Lycurgus, the Lacedaemonian Lawgiver

Eurytion, or Eurypon, as he is named by others, succeeded Soues.(229) In order to gain the affection of his people, and render his government agreeable, he thought fit to recede in some points from the absolute power exercised by the kings his predecessors: this rendered his name so dear to his subjects, that all his descendants were, from him, called Eurytionidae. But this relaxation gave birth to horrible confusion, and an unbounded licentiousness in Sparta; and for a long time occasioned infinite mischiefs. The people became so insolent, that nothing could restrain them. If Eurytion's successors attempted to recover their authority by force, they became odious; and if, through complaisance or weakness, they chose to dissemble, their mildness served only to render them contemptible; so that order in a manner was abolished, and the laws no longer regarded. These confusions hastened the death of Lycurgus's father, whose name was Eunomus, and who was killed in an insurrection. Polydectes, his eldest son and successor, dying soon after without children, every body expected Lycurgus would have been king. And indeed he was so in effect, as long as the pregnancy of his brother's wife was uncertain; but as soon as that was manifest, he declared, that the kingdom belonged to her child, in case it proved a son: and from that moment he took upon himself the administration of the government, as guardian to his unborn nephew, under the title of Prodicos, which was the name given by the Lacedaemonians to the guardians of their kings. When the child was born, Lycurgus took him in his arms, and cried out to the company that was present, Behold, my lords of Sparta, your new-born king! and, at the same time, he put the infant into the king's seat, and named him Charilaus, because of the joy the people expressed upon occasion of his birth. The reader will find, in the second volume of this history, all that relates to the history of Lycurgus, the reformation he made, and the excellent laws he established in Sparta. Agesilaus was at this time king in the elder branch of the family.



War between the Argives and the Lacedaemonians.

Some time after this, in the reign of Theopompus, a war broke out between the Argives and Lacedaemonians, on account of a little country, called Thyrea, that lay upon the confines of the two states, and to which each of them pretended a right.(230) When the two armies were ready to engage, it was agreed on both sides, in order to spare the effusion of blood, that the quarrel should be decided by three hundred of the bravest men chosen from their respective armies; and that the land in question should become the property of the victorious party. To leave the combatants more room to engage, the two armies retired to some distance. Those generous champions then, who had all the courage of two mighty armies, boldly advanced towards each other, and fought with so much resolution and fury, that the whole number, except three men, two on the side of the Argives, and one on that of the Lacedaemonians, lay dead upon the spot; and only the night parted them. The two Argives, looking upon themselves as the conquerors, made what haste they could to Argos to carry the news; the single Lacedaemonian, Othryades by name, instead of retiring, stripped the dead bodies of the Argives, and carrying their arms into the Lacedaemonian camp, continued in his post. The next day the two armies returned to the field of battle. Both sides laid equal claim to the victory: the Argives, because they had more of their champions left alive than the enemy had; the Lacedaemonians, because the two Argives that remained alive had fled; whereas their single soldier had remained master of the field of battle, and had carried off the spoils of the enemy: in short, they could not determine the dispute without coming to another engagement. Here fortune declared in favour of the Lacedaemonians, and the little territory of Thyrea was the prize of their victory. But Othryades, not able to bear the thoughts of surviving his brave companions, or of enduring the sight of Sparta after their death, killed himself on the same field of battle where they had fought, resolving to have one fate and tomb with them.



Wars between the Messenians and Lacedaemonians.

There were no less than three several wars between the Messenians and the Lacedaemonians, all of them very fierce and bloody. Messenia was a country in Peloponnesus, towards the west, and not far from Sparta: it was of considerable strength, and was governed by its own kings.



The First Messenian War.

(M9) The first Messenian war lasted twenty years, and broke out the second year of the ninth Olympiad.(231) The Lacedaemonians pretended to have received several considerable injuries from the Messenians, and among others, that of having had their daughters ravished by the inhabitants of Messenia, when they went, according to custom, to a temple, that stood on the borders of the two nations; as also that of the murder of Telecles, their king, which was a consequence of the former outrage. Probably a desire of extending their dominion, and of seizing a territory which lay so convenient for them, might be the true cause of the war. But be that as it may, the war broke out in the reign of Polydorus and Theopompus, kings of Sparta, at the time when the office of archon at Athens was still decennial.

Euphaes, the thirteenth descendant from Hercules, was then king of Messenia.(232) He gave the command of his army to Cleonnis. The Lacedaemonians opened the campaign with the siege of Amphea, a small, inconsiderable city, which, however, they thought would suit them very well as a place for military stores. The town was taken by storm, and all the inhabitants put to the sword. This first blow served only to animate the Messenians, by showing them what they were to expect from the enemy, if they did not defend themselves with vigour. The Lacedaemonians, on their part, bound themselves by an oath not to lay down their arms, nor to return to Sparta, till they had made themselves masters of all the cities and lands belonging to the Messenians: so much did they rely upon their strength and valour.

Two battles were fought, wherein the loss was nearly equal on both sides.(233) But after the second, the Messenians suffered extremely through the want of provisions, which occasioned a great desertion in their troops, and at last brought a pestilence among them.

Hereupon they consulted the oracle of Delphi, which directed them, in order to appease the wrath of the gods, to offer up a virgin of the royal blood in sacrifice. Aristomenes, who was of the race of the Epytides, offered his own daughter. The Messenians then considering, that if they left garrisons in all their towns they should extremely weaken their army, resolved to abandon them all, except Ithome, a little place seated on the top of a hill of the same name, about which they encamped and fortified themselves. In this situation were seven years spent, during which nothing passed but slight skirmishes on both sides; the Lacedaemonians not daring in all that time to force the enemy to a battle.

Indeed, they almost despaired of being able to reduce them: nor was there any thing but the obligation of the oath, by which they had bound themselves, that made them continue so burthensome a war. What gave them the greatest uneasiness was, their apprehension, lest their absence from their wives for so many years, an absence which might still continue many more, should destroy their families at home, and leave Sparta destitute of citizens.(234) To prevent this misfortune, they sent home such of their soldiers as were come to the army since the forementioned oath had been taken, and made no scruple of prostituting their wives to their embraces. The children that sprung from this unlawful intercourse were called Partheniae, a name given them to denote the infamy of their birth. As soon as they were grown up, not being able to endure such an opprobrious distinction, they banished themselves from Sparta with one consent, and, under the conduct of Phalantus, went and settled at Tarentum in Italy, after driving out the ancient inhabitants.(235)

At last, in the eighth year of the war, which was the thirteenth of Euphaes's reign, a fierce and bloody battle was fought near Ithome.(236) Euphaes pierced through the battalions of Theopompus with too much heat and precipitation for a king. He there received a multitude of wounds, several of which were mortal. He fell, and seemed to give up the ghost. Whereupon, wonderful efforts of courage were exerted on both sides; by the one, to carry off the king; by the other, to save him. Cleonnis killed eight Spartans, who were dragging him along, and spoiled them of their arms, which he committed to the custody of some of his soldiers. He himself received several wounds, all in the fore part of his body, which was a certain proof that he had never turned his back upon his enemies. Aristomenes, fighting on the same occasion, and for the same end, killed five Lacedaemonians, whose spoils he likewise carried off, without receiving any wound. In short, the king was saved and carried off by the Messenians; and, all mangled and bloody as he was, he expressed great joy that he had not been worsted. Aristomenes, after the battle was over, met Cleonnis, who, by reason of his wounds, could neither walk by himself, nor with the assistance of those that lent him their hands. He therefore took him upon his shoulders, without quitting his arms, and carried him to the camp.

As soon as they had applied the first dressing to the wounds of the king of Messenia and of his officers, there arose a new contention among the Messenians, that was pursued with as much warmth as the former, but was of a very different kind, and yet the consequence of the other. The affair in question was the adjudging the prize of glory to him that had signalized his valour most in the late engagement. It was a custom among them, which had long been established, publicly to proclaim, after a battle, the name of the man that had showed the greatest courage. Nothing could be more proper to animate the officers and soldiers, to inspire them with resolution and intrepidity, and to stifle the natural apprehension of death and danger. Two illustrious champions entered the lists on this occasion, namely, Cleonnis and Aristomenes.

The king, notwithstanding his weak condition, attended by the principal officers of his army, presided in the council, where this important dispute was to be decided. Each competitor pleaded his own cause. Cleonnis founded his pretensions upon the great number of the enemies he had slain, and upon the multitude of wounds he had received in the action, which were so many undoubted testimonies of the courage with which he had faced both death and danger; whereas, the condition in which Aristomenes came out of the engagement, without hurt and without wound, seemed to show, that he had been very careful of his own person, or, at most, could only prove that he had been more fortunate, but not more brave or courageous, than himself. And as to his having carried him on his shoulders into the camp, that action indeed might serve to prove the strength of his body, but nothing farther; and the thing in dispute at this time, says he, is not strength, but valour.

The only thing Aristomenes was reproached for, was his not being wounded; therefore he confined himself to that point: "I am," says he, "called fortunate because I have escaped from the battle without wounds. If that were owing to my cowardice, I should deserve another epithet than that of fortunate; and, instead of being admitted to dispute the prize, ought to undergo the rigour of the laws that punish cowards. But what is objected to me as a crime, is in truth my greatest glory. For, if my enemies, astonished at my valour, durst not venture to attack or oppose me, it is no small degree of merit that I made them fear me; or, if whilst they engaged me, I had at the same time strength to cut them in pieces, and skill to guard against their attacks, I must then have been at once both valiant and prudent. For whoever, in the midst of an engagement, can expose himself to dangers with caution and security, shows that he excels at the same time both in the virtues of the mind and the body. As for courage, no man living can reproach Cleonnis with any want of it; but, for his honour's sake, I am sorry that he should appear to want gratitude."

After the conclusion of these harangues, the question was put to the vote. The whole army is in suspense, and impatiently waits for the decision. No dispute could be so warm and interesting as this. It is not a competition for gold or silver, but solely for honour. The proper reward of virtue is pure disinterested glory. Here the judges are unsuspected. The actions of the competitors still speak for them. It is the king himself, surrounded with his officers, who presides and adjudges. A whole army are the witnesses. The field of battle is a tribunal without partiality and cabal. In short, all the votes concurred in favour of Aristomenes, and adjudged him the prize.

Euphaes died not many days after the decision of this affair.(237) He had reigned thirteen years, and during all that time had been engaged in war with the Lacedaemonians. As he died without children, he left the Messenians at liberty to choose his successor. Cleonnis and Damis were candidates in opposition to Aristomenes; but he was elected king in preference to them. When he was on the throne, he did not scruple to confer on his two rivals the principal offices of the state; all strongly attached to the public good, even more than to their own glory; competitors, but not enemies, these great men were actuated by a zeal for their country, and were neither friends nor adversaries to one another, but for its preservation.

In this relation, I have followed the opinion of the late Monsieur Boivin, the elder,(238) and have made use of his learned dissertation upon a fragment of Diodorus Siculus, which the world was little acquainted with. He supposes, and proves in it, that the king, spoken of in that fragment, is Euphaes; and that Aristomenes is the same that Pausanias calls Aristodemus, according to the custom of the ancients, who were often called by two different names.

Aristomenes, otherwise called Aristodemus, reigned near seven years, and was equally esteemed and beloved by his subjects. The war still continued all this time.(239) Towards the end of his reign he beat the Lacedaemonians, took their king Theopompus, and, in honour of Jupiter of Ithome, sacrificed three hundred of them, among whom their king was the principal victim. Shortly after, Aristodemus sacrificed himself upon the tomb of his daughter, in conformity to the answer of an oracle. Damis was his successor, but without taking upon him the title of king.

After his death, the Messenians never had any success in their affairs, but found themselves in a very wretched and hopeless condition.(240) Being reduced to the last extremity, and utterly destitute of provisions, they abandoned Ithome, and fled to such of their allies as were nearest to them. The city was immediately razed, and the other part of the country submitted. They were made to engage by oath never to forsake the party of the Lacedaemonians, and never to revolt from them: a very useless precaution, only proper to make them add the guilt of perjury to their rebellion. Their new masters imposed no tribute upon them; but contented themselves with obliging them to bring to the Spartan market one half of the corn they should reap every harvest. It was likewise stipulated, that the Messenians, both men and women, should attend, in mourning, the funerals of the kings and chief citizens of Sparta; which the Lacedaemonians probably looked upon as a mark of dependence, and as a kind of homage paid to their nation. (M10) Thus ended the first Messenian war, after having lasted twenty years.



The Second Messenian War.

The lenity with which the Lacedaemonians treated the Messenians at first, was of no long duration.(241) When once they found the whole country had submitted, and thought the people incapable of giving them any further trouble, they returned to their natural character of insolence and haughtiness, that often degenerated into cruelty, and sometimes even into ferocity. Instead of treating the vanquished with kindness, as friends and allies, and endeavouring by gentle methods to win those whom they had subdued by force, they seemed intent upon nothing but aggravating their yoke, and making them feel the whole weight of subjection. They laid heavy taxes upon them, delivered them up to the avarice of the collectors of those taxes, gave no ear to their complaints, rendered them no justice, treated them with contempt like vile slaves, and committed the most heinous outrages against them.

Man, who is born for liberty, can never reconcile himself to servitude: the most gentle slavery exasperates, and provokes him to rebel. What could be expected then from so cruel a one, as that under which the Messenians groaned? After having endured it with great uneasiness(242) near forty years, they resolved to throw off the yoke, and to recover their ancient liberty. (M11) This was in the fourth year of the twenty-third Olympiad: the office of archon at Athens was then made annual; and Anaxander and Anaxidamus reigned at Sparta.

The Messenians' first care was to strengthen themselves by the alliance of the neighbouring nations. These they found well inclined to enter into their views, as very agreeable to their own interests. For it was not without jealousy and apprehensions, that they saw so powerful a city rising up in the midst of them, which manifestly seemed to aim at extending her dominion over all the rest. The people therefore of Elis, the Argives and Sicyonians, declared for the Messenians. But before their forces were joined, a battle was fought between the Lacedaemonians and Messenians. Aristomenes, the second of that name,(243) was at the head of the latter. He was a commander of intrepid courage, and of great abilities in war. The Lacedaemonians were beaten in this engagement. Aristomenes, to give the enemy at first an advantageous opinion of his bravery, knowing what influence it has on the success of future enterprises, boldly ventured to enter into Sparta by night, and upon the gate of the temple of Minerva, surnamed Chalcioecos, to hang up a shield, on which was an inscription, signifying, that it was a present offered by Aristomenes to the goddess, out of the spoils of the Lacedaemonians.

This bravado did in reality astonish the Lacedaemonians. But they were still more alarmed at the formidable league that was formed against them. The Delphic oracle, which they consulted, in order to know by what means they should be successful in this war, directed them to send to Athens for a commander, and to submit to his counsel and conduct. This was a very mortifying step to so haughty a city as Sparta. But the fear of incurring the god's displeasure by a direct disobedience prevailed over all other considerations. They sent an embassy therefore to the Athenians. The people of Athens were somewhat perplexed at the request. On the one hand, they were not sorry to see the Lacedaemonians at war with their neighbours, and were far from desiring to furnish them with a good general: on the other, they were afraid also of disobeying the god. To extricate themselves out of this difficulty, they offered the Lacedaemonians Tyrtaeus. He was a poet by profession, and had something original in the turn of his mind, and disagreeable in his person; for he was lame. Notwithstanding these defects, the Lacedaemonians received him as a general, sent them by Heaven itself. Their success did not at first answer their expectation, for they lost three battles successively.

The kings of Sparta, discouraged by so many disappointments, and out of all hopes of better success for the future, were absolutely bent upon returning to Sparta, and marching home again with their forces. Tyrtaeus opposed this design very warmly, and at length brought them over to his opinion. He addressed the troops, and repeated to them some verses he had made with that intention, and on which he had bestowed great pains and application. He first endeavoured to comfort them for their past losses, which he imputed to no fault of theirs, but only to ill fortune, or to fate, which no human wisdom can surmount. He then represented to them, how shameful it would be for Spartans to fly from an enemy; and how glorious it would be for them rather to perish sword in hand, if it was so decreed by fate, in fighting for their country. Then, as if all danger was vanished, and the gods, fully satisfied and appeased with their late calamities, were entirely turned to their side, he set victory before their eyes as present and certain, and as if she herself were inviting them to battle. All the ancient authors,(244) who have made any mention of the style and character of Tyrtaeus's poetry, observe, that it was full of a certain fire, ardour, and enthusiasm, that inflamed the minds of men, that exalted them above themselves, that inspired them with something generous and martial, that extinguished all fear and apprehension of danger or death, and made them wholly intent upon the preservation of their country and their own glory.(245) Tyrtaeus's verses had really this effect on the soldiers upon this occasion. They all desired, with one voice, to march against the enemy. Being become indifferent as to their lives, they had no thoughts but to secure themselves the honour of a burial. To this end they all tied strings round their right arms, on which were inscribed their own and their fathers' names, that, if they chanced to be killed in the battle, and to have their faces so altered through time, or accidents, as not to be distinguishable, it might certainly be known who each of them was by these marks. Soldiers determined to die are very valiant. This appeared in the battle that ensued. It was very bloody, the victory being a long time disputed on both sides; but at last the Messenians gave way. When Tyrtaeus went afterwards to Sparta, he was received with the greatest marks of distinction, and incorporated into the body of citizens.

The gaining of this battle did not put an end to the war, which had already lasted three years. Aristomenes, having assembled the remains of his army, retired to the top of a mountain, of difficult access, which was called Ira. The conquerors attempted to carry the place by assault, but that brave prince defended himself there for the space of eleven years, and performed the most extraordinary actions of valour. He was at last obliged to quit it, only by surprise and treachery, after having defended it like a lion. Such of the Messenians as fell into the hands of the Lacedaemonians on this occasion were reduced to the condition of the Helots. The rest, seeing their country ruined, went and settled at Zancle, a city in Sicily, which afterwards took its name from this people, and was called Messana; the same place as is called at this day Messina. Aristomenes, after having conducted one of his daughters to Rhodes, whom he had given in marriage to the tyrant of that place, thought of passing on to Sardis, to remain with Ardys, king of the Lydians, or to Ecbatana, with Phraortes, king of the Medes; but death prevented the execution of all his designs.

(M12) The second Messenian war was of fourteen years' duration, and ended the first year of the twenty-seventh Olympiad.

There was a third war between these people and the Lacedaemonians, which began both at the time and on the occasion of a great earthquake that happened at Sparta. We shall speak of this war in its place.

The history, of which it remains for me to treat in this work, is that of the successors of Alexander, and comprehends the space of two hundred and ninety-three years; from the death of that monarch, and the commencement of the reign of Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, in Egypt, to the death of Cleopatra, when that kingdom became a Roman province, under the emperor Augustus.

The history will present to our view a series of all the crimes which usually arise from inordinate ambition; scenes of jealousy and perfidy, treason, ingratitude, and flagrant abuses of sovereign power; cruelty, impiety, an utter oblivion of the natural sentiments of probity and honour, with the violation of all laws human and divine, will rise before us. We shall behold nothing but fatal dissensions, destructive wars, and dreadful revolutions. Men, originally friends, brought up together, and natives of the same country, companions in the same dangers, and instruments in the accomplishment of the same exploits and victories, will conspire to tear in pieces the empire they had all concurred to form at the expense of their blood. We shall see the captains of Alexander sacrifice the mother, the wives, the brother, the sisters, of that prince, to their own ambition; without sparing even those to whom they themselves either owed or gave life. We shall no longer behold those glorious times of Greece, that were once so productive of great men and great examples; or, if we should happen to discover some traces and remains of them, they will only resemble the gleams of lightning that shoot along in a rapid track, and attract attention only in consequence of the profound darkness that precedes and follows them.

I acknowledge myself to be sufficiently sensible how much a writer is to be pitied, for being obliged to represent human nature in such colours and lineaments as dishonour her, and which cannot fail of inspiring disgust and a secret affliction in the minds of those who are made spectators of such a picture. History loses whatever is most interesting and most capable of conveying pleasure and instruction, when she can only produce those effects, by inspiring the mind with horror for criminal actions, and by a representation of the calamities which usually succeed them, and are to be considered as their just punishment. It is difficult to engage the attention of a reader, for any considerable time, on objects which only raise his indignation, and it would be affronting him, to seem desirous of dissuading him from the excess of inordinate passions, of which he conceives himself incapable.

How is it possible to diffuse any interest through a narration, which has nothing to offer but an uniform series of vices and great crimes; and which makes it necessary to enter into a particular detail of the actions and characters of men born for the calamity of the human race, and whose very name should not be transmitted to posterity? It may even be thought dangerous, to familiarize the minds of the generality of mankind to uninterrupted scenes of too successful iniquity and to be particular in describing the unjust success which waited on those illustrious criminals, the long duration of whose prosperity being frequently attended with the privileges and rewards of virtue, may be thought an imputation on Providence by persons of weak understandings.

This history, which seems likely to prove very disagreeable, from the reasons I have just mentioned, will become more so from the obscurity and confusion in which the several transactions will be involved, and which it will be difficult, if not impossible, to remedy. Ten or twelve of Alexander's captains were engaged in a course of hostilities against each other, for the partition of his empire after his death; and to secure to themselves some portion, greater or less, of that vast body. Sometimes feigned friends, sometimes declared enemies, they are continually forming different parties and leagues, which are to subsist no longer than is consistent with the interest of each individual. Macedonia changed its master five or six times in a very short space; by what means then can order and perspicuity be preserved, in so prodigious a variety of events that are perpetually crossing and breaking in upon each other?

Besides which, I am no longer supported by any ancient authors capable of conducting me through this darkness and confusion. Diodorus will entirely abandon me, after having been my guide for some time; and no other historian will appear to take his place. No proper series of affairs will remain; the several events are not to be disposed into any regular connection with each other; nor will it be possible to point out, either the motives to the resolutions formed, or the proper character of the principal actors in this scene of obscurity. I think myself happy when Polybius, or Plutarch, lend me their assistance. In my account of Alexander's successors, whose transactions are, perhaps, the most complicated and perplexed part of ancient history, Usher, Prideaux, and Vaillant, will be my usual guides; and, on many occasions, I shall only transcribe from Prideaux; but, with all these aids, I shall not promise to throw so much light upon this history as I could desire.

After a war of more than twenty years, the number of the principal competitors was reduced to four; Ptolemy, Cassander, Seleucus, and Lysimachus; the empire of Alexander was divided into four fixed kingdoms, agreeably to the prediction of Daniel, by a solemn treaty concluded between the parties. Three of these kingdoms, Egypt, Macedonia, Syria, or Asia, will have a regular succession of monarchs, sufficiently clear and distinct; but the fourth, which comprehended Thrace, with part of the Lesser Asia, and some neighbouring provinces, will suffer a number of variations.

As the kingdom of Egypt was that which was subject to the fewest changes, because Ptolemy, who was established there as governor, at the death of Alexander, retained the possession of it ever after, and left it to his posterity: we shall, therefore, consider this prince as the basis of our chronology, and our several epochas shall be fixed from him.

The fourth volume contains the events for the space of one hundred and twenty years, under the first four kings of Egypt, viz. Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, who reigned thirty-eight years; Ptolemy Philadelphus, who reigned forty; Ptolemy Euergetes, who reigned twenty-five; and Ptolemy Philopator, whose reign continued seventeen.

In order to throw some light upon the history contained therein, I shall, in the first place, give the principal events of it, in a chronological abridgement.

Introductory to which, I must desire the reader to accompany me in some reflections, which have not escaped Monsieur Bossuet, with relation to Alexander. This prince, who was the most renowned and illustrious conqueror in all history, was the last monarch of his race. Macedonia, his ancient kingdom, which his ancestors had governed for so many ages, was invaded from all quarters, as a vacant succession; and after it had long been a prey to the strongest, it was at last transferred to another family. If Alexander had continued peaceably in Macedonia, the grandeur of his empire would not have excited the ambition of his captains; and he might have transmitted the sceptre of his progenitors to his own descendants; but, as he had not prescribed any bounds to his power, he was instrumental in the destruction of his house, and we shall behold the extermination of his family, without the least remaining traces of them in history. His conquests occasioned a vast effusion of blood, and furnished his captains with a pretext for murdering one another. These were the effects that flowed from the boasted bravery of Alexander, or rather from that brutality, which, under the specious names of ambition and glory, spread desolation, and carried fire and sword through whole provinces, without the least provocation, and shed the blood of multitudes who had never injured him.

We are not to imagine, however, that Providence abandoned these events to chance; but, as it was then preparing all things for the approaching appearance of the Messiah, it was vigilant to unite all the nations that were to be first enlightened with the Gospel, by the use of one and the same language, which was that of Greece: and the same Providence made it necessary for them to learn this foreign tongue, by subjecting them to such masters as spoke no other. The Deity, therefore, by the agency of this language, which became more common and universal than any other, facilitated the preaching of the apostles, and rendered it more uniform.

The partition of the empire of Alexander the Great, among the generals of that prince, immediately after his death, did not subsist for any length of time, and hardly took place, if we except Egypt, where Ptolemy had first established himself, and on the throne of which he always maintained himself without acknowledging any superior.

(M13) It was not till after the battle of Ipsus in Phrygia, wherein Antigonus, and his son Demetrius, surnamed Poliorcetes, were defeated, and the former lost his life, that this partition was fully regulated and fixed. The empire of Alexander was then divided into four kingdoms, by a solemn treaty, as had been foretold by Daniel. Ptolemy had Egypt, Libya, Arabia, Coelesyria, and Palestine. Cassander, the son of Antipater, obtained Macedonia and Greece. Lysimachus acquired Thrace, Bithynia, and some other provinces on the other side of the Hellespont and the Bosphorus. And Seleucus had Syria, and all that part of the greater Asia which extended to the other side of the Euphrates, and as far as the river Indus.

Of these four kingdoms, those of Egypt and Syria subsisted, almost without any interruption, in the same families, through a long succession of princes. The kingdom of Macedonia had several masters of different families successively. That of Thrace was at last divided into several branches, and no longer constituted one entire body, by which means all traces of regular succession ceased to subsist.



I. The Kingdom of Egypt.

The kingdom of Egypt had fourteen monarchs, including Cleopatra, after whose death, those dominions became a province of the Roman empire. All these princes had the common name of Ptolemy, but each of them was likewise distinguished by a peculiar surname. They had also the appellation of Lagides, from Lagus the father of that Ptolemy who reigned the first in Egypt. The fourth and fifth volumes contain the histories of six of these kings, and I shall give their names a place here, with the duration of their reigns, the first of which commenced immediately upon the death of Alexander the Great.

(M14) Ptolemy Soter. He reigned thirty-eight years and some months.

(M15) Ptolemy Philadelphus. He reigned forty years including the two years of his reign in the lifetime of his father.

(M16) Ptolemy Euergetes, twenty-five years.

(M17) Ptolemy Philopator, seventeen.

(M18) Ptolemy Epiphanes, twenty-four.

(M19) Ptolemy Philometor, thirty-four.



II. The Kingdom of Syria.

The kingdom of Syria had twenty-seven kings; which makes it evident, that their reigns were often very short: and indeed several of these princes waded to the throne through the blood of their predecessors.

They are usually called the Seleucidae, from Seleucus, who reigned the first in Syria. History reckons up six kings of this name, and thirteen who are called by that of Antiochus; but they are all distinguished by different surnames. Others of them assumed different names, and the last, Antiochus XIII., was surnamed Epiphanes, Asiaticus, and Commagenus. In his reign Pompey reduced Syria into a Roman province, after it had been governed by kings for the space of two hundred and fifty years, according to Eusebius.

The kings of Syria, the transactions of whose reigns are contained in the fourth and fifth volumes, are eight in number.

(M20) Seleucus Nicator. He reigned twenty years.

(M21) Antiochus Soter, nineteen.

(M22) Antiochus Theos, fifteen.

(M23) Seleucus Callinicus, twenty.

(M24) Seleucus Ceraunus, three.

(M25) Antiochus the Great, thirty-six.

(M26) Seleucus Philopator, twelve.

(M27) Antiochus Epiphanes, brother of Seleucus Philopator, eleven.



III. The Kingdom of Macedonia.

(M28) Macedonia frequently changed its masters, after the solemn partition had been made between the four princes. Cassander died three or four years after that partition, and left three sons. Philip, the eldest, died shortly after his father. The other two contended for the crown without enjoying it, both dying soon after without issue.

(M29) Demetrius Poliorcetes, Pyrrhus, and Lysimachus, made themselves masters of all, or the greatest part of Macedonia; sometimes in conjunction, and at other times separately.

(M30) After the death of Lysimachus, Seleucus possessed himself of Macedonia, but did not long enjoy it.

(M31) Ptolemy Ceraunus having slain the preceding prince, seized the kingdom, and possessed it but a very short time, having lost his life in a battle with the Gauls, who had made an irruption into that country.

(M32) Sosthenes, who defeated the Gauls, reigned but a short time in Macedonia.

(M33) Antigonus Gonatas, the son of Demetrius Poliorcetes, at length obtained the peaceable possession of the kingdom of Macedonia, and transmitted it to his descendants, after he had reigned thirty-four years.

(M34) He was succeeded by his son Demetrius, who reigned ten years, and then died, leaving a son named Philip, who was but two years old.

(M35) Antigonus Doson reigned twelve years in the quality of guardian to the young prince.

(M36) Philip, after the death of Antigonus, ascended the throne at the age of fourteen years, and reigned something more than forty.

(M37) His son Perseus succeeded him, and reigned about eleven years. He was defeated and taken prisoner by Paulus Emilius; and Macedonia, in consequence of that victory, was added to the provinces of the Roman empire.



IV. The Kingdom of Thrace, and Bithynia, &c.

This fourth kingdom, composed of several separate provinces very remote from one another, had not any succession of princes, and did not long subsist in its first condition; Lysimachus, who first obtained it, having been killed in a battle after a reign of twenty years, and all his family being exterminated by assassinations, his dominions were dismembered, and no longer constituted one kingdom.

Beside the provinces which were divided among the captains of Alexander, there were others which had been either formed before, or were then erected into different states, independent of the Greeks, whose power greatly increased in process of time.



Kings of Bithynia

(M38) Whilst Alexander was extending his conquests in the east, Zypethes had laid the foundations of the kingdom of Bithynia. It is not certain who this Zypethes was, unless that Pausanias,(246) from his name, conjectures that he was a Thracian. His successors, however, are better known.

(M39) Nicomedes I. This prince invited the Gauls to assist him against his brother, with whom he was engaged in a war.

Prusias I.

(M40) Prusias II., surnamed the Hunter, in whose court Hannibal took refuge, and assisted him with his counsels, in his war against Eumenes II. king of Pergamus.

Nicomedes II. was killed by his son Socrates.

Nicomedes III. was assisted by the Romans in his wars with Mithridates, and bequeathed to them at his death the kingdom of Bithynia, as a testimonial of his gratitude to them; by which means these territories became a Roman province.



Kings of Pergamus

This kingdom at first comprehended only one of the smallest provinces of Mysia, on the coast of the AEgean sea, over-against the island of Lesbos.

(M41) It was founded by Philetaerus, an eunuch, who had served under Docimus, a commander of the troops of Antigonus. Lysimachus confided to him the treasures he had deposited in the castle of the city of Pergamus, and he became master both of these and the city after the death of that prince. He governed this little sovereignty for the space of twenty years, and then left it to Eumenes his nephew.

(M42) Eumenes I. enlarged his principality, by the addition of several cities, which he took from the kings of Syria, having defeated Antiochus, the son of Seleucus, in a battle. He reigned twenty-two years.

(M43) He was succeeded by Attalus I., his cousin-german, who assumed the title of king, after he had conquered the Galatians; and transmitted it to his posterity, who enjoyed it to the third generation. He assisted the Romans in their war with Philip, and died after a reign of forty-three years. He left four sons.

(M44) His successor was Eumenes II., his eldest son, who founded the famous library of Pergamus. He reigned thirty-nine years, and left the crown to his brother Attalus, in the quality of guardian to one of his sons, whom he had by Stratonice, the sister of Ariarathes, king of Cappadocia. The Romans enlarged his dominions considerably, after the victory they obtained over Antiochus the Great.

(M45) Attalus II. espoused Stratonice his brother's widow, and took extraordinary care of his nephew, to whom he left the crown, after he had worn it twenty-one years.

(M46) Attalus III., surnamed Philometor, distinguished himself by his barbarous and extravagant conduct. He died after he had reigned five years, and bequeathed his riches and dominions to the Romans.

(M47) Aristonicus, who claimed the succession, endeavoured to defend his pretensions against the Romans; but the kingdom of Pergamus was reduced after a war of four years, into a Roman province.



Kings of Pontus.

(M48) The kingdom of Pontus in Asia Minor was anciently dismembered from the monarchy of Persia, by Darius the son of Hystaspes, in favour of Artabazus, who is said, by some historians, to have been the son of one of those Persian lords who conspired against the Magi.

Pontus is a region of Asia Minor, situated partly along the coast of the Euxine sea (Pontus Euxinus), from which it derives its name. It extends from the river Halys, as far as Colchis. Several princes reigned in that country since Artabazus.

(M49) The sixth monarch was Mithridates I., who is properly considered as the founder of the kingdom of Pontus, and his name was assumed by the generality of his successors.

(M50) He was succeeded by his son Ariobarzanes, who had governed Phrygia under Artaxerxes Mnemon: he reigned twenty-six years.

(M51) His successor was Mithridates II. Antigonus suspecting, in consequence of a dream, that he favoured Cassander, had determined to destroy him, but he eluded the danger by flight. This prince was called Κτισὴς, or the Founder, and reigned thirty-five years.

(M52) Mithridates III., who succeeded him, added Cappadocia and Paphlagonia to his dominions, and reigned thirty-six years.

After the reigns of two other kings, Mithridates IV., the great grandfather of Mithridates the Great, ascended the throne, and espoused a daughter of Seleucus Callinicus, king of Syria, by whom he had Laodice, who was married to Antiochus the Great.

(M53) He was succeeded by his son Pharnaces, who had some disagreement with the kings of Pergamus. He made himself master of Sinope, which afterwards became the capital of the kingdom of Pontus.

After him reigned Mithridates V., surnamed Euergetes, the first who was called the friend of the Romans, because he had assisted them against the Carthaginians in the third Punic war.

(M54) He was succeeded by his son Mithridates VI., surnamed Eupator. This is the great Mithridates who sustained so long a war with the Romans: he reigned sixty-six years.



Kings of Cappadocia.

Strabo informs us,(247) that Cappadocia was divided into two satrapies, or governments, under the Persians, as it also was under the Macedonians. The maritime part of Cappadocia formed the kingdom of Pontus: the other tracts constituted Cappadocia properly so called, or Cappadocia Major, which extended along mount Taurus, and to a great distance beyond it.

(M55) When Alexander's captains divided the provinces of his empire among themselves, Cappadocia was governed by a prince named Ariarathes. Perdiccas attacked and defeated him, after which he caused him to be slain.

His son Ariarathes re-entered the kingdom of his father some time after this event, and established himself so effectually, that he left it to his posterity.

The generality of his successors assumed the same name, and will have their place in the series of the history.

Cappadocia, after the death of Archelaus, the last of its kings, became a province of the Roman empire, as the rest of Asia also did much about the same time.



Kings of Armenia.

Armenia, a vast country of Asia, extending on each side of the Euphrates, was conquered by the Persians; after which it was transferred, with the rest of the empire, to the Macedonians, and at last fell to the share of the Romans. It was governed for a great length of time by its own kings, the most considerable of whom was Tigranes, who espoused the daughter of the great Mithridates king of Pontus, and was also engaged in a long war with the Romans. This kingdom supported itself many years, between the Roman and Parthian empires, sometimes depending on the one, and sometimes on the other, till at last the Romans became its masters.



Kings of Epirus.

Epirus is a province of Greece, separated from Thessaly and Macedonia by mount Pindus. The most powerful people of this country were the Molossians.

The kings of Epirus pretended to derive their descent from Pyrrhus the son of Achilles, who established himself in that country, and called themselves AEacides, from AEacus the grandfather of Achilles.

The genealogy of the latter kings, who were the only sovereigns of this country of whom any accounts remain, is variously related by authors, and consequently must be doubtful and obscure.(248)

Arymbas ascended the throne, after a long succession of kings; and as he was then very young, the states of Epirus, who were sensible that the welfare of the people depends on the proper education of their princes, sent him to Athens, which was the residence and centre of all the arts and sciences, in order to cultivate, in that excellent school, such knowledge as was necessary to form the mind of a king. He there learned the art of reigning, and as he surpassed all his ancestors in ability and knowledge, he was in consequence infinitely more esteemed and beloved by his people than they had been.(249) When he returned from Athens, he made laws, established a senate and magistracy, and regulated the form of the government.

Neoptolemus, whose daughter Olympias had espoused Philip king of Macedon, attained an equal share in the regal government with Arymbas his elder brother, by the influence of his son-in-law. After the death of Arymbas, AEacides his son ought to have been his successor; but Philip had still sufficient influence to procure his expulsion from the kingdom by the Molossians, who established Alexander the son of Neoptolemus sole monarch of Epirus.

Alexander espoused Cleopatra the daughter of Philip, and marched with an army into Italy, where he lost his life in the country of the Brutians.

AEacides then ascended the throne, and reigned without any associate in Epirus. He espoused Phthia, the daughter of Menon the Thessalian, by whom he had two daughters, Deidamia and Troias, and one son, the celebrated Pyrrhus.

As he was marching to the assistance of Olympias, his troops mutinied against him, condemned him to exile, and slaughtered most of his friends. Pyrrhus, who was then an infant, happily escaped this massacre.

Neoptolemus, a prince of the blood, but whose particular extraction is little known, was placed on the throne by the people of Epirus.

Pyrrhus, being recalled by his subjects at the age of twelve years, first shared the sovereignty with Neoptolemus; but having afterwards divested him of his dignity, he reigned alone.

(M56) This history will treat of the various adventures of this prince. He died in the city of Argos, in an attack to make himself master of it.

Helenus his son reigned after him for some time in Epirus, which was afterwards united to the Roman empire.



Tyrants of Heraclea.

Heraclea is a city of Pontus, anciently founded by the Boeotians, who sent a colony into that country by the order of an oracle.

When the Athenians, having conquered the Persians, had imposed a tribute on the cities of Greece and Asia Minor, for the fitting out and support of a fleet intended for the defence of the common liberty, the inhabitants of Heraclea, in consequence of their attachment to the Persians, were the only people who refused to acquiesce in so just a contribution.(250) Lamachus was therefore sent against them, and he ravaged their territories; but a violent tempest having destroyed his whole fleet, he beheld himself abandoned to the mercy of that people, whose innate ferocity might naturally have been increased by the severe treatment they had lately received. But they had recourse to no other vengeance than kindness;(251) they furnished him with provisions and troops for his return, and were willing to consider the depredations which had been committed in their country as advantageous to them, if at that price they could convert the enmity of the Athenians into friendship.

(M57) Some time after this event, the populace of Heraclea excited a violent commotion against the rich citizens and senators, who having implored assistance to no effect, first from Timotheus the Athenian, and afterwards from Epaminondas the Theban, were necessitated to recall Clearchus, a senator, to their defence, whom themselves had banished; but his exile had neither improved his morals nor rendered him a better citizen than he was before. He therefore made the troubles, in which he found the city involved, subservient to his design of subjecting it to his own power. With this view he openly declared for the people, caused himself to be invested with the highest office in the magistracy, and assumed a sovereign authority in a short time. Being thus become a professed tyrant, there were no kinds of violence to which he had not recourse against the rich, and the senators, to satiate his avarice and cruelty. He proposed for his model Dionysius the Tyrant, who had established his power over the Syracusans at the same time.

After a hard and inhuman servitude of twelve years, two young citizens, who were Plato's disciples, and had been instructed in his maxims, formed a conspiracy against Clearchus, and slew him; but, though they delivered their country from the tyrant, the tyranny still subsisted.

(M58) Timotheus, the son of Clearchus, assumed his place, and pursued his conduct for the space of fifteen years.(252)

(M59) He was succeeded by his brother Dionysius, who was in danger of being dispossessed of his authority by Perdiccas; but as this last was soon destroyed, Dionysius contracted a friendship with Antigonus, whom he assisted against Ptolemy in the Cyprian war.(253)

He espoused Amastris, the widow of Craterus, and daughter of Oxiathres, the brother of Darius. This alliance inspired him with so much courage, that he assumed the title of king, and enlarged his dominions by the addition of several places, which he seized, on the confines of Heraclea.

(M60) He died two or three years before the battle of Ipsus, after a reign of thirty-three years, leaving two sons and a daughter under the tutelage and regency of Amastris.

This princess was rendered happy in her administration, by the affection Antigonus entertained for her. She founded a city, and called it by her own name; into which she transplanted the inhabitants of three other cities, and espoused Lysimachus, after the death of Antigonus.(254)



Kings of Syracuse.

(M61) Hiero, and his son Hieronymus, reigned at Syracuse; the first fifty-four years, the second but one year.

(M62) Syracuse recovered its liberty by the death of the last, but continued in the interest of the Carthaginians, which Hieronymus had caused it to espouse. (M63) His conduct obliged Marcellus to form the siege of that city, which he took the following year. I shall enlarge upon the history of these two kings in another place.



Other Kings.

Several kings likewise reigned in the Cimmerian Bosphorus, as also in Thrace, Cyrene in Africa, Paphlagonia, Colchis, Iberia, Albania, and a variety of other places; but their history is very uncertain, and their successions have but little regularity.

These circumstances are very different with respect to the kingdom of the Parthians, who formed themselves, as we shall see in the sequel, into such a powerful monarchy, as became formidable even to the Roman empire. That of the Bactrians received its original about the same period: I shall treat of each in their proper places.



Catalogue of the Editions of the principal Greek Authors cited in this Work.

HERODOTUS. Francof. An. 1608.

THUCYDIDES. Apud Henricum Stephanum, An. 1588.

XENOPHON. Lutetiae Parisiorum, apud Societatem Graecarum Editionum, An. 1625.

POLYBIUS. Parisiis, An. 1609.

DIODORUS SICULUS. Hanoviae, Typis Wechelianis, An 1604.

PLUTARCHUS. Lutetiae Parisiorum, apud Societatem Graecanum Editionum, An. 1624.

STRABO. Lutetiae Parisiorum, Typis regiis, An. 1620.

ATHENAEUS. Lugdani, An. 1612.

PAUSANIAS. Hanoviae, Typis Wechelianis, An. 1613.

APPIANUS ALEXANDER. Apud Henric. Stephan. An. 1592.

PLATO. Ex nova Joannis Serrani interpretatione. Apud Henricum Stephanum, An. 1578.

ARISTOTELES. Lutetiae Parisiorum, apud Societatem Graecarum Editionum, An. 1619.

ISOCRATES. Apud Paulum Stephanum, An. 1604.

DIOGENES LAERTIUS. Apud Henricum Stepnanum, An. 1594.

DEMOSTHENES. Francof. An. 1604.

ARRIANUS. Lugd. Batav. An. 1704.



BOOK THE FIRST. THE ANCIENT HISTORY OF THE EGYPTIANS.



Part The First. Description of Egypt: with an Account of whatever is most curious and remarkable in that Country.

Egypt comprehended anciently, within limits of no very great extent, a prodigious number of cities,(255) and an incredible multitude of inhabitants.

It is bounded on the east by the Red-Sea and the Isthmus of Suez; on the south by Ethiopia, on the west by Libya, and on the north by the Mediterranean. The Nile runs from south to north, through the whole country, about two hundred leagues in length. This country is enclosed on each side with a ridge of mountains, which very often leave, between the foot of the hills and the river Nile, a tract of ground, of not above half a day's journey in length,(256) and sometimes less.

On the west side, the plain grows wider in some places, and extends to twenty-five or thirty leagues. The greatest breadth of Egypt is from Alexandria to Damietta, being about fifty leagues.

Ancient Egypt may be divided into three principal parts: Upper Egypt, otherwise called Thebais, which was the most southern part; Middle Egypt, or Heptanomis, so called from the seven Nomi or districts it contained; Lower Egypt, which included what the Greeks call Delta, and all the country as far as the Red-Sea, and along the Mediterranean to Rhinocolura, or Mount Casius. Under Sesostris, all Egypt became one kingdom, and was divided into thirty-six governments, or Nomi; ten in Thebais, ten in Delta, and sixteen in the country between both.(257)

The cities of Syene and Elephantina divided Egypt from Ethiopia; and in the days of Augustus were the boundaries of the Roman empire: Claustra olim Romani Imperii, Tacit. Annal. Lib. ii. cap. 61.



Chapter I. Thebais.

Thebes, from whence Thebais had its name, might vie with the noblest cities in the universe. Its hundred gates, celebrated by Homer,(258) are universally known; and acquired it the surname of Hecatompylos, to distinguish it from the other Thebes in Boeotia. Its population was proportionate to its extent; and, according to History, it could send out at once two hundred chariots, and ten thousand fighting men at each of its gates.(259) The Greeks and Romans have celebrated its magnificence and grandeur, though they saw it only in its ruins; so august were the remains of this city.(260)

In the Thebaid, now called Said, have been discovered temples and palaces which are still almost entire, adorned with innumerable columns and statues.(261) One palace especially is admired, the remains whereof seem to have existed purely to eclipse the glory of the most pompous edifices. Four walks extending farther than the eye can see, and bounded on each side with sphinxes, composed of materials as rare and extraordinary as their size is remarkable, serve as avenues to four porticos, whose height is amazing to behold. And even they who have given us the description of this wonderful edifice, had not time to go round it; and are not sure that they saw above half: however, what they had a sight of was astonishing. A hall, which, in all appearance, stood in the middle of this stately palace, was supported by a hundred-and-twenty pillars, six fathoms round, of a proportionable height, and intermixed with obelisks, which so many ages have not been able to demolish. Painting had displayed all her art and magnificence in this edifice. The colours themselves, which soonest feel the injury of time, still remain amidst the ruins of this wonderful structure, and preserve their beauty and lustre; so happily could the Egyptians imprint a character of immortality on all their works. Strabo, who was on the spot, describes a temple he saw in Egypt, very much resembling that of which I have been speaking.(262)

The same author, describing the curiosities of Thebais,(263) speaks of a very famous statue of Memnon, the remains whereof he had seen. It is said that this statue, when the beams of the rising sun first shone upon it in the morning, uttered an articulate sound.(264) And, indeed, Strabo himself was an ear-witness of this; but then he doubts whether the sound came from the statue.



Chapter II. Middle Egypt, or Heptanomis.

Memphis was the capital of this part of Egypt. In this city were to be seen many stately temples, among them that of the god Apis, who was honoured here after a peculiar manner. I shall speak of it hereafter, as well as of the pyramids which stood in the neighbourhood of this place, and rendered it so famous. Memphis was situated on the west side of the Nile.

Grand Cairo, which seems to have succeeded Memphis, is built on the other side of that river.(265) The castle of Cairo is one of the greatest curiosities in Egypt. It stands on a hill without the city, has a rock for its foundation, and is surrounded with walls of a vast height and solidity. You go up to the castle by a way hewn out of the rock, and which is so easy of ascent, that loaded horses and camels get up without difficulty. The greatest rarity in this castle is Joseph's well, so called, either because the Egyptians are pleased with ascribing what is most remarkable among them to that great man, or because such a tradition has been preserved in the country. This is a proof, at least, that the work in question is very ancient; and it is certainly worthy the magnificence of the most powerful kings of Egypt. This well has, as it were, two stories, cut out of the solid rock to a prodigious depth. The descent to the reservoir of water, between the two wells, is by a staircase seven or eight feet broad, consisting of two hundred and twenty steps, and so contrived, that the oxen employed to throw up the water, go down with all imaginable ease, the descent being scarcely perceptible. The well is supplied from a spring, which is almost the only one in the whole country. The oxen are continually turning a wheel with a rope, to which a number of buckets are fastened. The water thus drawn from the first and lower-most well, is conveyed by a little canal into a reservoir, which forms the second well; from whence it is drawn to the top in the same manner, and then conveyed by pipes to all parts of the castle. As this well is supposed by the inhabitants of the country to be of great antiquity, and has, indeed, much of the antique manner of the Egyptians, I thought it might deserve a place among the curiosities of ancient Egypt.

Strabo speaks of a similar engine, which, by wheels and pulleys, threw up the water of the Nile to the top of a very high hill; with this difference, that, instead of oxen, a hundred and fifty slaves were employed to turn these wheels.(266)

The part of Egypt of which we now speak, is famous for several rarities, each of which deserves a particular examination. I shall mention only the principal, such as the obelisks, the pyramids, the labyrinth, the lake of Moeris, and the Nile.

SECT. I. THE OBELISKS.—Egypt seemed to place its chief glory in raising monuments for posterity. Its obelisks form at this day, on account of their beauty as well as height, the principal ornament of Rome; and the Roman power, despairing to equal the Egyptians, thought it honour enough to borrow the monuments of their kings.

An obelisk is a quadrangular, taper, high spire or pyramid, raised perpendicularly, and terminating in a point, to serve as an ornament to some open square; and is very often covered with inscriptions or hieroglyphics, that is, with mystical characters or symbols used by the Egyptians to conceal and disguise their sacred things, and the mysteries of their theology.

Sesostris erected in the city of Heliopolis two obelisks of extreme hard stone, brought from the quarries of Syene, at the extremity of Egypt.(267) They were each one hundred-and-twenty cubits high, that is, thirty fathoms, or one hundred and eighty feet.(268) The emperor Augustus, having made Egypt a province of the empire, caused these two obelisks to be transported to Rome, one whereof was afterwards broken to pieces. He dared not venture to make the same attempt upon a third, which was of a monstrous size.(269) It was made in the reign of Rameses: it is said that twenty thousand men were employed in the cutting of it. Constantius, more daring than Augustus, caused it to be removed to Rome. Two of these obelisks are still to be seen there, as well as another a hundred cubits, or twenty-five fathoms high, and eight cubits, or two fathoms, in diameter. Caius Caesar had it brought from Egypt in a ship of so odd a form, that, according to Pliny, the like had never been seen.(270)

Every part of Egypt abounded with this kind of obelisks; they were for the most part cut in the quarries of Upper Egypt, where some are now to be seen half finished. But the most wonderful circumstance is, that the ancient Egyptians should have had the art and contrivance to dig even in the very quarry a canal, through which the water of the Nile ran in the time of its inundation; from whence they afterwards raised up the columns, obelisks, and statues on rafts,(271) proportioned to their weight, in order to convey them into Lower Egypt. And as the country was intersected every where with canals, there were few places to which those huge bodies might not be carried with ease; although their weight would have broken every other kind of engine.

SECT. II. THE PYRAMIDS.—A PYRAMID is a solid or hollow body, having a large, and generally a square base, and terminating in a point.(272)

There were three pyramids in Egypt more famous than the rest, one whereof was justly ranked among the seven wonders of the world; they stood not very far from the city of Memphis. I shall take notice here only of the largest of the three. This pyramid, like the rest, was built on a rock, having a square base, cut on the outside as so many steps, and decreasing gradually quite to the summit. It was built with stones of a prodigious size, the least of which were thirty feet, wrought with wonderful art, and covered with hieroglyphics. According to several ancient authors, each side was eight hundred feet broad, and as many high. The summit of the pyramid, which to those who viewed it from below seemed a point, was a fine platform, composed of ten or twelve massy stones, and each side of that platform sixteen or eighteen feet long.

M. de Chazelles, of the Academy of Sciences, who went purposely to the spot in 1693, gives us the following dimensions:

The side of the square base 110 fathoms; the fronts are equilateral triangles, and therefore the superficies of the base is 12100 square fathoms; the perpendicular height, 77-3/4 fathoms; the solid contents, 313590 cubical fathoms. A hundred thousand men were constantly employed about this work, and were relieved every three months by the same number. Ten complete years were spent in hewing out the stones, either in Arabia or Ethiopia, and in conveying them to Egypt; and twenty years more in building this immense edifice, the inside of which contained numberless rooms and apartments. There were expressed on the pyramid, in Egyptian characters, the sums it cost only for garlic, leeks, onions, and other vegetables of this description, for the workmen; and the whole amounted to sixteen hundred talents of silver,(273) that is, four millions five hundred thousand French livres; from whence it was easy to conjecture what a vast sum the whole expense must have amounted to.

Such were the famous Egyptian pyramids, which by their figure, as well as size, have triumphed over the injuries of time and the Barbarians. But what efforts soever men may make, their nothingness will always appear. These pyramids were tombs; and there is still to be seen, in the middle of the largest, an empty sepulchre, cut out of one entire stone, about three feet deep and broad, and a little above six feet long.(274) Thus all this bustle, all this expense, and all the labours of so many thousand men for so many years, ended in procuring for a prince, in this vast and almost boundless pile of building, a little vault six feet in length. Besides, the kings who built these pyramids, had it not in their power to be buried in them; and so did not enjoy the sepulchre they had built. The public hatred which they incurred, by reason of their unheard-of cruelties to their subjects, in laying such heavy tasks upon them, occasioned their being interred in some obscure place, to prevent their bodies from being exposed to the fury and vengeance of the populace.

This last circumstance, which historians have taken particular notice of, teaches us what judgment we ought to pass on these edifices, so much boasted of by the ancients.(275) It is but just to remark and esteem the noble genius which the Egyptians had for architecture; a genius that prompted them from the earliest times, and before they could have any models to imitate, to aim in all things at the grand and magnificent; and to be intent on real beauties, without deviating in the least from a noble simplicity, in which the highest perfection of the art consists. But what idea ought we to form of those princes, who considered as something grand, the raising by a multitude of hands, and by the help of money, immense structures, with the sole view of rendering their names immortal; and who did not scruple to destroy thousands of their subjects to satisfy their vain glory! They differed very much from the Romans, who sought to immortalize themselves by works of a magnificent kind, but, at the same time, of public utility.

Pliny gives us, in few words,(276) a just idea of these pyramids, when he calls them a foolish and useless ostentation of the wealth of the Egyptian kings; Regum pecuniae otiosa ac stulta ostentatio. And adds, that by a just punishment their memory is buried in oblivion; the historians not agreeing among themselves about the names of those who first raised those vain monuments: Inter eos non constat a quibus factae sint, justissimo casu obliteratis tantae vanitatis auctoribus. In a word, according to the judicious remark of Diodorus, the industry of the architects of those pyramids is no less valuable and praiseworthy, than the design of the Egyptian kings is contemptible and ridiculous.

But what we should most admire in these ancient monuments, is, the true and standing evidence they give of the skill of the Egyptians in astronomy; that is, in a science which seems incapable of being brought to perfection, but by a long series of years, and a great number of observations. M. de Chazelles, when he measured the great pyramid in question, found that the four sides of it were turned exactly to the four quarters of the world; and, consequently, showed the true meridian of that place. Now, as so exact a situation was, in all probability, purposely pitched upon by those who piled up this huge mass of stones, above three thousand years ago, it follows, that during so long a space of time, there has been no alteration in the heavens in that respect, or (which amounts to the same thing) in the poles of the earth or the meridians. This is M. de Fontenelle's remark in his eulogium of M. de Chazelles.

SECT. III. THE LABYRINTH.—What has been said concerning the judgment we ought to form of the pyramids, may also be applied to the labyrinth, which Herodotus, who saw it, assures us, was still more surprising than the pyramids.(277) It was built at the southern extremity of the lake of Moeris, whereof mention will be made presently, near the town of Crocodiles, the same with Arsinoe. It was not so much one single palace, as a magnificent pile composed of twelve palaces, regularly disposed, which had a communication with each other. Fifteen hundred rooms, interspersed with terraces, were ranged round twelve halls, and discovered no outlet to such as went to see them. There was the like number of buildings under ground. These subterraneous structures were designed for the burying-place of the kings, and also (who can speak this without confusion, and without deploring the blindness of man!) for keeping the sacred crocodiles, which a nation, so wise in other respects, worshipped as gods.

In order to visit the rooms and halls of the labyrinth, it was necessary, as the reader will naturally suppose, for people to take the same precaution as Ariadne made Theseus use, when he was obliged to go and fight the Minotaur in the labyrinth of Crete. Virgil describes it in this manner:—

Ut quondam Creta fertur labyrinthus in alta Parietibus textum caecis iter ancipitemque Mille viis habuisse dolum, qua signa sequendi Falleret indeprensus et irremeabilis error.(278) Hic labor ille domus, et inextricabilis error. Daedalus, ipse dolos tecti ambagesque resolvit, Caeca regens filo vestigia.(279)

And as the Cretan labyrinth of old, With wand'ring ways, and many a winding fold, Involv'd the weary feet without redress, In a round error, which deny'd recess: Not far from thence he grav'd the wond'rous maze; A thousand doors, a thousand winding ways

SECT. IV. THE LAKE OF MOERIS.—The noblest and most wonderful of all the structures or works of the kings of Egypt, was the lake of Moeris: accordingly, Herodotus considers it as vastly superior to the pyramids and labyrinth.(280) As Egypt was more or less fruitful in proportion to the inundations of the Nile; and as in these floods, the too great or too little rise of the waters was equally fatal to the lands, king Moeris, to prevent these two inconveniences, and to correct, as far as lay in his power, the irregularities of the Nile, thought proper to call art to the assistance of nature; and so caused the lake to be dug, which afterwards went by his name. This lake was in circumference about three thousand six hundred stadia, that is, about one hundred and eighty French leagues, and three hundred feet deep.(281) Two pyramids, on each of which was placed a colossal statue, seated on a throne, raised their heads to the height of three hundred feet, in the midst of the lake, whilst their foundations took up the same space under the water; a proof that they were erected before the cavity was filled, and a demonstration that a lake of such vast extent was the work of man's hands, in one prince's reign. This is what several historians have related concerning the lake Moeris, on the testimony of the inhabitants of the country. And M. Bossuet, the bishop of Meaux, in his discourse on universal history, relates the whole as fact. For my part, I will confess that I do not see the least probability in it. Is it possible to conceive, that a lake of a hundred and eighty leagues in circumference, could have been dug in the reign of one prince? In what manner, and where, could the earth taken from it be conveyed? What should prompt the Egyptians to lose the surface of so much land? By what arts could they fill this vast tract with the superfluous waters of the Nile? Many other objections might be made. In my opinion, therefore, we ought to follow Pomponius Mela, an ancient geographer; especially as his account is confirmed by several modern travellers. According to that author, this lake is but twenty thousand paces; that is, seven or eight French leagues in circumference. Moeris, aliquando campus, nunc lacus, viginti millia passuum in circuitu patens.(282)

This lake had a communication with the Nile, by a great canal, more than four leagues long,(283) and fifty feet broad. Great sluices either opened or shut the canal and lake, as there was occasion.

The charge of opening or shutting them amounted to fifty talents, that is, fifty thousand French crowns.(284) The fishing of this lake brought the monarch immense sums; but its chief utility related to the overflowing of the Nile. When it rose too high, and was like to be attended with fatal consequences, the sluices were opened; and the waters, having a free passage into the lake, covered the lands no longer than was necessary to enrich them. On the contrary, when the inundation was too low, and threatened a famine, a sufficient quantity of water, by the help of drains, was let out of the lake, to water the lands. In this manner the irregularities of the Nile were corrected; and Strabo remarks, that, in his time, under Petronius, a governor of Egypt, when the inundation of the Nile was twelve cubits, a very great plenty ensued; and even when it rose but to eight cubits, the dearth was scarce felt in the country; doubtless because the waters of the lake made up for those of the inundation, by the help of canals and drains.

SECT. V. THE INUNDATIONS OF THE NILE.—The Nile is the greatest wonder of Egypt. As it seldom rains there, this river, which waters the whole country by its regular inundations, supplies that defect, by bringing, as a yearly tribute, the rains of other countries; which made a poet say ingeniously, "the Egyptian pastures, how great soever the drought may be, never implore Jupiter for rain:"

Te propter nullos tellus tua postulat imbres, Arida nec pluvio supplicat herba Jovi.(285)

To multiply so beneficent a river, Egypt was cut into numberless canals, of a length and breadth proportioned to the different situations and wants of the lands. The Nile brought fertility every where with its salutary streams; united cities one with another, and the Mediterranean with the Red-Sea; maintained trade at home and abroad, and fortified the kingdom against the enemy; so that it was at once the nourisher and protector of Egypt.

The fields were delivered up to it; but the cities that were raised with immense labour, and stood like islands in the midst of the waters, looked down with joy on the plains which were overflowed, and at the same time enriched, by the Nile.

This is a general idea of the nature and effects of this river, so famous among the ancients. But a wonder so astonishing in itself, and which has been the object of the curiosity and admiration of the learned in all ages, seems to require a more particular description, in which I shall be as concise as possible.

1. The Sources of the Nile.—The ancients placed the sources of the Nile in the mountains of the moon (as they are commonly called), in the 10th degree of south latitude. But our modern travellers have discovered that they lie in the 12th degree of north latitude; and by that means they cut off about four or five hundred leagues of the course which the ancients gave that river. It rises at the foot of a great mountain in the kingdom of Gojam in Abyssinia, from two springs, or eyes, to speak in the language of the country, the same word in Arabic signifying eye and fountain. These springs are thirty paces from one another, each as large as one of our wells or a coach-wheel. The Nile is increased with many rivulets which run into it; and after passing through Ethiopia in a very winding course, flows at last into Egypt.

2. The Cataracts of the Nile.—This name is given to some parts of the Nile, where the water falls down from the steep rocks.(286) This river, which at first glided smoothly along the vast deserts of Ethiopia, before it enters Egypt, passes by the cataracts. Then growing on a sudden, contrary to its nature, raging and violent in those places where it is pent up and restrained; after having, at last, broken through all obstacles in its way, it precipitates itself from the top of some rocks to the bottom, with so loud a noise, that it is heard three leagues off.

The inhabitants of the country, accustomed by long practice to this sport, exhibit here a spectacle to travellers that is more terrifying than diverting. Two of them go into a little boat; the one to guide it, the other to throw out the water. After having long sustained the violence of the raging waves, by managing their little boat very dexterously, they suffer themselves to be carried away with the impetuous torrent as swift as an arrow. The affrighted spectator imagines they are going to be swallowed up in the precipice down which they fall; when the Nile, restored to its natural course, discovers them again, at a considerable distance, on its smooth and calm waters. This is Seneca's account, which is confirmed by our modern travellers.

3. Causes of the Inundations of the Nile.—The ancients have invented many subtle reasons for the Nile's great increase, as may be seen in Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, and Seneca.(287) But it is now no longer a matter of dispute, it being almost universally allowed, that the inundations of the Nile are owing to the great rains which fall in Ethiopia, from whence this river flows. These rains swell it to such a degree, that Ethiopia first, and then Egypt, are overflowed; and that which at first was but a large river, rises like a sea, and overspreads the whole country.

Strabo observes,(288) that the ancients only guessed that the inundations of the Nile were owing to the rains which fall in great abundance in Ethiopia; but adds, that several travellers have since been eye-witnesses of it; Ptolemy Philadelphus, who was very curious in all things relating to arts and sciences, having sent thither able persons, purposely to examine this matter, and to ascertain the cause of so uncommon and remarkable an effect.

4. The Time and Continuance of the Inundations.—Herodotus, and after him Diodorus Siculus, and several other authors, declare, that the Nile begins to swell in Egypt at the summer solstice, that is, about the end of June, and continues to rise till the end of September; and then decreases gradually during the months of October and November; after which it returns to its channel, and resumes its wonted course.(289) This account agrees very nearly with the relations of all the moderns, and is founded in reality on the natural cause of the inundation, viz. the rains which fall in Ethiopia. Now, according to the constant testimony of those who have been on the spot, these rains begin to fall in the month of April, and continue, during five months, till the end of August and beginning of September. The Nile's increase in Egypt must, consequently, begin three weeks or a month after the rains have begun to fall in Abyssinia; and accordingly travellers observe, that the Nile begins to rise in the month of May, but so slowly at the first, that it probably does not yet overflow its banks. The inundation happens not till about the end of June, and lasts the three following months, according to Herodotus.

I must point out to such as consult the originals, a contradiction in this place between Herodotus and Diodorus on one side; and between Strabo, Pliny, and Solinus, on the other. These last shorten very much the continuance of the inundation; and suppose the Nile to draw off from the lands in three months or a hundred days. And what adds to the difficulty, is, that Pliny seems to ground his opinion on the testimony of Herodotus: In totum autem revocatur Nilus intra ripas in Libra, ut tradit Herodotus, centesimo die. I leave to the learned the reconciling of this contradiction.

5. The Height of the Inundations.—The just height of the inundation, according to Pliny, is sixteen cubits.(290) When it rises but to twelve or thirteen, a famine is threatened; and when it exceeds sixteen, there is danger. It must be remembered, that a cubit is a foot and a half. The emperor Julian takes notice, in a letter to Ecdicius, prefect of Egypt,(291) that the height of the Nile's overflowing was fifteen cubits, the 20th of September, in 362. The ancients do not agree entirely with one another, nor with the moderns, with regard to the height of the inundation; but the difference is not very considerable, and may proceed, 1. from the disparity between the ancient and modern measures, which it is hard to estimate on a fixed and certain foot; 2. from the carelessness of the observers and historians; 3. from the real difference of the Nile's increase, which was not so great the nearer it approached the sea.