Within the satrapies the subject races and communities occupied a tolerably independent position; for instance, the Jews, under their elders and priests, convened a popular assembly in Jerusa lem (cf. the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah). Obviously also, they enjoyed, as a rule, the privilege of deciding lawsuits among themselves, their general situation being similar to the former situation of the Christian nationalities under the Ottoman empire, or to that of many tribes in the Russian empire before the revo lution. The pressure of despotism was manifest, not so much in that the king and his officials consistently interfered in individual cases, but that they did so on isolated and arbitrary occasions, and then swept aside the privileges of the subject, who was impotent to resist.
The subject population can be divided into distinct groups. In the desert (as among the Arabian and Turanian nomads), in wild and sequestered mountains (as in Zagrus in north Media, and Mysia, Pisidia, Paphlagonia and Bithynia in Asia Minor), and also in many Iranian tribes, the old tribal constitution, with the chieftain as its head, was left intact under the imperial suzerainty. The great majority of the civilized provinces were subdivided into local administrative districts governed by officials of the king and his satraps. These the Greeks named gOvn, "peoples." Within these, again, there might lie large town settlements whose internal affairs were controlled by the elders or the officials of the com munity : as Babylon, Jerusalem, the Egyptian cities, Tarsus, Sardis and others. On the same footing were the dominions of the high priests, with their great temple-property; as Bambyce in Syria, the two Comanas in Cappadocia, and so forth. Vast districts were either converted into royal domains (rapaSEwuoc) with great parks and hunting grounds under royal supervision, or else bestowed by the king on Persians or deserving members of the subject-races (the "benefactors") as their personal property. Many of these estates formed respectable principalities: e.g., those of the house of Otanes in Cappadocia, of Hydarnes in Armenia, Pharnabazus in Phrygia, Demaratus in Teuthrania, Themistocles in Magnesia and Lampsacus. They were absolute private property, handed down from father to son for centuries, and in the Hellenistic period not rarely became independent kingdoms. These potentates were styled by the Greeks 6vvItcr-rat, or ,u6vapxoc.
The last class, quite distinct from all these organizations, was formed by the city-states (rafts) with an independent con stitution—whether a monarchy (as in Phoenicia), an aristocracy (as in Lycia), or a republic with council and popular assembly (as in the Greek towns). The essential point was that they enjoyed a separate legalized organization (autonomy). This was only to be seen in the extreme western provinces of the empire, among the Phoenicians, Greeks and Lycians, whose cities were essentially distinct from those of the east ; which, indeed, to Greek eyes, were only great villages (icesgoroXecs). It is readily intelligible that their character should have proved practically incomprehensible to the Persians, with whom they came into perpetual collision. These sought, as a rule, to cope with the difficulty by transferring the government to individual persons who enjoyed their confidence: the "tyrants" of the Greek towns. Only Mardonius, after his sup
pression of the Ionic revolt—which had originated with these very tyrants—made an attempt to govern them by the assistance of the democracy (492 B.C.).
Thus the empire was compelled to grapple with all these varied conditions and to reconcile them as best it might. At the court, "natural economy" was still the rule. The officials and Oriental troops received payment in kind. They were fed "by the table of the king," from which 25,000 men daily drew their sustenance (cf. Heracleides of Cyme in Athen. iv. 245 B, etc.) and were rewarded by gifts and assignments of land. The Greek mercenaries, on the contrary, had to be paid in currency; nor could the satraps of the west dispense with hard cash. The king, again, needed the precious metals, not merely for bounties and rewards, but for important enterprises in which money payment was imperative. Con sequently, the royal revenues and taxes were paid partly in the precious metals, partly in natural produce—horses and cattle, grain, clothing and its materials, furniture and all articles of in dustry (cf. Theopomp. fr. 124, 125, etc.). The satraps, also in addition to money payments, levied contributions "for their table," at which the officials ate (Nehem. v. The precious metals brought in by the tribute were collected in the great treasure-houses at Susa, Persepolis, Pasargadae and Ecbatana, where gigantic masses of silver and, more especially, of gold, were stored in the bullion or partially wrought into vessels (Herod. iii. 96; Strabo xv. 731, 735; Arrian iii. i6, etc.) ; exactly as was the case over 2,000 years later in the shah's treasure chamber. When the king required money he minted as much as was necessary. A reform in the coinage was effected by Darius, who struck the daric (Pers. Zariq, i.e., "piece of gold"; the word has nothing to do with the name of Darius), a gold piece of 130 grains (value about 2352) ; this being equivalent to 20 silver pieces ("Median shekels," of 86.5 grains (value according to the then rate of silver—I31 silver to i gold—about is. 2d.). The coinage of gold was the exclusive prerogative of the king; silver could be coined by the satraps, generals, independent communities and dynasts.