CHAPTER XCVIII.

OUTLYING HELLENIC CITIES.

1 IN GAUL AND SPAIN.

2 ON THE COAST OF THE EUXINE.

To complete the picture of the Hellenic world while yet in its

period of full life, in freedom and self-action, or even during its

decline into the half-life of a dependent condition—we must say a few

words respecting some of its members lying apart from the general

history, yet of not inconsiderable importance. The Greeks of Massalia

formed its western wing; the Pontic Greeks (those on the shores of

the Euxine), its eastern; both of them the outermost radiations of

Hellenism, where it was always militant against foreign elements, and

often adulterated by them. It is indeed little that we have the means

of saying; but that little must not be left unsaid.

In my third volume (ch. xxii. p. 397), I briefly noticed the

foundation and first proceedings of Massalia (the modern Marseilles),

on the Mediterranean coast of Gaul or Liguria. This Ionic city,

founded by the enterprising Phokæans of Asia Minor, a little before

their own seaboard was subjugated by the Persians, had a life and

career of its own, apart from those political events which determined

the condition of its Hellenic sisters in Asia, Peloponnesus,

Italy, or Sicily. The Massaliots maintained their own relations of

commerce, friendship or hostility with their barbaric neighbors, the

Ligurians, Gauls, and Iberians, without becoming involved in the

larger political confederacies of the Hellenic world. They carried

out from their mother-city established habits of adventurous coast

navigation and commercial activity. Their situation, distant from

other Greeks and sustained by a force hardly sufficient even for

defence, imposed upon them the necessity both of political harmony

at home, and of prudence and persuasive agency in their mode of

dealing with neighbors. That they were found equal to this necessity,

appears sufficiently attested by the few general statements

transmitted in respect to them; though their history in its details

is unknown. Their city was strong by position, situated upon a

promontory washed on three sides by the sea, well-fortified, and

possessing a convenient harbor securely closed against enemies.[1052]

The domain around it however appears not to have been large, nor

did their population extend itself much into the interior. The land

around was less adapted for corn than for the vine and the olive;

wine was supplied by the Massaliots throughout Gaul.[1053] It was

on shipboard that their courage and skill was chiefly displayed; it

was by maritime enterprise that their power, their wealth, and their

colonial expansion was obtained. In an age when piracy was common,

the Massaliot ships and seamen were effective in attack and defence

not less than in transport and commercial interchange; while their

numerous maritime successes were attested by many trophies adorning

the temples.[1054] The city contained docks and arsenals admirably

provided with provisions, stores, arms, and all the various muniments

of naval war.[1055] Except the Phenicians and Carthaginians, these

Massaliots were the only enterprising mariners in the Western

Mediterranean; from the year 500 B. C. downward, after the

energy of the Ionic Greeks had been crushed by inland potentates. The

Iberian and Gallic tribes were essentially landsmen, not occupying

permanent stations on the coast, nor having any vocation for the

sea; but the Ligurians, though chiefly mountaineers, were annoying

neighbors to Massalia as well by their piracies at sea as from

their depredations by land.[1056] To all these landsmen, however,

depredators as they were, the visit of the trader soon made itself

felt as a want, both for import and export; and to this want the

Massaliots, with their colonies, were the only ministers, along the

Gulfs of Genoa and Lyons, from Luna (the frontier of Tuscany) to

the Dianium (Cape della Nao) in Spain.[1057] It was not until the

first century before the Christian era that they were outstripped in

this career by Narbon, and a few other neighbors, exalted into Roman

colonies.

[1052] Cæsar, Bell. Gall. ii. 1; Strabo, iv. p. 179.

[1053] See Poseidonius ap. Athenæum, iv. p. 152.

[1054] Strabo, iv. p. 180.

[1055] Strabo (xii. p. 575) places Massalia in the same rank as

Kyzikus, Rhodes and Carthage; types of maritime cities highly and

effectively organized.

[1056] Livy, xl. 18; Polybius, xxx. 4.

[1057] The oration composed by Demosthenes πρὸς Ζηνόδεμιν,

relates to an affair wherein a ship, captain, and mate, all from

Massalia, are found engaged in the carrying trade between Athens

and Syracuse (Demosth. p. 382 _seq._).

Along the coast on both sides of their own city, the Massaliots

planted colonies, each commended to the protection, and consecrated

by the statue and peculiar rites, of their own patron goddess, the

Ephesian Artemis.[1058] Towards the east were Tauroentium, Olbia,

Antipolis, Nikæa, and the Portus Monœki; towards the west, on the

coast of Spain, were Rhoda, Emporiæ, Alônê, Hemeroskopium, and

Artemisium or Dianium. These colonies were established chiefly on

outlying capes or sometimes islets, at once near and safe; they were

intended more as shelter and accommodation for maritime traffic,

and as depots for trade with the interior,—than for the purpose of

spreading inland, and including a numerous outlying population round

the walls. The circumstances of Emporiæ were the most remarkable.

That town was built originally on a little uninhabited islet off the

coast of Iberia; after a certain interval, it became extended to the

adjoining mainland, and a body of native Iberians were admitted to

joint residence within the new-walled circuit there established. This

new circuit however was divided in half by an intervening wall, on

one side of which dwelt the Iberians, on the other side the Greeks.

One gate alone was permitted, for intercommunication, guarded night

and day by appointed magistrates, one of whom was perpetually on

the spot. Every night, one third of the Greek citizens kept guard

on the walls, or at least held themselves prepared to do so. How

long these strict and fatiguing precautions were found necessary,

we do not know; but after a certain time they were relaxed, and the

intervening wall disappeared, so that Greeks and Iberians freely

coalesced into one community.[1059] It is not often that we are

allowed to see so much in detail the early difficulties and dangers

of a Grecian colony. Massalia itself was situated under nearly

similar circumstances among the rude Ligurian Salyes; we hear of

these Ligurians hiring themselves as laborers to dig on the fields

of Massaliot proprietors.[1060] The various tribes of Ligurians,

Gauls, and Iberians extended down to the coast, so that there was no

safe road along it, nor any communication except by sea, until the

conquests of the Romans in the second and first century before the

Christian era.[1061]

[1058] Brückner, Histor. Massiliensium, c. 7 (Göttingen).

[1059] Livy, xxxiv. 8; Strabo. iii. p. 160. At Massalia, it is

said that no armed stranger was ever allowed to enter the city,

without depositing his arms at the gate (Justin, xliii. 4).

This precaution seems to have been adopted in other cities also:

see Æneas, Poliorket. c. 30.

[1060] Strabo, iii. p. 165. A fact told to Poseidonius by a

Massaliot proprietor who was his personal friend.

In the siege of Massalia by Cæsar, a detachment of

Albici,—mountaineers not far from the town, and old allies or

dependents—were brought in to help in the defence (Cæsar, Bell.

G. i. 34).

[1061] Strabo, iv. p. 180.

The government of Massalia was oligarchical, carried on chiefly

by a Senate or Great Council of Six Hundred (called Timuchi),

elected for life—and by a small council of fifteen, chosen among

this larger body to take turn in executive duties.[1062] The public

habits of the administrators are said to have been extremely

vigilant and circumspect; the private habits of the citizens,

frugal and temperate—a maximum being fixed by law for dowries and

marriage-ceremonies.[1063] They were careful in their dealings

with the native tribes, with whom they appear to have maintained

relations generally friendly. The historian Ephorus (whose history

closed about 340 B. C.) represented the Gauls as especially

phil-hellenic;[1064] an impression which he could hardly have derived

from any but Massaliot informants. The Massaliots (who in the first

century before Christ were _trilingues_, speaking Greek, Latin, and

Gallic[1065]) contributed to engraft upon these unlettered men a

certain refinement and variety of wants, and to lay the foundation

of that taste for letters which afterwards became largely diffused

throughout the Roman Province of Gaul. At sea, and in traffic, the

Phenicians and Carthaginians were their formidable rivals. This was

among the causes which threw them betimes into alliance and active

co-operation with Rome, under whose rule they obtained favorable

treatment, when the blessing of freedom was no longer within their

reach.

[1062] Strabo, iv. p. 181; Cicero, De Republ. xxvii. Fragm.

Vacancies in the senate seem to have been filled up from

meritorious citizens generally—as far as we can judge by a brief

allusion in Aristotle (Polit. vi. 7).

From another passage in the same work, it seems that the narrow

basis of the oligarchy must have given rise to dissensions (v.

6). Aristotle had included the Μασσαλιωτῶν πολιτεία in his lost

work Περὶ Πολιτειῶν.

[1063] Strabo, _l. c._ However, one author from whom Athenæus

borrowed (xii. p. 523), described the Massaliots as luxurious in

their habits.

[1064] Strabo, iv. p. 199. Ἔφορος δὲ ὑπερβάλλουσαν τῷ μεγέθει

λέγει τὴν Κελτικὴν, ὥστε ἧσπερ νῦν Ἰβηρίας καλοῦμεν ἐκείνοις τὰ

πλεῖστα προσνέμειν μέχρι Γαδείρων, ~φιλέλληνάς τε ἀποφαίνει τοὺς

ἀνθρώπους~, καὶ πολλὰ ἰδίως λέγει περὶ αὐτῶν οὐκ ἐοικότα τοῖς

νῦν. Compare p. 181.

It is to be remembered that Ephorus was a native of the Asiatic

Kymê the immediate neighbor of Phokæa, which was the metropolis

of Massalia. The Massaliots never forgot or broke off their

connection with Phokæa: see the statement of their intercession

with the Romans on behalf of Phokæa (Justin, xxxvii. 1). Ephorus

therefore had good means of learning whatever Massaliot citizens

were disposed to communicate.

[1065] Varro, Antiq. Fragm. p. 350, ed. Bipont.

Enough is known about Massalia to show that the city was a genuine

specimen of Hellenism and Hellenic influences—acting not by force

or constraint, but simply by superior intelligence and activity—by

power of ministering to wants which must otherwise have remained

unsupplied—and by the assimilating effect of a lettered civilization

upon ruder neighbors. This is the more to be noticed as it contrasts

strikingly with the Macedonian influences which have occupied so

much of the present volume; force admirably organized and wielded

by Alexander, yet still nothing but force. The loss of all details

respecting the history of Massalia is greatly to be lamented;

and hardly less, that of the writings of Pytheas, an intelligent

Massaliotic navigator, who, at this early age (330-320 B.

C.),[1066] with an adventurous boldness even more than Phokæan,

sailed through the Pillars of Herakles and from thence northward

along the coast of Spain, Gaul, Britain, Germany—perhaps yet farther.

Probably no Greek except a Massaliot could have accomplished such a

voyage; which in his case deserves the greater sympathy, as there

was no other reward for the difficulties and dangers braved, except

the gratification of an intelligent curiosity. It seems plain that

the publication of his “Survey of the Earth”—much consulted by

Eratosthenes, though the criticisms which have reached us through

Polybius and Strabo dwell chiefly upon its mistakes, real or

supposed—made an epoch in ancient geographical knowledge.

[1066] See the Fragmenta Pytheæ collected by Arfwedson, Upsal,

1824. He wrote two works—1. Γῆς Περιόδος. 2. Περὶ Ὠκεανοῦ.

His statements were greatly esteemed, and often followed, by

Eratosthenes; partially followed by Hipparchus; harshly judged

by Polybius, whom Strabo in the main follows. Even by those who

judge him most severely, Pytheas is admitted to have been a good

mathematician and astronomer (Strabo, iv. p. 201)—and to have

travelled extensively in person. Like Herodotus, he must have

been forced to report a great deal on hearsay; and all that

he could do was to report the best hearsay information which

reached him. It is evident that his writings made an epoch in

geographical inquiries; though they doubtless contained numerous

inaccuracies. See a fair estimate of Pytheas in Mannert, Geog.

der Gr. und Römer, Introd. i. p. 73-86.

The Massaliotic Codex of Homer, possessed and consulted among

others by the Alexandrine critics, affords presumption that

the celebrity of Massalia as a place of Grecian literature and

study (in which character it competed with Athens towards the

commencement of the Roman empire) had its foundations laid at

least in the third century before the Christian era.

From the western wing of the Hellenic world, we pass to the

eastern—the Euxine Sea. Of the Pentapolis on its western coast

south of the Danube (Apollonia, Mesembria, Kallatis, Odessus,

and probably Istrus)—and of Tyras near the mouth of the river so

called (now Dniester)—we have little to record, though Istrus

and Apollonia were among the towns whose political constitutions

Aristotle thought worthy of his examination.[1067] But Herakleia on

the south coast, and Pantikapæum or Bosporus between the Euxine and

the Palus Mæotis (now Sea of Azof), are not thus unknown to history;

nor can Sinôpê (on the south coast) and Olbia (on the north-west)

be altogether passed over. Though lying apart from the political

headship of Athens or Sparta, all these cities were legitimate

members of the Hellenic brotherhood. All supplied spectators and

competitors for the Pan-hellenic festivals—pupils to the rhetors and

philosophers—purchasers, and sometimes even rivals, to the artists.

All too were (like Massalia and Kyrênê) adulterated partially—Olbia

and Bosporus considerably—by admixture of a non-hellenic element.

[1067] Aristotle, Politic. v. 2, 11; v. 5, 2.

Of Sinôpê, and its three dependent colonies Kotyôra, Kerasus,

and Trapezus, I have already said something,[1068] in describing

the retreat of the Ten Thousand Greeks. Like Massalia with its

dependencies Antipolis, Nikæa, and others—Sinôpê enjoyed not merely

practical independence, but considerable prosperity and local

dignity, at the time when Xenophon and his companions marched through

those regions. The citizens were on terms of equal alliance, mutually

advantageous, with Korylas prince of Paphlagonia, on the borders of

whose territory they dwelt. It is probable that they figured on the

tribute list of the Persian king as a portion of Paphlagonia, and

paid an annual sum; but here ended their subjection. Their behavior

towards the Ten Thousand Greeks, pronounced enemies of the Persian

king, was that of an independent city. Neither they, nor even the

inland Paphlagonians, warlike and turbulent, were molested with

Persian governors or military occupation.[1069] Alexander however

numbered them among the subjects of Persia; and it is a remarkable

fact, that envoys from Sinôpê were found remaining with Darius almost

to his last hour, after he had become a conquered fugitive, and had

lost his armies, his capitals, and his treasures. These Sinopian

envoys fell into the hands of Alexander; who set them at liberty

with the remark, that since they were not members of the Hellenic

confederacy, but subjects of Persia—their presence as envoys near

Darius was very excusable.[1070] The position of Sinôpê placed her

out of the direct range of the hostilities carried on by Alexander’s

successors against each other; and the ancient Kappadokian princes

of the Mithridatic family (professedly descendants of the Persian

Achæmenidæ),[1071] who ultimately ripened into the king of Pontus,

had not become sufficiently powerful to swallow up her independence

until the reign of Pharnakes, in the second century before Christ.

Sinôpê then passed under his dominion; exchanging (like others)

the condition of a free Grecian city for that of a subject of the

barbaric kings of Pontus, with a citadel and mercenary garrison

to keep her citizens in obedience. We know nothing however of the

intermediate events.

[1068] See Vol. IX. Ch. lxxi. p. 129 _seqq._

[1069] See the remarkable life of the Karian Datames, by

Cornelius Nepos, which gives some idea of the situation of

Paphlagonia about 360-350 B. C. (cap. 7, 8). Compare

Xenoph. Hellenic. iv. 1, 4.

[1070] Arrian, iii. 24, 8; Curtius, vi. 5, 6.

[1071] Polybius, v. 43.

Respecting the Pontic Herakleia, our ignorance is not so complete.

That city—much nearer than Sinôpê to the mouth of the Thracian

Bosporus, and distant by sea from Byzantium only one long day’s

voyage of a rowboat—was established by Megarians and Bœotians on the

coast of the Mariandyni. These natives were subdued, and reduced to

a kind of serfdom; whereby they became slaves, yet with a proviso

that they should never be sold out of the territory. Adjoining, on

the westward, between Herakleia and Byzantium, were the Bithynian

Thracians—villagers not merely independent, but warlike and fierce

wreckers, who cruelly maltreated any Greeks stranded on their

coast.[1072] We are told in general terms that the government of

Herakleia was oligarchical;[1073] perhaps in the hands of the

descendants of the principal original colonists, who partitioned

among themselves the territory with its Mariandynian serfs, and who

formed a small but rich minority among the total population. We hear

of them as powerful at sea, and as being able to man, through their

numerous serfs, a considerable fleet, with which they invaded the

territory of Leukon prince of the Kimmerian Bosporus.[1074] They

were also engaged in land-war with Mithridates, a prince of the

ancient Persian family established as district rulers in Northern

Kappadokia.[1075]

[1072] Xenoph. Anab. vi. 6, 2.

[1073] Aristot. Polit. v. 5, 2; v. 5, 5. Another passage in

the same work, however (v. 4, 2), says, that in Herakleia, the

democracy was subverted immediately after the foundation of the

colony, through the popular leaders; who committed injustice

against the rich. These rich men were banished, but collected

strength enough to return and subvert the democracy by force.

If this passage alludes to the same Herakleia (there were many

towns of that name), the government must have been originally

democratical. But the serfdom of the natives seems to imply an

oligarchy.

[1074] Aristot. Polit. vii. 5, 7; Polyæn. vi. 9, 3, 4; compare

Pseudo-Aristotle Œconomic. ii. 9.

The reign of Leukon lasted from about 392-352 B. C. The

event alluded to by Polyænus must have occurred at some time

during this interval.

[1075] Justin, xvi. 4.

Towards 380-370 B. C., the Herakleots became disturbed by

violent party-contentions within the city. As far as we can divine

from a few obscure hints, these contentions began among the oligarchy

themselves;[1076] some of whom opposed, and partially threw open,

a close political monopoly—yet not without a struggle, in the

course of which an energetic citizen named Klearchus was banished.

Presently however the contest assumed larger dimensions; the plebs

sought admission into the constitution, and are even said to have

required abolition of debts with a redivision of the lands.[1077]

A democratical constitution was established; but it was speedily

menaced by conspiracies of the rich, to guard against which, the

classification of the citizens was altered. Instead of three tribes,

and four centuries, all were distributed anew into sixty-four

centuries; the tribes being discontinued. It would appear that in the

original four centuries, the rich men had been so enrolled as to form

separate military divisions (probably their rustic serfs being armed

along with them)—-while the three tribes had contained all the rest

of the people; so that the effect of thus multiplying the centuries

was, to divest the rich of their separate military enrolment, and to

disseminate them in many different regiments along with a greater

number of poor.[1078]

[1076] Aristot. v. 5, 2; 5, 10.

[1077] Justin, xvi. 4.

[1078] Æneas, Poliorket. c. 11. I have given what seems the most

probable explanation of a very obscure passage.

It is to be noted that the distribution of citizens into

centuries (ἑκατοστύες) prevailed also at Byzantium; see Inscript.

No. 2060 ap. Boeck. Corp. Inscr. Græc. p. 130. A citizen of

Olbia, upon whom the citizenship of Byzantium is conferred, is

allowed to enroll himself in any one of the ἑκατοστύες, that he

prefers.

Still however the demands of the people were not fully granted, and

dissension continued. Not merely the poorer citizens, but also the

population of serfs—homogeneous, speaking the same language, and

sympathizing with each other, like Helots or Penestæ—when once

agitated by the hope of liberty, were with difficulty appeased.

The government, though greatly democratized, found itself unable

to maintain tranquillity, and invoked assistance from without.

Application was made first, to the Athenian Timotheus—next, to the

Theban Epaminondas; but neither of them would interfere—nor was

there, indeed, any motive to tempt them. At length application was

made to the exiled citizen Klearchus.

This exile, now about forty years of age, intelligent, audacious and

unprincipled, had passed four years at Athens partly in hearing the

lessons of Plato and Isokrates—and had watched with emulous curiosity

the brilliant fortune of the despot Dionysius at Syracuse, in whom

both these philosophers took interest.[1079] During his banishment,

moreover, he had done what was common with Grecian exiles; he had

taken service with the enemy of his native city, the neighboring

prince Mithridates,[1080] and probably enough against the city

itself. As an officer, he distinguished himself much; acquiring

renown with the prince and influence over the minds of soldiers.

Hence his friends, and a party in Herakleia, became anxious to

recall him, as moderator and protector under the grievous political

discords prevailing. It was the oligarchical party who invited him

to come back, at the head of a body of troops, as their auxiliary

in keeping down the plebs. Klearchus accepted their invitation; but

with the full purpose of making himself the Dionysius of Herakleia.

Obtaining from Mithridates a powerful body of mercenaries, under

secret promise to hold the city only as his prefect, he marched

thither with the proclaimed purpose of maintaining order, and

upholding the government. As his mercenary soldiers were soon found

troublesome companions, he obtained permission to construct a

separate stronghold in the city, under color of keeping them apart

in the stricter discipline of a barrack.[1081] Having thus secured

a strong position, he invited Mithridates into the city, to receive

the promised possession; but instead of performing this engagement,

he detained the prince as prisoner, and only released him on payment

of a considerable ransom. He next cheated, still more grossly, the

oligarchy who had recalled him; denouncing their past misrule,

declaring himself their mortal enemy, and espousing the pretensions

as well as the antipathies of the plebs. The latter willingly

seconded him in his measures—even extreme measures of cruelty and

spoliation—against their political enemies. A large number of the

rich were killed, imprisoned, or impoverished and banished; their

slaves or serfs, too, were not only manumitted by order of the new

despot, but also married to the wives and daughters of the exiles.

The most tragical scenes arose out of these forced marriages; many

of the women even killed themselves, some after having first killed

their new husbands. Among the exiles, a party, driven to despair,

procured assistance from without, and tried to obtain by force

readmittance into the city; but they were totally defeated by

Klearchus, who after this victory became more brutal and unrelenting

than ever.[1082]

[1079] Diodor. xv. 81. ἐζήλωσε μὲν τὴν Διονυσίου τοῦ Συρακοσίου

διαγωγὴν, etc. Memnon, Fragm. c. 1; Isokrates, Epist. vii.

It is here that the fragments of Memnon, as abstracted by Photius

(Cod. 224), begin. Photius had seen only eight books of Memnon’s

History of Herakleia (Books ix.-xvi. inclusive); neither the

first eight books (see the end of his Excerpta from Memnon),

nor those after the sixteenth, had come under his view. This

is greatly to be regretted, as we are thus shut out from the

knowledge of Heraklean affairs anterior to Klearchus.

It happens, not unfrequently, with Photius, that he does not

possess an entire work, but only parts of it; this is a curious

fact, in reference to the libraries of the ninth century A.

D.

The fragments of Memnon are collected out of Photius, together

with those of Nymphis and other Herakleotic historians, and

illustrated with useful notes and citations, in the edition of

Orelli; as well as by K. Müller, in Didot’s Fragm. Hist. Græc.

tom. iii. p. 525. Memnon carried his history down to the time

of Julius Cæsar, and appears to have lived shortly after the

Christian era. Nymphis (whom he probably copied) was much older;

having lived seemingly from about 300-230 B. C. (see the

few Fragmenta remaining from him, in the same work, iii. p. 12).

The work of the Herakleotic author Herodôrus seems to have been

altogether upon legendary matter (see Fragm. in the same work,

ii. p. 27). He was half a century earlier than Nymphis.

[1080] Suidas v. Κλέαρχος.

[1081] Polyænus, ii. 30, 1; Justin, xvi. 4. “A quibus revocatus

in patriam, per quos in arce collocatus fuerat”, etc.

Æneas (Poliorket. c. 12) cites this proceeding as an example of

the mistake made by a political party, in calling in a greater

number of mercenary auxiliaries than they could manage or keep in

order.

[1082] Justin, xvi. 4, 5; Theopompus ap. Athenæ. iii. p. 85.

Fragm. 200, ed. Didot.

He was now in irresistible power; despot of the whole city, plebs as

well as oligarchy. Such he continued to be for twelve years; during

which he displayed great warlike energy against exterior enemies,

together with unabated cruelty towards the citizens. He farther

indulged in the most overweening insolence of personal demeanor,

adopting an Oriental costume and ornaments, and proclaiming himself

the son of Zeus—as Alexander the Great did after him. Amidst all

these enormities, however, his literary tastes did not forsake him;

he collected a library, at that time a very rare possession.[1083]

Many were the conspiracies attempted by suffering citizens against

this tyrant; but his vigilance baffled and punished all. At length

two young men, Chion and Leonidas (they too having been among the

hearers of Plato), found an opportunity to stab him at a Dionysiac

festival. They, with those who seconded them, were slain by his

guards, after a gallant resistance; but Klearchus himself died of the

wound, in torture and mental remorse.[1084]

[1083] Memnon, c. 1. The seventh Epistle of Isokrates, addressed

to Timotheus son of Klearchus, recognizes generally this

character of the latter with whose memory Isokrates disclaims all

sympathy.

[1084] Memnon, c. 1; Justin, xvi. 5; Diodor. xvi 36.

His death unfortunately brought no relief to the Herakleots. The two

sons whom he left, Timotheus and Dionysius, were both minors; but his

brother Satyrus, administering in their name, grasped the sceptre

and continued the despotism, with cruelty not merely undiminished,

but even aggravated and sharpened by the past assassination. Not

inferior to his predecessor in energy and vigilance, Satyrus was in

this respect different, that he was altogether rude and unlettered.

Moreover he was rigidly scrupulous in preserving the crown for his

brother’s children, as soon as they should be of age. To ensure to

them an undisturbed succession, he took every precaution to avoid

begetting children of his own by his wife.[1085] After a rule of

seven years, Satyrus died of a lingering and painful distemper.

[1085] Memnon, c. 2. ἐπὶ δὲ τῇ φιλαδελφίᾳ τὸ πρῶτον ἠνέγκατο·

τὴν γὰρ ἀρχὴν τοῖς τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ παισὶν ἀνεπηρέαστον συντηρῶν,

ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον τῆς αὐτῶν κηδεμονίας λόγον ἐτίθετο, ὡς καὶ γυναικὶ

συνὼν, καὶ τότε λίαν στεργομένῃ, μὴ ἀνασχέσθαι παιδοποιῆσαι,

ἀλλὰ μηχανῇ πάσῃ γονῆς στέρησιν ἑαυτῷ δικάσαι, ὡς ἂν μήδ᾽ ὅλως

ὑπολίποι τινὰ ἐφεδρεύοντα τοῖς τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ παισίν.

In the Antigonid dynasty of Macedonia, we read that Demetrius,

son of Antigonus Gonatas, died leaving his son Philip a boy.

Antigonus called Doson, younger brother of Demetrius, assumed the

regency on behalf of Philip; he married the widow of Demetrius,

and had children by her; but he was so anxious to guard Philip’s

succession against all chance of being disturbed, that he

refused to bring up his own children—Ὁ δὲ παιδῶν γενομένων ἐκ

τῆς Χρυσηΐδος, οὐκ ἀνεθρέψατο, τὴν ἀρχὴν τῷ Φιλιππῷ περισώζων

(Porphyry, Fragm. ap. Didot, Fragm. Histor. Græc. vol. iii. p.

701).

In the Greek and Roman world, the father was generally considered

to have the right of determining whether he would or would not

bring up a new-born child. The obligation was only supposed to

commence when he accepted or sanctioned it, by taking up the

child.

The government of Herakleia now devolved on Timotheus, who exhibited

a contrast, alike marked and beneficent, with his father and uncle.

Renouncing all their cruelty and constraint, he set at liberty

every man whom he found in prison. He was strict in dispensing

justice, but mild and even liberal in all his dealings towards the

citizens. At the same time, he was a man of adventurous courage,

carrying on successful war against foreign enemies, and making his

power respected all round. With his younger brother Dionysius, he

maintained perfect harmony, treating him as an equal and partner.

Though thus using his power generously towards the Herakleots, he

was, however, still a despot, and retained the characteristic marks

of despotism—the strong citadel, fortified separately from the town,

with a commanding mercenary force. After a reign of about nine years,

he died, deeply mourned by every one.[1086]

[1086] Memnon, c. 3. The Epistle of Isokrates (vii.) addressed to

Timotheus in recommendation of a friend, is in harmony with this

general character, but gives no new information.

Diodorus reckons Timotheus as immediately succeeding Klearchus

his father—considering Satyrus simply as regent (xvi. 36).

Dionysius, who succeeded him, fell upon unsettled times, full both

of hope and fear; opening chances of aggrandizement, yet with many

new dangers and uncertainties. The sovereignty which he inherited

doubtless included, not simply the city of Herakleia, but also

foreign dependencies and possessions in its neighborhood; for

his three predecessors[1087] had been all enterprising chiefs,

commanding a considerable aggressive force. At the commencement of

his reign, indeed, the ascendency of Memnon and the Persian force

in the north-western part of Asia Minor was at a higher pitch than

ordinary; it appears too that Klearchus—and probably his successors

also—had always taken care to keep on the best terms with the Persian

court.[1088] But presently came the invasion of Alexander (334 B.

C.), with the battle of the Granikus, which totally extinguished

the Persian power in Asia Minor, and was followed, after no long

interval, by the entire conquest of the Persian empire. The Persian

control being now removed from Asia Minor—while Alexander with the

great Macedonian force merely passed through it to the east, leaving

viceroys behind him—new hopes of independence or aggrandizement

began to arise among the native princes in Bithynia, Paphlagonia,

and Kappadokia. The Bithynian prince even contended successfully

in the field against Kalas, who had been appointed by Alexander as

satrap in Phrygia.[1089] The Herakleot Dionysius, on the other hand,

enemy by position of these Bithynians, courted the new Macedonian

potentates, playing his political game with much skill in every way.

He kept his forces well in hand, and his dominions carefully guarded;

he ruled in a mild and popular manner, so as to preserve among the

Herakleots the same feelings of attachment which had been inspired

by his predecessor. While the citizens of the neighboring Sinôpê (as

has been already related) sent their envoys to Darius, Dionysius kept

his eyes upon Alexander; taking care to establish a footing at Pella,

and being peculiarly assiduous in attentions to Alexander’s sister,

the princess Kleopatra.[1090] He was the better qualified for this

courtly service, as he was a man of elegant and ostentatious tastes,

and had purchased from his namesake, the fallen Syracusan Dionysius,

all the rich furniture of the Dionysian family, highly available for

presents.[1091]

[1087] We hear of Klearchus as having besieged Astakus

(afterwards Nikomedia)—at the interior extremity of the

north-eastern indentation of the Propontis, called the Gulf of

Astakus (Polyænus, ii. 30, 3).

[1088] Memnon, c. 1.

[1089] Memnon, c. 20.

[1090] Memnon, c. 3.

[1091] Memnon, c. 3. See in this History, Vol. XI. Ch. lxxxv. p.

154.

By the favor of Antipater and the regency at Pella, the Herakleotic

despot was enabled both to maintain and extend his dominions, until

the return of Alexander to Susa and Babylon in 324 B. C.

All other authority was now superseded by the personal will of the

omnipotent conqueror; who, mistrusting all his delegates—Antipater,

the princesses, and the satraps—listened readily to complainants from

all quarters, and took particular pride in espousing the pretensions

of Grecian exiles. I have already recounted how in June 324 B.

C., Alexander promulgated at the Olympic festival a sweeping

edict, directing that in every Grecian city the exiles should be

restored—by force, if force was required. Among the various Grecian

exiles, those from Herakleia were not backward in soliciting his

support, to obtain their own restoration, as well as the expulsion of

the despot. As they were entitled, along with others, to the benefit

of the recent edict, the position of Dionysius became one of extreme

danger. He now reaped the full benefit of his antecedent prudence,

in having maintained both his popularity with the Herakleots at

home, and his influence with Antipater, to whom the enforcement of

the edict was entrusted. He was thus enabled to ward off the danger

for a time; and his good fortune rescued him from it altogether, by

the death of Alexander in June 323 B. C. That event, coming

as it did unexpectedly upon every one, filled Dionysius with such

extravagant joy, that he fell into a swoon: and he commemorated it

by erecting a statue in honor of Euthymia, or the tranquillizing

goddess. His position however seemed again precarious, when the

Herakleotic exiles renewed their solicitations to Perdikkas: who

favored their cause, and might probably have restored them, if he had

chosen to direct his march towards the Hellespont against Antipater

and Kraterus, instead of undertaking the ill-advised expedition

against Egypt, wherein he perished.[1092]

[1092] Memnon, c. 4.

The tide of fortune now turned more than ever in favor of Dionysius.

With Antipater and Kraterus, the preponderant potentates in his

neighborhood, he was on the best terms; and it happened at this

juncture to suit the political views of Kraterus to dismiss his

Persian wife Amastris (niece of the late Persian king Darius,

and conferred upon Kraterus by Alexander when he himself married

Statira), for the purpose of espousing Phila daughter of Antipater.

Amastris was given in marriage to Dionysius; for him, a splendid

exaltation—attesting the personal influence which he had previously

acquired. His new wife, herself a woman of ability and energy,

brought to him a large sum from the regal treasure, as well as

the means of greatly extending his dominion round Herakleia.

Noway corrupted by this good fortune, he still persevered both in

his conciliating rule at home, and his prudent alliances abroad,

making himself especially useful to Antigonus. That great chief,

preponderant throughout most parts of Asia Minor, was establishing

his ascendency in Bithynia and the neighborhood of the Propontis,

by founding the city of Antigonia in the rich plain adjoining the

Askanian Lake.[1093] Dionysius lent effective maritime aid to

Antigonus, in that war which ended by his conquest of Cyprus from the

Egyptian Ptolemy (307 B. C.) To the other Ptolemy, nephew

and general of Antigonus, Dionysius gave his daughter in marriage;

and even felt himself powerful enough to assume the title of king,

after Antigonus, Lysimachus, and the Egyptian Ptolemy had done the

like.[1094] He died, after reigning thirty years with consummate

political skill and uninterrupted prosperity—except that during the

last few years he lost his health from excessive corpulence.[1095]

[1093] Strabo, xii. p. 565.

[1094] Memnon, c. 4: compare Diodor. xx. 53.

[1095] Nymphis, Fragm. 16. ap. Athenæum, xii. p. 549; Ælian, V.

H. ix. 13.

Dionysius left three children under age—Klearchus, Oxathres and

a daughter—by his wife Amastris; whom he constituted regent, and

who, partly through the cordial support of Antigonus, maintained

the Herakleotic dominion unimpaired. Presently Lysimachus, king

of Thrace and of the Thracian Chersonese (on the isthmus of

which he had founded the city of Lysimacheia), coveted this as a

valuable alliance, paid his court to Amastris, and married her. The

Herakleotic queen thus enjoyed double protection, and was enabled

to avoid taking a part in the formidable conflict of Ipsus (300

B. C.); wherein the allies Lysimachus, Kassander, Ptolemy,

and Seleukus were victorious over Antigonus. The latter being

slain, and his Asiatic power crushed, Lysimachus got possession

of Antigonia, the recent foundation of his rival in Bithynia, and

changed its name to Nikæa.[1096] After a certain time, however,

Lysimachus became desirous of marrying Arsinoê, daughter of the

Egyptian Ptolemy; accordingly, Amastris divorced herself from him,

and set up for herself separately as regent of Herakleia. Her two

sons being now nearly of age, she founded and fortified, for her

own residence, the neighboring city of Amastris, about sixty miles

eastward of Herakleia on the coast of the Euxine.[1097] These young

men, Klearchus and Oxathres, assumed the government of Herakleia, and

entered upon various warlike enterprises; of which we know only, that

Klearchus accompanied Lysimachus in his expedition against the Getæ,

sharing the fate of that prince, who was defeated and taken prisoner.

Both afterwards obtained their release, and Klearchus returned to

Herakleia; where he ruled in a cruel and oppressive manner, and even

committed the enormity (in conjunction with his brother Oxathres) of

killing his mother Amastris. This crime was avenged by her former

husband Lysimachus; who, coming to Herakleia under professions of

friendship (B. C. 286), caused Klearchus and Oxathres to be

put to death, seized their treasure, and keeping separate possession

of the citadel only, allowed the Herakleots to establish a popular

government.[1098]

[1096] Strabo, xii. p. 565. So also Antioch, on the Orontes in

Syria, the great foundation of Seleukus Nikator, was established

on or near the site of another Antigonia, also previously founded

by Antigonus Monophthalmus (Strabo, xv. p. 750).

[1097] Strabo, xii. p. 544.

[1098] Memnon, c. 6.

Lysimachus, however, was soon persuaded by his wife Arsinoê to make

over Herakleia to her, as it had been formerly possessed by Amastris;

and Arsinoê sent thither a Kymæan officer named Herakleides, who

carried with him force sufficient to re-establish the former

despotism, with its oppressions and cruelties. For other purposes

too, not less mischievous, the influence of Arsinoê was all-powerful.

She prevailed upon Lysimachus to kill his eldest son (by a former

marriage) Agathokles, a young prince of the most estimable and

eminent qualities. Such an atrocity, exciting universal abhorrence

among the subjects of Lysimachus, enabled his rival Seleukus to

attack him with success. In a great battle fought between these two

princes, Lysimachus was defeated and slain—by the hand and javelin of

a citizen of Herakleia, named Malakon.[1099]

[1099] Memnon, c. 7, 8.

This victory transferred the dominions of the vanquished prince to

Seleukus. At Herakleia too, its effect was so powerful, that the

citizens were enabled to shake off their despotism. They at first

tried to make terms with the governor Herakleides, offering him money

as an inducement to withdraw. From him they obtained only an angry

refusal; yet his subordinate officers of mercenaries, and commanders

of detached posts in the Herakleotic territory, mistrusting their

own power of holding out, accepted an amicable compromise with the

citizens, who tendered to them full liquidation of arrears of pay,

together with the citizenship. The Herakleots were this enabled

to discard Herakleides, and regain their popular government. They

signalized their revolution by the impressive ceremony of demolishing

their Bastile—the detached fort or stronghold within the city, which

had served for eighty-four years as the characteristic symbol, and

indispensable engine, of the antecedent despotism.[1100] The city,

now again a free commonwealth, was farther reinforced by the junction

of Nymphis (the historian) and other Herakleotic citizens, who

had hitherto been in exile. These men were restored, and welcomed

by their fellow-citizens in full friendship and harmony; yet with

express proviso, that no demand should be made for the restitution

of their properties, long since confiscated.[1101] To the victor

Seleukus, however, and his officer Aphrodisius, the bold bearing

of the newly-emancipated Herakleots proved offensive. They would

probably have incurred great danger from him, had not his mind been

first set upon the conquest of Macedonia in the accomplishment of

which he was murdered by Ptolemy Keraunus.

[1100] Memnon, c. 9; Strabo, xii. p. 542.

[1101] Memnon, c. 11.

The Herakleots thus became again a commonwealth of free citizens,

without any detached citadel or mercenary garrison; yet they lost,

seemingly through the growing force and aggressions of some inland

dynasts, several of their outlying dependencies—Kierus, Tium,

and Amastris. The two former they recovered some time afterwards

by purchase, and they wished also to purchase back Amastris; but

Eumenes, who held it, hated them so much, that he repudiated their

money, and handed over the place gratuitously to the Kappadokian

chief Ariobarzanes.[1102] That their maritime power was at this time

very great, we may see by the astonishing account given of their

immense ships,—numerously manned, and furnished with many brave

combatants on the deck—which fought with eminent distinction in the

naval battle between Ptolemy Keraunus (murderer and successor of

Seleukus) and Antigonus Gonatas.[1103]

[1102] Memnon, c. 16. The inhabitants of Byzantium also purchased

for a considerable sum the important position called the Ἱερὸν,

at the entrance of the Euxine on the Asiatic side (Polybius, iv.

50).

These are rare examples, in ancient history, of cities acquiring

territory or dependencies _by purchase_. Acquisitions were often

made in this manner by the free German, Swiss, and Italian cities

of mediæval Europe; but as to the Hellenic cities, I have not had

occasion to record many such transactions in the course of this

history.

[1103] Memnon, c. 13: compare Polyb. xviii. 34.

It is not my purpose to follow lower down the destinies of Herakleia.

It maintained its internal autonomy, with considerable maritime

power, a dignified and prudent administration, and a partial, though

sadly circumscribed, liberty of foreign action—until the successful

war of the Romans against Mithridates (B. C. 69). In Asia Minor, the

Hellenic cities on the coast were partly enabled to postpone the

epoch of their subjugation, by the great division of power which

prevailed in the interior; for the potentates, of Bithynia, Pergamus,

Kappadokia, Pontus, Syria, were in almost perpetual discord—while

all of them were menaced by the intrusion of the warlike and

predatory Gauls, who extorted for themselves settlements in Galatia

(B. C. 276). The kings, the enemies of civic freedom, were kept

partially in check by these new and formidable neighbors,[1104]

who were themselves however hardly less formidable to the Grecian

cities on the coast.[1105] Sinôpê, Herakleia, Byzantium,—and even

Rhodes, in spite of the advantage of an insular position,—isolated

relics of what had once been an Hellenic aggregate, become from

henceforward cribbed and confined by inland neighbors almost at their

gates[1106]—dependent on the barbaric potentates, between whom they

were compelled to trim, making themselves useful in turn to all. It

was however frequent with these barbaric princes to derive their

wives, mistresses, ministers, negotiators, officers, engineers,

literati, artists, actors, and intermediate agents both for ornament

and recreation—from some Greek city. Among them all, more or less

of Hellenic influence became thus insinuated; along with the Greek

language which spread its roots everywhere—even among the Gauls or

Galatians, the rudest and latest of the foreign immigrants.

[1104] This is a remarkable observation made by Memnon, c. 19.

[1105] See the statement of Polybius, xxii. 24.

[1106] Contrast the independent and commanding position occupied

by Byzantium in 399 B. C., acknowledging no superior

except Sparta (Xenoph. Anab. vii. 1)—with its condition in the

third century B. C.—harassed and pillaged almost to

the gates of the town by the neighboring Thracians and Gauls,

and only purchased immunity by continued money payments: see

Polybius, iv. 45.

Of the Grecian maritime towns in the Euxine south of the

Danube—Apollonia, Mesembria, Odêssus, Kallatis, Tomi, and Istrus—five

(seemingly without Tomi) formed a confederate Pentapolis.[1107] About

the year 312 B. C., we hear of them as under the power of

Lysimachus king of Thrace, who kept a garrison in Kallatis—probably

in the rest also. They made a struggle to shake off his yoke,

obtaining assistance from some of the neighboring Thracians and

Scythians, as well as from Antigonus. But Lysimachus, after a contest

which seems to have lasted three or four years, overpowered both

their allies and them, reducing them again into subjection.[1108]

Kallatis sustained a long siege, dismissing some of its ineffective

residents; who were received and sheltered by Eumelus prince of

Bosporus. It was in pushing his conquests yet farther northward, in

the steppe between the rivers Danube and Dniester, that Lysimachus

came into conflict with the powerful prince of the Getæ—Dromichætes;

by whom he was defeated and captured, but generously released.[1109]

I have already mentioned that the empire of Lysimachus ended with

his last defeat and death by Seleukus—(281 B. C.). By his

death, the cities of the Pontic Pentapolis regained a temporary

independence. But their barbaric neighbors became more and more

formidable, being reinforced seemingly by immigration of fresh

hordes from Asia; thus the Sarmatians, who in Herodotus’s time were

on the east of the Tanais, appear, three centuries afterwards, even

south of the Danube. By these tribes—Thracians, Getæ, Scythians, and

Sarmatians—the Greek cities of this Pentapolis were successively

pillaged. Though renewed indeed afterwards, from the necessity

of some place of traffic, even for the pillagers themselves—they

were but poorly renewed, with a large infusion of barbaric

residents.[1110] Such was the condition in which the exile Ovid found

Tomi, near the beginning of the Christian era. The Tomitans were more

than half barbaric, and their Greek not easily intelligible. The

Sarmatian or Getic horse-bowmen, with their poisoned arrows, ever

hovered near, galloped even up to the gates, and carried off the

unwary cultivators into slavery. Even within a furlong of the town,

there was no security either for person or property. The residents

were clothed in skins, or leather; while the women, ignorant both of

spinning and weaving, were employed either in grinding corn or in

carrying on their heads the pitchers of water.[1111]

[1107] Strabo, vii. p. 319. Philip of Macedon defeated the

Scythian prince Atheas or Ateas (about 340 B. C.)

somewhere between Mount Hæmus and the Danube (Justin, ix. 2). But

the relations of Ateas with the towns of Istrus and Apollonia,

which are said to have brought Philip into the country, are very

difficult to understand. It is most probable that these cities

invited Philip as their defender.

In Inscription No. 2056 c. (in Boeckh’s Corp. Inscript. Græc.

part xi. p. 79), the five cities constituting the Pentapolis

are not clearly named. Boeckh supposes them to be Apollonia,

Mesembria, Odêssus, Kallatis, and Tomi; but Istrus seems more

probable than Tomi. Odêssus was on the site of the modern Varna

where the Inscription was found; greatly south of the modern town

of Odessa, which is on the site of another town _Ordêsus_.

An Inscription (2056) immediately preceding the above, also found

at Odêssus, contains a vote of thanks and honors to a certain

citizen of Antioch, who resided with ... (name imperfect), king

of the Scythians and rendered great service to the Greeks by his

influence.

[1108] Diodor. xix. 73; xx. 25.

[1109] Strabo, vii. p. 302-305; Pausanias, i. 9, 5.

[1110] Dion Chrysost. Orat. xxxvi. (Borysthenitica) p. 75, Reisk.

εἶλον δὲ καὶ ταύτην (Olbia) Γέται, καὶ τὰς ἄλλας τὰς ἐν τοῖς

ἀριστέροις τοῦ Πόντου πόλεις, μέχρι Ἀπολλωνίας· ὅθεν δὴ καὶ σφόδρα

ταπεινὰ τὰ πράγματα κατέστη τῶν ταύτῃ Ἑλλήνων· τῶν μὲν οὐκέτι

συνοικισθεισῶν πόλεων, τῶν δὲ φαυλῶς, καὶ τῶν πλείστων βαρβάρων

εἰς αὐτὰς συῤῥεόντων.

[1111] The picture drawn by Ovid, of his situation as an exile

at Tomi, can never fail to interest, from the mere beauty and

felicity of his expression; but it is not less interesting, as

a real description of Hellenism in its last phase, degraded and

overborne by adverse fates. The truth of Ovid’s picture is fully

borne out by the analogy of Olbia, presently to be mentioned. His

complaints run through the five books of the Tristia, and the

four books of Epistolæ ex Ponto (Trist. v. 10, 15).

“Innumeræ circa gentes fera bella minantur,

Quæ sibi non rapto vivere turpe putant.

Nil extra tutum est: tumulus defenditur ægre

Mœnibus exiguis ingenioque soli.

Cum minime credas, ut avis, densissimus hostis

Advolat, et prædam vix bene visus agit.

Sæpe intra muros clausis venientia portis

Per medias legimus noxia tela vias.

Est igitur rarus, qui colere audeat, isque

Hac arat infelix, hac tenet arma manu.

Vix ope castelli defendimur: et tamen intus

Mista facit Græcis barbara turba metum.

Quippe simul nobis habitat discrimine nullo

Barbarus, et tecti plus quoque parte tenet.

Quos ut non timeas, possis odisse, videndo

Pellibus et longâ corpora tecta comâ.

Hos quoque, qui geniti Graiâ creduntur ab urbe,

Pro patrio cultu Persica bracca tegit,” etc.

This is a specimen out of many others: compare Trist. iii. 10,

53; iv. 1, 67; Epist. Pont. iii. 1.

Ovid dwells especially upon the fact that there was more of

barbaric than of Hellenic speech at Tomi—“Graiaque quod Getico

victa loquela sono est” (Trist. v. 2, 68). Woollen clothing, and

the practice of spinning and weaving by the free women of the

family, were among the most familiar circumstances of Grecian

life; the absence of these feminine arts, and the use of skins or

leather for clothing, were notable departures from Grecian habits

(Ex Ponto, iii. 8):—

“Vellera dura ferunt pecudes; et Palladis uti

Arte Tomitanæ non didicere nurus.

Femina pro lanâ Cerealia munera frangit,

Suppositoque gravem vertice portat aquam.”

By these same barbarians, Olbia also (on the right bank of the

Hypanis or Bug near its mouth) became robbed of that comfort and

prosperity which it had enjoyed when visited by Herodotus. In his

day, the Olbians lived on good terms with the Scythian tribes in

their neighborhood. They paid a stipulated tribute, giving presents

besides to the prince and his immediate favorites; and on these

conditions, their persons and properties were respected. The Scythian

prince Skylês (son of an Hellenic mother from Istrus, who had

familiarized him with Greek speech and letters) had built a fine

house in the town, and spent in it a month, from attachment to Greek

manners and religion, while his Scythian army lay near the gates

without molesting any one.[1112] It is true, that this proceeding

cost Skylês his life; for the Scythians would not tolerate their own

prince in the practice of foreign religious rites, though they did

not quarrel with the same rites when observed by the Greeks.[1113]

To their own customs the Scythians adhered tenaciously, and those

customs were often sanguinary, ferocious, and brutish. Still they

were warriors, rather than robbers—they abstained from habitual

pillage, and maintained with the Greeks a reputation for honesty and

fair dealing, which became proverbial with the early poets. Such were

the Scythians as seen by Herodotus (probably about 440 to 430 B. C.);

and the picture drawn by Ephorus a century afterwards (about 340 B.

C.), appears to have been not materially different.[1114] But after

that time it gradually altered. New tribes seem to have come in—the

Sarmatians out of the East—the Gauls out of the West; from Thrace

northward to the Tanais and the Palus Mæotis, the most different

tribes became intermingled—Gauls, Thracians, Getæ, Scythians,

Sarmatians, etc.[1115] Olbia was in an open plain, with no defence

except its walls and the adjoining river Hypanis, frozen over in the

winter. The hybrid Helleno-Scythian race, formed by intermarriages of

Greeks with Scythians—and the various Scythian tribes who had become

partially sedentary cultivators of corn for exportation—had probably

also acquired habits less warlike than the tribes of primitive

barbaric type. At any rate, even if capable of defending themselves,

they could not continue their production and commerce under repeated

hostile incursions.

[1112] Herodot. iv. 16-18. The town was called _Olbia_ by its

inhabitants, but _Borysthenes_ usually by foreigners; though it

was not on the Borysthenes river (Dnieper), but on the right bank

of the Hypanis (Bug).

[1113] Herodot. iv. 76-80.

[1114] Strabo, vii. p. 302: Skymnus Chius, v. 112, who usually

follows Ephorus.

The rhetor Dion tells us (Orat. xxxvi. init.) that he went to

Olbia in order that he might _go through the Scythians to the

Getæ_. This shows that in his time (about A. D. 100)

the Scythians must have been between the Bug and Dniester—the

Getæ nearer to the Danube—just as they had been four centuries

earlier. But many new hordes were mingled with them.

[1115] Strabo, vii. p. 296-304.

A valuable inscription remaining enables us to compare the Olbia (or

Borysthenes) seen by Herodotus, with the same town in the second

century B. C.[1116] At this latter period, the city was diminished

in population, impoverished in finances, exposed to constantly

increasing exactions and menace from the passing barbaric hordes,

and scarcely able to defend against them even the security of its

walls. Sometimes there approached the barbaric chief Saitapharnes

with his personal suite, sometimes his whole tribe or horde in mass,

called Saii. Whenever they came, they required to be appeased by

presents, greater than the treasury could supply, and borrowed only

from the voluntary help of rich citizens; while even these presents

did not always avert ill treatment or pillage. Already the citizens

of Olbia had repelled various attacks, partly by taking into pay

a semi-Hellenic population in their neighborhood (Mix-Hellenes,

like the Liby-Phenicians in Africa); but the inroads became more

alarming, and their means of defence less, through the uncertain

fidelity of these Mix-Hellenes, as well as of their own slaves—the

latter probably barbaric natives purchased from the interior.[1117]

In the midst of public poverty, it was necessary to enlarge and

strengthen the fortifications; for they were threatened with the

advent of the Gauls—who inspired such terror that the Scythians and

other barbarians were likely to seek their own safety by extorting

admission within the walls of Olbia. Moreover even corn was scarce,

and extravagantly dear. There had been repeated failures in the

produce of the lands around, famine was apprehended, and efforts were

needed, greater than the treasury could sustain, to lay in a stock at

the public expense. Among the many points of contrast with Herodotus,

this is perhaps the most striking; for in his time, corn was the

great produce and the principal export from Olbia; the growth had now

been suspended, or was at least perpetually cut off, by increased

devastation and insecurity.

[1116] This Inscription—No. 2058—in Boeckh’s Inscr. Græc. part

xi. p. 121 _seq._—is among the most interesting in that noble

collection. It records a vote of public gratitude and honor to

a citizen of Olbia named Protogenes, and recites the valuable

services which he as well as his father had rendered to the

city. It thus describes the numerous situations of difficulty

and danger from which he had contributed to extricate them. A

vivid picture is presented to us of the distress of the city.

The introduction prefixed by Boeckh (p. 86-89) is also very

instructive.

Olbia is often spoken of by the name of _Borysthenes_, which

name was given to it by foreigners, but not recognized by the

citizens. Nor was it even situated on the Borysthenes river; but

on the right or western bank of the Hypanis (Bug) river; not far

from the modern Oczakoff.

The date of the above Inscription is not specified, and has been

differently determined by various critics. Niebuhr assigns it

(Untersuchungen über die Skythen, etc. in his Kleine Schriften,

p. 387) to a time near the close of the second Punic war. Boeckh

also believes that it is not much after that epoch. The terror

inspired by the Gauls, even to other barbarians, appears to suit

the second century B. C. better than it suits a later

period.

The Inscription No. 2059 attests the great number of strangers

resident at Olbia; strangers from eighteen different cities, of

which the most remote is Miletus, the mother-city of Olbia.

[1117] On one occasion, we know not when, the citizens of Olbia

are said to have been attacked by one Zopyrion, and to have

succeeded in resisting him only by emancipating their slaves, and

granting the citizenship to foreigners (Macrobius, Saturnal. i.

11).

After perpetual attacks, and even several captures, by barbaric

neighbors—this unfortunate city, about fifty years before the

Christian era, was at length so miserably sacked by the Getæ, as to

become for a time abandoned.[1118] Presently, however, the fugitives

partially returned, to re-establish themselves on a reduced scale.

For the very same barbarians who had persecuted and plundered them,

still required an emporium with a certain amount of import and

export, such as none but Greek settlers could provide; moreover it

was from the coast near Olbia, and from care of its inhabitants, that

many of the neighboring tribes derived their supply of salt.[1119]

Hence arose a puny after-growth of Olbia—preserving the name,

traditions, and part of the locality, of the deserted city—by the

return of a portion of the colonists with an infusion of Scythian or

Sarmatian residents; an infusion indeed so large, as seriously to

dishellenize both the speech and the personal names in the town.[1120]

[1118] Dion Chrys. (Or. xxxvi. p. 75), ἀεὶ μὲν πολεμεῖται,

πολλάκις δὲ καὶ ἑάλωκε, etc.

[1119] Dion Chrysost. Orat. xxxvi. (Borysthenit.) p. 75, 76,

Reisk.

[1120] See Boeckh’s Commentary on the language and personal names

of the Olbian Inscriptions, part xi. p. 108-116.

To this second edition of Olbia, the rhetor Dion Chrysostom paid a

summer visit (about a century after the Christian era), of which

he has left a brief but interesting account. Within the wide area

once filled by the original Olbia—the former circumference of which

was marked by crumbling walls and towers—the second town occupied

a narrow corner; with poor houses, low walls, and temples having

no other ornament except the ancient statues mutilated by the

plunderers. The citizens dwelt in perpetual insecurity, constantly

under arms or on guard; for the barbaric horsemen, in spite of

sentinels posted to announce their approach, often carried off

prisoners, cattle, or property, from the immediate neighborhood

of the gates. The picture drawn of Olbia by Dion confirms in a

remarkable way that given of Tomi by Ovid. And what imparts to it

a touching interest is, that the Greeks whom Dion saw contending

with the difficulties, privations, and dangers of this inhospitable

outpost, still retained the activity, the elegance, and the

intellectual aspirations of their Ionic breed; in this respect much

superior to the Tomitans of Ovid. In particular, they were passionate

admirers of Homer; a considerable proportion of the Greeks of Olbia

could repeat the Iliad from memory.[1121] Achilles (localized under

the surname of Pontarches, on numerous islands and capes in the

Euxine) was among the chief divine or heroic persons to whom they

addressed their prayers.[1122] Amidst Grecian life, thus degraded

and verging towards its extinction, and stripped even of the purity

of living speech—the thread of imaginative and traditional sentiment

thus continues without suspension or abatement.

[1121] Dion, Orat. xxxvi. (Borysthenit.), p. 78, Reiske. ... καὶ

τἄλλα μὲν οὐκέτι σαφῶς ἑλληνίζοντες, διὰ τὸ ἐν μέσοις οἰκεῖν τοῖς

βαρβάροις, ὅμως τήν γε Ἰλιάδα ὀλίγου πάντες ἴσασιν ἀπὸ στόματος.

I translate the words ὀλίγου πάντες with some allowance for

rhetoric.

The representation given by Dion of the youthful citizen of

Olbia—Kallistratus—with whom he conversed, is curious as a

picture of Greek manners in this remote land; a youth of eighteen

years of age, with genuine Ionic features, and conspicuous for

his beauty (εἶχε πολλοὺς ἐραστάς) a zealot for literature and

philosophy, but especially for Homer; clothed in the costume of

the place, suited for riding—the long leather trowsers, and short

black cloak; constantly on horseback for defence of the town, and

celebrated as a warrior even at that early age, having already

killed or made prisoners several Sarmatians (p. 77).

[1122] See Inscriptions, Nos. 2076, 2077, ap. Boeckh; and

Arrian’s Periplus of the Euxine, ap. Geogr. Minor. p. 21, ed.

Hudson.

Respecting Bosporus or Pantikapæum (for both names denote the same

city, though the former name often comprehends the whole annexed

dominion), founded by Milesian settlers[1123] on the European side

of the Kimmerian Bosporus (near Kertsch), we first hear, about

the period when Xerxes was repulsed from Greece (480-479 B.

C.). It was the centre of a dominion including Phanagoria,

Kepi, Hermonassa, and other Greek cities on the Asiatic side of the

strait; and is said to have been governed by what seems to have been

an oligarchy—called the Archæanaktidæ, for forty-two years[1124]

(480-438 B. C.).

[1123] Strabo, vii. p. 310.

[1124] Diodor. xii. 31.

After them we have a series of princes standing out individually by

name, and succeeding each other in the same family. Spartokus I. was

succeeded by Seleukus; next comes Spartokus II.; then Satyrus I.

(407-393 B. C.); Leukon (393-353 B. C.); Spartokus III. (353-348 B.

C.); Parisades I. (348-310 B. C.); Satyrus II., Prytanis, Eumelus

(310-304 B. C.); Spartokus IV. (304-284 B. C.); Parisades II.[1125]

During the reigns of these princes, a connection of some intimacy

subsisted between Athens and Bosporus; a connection not political,

since the Bosporanic princes had little interest in the contentions

about Hellenic hegemony—but of private intercourse, commercial

interchange, and reciprocal good offices. The eastern corner of

the Tauric Chersonesus, between Pantikapæum and Theodosia, was

well-suited for the production of corn; while plenty of fish, as well

as salt, was to be had in or near the Palus Mæotis. Corn, salted

fish and meat, hides, and barbaric slaves in considerable numbers,

were in demand among all the Greeks round the Ægean, and not least

at Athens, where Scythian slaves were numerous;[1126] while oil and

wine, with other products of more southern regions, were acceptable

in Bosporus and the other Pontic ports. This important traffic seems

to have been mainly carried on in ships and by capital belonging to

Athens and other Ægean maritime towns; and must have been greatly

under the protection and regulation of the Athenians, so long as

their maritime empire subsisted. Enterprising citizens of Athens went

to Bosporus (as to Thrace and the Thracian Chersonesus), to push

their fortunes; merchants from other cities found it advantageous to

settle as resident strangers or metics at Athens, where they were

more in contact with the protecting authority, and obtained readier

access to the judicial tribunals. It was probably during the period

preceding the great disaster at Syracuse in 413 B. C., that Athens

first acquired her position as a mercantile centre for the trade with

the Euxine; which we afterwards find her retaining, even with reduced

power, in the time of Demosthenes.

[1125] See Mr. Clinton’s Appendix on the Kings of Bosporus—Fast.

Hellen. App. c. 13. p. 280. etc.; and Boeckh’s Commentary on the

same subject, Inscript. Græc. part xi. p. 91 _seq._

[1126] Polybius (iv. 38) enumerates the principal articles of

this Pontic trade; among the exports τά τε δέρματα καὶ τὸ τῶν εἰς

τὰς δουλείας ἀγομένων σωμάτων πλῆθος, etc., where Schweighäuser

has altered ~δέρματα~ to ~θρέμματα~ seemingly on the authority

of one MS. only. I doubt the propriety of this change, as well

as the facts of any large exportation of live cattle from the

Pontus; whereas the exportation of hides was considerable: see

Strabo, xi. p. 493.

The Scythian public slaves or policemen of Athens are well known.

Σκύθαινα also is the name of a female slave (Aristoph. Lysistr.

184). Σκύθης, for the name of a slave, occurs as early as

Theognis, v. 826.

Some of the salted preparations from the Pontus were

extravagantly dear; Cato complained of a κεράμιον Ποντικῶν

ταρίχον as sold for 300 drachmæ (Polyb. xxxi. 24).

How strong was the position enjoyed by Athens in Bosporus, during

her unimpaired empire, we may judge from the fact, that Nymphæum

(south of Pantikapæum, between that town and Theodosia) was among

her tributary towns, and paid a talent annually.[1127] Not until

the misfortunes of Athens in the closing years of the Peloponnesian

war, did Nymphæum pass into the hands of the Bosporanic princes;

betrayed (according to Æschines) by the maternal grandfather of

Demosthenes, the Athenian Gylon; who however probably did nothing

more than obey a necessity rendered unavoidable by the fallen

condition of Athens.[1128] We thus see that Nymphæum, in the midst

of the Bosporanic dominion, was not only a member of the Athenian

empire, but also contained influential Athenian citizens, engaged

in the corn-trade. Gylon was rewarded by a large grant of land at

Kepi—probably other Athenians of Nymphæum were rewarded also—by

the Bosporanic prince; who did not grudge a good price for such an

acquisition. We find also other instances,—both of Athenian citizens

sent out to reside with the prince Satyrus,—and of Pontic Greeks who,

already in correspondence and friendship with various individual

Athenians, consign their sons to be initiated in the commerce,

society, and refinements of Athens.[1129] Such facts attest the

correspondence and intercourse of that city, during her imperial

greatness, with Bosporus.

[1127] Harpokration and Photius, v. Νυμφαῖον—from the ψηφίσματα

collected by Kraterus. Compare Boeckh, in the second edition of

his Staatshaushaltung der Athener, vol. ii. p. 658.

[1128] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 78. c. 57. See my last preceding

Vol. XI. Ch. lxxxvii. p. 263.

[1129] Lysias, pro Mantitheo, Or. xvi. s. 4; Isokrates

(Trapezitic.), Or. xvii. s. 5. The young man, whose case

Isokrates sets forth, was sent to Athens by his father Sopæus,

a rich Pontic Greek (s. 52) much in the confidence of Satyrus.

Sopæus furnished his son with two ship-loads of corn, and with

money besides—and then despatched him to Athens ἅμα κατ᾽ ἐμπορίαν

καὶ κατὰ θεωρίαν.

The Bosporanic prince Satyrus was in the best relations with Athens,

and even seems to have had authorized representatives there to

enforce his requests, which met with very great attention.[1130]

He treated the Athenian merchants at Bosporus with equity and

even favor, granting to them a preference in the export of corn

when there was not enough for all.[1131] His son Leukon not only

continued the preference to Athenian exporting ships, but also

granted to them remission of the export duty (of one-thirtieth

part), which he exacted from all other traders. Such an exemption

is reckoned as equivalent to an annual present of 13,000 medimni of

corn (the medimnus being about 1⅓ bushel); the total quantity of

corn brought from Bosporus to Athens in a full year being 400,000

medimni.[1132] It is easy to see moreover that such a premium must

have thrown nearly the whole exporting trade into the hands of

Athenian merchants. The Athenians requited this favor by public votes

of gratitude and honor, conferring upon Leukon the citizenship,

together with immunity from all the regular burthens attaching to

property at Athens. There was lying in that city money belonging

to Leukon;[1133] who was therefore open (under the proposition of

Leptines) to that conditional summons for exchange of properties,

technically termed Antidosis. In his time, moreover, the corn-trade

of Bosporus appears to have been farther extended; for we learn that

he established an export from Theodosia as well as from Pantikapæum.

His successor Parisades I. continuing to Athenian exporters of corn

the same privilege of immunity from export duty, obtained from Athens

still higher honors than Leukon; for we learn that his statue,

together with those of two relatives, was erected in the agora, on

the motion of Demosthenes.[1134] The connection of Bosporus with

Athens was durable as well as intimate; its corn-trade being of high

importance to the subsistence of the people. Every Athenian exporter

was bound by law to bring his cargo in the first instance to Athens.

The freighting and navigating of ships for that purpose, together

with the advance of money by rich capitalists (citizens and metics)

upon interest and conditions enforced by the Athenian judicature,

was a standing and profitable business. And we may appreciate the

value of equitable treatment, not to say favor, from the kings of

Bosporus—when we contrast it with the fraudulent and extortionate

behavior of Kleomenes, satrap of Egypt, in reference to the export of

Egyptian corn.[1135]

[1130] Isokrates, Trapez. s. 5, 6. Sopæus, father of this

pleader, had incurred the suspicions of Satyrus in the Pontus,

and had been arrested; upon which Satyrus sends to Athens

to seize the property of the son, to order him home,—and if

he refused, then to require the Athenians to deliver him

up—ἐπιστέλλει δὲ τοῖς ἐνθάδε ἐπιδημοῦσιν ἐκ τοῦ Πόντου τά τε

χρήματα παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ κομίσασθαι, etc.

[1131] Isokrates, Trapezit. s. 71. Demosthenes also recognizes

favors from Satyrus—καὶ αὐτὸς (Leukon) καὶ οἱ πρόγονοι, etc.

(adv. Leptin. p. 467).

[1132] Demosth. adv. Leptin., p. 467.

[1133] Demosth. adv. Leptin., p. 469.

[1134] Demosth. adv. Phormion., p. 917; Deinarchus adv. Demosth.,

p. 34. The name stands Berisades as printed in the oration; but

it is plain that Parisades is the person designated. See Boeckh,

Introd. ad Inscr. No. 2056, p. 92.

Deinarchus avers, that Demosthenes received an annual present of

1000 modii of corn from Bosporus.

[1135] Demosthen. adv. Dionysodor. p. 1285.

The political condition of the Greeks at Bosporus was somewhat

peculiar. The hereditary princes (above enumerated), who ruled them

substantially as despots, assumed no other title (in respect to

the Greeks) than that of Archon. They paid tribute to the powerful

Scythian tribes who bounded them on the European side, and even

thought it necessary to carry a ditch across the narrow isthmus,

from some point near Theodosia northward to the Palus Mæotis, as a

protection against incursions.[1136] Their dominion did not extend

farther west than Theodosia; this ditch was their extreme western

boundary; and even for the land within it, they paid tribute. But

on the Asiatic side of the strait, they were lords paramount for a

considerable distance, over the feebler and less warlike tribes who

pass under the common name of Mæotæ or Mæêtae—the Sindi, Toreti,

Dandarii, Thatês, etc. Inscriptions, yet remaining, of Parisades I.

record him as King of these various barbaric tribes, but as Archon of

Bosporus and Theodosia.[1137] His dominion on the Asiatic side of the

Kimmerian Bosporus, sustained by Grecian and Thracian mercenaries,

was of considerable (though to us unknown) extent, reaching to

somewhere near the borders of Caucasus.[1138]

[1136] Strabo, vii. p. 310, 311.

[1137] See Inscript. Nos. 2117, 2118, 2119, in Boeckh’s

Collection, p. 156.

In the Memorabilia of Xenophon (ii. 1, 10). Sokrates cites the

Scythians as an example of ruling people, and the Mæotæ as an

example of subjects. Probably this refers to the position of the

Bosporanic Greeks, who paid tribute to the Scythians, but ruled

over the Mæotæ. The name _Mæotæ_ seems confined to tribes on the

Asiatic side of the Palus Mæotis; while the Scythians were on the

European side of that sea. Sokrates and the Athenians had good

means of being informed about the situation of the Bosporani and

their neighbors on both sides. See K. Neumann, die Hellenen im

Skythenlande, b. ii. p. 216.

[1138] This boundary is attested in another Inscription No.

2104, of the same collection. Inscription No. 2103, seems to

indicate Arcadian mercenaries in the service of Leukon: about the

mercenaries, see Diodor. xx. 22.

Parisades I. is said to have been worshipped as a god, after his

death (Strabo, vii. p. 310).

Parisades I. on his death left three sons—Satyrus, Prytanis, and

Eumelus. Satyrus, as the eldest, succeeded; but Eumelus claimed the

crown, sought aid without, and prevailed on various neighbors—among

them a powerful Thracian king named Ariopharnes—to espouse his

cause. At the head of an army said to consist of 20,000 horse and

22,000 foot, the two allies marched to attack the territories of

Satyrus, who advanced to meet them, with 2000 Grecian mercenaries,

and 2000 Thracians of his own, reinforced by a numerous body of

Scythian allies—20,000 foot, and 10,000 horse, and carrying with him

a plentiful supply of provisions in waggons. He gained a complete

victory, compelling Eumelus and Ariopharnes to retreat and seek

refuge in the regal residence of the latter, near the river Thapsis;

a fortress built of timber, and surrounded with forest, river, marsh,

and rock, so as to be very difficult of approach. Satyrus, having

first plundered the country around, which supplied a rich booty of

prisoners and cattle, proceeded to assail his enemies in their almost

impracticable position. But though he, and Meniskus his general of

mercenaries, made the most strenuous efforts, and even carried some

of the outworks, they were repulsed from the fortress itself; and

Satyrus, exposing himself forwardly to extricate Meniskus, received

a wound of which he shortly died—after a reign of nine months.

Meniskus, raising the siege, withdrew the army to Gargaza; from

whence he conveyed back the regal corpse to Pantikapæum.[1139]

[1139] Diodor. xx. 24 The scene of these military operations

(as far as we can pretend to make it out from the brief and

superficial narrative of Diodorus), seems to have been on the

European side of Bosporus; somewhere between the Borysthenes

river and the Isthmus of Perekop, in the territory called by

Herodotus _Hylæa_. This is Niebuhr’s opinion, which I think more

probable than that of Boeckh, who supposes the operations to have

occurred on the Asiatic territory of Bosporus. So far I concur

with Niebuhr; but his reasons for placing Dromichætes king of the

Getæ (the victor over Lysimachus), east of the Borysthenes, are

noway satisfactory.

Compare Niebuhr’s Untersuchungen über die Skythen, etc. (in

his Kleine Schriften, p. 380). with Boeckh’s Commentary on the

Sarmatian Inscriptions, Corp. Ins. Græc. part xi. p. 83-103.

The mention by Diodorus of a wooden fortress, surrounded by

morass and forest, is curious, and may be illustrated by the

description in Herodotus (iv. 108) of the city of the Budini.

This habit of building towns and fortifications of wood,

prevailed among the Slavonic population in Russia and Poland

until far down in the middle ages. See Paul Joseph Schaffarik,

Slavische Alterhümer, in the German translation of Wuttke, vol.

i. ch. 10 p. 192; also K. Neumann, Die Hellenen im Skythenlande,

p. 91.

Prytanis, the next brother, rejecting an offer of partition tendered

by Eumelus, assumed the sceptre, and marched forth to continue the

struggle. But the tide of fortune now turned in favor of Eumelus;

who took Gargaza with several other places, worsted his brother

in battle, and so blocked him up in the isthmus near the Palus

Mæotis, that he was forced to capitulate and resign his pretensions.

Eumelus entered Pantikapæum as conqueror. Nevertheless, the defeated

Prytanis, in spite of his recent covenant, made a renewed attempt

upon the crown; wherein he was again baffled, forced to escape to

Kêpi, and there slain. To assure himself of the throne, Eumelus put

to death the wives and children of both his two brothers, Satyrus

and Prytanis—together with all their principal friends. One youth

alone—Parisades, son of Satyrus—escaped and found protection with the

Scythian prince Agarus.

Eumelus had now put down all rivals; yet his recent cruelties had

occasioned wrath and disgust among the Bosporanic citizens. He

convoked them in assembly, to excuse his past conduct, and promised

good government for the future; at the same time guaranteeing to them

their full civic constitution, with such privileges and immunities

as they had before enjoyed, and freedom from direct taxation.[1140]

Such assurances, combined probably with an imposing mercenary force,

appeased or at least silenced the prevailing disaffection. Eumelus

kept his promises so far as to govern in a mild and popular spirit.

While thus rendering himself acceptable at home, he maintained an

energetic foreign policy, and made several conquests among the

surrounding tribes. He constituted himself a sort of protector

of the Euxine, repressing the piracies of the Heniochi and Achæi

(among the Caucasian mountains to the east) as well as of the

Tauri in the Chersonesus (Crimea); much to the satisfaction of

the Byzantines, Sinopians, and other Pontic Greeks. He received a

portion of the fugitives from Kallatis, when besieged by Lysimachus,

and provided for them a settlement in his dominions. Having thus

acquired great reputation, Eumelus was in the full career of conquest

and aggrandizement, when an accident terminated his life, after a

reign of rather more than five years. In returning from Scythia to

Pantikapæum, in a four-wheeled carriage (or waggon) and four with a

tent upon it, his horses took fright and ran away. Perceiving that

they were carrying him towards a precipice, he tried to jump out;

but his sword becoming entangled in the wheel, he was killed on the

spot.[1141] He was succeeded by his son Spartokus IV., who reigned

twenty years (304-284 B. C.); afterwards came the son of

Spartokus, Parisades II.; with whose name our information breaks

off.[1142]

[1140] Diodor. xx. 24.

[1141] Diodor. xx. 25.

[1142] Diodor. xx. 100. Spartokus IV.—son of Eumelus—is

recognized in one Attic Inscription (No. 107), and various

Bosporanic (No. 2105, 2106, 2120) in Boeckh’s Collection.

Parisades II.—son of Spartokus—is recognized in another

Bosporanic Inscription, No. 2107—seemingly also in No. 2120 _b._

This dynasty, the Spartokidæ, though they ruled the Greeks of

Bosporus as despots by means of a foreign mercenary force—yet seem to

have exercised power with equity and moderation.[1143] Had Eumelus

lived, he might probably have established an extensive empire over

the barbaric tribes on all sides of him. But empire over such

subjects was seldom permanent; nor did his successors long maintain

even as much as he left. We have no means of following their fortunes

in detail; but we know that about a century B. C., the then

reigning prince, Parisades IV., found himself so pressed and squeezed

by the Scythians,[1144] that he was forced (like Olbia and the

Pentapolis) to forego his independence; and to call in, as auxiliary

or master, the formidable Mithridates Eupator of Pontus; from whom a

new dynasty of Bosporanic kings began—subject however after no long

interval, to the dominion and interference of Rome.

[1143] Strabo, vii. p. 310. Deinarchus however calls Parisades,

Satyrus, and Gorgippus, τοὺς ἐχθίστους τύραννους (adv. Demosth.

s. 44).

[1144] Strabo, vii. p. 310. οὐχ οἷός τε ὢν ἀντέχειν πρὸς τοὺς

βαρβάρους, φόρον πραττομένους μείζω τοῦ πρότερον, etc.

These Mithridatic princes lie beyond our period; but the cities of

Bosporus under the Spartokid princes, in the fourth century B.

C., deserve to be ranked among the conspicuous features of the

living Hellenic world. They were not indeed purely Hellenic, but

presented a considerable admixture of Scythian or Oriental manners;

analogous to the mixture of the Hellenic and Libyan elements at

Kyrênê with its Battiad princes. Among the facts attesting the

wealth and power of these Spartokid princes, and of the Bosporanic

community, we may number the imposing groups of mighty sepulchral

tumuli near Kertch (Pantikapæum); some of which have been recently

examined, while the greater part still remain unopened. These

spacious chambers of stone—enclosed in vast hillocks (Kurgans),

cyclopian works piled up with prodigious labor and cost—have been

found to contain not only a profusion of ornaments of the precious

metals (gold, silver, and electron, or a mixture of four parts of

gold to one of silver), but also numerous vases, implements, and

works of art, illustrating the life and ideas of the Bosporanic

population. “The contents of the tumuli already opened are so

multifarious, that from the sepulchres of Pantikapæum alone, we might

become acquainted with everything which served the Greeks either

for necessary use, or for the decoration of domestic life.”[1145]

Statues, reliefs and frescoes on the walls, have been found, on

varied subjects both of war and peace, and often of very fine

execution; besides these, numerous carvings in wood, and vessels

of bronze or terra cotta; with necklaces, armlets, bracelets,

rings, drinking cups, etc. of precious metal—several with colored

beads attached.[1146] The costumes, equipment, and physiognomy

represented, are indeed a mixture of Hellenic and barbaric; moreover,

even the profusion of gold chains and other precious ornaments,

indicates a tone of sentiment partially orientalized, in those for

whom they were destined.

[1145] Neumann, Die Hellenen im Skythenlande, p. 503.

[1146] An account of the recent discoveries near Kertch or

Pantikapæum, will be found in Dubois de Montpéreux, Voyage

dans le Caucase, vol. v. p. 135 _seqq._; and in Neumann, Die

Hellenen im Skythenlande, pp. 483-533. The last-mentioned work

is peculiarly copious and instructive; relating what has been

done since Dubois’s travels, and containing abundant information

derived from the recent memoirs of the St. Petersburg Literary

Societies.

The local and special type, which shows itself so much on these

works of art, justifies the inference that they were not brought

from other Grecian cities, but executed by Grecian artists

resident at Pantikapæum (p. 507). Two marble statues, a man and

a woman, both larger than life, exhumed in 1850, are spoken of

with peculiar admiration (p. 491). Coins of the third and fourth

century B. C. have been found in several (p. 494, 495).

A great number of the so-called Etruscan vases have also been

discovered, probably fabricated from a species of clay still

existing in the neighborhood: the figures on these vases are

often excellent, with designs and scenes of every description,

religious, festal, warlike, domestic (p. 522). Many of the

sarcophagi are richly ornamented with carvings, in wood, ivory,

etc; some admirably executed (p. 521).

Unfortunately, the belief prevails, and has long prevailed,

among the neighboring population, that these tumuli contain

hidden treasures. One of the most striking among them—called the

Kul-Obo—was opened in 1830 by the Russian authorities. After

great pains and trouble, the means of entrance were discovered,

and the interior chamber was reached. It was the richest that

had ever been opened; being found to contain some splendid

golden ornaments, as well as many other relics. The Russian

officers placed a guard to prevent any one from entering it;

but the cupidity of the population of Kertch was so inflamed

by the report of the expected treasure being discovered, that

they forced the guard, broke into the interior, and pillaged

most of the contents (p. 509). The Russian authorities have been

generally anxious for the preservation and gradual excavation of

these monuments, but have had to contend against repugnance and

even rapacity on the part of the people near.

Dubois de Montpéreux gives an interesting description of the

opening of these tumuli near Kertch—especially of the Kul-Obo,

the richest of all, which he conceives to have belonged to one

of the Spartokid kings, and the decorations of which were the

product of Hellenic art:—

“Si l’on a enterré (he observes) un roi entouré d’un luxe

Scythique, ce sont des Græcs et des artistes de cette nation

qui ont travaillé à ses funerailles” (Voyage autour du Caucase,

pp. 195, 213, 227). Pantikapæum and Phanagoria (he says) “se

reconnoissent de loin à la foule de leurs tumulus” (p. 137).

But the design as well as the execution comes clearly out of the

Hellenic workshop; and there is good ground for believing, that in

the fourth century B. C., Pantikapæum was the seat, not

only of enterprising and wealthy citizens, but also of strenuous

and well-directed artistic genius. Such manifestations of the

refinements of Hellenism, in this remote and little-noticed city,

form an important addition to the picture of Hellas as a whole,—prior

to its days of subjection,—which it has been the purpose of this

history to present.

* * * * *

I have now brought down the history of Greece to the point of

time marked out in the Preface to my First Volume—the close of

the generation contemporary with Alexander—the epoch, from whence

dates not only the extinction of Grecian political freedom and

self-action, but also the decay of productive genius, and the

debasement of that consummate literary and rhetorical excellence

which the fourth century B. C. had seen exhibited in Plato

and Demosthenes.[1147] The contents of this last Volume indicate but

too clearly that Greece as a separate subject of history no longer

exists; for one full half of it is employed in depicting Alexander

and his conquests—ἄγριον αἰχμητὴν, κρατερὸν μήστωρα φόβοιο[1148]—that

Non-Hellenic conqueror into whose vast possessions the Greeks are

absorbed, with their intellectual brightness bedimmed, their spirit

broken, and half their virtue taken away by Zeus—the melancholy

emasculation inflicted (according to Homer) upon victims overtaken by

the day of slavery.[1149]

[1147] How marked that degradation was, may be seen attested by

Dionysius of Halikarnassus, De Antiquis Oratoribus, pp. 445, 446,

Reiske—ἐν γὰρ δὴ τοῖς πρὸ ἡμῶν χρόνοις ἡ μὲν ἀρχαία καὶ φιλόσοφος

ῥητορικὴ προπηλακιζομένη καὶ δεινὰς ὕβρεις ὑπομένουσα κατελύετο,

ἀρξαμένη μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Μακεδόνος τελευτῆς ἐκπνεῖν

καὶ μαραίνεσθαι κατ᾽ ὀλίγον, ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἡλικίας μικροῦ

δεήσασα εἰς τέλος ἠφανίσθαι. Compare Dionys. De Composit. Verbor.

p. 29, 30, Reisk.; and Westermann, Geschichte der Griechischen

Beredtsamkeit, s. 75-77.

[1148] Hom. Iliad, vi. 97.

[1149] Hom. Odyss. xvii. 322.—

ἥμισυ γάρ τ᾽ ἀρετῆς ἀποαίνυται εὐρύοπα Ζεὺς

ἀνέρος, εὖτ᾽ ἄν μιν κατὰ δούλιον ἦμαρ ἕλῃσιν.

One branch of intellectual energy there was, and one alone, which

continued to flourish, comparatively little impaired, under the

preponderance of the Macedonian sword—the spirit of speculation and

philosophy. During the century which we have just gone through, this

spirit was embodied in several eminent persons, whose names have been

scarcely adverted to in this history. Among these names, indeed,

there are two, of peculiar grandeur, whom I have brought partially

before the reader, because both of them belong to general history

as well as to philosophy; Plato, as citizen of Athens, companion

of Sokrates at his trial, and counsellor of Dionysius in his

glory—Aristotle, as the teacher of Alexander. I had at one time hoped

to include in my present work a record of them as philosophers also,

and an estimate of their speculative characteristics; but I find

the subject far too vast to be compressed into such a space as this

volume would afford. The exposition of the tenets of distinguished

thinkers is not now numbered by historians, either ancient or modern,

among the duties incumbent upon them, nor yet among the natural

expectations of their readers; but is reserved for the special

historian of philosophy. Accordingly, I have brought my history of

Greece to a close, without attempting to do justice either to Plato

or to Aristotle. I hope to contribute something towards supplying

this defect, the magnitude of which I fully appreciate, in a separate

work, devoted specially to an account of Greek speculative philosophy

in the fourth century B. C.

APPENDIX.

ON ISSUS AND ITS NEIGHBORHOOD, AS CONNECTED WITH THE WAR.

The exact battle-field of Issus cannot be certainly assigned, upon

the evidence accessible to us. But it may be determined, within a few

miles north or south; and what is even more important—the general

features of the locality, as well as the preliminary movements of the

contending armies, admit of being clearly conceived and represented.

That the battle was fought in some portion of the narrow space

intervening between the eastern coast of the Gulf of Issus and the

western flank of Mount Amanus—that Alexander’s left and Darius’s

right, rested on the sea, and their right and left respectively on

the mountain—that Darius came upon Alexander unexpectedly from the

rear, thus causing him to return back a day’s march from Myriandrus,

and to reoccupy a pass which he had already passed through and

quitted—these points are clearly given, and appear to me not open to

question. We know that the river Pinarus, on which the battle was

fought, was at a certain distance _south_ of Issus, the last town of

Kilikia before entering Syria (Arrian, ii. 7. 2)—ἐς δὲ τὴν ὑστεραίαν

προὐχώρει (Darius from Issus) ἐπὶ τὸν ποταμὸν τὸν Πίναρον—Ritter

erroneously states that Issus was _upon_ the river Pinarus, which

he even calls _the Issus river_ (Erdkunde, Theil iv. Abth. 2. p.

1797-1806). We know also that this river was at some distance _north_

of the maritime pass called the Gates of Kilikia and Assyria, through

which Alexander passed and repassed.

But when we proceed, beyond these data (the last of them only vague

and relative), to fix the exact battle-field, we are reduced to

conjecture. Dr. Thirlwall, in an appendix to the sixth volume of his

history, has collected and discussed very ably the different opinions

of various geographers.

To those whom he has cited, may be added—Mr. Ainsworth’s Essay on the

Cilician and Syrian Gates (in the Transactions of the Geographical

Society for 1837)—Mützel’s Topographical Notes on the third book of

Quintus Curtius—and the last volume of Ritter’s Erdkunde, published

only this year (1855), ch. xxvii. p. 1778 _seqq._

We know from Xenophon that Issus was a considerable town close to

the sea—two days’ march from the river Pyramus, and one day’s march

northward of the maritime pass called the Gates of Kilikia and

Syria. That it was near the north-eastern corner of the Gulf, may

also be collected from Strabo, who reckons the shortest line across

Asia Minor, as stretching from Sinôpê or Amisus _to Issus_—and who

also lays down the Egyptian sea as having its northern termination

_at Issus_ (Strabo, xiv. p. 677; xvi. p. 749). The probable site of

Issus has been differently determined by different authors; Rennell

(Illustrations of the Geography of the Anabasis, p. 42-48) places

it near Oseler or Yusler; as far as I can judge, this seems too far

distant from the head of the Gulf, towards the south.

In respect to the maritime pass, called the Gates of Kilikia and

Syria, there is much discrepancy between Xenophon and Arrian. It

is evident that, in Xenophon’s time, this pass and the road of

march through it lay between the mountains and the sea,—and that

the obstructions (walls blocking up the passage), which he calls

insurmountable by force, were mainly of artificial creation. But when

Alexander passed, no walls existed. The artificial obstructions had

disappeared during the seventy years between Xenophon and Alexander;

and we can assign a probable reason why. In Xenophon’s time, Kilikia

was occupied by the native prince Syennesis, who, though tributary,

maintained a certain degree of independence even in regard to the

Great King, and therefore kept a wall guarded by his own soldiers

on his boundary towards Syria. But in Alexander’s time, Kilikia

was occupied, like Syria, by a Persian satrap. Artificial boundary

walls, between two conterminous satrapies under the same master, were

unnecessary; and must even have been found inconvenient, during the

great collective military operations of the Persian satraps against

the revolted Evagoras of Cyprus (principally carried on from Kilikia

as a base, about 380 B. C., Diodor. xv. 2)—as well as in the

subsequent operations against the Phenician towns (Diodor. xvi. 42).

Hence we may discern a reason why all artificial obstructions may

have been swept away before the time of Alexander; leaving only the

natural difficulties of the neighboring ground, upon which Xenophon

has not touched.

The spot still retained its old name—“The Gates of Kilikia and

Syria”—even after walls and gates had been dispensed with. But that

name, in Arrian’s description, designates a difficult and narrow

point of the road _over hills and rocks_; a point which Major Rennell

(Illustrations, p. 54) supposes to have been about a mile south of

the river and walls described by Xenophon. However this may be, the

precise spot designated by Xenophon seems probably to be sought

about seven miles north of Scanderoon, near the ruins now known as

Jonas’s Pillars (or Sakal Tutan), and the Castle of Merkes, where a

river called _Merkes_, _Mahersy_, or _Kara-su_, flows across from the

mountain to the sea. That this river is the same with the Kersus of

Xenophon, is the opinion of Rennell, Ainsworth, and Mützel; as well

as of Colonel Callier, who surveyed the country when accompanying

the army of Ibrahim Pacha as engineer (cited by Ritter, Erdk. p.

1792). At the spot here mentioned, the gulf indents eastward, while

the western flank of Amanus approaches very close to it, and drops

with unusual steepness towards it. Hence the road now followed does

not pass between the mountain and the sea, but ascends over a portion

of the mountain, and descends again afterwards to the low ground

skirting the sea. Northward of Merkes, the space between the mountain

and the sea gradually widens, towards Bayas. At some distance to the

north of Bayas occurs the river now called Delle Tschai, which is

considered I think with probability, to be the Pinarus, where the

battle between Alexander and Darius was fought. This opinion however

is not unanimous; Kinneir identifies the _Merkes_ with the Pinarus.

Moreover, there are several different streams which cross the space

between Mount Amanus and the sea. Des Monceaux notices six streams

as having been crossed between the Castle of Merkes and Bayas; and

five more streams between Bayas and Ayas (Mützel ad Curtium, p. 105).

Which among these is the Pinarus, cannot be settled without more or

less of doubt.

Besides the Gates of Kilikia and Syria, noted by Xenophon and Arrian

in the above passages, there are also other Gates called _the

Amanian Gates_, which are spoken of in a perplexing manner. Dr.

Thirlwall insists with propriety on the necessity of distinguishing

the _maritime_ passes, between Mount Amanus and the sea—from the

_inland_ passes, which crossed over the ridge of Mount Amanus

itself. But this distinction seems not uniformly observed by ancient

authors, when we compare Strabo, Arrian, and Kallisthenes. Strabo

uses the phrase, _Amanian Gates_, twice (xiv. p. 676; xvi. p. 751);

in both cases designating a _maritime pass_, and not a pass _over_

the mountain,—yet designating one maritime pass in the page first

referred to, and another in the second. In xiv. p. 676—he means by

αἱ Ἀμανίδες πύλαι, the spot called by modern travellers Demir Kapu,

between Ægæ and Issus, or between Mopsuestia and Issus; while in xvi.

751—he means by the same words that which I have been explaining as

the Gates of Kilikia and Syria, on the eastern side of the Gulf of

Issus. In fact, Strabo seems to conceive as a whole the strip of

land between Mount Amanus and the Gulf, beginning at Demir Kapu,

and ending at the Gates of Kilikia and Syria—and to call both the

beginning and the end of it by the same name—the Amanian Gates.

But he does not use this last phrase to designate the passage over

or across Mount Amanus; neither does Arrian; who in describing the

march of Darius from Sochi into Kilikia, says (ii. 7, 1)—ὑπερβαλὼν

δὴ τὸ ὄρος Δαρεῖος τὸ κατὰ τὰς πύλας τὰς Ἀμανικὰς καλουμένας, ὡς ἐπὶ

Ἴσσον προῆγε, καὶ ἐγένετο κατόπιν Ἀλεξάνδρου λαθών. Here, let it be

observed, we do not read ὑπερβαλὼν τὰς πύλας—nor can I think that the

words mean, as the translator gives them—“transiit Amanum, _eundo per

Pylas Amanicas_.” The words rather signify, that Darius “crossed

over the mountain where it adjoined the Amanian Gates”—_i. e._ where

it adjoined the strip of land skirting the Gulf, and lying between

those two extreme points which Strabo denominates _Amanian Gates_.

Arrian employs this last phrase more loosely than Strabo, yet still

with reference to the maritime strip, and not to a _col_ over the

mountain ridge.

On the other hand, Kallisthenes (if he is rightly represented by

Polybius, who recites his statement, not his words, xii. 17) uses the

words _Amanian Gates_ to signify the passage by which Darius entered

Kilikia—that is, the passage _over_ the mountain. That which Xenophon

and Arrian call the _Gates of Kilikia and Syria_—and which Strabo

calls _Amanian Gates_—is described by Polybius as τὰ στενὰ, καὶ τὰς

λεγομένας ἐν τῇ Κιλικίᾳ πύλας.

It seems pretty certain that this must have been Darius’s line of

march, because he came down immediately upon Issus, and then marched

forward to the river Pinarus. Had he entered Kilikia by the pass of

Beylan, he must have passed the Pinarus _before_ he reached Issus.

The positive grounds for admitting a practicable pass near the 37th

parallel, are indeed called in question by Mützel (ad Curtium, p.

102, 103), and are not in themselves conclusive; still I hold them

sufficient, when taken in conjunction with the probabilities of the

case. This pass was, however, we may suppose, less frequented than

the maritime line of road through the Gates of Kilikia and Syria, and

the pass of Beylan; which, as the more usual, was preferred both by

the Cyreians and by Alexander.

Respecting the march of Alexander, Dr. Thirlwall here starts a

question, substantially to this effect: “Since Alexander intended

to march through the pass of Beylan for the purpose of attacking

the Persian camp at Sochi, what could have caused him to go to

Myriandrus, which was more south than Beylan, and out of his road?”

Dr. Thirlwall feels this difficulty so forcibly, that in order

to eliminate it, he is inclined to accept the hypothesis of Mr.

Williams, which places Myriandrus at Bayas, and the Kiliko-Syrian

Gates at Demir-Kapu; an hypothesis which appears to me inadmissible

on various grounds, and against which Mr. Ainsworth (in his Essay on

the Cilician and Syrian Gates) has produced several very forcible

objections.

I confess that I do not feel the difficulty on which Dr. Thirlwall

insists. When we see that Cyrus and the Ten Thousand went to

Myriandrus, in their way to the pass of Beylan, we may reasonably

infer that, whether that town was in the direct line or not, it was

at least in the _usual_ road of march—which does not always coincide

with the direct line. But to waive this supposition, however—let us

assume that there existed another shorter road leading to Beylan

without passing by Myriandrus—there would still be reason enough to

induce Alexander to go somewhat out of his way, in order to visit

Myriandrus. For it was an important object with him to secure the

sea ports in his rear, in case of a possible reverse. Suppose him

repulsed and forced to retreat—it would be a material assistance to

his retreat, to have assured himself beforehand of Myriandrus as well

as the other seaports. In the approaching months, we shall find him

just as careful to make sure of the Phenician cities on the coast,

before he marches into the interior to attack Darius at Arbela.

Farther, Alexander, marching to attack Darius, had nothing to gain by

haste, and nothing to lose by coming up to Sochi three days later. He

knew that the enormous Persian host would not try to escape; it would

either await him at Sochi, or else advance into Kilikia to attack him

there. The longer he tarried, the more likely they were to do the

latter, which was what he desired. He had nothing to lose therefore

in any way, and some chance of gain, by prolonging his march to Sochi

for as long a time as was necessary to secure Myriandrus. There is no

more difficulty, I think, in understanding why he went to Myriandrus,

than why he went westward from Tarsus (still more out of his line of

advance) to Soli and Anchialus.

It seems probable (as Rennell, p. 56, and others think), that the

site of Myriandrus is now some distance inland; that there has been

an accretion of new land and morass on the coast.

The modern town of Scanderoon occupies the site of Ἀλεξανδρεία

κατ᾽ Ἴσσον, founded (probably by order of Alexander himself) in

commemoration of the victory of Issus. According to Ritter (p. 1791),

“Alexander had the great idea of establishing there an emporium for

the traffic of the East with Europe, as at the other Alexandria for

the trade of the East with Egypt.” The importance of the site of

Scanderoon, in antiquity, is here greatly exaggerated. I know no

proof that Alexander had the idea which Ritter ascribes to him; and

it is certain that his successors had no such idea; because they

founded the great cities of Antioch and Seleukeia (in Pieria), both

of them carrying the course of trade up the Orontes, and therefore

diverting it away from Scanderoon. This latter town is only of

importance as being the harbor of Aleppo; a city (Berœa) of little

consequence in antiquity, while Antioch became the first city in the

East, and Seleukeia among the first: see Ritter, p. 1152.

END.

INDEX

_Abantes_, iii. 165.

_Abdêra_, the army of Xerxes at, v. 42.

_Abrokomas_, ix. 27, 31.

_Abydos_, march of Xerxes to, v. 28;

revolt of, from Athens, viii. 94;

Athenian victory at, over the Peloponnesians, viii. 110;

Athenian victory over Pharnabazus at, viii. 121;

Derkyllidas at, ix. 310 _seq._;

Anaxibius and Iphikrates at, ix. 369 _seq._

_Achæan_ origin affected by Spartan kings, ii. 11;

league, xii. 391.

_Achæans_, various accounts of, i. 104, 105;

effect of the Dorian occupation of Peloponnesus on, ii. 12;

Homeric view of, ii. 12;

of Phthiôtis and Peloponnesus, ii. 275;

of Peloponnesus, ii. 284, 303.

_Achæmenes_, v. 96.

_Achæus_, i. 101, 199.

_Achaia_, ii. 269;

towns and territory of, ii. 465 _seq._;

Epaminondas in, B. C. 367, x. 266;

proceedings of the Thebans in B. C. 367, x. 268;

alliance of, with Sparta and Elis, B. C. 365, x. 313.

_Acharnæ_, Archidamus at, vi. 131 _seq._

_Achelôus_, i. 282.

_Achillêis_, the basis of the Iliad, ii. 175 _seq._

_Achillês_, i. 291 _seq._, 297 _seq._

_Achradina_, capture of, by Neon, xi. 157.

_Acropolis at Athens_, flight to, on Xerxes’s approach, v. 114;

capture of by Xerxes, v. 117 _seq._;

visit of the Peisistratids to, after its capture by Xerxes, v. 118;

inviolable reserve fund in, vi. 138 _seq._

_Ada_, queen of Karia, xii. 94, 99.

_Adeimantus_, of Corinth, and Themistoklês, at Salamis, v. 122, 124.

_Admêtus_ and Alkêstis, i. 113 _seq._

_Admêtus_ and Themisoklês, v. 283.

_Adranum_, Timoleon at, xi. 148, 156.

_Adrastus_, i. 256, _seq._, 268; iii. 34.

_Adrastus_, the Phrygian exile, iii. 152.

_Adrumetum_, captured by Agathokles, xii. 419.

_Æa_, i. 250 _seq._

_Æakid_ genealogy, i. 184 _seq._, 189.

_Æakus_, i. 184 _seq._

_Æêtês_, i. 115;

and the Argonauts, i. 231 _seq._;

and Circê, i. 251.

_Ægæ_, iii. 190.

_Ægean_, islands in, ii. 214;

the Macedonian fleet master of, xii. 141.

_Ægean_ islands, effect of the battle of Chæroneia on, xi. 504.

_Ægeids_ at Sparta, ii. 361.

_Ægeus_, i. 205; death of, i. 221.

_Ægialeus_, i. 82.

_Ægina_, i. 184;

war of, against Athens, at the instigation of the Thebans, iv. 171,

173, 315;

submission of, to Darius, iv. 315;

appeal of Athenians to Sparta against the Medism of, iv. 318;

attempted revolution at, by Nikodromus, v. 47 _seq._;

from B. C. 488 to 481, v. 47, 48 _seq._, 53;

and Athens, settlement of the feud between, v. 58;

removal of Athenians to, on Xerxes’s approach, v. 108;

Greek fleet at, in the spring of B. C. 479, v. 147;

war of Athens against, B. C. 459, v. 321;

subdued by Athens, v. 331;

expulsion of the Æginetans from, by the Athenians, vi. 136;

and Athens, B. C. 389, ix. 371 _seq._;

Gorgôpas in, ix. 373 _seq._;

Teleutias in, ix. 373, 376.

_Æginæan_ scale, ii. 319 _seq._, 325; iii. 171.

_Æqinetans_, and Thebans, i. 184;

and the hostages taken from them by Kleomenês and Leotychidês,

v. 46 _seq._;

pre-eminence of, at Salamis, v. 145;

at Thyrea, capture and death of, B. C. 424, vi. 366.

_Ægistheus_, i. 162 _seq._

_Ægospotami_, battle of, viii. 217 _seq._;

condition of Athens and her dependencies after the battle of,

viii. 223, 225, 227 _seq._

_Ægyptos_, i. 87.

_Æimnestus_ and Dionysius, x. 468.

_Æneadæ_ at Skêpsis, i. 316.

_Æneas_, i. 293, 315 _seq._

_Ænianes_, ii. 286.

_Æolic_ Greeks in the Trôad, i. 335;

emigration under the Pelopids, ii. 19;

Kymê, custom at, in cases of murder, ii. 94 _n._;

and Doric dialects, ii. 335;

cities in Asia, iii. 190 _seq._;

emigration, iii. 191, 193;

establishments near Mount Ida, iii. 195.

_Æolid line_, the first, i. 107 _seq._;

the second, i. 112 _seq._;

the third, i. 119 _seq._;

the fourth, i. 123 _seq._

_Æolis_, iii. 195;

the subsatrapy of, and Pharnabazus, ix. 206 _seq._

_Æolus_, i. 95 _seq._, 103.

_Æpytus_, i. 176.

_Æschinês_, at the battle of Tamynæ, xi. 342;

proceedings of, against Philip, after his capture of Olynthus,

xi. 366;

early history of, xi. 366;

as envoy of Athens in Arcadia, xi. 367;

desire of, for peace, B. C. 347, xi. 368;

and the embassies from Athens to Philip, xi. 381 _seq._, 406, 410,

413 _seq._, 422;

and the motion of Philokrates for peace and alliance with Philip,

xi. 391 _seq._;

fabrications of, about Philip, xi. 398, 408, 409, 412 _seq._;

visit of, to Philip in Phokis, xi. 422;

justifies Philip after his conquest of Thermopylæ, xi. 425;

corruption of, xi. 430 _seq._;

at the Amphiktyonic assembly at Delphi, B. C. 359, xi. 470 _seq._;

on the special Amphiktyonic meeting at Thermopylæ, xi. 479;

conduct of, after the battle of Chæroneia, xi. 506;

accusation against Ktesiphon by, xii. 286 _seq._;

exile of, xii. 293 _seq._

_Æschylus_, Promêtheus of, i. 78, 381 _n._;

his treatment of mythes, i. 379 _seq._;

Sophoklês, and Euripidês, viii. 317 _seq._

_Æsculapius_, i. 178 _seq._

_Æsôn_, death of, i. 114.

_Æsymnête_, iii. 19.

_Æthiopis_ of Arktinus, ii. 156.

_Æêthlius_, i. 99.

_Ætna_, foundation of the city of, v. 229;

second city of, v. 236;

reconquered by Duketius, vii. 123;

conquest of, by Dionysius, x. 468;

Campanians of, x. 497.

_Ætolia_, legendary settlement of, i. 137;

expedition of Demosthenes against, vi. 296 _seq._

_Ætolian_ genealogy, i. 138.

_Ætolians_, ii. 290;

rude condition of, ii. 292;

emigration of, into Peloponnesus, ii. 325 _seq._;

and Akarnanians, iii. 411;

and Peloponnesians under Eurylochus attack Naupaktus, xi. 291;

contest and pacification of, with Antipater, xii. 332;

Kassander’s attempt to check, xii. 370.

_Ætolo-Eleians_ and the Olympic games, ii. 317.

_Ætôlus_, i. 102, 103;

and Oxylus, i. 153.

_Africa_, circumnavigation of, by the Phenicians, iii. 283 _seq._;

expedition of Agathokles to, against Carthage, xii. 410 _seq._, 444.

_Agamêdês_ and Trophonius, i. 129.

_Agamemnôn_, pre-eminence of, i. 154 _seq._, 161 _seq._, 163;

and Orestes transferred to Sparta, i. 165;

and the Trojan expedition, i. 289, 293.

_Agaristê_ and Megaklês, iii. 38.

_Agasias_, ix. 145, 147 _seq._

_Agathokles_, first rise of, xii. 397;

distinction of, in the Syracusan expedition to Kroton, xii. 398;

retires from Syracuse to Italy, xii. 398;

exploits of, in Italy and Sicily, about B. C. 320, xii. 285;

first ascendency of, at Syracuse, xii. 399;

his readmission to Syracuse, xii. 400;

massacres the Syracusans, xii. 401 _seq._;

constituted despot of Syracuse, xii. 402;

his popular manners, and military success, xii. 404 _seq._;

and the Agrigentines, xii. 404, 406, 407;

and Deinokrates, xii. 407, 440, 446 _seq._;

massacre at Gela by, xii. 408;

defeat of, at the Himera, xii. 409;

expedition of, to Africa, xii. 410 _seq._, 444;

capture of Megalêpolis and Tunês by, xii. 414;

victory of, over Hanno and Bomilkar, xii. 416 _seq._;

operations of, on the eastern coast of Carthage, xii. 419 _seq._;

mutiny in the army of, at Tunês, xii. 426;

in Numidia, xii. 427;

and Ophellas, xii. 427, 431 _seq._;

capture of Utica by, xii. 436;

goes from Africa to Sicily, B. C. 306-305, xii. 438, 439;

in Sicily, B. C. 306-305, xii. 439 _seq._;

returns from Sicily to Africa, where he is defeated by the

Carthaginians, xii. 441;

deserts his army at Tunês, and they capitulate, xii. 443, 444;

barbarities of, at Egesta and Syracuse, after his African

expedition, xii. 445;

operations of, in Liparæ, Italy, and Korkyra, xii. 448;

last projects and death of, xii. 449 _seq._;

genius and character of, xii. 450 _seq._

_Agavê_ and Pentheus, i. 261 _seq._

_Agêma_, Macedonian, xii. 63.

_Agên_, the satiric drama, xii. 296 and _n._ 2.

_Agenôr_ and his offspring, i. 257.

_Agesandridas_, viii. 71, 74 _seq._

_Agesilaus_, character of, ix. 242, 246, 280;

nomination of, as king, ix. 244 _seq._;

popular conduct and partisanship of, ix. 246;

expedition of, to Asia, B. C. 397, ix. 257 _seq._;

humiliation of Lysander by, ix. 260 _seq._;

Tissaphernes breaks the truce with, ix. 261;

attacks of, on the satrapy of Pharnabazus, ix. 261, 273 _seq._;

his enrichment of his friends, ix. 262;

humanity of, ix. 263;

naked exposure of Asiatic prisoners by, ix. 265 _seq._;

at Ephesus, ix. 266;

victory of, near Sardis, ix. 267;

negotiations of, with Tithraustes, ix. 269;

appointed to command at sea and on land, ix. 269, 271;

efforts of, to augment his fleet, ix. 273;

and Spithridates, ix. 274;

and Pharnabazus, conference between, ix. 277 _seq._;

large preparations and recall of, from Asia, ix. 280, 286,

308 _seq._;

relations of Sparta with her neighbors and allies after the

accession of, ix. 284;

on the northern frontier of Bœotia, ix. 312;

victory of, at Koroneia, ix. 313 _seq._;

and Teleutias, capture of the Long Walls at Corinth, and of Lechæum

by, ix. 339 _seq._;

capture of Peiræum and Œnoê by, ix. 344, 345 _seq._;

and the Isthmian festival, ix. 344;

and the envoys from Thebes, ix. 346, 352;

and the destruction of the Lacedæmonian _mora_ by Iphikrates,

ix. 348, 352;

expedition of, against Akarnania, ix. 354;

and the peace of Antalkidas, ix. 385 _seq._;

miso-Theban sentiment of, x. 28, 34;

his defence of Phœbidas, x. 62;

subjugation of Phlius by, x. 70 _seq._;

and the trial of Sphodrias, x. 100;

expeditions of, against Thebes, x. 127 _seq._;

and Epaminondas, at the congress at Sparta, B. C. 371, x. 170;

and the re-establishment of Mantinea, x. 205 _seq._;

feeling against, at Sparta, B. C. 371, x. 207;

march of, against Mantinea, x. 211 _seq._;

vigilant defence of Sparta by, against Epaminondas, x. 221, 330;

in Asia, B. C. 366, x. 294, 296;

in Egypt, x. 362 _seq._, and the independence of Mêssêne, x. 360;

death and character of, x. 363 _seq._

_Agesipolis_, ix. 356 _seq._; x. 35 _seq._, 67, 70.

_Agêtus_ and Aristo, iv. 326.

_Agis II._, invasion of Attica by, B. C. 425, vi. 313;

advance of, to Leuktra, B. C. 419, vii. 64;

invasion of Argos by, vii. 71 _seq._;

retirement of, from Argos, vii. 74 _seq._;

at the battle of Mantinea, B. C. 418, vii. 81 _seq._;

invasion of Attica by, vii. 288, 353;

movements of, after the Athenian disaster in Sicily, vii. 364;

applications from Eubœa and Lesbos to, B. C. 413, vii. 365;

overtures of peace from the Four Hundred to, viii. 44;

repulse of, by Thrasyllus, viii. 128;

fruitless attempt of, to surprise Athens, viii. 156;

invasions of Elis by, ix. 225 _seq._;

death of, ix. 241.

_Agis III._, ii. 387 _seq._, 127, 281 _seq._

_Aglaurion_, v. 117 _n._

_Agnonides_, xii. 351.

_Agones_ and festivals in honor of gods, i. 51.

_Agora_, Homeric, ii. 67 _seq._; and Boulê, ii. 75.

_Agoratus_, viii. 235, 240.

_Agrigentine_ generals, accusation and death of, x. 427.

_Agrigentines_, and Agathokles, xii. 404, 406, 425;

defeat of, by Leptines and Demophilus, xii. 440;

defeat of, by Leptines, xii. 441.

_Agrigentum_, iii. 366;

Phalaris of, iv. 378, v. 204;

and Syracuse, before B. C. 500, v. 205;

prisoners sent to, after the battle of Himera, v. 225;

and Syracuse, B. C. 446, vii. 126;

after the Theronian dynasty, vii. 127;

and Hannibal’s capture of Selinus, x. 408;

defensive preparations at, against Hannibal and Imilkon, x. 422;

strength, wealth, and population of, B. C. 406, x. 423 _seq._;

blockade and capture of, by the Carthaginians, x. 425 _seq._;

complaints against the Syracusan generals at, x. 427, 431,

433 _seq._;

declaration of, against Dionysius, xi. 6;

Timoleon and the fresh colonization of, xi. 187;

siege of, by Agathokles, xii. 406.

_Agylla_, plunder of the temple at, xi. 25.

_Agyrium_, Dionysius and Magon at, ix. 7.

_Agyrrhius_, ix. 368.

_Ajax_, son of Telamôn, i. 187, 299.

_Ajax_, son of Oïleus, i. 189, 305, 310.

_Akanthus_, iv. 25;

march of Xerxes to, v. 43;

induced by Brasidas to revolt from Athens, vi. 406 _seq._;

speech of Brasidas at, ix. 193 _seq._;

opposition of, to the Olynthian confederacy, x. 52 _seq._, 57.

_Akarnan_ and Amphoterus, i. 282.

_Akarnania_, Demosthenês in, B. C. 426, vi. 296;

expedition of Agesilaus against, ix. 354.

_Akarnanians_, ii. 292 _seq._, iii. 407 _seq._;

and Athens, alliance between, vi. 120;

under Demosthenês save Naupaktus, vi. 303;

and Amphilochians, pacific treaty of, with the Ambrakiots, vi. 311.

_Akastus_, wife of, and Pêleus, i. 114.

_Akesines_, crossed by Alexander, xii. 230.

_Akræ_ in Sicily, iii. 366.

_Akragas_, iii. 366.

_Akrisois_, Danaê and Perseus, i. 89 _seq._

_Akrotatus_, xii. 404.

_Aktæôn_, i. 260.

_Aktê_, Brasidas in, vi. 421.

_Akusilaus_, his treatment of mythes, i. 390.

_Alæsa_, foundation of, x. 469.

_Alalia_, Phokæan colony at, iv. 205.

_Alazônes_, iii. 239.

_Alcyone_ and Kêyx, i. 135.

_Alêtês_, ii. 9.

_Aleus_, i. 176.

_Alexander of Macedon_, and Greeks at Tempê, on Xerxes’s invasion,

v. 69;

embassy of, to Athens, v. 150 _seq._;

and the Athenians before the battle of Platæa, v. 151.

_Alexander the Great_, his visit to Ilium, i. 326, xii. 69;

successors of, and Ilium, i. 326;

comparison between the invasion of, and that of Xerxes, v. 240;

birth of, xi. 241;

at the battle of Chæroneia, xi. 500;

quarrels of, with his father, xi. 513, xii. 3;

accession of, xi. 517, xii. 1, 7;

character, education, and early political action of, xii. 2 _seq._;

uncertain position of, during the last year of Philip, xii. 5;

Amyntas put to death by, xii. 8;

march of, into Greece, B. C. 336, xii. 11;

chosen Imperator of the Greeks, xii. 13;

convention at Corinth under, B. C. 336, xii. 13;

authority claimed by, under the convention at Corinth, xii. 15;

violations of the convention at Corinth by, xii. 16 _seq._;

expedition of, into Thrace, xii. 22 _seq._, 25, _n._;

embassy of Gauls to, xii. 26;

victories of, over Kleitus and the Illyrians, xii. 27 _seq._;

revolt of Thebes against, xii. 29 _seq._;

march of, from Thrace to Thebes, xii. 36;

capture and destruction of Thebes by, xii. 37 _seq._;

demands the surrender of anti-Macedonian leaders at Athens, xii. 45;

at Corinth, B. C. 335, xii. 48;

and Diogenes, xii. 48;

reconstitution of Bœotia by, xii. 48;

Grecian history a blank in the reign of, xii. 50;

connection of his Asiatic conquests with Grecian history, xii. 50,

179 _seq._;

Pan-Hellenic pretences of, xii. 51;

analogy of his relation to the Greeks with those of Napoleon to the

Confederation of the Rhine, xii. 51, 52 _n._;

military endowments of, xii. 52;

military changes in Greece during the sixty years before the

accession of, xii. 53 _seq._;

measures of, before going to Asia, xii. 67;

his march to the Hellespont and passage to Asia, xii. 69, 78;

analogy of, to the Greek heroes, xii. 71;

review of his army in Asia, xii. 72;

Macedonian officers of his army in Asia, xii. 73;

Greeks in his service in Asia, xii. 74;

defensive preparation of Darius against, xii. 76;

victory of, at the Granikus, xii. 81 _seq._;

submission of the Asiatics to, after the battle of the Granikus,

xii. 89;

and Mithrines, xii. 90, 207;

capture of Ephesus by, xii. 90;

capture of Miletus by, xii. 92 _seq._;

debate of, with Parmenio at Miletus, xii. 92;

disbands his fleet, xii. 94;

capture of Halikarnassus by, xii. 94 _seq._;

conquest of Lykia, Pamphylia, and Pisidia by, xii. 99;

at Kelænæ, xii. 101;

cuts the Gordian knot, xii. 104;

refuses to liberate the Athenians captured at the Granikus,

xii. 105;

subjugation of Paphlagonia and Kappadokia by, xii. 111;

passes Mount Taurus and enters Tarsus, xii. 111 _seq._;

operations of, in Kilikia, xii. 113;

march of, from Kilikia to Myriandrus, xii. 114;

return of, from Myriandrus, xii. 117;

victory of, at Issus, xii. 118 _seq._;

his courteous treatment of Darius’s mother, wife and family,

xii. 124, 153;

his treatment of Greeks taken at Damascus, xii. 129;

in Phœnicia, xii. 130 _seq._, 150;

his correspondence with Darius, xii. 130, 140;

siege and capture of Tyre by, xii. 132 _seq._;

surrender of the princes of Cyprus to, xii. 138;

his march towards Egypt, xii. 141, 142, 145;

siege and capture of Gaza by, xii. 142 _seq._;

his cruelty to Batis, xii. 145;

in Egypt, xii. 146 _seq._;

crosses the Euphrates at Thapsakus, xii. 150;

fords the Tigris, xii. 151;

continence of, xii. 158 _n._ 2;

victory of, at Arbela, xii. 155 _seq._;

surrender of Susa and Babylon to, xii. 168;

his march from Susa to Persepolis, xii. 171;

at Persepolis, xii. 172 _seq._;

subjugation of Persis by, xii. 177;

at Ekbatana, xii. 181, 246 _seq._;

sends home the Thessalian cavalry, xii. 181;

pursues Darius into Parthia, xii. 181 _seq._;

disappointment of, in not taking Darius alive, xii. 186;

Asiatizing tendencies of, xii. 188, 215, 267;

at Hekatompylus, xii. 187;

in Hyrkania, xii. 188;

his treatment of the Grecian mercenaries and envoys with Darius,

xii. 188, 189;

in Aria and Drangiana, xii. 189 _seq._, 200;

Parmenio and Philotas put to death by, xii. 190 _seq._;

in Gedrosia, xii. 200, 236;

foundation of Alexandria ad Caucasum by, xii. 200;

in Baktria and Sogdiana, xii. 201 _seq._;

and Bessus, 12, 202, 208;

massacre of the Branchidæ by, xii. 203 _seq._;

at Marakanda, xii. 204, 207 _seq._;

and the Scythians, xii. 206, 213;

Kleitus killed by, xii. 208 _seq._, 213, 216 _seq._, 222 _seq._;

capture of the Sogdian rock and the rock of Choriênes by, xii. 214;

and Roxana, xii. 214, 215;

and Kallisthenes, conspiracy of royal pages against, xii. 221;

reduces the country between Hindoo Koosh and the Indus,

xii. 225 _seq._;

crosses the Indus and the Hydaspes, and defeats Porus,

xii. 227 _seq._, 228 _n._ 2, and _n._ 1 page 229;

conquests of, in the Punjab, xii. 227 _seq._;

refusal of his army to march farther, xii. 231;

voyage of, down the Hydaspes and the Indus, xii. 234;

wounded in attacking the Malli, xii. 234;

posts on the Indus established by, xii. 235;

his bacchanalian procession thro’ Karmania, xii. 236;

and the tomb of Cyrus the Great, xii. 237;

satraps of, xii. 239 _seq._;

discontents and mutiny of his Macedonian soldiers, xii. 241 _seq._;

Asiatic levies of, xii. 243;

sails down the Pasitigris and up the Tigris to Opis, xii. 243;

partial disbanding of his Macedonian soldiers by, xii. 245;

preparations of, for the conquest and circumnavigation of Asia,

xii. 245, 250;

his grief for the death of Hephæstion, xii. 247, 253;

extermination of the Kossæi by, xii. 248;

his last visit to Babylon, xii. 248 _seq._;

numerous embassies to, B. C. 323, xii. 248;

his sail on the Euphrates, xii. 250;

his incorporation of Persians in the Macedonian phalanx, xii. 251;

his despatch to Kleomenes, xii. 253;

forebodings and suspicion of, at Babylon, xii. 253, 254 _n._ 3;

illness and death of, xii. 254 _seq._;

rumored poisoning of, xii. 256 _n._ 2;

sentiments excited by the career and death of, xii. 258 _seq._;

probable achievements of, if he had lived longer, xii. 259 _seq._;

character of, as a ruler, xii. 261 _seq._;

absence of nationality in, xii. 264;

Livy’s opinion as to his chances, if he had attacked the Romans,

xii. 260;

unrivalled excellence of, as a military man, xii. 261;

not the intentional diffuser of Hellenic culture, xii. 265 _seq._;

cities founded in Asia by, xii. 267;

Asia not Hellenized by, xii. 269;

increased intercommunication produced by the conquests of,

xii. 272 _seq._;

his interest in science and literature, xii. 274;

state of the Grecian world when he crossed the Hellespont, xii. 275;

possibility of emancipating Greece during his earlier Asiatic

campaigns, xii. 276;

his rescript directing the recall of Grecian exiles,

xii. 310 _seq._;

his family and generals, after his death, xii. 319 _seq._;

partition of the empire of, xii. 319, 337;

list of projects entertained by, at the time of his death, xii. 320.

_Alexander_, son of Alexander the Great, xii. 333, 340, 342, 366, 367,

371.

_Alexander_, son of Polysperchon, xii. 366, 368, 369.

_Alexander_, son of Kassander, xii. 389.

_Alexander_, king of the Molossians, xii. 396 _seq._

_Alexander_, son of Amyntas, x. 248, 249.

_Alexander of Epirus_, marriage of, xi. 515.

_Alexander_, the Lynkestian, xi. 517 _seq._

_Alexander of Pheræ_, x. 248;

expeditions of Pelopidas against, x. 248, 263, 303, 307 _seq._,

309 _n._ 3;

seizure of Pelopidas and Ismenias by, x. 282 _seq._;

release of Pelopidas and Ismenias by, x. 285;

subdued by the Thebans, x. 309 _seq._;

naval hostilities of, against Athens, x. 370;

cruelties and assassination of, xi. 203 _seq._

_Alexandreia Trôas_, i. 326.

_Alexandria_ in Egypt, xii. 146;

ad Caucasum, xii. 200;

in Ariis, and in Arachosia, xii. 200 _n._ 4;

ad Jaxartem, xii. 205, 206.

_Alexandrine_ chronology from the return of the Herakleids to the

first Olympiad, ii. 304.

_Alexiklês_, viii. 64, 67, 68.

_Alkæus_, Herodotus’s mistake about, iii. 155 _n._;

his flight from battle, iii. 199;

opposition of, to Pittakus, iii. 199, iv., 90 _seq._;

collected works of, iv. 90 _n._ 4;

subjective character of his poetry, i. 363.

_Alkamenês_, son of Têleklus, ii. 420.

_Alkamenês_, appointment of, to go to Lesbos, vii. 365;

defeat and death of, vii. 369.

_Alkestis_ and Admêtus, i. 113 _seq._

_Alketas_, x. 139, 147 _n._, 153, xi. 54.

_Alkibiades_, reputed oration of Androkidês against, iv. 151, _n._ 3,

vi. 7, _n._ 2;

alleged duplication of the tribute-money of Athenian allies by,

vi. 7, _n._ 2;

at the battle of Delium, v. 397;

education and character of, vii. 30 _seq._;

and Sokratês, vii. 35 _seq._;

conflicting sentiments entertained towards, vii. 40;

attempts of, to revive his family tie with Sparta, vii. 42;

early politics of, vii. 42;

adoption of anti-Laconian politics by, vii. 43;

attempt of, to ally Argos with Athens, B. C. 420, vii. 43;

trick of, upon the Lacedæmonian envoys, vii. 46 _seq._;

display of, at the Olympic festival, vii. 53 _seq._, 59 _n._;

intra-Peloponnesian policy of, B. C. 419, vii. 62 _seq._;

expedition of, into the interior of Peloponnesus, B. C. 419,

vii. 63;

at Argos, B. C. 418, vii. 75, and B. C. 416, vii. 98;

and Nikias, projected contention of ostracism between,

vii. 104 _seq._;

his support of the Egestæan envoys at Athens, B. C. 416, vii. 146;

and the Sicilian expedition, vii. 148, 152 _seq._, 160 _seq._;

attack upon, in connection with the mutilation of the Hermæ,

vii. 175, 207 _seq._;

the Eleusinian mysteries and, vii. 175 _seq._, 211 _seq._;

viii. 150;

plan of action in Sicily proposed by, vii. 191;

at Messênê in Sicily, vii. 193;

at Katana, vii. 193;

recall of, to take his trial, vii. 195, 211 _seq._;

escape and condemnation of, vii. 211 _seq._, 235 _n._ 2;

at Sparta, vii. 235 _seq._;

Lacedæmonians persuaded by, to send aid to Chios, vii. 367;

expedition of, to Chios, vii. 370 _seq._;

revolt of Milêtus from Athens, caused by, vii. 375;

order from Sparta to kill, viii. 2;

escape of, to Tissaphernês, viii. 3;

advice of, to Tissaphernês, viii. 3;

acts as interpreter between Tissaphernês and the Greeks,

viii. 5 _seq._;

oligarchical conspiracy of, with the Athenian officers at Samos,

viii. 6 _seq._;

counter manœuvres of, against Phrynichus, viii. 12;

proposed restoration of, to Athens, viii. 12, 13;

negotiations of, with Peisander, viii. 15, 20 _seq._;

and the Athenian democracy at Samos, viii. 49 _seq._, 51, 52 _seq._;

at Aspendus, viii. 100;

return of, from Aspendus to Samos, viii. 116;

arrival of, at the Hellespont, from Samos, viii. 117;

arrest of Tissaphernês by, viii. 120;

escape of, from Sardis, viii. 120;

and the Athenian fleet, at the Bosphorus, viii. 126;

attack upon Chalkêdon by, viii. 126;

occupation of Chrysopolis by, viii. 127;

and Thrasyllus, at the Hellespont, viii. 130;

capture of Chalkêdon by, viii. 132;

and Pharnabazus, viii. 133;

proceedings of, in Thrace and Asia, B. C. 407, viii. 144;

return of, to Athens, B. C. 407, viii. 145 _seq._;

expedition of, to Asia, B. C. 407, viii. 150 _seq._;

dissatisfaction of the armament at Samos with, viii. 153;

accusations against, at Athens, B. C. 407, viii. 153;

alteration of sentiment towards, at Athens, B. C. 407,

viii. 156 _seq._;

and Nikias, different behavior of the Athenians towards, viii. 158;

dismissal of, from his command, B. C. 407, viii. 158;

at Ægospotami, viii. 217;

position and views of, in Asia, after the battle of Ægospotami,

viii. 313 _seq._;

assassination of, viii. 314 _seq._;

character of, viii. 316 _seq._

_Alkidas_, vi. 237, 239 _seq._, 266 _seq._

_Alkmæôn_, i. 278 _seq._

_Alkmæônids_, curse, trial, and condemnation of, iii. 82;

proceedings of, against Hippias, iv. 120;

rebuilding of Delphian temple by, iv. 121;

false imputation of treachery on at the battle of Marathon, iv. 356;

demand of Sparta for the expulsion of, vi. 97.

_Alkman_, iv. 77, 82, 85 _seq._

_Alkmênê_, i. 91.

_Allegorical_ interpretation of mythes, i. 418 _seq._, 425, 436.

_Allegory_ rarely admissible in the interpretation of mythes, i. 2.

_Alôids_, the, i. 136.

_Alos_, sanguinary rites at, i. 125.

_Althæa_ and the burning brand, i. 144.

_Althæmenês_, founder of Rhodes, ii. 30.

_Althæmenês_ and Katreus, i. 224.

_Alyattês_ and Kyaxarês, iii. 230;

war of, with Milêtus, iii. 255 _seq._;

sacrilege committed by, iii. 256;

long reign, death and sepulchre of, iii. 257.

_Amaltheia_, the horn of, i. 150.

_Amanus_, Mount, march of Darius to, xii. 115.

_Amasis_, iii. 328 _seq._;

death of, iv. 229.

_Amasis_ and Polykratês, iv. 241.

_Amastris_, xii. 467 _seq._

_Amazons_, legend of, i. 209 _seq._

_Ambrakia_, iii. 404, 405.

_Ambrakiots_, attack of, upon Amphilokian Argos, vi. 180;

attack of upon Akarnania, vi. 192 _seq._;

projected attack of, on Amphilochian Argos, vi. 302;

defeat of, at Olpæ, vi. 304;

Menedæus’s desertion of, vi. 305 _seq._;

Demosthenês’s victory over, vi. 307 _seq._;

pacific convention of, with the Akarnanians and Amphilochians,

vi. 311.

_Ambrysus_, re-fortification of, xi. 494.

_Ammon_, Alexander’s visit to the oracle of, xii. 147.

_Amnesty_ decreed by Solon, iii. 98;

proposed by Patrokleidês, viii. 225;

at Athens, B. C. 403, viii. 293, 299 _seq._

_Amompharetus_, v. 174 _seq._

_Amorgês_, vii. 375;

capture of, vii. 388.

_Amphiaraus_, i. 272, 275.

_Amphiktyon_, i. 98, 99, 103.

_Amphiktyonic assembly_, i. 100, ii. 243 _seq._, xi. 241;

condemnation of Sparta by, x. 202 _seq._;

accusation of Thebes against Sparta before, xi. 242;

accusation of Thebes against Phokis before, xi. 243;

resistance of Phokis to, xi. 244 _seq._;

sentence of, against the Phokians, and honors conferred upon Philip

by, xi. 425, 429;

at Delphi, B. C. 339, xi. 470 _seq._

_Amphiktyonies_, or exclusive religious partnerships, ii. 243 _seq._,

248.

_Amphiktyons_, punishment of the Kirrhæans by, iv. 61;

establishment of the Pythian games by, iv. 63;

violent measures of, against the Amphissians, xi. 474 _seq._

_Amphiktyony_ at Kalauria, i. 133.

_Amphilochian Argos_, Eurylochus’s projected attack upon, vi. 302.

_Amphilochians_ and Akarnanians, pacific treaty of, with the

Ambrakiots, vi. 211.

_Amphilochus_, i. 278;

wanderings of, i. 313.

_Amphiôn and Zethus_, i. 263 _seq._;

Homeric legend of, i. 257.

_Amphipolis_, foundation of, vi. 11 _seq._;

acquisition of, by Brasidas, vi. 406 _seq._;

proceedings of Brasidas in, vi. 420;

policy of Kleon and Nikias for the recovery of, vi. 457 _seq._;

Kleon’s expedition against, vi. 462 _seq._;

topography of, vi. 464 _seq._;

battle of, vi. 471 _seq._;

negotiations for peace after the battle of, vi. 489;

not restored to Athens, on the peace of, Nikias, vii. 4;

neglect of, by the Athenians, vii. 104, xi. 215;

claim of Athens to, x. 245 _seq._, 294;

Iphikrates at, x. 251, 299;

failure of Timotheus at, x. 301;

nine defeats of the Athenians at, x. 302 _n._ 2;

Kallisthenes at, x. 370;

Philip renounces his claim to, xi. 212;

siege and capture of, by Philip, xi. 232 _seq._;

Philip’s dealings with the Athenians respecting, xi. 235.

_Amphissa_, capture of, by Philip, xi. 497.

_Amphissians_, accusation of, against Athens, xi. 470 _seq._;

violent proceedings of the Amphiktyons against, xi. 473 _seq._

_Amphitryôn_, i. 91.

_Amphoterus_ and Akarnan, i. 283.

_Amyklæ_, ii. 327;

conquest of, ii. 419.

_Amykus_, i. 169.

_Amyntas_, and the Peisistratids, iv. 19.

_Amyntas, father of Philip_, x. 48 _seq._, 243 _seq._;

and the Olynthian confederacy, x. 50, 56, 58, 65;

and Iphikrates, x. 108;

and Athens, x. 243, 245;

death of, x. 243;

assistance of Iphikrates to the family of, x. 250.

_Amyntas_, son of Antiochus, xii. 9, 116, 125.

_Amyntas_, son of Perdikkas, xii. 8.

_Anaktorium_, iii. 402 _seq._, vi. 360.

_Anaphê_, i. 240.

_Anapus_, crossing of, by Dion, xi. 91.

_Anaxagoras_, vi. 101.

_Anaxandrides_, bigamy of, ii. 386.

_Anaxarchus_ of Abdera, xii. 213, 215, 217.

_Anaxibius_, ix. 150 _seq._, 156 _seq._;

in the Hellespont, ix. 369;

death of, ix. 371 _seq._

_Anaxikratês_, v. 335.

_Anaxilaus_, v. 211, 230.

_Anaximander_, iv. 381 _seq._

_Anaximenês_ of Lampsakus, i. 409.

_Andokidês_, reputed oration of, against Alkibiadês, iv. 151 _n._ 1,

vi. 6 _n._ 1;

de Mysteriis, iv. 123 _n._ 3;

and the mutilation of, the Hermæ, vii. 196, 200 _seq._

_Androgeos_, death of, i. 211.

_Androklus_, iii. 175.

_Andromachê_ and Helenus, i. 305.

_Andromachus_, xi. 146.

_Andrôn_, story of, respecting Krête, ii. 29.

_Andros_, siege of, by Themistoklês, v. 141;

siege of, by Alkibiadês and Konon, viii. 151.

_Animals_, worship of, in Egypt, iii. 319.

_Ankæus_, i. 177.

_Antalkidas_, embassy of, to Tiribazus, ix. 374 _seq._;

embassies of, to Persia, ix. 383, x. 157;

in the Hellespont, ix. 384;

the peace of, ix. 385 _seq._, x. 1 _seq._

_Antandrus_, expulsion of Arsakes from, viii. 114;

the Syracusans at, x. 386.

_Ante-Hellenic_ inhabitants of Greece, ii. 261;

colonies from Phœnicia and Egypt not probable, ii. 267.

_Antênôr_, i. 304, 315.

_Antigonê_, i. 276.

_Antigonus_ and Perdikkas, xii. 334;

and Eumenes, xii. 338;

great power of, xii. 367;

alliance of Kassander, Lysimachus and Ptolemy against, xii. 367,

372, 383, 387;

measures of, against Kassander, xii. 369, 370;

pacification of, with Kassander, Lysimachus, and Ptolemy, xii. 371;

Roxana and her son Alexander put to death by, xii. 371;

murders Kleopatra, sister of Alexander, xii. 372;

Athenian envoys sent to, xii. 380; death of, xii. 387.

_Antigonus_ Gonatas, xii. 390.

_Antilochus_, death of, i. 298.

_Antimachus_ of Kolophon, i. 268.

_Antiochus_ at Samos and Notium, viii. 152, 153.

_Antiochus_, the Arcadian, x. 280.

_Antiopê_, i. 257 _seq._

_Antipater_, embassy of, from Philip to Athens, xi. 386, 387, 390,

397, 401;

made viceroy of Macedonia, xii. 67, 68;

and Olympias, xii. 68, 254;

defeat of Agis by, xii. 284;

submission of all Greece to, xii. 285;

Grecian hostilities against, after Alexander’s death,

xii. 313 _seq._;

and Kraterus, xii. 321 _seq._, 335;

victory of, at Krannon, xii. 321, 322;

terms imposed upon Athens by, xii. 324 _seq._;

remodels the Peloponnesian cities, xii. 332;

contest and pacification of, with the Ætolians, xii. 332;

made guardian of Alexander’s family, xii. 337;

death of, xii. 338;

last directions of, xii. 339.

_Antipater_, son of Kassander, xii. 389.

_Antiphilus_, xii. 319, 321.

_Antiphon_, viii. 18, 30 _seq._, 57 _seq._, 78 _seq._

_Antiquity_, Grecian, a religious conception, i. 445;

stripped of its religious character by chronology, i. 446.

_Antisthenês_, at Kaunus, vii. 397.

_Antistrophê_, introduction of, iv. 89.

_Anytus_, viii. 130, 242.

_Aornos_, rock of, xii. 225 _n._ 2, 227.

_Apatê_, i. 7.

_Apaturia_, excitement at the, after the battle of Arginusæ,

viii. 193 _seq._

_Aphareus_, i. 168, 169.

_Apheidas_, i. 176.

_Aphepsion_, and Mantitheus, vii. 200.

_Aphetæ_, Persian fleet at, v. 97, 98, 101.

_Aphroditê_, i. 5, 52.

_Apis_, i. 83.

_Apodektæ_, iv. 137.

_Apollo_, i. 10;

legends of, i. 45 _seq._, 50;

worship and functions of, i. 49 _seq._, iii. 168;

and Laomedon, i. 57, 285;

and Hermês, i. 59;

types of, i. 61;

and Admêtus, i. 113;

and Korônis, i. 176;

Sminthius, i. 337;

evidence of the Homeric Hymn to, as to early Ionic life, iii. 168;

temple of at Klarus, iii. 184;

reply of Delphian to the remonstrance of Crœsus, iv. 189.

_Apollodôrus_, his genealogy of Hellên, i. 106 _seq._

_Apollodôrus_ and the Theôric fund, xi. 348.

_Apollokratês_, xi. 105, 107, 117.

_Apollonia_, iii. 402 _seq._;

and the Illyrians, iv. 6 _seq._;

and the Olynthian confederacy, x. 52.

_Apollonides_, xii. 142, 149.

_Apriês_, reign and death of, iii. 323 _seq._

_Apsyrtus_, i. 238.

_Arabia_, Alexander’s projects with regard to, xii. 245, 250.

_Arachosia_, Alexander in, xii. 200.

_Aradus_, surrender of, to Alexander xii. 130.

_Arbela_, battle of, xii. 155 _seq._

_Arbitration_ at Athens, v. 354.

_Arcadia_, ii. 299;

state of, B. C. 560, ii. 441 _seq._;

and Sparta, ii. 444 _seq._, v. 315;

proceedings in, after the battle of Leuktra, x. 204 _seq._;

invasions of, by Archidamus, x. 265, 310 _seq._;

mission of Epaminondas to, x. 288;

dissensions in, x. 322 _seq._;

embassy of Æschines to, xi. 368.

_Arcadians_, ii. 301, 433 seq;

sympathy of, with Messenians, ii. 427;

impulse of towards a Pan-Arcadian union, x. 208;

application of, to Athens and Thebes, for aid against Sparta,

x. 213;

Epaminondas and the consolidation of, x. 215;

energetic action and insolence of, x. 259 _seq._;

envoy to Persia from, x. 278, 280;

protest of, against the headship of Thebes, x. 281;

alliance of Athens with, x. 287;

and Eleians, x. 314 _seq._, 323;

occupation and plunder of Olympia by, x. 314, 320 _seq._;

celebration of the Olympic games by, x. 318 _seq._;

seizure of, at Tegea, by the Theban harmost, x. 324 _seq._

_Archagathus_, xii. 438, 439, 443.

_Archêgelês_, Apollo, i. 50.

_Archelaus_, x. 46 _seq._;

siege of Pydna by, viii. 118.

_Archeptolemus_, viii. 84 _seq._

_Archias_, œkist of Syracuse, iii. 363.

_Archias_, the Theban, x. 82, 85.

_Archias_, the Exile-Hunter, xii. 326 _seq._

_Archidamus II._, speech of, against war with Athens, vi. 80 _seq._;

invasions of Attica by, vii. 126 _seq._, 152, 221;

his expedition to Platæa, vi. 185 _seq._

_Archidamus III._, invasions of Arcadia by, x. 265, 316 _seq._;

and the independence of Messênê, x. 291, 360;

and Philomelus, xi. 254;

expedition of, against Megalopolis, xi. 306;

aid to the Phokians at Thermopylæ under, xi. 419, 421; xii. 281,

394.

_Archilochus_, i. 362; iv. 26, 73, 76 _seq._

_Archinus_, decrees of, viii. 299, 308.

_Architects_ at Athens, under Periklês, vi. 20.

_Architecture_, Grecian, between B. C. 600-550, iv. 98.

_Archonides_, x. 469.

_Archons_ after Kodrus, iii. 49;

the nine, iii. 75;

judges without appeal till after Kleisthenês, iii. 129;

effect of Kleisthenês’s revolution on, iv. 137 _seq._, 142 _seq._;

limited functions of, after the Persian war, v. 276;

limitation of the functions of, by Periklês, v. 355, 358, 365.

_Ardys_, iii. 223.

_Areopagus, senate of_, iii. 73;

and the Ephetæ, iii. 79;

and the Eumenides of Æschylus, iii. 80 _n._;

powers of, enlarged by Solon, iii. 122;

under the Solonian and Kleisthenean constitutions, iv. 141;

in early Athens, v. 352 _seq._;

oligarchical tendencies of, v. 354;

venerable character and large powers of, v. 359;

at variance with the growing democratic sentiment, B. C. 480-460,

v. 361;

a centre of action for the oligarchical party, v. 361;

power of, abridged by Periklês and Ephialtês, v. 366 _seq._

_Arês_, i. 10.

_Aretê_, xi. 55, 56, 82, 129.

_Argadeis_, iii. 50.

_Argæus_ and Philip, xi. 212.

_Arganthonius_ and the Phokæans, iv. 199.

_Argeian_ Demos, proceedings of, vii. 99.

_Argeian_ genealogies, i. 81.

_Argeians_, attempts of, to recover Thyrea, ii. 447;

defeat and destruction of, by Kleomenês, iv. 321;

trick of, with their callendar, vii. 65;

Epidaurus, vii. 69, 70, 88;

at the battle within the Long Walls of Corinth, ix. 333;

manœuvres of, respecting the holy truce, ix. 344;

and the peace of Antalkidas, ix. 387;

and Mardonius, v. 157.

_Argês_, i. 5.

_Argilus_, acquisition of, by Brasidas, vi. 406 _seq._

_Arginusæ_, battle of, viii. 173 _seq._;

recall, impeachment, defence, and condemnation of the generals at

the battle of, viii. 181, 210;

inaction of the Athenian fleet after the battle of, viii. 215.

_Argô_, the, i. 231.

_Argonautic expedition_, i. 231 _seq._;

monuments of, i. 241 _seq._;

how and when attached to Kolchis, i. 251;

attempts to reconcile the, with geographical knowledge,

i. 254 _seq._;

continued faith in, i. 255;

Dr. Warton and M. Ginguené on the, i. 481 _n._

_Argos_, rise of, coincident with the decline of Mykênæ, i. 165;

occupation of, by the Dorians, ii. 6;

and neighboring Dorians greater than Sparta, in 776 B. C., ii. 307;

Dorian settlements in, ii. 308, 309, 311;

early ascendency of, ii. 312, 320;

subsequent decline of, ii. 321;

acquisitions of Sparta from, ii. 448 _seq._;

military classification at, ii. 460;

struggles of, to recover the headship of Greece, ii. 463 _seq._;

and Kleônæ, ii. 464;

victorious war of Sparta against, B. C. 496-5, iv. 221 _seq._;

prostration of, B. C. 496-5, iv. 324;

assistance of, to Ægina, v. 49;

neutrality of, on the invasion of Xerxes, v. 64 _seq._;

position of, on its alliance with Athens about B. C. 461,

v. 319 _seq._;

uncertain relations between Sparta and, B. C. 421, vii. 3;

position of, on the peace of Nikias, vii. 11 _seq._;

the Thousand-regiment at, vii. 11;

induced by the Corinthians to head a new Peloponnesian alliance,

B. C. 421, vii. 13;

joined by Matinea, vii. 14;

joined by the Corinthians, vii. 17, 19;

joined by Elis, vii. 19;

refusal of Tegea to join, vii. 20;

and Sparta, projected alliance between, vii. 24;

and Bœotia, projected alliance between, vii. 24 _seq._;

conclusion of a fifty years’ peace between Sparta and,

vii. 28 _seq._;

and Athens, alliance between, vii. 44, 51 _seq._;

embassy from, for alliance with Corinth, vii. 61;

attack of, upon Epidaurus, vii. 65, 69;

invasion of, by the Lacedæmonians and their allies, B. C. 418,

vii. 71 _seq._;

Alkibiadês at, B. C. 418, vii. 75;

political change at, through the battle of Mantinea, B. C. 418,

vii. 89 _seq._;

treaty of peace between Sparta and, B. C. 418, vii. 92 _seq._;

alliance between Sparta and, B. C. 418, vii. 94;

renounces alliance with Athens, Elis and Mantinea, vii. 94;

oligarchical revolution at, vii, 96, 97;

restoration of democracy at, vii. 100;

renewed alliance of, with Athens, vii. 101;

Alkibiadês at, B. C. 416, vii. 101;

Lacedæmonian intervention in behalf of the oligarchy at, vii. 101,

102;

envoys from, to the Athenian Demos at Samos, viii. 53;

alliance of, with Thebes, Athens, and Corinth, against Sparta,

ix. 284;

consolidation of Corinth with, ix. 332;

expedition of Agesipolis against, ix. 355 _seq._;

violent intestine feud at, x. 199 _seq._

_Argos, Amphilochian_, capture of, by Phormio, vi. 121;

attack of Ambrakiots on, vi. 180;

Eurylochus’s projected attack upon, vi. 302.

_Argus_, destruction of Argeians in the grove of, iv. 321.

_Aria_, Alexander in, xii. 189.

_Ariadnê_, i. 220 _seq._

_Ariæus_, flight of, after the battle of Kunaxa, ix. 47;

and Klearchus, ix. 52, 54;

and the Greeks after the battle of Kunaxa, ix. 54, 56, 62, 78.

_Aridæus_, Philip, xii. 319, 320, 334.

_Ariobarzanes_, intervention of, in Greece, x. 261;

revolt of, x. 294 _seq._;

at the Susian Gates, xii. 171;

death of, xii. 172.

_Arion_, iv. 78 _seq._

_Aristagoras_ and Megabatês, iv. 284;

revolt of, iv. 285 _seq._, 292;

application of, to Sparta, iv. 286 _seq._;

application of, to Athens, iv. 289;

march of, to Sardis, iv. 290;

desertion of the Ionic revolt by, iv. 296 _seq._

_Aristarchus_, the Athenian, viii. 82.

_Aristarchus_, the Lacedæmonian, ix. 164 _seq._

_Aristeidês_, constitutional change introduced by, iv. 145;

character of, iv. 338 _seq._;

elected general, iv. 341;

banishment of, by ostracism, v. 50;

and Themistoklês, rivalry between, v. 50, 273;

restoration of, from banishment, v. 110;

joins the Greek fleet at Salamis, v. 130;

slaughters the Persians at Psyttaleia, v. 136;

equitable assessment of, upon the allied Greeks, v. 264 _seq._;

popularity of, after the Persian war, v. 278;

death and poverty of, v. 289.

_Aristeus_, vi. 70, 73 _seq._ 182.

_Aristo_ and Agêtus, iv. 326.

_Aristocrats_, Grecian, bad morality of, vi. 287.

_Aristodêmus_, ii. 2 _seq._

_Aristodêmus_, king of Messenia, ii. 476.

_Aristodêmus Malakus_, iii. 359.

_Aristodêmus_, “the coward”, v. 94, 188.

_Aristodêmus_, the actor, xi. 373.

_Aristodikus_, iv. 201.

_Aristogeitôn_ and Harmodius, iv. 111 _seq._

_Aristoklês_ and Hipponoidas, vii. 85, 89.

_Aristokratês_, king of Orchomenus, ii. 428, 437.

_Aristokratês_, the Athenian, vii. 368.

_Aristomachê_, x. 480.

_Aristomenês_, ii. 421, 428 _seq._

_Aristonikus_ of Methymna, xii. 142, 149.

_Aristophanês_, viii. 327;

his reason for showing up Sokratês, viii. 408;

his attack upon the alleged impiety of Sokratês, i. 400 _n._;

and Kleon, vi. 482 _seq._, 488.

_Aristoteles_ the Spartan, xi. 2.

_Aristotle_ on Spartan women, ii. 387;

on the Spartan laws of property, ii. 408;

meaning of the word Sophist in, viii. 354;

formal logic of, viii. 429;

novelties ascribed to Sokratês by, viii. 424;

and Hermeias, xi. 441, 441 _n._;

instruction of Alexander by, xii. 3;

and Alexander, political views of, compared, xii. 265 _seq._