It was customary, as in Persia and in old Macedonia, for the great men of the realm to send their children to court to be brought up with the children of the royal house. Those who had been so brought up with the king were styled hisσύντροφοι(for the Seleucid, Polyb. v. 82, 8 and xxxi. 21, 2;Bull. corr. hell.i. 285; 2 Macc. ix. 29; for the Ptolemaicσύντροφοι παίδισκαιof the queen, Polyb. xv. 33, 11; for the Pontic,Bull. corr. hell.vii. 355; for the Pergamene. Polyb. xxxii. 27, 10, &c.; for the Herodian, Acts 13). It is perfectly gratuitous to suppose with Deissmann that “the fundamental meaning had given place to the general meaning of intimate friend.” With this custom we may perhaps bring into connexion the office ofτροφεύς(Polyb. xxxi. 20, 3; Michel, No. 1158). As under Alexander, so under his successors, we find a corps ofβασιλικοί παῖδες. They appear as a corps, 600 strong, in a triumphal procession at Antioch (Polyb. xxxi. 3, 17; cf. v. 82, 13; Antigonid, Livy, xlv. 6; cf. Curtius, viii. 6, 6).
All the Hellenistic courts felt it a great part of prestige to be filled with the light of Hellenic culture. A distinguished philosopher or man of letters would find them bidding for his presence, and most of the great names are7. Hellenic Culture.associated with one or other of the contemporary kings. Antigonus Gonatas, bluff soldier-spirit that he was, heard the Stoic philosophers gladly, and, though he failed to induce Zeno to come to Macedonia, persuaded Zeno’s disciple, Persaeus of Citium, to enter his service. Nor was it philosophers only who made his court illustrious, but poets like Aratus. The Ptolemaic court, with the museum attached to it, is so prominent in the literary and scientific history of the age that it is unnecessary to give a list of the philosophers, the men of letters and science, who at one time or other ate at King Ptolemy’s table. One may notice that the first Ptolemy himself made a contribution of some value to historical literature in his account of Alexander’s campaigns; the fourth Ptolemy not only instituted a cult of Homer but himself published tragedies; and even Ptolemy Euergetes II. issued a book of memoirs. The Pergamene court was in no degree behind the Ptolemaic in its literary and artistic zeal. The notable school of sculpture connected with it is treated elsewhere (seeGreek Art); to its literary school we probably owe in great part the preservation of the masterpieces of Attic prose (Susemihl I., p. 4), and two of its kings (Eumenes I. and Attalus III.) were themselves authors. The Seleucid court did not rival either of the last named in brilliance of culture; and yet some names of distinction were associated with it. Under Antiochus I. Aratus carried out a recension of theOdyssey, and Berossus composed a Babylonian history in Greek; under Antiochus III. Euphorion was made keeper of the library at Antioch. Antiochus IV., of course, the enthusiastic Hellenist, filled Antioch with Greek artists and gave a royal welcome to Athenian philosophers. Even in the degenerate days of the dynasty, Antiochus Grypus, who had been brought up at Athens, aspired to shine as a poet. The values recognized in the great Hellenistic courts and the Greek world generally imposed their authority upon the dynasties of barbarian origin. The Cappadocian court admitted the full stream of Hellenistic culture under Ariarathes V. (Diod. xxxi. 19, 8). One of the kings called Nicomedes in Bithynia offered immense sums to acquire the Aphrodite of Praxiteles from the Cnidians (Plin.N.H.xxxvi. 21), and to a king Nicomedes the geographical poem of the Pseudo-Scymnus is dedicated. Even Iranian kings in the last centuryB.C.found pleasure in composing, or listening to, Greek tragedies, and Herod the Great kept Greek men of letters beside him and had spasmodic ambitions to make his mark as an orator or author (Nicol. Dam. frag. 4;F.H.G.III. p. 350).
The offering of divine honours to the king, which we saw begin under Alexander, became stereotyped in the institutions of the succeeding Hellenistic kingdoms. Alexander himself was after his death the object of various8. Divine Honours.local cults, like that which centred in the shrine near Erythrae (Strabo, xiv. 644). His successors in the first years after his death recognized him officially as a divinity, except Antipater (Suïdas,s.v.Αντίπατρος), and coins began to be issued with his image. At Alexandria the state cult of him seems to have been instituted by the second Ptolemy, when his body was laid in theSema(Otto,Priester u. Tempel, i. 139 seq.). The successors themselves received divine honours. Such worship might be the spontaneous homage of a particular Greek community, like that offered to Antigonus by Scepsis in 311 (Journ. of Hell. Stud.xix. 335 seq.), the Antigonus and Demetrius by Athens in 307, to Ptolemy I. by the Rhodians in 304, or by Cassandrea to Cassander, as the city’s founder (Ditt. 2nd ed. 178); or it might be organized and maintained by royal authority. The first proved instance of a cult of the latter kind is that instituted at Alexandria by the second Ptolemy for his father soon after the latter’s death in 283/2, in which, some time after, 279/8, he associated his mother Berenice also, the two being worshipped together asθεοὶ σωτῆρες(Theoc. xvii. 121 seq.). Antiochus I. followed the Ptolemaic precedent by instituting at Seleucia-in-Pieria a cult for his father as Seleucus Zeus Nicator. So far we can point to no instance of a cult of the living sovereign (though the cities might institute such locally) being established by the court for the realm. This step was taken in Egypt after the death of Arsinoë Philadelphus (271) when she and her still-living brother-husband, Ptolemy II., began to be worshipped together asθεοὶ ἀδελφοί. After this the cult of the reigning king and queen was regularly maintained in Greek Egypt, side by side with that of the dead Ptolemies. Under Antiochus II. (261-246) a document shows us a cult of the reigning king in full working for the Seleucid realm, with a high priest in each province, appointed by the king himself; the document declares that the Queen Laodice is now to be associated with the king. The official surname of Antiochus II., Theos, suggests that he himself had here been the innovator. Thenceforward, in the Hellenistic kingdoms of the East the worship of the living sovereign became the rule, although it appears to have been regarded as given in anticipation of an apotheosis which did not become actual till death. In the Pergamene kingdom at any rate, though the living king was worshipped with sacrifice, the titleθεόςwas only given to those who were dead (Cardinali,Regno di Pergamo, p. 153). The Antigonid dynasty, simpler and saner in its manners, had no official cult of this sort. The divine honours offered on occasion by the Greek cities were the independent acts of the cities.
See Plut.Arat.45;Cleom.16; Kornemann, “Zur Gesch. d. antiken Herrscherkulte” inBeiträge z. alt. Gesch.i. 51 sqq.; Otto,Priester u. Tempel, pp. 138 seq.There does not seem any clear proof that the surnames which the Hellenistic kings in Asia and Egypt bore were necessarily connected with the cult, even if they were used to describe the various kings in religious ceremonies. Some had9. Surnames.doubtless a religious colour,Theos, Epiphanes, Soter; others a dynastic,Phitopator, Philometor, Philadelphus. Under what circumstances, and by whose selection, the surname was attached to a king, is obscure. It is noteworthy that while modern books commonly speak of the surnames asassumed, the explanations given by our ancient authorities almost invariably suppose them to be given as marks of homage or gratitude (English Historical Review, xvi. 629 (1901). The official surnames must not, of course, be confused with the popular nicknames which were naturally not recognized by the court,e.g.Ceraunus(“Thunder”),Hierax(“Hawk”),Physcon(“Pot-belly”),Lathyrus(“Chick-pea”).The armies of Alexander’s successors were still in the main principles of their organization similar to the army with which Alexander had conquered Asia. During the years immediately after Alexander the very Macedonians who had fought10. Armies.under Alexander were ranged against each other under the bannersof the several chiefs. The most noted corps of veterans, Argyraspides (i.e.the royal Hypaspistae) played a great part in the first wars of the successors, and covered themselves with infamy by their betrayal of Eumenes. As the soldiers of Alexander died off, fresh levies of home-born Macedonians could be raised only by the chief who held the motherland. The other chiefs had to supply themselves with Macedonians from the numerous colonies planted before the break-up of the empire in Asia or Egypt, and from such Macedonians they continued for the next two centuries to form their phalanx. The breed—at least if the statement which Livy puts into the mouth of a Roman general can be relied on—degenerated greatly under Asiatic and Egyptian skies (Liv. xxxviii. 17, 10); but still old names like that ofpezetaeriattached to the phalangites (Plut.Tib.17), and they still wielded the nationalsarissa. The latter weapon in the interval between Alexander and the time of Polybius had been increased to a length of 21 ft. (Polyb. xviii. 12), a proportion inconsistent with any degree of mobility; once more indeed the phalanx of the 2nd century seems to have become a body effective by sheer weight only and disordered by unevenness of ground. The Antigonid kings were never able from Macedonian levies to put in the field a phalanx of more than 20,000 at the utmost (Liv. xlii. 51); Antigonus Doson takes with him to Greece (in 222) one of 10,000 only. The phalanx of Antiochus III. at Raphia numbered 20,000, and Ptolemy Philopator was able at the same time to form one of 25,000 men (Polyb. v. 4). As these phalangites are distinguished both from the Greek mercenaries and the native Egyptian levies, it looks (although such a fact would be staggering) as if more Macedonians could be raised for military service in Egypt than in Macedonia itself (but see Beloch, p. 353). The royal foot-guards are still described in Macedonia in 171 as theagema(Polyb. v. 25, 1; 27, 3; Liv. xlii. 51), when they number 2000; at the Ptolemaic court in 217 theagemahad numbered 3000 (Polyb. v. 65, 2); and a similar corps ofhypaspistaeis indicated in the Seleucid army (Polyb. vii. 16, 2; xvi. 18, 7). So too the old name of “Companions” was kept up in the Seleucid kingdom for the Macedonian cavalry (see Polyb. v. 53, 4, &c.), and divisions of rank in it are still indicated by the termsagemaand royal squadron (βασιλικὴ ἵλη, see Bevan,House of Seleucus, ii. 288). The Antigonid and Seleucid courts had much valuable material at hand for their armies in the barbarian races under their sway. The Balkan hill-peoples of Illyrian or Thracian stock, the hill-peoples of Asia Minor and Iran, the chivalry of Media and Bactria, the mounted bowmen of the Caspian steppes, the camel-riders of the Arabian desert, could all be turned to account. Iranian troops seem to have been employed on a large scale by the earlier Seleucids. At Raphia, Antiochus III. had 10,000 men drawn from the provinces, armed and drilled as Macedonians, and another corps of Iranians numbering 5000 under a native commander (Polyb. v. 79). The experiment of arming the native Egyptians on a large scale does not seem to have been made before the campaign of 217, when Ptolemy IV. formed corps of the Macedonian pattern from Egyptians and Libyans (cf. Polyb. v. 107, 2; Ptolemy I. had employed Egyptians in the army, though chiefly as carriers, Diod. xix. 80, 4). From this time native rebellions in Egypt are recurrent. To the troops drawn from their own dominions the mercenaries which the kings procured from abroad were an important supplement. These were mainly the bands of Greekcondottieri, and even for their home-born troops Greek officers of renown were often engaged. The other class of mercenaries were Gauls, and from the time of the Gallic invasion of Asia Minor in 279 Gauls or Galatians were a regular constituent in all armies. They were a weapon apt to be dangerous to the employer, but the terror they inspired was such that every potentate sought to get hold of them. The elephants which Alexander brought back from India were used in the armies of his successors, and in 302 Seleucus procured a new supply. Thenceforward elephants, either brought fresh from India or bred in the royal stables at Apamea, regularly figured in the Seleucid armies. The Ptolemies supplied themselves with this arm from the southern coasts of the Red Sea, where they established stations for the capture and shipping of elephants, but the African variety was held inferior to the Indian. Scythed chariots such as had figured in the old Persian armies were still used by the Greek masters of Asia (Seleucus I., Diod. xx. 113, 4; Molon, Polyb. v. 53, 10; Antiochus III., Liv. xxxvii. 41), at any rate till the battle of Magnesia. The Hellenistic armies were distinguished by their external magnificence. They made a greater display of brilliant metal and gorgeous colour than the Roman armies, for instance. The description given by Justin of the army which Antiochus Sidetes took to the East in 130B.C., boot-nails and bridles of gold, gives an idea of their standard of splendour (Just. xxxviii. 10, 1; cf. Polyb. xxxi. 3; Plut.Eum.14; id.Aemil.18; id.Sulla, 16).During the 3rd centuryB.C.Egypt was the greatest sea power of the eastern Mediterranean, and maintained a large fleet (the figures in App.Prooem, 10 are not trustworthy, see Beloch III. [i.], 364). Its control of the Aegean was, however, contested not without success by the Antigonids, who won the two great sea-fights of Cos (c.256) and Andros (227), and wrested the overlordship of the Cyclades from the Ptolemies. Of the numbers and constitution of the Antigonid fleet we know nothing.7At the Seleucid court in 222 the admiral (ναύαρχος) appears as a person of high consideration (Polyb. v. 43, 1); in his war with Rome Antiochus III. had 107 decked battleships on the sea at one time. By the Peace of Apamea (188) the Seleucid navy was abolished; Antiochus undertook to keep no more than 10 ships of war.For the Hellenistic armies and fleets see A. Bauer in L. von Müller’sHandbuch, vol. iv.; Delbrück,Gesch. d. Kriegskunst(1900).
See Plut.Arat.45;Cleom.16; Kornemann, “Zur Gesch. d. antiken Herrscherkulte” inBeiträge z. alt. Gesch.i. 51 sqq.; Otto,Priester u. Tempel, pp. 138 seq.
There does not seem any clear proof that the surnames which the Hellenistic kings in Asia and Egypt bore were necessarily connected with the cult, even if they were used to describe the various kings in religious ceremonies. Some had9. Surnames.doubtless a religious colour,Theos, Epiphanes, Soter; others a dynastic,Phitopator, Philometor, Philadelphus. Under what circumstances, and by whose selection, the surname was attached to a king, is obscure. It is noteworthy that while modern books commonly speak of the surnames asassumed, the explanations given by our ancient authorities almost invariably suppose them to be given as marks of homage or gratitude (English Historical Review, xvi. 629 (1901). The official surnames must not, of course, be confused with the popular nicknames which were naturally not recognized by the court,e.g.Ceraunus(“Thunder”),Hierax(“Hawk”),Physcon(“Pot-belly”),Lathyrus(“Chick-pea”).
The armies of Alexander’s successors were still in the main principles of their organization similar to the army with which Alexander had conquered Asia. During the years immediately after Alexander the very Macedonians who had fought10. Armies.under Alexander were ranged against each other under the bannersof the several chiefs. The most noted corps of veterans, Argyraspides (i.e.the royal Hypaspistae) played a great part in the first wars of the successors, and covered themselves with infamy by their betrayal of Eumenes. As the soldiers of Alexander died off, fresh levies of home-born Macedonians could be raised only by the chief who held the motherland. The other chiefs had to supply themselves with Macedonians from the numerous colonies planted before the break-up of the empire in Asia or Egypt, and from such Macedonians they continued for the next two centuries to form their phalanx. The breed—at least if the statement which Livy puts into the mouth of a Roman general can be relied on—degenerated greatly under Asiatic and Egyptian skies (Liv. xxxviii. 17, 10); but still old names like that ofpezetaeriattached to the phalangites (Plut.Tib.17), and they still wielded the nationalsarissa. The latter weapon in the interval between Alexander and the time of Polybius had been increased to a length of 21 ft. (Polyb. xviii. 12), a proportion inconsistent with any degree of mobility; once more indeed the phalanx of the 2nd century seems to have become a body effective by sheer weight only and disordered by unevenness of ground. The Antigonid kings were never able from Macedonian levies to put in the field a phalanx of more than 20,000 at the utmost (Liv. xlii. 51); Antigonus Doson takes with him to Greece (in 222) one of 10,000 only. The phalanx of Antiochus III. at Raphia numbered 20,000, and Ptolemy Philopator was able at the same time to form one of 25,000 men (Polyb. v. 4). As these phalangites are distinguished both from the Greek mercenaries and the native Egyptian levies, it looks (although such a fact would be staggering) as if more Macedonians could be raised for military service in Egypt than in Macedonia itself (but see Beloch, p. 353). The royal foot-guards are still described in Macedonia in 171 as theagema(Polyb. v. 25, 1; 27, 3; Liv. xlii. 51), when they number 2000; at the Ptolemaic court in 217 theagemahad numbered 3000 (Polyb. v. 65, 2); and a similar corps ofhypaspistaeis indicated in the Seleucid army (Polyb. vii. 16, 2; xvi. 18, 7). So too the old name of “Companions” was kept up in the Seleucid kingdom for the Macedonian cavalry (see Polyb. v. 53, 4, &c.), and divisions of rank in it are still indicated by the termsagemaand royal squadron (βασιλικὴ ἵλη, see Bevan,House of Seleucus, ii. 288). The Antigonid and Seleucid courts had much valuable material at hand for their armies in the barbarian races under their sway. The Balkan hill-peoples of Illyrian or Thracian stock, the hill-peoples of Asia Minor and Iran, the chivalry of Media and Bactria, the mounted bowmen of the Caspian steppes, the camel-riders of the Arabian desert, could all be turned to account. Iranian troops seem to have been employed on a large scale by the earlier Seleucids. At Raphia, Antiochus III. had 10,000 men drawn from the provinces, armed and drilled as Macedonians, and another corps of Iranians numbering 5000 under a native commander (Polyb. v. 79). The experiment of arming the native Egyptians on a large scale does not seem to have been made before the campaign of 217, when Ptolemy IV. formed corps of the Macedonian pattern from Egyptians and Libyans (cf. Polyb. v. 107, 2; Ptolemy I. had employed Egyptians in the army, though chiefly as carriers, Diod. xix. 80, 4). From this time native rebellions in Egypt are recurrent. To the troops drawn from their own dominions the mercenaries which the kings procured from abroad were an important supplement. These were mainly the bands of Greekcondottieri, and even for their home-born troops Greek officers of renown were often engaged. The other class of mercenaries were Gauls, and from the time of the Gallic invasion of Asia Minor in 279 Gauls or Galatians were a regular constituent in all armies. They were a weapon apt to be dangerous to the employer, but the terror they inspired was such that every potentate sought to get hold of them. The elephants which Alexander brought back from India were used in the armies of his successors, and in 302 Seleucus procured a new supply. Thenceforward elephants, either brought fresh from India or bred in the royal stables at Apamea, regularly figured in the Seleucid armies. The Ptolemies supplied themselves with this arm from the southern coasts of the Red Sea, where they established stations for the capture and shipping of elephants, but the African variety was held inferior to the Indian. Scythed chariots such as had figured in the old Persian armies were still used by the Greek masters of Asia (Seleucus I., Diod. xx. 113, 4; Molon, Polyb. v. 53, 10; Antiochus III., Liv. xxxvii. 41), at any rate till the battle of Magnesia. The Hellenistic armies were distinguished by their external magnificence. They made a greater display of brilliant metal and gorgeous colour than the Roman armies, for instance. The description given by Justin of the army which Antiochus Sidetes took to the East in 130B.C., boot-nails and bridles of gold, gives an idea of their standard of splendour (Just. xxxviii. 10, 1; cf. Polyb. xxxi. 3; Plut.Eum.14; id.Aemil.18; id.Sulla, 16).
During the 3rd centuryB.C.Egypt was the greatest sea power of the eastern Mediterranean, and maintained a large fleet (the figures in App.Prooem, 10 are not trustworthy, see Beloch III. [i.], 364). Its control of the Aegean was, however, contested not without success by the Antigonids, who won the two great sea-fights of Cos (c.256) and Andros (227), and wrested the overlordship of the Cyclades from the Ptolemies. Of the numbers and constitution of the Antigonid fleet we know nothing.7At the Seleucid court in 222 the admiral (ναύαρχος) appears as a person of high consideration (Polyb. v. 43, 1); in his war with Rome Antiochus III. had 107 decked battleships on the sea at one time. By the Peace of Apamea (188) the Seleucid navy was abolished; Antiochus undertook to keep no more than 10 ships of war.
For the Hellenistic armies and fleets see A. Bauer in L. von Müller’sHandbuch, vol. iv.; Delbrück,Gesch. d. Kriegskunst(1900).
To their native subjects the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kings were always foreigners. It was considered wonderful in the last Cleopatra that she learnt to speak Egyptian (Plut.Anton.27). Natives were employed, as we have11. Treatment of Subject Peoples.seen, in the army, and Iranians are found under the Seleucids holding high commands,e.g.Aspasianus the Mede (Polyb. v. 79, 7), Aribazus, governor of Cilicia (Flinders Petrie,Papyri, II., No. 45), Aribazus, governor of Sardis (Polyb. vii. 17, 9), and Omanes (Michel, No. 19, l. 104). Native cults the Hellenistic kings thought it good policy to patronize. Antiochus I. began rebuilding the temple of Nebo at Borsippa (Keilinschr. Bibl.iii. 2, 136 seq.) Antiochus III. bestowed favours on the Temple at Jerusalem. Even if the documents in Joseph,Arch.xii. §§ 138 seq. are spurious, their general view of the relation of Antiochus III. and Jerusalem is probably true. Even small local worships, like that of the village of Baetocaece, might secure royal patronage (C.I.G.No. 4474). Of course, financial straits might drive the kings to lay hands on temple-treasures, as Antiochus III. and Antiochus IV. did, but that was a measure of emergency.
The Macedonian kingdoms, strained by continual wars, increasingly divided against themselves, falling often under the sway of prodigals and debauchees, were far from realizing the Hellenic idea of sound government12. Significance of Macedonian Rule.as against the crude barbaric despotisms of the older East. Yet, in spite of all corruption, ideas of the intelligent development of the subject lands, visions of the Hellenic king, as the Greek thinkers had come to picture him, haunted the Macedonian rulers, and perhaps fitfully, in the intervals of war or carousal, prompted some degree of action. Treatises “Concerning Kingship” were produced as a regular thing by philosophers, and kings who claimed the fine flower of Hellenism, could not but peruse them. Strabo regards the loss of the eastern provinces to the Parthians as their passage under a government of lower type, beyond the sphere of Hellenicἐπιμέγεια(Strabo xi. 509). In the organization of the administrative machinery of these kingdoms, the higher power of the Hellene to adapt and combine had been operative; they were organisms of a richer, more complex type than the East had hitherto known. It was thus that when Rome became a world-empire, it found to some extent the forms of government ready made, and took over from the Hellenistic monarchies a tradition which it handed on to the later world.
Authorities.—For the general history of the Macedonian kingdoms, see Droysen,Histoire de l’Hellénisme(the French translation by Bouché-Leclercq, 1883-1885, represents the work in its final revision); A. Holm,History of Greece, vol. iv. (1894); B. Niese,Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten(1893-1903); Kaerst,Gesch. des hellenist. Zeitalters, vol. i. (1901). A masterly conspectus of the general character of the Hellenistic kingdoms in their political, economic and social character, their artistic and intellectual culture is given by Beloch,Griech. Gesch.iii. (i.), 260-556; see also Kaerst,Studien zur Entwicklung d. Monarchie; E. Breccia,Il Diritto dinastico helle monarchie dei successori d’Alessandro Magno(1903). Popular sketches of the history, enlightened by special knowledge and a wide outlook, are given by J. P. Mahaffy,Alexander’s Empire(“Stories of the Nations Series”);Progress of Hellenism in Alexander’s Empire(1905);The Silver Age of the Greek World(1906). See alsoHellenism;Ptolemies;Seleucid Dynasty.
Authorities.—For the general history of the Macedonian kingdoms, see Droysen,Histoire de l’Hellénisme(the French translation by Bouché-Leclercq, 1883-1885, represents the work in its final revision); A. Holm,History of Greece, vol. iv. (1894); B. Niese,Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten(1893-1903); Kaerst,Gesch. des hellenist. Zeitalters, vol. i. (1901). A masterly conspectus of the general character of the Hellenistic kingdoms in their political, economic and social character, their artistic and intellectual culture is given by Beloch,Griech. Gesch.iii. (i.), 260-556; see also Kaerst,Studien zur Entwicklung d. Monarchie; E. Breccia,Il Diritto dinastico helle monarchie dei successori d’Alessandro Magno(1903). Popular sketches of the history, enlightened by special knowledge and a wide outlook, are given by J. P. Mahaffy,Alexander’s Empire(“Stories of the Nations Series”);Progress of Hellenism in Alexander’s Empire(1905);The Silver Age of the Greek World(1906). See alsoHellenism;Ptolemies;Seleucid Dynasty.
(E. R. B.)
1For the events which brought this empire into being seeAlexander the Great. For the detailed accounts of the separate dynasties into which it was divided after Alexander’s death, seeSeleucid Dynasty,Antigonus,Pergamum, &c., and for its effect on the spread of Hellenic culture seeHellenism.2For details see separate articles on the chief generals.3For Ptolemaic Egypt, seePtolemiesandEgypt.4Atenthof the produce is suggested to have been the normal tax by what the Romans found obtaining in the Attalid kingdom. The references given by Beloch (Griech. Gesch.iii. [i.], p. 343) to prove it for the Seleucid kingdom are questionable. Beloch refers (1) to the letter of Demetrius II. to Lasthenes in whichδεκαταὶ καὶ τὰ τέληare mentioned, 1 Macc. 11, 35 (Beloch, by an oversight, refers to the paraphrase of the documents in Joseph.Ant.xiii. 4, § 126 seq., in which the mention of theδεκαταίis omitted!). The authenticity of this document is, however, very doubtful. He refers (2) to Dittenb. 171 (1st ed.), line 101; but here the tax seems to be, not an imperial one, but one paid to the city of Smyrna.5The salt monopoly is mentioned in 1 Macc. 10, 29; 11, 35, a suspected source, but supported in this detail by the analogy of Ptolemaic Egypt and Rome. For domains in Antigonid, Attalid and Bithynian realms, see Cic.De leg. agr.ii. 19, 50.6Antiochus Epiphanes was an extreme case. For the Antigonid court see Diog. Laërt. vii. 13; Plut.Arat.17; for the Seleucid, Athen. iv. 155b; v. 211a; for the Ptolemaic, Diog. L. vii. 177; Athen. vi. 246c; Plut.Cleom.33; Just. xxx. 1.7For the Antigonidναύαρχοςor admiral, see Polyb. xvi. 6.
1For the events which brought this empire into being seeAlexander the Great. For the detailed accounts of the separate dynasties into which it was divided after Alexander’s death, seeSeleucid Dynasty,Antigonus,Pergamum, &c., and for its effect on the spread of Hellenic culture seeHellenism.
2For details see separate articles on the chief generals.
3For Ptolemaic Egypt, seePtolemiesandEgypt.
4Atenthof the produce is suggested to have been the normal tax by what the Romans found obtaining in the Attalid kingdom. The references given by Beloch (Griech. Gesch.iii. [i.], p. 343) to prove it for the Seleucid kingdom are questionable. Beloch refers (1) to the letter of Demetrius II. to Lasthenes in whichδεκαταὶ καὶ τὰ τέληare mentioned, 1 Macc. 11, 35 (Beloch, by an oversight, refers to the paraphrase of the documents in Joseph.Ant.xiii. 4, § 126 seq., in which the mention of theδεκαταίis omitted!). The authenticity of this document is, however, very doubtful. He refers (2) to Dittenb. 171 (1st ed.), line 101; but here the tax seems to be, not an imperial one, but one paid to the city of Smyrna.
5The salt monopoly is mentioned in 1 Macc. 10, 29; 11, 35, a suspected source, but supported in this detail by the analogy of Ptolemaic Egypt and Rome. For domains in Antigonid, Attalid and Bithynian realms, see Cic.De leg. agr.ii. 19, 50.
6Antiochus Epiphanes was an extreme case. For the Antigonid court see Diog. Laërt. vii. 13; Plut.Arat.17; for the Seleucid, Athen. iv. 155b; v. 211a; for the Ptolemaic, Diog. L. vii. 177; Athen. vi. 246c; Plut.Cleom.33; Just. xxx. 1.
7For the Antigonidναύαρχοςor admiral, see Polyb. xvi. 6.
MACEDONIUS,(1) bishop of Constantinople in succession to Eusebius of Nicomedia, was elected by the Arian bishops in 341, while the orthodox party elected Paul, whom Eusebius had superseded. The partisans of the two rivals involved the city in a tumultuous broil, and were not quelled until the emperor Constantius II. banished Paul. Macedonius was recognized as patriarch in 342. Compelled by the intervention of Constans in 348 to resign the patriarchate in favour of his former opponent, he was reinstalled in 350. He then took vengeance on his opponents by a general persecution of the adherents of theNicene Creed. In 359, on the division of the Arian party into Acacians (or pure Arians) and semi-Arians or Homoiousians, Macedonius adhered to the latter, and in consequence was expelled from his see by the council of Constantinople in 360. He now became avowed leader of the sect of Pneumatomachi, Macedonians or Marathonians, whose distinctive tenet was that the Holy Spirit is but a being similar to the angels, subordinate to and in the service of the Father and the Son, the relation between whom did not admit of a third. He did not long survive his deposition.
See the Church Histories of Socrates and Sozomen; Art. inDict. Chr. Biog.; F. Loofs in Herzog-Hauck’sRealencyk.; H. M. Gwatkin,Arianism.
See the Church Histories of Socrates and Sozomen; Art. inDict. Chr. Biog.; F. Loofs in Herzog-Hauck’sRealencyk.; H. M. Gwatkin,Arianism.
Macedonius, (2) bishop of Mopsuestia, was present at the councils of Nicaea and Philippopolis, and inclined to the reactionary party who thought the Athanasians had gone too far.
Macedonius, (3) bishop of Constantinople (fl. 510), a strict Chalcedonian who vainly opposed the fanaticism of the monophysite Severus and was deposed in 513.
MACEIÓorMaçayó, a city and port of Brazil and capital of the state of Alagôas, about 125 m. S.S.W. of Pernambuco, in lat. 9° 39′ 35″ S., long. 35° 44′ 36″ W. Pop. including a large rural district and several villages (1890), 31,498; (1908, estimate), 33,000. The city stands at the foot of low bluffs, about a mile from the shore line. The water-side village of Jaraguá, the port of Maceió, is practically a suburb of the city. South of the port is the shallow entrance to the Lagôa do Norte, of Lagôa Mundahú, a salt-water lake extending inland for some miles. Maceió is attractively situated in the midst of large plantations of coco-nut anddendépalms, though the broad sandy beach in front and the open sun-burned plain behind give a barren character to its surroundings. The heat is moderated by the S.E. trade winds, and the city is considered healthful. The public buildings are mostly constructed of broken stone and mortar, plastered outside and covered with red tiles, but the common dwellings are generally constructed oftapia—rough trellis-work walls filled in with mud. A light tramway connects the city and port, and a railway—the Alagôas Central—connects the two with various interior towns. The port is formed by a stone reef running parallel with and a half-mile from the shore line, within which vessels of light draft find a safe anchorage, except from southerly gales. Ocean-going steamers anchor outside the reef. The exports consist principally of sugar, cotton, and rum (aguardiente). Maceió dates from 1815 when a small settlement there was created a “villa.” In 1839 it became the provincial capital and was made a city by the provincial assembly.
McENTEE, JERVIS(1828-1891), American artist, was born at Rondout, New York, on the 14th of July 1828, and was a pupil of Frederick E. Church. He was made an associate of the National Academy of Design, New York, in 1860, and a full academician in 1861. In 1869 he visited Europe, painting much in Italy. He was identified with the Hudson River School, and excelled in pictures of autumn scenery. He died at Rondout, N.Y., on the 27th of January 1891.
MACER, AEMILIUS,of Verona, Roman didactic poet, author of two poems, one on birds (Ornithogonia), the other on the antidotes against the poison of serpents (Theriaca), imitated from the Greek poet Nicander of Colophon. According to Jerome, he died in 16B.C.It is possible that he wrote also a botanical work. The extant hexameter poemDe viribus(orvirtutibus)herbarum, ascribed to Macer, is a medieval production by Odo Magdunensis, a French physician. Aemilius Macer must be distinguished from the Macer calledIliacusin the Ovidian catalogue of poets, the author of an epic poem on the events preceding the opening of the Iliad. The fact of his being addressed by Ovid in one of the epistlesEx Pontoshows that he was alive long after Aemilius Macer. He had been identified with the son or grandson of Theophanes of Mytilene, the intimate friend of Pompey.
See Ovid,Tristia, iv. 10, 43; Quintilian,Instit.x. 1, 56, 87; R. Unger,De Macro Nicandri imitatore(Friedland, 1845); C. P. Schulze inRheinisches Museum(1898), liii. p. 541; for Macer Iliacus see Ovid,Ex Ponto, ii 10, 13, iv. 16, 6;Amores, ii. 18.
See Ovid,Tristia, iv. 10, 43; Quintilian,Instit.x. 1, 56, 87; R. Unger,De Macro Nicandri imitatore(Friedland, 1845); C. P. Schulze inRheinisches Museum(1898), liii. p. 541; for Macer Iliacus see Ovid,Ex Ponto, ii 10, 13, iv. 16, 6;Amores, ii. 18.
MACERATA,a city of the Marches, Italy, the chief town of the province of Macerata and a bishop’s see, 44 m. by rail S. of Ancona. Pop. (1901), 6,176 (town), 22,473 (commune). Crowning a hill 919 ft. above sea-level, with a picturesque mass of buildings enclosed by walls and towers, Macerata looks out over the Adriatic. The cathedral is modern, but some of the churches and palaces are not without interest. Besides the university, agricultural school and industrial institute, Macerata has a communal library founded by Leo XII., containing a small but choice collection of early pictures, and in the municipal buildings, a collection of antiquities from Helvia Ricina. There is an enormous amphitheatre orsferisterioforpallone, a ball game which is very popular in the district. The industries comprise the making of bricks, matches, terra-cotta and chemicals.
Macerata, as well as Recanati, was founded by the inhabitants of Ricina after the destruction of their city by Alaric in 408. During the Lombard period it was a flourishing town; but it was raised from comparative insignificance by Nicholas IV. to be the seat of the governors of the March. It was enclosed in the 13th century by a new line of walls more than 2½ m. in circuit; and in the troubles of the next two hundred years it had frequent occasion to learn their value. For the most part it remained faithful to the popes, and in return it was rewarded by a multitude of privileges. Though in 1797 the inhabitants opened their gates to the French, two years afterwards, when the country people took refuge within the walls, the city was taken by storm and delivered to pillage. The bishopric of Macerata dates from the suppression of the see of Recanati (1320).
MACFARREN, SIR GEORGE ALEXANDER(1813-1887), English composer, was born in London on the 2nd of March 1813, and entered the Royal Academy of Music in 1829. A symphony by him was played at an Academy concert in 1830; for the opening of the Queen’s Theatre in Tottenham Street, under the management of his father, in 1831, he wrote an overture. HisChevy Chaseoverture, the orchestral work by which he is perhaps best known, was written as early as 1836, and in a single night. On leaving the Academy in 1836, Macfarren was for about a year a music teacher in the Isle of Man, and wrote two unsuccessful operas. In 1837 he was appointed a professor at the Academy, and wrote hisRomeo and Julietoverture. In the following year he brought outThe Devil’s Opera, one of his best works. In 1843 he became conductor at Covent Garden, producing theAntigonewith Mendelssohn’s music; his opera onDon Quixotewas produced under Bunn at Drury Lane in 1846; his subsequent operas includeCharles II.(1849),Robin Hood(1860),She Stoops to Conquer(1864), andHelvellyn(1864). A gradual failure of his eyesight, which had been defective from boyhood, resulted in total blindness in 1865, but he overcame the difficulties by employing an amanuensis in composition, and made hardly a break in the course of his work. He was made principal of the Royal Academy of Music in succession to Sterndale Bennett in February 1875, and in March of the same year professor of music in Cambridge University. Shortly before this he had begun a series of oratorios:St John the Baptist(Bristol, 1873);Resurrection(Birmingham, 1876);Joseph(Leeds, 1877); andKing David(Leeds, 1883). In spite of their solid workmanship, and the skill with which the ideas are treated, it is difficult to hear or read them through without smiling at some of the touches of quite unconscious humour often resulting from the way in which the Biblical narratives have been, as it were, dramatized. He delivered many lectures of great and lasting value, and his theoretical works, such as theRudiments of Harmony, and the treatise on counterpoint, will probably be remembered longer than many of his compositions. He was knighted in 1883, and died suddenly in London on the 31st of October 1887.
An excellent memoir by H. C. Banister appeared in 1891.
An excellent memoir by H. C. Banister appeared in 1891.
McGEE, THOMAS D’ARCY(1825-1868), Irish-Canadian politician and writer, second son of James McGee, a coast-guard,was born at Carlingford, Co. Louth, on the 13th of April 1825. He early showed a remarkable aptitude for oratory. At the age of thirteen he delivered a speech at Wexford, and when four years later he emigrated to America he quickly gained a reputation as a writer and public speaker in the city of Boston. He thus attracted the attention of O’Connell, and before he was twenty years of age he returned to London to become parliamentary correspondent of theFreeman’s Journal, and shortly afterwards London correspondent of theNation, to which he also contributed a number of poems. He married in 1847 Mary Theresa Caffry, by whom he had two children. In 1846 he became one of the moving spirits in the “Young Ireland” party, and in promoting the objects of that organization he contributed two volumes to the “Library of Ireland.” On the failure of the movement in 1848 McGee escaped in the disguise of a priest to the United States, where between 1848 and 1853 he established two newspapers, theNew York Nationand theAmerican Celt. His writings at first were exceedingly bitter and anti-English; but as years passed he realized that a greater measure of political freedom was possible under the British constitution than under the American. He had now become well-known as an author, and as a lecturer of unusual ability. In 1857 McGee, driven from the United States by the scurrilous attacks of the extreme Irish revolutionaries, took up his abode in Canada, and was admitted to the bar of the province of Lower Canada in 1861. At the general election in 1858 he was returned to parliament as the member for Montreal, and for four years he was regarded as a powerful factor in the house. On the formation of the Sandfield-Macdonald-Sicotte administration in 1862 he accepted the office of president of the council. When the cabinet was reconstructed a year later the Irish were left without representation, and McGee sought re-election as a member of the opposite party. In 1864 he was appointed minister of agriculture in the administration of Sir E. P. Taché, and he served the country in that capacity until his death. He actively supported the policy of federation and was elected a member of the first Dominion parliament in 1867. On the 7th of April 1868, after having delivered a notable speech in the house, he was shot by an assassin as he was about to enter his house at Ottawa. His utterances against the Fenian invasion are believed to have been the cause of the crime for which P. J. Whelan was executed. McGee’s loss was keenly felt by all classes, and within a few weeks of his death parliament granted an annuity to his widow and children. McGee had great faith in the future of Canada as a part of the empire. Speaking at St John, N.B., in 1863, he said: “There are before the public men of British America at this moment but two courses: either to drift with the tide of democracy, or to seize the golden moment and fix for ever the monarchical character of our institutions. I invite every fellow colonist who agrees with me to unite our efforts that we may give our province the aspect of an empire, in order to exercise the influence abroad and at home of a state, and to originate a history which the world will not willingly let die.” Sir Charles Gavan Duffy considered that as a poet McGee was not inferior to Davis, and that as an orator he possessed powers rarer than those of T. F. Meagher.
McGee’s principal works are:A Popular History of Ireland(2 vols., New York, 1862; 1 vol., London, 1869);Irish Writers of the Seventeenth Century(Dublin, 1846);Historical Sketches of O’Connell and his Friends(Boston, 1844);Memoirs of the Life and Conquests of Art McMurrogh, King of Leinster(Dublin, 1847);Memoir of C. G. Duffy(Dublin, 1849);A History of the Irish Settlers in North America(Boston, 1851);History of the Attempts to establish the Protestant Reformation in Ireland(Boston, 1853);Life of Edward Maginn, Coadjutor Bishop of Derry(New York, 1857);Catholic History of North America(Boston, 1854);Canadian Ballads and Occasional Pieces(New York, 1858);Notes on Federal Governments Past and Present(Montreal, 1865);Speeches and Addresses, chiefly on the Subject of the British American Union(London, 1865);Poems, edited by Mrs M. A. Sadleir with introductory memoir (New York, 1869). See Fennings Taylor,The Hon. Thomas D’Arcy McGee(Montreal, 1867); J. K. Foran,Thomas D’Arcy McGee as an Empire Builder(Ottawa, 1904); H. J. O’C. French,A Sketch of the Life of the Hon. T. D. McGee(Montreal); Appleton’sCyclopaedia of American Biography., iv. 116; N. F. Dvin’sIrishman in Canada(1887); C. G. Duffy,Four Years of Irish History(1883); Alfred Webb,Compendium of Irish Biography(Dublin, 1878).
McGee’s principal works are:A Popular History of Ireland(2 vols., New York, 1862; 1 vol., London, 1869);Irish Writers of the Seventeenth Century(Dublin, 1846);Historical Sketches of O’Connell and his Friends(Boston, 1844);Memoirs of the Life and Conquests of Art McMurrogh, King of Leinster(Dublin, 1847);Memoir of C. G. Duffy(Dublin, 1849);A History of the Irish Settlers in North America(Boston, 1851);History of the Attempts to establish the Protestant Reformation in Ireland(Boston, 1853);Life of Edward Maginn, Coadjutor Bishop of Derry(New York, 1857);Catholic History of North America(Boston, 1854);Canadian Ballads and Occasional Pieces(New York, 1858);Notes on Federal Governments Past and Present(Montreal, 1865);Speeches and Addresses, chiefly on the Subject of the British American Union(London, 1865);Poems, edited by Mrs M. A. Sadleir with introductory memoir (New York, 1869). See Fennings Taylor,The Hon. Thomas D’Arcy McGee(Montreal, 1867); J. K. Foran,Thomas D’Arcy McGee as an Empire Builder(Ottawa, 1904); H. J. O’C. French,A Sketch of the Life of the Hon. T. D. McGee(Montreal); Appleton’sCyclopaedia of American Biography., iv. 116; N. F. Dvin’sIrishman in Canada(1887); C. G. Duffy,Four Years of Irish History(1883); Alfred Webb,Compendium of Irish Biography(Dublin, 1878).
(A. G. D.)
McGIFFERT, ARTHUR CUSHMAN(1861- ), American theologian, was born in Sauquoit, New York, on the 4th of March 1861, the son of a Presbyterian clergyman of Scotch descent. He graduated at Western Reserve College in 1882 and at Union theological seminary in 1885, studied in Germany (especially under Harnack) in 1885-1887, and in Italy and France in 1888, and in that year received the degree of doctor of philosophy at Marburg. He was instructor (1888-1890) and professor (1890-1893) of church history at Lane theological seminary, and in 1893 became Washburn professor of church history in Union theological seminary, succeeding Dr Philip Schaff. His published work, except occasional critical studies in philosophy, dealt with church history and the history of dogma. His best known publication is aHistory of Christianity in the Apostolic Age(1897). This book, by its independent criticism and departures from traditionalism, aroused the opposition of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church; though the charges brought against McGiffert were dismissed by the Presbytery of New York, to which they had been referred, a trial for heresy seemed inevitable, and McGiffert, in 1900, retired from the Presbyterian ministry and entered the Congregational Church, although he retained his position in Union theological seminary. Among his other publications are:A Dialogue between a Christian and a Jew(1888); a translation (with introduction and notes) of Eusebius’sChurch History(1890); andThe Apostles’ Creed(1902), in which he attempted to prove that the old Roman creed was formulated as a protest against the dualism of Marcion and his denial of the reality of Jesus’s life on earth.
McGILLIVRAY, ALEXANDER(c.1730-1793), American Indian chief, was born near the site of the present Wetumpka, in Alabama. His father was a Scotch merchant and his mother the daughter of a French officer and an Indian “princess.” Through his father’s relatives in South Carolina, McGillivray received a good education, but at the age of seventeen, after a short experience as a merchant in Savannah and Pensacola, he returned to the Muscogee Indians, who elected him chief. He retained his connexion with business life as a member of the British firm of Panton, Forbes & Leslie of Pensacola. During the War of Independence, as a colonel in the British army, he incited his followers to attack the western frontiers of Georgia and the Carolinas. Georgia confiscated some of his property, and after the peace of 1783 McGillivray remained hostile. Though still retaining his British commission, he accepted one from Spain, and during the remainder of his life used his influence to prevent American settlement in the south-west. So important was he considered that in 1790 President Washington sent an agent who induced him to visit New York. Here he was persuaded to make peace in consideration of a brigadier-general’s commission and payment for the property confiscated by Georgia; and with the warriors who accompanied him he signed a formal treaty of peace and friendship on the 7th of August. He then went back to the Indian country, and remained hostile to the Americans until his death. He was one of the ablest Indian leaders of America and at one time wielded great power—having 5000 to 10,000 armed followers. In order to serve Indian interests he played off British, Spanish and American interests against one another, but before he died he saw that he was fighting in a losing cause, and, changing his policy, endeavoured to provide for the training of the Muscogees in the white man’s civilization. McGillivray was polished in manners, of cultivated intellect, was a shrewd merchant, and a successful speculator; but he had many savage traits, being noted for his treachery, craftiness and love of barbaric display.
(W. L. F.)
MACGILLIVRAY, WILLIAM(1796-1852), Scottish naturalist, was born at Aberdeen on the 25th of January 1796. At King’s College, Aberdeen, he graduated in 1815, and also studied medicine, but did not complete the latter course. In 1823 he became assistant to R. Jameson, professor of natural history in Edinburgh University; and in 1831 he was appointed curator of the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons in Edinburgh, a postwhich he resigned in 1841 to become professor of natural history and lecturer on botany in Marischal College, Aberdeen. He died at Aberdeen on the 4th of September 1852. He possessed a wide and comprehensive knowledge of natural science, gained no less from personal observations in different parts of Scotland than from a study of collections and books. His industry and extensive knowledge are amply shown in his published works. He assisted J. J. Audubon in his classical works on theBirds of America, and edited W. Withering’sBritish Plants. His larger works include biographies of A. von Humboldt, and of zoologists from Aristotle to Linnaeus, aHistory of British Quadrupeds, aHistory of the Molluscous Animals of Aberdeen, Banff and Kincardine, aManual of British Ornithology, and aHistory of British Birds, in 5 vols. (1837-1852). The last work holds a high rank from the excellent descriptions of the structure, habits and haunts of birds, and from the use in classification of characters afforded by their anatomical structure. HisNatural History of Deeside, posthumously published by command of Queen Victoria, was the result of a sojourn in the highlands of Aberdeenshire in 1850. He made large collections, alike for the instruction of his students and to illustrate the zoology, botany and geology of the parts of Scotland examined by him, especially around Aberdeen, and a number of his original water-colour drawings are preserved in the British Museum (Natural History).
His eldest son,John Macgillivray(1822-1867), published an account of the voyage round the world of H.M.S. “Rattlesnake,” on board of which he was naturalist. Another son,Paul, published anAberdeen Florain 1853.
His eldest son,John Macgillivray(1822-1867), published an account of the voyage round the world of H.M.S. “Rattlesnake,” on board of which he was naturalist. Another son,Paul, published anAberdeen Florain 1853.
MacGREGOR, JOHN[”Rob Roy”] (1825-1892), Scottish canoeist, traveller and philanthropist, son of General Sir Duncan MacGregor, K.C.B., was born at Gravesend on the 24th of January 1825. He combined a roving disposition with a natural taste for mechanics and for literature. In 1839 he went to Trinity College, Dublin, and in 1844 to Trinity, Cambridge, where he was a wrangler. He was called to the bar in 1851, but did not pursue his profession. He travelled a great deal in Europe, Egypt, Palestine, Russia, Algeria and America, and between 1853 and 1863 was largely occupied with researches into the history and methods of marine propulsion. He was the pioneer of British canoeing. In 1865 he started on a long canoeing cruise in his “Rob Roy” canoe, and in this way made a prolonged water tour through Europe, a record of which he published in 1866 asA Thousand Miles in the Rob Roy Canoe. This book made MacGregor and his canoe famous. He made similar voyages in later years in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, the North Sea and Palestine. Another voyage, in the English Channel and on French waters, was made in a yawl. He published accounts of all these journeys. He did not, however, confine his energies to travelling. He was active in charity and philanthropic work, being one of the founders of the Shoe-black Brigade. In 1870 and again in 1873 he was elected on the London school board. He died at Boscombe on the 16th of July 1892.
MACH, ERNST(1838- ), Austrian physicist and psychologist, was born on the 18th of February 1838 at Turas in Moravia, and studied at Vienna. He was professor of mathematics at Gratz (1864-1867), of physics at Prague (1867-1895), and of physics at Vienna (1895-1901). In 1879 and 1880 asRector Magnificushe fought against the introduction of Czech instead of German in the Prague University. In 1901 he was made a member of the Austrian house of peers. In philosophy he began with a strong predilection for the physical side of psychology, and at an early age he came to the conclusion that all existence is sensation, and, after a lapse into noümenalism under the influence of Fechner’sPsychophysics, finally adopted a universal physical phenomenalism. The Ego he considers not an entity sharply distinguished from the Non-ego, but merely, as it were, a medium of continuity of sensory impressions. His whole theory appears to be vitiated by the confusion of physics and psychology.