» » » History of Greece, Volume 02 (of 12)

History of Greece, Volume 02 (of 12)

History of Greece, Volume 02 (of 12)
Category: Greece / History
Author: Grote George
Title: History of Greece, Volume 02 (of 12)
Release Date: 2018-05-12
Type book: Text
Copyright Status: Public domain in the USA.
Date added: 27 March 2019
Count views: 31
Read book
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 93

Book cover

[p. i]


I. Legendary Greece.

II. Grecian History to the Reign of
Peisistratus at Athens.





[p. iii]






Section I.Return ofthe Herakleids into Peloponnêsus.

Exile and low condition of the Herakleids. — Theirreappearance as a powerful force along with the Dorians. — Mythicalaccount of this alliance, as well as of the three tribes of Dorians.— Têmenus, Kresphontês, and Aristodêmus, invade Peloponnêsus acrossthe gulf of Corinth. — The prophet Karnus slain by Hippotês. — Oxyluschosen as guide. — Division of the lands of Peloponnêsus among theinvaders. — Explanatory value of these legendary events. — Mythicaltitle of the Dorians to Peloponnêsus. — Plato makes out a differenttitle for the same purpose. — Other legends respecting the Achæansand Tisamenus. — Occupation of Argos, Sparta, and Messênia, by theDorians. — Dorians at Corinth — Alêtês. — Oxylus and the Ætolians atElis. — Rights of the Eleians to superintend the Olympic games. —Family of Têmenus and Kresphontês lowest in the series of subjectsfor the heroic drama. — Pretence of the historical Spartan kings toAchæan origin. — Emigrations from Peloponnêsus consequent on theDorian occupation. — Epeians, Pylians, Achæans, Ionians. — Ionians inthe north of Peloponnêsus — not recognized by Homer. — Date assignedby Thucydidês to the return of the Herakleids.

pages 1-14

Section II.Migration of Thessalians and Bœotians.

Thessalians move from Thesprôtis into Thessaly.— Non-Hellenic character of the Thessalians. — Bœotians — theirmigration from Thessaly into Bœotia. — Discrepant legends about theBœotians. — Affinities between Bœotia and Thessaly. — Transitionfrom mythical to historical Bœotia.


[p.iv]Section IIIEmigrations fromGreece to Asia and the Islands of the Ægæan.

1. Æolic Emigration.

Secession of the mythical races of Greece. — Æolicmigration under the Pelopids.


2. Ionic Emigration.

Ionic emigration — branches off from the legendaryhistory of Athens. — Thêseus and Menestheus. — Restoration of thesons of Thêseus to their father’s kingdom. — They are displaced bythe Neleids. — Melanthus and Kodrus. — Devotion and death of Kodrus.— No more kings at Athens. — Quarrel of the sons of Kodrus, andemigration of Neileus. — Different races who furnished the emigrantsto Iônia.


3. Doric Emigrations.

Dorian colonies in Asia. — Thêra. — Legend of theMinyæ from Lemnos. — Minyæ in Triphylia. — Migrations of Dorians toKrete. — Story of Andrôn. — Althæmenês, founder of Rhodes. — Kôs,Knidus, and Karpathus.


Intervening blank between legend and history. —Difficulty of explaining that blank, on the hypothesis of continuoustradition. — Such an interval essentially connected with the genesisof legend.




Different schemes of chronology proposed for themythical events. — The data essential to chronological determinationare here wanting. — Modern chronologists take up the same problemas ancient, but with a different canon of belief. — Mr. Clinton’sopinion on the computations of the date of the Trojan war. — Valueof the chronological computations depends on the trustworthinessof the genealogies. — Mr. Clinton’s vindication of the genealogies— his proofs. — 1. Inscriptions — none of proved antiquity. —Genealogies — numerous, and of unascertainable date. — 2. Earlypoets. — Mr. Clinton’s separation of the genealogical persons intoreal and fabulous: principles on which it is founded. — Remarks onhis opinion. — His concessions are partial and inconsistent, yetsufficient to render the genealogies inapplicable for chronology.— Mr. Clinton’s positions respecting [p. v]historical evidence. — To what extentpresumption may stand in favor of the early poets. — Plausiblefiction satisfies the conditions laid down by Mr. Clinton — notdistinguishable from truth without the aid of evidence. — Kadmus,Danaus, Hyllus, etc., all eponyms, and falling under Mr. Clinton’sdefinition of fictitious persons. — What is real in the genealogiescannot be distinguished from what is fictitious. — At what time didthe poets begin to produce continuous genealogies, from the mythicalto the real world? — Evidence of mental progress when men methodizethe past, even on fictitious principles.




Legendary poems of Greece valuable pictures of realmanners, though giving no historical facts. — They are memorialsof the first state of Grecian society — the starting-point ofGrecian history. — Comparison of legendary with historical Greece —government of the latter — of the former. — The king — in legendaryGreece. — His overruling personal ascendency. — Difficulty whichAristotle found in explaining to himself the voluntary obediencepaid to the early kings. — The boulê — the agora: their limitedintervention and subordination to the king. — The agora — a mediumfor promulgation of the intentions of the king. — Agora summonedby Telemachus in Ithaka. — Agora in the second book of the Iliad —picture of submission which it presents. — Conduct of Odysseus tothe people and the chiefs. — Justice administered in the agora bythe king or chiefs. — Complaints made by Hesiod of unjust judgmentin his own case. — The king among men is analogous to Zeus amonggods. — The Council and Assembly, originally media through which theking acted, become, in historical Greece, the paramount depositariesof power. — Spartan kings an exception to the general rule — theirlimited powers. — Employment of public speaking as an engine ofgovernment — coeval with the earliest times. — Its effects instimulating intellectual development. — Moral and social feelingin legendary Greece. — Omnipotence of personal feeling towards thegods, the king, or individuals. — Effect of special ceremonies. —Contrast with the feelings in historical Athens. — Force of thefamily tie. — Marriage — respect paid to the wife. — Brothers,and kinsmen. — Hospitality. — Reception of the stranger and thesuppliant. — Personal sympathies the earliest form of sociality.— Ferocious and aggressive passions unrestrained. — Picture givenby Hesiod still darker. — Contrast between heroic and historicalGreece. — Orphans. — Mutilation of dead bodies. — Mode of dealingwith homicide. — Appeased by valuable compensation (ποινὴ) to thekinsman of the murdered man. — Punished in historical Greece as acrime against society. — Condition, occupations, and professionsof the Homeric Greeks. — Slaves. — Thêtes. — Limited commerce andnavigation of the Homeric Greeks. — Kretans, Taphians, Phœnicians. —Nature of Phœnician trade as indicated by Homer. — Weapons and modeof fighting of the Homeric Greeks. — Contrast with the military arrayof historical Greece. — Analogous change — in military array and incivil society. — Fortification of towns. — Earliest residences of theGreeks — hill-villages lofty and difficult [p. vi]of access. — Homeric society recognizeswalled towns, individual property, and strong local attachments. —Means of defence superior to those of attack. — Habitual piracy. —Extended geographical knowledge in the Hesiodic poems, as comparedwith Homer. — Astronomy and physics. — Coined money, writing, arts.— Epic poetry. — Its great and permanent influence on the Greekmind.




Two classes of epic poetry — Homeric — Hesiodic. —Didactic and mystic Hexameter poetry — later as a genus than theepic. — Lost epic poems. — Epic poets and their probable dates. —Epic cycle. — What the epic cycle was — an arrangement of the poemsaccording to continuity of narrative. — Relation of the epic cycleto Homer. — What poems were included in the cycle. — The Iliad andOdyssey are the only poems of the cycle preserved. — Curiosity whichthese two poems provoke — no data to satisfy it. — Different poemsascribed to Homer. — Nothing known, and endless diversity of opinion,respecting the person and date of Homer. — Poetical gens of theHomêrids. — Homer, the superhuman eponymus and father of this gens.— What may be the dates of the Iliad and Odyssey. — Date assignedby Herodotus the most probable. — Probable date of the Iliad andOdyssey between 850 and 776 B. C. — Epicpoems recited to assembled companies, not read by individuals apart.— Lyric and choric poetry, intended for the ear. — Importance of theclass of rhapsodes, singers, and reciters. — Rhapsodes condemned bythe Socratic philosophers — undeservedly. — Variations in the mode ofreciting the ancient epic. — At what time the Homeric poems began tobe written. — Prolegomena of Wolf — raised new questions respectingthe Homeric text — connected unity of authorship with poems writtenfrom the beginning. — The two questions not necessarily connected,though commonly discussed together. — Few traces of writing, longafter the Homeric age. — Bards or rhapsodes of adequate memory,less inconsistent with the conditions of the age than long MSS. —Blind bards. — Possibility of preserving the poems by memory, asaccurately as in fact they were preserved. — Argument from the lostletter Digamma. — When did the Homeric poems begin to be written?— Reasons for presuming that they were first written about themiddle of the seventh century B. C. —Condition of the Iliad and Odyssey down to the reign of Peisistratus.— Theory of Wolf. — Authorities quoted in its favor. — Objectionsagainst it. — Other long epic poems besides the Iliad and Odyssey.— Catalogue in the Iliad — essentially a part of a long poem — itsearly authority. — Iliad and Odyssey were entire poems long anteriorto Peisistratus, whether they were originally composed as entire ornot. — No traces in the Homeric poems, of ideas or customs belongingto the age of Peisistratus. — Homeric poems. 1. Whether by oneauthor or several. 2. Whether of one date and scheme. — Questionraised by Wolf — Sagen-poesie. — New standard applied to the Homericpoems. — Homeric unity — generally rejected by German critics in thelast generation — now again partially revived. — Scanty evidence —difficulty of forming any conclusive opinion. — Method of studyingthe question of Homeric unity. — Odyssey to be [p. vii]studied first, as of more simple andintelligible structure than the Iliad — Odyssey — evidences ofone design throughout its structure. — Exhibits very few marks ofincoherence or contradiction. — Chronological reckoning in theOdyssey, inaccurate in one case. — Inference erroneously drawn fromhence, that the parts of the poem were originally separate. — Doublestart and double stream of events, ultimately brought into confluencein the Odyssey. — Skill displayed in this point by the poet. —Difficulty of imagining the Odyssey broken up into many existingpoems or songs. — Structure of the Odyssey — essentially one — cannothave been pieced together out of preëxisting epics. — Analogy of theOdyssey shows that long and premeditated epical composition consistswith the capacities of the early Greek mind. — Iliad — much lesscoherent and uniform than the Odyssey. — Incoherence prevails onlyin parts of the poem — manifest coherence in other parts. — Wolfiantheory explains the former, but not the latter. — Theory of Welcker,Lange, and Nitzsch. — Age of the Epos preparatory to that of theEpopee. — Iliad essentially an organized poem — but the originalscheme does not comprehend the whole poem. — Iliad — originally anAchillêis built upon a narrower plan, then enlarged. — Parts whichconstitute the primitive Achillêis exhibit a coherent sequence ofevents. — Disablement of Agamemnôn, Odysseus, and Diomêdês, allin the battle of the eleventh book. — The first book concentratesattention upon Achilles, and upon the distress which the Greeks areto incur in consequence of the injury done to him. — Nothing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 93
Comments (0)
reload, if the code cannot be seen
Free online library ideabooks.net