B ATT us. croAchmcnts on the Libyan tribes, the latter, under Adicnin, tlieir king, surrendered themselves to Apries, king of Egypt, and claimed his protection. A battle ensued in the region of Irasa, b. c. 570, in which the Egyptians were defeated, — this being the first time, according to Herodotus (iv. 159), tha^ they had ever come into* hostile collision with Greeks/(Comp. Herod, ii. 161; Diod. i. 68.) This battle seems to have finished the war with Egypt ; for we read in Herodotus (ii. 181), that Amasis formed a marriage with Ladice, a Cyrenaean wo- man, daughter perhaps of Battus II. (Wesseling, ad Herod. I. c), and, in other ways as well, culti- vated friendly relations with the Cyrenaeans. By the sjmie victory too the sovereignty of Cyrene over the Libyans was confirmed. (Comp. Herod, iv. 160, where their revolt from Arcesilaus II. is spoken of.) It was in this reign also, according to a probable conjecture of Thrige's (§ 30), that Cy- rene began to occupy the neighbouring region with her colonies, which seem to have been numerous, (Find. Pyth. iv. 20, 34, v. 20.) The period of tlie death of Battus II. it is impossible to settle with exactness. We know only that his reign lasted beyond the year 570 b. c. ; and it is pure conjec- ture which would assign the end of it, with Thrige, to 560, or, with Bouhier and Larcher, to 554, (Thrige, § 29; Larcher, ad Herod, iv. 163.) 4. Akcesilaus II., son of Battus II., was sur- named "the oppressive" [xaKiiros), from his at- tempting probably to substitute a tyranny for the Cyrenaean constitution, which had hitherto been similar to that of Sparta. It was perhaps from this cause that the dissensions arose between him- self and his brothers, in consequence of which the latter withdrew from Cyrene, and founded Barca, at the same time exciting the Libyan tribes to re- volt from Arcesilaus, who, in his attempt to quell this rebellion, suffered a signal defeat at Leucon or Leucoe, a place in the region of Marmarica. He met his end at last by treachery, being strangled by his brother or friend, Learchus. His wife, Eryxo, however, soon after avenged his death by the mur- der of his assassin. His reign lasted, according to some, from 560 to 550 b. c. ; according to others, from 554 to 544. (Herod, iv. 160 ; Diod. Eac. de Virt. et Vit. p. 232 ; Plut. de Virt. Mul. pp. 260, 261; Thrige, §§35, 37.) 5. Battus III., or "the lame" (x^Ao's), son of Arcesilaus II., reigned from b. c. 550 to 530, or, as some state it, from 544 to 529. In his time, the Cyrenaeans, weakened by internal seditions, apprehensive of assaults from Libya and Egypt, and distressed too perhaps by the consciousness of the king's inefficiency, invited Demonax, a Manti- nean, by the advice of the Delphic oracle, to settle the constitution of the city. The conflicting claims of the original colonists with those of the later set- tlers, and the due distribution of power between the sovereign and the commonalty, were the main difficulties with which he had to deal. With re- spect to the former point, he substituted for the old division of tribes an entirely new one, in which however some privileges, in regard to their relation to the rifpioi/foi, were reserved to those of Theraean descent ; while the royal power he reduced within very narrow limits, leaving to the king only cer- tain selected lands, and the enjoyment of some priestly functions (re/xevea koX Ipuiavvas), with the privilege probably (see Herod, iv. 165) of pre- sidency in the council. We hear nothing more BATTUS. 477 recorded of Battus III. The diminution of the kingly power in his reign is not to be wondered at, when we remember that the two main causes as- signed by Aristotle {Polit. v. 10, ad fin. ed. Bekk.) for the overthrow of monarchy had been, as we have seen, in full operation at Cyrene, — viz. quar- rels in the royal family, and the attempt to esta- blish a tyrannical government. (Herod, iv. 161 ; Diod. I.e.; Plut. I. c; Thrige, § 38 ; Miiller, Dor. iii. 4. § 5, iii. 9. § 13.) 6. Arcesilaus III., son of Battus III. by Pheretime, reigned, according to Thrige (§ 39), from 530 to about 514 b. c. In the early part of his reign he was driven from Cyrene in an attempt to recover the ancient royal privileges, and, taking refuge in Samos, returned with a number of auxi- liaries, whom he had attached to his cause by the promise of a new division of lands. With their aid he regained the throne ; on which, beside» taking the most cruel vengeance on his enemies, he endeavoured further to strengthen himself by making submission to Cambyses, and stipulating to pay him tribute, B. c. 525. (Herod, iv. 162- 165, comp. iii. 13, 91, ii. 181.) Terrified, how- ever, according to Herodotus (iv. 1 64), at the dis- covery that he had subjected himself to the woe denounced against him, under certain conditions, by an obscure oracle (comp. iv. 163), or, more pro- bably, being driven out by his subjects, who were exasperated at his submission to the Persians (see iv. 165, ad fin.), he fled to Alazir, king of Barca, whose daughter he had married, and was there slain, together with his father-in-law, by the Bar- caeans and some Cyrenaean exiles. (Herod, iv 164, 167; see Thrige, §§ 39-41.) 7. Battus IV. is called i' the Handsome" (J KoKos) by Heracleidcs Ponticus. (See Thrige, $ 38, n. 3. § 42.) It has been doubted by some whether there were any kings of the family after Arcesilaus III., but this point seems to be settled by Hero- dotus (iv. 163) and by Pindar. {Pyth. iv. 115.) The opinion of those, who suppose the names of two kings to have been omitted by Herodotus be- tween Arcesilaus I. and Battus " the lame," has been noticed above. Of Battus IV. we know no- thing. It is not improbable, however, that he was the son of Arcesilaus III., and was in posses- sion of the throne at the period of the capture of Barca by the Persians, about 512 B. c. (Herod, iv. 203.) At least the peaceable admission of the latter into Cyrene (Herod. I. c.)may seem to point to the prevalence there of a Medizifig policy, such as we might expect from a son or near relative of Arcesilaus III. The chronology of this reign is involved in as much obscurity as the events of it, and it is impossible therefore to assign any exact date either to its beginning or its end. (See Thrige, §§ 42-44.) 8. Arcesilaus IV., son probably of Battus IV., is the prince whose victory in the chariot-race at the Pythian games, b. c. 466, is celebrated by Pindar in his 4th and 5th Pythian odes ; and these, in fact, together with the Scholia upon them, are our sole authority for the life and reign of this last of the Battiadae. From them, even in the midst of all the praises of him which they contain, it appears, that he endeavoured to make himself despotic, and had recourse, among other means, to the expedient (a favourite one with tyrants, see Aristot. Polit. iii. 13, v. 10, 11, ed. Bekk.) of ridding himself of the nobles of the stiite. Indeed
