Chapter VIII: Part 8

BRUNDUSIUM was distinguished for its excellent harbour, which was valued the more because there was not a single good harbour between Brundusium and Ancona. It consisted of several branches, and could admit more ships than ever sailed in those seas. For this reason the Romans secured the possession of that town as early as possible, and established a Latin colony there. At present the harbour is partly filled up with mud.

ANCIENT OENOTRIA.

The Oenotrians in southern Italy are the real Itali. I shall speak of them first, and after having put them in their right light, I shall pass on to the Greek towns on the the coasts, which are commonly called Magna Graecia.

Oenotria is the same as Italia in the limited sense of the name. You remember the varying circumstances, according to which the name Italia was given to a larger or smaller extent of country, and that in its widest sense it embraced the country as far as the Tiber and mount Garganus. In consequence of the extension of other nations, the Itali were afterwards confined to the southern country, and thereby became so compact, that they were wholly governed by the Greek colonies on the coast, and hence when, e.g., a person went from Sybaris to Posidonia, or from Croton to Terina, he had to pass, if not through a country altogether peopled by Greeks, at least through one governed by Greek towns. Oenotria thus became Italy proper; but it cannot be said, on the other hand, that the name Italia was transferred from that small district to the whole of the peninsula. If we were confined to the Roman writers alone, and if we had no information from Greek authors, especially Dionysius and Strabo, we should be in utter ignorance about the Oenotrians, and we should scarcely have any idea of Italian archaeology. From this we may infer how much more information must be lost about more distant countries, which had no literature of their own. The Lucanians, whom we afterwards find spread over the whole of that country, occupied, at the period of the Persian wars, only the north-eastern portion of Lucania, while all the rest of the country afterwards called Lucania, and the whole of Bruttium, were inhabited by Oenotrians. On the coast, Greek colonies were established, which ruled over them as sovereigns, so that the greater part of the Oenotrians were reduced to a state of servitude, but another portion of them was never subdued. These Oenotrians were Pelasgians or Siceli of the same stock as the Epirots, as is stated by the scholiast on the Odyssey, on the authority of the Macedonian Mnaseas, the disciple of Aristarchus. _Siceli_ and _Itali_ are the same, as was recognised even by the ancients; the names are also etymologically identical, _Italus_ being the same as _Vitulus_, the sibilant taking the place of the digamma. In a narrower sense, the name Siculi was applied to the Oenotrians, the inhabitants of the southernmost part of Italy. It is very strange to find that this very ancient mode of designation re-appears in the geography of the middle ages, for in the division of the Byzantine empire into provinces, the southernmost part of Italy was called Sikelia. This is generally referred to the vanity of the Byzantine court, which is said to have been desirous to have a province called Sicily, after the island had been taken from it by the Arabs. This indeed is not impossible; but I believe it to be a very arbitrary conjecture, and am rather inclined to believe that the country, in ordinary life, still continued to be called Sikelia, as the earliest Italians were called Siceli by Thucydides and Timaeus (in Polybius). In this manner, the name was probably propagated, and this also seems to have been the origin of the strange appellation of “the two Sicilies,” which at present is indeed quite absurd, but, in its origin, was probably quite intelligible.

Besides these Siceli, which, in some districts that can no longer be defined, were called _Italietes_ and _Morgetes_, there existed in southern Italy yet another race of the Oenotrians, called CHAONIANS or CHONIANS. This name also re-appears in Epirus. The metropolis of the Chaonians was called Chone, and had been situated not far from Croton; it may have been destroyed by the Greeks.

In their state of dependence on the ancient Greek towns, these Oenotrians became completely hellenised. During the first century after the Greek settlements, they were not yet subdued, but they were reduced at the time when Sybaris and Croton had reached their highest prosperity. This is proved by the colonies of these two cities on the western coast, which oblige us to assume that the intermediate country was subject to them. Hence the almost fabulous accounts of the immense population of Sybaris and Croton, which must be understood to refer, not to the population of the cities alone, but also to comprise their subjects. The fall of Sybaris, in Olymp. 67, 3, was the death blow to the Greek dominion in southern Italy, and to the subjects who all lived in willing submission; for in the course of a long time a relation had arisen, in which the rule of Sybaris had become milder and milder, and in which the nations became more and more united with it. It was probably after the foundation of Thurii in the territory of Sybaris, that the Lucanians appeared in the northern part of the country, the modern Basilicata. They first attacked Posidonia and captured it; they next conquered the western part of the whole country, which derived from them the name of Lucania, and then advanced more and more against the Greek towns, as on the eastern coast against Thurii and Croton, which now dropped their former jealousy in order to defend themselves against the common enemy. But they were so far reduced as to be confined within their own walls. This extension of the Lucanians becomes manifest about the beginning of the Peloponnesian war. Strabo is not correct in saying, that the Lucanians expelled the Oenotrians and Chonians, for they only subdued them. The decisive battle of Laos between the population of Magna Graecia and the Lucanians, in which the latter gained the upper hand, belongs to the period of the conquest of Rome by the Gauls; and this battle prostrated the Greeks for ever. Lucania now became a great state, extending from the frontier of the Hirpinians to the gates of Rhegium. But it did not long maintain itself in this extent. The Sabellian Lucanians were not numerous enough to rule over so large a territory. The consequence of their victory over the Greek towns was, that the latter were broken, and that the ancient serfs of the Greeks in those parts, a portion of the Lucanians themselves, and the subjects of the Lucanians, constituted themselves as an independent state under the name of the Bruttii. Henceforth Lucania was reduced to about one half of its former territory; but it retained this extent until the last period of the Roman empire, and under its name a separate region of Italy was formed.

Lucania was fearfully devasted during the several wars which were carried on there. The resistance of the Lucanians against the Romans was not so desperate as that of the Samnites, whence they did not suffer so much when at length they were obliged to succumb. But they committed the folly of throwing themselves into the arms of Hannibal; the consequence of which was that the Romans destroyed their towns one after another; some of them, however, which remained faithful to Rome, especially the capital, Petelia, were severely treated by Hannibal. After the war a great part of their territory became Roman domain land. Still, however, they recovered to some extent; they then took part in the Social War, but do not appear to have suffered much. The result was that they obtained the Roman franchise. But they again suffered severely during the servile war of Spartacus, whose real head-quarters were in Lucania and Bruttium; at that time the country was changed into a wilderness. From Cicero’s speech for Tullius, we see that at Thurii every thing was burnt down. Lucania is a woody mountainous country, and the Apennines in those parts are full of the most beautiful forests; during the latter period of the republic large estates were formed there; the free population was for the most part extirpated, and the large farms were managed by slaves, coloni being seldom employed, and wherever slaves put their feet, not a blade of grass remained. Hence, during the first centuries of the empire, the country was almost deserted, and was employed only as pasture land; the population had become completely uncivilised. From the edicts of the emperors during the fourth and fifth centuries, we see what terrible people those slaves were: the severest laws were enacted merely to establish some security; they were disarmed, and for ever forbidden the use of any weapons whatsoever.

BRUTTIUM was in the same condition; it had been laid waste as early as the Hannibalian war. After the war of Pyrrhus, the Bruttians had obtained tolerable terms from the Romans, and their subsequent revolt was not provoked by any act on the part of the Romans. They suffered especially from the circumstance that Hannibal, during the latter years of his war established himself among them, recruited his armies there, and carried many of their young men capable of bearing arms with him to Africa. He was obliged, against his own inclination, to make heavy demands upon the country. The Romans, on the other hand, afterwards took fearful vengeance on them; although the events had been brought about less by the desire of the Bruttians than by unavoidable circumstances. The Romans deprived them of their political existence, and treated them as a people among whom only _servi publici_ for all manner of services were levied. By this means, the Bruttians were reduced to a state of helotism. This is one of the reasons why they are not mentioned at all during the Social War; another circumstance contributing to the same result was that the Romans did not regard them as Italicans, but as Greeks.

I have not much to say respecting the towns in the interior of the country. PETELIA, an ancient Pelasgian town, the origin of which was connected with Greek traditions, was the capital of Lucania. CRUMENTUM was the most important town in the interior; the form of its name is like those of others with which we have become acquainted: the Pelasgian Κρυμόεις or Κρυμοῦς changes its termination into _entum_, and signifies “the cold,” or “frosty,” from its situation on a high hill.

In time of war, the Lucanians had a common magistrate, called βασιλεὺς by the Greeks, and _imperator_ by the Romans, and a common constitution; but we know nothing about the political forms of the Bruttians. The inscriptions on Lucanian coins are Oscan, written in Greek characters; but the people, also, spoke Greek perfectly, so that the fact of the Pseudo-Pythagorean books being called Lucanian is not against probability. The Lucanian coins are far less beautiful than those of Bruttium, which have Greek inscriptions, and are like the most beautiful coins of Greek cities. Though, therefore, they destroyed Greek towns, still they learned and cultivated the arts of the Greeks. CONSENTIA was the capital of the Bruttians, and the modern Cosenza is likewise a capital.

The great SILA forest, in the north of Bruttium, was of great importance to the Bruttians; it was very extensive, and such a large forest shows the desolation of the country from war. It furnished the Romans with excellent timber for ship-building, and also yielded a considerable revenue from the manufacture of tar.

GREEK TOWNS ON THE COAST OF ITALY.

CALLIPOLIS (now Gallipoli), a colony of Tarentum, situated on the Iapygian promontory on the south-east of Tarentum, has no historical interest. But TARENTUM itself is all the more important. This city is generally spoken of by the ancients, and especially by Livy, with great moral contempt. I am quite sure that no man is less disposed to put forth paradoxes than I: on the contrary, every paradox is repulsive to me, and calls forth in me a feeling of distrust. There are, however, many points in history on which we cannot help asserting the very opposite of the opinion generally current. People speak of the Tarentines as if they had been completely lost in luxuries and effeminacy, and as if they had really deserved the frightful fate they had to endure; they are spoken of with contempt, because, it is said, they embarked in great undertakings, but did not possess the strength to carry them out by themselves, and lived in a constant round of sensual pleasures. But it is especially the ὕβρις and βδελυρία which the Tarentines displayed towards the Roman ambassadors, that has made an indelible stain on their character. Now, although I am far from believing that the Tarentines were deserving of any unusual degree of moral respect, yet I must positively assert, that the things for which they are so generally condemned, are for the most part false, and in some points the allegations against them are no grounds for condemnation. It is impossible to despise a people which, while the other Greek towns succumbed to the Italians, rose to such greatness during that very period, and without being favoured by any outward circumstances. Such a thing cannot be done without skill, ability, and character; it is not a mere fortunate accident, especially in a republic, where a brilliant period cannot be brought about by a single great ruler, as in a monarchy. Moreover, Tarentum produced an Archytas, who was, perhaps, the greatest philosopher, mathematician, and statesman, in all antiquity, unless we may except Thucydides who, if he had wished it, might have become equally great in the sciences; but he took no interest in them. Such a man usually cannot expect the most favourable reception among his countrymen, the voice of envy and jealousy immediately rising against him. But Archytas was, notwithstanding all this, repeatedly placed at the head of the state as its strategus, and with such confidence, that the democratic Tarentines allowed themselves to be guided and directed entirely by him. This circumstance alone would convince me, that they do not deserve the harsh sentence which posterity has pronounced upon them: however much they may have degenerated fifty years later, at that time their prosperity was not undeserved.

Ancient Tarentum was a very extensive place; the modern town with its 18,000 or 20,000 inhabitants, though, it is true, they live very close together, does not occupy more space than the ancient acra, the original Laconian colony, around which the new town arose and extended. This immense new town has disappeared, though its circumference can still be recognised. It is well known, that the origin of Tarentum is connected with the history of Laconia; the story has indeed some historical foundation, but is evidently perverted; and the statement about Phalanthus and the Parthenii has no historical character at all. In very many states, in which no connubium existed between the different parts of the population, the persons sprung from unlawful marriages between members of the ruling and those of the subject people, endangered the government of the ruling class. Such were the Parthenii. For about two centuries and a half the Tarentines were powerful far and wide, but an attempt they made about the time of the Persian wars, to reduce the Messapians to the condition of helots, failed, and they suffered a defeat from which for a century they could not recover; the defeat, according to Herodotus, was the most bloody that had ever been sustained by a Greek nation. Still, however, Tarentum afterwards recovered, and that too at a period when we should least expect it, when Thurii, Croton, and other towns sank, and when in many parts the towns entirely disappeared. It may be, that Tarentum offered a place of refuge to the Greeks expelled from Caulon and other places; but the people must have made every effort to overcome their difficult circumstances, for their city became very powerful. It now assumed altogether a commercial and manufacturing character, and became the real emporium for southern Italy, and perhaps for Samnium also. Salt was a lucrative article of its commerce; it had excellent wool, cloth manufactories, and dyeing establishments; purple in particular was made there in the greatest perfection. Tarentum was in every respect an industrial place, with extensive navigation and fisheries. Such a population could not possibly feel inclined to serve in the army as a heavy-armed infantry, such as was then required; their cavalry was anything but contemptible; it was distinguished for peculiar tactics of its own. The fact that they enlisted foreign mercenaries, ought not to be made a subject of reproach to them, as they were a commercial people, and as it was the general practice of the Greeks at that time. That they took into their pay foreign princes with their whole armies, may have been imprudent; but in this respect too they did no more than what was done by England, which, during the eighteenth century, often took whole regiments of foreign countries into its service, a system which the United States of the Netherlands followed ever since the time of Maurice of Orange. It was the natural consequence of circumstances; and it is absurd to expect of such a wealthy commercial people, that it should be as great in war as an agricultural people. They, no doubt, did not conceal from themselves the fact that their military system was bad; but politics cannot always control all circumstances. The Tarentines certainly do not deserve the reproach of ingratitude towards Alexander of Epirus, for his intention was to set himself up as king of southern Italy, and he first acted as an enemy towards them. The fate of Tarentum in its contest with Rome is known from history: after the fall of Samnium, it threw itself into the arms of Pyrrhus, after whose death it was betrayed and sold. According to the Roman historians, Rome treated the city very generously, leaving it independent: this independence, however, may have been a mere name; the Romans for a longtime kept a garrison there, which, in the Hannibalian war defended the old town against the siege of Hannibal. The new town threw itself into the arms of the Carthaginian, but he could not maintain it, and the inhabitants were obliged to surrender to the Romans, who now took cruel vengeance and destroyed the place. In the time of C. Gracchus it became a Roman colony.

The Greek towns of Southern Italy are comprised under the general name of MAGNA GRAECIA; whether this name also included Tarentum, or whether it was limited to the coast of Oenotrian Italy, and whether it also embraced the interior, these are questions which, so far as I know, the ancients do not decide, though the name was in use at a very early period. If we possessed the work of Antiochus of Syracuse, a contemporary of Herodotus, it would perhaps furnish us information about it; from Ephorus and Eratosthenes we could hardly expect to learn anything on this point. It is possible also that the name ἡ μεγάλη Ἑλλάς may not have been confined to the Greek towns.

In enumerating these towns, we may follow a twofold system: we may either trace them along the coast, beginning with the one next to Tarentum and thus proceeding as far as Posidonia, or we may arrange them according to the Greek tribes to which they belonged, and according to the alleged periods of their foundation. The first system may be traced on any map where they follow one another in this order: Metapontum, Heraclea, Siris (which is found in very few maps), Sybaris (afterwards Thurii), Croton, Scylletion, Caulon, Locri, and Rhegium: on the other side, we have Hipponium, Laos, Pyxus, Elea, and Posidonia. These towns were colonies of different tribes, but the most important among them were of Achaean origin. The original number of the latter was four, which again became the mother towns of the rest; even in regard to the fourth, however, it is not certain whether it was not a colony of Croton. Sybaris was the most ancient among them: next came Croton; Metapontum, the third, was of much more recent origin; and the fourth, was Caulon or Caulonia, concerning which, as I have already said, it is doubtful whether it was an Achaean colony, or whether it received at the same time settlers from Croton, as was the case at Apollonia which was founded by Corinth and Corcyra conjointly.

The colonies of the Locrians are equally ancient, and, according to tradition, they even belong to an earlier date. Both these sets of colonies again founded others: the Achaean Laos founded Scidros, Elea (a mixed colony), and Posidonia; and the Locrians built Hipponium and Medina. There were also Ionian colonies of different kinds; Siris was a very ancient Colophonian settlement; Rhegium, a Chalcidian colony of a more recent date, afterwards founded Pyxus. Elea, too, may be called Ionian, inasmuch as the fugitives from Phocaea were admitted there, as those from Colophon had been at Siris. They accordingly lie, as it were, in chronological strata above one another, not proceeding in their origin from the same points.

In regard to some of these colonies, the same question presents itself which we had to answer in the case of those in Asia Minor, namely, whether they were really ancient Greek colonies in the sense in which they are so called by our historians, or whether they are not partially of earlier origin, so that, being originally founded by people akin to the Greeks, they afterwards assumed an entirely Greek character. This is really probable in the case of some of them, but nothing certain can be said about it. This opinion is most plausible in regard to the Locrians, for the accounts of their origin are too mythical, and they act a part in all the ancient traditions relating to the period of the Siculi and Itali. The only definite tradition about their origin is the one mentioned by Aristotle, of which I shall speak in due time. The fact, that the Achaeans appear as a colonising people, is likewise mysterious, as they are so insignificant in the early history of Greece. However, Zacynthos, too, is an Achaean colony, and one of the results of the historical inquiries of modern times is, that very little is known about Greek history previous to the Persian wars. Many changes, therefore, may have taken place, of which we are completely ignorant: as the Achaeans passed through a revolution in Aegialos, it is at all events possible, that previously they were a more important people, and that after the Doric migration the oppressed perioeci may have assembled and emigrated from Peloponnesus, just as the Minyans are said to have emigrated from Taenaron to other parts. But these things scarcely admit of sober criticism, and I will not dwell upon them. I shall now enumerate the towns according to the common practice beginning with the most important. The Achaean colonies will be mentioned first.

SYBARIS, according to tradition, was the most ancient among the Achaean towns. It has a great name, but in the period of historical certainty it had ceased to exist. The greatness of Sybaris is beyond a doubt, but all the details related about the luxuriousness of its inhabitants, their wealth, their works of art, and their final catastrophe, are either doubtful or altogether fabulous. The numbers of its inhabitants and of the men capable of bearing arms are exaggerated in an almost oriental fashion, for at its destruction, the city is said to have had 300,000 men capable of bearing arms; the manner also, in which Croton is said to have gained the battle, is a mere silly story. But we need not wonder at the fabulous character of these accounts, or at the obscurity of the history, for all the early history of Greece is in the same predicament, and Roman history too begins very late. We must be on our guard not to measure the history of the western nations by the standard of eastern annals. Even if we trace the contemporary records among the Hebrews only as far as the time of Solomon, we already reach a very early period compared with that to which history ascends in Greece. There can be no doubt, that the Egyptians had annals from the period of the seventeenth dynasty, that is, from the time of Sesostris and Amenophis, or the expulsion of the Hycsos; but the Greeks had no such ancient contemporary records, and although there existed certain annalistic tables, as for example, the list of the priestesses at Argos, still they did not, like the oriental annals, constitute a history, but were mere lists of years. It is of extreme importance to an historical philologer, to know how late Greek history commences. At the period of my youth, I and those of the same age with me grew up under the most erroneous notions in this respect. I was already a young man, when it first occurred to me to doubt the truth of the stories about the Messenian wars and about Aristomenes; in the common histories of Greece no doubts were expressed, the events were assigned to definite years, and were narrated as confidently as if they were reported on the best historical authority. People are not yet sufficiently free from these thoroughly erroneous notions, although a right view has already gained some ground. All we know about Sybaris with certainty is, that it was destroyed several years before the period which we regard as the time of the expulsion of the Roman kings; Greek writers place the destruction three years before this event; but synchronistic statements of this kind are of no value. Posidonia and Laos on the opposite coast were colonies of Sybaris, whence we may suppose that all Lucania, with the exception of Metapontum, was subject to it. Sybaris and all those towns became great and powerful within an incredibly short period, which probably arose from the fact of their being commercial colonies. The rapidity, with which commercial cities rise, is exemplified by New York, which 120 years ago had no more than 1000 inhabitants, while at present its population amounts to upwards of 140,000. The same increase has taken place at Philadelphia. If, as is generally supposed, Sybaris at the time of its destruction had existed for two centuries, we may easily admit that it had become great and powerful, and hence there is nothing impossible in the statement, that it ruled over four nations and twenty-five towns. We must also bear in mind, that those Greek towns might grow up even with much greater rapidity than the English colonies in North America; for in the latter all the settlers were Europeans, and consequently quite foreign to the original population; in southern Italy, on the other hand, the greater part of the population consisted unquestionably of native Oenotrians, who were by no means foreign to the Greeks. In countries where the natives were foreign to them, as on the Euxine, their colonies never rose so rapidly as on the coasts of Asia Minor and Italy, where they settled among kindred tribes. Cyrene, which was a large city, perhaps forms the only exception in this respect.

In regard to the history of Sybaris, it is certain that Sybaris and Tarentum, being Achaean and Dorian towns respectively, were hostile to each other, and that there was a time when Sybaris and Croton, both of Achaean origin, were on friendly terms. The object of the dispute with Tarentum was the fertile district between the Acalandrus and the Siris, which was called Siritis; and in order to maintain their possession of it, the Sybarites are said to have invited other Achaeans to come over, and these latter are reported to have founded—

METAPONTUM.[55] Its name shows the same formation which we have already observed on several other occasions, and leads us to a form Μεταποῦς, analogous to Μαλοῦς. This town, which was founded under the protection of Sybaris, may in reality not have been in a state of independence as long as Sybaris was a powerful state; in order to preserve the possession of its territory, Metapontum required the protection of the Sybarites against the neighbouring Oenotrians and Apulians; but after the fall of Sybaris, Metapontum may be regarded as an independent town. In the traditions we have of this place, as in those of several others, statements about its earlier Oenotrian condition are mixed up with those about its later Hellenic character; the Pelasgian traditions about it always refer to the Trojan legend, and hence Metapontum is mentioned as a Pylian colony. During the period down to the time when the Lucanians became powerful, the place, from the extraordinary fertility of its territory, became so wealthy as to equal the richest Greek towns in Italy. The Metapontines are said to have sent a θέρος χρυσοῦν to Delphi, which was probably a golden sheaf, the produce of the tithes. Their great wealth is also attested by the very numerous gold and silver coins of Metapontum, of very beautiful workmanship, and mostly of great antiquity. Afterwards, however, all the towns in those parts were overpowered by the Lucanians, and Metapontum, also, which was deprived of its territory, must have lost its greatness in consequence. Afterwards, it suffered severely from the Greek and Epirot armies, which were called into the country by the Tarentines. Alexander of Epirus and Cleonymus of Sparta for a time occupied Metapontum with garrisons, and Cleonymus in particular acted with disgraceful cruelty: he took hostages, and plundered and pillaged the town. After that time it never recovered. In the war of Pyrrhus, Metapontum was an insignificant place; in the second Punic war, it attached itself to Hannibal, and afterwards it is, as if a wave had passed over it and washed it away, though we do not know how or when; but we hear no more of it. In the age of Strabo, it was a small place, but in point of fact, it had perished.

The destruction of Sybaris by the Crotoniats was the death-blow to the Greek towns in those parts, for the Crotoniats were not able to protect the country against the invading Lucanians and Oenotrians. Some of the surviving Sybarites withdrew to their colonies of Laos and Scidros, and others built a small place of the name of Sybaris in a distant part; all attempts to rebuild the ancient city failed, for Croton and the vengeance of the emancipated serfs prevented it. In this distress they applied to the Athenians, who in the days of their greatness appear everywhere as the defenders of the Hellenic name: on this occasion, too, they were ready to assist the unfortunate Sybarites, and invited colonists from all parts of Greece to settle at Sybaris. The reason why Croton did not oppose this new settlement may have been the fact, that the people of the interior were advancing more and more; the Crotoniats probably felt, that a powerful Greek colony in the neighbourhood might be very useful to them: Posidonia, too, was probably already lost. At a deliberation of the Spartans and their allies, a Greek said, that if Athens were destroyed, “the spring would be taken out of Hellas,”[56]—the destruction of Sybaris had taken the spring out of Magna Graecia. The settlement at THURII succeeded without any opposition on the part of the Italicans. It was called an Athenian colony; but the Athenians formed only a small portion of the population, which consisted of Dorians and Ionians, islanders as well as emigrants from the mainland, who had been invited by the Athenians, without any distinction, as to a general Greek enterprise; the Athenians did not reserve for themselves any petty advantages, being satisfied with the consciousness that history would call them the restorers of Sybaris. Thurii must have been a strong colony, whence it soon rose to importance. The ancient name was probably ominous, as Sybaris had been destroyed twice, or perhaps even three times. The name Thurii is said to have been derived from a well. This is possible; but the emblem of Sybaris on ancient coins (for there are some very ancient ones) is always a bull, whence it is quite possible, that this emblem may have been the cause of the name, for θούριος signifies _ferox_, fierce, wild. Thurii soon became involved in constant wars with the Lucanians; but fifty or sixty years after its foundation it was already so powerful that it could lose more than 10,000 men in battle against the Lucanians. This loss, however, was a blow from which it never could thoroughly recover; it was soon after confined to its own territory, and perhaps even obliged to pay tribute to protect itself against the devastations of the Lucanians. In the wars of the Tarentines and the other Greeks against the Lucanians, Thurii is indeed still mentioned, but it sank more and more, until in the end it was taken and plundered by the Lucanians. Afterwards, it placed itself under the protection of the Romans, who, however, were unable to prevent its being plundered a second time by the Tarentines. Subsequently it sank so low, that after the Hannibalian war a Latin colony was established there; but this colony was equally unfortunate, for during the war of Spartacus it was razed to the ground, as we see from the fragments of Cicero’s speech for Tullius, recently discovered by A. Mai.

The next place is CROTON, which, according to tradition, was founded shortly after Sybaris. There exist very contradictory accounts about this town, and it is difficult to discover any connection among them. Heyne has written several essays on all the towns of Magna Graecia; he ought not to be undervalued, but nearly all his works were written in too great a hurry; he had overburdened himself with official business and his own undertakings, and it is melancholy to see how a man of such truly beautiful talents does not rise above mediocrity in his writings. On the whole, he has only produced imperfect works; if he had concentrated himself more, if he had been willing to do less, and if he had not been possessed by an unfortunate πολυπραγμοσύνη, he would certainly have acquired a great and lasting reputation. The best intentions in such a case are of no avail; posterity will not heed them; for it does not ask, What is the number of a man’s works? but, What are they? His fate may be described in the words of Scripture: “He is gone hence, and not a trace of him is left behind.” Heyne also founded a school which was bad, though his followers were celebrated in Germany, as if they were great scholars. From it, however, men proceeded, who, though outwardly belonging to it, kept themselves independent of the school, as F. A. Wolf and others, who are the real restorers of the sound philology which is now flourishing. Heyne’s essays are pleasant to read; but he who is familiar with their subjects, sees before him a man who does not take the trouble to examine things, who is satisfied with vague conceptions, and shows the greatest indifference as to what is possible and what is not; it is only now and then that a bright idea reminds us of his original talent. But, notwithstanding all this, Heyne’s essays ought not to be left unread. Very different is the case of Bentley, and I must strongly recommend to you every thing he has written on similar subjects.

There is great difficulty in the tradition about Croton, according to which it was so powerful that it became insolent, and attempted to subdue the Locrians; the Locrians, however, it is said, owing to the favour of the gods, who took pity on the oppressed, gained quite an unexpected and glorious victory over them. Hereupon, tradition says, the Crotoniats renounced war and lived in effeminacy, until Pythagoras appeared among them, and by a new religion which he taught, and by new ordinances, introduced a fresh spirit and improved manners among them. Yet here again the mystery is, how, during that very period of moral debasement, the Crotoniats could stand in the same relation to Sybaris, as that in which Locri stood to Croton. One might be inclined to place the battle on the Sagra, according to Justin and other indications, between Olympiad 70 and 80; and I myself formerly entertained this opinion; but after the discovery of the “Excerpta de Sententiis” from Diodorus and Polybius, it cannot be doubted that the ancients placed it in Olymp. 50. From this, then, it follows, that the stories of their insolence, effeminacy, and moral debasement, must be regarded as mere arbitrary inventions. Although no such exaggerated numbers are mentioned in the case of Croton as in that of Sybaris, yet 100,000 armed men are said to have been arrayed against the Locrians on the Sagra, and the circumference of the city is said to have been twelve Roman miles; Livy, who no doubt took the account from Polybius, states it to have been 100 stadia, and this does not appear fabulous. The greatness of Croton belongs to an early period, but afterwards its power must have sunk in consequence of circumstances which are unknown to us. Traces of internal commotions occur in the well-known account of the persecution of the Pythagoreans. This sect went hand in hand with the aristocracy; its downfall was connected with the development of democracy, and was not so much the consequence of its religious as of its political character. This accounts for the fact, that Croton had already ceased to be a powerful state, when, according to Diodorus, Magna Graecia becomes prominent in history, that is, about the time of the foundation of Thurii. When the Lucanians were spreading far and wide, and Thurii received its fatal blow at Laos, the Crotoniats are not mentioned with any degree of distinction, but are treated like the inhabitants of the other cantons of that country. But if it had been a town of small extent, Dionysius the elder would not have been so anxious to gain possession of it; he besieged and conquered it in a nocturnal surprise, by attacking it on a side where it was believed to be almost inaccessible. This capture of Croton, which Diodorus strangely says nothing about, must have been very destructive in its effects upon the place. Dionysius, it is true, afterwards quitted it, and it recovered its independence, but thenceforth its fate was always very deplorable. Croton was obliged to submit to Alexander of Epirus, though he inflicted no injury upon it; but Agathocles, in his undertaking against Corcyra, besieged it in passing; the town was then governed by the tyrant Menecrates, whom Agathocles deceived by pretending that he was anxious to form connections with him; but he then suddenly changed the course of his fleet which was bound for Corcyra, and having landed at Croton, captured the town. Not quite twenty-five years later, in A.U. 450, the Romans under P. Cornelius Rufinus took it by assault; and this catastrophe, as we see from Livy’s account of the Hannibalian war, completely broke its power. It now shrunk together within its ancient circumference in the same manner as e.g., Pisa, or Leyden, which once had 100,000 inhabitants, while at present it has only 20,000. When a person walks on the ramparts of Pisa, he sees the modern town concentrated in the centre of its ancient circumference. Pisa is at present as desolate as many an eastern city, such as, e.g., Basra or Ispahan; such also was the condition of Rome in the middle ages, especially during the time when the popes resided at Avignon. The arx of Croton was situated in the centre of the town, and around it a few houses were still standing: all the rest had become changed into fields. In the Hannibalian war, the Bruttians took the town and demanded of the inhabitants to share it with them, but the Crotoniats preferred emigrating to living together with them. The Bruttians then established a colony there, but after the conclusion of the war they were expelled by the Romans, who now sent a colony thither; but this was not very successful either. At present Croton is a little country-town.

It is remarkable that, considering the importance of the cities of Magna Graecia, so few monuments of antiquity are found in all of them: there are cameos and coins of Tarentum, but few statues.

In the neighbourhood of Croton there was a temple of _Juno Lacinia_ on the Lacinian promontory. This promontory on the one side, and the Iapygian on the other, inclose the gulf of Tarentum. Lacinia is generally taken as a proper name of Juno, and from it the name of the promontory is derived; but this is incorrect: the adjective is an ethnic name, and _Juno Lacinia_ and _Acra Lacinia_ are nothing else but Juno and the Acra of the Lacinii, that is, the Latini, in the sense in which all the Pelasgian Italiots are so called. According to the most authentic accounts, this temple of Juno Lacinia is more ancient than the Greek settlements on those coasts; in the remotest times it was the common sanctuary of the Oenotrians, and afterwards it passed into the hands of the Crotoniats. During the period of Croton’s greatness it was extremely rich, and traces of its wealth existed as late as the Hannibalian war; but in the course of this war it was profaned and plundered by the Romans. Hannibal had his head-quarters there for a long time, and caused a large tablet, containing a history of his own exploits in the Greek and Punic languages, to be set up in the temple. How valuable would such a document be, if it were preserved! I shall pass over the small places south of the Lacinian promontory, and proceed to—

CAULON or CAULONIA, a small Achaean town, which had a common diet with the other places.

LOCRI, was probably not a real Greek colony, but a Hellenized place. If Locri was a Greek colony, this fact, too, would show, what is everywhere probable from their very situation, that the Ozolian Locrians and those πέραν Εὐβοίας once belonged to each other, and that they were torn asunder only by the immigration of the Dolopians; and that accordingly they were a much larger people. We must, therefore, be on our guard not to blame Virgil, as he has been blamed for calling the Locrians _Narycii_. People say, it is inconceivable that the Locrians should have been called _Narycii_, as mount Naryx was situated opposite Euboea, while the Italian Locrians were descended from the Ozolian Locrians (according to Strabo). Virgil did not conceive the Locrians as divided, but as one unbroken race, extending from the Corinthian to the Euboean sea. The Locrians in Italy are called Ἐπιζεφύριοι, that is, ἐπὶ Ζεφυρίῳ, on the promontory of Zephyrium. Hitherto the traditions about these Locrians have been a curious puzzle. The ancient excerpts from the twelfth book of Polybius contain traces of a great controversy of Timaeus, who is raving against Aristotle on account of what he had said about the origin of the Locrians. But what Aristotle actually had said, is not mentioned by the epitomizer, and it could only be guessed that he had derived their origin from slaves. Besides this, there was a passage of Dionysius Periegeta, in which he says of the Locrians σφετέρῃς μιχθέντες ἀνάσσαις, on which the passage of the scholiast is incomplete. But from the new “Excerpta de Sententiis,” the whole matter has become clear. Aristotle relates the following tradition. In the first Messenian war, the Locrians furnished the Spartans with auxiliaries, and all their men capable of bearing arms had taken the field. During their absence, their wives and daughters led a licentious life with their servants; and from fear of their returning masters, the servants with their concubines emigrated. Timaeus in saying that this story sounds fabulous, made easy game of Aristotle, if he supposed that Aristotle believed it to be true; but I would undertake to answer for it that Aristotle did not give the story as a real historical tradition, but that he mentioned it only as a legend of the Locrians. He no doubt asserted that the Italian Locrians were not a colony of the Greek Locrians, and that, if they were Locrians, they were so only through the women. Timaeus might easily have investigated the matter; but his object was only to find fault with Aristotle. But such disgraceful conduct always receives its punishment in due time, and Polybius has prepared it for him. If here, as everywhere else, we put aside the mythical story, we find that the foundation of the Locrian state in Italy belongs to the period of the decay of the constitution of the _gentes_, when in various places illegitimate marriages between the ancient families and the δῆμος gave rise to a mixed race, which became dangerous to the aristocracy, and was, therefore, obliged to emigrate. The same fact forms the basis of the story about Phalanthus and the Parthenii.

But whatever may have been the origin of the Locrians, they bore in ancient times a very respectable character, for they defeated the Crotoniats in the battle on the Sagra. The Greek proverb ἀληθέστερα τῶν ἐπὶ Σάγρᾳ must probably not be taken quite literally, at least, not in our narrative, in which it is said that the Dioscuri decided the issue of the contest. In like manner, St. James is said to have appeared on a white charger in the army of Ferdinand Cortez: a distinguished officer, who had been present at every point of the battle and seen nothing, got himself out of the difficulty by saying, that he had not been worthy to behold the saint. Such, also, may have been the case with the Dioscuri in the battle on the Sagra. At all events, however, the Locrians, through that battle, secured their independence, and for a period of 150 years thereafter, they lived in happy prosperity, which was disturbed by Dionysius, who endeavoured to gain influence in the Greek towns of Italy by marrying a citizen of one of them. A Rhegine maiden being refused to him, he took a Locrian for his wife. For this reason Locri was greatly favoured; but after Dionysius’ death, his son, on being obliged to withdraw from Sicily, betook himself to Locri, where he raged like a Nero or an Elagabalus. When, afterwards, he was forced to return to Sicily, the Locrians took vengeance on his family, and then had to sustain a siege, during which, there being no hope of pardon, they offered a most vigorous resistance, and risked their all upon it. Their territory fell into the hands of the Bruttians, but in the war of Pyrrhus, Locri was still a considerable state. On that occasion, however, they acted an unworthy part: they first requested the Romans to send them a garrison against the Bruttians, and then betrayed it into the hands of Pyrrhus. After this, Pyrrhus placed a garrison of Italicans and Bruttians there, who again betrayed the town to the Romans. Sixty years later, the Locrians delivered up a Roman garrison into the hands of Hannibal: they then repented of their treachery—a fickleness which, often occurs among the Greeks—and again opened their gates to the Romans. But this last act was not set down to their credit, for Q. Pleminius, who was left behind there by Scipio with a garrison, conducted himself like the commanders of the troops of the League during the thirty years’ war, like Colonel Hatzfeld at Rostock, and as the imperial commanders in general, with their Croats, conducted themselves in Germany. Pleminius treated the town as if it had been taken by the sword; at length, however, the Locrians succeeded in inducing the Roman senate to interfere, and to punish the offender; the account of his conduct gives us some idea of the manner in which war was carried on in those times. The town continued to exist after these events, but was quite insignificant; its greatest importance consisted in a temple of Proserpine with a rich treasury. Pyrrhus had plundered the sanctuary, but being warned by visions in a dream, he restored the treasures; Q. Pleminius afterwards plundered it more effectually.

The next town, RHEGIUM, was a Chalcidian colony, of a much more recent date than the others, being founded about Olymp. 50. During the period when it was the residence of Anaxilaus, it was a powerful city. At the time of the Sicilian expedition, Rhegium, like all the other Chalcidian towns, was allied with Athens. The Rhegines refused to give one of their daughters in marriage to Dionysius, and were injudicious enough to insult him, by saying that they had no other girl suited to him except the daughter of the hangman, which was the most offensive thing they could have done. At the time when Corsica was still independent, no Corsican ever took the office of hangman, but from hatred of Genoa, the Corsicans always appointed a Genoese. Dionysius laid siege to the town, and the Rhegines defended themselves with the courage of lions, but were overpowered; and their fate was terrible. But the situation of the town is so fortunate, that a town will always exist there in spite of earthquakes and other ravages. A hundred years later, Rhegium was, if possible, still more unfortunate. In the war of Pyrrhus, a Campanian legion, at the request of the Rhegines themselves, was sent there by the Romans, for the purpose of cutting off the communication between Pyrrhus and the Mamertines in Sicily. But this garrison, under the command of Decius Jubellius, massacred the male inhabitants, and took possession of their wives and children. At the conclusion of the war, the Romans took the town by force, and the 300 survivors of the 4,000 who had composed the Campanian legion, were beheaded in the Forum at Rome. The surviving Rhegines were then called together, and their territory was restored to them. Henceforth, Rhegium remained a prosperous little commercial town, and experienced no further misfortunes.

HIPPONIUM, a colony of Locri, was taken and destroyed by the Bruttians, and then rebuilt by the Carthaginians, which is the only instance of a Carthaginian town in Italy. During the latter period of Agathocles, and shortly before the war with Pyrrhus, the Bruttians seem again to have been masters of the place. Afterwards the Romans established a colony there, under the name of _Vibo Valentia_.

Proceeding along the coast in a northern direction, we come to LAOS, on the line which subsequently formed the frontier between Lucania and Bruttium. It was a colony of Sybaris, and is celebrated on account of the defeat sustained by the united towns of Magna Graecia, especially Thurii, against the Lucanians, who wanted to relieve the town from a siege. At that time, the Lucanians had already extended themselves along the coast, and Posidonia was their first conquest.

PYXUS or BUXENTUM, between Laos and Posidonia, was founded by the Rhegines at the time of Anaxilaus and Micythus, who were contemporaries of Darius Hystaspis. There can be no doubt that it was afterwards taken by the Lucanians, but it was snatched from them by the Romans, who surrendered it to the Campanians at the settlement they made with them, whence Buxentum is afterwards mentioned among the Campanian towns. After the Hannibalian war, the Romans established a colony there.

ELEA or VELIA, a town which preserved its Greek character in a wonderful manner, was situated not far from Buxentum. It was a colony of the Phocaeans, established in the reign of Cyrus, after they had in vain endeavoured to form a settlement in Corsica (Olymp. 60). In the history of literature, Elea is remarkable for the great and profound philosophers who formed the Eleatic school. As Amalfi, though surrounded by Lombard armies, preserved its pure Italian and Roman character, so Elea remained a Greek place down to the latest times. The father of the poet Statius was a Greek of Elea, and Statius’ _Graia Selle_ is nothing else than Elea, as Markland has shown; some persons have strangely referred it to Epirus, and some perhaps do so still. Elea was allied with Rome, and was honoured and distinguished by her. It perished at a time which can no longer be defined, in consequence of the ravages of barbarians.