Volume 1 — GREECE BEYOND PELOPONNESUS. (continued 5)

Macedonia proper consisted of several small states. The Lyncestians and Elimiotans had their own rulers called kings, and so also the people of Edessa or Aegeae. The two former, like the Epirots, remained within their boundaries without spreading themselves; but those in the plain gradually overpowered the kings of the other tribes, and expelled their royal families. The history of Lower Macedonia is important, that of Upper Macedonia is not, for nothing remarkable can be related of the Lyncestians, Elimiotans, and Pelagonians. Lower Macedonia is great in the history of the world: its kings called themselves Heracleids, and traced their descent to the Temenids of Argos. How far the ancient and simple tradition may have been misunderstood, can only be conjectured; but the probability is, that the Argos here mentioned is not the Argos in Peloponnesus, but the Pelasgian Argos in Thessaly, which was situated in the neighbourhood of Macedonia. Later persons only half-learned erroneously connected this with the Peloponnesian Argos, and accordingly the story of the Temenids is probably of recent origin, the ancient tradition stating only that they were Heracleids from Argos. Respecting the royal family, there were two different legends; according to the one, the kings were descended from Caranus, and according to the other from Perdiccas. There can be no doubt that the latter is only a symbolical representation of the national constitution; for the founders of the monarchy, Perdiccas and his two brothers, are the archegetae of three tribes.

This kingdom had acquired considerable power even before the outbreak of the Persian war; after that war, during which Amyntas had been obliged to submit, affairs were for a time stagnating; Perdiccas at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war was but a very contemptible enemy of the Athenians. After the Peloponnesian war, too, Macedonia was so powerless and so much inferior to Olynthus, that this city was enabled to take from it all the country about the Thermaic gulf. Amyntas, the father of Philip, was pressed extremely hard by the Illyrians, and was on the point of giving up his country altogether: he implored the assistance of the Thebans, and sent them his son as a hostage. These circumstances render it all the more wonderful, that Philip raised his kingdom in so extraordinary a manner: a greater contrast can hardly exist. Terrible as the history of Philip is to every friend of Greece, it must nevertheless be owned that he was an extraordinary man. In the very first year of his reign he laid the foundation of the greatness of a state which was almost annihilated. Although only twenty-four years old, he ascended the throne with mature thoughts, and immediately set about carrying them into effect, not scrupulous as to what means were most desirable, but only thinking how he could make the best use of those at his command. And he did this with uncommon surety and adroitness. He was quite aware that he lacked the means of overcoming the Greek tactic by a higher one, as the Romans did; he therefore endeavoured to overpower them with greater masses, and in this he was successful. He did not, however, confine himself to this course, but, like the Italian and Spanish courts of the sixteenth century, became powerful by means of cunning, intrigues, faithlessness and bribery. His plans, though favoured by the circumstances of the time, would have been checked by great and towering difficulties, if he had not carried them out by infamous means; he could not have destroyed Olynthus, to mention one example, had he not deceived the Olynthians and hired traitors in the place. At Philip’s death, Macedonia was already a compact empire; its boundaries had been extended into Thrace as far as Perinthus, and the Greek coast and the Greek towns belonged to it. The Odrysian princes maintained themselves in the mountains of the interior, in the neighbourhood of Adrianople. Thessaly had chosen Philip as its protector, and the towns of eastern Epirus, Ambracia and Amphilochia, had Macedonian garrisons. Every one knows in what manner Alexander extended this empire. After his death, a new Macedonian kingdom arose under the dynasty of Antipater, which, however, no longer embraced Thrace, for that country then belonged to the dynasty of Lysimachus. We know nothing about the boundaries of Macedonia and Thrace at that time; it may have been the Strymon or the Nestus; we have nothing but the scanty information in Diodorus. Afterwards Lysimachus united the two states, and Ptolemy Ceraunus appears still to have possessed the greater part of the empire of Lysimachus in Thrace. Then follows the great invasion of the Gauls, who made themselves masters of the whole of the northern parts, until they established themselves in Thrace and Upper Macedonia. Antigonus Gonatas restored Upper Macedonia and extended it as far as the river Nestus, and Magnesia also belonged to it, though Thessaly was only under the protection of Macedonia, just as Napoleon distinguished between France and Italy.⁠[96] We now have to draw a distinction between Macedonia proper and Μακεδονία ἐπίκτητος. The latter comprised all the country east of the river Strymon, that is, Magnesia, Orestis, and probably also several small tribes in the Thessalian mountains, though not the peninsulas of Pallene, Sithonia, and Athos, which were again regarded as parts of Macedonia proper. Philip III. lost Magnesia and Orestis, which fell into the hands of the Romans; but he recovered the former, and for a time was in possession of the country of the Dolopians and Athamanians.⁠[97] This was the extent of Macedonia at the time when the Romans conquered Perseus. They now separated Magnesia, and divided the remaining country into four parts. Livy has here translated Polybius somewhat hastily, but on the whole he has stated the division rightly; the editions, however, are faulty, on account of the Vienna MS.; criticism has yet much to do here, for the passage contains several obscurities. These four districts would not interest us at all, were it not that they are important in a numismatic point of view; we have an extraordinary number of tetradrachmae belonging to them, although the division into four districts did not exist longer than about twenty years. The Roman governors, even after the abolition of autonomy, in consequence of the revolt of the Pseudo-Philip, must have continued to coin money with the same matrices, or else the barbarians, who otherwise imitated Greek coins in quite a ridiculous manner and with numerous faults, must in this instance have employed Greek die-cutters for the purpose of imitation; this may have been the case, for example, with the Gauls and other nations.

Macedonia prima, Μακεδόνων ἡ πρώτη (so on coins, and not Μακεδονία ἡ πρώτη), is the country on the east of the river Strymon as far as the Nestus, comprising the towns of the interior on the eastern bank of the Nestus. The Romans divided the country in such a manner as to make rivers the boundaries, in order to tear the races to pieces, the same as was done in modern times, when what are called the natural boundaries began to be talked of.⁠[98] By this process the Romans produced that state of dissolution, which was the object of their policy. They further abolished the commercia, that is, no one was allowed to have property in another district, in order that people of different parts might become entirely estranged from one another; the ἐπιγαμία, lastly, was probably likewise prohibited. The result is the strongest refutation of the doctrine, that rivers form the natural boundaries. Mountains are the true barriers between nations; think, e.g., of the Alps in Wallis, which separate Germany from Italy; for, although on one side or the other there may be a little village of people from the opposite side, still the inhabitants are distinctly marked by their language, manners, and mode of dress. Now in Macedonia prima, Greeks, Thracians, Paeonians, Macedonians, and others, were jumbled together as one nation; the second division again contained Greeks, many Paeonians, a few Thracians, and some Macedonians; the third consisted almost wholly of Macedonians and some Greeks; while the fourth contained many Macedonians, but at the same time a great number of Gauls and Illyrians. The first division of Macedonia, as I remarked before, was on the east of the river Strymon, bounded on the east by the river Nestus, though some parts beyond it also were included. The second, with its capital of Thessalonica, extended between the rivers Strymon and Axius, along the entire length of these rivers. The country west of the Axius was again divided into two parts, forming the third division, which comprised Lower Macedonia and Pieria with the capital of Pella; and the fourth comprising Elimiotis, Lyncestis and the Illyrian and Gallic districts belonging to it. The whole of the Chalcidian Acte, the coast of which was occupied by Greeks, was thus included in Macedonia. These are the four parts into which, in all probability, Macedonia was divided when it was a Roman province, and in which it continued to enjoy some kind of existence. This we must infer from the number of coins; those belonging to Macedonia prima are far more numerous than those of all the Macedonian kings together.

In the Epitome of Strabo, the name Macedonia is used in a very singular sense, for it is made to include Illyricum. He considers Macedonia as a parallelogram, of which mount Scardus forms the northern, and the river Hebrus the eastern side; in the south is the via Egnatia, a line drawn from Epidamnus to Thessalonica. This outline excludes southern Macedonia, and embraces many countries which do not belong to it. He may have regarded this as the extent of the Roman province; but it never had such boundaries. No one can say what his thoughts were; but it is possible that he made a mistake in copying. We know, on the contrary, that Thessaly was added to Macedonia as part of the province. When I come to the survey of the Roman state, I shall speak of the boundaries and the differences of the provinces at different times, a subject which must not be overlooked, because on this point great errors still prevail.

The extent which Macedonia acquired under the Antigonids,⁠[99] (that is, from the time of Antigonus Gonatas and his successors until the reign of Perseus, a period of about a hundred years), with tolerably natural boundaries, embraced the countries as far as the ridge of the high mountains, but Orestis, though situated beyond the chain of these mountains, also belonged to it. The geography of these countries has as yet been very little inquired into by Europeans, whence the maps are still as confused as they were about fifty or sixty years ago. No modern traveller, as far as I know, has yet visited all the countries on the side of Skupi (Uskup?) and the high mountains. The notices contained in the ancients of these countries, cannot be applied with certainty, the names of the mountains being too indefinite; those countries are quite beyond the reach of classical literature, and we know mounts Orbelos and Rhodope scarcely more than by name. These north-western mountains may be most correctly conceived as a western continuation of mount Haemus, which is itself a continuation of the Alps. The Alps pass through Carniola close by the Adriatic, and enter into southern Bosnia; another branch runs through Styria to the north; on the borders of Hungary its breadth is not great, and it forms a hilly country until it disappears in the great plain of Slavonia and Lower Hungary; but in Bosnia the mountains again extend as far as the Save. All Bosnia and Servia is a mountainous country, while Slavonia opposite has rich and fertile plains and but few mountains. In the neighbourhood of Belgrade, the mountains approach the Danube, extend again, and occupy nearly the whole space between the Danube and the Adriatic; they then, shutting in the Danube, extend to the territory of Widdin, retreat into the splendid country of the Bulgarians, and there leave an extensive and extremely fertile space between the river and mount Haemus. From Illyricum and Dalmatia the mountains proceed, so as to form a hilly country in the neighbourhood of Scutari. Between the Drino and mount Haemus, Scardus is the highest point on the road from Ragusa to Constantinople. The Macedonian dominion extended to this point; here dwelt the Dardanians, the north-western people of Macedonia. The mountains then following are probably Scomios and Orbelos, which seem to be parts of the mountains proceeding from Haemus. Rhodope, a mountain between the Strymon and Nestus, is probably a branch of mount Haemus. Pangaeos seems to be a southern continuation and extremity of Rhodope.

The whole of the Thracian mountains running parallel with the sea between the Strymon and Nestus are rich in gold and silver mines. They were taken possession of at an early time by the neighbouring nations, especially the Thasians, and it appears that the Phoenicians, at a very remote period, also had settlements on the southern coast. Afterwards many Greeks established themselves there, and Thucydides, e.g., is known to have possessed a mine in those parts. The richest mines were in mount Pangaeos, but the other mountains as far as Haemus also contain many precious metals. I know for certain, that Bosnia and the mountains near Skupi also contain silver mines, which are known but not worked. Should those countries ever pass from the hands of barbarians, and come under the dominion of Europeans, it will be seen that the ores of precious metals extend even much further. The silver mines were worked even before the Peloponnesian war, under Alexander I., the son of Amyntas; but where they existed is uncertain. The gold mines of Pangaeos were first worked, but not vigorously, by the Athenian Callistratus,⁠[100] but afterwards by Philip with great industry: he is said to have annually derived from them 1000 talents; they existed in the neighbourhood of Crenidas, where afterwards the mountain-city of Philippi was built.

In the west, a mountain branches off from Scardus, which we know under the name of the Candauian (not Candavian, according to a passage in Polybius) mountains; the name is familiar to us from the unfortunate expedition of P. Sulpicius Galba; it forms the boundary between upper Macedonia, parts of which are situated in the valleys of the mountain, and Illyricum. This is a cold mountain, not that the more northern ones are not still colder, but the latter were thinly, and the former thickly peopled. According to the accounts of travellers, those mountains must be very cold and ungenial. But as soon as you come to the part where the mountains descend towards the sea, and where the rivers empty themselves into it, the climate becomes all the more splendid, and the valleys more lovely and mild: the whole country changes into the most beautiful plains with smiling hills.

Macedonia thus forms the greater part of a circle, of whose periphery about one-third is cut off by a line from mount Olympus to the river Nestus.

The Axius, οὗ κάλλιστον ὕδωρ ἐπικίδναται αἶαν, is the most important river of Macedonia, though it flows beyond the real country of Macedonia in its narrowest sense. In its upper course it is a rapid torrent; further down it becomes muddy, whence its water is, in point of fact, not particularly excellent. For this reason, attempts were made even in antiquity to emend Homer, because it was thought impossible that he should have made any mistake at all. Connected with the Axius were the Ludias and the Haliacmon, a beautiful river descending from the western mountains. The Strymon is altogether a Thracian river, and is called so by the poets; its banks, at least in later times, are more particularly the seats of the Thracians, but at an earlier period Paeonians also dwelt there. The Strymon is a mighty river without any fords, whence it was crossed only by bridges, as at Amphipolis. The Nestus has nothing that is particularly remarkable.

Gulfs to be noticed are:—the Pierian, and the gulf of Therma or Thessalonica; the Toronaean, the Strymonian, and Singitian gulf.

The hilly districts of Macedonia produce everything that is grown in those southern countries; they are among the most fertile parts of the earth, especially in the neighbourhood of Thessalonica and Pella; such also is the narrow Pierian country, from Olympus as far as the sea: it is a real garden. At present the chief products there are cotton and tobacco, which of course did not grow there in ancient times, though cotton may have been cultivated during the later Macedonian and the Roman period in some islands of the Aegean.

Having spoken of the Macedonians inhabiting the western country, we now proceed to Macedonia proper, also called Emathia, with its capital Aegeae. I have no doubt that you will be convinced, that what I am going to bring forward as a hypothesis, is not said lightly nor without full persuasion, or that such a persuasion has been arrived at without much labour. It is my opinion, that the Thracians did not spread themselves in those countries until a later period: the Pelasgian race which we find in Asia as far as Bithynia and the Maeander, undoubtedly once occupied the whole of the southern coast. To that period we have to refer much of what is related about the Thracians, as for example, the tradition about Orpheus, who is conceived to have dwelt in Pieria, on the slope of Olympus, near the well Pimplea. It is opposed to all our feelings, and it can have no historical meaning to conceive him as a Thracian; but the matter becomes intelligible, if we suppose that the Thracians immigrated into those countries at a later period, and that the recollections connected with the places which fell into the hands of the Thracians, were transferred to this people. Mount Olympus was considered as the seat and centre of the gods, because it was situated, in a measure, in the midst of the great Pelasgian nation, which we must conceive to have extended farther northward. It is not likely that the Greeks should have assigned to their gods a habitation at the extreme end of their father-land. We must therefore suppose that the Thracians spread over these countries from the Strymon and Nestus. Now, as in the west, we find the Macedonians as a Pelasgian people, so we meet in the central part, about the Axius and Strymon, the Paeonians, whom Herodotus expressly mentions among the Teucrian Trojans, who were as much a Pelasgian people as the Siceli. The statement of Herodotus that they were ἄποικοι τῶν Τευκρῶν, means nothing else than that they and the Teucrians belonged to the same race. I consider these Paeonians to have been a remnant of the ancient inhabitants, who maintained themselves against the invading Thracians. Before the Macedonian kings, the so-called Temenids, established their kingdom, the Thracians occupied the country down to the borders of Thessaly, not only as far as the river Strymon, but also the country on the west of it: the Crestonaean, Crossaean, Mygdonian, and Pierian countries were in fact all inhabited by Thracians, before the Macedonians of Aegeae spread over those parts. This gradual conquest of Mygdonia and Pieria belongs to a period previous to the Persian wars, certainly that of Pieria, and it is highly probable that the conquest of Mygdonia also belongs to the same period. Perdiccas was extending his empire as early as the time of the Peloponnesian war, but it was as yet ill consolidated. Archelaus did most, he first fortified towns, made roads, and prepared Macedonia for that career which it completed under Philip; still, however, after the death of the latter, the state of Macedonia was powerless. But Archelaus, nevertheless, has the merit of having laid the foundation.

The name Pieria is sufficiently familiar to us from the poets. It is odd enough that the country, which was afterwards inhabited by the barbarous Thracians, and at a still later period by the Macedonians, who after all were always an ἄμουσον ἔθνος, should in the remotest ages have been the seat of the Muses, who are hence called Pierides, and from the wells of the country, Pimpleides, Libethrides (Pimplei dulcis, in Horace: Λειβηθρίδες). The Bottiaeans, a kindred people, dwelt east of the Macedonians proper; being expelled by the Macedonians from the neighbourhood of Pella, originally a Bottiaean place, they went to the Chalcidians, to whom they were no doubt welcome, as they must have preferred a kindred people in their neighbourhood to the Thracians. Then follow the Paeonians about the Axius and Strymon, who were pushed away from the coast into the interior. Herodotus relates that during the expedition of Darius Hystaspis, the nations dwelling about the Strymon as far as the sea, were carried away by the Persians, and received settlements in Phrygia: these are the Paeonians of the lower districts, and their country was thereupon taken possession of by the Thracians. Hence it cannot be surprising that afterwards no Paeonians were found there. Mygdonia, the lower country, east of the Axius, about the Thermaic gulf, was, previously to the extension of the Macedonians, inhabited by Thracian Edonians. The Edonians are remarkable on account of the many allusions to them in the Latin poets, especially in reference to the worship of Bacchus (Non sanius ego Bacchabor Edonis, says Horace). This worship is, in a certain sense, Thracian, especially in regard to women, and existed by the side of the Phrygian. Following the narrow tract of land along the coast, we first arrive in the most southern province, Pieria; next follows Bottiaeis, with Pella, as far as the Axius; then Mygdonia along the coast, beginning with the cape forming the entrance to the bay of Thessalonica, and extending to the town of Aenea; the country, from this point to the neighbourhood of Potidaea, is called Crossaea, and had an ancient Thracian population. During the subsequent extension of the Macedonians, those nations were not expelled, nor did they become serfs, but were only reduced to the condition of subjects.

All this is correctly indicated in the maps of D’Anville and Barbié du Bocage; but Anthemus is erroneously marked in all maps, for, instead of a country, it is put down as a town. It is a district of small extent, but plays a prominent part in the history of Olynthus.

The capital of Pieria was Dion, a native Macedonian town, not Greek, but adorned with beautiful buildings, prosperous and handsome, until it was destroyed by the Aetolians on a predatory excursion. Pydna and Methone, both Greek towns, were situated to the north of it. Pydna was the first conquest of Philip; both towns had until then preserved their independence, which is a proof of the great weakness of the Macedonian kings. Philip is said to have destroyed them both; in regard to Methone this is certain, for during its siege he lost one eye, and for this reason gave vent to his barbarous rage against the town; but Pydna, if it was destroyed, must have been restored, for it is mentioned under the later Macedonian kings; in history it is remarkable especially on account of the decisive battle fought there, in which Perseus lost his kingdom and his crown.

The real Emathia is in the interior of Macedonia.⁠[101] This lower Macedonia, in its proper sense, below the slopes of the Candauian mountains, does not extend to the sea, from which it is separated by Pieria and a narrow strip of the ancient Bottia. This was ancient Macedonia proper, the kingdom of the ancestors of Alexander, and contained the ancient Macedonian capital of Aegeae,⁠[102] which was the residence of the kings before the reign of Philip. There is a story about the name of this town, according to which it is derived from αἶγες: the founder of the Macedonian kingdom is said to have conquered the town by following, during a thunder-storm, close behind a herd of goats, and thus entering the open gates with a small band of followers. The royal sepulchres existed there as late as the time of Pyrrhus, but the Gauls in his army plundered them. When at Rome, I heard a very vague report: an English traveller, it was said, had discovered in 1819 or 1820, by excavations, the tombs of Macedonian kings; but Aegeae was not mentioned in the report. The person who told me this, was too ignorant to invent such a thing; but whether there is any truth in it, I do not know; I have never heard anything more about it. This place has two names, Edessa and Aegeae; the former has been transferred to several other places, and above all to the very ancient town of Roha in Mesopotamia. It is with these places as it is with Boston, which in England is an insignificant town, while the Boston in America is a great city. In like manner, Edessa in Syria is far more important than Edessa in Macedonia. The names of many other Greek and Macedonian places, as Beroea, Cyrrhos, Chalcis, Amphipolis, and others were similarly transferred to places in Syria. Even names of Macedonian districts re-appear there. This shows a peculiar attachment to Macedonia, and characterises the sentiments of the founder of the Syrian empire. If we compare Seleucus with Ptolemy Soter, the former is far more attached to Macedonia; in Egypt we find nothing of the kind, everything there beginning anew.

Beroea (now Veria) is the second place in Emathia; its name-sake in Syria was far more important, but both still exist. Beroea was a flourishing place throughout the middle ages, and continued to be a wealthy town until its present destruction. Edessa is at present only a village.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illyricum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corcyra Melaena, the modern Curzola, cannot with certainty be called a Greek colony.

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

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