Chapter XI: Part 11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The district CASSIOPEA is of little importance.

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

CORCYRA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MACEDONIA.

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

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

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.