Page:History of Greece Vol II.djvu/313

 EARLY LAWS OF PHILOLAUS AT TIIEI5ES. 297 which Grecian manners did not proscribe ; but it also provoked an incestuous passion on the part of his own mother, Halcyone, from which Diokles shrunk with hatred and horror. He aban- doned forever his native city and retired to Thebes, whither he was followed by Philolaus, and where both of them lived and died. Their tombs were yet shown in the time of Aristotle, close adjoining to each other, yet with an opposite frontage; that of Philolaus being so placed that the inmate could command a view of the lofty peak of his native city, while that of Diokles was so disposed as to block out all prospect of the hateful spot. That which preserves to us the memory of so remarkable an incident, is, the esteem entertained for Philolaus by the Thebans, a feeling so profound, that they invited him to make laws for them. We shall have occasion to point out one or two similar cases, in which Grecian cities invoked the aid of an intelligent stranger ; and the practice became common, among the Italian republics in the Middle Ages, to nominate a person not belonging to their city either as podesta or as arbitrator in civil dissensions. It would have been highly interesting to know, at length, what laws Philolaus made for the Thebans ; but Aristotle, with his usual conciseness, merely alludes to his regulations respecting the adoption of children and respecting the multiplication of offspring in each separate family. His laws were framed with the view to maintain the original number of lots of land, without either subdivision or consolidation ; but by what means the purpose was to be fulfilled we are not informed. 1 There existed a law at 1 Aristot. Polit. ii. 9, 6-7. No//o#er?c 6' avrolf (to the Thebans) tyevtro 4uA.6^aof TTfpf T' uXhuv rivCiv KOI irepl r^f iratfioTroitaf, ovf KoXovatv IKEIVOI VO/lOVt; &TlKOVf KOI TOVT' t'OTtV I6i(jf VTf' iKElVOV VVO(lO'&eTTl[lVOl>, SlTUf 6 apid/ide au&jrai ruv K/.fipuv. A perplexing passage follows within three lines of this, $Ao/luov 6e idiov tanv rj ruv ovmuv avo/tdXuaif, which raises two questions : first, whether Philolaus can really be meant in the second passage, which talks of what is ISiov to Philolaus, while the first pas- sage had already spoken of something itiiuf vEvopodeTijfj.ei'o* by the same person. Accordingly, Gottling and M. Barthelemy St. Hltalre follow one of the MSS. by writing Qateov in place of Qihohaov. Next, what is tha meaning of uvo/ia^wtrtf ? O- Miiller (Dorians, ch. x. 5, p. 209) considers it to mean a " fresh equalization, just as ava6aafj.bg means a fresh division," adopting the translation of Victorins and Schlosser. The point can hardly be decisively settled ; but if this tranlation of avt 13*