io6
��Historic Problems,
��alone would never have forced into such sudden action the arts and philosophy. Nor was it through the artificial and forced influence of the fierce struggle the Greeks had passed through. Some- times, but not in this case, has civili- zation been matured by the energy of distress. What was it, then, that brought about this unexpected and glo- rious epoch that boasted of the Parthe- non, of Plato, and of Sophocles? We answer, it was the influence of the Ori- ental upon the Greek mind.
The results were brilliant, but per- manent : the process had been of slow growth. From the time of Croesus, from the time when Solon and Pythag- oras had studied at Asiatic courts, this influence had been going out si- lently and slowly. The injection of the vast hosts of Darius and Xerxes into Greece forwarded this revolution. Mere contact alone would have done much, but how much more these count- er-surges of invasion. Doubtless many of the conquered — some of them were Asiaticized Greeks — remained behind, and their influence performed no un- important work. Greece threw off the Asiatic despotism, but succumbed to Asiatic thought, Asiatic manners, Asi- atic religion. To the active, subtle, restless spirit of the Greek were now joined the gravity, the philosophy, of the Oriental. All the Greek philoso- phers drank their wisdom from founts in the East. All the Greek poets caught their imagery and inspiration from the Orient. Greek commanders copied the military system of Cyrus. Greek architects took their models from the grandeur, the beauty, the splendor, of Eastern monuments. -
In all this no evil was done to Greece, but much good. But would there not have been good of much greater
��abundance, had Persian and not Greek arms prevailed at Salamis? No, re- plies the modern democrat. Greek genius soared only for the reason that it was free. But when was Greece ever free? True, foreign domination did not always hold her in subjection ; but her gigantic oligarchies, her rude de- mocracies, her bad institutions, were worse than foreign masters. Besides, if democracies and oligarchies were in- deed so stimulative of genius, so patron- izing of letters, why sought Plato the court of the tyrant Dionysius, Pindar and Euripides the court of the Mace- donian Alexander, and Aristotle the court of Philip? Moreover, did not the first soarings of Greek genius take place under the early tyrants? Oh, no ! genius is not dwarfed or fettered by any thing. It flourishes at the courts of despots, under the rule of oligarchies, under the sway of democ- racies. Its habitat does not make nor mar it. Genius is divine, and God is everywhere.
But if Persia had conquered Greece, what then? What evil would have been done ? The religion of Zoroaster was superior to that of Homer and Hesiod, less animated and picturesque indeed, but more simple and exalted. The Persians had no gods partaking of the worst characteristics of a mortal nature. They worshipped their Great One not in statues nor in temples, but upon the sublime altars of lofty moun- tain-tops. In many respects it resem- bled the religion of the Hebrews, and it was about the only other religion in the world which was not defiled by human sacrifices and brutal worship. Surely it would not have injured Greece to have received this paternal, mild monotheism over their false though very beautiful system of polytheism.
�� �
