

E-text prepared by Adrian Mastronardi and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images generously made
available by Internet Archive/American Libraries
(http://archive.org/details/americana)



Note: Images of the original pages are available through
      Internet Archive/American Libraries. See
      http://archive.org/details/manualofancienth00heeriala





A MANUAL OF ANCIENT HISTORY,

Particularly with Regard to the Constitutions, the Commerce,
and the Colonies, of the States of Antiquity.

by

A. H. L. HEEREN;

Knight of the North Star and Guelphic Order;  Aulic Counsellor
and Professor of History in the University of Goettingen; and
Member of Several Other Learned Societies.

Translated from the German.

THE SECOND EDITION, CORRECTED AND IMPROVED.







Oxford:
Published By D. A. Talboys.
M DCCC XXXIII.

Oxford: Printed by Talboys and Browne.




TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE

TO THIS EDITION.


It is to the patient industry of the historians of Germany, that we are
indebted for the first production of Manuals of history, and for those
synchronistic tables which have so much facilitated the systematic study
of ancient history; and among the various and profound treatises of this
class which enrich and adorn their literature, the works of Heeren are
distinguished by their extended range of enquiry, as well as by the
minute accuracy of their details.

The work before us embodies the result of his laborious researches
during the long period in which he has been engaged as public lecturer
and professor of history in the university of Goettingen; and if it be
any recommendation of a work to know that its writer has had ample time,
ability, and opportunity to collect and elaborate his materials, it may
be asserted, without fear of contradiction, that the author of the
present work possessed all these advantages in an eminent degree. He has
spent the greater portion of his life in lecturing upon the subjects of
which it treats, and has in every case gone for his information
immediately to the fountain head. It forms, too, an important feature of
his work, that a list of the original sources, whence his own knowledge
has been drawn, is placed at the head of each section; another is added
of the principal writers who have touched upon or illustrated the
particular portion of history under notice; both being generally
accompanied with a few words of judicious criticism, in which the value
of the writer's authority is estimated, and his sources, circumstances,
and prejudices, briefly, but fairly set forth. Besides this advantage,
the work possesses the merit of combining the convenience of the Manuals
with the synchronistic method of instruction; as the geography,
chronology, and biography of the countries and states of the ancient
world are brought at once under the eye of the reader; and so lucid is
the arrangement, that the darkest and most entangled portions of history
are seen in a clear and perspicuous light. Professor Heeren seems,
moreover, to possess in a more eminent degree than any other writer, the
power of forcing, by a very few words, the attention of the reader upon
the most important facts of history; and of conjuring up in his thoughts
a train of reflections calculated at once to instruct and enlarge the
mind. His work is not only admirably adapted to become a text-book in
the study of history, but will be found equally serviceable as a book of
reference--it will guide the student in his untried and intricate
course, and enable the more advanced scholar to methodize his collected
stores. Perhaps in no work has so much important information been
condensed into so small a compass.

The estimation in which this Manual is held on the continent, may be
gathered from the fact of its having passed through six large editions
in German, and two in French, and from its having been translated into
almost every language of Europe.

The rapidity with which the first edition, as well as the other writings
of professor Heeren, have sold in this country, is a proof that they
only required to be known here in order to be appreciated. The favour
with which these translations have been received, both by the venerable
author himself and by the British public, has been a source of the
highest gratification to the publisher. The encouragement, so kindly
bestowed, has urged him to new exertions, the fruits of which, he
trusts, will be observable in the present volume. The Manual has not
only been revised and corrected throughout, but has also been diligently
compared with the German, and has received such ameliorations as the
original text or the English style seemed to demand. When it is added to
this that a very numerous body of corrections and improvements have been
sent to the publisher by professor Heeren himself, who has patiently
examined the translation expressly for this edition, he trusts that the
public will be satisfied that it is as faithful a copy of the original
work as the nature of things will allow.

In the preface to the last edition of this Manual the publisher
announced his intention, should it be favourably received, of following
it up by the publication of another elaborate work of the same author,
viz. A Manual of the History of the States of Modern Europe and their
Colonies, as forming one political System. This work will now very
shortly appear. As an apology for the delay which has taken place, he
begs to call to their notice another equally important work by the same
author, which he has published in the mean time; the Historical
Researches into the Politics, Intercourse, and Trade of the
Carthaginians, Ethiopians, and Egyptians, with a general introduction;
the remainder of this work, containing the Historical Researches into
the Politics, Intercourse, and Trade of the Ancient Asiatic Nations--the
Persians, Phoenicians, Babylonians, Scythians, and Hindoos, will
appear in a few weeks.

To add to the usefulness of the work, an analysis of the contents, with
dates, has been given in the margin. The # prefixed to some of the books
denote that they are written in German.

    OXFORD,
  _March, 1833_.




PROFESSOR HEEREN'S WORKS.


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 ueber den Verfasser.
    (Biographical Sketch of Heeren's Life, by himself.)

    1. Entwickelung der politischen Folgen der Reformation fuer 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 Nationalitaet besiegter Voelker.
    (On the Method of Preserving the Nationality of Conquered States.)
    Written in 1810, and suppressed by the French.

    2. Entwickelung der Folgen der Kreuzzuege fuer 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 franzoesische Sprache und
    Poesie. (On the Influence of the Normans on the French Language and
    Poetry).

    4. Ueber die Colonisation von Aegypten, und ihre Folgen fuer 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 buergerlichen Unruhen der Gracchen. (History of the
    Civil Commotions under the Gracchi).

    3. Fuenf archaeologische und antiquarische Aufsaetze. (Five
    Archaeological and Antiquarian Tracts).

  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. Heyne, 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 europaeische
    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. Phoenicians;
    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.




PREFACE

TO THE FIRST EDITION.


In adding to the number of Manuals on Ancient History already published,
I feel myself bound to give an account of the plan on which the present
has been executed.

It was at first designed to be used in my public lectures, and from them
it has grown up to what it now is. In them I did not consider it
necessary to state all we know or think we know of ancient history. Many
facts highly interesting to the learned historian are not adapted for
public lectures. It was therefore my great object to make choice of such
incidents as ought to be known by my pupils in order to the effectual
prosecution of their historical studies. Consequently I have not
extended my labours so far as to give an historical account of every
nation, but have limited myself to those most remarkable for their
general civilization and political eminence.

The subjects to which I have particularly directed my attention are, the
formation of states, the changes in their constitution, the routes by
which commerce was carried on, the share which the different nations
respectively took in its pursuit, and, as immediately connected with
that department, their extension severally by means of colonies.

The favourable reception which my larger work, executed after a
different plan, has met with, would lead me to hope for a like
indulgence in this new attempt, even if the spirit of the age did not so
loudly call upon every historian to direct his chief attention to these
subjects. And for this reason I could not rest satisfied with a mere
detail of isolated facts, but have made it my study to follow the course
of events, linking them into one connected chain; so as to represent
them in a condensed form by continually and carefully forcing together
the main circumstances which contributed to the development of the
whole.

Without this, history in general would be but a lifeless study, more
especially that of republics, which were so numerous in ancient times,
and which, from their constitution being made up of political parties,
everywhere present the most difficult problems for the historian's
solution. Of all the larger divisions of my work, the arrangement of the
Greek history I have found most troublesome, on account of the number of
little states into which it is sub-divided. Historians, indeed, lighten
this labour by confining themselves merely to Athens and Sparta; but by
so doing they give us a very imperfect knowledge of the subject. I have
endeavoured to surmount the difficulty by throwing the account of the
smaller states and their colonies into the second period; by which means
I have been able in the third and most important portion, the interest
of which depends entirely upon the principal states, to carry on my
history, as a whole without interruption. But in case others, who wish
to make this Manual the groundwork of their lectures, should dislike
this arrangement, they may very easily attach these notices to the
introductory geographical survey; a plan I very often adopt in my own
lectures. Upon the arrangement of the other parts, I am not aware of the
necessity of making any observations. The sources from which I have
drawn my materials are specified in every section. Particular references
do not come within my plan; and if I have referred several times in the
first two sections to my larger work, it is only on particular points,
explanations of which may be sought for in vain elsewhere.

Some knowledge of ancient geography and the use of maps[a], if it has
not been previously acquired by the student, should, I am convinced,
always be connected with lectures on ancient history. That this need not
extend to detailed explanations of ancient geography, but that it should
be restricted to what is merely useful in the study of history, I have
observed in the body of my work. The geographical chapters which are
interspersed having been written with this intent, will, I hope, be
judged of accordingly. I have taken care to arrange them so as to
include the whole of the ancient world; it depends, therefore, only upon
the teacher to form a more or less extensive course upon them.

  [a] I have made use of D'Anville.

With regard to chronology, I have followed throughout the same uniform
plan of computing time, viz. to and from the birth of Christ. By
preferring this method, so convenient and certain, to the inconvenient
and uncertain one of reckoning from the year of the world, I hope I have
deserved the thanks of my readers. I relinquish, on the other hand, all
claim to merit on the score of having more accurately defined the
chronology of events which occur before the time of Cyrus. I have, on
the contrary, in this part of my labour, often stated round numbers,
where, in many modern publications, precise dates may be found. Exact
determinations of time are only necessary, in my opinion, where a
continuous development of circumstances takes place; not where
unconnected facts are recorded.

The transactions of our own times have thrown a light upon ancient
history, and given it an interest which it could not formerly possess. A
knowledge of history, if not the only, is at least the most certain
means of obtaining a clear and unprejudiced view of the great drama now
performing around us. All direct comparisons, notwithstanding the many
opportunities which have tempted me, I considered as foreign to my plan;
but if, notwithstanding in some chapters of my work, particularly in the
history of the Roman republic, I may be thought to make a reference to
the transactions of the ten years during which this work has been
published, I do not consider it necessary to offer any excuse for so
doing. Of what use is the study of history if it do not make us wiser
and better? unless the knowledge of the past teach us to judge more
correctly of the present? Should I have contributed in any measure to
promote this object, and should I be so fortunate as to lead the minds
of my young friends to a deeper study of a science which can only in
this way reward its admirers, I shall esteem it the most delightful
recompense my labour can receive.

GOETTINGEN, Sept. 23, 1799.




PREFACE

TO THE SECOND AND FOLLOWING EDITIONS.


The call for a second edition of my Manual imposes upon me an obligation
to supply the deficiencies of my former work. Corrections have been
carefully made, and many parts completely re-written. A select list of
books which treat of the respective departments of my subject is now
first added; the former edition containing only references to the
sources from which my facts were derived. This, I trust, will be
considered an essential service to the friends of historical science,
more especially the young, for whom and not for the learned these
additions have been made. Their use in this place is particularly
obvious, where it is in every one's power to procure the books referred
to[b]. The short criticisms subjoined, where it seemed necessary, will
serve as guides for their use. In the author's department of the work
but little has been changed, while its form and appearance have been
improved by the use of different types, by more accurate running titles,
and by ranging the dates in the margin. By the adoption of the latter
method the increase in the number of pages is rendered inconsiderable,
notwithstanding the numerous additions which have been made to the
matter. In its arrangement, this work is the same as my Manual of the
History of the European States and their Colonies. Beyond this, however,
these works have no relation to each other, but have been executed upon
quite different principles; the present as a history of the _separate_
states of the ancient world, and the other as a general history of
modern states and their colonies, as forming altogether one political
system. Each, however, forms a complete work in itself, and it is by no
means my intention to fill up the gulf which time has placed between
them.

  [b] [The author alludes to the public library at Goettingen. TR.]

I regret that the acute researches of M. Volney[c], upon the chronology
of Herodotus before the time of Cyrus, came too late into my hands to be
made use of in its proper place in my second edition. In the third this
has been done. I lay claim, at the same time, to the thanks of the
reader for giving, in an Appendix, the results of these researches,
together with references to the passages by which they are supported;
leaving out, however, all extraneous matter, and everything that cannot
be proved by the positive assertions of the father of history.

  [c] Chronologie d'Herodote, conforme a son Texte par C. F. Volney.
      Paris, 1809, 3 vols. See the _Goett. Gel. Anz._ for 1810 and 1816.

I cannot close this preface without again recurring to the advantage of
the mode now becoming more and more general, of computing time in
ancient history according to the number of years before Christ. The fact
of its being certain and convenient has often been remarked; but besides
this it possesses the great advantage of giving us at once a clear and
precise notion of the interval that separates us from the incidents
recorded; which it is impossible to obtain by the use of any other era,
whether the year of the world, the olympiads, or the year of Rome, etc.
And yet this peculiar advantage, so great in the eyes of the teacher,
has not, to the best of my knowledge, been hitherto made the subject of
remark. Even for the science of history itself, this circumstance is of
greater moment than might be at first supposed. Should an enquirer arise
who would closely examine all ancient history according to this
era--setting out from the generally received year of the birth of Christ
as from a fixed point, to which the labours of M. Volney are a good
beginning--the whole science would thereby acquire a firmer consistency.
For by this method all dates would not appear equally certain and
equally uncertain, as they do in the eras which are computed from the
year of the world; but it would be shown what is chronologically
certain, what only probable, and what completely uncertain, according as
we should recede from the clearer into the more obscure regions of
history. The old manner of reckoning from the year of the world, in
which congruity was impossible, because there was no agreement upon the
point to start from, would certainly be thrown aside; but where is the
harm if something better and more certain be substituted in its place?

In the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth editions, though the increase in
the number of pages is small, yet all those additions and corrections
which I deemed necessary, and which the progress of knowledge and
discovery, as in the case of Egypt and other countries, enabled me to
effect, have been most carefully and fully made. The importance of these
will be best seen by comparison.

_Goettingen_, 1828.




CONTENTS.


                                                                  Page
  INTRODUCTION                                                       1


  Book I. Asiatic and African states previous to Cyrus              15

  General geographical outline of Asia                             ib.

  Preliminary and General Observations upon the History and
    Constitution of the great Asiatic Empires                       22

  History of the ancient Asiatic kingdoms before the reign of
    Cyrus                                                           25

    I. Assyrian monarchy                                           ib.

    II. Median monarchy                                             26

    III. Babylonian monarchy                                        27

    IV. States in Asia Minor                                        29
      1. Trojan empire                                             ib.
      2. Phrygian empire                                           ib.
      3. Lydian empire                                             ib.

    V. Phoenicia                                                    30

    VI. Syrians                                                     33

    VII. Jews                                                       34
      1. Period of the Nomad state from Abraham till the conquest
        of Palestine                                                35
      2. Period of the federative republic                          36
      3. Period of the monarchy from B. C. 1100-600                 38
        The Jewish state as one single kingdom                     ib.
        The Jewish state as a divided kingdom                       40

  African Nations                                                   45

  General geographical outline of Ancient Africa                   ib.

    I. Egyptians                                                    47

      1st Period. From the earliest times down to the Sesostridae,
        about B. C. 1500                                            51

      2nd Period. From the Sesostridae till the sole dominion
        of Psammetichus, B. C. 1500-650                             62

      3rd Period. From the reign of Psammetichus to the
        Persian conquest of Egypt by Cambyses, B. C. 650-525        69

    II. Carthaginians                                               73

      1st Period. From the foundation of Carthage to the
        wars with Syracuse, B. C. 880-480                           74

      2nd Period. From the breaking out of the wars with
        Syracuse to the commencement of those with Rome,
        B. C. 480-264                                               80

      3rd Period. From the beginning of the wars with
        Rome to the downfal of Carthage, B. C. 264-146              82


  Book II. History of the Persian empire from B. C. 560-330         90


  Book III. History of the Grecian states                          112

  Geographical outline of Greece                                   ib.

    1st Period. Traditional history down to the Trojan war,
      about B. C. 1200                                             118

    2nd Period. From the Trojan war to the breaking out
      of the Persian war, B. C. 1200-500                           127

  History of the Hellenic states within Greece                     ib.
    General history                                                ib.
    Sparta                                                         131
    Athens                                                         136

  Principal data for the history of the smaller states:

  I. Within the Peloponnesus:
    _a._ Arcadia                                                   142
    _b._ Argos                                                     ib.
    _c._ Corinth                                                   143
    _d._ Sicyon                                                    144
    _e._ Achaia                                                    ib.
    _f._ Elis                                                      145

  II. Central Greece, or Hellas:
    _a._ Megaris                                                   146
    _b._ Boeotia                                                   147
    _c._ Phocis                                                    148
    _d._ Locris                                                    ib.
    _e._ Aetolia                                                    ib.
    _f._ Acarnania                                                 149

  III. Northern Greece:
    _a._ Thessaly                                                  149
    _b._ Epirus                                                    150

  IV. Grecian Islands:
    _a._ Corcyra                                                   151
    _b._ Aegina                                                     ib.
    _c._ Euboea                                                    152
    _d._ The Cyclades                                              ib.
    _e._ Crete                                                     ib.
    _f._ Cyprus                                                    154

  History of the Grecian colonies                                  155

  General observations                                             ib.

  Colonies on the Western coast of Asia Minor:                     157
    1. Aeolian colonies                                            158
    2. Ionian colonies                                             159
    3. Dorian colonies                                             161

  Colonies on the coast of the Propontis and the Black sea         162

  Colonies on the coasts of Thrace and Macedonia                   163

  Colonies on the western coast of Greece                          164

  Grecian settlements in Lower Italy:
    _a._ Tarentum                                                  165
    _b._ Croton                                                    166
    _c._ Sybaris                                                   ib.
    _d._ Thurii                                                    167
    _e._ Locri Epizephyrii                                         ib.
    _f._ Rhegium                                                   168
    _g._ Cumae                                                     ib.

  Grecian settlements in Sicily:
    _a._ Syracuse                                                  169
    _b._ Agrigentum                                                174
    _c._ The smaller Sicilian cities                               175

  Colonies in Sardinia and Corsica                                 ib.

  Colonies in Gaul;--Massilia                                      176

  Colonies in Spain;--Saguntum                                     ib.

  Colonies in Africa;--Cyrene                                      ib.

  Period III. From the breaking out of the Persian wars to
    Alexander the Great, B. C. 500-336                             178


  Book IV. History of the Macedonian Monarchy:

  Period I. From its origin to the death of Alexander the
    Great, B. C. 800-323                                           206

  Period II. History of the Macedonian monarchy, from the death
    of Alexander the Great to the battle of Ipsus, B. C. 323-301   222

  Period III. History of the separate kingdoms and states
    which arose out of the dismemberment of the Macedonian
    monarchy, after the battle of Ipsus                            232

    I. History of the Syrian empire under the Seleucidae
      B. C. 312-64                                                 232

    II. History of the Egyptian kingdom under the Ptolemies,
      B. C. 323-30                                                 247

    III. History of Macedonia itself and of Greece, from the
      death of Alexander to the Roman conquest, B. C. 323-146      268

      Achaean league                                               280
      Aetolian league                                              279

    IV. History of some smaller or more distant kingdoms
      and states formed out of the Macedonian monarchy             290

      The kingdom of Pergamus                                      291
      Bithynia                                                     293
      Paphlagonia                                                  294
      Pontus                                                       295
      Cappadocia                                                   297
      Armenia                                                      298
      The kingdom of Parthia                                       299
      The kingdom of Bactria                                       305
      The restored kingdom of the Jews                             306
        1. Under the Persians                                      307
        2. Under the Ptolemies and Seleucidae                      308
        3. Under the Maccabees                                     309
        4. Under the family of Herod                               311


  Book V. History of the Roman state:

  Introductory remarks on the Geography of Ancient Italy           314

    Period I. From the foundation of Rome to the conquest of
      Italy, and the commencement of the wars with Carthage,
      B. C. 754-264, or A. U. C. 1-490                             321

    Period II. From the commencement of the war with Carthage
      to the rise of the civil broils under the Gracchi,
      B. C. 264-134, or A. U. C. 490-620                           339

    Period III. From the beginning of the civil broils under
      the Gracchi to the fall of the republic, B. C. 134-30,
      or A. U. C. 620-724                                          362

    Period IV. History of the Roman state as a monarchy till the
      overthrow of the western empire, B. C. 30-A. C. 476          402

  Geographical outline. View of the Roman empire and provinces,
    and other countries connected with it by war or commerce       ib.

    1st Section. From Augustus Caesar to the death of
      Commodus, B. C. 30-A. C. 193                                 411

    2nd Section. From the death of Commodus to Diocletian,
      A. C. 193-284                                                437

    3rd Section. From Diocletian to the overthrow of the
      Roman empire in the west, A. C. 284-476                      454


  Appendix. Chronology of Herodotus from the time of Cyrus,
    according to Volney                                            475


  Genealogical Table of the reigning houses of Macedon             481

  -------------------------------------------- the Seleucidae      482

  -------------------------------------------- the Ptolemies       483

  -------------------------------------------- the Jews            484

  -------------------------------------------- the Caesars         485

  -------------------------------------------- Constantine         486


       *       *       *       *       *


OXFORD: PRINTED BY TALBOYS AND BROWNE.


       *       *       *       *       *



MANUAL

OF

ANCIENT HISTORY.




       *       *       *       *       *




INTRODUCTION.


  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 primae lineae_.
  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 Medes el des Perses, des Macedoniens, des 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, _Elemens de l'Histoire Generale_. 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
  closely connected with the subject. Among these may be mentioned:

  GOGUET, _De l'Origine des Lois, des Arts, et des Sciences, et de
  leurs progres chez les anciens peuples; nouv. edit_. 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, Phoenicians, 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 Cyclopaedia) by Mr. KEIGHTLY, author of a learned and
  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.

1. The object of POLITICAL HISTORY is to recount the destinies of
nations, both in respect to their foreign relations and internal
affairs. In regard to domestic concerns, one of its most important
objects is the _history of governments_: in respect to external affairs,
it comprises not only an account of the wars, but likewise of the
friendly relations and intercourse with other states.

  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.

2. Universal political history is usually divided into three parts:
_ancient history_, that of the _middle ages_, and _modern history_. The
first extends to the fall of the Roman empire in the west, which took
place towards the close of the fifth century of the christian era; the
second extends to the discovery of America, and of a passage by sea to
the East Indies, about the end of the fifteenth century; the third
extends from the commencement of the sixteenth century to the present
time.

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

3. From the definition just given, it follows, that political history
does not commence till after the first formation of states. Whatever is
known, therefore, of the period previous to this, or may be gathered
from traditions, respecting individuals or tribes, or their migrations,
affinities, or discoveries, forms no part of political history, but must
be referred to the general history of man.

  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.

4. The sources of history may be ranged under sources of two general
heads; _oral traditions_, and _written documents_ of various kinds. The
history of every nation usually commences with oral tradition, which
remains the only source, until the art of writing becomes known, and in
some degree adopted by the people.

5. Under the name of _traditional history_ or _mythology_, is
comprehended all the general collection of oral traditions preserved by
a nation; and some such traditional history or mythology is to be found
among every people in the first stage of their existence as a community.
This mythology, however, is by no means confined to events strictly
historical, but embraces every branch of information which may appear to
a nation in its infancy, of sufficient importance to be preserved and
handed down to posterity.

  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.

6. The place of writing among such nations, is generally supplied, in a
great measure, by poetry; which being in its origin nothing more than
imagery expressed in figurative language, must spontaneously arise among
men, as yet wont to represent every thing to their minds under the form
of images. Hence the subject matter of the poetry of every nation, while
in a state of rudeness, is and can be nothing else but its mythology;
and the great variety in the materials of which this is composed very
naturally gave rise, at the same early period, to various kinds of
poetry; as the lyric, the didactic, the epic. The last of these,
inasmuch as it contains the historic songs and the epopee, claims in a
more especial manner the attention of the historian.

  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.

7. The second source of history, much more copious and important than
the former, are the various kinds of written monuments. These may be
arranged according to the order of time at which they were brought into
use, into three classes; 1st. Inscriptions on public monuments, under
which head are included the coins of later date; 2nd. Chronological
records of events, under the form of annals and chronicles; 3rd. Real
philosophical works on history.

8. Inscriptions on public monuments erected to preserve the remembrance
of certain events, though perhaps no more than a stone set upright, or
even a bare rock, was used for that purpose, were undoubtedly the most
ancient written memorials. These rude monuments became fashioned by art
into columns, obelisks, and pyramids, as the taste of the nation became
formed; and assumed that definite character which local circumstances
and the natural features of the country led it to adopt, as architecture
arose and attained to perfection among them. The very object, indeed,
for which they were erected--the commemoration of remarkable
events,--must have suggested the practice of inscribing upon them some
particulars of the facts they were intended to perpetuate. Of this
nature, no doubt, were the oldest monuments, and more particularly those
of Egypt. Their use was much more general among nations of a later
period, especially Greece and Rome, than among the moderns; yet of the
great mass of inscriptions still extant, but few comparatively are of
any importance as regards history.

  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 Phoenicians; 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_. Luccae, 1764. JAN. GRUTERI, _Inscriptiones antiquae
  totius orbis Romani, cura_ J. G. GRAEVII. Amstel. 1707, 2 vols. fol.

  C. A. BOEKHIUS, _Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, auctoritate et
  impensis Academiae literarum Borussicae_, 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.

9. Coins may likewise be regarded as a source of ancient history, as by
the light they throw upon genealogy and chronology, the events known
from other authorities may be better arranged and understood. The
importance of coins, therefore, becomes most sensible in those portions
of history where our information, in consequence of the loss of the
works of the original historians, is reduced to a few insulated facts
and fragments.

  EZ. SPANHEMII, _Dissertatio de Usu et Praestantia 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_. Viennae, 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 Universae Rei Nummariae Veterum_. 1785, sq. 5
  vols. 8vo.

10. Chronicles or annals form the second great division of written
historical monuments. These presuppose the invention of letters, and the
use of materials for writing upon; consequently they are of a later date
than mere inscriptions. They occur, nevertheless, in the earlier periods
of nations; and from such annals, indited by public authority (state
chronicles,) subsequent historians have generally drawn materials for
their works. In many nations, and in nearly all the eastern ones,
history has not even yet advanced beyond the composition of such
chronicles.

11. The third great division of historical writings is formed of works
composed on philosophical principles, which differ from mere annals by
their containing not only a chronological narration of events, but also
a development of their connection with one another, their causes and
effects.

  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 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.

12. Since all events are considered in reference to the time and place
in which they occur, it follows that geography and chronology are
indispensable as auxiliary sciences in the study of history, especially
the ancient. These sciences, however, need not, for this purpose, be
considered in their full extent and detail, but only so far as they are
of use in determining and arranging events according to time and place.
A fixed mode of computing time is therefore necessary in ancient
history, as well as a continuous geographical description of the
countries which were the theatres of the principal events.

13. No method of computing time was adopted generally in antiquity. Each
nation, each state, had its own era: yet, in the explication of ancient
history, there is an evident necessity that some common era should be
fixed upon, by which a synchronistic view of the various events may be
obtained. For this purpose, the years may be computed either from the
creation of the world, or before and after Christ. The latter method has
the advantage not only of greater certainty, but also of greater
convenience.

  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 Seleucidae, in the Syrian 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.]

14. In ancient geography there is much care required to distinguish the
fabulous from the true. With regard to true geography, as an auxiliary
science to history, all that can be expected is some general information
respecting the nature and peculiarities of the countries, respecting
their political divisions, and finally, respecting the principal
cities:--Long lists of the names of places would be quite superfluous.

  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, Rhaetia, 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, _Geographie des Grecs analysee_. Paris, 1790, 4to. A
  development of the system of mathematical geography among the
  Greeks. Partly continued in

  GOSSELIN, _Recherches sur la Geographie 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,

  _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  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.]

15. Ancient history may be treated either ethnographically, that is,
according to separate nations and states; or synchronistically, that is,
according to certain general epochs. Each of these methods has its
advantages and its disadvantages. The two, however, may be combined, and
formed into one system; and as this seems the most convenient, it has
been adopted in the present work, which is accordingly divided as
follows:

FIRST BOOK.--History of the ancient Asiatic and African states and
kingdoms anterior to Cyrus, or to the rise of the Persian monarchy,
about the year B. C. 560: comprising little more than insulated
fragments.

SECOND BOOK.--History of the Persian monarchy, from B. C. 560 to 330.

THIRD BOOK.--History of the Grecian states, both in Greece and other
parts, to the time of Alexander, B. C. 336.

FOURTH BOOK.--History of the Macedonian monarchy, and of the kingdoms
which arose out of its division, until they merged into the Roman
empire.

FIFTH BOOK.--History of the Roman state, both as a commonwealth and a
monarchy, until the fall of the western empire, A. D. 476.


       *       *       *       *       *




MANUAL OF ANCIENT HISTORY.




       *       *       *       *       *




THE FIRST BOOK.


   HISTORICAL FRAGMENTS OF THE EARLIER ASIATIC AND AFRICAN KINGDOMS AND
   STATES, PREVIOUS TO CYRUS, OR THE RISE OF THE PERSIAN MONARCHY.




I.--ASIATIC NATIONS.




_General Preliminary Remarks on the Geography of Asia._


  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.

1. Asia is the largest and the most favourably situated of the great
divisions of the globe. Its superficial contents are 11,200,000 square
geogr. miles; while those of Africa do not exceed 4,780,000; and those
of Europe are not more than 2,560,000. As to situation, it comprises the
greatest portion of the northern temperate zone.

  Compare it, in this point of view, with the other quarters of the
  globe, especially Africa.--Advantages over the latter, in
  consequence 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.

2. Natural features, and consequent division of the land, according to
the course of the larger mountain chains and of the principal rivers.

  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).

3. This quarter of the globe is accordingly divided into Northern Asia,
comprising the regions north of Altai; Central Asia, or the countries
between the Altai and Taurus; and Southern Asia, or the lands south of
Taurus.

4. Northern Asia, between the 76th and 50th parallels of north latitude,
(Asiatic Russia and Siberia,) was almost, though not entirely, unknown
in antiquity.--Some obscure hints, though partly true, respecting it,
are found in Herodotus, the father of history.

5. Central Asia, the regions extending between the 50th and 40th degrees
of north latitude, Scythia and Sarmatia Asiatica, (Great Tartary and
Mongol;) for the most part a boundless, barren table land, devoid of
arable fields or forests; and consequently a mere country of
pasture.--The inhabitants pastors, (nomads,) without cities or fixed
abodes; recognizing no other political association than patriarchal
government.

  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.

6. Southern Asia, or the regions from the 40th degree of N. lat. to
about the equator.--Its natural features altogether different from those
of central Asia. The great advantages of these regions compared with all
other parts of the earth, in possessing a soil and climate highly
favourable for agriculture; and an abundance of various costly
productions. To these circumstances may be attributed, 1st. The adoption
of fixed habitations and political associations in these countries, from
the earliest times. 2ndly. Their becoming the principal seat of trade,
from the infancy of civilization to the discovery of America.

  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 the Euphrates and Tigris,
  Babylon.--The sea shores on the western coast of Asia Minor and
  Phoenicia, pointed out also by nature as places of commerce;--line
  of Grecian and Phoenician factories.

7. Division of southern Asia. 1st. South-western Asia, from the
Mediterranean to the Indus; 2nd. South-eastern Asia, from the Indus to
the eastern ocean.

A. South-western Asia is again subdivided into the countries--1st. on
this side the Euphrates--2ndly. between the Euphrates and Tigris--3rdly.
between the Tigris and the Indus.

1. _Countries on this side the Euphrates._

(_a_) The peninsula of Asia Minor (Natolia). Principal rivers: the Halys
and Sangarius. Countries: three towards the west, Mysia, Lydia, Caria.
Along the shore, the Greek seaports of Phocaea, Ephesus, Miletus, Smyrna,
Halicarnassus, etc. Inland, the cities of Sardes in Lydia, of Pergamus
in Mysia.

Three towards the south, Lycia, Pamphylia, and Cilicia, with its capital
Tarsus.

Three towards the north, Bithynia, Paphlagonia, Pontus; with the Greek
ports of Heraclea, Amisus, and Sinope. Two inland, Phrygia, together
with Galatia and the capital cities of Gordium and Celaenae; Cappadocia,
with the city of Mazaca.

(_b_) Islands along the coast of Asia Minor: <DW26>s, with the city of
Mitylene; Chios, Samos, Cos, Rhodes, with cities of the same name.

(_c_) Syria, together with Phoenicia and Palestine. 1st. Syria,
properly so called. Cities: Damascus, Emessa, Heliopolis, (Baalbec). In
the desert, Palmyra. 2nd. Phoenicia, a mountainous tract, extending
along the shore. Mountains: Libanus and Antilibanus. Cities: Tyre, on an
island opposite the ancient Tyre, which was situate upon the mainland;
Sidon, Byblus, Berytus, Tripolis, Aradus. 3rd. Palestine. Mountains:
Carmel, Tabor. River: Jordan, which discharges its waters into the Dead
sea. Division of Palestine; first, according to the twelve tribes;
afterwards into the provinces, of Judaea, capital Jerusalem: of Samaria;
cities, Samaria, Sichem: and of Galilee.

(_d_) Peninsula of Arabia, abounding in vast sandy deserts, and almost
entirely occupied by nomad tribes. Its southern and eastern coasts
render it, nevertheless, a most important seat of trade. In the north,
Arabia Petraea, so called from the town of Petra. Inland, Arabia Deserta.
In the south, Arabia Felix; rich, both in natural productions, being the
native land of almost every kind of perfume, particularly frankincense;
and also as being the ancient staple for the merchandise of India.
Cities: Mariaba, Aden, etc. In the east, the trading town of Gerra, and
the islands near the shore, Tylos and Aradus, (Bahrein,) both likewise
marts for Arabian and Indian wares, particularly cinnamon from Taprobane
(Ceylon).

2. _Countries between the Euphrates and Tigris._

(_a_) Mesopotamia; in the interior a sterile table land, entirely
occupied by nomad hordes. Cities on the Euphrates: Thapsacus, Circesium,
Cunaxa; in the north, Zoba or Nisibis.

(_b_) Armenia, north of the foregoing. Very mountainous; for a long time
without cities, but at last it had Tigranocerta. Rivers: the Cyrus and
Araxes, falling into the Caspian; and the Phasis, falling into the Black
sea.

(_c_) Babylonia, the southern part of Mesopotamia, from which it was
separated by the Median wall. A level plain, remarkable for the richness
of its soil; formerly, by its high cultivation, its canals and lakes,
and the erection of dams, the most fruitful, and, from its situation,
the most opulent staple of inner Asia. Cities: Babylon on the Euphrates,
Borsippa.

  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.

3. _Countries between the Tigris and the Indus._

(_a_) Assyria, or the province of Adiabene; a table land. Cities:
Nineveh, (Ninus,) Arbela.

  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.

(_b_) Susiana, a fruitful district, with the city Susa on the river
Choaspes, or Eulaeus (Ulai), one of the residences of the Persian
monarchs.

(_c_) Persis, rugged and mountainous towards the north; level and
fruitful in the centre; sandy towards the south. Rivers: the Cyrus and
Araxes. Cities: Persepolis or Pasargada, the national palace and
cemetery of the kings of Persia.

  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
  central countries--Media, Aria, Arachosia: and three countries
  towards the north--Parthia and Hyrcania, Bactria, Sogdiana.

(_d_) Carmania, an extensive country, for the most part desert, ranging
along the Persian gulf and Indian sea. Cities: Carmana, Harmozia.

(_e_) Gedrosia, tract of land running along the coast between Carmania
and India, and washed by the Indian sea. A mere sandy desert; towards
the north, mountainous. Town, Pura.

(_f_) Media, above Persis; an extensive and very fruitful country;
mountainous towards the north. Rivers: Araxes, Cyrus, and Mardus.
Cities: Ecbatana, Rages. The northern district was likewise known by the
name of Atropatene (Azerbeijan), or Lesser Media.

(_g_) Aria, a smooth table land, with a lake and river, Arius: and one
city, Aria or Artacoana.

(_h_) Arachosia; a rich and fertile country on the frontiers of India;
bounded towards the north by the Paropamisus chain. Cities: Arachotus
and Prophthasia. The neighbouring highlands, occupied by a numerous
population, (now Cabul and Kandahar,) are often regarded, in consequence
of their being subject to the Persian dominion, as forming part of
Persia. They are known by the name of Paropamisus.

(_i_) Parthia and Hyrcania, rugged mountainous districts to the north of
Media; but abounding in magnificent and fertile vales. Before and during
the predominance of Persia, but little known and little valued; and
without cities. It was at a considerably later period that the
inhabitants of Parthia became a dominant nation.

(_k_) Bactria, the country on the south bank of the Oxus; rich in
natural productions, and one of the most ancient marts of Asia. River:
Oxus. Cities: Bactra and Zariaspa.

  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.

(_l_) Sogdiana, the territory between the upper Oxus and upper Jaxartes,
the latter dividing it from central Asia. (A part of Great Bukharia.)
Its peculiarities and advantages similar to those of the neighbouring
Bactria. Capital: Maracanda (Samarcand).

B. South-eastern Asia, or Asia beyond the Indus, offers nothing
remarkable for history till a later period. See Book v, Period iv.




_General Preliminary Observations upon the History and Constitution of
the great Asiatic Empires._


1. Asia contained in ancient times, as it does at present, empires of
immense extent, differing materially both in this respect and in their
constitution from the civilized nations of Europe. Changes were
frequent; but the form of government continued nearly always the same.
Some deeply rooted and active principles therefore must have been in
constant operation, to have given so repeatedly, in these various
revolutions, the same organization to the kingdoms of Asia.

2. The great revolutions of Asia, with the exception of that caused by
Alexander, were effected by the numerous and powerful nomad races which
inhabited a large portion of that continent. Pressed by necessity or
circumstances, they forsook their own seats, founded new kingdoms, and
carried war and conquest into the fruitful and cultivated lands of
southern Asia, until, enervated by luxury, the consequence of the change
in their mode of life, they were in their turn, and in a similar manner,
subjugated.

3. This origin, common to all Asiatic kingdoms, accounts for their
immense extent, their rapid establishment, and their generally brief
duration.

4. The internal organization must, for the same reasons, have been
nearly alike in all; and the constant reappearance of despotism is
accounted for, partly by the rights of conquest, partly by the vast
extent of the subdued countries, which obliged the rulers to have
recourse to satrap-government.

5. To this, it must moreover be added, that among all the considerable
nations of inner Asia, the paternal government of every household was
corrupted by polygamy: where that custom exists, a good political
constitution is impossible; fathers being converted into domestic
despots, are ready to pay the same abject obedience to their sovereign
that they exact from their family and dependants in their domestic
economy.

  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.

6. General features in the gradual internal development of all empires
formed by nomad conquerors. (_a_) At first the mere occupation of rich
territories, and levying of tribute. (_b_) Hence the constitutions
already established among the conquered or tributary nations generally
suffered to remain. (_c_) Gradual progress towards the adoption of a
fixed abode and the building of cities, together with the assumption of
the customs and civilization of the conquered. (_d_) Division into
provinces, and, as a necessary consequence, the establishment of
satrap-government. (_e_) Insurrections of the satraps, and the internal
ruin of the state prepared thereby. (_f_) The influence of the seraglio
on the government has the same effect, for its unavoidable consequences
are--effeminacy and indolence in the rulers. (_g_) Hence the dissolution
of the empire, or its total annihilation by some violent attack from
without.




_Fragments of the History of the ancient Asiatic Kingdoms previous to
Cyrus._


  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 Mem. 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.



I. _Assyrian monarchy._


1. With the Greeks, Assyrian is generally a common name applied to the
ruling nations about the Euphrates and Tigris before the time of Cyrus.
With the Jews, on the contrary, it signifies a distinct nation of
conquerors, and the founders of an empire. Hence a necessary discrepancy
between the Grecian and Hebrew statements.

2. Assyrian history, according to Grecian authorities, particularly
Ctesias and Diodorus, is nothing more than mere traditions of
ancient heroes and heroines, who at some early period founded a
large kingdom in the countries about the Euphrates and Tigris;
traditions without any chronological data, and in the style of the
east. Ninus--Semiramis--Ninyas--Sardanapalus.

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

3. Assyrian history, according to Jewish authorities. Chronological
history of an Assyrian empire between B. C. 800 and 700.--Seat of the
nation in Assyria, properly so called.--Capital: Nineveh on the
Tigris.--Extension of their dominion as far as Syria and Phoenicia.

  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.



II. _Median monarchy._


1. The name of Medes is undoubtedly often used by the Greeks to
designate one nation; it is, however, frequently made use of as a common
appellation of the ruling nations in eastern Asia, from the Tigris to
the Indus, (or Persia, in the more extensive sense of that word,) before
Cyrus.--With the Jews: nothing more than general hints of the Medes as a
conquering nation.

2. Although the statements of the Grecian writers, as well as of the
Zendavesta, sufficiently prove that long before the rise of the Persian
power mighty kingdoms existed in these regions; and particularly in the
eastern part, or Bactria; yet we have no consistent or chronological
history of these states: nothing but a few fragments, probably of
dynasties which ruled in Media, properly so called, immediately previous
to the Persians.

  _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._ Artaeus, 40 _y._ and Artynes, 22 _y._ Sanguinary wars with
  the nomad races of the east, the Sacae, 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.



III. _Babylonian monarchy._


Periods: 1st. Previous to the Chaldaean conquest, which occurred about
630. 2nd. From the Chaldaean conquest to the Persian, 630-538.

1. Babylon was not only spoken of in the most remote antiquity, but is
mentioned in the Jewish traditions as the earliest scene of political
treaties, and as the most ancient seat of intercourse for the nations of
Asia. Traditions concerning Nimrod--and the erection of the tower of
Babel.--Comparison of those traditions with the Babylonian mythology in
Berosus.--Scanty historical notices of this period in the later Jewish
writers; and probable subjection of Babylon to the Assyrian empire.

2. In the second period, 630-538, the Babylonians were the ruling nation
of western Asia.--The Chaldaeans take possession of Babylon, there
establish themselves, and ultimately extend their empire, by conquest,
to the Mediterranean.

  Origin of the Chaldaeans: whether that name was applied to a
  distinct nation, or to the northern nomads in general?--Line of
  Chaldaean 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 Chaldaeans 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
  Chaldaeo-Babylonian dominion, by his victory over Pharaoh-Nechoh,
  near Circesium, in 604. 2. Nebuchadnezzar, 604-561. Brilliant
  period of the Chaldaeo-Babylonian empire. He conquers Phoenicia 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 Chaldaean Belshazzar;) 555-538. attacked and conquered by
  Cyrus. Sack of Babylon by the Persians, 538.

  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.



IV. _States and kingdoms in Asia Minor._


The number and variety of the inhabitants of this peninsula, was
probably the reason why they never became united into one empire. The
most important nations among them, were the Carians in the west; the
Phrygians in the centre, reaching as far as the Halys; the
Syro-Cappadocians beyond the Halys; and the Thracians in Bithynia.
Nevertheless we find here but three kingdoms deserving notice--the
Trojan, the Phrygian, and the Lydian.


1. The Trojan empire comprised western Mysia: its history consists of
mere traditions contained in poets, with very uncertain chronological
data.

  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.


2. The Phrygian empire.--Almost all the kings were named Midas and
Gordius; their succession cannot be accurately determined. After the
death of the last, called Midas V., Phrygia became a province of the
Lydian empire, about 560.


3. The Lydian empire.--The Lydians (Maeonians) were a branch of the
Carian tribe. According to Herodotus, three dynasties ruled in Lydia;
the Atyadae down to 1232; the Heraclidae down to 727; and the Mermnadae
down to 557: the two first are almost wholly fabulous, and the proper
history of Lydia may be said to commence with the last dynasty.

  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. Croesus 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.



V. _Phoenicia._


The Phoenicians may be regarded as one of the most remarkable nations of
Asia during this period; yet we have no complete, or even connected
history of this people. But though a few scattered fragments are all we
possess, we may from these trace out a general outline.

  The peculiar sources of Phoenician 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, _Memoires sur les Pheniciens_; inserted in _Mem. de
  l'Acad. des Inscript._ t. xxxiv-xlii. A series of twenty-four
  papers.

  The section concerning the Phoenicians in A. H. L. HEEREN'S
  _Researches on the Politics, etc._

1. Observations on the internal state of Phoenicia. It did not
constitute one state, or, at least, one single empire; but consisted of
several, and their territories. Alliances, however, were naturally
formed between them, and hence a kind of supremacy of the more powerful,
particularly of Tyre.

2. But though Tyre stood at the head, and claimed a certain degree of
superiority, each separate state still possessed its own particular
government. In all of them we meet with kings, who appear to have
possessed but a limited authority, as we always find magistrates
associated with them in power. Among a mercantile and colonizing people,
it was impossible that absolute despotism should endure for any length
of time. Of the separate states, Tyre is the only one of which we
possess a series of kings; and even that series is not complete.

  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 Phoenicia 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.

3. During this period the Phoenicians spread themselves by the
establishment of colonies; some of which, particularly Carthage, became
as powerful as the mother states.

  General ideas concerning colonization.--1. Colonies are absolutely
  necessary to every seafaring and commercial people, 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.

4. Geographical sketch of the Phoenician colonies. They possessed, at a
very early period, most of the islands of the Archipelago; from which,
however, they were subsequently expelled by the Greeks. The principal
countries in which they had settlements were the south of Spain
(Tartessus, Gades, Carteia); the north coast of Africa, west of the
Lesser Syrtis (Utica, Carthage, Adrumetum); and the north-western coast
of Sicily (Panormus, Lilybaeum). It is likewise highly probable that they
formed settlements towards the east in the Persian gulf, on the islands
of Tylos and Aradus (Bahrein).

5. This sketch of the Phoenician colonies will give us some idea of the
extent of their sea trade and navigation; which, however, extended much
farther than their colonies. Among them, as among other nations,
commerce took its rise in piracy; even as late as the time of Homer, the
Phoenicians appear to have been freebooters. The principal objects of
their commerce were (_a_) the settlements in north Africa and Spain; the
latter more particularly, on account of its rich silver mines. (_b_)
Beyond the Pillars of Hercules, the west-coast of Africa; Britain and
the Scilly islands, for the purpose of procuring tin, and, very
probably, amber. (_c_) From Elath and Ezion-Gebar, ports situate at the
northern extremity of the Arabian gulph, they undertook, in connection
with the Jews, voyages to Ophir, that is to say, to the rich lands of
the south, particularly Arabia Felix and Ethiopia. (_d_) From the
Persian gulf, they extended their commerce to the western peninsula of
India and the island of Ceylon. Finally, (_e_) they made several
extensive voyages of discovery, among which, the most remarkable was the
circumnavigation of Africa.

6. Of no less importance was the land trade, mostly carried on by
caravans. The principal branches of it were: (_a_) The Arabian caravan
trade for spices and incense, imported from Arabia Felix, Gerra, and the
Persian gulf. (_b_) The trade through Palmyra with Babylon, which opened
them an indirect communication by way of Persia, with lesser Bukharia
and little Thibet, probably even with China itself. (_c_) The trade with
Armenia and the neighbouring countries in slaves, horses, copper
utensils, etc.

7. To all this must be added their own manufactures, particularly their
stuffs and dyes; (the purple, made of the juice of a marine shellfish;)
their manufactures of glass and toys, which, in their commerce with
uncivilized nations, generally carried on by barter, were turned to good
account. Many other important discoveries, among which the invention of
letters holds the first rank, are attributed to the Phoenicians.



VI. _Syrians._


1. The inhabitants of Syria dwelt in cities as early as B. C. 2000, when
Abraham wandered over their country. This country did not form one
single state, but consisted of several cities, each of which had its
separate territory, and its chief or king; of these cities, Damascus,
Hamath, etc. are mentioned in the most remote antiquity.

2. The Syrians were, however, often subjected by foreign conquerors; and
their country was certainly, at least in the time of David, a Jewish
province. It shook off the yoke, however, in the time of Solomon; when
Rezon, who had formerly been a slave, obtained possession of Damascus.

3. After this, there arose the kingdom of Damascus, which comprised the
greatest portion of Syria, the kings in the other cities becoming
tributary to Damascus. The boundaries of the empire, too, were extended,
and particularly at the expense of the divided kingdoms of Judah and
Israel.

  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.



VII. _Jews._


The history of the Jewish people, begins with Abraham the father of
their race; that of the Jewish state does not commence till after the
conquest of Palestine. It is divided into three periods. I. History of
the Jews, as a nomad horde, from Abraham till their settlement in
Palestine, B. C. 2000-1500. II. History of the Jewish state as a
federative republic under the high priests and judges, from B. C.
1500-1100. III. History of the Jewish state under a monarchical
government, from B. C. 1100-600, first in one kingdom,--975; afterwards
as two separate kingdoms, Israel and Judah, until the downfall of the
latter, 588.

  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 _Archaeologia_, 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'a 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.


I. _Period of the nomad state from Abraham to the conquest of
Palestine._--Under Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, nothing more at first than
a single nomad family; which, however, during its sojourn in Lower
Egypt, where, during four hundred and thirty, or, according to others,
two hundred and fifty years, it roved about in subjection to the
Egyptian Pharaohs,--increased to a nomad nation, divided into twelve
tribes. The nation, however, becoming formidable from the great increase
of its numbers, the Pharaohs, following the usual policy of the
Egyptians, wished to compel the Jews to build and inhabit cities.
Unaccustomed to restraint, they fled from Egypt under the conduct of
Moses; and conquered, under him and his successor Joshua, Palestine,
the land of promise.

  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.


II. _Period of the federative republic._ From the occupation of
Palestine to the establishment of monarchy, 1500-1100.

1. General character of this period as the heroic age of the nation,
which, after the gradual adoption of fixed dwellings and agriculture,
was engaged in constant feuds with its neighbours, the vagrant Arabs,
the Philistines, and the Edomites. Impossibility of exterminating
entirely the ancient inhabitants according to the intention of
Moses.--Hence the worship of Jehovah was never the _only_ religion in
the land.

2. Political organization. In consequence of the division of land,
according to tribes, and their separation from one another, the
government long remained patriarchal. Each tribe preserved its patriarch
or elder, as in the nomad state. All, however, had, in the worship of
Jehovah, one common bond, uniting them into one federate state.
Magistrates were likewise appointed in the cities, to whom scribes are
conjoined out of the Levite caste.

3. The permanent union of the nation, and preservation of the Mosaic
law, were likewise promoted by the distribution of the Levite caste into
forty-eight separate towns, situated in various parts of the country,
and by making the high priesthood hereditary in Aaron's family.

4. But when at the death of Joshua the people were left without a common
ruler, the tie of religion became insufficient to hold them together;
especially as the weaker tribes became jealous of the more powerful. At
this time the high priests appear to have had but little political
influence; and the national bond was only prevented from being dissolved
by the dread of a foreign yoke.

5. The Jews were sometimes independent, at other times tributary. In
seasons of oppression and distress heroes arose, jealous for the worship
of Jehovah, to deliver them from bondage. They acted as chief
magistrates and rulers of a part, or even the whole of the nation, and
as champions of the worship of the true God. The judges, particularly
Othniel, Deborah, and Sampson.--Concerning the marvellous in their
history.

6. Reestablishment of the worship of Jehovah by Samuel. He becomes
judge, and rules as Jehovah's minister.--His scheme of making the office
of judge hereditary in his own family is defeated by the conduct of his
sons. The nation demands a king, whom Samuel, as minister of Jehovah, is
called upon to appoint. His crafty policy in the election, which he
cannot impede. He chooses Saul, politically speaking, the most
insignificant man of the nation; but the tallest and most stately. A
formal constitutional act, according to the Mosaic command, is drawn up
and deposited in the national sanctuary.

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


III. _Period of the monarchy from 1100-600._


I. _The Jewish state as one single kingdom from 1100(1095)-975._

1. _Saul_, the new king, strengthened himself on the throne by a victory
over the Ammonites; and a general assembly of the nation, in which
Samuel laid down his office as judge, unanimously acknowledged his
sovereignty. But Saul, no sooner became a conqueror than he threw off
the tutelage of Samuel, and ventured himself to consult Jehovah. This
was the occasion of a feud between them. Samuel, offended, privately
anointed another young man, David the son of Jesse, as king. David
acquires fame and popularity by his heroic conduct; but has much
difficulty in escaping the jealousy of Saul.--Saul sustains himself amid
constant wars with the neighbouring nations; but at last defeated, he
and all his sons, except one, lose their lives.

2. State of the nation and constitution under Saul.--The king little
more than a military leader under the direction of Jehovah; without
either court or fixed residence.--The people still a mere agricultural
and pastoral race, without wealth or luxury; but gradually assuming the
character of a warlike nation.

3. Saul was succeeded by David; but not without opposition. Eleven
tribes declare for Ish-bosheth, the remaining son of Saul; and David is
only acknowledged by his own tribe, Judah. It is not till seven years
later, and the murder of Ish-bosheth by his own people, that David is
recognized as king by the whole nation.

4. Complete formation of the nation, and a change of constitution during
the reign of David over the united kingdom, which lasted thirty-three
years. Jerusalem is made the seat of government and of the national
sanctuary. Rigid observance of the worship of Jehovah, the exclusive
religion of the nation, considered in respect to its political
consequence.

5. Vast aggrandizement of the Jewish state by conquest. A war with
Hadadezer opens the way to the conquest of Syria and Idumaea. Extent of
the kingdom from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean; from Phoenicia to
the Red sea. Gradual decline towards despotism and seraglio government;
the political consequences of which become apparent about the end of
David's reign, in the rebellion of his sons.

6. Reign of Solomon. The brilliant government of a despot from the
interior of his seraglio; unwarlike, but civilized, and fond of parade.
New organization of the kingdom for the support of the court.
Connections formed with the neighbouring states, particularly with Tyre;
hence a participation in the southern trade carried on from the ports of
the Red sea, conquered by David; but only as a monopoly of the court.

7. The capital enriched by the splendour of the court; but the country
oppressed and impoverished, particularly the distant tribes. Gradual
internal decay hastened by the admixture of the worship of foreign gods
with that of Jehovah; although Solomon, by the erection of the temple
according to the plan of his father, seems to have wished to make the
worship of the true God the only religion of the country. An
unsuccessful attempt at rebellion made by Jeroboam; and by the Edomites,
who remain tributary under their own kings: actual secession, even
during the reign of Solomon, of the conquered province of Syria by the
foundation of the kingdom of Damascus.

8. Solomon is succeeded by his son Rehoboam, who has scarcely ascended
the throne, before the malcontents, increased in number by his
imprudence, break into open rebellion. Jeroboam is recalled from Egypt,
and ten tribes acknowledge him as their king. Only two tribes, Judah and
Benjamin, remain faithful to Rehoboam.


II. _The Jewish state as a divided kingdom, 975-588._

1. Reciprocal relations between the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel.
Although Israel was more extensive and populous than Judah, yet was
Judah, in consequence of possessing the capital, richest of the two;
thus their power was nearly balanced; and hence the struggle between
them was the more obstinate.

2. The kings of Israel seek to confirm the political division of the
nation, by establishing a new form of worship within their dominions, in
order to restrain their subjects from visiting the ancient seat of the
national worship at Jerusalem; hence they were considered as the enemies
of Jehovah. Several kings, however, even of Judah were so impolitic as
to mingle the worship of other gods with that of Jehovah. But oppression
itself serves to sustain the worship of Jehovah; the number and
political influence of the prophets increase in proportion as men feel,
amid the turbulence of the times, need of the counsels of the true God;
the idea of some future happier period under a mighty king--the idea of
the Messiah and of his kingdom--is more fully developed by the lively
recollection of the splendid reign of David.--Schools of the prophets.

3. The rivalry and wars between those two states not only continue with
slight interruption, but become more and more fraught with danger, in
consequence of the alliances entered into with foreign princes,
particularly with the kings of Damascus and Egypt. An end is at length
put to these feeble kingdoms by the rise of vast empires in Inner Asia.

  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 the Phoenician 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 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 Idumaea, 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 Phoenician 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
  Chaldaeo-Babylonian 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
  Judae 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.




II. AFRICAN NATIONS.




_General Geographical Outline of Ancient Africa._


  See A. H. L. HEEREN'S _Historical Researches_, etc. African Nations.
  2 vols. 8vo. Oxford, 1831.

1. Although the Phoenicians had circumnavigated Africa, the northern
part only of that quarter of the globe was known to antiquity.

With that part, however, the ancients were better acquainted than we are
at the present day, the coast being then occupied by civilized and
commercial nations, who pushed their excursions far inland. This was the
case in early times with the Carthaginians and the Egyptians; still more
so with the Macedonian Greeks, under the Ptolemies, and under the
Romans. War, hunting, and commerce, were, generally speaking, the
objects which gave rise to those excursions.

2. Considered as a whole, Africa is very different from Asia, both in
situation and form. Asia lies almost entirely within the temperate,
while Africa is almost wholly under the torrid zone. Asia abounds in
deep gulfs and large rivers; Africa constitutes a regular triangle, and
in its northern half possesses but two large rivers, the Nile and the
Niger. No wonder, then, that this portion of our globe should form, as
it were, a world in itself, distinguished by its productions and its
inhabitants.

3. Physically considered, Northern Africa may be divided into three
regions, distinguished in early antiquity by separate names. The
maritime country along the Mediterranean, with the exception of
Tripolis, or the Regio-Syrtica, consists principally of very fertile
districts, and was consequently, at all times, very thickly inhabited:
hence in Herodotus it bears the name of the _inhabited Africa_; it is
now called Barbary. Above this, and under the 30th parallel of N. lat.,
succeeds a mountainous tract, across which stretches the Atlas chain of
mountains; abounding in wild beasts and dates: hence Herodotus calls it
the _wild beast Africa_: among the Arabs it is called the land of dates,
(_Biledulgerid_.) Beyond this, and between the 30th and 20th degrees of
N. lat. the sandy region extends right across Africa and Arabia: this
part of Africa is therefore known, both among the ancients and moderns,
under the name of Africa Deserta, or the Sandy Desert, (Sahara). The
fruitful lands beyond the desert, stretching along the banks of the
Niger, were almost wholly unknown to the Greeks: by them these parts
were comprehended under the common name of Ethiopia, although that name
applied more peculiarly to the districts above Egypt. The Greeks were,
however, acquainted with some of the fruitful spots in the desert, the
Oases; such as Augila, Ammonium, and the Oases, properly so called, in
Egypt.

4. There exists no political division which comprises the whole of
Africa. The north coast alone was inhabited by civilized nations:
Egyptians, Cyrenaeans, and Carthaginians; of which the first only were
aboriginals. The rest of the inhabitants either roved about as nomad
hordes, or formed insignificant states, of whose existence we have
heard some account, though we possess no history of them. Along the
shore, reckoning from the Plinthinetic gulf, Egypt is succeeded by: 1st.
Marmarica, a tract without cities, consisting principally of sandy
deserts, occupied by nomad hordes: this country extends from the 40-47 deg.
E. long. from Ferro. 2nd. The fertile territory occupied by the Greek
colonies, called Cyrenaica, extended to the Greater Syrtis, 37-40 deg. E.
long. Cities: Cyrene, Barca. 3rd. The territory of Carthage, extending
from the Greater Syrtis to the Fair Promontory, 25-40 deg. E. long. This
territory comprised (_a_) the country between the Greater and Lesser
Syrtis, (Regio Syrtica,) which constitutes the modern kingdom of
Tripoli; a sandy tract, almost wholly occupied by nomads. (_b_) the
territory of Carthage, properly so called, (kingdom of Tunis). A very
fruitful country; the southern part, called Byzacena, the northern part
Zeugitana. Cities: Carthage, Utica, etc. 4th. Numidia and Mauritania;
occupied during the Carthaginian age by nomad races. Along the shore
some Carthaginian settlements.



EGYPTIANS.


Preliminary remarks. Egypt in its superficial contents is equal to about
two-thirds of Germany, and may therefore justly be ranked among the more
extensive countries of the globe; it greatly varies, however, in its
physical properties. The soil is only sufficiently fertile for tillage
on the banks of the Nile, and as far as the floods of that river extend;
beyond that, on the west, is a sandy desert, on the east a chain of
rocky mountains. From its entrance into Egypt at Syene, the Nile flows
in one undivided stream to the city of Cercasorus, 60 geogr. miles above
its mouth, directing its source from south to north through a valley
from 8 to 16 geogr. miles broad, bounded on the west by deserts of sand,
and on the east by mountains of granite. At Cercasorus the stream first
divides itself into two main branches, which formerly discharged their
waters into the Mediterranean, the eastern near the city of Pelusium,
the western near the city of Canopus (_ostium Pelusiacum et Canopicum_;)
from these two diverged several intermediate branches; so that in the
time of Herodotus there existed seven mouths of the Nile, but the number
has not always remained the same. The tract between the two extreme arms
of the Nile bears, in consequence of its triangular form, the name of
the Delta; it was covered with cities, and highly cultivated. The
fertile part of Egypt, inhabited by civilized men, was therefore
confined to the Delta and the valley of the Nile, on the two banks of
the stream from Syene to Cercasorus; to which must be added some well
watered spots in the centre of the western desert, known under the name
of the Oases. In consequence of the perpetual absence of rain,
particularly in Upper Egypt, the fertility of the Delta and the valley
of the Nile depends on the overflowing of the river, which happens at
stated periods. This commences at the beginning of August and continues
to the end of October; so that during three whole months the
above-mentioned parts of the country are under water.

Egypt is divided into Upper, extending from Syene to the city of
Chemmis, (capital, Thebes, or Diospolis); Central from Chemmis to
Cercasorus, (capital, Memphis,) and Lower Egypt, which comprises the
Delta, and the land on both sides: it was full of cities, among which
the most remarkable was Sais.

Next above Egypt lies Ethiopia, (_Aethiopia supra Aegyptum_); which, from
the earliest times, principally through commerce, appears to have been
closely connected with the former country. The regions immediately above
Egypt, usually called Nubia, are little more than deserts of sand, still
inhabited by roving hordes of nomad robbers. The rocky mountain chain,
which forms the eastern boundary of Egypt, stretches along the Red sea,
and was formerly of great importance to Nubia, from its containing, just
above the Egyptian frontier, productive gold mines. The Nile, in this
country, makes a wide curve to the west, and becomes so full of shallows
as to render navigation difficult. The lands adjoining the river,
however, are fertile and well inhabited; and contain numerous ancient
monuments. Still higher up, reckoning from 16 deg. N. lat. the appearance
of the country changes; the region of fertility commences, and its costly
productions, its gold and its perfumes, gave rise to a profitable
commerce. Among these countries, Meroe, with its capital of the same
name, was celebrated in the days of Herodotus. By Meroe is understood a
tract of land bounded by two rivers, the Nile on the west, and the
Astaboras, (Tacazze,) which falls into the Nile, on the east; for this
reason it is frequently, although improperly, called an island. This
country extended towards the sources of the Nile, or the modern province
of Gojam, where, under the reign of Psammetichus, the Egyptian caste of
warriors, having for the most part deserted, established themselves.
Meroe itself, like the Egyptian states, was sacerdotal, with a king at
its head.--The city of Axum, or Auxume, is not indeed mentioned at so
early a period; but if we may judge by the ruins that still remain, it
was of equally high antiquity with the old Egyptian towns and with
Meroe. The same observations apply to Adule, the harbour on the Arabian
gulf.

The Egyptian history is divided into three periods of unequal duration;
the _first_ of which extends from the earliest time down to the
Sesostridae, that is to say, to about B.C. 1500: the _second_ comprises
the reigns of the Sesostridae, or the brilliant period of Egypt, down to
Psammetichus, 1500-650: the _third_ brings us from Psammetichus down to
the Persian conquest, 650-525.


FIRST PERIOD.

_From the earliest times down to the Sesostridae, about B. C. 1500._

  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,
  (_hieroglyphes phonetiques_,) 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 emblematic, 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, _Precis du Systeme Hieroglyphique des anciens
  Egyptiens_. Paris, 1824. The main work on this subject, of which
  the _Lettre a M. Dacier_, 1822, is but the precursor, and the two
  _Lettres a 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 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 _Graecised_ 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 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 Hecataeus. 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
  _Aegyptiaca_, 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, _Oedipus
  Aegyptiacus_, 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 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 Aegyptiacum_, 1750, 8vo.

  GATTERER, _Commentationes de Theogonia Aegypt_. in _Commentat.
  Societ. Gotting._ t. vii.

  _De Origine et Usu Obeliscorum, auctore_ G. ZOEGA; Romae, 1797.

  _L'Egypte sous les Pharaons, ou Recherches sur la Geographie, 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 Herodoteae, scribebat_ FRID. CREUZER. _Aegyptica 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, Antiquites_, 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, _Antiquites de la Nubie_, Paris, 1824. A worthy
  continuation of the great French work on Egypt.

  FR. CAILLAUD, _Voyage a Meroe et au Fleuve Blanc_, Paris, 1825,
  contains the description of the monuments of Meroe.

1. Political civilization commenced in Egypt at a much earlier period
than that to which history reaches; for even in the days of Abraham,
and still more so in those of Moses, the government seems to have been
so well organized, that a long period must necessarily have elapsed in
order to raise the nation to that degree of civilization which we see it
had then attained. It may, therefore, be safely asserted, that Egypt
ranks among the most ancient countries of our globe in which political
associations existed; although we cannot determine with equal certainty
whether they did not exist still earlier in India.

2. The causes which contributed to render Egypt thus early a civilized
state, may be found in the natural features of the country, and its
favourable situation, when compared with the rest of Africa. It is the
only tract in all northern Africa situated on a large uninterrupted
navigable stream: had it not been for this, it would, like the other
parts of Africa under the same parallel, have been a mere desert. To
this must be added two extraordinary circumstances: on the one hand, the
overflowing of the river so perfectly prepares the soil, that to scatter
the seed is almost the only labour of the husbandman; and yet, on the
other hand, so many obstacles impede the progress of agriculture, (by
the necessity of canals, dams, etc.) that the invention of man must
necessarily have been awakened. When agriculture, and the kind of
knowledge requisite for its ulterior development had introduced a
certain degree of civilization into Egypt, the situation of that
country, between Asia and Africa, and in the neighbourhood of the rich
land of gold and spices, must have been highly favourable to the
purposes of international commerce; hence Egypt appears in all ages to
have been one of the chief seats of the inland or caravan trade.

3. It is obvious, therefore, that in the fertile valley of the Nile, the
course of things must have been very different from what it was in the
desert of Libya. Several small states appear to have been formed in this
valley long before the existence of any great Egyptian kingdom. Their
origin, as might naturally be supposed, is enveloped in an obscurity,
which history can no longer entirely penetrate. It may still, however,
be gathered from monuments and records, that Upper Egypt was first the
seat of civilization; which, originating in the south, spread by the
settlement of colonies towards the north. It is probable that this took
place in consequence of the migration of some tribe, differing from the
<DW64>s, as is proved by the representations, both in sculpture and in
painting, found on the yet remaining monuments of Egypt.

4. The records of the high antiquity of political civilization, not only
in India, but likewise in Arabia Felix and Ethiopia, particularly in
Meroe, and the evident vestiges of ancient intercourse between the
southern nations of our globe, prove with sufficient evidence the truth
of such migrations, although they cannot be chronologically determined.
It is certain, however, that religion had no small share in producing
them. The national bond of union in Egypt not only continued in later
times, entirely dependent upon religion, but was originally grounded
upon it. Thus every step in political civilization must have depended,
if not solely, at least principally, on the caste of priests and on
their extension.

  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.

5. The peculiarity of this caste was the worship of certain deities, the
principal of which were Ammon, Osiris, and Phtha, confounded by the
Greeks with their Jupiter, Bacchus, and Vulcan. The spread of this
worship, which was always connected with temples, affords, therefore,
the most evident vestiges of the spread of the caste itself; and those
vestiges combined with the records of the Egyptians, lead us to conclude
that this caste was a tribe which migrated from the south, from beyond
Meroe in Ethiopia, and by the establishment of inland colonies around
the temples founded by them, gradually extended and made the worship of
their gods the dominant religion in Egypt.

  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.

6. This conjecture, which agrees with the usual progress of population,
is corroborated by the very ancient division of the country into
districts, or nomes. This division was intimately connected with the
chief temples, each of which represented a separate colony of the caste
of priests; so that the inhabitants of every home belonged to the chief
temple, and joined in the religious worship there performed.

7. To the gradual extension of this civilized tribe, which comprised,
not only the caste of the priests, but certainly also that of the
warriors, and perhaps some others, may be attributed the formation of
several small states along the banks of the Nile; the central point of
each being always such a colony as we have just now described; although
each state consisted both of the aboriginal tribes of the neighbourhood,
and of those that had migrated into the country. The bond which united
every separate state was, therefore, as in most of those formed in the
infancy of mankind, a common worship, in which all the members
participated. But what, by reason of the peculiarities of soil and
climate, could not take place in southern Africa, took place in Egypt:
agriculture, and its progressive improvement, became the great support
of civilization; and, as being the true foundation of states, formed the
principal political object of the ruling caste.

  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.

8. According to Manetho's catalogues, these separate Egyptian states
existed first in Upper and Middle Egypt; in the former were Thebes,
Elephantine, This, and Heraclea; in the latter, Memphis. It is only in
the last division of his work that we meet with states in Lower Egypt,
such as Tanis, Mendes, Bubastis, and Sebennytus.

  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.

9. In the absence of a certain and continuous chronology, it is
impossible to determine accurately which of these states were
contemporary, and which succeeded the others. There can be no question
that Thebes was one of the earliest, if not indeed the most ancient of
them all; certainly prior to Memphis, which was founded by it. According
to the natural order of things, some of these states became wealthy and
mighty, and swallowed up the others. Even at this early period, Thebes
and Memphis had obtained a superiority over the rest.

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

10. The Mosaic records prove, that even in Joseph's time the state of
Memphis (the real place, it appears, of his residence, not On, or
Heliopolis,) comprised Middle and Lower Egypt. It possessed a numerous
and brilliant court; castes of priests and warriors. Its agriculture
flourished, and several of its institutions indicated a deeply-rooted
civilization. But after the establishment of vassalage in this state by
Joseph, when the class of free proprietors was destroyed, by making the
king the only landholder except the priests, the troubles which already
threatened the kingdom must have assumed a more dangerous and alarming
aspect.

11. These troubles came from abroad. Egypt, surrounded on all sides by
nomad tribes, had often suffered from their irruptions, which sometimes
poured in from the south, sometimes from the east. But never were these
invasions so frequent and durable as in the period which immediately
followed the administration of Joseph. Lower Egypt was overrun by the
Bedouin Arabs, whose chieftains, called by the Egyptians _Hyksos_,
settled in the country, fortified Avaris, or Pelusium, and extended
their dominion to Memphis, which they made probably the seat of their
government. They are depicted as the oppressors of religion, and of the
caste of priests; but when we consider that Moses flourished in their
time, we are led to infer that, like the Mongols in China, they must
have gradually adopted Egyptian manners and civilization. They do not
appear to have gained possession of Thebes in Upper Egypt; and it seems
highly probable, that the long struggle against them was never, or at
least but for a short time, suspended.

  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.

12. Defeat, and final expulsion of the Hyksos from Upper Egypt by
Thutmosis king of Thebes. The consequence of this event was not only
the restoration of freedom and independence to Egypt, but also the
union of the different states into one kingdom; as the rulers of Thebes
now became monarchs over all Egypt. This expulsion of the Hyksos, which
in itself cannot be considered otherwise than as a vast national effort,
must have been the more deeply impressed on the memory of the people, as
it laid the foundation of the splendid period which immediately
followed.

  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.


SECOND PERIOD.

_From the Sesostridae until the sole dominion of Psammetichus.
B. C. 1500-650._

  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.

  HERODOTUS.                          DIODORUS.

  _Menes._                            _Menes._

  He was followed by three            Followed by fifty-two successors,
    hundred and thirty kings            ranging over a period of more
    belonging to the previous           than 1400 years.
    period, concerning which our
    information is very incomplete:   _Busiris I._ and eight successors;
    among those sovereigns were         the last of whom was
    eighteen Ethiopians, and one
    queen named Nitocris.             _Busiris II._ the founder of
                                        Thebes.

                                      _Osymandyas_ and eight successors;
                                        the last of whom was

                                      _Uchoreus_, founder of Memphis.

                                      _Aegyptus_, grandson of the
                                        foregoing. After the lapse
                                        of twelve generations,

  _Moeris._                           _Moeris._

                                      Seven generations.

  _Sesostris._                        _Sesostris_ or _Sesoosis_.

  _Pheron_, son of Sesostris.         _Sesostris II._ son of the
                                        foregoing: he assumed his
                                        father's name.

                                      Interval comprising several
                                        generations.

                                      _Amasis_, and the Ethiopian,

                                      _Actisanus._

                                      _Mendes_ or _Manes_, builder
                                        of the labyrinth.

                                      Anarchy which lasted five
                                        generations.

  _Proteus_, in the time of the       _Proteus_ or _Cetes_, in the time
    Trojan war.                         of the Trojan war.

  _Rhampsinitus._                     _Remphis_, son of the foregoing.

                                      Seven generations, in the course
                                        of which flourished _Nileus_,
                                        from whom the Nile derives
                                        its name.

  _Cheops_, builder of the great      _Chemmis_ or _Chembes_, from
    pyramid.                            Memphis, builder of the great
                                        pyramid.

  _Chephres_, brother to the          _Cephren_, brother to the
    foregoing, builder of a pyramid.    foregoing, builder of a pyramid.

  _Mycerinus_, son of Cheops,         _Mycerinus_, son of Chemmis,
    builder of a pyramid.               builder of a pyramid.

  _Asychis_ the legislator.           _Bochoris_ the legislator.

  _Anysis_, who was blind.            Interval of several generations.

  _Sabaco_, the Ethiopian.            _Sabaco_, the Ethiopian

  _Anysis_, king for the second
    time.

  _Sethos_, a priest of Vulcan.

  Dodecarchy.                         Dodecarchy.

  _Psammetichus_ of Sais, sole        _Psammetichus_ of Sais, sole
    ruler.                              ruler.

  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 Moeris 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.

1. The following period, nearly to its termination, was the brilliant
age of Egypt, during which it formed but one empire; the kings being
represented as sovereign lords of the whole country. And, indeed, it was
natural that the expulsion of the invaders should be followed by a
period in which the military force and ardour of the nation would be
developed, and directed to external conquest. The capital of the empire
was, no doubt, Thebes, the great monuments of which were erected in this
period; that honour, however, seems to have alternately belonged to
Memphis, Herodotus's line of kings being deduced from the monuments of
that city, and more especially from the temple of Phtha.

  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, between 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.

2. For this splendour, the empire was principally indebted to Sesostris,
son of Amenophis. This prince is justly entitled to the surname of
Great, which was given him by the Egyptians. No one will, to the letter,
credit the narrative of his deeds, exaggerated as they were by the
traditions of the priests, or represented, as they still appear, on the
buildings of Thebes; but who can doubt the existence of a monarch of
whom so many and such various monuments within and without Egypt bear
witness?

  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.

3. Notwithstanding the great changes that were made, the constitution
still bore the same general character, that of a sacerdotal aristocracy
combined with a monarchy. Although the Egyptian kings, like the Indian
princes, were distinct from the priests, yet their power was limited in
various ways by that caste. The high priest shared the royal authority;
the king was shackled by religious ceremonies, both in public and
private life; he was obliged to evince his veneration for the
established worship by the erection of public monuments; and all the
high offices of state were in the hands of the priests. It cannot be
denied that on the personal character of the king depended much of his
power; but how strong must have been this aristocracy, when even
successful conquerors were obliged to conciliate its approbation!

4. It was probably about this time that the domestic relations of the
people, the division into castes, was completed. The sacerdotal caste
being in exclusive possession of all scientific knowledge, remained for
that reason in possession of the offices of state. The caste of warriors
could hardly have assumed its complete form before the country was
united into one empire: in like manner that of the navigators could not
have been completely established before the canals were excavated;
although the origin of all may have been of a much earlier date.

  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.

5. It appears, therefore, that the most prosperous period of the kingdom
of the Pharaohs must be placed somewhere between B. C. 1500-900:
although, according to Diodorus, even this period was interrupted by a
long anarchy. The splendour of the empire was obscured towards the end.
Sabaco, a foreign conqueror from Ethiopia, (probably from Meroe,)
subjugated Egypt; after his departure from the country, Sethos, a
priest of Phtha, contrary to all precedent, seated himself upon the
throne. He was, consequently, considered an usurper; he offended the
caste of warriors, and could not have escaped the dangers of an
irruption threatened by the Assyrian, Sennacherib, had not a pestilence
compelled the invader and his host to retreat.

  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.

6. The Egyptian monarchy, however, at length fell, and was replaced by
an oligarchy; (or perhaps a return was only made to the division of the
earlier kingdoms;) twelve princes sharing among themselves the sovereign
power. A certain degree of unity seems to have existed at first in this
government; but quarrels soon sprung up among the princes, and they
compelled one of their number, Psammetichus of Sais, to take flight. The
exiled prince, supported by Greek and Carian mercenaries, contrived to
avenge his wrongs; he drove away his rivals, and became the sole ruler.


THIRD PERIOD.

_From the reign of Psammetichus as sole monarch to the Persian conquest
of Egypt by Cambyses. B. C. 650-525._

  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, [Greek: hermeneis], 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 Chaldaeo-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.

1. From this epoch Egypt remained uninterruptedly one kingdom, the
capital of which was Memphis, although Sais, in Lower Egypt, was the
general residence of the royal family. Strangers, and more particularly
Greeks, admitted into Egypt; partly as mercenaries, partly as merchants.
Influence of this innovation upon the national character, and upon the
political system in particular. A spirit of conquest gradually inherited
by the Egyptian kings, is directed principally against Asia: hence the
formation of a navy, and wars with the great rising monarchies of Asia.
Continued, but declining influence of the sacerdotal caste, and proofs
of the veneration of the kings for the priesthood deduced from the
erection and embellishment of temples, particularly of that consecrated
to Phtha in Memphis.

2. _Psammetichus._ He obtains sole power through the assistance of Greek
and Carian mercenaries, who are continued as a standing army in the
country. The caste of Egyptian warriors, taking umbrage in consequence,
emigrate for the most part to Ethiopia, where they settle. The southern
portico of the temple of Phtha is erected, and projects of conquest are
formed against Asia.

3. _Neco_, son and successor of Psammetichus. His extensive plans of
conquest. First formation of a naval power; and unsuccessful attempt to
unite by a canal the Mediterranean with the Red sea. Conquests in Asia
as far as the Euphrates; but quick secession of the conquered, in
consequence of the loss of the battle of Circesium. Circumnavigation of
Africa undertaken at his command by the Phoenicians, and successfully
performed.

4. _Psammis his son and successor._ Expedition against Ethiopia, and
conquests in the interior of Africa.

5. Reign of _Apries_, (the Pharaoh-hophra of the Hebrews). Plans of
conquest against Asia;--siege of Sidon, and naval battle with the
Tyrians;--expedition against Cyrene in Africa; its fatal result. A
revolution caused thereby in Egypt, the inhabitants of which were averse
to foreign wars, carried on mostly by mercenary aliens: the revolution
headed by Amasis. In the civil war which Apries now wages with his
mercenaries against the Egyptians commanded by Amasis, he loses both his
throne and life; and with him ends the family of Psammetichus, which had
reigned to this time.

6. The usurper _Amasis_ took possession of the sovereign power; and
although he had to contend with a strong party, who despised him on
account of his low origin, he contrived by popular measures, and by the
respect he showed to the sacerdotal caste, to establish himself upon the
throne.--His monuments, both at Sais and Memphis.--The Egyptians and
Greeks become better acquainted and more closely connected with each
other, partly in consequence of the marriage of the king with a Greek
woman; but principally owing to the mouths of the Nile being opened to
the Greek merchants, and the cession of Naucratis as a factory for their
merchandise. Great and beneficial consequences to Egypt, which, under
the long reign of Amasis, reaches its highest pitch of prosperity. This
prince had already been engaged in disputes with the Persian conqueror,
Cyrus, whose son and successor, Cambyses, led an expedition against
Egypt, which Amasis, however, luckily for himself, escaped by a
seasonable death.

7. His son Psammenitus, the last of the Egyptian Pharaohs, is attacked
by Cambyses in the very first year of his reign. After a single battle,
fought at Pelusium, and a short siege of Memphis, the empire of the
Pharaohs is overthrown, and Egypt merges into a Persian province. The
powerful caste of the priests suffered most from the hatred of the
conqueror; but the persecution to which they were subjected must be
attributed rather to policy than fanaticism.

8. Condition and fate of Egypt as a Persian province. After the death of
Cambyses, the country received a Persian governor, and consequently
became a satrapy. Immediately after the first tempest of war had blown
over, Egypt was treated with mildness by the Persians. The country paid
a moderate tribute, together with some royal gifts, among others the
produce of the fisheries in lake Moeris; nevertheless, repeated revolts
occurred, which may be principally attributed to the hatred and
influence of the sacerdotal caste. The first took place under Darius
Hystaspes, and was quelled by Xerxes. An increase of tribute was the
consequence. The second, under king Inarus, fomented and supported by
the Athenians, happened during the reign of Artaxerxes I.; it was
quelled by Megabyzus. The third occurred under Darius II. and in
consequence of the support which the Egyptians received from the Greeks,
was of longer duration than either of the former, the throne of the
Pharaoh's being in some measure restored.

  This third secession of the Egyptians lasted till 354. During
  this period various kings were appointed; Amyrtaeus, _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.



CARTHAGINIANS.


  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 Rivalite 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.

The history of Carthage is most conveniently divided into three periods:
I. From the foundation of the city to the commencement of the wars with
Syracuse, B. C. 880-480. II. From the commencement of the wars with
Syracuse to those with Rome, 480-264. III. From the commencement of the
wars with Rome to the destruction of Carthage, 264-146.


FIRST PERIOD.

_From the foundation of Carthage to the wars with Syracuse, B. C.
880-480._

  _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.

1. The foundation and primitive history of Carthage, like all very early
and important events in national history, have, by long tradition, been
wrapt in the veil of romance. The account given of Dido, the supposed
founder of the city, cannot be reduced to the standard of pure
historical truth, though it appears to justify the inference that some
political commotions in the mother city, Tyre, induced a party of
emigrants to proceed to the northern shores of Africa; where other
Phoenician establishments had already taken place: here, by engaging to
pay a yearly tribute, they purchased from the natives permission to
found a city, the site of which was so happily chosen, that it only
depended upon the inhabitants to raise it to that greatness which it
afterwards attained.

2. It is probable that Carthage advanced at first by slow steps; yet
even at the end of this first period she had reached to such a height of
power, that she was mistress of a large territory in Africa, and of
foreign possessions still more extensive. Establishment of the
Carthaginian dominion in Africa by the subjection of the neighbouring
aboriginal tribes, and the foundation of Carthaginian settlements within
their territories; the natives, Liby-Phoenicians, gradually mingled with
the inhabitants of those colonies, and imbibed from them a love of
agriculture and fixed abodes. The inhabitants of the fertile territory
extending southward as far as the lake Triton, were, without exception,
Carthaginian subjects.

3. Her connection, however, with the ancient Phoenician towns along the
coast, particularly Utica, was of a different nature. For although
possessed a certain authority over them, she did not claim absolute
dominion, but rather stood at the head of a federation; thus affording a
protection which must frequently have degenerated into oppression.

4. In consequence of a treaty with the neighbouring republic of Cyrene,
the whole territory extending between the two Syrtes was also ceded to
the Carthaginians. The Lotophagi and Nasamones, inhabitants of this
district, preserved their nomad mode of life; they must, however, from
their trade with the interior parts of Africa, have been of the highest
importance to Carthage.

5. System of colonization, and, as a necessary result, that of conquest
without Africa. It was evidently the aim of the Carthaginians to settle
on islands, and to subject them to their dominion. Those lying in the
western part of the Mediterranean occupied the first place in their plan
of conquest, which was completely executed in Sardinia, the Baleares,
and other small islands; perhaps in Corsica; in Sicily, however, they
could never succeed to the full extent of their wishes. There is also
every probability that the Canary islands and Madeira were entirely in
their possession. On the other hand, the Carthaginians, previous to
their wars with Rome, were in the practice of establishing separate
settlements on the main land, partly in Spain, and partly on the western
shore of Africa. In the latter, they adopted the policy of their
ancestors, the Phoenicians, making the settlements so small, and
confining them within such narrow bounds, that the mother country might
always ensure their dependence.

6. The glory of extending the territory of Carthage, by important
conquests, belongs principally to the family of Mago, who, together with
his two sons and six grandsons, established the dominion of the republic
in Sicily, Sardinia, and Africa. This occurred about the same time that
Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius were laying the foundation of the Persian
monarchy, with which Carthage even then entered into connection. The
Carthaginians, therefore, made their first appearance, as extensive
conquerors, in the fourth century from the foundation of their
commonwealth; and it is at this period that mention is made of their
first naval engagement, in which the Phocaeans were their adversaries. In
the same period may be dated the establishment of their colonies beyond
the Pillars of Hercules by Hanno and Himilco--both probably sons of
Mago;--by the former on the coast of Africa, by the latter on that of
Spain. To the same period likewise is referred the first commercial
treaty between the Carthaginians and Romans, in which the former appear
as already masters of Sardinia, Africa, and a portion of Sicily.

7. To complete these conquests, and to preserve them when completed, the
formation and support of vast fleets and armies were indispensably
necessary. According to the usual practice of those nations who apply
both to trade and to war, the Carthaginian armies were composed for the
most part of mercenaries. No nation, however, followed this plan so
extensively as the Carthaginians, for to them half Africa and Europe
furnished warriors.--Description of a Carthaginian army; development of
the advantages and disadvantages of its organization.--Organization of
their navy. The state supported very numerous fleets of war-ships, with
a multitude of slaves who laboured at the oar, and were it seems public
property.

8. The political constitution of Carthage, like that of all wealthy
trading states, was an aristocracy composed of the noble and the
opulent, though at all times combined with a certain admixture of
democracy. The affairs of the state were confided to the hands of the
two suffetes or kings,--who, in all probability, held their office for
life--and to those of the senate ([Greek: Boule]) which contained within
itself a more select council (the [Greek: gerousia]). The privilege of
electing the magistrates resided with the people at large, who also
shared the legislative power with the suffetes. Civil and military power
was usually divided: the offices of general and magistrate not being
always, as at Rome, united in the same individual,--although such an
instance might not be of impossible occurrence:--to each military chief,
on the contrary, was appointed a committee from the senate, on which he
was more or less dependent.

9. The high state tribunal of the HUNDRED was instituted as a barrier to
the constitution against the attempts of the more powerful aristocrats,
particularly the military leaders; indeed the brilliancy of Mago's
conquests seemed to threaten the republic with a military government;
and immediately previous to his time one of the generals, Malchus, had
actually made an attempt to enslave Carthage. The object of the
institution was no doubt attained; but in later times the council
assumed to itself a power which increased to absolute despotism. It is
not improbable that this court likewise constituted the select committee
(the [Greek: gerousia]) of the senate.

10. Our information respecting the financial system of the Carthaginians
is extremely meagre. The following seem to have been the principal
sources of the public revenue. 1. The tribute drawn from the federate
cities, and their African subjects. The former paid in money, the latter
for the most part in kind; this tribute was imposed at the will of the
government, so that in pressing cases the taxed nations were obliged to
give one half of their income. 2. The case was the same with their
external provinces, particularly with Sardinia. 3. The tribute
furnished by the nomad hordes, partly by those in the Regio-Syrtica, and
occasionally also by those on the western side. 4. The customs, which
were levied with extreme rigour, not only in Carthage, but likewise in
all the colonies. 5. The products of their rich mines, particularly
those of Spain. In considering the financial system of the
Carthaginians, it should not be forgotten that many of the nations with
whom they traded, or who served in their armies, were unacquainted with
the use of money.

11. System and extent of their commerce. Their object was to secure a
monopoly of the western trade; hence the practice of restricting the
growth of their colonies, and of removing as much as possible all
strangers from their commercial marts. Their trade was carried on partly
by sea, and partly by land. Their sea trade, arising from the colonies,
extended beyond the Mediterranean, certainly as far as the coasts of
Britain and Guinea. Their land trade was carried on by caravans,
consisting principally of the nomad tribes resident between the Syrtes:
the caravans travelled eastward to Ammonium and Upper Egypt, southward
to the land of the Garamantes, (Fezzan,) and even still further into the
interior of Africa.


SECOND PERIOD.

_From the breaking out of the wars with Syracuse, to the commencement of
those with Rome, B. C. 480-264._

1. The great object of Carthaginian policy during the whole of the above
period, was to subdue Sicily; this object the nation pursued with
extraordinary pertinacity, often approximating to, but never obtaining,
complete success. The growing power of Syracuse, which likewise aimed at
the sole possession of the island, laid the foundation of that national
hatred which now arose between the Sicilian Greeks and the
Carthaginians.

2. First attempt, arising out of the league formed with Xerxes I. upon
his irruption into Greece. Gelon of Syracuse, in a victory more decisive
even than that gained by Themistocles over the Persians at Salamis,
routs the Carthaginians near Himera, and compels them to accede to a
disgraceful peace.

3. This defeat was followed by a period of tranquillity lasting seventy
years, during which we know little about Carthage. All that we can say
with any probability is, that in the mean time the struggle for
territory between Cyrene and Carthage commenced and terminated to the
advantage of the latter state, whose dominion was generally extended and
confirmed in Africa by wars with the aboriginal tribes.

4. But the accession of Dionysius I. to the throne of Syracuse, and the
ambitious project formed by him and his successors, of subjecting to
their rule all Sicily and Magna-Grecia, rekindled once more the embers
of war, which had only smouldered for a short time, to burst forth with
additional violence.

  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.

5. What effect these Sicilian wars had upon the state we are not
informed. They were probably regarded in Carthage as a beneficial
channel for carrying off the popular fermentation;--nevertheless, two
attempts, both unsuccessful, were made by some of the aristocratical
party, to overthrow the constitution; first by Hanno, 340, and
afterwards by Bomilcar, 308.--At the breaking out, however, of the war
with Rome, the commonwealth was so formidable and mighty, that even the
finances of the state do not appear to have been at all affected; a
circumstance of the highest importance. What consequence was it to
Carthage whether 100,000 barbarians more or less existed in the world,
so long as there remained plenty of men willing to suffer themselves to
be sold, and she possessed money to purchase them?


THIRD PERIOD.

_From the beginning of the wars with Rome, to the downfal of Carthage,
B. C. 264-146._

1. The wars between Carthage and Rome were the necessary consequences of
a desire of aggrandizement in two conquering nations; any one might have
foreseen the struggle between the two rivals as soon as their conquests
should once begin to clash. It is, therefore, a question of little
importance, to enquire which was the aggressor; and although Rome may
not be entirely cleared of that charge, we cannot help observing that,
according to the principles of sound policy, the security of Italy was
hardly compatible with the sole dominion of the Carthaginians over the
island of Sicily.

  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.)

2. This war cost the republic, Sicily and the sovereignty of the
Mediterranean, by which the fate of its other external possessions was
already predetermined. But that which appeared at the first view to
threaten the greatest danger, was the total exhaustion of its finances;
a circumstance which will no longer surprise us, when we consider how
many fleets had been destroyed and replaced, how many armies had been
annihilated and renewed. Carthage had never before been engaged in such
an obstinate struggle as this; and the immediate consequences were more
terrific even than the war itself.

3. The impossibility of paying the mercenaries produced a mutiny among
the troops, which rapidly grew into a rebellion of the subject nations,
who had been most cruelly oppressed during the war. The consequence was
a civil war of three years and a half, which probably would have spared
the Romans the trouble of destroying Carthage, had not the state been
snatched from ruin by the heroism of Hamilcar.

  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.

4. The revolt spread abroad; it reached Sardinia and caused the loss of
that most important island, of which the Romans, flushed with power,
took possession, in spite of the terms of the peace.

5. The influence of the family of the Barcas, supported in their
disputes with the senate by the popular party, now got the upper hand
in Carthage; and the first fruit of their power was the new and gigantic
project of repairing the loss of Sicily and Sardinia by the conquest of
Spain; a country where the Carthaginians already had some possessions
and commercial connections. The immediate object of the Barcas was the
support of their family and party; but the Spanish silver mines soon
furnished the republic with the means of renewing the contest with Rome
also.

6. During the nine years in which Hamilcar commanded, and in the
following eight in which Hasdrubal, his son-in-law and successor, was at
the head of the army, the whole of the south of Spain, as far as the
Iberus, was brought under subjection to Carthage, either by negotiation
or force of arms. The further progress of the Carthaginians was only
arrested by a treaty with the Romans, in which the Iberus was fixed upon
as a frontier line, and the freedom of Saguntum acknowledged by both
powers. Hasdrubal crowned his victories as a general and as a statesman
by the foundation of New Carthage, (Carthagena,) which was to be the
future seat of Carthaginian power in the newly-conquered country.
Hasdrubal having fallen by the hand of an assassin in the year 221, the
party of the Barcas succeeded in appointing Hamilcar's son, Hannibal, a
young man of one-and-twenty, for his successor. Hannibal found every
thing already prepared in Spain for the furtherance of the hereditary
project of his family, which was a renewal of the contest with Rome; and
the vigour with which this project was pursued, clearly proves how great
must have been the preponderance of the Barcine influence, at that
time, in Carthage. Had the commonwealth attended to the marine with the
same ardour as their great general did to the land service, the fate of
Rome would perhaps have been very different.

  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.)

7. Until Africa became the scene of action, the second war cost the
republic much less than the first; the expenses being principally
defrayed by Spain and Italy. Hanno, however, was at the head of a
powerful party at home, who were clamorous for peace, and who can say
they were wrong? As might be expected, the family of the Barcas were for
war, and their influence carried the day. That general who, with hardly
any support from Carthage, was yet able to maintain a footing in the
country of his powerful foes for no less than fifteen years, and that,
too, as much by policy as by force of arms, must extort our admiration.
It cannot, however, be denied, that during the struggle one favourable
opportunity, at least, was let slip of making peace; a fatal omission,
for which the hero of Cannae paid dearly enough, by the failure of his
darling project.

8. By the second peace with Rome, Carthage was deprived of all her
possessions out of Africa, and her fleet was delivered into the hands of
the Romans. She was now to be a mere trading city under the tutelage of
Rome. But Carthage found by this peace her most formidable enemy on the
soil of Africa itself. Massinissa had been elevated to the dignity of
king of Numidia; and his endeavours to form his nomads into an
agricultural people, and to collect them into cities, must have changed
the military system that Carthage had hitherto followed. Roman policy,
moreover, had taken care that the article inserted in his favour in the
last treaty of peace, should be so ambiguously worded, as to leave
abundant openings for dispute.

9. Even after this disgraceful peace, the family of the Barcas still
preserved their influence, and Hannibal was placed as supreme magistrate
at the head of the republic. He attempts to reform the constitution and
the finances, by destroying the oligarchy of the hundred, by whom the
finances had been thrown into confusion. Complete as was the success of
the first blow, it soon became apparent that aristocratic factions are
not so readily annihilated as armies.

  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 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.

10. The defeated party, whose interests were now the same with those of
Rome, joined the Romans, to whom they discovered Hannibal's plan of
renewing the war in conjunction with Antiochus the Great, king of Syria.
A Roman embassy was sent over to Africa, under some other pretext, to
demand that Hannibal should be given up. The Carthaginian general
secretly fled to king Antiochus, at whose court he became the chief
fomenter of the war against Rome; although unsuccessful in his endeavour
to implicate the Carthaginian republic in the struggle.

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

11. In consequence of the absence of Hannibal, Carthage fell once more
under the dominion of the Romans, who contrived, by taking a crafty
advantage of the state of parties, to give a show of generosity to the
exercise of their power. Even the patriotic faction, if we may judge by
the violent steps which they took more than once against Massinissa and
his partisans, seem to have been but a tool in the hands of Rome.

12. Disputes with Massinissa, which led to the gradual partition of the
Carthaginian territory in Africa. The manner in which this territory had
been acquired, facilitated the discovery of claims upon each of the
component parts; and the interference of Rome, sometimes disinterested,
but oftener swayed by party feeling, ensured the possession of the
territory to the Numidian.

  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.

13. Though it is evident that the party spirit raging between Cato and
Scipio Nasica had a considerable influence in hastening the destruction
of Carthage; and though it is equally clear that Massinissa's late
victory paved the way for the immediate execution of that project; yet
it is difficult to unravel the web, by which, long before the
declaration of war now about to follow, treachery prepared the final
scene of this great tragedy. Was the account that Cato at his return
gave of the resuscitated power of Carthage consonant to truth? Was not
the sudden secession of Ariobarzanes, the grandson of Syphax, who was to
have led a Numidian army to defend Carthage against Massinissa,
previously arranged with Rome? Was not the turbulent Gisgo, who first
incited the populace to insult the Roman ambassadors, and then
opportunely rescued them from the fury of the mob, in the pay of Rome?
These questions give rise to suspicions, although they cannot
satisfactorily be answered. At any rate, it may be said, that the
conduct of Rome, after war had broken out, corroborates the suspicion.
The whole history of the last period sufficiently proves, that it was
not so much the debased character of the nation, as party spirit, and
the avarice of the great, which produced the fall of Carthage. Advantage
was taken of that party spirit and avarice by Roman policy, which,
although acting according to the dictates of blind passion, knew how to
profit by dark and base intrigue.

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


       *       *       *       *       *




SECOND BOOK.




_History of the Persian Empire, from B. C. 560-330._


  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 Cyropaedia, 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."]

1. State of the Persian nation previous to Cyrus; a highland people,
subject to the Medes, dwelling in the mountainous parts of the province
of Persis, and leading wholly, or for the most part, a nomad life.
Division into ten clans, among which that of the _Pasargadae_, the
noblest and ruling horde, is particularly remarkable on account of the
figure it makes in subsequent history.--The result of this division was
a patriarchal government, the vestiges of which remain visible in the
whole of the following history of the Persians. Permanent distinction
between the tribes in reference to their mode of life, observable even
during the most flourishing period of the Persian state: three of the
nobles or warriors, three of the husbandmen, and four of the shepherds.
Argument thence deduced, that the history of the Persians as a dominant
nation, _is that of the nobler clans alone, and of the_ PASARGADAE _more
especially_.

2. The personal history of Cyrus, the founder of the Persian monarchy,
was, even in the time of Herodotus, so obscured under the veil of
romance, that it was no longer possible to detect the real truth. It is,
however, evident, that the course of the revolution wrought by him was,
on the whole, the same as was followed in all similar empires founded in
Asia. Gengis-khan, in a later age, was placed at the head of all the
Mogol hordes; in the same manner was Cyrus elected chief of all the
Persian tribes, by whose assistance he became a mighty conqueror, at the
time that the Babylonian and Median kingdoms of Inner Asia were on the
decline, and before the Lydian empire, under Croesus, had been firmly
established.

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

3. Rise of the Persian dominion, in consequence of the overthrow of the
Medo-Bactrian empire, after the defeat of Astyages at Pasargada. Rapid
extension by further conquest. Subjection of Asia Minor after the
victory won by Cyrus in person over Croesus, and capture of the Greek
colonies by the generals of the Persian monarch. Conquest of Babylon and
all the Babylonian provinces. The Phoenician cities submit themselves of
their own accord. Even in Cyrus's time, therefore, the frontiers of the
Persian empire had been extended in southern Asia to the Mediterranean,
to the Oxus, and to the Indus; but the campaign against the nomad races,
inhabiting the steppes of Central Asia, was unsuccessful; and Cyrus
himself fell in the contest.

  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.

4. Immediate consequences of this great revolution in respect both of
the conquerors and the conquered. Among the former, even in the time of
Cyrus, the civilization and luxury of the Medes, their legislation and
national religion, and the sacerdotal caste of the magi, who were
guardians of that religion, had been introduced, and the whole system of
the Persian court had been remodelled upon that of the Medes.

  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 Pasargadae. Their great and beneficial influence on agriculture.

  ANQUETIL DU PERRON, _Zend-avesta, ouvrage de_ ZOROASTRE, _traduit
  en Francois 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.

5. First political constitution of the Persian empire under Cyrus. No
general new organization; but for the most part the original
institutions are preserved among the conquered, who are compelled to pay
tribute. Royal officers, appointed to collect the tribute, are
associated with the generals, who with numerous armies keep in
subjection the inhabitants of the conquered countries. For the support
of the empire large standing armies are kept in pay, besides which,
recourse is frequently had to the transplanting of whole nations; while,
as was the case with the Jews, some who had been formerly transplanted
are restored to their country. With the same view injunctions are
issued, as in the case of the Lydians, to effect the enervation of
warlike races by a luxurious and effeminate system of education.

6. Cyrus leaves two sons, the elder of whom, Cambyses, succeeds as
king; the younger, Smerdis, (the _Tanyoxarces_ of Ctesias,) becomes
independent lord of Bactria and the eastern territories; but is soon
after murdered by the command of his elder brother.

7. Under Cambyses the conquering arms of the Persians are directed
against Africa. Egypt becomes a Persian province, and the neighbouring
Libya, together with Cyrene, assume the yoke of their own accord. But
the twofold expedition against the opulent commercial establishments,
Ammonium in the west, and Meroe in the south, is wholly unsuccessful;
that against Carthage is arrested in its commencement by the refusal of
the Tyrians to join the naval armament. A colony of six thousand
Egyptians is transplanted into Susiana.

8. The cruelty with which Cambyses is accused of treating the Egyptians
was directed rather against the powerful caste of the priests, than
against the whole nation; and originated more in political than in
religious motives. It must be observed, however, that we ought to be
particularly on our guard against all the evil that is related of
Cambyses, inasmuch as our information respecting that prince is derived
entirely from his enemies, the Egyptian priests.

9. The usurpation of the Pseudo-Smerdis, (or _Tanyoxarces_,) was an
attempt of the magi to replace a Median dynasty on the throne, by means
of a plot hatched within the seraglio. It was the occasion of an
accident which cost Cambyses his life, after a reign of seven years and
a half: (or, according to Ctesias, of eighteen.)

10. The Pseudo-Smerdis kept his seat on the throne eight months, during
which he attempted to bring over the conquered nations to his interest
by a remission of all tribute for three years; but the discovery of his
cheat gave rise to a conspiracy of seven of the chief Persians, who
could not brook the rule of a Mede, and the usurper lost his life.

11. It could not be expected that the political organization of the
kingdom should advance to completion during the reign of Cambyses, who
was almost always absent in the prosecution of war; or during the brief
rule of the Pseudo-Smerdis. It remained, therefore, in the same state as
under Cyrus. But the introduction of the Median court-ceremonial among
the ruling tribe of the Persians, and the adoption of fixed dwellings by
that tribe, rendered it necessary that royal residences should be
erected for the reception of the king's court; among these Persepolis,
(see above, p. 20,) probably commenced by Cyrus, was completed under
Darius and Xerxes.

  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, _Memoires sur diverses Antiquites 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
  _Sassanidae_. The most successful attempt at deciphering the
  arrow-headed inscriptions of the old Persic, since TYCHSEN,
  MUENTER, and LICHTENSTEIN, will be found in

  # 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.

12. After a very remarkable debate held by the seven conspirators,
concerning the form of of government which should be established,
Darius, the son of Hystaspes, one of the family of the Achaemenides, was
raised to the throne by an oracle; this king endeavoured to strengthen
his right to the sceptre by marrying two of Cyrus's daughters.

13. The reign of Darius I. which lasted thirty-six years, (according to
Ctesias 31,) is remarkable for the improvements made both in the
external and internal administration of the Persian empire. In the
former, by the great expeditions and conquests, which extended the
Persian realm to its utmost limits; in the latter, by several important
institutions, established for the internal organization of the state.

14. The expeditions of the Persians under Cyrus were directed against
the countries of Asia; those of Cambyses against Africa. But those
undertaken by Darius I. were directed against Europe, though the Persian
territory was at the same time extended in the two other quarters of the
world. In the reign of this king likewise commenced those wars with the
Greeks, so fatal to the Persians; constantly fomented and supported by
emigrant or exile Greeks, who found an asylum in the Persian court, and
there contrived to raise a party.--First example of the kind exhibited
shortly after the accession of Darius, in the case of Syloson, brother
to Polycrates, who had been tyrant of Samos: at his request the island
was taken possession of by the Persians, and delivered up to him after
the almost total destruction of the male population.

15. Great revolt in Babylon, which would not submit tamely to a foreign
yoke. After a siege of twenty-one months, Darius by stratagem regains
possession of the city. The power of Babylon and the importance of its
situation increased the jealousy with which it was guarded by the
Persian kings; so much so, that they were wont to reside there a certain
portion of the year.

16. First great expedition of Darius undertaken against the Scythians
inhabiting the lands north of the Black sea: the former irruption of the
Scythians into Asia afforded a pretext for the war, which, therefore,
was considered as a general national undertaking. Unsuccessful as the
Persian arms were in this vast expedition against the Scythians, and
disgraceful as was the retreat from the barren steppes of the Ukrain,
yet the power of Darius was established in Thrace and Macedonia, and the
Persians obtained firm footing in Europe.

  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.

17. The next expedition made by Darius was more successful. It was
carried on along the banks of the Indus, down which river Scylax, a
Greek, had previously sailed on a voyage of discovery. The highlands
north of the Indus were then subjected to the Persian dominion, and the
Indus became the boundary of the kingdom. About the same time that
Darius was engaged on the Danube and the Indus, Aryandes, his viceroy in
Egypt, led an expedition against Barca, to avenge the murder of king
Arcesilaus; a war which terminated in the destruction of the city, and
the transplantation of its inhabitants into Asia.

18. However trifling the first occurrence which gave rise to the revolt
of the Asiatic Greeks, it was much more important in its consequences.
It was set on foot by Aristagoras, lieutenant-governor of Miletus, who
was secretly supported by his relation, the offended Histiaeus, then
resident at the Persian court. The share taken by the Athenians in this
rebellion, which led to the burning of Sardes, was the origin of the
national hatred between Persia and European Greece, and of the long
series of wars that ensued. The confederates were this time defeated;
but the naval battle off the island of Lada, could hardly have had such
a fatal result, had not the league been previously corrupted by the
craft and gold of Persia. Be that as it may, this war ended in the
reduction of the Ionians, and the destruction of Miletus, their
flourishing capital; a city which in those days, together with Tyre and
Carthage, engrossed the trade of the world.

19. First attack upon Greece, particularly Athens. Darius, already
enraged against the Athenians by the firing of Sardes, is still further
instigated by the suggestions of the banished tyrant of Athens, Hippias,
the son of Pisistratus. This prince, who had fled to the Persian court,
was evidently the animating spirit of the whole undertaking. Although
the first attempt, made under the command of Mardonius, was thwarted by
a tempest, yet the mighty expedition which afterwards followed, was
undertaken with so much more prudence, and conducted with so much
knowledge of the country, that no one can fail to recognize the guiding
hand of Hippias. Even the battle of Marathon, which seems to have been
but a diversion on the side of the Persians, would not have decided the
war, had not the activity of Miltiades defeated the principal design of
the enemy upon Athens.

20. It may be said that Darius, by these foreign wars, debilitated the
kingdom which he endeavoured to extend; this circumstance, however, it
cannot be denied, increases the merit which he has of perfecting the
internal organization of the empire. His reign constitutes precisely
that period which must enter into the history of every nomad race that
has attained to power, and is advancing towards political civilization;
a period at which it becomes visible that the nation is endeavouring to
obtain a constitution, however gradual the progress towards it.

21. Division of the empire into twenty _satrapies_, and the imposition
of a regular tribute on each. This division at first depended solely on
that of the various tributary races, but from it gradually arose a
geographic division, in which the ancient distinction of countries was
for the most part preserved.

  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.)

22. The Persian finance continues to preserve those peculiarities which
naturally result from the formation of an empire by a nomad race of
conquerors, desirous of living at the expense of the conquered, and
under a despotic form of government.

  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.

23. Organization of the military system, conformably to the primitive
state of the nation, and the necessity now felt of keeping the conquered
countries in subjection by means of standing armies.

  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
  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 Phoenician, and
  not unfrequently of the Asiatic Greek fleets.

24. From the time of Darius, the court of the kings of Persia attained
its complete form, and the government soon after was wholly concentrated
in the seraglio. Yet the mode of life which the kings led, surrounded by
a court, taken principally if not wholly from the tribe of the
Pasargadae, and changing their residence according to the revolutions of
the seasons, still preserved the traces of nomad origin.

  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.

25. Already had Darius commenced preparations to wreak his vengeance on
Athens, when a revolution broke out in Egypt, and hindered him from
prosecuting his design. He died after nominating for his successor
Xerxes I. grandson of Cyrus, and his eldest son by a second wife,
Atossa, whose influence over her husband was boundless.

26. Xerxes I. A prince educated in the seraglio, who knew nothing beyond
the art of representing the pomp of royalty. Subjection of Egypt, and
severe treatment of that country under the satrap Achaemenes, brother to
Xerxes.

27. Xerxes' famous expedition against Greece was again the result of
the cabals and intrigues of the Greek exiles, the Pisistratidae, the
soothsayer Onomacritus, the Thessalian princes or Aleuadae, who
contrived to exert their influence on the king's mind, and to raise a
party in their favour among the grandees. But the progress of the
campaign showed that no Hippias was at the head of the invading army,
although the Persian king did certainly succeed in his avowed object,
the capture and destruction of Athens.

  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 Thermopylae 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 Plataeae, 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.

28. The consequences of these repeated and unsuccessful expeditions, in
which almost the whole population was engaged, must be self-evident. The
empire was weakened and depopulated. The defensive war which the
Persians for thirty years were obliged to maintain against the Greeks,
who aimed at establishing the independence of their Asiatic countrymen,
completely destroyed the balance of their power, by compelling them to
transfer their forces to Asia Minor, the most distant western province
of the empire.

29. Little as the Greeks had to fear from the Persian arms, the danger
with which they were now threatened was much more formidable, when the
enemy began to adopt the system of bribing the chieftains of Greece; a
system which succeeded beyond expectation in the first trial made of it
with Pausanias, and perhaps was not wholly unsuccessful with
Themistocles himself.--But the Persians soon found in Cimon an adversary
who deprived them of the sovereignty of the sea; who in one day
destroyed both their fleet and their army on the Eurymedon; and by the
conquest of the Thracian Chersonese, wrested from them the key of
Europe.

30. What little we know further concerning the reign of Xerxes, consists
in the intrigues of the seraglio, which now, through the machinations of
queen Amestris, became the theatre of all those horrors which are wont
to be exhibited in such places, and to which Xerxes himself at last fell
a victim, in consequence of the conspiracy of Artabanes and the eunuch
Spamitres.

  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.

31. Artaxerxes I. surnamed Longimanus. In consequence of the murder of
his father and his elder brother, in the conspiracy of Artabanes, this
prince ascended the throne, but was unable to keep possession of the
sceptre without assassinating, in his turn, Artabanes. His reign, which
lasted forty years, exhibits the first symptoms of the decline of the
empire, which this king, although possessed of many good qualities, had
not the talent or spirit to arrest.

32. At the very commencement of his reign rebellions are excited in the
provinces; in the mean while the war with Athens continues. Two battles
are required to repress the insurrection of his brother Hystaspes in
Bactria.

33. Second revolt of Egypt, excited by the Libyan king, Inarus of Marea,
in conjunction with the Egyptian, Amyrtaeus, and supported by an Athenian
fleet. Although the confederates did not make themselves masters of
Memphis, they defeated the Persian army, commanded by the king's
brother, Achaemenes, who lost his life in the battle; they were at last
overpowered by Megabyzus, satrap of Syria, and shut up together with
Inarus in the town of Byblus. Inarus and his party were admitted to
capitulation; but Amyrtaeus, having taken refuge in the morasses,
continued to make head against the Persians.

34. The Grecian war takes, once more, an unfavourable turn for the
Persians: Cimon defeats the enemy's fleet and army near Cyprus. The fear
of losing the whole of the island accordingly compels Artaxerxes I. to
sign a treaty of peace with Athens, in which he recognizes the
independence of the Asiatic Greeks, and agrees that his fleet shall not
navigate the Aegaean sea, nor his troops approach within three days' march
of the coast.

35. But the haughty and powerful Megabyzus, enraged at the execution of
Inarus, in violation of the promise made by him to that prince, excites
a rebellion in Syria; repeatedly defeats the royal armies, and
prescribes himself the conditions upon which he will be reconciled to
his sovereign. This was the first great example of a successful
insurrection excited by one of the Persian satraps; and chequered as
were the subsequent fortunes of Megabyzus, his party continued to
subsist after his death in the persons of his sons. He possessed in the
centre of the court a support in the dowager queen Amestris, and the
reigning queen Amytis; (both notorious for their excesses;) who kept
Artaxerxes I. in a constant state of tutelage to the hour of his death.

36. Revolutions in the government now succeed each other with rapidity
and violence. Xerxes II. the only legitimate son and successor of
Artaxerxes, is slain, after forty-five days' reign, by his bastard
brother Sogdianus; the latter, in his turn, after a reign of six months,
is deposed by another bastard brother, Ochus, who ascends the throne,
and assumes the name of Darius II.

37. Darius II. surnamed the Bastard, or Nothus. He reigns nineteen years
under the tutelage of his wife, Parysatis, and of three eunuchs, one of
whom, Artoxares, even attempts to open a way to the throne, but is put
to death. In this period the decline of the state advances with hurried
steps; partly by reason of the extinction of the legitimate royal line,
partly by the increased practice of placing more than one province,
together with the military command, in the hands of the same satrap.
Although the repeated insurrections of the satraps are repressed, the
court, by the breach of faith to which it is obliged to have recourse,
in order to succeed in its measures, exhibits to the world a convincing
proof of its infirmity. The revolt of Arsites, one of the king's
brothers, who was supported by a son of Megabyzus, and that of
Pisuthnes, satrap of Lydia, are quelled only by obtaining treacherous
possession of their persons.

38. In consequence of the weak state of the empire, the fire, which had
hitherto been smouldering under the ashes, burst forth in Egypt.
Amyrtaeus, who had remained till now in the morasses, issued forth,
supported by the Egyptians; and the Persians were again expelled the
land. Obscure as the subsequent history may be, we see that the Persians
were obliged to acknowledge, not only Amyrtaeus, but his successors. [See
page 72].

39. The Persians must have regarded it as a happy event, that the
Peloponnesian war, kindled in Greece during the reign of Artaxerxes, and
protracted through the whole of that of Darius II. had prevented the
Greeks from unitedly falling upon Persia. It now became, and
henceforward continued to be, the chief policy of the Persians to foment
quarrels and wars between the Grecian republics, by siding at various
times with various parties; and the mutual hatred of the Greeks rendered
this game so easy, that Greece could hardly have escaped total
destruction, had the Persian plans been always as wisely laid as they
were by Tissaphernes; and had not the caprice and jealousy of the
satraps in Asia Minor generally had more effect than the commands of
the court.

  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.)

40. Artaxerxes II. surnamed Mnemon. Although this prince was the eldest
son of Darius, his right to the throne might, according to the Persian
ideas of succession, have appeared dubious, since his younger brother,
Cyrus, had the advantage over him of being the first born subsequent to
the accession of his father. Relying on the support of his mother
Parysatis, Cyrus, even without this claim to the throne, would, no
doubt, have asserted his pretence to the sovereign power. It would have
been, in all probability, a fortunate event for the Persian empire, had
the fate of battle, in the ensuing war between the two brothers,
assigned the throne to him whom nature seems to have pointed out as the
fittest person.

  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.

41. During the whole of this reign, Artaxerxes, now firmly seated on the
throne, remained under the tutelage of his mother, Parysatis, whose
inveterate hatred against his wife, Statira, and against all who had any
share in the death of her darling son, Cyrus, converted the seraglio
into a theatre of bloody deeds, such as can be conceived and committed
only in similar places.

42. The insurrection and rout of Cyrus produced a corresponding change
in the political relations between the Persian court and Sparta: which,
however, were now determined, not so much by the will of the monarch
himself, as by the satraps of Asia Minor, Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus,
of whose jealousy Sparta knew how to take advantage. The former, by his
severity towards the Asiatic Greeks, who had supported the cause of
Cyrus, excited a war with Sparta, in which he himself fell a victim. The
death of the satrap is not, however, succeeded by tranquillity; for
Agesilaus commands in Asia, and threatens to overthrow the Persian
throne itself. The policy of the Persians is shown by the war which they
foment in Greece against Sparta: Conon is placed at the head of their
fleet, and extricates Persia from her difficulties better than could
have been done by her own generals; in the peace of Antalcidas she
herself dictates the terms, by which the Grecian colonies of Asia Minor,
together with Cyprus and Clazomenae, are again delivered into her
possession. The rising power of Thebes under Epaminondas and Pelopidas,
with whom Persia keeps up a friendly connection, ensures her from any
future blow at the hands of the Spartans.--War for the possession of
Cyprus with Evagoras, who, however, by the subsequent peace retains the
sovereignty of Salamis.

43. The war against the Cadusii in the mountains of Caucasus, proves
that Artaxerxes II. was not fitted for military command; and his attempt
to recover Egypt from king Nectanebus I. which was defeated by the feud
between Iphicrates and Artabazus, evinces that the most numerous
Persian host could achieve nothing without the assistance of Grecian
troops and Grecian generals.--It could hardly be expected that an empire
should endure much longer, when in the court all was ruled by the desire
of revenge in the women; when the political organization was already so
corrupt, that the satraps waged war against each other; and when those
generals who gave any proof of talent received no better reward than
that of Datames.

44. In fact, it seemed not unlikely that the Persian empire would fall
asunder a little before the death of Artaxerxes Mnemon. A quarrel about
the succession arose in the court between the three legitimate sons of
the king, the eldest of whom, Darius, was put to death: the standard of
rebellion was erected in the western half of the empire, and joined by
all the governors of Asia Minor and Syria, supported by Tachos, king of
Egypt, to whose assistance the Spartans had sent Agesilaus. The
insurrection, however, was quelled in consequence of the treachery of
the chief leader, Orontes, who was bribed over to the court.

45. In the midst of these commotions died Artaxerxes II.: his youngest
son, Ochus, took possession of the throne, and assumed the name of
Artaxerxes III. This king conceived that he could not establish his
power but by the total destruction of the royal family, numerous as it
was. He was contemporary with Philip of Macedon, in whom he soon found a
more formidable rival than any he could have met with in his own family.

46. The new insurrection fomented by Artabazus in Asia Minor, was
accompanied with success so long as it was backed by the Thebans; but
the reception which Artabazus met with at the hands of Philip soon
betrayed the secret intentions of the Macedonian king.

47. But the extensive rebellion of the Phoenicians and Cyprians, in
conjunction with Egypt, compelled the king to undertake another
expedition, which succeeded almost beyond expectation; although in this
case the object was again attained principally by treachery and by
Grecian auxiliaries.

  Treachery of Mentor, the leader of the confederates: the consequent
  capture and destruction of Sidon, followed by the subjection of
  Phoenicia, 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.

48. This restoration of the empire to its former limits was followed by
a period of tranquillity, the result of force, as Mentor and the eunuch
Bagoas, holding the king in complete dependence, divided the kingdom, as
it were, between themselves; until Bagoas was pleased, by poison, to
remove Artaxerxes out of his way.

49. After the assassination of the royal family, Bagoas placed on the
throne the king's youngest and only surviving son, Arces. Bagoas was
desirous of reigning in the name of that prince; but after the lapse of
two years, he found it necessary to depose him, and to substitute in his
place a distant relation of the reigning family, Darius Codomannus, who
commenced his reign by putting to death the wretch himself.

50. Darius III. Codomannus, not having been educated, like his
predecessors, in the seraglio, gave proof of virtues which entitled
him to a better fate. Attacked in the second year of his reign by
Macedon, against which Persia had hitherto made no preparation for
resistance,--unless, perhaps, the dagger which pierced Philip was
pointed by Persian hands,--Darius was unable at once to reestablish a
kingdom which of itself was mouldering away. And yet, had not death
defeated the invasion of Macedonia by his general, Memnon, it might have
been matter of doubt, whether Alexander would ever have shone as the
conqueror of Asia.--After the loss of two battles, in which he fought in
person, Darius III. fell a victim to the treachery of Bessus, and the
burning of Persepolis made known to Asia that the realm of Persia was
destroyed, and that the east must acknowledge a new lord and master.

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


       *       *       *       *       *




THIRD BOOK.

HISTORY OF THE GRECIAN STATES.




_Geographical Outline._


_Greece_ is bounded on the north by the Cambunian mountains, which
separate it from Macedonia; on the south and east by the Aegaean, on the
west by the Ionian sea. Greatest length from south to north = 220 geog.
miles, greatest breadth from west to east, = 140 geog. miles.
Superficial contents, = 29,600 square miles.--Principal rivers: the
Peneus, which discharges its waters into the Aegaean, and the Achelous,
which flows into the Ionian sea. Advantages in respect to fertility,
resulting from the mildness of the climate, between 37-40 deg. N. lat.;
from the number of small streams; from the qualities and variety of the
soil, in which this country has been so much more blessed by nature than
any other of similar extent, that every branch of cultivation may be
prosecuted equally and in conjunction.--Advantages in reference to
navigation and commerce: situated in the vicinity of the three quarters
of the world, on three sides washed by the sea, and by reason of its
irregular, indented coast, abounding with commodious ports and havens.

It may be divided into Northern Greece, from the north boundary to the
chain of Oeta and Pindus, between the Ambracian gulf west, and the
Maliac east. Central Greece, or Hellas, down to the isthmus of Corinth:
and the southern peninsula, or Peloponnesus.

Northern Greece comprises two countries; Thessaly east, Epirus west.

1. Thessaly, the largest and one of the most fruitful of the Grecian
countries. Length from north to south 60 geog. miles; breadth from west
to east 64 geog. miles. Rivers: the Peneus, Apidanus, and several
smaller streams. Mountains: Olympus, residence of the fabulous gods, and
Ossa in the north; the chain of Oeta, Othrys, and Pindus in the south.
Division into five provinces: 1. Estiaeotis; cities: Gomphi, Azorus: 2.
Pelasgiotis; cities: Larissa, Gonni, the vale of Tempe: 3. Thessaliotis;
cities: Pharsalus, etc. 4. Phthiotis; cities: Pherae, etc. 5. The
foreland of Magnesia, with a city of the same name. Other territories,
such as Perrhaebia, etc. for instance, derived their names from the
non-Greek races who inhabited them.

2. Epirus. Next to Thessaly, the largest, although one of the least
cultivated countries of Greece: 48-60 geog. miles long, and the same in
breadth. Divisions: Molossis; city, Ambracia: Thesprotia; city,
Buthrotum; in the interior, Dodona.

Central Greece, or Hellas, comprises nine countries.

1. Attica, a foreland, extending towards the south-east, and gradually
diminishing. Length, 60 geog. miles; greatest breadth, 24 geog. miles.
Rivers: Ilissus, Cephissus. Mountains: Hymettus, Pentelicus, and the
headland of Sunium. City: Athens, with the harbours Piraeus, Phalereus,
and Munychius; in the other parts no towns, but hamlets, [Greek: demoi],
such as Marathon, Eleusis, Decelea, etc.

2. Megaris, close to the isthmus of Corinth. The smallest of the Grecian
countries; 16 geog. miles long, and from 4-8 broad. City, Megara.

3. Boeotia, a mountainous and marshy country, 52 geog. miles long, and
from 28-32 broad. Rivers: Asopus, Ismenus, and several smaller streams.
Mountains: Helicon, Cythaeron, etc. Lake: Copais.--Boeotia was, of all
the Grecian countries, that which contained the greatest number of
cities, each having its own separate territory. Among these, the first
in importance, and frequently mistress of the rest, was Thebes on the
Ismenus. The others, Plataeae, Tanagra, Thespiae, Chaeronea, Lebadea,
Leuctra, and Orchomenus, are all celebrated in Grecian history.

4. Phocis, smaller than Attica; 48 geog. miles long, from 4-20 broad.
River: Cephissus. Mountain: Parnassus. Cities: Delphi, on Parnassus,
with the celebrated oracle of Apollo. Crissa, with the harbour of
Cirrha, and up the country Elatea. The other cities are insignificant.

5, 6. The two countries called Locris. The eastern on the Euripus,
territory of the Locri Opuntii and Epicnemidii is the lesser of the two;
being but little larger than Megaris. City: Opus; pass, Thermopylae. The
western Locris on the Corinthian gulf, station of the Locri Ozolae, is
from 20-24 geog. miles long, and from 16-20 broad. Cities: Naupactus on
the sea, Amphissa up the country.

7. The small country of Doris, or the Tetrapolis Dorica, on the south
side of mount Oeta, from 8-12 geog. miles long, and the same in breadth.

8. Aetolia, somewhat larger than Boeotia; from 40-52 geog. miles long,
and from 28-32 broad; but the least cultivated country of all. Rivers:
Achelous, which skirts Acarnania, and the Evenus. Cities: Calydon,
Thermus.

9. Acarnania, the most western country of Hellas, 32 geog. miles long,
from 16-24 broad. River: Achelous. Cities: Argos Amphilochicum, and
Stratus.

The peninsula of Peloponnesus contains eight countries.

1. Arcadia, a mountainous country, abounding in pastures, and situate in
the centre of the peninsula; greatest length, 48 geog. miles; greatest
breadth, 36 geog. miles. Mountains: Cyllene, Erymanthus, etc. Rivers:
Alpheus, Erymanthus, and several smaller streams. Lake: Styx. Cities:
Mantinea, Tegea, Orchomenus, Heraea, Psophis; subsequently Megalopolis,
as a common capital.

2. Laconia, likewise mountainous. Greatest length, 66 geog. miles;
greatest breadth, 36 geog. miles. River: Eurotas. Mountains: Taygetus,
and the headlands Malea and Tenarium. Cities: Sparta on the Eurotas;
other places: Amyclae, Sellasia, and others of little importance.

3. Messenia, west of Laconia; a more level and extremely fertile
country, subject to the Spartans from B. C. 668. Greatest length, 28
geog. miles: greatest breadth, 36 geog. miles. City: Messene. Frontier
places, Ithome and Ira: of the other places, Pylus (Navarino) and
Methone are the most celebrated.

4. Elis, with the small territory of Triphylia, on the west of the
Peloponnesus. Length, 60 geog. miles: greatest breadth, 28 geog. miles.
Rivers: Alpheus, Peneus, Sellis, and several smaller streams. Cities: in
the north, Elis, Cyllene, and Pylus. On the Alpheus, Pisa and the
neighbouring town of Olympia. In Triphylia, a third Pylus.

5. Argolis, on the east side of the peninsula; a foreland opposite to
Attica, with which it forms the Sinus Saronicus. Length, 64 geog. miles:
breadth, from 8-28 geog. miles. Cities: Argos, Mycenae, Epidaurus.
Smaller but remarkable places; Nemea, Cynuria, Troezen.

6. Achaia, originally Ionia, called likewise Aegialus, comprises the
north coast. Length, 56 geog. miles: breadth, from 12-24. It contains
twelve cities, of which Dyme, Patrae, and Pellene are the most important.

7. The little country of Sicyonia, 16 geog. miles long, 8 broad, with
the cities of Sicyon and Phlius.

8. The small territory of Corinth, of the same extent as the foregoing,
adjoining the isthmus which connects Peloponnesus with the main land.
City: Corinth, originally Ephyra, with the ports of Lechaeum and
Cenchreae; the former on the Corinthian, the latter on the Saronic gulf.

The Greek islands may be divided into three classes; those which lie
immediately off the coasts, those which are collected in groups, and
those which lie separate in the open sea.

1. Islands off the coasts. Off the west coast in the Ionian sea:
Corcyra, opposite Epirus, 32 geog. miles long, from 8-16 broad. City:
Corcyra. A Corinthian colony. Opposite Acarnania; Leucadia, with the
city and headland of Leucas.--Cephalonia or Same, originally Scheria,
with the cities of Same and Cephalonia. In the neighbourhood lies the
small island of Ithaca.--Opposite Elis: Zacynthus. Off the south coast:
Cythera, with a town of the same name. Off the east coast, in the
Saronic gulf: Aegina and Salamis. Opposite Boeotia, from which it is
separated by the strait named Euripus, Euboea, the most extensive of
all; 76 geog. miles long, from 12-16 geog. miles broad. Cities: Oreus,
with the headland of Artemisium on the north, in the centre Chalcis,
Eretria. Off Thessaly, Scyathus and Halonesus. Farther north, Thasus,
Imbrus, Samothrace, and Lemnos.

2. Clusters of islands in the Aegaean sea: the Cyclades and Sporades; the
former of which comprise the western, the latter the eastern islands of
the Archipelago. The most important among them are, Andros, Delos,
Paros, Naxos, Melos, all with cities of the same names.

3. The more extensive separate islands: 1. Crete, 140 geog. miles long,
from 24-40 broad. Mountain: Ida. Cities: Cydonia, Gortyna, Cnossus. 2.
Cyprus, 120 geog. miles long, from 20-80 broad. Cities: Salamis, Paphos,
Citium, and several smaller places.

  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 modern
  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.




FIRST PERIOD.

_The most ancient traditional history, down to the Trojan war,
about B. C. 1200._


  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, Hecataeus, 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, 4 vols.
  4to. Several new editions have since appeared. Translated into
  German, Jena, 1800, sqq. by _H. L. Eichstaedt_. 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 Graecarum_, 12 vols. folio.

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

  _Memoires de l'Academie 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.)

1. Although Greece was originally inhabited by several insignificant
races, two principal tribes claim our attention, the _Pelasgi_ and the
_Hellenes_. Both probably were of Asiatic origin; but the difference of
their language characterized them as different tribes. The Pelasgi were
the first that extended their dominion in Greece.

  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 Achaeus, Phthius, and Pelasgus; here
  they learned to apply themselves to agriculture, and remained for
  a hundred and fifty successive years; about 1700-1500.

2. The Hellenes,--subsequently so called from Hellen, one of their
chieftains,--originally the weaker of the two tribes, make their first
appearance in Phocis, near Parnassus, under king Deucalion; from whence
they are driven by a flood. They migrate into Thessaly, and drive out
the Pelasgi from that territory.--The Hellenes soon after this become
the most powerful race; and spreading over Greece, expel the Pelasgi
from almost every part. The latter tribe maintain their ground only in
Arcadia, and the land of Dodona; some of them migrate to Italy, others
to Crete, and various islands.

3. The Hellenic tribe is subdivided into four principal branches, the
_Aeolians_, _Ionians_, _Dorians_, and _Achaeans_, which continue
afterwards to be distinguished and separated by many peculiarities of
speech, customs, and political government. These four tribes, although
they must not be considered as comprising all the slender ramifications
of the nation, are derived by tradition from Deucalion's immediate
posterity; with whose personal history, therefore, the history of the
tribes themselves and their migrations is interwoven.

  This derivation of the tribes will be better understood by an
  inspection of the following genealogical table:

                      DEUCALION.
                          |
                       HELLEN.
     |--------------------|--------------------|
   DORUS.              XUTHUS.               AEOLUS.
     |          |---------|-------------|      |
  DORIANS.      |                       |   AEOLIANS.
              ACHAEUS.                 ION.
                |                       |
              ACHAEANS.              IONIANS.

4. The gradual spread of the various branches of the Hellenic tribe over
Greece was effected by several migrations, between B. C. 1500-1300;
after which they preserved the settlements they had already obtained
until the later migration of the Dorians and Heraclidae, about 1100.

  _Principal data for the history of the separate tribes in this
  period._

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

  2. DORUS follows his father into Estiaeotis, the most ancient seat
  of the Dorians. They are driven from thence after the death of
  Dorus by the Perrhaebi; spread over Macedonia and Crete; part of the
  tribe return, cross mount Oeta, and settle in the Tetrapolis
  Dorica, afterwards called Doris, where they remain until they
  migrate into Peloponnesus, under the guidance of the Heraclidae;
  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
  Achaeus. Ion and his tribe, driven out of Athens, settle in that
  part of Peloponnesus called Aegialus, a name which by them was
  converted into Ionia, and in later times exchanged for Achaia. The
  Achaeans 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 Minyae_;
  vols. 2, 3, containing the _Dorians_, 1825.

5. Besides these original inhabitants, colonies at the same early period
came into Greece from civilized countries, from Egypt, Phoenicia, and
Mysia. The settlements of these strangers occurred probably between B.
C. 1600-1400.

  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 Phoenicia, settles in Boeotia
  about 1550.--The colony of Pelops, from Mysia, settles in Argos about
  1400.

6. The mythology of the Hellenes proves beyond a doubt, that they were
at first savages, like the Pelasgi since they had to learn even the use
of fire from Prometheus; yet it is equally clear that they must, even in
the earliest period, particularly from 1300-1200, when they had ceased
to migrate, have made the first important steps towards the attainment
of a certain degree of civilization. About the time of the Trojan war
they appear to have been still barbarians, though no longer savages.

7. The origin and progress of this national organization, and the
influence wrought upon it by settlers from foreign countries, are
difficult subjects to determine. If we allow that Cecrops was the first
who introduced marriage in Attica, and that agriculture and the
cultivation of the olive were discovered in that country, it
unquestionably follows, that the Hellenes were indebted to strangers for
the foundation of domestic civilization. And when we consider that the
families which subsequently held sway were descended directly from the
most powerful of these strangers, their lasting influence can hardly be
a matter of doubt. It must, however, be observed, that what the Greeks
borrowed from foreigners they previously stamped with their own peculiar
character, so that it became, as it were, the original property of the
nation. The question, therefore, is deprived of much of the importance
which it assumes at the first glance.

8. The case was the same with regard to all branches of intellectual
civilization, particularly religion. That many deities and religious
rites were introduced into Greece from Egypt, Asia, and Thrace, and
generally through Crete, hardly admits of a doubt; but they did not
therefore remain Egyptian, Asiatic, or Thracian; they became Grecian
gods. Hence it appears that the investigation of those relations can
hardly lead to any important conclusion. It is a fact, however, of the
highest importance, that whatever gods the Greeks adopted, no separate
order of priesthood was established among them, still less any caste
laying claim to the exclusive possession of knowledge. Several traces,
nevertheless, make it probable, that many of the most ancient
sanctuaries were settlements of Egyptian, Phoenician, or Cretan priests,
who imported with them their own peculiar forms of worship. And
notwithstanding this worship consisted merely of outward ceremonies,
many ideas and institutions which were attached to it, became, in this
manner, the common property of the nation.

9. It was principally, therefore, by religion, that the rude mind became
in some degree polished. But it was the ancient minstrels, ([Greek:
aoidoi],) Orpheus, Linus, etc., who, by disseminating religious
principles, contributed so much towards abolishing revenge, and with it
the perpetual state of warfare which had hitherto distracted the
country. These it was who in their mysteries contrived in some measure
to impress the narrow circle of the initiated with the advantages
resulting from a civilized life.

  SAINTE-CROIX, _Recherches sur les Mysteres du Paganisme_, Paris, 1765.
  Translated into German, with valuable observations, by C. G. LENZ;
  Gotha, 1790.

10. The influence of religion, through the medium of oracles, especially
those of Dodona and Delphi, was not less powerful. The two latter, with
that of Olympia, were perhaps, originally ancient settlements of
priests, such as have been already alluded to. The necessity of
consulting these sanctuaries naturally led men to regard the oracles as
the common property of the nation, to which every one should have
access; it followed therefore as an inevitable consequence, that the
direction of affairs in which all were engaged, depended principally on
those oracles.

  A. VAN DALEN, _De Oraculis veterum Ethnicorum Dissertationes_ 6.
  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, quae in Herodoti libris
  continentur, natura, commentatio_; Gotting. 1786.

11. It happened with Greece as with other countries; the tender plant
of civilization grew up under the shelter of the sanctuary. There the
festivals were celebrated, and there the people assembled; and there
various tribes, who had hitherto been strangers to one another, met
in peace, and conversed on their common interests. Hence arose
spontaneously the first idea of a law of nations, and those connections
which led to its development. Among these connections, that of the
Amphictyons at Delphi was the most important, and continued the longest:
it is probable that it did not assume its complete form till a later
period; yet it appears in early times to have adopted the principle,
that none of the cities belonging to the league should be destroyed by
the others.

  # FR. WILH. TITTMANN, _Upon the Amphictyonic League_; 1812. A
  dissertation which gained the prize of the Academy of Sciences at
  Berlin.

12. To religion must likewise be added navigation, and the consequent
intercourse which brought the nation into contact with strangers, and
prepared it to receive civilization. It cannot be denied that the
navigators continued long to be mere pirates; but as Minos of Crete
cleared the sea of freebooters, the want of another state of things must
have been felt long before.

13. In the mean time the chivalrous spirit of the nation was gradually
aroused; and developed the first bloom of its youthful vigour in the
heroic ages. An affection for extraordinary undertakings was excited;
and conducted the chieftains, not only individually, but also in
confederate bodies, beyond the limits of their father-land. These
undertakings were not only important in themselves, but their advantages
were increased by their being preserved in the songs of their bards by
means of a national poesy, such as no other people possessed, and such
as contributed to the further development of the national genius.

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

14. Thus every thing was now ripe for some great national undertaking of
all the combined Hellenic nations; and that object was attained in the
war against Troy. The most important result of that expedition was the
kindling of one common national spirit,--a spirit which in spite of
dissensions and feuds, was never wholly extinguished, and which must
almost necessarily have arisen from an expedition carried on in so
distant a field, which lasted ten years, in which all were joined, and
which was crowned with such signal success. From the time of the Trojan
war downwards the Hellenes always looked upon themselves as but one
people.

  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 Mycenae.--All those states were governed by
  hereditary chieftains or princes from a certain _family_ (kings,
  [Greek: basileis],) 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_.




SECOND PERIOD.

_From the Trojan war to the breaking out of the Persian war, B. C.
1200-500._

  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.


1. _History of the Hellenic states within Greece._

1. The Trojan war was followed by a very stormy period, in consequence
of the many disorders prevalent in the ruling families, especially in
that of Pelops. But more violent commotions soon arose, caused by the
attempts of the rude tribes of the north, particularly of the Dorians
combined with the Aetolians, who, under the guidance of the descendants
of Hercules, exiled from Argos, strove to obtain possession of
Peloponnesus. Those commotions shook Greece during a whole century, and
as the seats of most of the Hellenic tribes were then changed, the
consequences were lasting and important.

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

2. Consequences resulting to the Peloponnesus from this migration. The
territories of Argos, Sparta, Messene, and Corinth, wrested from the
Achaeans who had hitherto inhabited them, become the property of the
Dorians; Elis falls to the share of the Aetolians, who had accompanied
the former. The Achaeans expelled, in their turn expel the Ionians and
settle in the country since called Achaia; the fugitive Ionians are
received by their ancient kinsmen the Athenians.--But among the
consequences of this migration of the Hellenic races must be reckoned
likewise the establishment of Greek colonies in Asia Minor; an
occurrence of the highest importance to the ulterior development of the
nation. This colonization was commenced by the Aeolian Hellenes, whose
example was soon after followed by the Ionians, and even by the Dorians.

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

3. Although the effect of these migrations and wars, in which the ruder
tribes oppressed the more civilized, must inevitably have been, not only
to interrupt the progress of civilization, but even almost entirely to
annihilate it, yet in this universal movement the foundation was laid
of that constitution of things which afterwards existed in Greece. The
tribes which had migrated, as well as those which had been expelled,
remained at first under the dominion of their hereditary princes, some
for a longer, others for a shorter time. In the two centuries, however,
immediately subsequent to the migrations, B. C. 1100-900, republican
constitutions took the place of hereditary clanship in all the Grecian
countries, the distant Epirus excepted. These republics continued to
exist amid the various revolutions which happened; and the love of
political freedom, deeply impressed on the minds of the people,
constituted from this time the principal feature in the national
character.

4. The sequel proves, that the principal cause of this change so
important for Greece,--this change, by which her future internal policy
was for ever determined, originated in the progress made by the newly
come tribes towards civic life, and consequently at the same time
towards national civilization. In this newly constituted order of
things, each city, with the territory around it, formed a separate
state, and framed its own constitution; hence there arose as many free
states as cities.

  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, Boeotia, etc. did not each
  form one state, but comprised as many separate states as there were
  free and independent cities, each of which, with its territory,
  formed one. Still, however, it must be observed, (_a_) that the
  natural ties of kindred subsisted; Arcadians, Boeotians, 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
  Boeotian 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.

5. Although Greece was thus parcelled out into a number of small states,
united by no common political bond, yet there existed a certain unity of
the Hellenic race, a certain national spirit: this was produced in part
by national festivals and games, occurring at stated periods, among
which those in honour of Jupiter at Olympia were the chief. The nation
at these appeared in all its splendour; and all Hellenes, but no others,
were allowed to join in them. This union, too, was promoted by the
extension of the Amphictyonic council: and the reason why this last
institution was not followed by all the consequences which might have
been expected from it, may perhaps be found in what naturally takes
place in every great confederation whenever any of the component states
become too powerful.

  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 federatifs, et de la
  legislation de Crete_, 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.

6. Among the different states of Greece, Sparta and Athens, even at this
period, became celebrated, not only for their greater power, but also
for their superior constitutions and their laws: and though it may not
perhaps be strictly true, that the history of the rest of Greece is
connected with that of these two cities, yet they certainly possess the
highest claim to our attention.

7. History of Sparta. The Achaeans at first were governed by princes of
the house of Perseus, but after Menelaus's accession to the throne in
virtue of his wife, by princes of the house of Pelops. When the latter
had been expelled by the Dorians, Laconia fell by lot to the sons of
Aristodemus, Procles and Eurysthenes, between whose families the royal
power was divided, so that two kings constantly reigned in common, one
from each family.

  Families of the Proclidae and Aegidae; 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 Lacedaemoniorum_, 1642.

  MEURSIUS, _De regno Laconico_; and _Miscellanea Laconica_. Both
  laborious compilations.

8. The Dorians now gradually conquered, and established themselves in
many cities of the peninsula; forming, if not the whole population, at
least the only part of it that enjoyed any power, as the Achaeans that
remained were reduced to slavery. No long time, however, elapsed ere the
city of Sparta usurped an authority over the whole country, which it
ever afterwards preserved; the other towns, formerly considerable,
becoming unfortified, defenceless, and insignificant.

  Relation between the Spartan citizens of the capital as a ruling
  body, and the Lacedaemonians, or [Greek: perioikoi], 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.

9. The history of the two following centuries, to the time of Lycurgus,
exhibits nothing but the repeated wars of the Spartans with their
neighbours the Argives; their domestic broils, occasioned by the too
unequal division of property, by the feuds, and the diminished power of
the kings, and which lasted until Lycurgus, the uncle and guardian of
the minor king, Charilaus, about the year 880, gave to Sparta that
constitution to which she was principally indebted for her subsequent
splendour.

  _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, ([Greek: rhetrai],) 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
  Lacedaemonians 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, ([Greek: gerousia],)
  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
  [Greek: phylas] and [Greek: obas], at which none but Spartans could
  assist: 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 Lacedaemonians; 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 ([Greek: syssitia]) 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.

10. Soon after the time of Lycurgus commenced the war of the Spartans
with their neighbours, the Argives, the Arcadians, but more particularly
the Messenians. The wars with these last appear to have originated in an
old grudge on the part of the Dorian tribe, proceeding from the unequal
division of lands at the occupation of Peloponnesus: it is nevertheless
evident, that the quarrel between the two nations was mainly fostered by
the ambition of the Spartan kings, who wrought upon a superstitious
multitude by oracular responses and interpretations.

  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
  Tyrtaeus, 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.

11. Although the territory of the Spartans was greatly increased by
these Messenian wars, the nation seems to have been a long time before
it recovered from the struggle, and to have raised itself by slow steps
to the first rank among the Dorian states, extending its boundaries at
the expense of the Argives and Arcadians.

  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.

12. These wars within Peloponnesus were not of such a nature as to give
rise to any remarkable changes in the Spartan constitution, and for a
long time the nation refused to take any share in foreign affairs. But
no sooner did king Cleomenes, who in the end procured the deposition of
his colleague, Demaratus, interfere in the affairs of the Athenians,
than the seeds of strife were sown between these two republics. The
Persian war next ensued, in which Sparta was obliged to bear a part,
although Cleomenes had refused to participate in the insurrection of
Aristagoras: that struggle, together with the idea of supremacy in
Greece which now took its rise, introduced a series of political
relations before unknown.

13. The history of Athens during this period is rendered important
rather by domestic revolutions, which gradually tended to convert the
state into a republic, than by external aggrandizement. The situation
and peculiarities of Attica, which rendered it less exposed than other
parts of Greece to the attacks and forays of wandering hordes, favoured
the gradual and tranquil growth of national prosperity; the traces of
which are incontestable, though it would be difficult for the most
profound research to point out the whole course of its progress so
perspicuously as the historian might wish.

  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
  Aegeus, about B. C. 1300. Although certain institutions, such as
  that of the areopagus, the division of the people into nobles,
  ([Greek: eupatridai],) husbandmen, ([Greek: georgoi],) and
  mechanics: ([Greek: demiourgoi;]) 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, ([Greek: demoi],) 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,
  Alcmaeon. These archons succeeded, like the kings, by inheritance,
  but were accountable for their administration, ([Greek:
  hypeuthynoi].)--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 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 Pediaei, 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.

14. From this state of anarchy Athens was rescued by Solon; a man to
whom not only Athens, but the whole human race, are deeply indebted. He
was chosen archon, and at the same time commissioned to remodel the
constitution of Athens: and the successful manner in which he executed
this task, laid the foundation of the happiness of his native country.

  _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, ([Greek: seisachtheia], novae tabulae,) 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, ([Greek: hippeis],) who had 400; the
  Zeugitae, 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, ([Greek: phylai],) of which there 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 [Greek:
  eponumos], the second of [Greek: basileus], the third of [Greek:
  polemarchos], the remaining six that of [Greek: thesmothetai].
  Combined with the archons was (_d_) The council, ([Greek: boule],)
  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 ([Greek: dokimasia]) 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 ([Greek: ekklesiai]) 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.

  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 Isaeo caeterisque
  oratoribus Graecis 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.

15. The legislation of Solon, like all other state reforms, was not
followed by the total extinction of party spirit. It was natural that
the commons, now free, should wish to try their strength with the
aristocratical party, and that, after the defeat of the latter,
Pisistratus, who headed the commons, should grasp the rudder of the
state without, therefore, necessarily abrogating the constitution of
Solon. Modern history has proved with sufficient evidence, that the
frame-work of a republic may easily subsist under the rule of an
usurper. And would that no republics might fall into the hands of a
worse tyrant than Pisistratus!

  First exaltation of Pisistratus, 561, procured by his obtaining a
  body guard; flight of the Alcmaeonidae 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 Alcmaeonidae 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 Alcmaeonidae, having bribed the Delphian oracle, gain over
  the Spartans to their interest: backed by a Spartan army, they
  take possession of Athens in 510; Hippias is deposed, and flies
  over to the Persians.

16. This return of the Alcmaeonidae was followed by a change in the
constitution of Solon. Clisthenes, the son of Megacles, with a view of
quenching party spirit by a new combination of the citizens, increased
the number of wards to ten, and that of the members of the council to
five hundred.--But the Athenians had to purchase the continuance of
their freedom by a struggle with Sparta, who, united with the Boeotians
and Chalcidians, and aided by Aegina, sought to reestablish monarchy in
Attica; first in the person of Isagoras, the rival of Clisthenes, and
afterwards in that of the exiled Hippias. But the glorious success of
the republic in this first struggle in the cause of liberty, gave an
additional impulse to the national spirit. Impelled by that spirit,
Athens suffered herself to be induced to share in the war of freedom
carried on by the Asiatic Greeks under Aristagoras; and the audacity
which led to the firing of Sardis, drew upon Attica the vengeance of the
Persians, without which, doubtless, neither Athens or Greece would ever
have risen to that degree of eminence which they ultimately attained.

17. Of the history of the other states of Greece we have at best but few
data, and even these in most instances are very scanty. Towards the end
of this period Sparta and Athens had, undoubtedly, exalted themselves
above the rest, and were recognized, one as the first among the Dorian,
the latter as the first among the Ionian states; yet did Sparta more
than once meet with rivals in Messene, Argos, and Tegea: while Athens
had to contend with Megara and Aegina. Sparta and Athens had,
nevertheless, not only the best constitutions, but possessed also a more
extended territory than any other of the great cities.


_Principal data for the history of the smaller states._

I. _Within the Peloponnesus._

  _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, ([Greek: demiourgoi],) and a senate, ([Greek: boule].)
  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, Mycenae, and Tiryns. In Argos, the 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 Mycenae, 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 Achaeans 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, ([Greek: boule],) of a college of eighty
  citizens, ([Greek: hoi ogdoekonta],) and of magistrates, who bore
  the name of [Greek: artynoi]: 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 [Greek:
  artynoi]. As in the other states of Greece so in Argolis, there
  were as many independent states as there were cities; in the north
  Argos, Mycenae, and Tiryns; in the south Epidaurus and Troezen. The
  two last preserved their independence; but Mycenae 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, the family of the
  Bacchiadae, 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, ([Greek: gerousia]): the
  government appears to have been the aristocracy of a trading state;
  for even the Bacchiadae, 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
  Potidaea: 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 Corcyraeans 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 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
  Achaean league.

  _e._ Achaia. During the spread of the Hellenes, this country, which
  till then had borne the name of Aegialus, 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 Achaeans,
  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 _Achaean_ league, of such high
  importance in subsequent times. The Achaeans 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 Aetolians, who had accompanied the Dorians, headed by their
  chieftain Oxylus, settled in Elis; but permitted the ancient
  inhabitants to remain in the country. 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: (Hellanodicae). 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.

II. _Central Greece, or Hellas._

  _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
  Bacchiadae 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.

  _b._ Boeotia. History mentions several very early races in
  Boeotia, such as the Aones, Hyantes, etc.; with these were mingled
  Phoenician 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 Boeotia, constitutes a main branch of Grecian
  mythology: among them were Oedipus, Laius, Eteocles, and
  Polynices. After the capture of Thebes by the Epigoni, 1215, the
  Boeotians 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 Aeolians of those
  quarters. Not long after, upon the death of Xuthus, royalty was
  abolished, 1126. Boeotia was now divided into as many small states
  as it contained cities; of these, next to Thebes, the most eminent
  were the towns of Plataeae, Thespiae, Tanagra, and Chaeronea, 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 Boeotian 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 Plataeae in
  particular: hence sprung many wars. The general affairs were
  decided upon in four assemblies, ([Greek: boulai],) held in the
  four districts into which Boeotia was divided; these assemblies in
  conjunction elected eleven Boeotarchs, 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 Boeotians 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.

  _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
  Crissaeans 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 Ozolae, 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._ Aetolia. The Aetolians 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,
  Aetolus, 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 Achaeans. 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
  Alcmaeon, 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.

III. _Northern Greece._

  _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, that if the
  Thessalian cities ever did recover their political freedom, they
  were unable to maintain it; for in the two most eminent cities,
  Pherae 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 Aleuadae; 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 Pherae 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 Aleuadae, 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 Aleuadae, 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
  Aeacidae, 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.

IV. _Grecian Islands._

  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 Phoenicians, 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._ Aegina. 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. Aegina 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 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 Aegina 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, _Aegineticorum liber_, 1817. This treatise contains
  not only the political history, but likewise that of trade and
  arts.

  _c._ Euboea. 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, (Hippobatae;) nevertheless we hear of tyrants in Chalcis.
  After the Persian war Euboea 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
  Euboeans 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 Aeolian stock. In the earlier
  periods, Crete had her kings, the most celebrated of whom were
  Minos, about 1300, probably first sovereign of the whole 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 Aegaean 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 Phoenicia 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, ([Greek: gerousia],) at the head of which were ten
  censors, ([Greek: kosmoi],) 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. Asiaticae_; 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.

  # 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 Phoenicians, 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 Phoenicians 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, Phoenician 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 Phoenicians, 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 Phoenicians 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 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.


2. _History of the Grecian Colonies._

  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'etablissement 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'etat et du sort des Colonies des anciens
  peuples_, Paris, 1786. A series of valuable and important
  enquiries.

1. No nation of antiquity ever founded so many colonies as the Greeks:
these colonies became so important in various respects, that an
acquaintance with them is indispensably requisite towards understanding
the more early history of the world. Not only is the history of the
civilization of the mother country and that of early trade intimately
connected with these settlements, but some of them grew to such power as
to have the greatest influence on political history.

2. The Grecian colonies, to which the following observations apply, are
those founded by the Hellenes in the time which elapsed between the
Dorian migration and the Macedonian period. It appears certain that
before the date of that migration some Pelasgian, and perhaps even some
Hellenic settlers passed over into Italy. The history of these colonies
however is not only involved in obscurity, but it is besides known that
they ceased after a time to be Greek. The later settlements of the
Macedonians were of a quite different nature from those of the Hellenes,
to which we now allude.

3. The Hellenic race spread alike to the east and to the west of Greece,
their settlements, however, were confined to the shores of the
Mediterranean and Black sea. The countries in which their principal
colonies were established, were Asia Minor and Thrace in the east; the
coasts of Lower Italy and Sicily in the west. Nevertheless particular
settlements were to be found scattered here and there on the shores of
most other countries.

4. The Grecian colonies had their origin either in political motives,
being generally made in accordance with the express command or advice of
an oracle, (for the propagation of the religion of the parent state was
always connected therewith,) or, in commercial speculations; the former
was the case, almost without exception, with the settlements made by the
mother country herself; the latter, with those which had branched out of
such colonies as had already exalted themselves by their commerce. In
fact, almost all the Grecian colonies applied more or less to trade,
even when that was not the sole object of their foundation.

5. The connection existing between the colonies and the mother cities
was generally determined by the same causes that led to their
foundation. In those cases where a city had been founded by malcontent
or banished emigrants, all dependence on the mother country was
naturally out of the question; and even in the colonies established for
the purposes of trade, that dependence was but feeble and brief; the
mother cities failing in power, if not in will, to enforce it. The very
independence of so many colonies, made (almost without exception) in
countries preeminently favoured by nature in productions and climate,
and so situated as to oblige the inhabitants to navigation and commerce,
must have given a great impulse to the civilization of the Hellenic
race, and may be regarded as the main cause of its rapid progress and
wide extension; wider indeed than that of any other nation of the
ancient world. What a variety of political ideas must have been formed
among a people whose settlements, more than a hundred in number, had
each its own peculiar form of government.

6. Of the Greek colonies, the most ancient, and in many respects the
most important, were those along the western coast of Asia Minor,
extending from the Hellespont to the boundary of Cilicia. Here, ever
since the Trojan war, which first made these countries generally known,
Hellenes of the three great families, Aeolians, Ionians, and Dorians had
planted settlements. These were the most important for trade; and here
likewise in the native country of Homer, the father of Grecian
civilization, of Alcaeus, and of Sappho, poesy, both epic and lyric,
expanded her first and fairest blossoms; and hence too, the mother
country herself received the first impulse of moral and cultivated
taste.

  1. The Aeolian 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
  Pelopidae, 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
  Boeotians 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 Aeolis. They moreover possessed the
  islands of <DW26>s, Tenedos, and the Hecatonnesi. On the main land,
  in the quarter named from them Aeolis, 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 <DW26>s; 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 Aesymnetae. 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 Alcaeus. The
  Aeolians 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 Aeolian 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 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 Aeolians; like them, however, they were a
  consequence of the Dorian migration. The Ionians, driven out of
  Peloponnesus by the Achaeans, 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, Euboean
  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, Phocaea, Erythrae, 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 Mermnadae, 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 Phocaea. 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 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 Maeotis, 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.--Phocaea. The flourishing period of this establishment was
  contemporary with that of Miletus; but ended at the rise of the
  Persian dominion, 540, when the Phocaeans, 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. Phocaea 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 Croesus, who annexed it to his other conquests about 560.
  The constitution was aristocratic; the government being in the
  hands of a senate, ([Greek: gerousia],) combined with the
  magistrates, ([Greek: epikletoi]): and the family which had once
  possessed the throne preserved certain prerogatives. Ephesus was
  not so important in a commercial point of view as Phocaea 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 Phocaea
  had terminated; for both in the Macedonian and Roman ages Ephesus
  was regarded as the first city of Asia Minor.--Of the cities 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
  flourishing period began after the death of Alexander. At no
  period of early history could the Dorian colonies, or those of the
  Aeolians, compete in wealth and commerce with the Ionians.

7. The shores of the Propontis, the Black sea, and the Palus Maeotis,
were likewise covered with Grecian settlements. Nearly all these were
colonies of the city of Miletus alone, and were, without exception, all
of them the marts of a prosperous trade. Although the date of each
cannot be precisely defined, they must have arisen between the eighth
and sixth centuries before the Christian era. They were not only
sovereigns of the Black sea, but likewise extended their trade over the
whole of southern Russia, and eastward to the regions beyond the Caspian
sea; that is, to great Bukharia.

  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 duae_, 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, ([Greek: boule?]) the family of the
  tyrant continued for a long time in possession of power, after he
  himself 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
  ([Greek: pelamydes],) which, issuing from the Palus Maeotis, 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 Panticapaeum, 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 Maeotis. 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.

8. The coast of Thrace and Macedonia, washed by the Aegaean sea, was
likewise covered with Grecian colonies, from various cities, and
especially from Corinth and Athens. The Athenians having obtained in the
Persian war the sovereignty of the sea, endeavoured to establish their
dominion in this part of the world; hence the cities in that quarter
were closely implicated in the quarrels and wars excited, first by the
jealousy between Sparta and Athens, and afterwards by that which sprang
up between Athens and Macedonia, in the reign of Philip.

  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 Aegospotamos; 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, Potidaea. 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 Euboea. 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.--Potidaea was a colony of Corinth, from which it
  received annual magistrates, ([Greek: epidemiourgoi],) 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.

9. The Grecian settlements westward of the mother country were, almost
without exception, made at a later period than those in the Aegean and
Black seas: they reached nevertheless to an equal degree of splendour;
and though their trade was not so extensive, it was equally profitable:
these colonies not only rivalled those we have above described, in
wealth, but surpassed them in power, being generally characterized by
the wisdom and prudence displayed in their respective constitutions. The
foundation of most of them may be dated between B. C. 750 and 650;
consequently at a period when all the cities in the mother country had
already been republicanized: and at a time when there could be no lack
of domestic troubles, which would furnish sufficient motives for
emigration.

  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, Achaean, 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 Achaean 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, Cumae, and its branch
  settlement of Neapolis. Locri Epizephyrii, a colony of the Locri
  Ozolae, may be regarded as an Aeolian 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, ([Greek: boule],) 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 Pythagoraean
  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 national spirit was greatly
  corrupted by a luxury almost exceeding the limits of credibility.

  _b._ Croton, founded 710 by the Achaeans, 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 Pythagoraeans 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 Pythagoraeean 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 Achaeans; and the
  Achaean 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
  Graecia, 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
  Achaeans, who were mingled with Troezenians: this settlement existed
  till 510, when it was destroyed by Croton. Soon after its
  foundation it became one of the most extensive, populous, and
  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 mixture of
  several Grecian stocks. The chief colony was sent out, B. C. 683,
  by the Locri Ozolae. 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 Euboea, 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._ Cumae, founded as early as 1030, from Chalcis in Euboea. 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. Cumae 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. Cumae, nevertheless, in consequence of its harbour of Puteoli,
  preserved a share of importance, even under the Roman dominion.

  HEYNE, _Prolusiones 16 de civitatum Graecarum per magnam Graeciam 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 Graecia, 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 Acrae, Casmenae, 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
  Cumae, and in its turn founder of Himera and Mylae. 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 Acrae, 665, Casmenae, 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 obliged to cede Camarina,
  497. The constitution was aristocratic; but not free from domestic
  troubles. The administration was in the hands of the opulent,
  ([Greek: gamoroi?]) but these were, about 485, expelled by the
  democratic faction and their own mutinous slaves. They fled to
  Casmenae, 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 Thrasidaeus, tyrants of Agrigentum:
  after the expulsion of Thrasidaeus, that town forms an alliance with
  Syracuse; the Syracusan fleet sent to the assistance of Cumae, 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 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 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 formidable
  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 Graecia. 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, Maenon,
  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
  Lilybaeum; but having by his haughtiness incurred general hatred and
  disgust, he is obliged to evacuate 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, Thrasydaeus, was beaten by Hiero and expelled, 470;
  whereupon the Agrigentines, as allies of Syracuse, introduced a
  democracy. The period following, 470-405, 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 depot; 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; Acrae, B. C. 665; Casmenae, 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 Phocaeans founded, 561;
  hither the inhabitants of the mother city betook 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 Phocaeans,
  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, Nicaea,
  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 Caesar; having sided with the
  former, she was stormed, 49, by Caesar'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 Reipublicae Massiliensium_. Gotting. 1826.
  A prize essay.

  5. On the Spanish coast stood Saguntum, ([Greek: Zakunthos],) 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 their lands, seek for help at the hands
  of Apries, who is defeated by the Cyrenaeans, 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 Cyrenaeans 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
  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 Cyrene_, in _Mem. de l'Academie des
  Inscriptions_, t. iii.

  J. P. THRIGE, _Historia Cyrenes, inde a tempore quo condita urbs
  est, usque ad aetatem, qua in provinciae formam a Romanis redacta
  est: particula prior, de initiis coloniae Cyrenen deductae, et
  Cyrenes Battiadis regnantibus historia_. Havniae, 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 a 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.




THIRD PERIOD.

_From the commencement of the Persian wars to the time of Alexander
the Great, B. C. 500-336._


  Sources. The chief writers in this period are: For the history of
  the Persian wars to the battle of Plataeae, 479, Herodotus. For the
  period between 479 and the breaking out of the Peloponnesian war,
  we must, in the absence of contemporary authors, 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 Aeschines. 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, _Archaeologia Graeca; 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 Grece_. (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 Grece_. Paris,
  1758, 2nd edit. 1770, fol. The first in point of time; but far
  surpassed by:

  J. STUART, _The Antiquities of Athens measured and delineated_; 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 Grece_, vol. i,
  1779: vol. ii, 1809. Confined principally to the islands and Asia
  Minor.

1. From a multitude of small states, never united but continually
distracted by civil broils--and such at the beginning of this period
were the states of Greece--any thing important could hardly be expected
without the occurrence of some external event, which, by rallying the
divided forces round one point, and directing them toward one object,
should hinder them from mutually exhausting one another. It was the
hostile attempt of Persia that first laid the foundation of the future
splendour of Greece; certain states then grew so rapidly in power, that
upon their particular history hinges the general history of all the
rest.

  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.

2. Not even the summons to acknowledge the Persian authority was
sufficient to rouse the national energy of the Greeks. All the islands,
and most of the states on the main land, submitted to the yoke; Sparta
and Athens alone boldly rejected it. The Athenians, unassisted, under
their leader Miltiades, acquainted from his youth with the Persians and
their mode of warfare, and with the superiority of the arms of his
countrymen, became the saviours of Greece.

  Quarrel of Athens and Sparta with Aegina, 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.

3. The immediate consequence of this victory was a naval expedition
against the islands, more particularly Paros, to which Miltiades, out of
a private grudge, persuaded the Athenians. It was undertaken for the
purpose of levying contributions; and seems to have given the Athenians
the first idea of their subsequent dominion of the sea. The Athenians
punished Miltiades for the failure of this expedition, although the
effect of their own folly; yet was this act of injustice a source of
happiness to Athens; as the fall of Miltiades made room for the men who
laid the solid foundation of her glory and greatness.

4. As usual in every democratic state rising to power, the history of
Athens now becomes that of eminent individuals, standing at the head of
affairs, as generals or demagogues. Themistocles, who united to an
astonishing degree in his own person the most splendid talents of
statesman and general, with a spirit of intrigue, and even of egotism;
and Aristides, whose disinterestedness, even in those days, was singular
at Athens, were the real founders of the power of this commonwealth.
Athens, however, was more indebted to the first than to the latter.

  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, Aegina, 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.

5. The glory of frustrating the second mighty Persian invasion of Greece
under Xerxes I. belongs to Themistocles alone. Not only his great naval
victory off Salamis, but still more the manner in which he contrived to
work upon his countrymen, proves him to have been the greatest man of
the age, and the deliverer of Greece, now united by one common bond of
interest.--All national leagues are weak in themselves: yet how strong
may even the weakest be made when held together by one great man, who
knows how to animate it with his own spirit!

  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
  Euboea, 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 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!

6. The victory of Salamis did not conclude the war; but the negotiations
entered into during the winter months with the Persian general,
Mardonius, left in Thessaly, and with the Asiatic Greeks, to excite them
to throw off the yoke, show how far the confidence of the nation in its
own strength had increased. But by the battle fought on land at Plataeae,
under the command of the Spartan, Pausanias, (guardian to Plistarchus,
son of Leonidas,) and the Athenian, Aristides; together with the naval
battle at Mycale on the same day, and the destruction of the Persian
fleet, the Persians are for ever driven from the territory of Greece,
though the war continues for some time longer.

7. The expulsion of the Persians wrought an entire change in the
internal and external relations of Greece. From being the aggressed the
Greeks became the aggressors; to free their Asiatic countrymen is now
the chief object or pretext for the continuation of a war so profitable;
the chief command of which abides with Sparta until B. C. 470.

  Athens rebuilt and fortified by Themistocles despite of Spartan
  jealousy, 478: formation of the Piraeus, an event of still 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.

8. This transfer of the command to Athens had a decided effect on all
the subsequent relations of Greece, not only because it augmented the
jealousy between Sparta and Athens, but because Athens exercised her
predominance for a purpose entirely different from that of
Sparta.--Establishment of a permanent confederacy, comprising most of
the Grecian states without Peloponnesus, especially the islands, and an
adjustment of the contributions to be annually furnished by each, with
the view of prosecuting the Persian war, and liberating the Asiatic
Greeks from the Persian yoke. Although the common treasury was first
established at Delos, the superintendence of it was confided to Athens;
and such a manager as Aristides was not always to be found.--Natural
consequence of this new establishment: 1. What had hitherto been mere
military precedence, becomes in the hands of Athens a right of
political prescription, and that, as usual, is soon converted
into a sovereignty. Hence her idea of the supremacy of Greece,
([Greek: arche tes Hellados],) as connected with that of the sea,
([Greek: thalassokratia].) 2. The oppression of the Athenians,
sometimes real, at other times presumed, after a short time, rouses the
spirit of discontent and contumacy among several of the confederates:
hence, 3. The gradual formation of a counter league, headed by Sparta,
who maintains her supremacy over the greatest part of the Peloponnesus.

9. The changes introduced into the internal organization are not to be
determined solely by the palpable alterations made in any of Lycurgus's
or Solon's institutions. In Sparta, the general frame-work of Lycurgus's
constitution subsisted; nevertheless the power was virtually in the
hands of the ephori, whose dictatorial sway placed Sparta in the
formidable posture she now assumed.--At Athens, in proportion as the
importance of foreign relations increased, and amid the protracted
struggles between the heads of the democratic and aristocratic parties,
the real power, under the outward appearance of a democracy, gradually
centered in the hands of the ten annually elected generals, ([Greek:
strategoi],) who with more or less effect played the parts of
demagogues.

  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.

10. The following forty years, from 470-430, constitute the flourishing
period of Athens. A concurrence of fortunate circumstances happening
among a people of the highest abilities and promoted by great men,
produced here phenomena, such as have never since been witnessed.
Political greatness was the fundamental principle of the commonwealth;
Athens had been the guardian, and the champion of Greece, and she wished
to appear worthy of herself. Hence in Athens alone were men acquainted
with public splendour, exhibited in buildings, in spectacles, and
festivals, the acquisition of which was facilitated by private
frugality. This public spirit animating every citizen, expanded the
blossoms of genius; no broad line of distinction was anxiously drawn
between private and public life; whatever great, whatever noble was
produced by Athens, sprung up verdant and robust out of this harmony,
this buxom vigour of the state. Far different was the case with Sparta;
there rude customs and laws arrested the development of genius: there
men were taught to die for the land of their forefathers: while at
Athens they learnt to live for it.

11. Agriculture continued the principal occupation of the citizens of
Attica; other employments were left to the care of slaves. Commerce and
navigation were mainly directed towards the Thracian coast and the Black
sea; the spirit of trade, however, was never the prevailing one. As
affairs of state became more attractive, and men desired to participate
in them, the want of intellectual education began to be felt, and
sophists and rhetoricians soon offered their instruction. Mental
expertness was more coveted than mental knowledge; men wished to learn
how to think and to speak. A poetical education had long preceded the
rise of this national desire; poesy now lost nothing of its value: as
heretofore Homer remained the cornerstone of intellectual improvement.
Could it be that such blossoms would produce other fruits than those
which ripened in the school of Socrates, in the masterpieces of the
tragedians and orators, and in the immortal works of Plato?

12. These flowers of national genius burst forth in spite of many evils,
inseparable from such a constitution established among such a people.
Great men were pushed aside; others took their places. The loss of
Themistocles was supplied by Miltiades's son Cimon; who to purer
politics united equal talents. He protracted the war against the
Persians in order to maintain the union of the Greeks; and favoured the
aristocratic party at the same time that he affected popularity. Even
his enemies learnt by experience, that the state could not dispense with
a leader who seemed to have entered into a compact for life with
victory.

  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
  Euboea; 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.

13. The death of Aristides, and the banishment of Cimon, concur in
elevating Pericles to the head of affairs; a statesman whose influence
had begun to operate as early as 469. Less a general than a demagogue,
he supported himself in authority during forty years, until the day of
his death, and swayed Athens without being either archon or member of
the areopagus. That under him the constitution must have assumed a more
democratic character, is demonstrated by the fact of his exaltation as
leader of the democratic party. The aristocrats, however, contrive until
444 to set up rivals against him in the persons of the military leaders,
Myronides, Tolmidas, and more particularly the elder Thucydides.

  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 Haliae, in
  their turn rout the enemy, 458, and then carry the war against
  Aegina, 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 Boeotia.
  First battle of Tanagra, in which the Spartans are victorious in
  the same year, 457. The Boeotians, 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.

14. Cimon recalled from exile, endeavours to reestablish the domestic
tranquillity of Greece, and at the same time to renew the war against
the Persians. He succeeds in his attempt after the lapse of five years;
and the consequence is a victorious expedition against the Persians. He
defeats their fleet off Cyprus, and routs their army on the Asiatic
coast. The fruit of this victory is the celebrated peace with Artaxerxes
I. (see above, p. 104.) Ere that peace is concluded Cimon dies, too soon
for his country, while occupied with the siege of Citium.

  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.

15. The conclusion of peace with Persia, glorious as it was, and the
death of the man whose grand political object was to preserve union
among the Greeks, again aroused the spirit of internal strife. For
notwithstanding nearly twenty years intervened before the tempest burst
with all its fury, this period was so turbulent during its course, that
Greece seldom enjoyed universal peace. While Athens by her naval
strength was maintaining her ascendancy over the confederates, and while
some of those confederates were raising the standard of rebellion and
passing over to Sparta, every thing was gradually combining towards the
formation of a counter league, the necessary consequence of which must
have been a war, such as the Peloponnesian. Up to this time Athens was
at the height of her power; she was governed by Pericles, who, in every
thing but the name, was sole ruler during this period, and for that
reason she experienced few of the evils resulting from a democratic
constitution. Who, indeed, could overthrow a demagogue whose presence of
mind, even in the greatest good fortune, never once deserted him; who
knew how to keep alive among his fellow-citizens the conviction that,
however exalted they might be, it was to him alone they were indebted
for it?

  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 Boeotians, 447. This expedition,
  undertaken in opposition to the advice of Pericles, contributes to
  increase his influence; particularly as he reduces to obedience
  the revolted Euboea 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 Corcyraeans take possession of after winning a naval
  victory, 435. The Athenians take part in the quarrel, and side with
  the Corcyraeans, 432. The rupture with Corinth, and the policy of
  Perdiccas II. king of Macedonia, lead to the secession of the
  Corinthian colony of Potidaea, which previously belonged to the
  Athenian confederacy: the war thereby is extended to the Macedonian
  coast. Engagement near Potidaea, 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 Plataeae, the confederate of Athens, 431.

16. The history of the twenty-seven years' war, known by the name of the
Peloponnesian, or great Grecian war, which swept away the fairest
flowers of Greece, is the more deserving attention from its being not
merely a struggle between nations, but likewise against certain forms of
government. The policy of Athens, which to establish or preserve her
influence in foreign states, excited the multitude against the higher
orders, had on all sides given rise to two factions, the democrat or
Athenian, and the aristocrat or Spartan; and the mutual bitterness of
party spirit produced the most violent disorders.

17. The respective relations of the two head states of Greece to their
confederates, were at this time of a very opposite nature. Athens, as a
naval power, was mistress of most of the islands and maritime cities,
which, as tributary confederates, rendered for the most part a forced
obedience. Sparta, as a land power, was allied with most of the states
on the continent, which had joined her side of their own accord, and
were not subject to tribute. Sparta therefore presented herself as the
deliverer of Greece from the Athenian yoke.

  Confederates of the Athenians: the islands Chios, Samos, <DW26>s, 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, Plataeae, and those of Acarnania.--Confederates of the
  Spartans: all the Peloponnesians, (Argos and Achaia excepted, which
  stood neutral,) Megara, Locris, Phocis, Boeotia, the cities of
  Ambracia and Anactorium, and the island of Leucas.

18. Sketch of the internal state of Athens and Sparta at this period.
The power of Athens depended mainly on the state of her finances;
without which she could not support a fleet, and without a fleet her
ascendancy over the confederates would of course fall to ground. And
although Pericles, notwithstanding his lavish public expenditure, was
able to enter upon the war with 6,000 talents in the treasury,
experience could not fail to show that, in such a democratic state as
Athens was now become under Pericles, the squandering of the public
money was an unavoidable evil. This evil was produced, however, at
Athens much less by the peculations of individual state officers than by
the demands of the multitude, who for the most part lived at the expense
of the state treasury. On the other hand, Sparta as yet had no finance;
and only began to feel the want of it as she began to acquire a naval
power, and entered upon undertakings more vast than mere incursions.

  Financial system of the Athenians. Revenue: 1. The tribute paid by
  the confederates ([Greek: phoroi]) 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: ([Greek: metoikoi].) 4. The
  taxes on the citizens, ([Greek: eisphorai],) which fell almost
  entirely on the rich, more particularly on the first class, the
  members of which were not only to bear the burthen of fitting out
  the fleet, ([Greek: trierarchiai],) but were likewise to furnish
  means for the public festivals and spectacles, ([Greek:
  choregiai].) 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.

19. First period of the war until the fifty years' peace. Beginning of
the war unsuccessful to Athens during the first three years, under the
conduct of Pericles, in whose defensive plan we may perhaps discern the
infirmities of age. The Athenians, however, suffered less from the
annual inroads of the Spartans than from the plague, to which Pericles
himself at last fell a victim. The alliance of the Athenians with the
kings of Thrace and Macedonia extended the theatre of war; on the other
hand, Sparta had already conceived the idea of an alliance with Persia.

20. The death of Pericles was, for the next seven years, during which
the place of that great man was supplied by Cleon a currier, followed by
all the evils of an uncurbed democracy. The atrocious decrees with
respect to Mitylene, which after seceding, had been recaptured, and the
insurrection of the Corcyraean populace against the rich, characterized
the party spirit then dominant in Greece better than the few
insignificant events of a war conducted without any plan. Sparta,
however, found in young Brasidas a general, such as are wont to arise in
revolutionary times. His prosecution of the war on the Macedonian coast
might have brought great danger to Athens, had he so early not fallen a
victim to his own gallantry.

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

21. The peace now concluded for fifty years could not be of long
duration, as many of the confederates on either side were discontented
with its terms. All hope of tranquillity must have been at an end when
the management of Athenian affairs fell into the hands of a youth like
Alcibiades, in whom vanity and artifice held the place of patriotism and
talent, and who thought war the only field in which he could gain
credit. Against him what availed the prudence of Nicias?--Happy was it
for Athens that during the whole of this period Sparta never produced
one man who could match even with Alcibiades!

  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, whereas neutrality in the
  weaker party now becomes a crime, 416.

22. Alcibiades's party brings forward at Athens the project of
conquering Sicily, under the pretence of succouring the Segestani
against the Syracusans. This rash expedition, in which the hopes both of
the Athenians and of its instigator Alcibiades were blighted, gave to
Athens the first great blow, from which she never after, even with the
utmost exertion of her strength, recovered; especially as Sparta also
was now become a naval power.

  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.

23. Fatal as in the present circumstances the blow struck in Sicily must
appear to have been to Athens, yet the calamity was surmounted by
Athenian enthusiasm, never greater than in times of misfortune. They
maintained their supremacy over the confederates; but the part which
Alcibiades, in consequence of the new posture his own personal interest
had assumed at Sparta, took in their affairs, brought about a twofold
domestic revolution, which checked the licentious democracy.

  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 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 [Greek: boule], 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 Euboea.
  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.

24. Brilliant period of Alcibiades's command. The reiterated naval
victories won by the Athenians over the Spartans under Mindarus, who,
mistrusting Tissaphernes, now forms an alliance with Pharnabazus, satrap
of the north of Asia Minor, oblige the Spartans to propose peace, which
haughty Athens, unluckily for herself, rejects.

  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.

25. Arrival of the younger Cyrus in Asia Minor; the shrewdness of
Lysander wins him over to the Spartan interest. The republican
haughtiness of Lysander's successor, Callicratidas, shown to Cyrus, was
a serious error in policy; for, unassisted by Persian money, Sparta was
not in a condition to pay her mariners, nor consequently to support her
naval establishment. After the defeat and death of Callicratidas, the
command is restored to Lysander, who terminates the twenty seven years'
war triumphantly for Sparta.

  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 Aeginussae
  islands, near <DW26>s, 406.--Unjust condemnation of the Athenian
  generals.--Second command of Lysander, and last _decisive_ victory
  by sea over the Athenians at Aegospotamos 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.)

26. Thus ended a war destructive in its moral, still more than in its
political, consequences. Party spirit had usurped the place of patriotic
feeling; as national prejudice had that of national energy. Athens being
subdued, Sparta stood at the head of confederate Greece; but Greece very
soon experienced the yoke of her deliverers to be infinitely more
galling than that of the people hitherto called her oppressors. What
evils must not have ensued from the revolutions Lysander now found it
necessary to effect in most of the Grecian states, in order to place the
helm of government in the hands of his own party under the
superintendence of a Spartan harmost?--How oppressive must not have been
the military rule of the numerous Spartan garrisons?--Nor could any
alleviation of tribute be hoped for, now that in Sparta it was
acknowledged that the "state must possess an exchequer."--The arrogance
and rapacity of the new masters were rendered more grievous by their
being more uncivilized and destitute.

  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 ([Greek: hetaireiai]) 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.

27. Happy revolution in Athens, and expulsion of the thirty tyrants
by Thrasybulus, favoured by the party at Sparta opposed to Lysander,
and headed by king Pausanias. Restoration and reform of Solon's
constitution; general amnesty. It was easy to reestablish forms;--to
recall the departed spirit of the nation was impossible!

  ED. PH. HINRICHS, _De Theramenis, Critiae et Thrasybuli, virorum
  tempore belli Peloponnesiaci inter Graecos illustrium, rebus et
  ingenio, Commentatio_, Hamburgi, 1820. An inquiry which exhibits
  much research and impartiality.

28. The defeat of the younger Cyrus entangles the Spartans in a war with
the Persians, the same year that, after the death of king Agis,
Agesilaus takes possession of the regal dignity. We willingly forget his
usurpation as we follow him in his heroic career. None but a man of
genius could have instructed Sparta how to support for so long a time
the extravagant character which she had now undertaken to play.

  Opening of the war with Persia by Tissaphernes's attack on the
  Aeolian 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 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.

29. The Corinthian war, waged against Sparta by Corinth, Thebes, and
Argos, to which Athens and the Thessalians unite, terminated by the
peace of Antalcidas. The tyranny of Sparta, and more particularly the
recent devastation of Elis, a sacred territory, were the alleged
pretexts; but the bribes of Timocrates, the Persian envoy, were the real
causes of this war.

  Irruption of the Spartans into Boeotia; 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.

30. The quarrels which, after the peace of Antalcidas, Sparta began to
have with Mantinea and Phlius, and still more so her participation in
those between the Macedo-Greek cities and the over-powerful Olynthus,
prove too plainly the arrogance with which Sparta behaved to the weaker
states. But the arbitrary appropriation of the citadel of Thebes by
Phoebidas,--an act not indeed commanded, yet approved by Sparta,--was
attended with more serious consequences than were at first expected.
Would that all authors of similar breaches of good faith and the law of
nations were visited with the same vengeance!

31. Period of the rivalry of Sparta and Thebes, Thebes, from the year
378. The greatness of Thebes was the work of two men, who knew how to
inspire their fellow-citizens and confederates with their own heroic
spirit: with them Thebes rose, with them she fell. Rarely does history
exhibit such a _duumvirate_ as that of Epaminondas and Pelopidas. How
high must our estimation of Pythagoras be, even had his philosophy
formed but one such man as Epaminondas!

  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 Boeotia, 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.

32. A general peace is concluded in Greece through the mediation of the
Persians, (who wish to obtain auxiliaries against the Egyptians,) under
the condition that all the Grecian cities shall be free: it is acceded
to by Sparta and Athens, but rejected by Thebes, because she cannot
admit the condition without again falling under the Spartan yoke. In
fact, the lofty language used by Epaminondas, as envoy to Sparta, shows
that it was problematic whether Sparta or Thebes should now be at the
head of Greece. Could the idea, therefore, of a perfect equality between
the states of Greece be other than chimerical?

33. The long struggle maintained so gloriously by Epaminondas against
Sparta is remarkable both in a political and military point of view. The
power of Sparta was abased; Epaminondas invented a new system of
tactics, (out of which soon after sprang the Macedonian art of war;) and
as soon as he found confederates in Peloponnesus itself, he made his way
to the very gates of Sparta.

  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.

34. Sparta in distress forms an alliance with Athens, under the
stipulation that the command shall alternately be in the hands of the
two confederates; conditions, no doubt, humiliating to Spartan pride! It
however affords them the means of frustrating Epaminondas's new attempt
on Corinth and the Peloponnesus. Even Dionysius I. of Syracuse, thinks
himself bound to assist the Spartans as being Dorians.

35. Thebes played a no less brilliant part in the north than she did in
the south. And had the attempts to liberate Thessaly from the rule of
the tyrant, Alexander of Pherae, been attended with success, Thebes would
have received a vast increase of power. Even in Macedonia she acted as
arbitress.

  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.

36. Alliance of Thebes with Persia successfully brought about by
Pelopidas. In the intrigues of the opponents at the Persian court, the
object of each was to bring that court over to his own interest. Yet the
domineering tone in which the Persians wished to dictate peace, had not
the consequences that might have been expected; and although Sparta
consented to her confederates remaining neutral, she would not forego
her claims on Messene. The establishment of a navy would have been of
more important consequences to Thebes than this alliance, had not all
these plans, together with the greatness of Thebes, been swept away by
the premature death of her two leading men.

  Last expedition of Pelopidas against Alexander of Pherae, 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 of Messene,
  but sends Agesilaus to Egypt, there to support the insurrection of
  Tachos.

37. The result of this bloody struggle for the supremacy of Greece was,
that neither Sparta nor Thebes obtained it; the former of these states
being weakened by the loss of Messene, the latter by the loss of its
leaders, and both strained by their violent exertions. The situation of
Greece after this war seems to have been thus far changed, that no state
had the predominance; an independence proceeding from enervation. Even
Athens, who by means of her naval power still preserved her influence
over the cities on the coast and in the islands, lost the greater part
in the war of the allies, together with three of her most celebrated
leaders, Chabrias, Timotheus, and Iphicrates, whose places were ill
supplied by Chares.

  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.

38. At the very time when the growing power of Macedonia under Philip
ought to have united all the Grecian states, had such an union been
within the range of possibility, Greece plunged into another civil war
of ten years' duration, which is known by the name of the sacred or
Phocian war. The Amphictyonic assembly, whose duty it was to maintain
peace, and whose influence had been in the present circumstances
reinstated, abused its authority by kindling discord. The hatred of the
Thebans, who sought for new opportunities of quarrel with Sparta, and
the ambition of the Phocian Philomelus, were the real causes which led
to the war, which the policy of Philip knew how to prolong till the
precise moment favourable to his own particular views arrived. The
treasures of Delphi circulating in Greece, were as injurious to the
country as the ravages which it underwent. A war springing out of
private passions, fostered by bribes and subsidiary troops, and
terminated by the interference of foreign powers, was exactly what was
requisite for annihilating the scanty remains of morality and patriotism
still existing in Greece.

  Sentence of the Amphictyons against Sparta on account of the
  former surprise of the citadel of Thebes by Phoebidas; 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 Thermopylae 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.

39. From the very first advance of Philip, the fate of Greece could
scarcely afford matter for doubt; although the eloquence of Demosthenes
warded it off until the second invasion, caused by the Amphictyonic
sentence passed on the Locrians. (See below, book iv. parag. 15.) The
battle of Chaeronea laid the foundation of Macedonia's complete
ascendancy over the Grecian republics: by the appointment of Philip to
be generalissimo of Greece in the Persian war, that ascendancy was, as
it were, formally acknowledged; nor did it end with the assassination of
that prince.


       *       *       *       *       *




FOURTH BOOK.

HISTORY OF THE MACEDONIAN MONARCHY.




FIRST PERIOD.

_From its origin to the death of Alexander the Great. B. C. 800-323._


  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 Aeschines 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.

1. An Hellenic colony from Argos, headed by the Temenidae, a branch of
the Heraclidae, settled in Emathia, and laid the feeble foundation of the
Macedonian empire, which was in time to rise to such power. Not only did
the settlers keep their footing in the country, in spite of the
aboriginal inhabitants; but their princes gradually extended their
territory, by subjecting or expelling several of the neighbouring
tribes. Their earlier history, not excepting even the names of their
kings, is buried in obscurity till the time of the Persian invasions.

  The three first Macedonian kings, Caranus said to have ruled
  twenty-eight years, Coenus 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
  Argaeus, _d._ 640, Philip I. _d._ 602, Aeropus, _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.

2. When the Persians commenced their incursions into Europe, Macedonia,
by its situation, must have been one of the first countries they
ravaged. Accordingly, as early as the reign of Darius Hystaspis, the
Macedonian kings were tributary to the Persians; and were indebted for
their deliverance from that yoke, not to their own valour, but to the
victories of the Greeks. The battle of Plataeae restored independence to
the Macedonian kingdom, although that independence was not formally
acknowledged by the Persians.

  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.

3. But the expulsion of the Persians still left Macedonia exposed to the
attacks of other formidable neighbours; on one side there was the
Thracians, among whom, under Sitalces, and his successor, Seuthes, arose
the powerful kingdom of the Odrysae; on the other, the Athenians, who,
availing themselves of their extensive navy, reduced to subjection the
Grecian settlements on the Macedonian shores. Harassing as these
neighbours were to the Macedonian kings, they proved to be the very
instruments by which Macedonia became so early and so deeply involved in
the affairs of Greece.

  Commencement of the differences with Athens, under the reign of
  Perdiccas II, 454-413; Athens having supported his brother Philip
  against him.--Defection of Potidaea, and fortification of Olynthus,
  into which the Greeks from Chalcis and other cities are
  transplanted, 432. Potidaea 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.

4. Archelaus, the successor of Perdiccas, introduced agriculture and
civilization among the Macedonians, who were never, however, recognized
by the Hellenes as their legitimate brethren: highways and military
roads were constructed; forts were erected; and the court became the
seat of literature. In these days the Macedonian kingdom seems to have
comprised Emathia, Mygdonia, and Pelagonia, to which may be added some
of the neighbouring tribes, who, although governed by their own kings,
were tributary. The power of the kings was insignificant when unaided by
the nobles, among whom, as was the case with all the hereditary princes
of Greece, they merely held the right of precedence. How difficult was
it, even in Alexander's time, to erase from the minds of the Macedonian
nobility the recollection of their former importance!

5. The murder of Archelaus was followed by a stormy period, wrapped in
obscurity: the unsettled state of the succession raised up many
pretenders to the throne, each of whom easily found the means of
supporting his claims, either in some of the neighbouring tribes, or in
one of the Grecian republics.

  Aeropus, 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 Argaeus,
  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.

6. The three sons of Amyntas II, Alexander, Perdiccas, and Philip,
successively ascended the throne after the death of their father; but so
violent were the commotions during the reigns of the two former, that
the future existence of Macedonia as a kingdom might have been regarded
as problematical: it is certain that they were obliged to submit to the
payment of tribute to the Illyrians.

  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.

7. The reign of Philip, which lasted twenty-four years, is one of the
most instructive and interesting in the whole range of history, as well
on account of the prudence he displayed, as for the manner in which his
plans were arranged and executed. Though it may be difficult to trace in
his morals the pupil of Epaminondas, yet it is impossible to view
without feelings of astonishment the brilliant career of a man, who,
under the almost hopeless circumstances in which he commenced his
course, never lost his firmness of mind, and who in the highest
prosperity preserved his coolness of reflection.

  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 Macedoine_. 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.

8. Melancholy posture of the Macedonian affairs at the beginning of
Philip's reign. Besides victorious foes abroad, there were at home two
pretenders to the throne, Argaeus, backed by Athens, Pausanias, supported
by Thrace; and Philip himself, at first, was merely regent, and not
king. In the two first years, however, every thing was changed, and
Macedonia recovered her independence. The newly-created phalanx ensured
victory over the barbarians; recourse was had to other means than force
for success against the suspiciousness of Athens and the neighbouring
Greek settlements, particularly against the powerful Olynthus. It is in
the conduct of these affairs that the peculiar sagacity of Philip is
displayed.

  After the defeat of Argaeus, 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 Paeonians 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.

9. Development of Philip's further plans of aggrandizement.--By the
gradual subjection of the Macedo-Greek cities, he proposed, not only to
make himself sole master in Macedonia, but also to remove the Athenians
from his domain.--The first object of his policy against Greece was to
get himself acknowledged as a Hellen, and Macedonia as a member of the
Hellenic league. Hence the subsequent tutelage in which Macedonia held
Greece was not converted into a formal subjection, a proceeding which
would have savoured too much of barbarian origin.--The execution of all
these plans was facilitated by the possession of the Thracian gold
mines, which enabled Philip to create finances as well as the phalanx.

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

10. The interference of Philip in the affairs of Thessaly dates from the
year 357; the possession of that country was an object equally important
for the furtherance of his views upon Greece, as for the improvement of
his finances. He first stepped forth as the deliverer of Thessaly, and
ended in making it a province of Macedonia.

  Expulsion of the tyrants from Pherae, at the request of the
  Aleuadae, 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.

11. The protraction of the sacred war in Greece furnished Philip with an
excellent opportunity of promoting his views upon that country; although
his first attempt at an irruption, too precipitately undertaken, was
frustrated by the Athenians. The capture of Olynthus, notwithstanding
the assistance afforded it by the Athenians, after a season of apparent
inaction, insured the safety of the frontiers in his rear; and by a
master stroke of policy, almost at the very moment in which he was
driving the Athenians out of Euboea, he found means to enter with them
into negotiations, which, after repeated embassies, were closed by a
peace, opening to him the way through Thermopylae, and enabling him to
raise a party favourable to himself within the very walls of Athens.

12. First descent of Philip into Greece, and termination of the sacred
war by reducing the Phocians. The place which he now obtained in the
Amphictyonic council, had been the height of his wishes; and the
humility of Sparta proved how firmly his ascendancy over Greece was
already established.

13. Brief view of the state of Greece, and more particularly of Athens,
after the sacred war; description of the means by which Philip succeeded
in creating and supporting parties favourable to his own interests in
the Grecian states. Bribery was not his only instrument; what he gave he
borrowed from others; the main feature of his policy was, that he seldom
or ever recurred to the same means. Scheming and consistent even in his
drunken revels, he hardly ever appears under the same form.

  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.

14. New conquests of Philip in Illyria and Thrace. The Adriatic sea and
the Danube appear to have been the boundaries of his empire on this
side. But the views of the Macedonian king were directed less against
the Thracians, than against the Grecian settlements on the Hellespont;
and the attack of the Athenian Diopithes furnished him a pretext for
making war against them. The siege, however, of Perinthus and Byzantium,
was frustrated by Phocion, to the great vexation of Philip; an event
which aroused the Athenians, and even the Persians, from their lethargy.

15. Policy of Philip after this check.--At the very time that, engaged
in a war against the barbarians on the Danube, he appears to have wholly
lost sight of the affairs of Greece, his agents redouble their activity.
Aeschines, richly paid for his services, proposes in the Amphictyonic
council, that, to punish the sacrilegious insults of the Locrians to the
Delphian oracle, he should be elected leader of the Greeks in this new
sacred war. Following his usual maxim, Philip suffers himself to be
entreated.

16. Second expedition of Philip into Greece. His appropriation of the
important frontier town of Elatea soon showed that, for this time at
least, he was not contending merely for the honour of Apollo.--Alliance
between Athens and Thebes brought about by Demosthenes.--But the defeat
of Chaeronea in the same year decided the dependence of Greece. Philip
now found it easy to play the magnanimous character towards Athens.

17. Preparations for the execution of his plan against Persia, not as
his own undertaking, but as a national war of the Hellenes against the
barbarians. Thus, while Philip, by obtaining from the Amphictyons the
appointment of generalissimo of Greece against the Persians, secured in
an _honourable_ manner the dependence of the country, the splendour of
the expedition flattered the nation at whose expense it was to be
conducted. It is a question, indeed, whether Philip's own private views
extended much further!

18. The internal government of Macedonia, under so skilful and
successful a conqueror, must necessarily have been absolute. No
pretender would dare to rise up against such a ruler, and the body guard
([Greek: doryphoroi]) established by him at the beginning of his reign,
and taken from the Macedonian nobility, contributed much to keep up a
proper understanding between the prince and the nobles. The court became
a military staff, while the people, from a nation of herdsmen, was
converted into a nation of warriors.--Philip was unfortunate only in his
own family; but the blame is not to be attributed to him if he could not
agree with Olympias.

19. Philip murdered by Pausanias at Aegae, probably at the instigation of
the Persians, while celebrating the marriage of his daughter.

20. The reign of ALEXANDER the GREAT, in the eyes of the historical
inquirer, derives its great interest, not only from the extent, but from
the permanence, of the revolution which he effected in the world. To
appreciate properly the character of this prince, who died just as he
was about to carry his mighty projects into execution, is no easy task;
but it is totally repugnant to common sense to suppose that the pupil of
Aristotle was nothing more than a wild and reckless conqueror, unguided
by any plan.

  ST. CROIX, _Examen critique des anciens historiens
  d'Alexandre-le-grand_, 2nd. edition, _considerablement augmentee_.
  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.

21. Violent commotions at court, in the conquered countries, and in
Greece, after the death of Philip. Great as his power appeared to be,
the preservation of it depended entirely on the first display of
character in his successor. Alexander showed himself worthy to inherit
the sceptre by his victorious expedition against the Thracians; (to
whom, and more especially to his alliance with the Agrians, he was
afterwards indebted for his light horse;) and by the example which he
exhibited to Greece in his treatment of Thebes.

22. Appointment of Alexander in the assembly at Corinth to be
generalissimo of the Greeks. Yet what his father would probably have
turned to a very different account, he allowed to remain a mere nominal
office.--Development of his plan of attack upon Persia.--The want of a
navy, soon experienced by Alexander, would probably have frustrated his
whole project, had not Memnon's counterplan of an inroad into Macedonia
been thwarted by the celerity of the Macedonian king.

23. Passage over the Hellespont, and commencement of the war. The
tranquillity of his kingdom and of Greece appeared to be secured,
Antipater being left at the head of affairs.--The victory on the
Granicus opens to Alexander a path into Asia Minor; but the death of
Memnon, which soon after followed, was perhaps a greater advantage than
a victory.

24. The victory of Issus, gained over Darius in person, appears to have
given Alexander the first idea of completely overturning the Persian
throne, as was proved by the rejection of Darius's offers of peace. When
indeed have not the plans of conquerors been dependent on the course of
events? Yet Alexander must have been pretty certain of his future
victory, since he permitted Darius to escape, while he sat down seven
months before Tyre, in order to make himself master of the sea; and,
after the conquest of Egypt without a battle, to which the possession of
Tyre opened the way, to build Alexandria, and erect to himself a
monument more lasting than all his victories.

  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.

25. Invasion of Inner Asia, facilitated by the tacit submission of the
ruling tribes, and by the state of cultivation in which the country was
found. On the plains of Arbela the Macedonian tactics were completely
triumphant. It might now be said that the throne of Persia was
overturned; and the unexpectedly easy capture of Babylon, Susa, and
Persepolis, was surely of more importance for the moment than the
pursuit of a flying king.

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

26. The subjection of the north-eastern provinces of the Persian empire
would perhaps have been attended with the greatest difficulties, had
not the astonishing activity of the conqueror crushed in their birth
the schemes of the treacherous Bessus, who, after the assassination of
Darius, wished to erect a separate kingdom in Bactria. The Jaxartes was
now the northern boundary of the Macedonian monarchy, as it had hitherto
been that of the Persian. Besides, the possession of the rich trading
countries, Bactria and Sogdiana, was in itself an object of vast
importance.

  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.

27. Alexander's expedition against India had, no doubt, its origin in
that propensity to romantic enterprise which constituted a main feature
in his character. Yet what could be more natural than that a close view
of Persian splendour, the conquest of such wealthy countries, and the
desire of prosecuting his vast commercial designs, should gradually
mature in the mind of the Macedonian king the plan of subjecting a
country which was represented as the golden land of Asia. To this
likewise the scantiness of geographic information must have greatly
contributed; if he pressed forward to the eastern seas, the circle of
his dominion would, it was supposed, be complete.--It appears very
certain that Alexander was destitute of a sufficient knowledge of the
country when he entered upon this expedition.

  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.

28. Although Alexander was obliged to give up the project of conquering
India, yet the connection between Europe and the east, which has
continued from that time, was the work of his hands. While the
communication on land was secured by the establishment of various
settlements, the communication by sea was opened by the voyage of his
admiral, Nearchus, from the Indus to the Euphrates. In the mean time
Alexander himself proceeded to Persis and Babylon, across the desert,
and the unexplored provinces of Gedrosia and Carmania.

  Nearchus's voyage (our knowledge of which is derived from his own
  journal, preserved in Arrian's _Indica_) lasted from the
  beginning 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.

29. After the abandonment of India, the whole circuit of Alexander's
conquests was precisely that of the former Persian empire; his later
projects were probably directed against Arabia alone. However easy it
had been to make these conquests, it was a more difficult task to retain
them; for Macedonia, exhausted by continual levies of men, could not
furnish efficient garrisons. Alexander removed this difficulty, by
protecting the conquered from oppression; by showing proper respect to
their religion; by leaving the civil government in the hands of the
native rulers who had hitherto possessed it; and by confiding to
Macedonians the command only of the garrisons left in the chief places,
and in the newly established colonies. To alter as little as possible in
the internal organization of countries was his fundamental principle.

30. Simple as Alexander's plans were in the outset, their simplicity was
more than compensated by the magnitude and importance of their results.
Babylon was to be the capital of his empire, and consequently of the
world. The union of the east and the west was to be brought about by the
amalgamation of the dominant races by intermarriage, by education, and,
more than all, by the ties of commerce, the importance of which much
ruder conquerors, in Asia itself, soon learnt to appreciate. In nothing
probably is the superiority of his genius more brilliantly displayed,
than in his exemption from all national prejudice, particularly when we
consider that none of his countrymen were in this respect to be compared
with him. To refuse him this merit is impossible, whatever judgment we
may form of his general character.

31. Sudden death of Alexander at Babylon by fever; under the peculiar
circumstances of the time, the greatest loss mankind could experience.
From the Indus to the Nile the world lay in ruins; and where was now the
architect to be found, that could gather up the scattered fragments and
restore the edifice?

  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.




SECOND PERIOD.

_History of the Macedonian monarchy, from the death of Alexander
the Great to the battle of Ipsus, B. C. 323-301._


  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.

1. The very first measure adopted after the death of Alexander contained
within itself the seeds of all the dire revolutions that afterwards
ensued. Not only were the jealousy and ambition of the nobles aroused,
but even the interference of the army was exhibited in the most terrific
manner. Although the idea of the supremacy of the royal family was cast
off only by degrees, yet the dreadfully disturbed state in which that
family stood, rendered its fall unavoidable.

  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 half-brother,
  Arrhidaeus; 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,
  Arrhidaeus; and Thessalonica, Philip's daughter, afterwards united
  to Cassander of Macedonia.

2. The weak Arrhidaeus, under the name of Philip, and the infant
Alexander were at last proclaimed kings, the _regency_ being placed in
the hands of Perdiccas, Leonnatus, and Meleager; the last of whom was
quickly cut off at the instigation of Perdiccas. Meanwhile Antipater,
with whom Craterus had been joined as civil ruler, had the management of
affairs in Europe.

3. The sequel of the history becomes naturally that of satraps, who fell
out among themselves, all being ambitious to rule, and none willing to
obey. Twenty-two years elapsed ere any massy edifice arose out of the
ruins of the Macedonian monarchy. In few periods of history are the
revolutions of affairs so violent, in few periods, therefore, is it so
difficult to unravel the maze of events. For this purpose the most
convenient division of the history is into _three_ periods: the first
extending to the death of Perdiccas, 321: the second to the death of
Eumenes, 315: the third to the defeat and death of Antigonus at the
battle of Ipsus, 301.

4. First grant of the provinces made by Perdiccas. The vanity of this
man seems to have induced him to select the office of regent, in order
that no separate province might fall to his share; he placed his whole
reliance on having the command of the royal army, although it had
already given so many proofs of its determination to command rather than
to obey.

  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.

5. The first acts of Perdiccas's government showed how little dependence
he could place on the obedience of men who hitherto had been his
colleagues. The general insurrection among the mercenaries who had been
settled by Alexander in Upper Asia, and now wished to return to their
homes, was, no doubt, quelled by Python's destruction of the rebels; but
it was not Python's fault that he did not make himself independent
master of the scene of mutiny.

6. Still more refractory was the behaviour of Leonnatus and Antigonus,
when they received orders to put Eumenes in possession of his province.
Antigonus was too haughty to obey; and Leonnatus preferred going over
into Europe to marry Cleopatra; there, however, he almost immediately
met with his death in the Lamian war. (See below, book iv. period iii.
parag. 2.) Perdiccas, therefore, was himself obliged to undertake the
expedition with the royal army; he succeeded by the defeat of
Ariarathes.

7. Ambitious views of Perdiccas, who, in order to ascend the throne by a
marriage with Cleopatra, repudiates Nicaea, the daughter of Antipater.
Cleopatra actually came over to Asia; but Perdiccas, being obliged, at
the request of the army, to marry Eurydice, Philip's niece, after the
murder of her mother Cyane, to the king Arrhidaeus, found her a
troublesome rival and opponent in the government.

8. Attempts of Perdiccas to overthrow Antigonus and Ptolemy, by accusing
them before the army. Antigonus passes over to Antipater in Macedonia;
and gives rise to the league between Antipater, Craterus, and Ptolemy,
against Perdiccas and Eumenes.

9. Commencement and termination of the first war. Perdiccas himself
marches against Egypt, leaving his friend Eumenes to command in Asia
Minor: meanwhile Antipater and Craterus fall upon Asia; the former
advances towards Syria against Perdiccas; the latter is defeated and
slain by Eumenes. Before the arrival, however, of Antipater, Perdiccas,
after repeated and vain attempts to cross the Nile, falls a victim to
the insurrection of his own troops.--Thus three of the principal
personages, Perdiccas, Craterus, Leonnatus, were already removed from
the theatre of action; and the victorious Eumenes, now master of Asia
Minor, had to maintain, unaided, the struggle against the confederates.

10. Second period, from the death of Perdiccas to that of
Eumenes.--Python and Arrhidaeus quickly resigning the regency, it is
assumed by Antipater.--New division of the provinces at Trisparadisus in
Syria. Seleucus receives Babylon; Antigonus is promised, besides his
former possessions, all those of the outlawed Eumenes.

11. War of Antigonus with Eumenes. The latter, defeated by treachery,
shuts himself up in the mountain fastness of Nora, there to await more
favourable times; and Antigonus remains master of all Asia Minor: in the
mean time Ptolemy ventures to take possession of Syria and Phoenicia.

12. Death of the regent Antipater, in the same year, (320;) he bequeaths
the regency to his friend, the aged Polysperchon, to the exclusion of
his own son Cassander. Antigonus now begins to unfold his ambitious
plans; he endeavours vainly to win over Eumenes, who deceives him in the
negotiations, and seizes the opportunity of leaving his mountain
fastness.

13. Eumenes's plan to strengthen himself in Upper Asia; as he is on the
way he receives tidings of his being appointed generalissimo of the
royal troops. What better man could Polysperchon have selected for the
office than he who in his conduct towards Antigonus exhibited so
striking an example of attachment to the royal house?

14. Exertions of Eumenes to maintain himself in Lower Asia, ineffectual,
the naval victory won by Antigonus over the royal fleet, commanded by
Clitus, depriving him of the empire of the sea. He bursts into Upper
Asia; where, in the spring, he unites with the satraps, who had taken
arms against the powerful Seleucus of Babylon.

15. Antigonus following up the royal general, Upper Asia becomes the
theatre of war. Victorious as was at first the stand made by Eumenes,
neither valour nor talent were of any avail against the insubordination
of the royal troops, and the jealousy of the other commanders. Attacked
in winter quarters by Antigonus, he was, after the battle, delivered
into the hands of his enemy by the mutinous Argyraspidae, who had lost
their baggage: he was put to death, and in him the king's family lost
its only loyal supporter.

16. Great changes had also taken place in the royal family. Her enemy
Antipater having deceased, Olympias, invited by Polysperchon, who wished
to strengthen himself against Cassander, had returned from Epirus, and
put to death Arrhidaeus together with his wife, Eurydice: in the year
following she was besieged in Pydna by Cassander, and being obliged to
surrender, was in her turn executed; meanwhile Cassander held Roxana and
the young king in his own power.

17. Third period, from the death of Eumenes to that of Antigonus.--The
rout of Eumenes seemed to have established for ever the power of
Antigonus in Asia; still animated with the fire of youth, though full of
years, he saw himself revived in his son Demetrius, fond of boisterous
revelry, but gallant and talented.--Even Seleucus thought it time to
consult his safety by flying from Babylon into Egypt.

18. Changes introduced by Antigonus into the upper provinces; return to
Asia Minor, where his presence seemed indispensable, by reason of the
aggrandizement of Ptolemy in Syria and Phoenicia, of the Macedonian
Cassander in Europe, of Lysimachus in Mysia, and the Carian Cassander in
Asia Minor.--He repossesses himself of Phoenicia, a country of the first
importance for the construction of a fleet.

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

19. The fugitive Seleucus forms a league against Antigonus and
Demetrius, between Ptolemy, the two Cassanders, and Lysimachus. But
Antigonus frustrates their combination, himself driving out the Carian
Cassander, and his son marching against Ptolemy.

  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 Phoenicia,
  312.

20. A general peace concluded between Antigonus and his enemies,
Seleucus only excepted, from whom Upper Asia is to be again wrested. The
first article, that each should retain what he had, demonstrates pretty
evidently that the treaty was dictated solely by Antigonus; the second,
that the Greek cities should be free, was pregnant with the seeds of a
new war, ready to burst forth at every favourable opportunity; the
third, that the young Alexander should be raised to the throne upon
attaining his majority, was probably the death warrant of the hapless
prince, who, that same year, together with his mother, was murdered by
Cassander.--Shortly after, at the instigation of Antigonus, Cleopatra
was put to death, in order that Ptolemy might be thwarted in his object,
which depended on a matrimonial connection with that princess.

21. Even the execution of the articles must have given rise to
hostilities; Ptolemy wishing to force Antigonus, and he, on his side, to
compel Cassander, to withdraw the garrisons from the Grecian towns; a
condition which neither party felt inclined to fulfil. Grecian freedom
was now but a name; this, however, is not the only example history
furnishes of political ideas making the greatest stir long after they
have survived their own existence; for then they become excellent tools
in the hands of artful designers.

  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.

22. The growing power of Ptolemy on the sea, and the capture of Cyprus,
determines Antigonus to an open rupture: he commands his son to drive
Ptolemy out of the island.

  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.

23. The conquerors having failed in their project of subduing Egypt,
made the wealthy republic of the Rhodians, as an ally of that country,
the victim of their fury. But though in the renowned siege of their
capital, Demetrius earned his title of Poliorcetes, the noble defence of
the Rhodians afforded an illustrious example of the power of discipline
in conjunction with well-guided patriotism. The invitation of the
Athenians came seasonably to Demetrius; he raised the blockade and
proceeded to complete the liberation of Greece, the necessity of which
became every day more pressing.

24. Second sojourn of Demetrius in Greece. The expulsion of Cassander's
garrisons from the Grecian cities, and more particularly from those in
Peloponnesus; the appointment of Demetrius as generalissimo of Greece,
for the conquest of Macedonia and Thrace; proved not only to Cassander,
but also to the other princes, that their common interest loudly called
upon them to resist the over-powerful Antigonus.

25. Third grand league of Cassander, Ptolemy, and Seleucus, against
Antigonus and his son; brought about by Cassander. How easily, even
after the violent irruption of Lysimachus into Asia Minor, might
Antigonus have dispersed the gathering storms, had not his presumption
led him to place an overweening reliance on his own good fortune!

26. Junction of Seleucus of Babylon and Lysimachus, in Phrygia.
Antigonus, to concentrate his forces, recalls his son, who had pushed on
to the borders of Macedonia. The cautious Ptolemy, on the other hand, is
afraid to invade Syria; and, in consequence of a false report, that
Lysimachus had been defeated, retires full of alarm, into Egypt.

27. Great and decisive battle fought at Ipsus in Phrygia, in the spring
of 301, which costs Antigonus his life, and annihilates his empire, as
the two conquerors divide it between themselves, without taking any
account of the absent confederates. Asia Minor, as far as mount Taurus,
falls to the share of Lysimachus; and all the rest, with the exception
of Cilicia, which is given to Plisthenes, Cassander's brother, is left
to Seleucus.--Demetrius, by the help of his navy, escapes into Greece.

28. The almost unbroken series of wars which had raged from the time of
Alexander, must have precluded the possibility of much being effected
with respect to domestic organization. It appears to have been nearly,
if not wholly, military. Yet were the numerous devastations in some
measure compensated by the erection of new cities, in which these
princes vied with one another, impelled partly by vanity to immortalize
their names, partly by policy to support their dominion, most of the new
settlements being military colonies. Nevertheless this was but a sorry
reparation for the manifold oppressions to which the natives were
exposed by the practice of quartering the army upon them. The spread of
the language and civilization of the Greeks deprived them of all
national distinction; their own languages sinking into mere provincial
dialects. Alexander's monarchy affords a striking example of the little
that can be expected from a forced amalgamation of races, when the price
of that amalgamation is the obliteration of national character in the
individuals.

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




THIRD PERIOD.

_History of the kingdoms and states which arose upon the dismemberment
of the Macedonian Monarchy after the battle of Ipsus._


I. HISTORY OF THE SYRIAN EMPIRE UNDER THE SELEUCIDAE, B. C. 312-64.

  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 Seleucidae, 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 Syriae_, 1681,
  4to. The enquiry is principally grounded on coins, as is the case
  with

  FROELICH, _Annales rerum et regum Syriae_. Viennae, 1754.

1. The kingdom of the Seleucidae was founded in Upper Asia by Seleucus
Nicator. It was an extensive empire; but, being composed of various
countries united only by conquest, it could possess but little internal
stability except what it derived from the power of its rulers. That
power fell with the founder; and the transfer of the seat of empire
from the banks of the Tigris to Syria, entangled the Seleucidae in all
the political disputes of the western world, and facilitated the
insurrection of the upper provinces. The history of this kingdom divides
itself into the periods before and after the war with Rome; although at
the breaking out of this war the seeds of its decline and fall had
already been sown.

  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 Seleucidae.

2. In the ten following years, and while Antigonus was busied in Asia
Minor, Seleucus laid the foundation of his power over all Upper Asia,
with a facility to which the detestation excited by the rigid government
of Antigonus mainly contributed. After his victory over Nicanor of
Media, all in that quarter declared spontaneously for him; and the
unsuccessful expedition of Demetrius taught Antigonus himself, that it
would no longer be prudent to assert his claims. As early as 307,
Seleucus was in possession of all the countries between the Euphrates,
Indus, and Oxus.

3. Great campaign in India undertaken by Seleucus against king
Sandracottus. He penetrated as far as the Ganges, and the close alliance
he formed with the Indian sovereign lasted a long time after, and was
kept up by embassies. The great number of elephants which he brought
back with him was not the only advantage accruing from this expedition;
the intercourse with the east seems to have been permanently
reestablished.

4. By the battle of Ipsus Seleucus added to his dominions the greater
part of the territories of Antigonus;--Syria, Cappadocia, Mesopotamia,
and Armenia. Unfortunately Syria now became the head province,
notwithstanding Coele-Syria and Phoenicia were left in the hands of
Ptolemy. How widely different would have been the course of historic
events, had the seat of empire remained at Seleucia on the Tigris, and
the Euphrates continued to be the western boundary of the Seleucidae!

5. Reciprocal relations between the several kings, who now combine in
forming a kind of political system, in which continued exertions to
maintain a balance of power by alliance and marriage are plainly
discernible.

  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.

6. The eighteen years of tranquillity enjoyed by Asia after the battle
of Ipsus, prove that Seleucus was one of the few followers of Alexander
who had any genius for the arts of peace. He either founded or
embellished a vast number of cities, the most important of which were
the capital, Antiochia in Syria, and the two Seleucias, one on the
Tigris, the other on the Orontes: the flourishing prosperity of several
of these places was the result of the restoration of eastern trade; new
channels for which appear to have been opened at this period on the main
streams of Asia, and more particularly on the Oxus.

7. The home department of his empire was organized into satrapies, of
which there were seventy-two. But Alexander's maxim, "to give the
satrapies to natives," was wholly forgotten by his followers; and the
Seleucidae were not long before they experienced the evil consequences of
swerving from that practice. Under such a prince as Seleucus scarce any
kingdom could of itself fall to pieces; but the king himself paved the
way for the dismemberment of his empire, by ceding Upper Asia, together
with his consort Stratonice, to his son Antiochus; not, however, without
the previous approbation of the army.

8. War with Lysimachus, kindled by ancient jealousy, and now fomented by
family feuds. The battle of Curopedion cost Lysimachus his throne and
his life; and Asia Minor became a part of the Syrian realm. But as
Seleucus was crossing over to Europe, to add Macedonia to his dominions,
he fell by the hand of an assassin, Ptolemy Ceraunus, and with him the
splendour of his kingdom was extinguished.

9. The reign of his son, Antiochus I. surnamed Soter, seemed not
unprosperous, inasmuch as the empire preserved its former extension; but
in any state founded upon conquest, the failure of new attempts at an
increase of territory is a sure token of approaching ruin; and this was
the case here.--In such a state, the more immediately all depends on
the person of the ruler, the more rapid and sensible are the effects of
degeneration in a family like that of the Seleucidae.

  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.

10. Antiochus II. surnamed [Greek: Theos]. During his reign the sway was
in the hands of women; and the diseased state of the interior of the
empire became palpable by the secession of various eastern provinces,
out of which arose the Parthian and Bactrian kingdoms. The boundless
luxury of the court hurried on the decline of the ruling family; having
once begun to sink, it could not without difficulty have retrieved its
virtue independently of the matrimonial connections now constantly
formed from within itself.

  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
  Arsacidae: 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 Seleucidae.

11. Seleucus II. surnamed Callinicus. His reign, twenty years in
duration, is one unbroken series of wars; in which the kingdom, already
enfeebled, was subverted, partly by the struggle with Egypt, caused by
the hatred between Laodice and Berenice; partly by the jealousy of his
brother Antiochus Hierax; and partly by vain attempts at recovering the
upper provinces.

  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.

12. His elder son Seleucus III. surnamed Ceraunus, on the point of
taking the field against Attalus king of Pergamus, was removed by
poison. But the dominion of the Seleucidae was reestablished in Asia
Minor by his mother's fraternal nephew, Achaeus; and the crown ensured to
the younger brother Antiochus, governor of Babylon.

13. The long reign of Antiochus III. surnamed the Great, is not only the
most eventful in Syrian history, but likewise marks an epoch, by the
relations now commencing between Syria and Rome.--To earn the title of
_great_ was a task of no extreme difficulty in such a line of princes.

14. Great power of Hermias the Carian, who soon became so formidable to
the young monarch, that he was obliged to rid himself of him by murder.
The great stand made by the brothers, Molo and Alexander, satraps of
Media and Persia, who probably had an understanding with Hermias,
threatened the king with the loss of all the upper provinces: it ended
in the defeat of Molo, Hermias being at last no longer able to hinder
the king from marching against him in person.

15. The intrigues of Hermias excited Achaeus to rebellion in Asia Minor:
but Antiochus held more important, first to execute the plan he had
previously traced, of ejecting the Ptolemies from their possessions in
Syria; great as the success which at first attended this expedition, it
was completely traversed by the battle of Raphia.--Combining with
Attalus of Pergamus, Antiochus then defeated Achaeus, who, being shut up
in the citadel of Sardes, was treacherously delivered into his hands.

16. Great campaign of Antiochus in the upper provinces, in consequence
of the seizure of Media by Arsaces III.--Hostilities ended in a compact,
by which Antiochus agreed formerly to cede Parthia and Hyrcania;
Arsaces, on his side, pledging himself to furnish assistance against
Bactria.--But the war with Bactria was also followed by a peace,
leaving the king, Euthydemus, in possession of his crown and
dominions.--The expedition now undertaken by Antiochus, in company with
Demetrius of Bactriana, against India, extended, probably far up the
country, and was attended with important consequences to Bactriana. (See
below, history of Bactria, book iv. per. iii. Dist. Kingdoms iv. parag.
5.)

The result of these great expeditions was the establishment of the
supremacy of the Seleucidae in Upper Asia; those countries excepted which
had been formally resigned.

  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.

17. Resumption of the plan against Egypt, after the death of Ptolemy
Philopator; and alliance with Philip of Macedonia, then carrying on war
in Asia. Antiochus, it is true, attained his end in the expulsion of the
Ptolemies from their possessions in Syria, Coele-Syria, and Phoenicia;
but then, his success brought him in contact with Rome, an event of
decisive importance to himself and his successors.

18. Growth of the disputes between the king and Rome, proceeding from
the conquest of the major part of Asia Minor and the Thracian
Chersonesus; meanwhile Hannibal had taken refuge at the Syrian court,
and the probability daily increased of a great league being formed
against Rome, although that power, after conquering Carthage, 201, and
Macedonia, 197, had succeeded in winning over Greece even, by the magic
spell of _freedom_. But Antiochus ruined all: instead of following
Hannibal's advice, and attacking the Romans on their own ground, he
stood on the defensive, and suffered himself to be invaded by them in
Asia. His defeat at Magnesia near Mount Sipylus compelled him to accede
to such conditions as Rome chose to dictate, and the power of the Syrian
empire was for ever broken.

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

19. The conditions of the peace were: 1st. That Antiochus should
evacuate Asia Minor; (Asia cis Taurum.) 2nd. That he should pay down
15,000 talents; and to Eumenes of Pergamus four hundred. 3rd. That
Hannibal and some others should be delivered up, and the king's younger
son Antiochus, be given as an hostage.--The loss of the surrendered
countries was a consequence of this peace, less disadvantageous to the
Syrian kings, than the use made of it by the conquerors. By adding the
greatest part of the ceded territories to those of the kings of
Pergamus, the Romans raised up alongside of their enemy a rival, whom
they might at their own will use as a political engine against
him.--Rome took care likewise that the stipulated sum should be paid by
instalments in twelve years, to the end that Syria might be kept in a
permanent state of dependence.

20. Murder of the king, 187. The reign of his elder son, Seleucus IV.
surnamed Philopator, was a period of tranquillity; peace arising from
weakness.--Though once he unsheathed his sword in defence of Pharnaces
king of Pontus, against Eumenes, his fear of Rome soon compelled him to
restore it to the scabbard. He exchanged his son for his brother at
Rome; but fell a victim to the ambition of his minister Heliodorus.

21. Antiochus IV. surnamed Epiphanes. Educated at Rome, he sought to
combine the popular manners of a Roman with the ostentatious luxury of a
Syrian; and thereby became an object of universal hatred and contempt.
Our information respecting his history is too meagre to allow of our
deciding whether most of the evil reported of him, in the Jewish
accounts especially, may not be exaggerated. At any rate, among all his
faults, we may still discern in him the germs of good qualities.

22. War with Egypt, springing out of Ptolemy Philometor's claims upon
Coele-Syria and Palestine. Obscure as many parts are in the history of
this war yet it is evident that success attended the arms of Antiochus,
and that he would have become master of Egypt had not Rome interfered.

  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 Coele-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 advantageous
  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.

23. The religious intolerance of Epiphanes, exhibited in his wish to
introduce the Grecian worship everywhere among the subjects of his
empire, is the more remarkable, as such instances were less frequent in
those times. This intolerance seems to have taken its rise, not only in
the love of pomp, but in the cupidity of the king, who by that means was
enabled to appropriate to himself the treasures of the temples, no
longer inviolate, since the defeat of his father by Rome. The consequent
sedition of the Jews, under the Maccabees, laid the foundation of the
future independence of that people, and contributed not a little to
weaken the Syrian kingdom.

  See below; History of the Jews, book iv. per. iv; Small states
  Jews, parag. 6. The deep decay of the finances of the Seleucidae,
  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.

24. His expedition also into Upper Asia, Persis especially, where great
disorders were likewise excited by the introduction of the Grecian
religion, had for its object not only the recovery of Armenia, but the
rifling of the temples. He died, however, on his way to Babylon.

25. The real heir to the throne, Demetrius, being detained at Rome as an
hostage, Epiphanes was first succeeded by his son Antiochus V. surnamed
Eupator, a child nine years old. During his short reign, the quarrels of
his guardians, the despotism of the Romans, the protracted war with the
Jews, and the commencing conquests of the Parthians, reduced the kingdom
of the Seleucidae to a powerless state.

  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.

26. Demetrius I. surnamed Soter. He succeeded in getting himself
acknowledged at Rome, on which all now depended. The attempts to extend
his power, by supporting Orofernes, the pretender to the crown of
Cappadocia, against the king Ariarathes, had their origin partly in
family relations, but still more, as was the case with almost all
political transactions of those times, in bribery. By this act he only
drew upon himself the enmity of the kings of Egypt and Pergamus; as,
moreover, he was hated by his subjects on account of his intemperance,
the chances of success were greatly in favour of the shameful usurpation
of Alexander Balas, brought about by Heraclidas the expelled governor of
Babylon, and backed by the yet more shameful conduct of the Roman
senate, who acknowledged his title to the throne. The Syrian kingdom was
now fallen so low, that both king and usurper were obliged to court the
favour of the Jews under Jonathan, hitherto regarded as rebels. In the
second battle Demetrius lost his life.

27. The usurper Alexander Balas endeavoured to confirm his power by a
marriage with Cleopatra, daughter of Ptolemy Philometor: but he soon
evinced himself more unworthy even than his predecessor of wielding the
sceptre. While he abandoned the government to his favourite, the
detested Ammonius, the eldest remaining son of Demetrius succeeds not
only in raising a party against the usurper, but even in prevailing on
Philometor to side with himself, and give him in marriage Cleopatra,
whom he takes away from Balas. The consequence of this alliance with
Egypt was the defeat and downfal of Balas, although it cost Philometor
his life.

  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, Coele-Syria
  and Phoenicia. Otherwise, why should he have given his daughter to
  a second pretender to the throne?

28. Demetrius II. surnamed Nicator, 145-141, and for the second time,
130-126. The disbanding of his father's mercenaries having roused the
indignation of the army, the cruelty of his favourite Lasthenes kindled
a sedition in the capital, which could not be quenched without the
assistance of the Jews, under their high priest and military chieftain,
Jonathan.--While affairs were in this posture, Diodotus, subsequently
called Tryphon, a dependent of Balas, excited an insurrection, by
bringing forward Antiochus, the latter's son, and even, with the help of
Jonathan, seating him on the throne of Antioch: soon after, Tryphon,
having by treachery got Jonathan into his power, removed Antiochus by
murder, and assumed the diadem himself.--Notwithstanding Demetrius
kept his footing only in a part of Syria, he was enabled to obey
the call of the Grecian colonists in Upper Asia, and support them
against the Parthians, who had overrun the country as far as the
Euphrates.--Although victorious in the commencement of the contest, he
was soon after taken by the Parthians, and remained ten years a
prisoner, though treated meanwhile as a king.

29. In order to maintain herself against Tryphon, Cleopatra marries the
younger, and better brother, Antiochus of Sida, (Sidetes); he being at
first in alliance with the Jews,--who, however, were soon after
subdued--defeats and overthrows Tryphon. Being now lord and master of
Syria, he undertakes a campaign against the Parthians; at the
commencement, befriended by the subjects of the Parthians, he is
successful, but soon afterwards is attacked in winter quarters by those
very friends, and cut to pieces, together with all his army.

  If the accounts of the wanton licentiousness of his army are not
  exaggerations, they furnish the clearest proof of the military
  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.

30. Meanwhile Demetrius II. having escaped from prison, again seated
himself on the throne. But being now still more overbearing than before,
and meddling in the Egyptian affairs, Ptolemy Physcon set up against him
a rival in the person of Alexander Zebinas a pretended son of Alexander
Balas; by him he was defeated and slain.

  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.

31. The ensuing history of the Seleucidae is a picture of civil wars,
family feuds, and deeds of horror, such as are scarcely to be
paralleled. The utmost verge of the empire was now the Euphrates; all
Upper Asia acknowledging the dominion of the Parthians. The Jews,
moreover, having completely vindicated their independence, the kingdom
was consequently confined to Syria and Phoenicia. So thoroughly decayed
was the state, that even the Romans--whether because there was no longer
anything to plunder, or because they conceived it more prudent to suffer
the Seleucidae to wear themselves out in mutual quarrels--do not seem to
have taken any account of it, until, at the conclusion of the last war
with Mithridates, they thought proper formally to annex it to their
empire as a province.

  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 Seleucidae was completely swept away.


II. _History of the Egyptian kingdom under the Ptolemies, 323-30._

  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 Seleucidae. 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 Ptolemaeorum_, 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 Academie 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.
  _intitule Annales des Lagides_. Paris, 1820.

  LETRONNE, _Recherches pour servir a l'histoire de l'Egypte pendant
  la domination des Grecs et des Romains, tirees des inscriptions
  Grecques et Latines, relatives a la chronologie, a 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.

1. Egypt, under the Ptolemies, fulfilled, and perhaps more than
fulfilled, the designs projected by Alexander; it became not only a
mighty kingdom, but likewise the centre of trade, and of science. The
history of Egypt, however, confines itself, almost solely, to that of
the new capital, Alexandria; the foundation of that city produced,
imperceptibly, a change in the national character, which never could
have been wrought by main force. In the enjoyment of civil welfare and
religious freedom, the nation sunk into a state of political drowsiness,
such as could scarce have been expected in a people who so often rose up
against the Persians.

  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;
  _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
  ([Greek: phylas]), 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 _Mem. de
  l'Academie des Inscript._ vol. ix. Compare:

  # J. L. F. MANSO, _Letters upon ancient Alexandria_, in his
  _Vermischte Schriften_, vol. i.

2. Ptolemy I. surnamed Soter, the son of Lagus, received Egypt for his
share, at the first division after the death of Alexander. Aware of the
value of his lot, he was the only one of Alexander's successors that had
the moderation not to aim at grasping all. No doubt he was, by the
ambition of the other princes, entangled in their quarrels, but his
conduct was so cautious, that Egypt itself was never endangered. Twice
attacked in that country, first by Perdiccas, afterwards by Antigonus
and Demetrius, he availed himself successfully of his advantageous
position, and moreover, in this period, added to his dominion several
countries without Africa, such as Phoenicia, Judaea, Coele-Syria, and
Cyprus.

  The possession of Phoenicia and Coele-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 Phoenician 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.

3. Ptolemy likewise extends his territory within Africa, by the capture
of Cyrene; in consequence of which Libya, or the neighbouring countries
betwixt Cyrene and Egypt, fell under his dominion. It is probable, also,
that even in his reign the frontier of the Egyptian empire was advanced
into Aethiopia; but for this assertion we have no positive authority.

  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.

4. With respect to the internal government of Egypt, our information is
far from complete. The division into districts or nomes was continued;
subject perhaps, in some cases, to alterations. The power of the king
appears to have been unlimited; the extreme provinces were administered
by governors, appointed by the sovereign; similar officers were probably
placed at the head of the various districts of Egypt itself; but hardly
any document relative to the home department of that country has reached
our time. High public situations, at least in the capital, appear
exclusively reserved to Macedonians or Greeks; no Egyptian is ever
mentioned as holding office.

  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
  [Greek: Strategos nykterinos], 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.

5. Be that as it may, it is an undoubted fact, that the ancient national
constitution and administration were not entirely obliterated. The caste
of priests, together with the national religion, continued to exist; and
though the influence of the former was considerably diminished, it did
not entirely cease. A certain sort of worship was, by appointed priests,
paid to the kings, both in their lifetime and after their death.
Memphis, though not the usual residence of the court, remained the
capital of the kingdom; there the ceremony of coronation was performed;
and its temple of Phtha was still the head sanctuary. What influence had
not the religion of the Egyptians upon that of the Greeks! It were
difficult to say which nation borrowed most from the other.

6. The regeneration of Egypt from the state of general ruin into which
she had been plunged, and the permanent tranquillity she enjoyed during
nearly thirty years, the duration of the reign of Ptolemy I.--at a time
when the rest of the world was harassed by continual wars,--must have
heightened her prosperity under so mild and beneficent a ruler. But
Ptolemy was certainly the only prince who could have taken advantage of
these favourable circumstances. Though a soldier by profession he was
highly accomplished, was himself a writer, and had a genius for all the
arts of peace, which he fostered with the open-handed liberality of a
king: while amidst all the brilliant splendour of his court, he led
himself the life of a private individual.

  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.

7. But what more than any thing else distinguished Ptolemy from his
contemporaries was his regard for the interests of science. The idea of
founding the Museum sprung out of the necessities of the age, and was
suited to the monarchical form of government now prevalent. Where in
those days of destruction and revolution could the sciences have found a
shelter, if not under the protection of a prince? But under Ptolemy they
found more than a shelter, they found a rallying point. Here accordingly
the exact sciences were perfected: and although the critic's art which
now grew up could not form a Homer or a Sophocles, should _we_, had it
not been for the Alexandrines, be at present able to read either Homer
or Sophocles?

  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 Saeculi Ptolemaeorum_. _In Opuscul._ t. i.

  MATTER, _Essai historique sur l'ecole d'Alexandrie_, 1820.

8. Ptolemy II. surnamed Philadelphus, son of Berenice, the second wife
of his father, had ascended the throne in 286 as joint king. His reign,
which lasted thirty-eight years, was more peaceful even than that of his
predecessor, whose spirit seemed to inspire him in every thing, save
that he was not a warrior: but, by that very reason, the arts of peace,
trade, and science were promoted with the greater energy. In his reign
Egypt was the first power by sea, and one of the first by land, in the
world; and even though the account given by Theocritus of its
thirty-three thousand cities may be regarded as the exaggeration of a
poet, it is very certain that Egypt was in those days the most
flourishing country in existence.

  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 Phoenicia 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 Aethiopia, 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 Aethiopian 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 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.

9. It would be important to know what, in a state like Egypt, was the
system of imposts, which under Philadelphus produced 14,800 silver
talents, (four millions sterling,) without taking into account the toll
paid in grain. In the extreme provinces, such as Palestine, the taxes
were annually farmed to the highest bidder, a mode of levy attended with
great oppression to the people. The case appears to have been very
different with regard to Egypt itself; the customs, however, constituted
the main branch of the revenue.

10. The wars waged by Ptolemy II. were limited to those against
Antiochus II. of Syria, and Magas of Cyrene, half-brother to the
Egyptian king; the former sprung out of the latter. Luckily for Egypt,
Ptolemy II. was of a weak constitution, and by his state of health was
incapacitated from commanding his armies in person.--Under his reign the
first foundation was laid, by means of reciprocal embassies, of that
connection with Rome which afterwards decided the fate of Egypt.

  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
  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.

11. The son inherited from his father all but the simplicity of domestic
life: under the reign of Philadelphus, the court was first thrown open
to that effeminate luxury, which soon wrought the destruction of the
Ptolemies as it had previously done that of the Seleucidae; at the same
time was introduced the pernicious practice of intermarriages in the
same family, by which the royal blood was more foully contaminated here
even than in Syria. Philadelphus set the first example, by repudiating
Arsinoe the daughter of Lysimachus, and then marrying his own sister,
likewise named Arsinoe; this princess preserved her influence over the
king as long as she lived, although she did not bring him an heir, but
adopted the children of her predecessor.

12. Ptolemy III. surnamed Evergetes. Under him, Egypt, from being merely
mercantile, assumed the character of a conquering state; notwithstanding
his warlike spirit, he was not uninspired with that genius for the arts
of peace peculiar to his family. His conquests were directed partly
against Asia in the war with Seleucus II. and extended as far as the
borders of Bactria; and partly, it is probable, against the interior of
Ethiopia, and the western coast of Arabia. Countries so wealthy, and
with which commerce had made men so well acquainted, could hardly escape
the arms of such a formidable power as Egypt; yet she seems to have made
scarcely any other use of this extension of territory, than to insure
the safety of her commercial routes.

  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,
  Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, 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 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. Graec._ t. ii.

  MONTFAUCON, _Coll. Patr._ t. i. and in CHISHULL, _Antiquit.
  Asiaticae_.

  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_.

13. Egypt was singularly blessed in having three great kings, whose
reigns filled one whole century. A change now ensued; but that change
was brought about by the natural course of events; in fact, it could
scarcely be expected that the court should remain untainted by such
luxury as must have prevailed in a city, which was the main seat of
trade, and the deposit of the treasures of the richest countries.

14. Ptolemy IV. surnamed Philopator. A debauchee and a tyrant, who,
during the greater portion of his reign, remained under the tutelage of
the crafty Sosibius, and, after the decease of that individual, fell
into the yet more infamous hands of Agathocles and his sister
Agathoclea. Philopator being contemporary with Antiochus the Great, the
dangers that threatened Egypt under such a reign seemed to be doubled;
they were, however, averted by the ill-deserved victory of Raphia (see
above, p. 238).

15. Agathocles and his sister would fain have taken into their own hands
the guardianship of his son Ptolemy V. surnamed Epiphanes, a child only
five years old; but the people having risen up and made a terrible
example of them, the office of guardian was confided to the younger
Sosibius and to Tlepolemus. The reckless prodigality of the former soon
gave rise to a feud between him and his colleague, who was at least
cunning enough to keep up appearances. Meanwhile the critical posture in
which the kingdom was placed, by the attack of the enleagued kings of
Syria and Macedonia, compelled the nation to defer the regency to Rome
and the senate, who had hitherto carefully cherished an amicable
connection with Egypt.

  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
  palaeography, and for the knowledge of Egyptian administration.

  AMEILHON, _Eclaircissemens sur l'inscription Grecque du monument
  trouve a Rosette_. Paris, 1803.

  HEYNE, _Commentatio de inscriptione Graeca ex Aegypto Londinum
  apportata_, in the _Commentat. Societ. Gotting._ vol. xv.

16. The hopes conceived of Epiphanes, were grievously disappointed as he
grew up to manhood. His guardian Aristomenes fell a victim to his
tyranny; nay, his cruelty drove even the patient Egyptians to rebel,
although the insurrections were stilled by his counsellor and general
Polycrates. His reign happened during the period in which Rome crushed
the power of Macedonia and Syria; and notwithstanding the close alliance
between Epiphanes and Antiochus III. the Romans succeeded in holding the
Egyptian king in dependence; he was, however, in the twenty-eighth year
of his age, brought to an early grave by intemperance and debauchery.

17. Of his two sons, the elder, a child five years old, was his
immediate successor; this prince, by the title of Ptolemy VI. surnamed
Philometor, ascended the throne under the guardianship of his mother
Cleopatra, who fulfilled the duties of her office to the satisfaction of
all, until 173. But, after her death, the regency having fallen into the
hands of Eulaeus an eunuch, and Lenaeus, these individuals, asserting
their claims to Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, engaged with Antiochus
Epiphanes in a war exceedingly detrimental to Egypt, until Rome
commanded peace to be made.

  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 Achaeans and to
  the Romans: the latter forthwith despatched an embassy to
  Antiochus, commanding him to evacuate the territory of their
  allies, which happened accordingly, 168.

18. In the contest, which soon afterwards ensued between the two
brothers, the younger was driven out and sought a refuge at Rome; when a
partition of the kingdom between the princes was determined upon: the
senate, however, after due consideration, refused to confirm the
decision, so that the disputes between the two kings were rekindled and
protracted, until the younger fell into the power of the elder.

  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.

19. During the last period of his reign, Philometor was almost
exclusively busied with Syrian affairs. He supported Alexander Balas
against Demetrius, and even gave him his daughter Cleopatra.
Nevertheless, he afterwards passed over to the side of Demetrius, seated
him on the throne, gave him in marriage this same Cleopatra, who had
been taken away from Balas. But in the battle in which Balas was
overthrown, the Egyptian king also received his death wound. He may be
regarded as one of the good princes of the Ptolemaic dynasty, especially
if compared with his brother.

20. His younger brother Ptolemy VIII. surnamed Physcon, and likewise
Evergetes II. a monster both in a moral and a physical sense, who had
hitherto been king of Cyrene, now possessed himself of the throne of
Egypt by marrying his predecessor's widow and sister, Cleopatra, whom,
however, after having murdered her son, he repudiated for her daughter
of the same name. This prince accordingly, once more united the divided
kingdom; but at the same time that he was purchasing the sanction of
Rome by vile adulation, he maintained himself at Alexandria by means of
military law, which soon converted the city into a desert, and obliged
him to attract foreign colonists by large promises. Another bloody
massacre, however, produced an insurrection in the town, which compelled
the king to flee to Cyprus, the Alexandrines, meanwhile, raising to the
throne his repudiated wife Cleopatra. Physcon, nevertheless, with the
assistance of his mercenaries, recovered the sceptre, and wielded it to
the day of his death.

  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.

21. His widow, the younger Cleopatra, to gratify the Alexandrines, was
obliged to place on the throne the elder of her two sons, Ptolemy IX.
surnamed Lathyrus, who was living in a sort of banishment at Cyprus: to
the younger, Ptolemy Alexander I. who was her favourite, she accordingly
gave the island of Cyprus. But Lathyrus not choosing to obey her in
everything, she compelled him to exchange Egypt for Cyprus, and gave the
former to her younger son. But neither was the new king able to brook
the tyranny of his mother: as she threatened even his life, he saw no
other means of escape than to anticipate her design; but failing in his
project, he was obliged to take to flight, and, after a vain attempt to
recover the throne, perished. The Alexandrines then reinstated in the
government his elder brother Lathyrus, who ruled till the year 81,
possessing both Egypt and Cyprus.

  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.

22. Lathyrus left one daughter born in wedlock, Berenice, and two
illegitimate sons, Ptolemy of Cyprus and Ptolemy Auletes. Besides the
above, there was a lawful son of Alexander I. of the same name as his
father, and at that time residing at Rome with the dictator Sylla. The
following history is obscured by clouds, which, amid the contradiction
of accounts, cannot be entirely dispelled. Generally speaking, Egypt was
now a tool in the hands of powerful individuals at Rome, who regarded it
but as a financial speculation whether they actually supported a
pretender to the Egyptian crown, or fed him with vain hopes. All now saw
that Egypt presented a ripe harvest; but they could not yet agree by
whom that harvest should be reaped.

  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 Caesar'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 Caesar'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 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 Ptolemaei VII._
  Inserted in _Comment. Soc. Gotting._ vol. iii.

23. Auletes endeavoured by his last testament to insure the kingdom to
his posterity, nominating as his successor, under the superintendence of
the Roman nation, his two elder children. Ptolemy Dionysos, then
thirteen years old, and Cleopatra, seventeen, who were to be united in
wedlock: his two younger children, Ptolemy Neoteros and Arsinoe, he
recommended to the Roman senate. Notwithstanding these measures, Egypt
would not have escaped her fate upwards of twenty years longer, had not
the impending calamities been diverted by the internal posture of
affairs at Rome, and still more by the charms and policy of Cleopatra,
who through her alliance with Caesar and Antony not only preserved but
even aggrandized her kingdom. From this time, however, the history of
Egypt is most closely implicated with that of Rome.

  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: Caesar 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 Caesar besieged in Bruchium, the malcontent
  Pothinus having brought Achillas, the commander of the royal
  troops into the city. The hard struggle in which Caesar was now
  engaged, demonstrates not only the bitterness 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 Caesar
  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.

24. During the life of Caesar, Cleopatra remained under his protection,
and consequently in a state of dependence. Not only was a Roman garrison
stationed in the capital city, but the queen herself, together with her
brother, were obliged to visit him at Rome. After the assassination of
Caesar, she took the side of the triumviri, not without endangering
Egypt, threatened by Cassius who commanded in Syria; and after the death
of her brother, succeeded in getting them to acknowledge as king,
Ptolemy Caesarion, a son whom she pretended to have had by Caesar.--But
the ardent passion conceived by Antony for her person, soon after the
discomfiture of the republican party, now attached her inseparably to
his fortunes; which, after vainly attempting to win over the victorious
Octavius, she at last shared.

  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 making ready for the war against the
  Parthians, until then prosecuted by his lieutenants; here she
  obtained at his hands Phoenicia--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.

25. Even in this last period, Egypt appears to have been the seat of
unbounded wealth and effeminacy. The line of infamous princes who had
succeeded to the third Ptolemy were unable to destroy her prosperity.
Strange, however, as this seems, it may be easily accounted for when we
consider that the political revolutions scarcely ever overstepped the
walls of the capital, and that an almost perpetual peace ruled in the
country: that Egypt was the only great theatre of trade; and that that
trade must have increased in the same proportion as the spirit of luxury
increased in Rome, and in the Roman empire. The powerful effects
wrought on Egypt by the growth of Roman luxury, are most convincingly
demonstrated by the state of that country when it had become a Roman
province; so far from the trade of Alexandria decreasing in that
period,--though the city suffered in the first days after the
conquest--it subsequently attained an extraordinary and gigantic bulk.


III. _History of Macedonia and of Greece in general, from the death of
Alexander to the Roman conquest, B. C. 323-146._

  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.

1. Of the three main kingdoms that arose out of Alexander's monarchy,
Macedonia was the most insignificant, not only in extent,--particularly
as till B. C. 286 Thrace remained a separate and independent
province,--but likewise in population and wealth. Yet, being, as it
were, the head country of the monarchy, it was considered to hold the
first rank; and here at first resided the power which, nominally at
least, extended over the whole. As early, however, as the year 311, upon
the total extermination of Alexander's family, it became a completely
separate kingdom. From that time its sphere of external operation was
for the most part confined to Greece, the history of which,
consequently, is closely interwoven with that of Macedonia.

  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.

2. Although at the first division of the provinces, Craterus, as civil
governor, was united with Antipater, the latter had the management of
affairs. And the termination, as arduous as it was successful, of the
Lamian war,--kindled immediately after the death of Alexander, by the
Greeks, enthusiastic in the cause of freedom,--enabled him to rivet the
chains of Greece more firmly than they had ever been before.

  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, Boeotia 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 Achaeans. 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, 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
  Aetolians, 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.

3. That hatred which, even in the lifetime of Alexander, had sprung up
between Antipater and Olympias, in consequence of his not permitting the
dowager queen to rule, induced her to withdraw to Epirus; her rankling
envy being still more embittered by the influence of the young queen
Eurydice. See above, p. 224. Antipater, dying shortly after his
expedition against Perdiccas, in which his colleague Craterus had
fallen, and he himself had been appointed regent, nominates his friend,
the aged Polysperchon, to succeed him as regent and head guardian, to
the exclusion of his own son Cassander. Hence arose a series of quarrels
between the two, in which, unfortunately for themselves, the royal
family were implicated and finally exterminated, Cassander obtaining the
sovereignty of Macedonia.

  Cassander having secured the interest of Antigonus and Ptolemy,
  makes his escape to the former, 319: he had previously
  endeavoured 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 Aeacidas 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.

4. Cassander being now master, and, from 302, king of Macedonia,
confirmed his dominion by a marriage with Thessalonice, half-sister to
Alexander, and at the same time endeavoured to corroborate as far as
possible his authority in Greece. Polysperchon and his son Alexander,
it is true, still made head in Peloponnesus; but the states without the
peninsula, Aetolia excepted, were all either allies of Cassander, or
occupied by Macedonian troops. After the defeat of the league against
Antigonus, in which Cassander had borne a part, general peace was
concluded, with the proviso, that the Grecian cities should be free, and
that the young Alexander, when of age, should be raised to the throne of
Macedonia: this induced Cassander to rid himself both of the young
prince and his mother Roxana by murder: but he thereby exposed himself
to an attack from Polysperchon, who, availing himself of the discontent
of the Macedonians, brought back Hercules, the only remaining
illegitimate son of Alexander. Cassander diverted the storm by a new
crime, instigating Polysperchon to murder the young Hercules, under
promise of sharing the government: Polysperchon, however, unable to
possess himself of the Peloponnesus which had been promised him, appears
to have preserved but little influence. Cassander met likewise with
formidable opponents in the persons of Antigonus and his son; and
although delivered by the breaking out of the war with Ptolemy from the
danger of the first invasion of Greece by Demetrius, his situation was
more embarrassing at the second irruption; from which, however, he was
extricated by the circumstance of Antigonus being obliged to recall his
son, on account of the newly formed league (see above, p. 230).

  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 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 Aetolians, 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.

5. Cassander survived the establishment of his throne by the battle of
Ipsus only three years: and bequeathed Macedonia as an inheritance to
his three sons, the eldest of whom, Philip, shortly after followed his
father to the grave.

6. The two remaining sons, Antipater and Alexander, soon worked their
own destruction. Antipater having murdered his own mother Thessalonice,
on account of the favour she showed his brother, was obliged to flee; he
applied for help to his father-in-law Lysimachus of Thrace, where he
soon after died. Meanwhile Alexander, fancying that he likewise stood in
need of foreign assistance, addressed himself to Pyrrhus, king of
Macedonia, and to Demetrius Poliorcetes, both of whom obeyed the call
only with the expectation of being paid. After various snares
reciprocally laid for each other, the king of Macedonia was murdered by
Demetrius, and with him the race of Antipater became extinct.

7. The army proclaimed Demetrius king; and in his person the house of
Antigonus ascended the throne of Macedonia, and, after many
vicissitudes, established their power. His seven years' reign, in which
one project succeeded the other, was a constant series of wars; and as
he never could learn how to bear with good fortune, his ambition was at
last his ruin.

  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 surrender to Seleucus
  his father-in-law, who, out of charity, kept him till the day of
  his death, 284.

8. Two claimants to the vacant throne now arose, viz. Pyrrhus of Epirus
and Lysimachus of Thrace; but although Pyrrhus was first proclaimed
king, with the cession of half the dominions, he could not, being a
foreigner, support his power any longer than the year 286, when he was
deposed by Lysimachus.

  The sovereigns of Epirus, belonging to the family of the Aeacidae,
  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. Aeacides, 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.

9. In consequence of the accession of Lysimachus, Thrace, and for a
short time even Asia Minor, were annexed to the Macedonian kingdom. But
rankling hatred and family relations soon afterwards involved Lysimachus
in a war with Seleucus Nicator, in which, at battle of Curopedion, he
lost both his throne and his life.

  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.

10. The victorious Seleucus, already lord of Asia, now causing himself
to be proclaimed likewise king of Macedonia, it seemed as if that
country was again about to become the head seat of the whole monarchy.
But shortly after he had crossed over into Europe, Seleucus fell by the
murderous hand of Ptolemy Ceraunus, who, availing himself of the
treasures of his victim, and of the yet remaining troops of Lysimachus,
took possession of the throne; by another act of treachery he avenged
himself of Arsinoe, his half-sister; but just as he conceived himself
securely established, he lost both his crown and his life by the
irruption of the Gauls into Macedonia.

  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 Paeonia 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 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 Tectosagae, 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 Tectosagae 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.

11. Antigonus of Gonni, son to Demetrius, now seated himself on the
vacant throne of desolated Macedon; he bought off his competitor,
Antiochus I. named Soter, by treaty and marriage. Successfully as he
opposed the new irruption of the Gauls, he was dethroned by Pyrrhus,
who, on his return from Italy, was a second time proclaimed king of
Macedonia. That prince, however, having formed the design of conquering
the Peloponnesus, and, after an ineffectual attack on Sparta, which was
repelled with heroic gallantry, wishing to take possession of Argos,
fell at the storming of the latter place.

  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 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.

12. After the death of Pyrrhus, Antigonus Gonnatas recovered the
Macedonian throne, of which he and his descendants kept uninterrupted
possession, yet not till after a violent contest with Alexander, the son
and successor of Pyrrhus. But no sooner were they secure from foreign
rivals, than the Macedonian policy was again directed against Greece,
and the capture of Corinth seemed to insure the dependence of the whole
country, when the formation of the Aetolian, and the yet more important
Achaean, league, gave rise to relations entirely new, and of the highest
interest, even for the universal history of the world. After so many
storms, the sun of Greece was about to set in all his splendour!

  The ancient confederacy of the twelve Achaean 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 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 Aegium, 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,
  Philopoemen, 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 Achaeans and their league_, 1782.

  The Aetolian league was formed about 284, in consequence of the
  oppressions of the Macedonian kings. The Aetolians had likewise a
  yearly congress, panaetolium, at Thermus; where they chose a
  strategus and the apocleti, who constituted the state council.
  They had, besides, their secretary, [Greek: grammateus]; and
  supervisors, [Greek: ephoroi], whose particular functions are,
  however, matter of doubt. This federation did not increase like
  the Achaean, none but Aetolians 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.

13. Antigonus, in the latter part of his reign, had recourse to various
means, and more especially to an alliance with the Aetolians, for the
purpose of counterpoising the Achaeans. He died in his eightieth year,
and was succeeded by his son, Demetrius II. who waged war upon the
Aetolians, now, however, supported by the Achaeans; and endeavoured to
repress the growth of the latter, by favouring the tyrants of particular
cities. The remainder of the reign of this prince is little more than a
chasm in history.

  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.

14. Demetrius's son Philip was passed over; his brother's son, Antigonus
II. surnamed Doson, being raised to the throne. This king was occupied
the most of his time by the events in Greece, where a very remarkable
revolution at Sparta, as we learn from Plutarch, had raised up a
formidable enemy against the Achaeans; and so completely altered the
relative position of affairs, that the Macedonians, from having been
opponents, became allies of the Achaeans.

  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 Achaean league, 227; this king, by a
  forcible revolution, overthrew the ephori, and accomplished the
  project of Agis, at the same time increasing the Spartans by the
  admission of a number of periaeci; 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 Achaeans 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.

15. Philip II. son of Demetrius. He ascended the throne at the early age
of sixteen, endowed with many qualities, such as might, under favourable
circumstances, have formed a great prince. Macedonia had recruited her
strength during a long peace; and her grand political aim, the supremacy
of Greece, secured by the connection of Antigonus with the Achaeans, and
by the victory of Sellasia, seemed to be already within her grasp. But
Philip lived in a time when Rome was pursuing her formidable plans of
aggrandizement: the more vigorous and prompt his efforts were to
withstand that power, the more deeply was he entangled in the new maze
of events, which embittered the rest of his life, and at last brought
him to the grave with a broken heart, converted by misfortune into a
despot.

16. The first five years of Philip were occupied by his participation
in the war between the Achaeans and Aetolians, called the war of the two
leagues; notwithstanding the treachery of his minister Apellas and his
dependents, the prince was enabled to dictate the conditions of peace,
according to which both parties were to remain in possession of what
they then had. The conclusion of this peace was hastened by the news of
Hannibal's victory at Thrasymenus, Philip being then instigated to form
more extensive projects by Demetrius of Pharus, who had fled before the
Romans, and soon acquired unlimited influence with the Macedonian king.

  The war of the two leagues arose out of the piracies of the
  Aetolians on the Messenians, the latter of whom the Achaeans
  undertook to protect, 221. The errors committed by Aratus
  compelled the Achaeans 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 Achaeans; the Aetolians, 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.

17. The negotiations between Philip and Hannibal concluded with an
alliance, in which reciprocal help was promised towards annihilating
Rome. But Rome contrived to excite so many foes against Philip on the
borders of his own kingdom, and availed herself so skilfully of her
naval power, that the execution of this plan was prevented until it
became possible to attack the Macedonian king in Greece; where he had
made himself many enemies, by the domineering tone he had assumed
towards his allies at the time that, sensible of his power, he was about
to enter upon a wider sphere of action.

  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 Aetolians, joined likewise by Sparta and Elis,
  Attalus king of Pergamus, and Scerdilaidas and Pleuratus, kings of
  Illyria, 211. On Philip's side were the Achaeans, with whom
  Philopoemen more than supplied the loss of Aratus, occasioned,
  213, by the Macedonian king; to them were joined the Acarnanians
  and Baeotians.--Attacked on every side, Philip successfully
  extricated himself from his difficulties; in the first place, he
  compelled the Aetolians, 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.

18. New war of Philip against Attalus and the Rhodians, carried on for
the most part in Asia Minor; and his impolitic alliance with Antiochus
III. to attack Egypt. But can Philip be blamed for his endeavours to
disarm the military servants of the Romans? Rome, however, did not grant
him time to effect his designs; the Macedonian king was taught at Chios,
by woeful experience, that his navy had not increased proportionably
with that of the Rhodians.

19. The war with Rome suddenly hurled the Macedonian power from its
lofty pitch; and by laying the foundation of Roman dominion in the
east, wrought a change in almost all the political relations of that
quarter. The first two years of the war showed pretty evidently, that
mere force could scarcely overturn the Macedonian throne. But T.
Quintius Flaminius stepped forward; with the magic spell of freedom he
intoxicated the Greeks; Philip was stripped of his allies; and the
battle of Cynoscephalae decided everything. The articles of the peace
were: 1. That all Grecian cities in Europe and Asia should be
independent, and Philip should withdraw his garrisons. 2. That he should
surrender the whole of his navy, and never afterwards keep more than 500
armed men on foot. 3. That he should not, without previously informing
Rome, undertake any war out of Macedonia. 4. That he should pay 1,000
talents by instalments, and deliver up his younger son Demetrius as an
hostage.

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

20. Soon after, the freedom of Greece was solemnly proclaimed at the
Isthmian games by Flaminius: but loud as the Greeks were in their
exultations, this measure served merely to transfer the supremacy of
their country from Macedonia to Rome: and Grecian history, as well as
the Macedonian, is now interwoven with that of the Romans. To foster
quarrels between the Greek states, with the especial view of hindering
the Achaeans from growing too formidable, now became a fundamental
principle at Rome; and Roman and anti-Roman parties having quickly
arisen in every city, this political game was easily played.

  Flaminius even took care that the Achaeans 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 Achaeans; followed after the murder of Nabis,
  at the hands of the Aetolians, by the accession of Sparta to the
  Achaean 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 Aetolians, 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.

21. While war was pending between the Romans and Antiochus, Philip, in
the character of one of the numerous allies of Rome, ventured to
increase his territory at the expense of the Athamanes, Thracians, and
Thessalians. To keep him in good humour he was permitted to effect those
conquests; but after the termination of the war the oppression of Rome
became so galling, that it could not be otherwise than that all his
thoughts should centre in revenge, and all his exertions be directed
towards the recovery of power. Meanwhile the violent measures adopted
for repeopling his exhausted kingdom--such is the punishment of ambition
which usually awaits even the victorious!--the transplantation of the
inhabitants of whole cities and countries, and the consequent and
unavoidable oppression of several of his neighbours, excited universal
complaints; and where was the accuser of Philip to whom Rome would not
now lend a ready ear?--His younger son, Demetrius, the pupil of Rome,
and by her intended, it is probable, to succeed to the crown, alone
diverted the impending fate of Macedonia. But after the return of that
prince from his embassy, the envy of his elder and bastard brother,
Perseus, grew into an inveterate rancour, such as could not be quenched
but by the death of the younger. The lot of Philip was indeed hard,
compelled as a father to judge between his two sons; but the measure of
human woe was filled, when after the death of his favourite child he
discovered that he was innocent; are we to wonder that sorrow should
soon have hurried him to a premature grave!

22. The same policy which was observed by the Romans towards Philip,
they pursued towards the Achaeans, with whom, since the termination of
the war with Antiochus, they had assumed a loftier tone; and this artful
game was facilitated by the continual quarrels among the Greeks
themselves. Yet the great Philopoemen, worthy of a better age,
maintained the dignity of the league at the very time that the Romans
presumed to speak as arbitrators. After his decease they found it easy
to raise a party among the Achaeans themselves, the venal Callicrates
offering his services for that purpose.

  The Achaeans 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 Philopoemen, wished to
  secede from the league; on the other hand, the prevailing idea
  among the Achaeans was, that this league ought to comprise the
  whole of the Peloponnesus. In the war against the Messenians,
  183, Philopoemen, at the age of seventy, was taken prisoner by the
  enemy and put to death.

  PLUTARCHI, _Philopoemen_. Nearly the whole of which is compiled
  from the lost biography of Polybius.

23. The last Macedonian king, Perseus, had inherited his father's
perfect hatred of the Romans, together with talents, if not equal, at
least but little inferior. He entered into the speculations of his
predecessor, and the first seven years of his reign was occupied in
constant exertions to muster forces against Rome; with this view he
called the Bastarnae out of the north, in order to settle them in the
territories of his enemies the Dardanians; he endeavoured to form
alliances with the kings of Illyria, Thrace, Syria, and Bithynia; above
all, he strove by negotiations and promises to reestablish the ancient
influence of Macedonia in Greece.

  The settlement of the Bastarnae (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 Achaeans, apparently at least, remained on the Roman
  side; the Aetolians, by domestic factions, had worked their own
  destruction; the case was the same with the Acarnanians; and the
  federation of the Boeotians 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.

24. The commencement of open hostilities was hastened by the bitter
hatred existing between Perseus and Eumenes, and by the intrigues of the
latter at Rome. Neglect of the favourable moment for taking the field,
and the defensive system, skilfully in other respects as it was planned,
caused the ruin of Perseus, as it had done that of Antiochus.
Nevertheless he protracted the war to the fourth year, when the battle
of Pidna decided the fate both of himself and his kingdom.

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

25. According to the system at that period followed by Rome, the
conquered kingdom of Macedonia was not immediately converted into a
province; it was first deprived of all offensive power, by being
republicanized and divided into four districts, wholly distinct from one
another, and bound to pay Rome half the tribute they were before wont to
furnish to their kings.

26. It was in the natural order of things that the independence of
Greece, and more especially that of the Achaean league, should fall with
Perseus. The political _inquisition_ of the Roman commissaries not only
visited with punishment the declared partizans of Macedonia; but even to
have stood neutral was a crime that incurred suspicion. Rome, however,
amid the rising hatred, did not deem herself secure until by one blow
she had rid herself of all opponents of any importance. Above a thousand
of the most eminent of the Achaeans were summoned to Rome to justify
themselves, and there detained seventeen years in prison without a
hearing. While at the head of the league, stood the man who had
delivered them up, Callicrates, (_d._ 150.) a wretch who could, unmoved,
hear "the very boys in the streets taunt him with treachery."--A more
tranquil period, it is true, now ensued for Greece, but it was the
result of very obvious causes.

27. The ultimate lot both of Macedon and was decided by the system now
adopted at Rome, that of converting the previous dependence of nations
into formal subjection. The insurrection of Andriscus in Macedonia, an
individual who pretended to be the son of Perseus, was quelled by
Metellus, the country being constituted a Roman province; two years
afterwards, at the sack of Corinth, vanished the last glimmer of Grecian
freedom.

  The last war of the Achaeans arose out of certain quarrels with
  Sparta, 150, fomented by Diaeus, Critolaus, and Damocritus, who had
  returned bitterly enraged from the Roman prison; in these disputes
  Rome interfered, with the design of wholly dissolving the Achaean
  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 Diaeus
  and Critolaus would have war; the plenipotentiaries of Metellus
  were again insulted, and the Achaeans 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 Diaeus 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.


IV. _History of some smaller or more distant Kingdoms and States erected
out of the Macedonian monarchy._

  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.

  [a] As Justin did no more than extract from Trogus Pompeius, a
      question presents itself of great consequence to various
      portions of ancient history; what authorities did Trogus
      Pompeius follow? The answer will be found in two treatises
      by A. L. L. HEEREN: _De fontibus et auctoritate Trogi Pompeii,
      ejusque epitomatoris Justini_, inserted in _Comment. Soc.
      Gott._ vol. 15.

1. Besides the three main empires into which the monarchy of Alexander
was divided, there likewise arose in those extensive regions several
branch kingdoms, one of which even grew in time to be among the most
powerful in the world. To these belong the kingdoms of, 1. Pergamus. 2.
Bithynia. 3. Paphlagonia. 4. Pontus. 5. Cappadocia. 6. Great Armenia. 7.
Little Armenia. 8. Parthia. 9. Bactria. 10. Jewish state subsequent to
the Maccabees.

  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.

2. The kingdom of Pergamus, in Mysia, arose during the war between
Seleucus and Lysimachus. It owed its origin on the one hand to the
prudence of its rulers, the wisest of whom luckily reigned the longest;
and, on the other, to the weakness of the Seleucidae: for its progressive
increase it was indebted to the Romans, who in aggrandizing the power of
Pergamus acted with a view to their own interest. History exhibits
scarcely one subordinate kingdom whose princes took such skilful
advantage of the political circumstances of the times; and yet they
earned still greater renown by the anxiety they showed, in rivalling the
Ptolemies, to foster the arts of peace, industry, science, architecture,
sculpture, and painting. How dazzling the splendour with which the small
state of Pergamus outshines many a mighty empire!

  Philetaerus, 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 Aeolis 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 Achaeus brought him in alliance with Antiochus III. 216.
  Commencement of an alliance with Rome, arising out of his
  participation in the Aetolian league against Macedon, 211, in order
  to thwart Philip's project of conquest. Hence, after Philip's
  irruption into Asia, 203, participation 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 Grece_, 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 _Mem.
  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 ([Greek: boule]) were presidents, ([Greek: prytaneis,])
  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 Aegaean;
  over that sea, the Euxine, and the western parts of the
  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 Peraea 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 aetate, Gottingae_, 1818. A prize essay.

3. The other small kingdoms of Asia Minor are fragments rather of the
Persian than of the Macedonian monarchy; for Alexander's march following
another direction, they were not formally subjugated by that conqueror.
The lines of their kings are generally traced back to an early period of
the Persian age; but, properly speaking, their rulers in those days were
nothing more than viceroys: selected indeed, for the most part, from the
royal family, they bore the title of princes, and, in the gradual
decline of the empire, not unfrequently threw up their allegiance.
Nevertheless these kingdoms do not appear as really independent until
after the time of Alexander. Connected with the Grecian republics
Heraclea, Sinope, Byzantium, etc. they formed, both in the Macedonian
and Roman ages, a system of small states, often distracted by internal
wars, and still oftener mere tools in the hands of the more powerful.

  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 Zipoetas, _d._ 281,
  against Lysimachus.--Lycomedes I. _d._ 248. He called the Gauls
  over from Thrace, 278, and with their assistance deposed his
  brother Zipoetas; 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
  _Mem. de l'Academie 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; Pylaemenes I. about 131: who assisted
  the Romans in the war against Aristonicus of Pergamus.--Pylaemenes
  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, 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 Achaemenidae, 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
  Pylaemenes 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 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 Pylaemenes II. and denominates Pylaemenes
  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 propraetor 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 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 Sarmatae 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 Achaemenidarum_ 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 Rep. Romaine_, and more especially

  JOAN. ERNST. WOLTERSDORF, _Commentatio vitam Mithridatis Magni,
  per annos digestam, sistens; praemio ornata ab A. Phil. Ord.
  Gottingae:, 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 Seleucidae, uniting his son
  Ariarathes IV. with the daughter of Antiochus [Greek: Theos].
  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 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 Armeniae Majoris_, in his _Hist. Imp.
  Arsacidarum_.

4. Besides the above small kingdoms, two mighty empires arose in Inner
Asia, both out of Alexander's monarchy, and at the same time: these were
the Parthian and the Bactrian; each having previously constituted a part
of the empire of the Seleucidae, from which they seceded under Antiochus
II. The Parthian kingdom, or that of the Arsacidae, B. C. 256-A. D. 226,
at the maximum of its extension, comprised the countries between the
Euphrates and Indus. Its history, so far as we are acquainted with it,
is divided into four periods (see below); but unfortunately our
information is so imperfect respecting all that relates to the
Parthians, except their wars, that even the most important particulars
are beyond the reach of conjecture.

  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 rulers, only that they were tributary, such, for instance, as
  Persis, etc. The Graeco-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 Arsacidae; 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 Seleucidae, 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
  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 (Scythae, Dahae, 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 propraetor 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,
  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 Caesar 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 Caesar 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
  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 Arsacidae, 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 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 Arsacidae, 226, and Artaxerxes became the founder of the New
  Persian kingdom, or that of the Sassanidae. The revolution was
  accompanied not only with a change of dynasty, but with a total
  subversion of the constitution.

  VAILLANT, _Imperium Arsacidarum et Achaemenidarum_, Paris, 1725, 2
  vols. 4to. The first part comprises the Arsacidae; 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 Arsacidae and Sassanidae, 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.

5. The Bactrian kingdom arose nearly at the same time as the Parthian,
254; its origin, however, was of a different nature,--the independence
of this state being asserted by the Grecian governor, who was
consequently succeeded by Greeks;--its duration likewise was much
shorter, extending only from B. C. 254 to B. C. 126. Scarce any
fragments have been preserved of the history of this empire, the borders
of which appear at one time to have extended to the banks of the Ganges,
and the frontiers of China.

  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, 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 Graecorum 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 Graecis et Barbaris in Bochara nuper retectis_,
  in _Comment. Nov. Soc. Sc. Gotting._ vol. vi.]

6. The restored kingdom of the Jews was likewise a fragment of the
Macedonian monarchy; and although it ranked only with the smaller
states, its history in various respects deserves our attention, few
nations having had so powerful an influence on the progress of human
civilization. The foundation of the independence of the Jews was not, it
is true, laid before the year 167; yet their domestic constitution had
previously assumed its main features, and their history, reckoning from
the return of the Babylonian captivity, accordingly divides itself into
four periods: 1. Under the Persian supremacy, 536-323. 2. Under the
Ptolemies and Seleucidae, 323-167. 3. Under the Maccabees, 167-39. 4.
Under the Herodians and Romans, B. C. 39. to A. D. 70.

  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.

  Second period under the Ptolemies and Seleucidae, 323-167. After
  the death of Alexander, Palestine, in consequence of its
  situation, generally shared the fate of Phoenicia and Coele-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
  Aethiopia. 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 Judaea 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
  Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, to Ptolemy Epiphanes, as the future
  dowry of his daughter, Judaea 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 Menelaus, 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 Maccabaeus. 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 death of
  that usurper, he caused him, 130, to be attacked by Cendebaeus, who
  was defeated by the sons of Simon. Simon having been murdered by
  his son-in-law, Ptolemaeus, 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 Idumaeans. 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
  Jannaeus, 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. Jannaeus, 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 Idumaean Antipater, 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 Caesar, 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 Caesar,
  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 Judaea, 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 Judaea, Samaria, Galilee, and
  beyond the Jordan, Peraea, Ituraea, and Trachonitis, (that is to
  say, the whole of Palestine,) together with Idumaea; from these
  countries he derived his income without 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, Judaea,
  Samaria, and Idumaea; the two others, as tetrarchs, Philip a part
  of Galilee and Trachonitis, Antipas the other part of Galilee, and
  Peraea, together with Ituraea; 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; Judaea 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 Judaea 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, 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' a 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 decadence des
  Royaumes d'Israel et de Juda, jusqu' a 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.


       *       *       *       *       *




FIFTH BOOK.

HISTORY OF THE ROMAN STATE.




_Introductory remarks on the Geography of Ancient Italy._


Italy constitutes a peninsula, bounded on the north by the Alps, on the
west and south by the Mediterranean, and on the east by the Adriatic
sea. Its greatest length from north to south is 600 geogr. miles; its
greatest breadth, taken at the foot of the Alps, is 320 geogr. miles;
but that of the peninsula, properly so called, is not more than 120
geogr. miles. Superficial contents, 81,920 sq. geogr. miles. The
principal mountain range is that of the Apennines, which, diverging
occasionally to the west, or east, stretch from north to south through
Central and Lower Italy. In the earlier times of Rome, these mountains
were covered with thick forests. Main streams: the Padus (Po) and the
Athesis, (Adige,) both of which discharge their waters in the Adriatic;
and the Tiberis, (Tiber,) which falls into the Mediterranean. The soil,
particularly in the plains, is one of the most fertile in Europe; on the
other hand, many of the mountain tracts admit but of little cultivation.
In that period when the Mediterranean was the grand theatre of trade,
Italy, by her situation, seemed destined to become the principal mart of
Europe; but she never in ancient times availed herself sufficiently of
this advantage.

It is divided into _Upper_ Italy, from the Alps to the small rivers of
Rubicon and Macra; (this part, however, of Italy, until presented with
the right of citizenship under Caesar, was, according to the Roman
political geography, considered as a province;) into _Central_ Italy,
from the Rubicon and the Macra down to the Silarus and Frento; and into
_Lower_ Italy from those rivers to the southern land's end.


I. _Upper Italy comprises the two countries, Gallia Cisalpina and
Liguria._

1. Gallia Cisalpina, or Togata, in contradistinction to Gallia
Transalpina. It bears the name of Gallia, in consequence of being for
the most part occupied by Gallic races. This country is one continuous
plain, divided by the Padus into two parts, the northernmost of which is
therefore denominated Gallia Transpadana, (inhabited by the Taurini,
Insubres, and Cenomani,) while the southern part (inhabited by the Boii,
Senones, and Lingones) is known by the name of Gallia Cispadana. Various
streams contribute to swell the Padus; from the north the Duria,
(Durance,) the Ticinus, (Tessino,) the Addua, (Adda,) the Ollius,
(Oglio,) the Mintius, (Minzio,) and several less important rivers; from
the south, the Tanarus, (Tanaro,) the Trebia, etc. The Athesis, (Adige,)
the Plavis, (Piave,) and a number of smaller mountain streams, roll
their waters directly into the Adriatic.

The cities in Gallia Cisalpina were, generally speaking, Roman colonies;
and most of them have preserved to this day their ancient names. Among
these are reckoned in Gallia Transpadana, principally, Tergeste,
Aquileia, Patavium, (Padua,) Vincentia, Verona, all east of the Athesis;
Mantua, Cremona, Brixia, (Brescia,) Mediolanum, (Milan,) Ticinum,
(Pavia,) and Augusta Taurinorum, (Turin,) all west of the Athesis. In
Gallia Cispadana we meet with Ravenna, Bononia, (Bologna,) Mutina,
(Modena,) Parma, Placentia, (Piacenza). Several of the above places
received municipal rights from the Romans.

2. Liguria. This country deduced its name from the Ligures, one of the
old Italic tribes: it extended from the river Varus, by which it was
divided from Gallia Transalpina, down to the river Macra; northward it
extended to the Padus, and comprised the modern territory of
Genoa.--Cities: Genua, an extremely ancient place; Nicaea, (Nice,) a
colony of Massilia; and Asta, (Asti.)


II. _Central Italy comprises six countries; Etruria, Latium, and
Campania on the west; Umbria, Picenum, and Samnium on the east._

1. Etruria, Tuscia, or Tyrrhenia, was bounded north by the Macra, which
divided it from Liguria; south and east by the Tiberis, which separated
it from Latium and Umbria. Main river, the Arnus, (Arno). It is for the
most part a mountainous country; the seashore only is level. This
country derives its name from the Etrusci, a very ancient people,
composed, it is probable, of an amalgamation of several races, and even
some early Grecian colonies, to which latter they were indebted, not
indeed for all their arts, but for that of writing; to commerce and
navigation the Etrusci were indebted for their opulence and consequent
splendour. Cities: between the Macra and Arnus, Pisae, (Pisa,) Florentia,
Faesulae; between the Arnus and Tiberis, Volaterrae, (Volterra,) Volsinii,
(Bolsena,) on the Lacus Volsiniensis, (Lago di Bolsena,) Clusium,
(Chiusi,) Arretium, (Arrezzo,) Cortona, Perusia, (Perugia,) in the
neighbourhood of which is the Lacus Thrasimenus, (Lago di Perugia,)
Falerii, (Falari,) and the wealthy city of Veii. Each of the above
twelve cities had its own individual ruler, _lucumo_; although frequent
associations were formed among them, yet no firm and lasting bond seems
to have united the nation into one.

2. Latium, properly the residence of the Latini, from the Tiberis north,
to the promontory of Circeii, south; hence that country was likewise
denominated Latium Vetus. Subsequently, under the name of Latium was
likewise reckoned the country from Circeii, down to the river Liris,
(Latium Novum;) so that the boundaries came to be, north, the Tiberis,
south, the Liris: the seat of the Latins, properly speaking, was in the
fruitful plain extending from the Tiber to Circeii; around them,
however, dwelt various small tribes, some eastward, in the Apennines,
such as the Hernici, Sabini, Aequi, and Marsi; others southward, such as
the Volsci, Rutuli, and Aurunci.--Rivers: the Anio (Teverone) and Allia,
which fall into the Tiber, and the Liris, (Garigliano,) which empties
itself into the Mediterranean. Cities in Latium Vetus: Rome, Tibur,
Tusculum, Alba Longa, Ostia, Lavinium, Antium, Gabii, Velitrae, the
capital of the Volsci, and several smaller places. In Latium Novum:
Fundi, Terracina, or Anxur, Arpinum, Minturnae, Formiae.

3. Campania. The country lying between the Liris, north, and the
Silarus, south. One of the most fruitful plains in the world, but at the
same time greatly exposed to volcanic eruptions. Rivers: the Liris, the
Vulturnus, (Voltorno,) the Silarus, (Selo). Mountain: Vesuvius. Campania
derived its name from the race of the Campani. Cities: Capua the
principal one; and also Linternum, Cumae, Neapolis, Herculaneum, Pompeii,
Stabiae, Nola, Surrentum, Salernum, etc.

_The three eastern countries of Central Italy are as follows_:

1. Umbria. It is bounded, north, by the river Rubico, south, by the
river Aesis, (Gesano,) dividing it from Picenum, and by the Nar, (Nera,)
dividing it from the Sabine territory. It is for the most part plain.
The Umbrian race had in early times spread over a much larger portion of
Italy. Cities: Ariminium, (Rimini,) Spoletium, (Spoleto,) Narnia,
(Narni,) and Ocriculum, (Otriculi.)

2. Picenum. Bounded, north, by the Aesis, south, by the Atarnus,
(Pescara.) The people are called Picentes. This country consists in a
fertile plain. Cities: Ancona and Asculum Picenum, (Ascoli.)

3. Samnium, the name of a mountain tract extending from the Atarnus,
north, to the Frento, south; although that country reckoned among its
inhabitants, not only the rude and powerful Samnites, but also several
less numerous races; for instance, the Marrucini and Peligni in the
north, the Frentani in the east, and the Hirpini in the south. Rivers:
the Sagrus and the Tifernus. Cities: Allifae, Beneventum, and Caudium.


III. _Lower Italy, or Magna Grecia, comprised four countries; Lucania
and Bruttium on the western side, Apulia and Calabria on the eastern._

1. Lucania. Boundaries: north, the Silarus, south, the Laus. For the
most part a mountain tract. It derived its name from the race of the
Lucani, a branch of the Ausones, or chief nation of Lower Italy. Cities:
Paestum, or Posidonia, still renowned for its ruins, and Helia, or Velia.

2. Bruttium, (the modern Calabria,) or the western tongue of land from
the river Laus to the southern land's end at Rhegium. The river
Brandanus constitutes the eastern frontier. A mountainous country,
deriving its name from the Bruttii, (a half savage branch of the
Ausones,) who dwelt in the mountains, while the seashores were occupied
by Grecian settlements. Cities: Consentia, (Cosenza,) Pandosia,
Mamertum, and Petilia. (Concerning the Greek colonies see above p. 155.)

3. Apulia. The country ranging along the eastern coast, from the river
Frento to the commencement of the eastern tongue of land; an extremely
fertile plain, and particularly adapted to grazing cattle. Rivers: the
Aufidus (Ofanto) and the Cerbalus. This country is divided into two
parts by the Aufidus, the northern called Apulia Daunia, the southern
called Apulia Peucetia. Cities: in Apulia Daunia; Sipontum and Luceria:
in Apulia Peucetia; Barium, Cannae, and Venusia.

4. Calabria or Messapia, the smaller eastern tongue of land, which
terminates in the promontory of Iapygium. Cities: Brundusium (Brindisi)
and Callipolis (Gallipoli). Concerning Tarentum and other Grecian
colonies, see above, p. 155.

Three large islands are likewise reckoned as appertaining to Italy: they
are Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica. According to the political geography
of the Romans they were, however, considered as provinces. Although the
above islands were, along the coast, occupied by aliens, the
aboriginals, under their own kings, maintained a footing in the inland
parts; among these the Siculi, said to have migrated from Italy, were
the most celebrated; they remained in Sicily, and gave their name to the
whole island. Concerning the cities, the more important of which were,
some of Phoenician, but the most part of Grecian, origin, see above, p.
30, and p. 155, sqq.




FIRST PERIOD.

_From the foundation of Rome to the conquest of Italy and the
commencement of the wars with Carthage, B. C. 754-264, or A. U. C.
1-490._


  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
  _Archaeologia_: 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. Graeci, 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
  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 GRAEVII, _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' a la
  bataille d'Actium_. 13 vols. 8vo. Paris, 1823, edit. 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 Republique 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_.

  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_. Gottingae, 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:

  GRAEVII _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

  _Memoires de l'Academie des Inscriptions_.

  With the exception of NARDINI, _Roma Vetus_, inserted in GRAEVII
  THES. A. R. t. iv. the best work on the topography of ancient Rome
  is

  VENUTI, _Descrizione Topografica delle Antichita 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, _Antichita di Roma_, 3 vols. fol.

1. In certain respects, the history of Rome is always that of one town,
inasmuch as until the period of the Caesars, the city continued mistress
of her extensive territory. The main parts of the internal constitution
of Rome were formed during this first period; which, considered in an
historical point of view, can hardly be said to be void of interest.
Whether every fundamental institution had its origin precisely at the
epoch to which it is attributed, is a question of little importance; it
is sufficient to observe, that they certainly arose in this period; and
that the steps by which the constitution was developed are, upon the
whole, determined beyond the possibility of a doubt.

2. Exaggerated and embellished as the most ancient traditions of the
Romans respecting their origin may be, they all agree in this, that the
Romans belonged to the race of the Latini, and that their city was a
colony of the neighbouring Alba Longa. Long before this the custom seems
to have obtained with the Latini, of extending the cultivation of their
country by colonies.

  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 siecles de
  l'histoire Romaine_, nouv. ed. a 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.

3. During the first two hundred and forty-five years subsequent to its
foundation this city was under the rule of governors, denominated kings;
these, however, were not hereditary, still less were they invested with
unlimited power, although they exerted themselves to become both
perpetual and absolute. On the contrary, in this period was framed a
municipal constitution, demonstrative of the existence, even at this
early date, of a considerable degree of political civilization; in its
principal parts this constitution was, no doubt,--as in every
colony,--copied from that of the mother city. Its principal features
were: _a._ Establishment and internal organization of the senate. _b._
Establishment and progress of the patrician or hereditary nobility,
which, supported by the privilege of administering the sacred affairs,
and by the introduction of family names, quickly formed, in opposition
to the plebeians, a political party ever growing in power, although not,
therefore, a mere sacerdotal caste. _c._ Organization of the people
(_populus_), and modes of popular assembly (_comitia_), founded
thereupon; besides the original division according to heads into
_tribus_ and _curiae_, another was subsequently introduced according to
property into _classes_ and _centuriae_, out of which, besides the more
ancient _comitia curiata_, arose the very artificially constructed
_comitia centuriata_. _d._ Religious institutions, (_religiones_,) which
being most closely connected with the political constitution, formed a
state religion, by means of which everything in the state was attached
to determined forms, and received a higher sanction. Nor must we omit
_e._ the relations in private life established by law, the clientship,
marriage, and especially paternal authority. In consequence of those
domestic relations, a spirit of subordination and discipline, from the
earliest times, pervaded the people; and to that spirit the Romans were
indebted for the glory to which they attained.

4. Notwithstanding many little wars with their immediate neighbours the
Sabines, Aequi, and Volsci, together with various cities of the Etrusci,
and even with the Latins themselves, Rome added but little to her
territory: nevertheless she took the first step towards her
aggrandizement; from the time of the destruction of Alba Longa, she
aimed at being the head of the collected cities of the Latins, and
finally attained the object of her ambition.

  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, however,
  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' re di Roma_. (Op. t.
  iii.) Chronological doubts. Can the raising of difficulties deserve
  the name of criticism?

5. The only direct consequence to the internal constitution of Rome,
proceeding from the abolition of royalty was, that that power,
undetermined as it had been while in the hands of the kings, was
transferred to two consuls, annually elected. Meanwhile the struggle for
liberty, in which the new republic was engaged with the Etrusci and
Latins, contributed much to arouse the republican spirit which
henceforward was the main feature of the Roman character--the evils of
popular rule being in times of need remedied by the establishment of the
dictatorship. The party, however, which had deposed the ruling family,
took wholly into their own hands the helm of state; and the oppression
of these aristocrats, shown principally towards their debtors, who had
become their slaves, (_nexi_,)--notwithstanding the _lex de
provocatione_ established by Valerius Poplicola, ensuring to the people
the highest judicial power--was so galling, that after the lapse of a
few years it gave rise to a sedition of the commons, (_plebis_,) the
consequence of which was the establishment of annually elected
presidents of the people (_tribuni plebis_).

  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, _Foedera 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.

6. The further development of the Roman constitution in this period,
hinges almost wholly on the struggle between the new presidents of the
commons and the hereditary nobility; the tribunes, instead of confining
themselves to defend the people from the oppression of the nobles, soon
began to act as aggressors, and in a short time so widely overstepped
their power, that there remained no chance of putting an end to the
struggle but by a complete equalization of rights. A long time elapsed
ere this took place; the aristocracy finding a very powerful support
both in the clientship and in the religion of the state, operating under
the shape of auspices.

  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 agrariae_,)
  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 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.

7. The code of the twelve tables confirmed the ancient institutions, and
was in part completed by the adoption of the laws of the Greek
republics, among which Athens in particular is mentioned, whose counsels
were requested by a special deputation. In this, however, two faults
were committed; not only were the commissioners charged with drawing up
the laws elected from the patricians _alone_, but they were likewise
constituted sole magistrates, with _dictatorial_ power, (_sine
provocatione_;) whereby a path was opened to them for an usurpation,
which could be frustrated only by a sedition of the people.

  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. Jurisprudentiae Romanae_; and
  in several other works.

8. By the laws of the twelve tables the legal relations of the citizens
were the same for all; but as that code seems to have contained very
little in reference to any peculiar constitution of the state, the
government not only remained in the hands of the aristocrats, who were
in possession of all offices, but the prohibition, according to the new
laws of marriage between patricians and plebeians, appeared to have
raised an insurmountable barrier between the two classes. No wonder,
then, that the tribunes of the people should have immediately renewed
their attacks on the patricians; particularly as the power of those
popular leaders was not only renewed, but even augmented, as the only
limit to their authority was the necessity of their being unanimous in
their acts, while each had the right of a negative.

  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.

9. The main subjects of the new dissensions between patricians and
plebeians, excited by the tribune Canuleius, were now the _connubia
patrum cum plebe_, and the exclusive participation of the patricians in
the consulship, of which the tribunes demanded the abolition. The repeal
of the former law was obtained as early as 445, (_lex Canuleia_;) the
right of admission to the consulship was not extended to the Plebeians,
till after a struggle annually renewed for eighty years; during which,
when, as usually was the case, the tribunes forbade the military
enrolment, recourse was had to a transfer of the consular power
to the yearly elected commanders of the legions; a place to which
plebeians were entitled to aspire, (_tribuni militum consulari
potestate._)--Establishment of the office of CENSORS, designed at first
for nothing more than to regulate the taking of the census, and invested
with no higher authority than what that required, but who soon after, by
assuming to themselves the _censura morum_, took rank among the most
important dignitaries of the state.

10. Meanwhile Rome was engaged in wars, insignificant but almost
uninterrupted, arising out of the oppression, either real or imaginary,
which she exercised as head of the neighbouring federate cities,
(_socii_,) comprising not only those of the Latins, but likewise, after
the victory of lake Regillus, those of the other nations: the cities
embraced every opportunity of asserting their independence, and the
consequent struggles must have depopulated Rome, had not that evil been
diverted by the maxim of increasing the complement of citizens by
admitting the freedmen, and not unfrequently even the conquered, to the
enjoyment of civic privileges. Little as these feuds, abstractedly
considered, deserve our attention, they become of high interest,
inasmuch as they were not only the means by which the nation was trained
to war, but also led to the foundation of that senatorial power, whose
important consequences will be exhibited hereafter.

  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 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_).

11. Not long after, however, a tempest from the north had nearly
destroyed Rome. The Sennonian Gauls, pressed out of northern Italy
through Etruria, possessed themselves of the city, the capitol excepted,
and reduced it to ashes; an event which made so deep an impression on
the minds of the Romans, that few other occurrences in their history
have been more frequently the object of traditional detail. Camillus,
then the deliverer of Rome, and in every respect one of the chief heroes
of that period, laid a double claim to the gratitude of his native city,
by overruling, after his victory, the proposal of a general migration to
Veii.

12. Scarcely was Rome rebuilt ere the ancient feuds revived, springing
out of the poverty of the citizens, produced by an increase of taxation
consequent on the establishment of military pay, and by the introduction
of gross usury. The tribunes, Sextius and Licinius, by prolonging their
term of office to five years, had established their power; while
Licinius, by an agrarian law, decreeing that no individual should hold
more than five hundred _jugera_ of the national lands, had ensured the
popular favour; so that at last they succeeded in obtaining, that one of
the consuls should be chosen from the commons; and although the
nobility, by the nomination of a praetor from their own body, and of
_aediles curules_, endeavoured to compensate for the sacrifice they were
obliged to make, yet the plebeians having once made good a claim to the
consulship, their participation in the other magisterial offices, (the
dictatorship, 353, the censorship, 348, the praetorship, 334,) and even
the priesthood, (300,) quickly followed as a matter of course. Thus at
Rome the object of political equality between commons and nobles was
attained; and although the difference between the patrician and plebeian
families still subsisted, they soon ceased to form political parties.

  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.

13. Far more important than any wars in which Rome had hitherto been
engaged, were those soon about to commence with the Samnites. In former
contests the object of Rome had been to establish her supremacy over her
immediate neighbours; but in these, during a protracted contest of fifty
years, she opened a way to the subjugation of Italy, and laid the
foundation of her future greatness.

  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 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.

14. After the subjection of the Samnites, Rome, wishing to confirm her
dominion in Lower Italy, was thereby, for the first time, entangled in
war with a foreign prince; the Tarentines, too feeble to maintain alone
their footing against the Romans, called Pyrrhus of Epirus to their
assistance. He came, indeed, but not so much to further the views of the
Tarentines as to advance his own; but even in victory, he learnt by
experience that the Macedonian tactics gave him but a slight
preponderance, which the Romans soon transferred to their own side,
exhibiting the truth of the principle, that a good civic militia, sooner
or later, will always get the upper hand of mercenary troops.

  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 defeated 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.

15. The chief means to which, even from the earliest times, the Romans
had recourse for the foundation of their dominion over the conquered,
and at the same time for the prevention of the too great increase of the
needy classes at Rome, was the establishment of colonies of their own
citizens, which, being settled in the captured cities, served likewise
as garrisons. Each colony had its own distinct internal constitution,
modelled, for the most part, upon that of the mother city itself; hence
to keep the colonies in perfect dependence naturally became an object of
Roman policy. This colonial system of the Romans, necessarily and
spontaneously arising out of the rude custom of bereaving the conquered
of their lands and liberty, assumed its main features in the Samnite
war, and gradually embraced the whole of Italy. Closely connected with
this system was the construction of military highways, (_viae
militares_,) one of which, the Appian Way, was constructed so early as
312, and to this day remains a lasting monument of the greatness of Rome
at that period.

  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.

16. But the relations existing between Rome and the Italian nations
were extremely various in kind. 1. A few cities and nations enjoyed the
full privileges of Roman citizenship; in some instances, however,
without the right of voting in the _comitia_ (_municipia_). 2. The
privileges of the colonies (_jus coloniarum_) were of a more restricted
nature; the colonists were indeed in possession of their own civic
government, but had no further share whatever either in the _comitia_ or
magistracies of Rome. The other inhabitants of Italy were either
federates (_socii, foedere juncti_) or subjects (_dedititii_). The first
(_a_) preserved their internal form of government; but on the other hand
(_b_) were obliged to furnish tribute and auxiliary troops (_tributis et
armis juvare rempublicam_). Their further relation with Rome depended
upon the terms of the league. The most advantageous of these terms were
3. in favour of the Latins, although each of their cities had its own
separate league (_jus Latii_;) as 4. the rest of the Italian nations had
their _jus Italicum_. On the other hand, 5. the subjects, _dedititii_,
were deprived of their internal constitutions, and were governed by
Roman magistrates, (_praefecti_,) annually renewed.

  C. SIGONIUS, _De antiquo jure civium Romanorum_; and his treatise _De
  antiquo jure Italiae_, inserted both in his _Opera_ and in GRAEVII
  _Thes. Ant. Rom._ t. ii. contain the most learned researches on the
  details of these relations.

17. The internal constitution of Rome itself, now completed, bore the
character of a democracy, inasmuch as equality of rights existed both
for nobles and commons. Yet this democracy was modified by expedients so
various and wonderful--the rights of the people, of the senate, of the
magistrates, fitted so nicely into each other, and were so firmly
supported by the national religion, connecting every thing with
determinate forms--that there was no reason, at that time, to fear the
evils either of anarchy, or, what is much more astonishing when we
consider the warlike character of the people, those of military
despotism.

  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 urbanae_, 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,
  praetor; 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 minutiae would be the surest way to
  fall into error.

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

  DE BEAUFORT, _La Republique Romaine, ou plan general 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 GRAEVIUS, _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 Jurisprudentiae Romanae_. Lips. 1754. 1796.

  # C. HUGO, _Elements of the Roman Law_; 7th edit. Berlin, 1820.




SECOND PERIOD.

_From the commencement of the war with Carthage to the rise of the
civil broils under the Gracchi, B. C. 264-134. Year of Rome, 490-620._


  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.
  AEMILIUS, 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
  decadence des Romains_.

1. The political division of Italy laid the foundation for the dominion
of Rome in that country; the want of union and political relations in
the world paved the way to her universal empire. The first step cost her
much, the succeeding followed easily and rapidly; and the history of the
struggle between Rome and Carthage only shows on a larger scale what the
history of Greece exhibits on a smaller. The whole of the following
history confirms the fact, that two republics cannot exist near each
other, without one being destroyed or subjected: but the vast extent of
this struggle, the important consequences which followed, together with
the wonderful exertions made, and the great men engaged on both sides,
gave it an interest which cannot be found in that of any other nations.
Though the power and resources of both states were nearly equal in
appearance, they were widely different in quality and circumstances.
Carthage, besides her dominion over the seas, had also a better
furnished treasury, by which she was enabled to enlist into her service
as many _mercenaries_ as she pleased: Rome, on the contrary, _strong in
herself_, had all the advantages possessed by a nation of warriors over
one partly commercial, partly military.

2. The first war of twenty-three years between the two republics, arose
from very slight causes: it soon, however, became a struggle for the
possession of Sicily, which in the end naturally extended itself to the
dominion of the sea. Rome, by the aid of her newly-built fleet, having
obtained for some time this power, was enabled to attack Africa, and
succeeded in driving the Carthaginians from Sicily.

  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 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 Lilybaeum, 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.

3. The issue of this war placed the political connections of Rome in a
new situation, and necessarily extended her influence abroad. The length
of the war and the manner of its conclusion had, moreover, inspired a
national hatred, such as is only found in republics; the conviction also
that they could not remain independent of one another, must have become
much more striking, as the points of contact had greatly increased since
the beginning of the war. Who does not know the arrogance of a republic
after the first essay of her power has been crowned with success! Rome
gave a striking example of this by her invasion of Sardinia in the midst
of peace. These successes had also a sensible effect on the Roman
constitution. For although in appearance its form was not in the least
changed, yet the power of the senate now acquired that preponderance
which the ruling authority of a republic never fails to do after long
and successful wars.

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

4. An opportunity was soon afforded the Romans, in the Adriatic sea, of
making use of their superior naval power, in chastising the pirates of
Illyria under their queen Teuta. By effecting this, they not only
secured their authority over that sea, but at the same time formed their
first political relations with the Grecian states; relations which soon
afterwards became of great importance.

  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 Achaeans, Aetolians, and Athenians vied with
  each other in showing their gratitude.

5. In the mean time, while Carthage endeavoured to make up for the loss
of Sicily and Sardinia by extending her Spanish dominions, which the
jealousy of Rome restrained her from carrying beyond the Ebro (p. 84.),
Rome herself had a new war to maintain against her northern neighbours
the Gauls, which ended after a violent contest with the establishment of
her authority over the north of Italy.

  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 Gaesates 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.

6. Before this storm was totally appeased, in which it is probable that
Carthaginian policy was not altogether inactive, Hannibal had obtained
the chief command in Spain. From the reproach of having first begun the
war, he and his party cannot be cleared; Rome, in the situation she then
was, could hardly desire it; he however who strikes the first blow is
not always the real aggressor. The plan of Hannibal was the destruction
of Rome; and by making Italy the principal seat of the war, he
necessarily turned the scale in his favour; because Rome, obliged to
defend herself, left to him all the advantages of attack. The
preparations she made for defence, show that it was not believed
possible he could execute his enterprise by the route which he took.

  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 Cannae, 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.

  [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 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.

7. Notwithstanding her great loss of men, and the devastation of Italy,
Rome felt herself much more powerful at the end of this war than at the
beginning. Her dominion was not only established over Italy, but
extensive foreign countries had been brought under it; her authority
over the seas was rendered secure by the destruction of the naval power
of the Carthaginians. The Roman _form_ of government, it is true,
underwent no change, but its _spirit_ much, as the power of the senate
became almost unlimited; and although the dawn of civilization had
broken over Rome, since her intercourse with more civilized foreigners,
the state still remained altogether a nation of warriors. And now, for
the first time, appears in the page of history the fearful phenomenon of
a great military republic; and the history of the next ten years, in
which Rome overthrew so many thrones and free states, gives a striking
proof, that such a power is the natural enemy to the independence of all
the states within the reach of her arms. The causes which led Rome from
this time to aspire after the dominion of the world are to be found
neither in her geographical situation, which for a conquering power by
land seemed rather unfavourable; nor in the inclination of the people,
who were opposed to the first war against Philip; but singly and
entirely in the spirit of her government. The means, however, whereby
she obtained her end, must not be sought for merely in the excellence of
her armies and generals, but rather in that uniform, sharp-sighted, and
dexterous policy, by which she was enabled to frustrate the powerful
alliances formed against her, notwithstanding the many adversaries who
at that time sought to form new ones. But where could be found such
another council of state, embodying such a mass of practical political
wisdom, as the Roman senate must have been from the very nature of its
organization? All this, however, would not have been sufficient to have
subjugated the world, if the want of good government, the degeneracy of
the military art, and an extremely corrupt state of morals among both
rulers and people, in foreign states, had not seconded the efforts of
Rome.

  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, 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 Aetolian 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 Achaean 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.

8. A declaration of war against Philip, notwithstanding the opposition
of the tribunes of the people, and an attack upon Macedonia itself,
according to the constant maxim of carrying the war into the enemy's
country, immediately followed. They could not, however, drive Philip so
soon from the fastnesses of Epirus and Thessaly, which were his
bulwarks. But Rome possessed in T. Quintius Flaminius, who marched
against Philip as the deliverer of Greece, a statesman and general
exactly fitted for a period of great revolutions. By the permanency of
his political influence he became indeed the true founder of the Roman
power in the east. Who could better cajole men and nations, while they
were erecting altars to him, than T. Quintius? So artfully indeed did he
assume the character of a great genius, such as had been given by nature
to Scipio, that he has almost deceived history itself. The struggle
between him and Philip consisted rather in a display of talents in
political stratagem and finesse than in feats of arms: even before the
battle of Cynoscephalae had given the finishing stroke, the Romans had
already turned the balance in their favour, by gaining over the Achaean
league.

  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 Aetolians 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.

9. The expulsion of Philip from Greece brought that country into a state
of dependence upon Rome; an event which could not have been better
secured than by the present of liberty which T. Quintius conferred upon
its inhabitants at the Isthmian games. The system of surveillance, which
the Romans had already established in the west over Carthage and
Numidia, was now adopted in the east over Greece and Macedonia. Roman
commissioners, under the name of ambassadors, were sent into the country
of the nations in alliance, and were the principal means by which this
system of espionage was carried on. These however did not fail to give
umbrage to the Greeks, particularly to the turbulent Aetolians; more
especially as the Romans seemed in no hurry to withdraw their troops
from a country which they had declared to be free.

  Liberty was expressly granted to the state which had taken the
  part of Philip, namely, to the Achaeans; 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.

10. The treaty of peace with Philip contained the seeds of a new and
greater war with Syria; but though this seemed inevitable at that time,
it did not break out till six years afterwards; and in but few periods
of the history of the world is so great a political crisis to be found,
as in this short interval. The fall of Carthage and Macedonia had shown
the rest of the world what it had to expect from Rome; and there was no
lack of great men sufficiently endowed with courage and talents to
resist her. The danger of a formidable league between Carthage, Syria,
and perhaps Macedonia, was never so much to be feared, as when Hannibal,
now at the head of affairs, laboured to effect it with all the zeal
which his hatred of Rome could inspire; and they might calculate with
certainty beforehand on the accession of many smaller states. Rome,
however, by her equally decided and artful policy procured Hannibal's
banishment from Carthage, amused Philip by granting him some trifling
advantages, and gained over the smaller states by her ambassadors. By
these means, and by taking advantage of the intrigues in the court of
Syria, she prevented this coalition from being formed. Antiochus was
therefore left without assistance in Greece, except from the Aetolians,
and a few other unimportant allies; while Rome drew from hers,
especially the Rhodians and Eumenes, advantages of the greatest
consequence.

  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 Aetolians, 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 foederum ad Romanorum opes imminuendas initorum eventis
  eorumque causis; in Opusc._ vol. iii.

11. This war was much sooner brought to a termination than the
Macedonian, owing to the half-measures adopted by Antiochus. After
having been driven from Greece by Glabrio, and after two naval victories
had opened to the Romans the way to Asia, he felt inclined to act on the
defensive; but in the battle near Magnesia at the foot of Mount Sipylus,
L. Scipio gathered the laurels which more properly belonged to Glabrio.
The total expulsion of Antiochus from Asia Minor, even before this
victory, had been the chief object of the war. The conditions of peace
(see above, p. 284.) were such, as not only weakened Antiochus, but
reduced him to a state of dependence.

  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!

12. Even after the termination of this war, Rome refrained with
astonishing moderation from appearing in the light of a conqueror: it
was only for the liberty of Greece, and for her allies, that she had
contended! Without keeping a foot of land for herself, she divided, with
the exception of the free Grecian cities, the conquered Asia Minor
between Eumenes and the Rhodians; the manner, however, in which she
dealt with the Aetolians, who after a long supplication for peace were
obliged to buy it dearly, shows that she also knew how to treat
unfaithful allies. The war against the Gauls in Asia Minor was not less
necessary for the preservation of tranquillity in that country, than it
was injurious to the morals and military discipline of the Roman army.
They here learned to levy contributions.

13. Thus, within the short space of ten years, was laid the foundation
of the Roman authority in the east, and the general state of affairs
entirely changed. If Rome was not yet the ruler, she was at least the
arbitress of the world from the Atlantic to the Euphrates. The power of
the three principal states was so completely humbled, that they durst
not, without the permission of Rome, begin any new war; the fourth,
Egypt, had already, in the year 201, placed herself under the
guardianship of Rome; and the lesser powers followed of themselves:
esteeming it an honour to be called the _allies of Rome_. With this name
the nations were lulled into security, and brought under the Roman yoke;
the new political system of Rome was founded and strengthened, partly by
exciting and supporting the weaker states against the stronger, however
unjust the cause of the former might be, and partly by factions which
she found means to raise in every state, even the smallest.

  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 Achaean league by favouring the Spartans, and against
  Philip of Macedon by favouring every one who brought any complaint
  against him (see above, p. 285).

14. Although these new connections and this intercourse with foreign
nations greatly aided the diffusion of knowledge and science, and was
followed by a gradual improvement in her civilization, yet was it
nevertheless, in many respects, detrimental to the internal state of
Rome. The introduction of the scandalous Bacchanalia, which were
immediately discovered and forbidden, shows how easily great vices may
creep in among a people who are only indebted for their morality to
their ignorance. Among the higher classes also the spirit of intrigue
manifested itself to an astonishing degree; particularly by the attacks
directed against the Scipios by the elder Cato, whose restless activity
became the instrument of his malignant passions. The severity of his
censorship did not repair the evils caused by his immorality and
pernicious politics.

  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.

15. Fresh disputes arose, as early as 185, with Philip of Macedon, who
soon found that they had spared him no longer than it suited their own
convenience. Although the intervention of Philip's youngest son, upon
whom the Romans had formed some design, prevented the powers from coming
to an immediate rupture, and war was still further delayed by Philip's
death, yet the national hatred descended to his successor, and continued
to increase, notwithstanding an alliance concluded with him, until the
war openly broke out (see above, p. 287).

  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.

16. In the second Macedonian war, which ended with the destruction of
Perseus and his kingdom (see above, p. 288), it required the active
efforts of Roman policy to prevent a powerful confederacy from being
formed against her; as Perseus used all his endeavours to stimulate, not
only the Grecian states, and Thrace and Illyria, but also Carthage and
Asia, to enter into alliance with him. Where was it that Rome did not at
this crisis send her ambassadors? She did not, indeed, succeed so far as
to leave her enemy quite alone, but prepared new triumphs for herself
over the few allies she left him. The devastated Epirus, and Gentius
king of Illyria, suffered dearly for the assistance they had lent him;
the states also which had remained neuter, the Rhodians and Eumenes,
were made to feel severely that they were the mere creatures of Rome.

  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
  Aemilius, 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.)

17. The destruction of the Macedonian monarchy was attended with
consequences equally disastrous to the conquerors and the conquered. To
the first it soon gave the notion of becoming the masters of the world,
instead of its arbiters; and it exposed the latter, for the next twenty
years, to all the evils inseparable from such a catastrophe. The system
of politics hitherto pursued by Rome could not last much longer; for if
nations suffered themselves to be brought under the yoke by force, it
was not to be expected that they would long be held in dependence under
the specious name of liberty. But the state of things after this war was
such as contributed to hasten a change in the form of the relations
which existed between Rome and her allies.

  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).

18. Entirely in the same spirit did Rome proceed against the other
states from whom she had anything to fear. These must be rendered
defenceless; and every means of effecting that purpose was considered
justifiable by the senate. The quarrels between the successors to the
throne of Egypt were taken advantage of to cause dissensions in that
kingdom (see above, p. 260); while Syria was retained in a state of
tutelage, by keeping the rightful heir to the throne at Rome; and its
military power neutralized by means of their ambassadors (see above, p.
243).

19. From these facts we may also conclude, that the injuries now
meditated against Carthage were not separate projects, but rather formed
part of the general system of Roman policy at this period, although
particular events at one time retarded their execution, and at another
hastened it. History, in recounting the incredibly bad treatment which
Carthage had to endure before her fall, seems to have given a warning to
those nations who can take it, of what they may expect from the
domination of a powerful republic.

  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
  Aemilianus. The Carthaginian territory, under the name of Africa,
  was then made a Roman province.

20. During this third war with Carthage, hostilities again broke out in
Macedonia, which brought on a new war with Greece, and entirely changed
the state of both these countries. In Macedonia, an impostor named
Andriscus, who pretended to be the son of Philip, placed himself at the
head of that highly disaffected people, assumed the name of Philip, and
became, particularly by an alliance with the Thracians, very formidable
to the Romans, until overcome by Metellus. Rome wishing to take
advantage of this crisis to dissolve the Achaean league, the Achaean war
broke out (see above, p. 289). This war was begun by Metellus, and
terminated by Mummius with the destruction of Corinth. By reducing both
Macedonia and Greece to the form of provinces, Rome now gave evident
proof that no existing relations, nor any form of government, can
prevent nations from being subjugated by a warlike republic, whenever
circumstances render it possible.

  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.

21. While Rome was thus destroying thrones and republics, she met in
Spain with an antagonist--a simple Spanish countryman named
Viriathus--whom, after six years' war, she could only rid herself of by
assassination. The war, nevertheless, continued after his death against
the Numantines, who would not be subjected, but were at last destroyed
by Scipio Aemilianus.

  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
  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 Caepio, 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.

22. Towards the end of this period, the Romans obtained at a much
cheaper rate the possession of one of their most important provinces;
for the profligate Attalus III. king of Pergamus, bequeathing them the
whole of his kingdom (on what account is uncertain, see above, p. 292.),
they immediately took possession of it, and kept in spite of the
resistance of the legitimate heir Aristonicus, merely ceding, as a
recompense, Phrygia to Mithridates V. king of Pontus. Thus, by a stroke
of the pen, the largest and finest part of Asia Minor became the
property of Rome. If this extraordinary legacy was the work of Roman
policy, she paid dearly enough, in the long run, for this accession to
her power and riches, by the destruction of her morals, and the dreadful
wars to which this legacy gave rise under Mithridates.

23. The foreign possessions of Rome, besides Italy, comprised at this
time under the name of provinces, a name of much higher signification in
the Latin language than in any other, Hispania Citerior and Ulterior,
Africa (the territory of Carthage), Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica,
Liguria, and Cisalpine Gaul, in the west; and in the east, Macedonia,
Achaia, and Asia (territory of Pergamus). The inhabitants of these
countries were entirely subject to Rome. The administration of them was
carried on by those who had enjoyed the office of consul, and by
praetors, subordinate to whom were the quaestors, or collectors of the
revenue. The highest military and civil powers were united in these
governors; a principal cause of that horrible oppression which was soon
felt. Troops were always kept up in the provinces; and the Latin
language everywhere introduced (except only where Greek was spoken),
that the inhabitants might be made as much like Romans as possible.

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

  C. SIGONIUS, _de Antiquo jure provinciarum in Graevii Thes. Antiq.
  Rom._ vol. ii.

24. The acquisition of these rich countries naturally had great
influence in augmenting the revenue of the Romans. Though Rome was not
indeed a state, like Carthage, altogether dependent upon finances, yet
she kept these adjusted in a wonderful manner; a spirit of nice order
being observed in this as well as in every other department of her
administration. If in extraordinary emergencies recourse were had to
native loans, to a change in the value of money, or a monopoly of salt,
order was soon restored; while the booty obtained from conquered
countries was also a great source of the public income so long indeed as
it was reserved for the state, and did not become the prey of the
generals.

  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 (_decumae_) 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 _aerarium_; 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
  _quaestores_, under whom were the _scribae_, 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 _quaestores_ for the time
  being; and the whole management of affairs, at least in detail,
  must have fallen into their hands.

  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.




THIRD PERIOD.

_From the beginning of the civil broils under the Gracchi, to the fall
of the republic. B. C. 134-30. Year of Rome, 620-724._


  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
  CAESAR 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 PLUTARCH'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 Republique Romaine dans le cours du VIIe
  Siecle par Salluste_, a 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 revolutions arrivees dans le gouvernement de la
  Republique 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_. Geneve, 1751, 2 vols. 8vo. A
  survey of the internal history; ingenious, but as superficial as the
  _Observations sur les Grecs_ by the same author.

1. The foregoing period is composed of the history of foreign wars
alone; in this, on the contrary, Rome appears in a continual state of
internal commotion. And if foreign hostilities interrupt this state of
things for a short time, it is only that it may be renewed with more
violence, till at last it ends in a furious civil war. As the almost
boundless power of the senate had laid the foundation of an exceedingly
hateful family aristocracy, against which the tribunes of the people
arrayed themselves, in the character of powerful demagogues, there arose
a new struggle between the aristocratic and democratic parties, which
almost immediately grew into two powerful factions. This contest, from
its extent and its consequences, soon became much more important than
the ancient one between the patricians and the plebeians.

  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.

2. Commencement of the disturbances under the tribunate of Tib.
Sempronius Gracchus, whom former connections had long made the man of
the people. His desire was to relieve the distress of the lower orders;
and the means whereby he hoped to do this was a better division of the
lands of the republic, now almost exclusively in the hands of the
aristocracy. His reform, therefore, naturally led at once to a struggle
with that party. Tib. Gracchus however soon found, by experience, that a
demagogue cannot stop where he would, however pure his intentions may be
at first; and no sooner had he obtained a prolongation of his term of
office, in opposition to the usual custom, than he fell a sacrifice to
his undertaking.

  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.

3. The fall of the chief of the new party, however, occasioned any thing
rather than its destruction. Not only was there no mention of an
abrogation of the agrarian law, but the senate was obliged to allow the
place in the commission, which had become vacant by the death of
Gracchus, to be filled up; and Scipio Nasica himself was sent out of the
way, under the pretext of an embassy to Asia. The party of the senate
did, indeed, find a powerful support for a short time in the return of
Scipio Aemilianus (_d._ 129) from Spain; but its greatest support was
found in the difficulties of the law itself, which prevented its
execution.

  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.

4. Evident endeavours of the tribunes of the people to increase their
power, Gracchus having now awakened them to a sense of it. Not satisfied
with a seat and voice in the senate, Carbo wished that the renewing of
their dignity should be passed into a law. By the removal, however, of
the chiefs of the lower party, upon honourable pretexts, new troubles
were put off for some years.

  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 Aedui, the allies
  of Rome. Capture of the Balearian isles by Metellus, 123. Quaestorship
  of C. Gracchus in Sicily, 128-125.

5. These palliative remedies, however, availed nothing after the return
of C. Gracchus from Sicily with a full determination to tread in the
footsteps of his brother. Like him, it is true, he fell a victim to his
enterprise; but the storm that he raised during the two years of his
tribunate fell so much the more heavily, as the popular excitement was
more general, and from his possessing more of the shining talents
necessary to form a powerful demagogue than his brother.

  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 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.

6. The victory of the aristocratic faction was this time not only much
more certain and bloody, they turned the advantages it gave them to such
good account, that they eluded the agrarian law of Gracchus, and indeed,
at last, completely abrogated it. But the seeds of discord already
disseminated, especially among the Italian allies, could not be so soon
checked, when once the subjects of these states had conceived the idea
that they were entitled to a share in the government. How soon these
party struggles might be renewed, or indeed a civil war break out,
depended almost entirely upon foreign circumstances, and the chance of a
bolder leader being found.

  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.

  # _History of the Revolution of the Gracchi in my Miscellaneous
  Historical Works._ Vol. iii. 1821.

7. Visible effects of this party spirit upon public morals, which now
began to decline the more rapidly, in proportion to the increase of
foreign connections. Neither the severity of the censorship, nor the
laws against luxury (_leges sumtuariae_), nor those which now became
necessary against celibacy, could be of much service in this respect.
This degeneracy was not only to be found in the cupidity of the higher
ranks, but also in the licentiousness of the lower orders.

  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.

8. This corruption was manifested in a striking manner in the next
great war that Rome entered into, which was in Africa, against Jugurtha
of Numidia, the adopted grandson of Masinissa; and soon after against
his ally Bocchus of Mauritania. This war, kindled and maintained by the
avarice of the Roman nobles, which Jugurtha had already had an
opportunity of knowing at the siege of Numantia, paved the way to the
aggrandizement of C. Marius, a new demagogue, who, being also a
formidable general, did much more harm to the state than even the
Gracchi.

  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.

9. The elevation of Marius to the consulate not only humbled the power
of the aristocracy, but also showed, for the first time, that the way
was open to a man of low birth (_homo novus_) to the highest offices;
the method, however, which he had taken to form his army, entirely
against the Roman custom, that is, of composing it of the lower orders
(_capite censis_) must have rendered him doubly formidable.
Nevertheless, he would scarcely have effected so great a change in the
constitution, if a new and terrible war had not rendered his services
indispensable:--this was the threatened invasion of the Cimbri and
Teutones the most powerful nations of the north, during which a new and
violent rebellion of the slaves was raging in Sicily:--for after the
defeat of so many Roman armies, the people believed that no one but the
conqueror of Jugurtha could save Italy; and Marius knew so well how to
turn this to account, that he remained consul during four successive
years.

  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 Caepio. 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 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.

10. Although during this war the power of the popular party had sensibly
increased, yet the storm did not break out until Marius _bought_ his
sixth consulate. Now, even in Rome itself, he wished to avenge himself
upon his enemies; and what could the senate do, when it had at its head
a demagogue in the consul himself?--His league with the tribune
Saturnius, and the praetor Glaucias, forming already a true triumvirate,
would have overthrown the republic after the expulsion of Metellus, if
the unbridled licentiousness of the rabble connected with his allies had
not obliged him to break with them, lest he should sacrifice the whole
of his popularity.

  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 return of Metellus from his voluntary
  exile soon followed, 92, much against the will of Marius, who was
  obliged to retire into Asia.

11. The few years of tranquillity which Rome now enjoyed, brought to
maturity many benefits and many evils, the seeds of which had been
already sown. On one hand the rising eloquence of Antonius, Crassus, and
others, was employed with effect against the oppressors of the provinces
in the state trials (_questiones_); and some generous spirits used all
their endeavours to heal the wounds of Sicily, Asia, and other
provinces, by a better administration; while, on the other hand, the
power of the _ordo equestris_ became a source of much abuse: for besides
their right to sit in the tribunals (_judiciis_), which C. Gracchus had
conferred upon them, they had also obtained the farming of the leases,
and thereby the collection of the revenue in the provinces; by which
means they were enabled not only to oppose every reform that was
attempted in the latter, but even at Rome to hold the senate in a state
of dependence. The struggle which now arose between them and the senate
respecting the _judicia_ (or right to preside in the tribunal), was one
of the most fatal to the republic, as this right was abused by them for
the purpose of satisfying their personal rancour, and oppressing the
greatest men. The tribune M. Livius Drusus the younger, it is true,
wrested from them half their power; but, alas! the manner in which he
did it kindled into a flame the fire which had been smouldering from the
time of the Gracchi.

  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 praetor Sylla, 92 (see above, p. 294).

12. Revolt of the Italian tribes, who desire to obtain the right of
Roman citizens; whereupon the bloody _war of the allies_ ensues.
Although the oppression of Rome had been preparing this war for a long
time, yet it was an immediate consequence of the intrigues of the Roman
demagogues, who since the law of the younger Gracchus, had, with the
view of making themselves popular, continually flattered the allies with
the hope of sharing the privileges of Roman citizenship. It was however
soon seen, that the allies were not at a loss among themselves for
leaders, capable of forming great plans and executing them with vigour.
Italy was about to become a republic, with Corfinium for its capital
instead of Rome. Neither could Rome have saved herself from such an
event, but by gradually permitting the allies to enjoy the complete
freedom of the city.

  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 Lucani. 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.

13. The war now just ended, essentially changed the constitution of
Rome, as she no longer remained, as hitherto, the exclusive head of the
whole state; and although the new citizens were only formed into eight
tribes, yet their influence must soon have been felt in the committees,
on account of the readiness with which they promoted factions. Besides
this, the long-cherished private hatred between Marius and Sylla was
greatly strengthened by this war, as Sylla's fame was considerably
raised thereby, while that of Marius was proportionably diminished. An
opportunity was only wanted, like that which the first Pontine war soon
furnished, to stir up a new civil war, which threatened to destroy the
liberty of Rome.

14. Alliance of Marius with the tribune Sulpicius, with the view of
wresting from Sylla the command of the forces against Mithridates,
already conferred upon him by the senate. The ease with which Sylla, at
the head of an army on which he could depend, expelled the chiefs of
this party, seems to have left him ignorant of the fact, that the party
itself was not thereby destroyed. However judicious may have been his
other measures, the elevation of Cinna to the consulship was an error in
policy of which Italy had still more reason to repent than himself. How
much blood might have been spared if Sylla had not unseasonably wished
to become popular!

  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.

15. First war against Mithridates the Great. Sylla gains several
victories over that king's generals in Greece; wrests from him all his
conquests, and restricts him to his hereditary dominions. Rome since the
time of Hannibal had met with no such powerful opponent as the king of
Pontus, who in a few months had become master of all Asia Minor,
Macedonia, and Greece, and threatened even Italy itself; we must besides
consider, that the war on the side of Rome was carried on in a manner
altogether different from that of any previous one; as Sylla, after the
victory of the opposite party, being himself proscribed in Rome, was
obliged to continue it with his own army, and his own private resources.
The unfortunate countries which were the theatre of this war, felt as
many calamities during the struggle, as Italy was doomed to suffer after
its close.

  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.

16. But during this war a new revolution took place in Rome, which not
only overthrew the order reestablished by Sylla, but also, by the
victory of the democratic faction under Cinna and Marius, gave rise to a
wild anarchy of the people, and which the death of Marius, alas, too
late for Rome! only rendered more destructive; as the leaders themselves
could no longer restrain the savage hordes of their own party. However
dreadful the prospect of the return of Sylla might seem, it was
nevertheless the only hope that remained for all those who had not
joined the popular faction, or had not some connection with its leaders.

  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.

17. Return of Sylla to Italy, and a terrible civil war, which ends only
with the extermination of the democratic faction, and his own elevation
to the perpetual dictatorship. Although his enemies had so much
advantage over him in point of numbers, yet their party was so little
consolidated, that he with his veterans could not fail to obtain an easy
victory. The slaughter during this war fell for the most part upon the
Italian tribes, who had joined the party of Marius, and this afforded
Sylla the means of giving settlements to his own soldiers; but most of
the horrors of this revolution which fell to the share of Rome, were
reserved till the day of victory was past. Sylla's proscription, which
should only have punished his personal enemies, was the signal for a
general massacre, as every one took that opportunity to rid himself of
his private foes; and avarice did as much as vengeance. Who in these
days, so terrible to Italy, was sure of his life or property? And yet,
when we consider the dreadful circumstances which attended the foregoing
dominion of the people, deduct all that was done without Sylla's
knowledge, and consider how much he was obliged to do in order to
satisfy his army, we shall find it difficult to say how far he deserves
the reproach of wanton cruelty.

  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
  Praeneste, 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 Praeneste 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.

18. Great reform in the constitution during the two years' dictatorship
of Sylla. The aristocracy of the senate, which he filled up with
knights, was not only reestablished, but he also stopped the sources
from which the great disorders of the democracy had hitherto proceeded.
It seems probable that his natural indolence, which led him to prefer a
life of luxurious ease to one of laborious activity, when he was no
longer spurred to the latter by his passions, was the chief cause of his
voluntary abdication. He had, however, the great advantage over Marius,
of not being the sport of his own feelings. The conduct of Sylla,
indeed, was so consistent throughout, that it satisfactorily shows he
knew very well what was his ultimate aim--which Marius never did.

  Internal regulations of Sylla by the _leges Corneliae_. 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 praetors fixed to eight, and the quaestors 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.

19. Nevertheless it was impossible that the enactments of Sylla should
be long observed; as the evil lay too deep to be eradicated by laws.
A free state like that of Rome, with no middle class, must, from its
nature, be exposed to continual convulsions, and these will be more or
less violent in proportion to its greatness. Besides, as in the last
revolution almost all property had changed hands, there was spread
over all Italy a powerful party, who desired nothing so much as a
counter-revolution. And to this we may add, that there were many young
men, such as Lucullus, Crassus, and above all Pompey, who had opened to
themselves a career during the late troubles, which they would scarcely
yet wish to bring to a close. It will not then appear strange, that
immediately after the death of Sylla (! 88), a consul, M. Aemilius
Lepidus, should form the design of becoming a second Marius; a design
which could only be frustrated by the courage and activity of such a
patriotic citizen as Q. Lutatius Catulus, his colleague.

  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.

20. But much more dangerous for Rome might have been the civil war
kindled by Sertorius in Spain, if the plan of that exalted republican to
invade Italy had succeeded. Even Pompey himself, after a six years'
struggle, would hardly have prevented it, had it not been for the
worthlessness of the Roman vagabonds who surrounded him, and his
assassination by Perpenna. The rapid termination of the war after the
fall of its conductor, is a circumstance much more creditable to
Sertorius than to the conqueror Pompey.

  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 Sertorius with Mithridates the Great, and
  interchange of embassies without any important result, 75. Sertorius
  assassinated by Perpenna, 72.

21. Before, however, the flame of war was totally extinguished in the
west, Mithridates kindled a new and much fiercer one in the east; at the
same time a war of slaves and gladiators was raging with terrible fury
in Italy itself; and whole fleets of pirates not only ravaged the
Italian coasts, but threatened Rome herself with a famine, and obliged
her to have recourse to a mode of naval warfare altogether peculiar. All
these enemies were not without intelligence with one another; and
colossal as was the power of the republic at that time, and rich as Rome
was in distinguished men, it seems probable that the storm which beat on
every side between 75-71, would have razed her to the ground, if a
stricter alliance could have been formed between Sertorius, Spartacus,
and Mithridates. But the great difficulty of communication which at that
time existed, and without which probably a republic such as the Roman
never could have been formed, proved of more assistance at this crisis
than at any other.

  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 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.

22. The war of the slaves and gladiators, which happened nearly at the
same time, was, from the theatre of action being in its neighbourhood,
equally dangerous to Rome; it became still more terrible from the
violence with which these outraged beings sought to revenge their
wrongs, and more formidable from the talents of their leader, Spartacus;
and the conclusion of this struggle seemed, therefore, of so much
importance to Rome, that it gave M. Crassus a much higher influence in
the state than he could ever have obtained by his riches alone.

  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; hence arises a
  misunderstanding between these two commanders, during their consulate,
  70, which threatened to be dangerous to the state.

23. The war against the pirates of Sicily and Isauria was not only very
important in itself, but still more so in its consequences. It procured
for Pompey a legal power such as no Roman general had ever before
enjoyed; and the quick and glorious manner in which he brought it to a
close, opened for him the way to the great object of his ambition--the
conduct of the war in Asia against Mithridates.

  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 praetor 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.

24. After these triumphs over so many enemies, Mithridates was the only
one which now remained; and Pompey had here again the good fortune to
conclude a struggle already near its end; for notwithstanding his late
success, Mithridates had never been able completely to recover himself.
His fall undoubtedly raised the power of Rome in Asia Minor to its
highest pitch; but it brought her, at the same time, into contact with
the Parthians.

  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; Phoenicia 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; Judaea 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.

25. The fall of Mithridates raised the republic to the highest pitch of
her power: there was no longer any foreign foe of whom she could be
afraid. But her internal administration had undergone great changes
during these wars. Sylla's aristocratic constitution was shaken by
Pompey, in a most essential point, by the reestablishment of the power
of the tribunes, which was done because neither he nor any leading men
could obtain their ends without their assistance. It was by their means
that Pompey had procured such unlimited power in his two late
expeditions, that the existence of the republic was thereby endangered.
It was, however, a fortunate circumstance for Rome, that Pompey's vanity
was sufficiently gratified by his being at the head of affairs, where he
avoided the appearance of an oppressor.

  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.

26. This victory of the democratic faction, however, in consequence of
the use made of it by some leading men, necessarily led the way to an
oligarchy, which after the consulate of Pompey and Crassus became very
oppressive. Catiline's conspiracy, which was not matured till after
several attempts, would have broken up this confined aristocracy, and
placed the helm of state in the hands of another and still more
dangerous faction: a faction composed in part of needy profligates and
criminals dreading the punishment of their crimes, and partly of
ambitious nobles. It occasioned a short civil war; but procured Cicero a
place in the administration. With what pleasure do we forgive the little
weaknesses and failings of one so gifted with talents and great virtues!
of one who first taught Rome, in so many ways, what it was to be great
in the robe of peace!

  Catiline's first conspiracy, in which Caesar 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.

27. The suppression of this conspiracy, however, did not stay the effect
which the recently concluded Asiatic war had upon Roman manners. The
luxury of the east, though united with Grecian taste, which had been
introduced among the great by Lucullus; the immense riches poured into
the treasury by Pompey; the tempting examples of unlimited power, which
single citizens had already exercised; the purchase of the magistracy by
individuals, in order, like Verres, after the squandering of millions,
to enrich themselves again in the provinces; the demands of the soldiers
upon their generals; and the ease with which an army might be raised by
him who had only money enough to pay it; all these circumstances must
have foreboded new and approaching convulsions, even if the preceding
storms in this colossal republic, in which we must now judge of virtues
and vices, as well as of riches and power, by a very magnified standard,
had not formed men of that gigantic character they did:--men like Cato,
who struggled alone to stem the impetuous torrent of the revolution, and
was sufficiently powerful to <DW44> its progress for a time; or, like
Pompey, who by good fortune and the art of acquiring influence, arose
to a degree of authority and power never before attained by any citizen
of a free state; or, like Crassus, "who only considered him as rich that
could maintain an army by his own private means," founding their
pretensions on wealth; or, finally, like the aspiring and now powerful
Caesar, whose boundless ambition could only be surpassed by his talents,
and courage, "who would rather be the first in a village than the second
in Rome." The return of Pompey from Asia, threatening the senate with a
new dictator, appeared an eventful moment.

  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.

28. The arrival of Pompey in Rome renewed the struggle between the
senate and that powerful general, although he had disbanded his army on
landing in Italy. The ratification of his management of affairs in Asia,
which was the chief point of contention, was opposed by the leading men
of the senate, Cato, the two Metelli, and Lucullus, which induced Pompey
to attach himself entirely to the popular party, by whose means he hoped
to obtain his end; Caesar's return, however, from his province of
Lusitania, entirely changed the face of affairs.

29. Close union between Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus; that is, a secret
alliance, formed by the interposition of Caesar. That which formed the
height of the ambition of Pompey and Crassus was only regarded by Caesar
as the means by which he might be able to effect his. His consulate--a
kind of dictatorship under the mask of great popularity--necessarily
paved the way to his future career, as by giving him the government of
the two Gauls and Illyria for five years, it opened a wide field for
conquest, and gave him an opportunity of forming an army devoted to his
will.

  Caesar'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, Caesar
  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 Belgae, 57, and the Aquitani, 56; so that Caesar 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 Aedui,
  Allobroges, etc.

30. The triumvirate, in order to establish their power upon a solid
foundation, took care, by the management of the tribune Clodius, to get
rid of the leaders of the senate, Cato and Cicero, before the departure
of Caesar; and this they did by giving the former a kingdom to govern,
and by procuring the banishment of the latter. They must however soon
have discovered, that so bold a demagogue as Clodius could not be used
as a mere machine. And, indeed, after Caesar's departure he raised
himself so much above the triumvirs, that Pompey was soon obliged, for
his own preservation, to permit Cicero to return from exile, which could
only be effected by the most violent efforts of the tribune Milo. The
power of Clodius, however, was but little injured thereby, although
Pompey, to put a stop to the source of these disorders, and revive his
own popularity, procured the nomination of himself as _praefectus
annonae_, or superintendent of provisions.

  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.

31. A jealousy arises between the triumvirate, as Caesar, though absent,
still found means to keep up his party at Rome in such watchful
activity, that Pompey and Crassus considered it impossible to maintain
their own influence, except by procuring such concessions as had been
made to him. Harmony once more restored by an accommodation at Lucca, as
the parties found it necessary to preserve a good understanding with
each other.

  The terms of this accommodation were; that Caesar should have his
  government prolonged for another five years; and that Pompey and
  Crassus should enjoy the consulship for the ensuing 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.

32. Second consulate of Pompey and Crassus. It was only amidst violent
storms that they could effect their purposes; as it depended upon which
faction should first gain or keep possession of the forum. The
resistance they met with from the inflexible disposition of Cato, who in
his austere virtue alone found means to secure himself a powerful party,
shows how unfairly those judge who consider the power of the triumvirate
as unlimited, and the nation as entirely corrupted.

  Campaign of Crassus against the Parthians, undertaken at his own
  expense, 54. Instead, however, of gathering laurels like Caesar, 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).

33. As the triumvirate by this failure of Crassus was reduced to a
duumvirate, Pompey (who remained in Rome, and governed his provinces by
lieutenants), in the midst of continual domestic broils, which he
cunningly took care to foment, was evidently aiming to become the
acknowledged head of the senate and republic. The idea that a dictator
was necessary prevailed more and more during an anarchy of eight months,
in which no appointment of a consul could take place; and
notwithstanding the opposition of Cato, Pompey succeeded, after a
violent commotion, in which Clodius was murdered by Milo, in getting
himself nominated sole consul; a power equal to that of dictator.

  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.

34. From this time civil war became inevitable; for not only the chiefs
of the parties, but also their adherents desired it. The approach of the
time when Caesar's command would expire, necessarily hastened the crisis.
Could it be supposed that the conqueror of Gaul would return to a
private life, and leave his rival at the head of the republic? The steps
taken on both sides towards an accommodation were only made to escape
the odium which would attach to him who struck the first blow. But
Pompey unfortunately could never understand his opponent, who did all
himself, all completely, and all alone. The brilliant light in which
Pompey now appeared, as _defender of the republic_, delighted him so
much, that it made him forget what belonged to its defence; while Caesar
avoided, with the greatest care, every appearance of usurpation. The
friend, the protector of the people against the usurpations of their
enemies, was the character which he now chose to assume.

  Commencement of the contest upon Caesar's demand to be allowed to hold
  the consulship while absent, 52. Caesar, 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 Caesar 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 was passed,
  Jan. 7, 49, by which Caesar 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. Caesar crosses the Rubicon,
  the boundary of his province.

35. The civil war now about to break out, seemed likely to spread over
nearly all the countries of the Roman empire; as Pompey, finding it
impossible to maintain himself in Italy, had chosen Greece for the
principal theatre of the war; while his lieutenants, with the armies
under their command, occupied Spain and Africa. Caesar, by the able
disposition of his legions, was everywhere present, without exciting
beforehand any suspicion of his movements. A combination of
circumstances, however, carried the war into Alexandria, and even as far
as Pontus; indeed it might be called rather a series of six successive
wars than merely one, all of which Caesar, by flying with his legions
from one quarter of the world to the other, ended, within five years,
victoriously and in person.

  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 Caesar almost without opposition; Pompey,
  with his troops and adherents, having crossed over to Greece. Caesar'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, Caesar 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. Caesar
  arrives three days after him at Alexandria.

36. Caesar, after the victory of Pharsalia, again nominated dictator,
with great privileges. The death of Pompey, however, does not destroy
his party; and the six months' war of Alexandria, as well as the
expedition into Pontus against Pharnaces, gave them time to rally their
forces both in Africa under Cato, and in Spain under the sons of Pompey.

  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 Caesar 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
  (_novae tabulae_), notwithstanding the military power of M. Antony, whom
  Caesar had sent to Rome as master of the horse (_magister equitum_), as
  this abandoned sensualist at first actually favoured the projects of
  the tribune. Caesar'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. Caesar 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.

37. Nothing seems more evident than that Caesar did not, like Sylla,
overthrow the republic for the purpose of reestablishing it; and it is
perhaps impossible to say what could be the final views of a childless
usurper, who throughout his whole career, seemed only to be guided by an
inordinate ambition, springing from a consciousness of superior powers,
and to satisfy which, no means seemed to him difficult or unlawful. The
period of his dictatorship was so short, and so much interrupted by
war, that his ultimate plans had not time for their development. He
endeavoured to establish his dominion by popular measures; and although
his army must still have been his main support, yet no proscription was
granted to satisfy it. The reestablishment of order in the distracted
country of Italy, and particularly in the capital, was his first care;
and he proposed to follow that by an expedition against the powerful
Parthian empire. His attempts, however, to obtain the diadem, seemed to
place it beyond a doubt that he wished to introduce a formal monarchy.
But the destruction of the form of the republic was shown to be more
dangerous than the overthrow of the republic itself.

  The following were the honours and privileges granted to Caesar 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 _praefectura morum_, and was at
  last, 145, conferred upon him for ever, with the title of _imperator_.
  Although Caesar thus became absolute master of the republic, it appears
  to have been done without laying aside the republican forms.

38. Conspiracy against Caesar, formed by Brutus and Cassius, and
terminating in the death of Caesar. Men so exalted as were the chiefs of
this plot, easily understand one another; and it was quite in accordance
with their character not to meditate upon the consequences of their
deed. Caesar's death was a great misfortune for Rome. Experience soon
showed that the republic could not be reestablished thereby; and his
life might probably have spared the state some of those calamities which
now, by its change to a monarchy, became unavoidable.

  We still want a discriminating life of Caesar, 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 Caesar never attained, was superior; to the great political ideas
  which developed themselves in Alexander, we know of none corresponding
  in Caesar; who knew better than any how to attain dominion, but little
  of preserving it.

  _Histoire de la Vie de Jules Caesar_, _par_ M. DE BURY, Paris, 1758, 2
  vols. 8vo.

  # _Life of C. Julius Caesar_, _by_ A. G. MEISSNER, _continued by_
  J. Ch. L. Haken, 1811, 4 parts. At present the best.

  _Caius Julius Caesar, from original sources_, _by_ PROFESSOR SOELTL. A
  short biography, judiciously executed.

39. Notwithstanding the amnesty at first declared, the funeral obsequies
of Caesar soon showed, that peace was of all things the least desired by
his generals, M. Antony and M. Lepidus, now become the head of his
party; and the arrival of Caesar's nephew, C. Octavius (afterwards Caesar
Octavianus), whom he had adopted in his will, rendered affairs still
more complicated, as every one strove for himself; Antony's particular
object being to raise himself into Caesar's place. However earnestly they
sought to gain the people, it was in fact the legions who decided, and
the command of them depended, for the most part, upon the possession of
the provinces. We cannot therefore wonder, that while they sought to
revenge the murder of Caesar, this became the chief cause of the
struggle, and in a few months led to a civil war.

  At the time of Caesar's death, M. Antonius was actual consul, and
  Dolabella consul-elect; M. Lepidus _magister equitum_ (master of the
  horse); M. Brutus and Cassius, praetors (the first, _praetor urbanus_).
  Caesar 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 Caesar, 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.

40. As M. Antony sought by force to establish himself in Cisalpine Gaul,
and D. Brutus refused to give it up to him, and retired into Mutina, a
short, indeed, but very bloody civil war arose, (_bellum mutinense_.)
The eloquence of Cicero had caused Antony to be declared an enemy of the
republic; and the two new consuls, Hirtius and Pansa, together with
Caesar Octavianus, were sent against him. The defeat of Antony compelled
him to seek refuge beyond the Alps with Lepidus; but the two consuls
being slain, Octavianus at the head of his legions was too importunate
to be refused the consulship, and soon convinced the defenceless senate,
how impossible it was to reestablish the commonwealth by their powerless
decrees. The employment, moreover, of the _magistratus suffecti_, which
soon after arose, was in itself a sufficient proof that it was now no
more than the shadow of what it had formerly been.

  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.

41. Octavianus, deserting the party of the senate, enters into a secret
negotiation with Antony and Lepidus; the consequence of which is a
meeting of the parties at Bononia, and the formation of a new
triumvirate. They declare themselves the chiefs of the republic for five
years, under the title of _triumviri reipublicae constituendae_; and
dividing the provinces among themselves according to their own pleasure,
they make the destruction of the republican party their principal
object. A new proscription in Rome itself, and a declaration of war
against the murderers of Caesar, were the means by which they proposed to
effect it.

  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?

42. The civil war, now on the eve of breaking out, may be considered
therefore as a war between the oligarchy and the defenders of the
republic. The Roman world was, as it were, divided between the two; and
although the former had possession of Italy, and the western provinces,
that advantage seemed counterbalanced to the chiefs of the opposite
party by the possession of the eastern countries, and the naval power of
Sextus Pompey, which seemed to assure them the dominion of the sea.

  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 Caesar'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.

43. Macedonia became the theatre of the new civil war, and together with
the goodness of their cause, superior talents, and greater power both by
land and sea, seemed combined to ensure the victory to Brutus and
Cassius. But in the decisive battle at Philippi, fortune played one of
her most capricious tricks, and with the two chiefs fell the last
supporters of the republic.

  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.

44. The history of the eleven years intervening between the battle of
Philippi and that of Actium, is little more than an account of the
quarrels of the oligarchy among themselves. The most subtle was, in the
end, victorious; for M. Antony possessed all the sensuality of Caesar,
without his genius: and the insignificant Lepidus soon fell a sacrifice
to his own vanity and weakness. While Antony went into Asia to arrange
the affairs of the eastern provinces, and from thence with Cleopatra to
Alexandria, Octavianus returned to Rome. But the famine which then
reigned in that city through Pompey's blockade of the seacoast; the
misery spread throughout Italy by the wresting of patrimonial lands from
the proprietors to distribute among the veterans; and the insatiable
covetousness of the latter rendered his situation as dangerous now as it
had been before the war. Besides all this, the hatred of the enraged
consort of Antony, who had entered into an alliance with her
brother-in-law, the consul L. Antony, brought on, towards the end of the
year, a civil war, which ended with the surrender and burning of
Perusium, in which L. Antony had shut himself up, and which was already
much weakened by famine.

  The _bellum Perusinum_ lasted from the end of the year 41 till April,
  40.

45. This war, however, had nearly led to one still greater; for M.
Antony, as the enemy of Octavianus, had come to Italy in order to assist
his brother, and with the intention of forming an alliance with S.
Pompey against the former. But fortunately for the world, not only was
harmony restored between the triumvirs, but on account of the great
famine which prevailed at Rome, a peace was also concluded with Pompey,
although it lasted but a very short time.

  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.

46. Pompey, however, was not long in finding that an alliance between
him and the triumvirs would only end in his own destruction; and the war
which he soon commenced, and which Octavianus could not bring to a close
but with the assistance of Agrippa, was of so much the more importance,
as it not only decided the fate of Pompey, but by leading to
dissensions, and the expulsion of Lepidus, reduced the triumvirate to a
duumvirate.

  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.

47. The foreign wars in which Octavianus as well as Antony were engaged
in the following years, prevented for some time their mutual jealousy
from coming to an open rupture. Octavianus, to tame his unruly legions,
employed them with some success against the nations of Dalmatia and
Pannonia; whilst Antony undertook an expedition against the powerful
Parthians and their neighbours. But in offending Rome by his conduct in
these wars, he only armed his opponent against himself; and his formal
separation from Octavia, loosened the only tie which had hitherto held
together the two masters of the world.

  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.

48. Greece became again the theatre of war; and although the forces of
Antony were most considerable, yet Octavianus had the advantage of
having, at least in appearance, the better cause. The naval victory of
Actium decided for Octavianus, who could scarcely believe it, till he
found that Antony had forsaken his fleet and army, the latter of which
surrendered without striking a blow. The capture of Egypt followed, (see
above, p. 267.) and that country was reduced to a Roman province; the
death of Antony and Cleopatra ended the war, and left Octavianus
absolute master of the republic.

  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.




FOURTH PERIOD.


  HISTORY OF THE ROMAN STATE AS A MONARCHY TO THE OVERTHROW OF THE
  WESTERN EMPIRE. B. C. 30.-A. C. 476.




_Geographical outline. View of the Roman empire and provinces, and other
countries connected with it by war or commerce._


The ordinary boundaries of the Roman empire, which, however, it
sometimes exceeded, were in Europe the two great rivers of the Rhine and
Danube; in Asia, the Euphrates and the sandy desert of Syria; in Africa
likewise, the sandy regions. It thus included the fairest portions of
the earth, surrounding the Mediterranean sea.

EUROPEAN COUNTRIES: I. Spain (Hispania). Boundaries: on the east the
Pyrenees, on the south, north, and west, the sea. Principal rivers: the
Minius (Minho), Durius (Douro), Tagus (Tejo), Anas (Guadiana), Baetis
(Guadalquiver), which flow into the Atlantic; and the Iberus (Ebro),
which falls into the Mediterranean. Mountains: besides the Pyrenees, the
Idubeda along the Iberus, Orospeda (Sierra Morena). Divided into three
provinces. 1. Lusitania: northern boundary the Durius, southern, the
Anas. Principal tribes: Lusitani, Turdetani. Principal town: Augusta
Emerita. 2. Baetica: boundaries on the north and west the Anas, on the
east the mountains of Orospeda. Principal tribes: Turduli, Bastuli.
Principal towns: Corduba (Cordova), Hispalis (Seville), Gades (Cadiz),
Munda. 3. Tarraconensis, all the remainder of Spain. Principal tribes:
Callaeci, Astures, Cantabri, Vascones, in the north; Celtiberi,
Carpetani, Ilergetes, in the interior; Indigetes, Cosetani, etc. on the
Mediterranean. Chief towns: Tarraco (Tarragona), Cartago Nova
(Carthagena), Toletum (Toledo), Ilerda (Lerida); Saguntum and Numantia
(Soria) were already destroyed. The Balearic isles, Major (Majorca), and
Minor (Minorca), were considered as belonging to Spain.

II. Transalpine Gaul. Boundaries: on the west the Pyrenees; on the east
the Rhine, and a line drawn from its source to the little river Varus,
together with that river itself; on the north and south the sea.
Principal rivers: the Garumna (Garonne), Liger (Loire), Sequana
(Seine), and Scaldis (Scheldt), which empty themselves into the ocean;
the Rhodanus (Rhone), which is increased by the Arar (Saone), and falls
into the Mediterranean; and the Mosella (Moselle) and Mosa (Meuse),
which flow into the Rhine. Mountains: besides the Alps, the Jura,
Vogesus (Vosge), and Cebenna (Cevennes). Divided into four provinces. 1.
Gallia Narbonensis, or Braccata. Boundaries: on the west the Pyrenees,
on the east the Varus, on the north the Cevennian mountains. Principal
tribes: Allobroges, Volcae, Calyes. Principal towns: Narbo (Narbonne),
Tolosa (Toulouse), Nemausus (Nimes), Massilia (Marseilles), Vienna. 2.
Gallia Lugdunensis, or Celtica. Boundaries: to the south and west the
Liger (Loire), to the north the Sequana, to the east the Arar. Principal
tribes: Aedui, Lingones, Parisii, Cenomani, etc. all of Celtic origin.
Principal towns: Lugdunum (Lyons), Lutetia Parisiorum (Paris), Alesia
(Alise). 3. Gallia Aquitanica. Boundaries: the Pyrenees on the south,
the Liger on the north and east. Principal tribes: Aquitani (of Iberian
origin), Pictones, Averni, etc. of Celtic descent. Principal towns:
Climberis, Burdegala (Bourdeaux). 4. Gallia Belgica. Boundaries: on the
north and east the Rhine, on the west the Arar, on the south the
Rhodanus as far as Lugdunum, so that it comprised at first the countries
bordering on the Rhine and Helvetia. The latter, however, were
afterwards separated from it under the names of Germania Inferior and
Superior. Principal tribes: Nervii, Bellovaci, etc. in the north, of
Belgic origin; Treviri, Ubii, of German origin; Sequani, Helvetii, in
the interior, of Celtic origin. Principal towns: Vesentio (Besancon),
Verodunum (Verdun), etc. Along the Rhine in Germania Inferior: Colonia
Agrippina (Cologne). In Germania Superior: Mogontiacum (Mayence, or
Mentz), and Argentoratum (Strasburg).

III. Gallia Cisalpina, or Togata (Lombardy, see above, p. 315). But as
from the time of Caesar the inhabitants enjoyed all the privileges of
Roman citizens, it may be reckoned as forming part of Italy.

IV. Sicilia; divided into Syracuse and Lilybaeum.

V. Sardinia and Corsica, see above, p. 320.

VI. The Insulae Britannicae (British islands); but of these, only England
and the southern part of Scotland were reduced into a Roman province in
the time of Nero, under the name of Britannia Romana. Principal rivers:
Tamesis (Thames) and Sabrina (Severn). Cities: Eboracum (York) in the
north, Londinum (London) in the south. Into Scotland, Britannia
Barbaria, or Caledonia, the Romans often penetrated, but without being
ably completely to conquer it; and as for Hibernia, Ierne (Ireland), it
was visited by Roman merchants, but never by Roman legions.

VII. The countries south of the Danube, which were subdued under
Augustus and formed into the following provinces: 1. Vindelicia.
Boundaries: on the north the Danube, on the east the Aenus (Inn), on the
west Helvetia, on the south Rhaetia. Principal tribes: Vindelici,
Brigantii, etc. Principal towns: Augusta Vindelicorum (Augsburg),
Brigantia (Bregenz). 2. Rhaetia. Boundaries: on the north Vindelicia, on
the east the Inn and the Salza, on the south the chain of the Alps from
Lacus Verbanus (Lago Maggiore) to Belinzona, on the west Helvetia.
Principal tribe: Rhaeti. Principal towns: Curia (Chur), Veldidena
(Wilden), Tridentum (Trent). 3. Noricum. Boundaries: on the north the
Danube, on the west the Aenus, on the east the mountain Cetius
(Kahlenberg), and on the south the Julian Alps and the Savus (Save).
Principal tribes: Boii. Cities: Jovavum (Salzburg), Boiodurum (Passau).
4. Pannonia Superior. Boundaries: on the north and east the Danube, on
the south the Arrabo (Raab), on the west the mountain Cetius. Cities:
Vindobona (Vienna), Caruntum. 5. Pannonia Inferior. Boundaries: on the
north the Arrabo, on the east the Danube, on the south the Savus.
Cities: Taurunum (Belgrade), Mursa (Esseg), and Sirmium. 6. Moesia
Superior. Boundaries: on the north the Danube, on the south Mount
Scardus, or Scodrus, on the west Pannonia, on the east the river Cebrus
(Ischia). Cities: Singidunum (Semlin), and Naissus (Nissa). 7. Moesia
Inferior. Boundaries: on the north the Danube, on the west the Cebrus,
on the south mount Haemus (the Balkan), and on the east the Pontus
Euxinus. Cities: Odessus (Varna), Tomi (Tomisvar).

VIII. Illyricum, in its most extensive signification, comprised all the
provinces south of the Danube, together with Rhaetia and Dalmatia: but
Illyricum Proper comprehends only the lands along the coast of the
Adriatic, from Rhaetia in Italy to the river Drinus, and easterly to the
Savus. Principal towns: Salona, Epidaurus (near the present Ragusa),
Scodra (Scutari).

IX. Macedonia. Boundaries: on the north mount Scodrus, on the south the
Cambunian mountains, on the west the Adriatic, and on the east the Aegean
sea. Rivers: the Nestus, Strymon, and Halyacmon, which fall into the
Aegean sea, and the Apsus and Aoeus, which fall into the Adriatic.
Principal tribes: Paeones in the north, Pieres and Mygdones in the south.
Principal towns: Pydna, Pella, Thessalonica, Philippi, with other Greek
colonies (see above, p. 164). Dyrrachium and Apollonia on the western
coast.

X. Thrace had for some time kings of her own, though dependent on Rome,
and was first reduced to a Roman province under Claudius. Boundaries: on
the north Mount Haemus, on the west the Nestus, on the south and east the
sea. River: Hebrus. Principal tribes: Triballi, Bessi, and Odrysae.
Cities: Byzantium, Apollonia, Beroea.

XI. Achaia (Greece), see above, p. 131.

XII. To the north of the Danube the province of Dacia was brought under
the Roman empire by Trajan. Boundaries: on the south the Danube, on the
west the Tibiscus (Theiss), in the east the Hierasus (Pruth), in the
north the Carpathian mountains. Principal tribe: Daci. Chief cities;
Ulpia Trajana and Tibiscum.

ASIATIC PROVINCES: I. Asia Minor contained the provinces: 1. Asia (see
above, p. 293). 2. Bithynia, together with Paphlagonia and part of
Pontus. 3. Cilicia, with Pisidia (see above, p. 18.) II. Syria and
Phoenicia. III. The isle of Cyprus. Several other states, likewise
dependent, still preserved their kings: as, Judaea (became a Roman
province, A. D. 44.), Commagene (province A. D. 70, and, together with
Judaea, added to Syria), Cappadocia (province A. D. 17), Pontus
(completely a province under Nero). Free states at this time: Rhodes,
Samos (provinces A. D. 70), and Lycia (province A. D. 43). Beyond the
Euphrates, Armenia and Mesopotamia were reduced to provinces by Trajan,
but, as early as the time of Adrian, were abandoned.

AFRICAN PROVINCES. I. Egypt. II. Cyrenaica, with the isle of Crete. III.
Africa, Numidia (see above, p. 47). Mauritania still had its separate
king, but he was set aside, A. D. 41, and the country divided into two
provinces: 1. Mauritania Caesariensis. Boundaries: on the east the river
Ampsaga, on the west the Mulucha. Principal places: Igilgilis and
Caesaria. 2. Mauritania Tingitana, from the river Mulucha to the Atlantic
ocean. Capital: Tingis.

Principal states on the borders of the empire: I. Germania. Boundaries:
on the south the Danube, on the north the sea, on the west the Rhine, on
the east undetermined, though the Vistula is generally regarded as such.
Principal rivers: the Danubius, Rhenus (Rhine), Albis (Elbe), Visurgis
(Weser), Viadrus (Oder), and the Vistula; the Lupias (Lippe) and Amisia
(Ems) are likewise frequently mentioned. Mountains and forests: the
Hercynian forest, a general name for the forest mountains, particularly
of eastern Germany. Melibocus (the Hartz), Sudetus (the Thuringian
forest); the forest of Teutoburg, to the south of Westphalia, etc. It
would be useless to seek for a general political division, or for the
cities, of ancient Germany; we can only point out the situation of the
principal tribes. It is necessary, however, to precede this by two
observations: 1. The same territory, in the tide of forcible emigration
and conquest, and particularly after the second century, often changed
its inhabitants. 2. The names of some of the principal tribes often
became that of a confederacy. The principal tribes in the period of
Augustus were, in northern Germany; the Batavi in Holland; the Frisii in
Friesland; the Bructeri in Westphalia; the lesser and larger Chauci in
Oldenburg and Bremen; the Cherusci, likewise the name of a
confederation, in Brunswick; the Catti in Hesse. In southern (central)
Germany: the Hermunduri in Franconia; the Marcomanni in Bohemia. The
Alemanni, not the name of a single tribe, but of a confederation, are
first mentioned in the third century: in the period of Augustus these
tribes, and the principal of those of eastern Germany, which gradually
became known, were included under the general name of Suevi.

The northernmost countries of Europe were considered as isles of the
German ocean, and therefore regarded as belonging to Germany. They were
Scandinavia, or Scandia (southern Sweden), Nerigon (Norway), and
Eningia, or probably Finningia (Finland). The northernmost island was
called Thule.

The north of Europe, from the Vistula to the Tanais (Don), was comprised
under the general name of Sarmatia; but beyond the territory about the
Danube, and especially Dacia (see above, p. 407), they were only in a
slight degree acquainted with the coast of the Baltic, by the amber
trade.

In Asia the Roman empire was bounded by Great Armenia (see above, p. 19,
and 299), the Parthian empire from the Euphrates to the Indus (see
above, p. 19-22), and the peninsula of Arabia (see above, p. 19).

Eastern Asia, or India, became known to the Romans by a commercial
intercourse carried on between them, and which began soon after the
conquest of Egypt. It was divided into India on this side the Ganges,
that is: 1. The territory between the Indus and Ganges; 2. The peninsula
on this side, the western coast of which in particular (Malabar), was
very well known; and, 3. The island of Taprobana (Ceylon), and India
beyond the Ganges, to which also the distant Serica belonged: but of all
these countries they had but a very imperfect knowledge.

The boundaries of Africa were Aethiopia above Egypt, and Gaetulia and the
great sandy desert of Libya, above the other provinces.




FIRST SECTION.

_From Augustus Caesar to the death of Commodus, B. C. 30. A. C. 193._


  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 Caesars_, 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 Caesars 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 regne dans les
  six premiers siecles de l'Eglise_, _par_ M. LENAIN DE TILLEMONT. a
  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' a 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.).

  # _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.

1. Octavianus Caesar, on whom the senate conferred the honourable title
of Augustus, which they periodically renewed, and which descended to his
successors, possessed the sole dominion of the empire during forty-four
years. The government, notwithstanding the great revolutions by which
the republic had been converted into a monarchy, was not yet, either in
fact or in form, altogether a despotic one. The private interest of the
ruler required that the republican form should be preserved to the
utmost, as without that he could not make an entire change; and the rest
of his history sufficiently shows, that the cruelty with which he may be
reproached in the early part of his career, was rather owing to
circumstances than to his natural disposition. But during a reign so
long, so tranquil, and so fortunate, could it be otherwise than that the
republican spirit which at the beginning existed only in a few
individuals, should evaporate of itself!

  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 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_.

2. The senate, indeed, remained a permanent council of state, and
Augustus himself endeavoured to increase its authority by more than one
purification (_lectio_); but the connection between him and that
assembly seemed of a very fragile nature, as it was undetermined, and
could not at this time be settled, whether Augustus was over the senate,
or the senate over Augustus. All matters of state could not be brought
before the senate, as even the most important often required secrecy. It
naturally followed, that a prince, as yet without a court, and who had
no proper minister, but only his friends and freedmen, should consult
with those whom he thought most worthy his confidence, a Maecenas, or an
Agrippa, etc. Hence afterwards was formed the secret council of state
(_consilium secretum principis_). Among the republican magistrates the
highest lost most; and as so much now depended upon the preservation of
peace in the capital, the offices of praefect of the city (_praefectus
urbis_) and praefect of provisions (_praefectus annonae_) were not only
made permanent, but became, especially the former, the principal offices
in the state.

  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.

3. The introduction of standing armies, already long prepared, naturally
followed a dominion acquired by war; and became, indeed, necessary to
guard the frontiers and preserve the newly-made conquests; the
establishment of the guards and militia of the city (_cohortes
praetorianae_ and _cohortes urbanae_) were measures equally necessary for
the security of the capital and the throne. The creation of _two_
praetorian praefects, however, instead of _one_, diminished for the
present the great importance of that office.

  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 Germanicae, Illyricae,
  et Syriacae_). Fleets also were stationed at Misenum and Ravenna.

4. The government, as well as the administration and revenue of the
provinces, Augustus willingly divided with the senate; keeping to
himself those on the frontiers (_provinciae principis_,) in which the
legions were quartered, and leaving to that assembly the others
(_provinciae senatus_). Hence his deputies (_legati_, lieutenants)
exercised both civil and military authority in his name; while those of
the senate, on the contrary (_proconsules_), only administered in civil
affairs. Both were, in general, attended by commissioners (_procuratores
et quaestores_). The provinces were unquestionably gainers by this new
arrangement, not only because their governors were more carefully looked
after, but because they were paid by the state.

  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 and those
  of the senate (_provinciae principis et senatus_): 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.

5. There is little doubt but that the finances of the treasury remained,
upon the whole, much the same as before; but in its internal
administration Augustus made many alterations, of which we have but a
very imperfect knowledge. Of course there would be at first an obvious
difference between the privy and military chest of the emperor
(_fiscus_), which was at his immediate disposal, and the state chest
(_aerarium_) which he disposed of indirectly through the senate, though
it must afterwards follow as a natural consequence of increasing
despotism, that the latter should progressively become merged in the
former.

  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 depot 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 upon celibacy by the _lex Julia Poppaea_.--The greater
  part of these state revenues most likely flowed, from the very first,
  into the _fiscus_: that is, the whole revenues of the _provinciae
  principis_, as well as of those parts of the _provinciae senatus_ which
  were appropriated to the maintenance of the troops; the revenues
  arising from the crown domains; the _vigesima_, etc. To the _aerarium_
  (now under three _praefecti aerarii_) remained a part of the revenues of
  the _provinciae senatus_, 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.

6. The extension of the Roman empire under Augustus was very
considerable; being generally of such a nature as conduced to the
security of the interior, and to the safeguard of the frontiers. The
complete subjugation of northern Spain, and western Gaul, secured the
frontiers on that side; as did the threatened but never-executed
expedition against the Parthians, and the one actually undertaken
against Armenia, A. C. 2. But the most important conquest in this
quarter was that of the countries south of the Danube, viz. Rhaetia,
Vindelicia, and Noricum, as well as Pannonia, and afterwards Moesia. To
counterbalance these, the expedition against Arabia Felix completely
failed; and that against Aethiopia was of no further consequence than to
strengthen the frontiers.

7. All these conquests together, however, did not cost the Romans so
much as their fruitless attempt to subjugate Germany, first, by the
sons-in-law of Augustus, Drusus and Tiberius Nero, and afterwards by the
son of the former, Drusus Germanicus. Whether or not this undertaking
was a political fault, must always remain a problem, as it is now
impossible to say how far the security of the frontiers could be
preserved without it.

  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,
  Aenobarbus, 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.

8. The long, and for Italy itself, peaceable reign of Augustus, has
generally been considered a fortunate and brilliant period of Roman
history; and, when compared with the times which preceded and followed,
it certainly was so. Security of person and property were reestablished;
the arts of peace flourished under the benign patronage of Augustus and
his favourite Maecenas; and we may add, that, as the formal restoration
of the republic would only have been the signal for new commotions, the
government of Augustus, if not the very best, was, at least, the best
that Rome could then bear. Should it be said his private life was not
blameless, it may be replied, that he inflexibly maintained an outward
decency, to which, indeed, he sacrificed his only daughter; and if laws
could have bettered the public morals, there was no lack of decrees for
that purpose.

  Among his most important laws to this end are, the _lex Julia de
  adulteriis_ and the _lex Papia Poppaea_ against celibacy. The latter
  excited many murmurs.

9. Nearly all that remains of the history of Augustus, is an account of
his domestic troubles; the most unhappy family being that of the
emperor. The influence of Livia, his second wife, was very great, but
does not seem to have been perverted to any worse purpose than raising
her sons, Tiberius and Drusus, to the throne. The naturally unsettled
state of the succession, in a government such as that of Rome now was,
became much increased by circumstances. After the untimely death of his
nephew and son-in-law Marcellus, whom he had adopted, his widow Julia,
the only child of Augustus by his wife Scribonia, was married to
Agrippa. The two eldest sons of this marriage, C. and L. Caesar, were
adopted, upon the death of their father, by the emperor, who showed so
much fondness towards them as they grew up, that Tiberius, who in the
mean time had married their mother, Julia,--afterwards banished by
Augustus for her licentious conduct--left the court in disgust. The
death of the two young princes, however, again revived the hopes of
Tiberius, who was adopted by Augustus upon the condition that he should
also adopt Drusus Germanicus, the son of his deceased brother Drusus;
after which Augustus, with the consent of the senate, formally
associated him with himself in the government, making him an equal
partner in the imperial privileges: called by his successors, _lex
regia_.

  _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 augmentee 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.

10. The reign of Tiberius Claudius Nero, or, as he was called after his
adoption, Augustus Tiberius Caesar, from his fifty-sixth to his
seventy-eighth year, changed rather the spirit than the form of the
Roman constitution. He succeeded quietly to the vacant throne at Rome,
although the legions in Pannonia, and still more in Germany, felt that
they could make emperors. Under him the _comitia_, or assemblies of the
people, were reduced to a mere shadow; as he transferred their duties to
the senate, which also became the highest tribunal for the state crimes
of its own members: this assembly, however, had now been so much
accustomed to obey the will of the prince, that everything depended on
his personal character. Tiberius founded his despotism upon the _judicia
majestatis_, or accusations of high treason, now become an engine of
terror, the senate also sharing his guilt with a pusillanimity and
servility which knew no bounds. This degraded assembly, indeed, from the
moment that it ceased to be the ruling authority of a free state,
necessarily became the passive instrument of the most brutal tyranny.
Notwithstanding the military talents and many good qualities of
Tiberius, his despotic character had been formed long before his
fifty-sixth year, when he mounted the throne; although exterior
circumstances prevented him from entirely throwing off the mask which he
had hitherto worn.

  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
  extraordinariae_, 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.

12. The principal object of Tiberius's suspicion, and therefore of his
hate, was Germanicus, a man almost adored by the army and the people.
This brave general he soon recalled from Germany, and sent into Syria
to quell the disorders of the east. After having successfully put an end
to the commotions which called him there, he was poisoned by the
contrivances of Cn. Piso and his wife; and even that did not shelter the
numerous family which he left behind, with his widow Agrippina, from
persecution and ruin.

  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 Caesar Germanicus, par_ M. L. D. B. [EAUFORT]. a Leyden,
  1741. An unpretending chronological narrative.

13. Rome, however, soon experienced to her cost the powerful ascendancy
which L. Aelius Sejanus, the praefect of the praetorian guard, had acquired
over the mind of Tiberius, whose unlimited confidence he possessed the
more, as he enjoyed it without a rival. The eight years of his authority
were rendered terrible not only by the cantonment of his troops in
barracks near the city (_castra praetoriana_), but (having first
persuaded Tiberius to quit Rome for ever, that he might more securely
play the tyrant in the isle of Capreae) by his endeavouring to open a way
for himself to the throne by villanies and crimes without number, and by
his cruel persecution of the family of Germanicus. The despotism he had
introduced became still more dreadful by his own fall, in which not only
his whole party, but every one that could be considered as connected
with it, became involved. The picture of the atrocious despotism of
Tiberius is rendered doubly disgusting by the horrid and unnatural lust
which he joined to it in his old age.

  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.

14. At the age of twenty-five Caius Caesar Caligula, the only remaining
son of Germanicus, ascended the throne; but the hopes which had been
formed of this young prince were soon wofully disappointed. His previous
sickness and debaucheries had so distorted his understanding, that his
short reign was one tissue of disorder and crime. Yet he did still more
harm to the state by his besotted profusion than by his tiger-like
cruelty. At length, after a career of nearly four years, he was
assassinated by Cassius Chaerea and Cornelius Sabinus, two officers of
his guard.

15. His uncle Tiberius Claudius Caesar, who, at the age of fifty,
succeeded him, was the first emperor raised to the throne by the guards;
a favour which he rewarded by granting them a _donative_. Too weak to
rule of himself, almost imbecile from former neglect, profligate, and
cruel from fear, he became the tool of the licentiousness of his wives
and freedmen. Coupled with the names of Messalina and Agrippina, we now
hear, for the first time in Roman history, of a Pallas and a Narcissus.
The dominion of Messalina was still more hurtful to the state by her
rapacious cupidity, to which everything gave way, than by her dissolute
life; and the blow which at last punished her unexampled wantonness,
left a still more dangerous woman to supply her place. This was
Agrippina, her neice, widow of L. Domitius, who joined to the vices of
her predecessor a boundless ambition, unknown to the former. Her chief
aim was to procure the succession for Domitius Nero, her son by a former
marriage--who had been adopted by Claudius, and married to his daughter
Octavia--by setting aside Britannicus, the son of Claudius; and this she
hoped to effect, by poisoning Claudius, having already gained Burrhus,
by making him _sole_ praefect of the praetorian guard. Notwithstanding the
contentions with the Germans and Parthians (see above, p. 303) were only
on the frontiers, the boundaries of the Roman empire were in many
countries extended.

  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, Judaea, 44 (see above,
  p. 312), and Thrace, 47, were reduced to Roman provinces. He also
  abolished the praefectures which had hitherto existed in Italy.

16. Nero Claudius Caesar, supported by Agrippina and the praetorian guard,
succeeded Claudius at the age of seventeen. Brought up in the midst of
the blackest crimes, and, by a perverted education, formed rather for a
professor of music and the fine arts than for an emperor, he ascended
the throne like a youth eager for enjoyment; and throughout his whole
reign his cruelty appears subordinate to his fondness for debaucheries
and revelry. The unsettled state of the succession first called into
action his savage disposition; and after the murder of Britannicus the
sword fell in regular order upon all those who were even remotely
connected with the Julian family. His vanity as a performer and composer
excited in an equal degree his cruelty; and as, among all tyrants, every
execution gives occasion for others, we need not wonder at his putting
to death every one that excelled him. His connection, however, in the
early part of his reign, with Agrippina, Burrhus, and Seneca, during
which he introduced some useful regulations into the treasury, kept him
within the bounds of decency. But Poppaea Sabina having driven him on to
the murder of his mother and his wife Octavia, and Tigellinus being made
his confident, he felt no longer restrained by the fear of public
opinion. The executions of individuals, nearly all of which history has
recorded, was not, perhaps, upon the whole, the greatest evil; the
plunder of the provinces, not only to support his own loose and
effeminate pleasures, but also to maintain the people in a continual
state of intoxication, had nearly caused the dissolution of the empire.
The last years of Nero were marked by a striking and undoubted insanity,
which displayed itself in his theatrical performances, and even in the
history of his fall. It appears that both around and upon a throne like
that of Rome, heroes were formed for vice as well as virtue!

  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 praetorian guard, instigated thereto by Nymphidius, broke out
  into rebellion in Rome itself. Flight and death of Nero, June 11, 68.
  Foreign wars during 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.

17. By the death of Nero the house of Caesar became extinct, and this
gave rise to so many commotions, that in somewhat less than two years,
four emperors by violence obtained possession of the throne. The right
of the senate to name, or at least to confirm, the successors to the
throne, was still indeed acknowledged; but as the armies had found out
that they could create emperors, the power of the senate dwindled into
an empty ceremony. Servius Sulpicius Galba, now seventy-two years of
age, having been already proclaimed emperor by the legions in Spain, and
acknowledged by the senate, gained possession of Rome without striking a
blow, the attempt of Nymphidius having completely failed, and Virginius
Rufus voluntarily submitting to him. Galba, however, having given
offence both to the praetorian guard and the German legions, was
dethroned by the guards, at the instigation of his former friend Otho,
at the very time when he thought he had secured his throne by adopting
the young Licinius Piso, and had frustrated the hopes of Otho.

18. M. Otho, aged thirty-seven, was indeed acknowledged emperor by the
senate, but wanted the sanction of the German legions, who, proclaiming
their general, A. Vitellius, emperor, invaded Italy. Otho marches
against him, but after the loss of the battle of Bedriacum kills
himself--whether from fear or patriotism, remains uncertain.

  The special sources for the history of Galba and Otho, are their
  _Lives_ by PLUTARCH.

19. Vitellius, in his thirty-seventh year, was acknowledged emperor not
only by the senate, but likewise in the provinces; his debaucheries and
cruelty, however, together with the licentiousness of his troops, having
rendered him odious at Rome, the Syrian legions rebelled and proclaimed
their general, T. Flavius Vespasian, emperor, who, at the solicitation
of the powerful Mutianus, governor of Syria, accepted the imperial
diadem. The troops on the Danube declaring for him shortly after, and
marching into Italy under their general Antonius Primus defeated the
army of Vitellius at Cremona. Vitellius was immediately hurled from the
throne, though not till after some blood had been spilt by the
commotions that took place at Rome, in which Flavius Sabinus, the
brother of Vespasian, was slain, and the capitol burnt.

20. Flavius Vespasian ascended the throne in his fifty-ninth year, and
became thereby the founder of a dynasty which gave three emperors to
Rome. The state, almost ruined by profusion, civil war, and successive
revolutions, found in Vespasian a monarch well suited to its unhappy
condition. He endeavoured, as far as he could, to determine the
relations between himself and the senate; while, by a decree, he
restored to it all the rights and privileges which had been conferred
upon it by his predecessors of the family of Caesar, and settled and
added some others (_lex regia_). He made a thorough reform in the
completely-exhausted treasury, which he recruited in part by reducing
the countries Nero had made free, together with some others, into
provinces; partly by restoring the ancient customs, by increasing
others, and by imposing new ones: without this it would have been
impossible for him to have reestablished the discipline of the army. His
liberality in the foundation of public buildings, as well in Rome as in
other cities; and the care with which he promoted education, by granting
salaries to public teachers, are sufficient to free him from the
reproach of avarice; and although, on account of their dangerous
opinions, he banished the Stoics (who since the time of Nero had become
very numerous, and retained nearly all the principles of republicanism),
the annulling of the _judicia majestatis_ and the restoration of the
authority of the senate show how far he was from being a despot.

  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 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. Jenae, 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.

21. His eldest son, Titus Flavius Vespasian, who in the year 70 had been
created Caesar, and reigned from his thirty-ninth to his forty-second
year, gives us the rare example of a prince becoming better on the
throne. His short and benevolent reign was, indeed, only remarkable for
its public calamities: an eruption of mount Vesuvius, overwhelming
several cities, was followed by a destructive fire, and a dreadful
plague at Rome. His early death secured him the reputation of being, if
not the happiest, at least the best of princes.

22. His younger brother and successor, L. Flavius Domitian, who reigned
from his thirtieth to his forty-fifth year, gives an example quite
opposite to that of Titus: beginning with justice and severity, he soon
degenerated into the completest despot that ever swayed the Roman
sceptre. His cruelty, joined to an equal degree of pride, and nourished
by suspicion and jealousy, made him the enemy of all who excelled him by
their exploits, their riches, or their talents. The mortifications to
which his pride must have been subjected in consequence of his
unsuccessful wars against the Catti, and more particularly the Daci,
increased his bad disposition. His despotism was founded upon his
armies, whose pay he augmented one fourth; and that he might not
thereby diminish the treasury, as he had too much done at first, he
multiplied the _judicia majestatis_, rendering it still more terrible by
the employment of secret informers (_delatores_), in order, by
confiscations, to augment the wealth of his private treasury (_fiscus_).
By confining his cruelty chiefly to the capital, and by a strict
superintendence over the governors of provinces, Domitian prevented any
such general disorganization of the empire as took place under Nero. His
fall confirmed the general truth, that tyrants have little to fear from
the people, but much from individuals who may think their lives in
danger.

  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 Getae, 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.

23. M. Cocceius Nerva, aged about seventy years was raised to the throne
by the murderers of Domitian; and now, at last, seemed to break forth
the dawn of a more happy period for the empire. The preceding reign of
terror completely ceased at once; and he endeavoured to impart fresh
vigour to industry, not only by diminishing the taxes, but also by
distributing lands to the poor. The insurrection of the guards
certainly cost the murderers of Domitian their lives; but it was at the
same time the cause of Nerva's securing the prosperity of the empire
after his death, by the adoption of Trajan.

24. M. Ulpius Trajan (after his adoption, Nerva Trajan), a Spaniard by
birth, governed the empire from his forty-second to his sixty-second
year. He was the first foreigner who ascended the Roman throne, and at
the same time the first of their monarchs who was equally great as a
ruler, a general, and a man. After completely abolishing the _judicia
majestatis_, he made the restoration of the _free Roman constitution_,
so far as it was compatible with a monarchical form, his peculiar care.
He restored the elective power to the _comitia_, complete liberty of
speech to the senate, and to the magistrates their former authority; and
yet he exercised the art of ruling to a degree and in a detail which few
princes have equalled. Frugal in his expenses, he was nevertheless
splendidly liberal to every useful institution, whether in Rome or the
provinces, as well as in the foundation of military roads, public
monuments, and schools for the instruction of poor children. By his wars
he extended the dominion of Rome beyond its former boundaries; subduing,
in his contests with the Daci, their country, and reducing it to a Roman
province; as he likewise did, in his wars against the Armenians and
Parthians, Armenia, Mesopotamia, and part of Arabia. Why was so great a
character disfigured by an ambition of conquest?

  The first war against the Daci, in which the shameful tribute was
  withdrawn and Dercebal reduced to subjection, lasted from 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_. Ambegae, 1608. A mere
  collection of passages occurring in ancient authors respecting Trajan.

  _Res Trajani Imperatoris ad Danubium Gestae, 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.

25. By the contrivances of Plotina, his wife, Trajan was succeeded by
his cousin and pupil, whom he is said also to have adopted, P. Aelius
Adrian, who reigned from his forty-second to his sixty-third year. He
was acknowledged at once by the army of Asia, with which he then was,
and the sanction of the senate followed immediately after. He differed
from his predecessor in that his chief aim was the preservation of
peace; on which account he gave up (rare moderation!), directly after
his accession, the newly conquered provinces of Asia, Armenia, Assyria,
and Mesopotamia, and so put an end to the Parthian war (see above, p.
304.) He retained, though with some unwillingness, that of Dacia,
because otherwise the Roman colonies would have become exposed. He well
made up for his pacific disposition, however, in seeking, by a general
and vigorous reform in the internal administration, and by restoring the
discipline of the army, to give greater solidity to the empire. For that
purpose he visited successively all the provinces of the Roman empire;
first the eastern, and afterwards the western; making useful regulations
and establishing order wherever he came. He improved the Roman
jurisprudence by the introduction of the _edictum perpetuum_.
Passionately fond of and well instructed in literature and the fine
arts, he gave them his liberal protection, and thus called forth another
Augustan age. Upon the whole, his reign was certainly a salutary one for
the empire; and for any single acts of injustice of which he may be
accused, he fully compensated by his choice of a successor. After having
first adopted L. Aurelius Verus (afterwards Aelius Verus), who fell a
sacrifice to his debaucheries, he next adopted T. Aurelius Antoninus
(afterwards T. Aelius Adrianus Antoninus Pius), upon condition that he
should again adopt M. Aurelius Verus (afterwards M. Aurelius Antoninus),
and L. Cesonius Commodus (afterwards L. Verus), the son of Aelius Verus.

  During his reign a great revolt broke out in Judaea, under Barcochab,
  132-135, occasioned by the introduction of pagan worship into the
  Roman colony of _Aelia Capitolina_ (the ancient Jerusalem).

  The especial source for the history of Adrian, is his _Life_ and that
  of _Aelius Verus_ by AeLIUS SPARTIANUS _in Script. Hist. Aug. Minores_,
  already quoted.

26. The reign of Antoninus Pius, from his forty-seventh to his
seventieth year, was without doubt the happiest period of the Roman
empire. He found everything already in excellent order; and those
ministers which Adrian had appointed, he continued in their places. His
quiet activity furnishes but little matter for history; and yet he was,
perhaps, the most noble character that ever sat upon a throne. Although
a prince, his life was that of the most blameless individual; while he
administered the affairs of the empire as though they were his own. He
honoured the senate; and the provinces flourished under him, not only
because he kept a watchful eye over the conduct of the governors, but
because he made it a maxim of his government to continue in their places
all those whose probity he had sufficiently proved. He observed rigid
order in the finances, and yet without sparing where it could be of
service in the foundation or improvement of useful institutions; as his
erection of many buildings, establishment of public teachers with
salaries in all the provinces, and other examples fully show. He carried
on no war himself; on the contrary, several foreign nations made choice
of him to arbitrate their differences. Some rebellions which broke out
in Britain and Egypt, and some frontier wars excited by the Germans, the
Daci, the Moors, and the Alani, were quelled by his lieutenants.

  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.

27. He was succeeded by Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, the philosopher (aged
40-59 years), who immediately associated with himself, under the title
of Augustus, L. Verus (aged 30-40 years, ! 169), to whom he gave his
daughter in marriage. Notwithstanding the differences of their
character, the most cordial union existed between them during the whole
of their common reign; L. Verus, indeed, being almost always absent in
the wars, took but a very small share in the government. The reign of M.
Aurelius was marked by several great calamities: a dreadful pestilence,
a famine, and almost continual wars. Nothing short of a prince like
Aurelius, who exhibited to the world the image of wisdom seated on a
throne, could have made so much misery tolerable. Soon after his
accession, the Catti made an irruption upon the Rhine, and the Parthians
in Asia. L. Verus was sent against them. But the wars on the Danube with
the Marcomanni and their allies in Pannonia, and other northern nations,
who now began to press forward with great force upon Dacia, were of much
greater consequence. They occupied M. Aurelius from the year 167, with
but little intermission, to the end of his reign. He succeeded, indeed,
in maintaining the boundaries of the empire; but then he was the first
who settled any of the barbarians within it, or took them into the Roman
service. In the internal administration of affairs he closely followed
the steps of his predecessor, except that he was rather too much
influenced by his freedmen and family. The only rebellion which broke
out against him, was that of Avidius Cassius, his lieutenant in Syria,
occasioned by a false report of his death; but it was quelled by the
destruction of that general, as soon as the truth was made known.

  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 Bastarnae,
  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_.

  CH. MEINERS _de M. Aurel. Antonini ingenio, moribus, et scriptis, in
  Commentat. Soc. Gotting._ vol. vi.

28. By means of adoption the Roman empire had been blessed, during the
last eighty years, with a succession of rulers such as have not often
fell to the lot of any kingdom. But in J. Commodus the son of M.
Aurelius (probably the offspring of a gladiator), who reigned from his
nineteenth to his thirty-first year, there ascended the throne a monster
of cruelty, insolence, and lewdness. At the commencement of his reign he
bought a peace of the Marcomanni that he might return to Rome. Being
himself unable to support the burden of government, the helm of state
was placed in the hands of the stern and cruel Perennis, praefect of the
praetorian guard; but who, being murdered by the discontented soldiers,
was succeeded by the freedman Cleander, who put up all for sale, till he
fell a sacrifice to his own insatiable avarice, in a revolt of the
people, caused by their want of provisions. The extravagant propensity
of Commodus for the diversions of the amphitheatres, and the combats of
wild beasts and gladiators, wherein he himself usually took a part, in
the character of Hercules, became a chief cause of his dissipation, and
thereby of his cruelty; till at last he was killed at the instigation of
his concubine Marcia, Laetus the praefect of the praetorian guard, and
Electus. The wars on the frontiers during his reign, in Dacia, and
especially in Britain, were successfully carried on by his lieutenants,
generals who belonged to the school of his father.

  The especial source for the history of Commodus is his private life
  by AEL. LAMPRIDIUS, in the _Script. Hist. August._--The history of
  Herodian begins with his reign.

29. The disasters under M. Aurelius, and the extravagances of Commodus,
had injured the empire, but not enfeebled it. Towards the close of the
period of the Antonines it still retained its pristine vigour. If wise
regulations, internal peace, moderate taxes, a certain degree of
political, and unrestrained civil liberty, are sufficient to form the
happiness of a commonwealth, it must have been found in the Roman. What
a number of advantages did it possess over every other, simply from its
situation! Proofs of it appear on every side. A vigorous population,
rich provinces, flourishing and splendid cities, and a lively internal
and foreign trade. But the most solid foundation of the happiness of a
nation consists in its moral greatness, and this we here seek for in
vain. Otherwise the nation would not so easily have suffered itself to
be brought under the yoke of Commodus by praetorian cohorts and the
legions. But what best shows the strength which the empire still
retained, is the opposition it continued to make, for two hundred years
longer, to the formidable attacks from without.

  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 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 Graecorum et Romanorum de India notitia, et
  cum Indis commerciis_: _in Commentat. Soc. Gott._ vol. x. xi.




SECOND SECTION.

_From the death of Commodus to Diocletian, A. C. 193-284._


  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 Historiae Augustae Minores_ contain the
  private lives of the emperors down to Diocletian, by JULIUS
  CAPITOLINUS, FLAVIUS VOPISCUS, etc.--The _Breviaria Historiae Romanae_
  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 Caesarum_, _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.

1. The extinction of the race of the Antonines by the death of Commodus
was attended with convulsions similar to those which took place when the
house of Caesar became extinct at the death of Nero. It is true that P.
Helvius Pertinax, aged sixty-seven, praefect of the city, was raised to
the throne by the murderers of Commodus; and that he was acknowledged,
first by the guards, and afterwards by the senate. But the reform which
he was obliged to make at the beginning of his reign in the finances,
rendered him so odious to the soldiers and courtiers, that a revolt of
the first, excited by Laetus, cost him his life before he had reigned
quite three months. This was the first commencement of that dreadful
military despotism which forms the ruling character of this period; and
to none did it become so terrible as to those who wished to make it the
main support of their absolute power.

  The insolence of the praetorian 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._

2. When, upon the death of Pertinax, the rich and profligate M. Didius
Julianus, aged fifty-seven, had outbid, to the great scandal of the
people, all his competitors for the empire, and purchased it of the
praetorian guard, an insurrection of the legions, who were better able to
create emperors, very naturally followed. But as the army of Illyria
proclaimed their general Septimius Severus, the army of Syria,
Pescennius Niger, and the army of Britain, Albinus, nothing less than a
series of civil wars could decide who should maintain himself on the
throne.

  AEL. SPARTIANI _Didius Julianus, in Script. Hist. Aug._

3. Septimius Severus, however, aged 49-66, was the first who got
possession of Rome, and, after the execution of Didius Julianus, he was
acknowledged by the senate. He dismissed, it is true, the old praetorian
guard, but immediately chose, from his own army, one four times more
numerous in its stead. And after he had provisionally declared Albinus
emperor, he marched his army against Pescennius Niger, already master of
the east, whom, after several contests near the Issus, he defeated and
slew. Nevertheless, having first taken and destroyed the strong city of
Byzantium, a war with Albinus soon followed, whom the perfidious Severus
had already attempted to remove by assassination. After a bloody defeat
near Lyons, Albinus kills himself. These civil wars were followed by
hostilities against the Parthians, who had taken the part of Pescennius,
and which ended with the plundering of their principal cities (see
above, p. 304). Severus possessed most of the virtues of a soldier; but
the insatiable avarice of his minister Plautianus, the formidable
captain of the praetorian guard, robbed the empire even of those
advantages which may be enjoyed under a military government, until he
was put to death at the instigation of Caracalla. To keep his legions
employed, Severus undertook an expedition into Britain, where, after
extending the boundaries of the empire, he died at York (_Eboracum_),
leaving his son the maxim, "to enrich the soldiers, and hold the rest
for nothing."

  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.

  AEL. SPARTIANI _Septimius Severus et Pescennius Niger_.

  JUL. CAPITOLINI _Claudius Albinus, in Script. Hist. Aug._

4. The deadly hatred which reigned between the two sons of Severus, M.
Aurelius Antoninus Bassianus Caracalla, aged 23-29, and his young
step-brother Geta, aged twenty-one, led to a dreadful catastrophe; for
at their return to Rome, and after a fruitless proposition had been made
for a division of the empire, Geta was assassinated in the arms of his
mother Julia Domna, together with all those who were considered as his
friends. The restless spirit of Caracalla, however, soon drew him from
Rome, and in traversing first the provinces along the Danube, and then
those of the east, he ruined them all by his exactions and cruelty, to
which he was driven for money to pay his soldiers, and to purchase peace
of his enemies on the frontiers. The same necessity led him to grant the
right of citizenship to all the provinces, that he might thereby gain
the duty of the _vicesima hereditatum et manumissionum_ (twentieth upon
inheritances and enfranchisements), which he very soon afterwards
changed into a tenth (_decima_).--With respect to his foreign wars, his
first was against the Catti and Alemanni, among whom he remained a long
time, sometimes as a friend and sometimes as an enemy. But his principal
efforts, after having previously ordered a dreadful massacre of the
inhabitants of Alexandria, to satisfy his cruel rapacity, were directed
against the Parthians (see above, p. 304); and in his wars against them
he was assassinated by Macrinus, the praefect of the praetorian guard.

  The praefect, or captain, of the praetorian 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.

  AEL. SPARTIANI _Antoninus Caracalla et Ant. Geta, in Script. Hist.
  Aug._

5. His murderer, M. Opelius Macrinus, aged fifty-three, was recognized
as emperor by the soldiers, and forthwith acknowledged by the senate. He
immediately created his son, M. Opelius Diadumenus, aged nine years,
Caesar, and gave him the name of Antoninus. He disgracefully terminated
the war against the Parthians by purchasing a peace, and changed the
_decima_ (tenth) of Caracalla again into the _vicesima_ (twentieth).
However, while he still remained in Asia, Bassianus Heliogabalus,
grand-nephew of Julia Domna, and high priest in the temple of the Sun at
Emesa, whom his mother gave out for a son of Caracalla, was proclaimed
emperor by the legions, and, after a combat with the guards,
subsequently to which Macrinus and his son lost their lives, they raised
him to the throne.

  Maesa, the sister of Julia Domna, had two daughters, both widows;
  Soaemis, the eldest, was the mother of Heliogabalus, Mammaea, the
  youngest, the mother of Alexander Severus.

  JUL. CAPITOLINI _Opelius Macrinus, in Script. Hist. Aug._

6. Heliogabalus, aged 14-18, who assumed the additional name of M.
Aurelius Antoninus, brought with him from Syria the superstitions and
voluptuousness of that country. He introduced the worship of his god
Heliogabal in Rome, and wallowed openly in such brutal and infamous
debaucheries, that history can scarcely find a parallel to his
dissolute, shameless, and scandalous conduct. How low must the morality
of that age have been sunk, in which a boy could so early have ripened
into a monster!--The debasement of the senate, and of all important
offices, which he filled with the degraded companions of his own lusts
and vices, was systematically planned by him; and he deserves no credit
even for the adoption of his cousin, the virtuous Alexander Severus, as
he shortly after endeavoured to take away his life, but was himself for
that reason assassinated by the praetorian guards.

  # AEL. LAMPRIDII _Ant. Heliogabalus, in Script. Hist. Aug._

7. His young cousin and successor, M. Aurelius Alexander Severus, aged
14-27, who had been carefully educated under the direction of his mother
Mammaea, proved one of the best princes in an age and upon a throne where
virtues were more dangerous than vices. Under favour of his youth he
endeavoured to effect a reform, in which he was supported by the
cooperation of the guards, who had elevated him to the throne. He
restored the authority of the senate, from among whom he chose, with
rigid justice, his privy council of state, banishing the creatures of
Heliogabalus from their places. The revolution in the Parthian empire,
out of which was now formed the new Persian, was of so much importance
to Rome, that it obliged Alexander to undertake a war against
Artaxerxes, in which he was probably victorious. But while marching in
haste to protect the frontiers against the advance of the Germans upon
the Rhine, his soldiers, exasperated at the severity of his discipline,
and incited by the Thracian Maximin, murdered him in his own tent. His
praefect of the praetorian guard, Ulpian, had already, for the same cause,
fallen a victim to this spirit of insubordination, which was not checked
even by the immediate presence of the emperor himself.

  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.

  AELII LAMPRIDII _Alexander Severus_, _in Script. Hist. Aug._

  HEYNE _de Alexandro Severo Judicium_, Comment. i. ii. in _Opuscula
  Academica_, vol. vi.

8. The death of A. Severus raised military despotism to the highest
pitch, as it placed on the throne the half savage C. Julius Maximinus,
by birth a Thracian peasant. At first he continued the war against the
Germans with great success, repulsing them beyond the Rhine; and
resolved, by crossing Pannonia, to carry the war even among the
Sarmatians. But his insatiable rapacity, which spared neither the
capital nor the provinces, made him hateful to all; and Gordian,
proconsul of Africa, in his eightieth year, was, together with his son
of the same name, proclaimed Augustus by the people, and immediately
acknowledged by the senate. Upon this, Maximinus, eager to take
vengeance on the senate, marched directly from Sirmium towards Italy. In
the mean time, the legions of the almost defenceless Gordians were
defeated in Africa, and themselves slain by Capellianus the governor of
Numidia. Notwithstanding this, as the senate could expect no mercy, they
chose as co-emperors the praefect of the city, Maximus Pupienus, and
Clodius Balbinus, who, in conformity with the wishes of the people,
created the young Gordian III. Caesar. In the meanwhile Maximinus, having
besieged Aquileia, and the enterprise proving unsuccessful, was slain by
his own troops. Pupienus and Balbinus now seemed in quiet possession of
the throne; but the guards, who had already been engaged in a bloody
feud with the people, and were not willing to receive an emperor of the
senate's choosing, killed them both, and proclaimed as Augustus,
Gordian, already created Caesar.

  JUL. CAPITOLINI _Maximinus Gordiani tres, Pupienus et Balbinus_, _in
  Script. Hist. August._

9. The reign of the young M. Antoninus Gordianus lasted from his twelfth
to his eighteenth year. He was grandson of the proconsul who had lost
his life in Africa, and in the early part of his reign, acquired a
degree of firmness from the support of his father-in-law, Misitheus,
praefect of the praetorian guard, as well as from the successful
expedition which he undertook into Syria against the Persians, who had
invaded that province. But after the death of Misitheus, Philip the
Arabian, being made praefect of the guards in his stead, found means to
gain the troops over to himself, and, after driving Gordian from the
throne, caused him to be assassinated.

10. The reign of M. Julius Philippus was interrupted by several
insurrections, especially in Pannonia; until at length Decius, whom he
himself had sent thither to quell the rebellion, was compelled by the
troops to assume the diadem. Philip was soon after defeated by him near
Verona, where he perished, together with his son of the same name. In
this reign the secular games, _ludi saeculares_, were celebrated, one
thousand years from the foundation of the city.

11. Under the reign of his successor, Trajanus Decius, aged fifty, the
Goths for the first time forced their way into the Roman empire by
crossing the Danube; and although Decius in the beginning opposed them
with success, he was at last slain by them in Thrace, together with his
son, Cl. Herennius Decius, already created Caesar. Upon this the army
proclaimed C. Trebonianus Gallus emperor, who created his son, Volusian,
Caesar; and having invited Hostilian, the yet remaining son of Decius,
with the ostensible purpose of securing his cooperation, he nevertheless
soon contrived to get rid of him. He purchased a peace of the Goths;
but, despised by his generals, he became involved in a war with his
victorious lieutenant, Aemilius Aemilianus, in Moesia, and was slain,
together with his son, by his own army. In three months, however,
Aemilianus shared the same fate; Publius Licinius Valerianus, the friend
and avenger of Gallus, advancing against him with the legions stationed
in Gaul. Both the people and army hoped to see the empire restored under
Valerian, already sixty years of age; but, although his generals
defended the frontiers against the Germans and Goths, he himself had the
misfortune to be defeated and taken prisoner by the superior forces of
the Persians. Upon this event his son and associate in the empire, P.
Licinius Gallienus, who knew everything except the art of governing,
reigned alone. Under his indolent rule the Roman empire seemed on one
hand ready to be split into a number of small states, while on the other
it seemed about to fall a prey to the barbarians; for the lieutenants in
most of the provinces declared themselves independent of a prince whom
they despised, and to which, indeed, they were driven, like Posthumius
in Gaul, for their own security.--There were nineteen of these; but as
many of them named their sons Caesars, this period has been very
improperly distinguished by the name of _the thirty tyrants_, although
their intolerable oppressions might well justify the latter expression.
The Persians at the same time were victorious in the east, and the
Germans in the west.

  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 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_.

12. Gallienus losing his life before Milan, in the war against Aureolus
an usurper, had nevertheless recommended M. Aurelius Claudius (aged
45-47) for his successor. The new Augustus reestablished in some degree
the tottering empire; not only by taking Aureolus prisoner and defeating
the Alemanni, but also by a decisive victory gained at Nissa over the
Goths, who had invaded Moesia. He died, however, soon after, at Sirmium,
of a pestilential disease, naming for his successor Aurelian, a hero
like himself, who mounted the throne upon the death of Quintillus the
late emperor's brother, who had at first proclaimed himself Augustus,
but afterwards died by his own hand.

  TREBELLII POLLIONIS _divus Claudius_, _in Script. Hist. Aug._

13. During the reign of L. Domitius Aurelianus, which lasted almost five
years, those countries which had been partly or entirely lost to the
empire were restored. Having first driven back the Goths and the
Alemanni, who had advanced as far as Umbria, he undertook his expedition
against the celebrated Zenobia, queen of Palmyra, who at that time
possessed Syria, Egypt, and part of Asia Minor. These countries he again
brought under the dominion of the empire, after having defeated Zenobia
and made her prisoner. The western provinces of Gaul, Britain, and
Spain, which since the time of Gallienus had been governed by separate
rulers, and were now under the dominion of Tetricus, he reduced to their
former obedience. Dacia, on the contrary, he willingly abandoned; and as
he transported the Roman inhabitants across the Danube into Moesia, the
latter henceforward bore the name of _Dacia Aureliani_. Hated for his
severity, which in a warrior so easily degenerates into cruelty, he was
assassinated in Illyria at the instigation of his private secretary
Mnestheus.

  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 Maeonius, 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 Palmyrae vicinarumque urbium_, in
  _Comment. recent. Soc. Gotting._ vol. vii. and the Appendix to
  Heeren's Researches.

14. An interregnum of six months followed upon the death of Aurelian,
till at length the senate, at the repeated solicitations of the army,
ventured to fill up the vacant throne. The object of their choice,
however, M. Claudius Tacitus, the worthiest of the senators, was
unfortunately seventy-five years old, and perished after a short reign
of six months, in an expedition against the Goths. Upon this event the
army of Syria raised M. Aurelius Probus to the purple; while Florianus
the brother of Tacitus, who had already been acknowledged at Rome, was
put to death by his own people.

  FLAV. VOPISCI _Tacitus; ejusd. Florianus_, _in Script. Hist. Aug._

15. The six years' reign of Probus was a warlike one. He defeated the
Germans, and forced them beyond the Rhine and Danube; strengthening the
frontiers by building a strong wall from the Danube, near Regensburg, to
the Rhine. He also obliged the Persians to make peace. Nevertheless, the
number of towns which he reestablished and peopled with prisoners of
war, and the vineyards which he caused his soldiers to plant on the
Rhine, are proofs that he had taste and inclination for the arts of
peace. This policy, however, would not suit the legions! After he had
perished, therefore, by the hands of his soldiers, they proclaimed the
praefect of the praetorian guard, M. Aurelius Carus, emperor, who created
his two sons Caesars--men very unlike each other in disposition, M.
Aurelius Carinus being one of the greatest reprobates, while M.
Aurelius Numerianus was gentle by nature, and had a mind well formed by
study. The new emperor, having defeated the Goths, marched against the
Persians, but was shortly afterwards killed, it is said, by a flash of
lightning. Nor did his son Numerianus long survive him, being murdered
by his own father-in-law, Arrius Aper, the praetorian praefect.

  FLAV. VOPISCI _Probus imper. ejusd. Carus, Numirianus et Carinus_, _in
  Script. Hist. Aug._

16. Although this period gives us a finished picture of a complete
military despotism, it is still evident that this was owing to the
entire separation of the military order from the rest of the people, by
the introduction of standing armies, and the extinction of all national
spirit among the citizens. The legions decided because the people were
unarmed. It was, indeed, only among them, situated far from the soft
luxuries of the capital, and engaged in almost a continual struggle with
the barbarians, that a remnant of the ancient Roman character was still
preserved. The nomination of their leaders to the purple became a
natural consequence, not only of the uncertainty of the succession,
which could not be fixed by mere ordinances, but often of necessity,
from their being in the field under the pressure of urgent
circumstances. Thus a succession of distinguished generals came to the
throne: what authority, indeed, would an emperor at that time have had
who was not a general? All durable reform, however, was rendered quite
impossible by the quick succession of rulers. Even the best among them
could do but very little for the internal administration; as all their
energies were required to protect the frontiers, and defend themselves
against usurpers, who, with the exception of the formality of being
acknowledged by the senate, had claims as well founded as their own.

17. The decline of the empire also became so much the more rapid, in
proportion as in these days of terror luxury had increased not only in
the splendour and profligate effeminacy of private life, but more
particularly in public, to a pitch almost beyond belief. The latter was
especially shown in the exhibitions of the amphitheatre and circus; by
which not only every new ruler, but even every new magistrate was
obliged to purchase the favour of the people. Thus these remnants of a
free constitution served only to accelerate the general ruin! What
enjoyments, indeed, could be found under the rod of despotism, except
those of the grossest sensuality; and to satisfy this, the intellectual
amusements of the theatre (mimes and pantomimes), and even those of
rhetoric and poetry, were made to contribute.

18. Yet, during this general decay, the gradual spread of the Christian
religion was working a reform altogether of a different nature. Before
the end of this period it had opened itself a way into every province,
and, notwithstanding the frequent persecutions, had made converts in
every rank of society, and was now on the eve of becoming the
predominant form of worship. We shall be better able to estimate its
value, if we consider it as the vehicle by which civilization made its
way among the rude nations that now appeared on the scene, than if we
merely consider it as the means of improving the manners and morals of
the Roman world. In a political view it became of the greatest
importance on account of the hierarchy, the frame-work of which was now
in a great measure constructed among its professors. It was afterwards
adopted as a state religion; and although the ancient creed of Rome had
formerly been on the same footing, yet it was only calculated for the
republic, and not at all for the now existing monarchy. The overthrow of
paganism was necessarily attended with some violent convulsions, yet its
loss was nothing to be compared with the support which the throne
afterwards found in the hierarchy.

  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.




THIRD SECTION.

_From Diocletian to the overthrow of the Roman empire in the west,
A. C. 284-476._


  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 ZONARAE _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,
  _continuee par_ M. AMEILHON. Paris, 1824, 20 vols. 8vo. The first
  seven parts only belong to this period.

  # 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' a la prise de
  Constantinople en 1453_, _par_ CARENTIN ROYOU. Paris, 1803, 4 vols.
  8vo. A useful abridgement, without much research.

1. The reign of C. Valerius Diocletian, aged 39-60, proclaimed emperor
after the murder of Numerianus, by the troops in Chalcedon, begins a new
section in Roman history. To the period of military despotism succeeded
the period of partitions. After Diocletian had defeated Carinus the yet
remaining Caesar, in Upper Moesia, where he was assassinated, he made M.
Valerius Maximianus Herculius, a rough warrior who had hitherto been his
comrade in arms, the sharer of his throne. Herculius now contended with
the Alemanni and Burgundians on the banks of the Rhine, while Diocletian
himself made head against the Persians. Nevertheless, the two Augusti
soon found themselves unable to withstand the barbarians, who were
pressing forward on every side, more especially as Carausius had usurped
and maintained the title of Caesar in Britain. Each of them, therefore,
created a Caesar: Diocletian chose C. Galerius, and Maximianus Flavius
Constantius Chlorus, both of whom had distinguished themselves as
generals, at that time the only road to advancement. The whole empire
was now divided between these four rulers; so that each had certain
provinces to govern and defend; without detriment, however, to the unity
of the whole, or to the dependence in which a Caesar stood as the
subordinate assistant and future successor of his Augustus.

  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.

2. This new system could not but have a striking effect upon the spirit
of the government. It was now not only in fact, but also in form,
entirely in the hands of the rulers. By their continual absence from
Rome they became freed from that moral restraint in which the authority
of the senate, and the name of the republic, not yet entirely laid
aside, had held before them. Diocletian formally assumed the diadem,
and, with the ornaments of the east, introduced its luxuries into his
court. Thus was laid the foundation of that structure which Constantine
the Great had to complete.

3. The consequences of this new system became also oppressive to the
provinces, inasmuch as they had now to maintain four rulers, with their
courts, and as many armies. But however loud might be the complaints of
the oppression occasioned thereby, it was, perhaps, the only means of
deferring the final overthrow of the whole edifice. In fact, they
succeeded not only in defeating the usurpers, Allectus in Britain (who
had murdered Carausius in 293), Julian in Africa, and Achilleus in
Egypt; but also in defending the frontiers, which, indeed, by the
victories of Galerius over the Persians, they extended as far as the
Tigris. Did not, however, the gloomy perspective present itself, that
among so many rulers, and the undefined relations which existed between
the Caesars and the emperors, the union could not be of long continuance?

4. Diocletian voluntarily abdicated the throne (although the growing
power and encroaching disposition of Galerius might perhaps have had
some influence), and obliged his colleague Maximianus to do the same.
The two Caesars, Constantius and Galerius, were proclaimed Augusti, and
altered the division of the empire, so that the former possessed all the
western countries, of which, however, he freely ceded Italy and Africa
to Galerius, who had all the remaining provinces. The latter, during the
same year, created Flavius Severus, Caesar, and confided to him the
government of Italy and Africa; as he did also C. Galerius Maximin, to
whom he gave the Asiatic provinces. The administration of the two
emperors, however, was very different; Constantius was as much beloved
for his mild and disinterested government, as Galerius was hated for his
harshness and prodigality. Constantius died very soon after at York,
leaving his son Constantine heir to his dominions, who was immediately
proclaimed Augustus by the legions, although Galerius would only
acknowledge him as Caesar.

5. Thus Constantine, who afterwards obtained the surname of Great, began
to rule, aged 33-64, though at first only over Britain, Spain, and Gaul;
nevertheless, after seventeen years of violence and warfare, he
succeeded in opening himself a way to the sole dominion of the empire.
The rulers disagreed among themselves; and formidable usurpers started
up and rendered war inevitable.

  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 Caesar
  Maximin the government of those of Asia, and to Caesar 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 Moesia 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.

6. However opposite may be the opinions formed respecting the reign of
Constantine the Great, its consequences are perfectly plain. Although he
annihilated military despotism, he established in its stead, if not
completely, yet in great measure, the despotism of the court, and
likewise the power of the hierarchy. He had already, during his
expedition against Maxentius, decided in favour of the Christian
religion; and since he thereby gained a vast number of partisans in all
the provinces, and weakened at the same time the power of his
co-emperors, or competitors, it was the surest way he could have taken
to obtain sole dominion, the great object of his ambition. This change
must nevertheless have had very considerable influence on every part of
the government, as he found in the previously established hierarchy a
powerful support of the throne; and since he, in concert with it,
settled what was, and what was not the orthodox doctrine, he introduced
a spirit of persecution heretofore unknown.

  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.

7. The removal of the seat of empire from Rome to Constantinople was
connected with this change in the form of worship--as a Christian court
would have been awkwardly situated in a city still altogether
pagan--although the need there was of protecting the frontiers against
the Goths and Persians had a considerable share therein. It did,
indeed, become the principal means of establishing the despotism of the
court; but those who regard it as one of the causes of the decline of
the empire, should remember, that for an empire fallen so low as the
Roman was at this time, despotism was almost the only support that
remained.

  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 Caesars, 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.

8. We ought not, therefore, to wonder that the consequence of this
removal was so complete a change in the whole form of government, that
after a short time it seemed to be altogether a different state. A
partition of the empire was made, which, though it might in part have
been founded on those which had previously existed, was yet so
different, that it not only changed the ancient divisions of the
provinces, but completely altered their mode of government.--The court,
with the exception of polygamy, assumed entirely the form of an eastern
court.--A revolution also had taken place in the military system, by the
complete separation of the civil and military authorities, which the
praetorian praefects had hitherto possessed, but who now became merely
civil governors.

  According to the new division the whole empire was divided into four
  _praefectures_, each of which had its _dioceses_, and each diocese its
  _provinces_. The praefectures were: I. The eastern (_praefectura
  Orientis_); it contained five dioceses; 1. _Orientis_; 2. _Aegypti_;
  3. _Asiae_; 4. _Ponti_; 5. _Thraciae_; forming altogether forty-eight
  provinces, and comprising all the countries of Asia and Egypt,
  together with the frontier countries of Libya and Thrace. II.
  _Praefectura Illyrici_, containing two dioceses; 1. _Macedoniae_; 2.
  _Daciae_; forming eleven provinces, and comprising Moesia, Macedon,
  Greece, and Crete. III. _Praefectura Italiae_, containing three
  dioceses; 1. _Italiae_; 2. _Illyrici_; 3. _Africae_; forming twenty-nine
  provinces, and comprising Italy, the countries on the south of the
  Danube, as far as the boundaries of Moesia; the islands of Sicily,
  Sardinia, and Corsica, and the African provinces of the Syrtis. IV.
  _Praefectura Galliarum_, containing three dioceses; 1. _Galliae_; 2.
  _Hispaniae_; 3. _Britanniae_; forming altogether twenty-eight provinces,
  and comprising Spain and the Balearian islands, Gaul, Helvetia, and
  Britain.--Each of these praefectures was under a _praefectus praetorio_
  (praetorian praefect), 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 praesides_, etc. Besides these, Rome and Constantinople,
  not being included in any of the four praefectures, had each its
  praefect.

  As principal officers of state and the court (_s. cubiculi_), we now
  for the first time meet with the _praepositus 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 _quaestor_ (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 militae_ (general in chief of the whole army).
  Their subordinate commanders were called _comites_ 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 GRAEV.
  _Thesaur. Antiquitat. Rom._ vol. vii.

9. It would naturally be expected that these great changes should lead
to others in the system of taxation. New taxes, or old ones revived,
were added to those already existing, and became, by the manner in which
they were collected, doubly oppressive. We shall particularly notice,
_a._ The annual land-tax (_indictio_). _b._ The tax upon trade (_aurum
lustrale_). _c._ The free gift (_don. gratuit._), now grown into an
obligatory tax (_aurum coronarium_). To these we must add the municipal
expenses, which fell entirely upon the citizens, and especially upon the
civic officers (_decuriones_), places which must have been generally
held by the rich, as Constantine had in great measure appropriated the
wealth of the cities to the endowment of churches, and the support of
the clergy.

  _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 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.

10. The rapid spread of the Christian religion, the promulgation of
which was enforced as a duty upon all its professors, was now
accelerated by the endeavours of the court. Constantine forbade
sacrifices, and shut up the temples; and the violent zeal of his
successors unfortunately soon turned them into ruins.

  _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.

11. The three Caesars and sons of Constantine the Great, Constantine,
337-340; Constantius, 337-361; and Constans, 337-350; had been carefully
educated, and yet resembled one another as much in their vices as they
did in their names. They indeed divided the empire again upon the death
of their father; but were so eager after territory, which neither of
them was qualified to govern, that a series of wars followed for the
next twelve years, till at last Constantius was left master of the
whole; and by the murder of most of his relations secured the throne to
himself.

  In the partition of the empire Constantine obtained the _praefectura
  Galliarum_, Constans the _praefectura Italiae et Illyrici_, and
  Constantius the _praefectura Orientis_. But as Constantine desired to
  add Italy and Africa to his portion, he attacked 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.

12. As Constantius, however--sunk in effeminacy and debauchery, and
surrounded and governed by eunuchs--was unable to sustain the weight of
government alone, he took his cousin Constantius Gallus, hitherto a
state prisoner, and whose father he had formerly slain, to his
assistance, created him Caesar, and sent him into the east against the
Parthians. But his excessive arrogance, which was fomented by his wife
Constantina, rendered him so dangerous that Constantius recalled him,
and caused him, upon his return, to be put to death in Istria. His
younger brother Fl. Julian, from whom the suspicious Constantius
believed he had nothing to fear, was promoted in his place, created
Caesar, and sent to defend the frontiers on the Rhine. Although Julian
passed suddenly from study to warfare, he not only fought against the
Germans with success, but also made a deep inroad into their country. In
the mean time Constantius, after his generals had been beaten by the
Persians, who wished to reconquer the provinces they had ceded, was
preparing an expedition against them in person, and with that view
endeavoured gradually to withdraw the troops of Julian, in consequence
of which the latter, suspecting his design, was induced to accept the
diadem presented by his soldiers. While marching, however, along the
Danube against Constantius, he received information of that prince's
death in Asia.

13. Fl. Julian, (the apostate,) who reigned from his twenty-ninth to his
thirty-second year, was the last and most highly gifted prince of the
house of Constantine. Instructed by misfortunes and study, he yet had
some faults, though certainly free from great vices. He began with
reforming the luxury of the court. His abjuration of the religion now
become dominant, and which he wished to annihilate by degrees, was an
error in policy, which he must have discovered to his cost had his reign
been prolonged. Wishing, however, to terminate the war against the
Persians, he penetrated as far as the Tigris, where he lost his life in
an engagement, after a reign of three years.

  # _The Emperor Julian and his Times_, by AUGUST. NEANDER. Leipsic,
  1812. An historical sketch.

14. Fl. Jovianus, now thirty-three years of age, was immediately raised
to the purple by the army. He concluded a peace with the Persians, by
which he restored them all the territory that had been conquered from
them since the year 297. After a short reign of eight months he was
carried off by a sudden disorder; and the army proclaimed Fl.
Valentinian at Nice in his stead, Valentinian almost immediately
associated his brother Valens with himself in the government, and
divided the empire by giving him the _praefectura Orientis_, and
retaining the rest for himself.

15. The reign of Valentinian I. in the east, who, in the year 367,
created his son Gratian Augustus with himself, is distinguished by the
system of toleration which he followed with regard to the affairs of
religion, though in other respects a cruel prince. Nearly the whole of
his reign was taken up in almost continual struggles with the German
nations, who had recovered from the losses they had suffered under
Julian. His first efforts were directed against the Franks, the Saxons,
and the Alemanni on the Rhine; and afterwards against the Quadi and
other nations on the Danube; where he died of apoplexy at Guntz in
Hungary.

16. In the mean time his brother Valens (aged 38-52 years) had to
contend with a powerful insurrection which had broken out in the east. A
certain Procopius had instigated the people to this, by taking advantage
of the discontent occasioned by the oppression of Valens, who, having
adopted the opinion of the Arians, was more disliked in the east than
his brother was in the west. His war against the Persians ended with a
truce. But the most important event that happened during his reign, was
the entrance of the Huns into Europe, which took place towards its
close. This in its turn gave rise to the great popular migration, by
which the Roman empire in the west may properly be said to have been
overthrown. The immediate consequence was the admission of the greater
part of the Visigoths into the Roman empire, and this occasioned a war
which cost Valens his life.

  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.

17. During these events, Gratian (aged 16-24 years) succeeded his father
Valentinian I. in the west, and immediately associated his brother,
Valentinian II. (aged 5-21 years) with himself in the empire; giving
him, though under his own superintendence, the _praefectura Italiae et
Illyrici_. Gratian set forward to the assistance of his uncle Valens
against the Goths, but receiving on his march an account of his defeat
and death, and fearing the east might fall a prey to the Goths, he
raised Theodosius, a Spaniard, who had already distinguished himself as
a warrior, to the purple, and gave him the _praefectura Orientis et
Illyrici_.

18. The indolent reign of Gratian led to the rebellion of Maximus, a
commander in Britain, who, crossing into Gaul, was so strongly supported
by the defection of the Gallic legions, that Gratian was obliged to seek
safety in flight. He was, however, overtaken and put to death at Lyons.
By this event Maximus found himself in possession of all the _praefectura
Galliarum_; and by promising Theodosius not to interfere with the young
Valentinian II. in Italy, he prevailed upon him to acknowledge him
emperor. But having broken his promise by the invasion of Italy, he was
defeated and made prisoner by Theodosius in Pannonia, and soon after
executed. Upon this Valentinian II. a youth of whom great hopes were
entertained, became again master of all the west. But, unfortunately, he
was murdered by the offended Arbogast, his _magister militum_; who,
thereupon, raised to the throne his own friend Eugenius, _magister
officiorum_. Theodosius, however, so far from acknowledging, declared
war against him and made him prisoner. He himself thus became master of
the whole empire, but died in the following year.

19. The vigorous reign of Theodosius in the east, from his thirty-fourth
to his fiftieth year, was not less devoted to politics than to religion.
The dexterity with which he at first broke the power of the victorious
Goths (though they still preserved their quarters in the provinces on
the Danube), procured him considerable influence, which the strength and
activity of his character enabled him easily to maintain. The blind
zeal, however, with which he persecuted Arianism, now the prevailing
creed in the east, and restored the orthodox belief, as well as the
persecutions which he directed against the pagans and the destruction of
their temples, occasioned the most dreadful convulsions. His efforts to
preserve the boundaries of the empire, not a province of which was lost
before his death, required an increase of taxes; and however oppressive
this might be, we cannot impute it to the ruler as a crime. In an
empire so enfeebled in itself, and which, nevertheless, had powerful
foes on every side to contend with, it followed that every active reign
would be oppressive. Yet never before had the internal depopulation of
the empire made it necessary to take so many barbarians into Roman pay,
as under this reign; whence naturally followed a change in the arms and
tactics of the Roman armies.

  P. ERASM. MULLER, _de genio saeculi Theodosiani_. Havniae, 1798, 2 vols.
  A very learned and in every respect excellent description of the
  deeply-decayed Roman world as it now stood.

20. Theodosius left two sons, between whom the empire was divided. Both
parts, however, were certainly considered as forming but one empire--an
opinion which afterwards prevailed, and even till late in the middle
ages had important consequences--yet never since this period have they
been reunited under one ruler. The eastern empire, comprising the
_praefectura Orientis et Illyrici_, was allotted to the eldest son,
Arcadius (aged 18-31) under the guardianship of Rufinus the Gaul. The
western, or the _praefectura Galliarum et Italiae_, to the younger,
Honorius, aged 11-39, under the guardianship of the Vandal Stilico.

21. The western empire, to the history of which we shall now confine
ourselves, suffered such violent shocks during the reign of Honorius, as
made its approaching fall plainly visible. The intrigues of Stilico to
procure himself the government of the whole empire, opened a way for the
Goths into its interior, just at a time when they were doubly
formidable, fortune having given them a leader greatly superior to any
they had hitherto had. Alaric king of the Visigoths established himself
and his people in the Roman empire, became master of Rome, and mounted
the throne: it was the mere effect of chance that he did not overthrow
it altogether.

  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 praefect 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 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.

22. In this manner was a great part of Spain, and part of Gaul, cut off
from the Roman empire during the reign of Honorius. After his death the
secretary John usurped the government, but was defeated by the eastern
emperor Theodosius II. The nephew of Honorius, Valentinian III. a minor
(aged 6-36), was then raised to the throne, under the guardian care of
his mother Placidia (! 450). Under his miserable reign the western
empire was stripped of almost all her provinces with the exception of
Italy. Yet the government of his mother, and afterwards his own
incapacity, were as much the cause as the stormy migration of barbarous
tribes, which now convulsed all Europe.

  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 Aetius, 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, 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 praefecture of Italy: Rhaetia 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.

23. But while the western empire seemed thus of itself almost to fall to
pieces, another impetuous rush of nations took place, which threatened
the whole of western Europe. The victorious hordes of Huns who now
occupied the territory formerly the seat of the Goths, between the Don
and the Theiss, and even as far as the Volga, had united themselves,
since the year 444, under one common chief, Attila; who, by this union
and his own superior talents as a warrior and ruler, became the most
powerful prince of his time. The eastern empire having bought a peace by
paying him a yearly tribute, he fell with a mighty army upon the western
provinces. The united forces, however, of the Romans under Aetius and the
Visigoths, obliged him near Chalons (_in campis Catalaunicis_) to
retreat. Nevertheless, the following year he again invaded Italy, where
he had a secret understanding with the licentious Honoria, Valentinian's
sister. The cause of his second retreat, which was soon followed by his
death, is unknown. The miserable Valentinian soon after deprived the
Roman empire of its best general, being led by his suspicions to put
Aetius to death. He himself, however, was soon doomed to undergo the
punishment of his debaucheries, being murdered in a conspiracy formed by
Petronius Maximus, whose wife he had dishonoured, and some friends of
Aetius, whom he had executed.

24. The twenty years which intervened between the assassination of
Valentinian, and the final destruction of the Roman empire in the west,
was nearly one continued series of intestine revolutions. No less than
nine sovereigns rapidly succeeded one another. These changes, indeed,
were but of little importance in this troublesome period, compared to
the terror with which Genseric king of the Vandals filled the Roman
empire: he by his naval power having become master of the Mediterranean
and Sicily, could ravage the coasts of the defenceless Italy at his
pleasure, and even capture Rome itself. While in Italy, the German
Ricimer, general of the foreign troops in Roman pay, permitted a series
of emperors to reign in his name. It would have been his lot to put an
end to this series of Augusti, but for mere accident, which reserved
that glory for his son and successor, Odoacer, four years after his
father's death.

  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 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.

25. Thus fell the Roman empire of the west, while that of the east,
pressed on every side, and in a situation almost similar, endured a
thousand years, notwithstanding its intestine broils, which would alone
have sufficed to destroy any other, and the hosts of barbarians who
attacked it during the middle ages. The impregnable situation of its
capital, which usually decides the fate of such kingdoms, joined to its
despotism, which is not unfrequently the main support of a kingdom in
its decline, can alone, in some measure, explain a phenomenon which has
no equal in the history of the world.




APPENDIX.

    CHRONOLOGY OF HERODOTUS TO THE TIME OF CYRUS, EXTRACTED FROM THE
    RESEARCHES OF M. VOLNEY. See Preface.


Although Herodotus did not write his work in chronological order, yet
we cannot doubt that he had some general plan of computing time. By
carefully selecting and comparing the separate data scattered through
his work, this plan to a certain extent may be traced out, and early
history, with regard to settled chronology, must necessarily gain a good
deal. The following essay is founded upon a procedure of this kind; it
is drawn entirely from Herodotus, and only from data which he has
precisely determined, the passages of his work being always referred to.

The year B. C. 561, in which the fall of Astyages and the Median empire
took place, as may be proved from Herodotus himself, is a fixed point of
time from which we may ascend into higher antiquity. This point of time
may be determined by the chronological data respecting the battle of
Marathon, four years before the death of Darius (Herodotus VII. 1. 4.)
agreeing with the general data of the Greeks, who fix it in the third
year of the 72nd Olymp. B. C. 490. By adding to this the thirty-two
years of Darius's reign that had already elapsed (Herodotus, ibid.), the
eight months of Smerdis (Herodotus, III. 68.), the seven years and five
months of Cambyses (Herodotus III. 66.), and the twenty-nine years of
Cyrus (Herodotus, I. 214.), we obtain the year 560 as the first year of
Cyrus.


I. CHRONOLOGY OF THE MEDIAN EMPIRE.

                                                               B. C.
  End of the Median empire                                      561.
  Duration of the Median empire one hundred and
    fifty-six years (Herodotus, I, 130.)
  The beginning of it, therefore, after their separation
    from the Assyrians, would be                                717.
  In this period, at first, six years of anarchy[a]         716-710.
  Reign of Deioces fifty-three years (Herodotus, I. 102.)   710-657.
  Reign of Phraortes, twenty-two years (ibid.)              657-635.
  Cyaxares, forty years (I. 106.)                           635-595.
  Irruption and dominion of the Scythians, twenty-eight
 years (I. 203. 106.)                                       625-598.
  Conquest of Nineveh (I. 106.)                                 597.
  Astyages reigned thirty-five years (I. 130.)              595-561.

The succession of Median kings given by Ctesias, which entirely differs
from this, the author thinks might be explained by a duplication;
see # _Gott. Gel. Anz._ 1810, p. 4.

  [a] These are certainly not determined from Herodotus; but they
      remain after subtracting the one hundred and fifty years'
      reign of the four Median kings.


II. CHRONOLOGY OF THE ASSYRIAN EMPIRE.

The dominion of the Assyrians over Asia, or their empire, ended with the
revolt of the Medes (Herodotus, I. 95.); although the existence of their
state did not then end, but terminated with the capture of Nineveh by
Cyaxares, B. C. 597.

                                                               B. C.
  Revolt of the Medes, as above                                 717.
  The dominion of the Assyrians had endured five
    hundred and twenty years (Herodotus, I. 95.)
  The Assyrian empire lasted therefore from                1237-717.

As Herodotus intended to write the history of this empire in a separate
work (I. 184.), he only casually mentions (I. 7.) its founder Ninus, who
began to reign 1237; and afterwards Sennacherib and his expedition (II.
141.); and the last king, Sardanapalus (II. 150.).

The mention of Sennacherib and his expedition furnishes a point of time
for comparing the chronology of Herodotus with that of the Bible, or the
Jews. According to the latter, Sennacherib's expedition took place B. C.
714. (see above, p. 26.); his death takes place immediately after, and
he has for his successor Esar-haddon, 2 Kings, xix. 37. Here then is
certainly a contradiction, since, according to Herodotus, the Assyrian
dominion had ceased three years before, namely, 717. M. Volney
endeavours to reconcile this difficulty by the restoration of an ancient
reading in the sacred text; according to which Amon, king of Judaea,
reigned twelve years instead of two (2 Kings, xxi. 10.); from which it
would follow, that the expedition of Sennacherib took place in 724. As
this would leave seven years after his death for his successor
Esar-haddon, who agrees both in time and name with the Sardanapalus of
the Greeks (the Greek name being formed from Esar-haddon-pal, i. e.
Esar, the lord, son of Pal), the two chronologies are thus made to agree
exactly. But even in following the ancient usual reading, the greatest
difference between the two statements is only ten years; quite as little
as can be reasonably expected under such circumstances.

With regard to the Assyrian chronology of Ctesias, M. Volney has
satisfactorily shown that it is full of contradictions, and unworthy of
any credit.


III. CHRONOLOGY OF THE LYDIAN EMPIRE.

The arrangement of the Lydian chronology rests upon the settlement of
two principal facts: first, the great eclipse of the sun under Alyattes,
foretold by Thales (Herodotus, I. 74.); and secondly, the conquest of
Sardes, and overthrow of the empire under Croesus, by Cyrus; both of
which Herodotus certainly mentions, but without assigning any precise
date. But by a careful comparison of all the data it has been proved,
that the great eclipse in Asia Minor (according to the Tables of Pingre)
happened in the year 625; and the conquest of Sardes, and the end of the
Lydian empire, B. C. 557, or in the fourth year of Cyrus. Therefore:

                                                               B. C.
  End of the Lydian empire                                      557.

It subsisted under three houses; under that of the Atyadae (fabulous and
uncertain); under that of the Heraclidae, five hundred and five years
(Herodotus, I. 7.); and under the last, that of the Mermnadae, one
hundred and seventy years.

The Heraclidae and Mermnadae, then, reigned altogether six hundred and
seventy-five years. Therefore:

                                                               B. C.
  Commencement of the reign of the Heraclidae, with Agron
    the son of Ninus (I. 7.)                                   1232.
  End of this house with the murder of Candaules, by Gyges      727.

By fixings the time of Agron, son of Ninus, Herodotus verifies himself
(I. 7.); as, by the preceding data, Ninus began his reign in Assyria,
1237; consequently, it must have been in the fifth year of his reign
that he conquered Lydia, and placed his son Agron upon the throne.

                                                               B. C.
  Dominion of the Mermnadae, one hundred and seventy
    years, under kings of that house                        727-557.
  Gyges, thirty-eight years (Herodotus, I. 14.)             727-689.
  Ardys, forty-nine years (Herodotus, I. 16.)               689-640.
  First irruption of the Cimmerians                             670.
  Sadyattes, twelve years (Herodotus, I. 16.)               640-628.
  Alyattes, fifty-seven years (Herodotus, I. 25.)           628-571.
  War with Cyaxares, ending with the great eclipse,
    and second irruption of the Cimmerians                      625.
  Croesus, fourteen years and fourteen days (Herodotus,
    I. 86.)                                                 571-557.


IV. CHRONOLOGY OF THE BABYLONIANS.

For this as well as for the Egyptians there is no evidence to guide
us, the data being very scanty, and taken from Herodotus alone. The
chronology of the Babylonians, according to the canon of Ptolemy, begins
with Nabonassar, 747, who was succeeded by twelve kings (mentioned in
the same canon), down to Nabopolassar; (see above, p. 28.)

                                       B. C.
  Nabopolassar                        627-604.
  Nebuchadnezzar                      604-561.
  Evil-Merodach                       561-559.
  Neriglissar                         559-555.
  Labynetus                           555-538.
  Conquest of Babylon by Cyrus            538.


V. CHRONOLOGY OF THE EGYPTIANS.

M. Volney very properly commences this with the dodecarchy--as of the
earlier periods only the time of Sesostris, 1365, is ascertained;--and
arranges it in the following manner.

                                                       B. C.
  Dodecarchy                                          671-656.
  Psammetichus's sole dominion thirty-nine years      656-617.
  Reign of Neco, sixteen years                        617-601.
  -------- Psammis, six years                         601-595.
  -------- Apries, twenty-five years                  595-570.
  -------- Amasis, forty-four years                   570-526.
  Psammenitus, six months                                 525.
  Conquest of Egypt by Cambyses


       *       *       *       *       *




I. THE REIGNING HOUSES OF MACEDON.


I. HOUSE OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT.

    PHILIP ! 336. married,  1. Olympias. 2. Cleopatra. (3. Concubines.)
         |
  +------------------------------------------------------------------+
  |           1.         1. Cleopatra.           3.               3. |
              |                                  |                |
  ALEXANDER THE GREAT ! 323.           PHILIP ARRHIDAEUS ! 317.   |
  married, 1. Roxana. (2. Barsine.)       married Eurydice.       |
              |                                                   |
  +--------------------------------------+              Thessalonice.
  |        1.                 2.         |            married Cassander.
     ALEXANDER ! 311.   HERCULES ! 309.


II. HOUSE OF ANTIPATER.

                       ANTIPATER ! 320.
                             |
          CASSANDER ! 298, married Thessalonice.
                             |
  +-------------------------------------------------------+
  | PHILIP ! 297.    ANTIPATER ! 294.    ALEXANDER ! 294. |


III. HOUSE OF ANTIGONUS.

                                ANTIGONUS ! 301.
                                       |
                         DEMETRIUS I. POLIORCETES ! 284.
                                       |
  +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
  |       Stratonice.                   ANTIGONUS I. GONATAS ! 242. |
     married, 1. Seleucus I.                         |
              2. Antiochus I.  +-------------------------------------+
                               | DEMETRIUS II. ! 233.     Alcyoneus. |
                                        |                     |
                            +-------------------+    +---------------+
                            | PHILIP II. ! 179. |    | ANTIGONUS II. |
                                      |                 DOSON ! 221
                      +------------------------------------+
                      | PERSEUS ! 166.    Demetrius ! 180. |




II. GENEALOGICAL TABLE OF THE SELEUCIDAE.


                      SELEUCUS I. NICATOR ! 281.
  married, 1. Apame. 2. Stratonice, daughter of Demetrius Poliorcetes.
                                   |
  +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
  |             1.                                            2.       |
     ANTIOCHUS I. SOTER ! 262. married,                Phila married
     1. Stratonice, his mother-in-law. 2. Anonymous.   Antigonus Gonatas
                           |                           king of Macedon.
                           |
  +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
  |                1.                           1.               2.    |
    ANTIOCHUS II. THEOS ! 247.                Apame            Laodice.
    married,                                  married Magas
     1. Laodice, his sister-in-law.           of Cyrene.
     2. Berenice, daughter of Ptol. Philad.
                     |
  +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
  |             1.                         1.                 1.       |
     SELEUCUS II. CALLINICUS ! 227.   Antiochus    Stratonice married
     married Laodice,                 Hierax.      Ariarathes IV. of
     daughter of Andromachus,                      Cappadocia.
     father of Achaeus.
                 |
  +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
  | SELEUCUS III.   Stratonice married  ANTIOCHUS III. THE GREAT ! 187.|
   CERAUNUS ! 224.    Mithridates IV.    married Laodice, daughter of
                        of Pontus.        Mithridates IV. of Pontus.
                                                    |
  +------------------------------------------------------------------+
  | Antiochus  Laodice.  |  ANTIOCHUS IV.    Cleopatra    Antiochis  |
      ! 192.             | EPIPHANES ! 164.   married      married
                         |       |           Ptolemy V.   Ariarathes V.
                         |       |                         of Cappad.
                         |   +-----------------------------+
                         |   | ANTIOCHUS V. EUPATOR ! 161. |
                         |
            SELEUCUS IV. PHILOPATOR ! 176.
              married his sister Laodice.
                         |
    +------------------------------------------------------+
    |     DEMETRIUS I.           Laodice                   |
             ! 150.       married Perseus king of Maced.
              |
  +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
  | DEMETRIUS II. NICATOR ! 126. married,     ANTIOCHUS SIDETES ! 131. |
    1. Cleopatra, daughter of Ptol. Philom.        married his
    2. Rhodogyne.   |                        daughter-in-law, Cleopatra.
                    |                                   |
  +-------------------------------------+  +---------------------------+
  |SELEUCUS V.  ANTIOCHUS GRYPHUS ! 97. |  | ANTIOCHUS CYZICENUS ! 96. |
     ! 125.     married Cleopatra Selene,       married Cleopatra,
                 daughter of Ptol. Phys.      daughter of Ptol. Phys.
                           |                            |
                           |             +----------------------------+
                           |             | ANTIOCHUS EUSEBES ! c. 90. |
                           |               married Cleopatra Selene.
                           |                            |
                           |   +---------------------------------------+
                           |   |    ANTIOCHUS     SELEUCUS CYBIOSACTES |
                           |      ASIATICUS ! 58.    ! 57. married
                           |                       Berenice, daughter
                           |                        of Ptol. Auletes.
                           |
  +------------------------------------------------------------------+
  |   Seleucus       Antioch.      Philippus     Demetr.    Antioch. |
    Epiph. ! 94.   Epiph. ! 93.   Epiph. ! 83.   Eucar.     Dionys.
                                                ! c. 87.     ! 89.




III. GENEALOGICAL TABLE OF THE PTOLEMIES.


             PTOLEMY I. son of LAGUS ! 284.
             married, 1. Eurydice, daughter of Antipater.
                      2. Berenice.
                     (3. Concubines.)
                             |
      +-----------------------------------------------------+
      |                  |                   |              |
      1.                 |                   |              |
  Ptol. Ceraunus ! 279.  |                   2.             |
  king of Macedonia.     |                Arsinoe           |
                         2.                                 |
              PTOL. II. PHILADELPHUS ! 246.                 3.
              married, 1. Arsinoe, daughter        Magas of Cyrene.
                        of Lysimachus.                   |
                       2. His sister Arsinoe.     +-------------+
                         |                           Berenice
                         |
        +-------------------------------------------------------+
        | PTOL. III. EVERGETES ! 221.   Berenice married        |
          Married Berenice,             Antiochus Theos.
          daughter of Magas.
                  |
  +-------------------------------------------------------------+
  | PTOL. IV. PHILOPATOR ! 204.             Magas.     Arsinoe. |
    married, 1. His sister Arsinoe.
            (2. Agathoclea.)
                  |
  +----------------------------+
  | PTOL. V. EPHIPHANES ! 181. |
    married Cleopatra,
    daughter of Antiochus the Great.
             |
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | PTOL. VI. PHILOMETOR ! 145.   Cleopatra.   PTOL. VII. PHYSCON ! 117.|
   married his sister Cleopatra.              married,
             |                                1. His sister Cleopatra.
             |                                2. Cleopatra the younger.
             |                               (3. Irene.)
  Cleopatra the younger.                          |
                                                  |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |            2.             |       2.            |     3.          |
      PTOL. VIII.              |  PTOL. ALEXANDER    |  Ptol. Apion.
      LATHYRUS ! 81.           |  I. ! 88.           |  king of Cyrene,
      married,                 |  married Cleopatra, |  ! 97.
       1, 2. his two sisters.  |  daughter of        |
      (3. Concubines.)         |  Ptol. Lathyrus.    |
               |               |                     |
               |               2.                    2.
               |          Cleop. Selene.        Cleopatra.
               |
      +------------------------------------------------------------+
      |        |           |        |          |          |        |
      |        2.          |        3.         |          |        |
      |    Cl. Berenice.   |  Ptol. of Cyprus  |  PTOL. ALEXANDER  |
      |                    |       ! 57.       |  II. ! 80.        |
      |                    |                   |  married          |
      |                    |                   |  Cleop. Berenice. |
      2.                   3.                  3.                  |
  Cleopatra ! 88.    PTOL. AULETES ! 51.    Cleopatra.       PTOL. ALEX.
  married            married,                                III. ! 66.
  Alex. I.            1. His sister Cleop.
                      2. Unknown.
                            |
  +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
  |    1.                     |            2.             |   Arsinoe |
   BERENICE ! 55.             |   PTOL. DIONYSIUS ! 47.   |    ! 43.
   married,                   |   married Cleopatra.      |
    1. Seleucus Cybios.       |                           |
    2. Archelaus.             1.                          2.
                        CLEOPATRA ! 30.        Ptol. the younger ! 44.
                        married,               married Cleopatra.
                         1. 2. her brothers.
                        (3. Jul. Caesar.)
                         4. Antony




IV. THE REIGNING HOUSES OF THE JEWS.


                                   HOUSE OF THE MACCABEES.
                                Mattathias ! B. C. 166.
                                           |
  +------------------------------------------------------------------+
  |   Judas Maccabaeus,       Jonathan,          Simon, high priest  |
    general of the army    high priest ! 143.   and ethnarch, ! 135.
         ! 161.                                          |
                                              +----------------------+
                                              | John Hyrcanus ! 107. |
                                                         |
                      +------------------------------------------------+
                      | Aristobulus I. ! 106,  Alex. I. Jannaeus ! 79. |
                        king and high priest.     married Alexandra.
                                                         |
                      +------------------------------------------------+
                      |    Hyrcanus II. ! 30.             Aristobulus. |
                        high priest and ethnarch.             ! 49.
                                   |
           +-----------------------------------------+
           | Alexander II. ! 49.     Antigonus ! 37. |
                      |
      +-----------------------------------------------+
      | Aristobulus ! 34.         Mariamne ! 28.      |
                             married Herod the Great.


II. HOUSE OF HEROD.

                               Antipater ! 43.
                                    |
          +----------------------------------------------------------+
          | Salome.      Herod the Great ! A. C. 3.                  |
                     married, 1. Doris. 2. Mariamne. 3. Many others.
                                              |
  +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
  | Antipater    Alexander    Aristobulus    Archelaus,   |   Philip,  |
    ! A. C. 3.   ! B. C. 5.   ! B. C. 5.     ethnarch,    |  tetrarch,
                                 |            deposed     | ! A. C. 34.
                      +-------------------+   A. C. 6.    |
                      | Herod II. Agrippa |               |
                           ! A. C. 44.               Antipas, tetrarch,
                               |                     deposed A. C. 39.
                      +---------------+              married Herodias.
                      | Herod Agrippa |
                         ! A. C. 100.




V. GENEALOGICAL TABLE OF THE CAESARS.


I.

                        C. Julius Caesar, praetor, ! 84.
                                        |
  +--------------------------------------------------------------+
  | C. JULIUS CAESAR, dictator,              Julia ! 52.         |
            ! 44.                        married Accius Balbus.
              |                                  |
  +-----------------------------+   +-----------------------+
  | Julia ! 52. married Pompey. |   |     Accia ! 42,       |
                                       married C. Octavius.
                                                 |
  +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
  |   Octavia the elder         |       C. OCTAVIUS (CAESAR AUGUSTUS)  |
     married M. Marcellus.      |         ! A. C. 14 (see No. II.)
                                |
                    Octavia the younger married,
               1. C. Marcellus.  2. Pompey. 3. M. Antony.


II.

                      CAESAR OCTAVIANUS AUGUSTUS ! A. C. 14.
    married, 1. Scribonia.    2. Livia, widow of Tiberius Claudius Nero.
            |                                   |
            |   +------------------------------------------------------+
            |   | TIBERIUS NERO ! A.C. 37.   Nero Claudius Drusus ! 9. |
            |     married, 1. Vipsania.          married Antonia
            |              2. Julia.               the younger.
            |               |                           |
            |  +--------------------------+             |
            |  | DRUSUS CAESAR ! A. C. 25.|             |
            |                                           |
            |      +---------------------------------------------------+
            |      | Germanicus                 CLAUDIUS ! A. C. 54.   |
            |        ! A. C. 19.                married, 1. Messalina.
            |        married Agrippina.                  2. Agrippina.
            |              |                                  |
            |              |      +------------------------------------+
            |              |      | 1. Britannicus       1. Octavia    |
            |              |        ! A. C. 34.          ! A. C. 59.
            |              |                             married Nero.
            |              |
            |  +-------------------------------------------------------+
            |  | Nero          Drusus       |          Agrippina       |
            |    ! A. C. 29.   ! A. C. 35.  |          married,
            |                               |           1. Cn. Domitius.
            |                        CAIUS CALIGULA     2. Claudius.
            |                         ! A. C. 41.             |
            |                                                 |
            |                  +---------------------------------------+
            |                  |                1.                     |
            |                           DOMITIUS NERO ! A. C. 68.
            |                    married, 1. Octavia. 2. Poppaea Sabina
            |
  +----------------------------------------------------------+
  |                    1.                                    |
               Julia ! A. C. 17.
    married, 1. ! M. Cl. Marcellus. 2. Agrippa. 3. Tiberius.
                                   |
  +------------------------------------------------------------------+
  |     2.           2.          2.           2.            2.       |
    C. Caesar    L. Caesar    Agrippina     Julia         Agrippa
    ! A. C. 4.   ! A. C. 2.   ! A. C. 35.   ! A. C. 30.   Posthumus
                              married                     ! A. C. 14.
                              Germanicus.




VI. GENEALOGICAL TABLE OF THE HOUSE OF CONSTANTINE.


           CONSTANTIUS CHLORUS ! 306.
           married, 1. Helena. 2. Theodora.
                              |
  +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
    CONSTANTINE the Great ! 337.   |        Jul. Constantius      |
    married, 1. Minervina.         |        ! 337. married,       |
             2. Fausta.         Constantia          1. Galla.     |
                |               married             2. Basilina.  |
                |               C. Valer LICINIUS,      |         |
                |               Caesar, ! 324      +----------+   |
  +--------------------------+       |              Fl. Valer.    |
      1.    |      2.       |    +--------------+    Licinius     |
   CRISPUS  |  CONSTANTIUS  |       1.        2.       ! 326.     |
    ! 326.  |    ! 361.     |     Gallus    JULIAN                |
            2.              2.    ! 354.  (the apostate)          |
       CONSTANTINE      CONSTANS            ! 363.                |
          ! 340.         ! 350.                          Annibalianus.
                                                              |
                                         +-----------------------------+
                                         | Dalmatius      Annibalianus |
                                           Caesar ! 339.    ! 338.




PRINTED BY TALBOYS AND BROWNE, OXFORD.




       *       *       *       *       *




Transcriber's note:

The original text includes Greek characters. For this text version
these words have been replaced with transliterations.

The dagger symbol (indicating death) has been replaced by ! within
this text version.

Also, sidenotes have been removed to ease readability of the text.



***