3. Upon the death of Alexander, Syria became, for the first time, the head of a great kingdom. On the division of the provinces among his generals (B.C. 321), Seleucus Xicator received Mesopotamia and Syria, and though, in the twenty years of struggle which followed, this country was lost and won repeatedly, it remained final- ly, with the exception of Coele-Syria, in the hands of the prince to whom it was originally assigned. That prince, whose dominions reached from the Mediterranean to the Indus, and from the Oxus to the Southern Ocean, having, as he believed, been exposed to great dangers on account of the distance from Greece of his original capital, Babylon, resolved, immediately upon his victory of Ipsus (B.C. 301), to fix his metropolis in the West, and settled upon Syria as the fittest place for it. Antioch was begun in B.C. 300, and, being finished in a few years, was made the capital of Seleucus's kingdom. The whole realm was thenceforth ruled from this centre, and Syria, which had long been the prey of stronger coun- tries, and had been exhausted by their exactions, grew rich with the wealth which now flowed into it on all sides. The luxurj' and magnificence of Antioch were extraordinarj-. Broad straight streets, with colonnades from end to end, temples, statues, arches, bridges, a royal palace, and various other public buildings dispersed throughout it made the Syrian cai)ital by far the most splendid of all the cities of the East. At the same time, in the provinces, other towns of large size were growing up. Seleucia in Pieria, Apamea, and both Laodiceas were foundations of the SeleuciiUe, as their names suf- ficiently indicate. Weak and indolent as were many of these monarchs, it would seem that they had a heredi- tary taste for building; and so each aimed at outdoing Lis predecessors in the number, beauty, and magnificence
of his constructions. As the historj' of SjTia under the Seleucid princes has been already given in detail in the articles treating of each monarch [see ANTiocufs; Demetkius; Seleucus, etc.], it will be unnecessary here to do more than sum it up generally. The most flourishing period was the reign of the founder, Nicator. The einpire was then almost as large as that of the Achaimenian Persians, for it at one time included Asia jMinor, and thus reached from the /Egean to India. It was organized into satrapies, of which the number was seventy- two. Trade flourished greatly, old lines of traffic being restored and new ones opened. The reign of Nicator's son, Antiochus I, called Soter, was the be- giiniing of the decline, which was progressive from his date with only one or two slight interruptions. Soter lost territory to the kingdom of Pergamus, and failed in an attempt to subject Bithynia. He was also unsuccess- ful against Egypt. Under his son, Antiochus II, called Qtog, or " the God," who ascended the throne in B.C. 2G1, the disintegration of the empire proceeded more rapidly. The revolt of Parthia in B.C. 25G, followed by that of Bactria in B.C. 254, deprived the Syrian kingdom of some of its best provinces, and gave it a new enemy which shortly became a rival and finally a superior. At the same time, the war with Egypt was prosecuted without either advantage or glory. Fresh losses were suffered in the reign of Seleucus II (Callini- cus), Antiochus II's successor. While Callinicus was engaged in Egypt against Ptolemy Euergetes, Eu- menes of Pergamus obtained possession of a great part of Asia JNIinor (B.C. 242); and about the same time Arsaces II, king of Parthia, conquered llyrcania and annexed it to his dominions. An attempt to recover this latter province cost Callinicus his crown, as he was defeated and made prisoner by the Parthians (B.C. 226), In the next reign, that of Seleucus III (Ceraunus), a slight reaction set in. Most of Asia Minor was recov- ered for Ceraunus by his wife's nephew, Acha^us (B.C. 2"24), and he was preparing to invade Pergamus when he died poisoned. His successor and brother, Antiochus III, though he gained the surname of Great from the grandeur of his expeditions and the partial success of some of them, can scarcely' be said to have really done anything towards raising the empire from its declining condition, since his conquests on the side of Egypt, con- sisting of Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine, formed no sufficient compensation for the loss of Asia Jlinor, which he \vas forced to cede to Kome for the aggran- dizement of the rival kingdom of Pergamus (B.C. 190). Even had the territorial balance been kept more even, the ill policy of making Kome an enemy of the Syrian kingdom, with which Antiochus the Great is taxable, would have necessitated our placing him among the princes to whom its ultimate ruin was mainly owing. Towards the east, indeed, he did something, if not to thrust back the Parthians, at any rate to jjrotect his empire from their aggressions. But the exhaustion consequent upon his constant wars and signal defeats — more especially those of Kaphia and IMagnesia — left Syria far more feeble at his death than she had been at any former period. The almost eventless reign of Seleu- cus IV (Pliilopator), his son and successor (B.C. 187- 175), is sufficient proof of this feebleness. It was not till twenty years of peace had recruited the resources of Syria in men and money that Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), brother of Philopator, ventured on engaging in a great war (B.C. 171) — a war for the conquest of Egypt. At first it seemed as if the attempt would succeed. Egypt was on the point of yielding to her foe of so many years, when Rome, following out her traditions of hostility to Syrian power and influence, interposed her mediation, and deprived Ejiiphanes of all the fruits of his victories (B.C. 1G8). A greater injury was about the same time (B.C. 167) inflicted on Syria by the folly of Epiphanes himself. Not content with replenishing his treasury by the plunder of the Jewish Temple, he madly ordered the desecration of tlie Holy of Holies, and thus caused the