MESSANA. subjection by Anaxilas must have occurred some years prior to his death in b. c. 476. It is certain that at that period he had been for some time ruler both of Ehegium and Zancle, the latter of which, according to one account, he had placed under the nominal government of his son Cleophron or Leo- phron. (Diod. xi. 48 ; Schol. ad Find. Pyth. ii. 34.) It is certain, also, that before the close of his reign Zancle had assumed the name of Jlessene or Lles- sana, by which it has ever since been known. The error of Pausanias, who carries back the whole set- tlement, and with it the reign of Anaxilas to the close of the Second Messenian War, b. c. 668, has been sufficiently refuted by Bentley {Diss, on Pha- lai-is, pp. 204 — 224.) It is probable that he con- founded the Second Messenian War with the Third, which was really contemporaneous with the reign of Anaxilas (Clinton, F.H. vol. i. p. 257); and it is not unlikely that some fugitives from the latter were among the fresh settlers established by Anaxilas at the time of the colonisation of Slessana. It is pro- bable also that the Samians were by no means absolutely expelled, as stated by Thucydides, but continued to inhabit the city together with the new colonists, though deprived of their exclusive ascend- ancy. (Herod, vii. 164; Sidexi, Zancle-Messana, p. 16.) The Messanians for some time followed the for- tunes of their neighbours of Ehegium : they passed, after the death of Anaxilas, under the government of llicythus, and subsequently of the two sons of Anaxilas : but, after the death of Hieron, and the ex- pulsion of his brother Thrasybulus from Syracuse, they took the opportunity, in conjunction with the other cities of Sicily, to drive out their despots and assert their freedom and independence, b. c. 461. (Diod. xi. 59, 66, 76.) A krge body of the foreign settlers, who had been introduced into Sicily by the tyrants, were upon this occasion established in the territory of Messana, a proof that it was at this period still thinly peopled: but the city seems to have participated largely in the prosperity which the Sicilian republics in general enjoyed during the period that followed, B.C. 460 — 410. The great fertility of its territory, and the excellence of its port, were natural advantages which qualified it to become one of the first cities of Sicily: and this ap- pears to have been the case throughout the period in question. In b. c. 426. their tranquillity was, how- ever, interrupted by the arrival of the Athenian fleet under Laches, which established itself at Ehegium, on the opposite side of the straits ; and from thence made an attack on Mylae, a fortress and dependency of the Messanians, which, though occupied by a strong garrison, was compelled to surrender. Laches, W'ith his alhes, hereupon marched against Messana itself, which was unable to resist so large a force, and was compelled to accede to the Athenian alliance. (Thuc. iii. 86, 90; Diod. xii. 54.) But the next year (b. c. 425) the Messanians hastened to desert their new alliance, and join that of the Syracusans ; and from thenceforth their port became the chief naval station of the combined Syracusan and Locrian fleets. (Thuc. iv. 1, 24, 25.) They themselves, also, on one occasion, took courage to make a vigorous attack on their Chalcidic neigh- bours of Naxos, and were able to defeat the Na- xians themselves, and shut them up within their walls; but were in their turn defeated by the Sicu- lians and Leontines, who had hastened to the relief of Naxos, and who for a short time laid siege, but JIESSANA. 335 without effect, to Messana itself. (Thuc. Iv. 25.) The Slessanians were included in the general pacifi- cation of Sicily, B. c. 424 ; but were themselves still divided by factions, and appear at one time to have for a short period passed under the actual dominion of the Locrians. (Id. v. 5.) At the time of the Athenian expedition to Sicily (b. c. 415) they were again independent, and on that occasion they per- sisted in maintaining a neutral position, though in vain solicited by the Athenians on one side, and the Syracusans on the other. An attempt of the former to make themselves masters of the city by treachery proved wholly ineffectual. (Diod. xiii. 4 ; Thuc. vi. 48, 74.) A few years later, the Messa- nians afforded a hospitable refuge to the fugitives from Himera, when that city was taken by the Carthaginians, b. c. 409 (Diod. xiii. 61), and sent an auxiliarj' force to assist in the defence of Agri- gentum against the same people. (Id. 86.) It appears certain that Messana was at this period, one of the most flourishing and considerable cities in Sicily. Diodoms tells us, that the ]Iessa- nians and Rhegians together could equip a fleet of not less than 80 triremes (xiv. 8) ; and their combined forces were viewed with respect, if not with appre- hension, even by the powerful Dionysius of Syracuse. (Id. 44.) But though unfavourably disposed towards that despot, the Itlessanians did not share in the strong sympathies of the Ehegians with the Chalcidic cities of Naxos and Catana [Ehegium], and pursued an uncertain and vacillating policy. (Diod. xiv. 8, 40, 44.) But while they thus sought to evade the hostility of the Syracusan despot, they were visited by a more severe calamity. Himilcon, the Carthaginian general, who had landed in Sicily in b. c. 396, having compelled Dionysius to fall back upon Syracuse, himself advanced with a large army from Panormus, along the N. coast of the island. Messana '^vas the immediate object of the campaign, on account of the importance of its port; and it was so ill prepared for defence, that notwithstanding the spirited resistance of its citizens, it was taken by Himilcon with little difficulty. Great part of the inhabitants made their escape to the surrounding country ; but the rest were put to the sword, and not only the walls of the city levelled to the ground, but all its buildings so studiously destroyed as, according to the expression of Diodorus, to leave scarcely a trace of where it had formerly stood. (Diod. xiv. 56 — 58.) After the defeat and expulsion of the Cartha- ginans, Dionysius endeavoured to repeople Messana with the fugitive citizens who suiTived, to whom he added fresh colonists from Locri and Medma, together with a small body of Messanian exiles, but the latter were soon after transferred to the newly founded city of Tyndaris. (Diod. xiv. 78.) ]Iean- while, the Rhegians, who viewed with dissatisfaction the footing thus established by Dionysius on the Sicilian straits, endeavoured to obtain in their turn an advanced post against the Jlessanians by forti- fying Mylae, where they established the exiles from Naxos, Catana, and other cities, who had been driven from their homes by Dionysius. (Id. xiv. 87.) The attempt, however, proved abortive : the IIessanians recovered possession of Mylae, and con- tinued to support Dionysius in his enterprises against Ehegium. (Id. 87, 103.) After the death of that despot, we hear but little of Messana, which appears to have gradually, but slowly, risen again to a flourishing condition. In li. c. 357 the Messa-
