660 PRUSIAS. the surrender of Hannibal, the king basely gave his consent, and the Carthaginian general only escaped falling into the hands of his enemies by a voluntary death. (Polyb. xxiii. 1 8, xxiv. 1 ; Liv. xxxix. 51 ; Justin, xxxii, 4 ; Plut. Flamin. 20 ; Corn. Nep. Hann. 10—12 ; App. Syr. 11 ; Eutrop. iv. 5 ; Oros, iv, 20; Strab. xii. p. 563.) This is the last circumstance which can be re- ferred with certainty to the elder Prusias : the period of his death, and of the accession of his son, is not mentioned by any ancient writer, but Mr. Clinton regards the Prusias mentioned in the treaty of b. c. 179, between Eumenes and Phar- naces, as the second king of this name : and this supposition, though not admitting of proof, appears at least a very probable one. (Clinton, F. H. vol. ii. p. 417.) In this case we must place his death between 183 and 179 b. c. It was apparently during the latter part of his reign that Prusias, who had already made himself master of Cierus, Tieios, and other dependencies of Heracleia, laid siege to that city itself; but while pressing the attack with vigour, he himself received a severe wound from a stone, which not only compelled him for a time to abandon the enterprise, but left him with a lameness for the remainder of his life. On this account he is sometimes distinguished by the epithet of the Lame (o x'^^^^) (Meninon. c. 27, ed. Orell.) Prusias appears to have been a monarch of vi- gour and ability, and raised his kingdom of Bithy- nia to a much higher pitch of power and pros- perity than it had previously attained. Like many of his contemporary princes, he sought distinction by the foundation or new settlement of cities, among the most conspicuous of which were Cius and Myrleia on the Propontis, which he repeopled and restored after their ruin by Philip, bestowing on the one his own name, while he called the other after his wife, Apameia. In addition to this, he gave the name of Prusias also to the small city of Cierus, which he had wrested from the Heraclei- ans. (Strab. xii. p. 563 ; Steph. Byz. s.v. Upovaa and 'Airdfjieia, Memnon. c. 41, 47.) The foundation of Prusa, at the foot of Mount Olympus, is also ascribed to him by some authors. (Plin. v. 43. See on this point Droysen, Hellenism, vol. ii. p. 655.) Before the close of his reign, however, his power received a severe blow by the loss of the Helle- spontine Phrygia, which he was compelled to cede to the kings of Pergamus ; probably by the treaty which terminated the war already alluded to. (Strab. I. c.) ' [E. H. B.] PRU'SIAS IL (Upovfflas), king of Bithynia, was the son and successor of the preceding. No mention is found in any extant author of the pe- riod of his accession, and we only know that it must have been subsequent to b. c. 183, as Strabo distinctly tells us (xii. p. 563), that the Prusias who received Hannibal at his court, was the son of Zielas. In B. c. 179, we find the name of Prusias associated with Eumenes in the treaty concluded by that monarch with Pharnaces, king of Pontus (Polyb. xxvi. 6), and this is supposed by Clinton to be the younger Prusias. It is cer- tain, at least, that he was already on the throne before the breaking out of the war between the Romans and Perseus, B. c. 171. Prusias had previously sued for and obtained in marriage a sister of the Macedonian king, but notwithstanding this alliance he determined to keep aloof from the PRUSIAS. impending contest, and await the result with a view to make his peace with whichever party should prove victorious. (Liv. xlii. 12, 29 ; Appian, Mitkr. 2.) In B. c. 169, however, he ventured to send an embassy to Rome, to interpose his good offices in favour of Perseus, and endeavour to pre- vail upon the senate to grant him a peace upon favourable terms. His intervention, however, was haughtily rejected, and fortune having the next year decided in favour of the Romans, Prusias sought to avert any offence he might have given by this ill-judged step, by the most abject and sordid flatteries. He received the Roman deputies who were sent to .his court, in the garb which was characteristic of an emancipated slave, and styled himself the freedman of the Roman people : and the following year, b. c. 167, he himself repaired to Rome, where he sought to conciliate the favour of the senate by similar acts of slavish adulation. By this meanness he disarmed the resentment of the Romans, and obtained a renewal of the league between him and the republic, accompanied even with an extension of territory. (Polyb. xxx. 16; Liv. xlv. 44 ; Diod. xxxi. Exc. Vat. p. 83, Exc. Legat. p. 565 ; Appian. Mithr. 2 ; Eutrop. iv. 8 ; Zonar. ix. 24.) From this time we find Prusias repeatedly sending embassies to Rome to prefer complaints against Eu- menes, which, however, led to no results (Polyb. xxxi. 6, 9, xxxii. 3, 5), until, at length, in b. c. 156, after the death of Eumenes, the disputes be- tween his successor Attains and the Bithynian king broke out into open hostilities. In these Prusias was at first successful, defeated Attalus in a great battle, and compelled him to take refuge in Pergamus, to which. he laid siege, but without effect. Meanwhile, Attalus had sent to Rome to complain of the aggression of the Bithynian king, and an embassy was sent by the senate, to order Prusias to desist : but he treated this command with contempt, and attacking Attalus a second time, again drove him within the walls of Perga- mus. But the following year the arms of Attalus were more successful, and a fresh embassy from the senate at length compelled Prusias to make peace, B. c. 154. (Polyb. xxxii. 25, 26, xxxiii. 1, 10, 1 1 ; Appian. Mithr. 3 ; Diod. xxxi. Exc. Vales. p. 589.) Meanwhile, the Bithynian monarch had alienated the minds of his subjects by his vices and cruelties, and his son Nicomedes had become the object of the popular favour and admiration. This aroused the jealousy and suspicion of the old king, who, in order to remove his son from the eyes of his countrymen, sent him to Rome: and subsequently, as his apprehensions still increased, gave secret instructions to his ambassador Menas to remove the young prince by assassination. Me- nas, however, finding how high Nicomedes stood in the favour of the Roman senate, attached himself to the cause of the prince, and united with Andro- nicus the ambassador of Attalus in an attempt to establish Nicomedes on the throne of Bithynia. Prusias was unable to make head against the dis- affection of his own subjects, supported by the arms of Attalus, and after an ineffectual appeal to the intervention of the Romans, who secretly fa- voured Nicomedes, shut himself up within the walls of Nicomedia. The gates were, however, opened by the inhabitants, and Prusias hin)selt was slain in a temple, to which he had fled for refuge. His death took place in b. c. 149. (A.p-
