Scanned text contains errors.
him aad the two other judges, Asterion and1 Ce-phissus, of their water, so that they became dry except in rainy seasons. (Paus. ii. 15. § 4, &c.; <:omp. Apollod. ii. 1. § 4.) The ancients themselves made several attempts to explain the stories about Inachus: sometimes they looked upon him as a native of Argos, who after the flood of Deucalion led the Argives from the mountains into the plains, and confined the waters within their proper channels; and sometimes they regarded him as an immigrant who had come across the sea as the leader of an Egyptian or Libyan colony, and had united the Pelasgians, whom he found scattered on the banks of the Inachus. (Schol. ad Eurip. Or. 920, 932 ; Sophocl. ap. Dionys. L cf) [L. S.]
INAROS ('Irapws, occasionally vl»/apos), son of Psammitichus, a chief of some of the Libyan tribes to the West of Egypt, commenced hostilities against the Persians at the western extremity of the Delta, and gradually succeeded in extending them to a general revolt, under his direction, of Egypt. This, according to DiodOrus (xi. 71), would be in B. c. 461. In 460 Inaros called in the Athenians, who, with a fleet of 200 gallies, were then off Cy prus : the ships sailed up to Memphis, and, occu pying two parts of the town, besieged the third. (Thuc. i. 104.) This was probably preceded by a great battle, recorded by Ctesias and Diodorus .(Diod. xi. 74; Ctesias, 32), in which an immense host of Persians was defeated, and Achaemenes, the brother of the king Artaxerxes, slain by the hand of Inaros. But a new army, under a new commander, Megabyzus, was more successful. The Egyptians and their allies were defeated; and Ina ros, says Thucydides (i. 110), was taken by treachery, and crucified, b. c. 455. .According to ,Gtesias; he retreated, when all Egypt fell from him, into the town of Byblus, and here capitulated with the Greeks, on the promise that his life should be spared. Megabyzus thus carried him prisoner to .the court; and here the urgency of Amytis, the .mother of the king, and Achaemenes, drove Arta xerxes, after five years' interval, to break the en gagement which he had confirmed to his general. Inaros was put to a barbarous death,, a combina tion, it seems, of impaling and flaying alive (eirl rpial (TTavpois, Ctesias; comp. Plut. Aiicuv. c. 17). Megabyzus, in indignation, revolted. Herodotus records the death of Achaemenes by the hand of. Inaros, and speaks of having seen the bones of those that fell with him in battle at Papremis. (Herod, vii. 7, in. 12.) He also tells us that though Inaros had done the Persians more hurt than any man before him, his son Thannyras was allowed to succeed him in his government, that is, we must suppose, of the Libyan tribes. (Herod, iii. 15.) [A. H. C.]
INDEX, the indicater or denouncer, is a trans lation of Mrjvimjy, a surname of Heracles. Once, the story runs, a golden vessel had been stolen from the temple of Heracles at Athens. Heracles repeatedly appeared to Sophocles in a dream, until the latter informed the Areiopagus of it, and the thief was arrested, and confessed his crime. From this circumstance the temple was afterwards called the temple of Heracles Menytes, or Index. (Cic. de Div, i. 25 ; Hesych. s. v. fJLrjvvrTJs ; 2o<t>oK\€Ovs yevos ital jSi'os.) [L. S.]
INDIBILIS ('AvtoSfatis, Polyb.; 'IifiteiAw, Appian), a king or chief of the Spanish tribe of the Jlergetes, who plays an important part in the war
between the Romans and Carthaginians in Spain during the second Punic war. He is first mentioned in b.c. 218, as commanding the Spanish auxiliaries in the service of Hanno, the Carthaginian governor of the provinces north of the Iberus [hanno, No. 15], when he was defeated, together with that general, by Cn. Scipio, and fell into the hands of the Romans. (Polyb. iii. 76.) By what means he regained his liberty we know not, but the following year (217) we find him, together with his brother Mandonius, heading an incursion into .the territories of the tribes in alliance with Rome. (Liv. xxii. 21.) This attempt was, however, easily repulsed ; and the successes of the two Scipios for some time afterwards seem to have compelled him to remain quiet: but in 212 he led a force of 7500 men to join the Carthaginian army under Hasdrubal, the son of Gisco, which was opposed to P. Scipio : it was the attempt of the Roman general to intercept his march, and cut off his reinforcement before it could join the main army, that brought on the general action, which ended in the defeat and death of Scipio. (Liv. xxv. 34). Indi-bilis and Mandonius are spoken of by Polybius as the most powerful and influential among the chieftains of Spain, and had hitherto been remarkable for their steady attachment to the Carthaginian cause, for which they were rewarded by being reestablished in their hereditary dominions after the death of the two Scipios. But their minds were soon after alienated by the haughty and arbitrary conduct of Hasdrubal, the son of Gisco, who, instead of reposing confidence in their good faith, exacted from them the payment of a large sum of money, and required that the wife of Mandonius and the daughters of Indibilis should be placed in his hands as a pledge of their fidelity. These hostages fell into the power of the young P. Scipio, at the capture of New Carthage, and were treated by him with all the distinction due to. their rank, a circumstance which made a powerful impression on the minds of the Spaniards, and added to the ascendancy already acquired by Scipio's personal character. These causes, united with their increasing grounds of discontent with the Carthaginians, at length determined the two brothers to abandon the cause of Carthage for that of Rome ; and when Scipio took the field in the spring of 209, he was joined by Indibilis and Mandonius, with all the forces of their nation. A treaty of alliance was concluded between them and the Romans, and the two princes imited with Scipio in the campaign against Hasdrubal, which terminated in the victory of Baecula. (Polyb. ix. 11, x. 18, 35—38, 40 ; Liv. xxvi. 49, xxvii. 17, 19.) So long as the presence of Scipio cast its spell over them, they continued unshaken in their adherence, but in 206 the illness and reported death of that great commander gave them hopes of shaking off the yoke of Rome as they had done that of Carthage, and they excited a general revolt not only among their own subjects, but the neighbouring Celtiberian tribes also. They were soon undeceived ; and on learning that Scipio was still alive, withdrew within their own frontiers to await the issue of events. But the Roman general was not disposed to leave their infidelity unpunished: he crossed the Iberus, totally defeated the army which the two princes opposed to him, and took their camp, with great slaughter. When, however, Mandonius in person presented himself in the Roman camp, and threw himself as a sup-