Part 2 — Chapter III. (These four articles abrogated by the four articles following them, 118-122.) Article 118. The Federal Constitution may at any time be amended. (continued 30)

See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

ESSEX JUNTO, The.

In the Massachusetts election of 1781, "the representatives of the State in Congress, and some of the more moderate leaders at home, opposed Governor Hancock, the popular candidate, and supported James Bowdoin, who was thought to represent the more conservative elements. … It was at this time that Hancock is said to have bestowed on his opponents the title of the 'Essex Junto,' and this is the first appearance of the name in American politics. … The 'Junto' was generally supposed to be composed of such men as Theophilus Parsons, George Cabot, Fisher Ames, Stephen Higginson, the Lowells, Timothy Pickering, &c., and took its name from the county to which most of its reputed members originally belonged. … The reputed members of the 'Junto' held political power in Massachusetts [as leaders of the Federalist party] for more than a quarter of a century." According to Chief Justice Parsons, as quoted by Colonel Pickering in his Diary, the term 'Essex Junto' was applied by one of the Massachusetts royal governors, before the Revolution, to certain gentlemen of Essex county who opposed his measures. Hancock, therefore, only revived the title and gave it currency, with a new application.

H. C. Lodge, Life and Letters of George Cabot, pages 17-22.

ESSLINGEN, OR ASPERN, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

ESSUVII, The.

A Gallic tribe established anciently in the modern French department of the Orne.

Napoleon III., History of Cæsar, book 3, chapter 2, note.

ESTATES, Assembly of.

"An assembly of estates is an organised collection, made by representation or otherwise, of the several orders, states or conditions of men, who are recognised as possessing political power. A national council of clergy and barons is not an assembly of estates, because it does not include the body of the people, the plebs, the simple freemen or commons."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 15, section 185.

See, also, ESTATES, THE THREE.

ESTATES, The Three.

"The arrangement of the political factors in three estates is common, with some minor variations, to all the European constitutions, and depends on a principle of almost universal acceptance. This classification differs from the system of caste and from all divisions based on differences of blood or religion, historical or prehistorical. … In Christendom it has always taken the form of a distinction between clergy and laity, the latter being subdivided according to national custom into noble and non-noble, patrician and plebeian, warriors and traders, landowners and craftsmen. … The Aragonese cortes contained four brazos or arms, the clergy, the great barons or ricos hombres, the minor barons, knights or infanzones, and the towns. The Germanic diet comprised three colleges, the electors, the princes and the cities, the two former being arranged in distinct benches, lay and clerical. … The Castilian cortes arranged the clergy, the ricos hombres and the communidades, in three estates. The Swedish diet was composed of clergy, barons, burghers and peasants. … In France, both in the States General and in the provincial estates, the division is into gentz de l'eglise, nobles, and gentz des bonnes villes. In England, after a transitional stage, in which the clergy, the greater and smaller barons, and the cities and boroughs, seemed likely to adopt the system used in Aragon and Scotland, and another in which the county and borough communities continued to assert an essential difference, the three estates of clergy, lords and commons, finally emerge as the political constituents of the nation, or, in their parliamentary form, as the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons. This familiar formula in either shape bears the impress of history. The term commons is not in itself an appropriate expression for the third estate; it does not signify primarily the simple freemen, the plebs, but the plebs organised and combined in corporate communities, in a particular way for particular purposes. The commons are the communitates or universitates, the organised bodies of freemen of the shires and towns. … The third estate in England differs from the same estate in the continental constitutions, by including the landowners under baronial rank. In most of those systems it contains the representatives of the towns or chartered communities only."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 15, sections 185, 193.

"The words 'gens de tiers et commun état' are found in many acts [France] of the 15th century. The expressions 'tiers état,' 'commun état,' and 'le commun' are used indifferently, … This name of 'Tiers État, when used in its ordinary sense, properly comprises only the population of the privileged cities; but in effect it extends much beyond this; it includes not only the cities, but the villages and hamlets—not only the free commonalty, but all those for whom civil liberty is a privilege still to come."

A. Thierry, Formation and Progress of the Tiers État in France, volume 1, pages 61 and 60.

ESTATES, or "States," of the Netherland Provinces.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

ESTATES GENERAL.

See STATES GENERAL.

ESTE, The House of.

"Descended from one of the northern families which settled in Italy during the darkest period of the middle ages, the Este traced their lineal descent up to the times of Charlemagne. They had taken advantage of the frequent dissensions between the popes and the German emperors of the houses of Saxony and Swabia, and acquired wide dominions in Lunigiana, and the March of Treviso, where the castle of Este, their family residence, was situated. Towards the middle of the 11th century, that family had been connected by marriages with the Guelphs of Bavaria, and one of the name of Este was eventually to become the common source from which sprung the illustrious houses of Brunswick and Hanover. The Este had warmly espoused the Guelph party [see GUELFS], during the wars of the Lombard League. … {987} Towards the year 1200, Azzo V., Marquis of Este, married Marchesella degli Adelardi, daughter of one of the most conspicuous Guelphs at Ferrara, where the influence of the House of Este was thus first established."

L. Mariotti (A. Gallenga), Italy, volume 2, pages 62-63.

The Marquesses of Este became, "after some of the usual fluctuations, permanent lords of the cities of Ferrara [1264] and Modena [1288]. About the same time they lost their original holding of Este, which passed to Padua, and with Padua to Venice. Thus the nominal marquess of Este and real lord of Ferrara was not uncommonly spoken of as Marquess of Ferrara. In the 15th century these princes rose to ducal rank; but by that time the new doctrine of the temporal dominion of the Popes had made great advances. Modena, no man doubted, was a city of the Empire; but Ferrara was now held to be under the supremacy of the Pope. The Marquess Borso had thus to seek his elevation to ducal rank from two separate lords. He was created Duke of Modena [1453] and Reggio by the Emperor, and afterwards Duke of Ferrara [1471] by the Pope. This difference of holding … led to the destruction of the power of the house of Este. In the times in which we are now concerned, their dominions lay in two masses. To the west lay the duchy of Modena and Reggio; apart from it to the east lay the duchy of Ferrara. Not long after its creation, this last duchy was cut short by the surrender of the border-district of Rovigo to Venice. … Modena and Ferrara remained united, till Ferrara was annexed [1598] as an escheated fief to the dominions of its spiritual overlord. But the house of Este still reigned over Modena with Reggio and Mirandola, while its dominions were extended to the sea by the addition of Massa and other small possessions between Lucca and Genoa. The duchy in the end passed by female succession to the House of Austria [1771-1803]."

E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe, chapter 8, sections 3-4.

"The government of the family of Este at Ferrara, Modena, and Reggio displays curious contrasts of violence and popularity. Within the palace frightful deeds were perpetrated; a princess was beheaded [1425] for alleged adultery with a stepson; legitimate and illegitimate children fled from the court, and even abroad their lives were threatened by assassins sent in pursuit of them (1471). Plots from without were incessant; the bastard of a bastard tried to wrest the crown from the lawful heir, Hercules I.: this latter is said afterwards (1493) to have poisoned his wife on discovering that she, at the instigation of her brother, Ferrante of Naples, was going to poison him. This list of tragedies is closed by the plot of two bastards against their brothers; the ruling Duke Alfonso I. and the Cardinal Ippolito (1506), which was discovered in time, and punished with imprisonment for life. … It is undeniable that the dangers to which these princes were constantly exposed developed in them capacities of a remarkable kind."

J. Burckhardt, The Civilization of the Period of the Renaissance in Italy, part 1, chapter 5.

For the facts of the ending of the legitimate Italian line of Este,

See PAPACY: A. D. 1597.

ESTHONIA, OR ESTONIA: Origin of the name.

See ÆSTII.

ESTHONIA, OR ESTONIA: Christian conquest.

See LIVONIA: 12TH-13TH CENTURIES.

ESTIENNES, The Press of the.

See PRINTING: A. D. 1496-1598.

ESTREMOS, OR AMEIXAL, Battle of (1663).

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.

ETCHEMINS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

ETHANDUN, OR EDINGTON, Battle of (A. D. 878).

See ENGLAND: A. D. 855-880.

ETHEL, ETHELINGS, OR ÆTHELINGS.

"The sons and brothers of the king [of the English] were distinguished by the title of Æthelings. The word Ætheling, like eorl, originally denoted noble birth simply; but as the royal house of Wessex rose to pre-eminence and the other royal houses and the nobles generally were thereby reduced to a relatively lower grade, it became restricted to the near kindred of the national king."

T. P. Taswell-Langmead, English Constitutional History, page 29.

"It has been sometimes held that the only nobility of blood recognized in England before the Norman Conquest was that of the king's kin. The statement may be regarded as deficient in authority, and as the result of a too hasty generalization from the fact that only the sons and brothers of the kings bear the name of ætheling. On the other hand must be alleged the existence of a noble (edhiling) class among the continental Saxons who had no kings at all. … The laws of Ethelbert prove the existence of a class bearing the name of eorl of which no other interpretation can be given. That these, eorlas and æthel, were the descendants of the primitive nobles of the first settlement, who, on the institution of royalty, sank one step in dignity from the ancient state of rude independence, in which they had elected their own chiefs and ruled their own dependents, may be very reasonably conjectured. … The ancient name of eorl, like that of ætheling, changed its application, and, under the influence, perhaps, of Danish association, was given like that of jarl to the official ealdorman. Henceforth the thegn takes the place of the æthel, and the class of thegns probably embraces all the remaining families of noble blood. The change may have been very gradual; the 'north people's law' of the tenth or early eleventh century still distinguishes the eorl and ætheling with a wergild nearly double that of the ealdorman and seven times that of the thegn; but the north people's law was penetrated with Danish influence, and the eorl probably represents the jarl rather than the ealdorman, the great eorl of the fourth part of England as it was divided by Canute. … The word eorl is said to be the same as the Norse jarl and another form of ealdor (?); whilst the ceorl answers to the Norse Karl; the original meaning of the two being old man and young man."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 6, section 64, and note.

ETHEL. Family-land.

See ALOD; and FOLCLAND.

ETHELBALD, King of Mercia, A. D. 716-755. Ethelbald, King of Wessex, A. D. 858-860.

ETHELBERT, King of Kent, A. D. 565-616. Ethelbert, King of Wessex, A. D. 860-866.

ETHELFRITH, King of Northumberland, A. D. 593-617.

ETHELRED, King of Wessex, A. D. 866-871. Ethelred, called the Unready, King of Wessex, A. D. 979-1016.

{988}

ETHELSTAN, King of Wessex, A. D. 925-940.

ETHELWULF, King of Wessex, A. D. 836-858.

ETHIOPIA.

The Ethiopia of the ancients, "in the ordinary and vague sense of the term, was a vast tract extending in length above a thousand miles, from the 9th to the 24th degree of north latitude, and in breadth almost 900 miles, from the shores of the Red Sea and Indian Ocean to the desert of the Sahara. This tract was inhabited for the most part by wild and barbarous tribes—herdsmen, hunters, or fishermen—who grew no corn, were unacquainted with bread, and subsisted on the milk and flesh of their cattle, or on game, turtle, and fish, salted or raw. The tribes had their own separate chiefs, and acknowledged no single head, but on the contrary were frequently at war one with the other, and sold their prisoners for slaves. Such was Ethiopia in the common vague sense; but from this must be distinguished another narrower Ethiopia, known sometimes as 'Ethiopia Proper' or 'Ethiopia above Egypt,' the limits of which were, towards the south, the junction of the White and Blue Niles, and towards the north the Third Cataract. Into this tract, called sometimes 'the kingdom of Meroë,' Egyptian civilisation had, long before the eighth century [B. C.], deeply penetrated. Temples of the Egyptian type, stone pyramids, avenues of sphinxes, had been erected; a priesthood had been set up, which was regarded as derived from the Egyptian priesthood; monarchical institutions had been adopted; the whole tract formed ordinarily one kingdom, and the natives were not very much behind the Egyptians in arts or arms, or very different from them in manners, customs, and mode of life. Even in race the difference was not great. The Ethiopians were darker in complexion than the Egyptians, and possessed probably a greater infusion of Nigritic blood; but there was a common stock at the root of the two races—Cush and Mizraim were brethren. In the region of Ethiopia Proper a very important position was occupied in the eighth century [B. C.] by Napata. Napata was situated midway in the great bend of the Nile, between latitude 18° and 19°. … It occupied the left bank of the river in the near vicinity of the modern Gebel Berkal. . . Here, when the decline of Egypt enabled the Ethiopians to reclaim their ancient limits, the capital was fixed of that kingdom, which shortly became a rival of the old empire of the Pharaohs, and aspired to take its place. … The kingdom of Meroë, whereof it was the capital, reached southward as far as the modern Khartoum, and eastward stretched up to the Abyssinian highlands, including the valleys of the Atbara and its tributaries, together with most of the tract between the Atbara and the Blue Nile. … Napata continued down to Roman times a place of importance, and only sank to ruin in consequence of the campaigns of Petronius against Candacé in the first century after our era."

G. Rawlinson, History of Ancient Egypt, chapter 25.

ALSO IN: A. H. L. Heeren, Historical Researches, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, &c., pages 143-249.

See, also, EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1200-670; and LIBYANS, THE.

ETON SCHOOL.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.—ENGLAND.

ETRURIA, Ancient.

See ETRUSCANS.

ETRURIA, The kingdom of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803; also PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807; and FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808(NOVEMBER-FEBRUARY).

ETRUSCANS, The.

"At the time when Roman history begins, we find that a powerful and warlike race, far superior to the Latins in civilisation and in the arts of life, hemmed in the rising Roman dominion in the north. The Greeks called them Turrhenoi, the Romans called them Etrusci, they called themselves the Rasenna. Who they were and whence they came has ever been regarded as one of the most doubtful and difficult problems in ethnology. One conclusion only can be said to have been universally accepted both in ancient and in modern times. It is agreed on every hand that in all essential points, in language, in religion, in customs, and in appearance, the Etruscans were a race wholly different from the Latins. There is also an absolute agreement of all ancient tradition to the effect that the Etruscans were not the original inhabitants of Etruria, but that they were an intrusive race of conquerors. … It has been usually supposed that the Rasenna made their appearance in Italy some ten or twelve centuries before the Christian era. … For some six or seven centuries, the Etruscan power and territory continued steadily to increase, and ultimately stretched far south of the Tiber, Rome itself being included in the Etruscan dominion, and being ruled by an Etruscan dynasty. The early history of Rome is to a great extent the history of the uprising of the Latin race, and its long struggle for Italian supremacy with its Etruscan foe. It took Rome some six centuries of conflict to break through the obstinate barrier of the Etruscan power. The final conquest of Etruria by Rome was effected in the year 281 B. C. … The Rasennic people were collected mainly in the twelve great cities of Etruria proper, between the Arno and the Tiber. [Modern Tuscany takes its name from the ancient Etruscan inhabitants of the region.] This region was the real seat of the Etruscan power. … From the 'Shah-nameh,' the great Persian epic, we learn that the Aryan Persians called their nearest non-Aryan neighbours—the Turkic or Turcoman tribes to the north of them—by the name Turan, a word from which we derive the familiar ethnologic term Turanian. The Aryan Greeks, on the other hand, called the Turkic tribe of the Rasenna, the nearest non-Aryan race, by the name of Turrhenoi. The argument of this book is to prove that the Tyrrhenians of Italy were of kindred race with the Turanians of Turkestan. Is it too much to conjecture that the Greek form Turrhene may be identically the same word as the Persian form Turan?"

I. Taylor, Etruscan Researches, chapter 2.

"The utmost we can say is that several traces, apparently reliable, point to the conclusion that the Etruscans may be on the whole included among the Indo-Germans. … But even granting those points of connection, the Etruscan people appears withal scarcely less isolated. 'The Etruscans,' Dionysius said long ago, 'are like no other nation in language and manners'; and we have nothing to add to his statement. … Reliable traces of any advance of the Etruscans beyond the Tiber, by land, are altogether wanting. … South of the Tiber no Etruscan settlement can be pointed out as having owed its origin to founders who came by land; and that no indication whatever is discernible of any serious pressure by the Etruscans upon the Latin nation."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 1, chapter 9.

{989}

EUBŒA.

"The island of Eubœa, long and narrow like Krête, and exhibiting a continuous backbone of lofty mountains from northwest to southeast, is separated from Bœotia at one point by a strait so narrow (celebrated in antiquity under the name of the Eurīpus) that the two were connected by a bridge for a large portion of the historical period of Greece, erected during the later times of the Peloponnesian war by the inhabitants of Chalkis [Chalcis]. Its general want of breadth leaves little room for plains. The area of the island consists principally of mountain, rock, dell, and ravine, suited in many parts for pasture, but rarely convenient for grain-culture or town habitations. Some plains there were, however, of great fertility, especially that of Lelantum, bordering on the sea near Chalkis, and continuing from that city in a southerly direction towards Eretria. Chalkis and Eretria, both situated on the western coast, and both occupying parts of this fertile plain, were the two principal places in the island: the domain of each seems to have extended across the island from sea to sea. … Both were in early times governed by an oligarchy, which among the Chalcidians was called the Hippobotæ, or Horse feeders,— proprietors probably of most part of the plain called Lelantum."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 12.

See, also, NEGROPONT.

EUBOIC TALENT.

See TALENT.

EUCHITES, The.

See MYSTICISM.

EUDES, King of France (in partition with Charles the Simple), A. D. 887-898.

EUDOSES, The.

See AVIONES.

EUGENE (Prince) of Savoy, Campaigns of.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718; GERMANY: A. D. 1704; ITALY (SAVOY AND PIEDMONT): A. D. 1701-1713; NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709, and 1710-1712.

EUGENE I., Pope, A. D. 655-657. Eugene II., Pope, A. D. 824-827. Eugene III., Pope, A. D. 1145-1153. Eugene IV., Pope, A. D. 1431-1447.

EUGENIANS, The.

See HY-NIALS.

EUMENES, and the wars of the Diadochi.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.

EUMOLPHIDÆ, The.

See PHYLÆ.

EUPATRIDÆ, The.

"The Eupatridæ [in ancient Athens] are the wealthy and powerful men, belonging to the most distinguished families in all the various gentes, and principally living in the city of Athens, after the consolidation of Attica: from them are distinguished the middling and lower people, roughly classified into husbandmen and artisans. To the Eupatridæ is ascribed a religious as well as a political and social ascendency. They are represented as the source of all authority on matters both sacred and profane,"

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 10.

EUROKS, OR YUROKS.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS.

EUROPE.

A HISTORICAL SKETCH.

A general sketch of the history of Europe at large cannot, for obvious reasons, be constructed of quotations from the historians, on the plan followed in other parts of this work. The editor has found it necessary, therefore, to introduce here an essay of his own.

The first inhabitants of the continent of Europe have left no trace of their existence on the surface of the land. The little that we know of them has been learned by the discovery of deeply buried remains, including a few bones and skulls, many weapons and tools which they had fashioned out of stone and bone, and some other rude marks of their hands which time has not destroyed. The places in which these remains are found—under deposits that formed slowly in ancient river beds and in caves—have convinced geologists that the people whose existence they reveal lived many thousands of years ago, and that the continent of Europe in their time was very different from the Europe of the present day, in its climate, in its aspect, and in its form. They find reason to suppose that the peninsula of Italy, as well as that of Spain, was then an isthmus which joined Europe to Africa; and this helps to explain the fact that remains of such animals as the elephant, the lion, the rhinoceros, the hippopotamus, and the hyena, as well as the mammoth, are found with the remains of these early men. They all seem to have belonged, together, to a state of things, on the surface of the earth, which was greatly changed before the men and the animals that we have historical knowledge of appeared.

The Stone Age.

These primitive Europeans were evidently quite at the bottom of the savage state. They had learned no use of metals, since every relic of their workmanship that can be found is of stone, or bone, or wood. It is thought possible that they shaped rough vessels out of unbaked clay; but that is uncertain. There is nothing to show that they had domesticated any animals. It is plain that they dwelt in caves, wherever nature provided such dwellings; but what shelters they may have built elsewhere for themselves is unknown.

In one direction, only, did these ancient people exhibit a faculty finer than we see in the lowest savages of the present day: they were artists, in a way. They have left carvings and drawings of animals—the latter etched with a sharp point on horns, bones, and stones—which are remarkable for uncultured men.

The period in man's life on the earth at which these people lived—the period before metals were known—has been named by archæologists the Stone Age. But the Stone Age covers two stages of human culture—one in which stone implements were fashioned unskilfully, and a second in which they were finished with expert and careful hands. The first is called the Palæolithic or Old Stone Age, the second the Neolithic or New Stone Age. Between the two periods in Europe there seems to have been a long interval of time, and a considerable change in the condition of the country, as well as in that of its people. {990} In fact, the Europe of the Neolithic Age was probably not very different in form and climate from the Europe of our own day. Relics of the human life of that time are abundantly scattered over the face of the continent. There are notable deposits of them in the so-called "kitchen-middens" of Denmark, which are great mounds of shells,—shells of oysters and other molluscs,—which these ancient fishermen had opened and emptied, and then cast upon a refuse heap. Buried in those mounds, many bits of their workmanship have been preserved, and many hints of their manner of life are gleaned from the signs and tokens which these afford. They had evidently risen some degrees above the state of the men of the Palæolithic or Old Stone Age; but they were inferior in art.

The Bronze Age.

The discovery and use of copper—the metal most easily worked, and most frequently found in the metallic state—is the event by which archæologists mark the beginning of a second state in early civilizations. The period during which copper, and copper hardened by an alloy of tin, are the only metals found in use, they call the Bronze Age. There is no line of positive division between this and the Neolithic period which it followed. The same races appear to have advanced from the one stage to the other, and probably some were in possession of tools and weapons of bronze, while others were still contenting themselves with implements of stone.

Lake Dwellings.

In many parts of Europe, especially in Switzerland and northern Italy, plain traces of some curious habitations of people who lived through the later Stone Age into the Bronze Age, and even after it, have been brought to light. These are the "lake dwellings," or "lacustrine habitations," as they have been called, which have excited interest in late years. They were generally built on piles, driven into a lake-bottom, at such distance from shore as would make them easy of defence against enemies. The foundations of whole villages of these dwellings have been found in the Swiss and North Italian lakes, and less numerously elsewhere. From the lake-mud under and around them, a great quantity of relics of the lake-dwellers have been taken, and many facts about their arts and mode of life have been learned. It is known that, even before a single metal had come into their hands, they had begun to cultivate the earth; had raised wheat and barley and flax; had domesticated the horse, the ox, the sheep, the goat, the pig and the dog; had become fairly skilful in weaving, in rope-making, and in the art of the potter, but without the potter's wheel.

Gradually copper and bronze made their appearance among the implements of these people, as modern search discovers them imbedded, layer upon layer, in the old ooze of the lake-beds where they were dropped. In time, iron, too, reveals itself among their possessions, showing that they lived in their lake-villages from the later Stone Age into that third period of the early process of civilization which is named the Iron Age—when men first acquired the use of the most useful of all the metals. It appears, in fact, that the lake-dwellings were occupied even down to Roman times, since articles of Roman make have been found in the ruins of them.

Barrows.

In nearly all parts of Europe there are found burial mounds, called barrows, which contain buried relics of people who lived at one or the other of the three periods named. For the most part, they represent inhabitants of the Neolithic and of the Bronze Ages. In Great Britain some of these barrows are long, some are round; and the skulls found in the long barrows are different in shape from those in the round ones, showing a difference of race. The people to whom the first belonged are called "long-headed," or "dolichocephalic"; the others are called "broad-headed," or "brachycephalic." In the opinion of some ethnologists, who study this subject of the distinctions of race in the human family, the broad-headed people were ancestors of the Celtic or Keltic tribes, whom the Romans subdued in Gaul and Britain; while the long-headed men were of a preceding race, which the Celts, when they came, either drove out of all parts of Europe, except two or three mountainous corners, or else absorbed by intermarriage. The Basques of northwestern Spain, and some of their neighbors on the French side of the Pyrenees, are supposed to be survivals of this very ancient people; and there are suspected to be traces of their existence seen in the dark-haired and dark-skinned people of parts of Wales, Ireland, Corsica, North Africa, and elsewhere.

The Aryan Nations.

At least one part of this conjecture has much to rest upon. The inhabitants of western Europe when our historical knowledge of them—that is, our recorded and reported knowledge of them—begins, were, certainly, for the most part, Celtic peoples, and it is extremely probable that they had been occupying the country as long as the period represented by the round barrows. It is no less probable that they were the lake-dwellers of Switzerland, North Italy, and other regions; and that they did, in fact, displace some earlier people in most parts of Western Europe.

The Celts—whose nearly pure descendants are found now in the Bretons of France, the Welsh, the Highland Scotch and the Celtic Irish, and who formed the main stock of the larger part of the French nation—were one branch of the great family of nations called Aryan or Indo-European. The Aryan peoples are assumed to be akin to one another—shoots from one stem—because their languages are alike in grammatical structure and contain great numbers of words that are manifestly formed from the same original "root"; and because they differ in these respects from all other languages. The nations thus identified as Aryan are the nations that have acted the most important parts in all human history except the history of extremely ancient times. Besides the Celtic peoples already mentioned, they include the English, the Dutch, the Germans, and the Scandinavians, forming the Teutonic race; the Russians, Poles, and others of the Slavonic group; the ancient Greeks and Romans, with their modern representatives, and the Persians and Hindus in Asia. According to the evidence of their languages, there must have been a time and a place, in the remote past, when and where a primitive Aryan race, which was ancestral to all these nations, lived and multiplied until it outgrew its original country and began to send forth successive "swarms," or migrating hordes, as many unsettled races have been seen to do within the historic age. {991} It is hopeless, perhaps, to think of determining the time when such a dispersion of the Aryan peoples began; but many scholars believe it possible to trace, by various marks and indications, in language and elsewhere, the lines of movement in the migration, so far as to guess with some assurance the region of the primitive Aryan home; but thus far there are great disagreements in the guessing. Until recent years, the prevailing judgment pointed to that highland district in Central Asia which lies north of the Hindoo-Koosh range of mountains, and between the upper waters of the Oxus and Jaxartes. But later studies have discredited this first theory and started many opposing ones. The strong tendency now is to believe that the cradle of all the peoples of Aryan speech was somewhere in Europe, rather than in Asia, and in the north of Europe rather than in the center or the south. At the same time, there seems to be a growing opinion that the language of the Aryans was communicated to conquered peoples so extensively that its spread is not a true measure of the existing diffusion of the race.

The Celtic Branch.

Whatever may have been the starting-point of the Aryan migrations, it is supposed that the branch now distinguished as Celtic was the first to separate from the parent stem and to acquire for itself a new domain. It occupied southwestern Europe, from northern Spain to the Rhine, and across the Channel to the British islands, extending eastward into Switzerland, North It&ly and the Tyrol. But little of what the tribes and nations forming this Celtic race did is known, until the time when another Aryan people, better civilized, came into collision with them, and drew them into the written history of the world by conquering them and making them its subjects.

The people who did this were the Romans, and the Romans and the Greeks are believed to have been carried into the two peninsulas which they inhabited, respectively, by one and the same movement in the Aryan dispersion. Their languages show more affinity to one another than to the other Aryan tongues, and there are other evidences of a near relationship between them; though they separated, it is quite certain, long before the appearance of either in history.

The Hellenes, or Greeks.

The Greeks, or Hellenes, as they called themselves, were the first among the Aryan peoples in Europe to make themselves historically known, and the first to write the record which transmits history from generation to generation. The peninsula in which they settled themselves is a very peculiar one in its formation. It is crossed in different directions by mountain ranges, which divide the land into parts naturally separated from one another, and which form barriers easily defended against invading foes. Between the mountains lie numerous fertile valleys. The coast is ragged with gulfs and bays, which notch it deeply on all sides, making the whole main peninsula a cluster of minor peninsulas, and supplying the people with harbors which invite them to a life of seafaring and trade. It is surrounded, moreover, with islands, which repeat the invitation.

Almost necessarily, in a country marked with such features so strongly, the Greeks became divided politically into small independent states—city-states they have been named—and those on the sea-coast became engaged very early in trade with other countries of the Mediterranean Sea. Every city of importance in Greece was entirely sovereign in the government of itself and of the surrounding territory which formed its domain. The stronger among them extended their dominion over some of the weaker or less valiant ones; but even then the subject cities kept a considerable measure of independence. There was no organization of national government to embrace the whole, nor any large part, of Greece. Certain among the states were sometimes united in temporary leagues, or confederacies, for common action in war; but these were unstable alliances, rather than political unions. In their earliest form, the Greek city-states were governed by kings, whose power appears to have been quite limited, and who were leaders rather than sovereigns. But kingship disappeared from most of the states in Greece proper before they reached the period of distinct and accepted history. The kings were first displaced by aristocracies—ruling families, which took all political rights and privileges to themselves, and allowed their fellows (whom they usually oppressed) no part or voice in public affairs. In most instances these aristocracies, or oligarchies, were overthrown, after a time, by bold agitators who stirred up a revolution, and then contrived, while confusion prevailed, to gather power into their own hands. Almost every Greek city had its time of being ruled by one or more of these Tyrants, as they were called. Some of them, like Pisistratus of Athens, ruled wisely and justly for the most part, and were not "tyrants" in the modern sense of the term; but all who gained and held a princely power unlawfully were so named by the Greeks. The reign of the Tyrants was nowhere lasting. They were driven out of one city after another until they disappeared. Then the old aristocracies came uppermost again in some cities, and ruled as before. But some, like Athens, had trained the whole body of their citizens to such intelligence and spirit that neither kingship nor oligarchy would be endured any longer, and the people undertook to govern themselves. These were the first democracies—the first experiments in popular government—that history gives any account of. "The little commonwealths of Greece," says a great historian, "were the first states at once free and civilized which the world ever saw. They were the first states which gave birth to great statesmen, orators, and generals who did great deeds, and to great historians who set down those great deeds in writing. It was in the Greek commonwealths, in short, that the political and intellectual life of the world began."

In the belief of the Greeks, or of most men among them, their early history was embodied with truth in the numerous legends and ancient poems which they religiously preserved; but people in modern times look differently upon those wonderful myths and epics, studying them with deep interest, but under more critical views. They throw much light on the primitive life of the Hellenes, and more light upon the development of the remarkable genius and spirit of those thoughtful and imaginative people; but of actual history there are only glimpses and guesses to be got from them.

{992}

The Homeric poems, the "Iliad" and the "Odyssey," describe a condition of things in which the ruling state of Peloponnesus (the southern peninsula of Greece) was a kingdom of the Achaians, having its capital at Mycenæ, in Argolis,—the realm of King Agamemnon,—and in which Athens is unknown to the poet. Within recent years, Dr. Schliemann has excavated the ruins of Mycenæ, and has found evidence that it really must have been, in very early times, the seat of a strong and rich monarchy. But the Achaian kingdom had entirely disappeared, and the Achaian people had shrunk to an insignificant community, on the Gulf of Corinth, when the first assured views of Greek history open to us.

The Dorians.

It seems to be a fact that the Achaians had been overwhelmed by a great invasion of more barbarous Greek tribes from the North, very much as the Roman Empire, in later times, was buried under an avalanche of barbarism from Germany. The invaders were a tribe or league of tribes called Dorians, who had been driven from their own previous home on the slopes of the Pindus mountain range. Their movement southward was part, as appears, of an extensive shifting of place, or migration, that occurred at that time (not long, it is probable, before the beginning of the historic period) among the tribes of Hellas. The Dorians claimed that in conquering Peloponnesus they were recovering a heritage from which their chiefs had been anciently expelled, and their legends were shaped accordingly. The Dorian chiefs appeared in these legends as descendants of Hercules, and the tradition of the conquest became a story of "The Return of the Heraclids."

The principal states founded or possessed and controlled by the Dorians in Peloponnesus, after their conquest, were Sparta, or Lacedæmon, Argos, and Corinth. The Spartans were the most warlike of the Greeks,—the most resolute and energetic,—and their leadership in practical affairs common to the whole came to be generally acknowledged. At the same time they had little of the intellectual superiority which distinguished some of their Hellenic kindred in so remarkable a degree. Their state was organized on military principles; its constitution (the body of famous ordinances ascribed to Lycurgus) was a code of rigid discipline, which dealt with the citizen as a soldier always under training for war, and demanded from him the utmost simplicity of life. Their form of government combined a peculiar monarchy (having two royal families and two kings) with an aristocratic senate (the Gerousia), and a democratic assembly (which voted on matters only as submitted to it by the senate), with an irresponsible executive over the whole, consisting of five men called the Ephors. This singular government, essentially aristocratic or oligarchical, was maintained, with little disturbance or change, through the whole independent history of Sparta. In all respects, the Spartans were the most conservative and the least progressive among the politically important Greeks.

At the beginning of the domination of the Dorians in Peloponnesus, their city of Argos took the lead, and was the head of a league which included Corinth and other city-states. But Sparta soon rose to rivalry with Argos; then reduced it to a secondary place, and finally subjugated it completely.

The Ionians.

The extensive shifting of population which had produced its most important result in the invasion of Peloponnesus by the Dorians, must have caused great commotions and changes throughout the whole Greek peninsula; and quite as much north of the Corinthian isthmus as south of it. But in the part which lies nearest to the isthmus—the branch peninsula of Attica—the old inhabitants appear to have held their ground, repelling invaders, and their country was affected only by an influx of fugitives, flying from the conquered Peloponnesus. The Attic people were more nearly akin to the expelled Achaians and Ionians than to the conquering Dorians, although a common brotherhood in the Hellenic race was recognized by all of them. Whatever distinction there may have been before between Achaians and Ionians now practically disappeared, and the Ionic name became common to the whole branch of the Greek people which derived itself from them. The important division of the race through all its subsequent history was between Dorians and Ionians. The Æolians constituted a third division, of minor importance and of far less significance. The distinction between Ionians and Dorians was a very real one, in character no less than in traditions and name. The Ionians were the superior Greeks on the intellectual side. It was among them that the wonderful genius resided which produced the greater marvels of art, literature and philosophy in Greek civilization. It was among them, too, that the institutions of political freedom were carried to their highest attainment. Their chief city was Athens, and the splendor of its history bears testimony to their unexampled genius. On the other hand, the Dorians were less thoughtful, less imaginative, less broad in judgment or feeling—less susceptible, it would seem, of a high refinement of culture; but no less capable in practical pursuits, no less vigorous in effective action, and sounder, perhaps, in their moral constitution. Sparta, which stood at the head of the Doric states, contributed almost nothing to Greek literature, Greek thought, Greek art, or Greek commerce, but exercised a great influence on Greek political history. Other Doric states, especially Corinth, were foremost in commercial and colonizing enterprise, and attained some brilliancy of artistic civilization, but with moderate originality.

Greeks and Phœnicians.

It was natural, as noted above, that the Greeks should be induced at an early day to navigate the surrounding seas, and to engage in trade with neighboring nations. They were not original, it is supposed, in these ventures, but learned more or less of ship-building and the art of navigation from an older people, the Phœnicians, who dwelt on the coast of Syria and Palestine, and whose chief cities were Sidon and Tyre. The Phœnicians had extended their commerce widely through the Mediterranean before the Greeks came into rivalry with them. Their ships, and their merchants, and the wares they bartered, were familiar in the Ægean when the Homeric poems were composed. {993} They seem to have been the teachers of the early Greeks in many things. They gave them, with little doubt, the invention of the alphabet, which they themselves had borrowed from Egypt. They conveyed hints of art, which bore astonishing fruits when planted in the fertile Hellenic imagination. They carried from the East strange stories of gods and demigods, which were woven into the mythology of the Greeks. They gave, in fact, to Greek civilization, at its beginning, the greatest impulse it received. But all that Hellas took from the outer world it wrought into a new character, and put upon it the stamp of its own unmistakable genius. In navigation and commerce the Greeks of the coast-cities and the islands were able, ere long, to compete on even terms with the Phœnicians, and it happened, in no great space of time, that they had driven the latter entirely from the Ægean and the Euxine seas.

Greek Colonies.

They had now occupied with colonies the coast of Asia Minor and the islands on both their own coasts. The Ionian Greeks were the principal colonizers of the Asiatic shore and of the Cyclades. On the former and near it they founded twelve towns of note, including Samos, Miletus, Ephesus, Chios, and Phocæa, which are among the more famous cities of ancient times. Their important island settlements in the Cyclades were Naxos, Delos, Melos, and Paros. They possessed, likewise, the great island of Eubœa, with its two wealthy cities of Chalcis and Eretria. These, with Attica, constituted, in the main, the Ionic portion of Hellas.

The Dorians occupied the islands of Rhodes and Cos, and founded on the coast of Asia Minor the cities of Halicarnassus and Cnidus. The important Æolian colonies in Asia were Smyrna (acquired later by the Ionians), Temnos, Larissa, and Cyme. Of the islands they occupied Lesbos and Tenedos.

From these settlements on neighboring coasts and islands the vigorous Greeks pushed on to more distant fields. It is probable that their colonies were in Cyprus and Crete before the eighth century, B. C. In the seventh century B. C., during a time of confusion and weakness in Egypt, they had entered that country as allies or as mercenaries of the kings, and had founded a city, Naucratis, which became an important agent in the exchange of arts and ideas, as well as of merchandise, between the Nile and the Ægean. Within a few years past the site of Naucratis has been uncovered by explorers, and much has been brought to light that was obscure in Greek and Egyptian history before. Within the same seventh century, Cyrene and Barca had been built on the African coast, farther west. Even a century before that time, the Corinthians had taken possession of Corcyra (modern Corfu), and they, with the men of Chalcis and Megara, had been actively founding cities that grew great and rich, in Sicily and in southern Italy, which latter acquired the name of "Magna Græcia" (Great Greece). At a not much later time they had pressed northwards to the Euxine or Black Sea, and had scattered settlements along the Thracian and Macedonian coast, including one (Byzantium) on the Bosphorus, which became, after a thousand years had passed, the imperial city of Constantinople. About 597 B. C., the Phocæans had planted a colony at Massalia, in southern Gaul, from which sprang the great city known in modern times as Marseilles. And much of all this had been done, by Ionians and Dorians together, before Athens (in which Attica now centered itself, and which loomed finally greater in glory than the whole Hellenic world besides) had made a known mark in history.

Rise of Athens.

At first there had been kings in Athens, and legends had gathered about their names which give modern historians a ground-work for critical guessing, and scarcely more. Then the king disappeared and a magistrate called Archon took his place, who held office for only ten years. The archons are believed to have been chosen first from the old royal family alone; but after a time the office was thrown open to all noble families. This was the aristocratic stage of political evolution in the city-state. The next step was taken in 683 B. C. (which is said to be the beginning of authentic Athenian chronology) when nine archons were created, in place of the one, and their term of office was reduced to a single year.

Fifty years later, about 621 B. C., the people of Athens obtained their first code of written law, ascribed to one Draco, and described as a code of much severity. But it gave certainty to law, for the first time, and was the first great protective measure secured by the people. In 612 B. C. a noble named Kylon attempted to overthrow the aristocratic government and establish a tyranny under himself, but he failed.

Legislation of Solon.

Then there came forward in public life another noble, who was one of the wisest men and purest patriots of any country or age, and who made an attempt of quite another kind. This was Solon, the famous lawgiver, who became archon in 594 B. C. The political state of Athens at that time has been described for us in an ancient Greek treatise lately discovered, and which is believed to be one of the hitherto lost writings of Aristotle. "Not only," says the author of this treatise, "was the constitution at this time oligarchical in every respect, but the poorer classes, men, women, and children, were in absolute slavery to the rich. … The whole country was in the hands of a few persons, and if the tenants failed to pay their rent, they were liable to be haled into slavery, and their children with them. Their persons were mortgaged to their creditors." Solon saw that this was a state of things not to be endured by such a people as the Athenians, and he exerted himself to change it. He obtained authority to frame a new constitution and a new code of laws for the state. In the latter, he provided measures for relieving the oppressed class of debtors. In the former, he did not create a democratic government, but he greatly increased the political powers of the people. He classified them according to their wealth, defining four classes, the citizens in each of which had certain political duties and privileges measured to them by the extent of their property and income. But the whole body of citizens, in their general assembly (the Ecclesia), were given the important right of choosing the annual archons, whom they must select, however, from the ranks of the wealthiest class. At the same time, Solon enlarged the powers of the old aristocratic senate—the Areopagus—giving it a supervision of the execution of the laws and a censorship of the morals of the people.

{994}

"These changes did not constitute Democracy,—a form of government then unknown, and for which there was as yet no word in the Greek language. But they initiated the democratic spirit. … Athens, thus fairly started on her way,—emancipated from the discipline of aristocratic school-masters, and growing into an age of manly liberty and self-restraint,—came eventually nearer to the ideal of 'the good life' [Aristotle's phrase] than any other State in Hellas."

(W. W. Fowler.)

Tyranny of Pisistratus.

But before the Athenians reached their nearness to this "good life," they had to pass under the yoke of a "tyrant," Pisistratus, who won the favor of the poorer people, and, with their help, established himself in the Acropolis (560 B. C.) with a foreign guard to maintain his power. Twice driven out, he was twice restored, and reigned quite justly and prudently, on the whole, until his death in 527 B. C. He was succeeded by his two sons, Hippias and Hipparchus; but the latter was killed in 514, and Hippias was expelled by the Spartans in 510 B. C.; after which there was no tyranny in Athens.

The Democratic Republic.

On the fall of the Pisistratidæ, a majority of the noble or privileged class struggled hard to regain their old ascendancy; but one of their number, Cleisthenes, took the side of the people and helped them to establish a democratic constitution. He caused the ancient tribal division of the citizens to be abolished, and substituted a division which mixed the members of clans and broke up or weakened the clannish influence in politics. He enlarged Solon's senate or council and divided it into committees, and he brought the "ecclesia," or popular assembly, into a more active exercise of its powers. He also introduced the custom of ostracism, which permitted the citizens of Athens to banish by their vote any man whom they thought dangerous to the state. The constitution of Cleisthenes was the final foundation of the Athenian democratic republic. Monarchical and aristocratic Sparta resented the popular change, and undertook to restore the oligarchy by force of arms; but the roused democracy of Athens defended its newly won liberties with vigor and success.

The Persian Wars.

Not Athens only, but all Greece, was now about to be put to a test which proved the remarkable quality of both, and formed the beginning of their great career. The Ionian cities of Asia Minor had recently been twice conquered, first by Crœsus, King of Lydia, and then by Cyrus the Great, founder of the Persian empire, who had overthrown Crœsus (B. C. 547), and taken his dominions. The Persians oppressed them, and in 500 B. C. they rose in revolt. Athens and Eretria sent help to them, while Sparta refused. The revolt was suppressed, and Darius, the king of Persia, planned vengeance upon the Athenians and Eretrians for the aid they had given to it. He sent an expedition against them in 493 B. C., which was mostly destroyed by a storm. In 490 B. C. he sent a second powerful army and fleet, which took Eretria and razed it to the ground. The great Persian army then marched upon Athens, and was met at Marathon by a small Athenian force of 9,000 men. The little city of Platæa sent 1,000 more to stand with them in the desperate encounter. They had no other aid in the fight, and the Persians were a great unnumbered host. But Miltiades, the Greek general that day, planned his battle-charge so well that he routed the Asiatic host and lost but 192 men. The Persians abandoned their attempt and returned to their wrathful king. One citizen of Athens, Themistocles, had sagacity enough to foresee that the "Great King," as he was known, would not rest submissive under his defeat; and with difficulty he persuaded his fellow citizens to prepare themselves for future conflicts by building a fleet and by fortifying their harbors, thus making themselves powerful at sea. The wisdom of his counsels was proved in 480 B. C., when Xerxes, the successor of Darius, led an army of prodigious size into Greece, crossing the Hellespont by a bridge of boats. This time, Sparta, Corinth, and several of the lesser states, rallied with Athens to the defence of the common country; but Thebes and Argos showed friendship to the Persians, and none of the important island-colonies contributed any help. Athens was the brain and right arm of the war, notwithstanding the accustomed leadership of Sparta in military affairs.

The first encounter was at Thermopylæ, where Leonidas and his 300 Spartans defended the narrow pass, and died in their place when the Persians found a way across the mountain to surround them. But on that same day the Persian fleet was beaten at Artemisium. Xerxes marched on Athens, however, found the city deserted, and destroyed it. His fleet had followed him, and was still stronger than the naval force of the Greeks. Themistocles forced a battle, against the will of the Peloponnesian captains, and practically destroyed the Persian fleet. This most memorable battle of Salamis was decisive of the war, and decisive of the independence of Greece. Xerxes, in a panic, hastened back into Asia, leaving one of his generals, Mardonius, with 300,000 men, to pursue the war. But Mardonius was routed and his host annihilated, at Platæa, the next year, while the Persian fleet was again defeated on the same day at Mycale.

The Golden Age of Athens.

The war had been glorious for the Athenians, and all could see that Greece had been saved by their spirit and their intelligence much more than by the valor of Sparta and the other states. But they were in a woful condition, with their city destroyed and their families without homes. Wasting no time in lamentations, they rebuilt the town, stretched its walls to a wider circuit, and fortified it more strongly than before, under the lead of the sagacious Themistocles. Their neighbors were meanly jealous, and Sparta made attempts to interfere with the building of the walls; but Themistocles baffled them cunningly, and the new Athens rose proudly out of the ashes of the old.

{995}

The Ionian islands and towns of Asia Minor (which had broken the Persian yoke) now recognized the superiority and leadership of Athens, and a league was formed among them, which held the meetings of its deputies and kept its treasury in the temple of Apollo on the sacred island of Delos; for which reason it was called the Confederacy of Delos, or the Delian League. The Peloponnesian states formed a looser rival league under the headship of Sparta. The Confederacy of Delos was in sympathy with popular governments and popular parties everywhere, while the Spartans and their following favored oligarchies and aristocratic parties. There were many occasions for hostility between the two.

The Athenians, at the head of their Confederacy, were strong, until they impaired their power by using it in tyrannical ways. Many lesser states in the league were foolish enough to commute in money payments the contribution of ships and men which they had pledged themselves to make to the common naval force. This gave Athens the power to use that force despotically, as her own, and she did not scruple to exercise the power. The Confederacy was soon a name; the states forming it were no longer allies of Athens, but her subjects; she ruled them as the sovereign of an Empire, and her rule was neither generous nor just. Thereby the double tie of kinship and of interest which might have bound the whole circle of Ionian states to her fortunes and herself was destroyed by her own acts. Provoking the hatred of her allies and challenging the jealous fear of her rivals, Athens had many enemies.

At the same time, a dangerous change in the character of her democratic institutions was begun, produced especially by the institution of popular jury-courts, before which prosecutions of every kind were tried, the citizens who constituted the courts acting as jury and judge at once. This gave them a valuable training, without doubt, and helped greatly to raise the common standard of intelligence among the Athenians so high; but it did unquestionably tend also to demoralizations that were ruinous in the end. The jury service, which was slightly paid, fell more and more to an unworthy class, made up of idlers or intriguers. Party feeling and popular passions gained an increasing influence over the juries, and demagogues acquired an increasing skill in making use of them.

But these evils were scarcely more than in their seed during the great period of "Athenian Empire," as it is sometimes called, and everything within its bounds was suffused with the shining splendor of that matchless half-century. The genius of this little Ionic state was stimulated to amazing achievements in every intellectual field. Æschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, within a single generation, crowded Athenian literature with the masterpieces of classic drama. Pheidias and his companions crowned the Acropolis and filled the city with works that have been the models in art for all ages since. Socrates began the quizzing which turned philosophy into honest truth-seeking paths, and Plato listened to him and was instructed for his mission. Thucydides watched events with sagacious young eyes, and prepared his pen for the chronicling of them; while Herodotus, pausing at Athens from his wide travels, matured the knowledge he had gathered up and perfected it for his final work. Over all of them came Pericles to preside and rule, not as a master, or "tyrant," but as leader, guide, patron, princely republican,—statesman and politician in one.

The Peloponnesian War.

The period of the ascendancy of Pericles was the "golden age" of Athenian prosperity and power, both material and intellectual. The beginning of the end of it was reached a little before he died, when the long-threatened war between Athens and the Peloponnesian league, led by Sparta, broke out (B. C. 431). If Athens had then possessed the good will of the cities of her own league, and if her citizens had retained their old sobriety and intelligence, she might have triumphed in the war; for she was all powerful at sea and fortified almost invincibly against attacks by land. But the subject states, called allies, were hostile, for the most part, and helped the enemy by their revolts, while the death of Pericles (B. C. 429) let loose on the people a swarm of demagogues who flattered and deluded them, and baffled the wiser and more honest, whose counsels and leadership might have given her success.

The fatal folly of the long war was an expedition against the distant city of Syracuse (B. C. 415-413), into which the Athenians were enticed by the restless and unscrupulous ambition of Alcibiades. The entire force sent to Sicily perished there, and the strength and spirit of Athens were ruinously sapped by the fearful calamity. She maintained the war, however, until 404 B. C., when, having lost her fleet in the decisive battle of Ægospotami, and being helplessly blockaded by sea and land, the city was surrendered to the Spartan general Lysander. Her walls and fortifications were then destroyed and her democratic government was overthrown, giving place to an oligarchy known as the "thirty tyrants." The democracy soon suppressed the thirty tyrants and regained control, and Athens, in time, rose somewhat from her deep humiliation, but never again to much political power in Greece. In intellect and cultivation, the superiority of the Attic state was still maintained, and its greatest productions in philosophy and eloquence were yet to be given to the world.

Spartan and Theban Ascendancy.

After the fall of Athens, Sparta was dominant in the whole of Greece for thirty years and more, exercising her power more oppressively than Athens had done. Then Thebes, which had been treacherously seized and garrisoned by the Spartans, threw off their yoke (B. C. 379) and led a rising, under her great and high-souled citizen, Epaminondas, which resulted in bringing Thebes to the head of Greek affairs. But the Theban ascendancy was short-lived, and ended with the death of Epaminondas in 362 B. C.

Macedonian Supremacy.

Meantime, while the city-states of Hellas proper had been wounding and weakening one another by their jealousies and wars, the semi-Greek kingdom of Macedonia, to the north of them, in their own peninsula, had been acquiring their civilization and growing strong. And now there appeared upon its throne a very able king, Philip, who took advantage of their divisions, interfered in their affairs, and finally made a practical conquest of the whole peninsula, by his victory at the battle of Chæronea (B. C. 338). At Athens, the great orator Demosthenes had exerted himself for years to rouse resistance to Philip. If his eloquence failed then, it has served the world immortally since, by delighting and instructing mankind.

{996}

King Philip was succeeded by his famous son, Alexander the Great, who led an army of Macedonians and Greeks into Asia (B. C. 334), overthrew the already crumbling Persian power, pursued his conquests through Afghanistan to India, and won a great empire which he did not live to rule. When he died (B. C. 323), his generals divided the empire among them and fought with one another for many years. But the general result was the spreading of the civilization and language of the Greeks, and the establishing of their intellectual influence, in Egypt, in Syria, in Asia Minor, and beyond.

In Greece itself, a state of disturbance and of political confusion and weakness prevailed for another century. There was promise of something better, in the formation, by several of the Peloponnesian states, of a confederacy called the Achaian League, which might possibly have federated and nationalized the whole of Hellas in the end; but the Romans, at this juncture, turned their conquering arms eastward, and in three successive wars, between 211 and 146 B. C., they extinguished the Macedonian kingdom, and annexed it, with the whole peninsula, to the dominions of their wonderful republic.

The Romans.

The Romans, as stated already, are believed to have been originally near kindred to the Greeks. The same movement, it is supposed, in the successive outswarmings of Aryan peoples, deposited in one peninsula the Italian tribes, and in the next peninsula, eastward, the tribes of the Hellenes. Among the Italian tribes were Latins, Umbrians, Sabines, Samnites, etc., occupying the middle and much of the southern parts of the peninsula, while a mysterious alien people, the Etruscans, whose origin is not known, possessed the country north of them between the Arno and the Tiber. In the extreme south were remnants of a primitive race, the Iapygian, and Greek colonies were scattered there around the coasts. From the Latins sprang the Romans, at the beginning of their separate existence; but there seems to have been a very early union of these Romans of the primitive tradition with a Sabine community, whereby was formed the Roman city-state of historical times. That union came about through the settlement of the two communities, Latin and Sabine, on two neighboring hills, near the mouth of the river Tiber, on its southern bank. In the view of some historians, it is the geographical position of those hills, hardly less than the masterful temper and capacity of the race seated on them, which determined the marvellous career of the city founded on that site. Says Professor Freeman: "The whole history of the world has been determined by the geological fact that at a point a little below the junction of the Tiber and the Anio the isolated hills stand nearer to one another than most of the other hills of Latium. On a site marked out above all other sites for dominion, the centre of Italy, the centre of Europe, as Europe then was, a site at the junction of three of the great nations of Italy, and which had the great river as its highway to lands beyond the bounds of Italy, stood two low hills, the hill which bore the name of Latin Saturn, and the hill at the meaning of whose name of Palatine scholars will perhaps guess for ever. These two hills, occupied by men of two of the nations of Italy, stood so near to one another that a strait choice indeed was laid on those who dwelled on them. They must either join together on terms closer than those which commonly united Italian leagues, or they must live a life of border warfare more ceaseless, more bitter, than the ordinary warfare of Italian enemies. Legend, with all likelihood, tells us that warfare was tried; history, with all certainty, tells us that the final choice was union. The two hills were fenced with a single wall; the men who dwelled on them changed from wholly separate communities into tribes of a single city."

The followers of Romulus occupied the Palatine Mount, and the Sabines were settled on the Quirinal. At subsequent times, the Cœlian, the Capitoline, the Aventine, the Esquiline and the Viminal hills were embraced in the circumvallation, and the city on the seven hills thus acquired that name.

If modern students and thinkers, throwing light on the puzzling legends and traditions of early Rome from many sources, in language and archæology, have construed their meaning lightly, then great importance attaches to those first unions or incorporations of distinct settlements in the forming of the original city-state. For it was the beginning of a process which went on until the whole of Latium, and then the whole of Italy, and, finally, the whole Mediterranean world, were joined to the seven hills of Rome. "The whole history of Rome is a history of incorporation"; and it is reasonable to believe that the primal spring of Roman greatness is found in that early adoption and persistent practice of the policy of political absorption, which gave conquest a character it had never borne before. At the same time, this view of the creation of the Roman state contributes to an understanding of its early constitutional history. It supposes that the union of the first three tribes which coalesced—those of the Palatine, the Quirinal and Capitoline (both occupied by the Sabines) and the Cœlian hills—ended the process of incorporation on equal terms. These formed the original Roman people—the "fathers," the "patres," whose descendants appear in later times as a distinct class or order, the "patricians"—holding and struggling to maintain exclusive political rights, and exclusive ownership of the public domain, the "ager publicus," which became a subject of bitter contention for four centuries. Around these heirs of the "fathers" of Rome arose another class of Romans, brought into the community by later incorporations, and not on equal terms. If the first class were "fathers," these were children, in a political sense, adopted into the Roman family, but without a voice in general affairs, or a share in the public lands, or eligibility to the higher offices of the state. These were the "plebeians" or "plebs" of Rome, whose long struggle with the patricians for political and agrarian rights is the more interesting side of Roman history throughout nearly the whole of the prosperous age of the republic.

{997}

At Rome, as at Athens, there was a period of early kingship, the legends of which are as familiar to us all as the stories of the Bible, but the real facts of which are almost totally unknown. It is surmised that the later kings—the well known Tarquins of the classical tale—were Etruscan princes (it is certain that they were Etruscans), who had broken for a time the independence of the Romans and extended their sovereignty over them. It is suspected, too, that this period of Etruscan domination was one in which Roman civilization made a great advance, under the tuition of a more cultivated people. But if Rome in its infancy did know a time of subjugation, the endurance was not long. It ended, according to Roman chronology, in the 245th year of the city, or 509 B.C., by the expulsion of Tarquin the Proud, the last of the kings.

The Roman Republic.

The Republic was then founded; but it was an aristocratic and not a democratic republic. The consuls, who replaced the kings, were required to be patricians, and they were chosen by the landholders of the state. The senate was patrician; all the important powers of government were in patrician hands, and the plebs suffered grievous oppression in consequence. They were not of a tamely submissive race. They demanded powers for their own protection, and by slow degrees they won them—strong as the patricians were in their wealth and their trained political skill.

Precisely as in Athens, the first great effort among the common people was to obtain relief from crushing burdens of debt, which had been laid upon them in precisely the same way—by loss of harvests while in military service, and by the hardness of the laws which creditors alone had framed. An army of plebs, just home from war, marched out of the city and refused to return until magistrates of their own choosing had been conceded to them. The patricians could not afford to lose the bone and sinew of their state, and they yielded the point in demand (B. C. 494). This first "secession of the plebs" brought about the first great democratic change in the Roman constitution, by calling into existence a powerful magistracy—the Tribunes of the Plebs—who henceforth stood between the consuls and the common people, for the protection of the latter.

From this first success the plebeian order went forward, step by step, to the attainment of equal political rights in the commonwealth, and equal participation in the lands which Roman conquest was continually adding to the public domain. In 450 B. C., after ten years of struggle, they secured the appointment of a commission which framed the famous Twelve Tables of the Law, and so established a written and certain code. Five years later, the caste exclusiveness of the patricians was broken down by a law which permitted marriages between the orders. In 367 B. C. the patrician monopoly of the consular office was extinguished, by the notable Licinian Laws, which also limited the extent of land that any citizen might occupy, and forbade the exclusive employment of slave labor on any estate. One by one, after that, other magistracies were opened to the plebs; and in 287 B. C. by the Lex Hortensia, the plebeian concilium, or assembly, was made independent of the senate and its acts declared to be valid and binding. The democratic commonwealth was now completely formed.

Roman Conquest of Italy.

While these changes in the constitution of their Republic were in progress, the Romans had been making great advances toward supremacy in the peninsula. First they had been in league with their Latin neighbors, for war with the Æquians, the Volscians, and the Etruscans. The Volscian war extended over forty years, and ended about 450 B. C. in the practical disappearance of the Volscians from history. Of war with the Æquians, nothing is heard after 458 B. C., when, as the tale is told, Cincinnatus left his plow to lead the Romans against them. The war with the Etruscans of the near city of Veii had been more stubborn. Suspended by a truce between 474 and 438 B. C., it was then renewed, and ended in 396 B. C., when the Etruscan city was taken and destroyed. At the same time the power of the Etruscans was being shattered at sea by the Greeks of Tarentum and Syracuse, while at home they were attacked from the north by the barbarous Gauls or Celts.

These last named people, having crossed the Alps from Gaul and Switzerland and occupied northern Italy, were now pressing upon the more civilized nations to the south of the Po. The Etruscans were first to suffer, and their despair became so great that they appealed to Rome for help. The Romans gave little aid to them in their extremity; but enough to provoke the wrath of Brennus, the savage leader of the Gauls. He quitted Etruria and marched to Rome, defeating an army which opposed him on the Allia, pillaging and burning the city (B. C. 390) and slaying the senators, who had refused to take refuge, with other inhabitants, in the capitol. The defenders of the capitol held it for seven months; Rome was rebuilt, when the Gauls withdrew, and soon took up her war again with the Etruscan cities. By the middle of the same century she was mistress of southern Etruria, though her territories had been ravaged twice again by renewed incursions of the Gauls. In a few years more, when her allies of Latium complained of their meager share of the fruits of these common wars, and demanded Roman citizenship and equal rights, she fought them fiercely and humbled them to submissiveness (B. C. 339-338), reducing their cities to the status of provincial towns.

And now, having awed or subdued her rivals, her friends, and her enemies, near at hand, the young Republic swung into the career of rapid conquest which subdued to her will, within three-fourths of a century, the whole of Italy below the mouth of the Arno.

In 343 B. C. the Roman arms had been turned against the Samnites at the south, and they had been driven from the Campania. In 327 B. C. the same dangerous rivals were again assailed, with less impunity. At the Caudine Forks, in 321 B. C., the Samnites inflicted both disaster and shame upon their indomitable foes; but the end of the war (B. C. 304) found Rome advanced and Samnium fallen back. A third contest ended the question of supremacy; but the Samnites (B. C. 290) submitted to become allies and not subjects of the Roman state.

In this last struggle the Samnites had summoned Gauls and Etruscans to join them against the common enemy, and Rome had overcome their united forces in a great fight at Sentinum. This was in 295 B. C. Ten years later she annihilated the Senonian Gauls, annexed their territory and planted a colony at Sena on the coast. In two years more she had paralyzed the Boian Gauls by a terrible chastisement, and had nothing more to fear from the northward side of her realm. Then she turned back to finish her work in the south.

{998}

War with Pyrrhus.

The Greek cities of the southern coast were harassed by various marauding neighbors, and most of them solicited the protection of Rome, which involved, of course, some surrender of their independence. But one great city, Tarentum, the most powerful of their number, refused these terms, and hazarded a war with the terrible republic, expecting support from the ambitious Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, on the Greek coast opposite their own. Pyrrhus came readily at their call, with dreams of an Italian kingdom more agreeable than his own. Assisted in the undertaking by his royal kinsmen of Macedonia and Syria, he brought an army of 25,000 men, with 20 elephants—which Roman eyes had never seen before. In two bloody fights (B. C. 280-279), Pyrrhus was victorious; but the cost of victory was so great that he dared not follow it up. He went over to Sicily, instead, and waged war for three years (B. C. 278-276) with the Carthaginians, who had subjugated most of the island. The Epirot king brought timely aid to the Sicilian Greeks, and drove their Punic enemies into the western border of the island; but he claimed sovereignty over all that his arms delivered, and was not successful in enforcing the claim. He returned to Italy and found the Romans better prepared than before to face his phalanx and his elephants. They routed him at Beneventum, in the spring of 275 B. C. and he went back to Epirus, with his dreams dispelled. Tarentum fell, and Southern Italy was added to the dominion of Rome.

Punic Wars.

During her war with Pyrrhus, the Republic had formed an alliance with Carthage, the powerful maritime Phœnician city on the African coast. But friendship between these two cities was impossible. The ambition of both was too boundless and too fierce. They were necessarily competitors for supremacy in the Mediterranean world, from the moment that a narrow strait between Italy and Sicily was all that held them apart. Rome challenged her rival to the duel in 264 B. C., when she sent help to the Mamertines, a band of brigands who had seized the Sicilian city of Messina, and who were being attacked by both Carthaginians and Syracusan Greeks. The "First Punic War," then begun, lasted twenty-four years, and resulted in the withdrawal of the Carthaginians from Sicily, and in their payment of an enormous war indemnity to Rome. The latter assumed a protectorate over the island, and the kingdom of Hiero of Syracuse preserved its nominal independence for the time; but Sicily, as a matter of fact, might already be looked upon as the first of those provinces, beyond Italy, which Rome bound to herself, one by one, until she had compassed the Mediterranean with her dominion and gathered to it all the islands of that sea.

The "Second Punic war," called sometimes the "Hannibalic war," was fought with a great Carthaginian, rather than with Carthage herself. Hamilcar Barca had been the last and ablest of the Punic generals in the contest for Sicily. Afterwards he undertook the conquest of Spain, where his arms had such success that he established a very considerable power, more than half independent of the parent state. He nursed an unquenchable hatred of Rome, and transmitted it to his son Hannibal, who solemnly dedicated his life to warfare with the Latin city. Hamilcar died, and in due time Hannibal found himself prepared to make good his oath. He provoked a declaration of war (B. C. 218) by attacking Saguntum, on the eastern Spanish coast—a town which the Romans "protected." The latter expected to encounter him in Spain; but before the fleet bearing their legions to that country had reached Massilia, he had already passed the Pyrenees and the Rhone, with nearly 100,000 men, and was crossing the Alps, to assail his astounded foes on their own soil. The terrific barrier was surmounted with such suffering and loss that only 20,000 foot and 6,000 horse, of the great army which left Spain, could be mustered for the clearing of the last Alpine pass. With this small following, by sheer energy, rapidity and precision of movement—by force, in other words, of a military genius never surpassed in the world—he defeated the armies of Rome again and again, and so crushingly in the awful battle of Cannæ (B. C. 216) that the proud republic was staggered, but never despaired. For fifteen years the great Carthaginian held his ground in southern Italy; but his expectation of being joined by discontented subjects of Rome in the peninsula was very slightly realized, and his own country gave him little encouragement or help. His brother Hasdrubal, marching to his relief in 207 B. C., was defeated on the river Metaurus and slain. The arms of Rome had prospered meantime in Sicily and in Spain, even while beaten at home, and her Punic rival had been driven from both. In 204 B. C. the final field of battle was shifted to Carthaginian territory by Scipio, of famous memory, thereafter styled Africanus, because he "carried the war into Africa." Hannibal abandoned Italy to confront him, and at Zama, in the autumn of 202 B. C., the long contention ended, and the career of Carthage as a Power in the ancient world was forever closed. Existing by Roman sufferance for another half century, she then gave her implacable conquerors another pretext for war, and they ruthlessly destroyed her (B.C. 146).

Roman Conquest of Greece.

In that same year of the destruction of Carthage, the conquest of Greece was finished. The first war of the Romans on that side of the Adriatic had taken place during the Second Punic war, and had been caused by an alliance formed between Hannibal and King Philip of Macedonia (B. C. 214). They pursued it then no further than to frustrate Philip's designs against themselves; but they formed alliances with the Greek states oppressed or menaced by the Macedonian, and these drew them into a second war, just as the century closed. On Cynoscephalæ, Philip was overthrown (B. C. 197), his kingdom reduced to vassalage, and the freedom of all Greece was solemnly proclaimed by the Roman Consul Flaminius.

{999}

And now, for the first time, Rome came into conflict with an Asiatic power. The throne of the Syrian monarchy, founded by one of the generals of Alexander the Great, was occupied by a king more ambitious than capable, who had acquired a large and loosely jointed dominion in the East, and who bore the sounding name of Antiochus the Great. This vainglorious King, having a huge army and many elephants at his disposal, was eager to try a passage at arms with the redoubtable men of Rome. He was encouraged in his desire by the Ætolians in Greece, who bore ill-will to Rome. Under this encouragement, and having Hannibal—then a fugitive at his court—to give him counsel, which he lacked intelligence to use, Antiochus crossed the Ægean and invaded Greece (B. C. 192). The Romans met him at the pass of Thermopylæ; drove him back to the shores from which he came; pursued him thither; crushed and humbled him on the field of Magnesia, and took the kingdoms and cities of Asia Minor under their protection, as the allies (soon to be subjects) of Rome.

Twenty years passed with little change in the outward situation of affairs among the Greeks. But discontent with the harshness and haughtiness of Roman "protection" changed from sullenness to heat, and Perseus, son of Philip of Macedonia, fanned it steadily, with the hope of bringing it to a flame. Rome watched him with keen vigilance, and before his plans were ripe her legions were upon him. He battled with them obstinately for three years (B. C. 171-168); but his fate was sealed at Pydna. He went as a prisoner to Rome; his kingdom was broken into four small republics; the Achæan League was stricken by the captivity of a thousand of its chief men; the whole of Greece was humbled to submissiveness, though not yet formally reduced to the state of a Roman province. That followed some years later, when risings in Macedonia and Achaia were punished by the extinction of the last semblance of political independence in both (B. C. 148-146).

The Zenith of the Republic.

Rome now gripped the Mediterranean (the ocean of the then civilized world) as with four fingers of a powerful hand: one laid on Italy and all its islands, one on Macedonia and Greece, one on Carthage, one on Spain, and the little finger of her "protection" reaching over to the Lesser Asia. Little more than half a century, since the day that Hannibal threatened her own city gates, had sufficed to win this vast dominion. But the losses of the Republic had been greater, after all, than the gains; for the best energies of its political constitution had been expended in the acquisition, and the nobler qualities in its character had been touched with the incurable taints of a licentious prosperity.

Beginning of Decline.

A century and a half had passed since the practical ending of the struggle of plebeians with patricians for political and agrarian rights. In theory and in form, the constitution remained as democratic as it was made by the Licinian Laws of 367 B. C., and by the finishing touch of the Hortensian Law of 287 B. C. But in practical working it had reverted to the aristocratic mode. A new aristocracy had risen out of the plebeian ranks to reinforce the old patrician order. It was composed of the families of men who had been raised to distinction and ennobled by the holding of eminent offices, and its spirit was no less jealous and exclusive than that of the older high caste.

The Senate and the Mob.

Thus strengthened, the aristocracy had recovered its ascendancy in Rome, and the Senate, which it controlled, had become the supreme power in government. The amazing success of the Republic during the last century just reviewed—its successes in war, in diplomacy, and in all the sagacious measures of policy by which its great dominion had been won—are reasonably ascribed to this fact. For the Senate had wielded the power of the state, in most emergencies, with passionless deliberation and with unity and fixity of aim.

But it maintained its ascendancy by an increasing employment of means which debased and corrupted all orders alike. The people held powers which might paralyze the Senate at any moment, if they chose to exercise them, through their assemblies and their tribunes. They had seldom brought those powers into play thus far, to interfere with the senatorial government of the Republic, simply because they had been bribed to abstain. The art of the politician in Rome, as distinguished from the statesman, had already become demagoguery. This could not well have been otherwise under the peculiar constitution of the Roman citizenship. Of the thirty-five tribes who made up the Roman people, legally qualified to vote, only four were within the city. The remaining thirty-one were "plebs urbana." There was no delegated representation of this country populace—citizens beyond the walls. To exercise their right of suffrage they must be personally present at the meetings of the "comitia tributa"—the tribal assemblies; and those of any tribe who chanced to be in attendance at such a meeting might give a vote which carried with it the weight of their whole tribe. For questions were decided by the majority of tribal, not individual, votes; and a very few members of a tribe might act for and be the tribe, for all purposes of voting, on occasions of the greatest possible importance. It is quite evident that a democratic system of this nature gave wide opportunity for corrupt "politics." There must have been, always, an attraction for the baser sort among the rural plebs, drawing them into the city, to enjoy the excitement of political contests, and to partake of the flatteries and largesses which began early to go with these. And circumstances had tended strongly to increase this sinister sifting into Rome of the most vagrant and least responsible of her citizens, to make them practically the deputies and representatives of that mighty sovereign which had risen in the world—the "Populus Romanus." For there was no longer either thrift or dignity possible in the pursuits of husbandry. The long Hannibalic War had ruined the farming class in Italy by its ravages; but the extensive conquests that followed it had been still more ruinous to that class by several effects combined. Corn supplies from the conquered provinces were poured into Rome at cheapened prices; enormous fortunes, gathered in the same provinces by officials, by farmers of taxes, by money-lenders, and by traders, were largely invested in great estates, absorbing the small farms of olden time; and, finally, free-labor in agriculture was supplanted, more and more, by the labor of slaves, which war and increasing wealth combined to multiply in numbers. Thus the "plebs urbana" of Rome were a depressed and, therefore, a degenerating class, and the same circumstances that made them so impelled them towards the city, to swell the mob which held its mighty sovereignty in their hands.

{1000}

So far, a lavish amusement of this mob with free games, and liberal bribes, had kept it generally submissive to the senatorial government. But the more it was debased by such methods, and its vagrancy encouraged, the more extravagant gratuities of like kind it claimed. Hence a time could never be far away when the aristocracy and the senate would lose their control of the popular vote on which they had built their governing power.

Agrarian Agitations.

But they invited the quicker coming of that time by their own greediness in the employment of their power for selfish and dishonest ends. They had practically recovered their monopoly of the use of the public lands. The Licinian law, which forbade any one person to occupy more than five hundred jugera (about three hundred acres) of the public lands, had been made a dead letter. The great tracts acquired in the Samnite wars, and since, had remained undistributed, while the use and profit of them were enjoyed, under one form of authority or another, by rich capitalists and powerful nobles.

This evil, among many that waxed greater each year, caused the deepest discontent, and provoked movements of reform which soon passed by rapid stages into a revolution, and ended in the fall of the Republic. The leader of the movement at its beginning was Tiberius Gracchus, grandson of Scipio Africanus on the side of his mother, Cornelia. Elected tribune in 133 B. C., he set himself to the dangerous task of rousing the people against senatorial usurpations, especially in the matter of the public domain. He only drew upon himself the hatred of the senate and its selfish supporters; he failed to rally a popular party that was strong enough for his protection, and his enemies slew him in the very midst of a meeting of the tribes. His brother Caius took up the perilous cause and won the office of tribune (B. C. 123) in avowed hostility to the senatorial government. He was driven to bid high for popular help, even when the measures which he strove to carry were most plainly for the welfare of the common people, and he may seem to modern eyes to have played the demagogue with some extravagance. But statesmanship and patriotism without demagoguery for their instrument or their weapon were hardly practicable, perhaps, in the Rome of those days, and it is not easy to find them clean-handed in any political leader of the last century of the Republic. The fall of Caius Gracchus was hastened by his attempt to extend the Roman franchise beyond the "populus Romanus," to all the freemen of Italy. The mob in Rome was not pleased with such political generosity, and cooled in its admiration for the large-minded tribune. He lost his office and the personal protection it threw over him, and then he, like his brother, was slain (B. C. 121) in a melee.

Jugurthine War.

For ten years the senate, the nobility, and the capitalists (now beginning to take the name of the equestrian order), had mostly their own way again, and effaced the work of the Gracchi as completely as they could. Then came disgraceful troubles in Numidia which enraged the people and moved them to a new assertion of themselves. The Numidian king who helped Scipio to pull Carthage down had been a ward of Rome since that time. When he died, he left his kingdom to be governed jointly by two young sons and an older nephew. The latter, Jugurtha, put his cousins out of the way, took the kingdom to himself, and baffled attempts at Rome to call him to account, by heavy bribes. The corruption in the case became so flagrant that even the corrupted Roman populace revolted against it, and took the Numidian business into its own hands. War was declared against Jugurtha by popular vote, and, despite opposing action in the Senate, one Marius, an experienced soldier of humble birth, was elected consul and sent out to take command. Marius distinguished himself in the war much less than did one of his officers, Cornelius Sulla; but he bore the lion's share of glory when Jugurtha was taken captive and conveyed to Rome (B. C. 104). Marius was now the great hero of the hour, and events were preparing to lift him to the giddiest heights of popularity.

Teutones and Cimbri.

Hitherto, the barbarians of wild Europe whom the Romans had met were either the Aryan Celts, or the non-Aryan tribes found in northern Italy, Spain and Gaul. Now, for the first time, the armies of Rome were challenged by tribes of another grand division of the Aryan stock, coming out of the farther North. These were the Cimbri and the Teutones, wandering hordes of the great Teutonic or Germanic race which has occupied Western Europe north of the Rhine since the beginning of historic time. So far as we can know, these two were the first of the Germanic nations to migrate to the South. They came into collision with Rome in 113 B. C., when they were in Noricum, threatening the frontiers of her Italian dominion. Four years later they were in southern Gaul, where the Romans were now settling colonies and subduing the native Celts. Twice they had beaten the armies opposed to them; two years later they added a third to their victories; and in 105 B. C. they threw Rome into consternation by destroying two great armies on the Rhone. Italy seemed helpless against the invasion for which these terrible barbarians were now preparing, when Marius went against them. In the summer of 102 B. C. he annihilated the Teutones, near Aquæ Sextiæ (modern Aix), and in the following year he destroyed the invading Cimbri, on a bloody field in northern Italy, near modern Vercellæ.