Chapter CDVI: Act 8: Parliament 1. repeated in Act 99. Parliament 7 (3)

The Ludi Sæculares, or secular games, at Rome, were supposed
to celebrate points of time which marked the successive ages
of the city. According to tradition, the first age was
determined by the death of the last survivor of those who were
born in the year of the founding of Rome. Afterwards, the
period became a fixed one; but whether it was 100 or 110 years
is a debated question. At all events, during the period of the
empire, the secular games were celebrated five times (by
Augustus, Claudius, Domitian, Severus and Philip) with
irregularity, as suited the caprice of the emperors. The last
celebration was in the year A. U. 1000—A. D. 247.

_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 35, with footnote._

ALSO IN:
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 7._

SECURITY, The Act of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.

SEDAN, The French Catastrophe at.

See FRANCE; A. D. 1870 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

SEDAN: The Sovereign Principality and its extinction.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1641-1642.

SEDGEMOOR, Battle of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).

SEFAVEAN DYNASTY, The.

See PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.

SEGESVAR, Battle of (1849).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

SEGNI, The.

The Segni were a tribe in ancient Gaul who occupied a region
on the Rhine supposed to be indicated by the name of the
modern small town of Sinei or Segnei, a small town in the
territory of Namur on the Meuse above Liège.

_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 4, chapter 8._

SEGONTIACI, The.

A tribe of ancient Britons living near the Thames.

SEGONTIUM.

"One of the most important Roman towns in Wales, the walls of
which are still visible at Caer Seiont, near Caernarvon, on
the coast of the Irish Sea."

_T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5._

See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.

SEGUSIAVI, The.

One of the tribes of Gaul which occupied the ancient Forez
(departments of the Rhone and the Loire) and extended to the
left bank of the Saone.

_Napoleon III.,
History of Cæsar,
book 3, chapter 2, foot-note._

SEISACHTHEIA OF SOLON, The.

See DEBT, LAWS CONCERNING: ANCIENT GREEK.

SEJANUS, The malign influence of.

See ROME: A. D. 14-37.

SELAH.

The city in the rocks—Petra—of the Edomites, Idumeans, or
Nabatheans.

See NABATHEANS.

SELDJUKS, OR SELJUKS, The.

See TURKS: THE SELJUKS.

SELECTMEN.

In 1665 the General Court or Town Meeting of Plymouth Colony
enacted that "'in every Towne of this Jurisdiction there be
three or five Celectmen chosen by the Townsmen out of the
freemen such as shal be approved by the Court; for the better
managing of the afaires of the respective Townships; and that
the Celect men in every Towne or the major parte of them are
heerby Impowered to heare and determine all debtes and
differences arising between pson and pson within theire
respective Townships not exceeding forty shillings,' &c. … The
origin of the title 'Selectmen' it is difficult to determine.
It may possibly be referred to the tun-gerefa of the old
Anglo-Saxon township, who, with 'the four best men,' was the
legal representative of the community, or to the 'probi
homines' of more ancient times. The prefix 'select' would seem
to indicate the best, the most approved, but, as in the
Massachusetts Colony, they were called, as early as 1642.
'selected townsmen,' it is probable that without reference to
any historic type they were merely the men appointed, chosen,
selected from the townsmen, to have charge of town affairs."

_W. T. Davis,
Ancient Landmarks of Plymouth,
pages 84-85._

See, also, TOWNSHIP AND TOWN-MEETING.

SELEUCIA.

Seleucia, about forty-five miles from Babylon, on the Tigris,
was one of the capitals founded by Seleucus Nicator. "Many
ages after the fall of [the Macedonian or Seleucid Empire in
Asia] … Seleucia retained the genuine characters of a Grecian
colony—arts, military virtue, and the love of freedom.
{2883}
The independent republic was governed by a senate of three
hundred nobles; the people consisted of 600,000 citizens; the
walls were strong, and, as long as concord prevailed among the
several orders of the State, they viewed with contempt the
power of the Parthian; but the madness of faction was
sometimes provoked to implore the dangerous aid of the common
enemy, who was posted almost at the gates of the colony." The
Parthian capital, Ctesiphon, grew up at a distance of only
three miles from Seleucia. "Under the reign of Marcus, the
Roman generals penetrated as far as Ctesiphon and Seleucia.
They were received as friends by the Greek colony; they
attacked as enemies the seat of the Parthian kings; yet both
cities experienced the same treatment. The sack and
conflagration of Seleucia, with the massacre of 300,000 of the
inhabitants, tarnished the glory of the Roman triumph."

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 8._

See, also, CTESIPHON; SELEUCIDÆ; and MEDAIN.

----------SELEUCIDÆ: Start--------

SELEUCIDÆ, The Empire of the.

The struggle for power which broke out after his death among
the successors of Alexander the Great (see MACEDONIA: B. C.
323-316 to 297-280) may be regarded as having been brought to
a close by the battle of Ipsus. "The period of fermentation
was then concluded, and something like a settled condition of
things brought about. A quadripartite division of Alexander's
dominions was recognised, Macedonia, Egypt, Asia Minor, and
Syria (or south-western Asia) becoming thenceforth distinct
political entities. … Of the four powers thus established, the
most important … was the kingdom of Syria (as it was called),
or that ruled for 247 years by the Seleucidæ. Seleucus
Nicator, the founder of this kingdom, was one of Alexander's
officers, but served without much distinction through the
various campaigns by which the conquest of the East was
effected. At the first distribution of provinces (B. C. 323)
among Alexander's generals after his death, he received no
share; and it was not until B. C. 320, when upon the death of
Perdiccas a fresh distribution was made at Triparadisus, that
his merits were recognised, and he was given the satrapy of
Babylon. … Seleucus led the flower of the eastern provinces to
the field of Ipsus (B. C. 301), and contributed largely to the
victory, thus winning himself a position among the foremost
potentates of the day. By the terms of the agreement made
after Ipsus, Seleucus was recognised as monarch of an the
Greek conquests in Asia, with the sole exceptions of Lower
Syria and Asia Minor. The monarchy thus established extended
from the Holy Land and the Mediterranean on the west, to the
Indus valley and the Bolor mountain-chain upon the east, and
from the Caspian and Jaxartes towards the north, to the
Persian gulf and Indian Ocean towards the south. It comprised
Upper Syria, Mesopotamia, parts of Cappadocia and Phrygia,
Armenia, Assyria, Media, Babylonia, Susiana, Persia, Carmania,
Sagartia, Hyrcania, Parthia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Aria,
Zarangia, Arachosia, Sacastana, Gedrosia, and probably some
part of India."

_G. Rawlinson,
Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 3._

The original capital of the great Empire of Seleucus was
Babylon; but not satisfied with it he founded and built the
city of Seleucia, about forty miles from Babylon, on the
Tigris. Even there he was not content, and, after the battle
of Ipsus, he created, within a few years, the magnificent city
of Antioch, in the valley of the Orontes, and made it his
royal residence. This removal of the capital from the center
of his dominions to the Syrian border is thought to have been
among the causes which led to the disintegration of the
kingdom. First Bactria, then Parthia, fell away, and the
latter, in time, absorbed most of the Seleucid empire.

_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapters 58-60 (volumes 7-8)._

ALSO IN:
_J. P. Mahaffy,
The Story of Alexander's Empire._

_B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on Ancient History,
volume 3._

SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 281-224.
Wars with the Ptolemies and civil wars.
Decay of the empire.

"Antiochus Soter, the son of Seleucus, who had succeeded to
his father [murdered B. C. 281—see MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280]
at the age of 40, received the surname of Soter [Saviour] from
his complete victory [time and place unknown] over the Gauls
at the time when they had crossed the Bosporus [see GALATIA].
… He reigned little more (?) than twenty years. At the
beginning of his reign, Antiochus carried on wars with
Antigonus and Ptolemy Ceraunus [see MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244],
which, however, were soon brought to a close. The war with
Antigonus had commenced as early as the time of Demetrius; it
was a maritime war, in which nothing sufficiently important
was done; both parties felt that it was only a useless waste
of strength, and soon concluded peace. Antiochus was wise
enough altogether to abstain from interfering in the affairs
of Europe. In Asia he apparently enlarged the dominion of his
father, and his magnificent empire extended from the mountains
of Candahar as far as the Hellespont; but many parts of it,
which his father had left him in a state of submission,
asserted their independence, as e. g., Cappadocia and Pontus
under Ariarathes, and so also Armenia and several other
countries in the midst of his empire; and he was obliged to be
satisfied with maintaining a nominal supremacy in those parts.
There can be no doubt that in his reign Bactria also became
independent under a Macedonian king. Even Seleucus had no
longer ruled over the Indian states, which, having separated
from the empire, returned to their own national institutions.
With Ptolemy Philadelphus [Egypt] he at first concluded peace,
and was on good terms with him; but during the latter years of
his reign he was again involved in war with him, although
Ptolemy undoubtedly was far more powerful; and this war was
protracted until the reign of his son Antiochus. … The
Egyptians carried on the war on the offensive against Asia
Minor, where they already possessed a few places, and
principally at sea. The Syrians conquered Damascus, though
otherwise the war was unfavourable to them; they did not carry
it on with energy, and the Egyptians at that time conquered
Ephesus, the coast of Ionia, Caria, Pamphylia, and probably
Cilicia also; the Cyclades likewise fell into their hands
about that period. … On the death of Antiochus Soter (Olymp.
129, 3) [B. C. 252] the government passed into the hands of
his surviving son, … Antiochus Theos, one of the most
detestable Asiatic despots." Peace with Egypt was brought
about by the marriage of Antiochus Theos to Berenice, daughter
of Ptolemy Philadelphus; but in order to marry her he was
obliged to divorce and send away his wife Laudice, or Laodice.
{2884}
After Ptolemy Philadelphus died, however (B. C. 248), Laodice
returned, "recovered her whole influence, and Berenice, with
her child, was sent to Antioch"—the royal residence of
Antiochus then being at Ephesus. The next year Antiochus, who
had been ill for a long time—"in a perpetual state of
intoxication"—died, perhaps of poison. Laodice "caused a waxen
image of him to be placed in a bed, and thus deceived the
courtiers, who were obliged to stand at a respectful
distance," while she, "with her sons, took possession of the
government, and adopted measures to rid herself of Berenice.
But the citizens of Antioch sided with Berenice, and … she for
a time remained in possession of Antioch. … But she was
betrayed by the nobles …; her child was dragged from her arms
and murdered before her eyes; she then fled into the temple at
Daphne, and was herself murdered there in the asylum. The two
brothers, Seleucus Callinicus and Antiochus Hierax, then
assumed the crown; but they seem to have divided the empire,
and Antiochus obtained Asia Minor. … Ptolemy Euergetes, the
third among the Ptolemies, and the last in the series that
deserves praise, now rose in just indignation at the fate of
his unhappy sister (Olymp. 133, 3) [B. C. 246]. He marched out
with all the forces of his empire, and wherever he went the
nations declared in his favour. … 'All the Ionian, Cilician,
and other towns, which were already in arms to support
Berenice,' joined Euergetes, and he traversed the whole of the
Syrian empire. … He himself proceeded as far as Babylon.
Media, Persia, and the upper satrapies, southern Chorassan and
Sistan as far as Cabul, all of which belonged to Syria,
submitted to him. He was equally successful in Asia Minor: the
acropolis of Sardes, a part of Lydia, and Phrygia Major, alone
maintained themselves. Even the countries on the coast of
Thrace … were conquered by the Egyptians. … Seleucus
Callinicus, in the meantime, probably maintained himself in
the mountainous districts of Armenia, in Aderbidjan. 'His
brother, Antiochus, deserted him, and negotiated with
Ptolemy.' In the conquered countries, Ptolemy everywhere
exercised the rights of a conqueror in the harsh Egyptian
manner. … While he was thus levying contributions abroad, an
insurrection broke out in Egypt, which obliged him to return."
He, thereupon, divided his conquests, "retaining for himself
Syria as far as the Euphrates, and the coast districts of Asia
Minor and Thrace, so that he had a complete maritime empire.
The remaining territories he divided into two states: the
country beyond the Euphrates was given, according to St.
Jerome on Daniel (xi. 7 foll.), to one Xanthippus, who is
otherwise unknown, and western Asia was left to Antiochus
Hierax. It would seem that after this he never visited those
countries again. After he had withdrawn, a party hostile to
him came forward to oppose him. … The confederates formed a
fleet, with the assistance of which, and supported by a
general insurrection of the Asiatics, who were exasperated
against the Egyptians on account of their rapacity, Seleucus
Callinicus rallied again. He recovered the whole of upper
Asia, and for a time he was united with his brother Antiochus
Hierax. … Ptolemy being pressed on all sides concluded a truce
of ten years with Seleucus on the basis 'uti possidetis.' Both
parties seem to have retained the places which they possessed
at the time, so that all the disadvantage was on the side of
the Seleucidae, for the fortified town of Seleucia, e. g.,
remained in the hands of the Egyptians, whereby the capital
was placed in a dangerous position. 'A part of Cilicia, the
whole of Caria, the Ionian cities, the Thracian Chersonesus,
and several Macedonian towns likewise continued to belong to
Egypt.' During this period, a war broke out between the
brothers Seleucus and Antiochus. … The war between the two
brothers lasted for years: its seat was Asia Minor. …
'Seleucus established himself in upper Asia, where the
Parthians, who during the war between the brothers had subdued
Sistan and lower Chorassan, were in the possession of Media,
Babylonia and Persia.'" In the end, Antiochus was overcome,
and fled into Thrace. "But there he was taken prisoner by a
general of Euergetes, 'and orders were sent from Alexandria to
keep him in safe custody'; for in the mean time a peace had
been concluded between Seleucus and Ptolemy, by which the
Egyptian empire in its immense extent was strengthened again."
Antiochus Hierax then escaped and took refuge among the Gauls,
but was murdered for the jewels that he carried with him.
"Notwithstanding its successful enterprises, Egypt had been
shaken by the war to its foundations and had lost its
strength. … The empire was already in a state of internal
decay, and even more so than that of Syria. The death of
Euergetes [B. C. 221] decided its downfall. 'But in Syria too
the long wars had loosened the connection among the provinces
more than ever, and those of Asia Minor, the jewels of the
Syrian crown, were separated from the rest. For while Seleucus
was in Upper Asia, Achaeus, his uncle, availed himself of the
opportunity of making himself an independent satrap in western
Asia.' Seleucus did not reign long after this. He was
succeeded by his son Seleucus Ceraunus (Olymp. 138, 2) [B. C.
227] who marched against the younger Achaeus, but was murdered
by a Gaul named Apaturius, at the instigation of the same
Achaeus (Olymp. 130, 1) [B. C. 224]. He had reigned only three
years, and resided in western Asia. He was succeeded by his
younger brother Antiochus, surnamed the Great. … Under
Antiochus the Syrian empire revived again and acquired a great
extent, especially in the south. Although he was not a great
man, his courtiers, not without reason, gave him the surname
of the Great, because he restored the empire. This happened at
the time when Antigonus Doson [king of Macedonia] died.
Achaeus, in Asia Minor, was in a state of insurrection; the
satrap of Media was likewise revolting, and the Syrian empire
was confined to Syria, Babylonia, and Persia. During this
confusion, new sovereigns ascended the thrones everywhere. In
Macedonia, Philip succeeded; in Egypt, Ptolemy Philopator; in
Media, Molon; and in Bactria a consolidated Macedonian dynasty
had already established itself."

_B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on Ancient History,
lectures 103-104 (volume 3)._

{2885}

SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 224-187.
The reign of Antiochus the Great.
His early successes.
His disastrous war with the Romans.
His diminished kingdom.
His death.

Antiochus the Great first proved his military talents in the
war against the rebellious brothers Molo and Alexander, the
satraps of Media and Persia (B. C. 220). "He next renewed the
old contest with Egypt for the possession of Cœle-Syria and
Palestine, and was forced to cede those provinces to Ptolemy
Philopator, as the result of his decisive defeat at Raphia,
near Gaza, in the same year in which the battle of the
Trasimene lake (between Hannibal and the Romans] was fought
(B. C. 217). Meanwhile, Achæus, the governor of Asia Minor,
had raised the standard of independence; but after an
obstinate resistance he was defeated and taken at Sardis, and
put to death by Antiochus (B. C. 214). This success in the
West encouraged Antiochus, like his father, to attempt the
reconquest of the East, and with greater appearance at least
of success. But a seven years' war (B. C. 212-205) only
resulted in his acknowledgment of the independence of the
Parthian monarchy (B. C. 205). The same year witnessed not
only the crisis of the Hannibalic War, but the death of
Ptolemy Philopator; and the opportunity offered by the latter
event effectually withdrew Antiochus from direct participation
in the great conflict. The league which he made with Philip
[Philip V., king of Macedonia, who had then just concluded a
peace with the Romans, ending the 'First Macedonian War'—see
GREECE: B. C. 214-146], instead of being a well-concerted plan
for the exclusion of the Romans from Asia, was only intended
to leave him at liberty to pursue his designs against Egypt,
while Philip bore the brunt of the war with Attalus [king of
Pergamus, or Pergamum] and the Romans. During the crisis of
the Macedonian War, he prosecuted a vigorous attack upon
Cilicia, Cœle-Syria, and Palestine, while the Romans hesitated
to engage in a new contest to protect the dominions of their
youthful ward [Ptolemy V. Epiphanes, the infant king of Egypt,
whose guardians had placed him under the protection of the
Roman senate]. At length a decisive victory over the Egyptians
at Panium, the hill whence the Jordan rises, was followed by a
peace which gave the coveted provinces to Antiochus [see JEWS:
B. C. 332-167], while the youthful Ptolemy was betrothed to
Cleopatra, the daughter of the Syrian king (B. C. 198). It
must not be forgotten that, the transference of these
provinces from Egypt, which had constantly pursued a tolerant
policy towards the Jews, led afterwards to the furious
persecution of that people by Antiochus Epiphanes, and their
successful revolt under the Maccabees [see JEWS: B. C.
166-40]. The time seemed now arrived for Antiochus to fly to
the aid of Philip, before he should be crushed by the Romans;
but the Syrian king still clung to the nearer and dearer
object of extending his power over the whole of Asia Minor. …
He collected a great army at Sardis, while his fleet advanced
along the southern shores of Asia Minor, so that he was
brought into collision both with Attalus and the Rhodians, the
allies of Rome. … Though the Rhodians succeeded in protecting
the chief cities of Caria, and Antiochus was repelled from
some important places by the resistance of the inhabitants, he
became master of several others, and among the rest of Abydos
on the Hellespont. Even the conquest of his ally Philip was in
the first instance favourable to his progress; for the
hesitating policy of the Romans suffered him to occupy the
places vacated by the Macedonian garrisons." It was not until
191 B. C. that the fatuity of the Syrian monarch brought him
into collision with the legions of Rome. He had formed an
alliance with the Ætolians in Greece, and he had received into
his camp the fugitive Carthaginian, Hannibal; but petty
jealousies forbade his profiting by the genius of the great
unfortunate soldier. He entered Greece with a small force in
192 B. C., occupied the pass of Thermopylæ, and entrenched
himself there, waiting reinforcements which did not come to
him. Even the Macedonians were arrayed against him. Early in
the following year he was attacked in this strong position by
the Roman consul Manius Acilius Glabrio, Despite the immense
advantages of the position he was defeated overwhelmingly and
his army almost totally destroyed (B. C. 191). He fled to
Chalcis and from Chalcis to Asia; but he had not escaped the
long arm of wrathful Rome, now roused against him. For the
first time, a Roman army crossed the Hellespont and entered
the Asiatic world, under the command of the powerful Scipios,
Africanus and his brother. At the same time a Roman fleet, in
co-operation with the navy of Rhodes, swept the coasts of Asia
Minor. After some minor naval engagements, a great battle was
fought off the promontory of Myonnesus, near Ephesus, in which
the Syrians lost half their fleet (B. C. 190). … On land
Antiochus fared no better. A vast and motley host which he
gathered for the defense of his dominions was assailed by L.
Scipio at Magnesia, under Mount Sipylus (B. C. 190), and
easily destroyed, some 50,000 of its dead being left on the
field. This ended the war and stripped Antiochus of all his
former conquests in Asia Minor. Much of the territory taken
from him was handed over to the king of Pergamum, faithful
ally and friend of Rome; some to the republic of Rhodes, and
some was left undisturbed in its political state, as organized
in the minor states of Cappadocia, Bithynia and the rest. "As
the battle of Magnesia was the last, in ancient history, of
those unequal conflicts, in which oriental armies yielded like
unsubstantial shows to the might of disciplined freedom, so it
sealed the fate of the last of the great oriental empires; for
the kingdom left to the heirs of Seleucus was only strong
enough to indulge them in the luxuries of Antioch and the
malignant satisfaction of persecuting the Jews. All resistance
ceased in Asia Minor; that great peninsula was ceded as far as
the Taurus and the Halys, with whatever remained nominally to
Antiochus in Thrace; and, with characteristic levity, he
thanked the Romans for relieving him of the government of too
large a kingdom. … Never, perhaps, did a great power fall so
rapidly, so thoroughly, and so ignominiously as the kingdom of
the Seleucidæ under this Antiochus the Great. He himself was
soon afterwards slain by the indignant inhabitants of Elymaïs
at the head of the Persian Gulf, on occasion of the plundering
of a temple of Bel, with the treasures of which he had sought
to replenish his empty coffers (B. C. 187), … The petty
princes of Phrygia soon submitted to the power and exactions
of the new lords of Western Asia; but the powerful Celtic
tribes of Galatia made a stand in the fastnesses of Mount
Olympus." They were overcome, however, and the survivors
driven beyond the Halys. "That river, fixed by the treaty with
Antiochus as the eastern limit of Roman power, in Asia, was
respected as the present terminus of their conquests, without
putting a bound to their influence."
{2886}
Eumenes, king of Pergamus, "was justly rewarded for his
sufferings and services by the apportionment of the greater
part of the territories ceded by Antiochus to the
aggrandizement of his kingdom. Pergamus became the most
powerful state of Western Asia, including nearly the whole of
Asia Minor up to the Halys and the Taurus, except Bithynia and
Galatia on the one side, and on the other Lycia and the
greater part of Caria, which went to recompense the fidelity
of the Rhodians; and to these Asiatic possessions were added,
in Europe, the Thracian Chersonese and the city of
Lysimachia."

_P. Smith,
History of the World: Ancient,
chapter 27 (volume 2)._

ALSO IN:
_J. P. Mahaffy,
The Story of Alexander's Empire,
chapters 24 and 28._

_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 5, chapter 2._

_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 65._

SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 150.
Conquest by the Parthians of Media, Persia, Susiana,
Babylonia and Assyria.

See PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.

SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 64.
Pompeius in the East.
Syria absorbed in the dominion of Rome.

In 64, B. C. having finished the Mithridatic War, driving the
Pontic king across the Euxine into the Crimea, Pompeius Magnus
marched into Syria to settle affairs in that disordered
region.

See ROME: B. C. 69-63.

He had received from the Roman senate and people, under the
Manilian Law, an extraordinary commission, with supreme powers
in Asia, and by virtue of this authority he assumed to dispose
of the eastern kingdoms at will. The last of the Seleucid
kings of Syria was deprived of his throne at Pompey's command,
and Syria was added to the dominions of Rome. He then turned
his attention to Judæa.

_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 3, chapters 9-10._

See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

----------SELEUCIDÆ: End--------

SELF-DENYING ORDINANCE, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

SELGOVÆ, The.

A tribe which, in Roman times, occupied the modern county of
Dumfries, Scotland.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

SELIM I.,
Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1512-1520.

Selim II., Turkish Sultan, 1566-1574.

Selim III., Turkish Sultan, 1789-1807.

SELINUS, Destruction of (B. C. 409).

See SICILY: B. C. 409-405.

SELJUKS.

See TURKS (SELJUKS).

SELLA CURULIS.

See CURULE CHAIR.

SELLASIA, Battle of.

The last and decisive battle in what was called the Kleomenic
War—fought B. C. 221. The war had its origin in the resistance
of Sparta, under the influence of its last heroic king,
Kleomenes, to the growing power of the Achaian League, revived
and extended by Aratos. In the end, the League, to defeat
Kleomenes, was persuaded by Aratos to call in Antigonus Doson,
king of Macedonia, and practically to surrender itself, as an
instrument in his hands, for the subjugation of Sparta and all
Peloponnesus. The deed was accomplished on the field of
Sellasia. Kleomenes fled to Egypt; "Sparta now, for the first
time since the return of the Hêrakleids, opened her gates to a
foreign conqueror."

_E. A. Freeman,
History of Federal Government,
chapter 7, section 4._

ALSO IN:
_Plutarch,
Kleomenes._

See, also, GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

SELLI, The.

See HELLAS.

SEMINARA, Battle of (1503).

See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

SEMINOLES.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SEMINOLES,
and MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY;
also, FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818, 1835-1843.

----------SEMITES: Start--------

SEMITES, The

"The 'Semitic Race' owes its name to a confusion of ethnology
with philology. A certain family of speech, composed of
languages closely related to one another and presupposing a
common mother-tongue, received the title of 'Semitic' from the
German scholar Eichhorn. There was some justification for such
a name. The family of speech consists of Hebrew and
Phoenician, of Aramaic, of Assyrian and Babylonian, of
Arabian, of South Arabian and of Ethiopic or Ge'ez. Eber,
Aram, and Asshur were all sons of Shem, and the South Arabian
tribes claimed descent from Joktan. In default of a better
title, therefore, 'Semitic' was introduced and accepted in
order to denote the group of languages of which Hebrew and
Aramaic form part. But whatever justification there may have
been for speaking of a Semitic family of languages there was
none for speaking of a Semitic race. To do so was to confound
language and race, and to perpetuate the old error which
failed to distinguish between the two. Unfortunately, however,
when scholars began to realise the distinction between
language and race, the mischief was already done. 'The Semitic
race' had become, as it were, a household term of ethnological
science. It was too late to try to displace it; all we can do
is to define it accurately and distinguish it carefully from
the philological term, 'the Semitic family of speech.' … There
are members of the Semitic race who do not speak Semitic
languages, and speakers of Semitic languages who do not belong
to the Semitic race. … It is questionable whether the
Phoenicians or Canaanites were of purely Semitic ancestry, and
yet it was from them that the Israelites learned the language
which we call Hebrew. … Northern Arabia was the early home of
the Semitic stock, and it is in Northern Arabia that we still
meet with it but little changed. … The Bedawin of Northern
Arabia, and to a lesser extent the settled population of the
Hijaz, may therefore be regarded as presenting us with the
purest examples of the Semitic type. But even the Bedawin are
not free from admixture."

_A. H. Sayce,
The Races of the Old Testament,
chapter 4._

"The following is a scheme of the divisions of the Semitic
race. It is based partly upon the evidence afforded by
linguistic affinity, and partly upon geographical and
historical distribution:

A. Northern Semites.
I. Babylonian:
a. Old Babylonian
b. Assyrian
c. Chaldæan

II. Aramæan:
a. Mesopotamian
b. Syrian.

III. Canaanitic
a. Canaanites
b. Phœnicians

IV. Hebraic
a. Hebrews
b. Moabites
c. Ammonites
d. Edomites

B. Southern Semites.
I. Sabæans

II. Ethiopians

III. Arabs.

{2887}

It should be said with regard to the foregoing classification,
that it has been made as general as possible, since it is a
matter of great difficulty to make clear-cut divisions on an
exact ethnological basis. If a linguistic classification were
attempted, a scheme largely different would have to be
exhibited. … Again it should be observed that the mixture of
races which was continually going on in the Semitic world is
not and cannot be indicated by our classification. The
Babylonians, for example, received a constant accession from
Aramæans encamped on their borders, and even beyond the
Tigris; but these, as well as non-Semitic elements from the
mountains and plains to the east, they assimilated in speech
and customs. The same general remark applies to the Aramæans
of Northern Mesopotamia and Syria, while the peoples of
Southern and Eastern Palestine, and in fact all the
communities that bordered on the Great Desert, from the
Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, were continually absorbing
individuals or tribes of Arabian stock. Finally, it must be
remarked that in some sub-divisions it is necessary to use a
geographical instead of a properly racial distinction; and
that is, of course, to be limited chronologically. Thus, for
instance, it is impossible to devise a single strictly
ethnological term for the two great divisions of the Aramæans.
It is now pretty generally admitted that the home of the
Semitic race, before its separation into the historical
divisions, was Northern Arabia. … The historical distribution
of the several families is thus best accounted for. … While
among the Southern Semites the various Arab tribes remained
for the most part in their desert home for thousands of years
as obscure Bedawin, and the Sabæans cultivated the rich soil
of the southwest and the southern coast of Arabia, and there
developed cities and a flourishing commerce, and the nearly
related Ethiopians, migrating across the Red Sea, slowly built
up in Abyssinia an isolated civilization of their own, those
branches of the race with which we are immediately concerned,
after a lengthened residence in common camping grounds, moved
northward and westward to engage in more important
enterprises. The Babylonians, occupying the region which the
Bible makes known to us as the scene of man's creation, and
which historical research indicates to have been the seat of
the earliest civilization, made their home on the lands of the
Lower Euphrates and Tigris, converting them through
canalization and irrigation into rich and powerful kingdoms
finally united under the rule of Babylon. Before the union was
effected, emigrants from among these Babylonians settled along
the Middle Tigris, founded the city of Asshur, and later still
the group of cities known to history as Nineveh. The Assyrians
then, after long struggles, rose to pre-eminence in Western
Asia, till after centuries of stern dominion they yielded to
the new Babylonian regime founded by the Chaldæans from the
shores of the Persian Gulf. The Canaanites, debarred from the
riches of the East, turned northwestward at an unknown early
date, and while some of them occupied and cultivated the
valleys of Palestine, others seized the maritime plain and the
western slope of Lebanon. On the coast of the latter region
they took advantage of the natural harbours wanting in the
former, and tried the resources and possibilities of the sea.
As Phœnicians of Sidon and Tyre, they became the great
navigators and maritime traders for the nations, and sent
forth colonies over the Mediterranean. …

See PHŒNICIA.

Meanwhile the pasture lands between the Tigris and the
Euphrates and between the southern desert and the northern
mountains were gradually being occupied by the Aramæans, who
advanced with flocks and herds along the Euphrates. … While
the bulk of the Aramæans adhered to the old pastoral life
among the good grazing districts in the confines of the
desert, a large number, favoured by their intermediate
position between urban and nomadic settlements, addicted
themselves to the carrying trade between the East and the
West. … This remarkable people, however, never attained to
political autonomy on a large scale in their Mesopotamian
home, to which for long ages they were confined. After the
decline of the Hettite principalities west of the Euphrates
[see HITTITES], to which they themselves largely contributed,
they rapidly spread in that quarter also. They mingled with
the non-Semitic Hettite inhabitants of Carchemish and Hamath,
formed settlements along the slopes of Amanus and
Anti-Lebanon, and created on the northeast corner of Palestine
a powerful state with Damascus as the centre, which was long a
rival of Israel, and even stood out against the might of
Assyria. Thus the Aramæans really acted a more prominent
political part to the west than they did to the east of the
Euphrates, and accordingly they have been popularly most
closely associated with the name 'Syria.' At the same time
they did not abandon their old settlements between the Rivers.
… As the latest of the historical divisions of the race to
form an independent community, the Hebraic family made their
permanent settlement in and about Palestine.

See JEWS.

Their common ancestors of the family of Terah emigrated from
Southern Babylonia more than two thousand years before the
Christian era. It is highly probable that they were of Aramæan
stock."

_J. F. McCurdy,
History, Prophecy and the Monuments,
book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

"The Hebrews … divided the country of Aram [between the
[Mediterranean and the Euphrates] into several regions;

1st Aram Naharaim, or 'Aram of the two rivers,' that is, the
Mesopotamia of the Greeks, between the Euphrates and the
Tigris;

2d Aram properly so called, that is, Syria, whose most ancient
and important city was Damascus; and

3d Aram Zobah, or the region in which in later times was
formed the kingdom of Palmyra."

_F. Lenormant and E. Chevalier,
Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
book 1, chapter 4._

"The Semitic home is distinguished by its central position in
geography—between Asia and Africa, and between the Indian
Ocean and the Mediterranean, which is Europe; and the rôle in
history of the Semitic race has been also intermediary. The
Semites have been the great middlemen of the world. Not
second-rate in war, they have risen to the first rank in
commerce and religion. They have been the carriers between
East and West, they have stood between the great ancient
civilizations and those which go to make up the modern world;
while by a higher gift, for which their conditions neither in
place nor in time fully account, they have been mediary
between God and man, and proved the religious teachers of the
world, through whom have come its three highest faiths, its
only universal religions."

_George Adam Smith,
Historical Geography of the Holy Land,
page 5._

{2888}

"If we ask what the Semitic peoples have contributed to this
organic and living whole which is called civilization, we
shall find, in the first place, that, in polity, we owe them
nothing at all. Political life is perhaps the most peculiar
and native characteristic of the Indo-European nations. These
nations are the only ones that have known liberty, that have
reconciled the State with the independence of the individual.
… In art and poetry what do we owe to them? In art nothing.
These tribes have but little of the artist; our art comes
entirely from Greece. In poetry, nevertheless, without being
their tributaries, we have with them more than one bond of
union. The Psalms have become in some respects one of our
sources of poetry. Hebrew poetry has taken a place with us
beside Greek poetry, not as having furnished a distinct order
of poetry, but as constituting a poetic ideal, a sort of
Olympus where in consequence of an accepted prestige
everything is suffused with a halo of light. … Here again,
however, all the shades of expression, all the delicacy, all
the depth is our work. The thing essentially poetic is the
destiny of man; his melancholy moods, his restless search
after causes, his just complaint to heaven. There was no
necessity of going to strangers to learn this. The eternal
school here is each man's soul. In science and philosophy we
are exclusively Greek. The investigation of causes, knowledge
for knowledge's own sake, is a thing of which there is no
trace previous to Greece, a thing that we have learned from
her alone. Babylon possessed a science, but it had not that
pre-eminently scientific principle, the absolute fixedness of
natural law. … We owe to the Semitic race neither political
life, art, poetry, philosophy, nor science. What then do we
owe to them? We owe to them religion. The whole world, if we
except India, China, Japan, and tribes altogether savage, has
adopted the Semitic religions. The civilized world comprises
only Jews, Christians, and Mussulmans. The Indo-European race
in particular, excepting the Brahmanic family and the feeble
relics of the Parsees, has gone over completely to the Semitic
faiths. What has been the cause of this strange phenomenon?
How happens it that the nations who hold the supremacy of the
world have renounced their own creed to adopt that of the
people they have conquered? The primitive worship of the
Indo-European race … was charming and profound, like the
imagination of the nations themselves. It was like an echo of
nature, a sort of naturalistic hymn, in which the idea of one
sole cause appears but occasionally and uncertainly. It was a
child's religion, full of artlessness and poetry, but destined
to crumble at the first demand of thought. Persia first
effected its reform (that which is associated with the name of
Zoroaster) under influences and at an epoch unknown to us.
Greece, in the time of Pisistratus, was already dissatisfied
with her religion, and was turning towards the East. In the
Roman period, the old pagan worship had become utterly
insufficient. It no longer addressed the imagination; it spoke
feebly to the moral sense. The old myths on the forces of
nature had become changed into fables, not unfrequently
amusing and ingenious; but destitute of all religious value.
It is precisely at this epoch that the civilized world finds
itself face to face with the Jewish faith. Based upon the
clear and simple dogma of the divine unity, discarding
naturalism and pantheism by the marvellously terse phrase: 'In
the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth,'
possessing a law, a book, the depository of grand moral
precepts and of an elevated religious poetry, Judaism had an
incontestable superiority, and it might have been foreseen
then that some day the world would become Jewish, that is to
say would forsake the old mythology for Monotheism."

_E. Renan,
Studies of Religious History and Criticism,
pages 154-160._

SEMITES:
Primitive Babylonia.

"The Babylonians were … the first of the Semites to enter the
arena of history, and they did so by virtue of the
civilization to which they attained in and through their
settlements on the Lower Euphrates and Tigris. … The
unrivalled fertility of the soil of Babylonia was the result
not only of the quality of the soil, but of the superadded
benefits of the colossal system of drainage and canalization
which was begun by the ingenuity of the first civilized
inhabitants. Of the natural elements of fertility, the
Euphrates contributed by far the larger share. … The …
formations of clay, mud, and gypsum, comprising elements of
the richest soil, are found in such profusion in Babylonia
that in the days of ancient civilization it was the most
fruitful portion of the whole earth with the possible
exception of the valley of the Nile. It was roughly reckoned
by Herodotus to equal in productiveness half the rest of Asia.
… The rise of the Semites in Babylonia, like all other
origins, is involved in obscurity. The earliest authentic
records, drawn as they are from their own monuments, reveal
this gifted race as already in possession of a high degree of
civilization, with completed systems of national religion, a
language already long past its formative period, and a stage
of advancement in art that testifies to the existence of a
wealthy class of taste and leisure, to whom their nomadic
ancestry must have been little more than a vague tradition.
The same records also show this Semitic people to have
extended their sway in Western Asia as far as the
Mediterranean coastland many centuries before Phœnicians or
Hebrews or Hettites came before the world in any national or
corporate form. Questions of deep interest arise in connection
with such facts as these. It is asked: Did the Babylonian
Semites develop the elements of their civilization alone, or
did they inherit that of another race? … In the absence of
direct evidence to the contrary, we are entitled to assume
that the same race who in historical times gave proof of high
mental endowments reached their unique level of intellectual
attainment by a process of self-education. A contrary opinion
is held by many scholars of high rank. I refer to the
well-known theory that the Semitic Babylonians acquired their
civilization from another people who preceded them in the
occupation and cultivation of the country.

See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.

{2889}

This hypothetical race is named Sumerian from the term Sumer,
generally, but erroneously, supposed to be the designation of
Southern Babylonia. With this in the Inscriptions is coupled
the name of Akkad, another geographical term properly
connoting Northern Babylonia. This appellation has given rise
to the name 'Akkadian;' used by most of these modern
authorities to designate a supposed subdivision of the same
people, speaking a dialect of the main Sumerian language. …
The Sumerian theory has played a great role in linguistic and
ethnological research during the last twenty years. The
general aspect of the supposed language led at once to its
being classed with the agglutinative families of speech, and
the inevitable 'Turanian' conveniently opened its hospitable
doors. … While we are … obliged, until further light shall
have been cast upon the subject, to assume that the earliest
type of Babylonian culture was mainly of Semitic origin, it
would be rash to assert that people of that race were the sole
occupants of the lower River country in prehistoric times, or
that they received no important contributions to their
development from any outside races. … It … remains for us to
assume it to be possible that an antecedent or contemporanous
people bore a small share with the Semites in the early
development of the country, and that, as a result of their
contact with the stronger race, they bequeathed to it some of
the elements of the surviving religion, mythology, and popular
superstition."

_J. F. McCurdy,
History, Prophecy and the Monuments,
book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

"As to the ancient history of Babylon, it is well to learn to
be patient and to wait. The progress of discovery and
decipherment is so rapid, that what is true this year is shown
to be wrong next year. … This is no discredit to the valiant
pioneers in this glorious campaign. On the contrary it speaks
well for their perseverance and for their sense of truth. I
shall only give you one instance to show what I mean by
calling the ancient periods of Babylonian history also
constructive rather than authentic. My friend Professor Sayce
claims 4000 B. C. as the beginning of Babylonian literature.
Nabonidus, he tells us (Hibbert Lectures, page 21), in 550 B.
C. explored the great temple of the Sun god at Sippara. This
temple was believed to have been founded by Naram Sin, the son
of Sargon. Nabonidus, however, lighted upon the actual
foundation-stone—a stone, we are told, which had not been seen
by any of his predecessors for 3,200 years. On the strength of
this the date of 3,200 + 550 years, that is, 3750 B. C., is
assigned to Naram Sin, the son of Sargon. These two kings,
however, are said to be quite modern, and to have been
preceded by a number of so-called Proto-Chaldæan kings, who
spoke a Proto-Chaldæan language, long before the Semitic
population had entered the land. It is concluded, further,
from some old inscriptions on diorite, brought from the
Peninsula of Sinai to Chaldæa, that the quarries of Sinai,
which were worked by the Egyptians at the time of their third
dynasty, say six thousand years ago, may have been visited
about the same time by these Proto-Chaldæans. 4000 B. C., we
are told, would therefore be a very moderate initial epoch for
Babylonian and Egyptian literature. I am the very last person
to deny the ingeniousness of these arguments, or to doubt the
real antiquity of the early civilization of Babylon or Egypt.
All I wish to point out is, that we should always keep before
our eyes the constructive character of this ancient history
and chronology. To use a foundation-stone, on its own
authority, as a stepping-stone over a gap of 3,200 years, is
purely constructive chronology, and as such is to be carefully
distinguished from what historians mean by authentic history,
as when Herodotus or Thucydides tells us what happened during
their own lives or before their own eyes."

_F. Max Müller,
On the "Enormous Antiquity" of the East
(Nineteenth Century, 1891)._

"Dr. Tiele rejects the name 'Accadian,' which has been adopted
by so many Assyriologists, and is strongly indisposed to admit
Turanian affinities. Yet he is so_far from accepting the
alternative theory of Halévy and Guyard, that this so-called
Accadian, or Sumerian, is only another way of writing
Assyrian, that he can scarcely comprehend how a man of
learning and penetration can maintain such a strange position.
He seems to consider a positive decision in the present stage
of the inquiry premature; but pronounces the hypothesis which
lies at the basis of the Accadian theory, namely, that the
peculiarities of the cuneiform writing are explicable only by
the assumption that it was originally intended for another
language than the Assyrian, to be by far the most probable. He
calls this language, which may or may not have been
non-Semitic, 'Old Chaldee,' because what was later on called
Chaldaea 'was certainly its starting-point in Mesopotamia.'
The superiority of this name to 'Accadian' or 'Sumerian' is
not very obvious, as the name 'Chaldee' is not found before
the ninth century B. C., while the oldest title of the
Babylonian kings is 'king of Sumir and Accad.' In the
interesting account of the provinces and cities of Babylonia
and Assyria, … two identifications which have found much
favour with Assyriologists are mentioned in a very sceptical
way. The 'Ur' of Abraham is generally believed, with Schrader,
to be the 'El Mughair' of the Arabs. Dr. Tiele coldly observes
that this identification, though not impossible, is not
proved. Again, the tower of Babel is identified by Schrader
either with Babil on the left side of the river, or with Birs
Nimrud (Borsippa) on the right side. Dr. Tiele considers the
latter site impossible, because Borsippa is always spoken of
as a distinct place, and was too distant from Babylon for the
supposed outer wall of the great city to enclose it. He also
rejects Schrader's theory that the name Nineveh in later times
included Dur Sargon (Khorsabad), Resen, and Calah, as well as
Nineveh proper. The history is divided into four periods:

1. The old Babylonian period, from the earliest days down to
the time when Assyria was sufficiently strong and independent
to contend with Babylon on equal terms.

2. The first Assyrian period down to the accession of
Tiglath-pileser II. in 745 B. C.

3. The Second Assyrian Period, from 745 B. C. to the Fall of
Nineveh.

4. The New Babylonian Empire.

In treating of the first period, Dr. Tiele makes no attempt to
deal with the Deluge Tablets as a source of historical
knowledge, putting them on one side apparently as purely
mythical. He despairs of tracing Babylonian culture to its
earliest home. The belief that it originated on the shores of
the Persian Gulf seems to him uncertain, but he is not able to
fill the gap with any other satisfactory hypothesis.
Babylonian history begins for him with Sargon I., whom he
regards as most probably either of Semitic descent or a
representative of Semitic sovereignty. He is sceptical about
the early date assigned to this king by Nabunahid, the
thirty-eighth century B. C., and is disposed to regard the
quaint story of his concealment when an infant in a basket of
reeds as a solar myth; but he is compelled to admit as solid
fact the amazing statements of the inscriptions about his
mighty empire 'extending from Elam to the coast of the
Mediterranean and the borders of Egypt, nay, even to Cyprus.'
So early as 1850 B. C., he thinks, the supremacy of Babylon
had been established for centuries."

_Review of Dr. Tiele's History of Babylonia and Assyria
(Academy, January 1, 1887)._

ALSO IN:
_The Earliest History of Babylonia
(Quarterly Review, October, 1894, reviewing
"Découvertes en Chaldée, par Ernest de Sarsec)._

{2890}

SEMITES:
The First Babylonian Empire.

"It is with the reign of Hammurabi that the importance of
Babylonia—the country owning Babel as its capital—begins. …
Hammurabi (circ. 2250 B. C.) is the sixth on the Babylonian
list [i. e. a list of kings found among the inscriptions
recovered from the mounds of ruined cities in Mesopotamia].
The great majority of the inscriptions of his long reign of
fifty-five years refer to peaceful works." As, for example,
"the famous canal inscription: 'I am Hammurabi, the mighty
king, king of Ka-dingirra (Babylon), the king whom the regions
obey, the winner of victory for his lord Merodach, the
shepherd, who rejoices his heart. When the gods Anu and Bel
granted me to rule the people of Sumer and Akkad, and gave the
sceptre into my hand, I dug the canal called "Hammurabi, the
blessing of the people," which carries with it the overflow of
the water for the people of Sumer and Akkad. I allotted both
its shores for food. Measures of corn I poured forth. A
lasting water supply I made for the people of Sumer and Akkad.
I brought together the numerous troops of the people of Sumer
and Akkad, food and drink I made for them; with blessing and
abundance I gifted them. In convenient abodes I caused them to
dwell. Thenceforward I am Hammurabi, the mighty king, the
favourite of the great gods. With the might accorded me by
Merodach I built a tall tower with great entrances, whose
summits are high like … at the head of the canal "Hammurabi,
the blessing of the people." I named the tower Sinmuballit
tower, after the name of my father, my begetter. The statue of
Sinmuballit, my father, my begetter, I set up at the four
quarters of heaven.' … Rings bearing the legend 'Palace of
Hammurabi' have been found in the neighbourhood of Bagdad, and
presumably indicate the existence of a royal residence there."

_E. J. Simcox,
Primitive Civilizations,
volume 1, pages 282-283._

"The canal to which this king boasts of having given his name,
the 'Nahar-Hammourabi,' was called in later days the royal
canal, 'Nahar Malcha.' Herodotus saw and admired it, its good
condition was an object of care to the king himself, and we
know that it was considerably repaired by Nebuchadnezzar. When
civilization makes up its mind to re-enter upon that country,
nothing more will be needed for the re-awakening in it of life
and reproductive energy, than the restoration of the great
works undertaken by the contemporaries of Abraham and Jacob."

_G. Perrot and C. Chipiez,
History of Art in Chaldæa and Assyria,
volume 1, page 40._