Scanned text contains errors.
lasting state of peace with Phrorilas, the brother and successor of Joannicus. He also made a truce with Theodore Lascaris, who was hard pressed by David, the gallant brother and general of Alexis I., the new emperor of Trebizond. In 1214, Theodore Lascaris formed a most advantageous peace with Alexis, and now suddenly invaded Bithynia, surprised the troops of Henry which were stationed there, and conquered them in a pitched battle. To avenge this defeat, Henry crossed the Bosporus with a chosen army, and laid siege to Pemanene. The town surrendered after an obstinate resistance, which so roused the resentment of Henry, that he ordered the three principal officers of the garrison to be put to death, viz. Dermocaitus, Andronicus Palaeologus, the brother-in-law of Theodore Lascaris, and a brother of Theodore Lascaris, whose name is not mentioned, but who was undoubtedly the brave Constantine Lascaris, who defended Constantinople with so much gallantry against the Latins in 1204. The issue of the campaign, however, was not very favourable to Henry, for he obtained peace only on condition of ceding to his rival all the territories situate east of a line drawn from Sardis to Nicaea, and to leave Theodore Lascaris in possession of those which he had conquered west of that Ijne in Bithynia previous to the truce mentioned above. In 1215 the fourth Lateran council was assembled by pope Innocent III., and a kind of mock union was formed between the Roman and Greek churches within the narrow dominions of Henry. Gervasius was made patriarch of Constantinople, and recognised by both Henry and the pope, who besides declared Constantinople the first see of Christendom after Rome. In the following year (1216), Henry set out to wage war with his former friend Theodore, despot of Epeirus and Aetolia, but died suddenly, before any hostilities of consequence had taken place. It is said that he died by poison, and both the Greeks and the Latins are charged with the murder ; but the fact is doubtful. Henry left no male issue, and was succeeded by Peter of Courte-nay.
In spite of the perpetual wars into which he was driven by circumstances, and which he carried on with insufficient means, Henry found time to ame liorate the condition of his subjects by several wise laws and a careful and impartial administration. Towards the Greeks he showed great impartiality, admitting them to the highest offices of the state, and never giving any preference to his own country men or other foreigners ; and there are many pas sages in the Greek writers which prove that the Greeks really loved him. To make a nation forget a foreign yoke is, however, no easy task, and no ruler has ever succeeded in it but by displaying in equal proportions valour, energy, prudence, wis dom, and humanity. For these qualities great praise has been bestowed upon Henry, and he well deserved it. (Gregoras, lib. i. ii. ; Nicetas, p. 410, &c., ed. Paris ; Acropolita, c. 6, &c. ; Ville- hardouin, De la Conqueste de Constantincible, ed. Paulin Paris, Paris, 1838.) [W. P.]
HEPHAESTION ('H<£a«mW), son of Amyn-tor, a Macedonian of Pella, celebrated as the companion and friend of Alexander the Great. We are told that he was of the same age with the great conqueror himself, and that he had been brought up with him (Curt. iii. 12) ; but the latter statement apparently refers only to the period of
childhood, as we find no mention of him among' those who shared with Alexander the instruction and society of Aristotle. Nor does the name of Hephaestion occur amidst the intrigues and dissensions between Alexander and his father, which agitated the close of the reign of Philip. The first occasion on which he is mentioned is that of Alexander's visit to Troy, when Hephaestion is said to have> paid the same honours to the tomb of Patro-clus that were bestowed by the king himself on that of Achilles,—an apt type of the relation subsisting between the two. (Arr. Anah. i. 12. § 2 ; Ael. V. H. xii. 6.) For it is equally to the credit of Hephaestion and Alexander, that though the former undoubtedly owed his elevation to the personal favour and affection of the king, rather than to any abilities or achievements of his gwim he never allowed himself to degenerate into the-position of a flatterer or mere favourite, and the intercourse between the two appears to have been uniformly characterised by the frankness and sincerity of a true friendship. It is unnecessary to do more than allude to such well-known anecdotes as the visit paid by the king and Hephaestion to the tent of Dareius after the battle of Issus, or the delicate reproof conveyed by Alexander to his friend when he found him reading over his shoulder a letter from Olympias. If we can trust the expression of Plutarch, on the latter occasion, that it was no more than he was accustomed to do (a/xa rov 'HfyaurrluvoS) winrep el(x,6€i9 arvvavayivoCfTKovros)^ there cannot well be a stronger proof of the complete familiarity subsisting between them. (Arr. Anab. ii. 12 ; Curt. iii. 12 ; Diod. xvii. 37 ; Plut. A lex. 39, ApopWi. p. 180, d., De fort. Alex. Or. i. 11.) But it appears that Alexander's attachment to Hephaestion never blinded him to the fact that his friend was not possessed of abilities that qualified him to take the sole command of important enterprises, and that he would not in fact have attained to eminence by his own exertions alone. On one occasion, indeed, he is said to have expressed this truth in the strongest manner, when finding his favourite engaged in an open quarrel with Craterus, he exclaimed that Hephaestion must be mad if he were not aware that without Alexander he would be nothing. Throughout his life he appears to have retained a just sense of their different merits ; and while he loved Hephaestion the most, he yet regarded Craterus with the greater reverence: the one, he often observed, "was his own private friend ), the other that of the king (<£iAo-(Plut. Alesc. 47.)
During the first years of Alexander's expedition in Asia we scarcely find any mention of Hephaestion as employed in any military capacity. Curtius, indeed, tells us (iv. 5. § 10) that he was appointed to command the fleet which accompanied the army of Alexander along the coast of Phoenicia, in b. c. 332, but this was at a time when there was little fear of hostility. In the following year, however, he served with distinction at the battle of Arbela,-where he was wounded in the arm. (Arr. Anab. iii. 15 ; Curt. iv. 16. § 32 ; Diod. xvii. 61.) On this occasion he is called by Diodoras the chief of the body-guards. We have no account of the time when he obtained this important post, but it is certain that he was one of the seven select officers who, under the title of body-guards (o-ufj.aro<f)v-Aa/ces), were in close attendance upon the king's person. (Arr. Anab. vi. 28. § 6.) After the death