1. Political civilization commenced in Egypt at a much earlier period

than that to which history reaches; for even in the days of Abraham,

and still more so in those of Moses, the government seems to have been

so well organized, that a long period must necessarily have elapsed in

order to raise the nation to that degree of civilization which we see it

had then attained. It may, therefore, be safely asserted, that Egypt

ranks among the most ancient countries of our globe in which political

associations existed; although we cannot determine with equal certainty

whether they did not exist still earlier in India.

2. The causes which contributed to render Egypt thus early a civilized

state, may be found in the natural features of the country, and its

favourable situation, when compared with the rest of Africa. It is the

only tract in all northern Africa situated on a large uninterrupted

navigable stream: had it not been for this, it would, like the other

parts of Africa under the same parallel, have been a mere desert. To

this must be added two extraordinary circumstances: on the one hand, the

overflowing of the river so perfectly prepares the soil, that to scatter

the seed is almost the only labour of the husbandman; and yet, on the

other hand, so many obstacles impede the progress of agriculture, (by

the necessity of canals, dams, etc.) that the invention of man must

necessarily have been awakened. When agriculture, and the kind of

knowledge requisite for its ulterior development had introduced a

certain degree of civilization into Egypt, the situation of that

country, between Asia and Africa, and in the neighbourhood of the rich

land of gold and spices, must have been highly favourable to the

purposes of international commerce; hence Egypt appears in all ages to

have been one of the chief seats of the inland or caravan trade.

3. It is obvious, therefore, that in the fertile valley of the Nile, the

course of things must have been very different from what it was in the

desert of Libya. Several small states appear to have been formed in this

valley long before the existence of any great Egyptian kingdom. Their

origin, as might naturally be supposed, is enveloped in an obscurity,

which history can no longer entirely penetrate. It may still, however,

be gathered from monuments and records, that Upper Egypt was first the

seat of civilization; which, originating in the south, spread by the

settlement of colonies towards the north. It is probable that this took

place in consequence of the migration of some tribe, differing from the

negroes, as is proved by the representations, both in sculpture and in

painting, found on the yet remaining monuments of Egypt.

4. The records of the high antiquity of political civilization, not only

in India, but likewise in Arabia Felix and Ethiopia, particularly in

Meroe, and the evident vestiges of ancient intercourse between the

southern nations of our globe, prove with sufficient evidence the truth

of such migrations, although they cannot be chronologically determined.

It is certain, however, that religion had no small share in producing

them. The national bond of union in Egypt not only continued in later

times, entirely dependent upon religion, but was originally grounded

upon it. Thus every step in political civilization must have depended,

if not solely, at least principally, on the caste of priests and on

their extension.

General development of the idea of division into castes. Originating

at first in the variety of tribes settled in one and the same

country, and their different modes of life.--Its further progress

in despotic and in theocratic kingdoms.--Application to Egypt and

to the Egyptian caste of priests, as an original, civilized tribe.

5. The peculiarity of this caste was the worship of certain deities, the

principal of which were Ammon, Osiris, and Phtha, confounded by the

Greeks with their Jupiter, Bacchus, and Vulcan. The spread of this

worship, which was always connected with temples, affords, therefore,

the most evident vestiges of the spread of the caste itself; and those

vestiges combined with the records of the Egyptians, lead us to conclude

that this caste was a tribe which migrated from the south, from beyond

Meroe in Ethiopia, and by the establishment of inland colonies around

the temples founded by them, gradually extended and made the worship of

their gods the dominant religion in Egypt.

Proof of the accuracy of the above theory deduced from monuments and

express testimonies concerning the origin of Thebes and Ammon from

Meroe; it might have been inferred from the preservation of the

worship of Ammon in the latter place. Memphis, again, and other

cities in the valley of the Nile, are commonly supposed to have been

founded by detachments from Thebes.

6. This conjecture, which agrees with the usual progress of population,

is corroborated by the very ancient division of the country into

districts, or nomes. This division was intimately connected with the

chief temples, each of which represented a separate colony of the caste

of priests; so that the inhabitants of every home belonged to the chief

temple, and joined in the religious worship there performed.

7. To the gradual extension of this civilized tribe, which comprised,

not only the caste of the priests, but certainly also that of the

warriors, and perhaps some others, may be attributed the formation of

several small states along the banks of the Nile; the central point of

each being always such a colony as we have just now described; although

each state consisted both of the aboriginal tribes of the neighbourhood,

and of those that had migrated into the country. The bond which united

every separate state was, therefore, as in most of those formed in the

infancy of mankind, a common worship, in which all the members

participated. But what, by reason of the peculiarities of soil and

climate, could not take place in southern Africa, took place in Egypt:

agriculture, and its progressive improvement, became the great support

of civilization; and, as being the true foundation of states, formed the

principal political object of the ruling caste.

Refutation of the idea, that the Egyptian priests were in possession

of great speculative knowledge; since their knowledge rather had

constant reference to practical life, and, therefore, was in their

hands the _instrumentum dominationis_ over the people, by which they

rendered themselves indispensable, and kept the former in a state of

dependence.--Explanation of the close reference which their gods,

their astronomical and mathematical sciences bore to agriculture.

8. According to Manetho's catalogues, these separate Egyptian states

existed first in Upper and Middle Egypt; in the former were Thebes,

Elephantine, This, and Heraclea; in the latter, Memphis. It is only in

the last division of his work that we meet with states in Lower Egypt,

such as Tanis, Mendes, Bubastis, and Sebennytus.

To these states, therefore, no doubt, belong the 330 kings after

Menes, whose names the priests read to Herodotus; as also those whom

Diodorus mentions as reigning previous to Sesostris, among whom are

remarked Busiris II. founder of Thebes, and Uchoreus, the founder of

Memphis. Eusebius and Syncellus have preserved from Manetho the names

of several of those kings, which Marsham has endeavoured to compare

and arrange.

9. In the absence of a certain and continuous chronology, it is

impossible to determine accurately which of these states were

contemporary, and which succeeded the others. There can be no question

that Thebes was one of the earliest, if not indeed the most ancient of

them all; certainly prior to Memphis, which was founded by it. According

to the natural order of things, some of these states became wealthy and

mighty, and swallowed up the others. Even at this early period, Thebes

and Memphis had obtained a superiority over the rest.

This and Elephantine appear to have been united to Thebes; as were the

states of Lower Egypt to Memphis.

10. The Mosaic records prove, that even in Joseph's time the state of

Memphis (the real place, it appears, of his residence, not On, or

Heliopolis,) comprised Middle and Lower Egypt. It possessed a numerous

and brilliant court; castes of priests and warriors. Its agriculture

flourished, and several of its institutions indicated a deeply-rooted

civilization. But after the establishment of vassalage in this state by

Joseph, when the class of free proprietors was destroyed, by making the

king the only landholder except the priests, the troubles which already

threatened the kingdom must have assumed a more dangerous and alarming

aspect.

11. These troubles came from abroad. Egypt, surrounded on all sides by

nomad tribes, had often suffered from their irruptions, which sometimes

poured in from the south, sometimes from the east. But never were these

invasions so frequent and durable as in the period which immediately

followed the administration of Joseph. Lower Egypt was overrun by the

Bedouin Arabs, whose chieftains, called by the Egyptians _Hyksos_,

settled in the country, fortified Avaris, or Pelusium, and extended

their dominion to Memphis, which they made probably the seat of their

government. They are depicted as the oppressors of religion, and of the

caste of priests; but when we consider that Moses flourished in their

time, we are led to infer that, like the Mongols in China, they must

have gradually adopted Egyptian manners and civilization. They do not

appear to have gained possession of Thebes in Upper Egypt; and it seems

highly probable, that the long struggle against them was never, or at

least but for a short time, suspended.

The dominion of the Arabian Hyksos falls between B. C. 1800-1600; and

consequently was contemporary with Moses and the exodus of the Jews.

Josephus gives 500 years to their dominion, in which he probably

comprises the long periods of earlier wars.

12. Defeat, and final expulsion of the Hyksos from Upper Egypt by

Thutmosis king of Thebes. The consequence of this event was not only

the restoration of freedom and independence to Egypt, but also the

union of the different states into one kingdom; as the rulers of Thebes

now became monarchs over all Egypt. This expulsion of the Hyksos, which

in itself cannot be considered otherwise than as a vast national effort,

must have been the more deeply impressed on the memory of the people, as

it laid the foundation of the splendid period which immediately

followed.

The expulsion of the Hyksos appears to have been one of the chief

subjects on which the Egyptian artists exercised their talents: it

is supposed to have been represented upon one of the large temples

in Thebes. Denon, plate cxxxiii.

SECOND PERIOD.

_From the Sesostridae until the sole dominion of Psammetichus.

B. C. 1500-650._

The sources for this period are the same as for the foregoing; and

the history still preserves the character of records handed down by

hieroglyphics. To this period belongs the line of kings subsequent

to Sesostris, given both by Herodotus and Diodorus. Those two

historians nearly agree, if we regard Herodotus's line of kings,

not as uninterrupted, but as the fragments of a series deduced

solely from public monuments: this will be demonstrated by the

following table, in which the predecessors of Sesostris have

likewise been indicated.

HERODOTUS. DIODORUS.

_Menes._ _Menes._

He was followed by three Followed by fifty-two successors,

hundred and thirty kings ranging over a period of more

belonging to the previous than 1400 years.

period, concerning which our

information is very incomplete: _Busiris I._ and eight successors;

among those sovereigns were the last of whom was

eighteen Ethiopians, and one

queen named Nitocris. _Busiris II._ the founder of

Thebes.

_Osymandyas_ and eight successors;

the last of whom was

_Uchoreus_, founder of Memphis.

_Aegyptus_, grandson of the

foregoing. After the lapse

of twelve generations,

_Moeris._ _Moeris._

Seven generations.

_Sesostris._ _Sesostris_ or _Sesoosis_.

_Pheron_, son of Sesostris. _Sesostris II._ son of the

foregoing: he assumed his

father's name.

Interval comprising several

generations.

_Amasis_, and the Ethiopian,

_Actisanus._

_Mendes_ or _Manes_, builder

of the labyrinth.

Anarchy which lasted five

generations.

_Proteus_, in the time of the _Proteus_ or _Cetes_, in the time

Trojan war. of the Trojan war.

_Rhampsinitus._ _Remphis_, son of the foregoing.

Seven generations, in the course

of which flourished _Nileus_,

from whom the Nile derives

its name.

_Cheops_, builder of the great _Chemmis_ or _Chembes_, from

pyramid. Memphis, builder of the great

pyramid.

_Chephres_, brother to the _Cephren_, brother to the

foregoing, builder of a pyramid. foregoing, builder of a pyramid.

_Mycerinus_, son of Cheops, _Mycerinus_, son of Chemmis,

builder of a pyramid. builder of a pyramid.

_Asychis_ the legislator. _Bochoris_ the legislator.

_Anysis_, who was blind. Interval of several generations.

_Sabaco_, the Ethiopian. _Sabaco_, the Ethiopian

_Anysis_, king for the second

time.

_Sethos_, a priest of Vulcan.

Dodecarchy. Dodecarchy.

_Psammetichus_ of Sais, sole _Psammetichus_ of Sais, sole

ruler. ruler.

This comparative table demonstrates evidently, not only that

Herodotus's line is often interrupted, but likewise that it is

impossible to establish any continuous chronology, since Diodorus,

more than once leaves the number of generations undetermined. Great

importance, nevertheless, attaches to the date fixed by Herodotus,

ii, 13, where he declares that king Moeris flourished 900 years

before his own visit to Egypt: consequently between B.C. 1500 and

1450. And if, as seems highly probable, the age of Sesostris was

the 15th century B.C. (see ZOEGA, _de Obeliscis_), it cannot be

denied but that we have some general epochs; and with these we must

remain content until more satisfactory information can be

discovered on the monuments. It should likewise be observed, that

the discrepancy between the names of the kings mentioned by

Herodotus and Diodorus, and those furnished by Manetho, may be

accounted for by the fact, that the sovereigns were distinguished

by different names on the monuments and in common life.

Of the dynasties of Manetho, the 18th, 19th, 20th, and 22nd, belong

to this period; more especially the two first, which contain the

most important of the Pharaohs.

1. The following period, nearly to its termination, was the brilliant

age of Egypt, during which it formed but one empire; the kings being

represented as sovereign lords of the whole country. And, indeed, it was

natural that the expulsion of the invaders should be followed by a

period in which the military force and ardour of the nation would be

developed, and directed to external conquest. The capital of the empire

was, no doubt, Thebes, the great monuments of which were erected in this

period; that honour, however, seems to have alternately belonged to

Memphis, Herodotus's line of kings being deduced from the monuments of

that city, and more especially from the temple of Phtha.

The more powerful of the Pharaohs of this period, and the founders

of the most important monuments of Upper Egypt, on which their

names are found, are the following: belonging to the 18th dynasty,

somewhere about 1600-1500.

_Amenophis I._ His name is likewise found beyond Egypt on the

temple of Amada, in Nubia.

_Thutmosis I._ Commencement of the expulsion of the Hyksos.

_Amenophis II._ The Memnon of the Greeks. Complete expulsion of the

Hyksos, and commencement of several of the great edifices. His name

is also found on the monuments of Thebes, Elephantine, and even in

Nubia, on the distant temple of Soleb. Builder of the palace of

Luxor.

_Thutmosis II._ His name found in Carnac, and on the obelisk at the

Lateran.

_Ramesses I._ Supposed to be the Danaus of the Greeks. Expelled by

his brother:

_Ramesses II._ Miamun. Builder of the palace of Medinet-Abu in

Thebes. One of the royal graves that have been opened belongs to

this king.

_Amenophis III._ Renewed invasion of the Hyksos; he flees before

them into Ethiopia; but returns victorious with his son Ramesses.

Belonging to the 19th dynasty, between 1500 and 1400.

_Ramesses III._, called the Great, and sometimes _Sesostris_;

founder of the dynasty, liberator of Egypt, and a great conqueror.

His name and titles, his wars and triumphs, are found on the

temples and palaces of Luxor and Carnac, in Thebes and Nubia. His

son and follower:

_Ramesses IV._ Pheron, rules long in peace. His name is found in

the great pillared hall of the palace of Carnac, and on many other

buildings.

Among his successors but few names have been preserved until we

come to Scheschonk or Sisac, of the 22nd dynasty, between 970 and

950; he took Jerusalem under the reign of Rehoboam, and therefore

furnishes a fixed date.

# R. V. L. (RUEHLE VON LILIENSTERN), _Graphic Illustrations of the

most ancient History and Geography of Egypt and Ethiopia, with an

atlas, 1827_. A work containing every thing necessary for

understanding the discoveries hitherto made in this department of

history.

2. For this splendour, the empire was principally indebted to Sesostris,

son of Amenophis. This prince is justly entitled to the surname of

Great, which was given him by the Egyptians. No one will, to the letter,

credit the narrative of his deeds, exaggerated as they were by the

traditions of the priests, or represented, as they still appear, on the

buildings of Thebes; but who can doubt the existence of a monarch of

whom so many and such various monuments within and without Egypt bear

witness?

Critical examination of the accounts of the nine years' campaign, and

conquests of Sesostris. His arms were principally directed against

wealthy commercial countries; probably by land against Ethiopia, Asia

Minor, and part of Thrace; by sea against Arabia Felix, perhaps even

the Indian peninsula. Can the performance of these exploits be deemed

improbable, in an age when western Asia did not contain a single

great empire? The vast undertakings attributed to Sesostris in the

interior of his dominions; extensive buildings, canals, division of

the land, and imposition of taxes, according to a regular survey,

prove that he must have been the sovereign of all Egypt.

3. Notwithstanding the great changes that were made, the constitution

still bore the same general character, that of a sacerdotal aristocracy

combined with a monarchy. Although the Egyptian kings, like the Indian

princes, were distinct from the priests, yet their power was limited in

various ways by that caste. The high priest shared the royal authority;

the king was shackled by religious ceremonies, both in public and

private life; he was obliged to evince his veneration for the

established worship by the erection of public monuments; and all the

high offices of state were in the hands of the priests. It cannot be

denied that on the personal character of the king depended much of his

power; but how strong must have been this aristocracy, when even

successful conquerors were obliged to conciliate its approbation!

4. It was probably about this time that the domestic relations of the

people, the division into castes, was completed. The sacerdotal caste

being in exclusive possession of all scientific knowledge, remained for

that reason in possession of the offices of state. The caste of warriors

could hardly have assumed its complete form before the country was

united into one empire: in like manner that of the navigators could not

have been completely established before the canals were excavated;

although the origin of all may have been of a much earlier date.

Comparison of the accounts given by Herodotus and Diodorus of the

division into castes. Not only precedence in time, but likewise the

discrepancies between the two, declare in favour of Herodotus.

5. It appears, therefore, that the most prosperous period of the kingdom

of the Pharaohs must be placed somewhere between B. C. 1500-900:

although, according to Diodorus, even this period was interrupted by a

long anarchy. The splendour of the empire was obscured towards the end.

Sabaco, a foreign conqueror from Ethiopia, (probably from Meroe,)

subjugated Egypt; after his departure from the country, Sethos, a

priest of Phtha, contrary to all precedent, seated himself upon the

throne. He was, consequently, considered an usurper; he offended the

caste of warriors, and could not have escaped the dangers of an

irruption threatened by the Assyrian, Sennacherib, had not a pestilence

compelled the invader and his host to retreat.

The dynasty of Sabaco, Seuechus, and Tarhaco in Meroe, who as

conquerors subjected Upper Egypt, is comprised between B. C. 800-700.

Their names likewise have been already discovered on monuments; some

at Abydos in Egypt, others in Nubia.

6. The Egyptian monarchy, however, at length fell, and was replaced by

an oligarchy; (or perhaps a return was only made to the division of the

earlier kingdoms;) twelve princes sharing among themselves the sovereign

power. A certain degree of unity seems to have existed at first in this

government; but quarrels soon sprung up among the princes, and they

compelled one of their number, Psammetichus of Sais, to take flight. The

exiled prince, supported by Greek and Carian mercenaries, contrived to

avenge his wrongs; he drove away his rivals, and became the sole ruler.

THIRD PERIOD.

_From the reign of Psammetichus as sole monarch to the Persian conquest

of Egypt by Cambyses. B. C. 650-525._

Herodotus, (l. ii, c. 125, etc.) is still the principal authority

for this portion of history. His statements, however, are no longer

derived from hieroglyphics: they are purely historical. During the

reign of Psammetichus, the Greeks who had migrated into Egypt gave

rise to the caste of interpreters, [Greek: hermeneis], who acted

both as ciceroni for strangers, and as brokers between the

Egyptians and Greeks: these people were enabled to give information

respecting the history of the country. It is not, therefore,

surprising that Herodotus should assure us, that from this time the

history was authentic.--The names of the succeeding Pharaohs are

likewise found on the monuments; in the erection of which they

rivaled their predecessors.

_Contemporary_: Asia: rise and fall of the Chaldaeo-Babylonian

empire; rise of the Persian monarchy.--Rome: kings from Numa

Pompilius to Servius Tullius.--Athens: Draco; Solon;

Pisistratus.--Jews: the last period and fall of the kingdom of

Judah; Babylonish captivity.

1. From this epoch Egypt remained uninterruptedly one kingdom, the

capital of which was Memphis, although Sais, in Lower Egypt, was the

general residence of the royal family. Strangers, and more particularly

Greeks, admitted into Egypt; partly as mercenaries, partly as merchants.

Influence of this innovation upon the national character, and upon the

political system in particular. A spirit of conquest gradually inherited

by the Egyptian kings, is directed principally against Asia: hence the

formation of a navy, and wars with the great rising monarchies of Asia.

Continued, but declining influence of the sacerdotal caste, and proofs

of the veneration of the kings for the priesthood deduced from the

erection and embellishment of temples, particularly of that consecrated

to Phtha in Memphis.

2. _Psammetichus._ He obtains sole power through the assistance of Greek

and Carian mercenaries, who are continued as a standing army in the

country. The caste of Egyptian warriors, taking umbrage in consequence,

emigrate for the most part to Ethiopia, where they settle. The southern

portico of the temple of Phtha is erected, and projects of conquest are

formed against Asia.

3. _Neco_, son and successor of Psammetichus. His extensive plans of

conquest. First formation of a naval power; and unsuccessful attempt to

unite by a canal the Mediterranean with the Red sea. Conquests in Asia

as far as the Euphrates; but quick secession of the conquered, in

consequence of the loss of the battle of Circesium. Circumnavigation of

Africa undertaken at his command by the Phoenicians, and successfully

performed.

4. _Psammis his son and successor._ Expedition against Ethiopia, and

conquests in the interior of Africa.

5. Reign of _Apries_, (the Pharaoh-hophra of the Hebrews). Plans of

conquest against Asia;--siege of Sidon, and naval battle with the

Tyrians;--expedition against Cyrene in Africa; its fatal result. A

revolution caused thereby in Egypt, the inhabitants of which were averse

to foreign wars, carried on mostly by mercenary aliens: the revolution

headed by Amasis. In the civil war which Apries now wages with his

mercenaries against the Egyptians commanded by Amasis, he loses both his

throne and life; and with him ends the family of Psammetichus, which had

reigned to this time.

6. The usurper _Amasis_ took possession of the sovereign power; and

although he had to contend with a strong party, who despised him on

account of his low origin, he contrived by popular measures, and by the

respect he showed to the sacerdotal caste, to establish himself upon the

throne.--His monuments, both at Sais and Memphis.--The Egyptians and

Greeks become better acquainted and more closely connected with each

other, partly in consequence of the marriage of the king with a Greek

woman; but principally owing to the mouths of the Nile being opened to

the Greek merchants, and the cession of Naucratis as a factory for their

merchandise. Great and beneficial consequences to Egypt, which, under

the long reign of Amasis, reaches its highest pitch of prosperity. This

prince had already been engaged in disputes with the Persian conqueror,

Cyrus, whose son and successor, Cambyses, led an expedition against

Egypt, which Amasis, however, luckily for himself, escaped by a

seasonable death.

7. His son Psammenitus, the last of the Egyptian Pharaohs, is attacked

by Cambyses in the very first year of his reign. After a single battle,

fought at Pelusium, and a short siege of Memphis, the empire of the

Pharaohs is overthrown, and Egypt merges into a Persian province. The

powerful caste of the priests suffered most from the hatred of the

conqueror; but the persecution to which they were subjected must be

attributed rather to policy than fanaticism.

8. Condition and fate of Egypt as a Persian province. After the death of

Cambyses, the country received a Persian governor, and consequently

became a satrapy. Immediately after the first tempest of war had blown

over, Egypt was treated with mildness by the Persians. The country paid

a moderate tribute, together with some royal gifts, among others the

produce of the fisheries in lake Moeris; nevertheless, repeated revolts

occurred, which may be principally attributed to the hatred and

influence of the sacerdotal caste. The first took place under Darius

Hystaspes, and was quelled by Xerxes. An increase of tribute was the

consequence. The second, under king Inarus, fomented and supported by

the Athenians, happened during the reign of Artaxerxes I.; it was

quelled by Megabyzus. The third occurred under Darius II. and in

consequence of the support which the Egyptians received from the Greeks,

was of longer duration than either of the former, the throne of the

Pharaoh's being in some measure restored.

This third secession of the Egyptians lasted till 354. During

this period various kings were appointed; Amyrtaeus, _d._ 408;

Psammetichus, about 400; Nephreus, about 397; Pausiris, _d._ 375;

Nectanebus I. _d._ 365; Tachos, _d._ 363; Nectanebus II. conquered

by Artaxerxes III. 354.

CARTHAGINIANS.

Sources. The first great republic which ancient records mention as

applying both to trade and war, is undoubtedly a phenomenon well

deserving the attention of the historical enquirer. Our knowledge,

however, of Carthaginian history is unfortunately very deficient,

as we possess no author who has made it the principal object of his

attention. The immediate subject of the Greek and Roman writers was

the history of their own country, and they only allude to that of

Carthage in so far as it is connected with their main topic. This

observation applies as well to Polybius and Diodorus, as to Livy

and Appian. Even the information given by Justin, the only author

who says any thing concerning the early state of Carthage, is

miserably defective, although taken from Theopompus. (Cf. _Comment.

de fontibus_ JUSTINI _in Commentat. Soc. Gotting._ vol. xv.)

Moreover, as Herodotus here fails us, we have not the writings of

any author whatever who witnessed Carthage in the days of her

prosperity: Polybius did not see that country till after the

decline of its power; the other historians, wrote long afterwards.

But although an uninterrupted history of Carthage does not exist,

we are yet able to trace the main outlines of the picture of that

state.--The modern writers on Carthage are:

HENDRICH, _de Republica Carthaginiensium_, 1664. A useful

compilation.

# _History of the Republic of Carthage_, 2 vols. Franckfort, 1781.

A mere history of the wars.

DAMPMARTIN, _Histoire de la Rivalite de Carthage et de Rome_, tom.

i, ii. Very superficial.

# W. BOETTICHER, _History of Carthage_, part i. Berlin, 1827.

The best work on the subject; in which use has been made of modern

researches.

Concerning the Carthaginians, see HEEREN'S _African Nations_,

2 vols. 8vo. Oxford, 1831.

The history of Carthage is most conveniently divided into three periods:

I. From the foundation of the city to the commencement of the wars with

Syracuse, B. C. 880-480. II. From the commencement of the wars with

Syracuse to those with Rome, 480-264. III. From the commencement of the

wars with Rome to the destruction of Carthage, 264-146.

FIRST PERIOD.

_From the foundation of Carthage to the wars with Syracuse, B. C.

880-480._

_Contemporary_: Inner Asia: kingdoms of the Assyrians, Babylonians,

and first half of the Persian monarchy. Greeks: period from

Lycurgus to Themistocles. Romans: period of the kings, and of the

commonwealth until the establishment of the tribunes of the people.

1. The foundation and primitive history of Carthage, like all very early

and important events in national history, have, by long tradition, been

wrapt in the veil of romance. The account given of Dido, the supposed

founder of the city, cannot be reduced to the standard of pure

historical truth, though it appears to justify the inference that some

political commotions in the mother city, Tyre, induced a party of

emigrants to proceed to the northern shores of Africa; where other

Phoenician establishments had already taken place: here, by engaging to

pay a yearly tribute, they purchased from the natives permission to

found a city, the site of which was so happily chosen, that it only

depended upon the inhabitants to raise it to that greatness which it

afterwards attained.

2. It is probable that Carthage advanced at first by slow steps; yet

even at the end of this first period she had reached to such a height of

power, that she was mistress of a large territory in Africa, and of

foreign possessions still more extensive. Establishment of the

Carthaginian dominion in Africa by the subjection of the neighbouring

aboriginal tribes, and the foundation of Carthaginian settlements within

their territories; the natives, Liby-Phoenicians, gradually mingled with

the inhabitants of those colonies, and imbibed from them a love of

agriculture and fixed abodes. The inhabitants of the fertile territory

extending southward as far as the lake Triton, were, without exception,

Carthaginian subjects.

3. Her connection, however, with the ancient Phoenician towns along the

coast, particularly Utica, was of a different nature. For although

possessed a certain authority over them, she did not claim absolute

dominion, but rather stood at the head of a federation; thus affording a

protection which must frequently have degenerated into oppression.

4. In consequence of a treaty with the neighbouring republic of Cyrene,

the whole territory extending between the two Syrtes was also ceded to

the Carthaginians. The Lotophagi and Nasamones, inhabitants of this

district, preserved their nomad mode of life; they must, however, from

their trade with the interior parts of Africa, have been of the highest

importance to Carthage.

5. System of colonization, and, as a necessary result, that of conquest

without Africa. It was evidently the aim of the Carthaginians to settle

on islands, and to subject them to their dominion. Those lying in the

western part of the Mediterranean occupied the first place in their plan

of conquest, which was completely executed in Sardinia, the Baleares,

and other small islands; perhaps in Corsica; in Sicily, however, they

could never succeed to the full extent of their wishes. There is also

every probability that the Canary islands and Madeira were entirely in

their possession. On the other hand, the Carthaginians, previous to

their wars with Rome, were in the practice of establishing separate

settlements on the main land, partly in Spain, and partly on the western

shore of Africa. In the latter, they adopted the policy of their

ancestors, the Phoenicians, making the settlements so small, and

confining them within such narrow bounds, that the mother country might

always ensure their dependence.

6. The glory of extending the territory of Carthage, by important

conquests, belongs principally to the family of Mago, who, together with

his two sons and six grandsons, established the dominion of the republic

in Sicily, Sardinia, and Africa. This occurred about the same time that

Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius were laying the foundation of the Persian

monarchy, with which Carthage even then entered into connection. The

Carthaginians, therefore, made their first appearance, as extensive

conquerors, in the fourth century from the foundation of their

commonwealth; and it is at this period that mention is made of their

first naval engagement, in which the Phocaeans were their adversaries. In

the same period may be dated the establishment of their colonies beyond

the Pillars of Hercules by Hanno and Himilco--both probably sons of

Mago;--by the former on the coast of Africa, by the latter on that of

Spain. To the same period likewise is referred the first commercial

treaty between the Carthaginians and Romans, in which the former appear

as already masters of Sardinia, Africa, and a portion of Sicily.

7. To complete these conquests, and to preserve them when completed, the

formation and support of vast fleets and armies were indispensably

necessary. According to the usual practice of those nations who apply

both to trade and to war, the Carthaginian armies were composed for the

most part of mercenaries. No nation, however, followed this plan so

extensively as the Carthaginians, for to them half Africa and Europe

furnished warriors.--Description of a Carthaginian army; development of

the advantages and disadvantages of its organization.--Organization of

their navy. The state supported very numerous fleets of war-ships, with

a multitude of slaves who laboured at the oar, and were it seems public

property.

8. The political constitution of Carthage, like that of all wealthy

trading states, was an aristocracy composed of the noble and the

opulent, though at all times combined with a certain admixture of

democracy. The affairs of the state were confided to the hands of the

two suffetes or kings,--who, in all probability, held their office for

life--and to those of the senate ([Greek: Boule]) which contained within

itself a more select council (the [Greek: gerousia]). The privilege of

electing the magistrates resided with the people at large, who also

shared the legislative power with the suffetes. Civil and military power

was usually divided: the offices of general and magistrate not being

always, as at Rome, united in the same individual,--although such an

instance might not be of impossible occurrence:--to each military chief,

on the contrary, was appointed a committee from the senate, on which he

was more or less dependent.

9. The high state tribunal of the HUNDRED was instituted as a barrier to

the constitution against the attempts of the more powerful aristocrats,

particularly the military leaders; indeed the brilliancy of Mago's

conquests seemed to threaten the republic with a military government;

and immediately previous to his time one of the generals, Malchus, had

actually made an attempt to enslave Carthage. The object of the

institution was no doubt attained; but in later times the council

assumed to itself a power which increased to absolute despotism. It is

not improbable that this court likewise constituted the select committee

(the [Greek: gerousia]) of the senate.

10. Our information respecting the financial system of the Carthaginians

is extremely meagre. The following seem to have been the principal

sources of the public revenue. 1. The tribute drawn from the federate

cities, and their African subjects. The former paid in money, the latter

for the most part in kind; this tribute was imposed at the will of the

government, so that in pressing cases the taxed nations were obliged to

give one half of their income. 2. The case was the same with their

external provinces, particularly with Sardinia. 3. The tribute

furnished by the nomad hordes, partly by those in the Regio-Syrtica, and

occasionally also by those on the western side. 4. The customs, which

were levied with extreme rigour, not only in Carthage, but likewise in

all the colonies. 5. The products of their rich mines, particularly

those of Spain. In considering the financial system of the

Carthaginians, it should not be forgotten that many of the nations with

whom they traded, or who served in their armies, were unacquainted with

the use of money.

11. System and extent of their commerce. Their object was to secure a

monopoly of the western trade; hence the practice of restricting the

growth of their colonies, and of removing as much as possible all

strangers from their commercial marts. Their trade was carried on partly

by sea, and partly by land. Their sea trade, arising from the colonies,

extended beyond the Mediterranean, certainly as far as the coasts of

Britain and Guinea. Their land trade was carried on by caravans,

consisting principally of the nomad tribes resident between the Syrtes:

the caravans travelled eastward to Ammonium and Upper Egypt, southward

to the land of the Garamantes, (Fezzan,) and even still further into the

interior of Africa.

SECOND PERIOD.

_From the breaking out of the wars with Syracuse, to the commencement of

those with Rome, B. C. 480-264._

1. The great object of Carthaginian policy during the whole of the above

period, was to subdue Sicily; this object the nation pursued with

extraordinary pertinacity, often approximating to, but never obtaining,

complete success. The growing power of Syracuse, which likewise aimed at

the sole possession of the island, laid the foundation of that national

hatred which now arose between the Sicilian Greeks and the

Carthaginians.

2. First attempt, arising out of the league formed with Xerxes I. upon

his irruption into Greece. Gelon of Syracuse, in a victory more decisive

even than that gained by Themistocles over the Persians at Salamis,

routs the Carthaginians near Himera, and compels them to accede to a

disgraceful peace.

3. This defeat was followed by a period of tranquillity lasting seventy

years, during which we know little about Carthage. All that we can say

with any probability is, that in the mean time the struggle for

territory between Cyrene and Carthage commenced and terminated to the

advantage of the latter state, whose dominion was generally extended and

confirmed in Africa by wars with the aboriginal tribes.

4. But the accession of Dionysius I. to the throne of Syracuse, and the

ambitious project formed by him and his successors, of subjecting to

their rule all Sicily and Magna-Grecia, rekindled once more the embers

of war, which had only smouldered for a short time, to burst forth with

additional violence.

Repeated and bloody wars with Dionysius I. between the years

410-368. Neither party able to expel the other: terms of the last

peace; that each party should remain in possession of what he then

occupied. Second commercial treaty with Rome.

Crafty advantage taken by the Carthaginians of the internal

commotions at Syracuse during and subsequent to the reign of

Dionysius II: they endeavour to obtain their end; but are thwarted

by the heroism of Timoleon, 345-340.

A new and frightful war with Agathocles, the seat of which is

transferred from Sicily into Africa itself; it at last terminates

in favour of Carthage, 311-307.

The war with Pyrrhus, 277-275, whose ambition gave rise to an

alliance between Carthage and Rome, contributed likewise to

increase the preponderance of the Carthaginians in Sicily; and

probably the perseverance of that people, and their skill in

profiting by circumstances, would at last have enabled them to

attain their object, had not the seeds of war been thereby

scattered between Carthage and Rome.

5. What effect these Sicilian wars had upon the state we are not

informed. They were probably regarded in Carthage as a beneficial

channel for carrying off the popular fermentation;--nevertheless, two

attempts, both unsuccessful, were made by some of the aristocratical

party, to overthrow the constitution; first by Hanno, 340, and

afterwards by Bomilcar, 308.--At the breaking out, however, of the war

with Rome, the commonwealth was so formidable and mighty, that even the

finances of the state do not appear to have been at all affected; a

circumstance of the highest importance. What consequence was it to

Carthage whether 100,000 barbarians more or less existed in the world,

so long as there remained plenty of men willing to suffer themselves to

be sold, and she possessed money to purchase them?

THIRD PERIOD.

_From the beginning of the wars with Rome, to the downfal of Carthage,

B. C. 264-146._

1. The wars between Carthage and Rome were the necessary consequences of

a desire of aggrandizement in two conquering nations; any one might have

foreseen the struggle between the two rivals as soon as their conquests

should once begin to clash. It is, therefore, a question of little

importance, to enquire which was the aggressor; and although Rome may

not be entirely cleared of that charge, we cannot help observing that,

according to the principles of sound policy, the security of Italy was

hardly compatible with the sole dominion of the Carthaginians over the

island of Sicily.

First war with Rome, 264-241, (twenty-three years,) waged for the

possession of Sicily, and decided almost at its commencement by

Hiero's passing over to the Roman side. (For the history of it,

see below, in the Roman history, Book V. Period ii, parag. 2 sq.)

2. This war cost the republic, Sicily and the sovereignty of the

Mediterranean, by which the fate of its other external possessions was

already predetermined. But that which appeared at the first view to

threaten the greatest danger, was the total exhaustion of its finances;

a circumstance which will no longer surprise us, when we consider how

many fleets had been destroyed and replaced, how many armies had been

annihilated and renewed. Carthage had never before been engaged in such

an obstinate struggle as this; and the immediate consequences were more

terrific even than the war itself.

3. The impossibility of paying the mercenaries produced a mutiny among

the troops, which rapidly grew into a rebellion of the subject nations,

who had been most cruelly oppressed during the war. The consequence was

a civil war of three years and a half, which probably would have spared

the Romans the trouble of destroying Carthage, had not the state been

snatched from ruin by the heroism of Hamilcar.

This war, which lasted from 240 to 237, produced lasting consequences

to the state; it gave rise to the feud between Hamilcar and Hanno the

Great, which compelled Hamilcar to seek for support against the senate

by becoming the leader of a democratic faction.

4. The revolt spread abroad; it reached Sardinia and caused the loss of

that most important island, of which the Romans, flushed with power,

took possession, in spite of the terms of the peace.

5. The influence of the family of the Barcas, supported in their

disputes with the senate by the popular party, now got the upper hand

in Carthage; and the first fruit of their power was the new and gigantic

project of repairing the loss of Sicily and Sardinia by the conquest of

Spain; a country where the Carthaginians already had some possessions

and commercial connections. The immediate object of the Barcas was the

support of their family and party; but the Spanish silver mines soon

furnished the republic with the means of renewing the contest with Rome

also.

6. During the nine years in which Hamilcar commanded, and in the

following eight in which Hasdrubal, his son-in-law and successor, was at

the head of the army, the whole of the south of Spain, as far as the

Iberus, was brought under subjection to Carthage, either by negotiation

or force of arms. The further progress of the Carthaginians was only

arrested by a treaty with the Romans, in which the Iberus was fixed upon

as a frontier line, and the freedom of Saguntum acknowledged by both

powers. Hasdrubal crowned his victories as a general and as a statesman

by the foundation of New Carthage, (Carthagena,) which was to be the

future seat of Carthaginian power in the newly-conquered country.

Hasdrubal having fallen by the hand of an assassin in the year 221, the

party of the Barcas succeeded in appointing Hamilcar's son, Hannibal, a

young man of one-and-twenty, for his successor. Hannibal found every

thing already prepared in Spain for the furtherance of the hereditary

project of his family, which was a renewal of the contest with Rome; and

the vigour with which this project was pursued, clearly proves how great

must have been the preponderance of the Barcine influence, at that

time, in Carthage. Had the commonwealth attended to the marine with the

same ardour as their great general did to the land service, the fate of

Rome would perhaps have been very different.

Second war with Rome, 218-201, (seventeen years,) first in Italy

and Spain, afterwards, from 203, in Africa itself. (See the

history of this war below, in the Roman history, Book V, Period

ii, parag. 6 sqq.)

7. Until Africa became the scene of action, the second war cost the

republic much less than the first; the expenses being principally

defrayed by Spain and Italy. Hanno, however, was at the head of a

powerful party at home, who were clamorous for peace, and who can say

they were wrong? As might be expected, the family of the Barcas were for

war, and their influence carried the day. That general who, with hardly

any support from Carthage, was yet able to maintain a footing in the

country of his powerful foes for no less than fifteen years, and that,

too, as much by policy as by force of arms, must extort our admiration.

It cannot, however, be denied, that during the struggle one favourable

opportunity, at least, was let slip of making peace; a fatal omission,

for which the hero of Cannae paid dearly enough, by the failure of his

darling project.

8. By the second peace with Rome, Carthage was deprived of all her

possessions out of Africa, and her fleet was delivered into the hands of

the Romans. She was now to be a mere trading city under the tutelage of

Rome. But Carthage found by this peace her most formidable enemy on the

soil of Africa itself. Massinissa had been elevated to the dignity of

king of Numidia; and his endeavours to form his nomads into an

agricultural people, and to collect them into cities, must have changed

the military system that Carthage had hitherto followed. Roman policy,

moreover, had taken care that the article inserted in his favour in the

last treaty of peace, should be so ambiguously worded, as to leave

abundant openings for dispute.

9. Even after this disgraceful peace, the family of the Barcas still

preserved their influence, and Hannibal was placed as supreme magistrate

at the head of the republic. He attempts to reform the constitution and

the finances, by destroying the oligarchy of the hundred, by whom the

finances had been thrown into confusion. Complete as was the success of

the first blow, it soon became apparent that aristocratic factions are

not so readily annihilated as armies.

The democratic faction to which even the Barcas owed their first

elevation, was the cause of the degeneracy of the Carthaginian

constitution. By that faction the legislative authority of the

senate and magistrates was withdrawn and transferred to the _ordo

judicum_--probably the same as the high state tribunal of the

hundred--which now assumed the character of an omnipotent national

inquisition; and the members being chosen for life exercised

oppressive despotism. This tribunal was formed of those who had

served the office of ministers of finance, with whom it shared

unblushingly the revenues of the state. Hannibal destroyed this

oligarchy by a law, enacting that the members should hold their

office but for one year; whereas before they held it for life. In

the reform wrought by this law in the finances it was seen, that

after all wars and losses, the revenues of the republic were still

sufficient, not only for the usual expenditure and the payment of

tribute to Rome, but also for leaving a surplus in the public

treasury. Ten years had hardly elapsed before Carthage was enabled

to pay down at once the whole of the tribute which she had engaged

to furnish by instalments.

10. The defeated party, whose interests were now the same with those of

Rome, joined the Romans, to whom they discovered Hannibal's plan of

renewing the war in conjunction with Antiochus the Great, king of Syria.

A Roman embassy was sent over to Africa, under some other pretext, to

demand that Hannibal should be given up. The Carthaginian general

secretly fled to king Antiochus, at whose court he became the chief

fomenter of the war against Rome; although unsuccessful in his endeavour

to implicate the Carthaginian republic in the struggle.

See hereafter the history of Syria, Book IV, Period iii, separate

kingdoms. I. Seleucidae, parag. 18; and Book V, Period ii, parag.

10 sq.

11. In consequence of the absence of Hannibal, Carthage fell once more

under the dominion of the Romans, who contrived, by taking a crafty

advantage of the state of parties, to give a show of generosity to the

exercise of their power. Even the patriotic faction, if we may judge by

the violent steps which they took more than once against Massinissa and

his partisans, seem to have been but a tool in the hands of Rome.

12. Disputes with Massinissa, which led to the gradual partition of the

Carthaginian territory in Africa. The manner in which this territory had

been acquired, facilitated the discovery of claims upon each of the

component parts; and the interference of Rome, sometimes disinterested,

but oftener swayed by party feeling, ensured the possession of the

territory to the Numidian.

Even in 199, a disadvantageous treaty framed with Massinissa for

fifty years: nevertheless the rich province of Emporia is lost in

193.--Loss of another province unnamed, to which Massinissa

inherited some claims from his father.--Seizure of the province of

Tysca, with fifty cities, about 174. Probable date of Cato's

embassy, who returned in disgust, because his decision had been

rejected, and became the fomenter of a project to destroy

Carthage.--New disputes about 152.--Massinissa's party is expelled

Carthage.--War breaks out in consequence, during which the king in

his ninetieth year personally defeats the Carthaginians; and what

with famine and the sword, Hasdrubal's army, which had been

surrounded by the enemy, was nearly exterminated; in the mean while

the Roman ambassadors, who had come to act as mediators, obeying

their private instructions, looked on with quiet indifference.

13. Though it is evident that the party spirit raging between Cato and

Scipio Nasica had a considerable influence in hastening the destruction

of Carthage; and though it is equally clear that Massinissa's late

victory paved the way for the immediate execution of that project; yet

it is difficult to unravel the web, by which, long before the

declaration of war now about to follow, treachery prepared the final

scene of this great tragedy. Was the account that Cato at his return

gave of the resuscitated power of Carthage consonant to truth? Was not

the sudden secession of Ariobarzanes, the grandson of Syphax, who was to

have led a Numidian army to defend Carthage against Massinissa,

previously arranged with Rome? Was not the turbulent Gisgo, who first

incited the populace to insult the Roman ambassadors, and then

opportunely rescued them from the fury of the mob, in the pay of Rome?

These questions give rise to suspicions, although they cannot

satisfactorily be answered. At any rate, it may be said, that the

conduct of Rome, after war had broken out, corroborates the suspicion.

The whole history of the last period sufficiently proves, that it was

not so much the debased character of the nation, as party spirit, and

the avarice of the great, which produced the fall of Carthage. Advantage

was taken of that party spirit and avarice by Roman policy, which,

although acting according to the dictates of blind passion, knew how to

profit by dark and base intrigue.

Third war with Rome and destruction of Carthage, 150-146. See

hereafter the Roman history, Book V, Period ii, parag. 19 sq.

* * * * *

SECOND BOOK.

_History of the Persian Empire, from B. C. 560-330._

Sources. Preservation of historic records among the Persians

themselves under the form of royal annals; origin and nature of

those annals. As these have been destroyed, we are obliged to

deduce the history from foreign writers, some of whom, however,

availed themselves of the Persian annals. 1. _Greeks_: their

authority as writers, contemporary, but not always sufficiently

acquainted with the east. (_a_) CTESIAS. His court history compiled

from Persian annals, would be the principal work did we possess the

whole; we have, however, only an extract from it preserved by

Photius. (_b_) HERODOTUS: who probably availed himself of similar

sources in some portion of his work. (_c_) XENOPHON. To this period

of history belong, not only his Anabasis and Hellenica, but also

his Cyropaedia, or portraiture of a happy empire and an accomplished

ruler, according to eastern ideas, exhibited in the example of

Cyrus: of use so far as pure historic records are interwoven with

the narrative. (_d_) DIODORUS, etc. 2. _Jewish writers._ The books

of ESDRAS and NEHEMIAH; and more particularly that of ESTHER, as

containing a faithful representation of the Persian court and its

manners. 3. The accounts of the later _Persian chroniclers_,

MIRKHOND in particular, who flourished in the thirteenth century of

the christian era, can have no weight in the scale of criticism;

they are nevertheless interesting, inasmuch as they make us

acquainted with the ideas that the inhabitants of the east form of

their early history.

The modern authors on Persian history are principally those who

have written on ancient history in general: see p. 2. A treatise on

Persian history, deduced from eastern sources, will be found in the

_Ancient Universal History_, vol. iv.

BRISSONIUS, _de Regno Persarum_, 1591, 8vo. A very laborious

compilation.

The section concerning the Persians in # HEEREN, _Ideas_, etc.

vol. i, part 1.

[MALCOLM, SIR JOHN, _History of Persia_, from the earliest ages to

the present times. Lond. 1816, 4to. 2 vols. "A valuable work."]

1. State of the Persian nation previous to Cyrus; a highland people,

subject to the Medes, dwelling in the mountainous parts of the province

of Persis, and leading wholly, or for the most part, a nomad life.

Division into ten clans, among which that of the _Pasargadae_, the

noblest and ruling horde, is particularly remarkable on account of the

figure it makes in subsequent history.--The result of this division was

a patriarchal government, the vestiges of which remain visible in the

whole of the following history of the Persians. Permanent distinction

between the tribes in reference to their mode of life, observable even

during the most flourishing period of the Persian state: three of the

nobles or warriors, three of the husbandmen, and four of the shepherds.

Argument thence deduced, that the history of the Persians as a dominant

nation, _is that of the nobler clans alone, and of the_ PASARGADAE _more

especially_.

2. The personal history of Cyrus, the founder of the Persian monarchy,

was, even in the time of Herodotus, so obscured under the veil of

romance, that it was no longer possible to detect the real truth. It is,

however, evident, that the course of the revolution wrought by him was,

on the whole, the same as was followed in all similar empires founded in

Asia. Gengis-khan, in a later age, was placed at the head of all the

Mogol hordes; in the same manner was Cyrus elected chief of all the

Persian tribes, by whose assistance he became a mighty conqueror, at the

time that the Babylonian and Median kingdoms of Inner Asia were on the

decline, and before the Lydian empire, under Croesus, had been firmly

established.

Descent of Cyrus from the family of Achaemenes, (Jamshid?). That

family belonged to the Pasargadae tribe, and therefore remained the

ruling house.

3. Rise of the Persian dominion, in consequence of the overthrow of the

Medo-Bactrian empire, after the defeat of Astyages at Pasargada. Rapid

extension by further conquest. Subjection of Asia Minor after the

victory won by Cyrus in person over Croesus, and capture of the Greek

colonies by the generals of the Persian monarch. Conquest of Babylon and

all the Babylonian provinces. The Phoenician cities submit themselves of

their own accord. Even in Cyrus's time, therefore, the frontiers of the

Persian empire had been extended in southern Asia to the Mediterranean,

to the Oxus, and to the Indus; but the campaign against the nomad races,

inhabiting the steppes of Central Asia, was unsuccessful; and Cyrus

himself fell in the contest.

It cannot be denied but that in the narration of the separate wars

waged by Cyrus, discrepancies are found in Herodotus and Ctesias;

those two authors, however, agree in the main facts: and, indeed,

the differences which exist between them cannot be considered always

as direct contradictions.

4. Immediate consequences of this great revolution in respect both of

the conquerors and the conquered. Among the former, even in the time of

Cyrus, the civilization and luxury of the Medes, their legislation and

national religion, and the sacerdotal caste of the magi, who were

guardians of that religion, had been introduced, and the whole system of

the Persian court had been remodelled upon that of the Medes.

Description of Zoroaster's legislation, and of the magian national

religion, according to the Zend-avesta. How far the dogmas of

Zoroaster can be considered as dominant among the Persians?--Proof

that they were adopted only by the nobler tribes, more particularly

the Pasargadae. Their great and beneficial influence on agriculture.

ANQUETIL DU PERRON, _Zend-avesta, ouvrage de_ ZOROASTRE, _traduit

en Francois sur l'original Zend_. Paris, 1771. 4to. This work has

been much improved by the critical discussions added to the German

translation by J. L. KLEUKER. Compare the dissertations on

Zoroaster by MEINERS and TYCHSEN, in _Comment. Soc. Gotting._ and

HEEREN, _Ideas_, etc. vol. i.

HYDE, _De Religione veterum Persarum_; Oxon. 1700, 4to. Replete

with learned research, and the first work that excited enquiry on

the subject.

# J. S. RHODE, _Sacred Traditions of the East_; Breslau, 1821. An

excellent work for the study of the Zend-avesta, the magian religion,

and the antiquities of the Medes and Persians.

5. First political constitution of the Persian empire under Cyrus. No

general new organization; but for the most part the original

institutions are preserved among the conquered, who are compelled to pay

tribute. Royal officers, appointed to collect the tribute, are

associated with the generals, who with numerous armies keep in

subjection the inhabitants of the conquered countries. For the support

of the empire large standing armies are kept in pay, besides which,

recourse is frequently had to the transplanting of whole nations; while,

as was the case with the Jews, some who had been formerly transplanted

are restored to their country. With the same view injunctions are

issued, as in the case of the Lydians, to effect the enervation of

warlike races by a luxurious and effeminate system of education.

6. Cyrus leaves two sons, the elder of whom, Cambyses, succeeds as

king; the younger, Smerdis, (the _Tanyoxarces_ of Ctesias,) becomes

independent lord of Bactria and the eastern territories; but is soon

after murdered by the command of his elder brother.

7. Under Cambyses the conquering arms of the Persians are directed

against Africa. Egypt becomes a Persian province, and the neighbouring

Libya, together with Cyrene, assume the yoke of their own accord. But

the twofold expedition against the opulent commercial establishments,

Ammonium in the west, and Meroe in the south, is wholly unsuccessful;

that against Carthage is arrested in its commencement by the refusal of

the Tyrians to join the naval armament. A colony of six thousand

Egyptians is transplanted into Susiana.

8. The cruelty with which Cambyses is accused of treating the Egyptians

was directed rather against the powerful caste of the priests, than

against the whole nation; and originated more in political than in

religious motives. It must be observed, however, that we ought to be

particularly on our guard against all the evil that is related of

Cambyses, inasmuch as our information respecting that prince is derived

entirely from his enemies, the Egyptian priests.

9. The usurpation of the Pseudo-Smerdis, (or _Tanyoxarces_,) was an

attempt of the magi to replace a Median dynasty on the throne, by means

of a plot hatched within the seraglio. It was the occasion of an

accident which cost Cambyses his life, after a reign of seven years and

a half: (or, according to Ctesias, of eighteen.)

10. The Pseudo-Smerdis kept his seat on the throne eight months, during

which he attempted to bring over the conquered nations to his interest

by a remission of all tribute for three years; but the discovery of his

cheat gave rise to a conspiracy of seven of the chief Persians, who

could not brook the rule of a Mede, and the usurper lost his life.

11. It could not be expected that the political organization of the

kingdom should advance to completion during the reign of Cambyses, who

was almost always absent in the prosecution of war; or during the brief

rule of the Pseudo-Smerdis. It remained, therefore, in the same state as

under Cyrus. But the introduction of the Median court-ceremonial among

the ruling tribe of the Persians, and the adoption of fixed dwellings by

that tribe, rendered it necessary that royal residences should be

erected for the reception of the king's court; among these Persepolis,

(see above, p. 20,) probably commenced by Cyrus, was completed under

Darius and Xerxes.

The best drawings of the monuments of Persepolis, remarkable alike

for their architecture, their sculpture, and their inscriptions in

the arrow-headed character, are to be found in the Travels of

CHARDIN and NIEBUHR. Illustrations:

# HERDER'S _Persepolis_, in the collection of his works, vol. i.

# HEEREN, _Ideas_, etc. Part I. vol. i. Great assistance in

studying the inscriptions, is furnished by

DE SACY, _Memoires sur diverses Antiquites de la Perse_; Paris,

1793, 4to. It must be observed, however, that this work is confined

to the illustration of the later monuments, belonging to the

_Sassanidae_. The most successful attempt at deciphering the

arrow-headed inscriptions of the old Persic, since TYCHSEN,

MUENTER, and LICHTENSTEIN, will be found in

# GROTEFEND, _On the Interpretation of the Arrow-headed Characters,

particularly of the Inscriptions at Persepolis_, contained in the

appendix to HEEREN, _Ideas_, etc. vol. ii. with an accompanying Zend

alphabet.

12. After a very remarkable debate held by the seven conspirators,

concerning the form of of government which should be established,

Darius, the son of Hystaspes, one of the family of the Achaemenides, was

raised to the throne by an oracle; this king endeavoured to strengthen

his right to the sceptre by marrying two of Cyrus's daughters.

13. The reign of Darius I. which lasted thirty-six years, (according to

Ctesias 31,) is remarkable for the improvements made both in the

external and internal administration of the Persian empire. In the

former, by the great expeditions and conquests, which extended the

Persian realm to its utmost limits; in the latter, by several important

institutions, established for the internal organization of the state.

14. The expeditions of the Persians under Cyrus were directed against

the countries of Asia; those of Cambyses against Africa. But those

undertaken by Darius I. were directed against Europe, though the Persian

territory was at the same time extended in the two other quarters of the

world. In the reign of this king likewise commenced those wars with the

Greeks, so fatal to the Persians; constantly fomented and supported by

emigrant or exile Greeks, who found an asylum in the Persian court, and

there contrived to raise a party.--First example of the kind exhibited

shortly after the accession of Darius, in the case of Syloson, brother

to Polycrates, who had been tyrant of Samos: at his request the island

was taken possession of by the Persians, and delivered up to him after

the almost total destruction of the male population.

15. Great revolt in Babylon, which would not submit tamely to a foreign

yoke. After a siege of twenty-one months, Darius by stratagem regains

possession of the city. The power of Babylon and the importance of its

situation increased the jealousy with which it was guarded by the

Persian kings; so much so, that they were wont to reside there a certain

portion of the year.

16. First great expedition of Darius undertaken against the Scythians

inhabiting the lands north of the Black sea: the former irruption of the

Scythians into Asia afforded a pretext for the war, which, therefore,

was considered as a general national undertaking. Unsuccessful as the

Persian arms were in this vast expedition against the Scythians, and

disgraceful as was the retreat from the barren steppes of the Ukrain,

yet the power of Darius was established in Thrace and Macedonia, and the

Persians obtained firm footing in Europe.

Concerning the peculiar character of the Persian national wars,

or great campaigns, in which all the conquered nations were

obliged to participate, contrasted with the other wars waged by

Persian troops alone.

17. The next expedition made by Darius was more successful. It was

carried on along the banks of the Indus, down which river Scylax, a

Greek, had previously sailed on a voyage of discovery. The highlands

north of the Indus were then subjected to the Persian dominion, and the

Indus became the boundary of the kingdom. About the same time that

Darius was engaged on the Danube and the Indus, Aryandes, his viceroy in

Egypt, led an expedition against Barca, to avenge the murder of king

Arcesilaus; a war which terminated in the destruction of the city, and

the transplantation of its inhabitants into Asia.

18. However trifling the first occurrence which gave rise to the revolt

of the Asiatic Greeks, it was much more important in its consequences.

It was set on foot by Aristagoras, lieutenant-governor of Miletus, who

was secretly supported by his relation, the offended Histiaeus, then

resident at the Persian court. The share taken by the Athenians in this

rebellion, which led to the burning of Sardes, was the origin of the

national hatred between Persia and European Greece, and of the long

series of wars that ensued. The confederates were this time defeated;

but the naval battle off the island of Lada, could hardly have had such

a fatal result, had not the league been previously corrupted by the

craft and gold of Persia. Be that as it may, this war ended in the

reduction of the Ionians, and the destruction of Miletus, their

flourishing capital; a city which in those days, together with Tyre and

Carthage, engrossed the trade of the world.

19. First attack upon Greece, particularly Athens. Darius, already

enraged against the Athenians by the firing of Sardes, is still further

instigated by the suggestions of the banished tyrant of Athens, Hippias,

the son of Pisistratus. This prince, who had fled to the Persian court,

was evidently the animating spirit of the whole undertaking. Although

the first attempt, made under the command of Mardonius, was thwarted by

a tempest, yet the mighty expedition which afterwards followed, was

undertaken with so much more prudence, and conducted with so much

knowledge of the country, that no one can fail to recognize the guiding

hand of Hippias. Even the battle of Marathon, which seems to have been

but a diversion on the side of the Persians, would not have decided the

war, had not the activity of Miltiades defeated the principal design of

the enemy upon Athens.

20. It may be said that Darius, by these foreign wars, debilitated the

kingdom which he endeavoured to extend; this circumstance, however, it

cannot be denied, increases the merit which he has of perfecting the

internal organization of the empire. His reign constitutes precisely

that period which must enter into the history of every nomad race that

has attained to power, and is advancing towards political civilization;

a period at which it becomes visible that the nation is endeavouring to

obtain a constitution, however gradual the progress towards it.

21. Division of the empire into twenty _satrapies_, and the imposition

of a regular tribute on each. This division at first depended solely on

that of the various tributary races, but from it gradually arose a

geographic division, in which the ancient distinction of countries was

for the most part preserved.

Proofs that the division into satrapies was originally a mere

arrangement for the civil government and collection of taxes,

distinct from military power. Duties of the satraps. The attention

they were to pay to the cultivation and improvement of the land; to

the collection of the imposts; to the execution of the royal

commands relating to provincial affairs. An abuse of this

institution, at a later period, placed in the hands of these

satraps the command also of the troops.--Various means of keeping

the satraps in a state of dependence: royal secretaries appointed

for each, who were to be the first to receive the king's

commands.--Periodical visits paid to the provinces by commissioners

under the direct appointment of the king, or by the king himself

accompanied with an army.--Establishment of couriers in every part

of the empire, for the purpose of securing a safe and rapid

communication with the provinces, as was the case also in the

Mongol countries; (not a regular post, however, the institution

here alluded to being intended only for the court.)

22. The Persian finance continues to preserve those peculiarities which

naturally result from the formation of an empire by a nomad race of

conquerors, desirous of living at the expense of the conquered, and

under a despotic form of government.

Collection of tribute, mostly in kind, for the support of the court

and the armies; and in precious metals, not coined, but in their

raw state. Application of the treasure thus collected towards

constituting a private chest for the king. Various other royal

imposts.--Mode of providing for the public expenditure by

assignments on the revenues of one or several places.

23. Organization of the military system, conformably to the primitive

state of the nation, and the necessity now felt of keeping the conquered

countries in subjection by means of standing armies.

Military organization of the Persian nations, by means of a decimal

division pervading the whole.--Royal troops cantoned in the open

field, according to a certain division of the empire, or stationed

as garrisons in the cities, and distinct from the

encampments.--Manner in which the troops were supported at the cost

and by the taxes of the provinces.--Introduction of mercenaries

and Greeks, more particularly among the Persians, and fatal

consequences of that measure. Military household of the satraps and

grandees.--Institution of a general conscription in national wars.

Formation of the Persian navy, consisting of the Phoenician, and

not unfrequently of the Asiatic Greek fleets.

24. From the time of Darius, the court of the kings of Persia attained

its complete form, and the government soon after was wholly concentrated

in the seraglio. Yet the mode of life which the kings led, surrounded by

a court, taken principally if not wholly from the tribe of the

Pasargadae, and changing their residence according to the revolutions of

the seasons, still preserved the traces of nomad origin.

Babylon, Susa, and Ecbatana, the usual residences; Persepolis now

used as a royal cemetery. The court supported by the most costly

productions of each province; hence arose the rigid ceremonial

observed at the royal table.--Internal organization of the

seraglio.--Influence of the eunuchs and queen-mothers on the

government.

25. Already had Darius commenced preparations to wreak his vengeance on

Athens, when a revolution broke out in Egypt, and hindered him from

prosecuting his design. He died after nominating for his successor

Xerxes I. grandson of Cyrus, and his eldest son by a second wife,

Atossa, whose influence over her husband was boundless.

26. Xerxes I. A prince educated in the seraglio, who knew nothing beyond

the art of representing the pomp of royalty. Subjection of Egypt, and

severe treatment of that country under the satrap Achaemenes, brother to

Xerxes.

27. Xerxes' famous expedition against Greece was again the result of

the cabals and intrigues of the Greek exiles, the Pisistratidae, the

soothsayer Onomacritus, the Thessalian princes or Aleuadae, who

contrived to exert their influence on the king's mind, and to raise a

party in their favour among the grandees. But the progress of the

campaign showed that no Hippias was at the head of the invading army,

although the Persian king did certainly succeed in his avowed object,

the capture and destruction of Athens.

Critique on the detailed account given by Herodotus of this

expedition, as a national undertaking in which all the subjugated

nations were obliged to take a share.--Preparations which last for

three years in the Persian empire; league framed with Carthage for

the subjection of the Sicilian Greeks, 483-481. The expedition

itself in 480; over Asia Minor and the Hellespont, through Thrace

and Macedonia.--Muster of the army and division of the troops

according to nations at Doriscus; the detailed description of which

found in Herodotus, was most probably borrowed from some Persian

document.--The pass of Thermopylae taken by treachery; on the same

day a naval engagement off Artemisium.--Athens captured and burnt.

Battle of Salamis, Sept. 23, 480. Retreat of Xerxes; an army of

picked men left behind, under the command of Mardonius.--Fruitless

negotiations with the Athenians.--Second campaign of Mardonius: he

is routed at Plataeae, Sept. 25, 479; and that event puts an end for

ever to the Persian irruptions into Greece: on the same day the

Persian army is defeated, and their fleet burnt at Mycale in Asia

Minor.

28. The consequences of these repeated and unsuccessful expeditions, in

which almost the whole population was engaged, must be self-evident. The

empire was weakened and depopulated. The defensive war which the

Persians for thirty years were obliged to maintain against the Greeks,

who aimed at establishing the independence of their Asiatic countrymen,

completely destroyed the balance of their power, by compelling them to

transfer their forces to Asia Minor, the most distant western province

of the empire.

29. Little as the Greeks had to fear from the Persian arms, the danger

with which they were now threatened was much more formidable, when the

enemy began to adopt the system of bribing the chieftains of Greece; a

system which succeeded beyond expectation in the first trial made of it

with Pausanias, and perhaps was not wholly unsuccessful with

Themistocles himself.--But the Persians soon found in Cimon an adversary

who deprived them of the sovereignty of the sea; who in one day

destroyed both their fleet and their army on the Eurymedon; and by the

conquest of the Thracian Chersonese, wrested from them the key of

Europe.

30. What little we know further concerning the reign of Xerxes, consists

in the intrigues of the seraglio, which now, through the machinations of

queen Amestris, became the theatre of all those horrors which are wont

to be exhibited in such places, and to which Xerxes himself at last fell

a victim, in consequence of the conspiracy of Artabanes and the eunuch

Spamitres.

Was Xerxes the Ahasuerus of the Jews?--On the difference between the

names of the Persian kings in Persian and Chaldee; not to be

wondered at when we consider that they were mere titles or surnames,

assumed by the sovereigns after their accession.

31. Artaxerxes I. surnamed Longimanus. In consequence of the murder of

his father and his elder brother, in the conspiracy of Artabanes, this

prince ascended the throne, but was unable to keep possession of the

sceptre without assassinating, in his turn, Artabanes. His reign, which

lasted forty years, exhibits the first symptoms of the decline of the

empire, which this king, although possessed of many good qualities, had

not the talent or spirit to arrest.

32. At the very commencement of his reign rebellions are excited in the

provinces; in the mean while the war with Athens continues. Two battles

are required to repress the insurrection of his brother Hystaspes in

Bactria.

33. Second revolt of Egypt, excited by the Libyan king, Inarus of Marea,

in conjunction with the Egyptian, Amyrtaeus, and supported by an Athenian

fleet. Although the confederates did not make themselves masters of

Memphis, they defeated the Persian army, commanded by the king's

brother, Achaemenes, who lost his life in the battle; they were at last

overpowered by Megabyzus, satrap of Syria, and shut up together with

Inarus in the town of Byblus. Inarus and his party were admitted to

capitulation; but Amyrtaeus, having taken refuge in the morasses,

continued to make head against the Persians.

34. The Grecian war takes, once more, an unfavourable turn for the

Persians: Cimon defeats the enemy's fleet and army near Cyprus. The fear

of losing the whole of the island accordingly compels Artaxerxes I. to

sign a treaty of peace with Athens, in which he recognizes the

independence of the Asiatic Greeks, and agrees that his fleet shall not

navigate the Aegaean sea, nor his troops approach within three days' march

of the coast.

35. But the haughty and powerful Megabyzus, enraged at the execution of

Inarus, in violation of the promise made by him to that prince, excites

a rebellion in Syria; repeatedly defeats the royal armies, and

prescribes himself the conditions upon which he will be reconciled to

his sovereign. This was the first great example of a successful

insurrection excited by one of the Persian satraps; and chequered as

were the subsequent fortunes of Megabyzus, his party continued to

subsist after his death in the persons of his sons. He possessed in the

centre of the court a support in the dowager queen Amestris, and the

reigning queen Amytis; (both notorious for their excesses;) who kept

Artaxerxes I. in a constant state of tutelage to the hour of his death.

36. Revolutions in the government now succeed each other with rapidity

and violence. Xerxes II. the only legitimate son and successor of

Artaxerxes, is slain, after forty-five days' reign, by his bastard

brother Sogdianus; the latter, in his turn, after a reign of six months,

is deposed by another bastard brother, Ochus, who ascends the throne,

and assumes the name of Darius II.

37. Darius II. surnamed the Bastard, or Nothus. He reigns nineteen years

under the tutelage of his wife, Parysatis, and of three eunuchs, one of

whom, Artoxares, even attempts to open a way to the throne, but is put

to death. In this period the decline of the state advances with hurried

steps; partly by reason of the extinction of the legitimate royal line,

partly by the increased practice of placing more than one province,

together with the military command, in the hands of the same satrap.

Although the repeated insurrections of the satraps are repressed, the

court, by the breach of faith to which it is obliged to have recourse,

in order to succeed in its measures, exhibits to the world a convincing

proof of its infirmity. The revolt of Arsites, one of the king's

brothers, who was supported by a son of Megabyzus, and that of

Pisuthnes, satrap of Lydia, are quelled only by obtaining treacherous

possession of their persons.

38. In consequence of the weak state of the empire, the fire, which had

hitherto been smouldering under the ashes, burst forth in Egypt.

Amyrtaeus, who had remained till now in the morasses, issued forth,

supported by the Egyptians; and the Persians were again expelled the

land. Obscure as the subsequent history may be, we see that the Persians

were obliged to acknowledge, not only Amyrtaeus, but his successors. [See

page 72].

39. The Persians must have regarded it as a happy event, that the

Peloponnesian war, kindled in Greece during the reign of Artaxerxes, and

protracted through the whole of that of Darius II. had prevented the

Greeks from unitedly falling upon Persia. It now became, and

henceforward continued to be, the chief policy of the Persians to foment

quarrels and wars between the Grecian republics, by siding at various

times with various parties; and the mutual hatred of the Greeks rendered

this game so easy, that Greece could hardly have escaped total

destruction, had the Persian plans been always as wisely laid as they

were by Tissaphernes; and had not the caprice and jealousy of the

satraps in Asia Minor generally had more effect than the commands of

the court.

Alliance of the Persians with Sparta, framed by Tissaphernes, 441;

but in consequence of the policy of Alcibiades, and the artful

principles of Tissaphernes, followed by no important results, until

the younger Cyrus, satrap of all Asia Minor, was by Lysander, 407,

brought over to the Spartan interest. (See below, the Grecian

history, III. Period, parag. 23.)

40. Artaxerxes II. surnamed Mnemon. Although this prince was the eldest

son of Darius, his right to the throne might, according to the Persian

ideas of succession, have appeared dubious, since his younger brother,

Cyrus, had the advantage over him of being the first born subsequent to

the accession of his father. Relying on the support of his mother

Parysatis, Cyrus, even without this claim to the throne, would, no

doubt, have asserted his pretence to the sovereign power. It would have

been, in all probability, a fortunate event for the Persian empire, had

the fate of battle, in the ensuing war between the two brothers,

assigned the throne to him whom nature seems to have pointed out as the

fittest person.

History of this war according to Xenophon. Battle of Cunaxa,

in which Cyrus falls, 401. Retreat of the ten thousand Greek

mercenaries in the service of Cyrus, under the guidance of Xenophon.

41. During the whole of this reign, Artaxerxes, now firmly seated on the

throne, remained under the tutelage of his mother, Parysatis, whose

inveterate hatred against his wife, Statira, and against all who had any

share in the death of her darling son, Cyrus, converted the seraglio

into a theatre of bloody deeds, such as can be conceived and committed

only in similar places.

42. The insurrection and rout of Cyrus produced a corresponding change

in the political relations between the Persian court and Sparta: which,

however, were now determined, not so much by the will of the monarch

himself, as by the satraps of Asia Minor, Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus,

of whose jealousy Sparta knew how to take advantage. The former, by his

severity towards the Asiatic Greeks, who had supported the cause of

Cyrus, excited a war with Sparta, in which he himself fell a victim. The

death of the satrap is not, however, succeeded by tranquillity; for

Agesilaus commands in Asia, and threatens to overthrow the Persian

throne itself. The policy of the Persians is shown by the war which they

foment in Greece against Sparta: Conon is placed at the head of their

fleet, and extricates Persia from her difficulties better than could

have been done by her own generals; in the peace of Antalcidas she

herself dictates the terms, by which the Grecian colonies of Asia Minor,

together with Cyprus and Clazomenae, are again delivered into her

possession. The rising power of Thebes under Epaminondas and Pelopidas,

with whom Persia keeps up a friendly connection, ensures her from any

future blow at the hands of the Spartans.--War for the possession of

Cyprus with Evagoras, who, however, by the subsequent peace retains the

sovereignty of Salamis.

43. The war against the Cadusii in the mountains of Caucasus, proves

that Artaxerxes II. was not fitted for military command; and his attempt

to recover Egypt from king Nectanebus I. which was defeated by the feud

between Iphicrates and Artabazus, evinces that the most numerous

Persian host could achieve nothing without the assistance of Grecian

troops and Grecian generals.--It could hardly be expected that an empire

should endure much longer, when in the court all was ruled by the desire

of revenge in the women; when the political organization was already so

corrupt, that the satraps waged war against each other; and when those

generals who gave any proof of talent received no better reward than

that of Datames.

44. In fact, it seemed not unlikely that the Persian empire would fall

asunder a little before the death of Artaxerxes Mnemon. A quarrel about

the succession arose in the court between the three legitimate sons of

the king, the eldest of whom, Darius, was put to death: the standard of

rebellion was erected in the western half of the empire, and joined by

all the governors of Asia Minor and Syria, supported by Tachos, king of

Egypt, to whose assistance the Spartans had sent Agesilaus. The

insurrection, however, was quelled in consequence of the treachery of

the chief leader, Orontes, who was bribed over to the court.

45. In the midst of these commotions died Artaxerxes II.: his youngest

son, Ochus, took possession of the throne, and assumed the name of

Artaxerxes III. This king conceived that he could not establish his

power but by the total destruction of the royal family, numerous as it

was. He was contemporary with Philip of Macedon, in whom he soon found a

more formidable rival than any he could have met with in his own family.

46. The new insurrection fomented by Artabazus in Asia Minor, was

accompanied with success so long as it was backed by the Thebans; but

the reception which Artabazus met with at the hands of Philip soon

betrayed the secret intentions of the Macedonian king.

47. But the extensive rebellion of the Phoenicians and Cyprians, in

conjunction with Egypt, compelled the king to undertake another

expedition, which succeeded almost beyond expectation; although in this

case the object was again attained principally by treachery and by

Grecian auxiliaries.

Treachery of Mentor, the leader of the confederates: the consequent

capture and destruction of Sidon, followed by the subjection of

Phoenicia, 356. Capture of Cyprus by Grecian troops, under the

command of Phocion and the younger Evagoras, 354. Expedition of the

king in person against Egypt: victory of Pelusium, won over king

Nectanebus II. with the help of Grecian mercenaries. Egypt becomes,

once more, a Persian province.

48. This restoration of the empire to its former limits was followed by

a period of tranquillity, the result of force, as Mentor and the eunuch

Bagoas, holding the king in complete dependence, divided the kingdom, as

it were, between themselves; until Bagoas was pleased, by poison, to

remove Artaxerxes out of his way.

49. After the assassination of the royal family, Bagoas placed on the

throne the king's youngest and only surviving son, Arces. Bagoas was

desirous of reigning in the name of that prince; but after the lapse of

two years, he found it necessary to depose him, and to substitute in his

place a distant relation of the reigning family, Darius Codomannus, who

commenced his reign by putting to death the wretch himself.

50. Darius III. Codomannus, not having been educated, like his

predecessors, in the seraglio, gave proof of virtues which entitled

him to a better fate. Attacked in the second year of his reign by

Macedon, against which Persia had hitherto made no preparation for

resistance,--unless, perhaps, the dagger which pierced Philip was

pointed by Persian hands,--Darius was unable at once to reestablish a

kingdom which of itself was mouldering away. And yet, had not death

defeated the invasion of Macedonia by his general, Memnon, it might have

been matter of doubt, whether Alexander would ever have shone as the

conqueror of Asia.--After the loss of two battles, in which he fought in

person, Darius III. fell a victim to the treachery of Bessus, and the

burning of Persepolis made known to Asia that the realm of Persia was

destroyed, and that the east must acknowledge a new lord and master.

For the history of the war, see below: the history of Macedon.

* * * * *

THIRD BOOK.

HISTORY OF THE GRECIAN STATES.

_Geographical Outline._

_Greece_ is bounded on the north by the Cambunian mountains, which

separate it from Macedonia; on the south and east by the Aegaean, on the

west by the Ionian sea. Greatest length from south to north = 220 geog.

miles, greatest breadth from west to east, = 140 geog. miles.

Superficial contents, = 29,600 square miles.--Principal rivers: the

Peneus, which discharges its waters into the Aegaean, and the Achelous,

which flows into the Ionian sea. Advantages in respect to fertility,

resulting from the mildness of the climate, between 37-40 deg. N. lat.;

from the number of small streams; from the qualities and variety of the

soil, in which this country has been so much more blessed by nature than

any other of similar extent, that every branch of cultivation may be

prosecuted equally and in conjunction.--Advantages in reference to

navigation and commerce: situated in the vicinity of the three quarters

of the world, on three sides washed by the sea, and by reason of its

irregular, indented coast, abounding with commodious ports and havens.

It may be divided into Northern Greece, from the north boundary to the

chain of Oeta and Pindus, between the Ambracian gulf west, and the

Maliac east. Central Greece, or Hellas, down to the isthmus of Corinth:

and the southern peninsula, or Peloponnesus.

Northern Greece comprises two countries; Thessaly east, Epirus west.

1. Thessaly, the largest and one of the most fruitful of the Grecian

countries. Length from north to south 60 geog. miles; breadth from west

to east 64 geog. miles. Rivers: the Peneus, Apidanus, and several

smaller streams. Mountains: Olympus, residence of the fabulous gods, and

Ossa in the north; the chain of Oeta, Othrys, and Pindus in the south.

Division into five provinces: 1. Estiaeotis; cities: Gomphi, Azorus: 2.

Pelasgiotis; cities: Larissa, Gonni, the vale of Tempe: 3. Thessaliotis;

cities: Pharsalus, etc. 4. Phthiotis; cities: Pherae, etc. 5. The

foreland of Magnesia, with a city of the same name. Other territories,

such as Perrhaebia, etc. for instance, derived their names from the

non-Greek races who inhabited them.

2. Epirus. Next to Thessaly, the largest, although one of the least

cultivated countries of Greece: 48-60 geog. miles long, and the same in

breadth. Divisions: Molossis; city, Ambracia: Thesprotia; city,

Buthrotum; in the interior, Dodona.

Central Greece, or Hellas, comprises nine countries.

1. Attica, a foreland, extending towards the south-east, and gradually

diminishing. Length, 60 geog. miles; greatest breadth, 24 geog. miles.

Rivers: Ilissus, Cephissus. Mountains: Hymettus, Pentelicus, and the

headland of Sunium. City: Athens, with the harbours Piraeus, Phalereus,

and Munychius; in the other parts no towns, but hamlets, [Greek: demoi],

such as Marathon, Eleusis, Decelea, etc.

2. Megaris, close to the isthmus of Corinth. The smallest of the Grecian

countries; 16 geog. miles long, and from 4-8 broad. City, Megara.

3. Boeotia, a mountainous and marshy country, 52 geog. miles long, and

from 28-32 broad. Rivers: Asopus, Ismenus, and several smaller streams.

Mountains: Helicon, Cythaeron, etc. Lake: Copais.--Boeotia was, of all

the Grecian countries, that which contained the greatest number of

cities, each having its own separate territory. Among these, the first

in importance, and frequently mistress of the rest, was Thebes on the

Ismenus. The others, Plataeae, Tanagra, Thespiae, Chaeronea, Lebadea,

Leuctra, and Orchomenus, are all celebrated in Grecian history.

4. Phocis, smaller than Attica; 48 geog. miles long, from 4-20 broad.

River: Cephissus. Mountain: Parnassus. Cities: Delphi, on Parnassus,

with the celebrated oracle of Apollo. Crissa, with the harbour of

Cirrha, and up the country Elatea. The other cities are insignificant.

5, 6. The two countries called Locris. The eastern on the Euripus,

territory of the Locri Opuntii and Epicnemidii is the lesser of the two;

being but little larger than Megaris. City: Opus; pass, Thermopylae. The

western Locris on the Corinthian gulf, station of the Locri Ozolae, is

from 20-24 geog. miles long, and from 16-20 broad. Cities: Naupactus on

the sea, Amphissa up the country.

7. The small country of Doris, or the Tetrapolis Dorica, on the south

side of mount Oeta, from 8-12 geog. miles long, and the same in breadth.

8. Aetolia, somewhat larger than Boeotia; from 40-52 geog. miles long,

and from 28-32 broad; but the least cultivated country of all. Rivers:

Achelous, which skirts Acarnania, and the Evenus. Cities: Calydon,

Thermus.

9. Acarnania, the most western country of Hellas, 32 geog. miles long,

from 16-24 broad. River: Achelous. Cities: Argos Amphilochicum, and

Stratus.

The peninsula of Peloponnesus contains eight countries.

1. Arcadia, a mountainous country, abounding in pastures, and situate in

the centre of the peninsula; greatest length, 48 geog. miles; greatest

breadth, 36 geog. miles. Mountains: Cyllene, Erymanthus, etc. Rivers:

Alpheus, Erymanthus, and several smaller streams. Lake: Styx. Cities:

Mantinea, Tegea, Orchomenus, Heraea, Psophis; subsequently Megalopolis,

as a common capital.

2. Laconia, likewise mountainous. Greatest length, 66 geog. miles;

greatest breadth, 36 geog. miles. River: Eurotas. Mountains: Taygetus,

and the headlands Malea and Tenarium. Cities: Sparta on the Eurotas;

other places: Amyclae, Sellasia, and others of little importance.

3. Messenia, west of Laconia; a more level and extremely fertile

country, subject to the Spartans from B. C. 668. Greatest length, 28

geog. miles: greatest breadth, 36 geog. miles. City: Messene. Frontier

places, Ithome and Ira: of the other places, Pylus (Navarino) and

Methone are the most celebrated.

4. Elis, with the small territory of Triphylia, on the west of the

Peloponnesus. Length, 60 geog. miles: greatest breadth, 28 geog. miles.

Rivers: Alpheus, Peneus, Sellis, and several smaller streams. Cities: in

the north, Elis, Cyllene, and Pylus. On the Alpheus, Pisa and the

neighbouring town of Olympia. In Triphylia, a third Pylus.

5. Argolis, on the east side of the peninsula; a foreland opposite to

Attica, with which it forms the Sinus Saronicus. Length, 64 geog. miles:

breadth, from 8-28 geog. miles. Cities: Argos, Mycenae, Epidaurus.

Smaller but remarkable places; Nemea, Cynuria, Troezen.

6. Achaia, originally Ionia, called likewise Aegialus, comprises the

north coast. Length, 56 geog. miles: breadth, from 12-24. It contains

twelve cities, of which Dyme, Patrae, and Pellene are the most important.

7. The little country of Sicyonia, 16 geog. miles long, 8 broad, with

the cities of Sicyon and Phlius.

8. The small territory of Corinth, of the same extent as the foregoing,

adjoining the isthmus which connects Peloponnesus with the main land.

City: Corinth, originally Ephyra, with the ports of Lechaeum and

Cenchreae; the former on the Corinthian, the latter on the Saronic gulf.

The Greek islands may be divided into three classes; those which lie

immediately off the coasts, those which are collected in groups, and

those which lie separate in the open sea.

1. Islands off the coasts. Off the west coast in the Ionian sea:

Corcyra, opposite Epirus, 32 geog. miles long, from 8-16 broad. City:

Corcyra. A Corinthian colony. Opposite Acarnania; Leucadia, with the

city and headland of Leucas.--Cephalonia or Same, originally Scheria,

with the cities of Same and Cephalonia. In the neighbourhood lies the

small island of Ithaca.--Opposite Elis: Zacynthus. Off the south coast:

Cythera, with a town of the same name. Off the east coast, in the

Saronic gulf: Aegina and Salamis. Opposite Boeotia, from which it is

separated by the strait named Euripus, Euboea, the most extensive of

all; 76 geog. miles long, from 12-16 geog. miles broad. Cities: Oreus,

with the headland of Artemisium on the north, in the centre Chalcis,

Eretria. Off Thessaly, Scyathus and Halonesus. Farther north, Thasus,

Imbrus, Samothrace, and Lemnos.

2. Clusters of islands in the Aegaean sea: the Cyclades and Sporades; the

former of which comprise the western, the latter the eastern islands of

the Archipelago. The most important among them are, Andros, Delos,

Paros, Naxos, Melos, all with cities of the same names.

3. The more extensive separate islands: 1. Crete, 140 geog. miles long,

from 24-40 broad. Mountain: Ida. Cities: Cydonia, Gortyna, Cnossus. 2.

Cyprus, 120 geog. miles long, from 20-80 broad. Cities: Salamis, Paphos,

Citium, and several smaller places.

Concerning the principal Greek islands off the coast of Asia

Minor, see above, p. 18.

# FR. CARL. HERM. KRUSE, _Geographico-Antiquarian delineation

of ancient Greece and its colonies, with reference to modern

discoveries_. Illustrated with maps and plates: first part, 1825.

General Geography: second part, first division, 1826. Second

division, 1827. Special Geography of Central Greece. A most minute

and careful description of Greece, founded on modern discoveries.

FIRST PERIOD.

_The most ancient traditional history, down to the Trojan war,

about B. C. 1200._

Sources: On the formation and progress of history among the Greeks.

Preliminary enquiry into the peculiarities of Grecian mythology in

a historical point of view, as comprising the most ancient history

of the national tribes and heroes. A history rich in itself, on

account of the number of tribes and their leaders; but embellished

and altered in various ways by the poets, particularly the great

early epic writers, and afterwards by the tragedians.--First

advance of history from tradition, wrought by the logographi,

especially those of the Ionian cities, Hecataeus, Pherecydes, etc.

until HERODOTUS, so justly called the Father of History, raised it

at once to such a lofty pitch of eminence. (Compare # _The

historical Art of the Greeks considered in its Rise and Progress,

by_ G. F. CREUZER; 1803.) Nevertheless, in Herodotus, and even

later writers, history continued to savour of its origin; and so

far as the realm of tradition extended, even Theopompus and Ephorus

felt no disinclination to borrow their materials from mythologists

or poets. It need scarcely be observed, that in this first period

the history is merely traditional.

Among the moderns, the English have most successfully treated the

subject of Grecian history: the principal works are:

JOHN GILLIES, _The History of Ancient Greece, its colonies and

conquests, from the earliest accounts till the division of the

Macedonian empire in the east, including the history of literature,

philosophy, and the fine arts_. London, 1786, 2 vols. 4to. and

WILLIAM MITFORD, _The History of Greece_. London, 1784, 4 vols.

4to. Several new editions have since appeared. Translated into

German, Jena, 1800, sqq. by _H. L. Eichstaedt_. Mitford is perhaps

superior in learning, copiousness, and solidity, but he certainly

is greatly surpassed by Gillies in genius and taste, and more

especially in a proper conception of the spirit of antiquity. [Few

English critics will here coincide with our author.]

DE PAUW, _Recherches sur les Grecs_, 1701, 2 vols. 8vo. Replete

with partial views and hypotheses.

# HEEREN, _Researches into the politics, intercourse, and trade of

the most celebrated nations of antiquity_: 3 vols. 1st part, 4th

edit. 1826. [Translated into English, Oxford, 1830, 8vo.]

Many important enquiries on various portions of Grecian history and

antiquities will be found in the great collection:

GRONOVII, _Thesaurus Antiquitatum Graecarum_, 12 vols. folio.

Others are contained in the transactions of different learned

societies; particularly in

_Memoires de l'Academie des Inscriptions et des Belles Lettres_,

Paris, 1709, sqq. 49 vols. 4to.

_Commentarii_, (4 vols.) _Commentarii novi_, (8 vols.)

_Commentationes_, (16 vols.) and _Commentationes recentiores

Societatis Scientiarum Gotting._ (5 vols.)

1. Although Greece was originally inhabited by several insignificant

races, two principal tribes claim our attention, the _Pelasgi_ and the

_Hellenes_. Both probably were of Asiatic origin; but the difference of

their language characterized them as different tribes. The Pelasgi were

the first that extended their dominion in Greece.

First seat of the Pelasgians in the Peloponnesus, under Inachus,

about B. C. 1800. According to their own traditions, they made

their first appearance in this quarter as uncultivated savages;

they must, however, at an early period, have made some progress

towards civilization, since the most ancient states, Argos and

Sicyon, owed their origin to them; and to them, perhaps, with

great probability, are attributed the remains of those most

ancient monuments generally termed _cyclopian_.--Extension of this

tribe towards the north, particularly over Attica; settlement in

Thessaly under their leaders Achaeus, Phthius, and Pelasgus; here

they learned to apply themselves to agriculture, and remained for

a hundred and fifty successive years; about 1700-1500.

2. The Hellenes,--subsequently so called from Hellen, one of their

chieftains,--originally the weaker of the two tribes, make their first

appearance in Phocis, near Parnassus, under king Deucalion; from whence

they are driven by a flood. They migrate into Thessaly, and drive out

the Pelasgi from that territory.--The Hellenes soon after this become

the most powerful race; and spreading over Greece, expel the Pelasgi

from almost every part. The latter tribe maintain their ground only in

Arcadia, and the land of Dodona; some of them migrate to Italy, others

to Crete, and various islands.

3. The Hellenic tribe is subdivided into four principal branches, the

_Aeolians_, _Ionians_, _Dorians_, and _Achaeans_, which continue

afterwards to be distinguished and separated by many peculiarities of

speech, customs, and political government. These four tribes, although

they must not be considered as comprising all the slender ramifications

of the nation, are derived by tradition from Deucalion's immediate

posterity; with whose personal history, therefore, the history of the

tribes themselves and their migrations is interwoven.

This derivation of the tribes will be better understood by an

inspection of the following genealogical table:

DEUCALION.

|

HELLEN.

|--------------------|--------------------|

DORUS. XUTHUS. AEOLUS.

| |---------|-------------| |

DORIANS. | | AEOLIANS.

ACHAEUS. ION.

| |

ACHAEANS. IONIANS.

4. The gradual spread of the various branches of the Hellenic tribe over

Greece was effected by several migrations, between B. C. 1500-1300;

after which they preserved the settlements they had already obtained

until the later migration of the Dorians and Heraclidae, about 1100.

_Principal data for the history of the separate tribes in this

period._

1. AEOLUS follows his father Hellen into Phthiotis, which

consequently remains the seat of the Aeolians; they spread from

thence over western Greece, Acarnania, Aetolia, Phocis, Locris, Elis

in the Peloponnesus, and likewise over the western islands.

2. DORUS follows his father into Estiaeotis, the most ancient seat

of the Dorians. They are driven from thence after the death of

Dorus by the Perrhaebi; spread over Macedonia and Crete; part of the

tribe return, cross mount Oeta, and settle in the Tetrapolis

Dorica, afterwards called Doris, where they remain until they

migrate into Peloponnesus, under the guidance of the Heraclidae;

about 1100. (See below, p. 127).

3. XUTHUS, expelled by his brothers, migrates to Athens, where he

marries Creusa, daughter of Erectheus, by whom he has sons, Ion and

Achaeus. Ion and his tribe, driven out of Athens, settle in that

part of Peloponnesus called Aegialus, a name which by them was

converted into Ionia, and in later times exchanged for Achaia. The

Achaeans preserve their footing in Laconia and Argos, until the time

of the Dorian migration.

# L. D. HUELLMAN, _Early Grecian History_, 1814. Rich in original

views and conjectures, beyond which the early history of nations

seldom extends.

# D. C. OTFRIED MUELLER, _History of the Hellenic Tribes and

Cities_, 1820, vol. 1. containing, _Orchomenus and the Minyae_;

vols. 2, 3, containing the _Dorians_, 1825.

5. Besides these original inhabitants, colonies at the same early period

came into Greece from civilized countries, from Egypt, Phoenicia, and

Mysia. The settlements of these strangers occurred probably between B.

C. 1600-1400.

Establishment in Attica of the colony of Cecrops, from Sais in Egypt,

about 1550; in Argos, of the colony of Danaus, likewise from Egypt,

about 1500.--The colony of Cadmus, from Phoenicia, settles in Boeotia

about 1550.--The colony of Pelops, from Mysia, settles in Argos about

1400.

6. The mythology of the Hellenes proves beyond a doubt, that they were

at first savages, like the Pelasgi since they had to learn even the use

of fire from Prometheus; yet it is equally clear that they must, even in

the earliest period, particularly from 1300-1200, when they had ceased

to migrate, have made the first important steps towards the attainment

of a certain degree of civilization. About the time of the Trojan war

they appear to have been still barbarians, though no longer savages.