[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.