THIRD PERIOD. (continued 2)

Negotiations between Philip and Hannibal, 214.

17. The negotiations between Philip and Hannibal concluded with an alliance, in which reciprocal help was promised towards annihilating Rome. But Rome contrived to excite so many foes against Philip on the borders of his own kingdom, and availed herself so skilfully of her naval power, that the execution of this plan was prevented until it became possible to attack the Macedonian king in Greece; where he had made himself many enemies, by the domineering tone he had assumed towards his allies at the time that, sensible of his power, he was about to enter upon a wider sphere of action.

Commencement of hostilities by Rome, against Philip: immediately that the alliance of Philip and Hannibal was known, a squadron with troops on board was stationed off the coast of Macedonia, by which the king himself was defeated at Apollonia, 214.—Alliance of Rome with the Ætolians, joined likewise by Sparta and Elis, Attalus king of Pergamus, and Scerdilaidas and Pleuratus, kings of Illyria, 211. On Philip's side were the Achæans, with whom Philopœmen more than supplied the loss of Aratus, occasioned, 213, by the Macedonian king; to them were joined the Acarnanians and Bæotians.—Attacked on every side, Philip successfully extricated himself from his difficulties; in the first place, he compelled the Ætolians, who had been abandoned by Attalus and Rome, to accept separate terms, which, shortly after, Rome, consulting her own convenience, converted into a general peace, inclusive of the allies on either side, 204.

War with Attalus, 203—200.

18. New war of Philip against Attalus and the Rhodians, carried on for the most part in Asia Minor; and his impolitic alliance with Antiochus III. to attack Egypt. But can Philip be blamed for his endeavours to disarm the military servants of the Romans? Rome, however, did not grant him time to effect his designs; the Macedonian king was taught at Chios, by woeful experience, 202. that his navy had not increased proportionably with that of the Rhodians.

War with Rome, 200—197.

19. The war with Rome suddenly hurled the Macedonian power from its lofty pitch; and by laying the foundation of Roman dominion in the east, wrought a change in almost all the political relations of that quarter. The first two years of the war showed pretty evidently, that mere force 198. could scarcely overturn the Macedonian throne. But T. Quintius Flaminius stepped forward; with the magic spell of freedom he intoxicated the Greeks; Philip was stripped of his allies; and the battle of Cynoscephalæ decided everything. 197. The articles of the peace were: 1. That all Grecian cities in Europe and Asia should be independent, and Philip should withdraw his garrisons. 2. That he should surrender the whole of his navy, and never afterwards keep more than 500 armed men on foot. 3. That he should not, without previously informing Rome, undertake any war out of Macedonia. 4. That he should pay 1,000 talents by instalments, and deliver up his younger son Demetrius as an hostage.

The Roman allies in this war were: the Ætolians, Athenians, Rhodians, the kings of the Athamanes, Dardanians, and Pergamus.—The Achæans at the beginning sided with Philip, but were subsequently gained over by Flaminius. See below, in the Roman History.

196.

20. Soon after, the freedom of Greece was solemnly proclaimed at the Isthmian games by Flaminius: but loud as the Greeks were in their exultations, this measure served merely to transfer the supremacy of their country from Macedonia to Rome: and Grecian history, as well as the Macedonian, is now interwoven with that of the Romans. To foster quarrels between the Greek states, with the especial view of hindering the Achæans from growing too formidable, now became a fundamental principle at Rome; and Roman and anti-Roman parties having quickly arisen in every city, this political game was easily played.

Flaminius even took care that the Achæans should have an opponent in the person of Nabis, although under the necessity of waging war against him previous to his return into Italy, 194.—In 192, war between Nabis and the Achæans; followed after the murder of Nabis, at the hands of the Ætolians, by the accession of Sparta to the Achæan league.—But about the same time Greece once more became the theatre of foreign war; Antiochus having firmly seated himself in the country, and enleagued himself with several tribes, but more particularly the Ætolians, inspired with bitter and long-standing hatred against the Romans. These last, however, after the expulsion of Antiochus from Greece, 191, paid dearly for their secession; nor was peace granted them by Rome till after long and unsuccessful supplications, 189.

Fate of Philip.

21. While war was pending between the Romans and Antiochus, Philip, in the character of one of the numerous allies of Rome, ventured to increase his territory at the expense of the Athamanes, Thracians, and Thessalians. To keep him in good humour he was permitted to effect those conquests; but after the termination of the war the oppression of Rome became so galling, 190. that it could not be otherwise than that all his thoughts should centre in revenge, and all his exertions be directed towards the recovery of power. Meanwhile the violent measures adopted for repeopling his exhausted kingdom—such is the punishment of ambition which usually awaits even the victorious!—the transplantation of the inhabitants of whole cities and countries, and the consequent and unavoidable oppression of several of his neighbours, excited universal complaints; and where was the accuser of Philip to whom Rome would not now lend a ready ear?—His younger son, Demetrius, the pupil of Rome, and 183. by her intended, it is probable, to succeed to the crown, alone diverted the impending fate of Macedonia. But after the return of that prince from his embassy, the envy of his elder and bastard brother, Perseus, grew into an inveterate rancour, such as could not be quenched but by the death 181. of the younger. The lot of Philip was indeed hard, compelled as a father to judge between his two sons; but the measure of human woe was filled, when after the death of his favourite child he discovered that he was innocent; are we to wonder that sorrow should soon have hurried him 179. to a premature grave!

Roman policy against the Achæan league. 189. 183.

22. The same policy which was observed by the Romans towards Philip, they pursued towards the Achæans, with whom, since the termination of the war with Antiochus, they had assumed a loftier tone; and this artful game was facilitated by the continual quarrels among the Greeks themselves. Yet the great Philopœmen, worthy of a better age, maintained the dignity of the league at the very time that the Romans presumed to speak as arbitrators. After his decease they found it easy to raise a party among the Achæans themselves, the venal Callicrates offering his services for that purpose.

The Achæans was continually embroiled either with Sparta or with Messene: the grounds of difference were, that in both of those states there were factions headed by persons who, out of personal motives, and for the most part hatred to Philopœmen, wished to secede from the league; on the other hand, the prevailing idea among the Achæans was, that this league ought to comprise the whole of the Peloponnesus. In the war against the Messenians, 183, Philopœmen, at the age of seventy, was taken prisoner by the enemy and put to death.

Plutarchi, Philopœmen. Nearly the whole of which is compiled from the lost biography of Polybius.

Perseus, 179—168.

23. The last Macedonian king, Perseus, had inherited his father's perfect hatred of the Romans, together with talents, if not equal, at least but little inferior. He entered into the speculations of his predecessor, and the first seven years of his reign was occupied in constant exertions to muster forces against Rome; with this view he called the Bastarnæ out of the north, in order to settle them in the territories of his enemies the Dardanians; he endeavoured to form alliances with the kings of Illyria, Thrace, Syria, and Bithynia; above all, he strove by negotiations and promises to reestablish the ancient influence of Macedonia in Greece.

The settlement of the Bastarnæ (probably a German race, resident beyond the Danube) in Thrace and Dardania, in order with them to carry war against the Romans, was one of the plans traced out by Philip, and now partially executed by Perseus.—In Greece the Macedonian party, which Perseus formed chiefly out of the great number of impoverished citizens in the country, would probably have gained the upper hand, had not the fear inspired by Rome, and the active vigilance of that power, interposed an effectual bar. Hence the Achæans, apparently at least, remained on the Roman side; the Ætolians, by domestic factions, had worked their own destruction; the case was the same with the Acarnanians; and the federation of the Bœotians had been completely dissolved by the Romans, 171. On the other hand, in Epirus the Macedonian party was superior; Thessaly was occupied by Perseus; several of the Thracian tribes were friendly to him; and in king Gentius he found an ally who might have been highly useful, had not the Macedonian prince, by an ill-timed avarice, deprived himself of his assistance.

Defeat at Perseus at Pidna.

24. The commencement of open hostilities was hastened by the bitter hatred existing between Perseus and Eumenes, and by the intrigues of the latter at Rome. Neglect of the favourable moment for taking the field, and the defensive system, skilfully in other respects as it was planned, caused the ruin of Perseus, as it had done that of Antiochus. Nevertheless he protracted 172—168. the war to the fourth year, when the battle of Pidna decided the fate both of himself and his kingdom.

Miserable condition of Perseus until his capture at Samothrace; and afterwards until his death at Rome, 166.

25. According to the system at that period followed by Rome, the conquered kingdom of Macedonia was not immediately converted into a province; it was first deprived of all offensive power, by being republicanized and divided into four districts, wholly distinct from one another, and bound to pay Rome half the tribute they were before wont to furnish to their kings.

Fall of the Achæan league.

26. It was in the natural order of things that the independence of Greece, and more especially that of the Achæan league, should fall with Perseus. The political inquisition of the Roman commissaries not only visited with punishment the declared partizans of Macedonia; but even to have stood neutral was a crime that incurred suspicion. Rome, however, amid the rising hatred, did not deem herself secure until by one blow she had rid herself of all opponents of any importance. Above a thousand of the most eminent of the Achæans were summoned to Rome to justify themselves, and there detained seventeen years Callicrates, 167—150. in prison without a hearing. While at the head of the league, stood the man who had delivered them up, Callicrates, (d. 150.) a wretch who could, unmoved, hear "the very boys in the streets taunt him with treachery."—A more tranquil period, it is true, now ensued for Greece, but it was the result of very obvious causes.

Greece becomes a Roman province, 150—148.

27. The ultimate lot both of Macedon and was decided by the system now adopted at Rome, that of converting the previous dependence of nations into formal subjection. The insurrection of Andriscus in Macedonia, an individual who pretended to be the son of Perseus, was quelled by Metellus, the country being constituted a Roman province; two years afterwards, at the sack of Corinth, vanished the last glimmer of Grecian freedom.

The last war of the Achæans arose out of certain quarrels with Sparta, 150, fomented by Diæus, Critolaus, and Damocritus, who had returned bitterly enraged from the Roman prison; in these disputes Rome interfered, with the design of wholly dissolving the Achæan league. The first pretext that offered for executing this scheme was the ill-treatment of the Roman ambassadors at Corinth, 148; war, however, still raging with Carthage and Andriscus, the Romans preserved for the present a peaceful tone. But the party of Diæus and Critolaus would have war; the plenipotentiaries of Metellus were again insulted, and the Achæans declared war against Sparta and Rome. In the very same year they were routed by Metellus, and their leader Critolaus fell in the engagement; Metellus was replaced in the command by Mummius, who defeated Diæus the successor of Critolaus, took Corinth and razed it to the ground, 146. The consequence was, that Greece, under the name of Achaia, became a Roman province, although to a few cities, such as Athens, for instance, some shadow of freedom was still left.

IV. History of some smaller or more distant Kingdoms and States erected out of the Macedonian monarchy.

Sources. Besides the writers enumerated above, (see p. 232.) Memnon, an historian of Heraclea in Pontus, deserves particular mention in this place, (see p. 162): some extracts from his work have been preserved to us by Photius, Cod. 224. In some individual portions, as, for instance, in the Parthian history, Justin[a] is our main authority; as are likewise Ammianus Marcellinus, and the extracts from Arrian's Parthica, found in Photius. The coins of the kings are also of great importance; but unfortunately Vaillant's Essay shows, that even with their assistance the chronology still remains in a very unsettled state. For the Jewish history, Josephus (see p. 35.) is the grand writer: of the Books of the Old Testament, those of Ezra and Nehemiah, together with the Maccabees, although the last are not always to be depended upon.

The modern writers are enumerated below, under the heads of the different kingdoms. Much information is likewise scattered about in the works on ancient numismatics.

Smaller states rising out of Alexander's empire.

1. Besides the three main empires into which the monarchy of Alexander was divided, there likewise arose in those extensive regions several branch kingdoms, one of which even grew in time to be among the most powerful in the world. To these belong the kingdoms of, 1. Pergamus. 2. Bithynia. 3. Paphlagonia. 4. Pontus. 5. Cappadocia. 6. Great Armenia. 7. Little Armenia. 8. Parthia. 9. Bactria. 10. Jewish state subsequent to the Maccabees.

We are acquainted with the history of these kingdoms, the Jewish state alone excepted, only so far forth as they were implicated in the concerns of the greater empires; of their internal history we know little, often nothing. With respect to many of them, therefore, little more can be produced than a series of chronological data, indispensable, notwithstanding, to the general historian.

Kingdom of Pergamus, B. C. 283—133.

2. The kingdom of Pergamus, in Mysia, arose during the war between Seleucus and Lysimachus. It owed its origin on the one hand to the prudence of its rulers, the wisest of whom luckily reigned the longest; and, on the other, to the weakness of the Seleucidæ: for its progressive increase it was indebted to the Romans, who in aggrandizing the power of Pergamus acted with a view to their own interest. History exhibits scarcely one subordinate kingdom whose princes took such skilful advantage of the political circumstances of the times; and yet they earned still greater renown by the anxiety they showed, in rivalling the Ptolemies, to foster the arts of peace, industry, science, architecture, sculpture, and painting. How dazzling the splendour with which the small state of Pergamus outshines many a mighty empire!

Philetærus, lieutenant of Lysimachus, in Pergamus, asserts his independence; and maintains possession of the citadel and town, 283—263. His nephew, Eumenes I. 263—241, defeats Antiochus I. at Sardes, 263, and becomes master of Æolis and the circumjacent country. His nephew, Attalus I. 241—197, after his victory over the Galatians, 239, becomes king of Pergamus: a noble prince, and one whose genius and activity embraced everything. His wars against Achæus brought him in alliance with Antiochus III. 216. Commencement of an alliance with Rome, arising out of his participation in the Ætolian league against Macedon, 211, in order to thwart Philip's project of conquest. Hence, after Philip's irruption into Asia, 203, participation on the side of Rome, in the Macedonian war. His son Eumenes II. the inheritor of all his father's great qualities succeeds him, 197—158. As a reward for his assistance against Antiochus the Great, the Romans presented him with almost all the territories possessed by the vanquished king in Asia Minor, (Phrygia, Mysia, Lycaonia, Lydia, Ionia, and a part of Caria,) which thereafter constituted the kingdom of Pergamus; this prince extended his frontiers, but lost his independence. In the war with Perseus he was scarce able to preserve the good will of the senate, and therewith his kingdom. His brother, Attalus II. 158—138, a more faithful dependent of Rome, took part in nearly all the concerns of Asia Minor, more especially Bithynia. His nephew, Attalus III. 138—133, a prince of unsound mind, bequeathed his kingdom to the Romans, who, after vanquishing the lawful heir, Aristonicus, 130, took possession of it, annexing it to their empire, under the shape of a province called Asia.—Great discoveries and vast establishments made at Pergamus. Rich library; subsequently transferred by Antony to Alexandria, as a present for Cleopatra. Museum. Discovery of parchment, an invaluable auxiliary to the preservation of works of literature.

Choiseuil Gouffier, Voyage pittoresque de la Grèce, vol. ii. 1809. Containing excellent observations, both on the monuments and history of Pergamus, as well as on those of all the neighbouring coasts and islands.

Sevin, Recherches sur les rois de Pergame, inserted in the Mém. de l'Acad. des Inscript. vol. xii.

From the fall of Tyre and the unsuccessful attempt of Demetrius, B. C. 307, to the establishment of Roman dominion in the east, 300—200, was the brilliant period of Rhodes; alike important for political wisdom, naval power, and extensive trade. At the head of the senate (βουλὴ) were presidents, (πρυτανεῖς,) who went out of office every half year, and were honoured with precedence in the meetings of the commons. Friendship with all, alliance with none, was the fundamental maxim of Rhodian policy, until subverted by Rome. Thus was preserved the dignity of the state, together with its independence and political activity—where do we not meet with Rhodian embassies?—and permanent splendour, resulting from the cultivation of arts and sciences. What proofs of general commiseration did not Rhodes enjoy after that dreadful earthquake, which threw down even the famous colossus, 227! Long did her squadrons command the Ægæan; over that sea, the Euxine, and the western parts of the Mediterranean as far as Sicily, her commerce extended, consisting in the rich exchange of commodities between three quarters of the globe. Her revenue proceeded from the customs, and was abundant; until, blinded by avarice, she sought to obtain at Peræa a territory on the mainland; an ambition of which the Romans availed themselves to her detriment, by presenting her with Lycia and Caria, 190. And yet did this republic outlive that of Rome! Great, indeed, is the chasm left in general history by the loss of the internal history of this island!

P. D. Ch. Paulsen, Commentatio exhibens Rhodi descriptionem Macedonica ætate, Gottingæ, 1818. A prize essay.

3. The other small kingdoms of Asia Minor are fragments rather of the Persian than of the Macedonian monarchy; for Alexander's march following another direction, they were not formally subjugated by that conqueror. The lines of their kings are generally traced back to an early period of the Persian age; but, properly speaking, their rulers in those days were nothing more than viceroys: selected indeed, for the most part, from the royal family, they bore the title of princes, and, in the gradual decline of the empire, not unfrequently threw up their allegiance. Nevertheless these kingdoms do not appear as really independent until after the time of Alexander. Connected with the Grecian republics Heraclea, Sinope, Byzantium, etc. they formed, both in the Macedonian and Roman ages, a system of small states, often distracted by internal wars, and still oftener mere tools in the hands of the more powerful.

1. Bithynia. As early as the Persian period, mention is made of two kings in Bithynia, Dydalsus and Botyras. The son of the latter, Bias, B. C. 378—328, made head against Caranus, one of Alexander's generals; as did also his son Zipœtas, d. 281, against Lysimachus.—Lycomedes I. d. 248. He called the Gauls over from Thrace, 278, and with their assistance deposed his brother Zipœtas; the Gauls in consequence kept their footing in Galatia, and were for a long time an object of terror to Asia Minor. Zelas, d. about 232; established his dominion after a war with his half-brothers. Prusias I. son-in-law and ally of Philip II. of Macedon, d. 192. He sided with the Rhodians in the commercial war against Byzantium, 222, (see above, p. 282.) and directed his arms, 196, against Heraclea, a Grecian city in Bithynia, with a respectable territory along shore. Prusias II. waged war against Eumenes II. at the instigation of Hannibal, who had fled to his court, 184; he was subsequently about to deliver up the fugitive to the Romans; had not Hannibal put a period to his existence, 183: this king likewise waged war against Attalus II. 153; in both these contests Rome acted as mediator. Prusias, who had the meanness to style himself a freedman of the Romans, was dethroned by his own son, Nicomedes II. d. 92; a confederate of Mithridates the Great, with whom, nevertheless, he afterwards fell out concerning the appropriation of Paphlagonia and Cappadocia. Nicomedes was murdered by his son Socrates, who was, however, compelled to flee; in consequence of which Nicomedes III. succeeded to the crown. Deposed by Mithridates, who supported his half-brother Socrates, he was reinstated by Rome, 90. Having, however, at the instigation of the Romans, 89, attacked Mithridates, he was defeated and expelled in the first Mithridatic war, now kindled; but in the peace of 85, he was again reinstated by Sulla. At his death, 75, he bequeathed Bithynia to the Romans; and this legacy gave rise to the third Mithridatic war.

Vaillant, Imperium Arsacidarum, vol. ii. See below.

Sevin, Recherches sur les rois de Bithynie; inserted in the Mém. de l'Académie des Inscript. vol. xii.

2. Paphlagonia. Even in the Persian age, the rulers of this country were but nominally subject. After Alexander's death, B. C. 323, it fell into the hands of the kings of Pontus; it was, however, subsequently, again ruled by its own monarchs; among whom we hear of Morzes, about 179; Pylæmenes I. about 131: who assisted the Romans in the war against Aristonicus of Pergamus.—Pylæmenes II. d. before 121; who is said to have bequeathed his kingdom to Mithridates V. of Pontus. Hence Paphlagonia came to be implicated in the fortunes of Pontus, (see just below,) until after the fall of Mithridates the Great, 63, that kingdom was converted into a province, with the exception of one of the southern districts, to which the Romans left some shadow of freedom.

3. Pontus. The later kings of this country derived their origin from the family of the Achæmenidæ, or house of Persia. In the Persian age they remained dependent or tributary princes: and as such we must consider Artabazes, son of Hystaspes, d. 480, Mithridates I. d. 368, and Ariobarzanes, d. 337, mentioned as the earliest kings of Pontus. Mithridates II. surnamed Ctistes, d. 302, was one of the first to acknowledge subjection to Alexander; after the death of the conqueror he sided with Antigonus, who treacherously caused him to be murdered. His son, Mithridates III. d. 266, (the Ariobarzanes of Memnon,) not only maintained himself after the battle of Ipsus against Lysimachus, but likewise possessed himself of Cappadocia and Paphlagonia. Mithridates IV. father-in-law to Antiochus the Great, waged an unsuccessful war against Sinope. The year of his death is undetermined, Pharnaces, d. about 156. He conquered Sinope 183; and that town then became the royal residence. War with Eumenes II. whom Rome had made so powerful, and with his allies; terminated by a treaty, according to which Pharnaces ceded Paphlagonia, B. C. 179. Mithridates V. d. about 121. He was an ally of the Romans, from whom, after the defeat of Aristonicus of Phrygia, he contrived to obtain Great Phrygia. Mithridates VI. surnamed Eupator, about 121—64. He bore the title of Great, an epithet to which he was as fully entitled as Peter I. in modern history; indeed he resembled the Russian prince in almost everything except in good fortune. His reign, although of the highest importance to general history, is, particularly in the portion previous to the wars with Rome, replete with chronological difficulties.—At the age of twelve years he inherits from his father not only Pontus, but likewise Phrygia, and a reversionary title to the throne of Paphlagonia, vacated by the death of Pylæmenes II.—During his nonage, 121—112, while by voluntarily inuring himself to hardships, he contrived to elude the treacherous hostility of his guardians, Rome deprived him of Phrygia. His conquests in Colchis and on the eastern side of the Black sea, 112—110.—Commencement of the Scythian wars. Called by the Greeks of Crimea to their assistance, he expelled the Scythians; subjected several insignificant Scythian princes on the mainland; and entered into alliances with the Sarmatic and even Germanic races as far as the Danube, 108—105, having already a view to the invasion of Italy from the north.—This war ended, he travels over Asia, (Asia Minor?) about 104—103.—At his return, after punishing with death his faithless sister and wife, Laodice, he makes good his pretensions to Paphlagonia, which he divides with Nicomedes II. 102. The Roman senate demanding the restoration of that province, Mithridates not only refuses to accede, but likewise takes possession of Galatia; meanwhile Nicomedes places on the throne of Paphlagonia one of his own sons, whom he gives out to be a son of Pylæmenes II. and denominates Pylæmenes III.—Rupture with Nicomedes II. 101; the subject of dispute, Cappadocia, which, after removing the king, Ariarathes VII. his brother-in-law, with the assistance of Gordius, Mithridates himself now wished to possess; he is anticipated, however, by Nicomedes II. who marries Laodice, Ariarathes's widow.—Mithridates, notwithstanding, expels his rival, under pretence of holding the kingdom for his sister's son, Ariarathes VIII. whom at the end of a few months he puts to death at a private conference, 94; he defeats the brother of the murdered prince, Ariarathes IX. and then places on the throne, under the name of Ariarathes X. his own son, who is given out to be a third son of Ariarathes VII; in opposition to whom Nicomedes sets up another pretended Ariarathes. The Roman senate, meanwhile, declare both Paphlagonia and Cappadocia free, B. C. 92; attending, however, to the desires of the Cappadocians, they sanction the election of Ariobarzanes to the crown; and he is put in possession of the kingdom by Sylla, as proprætor of Cilicia, likewise in 92.—Mithridates, on the other hand, forms an alliance with the king of Armenia, Tigranes, to whom he gives his daughter in marriage; and employs him in expelling Ariobarzanes.—He himself, after the death of Nicomedes II. 92, supports the claims of the deceased king's exiled son, Socrates Chrestus, against the bastard Nicomedes III. and in the mean time takes possession of Paphlagonia. Nicomedes and Ariobarzanes are reinstated by a Roman embassy, 90, Mithridates, in order to gain time against Rome, causing Socrates to be put to death. The hostilities of Nicomedes, instituted by Rome, gave rise to the first Roman war, 89—85, carried on in Asia and Greece, and brought to a conclusion by Sylla. By the peace of 85, Mithridates restores Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Paphlagonia.—War with the revolted Colchians and Bosporans, 84.—Second war with Rome brought about by the Roman governor, Murena, 83—81. Mithridates hereupon appoints his son, Machares, king of Bosporus, (Crimea,) whom he afterwards himself causes to be put to death, 66; he was likewise, in all probability, the instigator of the migration of the Sarmatæ out of Asia into Europe, in order to maintain his conquests in that quarter, about 80. Fresh disputes with Rome about Cappadocia, of which Tigranes takes possession, and third war with Rome, 75—64. The contest ended in the downfal of Mithridates, caused by the treachery of his son Pharnaces; Pontus became a Roman province; although the Romans, in the sequel, appointed over a portion of the country princes from the royal house, Darius, Polemo I. Polemo II. until Nero reduced it again wholly to the state of a province.

Vaillant, Imperium Achæmenidarum in his Imperium Arsacidarum, tom. ii. With the assistance of the coins.

For the history of Mithridates the Great, previously treated without sufficient chronological accuracy, see De Brosses, Histoire de la Rép. Romaine, and more especially

Joan. Ernst. Woltersdorf, Commentatio vitam Mithridatis Magni, per annos digestam, sistens; præmio ornata ab A. Phil. Ord. Gottingæ:, A. 1812.

4. Cappadocia. Until the time of Alexander this country remained a province of the Persian empire, although the governors occasionally made attempts at insurrection. The ruling family was here likewise a branch of the royal house; Ariarathes I. was particularly distinguished about B. C. 354. The prince contemporary with Alexander was Ariarathes II. who, being attacked by Perdiccas and Eumenes, fell in the contest, 322. Nevertheless, his son, Ariarathes III. supported by the Armenians, recovered the sceptre about 312. The son of this king, Ariaramnes, formed a matrimonial connection with the Seleucidæ, uniting his son Ariarathes IV. with the daughter of Antiochus Θεός. Ariarathes IV. during his lifetime, associated in the government his son Ariarathes V. d. 162. who married Antiochis, daughter to Antiochus the Great: this princess, finding herself at first barren, procured two supposititious sons, one of whom, Orophernes, subsequently wrested the sceptre from the legitimate and later born son, Ariarathes VI. but was afterwards expelled by the rightful heir, 157. In the war against Aristonicus of Pergamus, 131, he fell, as an ally of the Romans, leaving behind him six sons; five of whom were cut off by his ambitious relict Laodice; the sixth however, Ariarathes VII. ascended the throne, and was married to Laodice, sister of Mithridates the Great, at whose instigation he was murdered by Gordius, under pretence of placing on the throne his sister's son, Ariarathes VIII; this last prince was soon after treacherously put to death by Mithridates, 94, and his brother Ariarathes IX. defeated 93, died of a broken heart; Mithridates then placed on the throne his own son, Ariarathes X. a lad eight years old. The independence of Cappadocia having meanwhile been proclaimed at Rome, the inhabitants of the country, in order to preclude domestic broils, themselves elect a king, appointing to that dignity Ariobarzanes I. who was installed by Sylla, 92, and, backed by the Romans, kept his footing in the Mithridatic wars. In 63 he made the crown over to his son, Ariobarzanes II. who was slain by the army of Brutus and Cassius, 43, as was his brother, Ariobarzanes III. 34, by Mark Antony; Antony then appointed Archelaus to be king, who enticed to Rome by Tiberius, A. D. 17, was there assassinated; and Cappadocia then became a Roman province.

5. Armenia was a province of the Syrian empire until the defeat of Antiochus the Great by Rome, 190. That defeat was followed by the accession of Antiochus's lieutenants, Artaxias and Zariadras; and now arose the two kingdoms of Armenia Major and Armenia Minor (the latter on the west bank of the Upper Euphrates). In Armenia Major the family of Artaxias kept possession of the throne, under eight (according to others ten) consecutive kings, until B. C. 5.—The only remarkable prince of this line was Tigranes I. 95—60, son-in-law and ally of Mithridates the Great, and lord of Asia Minor, Cappadocia, and Syria. He was, however, at the peace of 63, obliged to give up all, so that Armenia was dependent on the Romans, and remained so until B. C. 5, when it became the object of contention between the Romans and Parthians, being ruled at intervals by kings appointed by both parties, who endeavoured thereby to protect their own provinces. Finally, in A. D. 412, Armenia became a province of the new Persian empire.—In Asia Minor the descendants of Zariadras ruled dependently on Rome; after its defection under Mithridates the Great it usually formed part of some one of the neighbouring kingdoms, until in the reign of Vespasian it was converted into a province of the Roman empire.

Vaillant, Elenchus regum Armeniæ Majoris, in his Hist. Imp. Arsacidarum.

Bactrian and Parthian empires.

4. Besides the above small kingdoms, two mighty empires arose in Inner Asia, both out of Alexander's monarchy, and at the same time: these were the Parthian and the Bactrian; each having previously constituted a part of the empire of the Seleucidæ, from which they seceded under Antiochus II. The Parthian kingdom, or that of the Arsacidæ, B. C. 256—A. D. 226, at the maximum of its extension, comprised the countries between the Euphrates and Indus. Its history, so far as we are acquainted with it, is divided into four periods (see below); but unfortunately our information is so imperfect respecting all that relates to the Parthians, except their wars, that even the most important particulars are beyond the reach of conjecture.

Main facts in the history and constitution of the Parthian kingdom. a. Like the ancient Persian empire, the Parthian arose out of the conquests made by a rude mountain race of Central Asia, whose Scythian (probably Tatarian) origin, betrayed itself even in later times by their speech and mode of life: their conquests, however, were not effected with the same rapidity as those of the Persians. b. This empire increased at the expense of the Syrian in the west, and of the Bactrian in the east; but its dominion was never permanently established beyond the Euphrates, Indus, and Oxus. c. The wars with Rome, commencing in B. C. 53, and springing out of disputes for the possession of the Armenian throne, were for a long time unfortunate for the Romans. Success did not accompany the arms of Rome until she had discovered the art of raising her own parties within the kingdom itself, by lending her support to pretenders, an art rendered comparatively easy, by the unfavourable situation of the Parthian capital Seleucia and the neighbouring town of Ctesiphon, the real head quarters of the court. d. The empire was indeed divided into satrapies, eighteen of which are enumerated; nevertheless it comprised likewise several small kingdoms, which preserved their own rulers, only that they were tributary, such, for instance, as Persis, etc. The Græco-Macedonian settlements were also in possession of great privileges, and of their own civic governments; Seleucia more especially, where the coins of the Parthian sovereigns were struck. e. The constitution was monarchal-aristocratic, something like that of the Poles, in the period of the Jagellons. At the king's side sat a supreme state council, (senatus, in all probability what was called the megistanes,) who had the power of deposing the king, and the privilege, it is supposed, of confirming his accession previous to the ceremony of coronation, performed by the field-marshals (surenas). The right of succession was only so far determined as belonging to the house of the Arsacidæ; the many pretenders to which this uncertainty gave rise, produced factions and domestic wars, doubly injurious to the empire when fomented and shared by foreigners. f. With regard to Asiatic commerce, the Parthian supremacy was of importance, inasmuch as it interrupted the direct intercourse between the western and eastern countries: it being a maxim of the Parthians not to grant a passage through their country to any stranger. This destruction of the trade occurs in the third period of the empire, being a natural result of the many wars with Rome, and the distrust thence ensuing. The East India trade, in consequence, took another road through Palmyra and Alexandria, which were indebted to it for their splendour and prosperity. g. It is probable that this was the reason why excessive luxury took a less hold on the Parthians than on the other ruling nations of Asia, notwithstanding their predilection for Grecian manners and literature, at that time generally prevalent throughout the east.

Line of the kings. I. Syrian period; that of reiterated wars with the Seleucidæ, until 130. Arsaces I. 256—253, founder of the Parthian independence, by procuring the death of the Syrian viceroy, Agathocles, to which he was instigated by the insult offered to his brother Tiridates. Arsaces II. (Tiridates I.) brother of the foregoing, d. 216. He possessed himself of Hyrcania, about 244, confirmed the Parthian power by a victory on Seleucus Callinicus, 238, whom he took prisoner, 236. Arsaces III. (Artabanus I.) d. 196. In his reign occurred the unsuccessful attempt of Antiochus III. who, in the treaty of 210, was obliged to renounce all claims on Parthia and Hyrcania, in return for which Arsaces lent his assistance to Antiochus in the war against Bactria. Arsaces IV. (Priapatius,) d. about 181. Arsaces V. (Phraates I.) d. about 144; he conquered the Mardians on the Caspian. His brother, Arsaces VI. (Mithridates I.) d. 136. He raised the hitherto confined kingdom of Parthia to the rank of a mighty empire, having, after the decease of Antiochus Epiphanes, 164, by the capture of Media, Persis, Babylonia, and other countries, extended the frontiers westward to the Euphrates, and eastward to the Hydaspes, beyond the Indus. The invasion of Demetrius II. of Syria, supported by an insurrection of the conquered races, ended, 140, in the capture of the aggressor. Arsaces VII. (Phraates II.) d. about 127. Invasion of Antiochus Sidetes, 132, who was at first successful, but being soon afterwards cut off together with his whole army, 131, the Parthian empire was for ever freed from the attacks of the Syrian kings.

II. Period of the eastern nomad wars; from 130—53. After the fall of the Bactrian empire, which had hitherto formed the eastern rampart of the Parthians, violent wars took place with the nomad tribes of Central Asia (Scythæ, Dahæ, Tochari, etc.) in which Arsaces VII. was slain. Arsaces VIII. (Artabanus II.) shared the same fate about 124. Arsaces IX. (Mithridates II.) d. 87. This prince appears to have restored tranquillity to the east after bloody wars; he met, however, with a powerful rival in Tigranes I. of Armenia. In his reign occurred the first transactions between the Parthians and Romans, 92, Sylla being proprætor of Cilicia. Arsaces X. (Mnasciras,) d. about 76, waged a long war for the succession with his follower on the throne, the septuagenarian, Arsaces XI. (Sinatroces,) d. about 68. Unsuccessful war with Tigranes I. In consequence of civil wars, and of that with Tigranes, together with the formidable power of Mithridates the Great, the Parthian empire was now greatly weakened. Arsaces XII. (Phraates III.) d. 60, contemporary with the third Mithridatic war. Although both parties eagerly courted his alliance, and he himself was engaged in the contest with Tigranes, he, notwithstanding, observed an armed neutrality, and made the Parthian empire continue to be respected as far as the Euphrates. Neither Lucullus nor Pompey durst attack him. The fall of Mithridates and of his empire, 64, constitutes, however, an epoch in the Parthian history, the Romans and Parthians having now become immediate neighbours.—Arsaces XIII. (Mithridates II.) d. 54, deposed after several wars, by his younger brother Orodes, and at last put to death, after the capture of Babylonia, where he had taken refuge.

III. Roman period; from B. C. 53, to A. D. 226; comprising the wars with Rome. Arsaces XIV. (Orodes I.) d. 36. In his reign the first war with Rome, caused by the invasion of Crassus; it ends in the annihilation of the invading army and general, 53. In consequence of this victory the Parthians acquired such preponderance, that during the civil wars they were frequently masters on this side of the Euphrates, and in 52—51 proceeded to attack Syria.—In the war between Pompey and Cæsar they sided with the former, and thus furnished the latter with a pretext for his Parthian expedition, which, however, was prevented by his murder in 44; again in the war between the triumviri and Brutus and Cassius, 42, they took the republican side. After the defeat of Brutus and Cassius, the Parthians, at the instigation of the Roman general and ambassador Labienus, and commanded by him and Pacorus, (eldest son to Arsaces,) spread over the whole of Syria and Asia Minor, 40; but, after violent exertions, were driven back by Ventidius, Antony's general, 39, 38; Pacorus lost his life, and his father died of grief. Arsaces XV. (Phraates IV.) d. A. D. 4, contemporary of Augustus. He confirmed his power by murdering his brothers and their dependents; his views were likewise furthered by the failure of Antony's expedition, B. C. 36, which ended pretty nearly in the same manner as that of Crassus. The remainder of his reign was disturbed by a pretender to the throne, Tiridates, who, after his defeat, 25, found an asylum at the court of Augustus. The threatened attack of Augustus was diverted by Phraates's restoration of the standards taken from Crassus, 20; a dispute, however, subsequently arose respecting the possession of the Armenian throne, A. D. 2, on which account Caius Cæsar was despatched into Asia, and accommodated matters by a treaty. The ultimate fate both of the king and the empire was principally decided by a female slave, Thermusa, sent as a present from Augustus; this woman, wishing to ensure the succession to her own son, prevailed upon the king to send his four sons to Rome as hostages, under the pretext of anticipating domestic troubles, 18.—A practice which from that time became frequent, the Parthian kings thinking it a convenient mode of ridding themselves of dangerous competitors, while the Romans knew how to make the proper use of them.—Thermusa's son having grown up, she removed the king, and seated Phraataces on the throne, under the name of Arsaces XVI; he was, however, put to death by the Parthians, A. D. 4; and the crown given to one of the Arsacidæ, Orodes II, (Arsaces XVII.) who was, however, immediately afterwards slain by reason of his cruelty. In consequence, Vonones I. the eldest of the sons of Phraates sent to Rome, was called back and placed on the throne (Arsaces XVIII.); but that prince having brought with him Roman customs and luxury, was expelled, A. D. 14, with the assistance of the northern nomads, by Artabanes III. (Arsaces XIX.) d. 44, a distant relation: the fugitive took possession of the vacant throne of Armenia, but was soon after driven from thence likewise by his rival. Tiberius took advantage of the consequent disorders to send Germanicus into the east, A. D. 17, from whence he was never to return. The remainder of the reign of Artabanus was very stormy, Tiberius on the one hand taking advantage of the factions between the nobles to support pretenders to the crown; the revolts of the satraps, on the other hand, giving proof of the declension of the Parthian power. After his death war raged between his sons; the second, Vardanes, (Arsaces XX.) d. 47, made good his pretensions to the crown, and took North Media, (Atropatene;) he was succeeded by his elder brother Gotarzes, (Arsaces XXI.) d. 50, to whom Claudius unsuccessfully opposed Meherdates, educated as an hostage at Rome. Arsaces XXII. (Vonones II.) succeeded, after a reign of a few months, by Arsaces XXIII. (Vologeses I.) d. 90. The possession of the Armenian throne, given by this prince to his brother Tiridates, by the Romans to Tigranes, grandson of Herod the Great, excited a series of disputes, which began so early as the reign of Claudius, A. D. 52, and under Nero broke out into open war, waged with some success on the Roman side by Corbulo, 56—64, and closed by Tiridates going, after the death of Tigranes, to Rome, and there accepting the crown of Armenia as a gift at the hands of Nero, 65. Arsaces XXIV. (Pacorus,) d. 107, contemporary with Domitian. All that we know of him is, that he embellished the city of Ctesiphon. Arsaces XXV. (Cosroes,) d. about 121. The claims to the throne of Armenia implicated him in a war with Trajan, 114, during which Armenia, together with Mesopotamia and Assyria, were converted into Roman provinces. Trajan's consequent and successful inroad into the interior parts of the Parthian dominions, 115—116, followed by the capture of Ctesiphon, and the appointment of Parthamaspates as king, appears to have been facilitated by the domestic commotions and civil wars which had for a long time harassed the empire. Nevertheless, in the following year, 117, Hadrian was compelled to give up all the conquered country; the Euphrates was again acknowledged as the boundary; Parthamaspates was appointed king of Armenia; and Cosroes, who had taken refuge in the upper satrapies, was reinstated on the throne, of which he seems ever after to have kept quiet possession. Arsaces XXVI. (Vologeses II.) d. 149. Parthia under his reign, and Rome under that of Antoninus Pius, remained on good terms. Arsaces XXVII. (Vologeses III.) d. 191. Under the reign of this king, the contemporary of Marcus Aurelius and L. Verus, the war with Rome was again kindled, 161, by Verus, and carried on in Armenia and Syria; Cassius, the legate of Verus, at last got possession of Seleucia, and demolished that city, 165.—Arsaces XXVIII. (Ardawan or Vologeses IV.) d. 207. This king having taken the part of Pescenninus Niger, in the war between him and Septimius Severus, was, after the defeat of his friend, 194, routed in a war with Septimius Severus, 197, and the chief towns of Parthia were sacked by the invaders. He is, without authority, represented as succeeded by a Pacorus, who took the name of Arsaces XXIX.: his real successor, however, appears to have been Arsaces XXIX. (Vologeses V.) d. 216. Domestic wars among his sons, fomented by Caracalla. Arsaces XXX. (Artabanus IV.) At the beginning of his reign, this prince likewise was contemporary with Caracalla, who, in order to pick a quarrel, demanded his daughter in marriage; according to some, Arsaces refused her, in consequence of which the Roman emperor undertook a campaign into Armenia; according to others, Arsaces having assented, and escorted his daughter to Caracalla, was, by an abominable stroke of treachery, cut off, together with all his train, A. D. 216. Caracalla having been murdered, 217, his successor, Macrinus, signed a peace with the Parthians. But Arsaces subsequently raised his brother Tiridates to the throne of Armenia; this act spurred the Persian Artaxerxes, son of Sassan, to rebellion; the Parthian king, defeated in three battles, fell in the last, thus putting a period to the family and dominion of the Arsacidæ, 226, and Artaxerxes became the founder of the New Persian kingdom, or that of the Sassanidæ. The revolution was accompanied not only with a change of dynasty, but with a total subversion of the constitution.

Vaillant, Imperium Arsacidarum et Achæmenidarum, Paris, 1725, 2 vols. 4to. The first part comprises the Arsacidæ; the second the kings of Bithynia, Pontus, and Bosporus. It is an attempt, not altogether faultless, to arrange the series of kings, by the assistance of coins.

† C. F. Richter, Historico-critical essay upon the dynasties of the Arsacidæ and Sassanidæ, according to the Persian, Grecian, and Roman authorities. A prize essay. Leipzic, 1804. A comparative research into the eastern and western sources. The chronology in the above sketch has been corrected by this work, in conjunction with

Th. Chr. Tychsen, Commentationes de Nummis Persarum et Arsacidarum; inserted in Commentat. Nov. Soc. Sc. Gotting. vol. i. iii.

Bactria.

5. The Bactrian kingdom arose nearly at the same time as the Parthian, 254; its origin, however, was of a different nature,—the independence of this state being asserted by the Grecian governor, who was consequently succeeded by Greeks;—its duration likewise was much shorter, extending only from B. C. 254 to B. C. 126. Scarce any fragments have been preserved of the history of this empire, the borders of which appear at one time to have extended to the banks of the Ganges, and the frontiers of China.

Founder of the empire, Diodatus or Theodotus I. B. C. 254; he threw off his allegiance to the Syrian king, under Antiochus II. He appears to have been master not only of Bactria, but also of Sogdiana. He likewise threatened the Parthians; after his decease, 243, his son and successor, Theodotus II. signed a treaty and alliance with Arsaces II. but was nevertheless deprived of his crown by Euthydemus of Magnesia, about 221. Antiochus the Great, at the conclusion of the Parthian war, directed his arms against Euthydemus, 209—206; the contest ended in a peace, by which Euthydemus, after delivering up his elephants, was not only left in possession of the crown, but was allied to the Syrian family by the marriage of his son Demetrius with a daughter of Antiochus. Demetrius, though a great conqueror, does not seem to have been king of Bactria; his dominions comprised, it is probable, North India and Malabar, whose history now becomes closely connected with that of Bactria, although consisting only of mere fragments. The throne of Bactria fell to Apollodotus, and after him to Menander, who extended his conquests as far as Serica, while Demetrius was establishing his dominion in India, [as sovereign of which country he is represented in a medal lately discovered,] and where, about this time, several Greek states appear to have existed, perhaps ever since the expedition of Antiochus III. 205. Menander was succeeded, about 181, by Eucratidas, under whose reign the Bactrian empire attained its greatest extension; after defeating the Indian king, Demetrius, who had been the aggressor, he, with the assistance of the Parthian conqueror, Mithridates, (Arsaces VI.) annexed India to his own empire, 148. On his return, he was murdered by his son; the same, probably, that is mentioned afterwards by the name of Eucratidas II. He was the ally of Demetrius II. of Syria, and the main instigator of his expedition against the Parthians, 142; Demetrius being defeated by Arsaces VI. Eucratidas was, in consequence, deprived of a portion of his territory; overpowered soon after by the nomad races of Central Asia, the Bactrian empire fell to the ground, and Bactria itself, together with the other countries on this side of the Oxus, became a prey to the Parthians.

Th. Sieg. Bayer, Historia regni Græcorum Bactriani. Petropol. 1738, 4to. The few remaining fragments are in this work collected with industry and arranged with skill.

[Tod, Account of Greek, Parthian, and Hindu Medals, in Transactions of the R. Asiatic Society, vol. i. part ii, p. 316.

Tychsen, De Nummis Græcis et Barbaris in Bochara nuper retectis, in Comment. Nov. Soc. Sc. Gotting. vol. vi.]

Kingdom of the Jews.

6. The restored kingdom of the Jews was likewise a fragment of the Macedonian monarchy; and although it ranked only with the smaller states, its history in various respects deserves our attention, few nations having had so powerful an influence on the progress of human civilization. The foundation of the independence of the Jews was not, it is true, laid before the year 167; yet their domestic constitution had previously assumed its main features, and their history, reckoning from the return of the Babylonian captivity, accordingly divides itself into four periods: 1. Under the Persian supremacy, 536—323. 2. Under the Ptolemies and Seleucidæ, 323—167. 3. Under the Maccabees, 167—39. 4. Under the Herodians and Romans, B. C. 39. to A. D. 70.

First period under the Persians. By permission from Cyrus, a colony of Jews belonging to the tribes of Benjamin, Judah, and Levi, returned to the land of their forefathers, 536: this colony, headed by Zorobabel, of the ancient royal family, and the high priest Joshua, consisted of about 42,000 souls; the far more important and wealthy portion of the nation preferred to remain on the other side of the Euphrates, where they had been settled for seventy years, and continued to be a numerous people. The new settlers found it difficult to keep their footing, principally in consequence of differences, produced by the intolerance they themselves evinced at the building of the temple, with their neighbours and kinsmen the Samaritans, to whom the colony was only a cause of expense. The Samaritans, subsequently, having erected a separate temple at Garizim, near Sichem, about 336, not only separated completely, but laid the foundation of an inveterate hatred between the two nations. Hence the prohibition to rebuild the city and temple, brought about by their means, under Cambyses, 529, and Smerdis, 522, and not taken off until 520, in the reign of Darius Hystaspes. The new colony did not receive a permanent internal constitution till the time of Ezra and Nehemiah; both brought in fresh colonists, the former in 478, the latter in 445. The country was under the dominion of the satraps of Syria; but in the increasing domestic declension of the Persian empire, the high priests gradually became the virtual rulers of the nation. Nevertheless, even at the time of Alexander's conquest, 332, the Jews seem to have manifested proofs of fidelity to the Persians.

Second period under the Ptolemies and Seleucidæ, 323—167. After the death of Alexander, Palestine, in consequence of its situation, generally shared the fate of Phœnicia and Cœle-Syria, (see above, p. 249.) being annexed to Syria.—Capture of Jerusalem, and transplantation of a vast colony of Jews to Alexandria by Ptolemy I. 312; from thence they spread to Cyrene, and gradually over the whole of North Africa, and even into Æthiopia. From 311—301 the Jews remained, however, subject to Antigonus. After the overthrow of his empire, they remained, 301—203, under the dominion of the Ptolemies; the most conspicuous of their high priests during this interval were Simon the Just, d. 291, and afterwards his son, Onias I. d. 218, who, by withholding the tribute due to Ptolemy III. exposed Judæa to imminent danger.—In the second war of Antiochus the Great against Egypt, 203, the Jews, of their own free will, acknowledged themselves his subjects, and assisted in driving out the Egyptian troops, who, under their general, Scopas, had again possessed themselves of the country, and the citadel of Jerusalem, 198. Antiochus confirmed the Jews in the possession of all their privileges; and although he promised their country, together with Cœle-Syria and Phœnicia, to Ptolemy Epiphanes, as the future dowry of his daughter, Judæa still remained under the Syrian supremacy; except that the revenue was for a time divided between the Syrian and Egyptian kings.—The high priests and self-chosen ethnarchs or alabarchs were at the head of the people; and we now find mention made for the first time of a senate, or the sanhedrim. But the rout of Antiochus the Great by the Romans was also the remote cause of the subsequent misfortunes of the Jews. The consequent dearth of money in which the Syrian kings found themselves, and the riches of the temple treasures, the accumulation of the sacred income and gifts, made the office of high priest an object of purchase under Antiochus Epiphanes: hence arose quarrels between the pontifical families, and out of those sprung factions, which Antiochus Epiphanes was desirous to turn to his own account, by the introduction of Grecian institutions among the Jews, in order thereby to promote the subjection of that people, now raised by its privileges almost to the rank of a state within that of Syria. Deposition of the high priest, Onias III. 175; his brother Jason having obtained the mitre by purchase, and the introduction of Grecian customs: Jason, however, was in his turn supplanted by his brother Menelaus, 172. During the civil war arising out of these events, Antiochus Epiphanes, at that time conqueror in Egypt, (see above, p. 241.) takes possession of Jerusalem, 170, being provoked by the behaviour of the Jews to Menelaus, the high priest of his own appointment: the consequent oppression of the Jews, who now were to be Hellenized by main force, soon occasioned the rise under the Maccabees.

Third period under the Maccabees, 167—39. Commencement of the rebellion against Antiochus IV. brought about by the priest Mattathias, 167, who was almost immediately succeeded, 166—161, by his son Judas Maccabæus. Supported by the fanaticism of his party, Judas defeats in several battles the generals of Antiochus, who was absent in Upper Asia, where he died, 164; the Jewish leader is even said to have been favoured by Rome. The primary object of the insurrection was not, however, political independence; they fought only for religious freedom. Under Antiochus V. the sedition continued successful, both against the Syrian king and the high priest Alcimus, his creature, 163; Judas having died soon after his defeat by Demetrius I. was succeeded by his brother Jonathan, 161—143. The death of the high priest, Alcimus, 160, opened the path of Jonathan to that office, which he received in the ensuing war between Demetrius I. and Alexander Balas, 143, (see above, p. 244, 245.) both rivals courting his alliance: Jonathan sided with Balas, and consequently, from being merely the leader of a party, came to be head of the nation, which still, nevertheless, continued to pay tribute to the kings. Notwithstanding the favour he had shown to Balas, after the overthrow of that pretender, he was confirmed in his dignity by Demetrius I. 145; to whose assistance he marched at the subsequent great revolt in Antioch. Jonathan however, in 144, passed over to the side of the usurper, Antiochus, the son of Balas, (see above, p. 245.) and was by embassy presented with the friendship of the Romans in the same year, but by the treachery of Tryphon was taken and put to death, 143. His brother and successor, Simon, 143—135, having declared against Tryphon, was by Demetrius II. not only confirmed in his dignity, but excused from paying tribute; he likewise received the title of prince, (ethnarch;) and appears to have struck coins. After the capture of Demetrius, Antiochus Sidetes allowed Simon to remain in possession of those privileges so long as he stood in need of his assistance against Tryphon; but after the death of that usurper, he caused him, 130, to be attacked by Cendebæus, who was defeated by the sons of Simon. Simon having been murdered by his son-in-law, Ptolemæus, who aspired to the government, 135, was succeeded by his son, John Hyrcanus, 135—107, who was compelled again to acknowledge submission to Antiochus Sidetes; but after the defeat and death of that prince by the Parthians, 130, he asserted his entire independence. The deep decline of the Syrian kingdom, the constant civil wars by which it was distracted, and the renewed league with the Romans, not only enabled Hyrcanus easily to maintain his independence, but likewise to increase his territory, by the conquest of the Samaritans and Idumæans. But with him ended the heroic line. Scarcely was he delivered from foreign oppression, when domestic broils arose; the Pharisees and Sadducees had hitherto been mere religious sects, but were converted into political factions by Hyrcanus, who, offended with the Pharisees, probably in consequence of their wish to separate the pontifical and princely offices, went over to the Sadducees; the former sect, the orthodox, were as usual supported by the many; the latter, the innovators, in consequence of the laxity of their principles, were favoured by the wealthy. Hyrcanus's eldest son, the cruel Aristobulus, 107, assumed the royal title, but soon after dying, 106, was succeeded by his younger brother, Alexander Jannæus, 106—79. His reign was an almost unbroken series of insignificant wars with his neighbours, this prince wishing to play the conqueror; and having likewise had the imprudence to irritate the powerful party of the Pharisees, these made him the object of public insult, and excited a tumult, 92, which was followed by a bloody civil war which lasted six years. Jannæus, it is true, maintained himself during the struggle; but the opposite party was so far from being annihilated, that, at his death, when passing over his sons, the feeble Hyrcanus (who possessed the pontifical dignity) and the ambitious Aristobulus, he bequeathed the crown to his widow Alexandra, it was with the understanding that she should join the party of the Pharisees: during her reign, therefore, 79—71, the Pharisees held the reins of government, and left her only the name. Provoked at this, Aristobulus, shortly before the death of the queen, endeavoured to obtain possession of the throne, and ultimately obtained his ends, notwithstanding Alexandra nominated Hyrcanus to be her successor. Hyrcanus, at the instigation of his confidant, the Idumæan Antipater, who was the progenitor of the Herodians, and assisted by the Arabian prince Aretas, waged war against his brother, 65, and shut him up in Jerusalem: but the Romans were arbitrators, and Pompey, then all-powerful in Asia, decided for Hyrcanus, 64; the party of Aristobulus, however, refusing to accede, the Roman general took possession of Jerusalem; made Hyrcanus high priest and prince, under condition that he should pay tribute; and took as prisoners to Rome Aristobulus and his sons, who, however, subsequently escaped and caused great disturbances. The Jewish state being now dependent on Rome, remained so, and the yoke was confirmed by the policy of Antipater and his sons, who followed the general maxim of entire devotion to Rome, in order thereby to succeed in wholly removing the reigning family. As early as 48, Antipater was appointed procurator of Judea by Cæsar, whom he had supported at Alexandria, and his second son Herod, governor in Galilee, soon became sufficiently powerful to threaten Hyrcanus and the sanhedrim, 45. He gained the favour of Antony, and thus maintained himself amid the tempests which, after the assassination of Cæsar, 44, shook the Roman world, powerful as the party opposed to him were: that party, however, at last, in lieu of the ill-fated Hyrcanus, the only surviving son of Aristobulus, placed Antigonus at their head, and, assisted by the Parthians, then flourishing in power, seated him on the throne, 39. Herod having fled to Rome, not only met with a gracious reception at the hands of the triumviri, but was by them appointed king.

Fourth period under the Herodians, B. C. 39 to A. D. 70. Herod the Great, B. C. 39 to A. D. 1. put himself in possession of Jerusalem and all Judæa, B. C. 37, and confirmed his power by marrying Mariamne of the house of the Maccabees. Notwithstanding his severity shown to the party of Antigonus, and the house of the Maccabees, the total extinction of which Herod deemed necessary for his own safety; yet so greatly did the wasted country stand in need of peace, that for that very reason his reign may be said to have been a happy one. Availing himself of the liberality of Augustus, whose favour he contrived to obtain after the defeat of Anthony, B. C. 31, Herod gradually increased the extent of his kingdom, which at last comprised Judæa, Samaria, Galilee, and beyond the Jordan, Peræa, Ituræa, and Trachonitis, (that is to say, the whole of Palestine,) together with Idumæa; from these countries he derived his income without being obliged to pay any tribute. The deference consequently shown by Herod to Rome, was but the effect of a natural policy, and his conduct in that respect could be objected to him only by bigoted Jews. To his whole family, rather than to himself individually, are to be attributed the executions which took place among its members; happy had it been if the sword had smitten none but the guilty and spared the innocent. In the last year but one of his reign is placed the birth of Christ (according to the usually adopted computation, made in the sixth century by Dionysius Exiguus. But the more accurate calculations of modern chronologists show that the real date of the Saviour's birth was probably four years earlier).—According to his will, with some few alterations made by Augustus, his kingdom was divided among his three surviving sons; Archelaus, as ethnarch, receiving the greater moiety, Judæa, Samaria, and Idumæa; the two others, as tetrarchs, Philip a part of Galilee and Trachonitis, Antipas the other part of Galilee, and Peræa, together with Ituræa; subsequently to which division, the various parts did not, in consequence, all share the same fate.—Archelaus, by misgovernment, soon lost his portion, A. D. 6; Judæa and Samaria were consequently annexed as a Roman province to Syria, and placed under procurators subordinate to the Syrian governors: among these procurators, the most famous is Pontius Pilate, about A. D. 27—36, under whom the founder of our religion appeared and suffered, not as a political—although accused of being so—but as a moral reformer. On the other hand, Philip retained his tetrarchy until the day of his death, A. D. 34, when his country had the same lot with Judæa and Samaria. Soon after, that is to say, in A. D. 37, it was, however, given by Caligula, with the title of king, to Agrippa, (grandson of Herod by Aristobulus,) as a recompense for his attachment to the family of Germanicus; and when Antipas, who wished to procure a similar favour for himself but instead of it, was deposed, 39, Agrippa received his tetrarchy also, 40, and soon afterwards, by the possession of the territory which had belonged to Archelaus, became master of the whole of Palestine. Agrippa having died in A. D. 44, the whole country being appended to Syria, became a Roman province, and received procurators, although Chalcis, 49, and subsequently also, 53, Philip's tetrarchy, were restored as a kingdom to his son Agrippa II. d. 90. The oppression of the procurators, and of Gessius Florus in particular, who obtained the office, A. D. 64, excited the Jews to rebellion, which, 70, ended in the capture and destruction of their city and temple by Titus. The spread of the Jews over the whole civilized world of that time, although previously commenced, was by this event still further increased; and at the same time the extension of Christianity was prepared and facilitated. Even after the conquest, Jerusalem not only continued to exist as a city, but was also still considered by the nation as a point of union; and the attempt, under Adrian, to establish a Roman colony there, produced a fearful sedition.

Basnage, Histoire des Juifs depuis J. C. jusqu' à present. La Haye, 1716, 15 vols. 12mo. The first two parts only, properly speaking, belong to this period; but the others likewise contain several very valuable historical researches.

Prideaux, The Old and New Testament connected in the history of the Jews and their neighbouring nations. Lond. 1714, 2 vols. This work, together with that above quoted, have always been esteemed the grand books on the subject. The French translation of Prideaux's Connection is, by its arrangement, more convenient for use than the original: this translation was published at Amsterdam, 1722, 5 vols. 8vo. under the title of Prideaux, Histoire des Juifs et des peuples voisins depuis la décadence des Royaumes d'Israel et de Juda, jusqu' à la mort de J. C.

† J. D. Michaelis, Translation of the Books of Esdras, Nehemiah, and Maccabees, contains in the observations several historic discussions of high importance.

† J. Remond, Essay towards a history of the spread of Judaism, from Cyrus to the total decline of the Jewish state. Leipzig, 1789. The industrious work of a young scholar.

To the works enumerated p. 34, 35, must be added, for the more ancient history of the Jews:

J. L. Bauer, Manual of the history of the Hebrew nation, from its rise to the destruction of its state. Nuremberg, 1800, 2 parts, 8vo. As yet the best critical introduction, not only to the history, but also to the antiquities of the nation.

† In the works of J. J. Hess, belonging to this subject, namely, History of Moses; History of Joshua; History of the Rulers of Judah, 2 parts; History of the Kings of Judah and Israel: the history is throughout considered in a theocratic point of view.