Part 28

The country of the Dalmatians (more correctly Dalmatans) extends from Illyricum, in the Greek sense of the term, as far as the frontier of the Liburnians, who inhabited the whole of the north of what was once Venetian Dalmatia. The name Dalmatia is unknown to the Greeks, and is applied to the country in which they place the Hyllians, Nestians, and Manians. The inhabitants were no doubt under the dominion of the Illyrian kings; after the reduction of the Illyrians by the Romans, Dalmatia, too, was unquestionably intended to come under the supremacy of Rome, and a few maritime towns actually seem to have done so, but the interior, if it did fall into the hands of the Romans, appears soon to have thrown off the yoke. It was not till the year 640, that Metullus permanently subdued those coast countries, after the Romans had waged war against them for a long time. Thenceforth the neighbouring country of the Liburnians was a distinct Roman province; the southern districts of Dalmatia being occasionally under the control of the proconsul or propraetor of Macedonia; the northern parts do not appear to have had a Roman _imperium_, except when legions were stationed there. This was frequently the case, until the Scordiscans were conquered: when after their destruction peace was established, and when, after the time of Sulla, the province of Gaul was formed, those countries belonged to the _imperium_ of the governor who had the administration of Gaul, as we see in the case of Julius Caesar.

The most important town in Dalmatia was SALONA or SALONAE (_Salonae longae_, in Lucan, the place probably consisting of one long street along the coast); it was the seat of a Roman _conventus_, that is, the Roman citizens resident in the province formed a rustic community, which had its administration at Salona. This is the real meaning of a _conventus civium Romanorum_, which is left obscure in our manuals on Roman antiquities, though it is perfectly clear from Cicero’s speeches against Verres, from Caesar’s _Bellum Civile_ and _Africanum_, and also from the _Bellum Hispaniense_. Salona gradually became a genuine Roman city; but it owes its greatest celebrity to the fact that Diocletian, after resigning the imperial dignity, took up his abode there and built a palace, which extended into the modern town of Spalatro, and is an example of the decay of taste in the arts at that time, as much as the Thermae of Diocletian at Rome; the palace is not more beautiful than the edifices built in the time of Charlemagne; marble and costly materials of every kind were lavished on it, and such outward ornaments then constituted almost all that was left of art. The ruins of this palace have been described by Englishmen.

About other places in Dalmatia nothing can be said, for they are of no historical importance. The islands have already been spoken of. PHAROS produced Demetrius, whose villany and faithlessness are very characteristic of that age; he was only half a Greek, or rather a barbarian. He spent a great part of his life at the court of the barbarian queen, Teuta, and afterwards he went to that of Philip of Macedonia. The traits related of this man are terrible. Pharos is called Greek, but we must not imagine that its inhabitants were of pure Greek blood or had Greek manners, and Greek modes of life; they were Μιξέλληνες as in other similar places.

CORCYRA MELAENA, the modern Curzola, cannot with certainty be called a Greek colony.

MELITE may be noticed here because, according to some, it was the island where St. Paul, on his voyage to Rome, suffered shipwreck. But this is improbable, St. Luke would probably have been more explicit about it, and St. Paul would have crossed from thence to Ancona or some other port in the neighbourhood. We must in all probability refer the event to Malta, which was likewise called Melite.

I now pass over the Iapydes, Istrians, Liburnians, Carnians and Venetians, as I intend to return to these nations from the West and from Noricum.

FOOTNOTES

[1] “The first journey of this kind was undertaken in the sixteenth century, by George Fabricius, but it produced only very insignificant results.”

[2] The MS. notes contain very little about these maps, but what I recollect Niebuhr to have said agrees in the main with the opinion expressed in the _Lectures on Rom. Hist._ vol. iii. p. xciv., except that in the present Lectures he treated the matter more with ridicule, saying, e.g., that such men are immortalised even by having their portraits engraved on copper (in some Geographical Journal).—ED.

[3] See _Kleine Schriften_, vol. i. p. 105, foll.

[4] “It would be an interesting philological problem to show, how certain books gradually disappeared and ceased to be read.”

[5] See _Klein. Schrift._, vol. i. p. 132, foll.

[6] “It is written on white stone, and belongs to the time of Psammetichus II., that is, about the end of the Peloponnesian war. The λόφοι in Aristotle probably signify ostrich-feathers.” See _Corp. Inscript. Graec._, vol. iii. fasc. 2. n. 5126. I owe this reference to the kindness of the late Professor Franz.—ED.

[7] _In Ctesiph._ 77 (p. 140, 9 ed. Dindorf).

[8] The word “Latins” is only my conjecture. In all the MS. notes, the words are directly opposed to what the lecturer intended to prove; whence we may perhaps suppose, that Niebuhr himself made a _lapsus linguae_.—ED.

[9] Comp. _Lectures on Anc. Hist._, vol. i. p. 200.

[10] See Paus. vii. 1.

[11] _Lect. on Anc. Hist._, vol. i. p. 204.

[12] Ibid., vol. i. p. 232.

[13] Paus. ii. 4, § 4.

[14] _Aen._ vi. 838.

[15] This name has been substituted by me from the Iliad, ii. 561, for one which occurs only in a single set of notes, and is altogether mis-written.—ED.

[16] Verse 533.

[17] “The part of Laconia, which forms the western coast of the Argolic gulf, but which, by the division of Philip of Macedonia was restored to Argos, will be spoken of when I come to describe Laconia.”

[18] “A stadium measures 600 Greek feet, and eight stadia make a Roman mile; 606 feet and 9 inches English are equal to a stadium. This is a well known fact, requiring no proof. But it is a very debatable question, as to whether the ancients, when reckoning by stadia, always adopted the measure of the Olympian stadium, or whether we have sometimes to understand others. The latter opinion has been very generally spread by the moderns, especially in consequence of an error committed by the excellent D’Anville. It very often occurs, that the distances mentioned by the ancients are irreconcilable with modern measurements; whence it has been inferred that sometimes different stadia must be meant, and the statement that the Pythian stadium was shorter than the Olympian, appeared to support this supposition. But there is no other hypothesis which has been set forth equally often, and is yet so devoid of all foundation: the ancient writers do not furnish a single passage in support of the assertion; an endless confusion, moreover, would be introduced into all statements, if we were to suppose that the ancients reckoned according to different stadia without informing their readers of it. Wherever the stadia mentioned are irreconcilable with correct measurements, the cause is no other but either an error in our calculation, or some inaccuracy in the statements of the ancients, which arose in a very natural manner; for the high-roads in Greece were, not like those of the Romans, made in a straight line, but had various turnings, because they had been gradually formed out of the common paths across the fields. In some instances, on the other hand, it has been found that, where the ancients were charged with inaccuracy, too much confidence has been placed in modern travellers, so that the statements of the ancients are, after all, not as inaccurate as some have supposed.

“A question of the highest importance in history and geography is that concerning the proportion which the side of the pyramid bears to the measured degree of the earth and to the Egyptian cubit—a question to which French mathematicians, who were no scholars, have first directed attention. These numbers are such exact multiples of one another, that we must either assume the most marvellous coincidence, or else an artificial calculation. The immortal Laplace set great value upon this discovery, and inferred from it that the elements of mathematical geography were known at a very early time. When the new French system of measures was introduced, the measure of a degree was taken as the standard, and thus the framers of the new system arrived at the same foundation as the ancients. When a degree of latitude was measured in Egypt, the result was perfectly safe; but the French wanted to establish a measure for the whole world, and in this case it is illegitimate to make use of the degree of latitude, for though in a metre the inaccuracy was not great, yet it was so in larger measures. The ancients proceeded from degrees which were not too large, and could be measured with accuracy. Now the degree is a multiple of the Greek stadium, as it is of the Egyptian measure: 600 Greek feet make a stadium, 600 stadia make an equatorial degree, that is, 360,000 Greek feet make a degree; and this system of measurement is derived from Egypt. As the Egyptian foot was larger than an ordinary human foot, the Greeks invented the fable, that the foot of Heracles had been taken as the standard in measuring the stadium. The pace of the Romans is likewise an ideal measure, for it is the thousandth part of one seventy-fifth of a degree.”

[19] “Much has been written, and much nonsense too, about the history of commerce. One must first be acquainted with commerce, and the course it takes, before attempting to write about it. The subject is not foreign to me, but I have no time to work it out.”

[20] See _Kleine Schrift._, vol. i. p. 225, note.

[21] Anthol. Palat. ix. 151.

[22] “Herodes Atticus restored the theatre which had been destroyed by Mummius; and this building, together with the Odeum and gymnasium, was seen by Pausanias.”

[23] One MS. has _Ornae_ instead of Argos.—ED.

[24] “We include Megaris among those countries which lie beyond Peloponnesus, though it belongs to Argolis, if this latter name be taken in its widest sense.”

[25] Compare Thucyd. iv. 57.

[26] Polyb. ix. 42.

[27] Compare _Lect. on Anc. Hist._, vol. i. p. 185, foll., and p. 231.

[28] This reference was given by Niebuhr himself, and as all the good MSS. agree in the number, there can be no doubt that the notes are correct; but I do not know to what edition it refers. According to Casaubon’s edition, it is p. 364, foll., and Alm. p. 560, foll.—ED.

[29] Strab. viii. p. 365, ed. Casaub.

[30] The restoration of this passage from the notes has been particularly difficult. From the _Lect. on Anc. Hist._, vol. i. p. 234, it seems clear that Niebuhr had somewhere publicly expressed his opinion on the passage of Strabo above referred to; but I do not know where he has done so, and I have not been able to avail myself of anything except the notes taken in the lecture-room, some of which are very good. I am firmly persuaded that Niebuhr uttered the words as they are given in the text, though his opinion differs from that now generally adopted, which is based upon the restoration of the text of Strabo, partially the work of C. O. Müller (_Dor._ vol. i. p. 110). The name Aepys seems to be based upon _Iliad_, ii. 592, and that of Pherae upon the original text of Strabo himself.--ED.

[31] “Whether the list of the Spartan kings is correct or not, I do not know; their number may be historical, but the years of their reigns are very uncertain. Agis has quite the appearance of an historical personage.”

[32] “The derivation of the name Εἵλωτες, from Ἕλος, is extremely uncertain. Helos was certainly destroyed, but I cannot see how Εἵλωτες could have been formed from Ἕλος. I cannot imagine that a neuter name in ος should form its ethnic name in ως, nor do I know any instance in which an initial ε is changed into ει.”

[33] The words _of Sardinia_ have been inserted by conjecture. The MS. containing the clause _as was the case_, &c., has the words _by the Saracens_. But it is well known, that in the eleventh century, that is, about the time of the conquest of Sardinia, Pisa had 150,000 inhabitants, whereas at present it scarcely has the tenth part of that number.—ED.

[34] This should probably be “the Homeric poems.” Cardamyle is mentioned, Iliad ix. 150, among the seven towns which Agamemnon offers to give to Achilles.—ED.

[35] Herod. viii. 73, calls them Dryopians; so also Pausanias and Strabo.—ED.

[36] The 20th of October, 1827.

[37] “Their name, from its termination άς, reminds us of Italian ethnic names, such as _Antias_ and the like; but in the former the α is short.”

[38] See _Hist. of Rome_, vol. i. p. 418, n. 975, vol. ii. p. 317; _Lect. on Rom. Hist._ vol. i. p. 203, n. 4; 3rd edit.

[39] This list is given from Polybius, ii. 41; Niebuhr here forgot that _Aegae_ and _Rhypes_ had been mentioned even by Herodotus, i. 145, who omits Leontion and Cerynea. This requires the statement in the text to be modified, though it does not affect the explanation given by Niebuhr.—ED.

[40] Strab. ix. p. 394, c. Instead of the verse Στῆσε δ’ ἄγων ἵν’ Ἀθηναίων ἵσταντο φάλαγγες, the Megarians read Αἴας δ’ ἐκ Σαλαμῖνος ἄγεν νέας, ἔκ τε Πολίχνης, Ἔκ τ’ Αἰγειρούσσης, Νισαίης τε Τριπόδων τε.—ED.

[41] The statement of Thucydides is confirmed by the document of the official treaty about the fifty years’ peace of Nicias in Thucyd. v. 18: στήλας δὲ στῆσαι—ἐν Ἀθήναις ἐν πόλει.—ED.

[42] Niebuhr here overlooks Thucyd. i. 93: μείζων γὰρ ὁ περίβολος πανταχῆ ἐξήχθη τῆς πόλεως.—ED.

[43] The reader must bear in mind, that all Niebuhr says about the topography of Athens was said before any of the numerous recent investigations of this subject had been commenced.—ED.

[44] “The temple of Theseus was destroyed as early as 1687; the Turks had a powder magazine there, and the Venetians were barbarous enough to bombard it; one front of it is left standing.”

[45] Dion Cassius, lxix. 16, however, says ἐξεποίησε.—ED.

[46] Aeschin. Socr. _Eryx._ c. 7 and 24.—ED.

[47] “This war is a memorable occurrence on account of the misfortunes of men who had deserved a better fate.” (See _Kleine Schrift._ vol. i. p. 451, foll.)

[48] Comp. _Kleine Schrift._ l. c., p. 458, note 10.—ED.

[49] “_Basílius_, not _Basilīus_, for at that time Greek was spoken only according to accent.”

[50] “The seventh among the Platonic letters was no doubt written soon after the time of Plato and before the death of Alexander; it is written in the vivid style of one who knew things from hearsay, but had not witnessed them himself.” (Comp. Ulrich, _Die Eilfmänner in Athen_, p. 258, note 3.)

[51] Cic. _De Nat. Deor._ i. 42.

[52] This statement is not the same in all the MSS., whence the text cannot be regarded as quite certain.—ED.

[53] These numbers, though not agreeing with what precedes, occur in all the MSS. We must therefore probably suppose, that Niebuhr in his thorough-going view of the symmetry of numerical relations in antiquity, regarded the _eleven_ Boeotarchs as the remnant of the earlier number twelve, and divided this latter into two equal halves; but I cannot at this moment say on what this division is based. The statement that afterwards the Boeotarchs were exclusively Thebans, occurs in a set of notes, which do not seem to be quite trustworthy.—ED.

[54] I have no doubt that Niebuhr here meant Lake Hylice, although I do not know that it is connected with Lake Copais. Respecting its outlet into the Euripus, see Müller, _Orchom._ p. 38, 2nd edit., who doubts its existence. The name of “lake of Haliartus” belongs only to the part of lake Copais near Haliartus.—ED.

[55] “Lépanto, not Lepánto, according to the modern Greek pronunciation, just as Sífanto (the modern name for the island of Siphnos), Táranto, Ótranto. This originally Greek accent differs from that of Italian names.”

[56] The MSS. give nothing but these words, which are evidently defective, and must be supplemented from Thucyd. i. 112, iv. 118, v. 18. Compare Boeckh, _Publ. Econ. of Athens_, p. 161. foll. 2nd. edit.—ED.

[57] This statement can only be regarded as an inaccurate expression of the right possessed by every people to vote at the Amphictyonic council, for it is well known that each nation had two votes. Comp. _Lect. on Anc. Hist._ vol. i. p. 244, fol.—ED.

[58] xxiv. 1.

[59] “The reason for this is, that the olive-tree requires many years to grow and bear fruit.”

[60] i. 56.

[61] i. 5, iii. 94.

[62] “Ampracia is the more ancient orthography, and not Ambracia.”

[63] “_Landrecht_, as it was called in the middle ages; _Burgrecht_ is something different, referring to the individual who has the right of becoming a citizen of a place.”

[64] “It would be an excellent subject for an essay to collect the differences in the names of nations and places among the Greeks and Romans; it would be very important in the critical treatment of ancient authors, as the old Latin forms have often been misunderstood.”

[65] “MSS. and editions of Latin poets frequently have _Haemonia_, but I cannot venture to decide as to whether it is right or wrong. The Greeks have generally Αἰμονία, and rarely Αἱμονία; in like manner Αἶμος is more common than Αἷμος, and it is doubtful whether the former is not a change made by editors.”

[66] Dionys. Hal. _Ant._ i. 28, calls him a great great-grand-son.

[67] In some MSS. the following words are here added: “Such also was the case in the Netherlands, in the official language of the fifteenth century.” It is possible that Niebuhr may have alluded to the _Geuses_.—ED.

[68] “We ought to say _the_ Tempe as a plural, for the Greek is τὰ Τέμπη, and signifies a glen or a pass.”

[69] In one MS., which however is interpolated in some parts, we find the following statement: “Dositheus Magister, the most ancient Latin grammarian, whose works we possess complete (?), imitated Dionysius Thrax.”—ED.

[70] “Whether Dryopians and Dolopians be the same name cannot be proved, although it is possible. I do not like the attempts to prove such things; people easily believe that they arrive at positive results, and accustom themselves to play with names. This is unfortunately the case in Germany so much, that we cannot be sufficiently on our guard against it. It is quite a different thing to examine what was the generic name of a great nation.”

[71] xix. 175.

[72] See above, p. 33.

[73] v. 3, § 6.

[74] In one MS. I find “On the slip of land extending into the sea opposite Chios”; one main part of the town was afterwards in the island.—ED.

[75] Comp. _Lect. on Rom. Hist._, vol. i. p. 70, fol. 3rd edit.

[76] Μάκαρος ἕδος Αἰολίωνος, _Hymn in Apoll._ 37.

[77] “Athens too is written with ε on the drachmae of later times (ΑΘΕ).” The connexion between this remark and the statement in the text is not clear.—ED.

[78] “During the Macedonian period and afterwards this name certainly was never pronounced otherwise than Cassándrea.”

[79] “Xenophon’s _Hellenica_ is one of the most corrupt among ancient works; the text is in a very bad condition, and requires a most thorough critical revision; the history itself, though bad, is indispensable to us. In the fifth book, he states that Olynthus had 800 hoplites and an equal number of peltasts, but this is impossible. It has been proposed to read 8000, but this is too much, and is, moreover, not plausible, as the numbers were written in the characters of the alphabet. Demosthenes speaks of 5000 hoplites; his expression πόλις μυρίανδρος only signifies a large town in general.”

[80] In Thucydides i. 94 and 128, we have Βυζάντιον without the article.—ED.

[81] _Ausführl. Griech. Gram._, vol. ii. p. 428, foll. 2nd edit.

[82] “Thus we find mention of a Roman Church _S. Agnolo in Pescivendolo_ in an ancient chronicle [in the _Beschreib. der Stadt Rom_, iii. 3, p. 468, this is referred to the history of Cola di Rienzi, which was formerly ascribed to Fortefiocca], and that church is now called _S. Angelo in Pescaria_; there must have been a fish-market in the neighbourhood. _Piscivendulus_ is unquestionably an ancient Latin word, in which the termination _ulus_ is purely an adjective termination without the meaning of a diminutive, as we sometimes find in Plautus.” [One otherwise very good MS. here has the word _nuculendulus_, for which I am unable to restore the correct word, unless _nucifrangibula_ (Plaut. _Bacch._ iv. 2, 16) be meant].

[83] Niebuhr has discussed this same subject in an advertisement about the progress of the edition of the _Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae_, which was published in the 4th vol. of the _Rhein. Museum_, and was directed against Professor Heinrich, who had censured the form _Byzantinae_.—ED.

[84] The inscription of Protogenes; see _Kleine Schrift._, vol. i. p. 382, foll.—ED.

[85] “In consequence of the numerous Milesian colonies on the Euxine, M. Von Köppen has brought forward the strange hypothesis, that the Milesians were a nation on the coast of the Euxine, who founded the colony of Miletus. Being a native of Russia, he perhaps wanted to gratify his Russian patriotism, by assigning a Russian origin to so important a Greek city.”

[86] Reprinted in _Kleine Schriften_, vol. ii. p. 224.

[87] _Hist. of Rome_, vol. i. p. 25, foll.

[88] The name is wanting, and I am unable to supply it.—ED.

[89] _Hist. of Rome_, vol. iii. p. 456.

[90] “Others call him Tharypas or Tharypos. If we examine this name carefully, we find already a trace of the change, seen in the modern Greek, of an oblique case into the nominative, as ὁ πατέρος—it is one of the many traces which shew that, properly speaking, Epirot and Macedonian forms constitute the foundation of modern Greek, and that the latter is not the same as the popular language of the ancient Greeks, as is commonly imagined by the modern Greeks. My dear friend, Count Capo d’Istria, is not free from this prejudice, though he admits that, e.g., at Athens a different dialect was spoken. The Italians in the middle ages, especially Aretinus, entertained a similar opinion; they maintained that Cicero spoke Italian, that Latin was only the language of the learned, an artificial and improved Italian; and that Latin was indeed written, but that the people spoke Italian. But the Greeks confound the circumstances, and pretend to know more than is generally true. Many proofs, for example, may be adduced that a kind of modern Greek was spoken at Alexandria in the time of the first emperors; but that language was derived from the Epirot, Macedonian and Thessalian dialects; it is pure Greek, but at the same time has many peculiarities, many of which have passed into the Latin language. Thus _Areus_, the name of the Spartan king, is written _Areas_ in Livy, which, therefore, should not be altered, but is quite correct; in the same manner we have _Crotona_ for _Croton_, and in German _Mailand_ for Milano.”

[91] One MS. here has “the Ambracians and Chaonians;” the probable reading is, “the Thesprotians and Chaonians,” according to the geographical succession. The apparent contradiction in the statement that Ambracia was dependent on Epirus and at the same time in the power of Philip, must be understood of successive periods, the former being the earlier, and the latter the subsequent condition. Comp. _Hist. of Rome_, vol. iii. p. 165.—ED.

[92] Comp. _Lect. on Ancient Hist._ vol. ii. p. 346.—ED.

[93] Comp. _Hist. of Rome_, vol. iii. p. 457, foll.; _Lect. on Rom. Hist._ vol. i. p. 421 foll. 3rd edit.

[94] “The whole of this part of history is still obscure; I mean the period from the death of Alexander until the time of Polybius. If God spares my life, I contemplate writing this history as a supplement to ancient history.”