Semesta Cinta Zahara Pantaskah Aku Mencium Wanginya SurgaMu Fittriyu Siregaru Full Chapter Download PDF
Semesta Cinta Zahara Pantaskah Aku Mencium Wanginya SurgaMu Fittriyu Siregaru Full Chapter Download PDF
Semesta Cinta Zahara Pantaskah Aku Mencium Wanginya SurgaMu Fittriyu Siregaru Full Chapter Download PDF
https://ebookstep.com/product/pantaskah-aku-mencintainya-ariny-n-
h-nadya-meisitha/
https://ebookstep.com/product/malakor-1st-edition-zahara-c-
ordonez/
https://ebookstep.com/product/rindang-dari-semesta-lestari-
sastra/
https://ebookstep.com/product/ada-aku-aku-ada-kumpulan-puisi-tim-
penulis/
Semesta dalam Firman Nya Prio Sigit Nugroho
https://ebookstep.com/product/semesta-dalam-firman-nya-prio-
sigit-nugroho/
https://ebookstep.com/product/semesta-berbudaya-antologi-budaya-
desa-tim-penulis/
https://ebookstep.com/product/cinta-rekha-kisah-cinta-remaja-sma-
nuisy-febri/
https://ebookstep.com/product/dia-tanpa-aku-esti-kinasih/
https://ebookstep.com/product/aku-menunggumu-kau-menjemputku-
nikahbarokah/
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
BUKUNE
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
representatives at Delphi to undo the baneful effect which the
pronouncement must have on the Athenian decision. Peloponnesus
intended, no doubt, to defend itself at the Isthmus; but the Spartans
had a perfectly clear comprehension of the necessary part which the
Greek fleet, of which the Athenians must furnish the most important
contingent, must play in the defence.
It is unnecessary to suppose that the pressure was exerted on the
oracle at the immediate initiative of persons who were present on the
spot when the Athenian delegates were given the first answer.
Herodotus is not strict on questions of chronology; possibly his
sources of information did not allow him to be so; and the interval
between the two oracles may have been quite considerable relative
to the rapid march of events. Meanwhile pressure had been brought
to bear on the authorities at Delphi from Peloponnesus, a part of the
world whose representations they could not afford to neglect. So the
tone of the first response was modified in the Peloponnesian
interest. The Athenian was still counselled to desert Attica, but not to
seek safety away from Greece; and the fleet is clearly pointed to as
the means of salvation.
It was not Salamis which Delphi foresaw. It may be doubted even
whether she had any belief in the policy advocated. The Isthmus and
the Peloponnesians demanded the Athenian fleet; and Delphi could
not afford to quarrel with her best friends.
The new oracle, whose meaning was obscured by the fact that
the previous one had been uttered, came near to being
misinterpreted by those to whom it was sent. They evidently saw
from the first that it was, in a sense, a reversal of its predecessor; but
as to its positive meaning they were in much doubt.
In the account of the debate upon it Herodotus introduces,
practically for the first time, to the stage of history, with a suddenness
and simplicity of expression which is almost dramatic, the name of
H. vii. 143.
Themistocles. “There was a certain man of the
Athenians, who had recently come to the front (in the
State), whose name was Themistocles;”—“And Elijah the Tishbite,
who was of the inhabitants of Gilead, said unto Ahab.” In both cases
the dramatic effect of the story of the lives of the men whose
biography is thus opened is heightened by the lack of anything
resembling an introduction.
That a debate did take place on the meaning of the oracle is
probably the case; and the tradition which Herodotus followed
doubtless represents in the main the lines of argument adopted by
either side. The reference to Salamis and to the lines thereon in the
response of Delphi might seem to be evidence in favour of their
genuineness; but it is quite manifest that, if the oracle was spoken at
anything like the time at which Herodotus represents it to have been
uttered, it is inconceivable that the idea of fighting at Salamis can at
that time have entered into the head of Themistocles, much less into
the minds of those who directed affairs at Delphi. Themistocles’
great reputation in the years which followed the war was very largely
due to the part he played with respect to the strategy and tactics of
Salamis; and there was every inducement for the oracle to put in
after the event a claim to the first suggestion of the famous plan. But,
if any judgment can be formed as to the approximate date at which
this particular oracle was issued, it can only be said that Salamis lay
at that time in a future impenetrable to human reckoning.
As the question of the exact bearing of these oracles has been
discussed at some length, it may be convenient to sum up in a few
sentences the hypotheses which have been suggested as to their
origin and tendency.
There seems to have been a belief current in Greece when first
the news of the coming expedition was noised abroad, that it was a
punitive one aimed, like that of Datis and Artaphernes, against
105
Athens. The then recent events of 490 would lend colour to such
a belief. When the magnitude of the coming expedition became
known, and reports as to its real intent came across the Ægean,
Greece as a whole began to think that the danger was more widely
threatening than had been first supposed. Delphi did not share in this
change of opinion, and continued to regard the expedition as aimed
against Athens alone. Holding this view, she adopted the double
course of trying to remove the cause of offence by getting the
Athenians to leave Greece, and of doing all in her power to prevent
Greece as a whole from being involved in the matter. She was
successful in preventing Crete and Argos from joining in the Hellenic
defence, and the second half of the first oracle delivered to Athens, if
a part of the original version, is a threat, uttered possibly about the
time of the expedition to Thessaly, to those powers other than
Athens who seemed inclined to make the question a pan-Hellenic
one. Whatever Delphi thought, Sparta had by that time fully made up
her mind that the danger was one which threatened the whole of
Greece, and was consequently exceedingly alarmed at the tenour of
the advice given by Delphi to the Athenians, the only result of which
would be to rob her of an adjunct to the defence whose value she
fully appreciated,—the Athenian fleet No time was lost in bringing
pressure to bear on Delphi. The result was the second oracle
delivered to Athens, which, in spite of its ambiguous wording, clearly
advocated a policy in strong contrast to that which the first response
had laid down.
The account of these oracles, which is, evidently, from the
chronological point of view, of the nature of a digression in
Herodotus’ history, is succeeded by the description of certain events
which must have taken place in the autumn and winter of 481.
Several measures are described which were adopted by the
Council of the Greeks which had been formed to take the necessary
steps to resist the coming invasion. A settlement was made of the
outstanding disputes between the Greek States, and especially of
the war between Athens and Ægina.
This settlement must, apparently, be attributed to the autumn of
H. vii. 145.
481, for the measures which were next taken, which
are expressly stated to have been subsequent to this
reconciliation, were contemporaneous with the presence of the
H. vii. 37.
Persian Army at Sardes, and belong therefore to the
winter of 481–480. The measures were: the seeding of
spies into Asia; the despatching of ambassadors to solicit aid from
Gelon of Syracuse, from Crete, from Corcyra, and from Argos.
THE HARBOUR OF CORCYRA.
[To face page 241.
H vii. 166.
The Sicilian Greek seems to have had no sort of
doubt as to the connection between the invasion of his
H. vii. 165.
own island and that of the mother country. Herodotus,
ad init. even in spite of his bias towards the Greek version of
the story, gives some hint of a different version in
H vii. 166. Sicily. He does not apparently know much about it, as
he does not mention Himera as the locality of the
Frag. Hist. decisive battle.
Græc.
It is in a fragment of Ephoros that occurs the first
Frag. III. extant historical reference to the connection between
Schol. Pind.
the two expeditions. He says that Persian and
Pyth. i. 146. Phœnician ambassadors were sent to the
Carthaginians, “ordering” them to invade Sicily with as
large an expedition as possible, and after subduing it, to come on to
the Peloponnese. Discredit has been cast on the passage in
consequence of the use of the word “order,” because, so it is said,
the Persians were not in a position to give orders to Carthage. But,
supposing the use of the word is not merely an instance of verbal
inaccuracy, it is quite conceivable that a Greek historian might use
such an expression to describe the supposed relations between the
Diod. xi. 1.
mother state of Phœnicia and her colony. The
historian Diodorus recognizes the same connection
between the two expeditions. He does not, however, make any
reference to Phœnician agency in the matter, nor does he speak of
106
an “order,” but of a diplomatic agreement.
One question remains: Did Gelo ever
SICILIAN
TRADITION.
seriously entertain the idea of sending help to
the mother country? It is hardly conceivable
that he did. The Carthaginian preparations were on such a scale that
he must have been long forewarned of the coming storm. Whether
he made any sort of offer to the Greek embassy is quite another
question.
If the Greek version of the story of the time provokes the
suspicion that it arose under influences inimical to the strict truth, the
Sicilian also, of which there is a hint in Herodotus, and some detail in
Diodorus, suggests in certain of its passages that it is not an
unadorned tale. That sentiment of the free Greek which, when the
history of the great war came to be written, led him to deny the
Sicilian tyrant all share in its glory, met a counter-sentiment in Sicily,
which claimed for the Sicilian Greek a share in the famous triumph.
Under such influences both exaggeration and suppression of the
truth were sure to take place. The Sicilian version was not content
with confining itself to the just claim that Gelo and Sicily in the victory
at Himera had contributed to the triumphant result of the great war. It
sought evidently to ascribe to the Sicilian Greek a sympathetic, if not
Diod. xi 26.
actual, share in the liberation of Greece itself. Gelo is
represented as having, after the victory of Himera,
prepared a fleet with a view to sending help to Greece, but to have
desisted from the design on receiving news of the victory at Salamis.
This is neither capable of proof nor disproof. The exact date of
Himera is not known, though there was a tradition that it was fought
on the same day as Salamis. If that be accepted, this addition to the
Sicilian version must be rejected; but if the tradition was merely of
that class which is found represented in the history of the time, and
which supplied the eternal demand for curious coincidences, then it
is possible that Himera was fought sufficiently long before Salamis to
make it possible for Gelo to entertain such a design; nor would it
have been strange had he sought to avenge himself on Persia for an
attack which she had provoked against him. It is possible, too, that
the epigram reported to have been engraved on an offering of Gelo
107
at Delphi refers not merely to the true significance of Himera, but
also to the preparation of this expedition which was never sent.
This war in Sicily, and the questions which arise concerning it, are
of much greater importance to the study of this period of Greek
history than the comparative brevity of their treatment by Greek
historians might suggest to the mind of a reader who did not realize
to himself their full significance. The Greek tyrant in Sicily played no
small part in spreading and developing certain sides of that Greek
civilization which has contributed so largely towards the civilization of
the present day. The view, therefore, which was taken by one of the
greatest and most able of those tyrants as to the part which he
should play at a time when that civilization was threatened with
extinction, is not a minor matter in the history of Greece, or, indeed,
of the world. Nor, again, can the part played by Persia in the invasion
of Sicily be of small account. Persia at this time represented, in
certain respects,—and especially with respect to sheer capacity and
breadth of view, —the highest development which the great empires
of the East were able to attain; and its connection or lack of
connection with the attack on Sicily cannot but affect the judgment
108
which the modern world must pass on that capacity.
To the Greeks gathered in council at the Isthmus the outlook, after
their retreat from Tempe, and after the return of the embassies, must
have been a gloomy one. Nothing had been gained, and much had
been lost. Thessaly with its cavalry, that arm in which the Greeks
were peculiarly weak, and their enemy peculiarly strong, had been
perforce left to its fate; and no one could doubt what that would be.
The states between Kithæron and Œta were wavering, ready to
desert. They could hardly be blamed. The backbone of the future
resistance seemed to be with Sparta and the states of the
Peloponnesian league who followed her lead.
QUESTION OF THE
LINE OF DEFENCE.
It might well be suspected, perhaps even then
it was known, that, if they could have their way,
the defence of the Isthmus would be the beginning and the end of
their design. Northern Greece seemed but too likely to be left to its
fate, just as Thessaly had been. Was it strange that it should seek to
make terms of submission? In one of its states, moreover, and that
the most powerful from a military point of view, Bœotia, more sinister
influences were at work. The oligarchical party, at all times strong in
that country whose comparatively open nature left the many at the
mercy of the powerful few, seemed only too ready to play a part
similar to that which the Aleuadæ had played in Thessaly.
The attitude of Argos was also calculated to cause alarm. It must
be pointed out at the same time, that though it aggravated the
situation to a certain extent, it did not affect it so decisively as has
been imagined by modern commentators. The possibility of the
landing of Persian troops behind the defences of the Isthmus was
not a question so much dependent on the action of Argos as on the
success or failure of the Greek fleet in checking the advance of the
enemy’s ships before they succeeded in crossing the Saronic Gulf.
Had the Persian fleet once succeeded in establishing itself in some
harbour of the coast of Argolis, the defence of the Isthmus must have
collapsed, whatever the attitude of Argos might have been. This
State, owing to the losses it had suffered in the great defeat which
Kleomenes and the Spartans inflicted upon it, can hardly have been
in a position to offer serious resistance to a landing on its coasts.
Note.—The relation of date between the return of the
embassies and the retreat from Tempe is of considerable
importance to a right appreciation of the situation at this
critical time. Herodotus dates the events in Greece by the
advance of Xerxes’ army. Thus the expedition to Tempe is
stated to have taken place βασιλέος τε μέλλοντος
διαβαίνειν ἐς τῆν Εὐρώπην ἐκ τὴς Ἀσίης, καὶ εὄντος ἤδη ἐν
Ἀβύδῳ. H. vii. 174.
Again, the embassies seem to have been despatched
simultaneously to Sicily, Corcyra, Crete and Argos (H. vii.
148, 153, etc.). That to Sicily would almost certainly be the
last to return. Gelo did not send the treasure-ships to
Delphi until after the visit of the embassy (H. vii. 163, ad
init.), and he did not send them till after he had heard that
Xerxes had crossed the Hellespont.
If, then, the rough chronology of Herodotus can be
relied upon,—and there is not any other source of
information upon the subject available,—the Greeks who
assembled at the Isthmus after the withdrawal from Tempe
must have known that the resources then at their disposal
were all upon which they could reckon in the coming
struggle.
THE CARTAGINIAN
Diodorus, xi. 1, says:—
INVASION OF “Ὁ δὲ Ξέρξης.... βονλόμενος πάντας
SICILY.
τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἀναστάτους ποιῆσαι,
διεπρεσβεύσατο πρὸς Καρχηδονίους περὶ κοινοπραγίας,
καὶ συνέθετο πρὸς αὐτοὺς. ὥστε αὐτὸν μὲν ἐπὶ τοὺς τὴν
Ἑλλάδα κατοικοῦντας Ἕλληνας στρατεύειν,
“Καρχηδονίους δὲ τοῖς αὐτοῖς χρόνοις μεγάλας
παρασκευάσασθαι δυνάμεις, καὶ καταπολεμῆσαι τῶν
Ἑλλήνων τοὺς περὶ Σικελίαν καὶ Ἰταλίαν οἰκοῦντας.”
These are the historical passages which bear on the
subject.
Of non-historical passages, we have in the “Poetics” of
Aristotle, 23, a reference to the coincidence in date of the
battles of Salamis and Himera.
It is needless to say that we are here in the presence of
evidence which, if not actually conflicting, is at any rate
extremely difficult to reconcile.
Only one great fact stands out with certainty, namely,
that two great simultaneous attacks were made in 480
b.c. on the two great divisions of the free Hellenic world.
The question is: Were they part of one great scheme, or
was their coincidence purely fortuitous?
To speak with the appearance of assuredness on such
a question would be delusive, in that it would assume that
there existed in the evidence attainable a conclusiveness
to which it cannot lay any claim. Such as it is, it can only
be judged by the law of probabilities.
Let us first take the probabilities of the case apart from
the evidence actually quoted here.
Phœnicia, the mother country of Carthage, was at this
time within the Persian dominion. Its population seems, on
the whole, to have received exceptionally favourable
treatment from the Persian Government, probably
because it supplied the best material, animate and
inanimate, to the fleet of the empire. It would also be to
the interest of the Persian Government to encourage the
most enterprising traders of its dominion. Furthermore, the
subjugation of Phœnicia had not broken the tie of
relationship between the mother country and the greatest
of its colonies. When, under Cambyses, the Persian
dominions had been extended as far as the Greater Syrtis,
the Phœnicians had refused to prosecute the war further
against their kin (H. iii. 17–19); and it had apparently been
thought wise, if not necessary, to submit to this refusal.
From that time forward there had, in so far as is known,
been no unfriendly relations between Persia and
Carthage. So long as the Phœnician was well treated
there was hardly a point on which they could clash. In the
present instance their interests manifestly coincided. It
was certainly to the interest of Xerxes that the Sicilian
Greeks should have their hands full at the time of his great
attack on Greece. The Persians had plenty of means of
knowing that there was a great Greek military power in
Sicily which might render important aid to the Greeks in
the coming struggle. The Carthaginian, on the other hand,
might well think this a favourable opportunity for crushing
the ever-increasing Greek trade competition in the richest
island in the Mediterranean, at a time when the Sicilian
Greek could not expect help from the mother country.
It is, when we consider the part played by the
Phœnicians in Xerxes’ expedition, infinitely more probable
that there was a connection between the two expeditions
than that there was not. Whether the connection was of
the intimate kind described by Diodorus may perhaps be
doubted, but certainly cannot be disproved. Ephoros and
Diodorus believe it to have been intimate; and the latter
seems, in so far as can be seen from the nature of the
fragment of Ephoros, to have had evidence on the subject
quite independent of it.
No true canon of criticism can possibly assume that the
silence of Herodotus or any other ancient author on this or
any other point in ancient history is in any way conclusive.