Chapter XII: Part 12

Whenever the ancient seat of the Macedonian kings is mentioned, when you read in Thucydides of Perdiccas and Archelaus (the latter is spoken of also by Plato as a prince who drew to his court the wits and talents from Athens, just as German princes formerly invited Frenchmen), and even when Amyntas, Philip’s father, is spoken of, you must always conceive them as residing at Aegeae. Philip was the first to make PELLA on the Ludias great; it was previously a small Bottiaean place, which was conquered by the Macedonians, when they drove the Bottiaeans into Chalcidice; Herodotus calls it a πολίχνιον. The district lost its name Bottiaeis, which in Herodotus it still bears, and became part of Macedonia. Philip, who, like Peter the Great, from the moment of his accession, set about raising the kingdom from its obscurity, took the first step towards this object in transferring his residence from the distant Aegeae to Pella, which was near enough to the sea to carry on commerce. The rivers in that part of the country, especially the Ludias, were then navigable, but they are now filled up with sand. Pella, however, was not so near the sea as to enable the Athenians to take it by surprise in a maritime expedition. Its situation on a hill surrounded by waters (τόπος χερσονησοειδής) was very strong. It was now quickly changed into a considerable city, though we must not conceive it to have been very large. Had Alexander not become estranged from Macedonia, it would probably have risen to still greater importance; but it remained the capital of an empire which was at all events considerable. Antipater lived there as regent of Macedonia in his barbarous and cynic simplicity, the picture of an Albanese or Illyrian chief in his affected wretchedness: he had a disgust for regal splendour, and his government certainly added nothing to the beauty of Pella. He appeared in public as a common Macedonian soldier, wrapped up in his cloak (τρίβων), wearing the καυσία (the Illyrian cap), and a stick. Cassander spent less of his time at Pella than at Thessalonica and Cassandrea; but the Antigonids resided there, and from the time of Antigonus Gonatas till that of Perseus, a period of nearly a century, Pella remained the capital, and was a splendid town, though not to be compared with the great cities of Antioch and Alexandria. After the wars of Perseus, the Romans took it without resistance, and carried off a large number of works of art, with which Alexander had adorned the city; the masterworks of Lysippus, which were erected at Pella, were carried away by Aemilius Paullus. Dion Chrysostomus,[103] in his very excellent Tarsian oration, says that Pella was a heap of ruins. The destruction must have taken place either after the war of the Pseudo-Philip (of whom we scarcely know anything, except a few traits occurring in the newly-discovered ἐκλογαὶ περὶ γνωμῶν published by Mai), or about sixty years later, during the campaigns of Archelaus and Taxilas, the generals of Mithridates. It is afterwards not mentioned again. Pella is one of the places which I have often suggested to travellers as a place where excavations ought to be made, and where undoubtedly a rich harvest might be made. Felix Beaujour, the late consul-general at Salonichi, states in his excellent description of Macedonia, that the whole district is covered with ruins, a proof that no excavations have been made there for many years. Certain it is, that the Romans did not carry away everything, that works of art of the most exquisite kind, nay perhaps even works of Lysippus himself, might be discovered there; inscriptions, too, may exist there, although, as I have already remarked, inscriptions are not found in any other part of Macedonia.

THESSALONICA, the ancient Chalcidian _Therma_, in the innermost recess of the Thermaic gulf, greatly impeded by its excellent situation the further growth of Pella, even when the latter was still the capital of the Antigonids. Cassander founded the new city, and, according to the custom of the time, made it great by compelling the inhabitants of the neighbouring towns to remove to it (συνοικισμός). Such a plan was afterwards often resorted to in the East, and such also was the method adopted by Peter the Great in the foundation of St. Petersburgh: he ordered people to be summoned from other parts of his dominions; as they arrived even before the houses were finished, they were obliged to build huts for themselves and died from disease; the survivors became beggars. In antiquity, when towns were not so far distant from one another, the process was easier. Thessalonica had agricultural citizens; and Cassander named it after his wife, the daughter of Philip; by this marriage he intended to make his children legitimate in the eyes of the Macedonians, as he himself was looked upon as a usurper, and was subsequently treated as such. But his family perished in a miserable manner. The idea of founding a city there was a happy one, for there are few places on the Mediterranean that have such a beautiful situation. How often was Thessalonica destroyed! and yet it always recovered, because it was the natural emporium of the rich products of Macedonia; it has an excellent harbour, and no marshes, and is accordingly a healthy place. The town quickly rose into importance, and remained so under the Romans and throughout the middle ages, in spite of many severe calamities. It was taken by the Bulgarians, and afterwards by the Turks; but so long as nature does not change, Thessalonica will remain wealthy and prosperous. It was the capital of Mygdonia, which had formerly been inhabited by the Thracian Edonians. It is well known that a Christian community was formed there at a very early period.

I have already spoken of the projecting Acte ἐπὶ Θρᾴκης, and I will not here repeat what I have said; I shall only observe, that CASSANDREA, the second great city founded by Cassander, was probably his capital, and built on the site of the ancient Potidaea, on the isthmus of Pallene; we know little about it, and much is only matter of conjecture.

AMPHIPOLIS, which was subdued by the Athenians during the period between the Persian and Peloponnesian wars, was situated on both sides of the river Strymon; it was previously called Ἐννέα ὁδοί. During the Macedonian period it was of great importance, being the capital of Μακεδόνων πρώτη. Although built at a distance of about five miles from the sea, it was a sea-port, and ships sailed up the Strymon. This was the great place for the extensive trade in timber, for the timber of Macedonia was exported not only to Athens, but Ionia, Chios, and in later times even to Alexandria. It was conveyed down the Strymon in rafts.

The mountain-city of PHILIPPI, the neighbourhood of which contained the large gold mines, was situated between the Strymon and the Nestus. Its previous name was _Crenidas_, and the new town was built by Philip. There, as in Thessalonica, a Christian congregation existed at an early period. The place is celebrated for the battle which decided the fate of Rome. As the mines ceased to be worked, it afterwards fell into decay. How long they continued to be worked, and whether they were still productive in the time of the Antigonids, cannot be ascertained. The fact that they still were worked, and continued to be worked until the overthrow of the Macedonian kingdom, cannot be doubted; but whether they repaid the expenses, is another question. Gold mines nowhere remain equally productive; but their working is continued, because people always hope to discover richer veins. They were most productive in the time of Philip. Athens, too, continued working her mines almost to the seventh century of Rome, but was afterwards obliged to give it up. The Romans forbade the Macedonians the digging after precious metals, in consequence of which Philippi necessarily decayed: but we see from the epistle of the apostle Paul, that it still remained an active and industrial town. It was situated on the outskirts of mount Pangaeos; its neighbourhood was fertile, and it may have maintained itself by an extensive territory.

The interior between the Strymon and Nestus, with the exception of a few Greek towns, was occupied by Thracians. The AGRIANIANS alone, about the Strymon, are considered as Paeonians. Their importance consists in the fact that, in the wars of Alexander, they are mentioned as a distinct corps, and as belonging neither to the phalanx nor to the peltasts, which is not the case with any other Macedonian tribe. It is impossible now to determine, whether this arose perhaps from their being allies and enjoying special privileges, or from their having a peculiar kind of armour, which it was thought advisable to retain.

The PAEONIANS, according to Herodotus, extended as far as the mouth of the Strymon and about lake Prasias, which is now unknown, because the geography of Macedonia has received so little light from travellers; its existence, however, cannot be doubted, although it is somewhat fabulously described. The Paeonians who, according to Herodotus, were carried by the Persians into Asia, are those who lived about the lower parts of the Strymon, and not the upper Paeonians. In Thucydides and Livy (from Polybius), we find Paeonians on both sides of the Axius, and in regard to them the Romans made an exception[104], those on the west of the Axius being included in Macedonia Secunda. The passage of Livy[105] here alluded to must be emended, and instead of _Vettiorum_[106] we must read _Bottiorum_. Concerning these Paeonians, I can mention to you only a few points. In the time of Cassander and Pyrrhus, it was probably this people, on both banks of the Axius and as far as the Strymon, that had in the person of Audoleon an independent prince, whose daughter was married to Pyrrhus (he was also married to an Illyrian princess, for polygamy was then prevalent). There still exist coins of this Audoleon, though they are very rare; I possess one which was dug up at Tivoli; it was difficult to recognise it, but I succeeded in reading the characters. Afterwards we hear no more of Paeonian kings, so that their importance must have been only transitory; but certain it is, that during the troublous times of Macedonia, that is, in the reign of Cassander, the principality of the Paeonians did exist, and that afterwards it disappeared. If we want to supplement history from other circumstances, we may say, that it must have been incorporated with Macedonia by Antigonus Gonatas, for Antigonus Doson carried on war even with the Dardanians who dwelt beyond the Paeonians.

The Greeks (Strabo and Dion Cassius) assume that the Paeonians and Pannonians were people of the same stock; in Strabo this is the prevailing opinion, and at that time the truth could still be ascertained; nor is the opinion at all improbable, if we suppose that the Illyrians immigrated at a later period. But _neque probare, neque refellere in animo est_. Gauls, under Brennus, also penetrated far into the west of Upper Macedonia; they were afterwards subdued, but not expelled, and were retained by the Macedonian kings as very useful soldiers.

I shall now pass on to Illyricum, whence we shall afterwards proceed to Italy. I shall then speak of the western countries within the Roman empire, and thence pass on to the East. Although the northern countries are important to us, yet in an account of the ancient nations, no complete description of them can be given, which must be reserved for the particular histories of the northern countries; still, however, I shall not pass them over.

ILLYRICUM.

Illyricum is a somewhat embarrassing name. We sometimes say Illyria, a form for which there is no authority at all; the Greek name is Ἰλλυρίς, and the Latin _Illyricum_. The more ancient writers always employ the name of the people, οἱ Ἰλλύριοι, ἐν Ἰλλυρίοις, _in Illyricis_, while _Illyricum_ does not occur till the time of the later emperors. But with this preliminary remark, I shall not scruple to use the name.

The Illyrians are one of the very great nations of antiquity, and are mentioned as early as the time of Herodotus. The Roman Illyricum was of very different extent from the Illyris or οἱ Ἰλλύριοι of the Greeks, and was itself not the same at all times, for at first it was not as extensive as afterwards. At a later period, when it was a _praefectura_, it was one of the four great divisions of the Roman empire, governed by a _Praefectus Praetorio_, and included even Greece. At a somewhat earlier time, when we also meet with the designation _Illyricus limes_, e.g., in the “Scriptores Historiae Augustae,” it comprises Illyricum proper, Pannonia, Noricum, and Vindelicia. The name Illyricum, in this extent, is one of the artificial and political ones, which arise when out of a given number of names one is selected as a make-shift, but has no historical association. The Greeks use the name in a much narrower sense, but even with them, it is not always applied in the same manner. The later immigration of the Gauls disturbed the Illyrians in their habitations; and inaccurate writers, like Appian, frequently mix Gallic and Illyrian nations together. For this very reason, the ethnography of those nations is most obscure. Our accounts are scanty; and those we have, cannot be referred with certainty to their different periods, because the Gallic immigration changed every thing. If we compare the Periplus of Scylax and that of Scymnus of Chios, which is taken from Theopompus or perhaps from Timaeus, with the later descriptions of the coasts in Strabo and the Roman historians, it is impossible to make them harmonise. I cannot, therefore, give you a distinct notion of this vast country, which extends from the frontier of Epirus to that of Pannonia, and stretches even into modern Austria; a clear geographical view is unattainable. Still many points can be discerned, and _Est quadam prodire tenus, si non datur ultra_.

No one has ever asked whether anything can be discovered regarding the history of the Illyrians; no one has ever thought of enquiring into it. But Herodotus alludes to traditions of that country, apparently as if they were well known, and he speaks of an expedition of the Illyrians and Encheleans, who invaded Greece and plundered the temple of Delphi. According to another tradition, Cadmus and Hermione, quitting Thebes, went to the Encheleans and died there. These are again, as elsewhere, two countries which are put in connexion by migrations in opposite directions. This allusion to a great expedition with an enormous army, leads us to pay attention also to some other facts, as for example, that the Liburnians, in the innermost μυχὸς of the Adriatic, were quite different from the Illyrians, and are mentioned in relations, in which elsewhere we find the Pelasgians on the coast of Italy; further, among the Illyrians in the neighbourhood of Ragusa, there dwelt a people called HYLLII, who are said, by the compilers of legendary history, to have originally been Greeks, and to have become barbarians (ἐκβαρβαρωθῆναι); lastly, the coast of Dalmatia was inhabited by Pelagonians, whom we also find among the Macedonians and Epirots. Accordingly we here meet with remnants of a Pelasgian population, which survived after the immigration of the great race of the Illyrians. Among these latter are included also the Breunians and Genaunians in Tyrol, and the Iapydes on the northern side of the Alps, in the modern Carniola, and further on beyond the Alps. We may, therefore, look upon it as almost an historical fact, that they were a people that immigrated from the north, conquered the Dalmatian mountains, and penetrated as far as the heights of Epirus, which formed a barrier to their further progress.

The descriptions we have of the manners of the Illyrians, prove that they were—half savages would be too strong a term—at least very rude: they tattooed themselves, and were pirates[107] at the time when the power of Athens had sunk, and when Corcyra, and in fact all Greece was broken down. They were divided into numerous tribes. In the earlier times kings are nowhere mentioned, that might be regarded as kings of all Illyricum, or of a great part of the Illyrian tribes: the Illyrians seem rather to have had a democratic constitution. In their wars with Macedonia previous to the time of Philip, an Illyrian king is not mentioned anywhere. In the reign of Philip, Theopompus speaks of one Bardylis who from a robber raised himself to the rank of an independent prince, but who is noted for his personal character as a robber rather than as a prince. It is unknown whether the subsequent princes of Illyricum were descendants of his; but certain it is, that we can trace the kings far back till the time after the death of Alexander, that is, to Admetus the Taulantian. During the childhood of Pyrrhus, again we meet with Glaucias, also a Taulantian. It is impossible to determine the extent of Illyricum at the time it came in contact with the Romans; the few statements about it in Polybius pre-suppose a knowledge which we do not possess, and cannot supply; but the Illyrians seem to have had considerable power at that time. They never were closely united among one another, not even under their kings, of whom a whole series is now known: Pleuratus, Agron and his widow Teuta, Pinnes, Scerdilaïdas, Pleuratus, and Genthius, under whom the kingdom was destroyed, because he allowed himself to be prevailed upon by Perseus to share his fate. This kingdom of the Illyrians cannot have extended far north; it embraced the Parthinians, perhaps also the Ardyaeans, the Taulantians, Bulionians,[108] Dessaretans, and the southern tribes which were afterwards under the dominion of Rome, probably also belonged to it. The residence of the kings, at least in later times, was at Scodra, the modern Scutari. The Illyrians were robbers both by land and by sea, until the Romans in the first war against them, between the time of the first Punic and the Cisalpine wars, put an end to their proceedings; but before that time they roved over Epirus and Greece, laying waste the country with great cruelty; and at sea, they ventured even into the Aegean, plundering all the Greek coasts, and especially the defenceless Cyclades. The tactics, the ships of war, and the battle order of the Illyrians, however, were excellent: they were not phalangites, but fought with short spears and light javelins; their chief weapon, however, was the μάχαιρα, or the Albanese knife. With this they fought as peltasts (with light shields), but not as ψιλοί; they rather formed a middle class between the phalangites and ψιλοί. In this respect they differed from the Romans, and were infinitely inferior to them.

The Illyrians are unquestionably the ancestors of the modern Albanese or Arnauts. This opinion was expressed long ago, but has been disturbed in a very strange way by objections; the one, that this people could not have maintained itself among so many other nations, during great immigration, is worth nothing. This objection gave rise to the belief that the Albanese were an Asiatic people. Their language is quite peculiar and akin to no other, neither to the Celtic, as I formerly believed, nor to any other. In the earlier times, it is true, Celts did enter Illyricum, and so did afterwards the Bulgarians and other nations, whence it cannot be denied that northern and Asiatic nations did establish themselves in the country. But I have discovered a proof which clearly shows, that the modern Albanese are the same people as the ancient Illyrians. The name of the town of Dimalon, the strongest among the Illyrian places, with two acras on two heights, connected by a wall, as described by Polybius, shows this; the Albanese still call it so. Now I have found in several glossaries, that the word _mal_ signifies a hill, and _di_ two, so that _dimal_ is a double hill. This proof is quite convincing. The origin and nationality of the Illyrians have given rise to the oddest conjectures. As the Dalmatian Slavonians have adopted the name Illyrians, the Slavonian language spoken in Dalmatia, especially at Ragusa, is likewise called Illyrian, and this designation has acquired general currency. In the sixteenth century, about the time of the reformation, a Slavonian Bible was printed at Tübingen, and called Illyrian. This opinion is firmly rooted among the learned in Carniola, and we even find it entertained by the excellent Kopitar, librarian at Vienna, and a very distinguished man, who possesses great discernment and very extensive knowledge; but he cannot get over the notion, that the ancient Illyrians were Slavonians. This is, as it were, an article of the religious creed of the Slavonians, just as the modern Greeks fancy that their language is identical with the most ancient Greek. Wherever this singular opinion has once become established, an angel from heaven would not be able to upset it; learned men show an obstinacy on this point, which is really a psychological curiosity. This opinion goes so far with them, that they look upon St. Jerome, who was an Illyrian, as a Slavonian, and ascribe to him the Slavonian translation of the Bible; for the same reason, they call the artificial Glagolitian alphabet, which is derived from the Cyrillian, invented in the ninth century, likewise Slavonian. Cyrillus and Methodius, the apostles of the Slavonian nations, must have been eminent men, for, with a wonderfully fine feeling for their language, they invented an alphabet, as well defined and complete as possible; this is the modern Servian alphabet, which is the foundation of that of all the Slavonic languages. The Russian alphabet is the most complete I know, unless the oriental languages form an exception; but I do not understand them any more than the Sanscrit. When the Roman see wanted to press the Latin language upon the Illyrians, they did not use the Roman alphabet, but devised a new one, the Glagolitian (from _glagol_, language), the same which is still used by the Albanese. This matter was made by the Church of Rome the subject of a strange transaction: she was willing to allow the use of the new alphabet, on condition that divine worship should be conducted in the Latin tongue.[109] This happened under Pope John XII. or John XIV., about the year 1000;[110] at the same time books were brought forward, which were asserted to be productions of St. Jerome. This is still firmly believed; and in the Vatican library you may see St. Jerome represented as the inventor of writing with the Slavonic alphabet. All kinds of etymologies of Illyrian words have been pressed into the service to confirm that opinion; but they are so irrational, that it is painful to see intelligent men so fettered by hereditary prejudices about national honour. They attempt, e.g., to derive the name Salona in Dalmatia from Slavona, “a place of honour.” I have often wished that the passion of etymologising could be altogether suppressed, for among a hundred etymologies you scarcely find one that is good; people are easily satisfied, instead of entering into a healthy and thorough inquiry. You will become convinced, that the Illyrians are not Slavonians, when you consider the Sarmatae; for you will then see at how late a period these nations came into Europe; in the meantime you may rely upon what I have said, for it is the result of long researches. As I am not unacquainted with the Slavonian languages,[111] I have been able myself to study the Slavonian authorities. Among all the places within the whole extent of Illyricum, there is not one whose name is properly derived from the Slavonic. Whoever understands Slavonic, cannot possibly be mistaken in a Slavonic word; the Slavonic languages are so marked and characteristic, that no word can be disguised. In Frioul, which was once inhabited by Slavonians, in the eastern half of Germany, and in the greater part of the circle of Upper Saxony, places occur everywhere, the etymology of which instantly strikes those who understand Slavonic. Many years ago, I publicly discussed the migrations of the Slavonians, from the age of Herodotus down to the great migration of nations, and I shall soon publish the discussion.[112]

When reading Pliny and Strabo on Illyricum, we see that their knowledge as to its boundaries is as uncertain as our own. Appian, who undertook, I know not on what authority, to give a national genealogy of the Illyrians, got so confounded either through his own fault, or the fault of his authority, that he jumbled together Illyrians, Gauls, Paeonians, and Thracians in a most absurd manner. I think it my duty to tell you, that he is no authority at all. In regard to some nations we are in the greatest difficulty, and are unable to assert anything with certainty. The Dardanians were probably Illyrians; but the Scordiscans were undoubtedly Gauls. The Liburnians were certainly different from the Illyrians; but I shall say more of them when I have done with the Illyrians.

In speaking of the Macedonian mountains, I have already directed your attention to the connexion of that whole range of mountains with the Alps. The Illyrian range of mountains, which traverses Dalmatia and branches off in Carniola from the Julian Alps, and then, at a considerable distance from the sea, stretches towards Venetia, approaches the sea beyond Aquileia, in the neighbourhood of Trieste, and forms Istria; it passes through Istria as a mighty and lofty mountain, though it does not reach the snow line, then traversing Dalmatia, which it separates from Bosnia, it extends into Albania. It is altogether a limestone mountain, and like all mountains of this kind, it is very much broken up; hence the numbers of promontories and islands off the coast of Dalmatia. This mountain is all full of petrifactions and extremely interesting in a geological and geognostic point of view; it is also well suited for cultivation, and very fertile, but uninhabited, and accordingly for the most part covered with wood to its very tops. It runs from west to east, with a small range towards the south-east, then in a somewhat more southern direction into Macedonia, and is separated from the sea by the hilly country of Albania. Dalmatia is not at all volcanic, whereas in Southern Illyricum or Albania we have a continuation of the volcanic nature of Epirus, whence in the neighbourhood of Apollonia on the Aous we find hot springs of asphalt. I take this opportunity of recalling to your mind the passage of Strabo, which contains the words πηγαὶ χλιαροῦ ἀσφάλτου: the MSS. have καὶ ἀσφάλτου, but the καὶ has been thrown out by editors. I believe that by some mistake ὕδατος is omitted, and that we must read: πηγαὶ χλιαροῦ ὕδατος καὶ ἀσφάλτου. Innumerable emendations have yet to be made in Strabo, and it is to be regretted, that his work has not yet found an editor possessing a thorough knowledge of the Greek language, for Casaubonus edited it with too much haste. In the above passage no one has remembered the fact that ἄσφαλτος is feminine, and that accordingly Strabo could not have said χλιαροῦ ἀσφάλτου.

The accounts of the Greeks respecting the Illyrians are very different from the later ones of the Romans. The Greeks, e.g., mention the Manians, Nestians, Hyllians, and, on the south of Lissos, the Taulantians as the most important among the Illyrian nations; but during the time of the Romans they do not occur at all, although Dalmatia acts a considerable part in history: in their place Dalmatians are mentioned all along the coast, whose name does not occur at all in the geography of the Greeks. Thus the Taulantians are not spoken of in the wars against Teuta, Demetrius of Pharos, and afterwards in the first war against Philip, although Apollonia and Epidamnus act a very prominent part; in their stead we hear of Ardyaeans and Parthinians. Whether these latter did not exist during the Greek period under these names, is a question which I will not decide. In early times the Alemannians and Franks do not occur under these names, and the other nations which do occur, are different from them; this justifies the inference, that several of the latter united into one people: in the same manner the Taulantians may either have divided themselves, or other tribes may have united under that name. I say this to prevent your falling into the mistake of believing that all these statements refer to the same period. It is this error which has made of the topography of Rome such a chaos, that no man can find his way out of it, unless he takes the trouble of commencing the investigations afresh from the very beginning: in this manner alone he can find his way, for in Roman topography buildings are mentioned by the side of one another, which are separated by four or five centuries. It is evident, that the mighty invasion of the Gauls threw the whole country of Illyricum and all its tribes into confusion, in consequence of which the Scordiscans permanently established themselves in Sirmia (Slavonia), Servia, and Bosnia, and expelled the Triballians, so that other nations penetrated into Upper Macedonia, partly subduing and partly expelling its inhabitants, who then formed settlements in Thrace. This great convulsion accounts for the difference between the earlier and later condition of Illyricum.

I shall begin in the south. Next to the frontier of Chaonia we find the small town of AMANTIA and the people of the _Amantians_ and _Bullians_ (_Bulliones_). They are mentioned in Caesar’s _Bellum Civile_, iii. 40, a work which throws great light upon the geography of Illyricum, and the borders of Macedonia and Thessaly. We then have the TAULANTIANS, who occupied the country north of the Aous as far as Epidamnus. The river AÖUS, also called AEAS, flowing down from the ridge of the Macedonian mountains towards the Adriatic, is one of the most important rivers of southern Macedonia. As an instance of the great confusion and perplexity which one false statement of an ancient author may produce, I will mention the following fact:—Hecataeus had stated that the rivers Inachus and Aöus sprang from one mountain near Argos Amphilochicum, and that then they flowed in different directions. This remark, which Strabo found and copied, has produced the greatest confusion in the geography of Epirus, and scholars have been at the greatest pains to clear it up. Pouqueville, a man whom I greatly esteem, but who is not a philologer,[113] in consequence of the above statement, confounds the Inachus and the Arachthus, and mistakes the ruins of Ambracia for those of Argos Amphilochicum. The cause of the error no doubt lies in Hecataeus.

APOLLONIA was a colony established by the Corcyraeans and Corinthians conjointly. I have said that the nature of the country is volcanic; Strabo, Antigonus Carystius, and the Pseudo-Aristotle, in the work Θαυμάσια ἀκούσματα, state that near the neighbouring Nymphaeon the earth was burning, that there existed springs of earth-pitch and hot water, and that flames were seen at night, as is the case at Pietramala. Apollonia maintained its freedom in the midst of the Epirot towns, though it was no doubt under the protection of Macedonia. In the year 522, when the Romans first appeared on that coast, it was still an independent Greek town, but had at an early time gained the favour of its powerful western neighbours by sending an embassy to them. The Romans delivered the town from a siege of the Illyrians, and from that time it was a humble place under the supremacy of Rome. Such towns, as far as depended on the Roman senate and people, were very favourably treated, and were very well off, unless they had the misfortune of being ruled by a governor like Piso, who is described by Cicero. Apollonia, probably, enjoyed a great reputation, and became for the neighbouring nations, and even for the Italians, who endeavoured to Hellenise everything, a seat of Greek culture and education, just as Lausanne and Geneva are for those who believe French culture to be the best, and are visited even by princes. Thus Augustus, at the time of the murder of Caesar, was living at Apollonia for the purpose of learning to speak Greek.

The Taulantians, who afterwards no longer occur in history, dwelt between Apollonia and Epidamnus.

EPIDAMNUS or DYRRHACHIUM. The latter name was, according to tradition, adopted by the Romans to avoid the ominous meaning of the former, _quasi in damnum ituri_, in case of the senate ordering the legions to cross over to it. I imagine that, if the Romans had felt the necessity of changing the name, they would have substituted a syllable, as they did in changing Maleventum into Beneventum; but they would not have completely altered it. In Thucydides and the other Attic writers, the place is always called simply Epidamnus, but the native name must have been Dyrrhachium, for it bears this name on innumerable non-Roman coins. Epidamnus was the _causa contingens_ of the Peloponnesian war; it usually happens, that a thing, when called forth by the force of circumstances, must in the end come to pass, and this town only lent its name as the occasion. This is beautifully expressed by Polybius where he explains the true cause of the Punic wars and their apparent occasion. Epidamnus was likewise taken by the Romans under their protection, and surrendered to them, after having previously been compelled to acknowledge the supremacy of the Illyrian kings. I have already mentioned that a vast number of coins are found there. It is a well-known observation, that about twenty years ago a person travelling through the Rhenish provinces, found French crowns to be the current coin; and in like manner Illyrian quinarii (half-drachmae) were the current coin at Rome for a long time; according to Pliny, they had been introduced at Rome as merchandise, and afterwards _victoriatae_ were substituted for them. But Pliny, as is so often the case with him, takes the matter rather lightly and hastily. The Illyrian half-drachmae were probably somewhat inferior to the double sestertii of the Romans, and at the same time were convenient as a simple coin. But the Romans very rationally now made a similar coin, and thereby got completely rid of the Illyrian. Those Illyrian coins also have the name of a magistrate, which explains a statement of Aristotle, who says that Epidamnus contrary to the custom of other Greek towns, had a single dictator or praetor. During the middle ages, in the time of the Comneni and the Norman kings, Dyrrhachium acted a very prominent part, but at present it is decayed, though it still possesses the advantages of its happy situation on a narrow isthmus, which almost forms a promontory.

In the interior, near the Macedonian frontier, there is a considerable lake from which the Drino issues. In the same part we find, ever since the middle ages, the town of ACHRIDA, which was the capital of the Bulgarian empire at the time when it extended from the Black Sea as far as the interior of Aetolia, and comprised southern Illyricum, Epirus, Acarnania, Aetolia, and a part of Thessaly. It has been thought that this town is the ancient _Lychnidos_. During the Roman period the _Dessaretans_ dwelt there; the neighbouring country was occupied by the _Autariatans_, who are said to have been driven from their country in the time of Cassander, when they removed as fugitives with their women and children into Macedonia. According to the story, which we read in Justin, they were compelled to quit their country, because the frogs had increased there to an intolerable extent. In the common editions of Justin, however, we read, owing to a blunder of the transcriber, _Abderitae_ instead of _Autariatae_, from which Wieland has made the lengthy and absurd story, that the people of Abdera delighted in breeding frogs, and that in the end they were driven by these animals out of their own country. Little as has yet been done by criticism for Justin, still it is sufficiently clear, that he is speaking of the Autariatae, and not of the Abderitae. Diodorus of Sicily quite plainly relates the true history of this expulsion of the Autariatae; but they were not all driven from their country; some of them remained behind, and became subjects of the Gauls, for we find Autariatae under the banner of the Gauls during their expedition against Delphi. But after that time they disappear, and in this disappearance the Greeks saw their punishment by the deity.

The mention of this expedition leads me to speak of a subject, which requires special explanation in order to avoid misunderstandings. You here have a national emigration with women and children, and this is most commonly the case with emigrating nations: a part of the nation sets out with all it possesses, and the part remaining behind comes under the dominion of the invaders. Emigrations are very rarely spontaneous, most of them are undertaken by the pressure and compulsion of other nations; pastoral tribes and those living on the chase alone form exceptions, as we see in the case of all the inhabitants of the steppes in Asia, who, in consequence of their mode of living, with all their property undertook long expeditions into countries many hundred miles off: witness the Scythians, who according to Herodotus took with them all they possessed on innumerable wagons, the Mongole and Tartar tribes, and the Huns. When a people immigrates, it very rarely happens that all the ancient inhabitants quit the country, most of them remain behind and submit to their new masters. But this is not by any means always a matter of choice. When a conquering people advances, under the hoofs of whose horses all life is destroyed, as was the case with the Huns and the hordes of Jinghis Khan, which burnt and murdered every thing before them (and the Gauls on their expedition into Greece did not act otherwise), every one who finds a place of safety, or hopes to find one, takes to flight. When the poor inhabitants of la Vendée fled from the armies of the Convention, the whole population crossed the Loire, carrying their women and children before them, and whoever could move broke up, and whoever was able carried his feebler relatives with him, so that the whole country was deserted. They met with opposition, and their migration could not proceed farther: if there had been small tribes on the frontiers of France, unable to offer them any resistance, the Vendéeans would have broken through, and sought a place to settle in. Such also was the case in most of the migrations of antiquity, as well as in the great migration of nations during the fourth and fifth centuries; and the Gallic and Sarmatian migrations were certainly not less important than they. When the Goths had been defeated by the Huns in Dacia on the Dniestr, they crossed the Danube in a body, and implored the Romans to receive and protect them in their empire; and their requests were granted. There are, however, a few instances of non-nomadic nations emigrating in a body without being pressed in any way. The most striking instance is that of the Helvetii, in the time of Caesar, a case which no one can doubt, and which is literally true: they emigrated, having been seduced by evil advisers, and even destroyed their own towns in the hope of conquering a country in which they might live as lords and nobles, and where they hoped to have vassals that would till the ground for them.

The ARDYAEANS and PARTHINIANS dwelt north of the Autariatae, though not at the same time, but only during the Roman period. These tribes, the Illyrians and Atintanians, had been subdued by the Romans in the first Illyrian war, and were again reduced to obedience in the second. Agron and his widow Teuta had ruled as far as the borders of Epirus; but the Romans took from them southern Illyricum and the islands of Issa and Pharos. Then Philip also took a part of the same country, I allude to the district of the Atintanians; but the Romans left that of the Parthinians to Pleurates, the king of the Illyrians. How far the Illyrian kingdom extended in the north, we cannot say; but the southern frontier, previous to the time when the Romans gave away the Parthinians, was the mouth of the Drino, which flows by Scodra and issues from lake Labeatis.

SCODRA was the capital of the kingdom; its situation is very favorable, mild, and pleasing; the country around is capable of every cultivation; it is a _locus apricus_, accessible to the mild winds from the south, and protected against the north winds.

LISSOS, situated at the mouth of the Drino, was fixed upon by the Romans as the border-town of the Illyrians in the south, and beyond it they were not allowed to sail with their armed ships. This must be regarded as a great blessing for Greece, which was thereby delivered from Illyrian pirates.

DALMATIA, in the north-west, consists partly of the mainland and partly of a countless number of islands near the coast, some of which are mere rocks, while others are capable of cultivation. On this coast there are at least two Greek colonies—a third is doubtful—the islands of ISSA and PHAROS. The latter known through Demetrius of Pharos, the shameless intriguer, is said to have been a colony of Paros. Issa was colonised by Dionysius of Syracuse who, at the time of his greatest prosperity, contemplated to establish a power on the Adriatic, whence he also sent a colony to Adria, in the country of the Veneti; it is possible that the Greek colony of Heraclea, on the Liburnian coast, must likewise be ascribed to him.

The country of the Dalmatians (more correctly Dalmatans) extends from Illyricum, in the Greek sense of the term, as far as the frontier of the Liburnians, who inhabited the whole of the north of what was once Venetian Dalmatia. The name Dalmatia is unknown to the Greeks, and is applied to the country in which they place the Hyllians, Nestians, and Manians. The inhabitants were no doubt under the dominion of the Illyrian kings; after the reduction of the Illyrians by the Romans, Dalmatia, too, was unquestionably intended to come under the supremacy of Rome, and a few maritime towns actually seem to have done so, but the interior, if it did fall into the hands of the Romans, appears soon to have thrown off the yoke. It was not till the year 640, that Metullus permanently subdued those coast countries, after the Romans had waged war against them for a long time. Thenceforth the neighbouring country of the Liburnians was a distinct Roman province; the southern districts of Dalmatia being occasionally under the control of the proconsul or propraetor of Macedonia; the northern parts do not appear to have had a Roman _imperium_, except when legions were stationed there. This was frequently the case, until the Scordiscans were conquered: when after their destruction peace was established, and when, after the time of Sulla, the province of Gaul was formed, those countries belonged to the _imperium_ of the governor who had the administration of Gaul, as we see in the case of Julius Caesar.

The most important town in Dalmatia was SALONA or SALONAE (_Salonae longae_, in Lucan, the place probably consisting of one long street along the coast); it was the seat of a Roman _conventus_, that is, the Roman citizens resident in the province formed a rustic community, which had its administration at Salona. This is the real meaning of a _conventus civium Romanorum_, which is left obscure in our manuals on Roman antiquities, though it is perfectly clear from Cicero’s speeches against Verres, from Caesar’s _Bellum Civile_ and _Africanum_, and also from the _Bellum Hispaniense_. Salona gradually became a genuine Roman city; but it owes its greatest celebrity to the fact that Diocletian, after resigning the imperial dignity, took up his abode there and built a palace, which extended into the modern town of Spalatro, and is an example of the decay of taste in the arts at that time, as much as the Thermae of Diocletian at Rome; the palace is not more beautiful than the edifices built in the time of Charlemagne; marble and costly materials of every kind were lavished on it, and such outward ornaments then constituted almost all that was left of art. The ruins of this palace have been described by Englishmen.

About other places in Dalmatia nothing can be said, for they are of no historical importance. The islands have already been spoken of. PHAROS produced Demetrius, whose villany and faithlessness are very characteristic of that age; he was only half a Greek, or rather a barbarian. He spent a great part of his life at the court of the barbarian queen, Teuta, and afterwards he went to that of Philip of Macedonia. The traits related of this man are terrible. Pharos is called Greek, but we must not imagine that its inhabitants were of pure Greek blood or had Greek manners, and Greek modes of life; they were Μιξέλληνες as in other similar places.

CORCYRA MELAENA, the modern Curzola, cannot with certainty be called a Greek colony.

MELITE may be noticed here because, according to some, it was the island where St. Paul, on his voyage to Rome, suffered shipwreck. But this is improbable, St. Luke would probably have been more explicit about it, and St. Paul would have crossed from thence to Ancona or some other port in the neighbourhood. We must in all probability refer the event to Malta, which was likewise called Melite.

I now pass over the Iapydes, Istrians, Liburnians, Carnians and Venetians, as I intend to return to these nations from the West and from Noricum.

FOOTNOTES

[1] “The first journey of this kind was undertaken in the sixteenth century, by George Fabricius, but it produced only very insignificant results.”

[2] The MS. notes contain very little about these maps, but what I recollect Niebuhr to have said agrees in the main with the opinion expressed in the _Lectures on Rom. Hist._ vol. iii. p. xciv., except that in the present Lectures he treated the matter more with ridicule, saying, e.g., that such men are immortalised even by having their portraits engraved on copper (in some Geographical Journal).—ED.

[3] See _Kleine Schriften_, vol. i. p. 105, foll.

[4] “It would be an interesting philological problem to show, how certain books gradually disappeared and ceased to be read.”

[5] See _Klein. Schrift._, vol. i. p. 132, foll.

[6] “It is written on white stone, and belongs to the time of Psammetichus II., that is, about the end of the Peloponnesian war. The λόφοι in Aristotle probably signify ostrich-feathers.” See _Corp. Inscript. Graec._, vol. iii. fasc. 2. n. 5126. I owe this reference to the kindness of the late Professor Franz.—ED.

[7] _In Ctesiph._ 77 (p. 140, 9 ed. Dindorf).

[8] The word “Latins” is only my conjecture. In all the MS. notes, the words are directly opposed to what the lecturer intended to prove; whence we may perhaps suppose, that Niebuhr himself made a _lapsus linguae_.—ED.

[9] Comp. _Lectures on Anc. Hist._, vol. i. p. 200.

[10] See Paus. vii. 1.

[11] _Lect. on Anc. Hist._, vol. i. p. 204.

[12] Ibid., vol. i. p. 232.

[13] Paus. ii. 4, § 4.

[14] _Aen._ vi. 838.

[15] This name has been substituted by me from the Iliad, ii. 561, for one which occurs only in a single set of notes, and is altogether mis-written.—ED.

[16] Verse 533.

[17] “The part of Laconia, which forms the western coast of the Argolic gulf, but which, by the division of Philip of Macedonia was restored to Argos, will be spoken of when I come to describe Laconia.”

[18] “A stadium measures 600 Greek feet, and eight stadia make a Roman mile; 606 feet and 9 inches English are equal to a stadium. This is a well known fact, requiring no proof. But it is a very debatable question, as to whether the ancients, when reckoning by stadia, always adopted the measure of the Olympian stadium, or whether we have sometimes to understand others. The latter opinion has been very generally spread by the moderns, especially in consequence of an error committed by the excellent D’Anville. It very often occurs, that the distances mentioned by the ancients are irreconcilable with modern measurements; whence it has been inferred that sometimes different stadia must be meant, and the statement that the Pythian stadium was shorter than the Olympian, appeared to support this supposition. But there is no other hypothesis which has been set forth equally often, and is yet so devoid of all foundation: the ancient writers do not furnish a single passage in support of the assertion; an endless confusion, moreover, would be introduced into all statements, if we were to suppose that the ancients reckoned according to different stadia without informing their readers of it. Wherever the stadia mentioned are irreconcilable with correct measurements, the cause is no other but either an error in our calculation, or some inaccuracy in the statements of the ancients, which arose in a very natural manner; for the high-roads in Greece were, not like those of the Romans, made in a straight line, but had various turnings, because they had been gradually formed out of the common paths across the fields. In some instances, on the other hand, it has been found that, where the ancients were charged with inaccuracy, too much confidence has been placed in modern travellers, so that the statements of the ancients are, after all, not as inaccurate as some have supposed.

“A question of the highest importance in history and geography is that concerning the proportion which the side of the pyramid bears to the measured degree of the earth and to the Egyptian cubit—a question to which French mathematicians, who were no scholars, have first directed attention. These numbers are such exact multiples of one another, that we must either assume the most marvellous coincidence, or else an artificial calculation. The immortal Laplace set great value upon this discovery, and inferred from it that the elements of mathematical geography were known at a very early time. When the new French system of measures was introduced, the measure of a degree was taken as the standard, and thus the framers of the new system arrived at the same foundation as the ancients. When a degree of latitude was measured in Egypt, the result was perfectly safe; but the French wanted to establish a measure for the whole world, and in this case it is illegitimate to make use of the degree of latitude, for though in a metre the inaccuracy was not great, yet it was so in larger measures. The ancients proceeded from degrees which were not too large, and could be measured with accuracy. Now the degree is a multiple of the Greek stadium, as it is of the Egyptian measure: 600 Greek feet make a stadium, 600 stadia make an equatorial degree, that is, 360,000 Greek feet make a degree; and this system of measurement is derived from Egypt. As the Egyptian foot was larger than an ordinary human foot, the Greeks invented the fable, that the foot of Heracles had been taken as the standard in measuring the stadium. The pace of the Romans is likewise an ideal measure, for it is the thousandth part of one seventy-fifth of a degree.”

[19] “Much has been written, and much nonsense too, about the history of commerce. One must first be acquainted with commerce, and the course it takes, before attempting to write about it. The subject is not foreign to me, but I have no time to work it out.”

[20] See _Kleine Schrift._, vol. i. p. 225, note.

[21] Anthol. Palat. ix. 151.

[22] “Herodes Atticus restored the theatre which had been destroyed by Mummius; and this building, together with the Odeum and gymnasium, was seen by Pausanias.”

[23] One MS. has _Ornae_ instead of Argos.—ED.

[24] “We include Megaris among those countries which lie beyond Peloponnesus, though it belongs to Argolis, if this latter name be taken in its widest sense.”

[25] Compare Thucyd. iv. 57.

[26] Polyb. ix. 42.

[27] Compare _Lect. on Anc. Hist._, vol. i. p. 185, foll., and p. 231.

[28] This reference was given by Niebuhr himself, and as all the good MSS. agree in the number, there can be no doubt that the notes are correct; but I do not know to what edition it refers. According to Casaubon’s edition, it is p. 364, foll., and Alm. p. 560, foll.—ED.

[29] Strab. viii. p. 365, ed. Casaub.