Chapter 22

(F. W. R.*)

ION,of Chios, Greek poet, lived in the age of Pericles. At an early age he went to Athens, where he made the acquaintance of Aeschylus. He was a great admirer of Cimon and an opponent of Pericles. He subsequently met Sophocles in his native island at the time of the Samian war. From Aristophanes (Peace, 830 ff.) it is concluded that he died before the production of that play (421). His first tragedy was produced between 452-449B.C.; and he was third to Euripides and Iophon in the tragic contest of 429. In a subsequent year he gained both the tragic and dithyrambic prizes, and in honour of his victory gave a jar of Chian wine to every Athenian citizen (Athenaeus p. 3). He is further credited by the scholiast on Aristophanes (loc. cit.) with having composed comedies, dithyrambs, epigrams, paeans, hymns, scolia, encomia and elegies; and he is the reputed author of a philosophical treatise on the mystic number three. His historical or biographical works were five in number, and included an account of the antiquities of Chios and ofἐπιδημίαι, recollections of visitors to the island.

See C. Nieberding,De Ionis Chii vita(1836, containing the fragments); F. Allègre,De Ione Chio(1890), an exhaustive monograph; and Bentley,Epistola ad Millium.

IONA,orIcolmkill, an island of the Inner Hebrides, Argyllshire, Scotland, 6½ m. S. of Staffa and 1¼ m. W. of the Ross of Mull, from which it is separated by the shallow Sound of Iona. Pop. (1901) 213. It is about 3½ m. long and 1½ m. broad; its area being some 2200 acres, of which about one-third is under cultivation, oats, potatoes and barley being grown. In the rest of the island grassy hollows, yielding pasturage for a few hundred cattle and sheep and some horses, alternate with rocky elevations, which culminate on the northern coast in Duni (332 ft.), from the base of which a dazzling stretch of white shell sand, partly covered with grass, stretches to the sea. To the south-west the island is fringed with precipitous cliffs. Iona is composed entirely of ancient gneisses and schists of Lewisian age; theseinclude bands of quartzite, slate, marble and serpentine. The strike of the rocks is S.W.-N.E. and they are tilted to very high angles. Fronting the Sound is the village of Iona, or Buile Mor, which has two churches and a school. The inhabitants depend partly on agriculture and partly on fishing.

The original form of the name Iona was Hy, Hii or I, the Irish for Island. By Adamnan in hisLifeof St Columba it is calledIoua insula, and the present name Iona is said to have originated in some transcriber mistaking theuin Ioua forn. It also received the name of Hii-colum-kill (Icolmkill), that is, “the island of Columba of the Cell,” while by the Highlanders it has been known as Innis nan Druidhneah (“the island of the Druids”). This last name seems to imply that Iona was a sacred spot before St Columba landed there in 563 and laid the foundations of his monastery. After this date it quickly developed into the most famous centre of Celtic Christianity, the mother community of numerous monastic houses, whence missionaries were despatched for the conversion of Scotland and northern England, and to which for centuries students flocked from all parts of the north. After St Columba’s death the soil of the island was esteemed peculiarly sanctified by the presence of his relics, which rested here until they were removed to Ireland early in the 9th century. Pilgrims came from far and near to die in the island, in order that they might lie in its holy ground; and from all parts of northern Europe the bodies of the illustrious dead were brought here for burial. The fame and wealth of the monastery, however, sometimes attracted less welcome visitors. Several times it was plundered and burnt and the monks massacred by the heathen Norse sea-rovers. Late in the 11th century the desecrated monastery was restored by the saintly Queen Margaret, wife of Malcolm Canmore, king of Scotland; and in 1203 a new monastery and a nunnery were founded by Benedictine monks who either expelled or absorbed the Celtic community. In 838 the Western Isles, then under the rule of the kings of Man, were erected into a bishopric of which Iona was the seat. When in 1098 Magnus III., “Barefoot,” king of Norway, ousted the jarls of Orkney from the isles, he united the see of the Isles (Sudreyar, “the southern islands,” Lat.Sodorenses insulae) with that of Man, and placed both under the jurisdiction of the archbishopric of Trondhjem. About 1507 the island again became the seat of the bishopric of the Isles; but with the victory of the Protestant party in Scotland its ancient religious glory was finally eclipsed, and in 1561 the monastic buildings were dismantled by order of the Convention of Estates. (For the political fortunes of Iona seeHebrides.)

The existing ancient remains include part of the cathedral church of St Mary, of the nunnery of St Mary, St Oran’s chapel, and a number of tombs and crosses. The cathedral dates from the 13th century; a great portion of the walls with the tower, about 75 ft. high, are still standing. The choir and nave have been roofed, and the cathedral has in other respects been restored, the ruins having been conveyed in 1899 to a body of trustees by the eighth duke of Argyll. The remains of the conventual buildings still extant, to judge by the portion of a Norman arcade, are of earlier date than the cathedral. The small chapel of St Oran, or Odhrain, was built by Queen Margaret on the supposed site of Columba’s cell, and its ruins are the oldest in Iona. Its round-arched western doorway has the characteristic Norman beak-head ornamentation. Of the nunnery only the chancel and nave of the Norman chapel remain, the last prioress, Anna (d. 1543), being buried within its walls. The cemetery, called in GaelicReilig Oiran(“the burial-place of kings”), is said to contain the remains of forty-eight Scottish, four Irish and eight Danish and Norwegian monarchs, and possesses a large number of monumental stones. At the time of the Reformation it is said to have had 360 crosses, of which most were thrown into the sea by order of the synod of Argyll. Many, however, still remain, the finest being Maclean’s cross and St Martin’s. Both are still almost perfect, and are richly carved with Runic inscriptions, emblematic devices and fanciful scroll work. Of Columba’s monastery, which was built of wood about ¼ m. from the present ruins, nothing remains.

IONIA,in ancient geography, the name given to a portion of the W. coast of Asia Minor, adjoining the Aegean Sea and bounded on the E. by Lydia. It consisted of a narrow strip of land near the coast, which together with the adjacent islands was occupied by immigrant Greeks of the Ionic race, and thus distinguished from the interior district, inhabited by the Lydians. According to the universal Greek tradition, the cities of Ionia were founded by emigrants from the other side of the Aegean (seeIonians), and their settlement was connected with the legendary history of the Ionic race in Attica, by the statement that the colonists were led by Neleus and Androclus, sons of Codrus, the last king of Athens. In accordance with this view the “Ionic migration,” as it was called by later chronologers, was dated by them one hundred and forty years after the Trojan war, or sixty years after the return of the Heraclidae into the Peloponnese. Without assigning any definite date, we may say that recent research has tended to support the popular Greek idea that Ionia received its main Greek element rather late—after the descent of the Dorians, and, therefore, after any part of the Aegean period. The only Aegean objects yet found (1910) in or near Ionia are some sherds of the very latest Minoan age at Miletus. It is not probable that all the Greek colonists were of the not numerous Ionian race. Herodotus tells us (i. 146) that they comprised settlers from many different tribes and cities of Greece (a fact indicated also by the local traditions of the cities), and that they intermarried with the native races. A striking proof of this was the fact that so late as the time of the historian distinct dialects were spoken by the inhabitants of different cities within the limits of so restricted an area. E. Curtius supposed that the population of this part of Asia was aboriginally of Ionic race and that the settlers from Greece found the country in the possession of a kindred people. The last contention is probably true; but the kinship was certainly more distant than that between two branches of one Ionian stock.

The cities called Ionian in historical times were twelve in number,—an arrangement copied as it was supposed from the constitution of the Ionian cities in Greece which had originally occupied the territory in the north of the Peloponnese subsequently held by the Achaeans. These were (from south to north)—Miletus, Myus, Priene, Ephesus, Colophon, Lebedus, Teos, Erythrae, Clazomenae and Phocaea, together with Samos and Chios. Smyrna (q.v.), originally an Aeolic colony, was afterwards occupied by Ionians from Colophon, and became an Ionian city,—an event which had taken place before the time of Herodotus. But at what period it was admitted as a member of the league we have no information. The cities above enumerated unquestionably formed a kind of league, of which participation in the Pan-Ionic festival was the distinguishing characteristic. This festival took place on the north slope of Mt. Mycale in a shrine called the Panionium. But like the Amphictyonic league in Greece, the Ionic was rather of a sacred than a political character; every city enjoyed absolute autonomy, and, though common interests often united them for a common political object, they never formed a real confederacy like that of the Achaeans or Boeotians. The advice of Thales of Miletus to combine in a political union was rejected.

Ionia was of small extent, not exceeding 90 geographical miles in length from N. to S., with a breadth varying from 20 to 30 m., but to this must be added the peninsula of Mimas, together with the two large islands. So intricate is the coastline that the voyage along its shores was estimated at nearly four times the direct distance. A great part of this area was, moreover, occupied by mountains. Of these the most lofty and striking were Mimas and Corycus, in the peninsula which stands out to the west, facing the island of Chios; Sipylus, to the north of Smyrna; Corax, extending to the south-west from the Gulf of Smyrna, and descending to the sea between Lebedus and Teos; and the strongly marked range of Mycale, a continuation of Messogis in the interior, which forms the bold headland of Trogilium or Mycale, opposite Samos. None of these mountains attains a height of more than 4000 ft. The districtcomprised three extremely fertile valleys formed by the outflow of three rivers, among the most considerable in Asia Minor: the Hermus in the north, flowing into the Gulf of Smyrna, though at some distance from the city of that name; the Caÿster, which flowed under the walls of Ephesus; and the Maeander, which in ancient times discharged its waters into the deep gulf that once bathed the walls of Miletus, but which has been gradually filled up by this river’s deposits. With the advantage of a peculiarly fine climate, for which this part of Asia Minor has been famous in all ages, Ionia enjoyed the reputation in ancient times of being the most fertile of all the rich provinces of Asia Minor; and even in modern times, though very imperfectly cultivated, it produces abundance of fruit of all kinds, and the raisins and figs of Smyrna supply almost all the markets of Europe.

The colonies naturally became prosperous. Miletus especially was at an early period one of the most important commercial cities of Greece; and in its turn became the parent of numerous other colonies, which extended all around the shores of the Euxine and the Propontis from Abydus and Cyzicus to Trapezus and Panticapaeum. Phocaea was one of the first Greek cities whose mariners explored the shores of the western Mediterranean. Ephesus, though it did not send out any colonies of importance, from an early period became a flourishing city and attained to a position corresponding in some measure to that of Smyrna at the present day.

History.—The first event in the history of Ionia of which we have any trustworthy account is the inroad of the Cimmerii (seeScythia), who ravaged a great part of Asia Minor, including Lydia, and sacked Magnesia on the Maeander, but were foiled in their attack upon Ephesus. This event may be referred to the middle of the 7th centuryB.C.About 700B.C.Gyges, first Mermnad king of Lydia, invaded the territories of Smyrna and Miletus, and is said to have taken Colophon as his son Ardys did Priene. But it was not till the reign of Croesus (560-545B.C.) that the cities of Ionia successively fell under Lydian rule. The defeat of Croesus by Cyrus was followed by the conquest of all the Ionian cities. These became subject to the Persian monarchy with the other Greek cities of Asia. In this position they enjoyed a considerable amount of autonomy, but were for the most part subject to local despots, most of whom were creatures of the Persian king. It was at the instigation of one of these despots, Histiaeus (q.v.) of Miletus, that in about 500B.C.the principal cities broke out into insurrection against Persia. They were at first assisted by the Athenians, with whose aid they penetrated into the interior and burnt Sardis, an event which ultimately led to the Persian invasion of Greece. But the fleet of the Ionians was defeated off the island of Lade, and the destruction of Miletus after a protracted siege was followed by the reconquest of all the Asiatic Greeks, insular as well as continental.The victories of the Greeks during the great Persian war had the effect of enfranchizing their kinsmen on the other side of the Aegean; and the battle of Mycale (479B.C.), in which the defeat of the Persians was in great measure owing to the Ionians, secured their emancipation. They henceforth became the dependent allies of Athens (seeDelian League), though still retaining their autonomy, which they preserved until the peace of Antalcidas in 387B.C.once more placed them as well as the other Greek cities in Asia under the nominal dominion of Persia. They appear, however, to have retained a considerable amount of freedom until the invasion of Asia Minor by Alexander the Great. After the battle of the Granicus most of the Ionian cities submitted to the conqueror. Miletus, which alone held out, was reduced after a long siege (334B.C.). From this time they passed under the dominion of the successive Macedonian rulers of Asia, but continued, with the exception of Miletus (q.v.), to enjoy great prosperity both under these Greek dynasties and after they became part of the Roman province of Asia.

The victories of the Greeks during the great Persian war had the effect of enfranchizing their kinsmen on the other side of the Aegean; and the battle of Mycale (479B.C.), in which the defeat of the Persians was in great measure owing to the Ionians, secured their emancipation. They henceforth became the dependent allies of Athens (seeDelian League), though still retaining their autonomy, which they preserved until the peace of Antalcidas in 387B.C.once more placed them as well as the other Greek cities in Asia under the nominal dominion of Persia. They appear, however, to have retained a considerable amount of freedom until the invasion of Asia Minor by Alexander the Great. After the battle of the Granicus most of the Ionian cities submitted to the conqueror. Miletus, which alone held out, was reduced after a long siege (334B.C.). From this time they passed under the dominion of the successive Macedonian rulers of Asia, but continued, with the exception of Miletus (q.v.), to enjoy great prosperity both under these Greek dynasties and after they became part of the Roman province of Asia.

Ionia has laid the world under its debt not only by giving birth to a long roll of distinguished men of letters and science (seeIonian School of Philosophy), but by originating the distinct school of art which prepared the way for the brilliant artistic development of Athens in the 5th century. This school flourished in the 8th, 7th and 6th centuries, and is distinguished by the fineness of workmanship and minuteness of detail with which it treated subjects, inspired always to some extent by non-Greek models. Naturalism is progressively obvious in its treatment,e.g.of the human figure, but to the end it is still subservient to convention. It has been thought that the Ionian migration from Greece carried with it some part of a population which retained the artistic traditions of the “Mycenaean” civilization, and so caused the birth of the Ionic school; but whether this was so or not, it is certain that from the 8th century onwards we find the true spirit of Hellenic art, stimulated by commercial intercourse with eastern civilizations, working out its development chiefly in Ionia and its neighbouring isles. The great names of this school are Theodorus and Rhoecus of Samos; Bathycles of Magnesia on the Maeander; Glaucus, Melas, Micciades, Archermus, Bupalus and Athenis of Chios. Notable works of the school still extant are the famous archaic female statues found on the Athenian Acropolis in 1885-1887, the seated statues of Branchidae, the Nikē of Archermus found at Delos, and the objects in ivory and electrum found by D. G. Hogarth in the lower strata of the Artemision at Ephesus in 1904-1905 (seeGreek Art).

Bibliography.—Beside general authorities underAsia Minorsee especially F. Beaufort,Ionian Antiquities(1811); R. Chandler, &c.,Ionian Antiquities(1769 ff.); Histories of Greek Sculpture by A. S. Murray, M. Collignon and E. A. Gardner, and special works cited under particular cities; E. Curtius,Die Ionier vor der ionischen Wanderung(1855); D. G. Hogarth,Ionia and the East(1909), with map.

(E. H. B.; D. G. H.)

IONIA,a city and the county-seat of Ionia county, Michigan, U.S.A., on the Grand river, about 34 m. E. of Grand Rapids. Pop. (1904) 5222; (1910) 5030. It is served by the Grand Trunk and the Père Marquette railways. The greater part of the city is built on the bottom-lands of the valley within an area 2 m. in length and 1 m. in width, but some of the finest residences stand on the hills, which form an irregular semicircle behind the city, and command extensive views of the valley. Much of the building material is a brown sandstone obtained from quarries only 3 m. distant; white clay, also, is found in the vicinity. The city is a trade centre for a rich farming district, has car-shops (of the Père Marquette railway) and iron foundries, and manufactures wagons, pottery, furniture and clothing. The waterworks are owned and operated by the municipality. Ionia was settled in 1833 by immigrants from German Flats, near Herkimer, New York. It was incorporated as a village in 1857, but the charter was allowed to lapse; it was again incorporated as a village in 1865, and was chartered as a city in 1873.

IONIAN ISLANDS,the collective name for the Greek islands of Corfu, Cephalonia, Zante, Santa Maura, Ithaca, Cythera (Cerigo) and Paxo, with their minor dependencies. These seven islands (for details of which see their separate headings) are often described also as theHeptanesus(“Seven Islands”), but they have no real geographical unity. The history of the name “Ionian” in this connexion is obscure, but it is probably due to ancient settlements of Ionian colonists on the coasts and islands. The political unity of the seven islands is of comparatively modern date; their independence as a separate state lasted only seven years (1800-1807). To a certain extent they have passed under the same succession of influences; they have been subjected to the same invasions, and have received accessions to their populations from the same currents of migration or conquest. But even what may be considered as common experiences have affected the individual islands in different ways; in the matter of population, for instance, Corfu has undergone much more important modifications than Ithaca.

The Ionian islands consist almost entirely of Cretaceous and Tertiary beds, but in Corfu Jurassic deposits belonging to various horizons have also been found. The oldest beds which have yet been recognized are shales and hornstones with Liassic fossils. These are overlaid conformably by a thick series of platy limestones, known as the Vigläs limestone, which appears to represent the rest of the Jurassic system and also the lower part of the Cretaceous. Then follows a mass of dolomite and unbedded limestones containingHippuritesand evidently of Upper Cretaceous age. The Eocene beds are folded with the Cretaceous, and in many places the two formations have not yet been separately distinguished. Both occasionally assume the form of Flysch. Miocene beds are found in Corfu and Zante, and Pliocene deposits cover much of the low-lying ground.

History.—The beginning of Heptanesian history may be said to date from the 9th century. Leo the Philosopher (aboutA.D.890) formed all or most of the islands into a distinct province under the title of the Thema of Cephallenia, and in this conditionthey belonged to the Eastern empire after Italy had been divided into various states, but this political or administrative unity could not last long in the case of islands exposed by their situation to opposite currents of conquest. Robert Guiscard, having captured Corfu (1081) and Cephalonia, might have become the founder of a Norman dynasty in the islands but for his early death at Cassopo. Amid the struggles between Greek emperors and Western crusaders during the 12th century, Corfu, Cephalonia, Zante, &c., emerge from time to time; but it was not till the Latin empire was established at Constantinople in 1204 that the Venetians, who were destined to give the Ionian Islands their place in history, obtained possession of Corfu. They were afterwards robbed of the island by Leon Vetrano, a famous Genoese corsair; but he was soon defeated and put to death, and the senate, to secure their position, granted fiefs in Corfu to ten noble families in order that they might colonize it (1206). The conquest of Cephalonia and Zante followed, and we find five counts of the family of Tocco holding Cephalonia, and probably Zante as well as Santa Maura, as tributary to the republic. But the footing thus gained by the Venetians was not maintained, and through the closing part of the 13th and most of the 14th century the islands were a prey by turns to corsairs and to Greek and Neapolitan claimants. In 1386, however, the people of Corfu made voluntary submission to the Venetian republic which had now risen to be the first maritime power in the Mediterranean. In 1485 Zante was purchased from the Turks in a very depopulated condition; and in 1499 Cephalonia was captured from the same masters; but Santa Maura, though frequently occupied for a time, was not finally attached to Venice till 1684, and Cerigo was not taken till 1717.

The Venetians, who exacted heavy contributions from the islands, won the adherence of the principal native families by the bestowal of titles and appointments; the Roman Catholic Church was established, and theVenetian and French rule.Italian and Greek races were largely assimilated by intermarriage; Greek ceased to be spoken except by the lower classes, which remained faithful to the Orthodox communion. On the fall of the Venetian republic in 1797 the treaty of Campo Formio, which gave Venice to Austria, annexed the Ionian Islands to France; but a Russo-Turkish force drove out the French at the close of 1798; and in the spring of 1799 Corfu capitulated. By treaty with the Porte in 1800, the emperor Paul erected the “Septinsular Republic,” but anarchy and confusion followed till a secret article in the treaty of Tilsit, in 1807, declared the Islands an integral part of the French empire. They were incorporated with the province of Illyria, and in this condition they remained till the decline of the French power. The British forces, under General Oswald, took Zante, Cephalonia and Cerigo in 1809, and Santa Maura in 1810; Colonel (afterwards Sir Richard) Church (q.v.), reduced Paxo in 1814; and after the abdication of Napoleon, Corfu, which had been well defended by General Donzelot, was, by order of Louis XVIII., surrendered to Sir James Campbell. By the treaty of Paris (9th November 1815) the contracting powers—Great Britain, Russia, Austria and Prussia—agreed to place the “United States of the Ionian Islands” under the exclusive protection of Great Britain, and to give Austria the right of equal commercial advantage with the protecting country, a plan strongly approved by Count Capo d’Istria, the famous Corfiot noble who afterwards became president of the new republic of Greece.

The terms of the treaty of Paris were not only of indefinite import but were susceptible of contradictory interpretations. And instead of interpreting the other articles in harmony with the first, which declared the islands one “soleBritish Protectorate.free and independent state,” the protecting Power availed itself of every ambiguity to extend its authority. The first lord high commissioner, Sir Thomas Maitland, who as governor of Malta had acquired the sobriquet of “King Tom,” was not the man to foster the constitutional liberty of an infant state. The treaty required, with questionable wisdom, that a constitution should be established, and this was accordingly done; but its practical value was trifling. The constitution, voted by a constituent assembly in 1817 and applied in the following year, placed the administration in the hands of a senate of six members and a legislative assembly of forty members; but the real authority was vested in the high commissioner, who was able directly to prevent anything, and indirectly to effect almost anything. Sir Thomas Maitland was not slow to exercise the control thus permitted him, though on the whole he did so for the benefit of the islands. The construction of roads, the abolition of direct taxes and of the system of farming the church lands, the securing of impartial administration of justice, and the establishment of educational institutions are among the services ascribed to his efforts. These, however, made less impression on the Heptanesians than his despotic character and the measures which he took to prevent them giving assistance in the Greek war of independence in 1821. He was succeeded in 1823 by General Sir Frederick Adam, who in the main carried out the same policy. Under his government the new fortifications of Corfu and some of the most important public works which still do honour to the English protectorate were undertaken. Lord Nugent, who became high commissioner in 1832, was followed by Sir Howard Douglas (1835-1841), who ruled with a firm, too often with a high hand; and he was met by continual intrigues, the principal exponent of the opposition being the famous Andreas Mustoxidi (d. 1861). A complete change of policy was inaugurated by Mr Mackenzie (1841-1843), and his successor Lord Seaton (1843-1849) was induced by the European disturbances of 1848 to initiate a number of important reforms. But the party which wished for union with Greece was rapidly growing in vigour and voice. Serious insurrections of the peasantry, especially in Cephalonia, had to be put down by military force, and the parliament passed a resolution in favour of immediate union with Greece. The hopes of the unionists were roused by the appointment of W. E. Gladstone as high commissioner extraordinary to investigate the condition of the islands. From his known sympathy with Greek independence, it was their expectation that he would support their pretensions. But after a tour through the principal islands Gladstone came to the conclusion that the abolition of the protectorate was not the wish of the mass of the people. For a few days in 1859 he held office as lord high commissioner, and in that capacity he proposed for the consideration of the assembly a series of reforms. These reforms were, however, declared inadmissible by the assembly; and Sir Henry Storks, who succeeded Gladstone in February 1859, began his rule by a prorogation. The contest continued between the assembly and the protectorate. The British government was slow to realize the true position of affairs: as late as May 1861 Gladstone spoke of the cession of the islands as “a crime against the safety of Europe,” and Sir Henry Storks continued to report of tranquillity and contentment. The assembly of 1862 accused the high commissioner of violation of the constitution and of the treaty of Paris, and complained that England remained in ignorance of what took place in the islands.

On the abdication of King Otho of Greece in 1862 the Greek people by universal suffrage voted Prince Alfred of England to the throne, and when he declined to accept the crown England was asked to name a successor. TheCession to Greece.candidate proposed was Prince William George of Glücksburg, brother of the princess of Wales; and the British government declared to the provisional government of Greece that his selection would be followed by the long-refused cession of the Ionian Islands. After the prince’s election by the national assembly in 1863 the high commissioner laid before the Ionian parliament the conditions on which the cession would be carried out. The rejection of one of those conditions—the demolition of the fortifications of Corfu—led to a new prorogation; but none the less (on March 29, 1864) the plenipotentiaries of the five great powers signed the treaty by which the protectorate was brought to a close. The neutrality which they attributed to the whole of the islands was (January 1864) confined to Corfu and Paxo. On May 31st of that year Sir Henry Storks left Corfu withthe English troops and men-of-war. King George made his entry into Corfu on the 6th of June.

Since their annexation to Greece the history of the Ionian islands has been uneventful; owing to various causes their prosperity has somewhat declined. Corfu (Corcyra) with Paxo; Cephalonia; Santa Maura (Levkas) with Thiaki (Ithaca) and Zante (Zacynthos) each form separate nomarchies or departments; Cerigo (Cýthera) forms part of the nomarchy of Laconia. The islands retain the exemption from direct taxation which they enjoyed under the British protectorate; in lieu of this there is anad valoremtax of 20½% on exported oil and a tax of 6% on wine exported to Greek ports; these commodities are further liable to an export duty of 1½% which is levied on all agricultural produce and articles of local manufacture for the maintenance and construction of roads. The excellent roads, which date from the British administration, are kept in fair repair.

See Mustoxidi,Delle cose Corciresi(Corfu, 1848). Lunzi,Περὶ τῆς πολιτικῆς καταστάσεως τῆς Ἑπτανησοῦ ἐπὶ Ἑνετῶν(Athens, 1856): Ansted,The I. I.(London, 1863); Viscount Kirkwall,Four Years in the I. I.(London, 1864) vol. i. containing a chronological history of the British protectorate; F Lenormant,La Grèce et les îles ioniennes(Paris, 1865); P. Chiotis,Hist. des îles ioniennes(Zante, 1815-1864); Mardo,Saggio di una descrizione geografico-storica delle Isole(Corfu, 1865) (mainly geographical); De Bosset,Description des monnaies d’Ithaque et de Céphalonie(London, 1815); Postolakas,Κατάλογος τῶν ἀρχαίων νομισμάτων τῶν νήσων Κέρκυρας, Λευκάδος, &c. (Athens, 1868), Wiebel,Die Insel Kephalonia und die Meermühlen von Argostoli(Hamburg, 1873); Tsitselis,Γλωσσαρίον Κεφαλληνίας, (Athens, 1876);Ὀνόματα θέσεων ἐν Κεφαλληνίᾳin the “Parnassus” i. 9-12 (Athens, 1877); Riemann, “Recherches archéologiques sur les Îles ioniennes” inBibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome(Paris, 1879-1880); Gregorovius,Corfu: eine ionische Idylle(Leipzig, 1882); J. Partsch,Die Insel Corfu: eine geographische Monographie(Gotha, 1887);Die Insel Levkas(Gotha, 1889);Kephallenia und Ithaka(Gotha, 1890);Die Insel Zante(Gotha, 1891).

(J. D. B.)

IONIANS,the name given by the Greeks to one of the principal divisions of the Hellenic peoples. In historic times it was applied to the inhabitants of (1) Attica, where some believed the Ionians to have originated; (2) parts of Euboea; (3) the Cycladic islands, except Melos and Thera; (4) a section of the west coast of Asia Minor, from the gulf of Smyrna to that of Iasus (seeIonia); (5) colonies from any of the foregoing, notably in Thrace, Propontis and Pontus in the west, and in Egypt (Naucratis, Daphnae); some authorities have found traces of an ancient Ionian population in (6) north-eastern Peloponnese. The meaning and derivation of the name are not known. It occurs in two forms,ἸάϝονεςandἼωνες(compareΧάονεςandΧῶνεςin Epirus)—not counting the nameἸόνιοςapplied to the open sea west of Greece. In the traditional genealogy of the Hellenes, Ion, the ancestor of the Ionians, is brother of Achaeus and son of Xuthus (who held Peloponnese after the dispersal of the children of Hellen). But this genealogy, though it is attributed to Hesiod, is apparently post-Homeric; and it is clear that the Ionian name had independent and varied uses and meanings in very early times. In Homer the wordἸάϝονεςoccurs as a name of inhabitants of Attica, with the epithetἑλκεχίτωνες(Il.xiii. 685 = “trail-vest”), describing some point of costume, and later regarded as imputing effeminacy. The HomericHymn to Apollo of Delos(7th century) describes an Ionian population in the Cyclades with a loose religious league about the Delian sanctuary.

The same wordἸάϝων(Javan) appears in Hebrew literature of the 8th and 7th centuries, to denote one group of the “Japhetic” peoples of Asia Minor, Cyprus and perhaps Rhodes: “by these were the isles of the nations divided, in their lands, every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations,” a comprehensive expression for the island-strewn regions farther west (Gen. x. 10). In Ezek. xxvii. 13, 19,Javantrades with Tyre in slaves, bronze-work, iron and drugs. Later allusions show that on Semitic lipsJavanmeant western traders in general. In PersianYaunawas the generic term for Greeks.1

The earliest explicit Greek account of the Ionians is given in the 5th century by Herodotus (i. 45, 56, 143-145, v. 66, vii. 94, viii. 44-46). The “children of Ion” originated in north-eastern Peloponnese; and traces of them remained in Troezen and Cynuria. Expelled by the Achaeans (who seem to have entered Peloponnese about four generations before the Dorian Invasion) they invaded and dominated Attica; and about the time of the Dorian Invasion took the lead under the Attic branch of the Neleids of Pylus (Hdt. i. 147, v. 65) in the colonization of the Cyclades and of Asiatic Ionia, which in Homer is still “Carian.” Many of the colonists, however, were not Ionians, but refugees from other parts of Greece, between Euboea and Argolis (Hdt. i. 146); others looked on Attica as their first home, though the true Ionians were intruders there. The Pan-Ionian sanctuary of Poseidon on the Asiatic promontory of Mycale was regarded as perpetuating a cult from Peloponnesian Achaea, and the league of twelve cities which maintained it, as imitated from an Achaean dodecapolis, and as claiming (absurdly, according to Herodotus i. 143) purer descent than other Ionians.

In Herodotus’s account of the first Greek intercourse with Egypt (about 664 B C.) he describes “Ionian and Carian” adventurers and mercenaries in the Delta. Later the commoner antithesis is between Ionian and Dorian, first (probably) in the colonial regions of Asia Minor, and later more universally.

In the 5th century the name “Ionian” was already falling into discredit. Causes of this were (1) the peace-loving luxury (born of commercial wealth and contact with Oriental life) of the great Ionian cities of Asia; (2) the tameness with which they submitted first to Lydia and to Persia, then to Athenian pretensions, then to Sparta, and finally to Persia again; (3) the decadence and downfall of Athens, which still counted as Ionian and had claimed (since Solon’s time) seniority among “Ionian” states. In the later 4th century the name survives only (a) as a geographical expression for part of the coast of Asia Minor, (b) in European Greece as the name of that section of the Northern Amphictyony in which Athens and its colonies were reckoned.

The traditional history of Asiatic Ionia is generally accepted, and in its broad outlines is probably well founded. Common to all groups of Ionians in the Aegean is a dialect of Greek which has η for α (in Attic only partially) and (in Asiatic Ionian especially) κ for π in certain words. Herodotus states that there were four distinct dialects in Asiatic Ionia itself (i. 142) and the dialect of Attica differed widely from all other forms of Ionic. Earlier phases of Ionic forms are dominant in the language of Homer. Most Ionian states exhibit also traces of the fourfold tribal divisions named after the “children of Ion”; but additional tribes occur locally. (Hdt. v. 66, 69.) All reputed colonies from Attica (except Ephesus and Colophon) kept also the feast of Apaturia; and many worshipped Apollo Patrous as the reputed father of Ion. The few observations hitherto made on the sites of Ionian cities indicate continuity of settlement and culture as far back as the latest phases of the Mycenaean (Late Minoan III.) Age and not farther, supporting thus far the traditional foundation dates.

The theory of E. Curtius (1856-1890) that the Ionians originated in Asia Minor and spread thence through the Cyclades to Euboea and Attica deserts ancient tradition on linguistic and ethnological grounds of doubtful value. Ad. Holm supports it (Gesch. Gr., Berlin, 1886, i. 86), but A. von Gutschmid (Beitr. z. Gesch. d. alten Orients, Leipzig, 1856, 124 ff.) and E. Meyer (PhilologusNF. 2, 1889, p. 268 ff.; NF. 3, 1890, p. 479 ff.) follow Herodotus with qualifications. J. B. Bury (Eng. Hist. Rev.xv. 228), though he regards the Ionian peoples as of European origin, thinks that they may have got their name from some part of the Asiatic coast. Ionian culture and art, though little known in their earlier phases, derive their inspiration on the one side from those of the old Aegean (Minoan) civilization, on the other from the Oriental (mainly Assyrian) models which penetrated to the coast through the Hittite civilization of Asia Minor. Egyptian influence is almost absent until the time of Psammetichus, but then becomes predominant for a while. Local andregional peculiarities, however, disappear almost wholly in the 5th and 4th centuries, under the overpowering influence of Athens.

Authorities.—Besides the sections onIoniansin the general histories of Greece and the references given in G. Busolt,Griechische Geschichte, i. (2nd ed., Gotha, 1893), pp. 262, 277 ff., see E. Curtius,Die Ionier vor der ionischen Wanderung(Berlin, 1855), and papers inGott. Gel. Anz.(1856), p. 1152 f. and (1859), p. 2021 f.;Jahrb. f. kl. Philol.83 (1860), p. 449 f.;Hermes25 (1890), p. 141 f.; A. von Gutschmid,Beiträge z. Gesch. d. alten Orients(Leipzig, 1856), p. 124 ff.; E. Meyer,Philologus47 (NF. 2, 1889), p. 268 ff. and 49 (NF. 3, 1890), p. 479 ff.; V. Boehlau,Aus ionischen und äolischen Necropolen(Cassel, 1897); H. W. Smyth,The Ionic Dialect(1889). P. Cauer, “De dialecto attica vetustiore quaestiones epigraphicae,” in G. Curtius,Studien z. gr. u. lat. Gramm.8 (1875), p. 223, 399; Karsten,De titulorum Ionicorum dialecto(Halle, 1882); F. Bechtel,Die Inschriften des ion. Dialekts(Göttingen, 1877). For the political history of the Ionian Greeks seeGreece:History, andIonia; for the special history and characteristics of individual Ionian cities, the respective names.

(J. L. M.)

1Yunānis still a popular synonym forOroum, a Greek, among the Arabs; in IndiaYavanawas long the generic name for all foreigners from the north and west, a use dating probably from Alexander’s day and the Graeco-Bactrian monarchs.

IONIAN SCHOOL OF PHILOSOPHY.Under this name are included a number of philosophers of the 6th and 5th centuriesB.C.Mainly Ionians by birth, they are united by a local tie and represent all that was best in the early Ionian intellect. It is a most interesting fact in the history of Greek thought that its birth took place not in Greece but in the colonies on the Eastern shores of the Aegean Sea. But not only geographically do these philosophers form a school; they are one in method and aim. They all sought to explain the material universe as given in sensible perception; their explanation was in terms of matter, movement, force. In this they differed from the Eleatics and the Pythagoreans who thought in the abstract, and explained knowledge and existence in metaphysical terminology. In tracing the development of their ideas, two periods may be distinguished. The earliest thinkers down to Heraclitus endeavoured to find a material substance of which all things consist; Heraclitus, by his principle of universal flux, took a new line and explained everything in terms of force, movement, dynamic energy. The former asked the question, “What is the substratum of the things we see?”; the latter, “How did the sensible world become what it is; of what nature was the motive force?”

The first name in the list of the Ionian philosophers—and, indeed, in the history of European thought—is that of Thales (q.v.). He first, so far as we know, sought to go behind the infinite multiplicity of phenomena in the hope of finding an infinite unity from which all difference has been evolved. This unity he decided is Water (πάντα ὔδωρ ἐστίν). It is impossible to discover precisely what he conceived to be the relation of this unity to the plurality of phenomena. Later writers from whom we derive our knowledge of Thales attributed to him ideas which seem to have been conceived by subsequent thinkers. Thus the suggestion preserved by Stobaeus that he conceived water to be endowed with mind is discredited by the specific statement of Aristotle that the earlier physicists (physiologi) did not distinguish the material from the moving cause, and that before Anaxagoras no one postulated creative intelligence. Again in theDe anima(i. 5) Aristotle quotes the statement that Thales attributed to water a divine intelligence, and criticizes it as an inference from later speculations. It is probably safest to credit Thales with the bare mechanical conception of a universal material cause, leaving pantheistic ideas to a later period of thought.The successors of Thales were Anaximander and Anaximenes, who also sought for a primal substance of things. Anaximander postulated a corporeal substance intermediate between air and fire on the one hand, and between earth and water on the other hand. This substance he called “the Infinite” (τὸ ἄπειρον). Unlike Thales, he was struck by the infinite variety in things; he felt that all differences are finite, that they have emerged from primal unity (first calledἄρχηby him) into which they must ultimately return, that the Infinite One has been, is, and always will be, the same, indeterminate but immutable. Change, growth and decay he explained on the principle of mechanical compensation (διδόναι γὰρ αὐτὰ τίσιν καὶ δίκην τῆς ἀδικίας).Anaximenes, pupil of Anaximander, seems to have rebelled against the extreme materialism of his master. Perceiving that air is necessary to life, that the universe is surrounded by air, he was convinced that out of air all things have resulted. The process by which things grow is twofold, condensation (πύκνωσις) and rarefaction (ἀραίωσις), or, in other words,heatandcold. From the former process result cloud, water and stone; from the latter, fire and aether. This theory is closely allied to that of Thales, but it is superior in that it specifies the processes of change. Further, it is difficult not to accept Cicero’s statement that Anaximenes made air a conscious deity; we are, at all events, justified in regarding Anaximenes as a link (perhaps an unconscious link) between crude Hylozoism (q.v.) and definitely metaphysical theories of existence.We have seen that Thales recognized change, but attempted no explanation; that Anaximander spoke of change in two directions; that Anaximenes called these two directions by specific names. From this last, the transition to the doctrine of Heraclitus is easy. He felt that change is the essential fact of experience and pointed out that any merely physical explanation of plurality is inherently impossible. The Many is of Sense; Unity is of Thought. Being is intelligible only in terms of Becoming. That which is, is what it is in virtue of its perpetually changing relations (πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει). By this recognition of the necessary correlation of Being and Not-being, Heraclitus is in a very real sense the father of metaphysical and scientific speculation, and in him the Ionian school of philosophy reached its highest point. Yet there is reason to doubt the view of Hegel and Lassalle that Heraclitus recognized the fundamental distinction of subject and object and the relations of mind and matter. Like the early Ionians he postulated a primary substance, fire, out of which all things have emerged and into which all must return. This elemental fire is in itself a divine rational process, the harmony of which constitutes the law of the universe. Human knowledge consists in the comprehension of this all-pervading harmony as embodied in the manifold of perception; the senses are “bad witnesses” in that they report multiplicity as fixed and existent in itself rather than in its relation to the One. This theory gives birth to a sort of ethical by-product whose dominant note is Harmony, the subordination of the individual to the universal reason; moral failure is proportionate to the degree in which the individual declines to recognize his personal transience in relation to the eternal Unity. From the same principle there follows the doctrine of Immortality. The individual, like the phenomena of sense, comes out of the infinite and again is merged; hence on the one hand he is never a separate entity at all, while on the other hand he exists in the infinite and must continue to exist. Moreover, the soul approaches most nearly to perfection when it is least differentiated from elemental fire; it follows that “while we live our souls are dead within us, but when we die our souls are restored to life.” This doctrine is at once the assertion and the denial of the self, and furnishes a striking parallel between European thought in its earliest stages and the fundamental principles of Buddhism. Knowledge of the self is one with knowledge of the Universal Logos (Reason); such knowledge is the basis not only of conduct but of existence itself in its only real sense.Thus far the Ionian philosophers had held the field of thought. Each succeeding thinker had more or less assumed the methods of Thales, and had approached the problem of existence from the empirical side. About the time of Heraclitus, however, there sprang up a totally new philosophical spirit. Parmenides and Zeno (see Eleatic School) enunciated the principle that “Nothing is born of nothing.” Hence the problem becomes a dialectical a priori speculation wherein the laws of thought transcend the sense-given data of experience. It was therefore left for the later Ionians to frame an eclectic system, a synthesis of Being and Not-being, a correlation of universal mobility and absolute permanence. This examination of diametrically opposed tendencies resulted in several different theories. It will be sufficient here to deal with Anaxagoras, Diogenes of Apollonia, Archelaus and Hippo, leaving Empedocles, Leucippus and Democritus to special articles (q.v.). The latter three do not belong strictly to the Ionian School.Anaxagoras (q.v.) elaborated a quasi-dualistic theory according to which all things have existed from the beginning. Originally they existed in infinitesimal fragments, infinite in number and devoid of arrangement. Amongst these fragments were the seeds of all things which have since emerged by the process of aggregation and segregation, wherein homogeneous fragments came together. These processes are the work of Nous (νοῦς) which governs and arranges. But this Nous, or Mind, is not incorporeal; it is the thinnest of all things; its action on the particle is conceived materially. It originated a rotatory movement, which arising in one point gradually extended till the whole was in motion, which motion continues and will continue infinitely. By this motion things are gradually constructed not entirely of homogeneous particles (the homoeomerê,ὁμοιομερῆ) but in each thing with a majority of a certain kind of particle. It is this aggregation which we describe variously as birth, death, maturity, decay, and of which the senses give inaccurate reports. His vague dualism works a very distinct advance upon the crude hylozoism of the early Ionians (seeAtom), and the criticisms of Plato and Aristotle show how highly his work was esteemed. The great danger is that we should credit him with more than he actually thought. HisNouswas not a spiritual force; it was no omnipotent deity; it is not a pantheistic world-soul. But by isolating Reason from all other growths, by representing it as the motor-energy of the Cosmos, in popularizing a term which suggested personality and will, Anaxagoras gave an impetus to ideas which were the basis of Aristotelian philosophy in Greece and in Europe at large.In Diogenes of Apollonia we find a return to Anaximenes. Diogenes (q.v.) began by insisting on the necessity of there being only one principle of things, herein contradicting the pluralism of Heraclitus. This principle is that of the universal homogeneity of nature; allthings are at bottom the same, or interaction would be impossible (πάντα τὰ ἔοντα ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἑτεροιοῦσθαι καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ εἶναι). This universal substance is Air. But Diogenes went much farther than Anaximenes by attributing to air not only infinity and eternity but also intelligence. This Intelligence alone would have produced the orderly arrangement which we observe in Nature, and is the basis of human thought by the physical process of inhalation.Another pupil of Anaxagoras was Archelaus of Miletus (q.v.). His work was mainly the combination of previous views, except that he is said to have introduced an ethical side into the Ionian philosophy. “Justice and injustice,” he said, “are not natural but legal.” He endeavoured to overcome the dualism of Anaxagoras, and in so doing approached more nearly to the older Ionians.The last of the Ionians whom we need mention is Hippo (q.v.), who, like Archelaus, is intellectually amongst the earlier members of the school. He thought that the source of all things was moisture (τὸ ὑγρόν), and is by Aristotle coupled with Thales (Metaphysics, A 3).Bibliography.—Ritter and Preller, ch. i.; Zeller’sHistory of Greek Philosophy; J. Burnet,Early Greek Philosophy(1892); Fairbanks,The First Philosophers of Greece(1898); Grote,History of Greece, ch. viii.; Windelband,History of Ancient Philosophy(1899); Benn,The Greek Philosophers(1883) andThe Philosophy of Greece(1898); Th. Gomperz,Greek Thinkers(Eng. trans. vol. i., L. Magnus, 1901).

The successors of Thales were Anaximander and Anaximenes, who also sought for a primal substance of things. Anaximander postulated a corporeal substance intermediate between air and fire on the one hand, and between earth and water on the other hand. This substance he called “the Infinite” (τὸ ἄπειρον). Unlike Thales, he was struck by the infinite variety in things; he felt that all differences are finite, that they have emerged from primal unity (first calledἄρχηby him) into which they must ultimately return, that the Infinite One has been, is, and always will be, the same, indeterminate but immutable. Change, growth and decay he explained on the principle of mechanical compensation (διδόναι γὰρ αὐτὰ τίσιν καὶ δίκην τῆς ἀδικίας).

Anaximenes, pupil of Anaximander, seems to have rebelled against the extreme materialism of his master. Perceiving that air is necessary to life, that the universe is surrounded by air, he was convinced that out of air all things have resulted. The process by which things grow is twofold, condensation (πύκνωσις) and rarefaction (ἀραίωσις), or, in other words,heatandcold. From the former process result cloud, water and stone; from the latter, fire and aether. This theory is closely allied to that of Thales, but it is superior in that it specifies the processes of change. Further, it is difficult not to accept Cicero’s statement that Anaximenes made air a conscious deity; we are, at all events, justified in regarding Anaximenes as a link (perhaps an unconscious link) between crude Hylozoism (q.v.) and definitely metaphysical theories of existence.

We have seen that Thales recognized change, but attempted no explanation; that Anaximander spoke of change in two directions; that Anaximenes called these two directions by specific names. From this last, the transition to the doctrine of Heraclitus is easy. He felt that change is the essential fact of experience and pointed out that any merely physical explanation of plurality is inherently impossible. The Many is of Sense; Unity is of Thought. Being is intelligible only in terms of Becoming. That which is, is what it is in virtue of its perpetually changing relations (πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει). By this recognition of the necessary correlation of Being and Not-being, Heraclitus is in a very real sense the father of metaphysical and scientific speculation, and in him the Ionian school of philosophy reached its highest point. Yet there is reason to doubt the view of Hegel and Lassalle that Heraclitus recognized the fundamental distinction of subject and object and the relations of mind and matter. Like the early Ionians he postulated a primary substance, fire, out of which all things have emerged and into which all must return. This elemental fire is in itself a divine rational process, the harmony of which constitutes the law of the universe. Human knowledge consists in the comprehension of this all-pervading harmony as embodied in the manifold of perception; the senses are “bad witnesses” in that they report multiplicity as fixed and existent in itself rather than in its relation to the One. This theory gives birth to a sort of ethical by-product whose dominant note is Harmony, the subordination of the individual to the universal reason; moral failure is proportionate to the degree in which the individual declines to recognize his personal transience in relation to the eternal Unity. From the same principle there follows the doctrine of Immortality. The individual, like the phenomena of sense, comes out of the infinite and again is merged; hence on the one hand he is never a separate entity at all, while on the other hand he exists in the infinite and must continue to exist. Moreover, the soul approaches most nearly to perfection when it is least differentiated from elemental fire; it follows that “while we live our souls are dead within us, but when we die our souls are restored to life.” This doctrine is at once the assertion and the denial of the self, and furnishes a striking parallel between European thought in its earliest stages and the fundamental principles of Buddhism. Knowledge of the self is one with knowledge of the Universal Logos (Reason); such knowledge is the basis not only of conduct but of existence itself in its only real sense.

Thus far the Ionian philosophers had held the field of thought. Each succeeding thinker had more or less assumed the methods of Thales, and had approached the problem of existence from the empirical side. About the time of Heraclitus, however, there sprang up a totally new philosophical spirit. Parmenides and Zeno (see Eleatic School) enunciated the principle that “Nothing is born of nothing.” Hence the problem becomes a dialectical a priori speculation wherein the laws of thought transcend the sense-given data of experience. It was therefore left for the later Ionians to frame an eclectic system, a synthesis of Being and Not-being, a correlation of universal mobility and absolute permanence. This examination of diametrically opposed tendencies resulted in several different theories. It will be sufficient here to deal with Anaxagoras, Diogenes of Apollonia, Archelaus and Hippo, leaving Empedocles, Leucippus and Democritus to special articles (q.v.). The latter three do not belong strictly to the Ionian School.

Anaxagoras (q.v.) elaborated a quasi-dualistic theory according to which all things have existed from the beginning. Originally they existed in infinitesimal fragments, infinite in number and devoid of arrangement. Amongst these fragments were the seeds of all things which have since emerged by the process of aggregation and segregation, wherein homogeneous fragments came together. These processes are the work of Nous (νοῦς) which governs and arranges. But this Nous, or Mind, is not incorporeal; it is the thinnest of all things; its action on the particle is conceived materially. It originated a rotatory movement, which arising in one point gradually extended till the whole was in motion, which motion continues and will continue infinitely. By this motion things are gradually constructed not entirely of homogeneous particles (the homoeomerê,ὁμοιομερῆ) but in each thing with a majority of a certain kind of particle. It is this aggregation which we describe variously as birth, death, maturity, decay, and of which the senses give inaccurate reports. His vague dualism works a very distinct advance upon the crude hylozoism of the early Ionians (seeAtom), and the criticisms of Plato and Aristotle show how highly his work was esteemed. The great danger is that we should credit him with more than he actually thought. HisNouswas not a spiritual force; it was no omnipotent deity; it is not a pantheistic world-soul. But by isolating Reason from all other growths, by representing it as the motor-energy of the Cosmos, in popularizing a term which suggested personality and will, Anaxagoras gave an impetus to ideas which were the basis of Aristotelian philosophy in Greece and in Europe at large.

In Diogenes of Apollonia we find a return to Anaximenes. Diogenes (q.v.) began by insisting on the necessity of there being only one principle of things, herein contradicting the pluralism of Heraclitus. This principle is that of the universal homogeneity of nature; allthings are at bottom the same, or interaction would be impossible (πάντα τὰ ἔοντα ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἑτεροιοῦσθαι καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ εἶναι). This universal substance is Air. But Diogenes went much farther than Anaximenes by attributing to air not only infinity and eternity but also intelligence. This Intelligence alone would have produced the orderly arrangement which we observe in Nature, and is the basis of human thought by the physical process of inhalation.

Another pupil of Anaxagoras was Archelaus of Miletus (q.v.). His work was mainly the combination of previous views, except that he is said to have introduced an ethical side into the Ionian philosophy. “Justice and injustice,” he said, “are not natural but legal.” He endeavoured to overcome the dualism of Anaxagoras, and in so doing approached more nearly to the older Ionians.

The last of the Ionians whom we need mention is Hippo (q.v.), who, like Archelaus, is intellectually amongst the earlier members of the school. He thought that the source of all things was moisture (τὸ ὑγρόν), and is by Aristotle coupled with Thales (Metaphysics, A 3).

Bibliography.—Ritter and Preller, ch. i.; Zeller’sHistory of Greek Philosophy; J. Burnet,Early Greek Philosophy(1892); Fairbanks,The First Philosophers of Greece(1898); Grote,History of Greece, ch. viii.; Windelband,History of Ancient Philosophy(1899); Benn,The Greek Philosophers(1883) andThe Philosophy of Greece(1898); Th. Gomperz,Greek Thinkers(Eng. trans. vol. i., L. Magnus, 1901).

IOPHON,Greek tragic poet, son of Sophocles. He gained the second prize in 428B.C., Euripides being first, and Ion third. He must have been living in 405, the date of the production of theFrogsof Aristophanes, in which he is spoken of as the only good Athenian tragic poet, although it is hinted that he owed much to his father’s assistance. He wrote 50 plays, of which only a few fragments remain. It is said that Iophon accused his father before the court of the phratores of being incapable of managing his affairs, to which Sophocles replied by reading the famous chorus of theOedipus at Colonus(688 ff.), with the result that he was triumphantly acquitted.

Back to Index Next