from the later ones of the Romans. The Greeks, e.g., mention the Manians,
Nestians, Hyllians, and, on the south of Lissos, the Taulantians as the
most important among the Illyrian nations; but during the time of the
Romans they do not occur at all, although Dalmatia acts a considerable
part in history: in their place Dalmatians are mentioned all along the
coast, whose name does not occur at all in the geography of the Greeks.
Thus the Taulantians are not spoken of in the wars against Teuta,
Demetrius of Pharos, and afterwards in the first war against Philip,
although Apollonia and Epidamnus act a very prominent part; in their
stead we hear of Ardyaeans and Parthinians. Whether these latter did not
exist during the Greek period under these names, is a question which I
will not decide. In early times the Alemannians and Franks do not occur
under these names, and the other nations which do occur, are different
from them; this justifies the inference, that several of the latter
united into one people: in the same manner the Taulantians may either
have divided themselves, or other tribes may have united under that
name. I say this to prevent your falling into the mistake of believing
that all these statements refer to the same period. It is this error
which has made of the topography of Rome such a chaos, that no man can
find his way out of it, unless he takes the trouble of commencing the
investigations afresh from the very beginning: in this manner alone he
can find his way, for in Roman topography buildings are mentioned by the
side of one another, which are separated by four or five centuries. It is
evident, that the mighty invasion of the Gauls threw the whole country
of Illyricum and all its tribes into confusion, in consequence of which
the Scordiscans permanently established themselves in Sirmia (Slavonia),
Servia, and Bosnia, and expelled the Triballians, so that other nations
penetrated into Upper Macedonia, partly subduing and partly expelling its
inhabitants, who then formed settlements in Thrace. This great convulsion
accounts for the difference between the earlier and later condition of
Illyricum.
I shall begin in the south. Next to the frontier of Chaonia we find the
small town of AMANTIA and the people of the _Amantians_ and _Bullians_
(_Bulliones_). They are mentioned in Caesar’s _Bellum Civile_, iii. 40,
a work which throws great light upon the geography of Illyricum, and
the borders of Macedonia and Thessaly. We then have the TAULANTIANS, who
occupied the country north of the Aous as far as Epidamnus. The river
AÖUS, also called AEAS, flowing down from the ridge of the Macedonian
mountains towards the Adriatic, is one of the most important rivers
of southern Macedonia. As an instance of the great confusion and
perplexity which one false statement of an ancient author may produce,
I will mention the following fact:—Hecataeus had stated that the rivers
Inachus and Aöus sprang from one mountain near Argos Amphilochicum,
and that then they flowed in different directions. This remark, which
Strabo found and copied, has produced the greatest confusion in the
geography of Epirus, and scholars have been at the greatest pains to
clear it up. Pouqueville, a man whom I greatly esteem, but who is not a
philologer,[113] in consequence of the above statement, confounds the
Inachus and the Arachthus, and mistakes the ruins of Ambracia for those
of Argos Amphilochicum. The cause of the error no doubt lies in Hecataeus.
APOLLONIA was a colony established by the Corcyraeans and Corinthians
conjointly. I have said that the nature of the country is volcanic;
Strabo, Antigonus Carystius, and the Pseudo-Aristotle, in the work
Θαυμάσια ἀκούσματα, state that near the neighbouring Nymphaeon the earth
was burning, that there existed springs of earth-pitch and hot water, and
that flames were seen at night, as is the case at Pietramala. Apollonia
maintained its freedom in the midst of the Epirot towns, though it was no
doubt under the protection of Macedonia. In the year 522, when the Romans
first appeared on that coast, it was still an independent Greek town, but
had at an early time gained the favour of its powerful western neighbours
by sending an embassy to them. The Romans delivered the town from a
siege of the Illyrians, and from that time it was a humble place under
the supremacy of Rome. Such towns, as far as depended on the Roman senate
and people, were very favourably treated, and were very well off, unless
they had the misfortune of being ruled by a governor like Piso, who is
described by Cicero. Apollonia, probably, enjoyed a great reputation,
and became for the neighbouring nations, and even for the Italians,
who endeavoured to Hellenise everything, a seat of Greek culture and
education, just as Lausanne and Geneva are for those who believe French
culture to be the best, and are visited even by princes. Thus Augustus,
at the time of the murder of Caesar, was living at Apollonia for the
purpose of learning to speak Greek.
The Taulantians, who afterwards no longer occur in history, dwelt between
Apollonia and Epidamnus.
EPIDAMNUS or DYRRHACHIUM. The latter name was, according to tradition,
adopted by the Romans to avoid the ominous meaning of the former,
_quasi in damnum ituri_, in case of the senate ordering the legions to
cross over to it. I imagine that, if the Romans had felt the necessity
of changing the name, they would have substituted a syllable, as they
did in changing Maleventum into Beneventum; but they would not have
completely altered it. In Thucydides and the other Attic writers, the
place is always called simply Epidamnus, but the native name must have
been Dyrrhachium, for it bears this name on innumerable non-Roman coins.
Epidamnus was the _causa contingens_ of the Peloponnesian war; it usually
happens, that a thing, when called forth by the force of circumstances,
must in the end come to pass, and this town only lent its name as the
occasion. This is beautifully expressed by Polybius where he explains
the true cause of the Punic wars and their apparent occasion. Epidamnus
was likewise taken by the Romans under their protection, and surrendered
to them, after having previously been compelled to acknowledge the
supremacy of the Illyrian kings. I have already mentioned that a vast
number of coins are found there. It is a well-known observation, that
about twenty years ago a person travelling through the Rhenish provinces,
found French crowns to be the current coin; and in like manner Illyrian
quinarii (half-drachmae) were the current coin at Rome for a long time;
according to Pliny, they had been introduced at Rome as merchandise, and
afterwards _victoriatae_ were substituted for them. But Pliny, as is so
often the case with him, takes the matter rather lightly and hastily.
The Illyrian half-drachmae were probably somewhat inferior to the double
sestertii of the Romans, and at the same time were convenient as a simple
coin. But the Romans very rationally now made a similar coin, and thereby
got completely rid of the Illyrian. Those Illyrian coins also have the
name of a magistrate, which explains a statement of Aristotle, who says
that Epidamnus contrary to the custom of other Greek towns, had a single
dictator or praetor. During the middle ages, in the time of the Comneni
and the Norman kings, Dyrrhachium acted a very prominent part, but at
present it is decayed, though it still possesses the advantages of its
happy situation on a narrow isthmus, which almost forms a promontory.
In the interior, near the Macedonian frontier, there is a considerable
lake from which the Drino issues. In the same part we find, ever since
the middle ages, the town of ACHRIDA, which was the capital of the
Bulgarian empire at the time when it extended from the Black Sea as far
as the interior of Aetolia, and comprised southern Illyricum, Epirus,
Acarnania, Aetolia, and a part of Thessaly. It has been thought that
this town is the ancient _Lychnidos_. During the Roman period the
_Dessaretans_ dwelt there; the neighbouring country was occupied by the
_Autariatans_, who are said to have been driven from their country in
the time of Cassander, when they removed as fugitives with their women
and children into Macedonia. According to the story, which we read in
Justin, they were compelled to quit their country, because the frogs
had increased there to an intolerable extent. In the common editions
of Justin, however, we read, owing to a blunder of the transcriber,
_Abderitae_ instead of _Autariatae_, from which Wieland has made the
lengthy and absurd story, that the people of Abdera delighted in breeding
frogs, and that in the end they were driven by these animals out of their
own country. Little as has yet been done by criticism for Justin, still
it is sufficiently clear, that he is speaking of the Autariatae, and
not of the Abderitae. Diodorus of Sicily quite plainly relates the true
history of this expulsion of the Autariatae; but they were not all driven
from their country; some of them remained behind, and became subjects of
the Gauls, for we find Autariatae under the banner of the Gauls during
their expedition against Delphi. But after that time they disappear, and
in this disappearance the Greeks saw their punishment by the deity.
The mention of this expedition leads me to speak of a subject, which
requires special explanation in order to avoid misunderstandings. You
here have a national emigration with women and children, and this is
most commonly the case with emigrating nations: a part of the nation
sets out with all it possesses, and the part remaining behind comes
under the dominion of the invaders. Emigrations are very rarely
spontaneous, most of them are undertaken by the pressure and compulsion
of other nations; pastoral tribes and those living on the chase alone
form exceptions, as we see in the case of all the inhabitants of the
steppes in Asia, who, in consequence of their mode of living, with all
their property undertook long expeditions into countries many hundred
miles off: witness the Scythians, who according to Herodotus took with
them all they possessed on innumerable wagons, the Mongole and Tartar
tribes, and the Huns. When a people immigrates, it very rarely happens
that all the ancient inhabitants quit the country, most of them remain
behind and submit to their new masters. But this is not by any means
always a matter of choice. When a conquering people advances, under the
hoofs of whose horses all life is destroyed, as was the case with the
Huns and the hordes of Jinghis Khan, which burnt and murdered every
thing before them (and the Gauls on their expedition into Greece did
not act otherwise), every one who finds a place of safety, or hopes to
find one, takes to flight. When the poor inhabitants of la Vendée fled
from the armies of the Convention, the whole population crossed the
Loire, carrying their women and children before them, and whoever could
move broke up, and whoever was able carried his feebler relatives with
him, so that the whole country was deserted. They met with opposition,
and their migration could not proceed farther: if there had been small
tribes on the frontiers of France, unable to offer them any resistance,
the Vendéeans would have broken through, and sought a place to settle
in. Such also was the case in most of the migrations of antiquity, as
well as in the great migration of nations during the fourth and fifth
centuries; and the Gallic and Sarmatian migrations were certainly not
less important than they. When the Goths had been defeated by the Huns in
Dacia on the Dniestr, they crossed the Danube in a body, and implored the
Romans to receive and protect them in their empire; and their requests
were granted. There are, however, a few instances of non-nomadic nations
emigrating in a body without being pressed in any way. The most striking
instance is that of the Helvetii, in the time of Caesar, a case which no
one can doubt, and which is literally true: they emigrated, having been
seduced by evil advisers, and even destroyed their own towns in the hope
of conquering a country in which they might live as lords and nobles, and
where they hoped to have vassals that would till the ground for them.
The ARDYAEANS and PARTHINIANS dwelt north of the Autariatae, though not
at the same time, but only during the Roman period. These tribes, the
Illyrians and Atintanians, had been subdued by the Romans in the first
Illyrian war, and were again reduced to obedience in the second. Agron
and his widow Teuta had ruled as far as the borders of Epirus; but the
Romans took from them southern Illyricum and the islands of Issa and
Pharos. Then Philip also took a part of the same country, I allude to the
district of the Atintanians; but the Romans left that of the Parthinians
to Pleurates, the king of the Illyrians. How far the Illyrian kingdom
extended in the north, we cannot say; but the southern frontier, previous
to the time when the Romans gave away the Parthinians, was the mouth of
the Drino, which flows by Scodra and issues from lake Labeatis.
SCODRA was the capital of the kingdom; its situation is very favorable,
mild, and pleasing; the country around is capable of every cultivation;
it is a _locus apricus_, accessible to the mild winds from the south, and
protected against the north winds.
LISSOS, situated at the mouth of the Drino, was fixed upon by the Romans
as the border-town of the Illyrians in the south, and beyond it they were
not allowed to sail with their armed ships. This must be regarded as a
great blessing for Greece, which was thereby delivered from Illyrian
pirates.
DALMATIA, in the north-west, consists partly of the mainland and partly
of a countless number of islands near the coast, some of which are mere
rocks, while others are capable of cultivation. On this coast there are
at least two Greek colonies—a third is doubtful—the islands of ISSA and
PHAROS. The latter known through Demetrius of Pharos, the shameless
intriguer, is said to have been a colony of Paros. Issa was colonised
by Dionysius of Syracuse who, at the time of his greatest prosperity,
contemplated to establish a power on the Adriatic, whence he also sent
a colony to Adria, in the country of the Veneti; it is possible that
the Greek colony of Heraclea, on the Liburnian coast, must likewise be
ascribed to him.
The country of the Dalmatians (more correctly Dalmatans) extends from
Illyricum, in the Greek sense of the term, as far as the frontier of
the Liburnians, who inhabited the whole of the north of what was once
Venetian Dalmatia. The name Dalmatia is unknown to the Greeks, and
is applied to the country in which they place the Hyllians, Nestians,
and Manians. The inhabitants were no doubt under the dominion of the
Illyrian kings; after the reduction of the Illyrians by the Romans,
Dalmatia, too, was unquestionably intended to come under the supremacy
of Rome, and a few maritime towns actually seem to have done so, but the
interior, if it did fall into the hands of the Romans, appears soon to
have thrown off the yoke. It was not till the year 640, that Metullus
permanently subdued those coast countries, after the Romans had waged
war against them for a long time. Thenceforth the neighbouring country
of the Liburnians was a distinct Roman province; the southern districts
of Dalmatia being occasionally under the control of the proconsul or
propraetor of Macedonia; the northern parts do not appear to have had
a Roman _imperium_, except when legions were stationed there. This was
frequently the case, until the Scordiscans were conquered: when after
their destruction peace was established, and when, after the time of
Sulla, the province of Gaul was formed, those countries belonged to the
_imperium_ of the governor who had the administration of Gaul, as we see
in the case of Julius Caesar.
The most important town in Dalmatia was SALONA or SALONAE (_Salonae
longae_, in Lucan, the place probably consisting of one long street
along the coast); it was the seat of a Roman _conventus_, that is, the
Roman citizens resident in the province formed a rustic community,
which had its administration at Salona. This is the real meaning of a
_conventus civium Romanorum_, which is left obscure in our manuals on
Roman antiquities, though it is perfectly clear from Cicero’s speeches
against Verres, from Caesar’s _Bellum Civile_ and _Africanum_, and also
from the _Bellum Hispaniense_. Salona gradually became a genuine Roman
city; but it owes its greatest celebrity to the fact that Diocletian,
after resigning the imperial dignity, took up his abode there and built
a palace, which extended into the modern town of Spalatro, and is an
example of the decay of taste in the arts at that time, as much as the
Thermae of Diocletian at Rome; the palace is not more beautiful than the
edifices built in the time of Charlemagne; marble and costly materials
of every kind were lavished on it, and such outward ornaments then
constituted almost all that was left of art. The ruins of this palace
have been described by Englishmen.
About other places in Dalmatia nothing can be said, for they are of
no historical importance. The islands have already been spoken of.
PHAROS produced Demetrius, whose villany and faithlessness are very
characteristic of that age; he was only half a Greek, or rather a
barbarian. He spent a great part of his life at the court of the
barbarian queen, Teuta, and afterwards he went to that of Philip of
Macedonia. The traits related of this man are terrible. Pharos is called
Greek, but we must not imagine that its inhabitants were of pure Greek
blood or had Greek manners, and Greek modes of life; they were Μιξέλληνες
as in other similar places.
CORCYRA MELAENA, the modern Curzola, cannot with certainty be called a
Greek colony.
MELITE may be noticed here because, according to some, it was the island
where St. Paul, on his voyage to Rome, suffered shipwreck. But this is
improbable, St. Luke would probably have been more explicit about it, and
St. Paul would have crossed from thence to Ancona or some other port in
the neighbourhood. We must in all probability refer the event to Malta,
which was likewise called Melite.
I now pass over the Iapydes, Istrians, Liburnians, Carnians and
Venetians, as I intend to return to these nations from the West and from
Noricum.
FOOTNOTES
[1] “The first journey of this kind was undertaken in the sixteenth
century, by George Fabricius, but it produced only very insignificant
results.”
[2] The MS. notes contain very little about these maps, but what I
recollect Niebuhr to have said agrees in the main with the opinion
expressed in the _Lectures on Rom. Hist._ vol. iii. p. xciv., except that
in the present Lectures he treated the matter more with ridicule, saying,
e.g., that such men are immortalised even by having their portraits
engraved on copper (in some Geographical Journal).—ED.
[3] See _Kleine Schriften_, vol. i. p. 105, foll.
[4] “It would be an interesting philological problem to show, how certain
books gradually disappeared and ceased to be read.”
[5] See _Klein. Schrift._, vol. i. p. 132, foll.
[6] “It is written on white stone, and belongs to the time of
Psammetichus II., that is, about the end of the Peloponnesian war.
The λόφοι in Aristotle probably signify ostrich-feathers.” See _Corp.
Inscript. Graec._, vol. iii. fasc. 2. n. 5126. I owe this reference to
the kindness of the late Professor Franz.—ED.
[7] _In Ctesiph._ 77 (p. 140, 9 ed. Dindorf).
[8] The word “Latins” is only my conjecture. In all the MS. notes, the
words are directly opposed to what the lecturer intended to prove; whence
we may perhaps suppose, that Niebuhr himself made a _lapsus linguae_.—ED.
[9] Comp. _Lectures on Anc. Hist._, vol. i. p. 200.
[10] See Paus. vii. 1.
[11] _Lect. on Anc. Hist._, vol. i. p. 204.
[12] Ibid., vol. i. p. 232.
[13] Paus. ii. 4, § 4.
[14] _Aen._ vi. 838.
[15] This name has been substituted by me from the Iliad, ii. 561,
for one which occurs only in a single set of notes, and is altogether
mis-written.—ED.
[16] Verse 533.
[17] “The part of Laconia, which forms the western coast of the Argolic
gulf, but which, by the division of Philip of Macedonia was restored to
Argos, will be spoken of when I come to describe Laconia.”
[18] “A stadium measures 600 Greek feet, and eight stadia make a Roman
mile; 606 feet and 9 inches English are equal to a stadium. This is a
well known fact, requiring no proof. But it is a very debatable question,
as to whether the ancients, when reckoning by stadia, always adopted
the measure of the Olympian stadium, or whether we have sometimes to
understand others. The latter opinion has been very generally spread
by the moderns, especially in consequence of an error committed by
the excellent D’Anville. It very often occurs, that the distances
mentioned by the ancients are irreconcilable with modern measurements;
whence it has been inferred that sometimes different stadia must be
meant, and the statement that the Pythian stadium was shorter than
the Olympian, appeared to support this supposition. But there is no
other hypothesis which has been set forth equally often, and is yet so
devoid of all foundation: the ancient writers do not furnish a single
passage in support of the assertion; an endless confusion, moreover,
would be introduced into all statements, if we were to suppose that
the ancients reckoned according to different stadia without informing
their readers of it. Wherever the stadia mentioned are irreconcilable
with correct measurements, the cause is no other but either an error in
our calculation, or some inaccuracy in the statements of the ancients,
which arose in a very natural manner; for the high-roads in Greece were,
not like those of the Romans, made in a straight line, but had various
turnings, because they had been gradually formed out of the common paths
across the fields. In some instances, on the other hand, it has been
found that, where the ancients were charged with inaccuracy, too much
confidence has been placed in modern travellers, so that the statements
of the ancients are, after all, not as inaccurate as some have supposed.
“A question of the highest importance in history and geography is that
concerning the proportion which the side of the pyramid bears to the
measured degree of the earth and to the Egyptian cubit—a question to
which French mathematicians, who were no scholars, have first directed
attention. These numbers are such exact multiples of one another, that we
must either assume the most marvellous coincidence, or else an artificial
calculation. The immortal Laplace set great value upon this discovery,
and inferred from it that the elements of mathematical geography were
known at a very early time. When the new French system of measures was
introduced, the measure of a degree was taken as the standard, and thus
the framers of the new system arrived at the same foundation as the
ancients. When a degree of latitude was measured in Egypt, the result
was perfectly safe; but the French wanted to establish a measure for
the whole world, and in this case it is illegitimate to make use of the
degree of latitude, for though in a metre the inaccuracy was not great,
yet it was so in larger measures. The ancients proceeded from degrees
which were not too large, and could be measured with accuracy. Now the
degree is a multiple of the Greek stadium, as it is of the Egyptian
measure: 600 Greek feet make a stadium, 600 stadia make an equatorial
degree, that is, 360,000 Greek feet make a degree; and this system of
measurement is derived from Egypt. As the Egyptian foot was larger than
an ordinary human foot, the Greeks invented the fable, that the foot of
Heracles had been taken as the standard in measuring the stadium. The
pace of the Romans is likewise an ideal measure, for it is the thousandth
part of one seventy-fifth of a degree.”
[19] “Much has been written, and much nonsense too, about the history of
commerce. One must first be acquainted with commerce, and the course it
takes, before attempting to write about it. The subject is not foreign to
me, but I have no time to work it out.”
[20] See _Kleine Schrift._, vol. i. p. 225, note.
[21] Anthol. Palat. ix. 151.
[22] “Herodes Atticus restored the theatre which had been destroyed by
Mummius; and this building, together with the Odeum and gymnasium, was
seen by Pausanias.”
[23] One MS. has _Ornae_ instead of Argos.—ED.
[24] “We include Megaris among those countries which lie beyond
Peloponnesus, though it belongs to Argolis, if this latter name be taken
in its widest sense.”
[25] Compare Thucyd. iv. 57.
[26] Polyb. ix. 42.
[27] Compare _Lect. on Anc. Hist._, vol. i. p. 185, foll., and p. 231.