kind as subjects under one common sceptre to be wielded by himself. To this universal empire the Persian king made the nearest approach', according to the opinions then prevalent. Accordingly Alexander, when victorious, accepted the position and pretensions of the overthrown Persian court as approaching most nearly to his full due. He became more Persian than either Macedonian or Greek. While himself adopting, as far as he could safely venture, the personal habits of the Persian court, he took studied pains to transform his Macedonian officers into Persian grandees, encouraging and even forcing intermarriages with Persian women according to Persian rites. At the time of Alexander's death, there was comprised, in his written orders given to Kraterus, a plan for the wholesale transportation of inhabitants both out of Europe into Asia, and out of Asia into Europe, in order to fuse these populations into one by multiplying intermarriages and intercourse2. Such reciprocal translation of peoples would have been felt as eminently odious, and could not have been accomplished without coercive authority3. It is

1

Xenoph. Cyropæd. viii. 6, 21; Anabas. i. 7, 6; Herodot. vii. 8, 13: compare Arrian, v. 26, 4–10.

* Diodor. xviii. 4. Πρὸς δὲ τούτοις πόλεων συνοικισμοὺς καὶ σωμάτων μεταγωγὰς ἐκ τῆς ̓Ασίας εἰς τὴν Εὐρώπην, καὶ κατὰ τοὐνάντιον ἐκ τῆς Εὐρώπης εἰς τὴν Ασίαν, ὅπως τὰς μεγίστας ἠπείρους ταῖς ἐπιγαμίαις καὶ ταῖς οἰκειώσεσιν εἰς κοινὴν ὁμονοίαν καὶ συγγενικὴν φιλίαν καταστήσῃ.

See the effect produced upon the Ionians by the false statement of Histiæus (Herodot. vi. 3) with Wesseling's note--and the eagerness of the Pæonians to return (Herod. v. 98; also Justin, viii. 5).

Antipater afterwards intended to transport the Ætolians in mass from their own country into Asia, if he had succeeded in conquering them (Diodor. xviii. 25). Compare Pausanias (i. 9, 8-10) about the forcible measures used by Lysimachus, in transporting new inhabitants, at Ephesus and Lysimacheia.

CHAP. XCIV.]

ALEXANDER NOT HELLENIC.

357

rash to speculate upon unexecuted purposes; but, as far as we can judge, such compulsory mingling of the different races promises nothing favourable to the happiness of any of them, though it might serve as an imposing novelty and memento of imperial omnipotence.

supposing

intentional

Greek

His ideas

with those

In respect of intelligence and combining genius, Mistake of Alexander was Hellenic to the full; in respect of Alexander disposition and purpose, no one could be less Hel- to be the lenic. The acts attesting his Oriental violence of diffuser of impulse, unmeasured self-will', and exaction of civilization. reverence above the limits of humanity-have been compared already recounted. To describe him as a son of of Aristotle. Hellas, imbued with the political maxims of Aristotle, and bent on the systematic diffusion of Hellenic culture for the improvement of mankind-is, in my judgment, an estimate of his character contrary to the evidence. Alexander is indeed said to have invited suggestions from Aristotle as to the best mode of colonizing; but his temper altered so much, after a few years of Asiatic conquest, that

1 Livy, ix. 18. "Referre in tanto rege piget superbam mutationem vestis, et desideratas humi jacentium adulationes, etiam victis Macedonibus graves, nedum victoribus: et foeda supplicia, et inter vinum et epulas cædes amicorum, et vanitatem ementiendæ stirpis. Quid si vini amor in dies fieret acrior? quid si trux et præfervida ira? (nec quidquam dubium inter scriptores refero) nullane hæc damna imperatoriis virtutibus ducimus?"

The appeal here made by Livy to the full attestation of these points in Alexander's character deserves notice. He had doubtless more authorities before him than we possess.

2 Among other eulogists of Alexander, it is sufficient to name Droysen -in his two works, both of great historical research-Geschichte Alexanders des Grossen-and Geschichte des Hellenismus oder der Bildung des Hellenistischen Staaten Systemes (Hamburg, 1843). See especially the last and most recent work, p. 27 seqq. p. 651 seqq.-and elsewhere passim.

he came not only to lose all deference for Aristotle's advice, but even to hate him bitterly'. Moreover, though the philosopher's full suggestions have not been preserved, yet we are told generally that he recommended Alexander to behave to the Greeks as a leader or president, or limited chief-and to the Barbarians (non-Hellenes) as a master2; a distinction substantially coinciding with that pointed out by Burke in his speeches at the beginning of the American war, between the principles of government proper to be followed by England in the American colonies, and in British India. No Greek thinker believed the Asiatics to be capable of that free civil polity3 upon which the march of every

1 Plutarch, Alex. 55-74.

2 Plutarch, Fortun. Alex. M. p. 329. 'Aλéĝavdpos de T❖ λóyo̟ Tò ἔργον παρέσχεν· οὐ γὰρ, ὡς ̓Αριστοτέλης συνεβούλευεν αὐτῷ, τοῖς μὲν Ελλησιν ἡγεμονικῶς, τοῖς δὲ βαρβάροις δεσποτικῶς χρώμενον......ἀλλὰ κοινὸς ἥκειν θεόθεν ἁρμοστὴς καὶ διαλλακτὴς τῶν ὅλων νομίζων, οὓς τῷ λόγῳ μὴ συνῆγε, τοῖς ὅπλοις βιαζόμενος, εἰς τὸ αὐτὸ συνενεγκὼν τὰ παντάχοθεν, &c.

Strabo (or Eratosthenes, see Strabo,i. p. 66) and Plutarch understand the expression of Aristotle erroneously-as if that philosopher had meant to recommend harsh and cruel treatment of the non-Hellenes, and kind treatment only towards Greeks. That Aristotle could have meant no such thing, is evident from the whole tenor of his treatise on Politics. The distinction really intended is between a greater and a less measure of extra-popular authority-not between kind and unkind purposes in the exercise of authority. Compare Tacitus, Annal. xii. 11-the advice of the Emperor Claudius to the Parthian prince Meherdates.

3 Aristot. Politic. i. 1, 5; vii. 6, 1. See the memorable comparison drawn by Aristotle (Polit. vii. 6) between the Europeans and Asiatics generally. He pronounces the former to be courageous and energetic, but wanting in intelligence or powers of political combination; the latter to be intelligent, and clever in contrivance, but destitute of courage. Neither of them have more than a one-legged aptitude" (pvσwv povókwλov); the Greek alone possesses both the courage and the intelligence united. The Asiatics are condemned to perpetual subjection; the Greeks might govern the world, could they but com bine in one political society.

CHAP. XCIV.] ASIATIZING TENDENCIES OF ALEXANDER.

359

Grecian community was based. Aristotle did not wish to degrade the Asiatics below the level to which they had been accustomed, but rather to preserve the Greeks from being degraded to the same level. Now Alexander recognized no such distinction as that drawn by his preceptor. He treated Greeks and Asiatics alike, not by elevating the latter, but by degrading the former. Though he employed all indiscriminately as instruments, yet he presently found the free speech of Greeks, and even of Macedonians, so distasteful and offensive, that his preferences turned more and more in favour of the servile Asiatic sentiment and customs. Instead of hellenizing Asia, he was tending to asiatize Macedonia and Hellas. His temper and character, as modified by a few years of conquest, rendered him quite unfit to follow the course recommended by Aristotle towards the Greeks quite as unfit as any of the Persian kings, or as the French Emperor Napoleon, to endure that partial frustration, compromise, and smart from free criticism, which is inseparable from the position of a limited chief. Among a multitude of subjects more diverse-coloured than even the army of Xerxes, it is quite possible that he might have turned his power towards the improvement of the rudest portions. We are told (though the fact is difficult to credit, from his want of time) that he abolished various barbarisms of the Hyrkanians, Arachosians, and Sogdians'. But Macedonians as

1 Plutarch, Fortun. Alex. M. p. 328. The stay of Alexander in these countries was however so short, that even with the best will he could not have enforced the suppression of any inveterate customs.

Number of new cities

Asia by

Alexander.

well as Greeks would have been pure losers by being absorbed into an immense Asiatic aggregate. Plutarch states that Alexander founded more than founded in seventy new cities in Asia'. So large a number of them is neither verifiable nor probable, unless we either reckon up simple military posts, or borrow from the list of foundations really established by his successors. Except Alexandria in Egypt, none of the cities founded by Alexander himself can be shown to have attained any great development. Nearly all were planted among the remote, warlike, and turbulent peoples eastward

1 Plutarch, Fortun. Al. M. p. 328. Plutarch mentions, a few lines afterwards, Seleukeia in Mesopotamia, as if he thought that it was among the cities established by Alexander himself. This shows that he has not been exact in distinguishing foundations made by Alexander, from those originated by Seleukus and the other Diadochi.

The elaborate article of Droysen (in the Appendix to his Geschichte des Hellenismus, p. 588-651), ascribes to Alexander the largest plans of colonization in Asia, and enumerates a great number of cities alleged to have been founded by him. But in regard to the majority of these foundations, the evidence upon which Droysen grounds his belief that Alexander was the founder, appears to me altogether slender and unsatisfactory. If Alexander founded so many cities as Droysen imagines, how does it happen that Arrian mentions only so comparatively small a number? The argument derived from Arrian's silence, for rejecting what is affirmed by other ancients respecting Alexander, is indeed employed by modern authors (and by Droysen himself among them), far oftener than I think warrantable. But if there be any one proceeding of Alexander more than another, in respect of which the silence of Arrian ought to make us suspicious-it is the foundation of a new colony; a solemn act, requiring delay and multiplied regulations, intended for perpetuity, and redounding to the honour of the founder. I do not believe in any colonies founded by Alexander, beyond those comparatively few which Arrian mentions, except such as rest upon some other express and good testimony. Whoever will read through Droysen's list, will see that most of the names in it will not stand this test. The short life, and rapid movements, of Alexander, are of themselves the strongest presumption against his having founded so large a number of colonies.