The great Persian War and its preliminaries : $b A study of the evidence, literary and topographicalGrundy, G. B. (George Beardoe)
History
The great Persian War and its preliminaries : $b A study of the evidence, literary and topographical
Grundy, G. B. (George Beardoe)
Greece -- History -- Persian Wars, 500-449 B.C.
Herodotus does not deny the shield incident. He confines himself to
asserting that the Alkmæonidæ could not have had anything to with it.
It is noticeable that he makes no charge against any one else, for
the apparent reason that tradition did not accuse any one else of the
treachery.
The defence he gives is probably that of the Alkmæonidæ themselves.
The charge against the Alkmæonidæ does not seem to have been a late
interpolation into the Marathon tradition. ◆Pind. Pyth. vii. 15.◆
Pindar, in one of his odes, which bears traces of having been composed
shortly after 486, hints strongly that sinister reports on this subject
were existent even at that time.
It is possible to fail to recognize the wide difference between the
mental attitude of the European Greek to the Persian before and
after the decade of 490–480. Before 490, Medism had not acquired the
loathsome significance of twelve years later.
Nor, again, if the Alkmæonidæ and the faction which they led did
Medize on this occasion, was the act without precedent in the case
of Athens herself. Between fifteen and twenty years before, Athenian
ambassadors had given earth and water to Artaphernes at Sardes. Their
act had, indeed, been condemned upon their return; but there is no
reason to suppose that the condemnation was unanimous; and there is
every reason to believe that they would never have so acted, had they
not had good grounds for thinking that a majority or a party of their
fellow-country-men would approve of what they had done.
The sudden withdrawal of Athenian assistance from the Ionian revolt
within a year of that assistance having been granted is most explicable
on the assumption that within that year a philo-Medic party had once
more acquired the ascendency.
The punishment of Phrynichos for his drama on the capture of
Miletus looks very much like the work of the same party.
It seems clear that the democrats in Athens had not found that the
expulsion of the tyrant Hippias had brought unmixed blessings in
its train. They were thereafter face to face with a strong internal
opposition, in the shape of a powerful aristocratic party; and
threatened from outside by a Sparta which repented of the part it
had played in Hippias’ expulsion, and was exasperated at having been
fooled by Delphi at the instigation of the Alkmæonidæ. It is not, then,
strange that the democrats should look abroad for help of which they
saw no prospect nearer home.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account