THERE ARE REFERENCES in our previousVoyage 2to “several historical oxymora” in antiquity, especially about “the differences between the Aegean and the Orient in their political structures: the decentralizedGreekcity-states”, on the one hand, and the Oriental “centralized empires”, on the other. What I had in mind was to explain these differences due to different objective conditions prevailing in the Orient vis-à-vis the Aegean – above all to speak about the birth ofdemocracy, pure and direct, in contrast to today’s so-called “representative democracy”. Here’s to you, my fellow voyagers: especially now, because of the crisis, it’s good to make comparisons and have reflections

On DEMOCRACY

LIFE IN ANCIENT HELLAS, as a rule, was not a “test for some happy afterlife” – an idea that the common people of the “Asiatic mode of production” should necessarily entertain. The Greeks were inspired and shaped by Hellenic Nature. They philosophized and discussed public issues under her beneficial influence. She “dictated” to them the forms of their state and political organizations – regardless if they both fomented discord. Their model was the city-state polis;democracy was their ideal; and freedom the highest virtue – regardless if they lived in a slave and “male” society. It seems contradictory… Moreover, their democracy was pure, direct; today’s so-called “democracy” is the so-called “representative” where power is not exercised by the people anymore but by their so-called “representatives”, contrary to the very definition of democracy.(a) More and more oxymora and paradoxa… Let’s try to make them clear:

(a) The Hellenic δημοκρατία (“rule of the people”, from δῆμος = people, and κράτος = power) is a synonym to the Modern Greek term λαοκρατία (“people in power”), and an antonym to ἀριστοκρατία (aristocracy, “rule of some elite”), and ὀλιγαρχία (oligarchy, from ὀλίγοι = few, and ἄρχω = to rule). Which one applies to our so-called “democratic” system even a little child can say…

As much as the Ecclesia of Demos can be related to the Ecclesia (i.e. Church) of Christ, so much the pure (direct, participatory) democracy can be related to the so-called “representative” one, which is in essence an oligarchy.

A deficit in democracy is accompanied by similar deficits in politics and justice. An entire country, Greece, was destroyed by the politicians with the judges’ consent – i.e. by persons who are absolutely useless and extremely dangerous in democracy. Democracy has no need of politicians: the citizens themselves, as “political animals” according to Aristotle, are involved in politics; they are the ones who decide. Democracy has no need of judges: the citizens themselves administer justice. Democracy – if it is indeed a state of the people – does not delegate such powers to anyone, not even to Pericles himself! The memoranda of austerity would have no chance in the Ecclesia of Demos (that of Christ, the Church, I’m sure, would bless them)! The court of Demos, Heliaea, would have never sentenced Kolokotronis – let alone to death! * We have no democracy, let’s accept it! It’s the prerequisite for us to obtain it some day…

* But if Socrates was sentenced to death, why should Kolokotronis fare better? First of all let’s make clear that Socrates was tried by democracy, while Kolokotronis by oligarchy. The people’s sense of justice was for Kolokotronis, but against Socrates. Why? Let’s examine the trial of Socrates, which took place in 399 BCE, after the defeat of the Athenian democracy by the Spartan oligarchy in the Peloponnesian War. It was a political trial in disguise because of the amnesty given to the oligarchs after the overthrow of the Thirty Tyrants, who were puppets of the Spartans. That’s why the charges against him were: asebeia (impiety) against gods, and corruption of the youth of the polis of Athens. Note that what we know about Socrates’ trial and death penalty are mainly derived from the Apology of Socrates by Plato, and the Apology of Socrates to the Jury by Xenophon – both of them students of Socrates, hence anything but impartial sources.

Democracy prosecuted its demons in Socrates’ face – mainly two other of his dear friends and students, Alcibiades and Critias. Alcibiades was the main proponent of the disastrous Sicilian Expedition (415-413) during the Peloponnesian War, where almost all Athenians participating, more than 50,000 men, were killed or captured and enslaved. After being summoned to trial, Alcibiades defected to Sparta, then to Persia, returning with false promises to Athens, where he was driven out after another defeat by the Spartans, who eventually assassinated him in Phrygia in 404 BCE.

Critias, who appears in two Socratic dialogues by Plato, one in his name, was the blood-thirsty leader of the Thirty Tyrants, who were installed by the Spartan occupation army as an oligarchic regime in 404 BCE, after Athens’ defeat in the war. Not only Critias, but also several other tyrants were students of Socrates, as well. They were in power for only eight months, but in this short period they managed to kill 5% of the Athenians, exile many others and seize the property of the dead and exiled. Many wealthy citizens were executed or murdered by the oligarchs just to confiscate their property and share it among themselves, giving a portion to their followers. It was a regime of terror led by Critias, who became notorious for his cruelty and inhumanity, as he was determined to put an end to democracy regardless of human cost. The uprising that overthrew the tyrants in 403 was organized by a group of exiles led by Thrasybulus. Critias was killed in the initial revolt. Xenophon may have played an important part in this regime, as one of the two commanders of the cavalry, which were the Thirty’s militia.

Socrates

Many prominent Athenians opposed to the terror regime left the city. Socrates, however, chose to remain and his attitude was interpreted as acceptance of the tyrants – indirectly but clearly. The philosopher espoused antidemocratic ideas, such as the view that it’s not majority opinion that yields correct policy but rather genuine knowledge and professional competence which only a few experts possess. He often praised the laws of oligarchic Sparta. Plato reinforced these antidemocratic ideas in the Republic, advocating rule by the elite of enlightened “Philosopher-Kings”. This might have been Socrates’ idea of himself, going as far as claiming in his apology that he had been a god’s gift to the Athenians… There’s a view that “Socrates’ real crime [was] preaching a philosophy that produced Alcibiades and Critias… but of course, under the amnesty, he couldn’t be prosecuted for that”. This is a rather favourable view about Socrates. Because there are other views, as well, that the Republic of both, Socrates and Plato, may have been… implemented by the Thirty Tyrants, and that this “Philosopher-King” was finally none other than Critias himself!

This crisis would be unthinkable in ancient Athens:
the Ecclesia would have never accepted what the creditors dictated.
The Ecclesia and the Heliaea were the pillars of democracy.

Under a so-called “representative” system of the so-called “democracy”, the people who supposedly rule are in reality powerless, unable to rule out the dire consequences of a crisis like the one we are experiencing now. In ancient Athens, on the contrary, as in any other democratic Greek city-state, such a crisis would be unthinkable: the Ecclesia would have never accepted what the creditors dictated. The decision would not be taken by some president or prime minister, or government, or house of representatives, or court, or even banker, but by the people themselves.

There were officials, of course, but for limited periods of time, alternating and revocable at any moment. Their powers were precisely defined and their capacity for initiative limited. They administered rather than governed. They did not decide “for the people” but simply acted on decisions already taken by the people’s Ecclesia. Before taking over and after leaving office, the citizens were subject to scrutinies, reviewing their abilities beforehand (δοκιμασία = trial), and their performance afterwards (ευθύναι = responsibilities).

In addition, there were no judges, just jurors, numbering hundreds, even thousands in the most serious cases. The Ecclesia-Assembly, with a quorum of 6000, and the people’s courts, the Heliaea, were the pillars of democracy. Without one of the two, democracy would be lame. Losing both (as in our so-called “representative” system), there would be no trace of democracy left… The 400-member Boule’s work was mostly bureaucratic overseeing and coordinating the state’s institutions, while some older ones, like the Archons and Areopagus, were gradually stripped of real powers.

Phryne (the hetaera, stripped) before the Areopagus, by Jean Léon Gérôme (1861). The orator Hypereides, one of her lovers, who defended her when she was accused of impiety, used his best “argument” to save her from death: he removed her robe before the judges to “arouse their pity”… Her beauty (not his rhetoric skill) was so “convincing” that she was acquitted!

This democracy was participatory: Athenians selected for office served collectively. The selection was done mostly by lot, not election, because the latter usually favoured (and still favours) the rich, noble, educated, eloquent and famous. Each citizen could serve (in the real sense of the word) only once, in some cases twice, in such offices. Allotment was regarded as the most democratic means to prevent the corrupt purchase of votes and give citizens a unique form of political equality. In this way more and more citizens were engaged in politics, “ruling and being ruled in turn”, as Aristotle wrote. It is not a surprise that what’s been left from ancient democracy in today’s political system is the least democratic procedure: election – which has become almost a synonym for “democracy”…

What’s been left from ancient democracy in today’s political system
is the least democratic procedure: election…

Elected rather than chosen by lot (therefore coming from the higher classes) were the ten generals, the strategoi, due to their necessary expertise in matters of politics and war, and also those who were obliged to handle large sums of money: any money embezzled could be recovered from their estates. Elected officials too were subject to review before holding office and scrutiny after that. And they too could be removed from office at any time. Politicians held to be acting against the interests of the people, e.g. in cases of abuse of power or embezzlement, faced penalties that could be very severe, such as death, huge unplayable fines, confiscation of property, permanent exile and loss of citizens’ rights through atimia, a form of disenfranchisement.

A good example of the contempt the first democrats felt for those who did not participate in politics can be found in the modern word “idiot”, from the ancient Greek ἰδιώτης, meaning a private person, someone who is not actively participating in politics. Pericles, according to Thucydides, declared: “We do not say that a man who takes no interest in politics is a man who minds his own business; we say that he has no business here at all.”

“We do not say that a man who takes no interest in politics is a man who minds his own business; we say that he has no business here at all.” (Pericles)

The intelligentsia of the time was mostly aristocratic. Therefore, among the ancient Greek critics of democracy we can find the philosophers Plato (his teacher, Socrates, has been the most famous victim of democracy), and Aristotle; the dramatists Aeschylus and Aristophanes; the historians Thucydides, Xenophon, and also Polybius, who thought that every democracy eventually decays into “a government of violence and the strong hand,” leading to “tumultuous assemblies, massacres, banishments.” (So, why bother? Is that what he means?).

All the above “forgot” that the victory against the Persians, the birth of drama and, of course, the great acme of Hellenic civilization, would have been unthinkable without democracy. However, despite all precautions, we now know there was no check on the dangers of demagogy – and that was democracy’s Achilles’ heel. Two notorious Athenian demagogues (from δῆμος and the verb ἄγω = carry/manipulate, thus “people’s manipulators”) during the Peloponnesian War were Cleon and Alcibiades. But again, we mostly know about them through the Histories of the above mentioned writers.

The victory against the Persians and the birth of drama, even the great acme of Hellenic civilization, would have been unthinkable without democracy.

Pnyx, the meeting place of the Ecclesia, with the speaker’s platform or bema. Here the great political struggles of the “Golden Age” were fought; from this bema the great figures of the time delivered their speeches – but also so many ordinary citizens who raised their arms answering to the question: “Τίς ἀγορεύειν βούλεται;”, “Who wishes to speak?”

After the demise of Athenian democracy, few looked upon it as a good form of government. This was because no one was interested enough to counter the negative accounts of the ancient writers. The classical example that inspired the revolutionaries and radicals in Europe and America was Rome rather than Athens – though Res publica Romana was no democracy. Thus, the Founding Fathers of the USA in 1787 did not set up an Ecclesia but a Senate that eventually met on the Capitol… But the times changed and Athenian democracy was gradually appreciated for the high level of cultivation that her citizens enjoyed. Since the middle of the 20th century, every country has claimed to be a “democracy”, regardless of the actual makeup of its government.

Nevertheless, there are still now many “sensitive souls” who lament on the “impurity” of Athenian democracy because it excluded women, slaves and foreigners, and led to “imperialist” policy – as if patriarchy, slavery, racism and imperialism were all born out of democracy! Patriarchy is still going strong; the same applies to racism and imperialism. Slavery was abolished quite “recently”, though I’m afraid it’s also going strong under disguise… And where or when did you see slaves voting?(!) As for universal suffrage, Finland was the first nation in the world to give all adult citizens (men and women) the right to vote and run for office in 1906. Women in Greece voted for the first time in 1951. Mind you that the First French Republic after the French Revolution (1789) was the first nation that adopted universal male suffrage in 1792, excluding women – let alone the slaves.

Apropos, have our “sensitive souls” ever heard of the great Haitian Revolution (1791), the only successful slave insurrection in history? It broke out two years after the equally great French Revolution with exactly the same slogans: “Liberté, égalité, fraternité”; but the Haitian aspirations for Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood, were denied by the equally great French revolutionaries on the basis of their… armed forces – using even mercenaries (e.g. Poles): these privileges were reserved exclusively for the “noble, white Frenchmen”, not for negro Haitian helots!(b)

(b) What was their reward? The country where the only victorious slave revolution ever took place is now probably the poorest all around the world. The so-called “international community” never forgave them for their heroism and punished them severely because they raised their heads in their desire to live free.

WHAT WAS EXACTLY THE MOTIVE behind man’s decision to take his chances and go out to sea? As always, he had needs to satisfy: he initially searched for a better place to live. Navigation started long ago during migrations: the first humans e.g. arrived in Australia, presumably by boat, around 45,000 BCE. After settling down, man’s needs changed: there was much food in the sea and he could certainly fish far better with a canoe or a small boat. The more he familiarized himself with the sea, the further he went out there, and thus the vessel also became a means of transport. Men started exchanging goods and, as long as production increased, the boatmen were divided into fishermen and traders – and warriors, as well. Commerce developed further in parallel with navigation. A sea trader was obliged to start taking down notes and mapping out his routes. This notebook gradually developed into a

“PERIPLUS” is the Latinization of the Hellenic word περίπλους,‘a sailing-around’. The word was understood by the ancient Greek speaker in its literal sense; however, it also developed specialized meanings, one of which became a standard term in the navigation of Hellenes, Phoenicians, and many others.(a) Such a periplus was a manuscript listing – in order and with approximate intervening distances – the ports and coastal landmarks that the captain of a vessel could expect to find along a shore. It served the same purpose as the Romanitinerarium of road stops. The navigators, however, added various notes, which, if they were skilled geographers (as many were), became part of their own additions to geography. In that sense the periplus was a type of log. The form of periplus is at least as old as the earliest Hellene historian, Hecataeus of Miletus. The works by Herodotus and Thucydides contain passages that appear to have been based on such peripli.

(a) A periplus was also an ancient naval manoeuvre in which attacking triremes would outflank or encircle the defenders in order to strike them in the rear.

The map of Hecataeus

The Milesian Hecataeus (Ἑκαταῖος, c. 550–c. 476 BCE) flourished during the time of the Persian invasion. Having travelled extensively, he settled in his native city devoting his time to the composition of geographical and historical works. He is the first Greek historian and one of the first classical writers to mention the Celts. Some have credited him with a work entitled Γῆς περίοδος (World Survey, or Travels Round the Earth), written in two books. Each book is organized like a periplus, a point-to-point coastal survey. One, on Europe, is essentially a Mediterraneanperiplus, describing each region in turn, reaching as far north as Scythia. The other, on Asia, is arranged similarly to the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea. He described the countries and inhabitants of the world, the account of Egypt being particularly comprehensive. It was accompanied by a map, based upon Anaximander’s map of the Earth, which he corrected and enlarged. The work only survives in fragments, by far the majority being quoted in Ethnica, the geographical lexicon compiled by Stephanus of Byzantium (fl. 6th century CE). The other known work of Hecataeus was the Genealogiae, a rationally systematized account of the legends and myths of the Hellenes, a break with the epic myth-making tradition, which survives in fragments, just enough to show what we are missing.

The map of Anaximander

Anaximander (Ἀναξίμανδρος, c. 610–c. 546 BCE) was a pre-Socratic philosopher that succeeded his master, Thales, one of the Seven Sages of Greece, as head of the Milesian school where he counted Anaximenes and, arguably, Pythagoras among his pupils. According to available historical documents, he is the first philosopher known to have written down his studies, although only one fragment of his work remains. He was an early proponent of science trying to observe and explain different aspects of the universe, with a particular interest in its origins. In astronomy, he attempted to describe the mechanics of celestial bodies in relation to the Earth. In physics, his postulation that the ‘apeiron’(ἄπειρον) was the source of all things led Hellenic philosophy to a new level of conceptual abstraction. He created a map of the world contributing greatly to the advancement of geography. According to Carl Sagan, he conducted the earliest recorded scientific experiment.

The world according to Herodotus

Herodotus (Ἡρόδοτος, c. 484–c. 425 BCE), born in Halicarnassus, is regarded as the “Father of History”. He was the first historian known to systematically collect his materials, test their accuracy to a certain extent and arrange them in a well-constructed and vivid narrative. He is exclusively known for writing The Histories, a record of his ‘Inquiry’ into the origins of the Greco-Persian Wars that culminated in 490 and 480-479 BCE – especially since he includes a narrative account of that period, which would otherwise be poorly documented; and numerous long digressions concerning the various places and people he encountered during his wide-ranging travels around the Mediterranean, the Black Sea and beyond.

“Ἡροδότου Ἁλικαρνησσέος ἱστορίης ἀπόδεξις ἥδε, ὡς μήτε τὰ γενόμενα ἐξ ἀνθρώπων τῷ χρόνῳ ἐξίτηλα γένηται, μήτε ἔργα μεγάλα τε καὶ θωμαστά, τὰ μὲν Ἕλλησι, τὰ δὲ βαρβάροισι ἀποδεχθέντα, ἀκλεᾶ γένηται”…
(Herodotus of Halicarnassus’ “Researches” are here set down to preserve the memory of the past by putting on record the astonishing achievements both of our own and of other peoples…)

It was rather conventional at that time for authors to have their works ‘published’ by reciting them at popular festivals. Herodotus took his Histories to Olympia, in the Olympian Games, and presented his entire work to the assembled spectators in one sitting, receiving rapturous applause at the end. According to a different account, he refused to begin reading his work until some clouds offered him a bit of shade, by which time however the assembly had dispersed – thus the proverbial expression “Herodotus and his shade” to describe anyone who misses his opportunity through delay.

Thucydides: the historian of the Peloponnesian War

The Athenian Thucydides (Θουκυδίδης, c. 460–c. 395 BCE) is the notable author of the History of the Peloponnesian Warbetween Sparta and Athens (431-404 BCE) to the year 411. Its finale is recounted by Xenophon in his Hellenica. Thucydidesis regarded as the father of “scientific history” because of his strict standards of evidence-gathering and analysis in terms of cause and effect without reference to intervention by the gods. He has also been called the father of the school of political realism, which views the relations between nations as based on might rather than right. His classical text is still studied at military colleges worldwide, and the Melian dialogue still remains a seminal work of international relations theory.(b)

This Greek civil war, the Peloponnesian War, a few years after the glorious end of the Persian Wars, marked the dramatic end to the Golden Age of Hellenic civilization.

Venus de Milo, or rather: Aphrodite of Melos

(b) The Melian dialogue is the account of a confrontation between Athens and Melos, a small, neutral island in the southern Aegean, east of the Peloponnese and Sparta, in 416-415 BCΕ, during the Peloponnesian War. Athens wanted to conquer the island to intimidate Sparta. The confrontation ended in tragedy for Melos: the Athenians executed all the men they took captive and enslaved women and children…
Melos had been a very important source of obsidian, a volcanic material most valuable in the Neolithic era. The island, however, is famous all over the world because of a work of art of a later period that was found there: it is the celebrated statue of Aphrodite of Melos, better known as Venus de Milo.

In the first phase of the war, Sparta launched invasions of Attica, while Athens raided the coast of the Peloponnese taking advantage of its naval supremacy. Later the Athenians sent a massive expeditionary force to attack Syracuse in Sicily failing disastrously. This ushered in the final phase of the war, when Sparta, already receiving support from Persia, incited rebellions in the Athenians’ subject states in the Aegean and Asia Minor, undermining their empire. The destruction of their fleet put an end to the war and Athens surrendered in the next year. This Greek civil war, a few years after the glorious end of the Median (Persian) Wars (499-449 BCΕ), reshaped the ancient Hellenic world. Athens, the strongest city-state in Greece prior to the war’s beginning, was reduced to almost complete subjection, while Sparta became established as the leading power. However, the economic costs of the war were felt all across Hellas; poverty became widespread in the Peloponnese, while Athens found itself completely devastated, and it never recovered its pre-war prosperity. The war also wrought subtler changes to Greek society; the antagonism between democratic Athens and oligarchic Sparta, each of which supported friendly political factions within other states, made civil war a common occurrence in Hellas. Greek warfare, meanwhile, originally on a limited scale, was transformed into an all-out struggle between city-states, complete with atrocities on a large scale. Shattering religious and cultural taboos, devastating whole cities and the countryside, this war marked the dramatic end to the 5th century BCΕ and the Golden Age of Hellenic civilization.

Euripides, by Sebastià Giralt

The Peloponnesian War is the background of a didactic story on music and politics centered on Euripides, who is thought to have been perhaps the best of the Greek tragedians. He was musically very advanced and worked with the most progressive musicians, something that conservatives such as Aristophanes exploited in order to ridicule him. Nevertheless, it was Euripides’ music, and not that by Aristophanes, that saved many Athenians and Athens itself during the war. At that time, and for many centuries to come, the people used to sing the best ‘songs’ (in operatic terminology we would say ‘arias’) of a tragedy. Hence the modern Hellenic word for ‘song’ (‘τραγούδι’) comes from the word ‘tragedy’ (‘τραγῳδία’). After the disastrous Athenian expedition to Sicily, many Athenians held captives there saved their lives because they could sing songs by Euripides that were so much loved by all Greeks, even those in Sicily. At the end of the war, when Sparta conquered Athens, the victorious generals (Spartans and allies) had a meeting to decide the fate of Athens. They concluded that the city should be demolished and its citizens enslaved. Then a feast was held to celebrate victory. During this banquet someone sang a Euripidean ‘aria’ (from Electra). The generals were so much moved they changed their minds. “They felt it would be a barbarous act to annihilate a city that produced such men”… Needless to say these generals were cultured enough to appreciate the music of Euripides. The same song in the ears of present-day generals or politicians would have no effect whatsoever… (These stories are episodes from Plutarch‘s Parallel Lives, and in particular the Lives of Nicias and Lysander).

During celebrations for victory, someone sang a song of Euripides. The Spartans were so moved they changed their minds. “They felt that it would be a barbarous act to annihilate Athens that produced such men”…

Pytheas of Massalia: the greatest navigating explorer of the era with his periplus of Europe

Several examples of peripli have survived one way or another. The impression one gets, even with a first look at the list below, is that for a long time, from the 6th to the 4th centuries BCE, there was a Graeco-Phoenician “bras de fer” between Massalia and Carthage aimed at dominating the sea routes leading to regions rich mainly in gold, silver, tin and amber:

Trireme

The Massaliote Periplus is a description of Tartessian and Phoenician trade routes along the coasts of Atlantic Europe, possibly dating to the 6th century, either early or late, around 500 BCE, depending on the writer. Preserved in Avienus’ Ora maritima (Sea Coasts), it is a voyage from Marseille to the British Isles, circumnavigating Iberia.

The Periplus of Hanno the Navigator, a Punic explorer of the early 5th century BCE, describing the coast of Africa from Morocco deep into the Gulf of Guinea. It was undertaken probably after Carthage’s crushing defeat in Sicily in 480 BCE (when Hanno became a king with no powers). Excluded from the markets of the East, the Punics turned westwards.

The exploration of another Punic, Himilco the Navigator, who sailed in the sea routes described in the Massaliote Periplus, from the Mediterranean to the north-western shores of Europe, during the 5th century, as well.

The voyage of Euthymenes of Massalia (ca 450-390 or, less probable, in the early 6th century BCE). Following Hanno’s route, Euthymenes must have sailed south to the Senegal River. His Periplus in the Outer Sea (possibly around 400 BCE) was lost and what survived are some references such as those made by Plutarch or Seneca the Younger (and… doubtful).

The epic exploration of the greatest Massaliote navigator, Pytheas, ca 325 BCE, who completed a periplus of Europe, sailing to Britain, Scandinavia, the Baltic and, via river routes, the Black Sea. Only excerpts remain from his testimony, On the Ocean and World Survey, quoted by later authors, some of whom, such as Strabo (mistrustful as usual) and Polybius, treat with skepticism.

The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, written in the 1st century CE by some Alexandrian, gives the shoreline itinerary of the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, starting each time at the port of Berenice. Beyond the Red Sea, the manuscript describes the coast of India as far as the Ganges River and the east coast of Africa (called Azania).

The Periplus Ponti Euxini, describing the trade routes along the coasts of the Black Sea, was also written by Arrian in the early 2nd century CE.

“Armchair” historians tend to minimize the importance of the navigators’ peripli, as we have seen. Such is the case of the Periplus Outside the Pillars of Heracles by Charon of Lampsacus (first half of the 5th century BCE), the Periplus of Pseudo-Scylax (4th or 3rd century BCE), the Periplus of Scymnus of Chios (around 110 BCE), or even the Periplus of the Outer Sea by Marcian of Heraclea (5th century CE), referring also to the British Isles. There are, however, significant losses, such as Democritus’ Periplus of the Ocean (5th-4th centuries BCE, see Chronicle 7), and a Periplus by Timosthenes of Rhodes in ten volumes (3rd century BCE). The latter was an admiral of the Ptolemaic fleet, navigator, geographer and cartographer, admired and cited by geographers like Strabo and Eratosthenes. Strabo revealed another talent of this truly versatile man: he composed a “Pythic nomos” (law), a “Pythian canon”, if you like, for aulos and kithara to be played at Delphi in the Pythian Games in celebration of the victory of Apollo over Python.(c)

(c) “Anomos [law or canon] was the most important form of composition and interpretation in ancient Greek music. It seems that it evolved from a very old tradition, according to which the laws were sung by the people to be easily memorized and followed [unlike what happens now that the legislators do their best for the laws to be incomprehensible by the people, though – or precisely because – ignorance of the law is not forgiven…] The composition and interpretation of nomoi were very demanding and set high professional standards in the four Hellenic games (Olympian, Pythian, Isthmian, Nemean), where the most distinguished musicians (composers-performers) of their time took part. The Pythian nomos, the most important nomos for aulos, was the first known type of program music and was meant to describe the contest between Apollo and the dragon Python, consisting of five parts…” (Encyclopedia of the Ancient Greek Music, by Solon Michaelides).

Timosthenes either innovated combining the aulos with the kithara (cithara) in his Pythian nomos, or such a combination was already established in his time. These instruments were those mostly played by professional musicians: aulos, a wind instrument, was connected with Dionysus; kithara, a string instrument, was identified with Apollo. The lyre, instead, was played only by amateurs. Its professional equivalent was the kithara (precursor of the guitar).

“Nómoi, the most important form of composition in ancient Greece, evolved from a very old tradition, according to which the laws were sung by the people to be easily memorized and followed.” Now legislators do their best for the laws to be incomprehensible, though (or because) ignorance of the law is not forgiven…

Such voyages, of course, together with the logbooks that gradually evolved into peripli, date back to much earlier times. At the same time, whatever we know about many important voyages come from other sources and not from the navigators’ peripli. Notable examples:

The epic periplus of Libya (that is, Africa) by the Phoenicians in the late 6th century on behalf of an Egyptian Pharaoh, mentioned by Herodotus. Having the Red Sea as a starting point, it took almost three years to complete. Trying to save his life, a Persian convict made an attempt to repeat the feat following the reverse course but finally gave up – and lost his life.

The voyage of the (real) Scylax of Caryanda, a Greek navigator from Caria. According to the “Father of History”, he explored the coasts of the Indian Ocean (as far as the mouth of the Indus River returning afterwards to Suez) on behalf of the Persians in the same period, late 6th century, circa 510 BCE.

The voyages of Eudoxus of Cyzicus (ca 150–100 BCE) to explore the Arabian Sea on behalf of the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt. According to Poseidonius and Strabo, he was the first to sail the monsoon wind system in the Indian Ocean in 118–116 BCE. He later attempted the first periplus of Africa departing from the West, namely Gades (modern Cádiz), but the expedition was lost – although some writers, such as Pliny, argue that he achieved his goal.

A navigator possibly associated with Eudoxus (he is sometimes referred to as his captain) was Hippalos (ca 1st century BCE). In the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea he is credited with discovering the direct route from the Red Sea to South India crossing the Indian Ocean.

Before the Chronicles of ONCE UPON A… WAVE,
voyage with the Voyages of the MEDITERRANEAN PERIPLUS!

Periplus, by Adolf Erik Nordenskiöld (1832-1901), a Finn arctic explorer, geologist and mineralogist most remembered for the expedition along the northern coast of Eurasia in 1878-79. This was the first complete crossing of the Northern Sea Route or Northeast Passage. He edited a monumental record of the expedition in five volumes, and wrote a popular summary in two volumes. As an explorer, he was interested in the history of Arctic exploration as evidenced in old maps. Except Periplus (1897), he published another monograph entitledEarly History of Cartography(1889).