Map of the Roman Empire - Messana
Messana
J-6 on the Map
Ancient Messana A Greek city formerly of the Siceli called Zancle. The city was taken over in 490 B.C. by Anaxilas who changed the name of the city to Messana. Later the Mamertini mercenaries took over the city in 282 B.C. killed all the males and took the women and children. Later the Carthaginians attacked them and the Mamertini cried to Rome for help. Rome came to their aid and this was the initial cause of the First Punic War. After 227 B.C. Messana was a leading city of the Roman province of Sicily, controlling the straits. Its modern name is Messina.
Messana Messāna (Μεσσήνη). The modern Messina; a celebrated town of Sicily, on the strait separating Italy from this island, which is here about four miles broad. The Romans called the town Messana, according to its Doric pronunciation, but Messené was its more usual name among the Greeks. It was originally a town of the Siceli, and was called Zanclé, or a sickle, on account of the shape of its harbour, which is formed by a singular curve of sand and shells. It was first colonized by Chalcidians, and was afterwards seized by Samians, who had come to Sicily after the capture of Miletus by the Persians (B.C. 494). The Samians were shortly afterwards driven out of Zanclé by Anaxilas, who changed the name of the town into Messana or Messené, both because he was himself a Messenian and because he transferred to the place a body of Messenians from Rhegium. In B.C. 396 it was taken and destroyed by the Carthaginians, but was rebuilt by Dionysius. It afterwards fell into the hands of Agathocles. Among the mercenaries of this tyrant were a number of Mamertini, an Oscan people from Campania, who had been sent from home, under the protection of the god Mamers, or Mars, to seek their fortune in other lands. These Mamertini were quartered in Messana; and after the death of Agathocles (B.C. 282) they made themselves masters of the town, killed the male inhabitants, and took possession of their wives, their children, and their property. The town was now called Mamertīna, and the inhabitants Mamertini; but its ancient name of Messana continued to be in more general use. The new inhabitants could not lay aside their old predatory habits, and in consequence became involved in a war with Hieron of Syracuse, who would probably have conquered the town had not the Carthaginians come in to the aid of the Mamertini, and, under the pretext of assisting them, taken possession of their citadel. The Mamertini had at the same time applied to the Romans for help, who gladly availed themselves of the opportunity to obtain a footing in Sicily. Thus Messana was the immediate cause of the First Punic War, 264. The Mamertini expelled the Carthaginian garrison, and received the Romans, in whose power Messana remained till the latest times. - Harry Thurston Peck. Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. New York. Harper and Brothers. 1898.
Messina (Sicilian: Missina) is the third largest city on the island of Sicily, Italy and the capital of the province of Messina. It has a population of c. 240,000 inhabitants in the city proper and about 500,000 in the province. It is located near the northeast corner of Sicily, at the Strait of Messina, just opposite Villa San Giovanni on the mainland. The main economical resources of the city are: the port (commercial and military), provided with several shipyards; agriculture, that includes the cultivation of lemons, oranges, mandarin oranges, olives and wine production; tourism. The city has been a Roman Catholic Archdiocese and Archimandrite seat since 1548 and is home to a locally important international fair.Messana MESSA´NA
MESSA´NA or MESSE´NE (Μεσσήνη in almost all Greek authors, but the Doric form
Μεσσάνα, which is found in Pindar, was universally in use among the citizens
themselves, and was from them adopted by the Romans, who always write the name
Messana: Eth.Μεσσήνιος and Eth. Μεσσάνιος, Messanensis: Messina), an important
city of Sicily, situated on the strait which divided that island from Italy,
nearly opposite to Rhegium, and only a few miles from Cape Pelorus, the NE.
extremity of the island. It was originally called ZANCLE (Ζάγκλη: Eth. Ζαγκλαῖος),
a name said to be of Siculian origin, derived from Ζάγκλον, which in the
language of that people meant a sickle, and was obviously applied to the spot
from the peculiar configuration of the curved spit or point of sand which
encloses its port. (Thuc. 6.4; Steph. Byz. s. v. Ζάγκλη; Strab. vi. p.268; Diod.
iv, 85.) From this derivation of the name it would appear probable that there
was a Siculian settlement on the spot, before it was occupied by the Greeks; but
no mention of this is found in history, and all ancient writers describe Zancle
as a Chalcidic colony. According to Thucydides it was at first founded by a band
of pirates from the Italian Cumae, itself a colony of Chalcis; but the
advantageous situation of the place soon led to the establishment there of a
more regular colony, consisting of settlers from Chalcis and the other cities of
Euboea, at the head of whom were Perieres of Chalcis and Crataemenes of Cumae,
who became the joint founders or Oekists of the new colony (Thuc. 6.4). This
statement of Thucydides is confirmed in its leading points by Pausanias; while
Scymnus Chius, as well as Strabo, though agreeing in its Chalcidic origin,
represent it as founded immediately from the Chalcidic colony of Naxos in
Sicily. (Paus. 4.23.7; Scymn. Ch. 284-286; Strab. vi. p.268.) From this last
version we may infer that it was looked upon as of more recent origin than
Naxos, and therefore not founded till after 735 B.C.; but we have no clue to the
precise, or even approximate date, of its establishment. Of its early history we
know scarcely anything; but we may probably infer that it rose early to a
flourishing condition, from the circumstance that the Zanclaeans were able
before the close of the seventh century B.C. to establish two colonies on the N.
coast of the island: Mylae, about 30 miles W. of Cape Pelorus, and Himera, much
further to the W. (Thuc. 6.5; Scymn. Ch. 288; Strab. vi. p.272.) The latter grew
up into a great and powerful city, but Mylae appears to have continued for the
most part a mere dependency of Zancle. (Strab. l.c.）
The Zanclaeans appear to have been still desirous of extending their colonial
system in this direction, and were endeavouring to induce fresh settlers from
the Ionian cities of Asia to co-operate with them in this enterprise, when the
fall of Miletus in B.C. 494 gave a fresh impulse to emigration from that
quarter. A large body of Samians, together with some of the surviving Milesians,
were in consequence induced to accept the invitation of the Zanclaeans, and set
out for Sicily, with the purpose of establishing themselves on the N. coast
between Mylae and Himera, which was commonly known as “the Fair Shore” (ἡ Καλὴ
Ἀκτή.) But having arrived, on their way, at Locri Epizephyrii, they were here
persuaded by Anaxilas, tyrant of Rhegium, to take a treacherous advantage of the
absence of the Zanclaean troops, who were engaged in military operations
elsewhere, and surprise the city of Zancle itself. That city was at this time
under the government of a despot named Scythes, to whom Herodotus gives the
title of king. On finding themselves thus betrayed, the Zanclaeans invoked the
assistance of the powerful Hippocrates, despot of Gela; but that monarch in his
turn betrayed them, and instead of aiding them to recover possession of Zancle,
made common cause with the Samians, whom he confirmed in the possession of the
city, while he threw Scythes into prison, and reduced the greater part of the
Zanclaeans into captivity. (Hdt. 6.22-24; Thuc. 6.4; Scymn. Ch. 293; Arist. Pol.
5.3.) By this sudden revolution, the Samians found themselves in undisputed
possession of Zancle, but they did not long enjoy their new acquisition. Not
many years afterwards they were in their turn reduced to subjection by Anaxilas
himself, who is said to have expelled them from the city, which he peopled with
a mixed body of colonists, while he gave to it the name of Messene, in
remembrance of the land of that name in Greece, from which his own ancestors
derived their descent. (Thuc. 6.4; Hdt. 7.164; Strab. vi. p.268.)
The exact period of this revolution cannot be determined with certainty; but the
first settlement of the Samians at Zancle cannot be carried back further than
B.C. 493, while their subsequent expulsion or [2.335] 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 Rhegium and Zancle, the
latter of which, according to one account, he had placed under the nominal
government of his son Cleophron or Leophron. (Diod. 11.48; Schol. ad Pind. Pyth.
2.34.) It is certain, also, that before the close of his reign Zancle had
assumed the name of Messene or Messana, by which it has ever since been known.
The error of Pausanias, who carries back the whole settlement, 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 Phalaris, pp. 204--224.) It is
probable that he confounded 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
Messana. It is probable 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 ascendancy. (Hdt.
7.164; Siefert, Zancle-Messana, p. 16.)
The Messanians for some time followed the fortunes of their neighbours of
Rhegium: they passed, after the death of Anaxilas, under the government of
Micythus, and subsequently of the two sons of Anaxilas: but, after the death of
Hieron, and the expulsion 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. 11.59,
66, 76.) A large 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 appears 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 Rhegium, 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, with his allies, hereupon marched
against Messana itself, which was unable to resist so large a force, and was
compelled to accede to the Athenian alliance. (Thuc. 3.86, 90; Diod. 12.54.) 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. 4.1,
24, 25.) They themselves, also, on one occasion, took courage to make a vigorous
attack on their Chalcidic neighbours of Naxos, and were able to defeat the
Naxians themselves, and shut them up within their walls; but were in their turn
defeated by the Siculians and Leontines, who had hastened to the relief of
Naxos, and who for a short time laid siege, but without effect, to Messana
itself. (Thuc. 4.25.) The Messanians were included in the general pacification
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. 5.5.) At the time of the Athenian expedition to Sicily (B.C. 415)
they were again independent, and on that occasion they persisted 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. 13.4 ; Thuc. 6.48,
74.) A few years later, the Messanians afforded a hospitable refuge to the
fugitives from Himera, when that city was taken by the Carthaginians, B.C. 409 (Diod.
13.61), and sent an auxiliary force to assist in the defence of Agrigentum
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. Diodorus tells us, that the Messanians and
Rhegians together could equip a fleet of not less than 80 triremes (14.8); and
their combined forces were viewed with respect, if not with apprehension, even
by the powerful Dionysius of Syracuse. (Id. 44.) But though unfavourably
disposed towards that despot, the Messanians did not share in the strong
sympathies of the Rhegians with the Chalcidic cities of Naxos and Catana [RHEGIUM],
and pursued an uncertain and vacillating policy. (Diod. 14.8, 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 was 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. 14.56-58.)
After the defeat and expulsion of the Carthaginans, Dionysius endeavoured to
repeople Messana with the fugitive citizens who survived, 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. 14.78.) Mean-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 Messanians by fortifying Mylae,
where they established the exiles from Naxos, Catana, and other cities, who had
been driven from their homes by Dionysius. (Id. 14.87.) The attempt, however,
proved abortive : the Messanians recovered possession of Mylae, and continued to
support Dionysius in his enterprises against Rhegium. (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 B.C. 357 the
Messanians [2.336] are mentioned as sending assistance to Dion against the
younger Dionysius; and after the death of Dion, they repulsed an attempt of
Callippus to make himself master of their city. (Diod. 16.9; Plut. Dio 58.) At a
somewhat later period, however, they fell under the yoke of a tyrant named
Hippon, from whom they were freed by Timoleon, (B.C. 339), and at the same time
detached from the alliance of Carthage, to which they had been for a time
compelled to adhere. (Diod. 16.69; Plut. Tim. 20, 34.)
But Messana did not long enjoy her newly recovered freedom. Soon after the
establishment of Agathocles at Syracuse, that monarch turned his arms against
Messana, and, though his first attempts, in B.C. 315, were unsuccessful, and he
was even compelled to restore the fortress of Mylae, of which he had for a time
made himself master, a few years later, B.C. 312, he succeeded in establishing
his power at Messana itself. (Diod. 19.65, 102.) But the severities which he
exercised against the party which had opposed him completely alienated the minds
of the Messanians, and they readily embraced the opportunity of the defeat of
the tyrant at Ecnomus in the following year, B.C. 311, to throw off his yoke and
declare in favour of the Carthaginian alliance. (Id. 19.110.) The death of
Agathocles, soon after, brought upon the Messenians even heavier calamities than
his enmity had done. The numerous bands of mercenary troops, chiefly of
Campanian, or at least Oscan, extraction, which the despot had assembled in
Sicily, were, after his death, compelled by the Syracusans, with the support of
the Carthaginians, to quit the island. But, having arrived with that object at
Messana, where they were hospitably received by the citizens, and quartered in
their houses, they suddenly turned against them, massacred the male inhabitants,
made themselves masters of their wives, houses, and property, and thus
established themselves in undisputed possession of the city. (Pol. 1.7; Diod.
21.18, Exc. H. p. 493; Strab. vi. p.268.) They now assumed the name of MAMERTINI
(Μαμερτῖνοι), or “the children of Mars,” from Mamers, an Oscan name of that
deity, which is found also in old Latin. (Diod. l.c.; Varr. L. L. 5.73.) The
city, however, continued to be called Messana, though they attempted to change
its name to Mamertina: Cicero, indeed, in several instances calls it “Mamertina
civitas” (Cic. Ver. 2.5, 46, 3.6, 4.10, &c.), but much more frequently Messana,
though the in-habitants were in his time universally called Mamertini. The
precise period of the occupation of Messana by the Mamertines is nowhere stated.
Polybius tells us that it occurred not long before that of Rhegium by the
Campanians under Decius, which may be referred to the year 280 B.C., while it
must have taken place some time after the death of Agathocles in B.C. 289: the
year 282 is that commonly assigned, but within the above limits this is merely
conjectural.
The Mamertines now rapidly extended their power over the whole NE. angle of
Sicily, and made themselves masters of several fortresses and towns. The
occupation of Rhegium by the Campanian's, under very similar circumstances,
contributed to strengthen their position, and they became one of the most
formidable powers in Sicily. The arrival of Pyrrhus in the island (B.C. 278) for
a time gave a check to their aggrandisement: they in vain combined with. the
Carthaginians to :prevent his landing; but, though he defeated their forces in a
battle and took several of their fortresses, he did not attack Messana itself;
and on his return to Italy the Mamertines sent a large force across the straits
which attacked the army of the king on its march, and inflicted on him severe
losses. (Plut. Pyrrh. 23, 24; Diod. 21.7. p. 495.) The Mamertines, however, soon
found a more formidable enemy in Hieron of Syracuse, who, shortly after the
departure of Pyrrhus from Sicily, established himself in the possession of the
chief power in that city. His efforts were early directed against the Mamertines;
and after. the fall of Rhegium, which was taken by the Romans in B.C. 271, he
invaded their territory with a great army, reduced the fortress of Mylae, and
defeated the Mamertines in a battle on the banks of the river Longanus, with
such slaughter that they were on the point of surrendering Messana itself
without a blow; and the city was saved only by the intervention of a
Carthaginian force under Hannibal. (Pol. 1.8, 9; Diod. 22.13. pp. 499, 500.) The
events which followed are obscurely known to us, and their chronology is very
uncertain; but the Mamertines seem to have found that they were no longer able
to stand alone against the power of Hieron; and, while one party was disposed to
throw themselves into the arms of the Carthaginians, another sought protection
from the power of Rome. The latter ultimately prevailed, and an embassy sent by
the Mamertines, to invoke the alliance of the Romans, first gave occasion to the
intervention of that people in the affairs of Sicily, and became the origin of
the First Punic War, B.C. 264. (Pol. 1.10; Diod. 23.1; Zonar. 8.8; Oros. 4.7;
Liv. Epit. xvi.)
Before the arrival of the promised aid from Rome the Carthaginian party had
again prevailed, and the citadel was occupied by a Carthaginian garrison; but
this was expelled by the Mamertines themselves on the arrival of C. Claudius;
and soon after the consul Appius Claudius landed at Messana, and drove off in
succession the Carthaginians and Hieron, who had just before concluded an
alliance against the Mamertines, and laid siege to the city with their combined
forces. (Pol. 1.11, 12; Diod. 23.1, 3 p. 501; Zonar. 8.8, 9; Dio Cass. Exe. Vat.
58--60.) Messana was now protected by a Roman garrison, and, during the whole
course of the war which followed, continued to be one of their chief
strong-holds and the principal station of their fleets. The importance of its
harbour, as well as its ready communication with Italy, rendered it a point of
vital importance to the Romans; and the Mamertines either continued steadily
faithful or were kept under by the constant presence of a Roman force. (Pol.
1.21. 25, 38, 52; Diod. 23.18. p. 505, 24.1. p. 508; Zonar, 8.10, 12.) At the
close of the war the Mamertines obtained a renewal of their treaty, and
continued to enjoy henceforth the nominal privileges of an allied city (foederata
civitas), while they in reality passed under the dominion of Rome. (Cic. Ver.
3.6) Even in the time of Cicero we find them still retaining this privileged
condition; and though this alone would not have sufficed to protect them against
the exactions of Verres, the Mamertines appear to have adopted the safer policy
of supporting the praetor in all his oppressions and conciliating him by bribes,
so that they are represented by the orator as the accomplices, as well as
defenders, of all his iniquities. (Cic. Ib. 2.5, 46, 4.8, 67, &c.)
Messana was certainly at this time one of the most. populous and. flourishing
places in Sicily. Cicero [2.337] calls it a very great and very rich city (
“civitas maxima et locupletissima,” Verr. 5.17), and extols the advantages of
its situation, its port, and its buildings. (Ib. 4.2.) Like all other allied
cities, it had its own senate and magistrates, and was legally subject to no
other contributions than the furnishing ships and naval supplies in case of war,
and the contributing a certain proportion of the corn furnished by Sicily to
Rome at a given rate of remuneration. (Ib. 5.17--22.) Nor does Messana appear to
have suffered severely from any of the wars that caused such ravages in Sicily,
though it narrowly escaped being taken and plundered by Athenion during the
Servile War, B.C. 101. (Dio Cass. Fr. Val. p. 534.) In the Civil War, B.C. 48,
it was the station of a part of the fleet of Caesar, which was attacked there by
that of Pompey under Cassius, and the whole of the ships, thirty-five in number,
burnt; but the city itself was protected by the presence of a Roman legion. (Caes.
B.C. 3.101.) At a somewhat later period it was the head-quarters and chief
stronghold of Sextus Pompeius during his war with Octavian, B.C. 36; and its
capacious harbour became the station of the fleet with which he commanded the
coasts of Sicily, as far as Tauromenium on the one side and Tyndaris on the
other. It was from thence also that Pompeius, after the total defeat of his
fleet by Agrippa, made his escape with a squadron of only seventeen ships.
(Appian, App. BC 5.97, 103, 109, 122; D. C. 49.1-12; Strab. vi. p.268.)
It was in all probability in consequence of this war that Messana lost the
privileged condition it had so long enjoyed; but its inhabitants received in
exchange the Roman franchise, and it was placed in the ordinary position of a
Roman municipium. It still continued to be a flourishing place. Strabo speaks of
it as one of the few cities in Sicily that were in his day well peopled; and
though no subsequent mention of it is found in history under the Roman Empire,
it reappears during the Gothic wars as one of the chief cities and most
important fortresses in the island,--a rank it had undoubtedly held throughout
the intervening period. (Strab. vi. p.268; Plin. Nat. 3.8. s. 14; Ptol. 3.4.9;
Mel. 2.7.16; Procop. B. G. 1.8, 3.39.) The wine of the neighbourhood of Messana,
known as Vinum Mamertinum, enjoyed a great reputation in the days of Pliny; it
was first brought into vogue by the dictator Caesar. (Plin. Nat. 14.6. s. 8.)
Throughout the vicissitudes of the middle ages Messina continued to be one of
the most important cities of Sicily; and still ranks as the second city in the
island. It has, however, but few remains of antiquity. The only vestiges are
some baths and tesselated pavements, and a small old church, supposed to have
formed part of a Roman basilica. (Smyth's Sicily, p. 118.) Another church,
called S. Giovanni de' Fiorentini is believed, but wholly without authority, to
occupy the site of the Sacrarium or family chapel of Heius, from which Verres
purloined a bronze statue of Hercules, attributed to Myron, and one of Cupid,
which was believed to be the work of Praxiteles. (Cic. Ver. 4.2,3.)
The celebrated port of Messana, to which the city owed its chief importance in
ancient as well as modern times, is formed by a projecting spit or tongue of
sand, which curves round in the form of a crescent or sickle (whence the name of
Zancle was supposed to be derived), and constitutes a natural mole, rendering
the harbour within perfectly secure. This singular bulwark is called by Diodorus
the Actè (Ἀκτή), and its construction was attributed by fable to the giant Orion
(Diod. 4.85), though there can be no doubt of its being of perfectly natural
formation. The harbour within is said by Diodorus to be capable of containing a
fleet of 600 ships (14.56), and has abundant depth of water, even for the
largest ships of modern days. The celebrated whirlpool of the Charybdis is
situated just outside the Actè, nearly opposite the modern lighthouse, but out
of the track of vessels entering the harbour of Messina. (Smyth's Sicily, p.
123.)
Though the city itself is built close to the harbour on level ground,
immediately at the back of it rise steep hills, forming the underfalls of a
range of mountains which extends from the neighbourhood of Cape Pelorus to that
of Tauromenium. This ridge, or at least the part of it next to Cape Pelorus, was
known in ancient times as the MONS NEPTUNIUS; but a part of the same range
forming one of the underfalls near Messana is called, both by Dio.. dorus and
Polybius, the Chalcidic mount (τὸ Χαλκιδικὸν ὄρος, Pol. 1.11; ς῾ λόφος ἁ
καλούμενος Χαλκιδικός, Diod. 23.1), and was the position occupied by Hieron of
Syracuse when he laid siege to Messana, B.C. 264. But neither this, nor the
position taken up by the Carthaginians at the same time at a place called Sunes
or Eunes (Σύνεις, Pol.; Εὐνεῖς, Diod.), can be identified with any degree of
certainty.
The coins of Messana are numerous and interesting, as illustrating the
historical vicissitudes of the city. There exist:--1. Coins of Zancle, before
the time of Anaxilas, with the name written in old characters ΔΑΝΚΑΕ, a
dialectic form of the name. 2. Coins of Messana, with the Ionic legend ΜΕΣΣΕΝΙΟΝ
and types taken from the coins of Samos. These must be referred to the period of
Anaxilas immediately after his conquest of the city, while the Samian colonists
still inhabited it. 3. Coins of Messana, with the type of a hare, which seems to
have been adopted as the ordinary symbol of the city, because that animal is
said to have been first introduced into Sicily by Anaxilas. (Pollux, Onom.
5.75.) These coins, which are numerous, and range over a considerable period of
time, show the gradual preponderance of the Doric element in the city; the ruder
and earlier ones having the legend in the Ionic form ΜΕΣΣΕΝΙΟΝ, the latter ones
in the Doric form ΜΕΣΣΑΝΙΟΝ or ΜΕΣΣΑΝΙΩΝ. 4. Coins struck by the Mamertines,
with the name of ΜΑΜΕΠΤΙΝΩΝ. These are very numerous, but in copper only.
- Dictionary of Greek and Roman
Geography (1854) William Smith, LLD, Ed.