صور الصفحة
PDF

The highest rank was held by the descendants of the six great families, whose heads stood by Darius at the killing of the Magian. The Greeks class them and the king together, under the name of“ the seven Persians.” These enjoyed the right of entering the presence unannounced, and possessed princely estates in the provinces. Besides these, however, numbers of other Persians were despatched to the provinces, settled there, and endowed with lands. There existed, in fact, under the Achaemenids a strong colonizing movement, diffused through the whole empire; tracesof this policy occur more especially in Armenia, Cappadocia and Lycia, but also in the rest of Asia Minor, and not rarely in Syria and Egypt. These colonists formed the nucleus of the provincial military levy, and were a tower of strength to the Persian dominion. They composed, moreover, the Persian council, and vice-regal household of the Satraps, exactly as the Persians of the home-country composed that of the king.

Though the world-empire of Persia was thus deeply impressed by a national character, care was nevertheless exercised that the general duties and interests of the subject races should receive due consideration. We find their representatives, side by side with the Persians, occupying every sort of position in the regal and vice-regal courts. They take their part in the councils of the satraps, precisely as they do in military service (cf. the evidence of Ezra); and they, too, are rewarded by bounties and estates. To wield a peaceful authority over all the subjects of the empire, ‘to reward merit, and to punish transgression—such is the highest task of king and officials.

On his native soil Cyrus built himself a town, with a palace and a tomb, in the district of Pasargadae (now the ruins of

' Murghab). This Darius replaced by a new capital, faggenus deeper in the centre of the country, which bore the 'name “ Persian” (Parsa), the Persepolis (q.v.) of

the later Greeks. .But the district of Persis was too remote to be the administrative centre of a world-empire. The natural centre lay, rather, in the ancient fertile tract on the. lower Tigris and Euphrates. The actual capital of the empire was therefore Susa, where Darius I. and Artaxerxes II. erected their magnificent palaces. The winter months the kings chiefly spent in Babylon: the hot summer, in the cooler situation of Ecbatana, where Darius and Xerxes built a residence on Mt Elvend, south of the city. From a palace of Artaxerxes II. in Ecbatana itself, the fragments of a few inscribed columns (now in the possession of Mr Lindo Myers and published by Evetts in the Zeilschr. f. Assyr. V.) have been preserved. To Persis and Persepolis the kings paid only occasional visits especially at their coronations. ‘1 Within the empire, the two great civilized states incorporated by Cyrus and Cambyses, Babylon and Egypt, occupied a position of their own. After his defeat of Nabonidus, Cyrus 23-22:: proclaimed himself “King of Babel ”; and the same ' title was born by Cambyses, Smerdis and Darius. So, in Egypt, Cambyses adopted in full the titles of the Pharaohs. In this we may trace a desire to conciliate the native population, with the object of maintaining the fiction that the old state still continued. Darius went still farther. He encouraged the efforts of the Egyptian priesthood in every way, built temples, and enacted new laws in continuance of the old order. In Babylon his procedure was presumably similar, though here we possess no local evidence. But he lived to see that his policy had missed its goal. In 486 3.0. Egypt revolted and was only reduced by Xerxes in 484. It was this, probably, that induced him in 484 to renounce his title of “ king of Babel," and to remove from its temple the golden statue of Bel-Marduk (Merodach), whose hands the king was bound to clasp on the first day of each year. This proceeding led to two insurrections in Babylon (probably in 484 and 479 13.0.), which were speedily repressed. After that the “ kingship of Babel ” was definitely abolished. In Egypt the Persian kings still retained the style of the Pharaohs; but We hear no more of concessions to the priesthood or to the old institutions, and, apart from the great oasis of el-Kharga, no more temples were erected (see EGYPT: History).

[graphic]

At the head of the court and the imperial administration stands the commandant of the body-guard—the ten thousand “Immortals,” often depicted in the sculptures of n" WI," Persepolis with lances surmounted by golden apples. and other This grandee, whom the Greeks termed “ Chiliarch,” om corresponds to the modern vizier. In addition to him, we find seven councillors (Ezra vii. 14; cf. Esther i. 14). Among the other officials, the “Eye of the King” is frequently mentioned. To him was entrusted the control of the whole empire and the superintendence of all officials.

The orders of the court were issued in a very sim le form of the cuneiform script, probably invented by the Modes. his comprised 36 signs, almost all of which denote single sounds. In the royal inscriptions, a translation into Susan (Elam— 0m", itic) and Babylonian was always appended to the“""""" Persian text. In Egypt one in hierogly hics was added, as in the inscri tions of the Suez canal; in the Grecian provinces, another in reek (e.g. the inscription of Darius on the Bosporus, Herod. iv- 37, cf. iv. 91). The cuneiform script could onl ' be written on stone or clay. Thus there has been discovered in Babylon :1 copy of the Behistun ( .v.) inscription reserved on a block of dolerite (Weissbach, Bagylonische Misc n. p. 24.). For administrative purposes, however, it would seem that this inconvenient material was not employed; its lace being taken by skins (6to0épat, parchment), the use of w ich was adopted from the western oples of the empire. On these were further written the journa s and records kept at the court (cf. Diod. ii. 22, 32; Ezra iv. 15, v. 17, vi. 2; Esther vi. 1, ii. 2 ). With such materials the cuneiform script could not be useds; instead, the Persian lan age was written in Aramaic characters, a method which later ed to the so-called Pahlavi, Le. Parthian script. This mode of writing was obviousl alone employed in the state-services since Darius l.; and so may explained the fact that, under the Achaemenids, the'Persian language rapidly declined, and, in the inscriptions of Artaxerxes lll., only appears in an extremely neglected guise (see CUNEIFORM Inscrurrrons, ALPHABET).

Side by side with the Persian, the Aramaic, which had long been widely difl'used as ti", speech of commerce, enjoyed currency in all the western half of the em ire as a second dominant language. Thus all deeds, enactments an records designed for these provinces were furnished with an official Aramaic version (Ezra iv. 7). Numerous documents in this tongue, dating from the Persian period, have been discovered in Egypt (cf. Sayce and Cowley, Aramaic PaPyn' discovered at Arman 1 ), and the coins minted by the satraps and generals usually car an Aramaic inscription. (So, also, a lion-weight from Al)ydos, in the British Museum.) The Dcmotic in Egypt was employed in private documents alone. Only in the Helenic provinces of the empire Greek re laced Aramaic (cf. the letter to Pausanias in Thuc. i. 120: an ict to

1 Gadatas in Magnesia, Cousin et Deschamps, Bulletin de correrp.

hellénioue 1111. 530, Dittenberger, Sylloge 2; so, also, on coins)—a clear proof that the Persians had already begun to recognize the independent and important position of Greek civilization.l

Darius I. divided the Persian Empire into twenty great provinces, satrapies, with a “ guardian of the country ” (khshathmpavon; see SATRAP) at the head of each. A list is preserved in Herodotus (iii. 89 sqq.); but the boundaries were frequently changed. Each satrapy was again subdivided into several minor governorships. The satrap is the head of the whole administration of his province. He levies the taxes, controls the legal procedure, is responsible for the security of roads and property, and superintends the subordinate districts. The heads of the great military centres of the empire and the commandants of the royal fortresses are outside his jurisdiction: yet the satraps are entitled to a body of troops of their own, a privilege which they used to the full, especially in later periods. The $8111: 1 is held in his position as a subject by the controlling machinery of the empire, especially the “ Eye of the King ”; by the council of Persians in his province with

1For the editions of the Persian inscriptions see BEHISTUN. For the Persian documents, Ed. Meyer Enlstehung des Judenlums, p. 19 sqq. The hieroglyphic inscriptions of the Suez Canal are__pu_blshed 1n the Recued de trav. d'égyplol. ct d'assynol. vols. V11. 1);. xi. xiii; the private documents from Babylonia and Nippur. b Strassmaier, Bob I. Urkunden, and Hilprccht and Clay, Baby . Exped. of Univ. 0 Pennryluam'a, vols. ix. x. Numerous jewish documents in Aramaic have been found at Elephantine (Sayce and Cowley, Aramaic Popyn' discovered at Assuan, 1 06), among them an official complaint of the Jewish colony sett ed at Elephantine, addressed to the Persian satrap of udaea. in 408 B.C., which throws

a new light on many passages in zra and Nehemiah, published by Sachan 1n Abhandlungen der berl. Akademie, 1907.

[ocr errors]

whom he is bound to debate all matters of importance; and by the army: while in the hands of the messengers (Pers. dardv6ar or dyyapoc—a Babylonian word: see ANGARIA) the government despatchcs travel “swifter than the crane” along the great imperial highways, which are all provided with regular postal stations (cf. the description of the route from Susa to Sardis in Herod. v. 52). V 7

Within the satrapies the subject races and communities occupied a tolerably independent position; for instance, the sub/ed Jews, under their elders and priests, who were" eVen Communl- able to convene a popular assembly in Jerusalem “fl- (cf. the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah). Obviously also, they enjoyed, as a rule, the privilege of deciding law-suits among themselves; their general situation being similar to that of the Christian nationalities under the Ottomans, or to that of many tribes in the Russian'Empire at the present day. The pressure of despotism was manifest, not so much in that the king and his officials consistently interfered in individual cases, but that they did so on isolated and arbitrary occasions, and then swept aside the privileges of the subject, who was impotent toresist. ".

For the rest, the subject population falls into a nuinber of distinct groups. In the desert (u among the Arabian and Turanian nomads), in wild and sequestered mountains (as in Zagros‘ in north Media, and Mysia, Pisidia, Paphlagonia and Bithynia in Asia'Minor), and also in many Iranian tribes, the old tribal constitution, with the chieftain as its head, was left intact even under the imperial suzerainty. The great majority of the civilized provinces Were subdivided into local administrative districts governed by officials of the king'and his satraps. These the Greeks named 301m, _“ peoples.” ‘Within these, again, there might lie large town settlements whose internal aflairs were controlled by the elders or the officials of the-.communityzdas, for instance, Babylon, Jerusalem, the Egyptian cities, Tarsus, Sardis and others. On the same' footing were the spiritual principalities, with their great temple-property; as Bambyce in Syria, the two Comanasin Cappadocia, and so forth. Besides these, however vast districts were either converted into royal domains (napdgiaaot) with great. parks and hunting grounds under royal supervision, or else bestowed by thg king on Persians or deserving members of the subject-races (t e “ benefactors”) as their personal property. -Many of these estates formed respectable principalities: c.g. those of, the house of Otanes.| in Cappadocia, of Hydarnes in Armenia, Pharnabazus, ln,Phrygia, Demaratus in Teuthrania, Themistocles in Magnesia and Lampsacus. They were absolute private property, handed down from father to son for centuries, and in the Hellenistic period not rarely became independent kingdoms. These potentates were styled by thev Greeks vadcr-raa. or abwapxor. . I ,

The last class, quite distinct from all these organizations, was formed by the city-states (wbhas) with an independent The CW constitution-ewhether a monarchy (as in Phoenicia), 5m”. an aristocracy (as inLycia), or a republic with council

and popular , assembly (as in the [Greek towns). The essential point was that they.enjoyedyais'eparate legalized organization (autonomy). This was'only to-be seen in the extreme western provinces of the empire among thejPhoenicians, Greeks and Lycians, whose cities were1essentially distinct from those of the east; which,. indeed, to Greek eyes,,‘w¢lfe, only great villages (wmbhets). It is readily yintelligib e that their character should have provedpractically incompre enslble to the Persians, with whom theycame into perpetual-collision. These sought,'as a rule, to cope with the difficulty by transferring the government to individual persons who enjoyed their confidence: the“ tyrants ” of the Greek towns. Mardonius, alone after his suppression of the IQDIC revolt—which had originated with these very tyrants—made an,attempt to govern them by the assistance of thedemocracy (492 3.0.). . ,. 1,, '

The provinces of the Persian Empire, differed as materially in

economy as in organization. In the extreme west, a money currency in its most highly developed form-stint of courage minted by

[graphic]

the state, or an autonomous community—had developed since the 7th century among the Lydians and Greeks. In the Comm.” main portion, however, of the Oriental world—Egypt, and Hum“ (Slyria, Phoenicia ' and Babyloni'a—the ‘bld mode '

commerce was still in vogue, conducted by means of gold and silver bars, weighed at each transaction. Indeed, a. money currency only began to make headway in these districts in the 4th century BC. In the eastern provinces, on the other hand, the primitive method of exchan e by barter still held'the field. Only in the auriferous and civiized frontier districtsI of India (the Punjab) did a systemof coinage find earl acceptance. There Persran andAttic money waswwidely distri uted, and imitations of it struck, in the filth and fourth pro-Christian centuries. _

Thus the empire was compelled to grapple with all these varied conditions and to reconcile them as best It mi ht, At the, court, 5‘; natural economy " was still the rule. The-o cials and Oriental troo s received, payment in kind. They were fed “by the table of t e lung," from which I5,000 men daily drew their sustenance (cf. Herachdcs of Cyme in Athen. iv. I45 B, &c.) and were rewarded by gifts and assignments of land. The Greek mercenaries, on the contrary, had to be paid in currency; nor could the eats-ape of the west dispense with hard cash. The king, again, needed the precious metals, not merely for bounties and rewards, but for important enterprises in which money payment was imperative. Consequently, the royal revenues and taxes were paid partly in the precious metals, partly in natural produce—horses and. cattle, grain, clothing and .its,materials, furniture and all articles of industry (cf. heopomp. fr. 124, 125, &c.). The satraps, also, in addition to money yments, levied contributions " for t eir table," at Which 'the officia s are ‘(Nehem. v. 14). > ' '

The preciousrmetall brought in by the tribute were collected in the great treasure-houses at. Susa, Persepolis Pasargadae and Ecbatana, where gigantic masses of silver an , more “on”, “4 especially, of gold, were stored in bullion or partially Coqu wrought into; vessels (Herod. iii. 96; Strabo Xv. 73!,v , ' 735; Arrian iii. r6; 8m); exactly as is the case today in the shah‘s treasurechamber (Curzon, Persia, ii. 484). It is also observable that the conjunction of pa ments in kind and mone taxes still exists. The province of horasan, for instance, wit some half million-inhabitants, paid in 1885 £154,000 in gold, and in addition natural produce t'o‘the value of £43,000-(Curzon, g. cit. l. 181, ii; 380).- When [the'king requir‘ed money he mint as much as was necessary. ‘A reform in the coin ewas effected by Darius, who struck t Daric (PersJ'Zars‘g, Le. ‘ piece of gold "; the word has nothing to do with the name of Darius), a gold piece of 130

ins‘Mlue‘ about 235.) {this being equivalent to 20 silver pieces “ Median shekels,"_ cl'yhm) of 86-5 grains (value accordin' to the then rate of silVen—rgi siIVer to a gold—abOut rs. 2d. . The coinin of old~ was the exclusive prerogative of the king; silver could e corned by the satraps,'generals, independent communities anddynasrshl ' ' ‘

The ektent‘of the Persian ‘Empire‘ was, in essentials, defined by the great conquests of Cyrus and Cambyses. Darius was no more a conqus'stador than Augustus. Rather, the task he set himself was to round 06 the empire and secure its borders: and for this purpose in Asia Minor and Armenia he subdued the mountain-tribes and advanced the irontier as far as the Caucasus; Colchis alone remaining an independent kingdom under the imperial suzerainty. So, too, he annexed the Indus valley and'the auriferous hill-country of Kafiristan and Cashmir (Kdomot or Kdmrepoc, Herod. 93, 67, 86; Steph. Byz.), as well as the Dardae in Dardistan on the Indus (Ctesias, Ind. fr. ‘11 7o, &c.)l ' From this point he directed several campaigns against , the,,Amyrgian Sacae, on the Pamir Plateau and northwards, whom he enumerates in his list of . subject races, and whose mOunted'archers formed a main division of the armies de'spatched against the Greeks. It was obviously an attempt to take the nomads of the Turanian steppe in the rear and to reduce them to quiescence, which led to his unfortunate expedition against the Scythians of the Russian steppesfl'. 51 2'13.C.; cf. Dames).

" Side, by side, ,ho'weveq‘with these wars, we can read, even in the scanty tradition at our disposal, a consistent efl'ort to further the great civ'ifizing mission imposed on the empire. In the distrICt‘ofHErat', Darius established a great water-basin, designed to' facilitate the cultivation of the steppe (Herod. iii. 117). He hadthe course of the, Indus explored by the Carian captain Scylz'x ( .v.):of Caryanda, who then navigated the Indian Ocean back to uez (Herod. iv. 44) and wrote an account of his voyage in Greek. _' The desire to create a direct communication between

thedseclusipngf Persis and the commerce of the world is evident

Imperial Policy. I,

"in his foundation of several harbours, described by Nearchus, onnthe Persian coast." But this design is still more patent in his completion of angreat canal, already'begun by Necho, from the Nile to Suez, along which several monuments of Darius have been preserved. Thus it was possible, as says the remnant of an hieroglyphic inscription there discovered, “‘ for ships to sail direct from the Nile to Persia, over Saba.” In the time of Hero»dotus the canal‘was in constant use (i. r 58, iv. 39): afterwards, "when Egypt regained her independence, it decayed, till restored by the second Ptolemy. Even the circumnavigation of Africa was ,attempted under Xerxes (Herod. iv. 43).

It has already been mentioned, that, in his eflorts to conciliate ‘the Egyptians, Darius ‘placed his chief reliance on the priesthood? and the same tendency runs throughout the imperial policy toward the conquered races. Thus Cyrus himself gave the exiled Jews in Babylon permission to return and rebuild Jerusalem. "Darius allowed the restoration of the Temple; and A'rtaxerxes I., by the'prOtection accorded to Ezra and Nehemiah, made the foundatiOn of Judaism possible (see Jaws: §§ 19 sqq.). Analogously'in an edict, of which a later copy is preserved in an inscription (see. above), Darius commands Gadatas, the governor pf a domain (ndpéoewot) in Magnesia on the Maean'der, to observe scrupulously the privileges of the Apollo-sanctuary. With all the Greek oracles—even those in the mother-country— the Persians were on the best of terms. And since these might reasonably expect an enormous extension of their influence from the establishment of a Persian dominion, we find them all zealously medizing during the expedition of Xerxes. _

' For the development of the Asiatic religions, the Persian Empire was ,ofpprimeI importance. The definite erection of a single, vast, whwfl, world-empire cost them their original connexxon wrth _ . I, '_ the state, and compelled them In future _to_ address themselvesnnot to the community at large, but to individuals, to gromise, not political success nor the independence of the people,

ut the welfare of the man. Thus they became at once universal and capable of extension by propaganda; and,with this, of entering into keencom tition one with the other. These traits are most clearly marke in Judaism; but, after the Achaemenid period, they arecommon to all Oriental creeds, though our information as-to'most is scanty in the extreme.

this. competition of religions that of Iran pla ed a most spirited part. ~The Persian kings—none more so _t an D_arius, ,whose religious convictions are enshrined .in his inscriptions— and, with the kings, their people, were ardent rofessors of the pu ,doctrine of Zoroaster; and the Persians settle in the provinces di used his creed throughout the whole empire. Thus a strong Persian pro'pagandism arose especially in'Armenia and Cappadocia, where the religion took deep root among the people, but also in Lydia find Lycra- In the process, however, important modifications were i troduced. In contrast with Judaism, Zoroastriamsm did not enter the lists against all gods save its own, but found no difficulty in recognizing them as subordinate powers—helpers and servants'of Ahuramazda. Consequently, the foreign creeds often reacted upon the Persian. In Cappadocia, Aramaic inscriptions have been discovered (1900), in whic the indigenous 0d, there termed Bel the king, recognizes the “ Mazdayasnian eligion " (Di'n Mazdayasnish)——4.e. the religion of Ahuramazda personified an a woman~as his sister-and wife (Lidzbarski, Ephem. f. semil. Epi r- i-.59'qu-)- ‘ i

The gorgeous cult of the gods of civilization (especially of Babylon), With their host of temples, images and festivals, exercised a corresponding influence on the mother-country. Moreover, the unadulterated doctrine of Zoroaster could.no_ more become a permanent po ular religion than can Christianity. For the_ masses can make ittle of abstractions and an ornniipotent, omnipresent deity; they need concrete divine powers, stan "lg nearer to themselves and their lot. Thus the old figures of the ryan folk-religion return to the foreground, there to be amalgamated With the Babylonian divinities. The goddess of springs and streams (of the _O_xus in particular) and of all fertility—Ardmsura Anohrta, Anams— is endowed with the form of the Babylonian Ishtar and Belit. She is now do icted as a beautiful and strong woman, with rominent breasts, a go den crown of stars and golden raiment. S e is worshipped as the goddess of generation and all sexual life (cf. Herod. i. 131, where the names of Mithras and Anaitis are interchanged); and religious prostitution is transferred to her service (Strabo xi. 532, xii. 559). At her side stands the sun-god Mithras, who 15 represented as a young and victorious hero. Both deities occupy the very first rank in the popular creed; while to the theologian they are the most potent of the good powers—Mithras bein ' the herald and propagator of the service of Light and the me iator betwixt man and Ahuramazda, who now fades more into the background.v Thus, in the subsequent period, the Persian religion

[graphic]

appears purely'as the religion of Mithras.‘ The festival of Mithras is the chief festival of the empire, at which the king drinks and is drunken, and dances the national dance (ths. fr. 55; Duris fr. 13). This development culminated under Artaxerxes 11., who, according to Berossus (fr. 16 up. Clem. Alex. plot. i. 5, 65). first erected statues to Anaitis in Perse lis, Ecbatana, Bactria, Susa, Babylon, Damascus and Sardis. he truth of this account is proved by the fact that Artaxerxes II. and Artaxerxes III. are the only Achaemenids who, in their inscriptions, invoke Anaitis and Mithra sidev by side with Ahuramazda.- Other gods, who come into rominence, are the dragon-slayer Verethraghna (Artagnes) and t e Good Thought (Vohumano. Omanos) ; and even the Sacaean festival is adopted from Babylon (Berossus fr. 3; Ctes. fr. I6; Strabo xi. 512, &c.). The chief centres of the Persian cults in the west were the district of Acilisene in Armenia (Strabo xi. 532, &c.), theLtoiwn of Zela in Cappadocia (Strabo xii. 559), and several cities in y la. ‘

The position of the Persian monarchy as a world-em ire is characteristically emphasized in the buildings of Darius and erxes in Persepolis and Susa. Th'e peculiarly national basis, M still recognizable in Cyrus’s architecture at Pasargadae, recedes into insi nificance. The royal edifices and sculptures are dependent, main y, on Bab lonian models, but, at the same time, we can trace in them the in uence of Greece, Egypt and Asia Minor; the last in the rock-sepulchres. All these elements are combined into an organic unity, which achieved the reatest creations that Oriental architecture has found possible. evertheless, the result is not a national art, but the art of a world-empire; and it is obvious that foreign craftsmen must have been active in the royal services—— among them, the Greek sculptor Telephanes of Phocaea (Pliny xxxiv. 68). So, with the collapse of the empire, the imperial art vanishes also: and when, some 500 years later, a new art arose under the Sassanids, whose achievements stand to those of Achaemenid art in much the same relation as the achievements of the two dynasties to each' other, we discover only isolated reminiscences of its predecessor.

For the organization and character of the Persian Empire, see Barnabas Brisson, De regio Persarum rincipalu libri iii. (I 90); Heeren, Ideen fiber Politik, Handel un Verkehr der alien We t, i.; G. Rawlinson, History of Herodotus, ii. 555 sq .; Five Eastern Mortarchies, iii.; Eduard Meyer, Geschichte dos A tertums, iii. On the Satra ies, 'cf. Krumbholz, De Asiae .minoris ratropfi's persicis (r883 . See also Min-inns. .

3. History of the Achaemenian Empire.——'I‘he history of the Persian Empire was often written by the Greeks. The most ancient work preserved is that of Herodotus (q.v.), who supplies rich and valuablep'materials for the period ending in 479 B.C. These materials are drawn partly from sound tradition, partly 'from original knowledge—as in the account of the satrapies and their distribution, the royal highway, the nations in Xerxes’ army and their equipment. They also contain much that is admittedly fabulous: for instance, the stories of Cyrus and Croe~ sus, the conquest of Babylon, &c. Forty years later (c. 390 B.c.), the physician Ctesias of Cnidus, who for 17 years (414—398 B.c.) remained in the service of the Great King, composed a great work on the Persian history, known to us from an extract in Photius and numerous fragments. Ctesias (q.v.) possesses a more precise acquaintance with Persian views and institutions than Herodotus; and, where he deals with matters that came under his own cognisance, he gives much useful information. For the early period, on the other hand, he only proves how rapidly the tradition had degenerated since Herodotus; and here his narrations can only be utilized'in isolated cases, and that with the greatest caution. Of more value was the great work of Dinon 6f Colophon (c. 340), which we know from numerous excellent fragments; and on the same level may be placed a few statements from Heraclides of Cyme, which afford specially important evidence on Persian institutions. To these must be added the testimony of the other Greek historians (Thucydides, Ephorus, Theopompus, &c., with the histories of Alexander), and, before all, that of Xenophon in the Anabasis and Hellmica. The Cyropaedia is a didactic romance, written with a view to Greek institutions and rarely preserving genuine information on the Persian Empire. Of Oriental sources, only the contemporary books of Ezra and Nehemiah are of much importance: also, a few statements in the m‘uch later Esther romance. Berossus’s history of Babylon contained much valuable and trustworthy information, but next to nothing has survived. That the native.tradition almost entirely forgot the Achaemenid Empire, has been mentioned above. For a more detailed account

I

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

e empire.

Though, unlike Cyrus and Cambyses, Darius made no new expeditions of conquest, yet a great empire, which is not bounded 1h, Wm by another equally great, but touches on many small spun tribes and independent communities, is inevitably m- driven to expansion. We have already seen that the attempt of Darius to control the predatory nomads in the north led to his expedition against the Scythians; this, again, led to the incorporation of Thrace and Macedonia, whose king Perdiccas submitted. And since a great portion of the Mediterranean coast-line belonged to the empire, further complications resulted automatically. In contrast with the Greeks Carthage took the part of Persia. Darius, indeed, numbers the city—under the name of Karka—among his dominions: as also the Maxyans (Maciya) on the Syrtes (Andreas, Verhandl. d. xiii. oriental. Congresses, Hamburg, 1902, p. 97). But, above all, the Greek cities with their endless feuds and violent internal factions, were incessant in their appeals for intervention. Nevertheless, Darius left European Greece to itself, till the support accorded to the Ionian and Carian insurgents by Athens and Eretria (499 n.c.) made war inevitable. But not only the expeditions of Mardonius (492) and Datis (490), but even the carefully prepared campaign of Xerxes, in conjunction with Carthage, completely failed (480—479). On the fields of Marathon and Plataea, the Persian archers succumbed to the Greek phalanx of hoplites; but the actual decision was effected by Themistocles, who had meanwhile created the Athenian fleet which at Salamis proved its superiority over the Perso-Phoenician armada, and thus precluded beforehand the success of the land-forces.

‘The wreck of Xerxes’ expedition is the turning-point in the history of the Persian Empire. The superiority of the Greeks was so pronounced that the Persians never found courage to repeat their attack. On the contrary, in 466 B.C. their army and fleet were again defeated by Cimon on the Eurymedon, the sequel being that the Greek provinces on the Asiatic coast, with all the Thracian possessions, were lost. In itself, indeed, this loss was of no great significance to such a Vast empire; and the attempts of Athens to annex Cyprus and conquer the Nile valley, in alliance with the revolted Egyptians, ended in failure. Athens, in fact, had not sufficient strength to undertake a serious invasion of the empire or an extensive scheme of conquest. Her struggles with the other Hellenic states constrained her, by the peace of Callias (448), definitely to renounce the Persian war; to abandon Cyprus and Egypt to the king;and to content herself with his promise—not that he would surrender the littoral towns, but that he would abstain from an armed attack upon

them. The really decisive point was, rather, that the disasters,

of Salamis and Plataea definitely shattered the offensive power

[graphic]

of the empire; that the centre of gravity in the world’s history had shifted from Susa and Babylon to the Aegean Sea; and that the Persians were conscious that in spite of all their'courage they were henceforward in the presence of an enemy, Superior in arms as well as in intellect, whom they could not hope to subdue by their own strength. -’

Thus the great empire was reduced to immobility and stagnation—a process which was assisted by the'deteriorating influences of civilization and world-dominion upon the character man,“ of the ruling race. True, the Persians continued Sureoflhe to produce brave and honourable men. But the BmPh-I influences of the harem, the ounuchs, and similar "WWW" court officials, made appalling progress, and men of energy began to find the temptations of power stronger than their patriotism and devotion to the king. Thus the satraps aspired to independence, not merely owing to unjust treatment, but also to avarice or favourable conditions. As early as 465 B.C., Xerxes was assassinated by his powerful vizier (chiliarch) Artabanus, who attempted to seize the reins of empire in fact, if not in name. A similar instance may be found in Bagoas (q.v.), after the murder of Artaxerxes III. (338 B.C.). To these factors must be added the degeneration of the royal line—a degeneration inevitable in Oriental states. Kings like Xerxes and more especially Artaxerxes I. and Artaxerxes 11., so far from being gloomy despots, were good-natured potentates, -but weak, capricious and readily accessible to personal influences. The only really brutal tyrants were Darius II., who was completely dominated by his bloodthirsty wife Parysatis, and Artaxerxes III. who, though he shed riversof blood and all but exterminated his whole family, was successful in once more uniting the empire, which under the feeble sway of his father had been threatened with dissolution.

The upshot of these conditions was, that the empire never again undertook an important enterprise, but neglected more and more its great civilizing mission. In considering, however, the subsequent disorders and wars, it must be borne in mind that they afiected only individual portions of the empire, and only on isolated occasions involved more extensive areas in long and serious strife. To most of the provinces the Adammenid dominion was synonymous with two centuries of peace and order. Naturally, hOWever, the wild tribes of the mountains and deserts, who could be curbed only by strict imperial control, asserted their independence and harassed‘the neighbouring provinces. ' Among these tribes were the Carduchiansin. Zagros, the Cossaeans and Uxians in the interior of Elam, the Cadusians and other non-Aryan tribes in northern Media, the Pisidians, Isaurians and Lycaonians in the Taurus, and the Mysians' in Olympus. All efforts to restore order in these districts were fruitless; and when the kings removed their court to Ecbatana, they were actually obliged to purchase a free passage from the mountain tribes (Strabo xi. 524; Arrian iii.‘ r7, 1). The kings (e.g. Artaxerxes II.) repeatedly took the field in great force against the Cadusians, but unsuCCessfully. When,'in 400 11.6., Xenophon marched with the mercenaries of Cyrus from! the Tigris to the Black Sea, the authority of the king was nonexistent north of' Armenia, and the tribes of the Pontic mountains, with the Greek cities on the coast, were completely independent. In Paphlagonia, the native dynasts founded a power.ful though short-lived kingdom, and the chieftains of the Bithynians were absolutely their own masters. The frontier provinces of India Were-also lost. Egypt, which had already revolted under Libyan princes in the years 486—484, and again with Athenian help in 460—454, finally asserted its independence in 404. Henceforward the native dynasties repelled every attack, till they succumbed once more before Artaxerxes III. and Mentor of Rhodes. '

_ In the other civilized countries, indeed, the old passion for freedom had been completely obliterated; and after the days of Darius I.——apart from the Greek, Lycian and Phoenician towns—not a single people in all these provinces dreamed of shaking off the foreign dominion. All the more clearly, then, was the inner weakness of the empire revealed by the revolts

of the satraps. These were facilitated by the custom—quite contrary to the original imperial organization—which entrusted the. provincial military commands to the satraps, who began to receive great masses of Greek mercenaries into their service. Under Artaxerxes I. and Darius 11., these insurrections were still rare. But when the revolt of the younger Cyrus against

his brother (4.01 13.0.) had demenstrated the surprising ease and.

rapidity with which a courageous army could penetrate into the heart of the empire—when the whole force of that empire had proved powerless, not only to prevent some 12,000 Greek

troops, completely surrounded, cut off fromtheir communica:

tions, and deprived through treachery of their leaders, from escaping to the coast, but even to make a serious attack on them—then, indeed, the imperial impotence became manifest. After that, revolts of the satraps in Asia. Minor and Syria were of everyday occurrence, and the task of suppressing them was complicated by the foreign wars which the empire had to sustain against Greece and Egypt.

. At this very period, however, the .foreign policy of the empire gained a brilliant success. The collapse of the Athenian power before Syracuse (4r3 B.C.) induced Darius II. to order his satraps Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus, 0m“. in Asia Minor, to collect the tribute overdue from Pu“ °' the Greek cities. In- alliance with Sparta (see Mwm“ Psmronussmu Wan), Persia intervened in the conflict against Athens, and it was Persian gold that made it possible for Lysander to complete her overthrow (404 3.0.). True, war with Sparta followed immediately, over the division of the spoils, and the campaigns of the Spartan generals in Asia

Later Wm with the

Minor (399—395) were all the more dangerous as they gave,

occasion to numerous rebellions. But Persia joined the Greek league against Sparta, and in 394 Pharnabazus and Conon annihilated the Lacedaemonian. fleet at Cnidus. Thus the Spartan power of offence was crippled; and the upshot of the long-protracted war was that Sparta ruefully returned to the Persian alliance, and by the Peace of Antalcidas ((1.1).), concluded with the king in 387 n.c., not only renounced all claims to the Asiatic possessions, but officially proclaimed the Persian sunerainty over Gtreece. Ninety years after. Salamis and Plataea, the goal for which .Xerxes had striven was actually attained, and the king’s will was law in Greece. In the following decades, no Hellenic state ventured to violate the king’s peace, and all the feuds that followed centred round the efforts of the combatants—Sparta, Thebes, Athens and Argosth draw the royal pOWers to their side (see GREECE: Ancient History). 'But,’for these successes, the empire had to thank the internedne strife of its Greek opponents, rather than its own strength. Its feebleness, when thrown on its own resources, is evident from the fact that, during the next years, it failed both'to reconquer Egypt and-to suppress completely King Evagoras of Salamis in Cyprus. The satrap revolts, moreover, assumed more and more formidable proportions, and the Greek states’began once more to tamper with them. Thus the reign of Artaxerxes II. ended, in 3 59 B.c., with a complete dissolution ofthe imperial authority in,‘ the west. His successor, Artaxerxes Ochus, succeeded yet again in restoring the empire in its full extent. In 35 5 8.0., he spoke the fatal word, which, a second—or rather a third—time, demolished the essentially unsound power of Athens. In 343 he reduced Egypt, and his generals Mentor and Memnon, with his vizier Bagoas (q.v.), crushed once and for all the resistance in Asia Minor. At his death in 338, immediater before the final catastrophe, the empire to all appearances was more powerful and more firmlyestablished than it had been since the days of Xerxes. . . ‘ . These successes, however, were won only by means of Greek armies and Greek generals. And simultaneously the Greek my,“ civilization—diffused by mercenaries, traders, artists, of Greek '"flm'ce- force. In Asia Minor and Phoenicia we can clearly trace the progress of Hellenism (q.v.), especially by the coinage. The stamp is cut by Greek hands and the Greek tongue predominates more and more in the inscription. , We can see that

prostitutes and slaves,—advanced in ever greater.

[graphic]

the victory of Greek civilization had long been prepared on every side. But the vital point isthat the absolute superiority of the Hellene was recognized as incontestable on both hands. The Persian sought to protect himself against danger, by employing Greeks in the national service and turning Greek policy to the interests of the empire. In the Greek world itself the disgrace that a' people, called to universal dominion and capable of wielding it, should be dependent on the mandate of an impotent Asiatic monarchy, was keenly felt by all who were not yet absorbed in the rivalry of city with city. .The spokesman of this national sentiment was Isocrates; but numerous other writers gaveexpression to it, notably, the historian Callisthenes of Olynthus. Union between Greeks, voluntary or compulsory, and an offensive war against Persia, was the programme they propounded.

Nor was the time for its fulfilment far distant. The new power which now rose to the first rank, created by Philip of Macedon, had no engrained tendency inimical to the Persian

. . . Rise of Empire. Its immediate programme was rather Madam Macedonian expansion, at the expense of Thrace and Illyria, and the subjection of the Balkan Peninsula. But, in its efforts to extend its power over the Greek states, it was bound to make use of the tendencies which aimed at the unification of Greece for the struggle against Persia: and this ideal demand it dared not reject.

Thus the conflict became inevitable. In 340, Artaxerxes III. and his satraps supported the Greek towns in Thrace—Perinthus and Byzantium—against Macedonian aggression; in 338 he concluded an alliance with Demosthenes. When Philip, after the victory of Chaeronea, had founded the league of Corinth (337) embracing the whole of Greece, he accepted the national programme, and in 336 despatched his army to Asia Minor. That he never entertained the thought of conquering the whole Persian Empire is certain. Presumably, his ambitions would have been satisfied with the liberation of the Greek cities, and, perhaps, the subjection _of Asia Minor as far as the Taurus. With this his dominion would have attained much the same compass as later under Lysimachus; farther than this the boldest hopes of Isocrates never went.

But Philip’s assassination in 336 fundamentally altered the situation. In the person of his son, the throne was occupied by a soldier and statesman of genius, saturated with Greek culture and Greek thought, and intolerant of every goal but the highest. To conquer the whole world for Hellenic civilization by the aid of Macedonian spears, and to reduce the whole earth to unity, was the task that this heir of Heracles and Achilles saw before him. This idea of universal conquest was with him a conception much stronger developed than that which had inspired the Achaemenid rulers, and he entered on the project with full consciousness in the strictest sense of the phrase. In fact, if we are to understand Alexander aright, it is fatal to forget that he was overtaken by death, not at the end of his career, but at the beginning, at the age of thirty-three.

VI. The Macedonian Dominion—How Alexander conquered Persia, and how be framed his world-empire,1 cannot be related here. The essential fact, however, is that after the victory of Gaugameia (Oct. 1, 331 ac.) and, still more completely, after the assassination of Darius-— avenged according to the Persian laws, on the perpetrators— Alexander regarded himself as the legitimate head of the Persian Empire, and therefore adopted the dress and ceremonial of the Persian kings. _

With the capture of the capitals, the Persian war was at an end, and the atonement for the expedition of Xerxes was complete—a truth symbolically expressed in the burning of the palace at Persepolis. Now began the world~conquest. Foran universal empire, however, the forces of Macedonia and Greece were insufficient; the monarch of a world-empire could not be bound by the limitations imposed on the tribal king of Macedon or the general of a league of Hellenic republics. He must stand as

1 See ALEXANDER THE GREAT; Mncsnonum EMPIRE; Hr;me 1511 (for later results).

Alexander the Great.

« السابقةمتابعة »