History of Greece, Volume 09 (of 12)

by George Grote

FOOTNOTES

[1] See Diodor. xi, 69; xii, 64-71; Ktesias, Persica, c. 29-45; Aristotel. Polit. v, 14, 8. This last passage of Aristotle is not very clear. Compare Justin, x, 1.

For the chronology of these Persian kings, see a valuable Appendix in Mr. Fynes Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici, App. 18, vol. ii, p. 313-316.

[2] Ktesias, Persica, c. 38-40.

[3] See the Appendix of Mr. Fynes Clinton, mentioned in the preceding note, p. 317.

There were some Egyptian troops in the army of Artaxerxes at the battle of Kunaxa; on the other hand, there were other Egyptians in a state of pronounced revolt. Compare two passages of Xenophon’s Anabasis, i, 8, 9; ii, 5, 13; Diodor. xiii, 46; and the Dissertation of F. Ley, Fata et Conditio Ægypti sub imperio Persarum, p. 20-56 (Cologne, 1830).

[4] Xen. Hellen. i, 2, 19; ii, 1, 13.

[5] Thucyd. iv, 50. πολλῶν γὰρ ἐλθόντων πρεσβέων οὐδένα ταὐτὰ λέγειν.

This incompetence, or duplicity, on the part of the Spartan envoys, helps to explain the facility with which Alkibiades duped them at Athens (Thucyd. v, 45). See above, in this History, Vol. VII. ch. lv, p. 47.

[6] Ktesias, Persic. c. 52.

[7] Thucyd. viii, 28. See Vol. VII, ch. lxi, p. 389 of this History.

[8] Xen. Hellen. ii, 1, 14. Compare Xen. Œconom. iv, 20.

[9] Xen. Anab. i, 1, 2; i, 9, 7; Xen. Hellen. i, 4, 3.

[10] Xen. Anab. i, 9, 3-5. Compare Cyropædia, i, 2, 4-6; viii, 1, 16, etc.

[11] Plutarch, Artaxerx. c. 2-6; Xen. Anab. ut sup.

[12] See Vol. VIII. ch. lxiv, p. 135.

[13] Darius had had thirteen children by Parysatis; but all except Artaxerxes and Cyrus died young. Ktesias asserts that he heard this statement from Parysatis herself (Ktesias, Persica, c. 49).

[14] Herodot. vii, 4.

[15] Xen. Hellen. ii, 1, 8, 9; Thucyd. viii, 58.

Compare Xen. Cyropæd. viii, 3, 10; and Lucian, Navigium seu Vota, c. 30. vol. iii, p. 267, ed. Hemsterhuys with Du Soul’s note.

It is remarkable that, in this passage of the Hellenica, either Xenophon, or the copyist, makes the mistake of calling Xerxes (instead of Artaxerxes) father of Darius. Some of the editors, without any authority from MSS., wish to alter the text from Ξέρξου to Ἀρταξέρξου.

[16] Xen. Anab. i, 4, 12.

[17] Xen. Anab. i, 1, 4.

[18] So it is presented by Justin, v, 11.

[19] Xen. Anab. i, 1, 6; i, 4, 2.

[20] Xen. Anab. i, 1, 7, 8, ὥστε οὐδὲν ἤχθετο (the king) αὐτῶν πολεμοῦντων.

[21] Xen. Anab. i, 1, 9; ii, 6, 3. The statements here contained do not agree with Diodor. xiv, 12; while both of them differ from Isokrates (Orat. viii, De Pace, s. 121; Or. xii, Panath. s. 111), and Plutarch, Artaxerxes, c. 6.

I follow partially the narrative of Diodorus, so far as to suppose that the tyranny which he mentions was committed by Klearchus as Harmost of Byzantium. We know that there was a Lacedæmonian Harmost in that town, named as soon as the town was taken, by Lysander, after the battle of Ægospotami (Xen. Hellen. ii, 2, 2). This was towards the end of 405 B.C. We know farther, from the Anabasis, that Kleander was Harmost there in 400 B.C. Klearchus may have been Harmost there in 404 B.C.

[22] Xen. Anab. i, 1, 10; Herodot. vii, 6; ix, 1; Plato, Menon, c. 1, p. 70; c. 11, p. 78 C.

[23] Herodot. i. 96. Ὁ δὲ (Dëiokês) οἷα μνώμενος ἀρχὴν, ἰθύς τε καὶ δίκαιος ἦν.

Xenoph. Hellen. iii, 1, 1; Diodor. xiv, 19.

[24] Xen. Anab. 1, 9, 8. Πολλάκις δ᾽ ἰδεῖν ἦν ἀνὰ τὰς στειβομένας ὁδοὺς, καὶ ποδῶν καὶ χειρῶν καὶ ὀφθαλμῶν στερουμένους ἀνθρώπους.

For other samples of mutilation inflicted by Persians, not merely on malefactors, but on prisoners by wholesale, see Quintus Curtius, v. 5, 6. Alexander the Great was approaching near to Persepolis, “quum miserabile agmen, inter pauca fortunæ exempla memorandum, regi occurrit. Captivi erant Græci ad quatuor millia ferè, quos Persæ vario suppliciorum modo affecerunt. Alios pedibus, quosdam manibus auribusque, amputatis, inustisque barbararum literarum notis, in longum sui ludibrium reservaverant,” etc. Compare Diodorus, xvii, 69; and the prodigious tales of cruelty recounted in Herodot. ix, 112; Ktesias, Persic. c. 54-59; Plutarch, Artaxerx. c. 14, 16, 17.

It is not unworthy of remark, that while there was nothing in which the Persian rulers displayed greater invention than in exaggerating bodily suffering upon a malefactor or an enemy,—at Athens, whenever any man was put to death by public sentence, the execution took place within the prison by administering a cup of hemlock, without even public exposure. It was the minimum of pain, as well as the minimum of indignity; as any one may see who reads the account of the death of Sokrates, given by Plato at the end of the Phædon.

It is certain, that, on the whole, the public sentiment in England is more humane now than it was in that day at Athens. Yet an Athenian public could not have borne the sight of a citizen publicly hanged or beheaded in the market-place. Much less could they have borne the sight of the prolonged tortures inflicted on Damiens at Paris in 1757 (a fair parallel to the Persian σκάφευσις described in Plutarch, Artaxerx. c. 16), in the presence of an immense crowd of spectators, when every window commanding a view of the Place de Grève was let at a high price, and filled by the best company in Paris.

[25] Xen. Anab. i, 9, 13.

[26] Xen. Anab. i, 6, 6.

[27] Xen. Anab. i, 2, 2-3.

[28] Xen. Hellen. iii, 1, 1.

[29] Diodor. xiv, 21.

[30] Xen. Anab. vi, 4, 8. Τῶν γὰρ στρατιωτῶν οἱ πλεῖστοι ἦσαν οὐ σπάνει βίου ἐκπεπλευκότες ἐπὶ ταύτην τὴν μισθοφορὰν, ἀλλὰ τὴν Κύρου ἀρετὴν ἀκούοντες, οἱ μὲν καὶ ἄνδρας ἄγοντες, οἱ δὲ καὶ προσανελωκότες χρήματα, καὶ τούτων ἕτεροι ἀποδεδρακότες πατέρας καὶ μητέρας, οἱ δὲ καὶ τέκνα καταλιπόντες, ὡς χρήματα αὐτοῖς κτησάμενοι ἥξοντες πάλιν, ἀκούοντες καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους τοὺς παρὰ Κύρῳ πολλὰ καὶ ἀγαθὰ πράττειν. Τοιοῦτοι οὖν ὄντες, ἐπόθουν εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα σώζεσθαι. Compare v. 10, 10.

[31] Compare similar praises of Ptolemy Philadelphus, in order to attract Greek mercenaries from Sicily to Egypt (Theokrit. xiv, 50-59).

[32] Xen. Anab. iii, 1, 4. Ὑπισχνεῖτο δὲ αὐτῷ (Proxenus to Xenophon) εἰ ἔλθοι, φίλον Κύρῳ ποιήσειν· ὃν αὐτος ἔφη κρείττω ἑαυτῷ νομίζειν τῆς πατρίδος.

[33] Strabo, ix, p. 403. The story that Sokrates carried off Xenophon, wounded and thrown from his horse, on his shoulders, and thus saved his life,—seems too doubtful to enter into the narrative.

Among the proofs that Xenophon was among the Horsemen or Ἱππεῖς of Athens, we may remark, not only his own strong interest, and great skill in horsemanship, in the cavalry service and the duties of its commander, and in all that relates to horses, as manifested in his published works,—but also the fact, that his son Gryllus served afterwards among the Athenian horsemen at the combat of cavalry which preceded the great battle of Mantineia (Diogen. Laërt. ii, 54).

[34] Xen. Anab. iii, 1, 4-9; v. 9, 22-24.

[35] Xen. Anab. i, 2, 4; ii, 3, 19.

Diodorus (xiv, 11) citing from Ephorus affirms that the first revelation to Artaxerxes was made by Pharnabazus, who had learnt it from the acuteness of the Athenian exile Alkibiades. That the latter should have had any concern in it, appears improbable. But Diodorus on more than one occasion, confounds Pharnabazus and Tissaphernes.

[36] Diodor. xiv, 19.

[37] The parasang was a Persian measurement of length, but according to Strabo, not of uniform value in all parts of Asia; in some parts, held equivalent to thirty stadia, in others to forty, in others to sixty (Strabo, xi, p. 518; Forbiger, Handbuch der Alten Geograph. vol. i, p. 555). This variability of meaning is no way extraordinary, when we recollect the difference between English, Irish, and German miles, etc.

Herodotus tells us distinctly what he meant by a parasang, and what the Persian government of his day recognized as such in their measurement of the great road from Sardis to Susa, as well as in their measurements of territory for purposes of tribute (Herod. v, 53; vi, 43). It was thirty Greek stadia = nearly three and a half English miles, or nearly three geographical miles. The distance between every two successive stations, on the road from Sardis to Susa, (which was “all inhabited and all secure,” διὰ οἰκεομένης τε ἅπασα καὶ ἀσφολέος), would seem to have been measured and marked in parasangs and fractions of a parasang. It seems probable, from the account which Herodotus gives of the march of Xerxes (vii, 26), that this road passed from Kappadokia and across the river Halys, through Kelænæ and Kolossæ to Sardis; and therefore that the road which Cyrus took for his march, from Sardis at least as far as Kelænæ, must have been so measured and marked.

Xenophon also in his summing up of the route, (ii, 2, 6; vii, 8, 26) implies the parasang as equivalent to thirty stadia, while he gives for the most part, each day’s journey measured in parasangs. Now even at the outset of the march, we have no reason to believe that there was any official measurer of road-progress accompanying the army, like Bæton, ὁ Βηματιστὴς Ἀλεξάνδρου, in Alexander’s invasion; see Athenæus, x, p. 442, and Geier, Alexandri Magni Histor. Scriptt. p. 357. Yet Xenophon, throughout the whole march, even as far as Trebizond, states the day’s march of the army in parasangs; not merely in Asia Minor, where there were roads, but through the Arabian desert between Thapsakus and Pylæ,—through the snows of Armenia,—and through the territory of the barbarous Chalybes. He tells us that in the desert of Arabia they marched ninety parasangs in thirteen days, or very nearly seven parasangs per day,—and that too under the extreme heat of summer. He tells us, farther, that in the deep snows of Armenia, and in the extremity of winter, they marched fifteen parasangs in three days; and through the territory (also covered with snow) of the pugnacious Chalybes, fifty parasangs in seven days, or more than seven parasangs per day. Such marches, at thirty stadia for the parasang, are impossible. And how did Xenophon measure the distance marched over?

The most intelligent modern investigators and travellers,—Major Rennell, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Hamilton, Colonel Chesney, Professor Koch, etc., offer no satisfactory solution of the difficulty. Major Rennell reckons the parasangs as equal to 2.25 geogr. miles; Mr. Ainsworth at three geogr. miles; Mr. Hamilton (travels in Asia Minor, c. 42, p. 200), at something less than two and a half geogr. miles; Colonel Chesney (Euphrat. and Tigris, ch. 8, p. 207) at 2.608 geogr. miles between Sardis and Thapsakus—at 1.98 geogr. miles, between Thapsakus and Kunaxa,—at something less than this, without specifying how much, during the retreat. It is evident that there is no certain basis to proceed upon, even for the earlier portion of the route; much more, for the retreat. The distance between Ikonium and Dana (or Tyana), is one of the quantities on which Mr. Hamilton rests his calculation; but we are by no means certain that Cyrus took the direct route of march; he rather seems to have turned out of his way, partly to plunder Lykaonia, partly to conduct the Kilikian princess homeward. The other item, insisted upon by Mr. Hamilton, is the distance between Kelænæ and Kolossæ, two places the site of which seems well ascertained, and which are by the best modern maps, fifty-two geographical miles apart. Xenophon calls the distance twenty parasangs. Assuming the road by which he marched to have been the same with that now travelled, it would make the parasang of Xenophon = 2.6 geographical miles. I have before remarked that the road between Kolossæ and Kelænæ was probably measured and numbered according to parasangs; so that Xenophon, in giving the number of parasangs between these two places, would be speaking upon official authority.

Even a century and a half afterwards, the geographer Eratosthenes found it not possible to obtain accurate measurements, in much of the country traversed by Cyrus (Strabo, ii, p. 73.)

Colonel Chesney remarks,—“From Sardis to Cunaxa, or the mounds of Mohammed, cannot be much under or over twelve hundred and sixty-five geographical miles; making 2.364 geographical miles for each of the five hundred and thirty-five parasangs given by Xenophon between those two places.”

As a measure of distance, the parasang of Xenophon is evidently untrustworthy. Is it admissible to consider, in the description of this march, that the parasangs and stadia of Xenophon are measurements rather of time than of space? From Sardis to Kelænæ, he had a measured road and numbered parasangs of distance; it is probable that the same mensuration and numeration continued for four days farther, as far as Keramôn-Agora, (since I imagine that the road from Kelænæ to the Halys and Kappadokia must have gone through these two places,)—and possibly it may have continued even as far as Ikonium or Dana. Hence, by these early marches, Xenophon had the opportunity of forming to himself roughly an idea of the time (measured by the course of the sun) which it took for the army to march one, two, or three parasangs; and when he came to the ulterior portions of the road, he called that length of time by the name of one, two, or three parasangs. Five parasangs seem to have meant with him a full day’s march; three or four, a short day; six, seven, or eight, a long, or very long day.

We must recollect that the Greeks in the time of Xenophon had no portable means of measuring hours, and did not habitually divide the day into hours, or into any other recognized fraction. The Alexandrine astronomers, near two centuries afterwards, were the first to use ὥρη in the sense of hour (Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, vol. i, p. 239.)

This may perhaps help to explain Xenophon’s meaning, when he talks about marching five or seven parasangs amidst the deep snows of Armenia; I do not however suppose that he had this meaning uniformly or steadily present to his mind. Sometimes, it would seem, he must have used the word in its usual meaning of distance.

[38] Xen. Anab. i, 2, 8, 9. About Kelænæ, Arrian, Exp. Al. i, 29, 2; Quint. Curt. iii, 1, 6.

[39] These three marches, each of ten parasangs, from Keramôn-Agora to Käystru-Pedion,—are the longest recorded in the Anabasis. It is rather surprising to find them so; for there seems no motive for Cyrus to have hurried forward. When he reached Käystru-Pedion, he halted five days. Koch (Zug der Zehn Tausend, Leipsic, 1850, p. 19) remarks that the three days’ march, which seem to have dropped out of Xenophon’s calculation, comparing the items with the total, might conveniently be let in here; so that these thirty parasangs should have occupied six days’ march instead of three; five parasangs per day. The whole march which Cyrus had hitherto made from Sardis, including the road from Keramôn-Agora to Käystru-Pedion, lay in the great road from Sardis to the river Halys, Kappadokia, and Susa. That road (as we see by the March of Xerxes, Herodot. vii, 26; v, 52) passed through both Kelænæ and Kolossæ; though this is a prodigious departure from the straight line. At Käystru-Pedion, Cyrus seems to have left this great road; taking a different route, in a direction nearly south-east towards Ikonium. About the point, somewhere near Synnada, where these different roads crossed, see Mr. Ainsworth, Trav. in the Track, p. 28.

I do not share the doubts which have been raised about Xenophon’s accuracy, in his description of the route from Sardis to Ikonium; though the names of several of the places which he mentions are not known to us, and their sites cannot be exactly identified. There is a great departure from the straight line of bearing. But we at the present day assign more weight to that circumstance than is suited to the days of Xenophon. Straight roads, stretching systematically over a large region of country, are not of that age; the communications were probably all originally made, between one neighboring town and another, without much reference to saving of distance, and with no reference to any promotion of traffic between distant places.

It was just about this time that King Archelaus began to “cut straight roads” in Macedonia,—which Thucydides seems to note as a remarkable thing (ii, 100).

[40] Neither Thymbrium, nor Tyriæum, can be identified. But it seems that both must have been situated on the line of road now followed by the caravans from Smyrna to Konieh (Ikonium,) which line of road follows a direction between the mountains called Emir Dagh on the north-east, and those called Sultan Dagh on the south-west (Koch, Der Zug der Zehn Tausend, p. 21, 22).

[41] Εἶχον δὲ πάντες κράνη χαλκᾶ, καὶ χιτῶνας φοινικοῦς, καὶ κνημῖδας, καὶ τὰς ἀσπίδας ἐκκεκαθαρμένας.

When the hoplite was on march, without expectation of an enemy, the shield seems to have been carried behind him, with his blanket attached to it (see Aristoph. Acharn. 1085, 1089-1149); it was slung by the strap round his neck and shoulder. Sometimes indeed he had an opportunity of relieving himself from the burden, by putting the shield in a baggage-wagon (Xen. Anab. i, 7, 20). The officers generally, and doubtless some soldiers, could command attendants to carry their shields for them (iv, 2, 20; Aristoph. 1, c.).

On occasion of this review, the shields were unpacked, rubbed, and brightened, as before a battle (Xen. Hell. vii, 5, 20); then fastened round the neck or shoulders, and held out upon the left arm, which was passed through the rings or straps attached to its concave or interior side.

Respecting the cases or wrappers of the shields, see a curious stratagem of the Syracusan Agathokles (Diodor. xx, 11). The Roman soldiers also carried their shields in leathern wrappers, when on march (Plutarch, Lucull. c. 27).

It is to be remarked that Xenophon, in enumerating the arms of the Cyreians, does not mention breastplates; which (though sometimes worn, see Plutarch, Dion. c. 30) were not usually worn by hoplites, who carried heavy shields. It is quite possible that some of the Cyreian infantry may have had breastplates as well as shields, since every soldier provided his own arms; but Xenophon states only what was common to all.

Grecian cavalry commonly wore a heavy breastplate, but had no shield.

[42] Xen. Anab. i, 2, 16-19.

[43] Xen. Anab. iii, 2, 25.

[44] This shorter and more direct pass crosses the Taurus by Kizil-Chesmeh, Alan Buzuk, and Mizetli; it led directly to the Kilikian seaport-town Soli, afterwards called Pompeiopolis. It is laid down in the Peutinger Tables as the road from Iconium to Pompeiopolis (Ainsworth, p. 40 seq.; Chesney, Euph. and Tigr. ii, p. 209).

[45] Xen. Anab. i, 2, 20.

[46] Xen. Anab. i, 2, 21; Diodor. xiv, 20. See Mr. Kinneir, Travels in Asia Minor, p. 116; Col. Chesney, Euphrates and Tigris, vol. i, p. 293-354; and Mr. Ainsworth, Travels in the Track of the Ten Thousand, p. 40 seq.; also his other work, Travels in Asia Minor, vol. ii. ch. 30, p. 70-77; and Koch, Der Zug der Zehn Tausend, p. 26-172, for a description of this memorable pass.

Alexander the Great, as well as Cyrus, was fortunate enough to find this impregnable pass abandoned; as it appears, through sheer stupidity or recklessness of the satrap who ought to have defended it, and who had not even the same excuse for abandoning it as Syennesis had on the approach of Cyrus (Arrian. E. A. ii. 4; Curtius, iii, 9, 10, 11).

[47] Xen. Anab. i, 2, 23-27.

[48] Diodorus (xiv, 20) represents Syennesis as playing a double game, though reluctantly. He takes no notice of the proceeding of Epyaxa.

So Livy says, about the conduct of the Macedonian courtiers in regard to the enmity between Perseus and Demetrius, the two sons of Philip II. of Macedon: “Crescente in dies Philippi odio in Romanos, cui Perseus indulgeret, Demetrius summâ ope adversaretur, prospicientes animo exitum incauti a fraude fraternâ juvenis—adjuvandum, quod futurum erat, rati, fovendamque spem potentioris, Perseo se adjungunt,” etc. (Livy, xl, 5).

[49] See Herodot. v. 49.

[50] Xen. Anab. i, 3, 1.

[51] Xen. Anab. ii, 6, 5-15.

[52] Xen. Anab. i, 3, 2-7. Here, as on other occasions, I translate the sense rather than the words.

[53] Xen. Anab. i, 3, 16-21.

[54] The breadth of the river Sarus (Scihun) is given by Xenophon at three hundred feet; which agrees nearly with the statements of modern travellers (Koch, Der Zug der Zehn Tausend, p. 34).

Compare, for the description of this country, Kinneir’s Journey through Asia Minor, p. 135; Col. Chesney, Euphrates and Tigris, ii, p. 211; Mr. Ainsworth, Travels in the Track of the Ten Thousand, p. 54.

Colonel Chesney affirms that neither the Sarus nor the Pyramus is fordable. There must have been bridges; which, in the then flourishing state of Kilikia, is by no means improbable. He and Mr. Ainsworth, however, differ as to the route which they suppose Cyrus to have taken between Tarsus and Issus.

Xenophon mentions nothing about the Amanian Gates, which afterwards appear noticed both in Arrian (ii, 6; ii, 7) and in Strabo (xiv, p. 676). The various data of ancient history and geography about this region are by no means easy to reconcile; see a valuable note of Mützel on Quintus Curtius, iii, 17, 7. An inspection of the best recent maps, either Colonel Chesney’s or Kiepert’s, clears up some of these better than any verbal description. We see by these maps that Mount Amanus bifurcates into two branches, one of them flanking the Gulf of Issus on its western, the other on its eastern side. There are thus two different passes, each called Pylæ Amanides or Amanian Gates; one having reference to the Western Amanus, the other to the Eastern. The former was crossed by Alexander, the latter by Darius, before the battle of Issus; and Arrian (ii, 6; ii, 7) is equally correct in saying of both of them that they passed the Amanian Gates; though both did not pass the same gates.

[55] Diodor. xiv. 21.

[56] Xen. Anab. i, 4, 3-5. Ἀβροκόμας δ᾽ οὐ τοῦτο ἐποίησεν ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ ἤκουσε Κῦρον ἐν Κιλικίᾳ ὄντα, αναστρέψας ἐκ Φοινίκης, παρὰ βασιλέα ἀπήλαυνεν, etc.

[57] Diodor. xiv.

[58] Xen. Anab. i, 4, 6. To require the wives or children of generals in service, as hostages for fidelity, appears to have been not unfrequent with Persian kings. On the other hand, it was remarked as a piece of gross obsequiousness in the Argeian Nikostratus, who commanded the contingent of his countrymen serving under Artaxerxes Ochus in Egypt, that he volunteered to bring up his son to the king as a hostage, without being demanded (Theopompus, Frag. 135 [ed. Wichers] ap. Athenæ. vi, p. 252).

[59] Xen. Anab. i, 4, 7-9.

[60] Diodor. xiv, 21.

[61] See the remarks of Mr. Ainsworth, Travels in the Track of the Ten Thousand, p. 58-61; and other citations respecting the difficult road through the pass of Beilan, in Mützel’s valuable notes on Quintus Curtius, iii, 20, 13, p. 101.

[62] Neither the Chalus, nor the Daradax, nor indeed the road followed by Cyrus in crossing Syria from the sea to the Euphrates, can be satisfactorily made out (Koch, Zug der Zehn Tausend, p. 36, 37).

Respecting the situation of Thapsakus,—placed erroneously by Rennell lower down the river at Deir, where it stands marked even in the map annexed to Col. Chesney’s Report on the Euphrates, and by Reichard higher up the river, near Bir—see Ritter, Erdkunde, part x, B. iii; West Asien, p. 14-17, with the elaborate discussion, p. 972-978, in the same volume; also the work of Mr. Ainsworth above cited, p. 70. The situation of Thapsakus is correctly placed in Colonel Chesney’s last work (Euphr. and Tigr. p. 213), and in the excellent map accompanying that work; though I dissent from his view of the march of Cyrus between the pass of Beilan and Thapsakus.

Thapsakus appears to have been the most frequented and best-known passage over the Euphrates, throughout the duration of the Seleukid kings, down to 100 B.C. It was selected as a noted point, to which observations and calculations might be conveniently referred, by Eratosthenes and other geographers (see Strabo, ii, p. 79-87). After the time when the Roman empire became extended to the Euphrates, the new Zeugma, higher up the river near Bir or Bihrejik (about the 37th parallel of latitude) became more used and better known, at least to the Roman writers.

The passage at Thapsakus was in the line of road from Palmyra to Karrhæ in Northern Mesopotamia; also from Seleukeia (on the Tigris below Bagdad) to the other cities founded in Northern Syria by Seleukus Nikator and his successors, Antioch on the Orontes, Seleukeia in Pieria, Laodikeia, Antioch ad Taurum, etc.

The ford at Thapsakus (says Mr. Ainsworth, p. 69, 70) “is celebrated to this day as the ford of the Anezeh or Beduins. On the right bank of the Euphrates there are the remains of a paved causeway leading to the very banks of the river, and continued on the opposite side.”

[63] Xen. Anab. i, 4, 12-18.

[64] Xen. Anab. i, 4, 18. Compare (Plutarch, Alexand. 17) analogous expressions of flattery—from the historians of Alexander, affirming that the sea near Pamphylia providentially made way for him—from the inhabitants on the banks of the Euphrates, when the river was passed by the Roman legions and the Parthian prince Tiridates, in the reign of the Emperor Tiberius (Tacitus, Annal. vi. 37); and by Lucullus still earlier (Plutarch, Lucull. c. 24).

The time when Cyrus crossed the Euphrates, must probably have been about the end of July or beginning of August. Now the period of greatest height, in the waters of the Euphrates near this part of its course, is from the 21st to the 28th of May; the period when they are lowest, is about the middle of November (see Colonel Chesney’s Report on the Euphrates, p. 5). Rennell erroneously states that they are lowest in August and September (Expedit, of Xenophon, p. 277). The waters would thus be at a sort of mean height, when Cyrus passed.

Mr. Ainsworth states that there were only twenty inches of water in the ford at Thapsakus, from October 1841 to February 1842; the steamers Nimrod and Nitocris then struck upon it (p. 72), though the steamers Euphrates and Tigris had passed over it without difficulty in the month of May.

[65] Xenophon gives these nine days of march as covering fifty parasangs (Anab. i, 4, 19). But Koch remarks that the distance is not half so great as that from the sea to Thapsakus; which latter Xenophon gives at sixty-five parasangs. There is here some confusion; together with the usual difficulty in assigning any given distance as the equivalent of the parasang (Koch, Zug der Zehn Tausend, p. 38).

[66] See the remarkable testimony of Mr. Ainsworth, from personal observation, to the accuracy of Xenophon’s description of the country, even at the present day.

[67] Xen. Anab. i, 2, 24.

[68] Xen. Anab. i, 5, 4-8.

[69] I infer that the army halted here five or six days, from the story afterwards told respecting the Ambrakiot Silanus, the prophet of the army; who, on sacrificing, had told Cyrus that his brother would not fight for ten days (i, 7, 16). This sacrifice must have been offered, I imagine, during the halt—not during the distressing march which preceded. The ten days named by Silanus, expired on the fourth day after they left Pylæ.

It is in reference to this portion of the course of the Euphrates, from the Chaboras southward down by Anah and Hit (the ancient Is, noticed by Herodotus, and still celebrated from its unexhausted supply of bitumen), between latitude 35½° and 34°—that Colonel Chesney, in his Report on the Navigation of the Euphrates (p. 2), has the following remarks:—

“The scenery above Hit, in itself very picturesque, is greatly heightened, as one is carried along the current, by the frequent recurrence, at very short intervals, of ancient irrigating aqueducts; these beautiful specimens of art and durability are attributed by the Arabs to the times of the ignorant, meaning (as is expressly understood) the Persians, when fire-worshippers, and in possession of the world. They literally cover both banks, and prove that the borders of the Euphrates were once thickly inhabited by a people far advanced indeed in the application of hydraulics to domestic purposes, of the first and greatest utility—the transport of water. The greater portion is now more or less in ruins, but some have been repaired, and kept up for use either to grind corn or to irrigate. The aqueducts are of stone, firmly cemented, narrowing to about two feet or twenty inches at top, placed at right angles to the current, and carried various distances towards the interior, from two hundred to one thousand two hundred yards.

“But what most concerns the subject of this memoir is, the existence of a parapet wall or stone rampart in the river, just above the several aqueducts. In general, there is one of the former attached to each of the latter. And almost invariably, between two mills on the opposite banks, one of them crosses the stream from side to side, with the exception of a passage left in the centre for boats to pass up and down. The object of these subaqueous walls would appear to be exclusively, to raise the water sufficiently at low seasons, to give it impetus, as well as a more abundant supply to the wheels. And their effect at those times is, to create a fall in every part of the width, save the opening left for commerce, through which the water rushes with a moderately irregular surface. These dams were probably from four to eight feet high originally; but they are now frequently a bank of stones disturbing the evenness of the current, but always affording a sufficient passage for large boats at low seasons.”

The marks which Colonel Chesney points out, of previous population and industry on the banks of the Euphrates at this part of its course, are extremely interesting and curious, when contrasted with the desolation depicted by Xenophon; who mentions that there were no other inhabitants than some who lived by cutting millstones from the stone quarries near, and sending them to Babylon in exchange for grain. It is plain that the population, of which Colonel Chesney saw the remaining tokens, either had already long ceased, or did not begin to exist, or to construct their dams and aqueducts, until a period later than Xenophon. They probably began during the period of the Seleukid kings, after the year 300 B.C. For this line of road along the Euphrates began then to acquire great importance as the means of communication between the great city of Seleukeia (on the Tigris, below Bagdad) and the other cities founded by Seleukus Nikator and his successors in the North of Syria and Asia Minor—Seleukeia in Pieria, Antioch, Laodikeia, Apameia, etc. This route coincides mainly with the present route from Bagdad to Aleppo, crossing the Euphrates at Thapsakus. It can hardly be doubted that the course of the Euphrates was better protected during the two centuries of the Seleukid kings (B.C. 300-100, speaking in round numbers), than it came to be afterwards, when that river became the boundary line between the Romans and the Parthians. Even at the time of the Emperor Julian’s invasion, however, Ammianus Marcellinus describes the left bank of the Euphrates, north of Babylonia, as being in several parts well cultivated, and furnishing ample subsistence, (Ammian. Marc. xxiv, 1). At the time of Xenophon’s Anabasis, there was nothing to give much importance to the banks of the Euphrates north of Babylonia.

Mr. Ainsworth describes the country on the left bank of the Euphrates, before reaching Pylæ, as being now in the same condition as it was when Xenophon and his comrades marched through it,—“full of hills and narrow valleys, and presenting many difficulties to the movement of an army. The illustrator was, by a curious accident, left by the Euphrates steamer on this very portion of the river, and on the same side as the Perso-Greek army, and he had to walk a day and a night across these inhospitable regions; so that he can speak feelingly of the difficulties which the Greeks had to encounter.” (Travels in the Track, etc. p. 81.)

[70] I incline to think that Charmandê must have been nearly opposite Pylæ, lower down than Hit. But Major Rennell (p. 107) and Mr. Ainsworth (p. 84) suppose Charmandê to be the same place as the modern Hit (the Is of Herodotus). There is no other known town with which we can identify it.

[71] Xen. Anab. i, 5, 11-17.

[72] The commentators agree in thinking that we are to understand by Pylæ a sort of gate or pass, marking the spot where the desert country north of Babylonia—with its undulations of land, and its steep banks along the river—was exchanged for the flat and fertile alluvium constituting Babylonia proper. Perhaps there was a town near the pass, and named after it.

Now it appears from Col. Chesney’s survey that this alteration in the nature of the country takes place a few miles below Hit. He observes—(Euphrates and Tigris, vol. i, p. 54)—“Three miles below Hit, the remains of aqueducts disappear, and the windings become shorter and more frequent, as the river flows through a tract of country almost level.” Thereabouts it is that I am inclined to place Pylæ.

Colonel Chesney places it lower down, twenty-five miles from Hit. Professor Koch (Zug der Zehn Tausend, p. 44), lower down still. Mr. Ainsworth places it as much as seventy geographical miles lower than Hit (Travels in the Track of the Ten Thousand, p. 81); compare Ritter, Erdkunde, West Asien, x. p. 16; xi, pp. 755-763.

[73] The description given of this scene (known to the Greeks through the communications of Klearchus) by Xenophon, is extremely interesting (Anab. i, 6). I omit it from regard to space.

[74] Xen. Anab. i, 7, 2-9.

[75] Xen. Anab. i, 5, 16.

[76] See Herodot. vii, 102, 103, 209. Compare the observations of the Persian Achæmenês, c. 236.

[77] Herod. vii, 104. Demaratus says to Xerxes, respecting the Lacedæmonians—Ἐλεύθεροι γὰρ ἐόντες, οὐ πάντα ἐλεύθεροί εἰσι· ἔπεστι γάρ σφι δεσπότης, νόμος, τὸν ὑποδειμαίνουσι πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἢ οἱ σοὶ σέ.

Again, the historian observes about the Athenians, and their extraordinary increase of prowess after having shaken off the despotism of Hippias (v. 78)—Δηλοῖ δ᾽ οὐ καθ᾽ ἓν μόνον ἀλλὰ πανταχοῦ, ἡ ἰσηγορίη ὥς ἐστι χρῆμα σπουδαῖον· εἰ καὶ Ἀθηναῖοι τυραννευόμενοι μὲν, οὐδαμῶν τῶν σφέας περιοικεόντων ἦσαν τὰ πολέμια ἀμείνους, ἀπαλλαχθέντες δὲ τυράννων, μακρῷ πρῶτοι ἐγένοντο. Δηλοῖ ὦν ταῦτα, ὅτι κατεχόμενοι μὲν ἐθελοκακεέον, ὡς δεσπότῃ ἐργαζόμενοι· ἐλευθερωθέντων δὲ, αὐτὸς ἕκαστος ἑωϋτῷ προθυμέετο ἐργάζεσθαι.

Compare Menander, Fragm. Incert. CL. ap. Meineke, Fragm. Comm. Græc. vol. iv. p. 268—

Ἐλεύθερος πᾶς ἑνὶ δεδούλωται, νόμῳ·

Δυσὶν δὲ δοῦλος, καὶ νόμῳ καὶ δεσπότῃ.

[78] Xen. Anab. i, 7, 14-17.

[79] From Pylæ to the undefended trench, there intervened three entire days of march, and one part of a day; for it occurred in the fourth day’s march.

Xenophon calls the three entire days, twelve parasangs in all. This argues short marches, not full marches. And it does not seem that the space of ground traversed during any one of them can have been considerable. For they were all undertaken with visible evidences of an enemy immediately in front of them; which circumstance was the occasion of the treason of Orontes, who asked Cyrus for a body of cavalry, under pretence of attacking the light troops of the enemy in front, and then wrote a letter to inform Artaxerxes that he was about to desert with his division. The letter was delivered to Cyrus, who thus discovered the treason.

Marching with a known enemy not far off in front, Cyrus must have kept his army in something like battle order, and therefore must have moved slowly. Moreover the discovery of the treason of Orontes must itself have been an alarming fact, well calculated to render both Cyrus and Klearchus doubly cautious for the time. And the very trial of Orontes appears to have been conducted under such solemnities as must have occasioned a halt of the army.

Taking these circumstances, we can hardly suppose the Greeks to have got over so much as thirty English miles of ground in the three entire days of march. The fourth day they must have got over very little ground indeed; not merely because Cyrus was in momentary expectation of the King’s main army, and of a general battle (i, 7, 14), but because of the great delay necessary for passing the trench. His whole army (more than one hundred thousand men), with baggage, chariots, etc., had to pass through the narrow gut of twenty feet wide between the trench and the Euphrates. He can hardly have made more than five miles in this whole day’s march, getting at night so far as to encamp two or three miles beyond the trench. We may therefore reckon the distance marched over between Pylæ and the trench as about thirty-two miles in all; and two or three miles farther to the encampment of the next night. Probably Cyrus would keep near the river, yet not following its bends with absolute precision; so that in estimating distance, we ought to take a mean between the straight line and the full windings of the river.

I conceive the trench to have cut the Wall of Media at a much wider angle than appears in Col. Chesney’s map; so that the triangular space included between the trench, the Wall, and the river, was much more extensive. The reason, we may presume, why the trench was cut, was, to defend that portion of the well-cultivated and watered country of Babylonia which lay outside of the Wall of Media—which portion (as we shall see hereafter in the marches of the Greeks after the battle) was very considerable.

[80] Xen. Anab. i, 7, 20. The account given by Xenophon of this long line of trench, first dug by order of Artaxerxes, and then left useless and undefended, differs from the narrative of Diodorus (xiv, 22), which seems to be borrowed from Ephorus. Diodorus says that the king caused a long trench to be dug, and lined with carriages and waggons as a defence for his baggage; and that he afterwards marched forth from this entrenchment, with his soldiers free and unincumbered, to give battle to Cyrus. This is a statement more plausible than that of Xenophon, in this point of view, that it makes out the king to have acted upon a rational scheme; whereas in Xenophon he appears at first to have adopted a plan of defence, and then to have renounced it, after immense labor and cost, without any reason, so far as we can see. Yet I have no doubt that the account of Xenophon is the true one. The narrow passage, and the undefended trench, were both facts of the most obvious and impressive character to an observing soldier.

[81] Xenophon does not mention the name Kunaxa, which comes to us from Plutarch (Artaxerx. c. 8), who states that it was five hundred stadia (about fifty-eight miles) from Babylon; while Xenophon was informed that the field of battle was distant from Babylon only three hundred and sixty stadia. Now, according to Colonel Chesney (Euphrates and Tigris, vol. i, p. 57), Hillah (Babylon) is distant ninety-one miles by the river, or sixty-one and a half miles direct, from Felujah. Following therefore the distance given by Plutarch (probably copied from Ktesias), we should place Kunaxa a little lower down the river than Felujah. This seems the most probable supposition.

Rennell and Mr. Baillie Fraser so place it (Mesopotamia and Assyria, p. 186, Edin. 1842), I think rightly; moreover the latter remarks, what most of the commentators overlook, that the Greeks did not pass through the Wall of Media until long after the battle. See a note a little below, near the beginning of my next chapter, in reference to that Wall.

[82] The distance of the undefended trench from the battle-field of Kunaxa would be about twenty-two miles. First, three miles beyond the trench, to the first night-station; next, a full day’s march, say twelve miles; thirdly, a half day’s march, to the time of the mid-day halt, say seven miles.

The distance from Pylæ to the trench having before been stated at thirty-two miles, the whole distance from Pylæ to Kunaxa will be about fifty-four miles.

Now Colonel Chesney has stated the distance from Hit to Felujah Castle (two known points) at forty-eight miles of straight line, and seventy-seven miles, if following the line of the river. Deduct four miles for the distance from Hit to Pylæ, and we shall then have between Pylæ and Felujah, a rectilinear distance of forty-four miles. The marching route of the Greeks (as explained in the previous note, the Greeks following generally, but not exactly, the windings of the river) will give fifty miles from Pylæ to Felujah, and fifty-three or fifty-four from Pylæ to Kunaxa.

[83] Xen. Anab. i, 8, 8-11.

[84] Thucyd. v. 70. See Vol. VII, ch. lvi, p. 84 of this History.

[85] Plutarch (Artaxerx. c. 8) makes this criticism upon Klearchus; and it seems quite just.

[86] Xen. Anab. i, 8, 17; Diodor. xiv, 23.

[87] Xen. Anab. i, 8, 17-20.

[88] Xen. Anab i, 10, 4-8.

[89] Xen. Anab. i, 8, 23; i, 9, 31.

[90] Xen. Anab. i, 8, 21.

Κῦρος δὲ, ὁρῶν τοὺς Ἕλληνας νικῶντας τὸ καθ᾽ αὑτοὺς καὶ διώκοντας, ἡδόμενος καὶ προσκυνούμενος ἤδη ὡς βασιλεὺς ὑπὸ τῶν ἀμφ᾽ αὐτὸν, οὐδ᾽ ὣς ἐξήχθη διώκειν, etc.

The last words are remarkable, as indicating that no other stimulus except that of ambitious rivalry and fraternal antipathy, had force enough to overthrow the self-command of Cyrus.

[91] Compare the account of the transport of rage which seized the Theban Pelopidas, when he saw Alexander the despot of Pheræ in the opposite army; which led to the same fatal consequences (Plutarch, Pelopidas, c. 32; Cornel. Nepos, Pelop. c. 5). See also the reflections of Xenophon on the conduct of Teleutas before Olynthus.—Hellenic. v. 3, 7.

[92] Xen. Anab. i, 8, 22-29. The account of this battle and of the death of Cyrus by Ktesias (as far as we can make it out from the brief abstract in Photius—Ktesias, Fragm. c. 58, 59, ed. Bähr) does not differ materially from Xenophon. Ktesias mentions the Karian soldier (not noticed by Xenophon) who hurled the javelin; and adds that this soldier was afterwards tortured and put to death by Queen Parysatis, in savage revenge for the death of Cyrus. He also informs us that Bagapatês, the person who by order of Artaxerxes cut off the head and hand of Cyrus, was destroyed by her in the same way.

Diodorus (xiv, 23) dresses up a much fuller picture of the conflict between Cyrus and his brother, which differs on many points, partly direct and partly implied, from Xenophon.

Plutarch (Artaxerxes, c. 11, 12, 13) gives an account of the battle, and of the death of Cyrus, which he professes to have derived from Ktesias, but which differs still more materially from the narrative in Xenophon. Compare also the few words of Justin, v, 11.

Diodorus (xiv, 24) says that twelve thousand men were slain of the king’s army at Kunaxa; the greater part of them by the Greeks under Klearchus, who did not lose a single man. He estimates the loss of Cyrus’s Asiatic army at three thousand men. But as the Greeks did not lose a man, so they can hardly have killed many in the pursuit; for they had scarcely any cavalry, and no great number of peltasts,—while hoplites could not have overtaken the flying Persians.

[93] Xen. Anab. i, 10, 3. The accomplishments and fascinations of this Phokæan lady, and the great esteem in which she was held first by Cyrus and afterwards by Artaxerxes, have been exaggerated into a romantic story, in which we cannot tell what may be the proportion of truth (see Ælian, V. H. xii, 1; Plutarch, Artaxerx. c. 26, 27; Justin, x, 2). Both Plutarch and Justin state that the subsequent enmity between Artaxerxes and his son Darius, which led to the conspiracy of the latter against his father, and to his destruction when the conspiracy was discovered, arose out of the passion of Darius for her. But as that transaction certainly happened at the close of the long life and reign of Artaxerxes, who reigned forty-six years—and as she must have been then sixty years old, if not more—we may fairly presume that the cause of the family tragedy must have been something different.

Compare the description of the fate of Berenikê of Chios, and Monimê of Miletus, wives of Mithridates king of Pontus, during the last misfortunes of that prince (Plutarch, Lucullus, c. 18).

[94] Xen. Anab. i, 10, 17. This provision must probably have been made during the recent halt at Pylæ.

[95] Xen. Anab. i, 10, 18, 19.

[96] Xen. Anab. ii. 1, 3, 4.

[97] Isokrates, Orat. iv, (Panegyric.) s. 175-182; a striking passage, as describing the way in which political institutions work themselves into the individual character and habits.

[98] Diodorus (xiv, 23) notices the legendary pair of hostile brothers, Eteokles and Polyneikes, as a parallel. Compare Tacitus, Annal. iv, 60. “Atrox Drusi ingenium, super cupidinem potentiæ, et solita fratribus odia, accendebatur invidia, quod mater Agrippina promptior Neroni erat,” etc.; and Justin, xlii, 4.

Compare also the interesting narrative of M. Prosper Mérimée, in his life of Don Pedro of Castile; a prince commonly known by the name of Peter the Cruel. Don Pedro was dethroned, and slain in personal conflict, by the hand of his bastard brother, Henri of Transtamare.

At the battle of Navarrete, in 1367, says M. Mérimée, “Don Pèdre, qui, pendant le combat, s’était jété au plus fort de la mêlée, s’acharna long temps à la poursuite des fuyards. On le voyait galoper dans la plaine, monté sur un cheval noir, sa bannière armoriée de Castille devant lui, cherchant son frère partout où l’on combattait encore, et criant, échauffé par le carnage—‘Où est ce bâtard, qui se nomme roi de Castille?’” (Histoire de Don Pèdre, p. 504.)

Ultimately Don Pedro, blocked up and almost starved out in the castle of Montiel, was entrapped by simulated negotiations into the power of his enemies. He was slain in personal conflict by the dagger of his brother Henri, after a desperate struggle, in which he seemed likely to prevail, if Henri had not been partially aided by a bystander.

This tragical scene (on the night of the 23d of March, 1369) is graphically described by M. Mérimée (p. 564-566).

[99] Xen. Anab. iii, 1, 4. Ὑπισχνεῖτο δὲ αὐτῷ (Ξενοφῶντα Πρόξενος) εἰ ἔλθοι, φίλον Κύρῳ ποιήσειν· ὃν αὐτός ἔφη κρείττω ἑαυτῷ νομίζειν τῆς πατρίδος.

[100] Xen. Anab. ii, 1, 5-7.

[101] We know from Plutarch (Artaxer. c. 13) that Ktesias distinctly asserted himself to have been present at this interview, and I see no reason why we should not believe him. Plutarch indeed rejects his testimony as false, affirming that Xenophon would certainly have mentioned him, had he been there; but such an objection seems to me insufficient. Nor is it necessary to construe the words of Xenophon, ἦν δ᾽ αὐτῶν Φαλῖνος εἶς Ἕλλην, (ii, 1, 7) so strictly as to negative the presence of one or two other Greeks. Phalinus is thus specified because he was the spokesman of the party—a military man.

[102] Xen. Anab. ii, 1, 12 μὴ οὖν οἴου τὰ μόνα ἡμῖν ἀγαθὰ ὄντα ὑμῖν παραδώσειν· ἀλλὰ σὺν τούτοις καὶ περὶ τῶν ὑμετέρων ἀγαθῶν μαχούμεθα.

[103] Xen. Anab. ii, 1, 14-22. Diodorus (xiv, 25) is somewhat copious in his account of the interview with Phalinus. But he certainly followed other authorities besides Xenophon, if even it be true that he had Xenophon before him. The allusion to the past heroism of Leonidas seems rather in the style of Ephorus.

[104] Xen. Anab. ii, 2, 7-9. Koch remarks, however, with good reason, that it is difficult to see how they could get a wolf in Babylonia, for the sacrifice (Zug der Zehn Tausend, p. 51).

[105] Such is the sum total stated by Xenophon himself (Anab. ii, 1, 6). It is greater, by nine days, than the sum total which we should obtain by adding together the separate days’ march specified by Xenophon from Sardis. But the distance from Sardis to Ephesus, as we know from Herodotus, was three days’ journey (Herod. v, 55); and therefore the discrepancy is really only to the amount of six, not of nine. See Krüger ad Anabas. p. 556; Koch, Zug der Z. p. 141.

[106] Colonel Chesney (Euphrates and Tigris, c. ii, p. 208) calculates twelve hundred and sixty-five geographical miles from Sardis to Kunaxa or the Mounds of Mohammed.

[107] For example, we are not told how long they rested at Pylæ, or opposite to Charmandê. I have given some grounds (in the preceding chapter) for believing that it cannot have been less than five days. The army must have been in the utmost need of repose, as well as of provisions.

[108] Xen. Anab. i, 5, 9.

[109] Xen. Anab. ii, 4, 6, 7.

[110] Xen. Anab. ii, 2, 13. Ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἡμέρα ἐγένετο, ἐπορεύοντο ἐν δεξιᾷ ἔχοντες τὸν ἥλιον, λογιζόμενοι ἥξειν ἅμα ἡλίῳ δύνοντι εἰς κώμας τῆς Βαβυλωνίας χώρας· καὶ τοῦτο μὲν οὐκ ἐψεύσθησαν.

Schneider, in his note on this passage, as well as Ritter, (Erdkunde, part. x, 3, p. 17), Mr. Ainsworth (Travels in the Track, p. 103) and Colonel Chesney (Euph. and Tigr. p. 219), understand the words here used by Xenophon in a sense from which I dissent. “When it was day, the army proceeded onward on their march, having the sun on their right hand,”—these words they understand as meaning that the army marched northward; whereas, in my judgment, the words intimate that the army marched eastward. To have the sun on the right hand, does not so much refer either to the precise point where, or to the precise instant when, the sun rises,—but to his diurnal path through the heavens, and to the general direction of the day’s march. This may be seen by comparing the remarkable passage in Herodotus, iv, 42, in reference to the alleged circumnavigation of Africa, from the Red Sea round the Cape of Good Hope to the Straits of Gibraltar, by the Phœnicians under the order of Nekos. These Phœnicians said, “that in sailing round Africa (from the Red Sea) they had the sun on their right hand”—ὡς τὴν Λιβύην περιπλώοντες τὸν ἠέλιον ἐπὶ δεξιᾷ. Herodotus rejects this statement as incredible. Not knowing the phenomena of a southern latitude beyond the tropic of Capricorn, he could not imagine that men in sailing from East to West could possibly have the sun on their right hand; any man journeying from the Red Sea to the Straits of Gibraltar must, in his judgment, have the sun on the left hand, as he himself had always experienced in the north latitude of the Mediterranean or the African coast. See Vol. III. of this History, ch. xviii, p. 282.

In addition to this reason, we may remark, that Ariæus and the Greeks, starting from their camp on the banks of the Euphrates (the place where they had passed the last night but one before the battle of Kunaxa) and marching northward, could not expect to arrive, and could not really arrive, at villages of the Babylonian territory. But they might naturally expect to do so, if they marched eastward, towards the Tigris. Nor would they have hit upon the enemy in a northerly march, which would in fact have been something near to a return upon their own previous steps. They would moreover have been stopped by the undefended Trench, which could only be passed at the narrow opening close to the Euphrates.

[111] Xen. Anab. ii, 2, 20. This seems to have been a standing military jest, to make the soldiers laugh at their past panic. See the references in Krüger and Schneider’s notes.

[112] Diodorus (xvi, 24) tells us that Ariæus intended to guide them towards Paphlagonia; a very loose indication.

[113] Xen. Anab. ii, 3, 7, 13.

[114] Xen. Anab. ii, 3, 14, 17.

[115] Xen. Anab. ii, 3, 18-27.

[116] Ktesiæ Persica, Fragm. c. 59, ed. Bähr; compared with the remarkable Fragment. 18, preserved by the so-called Demetrius Phalêreus: see also Plutarch, Artaxerx. c. 17.

[117] Herodot. i, 193; ii, 108; Strabo, xvii. p. 788.

[118] Xen. Anab. v, 6, 16; Thucyd. vii.

[119] Xen. Anab. ii, 4, 3-8.

[120] Xen. Anab. ii, 4, 12. Διελθόντες δὲ τρεῖς σταθμοὺς, ἀφίκοντο πρὸς τὸ Μηδίας καλούμενον τεῖχος, καὶ παρῆλθον αὐτοῦ εἴσω. It appears to me that these three days’ march or σταθμοὶ can hardly be computed from the moment when they commenced their march under the conduct of Tissaphernes. On the other hand, if we begin from the moment when the Greeks started under conduct of Ariæus, we can plainly trace three distinct resting places (σταθμοὺς) before they reached the Wall of Media. First, at the villages where the confusion and alarm arose (ii, 13-21). Secondly, at the villages of abundant supply, where they concluded the truce with Tissaphernes, and waited twenty days for his return (ii, 3, 14; ii, 4, 9). Thirdly, one night’s halt under the conduct of Tissaphernes, before they reached the Wall of Media. This makes three distinct stations or halting places, between the station (the first station after passing the undefended trench) from whence they started to begin their retreat under the conduct of Ariæus,—and the point where they traversed the Wall of Media.

[121] I reserve for this place the consideration of that which Xenophon states, in two or three passages, about the Wall of Media and about different canals in connection with the Tigris,—the result of which, as far as I can make it out, stands in my text.

I have already stated, in the preceding chapter, that in the march of the day next but one preceding the battle of Kunaxa, the army came to a deep and broad trench dug for defence across their line of way, with the exception of a narrow gut of twenty feet broad close by the Euphrates; through which gut the whole army passed. Xenophon says, “This trench had been carried upwards across the plain as far as the Wall of Media, where indeed, the canals are situated, flowing from the river Tigris; four canals, one hundred feet in breadth, and extremely deep, so that corn-bearing vessels sail along them. They strike into the Euphrates, they are distant each from the other by one parasang, and there are bridges over them—Παρετέτατο δ᾽ ἡ τάφρος ἄνω διὰ τοῦ πεδίου ἐπὶ δώδεκα παράσαγγας, μέχρι τοῦ Μηδίας τείχους, ἔνθα δὴ (the books print a full stop between τείχους and ἔνθα, which appears to me incorrect, as the sense goes on without interruption) εἰσιν αἱ διωρύχες, ἀπὸ τοῦ Τίγρητος ποταμοῦ ῥέουσαι· εἰσὶ δὲ τέτταρες, τὸ μὲν εὖρος πλεθριαῖαι, βαθεῖαι δὲ ἰσχυρῶς, καὶ πλοῖα πλεῖ ἐν αὐταῖς σιταγωγά· εἰσβάλλουσι δὲ εἰς τὸν Εὐφράτην, διαλείπουσι δ᾽ ἑκάστη παρασάγγην, γέφυραι δ᾽ ἔπεισιν. The present tense—εἰσιν αἱ διώρυχες—seems to mark the local reference of ἔνθα to the Wall of Media, and not to the actual march of the army.

Major Rennell (Illustrations of the Expedition of Cyrus, pp. 79-87, etc.), Ritter, (Erdkunde, x, p. 16), Koch, (Zug der Zehn Tausend, pp. 46, 47), and Mr. Ainsworth (Travels in the Track of the Ten Thousand, p. 88) consider Xenophon to state that the Cyreian army on this day’s march (the day but one before the battle) passed through the Wall of Media and over the four distinct canals reaching from the Tigris to the Euphrates. They all, indeed, contest the accuracy of this latter statement; Rennell remarking that the level of the Tigris, in this part of its course, is lower than that of the Euphrates; and that it could not supply water for so many broad canals so near to each other. Col. Chesney also conceives the army to have passed through the Wall of Media before the battle of Kunaxa.

It seems to me, however, that they do not correctly interpret the words of Xenophon, who does not say that Cyrus ever passed either the Wall of Media, or these four canals before the battle of Kunaxa, but who says (as Krüger, De Authentiâ Anabaseos, p. 12, prefixed to his edition of the Anabasis, rightly explains him), that these four canals flowing from the Tigris are at, or near, the Wall of Media, which the Greeks did not pass through until long after the battle, when Tissaphernes was conducting them towards the Tigris, two days’ march before they reached Sittakê (Anab. ii, 4, 12).

It has been supposed, during the last few years, that the direction of the Wall of Media could be verified by actual ruins still subsisting on the spot. Dr. Ross and Captain Lynch (see journal of the Geographical Society, vol. ix. pp. 447-473, with Captain Lynch’s map annexed) discovered a line of embankment which they considered to be the remnant of it. It begins on the western bank of the Tigris, in latitude 34° 3′, and stretches towards the Euphrates in a direction from N. N. E. to S. S. W. “It is a solitary straight single mound, twenty-five long paces thick, with a bastion on its western face at every fifty-five paces; and on the same side it has a deep ditch, twenty-seven paces broad. The wall is here built of the small pebbles of the country, imbedded in cement of lime of great tenacity; it is from thirty-five to forty feet in height, and runs in a straight line as far as the eye can trace it. The Bedouins tell me that it goes in the same straight line to two mounds called Ramelah on the Euphrates, some hours above Felujah; that it is, in places far inland, built of brick, and in some parts worn down to a level with the desert.” (Dr. Ross, l. c. p. 446).

Upon the faith of these observations, the supposed wall (now called Sidd Nimrud by the natives) has been laid down as the Wall of Media reaching from the Tigris to the Euphrates, in the best recent maps, especially that of Colonel Chesney; and accepted as such by recent inquirers.

Nevertheless, subsequent observations, recently made known by Colonel Rawlinson to the Geographical Society, have contradicted the views of Dr. Ross as stated above, and shown that the Wall of Media, in the line here assigned to it, has no evidence to rest upon. Captain Jones, commander of the steamer at Bagdad, undertook, at the request of Colonel Rawlinson a minute examination of the locality, and ascertained that what had been laid down as the Wall of Media was merely a line of mounds; no wall at all, but a mere embankment, extending seven or eight miles from the Tigris, and designed to arrest the winter torrents and drain off the rain water of the desert into a large reservoir, which served to irrigate an extensive valley between the rivers.

From this important communication it results, that there is as yet no evidence now remaining for determining what was the line or position of the Wall of Media; which had been supposed to be a datum positively established, serving as premises from whence to deduce other positions mentioned by Xenophon. As our knowledge now stands, there is not a single point mentioned by Xenophon in Babylonia which can be positively verified, except Babylon itself,—and Pylæ, which is known pretty nearly, as the spot where Babylonia proper commences.

The description which Xenophon gives of the Wall of Media is very plain and specific. I see no reason to doubt that he actually saw it, passed through it, and correctly describes it in height as well as breadth. Its entire length he of course only gives from what he was told. His statement appears to me good evidence that there was a Wall of Media, which reached from the Tigris to the Euphrates, or perhaps to some canal cut from the Euphrates, though there exists no mark to show what was the precise locality and direction of the Wall. Ammianus Marcellinus (xxiv, 2), in the expedition of the emperor Julian, saw near Macepracta, on the left bank of the Euphrates, the ruins of a wall, “which in ancient times had stretched to a great distance for the defence of Assyria against foreign invasion.” It is fair to presume that this was the Wall of Media; but the position of Macepracta cannot be assigned.

It is important, however, to remember,—what I have already stated in this note,—that Xenophon did not see, and did not cross either the Wall of Media, or the two canals here mentioned, until many days after the battle of Kunaxa.

We know from Herodotus that all the territory of Babylonia was intersected by canals, and that there was one canal greater than the rest and navigable, which flowed from the Euphrates to the Tigris, in a direction to the south of east. This coincides pretty well with the direction assigned in Colonel Chesney’s map to the Nahr-Malcha or Regium Flumen, into which the four great canals, described by Xenophon as drawn from the Tigris to the Euphrates, might naturally discharge themselves, and still be said to fall into the Euphrates, of which the Nahr-Malcha was as it were a branch. How the level of the two rivers would adjust itself, when the space between them was covered with a network of canals great and small, and when a vast quantity of the water of both was exhausted in fertilizing the earth, is difficult to say.

The island wherein the Greeks stood, at their position near Sittakê, before crossing the Tigris, would be a parallelogram formed by the Tigris, the Nahr-Malcha, and the two parallel canals joining them. It might well be called a large island, containing many cities and villages, with a large population.

[122] There seems reason to believe that in ancient times the Tigris, above Bagdad, followed a course more to the westward, and less winding, than it does now. The situation of Opis cannot be verified. The ruins of a large city were seen by Captain Lynch near the confluence of the river Adhem with the Tigris, which he supposed to be Opis, in lat. 34°.

[123] Xen. Anab. ii, 4, 26.

[124] Ktesias, Fragm. 18, ed. Bähr.

[125] Xen. Anab. ii, 5, 26-28.

Mannert, Rennell, Mr. Ainsworth, and most modern commentators, identify this town of Καιναὶ or Kænæ with the modern town Senn; which latter place Mannert (Geogr. der Röm. v. p. 333) and Rennell (Illustrations p. 129) represent to be near the Lesser Zab instead of the Greater Zab.

To me it appears that the locality assigned by Xenophon to Καιναὶ, does not at all suit the modern town of Senn. Nor is there much real similarity of name between the two; although our erroneous way of pronouncing the Latin name Caenae, creates a delusive appearance of similarity. Mr. Ainsworth shows that some modern writers have been misled in the same manner by identifying the modern town of Sert with Tigrano-certa.

It is a perplexing circumstance in the geography of Xenophon’s work, that he makes no mention of the Lesser Zab, which yet he must have crossed. Herodotus notices them both, and remarks on the fact that though distinct rivers, both bore the same name (v, 52). Perhaps in drawing up his narrative after the expedition, Xenophon may have so far forgotten, as to fancy that two synonymous rivers mentioned as distinct in his memoranda, were only one.

[126] Xen. Anab. ii, 5, 2-15.

[127] Xen. Anab. ii, 5, 17-23. This last comparison is curious, and in all probability the genuine words of the satrap—τὴν μὲν γὰρ ἐπὶ τῇ κεφαλῇ τιάραν βασιλεῖ μόνῳ ἔξεστιν ὀρθὴν ἔχειν, τὴν δ᾽ ἐπὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ ἴσως ἂν ὑμῶν παρόντων καὶ ἕτερος εὐπετῶς ἔχοι.

[128] Xen. Anab. ii, 5, 30.

[129] Xen. Anab. ii, 6, 1. Ktesiæ Frag. Persica, c. 60, ed. Bähr; Plutarch, Artaxerx. c. 19, 20; Diodor. xiv, 27.

[130] Tacit. Histor. i, 45. “Othoni nondum auctoritas inerat ad prohibendum scelus; jubere jam poterat. Ita, simulatione iræ, vinciri jussum (Marium Celsum) et majores pœnas daturum, affirmans, præsenti exitio subtraxit.”

Ktesias (Persica, c. 60; compare Plutarch and Diodorus as referred to in the preceding note) attests the treason of Menon, which he probably derived from the story of Menon himself. Xenophon mentions the ignominious death of Menon, and he probably derived his information from Ktesias (see Anabasis, ii, 6, 29).

The supposition that it was Parysatis who procured the death of Menon, in itself highly probable, renders all the different statements consistent and harmonious.

[131] Xenophon seems to intimate that there were various stories current, which he does not credit, to the disparagement of Menon,—καὶ τὰ μὲν δὴ ἀφανῆ ἔξεστι περὶ αὐτοῦ ψεύδεσθαι, etc. (Anab. ii, 6, 28).

Athenæus (xi, p. 505) erroneously states that Xenophon affirmed Menon to be the person who caused the destruction of Klearchus by Tissaphernes.

[132] Xenophon in the Cyropædia (viii, 8, 3) gives a strange explanation of the imprudent confidence reposed by Klearchus in the assurance of the Persian satrap. It arose (he says) from the high reputation for good faith which the Persians had acquired by the undeviating and scrupulous honor of the first Cyrus (or Cyrus the Great), but which they had since ceased to deserve, though the corruption of their character had not before publicly manifested itself.

This is a curious perversion of history to serve the purpose of his romance.

[133] Macciavelli, Principe, c. 18, p. 65.

[134] Polyæn. vii, 18.

[135] Xen. Anab. ii, 5, 27, 28.

[136] Compare Anab. ii, 4, 6, 7; ii, 5, 9.

[137] Xen. Anab. ii, 5, 37, 38.

[138] Xen. Anab. iii, 1, 2, 3.

[139] Xen. Anab. iii, 1, 4-11. Ἦν δέ τις ἐν τῇ στρατιᾷ Ξενοφῶν Ἀθηναῖος, ὃς οὔτε στρατηγὸς, etc.

Homer, Iliad, v, 9—

Ἦν δέ τις ἐν Τρώεσσι Δάρης, ἀφνεῖος, ἀμύμων,

Ἱρεὺς Ἡφαίστοιο, etc.

Compare the description of Zeus sending Oneirus to the sleeping Agamemnon, at the beginning of the second book of the Iliad.

[140] Respecting the value of a sign from Zeus Basileus, and the necessity of conciliating him, compare various passages in the Cyropædia, ii, 4, 19; iii, 3, 21; vii, 5, 57.

[141] Xen. Anab. iii, 1, 12, 13. Περίφοβος δ᾽ εὐθὺς ἀνηγέρθη, καὶ τὸ ὄναρ τῆ μὲν ἔκρινεν ἀγαθόν, ὅτι ἐν πόνοις ὢν καὶ κινδύνοις φῶς μέγα ἐκ Διὸς ἰδεῖν ἔδοξε, etc. ... Ὁποῖον τι μὲν δή ἐστι τὸ τοιοῦτον ὄναρ ἰδεῖν, ἔξεστι σκοπεῖν ἐκ τῶν συμβάντων μετὰ τὸ ὄναρ. Γίγνεται γὰρ τάδε. Εὐθὺς ἐπειδὴ ἀνηγέρθη, πρῶτον μὲν ἔννοια αὐτῷ ἐμπίπτει· Τί κατάκειμαι; ἡ δὲ νὺξ προβαίνει· ἅμα δὲ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ εἰκὸς τοὺς πολεμίους ἥξειν, etc.

The reader of Homer will readily recall various passages in the Iliad and Odyssey, wherein the like mental talk is put into language and expanded,—such as Iliad, xi, 403—and several other passages cited or referred to in Colonel Mure’s History of the Language and Literature of Greece, ch. xiv, vol. ii, p. 25 seq.

A vision of light shining brightly out of a friendly house, counts for a favorable sign (Plutarch, De Genio Socratis, p. 587 C.).

[142] Xen. Anab. iii, 1, 16, 25.

“Vel imperatore, vel milite, me utemini.” (Sallust, Bellum Catilinar. c. 20).

[143] Xen. Anab. iii, 1, 26-30. It would appear from the words of Xenophon, that Apollonides had been one of those who had held faint-hearted language (ὑπομαλακιζόμενοι, ii, 1, 14) in the conversation with Phalinus shortly after the death of Cyrus. Hence Xenophon tells him, that this is the second time of his offering such advice—Ἃ σὺ πάντα εἰδὼς, τοὺς μὲν ἀμύνασθαι κελεύοντας φλυαρεῖν φῂς, πείθειν δὲ πάλιν κελεύεις ἰόντας;

This helps to explain the contempt and rigor with which Xenophon here treats him. Nothing indeed could be more deplorable, under the actual circumstances, than for a man “to show his acuteness by summing up the perils around.” See the remarkable speech of Demosthenes at Pylos (Thucyd. iv, 10).

[144] Xen. Anab. iii, 1, 36-46.

[145] Xen. Anab. iii, 2, 25.

Ἀλλὰ γὰρ δέδοικα μή ἂν ἅπαξ μάθωμεν ἀργοὶ ζῆν καὶ ἐν ἀφθόνοις βιοτεύειν, καὶ Μήδων δὲ καὶ Περσῶν καλαῖς καὶ μεγάλαις γυναιξὶ καὶ παρθένοις ὁμιλεῖν, μὴ ὥσπερ οἱ λωτοφάγοι, ἐπιλαθώμεθα τῆς οἴκαδε ὁδοῦ.

Hippokrates (De Aëre, Locis, et Aquis, c. 12) compares the physical characteristics of Asiatics and Europeans, noticing the ample, full-grown, rounded, voluptuous, but inactive forms of the first,—as contrasted with the more compact, muscular, and vigorous type of the second, trained for movement, action, and endurance.

Dio Chrysostom has a curious passage, in reference to the Persian preference for eunuchs as slaves, remarking that they admired even in males an approach to the type of feminine beauty,—their eyes and tastes being under the influence only of aphrodisiac ideas; whereas the Greeks, accustomed to the constant training and naked exercises of the palæstra, boys competing with boys and youths with youths, had their associations of the male beauty attracted towards active power and graceful motion.

Οὐ γὰρ φανερὸν, ὅτι οἱ Πέρσαι εὐνούχους ἐποίουν τοὺς καλοὺς, ὅπως αὐτοῖς ὡς κάλλιστοι ὦσι; Τοσοῦτον διαφέρειν ᾤοντο πρὸς κάλλος τὸ θῆλυ· σχεδὸν καὶ πάντες οἱ βάρβαροι, διὰ τὸ μόνον τὰ ἀφροδίσια ἐννοεῖν. Κἀκεῖνοι γυναικός εἰδος περιτιθέασι τοῖς ἄῤῥεσιν, ἄλλως δ᾽ οὐκ ἐπίστανται ἐρᾷν· ἴσως δὲ καὶ ἡ τροφὴ αἰτία τοῖς Πέρσαις, τῷ μέχρι πολλοῦ τρέφεσθαι ὑπό τε γυναικῶν καὶ εὐνούχων τῶν πρεσβυτέρων· παῖδας δὲ μετὰ παιδῶν, καὶ μειράκια μετὰ μειρακίων μὴ πάνυ συνεῖναι, μηδὲ γυμνοῦσθαι ἐν παλαίστραις καὶ γυμνασίοις, etc. (Orat. xxi, p. 270).

Compare Euripides, Bacchæ, 447 seq.; and the Epigram of Strato in the Anthologia, xxxiv, vol. ii, p. 367 Brunck.

[146] A very meagre abstract is given by Diodorus, of that which passed after the seizure of the generals (xiv, 27). He does not mention the name of Xenophon on this occasion, nor indeed throughout all his account of the march.

[147] Compare the hostile speech of the Corinthian envoy at Sparta, prior to the Peloponnesian war, with the eulogistic funeral oration of Perikles, in the second year of that war (Thucyd. i, 70, 71; ii, 39, 40).

Οἱ μέν γε (εἰσὶ), νεωτεροποιοὶ (description of the Athenians by the Corinthian speaker) καὶ ἐπινοῆσαι ὀξεῖς καὶ ἐπιτελέσαι ἔργῳ ἃ ἂν γνῶσιν· ὑμεῖς δὲ (Lacedæmonians), τὰ ὑπάρχοντά τε σώζειν καὶ ἐπιγνῶναι μηδὲν, καὶ ἔργῳ οὐδὲ τἀναγκαῖα ἐξικέσθαι. Αὖθις δὲ, οἱ μὲν, καὶ παρὰ δύναμιν τολμηταὶ καὶ παρὰ γνώμην κινδυνευταὶ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς δεινοῖς εὐέλπιδες· τὸ δὲ ὑμέτερον, τῆς τεδυνάμεως ἐνδεᾶ πρᾶξαι, τῆς τε γνώμης μηδὲ τοῖς βεβαίοις πιστεῦσαι, τῶν τε δεινῶν μηδέποτε οἴεσθαι ἀπολυθήσεσθαι. Καὶ μὴν καὶ ἄοκνοι πρὸς ὑμᾶς μελλήτας, καὶ ἀποδημηταὶ πρὸς ἐνδημοτάτους, etc.

Again, in the oration of Perikles—Καὶ αὐτοὶ ἤτοι κρίνομεν ἢ ἐνθυμούμεθα ὀρθῶς τὰ πράγματα, οὐ τοὺς λόγους τοῖς ἔργοις βλάβην ἡγούμενοι, ἀλλὰ μὴ προδιδαχθῆναι μᾶλλον λόγῳ, πρότερον ἢ ἐπὶ ἃ δεῖ ἔργῳ ἐλθεῖν. Διαφερόντως μὲν δὴ καὶ τόδε ἔχομεν, ὥστε τολμᾷν τε οἱ αὐτοὶ μάλιστα καὶ περὶ ὧν ἐπιχειρήσομεν ἐκλογίζεσθαι· ὃ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀμαθία μὲν θράσος, λογισμὸς δὲ ὄκνον, φέρει.

[148] Compare the observations of Perikles, in his last speech to the Athenians about the inefficiency of the best thoughts, if a man had not the power of setting them forth in an impressive manner (Thucyd. ii, 60). Καίτοι ἐμοὶ τοιούτῳ ἀνδρὶ ὀργίζεσθε, ὃς οὐδενὸς οἴομαι ἥσσων εἶναι γνῶναί τε τὰ δέοντα καὶ ἑρμηνεῦσαι ταῦτα, φιλόπολίς τε καὶ χρημάτων κρείττων· ὅ τε γὰρ γνοὺς καὶ μὴ σαφῶς διδάξας, ἐν ἵσῳ καὶ εἰ μὴ ἐνεθυμήθη, etc.

The philosopher and the statesman at Athens here hold the same language. It was the opinion of Sokrates—μόνους ἀξίους εἶναι τιμῆς τοὺς εἰδότας τὰ δέοντα, καὶ ἑρμηνεῦσαι δυναμένους (Xenoph. Mem. i, 2, 52).

A striking passage in the funeral harangue of Lysias (Orat. ii, Epitaph. s. 19) sets forth the prevalent idea of the Athenian democracy—authoritative law, with persuasive and instructive speech, as superseding mutual violence (νόμος and λόγος, as the antithesis of βία). Compare a similar sentiment in Isokrates (Or. iv, (Panegyr.) s. 53-56).

[149] See the speech of Perikles (Thuc. ii, 60-64). He justifies the boastful tone of it, by the unwonted depression against which he had to contend on the part of his hearers—Δελώσω δὲ καὶ τόδε ὅ μοι δοκεῖτε οὔτ᾽ αὐτοὶ πώποτε ἐνθυμηθῆναι ὑπάρχον ὑμῖν μεγέθους περὶ ἐς τὴν ἀρχὴν οὔτ᾽ ἐγὼ ἐν τοῖς πρὶν λόγοις, οὐδ᾽ ἂν νῦν ἐχρησάμην κομπωδεστέραν ἔχοντι τὴν προσποίησιν, εἰ μὴ καταπεπληγμένους ὑμᾶς παρὰ τὸ εἰκὸς ἑώρων.

This is also the proper explanation of Xenophon’s tone.

[150] In a passage of the Cyropædia (v. 5, 46), Xenophon sets forth in a striking manner the combination of the λεκτικὸς καὶ πρακτικός—Ὥσπερ καὶ ὅταν μάχεσθαι δέῃ, ὁ πλείστους χειρωσάμενος ἀλκιμώτατος δοξάζεται εἶναι, οὕτω καὶ ὅταν πεῖσαι δέῃ, ὁ πλέιστους ὁμογνώμονας ἡμῖν ποιήσας οὗτος δικαίως ἂν λεκτικώτατος καὶ πρακτικώτατος κρίνοιτο ἂν εἶναι. Μὴ μέντοι ὡς λόγον ἡμῖν ἐπιδειξόμενοι, οἷον ἂν εἴποιτε πρὸς ἕκαστον αὐτῶν, τοῦτο μελετᾶτε—ἀλλ᾽ ὡς τοὺς πεπεισμένους ὑφ᾽ ἑκάστου δήλους ἐσομένους οἷς ἂν πράττωσιν, ὅυτω παρασκευάζεσθε.

In describing the duties of a Hipparch or commander of the cavalry, Xenophon also insists upon the importance of persuasive speech, as a means of keeping up the active obedience of the soldiers—Εἴς γε μὴν τὸ εὐπειθεῖς εἶναι τοὺς ἀρχομένους, μέγα μὲν καὶ τὸ λόγῳ διδάσκειν, ὅσα ἀγαθὰ ἔνι ἐν τῷ πειθαρχεῖν, etc. (Xen. Mag. Eq. i, 24).

[151] See Xenoph. Anab. v, 6, 25.

[152] Xen. Anab. iii, 3, 6; iii, 5, 43.

[153] Xen. Anab. ii, 5, 1. Ainsworth. Travels and Researches in Asia Minor, etc. vol. ii, ch. 44, p. 327; also his Travels in the Track of the Ten Thousand, p. 119-134.

Professor Koch, who speaks with personal knowledge both of Armenia and of the region east of the Tigris, observes truly that the Great Zab is the only point (east of the Tigris) which Xenophon assigns in such a manner as to be capable of distinct local identification. He also observes, here as elsewhere, that the number of parasangs specified by Xenophon is essentially delusive as a measure of distance (Zug der Zehn Tausend, p. 64).

[154] Xen. Anab. iii, 3, 9.

[155] Xen. Anab. iii, 4, 1-5.

[156] Xen. Anab. iii, 4, 17, 18. It is here, on the site of the ancient Nineveh, that the recent investigations of Mr. Layard have brought to light so many curious and valuable Assyrian remains. The legend which Xenophon heard on the spot, respecting the way in which these cities were captured and ruined, is of a truly Oriental character.

[157] Xen. Anab. iii, 4, 19-23.

I incline to believe that there were six lochi upon each flank—that is, twelve lochi in all; though the words of Xenophon are not quite clear.

[158] Xen. Anab. iii, 4-25. Compare Herodot. vii, 21, 56, 103.

[159] Professor Koch (Zug der Zehn Tausend, p. 68) is of the same opinion.

[160] Xen. Anab. iii, 4, 35; see also Cyropædia, iii, 3, 37.

The Thracian prince Seuthes was so apprehensive of night attack, that he and his troops kept their horses bridled all night (Xen. Anab. vii, 2, 21.)

Mr. Kinneir (Travels in Asia Minor, etc., p. 481) states that the horses of Oriental cavalry, and even of the English cavalry in Hindostan, are still kept tied and shackled at night, in the same way as Xenophon describes to have been practised by the Persians.

[161] Xen. Anab. iii, 4, 36-49; iii, 5, 3.

[162] Xen. Anab. iii, 5; iv, 1, 3. Probably the place where the Greeks quitted the Tigris to strike into the Karduchian mountains, was the neighborhood of Jezireh ibn Omar, the ancient Bezabde. It is here that farther march, up the eastern side of the Tigris, is rendered impracticable by the mountains closing in. Here the modern road crosses the Tigris by a bridge, from the eastern bank to the western (Koch, Zug der Zehn Tausend, p. 72).

[163] Xen. Anab. iv, 1, 12.

[164] Xen. Anab. iv, 3, 19-30.

[165] Xen. Anab. iv, 1, 18; iv, 2, 28.

[166] Xen. Anab. iv, 1, 21.

[167] Xen. Anab. iv, 2, 4.

[168] Xen. Anab. iv, 3, 17-21.

[169] Xen. Anab. iv, 3, 23.

[170] Xen. Anab. iv, 3, 2. His expressions have a simple emphasis which marks how unfading was the recollection of what he had suffered in Karduchia.

Καὶ οἱ Ἕλληνες ἐνταῦθα ἀνεπαύσαντο ἄσμενοι ἰδόντες πεδίον· ἀπεῖχε δὲ τῶν ὀρέων ὁ ποταμὸς ἓξ ἢ ἕπτα στάδια τῶν Καρδούχων. Τότε μὲν οὖν ηὐλίσθησαν μάλα ἡδέως, καὶ τὰ ἐπιτήδεια ἔχοντες καὶ πολλὰ τῶν παρεληλυθότων πόνων μνημονεύοντες. Ἕπτα γὰρ ἡμέρας, ὅσασπερ ἐπορεύθησαν διὰ τῶν Καρδούχων, πάσας μαχόμενοι διετέλεσαν, καὶ ἔπαθον κακὰ ὅσα οὐδὲ τὰ σύμπαντα ὑπὸ βασιλέως καὶ Τισσαφέρνους. Ὡς οὖν ἀπηλλαγμένοι τούτων ἡδέως ἐκοιμήθησαν.

[171] Xen. Anab. iv, 4, 1.

[172] Xen. Anab. iv, 3, 6-13.

[173] Xen. Anab. iv, 3, 17.

... ἔθεντο τὰ ὅπλα, καὶ αὐτὸς πρῶτος Χειρίσοφος, στεφανωσάμενος καὶ ἀποδὺς, ἐλάμβανε τὰ ὅπλα, καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις πᾶσι παρήγγελλε.

I apprehend that the words τὸν στέφανον are here to be understood after ἀποδὺς—not the words τὰ ὅπλα, as Krüger in his note seems to imagine. It is surely incredible, that in the actual situation of the Grecian army, the soldiers should be ordered first to disarm, and then to resume their arms. I conceive the matter thus:—First, the order is given, to ground arms; so that the shield is let down and drops upon the ground, sustained by the left hand of the soldier upon its upper rim; while the spear, also resting on the ground, is sustained by the shield and by the same left hand. The right hand of the soldier being thus free, he is ordered first to wreath himself (the costume usual in offering sacrifice)—next, to take off his wreath—lastly, to resume his arms.

Probably the operations of wreathing and unwreathing, must here have been performed by the soldiers symbolically, or by gesture, raising the hand to the head, as if to crown it. For it seems impossible that they could have been provided generally with actual wreaths, on the banks of the Kentritês, and just after their painful march through the Karduchian mountains. Cheirisophus himself, however, had doubtless a real wreath, which he put on and took off; so probably had the prophets and certain select officiating persons.

[174] Xen. Anab. iv, 3, 20-25.

[175] Xen. Anab. iv, 3, 30.

[176] Xen. Anab. iv, 3, 31-34; iv, 4, 1.

[177] Xen. Anab. iv, 4, 11.

[178] Xen. Anab. iv, 5, 2.

The recent editors, Schneider and Krüger, on the authority of various MSS., read here ἐπορεύθησαν—ἐπὶ τὸν Εὐφράτην ποταμόν. The old reading was, as it stands in Hutchinson’s edition, παρὰ τὸν Εὐφράτην ποταμόν.

This change may be right, but the geographical data are here too vague to admit of any certainty. See my Appendix annexed to this chapter.

[179] Xen. Anab. iv, 5, 4.

Ἔνθα δὴ τῶν μάντέων τις εἶπε σφαγιάσασθαι τῷ Ἀνέμῳ· καὶ πᾶσι δὴ περιφανῶς ἔδοξε λῆξαι τὸ χαλεπὸν τοῦ πνεύματος.

The suffering of the army from the terrible snow and cold of Armenia are set forth in Diodorus, xiv, 28.

[180] Xen. Anab. v, 8, 8-11.

[181] Xen. Anab. iv, 5, 8-22.

[182] Xen. Anab. iv, 5, 26. Κάλαμοι γόνατα οὐκ ἔχοντες.

This Armenian practice of sucking the beer through a reed, to which the observation of modern travellers supplies analogies (see Krüger’s note), illustrates the Fragment of Archilochus (No. 28, ed. Schneidewin, Poetæ Græc. Minor).

ὥσπερ αὐλῷ βρύτον ἢ Θρῆιξ ἀνὴρ

ἢ Φρὺξ ἔβρυζε, etc.

The similarity of Armenian customs to those of the Thracians and Phrygians, is not surprising.

[183] Xen. Anab. iv, 5, 26-36.

[184] Xen. Anab. iv. 6, 1-3.

[185] Xen. Anab. iv, 6, 4.

[186] Xen. Anab. iv, 6, 10-14.

Καὶ οὐκ αἰσχρὸν εἶναι, ἀλλὰ καλὸν κλέπτειν, etc. The reading καλὸν is preferred by Schneider to ἀναγκαῖον, which has been the vulgar reading, and is still retained by Krüger. Both are sanctioned by authority of MSS., and either would be admissible; on the whole, I incline to side with Schneider.

[187] Xen. Anab. iv, 6, 16.

Ἀλλὰ μέντοι, ἔφη ὁ Χειρίσοφος, κἀγὼ ὑμᾶς τοὺς Ἀθηναίους ἀκούω δεινοὺς εἶναι κλέπτειν τὰ δημόσια, καὶ μάλα ὄντος δεινοῦ τοῦ κινδύνου τῷ κλέπτοντι, καὶ τοὺς κρατίστους μέντοι μάλιστα, εἴπερ ὑμῖν οἱ κράτιστοι ἄρχειν ἀξιοῦνται· ὥστε ὥρα καὶ σοὶ ἐπιδείκνυσθαι τὴν παίδειαν.

[188] See Vol. VII, ch. lxi, p. 401 seq.

[189] Xen. Anab. iv, 6, 20-27.

[190] Xen. Anab. iv, 7, 2-15.

[191] Xen. Anab. iv, 7, 18.

[192] Diodorus (xiv, 29) calls the mountain Χήνοιν—Chenium. He seems to have had Xenophon before him in his brief description of this interesting scene.

[193] Xen. Anab. iv, 7, 23-27.

[194] Xen. Anab. iv, 8, 4-7.

[195] Xen. Anab. iv, 8, 15-22. Most modern travellers attest the existence, in these regions, of honey intoxicating and poisonous, such as Xenophon describes. They point out the Azalea Pontica, as the flower from which the bees imbibe this peculiar quality. Professor Koch, however, calls in question the existence of any honey thus naturally unwholesome near the Black Sea. He states (Zug der Zehn Tausend, p. 111) that after careful inquiries he could find no trace of any such. Not contradicting Xenophon, he thinks that the honey which the Greeks ate must have been stale or tainted.

[196] Xen. Anab. iv, 8, 23-27.

A curious and interesting anecdote in Plutarch’s Life of Alexander, (c. 41) attests how much these Hetæræ accompanying the soldiers (women for the most part free), were esteemed in the Macedonian army, and by Alexander himself among the rest. A Macedonian of Ægæ named Eurylochus, had got himself improperly put on a list of veterans and invalids, who were on the point of being sent back from Asia to Europe. The imposition was detected, and on being questioned he informed Alexander that he had practised it in order to be able to follow a free Hetæra named Telesippa, who was about to accompany the departing division. “I sympathize with your attachment, Eurylochus (replied Alexander); let us see whether we cannot prevail upon Telesippa either by persuasion or by presents, since she is of free condition, to stay behind” (Ἡμᾶς μὲν, ὦ Εὐρύλοχε, συνερῶντας ἔχεις· ὅρα δὲ ὅπως πείθωμεν ἢ λόγοις ἢ δώροις τὴν Τελεσίππαν, ἐπειδήπερ ἐξ ἐλευθέρας ἐστί).

[197] Strabo, xii, p. 542; Xen. Anab. iv, 8, 24.

[198] Strabo. xii, p. 545, 546.

[199] Xen. Anab. v, 6, 8.

[200] Xen. Anab. v, 5, 23.

[201] Plutarch, Perikles, c. 20.

[202] Xen. Anab. v, 3, 3; v, 7, 9. The maximum of the Grecian force, when mustered at Issus after the junction of those three hundred men who deserted from Abrokomas, was thirteen thousand nine hundred men. At the review in Babylonia, three days before the battle of Kunaxa, there were mustered, however, only twelve thousand nine hundred (Anab. i, 7, 10).

[203] Xen. Anab. vi, 2, 8.

Τῶν γὰρ στρατιωτῶν ὁι πλεῖστοι ἦσαν οὐ σπάνει βίου ἐκπεπλευκότες ἐπὶ ταύτην τὴν μισθοφορὰν, ἀλλὰ τὴν Κύρου ἀρετὴν ἀκούοντες, οἱ μὲν καὶ ἄνδρας ἄγοντες, οἱ δὲ καὶ προσανηλωκότες χρήματα, καὶ τούτων ἕτεροι ἀποδεδρακότες πατέρας καὶ μητέρας, οἱ δὲ καὶ τέκνα καταλιπόντες, ὡς χρήματα αὐτοῖς κτησάμενοι ἥξοντες πάλιν, ἀκούοντες καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους τοὺς παρὰ Κύρῳ πολλὰ καὶ ἀγαθὰ πράττειν. Τοιοῦτοι οὖν ὄντες ἐπόθουν εἶς τὴν Ἑλλάδα σώζεσθαι.

This statement respecting the position of most of the soldiers is more authentic, as well as less disparaging, than that of Isokrates (Orat. iv, Panegyr. s. 170).

In another oration, composed about fifty years after the Cyreian expedition, Isokrates notices the large premiums which it had been formerly necessary to give to those who brought together mercenary soldiers, over and above the pay to the soldiers themselves (Isokrates, Orat. v. ad Philipp. s. 112); as contrasted with the over-multiplication of unemployed mercenaries during his own later time (Ibid. s. 142 seq.)

[204] Xen. Anab. v, 1, 3-13.

Ὁρῶ δ᾽ ἐγὼ πλοῖα πολλάκις παραπλέοντα, etc. This is a forcible proof how extensive was the Grecian commerce with the town and region of Phasis, at the eastern extremity of the Euxine.

[205] Xen. Anab v. 1, 15.

[206] Xen. Anab. v. 2.

[207] Xen. Anab. v, 3, 3. Mr. Kinneir (Travels in Asia Minor, p. 327) and many other authors, have naturally presumed from the analogy of name that the modern town Kerasoun (about long. 38° 40′) corresponds to the Kerasus of Xenophon; which Arrian in his Periplus conceives to be identical with what was afterwards called Pharnakia.

But it is remarked both by Dr. Cramer (Asia Minor, vol. i, p. 281) and by Mr. Hamilton (Travels in Asia Minor, ch. xv, p. 250), that Kerasoun is too far from Trebizond to admit of Xenophon having marched with the army from the one place to the other in three days; or even in less than ten days, in the judgment of Mr. Hamilton. Accordingly Mr. Hamilton places the site of the Kerasus of Xenophon much nearer to Trebizond (about long. 39° 20′, as it stands in Kiepert’s map of Asia Minor,) near a river now called the Kerasoun Dere Sú.

[208] It was not without great difficulty that Mr. Kinneir obtained horses to travel from Kotyôra to Kerasoun by land. The aga of the place told him that it was madness to think of travelling by land, and ordered a felucca for him; but was at last prevailed on to furnish horses. There seems, indeed, to have been no regular or trodden road at all; the hills approach close to the sea, and Mr. Kinneir “travelled the whole of the way along the shore alternately over a sandy beach and a high wooded bank. The hills at intervals jutting out into the sea, form capes and numerous little bays along the coast; but the nature of the country was still the same, that is to say, studded with fine timber, flowers, and groves of cherry trees” (Travels in Asia Minor, p. 324).

Kerasus is the indigenous country of the cherry tree, and the origin of its name.

Professor Koch thinks, that the number of days’ march given by Xenophon (ten days) between Kerasus and Kotyôra, is more than consists with the real distance, even if Kerasus be placed where Mr. Hamilton supposes. If the number be correctly stated, he supposes that the Greeks must have halted somewhere (Zug der Zehn Tausend. p. 115. 116).

[209] Xen. Anab. v, 5, 3.

[210] Xen. Anab. v, 7, 18-25.

[211] Xen. Anab. v, 5, 7-12.

[212] Xen. Anab. v, 5, 13-22.

[213] Xen. Anab. v, 6, 4-11.

[214] Xen. Anab. v, 6, 14.

[215] Xen. Anab. v, 6, 19; vi, 1, 2.

[216] Xen. Anab. vi, 4, 8; vi, 2, 4.

[217] Xen. Anab. v, 6, 15-30; vi, 2, 6; vii, 1, 25, 29.

Haken and other commentators do injustice to Xenophon when they ascribe to him the design of seizing the Greek city of Kotyôra.

[218] Xen. Memorab. i, 1, 8, 9. Ἔφη δὲ (Sokrates) δεῖν, ἃ μὲν μαθόντας ποιεῖν ἔδωκαν οἱ θεοὶ, μανθάνειν· ἃ δὲ μὴ δῆλα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἐστὶ, πειρᾶσθαι διὰ μαντικῆς παρὰ τῶν θεῶν πυνθάνεσθαι· τοὺς θεοὺς γὰρ, οἷς ἂν ὦσιν ἰλέω, σημαίνειν.

Compare passages in his Cyropædia, i, 6, 3; De Officio Magistr. Equit. ix, 9.

“The gods (says Euripides, in the Sokratic vein) have given us wisdom to understand and appropriate to ourselves the ordinary comforts of life; in obscure or unintelligible cases, we are enabled to inform ourselves by looking at the blaze of the fire, or by consulting prophets who understand the livers of sacrificial victims and the flight of birds. When they have thus furnished so excellent a provision for life, who but spoilt children can be discontented, and ask for more? Yet still human prudence, full of self-conceit, will struggle to be more powerful, and will presume itself to be wiser, than the gods.”

Ἃ δ᾽ ἔστ᾽ ἄσημα, κοὐ σαφῆ, γιγνώσκομεν

Εἰς πῦρ βλέποντες, καὶ κατὰ σπλάγχνων πτύχας

Μάντεις προσημαίνουσιν οἰωνῶν τ᾽ ἄπο.

Ἆρ᾽ οὐ τρυφῶμεν, θεοῦ κατασκευὴν βίου

Δόντος τοιαύτην, οἷσιν οὐκ ἀρκεῖ τάδε;

Ἀλλ᾽ ἡ φρόνησις τοῦ θεοῦ μεῖζον σθένειν

Ζητεῖ· τὸ γαῦρον δ᾽ ἐν χεροῖν κεκτημένοι

Δοκοῦμεν εἶναι δαιμόνων σοφώτεροι (Supplices, 211).

It will be observed that this constant outpouring of special revelations, through prophets, omens, etc., was (in the view of these Sokratic thinkers) an essential part of the divine government; indispensable to satisfy their ideas of the benevolence of the gods; since rational and scientific prediction was so habitually at fault and unable to fathom the phenomena of the future.

[219] Xen. Anab. v. 6, 29.

[220] Though Xenophon accounted sacrifice to be an essential preliminary to any action of dubious result, and placed great faith in the indications which the victims offered, as signs of the future purposes of the gods,—he nevertheless had very little confidence in the professional prophets. He thought them quite capable of gross deceit (See Xen. Cyrop. i, 6, 2, 3; compare Sophokles, Antigone, 1035, 1060; and Œdip. Tyrann. 387).

[221] Xen. Anab. v, 6, 19-26.

[222] Xen. Anab. v, 6, 30-33.

[223] Xen. Anab. v, 6, 34; vi, 4, 13.

[224] Xen. Anab. v, 6, 36.

I may here note that this Phasis in the Euxine means the town of that name, not the river.

[225] Xen. Anab. v, 7, 1-3.

Ἐπεὶ δὲ ᾐσθάνετο ὁ Ξενοφῶν, ἔδοξεν αὐτῷ ὡς τάχιστα συναγαγεῖν αὐτῶν ἀγορὰν, καὶ μὴ ἐᾶσαι συλλεγῆναι αὐτομάτους· καὶ ἐκέλευε τὸν κήρυκα συλλέξαι ἀγοράν.

The prudence of Xenophon in convoking the assembly at once is incontestable. He could not otherwise have hindered the soldiers from getting together, and exciting one another to action, without any formal summons.

The reader should contrast with this the scene at Athens (described in Thucydides, ii, 22; and in Vol. VI, Ch. xlviii, p. 133 of this History) during the first year of the Peloponnesian war, and the first invasion of Attica by the Peloponnesians; when the invaders were at Acharnæ, within sight of the walls of Athens, burning and destroying the country. In spite of the most violent excitement among the Athenian people, and the strongest impatience to go out and fight, Perikles steadily refused to call an assembly, for fear that the people should take the resolution of going out. And what was much more remarkable—the people even in that state of excitement though all united within the walls, did not meet in any informal assembly, nor come to any resolution, or to any active proceeding; which the Cyreians would certainly have done, had they not been convened in a regular assembly.

The contrast with the Cyreian army here illustrates the extraordinary empire exercised by constitutional forms over the minds of the Athenian citizens.

[226] Xen. Anab. v, 7, 7-11.

[227] Xen. Anab. v, 7, 13-26.

[228] Xen. Anab. v, 7, 26-27. Εἰ οὖν ταῦτα τοιαῦτα ἔσται, θεάσασθε οἵα ἡ κατάστασις ἡμῖν ἔσται τῆς στρατιᾶς. Ὑμεῖς μὲν οἱ πάντες οὐκ ἔσεσθε κύριοι, οὔτ᾽ ἀνελέσθαι πόλεμον ᾧ ἂν βούλησθε, οὔτε καταλῦσαι· ἰδίᾳ δὲ ὁ βουλόμενος ἄξει στράτευμα ἐφ᾽ ὅ,τι ἂν ἐθέλῃ. Κἄν τινες πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἴωσι πρέσβεις, ἢ εἰρήνης δεόμενοι ἢ ἄλλου τινός, κατακαίνοντες τούτους οἱ βουλόμενοι, ποιήσουσιν ὑμᾶς τῶν λόγων μὴ ἀκοῦσαι τῶν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἰόντων. Ἔπειτα δὲ, οὓς μὲν ἂν ὑμεῖς ἅπαντες ἔλησθε ἄρχοντας, ἐν οὐδεμίᾳ χώρᾳ ἔσονται· ὅστις δ᾽ ἂν ἑαυτὸν ἕληται στρατηγὸν, καὶ ἐθέλῃ λέγειν, Βάλλε, Βάλλε, οὗτος ἔσται ἱκανὸς καὶ ἄρχοντα κατακαίνειν καὶ ἰδιώτην ὃν ἂν ὑμῶν ἐθέλῃ ἄκριτον—ἂν ὦσιν οἱ πεισόμενοι αὐτῷ, ὥσπερ καὶ νῦν ἐγένετο.

[229] Xen. Anab. v, 7, 27-30.

[230] Xen. Anab. v, 7, 34, 35.

[231] Xen. Anab. v, 7, 35.

Παραινοῦντος δὲ Ξενοφῶντος, καὶ τῶν μάντεων συμβουλευόντων, ἔδοξε καὶ καθᾶραι τὸ στράτευμα· καὶ ἐγένετο καθαρμός· ἔδοξε δὲ καὶ τοὺς στρατηγοὺς δίκην ὑποσχεῖν τοῦ παρεληλυθότος χρόνου.

In the distribution of chapters as made by the editors, chapter the eighth is made to begin at the second ἔδοξε, which seems to me not convenient for comprehending the full sense. I think that the second ἔδοξε, as well as the first, is connected with the words παραινοῦντος Ξενοφῶντος, and ought to be included not only in the same chapter with them, but also in the same sentence, without an intervening full stop.

[232] Xen. Anab. v, 8, 3-12.

[233] Xen. Anab. v, 8, 16. ἔπαισα πὺξ, ὅπως μὴ λόγχῃ ὑπὸ τῶν πολεμίων παίοιτο.

[234] The idea that great pugilists were not good soldiers in battle, is as old among the Greeks as the Iliad. The unrivalled pugilist of the Homeric Grecian army, Epeius, confesses his own inferiority as a soldier (Iliad, xxiii 667).

Ἆσσον ἴτω, ὅστις δέπας οἴσεται ἀμφικύπελλον·

Ἡμίονον δ᾽ οὔ φημί τιν᾽ ἄξεμεν ἄλλον Ἀχαιῶν,

Πυγμῇ νικήσαντ᾽· ἐπεὶ εὔχομαι εἶναι ἄριστος.

Ἦ οὐχ ἅλις, ὅ,ττι μάχης ἐπιδεύομαι; οὐδ᾽ ἄρα πως ἦν

Ἐν πάντεσσ᾽ ἔργοισι δαήμονα φῶτα γενέσθαι.

[235] Xen. Anab. v, 8, 13-25.

[236] See the striking remarks of Thucydides (ii, 65) upon Perikles.

[237] Xen. Anab. vi, 1, 2. Πέμπει παρὰ τοὺς Ἕλληνας πρέσβεις, ἔχοντας ἵππους καὶ στολὰς καλάς, etc.

The horses sent were doubtless native Paphlagonian; the robes sent were probably the produce of the looms of Sinôpê and Kotyôra; just as the Thracian princes used to receive fine woven and metallic fabrics from Abdêra and the other Grecian colonies on their coast—ὑφαντὰ καὶ λεῖα, καὶ ἡ ἄλλη κατασκευὴ, etc. (Thucyd. ii, 96). From the like industry probably proceeded the splendid “regia textilia” and abundance of gold and silver vessels, captured by the Roman general Paulus Emilius along with Perseus the last king of Macedonia (Livy, xlv, 33-35).

[238] Xen. Anab. vi, 1, 10-14.

[239] Xen. Anab. vi, 1, 22-31.

[240] Xen. Anab. vi, 1, 32.

[241] Xen. Anab. vi, 2, 11-16.

[242] Xenoph. Anab. vi. 3, 10-25; vi, 4, 11.

[243] Xen. Anab. vi, 5.

[244] Xen. Anab. vi, 6, 1-5.

[245] Xen. Anab. vi, 6, 5-9.

[246] Xen. Anab. vi, 1, 32; vi, 4, 11-15.

[247] Xen. Anab. vi, 6, 12, 13.

Εἰσὶ μὲν γὰρ ἤδη ἐγγὺς αἱ Ἑλληνίδες πόλεις· τῆς δ᾽ Ἑλλάδος Λακεδαιμόνιοι προεστήκασιν· ἱκανοὶ δέ εἰσι καὶ εἶς ἕκαστος Λακεδαιμονίων ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν ὅ,τι βούλονται διαπράττεσθαι. Εἰ οὖν οὗτος πρῶτον μὲν ἡμᾶς Βυζαντίου ἀποκλείσει, ἔπειτα δὲ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἁρμοσταῖς παραγγελεῖ εἰς τὰς πόλεις μὴ δέχεσθαι, ὡς ἀπιστοῦντας Λακεδαιμονίοις καὶ ἀνόμους ὄντας—ἔτι δὲ πρὸς Ἀναξίβιον τὸν ναύαρχον οὗτος ὁ λόγος περὶ ἡμῶν ἥξει—χαλεπὸν ἔσται καὶ μένειν καὶ αποπλεῖν· καὶ γὰρ ἐν τῇ γῇ ἄρχουσι Λακεδαιμόνιοι καὶ ἐν τῇ θαλάττῃ τὸν νῦν χρόνον.

[248] Xen. Anab. vi, 6, 12-16.

[249] Xen. Anab. vi, 6, 22-28.

[250] Xen. Anab. vi, 6, 31-36.

[251] Xen. Anab. vi, 6, 36, 37.

[252] Nearly the same cross march was made by the Athenian general Lamachus, in the eighth year of the Peloponnesian war, after he had lost his triremes by a sudden rise of the water at the mouth of the river Kalex, in the territory of Herakleia (Thucyd. iv, 75).

[253] Xen. Anab. vii, 1, 2. Πέμψας πρὸς Ἀναξίβιον τὸν ναύαρχον, ἐδεῖτο διαβιβάσαι τὸ στράτευμα ἐκ τῆς Ἀσίας, καὶ ὑπισχνεῖτο πάντα ποιήσειν αὐτῷ ὅσα δέοι.

Compare vii, 2, 7, when Anaxibius demanded in vain the fulfilment of this promise.

[254] Xen. Anab. vii, 1, 5-7.

[255] Xen. Anab. vii, 1, 7-10. Ἀλλ᾽ ὁμῶς (ἔφη), ἐγώ σοι συμβουλεύω ἐξελθεῖν ὡς πορευσόμενον· ἐπειδὰν δ᾽ ἔξω γένηται τὸ στράτευμα, τότε ἀπαλλάττεσθαι.

[256] Xen. Anab. vii, 1, 12.

[257] Xen. Anab. vii, 1, 13.

[258] Xen. Anab. vii, 1, 14.

[259] Xen. Anab. vii, 1, 15-17.

[260] Xen. Anab. vii, 1, 18, 19.

[261] Xen. Anab. vii, 1, 30-31.

[262] Xen. Anab. viii, 1, 32-35.

[263] So Tacitus says about the Roman general Spurinna (governor of Placentia for Otho against Vitellius), and his mutinous army who marched out to fight the Vitellian generals against his strenuous remonstrance—“Fit temeritatis alienæ comes Spurinna, primo coactus, mox velle simulans, quo plus auctoritatis inesset consiliis, si seditio mitesceret” (Tacitus, Hist. ii, 18).

[264] Xen. Anab. vii, 6, 33.

[265] Xen. Anab. vii, 1, 34-40.

[266] Xen. Anab. vii, 2, 7. Φαρνάβαζος δὲ, ἐπεὶ ᾔσθετο Ἀρίσταρχόν τε ἥκοντα εἰς Βυζάντιον ἁρμοστὴν καὶ Ἀναξίβιον οὐκέτι ναυαρχοῦντα, Ἀναξιβίου μὲν ἠμέλησε, πρὸς Ἀρίσταρχον δὲ διεπράττετο τὰ αὐτὰ περὶ τοῦ Κυρείου στρατεύματος ἅπερ καὶ πρὸς Ἀναξίβιον.

[267] Xen. Anab. vii, 2, 8-25.

Ἐκ τούτου δὴ ὁ Ἀναξίβιος, καλέσας Ξενοφῶντα, κελεύει πάσῃ τέχνῃ καὶ μηχανῇ πλεῦσαι ἐπὶ τὸ στράτευμα ὡς τάχιστα, καὶ συνέχειν τε τὸ στράτευμα καὶ συναθροίζειν τῶν διεσπαρμένων ὡς ἂν πλείστους δύνηται, καὶ παραγαγόντα εἰς τὴν Πέρινθον διαβιβάζειν εἰς τὴν Ἀσίαν ὅτι τάχιστα· καὶ δίδωσιν αὐτῷ τριακόντορον, καὶ ἐπιστολὴν καὶ ἄνδρα συμπέμπει κελεύσοντα τοὺς Περινθίους ὡς τάχιστα Ξενοφῶντα προπέμψαι τοῖς ἵπποις ἐπὶ τὸ στράτευμα.

The vehement interest which Anaxibius took in this new project is marked by the strength of Xenophon’s language; extreme celerity is enjoined three several times.

[268] Xen. Anab. vii, 2, 6. Καὶ ὁ Ἀναξίβιος τῷ μὲν Ἀριστάρχῳ ἐπιστέλλει ὁπόσους ἂν εὕροι ἐν Βυζαντίῳ τῶν Κύρου στρατιωτῶν ὑπολελειμμένους, ἀποδόσθαι· ὁ δὲ Κλέανδρος οὐδένα ἐπεπράκει, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς κάμνοντας ἐθεράπευεν οἰκτείρων, καὶ ἀναγκάζων οἰκίᾳ δέχεσθαι. Ἀρίσταρχος δ᾽ ἐπεὶ ἦλθε τάχιστα, οὐκ ἐλάττους τετρακοσίων ἀπέδοτο.

[269] Xen. Anab. vii, 2, 14-16.

Ἥδη δὲ ὄντων πρὸς τῷ τείχει, ἐξαγγέλλει τις τῷ Ξενοφῶντι ὅτι, εἰ εἴσεισι, συλληφθήσεται· καὶ ἢ αὐτοῦ τι πείσεται, ἢ καὶ Φαρναβάζῳ, παραδοθήσεται. Ὁ δὲ, ἀκούσας ταῦτα, τοὺς μὲν προπέμπεται, αὐτὸς δ᾽ εἶπεν, ὅτι θῦσαί τι βούλοιτο.... Οἱ δὲ στρατηγοὶ καὶ οἱ λοχαγοὶ ἥκοντες παρὰ τοῦ Ἀριστάρχου, ἀπήγγελλον ὅτι νῦν μὲν ἀπιέναι σφᾶς κελεύει, τῆς δείλης δὲ ἥκειν· ἔνθα καὶ δήλη μᾶλλον ἐδόκει [εἶναι] ἡ ἐπιβουλή. Compare vii, 3, 2.

[270] Xen. Anab. vii, 2, 15; vii, 3, 3; vii, 6, 13.

[271] Xen. Anab. vii, 6, 24. μέσος δὲ χείμων ἦν, etc. Probably the month of December.

[272] Xen. Anab. vii, 2, 17-38.

[273] Xen. Anab. vii, 6, 34.

[274] Xen. Anab. vii, 6, 9, 10.

[275] Xen. Anab. vii, 7, 55-57.

[276] Xen. Anab. vii, 6, 1-7.

[277] Xen. Anab. vii, 7, 15.

[278] Xen. Anab. vii, 7, 21-47.

The lecture is of unsuitable prolixity, when we consider the person to whom, and the circumstances under which, it purports to have been spoken.

[279] Xen. Anab. vii, 7, 23.

[280] It appears that the epithet Meilichios (the Gracious) is here applied to Zeus in the same euphemistic sense as the denomination Eumenides to the avenging goddesses. Zeus is conceived as having actually inflicted, or being in a disposition to inflict, evil; the sacrifice to him under this surname represents a sentiment of fear, and is one of atonement, expiation or purification, destined to avert his displeasure; but the surname itself is to be interpreted proleptice, to use the word of the critics—it designates, not the actual disposition of Zeus (or of other gods), but that disposition which the sacrifice is intended to bring about in him.

See Pausan. i, 37, 3; ii, 20, 3. K. F. Herrmann, Gottesdienstl. Alterthümer der Griechen, s. 58; Van Stegeren, De Græcorum Diebus Festis, p. 5 (Utrecht, 1849).

[281] Xen. Anab. vii, 8, 10-19.

[282] Xen. Anab. vii, 8, 22. Ἐνταῦθα οἱ περὶ Ξενοφῶντα συμπεριτυγχάνουσιν αὐτῷ καὶ λαμβάνουσιν αὐτὸν (Ἀσιδάτην) καὶ γυναῖκα καὶ παῖδας καὶ τοὺς ἵππους καὶ πάντα τὰ ὄντα· καὶ οὕτω τὰ πρότερα ἱερὰ ἀπέβη.

[283] Compare Plutarch, Kimon, c. 9; and Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 21.

[284] Xen. Anab. vii, 8, 23.

Ἐνταῦθα τὸν θεὸν οὐκ ᾐτιάσατο ὁ Ξενοφῶν· συνέπραττον γὰρ καὶ οἱ Λάκωνες καὶ οἱ λοχαγοὶ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι στρατηγοὶ καὶ οἱ στρατιῶται, ὥστε ἐξαίρετα λαβεῖν καὶ ἵππους καὶ ζεύγη καὶ ἄλλα, ὥστε ἱκανὸν εἶναι καὶ ἄλλον ἤδη εὖ ποιεῖν.

[285] Xen. Anab. v, 3, 6. It seems plain that this deposit must have been first made on the present occasion.

[286] Compare Anabasis, vii, 7, 57; vii, 8, 2.

[287] Xenoph. Memorab. iv, 8, 4—as well as the opening sentence of the work.

[288] See Xenoph. Hellen. iii, 2, 7—a passage which Morus refers, I think with much probability, to Xenophon himself.

The very circumstantial details, which Xenophon gives (iii, 1, 11-28) about the proceedings of Derkyllidas against Meidias in the Troad, seem also to indicate that he was serving there in person.

[289] That the sentence of banishment on Xenophon was not passed by the Athenians until after the battle of Korôneia, appears plainly from Anabasis, v. 3, 7. This battle took place in August 394 B.C.

Pausanias also will be found in harmony with this statement, as to the time of the banishment. Ἐδιώχθη δὲ ὁ Ξενοφῶν ὑπὸ Ἀθηναίων, ὡς ἐπὶ βασιλέα τῶν Περσῶν, σφίσιν εὔνουν ὄντα, στρατείας μετασχὼν Κύρῳ πολεμιωτάτῳ τοῦ δήμου (iv, 6, 4). Now it was not until 396 or 395 B.C., that the Persian king began to manifest the least symptoms of good-will towards Athens; and not until the battle of Knidus (a little before the battle of Korôneia in the same year), that he testified his good-will by conspicuous and effective service. If, therefore, the motive of the Athenians to banish Xenophon arose out of the good feeling on the part of the king of Persia toward them, the banishment could not have taken place before 395 B.C., and is not likely to have taken place until after 394 B.C.; which is the intimation of Xenophon himself as above.

Lastly, Diogenes Laërtius (ii, 52) states, what I believe to be the main truth, that the sentence of banishment was passed against Xenophon by the Athenians on the ground of his attachment to the Lacedæmonians—ἐπὶ Λακωνισμῷ.

Krüger and others seem to think that Xenophon was banished because he took service under Cyrus, who had been the bitter enemy of Athens. It is true that Sokrates, when first consulted, was apprehensive beforehand that this might bring upon him the displeasure of Athens (Xen. Anab. iii, 1, 5). But it is to be remembered that at this time, the king of Persia was just as much the enemy of Athens as Cyrus was; and that Cyrus in fact had made war upon her with the forces and treasures of the king. Artaxerxes and Cyrus being thus, at that time, both enemies of Athens, it was of little consequence to the Athenians whether Cyrus succeeded or failed in his enterprise. But when Artaxerxes, six years afterwards, became their friend, their feelings towards his enemies were altered.

The passage of Pausanias as above cited, if understood as asserting the main cause of Xenophon’s banishment, is in my judgment inaccurate. Xenophon was banished for Laconism, or attachment to Sparta against his country; the fact of his having served under Cyrus against Artaxerxes counted at best only as a secondary motive.

[290] Xen. Anab. v, 3, 13. Καὶ στήλη ἔστηκε παρὰ τὸν ναὸν, γράμματα ἔχουσα—Ἱερὸς ὁ Χῶρος τῆς Αρτέμιδος· τὸν δὲ ἔχοντα καὶ καρπούμενον τὴν μὲν δεκάτην καταθύειν ἑκάστου ἔτους, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ περίττου τόν ναὸν ἐπισκευάζειν· ἐὰν δέ τις μὴ ποιῇ ταῦτα, τῇ θεῷ μελήσει.

[291] Xen. Hellen. vi, 5, 2.

[292] Xen. Anab. v, 3, 9. Παρεῖχε δ᾽ ἡ θεὸς τοῖς σκηνοῦσιν ἄλφιτα ἄρτους, οἶνον, τραγήματα, etc.

[293] Xen. Anab. v. 3, 9.

[294] Diogen. Laërt. ii, 53, 54, 59. Pausanias (v, 6, 4) attests the reconquest of Skillus by the Eleians, but adds (on the authority of the Eleian ἐξηγηταὶ or show guides) that they permitted Xenophon, after a judicial examination before the Olympic Senate, to go on living there in peace. The latter point I apprehend to be incorrect.

The latter works of Xenophon (De Vectigalibus, De Officio Magistri Equitum, etc.), seem plainly to imply that he had been restored to citizenship, and had come again to take cognizance of politics at Athens.

[295] Diogen. Laërt. ut sup. Dionys. Halic. De Dinarcho, p. 664, ed. Reiska. Dionysius mentions this oration under the title of Ἀποστασίου ἀπολογία Αἰσχύλου πρὸς Ξενοφῶντα. And Diogenes also alludes to it—ὥς φησι Δείναρχος ἐν τῷ πρὸς Ξενοφῶντα ἀποστασίου.

Schneider in his Epimetrum (ad calcem Anabaseos, p. 573), respecting the exile of Xenophon, argues as if the person against whom the oration of Deinarchus was directed, was Xenophon himself, the Cyreian commander and author. But this, I think, is chronologically all but impossible; for Deinarchus was not born till 361 B.C., and composed his first oration in 336 B.C.

Yet Deinarchus, in his speech against Xenophon, undoubtedly mentioned several facts respecting the Cyreian Xenophon, which implies that the latter was a relative of the person against whom the oration was directed. I venture to set him down as grandson, on that evidence, combined with the identity of name and the suitableness in point of time. He might well be the son of Gryllus, who was slain fighting at the battle of Mantineia in 362 B.C.

Nothing is more likely than that an orator, composing an oration against Xenophon the grandson, should touch upon the acts and character of Xenophon the grandfather; see for analogy, the oration of Isokrates, de Bigis; among others.

[296] Xen. Anab. i, 7, 4. Compare Plutarch, Artaxerx. c. 20; and Isokrates, Panegyr. Or. iv, s. 168, 169 seq.

The last chapter of the Cyropædia of Xenophon (viii, 20, 21-26) expresses strenuously the like conviction, of the military feebleness and disorganization of the Persian empire, not defensible without Grecian aid.

[297] Isokrates, Orat. v, (Philipp.) s. 104-106. ἤδη δ᾽ ἐγκρατεῖς δοκοῦντας εἶναι (i. e. the Greeks under Klearchus) διὰ τὴν Κύρου προπέτειαν ἀτυχῆσαι, etc.

[298] Isokrates. Orat. v. (Philipp.) s. 141: Xen. Hellen. vi, 1, 12.

[299] See the stress laid by Alexander the Great upon the adventures of the Ten Thousand, in his speech to encourage his soldiers before the battle of Issus (Arrian, E. A. ii, 7, 8).

[300] Xen. Hellen. ii, 3, 1.

[301] Plutarch, Lysand. c. 5.

[302] Xen. Hellen. ii, 2, 6.

[303] These Councils of Ten, organized by Lysander, are sometimes called Dekarchies—sometimes Dekadarchies. I use the former word by preference; since the word Dekadarch is also employed by Xenophon in another and very different sense—as meaning an officer who commands a dekad.

[304] Plutarch, Lysand. c. 13.

Καταλυών δὲ τοὺς δήμους καὶ τὰς ἄλλας πολιτείας, ἕνα μὲν ἁρμοστὴν ἑκάστῃ Λακεδαιμόνιον κατέλιπε, δέκα δὲ ἄρχοντας ἐκ τῶν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ συγκεκροτημένων κατὰ πόλιν ἑταιρειῶν. Καὶ ταῦτα πράττων ὁμοίως ἔν τε ταῖς πολεμίαις καὶ ταῖς συμμάχοις γεγενημέναις πόλεσι, παρέπλει σχολαίως τρόπον τινα κατασκευαζόμενος ἑαυτῷ τὴν τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἡγεμονίαν. Compare Xen. Hellen. ii, 2, 2-5; Diodor. xiii, 3, 10, 13.

[305] Plutarch, Lysand. c. 13. πολλαῖς παραγινόμενος αὐτὸς σφαγαῖς καὶ συνεκβάλλων τοὺς τῶν φίλων ἐχθροὺς, οὐκ ἐπιεικὲς ἐδίδου τοῖς Ἕλλησι δεῖγμα τῆς Λακεδαιμονίων ἀρχῆς, etc.

Plutarch, Lysand. c. 14. Καὶ τῶν μὲν ἄλλων πόλεων ὁμαλῶς ἁπασῶν κατέλυε τὰς πολιτείας καὶ καθίστη δεκαδαρχίας· πολλῶν μὲν ἐν ἑκάστῃ σφαττομένων, πολλῶν δὲ φευγόντων, etc.

About the massacre at Thasus, see Cornelius Nepos, Lysand. c. 2; Polyæn. i, 45, 4. Compare Plutarch, Lysand. c. 19; and see Vol. VIII, Ch. lxv, p. 220 of this History.

[306] Diodor. xiv, 10. Compare Isokrates, Or. iv, (Panegyr.) s. 151; Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 1.

[307] Plutarch, Lysand. c. 13. τοῦ Λυσάνδρου τῶν ὀλίγων τοῖς θρασυτάτοις καὶ φιλονεικοτάτοις τὰς πόλεις ἐγχειρίζοντος.

[308] Xen. Hellen. ii, 3, 13.

... ἔπεισαν Λύσανδρον φρουροὺς σφίσι ξυμπρᾶξαι ἐλθεῖν, ἕως δὴ τοὺς πονηροὺς ἐκποδὼν ποιησάμενοι καταστήσαιντο τὴν πολιτείαν, etc.

[309] Xen. Hellen. ii, 3, 14. Τῶν δὲ φρουρῶν τούτου (the harmost) συμπέμποντος αὐτοῖς οὓς ἐβούλοντο συνελάμβανον οὐκέτι τοὺς πονηροὺς καὶ ὀλίγου ἀξίους, ἀλλ᾽ ἤδη οὓς ἐνόμιζον ἥκιστα μὲν παρωθουμένους ἀνέχεσθαι, ἀντιπράττειν δέ τι ἐπιχειροῦντας πλείστους τοὺς συνεθέλοντας λαμβάνειν.

[310] Xen. Hellen. ii, 3, 21.

[311] Xen. Hellen. ii, 4, 1.

[312] Xen. Hellen. ii, 3, 24-32. Καὶ εἰσὶ μὲν δήπου πᾶσαι μεταβολαὶ πολιτειῶν θανατήφοροι, etc.

[313] Isokrates Orat. iv, (Panegyr.) s. 127-132 (c. 32).

He has been speaking, at some length, and in terms of energetic denunciation, against the enormities of the dekarchies. He concludes by saying—Φυγὰς δὲ καὶ στάσεις καὶ νόμων συγχύσεις καὶ πολιτειῶν μεταβολὰς, ἔτι δὲ παιδῶν ὕβρεις καὶ γυναικῶν αἰσχύνας καὶ χρημάτων ἁρπαγὰς, τίς ἂν δύναιτο διεξελθεῖν· πλὴν τοσοῦτον εἰπεῖν ἔχω καθ᾽ ἁπάντων, ὅτι τὰ μὲν ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν δεινὰ ῥᾳδίως ἄν τις ἑνὶ ψηφίσματι διέλυσε, τὰς δὲ σφαγὰς καὶ τὰς ἀνομίας τὰς ἐπὶ τούτων γενομένας οὐδεὶς ἂν ἰάσασθαι δύναιτο.

See also, of the same author, Isokrates, Orat. v, (Philipp.) s. 110; Orat. viii, (de Pace) s. 119-124; Or. xii, (Panath.) s. 58, 60, 106.

[314] We may infer that if Xenophon had heard anything of the sort respecting Kritias, he would hardly have been averse to mention it; when we read what he says (Memorab. i, 2, 29.) Compare a curious passage about Kritias in Dion. Chrysostom. Or. xxi, p. 270.

[315] Plutarch Lysand. c. 19. Ἦν δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι δημοτικῶν φόνος οὐκ ἀριθμητὸς, ἅτε δὴ μὴ κατ᾽ ἰδίας μόνον αἰτίας αὐτοῦ κτείνοντος, ἀλλὰ πολλαῖς μὲν ἔχθραις, πολλαῖς δὲ πλεονεξίαις, τῶν ἑκασταχόθι φίλων χαριζομένου τὰ τοιαῦτα καὶ συνεργοῦντος; also Pausanias, vii, 10, 1; ix, 32, 6.

[316] Plutarch, Agesilaus, c. 7.

[317] See the speech of the Theban envoys at Athens, about eight years after the surrender of Athens (Xen. Hellen. iii, 5, 13).

... Οὐδὲ γὰρ φυγεῖν ἐξῆν (Plutarch, Lysand. c. 19).

[318] Xen. Hellen. ii, 3, 13.

τὸν μὲν Καλλίβιον ἐθεράπευον πάσῃ θεραπείᾳ, ὡς πάντα ἐπαινοίῃ, ἃ πράττοιεν, etc. (Plutarch, Lysand. c. 15).

The Thirty seem to have outdone Lysander himself. A young Athenian of rank, distinguished as a victor in the pankratium, Autolykus,—having been insulted by Kallibius, resented it, tripped him up, and threw him down. Lysander, on being appealed to, justified Autolykus, and censured Kallibius, telling him that he did not know how to govern freemen. The Thirty, however, afterwards put Autolykus to death, as a means of courting Kallibius (Plutarch, Lysand. c. 15). Pausanius mentions Eteonikus (not Kallibius) as the person who struck Autolykus; but he ascribes the same decision to Lysander (ix, 32, 3).

[319] Plutarch, Amator. Narration, p. 773; Plutarch, Pelopidas, c. 20. In Diodorus (xv, 54) and Pausanias, (ix, 13, 2), the damsels thus outraged are stated to have slain themselves. Compare another story in Xenoph. Hellen. v, 4, 56, 57.

[320] Plutarch, Lysand. c. 19.

[321] This seems to have been the impression not merely of the enemies of Sparta, but even of the Spartan authorities themselves. Compare two remarkable passages of Thucydides, i, 77, and i, 95. Ἄμικτα γὰρ (says the Athenian envoy at Sparta) τά τε καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς αὐτοὺς νόμιμα τοῖς ἄλλοις ἔχετε, καὶ προσέτι εἷς ἕκαστος ἐξιὼν οὔτε τούτοις χρῆται, οὐθ᾽ οἷς ἡ ἄλλη Ἑλλὰς νομίζει.

After the recall of the regent Pausanias and of Dorkis from the Hellespont (in 477 B.C.), the Lacedæmonians refuse to send out any successor, φοβούμενοι μὴ σφίσιν οἱ ἐξιόντες χείρους γίγνωνται, ὅπερ καὶ ἐν τῷ Παυσανίᾳ ἐνεῖδον, etc. (i, 95.)

Compare Plutarch, Apophtheg. Laconic. p. 220 F.

[322] Thucyd. i, 69. οὐ γὰρ ὁ δουλωσάμενος, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ δυνάμενος μὲν παῦσαι, περιορῶν δὲ, ἀληθέστερον αὐτὸ δρᾷ, εἴπερ καὶ τὴν ἀξίωσιν τῆς ἀρετῆς ὡς ἐλευθερῶν τὴν Ἑλλάδα φέρεται.

To the like purpose the second speech of the Corinthian envoys at Sparta, c. 122-124—μὴ μέλλετε Ποτιδαιάταις τε ποιεῖσθαι τιμωρίαν. ... καὶ τῶν ἄλλων μετελθεῖν τὴν ἐλευθερίαν, etc.

[323] Thucyd. i, 139. Compare Isokrates, Or. iv, Panegyr. c. 34, s. 140; Or. v, (Philipp.) s. 121; Or. xiv, (Plataic.) s. 43.

[324] Thucyd. ii, 72. Παρασκευὴ δὲ τόσηδε καὶ πόλεμος γεγένηται αὐτῶν ἕνεκα καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἐλευθερώσεως.

Read also the speech of the Theban orator, in reply to the Platæan, after the capture of the town by the Lacedæmonians (iii, 63).

[325] Thucyd. ii, 8. ἡ δὲ εὔνοια παρὰ πολὺ ἐποίει τῶν ἀνθρώπων μᾶλλον ἐς τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους, ἄλλως τε καὶ προειπόντων ὅτι τὴν Ἑλλάδα ἐλευθεροῦσιν.

See also iii, 13, 14—the speech of the envoys from the revolted Mitylênê, to the Lacedæmonians.

The Lacedæmonian admiral Alkidas with his fleet, is announced as crossing over the Ægean to Ionia for the purpose of “liberating Greece;” accordingly, the Samian exiles remonstrate with him for killing his prisoners, as in contradiction with that object (iii, 32)—ἔλεγον οὐ καλῶς τὴν Ἑλλάδα ἐλευθεροῦν αὐτὸν, εἰ ἄνδρας διέφθειρεν, etc.

[326] Thucyd. iv, 85. Ἡ μὲν ἔκπεμψίς μου καὶ τῆς στρατιᾶς ὑπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων, ὦ Ἀκάνθιοι, γεγένηται τὴν αἰτίαν ἐπαληθεύουσα ἣν ἀρχόμενοι τοῦ πολέμου προείπομεν, Ἀθηναίοις ἐλευθεροῦντες τὴν Ἑλλάδα πολεμήσειν.

[327] Thucyd. iv, 85. Αὐτός τε οὐκ ἐπὶ κακῷ, ἐπ᾽ ἐλευθερώσει δὲ τῶν Ἑλλήνων παρελήλυθα, ὅρκοις τε Λακεδαιμονίων καταλαβὼν τὰ τέλη τοῖς μεγίστοις, ἦ μὴν οὓς ἂν ἔγωγε προσαγάγωμαι ξυμμάχους ἔσεσθαι αὐτονόμους.... Καὶ εἴ τις ἰδίᾳ τινὰ δεδιὼς ἄρα, μὴ ἐγώ τισι προσθῶ τὴν πόλιν, ἀπρόθυμός ἐστι, πάντων μάλιστα πιστευσάτω. Οὐ γὰρ συστασιάσων ἥκω, οὐδὲ ἀσαφῆ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν νομίζω ἐπιφέρειν, εἰ, τὸ πάτριον παρεὶς, τὸ πλέον τοῖς ὀλίγοις, ἢ τὸ ἔλασσον τοῖς πᾶσι, δουλώσαιμι. Χαλεπώτερα γὰρ ἂν τῆς ἀλλοφύλου ἀρχῆς εἴη, καὶ ἡμῖν τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις οὐκ ἂν ἀντὶ πόνων χάρις καθίσταιτο, ἀντὶ δὲ τιμῆς καὶ δόξης αἰτία μᾶλλον· οἷς τε τοὺς Ἀθηναίους ἐγκλήμασι καταπολεμοῦμεν, αὐτοὶ ἂν φαινοίμεθα ἐχθίονα ἢ ὁ μὴ ὑποδείξας ἀρετὴν κατακτώμενοι.

[328] Thucyd. iv, 87. Οὐδὲ ὀφείλομεν οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι μὴ κοινοῦ τινος αγαθοῦ αἰτίᾳ τοὺς μὴ βουλομένους ἐλευθεροῦν. Οὐδ᾽ αὖ ἀρχῆς ἐφιέμεθα, παῦσαι δὲ μᾶλλον ἑτέρους σπεύδοντες τοὺς πλείους ἂν ἀδικοῖμεν, εἰ ξύμπασιν αὐτονομίαν ἐπιφέροντες ὑμᾶς τοὺς ἐναντιουμένους περιΐδοιμεν. Compare Isokrates, Or. iv, (Panegyr.) s. 140, 141.

[329] Feelings of the Lacedæmonians during the winter immediately succeeding the great Syracusan catastrophe (Thuc. viii. 2)—καὶ καθελόντες ἐκείνους (the Athenians) αὐτοὶ τῆς πάσης Ἑλλάδος ἤδη ἀσφαλῶς ἡγήσεσθαι.

[330] Compare Thucyd. viii, 43, 3; viii, 46, 3.

[331] This is emphatically set forth in a fragment of Theopompus the historian, preserved by Theodorus Metochita, and printed at the end of the collection of the Fragments of Theopompus the historian, both by Wichers and by M. Didot. Both these editors, however, insert it only as Fragmentum Spurium, on the authority of Plutarch (Lysander, c. 13), who quotes the same sentiment from the comic writer Theopompus. But the passage of Theodorus Metochita presents the express words Θεόπομπος ὁ ἱστορικός. We have, therefore, his distinct affirmation against that of Plutarch; and the question is, which of the two we are to believe.

Now if any one will read attentively the so-called Fragmentum Spurium as it stands at the end of the collections above referred to, he will see (I think) that it belongs much more naturally to the historian than to the comic writer. It is a strictly historical statement, illustrated by a telling, though coarse, comparison. The Fragment is thus presented by Theodorus Metochita (Fragm. Theopomp. 344, ed. Didot).

Θεόπομπος ὁ ἱστορικὸς ἀποσκώπτων εἰς τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους, εἴκαζεν αὐτοὺς ταῖς φαύλαις καπηλίσιν, αἳ τοῖς χρωμένοις ἐγχέουσαι τὴν ἀρχὴν οἶνον ἡδύν τε καὶ εὔχρηστον σοφιστικῶς ἐπὶ τῇ λήψει τοῦ ἀργυρίου, μεθύστερον φαυλόν τινα καὶ ἐκτροπίαν καὶ ὀξίνην κατακρινῶσι καὶ παρέχονται· καὶ τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους τοίνυν ἔλεγε, τὸν αὐτὸν ἐκείναις τρόπον, ἐν τῷ κατὰ τῶν Ἀθηναίων πολέμῳ, τὴν ἀρχὴν ἡδίστῳ πόματι τῆς ἀπ᾽ Ἀθηναίων ἐλευθερίας καὶ προγράμματι καὶ κηρύγματι τοὺς Ἕλληνας δελεάσαντας, ὕστερον πικρότατα σφίσιν ἐγχέαι καὶ ἀηδέστατα κράματα βιοτῆς ἐπωδύνου καὶ χρήσεως πραγμάτων ἀλγεινῶν, πάνυ τοι κατατυραννοῦντας τὰς πόλεις δεκαρχίαις καὶ ἁρμοσταῖς βαρυτάτοις, καὶ πραττομένους, ἃ δυσχερὲς εἶναι σφόδρα καὶ ἀνύποιστον φέρειν, καὶ ἀποκτιννύναι.

Plutarch, ascribing the statement to the comic Theopompus, affirms him to be silly (ἔοικε ληρεῖν) in saying that the Lacedæmonian empire began by being sweet and pleasant, and afterwards was corrupted and turned into bitterness and oppression; whereas the fact was, that it was bitterness and oppression from the very first.

Now if we read the above citation from Theodorus, we shall see that Theopompus did not really put forth that assertion which Plutarch contradicts as silly and untrue.

What Theopompus stated was, that the first Lacedæmonians, during the war against Athens, tempted the Greeks with a most delicious draught and programme and proclamation of freedom from the rule of Athens,—and that they afterwards poured in the most bitter and repulsive mixtures of hard oppression and tyranny, etc.

The sweet draught is asserted to consist—not, as Plutarch supposes, in the first taste of the actual Lacedæmonian empire after the war, but—in the seductive promises of freedom held out by them to the allies during the war. Plutarch’s charge of ἔοικε ληρεῖν has thus no foundation. I have written δελεάσαντας instead of δελεάσοντας which stands in Didot’s Fragment, because it struck me that this correction was required to construe the passage.

[332] Isokrates, Or. iv, (Panegr.) s. 145; Or. viii, (de Pace) s. 122; Diodor. xiv, 10-44; xv, 23. Compare Herodot. v, 92; Thucyd. i, 18; Isokrates, Or. iv, (Panegyr.) s. 144.

[333] Isokrates, Panathen. s. 61. Σπαρτιᾶται μὲν γὰρ ἔτη δέκα μόλις ἐπεστάτησαν αὐτῶν, ἡμεῖς δὲ πέντε καὶ ἑξήκοντα συνεχῶς κατέσχομεν τὴν ἀρχήν. I do not hold myself bound to make out the exactness of the chronology of Isokrates. But here we may remark that his “hardly ten years” is a term, though less than the truth by some months, if we may take the battle of Ægospotami as the beginning, is very near the truth if we take the surrender of Athens as the beginning, down to the battle of Knidus.

[334] Pausanias, viii, 52, 2; ix, 6, 1.

[335] Diodor. xiv, 84; Isokrates, Orat. viii, (de Pace) s. 121.

[336] Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 2.

Lysander accompanied King Agesilaus (when the latter was going to his Asiatic command in 396 B.C.). His purpose was—ὅπως τὰς δεκαρχίας τὰς κατασταθείσας ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν, ἐκπεπτωκυίας δὲ διὰ τοὺς ἐφόρους, οἱ τὰς πατρίους πολιτείας παρήγγειλαν, πάλιν καταστήσειε μετ᾽ Ἀγησιλάου.

It shows the careless construction of Xenophon’s Hellenica, or perhaps his reluctance to set forth the discreditable points of the Lacedæmonian rule, that this is the first mention which he makes (and that too, indirectly) of the dekarchies, nine years after they had been first set up by Lysander.

[337] Compare the two passages of Xenophon’s Hellenica, iii, 4, 7; iii, 5, 13.

Ἅτε συντεταραγμένων ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι τῶν πολιτειῶν, καὶ οὔτε δημοκρατίας ἔτι οὔσης, ὥσπερ ἐπ᾽ Ἀθηναίων, οὔτε δεκαρχίας, ὥσπερ ἐπὶ Λυσάνδρου.

But that some of these dekarchies still continued, we know from the subsequent passage. The Theban envoys say to the public assembly at Athens, respecting the Spartans:—

Ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ οὓς ὑμῶν ἀπέστησαν φανεροί εἰσιν ἐξηπατηκότες· ὑπό τε γὰρ τῶν ἁρμοστῶν τυραννοῦνται, καὶ ὑπὸ δέκα ἀνδρῶν, οὓς Λύσανδρος κατέστησεν ἐν ἑκάστῃ πόλει—where the decemvirs are noted as still subsisting, in 395 B.C. See also Xen. Agesilaus, i, 37.

[338] Xen. Hellen. iii, 5, 15.

[339] Xen. Anab. vi, 6, 12. Εἰσὶ μὲν γὰρ ἤδη ἐγγὺς αἱ Ἑλληνίδες πόλεις· (this was spoken at Kalpê in Bithynia) τῆς δὲ Ἑλλάδος Λακεδαιμόνιοι προεστήκασιν· ἱκανοὶ δέ εἰσι καὶ εἷς ἕκαστος Λακεδαιμονίων ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν ὅ,τι βούλονται διαπράττεσθαι.

[340] Xen. Hellen. iii, 1, 5. Πᾶσαι γὰρ τότε αἱ πόλεις ἐπείθοντο, ὅ,τι Λακεδαιμόνιος ἀνὴρ ἐπιτάττοι.

[341] Thucyd. i, 68-120.

[342] Thucyd. iii, 9; iv, 59-85; vi, 76.

[343] See the remarkable speech of Phrynichus in Thucyd. viii, 48, 5, which I have before referred to.

[344] Xen. Hellen. ii, 3, 14. Compare the analogous case of Thebes, after the Lacedæmonians had got possession of the Kadmeia (v. 2, 34-36).

[345] Such is the justification offered by the Athenian envoy at Sparta, immediately before the Peloponnesian war (Thucyd. i, 75, 76). And it is borne out in the main by the narrative of Thucydides himself (i, 99).

[346] Xen. Hellen. iii, 1, 3. πάσης τὴς Ἑλλάδος προστάται, etc.

[347] Xen. Hellen. ii, 4, 28-30.

[348] Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 2.

[349] Plutarch, Lysand. c. 19, 20, 21.

The facts, which Plutarch states respecting Lysander, cannot be reconciled with the chronology which he adopts. He represents the recall of Lysander at the instance of Pharnabazus, with all the facts which preceded it, as having occurred prior to the reconstitution of the Athenian democracy, which event we know to have taken place in the summer of 403 B.C.

Lysander captured Samos in the latter half of 404 B.C., after the surrender of Athens. After the capture of Samos, he came home in triumph, in the autumn of 404 B.C. (Xen. Hellen. iii, 3, 9). He was at home, or serving in Attica, in the beginning of 403 B.C. (Xen. Hellen. ii, 4, 30).

Now when Lysander came home at the end of 404 B.C., it was his triumphant return; it was not a recall provoked by complaints of Pharnabazus. Yet there can have been no other return before the restoration of the democracy at Athens.

The recall of Lysander must have been the termination, not of this command, but of a subsequent command. Moreover, it seems to me necessary, in order to make room for the facts stated respecting Lysander as well as about the dekarchies, that we should suppose him to have been again sent out (after his quarrel with Pausanias in Attica) in 403 B.C., to command in Asia. This is nowhere positively stated, but I find nothing to contradict it, and I see no other way of making room for the facts stated about Lysander.

It is to be noted that Diodorus has a decided error in chronology as to the date of the restoration of the Athenian democracy. He places it in 401 B.C. (Diod. xiv, 33), two years later than its real date, which is 403 B.C.; thus lengthening by two years the interval between the surrender of Athens and the reëstablishment of the democracy. Plutarch also seems to have conceived that interval as much longer than it really was.

[350] Plutarch, Lysand. c. 25.

[351] Plutarch, Lysander, c. 2.

[352] Thucyd. viii, 5, 18-37, 56-58, 84.

[353] Plutarch, Lysander, c. 19, 20; Xen. Hellen. iii, 1, 9.

[354] Xen. Hellen. iii, 1, 13.

[355] Xen. Anab. i, 1, 8.

[356] Xen. Anab. ii, 3, 19; ii, 4, 8; Xen. Hellen. iii, 1, 3; iii, 3, 13.

[357] Diodor. xiv, 35.

[358] Diodor. ut sup.

[359] Xen. Hellen. iii, 1, 5-8; Xen. Anab. vii, 8, 8-16.

[360] Xen. Hellen. iii, 1, 8; Diodor. xiv, 38.

[361] There is no positive testimony to this; yet such is my belief, as I have stated at the close of the last chapter. It is certain that Xenophon was serving under Agesilaus in Asia three years after this time; the only matter left for conjecture is, at what precise moment he went out the second time. The marked improvement in the Cyreian soldiers, is one reason for the statement in the text; another reason is, the great detail with which the military operations of Derkyllidas are described, rendering it probable that the narrative is from an eye-witness.

[362] Xen. Hellen. iii, 1, 8; Ephorus, ap. Athenæ. xi, p. 500.

[363] Xen. Hellen. iii, 1, 9. ἐστάθη τὴν ἀσπίδα ἔχων.

[364] Xen. Hellen. iii, 1, 10; iii, 2, 28.

[365] See the description of the satrapy of Cyrus (Xenoph. Anab. i, 9, 19, 21, 22). In the main, this division and subdivision of the entire empire into revenue-districts, each held by a nominee responsible for payment of the rent or tribute, to the government or to some higher officer of the government—is the system prevalent throughout a large portion of Asia to the present day.

[366] Xen. Hellen. iii, 1, 10. Ἀναζεύξασα τὸν στόλον, καὶ χρήματα λαβοῦσα, ὥστε καὶ αὐτῷ Φαρναβάζῳ δοῦναι, καὶ ταῖς παλλακίσιν αὐτοῦ χαρίσασθαι καὶ τοῖς δυναμένοις μάλιστα παρὰ Φαρναβάζῳ, ἐπορεύετο.

[367] Xen. Hellen. iii, 1, 15.

[368] Herod. viii, 69.

[369] Such is the emphatic language of Xenophon (Hellen. iii, 1, 14)—Μειδίας, θυγατρὸς ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς ὢν, ἀναπτερωθεὶς ὑπό τινων, ὡς αἰσχρὸν εἴη, γυναῖκα μὲν ἄρχειν, αὐτὸν δ᾽ ἰδιώτην εἶναι, τοὺς μὲν ἄλλους μάλα φυλαττομένης αὐτῆς, ὥσπερ ἐν τυραννίδι προσήκει, ἐκείνῳ δὲ πιστευούσης καὶ ἀσπαζομένης, ὥσπερ ἂν γυνὴ γαμβρὸν ἀσπάζοιτο,—εἰσελθὼν ἀποπνῖξαι αὐτὴν λέγεται.

For the illustration of this habitual insecurity in which the Grecian despot lived, see the dialogue of Xenophon called Hieron (i, 12; ii, 8-10; vii, 10). He particularly dwells upon the multitude of family crimes which stained the houses of the Grecian despots; murders by fathers, sons, brothers, wives, etc. (iii, 8).

[370] Xen. Hellen. iii, 1, 13.

[371] Xen. Hellen. iii, 1, 18; Diodor. xiv, 38.

The reader will remark here how Xenophon shapes the narrative in such a manner as to inculcate the pious duty in a general of obeying the warnings furnished by the sacrifice,—either for action or for inaction. I have already noticed (in my preceding chapters) how often he does this in the Anabasis.

Such an inference is never (I believe) to be found suggested in Thucydides.

[372] Xen. Hellen. iii, 1, 20-23.

[373] Xen. Hellen. iii, 1, 26. Εἶπέ μοι, ἔφη, Μανία δὲ τίνος ἦν; Οἱ δὲ πάντες εἶπον, ὅτι Φαρναβάζου. Οὐκοῦν καὶ τὰ ἐκείνης, ἔφη, Φαρναβάζου; Μάλιστα, ἔφασαν. Ἡμέτερ᾽ ἂν εἴη, ἔφη, ἐπεὶ κρατοῦμεν· πολέμιος γὰρ ἡμῖν Φαρνάβαζος.

Two points are remarkable here. 1. The manner in which Mania, the administratrix of a large district, with a prodigious treasure and a large army in pay, is treated as belonging to Pharnabazus—as the servant or slave of Pharnabazus. 2. The distinction here taken between public property and private property, in reference to the laws of war and the rights of the conqueror. Derkyllidas lays claim to that which had belonged to Mania (or to Pharnabazus); but not to that which had belonged to Meidias.

According to the modern rules of international law, this distinction is one allowed and respected, everywhere except at sea. But in the ancient world, it by no means stood out so clearly or prominently; and the observance of it here deserves notice.

[374] Xen. Hellen. iii, 1, 28.

Thus finishes the interesting narrative about Mania, Meidias, and Derkyllidas. The abundance of detail, and the dramatic manner, in which Xenophon has worked it out, impress me with a belief that he was actually present at the scene.

[375] Xen. Hellen. iii, 2, 1. νομίζων τὴν Αἰολίδα ἐπιτετειχίσθαι τῇ ἑαυτοῦ οἰκήσει Φρυγίᾳ.

The word ἐπιτειχίζειν is capital and significant, in Grecian warfare.

[376] Xen. Hellen. iii, 2, 2-5.

[377] Xen. Hellen. iii, 2, 4.

[378] Xen. Hellen. iii, 2, 6, 7.

Morus supposes (I think, with much probability) that ὁ τῶν Κυρείων προεστηκὼς here means Xenophon himself.

He could not with propriety advert to the fact that he himself had not been with the army during the year of Thimbron.

[379] Xen. Hellen. iii, 2, 9. ἔπεμψεν αὐτοὺς ἀπ᾽ Ἐφέσου διὰ τῶν Ἑλληνίδων πόλεων, ἡδόμενος ὅτι ἔμελλον ὄψεσθαι τὰς πόλεις ἐν εἰρήνῃ εὐδαιμονικῶς διαγούσας. I cannot but think that we ought here to read ἐπ᾽ Ἐφέσου, not ἀπ᾽ Ἐφέσου; or else ἀπὸ Λαμψάκου.

It was at Lampsakus that this interview and conversation between Derkyllidas and the commissioners took place. The commissioners were to be sent from Lampsakus to Ephesus through the Grecian cities.

The expression ἐν εἰρήνῃ εὐδαιμονικῶς διαγούσας has reference to the foreign relations of the cities, and to their exemption from annoyance by Persian arms,—without implying any internal freedom or good condition. There were Lacedæmonian harmosts in most of them, and dekarchies half broken up or modified in many; see the subsequent passages (iii, 2, 20; iii, 4, 7; iv, 8, 1)

[380] Compare Xen. Hellen. iv, 2, 5.

[381] Herodot. vi, 36; Plutarch, Perikles, c. 19; Isokrates, Or. v, (Philipp.) s. 7.

[382] Xen. Hellen. iii, 2, 10; iv, 8, 5. Diodor. xiv, 38.

[383] Diodor. xiii, 65.

[384] Xen. Hellen. iii, 2, 11; Isokrates, Or. iv. (Panegyr.) s. 167.

[385] Diodor. xiv, 39.

[386] Xen. Hellen. iii, 2, 18.

In the Anabasis (ii, 3, 3) Xenophon mentions the like care on the part of Klearchus, to have the best armed and most imposing soldiers around him, when he went to his interview with Tissaphernes.

Xenophon gladly avails himself of the opportunity, to pay an indirect compliment to the Cyreian army.

[387] Xen. Hellen. iii, 2, 19; Diodor. xiv, 39.

[388] Xen. Hellen. iii, 2, 20.

[389] Xenoph. Hellen. iii, 5, 5; Plutarch, Lysand. c. 27; Justin, v, 10.

[390] Xen. Hellen. ii, 4, 30.

[391] Xen. Hellen. iii, 5, 12. Κορινθίους δὲ καὶ Ἄρκαδας καὶ Ἀχαίους τί φῶμεν; οἱ ἐν μὲν τῷ πρὸς ὑμᾶς (it is the Theban envoys who are addressing the public assembly at Athens) πολέμῳ μάλα λιπαρούμενοι ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνων (the Lacedæmonians), πάντων καὶ πόνων καὶ κινδύνων καὶ δαπανημάτων μετεῖχον· ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἔπραξαν ἃ ἐβούλοντο οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι, ποίας ἢ ἀρχῆς ἢ τιμῆς ἢ ποίων χρημάτων μεταδεδώκασιν αὐτοῖς; ἀλλὰ τοὺς μὲν εἱλώτας ἁρμοστὰς καθιστάναι, τῶν δὲ ξυμμάχων ἐλευθέρων ὄντων, ἐπεὶ εὐτύχησαν, δεσπόται ἀναπεφῄνασιν.

[392] Xen. Hellen. iii, 2, 22.

Τούτων δ᾽ ὕστερον, καὶ Ἄγιδος πεμφθέντος θῦσαι τῷ Διῒ κατὰ μαντείαν τινὰ, ἐκώλυον οἱ Ἠλεῖοι μὴ προσεύχεσθαι νίκην πολέμου, λέγοντες, ὡς καὶ τὸ ἀρχαῖον εἴη οὕτω νόμιμον, μὴ χρηστηριάζεσθαι τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἐφ᾽ Ἑλλήνων πολέμῳ· ὥστε ἄθυτος ἀπῆλθεν.

This canon seems not unnatural, for one of the greatest Pan-hellenic temples and establishments. Yet it was not constantly observed at Olympia (compare another example—Xen. Hellen. iv, 7, 2); nor yet at Delphi, which was not less Pan-hellenic than Olympia (see Thucyd. i, 118). We are therefore led to imagine that it was a canon which the Eleians invoked only when they were prompted by some special sentiment or aversion.

[393] Xen. Hellen. iii, 2, 23. Ἐκ τούτων οὖν πάντων ὀργιζομένοις, ἔδοξε τοῖς ἐφόροις καὶ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, σωφρονίσαι αὐτούς.

[394] Diodorus (xiv, 17) mentions this demand for the arrears; which appears very probable. It is not directly noticed by Xenophon, who however mentions (see the passage cited in the note of page preceding) the general assessment levied by Sparta upon all her Peloponnesian allies during the war.

[395] Diodor. xiv, 17.

Diodorus introduces in these transactions King Pausanias, not King Agis, as the acting person.

Pausanias states (iii, 8, 2) that the Eleians, in returning a negative answer to the requisition of Sparta, added that they would enfranchise their Periœki, when they saw Sparta enfranchise her own. This answer appears to me highly improbable, under the existing circumstances of Sparta and her relations to the other Grecian states. Allusion to the relations between Sparta and her Periœki was a novelty, even in 371 B.C., at the congress which preceded the battle of Leuktra.

[396] Xen. Hellen. iii, 2, 23, 26; Diodor. xiv, 17.

[397] Xen. Hellen. iii, 2, 27; Pausanias, iii, 8, 2; v, 4, 5.

The words of Xenophon are not very clear—Βουλόμενοι δὲ οἱ περὶ Ξενίαν τὸν λεγόμενον μεδίμνῳ ἀπομετρήσασθαι τὸ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀργύριον (τὴν πόλιν) δι᾽ αὐτῶν προσχωρῆσαι Λακεδαιμονίοις, ἐκπεσόντες ἐξ οἰκίας ξίφη ἔχοντες σφαγὰς ποιοῦσι, καὶ ἄλλους τέ τινας κτείνουσι, καὶ ὅμοιόν τινα Θρασυδαίῳ ἀποκτείναντες, τῷ τοῦ δήμου προστάτῃ, ᾤοντο Θρασυδαῖον ἀπεκτονέναι.... Ὁ δὲ Θρασυδαῖος ἔτι καθεύδων ἐτύγχανεν, οὗπερ ἐμεθύσθη.

Both the words and the narrative are here very obscure. It seems as if a sentence had dropped out, when we come suddenly upon the mention of the drunken state of Thrasydæus, without having before been told of any circumstance either leading to or implying this condition.

[398] Xen. Hellen. iii, 2, 28.

[399] Xen. Hellen. iii, 2, 30. There is something perplexing in Xenophon’s description of the Triphylian townships which the Eleians surrendered. First, he does not name Lepreum or Makistus, both of which nevertheless had joined Agis on his invasion, and were the most important places in Triphylia (iii, 2, 25). Next, he names Letrini, Amphidoli, and Marganeis, as Triphylian; which yet were on the north of the Alpheius, and are elsewhere distinguished from Triphylian. I incline to believe that the words in his text, καὶ τὰς Τριφυλίδας πόλεις ἀφεῖναι, must be taken to mean Lepreum and Makistus, perhaps with some other places which we do not know; but that a καὶ after ἀφεῖναι, has fallen out of the text, and that the cities, whose names follow, are to be taken as not Triphylian. Phrixa and Epitalium were both south, but only just south, of the Alpheius; they were not on the borders of Triphylia,—and it seems doubtful whether they were properly Triphylian.

[400] Xen. Hellen. iii, 2, 30; Diodor. xiv, 34; Pausan. iii, 8, 2.

This war between Sparta and Elis reaches over three different years; it began in the first, occupied the whole of the second, and was finished in the third. Which years these three were (out of the seven which separate B.C. 403-396), critics have not been unanimous.

Following the chronology of Diodorus, who places the beginning of the war in 402 B.C., I differ from Mr. Clinton, who places it in 401 B.C. (Fasti Hellen. ad ann.), and from Sievers (Geschichte von Griechenland bis zur Schlacht von Mantinea, p. 382), who places it in 398 B.C.

According to Mr. Clinton’s view, the principal year of the war would have been 400 B.C., the year of the Olympic festival. But surely, had such been the fact, the coincidence of war in the country with the Olympic festival, must have raised so many complications, and acted so powerfully on the sentiments of all parties, as to be specifically mentioned. In my judgment, the war was brought to a close in the early part of 400 B.C., before the time of the Olympic festival arrived. Probably the Eleians were anxious, on this very ground, to bring it to a close before the festival did arrive.

Sievers, in his discussion of the point, admits that the date assigned by Diodorus to the Eleian war, squares both with the date which Diodorus gives for the death of Agis, and with that which Plutarch states about the duration of the reign of Agesilaus,—better than the chronology which he himself (Sievers) prefers. He founds his conclusion on Xenophon, Hell. iii, 2, 21. Τούτων δὲ πραττομένων ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ ὑπὸ Δερκυλλίδα, Λακεδαιμόνιοι κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον πάλαι ὀργιζόμενοι τοῖς Ἠλείοις, etc.

This passage is certainly of some weight; yet I think in the present case it is not to be pressed with rigid accuracy as to date. The whole third Book down to these very words, has been occupied entirely with the course of Asiatic affairs. Not a single proceeding of the Lacedæmonians in Peloponnesus, since the amnesty at Athens, has yet been mentioned. The command of Derkyllidas included only the last portion of the Asiatic exploits, and Xenophon has here loosely referred to it as if it comprehended the whole. Sievers moreover compresses the whole Eleian war into one year and a fraction; an interval, shorter, I think, than that which is implied in the statements of Xenophon.

[401] Xen. Hellen. iii, 2, 31.

[402] Diodor. xiv, 34; Pausan. iv, 26, 2. 2.

[403] Plutarch, Lysand. c. 17. Compare Xen. Rep. Laced. vii, 6.

Both Ephorus and Theopompus recounted the opposition to the introduction of gold and silver into Sparta, each mentioning the name of one of the ephors as taking the lead in it.

There was a considerable body of ancient sentiment, and that too among high-minded and intelligent men, which regarded gold and silver as a cause of mischief and corruption, and of which the stanza of Horace (Od. iii, 3) is an echo:—

Aurum irrepertum, et sic melius situm

Cum terra celat, spernere fortior

Quam cogere humanos in usus,

Omne sacrum rapiente dextrâ.

[404] Aristotel. Politic. ii, 6, 23.

Ἀποβέβηκε δὲ τοὐνάντιον τῷ νομοθέτῃ τοῦ συμφέροντος· τὴν μὲν γὰρ πόλιν πεποίηκεν ἀχρήματον, τοὺς δ᾽ ἰδιώτας φιλοχρημάτους.

[405] Thucyd. i, 80. ἀλλὰ πολλῷ ἔτι πλέον τούτου (χρημάτων) ἐλλείπομεν, καὶ οὔτε ἐν κοινῷ ἔχομεν, οὔτε ἑτοίμως ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων φέρομεν.

[406] Aristotel. Polit. ii, 6, 23. Φαύλως δ᾽ ἔχει καὶ περὶ τὰ κοινὰ κρήματα τοῖς Σπαρτιάταις· οὔτε γὰρ ἐν τῷ κοινῷ τῆς πόλεώς ἐστιν οὐδὲν, πολέμους μεγάλους ἀναγκαζομένους φέρειν· εἰσφέρουσί τε κακῶς, etc.

Contrast what Plato says in his dialogue of Alkibiades, i, c. 39, p. 122 E. about the great quantity of gold and silver then at Sparta. The dialogue must bear date at some period between 400-371 B.C.

[407] See the speeches of the Corinthian envoys and of King Archidamus at Sparta (Thucyd. i, 70-84; compare also viii, 24-96).

[408] See the criticisms upon Sparta, about 395 B.C. and 372 B.C. (Xenoph. Hellen. iii, 5, 11-15; vi, 3, 8-11).

[409] Thucyd. i, 77. Ἄμικτα γὰρ τά τε καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς αὐτοὺς νόμιμα τοῖς ἄλλοις ἔχετε, etc. About the ξενηλασίαι of the Spartans—see the speech of Perikles in Thucyd. i, 138.

[410] Aristotel. Politic. ii, 6, 10.

[411] Aristot. Politic. ii, 6, 16-18; ii, 7, 3.

[412] Isokrates, de Pace, s. 118-127.

[413] Xen. de Republ. Laced. c. 14.

Οἶδα γὰρ πρότερον μὲν Λακεδαιμονίους αἱρουμένους, οἴκοι τὰ μέτρια ἔχοντας ἀλλήλοις συνεῖναι μᾶλλον, ἢ ἁρμόζοντας ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι καὶ κολακευομένους διαφθείρεσθαι. Καὶ πρόσθεν μὲν οἶδα αὐτοὺς φοβουμένους, χρύσιον ἔχοντας φαίνεσθαι· νῦν δ᾽ ἔστιν οὓς καὶ καλλωπιζομένους ἐπὶ τῷ κεκτῆσθαι. Ἐπίσταμαι δὲ καὶ πρόσθεν τούτου ἕνεκα ξενηλασίας γιγνομένας, καὶ ἀποδημεῖν οὐκ ἐξόν, ὅπως μὴ ῥᾳδιουργίας οἱ πολῖται ἀπὸ τῶν ξένων ἐμπίμπλαιντο· νῦν δ᾽ ἐπίσταμαι τοὺς δοκοῦντας πρώτους εἶναι ἐσπουδακότας ὡς μηδεπότε παύωνται ἁρμόζοντες ἐπὶ ξένης. Καὶ ἦν μὲν, ὅτε ἐπεμελοῦντο, ὅπως ἄξιοι εἶεν ἡγεῖσθαι· νῦν δὲ πολὺ μᾶλλον πραγματεύονται, ὅπως ἄρξουσιν, ἢ ὅπως ἄξιοι τούτου ἔσονται. Τοιγαροῦν οἱ Ἕλληνες πρότερον μὲν ἰόντες εἰς Λακεδαίμονα ἐδέοντο αὐτῶν, ἡγεῖσθαι ἐπὶ τοὺς δοκοῦντας ἀδικεῖν· νῦν δὲ πολλοὶ παρακαλοῦσιν ἀλλήλους ἐπὶ τὸ διακωλύειν ἄρξαι πάλιν αὐτούς. Οὐδὲν μέντοι δεῖ θαυμάζειν τούτων τῶν ἐπιψόγων αὐτοῖς γιγνομένων, ἐπειδὴ φανεροί εἰσιν οὔτε τῷ θεῷ πειθόμενοι οὔτε τοῖς Λυκούργου νόμοις.

The expression, “taking measures to hinder the Lacedæmonians from again exercising empire,”—marks this treatise as probably composed some time between their naval defeat at Knidus, and their land-defeat at Leuktra. The former put an end to their maritime empire,—the latter excluded them from all possibility of recovering it; but during the interval between the two, such recovery was by no means impossible.

[414] The Athenian envoy at Melos says,—Λακεδαιμόνιοι γὰρ πρὸς μὲν σφᾶς αὐτοὺς καὶ τὰ ἐπιχώρια νόμιμα, πλεῖστα ἀρετῇ χρῶνται· πρὸς δὲ τοὺς ἀλλους—ἐπιφανέστατα ὧν ἴσμεν τὰ μὲν ἡδέα καλὰ νομίζουσι, τὰ δὲ ξυμφέροντα δίκαια (Thucyd. v. 105). A judgment almost exactly the same, is pronounced by Polybius (vi, 48).

[415] Thucyd. i, 69, 70, 71, 84. ἀρχαιότροπα ὑμῶν τὰ ἐπιτηδεύματα—ἄοκνοι πρὸς ὑμᾶς μελλητὰς καὶ ἀποδημηταὶ πρὸς ἐνδημοτάτους: also viii, 24.

[416] Σπάρτην δαμασίμβροτον (Simonides ap. Plutarch. Agesilaum, c. 1).

[417] See an expression of Aristotle (Polit. ii, 6, 22) about the function of admiral among the Lacedæmonians,—ἐπὶ γὰρ τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν, οὖσι στρατηγοῖς ἀϊδίοις, ἡ ναυαρχία σχεδόν ἑτέρα βασιλεία καθέστηκε.

This reflection,—which Aristotle intimates that he has borrowed from some one else, though without saying from whom,—must in all probability have been founded upon the case of Lysander; for never after Lysander, was there any Lacedæmonian admiral enjoying a power which could by possibility be termed exorbitant or dangerous. We know that during the later years of the Peloponnesian war, much censure was cast upon the Lacedæmonian practice of annually changing the admiral (Xen. Hellen. i, 6, 4).

The Lacedæmonians seem to have been impressed with these criticisms, for in the year 395 B.C. (the year before the battle of Knidus) they conferred upon King Agesilaus, who was then commanding the land army in Asia Minor, the command of the fleet also—in order to secure unity of operations. This had never been done before (Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 28).

[418] Plutarch, Lysand. c. 24. Perhaps he may have been simply a member of the tribe called Hylleis, who, probably, called themselves Herakleids. Some affirmed that Lysander wished to cause the kings to be elected out of all the Spartans, not simply out of the Herakleids. This is less probable.

[419] Duris ap. Athenæum, xv, p. 696.

[420] Plutarch, Lysand. c. 18; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 20.

[421] Plutarch, Lysand. c. 17.

[422] Aristotle (Polit. v, 1, 5) represents justly the schemes of Lysander as going πρὸς τὸ μέρος τι κινῆσαι τῆς πολιτείας· οἷον ἀρχήν τινα καταστῆσαι ἢ ἀνελεῖν. The Spartan kingship is here regarded as ἀρχή τις—one office of state, among others. But Aristotle regards Lysander as having intended to destroy the kingship—καταλῦσαι τὴν βασιλείαν—which does not appear to have been the fact. The plan of Lysander was to retain the kingship, but to render it elective instead of hereditary. He wished to place the Spartan kingship substantially on the same footing, as that on which the office of the kings or suffetes of Carthage stood; who were not hereditary, nor confined to members of the same family or Gens, but chosen out of the principal families or Gentes. Aristotle, while comparing the βασιλεῖς at Sparta with those at Carthage, as being generally analogous, pronounces in favor of the Carthaginian election as better than the Spartan hereditary transmission. (Arist. Polit. ii, 8, 2.)

[423] Thucyd. v, 63; Xen. Hellen. iii, 5, 25; iv, 2, 1.

[424] Diodor. xiv, 13; Cicero, de Divinat. i, 43, 96; Cornel. Nepos, Lysand. c. 3.

[425] Plutarch, Lysand. c. 25, from Ephorus. Compare Herodot. vi, 66; Thucyd. v, 12.

[426] Plutarch, Lysand. c. 26.

[427] Tacit. Histor. i, 10. “Cui expeditius fuerit tradere imperium, quam obtinere.”

The general fact of the conspiracy of Lysander to open for himself a way to the throne, appears to rest on very sufficient testimony,—that of Ephorus; to whom perhaps the words φασί τινες in Aristotle may allude, where he mentions this conspiracy as having been narrated (Polit. v, 1, 5). But Plutarch, as well as K. O. Müller (Hist. of Dorians, iv, 9, 5) and others, erroneously represent the intrigues with the oracle as being resorted to after Lysander returned from accompanying Agesilaus to Asia; which is certainly impossible, since Lysander accompanied Agesilaus out, in the spring of 396 B.C.—did not return to Greece until the spring of 395 B.C.—and was then employed, with an interval not greater than four or five months, on that expedition against Bœotia wherein he was slain.

The tampering of Lysander with the oracle must undoubtedly have taken place prior to the death of Agis,—at some time between 403 B.C. and 399 B.C. The humiliation which he received in 396 B.C. from Agesilaus might indeed have led him to revolve in his mind the renewal of his former plans; but he can have had no time to do anything towards them. Aristotle (Polit. v, 6, 2) alludes to the humiliation of Lysander by the kings as an example of incidents tending to raise disturbance in an aristocratical government; but this humiliation, probably, alludes to the manner in which he was thwarted in Attica by Pausanias in 403 B.C.—which proceeding is ascribed by Plutarch to both kings, as well as to their jealousy of Lysander (see Plutarch, Lysand. c. 21)—not to the treatment of Lysander by Agesilaus in 396 B.C. The mission of Lysander to the despot Dionysius at Syracuse (Plutarch, Lysand. c. 2) must also have taken place prior to the death of Agis in 399 B.C.; whether before or after the failure of the stratagem at Delphi, is uncertain; perhaps after it.

[428] The age of Leotychides is approximately marked by the date of the presence of Alkibiades at Sparta 414-413 B.C. The mere rumor, true or false, that this young man was the son of Alkibiades, may be held sufficient as chronological evidence to certify his age.

[429] Xen. Hellen. iii, 3, 2; Pausanias, iii, 8, 4; Plutarch, Agesilaus, c. 3.

[430] Herodot. v, 66.

[431] I confess I do not understand how Xenophon can say, in his Agesilaus, i, 6, Ἀγησίλαος τοίνυν ἔτι μὲν νέος ὢν ἔτυχε τῆς βασιλείας. For he himself says (ii, 28), and it seems well established, that Agesilaus died at the age of above 80 (Plutarch, Agesil. c. 40); and his death must have been about 360 B.C.

[432] Plutarch, Agesilaus, c. 2-5; Xenoph. Agesil. vii, 3; Plutarch, Apophth. Laconic. p. 212 D.

[433] Plutarch, Agesil. c. 2; Xenoph. Agesil. viii, 1.

It appears that the mother of Agesilaus was a very small woman, and that Archidamus had incurred the censure of the ephors, on that especial ground, for marrying her.

[434] Xenoph. Agesil. xi, 7; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 2.

[435] Plutarch, Agesil. c. 2.

[436] Plutarch, Lysand. c. 2.

[437] Xen. Hellen. iii, 3, 1.

[438] Plutarch, Lysand. c. 22; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 3; Xen. Hellen. iii, 3, 2; Xen. Agesil. 1, 5—κρίνασα ἡ πόλις ἀνεπικλητότερον εἶναι Ἀγησίλαον καὶ τῷ γένει καὶ τῇ ἀρετῇ, etc.

[439] Xen. Hellen. iii, 3, 2. This statement contradicts the talk imputed to Timæa by Duris (Plutarch, Agesil. c. 3; Plutarch, Alkibiad. c. 23).

[440] Herodot. iv, 161. Διεδέξατο δὲ τὴν βασιληΐην τοῦ Ἀρκεσίλεω ὁ παῖς Βάττος, χωλός τε ἐὼν καὶ οὐκ ἀρτίπους. Οἱ δὲ Κυρηναῖοι πρὸς τὴν καταλαβοῦσαν συμφορὴν ἔπεμπον ἐς Δελφοὺς, ἐπειρησομένους ὅντινα τρόπον καταστησάμενοι κάλλιστα ἂν οἰκέοιεν.

[441] Plutarch, Lysand. c. 22; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 3; Pausanias, iii, 8, 5.

[442] Diodor. xi, 50.

[443] Herodot. vii, 143.

[444] Xen. Hellen. iii, 3, 3. ὡς οὐκ οἴοιτο τὸν θεὸν τοῦτο κελεύειν φυλάξασθαι, μὴ προσπταίσας τις χωλεύσῃ, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον, μὴ οὐκ ὢν τοῦ γένους βασιλεύσῃ.

Congenital lameness would be regarded as a mark of divine displeasure, and therefore a disqualification from the throne, as in the case of Battus of Kyrênê above noticed. But the words χωλὴ βασίλεια were general enough to cover both the cases,—superinduced as well as congenital lameness. It is upon this that Lysander founds his inference—that the god did not mean to allude to bodily lameness at all.

[445] Pausanias, iii, 8, 5; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 3; Plutarch, Lysand. c. 22; Justin, vi, 2.

[446]

Ἴδ᾽ οἷον, ὦ παῖδες, προσέμιξεν ἄφαρ

Τοὔπος τὸ θεοπρόπον ἡμῖν

Τῆς παλαιφάτου προνοίας,

Ὅ τ᾽ ἔλακεν, etc.

This is a splendid chorus of the Trachiniæ of Sophokles (822) proclaiming their sentiments on the awful death of Hêraklês, in the tunic of Nessus, which has just been announced as about to happen.

[447] Plutarch, Agesil. c. 30; Plutarch, Compar. Agesil. and Pomp. c. 1. Ἀγησίλαος δὲ τὴν βασιλείαν ἔδοξε λαβεῖν, οὔτε τὰ πρὸς θεοὺς ἄμεμπτος, οὔτε τὰ πρὸς ἀνθρώπους, κρίνας νοθείας Λεωτυχίδην, ὃν υἱὸν αὑτοῦ ἀπέδειξεν ὁ ἀδελφὸς γνήσιον, τὸν δὲ χρησμὸν κατειρωνευσάμενος τὸν περὶ τῆς χωλότητος. Again, ib. c. 2. δι᾽ Ἀγησίλαον ἐπεσκότησε τῷ χρησμῷ Λύσανδρος.

[448] Xen. Agesil. iv, 5; Plutarch, Ages. c. 4.

[449] Plutarch, Agesil. c. 4.

[450] Xen. Agesil. vii, 2.

[451] Isokrates, Orat. v, (Philipp.) s. 100; Plutarch, Agesilaus, c. 3, 13-23; Plutarch, Apophthegm. Laconica, p. 209 F—212 D.

See the incident alluded to by Theopompus ap. Athenæum, xiii, p. 609.

[452] Isokrates (Orat. v, ut sup.) makes a remark in substance the same.

[453] Xenoph. Hellen. iii, 3, 4.

[454] See Vol. II, Ch. vi, p. 359 of this History.

[455] Xen. Hellen. iii, 3, 5. Οὗτος (Kinadon) δ᾽ ἦν νεανίσκος καὶ τὸ εἶδος καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν εὔρωστος, οὐ μέντοι τῶν ὁμοίων.

The meaning of the term Οἱ ὅμοιοι fluctuates in Xenophon; it sometimes, as here, is used to signify the privileged Peers—again De Repub. Laced. xiii, 1; and Anab. iv, 6, 14. Sometimes again it is used agreeably to the Lykurgean theory; whereby every citizen, who rigorously discharged his duty in the public drill, belonged to the number (De Rep. Lac. x, 7).

There was a variance between the theory and the practice.

[456] Xen. Hellen. iii, 3, 9. Ὑπηρετήκει δὲ καὶ ἄλλ᾽ ἤδη ὁ Κινάδων τοῖς Ἐφόροις τοιαῦτα. iii, 3, 7. Οἱ συντεταγμένοι ἡμῶν (Kinadon says) αὐτοὶ ὅπλα κεκτήμεθα.

[457] Xen. Hellen. iii, 3, 11. μηδενὸς ἥττων εἶναι τῶν ἐν Λακεδαίμονι—was the declaration of Kinadon when seized and questioned by the ephors concerning his purposes. Substantially it coincides with Aristotle (Polit. v, 6, 2)—ἢ ὅταν ἀνδρώδης τις ὢν μὴ μετέχῃ τῶν τιμῶν, οἷον Κινάδων ὁ τὴν ἐπ᾽ Ἀγησιλάου συστήσας ἐπίθεσιν ἐπὶ τοὺς Σπαρτιάτας.

[458] Xen. Hellen. iii, 3, 5.

[459] Xen. Hellen. iii, 3, 6. Αὐτοὶ μέντοι πᾶσιν ἔφασαν συνειδέναι καὶ εἵλωσι καὶ νεοδαμώδεσι, καὶ τοῖς ὑπομείοσι καὶ τοῖς περιοίκοις· ὅπου γὰρ ἐν τούτοις τις λόγος γένοιτο περὶ Σπαρτιατῶν, οὐδένα δύνασθαι κρύπτειν τὸ μὴ οὐχ ἡδέως ἂν καὶ ὠμῶν ἐσθίειν αὐτῶν.

The expression is Homeric—ὠμὸν βεβρώθοις Πρίαμον, etc. (Iliad. iv, 35). The Greeks did not think themselves obliged to restrain the full expression of vindictive feeling. The poet Theognis wishes, “that he may one day come to drink the blood of those who had ill-used him” (v. 349 Gaisf.).

[460] Xen. Hellen. iii, 3, 7. ὅτι ἐπιδημεῖν οἱ παρηγγελμένον εἴη.

[461] Xen. Hellen. iii, 3, 8. Ἀγαγεῖν δὲ ἐκέλευον καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα, ἣ καλλίστη μὲν ἐλέγετο αὐτόθι εἶναι, λυμαίνεσθαι δ᾽ ἐῴκει τοὺς ἀφικνουμένους Λακεδαιμονίων καὶ πρεσβυτέρους καὶ νεωτέρους.

[462] Xen. Hellen. iii, 3, 9, 10.

The persons called Hippeis at Sparta, were not mounted; they were a select body of three hundred youthful citizens, employed either on home police or on foreign service.

See Herodot. viii, 124; Strabo, x, p. 481; K. O. Müller, History of the Dorians, B. iii, ch. 12, s. 5, 6.

[463] Xen. Hellen. iii, 3, 9.

Ἔμελλον δὲ οἱ συλλαβόντες αὐτὸν μὲν κατέχειν, τοὺς δὲ ξυνειδότας πυθόμενοι αὐτοῦ γράψαντες ἀποπέμπειν τὴν ταχίστην τοῖς ἐφόροις. Οὕτω δ᾽ εἶχον οἱ ἔφοροι πρὸς τὸ πρᾶγμα, ὥστε καὶ μορὰν ἱππέων ἔπεμψαν τοῖς ἐπ᾽ Αὐλῶνος. Ἐπεὶ δ᾽ εἰλημμένου τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἧκεν ἱππεὺς, φέρων τὰ ὀνόματα ὧν Κινάδων ἀπέγραψε, παραχρῆμα τόν τε μάντιν Τισάμενον καὶ τοὺς ἐπικαιριωτάτους ξυνελάμβανον. Ὡς δ᾽ ἀνήχθη ὁ Κινάδων, καὶ ἠλέγχετο, καὶ ὡμολόγει πάντα, καὶ τοὺς ξυνειδότας ἔλεγε, τέλος αὐτὸν ἤροντο, τί καὶ βουλόμενος ταῦτα πράττοι;

Polyænus (ii, 14, 1) in his account of this transaction, expressly mentions that the Hippeis or guards who accompanied Kinadon, put him to the torture (στρεβλώσαντες) when they seized him, in order to extort the names of his accomplices. Even without express testimony, we might pretty confidently have assumed this. From a man of spirit like Kinadon, they were not likely to obtain such betrayal without torture.

I had affirmed that in the description of this transaction given by Xenophon, it did not appear whether Kinadon was able to write or not. My assertion was controverted by Colonel Mure (in his Reply to my Appendix), who cited the words φέρων τὰ ὀνόματα ὧν Κινάδων ἀπέγραψε, as containing an affirmation from Xenophon that Kinadon could write.

In my judgment, these words, taken in conjunction with what precedes, and with the probabilities of the fact described, do not contain such an affirmation.

The guards were instructed to seize Kinadon, and after having heard from Kinadon who his accomplices were, to write the names down and send them to the ephors. It is to be presumed that they executed these instructions as given; the more so, as what they were commanded to do, was at once the safest and the most natural proceeding. For Kinadon was a man distinguished for personal stature and courage (τὸ εἶδος καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν εὔρωστος, iii, 3, 5) so that those who seized him would find it an indispensable precaution to pinion his arms. Assuming even that Kinadon could write,—yet, if he were to write, he must have his right arm free. And why should the guards take this risk, when all which the ephors required was, that Kinadon should pronounce the names, to be written down by others? With a man of the qualities of Kinadon, it probably required the most intense pressure to force him to betray his comrades, even by word of mouth; it would probably be more difficult still, to force him to betray them by the more deliberate act of writing.

I conceive that ἧκεν ἱππεὺς, φέρων τὰ ὀνόματα ὧν ὁ Κινάδων ἀπέγραψε is to be construed with reference to the preceding sentence, and announces the carrying into effect of the instructions then reported as given by the ephors. “A guard came, bearing the names of those whom Kinadon had given in.” It is not necessary to suppose that Kinadon had written down these names with his own hand.

In the beginning of the Oration of Andokides (De Mysteriis), Pythonikus gives information of a mock celebration of the mysteries, committed by Alkibiades and others; citing as his witness the slave Andromachus; who is accordingly produced, and states to the assembly vivâ voce what he had seen and who were the persons present—Πρῶτος μὲν οὗτος (Andromachus) ταῦτα εμήνυσε, καὶ ἀπέγραψε τούτους (s. 13). It is not here meant to affirm that the slave Andromachus wrote down the names of these persons, which he had the moment before publicly announced to the assembly. It is by the words ἀπέγραψε τούτους that the orator describes the public oral announcement made by Andromachus, which was formally taken note of by a secretary, and which led to legal consequences against the persons whose names were given in.

So again, in the old law quoted by Demosthenes (adv. Makast. p. 1068), Ἀπογραφέτω δὲ τὸν μὴ ποιοῦντα ταῦτα ὁ βουλόμενος πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα; and in Demosthenes adv. Nikostrat. p. 1247. Ἃ ἐκ τῶν νόμων τῷ ἰδιώτῃ τῷ ἀπογράφαντι γίγνεται, τῇ πόλει ἀφίημι: compare also Lysias, De Bonis Aristophanis, Or. xix, s. 53; it is not meant to affirm that ὁ ἀπογράφων was required to perform his process in writing, or was necessarily able to write. A citizen who could not write might do this, as well as one who could. He informed against a certain person as delinquent; he informed of certain articles of property, as belonging to the estate of one whose property had been confiscated to the city. The information, as well as the name of the informer, was taken down by the official person,—whether the informer could himself write or not.

It appears to me that Kinadon, having been interrogated, told to the guards who first seized him, the names of his accomplices,—just as he told these names afterwards to the ephors (καὶ τοῦς ξυνειδότας ἔλεγε); and this, whether he was, or was not, able to write; a point, which the passage of Xenophon noway determines.

[464] Xenoph. Hellen. iii, 3, 11.

[465] Diodor. xiv, 39; Xen. Hellen. iii, 3, 13.

[466] Lysias, Orat. xix, (De Bonis Aristophanis) s. 38.

[467] See Ktesias, Fragmenta, Persica, c. 63, ed. Bähr; Plutarch, Artax. c. 21.

We cannot make out these circumstances with any distinctness; but the general fact is plainly testified, and is besides very probable. Another Grecian surgeon (besides Ktesias) is mentioned as concerned,—Polykritus of Mendê; and a Kretan dancer named Zeno,—both established at the Persian court.

There is no part of the narrative of Ktesias, the loss of which is so much to be regretted as this; relating transactions, in which he was himself concerned, and seemingly giving original letters.

[468] Diodor. xiv, 39-79.

[469] Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 1.

[470] Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 2.

[471] Xen. Hellen. iii, 5, 1. ἐλπίδας ἔχοντα μεγάλας αἱρήσειν βασιλέα, etc. Compare iv, 2, 3.

Xen. Agesilaus, i, 36. ἐπινοῶν καὶ ἐλπίζων καταλύσειν τὴν ἐπὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα στρατεύσασαν πρότερον ἀρχήν, etc.

[472] Plutarch, Agesil. c. 5.

[473] Xen. Hellen. iii, 5, 5; Pausan. iii, 9, 1.

[474] Herodot. i, 68; vii, 159; Pausan. iii, 16, 6.

[475] Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 3, 4; iii, 5, 5; Plutarch, Agesilaus, c. 6; Pausan. iii, 9, 2.

[476] Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 5, 6; Xen. Agesilaus, i, 10.

The term of three months is specified only in the latter passage. The former armistice of Derkyllidas had probably not expired when Agesilaus first arrived.

[477] Pausan. vi, 3, 6.

[478] Xen. Hellen. ii, 1, 7. This rule does not seem to have been adhered to afterwards. Lysander was sent out again as commander in 403 B.C. It is possible, indeed, that he may have been again sent out as nominal secretary to some other person named as commander.

[479] Plutarch, Agesilaus, c. 7.

[480] The sarcastic remarks which Plutarch ascribes to Agesilaus, calling Lysander “my meat-distributor” (κρεοδαίτην), are not warranted by Xenophon, and seem not to be probable under the circumstances (Plutarch, Lysand. c. 23; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 8).

[481] Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 7-10; Plutarch, Agesilaus, c. 7-8; Plutarch, Lysand. c. 23.

It is remarkable that in the Opusculum of Xenophon, a special Panegyric called Agesilaus, not a word is said about this highly characteristic proceeding between Agesilaus and Lysander at Ephesus; nor indeed is the name of Lysander once mentioned.

[482] Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 10.

[483] Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 11, 12; Xen. Agesil. i, 12-14; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 9.

[484] Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 13-15; Xen. Agesil. i, 23. Ἐπεὶ μέντοι οὐδὲ ἐν τῇ Φρυγίᾳ ἀνὰ τὰ πεδία ἐδύνατο στρατεύεσθαι, διὰ τὴν Φαρναβάζου ἱππείαν, etc.

Plutarch, Agesil. c. 9.

These military operations of Agesilaus are loosely adverted to in the early part of c. 79 of the fourteenth Book of Diodorus.

[485] Xen. Agesil. i, 19; Xen. Anabas. vii, 8, 20-23; Plutarch, Reipub. Gerend. Præcept. p 809, B. See above, [Chapter lxxii], of this History.

[486] Xen. Agesil. i, 18. πάντες παμπλήθη χρήματα ἔλαβον.

[487] Xen. Agesil. i, 20-22.

[488] Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 19; Xen. Agesil. i, 28. τοὺς ὑπὸ τῶν λῃστῶν ἁλισκομένους βαρβάρους.

So the word λῃστὴς, used in reference to the fleet, means the commander of a predatory vessel or privateer (Xen. Hellen. ii, 1, 30).

[489] Xen. Agesil. i, 21. Καὶ πολλάκις μὲν προηγόρευε τοῖς στρατιώταις τοὺς ἁλισκομένους μὴ ὡς ἀδίκους τιμωρεῖσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἀνθρώπους ὄντας φυλάσσειν. Πολλάκις δὲ, ὅποτε μεταστρατοπεδεύοιτο, εἰ αἴσθοιτο καταλελειμμένα παιδάρια μικρὰ ἐμπόρων, (ἃ πολλοὶ ἐπώλουν, διὰ τὸ νομίζειν μὴ δύνασθαι ἂν φέρειν αὐτὰ καὶ τρέφειν) ἐπεμέλετο καὶ τούτων, ὅπως συγκομίζοιτό ποι· τοῖς δ᾽ αὖ διὰ γῆρας καταλελειμμένοις αἰχμαλώτοις προσέταττεν ἐπιμελεῖσθαι αὐτῶν, ὡς μήτε ὑπὸ κυνῶν, μήθ᾽ ὑπὸ λύκων, διαφθείροιντο. Ὥστε οὐ μόνον οἱ πυνθανόμενοι ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτοὶ οἱ ἁλισκόμενοι εὐμενεῖς αὐτῷ ἐγίγνοντο.

Herodotus affirms that the Thracians also sold their children for exportation,—πωλεῦσι τὰ τέχνα ἐπ᾽ ἐξαγωγῇ (Herod. v, 6): compare Philostratus, Vit. Apollon. viii, 7-12, p. 346; and Ch. xvi, Vol. III, p. 216 of this History.

Herodotus mentions the Chian merchant Panionius (like the “Mitylenæus mango” in Martial,—“Sed Mitylenæi roseus mangonis ephebus” Martial, vii, 79)—as having conducted on a large scale the trade of purchasing boys, looking out for such as were handsome, to supply the great demand in the East for eunuchs, who were supposed to make better and more attached servants. Herodot. viii, 105. ὅκως γὰρ κτήσαιτο (Panionius) παῖδας εἴδεος ἐπαμμένους, ἐκτάμνων ἀγινέων ἐπώλεε ἐς Σάρδις τε καὶ Ἔφεσον χρημάτων μεγάλων· παρὰ γὰρ τοῖσι βαρβάροισι τιμιώτεροί εἰσι οἱ εὐνοῦχοι, πίστιος εἵνεκα τῆς πάσης, τῶν ἐνορχίων. Boys were necessary, as the operation was performed in childhood or youth,—παῖδες ἐκτομίαι (Herodot. vi, 6-32: compare iii, 48). The Babylonians, in addition to their large pecuniary tribute, had to furnish to the Persian court annually five hundred παῖδας ἐκτομίας (Herodot. iii, 92). For some farther remarks on the preference of the Persians both for the persons and the services of εὐνοῦχοι, see Dio Chrysostom, Orat. xxi, p. 270; Xenoph. Cyropæd. vii, 5, 61-65. Hellanikus (Fr. 169, ed. Didot) affirmed that the Persians had derived both the persons so employed, and the habit of employing them, from the Babylonians.

When Mr. Hanway was travelling near the Caspian, among the Kalmucks, little children of two or three vears of age, were often tendered to him for sale, at two rubles per head (Hanway’s Travels, ch. xvi, pp. 65, 66).

[490] Herodot. i, 10. παρὰ γὰρ τοῖσι Λυδοῖσι, σχεδὸν δὲ παρὰ τοῖσι ἄλλοισι βαρβάροισι, καὶ ἄνδρα ὀφθῆναι γυμνόν, ἐς αἰσχύνην μεγάλην φέρει. Compare Thucyd. i, 6; Plato, Republic, v, 3, p. 452, D.

[491] Herodot. v, 22.

[492] Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 19. Ἡγούμενος δὲ, καὶ τὸ καταφρονεῖν τῶν πολεμίων ῥώμην τινὰ ἐμβάλλειν πρὸς τὸ μάχεσθαι, προεῖπε τοῖς κήρυξι, τοὺς ὑπὸ τῶν λῃστῶν ἁλισκομένους βαρβάρους γυμνοὺς πωλεῖν. Ὁρῶντες οὖν οἱ στρατιῶται λευκοὺς μὲν, διὰ τὸ μηδέποτε ἐκδύεσθαι, μαλακοὺς δὲ καὶ ἀπόνους, διὰ τὸ ἀεὶ ἐπ᾽ ὀχημάτων εἶναι, ἐνόμισαν, οὐδὲν διοίσειν τὸν πόλεμον ἢ εἰ γυναιξὶ δέοι μάχεσθαι.

Xen. Agesil. i, 28—where he has it—πίονας δὲ καὶ ἀπόνους, διὰ τὸ ἀεὶ ἐπ᾽ ὀχημάτων εἶναι (Polyænus, ii, 1, 5; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 9).

Frontinus (i, 18) recounts a proceeding somewhat similar on the part of Gelon, after his great victory over the Carthaginians at Himera in Sicily:—“Gelo Syracusarum tyrannus, bello adversus Pœnos suscepto, cum multos cepisset, infirmissimum quemque præcipue ex auxiliaribus, qui nigerrimi erant, nudatum in conspectu suorum produxit, ut persuaderet contemnendos.”

[493] Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 15; Xen. Agesil. i, 23. Compare what is related about Scipio Africanus—Livy, xxix, 1.

[494] Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 17, 18; Xen. Agesil. i, 26, 27.

[495] Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 21-24; Xen. Agesil. i, 32, 33; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 10.

Diodorus (xiv, 80) professes to describe this battle; but his description is hardly to be reconciled with that of Xenophon, which is better authority. Among other points of difference, Diodorus affirms that the Persians had fifty thousand infantry; and Pausanias also states (iii, 9, 3) that the number of Persian infantry in this battle was greater than had ever been got together since the times of Darius and Xerxes Whereas, Xenophon expressly states that the Persian infantry had not come up, and took no part in the battle.

[496] Plutarch. Artaxerx. c. 23; Diodor. xiv, 80; Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 25.

[497] Xen. Hellen. iii, 14, 25; iv, 1, 27.

[498] Thucyd. viii, 18, 37, 58.

[499] Thucyd. v, 18, 5.

[500] Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 26; Diodor. xiv, 80. ἑξαμηνιαίους ἀνοχάς.

[501] Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 27.

[502] Diodor. xiv, 39, Justin, vi, 1.

[503] Diodor. xiv, 79. Ῥόδιοι δὲ ἐκβαλόντες τὸν τῶν Πελοποννησίων στόλον, ἀπέστησαν ἀπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων, καὶ τὸν Κόνωνα προσεδέξαντο μετὰ τοῦ στόλου παντὸς εἰς τὴν πόλιν.

Compare Androtion apud Pausaniam, vi, 7, 2.

[504] Diodor. xiv, 79; Justin (vi, 2) calls this native Egyptian king Hercynion.

It seems to have been the uniform practice, for the corn-ships coming from Egypt to Greece to halt at Rhodes (Demosthen. cont. Dionysodor p. 1285: compare Herodot. ii, 182).

[505] Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 27.

[506] Plutarch, Agesil. c. 10; Aristotel. Politic. ii, 6, 22.

[507] The Lacedæmonian named Pharax, mentioned by Theopompus (Fragm. 218, ed. Didot: compare Athenæus, xii, p. 536) as a profligate and extravagant person, is more probably an officer who served under Dionysius in Sicily and Italy, about forty years after the revolt of Rhodes. The difference of time appears so great, that we must probably suppose two different men bearing the same name.

[508] Xen. Hellen. i, 5, 19.

Compare a similar instance of merciful dealing, on the part of the Syracusan assembly, towards the Sikel prince Duketius (Diodor. xi, 92).

[509] Hist. of Greece, Vol. VIII, Ch. lxiv, p. 159.

[510] Pausanias, vi, 7, 2.

[511] Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 28, 29; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 10.

[512] Xen. Hellen. iv, 1, 1-15.

The negotiation of this marriage by Agesilaus is detailed in a curious and interesting manner by Xenophon. His conversation with Otys took place in the presence of the thirty Spartan counsellors, and probably in the presence of Xenophon himself.

The attachment of Agesilaus to the youth Megabazus or Megabates, is marked in the Hellenica (iv, 1, 6-28)—but is more strongly brought out in the Agesilaus of Xenophon (v, 6), and in Plutarch, Agesil. c. 11.

In the retreat of the Ten Thousand Greeks (five years before) along the southern coast of the Euxine, a Paphlagonian prince named Korylas is mentioned (Xen. Anab. v, 5, 22; v, 6, 8). Whether there was more than one Paphlagonian prince—or whether Otys was successor of Korylas—we cannot tell.

[513] Xen. Hellen. iv, 1, 16-33.

[514] Plutarch, Agesil. c. 11. πικρὸς ὢν ἐξεταστὴς τῶν κλαπέντων, etc.

[515] Xen. Hellen. iv, 1, 27; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 11.

Since the flight of Spithridates took place secretly by night, the scene which Plutarch asserts to have taken place between Agesilaus and Megabazus cannot have occurred on the departure of the latter, but must belong to some other occasion; as, indeed, it seems to be represented by Xenophon (Agesil. v, 4).

[516] Xen. Hellen. iv, 1, 38. Ἐὰν μέντοι μοι τὴν ἀρχὴν προστάττῃ, τοιοῦτόν τι, ὡς ἔοικε, φιλοτιμία ἐστὶ, εὖ χρὴ εἰδέναι, ὅτι πολεμήσω ὑμῖν ὡς ἂν δύνωμαι ἄριστα.

Compare about φιλοτιμία, Herodot. iii, 53.

[517] Xen. Hellen. iv, 1, 29-41; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 13, 14; Xen. Agesil. iii, 5.

[518] Xen. Hellen. iv, 1, 40. πάντ᾽ ἐποίησεν, ὅπως ἂν δι᾽ ἐκεῖνον ἐγκριθείη εἰς τὸ στάδιον ἐν Ὀλυμπίᾳ, μέγιστος ὢν παίδων.

[519] Plutarch, Agesil. c. 5-13.

[520] Xen. Hellen. iv, 1, 41; Xen. Agesil. i, 35-38; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 14, 15; Isokrates, Or. v, (Philipp.) s. 100.

[521] Compare Diodor. xv, 41 ad fin.; and Thucyd. viii, 45.

[522] Isokrates (Or. viii, De Pace, s. 82) alludes to “many embassies” as having been sent by Athens to the king of Persia, to protest against the Lacedæmonian dominion. But this mission of Konon is the only one which we can verify, prior to the battle of Knidus.

Probably Dennis, the son of Pyrilampês, an eminent citizen and trierarch of Athens, must have been one of the companions of Konon in this mission. He is mentioned in an oration of Lysias as having received from the Great King a present of a golden drinking-bowl or φιάλη; and I do not know on what other occasion he can have received it, except in this embassy (Lysias, Or. xix, De Bonis Aristoph. s. 27).

[523] Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 6.

[524] The measures of Konon and the transactions preceding the battle of Knidus, are very imperfectly known to us; but we may gather them generally from Diodorus, xiv, 81; Justin, vi, 3, 4; Cornelius Nepos, Vit. Conon. c. 2, 3; Ktesiæ Fragment, c. 62, 63, ed. Bähr.

Isokrates (Orat. iv, (Panegyr.) s. 165; compare Orat. ix, (Euagor.) s. 77) speaks loosely as to the duration of time that the Persian fleet remained blocked up by the Lacedæmonians before Konon obtained his final and vigorous orders from Artaxerxes, unless we are to understand his three years as referring to the first news of outfit of ships of war in Phœnicia, brought to Sparta by Herodas, as Schneider understands them; and even then the statement that the Persian fleet remained πολιορκούμενον for all this time, would be much exaggerated. Allowing for exaggeration, however, Isokrates coincides generally with the authorities above noticed.

It would appear that Ktesias the physician obtained about this time permission to quit the court of Persia and come back to Greece. Perhaps he may have been induced (like Demokêdes of Kroton, one hundred and twenty years before) to promote the views of Konon in order to get for himself this permission.

In the meagre abstract of Ktesias given by Photius (c. 63) mention is made of some Lacedæmonian envoys who were now going up to the Persian court, and were watched or detained on the way. This mission can hardly have taken place before the battle of Knidus; for then Agesilaus was in the full tide of success, and contemplating the largest plans of aggression against Persia. It must have taken place, I presume, after the battle.

[525] Isokrates, Or. ix, (Euagoras) s. 67. Εὐαγόρου δὲ αὑτόν τε παρασχόντος, καὶ τῆς δυνάμεως τὴν πλείστην παρασκευάσαντος. Compare s. 83 of the same oration. Compare Pausanias, i, 3, 1.

[526] Diodor. xiv, 83. διέτριβον περὶ Λώρυμα τῆς Χερσονήσου.

It is hardly necessary to remark, that the word Chersonesus here (and in xiv, 89) does not mean the peninsula of Thrace commonly known by that name, forming the European side of the Hellespont,—but the peninsula on which Knidus is situated.

[527] Pausan. vi, 3, 6. περὶ Κνίδον καὶ ὄρος τὸ Δώριον ὀνομαζόμενον.

[528] Xen. Hellen. iv, 3, 12. Φαρνάβαζον, ναύαρχον ὄντα, ξὺν ταῖς Φοινίσσαις εἶναι. Κόνωνα δὲ, τὸ Ἑλληνικὸν ἔχοντα, τετάχθαι ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ. Ἀντιπαραταξαμένου δὲ τοῦ Πεισάνδρου, καὶ πολὺ ἐλαττόνων αὐτῷ τῶν νεῶν φανεισῶν τῶν αὑτοῦ τοῦ μετὰ Κόνωνος Ἑλληνικοῦ, etc.

[529] Xen. Hellen. iv, 3, 10-14; Diodor. xiv, 83; Cornelius Nepos, Conon, c. 4; Justin, vi, 3.

[530] Thucyd. v, 52.

[531] Xen. Hellen. i, 2, 18.

[532] Diodor. xiv, 38; Polyæn. ii, 21.

[533] Diodorus, ut sup.; compare xiv, 81. τοὺς Τραχινίους φεύγοντας ἐκ τῶν πατρίδων ὑπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων, etc.

[534] Xen. Hellen. iii, 5, 1. Πέμπει Τιμοκράτην Ῥόδιον εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα, δοὺς χρυσίον ἐς πεντήκοντα τάλαντα ἀργυρίου, καὶ κελεύει πειρᾶσθαι, πιστὰ τὰ μέγιστα λαμβάνοντα, διδόναι τοῖς προεστηκόσιν ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ τε πόλεμον ἐξοίσειν πρὸς Λακεδαιμονίους.

Timokrates is ordered to give the money; yet not absolutely, but only on a certain condition, in case he should find that such condition could be realized; that is, if by giving it he could procure from various leading Greeks sufficient assurances and guarantees that they would raise war against Sparta. As this was a matter more or less doubtful, Timokrates is ordered to try to give the money for this purpose. Though the construction of πειρᾶσθαι couples it with διδόναι, the sense of the word more properly belongs to ἐξοίσειν—which designates the purpose to be accomplished.

[535] Xen. Hellen. iii, 5, 2; Pausan. iii, 9, 4; Plutarch, Artaxerxes, c. 20.

[536] Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 26.

[537] Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 16.

[538] Xen. Hellen. iii, 5, 2. Οἱ μὲν δὴ δεξάμενοι τὰ χρήματα ἐς τὰς οἰκείας πόλεις διέβαλλον τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους· ἐπεὶ δὲ ταύτας ἐς μῖσος αὐτῶν προήγαγον, συνίστασαν καὶ τὰς μεγίστας πόλεις πρὸς ἀλλήλας.

[539] Xenophon, ut sup.

Pausanias (iii, 9, 4) names some Athenians as having received part of the money. So Plutarch also, in general terms (Agesil. c. 15).

Diodorus mentions nothing respecting either the mission or the presents of Timokrates.

[540] Πόλεμος Βοιωτικός (Diodor. xiv, 81).

[541] Xenophon (Hellen. iii, 5, 3) says,—and Pausanias (iii, 9, 4) follows him,—That the Theban leaders, wishing to bring about a war with Sparta, and knowing that Sparta would not begin it, purposely incited the Lokrians to encroach upon this disputed border, in order that the Phokians might resent it, and that thus a war might be lighted up. I have little hesitation in rejecting this version, which I conceive to have arisen from Xenophon’s philo-Laconian and miso-Theban tendency, and in believing that the fight between the Lokrians and Phokians, as well as that between the Phokians and Thebans, arose without any design on the part of the latter to provoke Sparta. So Diodorus recounts it, in reference to the war between the Phokians and the Thebans; for about the Lokrians he says nothing (xiv, 81).

The subsequent events, as recounted by Xenophon himself, show that the Spartans were not only ready in point of force, but eager in regard to will, to go to war with the Thebans; while the latter were not at all ready to go to war with Sparta. They had not a single ally; for their application to Athens, in itself doubtful, was not made until after Sparta had declared war against them.

[542] Xen. Hellen. iii, 5, 5. Οἱ μέντοι Λακεδαιμόνιοι ἄσμενοι ἔλαβον πρόφασιν στρατεύειν ἐπὶ τοὺς Θηβαίους, πάλαι ὀργιζόμενοι αὐτοῖς, τῆς τε ἀντιλήψεως τῆς τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος δεκάτης ἐν Δεκελείᾳ, καὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ τὸν Πειραιᾶ μὴ ἐθελῆσαι ἀκολουθῆσαι· ᾐτιῶντο δ᾽ αὐτοὺς, καὶ Κορινθίους πεῖσαι μὴ συστρατεύειν. Ἀνεμιμνήσκοντο δὲ καὶ, ὡς θύοντ᾽ ἐν Αὐλίδι τὸν Ἀγησίλαον οὐκ εἴων, καὶ τὰ τεθυμένα ἱερὰ ὡς ἔῤῥιψαν ἀπὸ τοῦ βωμοῦ· καὶ ὅτι οὐδ᾽ εἰς τὴν Ἀσίαν συνεστράτευον Ἀγησιλάῳ. Ἐλογίζοντο δὲ καὶ καλὸν εἶναι τοῦ ἐξάγειν στρατιὰν ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς, καὶ παῦσαι τῆς ἐς αὐτοὺς ὕβρεως· τά τε γὰρ ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ καλῶς σφίσιν ἔχειν, κρατοῦντος Ἀγησιλάου, καὶ ἐν τῇ Ἑλλάδι οὐδένα ἄλλον πόλεμον ἐμποδὼν σφίσιν εἶναι. Compare vii, 1, 34.

The description here given by Xenophon himself,—of the past dealing and established sentiment between Sparta and Thebes,—refutes his allegation, that it was the bribes brought by Timokrates to the leading Thebans which first blew up the hatred against Sparta; and shows farther, that Sparta did not need any circuitous manœuvres of the Thebans, to furnish her with a pretext for going to war.

[543] Plutarch, Lysand. c. 28.

[544] Xen. Hellen. iii, 5, 6, 7.

[545] Xen. Hellen. iii, 5, 23.

The conduct of the Corinthians here contributes again to refute the assertion of Xenophon about the effect of the bribes of Timokrates.

[546] Pausanias, ix, 11, 4.

[547] Xen. Hellen. iii, 5, 9.

Πολὺ δ᾽ ἔτι μᾶλλον ἀξιοῦμεν, ὅσοι τῶν ἐν ἄστει ἐγένεσθε, προθύμως ἐπὶ τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους ἰέναι. Ἐκεῖνοι γὰρ, καταστήσαντες ὑμᾶς ἐς ὀλιγαρχίαν καὶ ἐς ἔχθραν τῷ δήμῳ, ἀφικόμενοι πολλῇ δυνάμει, ὡς ὑμῖν σύμμαχοι, παρέδοσαν ὑμᾶς τῷ πλήθει· ὥστε τὸ μὲν ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνοις εἶναι, ἀπολώλατε, ὁ δὲ δῆμος οὑτοσὶ ὑμᾶς ἔσωσε.

[548] Xen. Hellen. iii, 5, 9, 16.

[549] Demosthen. de Coronâ, c. 28, p. 258; also Philipp. i, c. 7, p. 44. Compare also Lysias, Orat. xvi, (pro Mantitheo, s. 15).

[550] Xen. Hellen. iii, 5, 16. Τῶν δ᾽ Ἀθηναίων παμπολλοὶ μὲν ξυνηγόρευον, πάντες δ᾽ ἐψηφίσαντο βοηθεῖν αὐτοῖς.

[551] Xen. Hellen. ut sup.

Pausanias (iii, 9, 6) says that the Athenians sent envoys to the Spartans to entreat them not to act aggressively against Thebes, but to submit their complaint to equitable adjustment. This seems to me improbable. Diodorus (xiv, 81) briefly states the general fact in conformity with Xenophon.

[552] Xen. Hellen. iii, 5, 17; Plutarch, Lysand. c. 28.

[553] Thucyd. iv, 89. γενομένης διαμαρτίας τῶν ἡμερῶν, etc.

[554] Xen. Hellen. iii, 5, 18, 19, 20; Plutarch, Lysand. c. 28, 29; Pausan. iii, 5, 4.

The two last differ in various matters from Xenophon, whose account, however, though brief, seems to me to deserve the preference.

[555] Xen. Hellen. iii, 5, 21. ἀπεληλυθότας ἐν νυκτὶ τούς τε Φωκέας καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἅπαντας οἴκαδε ἑκάστους, etc.

[556] Lysias, Or. xvi, (pro Mantitheo) s. 15, 16.

[557] Accordingly we learn from an oration of Lysias, that the service of the Athenian horsemen in this expedition, who were commanded by Orthobulus, was judged to be extremely safe and easy; while that of the hoplites was dangerous (Lysias, Orat. xvi, pro Mantith. s. 15).

[558] Xen. Hellen. iii, 5, 23. Κορίνθιοι μὲν παντάπασιν οὐκ ἠκολούθουν αὐτοῖς, οἱ δὲ παρόντες οὐ προθύμως στρατεύοιντο, etc.

[559] See the conduct of the Thebans on this very point (of giving up the slain at the solicitation of the conquered Athenians for burial) after the battle of Delium, and the discussion thereupon,—in this History, Vol. VI, ch. liii, p. 393 seq.

[560] Xen. Hellen. iii, 5, 24. Οἱ δὲ ἄσμενοί τε ταῦτα ἤκουσαν, etc.

[561] Xen. Hellen. iii, 5, 24.

[562] Xen. Hellen. vi, 4, 5.

[563] The traveller Pausanias justifies the prudence of his regal namesake in avoiding a battle, by saying that the Athenians were in his rear, and the Thebans in his front; and that he was afraid of being assailed on both sides at once, like Leonidas at Thermopylæ and like the troops enclosed in Sphakteria (Paus. iii, 5, 5).

But the matter of fact, on which this justification rests, is contradicted by Xenophon, who says that the Athenians had actually joined the Thebans, and were in the same ranks—ἐλθόντες ξυμπαρετάξαντο (Hellen. iii, 5, 22).

[564] Xen. Hellen. iii, 5, 25. Καὶ ὅτι τὸν δῆμον τῶν Ἀθηναίων λαβὼν ἐν τῷ Πειραιεῖ ἀνῆκε, etc. Compare Pausanias, iii, 5, 3.

[565] Pausanias, ix, 32, 6.

[566] Ephorus, Fr. 127, ed. Didot; Plutarch, Lysander, c. 30.

[567] Diodor. xiv, 81, 82; Xen. Hellen. iv, 2, 17.

[568] Xen. Hellen. v, 2, 36. Ὁ δ᾽ (Ismenias) ἀπελογεῖτο μὲν πρὸς πάντα ταῦτα, οὐ μέντοι ἔπειθέ γε τὸ μὴ οὐ μεγαλοπράγμων τε καὶ κακοπράγμων εἶναι.

It is difficult to make out anything from the two allusions in Plato, except that Ismenias was a wealthy and powerful man (Plato, Menon, p. 90 B; Republ. i. p. 336 A.).

[569] Diodor. xiv, 82; Xen. Hellen. iv, 3, 3; Xen. Agesil. ii, 2.

[570] Diodor. xiv, 38-82.

[571] Xenoph. Hellen. iii, 5, 6.

[572] Diodor. xiv, 82.

[573] Xen. Hellen. iv, 2, 16. Xenophon gives this total of six thousand as if it were of Lacedæmonians alone. But if we follow his narrative, we shall see that there were unquestionably in the army troops of Tegea, Mantineia, and the Achæan towns (probably also some of other Arcadian towns,) present in the battle (iv, 2, 13, 18, 20). Can we suppose that Xenophon meant to include these allies in the total of six thousand, along with the Lacedæmonians,—which is doubtless a large total for Lacedæmonians alone? Unless this supposition be admitted, there is no resource except to assume an omission, either of Xenophon himself, or of the copyist; which omission in fact Gail and others do suppose. On the whole, I think they are right; for the number of hoplites on both sides would otherwise be prodigiously unequal; while Xenophon says nothing to imply that the Lacedæmonian victory was gained in spite of great inferiority of number, and something which even implies that it must have been nearly equal (iv, 2, 13),—though he is always disposed to compliment Sparta wherever he can.

[574] From a passage which occurs somewhat later (iv, 4, 15), we may suspect that this was an excuse, and that the Phliasians were not very well affected to Sparta. Compare a similar case of excuse ascribed to the Mantineians (v, 2, 2).

[575] Diodorus (xiv, 83) gives a total of twenty-three thousand foot and five hundred horse, on the Lacedæmonian side, but without enumerating items. On the side of the confederacy he states a total of more than fifteen thousand foot and five hundred horse (c. 82).

[576] Xen. Hellen. iv, 2, 17. Καὶ ψιλὸν δὲ, ξὺν τοῖς τῶν Κορινθίων, πλέον ἦν, etc. Compare Hesychius, v, Κυνόφαλοι; Welcker, Præfat. ad. Theognidem, p. xxxv; K. O. Müller, History of the Dorians, iii, 4, 3.

[577] Xen. Hellen. iv, 2, 13; compare iv, 2, 18,—where he says of the Thebans—ἀμελήσαντες τοῦ ἐς ἑκκαίδεκα, βαθεῖαν παντελῶς ἐποιήσαντο τὴν φάλαγγα, etc., which implies and alludes to the resolution previously taken.

[578] Xen. Hellen. iv, 2, 11, 12.

[579] Xen. Hellen. iv, 2, 14, 15.

In the passage,—καὶ οἱ ἕτεροι μέντοι ἐλθόντες κατεστρατοπεδεύσαντο, ἔμπροσθεν ποιησάμενοι τὴν χαράδραν,—I apprehend that ἀπελθόντες (which is sanctioned by four MSS., and preferred by Leunclavius) is the proper reading, in place of ἐλθόντες. For it seems certain that the march of the confederates was one of retreat, and that the battle was fought very near to the walls of Corinth; since the defeated troops sought shelter within the town, and the Lacedæmonian pursuers were so close upon them, that the Corinthians within were afraid to keep open the gates. Hence we must reject the statement of Diodorus,—that the battle was fought on the banks of the river Nemea (xiv, 83) as erroneous.

There are some difficulties and obscurities in the description which Xenophon gives of the Lacedæmonian march. His words run—ἐν τούτῳ οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι, καὶ δὴ Τεγεάτας παρειληφότες καὶ Μαντινέας, ἐξῄεσαν τὴν ἀμφίαλον. These last three words are not satisfactorily explained. Weiske and Schneider construe τὴν ἀμφίαλον (very justly) as indicating the region lying immediately on the Peloponnesian side of the isthmus of Corinth and having the Saronic Gulf on one side, and the Corinthian Gulf on the other; in which was included Sikyon. But then it would not be correct to say, that “the Lacedæmonians had gone out by the bimarine way.” On the contrary, the truth is, that “they had gone out into the bimarine road or region,—which meaning however would require a preposition—ἐξῄεσαν εἰς τὴν ἀμφίαλον. Sturz in his Lexicon (v. ἐξιέναι) renders τὴν ἀμφίαλον—viam ad mare—which seems an extraordinary sense of the word, unless instances were produced to support it; and even if instances were produced, we do not see why the way from Sparta to Sikyon should be called by that name; which would more properly belong to the road from Sparta down the Eurotas to Helos.

Again, we do not know distinctly the situation of the point or district called τὴν Ἐπιεικίαν (mentioned again, iv, 4, 13). But it is certain from the map, that when the confederates were at Nemea, and the Lacedæmonians at Sikyon,—the former must have been exactly placed so as to intercept the junction of the contingents from Epidaurus, Trœzen, and Hermionê, with the Lacedæmonian army. To secure this junction, the Lacedæmonians were obliged to force their way across that mountainous region which lies near Kleônæ and Nemea, and to march in a line pointing from Sikyon down to the Saronic Gulf. Having reached the other side of these mountains near the sea, they would be in communication with Epidaurus and the other towns of the Argolic peninsula.

The line of march which the Lacedæmonians would naturally take from Sparta to Sikyon and Lechæum, by Tegea, Mantineia, Orchomenus, etc., is described two years afterwards in the case of Agesilaus (iv, 5, 19).

[580] Xen. Hellen. iv, 2, 18. The coloring which Xenophon puts upon this step is hardly fair to the Thebans, as is so constantly the case throughout his history. He says that “they were in no hurry to fight” (οὐδέν τι κατήπειγον τὴν μάχην ξυνάπτειν) so long as they were on the left, opposed to the Lacedæmonians on the opposite right; but that as soon as they were on the right (opposed to the Achæans on the opposite left), they forthwith gave the word. Now it does not appear that the Thebans had any greater privilege on the day when they were on the right, than the Argeians or Athenians had when each were on the right respectively. The command had been determined to reside in the right division, which post alternated from one to the other; why the Athenians or Argeians did not make use of this post to order the attack, we cannot explain.

So again, Xenophon says, that in spite of the resolution taken by the Council of War to have files sixteen deep, and no more,—the Thebans made their files much deeper. Yet it is plain, from his own account, that no mischievous consequences turned upon this greater depth.

[581] See the instructive description of the battle of Mantineia—in Thucyd. v, 71.

[582] Xen. Hellen. iv, 2, 20-23.

The allusion to this incident in Demosthenes (adv. Leptinem, c. 13, p. 472) is interesting, though indistinct.

[583] Xen. Hellen. iv, 2, 19. καὶ γὰρ ἦν λάσιον τὸ χωρίον—which illustrates the expression in Lysias, Orat. xvi, (pro Mantitheo) s. 20. ἐν Κορίνθῳ χωρίων ἰσχυρῶν κατειλημμένων.

[584] Lysias, Orat. xvi, (pro Mantitheo) s. 19.

Plato in his panegyrical discourse (Menexenus, c. 17, p. 245 E.) ascribes the defeat and loss of the Athenians to “bad ground”—χρησαμένων δυσχωρίᾳ.

[585] Diodor. xiv, 83.

The statement in Xenophon (Agesil. vii, 5) that near ten thousand men were slain on the side of the confederates, is a manifest exaggeration; if indeed the reading be correct.

[586] Xen. Agesil. i, 37; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 15. Cornelius Nepos (Agesilaus, c. 4) almost translates the Agesilaus of Xenophon; but we can better feel the force of his panegyric, when we recollect that he had had personal cognizance of the disobedience of Julius Cæsar in his province to the orders of the Senate, and that the omnipotence of Sylla and Pompey in their provinces were then matter of recent history. “Cujus exemplum (says Cornelius Nepos about Agesilaus) utinam imperatores nostri sequi voluissent!”

[587] Xen. Hellen. iv, 2, 2-5; Xen. Agesil. i, 38; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 16.

[588] Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 24.

[589] Xenoph. Agesil. vii, 5; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 16.

[590] Xen. Hellen. iv, 2, 4-9; Diodor. xiv, 83.

[591] Plutarch (Agesil. c. 17; compare also Plutarch, Apophth. p. 795, as corrected by Morus ad Xen. Hellen. iv, 3, 15) states two moræ or regiments as having joined Agesilaus from Corinth; Xenophon alludes only to one, besides that mora which was in garrison at Orchomenus (Hellen. iv, 3, 15; Agesil. ii, 6).

[592] Xen. Hellen. iv, 3, 13.

Ὁ μὲν οὖν Ἀγησίλαος πυθόμενος ταῦτα, τὸ μὲν πρῶτον χαλεπῶς ἔφερεν· ἐπεὶ μέντοι ἐνεθυμήθη, ὅτι τοῦ στρατεύματος τὸ πλεῖστον εἴη αὐτῷ, οἷον ἀγαθῶν μὲν γιγνομένων ἡδέως μετέχειν, εἰ δέ τι χαλεπὸν ὁρῷεν, οὐκ ἀνάγκην εἶναι κοινωνεῖν αὐτοῖς, etc.

These indirect intimations of the real temper even of the philo-Spartan allies towards Sparta are very valuable when coming from Xenophon, as they contradict all his partialities, and are dropped here almost reluctantly, from the necessity of justifying the conduct of Agesilaus in publishing a false proclamation to his army.

[593] Lysias, Orat. xvi, (pro Mantitheo) s. 20. φοβουμένων ἁπάντων εἰκότως, etc.

[594] Plutarch, Agesil. c. 19.

[595] Xen. Hellen. iv, 3, 17. ἀντεξέδραμον ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀγησιλάου φάλαγγος, etc.

[596] Xen. Hellen. iv, 3, 19; Xen. Agesil. ii, 12.

[597] Xen. Hellen. iv, 3, 16; Xen. Agesil. ii, 9.

Διηγήσομαι δὲ καὶ τὴν μάχην· καὶ γὰρ ἐγένετο οἵα οὐκ ἄλλη τῶν γ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν.

[598] Xen. Hellen. iv, 3, 19; Xen. Agesil. ii, 12.

Καὶ συμβαλόντες τὰς ἀσπίδας ἐωθοῦντο, ἐμάχοντο, ἀπέκτεινον, ἀπέθνησκον. Καὶ κραυγὴ μὲν οὐδεμία παρῆν, οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ σιγή· φωνὴ δέ τις ἦν τοιαύτη, οἵαν ὀργή τε καὶ μάχη παράσχοιτ᾽ ἄν.

[599] Xen. Agesil. ii, 13. Ὁ δὲ, καίπερ πολλὰ τραύματα ἔχων πάντοσε καὶ παντοίοις ὅπλοις, etc.

Plutarch, Agesil. c. 18.

[600] Xen. Hellen. iv, 3, 19; Xen. Agesil. ii, 12.

[601] Xen. Agesil. ii, 14. Ἐπεί γε μὴν ἔληξεν ἡ μάχη, παρῆν δὴ θεάσασθαι ἔνθα συνέπεσον ἀλλήλοις, τὴν μὲν γῆν αἵματι πεφυρμένην, νεκροὺς δὲ κειμένους φιλίους καὶ πολεμίους μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων, ἀσπίδας δὲ διατεθρυμμένας, δόρατα συντεθραυσμένα, ἐγχειρίδια γυμνὰ κουλεῶν τὰ μὲν χαμαί, τὰ δ᾽ ἐν σώμασι, τὰ δ᾽ ἔτι μετὰ χειρός.

[602] Xen. Agesil. ii, 15. Τότε μὲν οὖν (καὶ γὰρ ἦν ἤδη ὀψέ) συνελκύσαντες τοὺς τῶν πολεμίων νεκροὺς εἴσω φάλαγγος, ἐδειπνοποιήσαντο καὶ ἐκοιμήθησαν.

Schneider in his note on this passage, as well as ad. Xen. Hellen. iv, 3, 21—condemns the expression τῶν πολεμίων as spurious and unintelligible. But in my judgment, these words hear a plain and appropriate meaning, which I have endeavored to give in the text. Compare Plutarch, Agesil. c. 19.

[603] Diodor. xiv, 84.

[604] Xen. Hellen. iv, 3, 21; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 19. The latter says—εἰς Δελφοὺς ἀπεκομίσθη Πυθίων ἀγομένων, etc. Manso, Dr. Arnold, and others, contest the accuracy of Plutarch in this assertion respecting the time of year at which the Pythian games were celebrated, upon grounds which seem to me very insufficient.

[605] Xen. Hellen. iv, 3, 22, 23; iv. 4, 1.

[606] Plutarch, Agesil. c. 17, 20; Xen. Hellen. v, 3, 20.

[607] Plutarch, Agesil. c. 17. Cornelius Nepos, Agesil. c. 4. “Obsistere ei conati sunt Athenienses et Bœoti,” etc. They succeeded in barring his way, and compelling him to retreat.

[608] Xenoph. Hellen. iv, 8, 1-5.

[609] Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 1-3; Diodor. xiv, 84. About Samos, xiv, 97.

Compare also the speech of Derkyllidas to the Abydenes (Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 4)—Ὅσῳ δὲ μᾶλλον αἱ ἄλλαι πόλεις ξὺν τῇ τύχῃ ἀπεστράφησαν ἡμῶν, τοσούτῳ ὄντως ἡ ὑμετέρα πιστότης μείζων φανείη ἄν, etc.

[610] Ἐκ γὰρ Ἀβύδου, τῆς τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον ὑμῖν ἔχθρας—says Demosthenes in the Athenian assembly (cont. Aristokrat. c. 39, p. 672; compare c. 52, p. 688).

[611] Xen. Hellen. iv, 3, 2.

[612] Lysander, after the victory of Ægospotami and the expulsion of the Athenians from Sestos, had assigned the town and district as a settlement for the pilots and Keleustæ aboard his fleet. But the ephors are said to have reversed the assignment, and restored the town to the Sestians (Plutarch, Lysand. c. 14). Probably, however, the new settlers would remain in part upon the lands vacated by the expelled Athenians.

[613] Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 4-6.

[614] See Sir William Gell’s Itinerary of Greece, p. 4. Ernst Curtius—Peloponnesos—p. 25, 26, and Thucyd. i, 108.

[615] Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 7, 8; Diodor. xiv, 84.

[616] Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 9, 10.

[617] Xen. Hellen. iv. 8, 10; Diodor. xiv. 85.

Cornelius Nepos (Conon, c. 4) mentions fifty talents as a sum received by Konon from Pharnabazus as a present, and devoted by him to this public work. This is not improbable; but the total sum contributed by the satrap towards the fortifications must, probably, have been much greater.

[618] Demosthen. cont. Androtion. p. 616. c. 21. Pausanias (i, 1, 3) still saw this temple in Peiræus—very near to the sea; five hundred and fifty years afterwards.

[619] Demosthen. cont. Leptin. c. 16. p. 477, 478; Athenæus, i, 3; Cornelius Nepos, Conon, c. 4.

[620] Plato, Legg. vi, p. 778; καθεύδειν ἐᾷν ἐν τῇ γῇ κατακείμενα τὰ τείχη, etc.

[621] The importance of maintaining these lines, as a protection to Athens against invasion from Sparta, is illustrated in Xen. Hellen. v, 4, 19, and Andokides, Or. iii, De Pace, s. 26.

[622] Harpokration, v. ξενικὸν ἐν Κορίνθῳ. Philochorus, Fragm. 150, ed. Didot.

[623] Lysias, Orat. xix, (De Bonis Aristophanis) s. 21.

[624] Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 11.

[625] Xen. Hellen. iv, 4, 1; iv, 5, 1.

[626] I dissent from Mr. Fynes Clinton as well as from M. Rehdantz (Vitæ Iphicratis, etc., c. 4, who in the main agrees with Dodwell’s Annales Xenophontei) in their chronological arrangement of these events.

They place the battle fought by Praxitas within the Long Walls of Corinth in 393 B.C., and the destruction of the Lacedæmonian mora or division by Iphikrates (the monthly date of which is marked by its having immediately succeeded the Isthmian games), in 392 B.C. I place the former event in 392 B.C.; the latter in 390 B.C., immediately after the Isthmian games of 390 B.C.

If we study the narrative of Xenophon, we shall find, that after describing (iv, 3) the battle of Korôneia (August 394 B.C.) with its immediate consequences, and the return of Agesilaus home,—he goes on in the next chapter to narrate the land-war about or near Corinth, which he carries down without interruption (through Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, of Book iv.) to 389 B.C.

But in Chapter 8 of Book iv, he leaves the land-war, and takes up the naval operations, from and after the battle of Knidus (Aug. 394 B.C.). He recounts how Pharnabazus and Konon came across the Ægean with a powerful fleet in the spring of 393 B.C., and how after various proceedings, they brought the fleet to the Saronic Gulf and the Isthmus of Corinth, where they must have arrived at or near midsummer 393 B.C.

Now it appears to me certain, that these proceedings of Pharnabazus with the fleet, recounted in the eighth chapter, come, in point of date, before the seditious movements and the coup d’état at Corinth, which are recounted in the fourth chapter. At the time when Pharnabazus was at Corinth in midsummer 393 B.C., the narrative of Xenophon (iv, 8, 8-10) leads us to believe that the Corinthians were prosecuting the war zealously, and without discontent: the money and encouragement which Pharnabazus gave them was calculated to strengthen such ardor. It was by aid of this money that the Corinthians fitted out their fleet under Agathinus, and acquired for a time the maritime command of the Gulf.

The discontents against the war (recounted in chap. 4 seq.) could not have commenced until a considerable time after the departure of Pharnabazus. They arose out of causes which only took effect after a long continuance,—the hardships of the land-war, the losses of property and slaves, the jealousy towards Attica and Bœotia as being undisturbed, etc. The Lacedæmonian and Peloponnesian aggressive force at Sikyon cannot possibly have been established before the autumn of 394 B.C., and was most probably placed there early in the spring of 393 B.C. Its effects were brought about, not by one great blow, but by repetition of ravages and destructive annoyance; and all the effects which it produced previous to midsummer 393 B.C. would be more than compensated by the presence, the gifts, and the encouragement of Pharnabazus with his powerful fleet. Moreover, after his departure, too, the Corinthians were at first successful at sea, and acquired the command of the Gulf, which, however, they did not retain for more than a year, if so much. Hence, it is not likely that any strong discontent against the war began before the early part of 392 B.C.

Considering all these circumstances, I think it reasonable to believe that the coup d’état and massacre at Corinth took place (not in 393 B.C., as Mr. Clinton and M. Rehdantz place it, but) in 392 B.C.; and the battle within the Long Walls rather later in the same year.

Next, the opinion of the same two authors, as well as of Dodwell,—that the destruction of the Lacedæmonian mora by Iphicrates took place in the spring of 392 B.C.,—is also, in my view, erroneous. If this were true, it would be necessary to pack all the events mentioned in Xenophon, iv, 4, into the year 393 B.C.; which I hold to be impossible. If the destruction of the mora did not occur in the spring of 393 B.C., we know that it could not have occurred until the spring of 390 B.C.; that is, the next ensuing Isthmian games, two years afterwards. And this last will be found to be its true date; thus leaving full time, but not too much time, for the antecedent occurrences.

[627] Plutarch, Dion. c. 53.

[628] Xen. Hellen. iv, 4, 2. Γνόντες δὲ οἱ Ἀργεῖοι καὶ Βοιωτοὶ καὶ Ἀθηναῖοι καὶ Κορινθίων οἵ τε τῶν παρὰ βασιλέως χρημάτων μετεσχηκότες, καὶ οἱ τοῦ πολέμου αἰτιώτατοι γεγενημένοι, ὡς, εἰ μὴ ἐκποδὼν ποιήσαιντο τοὺς ἐπὶ τὴν εἰρήνην τετραμμένους, κινδυνεύσει πάλιν ἡ πόλις λακωνίσαι—οὕτω δὴ καὶ σφαγὰς ἐπεχείρουν ποιεῖσθαι.

iv, 4, 4. Οἱ δὲ νεώτεροι, ὑποπτεύσαντος Πασιμήλου τὸ μέλλον ἔσεσθαι, ἡσυχίαν ἔσχον ἐν τῷ Κρανίῳ· ὡς δὲ τῆς κραυγῆς ἤσθοντο, καὶ φεύγοντές τινες ἐκ τοῦ πράγματος ἀφίκοντο πρὸς αὐτούς, ἐκ τούτου ἀναδραμόντες κατὰ τὸν Ἀκροκόρινθον, προσβαλόντας μὲν Ἀργείους καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀπεκρούσαντο, etc.

[629] Thucyd. iii, 70.

[630] Diodorus (xiv, 86) gives this number, which seems very credible. Xenophon (iv, 4, 4) only says πολλοί.

[631] In recounting this alternation of violence projected, violence perpetrated, recourse on the one side to a foreign ally, treason on the other by admitting an avowed enemy,—which formed the modus operandi of opposing parties in the oligarchical Corinth,—I invite the reader to contrast it with the democratical Athens.

At Athens, in the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, there were precisely the same causes at work, and precisely the same marked antithesis of parties, as those which here disturbed Corinth. There was first, a considerable Athenian minority who opposed the war with Sparta from the first; next, when the war began, the proprietors of Attica saw their lands ruined, and were compelled either to carry away, or to lose, their servants and cattle, so that they obtained no returns. The intense discontent, the angry complaints, the bitter conflict of parties, which these circumstances raised among the Athenian citizens,—not to mention the aggravation of all these symptoms by the terrible epidemic,—are marked out in Thucydides, and have been recorded in the fifth volume of this history. Not only the positive loss and suffering, but all other causes of exasperation, stood at a higher pitch at Athens in the early part of the Peloponnesian war, than at Corinth in 392 B.C.

Yet what were the effects which they produced? Did the minority resort to a conspiracy,—or the majority to a coup d’état—or either of them to invitation of foreign aid against the other? Nothing of the kind. The minority had always open to them the road of pacific opposition, and the chance of obtaining a majority in the Senate or in the public assembly, which was practically identical with the totality of the citizens. Their opposition, though pacific as to acts, was sufficiently animated and violent in words and propositions, to serve as a real discharge for imprisoned angry passion. If they could not carry the adoption of their general policy, they had the opportunity of gaining partial victories which took off the edge of a fierce discontent; witness the fine imposed upon Perikles (Thucyd. ii, 65) in the year before his death, which both gratified and mollified the antipathy against him, and brought about shortly afterwards a strong reaction in his favor. The majority, on the other hand, knew that the predominance of its policy depended upon its maintaining its hold on a fluctuating public assembly, against the utmost freedom of debate and attack, within certain forms and rules prescribed by the constitution; attachment to the latter being the cardinal principle of political morality in both parties. It was this system which excluded on both sides the thought of armed violence. It produced among the democratical citizens of Athens that characteristic insisted upon by Kleon in Thucydides,—“constant and fearless security and absence of treacherous hostility among one another” (διὰ γὰρ τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν ἀδεὲς καὶ ἀνεπιβούλευτον πρὸς ἀλλήλους, καὶ ἐς τοὺς ξυμμάχους τὸ αὐτὸ ἔχετε—Thuc. iii, 37), the entire absence of which stands so prominently forward in these deplorable proceedings of the oligarchical Corinth. Pasimêlus and his Corinthian minority had no assemblies, dikasteries, annual Senate, or constant habit of free debate and accusation, to appeal to; their only available weapon was armed violence, or treacherous correspondence with a foreign enemy. On the part of the Corinthian government, superior or more skilfully used force, or superior alliance abroad, was the only weapon of defence, in like manner.

I shall return to this subject in a future chapter, where I enter more at large into the character of the Athenians.

[632] Diodor. xiv, 86; Xen. Hellen. iv, 4, 5.

[633] Xen. Hellen. iv, 4, 8. καὶ κατὰ τύχην καὶ κατ᾽ ἐπιμέλειαν, etc.

[634] Xen. Hellen. iv, 4, 8. Nothing can show more forcibly the Laconian bias of Xenophon, than the credit which he gives to Pasimêlus for his good faith towards the Lacedæmonians whom he was letting in; overlooking or approving his treacherous betrayal towards his own countrymen, in thus opening a gate which he had been trusted to watch. τὼ δ᾽ εἰσηγαγέτην, καὶ οὕτως ἁπλῶς ἀπεδειξάτην, ὥστε ὁ εἰσελθὼν ἐξήγγειλε, πάντα εἶναι ἀδόλως, οἷάπερ ἐλεγέτην.

[635] Xen. Hellen. iv, 4. 10. Καὶ τοὺς μὲν Σικυωνίους ἐκράτησαν καὶ διασπάσαντες τὸ σταύρωμα ἐδίωκον ἐπὶ θάλασσαν, καὶ ἐκεῖ πολλοὺς αὐτῶν ἀπέκτειναν.

It would appear from hence that there must have been an open portion of Lechæum, or a space apart from (but adjoining to) the wall which encircled Lechæum, yet still within the Long Walls. Otherwise the fugitive Sikyonians could hardly have got down to the sea.

[636] Xen. Hellen. iv, 4, 12. Οὕτως ἐν ὀλίγῳ πολλοὶ ἔπεσον, ὥστε εἰθισμένοι ὁρᾷν οἱ ἄνθρωποι σωροὺς σίτου, ξύλων, λίθου, τότε ἐθεάσαντο σωροὺς νεκρῶν.

A singular form of speech.

[637] Diodorus (xiv, 87) represents that the Lacedæmonians on this occasion surprised and held Lechæum, defeating the general body of the confederates who came out from Corinth to retake it. But his narrative of all these circumstances differs materially from that of Xenophon; whom I here follow in preference, making allowance for great partiality, and for much confusion and obscurity.

Xenophon gives us plainly to understand, that Lechæum was not captured by the Lacedæmonians until the following year, by Agesilaus and Teleutias.

It is to be recollected that Xenophon had particular means of knowing what was done by Agesilaus, and therefore deserves credit on that head,—always allowing for partiality. Diodorus does not mention Agesilaus in connection with the proceedings at Lechæum.

[638] Diodor. xv, 44; Cornelius Nepos, Vit. Iphicrat. c. 2; Polyæn. iii, 9, 10. Compare Rehdantz, Vitæ Iphicratis, Chabriæ, et Timothei, c. 2, 7 (Berlin, 1845)—a very useful and instructive publication.

In describing the improvements made by Iphikrates in the armature of his peltasts, I have not exactly copied either Nepos or Diodorus, who both appear to me confused in their statements. You would imagine, in reading their account (and so it has been stated by Weber, Prolegg. ad Demosth. cont. Aristokr. p. xxxv.), that there were no peltasts in Greece prior to Iphikrates; that he was the first to transform heavy-armed hoplites into light-armed peltasts, and to introduce from Thrace the light shield or pelta, not only smaller in size than the round ἀσπὶς carried by the hoplite, but also without the ἴτυς (or surrounding metallic rim of the ἀσπὶς) seemingly connected by outside bars or spokes of metal with the exterior central knob or projection (umbo) which the hoplite pushed before him in close combat. The pelta, smaller and lighter than the ἀσπὶς, was seemingly square or oblong and not round; though it had no ἴτυς, it often had thin plates of brass, as we may see by Xenophon, Anab. v, 2, 29, so that the explanation of it given in the Scholia ad Platon. Legg. vii, p. 813 must be taken with reserve.

But Grecian peltasts existed before the time of Iphikrates (Xen. Hellen. i, 2, 1 and elsewhere); he did not first introduce them; he found them already there, and improved their armature. Both Diodorus and Nepos affirm that he lengthened the spears of the peltasts to a measure half as long again as those of the hoplites (or twice as long, if we believe Nepos), and the swords in proportion—“ηὔξησε μὲν τὰ δόρατα ἡμιολίῳ μεγέθει—hastæ modum duplicavit.” Now this I apprehend to be not exact; nor is it true (as Nepos asserts) that the Grecian hoplites carried “short spears”—“brevibus hastis.” The spear of the Grecian hoplite was long (though not so long as that of the heavy and compact Macedonian phalanx afterwards became), and it appears to me incredible that Iphikrates should have given to his light and active peltast a spear twice as long, or half as long again, as that of the hoplite. Both Diodorus and Nepos have mistaken by making their comparison with the arms of the hoplite, to which the changes of Iphikrates had no reference. The peltast both before and after Iphikrates did not carry a spear, but a javelin, which he employed as a missile, to hurl, not to thrust; he was essentially an ἀκοντιστὴς or javelin-shooter (See Xenoph. Hellen. iv, 5, 14; vi, 1, 9). Of course the javelin might, in case of need, serve to thrust, but this was not its appropriate employment; e converso, the spear might be hurled (under advantageous circumstances, from the higher ground against an enemy below—Xen. Hellen. ii. 4, 15; v, 4, 52), but its proper employment was, to be held and thrust forward.

What Iphikrates really did, was, to lengthen both the two offensive weapons which the peltast carried, before his time,—the javelin, and the sword. He made the javelin a longer and heavier weapon, requiring a more practised hand to throw—but also competent to inflict more serious wounds, and capable of being used with more deadly effect if the peltasts saw an opportunity of coming to close fight on advantageous terms. Possibly Iphikrates not only lengthened the weapon, but also improved its point and efficacy in other ways; making it more analogous to the formidable Roman pilum. Whether he made any alteration in the pelta itself, we do not know.

The name Iphikratides, given to these new-fashioned leggings or boots, proves to us that Wellington and Blucher are not the first eminent generals who have lent an honorable denomination to boots and shoes.

[639] Justin, vi, 5.

[640] Xen. Hellen. iv, 4, 16; Diodor. xiv, 91.

Τοὺς μέντοι Λακεδαιμονίους οὕτως αὖ οἱ πελτασταὶ ἐδέδισαν, ὡς ἐντὸς ἀκοντίσματος οὐ προσῄεσαν τοῖς ὁπλίταις, etc.

Compare the sentiment of the light troops in the attack of Sphakteria, when they were awe-struck and afraid at first to approach the Lacedæmonian hoplites—τῇ γνώμῃ δεδουλωμένοι ὡς ἐπὶ Λακεδαιμονίους, etc. (Thucyd. iv, 34).

[641] Xen. Hellen. iv, 4, 17. ὥστε οἱ μὲν Λακεδαιμόνιοι καὶ ἐπισκώπτειν ἐτόλμων, ὡς οἱ σύμμαχοι φοβοῖντο τοὺς πελταστὰς, ὥσπερ μορμῶνας παιδάρια, etc.

This is a camp-jest of the time, which we have to thank Xenophon for preserving.

[642] Xenoph. Agesil. ii, 17. ἀναπετάσας τῆς Πελοποννήσου τὰς πύλας, etc.

Respecting the Long Walls of Corinth, as part of a line of defence which barred ingress to, or egress from, Peloponnesus,—Colonel Leake remarks,—“The narrative of Xenophon shows the great importance of the Corinthian Long Walls in time of war. They completed a line of fortification from the summit of the Acro-Corinthus to the sea, and thus intercepted the most direct and easy communication from the Isthmus into Peloponnesus. For the rugged mountain, which borders the southern side of the Isthmian plain, has only two passes,—one, by the opening on the eastern side of Acro-Corinthus, which obliged an enemy to pass under the eastern side of Corinth, and was, moreover, defended by a particular kind of fortification, as some remains of walls still testify,—the other, along the shore at Cenchreiæ, which was also a fortified place in the hands of the Corinthians. Hence the importance of the pass of Cenchreiæ, in all operations between the Peloponnesians, and an enemy without the Isthmus.” (Leake, Travels in Morea, vol. iii, ch. xxviii, p. 254).

Compare Plutarch, Aratus, c. 16; and the operations of Epaminondas as described by Diodorus, xv, 68.

[643] Xen. Hellen. iv, 4, 18. ἐλθόντες πανδημεὶ μετὰ λιθολόγων καὶ τεκτόνων, etc. The word πανδημεὶ shows how much they were alarmed.

[644] Thucyd. vi, 98.

[645] The words stand in the text of Xenophon,—εὐθὺς ἐκεῖθεν ὑπερβαλὼν κατὰ Τεγέαν εἰς Κόρινθον. A straight march from the Argeian territory to Corinth could not possibly carry Agesilaus by Tegea; Kœppen proposes Τενέαν, which I accept, as geographically suitable. I am not certain, however, that it is right; the Agesilaus of Xenophon has the words κατὰ τὰ στενά.

About the probable situation of Tenea, see Colonel Leake, Travels in Morea, vol. iii, p. 321; also his Peloponnesiaca, p. 400.

[646] Xen. Hellen. iv, 4, 19—iv, 8, 10, 11.

It was rather late in the autumn of 393 B.C. that the Lacedæmonian maritime operations in the Corinthian Gulf began, against the fleet recently equipped by the Corinthians out of the funds lent by Pharnabazus. First, the Lacedæmonian Polemarchus was named admiral; he was slain,—and his secretary Pollis, who succeeded to his command, retired afterwards wounded. Next came Herippidas to the command, who was succeeded by Teleutias. Now if we allow to Herippidas a year of command (the ordinary duration of a Lacedæmonian admiral’s appointment), and to the other two something less than a year, since their time was brought to an end by accidents,—we shall find that the appointment of Teleutias will fall in the spring or early summer of 391 B.C., the year of this expedition of Agesilaus.

[647] Andokides de Pace, s. 18; Xen. Hellen. iv, 4, 19. Παρεγένετο δὲ αὐτῷ (Ἀγησιλάῳ) καὶ ὁ ἁδελφὸς Τελευτίας κατὰ θάλασσαν, ἔχων τριήρεις περὶ δώδεκα· ὥστε μακαρίζεσθαι αὐτῶν τὴν μητέρα, ὅτι τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ ὧν ἔτεκεν ὁ μὲν κατὰ γῆν τὰ τείχη τῶν πολεμίων, ὁ δὲ κατὰ θάλασσαν τὰς ναῦς καὶ τὰ νεώρια ᾕρηκε.

This last passage indicates decidedly that Lechæum was not taken until this joint attack by Agesilaus and Teleutias. And the authority of Xenophon on the point is superior, in my judgment, to that of Diodorus (xiv, 86), who represents Lechæum to have been taken in the year before, on the occasion when the Lacedæmonians were first admitted by treachery within the Long Walls.

The passage from Aristeides the rhetor, referred to by Wesseling, Mr. Clinton, and others, only mentions the battle at Lechæum—not the capture of the port. Xenophon also mentions a battle as having taken place close to Lechæum, between the two long walls, on the occasion when Diodorus talks of the capture of Lechæum; so that Aristeides is more in harmony with Xenophon than with Diodorus.

A few months prior to this joint attack of Agesilaus and Teleutias, the Athenians had come with an army, and with masons and carpenters, for the express purpose of rebuilding the Long Walls which Praxitas had in part broken down. This step would have been both impracticable and useless, if the Lacedæmonians had stood then in possession of Lechæum.

There is one passage of Xenophon, indeed, which looks as if the Lacedæmonians had been in possession of Lechæum before this expedition of the Athenians to reëstablish the Long Walls,—Αὐτοὶ (the Lacedæmonians) δ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ Λεχαίου ὁρμώμενοι σὺν μόρᾳ καὶ τοῖς τῶν Κορινθίων φυγάσι, κύκλῳ περὶ τὸ ἄστυ τῶν Κορινθίων ἐστρατεύοντο (iv, 4, 17). But whoever reads attentively the sections from 15 to 19 inclusive, will see (I think) that this affirmation may well refer to a period after, and not before, the capture of Lechæum by Agesilaus; for it has reference to the general contempt shown by the Lacedæmonians for the peltasts of Iphikrates, as contrasted with the terror displayed by the Mantineians and others, of these same peltasts. Even if this were otherwise, however, I should still say that the passages which I have produced above from Xenophon show plainly that he represents Lechæum to have been captured by Agesilaus and Teleutias; and that the other words, ἐκ τοῦ Λεχαίου ὁρμώμενοι, if they really implied anything inconsistent with this, must be regarded as an inaccuracy.

I will add that the chapter of Diodorus, xiv, 86, puts into one year events which cannot all be supposed to have taken place in that same year.

Had Lechæum been in possession and occupation by the Lacedæmonians in the year preceding the joint attack by Agesilaus and Teleutias, Xenophon would surely have mentioned it in iv, 4, 14; for it was a more important post than Sikyon, for acting against Corinth.

[648] Xen. Agesilaus, ii, 17.

[649] Our knowledge of the abortive negotiations adverted to in the text, is derived, partly from the third Oration of Andokides called de Pace,—partly from a statement contained in the Argument of that Oration, and purporting to be borrowed from Philochorus—Φιλόχορος μὲν οὖν λέγει καὶ ελθεῖν τοὺς πρέσβεις ἐκ Λακεδαίμονος, καὶ ἀπράκτους ἀνελθεῖν, μὴ πείσαντος τοῦ Ἀνδοκίδου.

Whether Philochorus had any additional grounds to rest upon, other than this very oration itself, may appear doubtful. But at any rate, this important fragment (which I do not see noticed among the fragments of Philochorus in M. Didot’s collection) counts for some farther evidence as to the reality of the peace proposed and discussed, but not concluded.

Neither Xenophon nor Diodorus make any mention of such mission to Sparta, or discussion at Athens, as that which forms the subject of the Andokidean oration. But on the other hand, neither of them says anything which goes to contradict the reality of the event; nor can we in this case found any strong negative inference on the mere silence of Xenophon, in the case of a pacific proposition which ultimately came to nothing.

If indeed we could be certain that the oration of Andokides was genuine it would of itself be sufficient to establish the reality of the mission to which it relates. It would be sufficient evidence, not only without corroboration from Xenophon, but even against any contradictory statement proceeding from Xenophon. But unfortunately, the rhetor Dionysius pronounced this oration to be spurious; which introduces a doubt and throws us upon the investigation of collateral probabilities. I have myself a decided opinion (already stated more than once), that another out of the four orations ascribed to Andokides (I mean the fourth oration, entitled against Alkibiades) is spurious; and I was inclined to the same suspicion with respect to this present oration De Pace; a suspicion which I expressed in a former volume (Vol. V, Ch. xlv, p. 334). But on studying over again with attention this oration De Pace, I find reason to retract my suspicion, and to believe that the oration may be genuine. It has plenty of erroneous allegations as to matter of fact, especially in reference to times prior to the battle of Ægospotami; but not one, so far as I can detect, which conflicts with the situation to which the orator addresses himself,—nor which requires us to pronounce it spurious.

Indeed, in considering this situation (which is the most important point to be studied when we are examining the genuineness of an oration), we find a partial coincidence in Xenophon, which goes to strengthen our affirmative confidence. One point much insisted upon in the oration is, that the Bœotians were anxious to make peace with Sparta, and were willing to relinquish Orchomenus (s. 13-20). Now Xenophon also mentions, three or four months afterwards, the Bœotians as being anxious for peace, and as sending envoys to Agesilaus to ask on what terms it would be granted to them (Xen. Hellen. iv, 5, 6). This coincidence is of some value in reference to the authenticity of the oration.

Assuming the oration to be genuine, its date is pretty clearly marked, and is rightly placed by Mr. Fynes Clinton in 391 B.C. It was in the autumn or winter of that year, four years after the commencement of the war in Bœotia which began in 395 B.C. (s. 20). It was after the capture of Lechæum, which took place in the summer of 391 B.C.—and before the destruction of the Lacedæmonian mora by Iphikrates, which took place in the spring of 390 B.C. For Andokides emphatically intimates, that at the moment when he spoke, not one military success had yet been obtained against the Lacedæmonians—καίτοι ποίας τινος ἂν ἐκεῖνοι παρ᾽ ἡμῶν εἰρήνης ἔτυχον, εἰ μίαν μόνον μάχην ἡττήθησαν; (s. 19). This could never have been said after the destruction of the Lacedæmonian mora, which made so profound a sensation throughout Greece, and so greatly altered the temper of the contending parties. And it seems to me one proof (among others) that Mr. Fynes Clinton has not placed correctly the events subsequent to the battle of Corinth, when I observe that he assigns the destruction of the mora to the year 392 B.C., a year before the date which he rightly allots to the Andokidean oration. I have placed (though upon other grounds) the destruction of the mora in the spring of 390 B.C., which receives additional confirmation from this passage of Andokides.

Both Valckenaer and Sluiter (Lect. Andocid. c. x,) consider the oration of Andokides de Pace as genuine; Taylor and other critics hold the contrary opinion.

[650] Xen. Agesil. ii, 18.

[651] Xen. Hellen. iv, 5, 1; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 21.

Xenophon, who writes his history in the style and language of a partisan, says that “the Argeians celebrated the festival, Corinth having now become Argos.” But it seems plain that the truth was as I have stated in the text,—and that the Argeians stood by (with others of the confederates probably also) to protect the Corinthians of the city in the exercise of their usual privilege; just as Agesilaus, immediately afterwards, stood by to protect the Corinthian exiles while they were doing the same thing.

The Isthmian games were trietêric, that is, celebrated in every alternate year; in one of the spring months, about April or perhaps the beginning of May (the Greek months being lunar, no one of them would coincide regularly with any one of our calendar months, year after year); and in the second and fourth Olympic years. From Thucydides, viii, 9, 10, we know that this festival was celebrated in April 412 B.C.; that is, towards the end of the fourth year of Olympiad 91, about two or three months before the festival of Olympiad 92.

Dodwell (De Cyclis Diss. vi, 2, just cited), Corsini, (Diss. Agonistic. iv, 3), and Schneider in his note to this passage of Xenophon,—all state the Isthmian games to have been celebrated in the first and third Olympic years; which is, in my judgment, a mistake. Dodwell erroneously states the Isthmian games mentioned in Thucydides, viii, 9, to have been celebrated at the beginning of Olympiad 92, instead of the fourth quarter of the fourth year of Olympiad 91; a mistake pointed out by Krüger (ad loc.) as well as by Poppo and Dr. Arnold; although the argumentation of the latter, founded upon the time of the Lacedæmonian festival of the Hyakinthia, is extremely uncertain. It is a still more strange idea of Dodwell, that the Isthmian games were celebrated at the same time as the Olympic games (Annal. Xenoph. ad ann. 392).

[652] See Ulrichs, Reisen und Forschungen in Griechenland, chap. i, p. 3. The modern village and port of Lutráki derives its name from these warm springs, which are quite close to it and close to the sea, at the foot of the mountain of Perachora or Peiræum; on the side of the bay opposite to Lechæum, but near the point where the level ground constituting the Isthmus (properly so-called), ends,—and where the rocky or mountainous region, forming the westernmost portion of Geraneia (or the peninsula of Peiræum), begins. The language of Xenophon, therefore, when he comes to describe the back-march of Agesilaus is perfectly accurate,—ἤδη δ᾽ ἐκπεπερακότος αὐτοῦ τὰ θερμὰ ἐς τὸ πλατὺ τοῦ Λεχαίου, etc. (iv, 5, 8).

[653] Xen. Hellen. iv, 5, 4.

Xenophon here recounts how Agesilaus sent up ten men with fire in pans, to enable those on the heights to make fires and warm themselves; the night being very cold and rainy, the situation very high, and the troops not having come out with blankets or warm covering to protect them. They kindled large fires, and the neighboring temple of Poseidon was accidentally burnt.

[654] Xen. Hellen. iv, 5, 5.

This Œnoê must not be confounded with the Athenian town of that name, which lay on the frontiers of Attica towards Bœotia.

So also the town of Peiræum here noticed must not be confounded with another Peiræum, which was also in the Corinthian territory, but on the Saronic Gulf, and on the frontiers of Epidaurus (Thucyd. viii, 10).

[655] Xen. Hellen. iv, 5, 5-8.

[656] Xen. Hellen. i, 5, 14. See Vol. VIII, Ch. lxiv, p. 165 of this History.

The sale of prisoners here directed by Agesilaus belies the encomiums of his biographers (Xen. Agesil. vii, 6; Cornel. Nep. Agesil. c. 5).

[657] Xen. Agesil. vii, 6; Cornelius Nepos, Ages. c. 5.

The story of Polyænus (iii, 9, 45) may perhaps refer to this point of time. But it is rare that we can verify his anecdotes or those of the other Tactic writers. M. Rehdantz strives in vain to find proper places for the sixty-three different stratagems which Polyænus ascribes to Iphikrates.

[658] This Lake is now called Lake Vuliasmeni. Considerable ruins were noticed by M. Dutroyat, in the recent French survey, near its western extremity; on which side it adjoins the temple of Hêrê Akræa, or the Heræum. See M. Boblaye, Recherches Géographiques sur les Ruines de la Morée, p. 36; and Colonel Leake’s Peloponnesiaca, p. 399.

[659] Xen. Hellen. iv, 5, 6.

Τῶν δὲ Λακεδαιμονίων ἀπὸ τῶν ὅπλων σὺν τοῖς δόρασι παρηκολούθουν φύλακες τῶν αἰχμαλώτων, μάλα ὑπὸ τῶν παρόντων θεωρούμενοι· οἱ γὰρ εὐτυχοῦντες καὶ κρατοῦντες ἀεί πως ἀξιοθέατοι δοκοῦσιν εἶναι. Ἔτι δὲ καθημένου τοῦ Ἀγησιλάου, καὶ ἐοικότος ἀγαλλομένῳ τοῖς πεπραγμένοις, ἱππεύς τις προσήλαυνε, καὶ μάλα ἰσχυρῶς ἱδρῶντι τῷ ἵππῳ· ὑπὸ πολλῶν δὲ ἐρωτώμενος ὅ,τι ἀγγέλλοι, οὐδενὶ ἀπεκρίνατο, etc.

It is interesting to mark in Xenophon the mixture of Philo-Laconian complacency,—of philosophical reflection,—and of that care in bringing out the contrast of good fortune, with sudden reverse instantly following upon it, which forms so constant a point of effect with Grecian poets and historians.

[660] Plutarch, Agesil. c. 22. ἔπαθε δὲ πρᾶγμα νεμεσητὸν, etc.

[661] Xen. Hellen. iv, 5, 7-9.

[662] Xen. Hellen. iv, 5, 11, 12.

[663] Xen. Hellen. iv, 5, 14. Τούτους μὲν ἐκέλευον τοὺς ὑπασπιστὰς ἀραμένους ἀποφέρειν ἐς Λέχαιον· οὗτοι καὶ μόνοι τῆς μόρας τῇ ἀληθείᾳ ἐσώθησαν.

We have here a remarkable expression of Xenophon,—“These were the only men in the mora who were really and truly saved.” He means, I presume, that they were the only men who were saved without the smallest loss of honor; being carried off wounded from the field of battle, and not having fled or deserted their posts. The others who survived, preserved themselves by flight; and we know that the treatment of those Lacedæmonians who ran away from the field (οἱ τρέσαντες), on their return to Sparta, was insupportably humiliating. See Xenoph. Rep. Laced. ix, 4; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 30. We may gather from these words of Xenophon, that a distinction was really made at Sparta between the treatment of these wounded men here carried off, and that of the other survivors of the beaten mora.

The ὑπασπισταὶ, or shield-bearers, were, probably, a certain number of attendants, who habitually carried the shields of the officers (compare Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 39; Anab. iv, 2, 20), persons of importance, and rich hoplites. It seems hardly to be presumed that every hoplite had an ὑπασπιστὴς, in spite of what we read about the attendant Helots at the battle of Platæa (Herod. ix, 10-29) and in other places.

[664] Xen. Hellen. iv, 5,15, 16. τὰ δέκα ἀφ᾽ ἥβης—τὰ πεντεκαίδεκα ἀφ᾽ ἥβης.

[665] Xen. Hellen. iv, 5, 17.

Xenophon affirms the number of slain to have been about two hundred and fifty—ἐν πάσαις δὲ ταῖς μάχαις καὶ τῇ φυγῇ ἀπέθανον περὶ πεντήκοντα καὶ διακοσίους. But he had before distinctly stated that the whole mora marching back to Lechæum under the polemarch, was six hundred in number—ὁ μὲν πολέμαρχος σὺν τοῖς ὁπλίταις, οὖσιν ὡς ἑξακοσίοις, ἀπῄει πάλιν ἐπὶ τὸ Λέχαιον (iv, 5, 12). And it is plain, from several different expressions, that all of them were slain, excepting a very few survivors.

I think it certain, therefore, that one or other of these two numbers is erroneous; either the original aggregate of six hundred is above the truth,—or the total of slain, two hundred and fifty, is below the truth. Now the latter supposition appears to me by far the more probable of the two. The Lacedæmonians, habitually secret and misleading in their returns of their own numbers (see Thucyd. v, 74), probably did not choose to admit publicly a greater total of slain than two hundred and fifty. Xenophon has inserted this in his history, forgetting that his own details of the battle refuted the numerical statement. The total of six hundred is more probable, than any smaller number, for the entire mora; and it is impossible to assign any reasons why Xenophon should overstate it.

[666] Xen. Hellen. iv, 5, 8-10.

[667] Xen. Hellen. iv, 5, 10. Ἅτε δὲ ἀήθους τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις γεγενημένης τῆς τοιαύτης συμφορᾶς, πολὺ πένθος ἦν κατὰ τὸ Λακωνικὸν στράτευμα, πλὴν ὅσων ἐτέθνασαν ἐν χώρᾳ ἢ υἱοὶ ἢ πατέρες ἢ ἀδελφοί· οὗτοι δὲ, ὥσπερ νικηφόροι, λαμπροὶ καὶ ἀγαλλόμενοι τῷ οἰκείῳ πάθει περιῄεσαν.

If any reader objects to the words which I have used in the text I request him to compare them with the Greek of Xenophon.

[668] Xen. Hellen. vi, 4, 16.

[669] Xen. Hellen. iv, 5, 16.

[670] Xen. Hellen. iv, 5, 19.

[671] Demosthenes—περὶ Συντάξεως—c. 8, p. 172.

[672] Diodor. xiv, 92; Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 34.

Aristeides (Panathen. p. 168) boasts that the Athenians were masters of the Acro-Corinthus, and might have kept the city as their own, but that they generously refused to do so.

[673] Diodor. xv, 73.

[674] Xen. Hellen. iv, 6, 1-14; iv, 7, 1.

[675] Xen. Hellen. iv, 7, 3. Οἱ δ᾽ Ἀργεῖοι, ἐπεὶ ἔγνωσαν οὐ δυνησόμενοι κωλύειν, ἔπεμψαν, ὥσπερ εἰώθεσαν, ἐστεφανωμένους δύο κήρυκας, ὑποφέροντας σπονδάς.

[676] Xen. Hellen. iv, 7, 2. Ὁ δὲ Ἀγησίπολις—ἐλθὼν εἰς Ὀλυμπίαν καὶ χρηστηριαζόμενος, ἐπηρώτα τὸν θεὸν, εἰ ὁσίως ἂν ἔχοι αὐτῷ, μὴ δεχομένῳ τὰς σπονδὰς τῶν Ἀργείων· ὅτι οὐχ ὁπότε καθήκοι ὁ χρόνος, ἀλλ᾽ ὁπότε ἐμβάλλειν μέλλοιεν Λακεδαιμόνιοι, τότε ὑπέφερον τοὺς μῆνας. Ὁ δὲ θεὸς ἐπεσήμαινεν αὐτῷ, ὅσιον εἶναι μὴ δεχομένῳ σπονδὰς ἀδίκως ἐπιφερομένας. Ἐκεῖθεν δ᾽ εὐθὺς πορευθεὶς εἰς Δελφοὺς, ἐπήρετο αὖ τὸν Ἀπόλλω, εἰ κἀκείνῳ δοκοίῃ περὶ τῶν σπονδῶν, καθάπερ τῷ πατρί. Ὁ δ᾽ ἀπεκρίνατο, καὶ μάλα κατὰ ταὐτά.

I have given in the text what I believe to be the meaning of the words ὑποφέρειν τοὺς μῆνας,—upon which Schneider has a long and not very instructive note, adopting an untenable hypothesis of Dodwell, that the Argeians on this occasion appealed to the sanctity of the Isthmian truce; which is not countenanced by anything in Xenophon, and which it belonged to the Corinthians to announce, not to the Argeians. The plural τοὺς μῆνας indicates (as Weiske and Manso understand it) that the Argeians sometimes put forward the name of one festival, sometimes of another. We may be pretty sure that the Karneian festival was one of them; but what the others were, we cannot tell. It is very probable that there were several festivals of common obligation either among all the Dorians, or between Sparta and Argos—πατρῴους τινας σπονδὰς ἐκ παλαιοῦ καθεστώσας τοῖς Δωριεῦσι πρὸς ἀλλήλους,—to use the language of Pausanias (iii, 5, 6). The language of Xenophon implies that the demand made by the Argeians, for observance of the Holy Truce, was in itself rightful, or rather, that it would have been rightful at a different season; but that they put themselves in the wrong by making it at an improper season and for a fraudulent political purpose.

For some remarks on other fraudulent manœuvres of the Argeians, respecting the season of the Karneian truce, see Vol. VII. of this History, Ch. lvi, p. 66. The compound verb ὑποφέρειν τοὺς μῆνας seems to imply the underhand purpose with which the Argeians preferred their demand of the truce. What were the previous occasions on which they had preferred a similar demand, we are not informed. Two years before, Agesilaus had invaded and laid waste Argos; perhaps they may have tried, but without success, to arrest his march by a similar pious fraud.

It is to this proceeding, perhaps, that Andokides alludes (Or. iii, De Pace, s. 27), where he says that the Argeians, though strenuous in insisting that Athens should help them to carry on the war for the possession of Corinth against the Lacedæmonians, had nevertheless made a separate peace with the latter, covering their own Argeian territory from invasion—αὐτοὶ δ᾽ ἰδίᾳ εἰρήνην ποιησάμενοι τὴν χώραν οὐ παρέχουσιν ἐμπολεμεῖν. Of this obscure passage I can give no better explanation.

[677] Aristotel. Rhetoric, ii, 23. Ἡγήσιππος ἐν Δελφοῖς ἐπηρώτα τὸν θεόν, κεχρημένος πρότερον Ὀλυμπιᾶσιν, εἰ αὐτῷ ταὐτὰ δοκεῖ, ἅπερ τῷ πατρί, ὡς αἰσχρὸν ὂν τἀναντία εἰπεῖν.

A similar story about the manner of putting the question to Apollo at Delphi, after it had already been put to Zeus at Dodona, is told about Agesilaus on another occasion (Plutarch, Apophth. Lacon. p. 208 F.).

[678] Xen. Hellen. iv, 7, 7; Pausan. iii, 5, 6.

It rather seems, by the language of these two writers, that they look upon the menacing signs, by which Agesipolis was induced to depart, as marks of some displeasure of the gods against his expedition.

[679] Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 12. Compare Isokrates, Or. vii, (Areopag.) s. 13. ἁπάσης γὰρ τῆς Ἑλλάδος ὑπὸ τὴν πόλιν ἡμῶν ὑποπεσούσης καὶ μετὰ τὴν Κόνωνος ναυμαχίαν καὶ μετὰ τὴν Τιμοθέου στρατηγίαν, etc. This oration, however, was composed a long while after the events (about B.C. 353—see Mr. Clinton’s Fast. H., in that year); and Isokrates exaggerates; mistaking the break-up of the Lacedæmonian empire for a resumption of the Athenian. Demosthenes also (cont. Leptin. c. 16, p. 477) confounds the same two ideas, and even the Athenian vote of thanks to Konon, perpetuated on a commemorative column, countenanced the same impression,—ἐπειδὴ Κόνων ἠλευθέρωσε τοὺς Ἀθηναίων συμμάχους, etc.

[680] Plutarch, Artaxerx. c. 22.

[681] Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 12-14.

[682] Diodor. xiv, 110. He affirms that these cities strongly objected to this concession, five years afterwards, when the peace of Antalkidas was actually concluded; but that they were forced to give up their scruples and accept the peace including the concession, because they had not force to resist Persia and Sparta acting in hearty alliance.

Hence we may infer with certainty, that they also objected to it during the earlier discussions, when it was first broached by Antalkidas; and that their objections to it were in part the cause why the discussions reported in the text broke off without result.

It is true that Athens, during her desperate struggles in the last years of the Peloponnesian war, had consented to this concession, and even to greater, without doing herself any good (Thucyd. viii, 56). But she was not now placed in circumstances so imperious as to force her to be equally yielding.

Plato, in the Menexenus (c. 17, p. 245), asserts that all the allies of Athens—Bœotians, Corinthians, Argeians, etc., were willing to surrender the Asiatic Greeks at the requisition of Artaxerxes; but that the Athenians alone resolutely stood out, and were in consequence left without any allies. The latter part of this assertion, as to the isolation of Athens from her allies, is certainly not true; nor do I believe that the allies took essentially different views from Athens on the point. The Menexenus, eloquent and complimentary to Athens, must be followed cautiously as to matters of fact. Plato goes the length of denying that the Athenians subscribed the convention of Antalkidas. Aristeides (Panathen. p. 172) says that they were forced to subscribe it, because all their allies abandoned them.

[683] Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 15.

[684] See a striking passage in the Or. xii, (Panathen.) of Isokrates, s. 110.

[685] Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 16; Diodor. xiv, 85.

[686] Lysias, Or. xix, (De Bon. Aristoph.) s. 41, 42, 44; Cornelius Nepos, Conon, c. 5; Isokrates, Or. iv, (Panegyr.) s. 180.

[687] Diodor. xiv. 99.

[688] Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 22. Ἦν δὲ οὗτος ἁνὴρ (Diphridas) εὔχαρίς τε οὐχ ἧττον τοῦ Θίμβρωνος, μᾶλλόν τε συντεταγμένος, καὶ ἐγχειρητικώτερος, στρατηγός. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐκράτουν αὐτοῦ αἱ τοῦ σώματος ἡδοναὶ, ἀλλ᾽ ἀεὶ, πρὸς ᾧ εἴη ἔργῳ, τοῦτο ἔπραττεν.

[689] Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 18, 19.

[690] Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 21, 22.

[691] Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 21.

[692] Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 23.

Diodorus (xiv, 97) agrees in this number of twenty-seven triremes, and in the fact of aid having been obtained from Samos, which island was persuaded to detach itself from Athens. But he recounts the circumstances in a very different manner. He represents the oligarchical party in Rhodes as having risen in insurrection, and become masters of the island; he does not name Teleutias, but Eudokimus (Ekdikus?), Diphilus (Diphridas?), and Philodikus, as commanders.

The statement of Xenophon deserves the greater credence, in my judgment. His means of information, as well as his interest, about Teleutias (the brother of Agesilaus) were considerable.

[693] Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 24-26.

Although the three ancient Rhodian cities (Lindus, Ialysus, and Kameirus) had coalesced (see Diodor. xiii, 75) a few years before into the great city of Rhodes, afterwards so powerful and celebrated,—yet they still continued to exist, and apparently as fortified places. For Xenophon speaks of the democrats in Rhodes as τάς τε πόλεις ἔχοντας, etc.

Whether the Philokrates here named as Philokrates son of Ephialtes, is the same person as the Philokrates accused in the Thirtieth oration of Lysias—cannot be certainly made out. It is possible enough that there might be two contemporary Athenians bearing this name, which would explain the circumstance that Xenophon here names the father Ephialtes—a practice occasional with him, but not common.

[694] Isokrates, Or. ix, (Evagoras) s. 67, 68, 82; Epistola Philippi ap. Demosthen. Orat. p. 161, c. 4.

[695] Lysias, Orat. xix, (De Bonis Aristoph.) s. 27-44.

[696] Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 25-27.

Polybius (iv, 38-47) gives instructive remarks and information about the importance of Byzantium and its very peculiar position, in the ancient world,—as well as about the dues charged on the merchant vessels going into, or coming out of, the Euxine,—and the manner in which these dues pressed upon general trade.

[697] Xen. Hellen. v, 1, 7.

[698] Lysias, Or. xxviii, cont. Erg. s. 1-20.

[699] Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 28-30; Diodor. xiv, 94.

The latter states that Thrasybulus lost twenty-three triremes by a storm near Lesbos,—which Xenophon does not notice, and which seems improbable.

[700] Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 31. Καὶ Θρασύβουλος μὲν δὴ, μάλα δοκῶν ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς εἶναι, οὕτως ἐτελεύτησεν.

[701] Lysias, cont. Ergo. Or. xxviii, s. 9.

Ergokles is charged in this oration with gross abuse of power, oppression towards allies and citizens of Athens, and peculation for his own profit, during the course of the expedition of Thrasybulus; who is indirectly accused of conniving at such misconduct. It appears that the Athenians, as soon as they were informed that Thrasybulus had established the toll in the Bosphorus, passed a decree that an account should be sent home of all moneys exacted from the various cities, and that the colleagues of Thrasybulus should come home to go through the audit (s. 5); implying (so far as we can understand what is thus briefly noticed) that Thrasybulus himself should not be obliged to come home, but might stay on his Hellespontine or Asiatic command. Ergokles, however, probably one of these colleagues, resented this decree as an insult, and advised Thrasybulus to seize Byzantium, to retain the fleet, and to marry the daughter of the Thracian prince Seuthes. It is also affirmed in the oration that the fleet had come home in very bad condition (s. 2-4), and that the money, levied with so much criminal abuse, had been either squandered or fraudulently appropriated.

We learn from another oration that Ergokles was condemned to death. His property was confiscated, and was said to amount to thirty talents, though he had been poor before the expedition; but nothing like that amount was discovered after the sentence of confiscation (Lysias, Or. xxx, cont. Philokrat. s. 3).

[702] Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 31.

[703] Xen. Hellen. v, 1, 2.

[704] Thucyd. viii, 61; compare Xenoph. Anab. v, 6, 24.

[705] See above, [Chapter lxxi], p. 156 of the present volume.

[706] Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 32, 83.

[707] Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 35, 36. τὸ μὲν πρῶτον λῃστὰς διαπέμποντες ἐπολέμουν ἀλλήλοις ... Ὅπως δοκοίη, ὥσπερ εἰώθει, ἐπ᾽ ἀργυρολογίαν ἐπαναπεπλευκέναι.

[708] Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 36. Ὁ Ἀναξίβιος ἀπεπορεύετο, ὡς μὲν ἐλέγετο, οὐδὲ τῶν ἱερῶν γεγενημένων αὐτῷ ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, ἀλλὰ καταφρονήσας, ὅτι διὰ φιλίας τε ἐπορεύετο καὶ ἐς πόλιν φιλίαν, καὶ ὅτι ἤκουε τῶν ἀπαντώντων, τὸν Ἰφικράτην ἀναπεπλευκέναι τῆς ἐπὶ Προικοννήσου, ἀμελέστερον ἐπορεύετο.

[709] See the remarks a few pages back, upon the defeat and destruction of the Lacedæmonian mora by Iphikrates, near Lechæum, [page 350].

[710] Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 39. Καὶ τὰ παιδικὰ μέντοι αὐτῷ παρέμεινε, καὶ τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων δὲ τῶν συνεληλυθότων ἐκ τῶν πόλεων ἁρμοστήρων ὡς δώδεκα μαχόμενοι συναπέθανον· οἱ δ᾽ ἄλλοι φεύγοντες ἔπιπτον.

[711] Xen. Hellen. v, 1, 1. ὢν δὲ πάλιν ὁ Ἐτεόνικος ἐν τῇ Αἰγίνῃ, καὶ ἐπιμιξίᾳ χρωμένων τὸν πρόσθεν χρόνον τῶν Αἰγινητῶν πρὸς τοὺς Ἀθηναίους, ἐπεὶ φανερῶς κατὰ θάλατταν ἐπολεμεῖτο ὁ πόλεμος, ξυνδόξαν καὶ τοῖς ἐφόροις, ἐφίησι ληΐζεσθαι τὸν βουλόμενον ἐκ τῆς Ἀττικῆς.

The meaning of the word πάλιν here is not easy to determine, since (as Schneider remarks) not a word had been said before about the presence of Eteonikus at Ægina. Perhaps we may explain it by supposing that Eteonikus found the Æginetans reluctant to engage in the war, and that he did not like to involve them in it without first going to Sparta to consult the ephors. It was on coming back to Ægina (πάλιν) from Sparta, after having obtained the consent of the ephors (ξυνδόξαν καὶ τοῖς ἐφόροις), that he issued the letters of marque.

Schneider’s note explains τὸν πρόσθεν χρόνον incorrectly, in my judgment.

[712] Compare Xen. Hellen. vi, 3, 8; Thucyd. iii, 13. The old Æginetan antipathy against Athens, when thus again instigated, continued for a considerable time. A year or two afterwards, when the philosopher Plato was taken to Ægina to be sold as a slave, it was death to any Athenian to land in the island (Aristides, Or. xlvi, p. 384; p. 306 Dindorf; Diogenes Laërt. iii, 19; Plutarch. Dion. c. 5).

[713] Xen. Hellen. v, 1, 3. Ὁ δὲ Τελευτίας, μακαριώτατα δὴ ἀπέπλευσεν οἴκαδε, etc.

This description of the scene at the departure of Teleutias (for whom, as well as for his brother Agesilaus, Xenophon always manifests a marked sympathy) is extremely interesting. The reflection, too, with which Xenophon follows it up, deserves notice,—“I know well that in these incidents I am not recounting any outlay of money, or danger incurred, or memorable stratagem. But by Zeus, it does seem to me worth a man’s while to reflect, by what sort of conduct Teleutias created such dispositions in his soldiers. This is a true man’s achievement, more precious than any outlay or any danger.”

What Xenophon here glances at in the case of Teleutias, is the scheme worked out in detail in the romance of the Cyropædia (τὸ ἐθελοντῶν ἄρχειν—the exercising command in such manner as to have willing and obedient subjects)—and touched upon indirectly in various of his other compositions,—the Hiero, the Œconomicus, and portions of the Memorabilia. The idéal of government, as it presented itself to Xenophon, was the paternal despotism, or something like it.

[714] Xen. Hellen. v, 1, 6-10.

[715] Xen. Hellen. v, 1, 12, 13.

[716] So we may conclude from Xen. Hellen. v, 1, 13; Demænetus is found at the Hellespont v, 1, 26.

[717] Xen. Hellen. v, 1, 14-17.

[718] Xen. Hellen. v, 1, 18. Ἄγετε, ὦ ἄνδρες, δειπνήσατε μὲν, ἅπερ καὶ ὡς ἐμέλλετε· προπαράσχετε δέ μοι μιᾶς ἡμέρας σῖτον· ἔπειτα δὲ ἥκετε ἐπὶ τὰς ναῦς αὔτικα μάλα, ὅπως πλεύσωμεν, ἔνθα θεὸς ἐθέλει, ἐν καιρῷ ἀφιξόμενοι.

Schneider doubts whether the words προπαράσχετε δέ μοι are correct. But they seem to me to bear a very pertinent meaning. Teleutias had no money; yet it was necessary for his purpose that the seamen should come furnished with one day’s provision beforehand. Accordingly he is obliged to ask them to get provision for themselves, or to lend it, as it were, to him; though they were already so dissatisfied from not having received their pay.

[719] Thucyd. ii, 94.

[720] Xen. Hellen. v, 1, 18-22.

[721] Xen. Hellen. v, 1, 24.

[722] Xen. Hellen. v, 1, 29.

Even ten years after this, however, when the Lacedæmonian harmost Sphodrias marched from Thespiæ by night to surprise Peiræus, it was without gates on the land-side—ἀπύλωτος—or at least without any such gates as would resist an assault (Xen. Hellen. v, 4, 20).

[723] Lysias, Orat. xxx, cont. Nikomachum, s. 21-30.

I trust this Oration so far as the matter of fact, that in the preceding year, some ancient sacrifices had been omitted from state-poverty; but the manner in which the speaker makes this fact tell against Nikomachus, may or may not be just.

[724] Aristophan. Ecclesias. 300-310.

[725] See the Inscription No. 147, in Boeckh’s Corpus Inscriptt. Græcor.—Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens, ii, 7, p. 179, 180, Eng. transl.—and Schömann, Antiq. Jur. Publ. Græc. s. 77, p. 320.

[726] Demosthenes, Philippic. iv, p. 141, s. 43; Demosth. Orat. xliv, cont. Leocharem, p. 1091, s. 48.

[727] It is common to represent the festivals at Athens as if they were so many stratagems for feeding poor citizens at the public expense. But the primitive idea and sentiment of the Grecian religious festival—the satisfaction to the god dependent upon multitudinous spectators sympathizing and enjoying themselves together (ἄμμιγα πάντας)—is much anterior to the development of democracy at Athens. See the old oracles in Demosthen. cont. Meidiam, p. 531, s. 66; Homer, Hymn. Apollin. 147; K. F. Herrmann, Gottesdienstlich. Alterthümer der Griechen, s. 8.

[728] See such direct assessments on property alluded to in various speeches of Lysias, Orat. xix. De Bonis Aristoph. s. 31, 45, 63; Orat. xxvii. cont. Epikratem, s. 11; Orat. xxix. cont. Philokrat. s. 14.

Boeckh (in his Public Econ. of Athens, iv, 4, p. 493, Engl. transl., which passage stands unaltered in the second edition of the German original recently published, p. 642) affirms that a proposition for the assessment of a direct property-tax of one-fortieth, or two and a half per cent., was made about this time by a citizen named Euripides, who announced it as intended to produce five hundred talents; that the proposition was at first enthusiastically welcomed by the Athenians, and procured for its author unbounded popularity; but that he was presently cried down and disgraced, because on farther examination the measure proved unsatisfactory and empty talk.

Sievers also (Geschichte von Griech. bis zur Schlacht von Mantineia, pp. 100, 101) adopts the same view as Boeckh, that this was a real proposition of a property tax of two and a half per cent., made by Euripides. After having alleged that the Athenians in these times supplied their treasury by the most unscrupulous injustice in confiscating the property of rich citizens,—referring as proof to passages in the orators, none of which establishes his conclusion,—Sievers goes on to say,—“But that these violences did not suffice, is shown by the fact that the people caught with greedy impatience at other measures. Thus a new scheme of finance, which however was presently discovered to be insufficient or inapplicable, excited at first the most extravagant joy.” He adds in a note: “The scheme proceeded from Euripides; it was a property-tax of two and a half per cent. See Aristoph. Ecclesiaz. 823; Boeckh, Staatshaush. ii, p. 27.”

In my judgment, the assertion here made by Boeckh and Sievers rests upon no sufficient ground. The passage of Aristophanes does not warrant us in concluding anything at all about a proposition for a property-tax. It is as follows:—

Τὸ δ᾽ ἔναγχος οὐχ ἅπαντες ἡμεῖς ὤμνυμεν

Τάλαντ᾽ ἔσεσθαι πεντακόσια τῇ πόλει

Τῆς τεσσαρακοστῆς, ἣν ἐπόρισ᾽ Εὐριπίδης;

Κεὐθὺς κατεχρύσου πᾶς ἀνὴρ Εὐριπίδην·

Ὅτε δὴ δ᾽ ἀνασκοπουμένοις ἐφαίνετο

Ὁ Διὸς Κόρινθος, καὶ τὸ πρᾶγμ᾽ οὐκ ἤρκεσεν,

Πάλιν κατεπίττου πᾶς ἀνὴρ Εὐριπίδην.

What this “new financial scheme” (so Sievers properly calls it) was, which the poet here alludes to,—we have no means of determining. But I venture to express my decided conviction that it cannot have been a property-tax. The terms in which it is described forbid that supposition. It was a scheme which seemed at first sight exceedingly promising and gainful to the city, and procured for its author very great popularity; but which, on farther examination, proved to be mere empty boasting (ὁ Διὸς Κόρινθος) How can this be said about any motion for a property-tax? That any financier should ever have gained extraordinary popularity by proposing a property-tax, is altogether inconceivable. And a proposition to raise the immense sum of five hundred talents (which Schömann estimates as the probable aggregate charge of the whole peace-establishment of Athens, Antiq. Jur. Public. Græc. s. 73, p. 313) at one blow by an assessment upon property! It would be as much as any financier could do to bear up against the tremendous unpopularity of such a proposition; and to induce the assembly even to listen to him, were the necessity ever so pressing. How odious are propositions for direct taxation, we may know without recurring to the specific evidence respecting Athens; but if any man requires such specific evidence, he may find it abundantly in the Philippics and Olynthiacs of Demosthenes. On one occasion (De Symmoriis, Or. xiv. s. 33, p. 185) that orator alludes to a proposition for raising five hundred talents by direct property-tax as something extravagant, which the Athenians would not endure to hear mentioned.

Moreover,—unpopularity apart,—the motion for a property-tax could scarcely procure credit for a financier, because it is of all ideas the most simple and obvious. Any man can suggest such a scheme. But to pass for an acceptable financier, you must propose some measure which promises gain to the state without such undisguised pressure upon individuals.

Lastly, there is nothing delusive in a property-tax,—nothing which looks gainful at first sight, and then turns out on farther examination (ἀνασκοπουμένοις) to be false or uncertain. It may, indeed, be more or less evaded; but this can only be known after it has been assessed, and when payment is actually called for.

Upon these grounds I maintain that the τεσσαρακοστὴ proposed by Euripides was not a property-tax. What it was I do not pretend to say; but τεσσαρακοστὴ may have many other meanings; it might mean a duty of two and a half per cent. upon imports or exports, or upon the produce of the mines of Laureion; or it might mean a cheap coinage or base money, something in the nature of the Chian τεσσαρακοσταί (Thucyd. viii, 100). All that the passage really teaches us is, that some financial proposition was made by Euripides which at first seemed likely to be lucrative, but would not stand an attentive examination. It is not even certain that Euripides promised a receipt of five hundred talents; this sum is only given to us as a comic exaggeration of that which foolish men at first fancied. Boeckh in more than one place reasons (erroneously, in my judgment) as if this five hundred talents was a real and trustworthy estimate, and equal to two and a half per cent. upon the taxable property of the Athenians. He says (iv, 8, p. 520, Engl. transl.) that “Euripides assumed as the basis of his proposal for levying a property-tax, a taxable capital of twenty thousand talents,”—and that “his proposition of one-fortieth was calculated to produce five hundred talents.” No such conclusion can be fairly drawn from Aristophanes.

Again, Boeckh infers from another passage in the same play of the same author, that a small direct property-tax of one five-hundredth part had been recently imposed. After a speech from one of the old women, calling upon a young man to follow her, he replies (v. 1006):—

Ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἀνάγκη μοὔστίν, εἰ μὴ τῶν ἐμῶν

Τὴν πεντακοσιόστην κατέθηκας τῇ πόλει.

Boeckh himself admits (iv, 8, p. 520) that this passage is very obscure, and so I think every one will find it. Tyrwhitt was so perplexed by it that he altered ἐμῶν into ἐτῶν. Without presuming to assign the meaning of the passage, I merely contend that it cannot be held to justify the affirmation, as a matter of historical fact, that a property-tax of one-five-hundredth had been levied at Athens, shortly before the representation of Ekklesiazusæ.

I cannot refrain here from noticing another inference drawn by Sievers from a third passage in this same play,—the Ekklesiazusæ (Geschichte Griechenlands vom Ende des Pelop. Kriegs bis zur Schlacht von Mantineia, p. 101.) He says,—“How melancholy is the picture of Athenian popular life, which is presented to us by the Ekklesiazusæ and the second Plutus, ten or twelve years after the restoration of the democracy! What an impressive seriousness (welch ein erschütternder Ernst) is expressed in the speech of Praxagora!” (v. 174 seqq.).

I confess that I find neither seriousness, nor genuine and trustworthy coloring, in this speech of Praxagora. It was a comic case made out for the purpose of showing that the women were more fit to govern Athens than the men, and setting forth the alleged follies of the men in terms of broad and general disparagement. The whole play is, throughout, thorough farce and full of Aristophanic humor. And it is surely preposterous to treat what is put into the mouth of Praxagora, the leading feminine character, as if it were historical evidence as to the actual condition or management of Athens. Let any one follow the speech of Praxagora into the proposition of reform which she is made to submit, and he will then see the absurdity of citing her discourse as if it were an harangue in Thucydides. History is indeed strangely transformed by thus turning comic wit into serious matter of evidence; and no history has suffered so much from the proceeding as that of Athens.

[729] Xenoph. Hellen. v. 1, 19-24: compare vii, 1, 3, 4; Xenoph. De Vectigalibus, chapters i, ii, iii, etc.; Xenoph. De Repub. Athen. i, 17.

[730] Plutarch, Artaxerx. c. 22.

[731] Xen. Hellen. v, 1, 28.

[732] Xen. Hellen. v, 1, 25-27.

[733] Diodor. xv, 2. These triremes were employed in the ensuing year for the prosecution of the war against Evagoras.

[734] Xen. Hellen. v, 1, 28, 29.

[735] Xen. Hellen. v, 1, 31.

In this document there is the same introduction of the first person immediately following the third, as in the correspondence between Pausanias and Xerxes (Thucyd. i, 128, 129).

[736] Diodor. xiv, 110.

[737] Xen. Hellen. v, 1, 32, 33.

[738] Xen. Hellen. v, 1, 34; Demosthen. adv. Leptin. c. 13, p. 473.

[739] Xen. Hellen. v, 1, 34. Οἱ δ᾽ ἄλλοι πολῖται ἕκοντες κατεδέχοντο τοὺς πρόσθεν φεύγοντας.

[740] Such is in fact the version of the story in Xenophon’s Encomium upon Agesilaus (ii, 21), where it is made a matter of honor to the latter, that he would not consent to peace, except with a compulsory clause (ἠνάγκασε) that the Corinthian and Theban exiles should be restored. The Corinthian exiles had been actively coöperating with Agesilaus against Corinth. Of Theban exiles we have heard nothing; but it is very probable that there were several serving with Agesilaus,—and also pretty certain that he would insist upon their restoration.

[741] Xen. Hellen. v, 2, 8.

---

Transcriber's note

• Original spelling, hyphenation and punctuation have been kept, but variant spellings were made consistent when a predominant usage was found.
• Footnotes have been renumbered and moved to the end of the book.
• Blank pages have been skipped.
• Obvious printer errors have been silently corrected, after comparison with a later edition of this work. Greek text has also been corrected after checking with this later edition and with Perseus, when the reference was found.
• The following changes were also made, after checking with other editions:
• page
• [vi]:
• “fractions”
• →
• “[factions]”
• page
• [216]:
• “Odrysians”
• →
• “[Bithynians]”
• page
• [326]:
• “with”
• →
• “[which]”
• note
• [30]:
• “Ἑγγαδα”
• →
• “[Ἑλλάδα]”
• note
• [626]:
• “494 B.C.”
• →
• “[394 B.C.]”
• Both “Euagoras” and “Evagoras” are used to refer to the same ruler.
• The book cover image was created by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.

page	[vi]:	“fractions”	→	“[factions]”
page	[216]:	“Odrysians”	→	“[Bithynians]”
page	[326]:	“with”	→	“[which]”
note	[30]:	“Ἑγγαδα”	→	“[Ἑλλάδα]”
note	[626]:	“494 B.C.”	→	“[394 B.C.]”