vereigns. The scheme of confederacy was planned with peculiar secrecy, and conducted with steadiness. Syria and the Lesser Asia at that time were governed by Antigonus ; and his son Demetrius occupied most of the cities of Greece. The four confederates hung upon the frontiers of his monarchy. Elated with prosperity, the wily old man was for once taken by surprise. Lysimachus from Thrace, with the Macedonian auxiliaries of Cassander, burst into Phrygia; while Seleucus hastened to join him from beyond the Euphrates; and Ptolemy, though with more cautious marches, advanced from Egypt into Palestine. By the united-armies of the two former, he was defeated and slain at Ipsus in Phrygia ; and from the partition of his dominions were formed four kingdoms, which shortly were reduced to the three celebrated ones of Macedon, Syria, and Egypt. We give Dr. Gillies credit, upon examination, for sufficient fidelity to the materials from whence he has extracted his narrative; a notice which may seem the more necessary, as, in his translation of Aristotle's Ethick's and Politicks, he had indulged a most reprehensible license of loose paraphrase, or rather of interpolation.

Coincident with these events in point of time, though bearing no manner of relation to them, are the wars of Agathocles, tyrant of Syracuse, with the Carthaginians in Sicily: a country which, though at that time in its decline, possesses so many claims to our curiosity, that it might have been worth while for Dr. Gillies to have collected more of the scattered materials which remain, with respect to the splendour of its better days. From Sicily he speedily returns to Asia, and brings before our eyes the partial dismemberment of the great empire of Seleucus, by the rise of independent sovereignties in Bactria, Parthia, and Asia Minor; the desolating irruption of the Gauls into the fairest provinces of Greece and Asia, and the security, renown, and lettered opulence of Egypt under the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus. But we enter our protest against the concluding chapter of the first volume, in which the author descants upon the early history of Rome ; a subject, especially in his matter-of-fact mode of treating it, too trite to justify so superfluous an episode. As we come lower down in the history, Rome begins more to appear upon the stage ; and the greater part of the second volume is employed upon transactions, which are familiar to those conversant in the history of that republick. It is painful to follow the uninterrupted successes of unjust aggression ; and these are not the times, in which the history of the steps by which the world was formerly absorbed into one empire, can be read, either with less interest or greater satisfaction than heretofore. In some instances, traces of resemblance between ancient and modern times, force themselves upon our attention. Who, indeed, that remembers the proclamations and conduct of the French in Italy about the year 1797, but must be struck with the resemblance they bear to the declarations of the liberty of Greece issued by Flaminius after the battle of Cynocephale. The same insincere professions of regard to their national freedom, were met with the same exultation at their release from a former yoke, and the same enthusiastick confidence in the delusive image of permanent independence. The parallel may seem more perfect, if we add to it their speedy spoliation, by the hands of their geDerous benefactors, of those works of art, which were not only the publick pride, but, in many of the smaller cities, the chief means of enriching the community.

A more pleasing scene is displayed in the rise of the Achean league, the second, but very inferiour spring, of republican freedom in Greece. It was most wisely planned for a country much decayed in power, and unable to assume that haughty tone of independence, which Pericles or

[ocr errors]

Agesilaus would rather have perished than have relaxed. It was the humbler object of Aratus to render the kings of Macedon allies and protectors, though not masters of Greece; and, by deferring much to their influence, to preserve what was most essential, the free regulation of their internal concerns, and a security from foreign garrisons in their cities. This abject would have been more completely attained, if the other cities of Greece had been less jealous of the league ; and its failure was perhaps chiefly owing to Cleomenes, king of Sparta, whose merits have been a good deal exaggerated by Plutarch. The following account is given by Dr. Gillies, from Polybius, of the battle of Sellasia, fought about a century after the death of Alexander, between that prince and the united forces of Macedon and the Achean confederacy.

Before coming to Sellasia, Antigonus had to pass a valley, the entrance to which was overhung by two hills, Eva and Olympus, forming respectively its eastern and western defences. Between these hills the river Oenus flowed to join the Eurotas, and along the bank of the Oenus, and afterwards of the united stream, the road led almost in a direct line to the Lacedemonian capital. When Antigonus approached the valley of Sellasia, he found that the enemy had seized both hills, and also had thrown tp intrenchments before them. Cleomenes, with the Spartans, had chosen Olympus for his post; his brother, Fucleidas, with the armed peasants, occupied Eva : the intermediate valley, on both sides the road, was defended by the cavalry, and mercenaries. Instead of raslıly engaging an enemy so strongly posted, Antigonus en. camped at a moderate distance, having the river Gorgylus in front, and watchful of every opportunity to ascertain the distinctive qualities of the enemy's force, as well as the nature of the ground in which its several divisions were posted. He frequently alarmed them by shows of attack, but found them on all sides secure. At length, both kings, impatient of delay, and alike emulous of glory, embraced the resolution of coming to a general engagement.

Antigonus bad sent his Illyrians across the river Gorgylus in the night. They were to begin the assault of Mount Eva, accompanied by 3000 Macedonian targeteers, troops less heavily armed than the phalanx, and equipped in all points like the Argyraspides, who make so conspicuous a figure in fornier parts of this work, only that their targets were plated, not with silver, but with brass. The Acarnanians and Cretans composed the second line. Two thousand Acheans, all chosen men, followed as a body of reserve. Antigonus's cavalry, commanded by Alexander, the son of Admetus, was ranged along the banks of the Oenus. It was not to advance against the enemy's horse, until a purple signal had been raised on the side of Olympus by the king, who, at the head of the Macedonian phalanx, purposed to combat Cleomenes and his Spartans. A white ensign of linen first floated in the air. The Illyrians, for this was their summons to action, boldly marched up Mount Eva, and were followed by the divisions appointed to sustain them. Upon this movement, the Acheans, forming the rear, were unexpectedly assailed by a body of light infantry, who sprang from amidst the ranks of the enemy's horse. The confusion occasioned by an onset, equally sudden and daring, threatened to give an easy victory to Eucleidas and his Lacedemonians, who, from the heights of Eva, might descend with great advantage against the disordered troops that had come to dislodge them. The danger was perceived by Philopemen. He communicated his apprehensions to Alexander, who commanded the Macedonian cavalry. But, as the purple cnsign was not yet hoisted, Alexander disregarded the advice of an inexperienced youth.

The character of that youth, however, was better known to his fellow citizens of Megalopolis. They obeyed an authority derived from patriotism and merit, and seconded his ardour to seize the moment of assault. The shouts and shock of the engaging horsemen recalled the light troops who harassed the Macedonians in their ascent to Eva; by which means, the latter, having recovered their order of battle, routed and slew Eucleidas. Philopemen's exertions in the action seemed wortliy of his generalship, in an age when example in battle was held essential to the enforcement of precept. After his horse fell under him, he still fought on foot, though pierced with a spear through both thiglis, and was not born from the field till the victory was decided. Shortly after that event, Antigonus asked Alexander, who commanded bis cavalry, “Why he had charged before orders:" Alexander said,

" The fault was not his ; for a young man of Megalopolis had, in defiance of autho. rity, rushed forwards with his countrymen, and thus precipitated the engagement." Antigonus replied: “You acted the part of a young man ; that youth of Megalopolis showed himself a great general.".

Cleomenes, meanwhile, perceiving the total rout of his right wing under Eucleidas, and seeing that his cavalry also was on the point of giving way, became fearful of being surrounded. For retrieving the honour of the day, he determined to quit his intrenchments; and, at the head of his Spartan spearmen, to attack Antigonus and the phalanx. The king of Macedon gladly embraced an opportunity of bringing the contest to this issue. The trumpets on both sides recalled their light skirmishers, who obstructed the space between the hostile lines. In the first shock, the weight of the Macedonians was overcome by the impetuous valour of the Spartans ; but Antigonus, who had drawn up his men in what was called the double phalanx, had no sooner strengthened his foremost line, by the cooperation of his reserve, than his thickened ranks, bristling with protended spears, bore down all resistance. The Spartans were put to the rout, and pursued with that merciless destruction which generally followed such close and fierce engagements. Cleomenes escaped with a few horsemen to Sparta.

In estimating the merit of Dr. Gillies's work, although we should be inclined to place it a good deal above Rollin, or the Universal History, we cannot express ourselves satisfied with its execution. Without waiting to extract the spirit of history, without developing national character, or political institutions, he goes on, in general, straight forward, through a mere narration of facts; and even in this narration, we desiderate that sagacious and sceptical criticism, by which, in a period renarkably destitute of regular ancient history, the steps of the modern compiler ought to be guided. We shall produce two instances of the latter fault. He gives the following account of the death of Antiochus the Great.

In the elevated region of Elymais, the southern appendage to Mount Zayros, there was a staple, or depository of this kind, at the meeting of the caravan roads con. recting Media with Persia and Susiana. This temple, which had been adorned by the great Alexander, Antiochus determined to plunder. His assault was made in the night. The guards of the sacred enclosure defended their idols and treasures. They were assisted by hardy mountaineers, ever ready and armed, in its neighbour. hood. A blind, tumultuary engagement ensued, in which the king fell, fighting at once against the religion, the commerce, and the arts of his country. Vol. II. p. 345.

At some distance, we find the death of Antiochus Epiphanes related in the following manner.

During the war in Palestine, so disastrous to the Syrians, Antiochus had prose. cuted an expedition, not less disastrous, into Upper Asia. In the march, his proceedings are very imperfectly explained; but in the return, part of the army being left to collect tribute, Antiochus, with a powerful escort, advanced to plunder a temple and rich staple of trade in Elymais, the southern appendage to Mount Zayros, and the main caravan communication between Susiana and Media. In this impious attempt to ride treasures under the protection of Venus or Diana, whose altars had been honoured and enriched by the great Alexander, he was de. feated, with peculiar circumstances of disgrace, by the inhabitants of the surrounding district, and reduced to the necessity of making a speedy retreat to Ecbatana, the capital of Media. There he first learned the repeated discomfitures and routs of his armies ; tidings which exasperated to fury the wounds which his pride had received, in the late repulse from Elymais. In the fire of his rage, he swore that he would render Palestine the sepulchre of the Jews; and, precipitating his march westward for that purpose, was overthrown in his chariot, and died of his wounds, at the obscure village Tabæ, situate somewhere on the mountainous confines of Assyria. p. 472.

Let us now see how he disposes of another Antiochus, surnamed Sidetes.

The obscure goddess Iranea, should seem to have held her seat among the defiles of Mount Zayros. Antiochus, on pretence that he came to betroth her, entered the temple, slightly accompanied, to receive her accuinulated opulence by way of dower. But the priests of Iranea, having shut the outward gates of the sacred en



closure, opened the concealed doors on the roof of the temple, and overwhelmed the king and his attendants, as with thunderbolts from on high ; then casting their mutilated remains without the walls, thus awfully announced to the Syrians, who waited his return, the disaster of their king, and the terrifick majesty of the god. dess. p. 552.

That three kings of Syria, of the same name, should perish in similar attempts to plunder the same temple, or at least one in nearly the same place, is, one would think, too strange a coincidence to pass without sus. picion. Dr. Gillies has, however, it seems, no leisure to marvel, and never hints at the possibility, that, in the confused and irregular notices which are come down to us of this part of history, the names of these princes may have been mistaken. We are much disposed to consider the second story, the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, as the foundation of one or both of the other two; since that is unquestionably true, being attested by Polybius, a contemporary, as well as by Josephus and Appian. We have little doubt that the third is wholly false, as it stands solely upon the authority of the second book of Maccabees, a work of small credit ; while several historians give quite a different account of the death of Antiochus Sidetes. The only difficulty is, as to the circumstances related of Antiochus the Great : since we find this account of his death confirmed, independently of Justin, whom singly we should not much value, by Strabo and Diodorus ; although the circumstances related by the latter bear a much nearer resemblance to what Polybius tells us of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes.

An inattention, almost precisely similar, seems to us to have taken place in the two following passages. A war is waged by Seleucus Callinicus against the Parthians, in which, Dr. Gillies tells us :

The royal invader fell into the hands of the enemy, after being defeated in a great battle, decisive of the independence and future dominion of the Parthians. His life was spared by Tiridates, who had assumed the place and name of his elder brother Arsaces, the author of the Parthian revolt. Seleucus was retained ten years in the roughest province, and among the fiercest people of Upper Asia ; but, during all that time, treated by his conqueror with the respect due to his rank and misfor. tunes. Vol. II, p. 9.

More than a century afterwards, we are told of another Syrian monarch, a certain Demetrius Nicator ; " that he was taken prisoner by the Parthians, and retained by them ten years in a loose and honourable captivity.” p. 546.

The coincidence here, likewise, is suspicious, though less for the fact itself, than for the precise agreement in the number of years ; which, we apprehend, Dr. Gillies has transposed from the second story to the first, through mere inattention. Atheneus, the authority whom he quotes for the captivity of Seleucus, says only, that he remained rolux xgovor, a great length of time, in Parthia. But as Atheneus, who is no historian, meti. tions the subject only incidentally, while Justin gives an incompatible account, we are inclined to believe that the former writer has, through negli. gence, put one name in place of another.

In the following note an eminent writer is unjustly censured.

“ Warburton's greal merit, in the explanation of the origin and nature “ of hieroglyphicks, is generally and justly admired; yet he has not ex. " hausted the subject, and I cannot reconcile all of his conclusions with the “ only existing authorities concerning it; viz. Herodotus, 1. 5. c. 36.-Dio“ dorus, l. 3. c. 4.–Porphyr. in Vit Pythag –Clemens Alexand. 5.“ Strom. p. 555. and a fragment of Manetho in Eusebius's Chronicle, p. 6. “ In this fragment Warburton, instead of jegoy dumixoss vgapuroi, substitutes iegoggapixois reopplegir. His reason for this correction is, that isgog Audixois “ being always used by the ancients to denote characters of things, in op. “ position to alphabetick letters, or characters of words, ought not to be "joined with yeaumarin, which denotes characters of words only. Because

“ isgordupire always denotes characters of things, Warburton concluded " that yeupeucla always denoted characters of words. The conclusion is “ illogical, and contradictory to one of the passages on which our whole « knowledge of the subject rests. Πηρι δε 7ων Αιθιοπικων γραμμαίων των παρ' " Acyonlloig ingerlupinwy nahewy. Diodorus, l. 3. c. 4. Conf. Divine Lega" lion, b. 4. s. 4. Vol. I. p. 48.

Warburton is here misrepresented. Manetho, in the fragment quoted, speaks of pillars incribed by Thoth, the first Hermes, with hieroglyphick characters in the sacred dialect; and translated after the flood out of the sacred dialect into Greek with hieroglyphick characters, and deposited in the adyta of the Egyptian temples. Now, as hieroglyphicks, as Warburton seems to have proved, stood for things and not for words, it is obvious. ly absurd to say, that an inscription in those characters was either in Greek or in any other language. It is upon this account that he changes the text from izgorau pixois to iecore.pixois ; and it must be confessed, that, if the text cannot be supported, the alteration is not violent. We are inclined, however, to think, that the original word is right; and we hope for indulgence from the reader, if we allow this to lead us into a short digression, which may possibly throw some light upon a very interesting subject.

The origin of alphabetical writing has never been traced ; but that of the Egyptians has been convincingly proved, by the Comte de Caylus, to be formed of hieroglyphical marks, adopted with no great variation. We find no appearance, says Warburton, of alphabetick characters on their publick monuments.

This, however true at the time he wrote, cannot now be asserted ; since the celebrated Rosetta stone, in the British Museum, is engraved with three distinct sets of characters, Greek, Egyptian, and a third resembling what are called hieroglyphicks. The only doubt that can be entertained is, whether these are strictly hieroglyphicks; that is, representations of things; or, rather, an alphabetical character, peculiar to the priesthood, and called hierogrammaticks. 1. The existence of this sacred alphabet is attested by Herodotus, Diodorus, and several other writers. 2. It went occasionally under the name of hieroglyphick, as appears not only by the passage quoted above from Manetho, if we do not alter the text, but from one in Porphyry, which may be found in Warburton. 3. It was, however, considered as perfectly distinct from the genuine hieroglyphick, which was always understood to denote things, either by mere picture writing, or; more commonly, by very refined allegory. 4. Works of a popular and civil nature were written in this character, as we learn from Clement of Alexandria ; whereas the genuine hieroglyphick was exceedingly secret and mysterious, and the knowledge of it confined to the priesthood. 5. The inscription upon the Rosetta stone is said, in the terms of the decree contained in it, to be written in sacred, national, and Greek characters. Τους ζεροις, και εγχώριοις, και Ελληνικους γραμμασιν. 6. It could not be a mysterious character, such as the genuine hieroglyphick seems to have been, because it was exposed to publick view with a double translation. 7. It occupies a considerable space upon the stone, although an indefinite part of it is broken off; although the real hieroglyphick, as is natural to em-blematick writing, appears to have been exceedingly compendious. 8. The characters do not appear to be very numerous, as they recur in various combinations of three, four, or more, as might be expected from the letters of an alphabet. But this argument we do not strongly press, because our examination has not been very long. It appears to hold out a decisive test; and we offer it, as such, to the ingenuity of antiquarics.

« VorigeDoorgaan »