case of the other subject Christian nations, was preceded
by a literary revival. Literary and patriotic societies, the
Philhellenes, the Philomousi, came into existence; Greek schools
were founded everywhere; the philological labours of Coraes, which
created the modern written language, furnished the nation with a
mode of literary expression; the songs of Rhigas of Velestino fired
the enthusiasm of the people. In 1815 was founded the celebrated
Philike Hetaerea, or friendly society, a revolutionary
organization with centres at
Moscow,
Bucharest, Triest, and in all the cities of
the Levant; it collected subscriptions, issued manifestos,
distributed arms and made preparations for the coming insurrection.
The revolt of Ali Pasha of Iannina against the authority of the
sultan in 1820 formed the prelude to the Greek uprising; this
despot, who had massacred the Greeks by hundreds, now declared
himself their friend, and became a member of the Hetaerea. In March
1821 Alexander
Ypsilanti, a former
aide-de-camp of the
tsar Alexander I., and president of
the Hetaerea, entered
Moldavia from Russian territory at the head of
a small force; in the same month
Archbishop Germanos of Patras unfurled the
standard of revolt at Kalavryta in the Morea.
For the history of the prolonged struggle which followed see
Greek War Of Independence. The warfare was practically brought to a
close by the annihilation of the Egyptian Greeks had excited among
the peoples of Europe, and which inspired the devotion of Byron,
Cochrane, Sir
Richard Church, Fabvier and other
distinguished Philhellenes; jealousies prevailed among the three
protecting powers, and the newlyliberated nation was treated in a
niggardly spirit; its narrow limits were reduced by a new
protocol (February
3, 1830), which drew the boundary line at the Aspropotamo,
the Spercheios and the Gulf of Lamia.
Capo d'Istria,
whose Russian proclivities and arbitrary government gave great
offence to the Greeks, was assassinated by two members of the
Mavromichalis family (October 9, 1831), and a state of anarchy
followed. Before his death the throne of Greece had been offered to
Prince Leopold of
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, afterwards king of
the Belgians, who declined it, basing his refusal on the inadequacy
of the limits assigned to the new kingdom and especially the
exclusion of Crete.
By the convention of London (May 7, 1832) Greece was declared an
independent kingdom under the protection of Great Britain, France
and Russia with Prince Otto, son of King
Louis I. of
Bavaria, as king. The frontier line, now traced
from the Gulf of Arta to the Gulf of Lamia, was fixed by the
arrangement of Constantinople (July 21, 1832), King Otto, who had
been brought up in a despotic court, ruled absolutely for the first
eleven years of his reign; he surrounded himself with Bavarian
advisers and Bavarian troops, and his rule was never popular. The
Greek chiefs and politicians, who found themselves excluded from
all influence and
advancement, were divided into three
factions which attached themselves respectively to the three
protecting powers. On the 15th of September 1843 a military revolt
broke out which compelled the king to dismiss the Bavarians and to
accept a constitution. A responsible ministry, a senate nominated
by the king, and a chamber elected by universal suffrage were now
instituted. Mavrocordatos, the leader of the English party, became
the first
prime
minister, but his government was overthrown at the ensuing
elections, and a
coalition of the French and Russian parties
under Kolettes and Metaxas succeeded to power. The warfare of
factions was aggravated by the rivalry between the British and
French ministers, Sir Edmond
Lyons and M. Piscatory; King Otto supported the
French party, and trouble arose with the British government, which
in 1847 despatched warships to enforce the payment of interest on
the loan contracted after the War of Independence. A British fleet
subsequently blockaded the Peiraeus in order to obtain satisfaction
for the claims of Pacifico, a Portuguese Jew under British
protection, whose house had been plundered during a
riot. On the outbreak of hostilities between
Russia and Turkey in 1853 the Greeks displayed sympathy with
Russia; armed bands were sent into Thessaly, and an insurrection
was fomented in Epirus in the hope of securing an accession of
territory. In order to prevent further hostile action on the part
of Greece, British and French fleets made a demonstration against
the Peiraeus, which was occupied by a French force during the
Crimean War. The
disappointment of the national hopes increased the unpopularity of
King Otto, who had never acquiesced in constitutional rule. In 1862
a military revolt broke out, and a national assembly pronounced his
deposition. The vacant throne was offered by the assembly to Duke
Nicholas of Leuchtenberg,
a cousin of the tsar, but the mass of the people desired a
constitutional monarchy of the British type; a
plebiscite was taken, and
Prince
Alfred of England was elected by an
almost unanimous vote. The three protecting powers, however, had
bound themselves to the exclusion of any member of their ruling
houses. In the following year Prince William George of
Schleswig-Holstein-
Sonderburg-Gliicksburg,
whom the British government had designated as a suitable candidate,
was elected by the National Assembly with the title " George I.,
king of the Hellenes." Under the treaty of London (July 13, 1863)
the change of dynasty was sanctioned by the three protecting
powers, Great Britain undertaking to cede to Greece the seven
Ionian Islands, which since 1815 had formed a
commonwealth under
British protection.
fleet at Navarino by the fleets of Great Britain, France and
Russia on the 20th of October 1828. Nine months previously, Count
John Capo d'Istria (q.v.), formerly minister of foreign affairs of
the tsar Alexander, had been elected president of the Greek
republic for a period of seven years (January 18, 1828). By the
protocol of London (March 22, 1829) the Greek mainland south of a
line drawn from the Gulf of Arta to the Gulf of Volo, the Morea and
the Cyclades were declared a principality tributary to the sultan
under a Christian prince. The limits drawn by the protocol of
London were confirmed by the treaty of
Adrianople (September 14,
1829), by which Greece was constituted an independent monarchy. The
governments of Russia, France and England were far from sharing the
enthusiasm which the gallant resistance of the On the 29th of
October 1863 the new sovereign arrived in Athens, and in the
following June the British authorities handed over the Ionian
Islands to a Greek commissioner.
King George thus began his reign under the most favourable
auspices, the patriotic sentiments of the Greeks being flattered by
the acquisition of new territory. He was, however, soon confronted
with constitutional difficulties; party spirit ran riot at Athens,
the ministries which he appointed proved short-lived, his
counsellor, Count Sponneck,
became the object of violent attacks, and at the end of 1864 he was
compelled to accept an ultra-democratic constitution, drawn up by
the National Assembly. This, the sixth constitution voted since the
establishment of the kingdom, is that which is still in force. In
the following year Count Sponneck left Greece, and the attention of
the nation was concentrated on the affairs of Crete. The revolution
which broke out in that island received moral and material support
from the Greek government, with the tacit approval of Russia;
military preparations were pressed forward at Athens, and cruisers
were purchased, but the king, aware of the inability of Greece to
attain her ends by warlike means, discouraged a provocative
attitude towards Turkey, and eventually dismissed the bellicose
cabinet of Koumoundouros. The removal of a powerful minister
commanding a large parliamentary majority constituted an important.
precedent in the exercise of the royal
prerogative; the king adopted a similar
course with regard to Delyannes in 1892 and 1897. The relations
with the porte, however, continued to grow worse, and
Hobart
Pasha, with a Turkish fleet, made a demonstration off
Syra. The Cretan insurrection was
finally crushed in the spring of 1869, and a conference of the
powers, which assembled that year at Paris, imposed a settlement of
the Turkish dispute on Greece, but took no steps on behalf of the
Cretans. In 1870 the murder of several Englishmen by brigands in
the neighbourhood of Athens produced an unfavourable impression in
Europe; in the following year the
confiscation of the Laurion mines, which
had been ceded to a Franco-Italian company, provoked energetic
action on the part of France and Italy. In 1875, after an acute
constitutional crisis, Charilaos Trikoupes, who but ten months
previously had been imprisoned for denouncing the crown in a
newspaper article, was summoned to form a cabinet. This remarkable
man, the only great statesman whom modern Greece has produced,
exercised an extraordinary influence over his countrymen for the
next twenty years; had he been able to maintain himself
uninterruptedly in power during that period, Greece might have
escaped a long succession of misfortunes. His principal opponent,
Theodore Delyannes,
succeeded in rallying a strong body of adherents, and political
parties, hitherto divided into numerous factions, centred around
these two prominent figures.
In 1877 the outbreak of the
Russo-Turkish War produced a fever
of excitement in Greece; it was felt that the quarrels of the party
leaders compromised the interests of the for the delimitation met
first at Prevesa, and subsequently at Constantinople, but its
conferences were without result, the Turkish commissioners
declining the boundary suggested at Berlin. Greece then invoked the
arbitration of the
powers, and the settlement of the question was undertaken by a
conference of ambassadors at Berlin (1880). The line approved by
the conference was practically that suggested by the congress;
Turkey, however, refused to accept it, and the Greek army was once
more mobilized. In was evident, however, that nothing could be
gained by an appeal to arms, the powers not being prepared to apply
coercion to Turkey. By a
convention signed at Constantinople in July 1881, the demarcation
was entrusted to a commission representing the six powers and the
two interested parties. The line drawn ran westwards from a point
between the mouth of the Peneus and Platamona to the summits of
Mounts Kritiri and Zygos, thence following the course of the river
Arta to its mouth. An area of 13,395 square kilometres, with a
population of 300,000 souls,was thus added to the kingdom, while
Turkey was left in possession of Iannina, Metzovo and most of
Epirus. The ceded territory was occupied by Greek troops before the
close of the year.
In 1882 Trikoupes came into power at the head of a strong party,
over which he exercised an influence and authority hitherto unknown
in Greek political life. With the exception of three brief
intervals (May 1885 to May
? n 1886, October 1890
to February 1892, and a few
Delyannes. months in
1893), he continued in office for the next twelve years. The
reforms which he introduced during this period were generally of an
unpopular character, and were loudly denounced by his democratic
rivals; most of them were cancelled during the intervals when his
opponent Delyannes occupied the premiership. The same want of
continuity proved fatal to the somewhat ambitious financial
programme which he now inaugurated. While pursuing a cautious
foreign policy, and keeping in control the rash impetuosity of his
fellow-countrymen, he shared to the full the national desire for
expansion, but he looked to the development of the material
resources of the country as a necessary preliminary to the
realization of the dreams of Hellenism. With this view he
endeavoured to attract foreign capital to the country, and the
confidence which he inspired in financial circles abroad enabled
him to contract a number of loans and to better the financial
situation by a series of conversions. Under a
stable, wise, and economical administration this
far-reaching programme might perhaps have been carried out with
success, but the vicissitudes of party politics and the periodical
outbursts of national sentiment rendered its realization
impossible. In April 1885 Trikoupes fell from power, and a few
months later the indignation excited in Greece by the revolution of
Philippopolis
placed Delyannes once more at the head of a warlike movement. The
army and fleet were again mobilized with a view to exacting
territorial
compensation for the aggrandizement of
Bulgaria, and several conflicts with the Turkish troops took place
on the frontier. The powers, after repeatedly inviting the
Delyannes cabinet to disarm, established a
blockade of Peiraeus and other Greek ports
(8th May 1886), France alone declining to co-operate in this
measure. Delyannes resigned (11th May) and Trikoupes, who succeeded
to power, issued a decree of disarmament (25th May). Hostilities,
however, continued on the frontier, and the blockade was not raised
till 7th June. Trikoupes had now to face the serious financial
situation brought about by the military activity of his
predecessor. He imposed heavy taxation, which the people, for the
time at least, bore without murmuring, and he continued to inspire
such confidence abroad that Greek securities maintained their price
in the foreign market. It was ominous, however, that a loan which
he issued in 1890 was only partially covered. Meanwhile the Cretan
difficulty had become once more a source of trouble to Greece. In
1889 Trikoupes was grossly deceived by the Turkish government,
which, after inducing him to dissuade the Cretans from opposing the
occupation of certain fortified posts, issued a
firman annulling many important provisions in
the constitution of the island. The indignation country, and the
populace of Athens insisted on the formation of a coalition
cabinet. The " great " or "
oecumenical " ministry, as it was called,
now came into existence under the presidency of the
veteran Kanares; in reality,
however, it was controlled by Trikoupes, who, recognizing the
unpreparedness of the country, resolved on a pacific policy. The
capture of
Plevna by the
Russians brought about the fall of the " oecumenical " ministry,
and Koumoundouros and Delyannes, who succeeded to power, ordered
the invasion of Thessaly. Their warlike energies, however, were
soon checked by the signing of the San Stefano Treaty, in which the
claims of Greece to an extension of frontier were altogether
ignored. At the Berlin congress two Greek delegates obtained a
hearing on the proposal of Lord
Salisbury. The congress
decided that the rectification of the frontier should be left to
Turkey and Greece, the
mediation of the powers being proposed in
case of non-agreement; it was suggested, however, that the
rectified frontier should extend from the valley of the Peneus on
the east to the mouth of the Kalamas, opposite the southern
extremity of Corfu, on the west. In 1879 a Greco-Turkish commission
in Greece was intense, and popular discontent was increased by the
success of the Bulgarians in obtaining the
exequatur of the sultan for a number of
bishops in Macedonia. In the autumn of 1890 Trikoupes was beaten at
the elections, and Delyannes, who had promised the people a radical
reform of the taxation, succeeded to power. He proved unequal,
however, to cope with the financial difficulty, which now became
urgent; and the king, perceiving that a crisis was imminent,
dismissed him and recalled Trikoupes. The hope of averting national
bankruptcy depended on the possibility of raising a loan by which
the rapid depreciation of the paper currency might be arrested, but
foreign financiers demanded guarantees which seemed likely to prove
hurtful to Greek susceptibilities; an agitation was raised at
Athens, and Trikoupes suddenly resigned (May 1893). His conduct at
this juncture appears to have been due to some misunderstandings
which had arisen between him and the king. The Sotiropoulos-Rhalles
ministry which followed effected a temporary settlement with the
national creditors, but Trikoupes, returning to power in the
autumn, at once annulled the arrangement. He now proceeded to a
series of arbitrary measures which provoked the severest criticism
throughout Europe and exposed Greece to the determined hostility of
Germany. A law was hastily passed which deprived the creditors of
70% of their interest, and the proceeds of the revenues conceded to
the monopoly bondholders were seized (December 1893). Long
negotiations followed, resulting in an arrangement which was
subsequently reversed by the German bondholders. In January 1895
Trikoupes resigned office, in consequence of a disagreement with
the crown prince on a question of military discipline. His
popularity had vanished, his health was shattered, and he
determined to abandon his political career. His death at
Cannes (irth April 1896), on the
eve of a great national convulsion, deprived Greece of his masterly
guidance and sober judgment at a critical moment in her
history.
His funeral took place at Athens on 23rd April, while the city
was still decorated with flags and garlands after the celebration
Nation- of the Olympic games. The revival
of the ancient
alist festival, which drew
together multitudes of Greeks
agitation,
from abroad, led to a lively awakening of the national
1896. sentiment, hitherto depressed by the economic
misfortunes of the kingdom, and a secret patriotic society, known
as the
Ethnike Hetaerea, began to develop prodigious
activity, enrolling members from every rank of life and
establishing branches in all parts of the Hellenic world. The
society had been founded in 1894, by a handful of young officers
who considered that the military organization of the country was
neglected by the government; its principal aim was the preparation
of an insurrectionary movement in Macedonia, which, owing to the
activity of the Bulgarians and the reconciliation of Prince
Ferdinand with Russia,
seemed likely to be withdrawn for ever from the domain of Greek
irredentism. The outbreak of another insurrection in Crete supplied
the means of creating a diversion for Turkey while the movement in
Macedonia was being matured; arms and volunteers were shipped to
the island, but the society was as yet unable to force the hand of
the government, and Delyannes, who had succeeded Trikoupes in 1895,
loyally aided the powers in the restoration of order by advising
the Cretans to accept the constitution of 1896. The appearance of
strong insurgent bands in Macedonia in the summer of that year
testified to the activity of the society and provoked the
remonstrances of the powers, while the spread of its propaganda in
the army led to the issue of a royal rescript announcing grand
military manoeuvres, the formation of a standing camp, and the
rearmament of the troops with a new
weapon (6th December). The objects of the
society were effectually furthered by the evident determination of
the porte to evade the application of the stipulated reforms in
Crete; the Cretan Christians lost
patience, and indignation was widespread in
Greece. Emissaries of the society were despatched to the island,
and affairs were brought to a climax by an outbreak at
Canea on 4th February 1897. The
Turkish troops fired on the Christians, thousands of whom took
refuge on the warships of the powers, and a portion of the town was
consumed by
fire. Delyannes now announced that the
government had abandoned the policy of abstention. On the 6th two
warships were despatched to Canea, and on the 10th a torpedo
flotilla, commanded by Prince George, left Peiraeus
Cretan amid tumultuous demonstrations.
The ostensible object
crisis, object
1897. of
these measures was the protection of Greek subjects in Crete, and
Delyannes was still anxious to avoid a definite rupture with
Turkey, but the Ethnike Hetaerea had found means to influence
several members of the ministry and to alarm the king. Prince
George, who had received orders to prevent the landing of Turkish
reinforcements on the island, soon withdrew from Cretan waters
owing to the decisive attitude adopted by the commanders of the
international
squadron. A
note was now addressed by the government to the powers, declaring
that Greece could no longer remain a passive spectator of events in
Crete, and on the 13th of February a force of 1500 men, under
Colonel Vassos, embarked at Peiraeus. On the same day a Greek
warship fired on a Turkish steam yacht which was conveying troops
from
Candia to Sitia. Landing
near Canea on the night of the 14th, Colonel Vassos issued a
proclamation
announcing the occupation of Crete in the name of King George. He
had received orders to expel the Turkish garrisons from the
fortresses, but his advance on Canea was arrested by the
international occupation of that town, and after a few engagements
with the Turkish troops and irregulars he withdrew into the
interior of the island. Proposals for the coercion of Greece were
now put forward by Germany, but Great Britain declined to take
action until an understanding had been arrived at with regard to
the future government of Crete. Eventually (2nd March) collective
notes were addressed to the Greek and Turkish governments
announcing the decision of the powers that (I) Crete could in no
case in present circumstances be annexed to Greece; (2) in view of
the delays caused by Turkey in the application of the reforms,
Crete should be endowed with an effective autonomous
administration, calculated to ensure it a separate government,
under the
suzerainty
of the sultan. Greece was at the same time summoned to remove its
army and fleet within the space of six days, and Turkey was warned
that its troops must for the present be concentrated in the
fortified towns and ultimately withdrawn from the island. The
action of the powers produced the utmost exasperation at Athens;
the populace demanded war with Turkey and the annexation of Crete,
and the government drew up a reply to the powers in which, while
expressing the conviction that autonomy would prove a failure, it
indicated its readiness to withdraw some of the ships, but declined
to recall the army. A suggestion that the troops might receive a
European
mandate for the
preservation of order in the island proved unacceptable to the
powers, owing to the aggressive action of Colonel Vassos after his
arrival. Meanwhile troops, volunteers and munitions of war were
hurriedly despatched to the Turkish frontier in anticipation of an
international blockade of the Greek ports, but the powers contented
themselves with a
pacific blockade of Crete, and
military preparations went on unimpeded.
While the powers dallied, the danger of war increased; on 29th
March the crown prince assumed command of the Greek troops in
Thessaly, and a few days later hostilities werereci precipitated by
the irregular forces of the Ethnike
War with p p y g
Turkey. Hetaerea, which attacked several Turkish outposts
near Grevena. According to a report of its proceedings,
subsequently published by the society, this invasion received the
previous sanction of the prime minister. On 17th April Turkey
declared war. The disastrous campaign which followed was of short
duration, and it was evident from the outset that the Greeks had
greatly underrated the military strength of their opponents (see
Greco-Turkish
War). After the evacuation of Larissa on the 24th, great
discontent prevailed at Athens; Delyannes was invited by the king
to resign, but refusing to do so was dismissed (29th April). His
successor, Rhalles, after recalling the army from Crete (gth May)
invoked the mediation of the powers, and an
armistice was concluded on the 19th of that
month. Thus ended an unfortunate enterprise, which was undertaken
in the hope that discord among the powers would lead to a European
war and the dismemberment of Turkey. Greek interference in Crete
had at least the result of compelling Europe to withdraw the island
for ever from Turkish rule. The conditions of peace put forward by
Turkey included a war indemnity of £Io,000,000 and the retention of
Thessaly; the latter demand, however, was resolutely opposed by
Great Britain, and the indemnity was subsequently reduced to
X4,000,000. The terms agreed to by the powers were rejected by
Rhalles; the chamber, however, refused him a vote of confidence and
King George summoned Zaimes to power (October 3). The definitive
treaty of peace, which was signed at Constantinople on the 6th of
December, contained a provision for a slight modification of the
frontier, designed to afford Turkey certain strategical advantages;
the delimitation was carried out by a commission composed of
military delegates of the powers and representatives of the
interested parties. The evacuation of Thessaly by the Turkish
troops was completed in June 1898. An immediate result of the war
was the institution of an international financial commission at
Athens, charged with the control of certain revenues assigned to
the service of the national debt. The state of the country after
the conclusion of hostilities was deplorable; the towns of northern
Greece and the islands were crowded with destitute refugees from
Thessaly; violent recriminations prevailed at Athens, and the
position of the dynasty seemed endangered. A reaction, however, set
in, in consequence of an attempt to assassinate King George (28th
February 1898), whose great services to the nation in obtaining
favourable terms from the powers began to receive general
recognition. In the following summer the king made a tour through
the country, and was everywhere received with enthusiasm. In the
autumn the powers, on the initiative of Russia, decided to entrust
Prince George of Greece with the government of Crete; on 26th
November an intimation that the prince had been appointed high
commissioner in the island was formally conveyed to the court of
Athens, and on 21st December he landed in Crete amid enthusiastic
demonstrations (see
Crete).
In April 1899 Zaimes gave way to Theotokes, the chief of the
Trikoupist party, who introduced various improvements in the
administration of justice and other reforms includ-
Mace- ing a measure transferring
the administration of the army from the minister of war to the
crown prince.
troubles. ?' p growing districts, and Rhalles took
office for the second time (July 8). The Bulgarian insurrection in
Macedonia during the autumn caused great excitement in Athens, and
Rhalles adopted a policy of friendship with Turkey (see
Macedonia). The
co-operation of the
Greek party in Macedonia with the Turkish authorities exposed it to
the vengeance of the insurgents, and in the following year a number
of Greek bands were sent into that country. The campaign of
retaliation was
continued in subsequent years.
In December Rhalles, who had lost the support of the Delyannist
party, was replaced by Theotokes, who promulgated a scheme of army
reorganization, introduced various economies and imposed fresh
taxation. In December De rannes. the government
was defeated on a vote of confidence and Delyannes once more became
prime minister, obtaining a considerable majority in the elections
which followed (March 1905), but on the 13th of June he was
assassinated. He was succeeded by Rhalles, who effected a
settlement of the currant question and cultivated friendly
relations with Turkey in regard to Macedonia.
In the autumn anti-Greek demonstrations in Rumania led to a
rupture of relations with that country. In December the ministry
resigned owing to an adverse vote of the chamber, and Theotokes
formed a cabinet. The new government, as a preliminary to military
and naval reorganization, introduced a law directed against the
candidature of military officers for parliament. Owing to
obstruction practised by the military members of the chamber a
dissolution took place, and at the subsequent elections (April
1906) Theotokes secured a large majority. In the autumn various
excesses committed against the Greeks in Bulgaria in reprisal for
the depredations of the Greek bands in Macedonia caused great
indignation in Greece, but diplomatic relations between the two
countries were not suspended. On the 26th of September Prince
George, who had resigned the high commissionership of Crete,
returned to Athens; the designation of his successors was accorded
by the protecting powers to King George as a satisfaction to Greek
national sentiment (see
Crete).
The great increase in the activity of the Greek bands in Macedonia
during the following spring and summer led to the delivery of a
Turkish note at Athens (July 1907), which was supported by
representations of the powers.
In October 1908 the proclamation by the Cretan assembly of union
with Greece threatened fresh complications, the cautious attitude
of the Greek government leading to an agitation in the army, which
came to a head in 1909. On the 18th of July a popular demonstration
against his Cretan policy led to the resignation of Theotokes,
whose successor, Rhalles, announced a programme of military and
economical reform. The army, however, took matters into its own
hands, and on the 23rd of August Rhalles was replaced by
Mavromichales, the nominee of the " Military League." For the next
six months constitutional government was practically superseded by
that of the League, and for a while the crown itself seemed to be
in danger. The influence of the League, however, rapidly declined;
army and navy quarrelled; and a fresh
coup d'etat at the
beginning of 1910 failed of its effect, owing to the firmness of
the king. On the 7th of February Mavromichales resigned, and his
successor, Dragoumis, accepting the Cretan leader Venezelo's
suggestion of a national assembly, succeeded in persuading the
League to dissolve (March 29) on receiving the king's assurance
that such an assembly would be convened. On the 31st, accordingly,
King George formally proclaimed the
convocation of a national assembly to deal
with the questions at issue.
Authorities. - Finlay,
History of Greece (Oxford,
1877); K. N. Sathas, 1 3L i 3XLoOnK7 7 (7 vols., Venice,
1872-1894); and Mvnµ€Ia ` EXXnvtKiis
ivropias. Documents
inedits relatifs al'histoire du moyen age (9 vols., Paris,
1880-1890); Sp. Trikoupes,
`IvTopia `EXXfPLKijs i
ravaeravsac (
4 vols., 3rd ed., Athens, 1888); K.
Paparrhegopoulos,
`IvTopia Tov `EXXfVLKOU i'Ovovs vols.,
4th ed., Athens, 1903); J.
Philemon,
ivTOpLKdP 7rEpL Tijc
`EXXnvLKlis 7ravavrao (Athens, 1859-1861); P. Kontoyannes,
01 "EXXnves Kara
TOP 7rp&,ros Ear1 ALKar pivns `Pw000rovpKLKOV iroXEuov
(Athens, 1903); D. G. Kampouroglos,
`Iaropia Twv 'ABnvaLcov. T
ovpKoKparia, 1458-1687 (2 vols., Athens, 1889-1890); and
Mvnµtia Tn1
ivropias rwv 'AOnvaiwv, In May 1901 a meeting
took place at
Abbazia, under
the auspices of the Austro-Hungarian government, between King
George and King
Charles of
Rumania with a view to the conclusion of a Graeco-Rumanian
understanding directed against the growth of Slavonic, and
especially Bulgarian, influence in Macedonia. The compact, however,
was destined to be short-lived owing to the
prosecution of a Rumanian propaganda among
the semi-Hellenized Vlachs of Macedonia. In November riots took
place at Athens, the patriotic indignation of the university
students and the populace being excited by the issue of a
translation of the Gospels into modern Greek at the suggestion of
the queen. The publication was attributed to Panslavist intrigues
against Greek supremacy over the Orthodox populations of the East,
and the archbishop of Athens was compelled to resign. Theotokes,
whose life was attempted, retired from power, and Zaimes formed a
cabinet. In 1902 the progress of the Bulgarian movement in
Macedonia once more caused great irritation in Greece. Zaimes,
having been defeated at the elections in December, resigned, and
was succeeded by Delyannes, whose popularity had not been
permanently impaired by the misfortunes of the war. Delyannes now
undertook to carry out extensive economic reforms, and introduced a
measure restoring the control of the army to the ministry of war.
He failed, however, to carry out his programme, and, being deserted
by a section of his followers, resigned in June 1903, when
Theotokes again became prime minister. The new cabinet resigned
within a month owing to the outbreak of disturbances in the currant
(3 vols., Athens, 1889-1892); G.E.Mavrogiannes,
`Iaropta
r&w 'Ioviwv viawv, 1797-1815 (2 vols., Athens, 1889); P.
Karolides,
`Iaropia aiwvos, 1814-1892 (Athens, 1891-1893);
E. Kyriakides,
`laropia at yxpovov `EXXnvcauoi, 1832-1892
(2 vols., Athens, 1892); G. Konstantinides,
`IaropiaTwV 'ABr 7
v h ' Curb X ptaroD yevvi 7 o' WS mcxpi
roD (2nd ed., Athens, 1894); D. Bikelas,
La
Grece byzantine et moderne (Paris, 1893). (J. D. B.)
Top topics
Wikis
Quiz
Facts
Map
Misc
Timeline
.jpg)
listen); Greek: Ελλάδα, Elláda, IPA: /eˈlaða/ (
Search
bordering the Mediterranean Sea
