Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 18.djvu/603

 EMPIRE.] PERSIA 575 perhaps another son of Inarus. But we know nothing more of him and his reign. The conclusion of peace did not prevent the Persians, or at least individual satraps, from occasionally supporting enemies of Athens. Samian oligarchs, with the help of Pissuthnes, satrap of Sardis, made themselves masters of the island (440 or 439), and estranged it from Athens. The Athenians feared that a Phoenician fleet might come to the help of the oligarchs, but not a Persian interfered when they reduced the island once more to subjection. About 430 Colophon was made over to Itamenes (no doubt a Persian general or governor) and the barbarians by a party among the inhabitants favourable to Persia, and thereupon Notium, 1 a dependency of Colophon, was also occupied by the royalists, for thither also Pissuthnes despatched Persian troops, who entrenched themselves in the town. Amongst these troops were Arcadian mercenaries. This is the first undoubted mention of Greek mercenaries in Persian pay ; henceforward they play a very great part in the history of the empire. The Persian rulers had observed how far superior the Greeks were to the Asiatics, and in Greece there were always plenty of stout fellows who were impelled by political events, the love of adventure, or poverty to enter foreign service as soldiers of fortune. Most of them came from the Peloponnesus, presumably from the mountains of Arcadia, which yielded but a scanty sub sistence to its inhabitants. The Athenian party in Notium called in the Athenian admiral Paches ; by shameful per fidy he made himself master of the entrenchments, and put the garrison to the sword. With Notium, Colophon was now once more a member of the Athenian league. No further consequences followed from these hostilities. During the early years of the Peloponnesian War the Spartans repeatedly held communications with the Persians, whose assistance they desired against Athens. These negotiations were, for the time being, without result. The Spartan diplomatists were unskilful, and the Persian authorities were cowardly, indolent, ignorant, and selfish. 2 The impecunious Peloponnesians wished above all for Persian gold, and, moreover, for the Phoenician war-ships. The Athenians also tried to tap the inexhaustible source of wealth for their own benefit, but of course in vain. 3 Of the internal state of the empire during the long reign of Artaxerxes I. we know very little. Ctesias, or rather the extract of him made, not always carefully, by Photius, tells us indeed various stories, but he jumbles together fact and fiction, history and anecdote. Of most importance is the quarrel of Megabyzus, conqueror of Egypt, with the Persian court ; he maintained a rebellion for several years in Syria, till at last, after several conflicts, a full pardon was assured him by treaty. It is not im probable that this war was the occasion of the destruction of the walls and gates of Jerusalem lamented by Nehemiah (in the year 445). According to Ctesias, Megabyzus after wards fell into disgrace again, but was again taken into favour. In all these complications an important part is played by those cruel, intriguing, dissolute women, the queen -mother Amestris, daughter of Otanes, of whose character we get a very unpleasing view from Herodotus (vii. 114; ix. 109 sq. and her daughter Amytis, wife of Megabyzus. Even without an exact knowledge of the circumstances, we can well understand how it was that Zopyrus, son of Megabyzus, came to take refuge in Athens. He fell while attempting, in company with the Athenians, 1 In addition to purely political opposition, the local jealousy be tween Notium and its &quot;superior town&quot; Colophon had its share in the matter. See Avistot., Pol., p. 1303 b. 2 See Thuc., ii. 67 ; iii. 31 ; iv. 50. 3 Aristophanes, iu the Acharnians (represented January B.C.), ridicules these long and fruitless negotiations of the Greeks with the Persian king. to capture Caunus (in Caria), which had revolted. His 445-410. grandmother Amestris got the Carian who had killed him into her power and had him crucified. From Nehemiah s memoirs we see that in those days one who was not a Persian might not only fill the tolerably high office of cupbearer 4 in the royal household, but might also become deputy-governor over his fellow-countrymen. The history of Ctesias, untrustworthy as it is in par ticulars, shows us the manner of life at court. Artaxerxes I. was a very weak man, and women and favourites took the government out of his hands. Still, he may have deserved the praise, often bestowed on him, of good-nature. He may also have been of stately presence ; as an Iranian chief he was doubtless an excellent huntsman 5 ; but his &quot;incredibilis virtus belli&quot; (Nepos, De regibus, 1) is precisely &quot;incredibilis.&quot; In reading the eulogies of Persian kings we must always remember that the ultimate sources of writers like Ctesias and Dinon are court news, wherein even the deceased kings are spoken of in a courtly tone. Artaxerxes died in 424. His successor, Xerxes II., the Xerxes only one of his eighteen sons who was legitimate, 6 was H- murdered after a month and a half by his brother Secy- dianus or Sogdianus. But after six and a half months 7 the murderer was in his turn overthrown by his brother Ochus, satrap of Hyrcania, and, in violation of solemn oaths, put to death. 8 Ochus assumed the name of Darius, ascending the throne about the beginning of the year 423. 9 Darius II. is called Nothus or Syrus, 10 because his mother Darius was a Babylonian concubine. From the first mention of II. him by Ctesias his wife and sister Parysatis appears as the prompter of all his acts and all his crimes ; and this mis chievous woman possessed the greatest influence for many years. The king s full brother Arsites, in conjunction with another son of Megabyzus, Artyphius, raised the standard of revolt, probably in Syria. But his Greek soldiers were bribed, and thus he fell into the hands of the royalists, and, in violation of the oath, was put to death at the instigation of Parysatis. The same fate befell some of those who had taken part in the murder of Xerxes II. Darius had presumably come forward from the beginning as his avenger. Soon after 410 the great revolt of the Egyptians was successfully accomplished. The first independent king was called Amyrtaus, and was presumably a grandson or other relative of the former Amyrtaeus. The deep decay of the Persian military power is proved by the fact that for sixty years it failed to reduce the unwarlike Egyptians, though the latter Avere frequently divided amongst themselves by internal dissension and double rulers. The above-mentioned Pissuthnes, satrap of Sardis, had also revolted. Tissaphernes, who here appears for the first time, put down the rebellion by the usual means of bribery and perjury ; the Athenian Lycon, leader of Pissuthnes s Greek mercenaries, plays a far from honourable part in the affair. The events fall after 424, and at least some years before 412. But Pissuthnes s son Amorges continued 4 Cp. Herod., iii. 34, and Nicol. Damasc. (i.e., Ctesias), 64. 5 Cp. the anecdote of Ctesias in Photius about his lion hunt. 6 This probably means that the wife who bore him was of a noble Persian famity. 7 No reliance is to be placed on these numbers in Ctesias. Others assign to the two monarchs two and seven months respectively. In any case they did not together reign a full year, since the astronomical canon ignores them. 8 Cp. also Pausauias, vi. 5, 3, where probably we should read 267- diov with Bekker. 9 The beginning of 411 falls, according to the document in Thnc., viii. 58, in his thirteenth year ; this is probably a reckoning which begins the year with the spring, and accordingly reckons his first year (or rather the year in which he came to the throne) from the spring of 424 to 423. The astronomical canon begins the year of his accession with 7th December 424. J0 Hypothesis of ^Eschyl. , Pers., and schol. on v. 6.