Agesilaus would rather have perished than have relaxed. It was the humbler object of Aratus to render the kings of Macedon allies and protectors, though not masters of Greece; and, by deferring much to their influence, to preserve what was most essential, the free regulation of their internal concerns, and a security from foreign garrisons in their cities. This object would have been more completely attained, if the other cities of Greece had been less jealous of the league; and its failure was perhaps chiefly owing to Cleomenes, king of Sparta, whose merits have been a good deal exaggerated by Plutarch. The following account is given by Dr. Gillies, from Polybius, of the battle of Sellasia, fought about a century after the death of Alexander, between that prince and the united forces of Macedon and the Achean confederacy.

Before coming to Sellasia, Antigonus had to pass a valley, the entrance to which was overhung by two hills, Eva and Olympus, forming respectively its eastern and western defences. Between these hills the river Oenus flowed to join the Eurotas, and along the bank of the Oenus, and afterwards of the united stream, the road led almost in a direct line to the Lacedemonian capital. When Antigonus approached the valley of Sellasia, he found that the enemy had seized both hills, and also had thrown up intrenchments before them. Cleomenes, with the Spartans, had chosen Olympus for his post; his brother, Eucleidas, with the armed peasants, occupied Eva: the intermediate valley, on both sides the road, was defended by the cavalry and mer. cenaries. Instead of rashly engaging an enemy so strongly posted, Antigonus en⚫amped at a moderate distance, having the river Gorgylus in front, and watchful of every opportunity to ascertain the distinctive qualities of the enemy's force, as well as the nature of the ground in which its several divisions were posted. He frequently alarmed them by shows of attack, but found them on all sides secure. At length, both kings, impatient of delay, and alike emulous of glory, embraced the resolution of coming to a general engagement.

Antigonus had sent his Illyrians across the river Gorgylus in the night. They were to begin the assault of Mount Eva, accompanied by 3000 Macedonian targeteers, troops less heavily armed than the phalanx, and equipped in all points like the Argyraspides, who make so conspicuous a figure in former parts of this work, only that their targets were plated, not with silver, but with brass. The Acarnanians and Cretans composed the second line. Two thousand Acheans, all chosen men, followed as a body of reserve. Antigonus's cavalry, commanded by Alexander, the son of Admetus, was ranged along the banks of the Oenus. It was not to advance against the enemy's horse, until a purple signal had been raised on the side of Olympus by the king, who, at the head of the Macedonian phalanx, purposed to combat Cleomenes and his Spartans. A white ensign of linen first floated in the air. The Illyrians, for this was their summons to action, boldly marched up Mount Eva, and were followed by the divisions appointed to sustain them. Upon this movement, the Acheans, forming the rear, were unexpectedly assailed by a body of light infantry, who sprang from amidst the ranks of the enemy's horse. The confusion occasioned by an onset, equally sudden and daring, threatened to give an easy victory to Eucleidas and his Lacedemonians, who, from the heights of Eva, might descend with great advantage against the disordered troops that had come to dislodge them. The danger was perceived by Philopemen. He communicated his apprehensions to Alexander, who commanded the Macedonian cavalry. But, as the purple ensign was not yet hoisted, Alexander disregarded the advice of an inexperienced youth. The character of that youth, however, was better known to his fellow citizens of Megalopolis. They obeyed an authority derived from patriotism and merit, and seconded his ardour to seize the moment of assault. The shouts and shock of the engaging horsemen recalled the light troops who harassed the Macedonians in their ascent to Eva; by which means, the latter, having recovered their order of battle, routed and slew Eucleidas. Philopemen's exertions in the action seemed worthy of his generalship, in an age when example in battle was held essential to the enforcement of precept. After his horse fell under him, he still fought on foot, though pierced with a spear through both thighs, and was not born from the field till the victory was decided. Shortly after that event, Antigonus asked Alexander, who commanded his cavalry, "Why he had charged before orders:" Alexander said,

"The fault was not his; for a young man of Megalopolis had, in defiance of authority, rushed forwards with his countrymen, and thus precipitated the engagement." Antigonus replied: "You acted the part of a young man; that youth of Megalopolis showed himself a great general."

Cleomenes, meanwhile, perceiving the total rout of his right wing under Eucleidas, and seeing that his cavalry also was on the point of giving way, became fearful of being surrounded. For retrieving the honour of the day, he determined to quit his intrenchments; and, at the head of his Spartan spearmen, to attack Antigonus and the phalanx. The king of Macedon gladly embraced an opportunity of bringing the contest to this issue. The trumpets on both sides recalled their light skirmishers, who obstructed the space between the hostile lines. In the first shock, the weight of the Macedonians was overcome by the impetuous valour of the Spartans ; but Antigonus, who had drawn up his men in what was called the double phalanx, had no sooner strengthened his foremost line, by the cooperation of his reserve, than his thickened ranks, bristling with protended spears, bore down all resistance. The Spartans were put to the rout, and pursued with that merciless destruction which generally followed such close and fierce engagements. Cleomenes escaped with a few horsemen to Sparta.

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

In the elevated region of Elymais, the southern appendage to Mount Zayros, there was a staple, or depository of this kind, at the meeting of the caravan roads connecting Media with Persia and Susiana. This temple, which had been adorned by the great Alexander, Antiochus determined to plunder. His assault was made in the night. The guards of the sacred enclosure defended their idols and treasures. They were assisted by hardy mountaineers, ever ready and armed, in its neighbourhood. A blind, tumultuary engagement ensued, in which the king fell, fighting at once against the religion, the commerce, and the arts of his country. Vol. II. p. 345. At some distance, we find the death of Antiochus Epiphanes related in the following manner.

During the war in Palestine, so disastrous to the Syrians, Antiochus had prosecuted an expedition, not less disastrous, into Upper Asia. In the march thither, his proceedings are very imperfectly explained; but in the return, part of the army being left to collect tribute, Antiochus, with a powerful escort, advanced to plunder a temple and rich staple of trade in Elymais, the southern appendage to Mount Zayros, and the main caravan communication between Susiana and Media. In this impious attempt to rifle treasures under the protection of Venus or Diana, whose altars had been honoured and enriched by the great Alexander, he was defeated, with peculiar circumstances of disgrace, by the inhabitants of the surrounding district, and reduced to the necessity of making a speedy retreat to Ecbatana, the capital of Media. There he first learned the repeated discomfitures and routs of his armies; tidings which exasperated to fury the wounds which his pride had received, in the late repulse from Elymais. In the fire of his rage, he swore that he would render Palestine the sepulchre of the Jews; and, precipitating his march westward for that purpose, was overthrown in his chariot, and died of his wounds, at the obscure village Tabæ, situate somewhere on the mountainous confines of Assyria. p. 472.

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

The obscure goddess Iranea, should seem to have held her seat among the defiles of Mount Zayros. Antiochus, on pretence that he came to betroth her, entered the temple, slightly accompanied, to receive her umulated opulence by way of dower. But the priests of Iranea, having shut the outward gates of the sacred en

closure, opened the concealed doors on the roof of the temple, and overwhelmed the king and his attendants, as with thunderbolts from on high; then casting their mutilated remains without the walls, thus awfully announced to the Syrians, who waited his return, the disaster of their king, and the terrifick majesty of the goddess. p. 552.

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

The royal invader fell into the hands of the enemy, after being defeated in a great battle, decisive of the independence and future dominion of the Parthians. His life was spared by Tiridates, who had assumed the place and name of his elder brother Arsaces, the author of the Parthian revolt. Seleucus was retained ten years in the roughest province, and among the fiercest people of Upper Asia; but, during all that time, treated by his conqueror with the respect due to his rank and misfortunes. Vol. II. p. 9.

More than a century afterwards, we are told of another Syrian monarch, a certain Demetrius Nicator; "that he was taken prisoner by the Parthians, and retained by them ten years in a loose and honourable captivity." p. 546. The coincidence here, likewise, is suspicious, though less for the fact itself, than for the precise agreement in the number of years; which, we apprehend, Dr. Gillies has transposed from the second story to the first, through mere inattention. Atheneus, the authority whom he quotes for the captivity of Seleucus, says only, that he remained oλv xeovov, a great length of time, in Parthia. But as Atheneus, who is no historian, mentions the subject only incidentally, while Justin gives an incompatible account, we are inclined to believe that the former writer has, through negligence, put one name in place of another.

In the following note an eminent writer is unjustly censured.

"Warburton's great merit, in the explanation of the origin and nature "of hieroglyphicks, is generally and justly admired; yet he has not ex"hausted the subject, and I cannot reconcile all of his conclusions with the "only existing authorities concerning it; viz. Herodotus, 1. 5. c. 36.—Dio"dorus, 1. 3. c. 4.-Porphyr. in Vit. Pythag-Clemens Alexand. 5."Strom. p. 555. and a fragment of Manetho in Eusebius's Chronicle, p. 6. "In this fragment Warburton, instead of iegoyapinois ygauμaoi, substitutes 66 ιερογραφικοις γραμμασιν. His reason for this correction is, that ιερογλυφικοις "being always used by the acients to denote characters of things, in op. 66 position to alphabetick letters, or characters of words, ought not to be joined with reapon, which denotes characters of words only. Because

"¡egoyλupina always denotes characters of things, Warburton concluded "that yeauuala always denoted characters of words. The conclusion is "illogical, and contradictory to one of the passages on which our whole “ knowledge of the subject rests. Πηρι δε των Αιθιοπικών γραμμηλών των παρ' “AlyUrl1015 ¡egoyaviy xavy. Diodorus, I. 3. c. 4. Conf. Divine Lega ❝tion, b. 4. s. 4. Vol. I. p. 48.

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

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

monuments.

This, however true at the time he wrote, cannot now be asserted; since the celebrated Rosetta stone, in the British Museum, is engraved with three distinct sets of characters, Greek, Egyptian, and a third resembling what are called hieroglyphicks. The only doubt that can be entertained is, whether these are strictly hieroglyphicks; that is, representations of things; or, rather, an alphabetical character, peculiar to the priesthood, and called hierogrammaticks. 1. The existence of this sacred alphabet is attested by Herodotus, Diodorus, and several other writers. 2. It went occasionally under the name of hieroglyphick, as appears not only by the passage quoted above from Manetho, if we do not alter the text, but from one in Porphyry, which may be found in Warburton. 3. It was, however,

considered as perfectly distinct from the genuine hieroglyphick, which was always understood to denote things, either by mere picture writing, or, more commonly, by very refined allegory. 4. Works of a popular and civil nature were written in this character, as we learn from Clement of Alexandria; whereas the genuine hieroglyphick was exceedingly secret and mysterious, and the knowledge of it confined to the priesthood. 5. The inscription upon the Rosetta stone is said, in the terms of the decree contained in it, to be written in sacred, national, and Greek characters. Τοις δε ξεροις, και εγχωρίοις, και Ελληνικοις γραμμασιν. 6. It could not be a myste rious character, such as the genuine hieroglyphick seems to have been, because it was exposed to publick view with a double translation. 7. It occupies a considerable space upon the stone, although an indefinite part of it is broken off; although the real hieroglyphick, as is natural to emblematick writing, appears to have been exceedingly compendious. 8. The characters do not appear to be very numerous, as they recur in various combinations of three, four, or more, as might be expected from the letters of an alphabet. But this argument we do not strongly press, because our examination has not been very long. It appears to hold out a decisive test; and we offer it, as such, to the ingenuity of antiquaries.

Upon these grounds, we think, that the characters upon the Rosetta stone, which are commonly denominated hieroglyphicks, are, in fact, the original, alphabetick characters of the Egyptians; from which the others have probably been derived, by a gradual corruption through haste in writing. They are, however, in one sense, hieroglyphicks, being tolerably accurate delineations of men, animals, and instruments. If we are right in our conjectures, the value of the Rosetta stone is incomparably greater than has been imagined. We have no need of hieroglyphicks. Roman and Egyptian monuments are full of them. But a primitive alphabet, probably the earliest ever formed in the world, and illustrating an important link in the history of writing, the adaptation of signs to words, is certainly a discovery very interesting to any philosophical mind. Through what steps the analysis of articulate sound, into its constituent parts, was completed, if we can say that it ever has been completed, so as to establisk distinct marks for each of them; and whether these marks were taken at random, or from some supposed analogy between the simple sounds they were brought to represent. and their primary, hieroglyphical meaning, are questions which still stand in need of solution. We offer these remarks with equal diffidence as to their truth and their originality. If to any of our learned readers they should not appear new, we entreat their candour for troubling them with opinions, which, so far as our limited information extends, have not hitherto been made publick.

In recompense to Dr. Gillies, we will quote a passage in which he has cleared up a difficulty which perplexed two eminent writers.

''

"The vastness of the palace, or rather the palaces of Alexandria, need "not surprise us, if we admit that the imperial palace at Rome was larger "than all the rest of that capital. Hume, in his Essay on the Populousness "of ancient Nations, p. 473, is justly incredulous with regard to this point; " and Gibbon endeavours to remove the difficulty by saying, that the emhad confiscated the houses and gardens of opulent senators, perours "therefore, included under the name of the imperial palace.-Decline “ and Fall, c. 6. p. 161. But upon turning to the passage in Herodian, 1. "4, c. 1. on which this incredible account of the magnitude of the impe❝rial palace wholly rests, the words convey to me a different meaning from "that in which they are taken by all Latin translators, not excepting the "learned Politian. The historian relates, that the sons of Severus, upon "their father's death at York, hastened by the shortest road to Rome, "never eating at the same table, nor sleeping in the same house. "rapidity of their journey was urged by their desire of taking up separate xc quarters in the amplitude of the royal palace, greater than any city, 66 TASKS TONEWS MEICO. Herodian institutes, not a comparison between the "magnitude of Rome and that of its imperial palace; he only intimates, "generally and indefinitely, the magnitude of the palace, in distinct wings ❝ of which, Caracalla and Geta thought they would be safer from each other's "machinations than in the cities of Gaul and Italy, through which they had "to pass."

The

We thoroughly concur in this opinion. Indeed, it might be stated with more absolute confidence than it is by Dr. Gillies. It excites a suspicion that both Mr. Hume and Mr. Gibbon must have looked at the wrong column in the page of their Herodian. That historian seems to have spoken rhetorically, and called the royal palace at Rome greater than any city, merely as a hyperbolical expression to denote its prodigious extent.

Our opinion of Dr. Gillies's work may be justly collected from what we have said already. It does not appear to present such a luminous,