|
The
kings of Sparta, discouraged by so many disappointments, and out
of
all
hopes of better success for the future, were absolutely bent upon
returning
to Sparta, and marching home again with their forces. Tyrtæus
opposed
this design very warmly, and at length brought them over to his
opinion.
He addressed the troops, and repeated to them some verses he had
made
with that intention, and on which he had bestowed great pains and
application.
He first endeavoured to comfort them for their past losses,
which
he imputed to no fault of theirs, but only to ill fortune, or to
fate,
which no human wisdom can surmount. He then represented to them,
how
shameful
it would be for Spartans to fly from an enemy; and how glorious
it
would be for them rather to perish sword in hand, if it was so
decreed
by
fate, in fighting for their country. Then, as if all danger was
vanished,
and the gods, fully satisfied and appeased with their late
calamities,
were entirely turned to their side, he set victory before
their
eyes as present and certain, and as if she herself were inviting
them
to battle. All the ancient authors,(244) who have made any mention
of
the
style and character of Tyrtæus’s poetry, observe, that it was full
of
a
certain fire, ardour, and enthusiasm, that inflamed the minds of
men,
that
exalted them above themselves, that inspired them with something
generous
and martial, that extinguished all fear and apprehension of
danger
or death, and made them wholly intent upon the preservation of
their
country and their own glory.(245) Tyrtæus’s verses had really
this
effect
on the soldiers upon this occasion. They all desired, with one
voice,
to march against the enemy. Being become indifferent as to their
lives,
they had no thoughts but to secure themselves the honour of a
burial.
To this end they all tied strings round their right arms, on
which
were
inscribed their own and their fathers’ names, that, if they
chanced
to
be killed in the battle, and to have their faces so altered
through
time,
or accidents, as not to be distinguishable, it might certainly be
known
who each of them was by these marks. Soldiers determined to die
are
very
valiant. This appeared in the battle that ensued. It was very
bloody,
the
victory being a long time disputed on both sides; but at last the
Messenians
gave way. When Tyrtæus went afterwards to Sparta, he was
received
with the greatest marks of distinction, and incorporated into the
body
of citizens.
The
gaining of this battle did not put an end to the war, which had
already
lasted three years. Aristomenes, having assembled the remains of
his
army, retired to the top of a mountain, of difficult access, which
was
called
Ira. The conquerors attempted to carry the place by assault, but
that
brave prince defended himself there for the space of eleven
years,
and
performed the most extraordinary actions of valour. He was at
last
obliged
to quit it, only by surprise and treachery, after having defended
it
like a lion. Such of the Messenians as fell into the hands of the
Lacedæmonians
on this occasion were reduced to the condition of the
Helots.
The rest, seeing their country ruined, went and settled at
Zancle,
a
city in Sicily, which afterwards took its name from this people, and
was
called
Messana; the same place as is called at this day Messina.
Aristomenes,
after having conducted one of his daughters to Rhodes, whom
he
had given in marriage to the tyrant of that place, thought of
passing
on
to Sardis, to remain with Ardys, king of the Lydians, or to
Ecbatana,
with
Phraortes, king of the Medes; but death prevented the execution
of
all
his designs.
(M12)
The second Messenian war was of fourteen years’ duration, and
ended
the
first year of the twenty-seventh Olympiad.
There
was a third war between these people and the Lacedæmonians, which
began
both at the time and on the occasion of a great earthquake that
happened
at Sparta. We shall speak of this war in its place.
The
history, of which it remains for me to treat in this work, is that
of
the
successors of Alexander, and comprehends the space of two hundred
and
ninety-three
years; from the death of that monarch, and the commencement
of
the reign of Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, in Egypt, to the death of
Cleopatra,
when that kingdom became a Roman province, under the emperor
Augustus.
The
history will present to our view a series of all the crimes which
usually
arise from inordinate ambition; scenes of jealousy and perfidy,
treason,
ingratitude, and flagrant abuses of sovereign power; cruelty,
impiety,
an utter oblivion of the natural sentiments of probity and
honour,
with the violation of all laws human and divine, will rise before
us.
We shall behold nothing but fatal dissensions, destructive wars,
and
dreadful
revolutions. Men, originally friends, brought up together, and
natives
of the same country, companions in the same dangers, and
instruments
in the accomplishment of the same exploits and victories, will
conspire
to tear in pieces the empire they had all concurred to form at
the
expense of their blood. We shall see the captains of Alexander
sacrifice
the mother, the wives, the brother, the sisters, of that prince,
to
their own ambition; without sparing even those to whom they
themselves
either
owed or gave life. We shall no longer behold those glorious times
of
Greece, that were once so productive of great men and great
examples;
or,
if we should happen to discover some traces and remains of them,
they
will
only resemble the gleams of lightning that shoot along in a rapid
track,
and attract attention only in consequence of the profound
darkness
that
precedes and follows them.
I
acknowledge myself to be sufficiently sensible how much a writer is
to
be
pitied, for being obliged to represent human nature in such colours
and
lineaments
as dishonour her, and which cannot fail of inspiring disgust
and
a secret affliction in the minds of those who are made spectators
of
such
a picture. History loses whatever is most interesting and most
capable
of conveying pleasure and instruction, when she can only produce
those
effects, by inspiring the mind with horror for criminal actions,
and
by
a representation of the calamities which usually succeed them, and
are
to
be considered as their just punishment. It is difficult to engage
the
attention
of a reader, for any considerable time, on objects which only
raise
his indignation, and it would be affronting him, to seem desirous
of
dissuading
him from the excess of inordinate passions, of which he
conceives
himself incapable.
How
is it possible to diffuse any interest through a narration, which
has
nothing
to offer but an uniform series of vices and great crimes; and
which
makes it necessary to enter into a particular detail of the
actions
and
characters of men born for the calamity of the human race, and
whose
very
name should not be transmitted to posterity? It may even be
thought
dangerous,
to familiarize the minds of the generality of mankind to
uninterrupted
scenes of too successful iniquity and to be particular in
describing
the unjust success which waited on those illustrious criminals,
the
long duration of whose prosperity being frequently attended with
the
privileges
and rewards of virtue, may be thought an imputation on
Providence
by persons of weak understandings.
This
history, which seems likely to prove very disagreeable, from the
reasons
I have just mentioned, will become more so from the obscurity and
confusion
in which the several transactions will be involved, and which it
will
be difficult, if not impossible, to remedy. Ten or twelve of
Alexander’s
captains were engaged in a course of hostilities against each
other,
for the partition of his empire after his death; and to secure to
themselves
some portion, greater or less, of that vast body. Sometimes
feigned
friends, sometimes declared enemies, they are continually forming
different
parties and leagues, which are to subsist no longer than is
consistent
with the interest of each individual. Macedonia changed its
master
five or six times in a very short space; by what means then can
order
and perspicuity be preserved, in so prodigious a variety of
events
that
are perpetually crossing and breaking in upon each other?
Besides
which, I am no longer supported by any ancient authors capable of
conducting
me through this darkness and confusion. Diodorus will entirely
abandon
me, after having been my guide for some time; and no other
historian
will appear to take his place. No proper series of affairs will
remain;
the several events are not to be disposed into any regular
connection
with each other; nor will it be possible to point out, either
the
motives to the resolutions formed, or the proper character of the
principal
actors in this scene of obscurity. I think myself happy when
Polybius,
or Plutarch, lend me their assistance. In my account of
Alexander’s
successors, whose transactions are, perhaps, the most
complicated
and perplexed part of ancient history, Usher, Prideaux, and
Vaillant,
will be my usual guides; and, on many occasions, I shall only
transcribe
from Prideaux; but, with all these aids, I shall not promise to
throw
so much light upon this history as I could desire.
After
a war of more than twenty years, the number of the principal
competitors
was reduced to four; Ptolemy, Cassander, Seleucus, and
Lysimachus;
the empire of Alexander was divided into four fixed kingdoms,
agreeably
to the prediction of Daniel, by a solemn treaty concluded
between
the parties. Three of these kingdoms, Egypt, Macedonia, Syria, or
Asia,
will have a regular succession of monarchs, sufficiently clear
and
distinct;
but the fourth, which comprehended Thrace, with part of the
Lesser
Asia, and some neighbouring provinces, will suffer a number of
variations.
As
the kingdom of Egypt was that which was subject to the fewest
changes,
because
Ptolemy, who was established there as governor, at the death of
Alexander,
retained the possession of it ever after, and left it to his
posterity:
we shall, therefore, consider this prince as the basis of our
chronology,
and our several epochas shall be fixed from him.
The
fourth volume contains the events for the space of one hundred
and
twenty
years, under the first four kings of Egypt, _viz._ Ptolemy, the
son
of
Lagus, who reigned thirty-eight years; Ptolemy Philadelphus, who
reigned
forty; Ptolemy Euergetes, who reigned twenty-five; and Ptolemy
Philopator,
whose reign continued seventeen.
In
order to throw some light upon the history contained therein, I
shall,
in
the first place, give the principal events of it, in a
chronological
abridgement.
Introductory
to which, I must desire the reader to accompany me in some
reflections,
which have not escaped Monsieur Bossuet, with relation to
Alexander.
This prince, who was the most renowned and illustrious
conqueror
in all history, was the last monarch of his race. Macedonia, his
ancient
kingdom, which his ancestors had governed for so many ages, was
invaded
from all quarters, as a vacant succession; and after it had long
been
a prey to the strongest, it was at last transferred to another
family.
If Alexander had continued peaceably in Macedonia, the grandeur
of
his
empire would not have excited the ambition of his captains; and
he
might
have transmitted the sceptre of his progenitors to his own
descendants;
but, as he had not prescribed any bounds to his power, he was
instrumental
in the destruction of his house, and we shall behold the
extermination
of his family, without the least remaining traces of them in
history.
His conquests occasioned a vast effusion of blood, and furnished
his
captains with a pretext for murdering one another. These were the
effects
that flowed from the boasted bravery of Alexander, or rather from
that
brutality, which, under the specious names of ambition and glory,
spread
desolation, and carried fire and sword through whole provinces,
without
the least provocation, and shed the blood of multitudes who had
never
injured him.
We
are not to imagine, however, that Providence abandoned these events
to
chance;
but, as it was then preparing all things for the approaching
appearance
of the Messiah, it was vigilant to unite all the nations that
were
to be first enlightened with the Gospel, by the use of one and
the
same
language, which was that of Greece: and the same Providence made
it
necessary
for them to learn this foreign tongue, by subjecting them to
such
masters as spoke no other. The Deity, therefore, by the agency of
this
language, which became more common and universal than any other,
facilitated
the preaching of the apostles, and rendered it more uniform.
The
partition of the empire of Alexander the Great, among the generals
of
that
prince, immediately after his death, did not subsist for any
length
of
time, and hardly took place, if we except Egypt, where Ptolemy
had
first
established himself, and on the throne of which he always
maintained
himself
without acknowledging any superior.
(M13)
It was not till after the battle of Ipsus in Phrygia, wherein
Antigonus,
and his son Demetrius, surnamed Poliorcetes, were defeated, and
the
former lost his life, that this partition was fully regulated and
fixed.
The empire of Alexander was then divided into four kingdoms, by a
solemn
treaty, as had been foretold by Daniel. Ptolemy had Egypt, Libya,
Arabia,
Cœlesyria, and Palestine. Cassander, the son of Antipater,
obtained
Macedonia and Greece. Lysimachus acquired Thrace, Bithynia, and
some
other provinces on the other side of the Hellespont and the
Bosphorus.
And Seleucus had Syria, and all that part of the greater Asia
which
extended to the other side of the Euphrates, and as far as the
river
Indus.
Of
these four kingdoms, those of Egypt and Syria subsisted, almost
without
any
interruption, in the same families, through a long succession of
princes.
The kingdom of Macedonia had several masters of different
families
successively. That of Thrace was at last divided into several
branches,
and no longer constituted one entire body, by which means all
traces
of regular succession ceased to subsist.
I.
The Kingdom of Egypt.
The
kingdom of Egypt had fourteen monarchs, including Cleopatra,
after
whose
death, those dominions became a province of the Roman empire. All
these
princes had the common name of Ptolemy, but each of them was
likewise
distinguished by a peculiar surname. They had also the
appellation
of Lagides, from Lagus the father of that Ptolemy who reigned
the
first in Egypt. The fourth and fifth volumes contain the histories
of
six
of these kings, and I shall give their names a place here, with
the
duration
of their reigns, the first of which commenced immediately upon
the
death of Alexander the Great.
(M14)
Ptolemy Soter. He reigned thirty-eight years and some months.
(M15)
Ptolemy Philadelphus. He reigned forty years including the two
years
of
his reign in the lifetime of his father.
(M16)
Ptolemy Euergetes, twenty-five years.
(M17)
Ptolemy Philopator, seventeen.
| 
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기