The advent of Cyrus, commonly known as Cyrus the younger, into Asia Minor, was an event of the greatest importance, opening what may be called the last phase in the Peloponnesian war.

Cyrus the younger—effects of his coming down to Asia Minor.

He was the younger of the two sons of the Persian king Darius Nothus by the cruel queen Parysatis, and was now sent down by his father as satrap of Lydia, Phrygia the greater, and Kappadokia—as well as general of all that military division of which the muster-place was Kastôlus. His command did not at this time comprise the Greek cities on the coast, which were still left to Tissaphernês and Pharnabazus. But he nevertheless brought down with him a strong interest in the Grecian war, and an intense anti-Athenian feeling, with full authority from his father to carry it out into act. Whatever this young man willed, he willed strongly: his bodily activity, rising superior to those temptations of sensual indulgence which often enervated the Persian grandees, provoked the admiration even of Spartans; and his energetic character was combined with a certain measure of ability. Though he had not as yet conceived that deliberate plan for mounting the Persian throne which afterwards absorbed his whole mind, and was so near succeeding by the help of the Ten Thousand Greeks—yet he seems to have had from the beginning the sentiment and ambition of a king in prospect, not those of a satrap.

B.C. 419. New policy of Athens, attempted by Alkibiadês.

Shortly after the remarkable events of the Olympic festival described in my last chapter, the Argeians and their allies sent a fresh embassy to invite the Corinthians to join them. They thought it a promising opportunity, after the affront just put upon Sparta, to prevail upon the Corinthians to desert her: but Spartan envoys were present also, and though the discussions were much protracted, no new resolution was adopted. An earthquake—possibly an earthquake not real, but simulated for convenience—abruptly terminated the congress. The Corinthians,—though seemingly distrusting Argos now that she was united with Athens, and leaning rather towards Sparta,—were unwilling to pronounce themselves in favour of one so as to make an enemy of the other.

In spite of this first failure, the new alliance of Athens and Argos manifested its fruits vigorously in the ensuing spring. Under the inspirations of Alkibiadês, Athens was about to attempt the new experiment of seeking to obtain intra-Peloponnesian followers and influence. At the beginning of the war, she had been maritime, defensive, and simply conservative, under the guidance of Periklês. After the events of Sphakteria, she made use of that great advantage to aim at the recovery of Megara and Bœotia, which she had before been compelled to abandon by the Thirty Years' truce—at the recommendation of Kleon. In this attempt she employed the eighth year of the war, but with signal ill-success; while Brasidas during that period broke open the gates of her maritime empire, and robbed her of many important dependencies.

Arsaces founded the Parthian Empire about B.C. 250. He first acquired Parthia and then Hyrcania. His successors gradually extended their dominion over the adjacent provinces until it included almost all the countries East of the Euphrates which had belonged to the old Persian Monarchy. The empire of the Arsacidœ under about 28 kings subsisted 475 years, from the rise of Arsaces in B. C. 250 in the consulship of Manlius and Regulus to the overthrow of Artabanus by Artaxerxes in the beginning of A. D. 226, at the close of the 4th year of Alexander Severus.

Each of the Parthian kings in addition to his own name assumed the name of the founder Arsaces: Strabo XV p. 702. This also appears from Justin, and from the coins of the Parthian kings which shall be described below.

IArsaces. B.C. 250. For the testimonies to Arsaces see F. H. III p. 18 appendix p.311. The two years ascribed to Arsaces by Arrian, if reckoned from his first appearance, are too short a space for his acts. They were probably dated from his ultimate success in the reign of Seleucus Callinicus about B. C. 245. 244

IITiridates. The son of Arsaces according to Justin 41. 5 Hujus filius et successor regni, Arsaces et ipse nomine. His brother according to Arrian : See F. H. III p. 311. Arsaces, whose war with Antiochus in B.C. 209 is described by Polybius X. 28, was Tiridates: Justin. 41. 5 adversus Antiochum Seleucifilium centum millibus peditum et viginti millibus equitum instructum mira virtute pugnavit.

Expulsion of the Gelonian dynasity from Syracuse, and of other despots from the other Sicilian towns.

In the preceding chapters, I have brought down the general history of the Peloponnesian war to the time immediately preceding the memorable Athenian expedition against Syracuse, which changed the whole face of the war. At this period, and for some time to come, the history of the Peloponnesian Greeks becomes intimately blended with that of the Sicilian Greeks. But hitherto the connection between the two has been merely occasional, and of little reciprocal effect: so that I have thought it for the convenience of the reader to keep the two streams entirely separate, omitting the proceedings of Athens in Sicily during the first ten years of the war. I now proceed to fill up this blank; to recount as much as can be made out of Sicilian events during the interval between 461–416 B.C.; and to assign the successive steps whereby the Athenians entangled themselves in ambitious projects against Syracuse, until they at length came to stake the larger portion of their force upon that fatal hazard.

The extinction of the Gelonian dynasty at Syracuse, followed by the expulsion or retirement of all the other despots throughout the island, left the various Grecian cities to reorganise themselves in free and self-constituted governments. Unfortutunately our memorials respecting this revolution are miserably scanty; but there is enough to indicate that it was something much more than a change from single-headed to popular government. It included, farther, transfers on the largest scale other both of inhabitants and of property.

Athens immediately after Eukleidês—political history little known.

Respecting the political history of Athens during the few years immediately succeeding the restoration of the democracy, we have unfortunately little or no information. But in the spring of 399 b.c., between three and four years after the beginning of the archonship of Eukleidês, an event happened of paramount interest to the intellectual public of Greece as well as to philosophy generally—the trial, condemnation, and execution, of Sokratês. Before I recount that memorable incident, it will be proper to say a few words on the literary and philosophical character of the age in which it happened. Though literature and philosophy are now becoming separate departments in Greece, each exercises a marked influence on the other—and the state of dramatic literature will be seen to be one of the causes directly contributing to the fate of Sokratês.

Extraordinary development of dramatic genius.

During the century of the Athenian democracy between Kleisthenês and Eukleidês, there had been produced a development of dramatic genius, tragic and comic, never paralleled before or afterwards. Æschylus, the creator of the tragic drama, or at least the first composer who rendered it illustrious, had been a combatant both at Marathon and Salamis; while Sophoklês and Euripidês, his two eminent followers (the former, one of the generals of the Athenian armament against Samos in 440 b.c.) expired both of them only a year before the battle of Ægospotami—just in time to escape the bitter humiliation and suffering of that mournful period.

THE consuls are illustrated in the Tables from Gruter and Norisius. In the following list farther testimonies are added in the notes from the copious and valuable collections of Muratori, whose work was not within reach when the Tables were composed. From that collection the descriptions and the names of some consuls have been corrected or supplied: as Eggius Ambibulus at A. D. 126, M. Antonius Hiherus at 133, Bruttius Præsens II at 139, M. Pompeius Macrinus in 164, Sosius Priscus Senecio in 169, P. Cornelius Sæcularis II et Junius Donatus II in 260, Antonius Marcellinus et Petronius Probinus in 341, Flavius Cæsarius et Nonius Atticus in 397.

The second and third columns give an expanded view of the consulships in the Paschal Chronicle and in Cassiodorus, that these may be compared with the true list in each step of the series. From the 7th of Constantine A. D. 312 to the 20th of Heraclius A. D. 630 the Chronicle has the right number of consulships, but in the preceding period, from the death of Augustus A. D. 14 to the 7th of Constantine A. D. 312, are some interpolations and some omissions, which disturb the series in many parts, and place many consulships either above or below their true position. In the whole number between Sex. Pompeius Sex. Apuleius A. D. 14 and Constantin. II Licin. II A. D. 312 the Chronicle has two interpolated years, which carry back the consuls Pompeius et Apuleius to A. D. 12 two years higher than their real station.