MSS. agree in the number, there can be no doubt that the notes are
correct; but I do not know to what edition it refers. According to
Casaubon’s edition, it is p. 364, foll., and Alm. p. 560, foll.—ED.
[29] Strab. viii. p. 365, ed. Casaub.
[30] The restoration of this passage from the notes has been particularly
difficult. From the _Lect. on Anc. Hist._, vol. i. p. 234, it seems clear
that Niebuhr had somewhere publicly expressed his opinion on the passage
of Strabo above referred to; but I do not know where he has done so, and
I have not been able to avail myself of anything except the notes taken
in the lecture-room, some of which are very good. I am firmly persuaded
that Niebuhr uttered the words as they are given in the text, though his
opinion differs from that now generally adopted, which is based upon the
restoration of the text of Strabo, partially the work of C. O. Müller
(_Dor._ vol. i. p. 110). The name Aepys seems to be based upon _Iliad_,
ii. 592, and that of Pherae upon the original text of Strabo himself.--ED.
[31] “Whether the list of the Spartan kings is correct or not, I do not
know; their number may be historical, but the years of their reigns are
very uncertain. Agis has quite the appearance of an historical personage.”
[32] “The derivation of the name Εἵλωτες, from Ἕλος, is extremely
uncertain. Helos was certainly destroyed, but I cannot see how Εἵλωτες
could have been formed from Ἕλος. I cannot imagine that a neuter name in
ος should form its ethnic name in ως, nor do I know any instance in which
an initial ε is changed into ει.”
[33] The words _of Sardinia_ have been inserted by conjecture. The MS.
containing the clause _as was the case_, &c., has the words _by the
Saracens_. But it is well known, that in the eleventh century, that is,
about the time of the conquest of Sardinia, Pisa had 150,000 inhabitants,
whereas at present it scarcely has the tenth part of that number.—ED.
[34] This should probably be “the Homeric poems.” Cardamyle is mentioned,
Iliad ix. 150, among the seven towns which Agamemnon offers to give to
Achilles.—ED.
[35] Herod. viii. 73, calls them Dryopians; so also Pausanias and
Strabo.—ED.
[36] The 20th of October, 1827.
[37] “Their name, from its termination άς, reminds us of Italian ethnic
names, such as _Antias_ and the like; but in the former the α is short.”
[38] See _Hist. of Rome_, vol. i. p. 418, n. 975, vol. ii. p. 317; _Lect.
on Rom. Hist._ vol. i. p. 203, n. 4; 3rd edit.
[39] This list is given from Polybius, ii. 41; Niebuhr here forgot that
_Aegae_ and _Rhypes_ had been mentioned even by Herodotus, i. 145, who
omits Leontion and Cerynea. This requires the statement in the text to be
modified, though it does not affect the explanation given by Niebuhr.—ED.
[40] Strab. ix. p. 394, c. Instead of the verse Στῆσε δ’ ἄγων ἵν’ Ἀθηναίων
ἵσταντο φάλαγγες, the Megarians read Αἴας δ’ ἐκ Σαλαμῖνος ἄγεν νέας, ἔκ
τε Πολίχνης, Ἔκ τ’ Αἰγειρούσσης, Νισαίης τε Τριπόδων τε.—ED.
[41] The statement of Thucydides is confirmed by the document of the
official treaty about the fifty years’ peace of Nicias in Thucyd. v. 18:
στήλας δὲ στῆσαι—ἐν Ἀθήναις ἐν πόλει.—ED.
[42] Niebuhr here overlooks Thucyd. i. 93: μείζων γὰρ ὁ περίβολος πανταχῆ
ἐξήχθη τῆς πόλεως.—ED.
[43] The reader must bear in mind, that all Niebuhr says about the
topography of Athens was said before any of the numerous recent
investigations of this subject had been commenced.—ED.
[44] “The temple of Theseus was destroyed as early as 1687; the Turks
had a powder magazine there, and the Venetians were barbarous enough to
bombard it; one front of it is left standing.”
[45] Dion Cassius, lxix. 16, however, says ἐξεποίησε.—ED.
[46] Aeschin. Socr. _Eryx._ c. 7 and 24.—ED.
[47] “This war is a memorable occurrence on account of the misfortunes of
men who had deserved a better fate.” (See _Kleine Schrift._ vol. i. p.
451, foll.)
[48] Comp. _Kleine Schrift._ l. c., p. 458, note 10.—ED.
[49] “_Basílius_, not _Basilīus_, for at that time Greek was spoken only
according to accent.”
[50] “The seventh among the Platonic letters was no doubt written soon
after the time of Plato and before the death of Alexander; it is written
in the vivid style of one who knew things from hearsay, but had not
witnessed them himself.” (Comp. Ulrich, _Die Eilfmänner in Athen_, p.
258, note 3.)
[51] Cic. _De Nat. Deor._ i. 42.
[52] This statement is not the same in all the MSS., whence the text
cannot be regarded as quite certain.—ED.
[53] These numbers, though not agreeing with what precedes, occur in
all the MSS. We must therefore probably suppose, that Niebuhr in his
thorough-going view of the symmetry of numerical relations in antiquity,
regarded the _eleven_ Boeotarchs as the remnant of the earlier number
twelve, and divided this latter into two equal halves; but I cannot
at this moment say on what this division is based. The statement that
afterwards the Boeotarchs were exclusively Thebans, occurs in a set of
notes, which do not seem to be quite trustworthy.—ED.
[54] I have no doubt that Niebuhr here meant Lake Hylice, although I do
not know that it is connected with Lake Copais. Respecting its outlet
into the Euripus, see Müller, _Orchom._ p. 38, 2nd edit., who doubts its
existence. The name of “lake of Haliartus” belongs only to the part of
lake Copais near Haliartus.—ED.
[55] “Lépanto, not Lepánto, according to the modern Greek pronunciation,
just as Sífanto (the modern name for the island of Siphnos), Táranto,
Ótranto. This originally Greek accent differs from that of Italian names.”
[56] The MSS. give nothing but these words, which are evidently
defective, and must be supplemented from Thucyd. i. 112, iv. 118, v. 18.
Compare Boeckh, _Publ. Econ. of Athens_, p. 161. foll. 2nd. edit.—ED.
[57] This statement can only be regarded as an inaccurate expression of
the right possessed by every people to vote at the Amphictyonic council,
for it is well known that each nation had two votes. Comp. _Lect. on Anc.
Hist._ vol. i. p. 244, fol.—ED.
[58] xxiv. 1.
[59] “The reason for this is, that the olive-tree requires many years to
grow and bear fruit.”
[60] i. 56.
[61] i. 5, iii. 94.
[62] “Ampracia is the more ancient orthography, and not Ambracia.”
[63] “_Landrecht_, as it was called in the middle ages; _Burgrecht_ is
something different, referring to the individual who has the right of
becoming a citizen of a place.”
[64] “It would be an excellent subject for an essay to collect the
differences in the names of nations and places among the Greeks and
Romans; it would be very important in the critical treatment of ancient
authors, as the old Latin forms have often been misunderstood.”
[65] “MSS. and editions of Latin poets frequently have _Haemonia_, but I
cannot venture to decide as to whether it is right or wrong. The Greeks
have generally Αἰμονία, and rarely Αἱμονία; in like manner Αἶμος is more
common than Αἷμος, and it is doubtful whether the former is not a change
made by editors.”
[66] Dionys. Hal. _Ant._ i. 28, calls him a great great-grand-son.
[67] In some MSS. the following words are here added: “Such also
was the case in the Netherlands, in the official language of the
fifteenth century.” It is possible that Niebuhr may have alluded to the
_Geuses_.—ED.
[68] “We ought to say _the_ Tempe as a plural, for the Greek is τὰ Τέμπη,
and signifies a glen or a pass.”
[69] In one MS., which however is interpolated in some parts, we find
the following statement: “Dositheus Magister, the most ancient Latin
grammarian, whose works we possess complete (?), imitated Dionysius
Thrax.”—ED.
[70] “Whether Dryopians and Dolopians be the same name cannot be proved,
although it is possible. I do not like the attempts to prove such things;
people easily believe that they arrive at positive results, and accustom
themselves to play with names. This is unfortunately the case in Germany
so much, that we cannot be sufficiently on our guard against it. It is
quite a different thing to examine what was the generic name of a great
nation.”
[71] xix. 175.
[72] See above, p. 33.
[73] v. 3, § 6.
[74] In one MS. I find “On the slip of land extending into the sea
opposite Chios”; one main part of the town was afterwards in the
island.—ED.
[75] Comp. _Lect. on Rom. Hist._, vol. i. p. 70, fol. 3rd edit.
[76] Μάκαρος ἕδος Αἰολίωνος, _Hymn in Apoll._ 37.
[77] “Athens too is written with ε on the drachmae of later times (ΑΘΕ).”
The connexion between this remark and the statement in the text is not
clear.—ED.
[78] “During the Macedonian period and afterwards this name certainly was
never pronounced otherwise than Cassándrea.”
[79] “Xenophon’s _Hellenica_ is one of the most corrupt among ancient
works; the text is in a very bad condition, and requires a most thorough
critical revision; the history itself, though bad, is indispensable to
us. In the fifth book, he states that Olynthus had 800 hoplites and an
equal number of peltasts, but this is impossible. It has been proposed
to read 8000, but this is too much, and is, moreover, not plausible, as
the numbers were written in the characters of the alphabet. Demosthenes
speaks of 5000 hoplites; his expression πόλις μυρίανδρος only signifies a
large town in general.”
[80] In Thucydides i. 94 and 128, we have Βυζάντιον without the
article.—ED.
[81] _Ausführl. Griech. Gram._, vol. ii. p. 428, foll. 2nd edit.
[82] “Thus we find mention of a Roman Church _S. Agnolo in Pescivendolo_
in an ancient chronicle [in the _Beschreib. der Stadt Rom_, iii. 3,
p. 468, this is referred to the history of Cola di Rienzi, which was
formerly ascribed to Fortefiocca], and that church is now called
_S. Angelo in Pescaria_; there must have been a fish-market in the
neighbourhood. _Piscivendulus_ is unquestionably an ancient Latin word,
in which the termination _ulus_ is purely an adjective termination
without the meaning of a diminutive, as we sometimes find in Plautus.”
[One otherwise very good MS. here has the word _nuculendulus_, for which
I am unable to restore the correct word, unless _nucifrangibula_ (Plaut.
_Bacch._ iv. 2, 16) be meant].
[83] Niebuhr has discussed this same subject in an advertisement
about the progress of the edition of the _Corpus Scriptorum Historiae
Byzantinae_, which was published in the 4th vol. of the _Rhein. Museum_,
and was directed against Professor Heinrich, who had censured the form
_Byzantinae_.—ED.
[84] The inscription of Protogenes; see _Kleine Schrift._, vol. i. p.
382, foll.—ED.
[85] “In consequence of the numerous Milesian colonies on the Euxine, M.
Von Köppen has brought forward the strange hypothesis, that the Milesians
were a nation on the coast of the Euxine, who founded the colony of
Miletus. Being a native of Russia, he perhaps wanted to gratify his
Russian patriotism, by assigning a Russian origin to so important a Greek
city.”
[86] Reprinted in _Kleine Schriften_, vol. ii. p. 224.
[87] _Hist. of Rome_, vol. i. p. 25, foll.
[88] The name is wanting, and I am unable to supply it.—ED.
[89] _Hist. of Rome_, vol. iii. p. 456.
[90] “Others call him Tharypas or Tharypos. If we examine this name
carefully, we find already a trace of the change, seen in the modern
Greek, of an oblique case into the nominative, as ὁ πατέρος—it is one
of the many traces which shew that, properly speaking, Epirot and
Macedonian forms constitute the foundation of modern Greek, and that the
latter is not the same as the popular language of the ancient Greeks, as
is commonly imagined by the modern Greeks. My dear friend, Count Capo
d’Istria, is not free from this prejudice, though he admits that, e.g.,
at Athens a different dialect was spoken. The Italians in the middle
ages, especially Aretinus, entertained a similar opinion; they maintained
that Cicero spoke Italian, that Latin was only the language of the
learned, an artificial and improved Italian; and that Latin was indeed
written, but that the people spoke Italian. But the Greeks confound the
circumstances, and pretend to know more than is generally true. Many
proofs, for example, may be adduced that a kind of modern Greek was
spoken at Alexandria in the time of the first emperors; but that language
was derived from the Epirot, Macedonian and Thessalian dialects; it is
pure Greek, but at the same time has many peculiarities, many of which
have passed into the Latin language. Thus _Areus_, the name of the
Spartan king, is written _Areas_ in Livy, which, therefore, should not be
altered, but is quite correct; in the same manner we have _Crotona_ for
_Croton_, and in German _Mailand_ for Milano.”
[91] One MS. here has “the Ambracians and Chaonians;” the probable
reading is, “the Thesprotians and Chaonians,” according to the
geographical succession. The apparent contradiction in the statement that
Ambracia was dependent on Epirus and at the same time in the power of
Philip, must be understood of successive periods, the former being the
earlier, and the latter the subsequent condition. Comp. _Hist. of Rome_,
vol. iii. p. 165.—ED.
[92] Comp. _Lect. on Ancient Hist._ vol. ii. p. 346.—ED.
[93] Comp. _Hist. of Rome_, vol. iii. p. 457, foll.; _Lect. on Rom.
Hist._ vol. i. p. 421 foll. 3rd edit.
[94] “The whole of this part of history is still obscure; I mean the
period from the death of Alexander until the time of Polybius. If God
spares my life, I contemplate writing this history as a supplement to
ancient history.”
[95] “I have here mentioned the Ibis, on account of this historical
fact, which is not the only one in that poem. I recommend its study to
any scholar who wishes to ascertain whether he is thoroughly conversant
with poetical mythology and ancient history. One of the most difficult
problems is to explain the allusions; there is not much poetry in it, but
a great deal of wit. We admire Jean Paul, on account of his allusions
and of his wit, but we speak slightingly of the wit of the Alexandrians,
though they, and especially Callimachus, ought not to be despised. We are
not sufficiently familiar with them; it is also true that there are few
poetical geniuses among them: Callimachus is not without talent (witness,
for example, the _Lavacrum Palladis_); Apollonius Rhodius is indeed a
feeble mind, but the loss of Philotas is much to be lamented. Although
Propertius equals neither Callimachus nor Philetas, still even he is
excellent; he, too, may be used as a means of self-examination.”
[96] See Niebuhr’s _Gesch. des Zeitalters der Revolution_, vol. ii. p.
281.
[97] “I ought to have spoken of ATHAMANIA before, but not having any
maps before me as guides, I forgot it. It was situated between Molottis
and Thessaly, and was a small Epirot principality. In the earliest times
it was not important, but subsequently it became remarkable, because
it maintained its independence of Epirus as well as of Aetolia. Their
king, Amynander, was early allied with the Romans, but then went over
to the Aetolians. This brought great distress upon the country, though
it was afterwards pardoned by the Romans and was restored to its former
condition.”
[98] “In like manner the Romans abolished the _concilia populorum_ in
Italy.”
[99] “This name, though formed according to good analogy, is not used
by the ancients; but I do not see why we should not employ it upon the
analogy of others.”
[100] This is the name in all the MSS., though there can be no doubt that
Callias is meant.—ED.
[101] “It deserves to be noted that in several of the later Latin
poets the genuine usage in the application of rare names disappears.
The beginning of Lucan is no doubt known even to those who are unable
to work their way through the whole; in explaining it we may assume
two possibilities: he either intended to compose a poem on the whole
Civil war down to the battle of Philippi, or he unwittingly confounded
Macedonia and Thessaly. If he wanted to use such a poetical name, he
ought to have said _Bella per_ AEMONIOS _plus quam civilia campos_.”
[102] “Not _Aegae_, as you find in most maps and in modern editions of
ancient authors. In the older editions the name is correctly given,
Αἰγαῖαι, pronounced according to the modern Greek Αἰγέαι, and the
inhabitants are called Αἰγεεῖς. Moderns have unfortunately taken it into
their heads that this is a mistake, and have unceremoniously altered it
without saying anything about it: as the altered form was found in the
maps of D’Anville and Barbié du Bocage, it was thought to be the correct
one.”
[103] “I take this opportunity of saying a few words about this not
sufficiently valued author. There are writers whose works are read,
without their containing any substance, and without their being at all
comparable to others, merely because they have once got a name. Others
deserving of respect are now neglected, while formerly they were studied.
Dion Chrysostomus is one of these latter. He is indeed sophistical,
but there is among his works a whole series of thoroughly beautiful
orations, showing great intellect, which is, after all, the main thing.
Sidonius Apollinaris’ Latinity is very rustic; but he is a man of talent;
so also Libanius, although he is already too sophistical. Others, as
Aelius Aristides, who are so devoid of talent and so absurd, that we
feel inclined at once to throw their works among the rubbish, are placed
on an equality with the former. To the same class belong Themistius and
Fronto, the latter of whom does nothing but pile up words. In regard to
talented writers, we must not allow ourselves to be prejudiced by the
fact that they belong to a late period. The language of Dion Chrysostomus
is very good; it is a fine imitation of Attic Greek, and this is not only
my opinion, but the judgment of Valckenaer, Hemsterhuys, Ruhnkenius, and
others; his style is like that of Xenophon, who, after all, is read and
studied in schools only on account of his language.”
[104] Namely in their division of the country according to what are
called the natural boundaries. See above, p. 282.—ED.
[105] xlv. 29.
[106] xlv. 30.
[107] “The _lembi_ were privateers of the Illyrians with one very large
lateen sail; they were probably very quick boats, able to sail very
sharply with the wind, and requiring a strong crew and bold sailors.
They were the same ships as those called by the Romans _Liburnicae_,
which more and more supplanted the place of triremes, quadriremes, and
quinqueremes.”
[108] This name is not quite certain; I have supplied it from Pliny; the
MS. notes having some such name as _Voelnii_.—ED.
[109] Niebuhr probably meant to say—“in the Slavonian tongue but
according to the Roman rites.”—ED.
[110] More correctly: under Innocent IV., A.D. 1248. See Dobrowsky,
_Glagolitica_, p. 16.
[111] According to a letter of his father, dated Dec. 1807, Niebuhr
understood Russian, Slavonic, Polish, Bohemian, and also Illyrian. See
_Life and Letters of B. G. Niebuhr_, vol. i. p. 27.—ED.
[112] It is published in _Kleine Histor. u. Philol. Schriften_, vol. i.
p. 352, foll.—ED.
[113] “If a man is not a thorough philologer, he cannot enter upon the
study of ancient history at all; to do so without an intimate familiarity
with philology would be the same as if a man were to write about Germany
from French authorities.”
END OF VOL. I.
J. WERTHEIMER AND CO., PRINTERS, FINSBURY CIRCUS.
WORKS PRINTED FOR WALTON AND MABERLY.
UPPER GOWER STREET, AND IVY LANE, PATERNOSTER ROW.
NIEBUHR’S LECTURES ON ANCIENT HISTORY.
Comprising the History of the Asiatic Nations, the Egyptians, Greeks,
Carthaginians, and Macedonians. Translated from the German by Dr. L.
SCHMITZ. With additions from MSS. in the exclusive possession of the
Editor. 3 vols. 8vo. £1 11_s._ 6_d._
The reader will find brief but graphic accounts of the Assyrians,
Babylonians, Persians, Egyptians, and other Eastern nations; and in each
case Niebuhr, before entering upon the history itself, gives a critical
analysis of the authorities on which our knowledge is based. The history
of Greece and other European countries is treated more minutely, and
occupies more than half of the whole work. Literature, the arts, and
the social and political conditions of the people, are described more
graphically and minutely than in many other more voluminous works.
In reference to Babylonia, Assyria, and Egypt, it is particularly
interesting to notice, how clearly the historian foresaw and anticipated
all the great discoveries which have since been made in those countries.
A thousand points in the history of ancient nations, which have hitherto
been either overlooked or accepted without inquiry, are here treated with
sound criticism and placed in their true light.
NIEBUHR’S LECTURES ON THE HISTORY OF ROME.
From the earliest times to the Fall of the Western Empire. Edited by Dr.
SCHMITZ. Second Edition, enlarged and greatly improved. Three volumes,
8vo. Portrait. £1 4_s._ cloth.
⁂ _The present Edition of Niebuhr’s Lectures on Roman History contains
every word and statement that is to be found in the German Edition of Dr.
Isler, with which it has been compared throughout. But as Dr. Schmitz,
in preparing his edition, was in possession of some valuable sets of MS.
Notes, which were inaccessible to Dr. Isler, the present work contains
a variety of remarks and observations as made by Niebuhr, which do not
occur in the German Edition, or any mere translation of the German.
Almost every page of the present work contains some interesting remark of
the Roman historian, which is not to be found in the German Edition._
These Lectures form a history of Rome from the earliest stages to the
overthrow of the Western Empire. Their subjects are concurrent (up to
the first Punic war) with those of Niebuhr’s great work “The History of
Rome,” and comprehend discussions on the sources of Roman history, with
the criticism and analysis of those materials. The Lectures differ from
the History, in presenting a more popular and familiar exposition of
the various topics of investigation, which are treated in the History
in a more severe style. They may be used, either as an introduction to
Niebuhr’s Theories, or as a running commentary on his History.
The last two volumes are an indispensable SEQUEL to Niebuhr’s _History of
Rome_, from the point where that History terminates.
NIEBUHR’S HISTORY OF ROME.
From the earliest times to the First Punic War. Translated by BISHOP
THIRLWALL, ARCHDEACON HARE, Dr. SMITH, and Dr. SCHMITZ. New and Cheaper
Edition, 3 vols. 8vo. £1 16_s._
“It is a work,” says the _Edinburgh Review_, “which of all that have
appeared in our age, is the best fitted to excite men of learning
to intellectual activity; from which the most accomplished scholar
may gather fresh stores of knowledge; to which the most experienced
politician may resort for theoretical and practical instruction; and
which no person can read, as it ought to be read, without feeling the
better and more generous sentiments of his common human nature enlivened
and strengthened.”
A HISTORY OF ROME.
From the earliest times to the Death of Commodus, A.D. 192. By Dr. L.
SCHMITZ, Rector of the High School of Edinburgh, Editor of “Niebuhr’s
Lectures.” New Edition. One thick volume, 12mo. 7_s._ 6_d._ cloth.
The immense progress made in investigating Roman history and antiquities
within the last thirty or forty years, having materially altered the
whole complexion of that study, has rendered indispensable a new manual,
for the use of schools, removing the old errors and misconceptions which
have long since been exposed and exploded by scholars. This compendium
is designed to supply the want, by condensing and selecting out of a
voluminous mass of detail, that which is necessary to give rather a vivid
picture of the leading epochs of the history, than a minute narrative
of the particulars recorded in the authorities. The author has availed
himself of all the important works on the whole Roman history, or
portions of it, which have appeared since Niebuhr gave a new life and new
impulse to the subject. A copious Table of Chronology and Indexes are
added.
QUESTIONS ON SCHMITZ’S HISTORY OF ROME.
By JOHN ROBSON, B.A. 12mo. 2_s._ cloth.