HISTORICAL SUMMARY.

Mersina occupies the site of an ancient town, the name of which is not known. The coast line along all this part of Karamania is full of ancient ruins, attesting its former prosperity and populousness. Between the present town and the river, to the west, is a wide space full of ancient remains, fragments of pottery, bricks, bits of marble, &c. Texier says Mersina is on the site of the ancient Zephyrium, but Forbiger⁠[28] calls Zephyrium “a tongue of land.”

Ritter⁠[29] says: “Mersina is a small coast town, like Alexandretta, but more picturesquely situated, and surrounded by orange gardens and mulberry plantations. Near the quarantine station are some pretty country houses of well-to-do people, especially of the Consuls at Tarsus. As the commerce of the place has become more active, the open roadstead is visited by many ships, especially French, although the sea-breeze sometimes renders landing difficult, and even impossible, for several days together. The marshy lowland exposes the inhabitants to dangerous fevers, which are said to be generally cured by the application of leeches. These are exported thence in great numbers to Europe. In order to escape from the danger of the damp ground, people build themselves airy wooden structures, resting on poles. Some Druses, driven away from the Lebanon, have established here village settlements. A very good carriage-road leads from this place to Tarsus.”

F. A. Neale, ‘Eight years in Syria, Palestine, and Asia Minor’⁠[30]: “The passage from Alexandretta to Mersine, the seaport of Tarsous, usually occupies twenty-four hours. Mersine is a small village somewhat similar in size to Alexandretta, though infinitely more picturesque. It abounds with orange and mulberry trees, and herein consists its superiority over Alexandretta; for in the latter place there is but one solitary palm-tree to be seen. There is a neatly-built lazaretto, and close by are three or four pretty summer houses, the property of gentlemen residing at Tarsous, who resort hither during the hot weather. Mersine, though but an open roadstead, is much frequented during the summer months by French vessels, though even then, so soon as the sea breeze sets in, such a surf gets up that frequently all landing operations have to be suspended for a day or two. The town is twelve miles from Tarsous, but the road is so excellent and level that one might easily drive all the way in a carriage. Mersine is famous as a resort of the little bird called the francolin, which is never disturbed except during two months of the year.”

Soli, or Pompeiopolis.—The ruins of Pompeiopolis are on the west side of the little river Liparis (at present without a name); the site of Soli is on the east side of the stream. According to some ancient authors, Soli was founded by Argive colonists, who came to it from Cyprus. Afterwards a Rhodian colony, and still later an Athenian colony, settled there, and some of the coins of Soli bear the image of Athene, with an owl on the reverse. Under the government of the satraps, placed there by the kings of Persia, Soli became a very flourishing place.

During the invasion of Persia, Soli seems at first to have been severely treated by Alexander: “Having recovered his health, Alexander sent Pannemion to occupy the defiles which separate Cilicia from Syria. He himself marched from Tarsus in one day to Anchialon. Thence he went on to Soles, placed a garrison in the town, and, taking with him all his cavalry and his light troops, he attacked the Cilicians of the mountains, reduced them, either by force or arrangement, in the space of seven days, and returned to Soles.”⁠[31]

A little further on he again mentions Soli: “Alexander, having been detained successively at Tarsus by his sickness, at Soles by the games which he caused to be celebrated there when he heard of the success of Asandros and Ptolemy in Caria, and in the mountains of Cilicia by his expedition against the barbarians,” &c.

After describing the battle of Issus, he continues: “After the victory at Issus, Balacros, son of Nicanor, was named Satrap of Cilicia; the town of Soles obtained a remission of the fifty talents, which still remained of the sum it had to pay, and its hostages were restored to it.⁠[32]

“Soles showed itself grateful. During the siege of Tyre, three galleys of Soles and of Mallus joined the fleet of Alexander.”⁠[33]

Scarcely anything is known of the history of Soli under the Seleucidæ.

Tigranes, king of Armenia, in his wars against the last Seleucids, ravaged Soli, and removed its inhabitants to his new capital, Tigranocerta.

It was one of the penitentiary colonies in which Pompeius Magnus placed such of the Cilician pirates as he thought fit to spare. The town had decayed, probably in consequence of the Mithridatic war.⁠[34]

Its port and colonnade (once consisting of 200 columns) are said to have been constructed by Pompeius Magnus; but the architecture of the colonnade marks a time of decadence, and rather resembles the style usual in the age of the Antonines. Pompeiopolis was much injured by an earthquake in the reign of Justinian, A.D. 528, and was restored by that emperor.

Sir F. Beaufort, in his ‘Karamania,’ says:—

“At length the elevated theatre and tall columns of Soli, or Pompeiopolis, rose above the horizon into view, and appeared to justify the representation which the pilots had given of its magnificence. We were not altogether disappointed. The first object that presented itself on landing was a beautiful harbour or basin, with parallel sides and circular ends. It is entirely artificial, being formed by surrounding walls or moles, which are fifty feet in thickness and seven in height. They are constructed of rubble, bedded in a strong cement, but faced and covered with blocks of yellowish, shelly limestone, which have been clamped together with iron dovetails.

“Opposite to the entrance of the harbour a portico rises from the surrounding quay, and opens to a double row of 200 columns, which, crossing the town, communicates with the principal gate towards the country, and from the outside of that gate a paved road continues in the same line to a bridge over a small river. At the end next the harbour there are indications of the two rows of columns having been united by arches; and possibly the whole colonnade was once a covered street, which, with the avenue, the portico, and the harbour, must have formed a noble spectacle. Even in its present state of wreck the effect of the whole was so imposing, that the most illiterate seaman in the ship could not behold it without emotion. The columns, however, taken singly, do not appear to much advantage.

“As there are no inhabitants within the walls of Pompeiopolis, we found great difficulty in ascertaining its proper modern appellation. Three different names were collected.... ‘Mezetlu,’ however, united the greatest number of suffrages.”

Tarsus.—One of the most ancient cities in the world. It is mentioned in the list of Asiatic cities conquered by Rhamses III. (nineteenth dynasty). The traditions of its foundation mount to the mythological ages of Greek history, but its real founders were probably Assyrian. One tradition assigns its foundation to Triptolemus, who had been sent by the Pelasgic king, Inachus, to search for his daughter, Io. Ammian says: “Ciliciam vero, quæ Cydno amne exsultat, Tarsus nobilitat, urbs perspicabilis (hanc condidisse Perseus memoratur, Jovis filius et Danäes—vel certe ex Ethiopia profectus Sandan quidem nomine, vir opulentus et nobilis),” &c.⁠[35]

Two derivations of the name “Tarsus” have been given: (1) From the verb τερσομαι, “to become dry,” ταρσός, “dry.” (2) ταρσός, “any flat surface,” “the flat part of a foot,” “the flat of a wing.” The latter derivation refers to the feather from the wing of Pegasus, or to the hoof of Pegasus, which was broken by his alighting. But the former derivation seems preferable; and, indeed, the plain around Tarsus has evidently, at some former period, been a great marsh.

The latest settlement at Tarsus was of an Argive colony, and with this is connected the mythical hero Perseus. The presence of an Assyrian colony is indicated by the tradition which marks out the curious monument called the “Dunuk Tash” as the tomb of Sardanapalus, an Assyrian king. (It is, however, just possible—at least, judging from the passage in Ammian quoted above—that this mysterious monument may have had a non-Assyrian origin.) However this may be, no satisfactory account of its origin has as yet been given, nor has it been possible satisfactorily to establish any connection between the founder of the monument and any one of the Assyrian kings known under the name “Sardanapalus,” although M. L’Anglois has a long dissertation on it in his ‘Cilicie.’ Texier writes thus: “Les historiens Grecs et Latins qui ont fait mention de la fondation de Tarse, citent une inscription célèbre qui était (croyaient-ils) placée sur le tombeau de Sardanapale. ‘Sardanapale, fils d’Anaxynderax, a bâti Tarse et Anchiale en un jour. Passant, mange, bois, ris; le reste ne vaut rien.’” (The translation of Texier is in some parts erroneous, e.g. of “παίζε.”)

This inscription is mentioned by Strabo, xiv. 672; Arrian, ‘Exped. Alexandri,’ ii. 5; Cicero, ‘Tuscul.’ v. 35.

It is possible that some light may be thrown on the point by future Assyrian discoveries.

The late G. Smith’s curious and learned work, ‘History of Assurbanipal,’ does not help to clear up the riddle of the so-called tomb of Sardanapalus. Mr. Smith arrives at the conclusion that Assurbanipal is not that Sardanapalus under whom the Assyrian empire was overthrown. He says (p. 324): “Assurbanipal reigned forty-two years and died in the year B.C. 626, when he was succeeded by his son ‘Assur-ebil-ili,’ or ‘Assur-ebil-ili-Kainni,’ of whose history we know nothing. It is generally supposed that under him the Assyrian empire was overthrown.”

History is completely silent as to the fortunes of Tarsus under its dynasty of Assyrian or native kings. But like all Western Asia, it fell under the power of the Persian monarchy. Perhaps Cilicia rendered only a partial obedience to the Great king, for it seems to have been governed sometimes by kings, at other times by Persian satraps, and, as many medals of these rulers are extant, we must conclude that it enjoyed a certain degree of independence, for the kings of Persia always regarded with the utmost jealousy the privilege of coining money (e.g. the history of Aryandes Satrap of Egypt, as given by Herodotus).

At the time of the expedition of Cyrus, the king of Cilicia was Syennesis. Incapable of resisting the invader, he sent his queen, Epyaxa, to meet Cyrus. She accompanied the army till it reached Iconium, in Lycaonia. Thence the queen was sent back by the shortest route into Cilicia (probably by one of the passes to the west of the Pylæ Ciliciæ). Cyrus himself seems to have entered Cilicia by this latter pass. According to Xenophon, near Dana (Tyana), a rich city of Cappadocia, the defiles which led into Cilicia were held by Syennesis; but he retired on the approach of Cyrus, who reached the summit of the pass without resistance. Thence he could see the camp of the Cilicians, and descended into a vast and fertile plain surrounded by mountains. Xenophon describes the plain as “vast and fertile, well watered, full of vines and all kinds of trees, and producing much wheat, barley, sesamum, and millet.” Across this plain he marched in one day to Tarsus. The entire march from Tyana to Tarsus occupied four days, and was twenty-five parasangs in length, equal to about seventy-five miles English. Epyaxa had reached Tarsus five days earlier, and Syennesis was persuaded to help Cyrus. Accordingly he gave him his son and some troops, but at the same time he sent off secretly another of his sons to the king of Persia (Artaxerxes Mnemon) to explain that he had only joined Cyrus under constraint. He sent also information about the forces of Cyrus, and promised to abandon him on the first favourable opportunity. The army remained twenty days at Tarsus, and here a mutiny broke out amongst the Greek troops, who began to suspect the real object of the expedition. It was appeased by a donation of money, which seems to have been raised by plundering Tarsus.

Many ancient medals of cities in Cilicia are extant bearing the names of various satraps or semi-independent kings. The obverse of these medals is a figure of one of the principal divinities worshipped in Cilicia: Minerva, Apollo, Hercules, but, more commonly, Baal (Baaltars) seated. On the reverse is a lion, or a lion killing a steer.

The Duc de Luynes, in his work ‘Numismatique des Satrapies,’ &c., pp. 29, 30, mentions eight coins by Abdsohar, prince “of the plain” (as distinguished from the mountainous part of Cilicia), “one of those princes who have left numerous medals, and no record in history. The style of his coins and the inscriptions upon them, connect them beyond doubt with Cilicia and the mint of Tarsus. They are of very perfect workmanship, and clearly belong to the time of Artaxerxes Mnemon. The reverse of these medals is composed in accordance with the religious ideas of the Persians. A lion is represented devouring a bull, as in all the mystic groups so common upon the monuments of Asia.”

Further on he says: “This region [Cilicia] was divided into two provinces—the one mountainous, called τραχειῶτις, extended from the western slopes of the Taurus—from Isaura and the Homonadians—as far as Pisidia. The other province, named ‘plain or level’ (πεδιὰς), extended from Soli to Issus.⁠[36] It would appear that these two Cilicias formed distinct satrapies, for Camissares and Datames, his son, governed for the king of Persia that part of Cilicia which was near Cappadocia, and was inhabited by the Leuco Syri.⁠[37] It was perhaps the neighbourhood of these satraps, who were certainly contemporaries of Abdsohar, which induced the latter to distinguish (in the inscriptions on his coins) the province which he himself governed, by the Phœnician term, equivalent to ‘πεδιὰς.’”

The Duc de Luynes translates the inscription on these coins thus: (numisma) crassum leone (signatum) purum (cusum) ad (manum) Abdsohar (satrapæ) Campi Ciliciæ; i.e. “a full lion dollar of pure metal of Abdsohar of Lower Cilicia.” “Is the name ‘Sohar’ here the name of a person, or of the star of Venus? a divinity both male and female among the Persians. I should incline towards the former opinion.”

De Luynes mentions also coins of Syennesis “roi et satrape,” pp. 11-14; Dernès, pp. 15-21; Dernès et Syennesis, pp. 21-25; Abdsohar, pp. 26-30, all rulers of Tarsus. At Tarsus also were struck coins of Gaos, six of which are extant, pp. 31-33. Gaos, however, was not a satrap, but held Tarsus for two years as a rebel against the king of Persia. Similarly Ariæus, pp. 34, 35.

During his invasion of Persia Alexander the Great remained awhile at Tarsus. A bath in the cold waters of the Cydnus nearly proved fatal to him by bringing on a violent fever.

After the battle of Issus, Darius III. escaped by a pass lying to the N.E. of the Pylæ Cilicia (probably up the ravines of the Pyramus), as all the passes to the south were in the possession of the Macedonians. M. T. Cicero, when Prefect of Cilicia, became acquainted with this pass during his campaign against the brigands in the Amanus. In the ‘Ep. ad Familiares,’ xv. 4, he says: “Duo sunt enim aditus in Ciliciam ex Syria, quorum uterque parvis præsidiis propter angustias intercludi potest,” &c. It was probably at the eastern issue of the more northern of these passes that the Khalif Haroun er Rasheed, in 801, had the little fortress constructed, which, from his name, was called Harounji, whilst his wife Zobeyde, at the eastern entrance of the Beylan Pass at Bagras, through which then lay the principal route from Syria into Asia Minor, built a great khan, then the first and only building of the kind in that part of Syria. Harounji lies S.W. of Marash. The pass was here closed by iron gates, a double wall, and a ditch.

On the partition of the Macedonian empire, Tarsus was held by the Greek kings of Syria (Seleucidæ). It preserved its privileges as a free city, but shared all the varying fortunes of that dynasty. In 171 B.C. Antiochus Epiphanes made an expedition into Cilicia to reduce Tarsus and Mallus, which had revolted because the king had given them as a present to his concubine Antiochis.

The suppression of the great piratic confederacy of Cilicia brought Tarsus into closer relations with Rome. In the second of the great civil wars of Rome it took the side of Julius Cæsar, and remained so faithfully attached to him, and afterwards to his nephew Octavius,⁠[38] that the latter gave it the name Juliopolis. It suffered much from the republican troops under Brutus and Cassius, for it was pillaged and heavily fined. It was the scene of the famous meeting between Antonius and Cleopatra, and was much favoured by Antonius; yet the attachment of its people to the Julian family remained unshaken.

Octavius did much for it, and under the earlier Roman emperors it became a very flourishing place, vieing in its schools and universities, even with Athens and Alexandria. Tarsus doubtless experienced the benefits of Adrian, and of the emperors of the Antonine family, equally with the other cities of Cilicia, and under these rulers it constantly preserved its privileges. It was the capital of the Cilician Community (Κοινὸν Κιλικίας), and every year great games were celebrated here in honour of the emperors.

At Tarsus were the tombs of Maximian Daza, and of the Emperor Julian; but neither remains, and even their site is unknown. Zosimus gives the inscription on Julian’s tomb, supposed to have been the composition of the sophist Libanius:—

The Emperor Justinian was a great benefactor at Tarsus. Amongst the other public works he caused to be executed there, was a broad canal which traversed the city, in order to relieve the main channel of the Cydnus during inundations. The city had been much damaged by floods.

On the conquest of Cilicia by the Saracens, the Khalifeh Haroun er Rasheed made it the capital of the province, and strongly fortified it. The whole territory as far as Tarsus had come into possession of the Muslims, and Haroun strongly fortified Adana, Tarsus, and Mopsuestia (Messis), besides securing the passes through the Amanus by means of forts. His son and successor, El Maamoun, further strengthened Tarsus to such an extent that, “it might have resisted the Christians for centuries.” El Maamoun was buried at Tarsus, but his tomb does not now exist.

For a short period during the brilliant reigns of Nicephorus Phocas and John Zimisces, Cilicia was recovered by the Greeks. In A.D. 963, Zimisces gained a great victory over the Saracens near Adana, and the former captured Adana and Anazarba, and the next year Mopsuestia and Tarsus. But in A.D. 969, Phocas was assassinated, through the intrigues of Zimisces and the Empress Theophanon. Zimisces succeeded to the throne. He continued the war against the Saracens, gained great victories over them, and hoped to recover Syria and Mesopotamia, and to free Jerusalem. But in 976 he was poisoned, and all these great hopes perished.

Although Tarsus was the prey of every successive race of invaders, ravaged again and again by the barbarous mountaineers of Cilicia, Isaurians, and others, destroyed by the western nations who directed crusades against its Muslim possessors, it still maintained a certain amount of prosperity throughout the middle ages.

It shared the vicissitudes of the long wars between Greeks, Armenians, and the various Muslim races who disputed with them the possession of Cilicia; but there is a blank in its history for nearly 600 years. Of late years it has revived considerably, but so great have been the changes it has undergone, topographical and other, that it is impossible to recognize the once celebrated city in the filthy and miserable modern Tersoùs.

Tarsus can scarcely be considered a Turkish city, the great majority of its inhabitants are either Armenians, or yet more Syrians, whose language is Arabic, a large proportion of the latter belonging to the Nusairi, a mysterious sect and people not to be confounded either with the Ishmaliens, or with the Druses (on whose habits, dwelling places in the mountains of Northern Syria, and their obscure tenets—supposed to be a strange mixture of Islam and Christianity—see Ritter, ‘Erdkunde,’ vol. xvii. pp. 975-95).

“Their physiognomy and religious opinions” (says the Rev. S. Lyde, speaking of the Nusairiyeh) “prove them to be a race different from the other populations of Syria. They are supposed to be aborigines whose home is in the mountainous territory lying between Mount Kasius and the Lebanon, and to have maintained themselves there whilst successive migrations of nations in the lower districts have pushed aside the other autochthones, or replaced them by a new population.”

Adana.—The foundation of this city also mounts to mythical ages. Steph. Byzan. (sub voce Adana) says that the two brothers, Adanus and Sarus, who were sons of Ge and Ouranus, after having defeated the Tarsiots, founded the city. One gave his name to the town, the other to the river.

Beyond this obscure reference, there seems to be absolutely no notice of Adana in history till the time of Pompeius Magnus, and it seems to have been of very little importance even then. Appian⁠[39] says that “in Mallus and Adana and Epiphaneia, and any other town of Cilicia Tracheia (sic.), which was deserted or lacking population, Pompeius settled those of the pirates who seemed to have practised piracy, not from viciousness, but rather in consequence of the distress caused by the Mithridatic war.”

The first great benefactor of Adana was the Emperor Adrian. He gave his name to the town, as is proved by the legend on some of its coins, “Αδριανων Αδανεων.” Of the edifices constructed by this emperor, nothing exists except perhaps the last arch of the bridge on the west side. The first bridge was constructed by his order, and an inscription containing the emperor’s name existed on the present bridge about forty-five years ago, but has now disappeared. In gratitude for certain favours conferred by Maximian, Adana, with permission of the emperor and senate, assumed the title of Μαξιμιανων Αδανεων. During the fourth and fifth centuries Adana, in common with the rest of Cilicia, suffered immensely from the Isaurians. Adana owed much to Justinian. This emperor restored the bridge which had fallen into a state of dangerous dilapidation.

Procopius⁠[40] gives a very verbose account of this great work, from which it appears that the entire structure threatened to fall into the river owing to the decay of the piers on which its huge arches rested, that the emperor caused a new channel to be dug into which the river was diverted. He then caused the ruinous piers to be taken down and rebuilt, after which the river was turned back into its former channel. Besides the bridge, the emperor caused an aqueduct or canal on arches to be constructed, and built great dykes along the sides of the stream.

This aqueduct seems to have been still in existence at the time of Paul Lucas’ visit to Adana, in 1705, but it has since disappeared. The emperor’s engineer for these works was a certain Auxentius. There is still extant on the high altar of the Greek Church at Adana an inscription which Paul Lucas saw on the aqueduct.

Of the porticus mentioned by Otter⁠[41] and Kinneir⁠[42] not a trace remains, and the little that still existed of the fort at the west end of the bridge, mentioned by Lucas⁠[43] and Kinneir⁠[44], has been lately removed. In 1385, Sultan Bayazid captured it, and afterwards repaired it; in 1388 it was again besieged and captured by the Sultan of Egypt.

Adana owed much to the Abasside khalifehs, especially to Haroun er Rasheed, but Cilicia was constantly the scene of war between the khalifehs and the Byzantine emperors. Two only of the Greek emperors appear to have been successful against the Saracens, viz. Nicephorus Phocas and John Zimisces, but after the death of the latter, Cilicia was soon lost to the Byzantines.

At the time of the first Crusade, Adana was a very flourishing city. Raoul de Caen⁠[45] calls it “urbs munita turribus, populis capax, armis referta.” Guilliaume de Tyr⁠[46] calls it “urbem qui nomen habet Adana, auro et argento, gregibus et frumentis, vino et oleo et omni commoditate abundantem.” The Crusades probably enabled the Byzantines to recover Cilicia, but in the course of the twelfth century the Armenians, under their Roupenian kings, after long warfare, expelled the Greeks, who were never again able to recover the country.

The Armenians were exposed to constant attacks from the Muslims of Koniah and Karaman, varied by occasional inroads of Tartars. But after the disastrous Crusade of Louis IX. against Egypt, a far more formidable enemy appeared. The terrible Beybars Bundoukdar, Sultan of Egypt, invaded Cilicia, and from this time forward, the Armenians of Cilicia were exposed to continual attacks from the Egyptian Sultans; one of them, “El Melik en Nasr,” devastated the country repeatedly in the most fearful manner (A.D. 1320-1337). He succeeded in capturing Adana, but could not reduce the great rock fortresses of Cilicia.

These invasions were renewed at intervals from 1343-1375, when the Armenian monarchy was destroyed, and their last king captured and carried away into Egypt by the Sultan El Ashraf.

Paul Lucas writes of Adana as follows (translation): “Adana appears to me to possess the most agreeable climate in the world. During the winter its air is excellent, and the days there, at that season are more beautiful than in many other places in spring time. All the year round fruits are grown there which other countries only produce at certain seasons, as, for instance, water melons, common melons, cucumbers, pomegranates, and all kinds of vegetables and herbs. During the summer, however, there does not seem to be so much enjoyment, for in proportion as it approaches, this fine town sees its inhabitants retire. From the month of April, the heats are so overpowering that the citizens are forced to take refuge in the mountains which are called ‘Laiassi’ [these are the ‘Yailas,’ summer retreats in the mountains], and which I think are the dependencies of Mount Taurus. There they stay for about six months in the year. But I am told that there also the life they pass is perfectly delicious, and that during these six months the prettiest imaginable towns are constructed on these heights, which are planted with forest and abound in grottoes and springs of water.

“At the extremity of Adana on the south, and at the foot of the walls, a river flows, as large as the Seine, called the Chaquet. On its banks is the citadel of the town; it is small, but built upon the natural rock, and of considerable strength. As I was one day passing by it, the Aga who is in command of it, ordered me to be called, and asked me if I was not the Frank Physician. I told him that I was. Then he begged me to enter, and to take a cup of coffee with him. In course of conversation he paid me an infinite number of compliments on the cures which I had effected in the town.... Finally he asked me if I wished to see the castle, and ordered one of his people to show me everything in it. After passing the outer wall, which is flanked by a number of towers, we entered by a gate as old as the citadel itself. It is made of great bars of iron, covered with great iron horse-shoes, three fingers thick, three-quarters of a foot long and half a foot wide, and secured with rivets, the heads of which are as large as a tennis ball, and cut into facets.... Then we walked round the walls. There I saw only a single piece of cannon ... and in the whole castle I found nothing worthy of notice, except a frightful prison, the very look of which was enough to make one shudder. It is of a round form like a well, and may be about sixty feet in circumference and forty in depth. It contained at that time some sixty prisoners, almost trampling one upon the other, and whose miserable condition could not fail to excite compassion.

“In this prison was placed Stephen, the Patriarch of the Syrians, with three of his Bishops, who professed the Roman Catholic faith. The schismatic Syrians (i.e. of the Greek Church), after having caused them to suffer an infinity of persecutions and grievous fines, obtained by means of bribery a firman of the grand signor against them. In consequence of that order they were loaded with chains, brought from Aleppo, and cast into this frightful dungeon. The unhappy patriarch died there, professing, even to his last breath, the Catholic faith. Several others followed his example there shortly after, and the Christians of the country assured me that they all died like veritable saints. This little fortress is only about three hundred paces in circumference.

“In passing out from the town in that direction, you cross a handsome stone bridge of fifteen arches. On the right side towards the west are some great aqueducts, at the bottom of which are to be seen a number of wheels, which draw the water of the river something like the wheels of the machine at Marly. These aqueducts carry the water of the Chaquet all over the town by means of different water conduits, and there is no place where there are more or finer fountains than Adana.

“I found only two inscriptions ... the second, which is in hexameter and pentameter verses, seems to have been set up in honour of some great personage who had secured the town against the inundations of the river. The inscription wishes for that personage a glory as immortal as those had acquired for themselves who had caused the canals of the Nile to be constructed.”⁠[47]

Of these works not a trace could I discover. The subjoined is the inscription referred to. The text amended by Boeckh, iii. p. 212.

“Of a truth, Auxentius, this also is a wondrous work of your ability, to have constructed for the winter floods of the river an embankment that cannot be broken, on foundations secured with iron, above which you extended a wide roadway—and this many before you, owing to their inexperience (want of skill) had made too weak (to resist) the Cydnean stream, but by you it has been fixed firm and enduring above its arches, and the swollen stream becomes (thus) more gentle. Yourself, too, in obedience to the command of the most illustrious prince, patiently completed the bridge, so that hereafter a glory will be yours equal (to the fame of) those who dyked the vast streams of Nile.”

The prince is no doubt Justinian; and his engineer Auxentius, besides repairing the bridge, seems to have also constructed solid quays along the banks of the river, which preserved the town of Adana from inundations. The sixth line presents a difficulty, the river is not the Cydnus, but the Sarus, and although at various periods the Sarus and Pyramus have formed one stream, owing to changes in the respective course of these rivers, it does not appear that the Cydnus and Sarus ever flowed together.

Messis.—Its ancient name was Mopsuestia, but the Byzantine Arab and Armenian writers name it very variously, e.g. Mopsistea, Mampsysta, Mamista, Mamistra, Masissa, &c., &c.

It was founded after the Trojan war by Mopsus. An Argive colony, under Amphilochus, afterwards settled here, but a dispute having arisen between the two chiefs, a single combat took place between them, in which both fell. Mopsus afterwards was worshipped in Cilicia, on account of the celebrity of his oracles. Of the early history of Messis there is no trace whatever. Like many other Asiatic cities, it took the name Seleucia in honour of the Greek kings of Syria. It is mentioned by Strabo, and as a free state under the Romans by Pliny. It would seem to have been benefited by Adrian, whose name it bore, and who probably built the first bridge over the Pyramus. Later it assumed the name ΔΕΚΙΑΝΩΝ ΜΟΨΕΑΤΩΝ, from the Emperor Trajan Decius. Justinian also was its benefactor, and repaired the bridge.⁠[48] In A.D. 950, Mopsuestia was captured by the Saracens, but in 965 recaptured, after a long siege, by Nicephorus Phocas. William of Tyre says of it,⁠[49] “Erat autem Mamistra una de nobilioribus ejusdem provinciæ civitatibus, muro et multorum incolatu insignis, sedet optimo agro et gleba ubere et amœnitate præcipue commendabilis.” It was here that a fierce battle occurred between the troops of Baldwin and Tancred during the first Crusade. It was captured by the Crusaders in 1097. The town was often taken and retaken in the wars between Greeks, Saracens, and Armenians, and changed hands repeatedly during the Crusades and the later invasions of Cilicia by the Sultans of Egypt. Willibrand, canon of Oldenburg, visited it in the thirteenth century. According to him “Manistere” was a fine town, situated on a river, having ramparts flanked with towers, but ruinous by reason of their age. It had only a few inhabitants, and was subject to the king of Armenia. Near the town was the castle, held by a Byzantine garrison, although the town itself belonged to the Armenian king, Leo II. Both town and citadel often changed hands during the wars between Greeks and Armenians, until finally the Greeks abandoned the place.

Pierre Belon visited Messis in the sixteenth century. He also mentions the castle, and the khan at the east extremity of the bridge. The latter, a large and solidly-built edifice, was erected in 1532, and is one of the numerous khans constructed by order of the sultans Selim I. and Suleiman during the first half of the sixteenth century. It was repaired in 1830 by Hassan Pasha. In Pierre Belon’s time Messis and the Pyramus were the limits which separated the Arabic and Turkish languages, and divided the Ottoman empire from the dominions of the sultans of Egypt. The town was then what it is now, viz. a great mass of ruins, with a few wretched cottages scattered amidst it.

The only celebrated name connected with Mopsuestia is that of Bishop Theodore. He held that see for thirty-six years, and was considered as “primarily responsible” for all the theological commotions associated with the names of Nestorius and Pelagius, for it was under these names that the opinions of Theodore came before the notice of the world. Nestorius was said to have stopped at Mopsuestia as he went from his monastery at Antioch to take possession of the patriarchate of Constantinople, and there to have been imbued with heresy by the aged, and then almost dying, Theodore, and this story, though doubtful in itself, embodies an unquestionable truth. It was the influence of Theodore’s episcopate, extending over thirty-six years, during which he was a most popular preacher, which brought to a head those tendencies of Antiochene thought, whose inevitable issue was Nestorianism. And we have fragments of his writings containing the principles and many even of the very phrases of that which was afterwards known as Nestorian heresy. Thus he has been justly called “a Nestorian before Nestorius.”

In like manner as to Pelagianism. Rufinus, the Syrian monk, who first led Pelagius into heresy, openly boasted that he was the personal disciple of Theodore; and the diocese of Mopsuestia was treated by the leading Pelagians as the natural head-quarters of their party. There are even extant fragments of a book of Theodore in which he attacks S. Jerome on the question of Original Sin. Our knowledge of the man himself is as fragmentary as the remains of his voluminous works. Of his life we know only two or three episodes, derived chiefly from some letters of S. Chrysostom. Of his commentaries on the greater part of the Old Testament none remains entire, except those on the twelve minor prophets. The rest, like his great dogmatic works, exist only in scattered fragments, preserved by his theological opponents as testimony against their author, and yet they were esteemed—by friends and foes alike—as the greatest exegetical works which the school of Antioch had produced.

Theodore of Antioch, as he is commonly called, when the works written before he became bishop are quoted, was born at Antioch, about A.D. 347, being thus the fellow-townsman and contemporary of S. Chrysostom. His parents were wealthy, but beyond this we know nothing of his family history. Another brother of the same family, Polychronius, was well known as a bishop and a commentator, and his work on the ‘Prophecy of Daniel’ is still extant.⁠[50]

We first hear of Theodore when, at about the age of twenty, he was studying rhetoric with S. Chrysostom, under the sophist Libanius. Shortly after, Chrysostom retired from the world, and persuaded Theodore to follow his example. A violent reaction followed. Theodore left his solitude determined to marry, upon which Chrysostom addressed to him one if not two letters of remonstrance; perhaps, however, the longer of the two, in which mention is made of a lady, Hermione, is addressed to some other Theodore. The result of Chrysostom’s eloquent pleading was that Theodore remained constant to his vows. Again he studied with Chrysostom, and their master having been made Bishop of Tarsus, Theodore followed him there, was ordained by him, and remained in the diocese until his death. In 393 he was himself made Bishop of Mopsuestia, the third town in what was then known as Cilicia Secunda, and under the Metropolitan See of Anazarba.

In 404 S. Chrysostom, then for the second time in exile, writing to Pœanius, a cousin of Theodore, styles the latter “his master.” In the same year he writes to Theodore himself, who, with the tact which must have been habitual to him, had managed to aid S. Chrysostom without offending the opposite party. He wishes it were possible to come to him and enjoy in person his affection, but since this cannot be he must discharge the same duty by letter. “For if I were carried to the ends of the earth never could I forget your affection, genuine, warm, sincere, and guileless, both as it used to be from the very first and as you have displayed it now. For it is no small consolation that I have received even here ... the affection of your watchful and generous soul.”

Theodore’s whole life was one of ceaseless literary and theological activity, “prope infinita scripsit Theodorus.” He wrote against the Dualism of Zoroaster. He cleared his diocese of Arianism. His work against Apollinaris belongs to the latest period of his life. His death occurred in 429.⁠[51]

Immediately beyond Messis commences the border country of the Amanus. Writing of this district, Ritter⁠[52] says, “The struggles, lasting for centuries in this western border country between the Byzantine emperors and the Arab khalifs, were so full of changes, so sanguinary, and so exciting for the populations engaged in them, that these mountaineers may be said to have lived in a state of constant warfare, without ever arriving at a state of rest.” At the time of the Khalif Haroun er Rasheed the whole country as far as Tarsus had come under the power of the Muslim, for this khalif built the fortresses in the passes of the Amanus, and in 758 made Adana and Tarsus into border fastnesses. Similarly Messissa was made into a border fortress by the Khalif el Mansour; all three were to serve as bulwarks for Syria, and Tarsus was still further strengthened by Khalif el Maamoun to such a degree that it “might have resisted the Christians for centuries.” Yet Abulfeda says that in his time these very towns had been wrested from the Muslim by the Armenian Christians, and that Tarsus, Ayas, Adana, and others were held by the kings of Lesser Armenia who ruled at Sis, and he prays Allah that they may soon return into the possession of the faithful. “These holy wars,” says the gloss to Abulfeda, “exist no longer, what has become of them and of their work?”

Abulfeda himself made two campaigns in company with his father. The first, in 1298, was against the Armenians of Cilicia. The Muslim army entered the country by the passes of “Marra” (Marash?) and the Pass of Scanderoun, but the only result was the devastation of the land as far as the army advanced, the killing of the men, the distribution of the women and children as booty, and their sale as slaves. In the second campaign, in 1302, Abulfeda penetrated, by way of Bagras and the Pass of Beilan, as far as Sis itself.

“It is not astonishing that such a warlike existence of populations, enflamed by fanaticism, should have led them to a constant life of plundering and robbery, which under a hated Turkish rule would be intensified through the attraction of revolt against tyrannical, and at the same time cowardly, mercenaries and feeble pashas. Nor, again, is it astonishing that such a condition of things should have prevailed even till now (1855), for besides the encouragement afforded by mountain fortresses naturally strong; there were the constant intrigues and quarrels of the pashas of Cilicia and Syria almost always ill-disposed towards each other, and thus the Amanus remains what it has ever been, the asylum of every robber, rebel, or deposed pasha.

“Under such circumstances it is not wonderful that scarcely any place of importance, except Beilan, is known to us in the interior of the mountain ranges and the valleys of the Amanus. The others that may exist are probably only ruins, or the haunts of brigands; and even the coast towns exhibit a sad picture of decay and wreck, in the midst of which every temporary improvement can but sink and fall into oblivion.”

But of late years a vast improvement has taken place (1878).

Marash.—On the site of ancient Germanicia. There seems to be no mention of this place in any writer of classical times, nor even under any Roman emperor, though it is mentioned by Byzantine writers. Under Alexis Comnenus it was the seat of a patriarch, whose authority extended to Edessa. At the end of the eleventh century it was held by the Armenian kings of Cilicia. The Crusaders under Godfrey de Bouillon, on their march from Koniah past Eregli, lost their way in the high ranges of Taurus, and after much wandering came to Marash. After various changes of masters, it fell into the power of Masaoud, Sultan of Koniah, in 1147, but was afterwards recovered by the Armenian kings, and remained in their possession till the end of the Roupenian dynasty.

Michaud⁠[53] gives a description of the difficulties endured by the Christian army whilst crossing the Taurus, between “Cocson” (the ancient Cucusus, place of exile of S. Chrysostom) and “Maresia” (Marash), which was about ten hours to the S.W. The chroniclers declare “that there was no path in these mountains except fit only for reptiles or beasts of prey, and so narrow that there was scarcely room to place the foot; the knights carried their arms hung round their neck; the animals could not bear their burdens, which had to be carried by hand. No one could halt or sit down, no one could help his companion, only the man behind could give assistance to his comrade in front, and the latter could only turn with much difficulty.” Maresia was the limit to these difficulties. It was inhabited by Christians, and the Turkish garrison that had held the citadel had fled on the approach of the Crusaders. Here the wife of Baldwin died, and her remains were buried in the town, &c., &c.

Sis.—On the site of Flavias, or Flaviopolis. Barker⁠[54] supposes this to be the Pindenissus which Cicero besieged during his proconsulate of Cilicia. By Strabo it is called Πιδνίδισσος, by Stephan. Byzantin., Πιδνήδισσος. Cicero,⁠[55] after noticing some severe losses inflicted on the Roman army by the mountaineers of the Amanus, mentions the surrender to himself of the “Pindenissæ.” Pindenissus, he says, was a city of the independent Cilicians (Eleuthero-Cilices). Its inhabitants were brave, warlike, and well provided with means for defending their city. He mentions the operations of the army. They surrounded the city with a ditch and breastwork, employed a large “agger” with a very lofty tower, a great abundance of artillery (tormenta), and many archers. After a stubborn resistance, which seems to have caused severe loss to the Romans, Pindenissus surrendered on the forty-seventh day of the siege.

This Pindenissus of Cicero, however, can hardly have been the tremendous rock fortress of Sis, which is naturally almost impregnable.

Probably there was a fortress here at a very early period, but the old city of Sis, if any existed, has utterly disappeared, and the first time the town is mentioned is towards the end of the twelfth century. The seventh thakavor, and first king of the Roupenian line in 1183, was Leo II. He was crowned by Conrad, Bishop of Moguntia, through the influence of the Emperor Henry II. with the Pope. This monarch either founded or rebuilt Sis, commencing the work in 1186, and after this time it continued to be the capital and burial place of the Roupenian kings till 1374, when the Egyptians, after a siege of two months, captured and destroyed it.

It had been besieged many times before by the sultans of Koniah and of Egypt, but owing to its great natural strength, never captured, though the rest of the country, except some of the strongholds, fell into the hands of the invaders. Of the buildings of Sis, only one or two ruined churches remain, as the town was repeatedly destroyed.

The Armenian patriarchate was established here under the protection of the Roupenian kings, after the patriarch had been forced to quit Roum Kalah in consequence of the conquests of the Egyptians. In 1441, Etchmiazin, in Greater Armenia, became the chief Armenian patriarchate, but the ancient patriarchate of Sis is still maintained, although the patriarch seldom resides there.

Anazarba.—Several accounts are given of the origin of its name—either from ‎‏زرب‏‎ “zarb” (yellow), referring to the colour of its rock; or from its founder (whether mythical or real) “Azarbas.” Another account is that the place was destroyed by an earthquake during the reign of Nerva, and that he sent Anazarbus, a senator, to restore it: hence its name. Zonarus⁠[56] and Philostratus⁠[57] call it Anabarzus and Anabarza, and the Armenians of the country call it “Anawàrza.”

The Emperor Augustus visited it, favoured it much, and gave it the name of Cæsarea ad Anazarbum. It continued to receive many benefits from succeeding emperors. Under Commodus it became “αυτονομος”; under Caracalla, “μητροπολις”; under Macrinus, “ενδοξος”; under Philip the Arabian, “libera.” In the Museum of the Louvre there is a large bronze medal of Alexander Severus, inscribed ΑΝΑΖΑΡΒΟ ΜΗΤΡΟΠΟΛΕΙΤΩΝ.

About the middle of the fifth century it became the capital of Cilicia Secunda. A terrible earthquake ruined it in the reign of Justin, A.D. 525. The emperor restored it, and called it Justinopolis, but the former name prevailed. Another earthquake, in the reign of Justinian, almost utterly destroyed it. This emperor also restored the city, and the existing walls belong to that period. Towards the end of the eighth century it fell into the hands of the Muslim; and in 802 Haroun er Rasheed placed in it a Khorassani garrison. About 1100, the Armenians acquired Anazarba, and it continued to be the capital and residence of their thakavors till the foundation of Sis. After that time it gradually lost its importance, and fell into decay.

Near Anazarba occurred a great battle in 1130, in which Bohemond, Prince of Antioch, defeated Redouan, Sultan of Aleppo and Damascus, but was himself slain in the fight. In 1136 it was captured, after a most obstinate defence, by the Byzantines, under their brave and generous emperor, John Comnenus, who had been provoked by the encroachments of the Armenians on Isauria. The Armenian king, Leo I., was captured, and all Cilicia reduced. In 1183 it was visited and described by Willibrand, Canon of Oldenburg. Very few travellers have seen it, and the remote position of the old city has saved what remains of it from destruction. In all probability it has continued waste and uninhabited for many centuries until quite a recent period.

Pylæ Ciliciæ.—Although this pass must have always formed the chief passage from the interior of Asia Minor to the sea-coast, it is strange how very scanty are the notices of it to be found in the Greek or Roman historians. Xenophon mentions the march of Cyrus the younger through it. Then the next incident, after an interval of more than five centuries, is the death, in A.D. 174, of the Empress Faustina at Halala, whilst traversing the Pylæ. She was accompanying her husband, Marcus Aurelius, into Syria. The emperor raised a temple to her memory, and founded a town, to which he gave the name Faustinopolis.

In the contest for the empire between Septimus Severus and Percennius Niger, one of Niger’s generals, Æmilianus, had erected fortifications to the north of the pass; but a violent storm and inundation destroyed all the works, and the army of Severus marched through without being resisted.

During the first Crusade, a division of the Crusaders under Tancred made their way through this pass to Tarsus. Albert d’Aix calls it “porta de Judas,” and the defile to the north he names “Butrente,” derived, without doubt, from the ancient city once existing in it, “Podandus.”

The strong works erected by the Egyptian Ibrahim Pasha, for the defence of Cilicia against the Sultan’s army, still extend across the valley to the north of the pass itself.

Eregli.—On the site of an ancient town, which has been variously named (1) Herculis vicus, hence Heraclea; or (2), according to Colonel Leake, Archalla; or (3) Cybistra. Strabo’s account of Cybistra agrees very well with the present position of Eregli. Cicero stationed his army here in order to resist a threatened invasion of the Parthians.

A bishop of Cybistra is mentioned as present at the Council of Nice, in 325; another at the Council of Chalcedon, in 451. The last mentioned is under Isaac Angelus, in 1195.

Karaman occupies the site of ancient Laranda. There is no account of its foundation or early history. It probably yielded only a nominal allegiance to the kings of Persia, for at the time of Alexander’s invasion it was held by the Isaurians, and even during Alexander’s lifetime it revolted, in company with Isaura, against the Macedonians. Laranda, however, was stormed and captured by the troops of the regent Perdiccas, all the adult males were slain, and the rest of the population sold into slavery; the town was destroyed. Long afterwards it was held by the Cilician and Isaurian pirates on account of the fertility of its soil.

From that time forwards there is a long blank in its history. It reappears at the time of the third Crusade, when the great German Emperor Frederic Barbarossa, after defeating, near Koniah, the Seljouk sultan, Kilidj Arslan, made his triumphant entry into Laranda on May 30, 1190. Michaud⁠[58] says, “The army of the Cross only remained two days in the capital of Lycaonia. It marched to Laranda—now Karaman.” Ansbert⁠[59] writes: “If I desired to describe all the miseries and persecutions which the pilgrims endured for the name of Christ and for the honour of the Cross, without murmurs, and even joyfully, my efforts, even though I could speak the tongue of the Angels, could not attain to the truth. Near Laranda the crusaders were aroused in the night by a sound like the clash of arms. It was an earthquake. In this the wise saw a sinister presage of what was to come.” The pilgrims had no more to fear the attacks and surprises of the Turks, but the difficult passage through the Taurus was a great trial of their patience and their courage. The army was marching down the course of the Selef, called in Turkish Gieuk Sou, a river which rises a few hours from Laranda, and enters the sea not far from the ruins of Seleucia (now Selefke). The Emperor Frederic was marching with the van of the army, and the catastrophe which occurred is thus described by the chronicler who was a witness of it: “Whilst the rest of the pilgrims,” says Ansbert, “rich and poor, was advancing through precipices scarcely accessible to wild goats or to birds, the emperor, who wished to refresh himself (it was then in the month of June), and to avoid also the perils of the mountains, tried to cross the rapid stream of Seleucia by swimming. This prince, who had escaped so many perils, entered the water contrary to the advice of all his suite, and was piteously drowned. Let us be resigned to the secret judgment of that God to whom none dare say, ‘Why hast Thou done this? Why hast Thou made so great a man die so soon?’ Several of the nobles who were present hastened to succour the emperor, but they brought him back to the shore dead. His loss troubled the army deeply, some expired of grief, others, in despair, were persuaded that God did not protect their cause, and renouncing the Christian faith, embraced the religion of the gentiles. Mourning and unbounded grief filled all hearts.” The Crusaders might exclaim with the prophet, “The crown is fallen from our head, woe unto us sinners.” All the chroniclers of the time deplore the death of the Emperor Frederic, and express the same sentiment. They do not venture to scrutinize this terrible mystery of Providence. “God,” says the chronicler Godefroy, “did that which pleased Him, and He did it with justice, according to His unchanging and inflexible Will, but not with mercy (if it be permitted to say so) considering the state of the Church and of the Land of Promise.”

On the contrary, the Muslim chroniclers thank Providence, and regard the death of Frederic as one of the Almighty’s great mercies. “Frederic,” says Boha-ed-deen, “was drowned in a place where the water was only as deep as up to the waist—a proof that God willed to deliver us from him.” What great results might have arisen from an expedition such as the third Crusade—the reunion of the most warlike nations of the West, and of the three most powerful monarchs of that age! “Unless the Almighty, as a mark of His bounty towards us,” says Ibn Alatir, “had caused the German emperor to perish at the moment he had crossed the Taurus, later on it might have been said of Syria and of Egypt, ‘Formerly the Muslimin were masters here!’”

When the great empire of the Seljouks of Iconium came to an end, in 1308, ten emirates arose from its ruins. Laranda was already in possession of a chief belonging to the Turkman tribe of Karaman, who increased his power by encroachments upon all his neighbours.

It was during the reign of this prince that the celebrated traveller, “Ibn Batuta,” visited Laranda, in 1332. He says the town was governed by Sultan “Bedr-ed-Deen”—“Karaman Oglou”—who had seized upon it by force, and built there a royal palace. The traveller was received with great honour by the sultan—who was returning from the chase—and rode with the prince into the town as his guest. Food, fruit, and sweetmeats in silver dishes, with wax candles, were sent to him in abundance, and when he took his leave he was presented with a dress of honour, riding-horses, and other gifts. The dynasty of Karaman, at first powerful and enterprising, gradually merged in the rising house of Othman. First Mourad, and then his son, Bayazid Ilderim, established the supremacy of the Ottomans over their Seljoukian cousins. Nor, although the royal houses were united by marriage, did the Karamanian princes cease to intrigue and revolt against the house of Othman, till, in 1466, Mohammed II., the conqueror of Constantinople, extinguished the remains of their independence, and caused the last prince of the house of Karaman to be put to death. The result would have been the same even under Bayazid, had not his overthrow by Timour Lenk (Tamerlane) at Angora checked for a while the rising fortunes of the Osmanlis.

Derbe.—Serpek, the supposed site of ancient Derbe, is about 60 miles S.E. of Koniah, about 30 N.W. of Laranda, about 5 miles distant from the lake “Ak Göl”; thus agreeing with the description of Steph. Byz., ad vocem “Derbe”; only in this passage λιμνη (lake) must be substituted for λιμην (port). He calls the place Delbeia.

Derbe was the residence and seat of government of Antipater, the friend of Cicero. He also possessed Laranda, but was deprived of his possessions and slain by Amyntas Tetrarch of Galatia, to whom the Romans had given Isaura. Derbe seems to have gradually fallen into decay.

Lystra.—The site of Lystra has not yet been exactly ascertained; but the ruins at Maden Shehir, in Kara Dagh, probably mark the place. They are very extensive, and prove that the city flourished for many centuries after our era.

A bishop of Lystra sat in the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

Mout.—On the site of Claudiopolis, which was a colony established by the Emperor Claudius.

The valley of the Calycadnus, in which it is situated, is the only large and fertile level in Cilicia Trachœa. From its remains, it must have been a considerable city. Very few historical events are related as occurring at this city. In the year 492, Claudiopolis, which had been recently recovered from the Isaurians by Diogenes, the general of the Emperor Anastasius, was suddenly besieged by them and reduced to the utmost extremity, but was relieved by John Cyrtus and Conon, Bishop of Apamea, who crossed the Taurus by the passes to the south of Laranda, and being aided by a sortie of the garrison, completely defeated the Isaurians; but the bishop received a wound in the battle, of which he died.

Near Claudiopolis, also, the Isaurians, and all the brigand tribes of Cilicia, who had revolted, were defeated with great slaughter by the Imperial general, John the Scythian. The survivors, and their chiefs, Ninilingis, Indes, and Conon, were besieged in Antioch of Cragus, and all destroyed.

The castle of Mout was built by the sultans of Karaman, and in the mosque are some tombs of the Karaman princes.

Isaura.—Of the history of this city before the expedition of Alexander the Great, nothing seems to be known. Probably its people, like the Pisidians, a cognate race, maintained a virtual independence, and were never reduced to subjection by the Persian Government. They seem to have submitted without resistance to Alexander, but even before his death Isaura and Laranda had revolted, and slain the Macedonian garrison and their governor, Balacros, son of Nicanor. Perdiccas, who was regent for the young king Alexander Ægos, speedily recovered Laranda, but Isaura, which for a long period had been a rich and prosperous place, offered a desperate resistance. After two days’ unsuccessful assault, the besiegers had suffered severe loss, but the townspeople saw that they could hold out no longer, and formed a dreadful resolution; they shut up their women and children in the houses, set all on fire, and proceeded to throw into the flames all their treasures and rich possessions. On seeing this the troops of Perdiccas returned to the assault, but were again repulsed with great loss, and retired to a distance. Then the Isaurians threw themselves into the flames. When day came the troops of Perdiccas entered the town and gathered from the ashes much molten gold and silver.⁠[60]

For a period of nearly two and a half centuries there seems to be no record of the history of Isaura. Then it reappears as one of the chief towns of the Piratic Confederacy of Cilicia. The Roman Consul Servilius (B.C. 75), in his campaign against this enemy, destroyed Isaura for the second time. Later it was given by the Romans to Amyntas Tetrarch of Galatia, who had long carried on war against the Isaurians, and he determined to make it his capital. It was Amyntas who began the splendid fortifications of the city, the ruins of which still remain. He destroyed for this purpose the old Isaura, but did not live to finish his undertaking, for he was killed by the Cilicians whilst attacking the people of Homona.⁠[61] Strabo says there were two towns, one called the “old,” the other “euerkes” (the well-fortified), and subject to them many other smaller towns, but all addicted to piracy.

About the year 258 A.D., Trebellianus, one of the many pretenders called the Thirty Tyrants, during the reigns of Valerian and Gallienus, was proclaimed emperor at Isaura, but he was slain, and the city probably again destroyed, but⁠[62] “this obscure rebellion was attended with strange and memorable consequences.

“The pageant of royalty was soon destroyed ... but his followers, despairing of mercy, resolved to shake off their allegiance, not only to the emperor but to the empire, and suddenly returned to the savage manners from which they had never perfectly been reclaimed.... In the heart of the Roman monarchy, the Isaurians long continued a nation of wild barbarians. Succeeding princes, unable to reduce them to obedience, either by arms or policy, were compelled to acknowledge their weakness by surrounding the hostile and independent spot with a strong chain of fortresses, which often proved insufficient to restrain the incursions of these domestic foes. The Isaurians, gradually extending their territory to the sea-coast, subdued the western and mountainous part of Cilicia, formerly the nest of those daring pirates, against whom the republic had once been obliged to exert its utmost force, under the conduct of the great Pompey.”

Ammian says that in his time Isaura retained but very few traces of its ancient splendour.

Few further notices exist concerning it, but it continued to be the capital of the Isaurian nation for many centuries more. In Byzantine times, Ætius, Bishop of Isauropolis, was present at the Council of Chalcedon, and Illuarius, of the same place, at the Council of Constantinople. Its present state of utter solitude and desolation is beyond description!

Isauria.—Of this rugged and mountainous district, only the north part seems to have been well known to the ancient writers, and to have contained towns and cultivated lands. The south part was almost unknown, and so indeed it has remained even to the present day. Strabo names the latter division Isaurike, the former Isauria.

Its people were of the same race as the Pisidians; they were ugly, ill-grown, and barbarous, but very brave, and extremely skilful in guerilla warfare and in the use of missile weapons. Their country though mountainous was fertile, especially in grapes,⁠[63] and this is one of its characteristics now. Though at times reduced by the Roman arms, they contrived to maintain their freedom and their savage, piratical habits. So much annoyance did they cause to the neighbouring provinces, that towards the beginning of the third century a circle of fortresses was constructed around their country to keep them in check, but it proved ineffectual to restrain them.

The Emperor Probus reduced many of their towns, and checked them for a while by planting colonies among them, but soon these became as bad as the natives.

After the third century, the Isaurians united with the people of Cilicia Trachœa, and both countries took the name of Isauria. An account is given of their plundering excursions by Ammian.⁠[64] In A.D. 367 they cut to pieces a Roman army under Musonianus; in 376 they overran Syria and Pamphylia; and every year extended their ravages farther and farther. S. Basil, in a letter addressed to Eusebius when in exile, mentions the dangers of travel in the provinces. “Having heard,” he writes, “that all the roads swarm with brigands and runaway slaves, we were afraid to entrust anything into the hands of our brother [the messenger] lest we should even cause his death thereby. But if the Almighty should vouchsafe us a little tranquillity, if indeed we hear of the arrival of troops, we will take care to send one of our people to visit you, and inform you of all that concerns you.”

From A.D. 404-409, during the feeble reign of Arcadius, their ravages were dreadful. The emperor issued the most severe edicts against them, ordering that they should be slain whenever and wherever they could be found—and even during Lent and Easter. A different policy was tried by his successor, Theodosius II. A large number of Isaurians was brought to Constantinople under one of their chiefs, Zeno, who was a pagan, and they formed the garrison of Constantinople. Zeno died high in position and honour under Marcian, successor of Theodosius II.

Leo I., the next emperor, brought a large number of Isaurians to Constantinople, under a chief who bore the barbarous name of Trascaliseus, or Taracondiseus. He had no merit to recommend him, is even said to have been without courage, was vicious, ignorant, and rude. Yet he gained the emperor’s favour; was made by him a patrician, Captain of the Imperial Guard, General of the Armies of the Empire, and at last was married to the emperor’s eldest daughter, Ariadne, upon which he took the name Zeno. He was detested by the people, who revolted in 472, and slew many of the Isaurians. The emperor made Leo the younger, the son of Zeno and Ariadne, “Augustus;” and a few months before his own death appointed the young prince his successor. But Leo the younger only reigned six days alone after his grandfather’s death. Zeno became guardian of his son, and joint emperor. The death of the young emperor soon followed, it was supposed by poison. The reign of Zeno was one long course of cruelty, avarice, and debauch, varied by fits of devotion. His rapacity was extreme; yet at times, seized with a passing compunction, he would distribute in alms the sums he had wrung from his subjects by confiscations and heavy taxation.

He became at last so odious that a revolt broke out, headed by his mother-in-law, Verina, and her brother, Basiliscus. The empress however remained faithful, and fled with him into Isauria, taking with them all the money that could be collected. The Isaurians in Constantinople were cut to pieces, but the revolution was short lived. Illus, the general sent to attack Zeno in Isauria, was won over, and brought him back to Constantinople. Verina was reconciled to him, Basiliscus was forced to surrender, and, though a promise had been given that his life should be spared, he, with all his family, was sent to Cucusus in Cappadocia, the place of exile of S. Chrysostom, and there, in the castle of Busama, these unfortunate creatures were thrown naked into an empty cistern, and so died of cold and hunger (A.D. 477).

Restored to the throne, the emperor seemed for a brief period inclined to better courses, but soon gave himself up to fresh acts of cruelty and debauch. In consequence, fresh disturbances broke out in 481. Marcianus, brother-in-law to the empress, revolted; but after many vicissitudes, the emperor prevailed. In 484 Leontius, also an Isaurian, conspired with Verina and Illus, and proclaimed himself emperor at Tarsus; nearly all Asia Minor was gained over by the rebels, but Zeno was saved by the Goths in his service, who defeated Illus at Seleucia of Isauria. Leontius and Illus were besieged in the fortress of Papyrium; after a siege of three years the fortress was betrayed, and Illus and Leontius were beheaded.

Soon after this, the emperor, during one of his fits of excessive drunkenness, was buried alive, by order of the Empress Ariadne. He was succeeded, in 491, by Anastasius, who married Ariadne, and, to put an end to the constant revolts which occurred in Constantinople, the emperor ordered all the Isaurians to quit the capital, upon which a general revolt of them and the other associated brigand communities broke out; but the Goths, under John the Scythian, defeated them at Claudiopolis (Mout).

The survivors and their chiefs were blockaded in Antioch of Cragus, the place was stormed, and the Isaurian generals taken to Constantinople and there tortured to death.

The Isaurian forts in the Taurus were all captured, many of the people were transported to Thrace, the rest submitted, the emperor placed Isauria under the government of a “comes” (military governor), Lycaonia and Pisidia under “prætors,” with strong garrisons of troops to keep order.

The Isaurian power was thus crushed, they were never again formed into a separate corps d’armée, and were henceforward confined to their mountains; but though their brigandage ceased, they always continued barbarous and savage.

In A.D. 717, Leo, an Isaurian of low extraction, whose previous name was Conon, became emperor. He is better known as Leo the Iconoclast. In his reign occurred the famous schism between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople, caused in great measure by the emperor’s hatred of sacred images, and his persecution of those who venerated them. Although Italy was lost to the Byzantine Empire in this reign, Leo seems to have been an able, and, on the whole, a successful monarch. It is said that in his youth his future greatness was foretold to him by some Jews, and that he promised them, in case he came to the imperial power, he would put an end to the worship of images in the Christian Church. From that time forward Isauria and its people are not mentioned in history.