صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

dwelt in the district of Hebron, and in the neigh- | bourhood of the Amorites. (Gen. xxiii. 7, seq.; Numb. xiii. 29.) Solomon compelled them to pay tribute along with the other Canaanitish tribes (1 Kings, ix, 20, seq.); but we find them at a later period (in the time of Joram, king of Israel) governed by kings of their own (2 Kings, vii. 6). The Hittites are also mentioned after the return of the Jews from captivity (Ezra, ix. 1); but after this time their name does not occur again.

HIVITES (Evaĵo, LXX.), one of the tribes of the Canaanites, whom the Israelites found in Palestine. (Gen. x. 17; Exod. iii. 8, 17, xxiii. 23; Josh. iii. 10.) They dwelt in the north of the country, at the oot of Mount Hermon (Judg. iii. 3), and appear to have been driven by the Israelites to the north-west, as we find them mentioned in the time of David together with Tyre and Sidon. (2 Sam. xxiv. 7.) The remnant of the nation was reduced to subjection by Solomon (1 Kings, ix 20), after which they disappear from history.

HOLMI COлuo: Eth. 'Oλueús), a town on the coast of Cilicia Tracheia, a little to the south-west of Seleucia; during the period after Alexander its inhabitants were transferred to form the population of the neighbouring Seleuceia. (Strab. xiv. p. 670; Scylax, p. 40; Steph. B. s. v.; Plin. v. 22, who calls the place Holmia.) Leake (Asia Minor, p. 205) thinks the modern town of Aghaliman occupies the site of the ancient Holmi, which Scylax describes as deserted even in his time.

Another town of the same name existed in Phrygia, on the road from Apameia to Iconium, at the entrance into a pass of Mount Taurus. (Strab. xiv. p. 663.) It is probable that it may have been the same place as the fort Myriocephalon, by which the emperor Manuel Comnenus passed in A. D. 1172, before the battle of Iconium. (Nicet. Chonat. p. 115.) [L. S.]

HOLMO'NES. [OLMONES.]
HOLOPHYXUS. [OLOPHYXUS].

HOMANA, mentioned by Pliny (v. 23) as a town in Pisidia, is no doubt the same as Ovuaváda in Hierocles (p. 675). It was, probably, situated at the southern extremity of lake Caralitis, and was the capital of the Homanades on the frontier of Isauria, who, besides Homana, are said to have possessed 44 forts (comp. Tac. Ann. iii. 48), a statement opposed to the remarks of Strabo (xii. pp. 569, 668, 679), according to which the Homanades ('Ouavadeis), the most barbarous of all Pisidian tribes, dwelt on the northern slope of the highest nountains without any towns or villages, living only in caves. In the reign of Augustus, the consul Quirinius compelled this little tribe, by famine, to surrender, and distributed 4000 of them as colonists among the neighbouring towns. [L. S.]

HOMANADES. [HOMANA.]

HOMERITAE (Oμnpírau, Peripl. p. 13; Marcian, p. 13; Plin. vi. 28; Ptol. vi. 7), a people of Arabia Felix who occupied its S. promontory (Yémen). The Arabs of Yémen, who are well known in Oriental history under the name of Himyari, and to the Greeks by the name of Homeritae, were a civilised people in very remote ages. They pos.. sessed a rich and fertile territory, very advantageously situated for commerce. The Himyaritic dynasty of the Tobbai (from the Arabic Tabbaiah, which had a general signification like that of Emperor, Khán, Pharaoh, Caesar, &c.; D'Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale s. v. Tobbá) is referred to a

very early period, and their power appears to have been very extended, as monumental traces of the Himyari have been found not only in Yémen, but in distant countries both to the E. and W. There is a considerable affinity between the Himyari character and the well-known and most ancient Devanagari Sanscrit. The earliest writing was probably the Himyaritic, even anterior to the Cuneiform characters.

The independence of the Homeritae was first violated by an Aethiopian conqueror. (Procop. B. P. i. 19, 20.) Those who wish to study the very obscure question of the Jewish and Abyssinian kingdoms in Homeritis will find much valuable information in Dean Milman's notes upon the 42nd chapter of Gibbon, and the authorities there quoted, especially the very able notes of Saint Martin upon Le Beau (Bas Empire, vol. viii. pp. 46—67, 153— 158), to which may be added Ritter, Erdkunde, vol. xiv. p. 38; Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, vol. i. p. 383, 2nd edit. 1851; Humboldt, Cosmos, vol. ii. p. 206, trans. ; and the 2nd volume of Colonel Chesney's Expedition to the Euphrates. It may be sufficient here to quote the words of Gibbon:

"If a Christian power had been maintained in Arabia, Mahomet must have been crushed in his cradle, and Abyssinia would have prevented a revolution which has changed the civil and religious state of the world." [E. B. J.]

HO'MOLE or HOMOʻLIUM ('Oμóλn, Strab. ix. p. 443; 'Opódiov, Strab. I. c., Liv. xlii. 38; Plin. iv. 9. s. 16), a town of Thessaly, situated at the foot of Mt. Homole, and near the edge of the vale of Tempe. Mt. Homole was the part of the chain of Ossa lying between Tempe and the modern village of Karitzu. Mt. Homole is sometimes used as synonymous with Ossa. It was celebrated as a favourite haunt of Pan, and as the abode of the Centaurs and the Lapithae. Pausanias describes it as the most fertile mountain in Thessaly, and well supplied with fountains. (Paus. ix. 8. § 6; Eurip. Herc. Fur. 371; Theocr. Idyll. vii. 104; Virg. Aen. vii. 675; Steph. B. s. v. 'Oμ¿λn.) The exact site of the town is uncertain. Both Scylax and Strabo seem to place it on the right bank of the Peneius near the exit of the vale of Tempe, and consequently at some distance from the sea (Scylax, p. 12; Strab. ix. p. 445); but in Apollonius Rhodius and in the Orphic poems Homole is described as situated near the sea-shore, and in Apollonius even another town, Eurymenae, is placed between Homole and Tempe. (Apoll. Rhod i. 594; Orpheus, Argon. 460.) Eurymenae, however, stood upon the coast more to the south. [EURYMENAE.] Leake conjectures that the cele brated convent of St. Demetrius, situated upon the lower part of Mt. Kissavo, stands on the site of Homolium. (Leake, Northern Greece, vol. iii. p. 402, vol. iv. p. 415.)

HONO'RIAS (Ovwpiás), the name given by Theodosius II., in honour of his uncle Honorius, to the town of Claudic polis in Bithynia, which at a still earlier time had been called Heracleia. (Malala, Chron. ii. 14; Hierocl, p. 694.) [L. S.] HOPLITES. [BOEOTIA, p. 413, a.] HOR. [IDUMAEA.] HORCA. [ORCA.] HOREB. [SINAI.]

HORESTI, in North Britain, mentioned by Tacitus (Agric. 38). After the battle of the Grampians Agricola moved into their country-Stirling, or the north part of Lanark. [R. G. L.]

HORITES. [IDUMAEA.]
HORMA. [ALMOPIA.]
HORMANUS. [OMANITAE.]

HORTONA. [ORTONA.]

HO'SSII, O'SSII ("Orσiol, Ptol. iii. 5. § 22), a people of Sarmatia Europaea, who occupied the E. coasts of the Baltic-Esthonia and the island of Oesel, and belonged to the Finnish stock. (Schafarik. Slav. Alt. vol. i. pp. 298, 302.) [E. B. J.]

HO'RREA, AD, a place in Gallia Narbonensis, which signifies a depôt for corn and perhaps other merchandise. Such names of places occur occasionally. Beaufort (Karamania, p. 27) describes one of HOSTILIA, a small town of Cisalpine Gaul, these Horrea, or Roman granaries, near the ruins of situated on the N. bank of the Padus, about 10 Myra, which bears a perfect inscription beginning miles below the confluence of the Mincius: it is still HORREA IMP., &c. The Antonine Itinerary places called Ostiglia. Pliny (xxi. 12. s. 43) calls it only Ad Horrea on the road from the Var to Forum Julii a village (vicus); and we learn from Tacitus that it (Fréjus), and between Antipolis (Antibes) and was dependent on Verona (“vicus Veronensium," Hist. Fréjus. From Antipolis to Ad Horrea is 12 M.P.; iii. 9). But in the civil war between Vitellius and and from Ad Horrea to Forum Julii it is 17 M.P. Vespasian it was occupied by Caecina, the lieutenant The Table gives the same distances. The geogra- of the former, as a military post of importance, comphers differ wonderfully about the site of Ad Horrea. manding the passage of the Padus, and secured on Some place it at Grasse, NW. of Antibes, according its flank by the extensive marshes of the Tartarus. to which the road must have made a great bend (Id. Hist. ii. 100, iii. 9, 14, 21, 40.) It is again between Antipolis and Forum Julii. Others would mentioned by Cassiodorus in the 6th century (Var. have it to be Napoul, which is much too near Fréjus ii. 31), and was probably a considerable place in to agree with the distance. D'Anville places it at ancient as well as modern times, though it did not Cannes, in favour of which there are two things:- enjoy municipal privileges. The Itinerary correctly Cannes is on the coast, where grain might be landed, places it 30 M. P. from Verona on the road to Bofor in the days of the Romans the Provincia imported nonia (Itin. Ant. p. 282), while the Table gives 33 corn, as it does now, from Africa; and it is probably | (Tab. Peut.). [E. H. B.] on the old road. But it is too near to Antipolis; which HOSUERBAS, a Mutatio, or place, in the Jerudifficulty D'Anville removes by a common device of salem Itinerary, on the road from Bordeaux to his, he reads vii. for xii. Others fix Ad Horrea at Narbonne. It is the next place to Narbonne, and a place called Horibel or Auribeau, at the mouth of 15 Roman miles from it. The Table has it Usuerna the stream of Viviers. [G. L.] or Usuerva, and 16 M. P. from Narbonne. It is supposed to be a place at the ford of the torrent Jourre or Jourve. [G. L.]

-

HORREA COELIA. [HADRUMETUM.] HO'RREUM, a town of Molossis in Epirus, of uncertain site. (Liv. xlv. 26.)

HORREUM MARGI (Morawa Hissar), a town in Moesia, on the river Margus, where, according to the Ant. Itinerary (219), the Legio XIV Gemina, and according to the Not. Imperii (30) the Legio XIII Gemina, was stationed. (Comp. Itin. Ant. 134; Geogr. Rav. iv. 7; It. Hieros. 565, where the name is Oromagus; Hierocl. p. 657, 'Opéμapxos; and Ptol. iii. 9. § 5, 'Oppéa. [L. S.]

HUNGUNUERRO, one of the places called Mutationes in the Jerusalem Itinerary, on the road from Bordeaux to Narbonne. From Civitas Auscius (Auch) to Mutatio ad Sextum is 6 Gallic leagues; and from Mutatio ad Sextum to Hungunuerro is 7 Gallic leagues. The road is direct from Auch as far as Toulouse; and if anybody can get a good map of that part, he will be able to guess where the place is, for it is on the straight road between Auch and Toulouse. D'Anville guesses Gircaro; Walckenaer guesses "Hundu de devant et Menjoulet." [G. L.]

HUNNI or CHUNI (Ούννοι, Χοννοι). Observe the absence of the aspirate in Obvvol.

1

HORTA or HORTANUM (Orte), an ancient town of Etruria, situated on the right bank of the Tiber, nearly opposite to its confluence with the Nar (Nera). Its name is mentioned only by Pliny, who calls it Hortanum (probably an adjective form), So early a writer as Ptolemy has the following and by P. Diaconus, who writes it Horta, and men- passage: μεταξύ Βαστερνῶν καὶ Ῥωξαλάνων tions it with Sutrium, Poliartium, Ameria, and Xoûvo (iii. 5. § 25). The full value of the notice other towns on the two sides of the Tiber. (Plin. iii. will appear in the sequel. 5. s. 8; P. Diac. iv. 8.) There can, therefore, be no AUTHORITIES. -The two best authorities are doubt that it is the place still called Orte, where, Ammianus Marcellinus and Priscus, each contembesides some relics of Roman times, numerous Etrus-porary with the actions he describes, but Priscus the can sepulchres have been discovered, and objects of better of the two. Sidonius Apollonaris notices their considerable interest brought to light. (Dennis, Etru-invasion of Gaul; and that as a contemporary. The ria, vol. i. pp. 162-167.) It probably derived its name from the Etruscan goddess Horta, who is mentioned by Plutarch. (Quaest. Rom. 46; Müller, Etrusker. vol. ii. p. 62.) The celebrated Lacus Va. dimonis, the scene of two of the most decisive defeats of the Etruscans by the Romans, was situated about 4 miles above Horta, close to the banks of the Tiber. [VADIMONIS LACUS.] The Via Amerina, which led from Falerii to Ameria [AMERIA], crossed the Tiber just below Horta, where the remains of a Roman bridge are still visible. (Dennis, l. c. p. 167.) The "Hortinae classes" mentioned by Virgil (Aen. vii. 715) must probably be connected with this city, though he places them on the left bank of the Tiber, among the Sabines, and the adjective formed from Horta would naturally be Hortanus, and not Hortinus. [E. H. B.]

other authorities are all of later date, i. e. referable to the sixth century or later, e. g. Jornandes, Procopius, Agathias, Gregory of Tours. Cassiodorus, the best authority of Jornandes, wrote under the reign of Theodoric, 40 years after Attila's death. The whole history of Jornandes is written in a spirit eminently hostile to the Huns; the spirit of a Goth as opposed to his conqueror, the Hun.

HUNS OF AMMIANUS.-The earliest of the two really trustworthy writers who speak with authority concerning the Huns is Ammianus Marcellinus (xxxi. 1, et seq.). But his evidence is by no means of equal value throughout. He describes their appearance, partly after what he may have read in older authors respecting the Scythians, and partly after what he may have learned from those who had seen him. At any rate be draws

[ocr errors]

a distinction between them and the closely allied Alani. The Alani were tall and good-looking ("proceri, pulcri") with yellow hair-" Hunnisque per omnia suppares, verum victu mitiores et cultu' (§ 21). The Huns were "imberbes"-" spadonibus similes-pandi ut bipedes existimes bestias" (2). When Ammianus wrote, the geographical relations of the Huns to the populations around them seem to have been as follows. The Alans occupied the present government of Caucasus, and the frontier of Circassia. Due north and west of the Alans came the Huns themselves, concerning whom Ammianus tells us that "monumentis veteribus leviter nota, ultra paludes Maoticas Glacialem Oceanum accolens, omnem modum feritatis excedit." He tells us this; but we must remark the loose character of his geography in respect to the Icy Ocean, and also the likelihood of his views concerning their original migrations being mere inferences from the phenomena of their sudden appearance. The western part of the government of Caucasus, Taurida, and Cherson formed the area of the Huns of Ammianus at the time before us, viz. A. D. 375, in the joint reigns of Valens, Gratian, and Valentinian II.

It is just in the midst of these notices that the necessity for criticism upon the text of Ammianus is so necessary. Between his notice of the Huns and his notice of the Alans, in each of which he speaks in his own proper person, as a contemporary inquirer with sufficient means of information, he brings in the account from Herodotus of the Neuri, Geloni, Agathyrsi, Melanchlaeni, Anthropophagi, and Amazones. This archaic and semi-fabulous part must be sepa

rated from the rest.

However, next come the Grutungi, conterminous with the Alani of the Don. How near the Grutungi came to the Tanais is uncertain. They spread, at least, to the valley of the Dniester. Here was the "vallis Gruthungorum." The Thervings lay between the Dniester and the Danube; and besides the Thervings, the Thaifalæ on the R. Gerasus (the Sereth). The ethnological connection seems to have been between the Huns and Alans on the one side, and the Thervings and Grutungs on the other-the Thaifalae being uncertain. The political alliances generally coincided with the ethnological.

The Huns drove the Grutungs and Thervings (the Goths, as they are mostly called) across the Danube-from Dacia into Moesia and Thrace, from the modern Moldavia or Bessarabia into Bulgaria and Rumelia. This is the first great event in their usual history; for the conquests and migrations previous to their appearance on the Dneister are unauthenticated. The quarrels between the Goths of Moesia and the Romans begin, and the Huns and Alans -no longer enemies but allies-side with the former. So at least it appears from the loose and unsatisfactory notices which apply to the period between the history of the Huns of Ammianus and that of the

HUNS OF PRISCUS.-A clear light is thrown over the reign of Attila, the son of Mundzak. He began to reign A.D. 433, and, over and above the notices of his battles, we find in Priscus references to as many as five embassies, viz. in A. D. 433 (just after Ruas' death), 441, 448, 449, 450,-this last being abortive and incomplete. In the one A. D 448 Priscus took a part. Gibbon has abridged the account of it. A.D. 448 was the time, and the royal camp or court of Attila, between the Theiss and the Danube, the place. In A.D. 453 Attila died.

What were his acts, and what his power? Both have been much exaggerated,-by Gibbon as much as by any one. He overran Italy, Greece, Thrace, the countries on the Lower Danube, and penetrated as far into Gaul as Châlons. He claimed either a subsidy or a tribute from the Romans of the Eastern Empire. He seems to have entertained the plan of an incursion into Persia,—at least, the practicability of making one was one of the topics which Priscus heard discussed during the embassy. He spread his negotiations as far as Africa; and so got the cooperation of Genseric.

In these we have the measure of his operations. They were undoubtedly great; though not greater than those of Alaric, and Genseric, and other conquerors of the time.

His method was that of a politician quite as much as that of a soldier. We hear of more embassies than campaigns during the reign of Attila.

The nations that fought under his banner were numerous; but some (if not several) fought as allies, not as subjects. These allies and subjects— collectively-fall into 2 divisions.

1st. The particular population to which Hun was given as a generic name, i. e. the Huns themselves in detail.

2nd. The populations other than Hun, i. e. Gothic, Alan, &c.

The latter will be noticed first; the former will find a place hereafter.

Sidonius Apollinaris writes :-
Barbaries toties in te transfuderat Arctos
Gallia, pugnacem Rugum, comitante Gelono;
Chunus, Bellonotus, Neurus, Basterna, Toringus,
Gepida trux sequitur, Suevum Burgundio cogit:
Bructerus ulvosa vel quem Nicer abluit unda
Prorumpit Francus."-vii. 320.

This applies to the invasion of Gaul.

From Jornandes we get the additional names of Sarmatae, "Cemandri, Marcomanni, Suevi, Quadi, Heruli, Turcilingi."

These lists give Attila an inordinately large, or a moderate-sized kingdom, according to the interpretation we give to each name, and according to the character of the dominion over the populations which bore them, which we attribute to the invader of Gaul. He might have ruled them as an absolute master; he might have availed himself of their arms as simple confederates; he might have taken up some portion of some of them in passing through their country.

Another point may be collected in its full details from Gibbon,-viz. the relations between the Roman general Aëtius and Attila. Aëtius was by blood a Scythian, and it is possible that the language of his childhood was a dialect of the Hun. Until the last year of his life, he was the friend and guest of the Hun kings- Rugelas (Ruas), Bleda and Attila. In the affair of the usurper John, he intrigued with the Huns. He settled a colony of Alans in Gaul; and the Alans and Huns only differed in their politics, not in their language and ethnological affinities. The chief mercenaries of Aëtius were Huns. With these he effected some of his chief conquests, and to these he made over several considerable districts. Hence, when we hear of certain Hun conquests, we hear of the conquests of Aëtius as well; and when we read of such or such areas being occupied, and such or such enemies being reduced, by Aëtius and the Huns, we are in doubt

[blocks in formation]

Dacia was Hun; but not altogether. This we learn from Priscus. When he visited the royal village of Attila, one of the Hun magnates, by name Onegesius, was absent, and had to be waited for. This was because he was settling the affairs of the Acatziri, who had just come under the dominion of Attila.

Now, if the Acatziri be placed (see below) in the more mountainous parts of Transylvania, a certain portion of that province must be subtracted from even the Dacia of Huns. Be it observed, that neither of the authors just quoted mentions these Ακάττιροι.

But whatever may have been the importance of these kingdoms, it is a matter of history that the area out of which they grew was limited to Pannonia, Western Dacia, Eastern Rhaetia, and Northern Moesia. Hence no inordinate magnitude need be given to the dominion of Attila in order to account for the kingdoms that grew out of its decay.

On the south of the Danube, a belt of country, five days' journey across, from the Save to Novi in Thrace, was ceded by the Romans to the Huns.

It is submitted that the sovereign sway of Attila was bounded by the eastern frontier of Bohemia on the west, and by the Maeotis (there or thereabouts) on the east. There was also the strip of land to the south of the Danube. The northern boundary was uncertain. It probably reached to Minsk in one part, and no further than the northern part of Transylvania on the other. This is by no means a small area. It is less, however, than the one usually suggested by the name of Attila.

TRADITIONARY VIEW OF ATTILA'S POWER AND CHARACTER. — In thus curtailing the historical dimensions of Attila, the writer has not forgotten his subsequent reputation, and the space he has filled in the minds of his after-comers. He has not forgotten the terrible term, Scourge of God. He has recognised the place that Etzel takes in the fictions of Germany, and Atla in those of Scandinavia

The Neuri.-If these were Hun subjects, rather than confederates, and if, as is probable [NEURI], they lay around the marshes at the head-waters of the Dniester, we must make the northern extension of the Hun area very irregular in outline, since it was narrow in the direction of the Acatziri, but broad in that of the Neuri. Perhaps the boundary of the Hun territory in the present parts of Southern Russia followed the line of the rivers. If so, it comprised Bessarabia, Cherson, Taurida, and some-sharing the Nibelungen-lied and the Edda with Sigthing more.

The Alani who fought under their king Sangiban❘ at Châlons were the Alani of the Aëtian settlements in Gaul, rather than those of the Circassian frontier. Turning westwards, and changing the direction, we come to some important areas, which must not be too lightly and gratuitously given over to the Huns; viz. the lands of the Thuringians, Burgundians, Suevi, Alemanni, with parts of Rhaetia and Vindelicia. The districts are large, the occupants powerful, the reign of Attila short.

frid and Theodoric; not less in mythic reputation than Arthur or Charlemagne. And not in prose and verse only. The tumuli of Northern Germany are called the Hünengräbe (=Graves of the Huns); and the Hundsruck Mountain has, erroneously, been looked upon as the Hill of the Huns. More than this-it is admitted that the subsequent reputation is, to some degree, primâ facie evidence of a real historical basis. Why should the Attila of men's imagination be so much greater than the corresponding Alarics and Genserics, if there was not some difference in their original magnitudes? Such a remark is legitimate as criticism. Valeat quantum. There are reasons why Attila and the Huns should become exaggerated- -reasons which influenced our early, reasons which have influenced our modern, authorities.

The halo of fiction around Attila is not of Italian origin, nor yet of Greek. It is German, and Germano-Gallic; German, essentially and originally. It has already been stated, that the chief source is Jornandes; in many respects the Geoffroy of Monmouth to Germany and Scandinavia.

For this period we cannot expect to find absolute evidence of the independence of these several countries. We find them, however, generally speaking, independent and powerful, both before and afterwards. When Attila died his kingdom broke up; and one of the measures of the magnitude of Attila's dominion, is the magnitude of the kingdoms that grew out of it. Three of these were more important than the rest; a. that of Theodoric the Ostrogoth; b. that of the Gepidae; c. the Lombards. Suppose these to have been carved out of the Hun monarchy in all their integrity, and we suppose a vast Hun area. But Tradition (it is believed), tradition and error have this was not the case. Theodoric's kingdom was engendered exaggerated notions of Attila's power, large, because Italy was added to it. At Attila's and distorted ideas of his personal character and death it was limited to a portion of Pannonia, and actions. Whence come the overstatements? The size that a moderate-sized portion. The Italian addition of a king's dominions may be magnified without the was subsequent. The Gepidae are the obscurest of king being made a monster; and, vice versá, a all the populations of Daco-Pannonia; the exact hideous picture may be drawn of a king without ethnological relations being unknown, though the magnifying the size of his dominions. Whence come evidence of Procopius and Jornandes makes them the overstatements? The historian is a Goth. The Goths. It is more important to remember that more nations the Huns conquered, the less the shame their empire was by no accounts a large one. In to the Goths. Here lay a bounty upon exaggeration the reign of Justinian it was destroyed by the Lom--exaggeration which was easy for two reasons: bards. The Lombard power, although generally 1. The joint conquests of Aëtius might be credited to spoken of as if it grew out of the wreck of Huns, really arose out of that of the Gepidae, and was later in date than the immediate dissolution of Attila's dominion. It only became formidable in the reign of Justinian. Odoacer, like Theodoric, was remarkable for what he effected against Rome, rather than for the magnitude of his kingdom.

the Huns exclusively; 2. Any kingdom of which the king was worsted might be dealt with as absolutely conquered, and reduced in its full integrity Let us apply this to one man's dominion onlyHermanric's, according to Jornandes. The Huns conquer Hermanric. What had Hermanric conquered? First comes a list of names difficult to make out

"habebat" (Hermanric) "siquidem quos domuerat | Golthes, Etta, Thividos, Inaxungis, Vasinas, Brovoneas, Merens, Mordens, Remniscans, Rogans, Tadgans, Athaul, Navego, Bubegenas, Coldas" (c. 23). The little that can be made out of this may be seen in Zeuss (v. Ostfinnen). Mordens is the most satisfactory identification, and then Merens the Mordwa (Mordiuns) of Nestor, and the Mirri of Adam of Bremen (Merja of Nestor). The Mordiun country is in the governments of Simbirsk and Saratov.

=

The sequel in Jornandes tells us something more, viz. that the Heruli, Veneti, Antes, Sclavi, and Haesti were reduced; a list that gives Hermanric all the country between the Vistula and the Sea of Azov; since the Haesti are the Aestyii of Tacitus, or the occupants of amber country, East Prussian.

How they got carried unduly eastwards may be seen in Gibbon (chap. 26). Gibbon (chap. 20) has thus been tempted to connect an invasion of France with movements in the north of China, the battle of Chalons with the history of the Sienpi; De Guignes having suggested and worked out the connection. Thus

Many centuries before our era there were Huns on the north-western frontier of China-conquerors. About B. c. 100 one of the more warlike Chinese emperors subdued them. They fled westwards. A tribe of Sibeia or Central Asia, named Sienpi, harassed them. They divided into 3 portions. One amalgamated with the Sienpi; one settled in Charismia, and became the White Huns (see below) of the Persian frontier; the third, pressed forward by Now, allow all this to Hermanric, and then trans- the Sienpi, pressed forward the Goths. "Whilst fer it to the Huns, and any amount of area will be Italy rejoiced in her deliverance from the Goths, the result. But was it so transferred? The Huns a furious tempest was excited amongst the nathat conquered the Goths of Hermanric are said to tions of Germany, who yielded to the irresistible have moved from the Maeotis to the Danube as quickly impulse that appears to have been gradually comas they could. Who believes that they consolidated municated from the eastern extremity of Asia. such dependencies as Courland, Livonia, East Prussia, The Chinese annals, as they have been interpreted Poland, &c. en route? But our reasonable doubts by the learned industry of the present age, may go further still. The magnitude of Hermanric's be usefully applied to reveal the secret and reempire is problematical. Ammianus (his contem- mote causes of the fall of the Roman empire porary), besides giving an account of his death (chap. 30). The details are, that the Sienpi different from that of Jornandes, merely writes that grew in strength, called themselves Topa (masters when the Alans and Huns had coalesced, “confi- of the earth), conquered China, and threw off an offset dentius Ermenrici, late patentes et uberes pagos called Geougen, who were robbers; and the descendrepentino impetu perruperunt, bellicosissimi regis, ants of Moko, a slave of Toulun, one of Moko's deet per multa variaque fortiter facta vicimus nationi-scendants, achieved the independence of these Geougen, bus formidati" (xxxi. 3. § 1). It is submitted and effected conquests from the Corea to the Irtish, that the words late patentes by no means denote and beyond. To the north of the Caspian he convast dominions. Take the geography of the coun-quered the Huns. These, of course, moved westwards, tries into consideration, and they mean the wide open plains of the Ukraine. Gibbon clearly saw this discrepancy; but, nevertheless, he preferred Jornandes, whose "concise account of the reign and conquest of Hermanric seems to be one of the valuable fragments which Jornandes borrowed from the Gothic histories of Cassiodorus and Ablavius." (Chap. xxv. 5. note j.) The text of Jornandes indicates the contrary of this. Ablavius is quoted specially and by name for one particular fact, viz. the origin of the Heruli; the inference from which is, that the other parts are not from him. We have seen how they differ from Ammianus.

The indefinitude of the term Scythia gave other exaggeration: and the king of the Huns was often called the king of Scythia. So he was-but only of European Scythia.

but the Huns, who conquered the Alans, and the
Thervings, and who are mentioned by Ammianus,
had already occupied the parts between the Don and
Danube,- "the countries towards the Euxine were
already" (A. D. 405 is the date for this migration)
"occupied by these kindred tribes; and their hasty
flight, which they soon converted into a bold attack,
would more naturally be directed towards the rich
and level plains through which the Vistula gently
flows into the Baltic Sea. The north must again
have been alarmed and agitated by the invasion of
the Huns,-the inhabitants might embrace the reso-
lution of discharging their superfluous numbers on
the provinces of the Roman empire. About 4 years
after the victorious Toulen had assumed the title of
Khan of the Geougen, the haughty Rhodogast, or
Radagaisus, marched from the northern extremity
of Germany almost to the gates of Rome," &c.
a note it is remarked that "Procopius (de Bell.
Vand. i. 3) has observed an emigration from the
Palus Maeotis to the north of Germany, which he
ascribes to famine. But his views of ancient history
are strangely darkened by ignorance and error."
The criticism of this extension of the Hun power in
the direction of China, will be found in the notice of
the Cidante Huns, towards the end of this article.
It is on the authority of Jornandes that the mur-

In

For further elements of confusion, see SCYTHIA. One, in addition, however, still stands over. When the Danes of Denmark took their place in history, they had not long been known under that name, before they were attributed to Attila; and Scandinavia became a part of Hundom. Why? Be cause the Daci were more or less Hun; and because, as early as the time of Procopius, we find them called Dani, the Dani (in after-times) being called Daci. The Heruli were undoubtedly Hun, in politics if not in blood. Now, both Jor-der of his brother is attributed to Attila: Gibbon nandes and Procopius bring the Heruli and Dani (not Daci) in contact. There was a confusion here. How it arose is a complex question. Its effect was to carry Attila's power beyond all reasonable limits northwards.

Jornandes and Procopius give us the chief elements of those errors in ethnology and geography, which carry the Hun power unduly northwards.

follows it; the Comte de Buat demurs to it. Probably it must stand as we find it, subject only to being invalidated by the slightest amount of opposing evidence, in case the care and criticism of future inquirers elicit any.

As a conqueror, Attila seems to have been stronger as the head of a confederation than as a sovereign. He acted, too, more as a politican than a warrior.

« السابقةمتابعة »