Affairs of the GRECIAN Settlements in SICILY and ITALY; from the ATHENIAN Invasion, to the Settlement of the SYRACUSAN Government under DIONYSIUS and HIPPARINUS

SECTION I

Authorities for the Sequel of Grecian History. Sicilian Affairs following the Athenian Invasion. Administration and Legislation of Diocles at Syracuse

Whoever may ingage in the investigation of Grecian history among the original authors, whether writing for others, or only reading for himself, cannot but feel, at the period where we are now arrived, the loss of regular guidance from those cotemporary with the events, citizens of the republics they describe, conversant with the politics and warfare of the time, eyewitnesses, or generally acquainted with eyewitnesses of the facts they relate. After the death of Epameinondas, with which Xenophon's narrative ends, the only account of Grecian affairs, aiming at connection, is that of the Sicilian Diodorus, who lived above three hundred years after, in the time of Augustus Cæsar. In this long interval, the establishment, first of the Macedonian, and afterward of the Roman empire, had so altered and overwhelmed the former politics of the civilized world, that they were no more to be gathered but from books, in the age of Diodorus, than at this day.

Many valuable works of elder writers were indeed extant, of which a few sentences only, preserved in quotations, are now known to exist. Very interesting portions of Sicilian history were published by men of eminent abilities, whose means of information were not inferior to those of Xenophon and Thucydides, but whose interests and passions, according to remaining report, more tinged their narratives.

Affairs of GREECE, from the Acquisition of the Situation of First Minister of ATHENS by DEMOSTHENES, to the Election of the King of MACEDONIA to the Office of General of the AMPHICTYONIC Confederacy

SECTION I

Character of the Office of First Minister of Athens. Ability and Diligence of Demosthenes. Negotiation with Persia. New Coälition with Phocian's Party. Embassy of Demosthenes to the Hellespontine Cities

The situation of first minister, or vicegerent of the soverein assembly, for the direction of the executive government, was less connected with a particular office, in Athens, than in any other Grecian commonwealth, whose constitution has been unfolded to us. In Lacedæmon, the ephor of the year was the principal minister; at Thebes, the poletnatc or the Bœotarc. Under Solon's constitution, the archon of the year seems to have been the proper first minister of Athens. But when the commonwealth became much implicated in wars, it was found convenient that the strategus, the first general, should have a discretionary power to call extraordinary assemblies of the people, which was analogous to demanding an audience of the soverein. The general commonly acquired his situation by his abilities; the archon, at least in the constitution of Cleisthenes, if the business was legally conducted, always by lot; the communications of the general to the soverein assembly were often most highly interesting; those of the archon seldom. Men of the extraordinary characters then of Themistocles, Aristeides, Cimon, and Pericles, holding successively the office of general, through most critical periods of many years, gave it an importance far above that of any other.

Affairs of ATHENS, from the general Peace following the Battle of MANTINEIA, and of MACEDONIA, from the Establishment of PHILIP, Son of AMYNTAS, to the Renewal of War between MACEDONIA and ATHENS

SECTION I

Revived political Eminence of Athens. Increasing Defect in the restored Constitution. Uneasy Situation of eminent Men. Opportunity for political Adventurers. Unsteddiness of Government. Decay of Patriotism. Subserviency of Administration to popular Passion. Decay of military Virtue. Tyranny of popular Sovereinty over subject States

When the Macedonian kingdom, happily rescued from civil strife and forein war, was placed in circumstances to grow in prosperity and power, the Grecian republics remained in that state of discord and confusion, of mutual animosity or mutual mistrust, of separate weakness and incapacity for union, which we have seen, in the description of Xenophon, following the death of Epameinondas, and which the orators sufficiently assure us did not cease. Demosthenes describes the state of things, about the time of Philip's accession, in terms very remarkably agreeing with Xenophon's picture: ‘All Pelo- ‘ponnesus,’ he says, ‘was divided. Those who hated the Lacedæmo- ‘nians were not powerful enough to destroy them, nor were those who ‘had formerly ruled, under Lacedæmonian patronage, able to hold their ‘command in their several cities. Peloponnesus, and, in short, all ‘Greece, was in a state of undecisive contention and trouble.’

Affairs of GREECE, during the Third Period of the Sacred War, when ATHENS and MACEDONIA became principal Parties

SECTION I

Chronology of the Times. Naval Successes of Macedonia against Athens; Opening for Negotiation alarming to the War-party at Athens; Philip's Popularity alarming: Measures of the Warparty: Olynthus gained from the Macedonian to the Athenian Alliance; Embassy of Æschines to Peloponnesus; Philippics of Demosthenes

The imperfection of anticnt chronology makes continual difficulty for the investigator of antient history. For supplying the deficiencies, and correcting the errors, of Diodorus and the Arundel Marbles, which alone offer any extent of chronological clue, it behoves him to seek assistance wherever it may be found; and, for the times with which we are now ingaged, a very valuable subsidiary remains, in the remarks of Dionysius of Halicarnassus upon the orations of Demosthenes. It is therefore very satisfactory to find these confirming Diodorus, so far as to show that his chronology does not, probably, err, for these times, more than for those for which we have opportunity to compare it with the higher authorities of Thucydides and Xenophon. The beginning of the Olympian year, about midsummer, long after the beginning of the common season for the action of Grecian armies, would be likely often to make confusion of two military seasons, for writers who did not, with the accuracy of Thucydides, divide the year into summer and winter, the season of military action, and the season of military rest; especially for compilers like Diodorus, unversed in either political or military business, and writing not till some centuries after the times in question.

Affairs of the GREEKS in SICILY and ITALY; from the Settlement of the SYRACUSAN Government, under DIONYSIUS and HIPPARINUS, to the Restoration of the SYRACUSAN Supremacy over the SICILIAN, and its Extension over the ITALIAN, Greek Cities

SECTION I

Siege of Gela by the Carthaginians; Evacuation of Gela and Camarina. Atrocious Violence of the Opposition at Syracuse. Peace with Carthage

Scarcely was the government of Syracuse brought to some consistency under the administration of Dionysius and Hipparinus, and a rallying point thus provided for the Grecian interest in Sicily, when the movement of the Carthaginian army from Agrigentum spred alarm throughout the iland. Imilcon, if we should believe Diodorus, in quitting Agrigentum, increased the general terror by a measure apparently adapted to that only purpose, and little consistent either with the common policy of the Carthaginians, or with his own previous conduct. He is said to have completely destroyed the city. The direction of his march, not deceiving the apprehension long entertained, was to Gela.

The fortifications of this city were probably sufficient for its defence against any ordinary Grecian power; but its government was aware that they were not equally to be trusted against the force under Imilcon, provided with an artillery far superior to what was common among the Greeks. It had therefore been resolved that the women and children should be sent, for better security, to Syracuse; and as soon as the movement of the Carthaginian army and the direction of its march were ascertained, measures were taken for their removal.

Affairs of the GRECIAN Settlements of SICILY and ITALY, from the Death of the first DIONYSIUS to the Restoration of the second DIONYSIUS

SECTION I

Election of the second Dionysius to the Dignity of General-Autocrator. Peace of Eleven Years. Parties in Opposition under Dion and Heracleides. Banishment of Dion and Heracleides

The discussion of the character of the elder Dionysius and of his government, longer perhaps and more particular than would generally become historical composition, seemed warranted and even required by the importance of the portion of history, and by the obscurity and contradictions in which that portion of history hath been inwrapped; nor may it be less necessary toward exhibiting in just light an important sequel.

On the death of a man who had presided over the government so many years, with uncommon ability, and perhaps yet more uncommon success, it was matter of most serious consideration for all the Sicilian and Italian Greeks, but especially the Syracusans, and most especially those who had been his principal supporters, how and by whom the administration should be in future directed. To preserve peace and union, and means for common exertion against a threatening common enemy, among so many portions of the little empire, longhabituated to discord within each and among all, it seems to have been extensively felt that one chief, with some permanence of power, was necessary, and that, for such a chief, eminence of birth was an important qualification.

Affairs of GREECE during the first Period of the Contest for Possession of the Temple and Treasury of DELPHI, called the PHOCIAN or the SACRED WAR

SECTION I

Persevering Ambition of the leading Grecian Republics. Circumstances of the Council of Amphictyons. Summary History of Phocis. Antient Sacred Wars. Regulation of the Council of Amphictyons by Solon: Treasure deposited by Crœsus King of Lydia. Subjection of Delphi to Lacedœmon, and Depression of the Amphictyonic Authority

while the Athenians were prosecuting schemes of ambition and avarice, wherever, among the Grecian republics and beyond them, their naval strength might avail, neither the Thebans nor the Lacedæmonians had abandoned their pretensions to an imperial authority over the landforce, and a supremacy in the general councils, of all the states of the nation. Much as a superintending power, under just regulation, was wanted, and beneficial, even with very defective regulation, as it had sometimes been, yet the continued contest for it teemed with evil for almost every state, and could hardly fail, in the end, to ruin the independency of all. Hence, in the next year after that in which the Athenians made peace with their revolted allies, a new war, originating with a people hitherto of little name, quickly involved all the European continental republics, and led to consequences most momentous, not for Greece only, but for the whole civilized world.

Affairs of GREECE during the second Period of the Sacred War, when MACEDONIA was implicated

SECTION I

New Views of the War-party in Athens. Trespass on the Delphian Treasury, Methonë taken by Philip. Invasion of Thessaly by the Phocians, assisted by Athens, opposed by Macedonia: Victory of Onomarchus and Distress of Philip: Death of Onomarchus, and liberal use of Victory by Philip

The conquest of the rich territory of the Chersonese, and the reduction of the once formidable monarchy of Thrace to receive law from the Athenian people, were, with whatever uncreditable circumstances accompanied, great and splendid advantages, balancing, in no small degree, the losses in the wars with the allies and with Macedonia, and powerfully promoting among the Athenian people the credit of the party which had put them forward. But the Macedonian war remained, and the Phocian war; in the former of which Athens was a principal party, and in the other had a deep interest. The difficulties and dangers hence arising, one party in Athens, had they power, would easily have obviated. By negotiation with Macedonia, for which its king at every opportunity showed himself ready, they would have made peace for the republic, and by a sincere union with Lacedæmon, for settling the affairs of Phocis, they would have given quiet to distracted Greece. But neither measure suited the professors of war and trouble. The maintenance of the sacred war they considered as especially favorable to their views; and, from the circumstances of Phocis and of Thessaly, their ingenuity drew means for making others fight their battles.