« PreviousContinue »
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 pass a valley, the entrance to which was overhung by two hills, Eva and Olympus, forming respectively its eastern and western defences. Between these hills, the river Oenus flowed to join the Eurotas, and along the bank of the Oenus, and afterwards of the united stream, the road led almost in a direct line to the Lacedemonian capital. When Antigonus approached the valley of Sellafia, he found that the enemy had seized both hills, and also had thrown up entrenchments before them. Cleomenes, with the Spartans, had chosen Olympus for his poft ; his brother Eucleidas, with the armed peasants, occupied Eva : the intermediate valley, on both sides the road, was defended by the cavalry and mercenaries. Inftead of rafhly engaging an enemy so strongly posted, Antigonus encamped at a moderate distance, having the river Gorgylus in front, and watchful of every opportunity to ascertain the distinctive qualities of the enemy's force, as well as the nature of the ground in which its se. veral divisions were posted. He frequently alarmed them by shows 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.
• Antigonus had sent his Illyrians across the river Gorgylus in the night. They were to begin the assault of Mount Eva, accompanied by 3000 Macedonian targeteers, troops less heavily armed than the phalanx, and equipped in all points like the Argyraspides, who make so confpicuous a figure in former parts of this work, only that their targets were plated, not with silver, but with brass. The Acarnanians and Cretans composed the second line. Two thousand Achæans, all chofen men, followed as a body of reserve. Antigonus's cavalry, commanded by Alexander the son of Admetus, was ranged along the banks of the Oenus. It was not to advance against the enemy's horse, until a purple signal had been raised on the side of Olympus by the king, who, at the head of the Macedonian phalanx, purposed to combat Cleomenes and his Spartans. A white ensign of linen first floated in the air. The Illyrians, for this was their summons to action, boldly marched up Mount Eva, and were followed by the divisions appointed to sustain them. Upon this movement, the Achæans, forming the rear, were unexpectedly affailed by a body of liglit infantry, who sprung from amidit the ranks of the enemy's horse. The confusion occasioned by an onset, equally sudden and daring, threatened to give an easy victory to Ellcleidas and his Lacedemonians, who, from the heights of Eva, might descend with great advantage against the disordered troops that had come to dislodge them. The danger was perceived by Philopæmena VOL. XI. NO. 21.
He communicated his apprehenfions to Alexander, who commanded the Macedonian cavalry. But, as the purple enlign 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 seconded his ardour to seize the moment of affault. The shouts and finock of the engaging horfemen recalled the light troops who harassed the Macedonians in their ascent 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 generalship, in an age when example in battle was held el sential to the enforcement of precept. After his horse fell under him, he still fought on foot, though pierced with a spear through both thighs, and was not borne from the field till the victory was decided. Shortly after that event, Antigonus alked 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, rushed forwards with his countrymen, and thus precipitated the engagement.” Antigonus replied, “ You acted the part of a young man ; that youth of Megalopolis showed himself a great general.
• Cleomenes, meanwhile, perceiving the total rout of his right wing under Eucleidas, and feeing that his cavalry also was on the point of giving way, became fearful of being surrounded. For retrieving the honour of the day, he determined to quit his entrenchments; and, at the head of his Spartan spearmen, to attack Antigonus and the phalanx. The king of Macedon gladly embraced an opportunity of bringing the conteft to this issue. The trumpets on both sides recalled their light skirmishers, who obftructed the space between the hostile lines. In the first sock, 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 sooner strengthened his foremost line, by the cooperation of his reserve, than his thickened ranks, brittling with protended spears, bore down all resiitance. The Spartans were put to the rout, and pursued with that merciless destruction which generally followed such close and fierce engagements.-Cleomenes escaped 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 abovc 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 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 staple, or depository of this kind, at the meeting of the caravan roads connexing Media with Persia and Suliana. This temple, which had been adorned by the great Alexander, Antiochus determined to plunder. His assault was made in the right : the guards of the sacred enclosure defended their idols and treasures; they were aslifted by hardy mountaineers; ever ready and armed, in its neighboură hood; a blind tumultuary engagement ensued, 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 Palestine, so disastrous to the Syrians, Antiochus had prosecuted an expedition; not less disastrous, into Upper Asia. In the march thither, his proceedings are very imperfectly explained ; but in the return, part of the army being left to collect tribute, Antiochus, with a powerful escort, advanced to plunder a temple and rich staple of trade in Elymais, the southern appendage to Mount Zayros, and the main caravan communication between Suliana and Media. In this im. pious attempt to rifle treasures under the protection of Venus or Diana, whose altars had been honoured and enriched by the great Alexander, he was defeated, with peculiar circumstances of disgrace, by the inhabitants of the surrounding diftri&t, and reduced to the neceflity of making á speedy retreat to Ecbatana, the capital of Media. There he firit learned the repeated discomfitures and routs of his armies ;-iidings which exasperated to fury the wounds which his pride had received, in the late repulse from Elymais. In the fire of his rage; he swore that he would render Palestine the sepulchre of the Jews, and, precipitating his march westward for that purpose, was overthrown in his chariot, and died of his wounds, at the obscure village Tabæ, situate somewhere on the mountainous confines of Affyria.' p. 4722
Let us now see how he disposes of another Antiochus, surnamed Sidetes.
• The obscire goddess İranta, should seem to have held her feat among the defiles of Mount Zayros. Antiochus, on pretence that he came to betroth her; entered the temple, slightly accompanied, to receive her accumulated opulence by waġ of dower. But the priests of Iranxa having fut the outward gates of the sacred enclosure, opened the concealed doors on the roof of the temple, and overwhelmed the king and his attendants, as with thunderbolts from on high ; tlien casting their mutilated remains without the walls, thus awfullò announced to the Syrians, who waited bis return, the difatter of their king, and the teršific majesty of the goddess.' p. 552.
That three kings of Syria, of the same name, should perish ini similar attempts to plunder the same temple, or at least one in
nearly 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
• The royal invader fell into the hands of the enemy, after being defeated in a great battle, decisive of the independence and future dominion of the Parthians. His life was spared by Tiridates, who had affumed the place and name of his elder brother Arlaces, the author of the Parthian revolt. Seleucus was retained ten years in the roughest province, and among the fiercest people of Upper Afia; but, during all that rime, treated by his conqueror with the respect 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 Tony xgovor, a great length of time, in Parthia. But as Athenæus, who is no historian, mentions the subject onlv 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 origa and nature of hieroglyphics, is generally and justly admired ; yet he has not exhausted the subject, and I cannot reconcile all of his conclufions with the only existing authorities concerning it ; viz. Herodotus, l. 3. c. 36.
- Diodorus, l. 3. c. 4.-Porphyr. in Vit. Pythagor.--Clemens Alex. and. 5: -Strom. p. 555.; and a fragment of Manetho in Eusebius's Chronicle, p. 6. In this fragment Warburton, instead of isgoyau Dixo16 reaurear, fubftitutes ιερογραφικούς γραμμασιν,
His reason for this core rection is, that isgoyauqixois being always used by the ancients to denote characters of things, in opposition to alphabetic letters, or characters of words, ought not to be joined with crearmurtov
, which denotes characters of words only. Because iszoydu poxa always denotes characters of things, Warburton concluded that yeruuuz always denoted characters of words. The conclufion is illogical, and contradictory to one of the passages on which our whole knowledge of the subject rests. ango δε των Αιθιοπικων γραμμάτων των παρ' Αιγυπτιοις ιερογλυφικων καλεμενων. . Diodorus, l. 3. c. 4. Conf. Divine Legation, b. 4. f. 4.' Vol. I.
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 ιερογλυφικoις tο ιερογραφικoις ; 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 origin 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 assert-, 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 characteș, peculiar to the priesthood, and called hieroD3