200 LOCRI. from the period of their veiy foundation. (Strab. vi. p. 259.) On the other hand, they were ahnost constantly on terms of hostihty with their neighbours of Ehegium, and, during the rule of Anasilas, in the latter city, were threatened with complete destruc- tion by that de.spot, from which they were saved by the intervention of Hieron of Syracuse. (Pind. Pyth. ii. 35 ; and Schol. ad loc.) In like manner we find thein, at the period of the Athenian expeditions to Sicily, in close alliance with Syracuse, and on terms of open enmity with Rhegium. Hence they at first engaged in actual hostilities with the Athenians under Laches ; and though they subsequently con- cluded a treaty of peace with them, they still refused to admit the great Athenian armament, in B.C. 415, even to anchor on their coasts. (Thuc. iii. 99, 115, iv. 1, 24, v. 5, vi. 44, vii. 1 ; Diod. xii. 54, xiii. 3.) At a later period of the Peloponnesian War they were among the few Italian cities that sent auxiliary ships to the Lacedaemonians. (Thuc. viii. 91.) During the reign of the elder Dionysius at Syra- cuse, the bonds of amity between the two cities were strengthened by the personal alliance of that monarch, who married Doris, the daughter of Xenetus, one of the most eminent of the citizens of Locri. (Diod. xiv. 44.) He subsequently adhered steadfastly to this alliance, which secured him a footing in Italy, from which he derived great advantage in his wars against the Rhegians and other states of Magna Graecia. In return for this, as well as to secure the continuance of their support, he conferred great benefits upon the Locrians, to whom he gave the whole territory of Caulonia, after the destruction of that city in B.C. 389; to which he added that of Hipponium in the following year, and a part of that of Scylletium. (Diod. xiv. 100, 106, 107; Strab. p. 261.) Hip- ponium was, however, again wrested from them by the Carthaginians in B.C. 379. (Id. xv. 24.) Tlie same intimate relations with Syracuse continued Tinder the younger Dionysius, when they became the source of great misfortunes to the city : for that despot, after his expulsion from Syracuse (b.c. 356), withdrew to Locri, where he seized on the citadel, and established himself in the possession of despotic power. His rule here is described as extremely arbitraiy and oppressive, and stained at once by the most excessive avarice and unbridled licentiousness. At length, after a period of six years, the Locrians took advantage of the absence of Dionysius, and drove out his garrison ; while they exercised a cruel vengeance upon his unfortunate wife and daughters, who had fallen into their hands. (Justin, xsi. 2, 3 ; Strab. vi. p. 259; Arist. Pul. v. 7; Clearch. ap. Athen . xii. 541.) The Locrians are said to have suftered severely from the oppressions of this tyrant; but it is pro- bable that they sustained still greater injury from the increasing power of the Bruttians, who were now become most formidable neighbours to all the Greek cities in this part of Italy. The Locrians never ap- pear to have fallen under the yoke of the bar- barians, but it is certain that their city declined greatly from its former prosperity. It is not again mentioned till the wars of Pyrrhus. At that period it appears that Locri, as well as Rhegium and other Greek cities, had placed itself under the pro- tection of Rome, and even admitted a Eoinan gar- rison into its walls. On the approach of Pyn-hus they expelled this garrison, and declared themselves in favour of that monarch (Justin, sviii. 1) ; but they had soon cause to regret the change : for the LOCRL garrison left there by the king, during his absence in Sicily, conducted itself so ill, that the Locrians rose against them and expelled them from their citv. On this account they were severely punished by Pyrrhus on his return from Sicily ; and, not con- tent with exactions from the inhabitants, he carried off a great part of the sacred treasures from the temple of Proserpine, the most celebrated sanctuary at Locri. A violent storm is said to h.ave punished his impiety, and compelled him to restore the trea- sures. (Appian, Samn. iii. 12 ; Liv. sx.Lx. 18 ; Val. Mas. i. 1, Ext. § 1.) After the departure of Pyrrhus, the Locrians seem to have submitted again to Rome, and con- tinued so till the_ Second Punic War, when they were among the states that threw off the Roman alliance and declared in favour of the Carthaginians, after the battle of Cannae, B.C. 216. (Liv. xxii. 61, xxiii. 30.) They soort after received a Cartha- ginian force within their walls, though at the same time their liberties were guaranteed by a treaty of alliance on equal terms. (Liv. xxiv. 1.) When the fortune of the war began to turn against Carthage, Locri was besieged by the Romaa consul Crispinus, but without success ; and the approach of Hannibal compelled him to raise the siege, B.C. 208. (Id. xxvii. 25, 28.) It was not rill B.C. 205, that Scipio, when on the point of sailing for Africa, was enabled, by the treachery of some of the citizens, to surprise one of the forts which commanded the town ; an advantage that soon led to the surrender of the other citadel and the city itself. (Id. xxix. 6 — 8.) Scipio confided the charge of the city and the command of the garrison to his legate, Q. Ple- minius ; but that officer conducted himself with such cruelty and rapacity towards the unfortunate Lo- crians, that they rose in tumult against him, and a violent sedition took place, which was only appeased by the intervention of Scipio himself. That general, however, took the part of Pleminius, whom he con- tinued in his command; and the Locrians were ex- posed anew to his exactions and cruelties, till they at length took courage to appeal to the Roman se- nate. Notwithstanding vehement opposition on the part of the friends of Scipio, the senate pronounced in favour of the Locrians, condemned Pleminius, and restored to the Locrians their liberty and the enjoyment of their own laws. (Liv. xxix. 8, 16 — 22; Diod. xxvii. 4; Appian, Annib, 55.) Plemi- nius had, on this occasion, followed the example of Pyrrhus in plundering the temple of Proserpine; but the senate caused restitution to be made, and the impiety to be expiated at the public cost. (Diod. I. c.) From this time we hear little of Locri. Not- withstanding the privileged condition conceded to it by the senate, it seems to have surk into a very subordinate position. Polybius, however, speaks of it as in his day still a considerable town, which was bound by treaty to furnish a certain amount of naval auxiliaries to the Romans. (Pol. xii. 5.) The Locrians were under particular obligations to that historian (/6.) ; and at a later period we find them enjoying the special patronage of Cicero (Cic. de Leg. ii. 6), but we do not know the origin of their connection with the great orator. From Strabo's ac- count it is obvious that Locri still subsisted as a town in his day, and it is noticed in like manner by Pliny and Ptolemy (Strab. vi. p. 259 ; Plin. iii. 5. s. 10; Ptol. iii. 1. § 10). Its name is not found in the Itineraries, though they describe this coast in con-
