This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
The settlement of Ionia by Artaphrenes.
ἐς νεῖκος φέρον: hostile, opposed to εἰρηναῖα (ch. 43); cf. ἐς αἰσχύνην φέροντα (iii. 133; i. 10), ἐς ἄκεσιν (iv. 90). δωσίδικοι. The meaning is clearly that all warfare between cities, as well as piracy and brigandage, was abolished, and δίκαι ἀπὸ συμβολῶν established throughout Ionia. We cannot say how far such treaties already existed, but the position of Histiaeus shows that hitherto the local authorities in Ionia had been allowed much independence. The organizing genius of Darius took advantage of the revolt and its suppression to put an end to this. Thus the Ionians were compelled by their Persian masters to accept a unity which they had refused to impose on themselves at the suggestion of Thales (i. 170). In the same way private wars were checked by the Athenian ἀρχή (Thuc. i. 115). Evidence of long-continued enmity may be found in the dispute between Samos and Priene recorded in an Inscription in the Ashmolean Museum (Hicks1, 152).
φόρους: cf. iii. 89, 90. The statement as to the tribute is defective and difficult. Doubtless the arrangement of Artaphrenes applied to other revolted tributaries as well as to Ionians, but H. mentions only the most important, just as the whole rebellion is usually called the Ionic revolt. Again, the words ἔτι καὶ ἐς ἐμέ cannot bear the natural meaning that tribute was still paid to Persia in accordance with this assessment at the time when H. wrote his history, but must be explained in one of the following ways: (1) Grote (v. 194-5) thinks that the Persian king still maintained his claim to the old tribute, though it was not really paid. The satrap was still responsible to the king for the money, though unable to exact it. As soon as the Athenian power seemed broken in 412, the great king pressed Tissaphernes for payment (Thuc. viii. 5). The claim had been for years in abeyance but never withdrawn. We may compare the grants of Myus and Lampsacus to Themistocles (Thuc. i. 138), and of Myrrhina and Gryneium to Gongylus the Eretrian (Xen. Hell. iii. 1. 6). The latter were held by Gongylus' descendants in 399 B. C., but all four cities were included in the Athenian empire in its palmy days. (2) Some suggest that the unlucky states on the Asiatic seaboard paid tribute both to Athens and to the Great King. Some such arrangement seems certainly to have prevailed on the coast of Thrace under the Odrysian kings (Thuc. ii. 97), but the cases are not really parallel. (3) Another suggestion is that the assessment of Artaphrenes was the basis of the Athenian φόρος, which was certainly paid by these cities before 450 B. C., and probably from 465. If, however, H. meant that the Athenian τακταί used the old valuation, he has failed to express himself clearly, and the frequent alterations of the Phoros on the existing quota lists seem inconsistent with this explanation. (4) The simplest explanation is that H. uses ἐς ἐμέ loosely, meaning merely till the Persian power was overthrown, i. e. between 479 and circ. 465 B. C. Some of the states were still paying tribute when H. was a boy; in all he could (and doubtless did) talk with those to whom the claims of the Persian tax-collector were familiar. So a septuagenarian Bengalee might well write to-day: ‘The rule of John Company lasted down to my time,’ although it really ended in 1858. It should further be noticed that Diodorus (x. 25. 2) ascribes not only this regulation of taxes, but also the restoration of constitutional government in Ionia (cf. ch. 43 n.) to Artaphrenes, acting on the suggestion of Hecataeus. Was H. unwilling to allow credit to his great predecessor for the conciliatory and successful reorganization of Ionia?
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.