B.C. 352.

Satyrus becomes despotvated crueltyhis mili

weening insolence of personal demeanour, adopting an Oriental costume and ornaments, and proclaiming himself the son of Zeus-as Alexander the Great did after him. Amidst all these enormities, however, his literary tastes did not forsake him; he collected a library, at that time a very rare possession'. Many were the conspiracies attempted by suffering citizens against this tyrant; but his vigilance baffled and punished all. At length two young men, Chion and Leonides (they too having been among the hearers of Plato), found an opportunity to stab him at a Dionysiac festival. They, with those who seconded them, were slain by his guards, after a gallant resistance; but Klearchus himself died of the wound, in torture and mental remorse2.

His death unfortunately brought no relief to the Herakleots. The two sons whom he left, Timotheus and Dionysius, were both minors; but his brother Satyrus, administering in their name, grasped the sceptre and continued the despotism, with cruelty tary vigour. not merely undiminished, but even aggravated and sharpened by the past assassination. Not inferior to his predecessor in energy and vigilance, Satyrus was in this respect different, that he was altogether rude and unlettered. Moreover he was rigidly scrupulous in preserving the crown for his brother's children, as soon as they should be of age. To ensure to them an undisturbed succession, he took every precaution to avoid begetting children of his

Memnon, c. 1. The seventh Epistle of Isokrates, addressed to Timotheus son of Klearchus, recognises generally this character of the latter; with whose memory Isokrates disclaims all sympathy. 2 Memnon, c. 1; Justin, xvi. 5; Diodor. xvi. 36.

CHAP. XCVIII.]

TIMOTHEUS DESPOT.

629

own by his wife'. After a rule of seven years, Satyrus died of a lingering and painful distemper.

of Timo

theus, just

and mild

his energy and ability.

The government of Herakleia now devolved on B.C. 345. Timotheus, who exhibited a contrast, alike marked Despotism and beneficent, with his father and uncle. Renouncing all their cruelty and constraint, he set at liberty every man whom he found in prison. He was strict in dispensing justice, but mild and even liberal in all his dealings towards the citizens. At the same time, he was a man of adventurous courage, carrying on successful war against foreign enemies, and making his power respected all around. With his younger brother Dionysius, he maintained perfect harmony, treating him as an equal and partner. Though thus using his power generously towards the Herakleots, he was, however, still a despot, and retained the characteristic marks of despotismthe strong citadel, fortified separately from the town, with a commanding mercenary force. After a reign

1 Memnon, c. 2. ἐπὶ δὲ τῇ φιλαδελφίᾳ τὸ πρῶτον ἐνέγκατο· τὴν γὰρ ἀρχὴν τοῖς τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ παισὶν ἀνεπηρέαστον συντηρῶν, ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον τῆς αὐτῶν κηδεμονίας λόγον ἐτίθετο, ὡς καὶ γυναικὶ συνὼν, καὶ τότε λίαν στεργομένῃ, μὴ ἀνασχέσθαι παιδοποιῆσαι, ἀλλὰ μηχανῇ πάσῃ γονῆς στέ ρησιν ἑαυτῷ δικάσαι, ὡς ἂν μήδ' ὅλως ὑπολίποι τινὰ ἐφεδρεύοντα τοῖς τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ παισίν.

In the Antigonid dynasty of Macedonia, we read that Demetrius, son of Antigonus Gonatas, died leaving his son Philip a boy. Antigonus called Doson, younger brother of Demetrius, assumed the regency on behalf of Philip; he married the widow of Demetrius, and had children by her; but he was so anxious to guard Philip's succession against all chance of being disturbed, that he refused to bring up his own children Ὁ δὲ παιδῶν γενομένων ἐκ τῆς Χρυσηΐδος, οὐκ ἀνεθρέψατο, τὴν ἀρχὴν tập didiññậ mepiowwv (Porphyry, Fragm. ap. Didot, Fragm. Histor. Græc. vol. iii. p. 701).

In the Greek and Roman world, the father was generally considered to have the right of determining whether he would or would not bring up a new-born child. The obligation was only supposed to commence when he accepted or sanctioned it, by taking up the child.

B.C. 336.

of Dionysius-his

popular and vigorous government-his prudent dealing

with the Macedonians, during the

absence of in the East.

Alexander

of about nine years, he died, deeply mourned by every one'.

Dionysius, who succeeded him, fell upon unsettled Despotism times, full both of hope and fear; opening chances of aggrandisement, yet with many new dangers and uncertainties. The sovereignty which he inherited doubtless included, not simply the city of Herakleia, but also foreign dependencies and possessions in its neighbourhood; for his three predecessors had been all enterprising chiefs, commanding a considerable aggressive force. At the commencement of his reign, indeed, the ascendency of Memnon and the Persian force in the north-western part of Asia Minor was at a higher pitch than ordinary; it appears too that Klearchus-and probably his successors also-had always taken care to keep on the best terms with the Persian court3. But presently came the invasion of Alexander (334 B.C.), with the battle of the Granikus, which totally extinguished the Persian power in Asia Minor, and was followed, after no long interval, by the entire conquest of the Persian empire. The Persian control being now removed from Asia Minorwhile Alexander with the great Macedonian force merely passed through it to the east, leaving viceroys behind him-new hopes of independence or aggran

1 Memnon, c. 3. The Epistle of Isokrates (vii.) addressed to Timotheus in recommendation of a friend, is in harmony with this general character, but gives no new information.

Diodorus reckons Timotheus as immediately succeeding Klearchus his father-considering Satyrus simply as regent (xvi. 36).

We hear of Klearchus as having besieged Astakus (afterwards Nikomedia)—at the interior extremity of the north-eastern indentation of the Propontis, called the Gulf of Astakus (Polyænus, ii. 30, 3). 3 Memnon, c. 1.

CHAP. XCVIII.]

DIONYSIUS OF HERAKLEIA.

631

disement began to arise among the native princes in Bithynia, Paphlagonia, and Kappadokia. The Bithynian prince even contended successfully in the field against Kalas, who had been appointed by Alexander as satrap in Phrygia'. The Herakleot Dionysius, on the other hand, enemy by position of these Bithynians, courted the new Macedonian potentates, playing his political game with much skill in every way. He kept his forces well in hand, and his dominions carefully guarded; he ruled in a mild and popular manner, so as to preserve among the Herakleots the same feelings of attachment which had been inspired by his predecessor. While the citizens of the neighbouring Sinôpê (as has been already related) sent their envoys to Darius, Dionysius kept his eyes upon Alexander; taking care to establish a footing at Pella, and being peculiarly assiduous in attentions to Alexander's sister, the princess Kleopatra. He was the better qualified for this courtly service, as he was a man of elegant and ostentatious tastes, and had purchased from his namesake, the fallen Syracusan Dionysius, all the rich furniture of the Dionysian family, highly available for presents3.

Return of

Alexander

to

to Susa

he is soli

re

By the favour of Antipater and the regency at Pella, the Herakleotic despot was enabled both maintain and extend his dominions, until the turn of Alexander to Susa and Babylon in 324 B.C. All other authority was now superseded by the personal will of the omnipotent conqueror; who,

1 Memnon, c. 20.

2 Memnon, c. 3.

3 Memnon, c. 3. See in this History, Vol. XI. Ch. lxxxv. p. 217.

cited by

the

the Herakleotic

exilesDionysius,

danger of

averted by the death of Alexander.

mistrusting all his delegates-Antipater, the princesses, and the satraps-listened readily to complainants from all quarters, and took particular pride in espousing the pretensions of Grecian exiles. I have already recounted how, in June 324 b.c., Alexander promulgated at the Olympic festival a sweeping edict, directing that in every Grecian city the exiles should be restored-by force, if force was required. Among the various Grecian exiles, those from Herakleia were not backward in soliciting his support, to obtain their own restoration, as well as the expulsion of the despot. As they were entitled, along with others, to the benefit of the recent edict, the position of Dionysius became one of extreme danger. He now reaped the full benefit of his antecedent prudence, in having maintained both his popularity with the Herakleots at home, and his influence with Antipater, to whom the enforcement of the edict was entrusted. He was thus enabled to ward off the danger for a time; and his good fortune rescued him from it altogether, by the death of Alexander in June 323 B.C. That event, coming as it did unexpectedly upon every one, filled Dionysius with such extravagant joy, that he fell into a swoon; and he commemorated it by erecting a statue in honour of Euthymia, or the tranquillising Goddess. His position however seemed again precarious, when the Herakleotic exiles renewed their solicitations to Perdikkas ; who favoured their cause, and might probably have restored them, if he had chosen to direct his march towards the Hellespont against Antipater and Kra