No More Learning

1845), whose Prolegomena embrace B. C. 207. (Liv. xxvii. 30, xxviii. 7. ) The name
à large amount of information condensed into a of the Bithynian monarch was, in consequence,
small compass, will be found satisfactory. The included in the treaty of peace between Philip and
edition of Weitzius (8vo. Hann. 1613) contains a the Romans in B. C. 205 (Liv. xxix. 12), and we
complete collection of the earlier commentaries, subsequently find the two kings uniting their
and those of Chamillard, 4to. Paris, 1687 (in forces to besiege Cius in Bithynia, which, after it
usum Delph. ), of Cellarius, 8vo. Hal. 1703, 1739, had fallen into their hands, was sacked by order
and of Teolius (2 vols. 4to. Parm. 1788), are of Philip, the inhabitants sold as slaves, and the
considered valuable. These poems will be found city itself given up to Prusias. (Polyb. xv. 21,
also in the Bibliotheca Patrum Max. fol. Lug. xvii. 5 ; Liv. xxxii. 34 ; Strab. xii. p. 563. )
Bat. 1677, vol. v. p. 990, and in the collections of It does not appear that the latter, though he
Fabricius and Maittaire. (Gennad. de l'iris II. was connected by marriage with the Macedonian
13 ; J. P. Ludwig, Dissert. de Vita A. Prudentii, king, took any part in the decisive struggle of
Viteb. 4to. 1642; J. Le Clerque, Vie de Prudence, Philip with the Roman power (B. C. 200—196):
Amst. 1689; H. Middeldorpſ, Comment. de Pru- but in B. c. 190, when Antiochus was, in his turn,
dentio et Theologia Prudentiana, pt. i. 4to. Vratisl. preparing to contend with the republic, he made
1823, pt. ii. 4to. Vratisl. 1827. ) [W. R. ] repeated attempts to obtain the alliance of Prusias,
PRU'SIAS (IIpovolas). 1. From a passage of who was at first disposed to listen to his overtures,
Strabo (xii. p. 564) it would appear that there was but yielded to the arguments of the two Scipios,
a Prusias, king of Bithynia, as early as the time and concluded an alliance with Rome, though he
of Croesus, who was the founder of the city of appears to have, in fact, taken no part in the war
Prusa, at the foot of Mount Olympus, but the that followed. (Polyb. xxi. 9; Liv. xxxvii. 25 ;
reading, though confirmed by Stephanus Byzan- Appian. Syr. 23. ) After the termination of that
tinus (s. v. Npowoa) is probably corrupt. (See war, however, Prusias became involved in hosti-
Groskurd, ad Strab. l. c. ; ger, Hand. d. alt. lities with Eumenes, king of Pergamus, by which
Geogr. p. 386 ; Droysen, Hellenism. vol. ii. p. 655. ) he gave umbrage to the Romans, and he soon
2. A son of Prusias II. , surnamed Movódous, after greatly increased this offence by affording a
because all the teeth in his upper jaw were united shelter to their implacable enemy, the fugitive
into one solid mass. He probably died early, as Hannibal. The exiled general rendered important
nothing more is known of him. (Liv. Epit. I. ; services to the king in his contest with Eumenes,
Val. Max. i. 8. ext. 12 ; Plin. H. N. vii
. 16; but, notwithstanding these obligations, Prusias was
Tzetz. Chil. iii. 953, has confounded him with his unwilling to brave the anger of Rome, and when
father. )
(E. H. B. ) Flamininus was deputed by the senate to demand


## p. 560 (#576) ############################################

500
PRUSIAS.
PRUSIAS.
a
the surrender of Hannibal, the king basely gave | impending contest, and await the result with a
his consent, and the Carthaginian general only view to make his peace with whichever party
escaped falling into the hands of his enemies by a should prove victorious. (Liv. xlii. 12, 29; Appian,
voluntary death. (Polyb. xxiii. 18, xxiv. 1 ; Liv. Mithr. 2. ) In B. c. 169, however, he ventured to
xxxix. 51 ; Justin, xxxii. 4 ; Plut. Flamin. 20 ; send an embassy to Rome, to interpose his good
Corn. Nep. Hann. 10–12; App. Syr. 11; Eutrop: offices in favour of Perseus, and endeavour to pre-
iv. 5; Oros. iv. 20; Strab. xii. p. 563. )
vail upon the senate to grant him a peace upon
This is the last circumstance which can be re- favourable terms. His intervention, however, was
ferred with certainty to the elder Prusias : the haughtily rejected, and fortune having the next
period of his death, and of the accession of his son, year decided in favour of the Romans, Prusias
is not mentioned by any ancient writer, but Mr. sought to nvert any offence he might have given
Clinton regards the Prusins mentioned in the by this ill-judged step, by the most abject and
treaty of B. c. 179, between Eumenes and Phar- sordid flatteries. Ile received the Roman deputies
naces, as the second king of this name : and this who were sent to his court, in the garb which was
supposition, though not admitting of proof, appears characteristic of an emancipated slave, and styled
at least a very probable one. (Clinton, F. H. vol. ii. himself the freedman of the Roman people : and
p. 417. ) In this case we must place his death the following year, B c. 167, he himself repaired
between 103 and 179 B. C. It was apparently to Rome, where he sought to conciliate the favour
during the latter part of his reign that Prusias, of the senate by similar acts of slavish adulation.
who had already made himself master of Cierus, By this meanness he disarmed the resentment of
Tieios, and other dependencies of Heracleia, laid the Romans, and obtained a renewal of the league
siege to that city itself; but while pressing the between him and the republic, accompanied even
attack with vigour, he himself received a severe with an extension of territory. (Polyb. xxx. 16;
wound from a stone, which not only compelled Liv. xlv. 44 ; Diod. xxxi. Exc. Vat. p. 83, Exc.
him for a time to abandon the enterprise, but left Legat. p. 565; Appian. Mithr. 2 ; Eutrop. iv. 8;
him with a lameness for the remainder of his life. Zonar. ix. 24. )
On this account he is sometimes distinguished by From this time we find Prusias repeatedly sending
the epithet of the Lame (ó xwnós) (Meninon. embassies to Rome to prefer complaints against Eu-
c. 27, ed. Orell. )
menes, which, however, led to no results (Polyb.
Prusias appears to have been a monarch of vi. xxxi. 6, 9, xxxii. 3, 5), until, at length, in B. C.
gour and ability, and raised his kingdom of Bithy- 156, after the death of Eumenes, the disputes be-
nia to a much higher pitch of power and prostween his successor Attalus and the Bithynian
perity than it had previously attained. Like many king broke out into open hostilities. In these
of his contemporary princes, he sought distinction Prusias was at first successful, defeated Attalus
by the foundation or new settlement of cities, in a great battle, and compelled him to take refuge
among the most conspicuous of which were Cius in Pergamus, to which he laid siege, but without
and Myrleia on the Propontis, which he repeopled effect.
Meanwhile, Attalus had sent to Rome to
and restored after their ruin by Philip, bestowing complain of the aggression of the Bithynian king,
on the one his own name, while he called the other and an embassy was sent by the senate, to order
after his wife, Apameia. In addition to this, he Prusias to desist: but he treated this command
gave the name of Prusias also to the small city of with contempt, and attacking Attalus a second
Cierus, which he had wrested from the Heraclej-time, again drove him within the walls of Perga-
ans. (Strab. xii. p. 563 ; Steph. Byz. s. v. Ipowoa mus. But the following year the arms of Attalus
and 'Atrápera, Memnon. c. 41, 47. ) The foundation were more successful, and a fresh embassy from
of Prusa, at the foot of Mount Olympus, is also the senate at length compelled Prusins to make
ascribed to him by some authors. (Plin. v. 43. See peace, B. c. 154. (Polyb. xxxii. 25, 26, xxxiii. 1,
on this point Droysen, Hellenism. vol. ii. p. 655. ) | 10, 11; Appian. Mithr. 3 ; Diod. xxxi
. Exc. Vales.
Before the close of his reign, however, his power p. 589. ) Meanwhile, the Bithynian monarch had
received a severe blow by the loss of the Helle- alienated the minds of his subjects by his vices
spontine Phrygia, which he was compelled cede and cruelties, and his son Nicomedes had become
to the kings of Pergamus ; probably by the treaty the object of the popular favour and admiration.
which terminated the war already alluded to. This aroused the jealousy and suspicion of the old
(Strab. I. c. )
[E. H. B. ] king, who, in order to remove his son from the
PRU'SIAS II. (Ilpovolas), king of Bithynia, eyes of his countrymen, sent him to Rome: and
was the son and successor of the preceding. No subsequently, as his apprehensions still increased,
mention is found in any extant author of the pe gave secret instructions to his ambassador Menas
riod of his accession, and we only know that it to remove the young prince by assassination. Me
must have been subsequent to B. c. 183, as Strabo nas, however, finding how high Nicomedes stood in
distinctly tells us (xii. p. 563), that the Prusias the favour of the Roman senate, attached himself
who received Hannibal at his court, was the son to the cause of the prince, and united with Andro-
of Zielas. In BC. 179, we find the name of nicus the ambassador of Attalus in an attempt to
Prusias associated with Eumenes in the treaty establish Nicomedes on the throne of Bithynia
concluded by that monarch with Pharnaces, king Prusias was unable to make head against the dis-
of Pontus (Polyb. xxvi. 6), and this is supposed affection of his own subjects, supported by the
by Clinton to be the younger Prusias. It is cer- arms of Attalus, and after an ineffectual appeal to
tain, at least, that he was already on the throne the intervention of the Romans, who secretly fa-
before the breaking out of the war between the voured Nicomedes, shut himself up within the
Romans and Perseus, B. c. 171. Prusias had walls of Nicomedia. The gates were, however,
previously sued for and obtained in marriage a opened by the inhabitants, and Prusias himseli
sister of the Macedonian king, but notwithstanding was slain in a temple, to which he had fled for
this alliance he determined to keep aloof from the refuge. His death took place in B. C. 149. (Ap-


## p. 561 (#577) ############################################

PSAMMENITUS.
561
PSAMMITICHUS.
pian. Mithr. 4–7; Justin. xxxiv. 4 ; Liv. Epit. by Cambyses in B. c. 525, and his country made
I. ; Diod. xxxii. Exc. Phot. p. 523; Zonar. a province of the Persian empire. His life was
ix. 28. )
spared by Cambyses, but as he was detected
Prusias II. is described to us as a man in shortly afterwards in endeavouring to excite a
whom personal deformity was combined with a revolt among the Egyptians, he was compelled to
character the most vicious and degraded, and all put an end to his life by drinking bull's blood.
ancient authors concur in representing him as the (Herod. jii. 10, 13–15. )
Blave of every rice that was contemptible in a PSAMMIS (Váypis), king of Egypt, succeeded
man, or odious in a king. His passion for the his father Necho in B. C. 601, and reigned six
chase is attested by the epithet of the “Huntsman” years. lle carried on war against Ethiopia, and
(Kuvnyós), by which he is sometimes designated. died immediately after his return from the latter
(Polyb. xxx. 16, xxxvii. 2 ; Diod. xxxii. Exc. country. He was succeeded by his son A pries in
Vales.
p.
591 ; Appian. Midir. 2, 4; Liv. Epit. B. c. 596 or 595. (llerod. ii. 159–161. ) In con-
l. ; Athen. xi. p. 496. d. )
scquence of the shortness of his reign and his war
The chronology of the reigns of the two kings with the Ethiopians, his name does not occur in
who bore the name of Prusias is very obscure : the writers of the Old Testament, like those of his
the earlier writers, such as Reinerus and Sigonius, father and son. Herodotus is the only writer who
even confounded the two, and supposed that there calls him Psammis. Manetho calls him Psam-
was only one king of Bithynia of this name. Va múthis, and Rosellini and Wilkinson make him
lesius (ad Polyb. xxxvii. 2) was the first to point Psametik II. (Bunsen, Acgpytens Stelle in der
out this error: and the subject has since been fully Weltgeschichte, vol. iii. p. 130. )
investigated by Mr. Clinton (F. H. vol. iii. pp. 413, PSAMMI'TICHUS or PSAMME'TICHUS.
418. ) If we adopt the view of the last author, (Pauultixus or Yauuhtixos), the Greek form of
we may assign to the elder Prusias a reign of the Egyptian Psametik. 1. A king of Egypt
about 48 years (B. c. 228—180), and of 31 years and founder of the Saitic dynasty, reigned 54
to the younger (180—149). But of these dates years, according to Herodotus, that is, from B. C.
the only one that can be fixed with certainty is 671 to 617. * (Herod. ii. 157. ) The reign of this
that of the death of Prusias II. [E. H. B. ] monarch forms an important epoch in Egyptian
history. It was during his time that the Greeks
were first introduced into Egypt; and accordingly
the Greek writers were no longer exclusively de-
pendent on the accounts of the Egyptian priests
for the history of the country. Psammitichus was
the son of Necho, and after his father had been put
to death by Sabacon, the Aethiopian usurper of the
Egyptian throne, he fled to Syria, and was restored
to Egypt by the inhabitants of the Saitic district,
of which he was a native, when Sabacon abandoned
PRY'TANIS (Tipútavis). 1. A king of Sparta, Egypt in consequence of a dream. (Herod. ii.
of the Proclid line, who, according to Pausanias, | 152. ) The manner in which Psammitichus obtained
was the son of Eurypon, and fourth king of that possession of the kingdom is related at length by
The same author ascribes to his reign the Herodotus. After the death of Setho, the king
commencement of the wars between Sparta and and priest of Hephaestos, the dominion of Egypt
Argos. Diodorus allots a period of forty-nine was divided among twelve kings, of whom Psam-
years to his reign, but omits all notice of the two mitichus was one.
kings between him and Procles. It is needless to This period is usually called the Dodecarchia.
remark, that the chronology, and even the gene The twelve kings probably obtained their inde-
alogy, of the kings of Sparta before Lycurgus, is pendent sovereignty in the confusion which fol-
probably apocryphal. (Paus. iii. 7. § 2 ; Diod. lowed the death of Setho, of which Diodorus
ap. Euseb. Arm. p. 150. )
speaks (i. 66), and to which Isaiah probably al-
2. One of the sons of PARISADES I. , king ludes, when he says (Is. xix. 2), " they fought
of Bosporus. He appears to have submitted every one against his brother, and every one
without opposition to the authority of his elder against his neighbour ; city against city, and king-
brother Satyrus, who ascended the throne on the dom against kingdom. ” The Dodecarchia is not
death of Parisades, B. C. 311, and was left by him mentioned by Manetho, but he makes three kings
in charge of his capital city of Panticapaeum, of the Saitic dynasty intervene between the last
during the campaign in which he engaged against of the Ethiopians and Psammitichus. This, how-
their remaining brother Eumelus. Satyrus him- ever, need occasion us no surprise, because, as
self having fallen on this expedition, Prytanis as- Bunsen remarks, lists of dynasties know nothing of
sumed the sovereign power, but was defeated by anarchies or dodecarchies ; and, in the chronological
Eumelus, and compelled to conclude a treaty, by tables of a monarchy, the name of a prince has the
which he resigned the crown to his brother. Not- dynastic right of occupying the period, which the
withstanding this, he made a second attempt to historian must represent as an anarchy or a divided
recover it, but was again defeated, and put to sovereignty. Thus Louis XVIII. did not enter
death by order of Eumelus. His wife and chil- France as king till the eighteenth year of his
dren shared the same fate. (Diod. xx. 22– reign, and Louis XVII. is never even mentioned
24. )
(E. H. B. ) in French history.
ÚSAMATOSIRIS.