The following catalogue of the historical works of Professor Heeren, has been sent to the Publisher by the Professor himself. They are uniformly printed in German, in 15 vols. 8vo. and may always be had together or separate of the publisher of this volume.

VOL. I. II. III. Vermischte historische Schriften. (Miscellaneous Historical Pieces).

VOL. I. Einleitung. Biographische Nachrichten über den Verfasser. (Biographical Sketch of Heeren's Life, by himself.)
    1. Entwickelung der politischen Folgen der Reformation für Europa. (Development of the Consequences of the Reformation to the Politics of Europe).
    2. * Versuch einer Entwickelung des Ursprungs und Fortganges der britischen Continental-interesse. (Essay on the Rise and Progress of the British Continental interests). A translation of this Essay will be appended to the Manual of the History of Modern Europe, see vol. viii. ix. below.
    3. Ueber den Einfluss der politischen Theorien auf Europa. (Of the Influence of Political Theories on Europe).

VOL. II. 1. Ueber die Erhaltung der Nationalität besiegter Völker. (On the Method of Preserving the Nationality of Conquered States.) Written in 1810, and suppressed by the French.
    2. Entwickelung der Folgen der Kreuzzüge für Europa. (Development of the Effects of the Crusades upon Europe: An essay which obtained the prize of the French Institute in 1808.
    3. Ueber den Einfluss der Normannen auf die französische Sprache und Poësie. (On the Influence of the Normans on the French Language and Poetry).
    4. Ueber die Colonisation von Ægypten, und ihre Folgen für Europa. (On the Colonisation of Egypt, and its Probable Consequences to Europe).
    5. Der deutsche Bund in seinen Verhaltnisse zu Europa. (The Influence of the German Federation upon Europe).

VOL. III. 1. Ueber den historischen Werth der Biographien Plutarch's. (On the Historical Value of Plutarch's Lives).
    2. Geschichte der bürgerlichen Unruhen der Gracchen. (History of the Civil Commotions under the Gracchi).
    3. Fünf archæologische und antiquarische Aufsätze. (Five Archæological and Antiquarian Tracts).

[Pg viii]

VOL. IV. V. Geschichte der classischen Litteratur im Mittelalter. (History of Classical Literature During the Middle Ages).

VOL. VI. Biographische und litterarische Denkschriften. (Biographical and Literary Memoirs).
    1. Christian Gottlob. Hëyne, biographisch dargestellt. (Biographical Memoir of Heyne), the father-in-law of Heeren.
    2. Andenken an deutsche Historiker. (Memoirs of German Historians.)

VOL. VII. * Handbuch der Geschichte der Staaten des Alterthums. (Manual of Ancient History, of which this volume is the second edition of the English translation).

VOL. VIII. IX. * Handbuch der Geschichte der europäische Staaten-systems und seiner Colonien. (Manual of the History of the European States-system and their Colonies).

VOL. X. * Ideen ueber die Politik, den Verkehr und den Handel des vornehmsten Staaten der alten Welt. (Researches into the Politics, Intercourse, and Trade of the Principal States of Antiquity,—Asiatic Nations). 1. General Introduction; 2. Persians.

VOL. XI. * Ideen, etc. (Asiatic Nations). 1. Phœnicians; 2. Babylonians; 3. Scythians.

VOL. XII. * Ideen, etc. (Asiatic Nations). Indians.

VOL. XIII. * Ideen, etc. (African Nations). 1. Carthaginians; 2. Ethiopians.

VOL. XIV. * Ideen, etc. (African Nations). Egyptians.

VOL. XV. * Ideen, etc. (European Nations). Greeks.

Those with a * prefixed are translated into English, and are either now published or will very shortly be so.

I. The sources of ancient history may be ranged under two heads; the ancient writers, and the monuments still extant. The various writers will be mentioned in their proper places, at the different divisions of this work. A general view of the ancient monuments, so far as they are sources of history, will be found in:

Oberlin, Orbis antiqui monumentis suis illustrati primæ lineæ. Argentorati, 1790. Extremely defective, as many discoveries have been made since it was published.

II. General Treatises on Ancient History.

1. The more voluminous works on the subject. These may be divided in two classes: a. The part appropriated to ancient history, in the general treatises on universal history; b. Works exclusively devoted to ancient history.

a. To the first class belong:

The Universal History, ancient and modern; with maps and additions. Lond. 1736, 26 vols. folio. Reprinted in 8vo. in 67 vols. and again in 60 vols. with omissions and additions.

This work, compiled by a society of British scholars, has been translated into German, and illustrated with remarks, by Siegm. Jac. Baumgarten. Halle, 1746, 4to. The Germans frequently designate it by the name of the Halle Universal History of the World: the first eighteen vols. comprise the ancient part.

Will. Guthrie, John Gray, etc. General History of the World, from the creation to the present time. London, 1764—1767, 12 vols. 8vo. This work, of no estimation in the original, is rendered valuable and useful by the labours of the German translator, C. G. Heyne, (Leip. 1766, 8vo.) who has corrected the errors, inserted the dates, and added his own observations.

b. To the second class belong:

Rollin, Histoire ancienne des Egyptiens, des Carthaginois, des Assyriens, des Mèdes el des Perses, des Macédoniens, des[Pg 2] Grecs. Paris, 1824, 12 vols. 8vo.; revue par Letronne: the last and best edition. This work, which greatly promoted the study of ancient history in France, still maintains its well-earned reputation. [It was translated into English, 1768: best edition, 7 vols. 8vo.: frequently reprinted.] The above is generally accompanied by the Histoire Romaine of the same author. See below, book v. first period, Sources.

Jac. Ben. Bossuet, Discours sur l'Histoire Universelle. Paris, 1680, 3 vols. Frequently reprinted, being considered by the French one of their classics.

[English translation, by Rich. Spencer. London, 1730, 8vo.]

Millot, Elémens de l'Histoire Générale. Paris, 1772, sq. [Translated into English, 1778, 2 vols. 8vo.: and again, an improved edition, with additions.] Edinb. 1823, 6 vols. 8vo. The ancient history is contained in the first two volumes.

†Joh. Matth. Schroeckh, General History of the World, for the use of children. Leipzic, 1779, sq. 6 vols.

†J. G. Eichhorn, History of the Ancient World, 1799, third edition, 1817. (First part of the History of the World.)

†Dan. G. J. Huebler, Sketch of the General History of the Nations of Antiquity, from the birth of states to the end of the Roman commonwealth. Freyberg, 1798—1802. Five parts; and a continuation: History of the Romans under the Emperors, and of the contemporary Nations, until the great migration, 1803; three parts. A work rendered extremely useful, by the judicious advantage taken by the author of the labours of other writers.

†H. Luden, General History of Nations. 1814; three parts.

†L. Von Dresch, General Political History. 1815; three parts. In each of the above works the first part contains the ancient history, and exhibits the more modern views of the subject.

[The following is added, as well deserving the attention of the English student: Ralegh (Sir Walter) History of the World, Part I. extending to the end of the Macedonian Empire; with his Life and Trial, by Mr. Oldys. Lond. 1736, 2 vols. folio. Formerly the best edition; but a new and improved one has been printed at the Clarendon press. Oxford, 1829, 8 vols. 8vo.]

†F. Von Raumer, Lectures on Ancient History, parts 1, 2. Berlin, 1821.

Works furnishing illustrations of the progressive civilization, government, and commerce of early nations, although, strictly speaking, not treatises on ancient history, are nevertheless very[Pg 3] closely connected with the subject. Among these may be mentioned:

Goguet, De l'Origine des Lois, des Arts, et des Sciences, et de leurs progrès chèz les anciens peuples; nouv. édit. Paris, 1778. [Translated by Dr. Dunn and Mr. Speerman. Edinb. 1761—1775, 3 vols. 8vo.]

†A. H. L. Heeren, Reflections on the Politics, Intercourse, and Trade of the most eminent Nations in the Ancient World. Third edition, with many additions. Gottingen, 1815, 8vo.; the third part, 1821. Fourth edition. Gottingen, 1824. [This edition, the last, contains many improvements and additions, suggested by the great discoveries of modern travellers. Part I, Asiatic Nations, in 3 vols. Persians, Phœnicians, Babylonians, Scythians, Indians. An English translation of which is at this moment in the press. Part II, African Nations, 2 vols. Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Egyptians. Part III, European Nations; of which only 1 volume, Greeks, has been published.]

2. Manuals, or epitomes.

The Germans are entitled to the merit of having first produced manuals of ancient history, all of them useful, some excellent, in their kind: they are a result of the progress made in this science at the universities.

†J. Chr. Gatterer, Attempt at an Universal History of the World to the discovery of America. Gottingen, 1792. He who possesses this, the last and ripest fruit of Gatterer's studies, may dispense with the earlier manuals published by that author.

†Chr. Dan. Beck, A Short Introduction to the Knowledge of the Universal History of the World and of Nature. Leipzic, 1798. The first part connected with our subject extends to A. D. 843. This volume is enriched with such a copious and critical account of books relating to ancient history, that it may supply the place of a particular work on the subject.

†J. A. Remer, Manual of the more Ancient History, from the creation of the world to the great migration. Fourth edition. Brunswick, 1832.

†J. M. Schroeckh, Manual of Universal History. 1774: latest edition, 1795.

†G. S. Bredow, Manual of Ancient History, with a sketch of the chronology of the ancients. Altona, 1799, 8vo. [Translated into English. Lond. 1828, 12mo. In English we have:

The Outlines of History, in 1 vol. (forming part of Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopædia) by Mr. Keightly, author of a learned and[Pg 4] highly useful work on Grecian Mythology, is a convenient abridgement. Tytler's Elements of General History, improved and continued by Dr. Nares. Lond. 1825, best edition; owes its reputation and success to the want of a better work on the subject.]

3. Helps.

Among the works subservient to the study of ancient history, the first rank is justly due to the synchronistic tables.

†D. G. J. Huebler, Synchronistic Tables of the History of Nations; arranged principally according to Gatterer's History of the World. In two numbers. Second edit. 1799 and 1804.

Observe here the difference between universal history, or general history of the human race, and the history of nations; the latter forms part of the former. Observe also the difference between political history and that of civilization, or of man as a human being: the latter is merely the history of man, as man, without regard to political circumstances.

The propriety of the above division is evinced by the nature of the events which form these epochs. The student will easily[Pg 5] perceive that the division of history, into that before and after the birth of Christ, is not judicious.

It is well known that a great deal of information has been preserved in the sacred writings concerning the early fortunes of the human race. From these materials have been compiled what has been called an Historia Antediluviana, sometimes considered as forming a separate division of history. What has been said above will satisfactorily account for the omission of this portion of history in the present work; although none can deny the high importance of such traditions in the investigation of the origin, dispersion, and civilization of the human race.

Hence the mythology of a people is invariably composed of very heterogeneous materials; it not only preserves the remembrance of various kinds of historical facts, but likewise the pervading ideas of the people with respect to the nature and worship of their deities; as well as the notions they had formed from observations and experience respecting astronomy, morals, the arts, etc. All these are handed down in the form of historical narrative; because man, as yet unpractised in abstract thinking, necessarily represents every thing to his mind under the figure of some physical object. It is just as useless, therefore, to attempt to mould the mythology of any people into a consistent and connected whole, or indeed into any scientific system whatsoever, as it is difficult to draw a strict line between what belongs to mythology, and what to pure history. It follows, therefore, that mythology should be employed by the historian with great caution; and not without judicious criticism, and an accurate knowledge of antiquity.

These correct views of mythology,—the key to the whole of earlier antiquity,—were first set forth and illustrated by Heyne, in his commentaries upon Virgil and other poets, in his edition of Apollodorus, and in various essays published in the Transactions of the Gottingen Scientific Society. It is principally to the aid of these that the Germans owe their superiority over other nations in the science of antiquity.

The mythi (or fables of which this mythology was composed) were in later times frequently collected from the works of the poets, and committed to writing by grammarians; such as Apollodorus and others. This, however, can have had no effect on their original character.

The characters engraved on these monuments were either symbolical (hieroglyphics; see below under Egypt,) or alphabetical. The invention and transmission of alphabetical writing are commonly ascribed to the Phœnicians; although, if we may judge by the shape of the arrow-headed character, it was made, without communication with them, in the interior of Asia.

The general collections of inscriptions are:

Lud. Ant. Muratori, Novus Thesaurus veterum Inscriptionum. Mediolani, 1739, sq. 4 vols. fol. Together with Seb. Donati, Supplementa. Luccæ, 1764. Jan. Gruteri, Inscriptiones antiquæ totius orbis Romani, cura J. G. Grævii. Amstel. 1707, 2 vols. fol.

C. A. Boekhius, Corpus Inscriptionum Græcarum, auctoritate et impensis Academiæ literarum Borussicæ, vol. 1. 1827, folio.

Among the separate monuments, the most important for ancient history is the Parian or Oxford Inscription, Marmora Oxoniensia, Arundeliana, edited by Selden, 1629; by Prideaux, 1677. The best edition is by Rich. Chandler, Oxf. 1763, fol. A useful and portable edition has been published by Fr. Ch. Wagner, containing the Greek text, with a German translation and notes. Gottingen, 1790, 8vo.

Ez. Spanhemii, Dissertatio de Usu et Præstantia Numismatum. Londini, 1707 et 1709, 2 vols. fol. The capital work, however, on this subject, and which embraces the whole numismatic science of antiquity is:

Eckhel, De Doctrina Nummorum Veterum. Viennæ, 1792—1798, 8 vols. 4to. And the epitome:

† Eckhel, Brief Elements of Ancient Numismatics. Vienna, 1707, 8vo. Another very useful work is:

J. C. Rasche, Lexicon Universæ Rei Nummariæ Veterum. 1785, sq. 5 vols. 8vo.

But few nations among the moderns, and we know of none among the ancients, except the Greeks and Romans, that had any acquaintance with this sort of history. A fact which may be attributed,—1st. To the government; for the more completely the affairs of a nation are under the control of arbitrary power and caprice, whether of one or more individuals, so much the less apparent is a rational internal connection of events. Hence[Pg 10] philosophical history flourishes most under free governments; and has not even a shadow of existence under pure despotic constitutions. 2nd. To the degree of civilization to which the nation may have attained: for the observing and unravelling of the political connection of events presupposes a considerable progress in philosophical culture.

Of the various modes of computing time, the best known are those of the Greeks and the Romans; the former by olympiads, the latter by years from the foundation of Rome. The era of the olympiads commences at B. C. 776; that of the foundation of Rome commences at B. C. 753, according to Varro; at B. C. 752, according to Cato.—The era of the Seleucidæ, in the Syrian[Pg 11] empire, commences with B. C. 312.—Various other eras, such as that of Nabonnassar, commencing with B. C. 747, are founded on observations preserved by Ptolemy, and made known by Scaliger, in his Doctrina Temporum.

Chronology constitutes a distinct science: the best introduction to which will be found in:

† J. C. Gatterer, Epitome of Chronology. Gottingen, 1777. A most excellent criticism on the ancient eras has lately been communicated to the public by:

† L. Ideler, Historic Researches into the Astronomical Observations of the Ancients. Berlin, 1806.

† D. H. Hegewisch, Introduction to Historical Chronology; 1811. A very useful and portable work.

[In English we have the laborious work of Dr. Hales:

Hales (Willm.) New Analysis of Chronology, explaining the History and Antiquities of the primitive Nations of the World, etc. Lond. 1809-12, 4 vols. 4to. New edition, corrected and improved, 1830, 4 vols. 8vo.

Blair's Chronology and History of the World, from the Creation to the present Time. Lond. 1803, folio.

And for the brilliant period of Greece and Rome the satisfactory volumes:

H. F. Clynton's Fasti Hellenici. The civil and literary Chronology of Greece, from the fifty-fifth to the hundred and twenty-fourth Olympiad. Second edition, with additions. Oxford, 1827, 4to. And the continuation of the same work to the death of Augustus, Oxford, 1830, 4to. In this valuable work, much light is also thrown upon the chronology of the times anterior to the period with which the first volume is principally occupied.]

Fabulous geography constitutes a part of the mythology of every nation, and differs in each, because the ideas formed by every early nation respecting the form and nature of the earth are peculiar to itself. True geography gradually comes to light as civilization increases, and discovery widens its horizon.—Necessity of treating it historically, on account of the manifold changes to which the division and the face of the countries of the ancient world have been at various periods subjected.

Christoph. Cellarii Notitia Orbis Antiqui. Lips. 1701—1706, 2 vols. 4to. cum observat. J. C. Schwarzii. Lips. 1771, et iterum 1773. This work was for a long time the only, and is still an indispensable, treatise on ancient geography.

† H. Mannert, Geography of the Greeks and Romans. Nuremberg, 1788—1802. This work, now completed in 15 volumes, may be justly designated classical, from the historical and critical learning which the author has everywhere displayed. Vol. I, contains Spain; II, Gallia et Britain; III, Germania, Rhætia, Noricum; IV, The Northern parts of the World, from the Wessel to China; V, India and the Persian Empire to the Euphrates, 2 parts; VI, Asia Minor, 3 parts; VII, Thrace, Illyria, Macedonia, Thessaly, Epirus; VIII, Northern Greece, Peloponnesus, and the Archipelago; IX, Italy and Sicily, Sardinia, etc. 2 parts; X, Africa, 2 parts.

† F. A. Ukert, Geography of the Greeks and Romans, from the earliest periods to the time of Ptolemy: first part, first division, contains the historical, the second contains the mathematical sections. Weimar, 1816; with maps.

Gosselin, Géographie des Grecs analysée. Paris, 1790, 4to. A development of the system of mathematical geography among the Greeks. Partly continued in

Gosselin, Recherches sur la Géographie des Anciens. Paris, an. vi. vol. 1—4.

J. Rennel, Geographical System of Herodotus. Lond. 1800, 4to.

[Reprinted in 2 vols. 8vo. Lond. 1830, revised. Here, too, for the benefit of the English reader may be mentioned:

Rennel's Treatise on the Comparative Geography of Western Asia, with an atlas. London, 1831, 2 vols. 8vo.; published since the author's death. And the learned and valuable volumes of Dr. Cramer, principal of New Inn Hall, and public orator of the University of Oxford; they are,

[Pg 13]

Geographical and Historical Description of Ancient Greece, with a map, and plan of Athens. Oxford, 1826, 3 vols. 8vo.

Geographical and Historical Description of Ancient Italy, with a map. Oxford, 1826, 2 vols. 8vo.

Geographical and Historical Description of Asia Minor, with a map. Oxford, 1832, 2 vols. 8vo.

The maps which accompany these works approach very nearly to perfection.

As useful compendiums, there are:

An Introduction to Ancient Geography, with copious indexes of Ancient and Modern Names, by Peter Ed. Laurent, teacher in the Royal Naval Academy at Portsmouth. Oxford, 1813, 8vo.

A Compendium of Ancient and Modern Geography, for the use of Eton School; illustrating the most interesting points in History, Poetry, and Fable; preceded by an Introduction to the study of Astronomy, and containing plans of Athens, Rome, Syracuse, and numerous diagrams explanatory of the motions of the heavenly bodies, by Aaron Arrowsmith, Hydrographer to the King, 1 vol. 8vo., with or without a copious index. London, 1830.

Butler's (Dr. Sam.) Sketch of Ancient and Modern Geography. Seventh edition, 8vo. Also his Atlas of Ancient Geography, consisting of twenty-one coloured maps, with a complete accentuated index. 8vo.]

We are indebted to d'Anville for the best charts of ancient geography: Atlas Orbis antiqui, twelve leaves, fol.

[The Eton Comparative Atlas of Ancient and Modern Geography, with the index, published in several sizes; and the Maps published by the Society for the Promotion of Useful Knowledge, are very useful and correct.]

See the Introduction to Heeren's Researches into the Politics and Commerce of the Nations of Antiquity, prefixed to vol. 1 of the African Nations. Oxford, 1831.

Compare it, in this point of view, with the other quarters of the globe, especially Africa.—Advantages over the latter, in con[Pg 16]sequence of the convenience of its indented shores—of its surrounding fruitful islands—of its deep gulfs and large streams—the few sandy deserts in its interior.

Two great mountain chains run from west to east; in the north, the Altai, (nameless in antiquity): in the south, Taurus.—Branches of both: the Caucasus, between the Black and Caspian seas: Imaus extending along the golden desert (desert of Cobi): the Paropamisus, on the north of India: the Ural (nameless in antiquity).—Of the rivers remarkable in ancient history, there are four flowing from north to south, namely, the Euphrates and Tigris, which fall into the Persian gulf; the Indus and Ganges, which fall into the Indian sea: two which run from east to west, and discharged their waters into the Caspian sea, (but now into the sea of Aral,) namely, the Oxus (or Jihon) and the Jaxartes (or Sirr).

Peculiar mode of life and character of nomad nations; powerful influence which they have exercised, as conquerors, on political history.—Whether we have a right to expect that the civilization of the human race will for ever continue to advance, when we consider that perhaps one half of it has from time immemorial remained, and from its physical situation must for ever remain, in a nomad state.

Reflections upon the rise of political associations.—Whether, according to the general opinion, they were produced solely by agriculture and the possession of land; or, whether religion, by which I mean the common worship of one divinity as the national god, (communia sacra,) was not the main bond which united the earliest states of antiquity?—How shall we account for the very remarkable fact, that in the earliest civil societies in the world, the priesthood is generally found to be a ruling caste.—Reflections on early trade, particularly that of the east, before it was changed, by the discovery of America and the new passage to India, from a land trade to a sea trade.—Observations upon ancient commercial routes across Asia.—The banks of the large rivers destined by nature to become the seats of commerce for the interior; on the Oxus, Bactra and Maracanda, (Samarcand;) on[Pg 18] the Euphrates and Tigris, Babylon.—The sea shores on the western coast of Asia Minor and Phœnicia, pointed out also by nature as places of commerce;—line of Grecian and Phœnician factories.

Whether the account given by Herodotus, as an eyewitness, of the size and splendour of Babylon is not exaggerated?—Manner in which the great Asiatic cities arose out of the royal encampments of the nomad conquerors.

The name of Assyria is also frequently taken by the Greeks in a wider acceptation, as comprising both Mesopotamia and Babylonia; it is sometimes even confounded with Syria.

The name of Persis was, in ancient as well as in modern geography, taken in a more extensive sense, as comprising all the countries between the Tigris and Indus, with the exception of Assyria. In this sense, it contains three countries towards the south—Persis, properly so called; Carmania, Gedrosia: three[Pg 21] central countries—Media, Aria, Arachosia: and three countries towards the north—Parthia and Hyrcania, Bactria, Sogdiana.

Bactria lies on the frontier of India, Little Thibet, Bukharia, (the north India of Herodotus and Ctesias,) and the desert of Cobi, (Herodotus's golden desert): the road to China runs through this country. Nature, by the geographical situation in which she has placed Bactria, seems to have destined it to be the great emporium for the wares of south-eastern Asia; and in proportion as we penetrate into early history, we become convinced that Bactria, like Babylon, must have been one of the earliest seats of international commerce, and consequently, if not the birthplace, one of the cradles of infant civilization.

To avoid confusion, it will be necessary to define the terms despotism and despotic government. In theory, we must admit THREE essentially different kinds of government. 1st. The despotic, in which the members of the state are not secured in the possession of their rights as men, (personal freedom and security of property,) nor of their rights as citizens, (active participation in the legislative power). Such a constitution exists only by force, and can never be lawful. 2nd. The autocratic, in which the members of the state are in full possession of their rights as men, but not of their rights as citizens. This government, therefore, arises from the union of the legislative and executive powers in the person of the ruler. In form, it is either monarchical or aristocratical (a pure monarchy, or a pure aristocracy). This kind of government is most likely to be established by usurpation; it may, nevertheless, be acquired by succession, or even adopted by common consent: it may therefore be lawful. 3rd. The republican, in which the members of the state are in possession of their rights, both as men and as citizens. This government necessarily presupposes a separation of the legislative and executive powers; and with regard to its form, may be either monarchical or aristocratical, (a moderate monarchy, or a moderate aristocracy).—How far can a pure democracy be called a government, and comprised under any of the foregoing heads?—Explanation of the despotism in the Asiatic kingdoms, and the attempts made to limit it by religion and religious institutions.

Sources, and their critical examination: 1. Jewish writings, particularly the books of Kings, Chroniclers, and the Prophets; together with the Mosaic records. 2. Greek writers, Herodotus, Ctesias, and Diodorus: later chroniclers, Syncellus, Eusebius, Ptolemy. 3. Native writer, Berosus. Futility of all endeavours to arrange into one work the accounts of authors so entirely different by birth and the times in which they flourished: a task attempted by the French writers, Sevin, Freret, and Debrosse, in their papers contained in the Mém. de l'Acad. des Inscript.

Volney, Recherches nouvelles sur l'Histoire ancienne. 1808—1814: very important and authentic, so far as regards the system of Herodotus's chronology.

According to Herodotus, an Assyrian empire of 520 years' duration, 1237—717. Lists of Assyrian kings in the chronicles of Syncellus and Eusebius.

Line of Assyrian kings: 1. Pul, about 773. Invasion of Syria. 2. Tiglath-Pileser, about 740. He overthrows the kingdom of Damascus. 3. Shalmaneser, about 720. He destroys the kingdom of Samaria. Transplantation of the inhabitants into inner Asia. 4. Sennacherib, about 714. Mighty expedition against Egypt, frustrated by a pestilence. 5. Esarhaddon.

Contemporary: Jews, the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah.—Greeks, decennial archons at Athens.—Romans, rise of the state and the two first kings.

a. Herodotus's History of the Medes. Herodotus's Medes are unquestionably the inhabitants of Media, properly so called. Division into six tribes: among these, that of the Magi.—Ruling nation after the overthrow of the Assyrians.—Capital of their empire, Ecbatana.—Boundaries: west, the Tigris and Halys; east, unknown.—Internal organization: graduated subjection of the various nations to one another, according to their distance from the seat of empire; rigid despotism; and imposition of tribute. Line of kings between B. C. 717—560. Deioces, 53 y. the founder of Ecbatana, d. 657.—Phraortes, 22 y. down to 635. He conquers Persia. Cyaxares I. 40 y. down to 595. He establishes military discipline among the Medes. Wages war with the Lydians, the Assyrians.—Irruption of the Scythians and Cimmerians, 625.—He takes Nineveh, 597. Astyages, 38 y. down to 560, when he was dethroned by Cyrus. According to Xenophon, Astyages was followed by another Median prince, Cyaxares II. b. Ctesias's History of the Medes, deduced from Persian archives, and contained in Diodorus. Probably a different dynasty in eastern Asia. Line of kings, between B. C. 800 and 560. Arbaces, conqueror of the Assyrians, 18 y. Mandaucus, 50 y. Sosarmes, 30 y. Artias, 50 y. Arbanes, 22 y. Artæus, 40 y. and Artynes, 22 y. Sanguinary wars with the nomad races of the east, the Sacæ, and Cadusii. Artibarnas, 14 y. Astyages, the last king.

Contemporary: Jews, kingdom of Judah alone.—Greeks, yearly archons, Draco, Solon.—Romans, kings from Tullus Hostilius to Servius Tullius.

Origin of the Chaldæans: whether that name was applied to a distinct nation, or to the northern nomads in general?—Line of Chaldæan kings. In the enumeration of these rulers, as given by Ptolemy, this line begins with Nabonassar, and the era bearing the name of that sovereign, which commences in the year B. C. 747: (probably because, under the reign of that prince, the adoption of the Egyptian solar year first introduced among the Chaldæans an exact method of reckoning time). Neither Nabonassar himself, nor his twelve immediate successors, are remarkable in history: the six last alone deserve notice. 1. Nabopolassar, 627—604. Settlement in Babylon; and complete establishment of the Chaldæo-Babylonian dominion, by his victory over Pharaoh-Nechoh, near Circesium, in 604. 2. Nebuchadnezzar, 604—561. Brilliant period of the Chaldæo-Babylonian empire. He conquers Phœnicia and Old Tyre about 586: Jerusalem in 587; probable irruptions into Egypt. Construction of immense buildings and canals in and about Babylon. Rapid decline of the empire after his death, under—3. Evil-Merodach, 561—559. 4. Neriglissar, (probably the contemporary of Herodotus's Nitocris;)—555. Labosoarchad murdered, after a few months' reign. Nabonadius, (Herodotus's Labynetus; and probably the Chaldæan Belshazzar;) 555—538. attacked and conquered by Cyrus. Sack of Babylon by the Persians, 538.

[Pg 29]

See the section concerning the Babylonians in A. H. L. Heeren's Historical Researches, vol. i, part. 2.

Contemporary: Jews, last sovereigns of the kingdom of Judah.—Greeks, Solon, Pisistratus.—Romans, Tarquinius Priscus and Servius Tullius.

Kings: Teucer, about 1400.—Dardanus—Erichthonius—Tros (Troja)—Ilus (Ilium)—Laomedon—Priam. The destruction of Troy, after a ten years' war, occurred, it is probable, B. C. 1190.

Contemporary: Jews, time of the Judges: before the foundation of Rome, 450 years.

Kings: Gyges, down to 689. From this period followed almost uninterrupted wars with the Greek settlements on the seacoast. Gyges takes Colophon. Ardys down to 640. He takes Priene. Under his reign, an irruption of the Cimmerians. Sadyattes down to 628. Alyattes down to 571. Expulsion of the Cimmerians. Capture of Smyrna. Crœsus down to 557. He takes Ephesus, and subjugates Asia Minor as far as the Halys. Under his reign, the first rise of a Lydian empire, which however is overthrown by Cyrus. Asia Minor becomes a province of the Persian empire.

Contemporary with which, in Asia, were the Medic and Babylonian empires.—Among the Jews, the last period of the kingdom of Judah.—Among the Greeks, the yearly archons at Athens.—With the Romans, the kings.

The peculiar sources of Phœnician history.—How far Sanchoniathon deserves to be mentioned here?—Hebrew writers, particularly Ezekiel; Greek writers; Josephus—Eusebius, etc. and the fragments which he has preserved of Menander of Ephesus, and Dius, historians of Tyre.

Mignot, Mémoires sur les Phéniciens; inserted in Mém. de l'Acad. des Inscript. t. xxxiv—xlii. A series of twenty-four papers.

The section concerning the Phœnicians in A. H. L. Heeren's Researches on the Politics, etc.

This line of kings, which we derive from Menander through Josephus, commences with Abical, the contemporary of David, about B. C. 1050. The most remarkable among them are: Hiram, the successor of Abical;—Ethbaal I. about 920;—Pygmalion, Dido's brother, about 900;—Ethbaal II. in whose reign Tyre was sacked by Nebuchadnezzar, 586.—Foundation of New Tyre—republican constitution under suffetes: tributary kings under the Persian rule;—conquest of New Tyre by Alexander, 332. The flourishing period of Phœnicia in general, and of Tyre in particular, falls therefore between 1000—332.

Contemporary in inner Asia: monarchies of the Assyrians, Medes, and the Babylonians. Jews: period of the kings after David. Greeks: from Homer to Solon. Romans: period of their kings in the last two centuries.

General ideas concerning colonization.—1. Colonies are absolutely necessary to every seafaring and commercial people,[Pg 32] whenever their trade extends to distant countries. 2. They have likewise been established for the purpose of providing for the excessive increase of the poor. 3. And they have sometimes arisen from political commotion, when the malcontents, either from free will, or force, have forsaken their country, and sought new settlements in distant regions.

The kings, whose names are taken from the books of Chronicles, were: Rezon, about 980. Benhadad I. about 900. Hazael, about 850. Benhadad II. about 830. Rezin. Under this last, the kingdom of Damascus was overthrown by the Assyrian conqueror Tiglath-Pileser, about 740.

Contemporary in Inner Asia: Assyrian kingdom. Jews: kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Greeks: settlement of the Asiatic colonies.—Lycurgus.

Sources of the Jewish history.—Their annals:—Books of Judges, Samuel, Chronicles, Kings. How those books were composed, and whether their authors may be considered as contemporary with the events they relate? How far the Hebrew poets, the prophets in particular, may be considered as historical authority?—Josephus, as an antiquarian in his Archæologia, and as a contemporary historian in his Historia Belli Romani.

Unfortunately there is not at present any satisfactory treatise on the Jewish history previous to the Babylonian captivity; nor one written in an impartial spirit, without credulity or scepticism. The work of Berruyer, Histoire du Peuple de Dieu, depuis son origine jusqu'à la Naissance de J. C. Paris, 1742, 10 vols. 8vo.; and the continuation, depuis la Naissance de J. C. 10 vols.; and others of the same kind do not answer this description. Relandi Antiquit. Sacr. Heb. The writings of J. D. Michaelis, particularly his † Remarks on the Translation of the Old Testament, and his † Mosaic Law; together with † Herder, On the Spirit of Hebrew Poesy, furnish many excellent materials.

Moses and his legislation.—What he borrowed and what he did not borrow from the Egyptians?—The worship of Jehovah in the national sanctuary, and by national festivals, celebrated with ceremonies rigidly prescribed, the point of union for the whole nation, and the political bond which held the tribes together.—The caste of Levites, compared with the Egyptian caste of priests.

J. D. Michaelis, Mosaic Law. Gottingen, 1778, etc. 6 vols. 8vo.; translated into English by Dr. Alexander Smith. Lond. 1814, 4 vols. 8vo. The commentator frequently sees more than the lawgiver.

Causes which led the nation to demand a king.—Earlier attempts made, particularly by Abimelech, to obtain regal power.

Most important events in the history of the two kingdoms.

1. Kingdom of Israel, 975—722; under 19 kings, from different families, who succeeded to the throne amid violent revolutions. 1. Jeroboam, d. 954. Settlement of the royal residence at Shechem; of the sanctuaries at Bethel and Dan, and appointment of priests, not belonging to the tribe of Levi. Constant wars with the kings of Judah. 2. Nadab, Jeroboam's son, murdered in 953 by 3. Baasha, d. 930. This prince, by his alliance with the kings of Damascus, brought the kingdom of Judah into great danger. 4. Elah murdered in 929 by one of his generals. 5. Zimri, in whose place the army immediately elected 6. Omri: this prince, at the beginning of his reign, had a rival to the throne in Tibni, d. 925. Omri founded the new capital, Samaria, d. 918. He was succeeded by his son 7. Ahab: strong connections by marriage with the kings of Sidon; introduction of[Pg 42] the Phœnician worship of Baal. Wars with Damascus, in which Ahab at last perishes, 897. Under Ahab a league formed with the king of Judah. He is succeeded by his sons, 8. Ahaziah, d. 896, and 9. Jehoram. The league with Judah continues. Jehoram is murdered by Jehu, 883. 10. Jehu: this king destroys the house of Ahab, which had given 4 kings to Israel, and does away with the worship of Baal. The kings of Damascus wrest from the kingdom of Israel the lands beyond Jordan. Jehu, d. 856. He is succeeded by his son 11. Jehoahaz, d. 840. The wars with Damascus continue unsuccessful to Israel. 12. Jehoash, d. 825. He defeats the kings of Damascus and Judah. 13. Jeroboam II. d. 784. He restores the kingdom of Israel to its ancient extent. After a turbulent interregnum of 12 years, he is succeeded by his son 14. Zechariah, 773; who was assassinated the same year, being the last remnant of the house of Jehu, which had given 5 kings to Israel. His murderer, 15. Shallum, after a reign of one month, is, in his turn, assassinated by 16. Menahem, d. 761: under his reign the first expedition of the Assyrians, headed by Pul, whom he buys off by tribute. 17. His son Pekahiah murdered in 759 by 18. Pekah, under whose reign falls the expedition of Tiglath-Pileser the Assyrian, and destruction of Damascus. Pekah is assassinated in 740 by 19. Hoshea, who, after an anarchy of eight years, obtains possession of the throne. Hoshea endeavours, by an alliance with Egypt, to shake off the Assyrian yoke; but Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, wages war against him, conquers Samaria, and puts an end to the kingdom of Israel, whose inhabitants he transplants to Media in Inner Asia, 722.

2. Kingdom of Judah under 20 kings of the house of David, 975—598. The regular line of hereditary succession is generally followed without dispute, and is only twice interrupted by Athaliah's usurpation, and the intervention of foreign conquerors. 1. Rehoboam, d. 958. Jerusalem is still the seat of government; but even during this reign the worship of Jehovah begins to fall into neglect, in consequence of the introduction of foreign gods. Besides the war with Israel, Jerusalem is attacked and plundered by Shishak, king of Egypt. 2. Abijah, d. 955. 3. Asa. This prince was attacked by the combined kings of Israel and Damascus, and, no doubt, would have sunk in the conflict, had he not succeeded in breaking their alliance; d. 914. 4. Jehoshaphat, the restorer of the worship of Jehovah and framer of a league with the kingdom of Israel. His attempt to reestablish[Pg 43] the trade to Ophir, on the Red sea, is unsuccessful, d. 891. 5. Jehoram. The union with Israel is confirmed by the marriage of this prince with Ahab's daughter, Athaliah; but Idumæa, under his reign, secedes wholly from the kingdom of Judah, d. 884. 6. His son Ahaziah is, in the next year, 883, assassinated by Jehu, the murderer and successor of Jehoram king of Israel. 7. His mother, Athaliah, takes possession of the throne; murders the whole royal family; only one son of Ahaziah, 8, Joash, is, in consequence of his youth, rescued from the carnage, secretly educated in the temple, and after seven years forcibly placed upon the throne, by means of a revolution wrought by the high priest, Jehoiada; and Athaliah is slaughtered, 877. Joash rules under the tutelage of the priests, which leads to the reestablishment of Jehovah's worship. This prince is menaced by Hazael king of Damascus, and compelled to pay him tribute. Slain 838. 9. Amaziah: he defeats the Edomites, and is in his turn defeated by Jehoash king of Israel, by whom Jerusalem itself is sacked. He is slain in 811, and succeeded 10. by his son Azariah, (or Uzziah.) This prince was leprous, and d. 759. His son 11. Jotham, d. 743, became regent during the life of his father. The wars with Israel and Damascus recommence. 12. Ahaz, d. 728. The league between the kings of Damascus and Israel induces Ahaz to call to his assistance Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria, who overthrows the kingdom of Damascus, and subjects Israel and Judah to tribute. 13. Hezekiah, d. 699. He shakes off the Assyrian yoke: under his reign Shalmaneser destroys Samaria, 722: and Shalmaneser's successor, Sennacherib, undertakes his expedition against Egypt, 714. Jerusalem is again besieged, but fortunately relieved by the total failure of the expedition. Isaiah prophecies during the reign of this prince. 14. Manasseh, d. 644. During his 55 years' reign, the worship of the Phœnician god, Baal, becomes general; that of Jehovah falls into contempt, and the Mosaic law into disuse. 15. Amon, murdered as early as 642. 16. Josiah restorer of the temple, and of the worship of Jehovah. The book of the Law, which had been cast aside and neglected, is once more found, and a complete reform instituted according to its principles. Palestine however is the first country attacked by Necos, king of Egypt; and Josiah falls in battle, 611. His son, 17. Jehoahaz, is, after a reign of three months, dethroned by Pharaoh-Nechoh, and his brother 18. Jehoiakim placed as a tributary prince on the throne. But in consequence of the rise of the Chaldæo-Babylo[Pg 44]nian empire, Pharaoh-Nechoh is deprived of his Asiatic conquests by the loss of the battle of Circesium, 606; and Jehoiakim becomes tributary to Nebuchadnezzar, d. 599. The prophet Jeremiah flourishes. 19. Jehoiachin, son of the former king, after three months' reign, is, together with the greater part of the nation, transplanted into Inner Asia by Nebuchadnezzar, after a second expedition, (commencement of the Babylonian captivity,) and, 20. Zedekiah, brother on the father's side to Jehoiachin, is seated on the throne as a tributary prince. Forming, however, a league with Egypt, in order to throw off the Babylonian yoke, Nebuchadnezzar marches a third time against Jerusalem, conquers it, 588, and delivers it up to pillage and destruction. Zedekiah, after being deprived of his eye-sight, and losing all his children by the hands of the executioner, is, together with the remaining portion of the nation, led in captivity to Babylon.

S. Bernhardi Commentatio de causis quibus affectum sit ut regnum Judæ diutius persisteret quam regnum Israel; cum tabula geographica, Lovanii, 1825, 4to. A prize essay, containing also several valuable enquiries into the monarchical period of the Jewish state.

† Bauer, Manual of the History of the Hebrew Nation, vol. i—iii, 1800. The best introduction hitherto published, not only to the history, but also to the antiquities of the nation, from the rise to the fall of the state.

Sources: 1. Jewish writers. Moses. His records contain, no doubt, a faithful picture of the Egyptian state in his day; but no continuous history can be deduced from them.—From Moses down to Solomon (B. C. 1500—1000.) total silence, with respect to Egypt, of the Hebrew writers. From Solomon down to Cyrus, (B. C. 1000—550.) a few scanty fragments.—Importance and superiority of the Jewish accounts, so far as they are purely historical. 2. Greek writers. (a) Herodotus. The first who published a History of the Egyptians. About seventy years after the destruction of the throne of the Pharaohs by the Persian conquerors, this author collected, in Egypt itself, the earliest accounts of the history of the country; he received his information from the most capable persons, the priests; and wrote down faithfully that information, such as he heard it. If, therefore, we would estimate at their proper worth the accounts given by Herodotus, it is necessary to enquire, what did the priests themselves know of their earlier national history? And this question cannot be answered until we have ascertained in what manner the historical records of the earlier periods were preserved among the Egyptians.

The earliest history of the Egyptians, like that of all other nations, was traditional. They adopted, however, before any other nations, a sort of writing, hieroglyphics, or allegorical picture writing; in which the signs borrowed from natural objects served, as modern discoveries have proved, partly to represent sounds, (hiéroglyphes phonétiques,) and partly to express ideas; in the latter case they were either representative or allegorical. This mode of writing, by its nature, is not so complete as the purely alphabetical; since, 1. It can express only a narrow circle of ideas, and these separately, without connection or grammatical inflection, at least with very few exceptions. 2. As it is not so well adapted to writing as to painting or engraving, it is not so useful for books as for public monuments. 3. Being em[Pg 52]blematic, it is not intelligible without the help of a key, which could only be preserved in some tradition connected with the monument, and which was exclusively possessed by the priests; this key, therefore, could hardly be preserved many centuries without falsification. 4. The same image seems frequently to have been used to express very different objects.—It follows, that the Egyptian history, as deduced from the lips of the priests, can hardly have been any thing more than records connected with, and depending upon, public monuments: consisting, therefore, of mere fragments, and reducible to no consistent chronology, it ultimately admitted only of allegorical translation, and consequently was very liable to be misinterpreted. Besides their hieroglyphics, the Egyptians certainly had two other species of writing: the hieratic, confined to the priests, and the demotic, used in common life. Both, however, seem to have been nothing more than running hands derived from the hieroglyphic system; and we have no instance of the employment of either the one or the other in public monuments of the time of the Pharaohs. That the use of papyrus, a material on which all the above kinds of writing were employed, had its origin in the highest antiquity, or at least in the more brilliant period of the Pharaohs, we now know for certain, written documents belonging to those times having been obtained from the tombs.

Champollion le jeune, Précis du Système Hiéroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens. Paris, 1824. The main work on this subject, of which the Lettre à M. Dacier, 1822, is but the precursor, and the two Lettres à M. le duc de Blacas the continuation. The new method of deciphering has received its principal confirmation from the work of the British consul in Egypt, Salt, Essay on the Phonetic System of Hieroglyphics, 1825, on the authority of a comparison with the Egyptian monuments themselves. Hitherto, however, little more has been made out than the names and titles of the kings, distinguished by being always enclosed within a border.

These preliminary remarks on the earlier Egyptian history, will derive abundant support from a perusal of the account given by Herodotus (ii, 99—150), of the Egyptian kings previous to Psammetichus. The study of that author proves beyond all doubt, that: I. The whole history is throughout founded on public monuments, and on monuments too, either in or near Memphis. We may even restrict ourselves to one single monument at Memphis, to the temple of Vulcan, or Phtha, the chief temple[Pg 53] of that city. The history commences with Menes, the founder of that edifice, (c. 99.), and we are informed, respecting each of his successors, what was done towards the augmentation and embellishment of the building: those who made no addition to that temple, but left other monuments, (as the builders of the pyramids,) are denominated oppressors of the people, and contemners of the gods: of those princes who left no monuments at all, the priests could give no other information than a catalogue of names. II. Hence this line of kings, although the priests gave it to Herodotus as such, is not without interruptions, but, as is clearly proved by a comparison with Diodorus, contains many wide chasms: therefore no chronological system can be erected upon such a basis. III. The whole history is interwoven with narrations derived from hieroglyphic representations, and for that very reason allegorical, the meaning of which it is no longer possible to unravel, the priests themselves being either unable or unwilling to explain it, and even inclining, it appears, to introduce false interpretations. To this class of narrations belongs, for instance, that of the robbery of Rhampsinitus's treasury; that of his journey into hell, where he played at dice with Ceres, (c. 121, 122); that concerning the daughter of Cheops, (c. 127.); concerning the blindness of Pheron, and the manner in which he was cured, etc. (c. 111.) To prove that this charge is not without foundation, it will suffice to adduce two examples; one from c. 131, where Herodotus himself observes that such was the case; the other from c. 141, the true meaning of which we gather from other sources. Even in the time of Herodotus, it was customary with the priests to endeavour to conciliate the Greek and Egyptian authorities; a fact in proof of which there are many arguments which cannot escape the critic: such, for instance, as the completely Græcised history of king Proteus, c. 112—115.—The general result of the above observations on Herodotus's Egyptian history is, that it is nothing more than a narration connected with public monuments. To this inference but one objection can possibly be made, namely, that the Egyptian priests possessed, besides their hieroglyphics, an alphabetical mode of writing; consequently, that, over and above the public monuments, they might likewise refer to written annals; but this objection is overthrown by Herodotus himself. All the information the priests could give him beyond what has been above alluded to, consisted in the names of 330 kings subsequent to[Pg 54] Menes; these they read from a papyrus roll, but knew nothing more of the kings who bore them, because those sovereigns had left no monuments behind them, (c. 100.)

(b) Besides Herodotus, Diodorus (lib. i.) likewise furnishes us with the names of some Egyptian kings. This author, who wrote 400 years subsequently to Herodotus, visited Egypt, and collected his history, partly from the oral and written documents of the priests of Thebes, partly from the more ancient Greek writers, and particularly Hecatæus. If we consider Herodotus's line of kings as not continuous or uninterrupted, all appearance of contradiction between the two historians vanishes. Diodorus, like Herodotus, did not intend to give a complete enumeration of the Egyptian kings; but only of the most remarkable; indicating the interruptions by the number of generations which they contained.

(c) Finally, different from both the above is the Egyptian Manetho, high priest at Heliopolis, who flourished under the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, about B. C. 260. He wrote the Ægyptiaca, of which, besides several fragments in Josephus, the enumeration of the kings has been preserved in the chronicles of Eusebius and Syncellus. This catalogue is divided into three sections, (tomos,) each of which contains several dynasties, in all 31, enumerated according to the different cities of Egypt. In each dynasty the number of kings belonging to it and the years of their reigns are marked. The authenticity of Manetho is now completely established; since the names of the Pharaohs mentioned by him have been deciphered on the Egyptian monuments. To this period belong the first seventeen dynasties; in the eighteenth begins the second and brilliant period, to which the yet remaining monuments of Upper Egypt, bearing the names of the founders, are to be ascribed. It is worthy of observation, that in Herodotus we have the documents of the priests of Memphis, in Diodorus those of the priests of Thebes, in Manetho those of the priests of Heliopolis—the three principal seats of sacerdotal learning:—perfect consistency cannot, therefore, be expected in the accounts of those historians.

The modern writers on Egyptian antiquities, from Kircher, Œdipus Ægyptiacus, 1670, to De Pauw, Recherches sur les Egyptiens et sur les Chinois, 1772, have too often substituted their own dreams and hypotheses for truth. The principal attempts at a chronological arrangement of the dynasties have been[Pg 55] made by Marsham, in his Canon Chronicus; and by Gatterer, in his † Synchronistic History of the World.—Among the principal works on this subject may be reckoned:

Jablonski Pantheon Mythicum Ægyptiacum, 1750, 8vo.

Gatterer, Commentationes de Theogonia Ægypt. in Commentat. Societ. Gotting. t. vii.

De Origine et Usu Obeliscorum, auctore G. Zoega; Romæ, 1797.

L'Egypte sous les Pharaons, ou Recherches sur la Géographie, la Religion, la Langue, les Ecritures, et l'Histoire de l'Egypte avant l'invasion de Cambyse, par Champollion le Jeune, t. i, ii. 1814. These two volumes, dedicated to the geography, contain the restoration of the ancient Egyptian names of provinces and cities deduced from Coptic authorities.

Commentationes Herodoteæ, scribebat Frid. Creuzer. Ægyptica et Hellenica, pars 1. Lips. 1819. A series of most acute and learned illustrations of different points in Egyptian antiquity, introduced by different passages of Herodotus.

The volume in Heeren's Historical Researches, etc. 1831, vol. ii, concerning the Egyptians; and particularly the introduction on hieroglyphic writing. For the best representations of the Egyptian monuments, we are indebted to the French expedition. Those of Denon in his Voyage en Egypte, are far superior to those of Pococke and Norden; but Denon's, in their turn, have been greatly surpassed in the magnificent work:

Description de l'Egypte, Antiquités, P. i, ii, iii. P. i, contains the monuments of Upper Egypt, from the frontiers of Nubia to Thebes; P. ii, iii, contain the monuments of Thebes alone.

Belzoni, Researches in Egypt, London, 1824, with an atlas.

† Minutoli, Journey to the Temple of Jupiter Ammon, and Egypt, 1824.

L. Burckhardt, Travels in Nubia, London, 1819.

F. C. Gau, Antiquités de la Nubie, Paris, 1824. A worthy continuation of the great French work on Egypt.

Fr. Caillaud, Voyage à Méroé et au Fleuve Blanc, Paris, 1825, contains the description of the monuments of Meroe.

General development of the idea of division into castes. Originating at first in the variety of tribes settled in one and the same country, and their different modes of life.—Its further progress in despotic and in theocratic kingdoms.—Application to Egypt and to the Egyptian caste of priests, as an original, civilized tribe.

Proof of the accuracy of the above theory deduced from monuments and express testimonies concerning the origin of Thebes and Ammon from Meroe; it might have been inferred from the preservation of the worship of Ammon in the latter place. Memphis, again, and other cities in the valley of the Nile, are commonly supposed to have been founded by detachments from Thebes.

Refutation of the idea, that the Egyptian priests were in possession of great speculative knowledge; since their knowledge rather had constant reference to practical life, and, therefore, was in their hands the instrumentum dominationis over the people, by which they rendered themselves indispensable, and kept the former in a state of dependence.—Explanation of the close reference which their gods, their astronomical and mathematical sciences bore to agriculture.

To these states, therefore, no doubt, belong the 330 kings after Menes, whose names the priests read to Herodotus; as also those whom Diodorus mentions as reigning previous to Sesostris, among whom are remarked Busiris II. founder of Thebes, and Uchoreus, the founder of Memphis. Eusebius and Syncellus have preserved from Manetho the names of several of those kings, which Marsham has endeavoured to compare and arrange.

This and Elephantine appear to have been united to Thebes; as were the states of Lower Egypt to Memphis.

The dominion of the Arabian Hyksos falls between B. C. 1800—1600; and consequently was contemporary with Moses and the exodus of the Jews. Josephus gives 500 years to their dominion, in which he probably comprises the long periods of earlier wars.

The expulsion of the Hyksos appears to have been one of the chief subjects on which the Egyptian artists exercised their talents: it is supposed to have been represented upon one of the large temples in Thebes. Denon, plate cxxxiii.

The sources for this period are the same as for the foregoing; and the history still preserves the character of records handed down by hieroglyphics. To this period belongs the line of kings subsequent to Sesostris, given both by Herodotus and Diodorus. Those two historians nearly agree, if we regard Herodotus's line of kings, not as uninterrupted, but as the fragments of a series deduced solely from public monuments: this will be demonstrated by the following table, in which the predecessors of Sesostris have likewise been indicated.

This comparative table demonstrates evidently, not only that Herodotus's line is often interrupted, but likewise that it is impossible to establish any continuous chronology, since Diodorus, more than once leaves the number of generations undetermined. Great importance, nevertheless, attaches to the date fixed by Herodotus, ii, 13, where he declares that king Mœris flourished 900 years before his own visit to Egypt: consequently between B. C. 1500 and 1450. And if, as seems highly probable, the age of Sesostris was the 15th century B. C. (see Zoega, de Obeliscis), it cannot be denied but that we have some general epochs; and with these we must remain content until more satisfactory information can be discovered on the monuments. It should likewise be observed, that the discrepancy between the names of the kings mentioned by Herodotus and Diodorus, and those furnished by Manetho, may be accounted for by the fact, that the sovereigns were distinguished by different names on the monuments and in common life.

Of the dynasties of Manetho, the 18th, 19th, 20th, and 22nd, belong to this period; more especially the two first, which contain the most important of the Pharaohs.

The more powerful of the Pharaohs of this period, and the founders of the most important monuments of Upper Egypt, on which their names are found, are the following: belonging to the 18th dynasty, somewhere about 1600—1500.

Amenophis I. His name is likewise found beyond Egypt on the temple of Amada, in Nubia.

Thutmosis I. Commencement of the expulsion of the Hyksos.

Amenophis II. The Memnon of the Greeks. Complete expulsion of the Hyksos, and commencement of several of the great edifices. His name is also found on the monuments of Thebes, Elephantine, and even in Nubia, on the distant temple of Soleb. Builder of the palace of Luxor.

Thutmosis II. His name found in Carnac, and on the obelisk at the Lateran.

Ramesses I. Supposed to be the Danaus of the Greeks. Expelled by his brother:

Ramesses II. Miamun. Builder of the palace of Medinet-Abu in Thebes. One of the royal graves that have been opened belongs to this king.

Amenophis III. Renewed invasion of the Hyksos; he flees before them into Ethiopia; but returns victorious with his son Ramesses.

Belonging to the 19th dynasty, between 1500 and 1400.

Ramesses III., called the Great, and sometimes Sesostris; founder of the dynasty, liberator of Egypt, and a great conqueror. His name and titles, his wars and triumphs, are found on the temples and palaces of Luxor and Carnac, in Thebes and Nubia. His son and follower:

Ramesses IV. Pheron, rules long in peace. His name is found in the great pillared hall of the palace of Carnac, and on many other buildings.

Among his successors but few names have been preserved until we come to Scheschonk or Sisac, of the 22nd dynasty, be[Pg 66]tween 970 and 950; he took Jerusalem under the reign of Rehoboam, and therefore furnishes a fixed date.

† R. V. L. (Ruehle Von Lilienstern), Graphic Illustrations of the most ancient History and Geography of Egypt and Ethiopia, with an atlas, 1827. A work containing every thing necessary for understanding the discoveries hitherto made in this department of history.

Critical examination of the accounts of the nine years' campaign, and conquests of Sesostris. His arms were principally directed against wealthy commercial countries; probably by land against Ethiopia, Asia Minor, and part of Thrace; by sea against Arabia Felix, perhaps even the Indian peninsula. Can the performance of these exploits be deemed improbable, in an age when western Asia did not contain a single great empire? The vast undertakings attributed to Sesostris in the interior of his dominions; extensive buildings, canals, division of the land, and imposition of taxes, according to a regular survey, prove that he must have been the sovereign of all Egypt.

Comparison of the accounts given by Herodotus and Diodorus of the division into castes. Not only precedence in time, but likewise the discrepancies between the two, declare in favour of Herodotus.

The dynasty of Sabaco, Seuechus, and Tarhaco in Meroe, who as conquerors subjected Upper Egypt, is comprised between B. C. 800—700. Their names likewise have been already discovered on monuments; some at Abydos in Egypt, others in Nubia.

Herodotus, (l. ii, c. 125, etc.) is still the principal authority for this portion of history. His statements, however, are no longer derived from hieroglyphics: they are purely historical. During the reign of Psammetichus, the Greeks who had migrated into Egypt gave rise to the caste of interpreters, ἑρμηνεῖς, who acted both as ciceroni for strangers, and as brokers between the Egyptians and Greeks: these people were enabled to give information respecting the history of the country. It is not, therefore, surprising that Herodotus should assure us, that from this time the history was authentic.—The names of the succeeding Pharaohs are likewise found on the monuments; in the erection of which they rivaled their predecessors.

Contemporary: Asia: rise and fall of the Chaldæo-Babylonian empire; rise of the Persian monarchy.—Rome: kings from Numa Pompilius to Servius Tullius.—Athens: Draco; Solon; Pisistratus.—Jews: the last period and fall of the kingdom of Judah; Babylonish captivity.

This third secession of the Egyptians lasted till 354. During this period various kings were appointed; Amyrtæus, d. 408; Psammetichus, about 400; Nephreus, about 397; Pausiris, d. 375; Nectanebus I. d. 365; Tachos, d. 363; Nectanebus II. conquered by Artaxerxes III. 354.

Sources. The first great republic which ancient records mention as applying both to trade and war, is undoubtedly a phenomenon well deserving the attention of the historical enquirer. Our knowledge, however, of Carthaginian history is unfortunately very deficient, as we possess no author who has made it the principal object of his attention. The immediate subject of the Greek and Roman writers was the history of their own country, and they only allude to that of Carthage in so far as it is connected with their main topic. This observation applies as well to Polybius and Diodorus, as to Livy and Appian. Even the information given by Justin, the only author who says any thing concerning the early state of Carthage, is miserably defective, although taken from Theopompus. (Cf. Comment. de fontibus Justini in Commentat. Soc. Gotting. vol. xv.) Moreover, as Herodotus here fails us, we have not the writings of any author whatever who witnessed Carthage in the days of her prosperity: Polybius did not see that country till after the decline of its power; the other historians, wrote long afterwards. But although an uninterrupted history of Carthage does not exist, we are yet able to trace the main outlines of the picture of that state.—The modern writers on Carthage are:

Hendrich, de Republica Carthaginiensium, 1664. A useful compilation.

† History of the Republic of Carthage, 2 vols. Franckfort, 1781. A mere history of the wars.

Dampmartin, Histoire de la Rivalité de Carthage et de Rome, tom. i, ii. Very superficial.

† W. Boetticher, History of Carthage, part i. Berlin, 1827. The best work on the subject; in which use has been made of modern researches.

Concerning the Carthaginians, see Heeren's African Nations, 2 vols. 8vo. Oxford, 1831.

Contemporary: Inner Asia: kingdoms of the Assyrians, Babylonians, and first half of the Persian monarchy. Greeks: period from Lycurgus to Themistocles. Romans: period of the kings, and of the commonwealth until the establishment of the tribunes of the people.

Repeated and bloody wars with Dionysius I. between the years 410—368. Neither party able to expel the other: terms of the last peace; that each party should remain in possession of what he then occupied. Second commercial treaty with Rome.

Crafty advantage taken by the Carthaginians of the internal commotions at Syracuse during and subsequent to the reign of Dionysius II: they endeavour to obtain their end; but are thwarted by the heroism of Timoleon, 345—340.

A new and frightful war with Agathocles, the seat of which is transferred from Sicily into Africa itself; it at last terminates in favour of Carthage, 311—307.

The war with Pyrrhus, 277—275, whose ambition gave rise to an alliance between Carthage and Rome, contributed likewise to increase the preponderance of the Carthaginians in Sicily; and probably the perseverance of that people, and their skill in profiting by circumstances, would at last have enabled them to attain their object, had not the seeds of war been thereby scattered between Carthage and Rome.

First war with Rome, 264—241, (twenty-three years,) waged for the possession of Sicily, and decided almost at its commencement by Hiero's passing over to the Roman side. (For the history of it, see below, in the Roman history, Book V. Period ii, parag. 2 sq.)

This war, which lasted from 240 to 237, produced lasting consequences to the state; it gave rise to the feud between Hamilcar and Hanno the Great, which compelled Hamilcar to seek for support against the senate by becoming the leader of a democratic faction.

Second war with Rome, 218—201, (seventeen years,) first in Italy and Spain, afterwards, from 203, in Africa itself. (See the history of this war below, in the Roman history, Book V, Period ii, parag. 6 sqq.)

The democratic faction to which even the Barcas owed their first elevation, was the cause of the degeneracy of the Carthaginian constitution. By that faction the legislative authority of the senate and magistrates was withdrawn and transferred to the ordo judicum—probably the same as the high state tribunal of the hundred—which now assumed the character of an omnipotent national inquisition; and the members being chosen for life exercised oppressive despotism. This tribunal was formed of those who had served the office of ministers of finance, with whom it shared unblushingly the revenues of the state. Hannibal destroyed this oligarchy by a law, enacting that the members should hold their office but for one year; whereas before they held it for life. In the reform wrought by this law in the finances it was seen, that after all wars and losses, the revenues of the republic were still sufficient, not only for the usual expenditure[Pg 87] and the payment of tribute to Rome, but also for leaving a surplus in the public treasury. Ten years had hardly elapsed before Carthage was enabled to pay down at once the whole of the tribute which she had engaged to furnish by instalments.

See hereafter the history of Syria, Book IV, Period iii, separate kingdoms. I. Seleucidæ, parag. 18; and Book V, Period ii, parag. 10 sq.

Even in 199, a disadvantageous treaty framed with Massinissa for fifty years: nevertheless the rich province of Emporia is lost in 193.—Loss of another province unnamed, to which Massinissa inherited some claims from his father.—Seizure of the province of Tysca, with fifty cities, about 174. Probable date of Cato's embassy, who returned in disgust, because his decision had been rejected, and became the fomenter of a project to destroy Carthage.—New disputes about 152.—Massinissa's party is expelled Carthage.—War breaks out in consequence, during which the king in his ninetieth year personally defeats the Carthaginians; and what with famine and the sword, Hasdrubal's army, which had been surrounded by the enemy, was nearly exterminated; in the mean while the Roman ambassadors, who had come to act as mediators, obeying their private instructions, looked on with quiet indifference.

Third war with Rome and destruction of Carthage, 150—146. See hereafter the Roman history, Book V, Period ii, parag. 19 sq.

Sources. Preservation of historic records among the Persians themselves under the form of royal annals; origin and nature of those annals. As these have been destroyed, we are obliged to deduce the history from foreign writers, some of whom, however, availed themselves of the Persian annals. 1. Greeks: their authority as writers, contemporary, but not always sufficiently acquainted with the east. (a) Ctesias. His court history compiled from Persian annals, would be the principal work did we possess the whole; we have, however, only an extract from it preserved by Photius. (b) Herodotus: who probably availed himself of similar sources in some portion of his work. (c) Xenophon. To this period of history belong, not only his Anabasis and Hellenica, but also his Cyropædia, or portraiture of a happy empire and an accomplished ruler, according to eastern ideas, exhibited in the example of Cyrus: of use so far as pure historic records are interwoven with the narrative. (d) Diodorus, etc. 2. Jewish writers. The books of Esdras and Nehemiah; and more particularly that of Esther, as containing a faithful representation of the Persian court and its manners. 3. The accounts of the later Persian chroniclers, Mirkhond in particular, who flourished in the thirteenth century of the christian era, can have no weight in the scale of criticism; they are nevertheless interesting, inasmuch as they make us acquainted with the ideas that the inhabitants of the east form of their early history.

The modern authors on Persian history are principally those who have written on ancient history in general: see p. 2. A treatise on Persian history, deduced from eastern sources, will be found in the Ancient Universal History, vol. iv.

Brissonius, de Regno Persarum, 1591, 8vo. A very laborious compilation.

The section concerning the Persians in † Heeren, Ideas, etc. vol. i, part 1.

[Malcolm, Sir John, History of Persia, from the earliest ages to the present times. Lond. 1816, 4to. 2 vols. "A valuable work."]

Descent of Cyrus from the family of Achæmenes, (Jamshid?). That family belonged to the Pasargadæ tribe, and therefore remained the ruling house.

It cannot be denied but that in the narration of the separate wars waged by Cyrus, discrepancies are found in Herodotus and Ctesias; those two authors, however, agree in the main facts: and, indeed, the differences which exist between them cannot be considered always as direct contradictions.

Description of Zoroaster's legislation, and of the magian national religion, according to the Zend-avesta. How far the dogmas of Zoroaster can be considered as dominant among the Persians?—Proof that they were adopted only by the nobler tribes, more particularly the Pasargadæ. Their great and beneficial influence on agriculture.

Anquetil Du Perron, Zend-avesta, ouvrage de Zoroastre, traduit en François sur l'original Zend. Paris, 1771. 4to. This work has been much improved by the critical discussions added to the German translation by J. L. Kleuker. Compare the dissertations on Zoroaster by Meiners and Tychsen, in Comment. Soc. Gotting. and Heeren, Ideas, etc. vol. i.

Hyde, De Religione veterum Persarum; Oxon. 1700, 4to. Replete with learned research, and the first work that excited enquiry on the subject.

† J. S. Rhode, Sacred Traditions of the East; Breslau, 1821. An excellent work for the study of the Zend-avesta, the magian religion, and the antiquities of the Medes and Persians.

The best drawings of the monuments of Persepolis, remarkable alike for their architecture, their sculpture, and their inscriptions in the arrow-headed character, are to be found in the Travels of Chardin and Niebuhr. Illustrations:

† Herder's Persepolis, in the collection of his works, vol. i.

† Heeren, Ideas, etc. Part I. vol. i. Great assistance in studying the inscriptions, is furnished by

De Sacy, Mémoires sur diverses Antiquités de la Perse; Paris, 1793, 4to. It must be observed, however, that this work is confined to the illustration of the later monuments, belonging to the Sassanidæ. The most successful attempt at deciphering the arrow-headed inscriptions of the old Persic, since Tychsen, Muenter, and Lichtenstein, will be found in

[Pg 96]

† Grotefend, On the Interpretation of the Arrow-headed Characters, particularly of the Inscriptions at Persepolis, contained in the appendix to Heeren, Ideas, etc. vol. ii. with an accompanying Zend alphabet.

Concerning the peculiar character of the Persian national wars, or great campaigns, in which all the conquered nations were obliged to participate, contrasted with the other wars waged by Persian troops alone.

Proofs that the division into satrapies was originally a mere arrangement for the civil government and collection of taxes, distinct from military power. Duties of the satraps. The attention they were to pay to the cultivation and improvement of the land; to the collection of the imposts; to the execution of the royal commands relating to provincial affairs. An abuse of this institution, at a later period, placed in the hands of these satraps the command also of the troops.—Various means of keeping the satraps in a state of dependence: royal secretaries appointed for each, who were to be the first to receive the king's commands.—Periodical visits paid to the provinces by commissioners under the direct appointment of the king, or by the king himself accompanied with an army.—Establishment of couriers in every part of the empire, for the purpose of securing a safe and rapid communication with the provinces, as was the case also in the Mongol countries; (not a regular post, however, the institution here alluded to being intended only for the court.)

Collection of tribute, mostly in kind, for the support of the court and the armies; and in precious metals, not coined, but in their raw state. Application of the treasure thus collected towards constituting a private chest for the king. Various other royal imposts.—Mode of providing for the public expenditure by assignments on the revenues of one or several places.

Military organization of the Persian nations, by means of a decimal division pervading the whole.—Royal troops cantoned in the open field, according to a certain division of the empire, or stationed as garrisons in the cities, and distinct from the encampments.—Manner in which the troops were supported at the cost and by the taxes of the provinces.—Introduction of mercenaries[Pg 101] and Greeks, more particularly among the Persians, and fatal consequences of that measure. Military household of the satraps and grandees.—Institution of a general conscription in national wars. Formation of the Persian navy, consisting of the Phœnician, and not unfrequently of the Asiatic Greek fleets.

Babylon, Susa, and Ecbatana, the usual residences; Persepolis now used as a royal cemetery. The court supported by the most costly productions of each province; hence arose the rigid ceremonial observed at the royal table.—Internal organization of the seraglio.—Influence of the eunuchs and queen-mothers on the government.

Critique on the detailed account given by Herodotus of this expedition, as a national undertaking in which all the subjugated nations were obliged to take a share.—Preparations which last for three years in the Persian empire; league framed with Carthage for the subjection of the Sicilian Greeks, 483—481. The expedition itself in 480; over Asia Minor and the Hellespont, through Thrace and Macedonia.—Muster of the army and division of the troops according to nations at Doriscus; the detailed description of which found in Herodotus, was most probably borrowed from some Persian document.—The pass of Thermopylæ taken by treachery; on the same day a naval engagement off Artemisium.—Athens captured and burnt. Battle of Salamis, Sept. 23, 480. Retreat of Xerxes; an army of picked men left behind, under the command of Mardonius.—Fruitless negotiations with the Athenians.—Second campaign of Mardonius: he is routed at Platææ, Sept. 25, 479; and that event puts an end for ever to the Persian irruptions into Greece: on the same day the Persian army is defeated, and their fleet burnt at Mycale in Asia Minor.

Was Xerxes the Ahasuerus of the Jews?—On the difference between the names of the Persian kings in Persian and Chaldee; not to be wondered at when we consider that they were mere titles or surnames, assumed by the sovereigns after their accession.

Alliance of the Persians with Sparta, framed by Tissaphernes, 441; but in consequence of the policy of Alcibiades, and the artful principles of Tissaphernes, followed by no important results, until the younger Cyrus, satrap of all Asia Minor, was by Lysander, 407, brought over to the Spartan interest. (See below, the Grecian history, III. Period, parag. 23.)

History of this war according to Xenophon. Battle of Cunaxa, in which Cyrus falls, 401. Retreat of the ten thousand Greek mercenaries in the service of Cyrus, under the guidance of Xenophon.

Treachery of Mentor, the leader of the confederates: the consequent capture and destruction of Sidon, followed by the subjection of Phœnicia, 356. Capture of Cyprus by Grecian troops, under the command of Phocion and the younger Evagoras, 354. Expedition of the king in person against Egypt: victory of Pelusium, won over king Nectanebus II. with the help of Grecian mercenaries. Egypt becomes, once more, a Persian province.

For the history of the war, see below: the history of Macedon.

Concerning the principal Greek islands off the coast of Asia Minor, see above, p. 18.

† Fr. Carl. Herm. Kruse, Geographico-Antiquarian delineation of ancient Greece and its colonies, with reference to mo[Pg 118]dern discoveries. Illustrated with maps and plates: first part, 1825. General Geography: second part, first division, 1826. Second division, 1827. Special Geography of Central Greece. A most minute and careful description of Greece, founded on modern discoveries.

Sources: On the formation and progress of history among the Greeks. Preliminary enquiry into the peculiarities of Grecian mythology in a historical point of view, as comprising the most ancient history of the national tribes and heroes. A history rich in itself, on account of the number of tribes and their leaders; but embellished and altered in various ways by the poets, particularly the great early epic writers, and afterwards by the tragedians.—First advance of history from tradition, wrought by the logographi, especially those of the Ionian cities, Hecatæus, Pherecydes, etc. until Herodotus, so justly called the Father of History, raised it at once to such a lofty pitch of eminence. (Compare † The historical Art of the Greeks considered in its Rise and Progress, by G. F. Creuzer; 1803.) Nevertheless, in Herodotus, and even later writers, history continued to savour of its origin; and so far as the realm of tradition extended, even Theopompus and Ephorus felt no disinclination to borrow their materials from mythologists or poets. It need scarcely be observed, that in this first period the history is merely traditional.

Among the moderns, the English have most successfully treated the subject of Grecian history: the principal works are:

John Gillies, The History of Ancient Greece, its colonies and conquests, from the earliest accounts till the division of the Macedonian empire in the east, including the history of literature, philosophy, and the fine arts. London, 1786, 2 vols. 4to. and

William Mitford, The History of Greece. London, 1784,[Pg 119] 4 vols. 4to. Several new editions have since appeared. Translated into German, Jena, 1800, sqq. by H. L. Eichstädt. Mitford is perhaps superior in learning, copiousness, and solidity, but he certainly is greatly surpassed by Gillies in genius and taste, and more especially in a proper conception of the spirit of antiquity. [Few English critics will here coincide with our author.]

De Pauw, Recherches sur les Grecs, 1701, 2 vols. 8vo. Replete with partial views and hypotheses.

† Heeren, Researches into the politics, intercourse, and trade of the most celebrated nations of antiquity: 3 vols. 1st part, 4th edit. 1826. [Translated into English, Oxford, 1830, 8vo.]

Many important enquiries on various portions of Grecian history and antiquities will be found in the great collection:

Gronovii, Thesaurus Antiquitatum Græcarum, 12 vols. folio.

Others are contained in the transactions of different learned societies; particularly in

Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions et des Belles Lettres, Paris, 1709, sqq. 49 vols. 4to.

Commentarii, (4 vols.) Commentarii novi, (8 vols.) Commentationes, (16 vols.) and Commentationes recentiores Societatis Scientiarum Gotting. (5 vols.)

First seat of the Pelasgians in the Peloponnesus, under Inachus, about B. C. 1800. According to their own traditions, they made their first appearance in this quarter as uncultivated savages; they must, however, at an early period, have made some progress towards civilization, since the most ancient states, Argos and Sicyon, owed their origin to them; and to them, perhaps, with great probability, are attributed the remains of those most ancient monuments generally termed cyclopian.—Extension of this tribe towards the north, particularly over Attica; settlement in Thessaly under their leaders Achæus, Phthius, and Pelasgus; here they learned to apply themselves to agriculture, and re[Pg 120]mained for a hundred and fifty successive years; about 1700—1500.

1. Æolus follows his father Hellen into Phthiotis, which consequently remains the seat of the Æolians; they spread from thence over western Greece, Acarnania, Ætolia, Phocis, Locris, Elis in the Peloponnesus, and likewise over the western islands.

2. Dorus follows his father into Estiæotis, the most ancient seat of the Dorians. They are driven from thence after the death of Dorus by the Perrhæbi; spread over Macedonia and Crete; part of the tribe return, cross mount Œta, and settle in the Tetrapolis Dorica, afterwards called Doris, where they remain until they migrate into Peloponnesus, under the guidance of the Heraclidæ; about 1100. (See below, p. 127).

3. Xuthus, expelled by his brothers, migrates to Athens, where he marries Creusa, daughter of Erectheus, by whom he has sons, Ion and Achæus. Ion and his tribe, driven out of Athens, settle in that part of Peloponnesus called Ægialus, a name which by them was converted into Ionia, and in later times exchanged for Achaia. The Achæans preserve their footing in Laconia and Argos, until the time of the Dorian migration.

† L. D. Huellman, Early Grecian History, 1814. Rich in original views and conjectures, beyond which the early history of nations seldom extends.

† D. C. Otfried Mueller, History of the Hellenic Tribes and Cities, 1820, vol. 1. containing, Orchomenus and the Minyæ; vols. 2, 3, containing the Dorians, 1825.

Establishment in Attica of the colony of Cecrops, from Sais in Egypt, about 1550; in Argos, of the colony of Danaus, likewise from Egypt, about 1500.—The colony of Cadmus, from Phœnicia, settles in Bœotia about 1550.—The colony of Pelops, from Mysia, settles in Argos about 1400.

Sainte-Croix, Recherches sur les Mystères du Paganisme, Paris, 1765. Translated into German, with valuable observations, by C. G. Lenz; Gotha, 1790.

A. Van Dalen, De Oraculis veterum Ethnicorum Dissertationes6. Amstel. 1700. A very valuable work. A comprehensive dissertation on the subject, however, is still wanting: a portion of it is treated of in

J. Groddek, De Oraculorum veterum, quæ in Herodoti libris continentur, natura, commentatio; Gotting. 1786.

† Fr. Wilh. Tittmann, Upon the Amphictyonic League; 1812. A dissertation which gained the prize of the Academy of Sciences at Berlin.

Expedition of the Argonauts to Colchis, somewhere about B. C. 1250; war of the seven confederate princes against Thebes[Pg 126] about 1225; the town, however, was not taken until the second attempt made by the sons of the chiefs (Epigoni) in 1215.

General view of the political state of Greece about the time of the Trojan war.—Division into several small states, the most powerful of which were Argos and Mycenæ.—All those states were governed by hereditary chieftains or princes from a certain family (kings, βασιλεῖς,) who combined the offices of leaders in war and judges in peace. Their authority being more or less extended in proportion to the qualities they possessed, and particularly to their valour in battle.—Manner of life among the people: a nation dwelling in cities, but at the same time cultivating the land and tending cattle; applying also to war, and already somewhat advanced in the art of navigation.

A. W. Schlegel, De Geographia Homeri Commentatio. Hannov. 1788. A review of the political geography of Greece at this period.—On the topography of Troy:

Lechevalier, Description de la Plaine de Troie. Translated and accompanied with notes by Heyne, Leipzig, 1794. Compare Clarke, Travels, vol. i, c. 4—6, who has thrown doubts on the system of Lechevalier, which has, however, been again confirmed by Leake, Travels in Asia Minor.

Sources. On no portion of the Grecian history is our information so scanty as upon this long period, in which we can be hardly said to have more than a general knowledge of many of the most important events. As in the foregoing period, its commencement is but a traditional and poetical history. It was not till towards the end of it that the use of writing became common among the Greeks; add to which the period itself was not rife in great national undertakings, such as might afford appropriate materials for the poet or historian. Besides the scattered information which may be gathered from Herodotus, Plutarch, Strabo, and above all from the introduction to Thucydides's history, Pausanias must not be forgotten; who, in his description of Greece, has preserved an abundance of most valuable documents relating to the separate histories of the minor states. The Books of Diodorus belonging to this period are lost.

† Fr. Wilhelm Tittmann, Delineation of the Grecian Forms of Government, 1822. An industrious collection of all the information we possess respecting this subject.

† W. Wachsmuth, Grecian Antiquities with regard to Politics, 4 vols. An excellent work.

First unsuccessful attempt under Hyllus, son of Hercules, about 1180.—Repeated attempts, until at last the claims of the Heraclidæ are made good by the grandsons of Hyllus, viz. Telephus and Cresphontes, together with Eurysthenes and Procles, sons of their brother Aristodemus, 1100.

For the history of these colonies, see the following section.

The notion that Greece contained the same number of states as countries is completely false, although it cannot be denied that the mode of expression in most writings upon Greek history seems to authorize the assertion. It is true that some of those countries, such as Attica, Megaris, Laconia, may be each regarded as a separate state, because each constituted the territory of one city. The others, however, such as Arcadia, Bœotia, etc. did not each form one state, but comprised as many separate states as there were free and independent cities, each of which,[Pg 130] with its territory, formed one. Still, however, it must be observed, (a) that the natural ties of kindred subsisted; Arcadians, Bœotians, etc. spoke of one another as countrymen. (b) Voluntary connections were entered into between different cities, and sometimes all the cities of a country, as, for instance, in Achaia, so that the whole formed one confederation; each individual city nevertheless still preserved its own system of laws and government. Again, (c) in consequence of a greater share of power, one city assumed a sort of dominion over the other; as, for instance, that of Thebes over the Bœotian cities. This dominion, however, was always precarious, and depended upon the state of affairs. (d) It must likewise be observed, that the constitution of each separate city underwent many changes, wrought generally by influential citizens, (tyrants,) who not only possessed themselves of the supreme power, but also contrived frequently to make it for some time hereditary in their families. Every one will easily discern that the above are the fundamental principles of Greek history, which cannot be too clearly conceived, or too correctly defined; since it is self-evident what a wide field was by such a constitution of things thrown open to practical politics. The more improbable the attainment of fixed constitutions in the separate cities was, the more frequent must have been the political attempts; (attempts facilitated by the narrow extent of the state;) and the more frequently those attempts failed, the more extensive in this intellectual people became the mass of political ideas; the results of which in later times were the legislative codes of Solon and others.

The Amphictyonic council was certainly not a states-general, in which all national affairs were discussed. Its immediate office was to attend to the temples and the oracles of Delphi. But then it must be observed, 1st, that from this council originated the Grecian ideas of the law of nations; over the preservation of which the Amphictyons watched. 2. In consequence of its political influence on the oracle, this council, in certain cases, was enabled to take a share in the affairs of different states. 3. The Amphictyons always formed a national institution, since none but Hellenes were admitted.

St. Croix, Des anciens gouvernemens fédératifs, et de la législation de Crète, Paris, 1796. One of the most invaluable inquiries, not only into the institutions of the Amphictyons, but also into other matters of Grecian history connected with them.

Families of the Proclidæ and Ægidæ; the latter so called from Agis, the son and successor of Eurysthenes.

† J. C. F. Manso, An Essay on the History and Constitution of Sparta, Leipzig, 1800 sqq. 3 vols. The most important work upon this subject, and which likewise contains much information upon various points of Grecian history connected with it.

Cragius, De Republica Lacedæmoniorum, 1642.

Meursius, De regno Laconico; and Miscellanea Laconica. Both laborious compilations.

Relation between the Spartan citizens of the capital as a ruling body, and the Lacedæmonians, or περίοικοι, inhabitants of the country, as subjects who paid tribute and military service. Even in the time of Agis, the successor of Eurysthenes, this subjection was effected by force; the inhabitants of Helos were made slaves, as a punishment for their opposition; while the others, by the sacrifice of their political freedom, preserved their personal liberty, however confined it might be.

Illustration of the principal features in the Spartan constitution. Some preliminary observations are necessary. (a) As the legislation of Lycurgus occurred at so early a period, and as his laws were not written, but conveyed in apophthegms, (ῥήτραι,) which were confirmed by the oracle of Delphi, many things of later origin have been attributed to Lycurgus. (b) Much that is rightly attributed to him was not original, but deduced from ancient Dorian institutions, which being now upon the decline, were reestablished by force of law. Hence it follows, that the legislation of Lycurgus must naturally have had many points of resemblance with that of the Cretans, likewise of Dorian origin, although much, as we are told, was directly borrowed from them. (c) The principal object of the laws of Lycurgus was to ensure the existence of Sparta by creating and supporting a vigorous and uncorrupted race of men. Hence those laws had a more peculiar reference to private life and physical education, than to the constitution of the state, in which the legislator appears to have introduced but few alterations.

In reference to the constitution: 1. The relation which had hitherto existed between the Spartans as a dominant people, and the Lacedæmonians as subjects, was preserved. 2. The two kings, from the two ruling families, were likewise continued, as leaders in war and first magistrates in peace. On the other hand, 3. to Lycurgus is attributed the institution of a senate, (γερούσια,) consisting of twenty-eight members, none of whom could be less than sixty years old, who were to be chosen by the people for life, and were to constitute the king's council in public affairs. 4. Whether the college of the five Ephori annually chosen, was originally instituted by Lycurgus, or at some later period, is a question impossible to decide, but of little importance, since the great power of this college, to which every thing was finally referred as the highest tribunal of the state, was certainly assumed after the time of Lycurgus. 5. Besides the above, there were likewise the popular assemblies, convened according to the division into φύλας and ὤβας, at which none but Spartans could assist:[Pg 134] their privileges extended no further than to approve or reject the measures proposed to them by the kings and the senate.

In the laws relating to private life, Lycurgus aimed at making the Spartans a society of citizens, equal as far as possible with respect to their property and mode of life, and each deeply impressed with the conviction that he was the property of his country, to which he was bound to yield an unconditional obedience. Hence, 1. The new division of land, 9000 portions to the Spartans, and 30,000 to the Lacedæmonians; permission being given to dispose of those portions by entail or gift, but not by sale. 2. The removal as far as possible of every species of luxury, particularly by means of the daily public tables (συσσίτια) of all the citizens, according to their divisions, in which the commons were settled by law. 3. The complete organization of domestic society in relation both to husband and wife, parents and children, which was so framed as to further, even at the cost of morality, the grand political object, the production of vigorous and healthy citizens. 4. Hence, finally, the condition of the slaves, comprehended under the general name of helots, who, although they may be regarded nearly as serfs, were likewise the property of the state, which had the right of claiming their services in war.—Easy, however, as it is to enumerate thus generally the principal heads of the Spartan constitution, the want of sufficient documents renders it difficult and oftentimes impossible to answer a crowd of questions, which present themselves on our penetrating more deeply into the subject. Still, however, its long duration, (nearly four hundred years,) without any observable change, is more remarkable even than the constitution itself. More remarkable, inasmuch as the Spartans soon after this time appear as conquerors. Indeed, it could no longer be expected that any durable peace should exist in Greece, while the centre of the country was occupied by a military commonwealth, whose citizens must have been, by the restlessness common to man, impelled to war, since all the occupations of household life and of agriculture were left to the care of slaves.

Besides the works mentioned above, p. 119.

Heyne, De Spartanorum republica Judicium; inserted in Commentat. Soc. Gotting. vol. ix. Intended to correct the partial opinions of De Pauw.

Unimportant wars with Tegea and Argos; and disputes with Messene, 783—745.

First Messenian war, 742—722, terminated by the capture of the frontier fortress Ithome, after the voluntary death of the Messenian king, Aristodemus.—The Messenians become tributary to the Spartans, and are obliged to give up one half of the revenues of their lands.—Occurrences during this war: 1. Institution, according to some authorities, of the college of Ephori as vicegerents of the kings in their absence, and arbitrators in the quarrels which might arise between the kings and the senate. 2. The power of the people so far limited as to restrain the popular assemblies from making alterations in the resolutions proposed to them by the senate or the kings, and confining them merely to a vote of approval or rejection. 3. Insurrection of the Parthenii and Helots becomes the motive for sending out colonies; a measure to which Sparta had more than once resorted for the purpose of maintaining domestic tranquillity.

Second Messenian war, 682—668, waged by the Messenians under the command of their hero Aristomenes, by the Spartans under that of Tyrtæus, who fanned the flame of war until the contest was terminated by the capture of the strong town Ira. The Messenian territory is divided among the conquerors, and the conquered inhabitants become, like the helots, agricultural slaves.

Wars with Tegea for the most part unsuccessful; and with Argos, for the possession of Thyrea and the island of Cythera; by the accession of which the Spartan territory received an important augmentation, about 550.

The history of Athens, of course, constitutes a main part of the works mentioned above, p. 119. Besides which:

W. Young, The history of Athens politically and philosophically considered. London, 1796. 4to. Argumentation rather than history.

Corsini, Fasti Attici. Florent. 1747. 4 vols. 4to. A most careful chronological essay.

1. Period of kingly government down to 1068. The history of Athens as a state begins properly with Theseus, who succeeded his father Ægeus, about B. C. 1300. Although certain institutions, such as that of the areopagus, the division of the people into nobles, (εὐπατρίδαι,) husbandmen, (γεώργοι,) and mechanics: (δημιούργοι·) a division which recals to our memory the Egyptian institution of castes, are perhaps of an earlier date, and may be ascribed to the colony of Cecrops. Theseus was, however, in some measure the founder of the state, since, instead of the four districts, (δήμοι,) hitherto independent of one another, he constituted the city of Athens as the only seat of government. Among his successors the attention of the student is directed to Mnestheus, who fell before Troy; and the last king, Codrus, who by a voluntary sacrifice of his life rescued Attica from the inroads of the Dorians, 1068.

2. Period of archons for life, taken from the family of Codrus, thirteen of whom ruled; 1068—752. The first was Medon, the last, Alcmæon. These archons succeeded, like the kings, by inheritance, but were accountable for their administration, (ὑπεύθυνοι.)—At the commencement of this period occur the migrations of the Ionians from Attica to Asia Minor, 1044. See below.

3. Period of the decennial archons, seven of whom succeeded between 752—682. These likewise were taken from the family of Codrus. This period is devoid of any remarkable occurrences.

4. Period extending to Solon, 682—594. that of nine archons yearly chosen, but so arranged that the prerogatives of the former kings, and the preceding archons, were divided among the three first of the nine. With respect to this, as well as to the other changes above mentioned, we know little of the causes which produced them, or of the manner in which they were brought [Pg 138]about. Rise of an oppressive aristocracy, (like that of the patricians at Rome, immediately after the expulsion of the kings,) both the archons and the members of the areopagus being elected only from noble families. First attempt at legislation by Draco, 622, which appears only to have consisted in a criminal code, rendered unavailing by its severity.—The insurrection of Cylon, 598, in consequence of the manner in which it was quelled, turned out most injurious to the aristocratical party, inasmuch as the nobles drew upon themselves the pollution of blood, which, even after the purification of Epimenides, 593, was long used as a pretext for commotion. The political factions of the Pediæi, of the Diacrii, and of the Parhali, produced an anarchy at Athens, during which the neighbouring Megarians took possession of the island of Salamis; a conquest which, however, was subsequently wrested from them by Solon.

Review of the prominent features in Solon's legislation. Its main object was to abolish the oppressive aristocracy, without however introducing a pure democracy. 1. Provisional laws: abolition of the statutes of Draco, those against murder excepted: law enacted for the relief of debtors, (σεισαχθεία, novæ tabulæ,) not so much by cancelling the debts as by diminishing their amount by a rise in the value of money; and likewise by ensuring the personal liberty of the debtor. 2. Fundamental laws, both in reference to the constitution and in reference to private life and private rights.—Constitution of the state. (a) Organization of the people by means of divisions: according to property into four classes; the Pentacosimedimni, or those who had a yearly income of 500 medimni; the Equites, (ἱππεῖς,) who had 400; the Zeugitæ, who had 300; and the Thetes, (capite censi,) whose yearly revenue did not amount to so much.—The ancient divisions according to heads, into wards, (φύλαι,) of which there [Pg 139]were four, and according to residence into demi, (hundreds,) of which a hundred and seventy are enumerated, were preserved. (b) None but citizens of the three first classes could fill all the offices of state; but all were admitted to the popular assemblies, and had a right of voting in the courts of judicature. (c) The nine archons annually chosen, who acted as supreme magistrates, although not permitted to assume military office at the same time, remained at the head of the state; the first bearing the name of ἐπώνυμος, the second of βασιλεὺς, the third of πολέμαρχος, the remaining six that of θεσμοθὲται. Combined with the archons was (d) The council, (βουλὴ,) which consisted of a body of four hundred persons annually taken from the three first classes of citizens; (a hundred from each ward;) these were chosen by lot, but were obliged to submit to a rigid examination (δοκιμασία) before they entered upon office. The archons were obliged to consult the four hundred on every occurrence; and nothing could be carried down to the commons until it had been previously debated in this council. (e) To the people, consisting of the whole four classes, was reserved the right in its assemblies (ἐκκλησίαι) of confirming the laws, of electing the magistrates, of debating all public affairs referred to them by the council, and likewise the public distribution of justice. (f) The areopagus was, according to Solon's plan, to be the main buttress of the constitution; that tribunal had hitherto been a mere tool in the hands of the aristocracy. It was composed of retired archons, and remained not only the supreme tribunal in capital cases, but likewise was charged with the superintendence of morals, with the censorship upon the conduct of the archons who went out of office, and had the prerogative of amending or rescinding the measures that had been approved of by the commons. The power of this court, which might easily have become equal to the college of Ephori at Sparta, might at first have been supposed too extensive, had not experience shown the fatal consequences of the reduction of that power by Pericles. This alloy of aristocracy and democracy certainly gives proof of a deep insight into the nature of republican constitutions; but Solon is not less entitled to praise for his endeavours to place the helm of government in the hands only of the most enlightened and prudent citizens. It must likewise be observed, that the code for private life given by Solon exhibits the genius of a man who regarded polity as subordinate to morals, and not, like Lycurgus, morals as subordinate to polity.

[Pg 140]

Sam. Petitus, De Legibus Atticis, 1635. fol. The best compilation and illustration of the fragments remaining of the Attic law.

Chr. Bunsen, De jure Atheniensium hereditario, ex Isæo cæterisque oratoribus Græcis ducto, Goett. 1812. The law of inheritance was a principal feature in Solon's legislation; the explanation of it requires a profound acquaintance with the constitution, so far as it was connected with government by clans or families.

An explanation of the Athenian constitution will be likewise found in the above-mentioned works of Tittmann, Kruse, and Wachsmuth.

First exaltation of Pisistratus, 561, procured by his obtaining a body guard; flight of the Alcmæonidæ under Megacles. Pisistratus expelled, 560. Second exaltation of Pisistratus procured by his matrimonial connection with the family of Megacles, 556—552.—His second expulsion by Megacles, 552—538.—His third exaltation; obtains the power by force of arms, and preserves it to the day of his death, 538—528. Flight of the Alcmæonidæ into Macedonia, where they attach the malcontents to their party. Pisistratus is succeeded by his sons Hipparchus and Hippias, who rule conjointly until 514, when the elder is murdered by Harmodius and Aristogiton. The exiled Alcmæonidæ, having bribed the Delphian oracle, gain over the Spartans[Pg 141] to their interest: backed by a Spartan army, they take possession of Athens in 510; Hippias is deposed, and flies over to the Persians.

a. Arcadia. The Arcadian traditions enumerate a line of kings or hereditary princes, said to have ruled over the whole of Arcadia; the line commences with Arcas and his son Lycaon, whose successors kept possession of the supreme power, and shared more or less in the ancient feuds of the Hellenic princes. Upon the conquest of Peloponnesus by the Dorians, Arcadia was the only land that did not suffer by the irruption: an advantage for which it was probably indebted more to its mountains, than to the skill of Cypselus its king. The successors of that prince took a part in the wars between the Messenians and Spartans, siding with the former: but in the second Messenian war, the last Arcadian king, Aristocrates II. having betrayed his allies, was in consequence stoned to death by his subjects, and the regal dignity was abolished in 668. Arcadia now became divided into as many small states as it contained cities with their respective districts; among these Tegea and Mantinea were the chief, and probably held the others in a certain state of control, without, however, depriving them wholly of their independence. As might have been expected in a pastoral nation, the constitution was democratical. In Mantinea there were wardens of the people, (δημιούργοι,) and a senate, (βουλή.) The wars of separate cities are frequently mentioned, but no general confederation united them.

† See A. von Breitenbauch, History of Arcadia, 1791.

b. Argos. Even previously to the Dorian migration, the country of Argolis was parcelled out into several small kingdoms, such as those of Argos, Mycenæ, and Tiryns. In Argos, the[Pg 143] oldest Grecian state next to Sicyon, ruled the forefathers of Perseus, who exchanged the kingdom of his ancestors for Tiryns: here his successors continued to reign till the time of Hercules, whose sons, expelled by Eurystheus, sought an asylum among the Dorians.—In Mycenæ, said to have been built by Perseus, the throne was occupied by the family of Pelops: and at the period of the Trojan war, this little state, to which Corinth and Sicyon then belonged, was the most powerful in Greece, and governed by Agamemnon. The migration into this country by Pelops from Asia Minor, must have been attended with important consequences, since it has given a name to the whole peninsula: the object of Pelops, as we may infer from the riches he brought with him, was probably to establish a trading settlement.—At the Dorian conquest Argos fell to the share of Temenus, the Achæans were expelled, and the country was peopled by Dorians. As early as the reign of Cisus, son of Temenus, the royal power was so limited, that the successors of that prince hardly preserved any thing but the mere name: about 984 the regal dignity was wholly abrogated, and its place supplied by a republican constitution, concerning the domestic organization of which we know nothing more than that at Argos the government was in the hands of a senate, (βουλὴ,) of a college of eighty citizens, (οἱ ὀγδοήκοντα,) and of magistrates, who bore the name of ἀρτύνοι: in Epidaurus, however, there was a body of one hundred and eighty citizens who chose from among themselves the senate, the members of which were called ἀρτύνοι. As in the other states of Greece so in Argolis, there were as many independent states as there were cities; in the north Argos, Mycenæ, and Tiryns; in the south Epidaurus and Trœzen. The two last preserved their independence; but Mycenæ was destroyed by the Argives in 425, and the inhabitants of Tiryns were forcibly transplanted to Argos. The district of Argos, therefore, comprised the northern portion of the country called Argolis; but not the southern portion, which belonged to the towns situated therein.

c. Corinth. In this place, previous to the time of the Dorian migration, the house of Sisyphus held the royal power; and even at that early period Corinth is extolled by Homer for its wealth. The Dorians drove out the original inhabitants; and Aletes, belonging to the race of Hercules, became king about 1089; the posterity of that prince held the sceptre down to the fifth generation. After the death of the last king, Telessus, 777,[Pg 144] the family of the Bacchiadæ, likewise a branch of the family of Hercules, took possession of the government and introduced an oligarchy, electing annually from among themselves a Prytane. At last, in 657, Cypselus got the upper hand; he was succeeded, 627, by his son Periander; both father and son were equally conspicuous for their avarice and cruelty. Periander (d. 587) was succeeded by his nephew Psammetichus, who reigned till 584, when the Corinthians asserted their freedom. With regard to the internal organization of the republic, little more is known than that there were at Corinth assemblies of the commons and a senate, (γερουσία): the government appears to have been the aristocracy of a trading state; for even the Bacchiadæ, at least some of them, were merchants.—The Corinthian commerce consisted chiefly in the exchange of Asiatic and Italian goods, and therefore was mostly carried on by sea: for such a trade the city of Corinth offered many advantages, particularly if we consider the state of navigation in those times; but the sea trade of Corinth, however profitable to the citizens, and even to the state, in consequence of the customs, cannot be considered as very extensive.—The colonies of Corinth in the west were principally Corcyra, Epidamnus, Leucas, Syracuse; in the east Potidæa: these colonies would fain have asserted a sort of independence, but never succeeded for any length of time in so doing.

From the possession of these colonies, and from the necessity of protecting the trader from pirates, Corinth grew to be a naval power; she invented triremes, and at the early date of 664 gave battle to the Corcyræans at sea. On the other hand, her wars by land were generally waged with the assistance of foreign subsidiaries; and from the facility with which she was enabled to pay her mercenary troops, she was the more ready to interfere in the domestic wars of Greece.

d. Sicyon. Tradition represents this state, together with Argos, as the most ancient in Greece; the catalogues of early kings and princes, who are said to have reigned at this place, make it probable that in early antiquity some settlements of priests were made in this quarter. In the times previous to the migration of the Dorians, Sicyon was first inhabited by the Ionians; at the Trojan war, however, it made part of Agamemnon's kingdom. At the Dorian irruption, Phalces, son of Temenus, took possession of Sicyon, which then became a Dorian city. After the abrogation of the kingship, the date of which is not precisely[Pg 145] known, the constitution assumed the form of an uncurbed democracy, which, as usual, paved the way for the usurpation of one individual. Orthagoras and his posterity, the last and most celebrated of whom was Clisthenes, ruled over Sicyon during a whole century; 700—600. After the restoration of her freedom, Sicyon frequently suffered from revolutions; and the period of her highest splendour was during the latter days of Greece, when she became a member of the Achæan league.

e. Achaia. During the spread of the Hellenes, this country, which till then had borne the name of Ægialus, was taken possession of by Ion, who had been expelled from Athens, and his tribe, who from their leader took the name of Ionians: the country remained in the hands of the Ionians until the Dorian migration, when the Achæans, driven out of Argos and Laconia, pressed into the northern parts of Peloponnesus under Tisamenus, son of Orestes: they settled in the land of the Ionians, and the power of the chieftain descended to his posterity, until the tyranny of the last sovereign of that race, Gyges, (of date undetermined,) produced the abolition of monarchy. Achaia thereupon was parcelled into twelve small republics, or so many cities with their respective districts, each of which comprised seven or eight cantons. All these republics had democratic constitutions, and were mutually united by a league, founded on the most perfect equality, and which nothing but the policy of the Macedonian kings could dissolve; and even this dissolution gave rise to the Achæan league, of such high importance in subsequent times. The Achæans lived in peace and happiness, inasmuch as they had not the vanity, before the Peloponnesian war, to interfere in the affairs of foreign states: their constitutions were so renowned, that they were adopted by several other Grecian cities.

f. Elis. The inhabitants in earlier times bore the name of Epeans, which, like that of Eleans, was traced to one of their ancient kings. The names of their most ancient hereditary princes, Endymion, Epeus, Eleus, Augias, are celebrated by the poets. It appears that this country was divided into several small kingdoms, since, at the period of the Trojan war it contained four, to which however must be added Pylus in Triphylia, a territory usually reckoned as belonging to Elis. At the epoch of the Dorian migration the Ætolians, who had accompanied the Dorians, headed by their chieftain Oxylus, settled in Elis; but permitted the ancient inhabitants to remain in the country.[Pg 146] Among the successors of Oxylus was Iphitus the contemporary of Lycurgus, and celebrated as the restorer of the Olympian games, to the celebration of which Elis was indebted for the tranquil splendour that distinguished her from this time: her territory being regarded as sacred, although she had occasional disputes with her neighbours, the Arcadians, for precedence at the games. After the abolition of the royal power supreme magistrates were chosen, to whose office was added the charge of superintending the games: (Hellanodicæ). These magistrates were at first two; they were afterwards increased to ten, one from each tribe, although their number frequently changed with that of the tribes themselves. There must likewise have been a senate, consisting of ninety persons, who held their places for life, since Aristotle makes mention of that branch of the Elean constitution. The city of Elis was first built in 477, before which time the Eleans resided in several small hamlets.

a. Megaris. Until the epoch of the Dorian migration, this state generally formed part of the domain of the Attic kings; or at least was governed by princes of that house. Immediately previous to that event, the Megarians, after the assassination of their last sovereign, Hyperion, placed the government in the hands of magistrates elected for stated periods. At the time of the Dorian irruption, under the reign of Codrus, Megara was occupied by Dorians, more especially those of Corinth, who consequently reckoned the city among their colonies, and during the sway of the Bacchiadæ endeavoured to keep it in a state of dependency; a circumstance which gave rise to several wars. Nevertheless Megara supported her rank as a separate state, both in those and many subsequent wars among the Greeks, in which she took a share both by sea and land. About the year 600, Theagenes, step-father of the Athenian Cylon, had possessed himself of the supreme power: after the expulsion of that tyrant, the republican constitution was once more restored, but soon after merged into the lowest species of democracy. Megara, however, even at the period of the Persian war, in which it took a glorious share, appears to have recovered the character of a well-ordered state, although we have no information respecting its internal organization.

[Pg 147]

b. Bœotia. History mentions several very early races in Bœotia, such as the Aones, Hyantes, etc.; with these were mingled Phœnician emigrants, who had come into the country under the guidance of Cadmus. The stock of Cadmus became the ruling family, and remained so for a long time: the history of his descendants, who were kings of Thebes, and comprised under their dominion the greatest part of Bœotia, constitutes a main branch of Grecian mythology: among them were Œdipus, Laïus, Eteocles, and Polynices. After the capture of Thebes by the Epigoni, 1215, the Bœotians were expelled by Thracian hordes, and settled at Arne in Thessaly; at the time of the Dorian migration they returned to the land of their forefathers, and mingled with the Æolians of those quarters. Not long after, upon the death of Xuthus, royalty was abolished, 1126. Bœotia was now divided into as many small states as it contained cities; of these, next to Thebes, the most eminent were the towns of Platææ, Thespiæ, Tanagra, and Chæronea, each of which had its own separate district and peculiar form of government; but all those constitutions appear to have been commuted into oligarchies about the time of the Persian war. Such had been the case even with Thebes, although she had received as a legislator, Philolaus from Corinth; but the code given by this individual cannot have been attended with the desired effect, as the government was continually fluctuating between a licentious democracy and an overbearing oligarchy. The Bœotian cities were, however, mutually united by a league, at the head of which stood Thebes, who gradually converted her right of precedence into a right of power, although her ambitious attempts were resisted to the last extremity by the separate cities, and by Platææ in particular: hence sprung many wars. The general affairs were decided upon in four assemblies, (βουλαὶ,) held in the four districts into which Bœotia was divided; these assemblies in conjunction elected eleven Bœotarchs, who stood at the head of the federation as supreme magistrates and field marshals. The great extent and population of their territory might have enabled the Bœotians to act the first part on the theatre of Greece, had they not been impeded by their pernicious form of government, by the envy felt against Thebes, and by the want of union which naturally ensued. Yet in subsequent times the example of Epaminondas and Pelopidas gave proof that the genius of two men was sufficient to surmount all these obstacles.

[Pg 148]

c. Phocis was originally ruled by kings descended, it is said, from Phocus, the leader of a colony from Corinth. The sovereign power was abolished about the time of the Dorian migration; but the form of the republican constitution which succeeded remains undetermined; and of the undertakings of the Phocians previous to the Persian invasion, we know nothing more than that they waged war with the Thessalians, and were successful. As history never mentions the Phocians but in the aggregate, the whole territory must have formed but one independent state. To that state, however, the city of Delphi, which had its own constitution, did not belong: the city of Crissa with its fertile district, and the harbour of Cirrha, constituted a separate state, which became opulent by practising extortions upon the pilgrims to Delphi: this state lasted till 600, when, in consequence of the insults of the Crissæans to the Delphian oracle, a war was proclaimed against them by the Amphictyons, which ended in 590 with the rasing of Crissa; the land of which was thenceforward added to the sacred glebe of Delphi.

d. Locris. Although we learn from early history that the Locrians also had their kings,—among whom Ajax, the son of Oileus, is renowned in the Trojan war,—and that they likewise in subsequent times adopted a republican form of government; yet the date of that revolution, and the manner in which it was brought about, are not known. The three tribes of Locrians remained politically distinct. The Locri Ozolæ, west of Phocis, possessed the most extensive territory; each city of which stood independent, though Amphissa is mentioned as the capital. The country of the Locri Opuntii, eastward, consisted of the district appertaining to the city of Opus; of their domestic organization, as well as that of their neighbours, the Locri Epicnemidii, we know nothing.

e. Ætolia. The Ætolians remained the most rude and uncivilized of all the Hellenic races; they were little more than a band of freebooters, and carried on their predatory excursions both by sea and land. Renowned as are the names of their earliest heroes, Ætolus, Peneus, Meleager, Diomede, the nation has no place in the history of the flourishing times of Greece. Nor did they acquire any celebrity until the Macedo-Roman period, when the various insignificant tribes of which they were composed gathered themselves together and chose one common leader, for the purpose of carrying on a war with the[Pg 149] Achæans. The earlier period of their history seems, however, to afford no previous example of such an union; their political constitution in those times is wholly unknown.

f. Acarnania. This country derived its name from Acarnan, son of Alcmæon, both of whom are adduced as its earliest kings. In the Trojan age it appears beyond a doubt, that some part at least of this country was subject to the governors of the island of Ithaca. When and how a republican government was introduced among the Acarnanians, and what were the peculiarities of that government we know not. All that can be distinguished through the veil of time is, that here likewise the different cities, the most important of which was Stratus, had each its own form of government. Those cities upon particular emergencies were wont to combine; and out of that practice in later times, during the Macedonian period, grew up a permanent confederation. The city and district of Argos Amphilochicum constituted a separate state, which endured a long time, and flourished greatly; it derived its name from Amphilochus, the founder. The inhabitants, however, being driven out by the Ambracians, whom they had themselves called in, sought assistance at the hands of the Acarnanians, who with the help of Athens, replaced the exiles in possession of their city, which thenceforward was inhabited in common by Amphilochians and Acarnanians, and was almost constantly engaged in war with Ambracia.

a. The importance of Thessaly in the earliest history of Greece, may be gathered from the principal data enumerated above for the history of the Pelasgi and the Hellenes. From this country it was that the Hellenes proceeded and spread over Greece; and here likewise they maintained their original seat. In the Trojan age Thessaly contained ten small kingdoms, governed by hereditary princes, several of whom, such as Achilles and Philoctetes, were among the most renowned heroes of the time. In the period subsequent to the Trojan war and the Dorian migration, Thessaly must have experienced political revolutions similar to those of the other Grecian countries; but neither the time nor the manner in which those revolutions occurred can be ascertained. All that can be deduced from the subsequent history is,[Pg 150] that if the Thessalian cities ever did recover their political freedom, they were unable to maintain it; for in the two most eminent cities, Pheræ and Larissa, with whose history that of the whole country is closely connected, the supreme power had fallen into the hands of arbitrary individuals, who appear to have kept possession of it almost without interruption. Even before the breaking out of the Persian war, Larissa was under the rule of the Aleuadæ; a family who claimed descent from Hercules, and are specially denominated by Herodotus kings of the Thessalians. They preserved their power until the Macedonian period.—In Pheræ there arose about the year 380, a tyrant, by the name of Jason, who extended his dominion not only over Thessaly, but likewise over several of the neighbouring barbarous tribes. The sceptre of Jason passed rapidly and successively into the hands of his three brothers, Polydorus, Polyphron, and Alexander. The last was first driven out of Larissa by the Aleuadæ, assisted by the Macedonians; was afterwards worsted in war by Pelopidas; and finally, at the instigation of his wife Thebe, was murdered, 356, by her brothers, Lycophron and Tisiphonus. The two murderers then assumed the supreme power, but were, in compliance with the request of the Aleuadæ, deposed by Philip of Macedon.—Some other such tyrants are met with at intervals in the rest of the Thessalian cities, such as Pharsalus, etc.

b. Epirus. This country was occupied by several tribes, partly Greek and partly barbarian. The most powerful of these was that of the Molossi, who were governed by kings of the house of the Æacidæ, descendants of Pyrrhus, the son of Achilles. This Greek family was the only one that held the kingly power for a permanency; it must be observed, however, that previous to the Macedonian period, those sovereigns were by no means lords of the whole of Epirus; for the other non-Hellenic races, such as the Thesprotii, Orestii, etc. had their own separate kings. Moreover the Corinthian colony of Ambracia constituted a distinct state, generally governed as a republic, although sometimes subject to the rule of tyrants. But, in consequence of an alliance framed with the Macedonian kings, the whole of Epirus, and even Ambracia itself, was placed under the sceptre of the Molossian kings; and some of those princes, Pyrrhus II. more especially, rose to be mighty conquerors. See below.

Both the islands off the coast of Greece, and those of the Archipelago, all underwent the same political revolutions as occurred in the states on the main land. But those events did not take place till after the more ancient non-Hellenic inhabitants, such as the Phœnicians, Carians, etc. had been driven out, and the land had been taken possession of by the Hellenes. In the more extensive islands, which contained several cities, there generally arose as many small republics as there were towns, and those little states were wont to enter into mutual alliances. The smaller islands, containing but one city, formed each one small independent state, the territory of which comprised the whole island. The respective independence of these islands ceased to exist at the period of the Trojan war; for after the Athenians had by their success placed themselves at the head of confederate Greece, and possessed themselves of the sovereignty of the sea, these smaller states, although called confederates, were treated little better than subjects, except that their political constitutions were not changed.—Among the islands of the Grecian coast, the most remarkable in history are the following:

a. Corcyra, a colony of Corinth, important for its naval power and trade, in which it rivalled the mother state itself: a rivalry which occasioned many feuds and wars, and was even one of the principal motives that led to the Peloponnesian war. About the time this struggle began Corcyra had attained the height of her power, being able, without foreign aid, to man a fleet of 120 galleys. The constitution appears, as at Corinth, to have been aristocratic, or oligarchical: but after the Persian war a democratic faction arose, which produced the most violent internal commotions, and ended in the total ruin of Corcyra.

b. Ægina. This small island was, after the Dorian migration, occupied by colonists from Epidaurus; it however soon shook off the yoke of the mother city, and rapidly grew by commerce and navigation, to be one of the first Grecian states. Ægina was for a long time the rival of Athens; over whom her naval power enabled her to maintain a superiority until the time of the Persian war. Humbled, however, by Themistocles, 485, she could no longer support herself against the preponderating influence of [Pg 152]Athens; and although subsequently she made another stand for independence, 458, the consequences were but an increase of oppression. Neither must it be forgotten, that Ægina suffered much, even before the Persian war, from internal broils, caused by the bitterness of party spirit engendered between the aristocratic and democratic factions.

C. O. Mueller, Ægineticorum liber, 1817. This treatise contains not only the political history, but likewise that of trade and arts.

c. Eubœa. The different cities of this island, Chalcis and Eretria in particular, had each its separate domestic constitution: in the two towns above mentioned the constitution was aristocratic, since the government was in the hands of the opulent, (Hippobatæ;) nevertheless we hear of tyrants in Chalcis. After the Persian war Eubœa became dependent upon Athens, which drew from that island a portion of her supplies and provisions. The oppression of the Athenians stirred up the minds of the Eubœans to rebellion, and the islanders were in the sequel ever ready to throw up their allegiance when a suitable opportunity presented itself; such an opportunity was seized in 446, when the island was recovered by Pericles; and the attempt was renewed in the Peloponnesian war.

d. The Cyclades were first colonized by Crete, during the reign of Minos. The Carian race had in earlier times spread over these islands, but were gradually driven out by Hellenic invaders, belonging principally to the Ionian and Dorian families. The most important was Delos, chief seat of the Ionians. Sheltered under the protection of Apollo, this place became the centre of an extensive trade, and during the Persian war, 479, was selected for the treasury of Greece. Next was Paros, famed for its marble, and for the stand it made against Miltiades, 489, although it afterwards shared the fate of the other islands, and passed under the dominion of the Athenians. We know little of the constitution of the other smaller islands; each of them contained one city of the same name as the island which constituted its territory.

e. Crete. The inhabitants of Crete were not pure Hellenes, but of alloyed origin, such as Curetes, Pelasgi, etc. mingled with whom were Hellenes, of the Dorian and Æolían stock. In the earlier periods, Crete had her kings, the most celebrated of whom were Minos, about 1300, probably first sovereign of the whole[Pg 153] island; his brother Rhadamanthus, Idomeneus, Meriones, who followed Idomeneus to the Trojan war, and succeeded him upon the throne: the last king Etearchus, about 800, after whose death a republican form of government was introduced. Under these kings Crete was powerful on sea: to Minos is ascribed the honour of having by his fleets purged the Ægæan of pirates, occupied the islands, and ensured security to the mariner. To him likewise is attributed the Cretan legislation, the model, it is said, of that given to Sparta by Lycurgus. But the uncertainty as to what does and what does not belong to Minos, is in this case even greater than in that of Lycurgus; many of the laws referred to Minos are probably nothing more than ancient Dorian institutions. The insular situation which in some measure ensured Crete from foreign inroads, and the proximity of Egypt and Phœnicia must indubitably have contributed to expand the germ of political civilization. The abolition of the kingly office seems to have been the effect of internal commotions, to which Crete continued to be frequently exposed, even under a republican form of government. Those commotions originated in the jealousy between the two largest cities, Gortina and Cnossus, which, when united, ruled the rest; but when at war, shook the whole island, until the city of Cydonia, passing over to one of the sides, gave a turn to the balance. The laws instituted by Minos respecting private life were enforced in all the cities of the island; but declined at an earlier period than in the country. Each city had its own constitution; each possessed it senate, (γερούσια,) at the head of which were ten censors, (κόσμοι,) chosen from certain families: these cosmi were not only prime magistrates, but likewise invested with the command in war, not often, it is true, waged by the Cretans against other nations, but, for that reason, more frequently with one another; a circumstance which must have necessarily contributed to corrupt, not only their constitution, but likewise their national character.

Meursii Creta, Rhodus, Cyprus, 1675, 4to. Very laborious compilations. New light, however, has been thrown upon the subject by the inscriptions published in

Chishull's Antiq. Asiaticæ; 1728, folio. A work which has been made use of by

St. Croix, Des anciens gouvernemens, etc. (See above, p. 131.) The principal work upon Crete.

[Pg 154]

† C. Hoeck, Crete. An attempt to explain the mythology, history, etc. of this island, 1823.

f. Cyprus. This island, like Crete, was inhabited by a race of mixed origin, who, even in the time of Herodotus, traced their descent from Phœnicians, Africans, (Ethiopians,) from Greeks out of Arcadia, Attica, and the island of Salamis; of which last the city of Salamis, founded by Teucer about 1160, was a colony. There can be no doubt, that in earlier times the Phœnicians were for a long period the dominant race in the island; since in the flourishing days of Tyre the Cyprians rebelled against their oppressors, at the same time that Psalmanezer led an expedition against the former city, about 720: moreover, even in the present day, Phœnician monuments are still found in the island. From that time to the Persian period, there appears to have been a close connection between this island and the Phœnicians, although the Cyprians preserved their independence. Several smaller kingdoms afterwards arose in various cities of the island; the number of which in subsequent times amounted to nine, and under Amasis, about 550, were tributary to the Egyptians; and under Cambyses, 525, to the Persians: notwithstanding this species of subjection, the various states preserved their own kings. During the Persian dominion, the Cyprians more than once joined in the insurrections against the Persians; more particularly the kings of Salamis, now become the most powerful. So early as the year 500, Onesilus joined the Ionian rebels, but was defeated. In the wars which afterwards ensued between the Persians and Greeks, Cyprus was frequently attacked by the combined Grecian fleets; as in 470 by Pausanias, and during the reign of Evagoras I. 449, by Cimon, who died at the siege of Citium; yet the Persians were not driven out, but appear to have kept their footing even after the peace of 449. Among the subsequent kings of Salamis was Evagoras II. (400—390,) who was master of the greatest portion of the island; but as in the peace of Antalcidas Cyprus was ceded to the Persians, he was obliged to wage a hot war against them, in which he lost every thing but Salamis. Finally, the Cyprians, in 356, took a part in the insurrection of the Phœnicians and Egyptians: thereupon the Persians sent an army against them, under the command of a younger Evagoras, (who had been banished by his uncle Protagoras,) and under that of the Athenian Phocion Salamis was besieged, but matters were made up by a negotiation. The nine small kingdoms of the[Pg 155] island continued to exist till the time of Alexander, whom they voluntarily joined during the siege of Tyre, 332, and thenceforward Cyprus constituted a part of the Macedonian monarchy.

To assist the student in obtaining a general view of the events connected with the Greek colonies, the history of them will be here carried on through the subsequent period.

Raoul Rochette, Histoire critique de l'établissement des Colonies Grecques, Paris, 1815, 4 vols. The most comprehensive treatise on the subject: it comprises the earlier Pelasgian and the later Macedonian colonies, as well as those of the Hellenes. There is much erudition displayed in this work, but sufficient attention is not paid to the value of the authorities made use of.

† D. H. Hegewisch, Geographic and Historic Documents relative to the Colonies of the Greeks, Altona, 1808, 8vo. A brief review of the subject.

St. Croix, De l'état et du sort des Colonies des anciens peuples, Paris, 1786. A series of valuable and important enquiries.

1. The Æolian colonies. Their original foundation dates about 1124: they appear to have been a consequence of the Dorian migration, having been established during that great movement in Greece. The Pelopidæ, who had been driven out of Peloponnesus, Orestes, his son Penthilus, his grandson Archelaus, and his great grandson Grais, successively headed the emigrants, who proceeded slowly by land, divided, it appears, into several companies, with which some Bœotians and others gradually coalesced. In Asia they occupied the coasts of Mysia and Caria; a strip of land which from thence derived the appellation of Æolis. They moreover possessed the islands of Lesbos, Tenedos, and the Hecatonnesi. On the main land, in the quarter named from them Æolis, they erected twelve cities, the most eminent of which were Cyme and Smyrna; the latter, however, afterwards fell into the hands of the Ionians. But their chief settlements were on the island of Lesbos; here they inhabited five cities, at the head of which, and likewise of all their other colonies, stood Mitylene. They had likewise spread inland as far as mount Ida. All these towns were independent of one another, and possessed their own peculiar forms of government: our information, however, respecting these constitutions extends no further than to enable us to ascertain that they were subject to many disorders, which it was often attempted to quell by nominating rulers of unlimited power, under the title of Æsymnetæ. These were elected sometimes for a stipulated period, at others for life; the most celebrated of the number was Pittacus of Mitylene, who flourished about 600, and was the contemporary of Sappho and Alcæus. The Æolians maintained their independence till the time of Cyrus, with the exception of Smyrna, which as early as 600, was captured and destroyed by the Lydians, and not rebuilt till four hundred years afterwards, when it was restored by Antigonus, and entered upon its flourishing period. The cities of the main land were compelled to acknowledge the supremacy of the Persian conqueror; but not the islands. The Æolian cities were not leagued together by any permanent bond; it was only in peculiar cases that they debated in common. Mitylene, which they all regarded as[Pg 159] their capital, was the only one of their colonies that became rich by trade, and formidable by its naval power. Yet in 470 it was tributary to Athens; having seceded in 428, at the time of the Peloponnesian war, it was recaptured and almost levelled to the earth by the Athenians.

2. The Ionian colonies. These were, no doubt, founded at a later period than those of the Æolians; like them, however, they were a consequence of the Dorian migration. The Ionians, driven out of Peloponnesus by the Achæans, had withdrawn to Athens, from whence, sixty years afterwards, that is to say about 1044, they proceeded by sea to Asia, headed by Neleus and others of the sons of Codrus. They were joined, however, by some Thebans, Phocians, Eubœan Abantes, and various other Greeks. In Asia they settled on the southern coast of Lydia and the northern shore of Caria; which, together with the islands of Samos and Chios, took from them the name of Ionia. Here they built twelve cities on the main land; namely, reckoning from north to south, Phocæa, Erythræ, Clazomene, Teos, Lebedus, Colophon, Ephesus, Priene, Myus, Miletus, and in the islands, Samos and Chios. They possessed in common one sanctuary, the Panionium temple of Neptune, built on the headland of Mycale. Here they celebrated their festivals, and assembled to deliberate upon matters affecting the general interest, although it must still be remembered that each city was in itself independent. This independence was maintained until the time of the Lydian dynasty of the Mermnadæ, and that of Cyrus, under whose reign they were compelled to submit to the Persian yoke. Still, under the Persian rule, they for the most part preserved their own form of government, and were subject only so much as they had to pay tribute. Nevertheless they seized every opportunity of delivering themselves from this species of thraldom; and hence their history in the following period is closely interwoven with that of Greece. The political constitution was, no doubt, at an early period republican in all; but these colonies likewise were oppressed by continual factions, and frequently by tyrants. Among the towns situate on the continent, the most remarkable were Miletus, Ephesus, and Phocæa. Miletus was the principal seat of trade. It had been founded by the Carians before the arrival of the Ionians; but was by the latter raised to opulence and power. The most flourishing period of its existence was between 700—500: in the latter year it was [Pg 160]implicated in the insurrection of Aristagoras against the Persians, in consequence of which it was destroyed in 496. From that time Miletus never recovered its ancient splendour. Nevertheless, in the days of her prosperity Miletus was, next to Tyre and Carthage, the first emporium of the world. Her sea trade was chiefly carried on in the Euxine, and the Palus Mæotis, whose shores, on all sides, were occupied by her colonies, amounting, according to some authorities, to more than a hundred. By means of these settlements she monopolized the whole of the northern trade in pulse, dry fish, slaves, and furs. Her land trade was carried on by the great military road, constructed by the Persians, far into the interior of Asia. Four harbours admitted her vessels; and her naval power was so great, that she had been known, more than once, to fit out, unaided, fleets of from eighty to a hundred sail.—Phocæa. The flourishing period of this establishment was contemporary with that of Miletus; but ended at the rise of the Persian dominion, 540, when the Phocæans, rather than submit to the Persian yoke, chose to forsake the city of their fathers and migrate to Corsica, although one half of the inhabitants repented of their resolution and returned. Phocæa had the most extensive trade by sea of all the Grecian cities; they were to the west what the Milesians were to the north. Their navigation extended as far as Gades; and they not only visited the coasts of Italy, Gaul, and Corsica, but even founded colonies in these countries; as for instance, Aleria in Corsica, Elea in Italy, and, above all, Massilea, (Marseilles,) on the coast of Gaul.—Ephesus. This city was likewise originally founded by the Carians, but subsequently occupied by the Ionians. Its independence was maintained until the time of Crœsus, who annexed it to his other conquests about 560. The constitution was aristocratic; the government being in the hands of a senate, (γερούσια,) combined with the magistrates, (ἐπίκλητοι): and the family which had once possessed the throne preserved certain prerogatives. Ephesus was not so important in a commercial point of view as Phocæa and Miletus; but was much celebrated for its temple of Diana, which in 355 was fired by Erostratus, and afterwards rebuilt with more sumptuous splendour. The flourishing period of Ephesus appears to have commenced at this time, long after that of Miletus and Phocæa had terminated; for both in the Macedonian and Roman ages Ephesus was regarded as the first city of Asia Minor.—Of the cities [Pg 161]on the islands, Samos was the most important, for its trade, and for its naval power. The period of its splendour was under the reign of the tyrant Polycrates, 540—523, whose sway extended over the sea and islets of the neighbourhood. Syloson, brother to the tyrant, having by the assistance of the Persians, 517, obtained possession of Samos, the island was almost depopulated. Soon afterwards Samos became dependent upon the Athenians, who in 440 introduced a democratic form of government, and made it the rendezvous for her troops and fleets during the war with Sparta.—Chios was scarcely inferior to Samos, either in power or wealth. It submitted to the Persian yoke with the rest of the Ionian colonies; but was so powerful, that in 500, at the insurrection of Aristagoras, ninety-eight sail of the combined fleet belonged to Chios. After the defeat of Xerxes, 469, it entered into the Athenian league, from which it endeavoured to secede in the Peloponnesian war, 412. The naval power of the Chians was still considerable; and those islanders had the high honour of not suffering prosperity to inflate them with overweening ambition.

F. G. Rambach, De Mileto ejusque coloniis, 1790, 4to.

3. The Dorian colonies. These were situated in Asia Minor, upon the southern coast of Caria, and in the islands of Cos and Rhodes, but were all planted at a later period than the Ionian colonies, and, no doubt, were the result of successive migrations. The Dorians appear to have gradually spread beyond Peloponnesus, over the islands of the Archipelago to the Asiatic coast: in Rhodes they erected the cities of Ialyssus, Camirus, and Lindus; in Cos a city of the same name; on the main land two cities, Halicarnassus and Cnidus. These six ancient colonies had, like the Ionians, one common sanctuary, the temple of Apollo Triopius, where they celebrated their festivals and held their deliberative assemblies. Halicarnassus, however, was afterwards excluded from the confederation. They remained independent until the Persian period, although the constitutions of the separate cities were subject to violent revolutions; thus at Cnidus the oligarchy was converted into a democracy; Halicarnassus was likewise generally subject to the Carian sovereigns, among whom Mausolus and Artemisia are names familiar to all.—The three cities in Rhodes appear never to have grown to any importance; that of Rhodes, not built till after the irruption of Xerxes into Greece, 480, soon eclipsed the others: its flourish[Pg 162]ing period began after the death of Alexander. At no period of early history could the Dorian colonies, or those of the Æolians, compete in wealth and commerce with the Ionians.

On the Propontis stood Lampsacus (adjoining the Hellespont) and Cyzicus, on an island connected with the continent by means of bridges. The latter town certainly was one of the most beautiful and flourishing cities of Asia; but this did not occur until the Roman age, and was in consequence of the fostering protection of the Romans.—Opposite to Cyzicus, on the Thracian coast, was Perinthus, subsequently called Heraclea; at the mouth of the Thracian Bosporus stood Byzantium, over against which was Chalcedon. The prosperity of all these towns affords sufficient proof of the skill with which sites were chosen for the establishment of colonies.

Heyne, Antiquities Byzantina: Commentationes duæ, 1809. The first of which contains the fragments of the earlier history of Byzantium.

The colonies of the Black sea were: on the southern coast of Bithynia, Heraclea, in the territory of the Maryandini. This place preserved its republican constitution amid frequent broils and revolutions, brought about by the oligarchic and democratic factions, until about B. C. 370, when the democrats having gained the upper hand, a path was opened to Clearchus, who became tyrant, and abrogated the senate, (βουλὴ;) the family of the tyrant continued for a long time in possession of power, after he himself[Pg 163] had been murdered by two disciples of Plato.—In Paphlagonia was Sinope, the most powerful of all the Grecian settlements on the Black sea, of which it long held the sovereignty. The freedom and independence of this place lasted to about 100, when it fell under the dominion of the kings of Pontus, and afterwards under that of the Romans. The principal source from which it derived its wealth were the shoals of migratory fish (πηλάμυδες,) which, issuing from the Palus Mæotis, spread along the shore of the Black sea down to the Thracian Bosporus.—In Pontus was Amisus, the mother city of Trapezus, and which shared the fate of Sinope.—On the eastern coast stood the cities of Phasis, Dioscurias, and Phanagoria: this last was the principal mart of the slave trade, and, during the Macedonian period, the staple for Indian commodities imported across the Oxus and the Caspian sea.—In the Chersonesus Taurica stood Panticapæum, capital city of the little Grecian kingdom of Bosporus, whose kings (among whom Spartacus, about 439, and more especially Leucon, about 350, are celebrated) remained in alliance with Athens till Mithridates the Great laid there the foundation of his dominion.—On the northern coast was the city of Tanais, on the mouth of a river of the same name at the bottom of the Palus Mæotis. Olbia was situated at the mouth of the Borysthenes. These two places, and Olbia in particular, were of the highest importance for the inland trade, which issuing from thence in a northern and easterly direction, was extended to the very centre of Asia.—The colonies of the western coast, such as Apollonia, Tomi, and Salmidessus, were of less notoriety.

On the Thracian coast of the Chersonesus, regarded as the key of Europe, and ranging along the Hellespont, were the towns of Sestos, Cardia, and Ægospotamos; farther to the west stood Maronea and Abdera, the latter a colony of Teos. Of far greater importance, however, were the towns on the Macedonian coast, Amphipolis, Chalcis, Olynthus, Potidæa. The first of these towns, founded about B. C. 464, was a colony from Athens, which endeavoured to keep it in a state of dependence. Chalcis was a colony from a city of the same name in Eubœa. In 470 it was dependent on Athens; but in 432, the inhabitants having raised the standard of rebellion, forsook their houses and voluntarily withdrew to Olynthus.—Olynthus derived its name from the founder, one of the sons of Hercules: in the course of time it ranked among the most powerful cities of Thrace, although it was tributary to the Athenians. It took a share in the war between Athens and Sparta, and continued to be a flourishing city until 348, when it was taken by Philip of Macedon, and destroyed.—Potidæa was a colony of Corinth, from which it received annual magistrates, (ἐπιδημιούργοι,) having become tributary to Athens after the Persian war, it revolted in 431: obliged to yield to the Athenian arms, its inhabitants were expelled, and their place supplied by an Athenian colony. It now became a possession of Athens, and remained so till it was taken by Philip in 358.

1. Grecian settlements in Lower Italy. The most numerous and important of these were scattered around the bay of Tarentum; they extended likewise along the western coast of Italy up to Naples. These colonies were variously traced to the Dorian, Achæan, and Ionian families: they were likewise distinguished by political characteristics, the government in the Dorian settlements being generally more aristocratic, in the rest more democratic: it must be observed, however, that, with respect to the various revolutions which the respective constitutions underwent, it is hardly possible to give any general information, excepting so far as regards the earliest times. Of Dorian origin were Tarentum, and its colonies Heraclea and Brundusium. Of Achæan origin were Sybaris and Croton, together with the colonies of the latter, Laus, Metapontum, Posidonia; which last founded in its turn, Terina, Caulonia, and Pandosia. Of Ionian origin were Thurii, (built on the site where Sybaris had formerly stood,) Rhegium, Elea, Cumæ, and its branch settlement of Neapolis. Locri Epizephyrii, a colony of the Locri Ozolæ, may be regarded as an Æolian city. The most remarkable of these cities in respect of general history are:

a. Tarentum, founded by the Parthenii, from Sparta, about 707. It waged several wars with the aboriginal tribes in the vicinity, the Messapians, Lucanians, etc. and grew to be one of the richest and most powerful of the maritime towns. The brilliant period of Tarentum appears to have fallen between 500 and 400. Excess of wealth subsequently introduced luxury, which extinguished the national spirit. Nevertheless Tarentum preserved its independence until 273, when, after the war with Pyrrhus, it fell under the Roman dominion. The constitution was originally a moderate aristocracy; but was commuted soon after the Persian war into a democracy, which was, however, curbed by prudent restrictions. Tarentum had its senate, (βουλὴ,) without whose consent war could not be undertaken; its magistrates elected half by lot, half by majority of votes given in the assemblies of the commons. Among its most celebrated citizens is reckoned the Pythagoræan Archytas, who, after the year B. C. 390, was frequently at the head of the state, filling the offices of general and supreme magistrate. The constitution appears to have preserved its form until the Roman period, although the[Pg 166] national spirit was greatly corrupted by a luxury almost exceeding the limits of credibility.

b. Croton, founded 710 by the Achæans, under the guidance of Myscellus from Rhype in Achaia. This city must have attained to very great power during the very first century of its existence; since in the battle of Sagra against the Locrians, which may with probability be dated about 600, the Crotoniates were able to set on foot an army of 120,000 men. Neither does the defeat which they there suffered appear to have debilitated the settlement for any length of time; for in 510, with nearly the same number of forces, they attacked the Sybarites, and destroyed their city. The original constitution was, no doubt, a moderate democracy; but we are unacquainted with the details of its organization. Pythagoras was the reformer of customs, moral and political, not only at Croton, but in several other of the Italico-Greek cities. This philosopher arrived at Croton about 540, and there laid the foundation of the league or secret association named after him; the object of which was, not to change the form of government in the Italian cities, but to create men capable of managing the helm of state. This reform and influence of the Pythagoræans lasted about thirty years, when their order underwent the same fate as generally befalls a secret association founded with a political view. Probably about 510 the Pythagoræean league was broken asunder by the democratic faction under Cylon. The consequence was universal anarchy, not only in Croton, where, about 494, a certain Clinias usurped the supreme power, but likewise in the other cities: these disorders, however, were quelled by the intervention of the Achæans; and the Achæan colonies not only adopted the laws of their mother cities, but likewise soon afterwards signed a league in the temple of Jupiter Homorius, about 460: it appears that Croton, having already recovered from the blow it had received, was at the head of this league. In this happy posture affairs remained till about 400. After the kings of Syracuse had commenced their attacks on Magna Græcia, Croton was repeatedly captured; as in B. C. 389 by Dionysius I. and about 321; and again, in 299, by Agathocles. Finally, after the war with Pyrrhus, 277, it became dependent on Rome.

c. Sybaris was founded about 720, like the foregoing, by the Achæans, who were mingled with Trœzenians: this settlement existed till 510, when it was destroyed by Croton. Soon after its foundation it became one of the most extensive, populous, and[Pg 167] luxurious cities, so much so, that the effeminacy of the Sybarites became proverbial. Sybaris appears to have been at the height of her prosperity from about 600—550; she then possessed a respectable territory, comprising four of the neighbouring tribes, and twenty-five cities or places. The extraordinary fertility of the soil, and the admission of all strangers to the rights of citizenship, tended to increase the population so much, that Sybaris, in the war against Croton, is said to have brought into the field 300,000 men. The vast wealth possessed, not only by Sybaris, but by the other cities in this quarter, was probably derived from the great trade in oil and wine carried on with Africa and Gaul: that such was the case at Agrigentum we know with certainty. The constitution of Sybaris was likewise, it appears, a moderate democracy: towards the year 510 one Telys took possession of the supreme power, and drove out five hundred of the optimates, who fled to Croton. The Crotoniates received the exiles, and the Sybarites having put to death their ambassadors, a war was kindled between the two cities, and ended in 510 by the defeat of the Sybarites and the destruction of their city.

d. Thurii, founded near the site of ancient Sybaris in 446 by Athens, although the inhabitants were of mixed origin; a circumstance which gave rise at first to many domestic broils, the citizens disputing as to who was the real founder; at last, 433, the Delphian oracle declared the city to be a colony of Apollo. The constitution was at first a moderate democracy; but this was soon converted into an oligarchy, all the power and the best lands having been taken possession of by the Sybarite families who had joined the settlement. The Sybarites were, however, again expelled, and Thurii grew into importance by the confluence of several new colonies out of Greece; its constitution was meliorated by the adoption of the laws of Charondas of Catana. The principal enemies of the Thurians were the Lucanians, by whom they were beaten, 390. The desultory attacks of that tribe obliged them, 286, to crave the assistance of the Romans, which soon after afforded the Tarentines an excuse for attacking them. Thurii now formed a part of the Roman dependencies, and after suffering much in the Carthaginian wars, was at last, B. C. 190, occupied by a Roman colony.

e. Locri Epizephyrii. The question of their origin is subject to dispute: the causes of this uncertainty are, that here, as in most other of the cities, various bands of colonists arrived at various times, and those bands themselves were composed of a mix[Pg 168]ture of several Grecian stocks. The chief colony was sent out, B. C. 683, by the Locri Ozolæ. After suffering much from violent internal commotions, Locri found, about 660, a lawgiver in Zaleucus, whose institutions remained more than two centuries inviolate. The constitution was aristocratic, the administration being in the hands of a hundred families. The supreme magistrate was called cosmopolis. The senate consisted of a thousand members, probably elected from the commons, with whom resided, either wholly or partially, the legislative power. The maintenance of the laws was, as in other Grecian cities, committed to the nomophylaces. Locri was certainly neither so wealthy nor so luxurious as the cities above mentioned; but she was honourably distinguished by the good manners and quiet conduct of her citizens, who were contented with their government. The flourishing period of this city lasted till the time of Dionysius II. who having been driven out of Syracuse, fled with his dependents to Locri, the native country of his mother: by his insolence and licentiousness of manners the city was brought to the verge of ruin; after his return to Syracuse, 347, the Locrians avenged their wrongs upon his family. Locri afterward maintained its recovered independence until the time of Pyrrhus, who, 277, placed a garrison in the town; the Locrians, however, put the troops to the sword, and passed over to the Roman side: the city was in consequence sacked by Pyrrhus in 275. From that time Locri remained a confederate town dependent on Rome, and suffered much in the second Punic war.

f. Rhegium, a colony from Chalcis in Eubœa, 668: here also the government was aristocratic, the supreme power being in the hands of a council of a thousand men, selected only from Messenian families, which had joined the original settlers. Hence arose an oligarchy, of which Anaxilaus took advantage to assume the sole dominion, 494, in which he was succeeded by his sons. These having been driven out, 464, commotions ensued, which, after a time, were quelled by adopting the laws of Charondas. Rhegium now enjoyed a period of happiness, which lasted till B. C. 392, when it was captured and destroyed by Dionysius I. Dionysius II. restored it in some measure; but in 281 the city was taken possession of by a Roman legion, who being sent for the purpose of garrisoning the place, murdered the inhabitants. The soldiers were punished with death, 271; but Rhegium thenceforth remained in a state of dependence upon Rome.

g. Cumæ, founded as early as 1030, from Chalcis in Eubœa.[Pg 169] This city attained at an early period to a high degree of power and prosperity; its territory being of considerable extent, its navy respectable, and Neapolis and Zancle (or Messana) among its colonies. The government was a moderate aristocracy: this constitution was subverted about 544, by the tyrant Aristodemus; but restored after his assassination. Cumæ was subject to repeated annoyances from the petty Italian nations; and in 564 she was invaded and defeated by the Etruscans and Daunians combined; in 474 she beat the Etruscans at sea: but in 420 was captured by the Campanians; together with whom she became a dependent of Rome in 345. Cumæ, nevertheless, in consequence of its harbour of Puteoli, preserved a share of importance, even under the Roman dominion.

Heyne, Prolusiones 16 de civitatum Græcarum per magnam Græciam et Siciliam institutis et legibus. Collected in his Opuscula, vol. vii.

2. Grecian settlements in Sicily. These occupied the eastern and southern shores of the island: they were founded in the same period as those of Magna Græcia, and belonged partly to the Dorian, partly to the Ionian stocks. Of Dorian origin were Messana and Tyndaris, from Messene; Syracuse, who in her turn founded Acræ, Casmenæ, and Camarina, from Corinth; Hybla and Thapsus from Megara; Segesta from Thessaly; Heraclea Minoa from Crete; Gela, which founded Agrigentum, from Rhodes; and Lipara, on the small island of that name, from Cnidus. Of Ionian origin were Naxus, the founder of Leontini; Catana and Tauromenium, from Chalcis; Zancle, (after its occupation by Messenian colonists, called Messana,) founded by Cumæ, and in its turn founder of Himera and Mylæ. The most remarkable of these towns in ancient history are:

a. Syracuse, the most powerful of all the Greek colonies, and consequently that concerning which our information is the most copious. The history of Syracuse, on which, as that town was for a long time mistress of the greatest part of the island, depends nearly the whole history of Sicily, comprises four periods. 1. From the foundation, B. C. 735, to Gelon, 484; a space of two hundred and fifty-one years. During this period Syracuse was a republic, but does not appear to have risen to any very great height of power: yet she founded the colonies of Acræ, 665, Casmenæ, 645, and Camarina, 600. The assistance of her parent city, Corinth, and Corcyra, alone prevented her falling a prey to Hippocrates, sovereign of Gela; and even then she was[Pg 170] obliged to cede Camarina, 497. The constitution was aristocratic; but not free from domestic troubles. The administration was in the hands of the opulent, (γαμόροι;) but these were, about 485, expelled by the democratic faction and their own mutinous slaves. They fled to Casmenæ, and by the help of Gelon, sovereign of Gela, were restored to their homes; Gelon retaining the power in his own hands. 2. From Gelon to the expulsion of Thrasybulus, 484—466. The three brothers, Gelon, Hiero, and Thrasybulus, successively ruled over Syracuse. Gelon, 484—477. He was at once the founder of the greatness of Syracuse, and of his own power: this he effected partly by increasing the population, bringing in new inhabitants from other Greek cities, and partly by the great victory he won over the Carthaginians, in alliance with the Persians, 480. At this early period Syracuse was so powerful, both by sea and by land, as to justify Gelon in claiming the office of generalissimo of Greece, when Sparta and Athens came to solicit his aid. His beneficent reign not only gained him the love of the Syracusans during his life, but likewise procured him heroic honours after death at the hands of a grateful people. He died in 477, and was succeeded by his brother Hiero I. who had till then ruled over Gela. The reign of this prince was splendid, his court was brilliant, and a fostering protection was extended to arts and sciences. Hiero's power strengthened by the establishment of new citizens, both in Syracuse and its subordinate towns of Catana and Naxus, whose original inhabitants are translated to Leontini.—Wars waged against Thero, 476, and his son Thrasidæus, tyrants of Agrigentum: after the expulsion of Thrasidæus, that town forms an alliance with Syracuse; the Syracusan fleet sent to the assistance of Cumæ, wins a victory over the Etruscans. Hiero, dying in 467, was succeeded by his brother Thrasybulus, who, after a short reign of eight months, was expelled for his cruelty by the Syracusans and the confederate cities. 3. From the expulsion of Thrasybulus to the elevation of Dionysius I.; Syracuse a free democratic state: from 466—405. Reestablishment of republican forms of government in Syracuse and the other Grecian cities; accompanied, however, with many commotions and civil wars, proceeding from the expulsion of the new citizens and the restoration of the ancient inhabitants to their property.—Increasing power and prosperity of Syracuse, who is now at the head of the confederate Grecian cities in the island, and soon endeavours to convert her precedence into supremacy. The new democratic[Pg 171] constitution quickly suffers from the diseases incident to that form of government; a vain attempt is made to apply a remedy by the introduction of the petalismus, B. C. 454; in the mean time the Siculi, aboriginal inhabitants of Sicily, unite in closer league under their leader Ducetius; attempting to expel the Greeks, 451, they engage the Syracusans in reiterated wars; the arms of Syracuse are successful, her authority is confirmed by the subjection of the ambitious Agrigentum, 446, and by her naval victory over the Etruscans. First but unsuccessful attempt of the Athenians to interpose in the domestic affairs of Sicily, by siding with Leontini against Syracuse, 427; eleven years afterward occurs the great expedition against Syracuse, 415—413, caused by the disputes between Segesta and Selinus; the expedition ends in the total rout of the Athenian fleet and army, (see below,) and the power of Syracuse reaches its zenith. A constitutional reform takes place, 412, brought about by Diocles, whose laws were subsequently adopted by several other of the Sicilian cities. The magistrates were chosen by lot. The rest of the laws, which appear to have had reference to the criminal code, were the production of a committee over which Diocles presided; these enactments were so beneficial to Syracuse, that the author of them was honoured with a temple after his death. Yet as early as 410, a renewal of the differences between Segesta and Selinus afforded a pretext for war with Carthage, from whom the Segestani had besought assistance; by this war the whole state of affairs in Sicily was subverted. The rapid strides made by the Carthaginians, who, under the command of Hannibal the son of Gisgo, took, 409, Selinus and Himera, and even Agrigentum, 406, engendered domestic factions and commotions within Syracuse; and amid those disorders the crafty Dionysius succeeded first in obtaining the office of general, and then, after supplanting his colleagues, the sovereign power of Syracuse, 405. 4. From Dionysius I. to the Roman occupation, 405—212. Dionysius I. 405—368. Ominous commencement of his reign, by a defeat at Gela and the mutiny of his troops.—A plague wasting the Carthaginian army, he is enabled to patch up a peace, B. C. 405, by which it is agreed, that Carthage, besides her territory in the island, shall retain all the conquests made during the war, together with Gela and Camarina. But the project of expelling the Carthaginians out of Sicily, in order to subject the whole island, and to fall upon Magna Grecia, kindles a long series of wars both with Carthage and the cities of Magna Grecia. Second [Pg 172]war with Carthage against Hannibal and Himilco, 398—392. Dionysius loses all that he before had conquered, and is himself besieged in Syracuse; but a plague once more attacking the Carthaginians, rescues him from his predicament, 396; deeds of hostility continued notwithstanding till 392, when a peace was signed, by which Carthage ceded the town of Tauromenium.—From 394, desultory attacks on the confederate Grecian cities in Lower Italy, particularly on Rhegium, the chief seat of the Syracusan emigrants, which, after repeated invasions, is at last compelled to yield, 387. Third war with Carthage, 383, against Mago; Dionysius wins a victory, which is however followed by a greater defeat; and the war ends the same year by the adoption of a peace, according to which each party is to retain what he then had; the Halycus is fixed as the boundary line; so that Selinus and a portion of the territory of Agrigentum remain in the hands of the Carthaginians. Fourth war: inroad upon the Carthaginian states; it ends, however, in the signing of a treaty. The decision of these wars generally depended on the side taken by the Siculi, the most powerful aboriginal race in Sicily. Dionysius I. having died by poison, 368, was succeeded by Dionysius II. his eldest son by one of his two wives, Doris of Locri, but under the guardianship of his step-uncle Dio, the brother of Dionysius's other wife Aristomache. Neither Dio or his friend Plato, who was three times invited to Syracuse, were able to improve the character of a prince whose mind had been corrupted by bad education.—Dio is banished, 360. He returns, 357, and, in the absence of Dionysius, takes possession of Syracuse, all but the citadel. Dionysius now has recourse to stratagem; he excites in the city distrust of Dio, and foments dissension between him and his general Heraclidas; meanwhile he himself withdraws to Italy, taking with him his treasures. Dio is compelled to retire from the city, which is sacked by the troops garrisoned in the citadel; hereupon the Syracusans themselves fetch back Dio; he possesses himself of the citadel and wishes to restore the republican government, but soon falls a victim to party spirit, being murdered by Callipus, B. C. 354, who usurped the government till 353, when he is driven out by Hipparinus, a brother of Dionysius, who keeps possession till 350. After ten years' absence, Dionysius II. by a sudden attack, becomes once more master of the city, 346. The tyranny of this prince, and the treachery of Icetas of Gela, whom the Syracusans called in to their assistance, but who leagues himself with the Carthaginians, and the for[Pg 173]midable attempts of the latter, compel the citizens to apply to the mother city Corinth: Corinth sends to their assistance Timoleon with a small force, 345. Rapid change of affairs wrought by Timoleon: he beats Icetas and the Carthaginians: in 343 Dionysius is forced to deliver up the citadel and evacuate the country; he retires to Corinth, where he leads a private life. Restoration of the republican government, not only in Syracuse, where the laws of Diocles are reinstituted, but also in the rest of the Grecian cities: the revolution confirmed by a great victory over the Carthaginians, 340. In the midst of the execution of his plans Timoleon dies, 337, the most splendid example of a republican that history affords! From 337—317; almost a chasm in the history of Syracuse. Wars with Agrigentum; the usurpation of Sosistratus, disturbs the peace, both external and internal. The character of the Syracusans was already too foully corrupted for one to expect that liberty could again be established among them, without the personal superintendence of a Timoleon. They deserved the fate that befell them, when, in 317, that daring adventurer Agathocles assumed the sovereign power, which he maintained till 289. Renewal of the plan for expelling the Carthaginians from the island, and subjecting Magna Græcia. Hence arises a new war with Carthage, in which Agathocles is defeated, 311, and besieged in Syracuse: by a bold stroke he passes over into Africa, accompanied by part of his fleet and army, and there with general success prosecutes the war until 307: the insurrection of most of the Grecian cities in Sicily recalls him from the theatre of war; his views in Africa are consequently defeated. In the peace of 306 both parties retain what they had at the beginning of the war. The wars in Italy are confined to the sacking of Croton, and a victory won over the Bruttii; and are rather predatory expeditions than regular wars. In the year 289, Agathocles died by poison, and his murderer, Mænon, seized the power; he is expelled by the general Icetas, and flies over to the Carthaginians. Icetas rules as pretor till 278, when, in his absence, the government is usurped by Thynion, who meets with a rival in the person of Sosistratus; in the mean while the mercenaries of Agathocles (the Mamertini) possess themselves of Messana, and the Carthaginians press forward to the very gates of Syracuse. The Syracusans invite Pyrrhus of Epirus over from Italy; that prince takes possession of the whole of Sicily as far as Lilybæum; but having by his haughtiness incurred general hatred and disgust, he is obliged to eva[Pg 174]cuate the island, B. C. 275. The Syracusans now appoint Hiero, a descendant of the ancient royal family, to the office of general: after defeating the Mamertini he is called to the throne, 269. At the breaking out of the war between Carthage and Rome, the new king forsakes his alliance with Carthage, and, passing over to the Roman side, thereby purchases a long and tranquil reign until 215, when he dies of old age. Under this wise prince Syracuse enjoyed a degree of happiness and prosperity which none of her demagogues had been able to effect. After his death the Carthaginian party became predominant; Hieronymus the grandson of Hiero is murdered, 214, and Hannibal's intrigues enable the Carthaginian party to keep the upper hand, by contriving to place at the head of affairs his friends Hippocrates and Epicydes, who entangle Syracuse in a war with Rome; and the city, after a long siege, celebrated by the inventions of Archimedes, is brought to ruin, 212.—The history of Syracuse is a practical compendium of politics: what other state ever underwent so many and such various revolutions?

The history of Syracuse was at an early period disfigured by partiality. For the topography, see † Bartel's Letters from Calabria and Sicily, vol. iii. with a plan.

† A. Arnold, History of Syracuse, from its foundation to the overthrow of liberty by Dionysius. Gotha, 1816.

Mitford, History of Greece: the fourth volume contains the history of Syracuse, and a defence of the elder Dionysius. It would seem that even now it is difficult to write this history in an impartial spirit.

b. Agrigentum, a colony of Gela, founded 582. The first city of Sicily next to Syracuse, of which it was frequently the rival. Its first constitution was that of the mother city; that is to say, Dorian or aristocratic. It fell, however, soon after its foundation, under the dominion of tyrants; the first of whom noticed in history is Phalaris, who flourished probably 566—534. He was succeeded by Alcmanes, 534—488, who was followed by Alcander, an indulgent ruler, in whose reign the wealth of Agrigentum seems to have already been considerable. More renowned than the foregoing was Theron, the contemporary and stepfather of Gelon; he ruled from B. C. 488—472: in conjunction with Gelon he routed the Carthaginian army, 480, and subjected Himera. His son and successor, Thrasydæus, was beaten by Hiero and expelled, 470; whereupon the Agrigentines, as allies of Syracuse, introduced a democracy. The period following, 470[Pg 175]—405, is that in which Agrigentum, blessed with political freedom, attained the highest degree of public prosperity. She was one of the most opulent and luxurious cities in the world, and in the display of public monuments one of the most magnificent. For her wealth she was indebted to the vast trade in oil and wine that she carried on with Africa and Gaul, in neither of which were those productions hitherto naturalized. In the year 446 the Agrigentines, excited by envy, fell upon the Syracusans, but were defeated. In the war with Athens they took no share; but in the Carthaginian invasion of Sicily, 405, Agrigentum was taken and destroyed; from this blow she recovered but slowly, and never effectually. By Timoleon she was, in some measure, restored, 340; and under Agathocles, 307, was able to head the cities combined against him, but was beaten. After the death of Agathocles, a tyrant, by the name of Phintias, took possession of the sovereign power; and was attacked, 278, by Icetas of Syracuse. At the breaking out of the first Punic war, Agrigentum was used by the Carthaginians as a military depôt; but was taken by the Romans as early as 262.

c. The fate of the other Sicilian cities was more or less dependent on that of Agrigentum and Syracuse: they all had originally republican forms of government; but though the Ionian colonies had a celebrated legislator in the person of Charondas, (probably about 660,) they had the same fortune with the rest, of being frequently oppressed by tyrants, either from among their own citizens, or by those of Syracuse, who often used to drive out the old inhabitants, and introduce a new population more devoted to their interest: hence must have sprung manifold wars. The foregoing history shows how grievously they likewise suffered in the wars between Syracuse and Carthage. Following the dates of their respective foundations, they may be thus arranged: Zancle, (after 664, known by the name of Messana,) the earliest, though of uncertain date; Naxus, 736; Syracuse, Hybla, 735; Leontini, Catana, 730; Gela, 690; Acræ, B. C. 665; Casmenæ, 645; Himera, 639; Selinus, 630; Agrigentum, 582. The dates of the rest cannot be ascertained with any degree of accuracy.

3. On the other islands and coasts of the Mediterranean we meet with various insulated Grecian settlements; in Sardinia, the cities Garalis and Olbia: the date of their foundation unknown; in Corsica, Alaria, (or Alalia,) a colony of Phocæans founded, 561; hither the inhabitants of the mother city betook [Pg 176]themselves in 541; and subsequently, after the naval engagement with the Etruscans and Carthaginians, withdrew, some to Rhegium, others to Massilia, 536.

4. On the coast of Gaul stood Massilia, founded by the Phocæans, who had been driven out of Corsica after the above mentioned naval engagement, 536; or rather, there was on the same site an old settlement which was now increased. Massilia rapidly grew in wealth and power. Our information respecting the wars she waged on the sea against Carthage and the Etruscans is but of a general kind. Her territory on the main land, although rich in wine and oil, was limited in extent; she established, nevertheless, several colonies along the shores of Spain and Gaul, among which Antipolis, Nicæa, and Olbia are the best known. The trade of Massilia was carried on partly by sea, and partly by land, through the interior of Gaul. The constitution was a moderate aristocracy. The chief power was in the hands of six hundred individuals; the members of this council were called timuchi, they held their places for life, were obliged to be married men with families, and descended at least to the third generation from citizens. At the head of this council stood fifteen men, three of whom were chief magistrates. As early as 218 Massilia was in alliance with Rome, under whose fostering protection she grew in prosperity; her freedom was preserved to her until the war between Pompey and Cæsar; having sided with the former, she was stormed, 49, by Cæsar's army. She soon retrieved herself, and, under the reign of Augustus, Massilia was the seat of literature and philosophy, in which public lectures were there given as at Athens.

Aug. Bruekner, Historia Reipublicæ Massiliensium. Gotting. 1826. A prize essay.

5. On the Spanish coast stood Saguntum, (Ζακυνθὸς,) a colony from the island of Zacynthus; the date of its foundation is undetermined. It became opulent by its commerce; but at the opening of the second Punic war, B. C. 219, was destroyed by Hannibal, as being an ally of Rome.

6. On the coast of Africa lay Cyrene, founded at the suggestion of the Delphic oracle in 631, by the island of Thera. The constitution was at first monarchical. Kings: Battus I. the founder, 631—591. In whose family the sceptre remained. Arcesilaus I. d. 575. Under the reign of his successor, Battus II. surnamed the happy, (d. 554,) the colony was much strengthened by new comers from Greece. The Libyans, bereaved of [Pg 177]their lands, seek for help at the hands of Apries, who is defeated by the Cyrenæans, 570, and in consequence loses his crown.—Arcesilaus II. d. 550. Rebellion of his brothers, and foundation of Barca, an independent town ruled by its own separate kings. Secession of the Libyan subjects. He is put to death by his brother or friend Learchus, who in his turn is poisoned by Eryxo the widow of Arcesilaus. Her son, Battus III. surnamed the lame, (d. about 529,) succeeds to the throne. The royal power confined within narrow limits by the laws of Demonax of Mantinea: the king retains nothing more than the revenue and priestly office. His son Arcesilaus III. becomes of his own accord tributary to the Persians; in conjunction with his mother, Pheretime, he seeks to reestablish the regal supremacy, but is expelled; nevertheless he regains possession of Cyrene. In consequence of his cruelty he is assassinated in Barca, about 516. Pheretime seeks for help from the Persian satrap of Egypt, Aryandes, who by craft gets possession of Barca; the inhabitants are carried away and translated into Bactria, 512. Soon after Pheretime dies. It seems probable that another Battus IV. and Arcesilaus IV. must have reigned at Cyrene, to whom Pindar's fourth and fifth Pythian Odes are addressed: their history, however, is veiled in obscurity. Cyrene then received a republican constitution, probably somewhere about 450; but we are unacquainted with the internal details of the government. Yet though Plato was invited by the Cyrenæans to give them laws, and though they had for their legislator Democles of Arcadia, they appear never to have been blessed with a good and stable constitution. Not only is mention often made of domestic troubles, as in 400, when amid the uproar excited by Ariston most of the aristocratic party were cut off; but we likewise frequently meet with tyrants. Concerning the external affairs of this state we know nothing but a few general facts relative to the border wars with Carthage. Subsequently to Alexander, Cyrene became a part of the Egyptian kingdom; so early as the reign of Ptolemy I. it was added to that realm by his general Ophellas, about B. C. 331. It now continued to receive various rulers from the family of the Ptolemies (see below) until the reign of Ptolemy Physcon, when it became a separate state, the bastard son of that prince, Apion by name, having made it over to the Romans, 97. Cyrene possessed a considerable share of trade, consisting partly in the exportation of country produce, more especially the Silphium, (Laser,) partly in a varied intercourse [Pg 178]with Carthage, Ammonium, and thence with the interior of Africa. The former splendour and importance of this city and the neighbouring country are testified by an abundance of most noble ruins; a more accurate research into which every friend of antiquity must desire.

Hardion, Histoire de Cyrène, in Mém. de l'Académie des Inscriptions, t. iii.

J. P. Thrige, Historia Cyrenes, inde a tempore quo condita urbs est, usque ad ætatem, qua in provinciæ formam a Romanis redacta est: particula prior, de initiis coloniæ Cyrenen deductæ, et Cyrenes Battiadis regnantibus historia. Havniæ, 1819. The best work on Cyrene. It is hoped that the author will not disapppoint our expectations of the second part, which is to contain the period of republican government. [The whole was completed in 1828. The learned and ingenious author has neglected no authority whether ancient or modern, and is particularly cautious and judicious in his researches.]

A ray of light has lately, for the first time, been thrown on the remains still found in Cyrenaica by Della Cella, Viaggio di Tripoli; translated by Spieker, in the † Journal of the latest travels by sea and by land, Sept. 1820.

W. Beechey, Proceedings to explore the northern coast of Africa from Tripoli eastward, 1827.

F. R. Pacho, Relation d'un voyage à Marmarique et Cyrenaique, 1828. A most accurate description.

T. Ehrenberg, Travels through North Africa, in the years 1820—1825, by Dr. W. F. Hemprich and Dr. C. G. Ehrenberg. Berlin, 1828.

Sources. The chief writers in this period are: For the history of the Persian wars to the battle of Platææ, 479, Herodotus. For the period between 479 and the breaking out of the Peloponnesian war, we must, in the absence of contemporary authors,[Pg 179] consider Diodorus Siculus as the principal authority.—The beginning of the 11th book, which commences with the year 480, (the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th books being lost,) to the middle of the 12th; the chronology of this author, however, must in several cases be rectified after Thucydides's summary in lib. i. For the period of the Peloponnesian war, 431—410, the history of Thucydides is the capital work; but it must be accompanied by Diodorus, from the middle of the 12th book to the middle of the 13th.—From the year 410 to the battle of Mantinea, 362, the principal sources are the Hellenics of Xenophon, and occasionally his Anabasis and Agesilaus; together with Diodorus, from the middle of the 13th book to the end of the 15th. For the years intervening from 362—336, no contemporary historian has been preserved; Diodorus's 16th book must therefore here be considered as the chief source: for the times of Philip, however, recourse may likewise be had to the speeches of Demosthenes and Æschines. The Lives of Plutarch and Nepos often touch upon this period, but cannot be regarded as authentic sources; of still less authority are the abridged documents given by Justin and some others.

The modern authors on this, the brilliant period of Greece, are, of course, the same as have been enumerated above: (see p. 118.) To whom must here be added:

Potter, Archæologia Græca; or the Antiquities of Greece: 2 vols. 8vo. Lond. 1722. Translated into German by J. J. Rambach, 3 vols. 1775.

Barthelemy, Voyage du Jeune Anacharsis en Grèce. (Between the years B. C. 362 and 338.) Paris, 1788, 5 vols. Accompanied with charts and plans, illustrating the topography of Athens, etc. This work is conspicuous for a rare union of good taste and erudition; unattended, however, with an equal share of critical acumen and a correct appreciation of antiquity.

† History of the Origin, Progress, and Fall of Science in Greece and Rome, by C. Meiners. Gottingen, 1781. It contains also a delineation of the political state of affairs; but does not extend beyond the age of Philip.

The principal works on the monuments of ancient Greece are:

Le Roy, Les Ruines des plus beaux Monumens de la Grèce. Paris, 1758, 2nd edit. 1770, fol. The first in point of time; but far surpassed by:

J. Stuart, The Antiquities of Athens measured and deli[Pg 180]neated; 3 vols. Lond. 1762: the 4th vol. published in 1816. In beauty and accuracy of execution superior to all.

R. Dalton, Antiquities and Views of Greece and Egypt, 1691, fol. The Egyptian monuments are confined to those of Lower Egypt.

R. Chandler, Ionian Antiquities. London, 1796, 1797, 2 vols. fol. A worthy companion to Stuart.

Choiseul Gouffier, Voyage pittoresque dans la Grèce, vol. i, 1779: vol. ii, 1809. Confined principally to the islands and Asia Minor.

Causes which led to the Persian war. Share taken by Athens in the Ionian insurrection and firing of Sardes, B. C. 500. (see above, p. 98.) Intrigues of Hippias, first with the satraps, and afterwards at the Persian court itself.—First expedition, that of Mardonius, thwarted by a storm, 493.

Quarrel of Athens and Sparta with Ægina, which sides with the Persians, 491; and consequent deposition of Demaratus, king of Sparta, by his colleague Cleomenes.

Persian expedition of Datis and Artaphernes under the guidance of Hippias: frustrated by the battle of Marathon, B. C. Sept. 29, 490, and the failure of an attempt upon Athens.

Rivalry of these two men, 490—486. While Themistocles at the head of the Athenian fleet prosecutes the design of Miltiades against the islands, the management of state affairs is confided to Aristides. On the return, however, of Themistocles as conqueror, Aristides is by ostracism banished Athens, 486. Themistocles alone, at the head of affairs, pursues his plan for making Athens a maritime power. In consequence of a war against the object of popular hatred, Ægina, B. C. 484, he prevails on the Athenians to devote the income from the mines to the formation of a navy. While Athens is thus rising to power, Sparta suffers from the insanity of one of her kings, Cleomenes, (succeeded in 482 by his half brother Leonidas,) and the arrogance of the other, Leotychides.

Themistocles' plan for the conduct of the war; first, a common union of all the Hellenic states; a measure which succeeds to a certain degree, the honour of the command being left to the Spartans; secondly, the sea made the theatre of war.—Gallant death of Leonidas with his three hundred Spartans and seven hundred Thespians, July 6, 480. An example of heroism which contributes as much to the greatness of Greece as the victory of Salamis. About the same time naval engagements off Artemisium in Eubœa, with two hundred and seventy-one sail. The leaders of the Greeks are kept to their posts merely by bribery; the means of purchasing their services being for the most part furnished by Themistocles himself.—Athens, deserted by its inhabitants, is taken and burnt by Xerxes, July 20. Retreat[Pg 183] of the Grecian fleet into the bay of Salamis: revocation of all exiles, Aristides among the rest.—Politic measures adopted by Themistocles to hinder the dispirited Greeks from taking flight, and at the same time to secure to himself, in case of need, an asylum with the Persian monarch.—Naval engagement and victory off Salamis, Sept. 23, 480, with three hundred and eighty sail, (one hundred and eighty of which were Athenian,) against the Persian fleet, already much weakened: retreat of Xerxes.—Poets and historians have disfigured these events by fanciful exaggerations: still, however, they may show us how commonly human weakness is attended with human greatness!

Athens rebuilt and fortified by Themistocles despite of Spartan jealousy, 478: formation of the Piræus, an event of still[Pg 184] greater importance, 477.—Naval expedition under Pausanias, accompanied by Aristides and Cimon, undertaken against Cyprus and Byzantium, for the purpose of expelling the Persians, 470. Treachery and fall of Pausanias, 469. In consequence of the Spartans' haughtiness, the supreme command devolves upon the Athenians.

Abrogation of the law that excluded the poorer citizens from official situations, B. C. 478.

Expulsion of Themistocles, implicated in the fall of Pausanias, principally through the intrigues of Sparta: he is first banished by ostracism, 469, but in consequence of further persecution he flies over to the Persians, 466.

Another expedition under Cimon; and victory by sea and land near the Eurymedon, B. C. 469. He takes possession of the Hellespontine Chersonesus, 468. Some of the Athenian confederates already endeavour to secede. Hence, 467, the conquest of Caristus in Eubœa; subjection of Naxos, 466, and from 465—463, siege and capture of Thasos, under Cimon. The Athenians endeavour to obtain a firmer footing on the shore of Macedonia; and for that purpose send out a colony to Amphipolis, 465.

Great earthquake at Sparta; gives rise to a ten years' war, viz. the third Messenian war or revolt of the Helots, who fortify themselves in Ithome, 465—455: in this war the Athenians, at the instigation of Cimon, send assistance to the Spartans, 461, who refuse the proffered aid. The democratic party seize the opportunity of casting on Cimon the suspicion of being in the interest of Sparta; he is banished by ostracism, 461.

Change in the spirit of administration under Pericles, both in reference to internal and external relations. A brilliant management succeeds to the parsimonious economy of Aristides; and yet, after the lapse of thirty years, the state treasury was full.—Limitation of the power of the areopagus by Ephialtes, B. C. 461. The withdrawal of various causes which formerly came under the jurisdiction of that tribunal must have diminished its right of moral censorship.—Introduction of the practice of paying persons who attended the courts of justice.

With regard to external relations, the precedence of the Athenians gradually advanced toward supremacy; although their relations with all the confederates were not precisely the same. Some were mere confederates; others were subjects.—Augmentation in the imposts on the confederates, and transfer of the treasury from Delos to Athens, 461. The jealousy of Sparta and the discontent of the confederates keep pace with the greatness of Athens.

Unsuccessful attempt to support by the help of an Athenian fleet and troops, Inarus of Egypt in his insurrection against the Persians, 462—458.

Wars in Greece: the Spartans instigate Corinth and Epidaurus against Athens. The Athenians, at first defeated near Haliæ, in their turn rout the enemy, 458, and then carry the war against Ægina, which is subdued, 457. In the new quarrel between Corinth and Megara respecting their boundaries, the Athenians side with Megara; Myronides conquers at Cimolia, 457. Expedition of the Spartans to the support of the Dorians against Phocis; and hence arises the first rupture between Athens, Sparta, and Bœotia. First battle of Tanagra, in which the Spartans are victorious in the same year, 457. The Bœotians,[Pg 189] incited by the Spartans, are in the second battle of Tanagra worsted by Myronides, 456. The recall of Cimon, at the suggestion of Pericles himself, in consequence of the first defeat.

Termination of the third Messenian war in favour of Sparta, by the cession of Ithome, B. C. 455. Meantime Athens continues the war with Peloponnesus; Tolmidas and Pericles making an incursion by sea on the enemy's territory, 455—454. At the same time Pericles, by sending out colonies to the Hellespont, endeavours to secure more firmly the Athenian power in that quarter: a colony is likewise sent out to Naxos, 453.—Cimon negotiates a truce, which is adopted first (451) tacitly, afterwards formally, (450,) for five years. The result of this truce is his victorious expedition against the Persians, and the consequent peace with that nation. Although the conditions of the peace prescribed by Cimon were sometimes infringed, they appear to have been ratified by all parties.

During the five years' truce the sacred war for the possession of the Delphian oracle took place, and it is given by the Spartans to the city of Delphi; but after their return is given back again by the Athenians to the Phocians, B. C. 448. The Athenians commanded by Tolmidas, are defeated by the Bœotians, 447. This expedition, undertaken in opposition to the advice of Pericles, contributes to increase his influence; particularly as he reduces to obedience the revolted Eubœa and Megara, 446. End of the five years' truce with Sparta; and renewal of hostilities, 445; further warlike proceedings are repressed by a new thirty years' peace, which lasts, however, only fourteen years.—Complete suppression of the aristocratic party, by the banishment of the elder Thucydides, 444; the whole administration of the state consequently centres in the hands of Pericles.—Democracy in the confederate states favoured; forcibly introduced in Samos, which, after a nine months' siege, is obliged to submit to Pericles, 440.—Commencement of the war between Corinth and Corcyra, on the subject of Epidamnus, 436, which the Corcyræans take[Pg 191] possession of after winning a naval victory, 435. The Athenians take part in the quarrel, and side with the Corcyræans, 432. The rupture with Corinth, and the policy of Perdiccas II. king of Macedonia, lead to the secession of the Corinthian colony of Potidæa, which previously belonged to the Athenian confederacy: the war thereby is extended to the Macedonian coast. Engagement near Potidæa, and siege of that town, 432. The Corinthians direct their steps to Sparta, and excite the Spartans to war; which is further accelerated by the attack of the Thebans upon Platææ, the confederate of Athens, 431.

Confederates of the Athenians: the islands Chios, Samos, Lesbos, all those of the Archipelago, (Thera and Melos excepted, which stood neutral,) Corcyra, Zacynthus; the Grecian colonies in Asia Minor, and on the coast of Thrace and Macedonia; in Greece itself, the cities of Naupactus, Platææ, and those of Acarnania.—Confederates of the Spartans: all the Peloponnesians, (Argos and Achaia excepted, which stood neutral,) Megara, Locris, Phocis, Bœotia, the cities of Ambracia and Anactorium, and the island of Leucas.

Financial system of the Athenians. Revenue: 1. The tribute paid by the confederates (φόροι) increased by Pericles from four hundred and sixty to six hundred talents. 2. Income from the customs, (which were farmed,) and from the mines at Laurium. 3. The caution money of the non-citizens: (μέτοικοι.) 4. The taxes on the citizens, (εἰσφοραὶ,) which fell almost entirely on the[Pg 193] rich, more particularly on the first class, the members of which were not only to bear the burthen of fitting out the fleet, (τριεραρχίαι,) but were likewise to furnish means for the public festivals and spectacles, (χορηγίαι.) The whole income of the republic at this time was estimated at 2,000 talents. But the disbursements made to the numerous assistants at the courts of justice (the principal means of existence with the poorer citizens, and which, more than any thing else, contributed to the licentiousness of the democracy and the oppression of the confederates, whose causes were all brought to Athens for adjudication,) together with the expenditure for festivals and spectacles, even at this time, absorbed the greatest part of the revenue.

† F. Boekh, Public Economy of the Athenians, 2 parts, Berlin, 1816. The chief work on the subject. [Ably translated by J. C. Lewis, esq. of Christ Church in this university.]

Athenian Letters, or the Epistolary Correspondence of an Agent of the King of Persia, residing at Athens during the Peloponnesian war. London, 1798, 2 vols. 4to. The production of several young authors; first printed, but not published, in 1741. This sketch comprises, not only Greece, but likewise Persia and Egypt.

Capture of Amphipolis by Brasidas, and exile of Thucydides, 424. Engagement near Amphipolis between Brasidas and Cleon; and death of those two generals, 422.

Attempt of some states, Corinth especially, to set Argos at the head of a new confederacy; this measure Athens likewise favours, 421.—Violation of the peace, 419; the war indirect until 415, and limited to assisting the confederates on either side.—Alcibiades's plan of giving Athens the preponderance in Peloponnesus, by an alliance with Argos, is defeated by the battle of Mantinea, 417.—Exterminating war of the Athenians waged against the Melians, who wish to preserve their neutrality,[Pg 195] whereas neutrality in the weaker party now becomes a crime, 416.

Early interference of the Athenians with the concerns of the Sicilian Greeks.—A fleet and army under the command of Nicias, Lamachus, and Alcibiades, sent against Sicily, 415.—Accusation, recall, and flight of Alcibiades to Sparta: formal rupture of the peace by an inroad of the Spartans into Attica, where they fortify Decelea, 414. Unsuccessful siege of Syracuse, 414; and total annihilation of the Athenian fleet and army by the assistance of the Spartans under Gylippus, 413.

Alliance of the Spartans with the Persians, and indecisive engagement off Miletus—Flight of Alcibiades from Sparta to Tissaphernes; his negotiations to gain the satrap over to the interests of Athens, 411.—Equivocal policy of Tissaphernes.—Negotiations of Alcibiades with the chiefs of the Athenian army[Pg 196] at Samos, and the consequent revolution at Athens, and overthrow of the democracy by the appointment of the supreme council of four hundred in place of the βουλὴ, and of a committee of five thousand citizens in place of the popular assembly, 411.—The army assumes the right of debate; names Alcibiades to be its leader; but declares again for democracy.—Great commotions at Athens in consequence of the discomfiture of the fleet at Eretria, and the secession of Eubœa. Deposition of the college of four hundred, after a despotic rule of four months;—Reformation of the government;—Transfer of the highest power to the hands of the five thousand;—Recall of Alcibiades, and reconciliation with the army.

Two naval engagements on the Hellespont, 411.—Great victory by sea and land won near Cyzicus, 410.—Confirmation of the Athenian dominion over Ionia and Thrace by the capture of Byzantium, 480. Alcibiades returns covered with glory; but in the same year is deposed, and submits to a voluntary exile, 407.

Naval victory of Lysander over the Athenians at Notium, 407; in consequence of which Alcibiades is deprived of the command.—Appointment of ten new leaders at Athens; Conon among the number.—Naval victory of Callicratidas at Mitylene; Conon is shut up in the harbour of that place, 406.—Great naval victory of the Athenians; defeat and death of Callicratidas at the Æginussæ islands, near Lesbos, 406.—Unjust condemnation of the Athenian generals.—Second command of Lysander, and last decisive victory by sea over the Athenians at Ægospotamos on the Hellespont, Dec. 406.—The loss of the sovereignty of the sea is accompanied by the defection of the confederates, who are successively subjected by Lysander, 406.—Athens is besieged by Lysander in the same year, 405; the city surrenders in May, 404.—Athens is deprived of her walls; her navy is reduced to twelve sail; and, in obedience to Lysander's commands, the constitution is commuted into an oligarchy, under thirty rulers, (tyrants.)

History of the reign of terror at Athens under the thirty tyrants, 403.—What happened here must likewise have happened more or less in the other Grecian cities, which Lysander found it necessary to revolutionize. In all quarters his party consisted of men similar to Critias and his colleagues, who appear to have been long before united in clubs (ἑταιρείαι) intimately connected with each other; from which were now taken the most daring revolutionists, in order to place them everywhere at the head of affairs.

Ed. Ph. Hinrichs, De Theramenis, Critiæ et Thrasybuli, virorum tempore belli Peloponnesiaci inter Græcos illustrium, rebus et ingenio, Commentatio, Hamburgi, 1820. An inquiry which exhibits much research and impartiality.

Opening of the war with Persia by Tissaphernes's attack on the Æolian cities of Asia Minor, 400.—Command of Thimbron, who, 398, is succeeded by the more successful and fortunate Dercyllidas.—Availing himself of the jealousy between Tissaphernes and Artabazus, he persuades the latter to a separate truce, 397.—Command of Agesilaus; his expedition into Asia, from the[Pg 199] spring of 396 until 394. The conviction which he obtained of the domestic weakness of the Persian empire in the successful invasion of Phrygia, 395, seems to have matured in the mind of Agesilaus the idea of overturning the Persian throne: this design he would have accomplished had not the Persians been politic enough to kindle a war against Sparta in Greece itself.

Irruption of the Spartans into Bœotia; they engage and are routed at Haliartus, 394. Lysander falls on the field of battle; and Agesilaus is recalled out of Asia.—His victory at Coronea ensures to the Spartans the preponderance by land; but the discomfiture of their navy near Cnidus at the same time, gives to their enemies the sovereignty of the sea: Conon, who commanded the combined Persian and Athenian fleets, avails himself, with consummate skill, of this success to reestablish the independence of Athens, 393.—Sparta endeavours by apparently great sacrifices to bring over the Persians to her interests: the peace at last concluded by the efforts of the skilful Antalcidas, (see above, book ii, parag. 42), was readily agreed to by the Spartans, as they gave up only what otherwise they could not have retained. The preponderance of Sparta on the continent of Greece was established by the article which invested them with the power of seeing the conditions of the treaty fulfilled: the stipulated freedom of the Grecian cities was but an apparent disadvantage; and now that the Asiatic colonies were given up, the contest for power in Greece itself must be decided by land, and not by sea.

Liberation of Thebes from Spartan rule by the successful attempt of Pelopidas and his fellow-conspirators, 378. Vain attempts against Thebes, by the Spartans under Cleombrotus, 378, and Agesilaus, 377 and 376. The defensive war conducted by Pelopidas, during which he established the Theban supremacy in Bœotia, and brought over the Athenians, (whose fleet, 376, beat that of the Spartans,) deserves our admiration more than the winning of a battle.—The vast plans of Thebes were not unfolded, however, till Epaminondas was at the head of affairs.

Seran de la Tour, Histoire d'Epaminondas. Paris, 1752.

† Meissner, Life of Epaminondas. Prague, 1801, 2 parts. In which the authorities are duly considered.

† J. G. Scheibel, Essays towards a better understanding of the Ancient World, 1809. The second part contains an essay upon the history of Thebes, as the first does on that of Corinth.

Victory won by the Thebans at Leuctra, July 8, 371, and annihilation of what hitherto had been called the supremacy of Sparta.—First irruption into Peloponnesus preceded by alliances with Arcadia, Elis, and Argos.—The attack upon Sparta itself is unsuccessful; but the freedom of Messene is restored, 369.

First and successful expedition of Pelopidas into Thessaly, 368.—After the decision of the disputed succession to the Macedonian throne, young Philip is brought as hostage to Thebes, and educated in the house of Epaminondas.—Pelopidas is sent as ambassador, and taken prisoner by Alexander; hence the second expedition of the Thebans, in which Epaminondas rescues the army and delivers his friend, 367.

Last expedition of Pelopidas against Alexander of Pheræ, in which he himself falls, 364.—New irruption into Peloponnesus caused by the commotions in Arcadia.—Battle of Mantinea, and death of Epaminondas, June 27, 362.—General peace in Greece mediated by the Persians; Sparta does not assent to it on account[Pg 203] of Messene, but sends Agesilaus to Egypt, there to support the insurrection of Tachos.

Confederacy of the islands Cos, Rhodes, and Chios, and the city of Byzantium; their secession from Athens, 358.—Unsuccessful siege of Chios, before which Chabrias falls, 358; of Byzantium, 357. Athens suffers a still greater injury from the cabals of Chares against his colleagues Timotheus and Iphicrates, and from her imprudent participation in the insurrection of Artabazus, 356. The threats of Artaxerxes III. force Athens to make a peace, in which she is obliged to acknowledge the freedom of her confederates.

Sentence of the Amphictyons against Sparta on account of the former surprise of the citadel of Thebes by Phœbidas; and against Phocis on account of the tillage of the sacred lands of Delphi, 357.—Philomelus is elected general of the Phocians; the rifling of the treasury of Delphi enables him to take into his pay Athenian and other auxiliaries, and to carry war against the Thebans and their confederates, the Locrians, etc. under pretence of their being the executors of the Amphictyonic decrees. Philomelus having fallen, 353, is succeeded by his brother Onomarchus, more skilful than himself in intrigue and war: but Onomarchus having fallen, 352, in the battle with Philip in Thessaly, is followed by Phayllus. Philip even thus early endeavours to push through Thermopylæ into Greece, but is repelled by the Athenians. He executes this plan after his peace with Athens, 347, and having procured the expulsion of the Phocians from the Amphictyonic council, gets their place and right of vote to be transferred to himself.

Sources. We have no historian who wrote, particularly, on Macedonia, before the time of Alexander. The facts relative to the earlier history previous to Philip are collected from Diodorus, Justin, Thucydides, and Arrian; from Diodorus more especially. In consequence of the loss of the other historians, Diodorus is the chief authority for the history of Philip; the speeches of Demosthenes and Æschines must likewise be consulted, but not made use of without caution and judicious historical criticism. With respect to Alexander the Great, as so many writers on his reign have been destroyed by time, Arrian must now be considered as the chief authority, on account of the care he has shown in the selection of his authorities, conjointly with the seventeenth book of Diodorus. Plutarch's biography contains several valuable additional facts; and even the superficial Curtius might furnish us with abundance of information, did his accounts offer higher claims to our credit.

The three first Macedonian kings, Caranus said to have ruled twenty-eight years, Cœnus twenty-three, Tyrmas forty-five, were unknown to Herodotus, who names as founder of the Macedonian monarchy, Perdiccas, 729—678. Of this prince and his successors Argæus, d. 640, Philip I. d. 602, Æropus, d. 576, and Alcetas, d. 547, nothing more is known than that they waged war, with various success against the neighbouring Pierians and Illyrians, who had their own kings.

Immediately after the Scythian campaign, 513, Amyntas (d. 498,) became tributary to the Persians; his son and successor, Alexander, (d. 454,) was in the same state of subjection, and was even compelled to join the expedition of Xerxes.

Commencement of the differences with Athens, under the reign of Perdiccas II, 454—413; Athens having supported his brother Philip against him.—Defection of Potidæa, and fortification of Olynthus, into which the Greeks from Chalcis and other cities are transplanted, 432. Potidæa being forced to surrender to Athens, 431, Perdiccas contrives to play so skilful a part in the Peloponnesian war just now commencing, that he outwits the Athenians, parrying the attack of Sitalces by a marriage of his sister with Seuthes, the heir to that prince, 429. His alliance with Sparta, 424, is very detrimental to the Athenians, Brasidas wresting Amphipolis from their hands; nevertheless Perdiccas chooses rather to conclude a peace with Athens, 423, than to throw himself entirely into the arms of his new allies.

Æropus, as guardian to the young king Orestes, usurps the supreme power, B. C. 400—394. After his death, and the murder of his son Pausanias, 393, the throne was seized by Amyntas II. son of Philip, and brother to Perdiccas II. who was nevertheless unable to maintain his power until he had gained a victory over Argæus, the brother of Pausanias, who was backed by the Illyrians, 390—369. The war with Olynthus, 383—380, could not be brought to a successful conclusion until he had formed an alliance with Sparta.

Alexander, in opposition to his rival, Ptolemy of Alorus, placed on the throne by Pelopidas, sends his youngest brother Philip as hostage to Thebes: in the same year he is deposed by Ptolemy, 368. Reign of Ptolemy, 388—365, with the stipulation imposed, 367, by Pelopidas, that he shall only hold the sceptre in reserve for the two younger brothers. Murder of Ptolemy, 365, by Perdiccas III. who is nearly overwhelmed by Pausanias, another and earlier pretender to the crown; he is at last firmly seated on the throne by the Athenians, under Iphicrates, 364. But as early as 360 he falls in the war against the Illyrians, leaving behind him a son, Amyntas, still a minor, and a younger brother Philip, who escapes from Thebes in order to gain possession of the throne.

The history of Philip, even in his own days, was distorted to his disadvantage by orators and historians. Demosthenes could not, Theopompus would not, be impartial; and the information contained in Diodorus and Justin is mostly derived from the work of the latter.

Olivier, Histoire de Philippe, roi de Macédoine. Paris, 1740, 2 vols. 8vo. A defence of Philip.

De Bury, Histoire de Philippe, et d'Alexandre le grand. Paris, 1760, 4to. A very mean performance.

Th. Leland, The History of the Life and Reign of Philip king of Macedon. London, 1761, 4to. Dry, but exhibiting much reading and strict impartiality.

In Mitford, History of Greece, vol. iv, Philip has found his most zealous panegyrist and defender. It would seem that, even in the present day, it is impossible to write an impartial history of this monarch.

After the defeat of Argæus, peace is purchased from Athens by a momentary recognition of the freedom of Amphipolis, 360.—Removal of Pausanias by means of an accommodation with Thrace.—By the conquest of the Pæonians and Illyrians, 359, the boundaries of Macedonia are extended to Thrace, and westward to the lake Lychnitis.—As early as 360 Philip was proclaimed king.

Capture of Amphipolis, 358; in the mean while Athens is amused with promises, and Olynthus with the momentary cession of Potidæa, which had likewise been captured: this event is followed by the conquest of the mountainous districts, abounding in[Pg 212] gold, which extend from the Nestus to the Strymon, and furnished an annual income of nearly 1,000 talents.

Expulsion of the tyrants from Pheræ, at the request of the Aleuadæ, 356; the tyrants, however, receive support in the sacred war from the Phocians under Onomarchus. The final defeat of Onomarchus, 352, makes Philip master of Thessaly; he places Macedonian garrisons in the three chief places, and thus supports his authority in the country until he is pleased to make it entirely a Macedonian province, 344.

Dreadful consequences to the morals of the Greeks, resulting from the spirit of party, the decline of religion, and the vast increase in the circulating medium, produced by the treasures of Delphi and Macedonia.—Estimate of the power of Athens during the period of Demosthenes and Phocion. It seems that, unfortunately, the eloquence and political acuteness of the former was not accompanied with sufficient talents for negotiation; the latter, perhaps, did not place confidence enough in his country, while Demosthenes placed too much. In spite of public indolence and effeminacy, Athens was still enabled to support her rank as a maritime power, the navy of Philip not being equal to hers.

† A. G. Becker, Demosthenes as a Statesman and an Orator. An historico-critical introduction to his works: 1815. A very useful work, both as a history and as an introduction to the political orations of Demosthenes.

St. Croix, Examen critique des anciens historiens d'Alexandre-le-grand, 2nd. edition, considérablement augmentée. Paris, 1804, 4to. The new edition of this, which is the principal work on the history of Alexander, and important in more respects than one, contains more than the title implies, though by no means a strictly impartial estimate of that prince's character.

Although Alexandria perhaps in the end may have surpassed the expectations of the founder, yet the selection of the site, favourable only for navigation and commerce, shows that an eye was originally had to those objects.

Insurrection of the Greeks quelled by Antipater; Alexander himself falls in with the malcontent envoys to Darius in the interior of Asia.

During this expedition, the execution of Philotas and his father Parmenio took place, though both were, probably, guiltless of the conspiracy laid to their charge, 330. After the death of Darius, Alexander met with almost constant opposition in his own army: the majority of the troops fancying that that event precluded the necessity of any further exertions. Cautious as Alexander was in his treatment of the Macedonian nobles, we may discern, not however by the mere example of Clitus, how difficult they found it to banish from their memory the relations in which they had formerly stood to their kings.

Alexander's invasion was directed against Northern India, or the Panjab; in those days a populous and highly cultivated country; now the seat of the Seiks and Mahrattas; and then, as now, inhabited by warlike races. He crossed the Indus at Taxila (Attock,) passed the Hydaspes (Behut or Chelum,) and, availing himself of the quarrels between the Indian princes, defeated the king, Porus. He then proceeded across the Acesines (Jenaub) and Hydraotes (Rauvee). The eastern verge reached in this expedition was the river Hyphasis (Beyah;) here, having already proceeded half way to the Ganges, the conqueror was, by a mutiny in his army, compelled to retreat. His return was through the country of the Malli (Multan) as far as the Hydaspes, when the majority of his troops took ship, and were floated along that stream into the Acesines, and from thence into the Indus, which they followed down to its mouth.

Rennel, Memoir of a Map of Hindostan. London, 1793, (3d. edit.) and

St. Croix, Examen, etc. (see p. 216.) furnish all the necessary historical and geographical explanations relative to the Persian and Indian campaigns of Alexander.

Nearchus's voyage (our knowledge of which is derived from his own journal, preserved in Arrian's Indica) lasted from the be[Pg 220]ginning of October, 326, to the end of February, 325: nearly the same time was occupied in the almost incredible land march of the king.

Vincent, The Voyage of Nearchus from the Indus to the Euphrates. London, 1797, 4to. Exhibiting the most learned researches, and illustrated with excellent charts.

Alexander's disorder may be easily accounted for by the hardships he had undergone, and the impure air to which he exposed himself in cleaning out the canals about Babylon. He certainly was not poisoned; and in the charge of immoderate drunkenness brought against him, we must take into account the manners of the Macedonian and Persian courts. Was it not the same with Peter the Great? In estimating his moral character we must bear in mind the natural vehemence of his passions, ever inclined to the most rapid transitions; nor should we forget the unavoidable influence of constant success upon mankind.

To enable the reader to take a general view, the history of the European events is resumed below, under the head of the history of Macedonia Proper.

Sources. Diodorus, lib. xviii—xx. is the great authority for this portion of history. He compiled mostly, for this period, from a contemporary historian, Hieronymus of Cardia. He is followed by Plutarch in the Lives of Eumenes, Demetrius, and Phocion; and by Justin, lib. xiii, etc. Of Arrian's history of Alexander's successors, nothing unfortunately remains but a few fragments in Photius.

† Mannert, History of Alexander's successors. Nuremberg, 1787. Composed with the usual judgment and learning of that author.

State of the royal family at the death of Alexander. He left his wife Roxana pregnant, who at the end of three months brought into the world the rightful heir to the sceptre, Alexander; he left likewise an illegitimate son, Hercules; a bastard[Pg 223] half-brother, Arrhidæus; his mother, the haughty and cruel Olympias, and a sister, Cleopatra, both widows; the artful Eurydice, (daughter to Cyane, one of Philip's sisters,) subsequently married to the king, Arrhidæus; and Thessalonica, Philip's daughter, afterwards united to Cassander of Macedonia.

In this division Ptolemy son of Lagus received Egypt; Leonnatus, Mysia; Antigonus, Phrygia, Lycia, and Pamphylia; Lysymachus, Macedonian Thrace; Antipater and Craterus remained in possession of Macedonia.—The foreigner, Eumenes, would hardly have received Cappadocia, although yet to be conquered, had Perdiccas been able to dispense with his services. The remaining provinces either did not come under the new division, or else their governors are unworthy of notice.

Siege of Tyre, 314—313: it lasts fourteen months; a proof that the city was certainly not razed by Alexander.

Victory won by Ptolemy over Demetrius at Gaza, 312; after which Seleucus marches back to Babylon, and, although subsequently followed up by Demetrius, permanently maintains his footing in Upper Asia.—On the other hand, Ptolemy, at the first approach of Antigonus with the main body, surrenders back Syria and Phœnicia, 312.

Expedition of Demetrius to liberate Athens, 308. The day when he announced freedom to the Athenians, must have been the happiest of his life! Few portions of history present such a scope for the contemplation of human nature as the twofold sojourn of Demetrius at Athens.

Naval victory of Demetrius off Cyprus, 307, perhaps the greatest and most bloody in history; nevertheless, as little decisive to the general question as are most naval battles. The assumption of the royal title, first by the conqueror, afterwards by the conquered, and ultimately by all the rest, was but a mere form now that the royal family was extirpated.

Heyne, Opum regni Macedonici auctarum, attritarum et eversarum, causæ probabiles; in Opusc. t. iv. This collection contains several other treatises on Grecian and Macedonian history, which cannot be all separately enumerated.

Sources. Neither for the history of the Syrian, nor for that of the Egyptian and Macedonian kingdoms, has any eminent writer been preserved. The fragments of the lost books of Diodorus, and, from the time that these kingdoms became allies of Rome, those of Polybius, several narratives of Livy, the Syriaca of Appian, and a few of Plutarch's Lives, are the principal authorities; too frequently we are obliged to rely upon the extracts of Justin. For the history of the Seleucidæ, in consequence of the political connection between these princes and the Jews, the Antiquities of Josephus and the book of Maccabees become of importance. Besides these authorities, the many coins that have been preserved of these kings, afford much information respecting their genealogy and chronology.

Of modern publications on the subject, the principal work is

Vaillant, Imperium Seleucidarum sive historia regum Syriæ, 1681, 4to. The enquiry is principally grounded on coins, as is the case with

Froelich, Annales rerum et regum Syriæ. Viennæ, 1754.

Seleucus received, 321, Babylon as his province; but after the defeat of Eumenes was obliged to take to flight, 315, in order to avoid subjection to the conqueror Antigonus. But his moderate government had rendered him so popular, that after the victory won by Ptolemy over Demetrius at Gaza, 312, he could safely venture to return with only a few adherents to Babylon. In this year commences the kingdom of the Seleucidæ.

Connection between Seleucus and Demetrius Poliorcetes, by the marriage of the former with the beautiful Stratonice, daughter of the latter; made with the view of counterbalancing a similar connection between Ptolemy and Lysimachus; Lysimachus and his son Agathocles having united themselves with two daughters of Ptolemy.

The late conquests of his father in Asia Minor entangled Antiochus in new wars; although, by the marriage of his stepdaughter Phila with Antigonus Gonatas, he ceded his claims on Macedonia, 277.—Fruitless attempt at subjecting Bithynia, 279; the king of that country, Nicomedes, calls in the Gauls, who had invaded Macedonia, and gives them a settlement in Galatia, 277, where they keep their footing, even after the victory won over them by Antiochus, 275, and by their participation in the wars, as mercenaries, become of importance.—The newly risen state of Pergamus likewise thrives, at the expense of the Syrian empire, in spite of Antiochus's attack, 263; and the inroad into Egypt, for the purpose of supporting the rebel Magas, is anticipated by Ptolemy II. 264.

Ascendancy of his stepsister and wife Laodice, and of his sister Apame, relict of Magas; the latter involves him in war with Ptolemy II. to vindicate her claims upon Cyrene; it ends by Antiochus's marriage with Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy, and his repudiation of Laodice, 260—252. Having, after the death of Ptolemy, 247, put away Berenice and taken back Laodice; the latter, distrusting his motives, cuts him off by poison.—The secession of Parthia happened in consequence of the expulsion of the Macedonian governor by Arsaces, founder of the house of the[Pg 237] Arsacidæ: that of Bactria, on the other hand, was brought about by the Macedonian governor himself, Theodotus, who asserted his independence. (Concerning these two kingdoms, see below, book iv. period iii. Dist. Kingdoms iv. parag. 4, 5.) At first, the former of these kingdoms comprised but a part of Parthia; the latter only Bactria, and, perhaps, Sogdiana; both, however, were soon enlarged at the expense of the Seleucidæ.

Assassination of Berenice, and most unfortunate war thereby kindled with Ptolemy Evergetes of Egypt, 247—244. The assistance which Seleucus obtains from his junior brother, Antiochus, governor of Asia Minor, induces Ptolemy to a truce, 243; but another war ensues between the two brothers, in which Antiochus, at first conqueror, is himself soon afterwards conquered in his turn, 243—240; and during this contest, Eumenes of Pergamus greatly increases his territory at the expense of Syria, 242.—His first campaign against Arsaces, who had formed an alliance with the Bactrian king, ended in a defeat, 238, regarded by the Parthians as the real epoch of the foundation of their kingdom. In the second campaign, 236, he himself fell into the hands of the Parthians, and remained a prisoner till the day of his death, 227.

On his return through Arachotus and Carmania, where he wintered, he likewise undertook a naval expedition on the Persian gulf: here Gerrha, in possession of its freedom, appears a flourishing place of trade.

For the history of this war, see below in the Roman history. Book v. per. ii. parag. 10, 11.

The pretext for war, on the Egyptian side, was, that those provinces had by Antiochus III. been promised as a dowry to Cleopatra, sister of Antiochus and the mother of Philometor: Antiochus Epiphanes, on his side, laid claim to the regency of Egypt, as uncle to the young king, who, however, was soon declared of age.—Opening of the war, and victory won by Antiochus at Pelusium, 171; in consequence of which Cyprus is betrayed into his hands.—Pelusium is fortified with a view of insuring the possession of Cœle-Syria, and of facilitating an irruption into Egypt.—Another victory, 170, and Egypt subdued as far as Alexandria. Philometor driven by a sedition out of Alexandria, where his brother Physcon is seated on the throne, falls into the hands of Antiochus, who concludes with him a most ad[Pg 242]vantageous peace, and takes his part against Physcon. Hence siege is laid to Alexandria, 169; attended with no success. Upon the retreat of Antiochus, Philometor, concluding a separate peace with his brother, according to which both are to rule in conjunction, is admitted into Alexandria. Antiochus, bitterly enraged, now declares war against both brothers, who crave assistance from Rome: he once more penetrates into Egypt, 168; where the Roman ambassador, Popillius, assumes so lofty a tone, that the Syrian king is glad to purchase peace by the surrender of Cyprus and Pelusium.

See below; History of the Jews, book iv. per. iv; Small states Jews, parag. 6. The deep decay of the finances of the Seleucidæ, palpable from the latter days of Antiochus the Great, may be accounted for well enough, by the falling off of the revenue, accompanied with increased luxury in the kings, (an instance of which is furnished in the festivals celebrated by Antiochus Epiphanes at Daphne, 166,) and in the vast presents constantly sent to Rome, in addition to the tribute, for the purpose of keeping up a party there.

Contest between Lysias, regent in the absence of Epiphanes, and Philip, appointed by the king, previously to his death, as guardian of the young prince, terminated by the defeat of Philip, 162.—Eupator's right acknowledged at Rome, in order that the guardianship might fall into the hands of the senate, who administer the government by means of a commission sent over into Syria, and completely deprive the king of all power of resistance. Octavius, head of the commission, put to death, probably at the instigation of Lysias.—While the Parthian king, Mithridates I. is prosecuting his conquests at the expense of the Syrian kingdom in Upper Asia, Demetrius secretly escapes out of Rome, takes possession of the throne, and causes Eupator and Lysias to be put to death, 161.

The account, that Philometor wished to conquer Syria for himself, must probably be understood as meaning that he had formed the design of recovering the ancient Egyptian possessions, Cœle-Syria and Phœnicia. Otherwise, why should he have given his daughter to a second pretender to the throne?

If the accounts of the wanton licentiousness of his army are not exaggerations, they furnish the clearest proof of the military[Pg 246] despotism of those times. By continued pillage and extortion, the wealth of the country had been collected in the hands of the soldiers; and the condition of Syria must have been pretty nearly the same as that of Egypt under the Mamluk sultans.

The Parthian king Phraates II. had, at first, liberated Demetrius, to whom his sister Rhodogune was united by marriage, in order that, by appearing in Syria, he might oblige Antiochus to retreat. Antiochus having fallen, Phraates would fain have recaptured Demetrius, but he escaped.

War between Alexander Zebinas and the ambitious relict of Demetrius, Cleopatra, who with her own hand murders her eldest son Seleucus, B. C. 125, for pretending to the crown, which she now gives to her younger son, Antiochus Gryphus; the new king, however, soon saw himself compelled to secure his own life by the murder of his mother, 122; Alexander Zebinas having been the year before, 123, defeated and put to death. After a peaceful rule of eight years, 122—114, Antiochus Gryphus is involved in war with his half-brother Antiochus Cyzicenus, son of Cleopatra by Antiochus Sidetes: it ends, 111, in a partition of territory. But the war between the brothers soon burst out anew, and just as this hapless kingdom seemed about to crumble into pieces, Gryphus was murdered, 97.—Seleucus, the eldest of his five sons, having beaten and slain Cyzicenus, 96; the eldest son of the latter, Antiochus Eusebes, prosecuted the war against the sons of Gryphus; Eusebes being at last defeated, 90, the surviving sons of Gryphus fell to war among themselves, and the struggle continued until the Syrians, weary of bloodshed, did what they ought to have done long before, viz. made over the sovereign power to Tigranes the king of Armenia, 85. Yet Eusebes's widow, Selene, retained Ptolemais till 70; and her elder son Antiochus Asiaticus, at the time that Tigranes was beaten by Lucullus, in the Mithridatic war, took possession of some provinces in Syria, 68; these were wrested from him after the total defeat of Mithridates by Pompey, when Tigranes was obliged to give up his claim, and Syria became a province of the Roman empire, 64. Antiochus Asiaticus died 58; his brother Seleucus Cybiosactes, having married Berenice, was raised to the Egyptian throne, but murdered at her command, 57; and thus the family of the Seleucidæ was completely swept away.

The sources of this history are for the most part the same as in the foregoing section; see above, p. 232; but unfortunately still more scanty; for in the first place, less information can here be derived from the Jewish writers; secondly, as on the coins struck under the Ptolemies no continuous series of time is marked, but only the year of the king's reign, they are by no means such safeguards to the chronology as those of the Seleu[Pg 248]cidæ. With respect to some few events, important illustrations are supplied by inscriptions.

By modern writers, the history of the Ptolemies has been composed under a form almost entirely chronological, and by no means treated of in the spirit which it deserves.

Vaillant, Historia Ptolemæorum, fol. Amstelodam. 1701. Illustration by the aid of coins.

Champolion Figeac, Annales des Lagides, ou Chronologie des Rois d'Egypte, successeurs d'Alexandre le Grand. Paris, 1819, 2 vols. This treatise, which was honoured with a prize by the Académie des Inscriptions, has by no means exhausted the whole of the subject. See

J. Saint-Martin, Examen Critique de l'ouvrage de M. Ch. F. intitulé Annales des Lagides. Paris, 1820.

Letronne, Recherches pour servir à l'histoire de l'Egypte pendant la domination des Grecs et des Romains, tirées des inscriptions Grecques et Latines, relatives à la chronologie, à l'etat des arts aux usages civils et religieux de ce pays. Paris, 1828. It cannot be denied that the author has thrown a much clearer light on the subjects mentioned in his title.

Alexandria, originally, was no doubt a military colony; it was not long, however, before it became a general place of resort for all nations, such as was scarcely to be met with in any other town of that day. The inhabitants were divided into three classes;[Pg 249] Alexandrines, (that is to say, foreigners of all nations, who had settled in the place; next to the Greeks, the Jews were, it appears, the most numerous,) Egyptians, and Mercenaries in the king's service. The Greeks and Macedonians divided into wards (φυλας), constituted the citizens; they were under municipal government; the others, such as the Jews, formed bodies corporate according to their respective nations. The more important, in so many respects, that Alexandria is for history, the more it is to be regretted that the accounts respecting it, which have reached us, are so far from satisfactory!—Concerning the topography of ancient Alexandria:

Bonamy, Description de la ville d'Alexandrie in the Mém. de l'Académie des Inscript. vol. ix. Compare:

† J. L. F. Manso, Letters upon ancient Alexandria, in his Vermischte Schriften, vol. i.

The possession of Phœnicia and Cœle-Syria, by reason of their forests, was of indispensable necessity to Egypt as a naval power. They frequently changed masters. The first occupation of those provinces by the Egyptian government, occurred in 320, soon after the rout of Perdiccas by Ptolemy's general Nicanor, who took the Syrian satrap Laomedon prisoner, established his footing in the whole of Syria, and placed garrisons in the Phœnician[Pg 250] cities. In 314 it was again lost to Antigonus, after his return out of Upper Asia, and the siege of Tyre. Ptolemy having defeated Demetrius at Gaza, 312, repossessed himself of those countries, but soon after evacuated them on the appearance of Antigonus, to whom they were ceded by the peace of 311. At the conclusion of the last grand league against Antigonus, 303, Ptolemy once more occupied them: but alarmed at a false report, that Antigonus had gained a victory, he retreated into Egypt, leaving nevertheless troops in the cities. After the battle of Ipsus, 301, those countries were made over to him, and continued in the hands of the Ptolemies until they were lost at the second invasion of Antiochus the Great, 203.

Cyprus, (see p. 154) like most other islands, acknowledged submission to those who possessed the sovereignty of the sea, and therefore could not escape the dominion of the Ptolemies. It was taken possession of by Ptolemy as early as 313. Still the separate cities of the islands preserved their kings, among whom Nicocles of Paphos, having entered into a secret league with Antigonus, was put to death, 310. After the great seafight, 307, Cyprus fell into the hands of Antigonus and Demetrius. Subsequently to the battle of Ipsus, 301, it remained indeed at first in the power of Demetrius; but that prince being gone over to Macedonia, Ptolemy, 294, seized an opportunity of recovering it, and the island from that time remained under the dominion of Egypt. Availing themselves of their naval strength, the Egyptian kings frequently exerted sovereign power over the coasts of Asia Minor, especially Cilicia, Caria, and Pamphylia, which appear to have absolutely formed a part of their territory under the second Ptolemy. It is, however, hardly possible to define with accuracy what were their real possessions in those quarters.

The fall of Cyrene was brought about by domestic broils: at the time the place was besieged by Thimbron, a portion of the exiled nobles fled to Ptolemy; the Egyptian prince commanded that they should be reinstated by his general Ophellas, who took possession of the town itself, 321. An insurrection in 312 was quelled by Agis, Ptolemy's general: nevertheless it would appear that Ophellas had almost established his independence, when, by the treachery of Agathocles, with whom he had entered into a league against Carthage, he perished, about 308. Cyrene was now seized by Ptolemy, and given to his son Magas, who ruled over it fifty years.

There were four magistrates at Alexandria: the Exegetes, whose office was to provide for the wants of the city; the Chief Judge; the Hypomnematographus—(Registrar of the archives?)—and the Στρατηγὸς νυκτερινὸς, no doubt, the supervisor of the police, whose duty it was to watch over the peace of the city at night. We have the express testimony of Strabo, that these offices, which continued under the Romans, had already existed under the kings; whether their establishment can be dated as far back as the time of Ptolemy I. is a question that does not admit of a solution.—The number of the districts or nomes appears to have been augmented; probably with a political view, in order that no governor or monarch should be invested with too great a share of power.

Increase of Alexandria by the importation of vast numbers of colonists; especially Jews.—Erection of several superb buildings, more particularly the Serapeum.—Measures taken for the extension of trade and navigation.—The twofold harbour on the sea, and on the lake Mareotis.—The Pharus built.

Foundation of the Museum, (Society of the learned,) and of the first library in Bruchium, (afterwards removed to the Serapeum;) probably under the direction of Demetrius Phalereus. A proper estimation of the services rendered by the Museum is yet wanting: what academy in modern Europe, however, has done so much?

Heyne, De genio Sæculi Ptolemæorum. In Opuscul. t. i.

Matter, Essai historique sur l'école d'Alexandrie, 1820.

The commerce of Alexandria was divided into three main branches: 1. The land-trade over Asia and Africa. 2. The sea-trade on the Mediterranean. 3. The sea-trade on the Arabian gulf, and Indian ocean.—With regard to the land-trade of Asia, especially that of India carried on by caravans, Alexandria was obliged to share it with various cities and countries: since one of its chief routes traversed the Oxus, and Caspian, to the Black sea; while the caravans, travelling through Syria and Mesopotamia, spread for the most part among the seaports of Phœnicia and Asia Minor.—The trade over Africa extended far west, and still farther south. Westward it was secured by the close connection between Cyrene and Alexandria; and no doubt followed the same roads as in earlier times: of far greater importance was that carried on with the southern countries, or Æthiopia, into the interior of which they now penetrated, principally for the purpose of procuring elephants. The navigation on the Arabian and Indian seas had likewise for its immediate object the Æthiopian trade, rather than the Indian.—The measures taken by Ptolemy with this view, consisted partly in the building of harbours (Berenice, Myos Hormos) on the Arabian gulf; partly in establishing a caravan from Berenice to Coptos on the Nile, down which latter the goods were further transmitted to their destination; for the canal connecting the Red sea with the Nile, although, perhaps, completed at this time, was nevertheless but little used. The grand deposit for these wares was the lesser harbour of Alexandria, united by a canal with the lake Mareotis, which in its turn communicated by another canal with the Nile; so that the account we receive of the lesser harbour being more[Pg 255] thronged and full of bustle than the larger one, need not excite our surprise. With regard to the trade on the Mediterranean, it was shared between Alexandria, Rhodes, Corinth, and Carthage. The chief manufactories appear to have been those of cotton stuffs, established in or near the temples.

The best inquiry into the trade of Alexandria will be found in J. C. D. De Schmidt, Opuscula, res maxime Aegyptiorum illustrantia, 1765, 8vo.

Magas had, after the defeat of Ophellas, received Cyrene, 308. He had married Apame, daughter of Antiochus I., and in 266 had raised the standard of rebellion with the intention of invading Egypt itself, when an insurrection in Marmarica compelled him to retreat; he contrived, notwithstanding, to prevail upon his[Pg 256] father-in-law to undertake an expedition against Egypt, which, however, was frustrated by Philadelphus, 264. To terminate this contest, Magas was about to unite his daughter Berenice with the eldest son of Philadelphus; Apame, wishing to thwart the negotiation, fled over to her brother, Antiochus II. whom, after her husband's death, 258, she excited to a war against Egypt, which closed in 252.—The embassy to Rome originated in the victory won by the Romans over Pyrrhus, 273; it was answered by another from the Romans, 272.

The main source of the history of Ptolemy Evergetes, is the inscription on the monument erected by that prince at Adule in Ethiopia: it contains a chronological list of his conquests, a copy of which has been preserved to us by Cosmas Indicopleustes; modern researches, however, have shown the probability of its having consisted of two inscriptions, one referring to Evergetes, the other to a later king of Abyssinia.—According to this monument, Ptolemy inherited from his father, besides Egypt itself, Libya, that is to say, western Africa as far as Cyrene, Cœle-Syria, Phœnicia, Lycia, Caria, Cyprus, and the Cyclades.—War with Seleucus Callinicus caused by the murder of Berenice (see above, p. 237.); lasted until the ten years' truce, 246—240. During this war, he conquered the whole of Syria as far as the Euphrates, and most of the maritime countries in Asia Minor, from Cilicia to the Hellespont: an easy prey to a naval power. Whether the conquest of the countries beyond the Euphrates, Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Persis, Susiana, and Media as far as Bactria, was effected in these four years, or not till between 240 and 230, is a question which cannot be determined with certainty. If we may judge by the booty brought back, this campaign was rather a foray than a regular expedition for conquest, though Ptolemy, indeed, appointed governors in Cilicia and Babylonia; yet the peculiar situation of affairs in Asia at the time, Seleucus being at war with his brother Antiochus Hierax, and the Parthian and Bactrian kingdoms being also in a state of infant feebleness, afforded unusual opportunities for an expedition of this sort.

The southern conquests, so far as they may be referred to Evergetes, were effected during the last period of his reign, in a separate war. They comprised: 1st. The greatest part of modern Abyssinia,—for as the catalogue of nations commences with that of Abyssinia, it necessarily follows that Nubia had already been subjected to Egypt.—The mountain range along the Arabian gulf, the plain of Sennaar as far as modern Darfur, the lofty[Pg 258] chain of mountains to the south, beyond the fountains of the Nile. All these conquests were made by the king in person; and from those distant lands to Egypt, commercial roads were opened. 2nd. The western coast of Arabia, from Leuke Kome to the southern point of Arabia Felix, was conquered by his generals and admirals: here, likewise, the security of the commercial roads was established.

Monumentum Adulitanum, published in Fabricius, B. Græc. t. ii.

Montfaucon, Coll. Patr. t. i. and in Chishull, Antiquit. Asiaticæ.

The assertion that the monument bears two different inscriptions is made by Salt, in the narrative of his travels contained in the Travels of Lord Valentia.

The regency confided to M. Lepidus, 201, who hands over the administration to Aristomenes of Acarnania. The sequel will show how decidedly important this step was for the ulterior destinies of Egypt. By the war of the Romans against Philip, and their differences with Antiochus, Egypt was, no doubt, for the present extricated from her embarrassment; but nevertheless in 198 she lost her Syrian possessions, notwithstanding Antiochus III. had promised to give them as a dowry to Cleopatra, the affianced bride, and subsequently the consort of the young king of Egypt.

To this time, or about 197, belongs the celebrated inscription on the Rosetta stone, erected by the caste of priests as a tribute of gratitude for past benefits, after the consecration of the king at Memphis upon his coming of age: a monument important alike for palæography, and for the knowledge of Egyptian administration.

Ameilhon, Eclaircissemens sur l'inscription Grecque du monument trouvé à Rosette. Paris, 1803.

Heyne, Commentatio de inscriptione Græca ex Aegypto Londinum apportata, in the Commentat. Societ. Gotting. vol. xv.

Antiochus, after the victory of Pelusium, B. C. 171, and the treacherous surrender of Cyprus, having possessed himself of Egypt as far as Alexandria, a faction arose in the city; Philometor was expelled, and his younger brother Physcon seated on the throne, 170.—The exile Philometor fell into the power of Antiochus, who compelled the fugitive to sign a separate peace, highly injurious to the interests of Egypt. The articles were not, however, ratified; Philometor secretly entering into an agreement with his brother that they should both rule in common, 169. Antiochus having in consequence again made an inroad into Egypt, the two kings addressed themselves for assistance to the Achæans and to the Romans: the latter forthwith despatched an embassy to Antiochus, commanding him to[Pg 261] evacuate the territory of their allies, which happened accordingly, 168.

In the first division, 164, Philometor received Egypt and Cyprus; and the infamous Physcon had for his share Cyrene and Libya. But, during his stay at Rome, Physcon, contrary to all justice, obtained the promise of Cyprus; Philometor refusing to give up that portion of his share, and Cyrene having risen up against its king, Physcon ran the risk of losing the whole of his dominions. In the war which, supported by Rome, he waged against his brother, Physcon fell, 159, into the hands of Philometor, who not only forgave him, but, leaving him in possession of Cyrene and Libya, added some cities in the place of Cyprus, and promised him his daughter in marriage.

That a prince of such a character should nevertheless be a friend to science, and himself an author, must ever be regarded as a singular phenomenon; yet his exaction of manuscripts, and his treatment of the learned, whole crowds of whom he expelled, betray the despot.

Revolt and three years' siege of Thebes in Upper Egypt, still one of the most wealthy cities even in those days, but after its capture almost levelled to the earth; about 86.—Complete separation of Cyrenaica from Egypt: this province had been bequeathed by Physcon as a separate branch-state to his illegitimate son, Apion, 117; that prince, after a tranquil reign, bequeathed it, in his turn, to the Romans, 96, who at first allowed it to retain its independence.

The first successor of Lathyrus in Egypt was his legitimate daughter Cleopatra Berenice, 81: at the end of six months, however, Sylla, then dictator at Rome, sent his client Alexander II. to Egypt, 80; that prince married Berenice, and with her ascended the throne. Nineteen days after Alexander murdered his consort, and, according to Appian, was himself about the same time cut off by the Alexandrines, on account of his tyranny. We afterwards hear, notwithstanding, of a king Alexander, who reigned until 73, or, according to others, until 66; when, being driven out of Egypt, he fled to Tyre, and called upon the Romans for that aid, which probably through Cæsar's intercession, would have been granted, had not the supplicant soon after died at the place of his refuge. He is said to have bequeathed by will his kingdom to Rome; and although the senate did not accept the legacy, it does not appear to have formally rejected the offer; in consequence of which, frequent attempts were made at Rome for effecting the occupation.—Either, therefore, Appian's account must be false, and this person was the same Alexander II. or he was some other person bearing that name, and belonging to the royal house.—Be this as it may, after the death of Lathyrus the kingdom was dismembered: and one of his illegitimate sons, Ptolemy, had received Cyprus, but that island was taken from him, 57, and converted into a Roman province: the other, Ptolemy Auletes, seems to have kept his footing either in a part of Egypt, or in Cyrene, and was probably the cause of Alexander's expulsion, at whose decease he ascended the throne; although the Syrian queen Selene, sister to Lathyrus, asserted her son's claims at Rome, as legitimate heir to the throne of Egypt. With Cæsar's assistance, Auletes, however, succeeded in obtaining the formal acknowledgment of his right at Rome, 59. But the measures taken by the Romans with regard to Cyprus, gave rise to a sedition at Alexandria, 57, in consequence of which Auletes, being compelled to flee, passed over into Italy: or, perhaps, he was ordered to take this step by the intrigues of some Roman grandees, anxious of an opportunity to reinstate him. Pompey's attempts, with this view, are thwarted by Cato, 56. Meanwhile the Alexandrines placed Berenice, the eldest daughter of Auletes, on the throne; she married first Seleucus Cybiosactes, as[Pg 265] being the lawful heir; and after putting that prince to death, united herself to Archelaus, 57.—Actual restoration of Auletes by the purchased assistance of Gabinius, the Roman governor of Syria; and execution of Berenice, whose husband had fallen in the war, 54. Not long after, this miserable prince, no less effeminate than tyrannical, died, 51.

J. R. Forster, Commentatio de successoribus Ptolemæi VII. Inserted in Comment. Soc. Gotting. vol. iii.

Feuds between Cleopatra and her brother, excited and fomented by the eunuch Pothinus, in whose hands the administration was: they lead to open war: Cleopatra, driven out, flees to Syria, where she levies troops: Cæsar in pursuit of the conquered Pompey arrives at Alexandria, and in the name of Rome, assumes the part of arbitrator between the king and queen, but suffers himself to be guided by the artifices of Cleopatra, 48. Violent sedition in Alexandria, and Cæsar besieged in Bruchium, the malcontent Pothinus having brought Achillas, the commander of the royal troops into the city. The hard struggle in which Cæsar was now engaged, demonstrates not only the bit[Pg 266]terness of the long rankling grudge of the Alexandrines against Rome, but shows also how decisive, to the whole of Egypt, were the revolutions of the capital. Ptolemy Dionysos having fallen in the war, and Cæsar being victorious, the crown fell to Cleopatra, 47, upon condition of marrying her brother, when he should be of age: but as soon as the prince grew to manhood, and had been crowned at Memphis, she removed him by poison, 44.

The chronology of the ten years in which Cleopatra lived, for the most part, with Antony, is not without difficulty, but, according to the most probable authorities, may be arranged in the following manner. Summoned before his tribunal, on account of the pretended support afforded by some of her generals to Cassius, she appears in his presence at Tarsus, in the attire, and with the parade, of Venus, 41; he follows her into Egypt. In the year 40, Antony, called back to Italy by the breaking out of the Perusine war, is there induced, by political motives, to espouse Octavia; meanwhile Cleopatra abides in Egypt. In the autumn of 37, she goes to meet him in Syria, where he was[Pg 267] making ready for the war against the Parthians, until then prosecuted by his lieutenants; here she obtained at his hands Phœnicia—Tyre and Sidon excepted,—together with Cyrene and Cyprus; and in 36 went back to Alexandria, where she remained during the campaign. The expedition ended, Antony returned into Egypt and resided at Alexandria. From thence it was his intention to attack Armenia in 35; this design, however, he did not effect until 34, when, after taking the king prisoner, he returned in triumph to Alexandria, and presented to Cleopatra, or to his three children by her, all the countries of Asia from the Mediterranean to the Indus, already conquered or to be conquered. Preparing then to renew, in conjunction with the king of Media, his attack on the Parthians, he is prevailed upon by Cleopatra to break with Octavia, who was to bring over troops to him, 38. A war between him and Octavius being now unavoidable, the Parthian campaign already opened is suspended, and Cleopatra accompanies Antony to Samos, 32, where he formally repudiated Octavia. From hence she followed him in his expedition against Octavius, which was decided by the battle of Actium, fought September 2, 31.—Octavius having pursued his enemy into Egypt, Alexandria was besieged, 30, and after Antony had laid violent hands on himself, the place surrendered; and Cleopatra, not brooking to be dragged a prisoner to Rome, followed the example of her lover, and procured her own death.

The sources for this history are the same as have been quoted above: see p. 232. Until the battle of Ipsus, 301, Diodorus is still our grand authority. But in the period extending from 301 to 224, we meet with some chasms: here almost our only sources are the fragments of Diodorus, a few of Plutarch's lives, and the inaccurate accounts of Justin. From the year 224, our main historian is Polybius; and even in those parts where we do not possess his work in its complete form, the fragments that have been preserved must always be the first authorities consulted. Livy, and other writers on Roman history, should accompany Polybius.

Among modern books, besides the general works mentioned above p. 1. we may here in particular quote:

John Gast, D. D. The History of Greece, from the accession of Alexander of Macedon, till the final subjection to the Roman power, in eight books. London, 1782, 4to. Although not a master-piece of composition, yet too important to be passed over in silence.

Posture of affairs in Greece at Alexander's decease: Thebes in ruins: Corinth occupied by a Macedonian garrison: Sparta humiliated by the defeat she had suffered at the hands of Antipater in her attempt at a revolt against Macedonia, under Agis II. 333—331: Athens on the other hand flourishing, and although confined to her own boundaries, still by her fame, and her naval power, the first state in Greece.

The Lamian war—the sparks of which had been kindled by Alexander's edict, granting leave to all the Grecian emigrants, twenty thousand in number, nearly the whole of whom were in the Macedonian interest, to return to their native countries,—was fanned to a flame by the democratic party at Athens. Urged by Demosthenes and Hyperides, almost all the states of central and northern Greece, Bœotia excepted, took up arms in the cause; and their example was quickly followed by most of those in Peloponnesus, with the exception of Sparta, Argos, Corinth, and the Achæans. Not even the Persian war produced such general unanimity! The gallant Leosthenes headed the league.—Defeat of Antipater, who is shut up in Lamia; Leosthenes, however,[Pg 270] falls in the siege of that place, B. C. 323, and although Leonatus—who with the view of ascending the throne by his marriage with Cleopatra, had come to the assistance of the Macedonians—was beaten and slain, 322, the Greeks were finally overwhelmed by the reinforcements, brought to Antipater out of Asia, by Craterus. And Antipater having fully succeeded in breaking the league, and negotiating with each separate nation, was enabled to dictate the terms. Most of the cities opened their gates to Macedonian troops; besides this, Athens was obliged to purchase peace through the mediation of Phocion and Demades, by an alteration in her constitution,—the poorer citizens being excluded from all share in the government, and for the most part translated into Thrace—and by a pledge to deliver up Demosthenes and Hyperides; whose place Phocion occupied at the head of the state.—The Ætolians, the last against whom the Macedonian wars were directed, obtained better terms than they had ventured to expect, Antipater and Craterus being obliged to hurry over to Asia in order to oppose Perdiccas.

Cassander having secured the interest of Antigonus and Ptolemy, makes his escape to the former, 319: he had previously en[Pg 271]deavoured also to raise a party in Macedonia and Greece, particularly by getting his friend Nicanor to be commander at Athens.—Measures taken by Polysperchon to oppose him; in the first place, he recalls Olympias out of Epirus, but the princess dares not come without an army; in the next place, he nominates Eumenes commander of the royal troops in Asia (see above, p. 225); he likewise endeavours to gain the Grecian cities, by recalling the Macedonian garrisons, and changing the governors set over them by Antipater. These latter, however, were in most of the cities too firmly established to suffer themselves thus to be deposed; and even the expedition into Peloponnesus, undertaken by Polysperchon to enforce his injunctions was attended but with partial success.—In the same year occurs a twofold revolution in Athens, whither Polysperchon had sent his son Alexander, nominally for the purpose of driving out Nicanor, but virtually to get possession of that important city. In the first place, Alexander and Nicanor appearing to unite both for the attainment of one and the same object, the democratic party rise up, and overthrow the rulers, hitherto taken from Antipater's party, and headed by Phocion, who is compelled to swallow poison: soon after, however, Cassander occupies the city, excludes from the administration all that possess less than ten mines, and places at the head of affairs Demetrius Phalereus, who, from 318 to 307, ruled with great prudence.—Not long after, Olympias returns with an army from Epirus; the Macedonian troops of Philip and Eurydice having passed over to her side, she wreaks her revenge on the royal couple, and on the brother of Cassander, all of whom she puts to death, 317. Cassander, nevertheless, having obtained reinforcements in Peloponnesus, takes the field against her; she is besieged in Pydna, where, disappointed in the hope of being relieved either by Polysperchon or by Æacidas of Epirus, both of whom were forsaken by their men, she is obliged to surrender, 316. Cassander, having caused her to be condemned by the Macedonian people, has her put to death.

Antigonus, on his return from Upper Asia, declares loudly against Cassander, B. C. 314; despatches his general Aristodemus to Peloponnesus, and frames a league with Polysperchon[Pg 273] and his son Alexander; the latter, however, Cassander succeeds in winning over by a promise of the command in Peloponnesus. Alexander was soon after murdered, but his wife Cratesipolis succeeded him, and commanded with the spirit of a man. Meanwhile, Cassander carried war against the Ætolians, who sided with Antigonus, 313; but Antigonus, 312, having sent his general Ptolemy into Greece with a fleet and army, Cassander lost his supremacy. In the peace of 311, the freedom of all the Grecian cities was stipulated; but this very condition became the pretext of various and permanent feuds; and Cassander having murdered the young king, together with his mother, drew upon himself the arms of Polysperchon, who wished to place Hercules on the throne, 310; but the pretender was removed in the manner above described, 309.—Cassander now endeavouring to reestablish his power over Greece, Demetrius Poliorcetes was by his father sent into that country in order to anticipate Ptolemy of Egypt, in the enforcement of the decree for the freedom of the Greeks, 308; the result at Athens was the restoration of democracy, and the expulsion of Demetrius Phalereus.—From any further attack of Demetrius, Cassander was delivered by the war which broke out between Antigonus and Ptolemy, (see above, p. 229.) and had the leisure, once more, to strengthen his power in Greece, until 302, when Demetrius arrived a second time, and, as generalissimo of liberated Greece, pressed forward to the borders of Macedonia; Demetrius was, however, recalled by his father into Asia, and at the battle of Ipsus, 301, lost all his dominions in that quarter of the world. Yet although Athens closed her harbours against him, he still maintained his possessions in Peloponnesus, and even endeavoured to extend them; from thence, in 297, he sallied forth, and once more took possession of his beloved Athens, and after driving out the usurper Lachares, forgave her ingratitude.

The kingdom of Demetrius comprised Macedonia, Thessaly, and the greatest part of the Peloponnesus; he was also master of Megara and Athens.—Twofold capture of Thebes, which had been rebuilt by Cassander, 293, and 291; unsuccessful attempt upon Thrace, 292. His war with Pyrrhus, 290, in whom men fancied they beheld another Alexander, had already alienated the affections of the Macedonians; but his grand project for the recovery of Asia induced his enemies to get the start of him; and the hatred of his subjects compelled him secretly to escape to Peloponnesus, to his son Antigonus, 287. Athens, taking advantage of his misfortunes, drove out the Macedonian garrison, and, by the election of archons, reestablished her ancient constitution; although Demetrius laid siege to the town, he allowed himself to be pacified by Crates. Having once more attempted to prosecute his plans against Asia, he was obliged, 286, to sur[Pg 275]render to Seleucus his father-in-law, who, out of charity, kept him till the day of his death, 284.

The sovereigns of Epirus, belonging to the family of the Æacidæ, were properly kings of the Molossi. See above, p. 150. They did not become lords of all Epirus, nor consequently of any historical importance, until the time of the Peloponnesian war. After that period Epirus was governed by Alcetas I. about 384, who pretended to be the sixteenth descendant from Pyrrhus, the son of Achilles; Neoptolemus, father to Olympias, by whose marriage with Philip, 358, the kings of Epirus became intimately connected with Macedonia, d. 352; Arymbas, his brother, d. 342; Alexander I. son of Neoptolemus, and brother-in-law to Alexander the Great; he was ambitious to be as great a conqueror in the west as his kinsman was in the east, but he fell in Lucania, 332. Æacides, son of Arymbas, d. 312. Pyrrhus II. his son, the Ajax of his time, and, we might almost say, rather an adventurer than a king. After uninterrupted wars waged in Macedonia, Greece, Italy, and Sicily, he fell at last at the storming of Argos, 272. He was followed by his son Alexander II. in the person of whose successor, Pyrrhus III. 219, the male line became extinct. Although the daughter of this last prince, Deidamia, succeeded to the throne, the Epirots were not long before they established a democratic government, which endured till such time as they were, together with Macedonia and the rest of Greece, brought under the Roman yoke, 146.

Execution of the gallant Agathocles, eldest son of Lysimachus, at the instigation of his step-mother Arsinoe: his widow Lysandra and her brother Ptolemy Ceraunus, who had already been driven out of Egypt by his step-mother Berenice, go over, followed by a large party, to Seleucus, whom they excite to war.

The irruption of the Gauls, threatening desolation not only to Macedonia but to the whole of Greece, took place in three successive expeditions. The first under Cambaules, (probably 280,) advanced no further than Thrace, the invaders not being sufficiently numerous. The second in three bodies; against Thrace under Ceretrius; against Pæonia under Brennus and Acichorius; against Macedonia and Illyria under Belgius, 279. By the last-mentioned chieftain Ptolemy was defeated; he fell in the contest. In consequence, Meleager first, and Antipater subsequently, were appointed kings of Macedonia; but both, on account of incapacity, being soon afterwards deposed, a Macedonian noble, Sosthenes, assumed the command, and this time liberated his country. But the year 278 brought with it the main storm, which spent its fury principally on Greece: Sosthenes was defeated and slain: and although the Greeks brought all their[Pg 277] united forces into the field, Brennus and Acichorius burst into Greece on two different sides, and pushed on to Delphi, the object of their expedition; from hence, however, they were compelled to retreat; and most of them were cut off by hunger, cold, or the sword. Nevertheless a portion of those barbarians stood their ground in the interior of Thrace, which, consequently, was for the most part lost to Macedonia: another portion, consisting of various hordes, the Tectosagæ, Tolistobii, and Trocmi, crossed over to Asia Minor, where they established themselves in the country called after them Galatia (see above, p. 236). Although there can be no doubt that the Tectosagæ must have come from the innermost parts of Gaul, the mode of attack demonstrates that the main tide of invaders consisted of the neighbouring races; and, in fact, in those days the countries from the Danube to the Mediterranean and Adriatic were mostly occupied by Gauls.—Greece, though she strained every nerve, and with the exception of Peloponnesus, was united in one league, could scarcely bring forward more than 20,000 men to stem the torrent.

Extraordinary as these frequent revolutions appear, they may be easily accounted for by the mode of warfare in those days. Every thing depended on the armies; and these were composed of mercenaries, ever willing to fight against him they had defended the day before, if they fancied his rival to be a more valiant or fortunate leader. Since the death of Alexander, the[Pg 278] Macedonian phalanx was no longer dependent on its captains, but they on their men. The impoverishment of the countries, in consequence of war, was such, that the soldier's was almost the only profitable trade; and none prosecuted that trade more ardently than the Gauls, whose services were ever ready for any one who chose to pay for them.

The ancient confederacy of the twelve Achæan cities (see above, p. 145.) had subsisted until the death of Alexander, but was dissolved in the subsequent commotions; particularly when, after the battle of Ipsus, 301, Demetrius and his son made Peloponnesus the principal seat of their power. Some of these cities were now garrisoned by those princes, while in others arose tyrants, generally favourable to their interests. In 281, four asserted their freedom and renewed the ancient federation; which, five years afterwards, was gradually joined by the rest, Antigonus being busied elsewhere, in consequence of his occupation of the Macedonian throne. But the league did not become formidable till the accession of foreign states. This took place, in the first instance, with Sicyon, through the exertions of the liberator of that town, Aratus, who now became the animating spirit of the federation; and in 243 brought over Corinth, after the expulsion of the Macedonian garrison, and Megara. Afterwards [Pg 279] the league gradually acquired strength, by the junction of several Grecian cities, Athens among others, 229; and thereby excited the jealousy of the rest. And as Aratus, who was more of a statesman than a general, and possessed but little independence, had in the very outset joined the party of Ptolemy II. the league soon became involved in the disputes of the great powers, and was too often but a mere tool in their hands. The main principles on which it was founded were the following: 1. Complete political equality of all the federate cities; in this respect it essentially differed from all the earlier federations in Greece. 2. Unconditional preservation of the domestic government in every one of the cities. 3. The meeting twice a year of deputies from all the cities, at Ægium, and afterwards at Corinth; for transacting all business of common interest, particularly foreign affairs, and also for the purpose of electing the strategus, or military leader and head of the union, and the ten demiurgi, or supreme magistrates.—But what more than all contributed to exalt this league, founded on pure liberty, was the virtue of Aratus, 213, Philopœmen, 183, and Lycortas, 170; men who breathed into it the spirit of union, until, enfeebled by Roman policy, it was overthrown.

† Breitenbauch, History of the Achæans and their league, 1782.

The Ætolian league was formed about 284, in consequence of the oppressions of the Macedonian kings. The Ætolians had likewise a yearly congress, panætolium, at Thermus; where they chose a strategus and the apocleti, who constituted the state council. They had, besides, their secretary, γραμματεύς; and supervisors, ἔφοροι, whose particular functions are, however, matter of doubt. This federation did not increase like the Achæan, none but Ætolians being admitted. The more unpolished this piratical nation remained, the more frequently it was used as the tool of foreign, and particularly of Roman, policy.

The vulgar assertion that this prince conquered Cyrene and Libya, originates in a confusion of names; his uncle Demetrius, son of Poliorcetes of Ptolemais, being mentioned by Plutarch as king of Cyrene. The history of that town, from 258 to 142, is enveloped in almost total darkness: cf. Prolog. Trogi, l. xxvi. ad calcem Justini.

Sketch of the situation of Spartan affairs at this period: the ancient constitution still continued to exist in form; but the plunder of foreign countries, and particularly the permission to transfer landed estates, obtained by Epitadeus, had produced great inequality of property. The restoration of Lycurgus's constitution had, therefore, a twofold object; to favour the poor by a new agrarian law and release from debts, and to increase the power of the kings by repressing that of the ephori.—First attempt at reform 244, by king Agis III; attended in the beginning with partial success, but eventually frustrated by the other king, Leonidas, and terminating in the extinction of Agis and his family, 241. Leonidas, however, was succeeded, 236, by his son Cleomenes, who victoriously defeated the plans of Aratus to force Sparta to accede to the Achæan league, 227; this king, by a forcible revolution, overthrew the ephori, and accomplished the project of Agis, at the same time increasing[Pg 281] the Spartans by the admission of a number of periæci; and enforcing the laws of Lycurgus referring to private life; but as in a small republic a revolution cannot be confirmed without some external war, he attacked the Achæans as early as 224; these being defeated, implored, through Aratus, the help of Antigonus; Cleomenes in consequence was, at the battle of Sellasia, 222, obliged to yield to superior force, and with difficulty escaped over to Egypt; while Sparta was compelled to acknowledge her independence as a gift at the hands of Antigonus. Such was the miserable success of this attempt made by a few great men on a nation already degenerate. The quarrels between the ephori and king Lycurgus and his successor Machanidas, placed Sparta in a state of anarchy, which ended, 207, in the usurpation of the sovereign power by one Nabis, who destroyed the ancient form of government. Let him who would study great revolutions commence with that just described; insignificant as it is, none perhaps furnishes more instructive lessons.

Plutarchi Agis et Cleomenes. The information in which is principally drawn from the Commentaries of Aratus.

The war of the two leagues arose out of the piracies of the Ætolians on the Messenians, the latter of whom the Achæans undertook to protect, 221. The errors committed by Aratus compelled the Achæans to have recourse to Philip, 220; whose progress, however, was for a long time impeded by the artifices of Apellas's faction, who wished to overthrow Aratus. The Acarnanians, Epirots, Messenians, and Scerdilaidas of Illyria, (who, however, soon after declared against Macedonia,) combined with Philip and the Achæans; the Ætolians, on the other hand, commanded by their own general, Scopas, had for their allies the Spartans and Eleans.—The most important consequence of this war for Macedonia was, that she began again to be a naval power.—About the same time a war broke out between the two trading republics of Byzantium and Rhodes (the latter supported by Prusias I. of Bithynia) insignificant in itself, but which, as a commercial war, originating in the duties imposed by the Byzantines, was the only one of its kind in this age, 222. The Rhodians, so powerful in those days by sea, compelled their adversaries to submit.

Commencement of hostilities by Rome, against Philip: immediately that the alliance of Philip and Hannibal was known, a squadron with troops on board was stationed off the coast of Macedonia, by which the king himself was defeated at Apollonia, 214.—Alliance of Rome with the Ætolians, joined likewise by Sparta and Elis, Attalus king of Pergamus, and Scerdilaidas and Pleuratus, kings of Illyria, 211. On Philip's side were the Achæans, with whom Philopœmen more than supplied the loss of Aratus, occasioned, 213, by the Macedonian king; to them were joined the Acarnanians and Bæotians.—Attacked on every side, Philip successfully extricated himself from his difficulties; in the first place, he compelled the Ætolians, who had been abandoned by Attalus and Rome, to accept separate terms, which, shortly after, Rome, consulting her own convenience, converted into a general peace, inclusive of the allies on either side, 204.

The Roman allies in this war were: the Ætolians, Athenians, Rhodians, the kings of the Athamanes, Dardanians, and Pergamus.—The Achæans at the beginning sided with Philip, but were subsequently gained over by Flaminius. See below, in the Roman History.

Flaminius even took care that the Achæans should have an opponent in the person of Nabis, although under the necessity of waging war against him previous to his return into Italy, 194.—In 192, war between Nabis and the Achæans; followed after the murder of Nabis, at the hands of the Ætolians, by the accession of Sparta to the Achæan league.—But about the same time Greece once more became the theatre of foreign war; Antiochus having firmly seated himself in the country, and enleagued himself with several tribes, but more particularly the Ætolians, inspired with bitter and long-standing hatred against the Romans. These last, however, after the expulsion of Antiochus from Greece, 191, paid dearly for their secession; nor was peace granted them by Rome till after long and unsuccessful supplications, 189.

The Achæans was continually embroiled either with Sparta or with Messene: the grounds of difference were, that in both of those states there were factions headed by persons who, out of personal motives, and for the most part hatred to Philopœmen, wished to secede from the league; on the other hand, the prevailing idea among the Achæans was, that this league ought to comprise the whole of the Peloponnesus. In the war against the[Pg 287] Messenians, 183, Philopœmen, at the age of seventy, was taken prisoner by the enemy and put to death.

Plutarchi, Philopœmen. Nearly the whole of which is compiled from the lost biography of Polybius.

The settlement of the Bastarnæ (probably a German race, resident beyond the Danube) in Thrace and Dardania, in order with them to carry war against the Romans, was one of the plans traced out by Philip, and now partially executed by Perseus.—In Greece the Macedonian party, which Perseus formed chiefly out of the great number of impoverished citizens in the country, would probably have gained the upper hand, had not the fear inspired by Rome, and the active vigilance of that power, interposed an effectual bar. Hence the Achæans, apparently at least, remained on the Roman side; the Ætolians, by domestic factions, had worked their own destruction; the case was the same with the Acarnanians; and the federation of the Bœotians had been completely dissolved by the Romans, 171. On the other hand, in Epirus the Macedonian party was superior; Thessaly was occupied by Perseus; several of the Thracian tribes were friendly to him; and in king Gentius he found an ally who might have been highly useful, had not the Macedonian prince, by an ill-timed avarice, deprived himself of his assistance.

Miserable condition of Perseus until his capture at Samothrace; and afterwards until his death at Rome, 166.

The last war of the Achæans arose out of certain quarrels with Sparta, 150, fomented by Diæus, Critolaus, and Damocritus, who had returned bitterly enraged from the Roman prison; in these disputes Rome interfered, with the design of wholly dissolving the Achæan league. The first pretext that offered for executing this scheme was the ill-treatment of the Roman ambassadors at Corinth, 148; war, however, still raging with Carthage and Andriscus, the Romans preserved for the present a peaceful tone. But the party of Diæus and Critolaus would have war; the plenipotentiaries of Metellus were again insulted, and the Achæans declared war against Sparta and Rome. In the very same year they were routed by Metellus, and their leader Critolaus fell in the engagement; Metellus was replaced in the command by Mummius, who defeated Diæus the successor of Critolaus, took Corinth and razed it to the ground, 146. The consequence was, that Greece, under the name of Achaia, became a Roman province, although to a few cities, such as Athens, for instance, some shadow of freedom was still left.

Sources. Besides the writers enumerated above, (see p. 232.) Memnon, an historian of Heraclea in Pontus, deserves particular mention in this place, (see p. 162): some extracts from his work have been preserved to us by Photius, Cod. 224. In some individual portions, as, for instance, in the Parthian history, Justin[a] is our main authority; as are likewise Ammianus Marcellinus, and the extracts from Arrian's Parthica, found in Photius. The coins of the kings are also of great importance; but unfortunately Vaillant's Essay shows, that even with their assistance the chronology still remains in a very unsettled state. For the Jewish history, Josephus (see p. 35.) is the grand writer: of the Books of the Old Testament, those of Ezra and Nehemiah, together with the Maccabees, although the last are not always to be depended upon.

The modern writers are enumerated below, under the heads of the different kingdoms. Much information is likewise scattered about in the works on ancient numismatics.

We are acquainted with the history of these kingdoms, the Jewish state alone excepted, only so far forth as they were implicated in the concerns of the greater empires; of their internal history we know little, often nothing. With respect to many of them, therefore, little more can be produced than a series of chronological data, indispensable, notwithstanding, to the general historian.

Philetærus, lieutenant of Lysimachus, in Pergamus, asserts his independence; and maintains possession of the citadel and town, 283—263. His nephew, Eumenes I. 263—241, defeats Antiochus I. at Sardes, 263, and becomes master of Æolis and the circumjacent country. His nephew, Attalus I. 241—197, after his victory over the Galatians, 239, becomes king of Pergamus: a noble prince, and one whose genius and activity embraced everything. His wars against Achæus brought him in alliance with Antiochus III. 216. Commencement of an alliance with Rome, arising out of his participation in the Ætolian league against Macedon, 211, in order to thwart Philip's project of conquest. Hence, after Philip's irruption into Asia, 203, participa[Pg 292]tion on the side of Rome, in the Macedonian war. His son Eumenes II. the inheritor of all his father's great qualities succeeds him, 197—158. As a reward for his assistance against Antiochus the Great, the Romans presented him with almost all the territories possessed by the vanquished king in Asia Minor, (Phrygia, Mysia, Lycaonia, Lydia, Ionia, and a part of Caria,) which thereafter constituted the kingdom of Pergamus; this prince extended his frontiers, but lost his independence. In the war with Perseus he was scarce able to preserve the good will of the senate, and therewith his kingdom. His brother, Attalus II. 158—138, a more faithful dependent of Rome, took part in nearly all the concerns of Asia Minor, more especially Bithynia. His nephew, Attalus III. 138—133, a prince of unsound mind, bequeathed his kingdom to the Romans, who, after vanquishing the lawful heir, Aristonicus, 130, took possession of it, annexing it to their empire, under the shape of a province called Asia.—Great discoveries and vast establishments made at Pergamus. Rich library; subsequently transferred by Antony to Alexandria, as a present for Cleopatra. Museum. Discovery of parchment, an invaluable auxiliary to the preservation of works of literature.

Choiseuil Gouffier, Voyage pittoresque de la Grèce, vol. ii. 1809. Containing excellent observations, both on the monuments and history of Pergamus, as well as on those of all the neighbouring coasts and islands.

Sevin, Recherches sur les rois de Pergame, inserted in the Mém. de l'Acad. des Inscript. vol. xii.

From the fall of Tyre and the unsuccessful attempt of Demetrius, B. C. 307, to the establishment of Roman dominion in the east, 300—200, was the brilliant period of Rhodes; alike important for political wisdom, naval power, and extensive trade. At the head of the senate (βουλὴ) were presidents, (πρυτανεῖς,) who went out of office every half year, and were honoured with precedence in the meetings of the commons. Friendship with all, alliance with none, was the fundamental maxim of Rhodian policy, until subverted by Rome. Thus was preserved the dignity of the state, together with its independence and political activity—where do we not meet with Rhodian embassies?—and permanent splendour, resulting from the cultivation of arts and sciences. What proofs of general commiseration did not Rhodes enjoy after that dreadful earthquake, which threw down even the famous colossus, 227! Long did her squadrons command the Ægæan; over that sea, the Euxine, and the western parts of the[Pg 293] Mediterranean as far as Sicily, her commerce extended, consisting in the rich exchange of commodities between three quarters of the globe. Her revenue proceeded from the customs, and was abundant; until, blinded by avarice, she sought to obtain at Peræa a territory on the mainland; an ambition of which the Romans availed themselves to her detriment, by presenting her with Lycia and Caria, 190. And yet did this republic outlive that of Rome! Great, indeed, is the chasm left in general history by the loss of the internal history of this island!

P. D. Ch. Paulsen, Commentatio exhibens Rhodi descriptionem Macedonica ætate, Gottingæ, 1818. A prize essay.

1. Bithynia. As early as the Persian period, mention is made of two kings in Bithynia, Dydalsus and Botyras. The son of the latter, Bias, B. C. 378—328, made head against Caranus, one of Alexander's generals; as did also his son Zipœtas, d. 281, against Lysimachus.—Lycomedes I. d. 248. He called the Gauls[Pg 294] over from Thrace, 278, and with their assistance deposed his brother Zipœtas; the Gauls in consequence kept their footing in Galatia, and were for a long time an object of terror to Asia Minor. Zelas, d. about 232; established his dominion after a war with his half-brothers. Prusias I. son-in-law and ally of Philip II. of Macedon, d. 192. He sided with the Rhodians in the commercial war against Byzantium, 222, (see above, p. 282.) and directed his arms, 196, against Heraclea, a Grecian city in Bithynia, with a respectable territory along shore. Prusias II. waged war against Eumenes II. at the instigation of Hannibal, who had fled to his court, 184; he was subsequently about to deliver up the fugitive to the Romans; had not Hannibal put a period to his existence, 183: this king likewise waged war against Attalus II. 153; in both these contests Rome acted as mediator. Prusias, who had the meanness to style himself a freedman of the Romans, was dethroned by his own son, Nicomedes II. d. 92; a confederate of Mithridates the Great, with whom, nevertheless, he afterwards fell out concerning the appropriation of Paphlagonia and Cappadocia. Nicomedes was murdered by his son Socrates, who was, however, compelled to flee; in consequence of which Nicomedes III. succeeded to the crown. Deposed by Mithridates, who supported his half-brother Socrates, he was reinstated by Rome, 90. Having, however, at the instigation of the Romans, 89, attacked Mithridates, he was defeated and expelled in the first Mithridatic war, now kindled; but in the peace of 85, he was again reinstated by Sulla. At his death, 75, he bequeathed Bithynia to the Romans; and this legacy gave rise to the third Mithridatic war.

Vaillant, Imperium Arsacidarum, vol. ii. See below.

Sevin, Recherches sur les rois de Bithynie; inserted in the Mém. de l'Académie des Inscript. vol. xii.

2. Paphlagonia. Even in the Persian age, the rulers of this country were but nominally subject. After Alexander's death, B. C. 323, it fell into the hands of the kings of Pontus; it was, however, subsequently, again ruled by its own monarchs; among whom we hear of Morzes, about 179; Pylæmenes I. about 131: who assisted the Romans in the war against Aristonicus of Pergamus.—Pylæmenes II. d. before 121; who is said to have bequeathed his kingdom to Mithridates V. of Pontus. Hence Paphlagonia came to be implicated in the fortunes of Pontus, (see just below,) until after the fall of Mithridates the Great, 63,[Pg 295] that kingdom was converted into a province, with the exception of one of the southern districts, to which the Romans left some shadow of freedom.

3. Pontus. The later kings of this country derived their origin from the family of the Achæmenidæ, or house of Persia. In the Persian age they remained dependent or tributary princes: and as such we must consider Artabazes, son of Hystaspes, d. 480, Mithridates I. d. 368, and Ariobarzanes, d. 337, mentioned as the earliest kings of Pontus. Mithridates II. surnamed Ctistes, d. 302, was one of the first to acknowledge subjection to Alexander; after the death of the conqueror he sided with Antigonus, who treacherously caused him to be murdered. His son, Mithridates III. d. 266, (the Ariobarzanes of Memnon,) not only maintained himself after the battle of Ipsus against Lysimachus, but likewise possessed himself of Cappadocia and Paphlagonia. Mithridates IV. father-in-law to Antiochus the Great, waged an unsuccessful war against Sinope. The year of his death is undetermined, Pharnaces, d. about 156. He conquered Sinope 183; and that town then became the royal residence. War with Eumenes II. whom Rome had made so powerful, and with his allies; terminated by a treaty, according to which Pharnaces ceded Paphlagonia, B. C. 179. Mithridates V. d. about 121. He was an ally of the Romans, from whom, after the defeat of Aristonicus of Phrygia, he contrived to obtain Great Phrygia. Mithridates VI. surnamed Eupator, about 121—64. He bore the title of Great, an epithet to which he was as fully entitled as Peter I. in modern history; indeed he resembled the Russian prince in almost everything except in good fortune. His reign, although of the highest importance to general history, is, particularly in the portion previous to the wars with Rome, replete with chronological difficulties.—At the age of twelve years he inherits from his father not only Pontus, but likewise Phrygia, and a reversionary title to the throne of Paphlagonia, vacated by the death of Pylæmenes II.—During his nonage, 121—112, while by voluntarily inuring himself to hardships, he contrived to elude the treacherous hostility of his guardians, Rome deprived him of Phrygia. His conquests in Colchis and on the eastern side of the Black sea, 112—110.—Commencement of the Scythian wars. Called by the Greeks of Crimea to their assistance, he expelled the Scythians; subjected several insignificant Scythian princes on the mainland; and entered into alliances with the Sarmatic[Pg 296] and even Germanic races as far as the Danube, 108—105, having already a view to the invasion of Italy from the north.—This war ended, he travels over Asia, (Asia Minor?) about 104—103.—At his return, after punishing with death his faithless sister and wife, Laodice, he makes good his pretensions to Paphlagonia, which he divides with Nicomedes II. 102. The Roman senate demanding the restoration of that province, Mithridates not only refuses to accede, but likewise takes possession of Galatia; meanwhile Nicomedes places on the throne of Paphlagonia one of his own sons, whom he gives out to be a son of Pylæmenes II. and denominates Pylæmenes III.—Rupture with Nicomedes II. 101; the subject of dispute, Cappadocia, which, after removing the king, Ariarathes VII. his brother-in-law, with the assistance of Gordius, Mithridates himself now wished to possess; he is anticipated, however, by Nicomedes II. who marries Laodice, Ariarathes's widow.—Mithridates, notwithstanding, expels his rival, under pretence of holding the kingdom for his sister's son, Ariarathes VIII. whom at the end of a few months he puts to death at a private conference, 94; he defeats the brother of the murdered prince, Ariarathes IX. and then places on the throne, under the name of Ariarathes X. his own son, who is given out to be a third son of Ariarathes VII; in opposition to whom Nicomedes sets up another pretended Ariarathes. The Roman senate, meanwhile, declare both Paphlagonia and Cappadocia free, B. C. 92; attending, however, to the desires of the Cappadocians, they sanction the election of Ariobarzanes to the crown; and he is put in possession of the kingdom by Sylla, as proprætor of Cilicia, likewise in 92.—Mithridates, on the other hand, forms an alliance with the king of Armenia, Tigranes, to whom he gives his daughter in marriage; and employs him in expelling Ariobarzanes.—He himself, after the death of Nicomedes II. 92, supports the claims of the deceased king's exiled son, Socrates Chrestus, against the bastard Nicomedes III. and in the mean time takes possession of Paphlagonia. Nicomedes and Ariobarzanes are reinstated by a Roman embassy, 90, Mithridates, in order to gain time against Rome, causing Socrates to be put to death. The hostilities of Nicomedes, instituted by Rome, gave rise to the first Roman war, 89—85, carried on in Asia and Greece, and brought to a conclusion by Sylla. By the peace of 85, Mithridates restores Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Paphlagonia.—War with the revolted Colchians and Bosporans, 84.—Second war with Rome brought[Pg 297] about by the Roman governor, Murena, 83—81. Mithridates hereupon appoints his son, Machares, king of Bosporus, (Crimea,) whom he afterwards himself causes to be put to death, 66; he was likewise, in all probability, the instigator of the migration of the Sarmatæ out of Asia into Europe, in order to maintain his conquests in that quarter, about 80. Fresh disputes with Rome about Cappadocia, of which Tigranes takes possession, and third war with Rome, 75—64. The contest ended in the downfal of Mithridates, caused by the treachery of his son Pharnaces; Pontus became a Roman province; although the Romans, in the sequel, appointed over a portion of the country princes from the royal house, Darius, Polemo I. Polemo II. until Nero reduced it again wholly to the state of a province.

Vaillant, Imperium Achæmenidarum in his Imperium Arsacidarum, tom. ii. With the assistance of the coins.

For the history of Mithridates the Great, previously treated without sufficient chronological accuracy, see De Brosses, Histoire de la Rép. Romaine, and more especially

Joan. Ernst. Woltersdorf, Commentatio vitam Mithridatis Magni, per annos digestam, sistens; præmio ornata ab A. Phil. Ord. Gottingæ:, A. 1812.

4. Cappadocia. Until the time of Alexander this country remained a province of the Persian empire, although the governors occasionally made attempts at insurrection. The ruling family was here likewise a branch of the royal house; Ariarathes I. was particularly distinguished about B. C. 354. The prince contemporary with Alexander was Ariarathes II. who, being attacked by Perdiccas and Eumenes, fell in the contest, 322. Nevertheless, his son, Ariarathes III. supported by the Armenians, recovered the sceptre about 312. The son of this king, Ariaramnes, formed a matrimonial connection with the Seleucidæ, uniting his son Ariarathes IV. with the daughter of Antiochus Θεός. Ariarathes IV. during his lifetime, associated in the government his son Ariarathes V. d. 162. who married Antiochis, daughter to Antiochus the Great: this princess, finding herself at first barren, procured two supposititious sons, one of whom, Orophernes, subsequently wrested the sceptre from the legitimate and later born son, Ariarathes VI. but was afterwards expelled by the rightful heir, 157. In the war against Aristonicus of Pergamus, 131, he fell, as an ally of the Romans, leaving behind him six sons; five of whom were cut off by his ambitious relict Laodice; the sixth[Pg 298] however, Ariarathes VII. ascended the throne, and was married to Laodice, sister of Mithridates the Great, at whose instigation he was murdered by Gordius, under pretence of placing on the throne his sister's son, Ariarathes VIII; this last prince was soon after treacherously put to death by Mithridates, 94, and his brother Ariarathes IX. defeated 93, died of a broken heart; Mithridates then placed on the throne his own son, Ariarathes X. a lad eight years old. The independence of Cappadocia having meanwhile been proclaimed at Rome, the inhabitants of the country, in order to preclude domestic broils, themselves elect a king, appointing to that dignity Ariobarzanes I. who was installed by Sylla, 92, and, backed by the Romans, kept his footing in the Mithridatic wars. In 63 he made the crown over to his son, Ariobarzanes II. who was slain by the army of Brutus and Cassius, 43, as was his brother, Ariobarzanes III. 34, by Mark Antony; Antony then appointed Archelaus to be king, who enticed to Rome by Tiberius, A. D. 17, was there assassinated; and Cappadocia then became a Roman province.

5. Armenia was a province of the Syrian empire until the defeat of Antiochus the Great by Rome, 190. That defeat was followed by the accession of Antiochus's lieutenants, Artaxias and Zariadras; and now arose the two kingdoms of Armenia Major and Armenia Minor (the latter on the west bank of the Upper Euphrates). In Armenia Major the family of Artaxias kept possession of the throne, under eight (according to others ten) consecutive kings, until B. C. 5.—The only remarkable prince of this line was Tigranes I. 95—60, son-in-law and ally of Mithridates the Great, and lord of Asia Minor, Cappadocia, and Syria. He was, however, at the peace of 63, obliged to give up all, so that Armenia was dependent on the Romans, and remained so until B. C. 5, when it became the object of contention between the Romans and Parthians, being ruled at intervals by kings appointed by both parties, who endeavoured thereby to protect their own provinces. Finally, in A. D. 412, Armenia became a province of the new Persian empire.—In Asia Minor the descendants of Zariadras ruled dependently on Rome; after its defection under Mithridates the Great it usually formed part of some one of the neighbouring kingdoms, until in the reign of Vespasian it was converted into a province of the Roman empire.

Vaillant, Elenchus regum Armeniæ Majoris, in his Hist. Imp. Arsacidarum.

Main facts in the history and constitution of the Parthian kingdom. a. Like the ancient Persian empire, the Parthian arose out of the conquests made by a rude mountain race of Central Asia, whose Scythian (probably Tatarian) origin, betrayed itself even in later times by their speech and mode of life: their conquests, however, were not effected with the same rapidity as those of the Persians. b. This empire increased at the expense of the Syrian in the west, and of the Bactrian in the east; but its dominion was never permanently established beyond the Euphrates, Indus, and Oxus. c. The wars with Rome, commencing in B. C. 53, and springing out of disputes for the possession of the Armenian throne, were for a long time unfortunate for the Romans. Success did not accompany the arms of Rome until she had discovered the art of raising her own parties within the kingdom itself, by lending her support to pretenders, an art rendered comparatively easy, by the unfavourable situation of the Parthian capital Seleucia and the neighbouring town of Ctesiphon, the real head quarters of the court. d. The empire was indeed divided into satrapies, eighteen of which are enumerated; nevertheless it comprised likewise several small kingdoms, which preserved their own[Pg 300] rulers, only that they were tributary, such, for instance, as Persis, etc. The Græco-Macedonian settlements were also in possession of great privileges, and of their own civic governments; Seleucia more especially, where the coins of the Parthian sovereigns were struck. e. The constitution was monarchal-aristocratic, something like that of the Poles, in the period of the Jagellons. At the king's side sat a supreme state council, (senatus, in all probability what was called the megistanes,) who had the power of deposing the king, and the privilege, it is supposed, of confirming his accession previous to the ceremony of coronation, performed by the field-marshals (surenas). The right of succession was only so far determined as belonging to the house of the Arsacidæ; the many pretenders to which this uncertainty gave rise, produced factions and domestic wars, doubly injurious to the empire when fomented and shared by foreigners. f. With regard to Asiatic commerce, the Parthian supremacy was of importance, inasmuch as it interrupted the direct intercourse between the western and eastern countries: it being a maxim of the Parthians not to grant a passage through their country to any stranger. This destruction of the trade occurs in the third period of the empire, being a natural result of the many wars with Rome, and the distrust thence ensuing. The East India trade, in consequence, took another road through Palmyra and Alexandria, which were indebted to it for their splendour and prosperity. g. It is probable that this was the reason why excessive luxury took a less hold on the Parthians than on the other ruling nations of Asia, notwithstanding their predilection for Grecian manners and literature, at that time generally prevalent throughout the east.

Line of the kings. I. Syrian period; that of reiterated wars with the Seleucidæ, until 130. Arsaces I. 256—253, founder of the Parthian independence, by procuring the death of the Syrian viceroy, Agathocles, to which he was instigated by the insult offered to his brother Tiridates. Arsaces II. (Tiridates I.) brother of the foregoing, d. 216. He possessed himself of Hyrcania, about 244, confirmed the Parthian power by a victory on Seleucus Callinicus, 238, whom he took prisoner, 236. Arsaces III. (Artabanus I.) d. 196. In his reign occurred the unsuccessful attempt of Antiochus III. who, in the treaty of 210, was obliged to renounce all claims on Parthia and Hyrcania, in return for which Arsaces lent his assistance to Antiochus in the war against[Pg 301] Bactria. Arsaces IV. (Priapatius,) d. about 181. Arsaces V. (Phraates I.) d. about 144; he conquered the Mardians on the Caspian. His brother, Arsaces VI. (Mithridates I.) d. 136. He raised the hitherto confined kingdom of Parthia to the rank of a mighty empire, having, after the decease of Antiochus Epiphanes, 164, by the capture of Media, Persis, Babylonia, and other countries, extended the frontiers westward to the Euphrates, and eastward to the Hydaspes, beyond the Indus. The invasion of Demetrius II. of Syria, supported by an insurrection of the conquered races, ended, 140, in the capture of the aggressor. Arsaces VII. (Phraates II.) d. about 127. Invasion of Antiochus Sidetes, 132, who was at first successful, but being soon afterwards cut off together with his whole army, 131, the Parthian empire was for ever freed from the attacks of the Syrian kings.

II. Period of the eastern nomad wars; from 130—53. After the fall of the Bactrian empire, which had hitherto formed the eastern rampart of the Parthians, violent wars took place with the nomad tribes of Central Asia (Scythæ, Dahæ, Tochari, etc.) in which Arsaces VII. was slain. Arsaces VIII. (Artabanus II.) shared the same fate about 124. Arsaces IX. (Mithridates II.) d. 87. This prince appears to have restored tranquillity to the east after bloody wars; he met, however, with a powerful rival in Tigranes I. of Armenia. In his reign occurred the first transactions between the Parthians and Romans, 92, Sylla being proprætor of Cilicia. Arsaces X. (Mnasciras,) d. about 76, waged a long war for the succession with his follower on the throne, the septuagenarian, Arsaces XI. (Sinatroces,) d. about 68. Unsuccessful war with Tigranes I. In consequence of civil wars, and of that with Tigranes, together with the formidable power of Mithridates the Great, the Parthian empire was now greatly weakened. Arsaces XII. (Phraates III.) d. 60, contemporary with the third Mithridatic war. Although both parties eagerly courted his alliance, and he himself was engaged in the contest with Tigranes, he, notwithstanding, observed an armed neutrality, and made the Parthian empire continue to be respected as far as the Euphrates. Neither Lucullus nor Pompey durst attack him. The fall of Mithridates and of his empire, 64, constitutes, however, an epoch in the Parthian history, the Romans and Parthians having now become immediate neighbours.—Arsaces XIII. (Mithridates II.) d. 54, deposed after several wars, by his younger brother Orodes,[Pg 302] and at last put to death, after the capture of Babylonia, where he had taken refuge.

III. Roman period; from B. C. 53, to A. D. 226; comprising the wars with Rome. Arsaces XIV. (Orodes I.) d. 36. In his reign the first war with Rome, caused by the invasion of Crassus; it ends in the annihilation of the invading army and general, 53. In consequence of this victory the Parthians acquired such preponderance, that during the civil wars they were frequently masters on this side of the Euphrates, and in 52—51 proceeded to attack Syria.—In the war between Pompey and Cæsar they sided with the former, and thus furnished the latter with a pretext for his Parthian expedition, which, however, was prevented by his murder in 44; again in the war between the triumviri and Brutus and Cassius, 42, they took the republican side. After the defeat of Brutus and Cassius, the Parthians, at the instigation of the Roman general and ambassador Labienus, and commanded by him and Pacorus, (eldest son to Arsaces,) spread over the whole of Syria and Asia Minor, 40; but, after violent exertions, were driven back by Ventidius, Antony's general, 39, 38; Pacorus lost his life, and his father died of grief. Arsaces XV. (Phraates IV.) d. A. D. 4, contemporary of Augustus. He confirmed his power by murdering his brothers and their dependents; his views were likewise furthered by the failure of Antony's expedition, B. C. 36, which ended pretty nearly in the same manner as that of Crassus. The remainder of his reign was disturbed by a pretender to the throne, Tiridates, who, after his defeat, 25, found an asylum at the court of Augustus. The threatened attack of Augustus was diverted by Phraates's restoration of the standards taken from Crassus, 20; a dispute, however, subsequently arose respecting the possession of the Armenian throne, A. D. 2, on which account Caius Cæsar was despatched into Asia, and accommodated matters by a treaty. The ultimate fate both of the king and the empire was principally decided by a female slave, Thermusa, sent as a present from Augustus; this woman, wishing to ensure the succession to her own son, prevailed upon the king to send his four sons to Rome as hostages, under the pretext of anticipating domestic troubles, 18.—A practice which from that time became frequent, the Parthian kings thinking it a convenient mode of ridding themselves of dangerous competitors, while the Romans knew how to make the[Pg 303] proper use of them.—Thermusa's son having grown up, she removed the king, and seated Phraataces on the throne, under the name of Arsaces XVI; he was, however, put to death by the Parthians, A. D. 4; and the crown given to one of the Arsacidæ, Orodes II, (Arsaces XVII.) who was, however, immediately afterwards slain by reason of his cruelty. In consequence, Vonones I. the eldest of the sons of Phraates sent to Rome, was called back and placed on the throne (Arsaces XVIII.); but that prince having brought with him Roman customs and luxury, was expelled, A. D. 14, with the assistance of the northern nomads, by Artabanes III. (Arsaces XIX.) d. 44, a distant relation: the fugitive took possession of the vacant throne of Armenia, but was soon after driven from thence likewise by his rival. Tiberius took advantage of the consequent disorders to send Germanicus into the east, A. D. 17, from whence he was never to return. The remainder of the reign of Artabanus was very stormy, Tiberius on the one hand taking advantage of the factions between the nobles to support pretenders to the crown; the revolts of the satraps, on the other hand, giving proof of the declension of the Parthian power. After his death war raged between his sons; the second, Vardanes, (Arsaces XX.) d. 47, made good his pretensions to the crown, and took North Media, (Atropatene;) he was succeeded by his elder brother Gotarzes, (Arsaces XXI.) d. 50, to whom Claudius unsuccessfully opposed Meherdates, educated as an hostage at Rome. Arsaces XXII. (Vonones II.) succeeded, after a reign of a few months, by Arsaces XXIII. (Vologeses I.) d. 90. The possession of the Armenian throne, given by this prince to his brother Tiridates, by the Romans to Tigranes, grandson of Herod the Great, excited a series of disputes, which began so early as the reign of Claudius, A. D. 52, and under Nero broke out into open war, waged with some success on the Roman side by Corbulo, 56—64, and closed by Tiridates going, after the death of Tigranes, to Rome, and there accepting the crown of Armenia as a gift at the hands of Nero, 65. Arsaces XXIV. (Pacorus,) d. 107, contemporary with Domitian. All that we know of him is, that he embellished the city of Ctesiphon. Arsaces XXV. (Cosroes,) d. about 121. The claims to the throne of Armenia implicated him in a war with Trajan, 114, during which Armenia, together with Mesopotamia and Assyria, were converted into Roman provinces. Trajan's consequent and successful inroad into the interior parts of the[Pg 304] Parthian dominions, 115—116, followed by the capture of Ctesiphon, and the appointment of Parthamaspates as king, appears to have been facilitated by the domestic commotions and civil wars which had for a long time harassed the empire. Nevertheless, in the following year, 117, Hadrian was compelled to give up all the conquered country; the Euphrates was again acknowledged as the boundary; Parthamaspates was appointed king of Armenia; and Cosroes, who had taken refuge in the upper satrapies, was reinstated on the throne, of which he seems ever after to have kept quiet possession. Arsaces XXVI. (Vologeses II.) d. 149. Parthia under his reign, and Rome under that of Antoninus Pius, remained on good terms. Arsaces XXVII. (Vologeses III.) d. 191. Under the reign of this king, the contemporary of Marcus Aurelius and L. Verus, the war with Rome was again kindled, 161, by Verus, and carried on in Armenia and Syria; Cassius, the legate of Verus, at last got possession of Seleucia, and demolished that city, 165.—Arsaces XXVIII. (Ardawan or Vologeses IV.) d. 207. This king having taken the part of Pescenninus Niger, in the war between him and Septimius Severus, was, after the defeat of his friend, 194, routed in a war with Septimius Severus, 197, and the chief towns of Parthia were sacked by the invaders. He is, without authority, represented as succeeded by a Pacorus, who took the name of Arsaces XXIX.: his real successor, however, appears to have been Arsaces XXIX. (Vologeses V.) d. 216. Domestic wars among his sons, fomented by Caracalla. Arsaces XXX. (Artabanus IV.) At the beginning of his reign, this prince likewise was contemporary with Caracalla, who, in order to pick a quarrel, demanded his daughter in marriage; according to some, Arsaces refused her, in consequence of which the Roman emperor undertook a campaign into Armenia; according to others, Arsaces having assented, and escorted his daughter to Caracalla, was, by an abominable stroke of treachery, cut off, together with all his train, A. D. 216. Caracalla having been murdered, 217, his successor, Macrinus, signed a peace with the Parthians. But Arsaces subsequently raised his brother Tiridates to the throne of Armenia; this act spurred the Persian Artaxerxes, son of Sassan, to rebellion; the Parthian king, defeated in three battles, fell in the last, thus putting a period to the family and dominion of the Arsacidæ, 226, and Artaxerxes became the founder of the New Persian kingdom, or that of the Sassanidæ. The revolution was [Pg 305] accompanied not only with a change of dynasty, but with a total subversion of the constitution.

Vaillant, Imperium Arsacidarum et Achæmenidarum, Paris, 1725, 2 vols. 4to. The first part comprises the Arsacidæ; the second the kings of Bithynia, Pontus, and Bosporus. It is an attempt, not altogether faultless, to arrange the series of kings, by the assistance of coins.

† C. F. Richter, Historico-critical essay upon the dynasties of the Arsacidæ and Sassanidæ, according to the Persian, Grecian, and Roman authorities. A prize essay. Leipzic, 1804. A comparative research into the eastern and western sources. The chronology in the above sketch has been corrected by this work, in conjunction with

Th. Chr. Tychsen, Commentationes de Nummis Persarum et Arsacidarum; inserted in Commentat. Nov. Soc. Sc. Gotting. vol. i. iii.

Founder of the empire, Diodatus or Theodotus I. B. C. 254; he threw off his allegiance to the Syrian king, under Antiochus II. He appears to have been master not only of Bactria, but also of Sogdiana. He likewise threatened the Parthians; after his decease, 243, his son and successor, Theodotus II. signed a treaty and alliance with Arsaces II. but was nevertheless deprived of his crown by Euthydemus of Magnesia, about 221. Antiochus the Great, at the conclusion of the Parthian war, directed his arms against Euthydemus, 209—206; the contest ended in a peace, by which Euthydemus, after delivering up his elephants,[Pg 306] was not only left in possession of the crown, but was allied to the Syrian family by the marriage of his son Demetrius with a daughter of Antiochus. Demetrius, though a great conqueror, does not seem to have been king of Bactria; his dominions comprised, it is probable, North India and Malabar, whose history now becomes closely connected with that of Bactria, although consisting only of mere fragments. The throne of Bactria fell to Apollodotus, and after him to Menander, who extended his conquests as far as Serica, while Demetrius was establishing his dominion in India, [as sovereign of which country he is represented in a medal lately discovered,] and where, about this time, several Greek states appear to have existed, perhaps ever since the expedition of Antiochus III. 205. Menander was succeeded, about 181, by Eucratidas, under whose reign the Bactrian empire attained its greatest extension; after defeating the Indian king, Demetrius, who had been the aggressor, he, with the assistance of the Parthian conqueror, Mithridates, (Arsaces VI.) annexed India to his own empire, 148. On his return, he was murdered by his son; the same, probably, that is mentioned afterwards by the name of Eucratidas II. He was the ally of Demetrius II. of Syria, and the main instigator of his expedition against the Parthians, 142; Demetrius being defeated by Arsaces VI. Eucratidas was, in consequence, deprived of a portion of his territory; overpowered soon after by the nomad races of Central Asia, the Bactrian empire fell to the ground, and Bactria itself, together with the other countries on this side of the Oxus, became a prey to the Parthians.

Th. Sieg. Bayer, Historia regni Græcorum Bactriani. Petropol. 1738, 4to. The few remaining fragments are in this work collected with industry and arranged with skill.

[Tod, Account of Greek, Parthian, and Hindu Medals, in Transactions of the R. Asiatic Society, vol. i. part ii, p. 316.

Tychsen, De Nummis Græcis et Barbaris in Bochara nuper retectis, in Comment. Nov. Soc. Sc. Gotting. vol. vi.]

First period under the Persians. By permission from Cyrus, a colony of Jews belonging to the tribes of Benjamin, Judah, and Levi, returned to the land of their forefathers, 536: this colony, headed by Zorobabel, of the ancient royal family, and the high priest Joshua, consisted of about 42,000 souls; the far more important and wealthy portion of the nation preferred to remain on the other side of the Euphrates, where they had been settled for seventy years, and continued to be a numerous people. The new settlers found it difficult to keep their footing, principally in consequence of differences, produced by the intolerance they themselves evinced at the building of the temple, with their neighbours and kinsmen the Samaritans, to whom the colony was only a cause of expense. The Samaritans, subsequently, having erected a separate temple at Garizim, near Sichem, about 336, not only separated completely, but laid the foundation of an inveterate hatred between the two nations. Hence the prohibition to rebuild the city and temple, brought about by their means, under Cambyses, 529, and Smerdis, 522, and not taken off until 520, in the reign of Darius Hystaspes. The new colony did not receive a permanent internal constitution till the time of Ezra and Nehemiah; both brought in fresh colonists, the former in 478, the latter in 445. The country was under the dominion of the satraps of Syria; but in the increasing domestic declension of the Persian empire, the high priests gradually became the virtual rulers of the nation. Nevertheless, even at the time of Alexander's conquest, 332, the Jews seem to have manifested proofs of fidelity to the Persians.

[Pg 308]

Second period under the Ptolemies and Seleucidæ, 323—167. After the death of Alexander, Palestine, in consequence of its situation, generally shared the fate of Phœnicia and Cœle-Syria, (see above, p. 249.) being annexed to Syria.—Capture of Jerusalem, and transplantation of a vast colony of Jews to Alexandria by Ptolemy I. 312; from thence they spread to Cyrene, and gradually over the whole of North Africa, and even into Æthiopia. From 311—301 the Jews remained, however, subject to Antigonus. After the overthrow of his empire, they remained, 301—203, under the dominion of the Ptolemies; the most conspicuous of their high priests during this interval were Simon the Just, d. 291, and afterwards his son, Onias I. d. 218, who, by withholding the tribute due to Ptolemy III. exposed Judæa to imminent danger.—In the second war of Antiochus the Great against Egypt, 203, the Jews, of their own free will, acknowledged themselves his subjects, and assisted in driving out the Egyptian troops, who, under their general, Scopas, had again possessed themselves of the country, and the citadel of Jerusalem, 198. Antiochus confirmed the Jews in the possession of all their privileges; and although he promised their country, together with Cœle-Syria and Phœnicia, to Ptolemy Epiphanes, as the future dowry of his daughter, Judæa still remained under the Syrian supremacy; except that the revenue was for a time divided between the Syrian and Egyptian kings.—The high priests and self-chosen ethnarchs or alabarchs were at the head of the people; and we now find mention made for the first time of a senate, or the sanhedrim. But the rout of Antiochus the Great by the Romans was also the remote cause of the subsequent misfortunes of the Jews. The consequent dearth of money in which the Syrian kings found themselves, and the riches of the temple treasures, the accumulation of the sacred income and gifts, made the office of high priest an object of purchase under Antiochus Epiphanes: hence arose quarrels between the pontifical families, and out of those sprung factions, which Antiochus Epiphanes was desirous to turn to his own account, by the introduction of Grecian institutions among the Jews, in order thereby to promote the subjection of that people, now raised by its privileges almost to the rank of a state within that of Syria. Deposition of the high priest, Onias III. 175; his brother Jason having obtained the mitre by purchase, and the introduction of Grecian customs: Jason, however, was in his turn supplanted by his brother Mene[Pg 309]laus, 172. During the civil war arising out of these events, Antiochus Epiphanes, at that time conqueror in Egypt, (see above, p. 241.) takes possession of Jerusalem, 170, being provoked by the behaviour of the Jews to Menelaus, the high priest of his own appointment: the consequent oppression of the Jews, who now were to be Hellenized by main force, soon occasioned the rise under the Maccabees.

Third period under the Maccabees, 167—39. Commencement of the rebellion against Antiochus IV. brought about by the priest Mattathias, 167, who was almost immediately succeeded, 166—161, by his son Judas Maccabæus. Supported by the fanaticism of his party, Judas defeats in several battles the generals of Antiochus, who was absent in Upper Asia, where he died, 164; the Jewish leader is even said to have been favoured by Rome. The primary object of the insurrection was not, however, political independence; they fought only for religious freedom. Under Antiochus V. the sedition continued successful, both against the Syrian king and the high priest Alcimus, his creature, 163; Judas having died soon after his defeat by Demetrius I. was succeeded by his brother Jonathan, 161—143. The death of the high priest, Alcimus, 160, opened the path of Jonathan to that office, which he received in the ensuing war between Demetrius I. and Alexander Balas, 143, (see above, p. 244, 245.) both rivals courting his alliance: Jonathan sided with Balas, and consequently, from being merely the leader of a party, came to be head of the nation, which still, nevertheless, continued to pay tribute to the kings. Notwithstanding the favour he had shown to Balas, after the overthrow of that pretender, he was confirmed in his dignity by Demetrius I. 145; to whose assistance he marched at the subsequent great revolt in Antioch. Jonathan however, in 144, passed over to the side of the usurper, Antiochus, the son of Balas, (see above, p. 245.) and was by embassy presented with the friendship of the Romans in the same year, but by the treachery of Tryphon was taken and put to death, 143. His brother and successor, Simon, 143—135, having declared against Tryphon, was by Demetrius II. not only confirmed in his dignity, but excused from paying tribute; he likewise received the title of prince, (ethnarch;) and appears to have struck coins. After the capture of Demetrius, Antiochus Sidetes allowed Simon to remain in possession of those privileges so long as he stood in need of his assistance against Tryphon; but after the[Pg 310] death of that usurper, he caused him, 130, to be attacked by Cendebæus, who was defeated by the sons of Simon. Simon having been murdered by his son-in-law, Ptolemæus, who aspired to the government, 135, was succeeded by his son, John Hyrcanus, 135—107, who was compelled again to acknowledge submission to Antiochus Sidetes; but after the defeat and death of that prince by the Parthians, 130, he asserted his entire independence. The deep decline of the Syrian kingdom, the constant civil wars by which it was distracted, and the renewed league with the Romans, not only enabled Hyrcanus easily to maintain his independence, but likewise to increase his territory, by the conquest of the Samaritans and Idumæans. But with him ended the heroic line. Scarcely was he delivered from foreign oppression, when domestic broils arose; the Pharisees and Sadducees had hitherto been mere religious sects, but were converted into political factions by Hyrcanus, who, offended with the Pharisees, probably in consequence of their wish to separate the pontifical and princely offices, went over to the Sadducees; the former sect, the orthodox, were as usual supported by the many; the latter, the innovators, in consequence of the laxity of their principles, were favoured by the wealthy. Hyrcanus's eldest son, the cruel Aristobulus, 107, assumed the royal title, but soon after dying, 106, was succeeded by his younger brother, Alexander Jannæus, 106—79. His reign was an almost unbroken series of insignificant wars with his neighbours, this prince wishing to play the conqueror; and having likewise had the imprudence to irritate the powerful party of the Pharisees, these made him the object of public insult, and excited a tumult, 92, which was followed by a bloody civil war which lasted six years. Jannæus, it is true, maintained himself during the struggle; but the opposite party was so far from being annihilated, that, at his death, when passing over his sons, the feeble Hyrcanus (who possessed the pontifical dignity) and the ambitious Aristobulus, he bequeathed the crown to his widow Alexandra, it was with the understanding that she should join the party of the Pharisees: during her reign, therefore, 79—71, the Pharisees held the reins of government, and left her only the name. Provoked at this, Aristobulus, shortly before the death of the queen, endeavoured to obtain possession of the throne, and ultimately obtained his ends, notwithstanding Alexandra nominated Hyrcanus to be her successor. Hyrcanus, at the instigation of his confidant, the Idumæan Anti[Pg 311]pater, who was the progenitor of the Herodians, and assisted by the Arabian prince Aretas, waged war against his brother, 65, and shut him up in Jerusalem: but the Romans were arbitrators, and Pompey, then all-powerful in Asia, decided for Hyrcanus, 64; the party of Aristobulus, however, refusing to accede, the Roman general took possession of Jerusalem; made Hyrcanus high priest and prince, under condition that he should pay tribute; and took as prisoners to Rome Aristobulus and his sons, who, however, subsequently escaped and caused great disturbances. The Jewish state being now dependent on Rome, remained so, and the yoke was confirmed by the policy of Antipater and his sons, who followed the general maxim of entire devotion to Rome, in order thereby to succeed in wholly removing the reigning family. As early as 48, Antipater was appointed procurator of Judea by Cæsar, whom he had supported at Alexandria, and his second son Herod, governor in Galilee, soon became sufficiently powerful to threaten Hyrcanus and the sanhedrim, 45. He gained the favour of Antony, and thus maintained himself amid the tempests which, after the assassination of Cæsar, 44, shook the Roman world, powerful as the party opposed to him were: that party, however, at last, in lieu of the ill-fated Hyrcanus, the only surviving son of Aristobulus, placed Antigonus at their head, and, assisted by the Parthians, then flourishing in power, seated him on the throne, 39. Herod having fled to Rome, not only met with a gracious reception at the hands of the triumviri, but was by them appointed king.

Fourth period under the Herodians, B. C. 39 to A. D. 70. Herod the Great, B. C. 39 to A. D. 1. put himself in possession of Jerusalem and all Judæa, B. C. 37, and confirmed his power by marrying Mariamne of the house of the Maccabees. Notwithstanding his severity shown to the party of Antigonus, and the house of the Maccabees, the total extinction of which Herod deemed necessary for his own safety; yet so greatly did the wasted country stand in need of peace, that for that very reason his reign may be said to have been a happy one. Availing himself of the liberality of Augustus, whose favour he contrived to obtain after the defeat of Anthony, B. C. 31, Herod gradually increased the extent of his kingdom, which at last comprised Judæa, Samaria, Galilee, and beyond the Jordan, Peræa, Ituræa, and Trachonitis, (that is to say, the whole of Palestine,) together with Idumæa; from these countries he derived his income with[Pg 312]out being obliged to pay any tribute. The deference consequently shown by Herod to Rome, was but the effect of a natural policy, and his conduct in that respect could be objected to him only by bigoted Jews. To his whole family, rather than to himself individually, are to be attributed the executions which took place among its members; happy had it been if the sword had smitten none but the guilty and spared the innocent. In the last year but one of his reign is placed the birth of Christ (according to the usually adopted computation, made in the sixth century by Dionysius Exiguus. But the more accurate calculations of modern chronologists show that the real date of the Saviour's birth was probably four years earlier).—According to his will, with some few alterations made by Augustus, his kingdom was divided among his three surviving sons; Archelaus, as ethnarch, receiving the greater moiety, Judæa, Samaria, and Idumæa; the two others, as tetrarchs, Philip a part of Galilee and Trachonitis, Antipas the other part of Galilee, and Peræa, together with Ituræa; subsequently to which division, the various parts did not, in consequence, all share the same fate.—Archelaus, by misgovernment, soon lost his portion, A. D. 6; Judæa and Samaria were consequently annexed as a Roman province to Syria, and placed under procurators subordinate to the Syrian governors: among these procurators, the most famous is Pontius Pilate, about A. D. 27—36, under whom the founder of our religion appeared and suffered, not as a political—although accused of being so—but as a moral reformer. On the other hand, Philip retained his tetrarchy until the day of his death, A. D. 34, when his country had the same lot with Judæa and Samaria. Soon after, that is to say, in A. D. 37, it was, however, given by Caligula, with the title of king, to Agrippa, (grandson of Herod by Aristobulus,) as a recompense for his attachment to the family of Germanicus; and when Antipas, who wished to procure a similar favour for himself but instead of it, was deposed, 39, Agrippa received his tetrarchy also, 40, and soon afterwards, by the possession of the territory which had belonged to Archelaus, became master of the whole of Palestine. Agrippa having died in A. D. 44, the whole country being appended to Syria, became a Roman province, and received procurators, although Chalcis, 49, and subsequently also, 53, Philip's tetrarchy, were restored as a kingdom to his son Agrippa II. d. 90. The oppression of the procurators, and of Gessius Florus in particular, who obtained the office, A. D. 64, [Pg 313] excited the Jews to rebellion, which, 70, ended in the capture and destruction of their city and temple by Titus. The spread of the Jews over the whole civilized world of that time, although previously commenced, was by this event still further increased; and at the same time the extension of Christianity was prepared and facilitated. Even after the conquest, Jerusalem not only continued to exist as a city, but was also still considered by the nation as a point of union; and the attempt, under Adrian, to establish a Roman colony there, produced a fearful sedition.

Basnage, Histoire des Juifs depuis J. C. jusqu' à present. La Haye, 1716, 15 vols. 12mo. The first two parts only, properly speaking, belong to this period; but the others likewise contain several very valuable historical researches.

Prideaux, The Old and New Testament connected in the history of the Jews and their neighbouring nations. Lond. 1714, 2 vols. This work, together with that above quoted, have always been esteemed the grand books on the subject. The French translation of Prideaux's Connection is, by its arrangement, more convenient for use than the original: this translation was published at Amsterdam, 1722, 5 vols. 8vo. under the title of Prideaux, Histoire des Juifs et des peuples voisins depuis la décadence des Royaumes d'Israel et de Juda, jusqu' à la mort de J. C.

† J. D. Michaelis, Translation of the Books of Esdras, Nehemiah, and Maccabees, contains in the observations several historic discussions of high importance.

† J. Remond, Essay towards a history of the spread of Judaism, from Cyrus to the total decline of the Jewish state. Leipzig, 1789. The industrious work of a young scholar.

To the works enumerated p. 34, 35, must be added, for the more ancient history of the Jews:

J. L. Bauer, Manual of the history of the Hebrew nation, from its rise to the destruction of its state. Nuremberg, 1800, 2 parts, 8vo. As yet the best critical introduction, not only to the history, but also to the antiquities of the nation.

† In the works of J. J. Hess, belonging to this subject, namely, History of Moses; History of Joshua; History of the Rulers of Judah, 2 parts; History of the Kings of Judah and Israel: the history is throughout considered in a theocratic point of view.

Sources. The most copious author, and, if we except his system of deducing everything connected with Rome from Greece, the most critical of all those who have written on the earlier history of Rome and Italy, is Dionysius Halicarnassensis, in his Archæologia: of this work only the first eleven books, reaching down to the year 443, have been preserved; to these, however, must be added the fragments of the nine following books, xii—xx. discovered in 1816, and published by the Abbate Mai of Milan. Next to Dionysius is Livy, who as far as lib. iv, c. 18, is our main authority, till B. C. 292. Of the Lives of Plutarch the following belong to this period, Romulus, Numa, Coriolanus, Poplicola and Camillus; which for the knowledge and criticism they display, are perhaps more important even than Livy and Dionysius, see A. H. L. Heeren, De fontibus et auctoritate vitarum Plutarchi, inserted in Comment Recentiores Soc. Scient. Gott. Comment. I. II. Græci, III. IV. Romani; reprinted also as an appendix to the editions of Plutarch by Reiske and Hutten, Gottingen, 1821, ap. Dieterich. The sources of the most ancient Roman history were extremely various in kind. The traditions of the Fathers were preserved in historical ballads; (no mention is ever made of any grand epic poem;) and in this sense there existed a bardic history; by no means, however, wholly poetic, for even the traditions of Numa's Institutes are without the characteristics of poetry. The art of writing was in Italy of earlier origin than the city of Rome; how far, consequently, the public annals, such as the Libri Pontificum, extended back in early time remains undetermined. Several of the memorials are, beyond a doubt, mere family records, whether preserved by vocal tradition or in written documents. To the above must be added monuments, not only buildings and works of arts, but also treaties engraved on tables; of which, nevertheless, too little use seems to have been made. The Romans having learnt the art of writing from the Greeks, their history was as[Pg 322] frequently written in Greek as in Latin; and that not only by Greeks, such as, in the first place, Diocles of Peparethus, but likewise by Romans, such as Fabius Pictor, at an early period. From these last sources Dionysius and Livy compiled. The more ancient Roman history given by these authorities rests, therefore, in part, but by no means entirely, on tradition and poetry; still further amplified by the rhetoric style, that of the Greeks more especially. At what epoch the Roman history lays aside the poetic character can hardly be determined with certainty; it may be traced even in some parts of the period extending from the expulsion of the kings to the conquest by the Gauls.—For the purposes of chronology, great importance attaches to the fasti Romani, contained partly in inscriptions, (fasti Capitolini,) partly in manuscripts. They have been collected and restored by Pighius, Noris Sigonius, etc. in Grævii, Thes. A. R. vol. xi.; likewise in Almeloveen, Fast. Rom. I. II. Amstel. 1705, etc.

Pighii Annales Romanorum. Antwerp, 1615, fol. 2 vols. An essay towards a chronological arrangement; it reaches down to Vitellius.

The Roman history has been copiously treated of by the moderns in many works besides those on universal ancient history before enumerated, (p. 2.). We shall mention only the more important.

Rollin, Histoire Romaine, Depuis la foundation de Rome jusqu' à la bataille d'Actium. 13 vols. 8vo. Paris, 1823, édit. revue par Letronne. This history, which extends to B. C. 89, has been continued and terminated by Crevier. Although the critical historian might suggest much that is wanting in this work, it nevertheless contributed to advance the study.

Ed. Ferguson, The History of the Progress and Termination of the Roman Republic. London, 1783, 4to. On the whole, the best work on the history of the Roman republic; it has superceded the earlier work of Goldsmith.

P. Ch. Levesque, Histoire de la République Romaine, 3 vols. Paris, 1807. He who would still wish to admire with blind enthusiasm the glory of ancient Rome, had better not read this work.

B. G. Niebuhr, Roman History.

[Pg 323]

Rather criticism than history; the author seems to be perpetually endeavouring to overthrow all that has hitherto been admitted. The spirit of acuteness is not always that of truth; and men do not so lightly assent to the existence of a constitution which not only is contrary to the broad view of antiquity—inferences drawn from some insulated passages not being sufficient to overturn what is corroborated by all the others—but likewise, according to the author's own avowal, stands opposed to all analogy in history. But truth gains even where criticism is wrong; and the value of some deep researches will not for that reason be overlooked.—Consult on this subject:

† W. Wachsmuth, Researches into the more Ancient History of Rome. Halle, 1819.

C. F. Th. Lachmann, Commentatio de fontibus T. Livii in prima Historiarum Decade. Gottingæ, 1821. A prize essay.

For the works upon the Roman constitution see below, at the end of this and at the beginning of the third period.

Abundance of most important writings upon Roman antiquities will be found in the great collections:

Grævii Thesaurus Antiquitatum Romanarum. Lugd. Batav. 1694, sq. 12 vols. fol. and likewise in

Salengre, Thesaurus Antiquitatum Romanarum. Venet. 1732, 3 vols. fol.

Many excellent papers, particularly in

Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions.

With the exception of Nardini, Roma Vetus, inserted in Grævii Thes. A. R. t. iv. the best work on the topography of ancient Rome is

Venuti, Descrizione Topografica delle Antichità di Roma. P. I. II. Roma, 1763; and especially the new edition of that work by Visconti, 1803. There is also:

† S. H. L. Adler, Description of the city of Rome. Altona, 1781, 4to.

The best representation of the monuments of ancient Rome will be found in

Piranesi, Antichità di Roma, 3 vols. fol.

The primitive history of Rome is as difficult to reduce to pure historic truth as that of Athens, or any other city of antiquity; this proceeds from its being principally founded on traditions, handled by poets and rhetoricians, and likewise differing from one another; as may be seen in Plutarch's Romulus. As the knowledge of those traditions, such as they are found in Dionysius and Livy, attaches to so many other subjects, it would be improper to pass them over in silence; and that they contained truths as well as poetic fictions is proved most evidently by the political institutions of which they narrate the origin, and which certainly reached back to those times. To attempt to draw a line of demarcation between mythical and historic times would be to mistake the real nature of mythology.

L. de Beaufort, Sur l'incertitude des cinq premiers siècles de l'histoire Romaine, nouv. éd. à la Haye, 1750, 2 vols. 8vo. Every thing that can be said against the credibility of the primitive Roman history has been developed by Beaufort with abundant, and often with laboured, acuteness.

Line of kings. Romulus, 754—717. First establishment of the colony; augmentation in the number of the citizens, produced by the establishment of an asylum, and an union with part of the Sabines. Numa Pompilius, d. 679. By representing this prince as the founder of the religion of the Roman state, that religion received the high sanction of antiquity. Tullus Hostilius, d. 640. The conquest and destruction of Alba lays the foundation of Roman supremacy in Latium. Ancus Martius, d. 618. He extends the territory of Rome to the sea; the foundation of the port of Ostia proves that Rome already applied to navigation, the object of which was perhaps as yet rather piracy than trade. Tarquinius Priscus, d. 578. A Grecian by descent. Under his conduct Rome was already able to enter the field against the confederate Etrusci. Servius Tullius, d. 534. The most remarkable in the line of Roman kings. He placed Rome at the head of the confederacy of the Latins, which he confirmed by communia sacra. On his new division of the people according to property were raised the highly important institutions of the census and comitia centuriata. The necessity of this measure is demonstrative of the great and increasing prosperity of the Roman citizens; there can be no doubt, how[Pg 327]ever, that by its adoption the frame of the republic was already completed. Tarquinius Superbus, (the tyrant,)—509. This individual, having taken forcible possession of the throne as nephew to Priscus, endeavoured to confirm his power by a close connection with the Latins and Volsci; by this, as well as by his tyranny, he offended both the patrician and plebeian parties. His deposition, and the consequent reformation of the government, were however, properly speaking, brought about by the ambition of the patricians.

Algarotti, Saggio sopra la durata de' regni de' rè di Roma. (Op. t. iii.) Chronological doubts. Can the raising of difficulties deserve the name of criticism?

First commercial treaty with Carthage, 508, in which Rome appears certainly as a free state, but not yet as sovereign of all Latium; the most important monument of the authenticity of the earlier Roman history.

Heyne, Fœdera Carthaginiensium cum Romanis super navigatione et mercatura facta: contained in his Opusc. t. iii. Cf. † A. H. L. Heeren, Ideas, etc. Appendix to the second vol.

Main facts of the contest: 1. In the trial of Coriolanus the tribunes usurp the right of summoning some patricians before the tribunal of the people.—Hence arise the comitia tributa; that is to say, either mere assemblies of the commons, or assemblies so organized that the commons had the preponderance. This institution gave the tribunes a share in the legislation, subsequently of such high importance, those officers being allowed to lay proposals before the commons. 2. More equitable distribution among the poorer classes of the lands conquered from the neighbouring nations, (the most ancient leges agrariæ,) suggested by the ambitious attempts of Cassius, 486. 3. Extension of the prerogatives of the comitia tributa, more especially in the election of the tribunes, brought about by Volero, 472. 4. Attempts at a legal limitation of the consular power by Terentillus, (lex Terentilla,) 460, which, after a long struggle, at last leads to the idea of one common written code, 452, which is likewise[Pg 329] realized in spite of the opposition at first made by the patricians.

† Chr. F. Schulze, Struggle between the Democracy and Aristocracy of Rome, or History of the Romans from the Expulsion of Tarquin to the Election of the first Plebeian Consul. Altenburgh, 1802, 8vo. A most satisfactory development of this portion of Roman history.

Duration of the power of the Decemviri, 451—447. The doubts raised as to the deputation sent to Athens are not sufficient to invalidate the authenticity of an event so circumstantially detailed. Athens, under Pericles, was then at the head of Greece; and, admitting the proposed design of consulting the Greek laws, it was impossible that Athens should have been passed over. And indeed, why should it be supposed, that a state which fifty years before had signed a commercial treaty with Carthage, and could not be unacquainted with the Grecian colonies in Lower Italy, might not have sent an embassy into Greece?

The yet remaining fragments of the code of the twelve tables are collected and illustrated in Bachii Hist. Jurisprudentiæ Romanæ; and in several other works.

Besides the other laws made in favour of the people at the renewal of the tribunicia potestas, 446, that which imported ut quod tributim plebes jussisset, populum teneret, frequently renewed in subsequent times, and meaning, in modern language, that the citizens constituted themselves, must, it would appear, have thrown the supreme power into the hands of the people; did not the Roman history, like that of other free states, afford examples enough of the little authority there is to infer from the enactment of a law that it will be practically enforced.

Among these wars attention must be directed to the last, that against Veii, the richest city in Etruria; the siege of that place, which lasted very nearly ten years, 404—395, gave rise[Pg 332] to the introduction among the Roman military of winter campaigning, and of pay; thus, on the one hand, the prosecution of wars more distant and protracted became possible, while on the other the consequences must have been the levy of higher taxes, (tributa).

A second commercial treaty entered into with Carthage, 345, demonstrates that even at this time the navy of the Romans was anything but contemptible; although its principal object as yet was mere piracy. Roman squadrons of war however appear more than once within the next forty years.

Commencement of the wars against the Samnites, the Campanians having called the Romans to their assistance against that nation, 343. These wars, carried on with vigorous exertion and various success, lasted, with but short intermissions, till 290. This is the true heroic age of Rome, ennobled by the patriotic valour of Decius Mus, (father and son, both voluntary victims,) Papirius Cursor, Q. Fabius Maximus, etc. The consequences of this struggle were: a. The Romans learnt the art of mountain warfare, and thereby for the first time acquired a peculiar system of military tactics; not, however, till they had been, 321, obliged to pass under the furcas Caudinas. b. Their relations were[Pg 334] more firmly established with their neighbours the Latins and Etrurians, by the complete conquest of the former, 340, and by repeated victories over the latter, more especially in 308. c. Great national federations having arisen in Italy, particularly during the last period of the Samnite wars, the Romans entered into connection with the more distant nations of the country; with the Lucanians and Apulians, by the first league, 323, with the Umbri, from the year 308; and although the nature of this connection frequently varied, the different nations were perpetually struggling for independence, and were consequently at enmity with Rome. In this period, moreover, commenced the practical illustration of the leading ideas of Rome upon the political relations in which she placed the conquered with regard to herself.

The idea of calling upon Pyrrhus for assistance was the more natural, as the predecessor of that prince, Alexander I. (see above p. 275.) had endeavoured, but without success, to effect conquests in Lower Italy. In the first war with Pyrrhus, 280—278, two battles were fought, the first at Pandosia, 280, the other at Asculum, 279; in both of which Rome was unsuccessful. But Pyrrhus, after crossing over into Sicily, 278, (see above, p. 173, 174.) once more returned into Italy, 275, when he was de[Pg 335]feated by the Romans at Beneventum, and compelled to evacuate Italy, leaving a garrison at Tarentum. That city, however, soon afterwards, 272, fell into the hands of the Romans, whose dominion was consequently extended to the extremity of Lower Italy.

Even at the time of Hannibal's invasion, the number of Roman colonies amounted to 53: but several which had been settled returned to the mother city.

Heyne, De Romanorum prudentia in coloniis regendis: inserted in Opusc. vol. iii. Cf. Prolusiones de veterum coloniarum jure ejusque causis, in his Opusc. vol. i.

C. Sigonius, De antiquo jure civium Romanorum; and his treatise De antiquo jure Italiæ, inserted both in his Opera and in Grævii Thes. Ant. Rom. t. ii. contain the most learned researches on the details of these relations.

The rights of the people consisted in the legislative power, so far as fundamental national principles were concerned, and in the election of the magistrates. The distinction between the comitia tributa (as independent of the senate) and the comitia centuriata (as dependent on the senate) still existed as to form, but had lost all its importance, the difference between patricians and plebeians being now merely nominal, and the establishment of the tribus urbanæ, 303, excluding the too great influence of the people (forensis factio) upon the comitia tributa. The rights of the senate consisted in administering and debating all transitory national affairs, whether foreign relations, (war and peace only excepted, in which the consent of the people was requisite,) financial concerns, or matters regarding domestic peace and security. But the manner in which the senate was supplied must have made it the first political body at that time in the world. The rights and rank of magistrates were founded on their greater or lesser auspicia, no public affair being entered upon except auspicato. Consequently he only who was in possession of the former could hold the highest civic and military power; (imperium civile et militare; suis auspiciis rem gerere;) as dictator, consul, prætor; such was not the case with those who had only the lesser auspicia. The union of civil and military power in the person of the same individual was not without its inconveniences, but military despotism was in some measure guarded against by the prohibition of any magistrate possessing military command within Rome itself. We must not dismiss this subject without observing, that as the Roman constitution arose merely out of practice, there never having been any completely written charter, we cannot expect that all the details should be clearly ascertained; to attempt, therefore, in default of such authority, to describe all the minutiæ would be the surest way to fall into error.

[Pg 338]

Of the numerous works on the Roman constitution and on Roman antiquities, we shall mention:

De Beaufort, La République Romaine, ou plan général de l'ancien gouvernement de Rome. La Haye, 1766, 2 vols. 4to. A most copious work, and one of the most solid in regard to the matters discussed; although it does not embrace the whole of the subject.

Histoire critique du gouvernement Romain; Paris, 1765. Containing some acute observations.

Du Gouvernement de la republique Romaine, par A. Ad. de Texier, 3 vols. 8vo. Hamburg, 1796. This contains many enquiries peculiar to the writer.

Some learned researches respecting the principal points of the Roman constitution, as Sigonius and Gruchius de comitiis Romanorum, Zamocius de Senatu Romano, etc. will be found collected in the first two vols, of Grævius, Antiq. Roman.

For the popular assemblies of the Romans, an antiquarian essay by Chr. Ferd. Schulze, Gotha, 1815, chiefly according to Niebuhr, may be consulted.

Among the numerous manuals of Roman antiquities, Nieuport, explicatio rituum Romanorum, ed. Gesner. Berol. 1743, promises at least as much as it performs. Of those which profess to treat of Roman antiquities in general, none have yet risen above mediocrity. Jurisprudence, however, has been much more successfully handled. We cite the two following excellent compendiums:

Bachii, Historia Jurisprudentiæ Romanæ. Lips. 1754. 1796.

† C. Hugo, Elements of the Roman Law; 7th edit. Berlin, 1820.

Sources. The principal writer for this highly interesting period, in which was laid the foundation of the universal dominion of Rome, is Polybius as far as the year 146, not only in the complete books preserved to us, which come down to 216, but also in the fragments. He is frequently followed by Livy, lib. xxi—xlv. 218—166. Appian, who comes next, does not confine himself merely to the history of the war; Florus gives us only an abridgement. The lives of Plutarch which relate to this portion of history, are Fabius Maximus, P. Æmilius, Marcellus, M. Cato, and Flaminius.

Of modern writers we dare only mention one:—and who is worthy to be ranked beside him?

Montesquieu, Considerations sur les causes de la grandeur et de la décadence des Romains.

The occupation of Messina by the Romans, 264, gave rise to this war. The defection of Hiero king of Syracuse from the side of Carthage, and his joining the Romans, first gave the latter the idea of expelling the Carthaginians from the island. The victory near Agrigentum, and capture of that city in 262, seemed to facilitate the execution of this project: it also convinced the Romans of the necessity of their having a naval power. We shall the less wonder at their forming a fleet in Italy, where wood was then plentiful, if we remember their previous experience in naval affairs; these were not the first vessels of war which they constructed, but only the first large ones which they built upon a Carthaginian model. The first naval victory of the Romans under Duilius, by the aid of grappling machines, 260. The[Pg 341] project then conceived of carrying the war into Africa was one of the great ideas of the Romans, and from that time it became a ruling maxim of the state, to attack the enemy in his own territory. The second and very remarkable naval victory of the Romans, 257, opened the way for them to Africa, and shows their naval tactics in a very brilliant light: but the unfortunate issue of their expedition to Africa, restored the equilibrium; and the struggle for the dominion of the sea became the more obstinate, as success did not altogether favour one party. The result of the contest appears to have turned upon the possession of the eastern promontories of Sicily, Drepanum, and Lilybæum, which were in a manner the bulwarks of the Carthaginians, and seemed impregnable since Hamilcar Barca had taken the command of them, 247. The last naval victory of the Romans, however, under the consul Lutatius, 241, having cut off the communication between Sicily and Carthage, and the finances of both parties being completely exhausted, a peace was concluded upon the conditions: 1. That the Carthaginians should evacuate Sicily and the small islands adjacent. 2. That they should pay to Rome, by instalments in ten years, for the expenses she had been at in carrying on the war, the sum of 2,200 talents. 3. That they should not make war against Hiero king of Syracuse.

Origin and nature of the governments of the first Roman provinces, in part of Sicily and in Sardinia.

Commencement of the first Illyrian war, 230, which ended with the subjugation of Teuta, 226. The war, however, again broke out, 222, against Demetrius of Pharus, who conceived himself inadequately rewarded by Rome for the services he had rendered her in the preceding war. The Romans found him a much more dangerous adversary than had been expected, even after his expulsion and flight to Philip, 220, (see above, p. 282.) Throughout this war, Rome appeared as the deliverer of the Grecian states, which had suffered extremely from the plunder of these freebooters; Corcyra, Apollonia, and other cities placed themselves formally under her protection, while the Achæans, Ætolians, and Athenians vied with each other in showing their gratitude.

From the first Gallic war to the burning of Rome, 390, the Gauls had repeated their attacks in 360 and 348, even to the conclusion of the peace in 336. But in the latter part of the Samnite war, a formidable confederacy having taken place among the Italian tribes, some of the Gauls enlisted as mercenaries in the service of the Etruscans, while others allied themselves to the Samnites. This led them to take part in these wars in 306, 302, and 292, until they were obliged, together with the Etruscans, to sue for peace in 284, before which time the Romans had sent a colony into their country, near Sena. This peace lasted till 238, when it was disturbed by the incursion of the transalpine Gauls; without, however, their coming to any war with Rome. But in 232, the proposition of Flaminius the tribune, (lex Flaminia), to divide the lands conquered from the Senones, became the cause of new disturbances. Upon this occasion, the Gauls entered into an alliance with their transalpine countrymen, the Gæsates on the Rhone, who had been accustomed to engage as mercenaries. These having crossed the Alps, the dreadful war of six years (226—220) began, in which, after defeating the Gauls near Clusium, 225, the Romans pursued them into their own territory, and encamped upon the Po, 223. The Gauls having been again completely overthrown by Marcellus, were obliged to sue for peace; when the Roman colonies of Placentia and Cremona were established. The number of men capable of bearing arms in all Italy subject to the Romans during this war amounted to 800,000.

The history of this war, 218—201, of which no later transaction has been able to destroy the interest, is divided into three parts: the history of the war in Italy; the contemporary war in Spain; and from 203, the war in Africa. Hannibal's invasion of Italy in the autumn, 218—engagement near the river Ticinus and the battle of Trebia, in the same year. Battle near the lake Thrasymenus in the spring, 217. Seat of the war transferred to Lower Italy, and the defensive system of the dictator Fabius until the end of the year. Battle of Cannæ, 216, followed by the conquest of Capua and the subjection of the greater part of Lower Italy. The defensive mode of warfare afterwards adopted by the Carthaginian, arose partly from his desire to form a junction with his brother Asdrubal and the Spanish army, and partly from his expectation of foreign support by means of alliances, with Syracuse, after the death of Hiero, 215, and with Philip of Macedon, 216. These hopes, however, were frustrated by the Romans.—Syracuse was besieged and taken, 214—212, (see above, p. 174.) and Philip kept employed in Greece, (see above, p. 282.) In addition to this, the Romans retook Capua, notwithstanding the audacious march of Hannibal towards Rome, 211, and he had now no succour left except the reinforcement which Asdrubal was bringing from Spain. The latter, however, was attacked immediately upon his arrival in Italy, near Sena, by the consuls Nero and Livius, and left dead on the field, 207. From this time the war in Italy became only of secondary importance, as Hannibal was obliged to act on the defensive in Bruttium.

The Course of Hannibal over the Alps ascertained, by J. Whittaker. London, 1794, 2 vols. 8vo. The author endeavours to prove that the passage of Hannibal was over the great St. Bernard, and criticises the opinions of other writers.

[Pg 345]

[We may likewise mention the learned treatise:—

A Dissertation on the Passage of Hannibal over the Alps. By H. L. Wickham, M. A. and the Rev. J. A. Cramer, M. A. second edition, Oxon.]

The war in Spain began nearly about the same time between Asdrubal and the two brothers, Cn. and P. Cornelius Scipio, and was continued, with various success, till the year 216, the issue depending much upon the disposition of the Spaniards themselves. The plan of Carthage after the year 216, was to send Asdrubal with the Spanish army into Italy, and to supply its place by an army from Africa; two victories, however, gained by the Scipios near the Ebro, 216, and the Illiberis, 215, prevented this from being effected, till at last both fell under the superior power and cunning of the Carthaginians, 212. But the arrival of the youthful P. Cornelius Scipio, who did not appear merely to his own nation as an extraordinary genius, entirely changed the face of affairs, and the fortunes of Rome soon became attached to his name, which alone seemed to promise victory. During his command in Spain, 210—206, he won over the inhabitants while he defeated the Carthaginians, and for the furtherance of his great design, contracted an alliance with Syphax in Africa, 206. He was unable, however, to prevent the march of Asdrubal into Italy, 208, which nevertheless rendered it an easy task for him to subdue all Carthaginian Spain as far as Gades, 206, and thus procured him the consular dignity at his return, 205.

The carrying of the war into Africa by Scipio, notwithstanding the opposition of the old Roman generals, and the desertion of Syphax, who at the persuasion of Sophonisba again went over to the Carthaginians (whose loss however was well repaid by Masinissa, whom Scipio had won over to his side in Spain), was followed by an important consequence; for after he had gained two victories over Asdrubal and Syphax, 203, and taken the latter prisoner, the Carthaginians found it necessary to recall Hannibal from Italy, 202; and the battle of Zama terminated the war, 201. The following were the conditions of peace: 1. That the Carthaginians should only retain the territory in Africa annexed to their government. 2. That they should give up all their ships of war, except ten triremes, and all their elephants. 3. That they should pay, at times specified, 10,000 talents. 4. That they should commence no war without the[Pg 346] consent of Rome. 5. That they should restore to Masinissa all the houses, cities, and lands that had ever been possessed by himself or his ancestors.—The reproach usually cast upon the Carthaginians, of having left Hannibal unsupported in Italy, in a great measure vanishes, if we remember the plan formed in 216, to send the Spanish army into Italy, and to replace it by an African one: a plan formed with much ability, and followed with as much constancy. We may add to this, that the Barcine faction maintained its influence in the government even to the end of the war. But why they, who by the treaty of peace gave up five hundred vessels of war, suffered Scipio to cross over from Sicily, without sending one to oppose him, is difficult to explain.

View of the political state of the world at this period. In the west, Sicily (the whole island after 212), Sardinia, and Corsica, from the year 237, and Spain, divided into citerior and ulterior (the latter rather in name than in fact), had become Roman provinces 206; the independence of Carthage had been destroyed by the last peace, and her subordination secured by the alliance of Rome with Masinissa; Cisalpine Gaul, formed into a province, served as a barrier against the inroads of the more northern barbarians. On the other side, in the east, the kingdom of Macedonia, and the free states of Greece, forming together a very complicated system, had opened a connection with Rome since the Illyrian war, 230, and Philip's alliance with Hannibal, 214. Of the three powers of the first rank,[Pg 348] Macedonia, Syria, and Egypt, the two former were allied against the latter, who, on her part, maintained a good understanding with Rome. The states of secondary rank were, those of the Ætolian league, the kings of Pergamus, and the republic of Rhodes, with some smaller, such as Athens: these had allied themselves to Rome since the confederacy against Philip, 211. The Achæan league, on the contrary, was in the interests of Macedonia, which Rome always endeavoured to attach to herself, in order to make head against those of the first rank.

The negotiations between Rome and Macedonia, from the year 214, give the first striking examples of the ability and address of the Romans in foreign policy; and they are the more remarkable, as the treaty with the Ætolians and others, 211 (see above, p. 283), was the remote cause of the transactions which afterwards took place in the east. The peculiar system adopted by the Romans, of taking the lesser states under their protection as allies, must always have given them an opportunity of making war on the more powerful whenever they chose. This in fact happened in the present case, notwithstanding the peace concluded with Philip, 204. The chief object of the Romans in this war, both by sea and land, was to drive Philip completely out of Greece. The allies on both sides, and the conditions of peace, were similar to those concluded with Carthage (see above, p. 284). The destruction of the naval power of her conquered enemies became now a maxim of Roman policy in making peace; and she thus maintained the dominion of the seas without any great fleet, and without losing the essential character of a dominant power by land.

Liberty was expressly granted to the state which had taken the part of Philip, namely, to the Achæans; to the others it was naturally understood to belong. It was nevertheless three years, 194, before the Roman army evacuated Greece and withdrew from the fortified places. The conduct of T. Quintius during this period fully shows what he was. The Greeks indeed had much want of such a guardian if they wished to remain quiet: his conduct, however, in the war against Nabis, 195, shows that he had not really at heart the tranquillity of Greece.

The first cause of contention between Rome and Antiochus was the liberty of Greece, which the former wished to extend to the Grecian cities of Asia, and to those in particular which had belonged to Philip, and afterwards to Antiochus; while the latter contended, that Rome had no right to intermeddle with the affairs of Asia. The second cause of dispute was the occupation of the Thracian Chersonesus by Antiochus, 196, in right of some ancient pretensions; and Rome, on her part, would not tolerate him in Europe. This quarrel therefore commenced as early as 196, but did not become serious till the year 105, when in consequence of Hannibal's flight to Antiochus, together with the turbulence and excitement of the Ætolians, whose object it was to embroil the rival powers, the political horizon was completely overcast. What a fortunate thing it was for Rome that such men as Hannibal and Antiochus could not understand each other!

Heyne, de fœderum ad Romanorum opes imminuendas initorum eventis eorumque causis; in Opusc. vol. iii.

During this contest in the east, a sanguinary war was going on in the west; from the year 201 in Spain, where the elder Cato commanded; and from 193 in Italy itself, against the Ligurians. Whatever may be said upon the means made use of by Rome to increase the number of her citizens, it will always be difficult to comprehend, not only how she could support all these wars without being thereby weakened, but how at the same time she could found so many colonies!

Although the policy of Rome extended itself everywhere by means of her commissioners, or ambassadors, yet she kept a more particular guard against Carthage by favouring Masinissa at her expense, against the Achæan league by favouring the Spartans, and against Philip of Macedon by favouring every one who brought any complaint against him (see above, p. 285).

Voluntary exile of Scipio Africanus to Linternum, 187. He dies there, 183, the same year in which Hannibal falls under the continued persecution of Rome. His brother Scipio Asiaticus is also unable to escape a trial and condemnation, 185. One would have expected a sensible effect from the exile of these two great men; but, in a state where the ruling power is in the hands of a body like what the Roman senate was, the change of individuals is but of little consequence.

The first circumstance which gave umbrage to Philip was the small portion they permitted him to conquer in Athamania and Thessaly during the war against Antiochus. But what sharpened his animosity, much more than the object in dispute, was the conduct of the Roman commissioners, before whom he, the king, was called upon to defend himself as an accused party, 184. The exclamation of Philip, that "the sun of every day had not yet set," showed his indignation, and at the same time betrayed his intention. The interval previous to the breaking out of the war was anything rather than a time of peace for Rome; for besides that the Spanish and Ligurian wars continued almost without intermission, the revolts which broke out in Istria, 178, and in Sardinia and Corsica, 176, produced much bloodshed.

Beginning of the Macedonian war, 171, before Rome was prepared; a deceitful truce, which raised the indignation even of the elder senators, was the means resorted to for gaining time. Notwithstanding this, the war at first, 170 and 169, was favourable to Perseus; but he wanted resolution and judgment to enable him to turn his advantages to account. In 168, Paulus Æmilius, an old general, against the usual custom of the Romans, took the command. Bloody and decisive battle near Pydna, June 22, 168. So completely may one day overturn a kingdom which has only an army for its support! Contemporary with this war, and highly fortunate for Rome, was the war of Antiochus Epiphanes with Egypt. No wonder that Rome did not, till 168, through Popilius, command peace between them! (See above, p. 261.)

The republican constitution given to the already ruined and devastated Macedonians (see above, p. 288.) and Illyrians, and which, according to the decree of the senate, "showed to all people that Rome was ready to bestow liberty upon them," was granted upon such hard conditions, that the enfranchised nation soon used every endeavour to procure themselves a king. Greece however suffered still more than Macedonia. Here, during the war, the spirit of faction had risen to the highest pitch; and the arrogant insolence of the Roman party, composed for the most part of venal wretches, was so great, that they persecuted not only those who had espoused an opposite faction, but even those who had joined no faction at all. Rome nevertheless could not believe herself secure, until she had destroyed, by a cruel artifice, all her adversaries (see above, p. 288).

Cato was chief of the party which sought the destruction of Carthage, both from a spirit of envy against Scipio Nasica, whom he hated for his great influence in the senate; and because, when ambassador to Carthage, he thought they did not treat him with sufficient respect. But Masinissa's victory, 152 (see above, p. 88), and the defection of Utica, brought this project into immediate play. Beginning of the war, 150, the Carthaginians having been previously inveigled out of their arms. The city, however, was not captured and destroyed till 146, by P. Scipio Æmilianus. The Carthaginian territory, under the name of Africa, was then made a Roman province.

It might have been expected, that the destruction of the two first commercial cities in the world, in the same year, would have been followed by important consequences to the course of trade; but the trade of Carthage and Corinth had already been drawn to Alexandria and Rhodes, otherwise Utica might, in some respects, have supplied the place of Carthage.

The war against the Spaniards, who of all the nations subdued by the Romans defended their liberty with the greatest obstinacy, began in the year 200, six years after the total expulsion of the Carthaginians from their country, 206. It was exceedingly obstinate, partly from the natural state of the country, which was thickly populated, and where every place became a fortress; partly from the courage of the inhabitants; but above all, owing to the peculiar policy of the Romans, who were wont to employ their allies to subdue other nations. This war continued, almost without interruption, from the year 200 to 133, and was for the most part carried on at the same time in Hispania Citerior, where the Celtiberi were the most formidable adversaries, and in Hispania Ulterior, where the Lusitani were equally powerful. Hostilities were at the highest pitch in 195, under Cato, who reduced[Pg 359] Hispania Citerior to a state of tranquillity 185—179, when the Celtiberi were attacked in their native territory; and 155—150, when the Romans in both provinces were so often beaten, that nothing was more dreaded by the soldiers at home than to be sent there. The extortions and perfidy of Servius Galba placed Viriathus, in the year 146, at the head of his nation, the Lusitani: the war, however, soon extended itself to Hispania Citerior, where many nations, particularly the Numantines, took up arms against Rome, 143. Viriathus, sometimes victorious and sometimes defeated, was never more formidable than in the moment of defeat; because he knew how to take advantage of his knowledge of the country, and of the dispositions of his countrymen. After his murder, caused by the treachery of Cæpio, 140, Lusitania was subdued; but the Numantine war became still more violent, and the Numantines compelled the consul Mancinus to a disadvantageous treaty, 137. When Scipio, in the year 133, put an end to this war, Spain was certainly tranquil; the northern parts, however, were still unsubdued, though the Romans penetrated as far as Galatia.

Till nearly the end of this period, prætors were expressly appointed to each province. It was not till after the origin of the quæstiones perpetuæ, that it became the custom for the prætors who had vacated office, to succeed to the provinces (proprætores), a principal cause of the degeneracy of the Roman constitution.

C. Sigonius, de Antiquo jure provinciarum in Grævii Thes. Antiq. Rom. vol. ii.

Sources of the Roman revenue (vectigalia) were: 1. Tribute a. from the Roman citizens; that is to say, a property-tax imposed by the senate according to the urgency of the case (which, however, was remitted, for a long time, after the war with Perseus, 168, being no longer necessary). b. Tribute of the allies (socii) in Italy: which seems also to have been a property-tax; differing in different places. c. Tribute of the provinces: in some a heavy poll-tax, in others taxes on property; in all, however, they were paid in natural productions, mostly ordinary, though sometimes extraordinary, as well for the salary of the governor as for the supply of the capital. 2. The revenue from the national domains (ager publicus), both in Italy (especially Campania) and in the provinces; the tythes (decumæ) of which were paid by means of leases for four years, granted by the censors. 3. The revenue from the customs (portoria), collected in the seaports and frontier towns. 4. The revenue arising from the mines (metalla), particularly the Spanish silver mines; the proprietors of which were obliged to pay a duty to the state. 5. The duty upon enfranchised slaves (aurum vicesimarium). All receipts flowed into the national treasury, the ærarium; all outgoings were exclusively ordered by the senate; and the people were consulted as little with regard to them as they were respecting the imposts. The officers employed were the quæstores, under whom were the scribæ, divided into decurias, who, though certainly subordinate, had nevertheless great influence. Their services, as they were not yearly changed, must have been indispensable to the quæstores for the time being; and the whole management of affairs, at least in detail, must have fallen into their hands.

[Pg 362]

Upon the finances of Rome, the best work at present is:—

P. Burmanni, Vectigalia Populi Romani. Leyden, 1734, 4to.

Two excellent treatises have since appeared in German upon this subject:—

† D. H. Hegewisch, Essay upon Roman Finances. Antona, 1804, and

† R. Bosse, Sketch of the System of Finance in the Roman State. Brunswick, 1803, 2 parts. Both include the periods of the republic and the monarchy.

Sources. Concerning the first half of this important period of the republic, down to the time of Cicero, we are sadly in want of precise information. Not one of the contemporary writers has been preserved to us, nor indeed any one of the later historians who have compiled a history of the whole period. Appian, de Bellis Civilibus; Plutarch, in his Lives of the Gracchi; and the spirited Compendium of Vel. Paterculus, are, for this portion, our principal authorities; and even the imperfect summaries of the lost books of Livy, so masterly supplied by Freinshemius here become of importance. For the times which follow, the Jugurtha and Cataline of Sallust, are two excellent historical cabinet pieces, and become the more valuable for the insight they at the same time give us of the internal condition of Rome. His great work, however, The Histories, is, with the exception of a few precious fragments, unfortunately lost. For the times of Cæsar and Cicero, we have the Commentaries of the first, and the Orations and Letters of the latter; both fertile sources of information. What is left us of Dio Cassius's History, begins with the year 69 before Christ. Of Plu[Pg 363]tarch's Lives, besides those of the Gracchi, the following are connected with this period: C. Marius, Sylla, Lucullus, Crassus, Sertorius, Cato of Utica, Cicero, Brutus, and Antonius. Upon the sources for these lives, see my treatises cited above, p. 321.

Among the moderns, the greater part of this period is particularly treated of by:—

De Brosses, Histoire de la République Romaine dans le cours du VII^e Siècle par Salluste, à Dijou, 1777, 3 vols. 4to.

In German by J. C. Schleuter, 1790, etc. with remarks, 4 vols. The editor of this capital work had an idea of translating Sallust, and supplying what is lost. It contains, besides a translation of Jugurtha and Cataline, the period between both, of which Sallust treats in his Histories: that is, from Sylla's abdication, B. C. 79—67; and is equally important for its own merits and for the period to which it belongs.

Vertot, Histoire des révolutions arrivées dans le gouvernement de la République Romaine. Paris, 1796, 6 vols. 12mo. Although this justly esteemed work includes the foregoing period, it is particularly valuable for the present.

Mably, Observations sur les Romains. Genève, 1751, 2 vols. 8vo. A survey of the internal history; ingenious, but as superficial as the Observations sur les Grecs by the same author.

This family aristocracy gradually arose from the power of the magistrates, who now not only enjoyed a very high political importance, but, by the government of the provinces, acquired immense wealth. The present aristocracy, then, consisted of the ruling families (nobiles) concentrated in the senate. The struggle with the opposite party, the people (plebs), became so much the more violent in consequence of the great abuses which had crept into the administration, particularly in the division of the lands of the republic; the ruling families securing to themselves the fruits of all the victories and conquests, while the power of the democracy, by the vast accumulation of people (without the means of livelihood, although voting in the comitia), especially of enfranchised slaves, who, though strangers, mostly without power or property, formed, nevertheless, the greater part of what was then called the Roman people.

G. Al. Ruperti, Stemmata gentium Romanarum. Goett. 1795, 8vo. Almost indispensable for obtaining a clear insight into the history of the Roman families, and of course into that of the state.

The first agrarian law of Gracchus was confirmed by the people, notwithstanding the fruitless opposition of his colleague Octavius, who was deposed; it decreed, that no person should possess above five hundred acres of land, nor any child above half that quantity. This law was, in fact, only a renewal of the ancient lex Licinia; in the condition, however, in which Rome now was, it bore much harder upon the property usurped by the great families, than it did in former times. Appointment of a committee for dividing the national lands, and for enquiring also at the same time which were the property of the state (ager publicus) and which were not. New popular propositions of the elder Gracchus, especially that for the division of the treasures left by king Attalus of Pergamus, with the view of securing his continuance in office; great insurrection of the aristocratic party under Scipio Nasica, and murder of Tiberius Gracchus, on the day of electing the new tribunes of the people.

Great revolt of the slaves in Sicily under Eunus, 134—131. This contributed not a little to keep alive the dissensions, as it showed the necessity of a reform.

First establishment of the Roman power in Transalpine Gaul by M. Fulvius Flaccus, on the occasion of his being sent to the assistance of Massilia, 128. Southern Gaul became a Roman province as early as 122, in consequence of the defeat of the Allobrogi and Averni by Q. Fabius, who had been sent against them to support the Ædui, the allies of Rome. Capture of the Balearian isles by Metellus, 123. Quæstorship of C. Gracchus in Sicily, 128—125.

First tribunate of C. Gracchus, 123. Renewal of the agrarian law, and rendering its provisions more strict. Nevertheless, as he increased the fermentation by his popular measures and by acting the demagogue, and obtained the renewal of the tribunate for the following year, 122, he so far extended his plan, as to render it not only highly dangerous to the aristocracy, but even to the state itself. Establishment of distributions of corn to the[Pg 367] poor people. Plan for the formation of the knights (ordo equestris) into a political body, as a counterbalance to the senate, by conferring on it the right of administering justice, (judicia,) which was taken from the senate. Still more important project of granting to the Italian allies the privileges of Roman citizenship; and also the formation of colonies, not only in Campania, but also out of Italy, in Carthage. The highly refined policy of the senate, however, by lessening this man of the people in the eyes of his admirers, through the assistance of the tribune Livius Drusius, prevented his complete triumph; and, once declining, Gracchus soon experienced the fate of every demagogue, whose complete fall is then irretrievable. General insurrection, and assassination of C. Gracchus, 121.

Agrarian law evaded: at first by repealing an act which prohibited the transfer of the national lands already divided, whereby the patricians were enabled to buy them again;—afterwards by the lex Thoria: complete stop put to all further divisions, a land-tax, to be distributed among the people, being instituted in its stead; but even this latter was very soon annulled.

† D. H. Hegewisch, History of the Civil Wars of the Gracchi. Altona, 1801.[Pg 368]

† History of the Revolution of the Gracchi in my Miscellaneous Historical Works. Vol. iii. 1821.

Luxury in Rome was first displayed in the public administration (owing to the excessive accumulation of wealth in the treasury, especially during the Macedonian wars) before it infected private life; and the avarice of the great long preceded the latter. The sources from whence they satisfied this passion were found in the extortions of the governors of provinces, their great power, and the distance from Rome rendering the leges repetundarum of but little effect. Probably the endeavours of the allied princes and kings to gain a party in the senate was a still more fruitful source, as they could obtain their end only by purchase, and so gave a new impulse to the cupidity and intriguing disposition of the members of that council. But private luxury requires everywhere some time to ripen. It attained its height immediately after the Mithridatic wars.

† D. Meiner, History of the Corruption of the Morals and Constitution of the Romans. Leips. 1782.

† Meierotto, Morals and Manners of the Romans at different periods of the Republic. Berlin, 1776. Which considers the subject in several points of view.

† C. A. Bottiger, Sabina, or, morning scenes at the toilette of a rich Roman lady. Leips. 1806, 2 vols. A true and lively description of the luxury of the Roman ladies, but principally at its most brilliant period. It has been translated into French.

Commencement of the quarrel of Jugurtha with the two sons of Micipsa, and assassination of Hiempsal, one of them, 118.—When the other, Adherbal, arrived at Rome, 117, the party of Jugurtha had already succeeded, and obtained a partition of the kingdom. New attack upon Adherbal, who is besieged in Cirta, and, notwithstanding the repeated embassies of Rome to Jugurtha, is compelled to surrender, and is put to death, 112. The tribune C. Memmius constrains the senate to declare war against Jugurtha; but Jugurtha purchases a peace of the consul Calpurnius Piso, 111.—Nevertheless Memmius hinders the ratification of the peace, and Jugurtha is required to justify himself at Rome. He would probably, however, have bought his acquittal, if the murder of his kinsman Massiva, 110, by the help of Bomilcar, had not rendered it impossible. The war is renewed under the consul Sp. Albinus and his brother Aulus, 110, but with very little success, until the incorruptible Q. Metellus took the command, 109, who would have put an end to it, notwithstanding the great talents now displayed as a general by Jugurtha, and his alliance with Bocchus, 108, had he not been supplanted by Marius, who obtains the consulship by his popularity, 107. Marius is obliged to have recourse to perfidy to get Jugurtha into his hands, who is betrayed by Bocchus, 106. Numidia is divided between Bocchus and two grandsons of Masinissa, Hiempsal and Hiarbas.

The Cimbri, or Cimmerians, probably a nation of German origin, from beyond the Black sea, originated a popular migration which extended from thence as far as Spain. Their march was perhaps occasioned, or accelerated, by the Scythian war of Mithridates; and their course, like that of most nomad races, was from east to west along the Danube. They had already, in 113, defeated the consul Papirius Carbo, near Noreia in Styria. In their progress towards the west they were joined by German, Celtic, and Helvetic tribes (the Teutones, Ambrones, and Tigurians).—Attack Roman Gaul, 109, where they demand settlements and defeat Junius Silanus the consul.—Defeat of L. Cassius Longinus and M. Aurelius Scaurus, 107.—Great defeat of the Romans in Gaul, 105, occasioned by the disagreement of their generals, the consuls, Cn. Manlius and Q. Servius Cæpio. Marius obtains the command, and remains consul from 104—101. The migrations of the Cimbri—a part of whom reach the Pyrenees, but are driven back by the Celtiberians, 103—give Marius[Pg 371] time to complete his army. In 102, after dividing themselves, they first attempted to penetrate into Italy: the Teutones through Provence, and the Cimbri by Tyrol.—Great defeat and slaughter of the Teutones by Marius, near Aix, 102.—The Cimbri, on the contrary, effect an invasion and make progress till Marius comes to the help of Catulus. Great battle and defeat of the Cimbri near the Po, July 30, 101.

J. Muller, Bellum Cimbricum. Tigur, 1772. A youthful essay of that celebrated historian. Compare

† Mannert, Geography, etc. part iii.

The measures of this cabal, who wished to appear as if treading in the steps of the Gracchi, were principally directed against Q. Metellus, the chief of the party of the senate, and who, since the African war, had been the mortal foe of Marius. After the exile of Metellus, occasioned by his opposition to a new agrarian law, this faction usurped the rights of the people, and lorded it in the committees; until, at a new election of consuls, a general revolt, favoured by Marius himself, took place of all the well-disposed citizens against them; Saturnius and Glaucias were besieged in the capitol, forced to surrender, and executed. The[Pg 372] return of Metellus from his voluntary exile soon followed, 92, much against the will of Marius, who was obliged to retire into Asia.

Acquisition of Cyrene by the testament of king Apion, 97; notwithstanding which it maintained its independence, although probably by paying a tribute. Adjustment of the differences between the kings of Asia Minor by the prætor Sylla, 92 (see above, p. 294).

After the civil wars of the Gracchi, large bands of the allies were continually flocking to Rome. These were in the pay of the demagogues, whom the lex Licinia, 95, had banished from Rome, and thereby laid the foundation of the revolt. From that time the conspiracy among these tribes began, and attained without interruption such a degree of maturity, that the carelessness of Rome can only be accounted for from the party fury which then existed, and which the lex Varia, 91, enacted against the promoters of rebellion, served only to inflame the more. The murder of the tribune Livius Drusus, 91, a very ambiguous character, brought the affair to an open rupture. In this alliance were the Marsi, Picentes, Peligni, Marrucini, Frentani, the Samnites, who played a principal part, the Hirpini, Apuli, and the Lu[Pg 374]cani. In this war, which was so much the more bloody, as it was mostly composed of separate contests and sieges, especially of the Roman colonies, Cn. Pompeius the elder, L. Cato, Marius, and, above all, Sylla, particularly distinguished themselves on the side of the Romans; and among the generals of the allies Pompadias, C. Papius, etc.—Concession of the freedom of the city, first to such allies as remained faithful, the Latins, Umbrians, etc. by the lex Julia, 91; afterwards, by degrees, to the remainder by the lex Plotia. Some, nevertheless, still continued in arms.

Heyne, de Belli Socialis causis et eventu, in Opusc. t. iii.

Proposition of Sulpicius for an indiscriminate distribution of the new citizens and freemen among all the tribes of Italy, that he might thereby gain a strong party in his favour, which, by a violent assembly of the people, transfers the command from Sylla to Marius. March of Sylla upon Rome, and expulsion of Marius, who, by a series of adventures almost surpassing belief, escapes to Africa and is proscribed with his son and ten of his partisans. Reestablishment of the power of the senate, whose number is made up by three hundred knights. Sylla, after having caused his friend C. Octavius and his enemy L. Cinna to be elected consuls, hastens back to Greece.

Commencement of the war by Mithridates before the termination of that of the allies, 89, by taking possession of Cappadocia and Paphlagonia. He was not less formidable by his alliance with the tribes along the Danube, and his navy, than by his land forces; and the irritation of the people of Asia against Rome rendered his enterprise still more easy. Double victory over Nicomedes king of Bithynia and the Roman general M. Aquilius, followed by the conquest of all Asia Minor except the isle of Rhodes. Massacre of all the Roman citizens in the states of Asia Minor. Expedition of the king's army into Greece, under the command of his general Archelaus, who makes Athens the theatre of the war, 88. Siege and capture of that unfortunate town by Sylla, 1st March, 87. Repeated great defeats of Mithridates's army under the command of Archelaus, near Chalcis, and afterwards near Orchomenus, by Sylla, 86, whose general plan was formed upon the entire destruction of his enemies. Negotiations for peace commenced by Archelaus, and finally settled at a personal conference between Sylla and Mithridates. The adverse party in Rome, however, had in the mean time sent a new army into Asia Minor, to act as well against Sylla as against Mithridates, under the command of L. Valerius Flaccus, who, however, is assassinated by his lieutenant Fimbria. The latter gains some advantages over the king, but, being shut up by Sylla, kills himself. Owing to the licentiousness of his army, which Sylla dared not restrain; and the heavy contributions exacted by him in Asia Minor after the peace, in order to carry on the war in Italy, 84; together with the bodies of pirates formed out of the fleet disbanded by Mithridates, these unfortunate countries were almost ruined; the opulent cities more especially.

Revolt of Cinna, brought on by the proscriptions, soon after the departure of Sylla; Cinna, by distributing the new citizens into all the tribes, hoped to raise himself a party; but C. Octavius, at the head of the senate and ancient citizens, drove him from Rome, and forced him to give up the consulship, 87. He however soon raised a powerful army in Campania, and recalled Marius from exile. Capture and pillage of Rome, already weakened by famine, and horrible massacre of the inhabitants; after which Marius and Cinna name themselves consuls and banish Sylla. Death of Marius, 13th Jan. 86. C. Papirius Carbo succeeds him in the consulship. The mediation of the senate is useless, as the chiefs of both parties can only hope for security by the annihilation of their adversaries. The murder of Cinna by his own soldiers, 84, entirely deprives the dominant faction of a competent leader. Neither the cowardly Carbo, although he remained consul alone, nor the stupid Norbanus, nor the youth C. Marius (the son), had sufficient personal authority for that purpose; and Sertorius leaves Italy in good time to kindle a new flame in Spain.

Sylla's arrival; victory over Norbanus immediately after, and seduction of the army of the consul Scipio, 82. After this almost every person of distinction declared in his favour, and the young Pompey having brought to him an army which he had himself raised, his party acquired more consideration, and himself more power. Victory over the younger Marius, near Sacriportum, who throws himself into Præneste, where he is besieged. But the great and decisive battle gained before the gates of Rome, over the Samnites under the command of Telisinus, is followed by the fall of Præneste and the capture of Rome. After the proscription which immediately ensued, Sylla is created perpetual dictator, and secures his power in Rome by the emancipation of ten thousand slaves, whose masters he had proscribed; and in Italy by colonies of his veterans, whom he establishes at the expense of his enemies.

Internal regulations of Sylla by the leges Corneliæ. 1. Law to restrain the influence of the tribunes, by taking from them their legislative power. 2. Law respecting the succession to the magistracy; the number of prætors fixed to eight, and the quæstors to twenty. 3. Lex de majestate, especially to limit the power of the governors of provinces, and to abolish their exactions. 4. Lex de judiciis, whereby the judicia were again restored to the senate. 5. Several police regulations, de sicariis, de veneficiis, etc. for the preservation and tranquillity of Rome, upon which everything depended. 6. The lex de civitate, taking from the Latins and several Italian cities and tribes the privileges of Roman citizens, upon which they set so much store, although we scarcely know in what they consisted. Foreign wars: War in Africa against the leaders of the democratic faction, Cn. Domitius and king Hiarbas, which is ended by a triumph to Pompey, 80. Second war against Mithridates begun by Murena, in hopes of obtaining a triumph, to whom Archelaus came over; but which, under the command of Sylla, terminates in an accommodation.

Attempt of Lepidus to rescind the acts of Sylla, 78. Defeated, first before Rome and again in Etruria, by Catulus and Pompey, 77, after which he dies in Sardinia.

The forces of Sertorius in Spain, consisted not only of the party of Marius which he had collected, but more essentially of the Spaniards, particularly the Lusitanians, whom he had inspired with an unbounded confidence in himself. Very variable success of the war against Metellus and Pompey, who receive but very little support from Rome, 77—75. Negotiation of Ser[Pg 381]torius with Mithridates the Great, and interchange of embassies without any important result, 75. Sertorius assassinated by Perpenna, 72.

The third Mithridatic war, occasioned by the will of Nicomedes king of Bithynia, who had bequeathed his kingdom to Rome (see above, p. 294), was carried on in Asia Minor, first by Lucullus, 74—67, and afterwards by Pompey, 66—64. Mithridates, being better prepared, had already concluded an alliance with Sertorius in Spain, 75. But the deliverance of Cyzicus by Lucullus, 73, and the defeat of the king's fleet, intended to act against Italy, not only frustrated all his original plans, but were followed by the occupation of his own dominions, 72 and 71, by the enemy, notwithstanding a new army which Mithridates collected, mostly from the nomad hordes of Northern Asia. Flight[Pg 382] of Mithridates to Tigranes, 71, who positively refused to deliver him up, and formed an alliance with him, 70; while the Parthian, Arsaces XII. held both parties in suspense by negotiations. Victory of Lucullus over the allied sovereigns, near Tigranocerta, 69, and Artaxata, 68; but the mutinies which now broke out among his troops not only hindered him from following up these advantages, but turned the scale so much in Mithridates's favour, that in 68 and 67 he quickly regained almost all his dominions, even while the Roman commissioners were on their route to take possession of them. Lucullus, by his reform in the finances of Asia Minor, raises a powerful party against himself in Rome, and thereby loses his command.

Commencement of this war by a number of runaway gladiators, who, being strengthened by an almost general revolt of the slaves in Campania, 73, soon became very formidable. The defeat of four generals, one after the other, throws open to Spartacus the road to the Alps, and enables him to leave Italy; but the greediness of booty manifested by his hordes, who wished to plunder Rome, obliged him to return. Crassus takes the command and rescues Rome, 72; upon which Spartacus retires into Lower Italy, hoping to form a junction with the pirates, and to carry the war into Sicily, but is deceived by them, 71. His complete overthrow near the Silarus, 71. Pompey, then returning from Spain, finds means to seize a sprig of the laurel chaplet which by right should have adorned only the brow of Crassus;[Pg 383] hence arises a misunderstanding between these two commanders, during their consulate, 70, which threatened to be dangerous to the state.

The extraordinary power acquired by these pirates was owing partly to the great negligence of the Romans in sea affairs, (see page 340), partly to the war against Mithridates, who had taken the pirates into his pay, and partly also to the Roman oppressions in Asia Minor. War had been undertaken against them as early as 75, by P. Servilius; but his victories, though they procured him the title of Isauricus, did them but little harm. They were to be dreaded, not only for their piracies, but because they also offered an easy means of communication between the other enemies of Rome from Spain to Asia. The new attack of the prætor M. Antonius upon Crete, proved a complete failure; but it was the cause of that hitherto independent island being again attacked, 68, by Metellus, and reduced to a Roman province, 67. Pompey takes the command against the pirates with extraordinary privileges, obtained for him by Gabinius, and finishes the war in forty days, 67.

Pompey obtains the conduct of the war against Mithridates with very extensive privileges, procured for him by the tribune Manilius (lex Manilia), notwithstanding the opposition of Catulus, 67. His victory by night, near the Euphrates, 66. Subjection of Tigranes, while Mithridates flies into the Crimea, 65, whence he endeavours to renew the war. Campaign of Pompey in the countries about the Caucasus, 65; he marches thence into Syria, 64. Mithridates kills himself in consequence of the defection of his son Phraates, 63. Settlement of Asiatic affairs by Pompey: besides the ancient province of Asia, the maritime countries of Bithynia, nearly all Paphlagonia and Pontus, are formed into a Roman province, under the name of Bithynia; while on the southern coast Cilicia and Pamphylia form another under the name of Cilicia; Phœnicia and Syria compose a third, under the name of Syria. On the other hand, Great Armenia is left to Tigranes; Cappadocia to Ariobarzanes; the Bosphorus to Pharnaces; Judæa to Hyrcanus (see page 310); and some other small states are also given to petty princes, all of whom remain dependent on Rome. The tribes inhabiting Thrace during the Mithridatic war, were first defeated by Sylla, 85, and their power was afterwards nearly destroyed by the proconsuls of Macedonia: as by Appius, in 77; by Curio, who drove them to the Danube, 75—73; and especially by M. Lucullus, while his brother was engaged in Asia. Not only the security of Macedonia, but the daring plans of Mithridates rendered this necessary.

Reiterated attempts of the tribune Sicinius to annul the constitution of Sylla defeated by the senate, 76. But as early as 75 Opimius obtained that the tribunes should not be excluded from honourable offices, and that the judgments (judicia) should be restored to the knights (equites). The attempts of Licinius Macer, 72, to restore the tribunes to all their former powers, encountered but a short opposition; and their complete reestablishment was effected by Pompey and Crassus during their consulate, in 70.

Catiline's first conspiracy, in which Cæsar and Crassus seem to have been implicated, 66, as well as in the second, 65: failure of the former by chance—of the latter through Piso's death. The third broke out in 64, as well in Rome, where the conspirators, having no armed force, were soon suppressed by the vigilance and activity of Cicero, 63, as in Etruria, where a victory of the proconsul Antonius over Catiline, who was left dead on the field, concluded it, 62.

Attempt of Pompey, through the tribune Metellus Nepos, to be allowed to return to Rome at the head of his army, frustrated by the firmness of Cato, 62.

Cæsar's abode and campaign in Gaul from the spring of 58 till the end of the year 50. By arresting the emigration of the Helvetians, and by the expulsion of the Germans, under Ariovistus, from Gaul, 58, Cæsar gained an opportunity of intermeddling in the internal affairs of that country, and afterwards of subduing it, which was completed by his victory over the Belgæ, 57, and the Aquitani, 56; so that Cæsar was at liberty to undertake his several expeditions, as well in Britain, 55 and 54, as in Germany, 54 and 53. But the repeated revolts of the Gauls, 53—51, especially under Vercingetorix, 52, occasioned a war no less obstinate than their first conquest. Roman policy continued the same throughout. The Gauls were subdued, by the Romans appearing as their deliverers; and in the country they found allies in the Ædui, Allobroges, etc.

Exile of Cicero, the greater part of which he spent in Macedonia, from April, 58, till 4th Sept. 57. Ptolemy king of Cyprus deposed, and that island reduced to a Roman province by Cato, on the proposition of Clodius, 57 (see page 264). The personal dislike of Clodius and the riches of the king were the causes that brought upon him this misfortune.

Middleton's Life of Cicero, 2 vols. 8vo. This work is almost a complete history of Rome during the age of Cicero; for whom the writer discovers an undue partiality.

† M. Tullius Cicero, all his Letters translated, in chronological order, and illustrated with notes, by C. M. Wieland. Zurich, 1808. With a preliminary view of the life of Cicero. Of all Germans the writings of Wieland, whether original or translations (and to which can we give the preference?) afford the most lively insight into Greek and Roman antiquity at various periods. What writer has so truly seized its spirit, and placed it so faithfully and elegantly before his readers? His labours on the Letters of Cicero (whose foibles he exposes with a rigorous and unflinching hand) serve to make us much better acquainted with Rome, as it then was, than any Roman history.

The terms of this accommodation were; that Cæsar should have his government prolonged for another five years; and that Pompey and Crassus should enjoy the consulship for the ensuing[Pg 390] year, the former receiving the provinces of Spain and Africa; and the latter that of Syria, for the purpose of carrying on a war against the Parthians. In proportion as these conditions were kept secret, there remained less secrecy respecting the alliance itself.

Campaign of Crassus against the Parthians, undertaken at his own expense, 54. Instead, however, of gathering laurels like Cæsar, he and his whole army were completely overthrown in Mesopotamia, 53; and the Parthians from this time maintain a powerful preponderance in Asia (see above, p. 302).

Consulate of Pompey, 52, in which, at the end of seven months, he took as colleague his father-in-law Metellus Scipio. The government of his provinces, which afterwards became the chief seat of the republicans, is prolonged for five years.

Commencement of the contest upon Cæsar's demand to be allowed to hold the consulship while absent, 52. Cæsar, by the most lavish corruption, had increased his adherents in Rome, gained the tribunes, and among them especially the powerful speaker C. Curio (whom he did not think too dearly purchased at the price of about half a million sterling); by this man it was suggested to Cæsar that he should give up his command, and leave a successor to be appointed in his place, 51, if Pompey would do the same: a proposition which created a prejudice much in his favour. Repeated, but insincere offers of both parties for an accommodation, 50, till at last a decree of the senate[Pg 392] was passed, Jan. 7, 49, by which Cæsar was commanded "to disband his army under the penalty of being declared an enemy to the republic," without regard to the intercessions of the tribunes, whose flight to him gave an appearance of popularity to his party. Cæsar crosses the Rubicon, the boundary of his province.

Rapid occupation of Italy in sixty days (when the troops under Domitius surrendered at Corfinus), which, as well as Sicily and Sardinia, were subdued by Cæsar almost without opposition; Pompey, with his troops and adherents, having crossed over to Greece. Cæsar's first campaign in Spain against Pompey's generals, Afranius and Petreius, whom he forces to surrender; this, however, is counterbalanced by the loss of the legions under Curio in Africa. In December, 49, however, Cæsar is again in Italy, and named dictator, which he exchanges for the consulate. Spirited expedition into Greece with the ships he had been previously collecting together, Jan. 4, 49. Unfortunate engagement at Dyrrachium. Removal of the war into Thessaly, and decisive battle of Pharsalia, July 20, 48, after which Pompey flies to Alexandria, where he is killed on his landing. Cæsar arrives three days after him at Alexandria.

During the Alexandrine war (see above, p. 266) and the expedition against Pharnaces, the son of Mithridates,—who had obtained the kingdom of his father, but was slain by Cæsar immediately after his arrival, 47,—great disorders had broken out in Rome, caused by the tribune Dolabella's flattering the people with the abolition of debts (novæ tabulæ), notwithstanding the military power of M. Antony, whom Cæsar had sent to Rome as master of the horse (magister equitum), as this abandoned sensualist at first actually favoured the projects of the tribune. Cæsar's return to Rome, December, 47, put an end, it is true, to these disorders; but the increase of the opposite party in Africa, and an insurrection among his soldiers, obliged him to set out for Africa immediately, January, 46. Victory near Thapsus over Scipio and Juba; after which Cato kills himself at Utica. Numidia, the kingdom of Juba, becomes a Roman province. Cæsar after his return to Rome in June, is only able to stay there four months, as, before the end of the year, he is obliged to set out for Spain to crush the dangerous efforts of Pompey's two sons. Bloody battle at Munda, March, 45, after which Cneius is killed, but Sextus escapes to the Celtiberians.

The following were the honours and privileges granted to Cæsar by the senate. After the battle of Pharsalia, 48, he was nominated dictator for one year and consul for five years; and obtained the potestas tribunicia, as well as the right of making war and peace, the exclusive right of the committees, with the exception of the tribunes, and the possession of the provinces. The dictatorship was renewed to him, 47, for ten years, as well as the præfectura morum, and was at last, 145, conferred upon him for ever, with the title of imperator. Although Cæsar thus became absolute master of the republic, it appears to have been done without laying aside the republican forms.

We still want a discriminating life of Cæsar, who in modern times has been as extravagantly praised as Alexander has been unjustly censured. As generals and conquerors, both were equally great—and little; as a man, however, the Macedonian, in the brilliant period of his life, to which Cæsar never attained, was superior; to the great political ideas which developed themselves in Alexander, we know of none corresponding in Cæsar; who knew better than any how to attain dominion, but little of preserving it.

Histoire de la Vie de Jules Cæsar, par M. de Bury, Paris, 1758, 2 vols. 8vo.

† Life of C. Julius Cæsar, by A. G. Meissner, continued by J. Ch. L. Haken, 1811, 4 parts. At present the best.

Caius Julius Cæsar, from original sources, by Professor Söltl. A short biography, judiciously executed.

At the time of Cæsar's death, M. Antonius was actual consul, and Dolabella consul-elect; M. Lepidus magister equitum (master of the horse); M. Brutus and Cassius, prætors (the first, prætor urbanus). Cæsar had given to the former the province of Macedonia, and to the latter that of Syria, which had been confirmed to them by the senate. M. Lepidus had been nominated to Transalpine, and D. Brutus to Cisalpine Gaul. But soon after the murder of Cæsar, Antony obtained, by a decree of the people, Macedonia for himself, and Syria for his colleague Dolabella, with whom he had formed a close connection; instead of which the senate decreed to Cassius Cyrene, and to Brutus, who now had the important charge of supplying Rome with provisions, Crete. But soon after (June 1, 44), Antony desired, by a new change, to obtain Cisalpine Gaul for himself, and Macedonia for his brother C. Antony, both of which he procured from the people.

The Mutine war begins in December, 44, and closes with the defeat of Antony at Mutina, April 14, 43. Octavius obtains the consulate, Sept. 22.

The agreement of the triumvirate was concluded Nov. 27, 43, after which the march of the triumvirs upon Rome gives the signal for the massacre of the proscribed, which soon extends all over Italy, and in which Cicero perishes, Dec. 7. The cause of this new proscription was not party hatred alone, but was as much, perhaps more, owing on the one hand to the want of money for carrying on the war they had undertaken, and on the other to a desire of satisfying the turbulent demands of the legions. Where is to be found a time so full of terror as this, when even tears were forbidden?

M. Brutus had taken possession of his province of Macedonia as early as the autumn of 44; while Cassius, on the contrary, had to contend for that of Syria with Dolabella, who by the murder of the proconsul Trebonius had possessed himself of Asia. Being, however, for this offence, declared an enemy by the senate, and shut up in Laodicea by Cassius, he killed himself, June 5, 43. From this time Brutus and Cassius were masters of all the eastern provinces, at whose expense they maintained their troops, though not without much oppression. S. Pompey, after the victory of Munda, 45, having secreted himself in Spain, and afterwards become a chief of freebooters, had grown very powerful; when the senate, after Cæsar's assassination, having made him commander of the sea-forces, he with them took possession of Spain, and, after the conclusion of the triumvirate, of Sicily, and then, very soon after, of Sardinia and Corsica. It was a great thing for the triumvirate, that C. Pompey did not know how to reap half the profit he might have done from his power and good fortune.

Double battle at Philippi towards the close of the year 42; voluntary death of Cassius after the first, and of Brutus after the second engagement.

Plutarchi Vita Bruti; from the narratives of eyewitnesses.

The bellum Perusinum lasted from the end of the year 41 till April, 40.

The principal object of the peace between the triumvirs was a new division of the provinces, by which the city of Scodra in Illyria was fixed upon as the boundary. Antony obtained all the eastern provinces; Octavianus all the western; and Lepidus Africa. Italy remained in common to them all. The marriage of Antony with Octavia, Fulvia being dead, was intended to cement this agreement. In the peace concluded with S. Pompey at Misenum, he obtained the islands of Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica, and the promise of Achaia.

After a doubtful engagement at sea, 38, and the formation of a new fleet, Pompey was attacked on all sides at the same time; Lepidus coming from Africa, and Antony sending also some ships. Final overthrow of Pompey, who flies to Asia and there perishes.—Lepidus wishing to take possession of Sicily, Octavianus gains over his troops, and obliges him to retire from the triumvirate.

After his first stay in Alexandria, 41, Antony returned to Italy, 40, and then, having made peace with Octavianus, he carried his new wife Octavia with him into Greece, where he remained till the year 37. Although his lieutenant Ventidius had fought with success against the Parthians, who had invaded Syria (see above, p. 302.), Antony determined to undertake an expedition against them himself, 36. But although in alliance with Artavasdes king of Armenia (whom he soon after accused of treachery), in seeking to effect an entrance into Parthia, by passing through Armenia and Media, a different route from that taken by Crassus, he was very nearly meeting with the same fate, and the expedition completely failed. He then revenged himself upon Artavasdes, who fell into his hands in a fresh expedition which he made, 34, and deprived him of his kingdom. After his triumphal entrance into Alexandria, he made a grant of this as well as other countries to Cleopatra and her children. (See above, p. 267.) In 33, he intended to renew his expedition against the Parthians, in alliance with the king of Media; but having, at the instigation of Cleopatra, ordered Octavia to return home, when she had already come as far as Athens on her way to meet him, Octavianus and Antony reciprocally accused each other before the senate, and war was declared at Rome, though only against Cleopatra.

The history of the last days of Antony, principally after his decline, having been written under the rule of his enemies, must be received with that mistrust which all such histories require. It has furnished abundant matter for the retailers of anecdote. The history of Cleopatra rests partly on the accounts of her physician Olympus, of which Plutarch made use.

Sources. For the whole of this period Dion Cassius, lib. li—lxxx, is our historian; though of his last twenty books we have only the abridgment of Xiphilinus. For the history of the emperors from Tiberius to the beginning of Vespasian's reign, the principal writer is Tacitus, in his Annals, A. C. 14—63; (of which, however, part of the history of Tiberius, 32—34, all of Caligula and the first six years of Claudius, 37—47, as well as the last year and a half of Nero, are unfortunately lost); and in his History, of which scarcely the first three years, 69—71, are come down to us. Suetonius's Lives of the Cæsars, down to Domitian, are so much the more valuable, because in a state like the Roman it becomes of importance to know the character and domestic life of the ruling men. For the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius the History of Velleius Paterculus is not of less consequence, although written in a court-like tone. The sources for the history of the separate Cæsars will be given as we come to them.

The following are the labours of modern writers:

Histoire des Empereurs et des autres Princes qui ont régné dans les six premiers siècles de l'Eglise, par M. Lenain de Tillemont. à Bruxelle, 1707, 5 vols. 8vo. (An earlier edition in 4to. 1700, 4 vols.) The work of Tillemont has some worth as a laborious compilation, but is superseded in its execution by the following:

Histoire des Empereurs Romains, depuis Auguste jusqu' à Constantin, par M. Crevier. Paris, 1749, 12 vols. 8vo. [Translated into English.] A continuation of Rollin's Roman History (see above, p. 318), quite in the spirit of that writer, and by one of his school.

Dr. Goldsmith's Roman History, from the foundation of the city of Rome to the destruction of the western empire. London, 1774, 2 vols. 8vo. Rather a sketch than a detailed history (see above, p. 321, sqq.).

[Pg 412]

† History of Rome under the Emperors, and of the contemporary nations, by M. D. G. H. Hubler. Fryburg, 1803, 3 parts. Continuation of the work cited p. 2: it reaches down to Constantine.

The forms under which Augustus held the different branches of supreme power (dictatorship excepted) were;—the consulate, which, till B. C. 21, was annually renewed; and the potestas consularis, which, in B. C. 19, was settled on him for ever;—the tribunicia potestas, which was, 30, granted him for ever, rendered his person sacred (sacrosancta), and prepared the way to the judicia majestatis (accusations of high treason). As imperator, 31, he continued commander of all the forces, and obtained the imperium proconsulare (proconsular power) in all the provinces. He assumed the magistratura morum (censorship), 19; and became pontifex maximus (high priest), 13. To avoid[Pg 413] all appearances of usurpation, Augustus at first accepted the sovereign power only for ten years, and afterwards had it renewed from time to time, for ten or five years, which, at a later period, gave rise to the sacra decennalia.

The spirit of monarchy shows itself in nothing more than in its strict distinction of ranks; hence, therefore, the magistrates, especially the consuls, lost nothing. Hence also the long-continued custom of nominating under-consuls (consules suffecti,) which in time became merely a formal assumption of the ornamenta consularia et triumphalia (consular and triumphal ornaments). Other offices were created for the purpose of rewarding friends and dependents.

Distribution of the legions over the provinces in castra stativa (fixed camps), which soon grew into cities, especially along the Rhine, the Danube, and the Euphrates (legiones Germanicæ, Illyricæ, et Syriacæ). Fleets also were stationed at Misenum and Ravenna.

The fate of the provinces naturally depended, in a great degree, upon the disposition of the emperor and governor; but there was also an essential difference between the provinces of the emperor[Pg 415] and those of the senate (provinciæ principis et senatûs): in the latter there was no military oppression as there was in the former; and to that may be ascribed the flourishing state of Gaul, Spain, Africa, etc.

The great disorder into which the treasury had been thrown during the civil wars, and especially by giving away the state lands in Italy to the soldiers, together with the heavy sums required for the maintenance of the standing army now established, must have rendered it much more difficult for Augustus to accomplish the reform he so happily executed; and in which it seems to have been his chief aim to place everything, as far as possible, upon a solid and lasting foundation. The principal changes which he made in the old system of taxation seem to have been: 1. That the tithes hitherto collected in the provinces should be changed into a fixed quota, to be paid by each individual. 2. The customs, partly by reestablishing former ones, and partly by imposing new ones as well as an excise (centesima rerum venalium), were rendered more productive. The possession of Egypt, which was the depôt of nearly all the commerce of the east, rendered the customs at this time of great importance to Rome. 3. All the state lands in the provinces were, by degrees, changed into crown lands. Of the new taxes the most considerable were the vigesima hereditatum (the twentieth of inheritances), though with important restrictions; and the fines[Pg 416] upon celibacy by the lex Julia Poppæa.—The greater part of these state revenues most likely flowed, from the very first, into the fiscus: that is, the whole revenues of the provinciæ principis, as well as of those parts of the provinciæ senatûs which were appropriated to the maintenance of the troops; the revenues arising from the crown domains; the vigesima, etc. To the ærarium (now under three præfecti ærarii) remained a part of the revenues of the provinciæ senatûs, the customs and the fines. Thus it appears that Augustus was master of the finances, of the legions, and thereby of the empire.

See above, p. 362, the writings of Hegewisch and Bosse.

Rome commenced her hostile attack upon Germany under the command of Drusus, B. C. 12; Lower Germany (Westphalia, Lower Saxony, and Hesse) being in general the theatre of the war: while the Lower Rhine was attacked both by sea and land at the mouths of the Ems, the Weser, and the Elbe, on account of the great assistance afforded the Romans by their alliance with the nations on the coasts, the Batavi, Frisii, and Chauci. The intrepid Drusus, in his second expedition, 10, penetrated as far as the Weser, and, 9, even as far as the Elbe, but died on his return. His successors in the command (Tiberius, 9—7, Domitius, Ænobarbus, 7—2, M. Vinicius, 2—A. C. 2, then again Tiberius, A. C. 2—4, who was followed by Quintilius Varus, A. C. 5—9,) endeavoured to build on the foundation laid by Drusus, and, by erecting forts and introducing the Roman language and laws, gradually to reduce into a province the part of Germany they had already subdued; but the craftily organized revolt of the young Arminius (Hermann,) a prince of the Cherusci, son of Siegmar, and son-in-law of Segestes, a friend of the Romans, together with the defeat of Varus and his army in the Teutoburg wald, or forest, near Paderborn, A. C. 9, rescued Germany from slavery, and its language from annihilation. It moreover taught the conquerors (what they never forgot) that the legions were not invincible. Augustus immediately despatched Tiberius, who had just quelled a furious insurrection in Pannonia, together with Germanicus, to the Rhine; but these confined themselves to simple incursions, till Germanicus, A. C. 14—16, again carried his arms further into the country, and certainly penetrated as far as the Weser. Yet, notwithstanding his victory near Idistavisus (Minden), the loss of his fleet and part of his army by a tempest on his return, and the jealousy of Tiberius at his victory, obliged him to give up his command. From this time the Germans were left at rest in this quarter.

† Mannert, Geography of the Greeks and Romans, part iii.

Among his most important laws to this end are, the lex Julia de adulteriis and the lex Papia Poppæa against celibacy. The latter excited many murmurs.

Marmor Ancyranum; or, inscriptions in the temple of Augustus at Ancyra. A copy of the account given of his government, which Augustus latterly caused to be set up at Rome as a public memorial: unfortunately much mutilated. It is to be found in Chishull, Antiq. Asiatic.

Memoirs of the Court of Augustus, by Thomas Blackwell. London, 1760, 3 vols. 4to. divided into fifteen books. The last vol. was published after the death of the author, by Mr. Mills. The last two books of this prolix work contain a description of the contemporary affairs of Augustus; the others go back to earlier times. A just appreciation of Augustus requires a previous critical examination of the sources from which Suetonius has drawn the materials for his biography.

Histoire des triumvirats augmentée de l'histoire d'Auguste, par Larry. Trevoux, 1741, 4 parts, 8vo. The last part of this simple narrative contains the history of Augustus from the death of Catiline.

The foundation of the judicia majestatis, which soon became so terrible by the unfixed state of crime, had been laid during the reign of Augustus by the lex Julia de majestate, and the cognitiones extraordinariæ, or commissioners appointed to take cognizance of certain crimes; it was, however, the abuse of them by Tiberius and his successors, which rendered them so dreadful.

The expeditions of Germanicus in the east not only gave a king to Armenia, but also reduced Cappadocia and Commagene to Roman provinces, A. C. 17.

Histoire de Cæsar Germanicus, par M. L. D. B. [EAUFORT]. à Leyden, 1741. An unpretending chronological narrative.

Tiberius's misfortune was, that he came too late to the throne. His early virtues made no compensation for his later cruelties. It is properly the former which Vel. Paterculus praises, whose flattery of Tiberius, in whose reign he flourished, is more easily justified than his praise of Sejanus.

Commencement of the Roman conquests in Britain (whither Claudius himself went) under A. Plautius, from the year A. C. 43. Under the same general, Mauritania, A. C. 42, Lycia, 43, Judæa, 44 (see above, p. 312), and Thrace, 47, were reduced to Roman provinces. He also abolished the præfectures which had hitherto existed in Italy.

Discovery of the conspiracy of Piso, 65, and the revolt of Julius Vindex in Celtic Gaul, 68, followed by that of Galba in Spain, who is there proclaimed emperor, and joined by Otho, in Lusitania. Nevertheless, after the defeat of Julius Vindex in Upper Germany, by the lieutenant Virginius Rufus, these insurrections seemed quelled, when the prætorian guard, instigated thereto by Nymphidius, broke out into rebellion in Rome itself. Flight and death of Nero, June 11, 68. Foreign wars during[Pg 425] his reign: in Britain (occasioned by the revolt of Boadicea), great part of which was subdued and reduced to a Roman province, by Suetonius Paulinus; in Armenia, under the command of the valiant Corbulo, against the Parthians (see above, p. 303); and in Palestine against the Jews, 66. Great fire in Rome, 64, which gives rise to the first persecution against the Christians.

The principal cause why the despotism of Nero and his predecessors was so tamely submitted to by the nation, may undoubtedly be found in the fact, that the greater part of it was fed by the emperors. To the monthly distributions of corn were now added the extraordinary congiaria and viscerationes (supplies of wine and meat). The periods of tyranny were very likely the golden days of the people.

The special sources for the history of Galba and Otho, are their Lives by Plutarch.

Rhodes, Samos, Lycia, Achaia, Thrace, Cilicia, and Commagene, were brought by Vespasian into the condition of provinces. Foreign wars: that against the Jews, which ended with the destruction of Jerusalem, A. C. 70; and a much greater war against the Batavians and their allies under Civilis, who during the late civil wars, sought to shake off the Roman yoke, 69; but were reduced to an accommodation by Cerealis, 70. Expeditions[Pg 428] of Agricola in Britain, 78—85, who not only subdued all England, and introduced the Roman manners and customs, but also attacked and sailed round Scotland.

D. Vespasianus, sive de vita et legislatione T. Flavii Vespasiani Imp. commentarius, auctore A. G. Cramer. Jenæ, 1785. An excellent enquiry, with illustrations of the fragments of the lex regia. The second part, de legislatione, contains a learned commentary upon the senatus consulta, during his reign.

The foreign wars during this reign are rendered more worthy of remark by being the first in which the barbarians attacked the empire with success. Domitian's ridiculous expedition against the Catti, 82, gave the first proof of his boundless vanity; as did the recall of the victorious Agricola, 85, from Britain, of his jealousy. His most important war was that against the Daci, or Getæ, who, under their brave king Dercebal, had attacked the Roman frontiers; this again occasioned another with their neighbours, the Marcomanni, Quadi, and Jazygi, 86—90, which turned out so unfortunate for Rome, that Domitian was obliged to purchase a peace of the Daci by paying them an annual tribute.

The first war against the Daci, in which the shameful tribute was withdrawn and Dercebal reduced to subjection, lasted from[Pg 431] 101—103. But as Dercebal again rebelled, the war was renewed in 105, and brought to a close in 106, when Dacia was reduced to a Roman province, and many Roman colonies established therein. The war with the Parthians arose from a dispute respecting the possession of the throne of Armenia (see above, p. 304), 114—116: but although Rome was victorious she gained no permanent advantage thereby.

The especial source for the history of Trajan is the Panegyricus of Pliny the Younger; the correspondence, however, of the same writer, while governor of Bithynia, with the emperor, affords us a much deeper insight into the spirit of his government: Plinii Epist. lib. x. Who can read it without admiring the royal statesman?

Rittershusii Trajanus in lucem reproductus. Ambegæ, 1608. A mere collection of passages occurring in ancient authors respecting Trajan.

Res Trajani Imperatoris ad Danubium Gestæ, auctore Conrad Mannert. Norimb. 1793: and

Joh. Christ. Engel, Commentatio de Expeditionibus Trajani ad Danubium, et origine Valachorum. Vindob. 1794.—Both learned dissertations, written for the prize offered by the Royal Society of Gottingen; the first of which obtained the prize, and the other the accessit, i. e. was declared second best.

During his reign a great revolt broke out in Judæa, under Barcochab, 132—135, occasioned by the introduction of pagan worship into the Roman colony of Ælia Capitolina (the ancient Jerusalem).

The especial source for the history of Adrian, is his Life and[Pg 433] that of Ælius Verus by Ælius Spartianus in Script. Hist. Aug. Minores, already quoted.

The principal and almost the only source for the history of Antoninus Pius, Dion Cassius's history of this period being lost, is his Life by Julius Capitolinus in the Script. Hist. August. And even this refers to his private character rather than his public history. Compare the excellent Reflections of Marcus Aurelius, i, 16. upon this prince.

Vie des Empereurs Tite Antonin et Marc Aurele, par M. Gautier de Sibert. Paris, 1769, 8vo. A valuable essay on the lives of the two Antonines.

The war against the Parthians (see above, p. 304) was indeed brought to a successful issue by Verus, the principal cities of the Parthians falling into the hands of the Romans; Verus left them, however, to be carried on by his lieutenants, while he rioted in debaucheries at Antioch. The first war against the Marcomanni, carried on in the beginning and until the death of Verus, by the two emperors together, was highly dangerous for Rome, as many other nations had joined the Marcomanni, particularly the Quadi, Jazygi, and Vandals, and penetrated as far as Aquileia. M. Aurelius ended this war by a glorious peace, 174, as he found it necessary to stop the progress of Cassius's rebellion; in 178, however, the Marcomanni again commenced hostilities, and before their close M. Aurelius died at Sirmium. Contemporary with these wars, yet, as it seems, without any connection with them, were the attacks of other nations upon Dacia, the Bastarnæ, Alani, etc. who poured in from the north, probably pressed forward by the advance of the Goths. This was the first symptom of the great migration of nations now beginning.

The especial sources for the history of M. Aurelius, are the Biographies of him and L. Verus, written by Julius Capitolinus, as well as that of Avidius Cassius, by Vulcatius Gallicanus in Script. Hist. August. The letters discovered in Milan, among and together with the writings of Fronto, are of no historical service.—His principles are best learnt from his Meditations on himself.

[Pg 436]

Ch. Meiners de M. Aurel. Antonini ingenio, moribus, et scriptis, in Commentat. Soc. Gotting. vol. vi.

The especial source for the history of Commodus is his private life by Æl. Lampridius, in the Script. Hist. August.—The history of Herodian begins with his reign.

D. H. Hegewisch upon the Epochs in Roman History most favourable to Humanity. Hamburg, 1800—8.

Foreign commerce, so flourishing in this period, could only be carried on, to any extent, with the east—mostly with India—as the Roman empire spread over all the west. This trade continued to be carried on through Egypt, and also through Palmyra and Syria. Information thereupon will be found in

W. Robertson's Disquisition concerning the Knowledge [Pg 438] which the Ancients had of India. London, 1791, 4to. Often reprinted. And particularly upon Egypt, in

W. Vincent, the Periplus of the Erythrean Sea. London, 1802, 4to. 2 vols. A very instructive work.

Heeren, Commentationes de Græcorum et Romanorum de India notitia, et cum Indis commerciis: in Commentat. Soc. Gott. vol. x. xi.

Sources. The Extracts of Xiphilinus from Dion Cassius, lib. lxxiii—lxxx. though often imperfect, reach down as low as the consulate of Dion himself under Alexander Severus, 229.—Herodiani Hist. libri viii. comprise the period from Commodus to Gordian, 180—238.—The Scriptores Historiæ Augustæ Minores contain the private lives of the emperors down to Diocletian, by Julius Capitolinus, Flavius Vopiscus, etc.—The Breviaria Historiæ Romanæ of Eutropius, Aurelius Victor, and S. Rufus are particularly important for this period.—Finally, the important information that may be derived from the study of medals and coins, not only for this section, but for the whole history of the emperors, may be best learnt by consulting the writers upon those subjects: J. Vaillant, Numismata Augustorum et Cæsarum, cura J. F. Baldino. Rome, 1743, 3 vols. The Medallic History of Imperial Rome, by W. Cooke. London, 1781, 2 vols.—But above all, the volumes belonging to this period in Eckhel, Doctrina Nummorum Veterum.

With the period of the Antonines begins the great work of the British historian:

The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon. Oxford, 1828, 8 vols. 8vo. In worth and extent this work is superior to all others. It embraces the whole period of the middle ages; but only the first part belongs to this period.

The insolence of the prætorian guard had risen very high during the reign of Commodus; but it had never, even in the time of the Antonines, been entirely suppressed. It was only by large donatives that their consent could be purchased, their caprice satisfied, and their good humour maintained; especially at every new adoption. One of the greatest reproaches to the age of the Antonines is, that those great princes, who seem to have had the means so much in their power, did not free themselves from so annoying a dependence.

Jul. Capitolini Pertinax Imp. in Script. Hist. Aug.

Æl. Spartiani Didius Julianus, in Script. Hist. Aug.

Agricola had already erected a line of fortresses, probably between the Firth of Clyde and the Firth of Forth. These were changed by Adrian into a wall along the present boundaries of Scotland. Severus again extended the frontiers, reestablished the fortresses of Agricola, and afterwards built a wall from sea to sea; his son, however, gave up the conquered country, and the wall of Adrian again became the boundary of the empire.

Æl. Spartiani Septimius Severus et Pescennius Niger.

Jul. Capitolini Claudius Albinus, in Script. Hist. Aug.

The præfect, or captain, of the prætorian guard became, from the time of Severus, the most important officer in the state. Besides the command of the guards, the finances were also under his control, together with an extensive criminal jurisdiction. A natural consequence of the continually increasing despotism.

Æl. Spartiani Antoninus Caracalla et Ant. Geta, in Script. Hist. Aug.

Mæsa, the sister of Julia Domna, had two daughters, both widows; Soæmis, the eldest, was the mother of Heliogabalus, Mammæa, the youngest, the mother of Alexander Severus.

Jul. Capitolini Opelius Macrinus, in Script. Hist. Aug.

† Æl. Lampridii Ant. Heliogabalus, in Script. Hist. Aug.

The revolution in Parthia, whereby a new Persian empire was formed (see above, p. 304.), became a source of almost perpetual war to Rome; Artaxerxes I. and his successors, the Sassanides, claiming to be descendants of the ancient kings of Persia, formed pretensions to the possession of all the Asiatic provinces of the Roman empire.

Ælii Lampridii Alexander Severus, in Script. Hist. Aug.

Heyne de Alexandro Severo Judicium, Comment. i. ii. in Opuscula Academica, vol. vi.

Jul. Capitolini Maximinus Gordiani tres, Pupienus et Balbinus, in Script. Hist. August.

The German nations which were now become so formidable to the Roman empire, were: 1. The great confederation of tribes under the name of Franks, who spread over Gaul along the whole extent of the Lower Rhine. 2. The allied nations of the Alemanni on the Upper Rhine. 3. The Goths, the most powerful of all, who had formed a monarchy upon the banks of the Lower[Pg 448] Danube and the northern coasts of the Black sea, which soon extended from the Boristhenes to the Don; and who became formidable, not only by their land forces, but also by their naval power, especially after they had captured the peninsula of Crim Tartary (Chersonesus Taurica); and by means of their fleets they not only kept the Grecian, but likewise the Asiatic provinces in a continual state of alarm.

Trebelli Pollionis Valerianus, Gallieni duo, triginta tyranni, in Script. Hist. Aug.

† Concerning the thirty tyrants under the Roman emperor Gallienus, by J. C. F. Manso; at the end of his Life of Constantine.

Flav. Vopisci divus Aurelianus, in Script. Hist. Aug.

Palmyra in the Syrian desert, enriched by the Indian trade, and one of the most ancient cities in the world, became a Roman colony in the time of Trajan. Odenatus, the husband of Zenobia, had acquired so much celebrity by his victories over the Persians, that Gallienus had even named him Augustus with himself. He was murdered, however, by his cousin Mæonius, 267. Zenobia now took possession of the government for her sons Vabalathus, Herennianus, and Timolaus, without, however, being acknowledged at Rome. After this, in the time of Claudius, she added Egypt to her dominions. Aurelian, having first defeated her near Antioch and Emesa, soon afterwards took Palmyra, which, in consequence of a revolt, he destroyed.—Even in its ruins Palmyra is still magnificent.

The Ruins of Palmyra, by R. Wood. London, 1753; and the Ruins of Balbec, otherwise Heliopolis, by the same author, London, 1757, give us clear and certain ideas of the splendour and magnitude of these cities.

A. H. L. Heeren, de Commercio urbis Palmyræ vicinarumque urbium, in Comment. recent. Soc. Gotting. vol. vii. and the Appendix to Heeren's Researches.

Flav. Vopisci Tacitus; ejusd. Florianus, in Script. Hist. Aug.

Flav. Vopisci Probus imper. ejusd. Carus, Numirianus et Carinus, in Script. Hist. Aug.

The dispersion of the Jews, and especially the persecutions which were renewed from time to time, after the reign of Nero, (but which only served to kindle enthusiasm,) strongly cooperated in spreading the Christian religion. These persecutions were principally called forth against the Christians on account of their forming themselves into a separate society, which caused them to be regarded as a dangerous sect at Rome, notwithstanding the general toleration granted to every other system of religious belief. Although towards the end of this period, only a very small proportion of the inhabitants of the Roman empire as yet professed the Christian faith, it nevertheless had followers in every province.

† History of the Social Constitution of the Christian Church, by D. G. J. Planck, 4 parts, 1800. It is the first part of this excellent work which relates to this period.

Sources. It now becomes of importance to enquire whether the historians were Christians or pagans. Zosimus, the imitator of Polybius, belonged to the last. He describes the fall of the Roman state, as his model does the previous part. Of his Histories only five books and a half, to the time of Gratian, 410, have descended to us. He was certainly a violent antagonist of the Christians, yet, nevertheless, the best writer of this period. Ammiani Marcellini Historiarum, lib. xiv—xxxi. from the year 353—378 (the first thirteen books are lost). Probably a Christian, but yet no flatterer; and, notwithstanding his tiresome prolixity, highly instructive. Together with the writers of general history already noticed at p. 437, we must here especially add to the abbreviators, Pauli Orosii Hist. lib. vii. and Zonaræ Annales. The Panegyrici Veteres, from Diocletian to Theodosius, can only be used with circumspection.—The writers of church history, such as Eusebius, in his Hist. Eccles. lib. x. and in his Vita Constantini Magni, lib. v. as well as his continuators, Socrates, Theodoret, Sozomenus, and Evagrius, are also highly important for the political history of this period, though, from their partiality towards the Christian emperors, they should rather be classed with the panegyrists than the historians. To these may be added another principal source, viz. the Constitutions of the emperors, which have been preserved in the Codex Theodosianus and Justinianeus, from the time of Constantine the Great.

Besides the works quoted at pages 411, 437, the Byzantine historians here become of importance. We shall mention also:

Histoire du Bas-Empire depuis Constantin, par M. le Beau, continuée par M. Ameilhon. Paris, 1824, 20 vols. 8vo. The first seven parts only belong to this period.

[Pg 455] † The German translation of Guthrie and Gray's Universal History, 5 sections, 1 vol. Leipsic, 1768. Rendered very useful by the labours of Ritter.

Histoire du Bas-Empire, depuis Constantin jusqu' à la prise de Constantinople en 1453, par Carentin Royou. Paris, 1803, 4 vols. 8vo. A useful abridgement, without much research.

In the partition, 292, Diocletian possessed the eastern provinces; Galerius, Thrace, and the countries on the Danube (Illyricum); Maximianus, Italy, Africa, and the islands; and Constantius, the western provinces of Gaul, Spain, Britain, and Mauritania.

The history of the first seven years of Constantine, 306—313, is very complicated; after that, he had only one rival to struggle with, 314—323. At his accession, Galerius, as Augustus, was in possession of all the other provinces; of which, however, he had given to Cæsar Maximin the government of those of Asia, and to Cæsar Severus, now created Augustus, Italy and Africa. The latter, however, rendering himself odious by his oppression, Maxentius, the son of the former emperor, Maximianus, assumed the title of Augustus at Rome (Oct. 28, 306), and associated his father with himself in the government; so that at this time there were six rulers: Galerius, Severus, Constantine, Maximin, and the usurpers Maxentius and his father Maximianus. But in the year 307, Severus, wishing to oppose Maxentius, was abandoned by his own troops, upon which he surrendered himself to Maximianus, who caused him to be executed. In his place Galerius created his friend Licinius, Augustus; and Maximin obtained the same dignity from his army in Asia. In the mean time, Maximianus, after having endeavoured to supplant his own son in Rome, fled to Constantine, who had crossed over into Gaul and there defeated the Franks, 306; but having made an attempt upon the life of Constantine, who had married his daughter Fausta, that emperor caused him to be put to death, 310. As the excesses of Galerius soon brought him to the grave, 311, there only remained Constantine, Licinius, and Maximin, and the usurper Maxentius. The latter was soon defeated and slain, 312, before the gates of Rome, by Constantine, who thereby became master of Italy and the capital. A war having broken out about the same time between Maximin and Licinius, Maximin was defeated near Adrianople, and then killed himself, 313. The year 314 brought on a war between the two remaining emperors, Constantine and Licinius, which, however, ended the same year in an accommodation, by which Constantine obtained all the countries on the south bank of the Danube, as well as Thrace and Mœsia Inferior; it broke out again, however, in 322, and was finally terminated by a decisive victory in Bithynia, and the total overthrow of Licinius, whom Constantine put to death, 324.

At a period in which religious parties must almost necessarily have become political parties, we can by no means venture to judge of the importance of the sect by the importance of their points of doctrine. The quarrels of the Arians, which arose at this time, gave Constantine, by the council of Nice, 325, the opportunity he wished for, of making good his authority in religious legislation.

The various partitions of the empire from the time of Diocletian, had led the way to this change of the capital; because a natural result of that system was, that the emperors and Cæsars, when not with the army as they usually were, would reside in different cities. The seat of Diocletian's government was at Nicomedia; of Maximian's, at Milan; even Constantine himself remained but very little at Rome. In these new residences they felt themselves unfettered; and therefore, although the Roman senate existed till after the time of Constantine, its authority must have fallen of itself from the time of Diocletian.

According to the new division the whole empire was divided into four præfectures, each of which had its dioceses, and each[Pg 461] diocese its provinces. The præfectures were: I. The eastern (præfectura Orientis); it contained five dioceses; 1. Orientis; 2. Ægypti; 3. Asiæ; 4. Ponti; 5. Thraciæ; forming altogether forty-eight provinces, and comprising all the countries of Asia and Egypt, together with the frontier countries of Libya and Thrace. II. Præfectura Illyrici, containing two dioceses; 1. Macedoniæ; 2. Daciæ; forming eleven provinces, and comprising Mœsia, Macedon, Greece, and Crete. III. Præfectura Italiæ, containing three dioceses; 1. Italiæ; 2. Illyrici; 3. Africæ; forming twenty-nine provinces, and comprising Italy, the countries on the south of the Danube, as far as the boundaries of Mœsia; the islands of Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica, and the African provinces of the Syrtis. IV. Præfectura Galliarum, containing three dioceses; 1. Galliæ; 2. Hispaniæ; 3. Britanniæ; forming altogether twenty-eight provinces, and comprising Spain and the Balearian islands, Gaul, Helvetia, and Britain.—Each of these præfectures was under a præfectus prætorio (prætorian præfect), but who was merely a civil governor, and had under him vicarios, in the dioceses, as well as the rectores provinciarum, of various ranks and titles. They were named proconsules præsides, etc. Besides these, Rome and Constantinople, not being included in any of the four præfectures, had each its præfect.

As principal officers of state and the court (s. cubiculi), we now for the first time meet with the præpositus s. cubiculi (grand-chamberlain), under whom were all the comites palatii and cubicularii, in four divisions; these, at a later period, were frequently eunuchs of great influence; the magister officiorum (chancellor, minister of the interior); the comes sacrarum largitiorum (minister of the finances); the quæstor (the organ of the emperors in legislation; minister of justice and secretary of state); the comes rei principis (minister of the crown-treasury) [privy-purse]; the two comites domesticorum (commander of the household guards), each of whom had his corps (scholas) under him. The number of the state officers and courtiers was continually increasing. If the good of a commonwealth consisted in forms, ranks, and titles, the Roman empire must at this time have been truly happy!

At the head of the troops were the magistri peditum (masters of the infantry) and the magistri equitum (masters of the horse), under the magister utriusque militæ (general in chief of the whole army). Their subordinate commanders were called comites [Pg 462]and duces. Constantine considerably reduced the army. In the arrangement of the troops he also made great alterations; these, however, were but of slight consequence compared with that which was produced by admitting into the service a continually increasing number of barbarians.

Notitia dignitatem utriusque Imperii cum not. Pancirolli Græv. Thesaur. Antiquitat. Rom. vol. vii.

a. The land-tax, or indiction, which if not first introduced by Constantine was entirely regulated under him, was collected after an exact register, or public valuation, of all the landed estates. Its amount was yearly fixed and prescribed by the emperor (indicebatur), and levied by the rectors of provinces and the decurions; an arbitrary standard (caput) being taken as the rate of assessment.

As this register was probably reviewed every fifteen years, it gave rise to the cycle of indictions of fifteen years, which became the common era, beginning from September 1, 312. In this manner the tax included all those who were possessed of property. b. The tax on commerce; which was levied on almost every kind of trade. It was collected every four years, whence the aurum lustrale. c. The aurum coronarium grew out of the[Pg 463] custom which obtained of presenting the emperors with golden crowns on particular occasions; the value of which was at last exacted in money. Every considerable city was obliged to pay it.

Histoire de Constantin-le-Grand, par le R. P. Bern. de Varenne. Paris, 1778, 4to.

Vita di Constantino il Grande dell' Abb. Fr. Gusta. Fuligno, 1786. Both these works, especially the first, are written in a tone of panegyric; the latest, and by far the best, is

† Life of Constantine the Great, by J. C. F. Manso. Bresl. 1817. With several very learned appendixes, which clear up some particular points.

In the partition of the empire Constantine obtained the præfectura Galliarum, Constans the præfectura Italiæ et Illyrici, and Constantius the præfectura Orientis. But as Constantine desired to add Italy and Africa to his portion, he attacked[Pg 464] Constans, and thereby lost his life, so that Constans came into thee possession of the western countries. In consequence, however, of his wretched misgovernment, Magnentius, a general, proclaimed himself emperor in Gaul, and Constans was slain in endeavouring to escape, 350. A war with Constantius, who was then occupied in the east, became inevitable, and broke out 351. The usurper was defeated first at Mursa in Pannonia, then retreating into Gaul he was again defeated, 353; upon which he slew himself, together with his family.

† The Emperor Julian and his Times, by August. Neander. Leipsic, 1812. An historical sketch.

The Huns, a nomad people of Asia, belonged to the great Mongolian race. Having penetrated to the Don, 373, they subdued the Goths upon that river as far as the Theiss. The Goths, divided into Ostrogoths and Visigoths, were separated from one another by the Dnieper. The former, driven from their country, fell upon the Visigoths, in consequence of which the emperor Valens was requested by the latter to grant them admission into the Roman empire, and with the exception of the Vandals, who had been seated in Pannonia from the time of Constantine, they were the first barbarian nation that had been settled within the boundaries of the empire. The scandalous oppression of the Roman governor, however, drove them into rebellion; and as Valens marched against them, he was defeated near Adrianople and lost his life, 378.

P. Erasm. Muller, de genio sæculi Theodosiani. Havniæ, 1798, 2 vols. A very learned and in every respect excellent description of the deeply-decayed Roman world as it now stood.

Both Honorius and Arcadius, especially the latter, belonged to that class of men who never come to years of maturity; their favourites and ministers therefore governed according to their own inclination. Stilico, who made Honorius his son-in-law, was not deficient, indeed, in abilities for governing; and his endeavour to obtain the management of the whole empire, arose, perhaps, from the conviction that it was necessary he should have it. He could not, however, gain his object by intrigue; for after the murder of Rufinus; 395, he found a still more powerful opponent in the eunuch Eutropius, his successor in the east. Under the regency of Stilico, Gaul, in consequence of its troops being withdrawn to oppose Alaric, 400, was inundated by German tribes—by Vandals, Alani, and Suevi—who from thence penetrated even into Spain. Nevertheless, he preserved Italy from their attacks by the victory which he gained, 403, over Alaric at Verona; and again over Radagaisus, 405, who had advanced with other German hordes as far as Florence. But Stilico, having entered into a secret alliance with Alaric, for the purpose of wresting eastern Illyrica from the empire of the east, was overreached by the intrigues of the new favourite Olympius, whose cabal knew how to take advantage of the weakness of Honorius, and of the jealousy of the Roman and foreign soldiers. Stilico was accused of aspiring to the throne, and was executed August 23, 408. Rome lost in him the only general that was left to defend her. Alaric invaded Italy the same year, 408, and the besieged Rome was obliged to purchase peace; the conditions, however, not being fulfilled, he was again, 409, before Rome, became master of the city, and created Attalus, the præfect of the city, emperor instead of Honorius, who had shut himself up in Ravenna. In 410 he assumed the diadem; and, making himself master of the city by force, gave it up to be plundered by his troops. Soon afterwards, while projecting the capture of Sicily and Africa, he died in lower Italy. His brother-in-law and successor, Adolphus, together with his Goths, left Italy, now completely exhausted, 412, went into Gaul, and from[Pg 471] thence proceeding into Spain, founded there the empire of the Visigoths: he carried with him, however, Placidia the sister of Honorius, either as prisoner or as hostage, and married her in Gaul. During these events an usurper arose in Britain and Gaul named Constantine, 407: he was vanquished, and put to death, 411, by Constantius, one of Honorius's generals. This latter prince not only gave Constantius his sister Placidia, who had become a widow and was restored in 417, in marriage, but also named him Augustus in 421. He died, however, a few months after, so that Placidia henceforward had a considerable share in the government. She went nevertheless, 423, to Constantinople, where she remained until the death of Honorius.

† Fl. Stilico, or the Wallenstein of Antiquity, by Chr. Fr. Schulze, 1805. Not written by way of comparison.

Britain had been voluntarily left by the Romans since 427. In Africa, the governor Boniface having been driven into rebellion by the intrigues of the Roman general Ætius, who possessed the ear of Placidia, invited the Vandals from Spain, under the command of Genseric, to come to his assistance. The latter then obtained possession of the country, 429—439; indeed, even as early as 435, Valentinian was obliged to make a formal cession of it to them. Valentinian's wife Eudoxia, a Grecian princess,[Pg 472] was purchased by the cession of western Illyricum (Pannonia, Dalmatia, and Noricum); so that of all the countries south of the Danube there now only remained those which belonged to the præfecture of Italy: Rhætia and Vindelicia. On the south-east of Gaul was formed, 435, the kingdom of the Burgundians, which, besides the south-east part of France, comprised also Switzerland and Savoy. The south-west was under the dominion of the Visigoths. There remained only the territory north of the Loire which still submitted to the Roman governors; the last of whom, Syagrius, survived the fall of the empire itself; holding out till the year 486, when he was defeated near Soissons by Clodovicus, or Clovis, king of the Franks.

After the death of Valentinian, Maximus was proclaimed emperor; but as he wished to compel Eudoxia, Valentinian's widow, to marry him, she called over Genseric from Africa, who took and pillaged Rome, and Maximus perished after a reign of three months, 455. He was succeeded by M. Avitus, who ascended the throne at Arles; and he again was soon deposed by Ricimer, 456, who, just before, had defeated the fleet of the Vandals. Ricimer now placed upon the throne, first Julianus Majorianus, April 1, 457; but he, having distinguished himself in the wars against the Vandals, 461, was set aside, and Libius Severus put in his place, who, however, died in 465, probably of[Pg 474] poison. His death was followed by an interregnum of two years, during which Ricimer ruled, though without the title of emperor. At length the patrician Anthemius, then at Constantinople (where they never gave up their pretensions to the right of naming or confirming the sovereigns of the west), was, though not without the consent of the powerful Ricimer, named emperor of the west, April 12, 467, by the emperor Leo. But differences having arisen between him and Ricimer, the latter retired to Milan, 469, and commenced a war, in which he took and pillaged Rome, and Anthemius was slain. Ricimer himself followed soon after, † Aug. 18, 472. Upon this, Anicius Olybrius, son-in-law of Valentinian III. was proclaimed Augustus, but dying in three months, Oct. 472, Glycerius assumed the purple at Ravenna, without, however, being acknowledged at Constantinople, where they in preference named Julius Nepos Augustus. The latter, in 474, having expelled Glycerius, became also in his turn expelled by his own general Orestes, 475, who gave the diadem to his son Romulus Momyllus, who, as the last in the succession of Augusti, acquired the surname of Augustulus. In 476, however, Odoacer, the leader of the Germans in the Roman pay at Rome, sent him, after the execution of Orestes, into captivity, and allowed him a pension. Odoacer now remained master of Italy till the year 492, when the Ostrogoths, under their king Theodoric, founded there a new empire.