I remarked, before, that the case of Erasinidês stood in some measure apart from that of the other generals. He proposed, according to this speech of Euryptolemus, that all the fleet should at once go again to Mitylênê; which would of course have left the men on the wrecks to their fate.
[306] The statement rests on the authority of Aristotle, as referred to by the Scholiast on the last verse of the Ranæ of Aristophanês. And this, so far as I know, is the only authority: for when Mr. Fynes Clinton (Fast. Hellen. ad ann. 406) says that Æschinês (De Fals. Legat. p. 38, c. 24) mentions the overtures of peace, I think that no one who looks at that passage will be inclined to found any inference upon it.
Against it, we may observe:—
1. Xenophon does not mention it. This is something, though far from being conclusive when standing alone.
2. Diodorus does not mention it.
3. The terms alleged to have been proposed by the Lacedæmonians, are exactly the same as those said to have been proposed by them after the death of Mindarus at Kyzikus, namely:—
To evacuate Dekeleia, and each party to stand as they were. Not only the terms are the same, but also the person who stood prominent in opposition is in both cases the same, Kleophon. The overtures after Arginusæ are in fact a second edition of those after the battle of Kyzikus.
Now, the supposition that on two several occasions the Lacedæmonians made propositions of peace, and that both are left unnoticed by Xenophon, appears to me highly improbable. In reference to the propositions after the battle of Kyzikus, the testimony of Diodorus outweighed, in my judgment, the silence of Xenophon; but here Diodorus is silent also.
In addition to this, the exact sameness of the two alleged events makes me think that the second is only a duplication of the first, and that the Scholiast, in citing from Aristotle, mistook the battle of Arginusæ for that of Kyzikus, which latter was by far the more decisive of the two.
[307] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 1, 1-4.