Chapter VII: Preface (6)

Eurytion, or Eurypon, as he is named by others, succeeded Soüs.(229) In order to gain the affection of his people, and render his government agreeable, he thought fit to recede in some points from the absolute power exercised by the kings his predecessors: this rendered his name so dear to his subjects, that all his descendants were, from him, called Eurytionidæ. But this relaxation gave birth to horrible confusion, and an unbounded licentiousness in Sparta; and for a long time occasioned infinite mischiefs. The people became so insolent, that nothing could restrain them. If Eurytion’s successors attempted to recover their authority by force, they became odious; and if, through complaisance or weakness, they chose to dissemble, their mildness served only to render them contemptible; so that order in a manner was abolished, and the laws no longer regarded. These confusions hastened the death of Lycurgus’s father, whose name was Eunomus, and who was killed in an insurrection. Polydectes, his eldest son and successor, dying soon after without children, every body expected Lycurgus would have been king. And indeed he was so in effect, as long as the pregnancy of his brother’s wife was uncertain; but as soon as that was manifest, he declared, that the kingdom belonged to her child, in case it proved a son: and from that moment he took upon himself the administration of the government, as guardian to his unborn nephew, under the title of Prodicos, which was the name given by the Lacedæmonians to the guardians of their kings. When the child was born, Lycurgus took him in his arms, and cried out to the company that was present, _Behold, my lords of Sparta, your new-born king!_ and, at the same time, he put the infant into the king’s seat, and named him Charilaus, because of the joy the people expressed upon occasion of his birth. The reader will find, in the second volume of this history, all that relates to the history of Lycurgus, the reformation he made, and the excellent laws he established in Sparta. Agesilaus was at this time king in the elder branch of the family.

War between the Argives and the Lacedæmonians.

Some time after this, in the reign of Theopompus, a war broke out between the Argives and Lacedæmonians, on account of a little country, called Thyrea, that lay upon the confines of the two states, and to which each of them pretended a right.(230) When the two armies were ready to engage, it was agreed on both sides, in order to spare the effusion of blood, that the quarrel should be decided by three hundred of the bravest men chosen from their respective armies; and that the land in question should become the property of the victorious party. To leave the combatants more room to engage, the two armies retired to some distance. Those generous champions then, who had all the courage of two mighty armies, boldly advanced towards each other, and fought with so much resolution and fury, that the whole number, except three men, two on the side of the Argives, and one on that of the Lacedæmonians, lay dead upon the spot; and only the night parted them. The two Argives, looking upon themselves as the conquerors, made what haste they could to Argos to carry the news; the single Lacedæmonian, Othryades by name, instead of retiring, stripped the dead bodies of the Argives, and carrying their arms into the Lacedæmonian camp, continued in his post. The next day the two armies returned to the field of battle. Both sides laid equal claim to the victory: the Argives, because they had more of their champions left alive than the enemy had; the Lacedæmonians, because the two Argives that remained alive had fled; whereas their single soldier had remained master of the field of battle, and had carried off the spoils of the enemy: in short, they could not determine the dispute without coming to another engagement. Here fortune declared in favour of the Lacedæmonians, and the little territory of Thyrea was the prize of their victory. But Othryades, not able to bear the thoughts of surviving his brave companions, or of enduring the sight of Sparta after their death, killed himself on the same field of battle where they had fought, resolving to have one fate and tomb with them.

Wars between the Messenians and Lacedæmonians.

There were no less than three several wars between the Messenians and the Lacedæmonians, all of them very fierce and bloody. Messenia was a country in Peloponnesus, towards the west, and not far from Sparta: it was of considerable strength, and was governed by its own kings.

The First Messenian War.

(M9) The first Messenian war lasted twenty years, and broke out the second year of the ninth Olympiad.(231) The Lacedæmonians pretended to have received several considerable injuries from the Messenians, and among others, that of having had their daughters ravished by the inhabitants of Messenia, when they went, according to custom, to a temple, that stood on the borders of the two nations; as also that of the murder of Telecles, their king, which was a consequence of the former outrage. Probably a desire of extending their dominion, and of seizing a territory which lay so convenient for them, might be the true cause of the war. But be that as it may, the war broke out in the reign of Polydorus and Theopompus, kings of Sparta, at the time when the office of archon at Athens was still decennial.

Euphaes, the thirteenth descendant from Hercules, was then king of Messenia.(232) He gave the command of his army to Cleonnis. The Lacedæmonians opened the campaign with the siege of Amphea, a small, inconsiderable city, which, however, they thought would suit them very well as a place for military stores. The town was taken by storm, and all the inhabitants put to the sword. This first blow served only to animate the Messenians, by showing them what they were to expect from the enemy, if they did not defend themselves with vigour. The Lacedæmonians, on their part, bound themselves by an oath not to lay down their arms, nor to return to Sparta, till they had made themselves masters of all the cities and lands belonging to the Messenians: so much did they rely upon their strength and valour.

Two battles were fought, wherein the loss was nearly equal on both sides.(233) But after the second, the Messenians suffered extremely through the want of provisions, which occasioned a great desertion in their troops, and at last brought a pestilence among them.

Hereupon they consulted the oracle of Delphi, which directed them, in order to appease the wrath of the gods, to offer up a virgin of the royal blood in sacrifice. Aristomenes, who was of the race of the Epytides, offered his own daughter. The Messenians then considering, that if they left garrisons in all their towns they should extremely weaken their army, resolved to abandon them all, except Ithome, a little place seated on the top of a hill of the same name, about which they encamped and fortified themselves. In this situation were seven years spent, during which nothing passed but slight skirmishes on both sides; the Lacedæmonians not daring in all that time to force the enemy to a battle.

Indeed, they almost despaired of being able to reduce them: nor was there any thing but the obligation of the oath, by which they had bound themselves, that made them continue so burthensome a war. What gave them the greatest uneasiness was, their apprehension, lest their absence from their wives for so many years, an absence which might still continue many more, should destroy their families at home, and leave Sparta destitute of citizens.(234) To prevent this misfortune, they sent home such of their soldiers as were come to the army since the forementioned oath had been taken, and made no scruple of prostituting their wives to their embraces. The children that sprung from this unlawful intercourse were called Partheniæ, a name given them to denote the infamy of their birth. As soon as they were grown up, not being able to endure such an opprobrious distinction, they banished themselves from Sparta with one consent, and, under the conduct of Phalantus, went and settled at Tarentum in Italy, after driving out the ancient inhabitants.(235)

At last, in the eighth year of the war, which was the thirteenth of Euphaes’s reign, a fierce and bloody battle was fought near Ithome.(236) Euphaes pierced through the battalions of Theopompus with too much heat and precipitation for a king. He there received a multitude of wounds, several of which were mortal. He fell, and seemed to give up the ghost. Whereupon, wonderful efforts of courage were exerted on both sides; by the one, to carry off the king; by the other, to save him. Cleonnis killed eight Spartans, who were dragging him along, and spoiled them of their arms, which he committed to the custody of some of his soldiers. He himself received several wounds, all in the fore part of his body, which was a certain proof that he had never turned his back upon his enemies. Aristomenes, fighting on the same occasion, and for the same end, killed five Lacedæmonians, whose spoils he likewise carried off, without receiving any wound. In short, the king was saved and carried off by the Messenians; and, all mangled and bloody as he was, he expressed great joy that he had not been worsted. Aristomenes, after the battle was over, met Cleonnis, who, by reason of his wounds, could neither walk by himself, nor with the assistance of those that lent him their hands. He therefore took him upon his shoulders, without quitting his arms, and carried him to the camp.

As soon as they had applied the first dressing to the wounds of the king of Messenia and of his officers, there arose a new contention among the Messenians, that was pursued with as much warmth as the former, but was of a very different kind, and yet the consequence of the other. The affair in question was the adjudging the prize of glory to him that had signalized his valour most in the late engagement. It was a custom among them, which had long been established, publicly to proclaim, after a battle, the name of the man that had showed the greatest courage. Nothing could be more proper to animate the officers and soldiers, to inspire them with resolution and intrepidity, and to stifle the natural apprehension of death and danger. Two illustrious champions entered the lists on this occasion, namely, Cleonnis and Aristomenes.

The king, notwithstanding his weak condition, attended by the principal officers of his army, presided in the council, where this important dispute was to be decided. Each competitor pleaded his own cause. Cleonnis founded his pretensions upon the great number of the enemies he had slain, and upon the multitude of wounds he had received in the action, which were so many undoubted testimonies of the courage with which he had faced both death and danger; whereas, the condition in which Aristomenes came out of the engagement, without hurt and without wound, seemed to show, that he had been very careful of his own person, or, at most, could only prove that he had been more fortunate, but not more brave or courageous, than himself. And as to his having carried him on his shoulders into the camp, that action indeed might serve to prove the strength of his body, but nothing farther; and the thing in dispute at this time, says he, is not strength, but valour.

The only thing Aristomenes was reproached for, was his not being wounded; therefore he confined himself to that point: “I am,” says he, “called fortunate because I have escaped from the battle without wounds. If that were owing to my cowardice, I should deserve another epithet than that of fortunate; and, instead of being admitted to dispute the prize, ought to undergo the rigour of the laws that punish cowards. But what is objected to me as a crime, is in truth my greatest glory. For, if my enemies, astonished at my valour, durst not venture to attack or oppose me, it is no small degree of merit that I made them fear me; or, if whilst they engaged me, I had at the same time strength to cut them in pieces, and skill to guard against their attacks, I must then have been at once both valiant and prudent. For whoever, in the midst of an engagement, can expose himself to dangers with caution and security, shows that he excels at the same time both in the virtues of the mind and the body. As for courage, no man living can reproach Cleonnis with any want of it; but, for his honour’s sake, I am sorry that he should appear to want gratitude.”

After the conclusion of these harangues, the question was put to the vote. The whole army is in suspense, and impatiently waits for the decision. No dispute could be so warm and interesting as this. It is not a competition for gold or silver, but solely for honour. The proper reward of virtue is pure disinterested glory. Here the judges are unsuspected. The actions of the competitors still speak for them. It is the king himself, surrounded with his officers, who presides and adjudges. A whole army are the witnesses. The field of battle is a tribunal without partiality and cabal. In short, all the votes concurred in favour of Aristomenes, and adjudged him the prize.

Euphaes died not many days after the decision of this affair.(237) He had reigned thirteen years, and during all that time had been engaged in war with the Lacedæmonians. As he died without children, he left the Messenians at liberty to choose his successor. Cleonnis and Damis were candidates in opposition to Aristomenes; but he was elected king in preference to them. When he was on the throne, he did not scruple to confer on his two rivals the principal offices of the state; all strongly attached to the public good, even more than to their own glory; competitors, but not enemies, these great men were actuated by a zeal for their country, and were neither friends nor adversaries to one another, but for its preservation.

In this relation, I have followed the opinion of the late Monsieur Boivin, the elder,(238) and have made use of his learned dissertation upon a fragment of Diodorus Siculus, which the world was little acquainted with. He supposes, and proves in it, that the king, spoken of in that fragment, is Euphaes; and that Aristomenes is the same that Pausanias calls Aristodemus, according to the custom of the ancients, who were often called by two different names.

Aristomenes, otherwise called Aristodemus, reigned near seven years, and was equally esteemed and beloved by his subjects. The war still continued all this time.(239) Towards the end of his reign he beat the Lacedæmonians, took their king Theopompus, and, in honour of Jupiter of Ithome, sacrificed three hundred of them, among whom their king was the principal victim. Shortly after, Aristodemus sacrificed himself upon the tomb of his daughter, in conformity to the answer of an oracle. Damis was his successor, but without taking upon him the title of king.

After his death, the Messenians never had any success in their affairs, but found themselves in a very wretched and hopeless condition.(240) Being reduced to the last extremity, and utterly destitute of provisions, they abandoned Ithome, and fled to such of their allies as were nearest to them. The city was immediately razed, and the other part of the country submitted. They were made to engage by oath never to forsake the party of the Lacedæmonians, and never to revolt from them: a very useless precaution, only proper to make them add the guilt of perjury to their rebellion. Their new masters imposed no tribute upon them; but contented themselves with obliging them to bring to the Spartan market one half of the corn they should reap every harvest. It was likewise stipulated, that the Messenians, both men and women, should attend, in mourning, the funerals of the kings and chief citizens of Sparta; which the Lacedæmonians probably looked upon as a mark of dependence, and as a kind of homage paid to their nation. (M10) Thus ended the first Messenian war, after having lasted twenty years.

The Second Messenian War.

The lenity with which the Lacedæmonians treated the Messenians at first, was of no long duration.(241) When once they found the whole country had submitted, and thought the people incapable of giving them any further trouble, they returned to their natural character of insolence and haughtiness, that often degenerated into cruelty, and sometimes even into ferocity. Instead of treating the vanquished with kindness, as friends and allies, and endeavouring by gentle methods to win those whom they had subdued by force, they seemed intent upon nothing but aggravating their yoke, and making them feel the whole weight of subjection. They laid heavy taxes upon them, delivered them up to the avarice of the collectors of those taxes, gave no ear to their complaints, rendered them no justice, treated them with contempt like vile slaves, and committed the most heinous outrages against them.

Man, who is born for liberty, can never reconcile himself to servitude: the most gentle slavery exasperates, and provokes him to rebel. What could be expected then from so cruel a one, as that under which the Messenians groaned? After having endured it with great uneasiness(242) near forty years, they resolved to throw off the yoke, and to recover their ancient liberty. (M11) This was in the fourth year of the twenty-third Olympiad: the office of archon at Athens was then made annual; and Anaxander and Anaxidamus reigned at Sparta.

The Messenians’ first care was to strengthen themselves by the alliance of the neighbouring nations. These they found well inclined to enter into their views, as very agreeable to their own interests. For it was not without jealousy and apprehensions, that they saw so powerful a city rising up in the midst of them, which manifestly seemed to aim at extending her dominion over all the rest. The people therefore of Elis, the Argives and Sicyonians, declared for the Messenians. But before their forces were joined, a battle was fought between the Lacedæmonians and Messenians. Aristomenes, the second of that name,(243) was at the head of the latter. He was a commander of intrepid courage, and of great abilities in war. The Lacedæmonians were beaten in this engagement. Aristomenes, to give the enemy at first an advantageous opinion of his bravery, knowing what influence it has on the success of future enterprises, boldly ventured to enter into Sparta by night, and upon the gate of the temple of Minerva, surnamed Chalcioecos, to hang up a shield, on which was an inscription, signifying, that it was a present offered by Aristomenes to the goddess, out of the spoils of the Lacedæmonians.

This bravado did in reality astonish the Lacedæmonians. But they were still more alarmed at the formidable league that was formed against them. The Delphic oracle, which they consulted, in order to know by what means they should be successful in this war, directed them to send to Athens for a commander, and to submit to his counsel and conduct. This was a very mortifying step to so haughty a city as Sparta. But the fear of incurring the god’s displeasure by a direct disobedience prevailed over all other considerations. They sent an embassy therefore to the Athenians. The people of Athens were somewhat perplexed at the request. On the one hand, they were not sorry to see the Lacedæmonians at war with their neighbours, and were far from desiring to furnish them with a good general: on the other, they were afraid also of disobeying the god. To extricate themselves out of this difficulty, they offered the Lacedæmonians Tyrtæus. He was a poet by profession, and had something original in the turn of his mind, and disagreeable in his person; for he was lame. Notwithstanding these defects, the Lacedæmonians received him as a general, sent them by Heaven itself. Their success did not at first answer their expectation, for they lost three battles successively.

The kings of Sparta, discouraged by so many disappointments, and out of all hopes of better success for the future, were absolutely bent upon returning to Sparta, and marching home again with their forces. Tyrtæus opposed this design very warmly, and at length brought them over to his opinion. He addressed the troops, and repeated to them some verses he had made with that intention, and on which he had bestowed great pains and application. He first endeavoured to comfort them for their past losses, which he imputed to no fault of theirs, but only to ill fortune, or to fate, which no human wisdom can surmount. He then represented to them, how shameful it would be for Spartans to fly from an enemy; and how glorious it would be for them rather to perish sword in hand, if it was so decreed by fate, in fighting for their country. Then, as if all danger was vanished, and the gods, fully satisfied and appeased with their late calamities, were entirely turned to their side, he set victory before their eyes as present and certain, and as if she herself were inviting them to battle. All the ancient authors,(244) who have made any mention of the style and character of Tyrtæus’s poetry, observe, that it was full of a certain fire, ardour, and enthusiasm, that inflamed the minds of men, that exalted them above themselves, that inspired them with something generous and martial, that extinguished all fear and apprehension of danger or death, and made them wholly intent upon the preservation of their country and their own glory.(245) Tyrtæus’s verses had really this effect on the soldiers upon this occasion. They all desired, with one voice, to march against the enemy. Being become indifferent as to their lives, they had no thoughts but to secure themselves the honour of a burial. To this end they all tied strings round their right arms, on which were inscribed their own and their fathers’ names, that, if they chanced to be killed in the battle, and to have their faces so altered through time, or accidents, as not to be distinguishable, it might certainly be known who each of them was by these marks. Soldiers determined to die are very valiant. This appeared in the battle that ensued. It was very bloody, the victory being a long time disputed on both sides; but at last the Messenians gave way. When Tyrtæus went afterwards to Sparta, he was received with the greatest marks of distinction, and incorporated into the body of citizens.

The gaining of this battle did not put an end to the war, which had already lasted three years. Aristomenes, having assembled the remains of his army, retired to the top of a mountain, of difficult access, which was called Ira. The conquerors attempted to carry the place by assault, but that brave prince defended himself there for the space of eleven years, and performed the most extraordinary actions of valour. He was at last obliged to quit it, only by surprise and treachery, after having defended it like a lion. Such of the Messenians as fell into the hands of the Lacedæmonians on this occasion were reduced to the condition of the Helots. The rest, seeing their country ruined, went and settled at Zancle, a city in Sicily, which afterwards took its name from this people, and was called Messana; the same place as is called at this day Messina. Aristomenes, after having conducted one of his daughters to Rhodes, whom he had given in marriage to the tyrant of that place, thought of passing on to Sardis, to remain with Ardys, king of the Lydians, or to Ecbatana, with Phraortes, king of the Medes; but death prevented the execution of all his designs.

(M12) The second Messenian war was of fourteen years’ duration, and ended the first year of the twenty-seventh Olympiad.

There was a third war between these people and the Lacedæmonians, which began both at the time and on the occasion of a great earthquake that happened at Sparta. We shall speak of this war in its place.

The history, of which it remains for me to treat in this work, is that of the successors of Alexander, and comprehends the space of two hundred and ninety-three years; from the death of that monarch, and the commencement of the reign of Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, in Egypt, to the death of Cleopatra, when that kingdom became a Roman province, under the emperor Augustus.

The history will present to our view a series of all the crimes which usually arise from inordinate ambition; scenes of jealousy and perfidy, treason, ingratitude, and flagrant abuses of sovereign power; cruelty, impiety, an utter oblivion of the natural sentiments of probity and honour, with the violation of all laws human and divine, will rise before us. We shall behold nothing but fatal dissensions, destructive wars, and dreadful revolutions. Men, originally friends, brought up together, and natives of the same country, companions in the same dangers, and instruments in the accomplishment of the same exploits and victories, will conspire to tear in pieces the empire they had all concurred to form at the expense of their blood. We shall see the captains of Alexander sacrifice the mother, the wives, the brother, the sisters, of that prince, to their own ambition; without sparing even those to whom they themselves either owed or gave life. We shall no longer behold those glorious times of Greece, that were once so productive of great men and great examples; or, if we should happen to discover some traces and remains of them, they will only resemble the gleams of lightning that shoot along in a rapid track, and attract attention only in consequence of the profound darkness that precedes and follows them.

I acknowledge myself to be sufficiently sensible how much a writer is to be pitied, for being obliged to represent human nature in such colours and lineaments as dishonour her, and which cannot fail of inspiring disgust and a secret affliction in the minds of those who are made spectators of such a picture. History loses whatever is most interesting and most capable of conveying pleasure and instruction, when she can only produce those effects, by inspiring the mind with horror for criminal actions, and by a representation of the calamities which usually succeed them, and are to be considered as their just punishment. It is difficult to engage the attention of a reader, for any considerable time, on objects which only raise his indignation, and it would be affronting him, to seem desirous of dissuading him from the excess of inordinate passions, of which he conceives himself incapable.

How is it possible to diffuse any interest through a narration, which has nothing to offer but an uniform series of vices and great crimes; and which makes it necessary to enter into a particular detail of the actions and characters of men born for the calamity of the human race, and whose very name should not be transmitted to posterity? It may even be thought dangerous, to familiarize the minds of the generality of mankind to uninterrupted scenes of too successful iniquity and to be particular in describing the unjust success which waited on those illustrious criminals, the long duration of whose prosperity being frequently attended with the privileges and rewards of virtue, may be thought an imputation on Providence by persons of weak understandings.

This history, which seems likely to prove very disagreeable, from the reasons I have just mentioned, will become more so from the obscurity and confusion in which the several transactions will be involved, and which it will be difficult, if not impossible, to remedy. Ten or twelve of Alexander’s captains were engaged in a course of hostilities against each other, for the partition of his empire after his death; and to secure to themselves some portion, greater or less, of that vast body. Sometimes feigned friends, sometimes declared enemies, they are continually forming different parties and leagues, which are to subsist no longer than is consistent with the interest of each individual. Macedonia changed its master five or six times in a very short space; by what means then can order and perspicuity be preserved, in so prodigious a variety of events that are perpetually crossing and breaking in upon each other?

Besides which, I am no longer supported by any ancient authors capable of conducting me through this darkness and confusion. Diodorus will entirely abandon me, after having been my guide for some time; and no other historian will appear to take his place. No proper series of affairs will remain; the several events are not to be disposed into any regular connection with each other; nor will it be possible to point out, either the motives to the resolutions formed, or the proper character of the principal actors in this scene of obscurity. I think myself happy when Polybius, or Plutarch, lend me their assistance. In my account of Alexander’s successors, whose transactions are, perhaps, the most complicated and perplexed part of ancient history, Usher, Prideaux, and Vaillant, will be my usual guides; and, on many occasions, I shall only transcribe from Prideaux; but, with all these aids, I shall not promise to throw so much light upon this history as I could desire.

After a war of more than twenty years, the number of the principal competitors was reduced to four; Ptolemy, Cassander, Seleucus, and Lysimachus; the empire of Alexander was divided into four fixed kingdoms, agreeably to the prediction of Daniel, by a solemn treaty concluded between the parties. Three of these kingdoms, Egypt, Macedonia, Syria, or Asia, will have a regular succession of monarchs, sufficiently clear and distinct; but the fourth, which comprehended Thrace, with part of the Lesser Asia, and some neighbouring provinces, will suffer a number of variations.

As the kingdom of Egypt was that which was subject to the fewest changes, because Ptolemy, who was established there as governor, at the death of Alexander, retained the possession of it ever after, and left it to his posterity: we shall, therefore, consider this prince as the basis of our chronology, and our several epochas shall be fixed from him.

The fourth volume contains the events for the space of one hundred and twenty years, under the first four kings of Egypt, _viz._ Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, who reigned thirty-eight years; Ptolemy Philadelphus, who reigned forty; Ptolemy Euergetes, who reigned twenty-five; and Ptolemy Philopator, whose reign continued seventeen.

In order to throw some light upon the history contained therein, I shall, in the first place, give the principal events of it, in a chronological abridgement.

Introductory to which, I must desire the reader to accompany me in some reflections, which have not escaped Monsieur Bossuet, with relation to Alexander. This prince, who was the most renowned and illustrious conqueror in all history, was the last monarch of his race. Macedonia, his ancient kingdom, which his ancestors had governed for so many ages, was invaded from all quarters, as a vacant succession; and after it had long been a prey to the strongest, it was at last transferred to another family. If Alexander had continued peaceably in Macedonia, the grandeur of his empire would not have excited the ambition of his captains; and he might have transmitted the sceptre of his progenitors to his own descendants; but, as he had not prescribed any bounds to his power, he was instrumental in the destruction of his house, and we shall behold the extermination of his family, without the least remaining traces of them in history. His conquests occasioned a vast effusion of blood, and furnished his captains with a pretext for murdering one another. These were the effects that flowed from the boasted bravery of Alexander, or rather from that brutality, which, under the specious names of ambition and glory, spread desolation, and carried fire and sword through whole provinces, without the least provocation, and shed the blood of multitudes who had never injured him.

We are not to imagine, however, that Providence abandoned these events to chance; but, as it was then preparing all things for the approaching appearance of the Messiah, it was vigilant to unite all the nations that were to be first enlightened with the Gospel, by the use of one and the same language, which was that of Greece: and the same Providence made it necessary for them to learn this foreign tongue, by subjecting them to such masters as spoke no other. The Deity, therefore, by the agency of this language, which became more common and universal than any other, facilitated the preaching of the apostles, and rendered it more uniform.

The partition of the empire of Alexander the Great, among the generals of that prince, immediately after his death, did not subsist for any length of time, and hardly took place, if we except Egypt, where Ptolemy had first established himself, and on the throne of which he always maintained himself without acknowledging any superior.

(M13) It was not till after the battle of Ipsus in Phrygia, wherein Antigonus, and his son Demetrius, surnamed Poliorcetes, were defeated, and the former lost his life, that this partition was fully regulated and fixed. The empire of Alexander was then divided into four kingdoms, by a solemn treaty, as had been foretold by Daniel. Ptolemy had Egypt, Libya, Arabia, Cœlesyria, and Palestine. Cassander, the son of Antipater, obtained Macedonia and Greece. Lysimachus acquired Thrace, Bithynia, and some other provinces on the other side of the Hellespont and the Bosphorus. And Seleucus had Syria, and all that part of the greater Asia which extended to the other side of the Euphrates, and as far as the river Indus.

Of these four kingdoms, those of Egypt and Syria subsisted, almost without any interruption, in the same families, through a long succession of princes. The kingdom of Macedonia had several masters of different families successively. That of Thrace was at last divided into several branches, and no longer constituted one entire body, by which means all traces of regular succession ceased to subsist.

I. The Kingdom of Egypt.

The kingdom of Egypt had fourteen monarchs, including Cleopatra, after whose death, those dominions became a province of the Roman empire. All these princes had the common name of Ptolemy, but each of them was likewise distinguished by a peculiar surname. They had also the appellation of Lagides, from Lagus the father of that Ptolemy who reigned the first in Egypt. The fourth and fifth volumes contain the histories of six of these kings, and I shall give their names a place here, with the duration of their reigns, the first of which commenced immediately upon the death of Alexander the Great.

(M14) Ptolemy Soter. He reigned thirty-eight years and some months.

(M15) Ptolemy Philadelphus. He reigned forty years including the two years of his reign in the lifetime of his father.

(M16) Ptolemy Euergetes, twenty-five years.

(M17) Ptolemy Philopator, seventeen.

(M18) Ptolemy Epiphanes, twenty-four.

(M19) Ptolemy Philometor, thirty-four.

II. The Kingdom of Syria.

The kingdom of Syria had twenty-seven kings; which makes it evident, that their reigns were often very short: and indeed several of these princes waded to the throne through the blood of their predecessors.

They are usually called the Seleucidæ, from Seleucus, who reigned the first in Syria. History reckons up six kings of this name, and thirteen who are called by that of Antiochus; but they are all distinguished by different surnames. Others of them assumed different names, and the last, Antiochus XIII., was surnamed Epiphanes, Asiaticus, and Commagenus. In his reign Pompey reduced Syria into a Roman province, after it had been governed by kings for the space of two hundred and fifty years, according to Eusebius.

The kings of Syria, the transactions of whose reigns are contained in the fourth and fifth volumes, are eight in number.

(M20) Seleucus Nicator. He reigned twenty years.

(M21) Antiochus Soter, nineteen.

(M22) Antiochus Theos, fifteen.

(M23) Seleucus Callinicus, twenty.

(M24) Seleucus Ceraunus, three.

(M25) Antiochus the Great, thirty-six.

(M26) Seleucus Philopator, twelve.

(M27) Antiochus Epiphanes, brother of Seleucus Philopator, eleven.

III. The Kingdom of Macedonia.

(M28) Macedonia frequently changed its masters, after the solemn partition had been made between the four princes. Cassander died three or four years after that partition, and left three sons. Philip, the eldest, died shortly after his father. The other two contended for the crown without enjoying it, both dying soon after without issue.

(M29) Demetrius Poliorcetes, Pyrrhus, and Lysimachus, made themselves masters of all, or the greatest part of Macedonia; sometimes in conjunction, and at other times separately.

(M30) After the death of Lysimachus, Seleucus possessed himself of Macedonia, but did not long enjoy it.

(M31) Ptolemy Ceraunus having slain the preceding prince, seized the kingdom, and possessed it but a very short time, having lost his life in a battle with the Gauls, who had made an irruption into that country.

(M32) Sosthenes, who defeated the Gauls, reigned but a short time in Macedonia.

(M33) Antigonus Gonatas, the son of Demetrius Poliorcetes, at length obtained the peaceable possession of the kingdom of Macedonia, and transmitted it to his descendants, after he had reigned thirty-four years.

(M34) He was succeeded by his son Demetrius, who reigned ten years, and then died, leaving a son named Philip, who was but two years old.

(M35) Antigonus Doson reigned twelve years in the quality of guardian to the young prince.

(M36) Philip, after the death of Antigonus, ascended the throne at the age of fourteen years, and reigned something more than forty.

(M37) His son Perseus succeeded him, and reigned about eleven years. He was defeated and taken prisoner by Paulus Emilius; and Macedonia, in consequence of that victory, was added to the provinces of the Roman empire.

IV. The Kingdom of Thrace, and Bithynia, &c.

This fourth kingdom, composed of several separate provinces very remote from one another, had not any succession of princes, and did not long subsist in its first condition; Lysimachus, who first obtained it, having been killed in a battle after a reign of twenty years, and all his family being exterminated by assassinations, his dominions were dismembered, and no longer constituted one kingdom.

Beside the provinces which were divided among the captains of Alexander, there were others which had been either formed before, or were then erected into different states, independent of the Greeks, whose power greatly increased in process of time.

Kings of Bithynia

(M38) Whilst Alexander was extending his conquests in the east, Zypethes had laid the foundations of the kingdom of Bithynia. It is not certain who this Zypethes was, unless that Pausanias,(246) from his name, conjectures that he was a Thracian. His successors, however, are better known.

(M39) Nicomedes I. This prince invited the Gauls to assist him against his brother, with whom he was engaged in a war.

Prusias I.

(M40) Prusias II., surnamed the Hunter, in whose court Hannibal took refuge, and assisted him with his counsels, in his war against Eumenes II. king of Pergamus.

Nicomedes II. was killed by his son Socrates.

Nicomedes III. was assisted by the Romans in his wars with Mithridates, and bequeathed to them at his death the kingdom of Bithynia, as a testimonial of his gratitude to them; by which means these territories became a Roman province.

Kings of Pergamus

This kingdom at first comprehended only one of the smallest provinces of Mysia, on the coast of the Ægean sea, over-against the island of Lesbos.

(M41) It was founded by Philetærus, an eunuch, who had served under Docimus, a commander of the troops of Antigonus. Lysimachus confided to him the treasures he had deposited in the castle of the city of Pergamus, and he became master both of these and the city after the death of that prince. He governed this little sovereignty for the space of twenty years, and then left it to Eumenes his nephew.

(M42) Eumenes I. enlarged his principality, by the addition of several cities, which he took from the kings of Syria, having defeated Antiochus, the son of Seleucus, in a battle. He reigned twenty-two years.

(M43) He was succeeded by Attalus I., his cousin-german, who assumed the title of king, after he had conquered the Galatians; and transmitted it to his posterity, who enjoyed it to the third generation. He assisted the Romans in their war with Philip, and died after a reign of forty-three years. He left four sons.

(M44) His successor was Eumenes II., his eldest son, who founded the famous library of Pergamus. He reigned thirty-nine years, and left the crown to his brother Attalus, in the quality of guardian to one of his sons, whom he had by Stratonice, the sister of Ariarathes, king of Cappadocia. The Romans enlarged his dominions considerably, after the victory they obtained over Antiochus the Great.

(M45) Attalus II. espoused Stratonice his brother’s widow, and took extraordinary care of his nephew, to whom he left the crown, after he had worn it twenty-one years.

(M46) Attalus III., surnamed Philometor, distinguished himself by his barbarous and extravagant conduct. He died after he had reigned five years, and bequeathed his riches and dominions to the Romans.

(M47) Aristonicus, who claimed the succession, endeavoured to defend his pretensions against the Romans; but the kingdom of Pergamus was reduced after a war of four years, into a Roman province.

Kings of Pontus.

(M48) The kingdom of Pontus in Asia Minor was anciently dismembered from the monarchy of Persia, by Darius the son of Hystaspes, in favour of Artabazus, who is said, by some historians, to have been the son of one of those Persian lords who conspired against the Magi.

Pontus is a region of Asia Minor, situated partly along the coast of the Euxine sea (_Pontus Euxinus_), from which it derives its name. It extends from the river Halys, as far as Colchis. Several princes reigned in that country since Artabazus.

(M49) The sixth monarch was Mithridates I., who is properly considered as the founder of the kingdom of Pontus, and his name was assumed by the generality of his successors.

(M50) He was succeeded by his son Ariobarzanes, who had governed Phrygia under Artaxerxes Mnemon: he reigned twenty-six years.

(M51) His successor was Mithridates II. Antigonus suspecting, in consequence of a dream, that he favoured Cassander, had determined to destroy him, but he eluded the danger by flight. This prince was called Κτισὴς, or _the Founder_, and reigned thirty-five years.

(M52) Mithridates III., who succeeded him, added Cappadocia and Paphlagonia to his dominions, and reigned thirty-six years.

After the reigns of two other kings, Mithridates IV., the great grandfather of Mithridates the Great, ascended the throne, and espoused a daughter of Seleucus Callinicus, king of Syria, by whom he had Laodice, who was married to Antiochus the Great.

(M53) He was succeeded by his son Pharnaces, who had some disagreement with the kings of Pergamus. He made himself master of Sinope, which afterwards became the capital of the kingdom of Pontus.

After him reigned Mithridates V., surnamed Euergetes, the first who was called the friend of the Romans, because he had assisted them against the Carthaginians in the third Punic war.

(M54) He was succeeded by his son Mithridates VI., surnamed Eupator. This is the great Mithridates who sustained so long a war with the Romans: he reigned sixty-six years.

Kings of Cappadocia.

Strabo informs us,(247) that Cappadocia was divided into two satrapies, or governments, under the Persians, as it also was under the Macedonians. The maritime part of Cappadocia formed the kingdom of Pontus: the other tracts constituted Cappadocia properly so called, or Cappadocia Major, which extended along mount Taurus, and to a great distance beyond it.

(M55) When Alexander’s captains divided the provinces of his empire among themselves, Cappadocia was governed by a prince named Ariarathes. Perdiccas attacked and defeated him, after which he caused him to be slain.

His son Ariarathes re-entered the kingdom of his father some time after this event, and established himself so effectually, that he left it to his posterity.

The generality of his successors assumed the same name, and will have their place in the series of the history.

Cappadocia, after the death of Archelaus, the last of its kings, became a province of the Roman empire, as the rest of Asia also did much about the same time.

Kings of Armenia.

Armenia, a vast country of Asia, extending on each side of the Euphrates, was conquered by the Persians; after which it was transferred, with the rest of the empire, to the Macedonians, and at last fell to the share of the Romans. It was governed for a great length of time by its own kings, the most considerable of whom was Tigranes, who espoused the daughter of the great Mithridates king of Pontus, and was also engaged in a long war with the Romans. This kingdom supported itself many years, between the Roman and Parthian empires, sometimes depending on the one, and sometimes on the other, till at last the Romans became its masters.

Kings of Epirus.

Epirus is a province of Greece, separated from Thessaly and Macedonia by mount Pindus. The most powerful people of this country were the Molossians.

The kings of Epirus pretended to derive their descent from Pyrrhus the son of Achilles, who established himself in that country, and called themselves Æacides, from Æacus the grandfather of Achilles.

The genealogy of the latter kings, who were the only sovereigns of this country of whom any accounts remain, is variously related by authors, and consequently must be doubtful and obscure.(248)

Arymbas ascended the throne, after a long succession of kings; and as he was then very young, the states of Epirus, who were sensible that the welfare of the people depends on the proper education of their princes, sent him to Athens, which was the residence and centre of all the arts and sciences, in order to cultivate, in that excellent school, such knowledge as was necessary to form the mind of a king. He there learned the art of reigning, and as he surpassed all his ancestors in ability and knowledge, he was in consequence infinitely more esteemed and beloved by his people than they had been.(249) When he returned from Athens, he made laws, established a senate and magistracy, and regulated the form of the government.

Neoptolemus, whose daughter Olympias had espoused Philip king of Macedon, attained an equal share in the regal government with Arymbas his elder brother, by the influence of his son-in-law. After the death of Arymbas, Æacides his son ought to have been his successor; but Philip had still sufficient influence to procure his expulsion from the kingdom by the Molossians, who established Alexander the son of Neoptolemus sole monarch of Epirus.

Alexander espoused Cleopatra the daughter of Philip, and marched with an army into Italy, where he lost his life in the country of the Brutians.

Æacides then ascended the throne, and reigned without any associate in Epirus. He espoused Phthia, the daughter of Menon the Thessalian, by whom he had two daughters, Deidamia and Troias, and one son, the celebrated Pyrrhus.

As he was marching to the assistance of Olympias, his troops mutinied against him, condemned him to exile, and slaughtered most of his friends. Pyrrhus, who was then an infant, happily escaped this massacre.

Neoptolemus, a prince of the blood, but whose particular extraction is little known, was placed on the throne by the people of Epirus.

Pyrrhus, being recalled by his subjects at the age of twelve years, first shared the sovereignty with Neoptolemus; but having afterwards divested him of his dignity, he reigned alone.

(M56) This history will treat of the various adventures of this prince. He died in the city of Argos, in an attack to make himself master of it.

Helenus his son reigned after him for some time in Epirus, which was afterwards united to the Roman empire.

Tyrants of Heraclea.

Heraclea is a city of Pontus, anciently founded by the Bœotians, who sent a colony into that country by the order of an oracle.

When the Athenians, having conquered the Persians, had imposed a tribute on the cities of Greece and Asia Minor, for the fitting out and support of a fleet intended for the defence of the common liberty, the inhabitants of Heraclea, in consequence of their attachment to the Persians, were the only people who refused to acquiesce in so just a contribution.(250) Lamachus was therefore sent against them, and he ravaged their territories; but a violent tempest having destroyed his whole fleet, he beheld himself abandoned to the mercy of that people, whose innate ferocity might naturally have been increased by the severe treatment they had lately received. But they had recourse to no other vengeance than kindness;(251) they furnished him with provisions and troops for his return, and were willing to consider the depredations which had been committed in their country as advantageous to them, if at that price they could convert the enmity of the Athenians into friendship.

(M57) Some time after this event, the populace of Heraclea excited a violent commotion against the rich citizens and senators, who having implored assistance to no effect, first from Timotheus the Athenian, and afterwards from Epaminondas the Theban, were necessitated to recall Clearchus, a senator, to their defence, whom themselves had banished; but his exile had neither improved his morals nor rendered him a better citizen than he was before. He therefore made the troubles, in which he found the city involved, subservient to his design of subjecting it to his own power. With this view he openly declared for the people, caused himself to be invested with the highest office in the magistracy, and assumed a sovereign authority in a short time. Being thus become a professed tyrant, there were no kinds of violence to which he had not recourse against the rich, and the senators, to satiate his avarice and cruelty. He proposed for his model Dionysius the Tyrant, who had established his power over the Syracusans at the same time.

After a hard and inhuman servitude of twelve years, two young citizens, who were Plato’s disciples, and had been instructed in his maxims, formed a conspiracy against Clearchus, and slew him; but, though they delivered their country from the tyrant, the tyranny still subsisted.

(M58) Timotheus, the son of Clearchus, assumed his place, and pursued his conduct for the space of fifteen years.(252)

(M59) He was succeeded by his brother Dionysius, who was in danger of being dispossessed of his authority by Perdiccas; but as this last was soon destroyed, Dionysius contracted a friendship with Antigonus, whom he assisted against Ptolemy in the Cyprian war.(253)

He espoused Amastris, the widow of Craterus, and daughter of Oxiathres, the brother of Darius. This alliance inspired him with so much courage, that he assumed the title of king, and enlarged his dominions by the addition of several places, which he seized, on the confines of Heraclea.

(M60) He died two or three years before the battle of Ipsus, after a reign of thirty-three years, leaving two sons and a daughter under the tutelage and regency of Amastris.

This princess was rendered happy in her administration, by the affection Antigonus entertained for her. She founded a city, and called it by her own name; into which she transplanted the inhabitants of three other cities, and espoused Lysimachus, after the death of Antigonus.(254)

Kings of Syracuse.

(M61) Hiero, and his son Hieronymus, reigned at Syracuse; the first fifty-four years, the second but one year.

(M62) Syracuse recovered its liberty by the death of the last, but continued in the interest of the Carthaginians, which Hieronymus had caused it to espouse. (M63) His conduct obliged Marcellus to form the siege of that city, which he took the following year. I shall enlarge upon the history of these two kings in another place.

Other Kings.

Several kings likewise reigned in the Cimmerian Bosphorus, as also in Thrace, Cyrene in Africa, Paphlagonia, Colchis, Iberia, Albania, and a variety of other places; but their history is very uncertain, and their successions have but little regularity.

These circumstances are very different with respect to the kingdom of the Parthians, who formed themselves, as we shall see in the sequel, into such a powerful monarchy, as became formidable even to the Roman empire. That of the Bactrians received its original about the same period: I shall treat of each in their proper places.

Catalogue of the Editions of the principal Greek Authors cited in this Work.

HERODOTUS. Francof. An. 1608.

THUCYDIDES. Apud Henricum Stephanum, An. 1588.

XENOPHON. Lutetiæ Parisiorum, apud Societatem Græcarum Editionum, An. 1625.

POLYBIUS. Parisiis, An. 1609.

DIODORUS SICULUS. Hanoviæ, Typis Wechelianis, An 1604.

PLUTARCHUS. Lutetiæ Parisiorum, apud Societatem Græcanum Editionum, An. 1624.

STRABO. Lutetiæ Parisiorum, Typis regiis, An. 1620.

ATHENÆUS. Lugdani, An. 1612.

PAUSANIAS. Hanoviæ, Typis Wechelianis, An. 1613.

APPIANUS ALEXANDER. Apud Henric. Stephan. An. 1592.

PLATO. Ex novâ Joannis Serrani interpretatione. Apud Henricum Stephanum, An. 1578.

ARISTOTELES. Lutetiæ Parisiorum, apud Societatem Græcarum Editionum, An. 1619.

ISOCRATES. Apud Paulum Stephanum, An. 1604.

DIOGENES LAERTIUS. Apud Henricum Stepnanum, An. 1594.

DEMOSTHENES. Francof. An. 1604.

ARRIANUS. Lugd. Batav. An. 1704.