.,:■'-: •■ • James IK. fl&offitt L UU$?J Nn, /Af. PAULINE FORE MOFFITT LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA GENERAL LIBRARY, BERKELEY J. (TV SOCIAL LIFE IN GREECE. SOCIAL LIFE IN GREECE FROM HOMER TO MENANDER BY THE REV. J. P. MAHAFFY, M.A. Author of '« Prolegomena to Ancient History,* l Kants Critical Philosophy for English Readers,' &-c. SECOND EDITION REVISED AND ENLARGED f0ttJ>0tt MACMILLAN AND CO. 1875 [All rights reserved] OXFORD: PICKARD HALL AND J. H. STACY, PRINTERS TO THE UNIVERSITY. \ipid^^^ \tf>& GIFT DF77 • I27S- WILSONO KING PIGNUS AMICITIiE. 120 PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. There are many books, German, French, and Eng- lish, on the objective side of old Greek life — upon the religion, the laws, the feasts, the furniture of the Greeks ; but there are very few on the subjective side, on the feelings of the Greeks in their temples and their assemblies, in their homes, and their wan- derings. It is on this side that I offer the present volume as a contribution. It is, of course, very incomplete ; but, were I able to remedy this defect, the book must become unserviceable to the general reader, for whom it is intended. The materials are so vast and so fragmentary, that any systematic treatment must result in a mere dictionary — a mosaic of references, and not in a work fit for ordinary perusal. It is, moreover, generally true that no work is so disap- pointing as that which professes completeness. In my treatment of the subject, I have endeavoured to take homely and common-sense views, and have thus arrived at many results opposed to what I viii PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. consider sentimentalism or pedantry. These results are in all cases supported by direct references to the Greek texts themselves, on which I have relied in preference to modern authority. I hope my readers will adopt the same method in judging me, and will thus be brought into contact with the great originals, which are too often studied at second hand. Wherever modern writers have suggested to me interesting views or quotations, I trust I have fully acknowledged my obligations. I cannot do so ade- quately to my old pupils, Mr, H. B. Leech, of Caius College, Cambridge, and Mr. Oscar Wilde, of Magdalen College, Oxford, who have made improvements and corrections all through the book. I am likewise in- debted to Mr. J. G. Butcher, of Trinity College, Cam- bridge, for reading the proof-sheets and making many- valuable criticisms. Sutton, November 4, 1874. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. The demand for a new edition has come upon me so quickly, that I have been totally unable to make all the larger improvements in this book which I contemplated. It has in most cases only been possible to correct deficiencies in style, and to add further verifications and illustrations of the principles advocated for the first time, and in opposition to traditional beliefs among scholars. Of my many learned and able reviewers, not one has impugned these principles, which have, I trust, commanded attention because they were addressed to common sense and founded upon an independent study of Greek Literature. This general approbation on the part of competent judges must compensate for the marked disfavour with which my book was received in the quarter where I had least expected it. In one direction, however, this edition is partially rewritten. There were certain phases in Greek morals, which had hitherto not been fairly discussed and had been consequently misunderstood, and upon these I wrote freely what I thought due to the Greeks and to their culture. I see no reason to retract one word I have written, and refer scholars interested in the byways of Greek society to my first edition, which will thus retain for them an inde- x PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. pendent value. But there are things which ought to be said once, and which it is nevertheless inexpedient to repeat. I have therefore substituted for some of my discussions in Greek morals, new matter, which will, I hope, prove interesting, and which will be suited to all classes of readers ; so that the book in its present form can be made of general use for school and family reading. I trust soon to say something concerning the noblest side of the Greeks — their culture in the fine arts. For my dreams of former years are now being fulfilled, and I write this preface upon the ground which they trod, and in the fair climate where they breathed, and there are all around me the monuments which they — immortal men — reared to mortal gods. For though the gods of the Greeks are indeed dead, the worship of the Greeks will live as long as perfect beauty has any place in the thoughts and aspirations of men. While I am thus gathering new materials in the museums and ruins of southern Italy and of Greece, I am indebted to my trusty friend, Mr. H. B. Leech, for the whole correction of my proof-sheets — an obli- gation so great, that I know not how to thank him. I must in conclusion express my obligations to my many reviewers — more especially my able reviewer in the Scotsman — for many suggestions by which I have profited in preparing this edition. Athens, May 20. 1875. TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. Introduction. Modern complexion of Greek life, page I. Defects in the current literature on the subject, 3. Plan of the present volume, 4. Political lessons to be drawn from Greek culture, 5. Gradual development of Greek morals and society, 6. Contrasts with modern life, 8. CHAPTER II. The Greeks of the Homeric Age. The Homeric controversy not here in question, 9. Exceptional atti- tude of Hesiod, 10. His evidence is truer than Homer's ideal pictures, 11. Improbabilities in Homer, 12. Mr. Grote's estimate criticised, 13. Difficulties about Hesiod — chiefly textual, 14. Fragments of pre- Homeric history, 15. Homer describes the close of an epoch, 18. Modern English Homerists criticised, 19. Analysis of the Homeric ideal, 20; as regards — Courage, 21; Truth, 27; Compassion, 29; Loyalty, 36. Causes of these features, 39. Homer's Pallas Athene, as an ideal character, 41. CHAPTER III. The Greeks of the Homeric Age (continued). Homer's society an exclusive caste society, 44 ; which was refined and courteous, 45 — in feasting, 46 ; and conversation, 47 ; but showing slight decay in hospitality, 48. Examples of Menelaus and Alcinous, 51. Treatment of women, 52 ; of servants, 56 ; of domestic animals, 62 ; of those beyond the caste, and its dependents, 65. Evidence of Hesiod, 66. Love of money — universal in Greek life, 70. Hesiod's domestic rude- ness, 71. General results, 74. xii CONTENTS. CHAPTER IV. The Greeks of the Lyric Age. Contrasts to Homer's idealism; Lyric realism, 77. Assertions of cowardice in the fragments, 78. Thucydidean features of the lyric poets, 82. They sustain the attitude of Hesiod, 82. Unjust estimates of the tyrants by modern critics, 83. Example at Athens ; Solon and Peisistratus, 85. Classification of the lyric poets ; free aristocrats, and court poets, 90; their religion, 92; ethics, 94; Violent party feelings, 97; Modern parallel in Ireland, 98. General estimate, 100. CHAPTER V. The Greeks of the Lyric Age (continued). Advance in social refinement, 102. Wine drinking and feasting, 103. Attitude of women in — Simonides of Ceos, 108 ; Sappho, 109 ; and Simonides of Amorgos, no. Strong sentiment of love, 113. Points of direct succession to Homeric Greece, 115. Hatred of old age, 119; causes of this feeling, 1 20. Selfishness, 122. Hospitality, 124. Points of contrast with Homeric Greece ; the feeling of love ; the objects of love, 126. Religious progress, 129. CHAPTER VI. The Greeks of the Attic Age. Division of subject : authorities, 133. Attic patriotism. 135. Coarse- ness of Attic relaxations, 136. General decay of letters throughout Greece, 137; Causes of the exception at Athens, 138; Estimate of Pericles, 140. Position of women, 142 ; its causes, 145. Examination of our authorities, viz. yEschylus, his characters, 149; Herodotus, his characters, 155; their meanness, 157; justice, 160; benevolence, 163; sociality, 168; sadness, 171. CONTENTS. xiii CHAPTER VII. The Greeks of the Attic Age (continued). Thucydides, 173; cruelty described in his history, 175; strictures on his pictures of Greek life, 177; his mistake rectified on psychological grounds, 179. Sophocles and iEschylus: inferiority of Sophocles, 182. Euripides, his attitude, 185; his contrast to Sophocles, 187; his philo- sophy, 188 ; example in his Electra, 191 ; his great female characters — Alcestis, Macaria, Iphigenia, 198; injustice of the critics, 205. CHAPTER VIII. The Greeks of the Attic Age (concluded). The Attic comedy, 207. Variance of type in the characters of the Attic drama, 208. Historic value of the comedy, 209. Possible reli- gious cause of Aristophanes' ribaldry, 210. Evidence about Aspasia and the Hetairai, especially of Corinth, 212; the charges against her examined, 214. Conversation at this epoch, 219. Excesses of young aristocrats : Alcibiades, Callias, 220. Contrast of the lower classes, 225. Exceptional cruelties, 226. General estimate of the Periclean Greeks, 228. Cruelties in war, 234; at home, and in private life, 237; in the law-courts, 239. Hard treatment of old age, 244; palliation of this harshness, 247 ; examples from the tragedians, 249. CHAPTER IX. Attic Culture. Limited size of Athens: its results on Greek culture, 252. Bad cha- racter of the Peirseus, 255^ Slaves to perform menial work, 258. General refinement, 260; exemplified in executions, 262 ; disposal of the bodies after the sentence, 266. High character of jailers, 268. Abatement of cruelty in war, 270; effect of mercenaries on this question, 271 ; qualifi- cations and exceptions, 272. Social position of women, 274; evidence of Xenophon's (Economics, 275; the rights of women coming into notice, 281. The Hetairai, 284. Difficulty of estimating the evidence of tragic poets, 286. Abuse of marriage, 287. xiv CONTENTS. CHAPTER X. Attic Culture. — Certain Trades and Professions. Medical practice : its social side, 290 ; state physicians and their salaries, 292; persuasive treatment, 293; Doric prescriptions, 296; quackery private, 297; public, 298. Cooks — their general character, 299; Doric bills of fare, 301 ; impertinence, 302 ; grandiloquence, 303 ; slave cooks of later days, 306. The fishmongers, 306 ; their audacity, 3°7- CHAPTER XI. Attic Culture. — Entertainments and Conversation. — The Education of Boys. — The Streets in Athens. Philosophical objections to music in society, 312. General hints on conversation, 314. Drinking of weak mixtures of wine, 317. Plato's Symposium, 319. Xenophon's Symposium, 323. Absence of ladies at Greek feasts, 325. Female beauty, 326. The education of boys, 330. Controversies on education, 332. Defects of Socrates' teaching, 334. Sound objections to athletics, as compared with field sports, 336. Homely features in the streets of Athens, 339. Street brawls, 340. CHAPTER XII. Beligious Peeling in the Attic Age. Gradual decay of belief, 342. Immoralities of the Epos theology : the explanation of the comparative mythologers examined, 343 ; the true explanation, 347. The Bible of the Greeks, 347. Supposed moral object of the Epos, 348. Greek theory of inspiration : the Ion of Plato, 351. Over-estimate of Greek scepticism : Thucydides, 355. The his- toric dignity of Greek mythology, 357. The waxing and waning of belief, 357. Orthodoxy of the Athenians, 360; evidence of the orators, 361 ; of Xenophon, 362. Sceptical tendencies of the new comedy, 366. Contrasts to modern faith : (a) love of mystery, 368 ; the Greek myste- ries, 370; (#) union of art and religion, 372 ; (7) of pleasure and devo- tion, 373. Religion urged against morals, 377. CONTENTS. xv CHAPTER XIII. The Business Habits of the Attic Greeks. Importance of trade : commercial wars, 379. Complicated legal system, 381. Stringent laws against vfipis or assault, 384. Division of judicial functions, 385. Delays of Attic law: trial by jury, 386. De- fects in estimation of evidence, 387. Criticisms of Aristophanes, 392. Sycophancy, 392. Inferiority of Greek to Roman legal oratory, 393. Begging for mercy in court, 394. Shabbiness of Greek commerce, 396. Peculiarity of Greek protective laws, 398. Aristotle's blunders about money, 400. Contrasts to modern trade: stock exchange, 401. Bad methods of taxation : dvriSoais, 403. Hiding of money, 405. Banks and banking, 406. Position of Pasion, 408. Family quarrels, 409. Case of Callippus, 411. Comparison with other nations, 413. Con- clusion, 416. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. Among the nations which stand out in the course of history as having done most to promote human knowledge, human art, and human culture, the Greeks are first in the judgment of all competent observers. The hold which Greek literature retains on our modern education is not the mere result of prece- dent or fashion. Every thinking man who becomes acquainted with the masterpieces of Greek writing, must see plainly that they stand to us in a far closer relation than the other remains of antiquity. They are not mere objects of curiosity to the archaeologist, not mere treasure-houses of roots and forms to be sought out by comparative grammarians. They are the writings of men of like culture with ourselves, who argue with the same logic, who reflect with kindred feelings. They have worked out social and moral problems like ourselves; they have expressed them in such language as we should desire to use. In a word, they are thoroughly modern, more modern even than the epochs quite proximate to our own. The disjointed sentences of the Egyptian moralist, B 2 SOCIAL GREECE. [CEL the confused metaphors of the Hebrew prophet, show that were they transplanted into our life, and taught our language, they would still be completely at a loss to follow the reasoning of our modern literature. Ptah-hotep or Ezechiel could not move in modern society. Aristotle or Menander, on the other hand, would only need to understand the names invented for our modern discoveries. In all moral and social questions they would at once find their way, and enjoy even our poetry and our fiction. But what is more striking, even the mediaeval baron and the mediaeval saint would feel vastly more out of place among us than the intelligent Greek. The satire and scepticism of our modern society, the decay of fixed belief, the omnipotence of free discussion as shown by press and platform, the rule of private interest over patriotism and self-sacrifice — all these features would be very congenial to the Greek, while they would shock and perplex the Crusader. Commerce and speculation, debate and diplomacy, would delight the clever Athenian. He would recognise the teach- ing of his nation in poetry, architecture, and paint- ing ; and the manifest superiority of the old models would save him from feeling inferior in the face of our other progress. Let us invert the whole case, and the result would be very analogous. If one of us were transported to Periclean Athens, provided he were a man of high culture, he would find life and manners strangely like our own, strangely modern, as he might term it. The thoughts and feelings of modern life would be there without the appliances, I.] INTRODUCTION, 3 and the high standard of general culture would more than counterbalance sundry wants in material com- fort. For these reasons Greek social life must be far more interesting to general readers than any other phase of ancient history. Some of the problems which are still agitating our minds were settled by the Greeks, others, if not settled, were at least dis- cussed with a freedom and an acuteness now unat- tainable. Others, again, were solved in strange violation of our notions of morals and good taste ; and when such a people as the Greeks stand opposed to us, even in vital principles, we cannot reject their verdict without weighing their reasons. The social life of the Greeks has often been handled, especially by German and French authors. But the ponderous minuteness and luxury of cita- tion in the works of the former have obscured the general effect, and leave the ordinary reader with no distinct impression on his mind. The crushing weapon of modern criticism has in Germany shivered classical philology into splinters, and each man is intent on gathering up, and claiming as his own a fragment or two, which he analyses with wearying accuracy. The French essays on Greek life are of an opposite description. They usually aim at bril- liancy and esprit alone, and gain these qualities at the frequent sacrifice of accuracy and critical re- search. Their authors are often ready to uphold, for example, a spurious treatise against all critical ob- jections, however sound, provided it affords them a striking trait to complete their social picture. In B % 4 SOCIAL GREECE. [ch. fact, a sound knowledge of Greek has not yet been diffused among the French, and so their isolated Hellenists, brilliant as they are, do not write in an atmosphere of correcting friends and carping critics. In spite, therefore, of the abundance of materials at hand, and the abundance of theories based upon them, there is still room for attempts to select salient features, and to bring before the modern public an accurate picture of Greek life, not in its trivial details, but in its large and enduring features. A more than incidental notice of the peculiarities of food and dress, and of the plan and arrangement of houses, is but weariness and idle labour. We want to know how they reasoned, and felt, and loved ; why they laughed and why they wept; how they taught and what they learned. But alas ! to these questions we can only find full answers from one city, and from one brief epoch. Athenian culture under the Athenian democracy may indeed be regarded as the highest type and outcome of the Greek mind. But there, and there only, can we find sufficient materials to discuss the principal social question in separate essays. The earlier ages are only known to us through the scanty remains of epic and lyric poetry, which afford many hints and suggestions, and in the case of the simpler epic age even allow us to draw a general sketch of life and manners ; but in the far more interesting lyric age — the transition from the old to the new life — they fail us utterly, and allow little more than scattered reflections often inconsistent, I.] INTRODUCTION. 5 and scanty inferences always uncertain. The essays therefore on the Greeks of the epic and lyric ages may be regarded as introductory to those in which Athenian life is more amply described. However unsatisfactory, these earlier chapters seem necessary in an historical work, where the later stages cannot be regarded as born in full armour, like the goddess Athene, but as growing insensibly from long sown seed and in long prepared soil. In connection, more particularly, with such theories as those of Mr. Froude, which endeavour to get rid of the refinements of philosophers and politicians, and to reduce the motives of society to rude violence and successful force — in relation to such theories I cannot but think that the best possible antidote is to study the various phases through which the society and the morals of such a people as the Greeks passed. It will be seen how they began with rude notions, how in the Homeric days the now fashionable theory that 1 Might is Right ' was practically carried out — of this the present essay will give ample proofs. Even deli- cacy of feeling and chivalry of sentiment will be very inadequate, if the check of sound laws, based upon sound moral feeling diffused throughout a society, be not ever there to repress and to educate. We may then see, in succeeding ages, this social and moral force contending, and in the end contending success- fully, against the disintegrating and barbarising forces opposed to it — the party struggles and social hatreds so prominent in Greece. And so we arrive at the Attic period, in which the free citizen could boast 6 SOCIAL GREECE. [ch. that the state protected him both from violence and injustice, so that men learned to postpone wounded feelings and outraged honour to the majesty of the law, that forbad all violence, even in the vindication of personal injury. And so the refinement of Greek manners culminated in the gentle Menander, who brings his philosophy to aid the dictates of the law, and warns us that controversy and disputes are dis- agreeable and inconsistent with true comfort and that a true gentleman would rather lose advantages and even submit to annoyance than ruffle his temper, and agitate himself with either wrangling or retalia- tion *. Unfortunately these developments within single states were not accompanied by similar im- provements in their external relations. The Greeks never attained the higher condition of subjecting their public disputes to a system of international law or public arbitration. But we may well excuse it in them, seeing that in our nineteenth century this wise and civilised method of avoiding war is but seldom invoked, and only submitted to with discontent and with grumbling. I think it will farther be shown that 1 See his TceopySs, frag. 3 (ed. Meineke), « He is the best man, Gorgias, who knows best how to control himself when injured (oaris adtKcia9ai it\(iv — ' in panics even sons of the gods run away ' — a sentiment which no trouba- dour would have ventured to utter. 2 Cp. \ 524 sq. evO' d\\oi Aavaow rjyfjTopes r}5% pedovrcs baKpva t wp.6pyvwT0 rpifiov 0' vnb yvia znaoTOV II.] GREEKS OF THE HOMERIC AGE. 23 These hints in an ideal description, professing to tell of the highest possible heroism, indicate plainly that the Greeks of the heroic age were no extraor- dinary heroes, and that they were not superior in the quality of courage to the Greeks of history. In this respect, then, the Achaean chiefs were indeed but the forerunners of their descendants. The same combination of warlike ardour, but of alternating valour, meets us all through Greek history 1 . The Athenians, the brave people who first ventured to look the barbarians in the face, whether at Sardis, or at Marathon, as Herodotus says — these brave Athenians are frequently seized with panics and run for their lives. The same may be said of all the Greeks, except the Spartans, who succeeded in curing their national defect by a very strict and complete discipline. But this discipline controlled all their lives, Keivov 8* ovnore vdiiirav eycbv iSov dcpOaX/xoicriv ovt 1 cJXpf)Ga.vTa xP^ a KaWifiov out€ irapuuv, Micpv' 6/xop£a/A€vov. See also k 198 sq., where the weeping of Ulysses and his men is almost ludicrous. I may as well here cite an historical parallel to show the unity of Greek sentiment at every epoch. At the conclusion of the 21st oration in our remains of Lysias (the airoXo^ia 5 /*?) fiioros iroXvs e'tr), ^ traoiv vetcveaai Kara(p6ifiivoiaiv avaaaeiv. A 489. It is worth while to suggest as a parallel picture the yw^j x e P v V Tts a\r)0r)s of M 433, who, by toiling night and day, earns an aeiKfa fiiadov, miserable wages, wherewith to feed her starving orphans. She is de- scribed just as we should describe the most oppressed sempstress, striving to rival with worn-out fingers the machine which she has no means to buy. 1 I adopt Grote's rendering of the words drjra aotteov iroielaOat in preference to that of Gottling and others of a similar expression in Sophocles, (Ed. Rex, 1029, km Oijreia irXavqs. 2 There is only one definite allusion, that in II 384, where the onset of Hector is compared to the dreadful torrents sent in late autumn by Zeus to punish the men who by sheer might decide crookedly in the agora and banish justice, not reverencing the gods. The very phrases used are so thoroughly Hesiodic as to suggest to sceptics the rejection of the passage from the Iliad. I can see no reason for doing so, especially as the allusion is perfectly general, and could not be taken by any noble III.] THE HOMERIC AGE. 67 deciding lawsuits, and their readiness to devour bribes. The fable he adduces ( v Epy. 184) implies plainly enough that they felt a supreme contempt for the lower classes and their feelings ; they openly pro- claimed the law of might, and ridiculed the lamenta- tions of the ill-used and injured husbandman. The repeated reminder to the people of Ithaca that Ulysses had not thus treated them, but had been considerate to them as a father, almost implies that he was exceptional in his justice. And indeed what could we expect from a society which regarded the Pallas Athene of the Iliad and Odyssey as its ideal of intellect and virtue ? But in Homer we see only the good side (if we except the Ithacan suitors, who are described as quite exceptional) ; in Hesiod we are shown only the bad side. The wretched farmer looked on the whole class of aristocrats as unjust and violent men, that cared not at all about his rights and his interests. Perhaps if we strike an average or balance, we shall obtain a fair view of the real state of things in these old days. Possibly the aristocrats who man- aged the states after the abolition of monarchy in Bceotia were worse than the single kings ; for we know now-a-days that boards and parliaments have neither conscience nor human feeling, so that they commit injustices almost impossible to individuals, and moreover they are deaf to the appeal that touches hearer as a personal reflection. But -as heavy autumn rains were an ordinary phenomenon, so I believe the crime which they punished to have been ordinary also. F 2 68 SOCIAL GREECE. [ch. a single heart. But it is surely a certain proof of the antiquity of Hesiod's poems, and perhaps the most hopeless feature in his difficulties, that there seems no redress possible for the injustice of the nobles, except the interference of the gods whose duty it is to punish wrong among men 1 . The poet insists that the gods do see these things, and that they will interfere ; but this very insisting, coupled with the desponding tone of the whole book, lets us see plainly what was the general feeling of the lower classes. For as to obtaining help from public opinion of any sort, even from the x^^V Hv-ov (pruus (£ 239) of Homer, or the grumbling in the ayopa to which Telemachus appeals — there is no trace of it. The earnest and deeply out- raged husbandman never dreams of a revolution, of calling the assembly to declare its anger, or even of enlisting some of the chiefs against the rest. It speaks well for the sterner and sounder qualities of the Boeo- tian farmers that such circumstances did not induce despair, but rather a stern resolve to avoid the wicked judgment-seats of the aristocrats, above all things to keep clear of litigation, and to seek the comforts of 1 So again in Horn. (A 142 and tt 384 sq.) and Hes. "Ep7. 260, the people have to suffer en masse for the king's crimes ; this is recognised far more bluntly by the kings in recovering gifts and extravagances from their people (cf. Ameis on £ 81). The principle of the people paying for the waste of kings was exemplified even in English history not very long ago ; and as to people suffering for their rulers, it not only appears in later Greek authors, such as Pindar, Pyth. xii. 12, but (of course) in Oriental nations, such as the Jews, where plagues are openly sent on David's people because he chose to number them (2 Sam. 24). This is perhaps the most explicit example to be found in early history. III.] THE HOMERIC AGE. 69 hard-earned bread and of intelligent husbandry. This, then, is the isolated position of the works of Hesiod — the poet of the Helots — of which I have spoken already. And yet in the moral parts of his writings the Greeks of later ages found much that was attractive. The ■ Works and Days ' became even an ordinary handbook of education. This fact will not surprise us, when we consider that in one broad feature the moral lessons of Hesiod run parallel with the pic- tures of Homer, in this the exponent of the most permanent features in Greek character — I mean that combination of religion and shrewdness, that combi- nation of the honestum and the utile 1 , which, though it often jars upon us, yet saved the Greeks, one and all, from sentimentality, from bombast, and from hypocrisy. The king Ulysses and the farmer Hesiod have the same respect for the gods, and the same ' eye to business/ the same good nature and the same selfishness, the same honour and the same meanness. Perhaps the king was laxer in his notions of truth than the husbandman ; just as the Cavalier thought less of lying than the Roundhead. But perhaps this arose from his greater proximity to the gods of the 1 I have perhaps spoken too favourably of Hesiod's ethics in the text, seeing that an appeal to pure justice only takes its place in regard of the high-handed violence of the nobles. In all the rest of his book, and especially throughout his ethical maxims, the utile, the vXiiorrj x&P ls as he calls it, is the only sanction applied to actions. This cannot be asserted of Homer, or even of Theognis in later days. There are some good remarks on this subject in Steitz' Hesiod. 7o SOCIAL GREECE. [CH. epic poets, who had no difficulty at all in practising falsehood. In another point, however, the king, owing to his manifold pursuits and interests, escaped a grave danger. No ambition whatever lay open to Hesiod and his fellows, save the making of money, and lay- ing up stores of wealth, as he says (686), xwara yap \j/vxn weAerat beCkoco-L /3porotrrt *. In those depraved days, when a verdict could be bought under any cir- cumstances from the corrupt chiefs, money was power, even to a greater extent than in more civilised con- ditions. Hence the natural tendency among the lower classes must have been to postpone every- thing to the amassing of wealth — nay, rather, there was no other occupation open to them. So we find that both Tyrtaeus and Solon, early poets and poli- tical reformers, set down (ln\o)^pr]ixaTir] as the real cause of the disorders in their respective states 2 . The same tendency is plain enough in king Ulysses, and shows itself even ludicrously in the midst of the deepest melancholy and the greatest danger ; as, for example, when he finds himself cast upon a desolate shore and abandoned (v 215), and when he 1 When I speak of money I do not prejudge the question whether coined money was in use in Hesiod's day. Probably not; but the precious metals in their rude state, or worked into cups, answered the purpose equally well. Men had got beyond the stage of counting their wealth exclusively by sheep and oxen, and by changes of raiment. 2 So Theognis bitterly exclaims (v. 699), « the mass of men know but one virtue— to be rich ' : — TrKrjOei 5' avOpwiTOJV dpirrj fiia yiverat tfde irXovreip. III.] THE HOMERIC AGE. 71 sees Penelope drawing gifts from the suitors : but his lofty and varied sphere of action forces it back into a subordinate place. Yet I would have the reader note this feature carefully, as we shall meet it again in many forms throughout later Greek society. There is another point on which Hesiod is vastly inferior in social attitude to Homer; I mean in his estimate of women. But the plain-spoken bard was not singing at courts, where queens sat by and longed to hear of worthies of their own sex ; nor did he contemplate the important duties of the house-mother in the absence of her husband in wars and on the service of his state. Hence it was that ^Eschylus, though living in a democracy where women fared badly enough, yet found and felt in the epic poets such characters as his Clytemnestra, a reigning queen, invested with full powers in the king's absence — free to discuss public affairs, to re- ceive embassies, and act as her judgment directed her. All these things were foreign to Hesiod's at- titude ; yet surely it is strange that in describing farm life and farm duties, he should not have thought more of the important duties of the house- wife — duties which throughout all Greek and Roman history raised the position of the country - woman above that of the towns-woman, whose duties were less important, and whom the jealousy of city life compelled to live in fear and darkness 1 . Yet the first allusion in the 'Works and Days' is rude 1 eWicrfiivov dedoircds Kal ctcoTfivdv (rjv is Plato's expression. 72 SOCIAL GREECE. [ch. enough : ' You must start with a house, a wife, and an ox to plough, and have your farming implements ready in the house V There is, I believe, no farther notice of the woman till the short advice concerning marriage ; and here too nothing is stranger than the brevity with which the subject is noticed, and the total silence concerning the all - important duties which even Homer's princesses performed, and which were certainly in the hands of the women of Hesiod's acquaintance. We might almost imagine that some sour Attic editor had expunged the advice which Hesiod owes us on the point, and had justified him- self with the famous apophthegm of Pericles (or rather of Thucydides), that ' that woman is best who is least spoken of among men, either for good or for evil.' Hesiod implies, indeed, that a man may know something of the young women in the neigh- bourhood, and this supposes some freedom of inter- course ; yet he seems to consider the worst feature of a bad wife her desire to sit at meals with her husband, an opinion which in his age, and his plain and poor society, seems very harsh indeed 2 . However, then, I may be accused of having drawn Homeric society in darker colours than it deserves, though I have given authority for every charge, yet 1 Of course Aristotle's authority is decisive for the meaning of the verse (375), oIkov pev TrpcuTiara, yvvaiKa re, fiovv r dporrjpa, as well as for the spuriousness of the false commentary added in the next line. 2 I am not satisfied with the epithet SeinvoXoxov (649), or with the rendering of the old Commentators, and think some corruption must have crept into the text, though the MSS. do not vary except in the termination, and the editors seem satisfied. III.] THE HOMERIC AGE. 73 on the Hesiodic society all intelligent students of the 'Works and Days' are pretty well agreed. It pictures a hopeless and miserable existence, in which care, and the despair of better things, tended to make men hard and selfish, and to blot out those fairer features which cannot be denied to the courts and palaces of the Iliad and Odyssey. So great, in- deed, is the contrast, that most critics have assumed a change of things between the states described in Homer and in Hesiod ; they have imagined that the gaiety and splendour of the epic bard could not have coexisted with the sorrows and the mean- ness of the moral teacher. But both tradition and internal evidence should convince us that these poems, if not strictly contemporaneous, are yet proximate enough in date to be considered socially pictures of the same times, differing, as I have explained, in the attitude of the poets, but not in the men and the manners which gave them birth K If so, Hesiod has told us what the poor man thought 1 The usual theory makes the authors of the Iliad and Odyssey Asiatic Greeks, living among the Ionians, though of iEolian extraction. If this were so, the contrasts of Asiatic luxury and Greek poverty might be brought in to explain the striking differences between the two poets. For we know that the Asiatic Greeks attained to wealth and luxury long before their brethren in Greece. Mr. Gladstone, however, in the Contemporary Review for June 1874, contends earnestly that Homer composed his poems in Greece. To any who may adopt this theory, the remarks in the text will be even more pointed, and the contrast more remarkable, between the refinement of the noble and the rudeness of the peasant, in immediate contact throughout the same, or adjoining, districts. 74 SOCIAL GREECE. [ch. and felt, while the Homeric poet pictured how kings and ladies ought, in his opinion, to have lived and loved. And with all the contrasts, I think we can see conclusively that the fundamental features were the same, and that they were the legitimate seed from which sprang the Greeks of historic times. I may add, in conclusion, that this great contrast between the fair exterior and the misery and injustice within, though it has been now put very strongly in the case of the Greeks, was not peculiar to them, but has probably existed in all history where a favoured caste has ruled in its own interest, and to the ex- clusion of the general mass of the people. It was so in ancient Egypt, it was so in ancient India — indeed, in India at all times, — and it was so in mediaeval Europe. But in most of these cases the stronger classes write their own history and sing their own praises, while the wrongs and troubles of the poor transpire but rarely and by accident. So, the miseries of the old Egyptian poor are only transmitted to us by the boasts of reckless kings, who so loved their own glory, and to magnify their deeds, that they confessed the ruthless waste of human life with which they completed their eternal monuments. And again, the letter of a scribe has reached us, calling on a friend to embrace a literary life, and contrasting the poverty and the oppression under which the farming class suf- fered, with the comforts of his own calling 1 . These chance pieces of evidence lay open to us great social 1 Cf. Prolegom. to Anc. Hist., p. 327. III.] THE HOMERIC AGE. 75 sores, great sorrows of humanity covered with a sur- face of unjust and heartless splendour. Can we ima- gine that in the Middle Ages, in the days of trouba- dours and tournaments, of moated castles and rich abbeys, when the rude baron and the wily abbot divided the spoil — that then the lower strata of society fared in like manner? and can we imagine them sharing the splendour and the refinement of the old romances and ballads ? I need not speak of per- secuted races like the Jews, who were so barbarously treated that injustice towards them lost its very meaning to their oppressors, who have vaunted their own rapine and murder as the execution of Divine commands, and the spreading of the gospel of mercy through the world. But even in the case of the poor and the unprotected, the orphan and the widow, the sick and the destitute, it is but too certain that all the earth was full of violence ; and that hearts were broken and honour trampled in the dust with little compassion, when no law was found to punish trans- gression. Feudal times may be brilliant, they may produce both sentiment and heroism in the baron ; to the boor they are days of turmoil and misery, of uncertain and scanty comfort, of certain oppression and wrong. What are the social pictures drawn of these times in the novels of Sir Walter Scott — books which contain more and truer history than most of the dry annals professing to be history ? Consider Ivanhoe, or Quentin Durward, or the Fair Maid of Perth, are they not all darkened with the cry of the poor for justice and 76. SOCIAL GREECE. mercy, while the rich and powerful are made to suffer by the novelist only the punishments which they escaped in real life ? These things should moderate our contempt for the Homeric Greeks, even though I have stripped off the husk, and shown the bitterness of the fruit within. They were unjust and cruel and coarse below the surface ; but so were our ancestors, ay, within a century of to-day. After all it is the democratic spirit — vulgar, unsentimental, litigious spirit that it is — which first overthrew this feudalism in the world ; and which, in ancient Greece, in Rome, and in the Europe of to-day, has redressed social grievances, forbidden injustice, and punished violence and wrong. CHAPTER IV. THE GREEKS OF THE LYRIC AGE. WHEN we pass the great gap that separates Ho- meric from historical Greece we find ourselves in presence of a very different type of literary men. The tooth of time has eaten their works into frag- ments. We can find no continuous picture, no com- plete sketch of life, in these scanty remnants ; but still there is a something in the briefest of them that speaks to us in a different tone from that of the smooth and courtly rhapsodists. The lyric poets had lost interest in old kings and byegone glories ; they wrote about the present, they told about themselves, they spoke out the plain truth. We can see in the earliest of them, such as Archilochus, a clear reaction against the perpetual singing of antique glory, and the false palliation of heroic crimes. ' Had not the poet himself told us,' says an old writer 1 i l we should never have known that he was the son of a slave, and that he was driven from his country (Paros) by poverty and want, to Thasos, where he became 1 Critias, quoted by ./Elian, in Bergk, Fragg. Lyric. Grac. p. 724, from which I quote throughout. 7H SOCIAL GREECE. [CH. very unpopular ; nor should we have known that he abused friends and foes alike, nor that he was an adulterer, except from his own words, nor that he was sensual and insolent, nor, worst of all 1 , that he threw away his shield. Archilochus, therefore, was no good witness concerning himself.' And yet this poet was unanimously placed by the Greeks next to Homer in popularity. We are, there- fore, no longer in the presence of Greek Spensers and Miltons, who forgot themselves and their age to sing about gods and heroes, but in the presence of a Greek Byron, who not only applied his transcendent genius to satirise the men and the social laws of his own time, but who flaunted before the world the worst passages of an evil life, and, as a fanfaron de vices, gloried in violating the holiest obligations which restrain ordi- nary men in every civilised community. The same outspokenness, though it did not reach the same extremes, marks the fragments of Alcaeus, of Sappho, of Theognis, and of Solon. They stand totally apart in spirit from the old rhapsodists, and in contact with the moderns. They were strict realists in their art, not approaching the ideal save in the hymns they composed for the public worship of the gods. The self-assertion of cowardice in so many of these poets is a feature well worth noticing more particu- larly. Not only have we the evidence just quoted about Archilochus, but Herodotus (v. 95), and after- wards Strabo (xiii. 600), tell us a similar story of Alcaeus, who actually wrote a poem to a friend, and 1 Observe this Greek gradation of crimes. IV.] THE GREEKS OF THE LYRIC AGE. 79 published it, detailing how he had thrown away his shield in battle, and how the Athenians, with whom he had fought, had hung it up as a trophy in Sigeum. We are not surprised, when such statements were made by turbulent and warlike poets, to find allusions in the fragments of Anacreon which seem to point to some similar story {frags. 29, 30). I argued above (p. 21) that the Greeks were not a courageous nation, in the sense now accepted, and I think these ad- ditional pieces of evidence, from a later age, cor- roborate what I have said. The attitude of Pindar towards war is quite similar to that of other Greek poets. His style and subject-matter do not admit of confessions like those of Archilochus and Alcaeus. He says {frag. 74) that only the inexperienced love war ; a sentiment likely enough to be strongly felt in the days of the disastrous, though glorious, Persian invasion, just as we often heard it expressed by German soldiers and officers after the late war in France. But still it is evidence of a feeling in Pindar different from, and more modern than, the valour of the knight-errant and the crusader. Plato, in his Laws 1 , has a very Greek theory to account for the decay of valour in modern times, as compared with the valour of the ideal Homeric hero and the old Spartan citizen. He notices that the Athenians were subject to Minos 2 , and obliged to pay him a tribute of human lives, because he pos- 1 Jowett, vol. iv. p. 227. 2 This is probably the mythical account of the old Phoenician supre- macy in the Greek waters. Cf. above, p. 16. 80 SOCIAL GREECE. [ch. sessed a naval power, and they did not. ' Better for them,' he adds, ' to have lost many times over the seven youths, than that heavy-armed and stationary troops should have been turned into sailors, and ac- customed to leap quickly on shore, and again to hurry back to their ships ' ; or should have fancied that there was no disgrace in not awaiting the attack of an enemy and dying boldly ; and that there were good reasons, and many of them, for a man throwing away his arms, and betaking himself to flight, which is affirmed upon occasion not to be dishonourable. This is the language of naval warfare, and is anything but worthy of extraordinary praise. For we should not teach bad habits, least of all to the best part of the citizens. You may learn the evil of such a prac- tice from Homer, by whom Odysseus is introduced, rebuking Agamemnon, because he desires to draw down the ships to the sea at a time when the Achaeans are hard pressed. ' For,' says he, ' the Achaeans will not maintain the battle, when the ships are drawn into the sea, but they will look behind and cease from strife.' You see that he quite knew triremes on the sea, in the neighbourhood of fighting men, to be an evil ; lions might be trained in that way to fly from a herd of deer. Moreover, naval powers, which owe their safety to ships, do not honour that sort of warlike excellence which is most deserving of honour. For he who owes his safety to the pilot, and the cap- tain, and the oarsman, and all sorts of rather good- for-nothing persons, cannot rightly give honour to whom honour is due. IV.] THE GREEKS OF THE LYRIC AGE. 8r Plato has not the smallest notion of real sailor courage ; such as we have inherited from the Norse- men, he does not know that such courage may be higher than the courage of any landsman, for he has before him the wretched coasting and plundering sea warfare of the Greeks. His evidence, however, on the small valour of the Greek marine is most valuable. But to return : there are ample historical reasons to account for the blunt realism of the lyric poets. The main interests of the Hellenic nation, after the wars and adventures occasioned by their colonising epoch had passed away, were centred not on foreign affairs, or external wars, but on the internal conflicts of their cities. The great social struggle between the higher and lower classes had commenced, and so the aristocracy became naturally separated in most of the cities into close factions, with common interests and common principles of action. The early lyric poets, as a class, were members of this society, and spoke as equals to intimate equals, not as paid in- feriors to please their employers, till the epoch of the tyrants came, when a few of the later lyrists fell back socially into a position somewhat analogous to the rhapsodists. Since these things are so, the scanty and dislocated lyric fragments are worth far more, historically, than the more consecutive but more imaginary pictures of the epic poems. They disclose to us a society of men of like passions with the later Greeks, but more reckless and violent, inasmuch as men whose old privileges are for the first time G 82 ' SOCIAL GREECE. [ch. attacked are more bitter than those who have become accustomed to this ungrateful reform. When Thucydides tells us that the moral depravity so graphically described in his third book came in with the civil war, it is surprising that this assertion has been adopted by historians without large quali- fications. It may possibly be true that democracies, being more thoroughly organised and firmer in their claims, began to develope these vices more mani- festly at this time, but it is plainly false to say that the Greek aristocrats did not openly act on all the principles indicated by Thucydides long before his day. As I have already shown, even Homer's Gods and Hesiod's Iron Age possess all these disagreeable features. Were we to seek an historical illustration of the same thing, it would rather be found in the poems of Theognis and of Alcaeus than in any other portion of Greek literature. But we must look more to Hesiod than to Homer for the antecedents of the moral darkness of lyric Greece. We now see, not the oppressed farmer suffering from injustice and violence, yet still in awe of the divine right of his princes, but these very btopocpayoL fiaaiXijes quarrelling, as we might expect, over their ill-used privileges, and over the booty they had plundered from their people. Greek history, too, makes it plain that the lower classes did not awake spontaneously to their rights, and put forth one of themselves to vindicate and lead them ; but that the noble who failed in the struggle with his brother aristocrats — this was he who taught the 877/mos their IV.] THE GREEKS OF THE LYRIC AGE. 83 rights, and offered to lead them against their former oppressors. The Hesiodic boor was thus awakened to his claims, and entered into the conflict with the vigour of his race. But of course he was duped by his leader, who only wanted him as a tool, not as a friend, and who reduced both his former equals and his former supporters to one level, as soon as he was able to establish his tyranny. Thus there arose a certain phase of Greek society, called the age of the Tyrants, which has hardly re- ceived fair treatment at the hands of historians. Politically, indeed, as regards the development of written laws, and the habits of public debate, it must be regarded as an epoch of stagnation, or of retro- gression in Greece ; but socially and aesthetically, nay even morally, in spite of the vices of many Greek despots, I hold it to have been not only an age of progress in Greece, but even a necessary prelude to the higher life which was to follow. For if we regard carefully the attitude of Hesiod, Theognis, Alcaeus, and other such poets, we shall find that in the aris- tocratic stage, in which the proper history of Greece opens, the degradation of the lower classes and the un- disguised violence of the nobles made all approach to a proper constitution impossible. The Boeotian farmer thought that he must suffer for the sins of his princes, and never thought it possible that he should reject the responsibility. He regarded this Jove-sprung pestilence as a sort of iron necessity that brought him unavoidable suffering. In like manner the aris- tocrats could never endure to see the men who lived G % 84 SOCIAL GREECE. [ch. like wild beasts in skins, and were timid as deer 1 , claiming privileges, and discussing rights with their noble selves. ' Between us and you there is a great gulf fixed ' — this was the watchword of their policy. And so the nobles in Athens, in Megara, in Lesbos, and probably in Sparta, quarrelled among themselves with great violence, but never thought for one moment of bettering the condition of the 8t}//os. When the tyrants arose, they forced these widely separated classes into the same subjection. There is ample evidence that they systematically raised the common people, and lowered the nobles. There is equally ample evidence that they enforced order, and in some cases put down with a strong hand open immorality 2 , so that cities that had been racked with revolution and violence for generations, first came to feel the blessings of a strong government, and the benefits of a peace to which they had been total strangers. This gave them time to develope commerce and to cultivate art — the latter specially encouraged by the tyrants as a class. I hold, then, that Greece, when the tyrants passed away, was in a condition vastly superior to its aristocratic age— in fact, in a condition fit to develope political life. This 1 I quote this from Theognis, v. 55. 2 This is certain from the evidence we have in the fragments of Theopompus (ci.frag. 252) about the tyrants of Mitylene. Curtius has an ingenious theory that the tyrants were the evidence of a mercantile Ionic reaction against the aristocratic Doric ascendancy brought about by the greatness of Sparta. This theory, if proved, does not contradict what is said in the text, but concerns the political side of a question, which I am regarding from a social point of view. IV.] THE GREEKS OF THE LYRIC AGE, 85 would have been impossible but for the fusion of classes and the development of culture produced by the tyrants. One memorable example will suffice by way of illustration. What was the state of Athens when Solon arose ? It had been torn by factions for years. The country was languishing. Men were weary of turmoil and confusion. At last this great genius was entrusted with the regulation of public affairs. He tells us plainly enough in extant poems that he endeavoured to lay down a fair constitution, raising the lower classes gradually, curbing the violence of the nobles, tempering all the extremes into a great whole in which all should have an interest. Here, then, was a fair and just constitution offered to a state in the pre-despotic stage. What was the re- sult ? In spite of all his efforts, in spite of his self- imposed absence, and the oath taken to avoid changes, the aristocrats could not be restrained. They openly ridiculed Solon, as he tells us, for not grasping the tyranny, in fact they could not con- ceive his declining to do so ; even the lower classes seem not to have understood his great benefits, for the noble legislator complains, in language which still touches us across a great gulf of centuries, how he stands alone without friend or support in the state K 1 The ridicule of his aristocratic friends appears in quotations from Solon's own poems by Plutarch in chap. xvi. of his precious life of Solon. ' But his intimates more particularly depreciated him, because he thought ill of monarchy on account of its name, as if it did not forth- 86 SOCIAL GREECE. [CH. It is to be observed, farther, that the lessons which he taught, and the ideas which he strove to instil into the Athenian mind, were no obscure metaphy- sics, no lofty flights of fancy, but the plainest home- spun morality, so plain indeed that his practical lessons appear to us mere truisms. His moral atti- tude differs toto ccelo from that of ^Eschylus, and stands so close to that of Hesiod and Theognis, that they dispute with him the authorship of sundry re- flections. This very plain teaching, and this great moral and political pre-eminence of Solon, were nevertheless to all appearance useless. No sooner had he completed his work and left Athens, than the old strife of parties revived. His return made no change in this wretched state of things. His laws were powerless, his lessons were unheeded. He had cast his pearls before swine, and they were ready to turn again and rend him. His solution of the problem was no with become a kingship [instead of a tyranny ?] by the merit of the holder, and as they had the precedents of Tynnondas in Euboea and Pittacus in Mitylene. None of these things made Solon to swerve from his policy, but he said to his friends that a tyranny was a fair position with no escape from it. . . .' He has thus described the ridicule of those who derided him for avoiding the tyranny : ' Solon is no man of sound sense or counsel, for when God gave him a fine chance he himself would not take it ; but when he had made a miraculous draught, in amazement he did not haul in the great net, through want both of spirit and of sense. He should have been well content, having got power and abundant wealth, to be tyrant of Athens for a single day, even were he then flayed alive and his race destroyed.' It is with reference to such friends that Solon speaks of himself {frag. 37) as a wolf worried by dogs crowding about him. IV.] THE GREEKS OF THE LYRIC AGE. 87 doubt theoretically excellent, but practically it was a decided failure. Peisistratus, a man of inferior genius, but of greater vigour and boldness, saw better how to solve it. Of course Peisistratus had private ends, like Julius Caesar, like Alexander, like Napo- leon. But when a great man's private ends happen to coincide with the good of the state, he ought not to lose all credit because he happens to benefit him- self. There is ample evidence that Peisistratus was not only a wise but a humane and orderly ruler. Despite of the violent opposition of the aged Solon, he treated him with respect, and is said to have strictly observed his laws. This shows his esti- mate of Solon's theory. But if he did approve of Solon's laws, he introduced the new element in which Solon was wanting. After all, the aristocrats who had ridiculed the lawgiver for not turning tyrant, had some wisdom in their taunts. Laws must not only be made, they must be enforced. Peisistratus en- forced Solon's laws \ He was not content with laws punishing neutrality during insurrections. He in- sisted on peace and order in the city. He stopped by main force the perpetual political agitation which is the ruin of any commonwealth. He developed the tastes of the lower classes, giving them intellectual and social pleasures to compensate for the loss of higher but more dangerous excitement. The reading 1 See the remarkable passage in Plato's Laws, iv. 711, in which he shows how rapidly a tyrant was able, even by merely setting the fashion, to alter the laws and customs of a state. He is distinctly of opinion that there is no other means at all so rapid and complete. 88 SOCIAL GREECE. [ch. of Homer, the feasts of Dionysus, the newest lyric poems, attracted the attention of the public, and weaned them from the wild fever of conflicting rights and opposing privileges. Of course the great nobles found the change intolerable. They retired, like Miltiades, to their country mansions. They gladly left the country to found colonies, and regain as foreign princes the importance they had lost at home. Athens stood still in political training, but she gained immensely in culture. Let the reader remember that without sound intellectual culture all political train- ing is and must be simply mischievous. A free con- stitution is perfectly absurd, if the opinion of the majority is incompetent. Until men are educated, they want a strong hand over them — a fact which very few in this country will be disposed to dispute. I fear it is almost hopeless to persuade English minds that a despotism may in some cases be better for a nation than a more advanced constitution. And yet no students of history can fail to observe that even yet very few nations in the world are fit for diffused political privileges. These nations are so manifestly the greatest and best, and consequently the most prosperous, that inferior races keep imitating their institutions, instead of feeling that these institutions are the result and not the cause of true national greatness. Of course the result reacts upon the cause, and becomes itself a cause in due time, but only where it has grown up naturally, not where it has been superinduced artificially. Thus the at- tempts at democracy of the French, of the American IV.] THE GREEKS OF THE LYRIC AGE. 89 negroes, and of all such non-political races, must for generations to come end in failure. The case of the Irish is still more remarkable. The English nation has in vain given them its laws, and even done something to enforce them. The nation will not thrive, because this is the very constitution not fit for it. I believe even a harsh despotism would be more successful, and perhaps in the end more humane. When the Greek tyrants had done their work, the day of liberty came, and with it a great struggle, which nerved and braced the people's energies against an outward foe. The literature of free Athens shows us a perfectly new attitude. Of course it were absurd to attribute this memorable national development — the most miraculous the world has ever seen — to any single cause. A con- current number of great causes only could ever have produced such an effect. But I claim as one cause the literary culture which Athens received at the hands of Peisistratus and his sons. The hearers of yEschylus were intellectually men widely different from the hearers of Solon, nay even from the hear- ers of later lyric poets, like Pindar and Simonides. There is a depth and a condensation of thought in ^Eschylus which would have made him perfectly unintelligible to men who appreciated the stupid saws of Hesiod and Solon, even when obscured or polished by Pindar and Simonides. The fact that ^Eschylus was appreciated proves that Athens had attained the intellectual culture fit for a great demo- 90 SOCIAL GREECE. [ch. cracy. I believe that she owed this culture mainly to her tyrants \ But of course the tyrants had their bad effect on literary men, even while they promoted culture. For their position and their policy led them to encourage smoothness and elegance rather than originality and vigour. Archilochus and Aristo- phanes could not have been tolerated among them, and there were certain species of poetry, like the comedy of the latter, which though born, lay dor- mant till their control had passed away. So then the lyric poets, who have been divided in numerous cross divisions, as regards dialect, metre, country, and subjects, may be divided for our present pur- pose into the poets of free states, and the poets at the courts of tyrants. The characteristics of the former and the value of the evidence they afford us are sufficiently ob- vious from the foregoing remarks. I shall only here call attention among the latter to the attitude of Pindar, who appears from his poems to have been more a courtier than an honest man. I take his moral reflections, and those of Simonides, to be far less sincere than those of Solon or Theognis. But unfortunately, the high moral standing of the earlier gnomists made it impossible to keep their 1 In corroboration of this view of the literary influence of the tyrants, I may quote the curious case of Magna Grsecia, where the Achaean con- federation, which excluded tyrants, also exhibited no literary genius, though Tarentum and Rhegium and the Sicilian cities bore their full share, often under tyrants. Cf. Mommsen's Rom. Hist. i. 143, Eng. Trans. IV.] THE GREEKS OF THE LYRIC AGE. 91 works pure and undenled. Later moral teachers added to the reflections of the older new saws and maxims, and these, especially when they were of high merit \ took refuge under the name of Hesiod, or of Solon or of Theognis, even where they seem to us in direct contradiction to these authors' opinions. Accordingly there is no more hopeless task than the critical expurgating of such texts. The interpolations are often as old as the circulation of the poems, and usually of equal merit as to thought and diction. These additions are flagrantly obvious in our extant remains of Theognis, and have been there since the fourth century B.C., at all events, for Plato criticises them in his Meno 2 as part of the received text. The curious saltus from subject to subject, the constant and direct in- consistencies, the total absence of continuity in the fragments, tell but too plainly the history of their text. It is beyond the scope of a general sketch to attempt a notice of all the individual peculiarities 1 This consideration shows the folly of a very common procedure among the German critics, of determining by their own taste (generally a very capricious one) what lines are of inferior merit, and excluding them as unworthy of the genuine poet. The supposed defect in the suspected passage often arises from a want of comprehension on the part of the critic. Choice specimens of this sort of restitution may be seen in Steitz' otherwise valuable book on Hesiod, and still better in Lucian Midler's papers on some of Ovid's Heroides in the twenty- third vol. of the Rhein. Museum. In Gnomic poetry at all events, neither commonplace nor disconnection are sufficient proof of spuriousness, and again no line is more likely to be foisted in than a really good and striking line. There is indeed no reason why the interpolated lines should not be superior to the original poem. 2 Jowett, vol. i p. 286. 92 SOCIAL GREECE. [ch. scattered through the widely severed fragments of the lyric poets. Where the germ was developed in later Greek society we shall notice it in our more special consideration of the Attic age. But there are a few general features, repeated in many of the fragments, despite of contrasts in time and place, in metre and in dialect. These must here occupy us a brief space. There is, for example, a peculiar uniformity in many of them as to their religious views — I mean their views of Divine Justice and Benevolence, of Providence and of Fate. Solon and Theognis, Ar- chilochus and the earlier Simonides, the later Simon- ides and his contemporary Pindar, all agree in their general theory of life. They were led by bitter ex- perience to assert, what had never been dared by Homer and only hinted by Hesiod, that goodness and justice among men were often without reward, and that the wicked did flourish as a green bay tree ; and yet, for all that, they never advanced even to the most distant hint of atheism, or to a denial that the gods could and did interfere in human affairs. Had such a notion been within their horizon, it must have come into sight when we find such almost comic appeals as this of Theognis : — ' Dear Zeus, I wonder at thee : for thou rulest over all, having in thine own hands honour and great power and of men thou knowest well the heart and mind of each, and thy strength is over all, O king ! How is it then that thy mind can tolerate to hold transgressors and the just in the same lot ? ' And so the conclusion appears briefly in the succeeding lines, ' there is nothing de- IV.] THE GREEKS OF THE LYRIC AGE. 93 cided for mortals as regards the Deity, nor what path he must tread to please the immortal gods.' This is their common attitude. They feel the pre- sence of the Deity ; they believe that human hap- piness and misery are bestowed by him ; but though their deepest instinct tells them that virtue must be his law, and justice his principle, they cannot reconcile with it the facts of common life. They con- clude, therefore, that the ways of God are inscrutable, and his paths past finding out. Thus Solon, in the most famous of his fragments (No. 13, ed. Bergk), where he tells us the results of his deepest reflections on human life, after asserting in the strongest terms a ruling Providence, which though often tardy, yet never fails to seek out and punish vice, it may be in the sinner himself, it may be by visitations upon the third and fourth generation — after this dogmatic teaching, Solon goes on to show how men are car- ried about, each by his own vanity and his peculiar ambition, and how not one of them can see what dangers and what successes are before him. In the words of another fragment (17) navrr\ 5' aOavdrav a(pavr)S voos avdpu>7TOLaiv. The lines of Theognis (vv. 133 sq.) are still stronger : — ' No one, Cyrnus, is himself the cause of his misfortune or his gain, but the gods are the givers of them both ; nor does any man work with a sure knowledge whether the result will be good or evil. For often when he thinks he is producing evil, he produces good, and again thinking to pro- duce good he produces evil. Nor does any man 94 SOCIAL GREECE. [ch. attain his expectations, for the limits of stern ina- bility restrain him (io"x et yap x a ^ €7r rjs neipar a^yavir]^). For we men form idle opinions, knowing nothing, but the gods accomplish all according to their mind.' It must be observed that, by way of antidote, the succeeding lines tell that he who deceives a stranger, or a suppliant, never escapes the immortal gods. The gloomy lines of Archilochus (fr. 56), and Si- monides of Amorgos (fr. 1), of Simonides of Ceos (f r - 5)5 an d of Pindar's twelfth Olympian Ode, repeat the same disappointment and the same de- spair ; nay, their very language is so similar to that of Solon and Theognis, that they seem but evident repetitions of the common wisdom of the day, couched in the tritest and most homely words l . It is worthy of remark that these poets were far too philosophic to account for their difficulties, as Homer would do, by the conflicting passions of in- dependent deities. This vulgar polytheism had long passed away from educated minds, and the poets speak of the Deity, for the most part, impersonally, or as one almighty Zeus. The vague and negative attitude of their religion 1 I quote the words of Pindar instar omnium : — ovjaISoKov 8' ov ttw tis ImyQovlojv mordv dfKpl vpagios kooopevas tvpev 6eo6ew tcvv Se peWovTwv TtTvqXcvvTai (ppadai. ttoWoL 5' dvOpwTTOis irapd yvcvpav eVeerej/, tpnraXiv p\v repif/ios, ol 5' dviapais avTitcupffavres £6.\cus kcr\bv fiadv Ttriparos kv pucpw rt^apaxpav Xpovcp. Ol. xii. 7-12. These poets add little to Hesiod, "Ep7. 83 sqq. IV.] THE GREEKS OF THE LYRIC A GE. 95 naturally coloured their practical ethics, and so we here find many conflicting apophthegms, as is wont to be the case in all proverbial philosophy. According to the writer's momentary attitude, according to the subject in hand, the preacher frames his parable, without regard to consistency. This peculiarity is indeed so salient in the extant works of Theognis, that it seems impossible to deny extensive interpo- lations ; and there can be little doubt that here, as in Hesiod, the use of the author as a schoolbook induced men to smuggle in foreign morality under the shelter of a great name. It is of course impos- sible to gather such teaching under general heads, or present it as a connected system. But there are some points on which lyric poets as widely apart as Tyrtaeus and Pindar agree, and this because they have both inherited them from the Ionic and Boeotian Epos. They both think, for example, that the best way of inculcating heroism is not by sentimental appeals, but by showing the solid ad- vantages to be derived from it. It is far better, says Tyrtaeus {fr. 10), to die in battle, than to be driven from one's city and rich fields and have to beg, going about with one's aged father, one's wife and little children. For a man is hateful to those whom he visits in his poverty and dire distress, and dis- graces his race and his own respectability. ' If then,' the poet proceeds, ' there is no regard for a wan- dering man, nor respect, nor consideration, nor pity, let us fight with courage, and not spare our lives. 5 This picture of the contempt in which a vagrant 96 SOCIAL GREECE. [ch. beggar is held, even if sprung from gentle blood, reminds us of the anxious hurrying of Ulysses to the asylum of the hearth, it literally repeats Hesiod's advice to Perses (v. 367), and reminds us of the sad words of Andromache, in describing the lot of her orphan child (above, p. 41). Pindar, whose evidence is not quite so valuable, inasmuch as he wrote in the interest of his pro- fession, repeatedly tells us that the satisfaction of doing great things is nothing, if the glory of being publicly praised does not attend it. We saw above that this worship of success was quite Homeric, being the counterpart of the contempt of failure, and equally prominent in the Greek mind. To the pas- sages already quoted I may add one in Pindar, which shocks us in comparison with the gentleness and sympathy of Achilles towards the vanquished at the games. He says that the Deity has given to the four lads, whom Alcimedon conquered, a most hateful return from the arena, a cowed voice, and a sneaking along unfrequented paths l . The same idea is found in one of his fragments (150). A very remark- able historical parallel is to be read in Herodotus (vi. 67), where the new king of Sparta sends a mes- senger to ask his deposed rival, out of insolence and derison, how he liked being a magistrate after being a king. I think, therefore, that in this respect, the Greeks of the lyric age were hardly gehtlemen in our sense. Another feature may, perhaps, be regarded 1 vootov tyQiGTOV Kai aTijAOTtpav yXuaaav teal eiri/cpvcpov olfiov. 01. viii. 68. IV.] THE GREEKS OF THE LFRIC AGE. 97 as at that epoch (if not, indeed, at all epochs) really- national and Hellenic. Their usual teaching, which was in theory sound, and based upon the excellence and the satisfactions of virtue, did not extend to political life, or at least was confessedly to be there overridden by the pressure of circumstances. This inconsistency was the natural outcome of their re- ligion. As they believed in a Providence, and in this Providence rewarding virtue, so they taught that men should follow virtue. As they also held that the reward was often withheld, and that dishonesty and craftiness were constantly successful ; so they did not expect men to be proof against pressure, but advised them to follow the stream of fortune, and, above all, not to miss the satisfactions of love and of revenge \ They were, like Machiavelli, more outspoken than we are on this side, as many of them were scarcely moral teachers, and were more intent on painting life as it is, and as they found it, than on raising the standard of actions. But I hardly know whether we should not note the same kind of inconsistency in our own professed Christian, who exhorts his neighbour to turn the other cheek to him who has smitten one, and to give his cloak to the man who has taken his coat, and yet this same adviser upbraids and scorns his friend if he brooks an insult without instant satisfaction. The party struggles of the Greek cities made the aristocrats, who were in the end for the most part defeated, far more vindictive than ever Greek nature 1 Solon, Jr. 13; Archil. Jr. 65. H 98 SOCIAL GREECE. [ch. could have been originally, and the poems of Theo- gnis, which were general favourites among the nobles throughout Greece, show a mixture of contempt and hatred against the lower classes that excludes all generous and even honest treatment. It was openly recommended to fawn upon your enemy, to deceive him till he was in your power, and then wreak ven- geance upon him. It is usual among critics to speak of this as the attitude of Theognis, and of the special aristocracy to which he belonged. They forget that we find the same attitude in the moral Pindar (Pyth. ii. 84). ), practise Scythian toping at our wine, but drinking to the sound of sweet hymns' (fr. 64). Yet even this is rather Homeric, and reminds us of Ulysses declaring that the highest delight is to sit at a plentiful table and hear a bard singing a pleasant lay. Other lyric poets are more advanced in their notions. Phocylides re- commends light and good-humoured banter (rjbia KMTiKkovTa) over the wine-cup. Theognis wishes that he may sit at table beside some wise man, by whose conversation he will profit (v. 563) while in another passage (v. 295 sqq.) he complains of the nuisance of a chatterbox, whom all hate, and whom no one will meet at a feast if he can help it — kxQaipovoi h\ iravres, dvayKairj S' enifugis avdpbs toiovtov ov/jnrooicp reKeOa. The locus classicus, however, of this epoch is the great fragment (No. 1) of Xenophanes, where he de- scribes the requisites of an elegant and refined feast, and, being a reformer not only in religion but in society, specially inveighs against rhapsodising bards. He wants to hear a man talk from his own resources, either drawing from his experience, or suggesting moral discourse, and ' not one who marshals for you (8ieW) the battles of the giants or the Titans, or those of the Centaurs, inventions of the ancients — in such things there is no profit.' This is quite a Platonic or Attic attitude. With the sustained lay, it is evident that the 104 SOCIAL GREECE. [ch. groaning board and the unmixed wine departed from society, and there is no subject on which the lyric and gnomic poets have left us more copious advice than on the proper use of wine. They loved pleasure, and understood life too well ever to recom- mend water-drinking. But they understood it also too well to tolerate surfeiting and drunkenness. While they personified wine (Ion, fr. 9) as * an un- tamed child and daring, young and yet not young, sweetest minister of boisterous loves, wine that ele- vates the mind, the president of men,' yet they know (Euenus, fr. 2), ' that if out of measure he was the cause of grief or madness. In company with three (water) nymphs he is most suitable. But should he blow a full gale, he is hostile to love, and steeps us in sleep the neighbour of death.' So Critias tells us the Lacedaemonians would not allow each guest to pledge his friend in separate cups, for that this drinking of healths was the fertile cause of drunken- ness. As might be expected, of all the lyric rem- nants, the poems attributed to Theognis contain the most numerous reflections on this subject — reflections, I mean, of a gnomic character, as contrasted with the wild license of Alcaeus 1 . But in an elegy, of doubtful authorship, addressed 1 Dicsearchus (Mull. Fragg. Hist. ii. p. 247) says that Alcaeus drank watery wine out of small cups ; but the extant fragments tell us that his mixture was one to two, therefore stronger than that of Euenus just quoted, and that he began early, and had one cup following close upon another (d 5' erepa rav erepav «uAt£ vjOrjTcS), thus compensating for the smaller size. v.] THE GREEKS OF THE LYRIC AGE. 105 to Simonides 1 , and apparently the work of no mean poet, the duties of a Greek gentleman as to wine drinking are perhaps most accurately and elegantly expounded. ' Wake not the friend, Simonides, among us whom soft sleep may overcome when he has in- dulged in wine, nor ask the waking man to sleep against his will : everything compulsory is offensive. But to him who will drink let them pour out without stint, it is not every night that we enjoy such luxury. But I — for I am moderate in honey-sweet wine — will court soothing sleep when I have gone home, and will show you how wine is most pleasant for men to drink. For neither am I too sober a man, nor am I very intemperate. But whosoever exceeds a measure in drinking, is no longer master of his tongue or his mind, and talks recklessly of things disgraceful to the sober, and is ashamed of nothing, though modest when he was sober. Now you, perceiving this, drink not to excess, but either retire before you are drunk — let not your lust compel you, like some wretched jour- neyman — or else stay and do not drink. But you are ever babbling that silly word " fill your glass," and so you get drunk. For first comes the health of the guests, and then a second cup is left ready before you, and a third is for the libation to the gods, and another you keep before you, and so you 1 Bergk thinks to Simonides of Amorgos, and that the author was an early Euenus, not the Sophist alluded to by Aristotle; cf. Fragg. Ly- P- 5 X 5> note. The fragment has reached us in the collection attributed to Theognis. It is corrupt in several places, and the meaning not certain. io5 SOCIAL GREECE. [CH. know not how to refuse. He is indeed invincible, who can drink many cups and say nothing foolish. But do you promote good conversation sitting round the bowl, restraining one another from contention, addressing individuals so that the company may join in 1 , and so our feast will not want in refinement.' In other fragments of Theognis, and these genuine, we see the same conflict between good sense and good fellowship. "Tis a shame to be drunk among sober men, 'tis also a shame to stay sober among men that are drunk * ; and, again, * O wine, in some things I praise, in others I blame thee ; nor can I ever altogether love thee or hate thee. A good art thou and an ill. Who might blame thee, who might with a fair share of wisdom praise thee 2 ? ' In all these quotations we see a moral attitude which is about the same as that of average society in our day. But intellectually the bright and plea- sure-loving Greek would have hated the heavy pomp and stupid sameness of our large dinner parties. Athenseus however observes, on the evidence of 1 v. 495, es to \ikaov tpowevvres 6/xa)s kvl teal awairaaiv. On no point were the Greeks more particular as regards their dinner parties, than that the conversation should be general. As soon as the common listening to a reciting bard became obsolete, it is the serious discourse of a leading guest which is prized, as in this fragment and that of Xeno- phanes above quoted. It is the \eyopevov es \ikaov at Cleisthenes' banquet in Herodotus ; it is the demand in Plato's Symposium that Socrates shall not whisper — this is in fact the universal feature of the Greek banquet. We stupid moderns seem to be specially providing against it in our large dinner parties, where people are broken up into couples, and so restrained from general talking. 2 Cf. Theog. vv. 510, 627, 836, 873. v.] THE GREEKS OF THE LYRIC AGE. 107 Anacreon, that they still at this period maintained the habit, afterwards only to be found among bar- barians, of crowding their tables all through the feast with dishes. In fact, they had not yet introduced their diner a la Russe 1 . But that they had already begun to give attention to cooking in the lyric age appears from fragments of Solon (fr. 38) of Simo- nides of Amorgos (fr. 23, 24) and of Hipponax (fr. 35). To the Greek, brilliant conversation was not an accident, but a necessity in society, and wine was chiefly prized as promoting this end. He was in- tensely fond of good cheer and of elegant dishes, but the cooks and the vulgar people who made this the end of banquetting were always despised and ridiculed. He compensated, too, for the frequent absence of the female sex from his feasts by that romantic friendship which subsisted between young men in ancient Greece — a friendship which absorbed all the higher affection now felt only towards the opposite sex. On this question the second book of Theognis' elegies gives ample and curious informa- tion, and those who compare it (especially vv. 1260, and 1 31 3 sqq.) with the allusions in the courtly Pindar 2 will be struck with the free and manly tone of the old aristocrat, and how completely faithful friendship comes into the foreground, while the court poet, who was living like Anacreon among tyrants and their minions, pictures the sensuous beauty alone, and so degrades his higher genius to a baser level. 1 Athenseus i. 1 2 A. 2 01. i. 40; xi. 105 ; Isthm. ii. 1 ; and/r. 2 of the Skolia. io8 SOCIAL GREECE. [CH. But these considerations lead us on to a more in- teresting question, and one on which modern critics have gone almost uniformly astray, the question of the position of women in the Lyric, as opposed to the Heroic and the Attic ages. It is not true that in this period women had been degraded, and that the Homeric poems afford models and characters superior to those of the Lyric poets. Take the feeling of maternal love, as shown by Andromache and Penelope. The celebrated passage in which the former appears is one of the very best in the great Iliad, and yet I hesitate not to say that an extant fragment of Simonides containing the lament of Danae is not a whit inferior either in sentiment or in diction. In this, the most exquisite of all the lyric fragments, the purest maternal love and the noblest resignation find their most perfect expres- sion, and we may safely assert that the poet, and the age which produced such a poem, cannot have been wanting in the highest type of female dignity and excellence. I quote it in Dean Milman's version ; but even that excellent poet's version falls vastly short of the great original. 'When rude around the high- wrought ark The tempests raged, the waters dark Around the mother tossed and swelled; With not unmoistened cheek she held Her Perseus in her arms, and said: "What sorrows bow this hapless head! Thou sleepst the while, thy gentle breast Is heaving in unbroken rest; v.] THE GREEKS OF THE LYRIC AGE. 109 In this our dark unjoyous home Clamped with the rugged brass, the gloom Scarce broken by the doubtful light That gleams from yon dim fires of night. But thou, unwet thy clustering hair, Heed'st not the billows raging wild, The moanings of the bitter air, Wrapt in thy purple robe, my beauteous child ! Oh ! seemed this peril perilous to thee, How sadly to my words of fear Wouldst thou bend down thy listening ear ! But now sleep on, my child! sleep thou, wide sea! Sleep, my unutterable agony ! Oh ! change thy counsels, Jove, our sorrows end ! And if my rash intemperate zeal offend, For my child's sake, his father, pardon me!'" There are other, though less prominent, indications in the other poets, not less clear and convincing. We are told that Stesichorus composed a poem called Calyce, which was highly popular among the ladies of ancient days. Aristoxenus has preserved to us the mere outline of the plot, which shows it to have been the forerunner of the novels or love stories afterwards fashionable at Miletus. The maiden Calyce, having fallen madly in love with a youth, prays to Aphrodite that she may become his lawful wife, and when he continued to be indifferent to her, she committed suicide. It was specially noticed by ancient critics how the poet had drawn the character of the maiden as exhibiting the greatest purity and modesty under this sore trial, and we are told, or we can at least plainly infer, that this noble feature was the great cause of the popularity of the poem. A careful consideration of the fragments of Sappho no SOCIAL GREECE. [ch. will, I think, lead to the same conclusion. There appears to have been, in her day and in her city, both great liberty for women to mix in general society, and a bold independent way of asserting their rights and their dignity. She versified, we are told, a dialogue, by some suspected to have taken place between Alcaeus and herself, in which the lover says to his flame, ' I have something to say to thee, but I feel confused and ashamed.' Whereupon the girl in answer to him, says : ' Wert thou a good man, and were the thing thou hast to say to me a good thing, thou hadst not felt this shame and confusion, but hadst said it freely, looking me straight in the face without blushes 1 .' She went so far as openly to censure in another poem her own brother, who was in the wine trade between Lesbos and Egypt, and having gone to Naucratis, there fell in love with a lady of beauty, but unworthy of him in moral character ; and this poem was celebrated and much quoted by the ancients. A less remarkable poet, Simonides of Amorgos, has left us a more complete fragment on this question — the celebrated poem in which the various tempers of women are shown to result from a kinship with various domestic animals. There are so many curious indi- cations of manners in this poem, that I shall here extract the substance of it. I do so the more unre- 1 Cf. Bergk, pp. 887 and 919. The passage is one of the innu- merable instances in which dyaOos was used in a strictly moral sense by the early Greeks ; for the quotation makes it plain that the word occurred in the original text. v.] THE GREEKS OF THE LYRIC AGE. in servedly as the exigencies of our modern universities, with their fixed or traditional courses, are such that even good Greek scholars may not be familiar with it. We are too apt to go round the ordinary course of well-known Greek authors, and neglect these frag- ments, which surely merit our attention as much as anything in Greek literature. The poem begins with the untidy woman, whose mind is said to be akin to that of a pig : and next, the curious and tell-tale woman is compared first to a fox, and then to a dog 1 . She wishes to hear and to know everything, and goes about looking out for news, and retailing it. ' Nor can her husband make her stop even with threats, though in a rage he should knock her teeth out with a stone, nor though he speak to her gently, even when she is sitting in com- pany with guests.' Next comes the dull woman without sensibility, whose mind is of the earth, earthy, 1 who cares not for good or evil ; the only work she does is to eat, and not even when God sends a hard winter, does she draw her chair nearer the fire.' We can hardly conceive a more telling or truthful picture. People without sympathy for others are sure to have no taste for comfort themselves, for comforts are essentially social things, and imply a pleasure in other people's happiness. We next come to the fickle woman, who is like the sea. One day she is laughing and joyous, and the guest seeing her in her house will praise her, and say 1 there is not in all the world a better or fairer woman 1 There appears some inconsistency or confusion in the text here. H2 SOCIAL GREECE. [ch. than this.' But next day she is furious and un- approachable, alike to friends and enemies. There follows an elegant parallel description of the sea, alternately smiling to the sailor's delight, and again raging with loud-sounding waves 1 . Then follow the ass-like and cat-like women, with details which show that these domestic animals were esteemed then ex- actly as they are now. Presently we come to the luxurious and extrava- gant woman, whose mind is akin to a horse. She avoids all slavish work and toil, and will not touch the grinding-stone, nor clean up the house, nor sit at the kitchen-fire. Such a woman makes her husband intimate with necessity. She washes herself twice a day or even three times, and uses unguents. She wears her hair always combed and in tresses (fiaOeiav) shaded with flowers. Such a woman is a fair sight for other people, but to him that owns her an evil, except he be some tyrant or ruler, who delights his mind with such things by way of luxury. Then comes the ugly woman, akin to the ape, who is of course most objectionable to the Greek moralist. 1 Such a woman goes through the town a regular laughing-stock to all men.' But the last has the nature of a bee ; happy the 1 Cf./r. 7, v. 37 sq.:— acTirep OaXaaaa noWatcis fxev drpefi^s ectTrjK' aitrjyiQjv, x^P. ua vavrrjaiv fieya, 6ep(os kv copy iroWaKis 8e fxalverai fiapvfCTVTroiai KVfiaaiv (popev/xivrj ravrr) fxaXiffr' eoiKe rotavrt] yvvr/ dfyyrjv. V.] THE GREEKS OF THE LYRIC AGE. 113 man that obtains her, for to her alone no blame attaches. Under her care his living prospers and increases. She grows old, a loving wife to her loving husband, the mother of a fair and praised race. Dis- tinguished is she among women, and divine grace clings to her (Oet-q 8' afjicpibebpofxtv x^P iS ) 5 nor does she delight in sitting among women, when they are talk- ing of intrigues (cuppobio-Lovs Xoyovs). The poet ends with some general remarks, one of them very modern in tone, the other strange and opposed to our ideas. He says that when there is a lady in the house, ' the guest is not received with the same open welcome,' alluding, I suppose, to the friend of bachelor days ; and then, that it is the habit of every man to praise his own wife, and abuse those of others, not reflecting that all are under a like misfortune. I call the reader's attention particularly to the fact that the public appearance in society of married women is so openly recognised throughout this poem. He will also see how heartfelt and earnest is the praise of the virtuous woman, in spite of all the poet's cynicism. It is moreover evident that he does not speak of the higher classes exclusively, but rather of those middle ranks, in which the lady of the house is expected to do such house-work as is now per- formed by the corresponding class in Germany. Yet withal the age was not behind the epic age in sentiment. Far from it. These historical Greeks, for example, fell in love as no Homeric hero ever could. When we read the precious fragments of burning complaint left us by Archilochus, by Sappho, by I 114 SOCIAL GREECE. [ch. Anacreon, and by Ibycus, we feel that we stand close to them, while the epic heroes are afar off and have not yet entered into the real atmosphere of that great emotion. The aged Ibycus dreads another visitation of Eros, as the old racer dreads a new contest, when he feels that his limbs have lost their vigour, and will not carry him as of old to victory. When Sappho sits in presence of her lover, her eyes grow dizzy, and her tongue refuses utterance, her heart flutters, and her ears are full of confused din, her mind wanders, and her cheek becomes pale 1 . I need not comment how truthfully these great poets felt the facts of human nature as the young now feel them, and as the old remember to have felt them. And I need not point out to the student of the Odyssey how differently the Homeric Greeks endured the same trial. Even the earlier tragedy of Athens falls short of the reality of these lyric poets ; and till we descend to the pathetic Euripides, no equal sympathy with this, the largest of human feelings, rewards our search. So also the respect for the holiest of human emotions, the mother's love for her child — which had been so ex- 1 Fr. 2 (according to Bergk's reading) : — us yap eviSov 0pox*ws ac, (p&ivas oiidiv '4t' tiKer aKXcL Kan P** v yXwooa eaye, \4tttov 5' avriKa XP$ ""^P vnaoeoponafeev, birnaTtOGi 8' ovtitv oprjfL, kmppo/j.- fieim 5' aicovai. a Se fi idpus icaicx**Tai, Tp6fj.os Sh iraaav dypei, x^ 0J P 0T ^P a $* voias ijXjxi, reOvanrjv S' b\iyoi 'mo(vr]S (paivopai aAA.cc. v.] THE GREEKS OF THE LYRIC AGE. 115 quisitely painted in the Homeric poems in the per- son of Andromache among nobles, in that of the wretched widow among the poor, who toils at her wool for miserable fare, and wears out her life in support of her helpless children — this great and beau- tiful emotion is brought out in the lament of Danae over the infant Perseus, which I have already quoted. But having noticed these points of social and moral advance, I desire to recapitulate a few others in which the lyric Greeks were strictly the successors of the Homeric heroes. In the matter of cowardice, our evidence is curiously precise. We are no longer told by a courtly bard that the gods sent fear into the heart of a warrior ; but the poets themselves, men fond of war, and perpetually engaged in it, tell us themselves in express terms, that they ran away and threw away their arms. Archilochus says so, and so does Alcseus, and so does Anacreon. One of them even jokes about the shield that once belonged to him being hung up as a proud trophy by one of his enemies. Stesichorus and Pindar (01. xi. 15) told how even the great Heracles, when Cycnus was helped by his father Ares, fled in fear 1 . Pindar makes elsewhere (Nem. ix. 27) similar statements. These passages, especially the confessions of the cowards themselves, strike us as very curious. Of course they tend to corroborate what was said above about Homeric valour ; but I hardly think they can simply be explained by a low standard of courage, for all through Greek history the loss of the shield 1 %