sian monarch as a
token of what might happen to himself: he repented of his purpose, and
directed that the pile, which had already been kindled, should be
immediately extinguished. But the orders came too late. In spite of the
most zealous efforts of the bystanders, the flame was found
unquenchable, and Croesus would still have been burned, had he not
implored with prayers and tears the succor of Apollo, to whose Delphian
and Theban temples he had given such munificent presents. His prayers
were heard, the fair sky was immediately overcast and a profuse rain
descended, sufficient to extinguish the flames. The life of Croesus was
thus saved, and he became afterward the confidential friend and adviser
of his conqueror.

Such is the brief outline of a narrative which Herodotus has given with
full development and with impressive effect. It would have served as a
show-lecture to the youth of Athens not less admirably than the
well-known fable of the Choice of Heracles, which the philosopher
Prodicus, a junior contemporary of Herodotus, delivered with so much
popularity. It illustrates forcibly the religious and ethical ideas of
antiquity; the deep sense of the jealousy of the gods, who would not
endure pride in any one except themselves; the impossibility, for any
man, of realizing to himself more than a very moderate share of
happiness; the danger from a reactionary Nemesis, if at anytime he had
overpassed such limit; and the necessity of calculations taking in the
whole of life, as a basis for rational comparison of different
individuals. And it embodies, as a practical consequence from these
feelings, the often-repeated protest of moralists against vehement
impulses and unrestrained aspirations. The more valuable this narrative
appears, in its illustrative character, the less can we presume to treat
it as a history.

It is much to be regretted that we have no information respecting events
in Attica immediately after the Solonian laws and constitution, which
were promulgated in B.C. 594, so as to understand better the practical
effect of these changes. What we next hear respecting Solon in Attica
refers to a period immediately preceding the first usurpation of
Pisistratus in B.C. 560, and after the return of Solon from his long
absence. We are here again introduced to the same oligarchical
dissensions as are reported to have prevailed before the Solonian
legislation: the Pediis, or opulent proprietors of the plain round