Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 17 The gospel attains its end, the salvation of the believer, by revealing the righteousness of God, i.
The Persian Wars Between and bc Persia was for the policy-making classes in the largest Greek states a constant preoccupation.
It is not known, however, how far down the social scale this preoccupation extended in reality. Persia was never less than a subject for artistic and oratorical reference, and sometimes it actually determined foreign policy decisions. The situation for the far more numerous smaller states of mainland Greece was different inasmuch as a distinctive policy of their own toward Persia or anybody else was hardly an option for most of the time.
But, even at this exalted moment, choice of sides, Greek or Persian, could be seen, as it was by Herodotusas having been determined either by preference for local masters or by a desire to spite an equal and rival state next door.
Nor is it obvious that for small Greek places the change to control by distant Persia would have made much day-to-day difference, judging from the experience of their kinsmen and counterparts in Anatolia or of the Jews the other articulate Persian subject nation.
Modern Western notions of religious tolerance do not apply, however. It remains true that Persia had no policy of dismantling the social structures of its subject communities or of driving their religions underground though it has been held that the Persian king Xerxes tried to impose orthodoxy in a way that compelled some Magi to emigrate.
Persia certainly had no motive for destroying the economies of the peoples in its empire. Naturally, it expected the ruling groups or individuals to guarantee payment of tribute and generally deferential behaviour, but then the Athenian and Spartan empires expected the same of their dependents.
The Athenians, at least, were strikingly realistic and undogmatic about not demanding regimes that resembled their own democracy in more than the name. The Ionian revolt But the experience of the Asiatic Greek cities was different again, because it was precisely here that the great confrontation between Greeks and Persians began, about bc.
The puzzle is to explain why the revolt happened when it did, after nearly half a century of rule by the Achaemenid Persian kings that is, since when Cyrus the Great conquered them; his main successors were Cambyses [—], Darius I [—], Xerxes I [—], Artaxerxes I [—], and Darius II [—].
Too little is known about the details of Persian rule in Anatolia during the period — to say definitely that it was not oppressive, but, as stated above, Miletus, the centre of the revolt, was flourishing in The causes of the Ionian revolt are especially hard to determine because the revolt was a short-term failure.
Concessions were made after it, however, and its longer-term consequence, the Persian Wars proper, resulted in the establishment of a strong Athenian influence in western Anatolia alongside the Persian.
Defeats lead, especially in oral traditions, to recriminations: This is odd, because it is inconsistent with the whole thrust of his narrative, which regards the clash as an inevitability from a much earlier date; it is part of his general view that military monarchies like the Persian expand necessarily hence his earlier inclusion of material about, for instance, BabyloniaEgypt, and Scythia, places previously attacked by Persia.
There were always Greeks who were attracted to a Persian life-style. Causes of the Persian Wars It should now be clear that Herodotus saw the revolt in terms of the ambitions of individuals he singles out the Milesians Aristagoras and Histiaeusand this must be part of the truth. But this must be supplemented by deeper explanations, because the rising was a very general affair.
Economic factors A simple economic explanation, such as used to be fashionable, is no longer acceptable.
Perhaps one should look instead for military causes: Ionians disliked the military service to which they were then compelled they did not even care much for the naval training they had to undergo, in a better cause, before Lade.
Persia not only expected personal military service but punished attempts to evade it, even at high social levels.
Its method of organizing defense and of raising occasional large armies there was no large Persian standing army was analogous to the method of later feudalism: Here perhaps is a clue, which permits the resurrection of the economic explanation in another more sophisticated form.
Grants of fiefs in Anatolia are well attested in the 5th and 4th centuries; in the pages of the Greek historian Xenophon — one finds the descendants of Medizing Greek families still installed on estates granted to their ancestors after and inscriptions show the same families were still there well into the Hellenistic period.
Grants by Persia of good western Anatolian land to politically amenable Greeks, or to Iranians, made good political and military sense.
Such gifts, however, were necessarily made at the expense of the poleis in whose territory the land so gifted had lain. In this, surely, were the makings of a serious economic grievance. Political factors Politically, the Greeks did not like satrapal control.
This seems clear from the proclamations of isonomia something more or less democratic is implied by this word made at the beginning of the revolt; these were perhaps influenced by very recent democratic developments back in Athens see below.
Political dislike of satrapal control is also implied by the concessions made after the revolt ended in Although there certainly were still tyrants in some Persian-held eastern Greek states insome improvement on arbitrary one-man government is surely implied.
Perhaps the answer is to be found in the formula recorded by a later literary source, the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus f1. How different all this was from the situation before is beyond retrieval, but the continuity of civic structures and cults in eastern Greek states from the Archaic period to Classical times implies that in many respects the Persian takeover of was not cataclysmic.
So the improvements introduced after consisted in the increase, not in the outright introduction, of local self-determination within the satrapal framework. In any case, one is left with the problem of why political unrest boiled over, if boil over it did, in precisely A large part of the answer is to be found in the changes recently made at the Ionian mother city Athens by Cleisthenes.As with Sophocles' sistes, Ismene and Antigone appear as foils and rivals.
Ismene is "reasonable," timid, and obedient, full-figured and beautiful in being a good girl. In contrast, Antigone is recalcitrant, impulsive, and moody, sallow, thin, and decidedly resistant to being a girl like the rest. (17) The gospel attains its end, the salvation of the believer, by revealing the righteousness of God, i.e., the plan or process designed by Him for men to become just or righteous in His sight.
The essential part on man’s side, the beginning and end of that plan, is Faith. Understanding these important quotes from Antigone will help you understand the play. These excerpts with analysis explain the meaning behind these famous quotes of the Greek tragedy. Online Library of Liberty.
A collection of scholarly works about individual liberty and free markets. A project of Liberty Fund, Inc. This webpage is for Dr. Wheeler's literature students, and it offers introductory survey information concerning the literature of classical China, classical Rome, classical Greece, the Bible as Literature, medieval literature, Renaissance literature, and genre studies.
Antigone, the Real Tragic Hero in Sophocles' Antigone - Antigone is a great Greek tragedy by Sophocles. The story is about a young woman who has buried her brother by breaking king’s decree, and now she is punished for obeying God’s law.