[485] This brief fragment of the Παρθενεῖα of Alkman is preserved by Stephan. Byz. (Ἐρυσίχη), and alluded to by Strabo, x. p. 460: see Welcker Alkm. Fragm. xi. and Bergk, Alk. Fr. xii.

[486] Herodot. vi. 127.

[487] See an admirable topographical description of the north part of Bœotia,—the lake Kôpaïs and its environs, in Forchhammer’s Hellenika, pp. 159-186, with an explanatory map. The two long and laborious tunnels constructed by the old Orchomenians for the drainage of the lake, as an aid to the insufficiency of the natural Katabothra, are there very clearly laid down: one goes to the sea, the other into the neighboring lake Hylika, which is surrounded by high rocky banks and can take more water without overflowing. The lake Kôpaïs is an inclosed basin, receiving all the water from Doris and Phokis through the Kêphisus. A copy of Forchhammer’s map will be found at the end of the present volume.

Forchhammer thinks that it was nothing but the similarity of the name Itônea (derived from ἰτέα, a willow-tree) which gave rise to the tale of an emigration of people from the Thessalian to the Bœotian Itônê (p. 148).

The Homeric Catalogue presents Kôpæ, on the north of the lake, as Bœotian, but not Orchomenus nor Asplêdôn (Iliad, ii. 502).

[488] See O. Müller, Orchomenos, cap. xx. p. 418, seq.

[489] See Demosthen. De Fals. Legat. c. 43-45. Another portion of this narrow road is probably meant by the pass of Korôneia—τὰ περὶ Κορώνειαν στενὰ (Diodor. xv. 52; Xenoph. Hellen. iv. 3, 15)—which Epameinondas occupied to prevent the invasion of Kleombrotus from Phokis.

[490] Thucyd. ii. 2—κατὰ τὰ πάτρια τῶν πάντων Βοιωτῶν: compare the speech of the Thebans to the Lacedæmonians after the capture of Platæa, iii. 61, 65, 66.

[491] Thucyd. iv. 91; C. F. Hermann, Griechische Staats Alterthümer, sect. 179; Herodot. v. 79; Boeckh, Commentat. ad. Inscript. Bœotic. ap. Corp. Ins. Gr. part v. p. 726.

[492] Herodot. viii. 135; ix. 15-43. Pausan ix. 13, 1; ix. 23, 3; ix. 24, 3; ix. 32, 1-4. Xenophon, Hellen. vi. 4, 3-4: compare O. Müller, Orchomenos, cap. xx. p. 403.

[493] Aristot. Polit. ii. 9, 6-7. Νομοθέτης δ᾽ αὐτοῖς (to the Thebans) ἐγένετο Φιλόλαος περί τ᾽ ἄλλων τινῶν καὶ περὶ τῆς παιδοποιΐας, οὓς καλοῦσιν ἐκεῖνοι νόμους θετικούς· καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν ἰδίως ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου νενομοθετημένον, ὅπως ὁ ἀριθμὸς σῴζηται τῶν κλήρων. A perplexing passage follows within three lines of this,—Φιλολάου δὲ ἴδιον ἐστιν ἡ τῶν οὐσιῶν ἀνομάλωσις,—which raises two questions: first, whether Philolaus can really be meant in the second passage, which talks of what is ἴδιον to Philolaus, while the first passage had already spoken of something ἰδίως νενομοθετημένον by the same person. Accordingly, Göttling and M. Barthélemy St. Hilaire follow one of the MSS. by writing Φαλέου in place of Φιλολάου. Next, what is the meaning of ἀνομάλωσις? O. Müller (Dorians, ch. x. 5, p. 209) considers it to mean a “fresh equalization, just as ἀναδασμὸς means a fresh division,” adopting the translation of Victorius and Schlösser.

The point can hardly be decisively settled; but if this translation of ἀνομάλωσις be correct, there is good ground for preferring the word Φαλέου to Φιλολάου; since the proceeding described would harmonize better with the ideas of Phaleas (Aristot. Pol. ii. 4, 3).

[494] Ælian, V. H. ii. 7.

[495] Aristot. Polit. ii. 3, 7. This Pheidôn seems different from Pheidôn of Argos, as far as we are enabled to judge.

[496] Herodot. vi. 74; Pausan. viii. 18, 2. See the description and print of the river Styx, and the neighboring rocks, in Fiedler’s Reise durch Griechenland, vol. i. p. 400.

He describes a scene amidst these rocks, in 1826, when the troops of Ibrahim Pasha were in the Morea, which realizes the fearful pictures of war after the manner of the ancient Gauls, or Thracians. A crowd of five thousand Greeks, of every age and sex, had found shelter in a grassy and bushy spot embosomed amidst these crags,—few of them armed. They were pursued by five thousand Egyptians and Arabians: a very small resistance, in such ground, would have kept the troops at bay, but the poor men either could not or would not offer it. They were forced to surrender: the youngest and most energetic cast themselves headlong from the rocks and perished: three thousand prisoners were carried away captive, and sold for slaves at Corinth, Patras, and Modon: all those who were unfit for sale were massacred on the spot by the Egyptian troops.

[497] This is the only way of reconciling Herodotus (viii. 73) with Thucydidês (iv. 56, and v. 41). The original extent of the Kynurian territory is a point on which neither of them had any means of very correct information, but there is no occasion to reject the one in favor of the other.

[498] Herod. viii. 73. Οἱ δὲ Κυνούριοι, αὐτόχθονες ἐόντες, δοκέουσι μοῦνοι εἶναι Ἴωνες· ἐκδεδωρίευνται δὲ, ὑπό τε Ἀργείων ἀρχόμενοι καὶ τοῦ χρόνου, ἐόντες Ὀρνεῆται καὶ περίοικοι.

[499] Herodot. iv. 145-146.

[500] Herodotus omits Söus between Proklês and Eurypôn, and inserts Polydektês between Prytanis and Eunomus: moreover, the accounts of the Lacedæmonians, as he states them, represented Lykurgus, the lawgiver, as uncle and guardian of Labôtas, of the Eurysthenid house,—while Simonidês made him son of Prytanis, and others made him son of Eunomus, of the Proklid line: compare Herod. i. 65; viii. 131. Plutarch, Lycurg. c. 2.

Some excellent remarks on this early series of Spartan kings will be found in Mr. G. C. Lewis’s article in the Philological Museum, vol. ii. pp. 42-48, in a review of Dr. Arnold on the Spartan Constitution.

Compare also Larcher, Chronologie d’Hérodote, ch. 13, pp. 484-514. He lengthens many of the reigns considerably, in order to suit the earlier epoch which he assigns to the capture of Troy and the Return of the Herakleids.

[501] History of the Dorians, vol. ii. Append. p. 442.

[502] This story—that the heroic ancestor of the great Corinthian Bacchiadæ had slain the holy man Karnus, and had been punished for it by long banishment and privation—leads to the conjecture, that the Corinthians did not celebrate the festival of the Karneia, common to the Dorians generally.

Herodotus tells us, with regard to the Ionic cities, that all of them celebrated the festival of Apaturia, except Ephesus and Kolophon; and that these two cities did not celebrate it, “because of a certain reason of murder committed,”—οὗτοι γὰρ μοῦνοι Ἰώνων οὐκ ἄγουσιν Ἀπατούρια· καὶ οὗτοι κατὰ φόνου τινὰ σκῆψιν (Herod. i. 147).

The murder of Karnus by Hippotês was probably the φόνου σκῆψις which forbade the Corinthians from celebrating the Karneia; at least, this supposition gives to the legend a special pertinence which is otherwise wanting to it. Respecting the Karneia and Hyacinthia, see Schoell De Origine Græci Dramatis, pp. 70-78. Tübingen, 1828.

There were various singular customs connected with the Grecian festivals, which it was usual to account for by some legendary tale. Thus, no native of Elis ever entered himself as a competitor, or contended for the prize, at the Isthmian games. The legendary reason given for this was, that Hêraklês had waylaid and slain (at Kleônæ) the two Molionid brothers, when they were proceeding to the Isthmian games as Theôrs or sacred envoys from the Eleian king Augeas. Redress was in vain demanded for this outrage, and Molionê, mother of the slain envoys, imprecated a curse upon the Eleians generally if they should ever visit the Isthmian festival. This legend is the φόνου σκῆψις, explaining why no Eleian runner or wrestler was ever known to contend there (Pausan. ii. 15, 1; v. 2, 1-4. Ister, Fragment. 46, ed. Didot).

[503] Diodor. Fragm. lib. vii. p. 14, with the note of Wesseling. Strabo (viii. p. 378) states the Bacchiad oligarchy to have lasted nearly two hundred years.

[504] Herodot. i. 82. The historian adds, besides Cythêra, καὶ αἱ λοιπαὶ τῶν νήσων. What other islands are meant, I do not distinctly understand.

[505] So Plato (Legg. iii. p. 692), whose mind is full of the old mythe and the tripartite distribution of Peloponnesus among the Herakleids,—ἡ δ᾽ αὖ, πρωτεύουσα ἐν τοῖς τότε χρόνοις τοῖς περὶ τὴν διανομὴν, ἡ περὶ τὸ Ἄργος, etc.

[506] Pausan. ii. 38, 1; Strabo, viii. p. 368. Professor Ross observes, respecting the line of coast near Argos, “The sea-side is thoroughly flat, and for the most part marshy; only at the single point where Argos comes nearest to the coast,—between the mouth, now choked by sand, of the united Inachus and Charadrus, and the efflux of the Erasinus, overgrown with weeds and bulrushes,—stands an eminence of some elevation and composed of firmer earth, upon which the ancient Temenion was placed.” (Reisen im Peloponnes, vol. i. sect. 5, p. 149, Berlin, 1841.)

[507] Thucyd. iv. 42.

[508] Thucyd. i. 122; iii. 85, vii. 18-27; viii. 38-40.

[509] Thucyd. iv. 42.

[510] Aristot. ap. Prov. Vatican, iv. 4, Μηλιακὸν πλοῖον,—also Prov. Suidas, x. 2.

[511] Hist. of Dorians, ch. i. 9. Andrôn positively affirms that the Dorians came from Histiæôtis to Krête; but his affirmation does not seem to me to constitute any additional evidence of the fact: it is a conjecture adapted to the passage in the Odyssey (xix. 174), as the mention of Achæans and Pelasgians evidently shows.

Aristotle (ap. Strab. viii. p. 374) appears to have believed that the Herakleids returned to Argos out of the Attic Tetrapolis (where, according to the Athenian legend, they had obtained shelter when persecuted by Eurystheus), accompanying a body of Ionians who then settled at Epidaurus. He cannot, therefore, have connected the Dorian occupation of Argos with the expedition from Naupaktus.

[512] Herod. viii. 43-46; Diodor. iv. 37; Pausan. iv. 34, 6.

[513] Strabo, viii. p. 373; ix. p. 434. Herodot. viii. 43. Pherekydês, Fr. 23 and 38, ed. Didot. Steph. Byz. v. Δρυόπη. Apollodor. ii. 7, 7. Schol. Apollon. Rhod. i. 1213.

[514] Herodot. i. 56.—ἐνθεῦτεν δὲ αὖτις ἐς τὴν Δρυοπίδα μετέβη, καὶ ἐκ τῆς Δρυοπίδος οὕτω ἐς Πελοπόννησον ἐλθὸν, Δωρικὸν ἐκλήθη,—to the same purpose, viii. 31-43.

[515] See Herodot. vii. 148. The Argeians say to the Lacedæmonians, in reference to the chief command of the Greeks—καίτοι κατά γε τὸ δίκαιον γίνεσθαι τὴν ἡγεμονίην ἑωύτων, etc. Schweighäuser and others explain the point by reference to the command of Agamemnôn; but this is at best only a part of the foundation of their claim: they had a more recent historical reality to plead also: compare Strabo, viii. p. 376.

[516] Ἡμῶν κτισάντων (so runs the accusation of the Theban orators against the captive Platæans, before their Lacedæmonian judges, Thucyd. iii. 61.) Πλάταιαν ὕστερον τῆς ἄλλης Βοιωτίας—οὐκ ἠξίουν αὐτοὶ, ὥσπερ ἐτάχθη τὸ πρῶτον, ἡγεμονεύεσθαι ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν, ἔξω δὲ τῶν ἄλλων Βοιωτῶν παραβαίνοντες τὰ πάτρια, ἐπειδὴ προσηναγκάζοντο, προσεχώρησαν πρὸς Ἀθηναίους καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτῶν πολλὰ ἡμᾶς ἔβλαπτον.

[517] Respecting Pheidôn, king of Argos, Ephorus said,—τὴν λῆξιν ὅλην ἀνέλαβε τὴν Τημένου διεσπασμένην εἰς πλείω μέρη (ap. Strabo. viii. p. 358).

[518] The worship of Apollo Pythaëus, adopted from Argos both at Hermionê and Asinê, shows the connection between them and Argos (Pausan. ii. 35, 2; ii. 36, 5): but Pausanias can hardly be justified in saying that the Argeians actually Dorized Hermionê: it was Dryopian in the time of Herodotus, and seemingly for a long time afterwards (Herodot. viii. 43). The Hermionian Inscription, No. 1193, in Boeckh’s Collection, recognizes their old Dryopian connection with Asinê in Laconia: that town had once been neighbor of Hermionê, but was destroyed by the Argeians, and the inhabitants received a new home from the Spartans. The dialect of the Hermionians (probably that of the Dryopians generally) was Doric. See Ahrens, De Dialecto Doricâ, pp. 2-12.

[519] Thucyd. v. 53. Κυριώτατοι τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἦσαν οἱ Ἀργεῖοι. The word εἴσπραξις, which the historian uses in regard to the claim of Argos against Epidaurus, seems to imply a money-payment withheld: compare the offerings exacted by Athens from Epidaurus (Herod. v. 82).

The peculiar and intimate connection between the Argeians, and Apollo, with his surname of Pythaëus, was dwelt upon by the Argeian poetess Telesilla (Pausan. ii. 36, 2).

[520] Herodot. vi. 92. See O. Müller, History of the Dorians, ch. 7, 13.

[521] Ephor. Fragm. 15, ed. Marx; ap. Strabo, viii. p. 358; Theopompus, Fragm. 30, ed. Didot; ap. Diodor. Fragm. lib. iv.

The Parian Marble makes Pheidôn the eleventh from Hêraklês, and places him B. C. 895; Herodotus, on the contrary (in a passage which affords considerable grounds for discussion), places him at a period which cannot be much higher than 600 B. C. (vi. 127.) Some authors suspect the text of Herodotus to be incorrect: at any rate, the real epoch of Pheidôn is determined by the 8th Olympiad. Several critics suppose two Pheidôns, each king of Argos,—among others, O. Müller (Dorians, iii. 6, 10); but there is nothing to countenance this, except the impossibility of reconciling Herodotus with the other authorities. And Weissenborn, in a dissertation of some length, vindicates the emendation of Pausanias proposed by some former critics,—altering the 8th Olympiad, which now stands in the text of Pausanias, into the twenty-eighth, as the date of Pheidôn’s usurpation at the Olympic games. Weissenborn endeavors to show that Pheidôn cannot have flourished earlier than 660 B. C.; but his arguments do not appear to me very forcible, and certainly not sufficient to justify so grave an alteration in the number of Pausanias (Beiträge zur Griechischen Alterthumskunde, p. 18, Jena, 1844). Mr. Clinton (Fasti Hellenici, vol. i. App. 1, p. 249) places Pheidôn between 783 and 744 B. C.; also, Boeckh. ad Corp. Inscript. No. 2374, p. 335, and Müller, Æginetica, p. 63.

[522] Pausan. ii. 36, 5; iv. 35, 2.

[523] Pausan. ii. 19, 1. Ἀργεῖοι δὲ, ἅτε ἰσηγορίαν καὶ τὸ αὐτόνομον ἀγαπῶντες ἐκ παλαιοτάτου, τὰ τῆς ἐξουσίας τῶν βασιλέων ἐς ἐλάχιστον προήγαγον, ὡς Μήδωνι τῷ Κείσου καὶ τοῖς ἀπογόνοις τὸ ὄνομα λειφθῆναι τοῦ βασιλέως μόνον. This passage has all the air of transferring back to the early government of Argos, feelings which were only true of the later. It is curious that, in this chapter, though devoted to the Argeian regal line and government, Pausanias takes no notice of Pheidôn: he mentions him only with reference to the disputed Olympic ceremony.

[524] Ephorus, ut suprà. Φείδωνα τὸν Ἀργεῖον, δέκατον ὄντα ἀπὸ Τημένου, δυνάμει δὲ ὑπερβεβλημένον τοὺς κατ᾽ αὐτὸν, ἀφ᾽ ἧς τήν τε λῆξιν ὅλην ἀνέλαβε τὴν Τημένου διεσπασμένην εἰς πλείω μέρη, etc. What is meant by the lot of Têmenus has been already explained.

[525] Plutarch, Narrat. Amator. p. 772; Schol. Apollon. Rhod. iv. 1212; compare Didymus, ap. Schol. Pindar. Olymp. xiii. 27.

I cannot, however, believe that Pheidôn, the ancient Corinthian law giver mentioned by Aristotle, is the same person as Pheidôn the king of Argos (Polit. ii. 6, 4).

[526] Ephor. ut suprà.Πρὸς τούτοις, ἐπιθέσθαι καὶ ταῖς ὑφ᾽ Ἡρακλέους αἰρεθείσαις πόλεσι, καὶ τοὺς ἀγῶνας ἀξιοῦν τιθέναι αὐτὸν, οὓς ἐκεῖνος ἔθηκε· τούτων δὲ εἶναι καὶ τὸν Ὀλυμπιακὸν, etc.

[527] Herodot. v. 43.

[528] Xenoph. Hellen. vii. 4, 28; Diodor. xv. 78.

[529] Strabo, viii. p. 354.

[530] Thucyd. iv. 98.

[531] Pausan. v. 22, 2; Strabo, viii. pp. 354-358; Herodot. vi. 127. The name of the victor (Antiklês the Messenian), however, belonging to the 8th Olympiad, appears duly in the lists; it must have been supplied afterwards.

[532] Herodot. vi. 127; Ephor. ap. Strab. viii. pp. 358-376.

[533] Metrologische Untersuchungen über Gewichte, Münzfusse, und Mässe des Alterthums in ihrem Zusammenhange dargestellt, von Aug. Boeckh; Berlin, 1838.

See chap. 7, 1-3. But I cannot agree with M. Boeckh, in thinking that Pheidôn, in celebrating the Olympic games, deduced from the Olympic stadium, and formally adopted, the measure of the foot, or that he at all settled measures of length. In general, I do not think that M. Boeckh’s conclusions are well made out, in respect to the Grecian measures of length and capacity. In an examination of this eminently learned treatise (inserted in the Classical Museum, 1844, vol. i.), I endeavored to set forth both the new and interesting points established by the author, and the various others in which he appeared to me to have failed.

[534] I have modified this sentence as it stood in my first edition. It is not correct to speak of the Egyptian money scale: the Egyptians had no coined money. See a valuable article, in review of my History, in the Christian Reformer, by Mr. Kenrick, who pointed out this inaccuracy.

[535] Thucyd. v. 31.

[536] Plutarch, Apophthegm. Laconic. p. 226; Dikæarchus ap. Athenæ. iv. p. 141.

The Æginæan mina, drachma, and obolus were the denominations employed in stipulations among the Peloponnesian states (Thucyd. v. 47).

[537] Herodot. vi. 127. Φείδωνος τοῦ Ἀργείων τυράννου—τοῦ ὑβρίσαντος μέγιστα δὴ Ἑλλήνων ἁπάντων. Pausanias (vi. 22, 2) copies the expression.

Aristotle cites Pheidôn as a person who, being a βασιλεὺς, made himself a τύραννος (Politic. viii. 8, 5).

[538] Herodot. vii. 149.

[539] Pausan. iii. 22, 9; iii. 23, 4.

[540] Herodot. v. 83; Strabo, viii. p. 375.

[541] Rhodes, Kôs, Knidus, and Halikarnassus are all treated by Strabo (xiv. p. 653) as colonies of Argos: Rhodes is so described by Thucydidês (vii. 57), and Kôs by Tacitus (xii. 61). Kôs, Kalydna, and Nisyrus are described by Herodotus as colonies of Epidaurus (vii. 99): Halikarnassus passes sometimes for a colony of Trœzên, sometimes of Trœzên and Argos conjointly: “Cum Melas et Areuanius ab Argis et Trœzene coloniam communem eo loco induxerunt, barbaros Caras et Leleges ejecerunt (Vitruv. ii. 8, 12: Steph. Byz. v. Ἁλικάρνασσος).” Compare Strabo, x. p. 479; Conon, Narr. 47; Diodor. v. 80.

Raoul Rochette (Histoire des Colonies Grecques, t. iii. ch. 9) and O. Müller (History of the Dorians, ch. 6) have collected the facts about these Asiatic Dorians.

The little town of Bœæ had its counterpart of the same name in Krête (Steph. Byz. v. Βοῖον).

[542] Strabo, p. 374.

[543] Ephorus ap. Strabo, viii. p. 376; Boeckh, Metrologie, Abschn. 7, 1: see also the Marmor Parium, Epoch 30.

[544] Etymologicon Magn. Εὐβοϊκὸν νόμισμα.

[545] Pollux, Onomastic. x. 179. Εἴη δ᾽ ἂν καὶ Φείδων τι ἀγγείον ἐλαιηρὸν, ἀπὸ τῶν Φειδωνίων μέτρων ὠνομασμένον, ὑπὲρ ὦν ἐν Ἀργείων πολιτείᾳ Ἀριστοτέλης λέγει.

Also Ephorus ap. Strab. viii. p. 358. καὶ μέτρα ἐξεῦρε τὰ Φειδώνεια καλούμενα καὶ σταθμοὺς, καὶ νόμισμα κεχαράγμενον, etc.

[546] This differs from Boeckh’s opinion: see the note in page 315.

[547] Theophrast. Character. c. 13; Pollux, x. 179.

[548] Odyss. xv. 297.

[549] Strabo, x. p. 479.

[550] Leake, Travels in Morea, vol. iii. ch. 23, p. 29; compare Diodor. xv. 66.

The distance from Olympia to Sparta, as marked on a pillar which Pausanias saw at Olympia, was 660 stadia,—about 77 English miles (Pausan. vi. 16, 6).

[551] Strabo, viii. pp. 364, 365; Pausan. iii. 2, 5: compare the story of Krius, Pausan. iii. 13, 3.

[552] Pausan. iv. 3, 3; viii. 29, 4.

[553] Strabo (viii. p. 366) blames Euripidês for calling Messênê an inland country; but the poet seems to have been quite correct in doing so.

[554] Pausan. iv. 2, 2. μετεῖχον δὲ αὐτοῦ μόνοι Δωρίεων οἵ τε Μεσσήνιοι καὶ Λακεδαιμόνιοι.

[555] Pausan. iv. 3, 5-6.

[556] Homer, Iliad, ii. 604.—

Schol. ad loc. ὁ δ᾽ Αἴπυτος ἀρχαιότατος ἥρως, Ἀρκὰς τὸ γένος.

[557] Compare the two citations from Ephorus, Strabo, viii. pp. 361-365. Unfortunately, a portion of the latter citation is incurably mutilated in the text: O. Müller (History of the Dorians, book i. ch. v. 13) has proposed an ingenious conjecture, which, however, cannot be considered as trustworthy. Grosskurd, the German translator, usually skilful in these restorations, leaves the passage untouched.

For a new coloring of the death of Kresphontês, adjusted by Isokratês so as to suit the purpose of the address which he puts into the mouth of Archidamus king of Sparta, see the discourse in his works which passes under that name (Or. iv. pp. 120-122). Isokratês says that the Messenian Dorians slew Kresphontês, whose children fled as suppliants to Sparta, imploring revenge for the death of their father, and surrendering the territory to the Spartans. The Delphian god advised the latter to accept the tender, and they accordingly attacked the Messenians, avenged Kresphontês, and appropriated the territory.

Isokratês always starts from the basis of the old legend,—the triple Dorian conquest made all at once: compare Panathenaic. Or. xii. pp. 270-287.

[558] Ephorus ap. Strabo, viii. p. 361. Dr. Thirlwall observes (History of Greece, ch. vii. p. 300, 2d edit.), “The Messenian Pylus seems long to have retained its independence, and to have been occupied for several centuries by one branch of the family of Neleus; for descendants of Nestor are mentioned as allies of the Messenians in their struggle with Sparta in the latter half of the seventh century B. C.”

For this assertion, Dr. Thirlwall cites Strabo (viii. p. 355). I agree with him as to the matter of fact: I see no proof that the Dorians of Stenyklêrus ever ruled over what is called the Messenian Pylus; for, of course, if they did not rule over it before the second Messenian war, they never acquired it at all. But on reference to the passage in Strabo, it will not be found to prove anything to the point; for Strabo is speaking, not of the Messenian Pylus, but of the Triphylian Pylus: he takes pains to show that Nestor had nothing to do with the Messenian Pylus,—Νέστορος ἀπόγονοι means the inhabitants of Triphylia, near Lepreum: compare p. 350.

[559] Strabo, viii. p. 360. Concerning the situation of Korônê, in the Messenian gulf, see Pausanias, iv. 34, 2; Strabo, viii. p. 361; and the observations of Colonel Leake, Travels in Morea, ch. x. vol. i. pp. 439-448. He places it near the modern Petalidhi, seemingly on good grounds.

[560] See Mr. Clinton’s Chronological Tables for the year 732 B. C.; O. Müller (in the Chronological Table subjoined to his History of the Dorians) calls this victor, Oxythemis of Korôneia, in Bœotia. But this is inadmissible, on two grounds: 1. The occurrence of a Bœotian competitor in that early day at the Olympic games. The first eleven victors (I put aside Oxythemis, because he is the subject of the argument) are all from western and southern Peloponnesus; then come victors from Corinth, Megara, and Epidaurus; then from Athens; there is one from Thebes in the 41st Olympiad. I infer from hence that the celebrity and frequentation of the Olympic games increased only by degrees, and had not got beyond Peloponnesus in the eighth century B. C. 2. The name Coronæus, Κορωναῖος, is the proper and formal title for a citizen of Korônê, not for a citizen of Korôneia: the latter styles himself Κορωνεύς. The ethnical name Κορωνεὺς, as belonging to Korôneia in Bœotia, is placed beyond doubt by several inscriptions in Boeckh’s collection; especially No. 1583, in which a citizen of that town is proclaimed as victorious at the festival of the Charitesia at Orchomenus: compare Nos. 1587-1593, in which the same ethnical name occurs. The Bœotian Inscriptions attest in like manner the prevalence of the same etymological law in forming ethnical names, for the towns near Korôneia: thus, Chærôneia makes Χαιρωνεὺς; Lebadeia, Λεβαδεὺς; Elateia, Ἐλατεὺς, or Ἐλατειεύς.

The Inscriptions afford evidence perfectly decisive as to the ethnical title under which a citizen of Korôneia in Bœotia would have caused himself to be entered and proclaimed at the Olympic games; better than the evidence of Herodotus and Thucydidês, who both call them Κορωναῖοι (Herodot. v. 79; Thucyd. iv. 93): Polybius agrees with the Inscription, and speaks of the Κορωνεῖς, Λεβαδεῖς, Χαιρωνεῖς (xxvii. 1). O. Müller himself admits, in another place (Orchomenos, p. 480), that the proper ethnical name is Κορωνεύς. The reading of Strabo (ix. p. 411) is not trustworthy: see Grosskurd, ad loc.; compare Steph. Byz. Κορώνεια and Κορώνη.

In regard to the formation of ethnical names, it seems the general rule, that a town ending in η or αι, preceded by a consonant, had its ethnical derivative in αιος; such as Σκιώνη, Τορώνη, Κύμη, Θῆβαι, Ἀθῆναι; while names ending in εια had their ethnicon in ευς, as Ἀλεξάνδρεια, Ἀμάσεια, Σελεύκεια, Λυσιμάχεια (the recent cities thus founded by the successors of Alexander are perhaps the best evidences that can be taken of the analogies of the language), Μελάμπεια, Μελίτεια, in addition to the Bœotian names of towns above quoted. There is, however, great irregularity in particular cases, and the number of towns called by the same name created an anxiety to vary the ethnicon for each: see Stephan. Byz. v. Ἡράκλεια.

[561] The entire nakedness of the competitors at Olympia was adopted from the Spartan practice, seemingly in the 14th Olympiad, as is testified by the epigram on Orsippus the Megarian. Previous to that period, the Olympic competitors had διαζώματα περὶ τὰ αἰδοῖα (Thucyd. i. 6).

[562] Thucyd. iii. 112: iv. 41: compare vii. 44, about the sameness of sound of the war-shout, or pæan, as delivered by all the different Dorians.

[563] Corpus Inscript. Boeckh, Nos. 1771, 1772, 1773; Ahrens, De Dialecto Doricâ, sect. i-ii. 48.

[564] Thucyd. iv. 42: Strabo, viii. p. 333.

[565] See the valuable work of Ahrens, De Dialecto Æolicâ. sect. 51. He observes, in reference to the Lesbian, Thessalian, and Bœotian dialects: “Tres illas dialectos, quæ optimo jure Æolicæ vocari videntur—quia, qui illis usi sunt, Æoles erant—comparantem mirum habere oportet, quod Asianorum Æolum et Bœotorum dialecti tantum inter se distant, quantum vix ab aliâ quâvis Græcæ linguæ dialecto.” He then enumerates many points of difference: “Contra tot tantasque differentias pauca reperiuntur eaque fere levia, quæ utrique dialecto, neque simul Doricæ, communia sint.... Vides his comparatis tantum interesse inter utramque dialectum, ut dubitare liceat, an Æoles Bœoti non magis cum Æolibus Asianis conjuncti fuerint, quam qui hodie miro quodam casu Saxones vocantur cum antiquis Saxonibus. Nihilominus Thessalicâ dialecto in comparationem vocata, diversissima quæ videntur aliquo vinculo conjungere licet. Quamvis enim pauca de eâ comperta habeamus, hoc tamen certum est, alia Thessalis cum Lesbiis, alia cum solis Bœotis communia esse.” (P. 222-223.)

[566] About the Æolic dialect of the Perrhæbians, see Stephanus Byz. v. Γόννος, and ap. Eustath. ad Iliad, p. 335.

The Attic judgment, in comparing these different varieties of Greek speech, is expressed in the story of a man being asked—Whether the Bœotians or the Thessalians were most of barbarians? He answered—The Eleians (Eustath. ad Iliad. p. 304).

[567] See Heeren, Dissertatio de Fontibus Plutarchi, pp. 19-25.

[568] Herodot. i. 65. Moreover, Herodotus gives this as the statement of the Lacedæmonians themselves.

[569] Plutarch, Lykurg. c. 1. According to Dionys. Halik. (Ant. Rom. ii. 49) Lykurgus was uncle, not son, of Eunomus.

Aristotle considers Lykurgus as guardian of Charilaus (Politic. ii. 7, 1): compare v. 10, 3. See O. Müller (Hist. of Dorians, i. 7, 3).

[570] Phlegôn also adds Kleosthenês of Pisa (De Olympiis ap. Meursii Opp. vii. p. 128). It appears that there existed a quoit at Olympia, upon which the formula of the Olympic truce was inscribed, together with the names of Iphitus and Lykurgus as the joint authors and proclaimers of it. Aristotle believed this to be genuine, and accepted it as an evidence of the fact which it professed to certify: and O. Müller is also disposed to admit it as genuine,—that is, as contemporary with the times to which it professes to relate. I come to a different conclusion: that the quoit existed, I do not doubt; but that the inscription upon it was actually set down in writing, in or near B. C. 880, would be at variance with the reasonable probabilities resulting from Grecian palæography. Had this ancient and memorable instrument existed at Olympia in the days of Herodotus, he could hardly have assigned to Lykurgus the epoch which we now read in his writings.

The assertions in Müller’s History of the Dorians (i. 7, 7), about Lykurgus, Iphitus, and Kleosthenês “drawing up the fundamental law of the Olympic armistice,” are unsupported by any sufficient evidence. In the later times of established majesty of the Olympic festival, the Eleians did undoubtedly exercise the power which he describes; but to connect this with any deliberate regulation of Iphitus and Lykurgus, is in my judgment incorrect. See the mention of a similar truce proclaimed throughout Triphylia by the Makistians as presidents of the common festival at the temple of the Samian Poseidon (Strabo, viii. p. 343).