Chapter XCVIII: Outlying Hellenic Cities (2)

A valuable inscription remaining enables us to compare the Olbia (or Borysthenes) seen by Herodotus, with the same town in the second century B. C.[1116] At this latter period, the city was diminished in population, impoverished in finances, exposed to constantly increasing exactions and menace from the passing barbaric hordes, and scarcely able to defend against them even the security of its walls. Sometimes there approached the barbaric chief Saitapharnes with his personal suite, sometimes his whole tribe or horde in mass, called Saii. Whenever they came, they required to be appeased by presents, greater than the treasury could supply, and borrowed only from the voluntary help of rich citizens; while even these presents did not always avert ill treatment or pillage. Already the citizens of Olbia had repelled various attacks, partly by taking into pay a semi-Hellenic population in their neighborhood (Mix-Hellenes, like the Liby-Phenicians in Africa); but the inroads became more alarming, and their means of defence less, through the uncertain fidelity of these Mix-Hellenes, as well as of their own slaves—the latter probably barbaric natives purchased from the interior.[1117] In the midst of public poverty, it was necessary to enlarge and strengthen the fortifications; for they were threatened with the advent of the Gauls—who inspired such terror that the Scythians and other barbarians were likely to seek their own safety by extorting admission within the walls of Olbia. Moreover even corn was scarce, and extravagantly dear. There had been repeated failures in the produce of the lands around, famine was apprehended, and efforts were needed, greater than the treasury could sustain, to lay in a stock at the public expense. Among the many points of contrast with Herodotus, this is perhaps the most striking; for in his time, corn was the great produce and the principal export from Olbia; the growth had now been suspended, or was at least perpetually cut off, by increased devastation and insecurity.

[1116] This Inscription—No. 2058—in Boeckh’s Inscr. Græc. part
xi. p. 121 _seq._—is among the most interesting in that noble
collection. It records a vote of public gratitude and honor to
a citizen of Olbia named Protogenes, and recites the valuable
services which he as well as his father had rendered to the
city. It thus describes the numerous situations of difficulty
and danger from which he had contributed to extricate them. A
vivid picture is presented to us of the distress of the city.
The introduction prefixed by Boeckh (p. 86-89) is also very
instructive.

Olbia is often spoken of by the name of _Borysthenes_, which
name was given to it by foreigners, but not recognized by the
citizens. Nor was it even situated on the Borysthenes river; but
on the right or western bank of the Hypanis (Bug) river; not far
from the modern Oczakoff.

The date of the above Inscription is not specified, and has been
differently determined by various critics. Niebuhr assigns it
(Untersuchungen über die Skythen, etc. in his Kleine Schriften,
p. 387) to a time near the close of the second Punic war. Boeckh
also believes that it is not much after that epoch. The terror
inspired by the Gauls, even to other barbarians, appears to suit
the second century B. C. better than it suits a later
period.

The Inscription No. 2059 attests the great number of strangers
resident at Olbia; strangers from eighteen different cities, of
which the most remote is Miletus, the mother-city of Olbia.

[1117] On one occasion, we know not when, the citizens of Olbia
are said to have been attacked by one Zopyrion, and to have
succeeded in resisting him only by emancipating their slaves, and
granting the citizenship to foreigners (Macrobius, Saturnal. i.
11).

After perpetual attacks, and even several captures, by barbaric neighbors—this unfortunate city, about fifty years before the Christian era, was at length so miserably sacked by the Getæ, as to become for a time abandoned.[1118] Presently, however, the fugitives partially returned, to re-establish themselves on a reduced scale. For the very same barbarians who had persecuted and plundered them, still required an emporium with a certain amount of import and export, such as none but Greek settlers could provide; moreover it was from the coast near Olbia, and from care of its inhabitants, that many of the neighboring tribes derived their supply of salt.[1119] Hence arose a puny after-growth of Olbia—preserving the name, traditions, and part of the locality, of the deserted city—by the return of a portion of the colonists with an infusion of Scythian or Sarmatian residents; an infusion indeed so large, as seriously to dishellenize both the speech and the personal names in the town.[1120]

[1118] Dion Chrys. (Or. xxxvi. p. 75), ἀεὶ μὲν πολεμεῖται,
πολλάκις δὲ καὶ ἑάλωκε, etc.

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

[1120] See Boeckh’s Commentary on the language and personal names
of the Olbian Inscriptions, part xi. p. 108-116.

To this second edition of Olbia, the rhetor Dion Chrysostom paid a summer visit (about a century after the Christian era), of which he has left a brief but interesting account. Within the wide area once filled by the original Olbia—the former circumference of which was marked by crumbling walls and towers—the second town occupied a narrow corner; with poor houses, low walls, and temples having no other ornament except the ancient statues mutilated by the plunderers. The citizens dwelt in perpetual insecurity, constantly under arms or on guard; for the barbaric horsemen, in spite of sentinels posted to announce their approach, often carried off prisoners, cattle, or property, from the immediate neighborhood of the gates. The picture drawn of Olbia by Dion confirms in a remarkable way that given of Tomi by Ovid. And what imparts to it a touching interest is, that the Greeks whom Dion saw contending with the difficulties, privations, and dangers of this inhospitable outpost, still retained the activity, the elegance, and the intellectual aspirations of their Ionic breed; in this respect much superior to the Tomitans of Ovid. In particular, they were passionate admirers of Homer; a considerable proportion of the Greeks of Olbia could repeat the Iliad from memory.[1121] Achilles (localized under the surname of Pontarches, on numerous islands and capes in the Euxine) was among the chief divine or heroic persons to whom they addressed their prayers.[1122] Amidst Grecian life, thus degraded and verging towards its extinction, and stripped even of the purity of living speech—the thread of imaginative and traditional sentiment thus continues without suspension or abatement.

[1121] Dion, Orat. xxxvi. (Borysthenit.), p. 78, Reiske. ... καὶ
τἄλλα μὲν οὐκέτι σαφῶς ἑλληνίζοντες, διὰ τὸ ἐν μέσοις οἰκεῖν τοῖς
βαρβάροις, ὅμως τήν γε Ἰλιάδα ὀλίγου πάντες ἴσασιν ἀπὸ στόματος.
I translate the words ὀλίγου πάντες with some allowance for
rhetoric.

The representation given by Dion of the youthful citizen of
Olbia—Kallistratus—with whom he conversed, is curious as a
picture of Greek manners in this remote land; a youth of eighteen
years of age, with genuine Ionic features, and conspicuous for
his beauty (εἶχε πολλοὺς ἐραστάς) a zealot for literature and
philosophy, but especially for Homer; clothed in the costume of
the place, suited for riding—the long leather trowsers, and short
black cloak; constantly on horseback for defence of the town, and
celebrated as a warrior even at that early age, having already
killed or made prisoners several Sarmatians (p. 77).

[1122] See Inscriptions, Nos. 2076, 2077, ap. Boeckh; and
Arrian’s Periplus of the Euxine, ap. Geogr. Minor. p. 21, ed.
Hudson.

Respecting Bosporus or Pantikapæum (for both names denote the same city, though the former name often comprehends the whole annexed dominion), founded by Milesian settlers[1123] on the European side of the Kimmerian Bosporus (near Kertsch), we first hear, about the period when Xerxes was repulsed from Greece (480-479 B. C.). It was the centre of a dominion including Phanagoria, Kepi, Hermonassa, and other Greek cities on the Asiatic side of the strait; and is said to have been governed by what seems to have been an oligarchy—called the Archæanaktidæ, for forty-two years[1124] (480-438 B. C.).

[1123] Strabo, vii. p. 310.

[1124] Diodor. xii. 31.

After them we have a series of princes standing out individually by name, and succeeding each other in the same family. Spartokus I. was succeeded by Seleukus; next comes Spartokus II.; then Satyrus I. (407-393 B. C.); Leukon (393-353 B. C.); Spartokus III. (353-348 B. C.); Parisades I. (348-310 B. C.); Satyrus II., Prytanis, Eumelus (310-304 B. C.); Spartokus IV. (304-284 B. C.); Parisades II.[1125] During the reigns of these princes, a connection of some intimacy subsisted between Athens and Bosporus; a connection not political, since the Bosporanic princes had little interest in the contentions about Hellenic hegemony—but of private intercourse, commercial interchange, and reciprocal good offices. The eastern corner of the Tauric Chersonesus, between Pantikapæum and Theodosia, was well-suited for the production of corn; while plenty of fish, as well as salt, was to be had in or near the Palus Mæotis. Corn, salted fish and meat, hides, and barbaric slaves in considerable numbers, were in demand among all the Greeks round the Ægean, and not least at Athens, where Scythian slaves were numerous;[1126] while oil and wine, with other products of more southern regions, were acceptable in Bosporus and the other Pontic ports. This important traffic seems to have been mainly carried on in ships and by capital belonging to Athens and other Ægean maritime towns; and must have been greatly under the protection and regulation of the Athenians, so long as their maritime empire subsisted. Enterprising citizens of Athens went to Bosporus (as to Thrace and the Thracian Chersonesus), to push their fortunes; merchants from other cities found it advantageous to settle as resident strangers or metics at Athens, where they were more in contact with the protecting authority, and obtained readier access to the judicial tribunals. It was probably during the period preceding the great disaster at Syracuse in 413 B. C., that Athens first acquired her position as a mercantile centre for the trade with the Euxine; which we afterwards find her retaining, even with reduced power, in the time of Demosthenes.

[1125] See Mr. Clinton’s Appendix on the Kings of Bosporus—Fast.
Hellen. App. c. 13. p. 280. etc.; and Boeckh’s Commentary on the
same subject, Inscript. Græc. part xi. p. 91 _seq._

[1126] Polybius (iv. 38) enumerates the principal articles of
this Pontic trade; among the exports τά τε δέρματα καὶ τὸ τῶν εἰς
τὰς δουλείας ἀγομένων σωμάτων πλῆθος, etc., where Schweighäuser
has altered ~δέρματα~ to ~θρέμματα~ seemingly on the authority
of one MS. only. I doubt the propriety of this change, as well
as the facts of any large exportation of live cattle from the
Pontus; whereas the exportation of hides was considerable: see
Strabo, xi. p. 493.

The Scythian public slaves or policemen of Athens are well known.
Σκύθαινα also is the name of a female slave (Aristoph. Lysistr.
184). Σκύθης, for the name of a slave, occurs as early as
Theognis, v. 826.

Some of the salted preparations from the Pontus were
extravagantly dear; Cato complained of a κεράμιον Ποντικῶν
ταρίχον as sold for 300 drachmæ (Polyb. xxxi. 24).

How strong was the position enjoyed by Athens in Bosporus, during her unimpaired empire, we may judge from the fact, that Nymphæum (south of Pantikapæum, between that town and Theodosia) was among her tributary towns, and paid a talent annually.[1127] Not until the misfortunes of Athens in the closing years of the Peloponnesian war, did Nymphæum pass into the hands of the Bosporanic princes; betrayed (according to Æschines) by the maternal grandfather of Demosthenes, the Athenian Gylon; who however probably did nothing more than obey a necessity rendered unavoidable by the fallen condition of Athens.[1128] We thus see that Nymphæum, in the midst of the Bosporanic dominion, was not only a member of the Athenian empire, but also contained influential Athenian citizens, engaged in the corn-trade. Gylon was rewarded by a large grant of land at Kepi—probably other Athenians of Nymphæum were rewarded also—by the Bosporanic prince; who did not grudge a good price for such an acquisition. We find also other instances,—both of Athenian citizens sent out to reside with the prince Satyrus,—and of Pontic Greeks who, already in correspondence and friendship with various individual Athenians, consign their sons to be initiated in the commerce, society, and refinements of Athens.[1129] Such facts attest the correspondence and intercourse of that city, during her imperial greatness, with Bosporus.

[1127] Harpokration and Photius, v. Νυμφαῖον—from the ψηφίσματα
collected by Kraterus. Compare Boeckh, in the second edition of
his Staatshaushaltung der Athener, vol. ii. p. 658.

[1128] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 78. c. 57. See my last preceding
Vol. XI. Ch. lxxxvii. p. 263.

[1129] Lysias, pro Mantitheo, Or. xvi. s. 4; Isokrates
(Trapezitic.), Or. xvii. s. 5. The young man, whose case
Isokrates sets forth, was sent to Athens by his father Sopæus,
a rich Pontic Greek (s. 52) much in the confidence of Satyrus.
Sopæus furnished his son with two ship-loads of corn, and with
money besides—and then despatched him to Athens ἅμα κατ᾽ ἐμπορίαν
καὶ κατὰ θεωρίαν.

The Bosporanic prince Satyrus was in the best relations with Athens, and even seems to have had authorized representatives there to enforce his requests, which met with very great attention.[1130] He treated the Athenian merchants at Bosporus with equity and even favor, granting to them a preference in the export of corn when there was not enough for all.[1131] His son Leukon not only continued the preference to Athenian exporting ships, but also granted to them remission of the export duty (of one-thirtieth part), which he exacted from all other traders. Such an exemption is reckoned as equivalent to an annual present of 13,000 medimni of corn (the medimnus being about 1⅓ bushel); the total quantity of corn brought from Bosporus to Athens in a full year being 400,000 medimni.[1132] It is easy to see moreover that such a premium must have thrown nearly the whole exporting trade into the hands of Athenian merchants. The Athenians requited this favor by public votes of gratitude and honor, conferring upon Leukon the citizenship, together with immunity from all the regular burthens attaching to property at Athens. There was lying in that city money belonging to Leukon;[1133] who was therefore open (under the proposition of Leptines) to that conditional summons for exchange of properties, technically termed Antidosis. In his time, moreover, the corn-trade of Bosporus appears to have been farther extended; for we learn that he established an export from Theodosia as well as from Pantikapæum. His successor Parisades I. continuing to Athenian exporters of corn the same privilege of immunity from export duty, obtained from Athens still higher honors than Leukon; for we learn that his statue, together with those of two relatives, was erected in the agora, on the motion of Demosthenes.[1134] The connection of Bosporus with Athens was durable as well as intimate; its corn-trade being of high importance to the subsistence of the people. Every Athenian exporter was bound by law to bring his cargo in the first instance to Athens. The freighting and navigating of ships for that purpose, together with the advance of money by rich capitalists (citizens and metics) upon interest and conditions enforced by the Athenian judicature, was a standing and profitable business. And we may appreciate the value of equitable treatment, not to say favor, from the kings of Bosporus—when we contrast it with the fraudulent and extortionate behavior of Kleomenes, satrap of Egypt, in reference to the export of Egyptian corn.[1135]

[1130] Isokrates, Trapez. s. 5, 6. Sopæus, father of this
pleader, had incurred the suspicions of Satyrus in the Pontus,
and had been arrested; upon which Satyrus sends to Athens
to seize the property of the son, to order him home,—and if
he refused, then to require the Athenians to deliver him
up—ἐπιστέλλει δὲ τοῖς ἐνθάδε ἐπιδημοῦσιν ἐκ τοῦ Πόντου τά τε
χρήματα παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ κομίσασθαι, etc.

[1131] Isokrates, Trapezit. s. 71. Demosthenes also recognizes
favors from Satyrus—καὶ αὐτὸς (Leukon) καὶ οἱ πρόγονοι, etc.
(adv. Leptin. p. 467).

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

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

[1134] Demosth. adv. Phormion., p. 917; Deinarchus adv. Demosth.,
p. 34. The name stands Berisades as printed in the oration; but
it is plain that Parisades is the person designated. See Boeckh,
Introd. ad Inscr. No. 2056, p. 92.

Deinarchus avers, that Demosthenes received an annual present of
1000 modii of corn from Bosporus.

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

The political condition of the Greeks at Bosporus was somewhat peculiar. The hereditary princes (above enumerated), who ruled them substantially as despots, assumed no other title (in respect to the Greeks) than that of Archon. They paid tribute to the powerful Scythian tribes who bounded them on the European side, and even thought it necessary to carry a ditch across the narrow isthmus, from some point near Theodosia northward to the Palus Mæotis, as a protection against incursions.[1136] Their dominion did not extend farther west than Theodosia; this ditch was their extreme western boundary; and even for the land within it, they paid tribute. But on the Asiatic side of the strait, they were lords paramount for a considerable distance, over the feebler and less warlike tribes who pass under the common name of Mæotæ or Mæêtae—the Sindi, Toreti, Dandarii, Thatês, etc. Inscriptions, yet remaining, of Parisades I. record him as King of these various barbaric tribes, but as Archon of Bosporus and Theodosia.[1137] His dominion on the Asiatic side of the Kimmerian Bosporus, sustained by Grecian and Thracian mercenaries, was of considerable (though to us unknown) extent, reaching to somewhere near the borders of Caucasus.[1138]

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

[1137] See Inscript. Nos. 2117, 2118, 2119, in Boeckh’s
Collection, p. 156.

In the Memorabilia of Xenophon (ii. 1, 10). Sokrates cites the
Scythians as an example of ruling people, and the Mæotæ as an
example of subjects. Probably this refers to the position of the
Bosporanic Greeks, who paid tribute to the Scythians, but ruled
over the Mæotæ. The name _Mæotæ_ seems confined to tribes on the
Asiatic side of the Palus Mæotis; while the Scythians were on the
European side of that sea. Sokrates and the Athenians had good
means of being informed about the situation of the Bosporani and
their neighbors on both sides. See K. Neumann, die Hellenen im
Skythenlande, b. ii. p. 216.

[1138] This boundary is attested in another Inscription No.
2104, of the same collection. Inscription No. 2103, seems to
indicate Arcadian mercenaries in the service of Leukon: about the
mercenaries, see Diodor. xx. 22.

Parisades I. is said to have been worshipped as a god, after his
death (Strabo, vii. p. 310).

Parisades I. on his death left three sons—Satyrus, Prytanis, and Eumelus. Satyrus, as the eldest, succeeded; but Eumelus claimed the crown, sought aid without, and prevailed on various neighbors—among them a powerful Thracian king named Ariopharnes—to espouse his cause. At the head of an army said to consist of 20,000 horse and 22,000 foot, the two allies marched to attack the territories of Satyrus, who advanced to meet them, with 2000 Grecian mercenaries, and 2000 Thracians of his own, reinforced by a numerous body of Scythian allies—20,000 foot, and 10,000 horse, and carrying with him a plentiful supply of provisions in waggons. He gained a complete victory, compelling Eumelus and Ariopharnes to retreat and seek refuge in the regal residence of the latter, near the river Thapsis; a fortress built of timber, and surrounded with forest, river, marsh, and rock, so as to be very difficult of approach. Satyrus, having first plundered the country around, which supplied a rich booty of prisoners and cattle, proceeded to assail his enemies in their almost impracticable position. But though he, and Meniskus his general of mercenaries, made the most strenuous efforts, and even carried some of the outworks, they were repulsed from the fortress itself; and Satyrus, exposing himself forwardly to extricate Meniskus, received a wound of which he shortly died—after a reign of nine months. Meniskus, raising the siege, withdrew the army to Gargaza; from whence he conveyed back the regal corpse to Pantikapæum.[1139]

[1139] Diodor. xx. 24 The scene of these military operations
(as far as we can pretend to make it out from the brief and
superficial narrative of Diodorus), seems to have been on the
European side of Bosporus; somewhere between the Borysthenes
river and the Isthmus of Perekop, in the territory called by
Herodotus _Hylæa_. This is Niebuhr’s opinion, which I think more
probable than that of Boeckh, who supposes the operations to have
occurred on the Asiatic territory of Bosporus. So far I concur
with Niebuhr; but his reasons for placing Dromichætes king of the
Getæ (the victor over Lysimachus), east of the Borysthenes, are
noway satisfactory.

Compare Niebuhr’s Untersuchungen über die Skythen, etc. (in
his Kleine Schriften, p. 380). with Boeckh’s Commentary on the
Sarmatian Inscriptions, Corp. Ins. Græc. part xi. p. 83-103.

The mention by Diodorus of a wooden fortress, surrounded by
morass and forest, is curious, and may be illustrated by the
description in Herodotus (iv. 108) of the city of the Budini.
This habit of building towns and fortifications of wood,
prevailed among the Slavonic population in Russia and Poland
until far down in the middle ages. See Paul Joseph Schaffarik,
Slavische Alterhümer, in the German translation of Wuttke, vol.
i. ch. 10 p. 192; also K. Neumann, Die Hellenen im Skythenlande,
p. 91.

Prytanis, the next brother, rejecting an offer of partition tendered by Eumelus, assumed the sceptre, and marched forth to continue the struggle. But the tide of fortune now turned in favor of Eumelus; who took Gargaza with several other places, worsted his brother in battle, and so blocked him up in the isthmus near the Palus Mæotis, that he was forced to capitulate and resign his pretensions. Eumelus entered Pantikapæum as conqueror. Nevertheless, the defeated Prytanis, in spite of his recent covenant, made a renewed attempt upon the crown; wherein he was again baffled, forced to escape to Kêpi, and there slain. To assure himself of the throne, Eumelus put to death the wives and children of both his two brothers, Satyrus and Prytanis—together with all their principal friends. One youth alone—Parisades, son of Satyrus—escaped and found protection with the Scythian prince Agarus.

Eumelus had now put down all rivals; yet his recent cruelties had occasioned wrath and disgust among the Bosporanic citizens. He convoked them in assembly, to excuse his past conduct, and promised good government for the future; at the same time guaranteeing to them their full civic constitution, with such privileges and immunities as they had before enjoyed, and freedom from direct taxation.[1140] Such assurances, combined probably with an imposing mercenary force, appeased or at least silenced the prevailing disaffection. Eumelus kept his promises so far as to govern in a mild and popular spirit. While thus rendering himself acceptable at home, he maintained an energetic foreign policy, and made several conquests among the surrounding tribes. He constituted himself a sort of protector of the Euxine, repressing the piracies of the Heniochi and Achæi (among the Caucasian mountains to the east) as well as of the Tauri in the Chersonesus (Crimea); much to the satisfaction of the Byzantines, Sinopians, and other Pontic Greeks. He received a portion of the fugitives from Kallatis, when besieged by Lysimachus, and provided for them a settlement in his dominions. Having thus acquired great reputation, Eumelus was in the full career of conquest and aggrandizement, when an accident terminated his life, after a reign of rather more than five years. In returning from Scythia to Pantikapæum, in a four-wheeled carriage (or waggon) and four with a tent upon it, his horses took fright and ran away. Perceiving that they were carrying him towards a precipice, he tried to jump out; but his sword becoming entangled in the wheel, he was killed on the spot.[1141] He was succeeded by his son Spartokus IV., who reigned twenty years (304-284 B. C.); afterwards came the son of Spartokus, Parisades II.; with whose name our information breaks off.[1142]

[1140] Diodor. xx. 24.

[1141] Diodor. xx. 25.

[1142] Diodor. xx. 100. Spartokus IV.—son of Eumelus—is
recognized in one Attic Inscription (No. 107), and various
Bosporanic (No. 2105, 2106, 2120) in Boeckh’s Collection.
Parisades II.—son of Spartokus—is recognized in another
Bosporanic Inscription, No. 2107—seemingly also in No. 2120 _b._

This dynasty, the Spartokidæ, though they ruled the Greeks of Bosporus as despots by means of a foreign mercenary force—yet seem to have exercised power with equity and moderation.[1143] Had Eumelus lived, he might probably have established an extensive empire over the barbaric tribes on all sides of him. But empire over such subjects was seldom permanent; nor did his successors long maintain even as much as he left. We have no means of following their fortunes in detail; but we know that about a century B. C., the then reigning prince, Parisades IV., found himself so pressed and squeezed by the Scythians,[1144] that he was forced (like Olbia and the Pentapolis) to forego his independence; and to call in, as auxiliary or master, the formidable Mithridates Eupator of Pontus; from whom a new dynasty of Bosporanic kings began—subject however after no long interval, to the dominion and interference of Rome.

[1143] Strabo, vii. p. 310. Deinarchus however calls Parisades,
Satyrus, and Gorgippus, τοὺς ἐχθίστους τύραννους (adv. Demosth.
s. 44).

[1144] Strabo, vii. p. 310. οὐχ οἷός τε ὢν ἀντέχειν πρὸς τοὺς
βαρβάρους, φόρον πραττομένους μείζω τοῦ πρότερον, etc.

These Mithridatic princes lie beyond our period; but the cities of Bosporus under the Spartokid princes, in the fourth century B. C., deserve to be ranked among the conspicuous features of the living Hellenic world. They were not indeed purely Hellenic, but presented a considerable admixture of Scythian or Oriental manners; analogous to the mixture of the Hellenic and Libyan elements at Kyrênê with its Battiad princes. Among the facts attesting the wealth and power of these Spartokid princes, and of the Bosporanic community, we may number the imposing groups of mighty sepulchral tumuli near Kertch (Pantikapæum); some of which have been recently examined, while the greater part still remain unopened. These spacious chambers of stone—enclosed in vast hillocks (Kurgans), cyclopian works piled up with prodigious labor and cost—have been found to contain not only a profusion of ornaments of the precious metals (gold, silver, and electron, or a mixture of four parts of gold to one of silver), but also numerous vases, implements, and works of art, illustrating the life and ideas of the Bosporanic population. “The contents of the tumuli already opened are so multifarious, that from the sepulchres of Pantikapæum alone, we might become acquainted with everything which served the Greeks either for necessary use, or for the decoration of domestic life.”[1145] Statues, reliefs and frescoes on the walls, have been found, on varied subjects both of war and peace, and often of very fine execution; besides these, numerous carvings in wood, and vessels of bronze or terra cotta; with necklaces, armlets, bracelets, rings, drinking cups, etc. of precious metal—several with colored beads attached.[1146] The costumes, equipment, and physiognomy represented, are indeed a mixture of Hellenic and barbaric; moreover, even the profusion of gold chains and other precious ornaments, indicates a tone of sentiment partially orientalized, in those for whom they were destined.

[1145] Neumann, Die Hellenen im Skythenlande, p. 503.

[1146] An account of the recent discoveries near Kertch or
Pantikapæum, will be found in Dubois de Montpéreux, Voyage
dans le Caucase, vol. v. p. 135 _seqq._; and in Neumann, Die
Hellenen im Skythenlande, pp. 483-533. The last-mentioned work
is peculiarly copious and instructive; relating what has been
done since Dubois’s travels, and containing abundant information
derived from the recent memoirs of the St. Petersburg Literary
Societies.

The local and special type, which shows itself so much on these
works of art, justifies the inference that they were not brought
from other Grecian cities, but executed by Grecian artists
resident at Pantikapæum (p. 507). Two marble statues, a man and
a woman, both larger than life, exhumed in 1850, are spoken of
with peculiar admiration (p. 491). Coins of the third and fourth
century B. C. have been found in several (p. 494, 495).
A great number of the so-called Etruscan vases have also been
discovered, probably fabricated from a species of clay still
existing in the neighborhood: the figures on these vases are
often excellent, with designs and scenes of every description,
religious, festal, warlike, domestic (p. 522). Many of the
sarcophagi are richly ornamented with carvings, in wood, ivory,
etc; some admirably executed (p. 521).

Unfortunately, the belief prevails, and has long prevailed,
among the neighboring population, that these tumuli contain
hidden treasures. One of the most striking among them—called the
Kul-Obo—was opened in 1830 by the Russian authorities. After
great pains and trouble, the means of entrance were discovered,
and the interior chamber was reached. It was the richest that
had ever been opened; being found to contain some splendid
golden ornaments, as well as many other relics. The Russian
officers placed a guard to prevent any one from entering it;
but the cupidity of the population of Kertch was so inflamed
by the report of the expected treasure being discovered, that
they forced the guard, broke into the interior, and pillaged
most of the contents (p. 509). The Russian authorities have been
generally anxious for the preservation and gradual excavation of
these monuments, but have had to contend against repugnance and
even rapacity on the part of the people near.

Dubois de Montpéreux gives an interesting description of the
opening of these tumuli near Kertch—especially of the Kul-Obo,
the richest of all, which he conceives to have belonged to one
of the Spartokid kings, and the decorations of which were the
product of Hellenic art:—

“Si l’on a enterré (he observes) un roi entouré d’un luxe
Scythique, ce sont des Græcs et des artistes de cette nation
qui ont travaillé à ses funerailles” (Voyage autour du Caucase,
pp. 195, 213, 227). Pantikapæum and Phanagoria (he says) “se
reconnoissent de loin à la foule de leurs tumulus” (p. 137).

But the design as well as the execution comes clearly out of the Hellenic workshop; and there is good ground for believing, that in the fourth century B. C., Pantikapæum was the seat, not only of enterprising and wealthy citizens, but also of strenuous and well-directed artistic genius. Such manifestations of the refinements of Hellenism, in this remote and little-noticed city, form an important addition to the picture of Hellas as a whole,—prior to its days of subjection,—which it has been the purpose of this history to present.

* * * * *

I have now brought down the history of Greece to the point of time marked out in the Preface to my First Volume—the close of the generation contemporary with Alexander—the epoch, from whence dates not only the extinction of Grecian political freedom and self-action, but also the decay of productive genius, and the debasement of that consummate literary and rhetorical excellence which the fourth century B. C. had seen exhibited in Plato and Demosthenes.[1147] The contents of this last Volume indicate but too clearly that Greece as a separate subject of history no longer exists; for one full half of it is employed in depicting Alexander and his conquests—ἄγριον αἰχμητὴν, κρατερὸν μήστωρα φόβοιο[1148]—that Non-Hellenic conqueror into whose vast possessions the Greeks are absorbed, with their intellectual brightness bedimmed, their spirit broken, and half their virtue taken away by Zeus—the melancholy emasculation inflicted (according to Homer) upon victims overtaken by the day of slavery.[1149]

[1147] How marked that degradation was, may be seen attested by
Dionysius of Halikarnassus, De Antiquis Oratoribus, pp. 445, 446,
Reiske—ἐν γὰρ δὴ τοῖς πρὸ ἡμῶν χρόνοις ἡ μὲν ἀρχαία καὶ φιλόσοφος
ῥητορικὴ προπηλακιζομένη καὶ δεινὰς ὕβρεις ὑπομένουσα κατελύετο,
ἀρξαμένη μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Μακεδόνος τελευτῆς ἐκπνεῖν
καὶ μαραίνεσθαι κατ᾽ ὀλίγον, ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἡλικίας μικροῦ
δεήσασα εἰς τέλος ἠφανίσθαι. Compare Dionys. De Composit. Verbor.
p. 29, 30, Reisk.; and Westermann, Geschichte der Griechischen
Beredtsamkeit, s. 75-77.

[1148] Hom. Iliad, vi. 97.

[1149] Hom. Odyss. xvii. 322.—

ἥμισυ γάρ τ᾽ ἀρετῆς ἀποαίνυται εὐρύοπα Ζεὺς
ἀνέρος, εὖτ᾽ ἄν μιν κατὰ δούλιον ἦμαρ ἕλῃσιν.

One branch of intellectual energy there was, and one alone, which continued to flourish, comparatively little impaired, under the preponderance of the Macedonian sword—the spirit of speculation and philosophy. During the century which we have just gone through, this spirit was embodied in several eminent persons, whose names have been scarcely adverted to in this history. Among these names, indeed, there are two, of peculiar grandeur, whom I have brought partially before the reader, because both of them belong to general history as well as to philosophy; Plato, as citizen of Athens, companion of Sokrates at his trial, and counsellor of Dionysius in his glory—Aristotle, as the teacher of Alexander. I had at one time hoped to include in my present work a record of them as philosophers also, and an estimate of their speculative characteristics; but I find the subject far too vast to be compressed into such a space as this volume would afford. The exposition of the tenets of distinguished thinkers is not now numbered by historians, either ancient or modern, among the duties incumbent upon them, nor yet among the natural expectations of their readers; but is reserved for the special historian of philosophy. Accordingly, I have brought my history of Greece to a close, without attempting to do justice either to Plato or to Aristotle. I hope to contribute something towards supplying this defect, the magnitude of which I fully appreciate, in a separate work, devoted specially to an account of Greek speculative philosophy in the fourth century B. C.