|
With these general characteristics rightly felt and understood it becomes a comparatively easy task
to investigate and appreciate the origin, progress and
principles of Oriental empires in general, as well as of the Persian monarchy in particular. And we are thus better enabled to appreciate
the repulse which Greece gave to the arms of the East, and to Judge of the probable consequences to human civilization, if the Persians had
succeeded in bringing Europe under their yoke, as they had already subjugated the fairest portions of the rest of the then known
world.
The Greeks, from their geographical position, formed the natural
vanguard of European liberty against Persian ambition; and they pre-eminently displayed the salient points of distinctive national character,
which have rendered European civilization so far superior to Asiatic. The nations that dwelt in ancient times around and near the northern
shores of the Mediterranean Sea were the first in our continent to receive from the East the rudiments of art and literature, and the germs of
social and political organizations. Of these nations the Greeks, through their vicinity to Asia Minor, Phoenicia, and Egypt, were among the
very foremost in acquiring the principles and habits of civilized life; and they also at once imparted a new and wholly original stamp on all,
which they received. Thus, in their religion, they received from foreign settlers the names of all their deities and many of their rites, but
they discarded the loathsome monstrosities of the Nile, the Orates, and the Ganges; they nationalized their creed; and their own poets created
their beautiful mythology. No sacerdotal caste ever existed in Greece. So, in their governments, they lived long under hereditary kings, but
never endured the permanent establishment of absolute monarchy. Their early kings were constitutional rulers, governing with defined
prerogatives. And long before the Persian invasion, the kingly form of government had given way in almost all the Greek states to republican
institutions, presenting infinite varieties of the blending or the alternate predominance of the oligarchical and democratical
principles.
In literature and science the Greek intellect followed no beaten
track, and acknowledged no limitary rules. The Greeks thought their subjects boldly out; and the novelty of a speculation invested it in their
minds with interest, and not with criminality. Versatile, restless, enterprising, and self-confident, the Greeks presented the most striking
contrast to the habitual quietude and submissiveness of the Orientals; and, of all the Greeks, the Athenians exhibited these national
characteristics in the strongest degree. This spirit of activity and daring, joined to a generous sympathy for the fate of their fellow-Greeks
in Asia, had led them to join in the last Ionian war, and now mingling with their abhorrence of the usurping family of their own citizens,
which for a period had forcibly seized on and exercised despotic power at Athens, nerved them to defy the wrath of King Darius, and to refuse
to receive back at his bidding the tyrant whom they had some years before driven out.
With the exception of the Chinese empire, in which, throughout all
ages down to the last few years, one-third of the human race has dwelt almost unconnected with the other portions, all the great kingdoms,
which we know to have existed in ancient Asia, were, in Darius' time, blended into the Persian. The northern Indians, the Assyrians, the
Syrians, the Babylonians, the Chaldees, the Phoenicians, the nations of Palestine, the Armenians, the Bactrians, the Lydians, the Phrygians,
the Parthians, and the Medes, all obeyed the scepter of the Great King: the Medes standing next to the native Persians in honor, and the
empire being frequently spoken of as that of the Medes, or as that of the Medes and Persians. Egypt and Cyrene were Persian provinces; the
Greek colonists in Asia Minor and the islands of the Aegaean were Darius' subjects; and their gallant but unsuccessful attempts to throw off
the Persian yoke had only served to rivet it more strongly, and to increase the general belief that the Greeks could not stand before the
Persians in a field of battle. Darius' Scythian war, though unsuccessful in its immediate object, had brought about the subjugation of Thrace
and the submission of Macedonia. From the Indus to the Peneus, all was his.
We may imagine the wrath with which the lord of so many nations must
have heard, nine years before the battle of Marathon, that a strange nation toward the setting sun, called the Athenians, had dared to help
his rebels in Ionia against him, and that they had plundered and burned the capital of one of his provinces. Before the burning of Sardis,
Darius seems never to have heard of the existence of Athens; but his satraps in Asia Minor had for some time seen Athenian refugees at their
provincial courts imploring assistance against their fellow countrymen. When Hippias was driven away from Athens, and the tyrannical dynasty
of the Pisistratidae finally overthrown in 510 B. C., the banished tyrant and his adherents, after vainly seeking to be restored by Spartan
intervention, had betaken themselves to Sardis, the capital city of the satrapy of Artaphernes. There Hippias (in the expressive words of
Herodotus) began every kind of agitation, slandering the Athenians before Artaphernes, and doing all he could to induce the satrap to place
Athens in subjection to him, as the tributary vassal of King Darius. When the Athenians heard of his practices, they sent envoys to Sardis to
remonstrate with the Persians against taking up the quarrel of the Athenian refugees.
|