GRECIAN CONFEDERACY UNDER ATHKXS. 337 having imposed such hard conditions on the Great King, — that they have raised a suspicion against themselves. Especially, they have occasioned critics to ask the very natural question, how this splendid achievement of Athens came to be left unnoticed by Thu- cydidSs ? Now the answer to such question is, that the treaty itself was really of no great moment : it is the state of facts and relations implied in the treaty, and existing substantially before it was con- cluded, which constitutes the real glory of Athens. But to the later writers, the treaty stood forth as the legible evidence of facts which in their time were passed and gone ; while Thucydi- des and his contemporaries, living in the actual fulness of the Athenian empire, would certainly not appeal to the treaty as an evidence, and might well pass it over, even as an event, when studying to condense the narrative. Though Thucydides has not mentioned the treaty, he says nothing which dis proves its re- ality, and much which is in full harmony with it. For we may show, even from him : 1. That all open and direct hostiUties between Athens and Persia ceased, after the last-mentioned vic- tories of the Athenians near Cyprus : that this island is re- nounced by Athens, not being included by Thucydides in his cat- alogue of Athenian allies prior to the Peloponnesian war ; 1 and that no farther aid is given by Athens to the revolted Amyrteeus, in Egypt. 2. That down to the time when the Athenian power was prostrated by the ruinous failure at Syracuse, no tribute was collected by the Persian satraps in Asia Minor from the Greek cities on the coast, nor were Persian ships of war allowed to ap- pear in the waters of the -^gean,^ nor was the Persian king > Thucyd. ii, 14. ^ Thucyd. viii, 5, 6, 56. As this is a point on which very erroneous rep- resentations have been made by some learned critics, especially by Dahl- mann and Manso (see the treatises cited in the- subsequent note, p. 457), I transcribe the passage of Thucydides. He is speaking of the winter of B.C. 412, immediately succeeding the ruin of the Athenian army at Syra- cuse, and after redoubled exertions had been making — even some months before that ruin actually took place — to excite active hostile proceedinga against Athens from every quarter (Thucyd. vii, 25) : it bcinf; seen that there was a promising opportunity for striking a heavy blow at the Athenian power. The satrap Tissapherncs encouraged the Chians and Erythra:ans to revolt, sending an envoy along with them to Sparta with persuasions VOL. V. 15 22oc.
