Part 24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The district CASSIOPEA is of little importance.

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

CORCYRA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MACEDONIA.

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

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

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