Page images
PDF
EPUB

and its failure was perhaps chiefly owing to Cleomenes king of Sparta, whose merits have been a good deal exaggerated by Plutarch. The following account is given by Dr Gillies from Polybius, of the battle of Sellasia, fought about a century after the death of Alexander, between that prince and the united forces of Macedon and the Achæan confederacy.

• Before coming to Sellafia, Antigonus had to pafs a valley, the entrance to which was overhung by two hills, Eva and Olympus, forming refpectively its eaftern and weftern defences. Between thefe hills, the river Oenus flowed to join the Eurotas, and along the bank of the Oenus, and afterwards of the united ftream, the road led almoft in a direct line to the Lacedemonian capital. When Antigonus approached the valley of Sellafia, he found that the enemy had feized both hills, and also had thrown up entrenchments before them. Cleomenes, with the Spartans, had chofen Olympus for his poft; his brother Eucleidas, with the armed peafants, occupied Eva: the intermediate valley, on both fides the road, was defended by the cavalry and mercenaries. ftead of rafhly engaging an enemy fo. ftrongly pofted, Antigonus encamped at a moderate diftance, having the river Gorgylus in front, and watchful of every opportunity to afcertain the diftinctive qualities of the enemy's force, as well as the nature of the ground in which its feveral divifions were pofted. He frequently alarmed them by fhows of attack, but found them on all fides fecure. At length, both kings, impatient of delay, and alike emulous of glory, embraced the refolution of coming to a general engagement.

In

Antigonus had fent his Illyrians across the river Gorgylus, in the night. They were to begin the affault of Mount Eva, accompanied by 3000 Macedonian targeteers, troops lefs heavily armed than the phalanx, and equipped in all points like the Argyrafpides, who make fo confpicuous a figure in former parts of this work, only that their targets were plated, not with filver, but with brafs. The Acarnanians and Cretans compofed the fecond line. Two thousand Achæans, all chofen men, followed as a body of referve. Antigonus's cavalry, commanded by Alexander the son of Admetus, was ranged along the banks of the Oenus. It was not to advance againft the enemy's horfe, until a purple fignal had been raised on the fide of Olympus by the king, who, at the head of the Macedonian phalanx, purpofed to combat Cleomenes and his Spartans. A white enfign of linen firft floated in the air. The Illyrians, for this was their fummons to action, boldly marched up Mount Eva, and were followed by the divifions appointed to fuftain them. Upon this movement, the Achæans, forming the rear, were unexpect edly affailed by a body of light infantry, who fprung from amidit the ranks of the enemy's horfe. The confufion occafioned by an onset, equally fudden and daring, threatened to give an eafy victory to Eucleidas and his Lacedemonians, who, from the heights of Eva, might defcend with great advantage againft the difordered troops that had come to diflodge them. The danger was perceived by Philopamen.

VOL. XI. NO. 21,

D

He

He communicated his apprehenfions to Alexander, who commanded the Macedonian cavalry. But, as the purple enfign was not yet hoifted, Alexander difregarded the advice of an inexperienced youth.

The character of that youth, however, was better known to his fellow citizens of Megalopolis. They obeyed an authority derived from patriotism and merit, and feconded his ardour to feize the moment of affault. The fhouts and flock of the engaging horfemen recalled the light troops who haraffed the Macedonians in their afcent to Eva; by which means, the latter, having recovered their order of battle, routed and flew Eucleidas. Philopamen's exertions in the action seemed worthy of his generalfhip, in an age when example in battle was held ef fential to the enforcement of precept. After his horse fell under him, he ftill fought on foot, though pierced with a fpear through both thighs, and was not borne from the field till the victory was decided. Shortly after that event, Antigonus afked Alexander, who commanded his cavalry, "Why he had charged before orders?" Alexander said, "The fault was not his; for a young man of Megalopolis had, in defiance of authority, rufhed forwards with his countrymen, and thus precipitated the engagement. Antigonus replied, "You acted the part of a young man; that youth of Megalopolis fhowed himfelf a great general."

[ocr errors]

Cleomenes, meanwhile, perceiving the total rout of his right wing under Eucleidas, and feeing that his cavalry alfo was on the point of giving way, became fearful of being furrounded. For retrieving the honour of the day, he determined to quit his entrenchments; and, at the head of his Spartan fpearmen, to attack Antigonus and the phalanx. The king of Macedon gladly embraced an opportunity of bringing the conteft to this iffue. The trumpets on both fides recalled their light fkirmishers, who obftructed the space between the hoftile lines. In the firft fhock, the weight of the Macedonians was overcome by the impetuous valour of the Spartans; but Antigonus, who had drawn up his men in what was called the double phalanx, had no fooner ftrengthened his foremoft line, by the cooperation of his reserve, than his thickenedranks, brifting with protended fpears, bore down all refiftance. The Spartans were put to the rout, and pursued with that merciless deftruction which generally followed fuch clofe and fierce engagements. Cleomenes efcaped with a few horfemen to Sparta.'

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

latter

latter fault. He gives the following account of the death of Antiochus the Great.

In the elevated region of Elymais, the fouthern appendage to Mount Zayros, there was a ftaple, or depofitory of this kind, at the meeting of the caravan roads connecting Media with Perfia and Sufiana. This temple, which had been adorned by the great Alexander, Antiochus determined to plunder. His affault was made in the dight: the guards of the facred enclosure defended their idols and treasures; they were affifted by hardy mountaineers, ever ready and armed, in its neighbour hood; a blind tumultuary engagement enfued, in which the king fell, fighting at once against the religion, the commerce, and the arts of his country.' Vol. II. p. 345.

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

During the war in Paleftine, fo difaftrous to the Syrians, Antiochus had profecuted an expedition, not lefs difaftrous, into Upper Afia. In the march thither, his proceedings are very imperfe&tly explained; but in the return, part of the army being left to collect tribute, Antiochus, with a powerful efcort, advanced to plunder a temple and rich staple of trade in Elymais, the fouthern appendage to Mount Zayros, and the main caravan communication between Sufiana and Media. In this impious attempt to rifle treasures under the protection of Venus or Diana, whofe altars had been honoured and enriched by the great Alexander, he was defeated, with peculiar circumftances of difgrace, by the inhabitants of the furrounding diftrict, and reduced to the neceffity of making a speedy retreat to Ecbatana, the capital of Media. There he first learned the repeated difcomfitures and routs of his armies;-tidings which exafperated to fury the wounds which his pride had received, in the late repulfe from Elymais. In the fire of his rage; he fwore that he would render Palestine the fepulchre of the Jews; and, precipitating his march weftward for that purpose, was overthrown in his chariot, and died of his wounds, at the obscure village Tabæ, fituate fomewhere on the mountainous confines of Affyria. ' p. 472.

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

The obfcure goddefs Iranza, fhould feet to have held her feat among the defiles of Mount Zayros. Antiochus, on pretence that he came to betroth her; entered the temple, lightly accompanied, to receive her accumulated opulence by way of dower. But the priests of Iranæa having fhut the outward gates of the facred enclosure, opened the conbealed doors on the roof of the temple, and overwhelmed the king and his attendants, as with thunderbolts from on high; then cafting their mutilated remains without the walls, thus awfully announced to the Syrians, who waited bis return, the difafter of their king, and the tertific majefty of the goddefs. p. 552.

That three kings of Syria, of the same name, should perish in similar attempts to plunder the same temple, or at least one in

[blocks in formation]

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

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

The royal invader fell into the hands of the enemy, after being defeated in a great battle, decifive of the independence and future dominion of the Parthians. His life was fpared by Tiridates, who had affomed the place and name of his elder brother Arfaces, the author of the Parthian revolt. Seleucus was retained ten years in the roughest province, and among the fierceft people of Upper Afia; but, during ali that time, treated by his conqueror with the refpect due to his rank and misfortunes.' Vol. II. p. 9.

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

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

In the following note, an eminent writer is unjustly censured.

Warburton's great merit, in the explanation of the origin and nature of hieroglyphics, is generally and juftly admired; yet he has not exhaufted the fubject, and I cannot reconcile all of his conclufions with the only existing authorities concerning it; viz. Herodotus, 1. 3. c. 36. -Diodorus, 1. 3. c. 4.-Porphyr. in Vit. Pythagor.-Clemens Alexand. 5.-Strom. p. 555.; and a fragment of Manetho in Eufebius's Chronicle, p. 6. In this fragment Warburton, inftead of itgeyhupixon γραμμασιν, fubftitutes ιερογραφικοις γραμμασιν. His realon for this core rection is, that igoyλuixos being always ufed by the ancients to denote characters of things, in oppofition to alphabetic letters, or characters of words, ought not to be joined with yeauuas, which denotes characters of words only. Becaufe igoyλuixa always denotes characters of things, Warburton concluded that yexuale always denoted characters of words. The conclufion is illogical, and contradictory to one of the paffages on which our whole knowledge of the fubject refts. δε των Αιθιοπικών γραμμάτων των παρ' Αιγυπτίοις ιερογλυφικών καλεμένων. Diodorus, 1. 3. c. 4. Conf. Divine Legation, b. 4. f. 4.' Vol. I. P. 48.

πηρε

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

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

This, however true at the time he wrote, cannot now be asserte ed, since the celebrated Rosetta stone, in the British Museum, is engraved with three distinct sets of characters,--Greek, Egyptian, and a third resembling what are called hieroglyphics. The only doubt that can be entertained is, whether these are strictly hieroglyphics; that is, representations of things; or, rather, an alphabetical character, peculiar to the priesthood, and called hiero

D 3

grammatics.

« PreviousContinue »