ALEXANDER THE GREAT. This mighty king is named in the opening of the first book of Maccabees, and is alluded to in the prophecies of Daniel. These, however, are not the principal reasons for giving his name a place in this work : he is chiefly entitled to notice here because his military career permanently affected the political state of the Jewish people, as well as their philo sophy and literature. It is not our part, therefore, to detail even the outlines of his history, hut to point out the causes and nature of this great revolu tion, and the influence which, formerly through Alexander, Greece has exerted Over the religious history of the West.
The conquest of Western Asia by Greeks was so thoroughly provided for by predisposing causes, as to be no mere accident ascribable to Alexander as an individual. The wars which were carried on between Greece and Persia in the reigns of Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes—from B. c. 490 to B.C. 449—sufficiently sheaved the decisive superiority in arms which the Greeks possessed, though no Greek as yet aspired to the conquest of Persia. Brave freemen, attached to their own soil, would not risk abandoning it for ever for the satisfaction of chasing their foe out of his home. But after the convulsions of the Peloponnesian War (B.c. 431 404) had filled Greece with exiles, whose sole trade was that of soldiers, a devoted standing army could be had for money. By the help of such mercenaries, Cyrus, younger brother of Artaxerxes II., attempted to seize the crown of Persia (B. C. 401) ; and although he was himself slain, this, in its results (which cannot be here properly detailed), did but shew more signally that Greeks might force their way to the very palace of the great king, just as they afterwards triumphantly retreated through the heart of his empire. Soon after this, Agesilaus, king of Sparta, appears to have had serious designs of founding a Spartan province in Asia Minor, where he met with easy success ; but he was recalled by troubles at home (B.c. 394). About the year B.C. 374, Jason, the chief man of PherM, in Thessaly, and virtually monarch of the whole province, having secured the alliance of Macedon, seriously meditated the conquest of the Persian empire ; and he (or his son) might probably have effected it, had he not been assassinated, B. C. 370. The generation who heard of that event witnessed the rise of Macedon to supremacy under the great Philip, whose reign reached from B. C. 359 to B. C. 338. He too had proposed to himself the invasion and conquest of Persia as the end of all his cam paigns and the reward of all his labours ; and he too was suddenly taken off by the assassin's dagger.
He was succeeded by his greater son, for whom it was reserved to accomplish that of which Grecian generals had now for seventy years dreamed. It seems therefore clear that Greece was destined to overflow into Asia, even without Alexander , for Persia was not likely to have such a series of able monarchs, and such an exemption from civil wars, as alone could have hindered the event. The persona] genius of the Macedonian hero, however, determined the form and the suddenness of the conquest ; and, in spite of his premature death, the policy which he pursued seems to have left some permanent effects. It is indeed possible that, in regard to the toleration of Oriental customs and religions, no other policy than his could have held the empire together. Since the Romans in Asia and the British in India have followed the same procedure, any other Greek conquerors of Persia might have done the same had Alexander never existed. Be this as it may, it is certain that his conciliatory policy was copied by his successors for at least a century and a half.
His respectful behaviour to the Jewish high priest has been much dwelt on by Josephus (An lig. xi. 8, 4-6), a writer whose trustworthiness has been greatly overrated. Special reasons for ques tioning the story may be found in Thirlwall (Flirt. of Greece, vi. 2o6) ; but in fact, as it evidently rests on mere tradition, even a knowledge of human nature, and of the particular author, justifies large deductions from the picturesque talc. Some of the results, however, can hardly be erroneous, such as, that Alexander guaranteed to the Jews, not in Judxa only, but in Babylonia and Media, the free observance of their hereditary laws, and on this ground exempted them from tribute every seventh (or Sabbatical) year. From the Romans in later times they gained the same indulgence, and it must no doubt have been enjoyed under the Persian king also, to whom they paid tribute at the time of Alexander's invasion. It is far from improbable then that the politic invader affected to have seen and heard the high-priest in a dream (as Josephus relates), and shewed him great reverence, as to one who had declared ' that he would go before him and give the empire of Persia into his hand.' The profound silence observed concerning Judwa by all the historians of Alexander, at any rate proves that the Jews passed over without a struggle from the Persian to the Macedonian rule.