The Project Gutenberg eBook, History of Greece, Volume 8 (of 12), by George Grote This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. Title: History of Greece, Volume 8 (of 12) Author: George Grote Release Date: May 21, 2016 [eBook #52119] Language: English Character set encoding: UTF-8 ***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY OF GREECE, VOLUME 8 (OF 12)*** E-text prepared by Ramon Pajares Box, Adrian Mastronardi, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images generously made available by Internet Archive/American Libraries (https://archive.org/details/americana) Note: Images of the original pages are available through Internet Archive/American Libraries. See https://archive.org/details/historyofgreece08grotiala Transcriber's note Table of Contents HISTORY OF GREECE. BY GEORGE GROTE, ESQ. VOL. VIII. REPRINTED FROM THE LONDON EDITION. NEW YORK: HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS, 329 AND 331 PEARL STREET. 1879. PREFACE TO VOL. VIII. I had hoped to be able, in this Volume, to carry the history of Greece down as far as the battle of Knidus; but I find myself disappointed. A greater space than I anticipated has been necessary, not merely to do justice to the closing events of the Peloponnesian war, especially the memorable scenes at Athens after the battle of Arginusæ, but also to explain my views both respecting the Sophists and respecting Sokratês. It has been hitherto common to treat the sophists as corruptors of the Greek mind, and to set forth the fact of such corruption, increasing as we descend downwards from the great invasion of Xerxês, as historically certified. Dissenting as I do from former authors, and believing that Grecian history has been greatly misconceived, on both these points, I have been forced to discuss the evidences, and exhibit the reasons for my own way of thinking, at considerable length. To Sokratês I have devoted one entire Chapter. No smaller space would have sufficed to lay before the reader any tolerable picture of that illustrious man, the rarest intellectual phenomenon of ancient times, and originator of the most powerful scientific impulse which the Greek mind ever underwent. G. G. London, February, 1850. [p. iii] CONTENTS. VOL. VIII. PART II. CONTINUATION OF HISTORICAL GREECE. CHAPTER LXII. TWENTY-FIRST YEAR OF THE WAR. — OLIGARCHY OF FOUR HUNDRED AT ATHENS. Rally of Athens, during the year after the defeat at Syracuse. B.C. 412. — Commencement of the conspiracy of the Four Hundred at Athens — Alkibiadês. — Order from Sparta to kill Alkibiadês. — He escapes, retires to Tissaphernês, and becomes adviser of the Persians. — He advises the satrap to assist neither of the Grecian parties heartily — but his advice leans towards Athens, with a view to his own restoration. — Alkibiadês acts as negotiator for Tissaphernês at Magnesia. — Diminution of the rate of pay furnished by Tissaphernês to the Peloponnesians. — Alkibiadês opens correspondence with the Athenian officers at Samos. He originates the scheme of an oligarchical revolution at Athens. — Conspiracy arranged between the Athenian officer and Alkibiadês. — Oligarchical Athenians — the hetæries, or political clubs. Peisander is sent to push forward the conspiracy at Athens. — Credulity of the oligarchical conspirators. — Opposition of Phrynichus at Samos to the conspirators, and to Alkibiadês. — Manœuvres and counter-manœuvres of Phrynichus and Alkibiadês. — Proceedings of Peisander at Athens — strong opposition among the people both to the conspiracy and to the restoration of Alkibiadês. — Unwilling vote of the assembly to relinquish their democracy, under the promise of Persian aid for the war. Peisander is sent back to negotiate with Alkibiadês. — Peisander brings the oligarchical clubs at Athens into organized action against the democracy. — Peisander leaves Athens for Samos — Antiphon takes the management of the oligarchical conspiracy — Theramenês and Phrynichus. — Military operations near the Asiatic coast. — Negotiations of Peisander with Alkibiadês. — Tricks of Alkibiadês — he exaggerates his demands, with a view of breaking off the negotiation — indignation of the oligarchs against him. — Reconciliation between Tissaphernês and the Peloponnesians. — Third convention concluded between them. — Third convention compared with the two preceding. — Loss of Orôpus by Athens. — Peisander and his colleagues persist in the oligarchical conspiracy, without Alkibiadês. — They attempt to subvert the democracy at Samos — assassination of Hyperbolus and others. — The democracy at Samos is sustained by the Athenian armament. — The Athenian Parali — defeat of the oligarchical conspiracy at Samos. — The Paralus is sent to Athens with the news. — Progress of the oligarchical conspiracy at Athens — dextrous management of Antiphon. — Language of the conspirators — juggle about naming Five Thousand citizens to exercise the political franchise exclusively. — Assassination of the popular speakers by Antiphon and the oligarchical party. — Return of Peisander to Athens — oligarchical government established in several of the allied cities. — Consummation of the revolution at Athens — last public assembly at Kolônus. — Abolition of the Graphê Paranomôn. — New government proposed by Peisander — oligarchy of Four Hundred. — Fictitious and nominal aggregate called the Five Thousand. — The Four Hundred install themselves in the senate-house, expelling the senators by armed force. — Remarks on this revolution. — Attachment to constitutional forms at Athens — use made of this sentiment by Antiphon, to destroy the constitution. — Demagogues the indispensable counterpoise and antithesis to the oligarchs. — Proceedings of the Four Hundred in the government. — They make overtures for peace to Agis, and to the Spartans. — They send envoys to the camp at Samos. — First news of the revolution is conveyed to the camp by Chæreas — strong sentiment in the camp against the Four Hundred. — Ardent democratical manifestation, and emphatic oath, taken both by the Athenian armament at Samos and by the Samians. — The Athenian democracy is reconstituted by the armament — public assembly of the soldiers — new generals chosen. — Alkibiadês opens correspondence with the democratical armament at Samos. — Alkibiadês comes to Samos, on the invitation of the armament. — Confidence placed by the armament in his language and promises — they choose him one of their generals. — New position of Alkibiadês — present turn of his ambition. — The envoys of the Four Hundred reach Samos — are indignantly sent back by the armament. — Eagerness of the armament to sail to Peiræus — is discountenanced by Alkibiadês — his answer to the envoys. — Dissuasive advice of Alkibiadês — how far it is to be commended as sagacious. — Envoys sent from Argos to the “Athenian Demos at Samos.” — Return of the envoys of the Four Hundred from Samos to Athens — bad prospects of the oligarchy. — Mistrust and discord among the Four Hundred themselves. An opposition party formed under Theramenês. — Theramenês demands that the Five Thousand shall be made a reality. — Measures of Antiphon and the Four Hundred — their solicitations to Sparta — construction of the fort of Ectioneia, for the admission of a Spartan garrison. — Unaccountable backwardness of the Lacedæmonians. — Assassination of Phrynichus — Lacedæmonian fleet hovering near Peiræus. — Rising at Athens against the Four Hundred — demolition of the new fort at Ectioneia. — Decline of the Four Hundred — concessions made by them — renewal of the public assembly. — Lacedæmonian fleet threatens Peiræus — passes by to Eubœa. — Naval battle near Eretria — Athenians defeated — Eubœa revolts. — Dismay at Athens — her ruin inevitable, if the Lacedæmonians had acted with energy. — The Four Hundred are put down — the democracy in substance restored. — Moderation of political antipathies, and patriotic spirit, now prevalent. — The Five Thousand — a number never exactly realized — were soon enlarged into universal citizenship. — Restoration of the complete democracy, all except pay. — Psephism of Demophantus — democratical oath prescribed. — Flight of most of the leaders of the Four Hundred to Dekeleia. — Theramenês stands forward to accuse the remaining leaders of the Four Hundred, especially in [p. v] [p. vi] [p. vii] reference to the fort at Ectioneia, and the embassy to Sparta. — Antiphon tried, condemned, and executed. — Treatment of the Four Hundred generally. — Favorable judgment of Thucydidês on the conduct of the Athenians. — Oligarchy at Athens, democracy at Samos — contrast. 1-93 CHAPTER LXIII. THE RESTORED ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY, AFTER THE DEPOSITION OF THE FOUR HUNDRED, DOWN TO THE ARRIVAL OF CYRUS THE YOUNGER IN ASIA MINOR. Embarrassed state of Athens after the Four Hundred. — Peloponnesian fleet — revolt of Abydos from Athens. — Strombichidês goes from Chios to the Hellespont — improved condition of the Chians. — Discontent in the Peloponnesian fleet at Milêtus. — Strombichidês returns from Chios to Samos. — Peloponnesian squadron and force at the Hellespont — revolt of Byzantium from Athens. — Discontent and meeting against Astyochus at Milêtus. — The Spartan commissioner Lichas enjoins the Milesians to obey Tissaphernês — discontent of the Milesians. — Mindarus supersedes Astyochus as admiral. — Phenician fleet at Aspendus — duplicity of Tissaphernês. — Alkibiadês at Aspendus — his double game between Tissaphernês and the Athenians. — Phenicians sent back from Aspendus without action — motives of Tissaphernês. — Mindarus leaves Milêtus with his fleet — goes to Chios — Thrasyllus and the Athenian fleet at Lesbos. — Mindarus eludes Thrasyllus, and reaches the Hellespont. — Athenian Hellespontine squadron escapes from Sestos in the night. — Thrasyllus and the Athenian fleet at the Hellespont. — Battle of Kynossêma — victory of the Athenian fleet. — Rejoicing at Athens for the victory. — Bridge across the Euripus, joining Eubœa with Bœotia. — Revolt of Kyzikus. — Zeal of Pharnabazus against Athens — importance of Persian money. — Tissaphernês again courts the Peloponnesians. — Alkibiadês returns from Aspendus to Samos. — Farther combats at the Hellespont. — Theramenês sent out with reinforcements from Athens. — Renewed troubles at Korkyra. — Alkibiadês is seized by Tissaphernês and confined at Sardis. — Escape of Alkibiadês — concentration of the Athenian fleet — Mindarus besieges Kyzikus. — Battle of Kyzikus — victory of the Athenians — Mindarus is slain, and the whole Peloponnesian fleet taken. — Discouragement of the Spartans — proposition to Athens for peace. — The Lacedæmonian Endius at Athens — his propositions for peace. — Refused by Athens — opposition of Kleophon. — Grounds of the opposition of Kleophon. — Question of policy as it then stood, between war and peace. — Strenuous aid of Pharnabazus to the Peloponnesians — Alkibiadês and the Athenian fleet at the Bosphorus. — The Athenians occupy Chrysopolis, and levy toll on the ships passing through the Bosphorus. — The Lacedæmonians are expelled from Thasus. — Klearchus the Lacedæmonian is sent to Byzantium. — Thrasyllus sent from Athens to Ionia. — Thrasyllus and Alkibiadês at the Hellespont. — Pylos is retaken by the Lacedæmonians — disgrace of the Athenian Anytus for not relieving it. — Capture of Chalkêdon by Alkibiadês and the Athenians. — Convention concluded by the Athenians with Pharnabazus. — Byzantium captured by the Athenians. — Pharnabazus conveys some Athenian envoys towards Susa, to make terms with the Great King. 93-135 CHAPTER LXIV. FROM THE ARRIVAL OF CYRUS THE YOUNGER IN ASIA MINOR DOWN TO THE BATTLE OF ARGINUSÆ. Cyrus the younger — effects of his coming down to Asia Minor. — Pharnabazus detains the Athenian envoys. — Lysander — Lacedæmonian admiral in Asia. — Proceedings of the preceding admiral, Kratesippidas. — Lysander visits Cyrus at Sardis. — His dexterous policy — he acquires the peculiar esteem of Cyrus. — Abundant pay of the Peloponnesian armament, furnished by Cyrus. — Factions organized by Lysander among the Asiatic cities. — Proceedings of Alkibiadês in Thrace and Asia. — His arrival at Athens. — Feelings and details connected with his arrival. — Unanimous welcome with which he is received. — Effect produced upon Alkibiadês. — Sentiment of the Athenians towards him. — Disposition to refrain from dwelling on his previous wrongs, and to give him a new trial. — Mistaken confidence and intoxication of Alkibiadês. — He protects the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries by land, against the garrison of Dekeleia. — Fruitless attempt of Agis to surprise Athens. — Alkibiadês sails with an armament to Asia — ill- success at Andros — entire failure in respect to hopes from Persia. — Lysander at Ephesus — his cautious policy, refusing to fight — disappointment of Alkibiadês. — Alkibiadês goes to Phokæa, leaving his fleet under the command of Antiochus — oppression by Alkibiadês at Kymê. — Complaints of the Kymæans at Athens — defeat of Antiochus at Notium during the absence of Alkibiadês. — Dissatisfaction and complaint in the armament against Alkibiadês. — Murmur and accusation against him transmitted to Athens. — Alteration of sentiment at Athens — displeasure of the Athenians against him. — Reasonable grounds of such alteration and displeasure. — Different behavior towards Nikias and towards Alkibiadês. — Alkibiadês is dismissed from his command — ten generals named to succeed him — he retires to the Chersonese. — Konon and his colleagues — capture and liberation of the Rhodian Dorieus by the Athenians. — Kallikratidas supersedes Lysander — his noble character. — Murmurs and ill-will against Kallikratidas — energy and rectitude whereby he represses them. — His spirited behavior in regard to the Persians. — His appeal to the Milesians — Pan-Hellenic feelings. — He fits out a commanding fleet — his success at Lesbos — he liberates the captives and the Athenian garrison at Methymna. — Noble character of this proceeding — exalted Pan-Hellenic patriotism of Kallikratidas. — He blocks up Konon and the Athenian fleet at Mitylênê. — Triumphant position of Kallikratidas. — Hopeless condition of Konon — his stratagem to send news to Athens and entreat relief. — Kallikratidas defeats the squadron of Diomedon. — Prodigious effort of the Athenians to relieve Konon — large Athenian fleet equipped and sent to Arginusæ — Kallikratidas withdraws most of his fleet from Mitylênê, leaving Eteonikus to continue the blockade. — The two fleets marshalled for battle. — Comparative nautical skill, reversed since the beginning of the war. — Battle of Arginusæ — defeat of the Lacedæmonians — death of Kallikratidas. — It would have been better for Greece, and even for Athens, if Kallikratidas had been victor at Arginusæ. — Safe escape of Eteonikus and his fleet from Mitylênê to Chios. — Joy of Athens for the victory — indignation arising from the fact that the Athenian seamen on [p. viii] [p. ix] the disabled ships had not been picked up after the battle. — State of the facts about the disabled ships, and the men left in them. — Despatch of the generals to Athens, affirming that a storm had prevented them from saving the drowning men. — Justifiable wrath and wounded sympathy of the Athenians — extreme excitement among the relatives of the drowned men. — The generals are superseded, and directed to come home. — Examination of the generals before the senate and the people at Athens. — Debate in the public assembly — Theramenês accuses the generals as guilty of omitting to save the drowning men. — Effect of the accusation by Theramenês upon the assembly. — Defence of the generals — they affirm that they had commissioned Theramenês himself to undertake the duty. — Reason why the generals had not mentioned this commission in their despatch. — Different account given by Diodorus. — Probable version of the way in which the facts really occurred. — Justification of the generals — how far valid? — The alleged storm. Escape of Eteonikus. — Feelings of the Athenian public — how the case stood before them — decision adjourned to a future assembly. — Occurrence of the festival of Apaturia — the great family solemnity of the Ionic race. — Burst of feeling at the Apaturia — misrepresented by Xenophon. — Proposition of Kallixenus in the senate against the generals — adopted and submitted to the public assembly. — Injustice of the resolution — by depriving the generals of the customary securities for judicial trial. Psephism of Kannônus. — Opposition taken by Euryptolemus on the ground of constitutional form. — Graphê Paranomôn. — Excitement of the assembly — constitutional impediment overruled. — The prytanes refuse to put the question — their opposition overruled, all except that of Sokratês. — Altered temper of the assembly when the discussion had begun — amendment moved and developed by Euryptolemus. — Speech of Euryptolemus. — His amendment is rejected — the proposition of Kallixenus is carried. — The six generals are condemned and executed. — Injustice of the proceeding — violation of the democratical maxims and sentiments. — Earnest repentance of the people soon afterwards — disgrace and end of Kallixenus. — Causes of the popular excitement. — Generals — not innocent men. 135-210 CHAPTER LXV. FROM THE BATTLE OF ARGINUSÆ TO THE RESTORATION OF THE DEMOCRACY AT ATHENS, AFTER THE EXPULSION OF THE THIRTY. Alleged propositions of peace from Sparta to Athens — doubtful. — Eteonikus at Chios — distress of his seamen — conspiracy suppressed. — Solicitations from Chios and elsewhere that Lysander should be sent out again. — Arrival of Lysander at Ephesus — zeal of his partisans — Cyrus. — Violent revolution at Milêtus by the partisans of Lysander. — Cyrus goes to visit his dying father — confides his tributes to Lysander. — Inaction of the Athenian fleet after the battle of Arginusæ. — Operations of Lysander. — Both fleets at the Hellespont. — Athenian fleet at Ægospotami. — Battle of Ægospotami — surprise and capture of the entire Athenian fleet. — Capture of the Athenian commanders, all except Konon. — Slaughter of the captive generals and prisoners. — The Athenian fleet supposed to have been betrayed by its own commanders. — Distress and agony at Athens, when the defeat of Ægospotami was made known there. — Proceedings of Lysander. — Miserable condition of the Athenian kleruchs, and of the friends of Athens in the allied dependencies. — Suffering in Athens. — Amnesty proposed by Patrokleidês, and adopted. — Oath of mutual harmony sworn in the acropolis. — Arrival of Lysander. Athens is blocked up by sea and land. — Resolute holding-out of the Athenians — their propositions for capitulating are refused. — Pretences of Theramenês — he is sent as envoy — his studied delay. — Misery and famine in Athens — death of Kleophon. — The famine becomes intolerable — Theramenês is sent to obtain peace on any terms — debate about the terms at Sparta. — Peace is granted by Sparta, against the general sentiment of the allies. — Surrender of Athens — extreme wretchedness — number of deaths from famine. — Lysander enters Athens — return of the exiles — demolition of the Long Walls — dismantling of Peiræus — fleet given up. — The exiles and the oligarchical party in Athens — their triumphant behavior and devotion to Lysander. — Kritias and other exiles — past life of Kritias. — Kritias at the head of the oligarchs at Athens. — Oligarchical leaders named at Athens. — Seizure of Strombichidês and other eminent democrats. — Nomination of the Thirty, under the dictation of Lysander. — Conquest of Samos by Lysander — oligarchy restored there. — Triumphant return of Lysander to Sparta — his prodigious ascendency throughout Greece. — Proceedings of the Thirty at Athens — feelings of oligarchical men like Plato. — The Thirty begin their executions — Strombichidês and the imprisoned generals put to death — other democrats also. — Senate appointed by the Thirty — is only trusted to act under their intimidation. Numerous executions without trial. — The senate began by condemning willingly everyone brought before them. — Discord among the Thirty — dissentient views of Kritias and Theramenês. — Lacedæmonian garrison introduced — multiplied executions by Kritias and the Thirty. — Opposition of Theramenês to these measures — violence and rapacity still farther increased — rich and oligarchical men put to death. — Plan of Kritias to gain adherents by forcing men to become accomplices in deeds of blood — resistance of Sokratês. — Terror and discontent in the city — the Thirty nominate a body of Three Thousand as partisan hoplites. — They disarm the remaining hoplites of the city. — Murders and spoliations by the Thirty. Seizure of the Metics. — Seizure of Lysias the rhetor and his brother Polemarchus. The former escapes — the latter is executed. — Increased exasperation of Kritias and the majority of the Thirty against Theramenês. — Theramenês is denounced by Kritias in the Senate — speech of Kritias. — Reply of Theramenês. — Extreme violence of Kritias and the Thirty. — Condemnation of Theramenês. — Death of Theramenês — remarks on his character. — Increased tyranny of Kritias and the Thirty. — The Thirty forbid intellectual teaching. — Sokratês and the Thirty. — Growing insecurity of the Thirty. — Gradual alteration of feeling in Greece, since the capture of Athens. — Demand by the allies of Sparta to share in the spoils of the war — refused by Sparta. — Unparalleled ascendency of Lysander. — His overweening ambition — oppressive dominion of Sparta. — Disgust excited in Greece by the enormities of the Thirty. — Opposition to Lysander at Sparta — king Pausanias. — Kallikratidas compared with Lysander. — Sympathy at Thebes and elsewhere with the Athenian exiles. — Thrasybulus seizes Phylê — repulses the Thirty in their attack. — Farther success of Thrasybulus — the Thirty retreat to Athens. — Discord among the oligarchy at Athens — seizure of the Eleusinians. — Thrasybulus establishes himself in Peiræus. — The Thirty attack him and are defeated — Kritias is slain. — Colloquy during the burial-truce — [p. x] [p. xi] language of Kleokritus. — Discouragement of the oligarchs at Athens — deposition of the Thirty and appointment of the Ten — the Thirty go to Eleusis. — The Ten carry on the war against the exiles. — Increasing strength of Thrasybulus. — Arrival of Lysander in Attica with a Spartan force. — Straightened condition of the exiles in Peiræus. — Spartan king Pausanias conducts an expedition into Attica; opposed to Lysander. — His dispositions unfavorable to the oligarchy; reaction against the Thirty. — Pausanias attacks Peiræus; his partial success. — Peace party in Athens — sustained by Pausanias. — Pacification granted by Pausanias and the Spartan authorities. — The Spartans evacuate Attica — Thrasybulus and the exiles are restored — harangue of Thrasybulus. — Restoration of the democracy. — Capture of Eleusis — entire reunion of Attica — flight of the survivors of the Thirty. 210-290 CHAPTER LXVI. FROM THE RESTORATION OF THE DEMOCRACY TO THE DEATH OF ALKIBIADES. Miserable condition of Athens during the two preceding years. — Immediate relief caused by the restoration. — Unanimous sentiment towards the renewed democracy. — Amnesty — treatment of the Thirty and the Ten. — Disfranchising proposition of Phormisius. — The proposition rejected — speech composed by Lysias against it. — Revision of the laws — the Nomothetæ. — Decree, that no criminal inquiries should be carried back beyond the archonship of Eukleidês, B.C. 403. — Oath taken by the senate and the dikasts modified. — Farther precautions to insure the observance of the amnesty. — Absence of harsh reactionary feeling, both after the Thirty and after the Four Hundred. — Generous and reasonable behavior of the demos — contrasted with that of the oligarchy. — Care of the people to preserve the rights of private property. — Repayment to the Lacedæmonians. — The horsemen, or knights. — Revision of the laws — Nikomachus. — Adoption of the fuller Ionic alphabet, in place of the old Attic, for writing up the laws. — Memorable epoch of the archonship of Eukleidês. The rhetor Lysias. — Other changes at Athens — abolition of the Board of Hellenotamiæ — restriction of the right of citizenship. — Honorary reward to Thrasybulus and the exiles. — Position and views of Alkibiadês in Asia. — Artaxerxes Mnêmon, the new king of Persia. Plans of Cyrus — Alkibiadês wishes to reveal them at Susa. — The Lacedæmonians conjointly with Cyrus require Pharnabazus to put him to death. — Assassination of Alkibiadês by order of Pharnabazus. — Character of Alkibiadês. 290-316 CHAPTER LXVII. THE DRAMA. — RHETORIC AND DIALECTICS. — THE SOPHISTS. Athens immediately after Eukleidês — political history little known. — Extraordinary development of dramatic genius. — Gradual enlargement of tragedy. — Abundance of new tragedy at Athens. — Accessibility of the theatre to the poorest citizens. — Theôrikon, or festival-pay. — Effect of the tragedies on the public mind of Athens. — Æschylus, Sophoklês, and Euripidês — modifications of tragedy. — Popularity arising from expenditure of money on the festivals. — Growth and development of comedy at Athens. — Comic poets before Aristophanês — Kratinus, etc. — Exposure of citizens by name in comedy — forbidden for a time — then renewed — Kratês and the milder comedy. — Aristophanês. — Comedy in its effect on the Athenian mind. — Mistaken estimate of the comic writers, as good witnesses or just critics. — Aversion of Solon to the drama when nascent. — Dramatic poetry as compared with the former kinds of poetry. — Ethical sentiment, interest, and debate, infused into the drama. — The drama formed the stage of transition to rhetoric, dialectics, and ethical philosophy. — Practical value and necessity of rhetorical accomplishments. — Rhetoric and dialectics. — Empedoklês of Agrigentum — first name in the rhetorical movement. — Zeno of Elea — first name in the dialectical movement. — Eleatic school — Parmenidês. — Zeno and Melissus — their dialectic attacks upon the opponents of Parmenidês. — Zeno at Athens — his conversation both with Periklês and with Sokratês. — Early manifestation, and powerful efficacy, of the negative arm in Grecian philosophy. — Rhetoric and dialectics — men of active life and men of speculation — two separate lines of intellectual activity. — Standing antithesis between these two intellectual classes — vein of ignorance at Athens, hostile to both. — Gradual enlargement of the field of education at Athens — increased knowledge and capacity of the musical teachers. — The sophists — true Greek meaning of that word — invidious sentiment implied in it. — The name sophist applied by Plato in a peculiar sense, in his polemics against the eminent paid teachers. — Misconceptions arising from Plato’s peculiar use of the word sophist. — Paid teachers or sophists of the Sokratic age — Protagoras, Gorgias, etc. — Plato and the sophists — two different points of view — the reformer and theorist against the practical teacher. — The sophists were professional teachers for active life, like Isokratês and Quintilian. — Misinterpretations of the dialogues of Plato as carrying evidence against the sophists. — The sophists as paid teachers — no proof that they were greedy or exorbitant — proceeding of Protagoras. — The sophists as rhetorical teachers — groundless accusations against them in that capacity, made also against Sokratês, Isokratês, and others. — Thrasymachus — his rhetorical precepts. — Prodikus — his discrimination of words analogous in meaning. — Protagoras — his treatise on Truth — his opinions about the pagan gods. — His view of the cognitive process and its relative nature. — Gorgias — his treatise on physical subjects — misrepresentations of the scope of it. — Unfounded accusations against the sophists. — They were not a sect or school, with common doctrines or method; they were a profession, with strong individual peculiarities. — The Athenian character was not really corrupted, between 480 B.C. and 405 B.C. — Prodikus — The choice of Hercules. — Protagoras — real estimate exhibited of him by Plato. — Hippias of Elis — how he is represented by Plato. — Gorgias, Pôlus, and Kalliklês. — Doctrine advanced by Pôlus. — Doctrine advanced by Kalliklês — anti-social. — Kalliklês is not a sophist. — The doctrine put into his mouth could never have been laid down in any public lecture among the Athenians. — Doctrine of Thrasymachus in the “Republic” of Plato. — Such doctrine not common to all the sophists — what is offensive in it is, the manner in which it is put forward. [p. xii] [p. xiii] — Opinion of Thrasymachus afterwards brought out by Glaukon — with less brutality, and much greater force of reason. — Plato against the sophists generally. His category of accusation comprehends all society, with all the poets and statesmen. — It is unjust to try either the sophists or the statesmen of Athens, by the standard of Plato. — Plato distinctly denies that Athenian corruption was to be imputed to the sophists. — The sophists were not teachers of mere words, apart from action. — General good effect of their teaching upon the youth. — Great reputation of the sophists — evidence of respect for intellect and of a good state of public sentiment. 317-399 CHAPTER LXVIII. SOKRATES. Different spirit shown towards Sokratês and towards the sophists. — Birth and family of Sokratês. — His physical and moral qualities. — Xenophon and Plato as witnesses. — Their pictures of Sokratês are in the main accordant. — Habits of Sokratês. — Leading peculiarities of Sokratês. — His constant publicity of life and indiscriminate conversation. — Reason why Sokratês was shown up by Aristophanês on the stage. — His persuasion of a special religious mission. — His dæmon, or genius — other inspirations. — Oracle from Delphi declaring that no man was wiser than he. — His mission to test the false conceit of wisdom in others. — Confluence of the religious motive with the inquisitive and intellectual impulse in his mind — numerous enemies whom he made. — Sokratês a religious missionary, doing the work of philosophy. — Intellectual peculiarities of Sokratês. — He opened ethics as a new subject of scientific discussion. — Circumstances which turned the mind of Sokratês towards ethical speculations. — Limits of scientific study as laid down by Sokratês. — He confines study to human affairs, as distinguished from divine — to man and society. — Importance of the innovation — multitude of new and accessible phenomena brought under discussion. — Innovations of Sokratês as to method — dialectic method — inductive discourses — definitions. — Commencement of analytical consciousness of the mental operations — genera and species. — Sokratês compared with previous philosophers. — Great step made by Sokratês in laying the foundation of formal logic, afterwards expanded by Plato, and systematized by Aristotle. — Dialectical process employed by Sokratês — essential connection between method and subject. — Essential connection also between the dialectic process and the logical distribution of subject-matter — one in many and many in one. — Persuasion of religious mission in Sokratês, prompting him to extend his colloquial cross-examination to noted men. — His cross-examining purpose was not confined to noted men, but of universal application. — Leading ideas which directed the scrutiny of Sokratês — contrast between the special professions and the general duties of social life. — Platonic dialogues — discussion whether virtue is teachable. — Conceit of knowledge without real knowledge — universal prevalence of it. — Such confident persuasion, without science, belonged at that time to astronomy and physics, as well as to the subjects of man and society — it is now confined to the latter. — Sokratês first lays down the idea of ethical science, comprising the appropriate ethical end with theory and precepts. — Earnestness with which Sokratês inculcated self- examination — effect of his conversation upon others. — Preceptorial and positive exhortation of Sokratês chiefly brought out by Xenophon. — This was not the peculiarity of Sokratês — his powerful method of stirring up the analytical faculties. — Negative and indirect scrutiny of Sokratês produced strong thirst, and active efforts, for the attainment of positive truth. — Inductive process of scrutiny, and Baconian spirit, of Sokratês. — Sokratic method tends to create minds capable of forming conclusions for themselves — not to plant conclusions ready-made. — Grecian dialectics — their many-sided handling of subjects — force of the negative arm. — The subjects to which they were applied — man and society — essentially required such handling — reason why. — Real distinction and variance between Sokratês and the sophists. — Prodigious efficacy of Sokratês in forming new philosophical minds. — General theory of Sokratês on ethics — he resolved virtue into knowledge, or wisdom. — This doctrine defective as stating a part for the whole. — He was led to this general doctrine by the analogy of special professions. — Constant reference of Sokratês to duties of practice and detail. — The derivative reasonings of Sokratês were of larger range than his general doctrine. — Political opinions of Sokratês. — Long period during which Sokratês exercised his vocation as a public converser. — Accusation against him by Melêtus, Anytus, and Lykon. — The real ground for surprise is, that that accusation had not been preferred before. — Inevitable unpopularity incurred by Sokratês in his mission. — It was only from the general toleration of the Athenian democracy and population, that he was allowed to go on so long. — Particular circumstances which brought on the trial of Sokratês. — Private offence of Anytus. — Unpopularity arising to Sokratês from his connection with Kritias and Alkibiadês. — Enmity of the poets and rhetors to Sokratês. — Indictment — grounds of the accusers — effects of the “Clouds” of Aristophanês, in creating prejudice against Sokratês. — Accusation of corruption in teaching was partly founded on political grounds. — Perversion of the poets alleged against him. — Remarks of Xenophon upon these accusations. — The charges touch upon the defective point of the Sokratic ethical theory. — His political strictures. — The verdict against Sokratês was brought upon him partly by his own concurrence. — Small majority by which he was condemned. — Sokratês defended himself like one who did not care to be acquitted. — The “Platonic Apology.” — Sentiment of Sokratês about death. — Effect of his defence upon the dikasts. — Assertion of Xenophon that Sokratês might have been acquitted if he had chosen it. — The sentence — how passed in Athenian procedure. — Sokratês is called upon to propose some counter-penalty against himself — his behavior. — Aggravation of feeling in the dikasts against him in consequence of his behavior. — Sentence of death — resolute adherence of Sokratês to his own convictions. — Satisfaction of Sokratês with the sentence, on deliberate conviction. — Sokratês in prison for thirty days — he refuses to accept the means of escape — his serene death. — Originality of Sokratês. — Views taken of Sokratês as a moral preacher and as a skeptic — the first inadequate, the second incorrect. — Sokratês, positive and practical in his end; negative only in his means. — Two points on which Sokratês is systematically negative. — Method of Sokratês of universal application. — Condemnation of Sokratês one of the misdeeds of intolerance. — Extenuating circumstances — principle of orthodox enforcement recognized generally in ancient times. — Number of personal enemies made by Sokratês. — His condemnation brought on by himself. — The Athenians did not repent it. [p. xiv] [p. xv] 399-496 HISTORY OF GREECE. PART II. CONTINUATION OF HISTORICAL GREECE. CHAPTER LXII. TWENTY-FIRST YEAR OF THE WAR. — OLIGARCHY OF FOUR HUNDRED AT ATHENS. About a year elapsed between the catastrophe of the Athenians near Syracuse and the victory which they gained over the Milêsians, on landing near Milêtus (from September 413 B.C., to September 412 B.C.). After the first of those two events, the complete ruin of Athens had appeared both to her enemies and to herself, impending and irreparable. But so astonishing, so rapid, and so energetic had been her rally, that, at the time of the second, she was found again carrying on a tolerable struggle, though with impaired resources and on a purely defensive system, against enemies both bolder and more numerous than ever. Nor is there any reason to doubt that her foreign affairs might have gone on thus improving, had they not been endangered at this critical moment by the treason of a fraction of her own citizens, bringing her again to the brink of ruin, from which she was only rescued by the incompetence of her enemies. That treason took its first rise from the exile Alkibiadês. I have already recounted how this man, alike unprincipled and energetic, had thrown himself with his characteristic ardor into the service of Sparta, and had indicated to her the best means of aiding Syracuse, of inflicting positive injury upon Athens, and lastly, of provoking revolt among the Ionic allies of the latter. It was by his boldness and personal connections in Ionia that the revolt of Chios and Milêtus had been determined. In the course of a few months, however, he had greatly lost the confidence of the Spartans. The revolt of the Asiatic dependencies of Athens had not been accomplished so easily and rapidly as he had predicted; Chalkideus, the Spartan commander with whom he had acted was defeated and slain near Milêtus; the ephor Endius, by whom he was chiefly protected, retained his office only for one year, and was succeeded by other ephors,[1] just about the end of September, or beginning of October, when the Athenians gained their second victory near Milêtus, and were on the point of blocking up the town; while his personal enemy king Agis still remained to persecute him. Moreover, there was in the character of this remarkable man something so essentially selfish, vain, and treacherous, that no one could ever rely upon his faithful coöperation. And as soon as any reverse occurred, that very energy and ability, which seldom failed him, made those with whom he acted the more ready to explain the mischance, by supposing that he had betrayed them. It was thus that, after the defeat of Milêtus, king Agis was enabled to discredit Alkibiadês as a traitor to Sparta; upon which the new ephors sent out at once an order to the general Astyochus, to put him to death.[2] Alkibiadês had now an opportunity of tasting the difference between Spartan and Athenian procedure. Though his enemies at Athens were numerous and virulent, with all the advantage, so unspeakable in political warfare, of being able to raise the cry of irreligion against him, yet the utmost which they could obtain was that he should be summoned home to take his trial before the dikastery. At Sparta, without any positive ground of crimination, and without any idea of judicial trial, his enemies procure an order that he shall be put to death. Alkibiadês, however, got intimation of the order in time to retire to Tissaphernês. Probably he was forewarned by Astyochus himself, not ignorant that so monstrous a deed would greatly alienate the Chians and Milêsians, nor foreseeing the full mischief which his desertion would bring upon Sparta. With that flexibility of character which enabled him at once to master and take up a new position, Alkibiadês soon found means to insinuate himself into the confidence of the satrap. He began now to play a game neither Spartan nor Athenian, but Persian and anti-Hellenic: a game of duplicity to which Tissaphernês himself was spontaneously disposed, but to which the intervention of a dexterous Grecian negotiator was indispensable. It was by no means the interest of the Great King, Alkibiadês urged, to lend such effective aid to either of the contending parties as would enable it to crush the other: he ought neither to bring up the Phenician fleet to the aid of the Lacedæmonians, nor to furnish that abundant pay which would procure for them indefinite levies of new Grecian force. He ought so to feed and prolong the war, as to make each party an instrument of exhaustion and impoverishment against the other, and thus himself to rise on the ruins of both: first to break down the Athenian empire by means of the Peloponnesians, and afterwards to expel the Peloponnesians themselves; which might be effected with little trouble if they were weakened by a [Pg 1] [p. 2] [p. 3] protracted previous struggle.[3] Thus far Alkibiadês gave advice, as a Persian counsellor, not unsuitable to the policy of the court of Susa. But he seldom gave advice without some view to his own profit, ambition, or antipathies. Cast off unceremoniously by the Lacedæmonians, he was now driven to seek restoration in his own country. To accomplish this object, it was necessary not only that he should preserve her from being altogether ruined, but that he should present himself to the Athenians as one who could, if restored, divert the aid of Tissaphernês from Lacedæmon to Athens. Accordingly, he farther suggested to the satrap, that while it was essential to his interest not to permit land power and maritime power to be united in the same hands, whether Lacedæmonian or Athenian, it would nevertheless be found easier to arrange matters with the empire and pretensions of Athens than with those of Lacedæmon. The former, he argued, neither sought nor professed any other object than the subjection of her own maritime dependencies, in return for which she would willingly leave all the Asiatic Greeks in the hands of the Great King; while the latter, forswearing all idea of empire, and professing ostentatiously to aim at the universal enfranchisement of every Grecian city, could not with the smallest consistency conspire to deprive the Asiatic Greeks of the same privilege. This view appeared to be countenanced by the objection which Theramenês and many of the Peloponnesian officers had taken to the first convention concluded by Chalkideus and Alkibiadês with Tissaphernês: objections afterwards renewed by Lichas even against the second modified convention of Theramenês, and accompanied with an indignant protest against the idea of surrendering to the Great King all the territory which had been ever possessed by his predecessors.[4] All these latter arguments, whereby Alkibiadês professed to create in the mind of the satrap a preference for Athens, were either futile or founded on false assumptions. For on the one hand, even Lichas never refused to concur in surrendering the Asiatic Greeks to Persia; while on the other hand, the empire of Athens, so long as she retained any empire, was pretty sure to be more formidable to Persia than any efforts undertaken by Sparta under the disinterested pretence of liberating generally the Grecian cities. Nor did Tissaphernês at all lend himself to any such positive impression; though he felt strongly the force of the negative recommendations of Alkibiadês, that he should do no more for the Peloponnesians than was sufficient to feed the war, without insuring to them either a speedy or a decisive success: or rather, this duplicity was so congenial to his Oriental mind, that there was no need of Alkibiadês to recommend it. The real use of the Athenian exile, was to assist the satrap in carrying it into execution; and to provide for him those plausible pretences and justifications, which he was to issue as a substitute for effective supplies of men and money. Established along with Tissaphernês at Magnesia,—the same place which had been occupied about fifty years before by another Athenian exile, equally unprincipled, and yet abler, Themistoklês,—Alkibiadês served as interpreter of his views in all his conversations with the Greeks, and appeared to be thoroughly in his confidence: an appearance of which he took advantage to pass himself off falsely upon the Athenians at Samos, as having the power of turning Persian wealth to the aid of Athens. The first payment made by Tissaphernês, immediately after the capture of Iasus and of the revolted Amorgês, to the Peloponnesians at Milêtus, was at the rate of one drachma per head. But notice was given that for the future it would be reduced one half, and for this reduction Alkibiadês undertook to furnish a reason. The Athenians, he urged, gave no more than half a drachma; not because they could not afford more, but because, from their long experience of nautical affairs, they had found that higher pay spoiled the discipline of the seamen by leading them into excesses and over-indulgence, as well as by inducing too ready leave of absence to be granted, in confidence that the high pay would induce them to return when called for.[5] As he probably never expected that such subterfuges, employed at a moment when Athens was so poor that she could not even pay the half drachma per head, would carry conviction to any one, so he induced Tissaphernês to strengthen their effect by individual bribes to the generals and trierarchs: a mode of argument which was found effectual in silencing the complaints of all, with the single exception of the Syracusan Hermokratês. In regard to other Grecian cities who sent to ask pecuniary aid, and especially Chios, Alkibiadês spoke out with less reserve. They had been hitherto compelled to contribute to Athens, he said, and now that they had shaken off this payment, they must not shrink from imposing upon themselves equal or even greater burdens in their own defence. Nor was it anything less, he added, than sheer impudence in the Chians, the richest people in Greece, if they required a foreign military force for their protection, to require at the same time that others should furnish the means of paying it.[6] At the same time, however, he intimated,—by way of keeping up hopes for the future,—that Tissaphernês was at present carrying on the war at his own cost; but if hereafter remittances should arrive from Susa, the full rate of pay would be resumed, with the addition of aid to the Grecian cities in any other way which could be reasonably asked. To this promise was added an assurance that the Phenician fleet was now under equipment, and would shortly be brought up to their aid, so as to give them a superiority which would render resistance hopeless: an assurance not merely deceitful but mischievous, since it was employed to dissuade them from all immediate action, and to paralyze their navy during its moments of fullest vigor and efficiency. Even the reduced rate of pay was furnished so irregularly, and the Peloponnesian force kept so starved, that the duplicity of the satrap became obvious to every one, and was only carried through by his bribery to the officers.[7] [p. 4] [p. 5] [p. 6] While Alkibiadês, as the confidential agent and interpreter of Tissaphernês, was carrying on this anti- Peloponnesian policy through the autumn and winter of 412-411 B.C.,—partly during the stay of the Peloponnesian fleet at Milêtus, partly after it had moved to Knidus and Rhodes,—he was at the same time opening correspondence with the Athenian officers at Samos. His breach with the Peloponnesians, as well as his ostensible position in the service of Tissaphernês, were facts well known among the Athenian armament; and his scheme was, to procure both restoration and renewed power in his native city, by representing himself as competent to bring over to her the aid and alliance of Persia, through his ascendency over the mind of the satrap. His hostility to the democracy, however, was so generally known, that he despaired of accomplishing his return, unless he could connect it with an oligarchical revolution; which, moreover, was not less gratifying to his sentiment of vengeance for the past, than to his ambition for the future. Accordingly, he sent over a private message to the officers and trierarchs at Samos, several of them doubtless his personal friends, desiring to be remembered to the “best men” in the armament,[8] such was one of the standing phrases by which oligarchical men knew and described each other; and intimating his anxious wish to come again as a citizen among them, bringing with him Tissaphernês as their ally. But he would do this only on condition of the formation of an oligarchical government; nor would he ever again set foot amidst the odious democracy to whom he owed his banishment.[9] Such was the first originating germ of that temporary calamity, which so nearly brought Athens to absolute ruin, called the Oligarchy of Four Hundred: a suggestion from the same exile who had already so deeply wounded his country by sending Gylippus to Syracuse, and the Lacedæmonian garrison to Dekeleia. As yet, no man in Samos had thought of a revolution; but the moment that the idea was thus started, the trierarchs and wealthy men in the armament caught at it with avidity. To subvert the democracy for their own profit, and to be rewarded for doing so with the treasures of Persia as a means of carrying on...