altogether a mountainous country. The mountains coming down from the
north rise, as in Illyricum, between the district of the Drino and the
frontier of Epirus, where they remove considerably from the coast, so
that this part consists of low hills on the coast, and of undulating
river districts of great extent. The mountains which separate Macedonia
and Illyricum, and which there form such gigantic masses, extend in the
south towards the sea, and hence constitute the boundary between Epirus
and the country, from which the Illyrians on their progress towards the
south, were unable to expel the native tribes. The CERAUNIAN mountains,
running parallel with the coast of Corfu, extend into the Adriatic Sea,
and end in a promontory without having any continuation in Italy. The
opposite mountains in Calabria (the modern Terra di Lecce) form a high
plateau of limestone, whereas on the east of the Adriatic they consist
partly of slate and partly of primary rocks. In the east of Epirus,
PINDUS extends in a series of parallel ranges, and rises to its greatest
height in those very parts, its summit separating Epirus and Thessaly.
The mountains there are in a high degree volcanic, whence the name
Ceraunian, for it is literally a perpetually thundering mountain. The
ancients knew very well, what modern natural philosophers for a time
disbelieved, that thunder-storms may arise from the earth as well as
from the atmosphere; and the former is the case especially in volcanic
districts. Aristotle and Pliny knew this quite well, but about fifty
years ago it was unknown to our natural philosophers. Even at times when
there is no volcanic eruption of mount Vesuvius, not only subterraneous
but real thunder is often heard, and a person looking without prejudice
may see flashes of lightning issuing from the volcano. Hence those
mountains are described as seats of lightning. Those terrible mountains,
_infames scopuli Acroceraunia_, fully deserve this name, because they
form a rocky and harbourless coast. The scirocco, the destructive south
wind, dashes the ships against those rocks, and there is no port far
and wide in which they might take refuge. That part of the Adriatic is
still notorious for numerous shipwrecks. Another circumstance which makes
it dangerous, and which was known to the ancients, but of which moderns
are ignorant, is the Syrtes. The accounts of the ancients about them
are by no means fabulous: they are dangerous on account of the currents
which flow straightway into both the larger and the lesser Syrtis; if a
sailor gets into them, he knows not where he is, and during a north wind
it is impossible for him to work his way against it and the Syrtes. The
ancients understanding this, sailed closer to the coast; at present, when
sailors keep more to the middle, there is less danger. If the countries
east of the Adriatic should ever become the seat of commerce and exports,
shipwrecks would again be very common. There are two currents, the one
a continuation of that from the Black Sea, meets that from the Adriatic
in the south-west of Malea; they then move on diagonally in a curve,
and thus enter the Syrtes. The current from the Adriatic increases the
danger of the Ceraunia. From the head of the Ceraunia, the inhospitable
coast extends a considerable distance till opposite Corfu. The heights
then extend inland towards Pindus, and the southern districts present
fertile hills covered with cork-oaks; these hills are lower, and only a
few lofty peaks rise out of them, which are very difficult of access.
The country about the Ambracian gulf, to a very considerable extent, is
mostly alluvial land (in modern Greek βάλτος). The marshes, now called
Valtos, are formed by the sea, the Arachthus, and the other rivers; they
are constantly increasing, yet the increase amounts to less than what is
lost at the mouth of the Achelous.
THESPROTIA, the southern and lower country, is the true seat of
subterraneous commotions, whence in antiquity it was the land of terrors,
and was believed to be connected with the dismal regions of the lower
world: in the autumn, scarcely a day passes on which the ground does
not tremble under the feet of its inhabitants. From the Acherusian lake
(the lake of Janina) a river issues, which is soon lost in the earth,
but afterwards re-appears and discharges its waters into the sea. This
re-appearance was naturally enough doubted by the ancients, and is a
disputed point even now, though I for one have no hesitation in saying
that it is the same river. This river is the ACHERON or STYX (for in
some accounts the two are the same); these are the muddy waters of the
lower world, for the soil of Thesprotia is loose and rich, and the rivers
are heavy with mud; hence the country is wonderfully fertile, and a
real storehouse of grain for Europe, but it is unhealthy, and, with the
exception of the mountainous parts, the water is bad.
That country was until very recently a _terra incognita_ to Europeans;
the ancients mention very few towns in it, and their descriptions are
unsatisfactory. Before the year 1798, when the Ionian islands came into
the hands of the French, no European traveller had ever visited the
interior of Epirus. It was, therefore, an unknown country, the interior
was a complete blank in geographical maps, and the rivers were drawn at
random. D’Anville complains of the total want of information, and with
his slender means he accomplished all that could be accomplished, but he
himself says, that he drew his map of the country with great uncertainty.
He did not know, e.g., the site of the lake of Janina, and imagined that
it was somewhere near the coast. The geography of Melitios, archbishop of
Janina, contains a very respectable description of Epirus; it was written
at the beginning of the eighteenth century, and from it the excellent
Barbié du Bocage made the first comparatively correct map of Epirus,
which accompanies Barthélemy’s _Voyage du jeune Anacharsis_. Afterwards
the country was much visited by French and English officers, and
Vaudoncourt and the English consul[88] ... have immensely increased our
knowledge of the country, so that now it is perfectly well known, and the
obscurity in which many of the statements of the ancients were involved
is now sufficiently removed; our present maps of Epirus, too, are quite
satisfactory. The first map of this kind was one of the Turkish empire by
a modern Greek, which was published at Trieste; it was made for Greeks,
and in the modern Greek language; I received it with great pleasure, and
Epirus appeared in it in quite a new light.
The exploits of the Suliots have made Epirus hallowed ground to every
one who is not devoid of human feeling and sympathy. Their deeds of
valour described in the history of Major Perrevos, and in the excellent
abridgment of Fauriel, a Frenchman, surpass everything that is related
in epic poetry, and transfer us from our artificial age, so thoroughly
devoid of character, into an age of heroes. They are among the most
remarkable people of our time: their sufferings have stirred up our
keenest sympathy; to them we are indebted for the delight of having
witnessed a heroic age, while our own life has become so uniformly
European, that everything has assumed a general and vague character; the
Suliots will have an interest for all succeeding ages. The Epirots, on
the testimony of Thucydides, were formerly considered as barbarians, with
the exception of Pyrrhus, and I myself have looked upon them in the same
light; but they are now dear to us, and we honour them. For this reason,
I shall here enter more into detail than elsewhere, and perhaps more than
the relative importance of the country requires.
A country so near to a mighty internal power of the unfathomable earth
may be expected to be distinguished for extraordinary fertility. Few
parts of Greece have an _honos montium et silvarum_ like that of Epirus;
it contains the most beautiful mountains, covered only in a few places
with fir-wood, but for the most part with the most splendid foliage. The
fertility in the valleys is almost fabulous. The fuller’s earth in the
country of the Stymphaeans contains traces of volcanic decomposition.
But the animal creation too is very rich: the Molottian dogs are the
strongest in all Greece; the herds of cattle appear to have reached
their perfection in antiquity by careful breeding, for at present they
are much inferior. The flourishing farms resembling those of Switzerland
have perished under the dominion of barbarians; in Buthroton alone they
still are equally good. The horses are small, robust, and strong, but not
lasting.
Epirus was full of small tribes; fourteen or fifteen are enumerated,
some which occupied large, and others small districts; I shall speak
only of the more important among them. The most prominent in what may be
termed the history of Epirus Proper, are the CHAONIANS, THESPROTIANS, and
MOLOTTIANS, to which I may add the AMPHILOCHIANS and ORESTIANS, both of
which are to some extent beyond the boundaries of Epirus in its narrower
sense. In the earliest times they did not form a definite union, but
in one part of the country some tribes had a predominating influence
at an early period, first the Chaonians, then the Thesprotians, and in
the historical times the Molottians. We must not, however, imagine that
these tribes subjugated the others, or reduced them to the condition of
perioeci; but their relation resembled that of the free allies of Rome,
and they recognised the majesty of the ruling people only by presents
and fidelity. Several of these tribes had a regal government (the most
ancient among all the Greek and kindred nations) down to very late times.
One member of a γένος was either elected by the people, or enjoyed
a hereditary right to the throne. This sacred hereditary principle
continued for a long period; to it those tribes owed their importance
in later times, and without it they never would have had the power and
influence with which they afterwards appear in history. When all forms
had become obsolete and effete, those nations which still adhered to
the hereditary regal power, were enjoying a great advantage. This was
the only reason why Sparta maintained itself so long: when its royal
family perished, the Spartans, too, were lost. We find, however, in
Epirus the same stages of development as among other nations, and royalty
was succeeded by the dominion of the γένη. Traces of this occur in
Thucydides; in speaking of the Chaonians, he mentions an ἀρχικὸν γένος,
and I think I have found distinct evidence that the Καμπυλίδαι were this
ruling γένος.
The CHAONIANS occupied the extreme north-west of the country, in and
about the Ceraunian mountains, which is now inhabited by the Cimariots.
They were, no doubt, the same as the Chonians in southern Italy, and of
Pelasgic origin. Although they are said in the earliest times to have
enjoyed a kind of supremacy, yet the Thesprotians are very conspicuous in
the most ancient Greek records, because their country contained in its
high mountains the oracle of DODONA, the centre of the public religion
of the Pelasgians, as Samothrace, in the east, was the centre of their
mysteries. The Greeks, as a kindred nation, were not excluded from
either. Dodona must not be conceived as an important town; many inquiries
have been made in Epirus to ascertain its site, but traces of a real
town have not been found anywhere, and Epirus in general was inhabited
only κωμηδόν, and not κατὰ πόλεις. The place, however, where Dodona
stood has been discovered with some degree of certainty: the summit of
a hill or mountain surrounded by Cyclopian walls, so that its sides are
quite precipitous, is commonly supposed to be the site. The mountains of
Epirus were no more fortified than Suli; whereas the idea of a πόλις is
a place surrounded by a wall. The hill of Dodona was the κρησφύγετον,
that is, the place to which, in times of war, women, children, old men,
and moveable property were conveyed for the sake of safety. The sanctuary
was situated in an ancient and immense oak-forest on mount Tmarus; but
from a statement in Servius, we learn that this sanctuary was disturbed
by Illyrian robbers. The passage of Servius is corrupt, and I have
emended it, because it is of great interest in regard to Greek history.
Our knowledge of Dodona is extremely defective; it was situated beyond
the sphere of Greek culture, so that it is always mentioned only by the
way, just as is the case with Delphi. What should we know of Delphi,
had not Pausanias left us a description of it? The article in Stephanus
Byzantinus contains the most important information about Dodona; and more
may be elicited from it than has yet been done; the article has not yet
been made quite clear. Bells, or pieces of metal, which were struck with
hammers, seem to have been suspended from the trees around the sanctuary.
Wagons in ancient times were likewise provided with pieces of metal or
bells, in order that in the narrow streets timely warning might be given
to others to make room; such things are still found among the antiquities
of Herculaneum.
In the time of the Peloponnesian war, the Thesprotians were without
kings, but the MOLOTTIANS had a regal government; the fact of their race
being traced to Achilles was only an accommodation to Greek legends, and
they did not call the hero Achilles, but Aspetus.[89] Their genealogies
are very obscure. They regarded themselves as Pelasgians, and traced
their ancestors back to the flood of Deucalion. They were insignificant
until the time of their king, Tharyps,[90] who was said to have been
educated at Athens, and introduced among them, at the time of the
Peloponnesian war, Greek manners and culture, Greek gymnasia, buildings,
language, etc., and gave them the Hellenic unction. From this time onward
the Molottians rose, though slowly, to importance, and gradually became
the predominating people in Epirus, in which they were assisted by
various circumstances. The extent of the power of the Molottian kings,
whose right was based upon their γένος, was not greater than that of the
kings of the Greek tribes, or of the German chiefs before the migration
of nations. But just like these latter, they had absolute power over
conquered tribes, and the same Molottian kings, who in their own country
were in reality no more than magistrates, and to whom the people might
lawfully refuse obedience, ruled over the neighbouring Epirot tribes
and the Greek cities under their dominion with unlimited power. In like
manner, king Clovis was limited in his power over the Franks, but was
a complete despot in regard to the Roman provincials. When, therefore,
such a people made conquests, the king, notwithstanding the letter of
the constitution (if we may use this term here for something which was
not written), became absolute master of the conquered. Such was the
case of Alexander, and such also was that of Pyrrhus, who was further
strengthened by the splendour of his victories. The Spartan kings, too,
would have liked to make themselves absolute masters of the perioeci, but
the Ephors stepped in to prevent it.
Down to the time of Philip, who, while the succession was disputed,
raised Alexander, his brother-in-law, the son of Neoptolemus, and
brother of Olympias, to the throne, the Molottians had as yet little
extended their power. But Philip gave Alexander the territory called
Cassiopea containing three Greek towns; at that time the Thesprotians
also came under the power of the Molottians. But notwithstanding this,
the Molottian kings were obliged every year, at Passaro, the capital of
their country, to promise on oath, that they would obey the laws of the
land, and the people in return took a corresponding oath. Alexander,
the son of Neoptolemus, may have extended his dominion a little in the
west, he may even have made the Chaonians[91] his subjects; but I cannot
decide these points, though it is probable that he penetrated into the
northern parts. Ambracia which, geographically speaking, belongs to
Epirus, is likewise mentioned as dependent upon the Epirots; and so
also the Parauaeans and Amphilochians with their large towns; Philip
possessed only the fortresses, Ambracia and the Amphilochian Argos, by
means of which he kept his foot on the neck of the Epirots, for he took
good care not to promote the independence of his brother-in-law, just as
Napoleon kept his brothers in constant dependence on himself. For this
reason he left Epirus as a state open on all sides, and put himself in
possession of the principal fortresses without which the country could
offer no resistance; it accordingly consisted of the beautiful western
districts, while the eastern parts were under the dominion of Macedonia.
In this condition things remained for a period of about forty years,
until Pyrrhus established his supremacy and independence, and united the
whole country under his sceptre. The earlier and more careful writers,
e.g., the Attic orators, do not even call Alexander king of Epirus, but
Alexander the Molottian: Justin and Livy call him king of Epirus, an
inaccuracy with which we must neither charge Trogus, whose work Justin
abridged, nor Livy, though the former might have been more careful; but
Livy was not much concerned about the history of that country.
I will not here enter into the detail as to how Pyrrhus fled from
his country, how he returned, and what were his misfortunes. He
availed himself with great adroitness, nay even with cunning, of the
circumstances of the time to take vengeance on his arch-enemies, the
house of Cassander, which from his infancy had wronged him in every
possible way. He avenged his own house and Alexander of Macedonia not
only as an instrument of heaven, but at the same time following the
impulse of his own heart. Alexander[92] was seen by his contemporaries
in all his hideousness, while posterity saw him in the light of an
undeserved glory. This glory, however, belonged to him in so far as
great things were accomplished by him. He found in his contemporaries
a miserable race; his war against Persia was only a struggle against
a rotten empire; and as he attacked it vigorously, great things, of
course, were done and great things were destroyed. His greatest deed was
the foundation of Alexandria, and yet, if we judge soberly, the hurried
Hellenisation was only injurious to true Hellenism. The beautiful still
continued to linger among the Greeks, and was uncorrupted; but when the
Lydians, Carians, Syrians, and others, became Hellenised, when they
appeared as Greeks and wrote Greek, the little of Hellenism, which still
stood forth in broad outlines, perished. I may here mention another great
historical instance, but I beg you will not misunderstand me: previous to
the time of Constantine, Christianity had been spreading in consequence
of the conviction of its truth; but the fact that he compelled whole
provinces to profess it with their lips, without the belief having taken
root in their hearts, was followed by evil consequences. All mighty
changes in the world, which take place with extraordinary rapidity, are
injurious. Such also was the influence of Alexander. Still, however,
we must not be unjust, and we must understand how a spirited youth like
Pyrrhus, with a deep poetical mind, idealised Alexander; he was an
instrument of vengeance upon Cassander and his family, the detestable
diadochi. Pyrrhus is one of the most splendid, noble, and amiable
characters in all history. Often have I, when a young man, exclaimed in
full enthusiasm with Hesiod: εἰ μετ’ ἐκείνοις ἐγενόμην! at such times one
has the feeling, that one would be greater by coming in contact with such
men. I have collected much about the history of Pyrrhus, and I know him
thoroughly; I hope one day to represent him in his true light and in his
indescribable splendour.[93] To be great as a general is certainly one
of the highest distinctions in the world: he was not always quite just,
but always noble and generous, far from petty egotism, and free from
everything that degrades man; he had a full, large, and warm heart; he
looked upon his country not as a domain, but loved his people with his
whole soul. Dear as Roman history is to me, I must nevertheless assign a
higher place to the two greatest enemies of Rome, Pyrrhus and Hannibal.
Pyrrhus, as I said before, availed himself of the circumstances of the
time for the purpose of gaining the eastern part of Epirus for his
country. The sons of Cassander were obliged to cede to him Orestis,
Parauaea, Ambracia, and Amphilochia, and the Epirots now, being masters
of their country in its full extent, showed themselves as a great and
powerful people. But this greatness did not become consolidated, too
great demands were made upon the strength of the people, and they lost
their best blood in the wars. Still, however, Alexander, the son of
Pyrrhus, not only preserved the extent of his kingdom,[94] but added
Acarnania to it; and this continued to constitute the kingdom of Epirus
for a period of about fifty years. Pyrrhus made Ambracia his capital, and
adorned it with splendid temples and palaces; Alexander kept it as such,
and he, too, was a very distinguished man. After his death, when the
government came into the hands of minors, and his house became extinct
by a series of the greatest calamities, the state also broke to pieces.
Ambracia, the Amphilochian Argos, and eastern Epirus, were lost, and
threw themselves into the arms of the Aetolians. After about A.U.C. 515
we hear of an Epirot republic under strategi; this republic embraced only
western Epirus, and was still of considerable extent, but internally it
was weak, and was visited by the most fearful misfortunes. The Romans
admitted the Epirots as their allies, but I am convinced that they never
forgot that Pyrrhus had frightened them, that he had advanced as far as
Praeneste, and that after the gates of that town had been thrown open
to him, he had seen the towers of Rome. This was the reason why, after
their war against Perseus, they treacherously wreaked their hoarded and
terrible vengeance upon the unhappy country, just as the English under
William III. extirpated in one massacre the clan of the Mac Gregors, the
English officers, on a given signal, murdering their hosts and letting
in the soldiers. The Roman legions under Aemilius Paullus were quartered
upon the Epirots, who had previously been ordered to deliver up all
their arms, and their gold and silver, and then, on an appointed day, a
fearful massacre was made throughout the country among the Molottians,
Thesprotians, Chaonians, etc. From that time Epirus remained under the
Romans, who confiscated the country like a conquered domain, and Epirus
with its splendid Alps was, like the interior of Sicily, let as pasture
land. Hence the fact that Atticus, as is stated by Varro, possessed
such large herds at Buthroton. From such a devastation the country was
unable to recover, and remained a wilderness. In the middle ages, and
perhaps even before, the Illyrians (now Albanese) pushed forward from
the north and spread over Epirus, being themselves pressed by Slavonian
tribes, so that even now the greater part of the population is Illyrian
and Slavonian; they occupy the whole of the western country and are
δίγλωττοι. Slavonian tribes also entered Epirus and settled about the
lake of Janina; a small part only is inhabited by Greeks, and the heights
of Pindus are occupied by Wallachians, some of whom are descendants of
the ancient Pelasgian tribes, but are to some extent Latinised. The
country beyond mount Tmarus is inhabited by Bulgarians.
Among the Epirots proper, as I have already stated, there were no towns
surrounded with walls; those which are found, are either of later origin,
or Greek colonies on the coast. The only place in the interior, where
ruins of Grecian buildings (baths, theatres, and temples) are found,
though without any inscriptions, is in the country of the Molottians,
about fifteen miles from the Ambracian gulf; the ruins are very
extensive, but belong to a late period. There can be no doubt that this
is the site of an important city, but what city it was, can only be
conjectured, as the ancients do not mention a single town in Epirus. The
supposition that it was the town of PASSARO appears to me very probable.
It is mentioned twice as the principal place of the Epirots, once in
Plutarch’s life of Pyrrhus, as the place where the kings and the people
took their mutual oaths, and a second time in Livy as the locality where
the Epirots assembled. When the country was a republic, it must have
had a capital, but it cannot have been Ambracia, since this town was
separated and belonged to the Aetolians.
PHOENICE was another important town on the Adriatic; at the time of the
Epirot republic it was considerable, and continued to be so till late
in the middle ages; whence many ruins are found there belonging to the
Byzantine period.
Among the other towns, I may mention ORICOS, a port in the bay at the
foot of the Acroceraunia, and of Hellenic origin.