Chapter XIX: Part III: , European Nations; of which only 1 volume, Greeks, has (11)

5. _Armenia_ was a province of the Syrian empire until the defeat
of Antiochus the Great by Rome, 190. That defeat was followed by
the accession of Antiochus's lieutenants, Artaxias and Zariadras;
and now arose the two kingdoms of Armenia Major and Armenia Minor
(the latter on the west bank of the Upper Euphrates). In Armenia
Major the family of Artaxias kept possession of the throne, under
eight (according to others _ten_) consecutive kings, until B. C.
5.--The only remarkable prince of this line was Tigranes I. 95-60,
son-in-law and ally of Mithridates the Great, and lord of Asia
Minor, Cappadocia, and Syria. He was, however, at the peace of 63,
obliged to give up all, so that Armenia was dependent on the
Romans, and remained so until B. C. 5, when it became the object
of contention between the Romans and Parthians, being ruled at
intervals by kings appointed by both parties, who endeavoured
thereby to protect their own provinces. Finally, in A. D. 412,
Armenia became a province of the new Persian empire.--In Asia
Minor the descendants of Zariadras ruled dependently on Rome;
after its defection under Mithridates the Great it usually formed
part of some one of the neighbouring kingdoms, until in the reign
of Vespasian it was converted into a province of the Roman empire.

VAILLANT, _Elenchus regum Armeniae Majoris_, in his _Hist. Imp.
Arsacidarum_.

4. Besides the above small kingdoms, two mighty empires arose in Inner Asia, both out of Alexander's monarchy, and at the same time: these were the Parthian and the Bactrian; each having previously constituted a part of the empire of the Seleucidae, from which they seceded under Antiochus II. The Parthian kingdom, or that of the Arsacidae, B. C. 256-A. D. 226, at the maximum of its extension, comprised the countries between the Euphrates and Indus. Its history, so far as we are acquainted with it, is divided into four periods (see below); but unfortunately our information is so imperfect respecting all that relates to the Parthians, except their wars, that even the most important particulars are beyond the reach of conjecture.

Main facts in the history and constitution of the Parthian
kingdom. _a._ Like the ancient Persian empire, the Parthian arose
out of the conquests made by a rude mountain race of Central Asia,
whose Scythian (probably Tatarian) origin, betrayed itself even in
later times by their speech and mode of life: their conquests,
however, were not effected with the same rapidity as those of the
Persians. _b._ This empire increased at the expense of the Syrian
in the west, and of the Bactrian in the east; but its dominion was
never permanently established beyond the Euphrates, Indus, and
Oxus. _c._ The wars with Rome, commencing in B. C. 53, and
springing out of disputes for the possession of the Armenian
throne, were for a long time unfortunate for the Romans. Success
did not accompany the arms of Rome until she had discovered the
art of raising her own parties within the kingdom itself, by
lending her support to pretenders, an art rendered comparatively
easy, by the unfavourable situation of the Parthian capital
Seleucia and the neighbouring town of Ctesiphon, the real head
quarters of the court. _d._ The empire was indeed divided into
satrapies, eighteen of which are enumerated; nevertheless it
comprised likewise several small kingdoms, which preserved their
own rulers, only that they were tributary, such, for instance, as
Persis, etc. The Graeco-Macedonian settlements were also in
possession of great privileges, and of their own civic
governments; Seleucia more especially, where the coins of the
Parthian sovereigns were struck. _e._ The constitution was
monarchal-aristocratic, something like that of the Poles, in the
period of the Jagellons. At the king's side sat a supreme state
council, (_senatus_, in all probability what was called the
_megistanes_,) who had the power of deposing the king, and the
privilege, it is supposed, of confirming his accession previous to
the ceremony of coronation, performed by the field-marshals
(_surenas_). The right of succession was only so far determined as
belonging to the house of the Arsacidae; the many pretenders to
which this uncertainty gave rise, produced factions and domestic
wars, doubly injurious to the empire when fomented and shared by
foreigners. _f._ With regard to Asiatic commerce, the Parthian
supremacy was of importance, inasmuch as it interrupted the direct
intercourse between the western and eastern countries: it being a
maxim of the Parthians not to grant a passage through their
country to any stranger. This destruction of the trade occurs in
the third period of the empire, being a natural result of the many
wars with Rome, and the distrust thence ensuing. The East India
trade, in consequence, took another road through Palmyra and
Alexandria, which were indebted to it for their splendour and
prosperity. _g._ It is probable that this was the reason why
excessive luxury took a less hold on the Parthians than on the
other ruling nations of Asia, notwithstanding their predilection
for Grecian manners and literature, at that time generally
prevalent throughout the east.

_Line of the kings._ I. Syrian period; that of reiterated wars
with the Seleucidae, until 130. Arsaces I. 256-253, founder of the
Parthian independence, by procuring the death of the Syrian
viceroy, Agathocles, to which he was instigated by the insult
offered to his brother Tiridates. Arsaces II. (Tiridates I.)
brother of the foregoing, _d._ 216. He possessed himself of
Hyrcania, about 244, confirmed the Parthian power by a victory on
Seleucus Callinicus, 238, whom he took prisoner, 236. Arsaces III.
(Artabanus I.) _d._ 196. In his reign occurred the unsuccessful
attempt of Antiochus III. who, in the treaty of 210, was obliged
to renounce all claims on Parthia and Hyrcania, in return for
which Arsaces lent his assistance to Antiochus in the war against
Bactria. Arsaces IV. (Priapatius,) _d._ about 181. Arsaces V.
(Phraates I.) _d._ about 144; he conquered the Mardians on the
Caspian. His brother, Arsaces VI. (Mithridates I.) _d._ 136. He
raised the hitherto confined kingdom of Parthia to the rank of a
mighty empire, having, after the decease of Antiochus Epiphanes,
164, by the capture of Media, Persis, Babylonia, and other
countries, extended the frontiers westward to the Euphrates, and
eastward to the Hydaspes, beyond the Indus. The invasion of
Demetrius II. of Syria, supported by an insurrection of the
conquered races, ended, 140, in the capture of the aggressor.
Arsaces VII. (Phraates II.) _d._ about 127. Invasion of Antiochus
Sidetes, 132, who was at first successful, but being soon
afterwards cut off together with his whole army, 131, the Parthian
empire was for ever freed from the attacks of the Syrian kings.

II. Period of the eastern nomad wars; from 130-53. After the fall
of the Bactrian empire, which had hitherto formed the eastern
rampart of the Parthians, violent wars took place with the nomad
tribes of Central Asia (Scythae, Dahae, Tochari, etc.) in which
Arsaces VII. was slain. Arsaces VIII. (Artabanus II.) shared the
same fate about 124. Arsaces IX. (Mithridates II.) _d._ 87. This
prince appears to have restored tranquillity to the east after
bloody wars; he met, however, with a powerful rival in Tigranes I.
of Armenia. In his reign occurred the first transactions between
the Parthians and Romans, 92, Sylla being propraetor of Cilicia.
Arsaces X. (Mnasciras,) _d._ about 76, waged a long war for the
succession with his follower on the throne, the septuagenarian,
Arsaces XI. (Sinatroces,) _d._ about 68. Unsuccessful war with
Tigranes I. In consequence of civil wars, and of that with
Tigranes, together with the formidable power of Mithridates the
Great, the Parthian empire was now greatly weakened. Arsaces XII.
(Phraates III.) _d._ 60, contemporary with the third Mithridatic
war. Although both parties eagerly courted his alliance, and he
himself was engaged in the contest with Tigranes, he,
notwithstanding, observed an armed neutrality, and made the
Parthian empire continue to be respected as far as the Euphrates.
Neither Lucullus nor Pompey durst attack him. The fall of
Mithridates and of his empire, 64, constitutes, however, an epoch
in the Parthian history, the Romans and Parthians having now
become immediate neighbours.--Arsaces XIII. (Mithridates II.) _d._
54, deposed after several wars, by his younger brother Orodes,
and at last put to death, after the capture of Babylonia, where he
had taken refuge.

III. Roman period; from B. C. 53, to A. D. 226; comprising the
wars with Rome. Arsaces XIV. (Orodes I.) _d._ 36. In his reign the
first war with Rome, caused by the invasion of Crassus; it ends in
the annihilation of the invading army and general, 53. In
consequence of this victory the Parthians acquired such
preponderance, that during the civil wars they were frequently
masters on this side of the Euphrates, and in 52-51 proceeded to
attack Syria.--In the war between Pompey and Caesar they sided with
the former, and thus furnished the latter with a pretext for his
Parthian expedition, which, however, was prevented by his murder
in 44; again in the war between the triumviri and Brutus and
Cassius, 42, they took the republican side. After the defeat of
Brutus and Cassius, the Parthians, at the instigation of the Roman
general and ambassador Labienus, and commanded by him and Pacorus,
(eldest son to Arsaces,) spread over the whole of Syria and Asia
Minor, 40; but, after violent exertions, were driven back by
Ventidius, Antony's general, 39, 38; Pacorus lost his life, and
his father died of grief. Arsaces XV. (Phraates IV.) _d._ A. D. 4,
contemporary of Augustus. He confirmed his power by murdering his
brothers and their dependents; his views were likewise furthered
by the failure of Antony's expedition, B. C. 36, which ended
pretty nearly in the same manner as that of Crassus. The remainder
of his reign was disturbed by a pretender to the throne,
Tiridates, who, after his defeat, 25, found an asylum at the court
of Augustus. The threatened attack of Augustus was diverted by
Phraates's restoration of the standards taken from Crassus, 20; a
dispute, however, subsequently arose respecting the possession of
the Armenian throne, A. D. 2, on which account Caius Caesar was
despatched into Asia, and accommodated matters by a treaty. The
ultimate fate both of the king and the empire was principally
decided by a female slave, Thermusa, sent as a present from
Augustus; this woman, wishing to ensure the succession to her own
son, prevailed upon the king to send his four sons to Rome as
hostages, under the pretext of anticipating domestic troubles,
18.--A practice which from that time became frequent, the Parthian
kings thinking it a convenient mode of ridding themselves of
dangerous competitors, while the Romans knew how to make the
proper use of them.--Thermusa's son having grown up, she removed
the king, and seated Phraataces on the throne, under the name of
Arsaces XVI; he was, however, put to death by the Parthians, A. D.
4; and the crown given to one of the Arsacidae, Orodes II, (Arsaces
XVII.) who was, however, immediately afterwards slain by reason of
his cruelty. In consequence, Vonones I. the eldest of the sons of
Phraates sent to Rome, was called back and placed on the throne
(Arsaces XVIII.); but that prince having brought with him Roman
customs and luxury, was expelled, A. D. 14, with the assistance of
the northern nomads, by Artabanes III. (Arsaces XIX.) _d._ 44, a
distant relation: the fugitive took possession of the vacant
throne of Armenia, but was soon after driven from thence likewise
by his rival. Tiberius took advantage of the consequent disorders
to send Germanicus into the east, A. D. 17, from whence he was
never to return. The remainder of the reign of Artabanus was very
stormy, Tiberius on the one hand taking advantage of the factions
between the nobles to support pretenders to the crown; the revolts
of the satraps, on the other hand, giving proof of the declension
of the Parthian power. After his death war raged between his sons;
the second, Vardanes, (Arsaces XX.) _d._ 47, made good his
pretensions to the crown, and took North Media, (Atropatene;) he
was succeeded by his elder brother Gotarzes, (Arsaces XXI.) _d._
50, to whom Claudius unsuccessfully opposed Meherdates, educated
as an hostage at Rome. Arsaces XXII. (Vonones II.) succeeded,
after a reign of a few months, by Arsaces XXIII. (Vologeses I.)
_d._ 90. The possession of the Armenian throne, given by this
prince to his brother Tiridates, by the Romans to Tigranes,
grandson of Herod the Great, excited a series of disputes, which
began so early as the reign of Claudius, A. D. 52, and under Nero
broke out into open war, waged with some success on the Roman side
by Corbulo, 56-64, and closed by Tiridates going, after the death
of Tigranes, to Rome, and there accepting the crown of Armenia as
a gift at the hands of Nero, 65. Arsaces XXIV. (Pacorus,) _d._
107, contemporary with Domitian. All that we know of him is, that
he embellished the city of Ctesiphon. Arsaces XXV. (Cosroes,) _d._
about 121. The claims to the throne of Armenia implicated him in a
war with Trajan, 114, during which Armenia, together with
Mesopotamia and Assyria, were converted into Roman provinces.
Trajan's consequent and successful inroad into the interior parts
of the Parthian dominions, 115-116, followed by the capture of
Ctesiphon, and the appointment of Parthamaspates as king, appears
to have been facilitated by the domestic commotions and civil wars
which had for a long time harassed the empire. Nevertheless, in
the following year, 117, Hadrian was compelled to give up all the
conquered country; the Euphrates was again acknowledged as the
boundary; Parthamaspates was appointed king of Armenia; and
Cosroes, who had taken refuge in the upper satrapies, was
reinstated on the throne, of which he seems ever after to have
kept quiet possession. Arsaces XXVI. (Vologeses II.) _d._ 149.
Parthia under his reign, and Rome under that of Antoninus Pius,
remained on good terms. Arsaces XXVII. (Vologeses III.) _d._ 191.
Under the reign of this king, the contemporary of Marcus Aurelius
and L. Verus, the war with Rome was again kindled, 161, by Verus,
and carried on in Armenia and Syria; Cassius, the legate of Verus,
at last got possession of Seleucia, and demolished that city,
165.--Arsaces XXVIII. (Ardawan or Vologeses IV.) _d._ 207. This
king having taken the part of Pescenninus Niger, in the war
between him and Septimius Severus, was, after the defeat of his
friend, 194, routed in a war with Septimius Severus, 197, and the
chief towns of Parthia were sacked by the invaders. He is, without
authority, represented as succeeded by a Pacorus, who took the
name of Arsaces XXIX.: his real successor, however, appears to
have been Arsaces XXIX. (Vologeses V.) _d._ 216. Domestic wars
among his sons, fomented by Caracalla. Arsaces XXX. (Artabanus
IV.) At the beginning of his reign, this prince likewise was
contemporary with Caracalla, who, in order to pick a quarrel,
demanded his daughter in marriage; according to some, Arsaces
refused her, in consequence of which the Roman emperor undertook a
campaign into Armenia; according to others, Arsaces having
assented, and escorted his daughter to Caracalla, was, by an
abominable stroke of treachery, cut off, together with all his
train, A. D. 216. Caracalla having been murdered, 217, his
successor, Macrinus, signed a peace with the Parthians. But
Arsaces subsequently raised his brother Tiridates to the throne of
Armenia; this act spurred the Persian Artaxerxes, son of Sassan,
to rebellion; the Parthian king, defeated in three battles, fell
in the last, thus putting a period to the family and dominion of
the Arsacidae, 226, and Artaxerxes became the founder of the New
Persian kingdom, or that of the Sassanidae. The revolution was
accompanied not only with a change of dynasty, but with a total
subversion of the constitution.

VAILLANT, _Imperium Arsacidarum et Achaemenidarum_, Paris, 1725, 2
vols. 4to. The first part comprises the Arsacidae; the second the
kings of Bithynia, Pontus, and Bosporus. It is an attempt, not
altogether faultless, to arrange the series of kings, by the
assistance of coins.

# C. F. RICHTER, _Historico-critical essay upon the dynasties of
the Arsacidae and Sassanidae, according to the Persian, Grecian, and
Roman authorities_. A prize essay. Leipzic, 1804. A comparative
research into the eastern and western sources. The chronology in
the above sketch has been corrected by this work, in conjunction
with

TH. CHR. TYCHSEN, _Commentationes de Nummis Persarum et
Arsacidarum_; inserted in _Commentat. Nov. Soc. Sc. Gotting._ vol.
i. iii.

5. The Bactrian kingdom arose nearly at the same time as the Parthian, 254; its origin, however, was of a different nature,--the independence of this state being asserted by the Grecian governor, who was consequently succeeded by Greeks;--its duration likewise was much shorter, extending only from B. C. 254 to B. C. 126. Scarce any fragments have been preserved of the history of this empire, the borders of which appear at one time to have extended to the banks of the Ganges, and the frontiers of China.

Founder of the empire, Diodatus or Theodotus I. B. C. 254; he
threw off his allegiance to the Syrian king, under Antiochus II.
He appears to have been master not only of Bactria, but also of
Sogdiana. He likewise threatened the Parthians; after his decease,
243, his son and successor, Theodotus II. signed a treaty and
alliance with Arsaces II. but was nevertheless deprived of his
crown by Euthydemus of Magnesia, about 221. Antiochus the Great,
at the conclusion of the Parthian war, directed his arms against
Euthydemus, 209-206; the contest ended in a peace, by which
Euthydemus, after delivering up his elephants, was not only left
in possession of the crown, but was allied to the Syrian family by
the marriage of his son Demetrius with a daughter of Antiochus.
Demetrius, though a great conqueror, does not seem to have been
king of Bactria; his dominions comprised, it is probable, North
India and Malabar, whose history now becomes closely connected
with that of Bactria, although consisting only of mere fragments.
The throne of Bactria fell to Apollodotus, and after him to
Menander, who extended his conquests as far as Serica, while
Demetrius was establishing his dominion in India, [as sovereign of
which country he is represented in a medal lately discovered,] and
where, about this time, several Greek states appear to have
existed, perhaps ever since the expedition of Antiochus III. 205.
Menander was succeeded, about 181, by Eucratidas, under whose
reign the Bactrian empire attained its greatest extension; after
defeating the Indian king, Demetrius, who had been the aggressor,
he, with the assistance of the Parthian conqueror, Mithridates,
(Arsaces VI.) annexed India to his own empire, 148. On his return,
he was murdered by his son; the same, probably, that is mentioned
afterwards by the name of Eucratidas II. He was the ally of
Demetrius II. of Syria, and the main instigator of his expedition
against the Parthians, 142; Demetrius being defeated by Arsaces
VI. Eucratidas was, in consequence, deprived of a portion of his
territory; overpowered soon after by the nomad races of Central
Asia, the Bactrian empire fell to the ground, and Bactria itself,
together with the other countries on this side of the Oxus, became
a prey to the Parthians.

TH. SIEG. BAYER, _Historia regni Graecorum Bactriani_. Petropol.
1738, 4to. The few remaining fragments are in this work collected
with industry and arranged with skill.

[TOD, _Account of Greek, Parthian, and Hindu Medals_, in
_Transactions of the R. Asiatic Society_, vol. i. part ii, p. 316.

TYCHSEN, _De Nummis Graecis et Barbaris in Bochara nuper retectis_,
in _Comment. Nov. Soc. Sc. Gotting._ vol. vi.]

6. The restored kingdom of the Jews was likewise a fragment of the Macedonian monarchy; and although it ranked only with the smaller states, its history in various respects deserves our attention, few nations having had so powerful an influence on the progress of human civilization. The foundation of the independence of the Jews was not, it is true, laid before the year 167; yet their domestic constitution had previously assumed its main features, and their history, reckoning from the return of the Babylonian captivity, accordingly divides itself into four periods: 1. Under the Persian supremacy, 536-323. 2. Under the Ptolemies and Seleucidae, 323-167. 3. Under the Maccabees, 167-39. 4. Under the Herodians and Romans, B. C. 39. to A. D. 70.

First period under the Persians. By permission from Cyrus, a
colony of Jews belonging to the tribes of Benjamin, Judah, and
Levi, returned to the land of their forefathers, 536: this colony,
headed by Zorobabel, of the ancient royal family, and the high
priest Joshua, consisted of about 42,000 souls; the far more
important and wealthy portion of the nation preferred to remain on
the other side of the Euphrates, where they had been settled for
seventy years, and continued to be a numerous people. The new
settlers found it difficult to keep their footing, principally in
consequence of differences, produced by the intolerance they
themselves evinced at the building of the temple, with their
neighbours and kinsmen the Samaritans, to whom the colony was only
a cause of expense. The Samaritans, subsequently, having erected a
separate temple at Garizim, near Sichem, about 336, not only
separated completely, but laid the foundation of an inveterate
hatred between the two nations. Hence the prohibition to rebuild
the city and temple, brought about by their means, under Cambyses,
529, and Smerdis, 522, and not taken off until 520, in the reign
of Darius Hystaspes. The new colony did not receive a permanent
internal constitution till the time of Ezra and Nehemiah; both
brought in fresh colonists, the former in 478, the latter in 445.
The country was under the dominion of the satraps of Syria; but in
the increasing domestic declension of the Persian empire, the high
priests gradually became the virtual rulers of the nation.
Nevertheless, even at the time of Alexander's conquest, 332, the
Jews seem to have manifested proofs of fidelity to the Persians.

Second period under the Ptolemies and Seleucidae, 323-167. After
the death of Alexander, Palestine, in consequence of its
situation, generally shared the fate of Phoenicia and Coele-Syria,
(see above, p. 249.) being annexed to Syria.--Capture of
Jerusalem, and transplantation of a vast colony of Jews to
Alexandria by Ptolemy I. 312; from thence they spread to Cyrene,
and gradually over the whole of North Africa, and even into
Aethiopia. From 311-301 the Jews remained, however, subject to
Antigonus. After the overthrow of his empire, they remained,
301-203, under the dominion of the Ptolemies; the most conspicuous
of their high priests during this interval were Simon the Just,
_d._ 291, and afterwards his son, Onias I. _d._ 218, who, by
withholding the tribute due to Ptolemy III. exposed Judaea to
imminent danger.--In the second war of Antiochus the Great against
Egypt, 203, the Jews, of their own free will, acknowledged
themselves his subjects, and assisted in driving out the Egyptian
troops, who, under their general, Scopas, had again possessed
themselves of the country, and the citadel of Jerusalem, 198.
Antiochus confirmed the Jews in the possession of all their
privileges; and although he promised their country, together with
Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, to Ptolemy Epiphanes, as the future
dowry of his daughter, Judaea still remained under the Syrian
supremacy; except that the revenue was for a time divided between
the Syrian and Egyptian kings.--The high priests and self-chosen
ethnarchs or alabarchs were at the head of the people; and we now
find mention made for the first time of a senate, or the
sanhedrim. But the rout of Antiochus the Great by the Romans was
also the remote cause of the subsequent misfortunes of the Jews.
The consequent dearth of money in which the Syrian kings found
themselves, and the riches of the temple treasures, the
accumulation of the sacred income and gifts, made the office of
high priest an object of purchase under Antiochus Epiphanes: hence
arose quarrels between the pontifical families, and out of those
sprung factions, which Antiochus Epiphanes was desirous to turn to
his own account, by the introduction of Grecian institutions among
the Jews, in order thereby to promote the subjection of that
people, now raised by its privileges almost to the rank of a state
within that of Syria. Deposition of the high priest, Onias III.
175; his brother Jason having obtained the mitre by purchase, and
the introduction of Grecian customs: Jason, however, was in his
turn supplanted by his brother Menelaus, 172. During the civil
war arising out of these events, Antiochus Epiphanes, at that time
conqueror in Egypt, (see above, p. 241.) takes possession of
Jerusalem, 170, being provoked by the behaviour of the Jews to
Menelaus, the high priest of his own appointment: the consequent
oppression of the Jews, who now were to be Hellenized by main
force, soon occasioned the rise under the Maccabees.

Third period under the Maccabees, 167-39. Commencement of the
rebellion against Antiochus IV. brought about by the priest
Mattathias, 167, who was almost immediately succeeded, 166-161, by
his son Judas Maccabaeus. Supported by the fanaticism of his party,
Judas defeats in several battles the generals of Antiochus, who
was absent in Upper Asia, where he died, 164; the Jewish leader is
even said to have been favoured by Rome. The primary object of the
insurrection was not, however, political independence; they fought
only for religious freedom. Under Antiochus V. the sedition
continued successful, both against the Syrian king and the high
priest Alcimus, his creature, 163; Judas having died soon after
his defeat by Demetrius I. was succeeded by his brother Jonathan,
161-143. The death of the high priest, Alcimus, 160, opened the
path of Jonathan to that office, which he received in the ensuing
war between Demetrius I. and Alexander Balas, 143, (see above, p.
244, 245.) both rivals courting his alliance: Jonathan sided with
Balas, and consequently, from being merely the leader of a party,
came to be head of the nation, which still, nevertheless,
continued to pay tribute to the kings. Notwithstanding the favour
he had shown to Balas, after the overthrow of that pretender, he
was confirmed in his dignity by Demetrius I. 145; to whose
assistance he marched at the subsequent great revolt in Antioch.
Jonathan however, in 144, passed over to the side of the usurper,
Antiochus, the son of Balas, (see above, p. 245.) and was by
embassy presented with the friendship of the Romans in the same
year, but by the treachery of Tryphon was taken and put to death,
143. His brother and successor, Simon, 143-135, having declared
against Tryphon, was by Demetrius II. not only confirmed in his
dignity, but excused from paying tribute; he likewise received the
title of prince, (ethnarch;) and appears to have struck coins.
After the capture of Demetrius, Antiochus Sidetes allowed Simon to
remain in possession of those privileges so long as he stood in
need of his assistance against Tryphon; but after the death of
that usurper, he caused him, 130, to be attacked by Cendebaeus, who
was defeated by the sons of Simon. Simon having been murdered by
his son-in-law, Ptolemaeus, who aspired to the government, 135, was
succeeded by his son, John Hyrcanus, 135-107, who was compelled
again to acknowledge submission to Antiochus Sidetes; but after
the defeat and death of that prince by the Parthians, 130, he
asserted his entire independence. The deep decline of the Syrian
kingdom, the constant civil wars by which it was distracted, and
the renewed league with the Romans, not only enabled Hyrcanus
easily to maintain his independence, but likewise to increase his
territory, by the conquest of the Samaritans and Idumaeans. But
with him ended the heroic line. Scarcely was he delivered from
foreign oppression, when domestic broils arose; the Pharisees and
Sadducees had hitherto been mere religious sects, but were
converted into political factions by Hyrcanus, who, offended with
the Pharisees, probably in consequence of their wish to separate
the pontifical and princely offices, went over to the Sadducees;
the former sect, the orthodox, were as usual supported by the
many; the latter, the innovators, in consequence of the laxity of
their principles, were favoured by the wealthy. Hyrcanus's eldest
son, the cruel Aristobulus, 107, assumed the royal title, but soon
after dying, 106, was succeeded by his younger brother, Alexander
Jannaeus, 106-79. His reign was an almost unbroken series of
insignificant wars with his neighbours, this prince wishing to
play the conqueror; and having likewise had the imprudence to
irritate the powerful party of the Pharisees, these made him the
object of public insult, and excited a tumult, 92, which was
followed by a bloody civil war which lasted six years. Jannaeus, it
is true, maintained himself during the struggle; but the opposite
party was so far from being annihilated, that, at his death, when
passing over his sons, the feeble Hyrcanus (who possessed the
pontifical dignity) and the ambitious Aristobulus, he bequeathed
the crown to his widow Alexandra, it was with the understanding
that she should join the party of the Pharisees: during her reign,
therefore, 79-71, the Pharisees held the reins of government, and
left her only the name. Provoked at this, Aristobulus, shortly
before the death of the queen, endeavoured to obtain possession of
the throne, and ultimately obtained his ends, notwithstanding
Alexandra nominated Hyrcanus to be her successor. Hyrcanus, at the
instigation of his confidant, the Idumaean Antipater, who was the
progenitor of the Herodians, and assisted by the Arabian prince
Aretas, waged war against his brother, 65, and shut him up in
Jerusalem: but the Romans were arbitrators, and Pompey, then
all-powerful in Asia, decided for Hyrcanus, 64; the party of
Aristobulus, however, refusing to accede, the Roman general took
possession of Jerusalem; made Hyrcanus high priest and prince,
under condition that he should pay tribute; and took as prisoners
to Rome Aristobulus and his sons, who, however, subsequently
escaped and caused great disturbances. The Jewish state being now
dependent on Rome, remained so, and the yoke was confirmed by the
policy of Antipater and his sons, who followed the general maxim
of entire devotion to Rome, in order thereby to succeed in wholly
removing the reigning family. As early as 48, Antipater was
appointed procurator of Judea by Caesar, whom he had supported at
Alexandria, and his second son Herod, governor in Galilee, soon
became sufficiently powerful to threaten Hyrcanus and the
sanhedrim, 45. He gained the favour of Antony, and thus maintained
himself amid the tempests which, after the assassination of Caesar,
44, shook the Roman world, powerful as the party opposed to him
were: that party, however, at last, in lieu of the ill-fated
Hyrcanus, the only surviving son of Aristobulus, placed Antigonus
at their head, and, assisted by the Parthians, then flourishing in
power, seated him on the throne, 39. Herod having fled to Rome,
not only met with a gracious reception at the hands of the
triumviri, but was by them appointed king.

Fourth period under the Herodians, B. C. 39 to A. D. 70. Herod the
Great, B. C. 39 to A. D. 1. put himself in possession of Jerusalem
and all Judaea, B. C. 37, and confirmed his power by marrying
Mariamne of the house of the Maccabees. Notwithstanding his
severity shown to the party of Antigonus, and the house of the
Maccabees, the total extinction of which Herod deemed necessary
for his own safety; yet so greatly did the wasted country stand in
need of peace, that for that very reason his reign may be said to
have been a happy one. Availing himself of the liberality of
Augustus, whose favour he contrived to obtain after the defeat of
Anthony, B.C. 31, Herod gradually increased the extent of his
kingdom, which at last comprised Judaea, Samaria, Galilee, and
beyond the Jordan, Peraea, Ituraea, and Trachonitis, (that is to
say, the whole of Palestine,) together with Idumaea; from these
countries he derived his income without being obliged to pay any
tribute. The deference consequently shown by Herod to Rome, was
but the effect of a natural policy, and his conduct in that
respect could be objected to him only by bigoted Jews. To his
whole family, rather than to himself individually, are to be
attributed the executions which took place among its members;
happy had it been if the sword had smitten none but the guilty and
spared the innocent. In the last year but one of his reign is
placed the birth of Christ (according to the usually adopted
computation, made in the sixth century by Dionysius Exiguus. But
the more accurate calculations of modern chronologists show that
the real date of the Saviour's birth was probably four years
earlier).--According to his will, with some few alterations made
by Augustus, his kingdom was divided among his three surviving
sons; Archelaus, as ethnarch, receiving the greater moiety, Judaea,
Samaria, and Idumaea; the two others, as tetrarchs, Philip a part
of Galilee and Trachonitis, Antipas the other part of Galilee, and
Peraea, together with Ituraea; subsequently to which division, the
various parts did not, in consequence, all share the same
fate.--Archelaus, by misgovernment, soon lost his portion, A. D.
6; Judaea and Samaria were consequently annexed as a Roman province
to Syria, and placed under procurators subordinate to the Syrian
governors: among these procurators, the most famous is Pontius
Pilate, about A.D. 27-36, under whom the founder of our religion
appeared and suffered, not as a political--although accused of
being so--but as a moral reformer. On the other hand, Philip
retained his tetrarchy until the day of his death, A. D. 34, when
his country had the same lot with Judaea and Samaria. Soon after,
that is to say, in A. D. 37, it was, however, given by Caligula,
with the title of king, to Agrippa, (grandson of Herod by
Aristobulus,) as a recompense for his attachment to the family of
Germanicus; and when Antipas, who wished to procure a similar
favour for himself but instead of it, was deposed, 39, Agrippa
received his tetrarchy also, 40, and soon afterwards, by the
possession of the territory which had belonged to Archelaus,
became master of the whole of Palestine. Agrippa having died in A.
D. 44, the whole country being appended to Syria, became a Roman
province, and received procurators, although Chalcis, 49, and
subsequently also, 53, Philip's tetrarchy, were restored as a
kingdom to his son Agrippa II. _d._ 90. The oppression of the
procurators, and of Gessius Florus in particular, who obtained the
office, A. D. 64, excited the Jews to rebellion, which, 70, ended
in the capture and destruction of their city and temple by Titus.
The spread of the Jews over the whole civilized world of that
time, although previously commenced, was by this event still
further increased; and at the same time the extension of
Christianity was prepared and facilitated. Even after the
conquest, Jerusalem not only continued to exist as a city, but was
also still considered by the nation as a point of union; and the
attempt, under Adrian, to establish a Roman colony there, produced
a fearful sedition.

BASNAGE, _Histoire des Juifs depuis J. C. jusqu' a present_. La
Haye, 1716, 15 vols. 12mo. The first two parts only, properly
speaking, belong to this period; but the others likewise contain
several very valuable historical researches.

PRIDEAUX, _The Old and New Testament connected in the history of
the Jews and their neighbouring nations_. Lond. 1714, 2 vols. This
work, together with that above quoted, have always been esteemed
the grand books on the subject. The French translation of
Prideaux's Connection is, by its arrangement, more convenient for
use than the original: this translation was published at
Amsterdam, 1722, 5 vols. 8vo. under the title of PRIDEAUX,
_Histoire des Juifs et des peuples voisins depuis la decadence des
Royaumes d'Israel et de Juda, jusqu' a la mort de J. C._

# J. D. MICHAELIS, _Translation of the Books of Esdras, Nehemiah,
and Maccabees_, contains in the observations several historic
discussions of high importance.

# J. REMOND, _Essay towards a history of the spread of Judaism,
from Cyrus to the total decline of the Jewish state_. Leipzig,
1789. The industrious work of a young scholar.

To the works enumerated p. 34, 35, must be added, for the more
ancient history of the Jews:

J. L. BAUER, _Manual of the history of the Hebrew nation, from its
rise to the destruction of its state_. Nuremberg, 1800, 2 parts,
8vo. As yet the best critical introduction, not only to the
history, but also to the antiquities of the nation.

# In the works of J. J. HESS, belonging to this subject, namely,
_History of Moses_; _History of Joshua_; _History of the Rulers of
Judah_, 2 parts; _History of the Kings of Judah and Israel_: the
history is throughout considered in a theocratic point of view.

* * * * *

FIFTH BOOK.

HISTORY OF THE ROMAN STATE.

_Introductory remarks on the Geography of Ancient Italy._

Italy constitutes a peninsula, bounded on the north by the Alps, on the west and south by the Mediterranean, and on the east by the Adriatic sea. Its greatest length from north to south is 600 geogr. miles; its greatest breadth, taken at the foot of the Alps, is 320 geogr. miles; but that of the peninsula, properly so called, is not more than 120 geogr. miles. Superficial contents, 81,920 sq. geogr. miles. The principal mountain range is that of the Apennines, which, diverging occasionally to the west, or east, stretch from north to south through Central and Lower Italy. In the earlier times of Rome, these mountains were covered with thick forests. Main streams: the Padus (Po) and the Athesis, (Adige,) both of which discharge their waters in the Adriatic; and the Tiberis, (Tiber,) which falls into the Mediterranean. The soil, particularly in the plains, is one of the most fertile in Europe; on the other hand, many of the mountain tracts admit but of little cultivation. In that period when the Mediterranean was the grand theatre of trade, Italy, by her situation, seemed destined to become the principal mart of Europe; but she never in ancient times availed herself sufficiently of this advantage.

It is divided into _Upper_ Italy, from the Alps to the small rivers of Rubicon and Macra; (this part, however, of Italy, until presented with the right of citizenship under Caesar, was, according to the Roman political geography, considered as a province;) into _Central_ Italy, from the Rubicon and the Macra down to the Silarus and Frento; and into _Lower_ Italy from those rivers to the southern land's end.

I. _Upper Italy comprises the two countries, Gallia Cisalpina and Liguria._

1. Gallia Cisalpina, or Togata, in contradistinction to Gallia Transalpina. It bears the name of Gallia, in consequence of being for the most part occupied by Gallic races. This country is one continuous plain, divided by the Padus into two parts, the northernmost of which is therefore denominated Gallia Transpadana, (inhabited by the Taurini, Insubres, and Cenomani,) while the southern part (inhabited by the Boii, Senones, and Lingones) is known by the name of Gallia Cispadana. Various streams contribute to swell the Padus; from the north the Duria, (Durance,) the Ticinus, (Tessino,) the Addua, (Adda,) the Ollius, (Oglio,) the Mintius, (Minzio,) and several less important rivers; from the south, the Tanarus, (Tanaro,) the Trebia, etc. The Athesis, (Adige,) the Plavis, (Piave,) and a number of smaller mountain streams, roll their waters directly into the Adriatic.

The cities in Gallia Cisalpina were, generally speaking, Roman colonies; and most of them have preserved to this day their ancient names. Among these are reckoned in Gallia Transpadana, principally, Tergeste, Aquileia, Patavium, (Padua,) Vincentia, Verona, all east of the Athesis; Mantua, Cremona, Brixia, (Brescia,) Mediolanum, (Milan,) Ticinum, (Pavia,) and Augusta Taurinorum, (Turin,) all west of the Athesis. In Gallia Cispadana we meet with Ravenna, Bononia, (Bologna,) Mutina, (Modena,) Parma, Placentia, (Piacenza). Several of the above places received municipal rights from the Romans.

2. Liguria. This country deduced its name from the Ligures, one of the old Italic tribes: it extended from the river Varus, by which it was divided from Gallia Transalpina, down to the river Macra; northward it extended to the Padus, and comprised the modern territory of Genoa.--Cities: Genua, an extremely ancient place; Nicaea, (Nice,) a colony of Massilia; and Asta, (Asti.)

II. _Central Italy comprises six countries; Etruria, Latium, and Campania on the west; Umbria, Picenum, and Samnium on the east._

1. Etruria, Tuscia, or Tyrrhenia, was bounded north by the Macra, which divided it from Liguria; south and east by the Tiberis, which separated it from Latium and Umbria. Main river, the Arnus, (Arno). It is for the most part a mountainous country; the seashore only is level. This country derives its name from the Etrusci, a very ancient people, composed, it is probable, of an amalgamation of several races, and even some early Grecian colonies, to which latter they were indebted, not indeed for all their arts, but for that of writing; to commerce and navigation the Etrusci were indebted for their opulence and consequent splendour. Cities: between the Macra and Arnus, Pisae, (Pisa,) Florentia, Faesulae; between the Arnus and Tiberis, Volaterrae, (Volterra,) Volsinii, (Bolsena,) on the Lacus Volsiniensis, (Lago di Bolsena,) Clusium, (Chiusi,) Arretium, (Arrezzo,) Cortona, Perusia, (Perugia,) in the neighbourhood of which is the Lacus Thrasimenus, (Lago di Perugia,) Falerii, (Falari,) and the wealthy city of Veii. Each of the above twelve cities had its own individual ruler, _lucumo_; although frequent associations were formed among them, yet no firm and lasting bond seems to have united the nation into one.

2. Latium, properly the residence of the Latini, from the Tiberis north, to the promontory of Circeii, south; hence that country was likewise denominated Latium Vetus. Subsequently, under the name of Latium was likewise reckoned the country from Circeii, down to the river Liris, (Latium Novum;) so that the boundaries came to be, north, the Tiberis, south, the Liris: the seat of the Latins, properly speaking, was in the fruitful plain extending from the Tiber to Circeii; around them, however, dwelt various small tribes, some eastward, in the Apennines, such as the Hernici, Sabini, Aequi, and Marsi; others southward, such as the Volsci, Rutuli, and Aurunci.--Rivers: the Anio (Teverone) and Allia, which fall into the Tiber, and the Liris, (Garigliano,) which empties itself into the Mediterranean. Cities in Latium Vetus: Rome, Tibur, Tusculum, Alba Longa, Ostia, Lavinium, Antium, Gabii, Velitrae, the capital of the Volsci, and several smaller places. In Latium Novum: Fundi, Terracina, or Anxur, Arpinum, Minturnae, Formiae.

3. Campania. The country lying between the Liris, north, and the Silarus, south. One of the most fruitful plains in the world, but at the same time greatly exposed to volcanic eruptions. Rivers: the Liris, the Vulturnus, (Voltorno,) the Silarus, (Selo). Mountain: Vesuvius. Campania derived its name from the race of the Campani. Cities: Capua the principal one; and also Linternum, Cumae, Neapolis, Herculaneum, Pompeii, Stabiae, Nola, Surrentum, Salernum, etc.

_The three eastern countries of Central Italy are as follows_:

1. Umbria. It is bounded, north, by the river Rubico, south, by the river Aesis, (Gesano,) dividing it from Picenum, and by the Nar, (Nera,) dividing it from the Sabine territory. It is for the most part plain. The Umbrian race had in early times spread over a much larger portion of Italy. Cities: Ariminium, (Rimini,) Spoletium, (Spoleto,) Narnia, (Narni,) and Ocriculum, (Otriculi.)

2. Picenum. Bounded, north, by the Aesis, south, by the Atarnus, (Pescara.) The people are called Picentes. This country consists in a fertile plain. Cities: Ancona and Asculum Picenum, (Ascoli.)

3. Samnium, the name of a mountain tract extending from the Atarnus, north, to the Frento, south; although that country reckoned among its inhabitants, not only the rude and powerful Samnites, but also several less numerous races; for instance, the Marrucini and Peligni in the north, the Frentani in the east, and the Hirpini in the south. Rivers: the Sagrus and the Tifernus. Cities: Allifae, Beneventum, and Caudium.

III. _Lower Italy, or Magna Grecia, comprised four countries; Lucania and Bruttium on the western side, Apulia and Calabria on the eastern._

1. Lucania. Boundaries: north, the Silarus, south, the Laus. For the most part a mountain tract. It derived its name from the race of the Lucani, a branch of the Ausones, or chief nation of Lower Italy. Cities: Paestum, or Posidonia, still renowned for its ruins, and Helia, or Velia.

2. Bruttium, (the modern Calabria,) or the western tongue of land from the river Laus to the southern land's end at Rhegium. The river Brandanus constitutes the eastern frontier. A mountainous country, deriving its name from the Bruttii, (a half savage branch of the Ausones,) who dwelt in the mountains, while the seashores were occupied by Grecian settlements. Cities: Consentia, (Cosenza,) Pandosia, Mamertum, and Petilia. (Concerning the Greek colonies see above p. 155.)

3. Apulia. The country ranging along the eastern coast, from the river Frento to the commencement of the eastern tongue of land; an extremely fertile plain, and particularly adapted to grazing cattle. Rivers: the Aufidus (Ofanto) and the Cerbalus. This country is divided into two parts by the Aufidus, the northern called Apulia Daunia, the southern called Apulia Peucetia. Cities: in Apulia Daunia; Sipontum and Luceria: in Apulia Peucetia; Barium, Cannae, and Venusia.

4. Calabria or Messapia, the smaller eastern tongue of land, which terminates in the promontory of Iapygium. Cities: Brundusium (Brindisi) and Callipolis (Gallipoli). Concerning Tarentum and other Grecian colonies, see above, p. 155.

Three large islands are likewise reckoned as appertaining to Italy: they are Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica. According to the political geography of the Romans they were, however, considered as provinces. Although the above islands were, along the coast, occupied by aliens, the aboriginals, under their own kings, maintained a footing in the inland parts; among these the Siculi, said to have migrated from Italy, were the most celebrated; they remained in Sicily, and gave their name to the whole island. Concerning the cities, the more important of which were, some of Phoenician, but the most part of Grecian, origin, see above, p. 30, and p. 155, sqq.

FIRST PERIOD.

_From the foundation of Rome to the conquest of Italy and the commencement of the wars with Carthage, B. C. 754-264, or A. U. C. 1-490._

SOURCES. The most copious author, and, if we except his system of
deducing everything connected with Rome from Greece, the most
critical of all those who have written on the earlier history of
Rome and Italy, is Dionysius Halicarnassensis, in his
_Archaeologia_: of this work only the first eleven books, reaching
down to the year 443, have been preserved; to these, however, must
be added the fragments of the nine following books, xii-xx.
discovered in 1816, and published by the Abbate Mai of Milan. Next
to Dionysius is Livy, who as far as lib. iv, c. 18, is our main
authority, till B. C. 292. Of the Lives of Plutarch the following
belong to this period, Romulus, Numa, Coriolanus, Poplicola and
Camillus; which for the knowledge and criticism they display, are
perhaps more important even than Livy and Dionysius, see A. H. L.
HEEREN, _De fontibus et auctoritate vitarum Plutarchi_, inserted in
_Comment Recentiores Soc. Scient. Gott. Comment. I. II. Graeci, III.
IV. Romani_; reprinted also as an appendix to the editions of
Plutarch by Reiske and Hutten, _Gottingen_, 1821, _ap. Dieterich_.
The sources of the most ancient Roman history were extremely
various in kind. The traditions of the Fathers were preserved in
historical ballads; (no mention is ever made of any grand epic
poem;) and in this sense there existed a bardic history; by no
means, however, wholly poetic, for even the traditions of Numa's
Institutes are without the characteristics of poetry. The art of
writing was in Italy of earlier origin than the city of Rome; how
far, consequently, the public annals, such as the _Libri
Pontificum_, extended back in early time remains undetermined.
Several of the memorials are, beyond a doubt, mere family records,
whether preserved by vocal tradition or in written documents. To
the above must be added monuments, not only buildings and works of
arts, but also treaties engraved on tables; of which, nevertheless,
too little use seems to have been made. The Romans having learnt
the art of writing from the Greeks, their history was as
frequently written in Greek as in Latin; and that not only by
Greeks, such as, in the first place, Diocles of Peparethus, but
likewise by Romans, such as Fabius Pictor, at an early period. From
these last sources Dionysius and Livy compiled. The more ancient
Roman history given by these authorities rests, therefore, in part,
but by no means entirely, on tradition and poetry; still further
amplified by the rhetoric style, that of the Greeks more
especially. At what epoch the Roman history lays aside the poetic
character can hardly be determined with certainty; it may be traced
even in some parts of the period extending from the expulsion of
the kings to the conquest by the Gauls.--For the purposes of
chronology, great importance attaches to the _fasti Romani_,
contained partly in inscriptions, (_fasti Capitolini_,) partly in
manuscripts. They have been collected and restored by Pighius,
Noris Sigonius, etc. in GRAEVII, _Thes. A. R._ vol. xi.; likewise in
ALMELOVEEN, _Fast. Rom._ I. II. Amstel. 1705, etc.

PIGHII _Annales Romanorum_. Antwerp, 1615, fol. 2 vols. An essay
towards a chronological arrangement; it reaches down to Vitellius.

The Roman history has been copiously treated of by the moderns in
many works besides those on universal ancient history before
enumerated, (p. 2.). We shall mention only the more important.

ROLLIN, _Histoire Romaine, Depuis la foundation de Rome jusqu' a la
bataille d'Actium_. 13 vols. 8vo. Paris, 1823, edit. revue par
Letronne. This history, which extends to B. C. 89, has been
continued and terminated by CREVIER. Although the critical
historian might suggest much that is wanting in this work, it
nevertheless contributed to advance the study.

ED. FERGUSON, _The History of the Progress and Termination of the
Roman Republic_. London, 1783, 4to. On the whole, the best work on
the history of the Roman republic; it has superceded the earlier
work of GOLDSMITH.

P. CH. LEVESQUE, _Histoire de la Republique Romaine_, 3 vols.
Paris, 1807. He who would still wish to admire with blind
enthusiasm the glory of ancient Rome, had better not read this
work.

B. G. NIEBUHR, _Roman History_.

Rather criticism than history; the author seems to be perpetually
endeavouring to overthrow all that has hitherto been admitted. The
spirit of acuteness is not always that of truth; and men do not so
lightly assent to the existence of a constitution which not only
is contrary to the broad view of antiquity--inferences drawn from
some insulated passages not being sufficient to overturn what is
corroborated by all the others--but likewise, according to the
author's own avowal, stands opposed to all analogy in history. But
truth gains even where criticism is wrong; and the value of some
deep researches will not for that reason be overlooked.--Consult
on this subject:

# W. WACHSMUTH, _Researches into the more Ancient History of
Rome_. Halle, 1819.

C. F. TH. LACHMANN, _Commentatio de fontibus T. Livii in prima
Historiarum Decade_. Gottingae, 1821. A prize essay.

For the works upon the Roman constitution see below, at the end of
this and at the beginning of the third period.

Abundance of most important writings upon Roman antiquities will
be found in the great collections:

GRAEVII _Thesaurus Antiquitatum Romanarum_. Lugd. Batav. 1694, sq.
12 vols. fol. and likewise in

SALENGRE, _Thesaurus Antiquitatum Romanarum_. Venet. 1732, 3 vols.
fol.

Many excellent papers, particularly in

_Memoires de l'Academie des Inscriptions_.

With the exception of NARDINI, _Roma Vetus_, inserted in GRAEVII
THES. A. R. t. iv. the best work on the topography of ancient Rome
is

VENUTI, _Descrizione Topografica delle Antichita di Roma_. P. I.
II. Roma, 1763; and especially the new edition of that work by
VISCONTI, 1803. There is also:

# S. H. L. ADLER, _Description of the city of Rome_. Altona, 1781,
4to.

The best representation of the monuments of ancient Rome will be
found in

PIRANESI, _Antichita di Roma_, 3 vols. fol.

1. In certain respects, the history of Rome is always that of one town, inasmuch as until the period of the Caesars, the city continued mistress of her extensive territory. The main parts of the internal constitution of Rome were formed during this first period; which, considered in an historical point of view, can hardly be said to be void of interest. Whether every fundamental institution had its origin precisely at the epoch to which it is attributed, is a question of little importance; it is sufficient to observe, that they certainly arose in this period; and that the steps by which the constitution was developed are, upon the whole, determined beyond the possibility of a doubt.

2. Exaggerated and embellished as the most ancient traditions of the Romans respecting their origin may be, they all agree in this, that the Romans belonged to the race of the Latini, and that their city was a colony of the neighbouring Alba Longa. Long before this the custom seems to have obtained with the Latini, of extending the cultivation of their country by colonies.