army, which transferred the seat of war once more into Asia Minor. The Gauls, who saw his fortunes sinking, resolved to betray him. He escaped from their hands, and took refuge in Magnesia, where he won a battle the next day with the troops of Ptolemy. After this, he received in marriage a daughter of Zielas, King of Bithynia. The latter events seem to belong to the year Olymp. 137, 3 (A. u. c. 523); not until then would the ten years' truce with Egypt have expired, before the end of which Antiochus would have been unable to use the troops of Ptolemy against his brother; and Porphyry places the incidents immediately succeeding, in the next year, Olymp. 137, 4 (a. u. c. 524). In this year, Antiochus sustained two decisive defeats in Lydia, and at last was beaten at Choloe, in a skirmish with Attalus, from which time he led the life of a fugitive. Now, if we connect the relation of Justinus with the summary statement of Porphyry, it must have been at that time that Antiochus, after a flight of many days, reached Ariamnes of Cappadocia, the husband of his father's sister, Stratonice, with whom he hoped to find safety; but discovering that the pusillanimous and treacherous barbarian intended to deliver him up to his brother, he was obliged to renew his flight. As, in the meantime, however, Zielas had been slain by the Gauls, and there was no asylum opened to him, he surrendered to a commander of some Egyptian troops.k At this time the war between the Alexandrian king and Seleucus must have been terminated by a formal peace, for Ptolemy commanded him to be kept under a guard. With the assistance of a good-natured girl he escaped from custody, and wandered through Thrace, but fell into the hands of Gallic robbers, who slew him. Their leader, Centoarates, seized on the warhorse of

In the Venetian edition Coloa. I can nowhere find a place of this or any similar name in ancient geography. It seems, however, as if Porphyry could not have referred to any other than the battle of Choloe, when he speaks of a battle in Caria, after which Antiochus fled to Thrace. If so, it must be sought for in Caria.

i As Justinus calls this Ariamnes (his bad text reads Artamenes, which however had been long since corrected) the Socer of Antiochus, the Milanese editors have tormented themselves to make out how, if so, the latter could have married the daughter of Zielas. But it has been long ago remarked that here nothing but a relationship of any kind by marriage is to be understood. The Greek (Phylarchus) used the word κηoеσтhs, and very likely Trogus himself, through haste and carelessness, wrote Socer, of which word it cannot be proved, like the Greek, that it had any wider signification than its usual one.

This is an hypothesis, it is true, but one whose certainty is evident. According to Justinus, we might indeed believe that he went to Alexandria; but how did he get from thence to Thrace, and with his war-horse? The Syrian kings had maintained the Thracian maritime cities ever since the destruction of the empire of Lysimachus, or since the wars of Antiochus I., but Euergetes had subdued and retained possession of them. It is in one of them that Antiochus must have surrendered, and from thence have escaped into the interior of the country.

the murdered man as his booty, and the noble animal avenged his old master by the death of his murderer.TM

The Prologue of the xxviith Book of Trogus places the flight of Antiochus to Ariamnes, after a defeat sustained in Mesopotamia, from Seleucus; and Justinus likewise makes it the result of the loss of a battle with the latter, which took place subsequent to the victory of Attalus over the Gauls. It is not possible to reconcile these contradictions; and in attempting to frame a connected narrative, I have felt obliged to give the preference to Porphyry's chronological account, however it may be perverted in the abridgment.

That victory of Attalus over the Gauls, which broke the tyranny they had exercised for many years over Asia Minor, and freed at least the state of Pergamus from the payment of tribute to them, was highly brilliant, and has remained in glorious memory. (Liv. xxxii 21, xxxviii. 16; Polyb. xviii. 24.) No doubt it was not a victory obtained over them as a nation, but as the hired auxiliaries of Antiochus (comp. Justinus, xxvii. 3);" and was probably one of the battles mentioned by Porphyry. From that day, Attalus assumed the title of king, but among the forty-four years of his reign are included the eleven or twelve during which he had previously (ever since Olymp. 135, 1) governed as Dynast at Pergamus, and let no one suppose that we must place his victory in Olymp. 135, 1.

We now, further, obtain a date for the death of Zielas, and the accession of Prusias the Lame; according to the Prologue of Trogus xxvii., both are to be placed after the victory of Attalus, therefore about Olymp. 138, 1.

Seleucus built cities-at Antioch an entire new quarter of the city; and hence we may conclude that a considerable portion of

m

P. It is Ælianus (Hist. Anim. vi. 44) who has preserved the knowledge of this remarkable circumstance. I should not have known this passage but for Frölich, who however does not cite the title of the work, but only the name of the author. In mentioning this story, he (whose errors I think it is a duty to pass over when we simply owe our correcter views to the newly-discovered Porphyry) ought not to have referred it to the poisoned Antiochus II., and if he had remembered the passage in Prologue xxvii. of Trogus (quo a Gallis occiso) he could not have been able to mistake the fate of Antiochus Hierax. Nay, the expositor of Polybius ought in the Antiochus & μεταλλάξας τὸν βίον περὶ Θράκης (Polybius, v. 74) to have been able to guess the Hierax, of which we have now direct proof. The Gauls possessed at this time settlements and a state in Thrace (Polyb. iv. 46). To an earlier Thracian campaign of the same Antiochus, I refer what Polyænus (iv. 16) relates of the stratagem by which Antiochus the son of Antiochus took Cypsela in Thrace. For we cannot attribute the account of a clever action of his own invention to the Theos; and that, immediately after, a chapter is devoted to Antiochus Hierax proves nothing; the whole thing is just like Polyænus, who, for instance, confounds together the three Antigonuses, Μονόφθαλμος, Γονατὰς, and Δώσων. "Justinus calls Eumenes King of Pergamus in his stead; thus making two errors. The latter is quite inexcusable; the former leads to a conjecture that hostilities had commenced between the Dynast Eumenes and Antiochus.

his reign elapsed in peace, and that his subjects were at least able to pay the taxes, if they did not entirely recover from the ravages of war. His ten years' truce is indeed only known to us through Justinus, still there is not the very slightest inducement to doubt the correctness of this notice. The only question, therefore, concerning it is, whether it was immediately followed by a formal treaty of peace, or whether hostilities were renewed before this took place. For that such a peace subsisted between the two empires, when Antiochus III. ascended the throne, is evident from the position of affairs at the beginning of the Coelesyrian war, of which we have a full account by Polybius (particularly in v. 67, where the attack upon Colesyria is considered as παρασπόνδημα). I have already declared for the latter conjecture, because Antiochus availed himself of the help of Ptolemy's forces at Magnesia, and if it be objected that this might have been against Attalus, we can scarcely help perceiving a state of warfare indicated in the assertion of Porphyry, that Seleucus was not able to obtain possession of Ephesus after his first victories in Lydia, because it was occupied by the troops of Ptolemy.

As we are unable to determine the chronological succession of events in the great Egyptian war, so too we cannot represent, with as much exactness as we could wish, the changes effected by the treaty of peace, no doubt founded upon actual possession, in the boundaries of the two empires as compared with their state before the war. Still, with regard to these, we can approach nearer to exactness and certainty than with regard to the incidents of the war itself; and I shall take advantage of this opportunity to display the gradual extension of the Alexandrian empire.

According to the Adulitic monument, Euergetes inherited from his father Egypt, Libya, (Cole-) Syria, Phenice, Cyprus, Lycia, Caria, and the Cyclades. His dominions in Arabia and Ethiopia are passed over. In his Panegyric of Ptolemy Philadelphus (xvii. 86-90), Theocritus names them also as extra-Egyptian, along with all those occurring on the Adulitic monument, excepting Cyprus, and adds Pamphylia and Cilicia.

Egypt alone formed the Satrapy of Ptolemy Lagos, which he soon erected into a kingdom. Libya he wrested from Thibron, but lost it again through the treachery of Ophellas; of the sovereignty of Magas and the re-union of the country with the kingdom of Egypt I have already treated. Cœlesyria and Phenicia were early conquered from Antigonus the One-eyed, who frustrated the undertaking of his rival against Cyprus by the great naval victory of Demetrius over Menelaus. But, after the battle of Ipsus, this invaluable island was conquered by Ptolemy

Soter; and there is not the slightest trace that he or his successors ever lost possession of it, until Clodius made it into a province; hence, it is very surprising that Theocritus should not have mentioned this jewel of the Alexandrian crown; indeed, we might almost conjecture that a verse has dropped out. To whom Lycia, which had been already, by the arrangement of Antipater, given to Antigonus the One-eyed, was assigned after the partition of his monarchy by the congress of the kings, we do not know. It may have fallen to the lot of Ptolemy so early as that date, but it may have been bestowed upon Cassander; and I am all the more inclined to believe the latter, as the Greek provinces of Antigonus were in no proportion to those which fell to the share of the three other allies; consequently Cassander must have received remote provinces, or have been indemnified by an exchange with Lysimachus. No such exchange took place, and it could not have been made without entirely transferring Lysimachus to Asia, for an Asiatic satrapy was a richer principality than the whole of Thrace. That, however, Cassander really received possessions in Anterior Asia, and on this very coast, is rendered probable by the circumstance that Cilicia, situated there, was given to his brother Plistarchus as a present by the kings at the partition of the empire of Antigonus.P

If it was not at this date that Lycia came into the possession of Ptolemy, it can only have done so either after Cassander's death and the annihilation of his family, which soon followed it, or—if at that time it was Lysimachus who seized on the vacant domain, or Seleucus who profited by circumstances in the war waged by Philadelphus against Antiochus I. and II. In this war Caria was conquered; for at the partition, this country, with Lydia, Ionia, and the Hellespontic Phrygia, had fallen to Lysimachus; the whole monarchy of this king was won for Syria by the victory of Seleucus on the field of Corus; and a part of Thrace alone regained its independence, while the Syrians could not prevent an army of Gauls from occupying another part of the country and governing it. Antiochus 1. built Stratonicea in Caria, and Antioch on the Meander. Nor can it be doubted that Pamphylia and Cilicia, which are named as Egyptian provinces in the poem of Theocritus, were conquered by Philadelphus in this war. It is probable that the former province shared the same fortunes as Lycia;

• Plutarch. Demetrius, p. 905, e. comp. p. 906, f. Strabo likewise says that it had come into the possession of Egypt since the Ptolemies had founded their empire there. xiv. p. 684, e.

P Plut. Demetrius, 903, e. I think it very possible that some passage overlooked by me may furnish something more definitive respecting Cassander's portion; all the notices of these times lie so scattered that one need not be ashamed to receive correction or confirmation.

of the latter, we know with certainty that Seleucus possessed himself of it, after Demetrius had driven Plistarchus from it. The Cyclades fell under the supreme sway of the Egyptian kings, when Ptolemy Philadelphus, by his general Patroclus, founded his naval dominion over those seas in the war against Antigonus Gonatas. The Greeks, for whose sake this war was apparently undertaken, were abandoned to their fate; their ally augmented his power and his realm.

The discrepancy between Theocritus and the Adulitic monument is the more striking, as the poet expressly calls all the Pamphylians and the Cilicians fit to bear arms, subjects of Philadelphus. The sovereignty of these countries must therefore have undergone a change between the date of the composition of that poem and the death of Ptolemy Philadelphus; and for this another and far more probable cause existed than the fortune which may have favoured the Syrian troops,-namely, the marriage of Berenice. The King of Egypt desired peace; and since, in order to attain this object, he gave his unhappy daughter, with a dowry of untold treasures, to the most worthless of men, he may also have resolved to accede to the restitution of those countries, without whose possession the Syrian satrapies in Anterior Asia had no, or a very insecure, communication with the body of the monarchy.

Of the conquests of Euergetes enumerated in the Ådulitic inscription, the peace left him in possession of Seleucia in Pieria, and possibly of some maritime cities on the coast of Cilicia; also of some on that of Pamphylia (for the inland cities of this people were entirely free and independent of both monarchies) and of the southern Ionian cities. The northern, like the Eolian, had been appropriated by Attalus, from whom they were reconquered by Achæus under Seleucus III. The capital of those Ionian cities which obeyed Egypt was Ephesus,' the depôt of the Egyptian force in those regions, where a numerous corps of troops lay constantly assembled, just as there was always a strong squadron of ships at Samos (Polybius, v. 35). He also retained Lysimachia and the Thracian Chersonesus, one of the highest aims of the ambition of

S

In the kingdom of Macedonia satraps never occur, nor have I met with this title in that of Egypt. The Syrian empire was infinitely more Oriental than the latter monarchy, and seems to have retained the Persian institutions. It is to this, therefore, that reference is made in the Economics of the pseudo-Aristotle.

That Ephesus was restored to Antiochus II., or was retaken by him after the revolt of Ptolemy the Bastard, is not open to a doubt, for that king died there.

S

Samos, therefore, was a subject city, while Chios and Mitylene held a free and honourable rank (Polybius, xi. 5. Cos, which is celebrated by the court poets of Philadelphus as the Delos of the Alexandrian Apollo, is unquestionably to be reckoned among the tributary islands. When was this king born there? I feel no doubt that it was about the time of the battle of Ipsus. The pregnant queen might have followed her consort to the war in the fleet, and chosen her residence in a fortified city, near the neutral, but friendly Rhodes.