of the Thermaic gulf, greatly impeded by its excellent situation the
further growth of Pella, even when the latter was still the capital
of the Antigonids. Cassander founded the new city, and, according to
the custom of the time, made it great by compelling the inhabitants of
the neighbouring towns to remove to it (συνοικισμός). Such a plan was
afterwards often resorted to in the East, and such also was the method
adopted by Peter the Great in the foundation of St. Petersburgh: he
ordered people to be summoned from other parts of his dominions; as
they arrived even before the houses were finished, they were obliged to
build huts for themselves and died from disease; the survivors became
beggars. In antiquity, when towns were not so far distant from one
another, the process was easier. Thessalonica had agricultural citizens;
and Cassander named it after his wife, the daughter of Philip; by this
marriage he intended to make his children legitimate in the eyes of
the Macedonians, as he himself was looked upon as a usurper, and was
subsequently treated as such. But his family perished in a miserable
manner. The idea of founding a city there was a happy one, for there are
few places on the Mediterranean that have such a beautiful situation. How
often was Thessalonica destroyed! and yet it always recovered, because
it was the natural emporium of the rich products of Macedonia; it has an
excellent harbour, and no marshes, and is accordingly a healthy place.
The town quickly rose into importance, and remained so under the Romans
and throughout the middle ages, in spite of many severe calamities. It
was taken by the Bulgarians, and afterwards by the Turks; but so long as
nature does not change, Thessalonica will remain wealthy and prosperous.
It was the capital of Mygdonia, which had formerly been inhabited by the
Thracian Edonians. It is well known that a Christian community was formed
there at a very early period.
I have already spoken of the projecting Acte ἐπὶ Θρᾴκης, and I will not
here repeat what I have said; I shall only observe, that CASSANDREA, the
second great city founded by Cassander, was probably his capital, and
built on the site of the ancient Potidaea, on the isthmus of Pallene; we
know little about it, and much is only matter of conjecture.
AMPHIPOLIS, which was subdued by the Athenians during the period between
the Persian and Peloponnesian wars, was situated on both sides of the
river Strymon; it was previously called Ἐννέα ὁδοί. During the Macedonian
period it was of great importance, being the capital of Μακεδόνων πρώτη.
Although built at a distance of about five miles from the sea, it was
a sea-port, and ships sailed up the Strymon. This was the great place
for the extensive trade in timber, for the timber of Macedonia was
exported not only to Athens, but Ionia, Chios, and in later times even to
Alexandria. It was conveyed down the Strymon in rafts.
The mountain-city of PHILIPPI, the neighbourhood of which contained the
large gold mines, was situated between the Strymon and the Nestus. Its
previous name was _Crenidas_, and the new town was built by Philip.
There, as in Thessalonica, a Christian congregation existed at an early
period. The place is celebrated for the battle which decided the fate
of Rome. As the mines ceased to be worked, it afterwards fell into
decay. How long they continued to be worked, and whether they were still
productive in the time of the Antigonids, cannot be ascertained. The
fact that they still were worked, and continued to be worked until the
overthrow of the Macedonian kingdom, cannot be doubted; but whether they
repaid the expenses, is another question. Gold mines nowhere remain
equally productive; but their working is continued, because people always
hope to discover richer veins. They were most productive in the time of
Philip. Athens, too, continued working her mines almost to the seventh
century of Rome, but was afterwards obliged to give it up. The Romans
forbade the Macedonians the digging after precious metals, in consequence
of which Philippi necessarily decayed: but we see from the epistle of the
apostle Paul, that it still remained an active and industrial town. It
was situated on the outskirts of mount Pangaeos; its neighbourhood was
fertile, and it may have maintained itself by an extensive territory.
The interior between the Strymon and Nestus, with the exception of a few
Greek towns, was occupied by Thracians. The AGRIANIANS alone, about the
Strymon, are considered as Paeonians. Their importance consists in the
fact that, in the wars of Alexander, they are mentioned as a distinct
corps, and as belonging neither to the phalanx nor to the peltasts, which
is not the case with any other Macedonian tribe. It is impossible now
to determine, whether this arose perhaps from their being allies and
enjoying special privileges, or from their having a peculiar kind of
armour, which it was thought advisable to retain.
The PAEONIANS, according to Herodotus, extended as far as the mouth of
the Strymon and about lake Prasias, which is now unknown, because the
geography of Macedonia has received so little light from travellers; its
existence, however, cannot be doubted, although it is somewhat fabulously
described. The Paeonians who, according to Herodotus, were carried by
the Persians into Asia, are those who lived about the lower parts of
the Strymon, and not the upper Paeonians. In Thucydides and Livy (from
Polybius), we find Paeonians on both sides of the Axius, and in regard
to them the Romans made an exception[104], those on the west of the
Axius being included in Macedonia Secunda. The passage of Livy[105] here
alluded to must be emended, and instead of _Vettiorum_[106] we must read
_Bottiorum_. Concerning these Paeonians, I can mention to you only a
few points. In the time of Cassander and Pyrrhus, it was probably this
people, on both banks of the Axius and as far as the Strymon, that had in
the person of Audoleon an independent prince, whose daughter was married
to Pyrrhus (he was also married to an Illyrian princess, for polygamy was
then prevalent). There still exist coins of this Audoleon, though they
are very rare; I possess one which was dug up at Tivoli; it was difficult
to recognise it, but I succeeded in reading the characters. Afterwards we
hear no more of Paeonian kings, so that their importance must have been
only transitory; but certain it is, that during the troublous times of
Macedonia, that is, in the reign of Cassander, the principality of the
Paeonians did exist, and that afterwards it disappeared. If we want to
supplement history from other circumstances, we may say, that it must
have been incorporated with Macedonia by Antigonus Gonatas, for Antigonus
Doson carried on war even with the Dardanians who dwelt beyond the
Paeonians.
The Greeks (Strabo and Dion Cassius) assume that the Paeonians
and Pannonians were people of the same stock; in Strabo this is
the prevailing opinion, and at that time the truth could still be
ascertained; nor is the opinion at all improbable, if we suppose that
the Illyrians immigrated at a later period. But _neque probare, neque
refellere in animo est_. Gauls, under Brennus, also penetrated far
into the west of Upper Macedonia; they were afterwards subdued, but
not expelled, and were retained by the Macedonian kings as very useful
soldiers.
I shall now pass on to Illyricum, whence we shall afterwards proceed
to Italy. I shall then speak of the western countries within the Roman
empire, and thence pass on to the East. Although the northern countries
are important to us, yet in an account of the ancient nations, no
complete description of them can be given, which must be reserved for the
particular histories of the northern countries; still, however, I shall
not pass them over.
ILLYRICUM.
Illyricum is a somewhat embarrassing name. We sometimes say Illyria, a
form for which there is no authority at all; the Greek name is Ἰλλυρίς,
and the Latin _Illyricum_. The more ancient writers always employ the
name of the people, οἱ Ἰλλύριοι, ἐν Ἰλλυρίοις, _in Illyricis_, while
_Illyricum_ does not occur till the time of the later emperors. But with
this preliminary remark, I shall not scruple to use the name.
The Illyrians are one of the very great nations of antiquity, and are
mentioned as early as the time of Herodotus. The Roman Illyricum was of
very different extent from the Illyris or οἱ Ἰλλύριοι of the Greeks,
and was itself not the same at all times, for at first it was not as
extensive as afterwards. At a later period, when it was a _praefectura_,
it was one of the four great divisions of the Roman empire, governed by a
_Praefectus Praetorio_, and included even Greece. At a somewhat earlier
time, when we also meet with the designation _Illyricus limes_, e.g.,
in the “Scriptores Historiae Augustae,” it comprises Illyricum proper,
Pannonia, Noricum, and Vindelicia. The name Illyricum, in this extent, is
one of the artificial and political ones, which arise when out of a given
number of names one is selected as a make-shift, but has no historical
association. The Greeks use the name in a much narrower sense, but
even with them, it is not always applied in the same manner. The later
immigration of the Gauls disturbed the Illyrians in their habitations;
and inaccurate writers, like Appian, frequently mix Gallic and Illyrian
nations together. For this very reason, the ethnography of those nations
is most obscure. Our accounts are scanty; and those we have, cannot be
referred with certainty to their different periods, because the Gallic
immigration changed every thing. If we compare the Periplus of Scylax
and that of Scymnus of Chios, which is taken from Theopompus or perhaps
from Timaeus, with the later descriptions of the coasts in Strabo and
the Roman historians, it is impossible to make them harmonise. I cannot,
therefore, give you a distinct notion of this vast country, which extends
from the frontier of Epirus to that of Pannonia, and stretches even into
modern Austria; a clear geographical view is unattainable. Still many
points can be discerned, and _Est quadam prodire tenus, si non datur
ultra_.
No one has ever asked whether anything can be discovered regarding the
history of the Illyrians; no one has ever thought of enquiring into it.
But Herodotus alludes to traditions of that country, apparently as if
they were well known, and he speaks of an expedition of the Illyrians
and Encheleans, who invaded Greece and plundered the temple of Delphi.
According to another tradition, Cadmus and Hermione, quitting Thebes,
went to the Encheleans and died there. These are again, as elsewhere,
two countries which are put in connexion by migrations in opposite
directions. This allusion to a great expedition with an enormous army,
leads us to pay attention also to some other facts, as for example,
that the Liburnians, in the innermost μυχὸς of the Adriatic, were quite
different from the Illyrians, and are mentioned in relations, in which
elsewhere we find the Pelasgians on the coast of Italy; further, among
the Illyrians in the neighbourhood of Ragusa, there dwelt a people called
HYLLII, who are said, by the compilers of legendary history, to have
originally been Greeks, and to have become barbarians (ἐκβαρβαρωθῆναι);
lastly, the coast of Dalmatia was inhabited by Pelagonians, whom we also
find among the Macedonians and Epirots. Accordingly we here meet with
remnants of a Pelasgian population, which survived after the immigration
of the great race of the Illyrians. Among these latter are included also
the Breunians and Genaunians in Tyrol, and the Iapydes on the northern
side of the Alps, in the modern Carniola, and further on beyond the Alps.
We may, therefore, look upon it as almost an historical fact, that they
were a people that immigrated from the north, conquered the Dalmatian
mountains, and penetrated as far as the heights of Epirus, which formed a
barrier to their further progress.
The descriptions we have of the manners of the Illyrians, prove that they
were—half savages would be too strong a term—at least very rude: they
tattooed themselves, and were pirates[107] at the time when the power
of Athens had sunk, and when Corcyra, and in fact all Greece was broken
down. They were divided into numerous tribes. In the earlier times kings
are nowhere mentioned, that might be regarded as kings of all Illyricum,
or of a great part of the Illyrian tribes: the Illyrians seem rather to
have had a democratic constitution. In their wars with Macedonia previous
to the time of Philip, an Illyrian king is not mentioned anywhere. In
the reign of Philip, Theopompus speaks of one Bardylis who from a robber
raised himself to the rank of an independent prince, but who is noted for
his personal character as a robber rather than as a prince. It is unknown
whether the subsequent princes of Illyricum were descendants of his; but
certain it is, that we can trace the kings far back till the time after
the death of Alexander, that is, to Admetus the Taulantian. During the
childhood of Pyrrhus, again we meet with Glaucias, also a Taulantian.
It is impossible to determine the extent of Illyricum at the time it
came in contact with the Romans; the few statements about it in Polybius
pre-suppose a knowledge which we do not possess, and cannot supply;
but the Illyrians seem to have had considerable power at that time.
They never were closely united among one another, not even under their
kings, of whom a whole series is now known: Pleuratus, Agron and his
widow Teuta, Pinnes, Scerdilaïdas, Pleuratus, and Genthius, under whom
the kingdom was destroyed, because he allowed himself to be prevailed
upon by Perseus to share his fate. This kingdom of the Illyrians cannot
have extended far north; it embraced the Parthinians, perhaps also
the Ardyaeans, the Taulantians, Bulionians,[108] Dessaretans, and
the southern tribes which were afterwards under the dominion of Rome,
probably also belonged to it. The residence of the kings, at least in
later times, was at Scodra, the modern Scutari. The Illyrians were
robbers both by land and by sea, until the Romans in the first war
against them, between the time of the first Punic and the Cisalpine wars,
put an end to their proceedings; but before that time they roved over
Epirus and Greece, laying waste the country with great cruelty; and at
sea, they ventured even into the Aegean, plundering all the Greek coasts,
and especially the defenceless Cyclades. The tactics, the ships of war,
and the battle order of the Illyrians, however, were excellent: they were
not phalangites, but fought with short spears and light javelins; their
chief weapon, however, was the μάχαιρα, or the Albanese knife. With this
they fought as peltasts (with light shields), but not as ψιλοί; they
rather formed a middle class between the phalangites and ψιλοί. In this
respect they differed from the Romans, and were infinitely inferior to
them.
The Illyrians are unquestionably the ancestors of the modern Albanese or
Arnauts. This opinion was expressed long ago, but has been disturbed in a
very strange way by objections; the one, that this people could not have
maintained itself among so many other nations, during great immigration,
is worth nothing. This objection gave rise to the belief that the
Albanese were an Asiatic people. Their language is quite peculiar and
akin to no other, neither to the Celtic, as I formerly believed, nor to
any other. In the earlier times, it is true, Celts did enter Illyricum,
and so did afterwards the Bulgarians and other nations, whence it cannot
be denied that northern and Asiatic nations did establish themselves in
the country. But I have discovered a proof which clearly shows, that
the modern Albanese are the same people as the ancient Illyrians. The
name of the town of Dimalon, the strongest among the Illyrian places,
with two acras on two heights, connected by a wall, as described by
Polybius, shows this; the Albanese still call it so. Now I have found in
several glossaries, that the word _mal_ signifies a hill, and _di_ two,
so that _dimal_ is a double hill. This proof is quite convincing. The
origin and nationality of the Illyrians have given rise to the oddest
conjectures. As the Dalmatian Slavonians have adopted the name Illyrians,
the Slavonian language spoken in Dalmatia, especially at Ragusa, is
likewise called Illyrian, and this designation has acquired general
currency. In the sixteenth century, about the time of the reformation,
a Slavonian Bible was printed at Tübingen, and called Illyrian. This
opinion is firmly rooted among the learned in Carniola, and we even find
it entertained by the excellent Kopitar, librarian at Vienna, and a very
distinguished man, who possesses great discernment and very extensive
knowledge; but he cannot get over the notion, that the ancient Illyrians
were Slavonians. This is, as it were, an article of the religious creed
of the Slavonians, just as the modern Greeks fancy that their language
is identical with the most ancient Greek. Wherever this singular opinion
has once become established, an angel from heaven would not be able to
upset it; learned men show an obstinacy on this point, which is really a
psychological curiosity. This opinion goes so far with them, that they
look upon St. Jerome, who was an Illyrian, as a Slavonian, and ascribe
to him the Slavonian translation of the Bible; for the same reason, they
call the artificial Glagolitian alphabet, which is derived from the
Cyrillian, invented in the ninth century, likewise Slavonian. Cyrillus
and Methodius, the apostles of the Slavonian nations, must have been
eminent men, for, with a wonderfully fine feeling for their language,
they invented an alphabet, as well defined and complete as possible;
this is the modern Servian alphabet, which is the foundation of that of
all the Slavonic languages. The Russian alphabet is the most complete
I know, unless the oriental languages form an exception; but I do not
understand them any more than the Sanscrit. When the Roman see wanted
to press the Latin language upon the Illyrians, they did not use the
Roman alphabet, but devised a new one, the Glagolitian (from _glagol_,
language), the same which is still used by the Albanese. This matter was
made by the Church of Rome the subject of a strange transaction: she was
willing to allow the use of the new alphabet, on condition that divine
worship should be conducted in the Latin tongue.[109] This happened under
Pope John XII. or John XIV., about the year 1000;[110] at the same time
books were brought forward, which were asserted to be productions of
St. Jerome. This is still firmly believed; and in the Vatican library
you may see St. Jerome represented as the inventor of writing with the
Slavonic alphabet. All kinds of etymologies of Illyrian words have
been pressed into the service to confirm that opinion; but they are so
irrational, that it is painful to see intelligent men so fettered by
hereditary prejudices about national honour. They attempt, e.g., to
derive the name Salona in Dalmatia from Slavona, “a place of honour.” I
have often wished that the passion of etymologising could be altogether
suppressed, for among a hundred etymologies you scarcely find one that
is good; people are easily satisfied, instead of entering into a healthy
and thorough inquiry. You will become convinced, that the Illyrians are
not Slavonians, when you consider the Sarmatae; for you will then see at
how late a period these nations came into Europe; in the meantime you may
rely upon what I have said, for it is the result of long researches. As I
am not unacquainted with the Slavonian languages,[111] I have been able
myself to study the Slavonian authorities. Among all the places within
the whole extent of Illyricum, there is not one whose name is properly
derived from the Slavonic. Whoever understands Slavonic, cannot possibly
be mistaken in a Slavonic word; the Slavonic languages are so marked
and characteristic, that no word can be disguised. In Frioul, which was
once inhabited by Slavonians, in the eastern half of Germany, and in the
greater part of the circle of Upper Saxony, places occur everywhere, the
etymology of which instantly strikes those who understand Slavonic. Many
years ago, I publicly discussed the migrations of the Slavonians, from
the age of Herodotus down to the great migration of nations, and I shall
soon publish the discussion.[112]
When reading Pliny and Strabo on Illyricum, we see that their knowledge
as to its boundaries is as uncertain as our own. Appian, who undertook,
I know not on what authority, to give a national genealogy of the
Illyrians, got so confounded either through his own fault, or the
fault of his authority, that he jumbled together Illyrians, Gauls,
Paeonians, and Thracians in a most absurd manner. I think it my duty to
tell you, that he is no authority at all. In regard to some nations we
are in the greatest difficulty, and are unable to assert anything with
certainty. The Dardanians were probably Illyrians; but the Scordiscans
were undoubtedly Gauls. The Liburnians were certainly different from
the Illyrians; but I shall say more of them when I have done with the
Illyrians.
In speaking of the Macedonian mountains, I have already directed your
attention to the connexion of that whole range of mountains with
the Alps. The Illyrian range of mountains, which traverses Dalmatia
and branches off in Carniola from the Julian Alps, and then, at a
considerable distance from the sea, stretches towards Venetia, approaches
the sea beyond Aquileia, in the neighbourhood of Trieste, and forms
Istria; it passes through Istria as a mighty and lofty mountain,
though it does not reach the snow line, then traversing Dalmatia, which
it separates from Bosnia, it extends into Albania. It is altogether a
limestone mountain, and like all mountains of this kind, it is very much
broken up; hence the numbers of promontories and islands off the coast
of Dalmatia. This mountain is all full of petrifactions and extremely
interesting in a geological and geognostic point of view; it is also
well suited for cultivation, and very fertile, but uninhabited, and
accordingly for the most part covered with wood to its very tops. It runs
from west to east, with a small range towards the south-east, then in a
somewhat more southern direction into Macedonia, and is separated from
the sea by the hilly country of Albania. Dalmatia is not at all volcanic,
whereas in Southern Illyricum or Albania we have a continuation of the
volcanic nature of Epirus, whence in the neighbourhood of Apollonia on
the Aous we find hot springs of asphalt. I take this opportunity of
recalling to your mind the passage of Strabo, which contains the words
πηγαὶ χλιαροῦ ἀσφάλτου: the MSS. have καὶ ἀσφάλτου, but the καὶ has been
thrown out by editors. I believe that by some mistake ὕδατος is omitted,
and that we must read: πηγαὶ χλιαροῦ ὕδατος καὶ ἀσφάλτου. Innumerable
emendations have yet to be made in Strabo, and it is to be regretted,
that his work has not yet found an editor possessing a thorough knowledge
of the Greek language, for Casaubonus edited it with too much haste.
In the above passage no one has remembered the fact that ἄσφαλτος is
feminine, and that accordingly Strabo could not have said χλιαροῦ
ἀσφάλτου.