[435] Herodot. i, 96-100.

[436] Herodot. i, 97. ὡς δ᾽ ἐγὼ δοκέω, μάλιστα ἔλεγον οἱ τοῦ Δηϊόκεω φίλοι, etc.

[437] Herodot. i, 98, 99, 100. Οἰκοδομηθέντων δὲ πάντων, κόσμον τόνδε Δηϊόκης πρῶτός ἐστιν ὁ καταστησάμενος· μήτε ἐσιέναι παρὰ βασιλέα μηδένα, δι᾽ ἀγγέλων δὲ πάντα χρέεσθαι, ὁρᾶσθαι δὲ βασιλέα ὑπὸ μηδενός· πρὸς δὲ τούτοισι ἔτι γελᾷν τε καὶ πτύειν ἄντιον, καὶ ἅπασι εἶναι τοῦτό γε αἰσχρόν, etc. and ... οἱ κατάσκοποί τε καὶ κατήκοοι ἦσαν ἀνὰ πᾶσαν τὴν χώρην τῆς ἦρχε.

[438] Herodot. iii, 80-82. Herodotus, while he positively asserts the genuineness of these deliberations, lets drop the intimation that many of his contemporaries regarded them as of Grecian coinage.

[439] Herodot. i, 96. Ἐόντων δὲ αὐτονόμων πάντων ἀνὰ τὴν ἤπειρον, ὧδε αὖτις ἐς τυραννίδας περιῆλθον. Ἀνὴρ ἐν τοῖσι Μήδοισι ἐγένετο σοφὸς, τῷ οὔνομα ἦν Δηϊόκης.... Οὗτος ὁ Δηϊόκης, ἐρασθεὶς τυραννίδος, ἐποίεε τοιάδε, etc.... Ὁ δὲ δὴ, οἷα μνεώμενος ἀρχὴν, ἰθύς τε καὶ δίκαιος ἦν.

[440] Compare the chapters above referred to in Herodotus with the eighth book of the Cyropædia, wherein Xenophon describes the manner in which the Median despotism was put in effective order and turned to useful account by Cyrus, especially the arrangements for imposing on the imagination of his subjects (καταγοητεύειν, viii, 1, 40)—(it is a small thing, but marks the cognate plan of Herodotus and Xenophon). Dêïokês forbids his subjects to laugh or spit in his presence. Cyrus also directs that no one shall spit, or wipe his nose, or turn round to look at anything, when the king is present (Herodot. i, 99; Xen. Cyrop. viii, 1, 42). Again, viii, 3, 1, about the pompous procession of Cyrus when he rides out,—καὶ γὰρ αὐτῆς τῆς ἐξελάσεως ἡ σεμνότης ἡμῖν δοκεῖ μία τῶν τεχνῶν εἶναι τῶν μεμηχανημένων, τὴν ἀρχὴν μὴ εὐκαταφρόνητον εἶναι—analogous to the Median Dêïokês in Herodotus—Ταῦτα δὲ περὶ ἑωυτὸν ἐσέμνυνε τῶνδε εἵνεκεν, etc. Cyrus—ἐμφανίζων δὲ καὶ τοῦτο ὅτι περὶ πολλοῦ ἐποιεῖτο, μηδένα μήτε φίλον ἀδικεῖν μήτε σύμμαχον, ἀλλὰ τὸ δίκαιον ἰσχυρῶς ὁρῶν (Cyrop. viii, 1, 26). Dêïokês—ἦν τὸ δίκαιον φυλάσσων χαλεπός (Herodot. i, 100). Cyrus provides numerous persons who serve to him as eyes and ears throughout the country (Cyrop. viii, 2, 12), Dêïokês has many κατάσκοποι and κατήκοοι (Herodot. ib.).

[441] When the Roman emperor Claudius sends the young Parthian prince Meherdatês, who had been an hostage at Rome, to occupy the kingdom which the Parthian envoys tendered to him, he gives him some good advice, conceived in the school of Greek and Roman politics: “Addidit præcepta, ut non dominationem ac servos, sed rectorem et cives, cogitaret: clementiamque ac justitiam quanto ignara barbaris, tanto toleratiora, capesseret.” (Tacit, Annal. xii, 11.)

[442] The passage of such nomadic hordes from one government in the East to another, has been always, and is even down to the present day, a frequent cause of dispute between the different governments: they are valuable both as tributaries and as soldiers. The Turcoman Ilats—so these nomadic tribes are now called—in the north-east of Persia frequently pass backwards and forwards, as their convenience suits, from the Persian territory to the Usbeks of Khiva and Bokhara: wars between Persia and Russia have been in like manner occasioned by the transit of the Ilats across the frontier from Persia into Georgia: so also the Kurd tribes near Mount Zagros have caused by their movements quarrels between the Persians and the Turks.

See Morier, Account of the Iliyats, or Wandering Tribes of Persia, in the Journal of the Geographical Society of London, 1837, vol. vii, p. 240, and Carl Ritter, Erdkunde von Asien, West-Asien, Band ii, Abtheilung ii, Abschnitt ii, sect. 8, p. 387.

[443] Herodot. i, 74-103.

[444] Compare the analogous case of the prediction of the coming olive crop ascribed to Thalês (Aristot. Polit. i, 4, 5; Cicero, De Divinat. i, 3). Anaxagoras is asserted to have predicted the fall of an aërolithe (Aristot. Meteorol. i, 7; Pliny, H. N. ii, 58; Plutarch, Lysand. c. 5).

Thalês is said by Herodotus to have predicted that the eclipse would take place “in the year in which it actually did occur,”—a statement so vague that it strengthens the grounds of doubt.

The fondness of the Ionians for exhibiting the wisdom of their eminent philosopher Thalês, in conjunction with the history of the Lydian kings, may be seen farther in the story of Thalês and Crœsus at the river Halys (Herod. i, 75),—a story which Herodotus himself disbelieves.

[445] Consult, for the chronological views of these events, Larcher ad Herodot. i, 74; Volney, Recherches sur l’Histoire Ancienne, vol. i, pp. 330-355; Mr. Fynes Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, vol. i, p. 418 (Note ad B. C. 617, 2); Des Vignoles, Chronologie de l’Histoire Sainte, vol. ii, p. 245; Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, vol. i, p. 209.

No less than eight different dates have been assigned by different chronologists for this eclipse,—the most ancient 625 B. C., the most recent 583 B. C. Volney is for 625 B. C.; Larcher for 597 B. C.; Des Vignoles for 585 B. C.; Mr. Clinton for 603 B. C. Volney observes, with justice, that the eclipse on this occasion “n’est pas l’accessoire, la broderie du fait, mais le fait principal lui-même,” (p. 347:) the astronomical calculations concerning the eclipse are, therefore, by far the most important items in the chronological reckoning of this event. Now in regard to the eclipse of 625 B. C., Volney is obliged to admit that it does not suit the case; for it would be visible only at half-past five in the morning on February 3, and the sun would hardly be risen at that hour in the latitude of Media and Lydia (p. 343). He seeks to escape from this difficulty by saying that the data for the calculation, according to the astronomer Pingré, are not quite accurate for these early eclipses; but after all, if there be error, it may just as well be in one direction as in another, i. e. the true hour at which the eclipse would be visible for those latitudes is as likely to have been earlier than half-past five A. M. as to have been later, which would put this eclipse still more out of the question.

The chronology of that period presents difficulties which our means of knowledge hardly enable us to clear up. Volney remarks, and the language of Herodotus is with him, that not merely the war between Kyaxarês and Alyattês (which lasted five years, and was terminated by the eclipse), but also the conquest made by Kyaxarês of the territory up to the river Halys, took place anterior (Herodot. i, 103: compare i, 16) to the first siege of Nineveh by Kyaxarês,—that siege which he was forced to raise by the inroad of the Scythians. This constitutes a strong presumption in favor of Volney’s date for the eclipse (625 B. C.) if astronomical considerations would admit of it, which they will not. Mr. Clinton, on the other hand, puts the first siege of Nineveh in the very first year of the reign of Kyaxarês, which is not to be reconciled with the language of Herodotus. In placing the eclipse, therefore, in 603 B. C., we depart from the relative arrangement of events which Herodotus conceived, in deference to astronomical reasons: and Herodotus is our only authority in regard to the general chronology.

According to Ideler, however (and his authority upon such a point is conclusive, in my judgment), astronomical considerations decisively fix this eclipse for the 30th September 610 B. C., and exclude all those other eclipses which have been named. Recent and more trustworthy calculations made by Oltmanns, from the newest astronomical tables, have shown that the eclipse of 610 B. C. fulfils the conditions required, and that the other eclipses named do not. For a place situated in 40° N. lat. and 36° E. long. this eclipse was nearly total, only one-eightieth of the sun’s disc remaining luminous: the darkness thus occasioned would be sufficient to cause great terror. (Ideler, Handbuch, l. c.)

Since the publication of my first edition, I have been apprized that the late Mr. Francis Baily had already settled the date of this eclipse to the 30th of September 610 B. C., in his first contribution to the Transactions of the Royal Society as long ago as 1811,—much before the date of the publication of Ideler’s Handbuch der Chronologie. Sir John Herschel (in his Memoir of Mr. Francis Baily, in the Transactions of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. xv, p. 311), after completely approving Mr. Baily’s calculations, and stating that he had been the first to solve the disputed question, expresses his surprise that various French and German astronomers, writing on the same subject afterwards, have taken no notice of “that remarkable paper.” Though a fellow-countryman of Mr. Baily, I am sorry that I have to plead guilty to a similar ignorance, until the point was specially brought to my notice by a friend. Had I been aware of the paper and the Memoir, it would have been unnecessary to cite any other authority than that of Mr. Baily and Sir John Herschel.

[446] Herodot. iv, 11-12. Hekatæus also spoke of a town Κιμμερίς (Strabo, vii, p. 294).

Respecting the Cimmerians, consult Ukert, Skythien, p. 360, seqq.

[447] Strabo, i, pp. 6, 59, 61.

[448] Homer, Iliad, xiii, 4.—

Compare Strabo, xii, p. 553.

[449] Hesiod, Fragm. 63-64, Marktscheffel:—

Strabo, vii, pp. 300-302.

[450] Raoul Rochette, Histoire des Colonies Grecques, tom. iii, ch. xiv, p. 297. The dates of these Grecian settlements near the Danube are very vague and untrustworthy.

[451] Skymnus Chius, v, 730, Fragm. 2-25.

[452] Alkæus, Fragm. 49, Bergk; Eustath. ad Dionys. Perieg. 306.—

Alkman, somewhat earlier, made mention of the Issêdones (Alkm. Frag. 129, Bergk; Steph. Byz. v. Ἰσσήδονες,—he called them Assêdones) and of the Rhipæan mountains (Fr. 80).

In the old epic of Arktinus, the deceased Achilles is transported to an elysium in the λευκὴ νῆσος (see the argument of the Æthiopis in Düntzer’s Collection of Epicc. Poet. Græc. p. 15), but it may well be doubted whether λευκὴ νῆσος in his poem was anything but a fancy,—not yet localized upon the little island off the mouth of the Danube.

For the early allusions to the Pontus Euxinus and its neighboring inhabitants, found in the Greek poets, see Ukert, Skythien, pp. 15-18, 78; though he puts the Ionian colonies in the Pontus nearly a century too early, in my judgment.

[453] Compare Dr. Clarke’s description of the present commerce between Taganrock—not far from the ancient Greek settlement of Tanais—and the Archipelago: besides exporting salt-fish, corn, leather, etc. in exchange for wines, fruit, etc. it is the great deposit of Siberian productions: from Orenburg it receives tallow, furs, iron, etc; this is, doubtless, as old as Herodotus (Clarke’s Travels in Russia, ch. xv, p. 330).

[454] Hekatæi Fragment. Fr. 153, 168, ed. Klausen. Hekatæus mentioned the Issêdones (Fr. 168; Steph. Byz. v. Ἰσσήδονες); both he and Damastês seem to have been familiar with the poem of Aristeas: see Klausen, ad loc.; Steph. Byz. v. Ὑπερβόρειοι. Compare also Æschyl. Prometh. 409, 710, 805.

Hellanikus, also, seems to have spoken about Scythia in a manner generally conformable to Herodotus (Strabo, xii, p. 550). It does little credit to the discernment of Strabo that he treats with disdain the valuable Scythian chapter of Herodotus,—ἅπερ Ἑλλάνικος καὶ Ἡρόδοτος καὶ Εὔδοξος κατεφλυάρησαν ἡμῶν (ib.).

[455] Herodot. iv, 100-101. See, respecting the Scythia of Herodotus, the excellent dissertation of Niebuhr, contained in his Kleine Historische Schriften, “Ueber die Geschichte der Skythen, Geten, und Sarmaten,” p. 360, alike instructive both as to the geography and the history. Also the two chapters in Völcker’s Mythische Geographie, ch. vii-viii, sects. 23-26, respecting the geographical conceptions present to Herodotus in his description of Scythia.

Herodotus has much in his Scythian geography, however, which no comment can enable us to understand. Compared with his predecessors, his geographical conceptions evince very great improvement; but we shall have occasion, in the course of this history, to notice memorable examples of extreme misapprehension in regard to distance and bearings in these remote regions, common to him not only with his contemporaries, but also with his successors.

[456] Herodot. iv, 17-21, 46-56; Hippokratês, De Aëre, Locis et Aquis, c. vi; Æschyl. Prometh. 709; Justin, ii, 2.

It is unnecessary to multiply citations respecting nomadic life, the same under such wide differences both of time and of latitude,—the same with the “armentarius Afer” of Virgil (Georgic, iii, 343) and the “campestres Scythæ” of Horace (Ode iii, 24, 12), and the Tartars of the present day; see Dr. Clarke’s Travels in Russia, ch. xiv, p. 310.

The fourth book of Herodotus, the Tristia and Epistolæ ex Ponto of Ovid, the Toxaris of Lucian (see c. 36, vol. i, p. 544 Hemst.), and the Inscription of Olbia (No. 2058 in Boeckh’s Collection), convey a genuine picture of Scythian manners as seen by the near observer and resident, very different from the pleasing fancies of the distant poet respecting the innocence of pastoral life. The poisoned arrows, which Ovid so much complains of in the Sarmatians and Getæ (Trist. iii, 10, 60, among other passages, and Lucan, iii, 270), are not noticed by Herodotus in the Scythians.

The dominant Golden Horde among the Tartars, in the time of Zinghis Khan, has been often spoken of; and among the different Arab tribes now in Algeria, some are noble, others enslaved; the latter habitually, and by inheritance, servants of the former, following wherever ordered (Tableau de la Situation des Établissemens Français en Algérie, p. 393, Paris, Mar. 1846).

[457] Ephorus placed the Karpidæ immediately north of the Danube (Fragm. 78, Marx; Skymn. Chius, 102). I agree with Niebuhr that this is probably an inaccurate reproduction of the Kallippidæ of Herodotus, though Boeckh is of a different opinion (Introduct. ad Inscriptt. Sarmatic. Corpus Inscript. part xi, p. 81). The vague and dreamy statements of Ephorus, so far as we know them from the fragments, contrast unfavorably with the comparative precision of Herodotus. The latter expressly separates the Androphagi from the Scythians,—ἔθνος ἐὸν ἴδιον καὶ οὐδαμῶς Σκυθικόν (iv, 18), whereas when we compare Strabo vii. p. 302 and Skymn. Chi. 105-115, we see that Ephorus talked of the Androphagi as a variety of Scythians,—ἔθνος ἀνδροφάγων Σκυθῶν.

The valuable inscription from Olbia (No. 2058 Boeckh) recognizes Μιξέλληνες near that town.

[458] Herod. iv, 17. We may illustrate this statement of Herodotus by an extract from Heber’s journal as cited in Dr. Clarke’s Travels, ch. xv, p. 337: “The Nagay Tartars begin to the west of Marinopol: they cultivate a good deal of corn, yet they dislike bread as an article of food.”

[459] Niebuhr (Dissertat. ut sup. p. 360), Boeckh (Introd. Inscrip. ut sup. p. 110), and Ritter (Vorhalle der Geschichte, p. 316) advance this opinion. But we ought not on this occasion to depart from the authority of Herodotus, whose information respecting the people of Scythia, collected by himself on the spot, is one of the most instructive and precious portions of his whole work. He is very careful to distinguish what is Scythian from what is not: and these tribes, which Niebuhr (contrary to the sentiment of Herodotus) imagines not to be Scythian, were the tribes nearest and best known to him; probably he had personally visited them, since we know that he went up the river Hypanis (Bog) as high as the Exampæus, four days’ journey from the sea (iv, 52-81).

That some portions of the same ἔθνος should be ἀροτῆρες, and other portions νόμαδες, is far from being without parallel; such was the case with the Persians, for example (Herodot. i, 126), and with the Iberians between the Euxine and the Caspian (Strabo, xi, p. 500).

The Pontic Greeks confounded Agathyrsus, Gelônus, and Scythês in the same genealogy, as being three brethren, sons of Hêraklês by the μιξοπάρθενος Ἔχιδνα of the Hylæa (iv, 7-10). Herodotus is more precise: he distinguishes both the Agathyrsi and Gelôni from Scythians.

[460] Both Niebuhr and Boeckh account the ancient Scythians to be of Mongolian race (Niebuhr in the Dissertation above mentioned, Untersuchungen über die Geschichte der Skythen, Geten, und Sarmaten, among the Kleine Historische Schriften, p. 362; Boeckh, Corpus Inscriptt. Græcarum, Introductio ad Inscriptt. Sarmatic. part xi, p. 81). Paul Joseph Schafarik, in his elaborate examination of the ethnography of the ancient people described as inhabiting northern Europe and Asia, arrives at the same result (Slavische Alterthümer, Prag. 1843, vol. i, xiii, 6, p. 279).

A striking illustration of this analogy of race is noticed by Alexander von Humboldt, in speaking of the burial-place and the funeral obsequies of the Tartar Tchinghiz Khan:—

“Les cruautés lors de la pompe funèbre des grands-khans ressemblent entièrement à celles que nous trouvons décrites par Hérodote (iv, 71) environ 1700 ans avant la mort de Tchinghiz, et 65° de longitude plus à l’ouest, chez les Scythes du Gerrhus et du Borysthène.” (Humboldt, Asie Centrale, vol. i, p. 244.)

Nevertheless, M. Humboldt dissents from the opinion of Niebuhr and Boeckh, and considers the Scythians of Herodotus to be of Indo-Germanic, not of Mongolian race: Klaproth seems to adopt the same view (see Humboldt, Asie Centrale, vol. i, p. 401, and his valuable work, Kosmos, p. 491, note 383). He assumes it as a certain fact, upon what evidence I do not distinctly see, that no tribe of Turk or Mongol race migrated westward out of Central Asia until considerably later than the time of Herodotus. To make out such a negative, seems to me impossible: and the marks of ethnographical analogy, so far as they go, decidedly favor the opinion of Niebuhr. Ukert also (Skythien, pp. 266-280) controverts the opinion of Niebuhr.

At the same time it must be granted that these marks are not very conclusive, and that many nomadic hordes, whom no one would refer to the same race, may yet have exhibited an analogy of manners and characteristics equal to that between the Scythians and Mongols.

The principle upon which the Indo-European family of the human race is defined and parted off, appears to me inapplicable to any particular case wherein the language of the people is unknown to us. The nations constituting that family have no other point of affinity except in the roots and structure of their language; on every other point there is the widest difference. To enable us to affirm that the Massagetæ, or the Scythians, or the Alani, belonged to the Indo-European family, it would be requisite that we should know something of their language. But the Scythian language may be said to be wholly unknown; and the very few words which are brought to our knowledge do not tend to aid the Indo-European hypothesis.

[461] See the story of the accidental discovery of this Scythian sword when lost, by Attila, the chief of the Huns (Priscus ap. Jornandem de Rebus Geticis, c. 35, and in Eclog. Legation. p. 50).

Lucian in the Toxaris (c. 38, vol. ii, p. 546, Hemst.) notices the worship of the akinakes, or scymetar, by the Scythians in plain terms without interposing the idea of the god Arês: compare Clemen. Alexand. Protrept. p. 25, Syl. Ammianus Marcellinus, in speaking of the Alani (xxxi, 2), as well as Pomponius Mela (ii, 1) and Solinus (c. 20), copy Herodotus. Ammianus is more literal in his description of the Sarmatian sword-worship (xvii, 12). “Eductisque mucronibus, quos pro numinibus colunt,” etc.

[462] Herodot. iv, 3-62, 71-75; Sophoklês, Œnomaus,—ap. Athenæ. ix, p. 410; Hippokratês, De Aëre, Locis et Aquis, ch. vi, s. 91-99, etc.

It is seldom that we obtain, in reference to the modes of life of an ancient population, two such excellent witnesses as Herodotus and Hippokratês about the Scythians.

Hippokratês was accustomed to see the naked figure in its highest perfection at the Grecian games: hence, perhaps, he is led to dwell more emphatically on the corporeal defects of the Scythians.

[463] See Pallas, Reise durch Russland, and Dr. Clarke, Travels in Russia, ch. xii, p. 238.

[464] Thucyd. ii, 95; Herodot. ii, 46-47: his idea of the formidable power of the Scythians seems also to be implied in his expression (c. 81), καὶ ὀλίγους, ὡς Σκύθας εἶναι.

Herodotus holds the same language about the Thracians, however, as Thucydidês about the Scythians,—irresistible, if they could but act with union (v, 3).

[465] The testimony of Herodotus to this effect (iv, 110-117) seems clear and positive, especially as to the language. Hippokratês also calls the Sauromatæ ἔθνος Σκυθικόν (De Aëre, Locis et Aquis, c. vi, sect. 89, Petersen).

I cannot think that there is any sufficient ground for the marked ethnical distinction which several authors draw (contrary to Herodotus) between the Scythians and the Sarmatians. Boeckh considers the latter to be of Median or Persian origin, but to be, also, the progenitors of the modern Sclavonian family: “Sarmatæ, Slavorum haud dubie parentes,” (Introduct. ad Inscr. Sarmatic. Corp. Inscr. part xi, p. 83.) Many other authors have shared this opinion, which identifies the Sarmatians with the Slavi; but Paul Joseph Schafarik (Slavische Alterthümer, vol. i, c. 16) has shown powerful reasons against it.

Nevertheless, Schafarik admits the Sarmatians to be of Median origin, and radically distinct from the Scythians. But the passages which are quoted to prove this point from Diodorus (ii, 43), from Mela (i, 19), and from Pliny (H. N. vi. 7), appear to me of much less authority than the assertion of Herodotus. In none of these authors is there any trace of inquiries made in or near the actual spot from neighbors and competent informants, such as we find in Herodotus. And the chapter in Diodorus, on which both Boeckh and Schafarik lay especial stress, appears to me one of the most untrustworthy in the whole book. To believe in the existence of Scythian kings who reigned over all Asia from the eastern ocean to the Caspian, and sent out large colonies of Medians and Assyrians, is surely impossible; and Wesseling speaks much within the truth when he says, “Verum hæc dubia admodum atque incerta.” It is remarkable to see Boeckh treating this passage as conclusive against Herodotus and Hippokratês. M. Boeckh has also given a copious analysis of the names found in the Greek inscriptions from Scythian, Sarmatian, and Mæotic localities (ut sup. pp. 107-117), and he endeavors to establish an analogy between the two latter classes and Median names. But the analogy holds just as much with regard to the Scythian names.

[466] The locality which Herodotus assigns to the Budini creates difficulty. According to his own statement, it would seem that they ought to be near to the Neuri (iv, 105), and so in fact Ptolemy places them (v, 9) near about Volhynia and the sources of the Dniester.

Mannert (Geographie der Griech. und Römer, Der Norden der Erde, v, iv, p. 138) conceives the Budini to be a Teutonic tribe; but Paul Joseph Schafarik (Slavische Alterthümer, i, 10, pp. 185-195) has shown more plausible grounds for believing both them and the Neuri to be of Slavic family. It seems that the names Budini and Neuri are traceable to Slavic roots; that the wooden town described by Herodotus in the midst of the Budini is an exact parallel of the primitive Slavic towns, down even to the twelfth century; and that the description of the country around, with its woods and marshes containing beavers, otters, etc. harmonizes better with southern Poland and Russia than with the neighborhood of the Ural mountains. From the color ascribed to the Budini, no certain inference can be drawn: γλαυκόν τε πᾶν ἰσχυρῶς ἐστὶ καὶ πυῤῥόν (iv, 108). Mannert construes it in favor of Teutonic family, Schafarik in favor of Slavic; and it is to be remarked, that Hippokratês talks of the Scythians generally as extremely πυῤῥοί (De Aëre, Locis et Aquis, c. vi: compare Aristot. Prob. xxxviii, 2).

These reasonings are plausible; yet we can hardly venture to alter the position of the Budini as Herodotus describes it, eastward of the Tanais. For he states in the most explicit manner that the route as far as the Argippæi is thoroughly known, traversed both by Scythian and by Grecian traders, and all the nations in the way to it known (iv, 24): μέχρι μὲν τούτων πολλὴ περιφάνεια τῆς χώρης ἐστὶ καὶ τῶν ἔμπροσθεν ἐθνέων· καὶ γὰρ Σκυθέων τινες ἀπικνέονται ἐς αὐτοὺς, τῶν οὐ χαλεπόν ἐστὶ πυθέσθαι, καὶ Ἑλλήνων τῶν ἐκ Βορυσθένεός τε ἐμπορίου καὶ τῶν ἄλλων Ποντικῶν ἐμπορίων. These Greek and Scythian traders, in their journey from the Pontic seaports into the interior, employed seven different languages and as many interpreters.

Völcker thinks that Herodotus or his informants confounded the Don with the Volga (Mythische Geographie, sect. 24, p. 190), supposing that the higher parts of the latter belonged to the former; a mistake not unnatural, since the two rivers approach pretty near to each other at one particular point, and since the lower parts of the Volga, together with the northern shore of the Caspian, where its embouchure is situated, appear to have been little visited and almost unknown in antiquity. There cannot be a more striking evidence how unknown these regions were, than the persuasion, so general in antiquity, that the Caspian sea was a gulf of the ocean, to which Herodotus, Aristotle, and Ptolemy are almost the only exceptions. Alexander von Humboldt has some valuable remarks on the tract laid down by Herodotus from the Tanais to the Argippæi (Asie Centrale, vol. i, pp. 390-400).

[467] Herodot. iv, 80.

[468] Herodot. iv, 99-101. Dionysius Periêgêtês seems to identify Cimmerians and Tauri (v, 168: compare v, 680, where the Cimmerians are placed on the Asiatic side of the Cimmerian Bosphorus, adjacent to the Sindi).

[469] Herodot. i, 202. Strabo compares the inroads of the Sakæ, which was the name applied by the Persians to the Scythians, to those of the Cimmerians and the Trêres (xi, pp. 511-512).

[470] Herodot. iv, 13. φοιβολαμπτὸς γενομένος.

[471] Herodot. iv, 13.

[472] Herodot. iv, 11. Ἐστι δὲ καὶ ἄλλος λόγος, ἔχων ὧδε, τῷ μάλιστα λεγομένῳ αὐτὸς προσκεῖμαι.

[473] Herodot. iv, 11.

[474] Herodot. iv, 1-12.

[475] Herodot. iv, 5-9. At this day, the three great tribes of the nomadic Turcomans, on the north-eastern border of Persia near the Oxus,—the Yamud, the Gokla, and the Tuka,—assert for themselves a legendary genealogy deduced from three brothers (Frazer, Narrative of a Journey in Khorasan, p. 258).

[476] Read the description of the difficult escape of Mithridates Eupator, with a mere handful of men, from Pontus to Bosphorus by this route, between the western edge of Caucasus and the Euxine (Strabo, xi, pp. 495-496),—ἡ τῶν Ἀχαιῶν καὶ Ζυγῶν καὶ Ἡνιόχων παραλία,—all piratical and barbarous tribes,—τῇ παραλίᾳ χαλεπῶς ᾔει, τὰ πολλὰ ἐμβαίνων ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν: compare Plutarch, Pompeius, c. 34. Pompey thought the route unfit for his march.

To suppose the Cimmerian tribes with their wagons passing along such a track would require strong positive evidence. According to Ptolemy, however, there were two passes over the range of Caucasus,—the Caucasian or Albanian gates, near Derbend and the Caspian, and the Sarmatian gates, considerably more to the westward (Ptolemy, Geogr. v, 9; Forbiger, Handbuch der Alten Geographie, vol. ii, sect. 56, p. 55). It is not impossible that the Cimmerians may have followed the westernmost, and the Scythians the easternmost, of these two passes; but the whole story is certainly very improbable.

[477] See Niebuhr’s Dissertation above referred to, pp. 366-367. A reason for supposing that the Cimmerians came into Asia Minor from the west and not from the east, is, that we find them so much confounded with the Thracian Trêres indicating seemingly a joint invasion.

[478] Herodot. i, 6-15; iv, 12. φαίνονται δὲ οἱ Κιμμέριοι, φεύγοντες ἐς τὴν Ἀσίην τοὺς Σκύθας, καὶ τὴν Χερσόνησον κτίσαντες, ἐν τῇ νῦν Σινώπη πόλις Ἑλληνὶς οἴκισται.

[479] Kallinus, Fragment. 2, 3, ed. Bergk. Νῦν δ᾽ ἐπὶ Κιμμερίων στρατὸς ἔρχεται ὀβριμοεργῶν (Strabo, xiii, p. 627; xiv, 633-647). O. Müller (History of the Literature of Ancient Greece, ch. x, s. 4) and Mr. Clinton (Fasti Hellenici, B. C. 716-635) may be consulted about the obscure chronology of these events. The Scythico-Cimmerian invasion of Asia, to which Herodotus alludes, appears fixed for some date in the reign of Ardys the Lydian, 640-629 B. C., and may stand for 635 B. C. as Mr. Clinton puts it; and I agree with O. Müller that the fragment of the poet Kallinus above cited alludes to this invasion; for the supposition of Mr. Clinton, that Kallinus here alludes to an invasion past and not present, appears to be excluded by the word νῦν. Mr. Clinton places both Kallinus and Archilochus (in my judgment) half a century too high; for I agree with O. Müller in disbelieving the story told by Pliny of the picture sold by Bularchus to Kandaulês. O. Müller follows Strabo (i, p. 61) in calling Madys a Cimmerian prince, who drove the Trêres out of Asia Minor; whereas Herodotus mentions him as the Scythian prince, who drove the Cimmerians out of their own territory into Asia Minor (i, 103).

The chronology of Herodotus is intelligible and consistent with itself: that of Strabo we cannot settle, when he speaks of many different invasions. Nor does his language give us the smallest reason to suppose that he was in possession of any means of determining dates for these early times,—nothing at all calculated to justify the positive chronology which Mr. Clinton deduces from him: compare his Fasti Hellenici, B. C. 635, 629, 617. Strabo says, after affirming that Homer knew both the name and the reality of the Cimmerians (i, p. 6; iii, p. 149),—καὶ γὰρ καθ᾽ Ὅμηρον, ἢ πρὸ αὐτοῦ μικρὸν, λέγουσι τὴν τῶν Κιμμερίων ἔφοδον γενέσθαι τὴν μέχρι τῆς Αἰολίδος καὶ τῆς Ἰωνίας,—“which places the first appearance of the Cimmerians in Asia Minor a century at least before the Olympiad of Corœbus,” (says Mr. Clinton.) But what means could Strabo have had to chronologize events as happening at or a little before the time of Homer? No date in the Grecian world was so contested, or so indeterminable, as the time of Homer: nor will it do to reason, as Mr. Clinton does, i. e. to take the latest date fixed for Homer among many, and then to say that the invasion of the Cimmerians must be at least B. C. 876: thus assuming it as a certainty that, whether the date of Homer be a century earlier or later, the invasion of the Cimmerians must be made to fit it. When Strabo employs such untrustworthy chronological standards, he only shows us—what everything else confirms—that there existed no tests of any value for events of that early date in the Grecian world.

Mr. Clinton announces this ante-Homeric calculation as a chronological certainty: “The Cimmerians first appeared in Asia Minor about a century before B. C. 776. An irruption is recorded in B. C. 782. Their last inroad was in B. C. 635. The settlement of Ambrôn (the Milesian, at Sinôpê) may be placed at about B. C. 782, twenty-six years before the era assigned to (the Milesian or Sinôpic settlement of) Trapezus.”

On what authority does Mr. Clinton assert that a Cimmerian irruption was recorded in B. C. 782? Simply on the following passage of Orosius, which he cites at B. C. 635: “Anno ante urbem conditam tricesimo,—Tunc etiam Amazonum gentis et Cimmeriorum in Asiam repentinus incursus plurimum diu lateque vastationem et stragem intulit.” If this authority of Orosius is to be trusted, we ought to say that the invasion of the Amazons was a recorded fact. To treat a fact mentioned in Orosius, an author of the fourth century after Christ, and referred to B. C. 782, as a recorded fact, confounds the most important boundary-lines in regard to the appreciation of historical evidence.

In fixing the Cimmerian invasion of Asia at 782 B. C., Mr. Clinton has the statement of Orosius, whatever it may be worth, to rest upon; but in fixing the settlement of Ambrôn the Milesian (at Sinôpê) at 782 B. C., I know not that he had any authority at all. Eusebius does, indeed, place the foundation of Trapezus in 756 B. C., and Trapezus is said to have been a colony from Sinôpê; and Mr. Clinton, therefore, is anxious to find some date for the foundation of Sinôpê anterior to 756 B. C.; but there is nothing to warrant him in selecting 782 B. C., rather than any other year.

In my judgment, the establishment of any Milesian colony in the Euxine at so early a date as 756 B. C. is highly improbable: and when we find that the same Eusebius fixes the foundation of Sinôpê (the metropolis of Trapezus) as low down as 629 B. C., this is an argument with me for believing that the date which he assigns to Trapezus is by far too early. Mr. Clinton treats the date which Eusebius assigns to Trapezus as certain, and infers from it, that the date which the same author assigns to Sinôpê is one hundred and thirty years later than the reality: I reverse the inference, considering the date which he assigns to Sinôpê as the more trustworthy of the two, and deducing the conclusion, that the date which he gives for Trapezus is one hundred and thirty years at least earlier than the reality.

On all grounds, the authority of the chronologists is greater with regard to the later of the two periods than to the earlier, and there is, besides, the additional probability arising out of what is a suitable date for Milesian settlement. To which I will add, that Herodotus places the settlement of the Cimmerians near “that spot where Sinôpê is now settled,” in the reign of Ardys, soon after 635 B. C. Sinôpê was, therefore, not founded at the time when the Cimmerians went there, in the belief of Herodotus.

[480] Strabo i, p. 61; Kallimachus, Hymn. ad Dianam, 251-260—

In the explanation of the proverb Σκυθῶν ἐρημία, allusion is made to a sudden panic and flight of Scythians from Ephesus (Hesychius, v. Σκυθῶν ἐρημία),—probably this must refer to some story of interference on the part of Artemis to protect the town against these Cimmerians. The confusion between Cimmerians and Scythians is very frequent.

[481] Herodot. i, 28; Mela, i, 19, 9; Skymn. Chi. Fragm. 207.

[482] The ten thousand Greeks in their homeward march passed through a people called Chalybes between Armenia and the town of Trapezus, and also again after eight days’ march westerly from Trapezus, between the Tibarêni and Mosynœki: compare Xenophon, Anabas. iv, 7, 15; v, 5, 1; probably different sections of the same people. The last-mentioned Chalybes seem to have been the best known, from their iron works, and their greater vicinity to the Greek ports: Ephorus recognized them (see Ephori Fragm. 80-82, ed. Marx); whether he knew of the more easterly Chalybes, north of Armenia, is less certain: so also Dionysius Periêgêtês, v, 768: compare Eustathius, ad loc.

The idea which prevailed among ancient writers, of a connection between the Chalybes in these regions and the Scythians or Cimmerians (Χάλυβος Σκυθῶν ἄποικος, Æschyl. Sept. ad Thebas, 729; and Hesiod. ap. Clemen. Alex. Str. i, p. 132), and of which the supposed residence of the Amazons on the river Thermôdôn seems to be one of the manifestations, is discussed in Hoeckh, Kreta, book i, pp. 294-305; and Mannert, Geographie der Griechen und Römer, vi, 2, pp. 408-416: compare Stephan. Byz. v. Χάλυβες. Mannert believes in an early Scythian emigration into these regions. The ten thousand Greeks passed through the territory of a people called Skythini, immediately bordering on the Chalybes to the north; which region some identify with the Sakasênê of Strabo (xi, 511) occupied, according to that geographer, by invaders from Eastern Scythia.

It seems that Sinôpê was one of the most considerable places for the export of the iron used in Greece: the Sinopic as well as the Chalybdic (or Chalybic) iron had a special reputation (Stephan. Byz. v. Λακεδαίμων).

About the Chalybes, compare Ukert, Skythien, pp. 521-523.