SCYTIIIA. stnrv of the Servile War of Whips belongs to this peiioil. Wlien the approach of Darius becomes threaten- ing, the Geloni, Biulini, and Sauromatae join with the Scythians in resisting it; the Agathyrsi, Neuri, Androphagi, Mclanchlaeni, and Tauri reserving themselves for the defence of their own territory if attacked (iv. 119). To the thi'ee constituents of the confederacy there are three kings, Scopasis, lantiiyrsus, and Taxacis, each with an allotted district to defend. This was done by destroying the grass and tillage, driving off the flocks and herds, and corrupting (we can scarcely translate cTvyx°^ by jjoisoninff) the wells. The points whereon attack was anticipated were the frontiers of the Danube and the Don. These they laid waste, having sent their own wives and children northwards. The flrst brunt of the war fell upon the Budini, whose Wooden City was burnt. Darius then moved south- ward and westward, pressing the other two divi- sions upon the countries of the Melanchlaeni, Neuri, and Agathyrsi. The latter warn the Medes against encroaching on the frontier. Idanthyrsus answers enigmatically to a defiance of Darius. Scopasis tam- pers with the lonians who have the custody of the bridge over the Danube. The Medes suffer from dearth, and determine to retreat across the Danube. The Scythians reach the passage before them, and require the lonians to give it up. And now ap- pears, for the first time, the great name of Miltiades, who is one of the commanders of the guard of the bridge. He advises that the Scythians should be conciliated, Darius weakened. A half-measure is adopted, by which the Scythians are taught to dis- trust the lonians, and the Medes escape into Thrace — so ending the Scythian invasion of Darius. (Ilerod. iv. 120—142.) Criticism of the Herodotean Accounts. — The notices of Herodotus upon the Scythae, though full, are excursive rather than systematic. Part of their history appears as Lydian, part as Scythian Proper. There is niuch legend in his accounts ; but the chief obscurities are in the geograpliy. Even here the de- tails are irregular. One notice arises out of the name Scythae, another out of the geography of their rivers, a third out of the sketch of Tauris. [See Taiikis and Tauroscythae.] In this we hear that Scythia is bounded first by the Agathyrsi, next by the Neuri, then by the Androphagi, and lastly by the Melanchlaeni. The area is four- cornered ; the longest sides being the prolongations along the coast and towards the interior. From the Ister to the Borysthenes is 10 days; 10 days more to the Maeotis ; from the coast to the Melanchlaeni, 20 days ; — 200 stadia to each day"s journey. If this measurement be exact, it would bring Tula, Tambov, Riazan, Sec, within the Scythian area, — which is going too far. The days' journeys inland were probably shorter than those along the coast. The Agathyrsi were in Trunsijlvania, on the Maros. The evidence, or want of evidence, as far as the text of Herodotus goes, is the same as it is with the Neuri. Their frontagers were known as Scythae Aroteres, i. e., the generic name was witii them specific. Hence any Scythians whatever with a specific name must have been contrasted with them ; and this seems to have been the case with the Aga- thyrsi. [HuNNi, p. 1097.] Assuming, how- ever, the Agathyrsi to have been Scythian, and to liave lain on the Maros, we carry the Herodotean Scythae as far west as the Theiss; nor can we ex- SCYTHIA 941 elude thein from any part of Wallachin and Mul- davia. Yet these are only known to Herodotus as the country of the Sigynnes. The frontier, then, between the Scythae and Getae is difficult to draw. Herodotus has no Getae, eo nomine, north of tin; Danube : yet such there must have been. Upon the whole, we may look upon the Danubian Princi- palities as a tract scarcely known to Herodotus, and make it Scythian, or Getic, or mixed, according to the evidence of other writers, as applicable at the time under consideration. It was probably Getic in the East, Sarmatian in the West, and Scythian in respect to certain districts occupied by intrusive populations. Thucydides mentions the Getae and Scythians but once (ii. 96), and that together. The great alliance that Sitalces, king of Thrace, effects against Perdiccas of Macedon includes the Getae beyond Mount Haemus, and, in the direction of the Eusine sea, the Getae who were conterminous {'6/xopoi) with the Scythians, and whose armour was Scythian (J)lx6aKevoi). They were each archers and horse- men (i7r7roTo|oTai) ; whereas the Dii and the moun- taineers of Rhodope wore daggers. According to Ovid {I'rist. V. 7. 19), the occupants of the level country do so too : — " Dextera non segnis fixo dare vulnera cultro, Quem vinctum lateri barbara omnis liabet." The Scythians of the Macedonian Period. — Passing over the notices of Xenophon, which apply to Thrace Proper rather than to the parts north of Mount Haemus, and which tell us nothing concerning the countries beyond the Danube,— passing, also, over the notices of a war in which Philip king of Macedon was engaged against Atheas, and in which he crossed Mount Haemus into the country of the Triballi, where he received a wound, — we come to the passage of the Danube by Alex- ander. In the face of an enemy, and without a bridge, did the future conqueror of Persia cross the river, defeat the Getae oh its northern bank, destroy a. town, and return. (Arrian, Anah. i. 2 — 7.) This M'as an invasion of Scythia in a geographical sense only ; still it was a passage of the Daimbe. The Getae of Alexander may have been descendants of the Sigynnes of Herodotus. They were not, eo nomine, Scythians. When Alexander was on the Danube the famous embassy of the Galatae reached him. They had heard of his fame, and caine to visit him. They were men of enormous stature, and feared only that the heavens should fall. This disappointed Alex- ander, who expected that they would fear him. Much has been written concerning the embas.sy as if it came fi-om Gaul. Yet this is by no means ne- cessary. Wherever there is a Halicz or Galacz in modern geography, there may have been a Galat-'vMi locality in ancient; just as, wherever there is a Kcr- man or Carman-'m. there may have been a German one, and that without any connection with the Galli or Gerniani of the West. The roots Gl-t and K-ron-n, are simply significant geographical terms in the Sarmatian and Turk tongues — tongues to which the Getic and Scythian may most probably be referred. Such is the present writer's opinion respecting the origin of the statements that carry certain Galatae as far as the Lower Danube, and make the Basternae, and even the occupants of the Tanais, Germans — not to mention the Caramanians of Asia Minor and Carmanians of Persia. In the present
