Alexander is said to have afterwards recognized a punishment from the hand of Dionysus, the patron deity of Thebes, in the drunken fury which drove him to murder Clitus, and in the mutiny of his army in India. A few years after his death, Cassander, the son of Antipater, joined with the Athenians in rebuilding the city (B.c. 316). This terrible example at once secured the submission of the other states, and caused extreme alarm to the Athenians, who had been culpably remiss in neglecting to send aid to Thebes. A letter soon arrived from Alexander, demanding the surrender of eight orators and two generals, who were named as the chief authors of the resistance to Philip at Chæronea, and of all the hostile demonstrations since. Among them, of course, was Demosthenes. He urged the people to resist a demand that struck a fatal blow at the free speech on which their whole polity hung; and related the old fable of the wolf requiring the sheep to give up their watch-dogs for the sake of peace. Phocion, only coming forward at the repeated call of the assembly, counselled submission to the irresistible power of Alexander, and called on the Ten to sacrifice themselves for the public safety, a course which he declared he would not have shrunk from had the case been his own. But a more generous spirit moved the assembly, and they dared to send a refusal, though it was by such a reply to a like demand that Thebes had sealed her fate. But they sent their answer in the form of an apology by one and a second embassy; and the influence of Phocion at last prevailed on Alexander to be satisfied with the banishment of Charidemus and Ephialtes. These, with other military leaders, took service among the Greek mercenaries of the Persian king. Phocion's influence was now supreme at Athens; and Alexander had the wisdom to prefer the hold he might thus keep on the city, which he flattered with the title of the second state in Greece, to a conflict which must have been fierce, and perhaps long and even doubtful, considering the maritime power of Athens. of Athens. On his return to Pella, Alexander visited Delphi, and received the sanction of the oracle to his expedition against Persia (B.c. 335). He never set foot in Greece again; but he left behind him proofs enough of his civil as well as military energy, and partisans sufficiently numerous in the several states, * Milton's Sonnet, "When the assault was intended to the city." to secure submission during his absence. Sparta alone maintained a sullen independence; and her unavailing effort for liberty, under Agis, is almost the only important event in the history of Greece during the eleven years of Alexander's Asiatic conquests. The events of the last eighteen months had also given ample proof of his ability to lead on to victory the forces, which he spent the winter in finally preparing, and which mustered between Pella and Amphipolis early in the following spring (B.c. 334). A glance must now be thrown to the other side of the Ægæan, that we may see in what condition the Persian empire was to receive the coming storm. We left the history of Persia, at its constitution by Darius, the son of Hystaspes, only adding a brief summary of its subsequent fortunes. We have since seen how, after the collapse which followed the expedition of Xerxes, the events of the Peloponnesian War revived the power of Persia, under Darius II. Nothus (B.C. 424-405). During the long reign of his successor, Artaxerxes II. Mnemon (B.c. 405-359), the empire seemed to have recovered much of its ancient vigour. The death of the younger Cyrus confirmed his brother's power, though their mother, Parysatis, contrived to avenge his fate by refinements of cruelty known only to orientals. The slave who, at the command of Artaxerxes, had cut off the head and hands of Cyrus, was won by her from the king at dice, and put to death with unutterable tortures; and the queen, Statira, is said to have been despatched by means of food which Parysatis cut for her with a knife poisoned on one side. Such scenes reveal the internal life of the Persian court. Meanwhile, the league in Greece against Sparta delivered the empire from the invasion of Agesilaus (B.C. 394), and the intrigues of Sparta, on the other hand, enabled Artaxerxes to dictate to Greece the shameful peace of Antalcidas (B.c. 387).† Evagoras, who had recovered the kingdom of Salamis, in Cyprus, from the tyrant who had usurped it (B.c. 410), and had reigned with equal ability and justice, was subdued, after a ten years' war, in B.C. 385. This war was with a Greek on the frontier of the empire, who had only been a subject in name. There were others against rebellious satraps, in which Artaxerxes was less successful. Of these the most remarkable was Datames, the satrap of Cilicia, whom his biographer, Cornelius Nepos, calls the Chap. x. vol. I. p. 294. For a complete list of the Persian kings see the note on that page. + Vol. I. pp. 536, 549. ablest and bravest of all barbarian generals, except Hamilcar and Hannibal. Driven into rebellion by the intrigues of his enemies at court, he set the example of revolt to other satraps, and was murdered by Mithridates in B.C. 362. Ariobarzanes, the father of this Mithridates, succeeded in establishing the independence of his satrapy of Pontus, which we shall see hereafter as a powerful kingdom, under his son's celebrated namesake. In the very centre of the empire, there were nations which refused obedience to the great king. The expedition of Cyrus shows us the Cilician prince Syennesis, bearing the same name as his ancestor in the time of Cyaxares,* and seemingly preserving an independence handed down from that period. The neighbouring Pisidians, as well as the Carduchi or Kurds of Mount Zagrus, were at perpetual war with the Persians. The Uxii held possession of the passes between Susa and Persepolis, and the king had to pay them tribute in order to keep open the road between the two capitals. Egypt, as we have seen, preserved its independence from the tenth year of Darius Nothus (B.c. 414), through the whole reign of Artaxerxes, till she was subdued, by the aid of Greek mercenaries, under Artaxerxes III., Ochus (B.C. 353).† In short, the empire was rapidly tending to dissolution when Artaxerxes died, in the same year in which Philip ascended the throne of Macedonia (B.c. 359). Ochus, who probably obtained the tiara by the murder of his father, secured it by the extirpation of the other members of the royal family, and his court realized the oriental ideal of mingled cruelty and voluptuousness. But his power was preserved from contempt by the energy of Bagoas, his chief eunuch, or, as the Greek writers call him, "chiliarch," and by the aid of his Greek mercenaries. Bagoas equalled Ochus in cruelty, and governed him in everything else; carrying the king about with him on his expeditions, to prevent his exercising any independent authority. In putting down the rebellions of the satraps, Bagoas used the services of the Greek mercenaries. Among the most notorious of these were two brothers, Rhodians, named Mentor and Memnon, who first became conspicuous in the service of Artabazus, the satrap of Phrygia, who married their sister. Artabazus, who had aided in putting down the revolt of Datames, rebelled in B.C. 356, but was defeated by Bagoas, and took refuge with Philip of Macedon. Memnon fled with him, and Mentor entered the service of Nectanebo II., King of Egypt. Vol. I. p. 256. + Ib. p. 140. About this time, the oppression of the Persian governors had driven the Phoenicians to revolt, and Mentor was sent by the King of Egypt to their aid, at the head of a body of mercenaries. Bagoas now urged Ochus to make a great effort to re-conquer Phoenicia and Egypt, and he succeeded in enrolling a body of 10,000 Greek mercenaries. Phocion did not scruple to serve the Persian king, and the Thebans furnished him with a body of troops. The Sidonians, betrayed by their king Tennes, burnt themselves with their city (B.c. 351). The catastrophe is one of the most fearful recorded in history. Forty thousand human beings perished in the flames, and Artaxerxes sold the ruins to speculators in the gold and silver to be dug out from the ashes. Tennes was put to death as soon as his treachery was of no further use. Mentor, who had gone over with Tennes, and entered the service of Ochus, now led back his mercenaries into Egypt as an enemy, and contributed greatly to the conquest of that country. Raised high in the favour of the Persian king by these services, he threatened to become a formidable rival of Bagoas'; but their intrigues ended in a mutual understanding, by which they shared the power nominally held by Ochus. Mentor was invested with the satrapy of the maritime coasts of Asia Minor, a new distinction for a Greek; and his influence procured the pardon of Memnon and Artabazus. On his death Memnon succeeded to his power, which promised to be the most serious obstacle to the designs of Alexander (B.c. 336). Bagoas, who two years before had murdered Ochus and all his sons, except the youngest, Arses, put him also to death, and placed on the throne the unfortunate DARIUS III. CODOMANNUS, who was descended from Darius Nothus only on his mother's side. The ambitious eunuch had planned the removal of this last obstacle between himself and the crown, but his plot was discovered by Darius, and he was compelled to drink the poison he had mixed for the king. The favourable judgment generally formed of the last sovereign of Persia seems to have been much influenced by sympathy for his misfortunes. He had been brought up in comparative freedom from the emasculating corruption of the court; and he has one great, though negative merit, that no act of cruelty can be laid to his charge. He had already gained reputation as a soldier;* but he gave no signs of the energy or foresight needed to meet the invasion, of which he had ample notice. Darius is said, indeed, * The accounts of his personal courage at Arbela are quite disproved by Arrian's narrative. to have spent the summer of B.C. 335 in collecting great forces both by sea and land; but the defence of Asia Minor was left chiefly to Memnon and his mercenaries. The Macedonian army, which, as we have seen, was sent over into Asia by Philip, under Parmenio and Attalus, after taking possession of the Greek cities in Mysia, was kept in check by Memnon, and even-it would seem-driven back across the Hellespont. Meanwhile Demosthenes and the patriot party at Athens maintained communications with Memnon, with a view to embarrass the enterprise of Alexander. This policy has often been represented as a siding with the ancient enemy of Greece, in order to revenge themselves on the present foe. But, as matters now stood, Demosthenes regarded Macedon, rather than Persia, as the arch-enemy of Hellenic liberty and civilization. The prevailing sentiment of Greece tended in the opposite direction. It was not at once easy to believe that the empire of Darius and Xerxes, the kingdom which had lately dictated terms of peace to the Greek states, and had reconquered the provinces of Egypt, Phoenicia, and Cyprus, was in a state of harmless decrepitude. When Demosthenes himself began his public career, there were great apprehensions of war with Persia, on account of the aid given by Chares to Artabazus. His first extant speech "On the Symmories," though delivered in the very year in which Philip was actively intriguing in Euboea (B.c. 354), deals, not with the danger so near home, but with the means of organizing the resources of the city against its former enemy. Each peace that was made with Philip gave new life to the sentiment, of which we have the eloquent expression in the "Panegyric Oration" of Isocrates, that Greece had found a champion to avenge the invasions of Darius and Xerxes; and the hope of a last triumph of Hellenism over barbarism formed some consolation for the catastrophe of Chæronea and the fate of Thebes. Which view was right? Not necessarily that which was justified by the issue: for, in politics, as in other human affairs, success is not the sole test of principles. The party of Demosthenes had at least the rectitude of pure patriotism; nor was their failure so certain as to justify their opponents in a course, the motives of which were lower even than far-sighted policy. Athens was the centre of Hellenic liberty. A great modern historian, speaking in the light of the event, says,-" We feel indifferent how the rest fare, seeing there is no longer any help for Athens." But he none the less recognizes the different point of view from which Demosthenes regarded the possibility |