cally recognized both by Antiochus and by the Roman consul
Livius, who went up thither to sacrifice to the Iliean Athênê.
The Romans, proud of their origin from Troy and Æneas, treated Ilium with signal munificence; not only granting to it immunity from tribute, but also adding to its domain the neighboring
territories of Gergis, Rhœteium and Sigeium and making the
Ilieans masters of the whole coast[1] from the Peraea (or conti-
- ↑ Livy, xxxviii. 39; Strabo, xiii. p. 600. (
Greek characters)
were in a state of decay. We know from Livy that the aggregation of Gergis and Rhœteium to Ilium was effected, not by Lysimachus, but by the Romans (Livy, xxxviii. 37}; so that the first statement of Strabo is not only inconsistent with his second, but is contradicted by an independent authority.
I cannot but think that this contradiction arises from a confusion of the text in Strabo's first passage, and that in that passage Strabo really meant to speak only of the improvements brought about by Lysimachus in Alexandreia Tróas; that he never meant to ascribe to Lysimachus any improvements in Ilium, but, on the contrary, to assign the remarkable attention paid by Lysimachus to Alexandria Tróas, as the reason why he had neglected to fulfil the promises held out by Alexander to Ilium. The series of facts runs thus: 1 . Ilium is nothing better than a Kufir; at the landing of Alexander;
2. Alexander promises great additions, but never returns from Persia to accomplish them ; 3. Lysimachus is absorbed in Alexandreia Troas, into which
he aggregates several of the adjoining old towns, and which flourishes under
his hands; 4. Hence Ilium remained a (
Greek characters) when the Romans entered Asia,
as it had been when Alexander entered.
This alteration in the text of Strabo might be effected by the simple transposition of the words as they now stand, and by omitting (Greek characters), without introducing a single new or conjectural word, so that the
passage would read thus: (Greek characters) If this reading be adopted, the
words beginning that which stands in Tzschucke's edition as sect. 27, and
which immediately follow the last word (Greek characters), will read quite suitably and
coherently, (Greek characters), etc., whereas with the present reading of the pasgage they show a contradiction, and the whole passage is entirely confused.
