Volume 1 — GREECE BEYOND PELOPONNESUS. (continued 4)

Among the six towns in Pallene, only Mende and Scione, which were destroyed in a fearful manner by the Athenians, deserve to be mentioned. This is one of the cases in which we cannot say that the Athenians did not abuse their excessive power.

Olynthus, situated on a hill beyond the isthmus, about five miles north of Potidaea, is one of those places which, however familiar their names may be to the reader of Demosthenes, are yet historically very obscure; information about them does not readily present itself to us, and it is only with difficulty that we can gather their history. Olynthus is one of the little Chalcidian places, which are mentioned at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war. During that war, when the Chalcidians rose against Athens, they formed the determination, for the purpose of being better able to defend themselves, to give up their old and indefensible towns, and to unite in one place, to form a συνοικισμός, in which undertaking they were supported by Perdiccas and Brasidas. In this manner Olynthus became a large town, a new city being formed around the old place and the acra. It speedily rose to great power, and had scarcely existed fifty years, when we hear it spoken of as ruling far and wide over the neighbouring country. The expedition of Brasidas had overthrown the supremacy of Athens in those parts, and the Macedonian towns were yet too weak to be able to avail themselves of this opportunity: hence a great power was there imperceptibly developed. The old towns were reduced to the rank of demi. They did not limit themselves to the pedantry of admitting only Greeks, but received Bottiaeans, Macedonians, and other neighbouring tribes into their alliance, and this is the first great example of a sympolity.

After Olymp. 100, Xenophon, in his Hellenica,⁠[79] mentions the fact, that the Olynthians were already ruling over a great part of Macedonia; they were even in possession of Pella, and their eastern neighbours, the Apolloniats and Acanthians, being attacked by them, applied to Sparta for assistance. The whole of the northern country was independent of Olynthus, but we do not know whether the towns of the middle peninsula were so likewise: the peninsula of mount Athos was, with few exceptions, quite barbarous, and the eastern coast of Sithonia was likewise inhabited by Thracians and Tyrrhenians, who, however, in the time of Scylax of Caryanda, had already adopted the Greek language, whence he includes them among the Greeks. Olynthus was the centre of all that country, owing to the great extension of its power. During the disputes about the succession in Macedonia, one town after another was ceded to it as a reward for its decisions. Those towns accordingly applied to the Spartans who sent them assistance for the purpose of weakening Olynthus before it should be too late. This expedition, however, failed, and the Olynthians maintained themselves. It was at that time that the Cadmea had been treacherously seized by the Spartans, and thus the expedition gave the Thebans and Boeotians an opportunity to shake off the Spartan yoke. Further accounts are now wanting—so scantily is the history of Greece known to us! Yet, if we steadily look at the circumstances of the time, we may discover at least so much as to be able to fill up the principal gaps. At the time when Philip came forward, Olynthus was still a powerful city, ruling far and wide, though we do not know how far its dominion extended eastward; it was one of the first cities, and is called by Demosthenes a πόλις μυρίανδρος. But its conduct in history does not appear honourable; the Olynthians were quite infatuated and foolish, and without any idea of the danger threatening from Macedonia, which was then governed by a man who knew how to make use of them. For the purpose of obtaining some petty, miserable advantages, they allied themselves with Philip, and when he cast off the mask and was evidently aiming at their destruction, they were seized with the greatest terror and despair; and then, when it was too late, imploringly prostrated themselves at the feet of the Athenians, and begged their pardon. The Athenians, forgetting everything, immediately supported them on the advice of Demosthenes, but through the detestable treachery of Eurycrates and Lasthenes the city was delivered up to Philip. He could not possibly allow Olynthus quietly to continue its existence, but consistently with the principles of his diabolical policy, he was obliged to destroy it, that he might rise higher: he acquired a beautiful country and a large revenue; he ruled without any formidable neighbours, and was thus enabled to mature his cherished scheme of marching against Hellas. Olynthus was never restored.

The only Greek town in the middle peninsula was Torone, on the western coast of the Toronean gulf; the towns on the eastern coast and in the interior were Thracian. Sithonia (Σιθωνία), the name of this peninsula, is sometimes used by Latin poets for Thrace, but the o is made short, the ear of the early Roman writers probably not catching the name correctly.

The whole of the interior of the northern part of the peninsula containing mount Athos is a hilly country with few plains; even its isthmus is hilly, but then the ground rises higher and higher till it reaches the top of mount Athos, the height of which has not yet been measured. This peninsula was inhabited by barbarians, that is, by Thracians and Tyrrhenians of Lemnos and Imbros, mixed with Greeks, whence they were δίγλωττοι, just as, previously to the reduction of Greece, both Greek and Romaic were spoken, e.g. by the Albanese at Castri (Delphi) and Marathon.

Acanthus, an Andrian colony, was situated on the gulf near the isthmus; it is remarkable on account of the canal which Xerxes caused to be dug near it—a senseless undertaking worthy of a barbarian.

East from mount Athos the Greek towns are found at greater intervals from one another. Apollonia (there are at least a dozen towns of this name), an important city, maintained its independence of Olynthus. Near it was situated Stagira, the birth-place of Aristotle, which was destroyed by Philip, but was restored in consequence of the entreaties of Aristotle.

The district then following is now called the country of Seres, a town situated at the mouth of the Strymon, and mentioned in the middle ages under the name of Serrae; it is an important place, but did not exist in antiquity. The river Strymon was, for a time, regarded as the boundary of Macedonia, but it belongs, properly speaking, to Paeonia. The country about its mouth, like that of Pella and Pallene, is one of the most productive districts, and particularly fit for the growth of cotton and tobacco, whence it was a χώρα περιμάχητος at an early period. It was as important to the Greeks as the ports of the Baltic are to the Dutch and English.

Eion, an ancient Greek town at the mouth of the Strymon, was probably a factory of Thasos. From it Athens and the other maritime cities obtained the timber for shipbuilding, which was brought down the river in rafts. Cyprus, however, also furnished timber. Eion was a very strong place; it was long in possession of the Persians, and Boges maintained himself there long after the great forces of Xerxes had been defeated at Mycale and Plataeae; it was afterwards delivered by Cimon. In former times the Milesians had attempted to establish themselves in those parts, and now the Athenians did the same, at first without success, as the Thracians destroyed their colony. But in a second attempt they were more fortunate. They established themselves near the mouth of the river Strymon, about five miles from Eion, and founded the genuine Attic colony of Amphipolis. It derived its name from the fact of its being situated on both banks of the river and being surrounded by two arms of it; the city was planned with great skill, and built on an excellent site, which nature itself had destined to be a great commercial place, like Riga. The Athenians treated it with especial favour: it was not founded like other places which merely received cleruchi, or, according to the Roman fashion, did not possess municipal jurisdiction, but was a true colonial town, and, to a certain extent, independent of the supremacy of Athens. But the Thracians were dangerous neighbours, especially the Edonians; and in order to defend themselves against them, the colonists admitted Chalcidians as their fellow-citizens, who soon formed the majority, because the Chalcidian towns were not far distant, and because Amphipolis offered more attractions than other places. The Amphipolitans exported timber, corn, tar, pitch, iron, and other Thracian products: it was a necessary mart for the Paeonians and other neighbouring nations. At the time of the Peloponnesian war, when the exasperation between the Athenians and Chalcidians had risen very high, the latter succeeded in treacherously overpowering the Attic colony, and in securing the assistance of Sparta. Brasidas defended it against Cleon, and fell in the battle, but the possession of the town was nevertheless for a long time withheld from the Athenians, and Amphipolis henceforth remained a Chalcidian town. In the time of Timoleon, when the maritime power of Athens was again extended, Amphipolis was obliged to acknowledge her supremacy, but soon renounced it again, and the Athenians being then in an unwarlike condition were unable to re-conquer it. The possession of Amphipolis then became one of the baits by means of which Philip for a long time deceived the Athenians; but he took it for himself, and thenceforth, as long as the Macedonian empire existed, it remained one of its chief towns. Early in the middle ages (in the seventh century), it was destroyed by the Slavonians and other barbarians, and never recovered. The town of Seres stepped into its place.

The towns of Abdera and Maronea, both Ionian colonies of Teos, were situated on the coast of Thrace proper. Abdera is celebrated from the tradition about the silliness of its inhabitants, which has been carried to the height of absurdity in the romance of Wieland. These stories have almost made us forget, that Democritus, one of the greatest geniuses of Greece, was a native of Abdera. Maronea was an ancient seat of the worship of Bacchus, for the southern coast of Thrace is one of the countries in which the nobler kinds of wine were produced at a very early period.

Aenos, an Aeolian town, was situated at the mouth of the river Hebrus. All these countries afterwards belonged for a time to the kingdom of Egypt. If my intention of editing Polybius conjointly with Bekker should ever be realised, I contemplate adding a map of that coast.

The Chersonesus, which, between forty and fifty miles in length, extends between the κόλπος μέλας and the Hellespont, is connected with Thrace by an isthmus of about five miles in breadth, and was formerly a Thracian country, whence its name of Chersonesus Thracica. Such it appears in the cyclic poems, and the faithless tyrant, to whom Hecuba entrusts her son, is placed in this peninsula; but in the course of time Greeks settled there, and hence arose the colonies of Sestos, Eleus (Ἐλεοῦς, Ἐλαιοῦς), and Alopeconnesus on the coast of the Hellespont; but all of them, with the exception of Sestos, were unimportant. The interior contained the Thracian country of the Doloncians. When these latter were attacked by the Thracian tribes, they, in common with the Greek towns, applied to Athens for protection, for Athens was then already rising, and fought with the Mityleneans for the possession of Sigeon. At that time, the Athenians under Miltiades took possession of Chersonesus, and protected it by a line of fortifications against the Thracians, on which occasion they must have founded Cardia. The Thracians who formerly dwelt there, now became allies and subjects, in which relation they remained until the extension of the power of Persia. We must not imagine that the first taking possession of Chersonesus was not the work of Pisistratus; the tendency to refer to the people that which was done by the tyrants alone, is one of the later republican vanities. Yet it does not follow, that Athens at that time had a consolidated dominion over Chersonesus, unless indeed it was broken after the expulsion of the Pisistratids.

It contained twelve towns. The wall of Miltiades was long preserved, though it was often broken through and restored. Near it was Cardia, according to tradition, an ancient Greek town, which only received new strength through Miltiades. It was destroyed by Lysimachus, perhaps not in anger, but, as was often done by the rulers of that time, for the purpose of enriching a favourite town with inhabitants. Thus Mahomed I., in order to raise Constantinople, transplanted to it many thousands of Christian Armenians and other people. For Lysimachus founded Lysimachia by the side of Cardia, and this no doubt became his capital, though this is nowhere expressly mentioned, for it is in the spirit of the times; think only of Alexandria, Antioch, Demetrias, and Cassandrea! Lysimachia was great and splendid; it was afterwards under the dominion of Syria; in the wars between Seleucus Callinicus and Ptolemy Euergetes it passed from the hands of the Syrians into those of the Egyptians. The latter either set the town free, or it emancipated itself, and entered the relation of sympolity with the Aetolians. As the latter were unable to protect it, it was destroyed at the time of the Philippic war by the Thracians, for the Thracian tribes were then very powerful and tyrannical towards the Greeks. Being poorly restored by Antiochus the Great, it thenceforth was little more than a name, until in the end it disappears altogether. Cardia produced the historian Hieronymus, who wrote a history of the successors of Alexander and their descendants (Epigoni); he was an historian of great value, an able man, and a companion of Eumenes. The latter, too, was a native of Cardia, a man of a better kind than the other generals of Alexander; he was the only non-Macedonian who raised himself to the rank of a prince; he had a real enthusiasm for the house of Alexander, of which not a trace is to be found in any of the others.

All the remaining places were either Athenian or Ionian, and Alopeconnesus and Sestos alone are called Aeolian. Sestos is celebrated through the legend of Hero, and in history on account of the long siege which the Persians sustained there even after the battle of Mycale. This is the site of the ancient Dardanelles; the Hellespont there is only seven stadia in breadth.

I ought to have mentioned Abydos on the opposite coast, when speaking of Aeolis. It is renowned for its desperate defence against Philip, the son of Demetrius, and Antiochus, in their war against young Ptolemy. It is inconceivable what made the people of Abydos so determined not to exchange one master for another: they made away with themselves in order not to fall into the hands of Philip.

At a later time, Callipolis (now Gallipoli) arose in the neighbourhood of Sestos; it was an important town under the Byzantine emperors, and even as early as the reign of Justinian. In antiquity it was so insignificant, that it may be doubted as to whether it really existed.

The Chersonesus appears gradually to have become completely hellenised, although the Thracians were otherwise very obstinate. They entirely disappeared there, either because they quitted the peninsula or because they became amalgamated with the Greeks, for in the time of Philip all the people were Greek, and from the time of Timotheus onward, for a period of several years, the country was completely Athenian. But as the Athenians sent cleruchi into it, the Thracians revolted: hence the interference of Philip, who took possession of the peninsula. This was the occasion of Demosthenes’ speech, περὶ τῶν ἐν Χερσονήσῳ.

We shall now proceed along the Thracian coast as far as the mouth of the Pontus, and then cross over to the coast of Asia. The sea between the Hellespont and the Bosporus was called Propontis. The continuous line of coast of this sea never was entirely in the hands of the Greeks, but they possessed the most important points. On the Thracian coast, between Chersonesus and Perinthus, they had but few places, but the whole of the Bosporus was in their hands. The most important of these places is Perinthus; but before we come to it there are several smaller ones, which I will pass over.

Perinthus, a Samian colony, if we consider the course of the history of Samos, cannot have been founded after the time of the Persian war, and must probably be assigned to the time of Polycrates. This is a point which is self-evident, though no writer mentions it. The town is rarely noticed in history, and is remarkable only on account of the siege of Philip in Olymp. 109, when it was saved by the energetic assistance of Athens, which was afforded to it on the proposal of Demosthenes.

The Byzantine colony of Selymbria (bria with the Thracians signified a town, as in Mesembria) was situated between Perinthus and Byzantium.

Byzantium, a colony of the Megarians, was situated between the Propontis, the Bosporus, and the bay called Ceras. Under the Byzantine emperors, this bay was called the Golden Horn (τὸ χρυσοῦν κέρας), and is situated between Pera and Constantinople, forming the great port of the city extending about five miles into the country; a river empties itself into its μυχός. It is not known at what time the Megarians were powerful enough to found such a colony, but, according to all accounts, it was at an early period, perhaps during the tyrannis of Theagenes, or even earlier. Megara probably acted only as mediator for the efflux of the surplus population of the Dorians, for itself was too small. The original name of Byzantium was Βύζας, of which the most distinct traces occur in the antiquities of Constantinople, as you may see in Codinus, De originibus Constantinopolitanis, a work which contains some important matters concerning mythology; but its language is miserably bad. All traditions go back to a hero Byzas, who is said to be the founder of the place, and is represented on coins, just as Taras in the case of Tarentum. A still older form was no doubt Βύζανς, like Antians, Romans, Campans, ans being a genuine Pelasgian ending. The πολιτικὸν is Βυζάντιος, the citizens are called Βυζάντιοι, and the city τὸ Βυζάντιον (supply πόλισμα) in Thucydides.⁠[80] In the earlier writers, such as Herodotus, οἱ Βυζάντιοι is far more common, for instead of the names of places with the unusual terminations as (ans) and us (uns), the names of the citizens are generally employed, as Λεοντῖνοι in Sicily from Λεοῦς, which does not occur at all. Such forms are used even where topically the place alone is meant. In like manner, we find in the middle ages Tusculana or Tusculanum (supply civitas or oppidum), Lanuvina or Lanuvinum; and many of these things have descended to our own times, as Palestrina for Praenestina. The Romans called the city Byzantium, and from it they formed the new adjective Byzantinus, which remained indeed foreign to the Greeks, but is the only correct form in later times, when Byzantium was restored under the name of Constantinople.

I have made these observations, because even a grammarian like my dear friend Buttmann⁠[81] has been mistaken on this point. In order to decide such questions, it is necessary to make investigations and to search even in the inelegant corners of the literature of the fifth and sixth centuries, and to be as familiar with it, as were Joseph Scaliger and J. F. Gronovius. In our time scholars move within too narrow limits; but we ought not to be satisfied with a knowledge of the elegant literature, but must go down to the middle ages; there are many points in the language, which receive the necessary light only from mediaeval writings.⁠[82] Buttmann is right so far as the classical period is concerned.⁠[83]⁠

Byzantium was destined by nature to be one of the most important cities; and it was so much designed to become a large place, that the oracle commanding the settlers to establish themselves opposite to the coast of the Blind, said nothing but the plain truth. Chalcedon on the opposite coast was probably a Megarian settlement, but founded from Byzantium at its very earliest period, and not 150 years before the foundation of Byzantium by the Megarians. Byzantium controls the Bosporus and the whole of the Euxine, and it is inconceivable how the Greeks could settle on the Pontus, without previously taking possession of Byzantium. Its harbour is extremely safe and fit for the largest vessels; and even on the south side of the city, ships may anchor in the Propontis with great safety and without being exposed to the winds. The current from the Black Sea through the Hellespont affords a safety of defence, which is of great importance in case of an attack from the west, and that even without any necessity of fortifying the pass of Sestos. The climate is extremely healthy, the situation most beautiful, and the country all around the most fertile in the world. Not to leave unnoticed what is apparently accidental, I may mention that the sea there abounds in fish, which are a great advantage to those countries. The Black Sea is in general very rich in fish, and from it, from the Palus Maeotis, from the Don and Dniepr, large shoals of fish proceed annually through the Bosporus and the Hellespont towards the Aegean Sea; but the current always throws a great many into the harbour of Byzantium, where they find no outlet and are caught with the greatest facility, especially tunny fish and anchovies. When the Ionian cities became weaker, the Byzantians, availing themselves of their situation, levied a toll upon ships passing through the Bosporus, but were unable permanently to exact it, and became in consequence involved in serious wars.

Byzantium was conquered by a Persian general of Darius, and for a time was nothing but a Persian fortress: the Greek inhabitants of the place then dispersed, but the whole of the Bosporus and the country on the other side of the Ceras as far as Selymbria, consisted of Byzantian προάστεια. The circumference of the ancient city was not great, occupying only about double the space of the present Seraglio. During the Macedonian period, Byzantium, with extraordinary skill, preserved its independence. In Olymp. 106, it undertook, in conjunction with Rhodes, Chios, and Mitylene, the Social war against Athens. Under Lysimachus, it appears to have formally maintained its political existence, paying homage to him only by presents, and thus throughout all changes it remained free until the time of the Romans. In the age of Cicero, for example, Byzantium, as we see from his speech against Piso, was a completely free city and in alliance with the Romans. As commerce was constantly increasing in the Roman empire, Byzantium also rose in prosperity, as is clear from certain statements of Tacitus. In the war of Pescennius Niger against Septimius Severus, Byzantium stood out against a desperate siege which lasted for three years; Niger had no hope of conquering Severus and the West, and this seems to have suggested to him the idea of dividing the empire, and of maintaining himself in the East, of which Byzantium was to be the capital. When the city was taken, Severus destroyed it completely, a piece of revenge which was otherwise opposed to the character of that prudent emperor. The unfortunate consequence was, that those seas were now thrown open to the barbarians. The Goths, without any obstacle, penetrated into the Propontis, overpowered the claustra of the Hellespont, and spread over Greece. At length Constantine restored Byzantium under the name of Constantinople; he saw the necessity of founding a strong capital there, if he was to maintain himself in the East. This determination of Constantine has been censured, and the course of events seems to justify the censure; but people overlook the fact that, if Constantine had not acted as he did, the East would have been conquered first and much earlier, that part of the empire being then much more in danger than the West. The Goths were on the Danube, and the Huns were pressing on from the East, while the Germans had been completely overpowered by the victories of Aurelian and Probus; and in Gaul, too, not a man thought of making war against Rome. The fact that afterwards circumstances turned out differently is no proof that Constantine was wrong. Had not Constantinople been so strong a place at that time, the eastern empire would have been lost.

The gradual extension of Constantinople is a subject which would lead me too far; but if, after I have given you the topography of Rome, there he still time left, I shall add that of Constantinople.

Let us now proceed to the southern coast of the Propontis. I will only state in general, that the whole of the Asiatic side of the Hellespont, as far as the entrance into the Propontis was completely covered with Greek towns, nearly all of which, like Lampsacus and Dardanus, were Aeolian; a few only were Ionian. But Cyzicus, on the south coast of the Propontis, was a town which enjoyed great celebrity both in the earlier and the somewhat later periods of antiquity. It is a disputed point whether originally it was situated on a peninsula connected with the mainland by a narrow neck, or whether it was in reality an island which was artificially connected with the opposite coast by means of a causeway. It was a Milesian colony, protected against the barbarians by its isolated position, and it acquired importance at first by agriculture, and afterwards by navigation and commerce. It is mentioned by Thucydides and Xenophon, but its real greatness belongs to the Macedonian period, when, to judge from its ruins and the vast number of coins found there, it must have been a very large and wealthy city. It is historically important on account of the siege during which its inhabitants defended themselves bravely, resolutely, and heroically, against Mithridates; the Romans rewarded them for it with distinctions and favours of every kind; and Cyzicus, under the Romans, continued to be a considerable city. It seems to have been destroyed during the Gothic invasion in the third century; under the Byzantine emperors it was only a small provincial town.

There were several other little Greek colonies on the same coast, such as Cios, Astacos, and others, which were subsequently conquered by the Bithynian kings, in consequence of which their names were changed. I shall say more of them when I come to speak of Bithynia.

Chalcedon, opposite to Byzantium, was according to tradition older than it; it may have existed before, but certainly not as a Greek town. It is likewise said to have been a Megarian colony; but it never was of any historical importance. On coins it is called Καλχεδών, but in many MSS. we find Καλχηδών, whence it is often confounded with Καρχηδών.

The Greek towns on the Thracian coast from the Bosporus onwards are in themselves of no historical importance. Mesembria was built by the Byzantians at the time when, during the Ionian war, their own city had been taken by the Persians. Nearly all settlements in those parts were Ionian colonies sent out by Miletus, with the exception of Calatis which was a Dorian colony of Heraclea; but Apollonia and all places further on as far as the Borysthenes are Milesian. All these towns as far as Olbia, as I said before, are of no importance in history, if we except Tomi, which derives its interest from the fact that Ovid lived there in exile.

Tomi is also called Τομεῖς, which is another instance of the variety of adjectives. Τομεύς (Τομεῖς) is an adjective, from which is formed Τομείτης, and from it again the Latin Tomitanus, so that we have three forms of the ethnic name. The description which Ovid, in his Tristia, gives of his sufferings in that place, as well as the Βορυσθενιτικὸς of Dion Chrysostomus, is of historical interest, because it furnishes us a picture of the mode of life in that country. Those distant Greeks maintained themselves as Greeks down to the times of the Romans, but they had enough intercourse with the barbarians to adopt many of their manners and customs, nay, even some peculiarities of language, so that they really were Μιξέλληνες.

The coast of Thrace as far as mount Haemus is beautiful, but in the north of Haemus as far as the Ister, it is inhospitable, for it is rocky, and the country a mere steppe. North of the Ister as far as the Crimea, the coast, though high, is a perfect steppe; the country is flat and often well adapted for agriculture, but unfit for trees, because the soil which is often very fertile is only a few feet deep, and rests upon a stony stratum of ochre, which destroys the roots of trees.

The coast to the north of the Ister as far as the Dniepr or the town of Tyras is called Γετῶν ἐρημία, either because it had been a desert at all times, or because it had been changed into a wilderness. At the mouth of the Dniepr, Tyras, near Akermann, was the only town, and probably even this was only a factory. Odessos, which must not be confounded with the distant Odessa, was situated near the Ister. I will remark here by the way, that the name Odessa has been quite unreasonably adopted from the ancient town Odessos.

The ancient city of Olbia, once, as its name indicates, a wealthy town, was situated between Odessa and Oczakow; it was also termed Borysthenis or Borysthenopolis, but the city is generally called Olbia, while its inhabitants are spoken of under the names of Βορυσθενοπολῖται, Ὄλβιοι, and Ὀλβιοπολῖται. It was a great emporium for the Greek corn trade with the countries about the Dniepr. That trade was carried on from two points, first from the Ukraine and the Dniepr, and secondly from Phanagoria, the Cimmerian Bosporus, the Don, and the Taurian Chersonesus. As apparently unimportant circumstances often supply the place of historical information, so the decay of Olbia justifies the inference that the commerce of the Dniepr, to which Olbia owed its greatness, must have been destroyed, and that too in consequence of the invasion of those countries by the Gauls on the one hand, and by the Sarmatians on the other. Agriculture must have been ruined, and nomadic tribes appear to have settled there. The Bosporanian towns retained their importance, but Olbia was insignificant compared with what it had been, and never rose again. When a place, after its destruction, continues to be inhabited, the stones and especially marble, are ill preserved: Olbia had received its death-blow, and though it continued for a time to be inhabited by the Greeks, it was afterwards completely destroyed by the barbarians, and never restored. Innumerable inscriptions are thus buried in the ground, from which we can gather information about the condition of Olbia; one of them⁠[84] refers to the period preceding the appearance of the Sarmatae. From Dion Chrysostomus, we know that in Caesar’s time the Sarmatae came across the Dniepr, and took and destroyed Olbia. In his own time Olbia was a thinly inhabited and decayed place of large circumference. Afterwards it is no longer mentioned. From Herodotus, who himself visited the place, we can best see how great it was in his time.

From Olbia, we proceed to the Crimea, the Chersonesus Taurica, in modern times sometimes called Tauris,—a name of which it has been justly remarked, that it was unknown to the ancients, but it does not follow that we too should not use it; only in writing Latin we should not employ it, but follow the practice of the ancients. The correct name is Ταυρική; and Ταυρίς, though correctly formed, does not occur, but the country was called from its inhabitants Ταῦροι, whence Ἰφιγένεια ἐν Ταύροις, and not in Tauride. This Taurian Chersonesus consists of two halves which are separated nearly equally by a diagonal running from north-west to south-east. The southern half has an excellent range of hills, whereas the other is a steppe. The former was inhabited by Taurians, the latter by Scythians; the Taurians were, as Herodotus says, foreign to the Scythians. The Greeks formed settlements on the coast of the Taurian country, and also on the Cimmerian Bosporus.

The great town called Chersonesus was situated on the promontory of a small island, as the isthmus could easily be defended by fortifications; it had an excellent harbour, for which reason it had been chosen as the site of a colony. The town was a colony of Heraclea in Bithynia, whose greatness belongs to the period previous to the Mithridatic wars; its vicissitudes are manifold; it must have been founded after the time of Herodotus, as he does not mention it. The passage in which he speaks of those countries, shows that he would have noticed it, if it had existed. But whenever it may have been founded, it became important at an early period, and was known under the name of Ἡρακλεία ἐν Χερσονήσῳ, or simply Χερσόνησος. In consequence of attacks from barbarous tribes, it was obliged to place itself under the protection of Mithridates Eupator. This was the beginning of happy times for the Greeks in those parts; the whole of the Crimea was united under one government, and the barbarians were excluded by fortifications on the isthmus. The kings of Bosporus, descendants of Mithridates, governed the peninsula as a splendid little kingdom under the protection of the Romans, who never introduced their provincial institutions there, but were satisfied with the recognition of their supremacy and presents. Under this government the Chersonesus retained its importance, and when the kingdom of Bosporus was broken up, Chersonesus, which now assumed the name of Cherson, became a republic. As such it existed not only in the reign of Justinian, when the Romans protected the inhabitants as their allies and in that of the descendants of Heraclius, but even afterwards under Constantine Porphyrogenitus (see his detailed article Χερσῶν in the work De Administrando Imperio). The constitution of this republic cannot be satisfactorily ascertained, but its magistrates were called πρωτεύοντες. The place was then still Greek, and Greek was spoken there, and national chronicles were kept in the Greek language, which the author of the work just mentioned made use of. Afterwards the peninsula was taken by the Russians under their prince Wladimir, the first great conqueror who aimed at the possession of Greece. The town was not indeed destroyed on that occasion, but many things of value were carried away, as for example, the bronze gates of the churches. Soon after, the Chazars and other barbarians came and took possession of the town, which then disappears from history. In 1784, when the Russians took the Crimea, the town no longer existed, but only extensive ruins. Regular and systematic excavations might have led to important discoveries, but the Russians built a harbour for their navy; everything was rudely demolished for the purpose of using it as building material; all the iron was torn away, and the bricks employed elsewhere, so that at present not a trace appears of what forty years ago promised certain reward for suitable exertion. Inscriptions, as far as I know, have not been found; but a large number of coins of the Byzantine period have been brought to light, from which we see that the town, like Venice, even then had its own right of coinage under the protection of Constantinople.

Larger or smaller Greek settlements existed near most of the harbours. Theodosia or Theudosia in the neighbourhood of Kaffa, formed the western frontier of the kingdom of Bosporus. At present the name Theodosia (in Russian, Feodosia), has been transferred to Kaffa, but I believe that those are right who consider this transference to be without foundation.

Phanagoria, in the eastern part of the Crimea, was situated on an eminence, and was the chief Greek city in those parts. Although the antiquities there have been destroyed in a barbarous manner, the place still is an inexhaustible mine, and the remains show a degree of beauty which excites our astonishment; the Bosporan coins are beautiful, and the vases, statues, and the like are exquisite. Phanagoria was a very ancient Greek colony of Miletus; it rose to greatness at an early period, and was governed by a γένος bearing the name of Archaeanactidae, so that its form of government was at first aristocratic. The Archaeanactidae were probably succeeded by a democracy, and this by a tyrannis. Among the tyrants, Leucon is of some interest to us, because Demosthenes, in his speech against Leptines, speaks of an honorary right conferred upon him for having done service to Athens. He was succeeded by Satyrus and others, who completely undermined the republican constitution, which was perhaps not suited to those countries. The Greek inhabitants were really much indebted to those princes for preserving their wealth and happiness in the midst of impetuous barbarians. Their names show distinct traces of a connection with Persia; thus we often meet with the name Parysades, which is nothing else than Perisades, the son of a fairy (Peri); according to the Greek pronunciation the resemblance is stronger than according to ours.

The kingdom of Bosporus embraced the whole of the eastern Crimea as far as Theodosia, and the opposite island of Taman, Tamacan, or, as Strabo calls it Tamyrace. It formed settlements also on the Palus Maeotis and on the Euxine. In the time of Mithridates Eupator, it was governed by king Parysades, who, being unable to check the invading Sarmatae, surrendered his kingdom to Mithridates; the latter then undertook an expedition into the Crimea, partly for the purpose of extending his empire, and partly for that of training his army for the war against the Romans. As long as he lived, Bosporus was his province; it then passed into the hands of his family, which, like himself, had become completely hellenized, though they were of Persian origin. We can trace the names of the princes down to the fourth century from their coins, the later ones of which show on one side the head of the reigning emperor of Rome, and on the other that of the Bosporan king.

I cannot at this moment give you an accurate account of the towns in the island of Taman, but they were without importance. The town of Tanais, which may have been very ancient, was situated at the mouth of the river Tanais.

This small kingdom, ever since the time of Mithridates, comprised the whole of the Crimea; across the isthmus, a line of fortifications had been constructed to defend the Crimea against the northern barbarians.

An ancient Περίπλους περὶ Πόντον Εὔξεινον, the beginning of which is lost, is a compilation from the earlier Greek Περίπλοι and from the work of Scymnus of Chios, and contains the distances. But it is very doubtful when it was composed; I believe that it is a late production, perhaps of the time of Justinian, or even later, for all the distances are given in stadia and Roman miles, and the town of Chersonesus is called Cherson.

Greek towns existed not only there, on the coast south of mount Kuban, about the promontory of mount Caucasus, but even in the easternmost corner of the Black Sea. On the eastern coast we find Colchis, which exported the products of those parts, which are extremely wealthy, and form one of the most fertile countries in the world. In the upper part it contains wide and beautiful valleys, but the land is too high and not as rich as in Mingrelia. Dioscuria, a port town on a gulf, Phasis, and several other places on the south coast of the Euxine, were likewise founded by Greek colonists.

If we proceed further west in this direction, we come first to Trapezus, a place well known from Xenophon’s Anabasis, to which it owes its celebrity; afterwards it is not prominent again, until the time when a dynasty of the Comneni established itself there, which even survived the fall of the empire of Constantinople. In the earlier times it is not very important. It did not belong to Cappadocia, but was situated in the country now occupied by the Lazes, a people speaking a peculiar Caucasian language. At Trapezus, the Greek language has maintained itself among the Christians, while otherwise it is almost extinct in Asia Minor. The statement made in the oral traditions of the Greeks, that the Doric dialect was spoken there, is very doubtful.

Amisos, a Milesian colony⁠[85] on the Euxine, the birth-place of Strabo, was an important Greek town in Cappadocia proper. It is strange that such a distant corner of the Greek world should have given birth to a Strabo; the number of faults that can be pointed out in his Greek diction is very small, and even these may be only dialectical; otherwise he writes excellently, for he thinks correctly; the loss of his history is ever to be lamented, for it was assuredly a first-rate work.

The whole country of Trapezus rests on rough Armenian mountains; it is a beautiful country, and to us northern people it would appear excellent, but it is, nevertheless, very different from the blessed fields of Asia Minor. The district containing Amisos and Sinope, on the other hand, is a paradise; its fertility even in antiquity reached a height which we can scarcely imagine in an ideal land, and such is the whole of the north coast of Asia Minor as far as Constantinople. The winters, however, are comparatively severe; the south winds from the Armenian mountains are indeed bracing, but do not much impede the growth of the most exquisite fruit of the south. All Greek towns in that part were free and independent, until the kings of Pontus became powerful and subdued them all, even Amisos.

Sinope, north-west of the mouth of the Halys, and geographically within the boundaries of Paphlagonia, was in ancient times the greatest Greek town in those parts. Its site is one of those which must be noticed on account of its great excellence; it was situated on a peninsula connected with the main land by a narrow isthmus; the coast in the neighbourhood is rocky, so that foreign ships cannot easily land. The peninsula was of considerable extent, so that the town embraced large districts, which were used by the inhabitants as gardens, vineyards, and fields, and which in time of war furnished means of subsistence. The tunny fish from the sea of Azow arrive there first, and the Sinopians have the first advantage; these fish always pass along the coast, and in the end, as I have already remarked, go into the harbour of Byzantium. The advantages of its situation made the town great and prosperous, and its inhabitants maintained their independence till towards the end of the Hannibalian war, when Pharnaces, king of Pontus, took possession of it. From that time it was the capital of Pontus; the kings resided in it, and Mithridates Eupator adorned it with splendid buildings of every kind. It was then conquered by Lucullus, and though it was not destroyed, its fate was terrible. Under the Romans it was again a wealthy provincial town of considerable importance.

The Greek towns Cytoros, Cromna, Tion, and Sesamos anciently existed on the west of Sinope. Amastris, a daughter of a brother of the last Darius, and the wife of Dionysius of Heraclea (she was afterwards married to Lysimachus), united all these towns into one, which she called Amastris, and which became Greek, although she herself was a barbarian. Tion afterwards revived as a separate town.

Heraclea, a colony of Megara, and consequently a Dorian place, was founded at an early period in the country of the Mariandynians, who afterwards became the serfs of the Heracleotae, and stood to them in the same relation as the Helots did to the Spartans. The city ruled over an extensive and fertile country, took an active part in the navigation of the Black Sea, and founded the town of Chersonesus. During the Persian dominion it maintained its independence, and the satraps were unable to exercise much influence upon it. The later history of Heraclea is the same as that of all other towns, of which the constitution was not modified according to the exigencies of the time: the ancient forms could not be maintained, and the town fell into the hands of tyrants, who governed it uninterruptedly until the Macedonian period. Several of these tyrants were extremely mild, as, for example, Clearchus in the time of Plato, whose mind was cultivated by the study of philosophy, and several members of his family afterwards reigned in the same spirit. Amastris, too, ruled there for a long time, and through her the town became subject to Lysimachus. Afterwards a republican constitution was again established there, and remained until the time of the Romans. Heraclea was allied with Rome at an early period, and was favoured by her; but in the war against Mithridates, Heraclea unfortunately declared itself in his favour, in consequence of which it was taken and cruelly treated by Cotta, and the Romans even sent a colony to it, a measure which otherwise they never adopted in those countries. Thenceforth it always remained a considerable town, as is still attested by its ruins. We know the history of Heraclea from the extracts made by Photius from the local history of Memnon, whose work was based on that of Nymphis.

Epirus.

Epirus is one of the few names which, being originally adjectives, have by accident become proper names. Ἤπειρος, as is well known, occurs in the Odyssey as opposed to the Cephallenian islands. In this sense the meaning of the name is almost of indefinite extent, but afterwards, and ever since the Macedonian period, a definite usage, of which traces are found even before, became established; such a trace occurs particularly in Xenophon’s Hellenica, where the name Epirus is applied to the country north of the Ambracian gulf. But in the earlier times, and even in Thucydides, it comprises a tract of country of far greater extent, at least as far as the entrance to the Corinthian gulf; nay, it even reaches beyond, embracing Aetolia and the country of the Ozolian Locrians. This indefiniteness arises from the fact, that the towns in those districts were so far removed from the other Greeks, and were accordingly very little known to them. In all great nations consisting of many tribes, some of which form the real centre, there are others which are scarcely noticed at all; and such also was the case with the Greeks in those parts, as well as in Apulia in Italy. This is proved by the colonization of those coasts, which I have already mentioned, just as if they had been inhabited by barbarians; I need only recall to your recollection the colonies of Anactorium, Leucas, Alyzia on the Acarnanian coast, and Chalcis on the Aetolian. Those nations were even more foreign to the Greeks than the Thessalians, so that the Aetolians and Acarnanians did not belong to the Amphictyonic league, though it included even Malians, Dolopians, Aenianians, Magnetes, and others. These are antiquarian points, to which we must direct our attention, in order to obtain a clear and distinct view.

We shall speak of Epirus in its narrower sense. Its new and narrower frontiers were formed especially at the time when the great Pyrrhus became king of Epirus, and when the kingdom founded by him gained consistency. In later times it was of a still more limited extent. As those tribes, when they did speak Greek, spoke in the Doric dialect, they called themselves Ἀπειρῶται, as we see from their coins, both regal and republican. This form also remained the most familiar to the Romans, and has been preserved down to our own time in the word apricots (mala Apirotica); in like manner, we find in Plautus Alis and Alii for Elis and Elii. Later writers indeed used Epirus and Epiroticus, but these are changes of the literary language, while the genuine and more ancient form continued to be used in the popular and spoken language. The Epirots must also have had a real national name of their own; and this name has been preserved by Mnaseas, a pupil of Aristarchus, in a scholion on the Odyssey. It was Siceli, like that of the Oenotrians in Italy, and of the inhabitants of Sicily. I have published a short essay on this subject in the Rheinisches Museum,⁠[86] and have shown that the Siceli mentioned in the Odyssey must be those of Epirus, that the ancient grammarian is perfectly right in this respect, and that for this reason the last rhapsody of the Odyssey is of quite a different origin from the rest. Satisfactory results in the higher kind of criticism, regarding the age of authors, may be arrived at in many cases either by mere grammatical, or by mere historical philology, but it is infinitely better if both can be combined, and such is the case here, the one supporting the other. Bentley’s investigations on the Epistles of Phalaris and the Fables of Aesop are models of inquiries, in which historical and grammatical philology go hand in hand. Much that is excellent has already been done for the Homeric poems; but there is still much to be removed, and all the details must be treated of in connection with one another. I am not speaking here of that which has already been done by Wolf.

The name Siceli, as I said before, is ancient; but how long it was in actual use is a different question. The correctness of the statement, however, cannot be doubted. Another statement, from Theopompus, a writer who notwithstanding many faults contains much that is instructive, declares the Epirots to be Pelasgians. As regards the Pelasgian nations, I think I may refer you to what I have said elsewhere;⁠[87] I will defer the discussion of this subject until I have made more progress in these Lectures; I should like here to explain my views, but the time would thereby become too short for the task I have proposed to myself. I will therefore compress what I have to say in few words. The Pelasgians were a race distinct from the Hellenes, but sprung from the same root as they, and essentially and nearly allied to them. The difference was not distinctly understood in the earliest times, whence many nations are called by one author Hellenes, and by another Pelasgians. The statement that the Hellenes in the Iliad are not yet mentioned by a common name, that Hellenes and non-Hellenes were first properly distinguished by Thucydides, refers to the difference existing between the Hellenes and Pelasgians. Thus, e.g., Dodona in the Homeric Catalogue is called Hellenic, and Herodotus calls the Molottians and Thesprotians Hellenes, and so also the Epirots, as he was guided by their religion. But Thucydides, who judged from the language of a nation, considers the Epirots as different from the Hellenes, nay, he expressly calls them barbarians. We understand by Epirots the nations extending from the frontier of Illyricum as far as upper Macedonia (without as yet deciding upon the name Macedonia), and then along mount Pindus as far as the Achelous. To these nations we shall apply the name Epirots. I will first mention what points they have in common, and then determine which of them are to be regarded as Epirots and which not. These nations, at least their educated classes, had so far adopted the Greek language, as to employ it everywhere in public and written transactions. This accounts for Polybius always distinctly including them among the Greeks; and he does so even in regard to those who lived beyond the boundaries of Epirus fixed by Pyrrhus: though on one occasion he makes Philip, the son of Demetrius, say of the Aetolians, that they ought not to boast too much of their Hellenic character, nor to distinguish the Macedonians from the Hellenes, since the greater part of them were descended from non-Hellenes and barbarians. And the nations there spoken of were Epirot tribes. In this manner, Polybius somewhat contradicts himself. But it is only critics fond of hair-splitting that can attach any weight to such a contradiction; an author like Polybius, even without scrupulously weighing his words, can not mislead a sensible reader.

Epirus, with the exception of the district on the Ambracian gulf, is altogether a mountainous country. The mountains coming down from the north rise, as in Illyricum, between the district of the Drino and the frontier of Epirus, where they remove considerably from the coast, so that this part consists of low hills on the coast, and of undulating river districts of great extent. The mountains which separate Macedonia and Illyricum, and which there form such gigantic masses, extend in the south towards the sea, and hence constitute the boundary between Epirus and the country, from which the Illyrians on their progress towards the south, were unable to expel the native tribes. The Ceraunian mountains, running parallel with the coast of Corfu, extend into the Adriatic Sea, and end in a promontory without having any continuation in Italy. The opposite mountains in Calabria (the modern Terra di Lecce) form a high plateau of limestone, whereas on the east of the Adriatic they consist partly of slate and partly of primary rocks. In the east of Epirus, Pindus extends in a series of parallel ranges, and rises to its greatest height in those very parts, its summit separating Epirus and Thessaly. The mountains there are in a high degree volcanic, whence the name Ceraunian, for it is literally a perpetually thundering mountain. The ancients knew very well, what modern natural philosophers for a time disbelieved, that thunder-storms may arise from the earth as well as from the atmosphere; and the former is the case especially in volcanic districts. Aristotle and Pliny knew this quite well, but about fifty years ago it was unknown to our natural philosophers. Even at times when there is no volcanic eruption of mount Vesuvius, not only subterraneous but real thunder is often heard, and a person looking without prejudice may see flashes of lightning issuing from the volcano. Hence those mountains are described as seats of lightning. Those terrible mountains, infames scopuli Acroceraunia, fully deserve this name, because they form a rocky and harbourless coast. The scirocco, the destructive south wind, dashes the ships against those rocks, and there is no port far and wide in which they might take refuge. That part of the Adriatic is still notorious for numerous shipwrecks. Another circumstance which makes it dangerous, and which was known to the ancients, but of which moderns are ignorant, is the Syrtes. The accounts of the ancients about them are by no means fabulous: they are dangerous on account of the currents which flow straightway into both the larger and the lesser Syrtis; if a sailor gets into them, he knows not where he is, and during a north wind it is impossible for him to work his way against it and the Syrtes. The ancients understanding this, sailed closer to the coast; at present, when sailors keep more to the middle, there is less danger. If the countries east of the Adriatic should ever become the seat of commerce and exports, shipwrecks would again be very common. There are two currents, the one a continuation of that from the Black Sea, meets that from the Adriatic in the south-west of Malea; they then move on diagonally in a curve, and thus enter the Syrtes. The current from the Adriatic increases the danger of the Ceraunia. From the head of the Ceraunia, the inhospitable coast extends a considerable distance till opposite Corfu. The heights then extend inland towards Pindus, and the southern districts present fertile hills covered with cork-oaks; these hills are lower, and only a few lofty peaks rise out of them, which are very difficult of access. The country about the Ambracian gulf, to a very considerable extent, is mostly alluvial land (in modern Greek βάλτος). The marshes, now called Valtos, are formed by the sea, the Arachthus, and the other rivers; they are constantly increasing, yet the increase amounts to less than what is lost at the mouth of the Achelous.

Thesprotia, the southern and lower country, is the true seat of subterraneous commotions, whence in antiquity it was the land of terrors, and was believed to be connected with the dismal regions of the lower world: in the autumn, scarcely a day passes on which the ground does not tremble under the feet of its inhabitants. From the Acherusian lake (the lake of Janina) a river issues, which is soon lost in the earth, but afterwards re-appears and discharges its waters into the sea. This re-appearance was naturally enough doubted by the ancients, and is a disputed point even now, though I for one have no hesitation in saying that it is the same river. This river is the Acheron or Styx (for in some accounts the two are the same); these are the muddy waters of the lower world, for the soil of Thesprotia is loose and rich, and the rivers are heavy with mud; hence the country is wonderfully fertile, and a real storehouse of grain for Europe, but it is unhealthy, and, with the exception of the mountainous parts, the water is bad.

That country was until very recently a terra incognita to Europeans; the ancients mention very few towns in it, and their descriptions are unsatisfactory. Before the year 1798, when the Ionian islands came into the hands of the French, no European traveller had ever visited the interior of Epirus. It was, therefore, an unknown country, the interior was a complete blank in geographical maps, and the rivers were drawn at random. D’Anville complains of the total want of information, and with his slender means he accomplished all that could be accomplished, but he himself says, that he drew his map of the country with great uncertainty. He did not know, e.g., the site of the lake of Janina, and imagined that it was somewhere near the coast. The geography of Melitios, archbishop of Janina, contains a very respectable description of Epirus; it was written at the beginning of the eighteenth century, and from it the excellent Barbié du Bocage made the first comparatively correct map of Epirus, which accompanies Barthélemy’s Voyage du jeune Anacharsis. Afterwards the country was much visited by French and English officers, and Vaudoncourt and the English consul⁠[88] ... have immensely increased our knowledge of the country, so that now it is perfectly well known, and the obscurity in which many of the statements of the ancients were involved is now sufficiently removed; our present maps of Epirus, too, are quite satisfactory. The first map of this kind was one of the Turkish empire by a modern Greek, which was published at Trieste; it was made for Greeks, and in the modern Greek language; I received it with great pleasure, and Epirus appeared in it in quite a new light.

The exploits of the Suliots have made Epirus hallowed ground to every one who is not devoid of human feeling and sympathy. Their deeds of valour described in the history of Major Perrevos, and in the excellent abridgment of Fauriel, a Frenchman, surpass everything that is related in epic poetry, and transfer us from our artificial age, so thoroughly devoid of character, into an age of heroes. They are among the most remarkable people of our time: their sufferings have stirred up our keenest sympathy; to them we are indebted for the delight of having witnessed a heroic age, while our own life has become so uniformly European, that everything has assumed a general and vague character; the Suliots will have an interest for all succeeding ages. The Epirots, on the testimony of Thucydides, were formerly considered as barbarians, with the exception of Pyrrhus, and I myself have looked upon them in the same light; but they are now dear to us, and we honour them. For this reason, I shall here enter more into detail than elsewhere, and perhaps more than the relative importance of the country requires.

A country so near to a mighty internal power of the unfathomable earth may be expected to be distinguished for extraordinary fertility. Few parts of Greece have an honos montium et silvarum like that of Epirus; it contains the most beautiful mountains, covered only in a few places with fir-wood, but for the most part with the most splendid foliage. The fertility in the valleys is almost fabulous. The fuller’s earth in the country of the Stymphaeans contains traces of volcanic decomposition. But the animal creation too is very rich: the Molottian dogs are the strongest in all Greece; the herds of cattle appear to have reached their perfection in antiquity by careful breeding, for at present they are much inferior. The flourishing farms resembling those of Switzerland have perished under the dominion of barbarians; in Buthroton alone they still are equally good. The horses are small, robust, and strong, but not lasting.

Epirus was full of small tribes; fourteen or fifteen are enumerated, some which occupied large, and others small districts; I shall speak only of the more important among them. The most prominent in what may be termed the history of Epirus Proper, are the Chaonians, Thesprotians, and Molottians, to which I may add the Amphilochians and Orestians, both of which are to some extent beyond the boundaries of Epirus in its narrower sense. In the earliest times they did not form a definite union, but in one part of the country some tribes had a predominating influence at an early period, first the Chaonians, then the Thesprotians, and in the historical times the Molottians. We must not, however, imagine that these tribes subjugated the others, or reduced them to the condition of perioeci; but their relation resembled that of the free allies of Rome, and they recognised the majesty of the ruling people only by presents and fidelity. Several of these tribes had a regal government (the most ancient among all the Greek and kindred nations) down to very late times. One member of a γένος was either elected by the people, or enjoyed a hereditary right to the throne. This sacred hereditary principle continued for a long period; to it those tribes owed their importance in later times, and without it they never would have had the power and influence with which they afterwards appear in history. When all forms had become obsolete and effete, those nations which still adhered to the hereditary regal power, were enjoying a great advantage. This was the only reason why Sparta maintained itself so long: when its royal family perished, the Spartans, too, were lost. We find, however, in Epirus the same stages of development as among other nations, and royalty was succeeded by the dominion of the γένη. Traces of this occur in Thucydides; in speaking of the Chaonians, he mentions an ἀρχικὸν γένος, and I think I have found distinct evidence that the Καμπυλίδαι were this ruling γένος.

The Chaonians occupied the extreme north-west of the country, in and about the Ceraunian mountains, which is now inhabited by the Cimariots. They were, no doubt, the same as the Chonians in southern Italy, and of Pelasgic origin. Although they are said in the earliest times to have enjoyed a kind of supremacy, yet the Thesprotians are very conspicuous in the most ancient Greek records, because their country contained in its high mountains the oracle of Dodona, the centre of the public religion of the Pelasgians, as Samothrace, in the east, was the centre of their mysteries. The Greeks, as a kindred nation, were not excluded from either. Dodona must not be conceived as an important town; many inquiries have been made in Epirus to ascertain its site, but traces of a real town have not been found anywhere, and Epirus in general was inhabited only κωμηδόν, and not κατὰ πόλεις. The place, however, where Dodona stood has been discovered with some degree of certainty: the summit of a hill or mountain surrounded by Cyclopian walls, so that its sides are quite precipitous, is commonly supposed to be the site. The mountains of Epirus were no more fortified than Suli; whereas the idea of a πόλις is a place surrounded by a wall. The hill of Dodona was the κρησφύγετον, that is, the place to which, in times of war, women, children, old men, and moveable property were conveyed for the sake of safety. The sanctuary was situated in an ancient and immense oak-forest on mount Tmarus; but from a statement in Servius, we learn that this sanctuary was disturbed by Illyrian robbers. The passage of Servius is corrupt, and I have emended it, because it is of great interest in regard to Greek history. Our knowledge of Dodona is extremely defective; it was situated beyond the sphere of Greek culture, so that it is always mentioned only by the way, just as is the case with Delphi. What should we know of Delphi, had not Pausanias left us a description of it? The article in Stephanus Byzantinus contains the most important information about Dodona; and more may be elicited from it than has yet been done; the article has not yet been made quite clear. Bells, or pieces of metal, which were struck with hammers, seem to have been suspended from the trees around the sanctuary. Wagons in ancient times were likewise provided with pieces of metal or bells, in order that in the narrow streets timely warning might be given to others to make room; such things are still found among the antiquities of Herculaneum.

In the time of the Peloponnesian war, the Thesprotians were without kings, but the Molottians had a regal government; the fact of their race being traced to Achilles was only an accommodation to Greek legends, and they did not call the hero Achilles, but Aspetus.⁠[89] Their genealogies are very obscure. They regarded themselves as Pelasgians, and traced their ancestors back to the flood of Deucalion. They were insignificant until the time of their king, Tharyps,⁠[90] who was said to have been educated at Athens, and introduced among them, at the time of the Peloponnesian war, Greek manners and culture, Greek gymnasia, buildings, language, etc., and gave them the Hellenic unction. From this time onward the Molottians rose, though slowly, to importance, and gradually became the predominating people in Epirus, in which they were assisted by various circumstances. The extent of the power of the Molottian kings, whose right was based upon their γένος, was not greater than that of the kings of the Greek tribes, or of the German chiefs before the migration of nations. But just like these latter, they had absolute power over conquered tribes, and the same Molottian kings, who in their own country were in reality no more than magistrates, and to whom the people might lawfully refuse obedience, ruled over the neighbouring Epirot tribes and the Greek cities under their dominion with unlimited power. In like manner, king Clovis was limited in his power over the Franks, but was a complete despot in regard to the Roman provincials. When, therefore, such a people made conquests, the king, notwithstanding the letter of the constitution (if we may use this term here for something which was not written), became absolute master of the conquered. Such was the case of Alexander, and such also was that of Pyrrhus, who was further strengthened by the splendour of his victories. The Spartan kings, too, would have liked to make themselves absolute masters of the perioeci, but the Ephors stepped in to prevent it.

Down to the time of Philip, who, while the succession was disputed, raised Alexander, his brother-in-law, the son of Neoptolemus, and brother of Olympias, to the throne, the Molottians had as yet little extended their power. But Philip gave Alexander the territory called Cassiopea containing three Greek towns; at that time the Thesprotians also came under the power of the Molottians. But notwithstanding this, the Molottian kings were obliged every year, at Passaro, the capital of their country, to promise on oath, that they would obey the laws of the land, and the people in return took a corresponding oath. Alexander, the son of Neoptolemus, may have extended his dominion a little in the west, he may even have made the Chaonians⁠[91] his subjects; but I cannot decide these points, though it is probable that he penetrated into the northern parts. Ambracia which, geographically speaking, belongs to Epirus, is likewise mentioned as dependent upon the Epirots; and so also the Parauaeans and Amphilochians with their large towns; Philip possessed only the fortresses, Ambracia and the Amphilochian Argos, by means of which he kept his foot on the neck of the Epirots, for he took good care not to promote the independence of his brother-in-law, just as Napoleon kept his brothers in constant dependence on himself. For this reason he left Epirus as a state open on all sides, and put himself in possession of the principal fortresses without which the country could offer no resistance; it accordingly consisted of the beautiful western districts, while the eastern parts were under the dominion of Macedonia. In this condition things remained for a period of about forty years, until Pyrrhus established his supremacy and independence, and united the whole country under his sceptre. The earlier and more careful writers, e.g., the Attic orators, do not even call Alexander king of Epirus, but Alexander the Molottian: Justin and Livy call him king of Epirus, an inaccuracy with which we must neither charge Trogus, whose work Justin abridged, nor Livy, though the former might have been more careful; but Livy was not much concerned about the history of that country.

I will not here enter into the detail as to how Pyrrhus fled from his country, how he returned, and what were his misfortunes. He availed himself with great adroitness, nay even with cunning, of the circumstances of the time to take vengeance on his arch-enemies, the house of Cassander, which from his infancy had wronged him in every possible way. He avenged his own house and Alexander of Macedonia not only as an instrument of heaven, but at the same time following the impulse of his own heart. Alexander⁠[92] was seen by his contemporaries in all his hideousness, while posterity saw him in the light of an undeserved glory. This glory, however, belonged to him in so far as great things were accomplished by him. He found in his contemporaries a miserable race; his war against Persia was only a struggle against a rotten empire; and as he attacked it vigorously, great things, of course, were done and great things were destroyed. His greatest deed was the foundation of Alexandria, and yet, if we judge soberly, the hurried Hellenisation was only injurious to true Hellenism. The beautiful still continued to linger among the Greeks, and was uncorrupted; but when the Lydians, Carians, Syrians, and others, became Hellenised, when they appeared as Greeks and wrote Greek, the little of Hellenism, which still stood forth in broad outlines, perished. I may here mention another great historical instance, but I beg you will not misunderstand me: previous to the time of Constantine, Christianity had been spreading in consequence of the conviction of its truth; but the fact that he compelled whole provinces to profess it with their lips, without the belief having taken root in their hearts, was followed by evil consequences. All mighty changes in the world, which take place with extraordinary rapidity, are injurious. Such also was the influence of Alexander. Still, however, we must not be unjust, and we must understand how a spirited youth like Pyrrhus, with a deep poetical mind, idealised Alexander; he was an instrument of vengeance upon Cassander and his family, the detestable diadochi. Pyrrhus is one of the most splendid, noble, and amiable characters in all history. Often have I, when a young man, exclaimed in full enthusiasm with Hesiod: εἰ μετ’ ἐκείνοις ἐγενόμην! at such times one has the feeling, that one would be greater by coming in contact with such men. I have collected much about the history of Pyrrhus, and I know him thoroughly; I hope one day to represent him in his true light and in his indescribable splendour.⁠[93] To be great as a general is certainly one of the highest distinctions in the world: he was not always quite just, but always noble and generous, far from petty egotism, and free from everything that degrades man; he had a full, large, and warm heart; he looked upon his country not as a domain, but loved his people with his whole soul. Dear as Roman history is to me, I must nevertheless assign a higher place to the two greatest enemies of Rome, Pyrrhus and Hannibal.

Pyrrhus, as I said before, availed himself of the circumstances of the time for the purpose of gaining the eastern part of Epirus for his country. The sons of Cassander were obliged to cede to him Orestis, Parauaea, Ambracia, and Amphilochia, and the Epirots now, being masters of their country in its full extent, showed themselves as a great and powerful people. But this greatness did not become consolidated, too great demands were made upon the strength of the people, and they lost their best blood in the wars. Still, however, Alexander, the son of Pyrrhus, not only preserved the extent of his kingdom,⁠[94] but added Acarnania to it; and this continued to constitute the kingdom of Epirus for a period of about fifty years. Pyrrhus made Ambracia his capital, and adorned it with splendid temples and palaces; Alexander kept it as such, and he, too, was a very distinguished man. After his death, when the government came into the hands of minors, and his house became extinct by a series of the greatest calamities, the state also broke to pieces. Ambracia, the Amphilochian Argos, and eastern Epirus, were lost, and threw themselves into the arms of the Aetolians. After about A.U.C. 515 we hear of an Epirot republic under strategi; this republic embraced only western Epirus, and was still of considerable extent, but internally it was weak, and was visited by the most fearful misfortunes. The Romans admitted the Epirots as their allies, but I am convinced that they never forgot that Pyrrhus had frightened them, that he had advanced as far as Praeneste, and that after the gates of that town had been thrown open to him, he had seen the towers of Rome. This was the reason why, after their war against Perseus, they treacherously wreaked their hoarded and terrible vengeance upon the unhappy country, just as the English under William III. extirpated in one massacre the clan of the Mac Gregors, the English officers, on a given signal, murdering their hosts and letting in the soldiers. The Roman legions under Aemilius Paullus were quartered upon the Epirots, who had previously been ordered to deliver up all their arms, and their gold and silver, and then, on an appointed day, a fearful massacre was made throughout the country among the Molottians, Thesprotians, Chaonians, etc. From that time Epirus remained under the Romans, who confiscated the country like a conquered domain, and Epirus with its splendid Alps was, like the interior of Sicily, let as pasture land. Hence the fact that Atticus, as is stated by Varro, possessed such large herds at Buthroton. From such a devastation the country was unable to recover, and remained a wilderness. In the middle ages, and perhaps even before, the Illyrians (now Albanese) pushed forward from the north and spread over Epirus, being themselves pressed by Slavonian tribes, so that even now the greater part of the population is Illyrian and Slavonian; they occupy the whole of the western country and are δίγλωττοι. Slavonian tribes also entered Epirus and settled about the lake of Janina; a small part only is inhabited by Greeks, and the heights of Pindus are occupied by Wallachians, some of whom are descendants of the ancient Pelasgian tribes, but are to some extent Latinised. The country beyond mount Tmarus is inhabited by Bulgarians.

Among the Epirots proper, as I have already stated, there were no towns surrounded with walls; those which are found, are either of later origin, or Greek colonies on the coast. The only place in the interior, where ruins of Grecian buildings (baths, theatres, and temples) are found, though without any inscriptions, is in the country of the Molottians, about fifteen miles from the Ambracian gulf; the ruins are very extensive, but belong to a late period. There can be no doubt that this is the site of an important city, but what city it was, can only be conjectured, as the ancients do not mention a single town in Epirus. The supposition that it was the town of Passaro appears to me very probable. It is mentioned twice as the principal place of the Epirots, once in Plutarch’s life of Pyrrhus, as the place where the kings and the people took their mutual oaths, and a second time in Livy as the locality where the Epirots assembled. When the country was a republic, it must have had a capital, but it cannot have been Ambracia, since this town was separated and belonged to the Aetolians.

Phoenice was another important town on the Adriatic; at the time of the Epirot republic it was considerable, and continued to be so till late in the middle ages; whence many ruins are found there belonging to the Byzantine period.

Among the other towns, I may mention Oricos, a port in the bay at the foot of the Acroceraunia, and of Hellenic origin.

Pyrrhus built several places, such as Antigonia (Antigónia, according to the Macedonian pronunciation), named after his wife Antigone, by the side of the passes leading from Illyricum. You will remember my saying, that Illyricum, from the Aöus, till far up into the mountains, is a hilly country. The στενὰ τῆς Ἀντιγονείας (claustra Epiri) lead from thence into the mountains of Epirus. The spot is of great importance in the wars of Pyrrhus and his son Alexander against Macedonia; and in universal history, these claustra are celebrated in the expedition of the Romans against Philip of Macedonia. After the Romans had endeavoured in vain, with the Aetolians their allies, to advance into Macedonia through Illyricum and across the Candauian mountains, in order to attack the Macedonians, they marched through Epirus. Philip opposed them for a long time; but it has been proved that all passes are invincible to those only who make a direct attack upon them; they present no difficulty to any one who does not mind spending some time in marching round them. This the Romans did. The Macedonian army then retreated, being compelled to abandon Epirus. Argyrocastro at present occupies nearly the same site. Berenice also was built by Pyrrhus, and he named it after his great patroness, Berenice, the wife of Ptolemy Soter, and the mother of his own wife Antigone.

I cannot refrain here from making a short grammatical observation. We generally speak of Molossians, and the Roman authors, too, said Molossi, but the Greeks said Μολοττοί, which is the genuine ancient pronunciation and not an Atticism. As people in later times imagined that it was only an Attic form, they changed the name into Molossi. From Lucian’s Judicium Vocalium, however, we see, that ττ was essentially Thessalian, and the Thessalians were only Hellenised Epirots. Aristotle, who never Atticizes, always writes ὁ τῶν Μολοττῶν βασιλεύς.

I have as yet mentioned to you only three tribes, and I might add many more, but will notice only the most important. In the north we have the Atintanians on the slope of the Epirot mountains towards Illyricum. They were, properly speaking, not so completely subdued by the Illyrians as the Hyllians and Pelagonians who lived farther north, but they were subject only ἐς φόρου ἀπαγωγήν. The Atintanians were the first people that yielded obedience to the Romans on their crossing the Adriatic.

Next follow the Pelagonians, who likewise dwelt in those parts, and maintained themselves only with difficulty. Beyond the lofty Epirot mountains, north-west of Pindus, we meet with the Orestians, a true Epirot people; in the expedition against Ambracia, they were united with the other Epirot tribes, the Atintanians, Thesprotians, Molottians, and others. The name Ἄργος Ὀρεστικὸν shews their Pelasgian origin. They were subdued by the Macedonians, and became part of Μακεδονία ἐπίκτητος. The Romans again separated them from it, and in order not to stand isolated, they appear to have joined the Thessalians, for as among the Thessalian strategi one is mentioned who was a native of Argos, it seems to me that this must be referred to the Orestian Argos.

Coming down from the country of the Orestians and ascending the heights of Tmarus, between the beautiful lake of Janina and mount Tmarus (sometimes called Tomarus, the same mountain, of which Callimachus speaks so beautifully), and then descending the river Arachthus, which flows into the Ambracian gulf, we pass through the country of the Parauaeans and Stymphaea (Tymphaea). All these small mountain tribes were included in Μακεδονία ἐπίκτητος during the period from the time of Philip to that of Pyrrhus. Still further down in the plain, we have the Amphilochians in the very μυχὸς of the Ambracian gulf; they were an ἔθνος βαρβαρικόν, that is, of Pelasgian origin, but some μιγάδες Ἕλληνες lived among them, whence they were outwardly Hellenised, as their coins shew. Their town of Argos was a considerable city, and hostile to the Ambracians who had attempted to colonise it. It is connected with Argos in Peloponnesus in the legends about Amphilochus, but we must not infer from this, that it was a colony from Argos, or a Greek city at all. The Agraeans on the Achelous, in the time of Alexander, son of Pyrrhus, were probably, like the Amphilochians, connected by sympolity with the Aetolians, who were just then at the height of their power.

Ambracia or Ampracia. The latter is the diplomatic orthography in Thucydides, and on all coins and inscriptions, for here we again meet with inscriptions, it being a Doric city; in Aetolia and the interior of Epirus none are found at all. Polybius and all the Latins write Ambracia, which is again a proof, showing the agreement between the pronunciation there and the modern Greek, in which the π after μ is pronounced softly; hence in inscriptions μ is used instead of ν, if it is intended that the following π should be softened. The accusative of πόλις, e.g., was pronounced βόλιν, whence it was written εἰς τὴμ πόλιν. Ambracia was the largest city in those parts, and had been founded by the Corinthians in the time of Periander, the Cypselid. It became extremely great even at an early period, but in the Peloponnesian war it suffered a defeat near Olpae, from which it did not recover for a long time. Afterwards it lost its historical importance, as its inhabitants allied themselves with barbarians: it renounced the general Greek idea of reducing barbarians to dependence, because it was content to live in that fertile country within its own boundaries. Philip subdued it by intrigues; after his death it revolted, but as it was Alexander’s interest quickly to pacify the restless Greeks, it received tolerable terms, though it continued to have a Macedonian garrison for forty years longer. During the Lamian war it again revolted, but again without success. The son of Cassander, seeking aid against his brother, ceded Ambracia as a part of Μακεδονία ἐπίκτητος to Pyrrhus, who now transferred his residence to it and adorned it. The ruins which still exist at Rogus, belong, no doubt, for the most part, to this later period. After the dissolution of the Epirot kingdom, Ambracia became Aetolian, and remained so until, after the war against Antiochus, the Romans conquered the Aetolians. It then sustained one of the most remarkable sieges, and by their manful defence, its inhabitants gained the advantage of being able to conclude a peace before they were conquered by force; the city was not ravaged, but many works of art, with which Pyrrhus had embellished it, were carried off to Italy. The statement in Ovid’s Ibis, that the remains of Pyrrhus were dragged from a tomb at Ambracia and scattered about, renders it probable that this was done by the Romans out of revenge—a terribly unworthy revenge upon a great hero.⁠[95] It is possible, however, that this may have been done during the disgraceful madness of the nation in its rebellions against the successors of Pyrrhus. Afterwards the name of Ambracia disappears; its acropolis has now for a considerable time been called Rogus.

Buthroton or Buthrotos, a Greek colony, was regarded as a Trojan town, founded by Helenus: it was to the Romans what Calais is to us, for to it they sailed across the sea from Tarentum, Hydruntum, Brundusium, and other ports. It was the place of residence of Atticus, a man in whom much may be censured, though he was of an extremely amiable character; he lived at an unhappy time, according to the rules of a philosophy which he considered to be the most suitable. He had there his large estate and his Alpine farm.

The district Cassiopea is of little importance.

We are now in the neighbourhood of one of the most illustrious Greek islands, I mean

Corcyra.

The difference between the more ancient form, Cercyra and the later Corcyra, is purely dialectical; the Attics always have Cercyra, while later writers, as Polybius, and the Romans always say Corcyra. The history of this island goes back to that which is dearest to a scholar, for what could be dearer to him than the Odyssey? In the account of the reception of Odysseus, among the Phaeacians, we see how distant this island was to the Greeks in Ionia, and how they knew it only by report. It was then certainly not yet colonised by Greeks, and the ancient inhabitants were Liburnians. In the second edition of the first volume of my Roman History, I have shown that the Liburnians were not an Illyrian people, but belonged to the ancient Pelasgian race. Scheria was an ancient and genuine name of the island. We will not inquire into the origin of the name Corcyra, because such inquiries lead to nothing. Other names are Drepane and Macris; all these ancient names must be known in order to understand the poets; and they are also useful in writing poetry in the ancient languages, for it would be unfortunate, if that custom should become entirely extinct; even if among hundreds of attempts that are made, only a few have any poetical value, still it is an excellent exercise for those who wish to cultivate their minds; it leads to a great familiarity with the ancient writers, and a critical understanding of the poets.

The first Greeks who settled in the island, were Eretrians, and this event belongs to the period when Chalcis and Eretria were rivals at sea. As Chalcis directed its attention to the coast of Thrace and Sicily, so Eretria, though it was much weaker, partly looked to the same countries and partly to the Ionian and Adriatic seas, and hence they may have been led to settle in Corcyra. They were established there for a considerable time without destroying the ancient inhabitants, until the Corinthians sent a colony thither, either during the latter period of the Bacchiads, or in the first years of the reign of Cypselus. This colony grew incredibly prosperous; the ancient inhabitants were made perioeci, and the Eretrians, as troublesome neighbours, seem to have been expelled, although the Corinthian colony was, no doubt, only small.

The greatness to which Corcyra now rose, is best attested by the colonies which it founded on the Adriatic, such as Epidamnus and Apollonia, the latter of which it established in conjunction with Corinth. How these colonies led to disputes between the haughty Corcyra and its mother-city, and how Corcyra was affected by them, is described in Thucydides, and it is unnecessary for me to repeat it, my intention being to relate only that which has to be gleaned from various authors. In the same Thucydides you may read of the convulsions and internal horrors to which that war led, and which finally ruined the island itself. After the Peloponnesian war, the Corcyraeans are not mentioned again until Olymp. 101, in the time of Timotheus, when the Athenians recovered their supremacy, though it was of a different kind from the earlier one; the fleets of Athens then again appeared in several seas, and Corcyra joined her. The island now showed incredible weakness, but how it became so reduced, is a question about which history leaves us in the dark. Afterwards, owing to its fortunate position, it remained unassailed for a long time until the period of Demetrius Poliorcetes. Cassander made an attempt to take the island, but failed. Cleonymus, the Spartan prince and adventurer, who went to Italy and entered the service of the Tarentines, conquered it, and established himself there for a time; but he was expelled by Agathocles, from whom it passed into the hands of Pyrrhus, and afterwards into those of Demetrius; but after his fall, it appears to have again been under the supremacy of Pyrrhus. Afterwards it was independent indeed, but in such a state of weakness as to be unable to repel the Illyrians, who, under their queen Teuta, made a descent upon the island. The Corcyraeans, therefore, placed themselves under the protection of Rome, and were thus delivered from the Illyrians. They now formed a libera civitas, probably also immunis, and down to the latest times it was altogether impossible for them to rid themselves of the dominion of the Romans. In the middle ages they became subject to the Normans in Sicily under Robert Guiscard; they were next conquered by the Byzantine emperor, Manuel Comnenus, and then by the Venetians, under whose dominion they remained until the most recent times. The modern Greek name is Αἱ Κορφοί (pronounce hai Corfi), that is, the summits (αἱ κορυφαί), and refers either to the peaks of mountains or to the acra. The name Corcyra is unknown to the modern Greeks, and was so even in the middle ages to such an extent, that in a Greek Menologium (in the Acta Sanctorum) we find the legend of a Greek princess Corcyra, the daughter of a king, who is said to have reigned in Corfu in the time of the emperor Claudius, or even Tiberius; and she is reported to have died the death of a martyr for the Christian religion. It would seem that here we still catch a glimpse of the popular tradition about Nausicaa.

The island is traversed in its whole length by a mountain, which runs parallel with the Chaonian mountain, and is also of the same structure. It is evident that this mountain is a continuation of those of Epirus, and that the sea between Corcyra and Epirus has been formed by some gigantic revolution of the earth in those parts. The mountain is of considerable height, but not so high as to be wild, nature has rather destined the island to be a country for the cultivation of trees and olives, but it is not ἀρόσιμος, and does not produce as much grain as is required by its inhabitants. The oil is excellent, and the wine, which is good, was valued also in antiquity.

The town of Corfu does not stand on the site of the ancient Corcyra, but several miles from it; at the time of the Peloponnesian war, the ancient town, as we learn from Thucydides, was very large and beautiful.

I might easily say a great deal more about Corcyra, as it is now so frequently visited; but I must proceed.

Macedonia.

The first questions that have to be answered are:—What nation were the Macedonians? To what race did they belong? How far can they be regarded as Greeks, and how far not? I still remember the time of the very uncritical treatment of ancient history, when, in spite of the express testimony of the ancients, no one would have dreamed of doubting that both the Epirots and Macedonians ought to be regarded as Greeks; this belief was so firmly rooted, that the great Palmerius even thought Illyricum a Greek country. Afterwards, however, disputes arose as to the nationality of the Macedonians. Critics at first went to the opposite extreme, and from a passage in the Epitome of Strabo, it was inferred, that the Macedonians were Illyrians. The subject has been discussed in an excellent little treatise by C. O. Müller of Göttingen. The matter may perhaps be determined still more accurately by entering into minute investigations. The extent of country to which we generally apply the name of Macedonia, embraces later enlargements; in its narrowest sense, it was but a very small country with a peculiar population. Macedonia is the country of the Macedonians, just as Italy is the country of the Itali. The boundaries of the original kingdom of Macedonia and their gradual extension have been described nearly forty years ago by Gatterer, an excellent man, whose merits are no longer as fully appreciated in Germany as they ought to be. His ancient history, owing to the large scale on which he undertook it, has great defects; but he commenced it at a time when the way was altogether unprepared by preliminary inquiries, and when so much was still unexplained; his history of the eastern nations, therefore, could not be otherwise than imperfect. But this should not prevent us from acknowledging his very great merits. His smaller essays, especially that on Macedonia and Thrace, are extremely valuable; they are printed in the Transactions of the Royal Society of Göttingen, where maps also are added, in which he shows the gradual extension of Macedonia.

Macedonia, in its most proper sense, did not touch upon the sea. We have to distinguish two parts, viz., Upper Macedonia, inhabited by the people about the western range of mountains, extending from the north as far as Pindus, and Lower Macedonia, about the rivers which flow into the Axius, in the earlier times, however, not extending to the Axius itself, but only as far as Pella. From this district the Macedonians extended themselves, and partly repressed the ancient inhabitants. The whole of the sea-coast was occupied by other tribes, which are mentioned by Thucydides in the excellent episode on the expedition of the Thracians against Macedonia. The word ἐκβάλλειν which he uses in regard to the ancient inhabitants, must not be taken literally, or in the sense in which the Persians drove together and carried away the Eretrians—such a thing was, generally speaking, never done by the ancient nations—but a great part of the original inhabitants were subdued. The original Macedonians in the west, therefore, embrace the Lyncestians, Elimiotans, Pelagonians, and what are called the real Macedonians dwelling about Edessa or Aegeae; the inhabitants of Emathia, Pieria, Bottia, and Mygdonia on the east of the Axius and towards the Strymon, were conquered countries, or, if at a later period their inhabitants were Macedonians, they had become so in the course of time. These original Μακεδόνες or Μακηδόνες are mentioned by all the ancient poets and in the fragments of epic poetry; they dwelt among tribes which we regard as Pelasgian, and were connected with the Magnetes, Magnes and Macedon being called brothers. None of the Macedonian words we know are Greek, though some are akin to it, but at the same time, they show decidedly barbarous peculiarities. When Strabo says that a great portion of the Macedonians were Illyrians, because they had the same customs, the same costume, the same method of cutting the hair, the same language and the like, we must take this to apply to tribes occupying parts of Macedonia in the extended sense, and dwelling in the western half, just as a large part of eastern Macedonia was inhabited by Thracians, some of whom were free, while others had been subdued by the Macedonians: at the time when the Macedonian kingdom became consolidated, they were still unmixed Thracians. If we understand the passage of Strabo in this manner, it presents no difficulty. We often weigh the words of ancient authors too scrupulously; I admit, that on the whole they wrote with far more care than we do, but if we consider without prejudice so many passages containing errors, we must own that their heads too were not always equally clear, and we must also bear in mind that they dictated their works, whence much that is surprising to us, is only mis-written. Many a faulty or corrupt construction may have originated with the scribes, but sometimes the authors themselves, with their immense stores of thought, may have dictated somewhat confusedly. I once found a passage in Pliny written so confusedly, that at first I thought a transposition of the words necessary; but when I commenced making the emendation, the thought flashed upon me, that Pliny might have dictated wrongly, perhaps inserting a clause and not finishing it; as the clause stands, it is quite out of place.