Hellenic civilization; an historical survey

Front matter

Bias x fie!

alt

NAtanaate?

Chapter II Chapter III Chapter IV Chapter II

GHARTER ITT CHAPTER IV

ORIGIN AND Earty Proaress or HEL- LENIC CIVILIZATION

THE RELIGION OF THE GREEKS Tue Testimony or Epic Portry

INTELLECTUAL AND Morat DEVELOP- MENT IN THE SEVENTH AND SIXTH Centuries Berore CHRIST

II—THE FIFTH CENTURY

Cutt AND THE GrReEAT RELIGIOUS MANIFESTATIONS IN THE FIFTH CENTURY

INTELLECTUAL AcTIvITy AND Works or ART

- PART III—THE FOURTH CENTURY

CHAPTER I CHAPTER II

Pourrics, Business, Customs

Oratory, Drama, History v

Vii

93 111

159 167 vi

CONTENTS

CHAPTER III PuitosopuHy anp ScIENCE 178 CHAPTER IV ‘Tue Arts 193 PART IV—THE LAST PERIODS OF HELLENIC

CHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER

CHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER

Vil

CIVILIZATION Tue Hewvenistic Kinapoms 203 HELLENIstTIc LITERATURE 210 PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE 223

GREEK CIVILIZATION UNDER THE

EMPIRE 242 ScIENCE AND PuiLosopuy 254 Tue Enp or HELLENISM 273

An important indication both of the spread of interest in the civilization of Ancient Greece as a whole and of the gradual change in the points of view from which it is studied may be found in the publication, during recent years, of many works, whether as parts of more or less extensive series or as single issues, presenting one or more aspects of that marvelous achievement of human genius. The materials for our knowledge and comprehension of that period of the world’s history are rapidly increasing. New evidence—archeological, inscriptional, linguistic, literary—is constantly being added, often modifying and sometimes completely overthrowing conceptions hitherto fondly held. Perhaps about no people of history have sweeping generalizations been so readily made and so slavishly adopted as about the Greeks of antiquity.

To make the more significant portions of such newly acquired information accessible to that part of the “‘reading public” which cares for these things, but has neither time nor inclination to enter upon the exacting yet nec-~ essary professional study in these fields, is to perform a most useful service. Certainly not less important is the presentation, in clear, precise, and agreeable form, of the most characteristic features of the Greek civilization, of the main lines of its development through the centuries that lie more or less open to our observation, and the

vii

Vili INTRODUCTION interpretation to modern minds of ideas and customs in many respects so different from our own, yet forming so largely the basis on which our own civilization rests. With every year it becomes more evident that the Greeks of historical times were a people (or rather a group of peoples) of extraordinary diversity of origin, religious belief and practice, and customs, never for long held together closely in any political union, constantly engaging in war with each other, living under many different forms of political organization which sometimes changed with great rapidity, restless, only too often fickle and treacherous, in some respects—particularly in religious ritual—deeply conservative, in others constantly eager for some new thing, commercially enterprising, highly emotional yet endowed with a sense of proportion which generally saved them from extravagance of taste though less often from extravagance of conduct; in short, a people whom it would be excessively difficult to describe adequately in any brief formulas. In dealing with such a subject the danger of failing to see the trees of which the wood is made up is not less that that of failing to see the wood for the trees. And not only were there striking differences of character, customs, political and social organization, among Greek communities at any; given period, but almost any one community varied in such respects from one age to another ; while of course the rate of change would itself show many variations. ‘The evidence at our disposal for acquainting ourselves with this ancient Greek civilization is singularly uneven for different regions and periods. For example, the huge losses sustained by the mass of Greek literature in the process of transmission from one generation to another have left great gaps in the writings of some of the most famous and important among Greek historians, whose

INTRODUCTION ix accounts at first hand we should so highly prize and so gladly utilize. It happens that for Athens we are vastly better informed than for any other Greek state, and vastly better today than thirty-five years ago, owing to the discovery, in 1891, of a manuscript of Aristotle’s Constitution of Athens—the only one remaining of more than one hundred and fifty similar descriptions of Greek political organizations.

Very few scholars unite with the great learning by which the almost endless details are mastered that profound comprehension of the relation of parts to the whole which alone makes possible an accurate and adequate generalization. Still fewer add to these the power of concise, clear, and interesting description and exposition. The primacy of the French in these respects will hardly be seriously questioned even by the most patriotic scholars of other countries—just as there are many points in which the French language, with its highly developed and harmonious yet forcible prose style, its delicate and unfailing sense of proportion, its avoidance of involved constructions and exaggerations of every kind, is peculiarly well adapted to the exposition of Greek themes. This happy combination is to be seen, for example, in the famous work of Fustel de Coulanges, La cité antique, originally published in 1864, which after sixty years still remains a standard and invaluable help and guide. In this little book the paramount importance of a thorough study of ancient religion for the comprehension of the ancient state was—perhaps for the first time—strongly emphasized.

A similar insistence upon the necessity of understanding ancient religion if we would understand ancient civilization is a marked feature of the admirable little book, a model of condensed, clear, and accurate statement, ee a ee ee a a ee ee Ee .

x INTRODUCTION which M. Maurice Croiset of the Collége de France has published in the Collection Payot under the title La Civilisation hellénique. Not less characteristic of the book is the adherence to the historical method of presentation, in which the gradual development of the more important features of Greek civilization is traced. While many valuable publications in the field of classical, particularly of Greek, investigation have given him a very high place among scholars, he is best known outside of France as the collaborator with M. Alfred Croiset —par nobile fratrum—in the monumental Histoire de la littérature grecque. Alfred Croiset is no longer living; but Maurice, in spite of his seventy-eight years, is still pursuing his life-work.

Mr. Thomas has done competently a most useful task in making the apergu accessible, in an excellent translation, to readers of English to whom French is still a strange tongue.

Part I Origins And Beginnings

: ; A ee

—

Chapter I Origin And Early Progress Of Hellenic Civilization

Antecedents. Minoan and Mycenaean Civilizations.— Hellenic civilization, properly so called, begins for us about the eighth century B.c. But this apparent beginning was in reality only a continuation, or rather, a revival.

Archeological discoveries, especially in the last thirty years, have in fact shown us that a civilization truly worthy of the name had developed in the islands of the f&gean Sea, later in Crete, and finally in certain parts of the Greek mainland, during the second millenium B.c., and that it was particularly brilliant toward the middle of that period. The monuments of Crete—notably the palaces of Cnossus, Phestus, and Hagia Triada—altho now reduced to ruins, bear irrefutable witness to it. Moreover, the character of the monuments seems to reveal an epoch of comparative peace, favorable to the advancement of the arts, to the increase of wealth, and to a quiet and well-organized life. The more or less legendary name of King Minos, represented as a peacemaker and law-giver inspired by the gods, may well remain associated with that succession of remote centuries, of which we know scarcely anything save what is attested by these monuments and their ornamentation.

Other no less imposing ruins, at Mycene, at Tiryns, at Orchomenus, and at other places, give evidence that

A: HELLENIC CIVILIZATION this civilization had penetrated to many points on the Greek mainland. They lead us to believe that for many centuries powerful chiefs and warriors lived there. ‘These cities are in reality fortresses. They seem to preserve the memory of a sort of military feudalism. Protected by formidable ramparts, and located along the natural trade-routes, they had to be constructed so as at once to guard them and to exploit them. The riches which they contained were well defended, because it was felt, apparently, that they were in danger. Evidently redoubtable princes lived behind these massive walls; for them they were citadels, and for their subjects they were places of refuge in case of need. And yet in this state of hostile defiance among neighbors art was relished and cultivated. Today, beneath the crumbled palaces, the spade of the excavator discovers relics of brilliant decorations, fragments of columns, painted friezes, and sculptures. In imagination, guided by the remains unearthed, one may restore great banquet halls, royal apartments, and courts of regal splendor. Furthermore, imposing sepulchers bear witness to the pride of princes who sought, even in death, to assert their haughty superiority. This civilization may be called Mycenexan, since the ruins of Mycene today represent to us the highest development of culture in that period.

Period of Invasions and Migrations.—On the other hand, the epic poets tell us of a confederation of kings called Acheans; and the historians report that toward the end of the second millennium zs. c. great movements of populations took place in Greece and completely overturned the previous civilization. They refer especially to a conquest of the Peloponnesus by Dorian tribes descending from the region of the Pindus. It is probable that there was in fact a long series of migrations extending over a period of several centuries—a period of incessant conflicts, of violent occupations leading to the forcible expulsion of ancient royal families and of a part of their subjects, and to the subjugation of others, sometimes even to the displacement of entire populations, which had to go forth in search of new settlements. This, we are told, was the time of the establishment of numerous Greek tribes in Asia Minor, along the eastern coast of the AUNgean Sea. Gathering there in units, according to ties of kinship, they gradually formed from north to south along this Asiatic coast the groups called Afolians, Ionians, and Dorians, while on the Greek mainland were founded those states whose later glory now fills the pages of history. These several centuries of continuous conflict and disturbance might well be compared to a sort of Middle Age, in which the previous civilization declined, but from which, toward the eighth century B.c., the Greece of history emerged.

Further on, in speaking of epic poetry, we shall see what progress the Greeks of Asia, the Molians and especially the Ionians, made at that time in advance of their brothers in Greece proper. For in leaving their native soil these vigorous exiles, who refused to submit to the law of their conquerors, carried precious traditions away with them. It was natural that civilization, temporarily endangered, revived first among them. Hence it was in their cities—at Ephesus, at Smyrna, at Miletus, at Colophon, in the islands of Chios and Lesbos—that the arts, poetry, a certain elegance of life, a sense of beauty, once more began to manifest themselves; and from there this brilliant culture gradually extended its beneficent influence to the Greek mainland. But the Greek cities of Asia were unfortunate enough to witness the rise of two dangerously powerful empires near at hand: first that of the Lydians, later that of the Persians. Thus it is not in this Asiatic Greece, fascinating as it is, that we can best study the formation of the Hellenic states; let us rather devote our attention to those which survived and endured—the celebrated states of Greece proper.

Formation of the Hellenic States.—The term “states,” of which one is obliged to make use, is poorly suited, as a matter of fact, to those first attempts at political formation. Rather were they groups of clans or tribes, whose character was in most cases heterogeneous; but usually it came about that one group predominated over the others and thus gave its name to the region occupied. However, from the time indicated above, a definite tendency toward organization is to be observed in the majority of these communities.

At the time of the conquests and migrations just referred to, it is evident that the peoples who went forth in search of new settlements had to obey orders. But by no means were they mere roving hordes temporarily banded together; on the contrary, they represented a certain inherent system of orderly arrangement associated with them from time immemorial. They were composed of families, phratries, and tribes, each associated in a cult of its own and in the honor paid to a common ancestor, real or fictitious, whose name it bore; and from the moment when they settled down to live anywhere, these traditional groupings constituted the framework of their normal social life. Each family, in the large sense of the word, had its chief, or, as the head of a family was called in the phrase of that time, its king. It had also its own land and its own jurisdiction; and it supplied all, or very nearly all, its own needs. These family kings were more or less subordinate to superior kings, richer and more powerful, whose council they formed; and the superior kings, in turn, were able to recognize at least in certain cases, and especially in time of war, a supreme king. Here, then, we find the rough outline of an organization at once aristocratic and monarchic, altho we should not, of course, conceive such a society as subject to clearly defined hierarchical rules.

The geographic conformation of Greece, naturally divided into cantons, lent itself poorly to the political fusion of these incipient states; moreover, it was not even favorable to a close rapprochement of their own component elements. The fact is that none of the groups thus outlined was ever sufficiently powerful, for any considerable length of time, to dominate all the others, or even to attempt to do so. Consequently, they remained separate and independent. Many of them never achieved any real unification; only a few were successful in so doing, and it is among these few that we may best study the formation of the state in the proper sense of the term.

For the sake of simplicity, let us consider here only Sparta and Athens; and without entering into the details of their history—which the limits of this work do not permit—let us state the essential facts in a very few words.

Sparta, born of the Dorian conquest, had to organize its forces with a view to maintaining its domination over a conquered population. There, accordingly, the military spirit was from the very beginning, and always, associated with the oligarchical spirit. Not only did Sparta have to exclude from the government every element which did not belong to the conquering race, but it also felt the need of imposing upon itself a rigid discipline capable of maintaining the closest coherence among its citizens. It wanted them all to be as much alike as possible. Thus it was led to assume the character of a sort of military camp, under the authority of its two kings, its Council of Elders, and later its ephors, with a rigorous code of laws resolutely hostile to every innovation and consequently to every form of individual liberty. Everything was subordinated to the public interest. The children were given a severe, almost cruel, training; the life of the citizen was subject to rules and restrictions of every kind. Accustomed to obedience from infancy, the Spartan was to have no other desires than those of military honor and patriotism. In this way Sparta succeeded in developing among its people an extraordinary moral force, and this, together with its remarkable military efficiency, for a long time rendered it superior to the majority of the other Greek states. Consequently, it has left the world shining examples of those virtues which it practised. On the other hand, in voluntarily condemning itself to isolation and immobility, it lessened its own share in the general development of Greek civilization.

The history of Athens is quite different. Whatever were the origins of the Athenian people, every marked evidence of an ethnic diversity in them was early effaced. The sense of racial unity made way for the sense of human and social equality. The little patriarchal kingdoms were united in Athens, sooner than anywhere else, im an association at once religious and political, the center of which was the Acropolis, the principal seat of the cult of Athena. Ruled at first by kings, the city was afterwards governed by hereditary (later, by elected) magistrates called archons, who were the leaders of a landed aristocracy. But the growing importance of the small landowners, favored by the nature of the country, the laborious energy of the peasants, and the demands of a rapidly increasing urban population, combined to develop a democratic spirit in the masses. There were conflicts, civil wars, and adjustments. At the beginning of the sixth century B.c. the laws of Solon, in abolishing the burdens of land servitude, marked an important step. in the progress of the people. For a time they even established a certain social equilibrium. They did not, however succeed in placing liberty on a solid foundation; it remained for the tyranny of Pisistratus and his sons to prepare the ground for that. By promoting agriculture and commerce, as also by encouraging intercourse with foreign countries, this tyranny awakened in the people a clearer consciousness of their power. 'The result was that in 510 38. c. they drove out the tyrants, and three years later they laid the solid foundations of the democracy by the establishment of the constitution of Clisthenes (507 3. c.). In the first half of the fifth century this movement achieved its final consummation when, after the Persian Wars, the lower classes, inspired by victory and by the memory of their sacrifices, swept aside everything which still stood in the way of their ambitions.

We shall observe this institution in operation in the following period. What it is necessary to emphasize here is the fact that Athens, from the end of the sixth century B. c., had created a form of political organization founded upon the equality of its citizens before the law. Few facts have been of greater importance than this in the general history of civilization.

The City-state and the Citizens—In almost every part of Greece, broadly speaking, there was formed what was called the “city”? (polis), and what we call the “state.” Of what, precisely, did it consist? This “city-state” was a collectivity having a genuine moral unity and tending to establish an effective solidarity. All its members were bound together, not only by common interests, but also by clearly defined legal relations—relations based on rights and duties inscribed in a constitution. Neither these rights nor these duties were everywhere the same ; but everywhere the citizen was one to whom the city-state attributed certain positive rights that were born with him, and, on the other hand, one whom it looked upon as bound to the performance of certain precise obligations in the common interest. The most important of these rights and the foremost of these obligations was to participate personally in the government. In that respect there was an absolute distinction between the citizen and the foreigner, even in places where foreigners were favorably received, as at Athens; and the distinction was even more radical between the citizen and the slave, who had no rights at all. If man, as Aristotle was to say later on, can fully realize himself only in the highest of associations, which is the city-state, then the Greek citizen alone, as distinguished from the barbarian, was completely a man. To the title of citizen, therefore, was attached a special dignity, and he who bore that title was proudly conscious of the fact.

The Law.—F rom this conception of the city-state there naturally developed a corresponding conception of law. — It was in the Greek city-state, indeed, that law was first conceived from the standpoint of the high moral significance which attaches to the word. Neither in theocracies, nor in despotic monarchies, nor among semi-civilized peoples, could there be law in the proper sense of the term. For theocracies knew only the commandments of God as expressed in the imperious dictates of a sacerdotal body, or of a superior man, recognized as an interpreter of the divine will; despotic monarchies had no rules other than the orders of the sovereign; semi-civilized peoples conformed to family customs and to the wishes of their tribal elders and chiefs. In the Greek city-state the law was essentially a product of the intellect, conceived with reference to the common interest. The period with which we are concerned witnessed the origin of the principal bodies of Greek law, some of them historic, others semi-legendary—those of lLycurgus, Charondas, Zaleucus, Draco, and Solon. These names, and the traditions to which they are related, teach us a unique fact: everywhere, at some time, the city-state felt the need of laying down certain general rules governing the relations of the citizens among themselves. Intended to repress acts of violence, to determine due reparations, and also to fix the obligations of every member of the community, these laws were adapted to the conditions and requirements of each individual state.

Whether they are authorized by divine sanction, or whether they lack such sanction, in the last analysis they always rest upon the at least tacit accord of the citizens; they represent a common will, resulting from prevailing social conditions, of which they are the consecration. Moreover, they are imposed less as a heritage of the past than as a guarantee of the future peace and stability of the city-state. From this conception sprang the feeling that, if the laws were in any way to be modified, it was to be done with prudent discretion—not for light and transient reasons, but only in order to adapt them to the changes which time necessarily brings about in every form of human society. Their real object was to establish the reign of justice— a concept of the first importance, which in Greece becomes more and more closely associated with that of law. For the Greeks, having no decalog, could seek the formula of justice only in their legislation. Essentially human, this justice written in their laws is derived in the end from the common agreement of those who are guided by, a sense of moral righteousness. It is true, no doubt, that the gods also favor it, that they not only regard it with sympathetic eyes but to a certain extent are even guardians of it; but they are not called upon to formulate it thru the mouths of their priests. It is determined of itself by the conditions and requirements of the social life; it is regulated and clarified by every-day experience. Opposed incessantly by the passions, its very setbacks serve to show that it can not be dispensed with and help to emphasize the necessity of fortifying it. Defeated every day, it is nevertheless victorious in the long, continous records of public life.

Slavery.—With regard to one essential matter, however, justice never succeeded in asserting itself. A crying injustice, slavery, was consecrated by custom from the earliest times. Sanctioned by all the Greek laws without exception, a universal institution everywhere else in the ancient world, its origin dated back to the oldest abuses of power, that is to say, to the earliest ages of mankind. For the honor of their civilization, so humane in other respects, it is to be regretted that the Greeks did not manage to repudiate a custom so outrageous to humanity.

First Expansion of Hellenic Civilization.—Everything that has been said so far relates to the Greek peninsula, to the Avgean islands, and to the Greek coast of Asia Minor. But after the eighth century s. c. Greece did not cease to expand beyond these limits.

As soon as it had regained its internal equilibrium after the period of invasions and migrations, it had, for numerous reasons, to widen the sphere of its activities. The first needs of its nascent industry compelled it to seek in more or less distant places the materials it lacked— copper, silver, and iron—and consequently to export some of its own products in exchange. On the other hand, the spirit of adventure animated a considerable number of its inhabitants. At the same time its population was increasing, in many places, more rapidly than the means of subsistence. Finally, civil conflicts, of such frequent occurrence at that time, brought it about that large groups of conquered peoples were sometimes obliged to leave their native country. All this accounts for the colonizing movement which began in the second half of the eighth century B.c., the way for it having no doubt already been prepared by earlier voyages and explorations. |

On the one side, toward the west, Corinth founds Corcyra. Then Chalcidians, Corinthians, Megarians, Acheans, and Locrians establish themselves in Sicily and along the southern coast of Italy. One by one, cities spring up there and in turn send forth colonies of their own. On the other side, toward the east, Chalcis occupies the promontories of Thrace and there founds a colony which receives from its mother-city the name of Chalcidice. Miletus secures a foothold on the Hellespont and along the Propontis thru the founding of Abydus, Lampsacus, and Cyzicus; and from there it gains Pontus, establishes a trading post at Sinope, and penetrates as far as the Phasis. Megara founds Chalcedon, Perinthus, and Byzantium, the mistress of the Bosporus. Athens, finally, establishes itself in the sixth century 3B. c. in the Chersonnesus of Thrace.

Nothing gives a better idea of the exuberant vitality of Greece during this period than the intensity of this colonizing movement. Moreover, in thus spreading out she not only carried afar all the most vitalizing elements of her civilization, but at the same time she steadily maintained her power at home; for these new cities remained in uninterrupted communication with the mother-cities which gave birth to them, piously conserving their spirit, their customs, and their traditional cults. Between them and the Greek mainland there was a steady commercial and intellectual intercourse.

Thus Hellenic civilization was propagated; and the type of humanity which it realized became known far and wide, even among peoples still barbarous. Let us now seek to discern its more intimate elements and to assign to each of them its proper value, beginning with religion.

Cha LEE Real THE RELIGION OF THE GREEKS

Importance of Religion in Hellenic Civilization — Everybody knows what constant and profound influence religion exerted among the Greeks. We find it associated with almost every phase of their public and private life. Many important events of their history were either inspired or sanctioned by it; many of their artistic creations were religious either in origin or in purpose. Even the great movements of Hellenic thought were closely bound up with the national religion, since nearly all of these movements were either impelled by it or, on the other hand, opposed and retarded by it.

(1) BELIEFS

Primitive Religions —An analytical study of the historical religions of Greece, as well as the knowledge which we have today acquired concerning still earlier religions, enables us to recognize as the primitive basis of their beliefs the deification of the phenomena of nature or of the unknown forces which were supposed to produce them. Since the life of man was essentially bound up with these phenomena, it was a question either of conjuring them when they were feared, or of befriending them or even constraining them to appear if they were needed. Hence the more or less magic rites designed to avert evils and to multiply blessings. For a long time the popular imagi- 15 nation pictured these forces in vaguely defined forms, as so many spirits localized in the stars, in the phenomena of the air, in certain animals, in trees or plants, or even in inanimate objects such as water-courses, lakes, caverns, and rocks; and when they were pictured in any more concrete form, they were usually conceived as fantastic creatures, less human than monstrous.

Anthropomorphism.—But at the beginning of the historical period these barbarous conceptions had already become only scattered survivals. The form of religious belief which predominated in Greece from that time on, and which imposed itself upon all the more cultivated minds, was that called anthropomorphism. This consisted essentially in ascribing to the gods the essential characteristics of human beings.

Let us guard, however, against relying upon this definition to a greater extent than the facts allow. The anthropomorphism of the Greeks is known to us especially thru their poetry, and thru the plastic arts, which are more or less dependent on it. But poetry, by its very nature, can not be regarded as an absolutely reliable interpreter of the conceptions of the great number. Like the plastic arts, altho to a less extent, it is obliged to lend to the figures with which it deals a reality much more fixed in its forms than the oftentimes vague conception of simple believers would be likely to ascribe to them. In the Homeric poems we see immortal gods endowed with incomparable beauty, strength, and swiftness. Among them are differences of sex, age, character, and attributes; and each of them has a name and a set of traits peculiar to himself. Altogether they form a family, or rather, if one takes into account also the minor deities (a veritable people which figures only in the background), a city-state. This people has a supreme king and is divided into tribes occupying, respectively, the sky, the earth, the sea, and the subterranean world, each of these domains having its own distinct ruler. In this divine world, which one may suppose to have sprung from diverse origins, poetry endeavors to create a certain orderly system; and it succeeds, very largely, in the effort. Insofar as possible it arranges these gods in family lines, which it ingeniously joins together in more or less definite relationships.