Lectures on ancient ethnography and geography, volume 1 (of 2) : $b comprising Greece and her colonies, Epirus, Macedonia, Illyricum, Italy, Gaul, Spain, Britain, the north of Africa, etc.Niebuhr, Barthold Georg
History
Lectures on ancient ethnography and geography, volume 1 (of 2) : $b comprising Greece and her colonies, Epirus, Macedonia, Illyricum, Italy, Gaul, Spain, Britain, the north of Africa, etc.
Niebuhr, Barthold Georg
Ethnology; Geography, Ancient; History, Ancient
This division into four parts applies only to Thessaly in the narrower
sense, and is not so much of geographical interest, as it is of real
political importance: there must at one time have existed four real
Thessalian states standing to one another in the relation of isopolity,
like the Romans and Hernicans, and the Samnite nations among one another.
But this point, like all that concerns Thessaly, is involved in very
great obscurity. This much, however, is certain, that the division was
restored under Philip of Macedonia, who, for the purpose of breaking
the power of Thessaly cut it up into four different states, just as
afterwards the Romans did with Macedonia, and as, in 1812, Napoleon,
while making the Poles believe that he was restoring their state,
divided their country into three parts, in order to prevent its rising,
at a great distance from him, to the rank of a powerful state. This is
the tetrarchy of which Theopompus in Harpocration gives the well known
explanation. Demosthenes (_Philip._ ii. p. 71, ed. Reiske), however,
states that Philip divided Thessaly into decadarchies: this reading
occurs indeed in all the MSS., but they are of little authority, as all
of them are founded upon a single recension, and are perhaps derived
from one original manuscript. From Harpocration, too, an author of the
second century, we see that in his time this reading already existed,
and puzzled him as well as other archaeologists. It is historically
certain, that the Lacedaemonians, in every town that became subject to
them, established a decadarchy, as at first they did at Athens, though
they there increased the number to thirty; but how we have to view the
statement in regard to Thessaly, is, as Harpocration admits, a matter
of doubt. The explanation, however, is not so very difficult. The
δεκαδαρχίαι in the second Philippic are, if we examine the context, quite
the same as the tetrarchies in the third (p. 117). The fault arose from
the compendious mode of writing: Δ in ancient Greek writing has, as a
number, a double meaning; according to the common Phoenician practice it
signified _four_, and according to the Attic system of writing _ten_.
In nearly all the earlier inscriptions, where it occurs as a number,
Δ signifies _ten_, as Π signifies _fifty_; when, therefore, Δ with
a line (Δʹ) occurred before ἀρχία (ΔʹΑΡΧΙΑ), the reader knew that it
indicated a number, but he made it either _ten_ or _four_, according as
he imagined that he had before him an Attic or a common number; and if he
was familiar with the Lacedaemonian decadarchy, he read in this passage
also δεκαδαρχία. This division into tetrarchies, then, existed in the
Macedonian period, but we do not know how long.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account