[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.