Page:History of Greece Vol IV.djvu/290

 72 HISTORY OF GREECE. for such we shall hereafter find him would have thus inflicted a much more vital blow on Persia than even that celebrated action, and would have brought upon Darius the disastrous fate of his predecessor Cyrus. But tho Ionian princes, though lean- ing at first towards his suggestion, were speedily converted by the representations of Histiaeus of Miletus, who reminded them that the maintenance of his own ascendency over the Milesians, and that of each despot in his respective city, was assured by means of Persian support alone, the feeling of the population being everywhere against them : consequently, the ruin of Darius would be their ruin also. This argument proved conclusive. It was resolved to stay and maintain the bridge, but to pretend compliance with the Scythians, and prevail upon them to depart, by affecting to destroy it. The northern portion of the bridge was accordingly destroyed, for the length of a bow-shot, and the Scythians departed under the persuasion that they had succeeded in depriving their enemies of the means of crossing the river. 1 It appears that they missed the track of the retreating host, which was thus enabled, after the severest privation and suffering, to reach the Danube in safety. Arriving during the darkness of the night, Darius was at first terrified to find the bridge no longer joining the northern bank : an Egyptian herald, of stentorian powers of voice, was ordered to call as loudly as possible the name of Histiaeus the Milesian. Answer being speedily made, the bridge was reestablished, and the Persian army passed over before the Scythians returned to the spot. 2 There can be no doubt that the lonians here lost an opportu- nity eminently favorable, such as never again returned, for eman- cipating themselves from the Persian dominion. Their despots, by whom the determination was made, especially the Milesian Histinaus, were not induced to preserve the bridge by any honor- able reluctance to betray the trust reposed in them, but simply by selfish regard to the maintenance of their own unpopular domin- ion. And we may remark that the real character of this im- pelling motive, as well as the deliberation accompanying it, may be assumed as resting upon very good evidence, since we are now arrived within the personal knowledge of the Milesian historian 1 Herodot. iv, 137-139. * Herodot. iv, 140, 141