and a third for the slaves, whom they had admitted among their soldiers on that occasion. A tomb for Miltiades was afterwards erected in the same place.* The reflection Cornelius Nepos makes upon what the Athenians did to honour the memory of their generals, deserves to be taken notice of. Formerly, says he, speaking of the Romans, our ancestors rewarded virtue by marks of distinction that were not stately or magnificent, but such as were rarely granted, and for that very reason highly esteemed; whereas now they are so profusely bestowed, that little or no value is set upon them. The same thing happened, adds he, among the Athenians. All the honour that was paid to Miltiades, the great deliverer of Athens and of all Greece, was, that in a picture of the battle of Marathon, drawn by order of the Athenians, he was represented at the head of the ten commanders, exhorting the soldiers, and setting them an example of their duty. But this same people in later ages, grown more powerful and corrupted by the flatteries of their orators, decreed three hundred statues to Demetrius Phalereus.t Plutarch makes the same reflection, and wisely observes, that the honour which is paid to great men ought not to be looked upon as the reward of their illustrious actions, but only as a mark of esteem of which such monuments are intended to perpetuate the remembrance.§ It is not, then, the stateliness or magnificence of public monuments, which gives them their value, or makes them durable, but the sincere gratitude of those who erect them. The three hundred statues of Demetrius Phalereus were all thrown down even in his own life-time, but the picture representing the courage of Miltiades was preserved many ages after him. This picture was kept at Athens in a gallery, adorned and enriched with different paintings, all excellent in their kind, and done by the greatest masters; which for that reason was called An signifying varied and diversified. The celebrated Polygnotus, a native of the isle of Thasos, and one of the finest painters of his time, painted this picture, or at least the greatest part of it; and, as he valued himself upon his reputation, and was more attached to glory than interest, he did it gratuitously, and would not receive any recompense for it. The city of Athens therefore rewarded him in a manner that was more congenial to his feelings, by procuring an order from the Amphictyons to appoint him a public lodging in the city, where he might live during his own pleasure. The gratitude of the Athenians towards Miltiades was of no very long duration. After the battle of Marathon, he desired and obtained the command of a fleet of seventy ships, in order to punish and subdue the islands that had favoured the barbarians. Accordingly he reduced several of them but having been unsuccessful in the isle of Paros, and upon a false report of the arrival of the enemy's fleet, having raised the siege which he had laid to the capital city, wherein he had received a very dangerous wound, he returned to Athens with his fleet, and was there impeached by a citizen, called Xanthippus, who accused him of having raised the siege through treachery, and in consideration of a great sum of money given him by the king of Persia. Little probability as there was in this accusation, it nevertheless prevailed over the merit and innocence of Miltiades. He was condemned to lose his life, and to be thrown into the barathrum: a sentence passed only upon the greatest criminals and malefactors. The magistrate opposed the execution of so unjust a condemnation. All the favour shown to this preserver of his country, was to have the sentence of death commuted into a penalty of fifty talents, or fifty thousand crowns French money, being the sum to which the expenses of the fleet, that had been equipped upon his solicitation and advice, amounted. Not being able to pay this sum, he was sent to prison, where he died of the wound he had received at Paros. Cimon, his son, who was at this time very young, sig Paus. in Attic. p. 60, 61. Corn. Nep. in Milt. c. vi. nalized himself for his piety on this occasion, as we shall find in the sequel he afterwards did for his courage. He purchased the permission of burying his father's body, by paying the fine of fifty thousand crowns, in which he had been condemned; which sum the young man raised as well as he could, by the assistance of his friends and relations.* Cornelius Nepos observes, that what chiefly induced the Athenians to act in this manner, with regard to Miltiades, was only his great merit and reputation, which made the people who were but lately delivered from the yoke of slavery under Pisistratus apprehend, that Miltiades, who had been tyrant before in the Chersonesus, might affect the same at Athens. They therefore chose rather to punish an innocent person, than to be under perpetual apprehensions of him. To this same principle was to be attributed the institution of the ostracism at Athens. I have elsewhere given an account of the most plausible reasons upon which the ostracism could be founded: but I do not see how we can fully justify so strange a policy, to which all merit becomes suspected, and virtue itself appears criminal.‡ This appears plainly in the banishment of Aristides. His inviolable attachment to justice obliged him on many occasions to oppose Themistocles, who did not pride himself upon his delicacy in that respect, and who spared no intrigues and cabals to engage the suffrages of the people, for removing a rival who always opposed his ambitious designs. This is a strong instance, that a person may be superior in merit and virtue, without being so in influence. The impetuous eloquence of Themistocles bore down the justice of Aristides, and occasioned his banishment.§ In this kind of trial,the citizens gave their suffrages by writing the name of the accused person upon a shell, called in Greek, pax, from whence came the term ostracism. On this occasion a peasant, who could not write, and did not know Aristides, applied to himself, and desired him to put the name of Aristides upon his shell. "Has he done you any wrong," said Aristides, "that you are for condemning him in this manner?" "No, replied the other, "I do not so much as know him; but I am quite tired and angry with hearing every body call him the Just." Aristides, without saying a word more, calmly took the shell, wrote his own name on it, and returned it. He set out for his banishment, imploring the gods that no accident might befall his country to make it regret him. The great Camillus, in a like case did not imitate his generosity, but prayed to a quite different effect, desiring the gods to force his ungrateful country, by some misfortune to have occasion for his aid, and recall him as soon as possible.T O fortunate republic! exclaims Valerius Maximus, speaking of the banishment of Aristides, which, after having so basely treated the most virtuous man it ever produced, has still been able to find citizens zealously and faithfully attached to her service! Felices Athenas, quæ post illius exilium, invenire aliquem aut virum bonum, aut amantem sui civem potuerunt; cum quo tunc ipsa sanctitas migravit.** SECTION VIII. DARIUS RESOLVES TO MAKE WAR IN PERSON AGAINST EGYPT AND AGAINST GREECE, &c. WHEN Darius received the news of the defeat of his army at Marathon, he was violently enraged; but that misfortune was so far from discouraging or diverting him from carrying on the war against Greece, that it only served to animate him to pursue it with the greater vigour, in order to be revenged at the same time for the burning of Sardis, and for the disgrace suffered at * Plat. in Gorg. p. 519. Hæc populus respiciens maluit eum innocentem plecti, quam se diutius esse in timore. Man d'Etud. Vol. iii. p. 407. In his cognitum est, quanto antistaret eloquentia innocentiæ. Quanquam enim adeo excellebat Aristides abstinentia, ut unus post hominum memoriam, quod quidem nos audierimus, cognomine Justus sit appellatus; tamen a Themistocle collabefactus testula illa exilio decem annorum mulctatus est.-Corn. Nep. in Arist. Plut. in Arist. p. 322, 323. In exilium abiit, precatus ab diis immortalibus, si innoxio sibi ea injuria fieret, primo quoque tempore desiderium sui civitati ingrate facerent.-Liv. 1. v. n. 32. ** Val. Max. 1. v. c. 3. 44 Marathon. Being thus determined to march in person with all his forces, he despatched orders to all his subjects in the several provinces of his empire, to arm themselves for this expedition * After having spent three years in making the necessary preparations, he had another war to carry on, occasioned by the revolt of Egypt. It seems from what we read in Diodorus Siculus, that Darius went thither himself to quell it, and that he succeeded. The historian relates, that upon this princes's desiring to have his statue placed before that of Sesostris, the chief priest of the Egyp tians told him, "he had not yet equalled the glory of that conqueror;" and that the king, without being offended at the Egyptian priest's freedom, made answer, that he would endeavour to surpass it. Diodorus adds farther, that Darius, detesting the impious cruelty which his predecessor Cambyses had exercised in that country, expressed great reverence for their gods and temples; that he had several conversations with the Egyptian priests upon matters of religion and government; and that having learned of them, with what great gentleness their ancient kings used to treat their subjects, he endeavoured, after his return into Persia, to form himself upon their model. But Herodotus, more worthy of belief in this particular than Diodorus, only observes, that this prince, resolving at once to chastise his revolted subjects, and to be avenged of his ancient enemies, determined to make war against both at the same time, and to attack Greece in person with the main body of his army, while the rest of it was employed in the reduction of Egypt.‡ According to an ancient custom among the Persians, their king was not allowed to go to war, without having first named the person that should succeed him on the throne; a custom wisely established to prevent the state's being exposed to the troubles which generally attend the uncertainty of a successor, to the inconvenience of anarchy, and to the cabals of various pretenders.§ Darius, before he undertook his expedition against Greece, thought himself the more obliged to observe this rule, as he was already advanced in years, and as there was a difference between two of his sons, upon the question of succeeding to the empire; which difference might occasion a civil war after his death, if he left it undetermined. Darius had three sons by his first wife, the daughter of Gobryas, all three born before their father came to the crown; and four by Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus, who were all born after their father's succession to the throne. Artabazanes, called by Justin Artemenes, was the eldest of the former, and Xerxes of the latter. Artabazanes alleged in his own behalf, that as he was the eldest of all the brothers, the right of succession, according to the custom and practice of all nations, belonged to him, in preference to all the rest. Xerxes's argument was, that, as son of Darius by Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus, who founded the Persian empire, it was more just that the crown of Cyrus should devolve upon one of his descendants, than upon one who was not. Demaratus, a Spartan king, unjustly deposed by his subjects, and at that time in exile at the court of Persia, secretly suggested to Xerxes another argument to support his pretensions: that Artabazanes was indeed the eldest son of Darius, but he, Xerxes, was the eldest son of the king; and therefore, Artabazanes being born when his father was but a private man, all he could pretend to, on account of his seniority, was only to inherit his private estate; but that he, Xerxes, being the first-born son of the king, had the best right to succeed to the crown. He farther supported this argument by the example of the Lacedæmonians, who admitted none to inherit the kingdom but those children who were born after their father's accession. The right of succeeding was accordingly determined in favour of Xerxes. Justin and Plutarch place this dispute after Darius's decease. They both take notice of the prudent conduct of these two brothers on so nice an occa Lib. i. p. 54, 85. Herod. I. vi. c. 2. Herod. 1. vii. c. 1. Idem. c. 2, 3. Adeo fraterna contentio fuit, ut nec victor insultaverit, nec victus doluerit; ipsoque litis tempore invicem munera miserint; jucunda quoque inter se non solum, sed credula convivia habuerint; judicium quoque ipsum sine arbitris, sine convitio fuerit. Tanto moderatius tum fratres inter se regna maxima dividebant, quum nunc exigua patrimonia partiuntur.-Justin. Justin. 1. ii. c. 10. Plut. de Frat. Amore, p. 448. sion. According to their manner of relating this fact, Artabazanes was absent when the king died; and Xerxes immediately assumed all the marks, and exercised all the functions of the sovereignty. But, upon his brother's returning home, he quitted the diadem and the tiara, which he wore in such a manner as only suited the king, went out to meet him, and showed him all imaginable respect. They agreed to make their uncle Artabanes the arbitrator of their difference, and without any farther appeal, to acquiesce in his decision. All the while this dispute lasted, the two brothers showed one another every demonstration of a truly fraternal friendship, by keeping up a continual intercourse of presents and entertainments, from whence their mutual esteem and confidence for each other banished all their fears and suspicions on both sides, and introduced an unconstrained cheerfulness and a perfect security. This is a spectacle, says Justin, highly worthy of our admiration; to see, while most brothers are at deadly variance with one another about a small patrimony, with what moderation and temper both waited for a decision, which was to dispose of the greatest empire then in the universe. When Artabanes gave judgment in favour of Xerxes, Artabazanes the same instant prostrated himself before him, acknowledging him for his master, and placed him upon the throne with his own hand; by which proceeding he showed a greatness of soul truly royal, and infinitely superior to all human dignities. This ready acquiescence in a sentence so contrary to his interests, was not the effect of an artful policy, that knows how to dissemble upon occasion, and to derive honour to itself from what it could not prevent. No; it proceeded from a real respect for the laws, a sincere affection for his brother, and an indifference for that which so warmly inflames the ambition of mankind, and so frequently arms the nearest relations against each other. For his part, during his whole life, he continued firmly attached to the interests of Xerxes, and prosecuted them with so much ardour and zeal, that he lost his life in his service at the battle of Salamis. At whatever time this dispute is to be dated, it is evident Darius could not execute the double expedition he was meditating against Egypt and Greece; and that he was prevented by death from pursuing that project.* He had reigned thirty-six years. The epitapht of this prince, which contains a boast, that he could drink much without disordering his reason, proves that the Persians actually thought that circumstance added to their glory. We shall see in the sequel, that Cyrus the younger ascribes this quality to himself, as a perfection that rendered him more worthy of the throne than his elder brother. Who at the present day would think of annexing this merit to the qualifications of an excellent prince? Darius had many excellent qualities, but they were attended with great failings, and the kingdom felt the effects both of the one and the other. For such is the condition of princes, they never act nor live for themselves alone. Whatever they are, either as to good or evil, they are for their people; and the interests of the one and the other, are inseparable. Darius had a great fund of gentleness, equity, clemency, and kindness for his people; he loved justice and respected the laws; he esteemed merit, and was careful to reward it: he was not jealous of his rank or authority, so as to exact a forced homage, or to render himself inaccessible; and notwithstanding his own great experience and abilities in public affairs, he would hearken to the advice of others, and reap the benefit of their counsels. It is of him the holy Scripture speaks, where it says, that he did nothing without consulting the wise men of his court.§ He was not afraid of exposing his person in battle, and was always cool even in the heat of action: he said of himself, that the most imminent and pressing danger served only to increase his courage and his prudence : in a word, there have been few princes more expert than he in the art of governing, or more experienced in the business of war. Nor was the glory of being a conqueror, if Herod. 1. vi. c. 4. † Ἠδυνάμην καὶ οἶνον πίνειν πολὺν καὶ τῶ τον φέρειν καλῶς - Athen. I. x. p. 434. Plut. in Apoph. p. 172. that may be called a glory, wanting to his character. For he not only restored and entirely confirmed the empire of Cyrus, which had been very much shaken by the ill conduct of Cambyses and the Magian impostor; but he likewise added many great and rich provinces to it, and particulary India, Thrace, Macedonia and the isles contiguous to the coasts of Ionia. But sometimes these good qualities of his gave way to failings of a quite opposite nature. Do we see any thing like Darius's usual gentleness and good nature in his treatment of that unfortunate father, who desired the favour of him to leave him one of his three sons at home, while the other two followed the king in his expedition? Was there ever an occasion wherein he had more need of counsel, than when he formed the design of making war upon the Scythians? And could any one give more prudent advice than his brother gave him on that occassion? But he would not follow it. Does there appear in that whole expedition any mark of wisdom or prudence? What do we see in all that affair, but a prince intoxicated with his greatness, who fancies there is nothing in the world that can resist him; and whose weak ambition to signalize himself by an extraordinary conquest, has stifled all the good sense, judgment and even military knowledge, he possessed before? What constitutes the solid glory of Darius's reign is his being chosen by God himself, as Cyrus had been before, to be the instrument of his mercies towards his people, the declared protector of the Israelites, and the restorer of the temple at Jerusalem. The reader may see this part of his history in the book of Ezra, and in the writings of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah. CHAPTER II. THE HISTORY OF XERXES CONNECTED WITH THAT OF THE GREEKS. THE reign of Xerxes lasted but twelve years, but abounds with great events. SECTION 1.-XERXES REDUCES EGYPT, &c. &c. XERXES having ascended the throne, employed the first year of his reign in carrying on the preparations begun by his father, for the reduction of Egypt. He also confirmed to the Jews at Jerusalem all the privileges granted them by his father, and particularly that which assigned them the tribute of Samaria, for supplying them with victims for the temple of God.* In the second year of his reign he marched against the Egyptians, and having reduced and subdued these rebels, he made the yoke of their subjection more heavy; then giving the government of that province to his brother Achæmenes, he returned about the latter end of the year to Susa.f Herodotus, the famous historian, was born this same year at Halicarnassus in Caria. For he was fifty-three years old, when the Peloponnesian war began. Xerxes, elated with his success against the Egyptians, determined to make war against the Grecians.§ He did not intend, he said, any longer to buy the figs of Attica, which were very excellent, because he would eat no more of them till he was master of the country. But before he engaged in an enterprise of that importance, he thought proper to assemble his council, and take the advice of all the greatest and most illustrious persons of his court. He laid before them the design he had of making war against Greece, and acquainted them with his motives; which were, the desire of imitating the example of his predecessors, who had all of them distinguished their names and reigns by noble enterprises; the obligation he was under to revenge the inso A. M. 3519. Ant. J. C. 435. Her. l. vii. c. 5. Joseph. Antiq. 1. xi. c. 5. † A. M. 3520. Ant. J. C. 484. Her. 1. vii. c. 7. Her. 1. vii. c. 8--18. Aul. Gel. 1. sv. c. 23. Plut. in Apoph. p. 179 |